The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-04-11

alton of Labor are giving their sup
port to the Progressive Voters
League. 1t is the announced policy
of this organization to enter into the
old party primaries and to support
good Republicans or Democrats" in
these primaries. Both the Michigan
State Federation of Labor and the
Detroit Federation of Labor and also
the <Sogressive Voters League are
part of the Conference for Progress
sive Political Action, which is the ex-
preston of the third party move
ment.
Our Party, on the other hand, is
giving its support to the movement
for a class farmer-labor party which
expresses itself in the convention
called for June 18th in st. Paul,
MINI. We are fighting for the forma-
ton of class farmer-labor party as
against the third party and as
against the policy of going into old
party primaries.
The Issue.
Here then we have a clear issue
whether the workers and the farm
ers of the state of Michigan shall
continue to support the Conference
for Progressive Political Action or
whether we shall make fight to win
them for the class farmer-labor
party. What have we to lose in such
a situation by proceeding with the
work of organization of class
farmer-labor party and fighting TO
secure the support of as many work
ers and farmers as we can? We have
nothing to lose, for if we make no
fight, then we leave the field to our
enemies; if we do make the fight we
are certain to make gains because
we will take part of the workers and
farmers from our enemies. The pro-
posal of the minority to delay action
until after the June 18th Convention
would simply mean that we permitted
our opponent to entrench himself
further to make our task after June
18th harder.
OF course, the Central Executive
Committee cannot lose its policy on
the hope, as expressed by the minor
ity of the comnittee that the De-
troit Federation of Labor may send
to the June 18th convention man
who may be big enough to grasp the
significance of that convention" 1t
is not Communist viewpoint to base
our struggle and principles upon the
hope that some progressive person
may be in certain strategic position
and serve US as a Moses in realizing
our aim.
What L. the United 'FRONT.'
The statement of the minority,
however, raises a broader issue than
the question of our immediate policy
in forming Farmer-Labor Party in
the state of Michigan. 1t raises the
question of what is our United Front
policy? Why do we enter into a
united front? What should be our
tactics in the United Front? And
what are the limits of the United
Front?
II we conceive the United Front
as merely to establish friendly rela-
tionships with certain progressive
labor leaders and then to work in
harmony. with them, the United
Front and policy would be indeed a
path along which we would find moth
ing but smiling roses. II this were
the United Front then we could 60
on forever in the United Front and
have the plsudits of progressive lib
erals and even of the reactionary Ia.
Dor leaders and finally find ourselves
supporting the candidacy of Herbert
Baker on the Republican ticket. But
this is not Communist conception
of the United Front. We are not in
the United Front for the purpose Of
maintaining friendly relations with
leaders of the labor movement. Our
purpose in entering into a United
Front is to fight with the workers in
their immediate struggle and during
the process of those struggles to
make the workers more class-con.
scious and to win their support for
our Communist principles. Unless
we can, in United Front movement,
win greater support, influence. lead.
ership, as Communists, the United
Front is a failure so far as we are
concerned.
Under such conception of the
United Front, this policy cannot lead
us along path Of roses. II we fight
within the United Front for our prin-
ciples, and we must fight, we are
bound to come in conflict with both
reactionary and progressive leaders
Of the labor movement. These con-
flicts are not 20 be avoided. but
rather welcomed at certain stage