The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-12-06
The Discussion on Party Tasks

candidacy of LaFollette. This ques
ton first arose in connection with the
farmer-labor conference held in st
Paul, Nov. .15, 1928. 1t was this con
ference which was to issue the call
for what later became the June II
convention. On Nov. 10, 1928, there
was a meeting of executive council OF
the central executive committee tc
outline the policy which was to guide
our delegates to the Nov. Is con
ference.
l quote the following from the min
utes Of that meeting: 81 -
ST. Paul Farmer-Labor Conference.
COmrade Foster submitted the
following motion aos@
aas "Thatsif the conference takes up
the question Of candidates we shall
support the nomination Of La.
Comrade Ruthenberg submitted
the following proposals: (There
follow seven proposals to guide our
representatives, among1 which is
point A.: THAT we propose that
nominations be left to the conven-
ton 1--WE are not for LaFollette,
but if the convention dominates
him we will not split on that ac-
count)."
The Foster motion was defeated by
vote two in favor and nine against
and the Ruthenberg motion adopted.
l quote now from the minutes Of
the executive council of Nov. 20:
Motion by Foster: That an eff
fort be made to see that negotia-
lions with LaFollette. in regard to
his candidacy be carried on by the
labor party group in place Of being
left to the committee Of As group"
Comrade Foster explained, in rela
ton to his motion, that in 1920, wheT
he was a member of the Fitzpatrick
farmer-labor party, Fitzpatrick haC
made the mistake of permitting the
committee of As to bring forward La
Toilette as a candidate, in place o.
the labor group making him thei
candidate, and this error should no
be repeated.
admit, that with Comrade Foster
l made the error, corrected by the
Communist International, of being
ready to make the third party allianc,
thru the farmer-labor party and i
compelled to, accept the candidacy o
LaFollette, but / submit that Their,
is a difference between the accept
ance of such a candidacy after ;
fight against it had been lost in ordel
not to separate ourselves from tn
farmer-labor masses and the propose
of Comrade Foster that I'VE shall sup
port the nomination of LaFollette" il
the former-labor conference. fs4
1t is certainly unnecessary to asl
the question which attitude repre-
scented "Farmer-Labor Communism!
Loreism.
Fact number three has to do will
Loreism. The theses of the majorit,
of the central executive committee il
very aggressive in its attack or Lore
ism and the Two and Half Inter
national tendency. One might wisi
that the same central executive com
mittee majority has been as aggres
siye in its action against Loreism il
our party. Unfortunately for our part.
its agressiveness had developed mere
ly pre-party convention demonstrs
ton before the membership. In practic
it has been the protector of Lor
against the efforts of the minority t
bring the Lore tendency into the ligh
of day and root it out of our party
The question of Loreism was before tn
central executive committee at il
meeting on March IS, 1924. Conrad
Lore had written his editorial ON tn
Fifth Anniversary of the Communist Il
ternational, in which the policies Q
the Communist International wer
misrepresented. moved at tina
meeting: THAT the central executiv
committee issue a statement correc
ing .Comrade Lore's editorial on til
j Communist International and hi