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

| Peasants Inspection, may be esti1
mated by the fact that the whole of
members OF the political and organ
ization bureaus Of the Central Com
mittee decided unanimously, at the
same meeting, to send letter to the
party organizations. This letter con-
tanned the following passage;
"XETTHoUT dealing. in this purely
informative letter, with the criti-
cism of the historically possible dan.
gers so opportunity dealt with by
Lenin In his article, the members of
the political and organization bu-
reaus consider 1t necessary, in order
to avoid possible misunderstandings,
to declare unanim 1usly that there is
nothing in the inner activity Of the
Central Committee which gives oc-
casion to fear the dangers of split"
Not only does my signature figure
among the ten footing this document,
but the wording itself was edited by
me. January q, 1929
In view Of the fact that this letter,
expressing the unanimous opinion Of
the Central Committee on Lenin's pro-
posal to introduce the Workers and
Peasants Inspection, also bears the
| signature OF Comrade Kuybyshev, we
have here at the same time the con-
futation of Eastmans assertion that
Comrade Kuybyshev was placed at the
head of the Workers Peasants In
spection" as opponent" of Lenin's
plan of organization.
Eastman's quotation from the word
ing of the "will' is equally wrong.
This was published in the Socialist
Messenger" Berlin menshevist paper.
Ed and was stolen from the party
archives, so to speak by counter revo-
lutionists. In reality the wording as
published in the Socialist Messen-
ger" passed thru many hands before
its appearance in this paper. 1t was
"freshened" up again and again, and
absolutely impossible to restore its
orinigal import. 1t is possible that
the alterations were made by the edi-
torial stan of this paper.
Eastman's assertions that the Cen
trail Committee confiscated pamphlets
or articles of mine in 1923 or 1924, or
at any time, are untrue, and are based
on imaginative rumors.
Another false assertion is that Len
in offered me the post Of chairman to
| tho o0unoiI of yaonIats oOY,, mi O O. rios
An attentive perusal of Eastman's
\ pamphlet would doubtless afford me
further opportunity of pointing out
other errors and inaccuracies.
1t seems to me, however, that the
attentive and thotful reader win moi
require an accumulation Of docu.
ments-which in any case does not apl
peal to everyone's understanding-to
arrive at the conclusion that East
mans literary structure is buiit uI
on very inadequate and shaky founda
tions. 1t will therefore suffice If the
conclusions drawn by the author are
subjected to examination, conclusions
placing our party and its leaders in
such a ligh that the same attentive
and thotful reader is inevitably
forced to the question: What bonds
can unite Eastman and this party, OF
Eastman and the revolution led by
this party? What has Eastman to op
pose to this party?
IF we were to assume for even one
moment that the views formulated
by Eastman on the leading PERSONAL
ties in our party are correct, we should
ask: How could this party emerge
from long years of secret struggle
How could it accomplish the greatest
of revolutions? How could it carry
millions of human beings along with
it, and contribute to the formation OF
revolutionary parties in other coun
tries? Eastman skaters and brushes
the elementary political relations, be
cause he employs an arbitrary and
psychological criterion, and not pc
litical Marxist one.
In this case a revolutionary would
only have the right to write polite
ally, as Eastman does, IL he were tc
oppose another party to ours. East
man does not think for a moment Of
this side of the political question. The
book teaches nothing. 1t may be ex
plotted by the enemies of Communism
which is not such a serious matter
or 1t may SOW the seed Of scepticisn
in the minds of young and still un
J conscious friends Of Communism
which is very much more serious. Fol
this reason It deserves energetic con
demnation-
Resolution Of the c. c. Of the c. p