The daily worker., 1924-12-13
The Discussion on Party Tasks


situation at st. Paul was this The
elections were approaching and it was
absolutely necessary to crystallize the
farmer-labor party in order to make,
or try to make, campaign under its
banner. The situation was difficult,
with the LaFollette forces sucking the
life out of the farmer-labor movement.
Consequently the G. E. G. made ex-
treme efforts to hang on TO the dis
appearing masses. In some respects
its policy verged into opportunism.
This must be admitted. But the min
ority are disbarred from criticism.
They endorsed the whole thing.
Comrade Minor blossoms forth with a
speech was supposed to make in ST.
Paul. The fact is the speech was inn
perfectly reported. But it was bad
enough at the best. make no apol-
ogy for it. 1t represented only one
of the overstrainings we made to re-
tain contact with the masses. But the
speech was in harmony with the point
of view of the whole c. E. c., major
ity. Comrade Ruthenberg, who was
on the steering committee that author
lied it, pronounced it very timely.
Not word of objection was raised by
the minority altho the C. E. C. was
meeting nightly. 1t was only a couple
of months later, when word was re-
ceived from Moscow, that the minor
ity woke up to realization, for fac
tional purposes, that the speech was
opportunistic.
Comrade Ruthenberg also voices a
protest against our opportunism. He
cites a motion that l am supposed to
have made in the c. E. C. to the effect
that we should support LaFollette's
nomination. But Comrade Ruthenberg
has developed much a penchant for
writing the minutes in a factional
spirit that the c. E. c. had to adopt
measures for their constant correc-
ticn. Months ago / definitely reput-
lated this motion. 1t unfairly stated
my position. At that time the c. E.
c. was committed to the third party
alliance which tacitly if not actually,
accepted the proposition that LaFol-
lette would be the candidate of the
third party. Any denial of this is
sheer hypocrisy. The motion l made
proposed in effect that if at the COM
ing conference the question of NOM
nations was forced upon the confer
ence and the choice lay between Ford
(who was then in the field as a pro-
gressive candidate) and LaFollette,
that if it had to the Workers Party
would support the latter as the lesser
of two evils. This was bad enough,
but it indicates merely the oppor-
tunistic tangle we got into as a re-
suit of comrade Peppers beloved
third party alliance.
Comrade Ruthenberg's manufac-
tured Indignation that we should toll
crate the nomination Of LaFollette
comes with ill grace, especially after
! his militant support of the third party
alliance. Time and again he gave
Mahoney, OF the Minnesota farmer
labor party, to understand that if the
Workers Party made any opposition
to the candidacy of LaFollette in the
approaching conferences and conven-
tion it would be purely formal, to
keep the record clear. 1t is interest
ing to note also that when in
troduced motion in the c. e. c. at
st. Paul which would have precipitat-
ed break with the LaFoIlette forces
then and there, it was lost by one
vote, the vote of comrade Ruthenberg.
His fight" against LaFollette's nom
ination was fake. This was clearly
shown by the following motion, in
troduced by comrade Ruthenberg and
defeated by the C. e. c. on May 2.
1924:
I'VE shall nominate in the con-
vention candidate in opposition