"Letter from Alfred Wagenknecht in New York to C.E. Ruthenberg in New York, April 26, 1920." Extremely short note from the Executive Secretary of the Communist Labor Party to the leader of a Chicago-based breakaway faction of the Communist Party of America. The NEC of the CLP has decided to proceed with unity plans with the Ruthenberg faction, Wagenknecht states: "In answer to your communication of April 22, in which you inform us of the split in your party, and in which you tell us that your group desires to negotiate for unity with the Communist Labor Party, we can only answer that our sub-committee stands ready to meet a like committee from your faction to begin negotiations."

 

"Letter to Leonid Belsky in Chicago from C.E. Ruthenberg in New York, April 28, 1920." Letter from CP factional leader C.E. Ruthenberg to Chicago District Organizer Leonid Belsky, leading instigator of the April 1920 split. Ruthenberg warns his Chicago associates: "Both you and Comrade F. [Ferguson] are entirely too optimistic about the situation. You are judging by the facts as they exist in the Chicago District. Elsewhere different conditions prevail.... Both you and Comrade F. [Ferguson] are mistaken if you think that all that is necessary that we raise the banner of revolt against the CEC majority and the members will flock to our side. The contrary is true. The CEC majority has the advantage of legality. It is the authorized administrative body of the party in the minds of the members and we must justify our action in repudiating this majority in order to win support. The view of most of those I have talked with upon hearing of the division is bewilderment. They cannot understand why there is a split and a statement of the facts of the how the split came about leaves them unconvinced as to there being an issue between the groups of sufficient importance to justify the split." Ruthenberg further cautions that the mood among the CPA rank and file outside of Chicago is one of "suspicion and disgust with both groups." Even at this late date, there was motion for some sort of agreement between the majority and minority factions of the CPA; indeed, Ruthenberg tells Belsky that " I lean toward an agreement between ourselves and the Council majority for a joint call for the convention. If there is a joint call the entire membership will respond and there will be no difficulty in getting the CLP in such a convention. If with the CLP and our own following we are unable to whip the present majority group in open convention, then we haven't got much ground to stand on."

 

"Letter to C.E. Ruthenberg in New York from Leonid Belsky in Chicago, April 30, 1920." Chicago DO Belsky replies to factional leader Ruthenberg's April 28 letter that, contrary to Ruthenberg's assessment of the situation, "I believe that the membership is with us. We must go to the rank and file and explain to them the situation. They cannot understand us because they were kept ignorant about the facts in the party. We must be able to overthrow every committee supporting the majority group. Their advantage of legality [vis a vis the minority faction, which broke party discipline] will fail to help them as soon as we are able to expose this group to the membership." The Russian Federationist Belsky urges that he be sent on the road to organize for the faction: "I would suggest that you let me go East at once in order to get Russians in New York, Pittsburgh, and Detroit with us. I can speak their language, they know me, and I never participated in their controversies before. If we get the Russians, we will get the party. Loss of Russian support means death to the majority group. There is nobody else who can accomplish it."

 

"Letter to Leonid Belsky in Chicago from C.E. Ruthenberg in New York, May 1, 1920." This is CP breakaway "minority" factional leader Ruthenberg's reply to Chicago leader Leonid Belsky's letter of April 30. Ruthenberg criticizes Belsky's optimistic decision to send out a call for a unity convention with the CLP, noting that on April 29 the CLP had rejected taking a minority position in a 32-18 delegate apportionment. Instead, the CLP favored holding dual conventions that could be merged into a joint convention if those delegates found sufficient grounds for such a merger, Ruthenberg said, adding that Belsky should consult with other leading members of the faction, including Isaac Ferguson, Joseph Kowalski, and the South Slavic Federationist Stankovich to come up with a consensus on the matter. Ruthenberg indicates that no reply had been had from the CPA "Majority" concerning a proposed joint convention of the two factions of the CPA, adding " I understand that their proposal is several months delay and the exclusion of the CLP, to which, of course, I will not agree."

 

"Letter to I.E. Ferguson in Chicago from C.E. Ruthenberg in New York, May 1, 1920." CPA "Minority" leader Ruthenberg writes his closest associate with information on ongoing factional turmoil. Ruthenberg is sanguine about his faction's position: "I am afraid you are judging the situation in the party from the Chicago viewpoint. This viewpoint is indicated in Fishers' [Belsky's] letter to me urging 'Please send the call for the joint convention as early as possible.' What Joint Convention? With the CLP? I suppose that is what he means and he seems to think that all that is necessary is to dictate or write the circular. It happens, however, that the CLP rejected the apportionment of 32 and 18 before our split and now will talk nothing but equal apportionment of delegates and the join convention has disappeared from view. Similarly the situation in our own party. It is not all one way. I have been in Boston, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia and I tell you it's a hard fight and the outcome is still in doubt." The rank and file was "simply bewildered" by the sudden split -- the CPA "Minority" drew primary support from its call for a convention to settle matters, the CPA "Majority" from their legal origin in the regularly constituted CEC, Ruthenberg notes, adding "it is hard to make a case out of the issues on account of which this break took place." Ruthenberg strongly warns Ferguson that "One thing is necessary before we can hope to make much progress in this thing, and that is that you comrades there in Chicago undeceive yourself about it being a walkaway."

 

"Circular Letter to All Members of the Latvian Federation of the CPA from Central Committee Member 'Zehkali,' circa May 1, 1920." Circular letter sent to CPA Latvian Federation at the time of the split of the "CEC Minority" faction headed by C.E. Ruthenberg. Latvian CC member "Zehkali" attacks Ruthenberg and the CLP (which would soon unite) as "ex-centrists" and "me-too communists" for whom electoral politics a la the Socialist Party was the ultimate objective. He charges that "they say: 'down with theoretical clearness, more practical work and unity with social-patriots' -- splitting our organization, taking its treasury, and fooling its members with phrases about unity and one big movement." "Zehkali" exhorts his Federation to "Tear off the mask of those who come to you in the name of unity but who themselves split your organization, using the present moment to realize their traitorous aims.They take the party's treasury and paralyze your activities. Down with traitors! Prove once more that you have power which no counterrevolutionaries can break."

 

"Letter to Leonid Belsky in Chicago from C.E. Ruthenberg in New York, May 3, 1920 - morning." Short note from former Executive Secretary of the CPA Ruthenberg to head of the rebellious Chicago organization Leonid Belsky. Ruthenberg, replying to Belsky's April 30 missive, announces that he has dispatched Russian Federationist "Kasbeck" on an organizing tour to garner support for their dissident faction and suggests that Polish Federation leader Joseph Kowalski and South Slavic Federation leader "Stankovich" head to Detroit to consolidate the branches of their respective language groups for the dissident "Minority" faction. "The Ukrainian Federation is lost to us," Ruthenberg announces. "They do not support the "majority" but neither are they with us. I think they intend to propose some sort of agreement - the suspension of [Nicholas] Hourwich and Ries [???] from the committee and cooperation of the Executive Secretary [Ruthenberg] and the "majority" on some such basis, as was considered during the negotiations..." The "Majority" faction would not join with the "Minority" in a convention unless the latter retracted its standing convention call, however -- something that Ruthenberg and his associates were unwilling to do, leery of being outmaneuvered.

 

"The Socialist Convention," by Harry W. Laidler [June 1920] Since no official stenographic report of the 1920 Socialist Party Convention in New York City was kept, due to the party's grim financial state, this lengthy and detailed article on the gathering prepared for the readers of the magazine of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society is of particular value to historians of 1920s radicalism. Laidler includes what appears to be a very nearly complete stenographic report of the keynote speech of party leader Morris Hillquit, making his first appearance at a party conclave in nearly two years. Hillquit blisters the hypocrisy, militarism, and anti-democratic behavior of President Woodrow Wilson and his regime, noting the purported pacifist had drawn the nation into "the world's most frightful war," had established a large standing army and navy, had imposed conscription, had wielded autocratic powers against his opponents, truncating freedoms of speech, thought, and conscience, filling the nation's jails with political prisoners and creating a climate that cast such dubious fellows as Palmer, Burleson, Lusk, and Ole Hanson to the political fore. "The only active and organized force in American politics that combats reaction and oppression, that stands for the large masses of the workers and for a social order of justice and industrial equality is the Socialist Party," Hillquit declared. Three major matters were the subject of factional fighting between Party Regulars and a Chicago-based Left Wing, all of which were controlled by the regulars: a statement of principles (103-33), a party platform (80-60), and the matter of international affiliation (90-50). The convention nominated imprisoned party orator Gene Debs as its Presidential standard-bearer for the 5th time, with party founder Seymour Stedman his running mate. The convention also voted to return the Young People's Socialist League to party control and debated at length essentially a United Front proposal aimed at reestablishing a unified socialist movement.

 

"Statement on the Unity Proceedings Between the Communist Party and the UCP of A," by Charles Dirba [Nov. 15, 1920] The first of four typeset leaflets prepared for the rank and file of the Communist Party of America detailing the status of unity negotiations with the rival United Communist Party. Includes full text of: (1) Fraina and Hourwich to CPA, Sept. 30 (Detailing effort by UCP delegate Lindgren to unseat the CPA delegates from the 2nd Congress of the CI); (2) CPA to UCP, Oct. 20 (passing along recently discovered CI decision for unity by Oct. 10, 1920 and formation of a committee of 3 to negotiate unity with a convention within 3 months); (3) UCP to CPA, Nov. 3 (rebuking CPA for not supporting previous unity efforts and announcing a 3 person unity committee of their own, empowered to negotiate a unity convention by Jan. 1, 1921, with conditions); (4) CPA to UCP, Nov. 3 (short refusal to revise unity details established by previous CI decision); (5) UCP to CPA, Nov. 5 (expression of belief that federations will manipulate organizational figures, statement that published figures by both parties show that "the UCP has twice as many members as the CP," offer of 60% UCP/40% CPA delegate split); (6) CPA to UCP, Nov. 4 (minor technical point). Dirba states that "the UCP lies and misrepresentations about the CP have been completely exposed. Their stupid and arrogant pose that they are the 'majority' is now revealed in its true light." He dismisses the UCP demand for 60-40 delegate superiority in the unity convention as "ridiculous" and already denied by the CI's specification of the mechanism to achieve unity, based on proportional representation based upon July-Sept. 1920 average membership.

 

"Further Statement on Unity Proceedings," by Charles Dirba" [circa Dec. 1, 1920] The second of four typeset leaflets prepared for the rank and file of the Communist Party of America detailing the status of unity negotiations with the rival United Communist Party. Largely a polemic rather than a document collection. Dirba states that membership figures exchanged Nov. 28, 1920 show for the July-Sept. test period an average paid membership of 7,552 for the CPA vs. 4,561 for the UCP, a proportional delegate ratio of 5:3 in favor of the CPA. Dirba attempts to refute a long series of false statements in the UCP's appeal to the Comintern, making clear the bias of the UCP against language federations and that the UCP's intent is "arbitrarily to swallow the CP." Includes full text of: (1) CPA to UCP, Nov. 24 (short statement by CPA unity committee consisting of Dirba, Cohen, and Wilenkin that they are ready to proceed); (2) UCP to CPA, Nov. 24 (frank statement that "the CEC of the UCP still maintains the position...that the interests of the Communist movement in America imperatively demand a major representation, arbitrarily fixed in advance, for the UCP at the Unity Convention, not only on the ground of its greater numerical strength, but also because its centralized form of organization, every group of which is underground..." The offer of 60% UCP/40% CPA delegate representation is repeated); (3) CPA to UCP, Nov. 30 (acceptance of UCP's declared membership of 4,561 and insistence that the UCP act on its membership statement immediately, since time before the Jan. 1, 1921 unity deadline was short).

 

"Further Negotiations on Unity," by Charles Dirba [circa Dec. 5, 1920] Although written slightly after the publication of the 2nd of 4 CPA membership leaflets on the unity question, this material, published unsigned in the pages of the CPA's official organ, is transitional between the first two leaflets. Includes full text of: (1) CPA to UCP, Nov. 13 (noting 8 day delay in the CPA's request for a further meeting of Unity Committees and request for an immediate reply); (2) UCP to CPA, Nov. 14 (Indication that delay relates to waiting for the UCP contact to verify the CI's determined basis for representation at a unity convention); (3) ECCI resolution of Sept. 20 (extending date for unification to Jan. 1, 1921); (4) Excerpts from ECCI Minutes of Aug. 20 (motion of John Reed setting basis for Unity Conference as proportional to the number of dues payers as of Sept. 1, with addendum by Small Bureau of ECCI changing basis to average dues payers for July-Sept. 1920); (5) CPA to UCP, Nov. 24 (Short statement by CPA unity committee consisting of Dirba, Cohen, and Wilenkin that they are ready to proceed); (6) UCP to CPA, Nov. 24 (frank statement that "the CEC of the UCP still maintains the position...that the interests of the Communist movement in America imperatively demand a major representation, arbitrarily fixed in advance, for the UCP at the Unity Convention, not only on the ground of its greater numerical strength, but also because its centralized form of organization, every group of which is underground..." The offer of 60% UCP/40% CPA delegate representation is repeated).

 

"Third Statement on the Unity Proceedings," by Charles Dirba [Dec. 16, 1920] The third of four typeset leaflets prepared for the rank and file of the Communist Party of America detailing the status of unity negotiations with the rival United Communist Party. Dirba bitterly declares, "Our predictions about the "investigation on the ground" of our membership by the UCP have come true. It was merely a pretext upon which the UCP intended to defy and now has actually defied the mandates of the Executive Committee of the Comintern for a joint convention of both parties on the basis of proportional representation." Includes text of: (1) UCP to CPA, Dec. 12 (lengthy document announcing "Our investigation shows that your entire statement of membership bears on its very face the evidence of gross manipulations. We find that in many places your membership is not half of what you claim, and that in others you count as members of the CP many members of social and legal organizations. These are only nominally divided into groups and take no part in underground Communist activity." The UCP obfuscates by attempting to convert the CPA membership figures -- based on dues stamp sales -- to UCP-style revenue received numbers, noting serious discrepancies between the two methodologies); (2) CPA to UCP, Dec. 16 (very lengthy response detailing the methodological errors systematically applied by the UCP in an effort to achieve a false result of to its "investigation" of the CPA books. The CPA letter states that "We have submitted a record of the dues paid during the four months designated by the Communist International, which shows as near as possible the correct average dues paying membership in our Party for that period. Your 'analysis' of these figures is nothing more than deliberate distortion and juggling of figures. Your 'investigation on the ground' to disprove our membership figures contains no facts or proof, except unsupported allegations purporting to be reports of your organizers who are supposed to be in close touch with our membership.")

 

"Fourth Statement on Unity Proceedings," by Charles Dirba [Jan. 5, 1921] The last of four typeset leaflets prepared for the rank and file of the Communist Party of America detailing the status of unity negotiations with the rival United Communist Party. Dirba notes that the CI's deadline for unity has passed without action and that "the responsibility for this lies entirely upon the UCP. They have refused and they still refuse to abide by the decisions of the Comintern providing for a joint unity convention on the basis of proportional representation." Includes text of (1) UCP to CPA, Dec. 18 (very lengthy reply to the CPA's challenge to supply specifics to back up its charges of systematic membership manipulation. While its citation of external estimates of CPA membership strength in various cities is not compelling, its specific charges of inflation of the Lithuanian Federation membership by including participants in legal work as members of the underground organization, though only nominally organized as such, seems to have merit. The additional point seems well taken that the ceaseless torrent of epithets slung by the CPA toward the CLP and UCP has undermined unity efforts. "Your slanderous and unscrupulous attack upon the UCP, which you have made through your official papers and through your paid organizers trying to poison the minds of the membership by shouting 'centrists' and 'provocateurs,' belie your present protestations of the unity spirit," the UCP declares.); (2) CPA to UCP, Dec. 22 (insistence upon CI's terms for unity and declaration that the UCP's failure to accept these terms constituted a "breach of discipline and a flagrant violation of the mandate of the CI."); (3) UCP Convention to CPA, circa Dec. 24 (convention invitation of the CPA to attend a joint unity convention based upon equal representation of the parties, with not more than 25 delegates per side due to security reasons); (4) CPA to UCP Convention, circa Dec. 25 (rejection of proposed Unity Convention based on equal representation with reiteration that only the proportional representation plan of the CI was possible. Bringing this matter before the UCP Kingston Convention is urged); (5) UCP Convention to CPA, circa Dec. 26 (repetition of the "concession" to hold a convention with equal representation; request that the CEC of the CPA immediate convene its elected convention delegates to consider this offer); (6) CPA to UCP, circa Dec. 27 (rejection of convention based upon equal participation, reiteration of Comintern guidelines); (7) UCP Convention to CPA, circa Dec. 28 (request to distribute a letter to each individual convention delegate detailing the UCP's offer for a joint convention with 25 delegates per side); (8) CPA to UCP Convention, circa Dec. 31 (flat rejection to "submit your outrageous statement to our delegates individually" and statement that "the United Communist Party must obey the mandate of the Communist International.")

 

"Minutes of the Lithuanian Bureau, CPA: Meeting of October 18, 1922," by "V. Grazys" This esoteric document provides important clues about the history of the underground Communist movement in 1922. 1) Evidence that the Central Caucus faction's Lithuanian Bureau which dissolved itself on June 21, 1922 to meet a June 25 Comintern deadline was immediately replaced by a new irreconcilable Central Caucus Lithuanian Bureau, and that this second Bureau did not return to the fold until after the little-known 2nd Convention of the Central Caucus' "Communist Party of America" in September 1922; 2) That strong opposition to the decision to return remained among the rank and file of about 240 Lithuanian opposition supporters even after the September convention that dissolved the Central Caucus faction; 3) That there was confusion due to structural parallelism between the underground (#1) and legal (#2) party organizations. Contradictory instructions were transmitted from the Secretary of each of those organizations, which forced the Lithuanian Bureau to seek clarification from the party's CEC; 4) That rather than directing action of the legal apparatus with regard to the 5th Anniversary of Soviet Russia celebration, that the underground apparatus merely ratified decisions made by the legal organization, and thereafter explicitly allowed further planning for the event to be conducted by the legal apparatus -- practice at odds with the theoretical model of "#1 and #2." This session of the Lithuanian Bureau was attended by a representative of the former Central Caucus faction opposition, who delivered a report on the status of the Lithuanian opposition.

 

Deleted file: Note that the file "Letter to the Unity Committee of the UCP in New York from Charles Dirba, Executive Secretary of the CPA in New York, Dec. 30, 1920" is actually a misdated file from NOVEMBER 30, 1920 -- the month was obscured in the Bureau of Investigation's copy and a wrong guess was made. As the material in this document is entirely contained in the CPA's "Further Statement on Unity Proceedings" (above), the file is being removed from the website rather than revised.

 

CLICK THE LOGO AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE TO GO TO THE EARLY AMERICAN MARXISM WEBSITE.