The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-02-03
Speech BY comrade stain.
At the PIenary Meeting Of the Com
munIst Section Of the Central
Trade Union Council on Nov.
10, 1924.

~ W uuu1dShluB d lew leBSuuS WHICH
have been spread by Comrade Trotsky
and others of the same opinion as to the
October revolution, the part played by
Comrade Trotsky in the revolution, as
to the party and the preparations for
October, etc. In doing so shall treat
Trotskyism as a singular theology
which is quite irreconcilable with Len
inism, and speak of the duties Of the
party in connection with the recent Ii
terary undertakings of Comrade Trot-
sky.
The Facts as to the October
Revolution.
First of all as to the October revolu-
ton. Strong rumors are being spread
among the members of the party, that
the G. G. as whole is said to have
been opposed to the instruction in
October, 1917. The tale usually goes
that on Oct. 10, when the c. c. passed
a resolution regarding the organiza-
ton Of the revolt, the majority of the
G. G. pronounced against the revolt,
but that just then workman forced
his way into the committee and said:
You have passed a resolution against
the revolt, but / tell you that it will
take place in spite of everything" The
G. G. is said to have been alarmed by
these threats, to have discussed anew
the question of the revolt, and to have
decided to organize 1t.
This is no simple rumor, Comrades.
The well-known Jehn Reed, who was
not connected wikhour party and ma
turally could not Know the history Of
our conspirative meeting on Oct. 10,
so that he fell into Mr.. Suchanov's
trap, writes about it in his book Ten
Days That Shook the World" Thi,
tale is printed and repeated in whole
series of brochures which originate
from the pens of Trotsky's adherents,
among others in one of the latest bro
chures about October written by Com
rade Syrkin.
These rumors are supported in an
increased degree by the latest literary
enterprise of Comrade Trotsky. It is
hardly necessary to prove that all
these and similar Arabian Nights"
do not correspond to the facts, that
nothing of the sort happened or could
have happened at the meeting of the
G. G. We might therefore pass over
these rumors, for indeed many un-
founded and silly rumors are manufac-
tured in the studies of persons in op-
position or not connected with the par
ty. We have, as a matter of fact, done
so until recently, for instance, by
paying no attention to the mistakes of
John Reed and not troubling to cor
rect them. But after the recent enter
prises of Comrade Trotsky, it is really
impossible to pass over these legends
for efforts are being made to educate
the youth on the lines Of these legends
which have unfortunately already met
with some success. / feel therefore,
compelled to confront these silly ru-
mors with the actual facts.
Let us take the minutes of the meet
ing of the C. C. of our party from
Oct. 1923, 1917. Present: Lenin, Tin
oviev, Kamenev, Stain, Trotsky,
Swerdlov, Uritsky, Dzershiasky, Kol-
lantay, Bubnov, Sokolnikov, Lomov
The question to be discussed is the
situation at the time and the insurrec-
ton. After the debate, a resolution
Of Comrade Lenin's as to the revolt
is put to the vote. The resolution
was passed with a majority of 10
votes against 2. 1t seems therefore
perfectly clear that the C. C. resolv-
ed by majority of 10 against votes
to proceed Immediately with the prac-
teal work for the organization of the
insurrection. At this meeting, the C.
G. chose a political central committee
with the title of a political bureau,
consisting of Lenin, Zinoviev, Stain,
Kamenev, Trotslsy, Sokolnikov and
Bubnov to lead the revolt.
These are the facts.
These minutes Immediately destroy
several legends. They destroy the
legend that a majority of the c. c.
pronounced against the instruction.
They also destroy the legend that the
G. c. was faced by split on the ques-
ton of the insurrection. II is evident
from the minutes, that the opponents
Of immediate revolt-Comrades Kan
enev and Zinoviev, joined the organ
for the political direction of the revolt,
just as did those who were in favor of
il. There was not and cannot be any
question of split.
Comrade Trotsky asserts that in the
persons of Comrades Kamenev and
Zinoviev we had in October a right
wing, almost a wing of social demo
Gratis, in our party. In view of this
IL seems difficult to understand how 1t
could happen that the party escaped
o split; how it could happen that, in
spite Of the differences of opinion, the
comrades in question were placed by
the party at the most important posts.
were elected to the political central
committee of the instruction, etc.
Lenin's intolerance of social demo-
Gratis is well known in the party; the
party knows that he would not for a
moment have agreed to have comrades
with social democratic leanings in the
party, let alone in the most import
ant posts.
How is It to be explained that the
party escaped a split? II is explained
by the fact that these comrades were
old Bolsheviki who stood on the gen.
eral foundation of BoIshevism. In
what did this general foundation con-