The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-12-13

broad class labor party and of es-
tabhshing a bond between the labor
party and the poorest elements of the
farmers have developed in the Unit
ed States, thanks to the peculiarities
OF historical evolution as one prob
lem. Namely, the building of com
mon party of workers and farmers"
The Comintern demonstrates that it
fully understands the nature of the
farmer-labor party movement when
it declares that it is the result of the
peculiarities of historical evolution
thruout the history of the American
labor movement we can trace it's de-
velopment. 1t is true that the move
ment as such has not fully crystal
lized. That does not necessarily near
that the idea of the farmer-labor party
is OF no consequence. From a consi-
deration of recent facts following the
elections which the majority wants
us to believe, has changed everything
the direct opposite is true. The slo-
gan for farmer-labor party is of
great dynamic value First, the eco
nomic conditions driving the work
ers and poorer elements of the farm
ers to demand the organization of
such a party exist today as never be-
fore. This even the majority admits
And second, around the slogan of a
farmer-labor party we again find the
militant and progressive forces in the
unions rallying.
Let us go to the last convention of
the American Federation of Labor re-
Gently held in Ell Paso in order to
learn what took place there. Com
rade Foster and the whole majority
even before election day, considered
the labor party slogan dead. That is
why before election day when they
drafted the resolutions for the A. F.
L. convention they omitted a resolu-
ton on the labor party. As a result.
the T. U. e. L. was put in the ridicu-
lous position of publicly assuming the
death of the farmer-labor party move
ment while Samuel Gompers and the
American Federation of Labor conven-
ton fought that movement with all
the power at their command. The
question then arises If the LaFollette
movement swallowed up as the ma
jority would have us believe the farm
er-labor sentiment in the United
States and killed it and If as they
further say, the movement itself Is
Insignificant and is organized only in
few states, why then was Samuel
Gompers and the whole bureaucratic
and reactionary officialdom so much
afraid of the idea Of farmer-Iabor
party? II the farmer-labor party
movement is not revolutionary
development for the workers in the
United States. then why did the capt.
talist press of the country in unison.
spur on and support Samuel Gompers
in his fight on the idea of a labor
party in the United States?
It is up to Comrade Foster and the
other members OF the majority to
answer these questions. But in do
ing SO, they should stick to facts.
They should not make the false charg-
es that the minority is opposed to
all other united fronts except the
farmertlabor party united front. Not
only does the minority include a
whole series of united fronts on i'm
mediate issues in its thesis, but the
minority is the one that has forced
the present majority to accept after
1t had fought it bitterly at the last
convention the idea of a united front
on unemployment. It is true that
the minority never agreed with the
Foster idea of united fronts with lead
ers as the Fitzpatrik united front in
the Chicago Federation of Labor.
That is one of the reasons there is
today such principle difference be- |
tween the Foster and Ruthonberg
group.
The minority wants to build Com |
munist Party not syndicalist Lore
left oAoto1 .~~t.-f--