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

In his recent article, Comrade Man
ley estimates that $4,000 had been
directly spent in our labor party pro-
paganda. This is fair estimate, al
tho Comrade Ruthenberg evasively
disputes it. To it should be added the
high cost of Lovestone's book, which
is labor party propaganda de luxe.
Since his book came into question,
the minority comrades who engineer
ed its publication are very shifty and
indefinite about what it cost to pro-
duce. But considering the extensive
research work done and the expensive
makeup Of the book, it must have
cost $4,000, if not more.
Comrade Lovestone wrote the book
in his best opportunistic style. Not
only did he keep the Workers Party
out of it altogether, but he also care
fully edited out revolutionary express
sions and references. He was des-
perately anxious to be respectable and
to make good showing with the la
Dor partyites. 1t is a glowing ex-
ample of the kind of propaganda our
party should not make.
In the present party discussion,
Comrade Lovestone constantly ex-
udes quotations, however inappro-
priately, from Marx, Lenin, zinoviev,
and other revolutionary leaders. An
inexpert reader would conclude that
these men were the great originators
and defenders Of the "class" farmer
labor party. But in his opportunist-
ic "The Strikebreaker,"
Lovestone disposes with them very
nicely He does not quote one of
them. Altho Lovestone attempts the
fundamental Communist task of ana
lying the capitalist state, explaining
the robbing of the workers thru the
wages system, and of finding a RENE
dy for this exploitation, he never finds
it necessary to mention the names of
Marx or Lenin, or of any other world
known. revolutionist once in the en-
| tire book. In fact, except for N.Y.
self q am quoted number of times)
all the authors cited are thoroly re-
spectacle bourgeois. Not even the
faint of socialism is upon any of them,
much less Communism.
In making his opportunistie ana
Iysls of the state and in providing
his. Quack remedy Of labor party
Lovestone had little use for the say
ings of revoIutlonists, American or
foreign. When he analyses the state
his authorities are not Marx or Len
in, but Woodrow Wilson, Beard,
Fiske, McMaster, Bryce, and SINH
lars. When he wants an authority
on the exploitation of the workers
he tells us what was said by Rep
resentative Ricketts,, whoever he
may be. Various reactionary politi-
clans and economists illuminate
his points on wages. Sen. Shields
class nature of the courts and the
"class character" Of the persecution
at HerrIn was most forcefully tex
posed" by A. w. Kerr, attorney for
the defense-I thought the Work
ers Party had had something to say
upon tnat subject.
Lovestone's book deals largely with
the textile, mining, and railroad
strikes of 1922. But not word does
he say about the policy of the Work
ers Party, or Of the part played by
it in these struggles. In the whole
book there is not single quotation
from the Worker or from any state
ment of the Workers Party. On the
other hand, the book is just packed
with quotations from reactionary pa
pers, politicians, labor leaders, and
economists. When he indicates the
growing class consciousness Of the
workers in the struggles mentioned,
he cites not the Worker, but the Rail-
way Clerk. When he wants an APP
praisal of the significance of the Her
rim trial, he takes it from manifes-
to of the Illinois farmer-labor party.
So it goes, all thru the book. Re-
spectables and takers crowd one an
others heels, so much so that there
is no room, or, in Lovestone's con-
ception, need for revolutionaries.
The Workers Party and the revolu-
tionary movement in general are kept
we'll in the background. This fits in
very nicely with the labor party con-
illusions at the end. One thing that
makes me feel queer is the various
quotations from the Labor Herald and
myself. How come we in such re-
spectacle company? We are the only
revolutionary sources quoted in the
entire book. Why pick on us, Com
rade Lovestone? What did we ever
do to you that you should include us
in such ultra-orthodox company? But.
perhaps, the explanation is that by
calling the Labor Herald "the we'll
known trade union magazine" and
myself zone of the ablest and lead
ing advocates OF amalgamation," you
figure that we are kosher enough to
get by. Certainly you do not link
us up any way with the Workers
Party, whose identity you are so care
full to suppress all thru the book.