The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1929-06-28

| this decision gives the Party to the
former Minority. Lovestone used
this argument as one of his principle
means for mobilizing opposition to
the C. I. line. And many Minority
comrades gave him direct aid, max
ing exactly the claim that the c, l.
proposed to give the Party to the
Minority. For this the Address very
sharply and correctly condemns US.
Our mistakes in this direction were
especially deadly during the conven-
ton. Our factional activities at the
convention unquestionably made
vastly more difficult the task of the
C. l. in handling the already ex-
tremcly difficult situation.
We must distinctly understand
that. it is not the intention of the
C. |. to give the Party to the Minor
ity but to liquidate both groups and
unite the Party. Claims to the con-
trary by Minority comrades are not
only incorrect and opposed to the
/ line of the c. I. but they also tend to
discredit the G. I. and to make it's
work of unifying the Party much
more difficult. They are the most
extreme manifestations of factional-
ism, and factionalism must now be
recognized as a serious right devil
alton.
Now, few words as to other mis-
takes of the former Minority. In
addition to its openly right oppor-
tunist errors, most of which were
based en- the insidious theory of ex-
ceptionalism, the former Minority
made a number of serious opportu-
mist errors which covered themselves
up with cleft" phraseology. The
c. I. Address correctly says:
"The Minority of the Central
Committee of the American Com
munist Party was committing, in
regard to questions dealing with
the crisis of American capitalism
and the swing of the masses to the
left, Cleft" but in reality right
opportunist errors"
The errors of this type made by
the former Minority originated for
the most part, >out of it's confused
efforts to fight the right danger in
the Party. Thus, in trying to COM
bat the gross over-estimation of the
power of expansion of American i'm
perialism, signalized principally by
the writings of Comrades Pepper,
Lovestone and Wolfe, the former
Minority fell into the serious error
of practically trying to argue away
the growth of American imperialism
and exaggerating the tempo of its
crisis. This wrong tendency was ex-
pressed most clearly in the Minority
theory that American imperialism
was about to reach the apex of its
development, and in efforts to fight
against the Pepper-Lovestone theory
of the "Wave of Prosperity" by
exaggerating the extent of the i'm
mediate economic depression, by
cleft" interpretations of the Smith
vote, etc. Such errors, instead of
weakening the tendencies in our
Party to over-estimate the power
of American imperialism and to I'M
| der-estimate the mood of the masses
for struggle, clearly strengthened
these right tendencies. Among such
cleft but in reality right oppor-
/ tunist errors" of the former Minor
| ity were the famous reservations
made by US to the thesis of the Sixth
| World Congress of the Comintern.
The Minority had differed with the
original draft presented by Comrade
Bukharin, but we made the serious
''leftist" error of developing this OPP
position to the point, with our reser-
vations, of putting ourselves in the
position of practically challenging
the line of the Congress thesis. We
went to the extreme Of believing it
necessary to make these reserva-
lions in order to carry on the strug-
gle against the right danger. This
course was wrong. 1t not only vio-
lated elementary procedure ,of the
Comintern but it had the additional
bad effects of raising the issue of
the reservations to the central point
of discussion in the pre-convention
period and thus obscuring other seri-
Gus right errors in the Party.
Resistance to the C. /. Line.
Although the C. I. Address is very
sharp in its political analysis and
criticism, it will unquestionably be
understood and accepted by practi-
cally the entire Party, but there is
a definite opposition, some of it
open and some concealed. First, let
me say a few words about the open
opposition led by Pepper, Lovestone,
Wolfe and Gitlow.
1t will be recalled that Lovestone
and Gitlow, arguing at our conven-
ton against the G. 1. line, declared
that the G. l. had made its terror"
simply because it did not understand
the American situation; that the
Party would send delegation to ex-
plain matters and that then, after
this discussion with the C. l., the
delegation would accept the ensuing