The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1930-06-06
By ROSE WORTIS.

Needle Trades Workers Industrial Union.
Unlike the pre-convention periods of the
company unions, which characterized by
intrigues, maneuvers and frauds between the
various cques interested in sending their
hand-picked supporters to the pre- arranged,
Steam-rolled conventions, our pre-convention
period was a time during which the leadership
of the union, as we'll as the entire mass of
the membership, made a thorough review of
the policies, tactics, achievements and short
comings of the past, and outlined clear policy
for the future.
In the beginning of our pre-convention dis
cussion an article appeared in the Daily Work
er and the Freiheit which critically analysed
the struggle in the needle trades for the past
few years up to and after the formation Of
the Industrial Union, and the reasons why the
Industrial Union despite favorable objective
conditions failed to crystalline its theological
control over the needle trades workers organ
nationally.
This article gave rise to widespread discus
sion and met with serious objections partic
ularly on the part of the organized Lovestone
group within the Industrial Union.
What were the objections raised by the OPP
position?
% That this article with its criticism of
our mistakes will be taken advantage of by
the enemy and will be used to discredit the
iniure the growth of the Industrial Union and
reduce it to a sectarian group. 90 Many
of the oppositionists contended that the mis-
takes alluded to in the article do not actually
constitute mistakes in themselves; that the
incorrect policies indicated in the article were
dictated by necessity and will have to be re-
peated in the future.
AS far as the first argument is concerned,
namely, that the enemies will take advantage
of this criticism, it is not new. Whenever any
revolutionary organization has attempted to
exercise self-criticism, those who lacked the
courage inevitably raised this argument. The
policies of revolutionary organization
never dictated by what the enemy will say,
but by what is correct and by what can best
serve the interests of the movement. A speci-
fic illustration of this is the recent discussion
on the question of colectivization in the Soviet
Union. No doubt many of those responsible
for. the mistakes in the application of the
collectivization policy were the very ones to
oppose self-criticism on the ground that the
enemy will interpret it a retreat. However.
the leaders of the Soviet Union knew that only
through merciless self-criticism can these
shortcomings be corrected, and time itself has
corroborated the truth of this contention. The
criticism of Stain against those who misap-
piled the correct policy has not meant a re-
-. treat for the Soviet Union, but on the con-
trary has helped the success of the colectiv-
ization policy.
The second argument sounds strange in
deed especially coming from those who have
segregated themselves from the revolutionary
movement, who operating an isolated
group, separate and apart and are fast degen-
Grating from left wing opposition in a right
wing union to a right wing opposition in a
left wing union.
- H. Il L. Il
and the relation of the struggle in the needle
trades to the general struggle of the labor
movement in the U. S. A. The main points Of
criticism raised in the article are as follows:
~ That we failed to properly understand
the developments of the industry, and to shape
our policies in accordance with the new de-
velopments of the situation.
(2) That we did not properly estimate The
role of the fascist leadership of the A. F. of l.
49, That we carried over some of the old
practices of compromise with the police and
in some respects (the dress strike) pursued q
policy of collaboration with the employ
erS.
a. That we failed to reorganze our union
on the shop delegate SYSTEM and to develop
mass activity of the workers in order to meet
the problems confronting US.
90 That we continued functioning as an
opposition after the organization of the
Industrial Union, and failed to give indepen-
dent leadership to the workers struggles.
Is there any truth in this criticism raised in
the articles?
Now, after several years of bitter struggle,
when in sober frame of mind we review our
past struggles and activities and closely an
alyze the situation, we find that this criticism
is correct and largely explains the reasons
why the Industrial Union despite favorable
objective conditions did not develop as mass
organization
One of the most serious mistakes, in my
opinion, failure to understand the
treacherous role of the trade union bureau
crazy. This but the logical result of the
general failure of the left wing and of the
Communist Party (under the leadership of
Lovestone) to properly understand and esti-
mate the economic situation of the country
the strength of American capitalism and it's
fascist agents in the labor movement.
This was most glaringly illustrated in our
tactics and policies after the struggle of the
Joint Action Committee. AS consequence of
this lack of proper evaluation, we did not
recognize that the struggle of the Joint Ac-
ton Committee was not fight between two
wings in the labor movement, but class
struggle fight in which the Sigman gang
merely acted as an agency of the BOSSES We
continued to believe that there was POSSIBLE
ity of working in unison with Sigman and
failed to utilize the victorious struggle of the
Joint Action Committee in order to entrench
ourselves for the coming sharper struggles.
This belief was also shared by the leadership
of the Communist PARTY CLEARLY yaoaU ona