The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-02-02
OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE THIRD PARTY

~ 01A "a Ny SAlc llllIQ lHICIudJlOndA VI
the pure MARKHAM principles.
What IS Reactionary Movement
What then is all this cutlery over
the inherent reactionary character Of
all farmer movements? Have we
really learned nothing from the
Second international?
No class is reactionary in "prin-
ciple" on the ground Of its theological
stand, but only as a result Of its
class interests. Either the farmers
are reactionary to the marrow be-
cause their class interests demand it
lin this case what becomes of the
advice that their salvation lies in
solidarity with the working class ?
Or perhaps there is a community Of
interest between sections Of the farm
ing class and the working class. In
that case what becomes of the talk
Of farmers being reactionary under
alA circumstances How can you
say, Comrade Lore, that sections of
farmers are sympathetic towards our
movement If there is no community
OF interest of some kind between Sec
tons of farmers and of the working
class? But if there is such COM
munity Of interests why could we not
win over such strata to our move
ment? The essence Of our attitude
towards the farmers is not that they
are reactionary under all circum-
stances, but that historically they
are a class Of the past and not like
the working class, the class Of the
future. For this reason evan with
revolutionary stand against the exist
ing system, they could never assume
the leadership and initiative of the
revolutionary movement. The leader
ship belongs TO the working class.
But the revolutionary farmer groups
must be won over to this leader
ship.
In this connection every ccmrade
should read the excellent article Of
Comrade Pepper ''The Farmers and
the American Revolution" published
in the supplement Of the DAILY
WORKER of January 10, as we'll as
the article Of Comrade Zinoviev for
the ''Daily Worker" published IN the
worker" Of January 81.
And 70 the working class presents
itself to us rs an object for opera
ton which is not clearly separated
from all non-proletarian elements,
but is pervaded with lower middle
class politicians, and controlled by
capitalist theology. The class separa-
ton, altho social fact, Is not q pre-
requisite of our operation, but should
be its resuit. This separation must
J be first created politically.
What Shall We Do?
How can we accomplish this titanic
task? Quite simply the opponents
Of the theses say: We must agitate;
we must educate the working class.
We must make the farmers symp-
athletic. Correct. But how? Our
party Is no workers educational
society which "educates" the working
class thru courses on national econ
omy, but political party which en-
cages in political action. It Is our
task to teach the working class the
art of swimming the waves of the sea
Of political class struggle. That does
not mean, to introduce the workers
to this sport theoretically, but we
must throw ourselves into the waves
before their eyes, and we must get
them to jump in with us, we must
put at the disposal Of the working
class our capabilities, our expert
ences, our energy, our fearlessness.
And who will propose that we should
leave the swimmer in the lurch in
that very moment when he is in
danger Of sinking in the whirlpool of
his petty bourgeois ideology? The
working class in it's mass does not
learn thru theoretical propaganda,
but in the school of experience.
Either we are present where the
school is and thru our activity as
teaching fellow-combatants make it
easier for the working class to assim-
ilate its own experiences, or we re-
sign as proletarian political leaders
and Marxians.
The political situation presents us
therefore with a concrete problem.
Two simultaneous tendencies: A
Third Party tendency under the lower
middle class and class party under
the workers and farmers. And be-