The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1929-01-23

in a wrong way. They did not
have any objections in principle
against my criticism of the c. I.
as stated in the same caucus meet
ing of the leading group of the
opposition, except for considering
it inexpedient to voice this critic
ism openly. Moreover, Comrade
Aronberg tried hard to convince
me thereafter that l should not
withdraw from the opposition on
account of Cannon's expulsion, as
Cannon really is Trotskyist and
am an uncompromising enemy
of Trotskyism (they had known
it, them. To which / had only this
answer, II may be mistaken as to
Cannon, but if you are right and
he is a Trotskyist, then the OPP
position is dead, anyway. You
cannot fight the Lovestone group
while fighting Trotskyism. If
there is really Trotskyist dam
ger in America, then the whole
Party must fight it united"
And after my declaration of
with Comrade Aronberg, l was
nevertheless invited to the larger
caucus of the Opposition, where
Comrade Bittelman made his re-
port about the Congress of the
c. /. / came to this meeting for
the express purpose of presenting
my statement-this very state
ment that Comrade Aronberg car
ries in his pocket. Why does
Comrade Aronberg keep it there
for weeks and weeks instead of
presenting it to the Gee, if this
statement contains an inadmissi-
BILE criticism of the C. l.? To
cover such offenses constitutes an
offense of no lesser gravity, does
it not, Comrade Aronberg? And
to hide such offense in order to
warn the offender, "better be
careful"-does it not look like
political blackmail? Do you think
this permissible within the Com
munist Party, Comrade Aron-
berg?
For my part, I can only be
thankful to Comrade Aronberg
for relieving me Of the uneasiness
one feels in speaking about the
inside doings of caucus to which
one formerly belonged. l would
have to do it anyway, in order to
fulfill my Communist duty toward
the Party. But Aronberg made;
it much easier for me, as now /
am just calling his bluff.
Here is the discriminating part
of the statement INmade in the
last meeting of the Opposition
caucus in which 1 participated:
Il. To vote for the resolution
endorsing the work Of the, con-
gress (of the c. ~, even with the
reservation about the right ) to
criticise in due time it's decision.
on the American question, but
without criticising it actually,
means at least a partial surrender
Of the position Of the Opposition.
1t would be admissible to endorse
the work of the congress in gen.
eral with reservations as to some
minor details. But to consider the
American question as a minor de-
tail, constitutes in itself major
error, and typical Right wing
error. However, this was exactly
the way the American question
was treated by the congress and
the reservation vote" (of Com
rades Aronberg, Wagenknecht,
Gomez and others) on Comrade
Weinstone's resolution, means the
endorsement of this essentially
wrong attitude.
"2. 1t would be an even worse
error to attempt to divide the
American question itself in two:
American Imperialism, its role,
developments, etc., on the one side,
and the situation in the American
Party on the other, and then to
agree with the congress as to the
zone side Of the question" and to
disagree as to the other.
1T is impossible to fight Amer