The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-08-16


the intention OF publishing this book
in Russia, or / should probably have
advised him at that time not to do
so. cannot prevent Eastman from
publishing this work abroad; he Is a
free writer" he has lived In Russia,
collected material; at present he is In
France, If not In America. Shall beg
him so to speak as a private favor
not to publish this book? / am not
sufficiently intimate with him to do
this. And it would be out of place"
repeat that this letter consisted of
biographical sketch, the story of my
youth up to about 1902. At that time
there was no thot of Eastman's second
work: Since Lenin's Death" At
least had not heard 1t spoken of. /
first heard of its existence after my
return to Moscow, thru the agency of
telegraphic inquiry from Comrade
Jackson, editor of the Sunday
Worker" London. Altho my reply to
Jackson was published by the press,
it will 5e perhaps suitable to repeat
the first part of 1t here:
"ETlHE book by Eastman which you
4 mention, is unknown to me. The
bourgeois newspapers quoting the
book have not reached me. 1t need
not be said that categoricaIly reject
in advance any commentary directed
against the Communist Party Of Rus.
STA"
1 afterwards received the pamphlet
in question ("Since Lenin's Death")
from Comrade Inkpin, secretary of the
Communist Party of Great Britain.
After looking thru this little book for
half an hour, came to the conclusion
that the work is of no Importance,
either theoretically or politically.
had no intention of reading it, and
less intention still of reacting upon
1t, as assumed that my telegram to
Comrade Jackson was entirely sufilci
emit But comrades in the party with
knowledge Of the book expressed the
opinion that my silence might be the
indirect means Of supporting the
book. This forced me to read it. My
first impression was strengthened in
principle.
Eastman's book Is bare of any po-
litical value. The writer approaches
the events of the inner life of our
party without serious political .cri
terion, in a purely psychological man
ner, and thus effects subjective arbi
trariness in the estimates, substantial
tions, and conclusions.
TTTE shall first deal with a question
w which is certainly of historical
Importance, and at the same time q
most vital actuality: The Red Army
Eastman maintains that since changes
have taken place among its leaders
the Red Army is divided, that 1t has
lost its fighting capabilities, etc 1 dc
not know where Eastman has learned
this. But its absurdity is obvious
He does not see that in thus charac
terizing the Red Army, he is nourish
ing the menshevist legend on the
Bonapartist character, the Pretorian
guard character of our Army, etc. Fol
1t is clear that an army which is cap
able Of dividing because its com
hnander is changed is neither Com
rhunist nor proletraian.
During the course of the whole worl
the author quotes a large number o.
documents, and a certain number o.
incidents which took place long ago
Thus this little book contains 6
goodly quantity of erroneous and un
truthful general assertions.
4 In several places Eastman states
that the central committee Of thI
party has "secreted" a large number
of documents Of extraordinary import
ance, written by Lenin during the las
period Of his life. CThese are letters
on the national question, the famous
will" etc. This implies TIT Leni1
wrote these letters, referrii to the
inner organizations OF the Boviets
with the intention of their publication
This is not the case
The letters were intended for the
party congresses, and the members o.
the 18th and 18th congresses were
enabled to take cognizance of theil
contents in the manner determined
: upon by the representatives OF this
congresses. that is, all the delegations
were permitted to read the lettera.
Another equally false assertion
made by Eastman is that the Contra
Committee wanted to secret (that is
not to publish) Lenin's article on tn,
Workers and Peasants Inspection
The differences of opinion arising OF
this point in the Central Committee
IL differences Of opinion" can herr
be spoken of at all, were Of very sec
ondary sinihcance, referring solely I,
the date and method OF publication
And this purely technical question
was unanimously agreed upon at thu
same meeting. How wrongly East