The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1930-06-20
By ALEX MORAL.


our Party is about to orientate itself
ds the agrarian question, an orienta-
overdue, and now an absolute neces-
.7h can no longer be sidetracked with
opportunist phrases, as has been the
the past.
+ the first questions confronting US in
work is the organization of the agri-
proletariat. More energy must be
mobilizing these proletarian masses,
nber about four and one-half million,
must play decisive role in the or
of the poor farmers, tenants and
'oppers in their struggle against cap
sure a revolutionary farmers organiza
inst becoming enmeshed in reformism,
essary that the agricultural proletariat
,ir fractions in the farmers organiza-
)ne of the greatest mistakes the Party
in the past was to set up an agrarian
in the wheat belt of North Dakota,
ating what little effort was made, on
in farmers, and secondly to attempt
lize the farmers without at the same
,anizing unions or leagues of the agri-
proletariat with fractions in the
organizations, leading them in revo-
struggle, and winning them over to
as allies for the final struggle, Of
re should not underestimate or neglect
grain farmers, who are becoming
poverished every day, but we must lay
on the poor tenants, share-croppers,
{ owning Negro and white farmers in
h. Not stopping here we must reach
sands of poor farmers in every State
lea.
is evidence that the poor farmers are
to realize the betrayal, and are tired
misled by the Farm Bloc politicians,
politicians, the reformist farm Or
ons, the Grange and the Farmers
whose leadership has sold them to Am
Imperialism for further slavery and
Draft Not Thought OF.
as to the "draft program" on agricul-
blished in the Communist" we are
have doubts as to whether the COM
the districts and Party units have
the draft. At least the Daily Worker
n expression of such being the case,
!, expresses the attitude of the COM
/ the agrarian question in general.
agenda of the convention will be the
question. But should we discuss the
rarian program? l think not. First
the draft fails to give sectional an
hich is quite necessary in order to lay
for sectional programs. Then the
badly formulated and represents more
lie with mass of statistical data and
rs from Lenin. Third--the draft has
n discussed by the comrades in the
nits, which is quite necessary that the
may realize the Importance and ne
If our tasks in agrarian work.
e whole the draft furnishes the Party
ne valuable material, and should be
as such for use in the drawing up
.er draft. Nevertheless we must point
technical shortcomings as formulated
raft.
first paragraph section /, it states:
illion farmers and their families are
rade pariahs and Migrants under the
many farmers" es, capitalism would
shape for itself a homogeneous agri-
but there are too many contradictions
a scheme under capitalism. They may
70 or three million farmers from the
what will they do with the land, will
lie with capital already invested in it,
he land be planted with seeding trees
up into forests as suggested by the
of Agriculture? We know that
rent will be the determining factor
What will become of the land, and
forests under capitalism is not
lie scheme. Therefore we know that
,tims will be found to take the place
evicted. What Hyde and Hoover adj
md what finance capital, bankers, loan
nd landlords, the holders of this land,
lotions, actually do, is two different
The draft fails to make this clear.
all, the holders of land are not so
just now to take the land from the
rmers. We see already the bankers
to make loans to the farmer unless
sand raises more products for his own
ton and less for the markets. In other
hey tell the farmer to raise just enough
jducts for the markets, to insure the
and bankers and spectators steady
profit, and preserving them for further
lion.
her Wages Would Absorb Surplus.
'agraph two, the draft states: "If, how
q city proletariat by struggle, can
the employing class to pay higher
his would help to absorb the surplus
mutation is absolutely incorrect. Do
me that if the workers were able to
more food that production would not
,,roportionately? We know that more
be produced on the land than could