The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-12-30


sion Comrade Bittelman should
stick to facts. Comrade Bittelman
knows what / said.
What said was in answer to the
charge that the majority calls the
minority liquidators. In reference to
this asked the delegates to examine
the personnel of the minority and
their service in the Communist move
ment to determine whether or not tho
minority is made up Of comrades who
want to liquidate the Communist
Party. pointed out that the minor
ity was composed of members who
had been active in the left wing of
the socialist party and in the organ.
ization of the Communist Party Of the
country. stated further that these
comrades had fought for the party,
defended it in all kinds Of situations,
and had gone to jail for 1t. These are
facts. Bittleman and the whole ma.
jority cannot deny them. AS a fur
Their example let us take Comrade
Ruthenberg. Comrade Ruthenberg is
Of the minority. The majority brands
him as HQuidator. Yet, after having
spent three years in prison for the
Communist Party he is again, as a re.
suit Of the Bridgeman trials, facing a
ten year sentence for his loyalty to
the party. Nevertheless, Bittelman
and his supporters, many Of whom are
recent adjuncts to the party, have the
audacity to brand him and others Of
the minority like him as liQuidators.
On the question of opportunism / will
answer Comrade Bittelman a little
further on.
Comrade Bittelman also distorts an
other statement made. He states in
his article that 1 said the following:
THAT the Russian Communist Party
initiated movement for the organiza-
ton Of Soviets. Why did the Russian
party do it? Why did the Russian
party build non-Communist, ncn-parti.
san political bodies such as Soviets?
Because the Russian party knew that
by means Of these Soviets it will be
able to mobilize large masses Of work
ers and poor farmers, organize them
around itself for revolutionary strug
giles against capitalism. The Ameri-
can party has the same duties to per-
form in the United States. 1t must
therefore create non-partisan politi.
cal bodies in order to achieve the
above end. Consequently the Work
ers Party of America must carry on
campaign for a farmer-labor party"
The above is complete falsifica
ton of what l said. When the politi-
cal secretary of a Communist Party
resorts to such deliberate methods Of
misrepresentation in the furtherance
Of factionalism, the party is bound to
suffer severely. Now what did say
on the question of Soviets? l said
that the Russian Communist Party
participated in the Soviets even
though the Soviets were not Commun-
list bodies and even though they were
not integral parts of the Bolshevik
Party. That did not stop the Russian
Bolshevik party from raising the slo
gan of all power to the Soviets
thereby through the revolutionary
struggle that ensued making the So.
viets the instruments Of state power
and the basis Of the dictatorship of
the proletariat. l used this argument
to counterfeit the sectarian poison
that is being injected into our party
by the majority that maintains that
only through it's own organization can
the party wage a Communist political
struggle, and that it is opportunism
for the party to wage political strug-
giles thru the instrumentality of other
organizations. The farmerlabor party
therefore commended could be made
an instrument of our political strug-
gle even though it is not Communist
body. The British Communist Party
demonstrated that it is possible to do
so when it ran Communists on the
labor party ticket in England.
Comrade Bittelman follows up with
statement that when representative
of the minority finds it necessary to
resort to such arguments as those re-
lated above it would prove that his
cause is in very bad way. But dear
Comrade Bittleman you are member
of the G. E. c. of Communist party
Don't manufacture arguments your
self and then credit them to some
member of the minority. They viii
call your bluff every time. And don't
wind up your argument by saying that
five or six delegates abstained from
voting. You know that all the dele
gates voted and il five or eight did
not vote how comes it that you could
not convince them to vote for the ma
jority? In order therefore to infer
that your imaginary five or eight (you
are not sure) were for the majority
you end up by saying that 1t really
required some courage for the one
lone delegate who voted for the major
ity to raise his voice against the mi.
| nority. That 1t took no courage to