Continuing our look at the 1920s factional disputes in the Communist Party over Farmer-Labor Party policy, but indicative greater differences in analysis and perspectives. This debate was fought out publicly and extensively in the pages of the Daily Worker. Here the then minority’s leading voice, Charles E. Ruthenberg, Executive Secretary of the Party, issues a broadside against the Foster-Cannon majority. Ruthenberg addresses the history of the controversy, its basis, and potential consequences as the fight gets ever-more acrimonious and sides harden. It seemed as if the Party was heading for a damaging split in 1925, and one almost entirely on based on differences stemming from the U.S. class struggle, not debates in the International. However, both sides would travel to Moscow to plead their cases, and the debate then would become very much part of the Comintern’s factional disputes.

‘Our Party’s Immediate Tasks and the Bankruptcy of the C.E.C. Majority Position’ by Charles E. Ruthenberg from the Daily Worker. Vol. 2 No. 29. December 16, 1924.

THE most illuminating test of any policy is in its application. Judged in the light of such a test the policy set forth by the majority of the central executive committee, which it is not only proposing to the party but applying in practice at the present time, has already done great harm to our party and threatens the party with even greater injury.

In order to make clear the injury which has already been done the Workers Party thru the application of the majority policy and the danger which threatens the party thru the continued application of this policy, it is necessary to restate a few funda- mentals. It is the error of the majority that it is basing its policy upon temporary surface conditions in relation to the movement toward class political action and not upon the stronger, underlying forces which haye produced and are developing this movement.

The movement for independent political action by the workers as a class has been slow in developing in the United States. While practically every developed capitalist country of Europe has had class political parties of labor supported by masses for decades, in the United States no such party has developed. The historical reasons why no such party has developed in the United States have often been stated and I need not go into them here. The fact which we have to deal with is, that since the end of the war, thru the intensification of the class struggle which has grown out of the war, a movement by the workers and at the same time a movement by the exploited farmers, toward independent political action and for the formation of a party representing the class interests of these two groups, has arisen.

The fact which we must bear in mind in discussing the question of our party policy is, that this movement is not a chance thing growing out of temporary conditions which may quickly disappear. As Marxians we recognize that the development of a movement among the working masses toward a political class struggle is a logical and inevitable outcome of class relations under the capitalist system.

It was upon the basis of the fact that this movement had begun and was developing that our party, two and a half years ago, formulated its united front labor party policy. What was the problem which we as Communists, organized in the revolutionary Workers Party, faced at that time?

We had organized the vanguard of the working class, the revolutionists, the Communists. in our party, but the masses of the American workers were still supporting the parties of their class enemies-the capitalists. Our aim was to build our party of the vanguard, of the revolutionary workers into a mass Communist Party. We rejected the theory that our party could be built into a mass Communist Party thru abstract propaganda of our principles. We accepted the Communist concept that a revolutionary mass party of Communists can only be created thru the revolutionization of the working masses. We saw the beginning of the process of the revolutionization of the working masses in the movement for independent political action.

We argued: In this movement toward independent political action by the workers and exploited farmers there is our point of contact with these masses. We will enter into this movement. We will endeavor to hasten the development of this movement. We will seek to become the leaders of this movement and thru our leadership we will make it more conscious and drive it forward. We will crystallize this movement by organizing delegated bodies consisting of delegates from the organizations of workers and exploited farmers who become politically conscious of their class interests. We will enter into common struggles, not merely election campaigns but struggles upon all issues arising in the class struggle, with these workers and exploited farmers, struggles in which we will play the part of the initiators and driving force. Thru this policy we will fulfill our duty as a Communist Party-we will be carrying on the work of revolutionization of the masses and in the process we will build our party into a mass party of revolutionary workers. The slogan which we raised to express the crystallization of the movement for independent political action was, “For a farmer-labor party,” and later, when the LaFollette movement took form, in order to sharply distinguish our aim from the petty bourgeoisie character of the latter, “For a class farmer-labor party.” This slogan historically and thru the content we have given it has come to stand for the first step in the revolutionization of the working masses, the development of political action on the basis of their class interests.

In my article in the Workers Monthly, directed against the policy of the majority of the central executive committee, I asked, in considering the present situation of the movement toward independent political action described above: “Is the movement toward class political action dead?” Various supporters of the central executive committee majority have risen to give the childish answer: “Of course not, because the Workers Party is not dead.” Such a silly answer shows a lack of understanding of the whole problem. We are not considering in the party discussion whether there exists in the United States a Communist Party which has as its aim the mobilization of the working masses for a revolutionary class struggle against the capitalist state power. It ought not to be necessary to remind ourselves of that fact in every second sentence. We are considering thru what strategy and tactics can our Communist Party revolutionize the masses and thus build itself.

It seems, however, that for the supporters of the majority thesis it is necessary to formulate the question in every detail, thus: Is the mass movement toward class political action, which has developed in the United States thru the intensification of the class struggle since the end of the war, dead?

The minority thesis emphasizes that the economic conditions which produced this movement do not only exist but will be intensified and will produce even a greater movement for class political action. The majority agrees that the economic conditions which developed the movement still exist and will be intensified, but that the movement of the workers and exploited farmers resulting therefrom has been “swallowed up” or “come to rest” in the non-class, third party LaFollette movement, and that the slogan, “For a class farmer-labor party,” has lost its potency as a means of developing class political action on a mass scale, and for building the Workers Party in the process of developing such class political action.

With this review of basic reasons for our policy and the forces underlying the movement for class political action we are in a position to apply the test of actual application to the present situation of the policies proposed in the central executive committee majority and minority theses, and thus come to a conclusion as to the present potency of the “For a class farmer-labor party” slogan for the development of class political action and the building of our party.

The A.F. of L. Convention.

The question of independent political action by labor was an issue in the A.F. of L. convention. The Potters, Molders and Stonecutters, three international unions, had resolutions before the convention calling for the endorsement of the formation of a labor party. That in itself is good proof that the movement for the formation of a labor party is not dead. What was the position of the majority of the central executive committee? It voted down the proposal of the central executive committee minority that we introduce and champion a resolution calling for the formation of a class farmer-labor party. In place of such a resolution it proposed a resolution calling for a general labor congress. The minority proposed an amendment to the general labor congress resolution, that there be inserted as one of the points of the program of such a general labor congress the formation of a farmer-labor party. Two or three weeks later, as an afterthought, the majority inserted in its general labor congress resolution a clause calling for support of the Workers Party.

What was the consequence of this abandoning of the slogan “For a class farmer-labor party”? The Molders, the Potters, the Stonecutters appeared at the A. F. of L. convention as the exponents of independent political action by labor, the general labor congress resolution was not heard from and the Workers Party abdicated its position as leader of the movement of the workers toward class political action.

Which course would have brought the greatest results for building the Workers Party, the introduction of a meaningless general labor congress resolution in which no one was interested and which was in no way a live question, or a militant espousal before the convention by our party of the slogan “For a class farmer-labor party?” Which tactic would have promoted most what is and must be our major strategy, to develop class political action, and eventually revolutionary political action by the worker?

The question answers itself. The tactics in the A. F. of L. is point one indicating the bankruptcy of the majority of the central executive committee.

The Massachusetts C.P. P.A.

On Saturday, Dec 13, a telegram was received by Comrade Foster from Comrade Ballam, advising that the conference for progressive political action was holding a convention in Massachusetts to which quite a number of members of the Trade Union Educational League and party members had been elected as delegates from their unions The telegram further advised that a conference of the members of the Trade Union Educational League in Boston the members had voted to introduce a resolution in the C.P.P.A. convention calling for the formation of a class farmer-labor party, and if the resolution was defeated to lead a split from the convention of all the elements favoring the formation of such a party.

The majority of the central executive committee sent instructions to Comrade Ballam that the resolution for a class farmer-labor party must not be introduced but that a resolution criticizing the LaFollette movement as a petty bourgeoisie movement and calling for endorsement of the Workers Party be introduced. The minority of the central executive committee proposed that our policy be to introduce a resolution for a class farmer-labor party, and split if it was defeated and organize group splitting away into a provisional committee to carry on a campaign against the C.P.P.A. and LaFolletteism in the Massachusetts trade unions.

Here again we have proof, first, that the movement for a class farmer-labor party is not dead. If a considerable number of delegates can be elected from the Massachusetts trade unions pledged to fight a farmer-labor party against the C.P.P.A. and La- Foletteism that is the best evidence of the potency of the slogan. Second, we have again the bankruptcy of the central executive committee majority policy for the central executive committee majority did not and could not, following its policy, give any organizational expression to demand for class political action of the trade unions represented in the C.P.P.A. convention

The Minnesota Situation.

In the Minnesota the Farmer-Labor Federation was organized largely thru the efforts of our party, as a means of giving expression to class party elements in the Minnesota farmer-labor party. The petty bourgeois elements in the Minnesota farmer-labor party are at present waging a campaign to throw the Communists out of the Farmer-Labor Federation. What is the policy of the central executive committee majority? It has not dared to make a declaration of policy on this situation. If it follows the logic of its thesis it will voluntarily withdraw our members from the Farmer-Labor Federation and thus isolate us from the mass movement of workers and exploited farmers in Minnesota, and thus make another confession of bankruptcy. Incidentally, it might be mentioned that it is in Minnesota, where we have been most active in the farmer-labor party, that our party polled proportionally the largest number of votes for the Workers Party presidential ticket. That in itself is good evidence of the effectiveness of the farmer-labor party campaign for building the strength and influence of the Workers Party. The Coming C.P.P.A. National Convention.

The strongest evidence of the bankruptcy of the policy of the central executive committee majority comes to light in the application of its policy to the situation we will be faced in relation to the coming convention of the C.P.P.A. The national committee of the C.P.P.A. has called a national convention to be held in Chicago on Feb 21 for the purpose of organizing the third party. The third party is not yet organized. It merely built machinery for an election campaign. The issuance of the call for the convention Feb. 21 brings the question of the form of political action which the workers and farmers are to take before every trade union and organization of exploited farmers in the United States in the sharpest form imaginable. In every such organization this issue will be fought out. For the next two months the issue of independent political action, of a LaFollette third party or a farmer-labor party, will be the biggest question which will come before the trade unions and organizations of farmers.

What are our tactics in this situation? The only tactic possible under the policy of the central executive committee majority is to offer resolutions for the endorsement of the Workers Party against the call for the C.P.P.A. convention. Endorsements of the Workers Party are very fine, but in the first place they will be few and far between, and secondly, they will leave us in the same position that we are left in by the paper endorsements of amalgamation by two million trade union members which Comrade Foster boasts about. We cannot affiliate trade unions and farm organizations with the Workers Party. Our party as a Communist Party is based upon individual membership. It is a utopian notion to believe that we can during this campaign move more than a few thousand of the quarter or a half million members of the trade unions and farm organizations who might be put on record against the LaFollette third party and for a class farmer-labor party thru a militant campaign by our party, to join the Workers Party as individual members.

It is a Communist tactic to build a united front in order to enter into a common struggle with such organization. The farmer-labor party slogan expresses the form of the united front we can build with the elements which we could win in such a campaign against LaFolletteism. The raising of the slogan of “For a Class Farmer- Labor Party” would be our most effective means for fulfilling our major task, the development of class political action and our campaign in sup- port of that slogan would do more to build the Workers Party than any number of sterile resolutions for the endorsement of the Workers Party.

It is only necessary to study the situation as here outlined in regard to the C.P.P.A. convention to see that the policy of the central executive committee majority is sectarianism and a repudiation of the united front tactic in relation to the most significant development of the Ameri- can labor movement, the movement toward class political action.

The central executive committee majority says: Oh, but we propose united front on other questions, unemployment, child labor, etc. Well and good. We have had such united front and we must continue to enter such campaigns as often as possible, but such united front campaigns are not an answer to the requirements of the development of the movement for class political action. The C.P.P. A.-LaFollette movement is offering an organizational crystallization to workers and farmers organizations in the folds of the petty bourgeoisie third party. Shall we abandon the field and permit this crystallization to take place? That is what the abandonment of the slogan “For a Class Farmer-Labor Party” means. The raising of the slogan means to offer to the most conscious elements a crystallization around the Workers Party in a united front organization. The central executive committee majority policy abdicates our leadership and hands it over to LaFollette, to permit the workers and exploited farmers to remain “at rest,” in the third party.

The few facts cited show where the central executive committee majority policy is leading us to. It is taking us out of the main stream of the movement for class political action by the workers and exploited farmers which has sprung out of the life experiences of these classes in new epoch of capitalism brought by the world war. The majority policy spells bankruptcy both in leadership in developing class political action by the working masses and in building up our party into a mass Communist Party.

The Daily Worker began in 1924 and was published in New York City by the Communist Party US and its predecessor organizations. Among the most long-lasting and important left publications in US history, it had a circulation of 35,000 at its peak. The Daily Worker came from The Ohio Socialist, published by the Left Wing-dominated Socialist Party of Ohio in Cleveland from 1917 to November 1919, when it became became The Toiler, paper of the Communist Labor Party. In December 1921 the above-ground Workers Party of America merged the Toiler with the paper Workers Council to found The Worker, which became The Daily Worker beginning January 13, 1924.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1924/v02a-n219-dec-04-1924-DW-LOC.pdf