The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1935-01-31

especially Norman Thomas. in addi-
ton to Socialist controlled organi-
cations to join in organizing the
Congress. All Of them refused to
cooperate. None of the national
leaders and only few of the state
leaders, during the course of the
preparations of the Congress, agreed
to participate in the Congress.
Nevertheless, there was a goodly
number of Socialists at the Con-
gress, some of them officially del
egated by their Socialist organiza-
tons. The statement which they
issued rings with the conviction
that the united front can be formed
and this Congress contains the basis
for a broad United Front of all
workers and farmers"
Wage Terror Against Workers
We do not expect the "old guard"
leaders of the Socialist Party to
consider this anything but heresy
that has no place in the Socialist
Party. The "old guards" campaign
of terror against the rank and file
that is fighting and carrying out
the united front with the Commu-
nists is becoming history.
But we ask Mr.. Norman Thomas,
who talks about the united front;
who knows that in some parts Of
the country there is open rebellion
against the policy of the national
leadership of the Socialist Party,
which rejects the united front on a
national scale; and who knows that
the united front is being formed de-
spite the position of the state COM
mittees under "old guard control
we ask Thomas. Why have you not
the courage to fight for these rank
and filters? Why have you not the
courage to fight for your openly
expressed position? The "old guard"
ONeal, Waldman, Lee, Cahan, do
the fighting Their position is clear,
Waldman praises Roosevelt's social
security" program, and calls upon
Socialists and prOgresSives to sup
port 1t. Is this the position of the
national leadership of the Socialist
Party? Does it also endorse the
Roosevelt social security" program?
If not, then why does it not fight
against it? Why does it not crack
down on the "Old guard" who rep
resent the most reactionary sent-
ment In the country?
Fight United Front
The answer to this surrender
policy of Thomas, Hapgood, ETC., is
being given by the local and state
organizations - organizations that
not only accept the united front, as
Thomas and Hapgood pretend to
do, but FIGHT for it.
The Congress contains the basis
for a broad united front of all work
ers and farmers" Twenty nine So
cialists from eleven states signed the
resolution - Maryland, New York,
New Jersey, Maine, Massachusetts,,
Rhode Island, Florida, Colorado,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia
and the District of Columbia. These
workers not only saw in the Con-
gress the basis for united front of
workers and farmers, but pledged to
work in our respective locals and
for the adoption of the
bill CWorkers Bill H. R. 2827), and
for the success Of the work started
by this Congress"
The work of the Congress was in
support Of the Workers Bill. The
struggle for the Bill will be a
struggle also against the Lees, VALID
mans and O'NealS, as well as against
all who capitulate to their policies.
The struggle will raise many issues
issues that were touched upon by
many delegates at the Congress.
This was brought out in sharp form
by Comrade Earl Browder, who
pointed out the possibility of Labor
party in this country and the will
ingneSs of the Communist Party to
cooperate in the formation of such
a party based upon the immediate
burning needs of the masses and
having its organizational base in
the trade unions, the unemployed
and farm organizations, etc. A
fighting labor party-not the labor
party" proposed by Waldman and
O'Neal, a party made up of them
selves and the reactionary burocrats
of the A. F. of L., a party to sup
port the program of Roosevelt, as
Waldman has done.
Will the National Congress go in
this direction? Although this does
not concern here, we know that the
struggle for the Workers Bill, the
struggle against the use of Section
IA, against labor the struggle of the
farmers, the struggle for Negro
rights, will link us together more
closely.