C. E. Ruthenberg

July 9, 1882 — March 2, 1927

1918

APRIL

“May Day Message,” by C.E. Ruthenberg, A. Wagenknecht, and Charles Baker. [April 7, 1918] A short communique written by three imprisoned leaders of Local Cuyahoga County, Socialist Party to Cleveland party members. The trio call for their comrades to stand firm for the principles of International Socialism, as exemplified by Karl Liebknecht and his companions in Germany and “Trotsky and the Bolsheviki” in Russia.

Where Do We Stand? by “David Damon” [C.E. Ruthenberg]

After the War — What?

1919

JANUARY

“Now For the Next Step,” by C.E. Ruthenberg. [Jan. 1919] Text of a direct mail piece sent out to subscribers of the Socialist News [Cleveland] by Local Cuyahoga County, Socialist Party over the signature of Sec. C.E. Ruthenberg. Ruthenberg seeks to bolster the subscription roll of the newspaper in order to fund its expansion. The capitalist press was poisoning the minds of the workers, both with regard to the Russian Revolution and as to the nature of the American workers’ movement itself, Ruthenberg states. “There will never be any hope for us unless we can build up newspapers pledged to the interests of the workers which will present the truth about the workers’ cause and offset the lies of the capitalist press.”.

“The Bolshevists: Grave-Diggers of Capitalism,” by C.E. Ruthenberg. [Jan. 29, 1919] Ruthenberg, Secretary of Local Cuyahoga Country [Cleveland], first published this article in the Jan. 29, 1919, issue of The Ohio Socialist, the official organ of the Socialist Party of Ohio. Ruthenberg poses the question whether the Russian Bolsheviks actually represented “something new”—“anarchy, ...rioting and bloodshed, wholesale murder and destruction.... the collapse of orderly society...” (as depicted in the pages of the capitalist press)—or whether it represented instead the consistent application of the established principles of Marxian Socialism. After outlining the basic tenets of Marxism, Ruthenberg argues in favor of the latter proposition, of course, stating that Bolsehevism is “Marxian Socialism in action. It is the workers on the road to victory and a better world.” Ruthenberg later served as the first Executive Secretary of the Communist Party of America.

FEBRUARY

“The End of War,” by C.E. Ruthenberg. [Feb. 12, 1919] This article by the Secretary of Local Cuyahoga County, Socialist Party was published in the official organ of the Socialist Party of Ohio. In it Ruthenberg addresses the proposed League of Nations— specifically its claim that it will be an institution able to abolish future wars. While acknowledging the desire of the capitalist class to avert destructive wars and the revolutions which they may well precipitate, Ruthenberg states that the division of the non-industrial world into “mandatories” would do nothing to alleviate the “inexorable conditions of capitalist production” that causes capitalist powers to compete for foreign markets. “In spite of all the machinery of arbitration and conciliation” the capitalist countries would be driven “to an appeal to arms in the struggle for survival,” Ruthenberg says. He contrasts this with a system in which the full product is appropriated by the workers producing it, which would have no innate dynamic to secure foreign markets, with its products either consumed, traded to other countries for necessary products produced elsewhere, or production contracted through the reduction of working hours.

MAY

“The Cleveland May Day Demonstration,” by C.E. Ruthenberg [May 10, 1919]. A disturbing tale of the crude and premeditated exercise of force and violence by a coordinated circle of conspirators against a law-abiding citizenry. On May 1, 1919, the Socialist Party of Ohio sponsored a massive May Day parade, in which a goodly number of unions and thousands of individuals participated. Despite disruptions by right wing provocateurs, including one wildly brandishing a handgun, the carefully-planned assembly was completely peaceable. This calm was shattered by the premeditated action of the Cleveland police department and their conservative vigilante allies, who violently attacked the marchers, crushing them with horses and beating them with clubs. In the melee which followed, two marchers were murdered by the police and scores arrested, and the headquarters of the Socilaist Party of Ohio was vandalized under the winking eyes of the Cleveland constabulary. C.E. Ruthenberg, Secretary of Local Cuyahoga County, Socialist Party, was charged with “causing a disturbance” in connection with this violent episode of state savagery, which he ably chronicles here.

AUGUST

Letter of John Reed, et al. in New York to C.E. Ruthenberg in Cleveland, August 11, 1919.” Archival letter attributed to the typewriter of John Reed attempting to bring Left Wing National Council member C.E. Ruthenberg of Cleveland up to speed as to the rapid developments of August 1919. Reed and his associates are extremely hostile to I.E. Ferguson, Secretary of the National Council, stating that Ferguson had “consistently sabotaged the position taken by the majority at the Conference, and who on several occasions stated that unless some basis for compromise with the Federations could be found, he would resign from the Council and accept the minority position.” Thereafter Ferguson and Revolutionary Age editor Louis Fraina “entered into unauthorized negotiations with the Federation politicians” leading to the “surrender” to the Federations, who had structured the method of electing delegates in a manner designed to assure effective control of the new organization. Ruthenberg had been “manipulated by the tricky attorney [Ferguson] whose object has been from the first to surrender to the Federation-Michigan minority,” Reed and his partners claimed, noting that one August 5 executive motion of Ferguson to end all physical meetings of the National Council had overridden the decision the previous day to bring out of town members of the National Council together to hash out their differences in person, while another naming a Conventon Committee of three had the effect of expelling Gitlow and Larkin from decision-making authority, resulting in complete victory for the Federations’ convention scheme.

NOVEMBER

“Report of the Executive Secretary of the CPA: Submitted to the Central Executive Committee at Meeting of November 15, 1919,” by C.E. Ruthenberg. The Executive Secretary of the Communist Party of America briefly summarizes his activity during the first two months on the job for the governing Central Executive Committee of the CPA. Ruthenberg details direct mailings made to the locals and branches of the Socialist Party and its language federations—resulting in over five hundred CPA charters being issued to these bodies, brief accounts of the factional situation in the German, Finnish, and Scandinavian Socialist Federations, details the issuance of pamphlets and leaflets by the party, notes that subscribers to The Communist do not seem to be receiving their issues in the mail, and indicates that the party should consider acquisition of a printing plant immediately due to the production troubles ensuing from the party’s expulsion from three previous shops. Ruthenberg indicates receipts of just over $16,800 and expenditures of about $11,400 for the first 90 days of the CPA’s effective operation.

1920

JANUARY

“Report of the Executive Secretary to the Central Executive Committee of the Communist Party of America, Jan. 18, 1920,” by C.E. Ruthenberg. This document, a handwritten report by C.E. Ruthenberg in the Comintern Archive, indicates for the first time that the underground structure of the old Communist Party of America based around industrial urban centers was not a matter of external direction or unhinged revolutionary ardor, but was rather a direct result of the January 2, 1920, coordinated raids against the radical movement conducted by the Justice Department and its state and local associates in law enforcement. Ruthenberg here unveils his concept of “Organization Centers,” each headed by a paid secretary under the discipline and instruction of the Central Executive Committee of the party and working with party units within the proximity of that center without regard to state geographic boundaries. Such a structure marked a major departure from the previous structure of “state parties” that had been used by both the CPA and the CLP prior to that date. Ruthenberg also comments on the question of unity with the CLP, the party press, and other organizational matters at this first meeting of the CPA’s CEC held after the Palmer Raids.

MARCH

“Letter to the National Executive Committee of the Communist Labor Party in New York from the Central Executive Committee of the Communist Party of America in New York, March 19, 1920.” Reply by Executive Secretary of the old CPA C.E. Ruthenberg to the March 9, 1920 letter of the CLP on unity. Ruthenberg announces that the CPA is intent upon unity on the terms which it previously dictated, and that to this end it was beginning the process of delegate selection for a unity convention to be held “at the earliest possible date and not later than June 15th [1920].” A Joint Convention Committee of 3 had been named by the CPA with the intention of meeting a like committee from the CLP, to work towards a unity convention on the following terms: “(1) The joint call for the convention must include our Manifesto, Program, and constitutional relations of the Federations to the Party. (2) Apportionment of delegates on the basis of dues stamps sold by each organization for the months of October, November, and December [1919], the total number of delegates from both organizations not to exceed 35. Books of both organizations to be open to the opposite committee members. (3) The election of delegates to be by membership action and to be conducted secretly and to be as nearly as possible alike for the two organizations. (4) The quorum to call the convention to order to consist of two-thirds of the delegates elected by each organization.” Ruthenberg states “If your committee really desires unity between the Communists of the United States and is not merely using the plea to unity as a convenient method of propaganda against the Communist Party of America, we trust you will take immediate favorable action on this proposal and elect your convention committee.”

“Report on CPA Sub-District 4-C [Detroit] to Executive Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg from SDO “E.A. Carroll.” March 25, 1920..” This report of the Detroit Sub-District Organizer of the Communist Party of America is an interesting source of local detail. The situation is difficult, the yet-unidentified SDO “Carroll” remarks, noting that “all English locals in Michigan are infested with the Proletarian Party stuff.” The matter is made more difficult by the SDO’s absolute lack of concrete information about the source of the split between the CPA and the Michigan Proletarian University group: “I must immediately have a copy of the controversy in detail which took place in the NEC in regard to the expulsion of the Michiganites. I was up to Bay City yesterday. They have an English Local of six members to whom I talked and convinced that we must have the new form of organization but before they will decide to cast their lot with us they insist on wanting to know why [the Michigan Proletarian University people] were ousted by the CEC. I was unable to give them a proper answer because I am not familiar with what happened myself. Please send a report of this in detail with argument at once. I cannot get along on the next trip without it.” The move towards mass expulsions of the supporters of the Michigan group had been set in motion by the CPA’s CEC at its Nov. 17, 1919 meeting, due to the Proletarian University’s routing of speakers around the country independent of the CEC and the advocacy by these speakers of the “Michigan program” in opposition to the program of the CPA.

“Circular Letter on Transfer of Party Funds, to CPA Federation and District Organizers from Executive Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg, March 25, 1920.” Extremely short and rather esoteric memo to DOs of the newly underground Communist Party of America which indicates (1) that dues were transmitted from the various DOs to the center by means of blank bank drafts payable to “James T. Browning” and (2) that illegal leaflets were distributed en masse on a single assigned day.

APRIL

“Letter to Alfred Wagenknecht in New York from C.E. Ruthenberg in New York, April 22, 1920.” Formal notification to the Executive Secretary of the Communist Labor Party that a split has taken place in the ranks of the CPA. Ruthenberg claims his group has the allegiance of the Polish, South Slavic [Yugoslav], Ukrainian, German, and Estonian Federations of the CPA, as well as four of seven district organizers; that the Jewish Federation of the CPA has withdrawn support to the majority group of the CEC and declared its neutrality; and that “all the evidence goes to show that the larger part of the party will be united in our group.” He invites CLP participation in a unity convention and indicates that “prompt action” is needed.

“Make the Party a ‘Party of Action,’” by C.E. Ruthenberg [published April 25, 1920] In the popular imagination, the pivotal issue behind C.E. Ruthenberg and his co-thinkers bolting the old Communist Party of America in April of 1920 was related to division with the Russian Federation over the issue of merger with the Communist Labor Party. As this article by Ruthenberg from the pages of his group’s official organ indicates, this had virtually nothing to do with the matter. Instead, this article illustrates, the cause of the split was a long-running feud in the ranks of the party over the matter of construction of a mass party vs. a theoretically pure party, matters of personality (alliances and antipathies), as well as the tactical maneuvering of inner-party politics in the run-up to the 2nd Convention. Chief burrs under Ruthenberg’s saddle were the failure of the CEC majority to discipline Nicholas Hourwich for violating the instructions of the Executive Council and misrepresenting the situation to illicitly obtain money from the Boston District organization for an unauthorized trip to Europe, the capture of the majority on the Executive Council by removal of his ally Jay Lovestone for missing two meetings and inserting his opponent Hourwich in his place, and the move of the CEC majority to remove Chicago District Organizer Leonid Belsky ostensibly over matters of party discipline. In response, it was Ruthenberg who broke discipline, refusing to accept majority decisions of the Executive Council and Central Executive Committee, organizing a faction, and issuing an ultimatum to the CEC majority not to change District Organizers prior to the convention so that matters might be finally resolved in that venue, and preserving his own control over the party press. Instead, the CEC majority refused to bow to the ultimatum of Ruthenberg and his factional allies (who included CEC member “J. Kasbeck,” the DOs of Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago as well as the heads of the Polish, South Slavic, German, Ukrainian, and Estonian Federations). It was this that prompted the split, not hard-line posturing against unity with the CLP in defiance of Comintern instructions.

“;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.”

MAY

“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.”

“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.

“ from C.E. Ruthenberg in New York, May 4, 1920.” Cover letter from acting Executive Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg of the CPA Minority to the head of the dissident Chicago organization, Leonid Belsky, noting that the attached draft convention call for a joint unity convention with the CLP represents “ the only basis on which we can achieve unity with the CLP and it seems to me that under the existing circumstances we must work toward that end.” Ruthenberg adds that “Up to this time the CP has the position of advantage as against the CLP, because it was the larger organization and stood for a more clear expression of Communist principles. If we united with the CLP and form the United Communist Party we will have assumed the dominating position and the Hourwich group will be isolated.” Ruthenberg asks the Chicago District Committee to ratify the conditions of this call and to wire their acceptance to Ruthenberg, at which time he will sign the call with the head of the CLP [Alfred Wagenknecht] and have it published in the press.

“Letter to Charles Dirba in New York from C.E. Ruthenberg in New York, May 5, 1920.” Head of the CPA Minority Ruthenberg informs Executive Secretary of the CPA Majority Dirba that “We are prepared to discuss with you and come to an agreement in regard to all the details of a joint convention call, including the date of the convention, but until and unless such an agreement is reached the call which we have issued will stand.” He notes: “We are not quite so gullible as you may think and while we reiterate our willingness to enter into the joint call, our present call will stand and in the absence of any agreement before the District Conventions are held, the National Convention will be held as we have arranged.” An impasse on negotiations between the two CPA factions was thus reached.

“Bulletin To All District Organizers and Federation Executives from C.E. Ruthenberg, Executive Secretary, May 5, 1920.” Short summary of the factional situation from Executive Secretary of the CPA Minority faction, C.E. Ruthenberg. Ruthenberg notes that the CPA Majority had called for the Minority to rescind its convention call. Along these lines, Ruthenberg notes that “the Majority group of the CEC had indicated that it wants a long delay before a convention and this we cannot agree to. I have said to them that we are ready to negotiate on all questions and come to an agreement, including the date of the convention, but we will not withdraw our call prior to reaching such an agreement. If the Majority group maintains its position this question is deadlocked and we need not look to anything further from this direction.” In addition, the CLP had rejected the proposed 32 (CPA) to 18 (CLP) apportionment of delegates. He notes “Since no agreement could be reached on this question a unity conference has been proposed as the alternative. This will mean that the CLP convention delegates and our convention delegates will meet together as separate units and proceed to discuss the question of unity and arrive at an agreement before the two bodies of delegates are united in one convention. A unity conference of this character will take the question of unity out of the hands of executive officials and leave it to the representatives of he members—the delegates to the convention—to decide.” Ruthenberg sees the prospects for a successful unity convention with the CLP working from these terms as favorable.

“Letter to Leonid Belsky in Chicago from C.E. Ruthenberg in New York, May 6, 1920.” CPA minority group leader C.E. Ruthenberg announces to the head of the faction’s Chicago organization that an agreement has been reached in New York with the leadership of the Communist Labor Party for a joint unity convention. A meeting is slated for Chicago for May 20, 1920, to bring together representatives of both parties to draft a manifesto, program, and constitution for the joint organization. Delegates for the CLP are to be Max Bedacht, L.E. Katterfeld, and Abram Jakira. Ruthenberg suggests that Belsky and I.E. Ferguson join him as their faction’s representatives. Ruthenberg states that he will be leaving NYC on Saturday, May 8, and would proceed to Cleveland, where he planned on staying until the 17th or 18th. Ruthenberg states that Belsky should appoint a Detroit District Organizer and see to it that delegate elections take place so that they are able to get some representation at the District Convention from Polish, South Slavic, German, and Russian units. Again, scholars should note that the Ruthenberg group was not exclusively Anglophonic, but rather was a coalition of language federations—the above-mentioned being the principle groups.

“Bulletin #2 Agreement for a Unity Conference Between the Communist Party and Communist Labor Party, May 7, 1920.” Bulletin by C.E. Ruthenberg to the membership of the Minority faction of the Communist Party of America. Ruthenberg relays the text of the joint call for a unity convention between the Communist Labor Party and the CPA Minority group. Ruthenberg notes: “The preliminary conference between the two groups of delegates will furnish the best opportunity for the discussion of principles in the Communist Party convention in Chicago. Everything was cut and dried - settled by caucus action - and the work of the convention was purely mechanical.... It is not through such a convention that real agreement and understanding of fundamentals is secured. There must be discussion and debate on all points in our program, so that if there is disagreement the issues are made and a decision made understandingly, not merely by swallowing what a caucus has decided in advance.” “While the result of this unity conference may still leave a faction of the Communist Party outside of the United Communist Party, this faction will not live long as a separate organization, but will soon be absorbed in the united party,” Ruthenberg optimistically asserts.

“Letter to Leonid Belsky in Chicago from C.E. Ruthenberg in New York, May 7, 1920.” Ruthenberg remarks to his Chicago associate Belsky that the CLP had previously rejected the 32-18 delegate split proposed by the CPA before the departure of the Ruthenberg Minority Group. They were certainly not going to accept that ratio after the CPA had divided, Ruthenberg states, adding that the CLP’s argument was basically sound. “We don’t know. You may say that we will have 90 percent of the membership in our convention, but I say—you will pardon my being frank—that such a statement is rot. We’ll be lucky if we have 50 percent represented,” Ruthenberg says. He adds that “We will have Chicago, most of Cleveland, some of Detroit and Pittsburgh, about half of Philadelphia, and less than half of New York and Boston. At the present moment we may have 60% of the membership supporting our convention—not necessarily our group. What the situation will be in another two weeks is hard to say. Here in New York we have lost ground in the last week.” The Chicago District Committee, headed by Belsky, had come out for unity only under the 32-18 basis, a position which Ruthenberg believes to be utterly unrealistic, and he issues an ultimatum: “If the Chicago District Committee refuses to agree to this proposition now, there is only one course for me to pursue and that is to send my resignation as Executive Secretary of the CEC and go home and wait until there is someone with authority to receive the party funds and property from me, and this I will do.” Ruthenberg declares that “The important thing for us is that we have a convention and elect an Executive Committee that will have authority, as one of our weaknesses at the present moment is that I stand alone as one man defying the ’legal’ committee of the party,” and he urges Belsky to bring the Chicago District Committee around to a more realistic position on the unity question.

“What Kind of Party?” by C.E. Ruthenberg [May 8, 1920]. Published in the official organ of the Ruthenberg faction of the CPA during its brief period of independent existence; unsigned though unquestionably written by editor Ruthenberg. This is a lengthy and detailed critique the majority group of the old Communist Party of America, from which Ruthenberg & Co. recently departed. The document is interesting on a number of levels. As a criticism of the CPA majority group, Ruthenberg sounds like a born again member of the CLP, dismissing the old party structure as nothing more than a “Federation of Federations” directed by a clique in the CEC “more interested in the personal ‘revolutionary fortunes’ of its members than in building up the party.” This group were pseudo-ultrarevolutionary dogmatists, he believed, unable to see anything save through Russian revolutionary metaphors, incapable and philosophically unwilling to engage in the daily struggles of the working class, fearful of expanding the party’s size and influence lest more qualified people come into the organization and take their jobs. On another level, this is interesting as legal party advocate Ruthenberg’s single most explicit statement on the necessity of armed struggle. Ruthenberg writes: “The party must be ready to put into its program the definite statement that mass action culminates in open insurrection and armed conflict with the capitalist state. The party program and the party literature dealing with our program and policies should clearly express our position on this point.” Ruthenberg differed by asserting that there were a range of forms of “mass action,” ever more intense stages of struggle, whereas the majority group saw only a single form of mass action, armed struggle. “We must propagate to the workers the USE OF FORCE as the ONLY MEANS of conquering the power of the state and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat,” Ruthenberg quotes the CPA Majority as asserting. Finally, this is interesting for certain esoteric hints: (1) that the Ruthenberg group was “99% foreign;” (2) a seeming willingness to reunite with the CPA Majority in convention just as readily as the Ruthenberg group chose to unite with the CLP just a couple weeks after this document was written; (3) a belief that “future development of the party organization must be in the direction of shop units” and an understanding that this form of organization was incompatible with the Federation-based dues stamp system; (4) possible first American Communist use of the word “dialectical.”

“Letter to ‘J. Kasbeck’ in New York from C.E. Ruthenberg in Cleveland, May 14, 1920.” Reply of CPA Minority faction leader C.E. Ruthenberg to Russian Federationist and touring organizer “J. Kasbeck.” Ruthenberg declines to return to New York after having just left the city a few days earlier, citing business to be settled in Chicago. He offers the following optimistic assessment of the Minority faction’s support in various districts: “Chicago is solidly with us in spite of all the efforts of the opposition; Cleveland is 75 to 90% ours, and in Philadelphia we have at least 60%.” Ruthenberg notes that plans no longer feature a delay in an attempt to forge unity between the CPA Majority and Minority factions. “You must realize that this convention no longer depends upon our arrangements alone, but it is also a unity conference with the CLP. Their delegates and ours will meet together and agree upon principles and program and constitution, and if there is such agreement the two bodies will unite,” Ruthenberg writes. Ruthenberg makes explicit the reasons for his haste: “There is still another reason why we must have this convention quickly. We are at present without any governing committee for our faction. I am acting alone, merely conferring with different persons on important matters. This is a source of weakness. We must have a responsible committee to represent us. It is neither fair to me, nor a proper arrangement to force me to make all the decisions for our group individually. In spite of the view of the “majority,” I don’t want to be the party. The convention will organize our group, with possibly the CLP included.” There will be plenty of time to achieve unity with the Hourwich-led CPA Majority after the unity convention with the CLP, in Ruthenberg’s view: “We can lay down the terms on which they can join the united party at the convention. If we take such action we will be the stronger group—we will stand in relation to them as the CP did toward the CLP during the last seven months.” He adds that “I have given up any hope of arriving at an agreement with the Andrews [Hourwich] and Bernstein [Max Cohen]. We must fight it out to a finish. The convention is our strong hope and we must have it quickly.”

“Statement on the Present Situation to the Boston District Organization of the CPA,”by C.E. Ruthenberg [May 14, 1920] This communication from C.E. Ruthenberg to his supporters in the Boston District emphasizes the group’s commitment to a May 25 gathering at Bridgman, Michigan. “This convention has the practically unanimous support of the Chicago District (including Detroit and Pittsburgh), a majority of the members of the Philadelphia District, and about half the members of the New York District. As to the Boston District you know the situation better than I. There is no question, however, that from 60 to 75% of the entire membership of the party will be represented in this convention,” Ruthenberg asserts. He notes that “the ‘majority’ group, with the support of possibly from 25 to 40% of the membership, will not participate in our convention. It is proposed that the convention shall lay down the terms on which the CEC of the united party—if unity is achieved—will authorize to deal with this ‘group.’” Ruthenberg declares: “If the Lettish [Latvian], Lithuanian, and that small part of the Russian Federation which is not supporting the ‘minority’ want to have a party consisting of a Federation of two or three Federations, in opposition to the Communist Party, let them try it. While such a division will be regrettable, it will not take long for such a Federation of these Federations to learn that so far as functioning as a Communist organization that will mean anything in the life of the workers of this country is concerned, they are doomed to sterility and impotence. They are doubly doomed under the leadership of the Andrews [Nicholas Hourwiches] and Bernsteins [Maximilian Cohens].”

JUNE

“’At Last,” by C.E. Ruthenberg [June 12, 1920]. This article appeared on the cover of the debut issue of the official organ of the new UCP and details the Unity Convention held May 26-31, 1920 at the Wolfskeel Resort, near Bridgman, MI, amidst wooded dunes on the sandy shore of Lake Michigan. The article declares that “the United Communist Party makes no pretense of legality. It has not attempted to express the fundamental Communist principles in a way to make them pass the censorship of its bitter enemy....The program of the party declares that the final struggle between the workers and the capitalists, between exploited and exploiter, will take the form of civil war, and that it is the function of the United Communist Party systematically to familiarize the working class with the necessity of armed insurrection as the only means through which the capitalist system can be overthrown.” There is no indication that such a final battle was immediately forthcoming in America, but rather the communist movement was “nearing its goal of the Workers’ Dictatorship for the transformation of capitalism in Germany, in Italy and the other European countries.” The logic of the situation would force the best elements of the “faction” remaining outside of the UCP to join forces with the party or follow the path of the Socialist Labor Party into oblivion as an ineffectual sect, the article indicated.

“A Farewell to Controversy,” by C.E. Ruthenberg [July 3, 1920] Lengthy analysis of the April 1920 split of the CPA from the perspective of factional leader C.E. Ruthenberg. Ruthenberg traces the origin of the split to a unanimous resolution of the Chicago District Committee in early April 1920 stating that “unless decisions of the Central Executive Committee in regard to organization problems and on charges against members of that body could be satisfactorily explained in a personal conference, the Chicago District Committee would refuse to recognize the authority of the CEC and [issue a call for] a conference of district organizations, and through such a conference call a national convention.” Ruthenberg says that he met with the Chicago District Committee (headed by Leonid Belsky) and convinced them to remain in the organization until the convocation of a forthcoming national convention, but that the CEC majority group (headed by Nicholas Hourwich) had move to take reprisals against the Chicago organization, which effectively “broke the unity of the party.” Ruthenberg characterizes the CPA’s demand for the return of the party funds with which Ruthenberg absconded as “the shallowest kind of hypocrisy,” since to demand compliance by Ruthenberg, “who spoke for a majority of the party and who was supported by a majority of the District Organizers and Federation representatives present at the meeting at which the break took place,” meant an appeal to “that mawkish, sentimental legalism which gives the lie to the pretensions of being simon-pure Bolsheviks, which the Federation group so loudly proclaims itself.” Ruthenberg — the majority of whose own faction was comprised of non-english language groups — repeated refers to the CPA majority group as the “Federation group” and to the party as “the Federation of Federations, 3 or 4 separate parties loosely united by an Executive Committee.” He claims that the UCP includes at least 60 percent of the membership of the former CPA and calls for the “absorption” of the remaining members of the “Federation group” into the new organization.

C.E. Ruthenberg’s Testimony at His Oct. 1920 New York “Criminal Anarchism” Trial. (extracts) An extensive excerpt of the testimony of the former Executive Secretary of the old Communist Party of America at his October 1920 New York trial. C.E. Ruthenberg and I.E. Ferguson were both indicted under a 1902 law implemented by the New York Legislature in the aftermath of the William McKinley assassination, charged with “Criminal Anarchy” for having been members of the National Council of the Left Wing Section of the Socialist Party, the 9 member executive board responsible for the publication of the final version of the “Left Wing Manifesto.” Ruthenberg and Ferguson were charged with no overt act, but rather with advocacy of “force and violence” against the government. Of particular interest is the onslaught of prosecutorial questioning by the judge in the case, Bartow S. Weeks, and the rather detailed explanation of the revolutionary process by defendant Ruthenberg —one of the most explicit documents of his world-view left for posterity. Both Ruthenberg and Ferguson were convicted and sentenced to 5-10 years of hard labor, a sentence which was ultimately overturned on appeal after significant time was served.

1921

AUGUST

“The Need for Open Work,” by C.E. Ruthenberg [Aug. 1921] This is a very interesting article from the official organ of the unified Communist Party of America—not just for its fascinating content, but also for the fact that it was written by Ruthenberg from behind New York prison bars. Ruthenberg (writing under his 1920-21 party name, “David Damon”) relates the fact that the United Communist Party during 1920-21 had “created an open organization which was known as an auxiliary of the party. In some cities the authorities and the White Guard organizations of the capitalist class charged that this organization was but the camouflaged UCP, but no attack was made upon it and its work was not interfered with.” This bode well for a similar organization to be created in conjunction with the newly unified party. Ruthenberg indicates that given the openly stated party belief that “the use of armed force in the struggle to overthrow the capitalist state is an inevitable phase of the Proletarian Revolution,” there would always remain a place for the underground organization. This form was inadequate to the task of building class-conscious, mass support for the cause of revolution among the working class. “Prestige, confidence, leadership can only be established by winning it upon the field of action, in such a way that the workers recognize and see the men and the organization which are seeking to become their leaders in the class struggle. To accomplish this would be indeed a difficult task for a secret, remote, unseen organization such as an underground organization must be of necessity,” Ruthenberg writes. He also notes that “the greater part of petty, soul-destroying bickering which has helped so much to keep the Communist Movement in this country sterile, has been due to the fact that the conditions of underground work threw the membership inward upon itself, in place of outward in an attack upon the capitalist class.”

1922

MARCH

“Letter to the Central Executive Committee of the Communist Party of America from C.E. Ruthenberg in Ossining, NY, March 14, 1922.” by Letter from imprisoned Communist leader C.E. Ruthenberg to the governing CEC of the Communist Party of America explicitly exonerating the actions of Jay Lovestone in his decision to testify (under compulsion) in the trial of Harry Winitsky in 1920. “At first it was thought that certain legal provisions would relieve them from any responsibility and make their appearance unnecessary, but while the matter was pending the state legislature changed the situation by amending the law covering it,” Ruthenberg states. Citing a previous decision of the CEC on a similar matter, Ruthenberg declares that “ I personally gave instructions to Lovestone and Ferguson to make an appearance and also telephoned Rose Stokes, giving her the same instructions.” At a subsequent investigation of this matter by the CEC, Ruthenberg indicates that “I assumed all responsibility for Comrade Lovestone having appeared, citing as my authority the previous ruling of the Executive Committee.... Comrade Lovestone was exonerated from all responsibility for his appearance, leaving open only the question of what he said.” Ruthenberg cites his associate I.E. Ferguson, a lawyer who was also present at the proceedings and who later studied the transcript of the trial, who declared to Ruthenberg that “there is nothing that Comrade Lovestone said that was not already a part of the proceedings and that nothing he said could have been of any material effect in influencing the outcome.”

MAY

“Address to the Convention of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers, Wednesday, May 3, 1922,” by C.E. Ruthenberg. C.E. Ruthenberg, former Executive Secretary of the CPA and future Executive Secretary of the Workers Party, was freed from prison on $5,000 bond pending the outcome of his appeal on Monday, April 24, 1922. Just 10 days later he made this speech to the convention of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. Ruthenberg noted that the prosperity of the war years had given way to about 18 months of economic turmoil, opening the way for a capitalist offensive against the working class—resulting in reduced wages, longer working hours, and an assault on the right of workers to organize. The Communists were not an enemy of the union movement as they had been falsely portrayed, Ruthenberg said, but rather were active and committed members of the unions themselves, struggling both for union goals aimed at amelioration of the immediate needs of the workers as well as making ready for “the time when the workers will take over and administer industry.”.

“Death Chills Seize Meeting of Socialist Party,” by C.E. Ruthenberg. [May 13, 1922] The new Executive Secretary of the Workers Party of America, C.E. Ruthenberg, observed and wrote about the 1922 Cleveland Convention of the Socialist Party of America. He depicted it as a lifeless gathering, showing “senile decay.” As for the small group of assembled delegates, Ruthenberg notes that “A majority of them are portly, gray-haired men with a look of petty-bourgeois prosperity about them. They talk in the language of past Socialist conventions, but there is no enthusiasm, no fervor, in what they say.” Ruthenberg isolated the root cause of this geriatric decay in the blows struck against the industrialist Left Wing at the 1912 Indianapolis Convention —“anti-sabotage, anti-force, and narrow definition of political action constitutional clauses” which drove vital elements from a 100,000 member organization. At the 1917 St. Louis Convention these “elderly men” were unable to control the gathering but sabotaged the party’s militant position against the war by lack of action, Ruthenberg charged, while at the 1919 Chicago Convention they presided over a mass purge of 3/4 of the party’s membership that resulted in the current lifeless skeleton organization.

AUGUST

“’Organization Adjustment: A Memo on the Creation of the Post of ‘Federation Director,’” by C.E. Ruthenberg [circa late August 1922] During its final phase in the aftermath of the August 1922 Bridgman Convention, the underground Communist Party of America made an effort to centralize the operations of its 16 language federations through increased reporting and joint meetings of the heads of each federation with the newly established representative of the party’s CEC, the Federation Director. This communique from Executive Secretary, C.E. Ruthenberg details the changes in the CPA’s structure and procedure surrounding this short-lived organizational change.

OCTOBER

“Platform of the Workers Party: Congressional Election 1922.” [circa Oct. 1922] In 1920 the American Communist movement boycotted the elections, in 1921 there was a campaign in New York City under the umbrella of “the Workers League.” It was not until the fall election of 1922 that the Communists entered the electoral fray at the Congressional level, this time under the auspices of their “Legal Political Party” — the Workers Party of America. This is the Congressional campaign platform for that debut race, probably composed by C.E. Ruthenberg. It includes 14 “slogans of the immediate struggles,” including among them the right of unions to organize, strike, and picket; the unrestricted right of free speech, press, and assembly; elimination of anti-syndicalist laws; termination of “industrial courts” and “government by injunction”; protection of Negro lives and civil rights; a “four-fold” bonus to soldiers for lost wages; payment of union scale to the unemployed; withdrawal of troops from Latin America; non-intervention in the Near East; and the ubiquitous call for establishment of “trade relations and recognition of Soviet Russia.” The Socialist Party is attacked as an institution which “misleads the workers through its efforts to make them believe that the road to freedom lies through petty reforms achieved through the existing legislative bodies.” The WPA, on the other hand, “declares that the workers will free themselves from the exploitation and oppression which is their lot under the existing system of industries through the use of their mass power” to thereby “end the existing dictatorship of the capitalists” and establish “workers’ rule through a workers’ government.” Although “workers’ dictatorship” is explicitly advocated, the word “socialism” is never expressed as an objective nor any form of nationalization advocated as part of the 14 proposed “slogans of the immediate struggles” — a perplexing choice of which punch to pull in an effort to maintain the organization’s tenuous legality.

“Where Do We Stand?” by C.E. Ruthenberg [Oct. 24, 1922] In reply to critical articles by WPA CEC members Jacob Salutsky (The Liberator, Oct. 1922) and Ludwig Lore (Volkszeitung, Oct. 15, 1922), Executive Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg lashes out with strong criticism of the tone and ideas of each. With regard to Salutsky, Ruthenberg attacks his thesis that the labor movement had “liquidated” revolutionism in the wake of the Bridgman, Michigan, raid and arrests. To the contrary: “Labor is gaining its first stray glimpses of the fact that the enemy is not only the boss, that the struggle cannot be carried on through strikes over wages and working conditions alone—talks seriously about a strike AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT and of a labor party to put labor in control of the government. No, labor has not ‘iquidated revolution’ in the United States. If it has not yet realized the necessity of revolution it has at least begun to move in the direction that leads to revolution.” As for Lore, who argued that the Bridgman arrests and consequent necessity to spend money and effort in legal defense made it impossible for the WPA to conduct widespread political campaigns in the 1922 election, Ruthenberg responds that Bridgman was actually a “distinct advance” for the party, in that connections were formed with the progressive wing of the labor movement for the first time in the organized legal defense of the “Bridgman victims.” The cause of the WPA’s failure in the 1922 campaign was two-fold, Ruthenberg argues: a membership “incompetent” for the task of running a political campaign due to widespread lack of American citizenship, English language skills, and training in electoral politics combined with a gross failure of the WPA leadership to connect the party with the myriad of issues of daily political life—the unemployment question, soldiers’ bonuses, the new tariff, and so on. “f we wish to remedy the condition which has made us impotent this year we must face this failure of our leadership and not endeavor to hid it through such political nearsightedness as shown by Comrades Lore and Salutsky in their articles,” Ruthenberg declares.

NOVEMBER

“A Look at the Elections,” by C.E. Ruthenberg. [Nov. 1922] The Secretary of the Workers Party of America examines the significance of the recently-completed November 1922 elections. Ruthenberg sees a reversal of the 1920 landslide for Harding, a result of two years of economic depression suffered by the country: “Having found no relief in Mr. Harding’s ‘normalcy,’ they are in turn expressing their discontent as they expressed their discontent in 1920—by voting for his opponents.” Ruthenberg sees a strengthening of so-called “radical” elements within both the Republican and Democratic Parties, which he believed were merging and leading to a “new political alignment” in America in which “will bring into existence in the United States a conservative party of the capitalists; a Progressive Party representing the interests of the middle class and wealthy farmers; and a Labor Party , the mass party of the workers.”.

“The Workers Party and the Labor Party,” by C.E. Ruthenberg. [Nov. 1922] Executive Secretary of the Workers Party of America C.E. Ruthenberg attempts to explain the relationship between the WPA and a forthcoming labor party—an institution which Ruthenberg was being inevitably brought into existence by the development of economic forces. This new party would be extremely positive, he argues, noting that if such a party was established and had “the support of millions of organized workers would be the greatest stride forward in the history of the American working class.” It was the task of the Communists to “stay with the masses in their struggles,” Ruthenberg indicates, and thus to participate fully in the labor party that was coming to be.There would be no liquidation of the Workers Party should any such labor party come about, however, for the educational and agitational role of the party would remain, akin to the role of the Trade Union Educational League in the unions—leading the working class and helping to transform the new party into a Communist party. Ruthenberg offers two slogans to summarize the task: “For a Labor Party!” and “For a stronger, more powerful, better disciplined Workers Party!”.

DECEMBER

“Comments Regarding the Wicks Memorandum on the Proletarian Party of America,” by C.E. Ruthenberg. [circa December 1922] C.E. Ruthenberg’s critical comments on various aspects of Harry Wicks’ December 1922 memo outlining Proletarian Party of America history and recommending that the Comintern issue a communication instructing the PPA to liquidate itself and for its members to join the CPA/WPA. Ruthenberg accuses Wicks of painting too rosy a picture of the Michigan group’s ideology, noting that Batt’s alternative program had been “laughed out of court” by the June 1919 Conference of the Left Wing Section; that the group had held a sectarian anti-union position and had rejected the entire notion of mass action; that Wicks had misrepresented the nature of the St. Louis Manifesto of 1917 and the Socialist Party of Michigan’s response to it; that the CPA’s ideology had been misunderstood and mischaracterized as “Blanquism;” that the PPA’s organizational strength had been exaggerated by a factor of 2; and that the details of the Michigan group’s exclusion from the CPA were presented inaccurately. Rather than being expelled in November 1919 as Wicks contended, Ruthenberg asserts that “The Proletarian group was still part of the Communist Party in January 1920 after the raids. I personally went to Detroit to reorganize the CP and conferred with [Al] Renner, [A.J.] MacGregor, and [John] Keracher. They refused to become part of an underground party. They were dropped out of the CP in February of 1920 because they refused to have any part in the reorganization.”

“Salutsky—A Communist?” by C.E. Ruthenberg [Dec. 23, 1922] The Workers Party of America actively sought to participate in the Second Conference of the CPPA, going so far as to send delegates to Cleveland. The credentials of the WPA were initially “lost” by the credentials committee, but the matter was referred back to the committee from the floor of the convention. The second time around, the credentials committee recommended that the Workers Party not be seated because “the principles of this organization are not in harmony with those of this conference.” This was instantly ruled as adopted “unanimously” by the chair, a decision which was protested from the floor by delegate Robert D. Cramer of the Minneapolis Trade and Labor Assembly (not a member of the WPA). Cramer’s appeal of the decision of the chair died for the lack of a second, however, despite the presence on the floor of delegate Jacob Salutsky of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, a member of the Central Executive Committee of the WPA. This resulted in this harsh denunciation of Salutsky for failing to come to the aid of his party by Executive Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg, an article published in the weekly English-language newspaper of the WPA.

1923

JANUARY

“The Second Convention,” by C.E. Ruthenberg [Jan. 6, 1923] Executive Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg dons his rose-colored glasses to portray the recently completed 2nd Convention of the Workers Party of America in an extremely upbeat manner. Factional warfare over delegate credentials was nonexistent and with each resolution introduced by a member of the Central Executive Committee “practically every resolution was adopted unanimously at the close of the debate, although wide differences of opinion sometimes manifested themselves during the debate,” Ruthenberg proudly declared. The convention was declared to be a “landmark in the history of the Communist movement in this country” in that the WPA had firmly established itself. General topics of discussion are briefly mentioned in a list. “The relations of the party with the Communist International was a special point on the agenda and was thoroughly discussed and a resolution establishing fraternal relations adopted,” Ruthenberg notes.

FEBRUARY

“Statement to the Members of the Society for Technical Aid to Soviet Russia,” by C.E. Ruthenberg [circa Feb. 1923] The Society for Technical Aid to Soviet Russia was established by the Communist Party as a parallel mass organization dedicated to fundraising to purchase tools and agricultural machinery for Soviet Russia. The organization served as a means for emigrés from Tsarist Russia to return to their homeland as participants in model agricultural communes established in conjunction with the technology being imported. In practice, these new communes were economic failures and did little to alleviate the difficulties of Soviet agriculture during immediate post-revolutionary period. Furthermore, economic scandal swept the organization when some of the top leadership of “the TA” were implicated in economic activity for private gain as part of the business operations of the organization. Early in 1923 the Workers Party brought the troubled “TA” under direct party control, ousting the members of the group’s governing Central Bureau and replacing them with a group including the top leadership of the WPA (Ruthenberg, Pepper, Jakira) and others regarded as disciplined members of the WPA. This news release announces the change in leadership of the “TA,” assures members of the group that it is not to be liquidated and merged into the Friends of Soviet Russia organization, announces changes of policy, and asks for the loyal support of members of the organization.

“Letter No. 6 to the Executive Committee of the Communist International in Moscow from C.E. Ruthenberg in New York, February 6, 1923.” Message from the Executive Secretary of the American Communist Party to the CI that not only would the CPA be acting on the instructions of the Comintern to amalgamate the underground CPA and the “legal” Workers Party of America, but that even prior to the CI statement “the CEC decided to take steps to convert the Party into an open Party.” Ruthenberg states that since the 1922 Bridgman Convention, the CPA has been working harmoniously, with the three former factional groupings (Goose Caucus, Liquidators, Central Caucus) actively working to advance policies that had previously been underappreciated or even regarded as anathema. The division of the American bourgeoisie over the question of repression of the Communist movement and expansion of sympathy for the Communist movement among the working class and the ability of the WPA to work more and more as an open Communist Party had changed the situation in the country, Ruthenberg notes. “We trust that we will be able to carry out the reorganization of the Party without a crisis. It is possible that a few sectarian elements will leave the Party. But we are convinced that no organized faction will fight against the policy of the CEC and the CI, and that we will be able to lead the Party into the open without a split,” Ruthenberg concludes.

“Letter from C.E. Ruthenberg in New York to Vasil Kolarov in Moscow, Feb. 17, 1923.” The early Communist International is frequently misrepresented in the literature as a paramilitary command-and-control system, issuing binding orders arbitrarily deduced in Moscow to blindly obedient Communist Parties around the world. In reality, there was a give-and-take, with information flowing from the periphery to Moscow, which was often called upon to provide tactical advice, to mediate disputes, and to rectify factional schisms. This letter from Workers Party of America Executive Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg to General Secretary of the ECCI Vasil Kolarov is an example in which the Comintern was used by national parties as a mediator. Ruthenberg protests the establishment of a new Soviet relief organization, the Volunteer Fleet, noting three relief organizations are already in existence: the Friends of Soviet Russia, Technical Aid, and the Yidgescom. The Workers Party was attempting to centralize these relief efforts in the hands of the FSR, a task which Ruthenberg argued was being needlessly complicated by the ill-considered establishment of the Volunteer Fleet fundraising apparatus. Concrete suggestions are made to make use of the ECCI’s Ausland Committee to transmit information on future relief campaigns to the Friends of Soviet Russia, which was to coordinate such drives.

MARCH

“An Open Challenge,” by C.E. Ruthenberg. [March 1923] At the end of February 1923, jury selection for the first trial resulting from the August 1922 Bridgman, Michigan raid was begun. The best-known public figure among the defendants (regarded by the prosecution as the most threatening public enemy), William Z. Foster, was chosen by the prosecution to first face the jury. This article by C.E. Ruthenberg, published in the March 1923 issue of The Liberator, marks the beginning of this trial. Ruthenberg charges that the Palmer Raids of 1919-20 had as their goal not prosecution for crime but rather destruction of the radical movement and that the “bugaboo of violence” alleged of the revolutionary socialist left would be belied by the evidence presented at the Michigan trials. “No Communist advocates the use of violence in the class struggle in the United States today.... No Communist has been convicted of an overt act of violence in the United States,” Ruthenberg notes.

“Communists Throw Challenge In Face of Michigan Authorities: Ten of Participants in Bridgman Convention Walk into Courtroom at St. Joseph,” by C.E. Ruthenberg [March 10, 1923] Press release by WPA Executive Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg detailing the surrender en mass of 10 indicted participants at the 1922 Bridgman Convention of the Communist Party of America, a gathering infiltrated by a government agent-provocateur and raided by state and federal law enforcement authorities. The surrender of the ten (decided upon by the CEC of the WPA) was not being made “because they have any faith in the justice of the capitalist courts and prosecuting authorities,” Ruthenberg indicates, as the defendants “have had too many experiences with these institutions showing the willingness of judges and prosecutors to ignore their own laws and rules in order to put Communists in prison.” Rather the matter was being put into the hands of the American working class, Ruthenberg states. Those surrendering included: John Ballam, Max Bedacht, Ella Reeve Bloor, Jay Lovestone, Robert Minor, Edgar Owens, Rebecca Sacharow, A. Schulenberg,Rose Pastor Stokes, and William Weinstone. The ten were released on $1,000 bail each and freed on their own recognizance to rail the money over the weekend.

”Open Letter to John Keracher, Executive Secretary of the Proletarian Party of America in Chicago from C.E. Ruthenberg, Executive Secretary of the Workers Party of America in New York, March 17, 1923.” The Workers Party sought to consolidate their growth in 1923 by incorporating the members of the Proletarian Party of America into their ranks. The PPA (formerly based in the Socialist Party of Michigan) is lauded by Ruthenberg as “an earnest self-sacrificing group inspired by the determination to help realize the goal of the Communist movement.” Membership in the Workers Party, with its “20,000 members” would enable these individuals to “render vastly greater service” to the Communist movement in America, Ruthenberg notes. Understanding the PPA’s fundamental belief that the current task of the Communist movement is to educate and enlighten the working class to prepare it for an eventually assumption of the reins of state and economy, Ruthenberg holds up the attractive possibility that PPA members might well play “very great” service “along the line of assisting in carrying on the educational work within the party.” Ruthenberg asks Keracher to take the issue of joining the WPA en masse up with the National Committee of the Proletarian Party.

“Memo from C.E. Ruthenberg to All WPA District Organizers on Infiltration of the Socialist Party,” March 17, 1923. A memo from Executive Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg to all District Organizers of the Workers Party of America that a “left wing” movement seemed to be emerging in the Socialist Party and that “it is necessary for us to help crystallize that left movement.” The DOs are instructed to “select some trustworthy and capable comrades who should be instructed to make an effort to join one of their branches in their locality. This is to be done in every city of your district where they are strong. One or two comrades is sufficient for every branch. The comrades must be absolutely trustworthy.” This operation is to be secret: “The entire question is absolutely confidential and should not be made subject for discussion among the general membership for obvious reasons,” Ruthenberg notes.

“Memo from C.E. Ruthenberg to All WPA District Organizers on Maintenance of Underground Apparatus, March 21, 1923.” The decision to move the “seat of party authority” from the underground to the “legal” political apparatus did not mean an end for secret operations for the American Communist movement. This communique from WPA Executive Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg to the District Organizers of the party makes clear. Ruthenberg instructs that pending the decision of the CEC on future underground operations, “you are to see to it that safe connections are being kept with the CEC and with the lower units, that safe addresses are being kept and transmitted in code, that Party names are used in written documents, etc.” In addition, Ruthenberg added, it was essential that each party functionary maintain a substitution “who shall be supplied with all necessary connections and information, so that he would be able to proceed with the work without interruption in case of emergency.”.

APRIL

“C.E. Ruthenberg in New York to the Executive Committee of the Communist International in Moscow on the Dissolution of the Communist Party of America, April 11, 1923.” Official notification by the Secretary of the Workers Party of America that the Third National Convention of the Communist Party of America [April 7, 1923] had adopted a decision “to dissolve the underground party, leaving the Workers Party of America as the only Party having relations with the Comintern.” Ruthenberg states while at present the name of the Workers Party and formal status of its affiliation with the Comintern as a “fraternal party” needed to remain unchanged, nevertheless the new unitary body should be accorded full rights of a member party of the Communist movement—the right of its members to transfer into membership of other member parties, including the Russian Communist Party, and full voice and vote for its delegates to Congresses and other sessions of the Communist International.

“Official Notification of Dissolution from the Communist Party of America to the Workers Party of America, April 11, 1923.” Pro forma letter by C.E. Ruthenberg to himself announcing the unanimous decision of the Communist Party of America by that organization’s Third National Convention to dissolve the organization. The letter states that henceforth, any organization calling itself “Communist” is actually “an impostor and an enemy of the Communist International” which “should be exposed as such by every Communist and every class conscious worker.” Communists are called upon to accept the discipline of the Workers Party of America as “a sacred duty” and that organization was duly authorized “when it deems it desirable, to adopt the name ‘Communist Party of America.’” The Third Convention of the CPA was a one day affair held on Saturday, April 7, 1923; this letter and a similar letter to the Communist International written in the name of the CPA on the following Wednesday may be regarded as the moment of formal termination.

“Foster Verdict a Triumph for Communism in the United States,” by C.E. Ruthenberg [April 21, 1923] Executive Secretary of the Workers Party C.E. Ruthenberg hails the hung jury at the end of the lengthy trial of William Z. Foster for alleged violation of the Michigan Criminal Syndicalism Law at St. Joseph as “a great victory for Communism in the United States.” Particularly important, in Ruthenberg’s view, was the judge’s instruction that simple advocacy of Communist principles that historical change had been closely interlinked with resort to violence was not enough; rather, the prosecution needed to show that the Communist Party “taught and advocated crime, sabotage, violence, and terrorism as the method or one of the methods of accomplishing the changes in the organization of society desired by the Communists.” Ruthenberg remarks that “Under these instructions it is surprising that there should have been any struggle in the jury room and that a disagreement was the final result, for these instructions fully uphold the Communist right to do everything which they have done in the state of Michigan or elsewhere in the United States.” The thinking of the jury is revealed by jury member Russel Durm, who is quoted as saying: “The prosecution didn’t prove that the Communist Party advocated violence.That was the only thing we split on. We all agreed that Foster attended the Bridgman convention, knowing what was going on there and sympathizing with the movement.”

“The Workers Party and May Day,” by C.E. Ruthenberg. [April 28, 1923] A short May Day message from “The Worker” in which the head of the Workers Party of America contrasts the current situation with the grim days of 1920, when outcast American Communists, “despised and ignored,” were “driven underground, their organization destroyed.” by way of contrast, the party was in 1923 “on the road to becoming that powerful influence in the labor movement” in providing “leadership and direction in the struggle against capitalism.” It was the successful launch of the legal WPA that was responsible for this change of fortunes, this article implies.

MAY

“Party United Front Policy is Approved,” by C.E. Ruthenberg [WPA Executive Council actions of May 7-8, 1923] Published summary of the actions of the 11 member Executive Council at its May 7-8 meeting. The Executive Council was a smaller group elected by the unwieldy 25 member CEC to conduct the business of the CEC between its plenary meetings. Ruthenberg indicates that the body decided the following: (1) to approve the United Front policy and instruct the Political Committee to launch an educational program on the limits of this policy; (2) to instruct the Organization Committee to work out a plan for party reorganization with more and smaller districts, and new units based in the workplace; (3) favoring the moving of WPA headquarters to Chicago, when practicable; (4) to accept the resignation of M.J. Olgin as editor of the Freiheit, and replacing him in that position with Benjamin Gitlow. The question of merging the two English language weeklies, The Worker (New York) and The Voice of Labor (Chicago) was also discussed, with this decision to be linked to plans for an English language daily. Final decision was delayed on this matter as was fundraising for a daily, due to demands on party funds to cover legal expenses.

JULY

“The Role of the Workers Party,” by C.E. Ruthenberg. [July 1923] A somewhat mistitled article from The Liberator in which Workers Party of America Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg recounts the split of the socialist movement into right and left wings. Ruthenberg dates this split back to the 1914 start of the European War, which prompted an “inevitable sundering” in which the “reformist right wing leaders in the socialist movement the world over betrayed the workers and supported the capitalist governments in the imperialist war,” while “the left wing endeavored to rally the workers for the struggle against imperialist war and to turn this war into a struggle against the capitalist system.” Ruthenberg sidesteps the fact that in America the overwhelming majority of the Socialist Party backed the anti-militarist St. Louis Resolution of 1917, which he himself co-authored. The tasks of the Communists in America included amalgamation of the unions, education of the masses as to the necessity of replacing capitalist rule with worker rule (“the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”), and formation of a Labor Party, according to Ruthenberg.

NOVEMBER

“Letter from C.E. Ruthenberg in Chicago to Morris Hillquit in New York, Nov. 3, 1923.” A cryptic note sent from the Executive Secretary of the Workers Party of the member to the leading light of the arch-rival Socialist Party of America. Ruthenberg notes that he will be in New York on Nov. 8, 1923, and that he seeks a conference with Hillquit to “talk with you” in regard to an invitation sent by the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party to labor political groups for a Nov. 15 conference in St. Paul. This conference was an attempt to “come to an agreement on the question of calling a national convention for the nomination of a presidential candidate and the adoption of a national platform.” Despite the hostility between the two organizations, this document affirms that there was at least informal discussion at the top level about the possibility of joint action with regards to the Farmer-Labor Party movement.

“Letter from C.E. Ruthenberg in Chicago to Osip Piatnitsky in Moscow, Nov. 19, 1923.” A lengthy and illuminating review of the Workers Party of America’s Farmer-Labor Party strategy as it rapidly evolved in the fall of 1923. Ruthenberg relates the decision of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party to call a convention at St. Paul in May of 1924 for the purpose of joint nomination of a candidate for President of the United States and adoption of a joint program—thereby uniting the various state Farmer-Labor organizations, the Federated Farmer-Labor Party, and other labor and political groups into a single organization. Upon learning of this initiative, Ruthenberg states that the CEC immediately sent him to Minnesota, where he met for two days with Minnesota FLP officials working out the details for a November 15 pre-convention conference. Interestingly, Ruthenberg states that it was his initiative over “considerable objection” to extend an invitation to the pre-convention conference to Morris Hillquit of the Socialist Party in an effort to bring the SP and its popular cachet into the new united organization. Ruthenberg also related the decison of the CEC to declare a truce in the ranks of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, which was racked by a severe struggle between the union administration of Sidney Hillman and a TUEL-based left opposition. Hillman and the ILGWU were to be key players in the forthcoming Farmer-Labor Party movement, Ruthenberg indicated, while Hillman had the incentive to play the public role of peacemaker, thus consolidating his position in any forthcoming amalgamation of the ILGWU with the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, believed by Ruthenberg to be in the offing in the not too distant future. This document demonstrates that volition in WPA action in the Farmer-Labor Party movement came from the party itself—that it did not blindly follow “orders from Moscow” on this matter but rather acted as it saw fit under the general line of the Comintern, providing information of its specific actions after the fact.

“Letter from C.E. Ruthenberg in Chicago to Morris Hillquit in New York, Nov. 3, 1923.” A tantalizing and cryptic document sent from the Executive Secretary of the Workers Party of the member to the leading light of the arch-rival Socialist Party of America. Ruthenberg notes that he will be in New York on Nov. 8, 1923, and that he seeks a conference with Hillquit to “talk with you” in regard to an invitation sent by the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party to labor political groups for a Nov. 15 conference in St. Paul. This conference was an attempt to “come to an agreement on the question of calling a national convention for the nomination of a presidential candidate and the adoption of a national platform.” Even though the Communists and Socialists fought like dogs— the Communists placing secret agents within the SP with the intent of splitting its rival and the Socialists attempting to freeze the Workers’ Party completely out of the Farmer-Labor movement by denying them the right of participation—the political lines of the two organizations with regard to an American Labor Party on the British model were virtually identical. This document indicates there may have been some sort of informal discussion at the top level about the possibility of joint action with regards to the Farmer-Labor Party movement.

1924

JANUARY

”The American Revolutionary Movement Grows: An Analysis of the Many Achievements of the Third National Convention of the Workers Party,” by C.E. Ruthenberg [Jan. 13, 1924] An upbeat and positive account of the recently completed 3rd Convention of the Workers Party of America [Dec. 30, 1923-Jan. 2, 1924] by the Executive Secretary of the organization (whose faction lost majority control of the incoming Central Executive Committee to the Foster-Cannon-Lore alliance). Ruthenberg emphasizes the continuity between the past an forthcoming CECs, noting that the Convention voted to approve the policy laid down by the previous CEC. Through its United Front efforts (Foreign-Born Workers, Farmer-Labor Party, Bridgman Defense) the Party had gained a foothold in the American political culture for the first time, Ruthenberg asserts, while he optimistically adds that the Party had “at last consolidated its forces and that the period of splits and factional struggles was over...” Ruthenberg’s language is measured in this account published in the new Daily Worker, but he does note major controversy over the United Front policy of the Chicago organization (i.e. the Foster group) and John Pepper’s tactical decision to remove the devisive issue of the relationship of the WPA to an anticipated petty bourgeois Third Party in America from the Convention agenda to the Comintern for final decision—thereby smoothing the way with the “15-odd” of the 53 convention delegates loosely affiliated around Ludwig Lore in opposition to any collaboration with such a party. This episode incidentally demonstrates once again the circularity of the American relationship to the CI in this period, in which appeal to outside authority was actively used BY THE AMERICANS to mitigate factional controversy. The Comintern’s organizational model to be implemented by all parties, based on the shop nucleus, is sidestepped, with the convention agreeing to establish shop units in parallel with the current organizational system, based on language branches. “The Convention left to the next National Convention the question of extending this work,” Ruthenberg notes.

“The Labor Party Campaign: An Excerpt from the Report of the Central Executive Committee to the Third National Convention of the Workers Party of America,” by C.E. Ruthenberg. [Jan. 1924] The Executive Secretary of the Workers Party of America reviews the organization’s activity for 1923 in the Farmer-Labor Party in this report to the 3rd Convention of the WPA. The failure of the WPA to have its delegates seated at the Dec. 1922 Cleveland Conference of the Conference for Progressive Political Action combined with the FLP’s withdrawal from the CPPA over its failure to launch a new broad-based Labor Party spurred a move by the WPA to join forces with the existing (old) Farmer-Labor Party as its “united front” vehicle for joint political action, according to this account. With announced decision of the Socialist Party and LaFollette Progressive movement not to participate in the forthcoming July 3, 1923, Conference to establish an new “Federated Farmer-Labor Party,” the old FLP began to lose enthusiasm for the gathering, and a split with John Fitzpatrick of the Chicago Federation of Labor took place at the gathering. Ruthenberg is critical of the activity of the Chicago district of the WPA in the aftermath and attempts to document this group’s mistakes in contrast to the “correct guidance” of the Political Committee of the CEC of the Workers Party.

Letter to the Executive Committee of the Communist International in Moscow from C.E. Ruthenberg in Chicago, January 8, 1924. This cover letter was written by Executive Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg to ECCI to explain the unseen politics behind the 3rd Convention of the Workers Party of America and the decisions of that gathering. Ruthenberg cites three main areas of division: (1) the policy of the WPA with regards to an anticipated petty bourgeois “Third Party” springing out of the Conference for Progressive Political Action; (2) the United Front policy of the Chicago district—a veiled attack on William Z. Foster by John Pepper; (3) and the composition of the newly elected Central Executive Committee—in which the Foster-Cannon faction in conjunction with the Lore “Anti-Third Party” group attained a decisive majority, defeating the Pepper group.

FEBRUARY

Thesis on the Present Situation in Relation to Our Labor Party Policy, Feb. 15, 1924, Submitted by C.E. Ruthenberg and John Pepper This thesis was prepared by Ruthenberg and Pepper for the February plenum of the Central Executive Committee, held in Chicago on Feb. 15-16, 1924. William Z. Foster prepared a similar document regarding Labor Party tactics and there was some effort made to combine the two documents in a subcommittee, which seems to have vetoed by Pepper, who did not see the documents as reconcilable. As a result, this thesis was voted down by a vote along straight factional lines, 8-5, and the Foster thesis approved by the same margin. The Pepper-Ruthenberg faction declared shortly thereafter that it would appeal this matter to Moscow and plans were set in motion which would send William Z. Foster (Majority), John Pepper (Minority), and M.J. Olgin (Anti-Third Party Group) to Moscow to plead their cases about six weeks later. This definite statement of the Minority’s Labor Party thinking indicates a strong concern over the WPA losing “the influence which it has gained through its Labor Party policy during the past year." With a July 4, 1924 convention of the Conference for Progressive Political Action in the offing and the WPA certain to be locked out of the procedings by the “bitterly hostile" railroad brotherhoods sure to dominate the CPPA gathering, unless some dramatic step was taken by the WPA in the interim, the organization would be isolated from the dynamic Labor Party movement, which had been injected with new dynamism by the rise of a Labour Party government in England and the discrediting of the old parties by the eruption of the Teapot Dome oil bribery scandal. A June 30 counter-convention was called for by the Ruthenberg-Pepper thesis, to “crystallize" the elements over which the WPA had influence and give the WPA a sturdy basis for negotiation with the anticipated CPPA-based Third Party. “As the representatives of an organized group of a half-million to a million workers, our Party cannot be ignored. It will be a powerful factor which must be considered by the leaders of the Cleveland Convention," Ruthenberg and Pepper declare.

APRIL

“Party Principles and Discipline: A Letter Authorized by the Central Executive Committee Directing the Reinstatement of an Expelled Comrade,” by C.E. Ruthenberg [April 29, 1924]. Letter of Executive Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg on behalf of the Central Executive Committee of the WPA to the English Branch of Local Portland [OR], published for the edification of the party in the pages of The Daily Worker. This letter nominally deals with the case of Otto Newman, ordering his reinstatement to the English Branch after being expelled in March 1924 for violating party discipline by accentuating the necessity of force in the socialist revolution at a public meeting. Beyond this, the document serves as a very useful and explicit official published statement of the position of the American Communist movement on the role of force in the transition from capitalism to socialism. Ruthenberg writes: “We cannot as a Communist Party hide our views on this question from the working masses. We must, where the issue is raised, frankly present our viewpoint. We cannot stultify ourselves because of the pressure of the capitalist state power.... Our Party does not advocate the use of force by the workers today. The whole strength of our Party is being given to the campaign to build a mass political party, that is a Farmer-Labor Party, through which the workers and farmers will enter into the political struggle against the capitalist ruling parties.... Does this mean that we believe that the workers and farmers of this country will through such a Farmer-Labor Party elect their representatives to public office and then win control of the governmental power and proceed by legislative action of the parliamentary institutions of the capitalist government to the abolition of the Capitalist System? Such a viewpoint is an illusion.... No privileged class in past history has given up its privileged position upon the demand of the exploited class without resorting to force to maintain its privileged position...” Ruthenberg cites the recent experience of Russia, Hungary, and Bavaria as evidence that the final conflict “takes the form of a struggle between a capitalist parliamentary government and the Soviets which are the expression of the workers’ government.”

MAY

Our Policy in the Farmer-Labor Party: A Letter to a Group of Finnish Comrades,” by C.E. Ruthenberg [May 7, 1924]. An open letter from WPA Executive Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg to a group of Minnesota Finnish party members who wrote a letter to the CEC questioning the decision to run explicitly Communist candidates to contest races in the Minnesota FLP primaries. The Minnesota group clearly saw this as a violation of the spirit of the United Front and a strategy that was leading to the marginalization of the WPA by alienating non-Communist members of the FLP. To this argument Ruthenberg responds that “our instructions were, in effect, that while we remain part of the FLP, while we loyally support the FLP in its struggle against the capitalist parties, within the FLP we carry on a struggle to win the workers and farmers for our program of a proletarian revolution, the Soviets, and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” While doing this is certain to fan the flames of antipathy with a segment of the FLP, Ruthenberg declares that “in place of becoming frightened because we find ourselves in conflict with certain progressives, we should welcome this conflict as the best indication and proof that we are following a Communist policy.” Evidence of the shaky relationship between the WPA and the FLP prior to the debacle of July 1924.

Double the Party Membership!, by C.E. Ruthenberg [May 20, 1924]. Despite a process of steady growth during the first 30 months of its existence, the Workers Party of America was in a state of chronic organizational disarray, as indicated by this article by Executive Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg in The Daily Worker. Only 8 of 15 District Organizers had compiled and filed their organizational reports for March 1924, Ruthenberg complains, and even in the districts which filed, only about half of the branches had filed their reports with the DO, resulting in an incomplete report. These reports showed a chronic tendency of many WPA members to pay their monthly dues in a timely manner—Ruthenberg presents figures showing that over 36% of the members of those branches which did report stood from 1 to 3 months in arrears. As a result of this organizational dysfunction, the CEC decided to immediately establish new three person “Membership Committees” of particularly serious and trusted comrades in every branch, City Central Committee, and District Committee. These Membership Committees were to be dedicated to enforcement of dues collections, organization of “persistant campaigns” to attract new members, and the assignment of concrete tasks to each party member. The new “Membership Committees” were to serve as de facto Organizational Committees for each party unit—a major and system-wide reconstruction of the WPA’s network of territorial branches. Ruthenberg expresses the belief that with the establishment of these new Membership Committees, the WPA would stand at 25,000 dues-paying members within two months’ time. (An interesting aside: the paid monthly membership of the WPA fell from about 17,400 in April 1924 to fewer than 15,000 during May and June, before recovering somewhat to 16,200 in July 1924.)

JULY

“Workers and Farmers on the Mark, by C.E. Ruthenberg. [July 1924] An account of the June 17-19, 1924, Convention of the Federated Farmer-Labor Party, held in St. Paul, MN, written by the head of the Workers Party of America. The convention, dominated by the WPA, was attended by over 500 delegates, who drew up a program and nominated candidates for President and Vice President of the United States (Duncan McDonald of Illinois and William Bouck of Washington, respectively). The body also elected a National Committee, which in turn elected a National Executive Committee, which included Alex Howat of Kansas as Chairman and Clarence Hathaway of Minnesota as Secretary.

SEPTEMBER

“Letter to C.E. Ruthenberg, Executive Secretary, WPA, in Chicago from Norman Tallentire, WPA District 12 Organizer in Seattle, Sept. 19, 1924.” While historians of the American Communist movement are aware of the importance of the party’s “District Organizers” in the abstract, there is surprisingly little in the literature detailing the actual job functions of those individuals. This report to the center by Norman H. Tallentire is particularly valuable in this regard. Tallentire, formerly a District Organizer in D9 [Minneapolis] who moved to D12 [Seattle] to replace outgoing DO William F. Bowman, describes the Washington and Oregon District in utter disarray—Local Portland in the midst of an expulsion binge with an organization down 70 members to “40 or 50,” other Branches disbanded or out of contact with the district office, some key party members gone with remaining members demoralized. He also describes Ruthenberg’s National Office as seemingly incapable of handling simple change of address information, noting a chronic tendency to mail to bad addresses in spite of all instructions otherwise, including in one case mailing to a member expelled a year previously as a suspected spy. Tallentire details an impressive list of organizational meetings conducted or planned in his first month and notes the meeting of a Washington state convention and reorganization of the District Executive Committee. Tallentire outlines plans for the organization of new Locals in Washington, pleads with the center for accurate district financial records, and asks that the forthcoming information he provides be used to update the mailing records not only of the national office, but also of TUEL, The Liiberator, and The Daily Worker. He is sharply critical of the recent Federated Farmer-Labor Party fiasco, in which the FFLP’s campaign for President and Vice President was arbitrarily terminated by WPA decision, an event which Tallentire characterizes as a “grave error” which alienated and embitterred the WPA’s closest non-party allies in Washington state.

1925

APRIL

“Trotskyism and Loreism” First anti-Trotskyist polemic inside the CP.

OCTOBER

“From Propaganda Society to Communist Party: Pages from Party History, 1919-1925” by C.E. Ruthenberg. This 1925 article by the Executive Secretary of the Workers (Communist) Party reviews the history of the American Communist Party from its origins. This material first appeared in the pages of the party’s theoretical magazine, The Workers Monthly, in October of 1925 under the title “From the Third Through the Fourth Convention of the Workers (Communist) Party of America” and was subsequently issued as a pamphlet by the same name.

1926

UNDETERMINED MONTH

“The Workers’ (Communist) Party: What It Is and Why Workers Should Join It,” by C.E. Ruthenberg. Text of a small propaganda pamphlet encouraging wage-workers to join the Workers’ (Communist) Party. According to Ruthenberg, the W(C)PA comprised the political organization necessary to “give leadership” to the workers’ struggle against capitalism and to “direct it along the road that will carry the workers forward to the Workers’ and Farmers’ Government and victory for the new social order.” To advance this task, the W(C)PA would support the daily struggles of the workers and farmers for relief, work to amalgamate craft unions into industrial unions, work to organized the unorganized industrial workers into unions, work for the establishment of and affiliation with a Labor Party, work for Negro organization and the struggle of black Americans for “complete social equality,” and fight against American imperialism abroad.