The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-12-11

!. Ruthenbera, Executive Secretary.
wing in character, was prepared to
follow and support the Communist
Party. Certainly the F. F. l.. P. of
New York could never boast that dur.
ing its campaign last year it was able
to rally any considerable mass of
workers to it's demonstrations. In
fact, its audiences were composed Of
Workers Party members and close
circle of sympathizers whom the party
could rally to its support without the
cloak Of farmer-laborism.
Further proof Of the appealing
power of the Workers Party itself
was given by the highly successful
street meetings which were held thru
out the campaign. These outdoor
rallies very often approached the
character of mass meetings. They
were each attended by 200 to more
than 1000 workers who bought our
literature and contributed to our cam
paign fund. They were the means Of
spreading the principles and program
of the Workers Party amongst thou
sands, added new members to our
ranks, increased our circle Of sym
pathizers. At no time during the F.
F. L. P. campaign last year could we
point to our street demonstrations as
indicative Of the appealing power" Of
q "a rroor.lo Ifr. rartu rr~..~> A. ..,e.t
dental election this year raised the
general level of interest in politics.
The fact remains, however, that not
withstanding all the pious wishes of
the farmer-labor enthusiasts in our
party, the workers did not flock to
listen to our plea for the federated
on the street corners of New York.
But they did rally in great numbers
to hear the message Of the Commun-
list Party.
Defenders Of the minority thesis
may argue that if the Workers Party
was able to gain wide hearing be-
fore the militant workers of New York
during the recent campaign, it was
due mainly to the fact that we raised
the slogan of a farmer-labor party.
This is false analysis. The issue in
New York, where the socialist party
at the height Of its power polled over
100000 votes, was not a farmer-labor
party versus a LaFollette third party.
The issue was, party upon the prin-
ciples of the class struggle versus a
party based upon the policy Of class
collaboration.
Our party in New York came to
the fore in this campaign as the only
class party of the workers. We were
replacing the socialist party in the
minds of class conscious workers.
which means that we had considerably
strengthened our leadership Of the
left wing elements in the labor move
ment of New York. What was the
reason? Was II because the socialist
party betrayed the farmer-labor party
idea by supporting LaFollette while
we, the Workers Party, favored and
fought for such an organization? BY
no means. The reason lay in this:
that the socialist party. by its al
lance with the petty bourgeoisie, had
given the final proof Of its desertion
Of the revolutionary struggle, while
we stood forth as the only represen-
tatives of the class interests Of the
workers.
1t was as the Workers Party, I'M
compromising defender OF a militant
struggle against capitalism both in
immediate as well as ultimate de-
mands, and not as the Workers Party
advocate OF farmer-labor party, that
we were able to rally to ourselves the
class conscious workers OF New York.
The election campaign in New York
clearly showed that the farmer-labor
party has no magnetic charm by
which It draws masses of workers to
its support, that the Workers Party
can be, and is, the leader of the left
wing. Those who might be prevailed
upon to enter the left class farmer
labor bloc"-that strange political
phenomenon recently discovered BY
the minority-are ready to follow the
Communist Party. 1t II is our task
not to organize them into a separate
political body, a semi Communist sub.
stitute for the Workers Party, but TO
influence them to Join our ranks by