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

OA NAY own VI WACIueE We SuOuAu
change the date, and he said that on
this question that supported the ma
jority. Well, comrades, / would say
that the majority supported me on
that question (applause) because l in
itiated it, proposed the policy and
fought for that particular policy.
We also, comrades, had differences
in relation to the labor party policy
in relation to the c. P. P. A., and It
was our view during that six months
period the C. E. C. majority showed
a hesitating, vascillating attitude, that
it did not know where it was going,
that it had no clear lines of develop
ment We feared at one time after the
st. Louis convention that it might
want to call off the May S0th conven-
ton and go into the c. P. P. A. con-
vention There were differences of
attitudes in which we believe that our
viewpoint showed the right line of
policy for our party.
There were distinct differences of
attitude in which we believe that our
viewpoint showed the right policy for
our party and the Communists after
the June 18th convention. The G. e. C.
majority, in its statement regarding
the labor party policy, tells US that
1t was after the elections that it form
ulated that policy. 1t is a fact, COM
rades, that the policy was abandoned
before the November elections; it was
abandoned in the middle of October
when the fight began over the ques-
ton of what policy we should pursue
in the A. F. of L. convention. We
said we must continue to fight for in
dependent political action, to raise the
slogan of a labor party, and they
said, let us bring in. proposal for
a labor congress, and voted down the
proposal to bring in resolution for
the labor party And where is the
labor congress that we propagated in
the A. F. Of L.? 1t was offered and
then forgotten. And that is typical
of the attitude of our C. e. C. ma
jority.
We were told, comrades, that after
the elections the labor party move
ment was no longer in existence. Now,
that again shows the fundamental I'M
Marxist way of thinking of our ma
jority. Because in the election cam
paign the workers who were favorable
toward the labor party had been swal-
lowed by the La Toilette movement,
because of that the labor party move
ment was no longer in existence. That
is the thing the Communist Interna-
tional criticized as basing policies
upon superficial conditions. 1t was
superficial conception of the situation
to say that the labor party movement
was no longer in existence. The labor
party movement might be wholly in
the La Toilette movement and part
of it might still be in existence. The
majority could not understand that
and therefore they made their errors
and said that we must no longer advo-
cate the labor party slogan.
A ND comrades, we had some discus
\ sions here as to whether the major
ity was opposed in principle to the
labor party. Comrades, l ask you if
the majority could write this thesis
on the immediate party tasks, whether
they can now disclaim such opposition
in principle. Here is the section on
the right deviation of farmer-laDorism
in our party. Comrades, l say to you,
I repeat for your benefit that in your
own thesis and Comrade Cannon said
yesterday. if you believe that farmer
laborism is right-wingism, then you
cannot support the farmer-labor pol
Icy, If you believe the advocacy of
the building of a labor party in the
United States was ever right-wingism
in our party, then you must be against
it and fight it now as you thought it
when you wrote this thesis. That is
the conception here. And this is a
continuance of what Comrade Bittel-
T.. -