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

NA EAI uO6S the majority oppose d
wv farmer-labor party now, when it
admits that the material conditions
are substantially as they we're, when
the majority was in favor of such a
party? Does not Marx warn, those
who care to heed: That it is upon
the material conditions of the work
ing class that the policies of a revo-
lutionary party must rest. and not
upon the illusions of the mass? How
does the blabbering of the majority
offered us, as an excuse for its thesis
and action, reconcile with. the prac-
ticability of Marx and Lenin?
In one breath they tell us that the
material conditions are not only as
tense as they were, when the major
ity was for an F. L. p, but that these
conditions are growing worse; in the
next breath we are told that there
is no demand for F. L. P. because
LaFollette devoured and digested 1t.
But they add, that there was an hon
est to goodness demand for F. L. P.
at the time that the majority favored
it.
Since the majority clearly shows
It's deviation from Marx and Lenin,
by failing to formulate its policy up
on the actual and potential conditions
of the working class, let us see, what
there is id their argument that the
demand for an F. L. P. is off on an
indefinite vacation.
What Became Of This Much TaIked-of
Demand?
We are told that aside from the
united front decision of the C. l., and
the experiences of the British c. P.
two factors were interpreted to
have constituted the demand for a
farmer-labor party in the United
States. First, the formation of the
G. P. P. A.; second, and far more
important, the manifestation Of the
more conscious rank and file. Let us
then (aside from the material condi-
tions, which in the long run must be
the policy-determining factor) merely
examine this demand hat existed, but
has now vanished.
In the first place, the organization
of the G. P. P. A. by labor leaders
was not prompted by their craving
for an F. L. P. Nor was 1t due to
pressure from the rank and file. Had
the rank and file been possessed of
the pressure credited to it, it would
have ,,oad fbok rraocura rrpon tho
labor leaders, for what it considered
more immediate needs. That is, it
would have made those leaders put up
an aggressive fight for wages and
hours. Neither was the pressure of
the rank and file Of such moment
as to drive these leaders towards the
organization of the C. P. P. A. as a
blindfold to ward off such pressure.
Even q brief examination Of the
railroad brotherhoods which consti-
tute the backbone Of the G. P. P. A.
will easily convince anyone that none
of those leaders we're in any danger
from the rank and file, on the cont
rary, they were all firmly seated in
the saddle OF leadership of their re-
spective unions. The c. P. P. A. was
organized principally as center
where some of the quarreling labor
leaders could be united upon the is
sue: as to who was a friend, or an
enemy of labor, so as to pun
ish or reward them according:
that is, to make more effective that
non-partisan policy so dear to them;
also to eliminated If possible, the
growing habit of squabbling between
the labor leaders. because of their
political infringements upon each 9TH
or. II was an alliance of labor lead
ers, each seeking to strengthen him
self.
THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE
THEOLOGICAL OR REPRESENTA-
TIVE MAKEUP OF THE G. p. p. A.
TO HAVE WARRANTED INTER
PRETING IT'S FORMATION AS A
DEMAND FOR A F. L. p. In word,
the g. p. p. A. have no intention OF
forming a +. l.. p. This Is corrorbor-
ated by the fact that It hopefully wait
ed for the democratic party to NOM
mate McAdoo, or for the republican
party to nominate some other fake
progressive. Had this been done.
the G. p. p. A. would be no more.
G. p. p. A. and the Labor Party.
To say that, the G. p. p. A. consti-
tuted one Of the demands for r. L.
p. in 1922-23-24. when It was not
pressed from below, when It could
have swung In back Of any republican
OF democrat, without fear OF national
effective rank and file opposition, and
that II will not constitute demand