The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-02-07

the scene at the later sessions of this
same congress.
The organizatory rupture between
the menshevild and the Bolsheviki
took place at the Party Congress on
the question of the election of the
Central Committee of the party.
Three members had to be elected to
the G. c. With respect to two MEM
bers the mensheviki and the Bolshe-
wiki were in agreement. AS third
member the mensheyiki wanted the
''Lenin's cudgeP' of yesterday, but
Lenin would not agree at any price.
The mensheviki would not give way
at any price. 1t is PROBABLE that
Lenin and Martov had both form
ed correct estimate of the de-
gree in which the "cudgel" was Len
ms" Lenin had the majority at the
congress and Trotsky was not elected.
Upon this, Comrade Trotsky, in col
liberation with Martoy, Axelrod, and
others, formed the fraction Of the
mensheviki, broke the decisions. of the
party congress, headed the boycott
against the central authorities of the
party under Lenin's leadership, and
wrote a political pamphlet against
Lenin-one of the most arrogant and
offensive productions in mensheyist
literature, in which Lenin's whole pol
icy is explained as mere greed of
power on the part of Candidate for
the post of dictator" The whole set
of mensheviki, headed by Martov, Dan,
| and others, recommended the press to
propagate this pamphlet as far as pos
sible. This was the beginning of the
history of menshevism, and Of the his
tory of Comrade Trotsky in the party
Trotsky, now become sword-bearer
to Martov and Axelrod, lost all inter
est as political figure in the eyes of
Lenin. Lenin entered into lengthy
and systematic conflicts with the men
sheviki. with Plechanov, Martov, Ak
elrod, Martinov; he explained and re-
vealed their standpoint to the work
ers; but he held it to be superfuous
to lose time in contentious with their
co-worker, Trotsky.
"Plechanov must be combatted, Mar
TOYS arguments must be refuted and
we can contend against the sexttenfe
opportunist, Martinov, but it is not
worth while to lose time in contend
ing against Trotsky"-so said Lenin
at that time to his fellow workers.
But when, in the summer of 1905.
Comrade Trotsky tried to draw him
self out of the menshevist bog by
presenting the ideas of Paryus on
permanent revolution" in his own
wording, then Lenin entered into a de-
tailed discussion on the ideas and slo-
gans brought out by Parvus, and re-
jected them. With reference to Trot-
sky's pamphlet he merely expressed
his regret that the Revolutionary So
cial democrat" Parvus should deem ii
possible to concur with Trotsky" and
his revolutionary phrases" Lenin
had not another word to say about
Comrade Trotsky and his original"
theory. (See Lenin, complete works,
Russian edition, Vol. z, page 1907
And now Comrade Trotsky is en-
deayoring to lay precisely this pam
phlet before the party as certificate
OF his revolutionary past, and is trying
to prove that Lenin was only right in
so far as he shared the standpoint of
lAOlShy pdnpnl6L. we SnaU deal
with this in detail later on.
During the whole period of tho first
revolution, when the working masses
had for the first time the opportunity
OF testing in action the various the
cries Of the Russian revolution and
their resultant tactical methods, and
when Lenin defended the Bolshevist
scheme OF revolution in desperate bat
tie. he did not think It once necessary
to add anything to his characterize
ton of Trotsky's principles, or to the
designation Of Revolutionary
phrases"
Lenin knew that Trotsky's left
phrases" on the permanent revolu.
ton" would certainly have no effect
upon the actual course taken by the
labor movement revolution, and would
not in the. least prevent Comrade
Trotsky from remaining in the men.
shevist organization, cooperating in
the menshevist central organ, and col
laborating politically with the menshe.
1 ii L. - 4