The daily worker., 1924-07-29

will be proven in their final struggle,
and at each decisive stage between
then and now, that the Communist
Party alone understands and defends
the interests Of the working class as a
whole.
However, the principle of the United
Front and the conditions under which
we can and will take part in it, hold
good now as before. The Workers
Party has not retreated one inch from
the ground which it has stood upon up
till now in the Labor Party movement.
1t still stands for the creation of a
broad Labor Party and will fight for it
in the future as in the past. 1t will be
the only party keeping the idea alive
in the present campaign. Wherever
there is United Front political movG>
ment embracing wider masses of the
workers than we are able to draw
around us for direct support of the
Workers Party, we will take part in
such movement. We are ready and
willing to do this now on state scale,
even tho the conditions for such a
movement do not exist on a national
scale. In the state of Washington,
for example, where we are of the op-
inion that the Farmer-Labor Party has
some of the proportions of a mass
movement, our policy will be to sup
port the state ticket of the Farmer
Labor Party in the coming elections,
providing it maintains its stand on a
class basis and makes no alliances
which will bring it under the leader
ship of petty bourgeois politicians.
The Farmer-Labor Party of Wash
ington is in no way jeopardized by
the actions which we have taken on a
national scale. If the leaders of the
Farmer-Labor Party of Washington
will stand their ground, the Workers
Party will stand and fight with them.
The same holds true in a few other
states where there is a substantial
state Farmer-Labor Party which will
go thru the campaign with it's own
candidates. The only condition we set
up is that the Farmer-Labor Party
must have some of the proportions of
a mass movement, broader than the
Workers Party and its close sympa-
thizers.
We can understand how our decision
to put Foster and Gitlow in the field
may have taken some of the Labor
Party leaders in the west by surprise.
We were obliged to move quickly.
Events were developing at very
rapid rate, and 1t was not possible for
us to have lengthy and delayed con-
sultations with Farmer-Labor people
all over the country, much as we
would have liked to do this, in order
to come to complete agreement with
them before taking action.
The Workers Party has not be-
trayed the confidence of any sincere
supporters of the Farmer-Labor move
ment. We stand now, as before, ready
to go together with them in a common
fight wherever it is possible to make
a substantial showing. There is moth
ing in our recent decision to interfere
with this.
There is another aspect to the ques-
tion which it is necessary to speak
about here. Their letter seems to ap-
proach the question in>all of it's phases
from the standpoint of the Farmer
Labor Party and from the standpoint
of those Farmer-Labor leaders with
whom we have been cooperating to a
certain extent. We are sure that this
attitude is an unconscious one and is
the result merely of their far removal
from the Party Center and of incom.
plete assimilation of the whole con-
tent of the United Front tactic of the
Communist International. But such
an attitude puts the whole question
on false basis. Communists have to
approach all these problems first OF
all from the standpoint of the Com.
munist Party because it is the only
Party standing for the immediate and
ultimate interests of the working
class. Any activities we engage in
that do not result in strengthening
and building the Communist Party, in
increasing its influence over the la.
boring masses and winning them away
from the influence of all other groups
and parties, does not serve the real
interests of the working class as a
whole. If we fail to do this, we fail
to develop the instrument which is in
dispensible, not only for the final reyo