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


IN another article the writer has, in replying
to Comrade Erik Bert's criticism on the Draft
Agricultural Program, conceded some of its
weaknesses, such as the lack of sectional de-
mands. Its length, a subject of purely techni-
cal objection, was made necessary by the need
for giving in popular way and for the first
time in our Party, theoretical base and a
general anlysis, as the Agrarian Department
was instructed to do by the Central Committee
and the October 1929 Plenum.
Comrade Bert seemed to complain at the lack
of statistics. But Comrade Moral contends
there are too much Statistical data and quota
tons from Lenin.' Granting Comrade Morals
good intentions, we must say that if he had
given more attention to Lenin's quotations and
had seriously considered the Draft, his article
would not have suffered from such number of
opportunist views, doubtlessly not his purpose
in writing it, but none the less put forward to
supplant the Draft, which he dismisses with a
wave of the hand as not even worthy of dis
cussion. We are forced to ask Comrade Moral
why this Olympic scorn?
Firstly, because, says Comrade Moral, it
gives no sectional analysis Such statement is
inexact, moreover, beside the question. The
Draft is a general analysis, as it is primarily
supposed to be, though it deals extensively
with such sections as the South and the grain
belt But Comrade Moral is against a general
analysis being discussed!
Secondly, he says it is GLADLY formulated
which he explains by adding that it contains
Statistical data and quotations from Lenin,"
an evil he avoids completely in his own article,
and all of which, in the absence of political
errors, is new reason why any program should
not be discussed.
Somewhat Hasty
Thirdly, he claims, writing from Moscow in
May, that the Draft "has not been discussed in
the party units" in America. Alas, many
things are, unfortunately not adequately dis
cussed in the units. But this is a remarkable
reason why they should not discuss anything
"They have not discussed it; therefore they
shall not discuss it," is Comrade Morals I'M
usual idea. The Daily Worker of May 27, pub
lished telegram from the Party Organizer of
District 9, saying that-"200 farmers dele
gates in Northern Minnesota have endorsed
the Agrarian Program" In the Central Com
mittee we have received no report on whether
the Draft has or has not been discussed. Hence
Comrade Morals statement from Moscow in
dicates that he possesses marvellous teepathic
powers, or has fallen into a supercilious atti.
tude which does him no credit.
We regret being compelled to take the latter
alternative, since Comrade Moral, after conced-
ing that the Draft SHOULD be accepted in the
drawing up o. another draft"-which is not
wholly Objectionable idea - finally dismisses
even the programmatic conclusions of the pre-
sent Draft and modestly proposes his own: "In
the meantime we can rally the poor farmers on
the slogans mentioned below"
But in criticizing what he terms some tech
nical shortcomings" of the Draft, Comrade
Moral makes it more than doubtful that the
policy ] : would substitute for that of the
present Draft is acceptable to our Party.
He says that-"the agricultural proletariat
must have fractions in the farmers organiza-
ton of two hostile classes inescapably class
collaborationist no matter how presented as
"to insure farmers organization against re-
formism." 1t is rankly Menshevk idea. Our
Party cannot permit such policy.
Comrade Moral says that-"We see"-that
finance capital is trying to reverse the historic
development from self sufficing farm produc-
ton to commodity production, production for
the Misunderstanding to make loans to the
farmer unless he plants more products for his
own consumption and less for the market"
Nonsense! We see nothing of the sort
Why Not Accept Lenin?
If Comrade Moral had read the Quotations