The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1927-12-13
Lenin's Letter
DEAR COMRADES!

A Party which respects itself
cannot tolerate any strike-b breaking
or strike-breakers in its midst. That
is quite clear. The more one thinks
over the proclamations of Zinoviev
and Kamenev in the press not belong
ing to our Party, the more evident
it becomes that their attitude amounts
to a complete act of strike breaking.
The excuse of Kamenev at the meet
ing of the Petrograd Soviet is abso-
lutely contemplate; he is, just see,
completely in agreement with Trot-
sky. Is it then really difficult to I'M
derstand that Trotsky could not,
ought not and should not say more
before the enemies than he did? Is
it really difficult to grasp that it is
the duty of the Party which has kept
the decision secret from the enemy
(the decision of the necessity of an
armed revolt, as we'll as the decision
that it has completely matured, the
decision of all-round preparation
etc., that this decision, in the event
of public demonstrations, pledges to
cast not only the blame, but also the
initiative on the enemy? Only a child
can fail to grasp such a thing. The
excuse of Kamenev is simply a peace
of trickery. The same must be said
of Zinoviev's excuse, at least of his
letter of justification" lin the Cen
trail organ, l believe) which l have
just read, (for a separate opinion, an
alleged separate opinion, of which
the bourgeois press makes a great
show, |, member of the C. c., have
up to now never seem. From the
arguments of Zinoviev: "Lenin has
sent his letters :" fThey have
also not protested before the accept
ance of any decision" That is what
Zinoviev actually writes, and under
lines the word before four times. Is
it really hard to understand that be-
fore the decision Of question of the
strike by the Centre one can agitate
for and against, but that after the de-
cision in favor of the strike (and after
the supplementary decision to conceal
this from the enemy, to agitate
against the strike means strike-break-
ing. Every worker will understand
this at once. The question of the
armed rising was discussed in the
Centre since September. At that
time Zinoviev and Kamenev could
have and ought to have put forward
their objections in writing in order
that all could realise by means of
their arguments their complete de-
featism. To conceal his views from
the Party for a whole month until
the acceptance of the decision, and
then, only after the decision, to pub
lish his separate opinion, that means
nothing else than to be a strike
breaker.
Zinoviev acts as if he did not know
the difference, as if he did not under
stand that after a decision to strike,
after a decision of the Centre, only
strike-breakers can agitate among
the lower bodies against the decision.
Every worker will grasp this.
Zinoviev, however, has agitated and
violated decisions of the Centre, both
at the Sunday meeting, where he and
Kamenev did not receive single
vote, and in his present letter. Zinc
view has the impudence to maintain
that the Party was not asked, and
that such questions must not be de-
cided by ten people. Just think! All
members of tn c. c. know that at the
deciding meeting there were more
han ten members of the 9. C. pres
7nt; that the majority of the Plcnum
was present; that Kamenev himself