The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1930-06-16
Bv HARRISON GEORGE.
l - nnhind. 1he Main Danger.

/ tom disD2tch stated that L. s. statistics show
that the wages Of farm workers have drop
ped" i.c been cut, to a point lower than the
ave3.aoo fo1, ciaht years. Our Party must not
only note this, but act upon It, Recently, one
If The comrades on trial in California told Oh
the terrible conditions of the workers IN thv
Immortal Valley, mostly McXicans. Still another
i4o,, II, the Baltimore "Afro-Amcrican" tells
how bcyT,, 1dll.crs of Maryland seek sheltc'
in iaHs" homeless and pcnniess, awaiting lh@
DELAYED berry harvest.
The conditions of the agricultural proctarlat
q. noted in the Draft Program" were neYe'
equal f. these Of the city proiotariat, and no"
taev are becoming vastly worse, There IS an
iY?peratiye need 10 force d rapid development
NJ The Agricultural Worhev5 Industrial League
If N77 'F-.UL. into an Industrial union and
make it the veal leader Of struggles But to
do this. our Party must be Jared into wake
fuIness. be shaken into action on the whole
question of agriculture.
For years our Party shClved the whole prop
lem by creating an agricultural district OF
the PARTY in the Dakotas as though the ag-
rarian population was confined to that area
Our programs" carried no class struggle into
the country population itself. Though we spoke
occasionally of poor" farmers, we gave them
no idea of themselves entering physically into
s+,Dqgle. and we merely tipped our hat (some-
tinles) to the agricultural proletarat-the
greatest single industrial group OF wage work
ers. This conception, if not past Is passing.
Only the obstinate right wingers Will continue
to sneak of "the farmers in one indifferent
ated lump. But as yet there is only the faint
est effort to carry out the new policy IN &C
ton.
In every single district of our Party there
are farms and farm wage workers, poor farm
ers, middle farmers and rich capitalist farm
ers. Our comrades must sharply be shown
that the proletarans on the truck farms OF
Long Island are material to our movement just
as are the corn huskers Of Nebraska; that
agricultural work is not for the Dakotas alone,
that Kansas. for example, produces alone as
much wheat as both Dakotas, while the i'm
portance of Texas and the South generally IS
greater from many viewpoints than any other
special area Without minimizing the North,
the agrarian South is ripper for an agrarlan
revolutionary movement than any.
The Draft Program for agriculture, pub
Gshed in recent issues of the Communist,
whatever its Deficiencies, is our Party's tlrst
approach to the agrarian problem from Boil
sbevik standpoint The opportunsts, both the
omen Right and the Trotskyite Left such as
those around the producers News" of Mon
tana. who were quite at home with the old
opportunst line of our Party, have found their
place supporting Hoover's 'cooperatives," the
North Dakota Trotskyite, Miller fittingly seek
ing nomination on the republican ticket. From
their daily toll" supporting Hoover, these
gentry take the time and again to declare
that our Party is not revolutionary for them!
We sneak of the deficiencies of our Draft
Program because, though it breaks the ice
for concrete class struggle, laying down the
general line it does not-in fact it could not.
lacking the close collaboration of the comrades
in the districts establish detailed and concrete
action programs for the districts, which vary
widely in conditions and perspectives.
The defects of the Draft Program" are
the defects of the Party's Agricultural Depart
ment which produced it; a department which
deserves constant and close attention, attention
which the comrades assigned TO it simply can
not give it. due to overlooking with many other
pressing tasks. 1t is the old question of cadres,
and our Party must give due attention to de-
welcoming qualified comrades for this great field,
II. The Draft Program" and It's Critics.
Since our agraTiAn work has been so nearly
nil and so few comrades, without doubt, have
even read the Draft Program" it is refresh
ing and welcome that some have come forward,
as does Comrade Erik Bert, with criticism of
it that shows close attention and interest. Com
rade Bert, in articles published in the Daily
Worker May % and q, brought up two main
points.
The chief value Of Comrade Bert's first ar
ticle DIV. May 23) was to furnish more
ample statistics and dates on the increasing
mcchanzation Of agriculture his correct con-
clusions thereby reinforcing those already
S~smulated in the Draft Program" i.e, the
rsuperization Of the poorer farm strata and
the growth Of the agricultural proletariat in
relation to the entire population. Hence his
suggestions as to the use of the world "wilp'
in place of the word would" are correct, al
though brought forward from different point
of departure than that of the Draft Program
In composing the Draft Program" the first
consideration was given, in this matter as in
many others, not to agriculture in general"
but TO the poorer strata of the agrarian popu-
lation. How they, suffering under the crisis,
are told by capitalist apoogists that their
remedy is to mechanize; how they concretely
considered, either cannot even get into debt
enough to mechanic, or, if they do, only
fall further into the clutches of finance CAPT
tai and ultimately into worse misery.
Hence, the Draft Program" in using the
phrase "if it could be realized" applied it def
initely to the majority Of the farm popula-
tion," and not to farmers in the abstract and
in general with whom Comrade Bert's tendency
to deal places him dangerously near to for
getting the variations in class categores among
farmers.
Let US have done with all pedantic but non
existent agriculture" in the abstract; and let
US deal with the forces from which we expect
live revolutionists not dead arthmetical calcu-
lations.
1t is clear from the Draft Program even
tbou01, II Lacks HipAa0ral s+a nv,