The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-08-13

majority retain majority In the
future Central Executive Committee
and that the present minority be as
sured representation according to its
strength, not less than one-third. But
that proposal was later withdrawn as
inexpedient. Hence, the selection Of
leadership was left to the party with
very natural result Of an intensive I'M
ternal struggle.
There. is the theological readjust-
ment on the part of both groups to
the decision Of the Comintern on the
American question. Both groups, have
to revise materially their former views
II they want to be in complete accord
with the policy of the Comintern. In
fact such a revision is taking place,
such a process Of readjustment is
going on. The present discussion of
past differences, the talk of who was
right and who was wrong, is only
somewhat distorted reflection Of this
process Of theological reimbursement on
the part Of both groups to the decision
Of the comintern on the American
nuestlon.
Let US resdIust ourselves to the
comlntern decision.
NLURST, let me state that the Comm
M tern decision is not document to
hduibble about. 1t is clear and un-
lleQuivocal and permits Of very little
Interpretation. 1t says what it means
And 1t means exactly what it says.
Il When Comrade Kuusinen introduced
1.-THE report of the American Commits
lHion to the Plenum of the Enlarged
NExecutive Of the Comintern, he formu-
A lated the issues in the American party
\ in the following way;
"The question upon which the con-
flict arose in the American party was
whether the party should fight in the
immediate future for Labor Party or
not"
The point that needs. emphasis here
(emphasis and not interpretation is
the expression in the above statement
of Comrade Kuusinen which says: "ln
the Immediate future" Why must this
be emphasized? Not because 1t adds
to or changes anything in the Comm
tern decision, but because it disposes
once and for all of the myth that the
majority was opposed to the fight fol
Labor Party in principle.
According to Comrade Kuusinen the
question was, shall we or shall we MOI
fight for a Labor Party in the imme
date future? The majority said: No
The minority said: Yes. On this poin
the minority was right. Not on the
question of principle, because the
question of the labor party in prin
ciple was never involved. Anyone
who tries to misrepresent the pas
discussion as discussion on the labo
party in principle is failing in hi
duty to adjust himself correctly to tn
: decision of the Comintern on tn
American question.
!. What was the basic feature Of tn
: political analysis given by the major
! ity following the last presidential cleo
: tions? 1t was this: That the La Fol
lette movement had captured or swa
lowed the labor party movement an
that the backward working masses ar
/ accepting the petty bourgeoisie La Fo
$ lette movement as their own move
5 ment, as the new party that the
wanted to see created. w
, This statement was a correct ez
/ preston of the real situation. On thi
5, point the decision of the Cominteri
L says:
j prior to the last presidential elet
d lions, however, the petty bourgeoi
o liberal opposition movement led b
q La Toilette came to the foregroun
n and irresistibly captured the mass sci
timent of the semi-conscious, anti-cal
n REALISTICALLY inclined workers and farm
d ers."
II And further on we find the sam
n point elaborated even more. Says tn
It decision of the Comintern: