The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-07-28

TOMHADES: Our repeated Appeals
~ to the leaders OF your party to
form a united front Of the working
class in the present campaign have all
been rejected. Instead they have be-
come a part of the united front
against the working class under the
leadership of LaFollette, the politi-
cal agent of small business. There
fore, we now appeal directly to you
over the heads of your leaders, who
have betrayed the interests of the
class struggle. To your leaders, we
have already appealed, time and
again nationally and locally, to join
hands with the militant sections OF
the American working class, in or
der to promote the development Of
the struggle.
Just a few instances. In March,
1928, the Workers Party addressed an
open letter to the Socialist Party, in
viting it to form a united front with
the Workers Party upon any one or
all of a long list of immediate de-
mands of the workers. The Socialist
Party made no reply.
In the fall of 1923, a committee Of
Foster, Wangerin and Howat called
upon Eugene V. Debs, at Terre Haute
for the purpose of arriving at some
understanding for common action.
Nothing, however, was done by Debs
or the Socialist Party to meet this
advance.
In May, 1924, prior to the st. Paul
convention the Workers Party ad-
dressed the National Committee Of
the Socialist Party to clarity it's posi-
ton on the convention and the idea
Of united front Of workers and poor
farmers in the coming election.
But all our appeals to your reform
ist leadership have been in vain. Thru
compromise after compromise, and
concession after concession, during
the last six years, your leadership had
finally come to the point OF surrender.
ing and betraying the last and most
fundamental principle of the class
struggle-the principle of indepen-
dent working class political action
This they did in Cleveland on July
5th, when they accepted the dicta-
lions and leadership of LaFollette in
the coming presidential elections.
LaFollette-lsm versus Socialism.
What does LaFollette stand for?
LaFollette is not private individual
He is a militant representative of GER
tain social groups and classes. He is
fighting in the interests of the manu-
featuring merchants, small bankers,
rich farmers, and well-to-do profess
SIGNALS. LaFolletteism is the poll
ticsl movement of the lower and mid
die strata Of the American bour-
geoisie.
LaFollette's fight against the Wall
Street candidates should not deceive
you as to the true meaning of La
Folletteism. This movement is moth
ing more than fight of the petty
and middle class bourgeoisie for a
larger share of the profits Of Ameri-
can capitalism, derived from the ex-
ploitation of the working masses
If LaFollette is successful in wrest-
ing concessions from Big Capital for
the petty bourgeoisie, it will be at
the expense Of the working class. In
other words, this movement of La
Toilette is a movement opposed and
hostile to the interests of the work
ing class.
This becomes particularly convinc-
ing when you examine LaFollette's
Labor Parties that are already in ex-
istence, notably in Montana, Mime
sofa, and in the Dakotas There, as
everywhere else, LaFollette is organ
king his own committees, putting up