The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-12-16

/ influence as a Communist vanguard
and bring thousands upon thousands
of workers under our influence, we
were bitterly opposed by the Foster
Cannon group.
1t is precisely this policy of trading
with leaders, of yielding to their de-
mands, of failure properly to apply
the united front that did dominate
and still dominates the majority's con-
ception of this tactic in relation to
the labor party movement. Since, in
their labor party tactics, they never
attempted to build the united front
from the bottom, they imagine it can
not be achieved. That is why they
visualize any movement for a farmer
labor party as the united front from
the top"
But because they themselves failed
to carry out the united front from be-
low is no good reason why they should
accuse the MARKHAM group in the party
of inability to apply this tactic cor
rectly.
Error Still Prevails.
Because, in this election, the lead
ers of labor were able to swing the
farmer-labor movement behind LaFol-
,ette the majority then proclaims to
The world that LaFollette has swal-
lowed the whole farmer-labor party
movement. Again they see the actions
of the leaders and fail to perceive
the movement of the masses. Since
the leaders went into the LaFollette
camp the majority asserts that the
movement has been annihilated, or
that it will rest for long time con-
tent with LaFollette, altho admitting
in their thesis that industrial depres-
sion, which forms the economic basis
for such movements, will intensity in
the near future
Here is revealed faith in the abil-
ity of leaders to control whole move
ments that is appalling. The majority
actually believes in the ability of lead
ers to divert the labor movement in
to channels at variance with the eco
nomic conditions in which it func-
tions. The leaders have misled the
workers into the LaFollette camp
where they have been swallowed. This
is proclaimed in the thesis of the ma
jority. 1t is defended in their pole
mics.
In their thesis they assert that 1925
holds the prospect of repeating the
experiences of 192O-21, when 100000
workers were unemployed"
Majority Leninism.
The majority pays lip service to
Leninism always admonishing the
members to Bolshevize the party. Yet
the essense of Leninism is realism in
given situation. Every Marxist (and
therefore, every Leninist) knows that
periods of industrial crises furnish
the bases for the rise of working class
political parties We know that the
workers, no longer able to achieve vic
tories thru their trade unions, turn to
parliamentary action, so long as they
are under ourgeois-democratic illu-
sions. This has been and is the case
in every capitalist country in the
world. Yet the majority, admitting
that the crisis will intensity, admitting
also that vast masses of farmers and
workers did break away from the two
old parties because of the prevailing
economic conditions, claims that the
workers will not in the future react
to those conditions as they have in
the past. No longer will a given eco
romic condition produce a given re-
flex, but something entirely different.
And all this just because LaFollette
has swallowed the whole movement!
In such a conception of historical
movements there is not a scintilla of
Marxism. With what whitening scorn
did Marx excoriate those participants
in the February action of 184S in Ger
many who explained their failure on
the grounds that leaders had betray-
ed them. The important task is dis
covering how the betrayal was pos
sible.
The political immaturity of the
masses, the recent emerging of the
United States from a predominantly
agricultural country to a condition
where the majority of the population
are wage workers in industry, the
weight Of traditions of the past, the
utter confusion between the third par
ty movement and the labor party
movement all are ignored or minimiz-
ed. The workers fell for LaFollette
and there they will remain.
The bette noIre, the malignant mon
ster, that has stified the farmer-labor
movement is LaFollette. This concep-
ton on the part Of the majority is
not accidental, nor is it new in their
theoretical" arsenal. It is the same
erroneous notion that attributes the
failure Of the revolution in central
Europe solely to the treachery Of
the leaders, while ignoring other fac
SAY RTCd-A]