The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1926-12-28

plan, warrant us in believing that the
socialist economy will be able to de-
monstrate its superiority in a com
paratively short term over the capital
list system which is torn by internal
contradictions and by crises.
"In his objections on the question of
the construction of socialism in our
country, Trotsky has retreated from
the former basis of his polemics to a
new basis
Whereas, formerly Trotsky consid-
cred that in our country the contradic-
lions between the proletariat and the
peasantry were the stumbling block,
today he retreats to another basis of
criticizing the party line, asserting
that the stumbling block consists in
the contradictions between our econ
omic system and the system of world
capitalism.
THE opposition is prone to doubt
that we are building socialism in ALI
ance with the world proletariat. Only
a mailman can deny the greatest i'm
portance in the alliance of proletariat
Of our country with the proletariat of
other countries in the cause of So
cialist construction or accuse our par
ty with Understanding the union of
the proletariat of all countries.
THE trouble with the opposition is
that the opposition recognizes only
one form Of the alliance, namely,
direct state support of the q. S. S. r.
on the part of the workers of the
western world-unfortunate a form
which at the present moment cannot
find application. The opposition makes
the fate of socialist construction of the
U. S. S. R. dependent upon that sup
port in the future.
Kameneff wished to know whether
the U. S. S. r. proletariat is interna-
tionalist. Ask the British and Turkish
workers. Ask the Turkish and Chinese
workers and they will tell you about
the internationalism Of the u. S. SIR.
proletariat. The negation of the DOS
sibility of building socialism results
in the outlook about the degeneration
of the party while this outlook in its
turn leads to the surrender of power,
to the question of the creation of
new party. From the viewpoint of the
opposition only two issues are left:
Hits SoclaI-Demoeratic Drift.
ITO surrender power lest it degen-
Qrlfn and
parallel with the official party is what
the opposition practically strove for
and what essentially it is still striving
for
'The platform of the opposition bloc
is social-democratic drift, it is raj
lying Of all opportunist tendencies for
the organization of a struggle against
the party against the party unity and
against the party authority.
From the viewpoint of the party
unity the opposition bloc is the en-
bryo Of a new party within our party |
Is it not fact that the opposition had
its own central committee, its own |
parallel local committees. It's state |
ment of Oct 16 assured the party that
it abandoned factional strife. What |
guarantee have we that the opposition |
has not already reconstructed It's cen !
trail and local parallel oppositional or
CARNATIONS?
Us # not a fact that the opposition
has collected special membership fees
for it's own funds? What guarantee |
have we that the opposition has not
again stepped on that fractional way?
The dictatorship Of the proletariat
cannot last one minute with imperial |
ism supreme in other countries and |
only one country breaks the front of
capital unless there exists complete
unity in our party armed with an iron
discipline.
THE attempts to undermine party
unity and to create a new party must
be suppressed If we wish to maintain
the dictatorship Of the proletariat and
build socialism. We have two forces
before us. One side: our party con
fidently leading forward the proletarlat
Of the u. S. S. r. towards the build
ing up of socialism and calling upon
the proletariat Of all countries TO the
struggle. On the other side: the op-
position dragging behind our party
like weak old man suffering from
his legs aching, spread
ing pessimism, poisoning the at
with. the idle talk that no
good will result from our socialism
in the U. S. s. r., that everything is
bad on the proletarian side and every
thing is alright on the bourgeois side.
'In its fractional blindness the op-
position considers our revolution as
something lacking any inner force,
something like free supplement to
future revolutions in the west. Lenin
did not look upon our revolution and
upon the Soviet power in this way.
Lenin considered the Soviet Republics