The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1927-09-29

OuL putty Isl w DSlleN6 budG
the unorganized working masses in
this country form a tremendous reser-
voir for militancy, in the trade union
movement, in the whole class strug-
gle. p We believe that not until an
appreciable extent of these morgan
lied masses are drawn into the or
ganized working class, the organiza-
tions Of the working class, that not
until then will we have the real sound
basis for a Communist Party in the
trade unions. I point out to you, not
mechanically, not dogmaticaIly, the
significance of the development of
the new unionism in England-to the
development of the labor party at
certain stages in England and the
lack of the development of the labor
party at another stage in England.
Are we mechanical? We try to
utilize the existing organizations for
organizing the unorganized. After
they refuse and don't go along, do
we say that because Woll and Green
are opposed to organization of the
unorganized, that we will wait until
they are in favor of it? Communists
can never be the tail, can never come
in at the end. We have our own
policies, as Communists, but take in
to consideration all the objective fac
tors, no matter how Objectionable.
You do not keep the workers out of
these unions because they are resort
ing to DISQUALIFICATION because
they are reactionary, because they
are controlled by takers. We say
precisely because these unions are
black, because they are backward,
we must get these unorganized work
ers into the main stream of the or
ganized labor movement so as to
bring q new spirit, a spirit of mill
fancy into that stream.
The comrades say we underesti-
mate the organization of the unor-
ganized. Comrades, the history of the
Party, the activities of the Party will
show that in the past two years we
have not done anything of the kind
On the contrary, we have achieved
some substantial results here.
Our Differences.
] want to say a few words about
differences. want to correct, for the
benefit of Comrade Cannon, especial
ly since we believe in unity, what
Lenin said about differences. I think
Comrade Cannon stayed out of the
room when I spoke about unity. I
think it would do us all good to con-
slider what Lenin said. Comrade
Lenin said for the benefit of all of
us: Without debate, conflict, dis
agreements, differences of opinion, no
movement is possible, not even a
labor movement" I fear that unwill-
ingly, most likely unwillingly and /
will say positively unwillingly, Com
rade Cannon allowed too many of his
remarks to degenerate into a spirit
of quarrels and insults. I propose
that this convention should not con-
slider either the yelled threats, the
implied, inferred threats that Com
rade Cannon made. Comrade Can
non will, as we'll as all of us after
this convention, follow a different
policy, in deed and in word, than he
has followed here.
But Comrade Cannon has touched
vital point. He accused the majority
Of following a policy of smothering
differences. That is a serious accusa-
ton. think to an extent the major
ity and the former Opposition are
guilty of this. | have admitted that
error and l pledge myself, with all
the comrades associated with me, that
we will not allow that to happen
again.
But what does the history of our
Party show? Has our Party suffered
mostly or more from smothering, or
from magnifying differences? Our
Party is strewn with wreckage of
some of its very valuable sections
which have dropped out, which have
been crippled, made less effective and
efficient for Communism, because we
have magnified differences. The solu-
ton is: don't smother differences,
and in your anxiety not to smother
differences, don't magnify differences.
Ito Be Continuedl.