The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1927-12-19
Lerin's Controversies.

u oy DCINSCli AClllli anu GiiN OPNAAoNNj
between Lenin and the Economists,
between Lenin and the Legal Marx
lists, the struggle between Bolsheviks
and Mensheviks, the controversy in
side the Bolshevik Party over the
question of boycotting the Duma, etc.
f"aOr we may jump to the period af-
ter the revolution of 1917 and find
that continue inside the
far more homogeneous Communist
Party. There was the struggle over
Brest-Iitovsk, the controversy over
the ,.NEP, the controversy over the
naturalization and militarization of
the. trade unions, the controversy over
the question. of democratic centralism,
the Workers Opposition, and many
more. ee-
Engels Saw 1t In 1882.
Engels commenting upon this fact
that parties, can only form a correct
policy by discussion and argument
about which policy is correct until
they have settled it, often after seri-
Gus controversies, expresses himself
as follows in letter to Bernstein in
1882:
Apparently all labor parties in big
countries can develop only in the pro-
cess of internal struggle in complete,
accordance with the laws of dialectics.
Antagonisns cannot be concealed for
long. They can only be settled by
fighting them out"
When Do Controversies Occur?
IN periods of revolutionary develop
ment, changes in historical condi-
lions are particularly frequent and
abrupt. Such changes require change
ir the strategy and tactics of the rev.
dictionary party and it is precisely
at such moments that controversies
of sharp character are most likely
to occur. At such moments, when
conditions change rapidly. when his
tory makes sharp and abrupt turn
in a new direction, many elements
fail to recognize the necessity for a
change Of tactics. They continue
marching ahead on the same road
that they were following before. when
it is necessary to cut off on a new
road or cut across fields ons which no
path has yet been chartered.
Thus the same leader, continuing
to lead in the same direction when a
new direction is necessary, becomes
misleader, and it becomes necessary
for the working class to cease to fol-
low him, oftentimes even to fight him.
No Right to Mislead.
| No man has a permanent right to
leadership. In the revolutionary move
ment there can be no such things as
self-appointed leaders.
! He who leads Alright is followed.
When he leads in the wrong direction
then the conscious and revolutionary
working class party ceases to follow
him, or marches to its own destruc-
ton. The revolution is not respecter
! of persons.
+ In fact, the more prominent lead
er-has been in the past, and the great
err his reputation, the more dangerous
| his Influence for bad becomes when
ne attempts to lead in a wrong direc-
! ton.
..- The Case OF Plekhanoff.
HISTORY is full Of such cases. There
A is the case of Plekhapoff
Plekhanoff was the founder and
outstanding theoretical leader of the
Russian Social-Democratic Party. He
stood forth as the champion of Marx
ism against the Revisionists, and
made original contributions of his own
to the field of revolutionary working
class science.
Yet when Plekhanoff failed to grasp
the situation facing the Russian
working class, when he offered guild
ance in the wrong direction, when he
attempted 20 lead the working class
away from the path that it's interests
dictated to it, then they ceased to fol-
low him. They were compelled to for
get his past services and to attack
him and undermine his influence in
the revolutionary movement.
AS it became more apparent that
the policy he proposed was really a
policy contrary to the interests of the
working class. And in the interests of
it's enemies, it became necessary to
fight Plekhanoff. When he died, the
leaders of the Communist movement
decided not even to go to his funeral,
although the Russian revolutionary
movement owed great debt to him
for some of his past services. They
decided that they were in a fight,
that he was on the wrong side in that
fight, and that many workers would