The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-01-07

OClS oSS uOlAAu6 oAbulHCuL III TIC AdSl
that Comrade Winfield A. Dwyer the
Massachusetts, Workers Party can
didate for secretary of state in the
recent election polled $4,000 votes.
Comrade Dryer is a longshoreman
with union button on his lapel as big
as a dish pan. He is famous amongst
the men of his trade and the workers
generally for his militant fight in
their everyday struggles. His $4,000
votes as a Communist candidate is a
fact that tho in front of Comrade
Ballam's nose he does not see, but
it is a complete refutation of the
specious argument of the minority, 1t
shows that the issue in Mass. is not
left wing FL. P. but the Workers
Party itself. 1t is a sample of the
united front at the bottom that the
majority stands for. 1t is a united
front that will win workers not for
opportunism but for Communism.
Now that the minority on the say
so of Comrade Lovestone has become
the MARKHAM group" And deals in
such truck as the following taken
from a series of Mike and Ike" ques-
tions and answers published in the
Daily Worker for Dec "a: 1.-THE CEN
trail executive committee made no eff
fort to conduct a political campaign
combining united front actions, such
as unemployment, recognition of Sow
let Russia, etc, with the election cam
paign in order to transform the cleo
ton campaign from one of mere pro-
paganda for our candidates into one
Of political action"
If ever there was conscious mis-
representation, this certainly is. The
fact is and Comrade Lovestone knows
it very we'll, that l was made cam
paign manager because the majority
demanded and insisted upon someone,
because they wanted a real political
campaign and at that time | was the
least Objectionable to Ruthenberg.
The desire of Comrade Ruthenberg
was to have no campaign manager, so
that every phase of the campaign
would be completely under his per-
sonal control. After my appointment,
made recommendations for instance,
for the publication Of various leaflets
"a million copies to start with-mak-
ing special political appeal to the
workers in every basic industry and
calling in the country. These leaflets
I proposed should be distributed free
and should be the beginning of an
attempt to reach the masses with our
political program. Comrade Foster
in particular and the rest of the major
ity supported me in this proposition.
Comrade Ruthenberg took the posi-
ton that no money could be found for
this free distribution, and so nothing
ever came of it,
Comrade Ruthenberg il any one
many ever ran anything, ran the tech
nical end of the last campaign. He it
was who made the campaign to raise
the money. Comrade Wagenknecht
only coming in when it was more than
half over; he it was under whose
direction the number of leaflets and
pamphlets were gotten out. If less than
ten thousand of Lovestone's "LaFol-
lette Illusion" were distributed, it is
not the fault of the majority but of
Comrade Ruthenberg. And Lovestone
knows this also. |, thought bearing
the name of campaign manager was
nothing but clerk in the Office. The
fact is that when the majority pro-
posed any measure tending to branch
out with real broad political cam
paign, they and | met with the fact
that everything even to the execution
Of the merest Office detail, was fasten-
ed down by the executive secretary,
whose principal consideration, it ap-
peared to me while in the general Of
fee, was to keep within his personal
grasp everything and anything even
to ridiculous details that pertained
to the administration of the general
office. These matters are cited against
the alleged fact by Lovestone: that
the majority sabotaged the election
campaign. This charge by Lovestone
is on par with the one that Foster
believes in the united front at the
top. Foster more than anyone else,
continually warned us against Ma
honey, saying repeatedly that Ma
honey would surely double cross us.
1t is sample of the MARKHAM"
analysis that Lovestone and his group
apply not alone to internal party af-
fairs but to objective conditions in
general.
The facts which cause the minority
to champion at present the issue of a
farmer-labor party are subjective
rather than objective. That is why
their arguments are unconsciously
subjective and personal. When they
speak of such objective matters as the
A. F. Of l.. convention or the Min
nesota farmer-labor federation, they
display in addition to their desire to
subvert everything to their subjective
ends, naive lack Of understanding
the realities of working class organi-