The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-08-29

APPROVES OF
&C. C. REPORT
Listens to Extensive Re-
ports and Debates
Continued from page u

| first was from January to May in
1924, when the party was preparing
for the June 18th convention. In that
period the main purpose was to bring
about the formation of a farmer-labor
party-or if MOTTO get united labor
fight in the presidential election. In
spite of a big convention we did not
succeed.
1t is important to know why the
failure occurred. When the present
c. E. G. came into power we found a
critical situation on account of the
split at the July 3rd convention, the
growing LaFollette movement. The
G. E. c. realized the party was iso-
lated, especially in the industrial CEN
ters and the chief field for formation
of farmer-labor party was in the ag-
rarian Northwest. 1t was not the pres
ent c. E. c. who switched the basis Of
the farmerlabor movement to the
Northwest-this was already done.
There were two factors; there had
been no great mass movement in the
industrial enters, but what there was,
was largely in agrarian districts, also,
the policy of the previous c. E. c.,
which had pursued the policy of orr
entation toward the Northwest.
The policy of the united front had
been continued. There were differ
ences in the c. E. G. over preparation
for the St Paul convention.
One group wanted no more repeti-
ton of the July 3rd mistake, no pre-
mature split off of the left wing and
there was disagreement on dates for
the St Paul convention. Our farmer
allies of the Northwest wanted post
ponement We tried to agree. An
other difference in the G. E. C. was
the question whether we should fight
for the immediate formation of a la
Dor party regardless Of whether the or
ganization had mass support or was
merely our own party and few SYM
pathetic organizations.
The actual organization of the unit.
ed front was defeated. Why? Be.
cause the economic and political fore
es which brought about the rise Of
the LaFollette movement, and the DO
lltlcal backwardness of the American
masses and the treachery of the
union bureaucracy, were stronger
than the forces of our party. Another
factor was the C. I. decision against
the third party alliance upon which
from January until tn edecision oul
party had based its policies. Politica
life had not stopped. We had to func
ton The G. E. c. was nearly unani
nous on this policy which was our
base up to May.
Upon the decision, the party had
to reorientate itself over night under
fire and at the time the A. F. of l.
opened fire on st. Paul and on ou1
party. After June II, the C. E. C.
was convinced it would not succeed
the agrarian elements were FREEDOM
lnant and with the exception of oul
own delegates all were for LaFollette
The speaker then traced objective
and subjective conditions thru the
Workers Party participation in the
presidential campaign under its own
banner-during which campaign there
was such unanimity in the c. E. C.
as never before or since-and after
a detailed analysis of the succeeding
period, Comrade Bittelman reiterated
that upon the background of objective
conditions the party had come thru
many crises as well as could be ex
pected and had made great accom-
plishments in the political situation.
Among other accomplishments had
been the united front in many fields,
the Lanzutski-Polish work, the Abram-
ovitch campaign, unemployment, trade
union unity, anti-child labor, Crouch
and Trumbull, fight on wage cuts, for
Soviet Russia, hands OF China, all anti
imperialist work, anti-religious work,
anti-socialist party work, extensive
trade union work in all fields, mem
bership campaigns, agrarian work,
women's work, work among Negroes,
labor defense, building up of the press
and literature distribution, aid to the
Voting Workers League and an in
| 1CuoAfO h5Hl Ou lHo right HluB-
The floor was thrown open for dis
cussion and Comrades Dunno, Kruse
tombstone, Bimba, Foster, Lovestone
Krumbein, Lifshitz Bell, BALKAN, Man
ley Gitlow, Browder, and Bedacht de.
veloped the views Of both groups
Then Bittelman took the floor tc
sum up.
There had been no political debate,
Bittelman declared. He was sorry, par
ticularly that in the name Of Marx
ism, non-Marxian precepts had been
brought FORTH II was ridiculous, Ruth
enberg had said, TO say that objective
conditions had made 1t hard for revo
lutionary party to stand its forces
while had been easy for the LaFol-
lette movement to do so. Yet the c.
!. had said that in a period of revolu
tionary stagnation the reformist illu
sions found particularly favorable soil
the Communist movement found par
ticular difficulty and, in addition, the
latter was ENDANGERED by a penetra.