The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-04-09
Zinoviev Reviews the Main Points of Difference

shevist centralism, the firm Bolshe-
visit grasp which alone is capable OF
laying hand on the bureaucrats, who
are continually grooming that the ap-
paratus is an armored shell, per.
fectly unbearable. But only I'M.
oearable, we reply, to those whom
we are obliged to hold on the lead.
a small minority Of our Party has
Just started great campaign against
the Party apparatus. The comrades
OF the opposition" are here lapsinR
into a semi-Menshevist manner of
thought. But it is nevertheless a
rather too primitive weapon, and a
demagogic insinuation, to excIain,
now: aha! Now you want to main.
tain that Trotzky and Radek are Men
sheviki?"
People do not become either Boil.
sneviki or Mensheviki over night.
Ihis is a matter of gradual develop
ment. Often 1t requires months.
sometimes it even takes years. Ali
That we can assert is that the attitude
adopted indicates a development in
the direction Of Menshevism. This
view OF the role of the old Bolshevist
Party apparatus reminds us strongly
OF our old differences with the Men
sheviki.
IT Comrade Radek and the other
comrades revise their standpoint. our
present dispute will have become 4
mere episode within few weeks: il
will seem to US like a bad dream.
speedily forgotten. But if the sop
position" perseveres in its error, or
goes to the length of forming a frac-
ton based on its wrong views, then
this will be an obstinacy degenerating
into Menshevism.
Previous Discussions.
l recall to your recollection the
Irst conflict in the Social Democratic
Party OF Russia, at its II. Party
Congress in London in 1908, leading
to the first split of the party into
Bolsheviki and Mensheviki. What
was the cause of the schism at that
time? 1t was carried thru at that time
by Lenin along the line or the follow
ing differences of opinion. The point
under discussion was No. l of the
Party statutes, defining membership
of the Party.
Two drafts formulating this para
graph were submitted, one drawn up
by Lenin, the other by Marrow. The
Lenin draft was as follows: every
one is taken to be a member of the
Party who recognizes its program,
and who supports it by material
means, and by personal participation
in the work of one of the organiza-
tons of the Party" Martov's draft
on the other hand, was worded as
follows: ga member of the Party is
he who recognizes its program, sup.
ports the Party materially, and gives
the Party regular personal support
under the control of the Party"
Martov, seconded by Paul Axelrod,
thus demanded looser and less def.
nate form of organization. Lenin,
who had at that time Plekhanov as
comrade in arms, was on the other
hand anxious for a really strict or.
ganization Of disciplined revolution
lists.
This at the beginning was the ex.
. tent of the whole difference of opin-
ion in both directions. At that time
many comrades believed that the
whole disagreement was merely a
matter of choice of wording. But
Lenin had already made a correct
diagnosis of both tendencies on the
basis of these differences, and wrote
as follows:
Lenin's Analysis.
"The conflict has split our Party
into two camps, into the camp of the
Jacobins and that of the Girondists
of the proletarian revolution"
: This was indeed a penetrating d.
agnosis, and not only this, but at the
same time an ingenious prognosis.
Now, comrades, compare our pres
ent differences os opinion with the
Opposition" to the differences which
arose 20 years ago. You will be COM
PEELED to come to the conclusion that
these are very much greater today
in the year 1928, than they were in
J 1908. And yet they do not by any
J means imply the necessity of split
! in the Party. ! repeat: If the minor
! ity recognize their errors, and iqui-
! date these within a few weeks, then
: the whole dispute will remain nothing
! but an episode. But if the attempt
: is made to gather together all the