The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1926-03-27

After thSssecond party convention in the sum-
mer Of 1908, tenseness prevailed in the Russian
- Sarty The Mensheviks boycotted the central COM
mittee and skra, whose editors were Lenn and
PIechanov (who still with Lenin) and Martov
| (of the Mensheviks). This letter of Lenin pub
Iished in skra, November rs, 1903, was an answer
to article of PIechanov and an attempt to unite
the party and reduce the differences and establish
proper method of discussion of the points Of dis
pute. He did not succeed and in December, when
majority Of the editors refused to print his next
article he resigned from the staff.
The fact that Lenin recommends publicity and
party discussions in this particular situation, does
not mean that he regarded party discussion as pos
sble in every situation. And under crcum.
stances can it depend the caprice Of one COM
rade another to start a party discussion with s
out concrete basis for it in everyday questions
A pending in the party. We recommend this article :
70 the active members Of the party and especially
the responsible party workers.
THE article 'sWhat Not to Do" (by PIechanov,
translator) raises such everyday, i'm
mediate questions of our party life that it is
difficult to resist the desire to answer imme-
diately to the announcement that the columns
of the paper would be opened-it is especially
difficult for regular co-editor of Iskra, espe-
cially difficult in moment when delay in
giving my opinion would perhaps mean with
draWal of the opportunity.
And wanted to give my opinion in order
to remove some possible and perhaps avoid
able misunderstanding
l want to say first of all, that the author of
the article is thousand times correct in MY
opinion, when he emphasizes the urgency of
preserving the unity of the party, and of avoi1
ing new splits, especially for differences which
cannot be considered of Importance. A call
for peace-loving, mild Cancellation is COM
mendable on the part of leader in general
and especially at this moment
To pronounce anathema on or exclude from
the party, not only the former economists, but
also groups of social-democrats who still suf-
| fer from certain Inconsistencies" would with
out question be reasonable-unreasonab
to such degree, that can wholly understan1
the excited tone of the author toward the fig
ure of the straight-lined, stubborn, dull Suba-
cheVich Ga literary figure-translator) which
he has imagined, and which will certainly
stand as an exception. We think even further,
when we get the party program and the party
organization we must not only Hospitality open
the pages of the party organs for exchange of
opinions, but also grant to the groups the pos
sibility of a systematic explanation of their in
significant differences-to the little groups, as
Ehe author says, which in. their inconsistent
lies defend some of the dogmas of revisionism,
Ind which for one reason or another insist on
snaving their group peculiarties and Individual
| ity. Just in order not to be too narrow-mind-
ed and stiff, la Subachevich, toward lamar
chistic individualism," it is necessary, in our
opinion, to do everything pOssible-even to
some deviationS from the beautiful schemes OF