Foster reflects both on the large political lessons of the 1924 campaign, centered on the debacle of LaFollette and the Farmer-Labor Party, as well as minute details of organizing, such as the proper size and ventilation of halls and the conduct of chairs.

‘Campaigning for Communism’ by William Z. Foster from The Daily Worker. Vol. 2 Nos. 204 & 210. November 15 & 22, 1924.

I.

In the presidential campaign just closed it was my fortune to travel approximately 18,000 miles, visiting fifty big industrial centers in thirty-two states, and speaking to over 50,000 workers in mass meetings. I talked to miners in Ohio, steel workers in Pennsylvania, clothing workers in New York, textile and shoe workers in New England, lumber and migratory workers in Washington, in fact,  I talked to every important section of the working class in the great centers in which they toil and are robbed by the employers. During such an extended trip one gathers many impressions. Only a few of these can be registered in the brief space at my disposal.

The most interesting and instructive phase of the trip was to watch our party go into action in this, its first national election campaign. For it to get under way in full vigor serious obstacles had to be overcome. It was not such a simple task as might be imagined. Ever since the organization of the Workers Party, the truth has been pounded into the membership that it is the duty of Communists to participate in mass movements of the workers. This propaganda, which had been accompanied by our active campaign for the formation of a farmer-labor party, for amalgamation, etc., had struck home. Consequently, when our party, just on the eve of the election, cut loose from the skeleton national farmer-labor party and set up a presidential ticket of its own, it was difficult for the membership to readjust itself to the new situation. Something of a crisis developed. It was evident everywhere.

There were the masses undoubtedly going with the LaFollette movement, at least great, sections of them that were advanced enough to break away from the two old parties. Our membership displayed a strong instinct, if I may so describe it, to go with them. This was due not only to our propagation of the necessity for participation in mass movements of the workers, but also to the enormous pressure that was brought to bear upon our comrades in the unions and elsewhere. It was a great test of the intelligence and discipline of our party membership that they were able to understand so quickly that the LaFollette mass movement was not one that they could participate in. As the campaign progressed one could sense everywhere the growing confidence of our membership. The feeling of isolation, of nakedness in the political struggle, gradually disappeared and gave way to a militant defense of our own party, as against the treacherous arguments of the LaFollette movement When the campaign ended, our party had fully established Itself and was making a struggle that did credit to it.

The great strength of the LaFollette sweep was also a marked characteristic of the first stages of the campaign. Counting the million or so votes that were certainly stolen from him, LaFollette probably ran up a total of at least 5,500,000. Undoubtedly most of this came from trade unionists and others of the more advanced sections of the workers and poor farmers. In my travels I came into contact with great numbers of these. They had LaFolletteitis badly. To a remarkable degree they looked upon LaFollette as the great champion who was going to solve all their problems for them. It was not that they were familiar especially with the LaFollette program, but the movement had developed into a sort of crusade for them. The pressure of exploitation had been so great for so many years, and the opportunities for organized opposition to it so few, that they rushed pell-mell and blindly into the LaFollette movement.

Everywhere the socialist movement collapsed before the LaFollette drive. Men, who a few years ago called themselves socialists and revolutionists, not only defended the LaFollette candidacy on the basis that it would lead to a mass labor party, but they openly and militantly defended all the planks in LaFollette’s program, completely abandoning every conception of the class struggle. In many places I met anarchists wearing big LaFollette buttons and loudly touting his cause. Forgetting their anti-parliamentarianism, they were dragged along with the mass. The I.W.W. was also considerably afflicted, many of its members being avowed LaFolletteites. As for the trade union bureaucrats, most of them, at least of the minor types looked upon the LaFollette movement as a godsend. It seemed a broad whiteway to the pie counter. The Gompers’ political policy has been such a failure that few of them have been able to work their way to political office But when the LaFollette movement came storming along, with even conservative leaders like Wm. H Johnstone claiming that it would poll 20,000,000 votes, they saw at last the longed-for political jobs within their grasp.

Up till the last three weeks of the campaign the LaFollette movement kept gaining momentum. After that, it went into evident decline. This was to be seen by the lowered morale of the trade unionists whom one encountered. The great capitalist propaganda machine was getting into action and getting real results. Not only did the great newspapers carry on their “red” scare effectively, but the bosses on the job openly told the workers that if they didn’t vote for Coolidge they would soon find themselves among the unemployed. At many of my meetings workers told me they were informed that if LaFollette was elected they should not comeback to work after election. The result of this was a crumpling of the LaFollette movement. The action of the Central Labor Union of New York in cutting loose from LaFollette and declaring for Davis just on the eve of the election, was a symptom of what was going on among masses generally. They were being scared away from LaFollette en masse.

In the campaign it was made strikingly evident the wisdom of the change of party policy in cutting loose from the national farmer-labor party and the placing of candidates of our own in the field.

At many places where I talked I asked the comrades to try to visualize what would have been the situation had we gone ahead and made the campaign under the banner of the farmer-labor party. Almost unanimously they were appalled at the thought. It would have meant that we would have had in our meetings just about the same people that we did have. The difference would have been that in the one case we would have had to defend farmer-labor candidates and a farmer-labor program. The result would have been demoralization and confusion, which would have amounted to a first class disaster to our party. As it was, we were able to present Communist candidates upon a straight Communist program. We introduced the Workers Party formally to the masses as a factor in the political struggle.

The campaign was a striking justification of the policy of the Communist International to participate in election struggles. It was evident everywhere that the masses were in a thinking mood and it was a splendid opportunity to present our program to them. Besides the capitalist dictatorship was considerably less rigorous with regard to free speech than at any other period. All over the country I, in common with our other speakers, was able to present our program and to advocate the adoption of Soviets and the proletarian dictatorship without serious interference from the authorities. Besides, our party gained much invaluable political experience. This was sadly needed in many localities. In my judgment the New York district showed the greatest responsiveness in exploiting the situation to the advantage of Communism. The two big mass meetings I addressed there, which together comprised about 6,000 people, were an inspiration. Those leftist elements in our party who still believe that participation in election struggles is not profitable for Communist Parties, would do well to study the lessons of the campaign just ended.

If the campaign was a justification of the party policy of severing its connections with the farmer-labor party and running candidates of its own, it was also a striking justification of the correctness of the decision of the Communist International that there should be no “third party alliance.” This justification was because of the almost complete absorption of the farmer-labor party movement by the LaFollette movement. In the famous controversy over the “third party alliance” both sides were wrong in that they overestimated the strength of the farmer-labor movement. The anti-third partyites took the position that there was sufficient definite farmer-labor party sentiment in the country to make practical the running of a farmer-labor party in the campaign with its own candidates. The other group held that the only way the farmer-labor movement could be preserved was through the proposed alliance. But both were wrong. The sweep of the LaFollette movement shrivelled the tender plant of farmer-labor party movement like a hot blast from the desert. Not even the proposed “third party alliance” could have held enough of it together to make it a mass movement. If the alliance had been made, the practical effect of it would have been to saddle a dead farmer-labor party upon the back of the Workers Party. We would have been in pretty much the same situation in that respect as we were after the St. Paul convention. I am forced to this conclusion after seeing, during my trip, the sad wreckage of the budding farmer-labor parties by the LaFollette movement. They were simply knocked dead everywhere. The Comintern was right in its decision.

This campaign was an historical event. It was the opening round in a long and desperate struggle against the hard center of world capitalism. In this fight it was my privilege to be the standard bearer of the Communist movement, to lead the attack against the great fortress of the international capitalist class. This was the supreme honor of my life. This campaign was just the merest skirmish, a faint indication of the tremendous battles that are yet to come, a forerunner of the time when the organized millions of the proletariat will strike to earth the capitalist system and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.

II.

Among the many impressions gathered by myself during the campaign is a realization that our party militants have much need to become better acquainted with the technique of organizing mass meetings. This fact was borne home to me emphatically by my participation in scores of gatherings encompassing many thousands of people. Mass meetings are an important method of carrying the message of Communism to the rank and file of the working class, and much of their succeed depends upon the skill with which they are organized and conducted. My campaign experience goes to show that many of our comrades in charge have a great deal to learn in order to properly utilize the valuable organizing and propaganda medium of the mass meeting.

One of the particular difficulties they encounter seems to be with regard to halls. There is a strong tendency to hire halls altogether too large. Many of the comrades in charge fail to properly estimate the crowd that can be expected to attend. This is a serious defect. It works out bad several ways. For one thing, it loads down the meeting with a needless expense and usually creates a disastrous deficit. I saw many illustrations of this, where halls were rented for $150 and $200 when others would have served the purpose as well for a fraction of that amount. In one town where our organization is quite weak, some of the comrades even proposed to hire the local ball park, whereas when the crowd was actually gotten together in a hall it counted not over 200 people.

Selection of Halls.

But worse than the needless expense involved in a too large hall is the bad psychological effect produced upon the crowd. Empty chairs simply ruin a meeting. Far better a small hall jammed with people than the same number of people seated in a too large hall. The more a crowd is bunched together the better it responds to the speaker. During the campaign I spoke, for example, to a crowd of 1,500 people in a hall that seated 3,500. The result was a comparative failure. The sight of so many empty seats carried to the crowd unconsciously the conviction that the meeting was a frost. The same crowd in a hall half as large would have been much more enthusiastic and responsive. The too large hall disease is one that should be corrected in the organization of our Party meetings, likewise the hiring of fancy downtown halls instead of the popular halls patronize by the masses.

There is also a lack of appreciation of the important fact that crowds, in order to be receptive and responsive, must be comfortable. Hence the halls must be properly lighted, heated, and ventilated. Dark, cold, or stuffy halls simply destroy the effect at meetings. Too often those in charge pay no attention to such matters. They take the halls just as the janitors turn them over, instead of carefully seeing to every detail beforehand. Dark halls should be avoided. The more lights there are the better. The same crowds are not receptive.  Many times I have seen the turning on of lights give a new spirit to a crowd. Cold is also fatal to a meeting. Comrades arranging meetings in cold weather should never depend upon chance to take care of the heating of the halls. Many an otherwise good meeting has been spoiled by the hall being too cold. Shivering crowds are not receptive. The same is true of crowds in unventilated halls. It is enough to make a speaker lose his mind to see the way the ventilation problem is handled sometimes.

First, the hall will be entirely unventilated. Then someone will open every window in the place, only to be followed shortly afterward by someone else who closes every one, raising havoc in the meeting meantime. A little intelligent foresight would avoid all this harrowing inconvenience. Even the arrangement of the chairs is of real importance in making a meeting a success. Again the tendency is to accept things as the janitors leave them. This often means a chaotic arrangement. A special duty of the committee in charge should be to see that the crowd is properly bunched together and seated close up to the speaker.

Duty of Committeemen.

The maintenance of order in meetings is such a prime necessity that one would believe it hardly necessary to mention here. But many comrades lack an appreciation of the fact. They let the crowd practically take care of itself as best it can. Usually no arrangements are made to seat the incoming people, with the result that, after the meeting is in session, they meander in searching for seats, to the infinite disturbance of everyone. It is enough to give a speaker nervous prostration to watch such interruptions. Ushers, properly organized, would save this serious annoyance. But ushers who don’t know their job are worse than none at all. They can break up a meeting quicker, by running aimlessly around, than even the late-coming visitors. A first requisite for a successful meeting is an active floor committee that takes full charge of maintaining order. Especially this committee should see to it that the committeemen themselves are in their seats. Often these seem to thing they have a special license to run helter-skelter about the meeting and that this does not create disturbance. Silence in the audience is essential for good meetings.

Like many other organizations, our party is afflicted with the chairman evil. The different ways an inexperienced chairman can spoil a meeting are as numerous as they are disastrous. The best chairman is he who devotes himself to the technical business of handling the meeting from the platform. The less he says to the meeting the better. Nothing is more exasperating to a speaker or more wearisome to a crowd than to have the chairman launch out continually into long speeches upon every occasion. Especially criminal is that type of chairman who, drawing upon his own imagination, undertakes to tell the crowd just what the speaker is going to speak about I had many experiences with such loquacious chairmen during the campaign. They are the bane of the speaker’s life. Once proven guilty, by such an exhibition of garrulousness on the platform, they should be sent into political exile. The same fate should be meted out to those sinners who go upon the platform without a gavel, without thoroughly acquainting themselves with the literature that is to be sold, and the order in which the speakers talk, or without making any other of the many necessary preparations for properly handling a meeting. Such incompetence is altogether inexcusable and should not be tolerated. An experienced chairman is the life of a successful mass meeting. We should have more of them.

Build the Mass Meetings.

In the campaign it became quite evident to me that our comrades were not going to the masses effectively in order to build up our mass meetings. There was too much of a tendency to restrict our efforts just to our own circle of members and immediate sympathizers. This was a big mistake. If our meetings were not up to expectation in certain places it was almost entirely due to this fault. No sooner would I take a look at a crowd than I could tell whether or not it had been built up by real work among the masses. The building of a Communist mass meeting requires genuine effort. The announcement of a meeting should immediately be followed by a widespread and systematic campaign of advertising amongst all kinds of working class organizations, including trade unions, fraternal associations, co-operatives, etc. Above all, meetings should be held at the factory gates to acquaint the working masses of the approaching mass meetings. This is done all too seldom. Our comrades are too much inclined to confine their efforts simply to announcing their meetings thru a few radical channels and to a circulation indiscriminately of handbills. In this day of movies, radio, and a thousand other attractions to lure the sleepy-minded workers away from all serious consideration of their problem, the building of mass meetings is a real task.

Skill and Hard Labor Needed.

Whatever is worth while for our Party to do at all, should be done well. Inasmuch as we must use mass meetings as a means of carrying our program to the great rank and file of labor, we should learn to do the job with the utmost efficiency. The comrades throughout the Party should give much more attention to this fact that has hitherto been the case. We should not be content to go along with the slipshod methods that prevail in other organizations of workers. When we call a meeting we should build it into a success, into something that will be a credit to our Party. “I say “build” advisedly, because, under existing conditions in the United States, successful working class meetings are actually built by skill and hard labor.

In the foregoing I have sketched a few of the essentials that should be constantly borne in mind in the organization of mass meetings. There should be a live committee in charge of the work wherever such a meeting is contemplated. This committee should take nothing for granted but should use its intelligence in every detail of the work. It should see to it that the hall secured is of a popular character, well situated, and not too large. The committee should assume full responsibility for the heating, lighting, and ventilation of the hall, leaving nothing to the imagination of the janitor. Then a widespread campaign should be initiated directly amongst the masses of the workers to attract them to the meeting. A vigorous floor committee should be on the job to see that order is preserved in the meeting, and an experienced chairman secured to control the meeting.

Scientific Method Necessary.

These recommendations may seem obvious, but, unfortunately, all too often they are not. Strangely enough, in spite of so much experience in this direction, the workers are exceedingly unskilled in the organization of meetings. The crimes that the trade unions commit in this respect are almost unbelievable. For example, a few years ago the Chicago Federation of Labor, following out its usual incompetent and primitive methods, called a mass meeting to protest against the threatening execution of Tom Mooney. Although there were 200,000 workers in the city, only 200 of them showed up at the meeting. Disgusted at this fiasco, the radical delegates of the Federation, headed by J.W. Johnstone, moved the reholding of the meeting. They set out systematically to build up the meeting, with the result that a few weeks later 20,000 workers poured into the great Coliseum to demonstrate for Mooney. It was one of the greatest working class meetings in the history of Chicago and it was the result of scientific organization methods.

We must apply scientific methods in the building and controlling of Workers Party meetings to a greater extent than is now the case. Mass meetings form an important part of our propaganda and should be properly organized. A careful study of the foregoing hints will help a great deal in this direction. Whenever the Workers Party calls a mass meeting it must be a real outpouring of the workers. Wherever a mass meeting is a failure it is an indication that the comrades in charge do not understand their job.

The Saturday Supplement, later changed to a Sunday Supplement, of the Daily Worker was a place for longer articles with debate, international focus, literature, and documents presented. 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-n204-supplement-nov-15-1924-DW-LOC.pdf

PDF of issue 2: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1924/v02a-n210-supplement-nov-22-1924-DW-LOC.pdf