The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-03-01
Unity Of Party at Stake.

In the Central we have done everv-
thing possible for facilitating the
performance of the evolution: we
nave attained the unanimous accent
ance of the resolution in the Cen
trail. But what danger is incurred
D'y the actual performance? The
danger exists that when we turn into
this new path, our Party vehicle NAV
take the course so abruptly that its
wheels may leave the earth alto
gether -. You know the high an
probation Of which our Central Is
worthy. You know that the unity of
the Party is at stake.
We are confronted by the danger
which threatens us at this curve. the
danger that when we do not possess
firmly established groupings, we shall
no longer know what we are To un-
derstand regarding the freedom of
discussion which we proclaim.
At every district meeting the same
question arises: "How does the mat
ter stand, does this workers democ-
racy include or exclude free discus-
sion and the freedom to form
groups? Z" The workers democracy.
like every other democracy, includes
the freedom of theological groups.
II we think Of democracy in its COM
piete and unlimited form, the rights
Of groups cannot be excluded.
But we maintain definitely that
the workers democracy, as formulate
ed by the present resolution of the
Central, permits no freedom to
groupings, let alone freedom for
factions. Here, too, we must come
to an agreement with one another
There are comrades who believe that
these limitations are Impossible;
Comrade Preobrashensky Il am glad
to see that he is presently maintains
that: We cannot comprehend the
workers democracy without this
freedom for groups. Why are we
against groups? For the reason
that we are obliged to leave the
Party fundamentally where it is.
We are against groupings because
we do not merely represent a Com
munist Party, and because we find
ourselves with you, in a special sit
uation, as Communist Party.
The Danger of Groups.
And if even the Communist Parties
of France and Germany possess
group freedom, this is merely a cir
cumstance which originates in the
inheritance of the organizatory
methods of Social Democracy. Our
Party is not in this position; our
Party differs from all other Com
munist Parties in that it governs
the country, whilst the others are
still struggling for power. We need
be a prey to no illusions here. Here
we have 100000 Communists be-
longing to different spheres, different
generations, and coming from differ
ent parties--and these 100000 Com
munists are governing the country.
Is it possible to allow these 400 900
Communists the liberty to form
groups? We say-no. Such free
dom to form groups leads to a split
ting up Of state power, and it is
only irresponsible persons, only such
who have no comprehension for the
reciprocal relations between our
Party and the state power, who can
play with this idea and talk so
much about it.
The 10th Congress of our Party
dealt with this question at an ex-
ceedingly critical moment, and those
comrades who maintain that the
resolution passed by the Central is
inadequate, or must be differently
interpreted, must be asked the ques-
ton: What do you propose to do
with the resolution of the 10th Con-
gress? The resolution was Com
rade Lenin's, written with his own
hand, and passed without any amend
ment. Comrade Lenin understood
very well the circumstances which
induce the formation of groupings
and factions.
There is certain transition stage.
When we stated at a meeting that
this is the resolution passed by the
10th Congress two years ago, some
one replied that the resolution was