One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (THE CRISIS IN OUR PARTY)

I. Paragraph One of the Rules

We have already cited the different formulations around which an
interesting debate flared up at the Congress. This debate took
up nearly two sittings and ended with two roll-call votes (during the entire Congress there were, if I am not
mistaken, only eight roll-call votes, which were resorted to
only in very important cases because of the great loss of time
they involved). The question at issue was undoubtedly one of
principle. The interest of the Congress in the debate was
tremendous. All the delegates voted—a rare occurrence at our Congress (as at any big congress) and one that
likewise testifies to the interest displayed by the disputants.

What, then, was the substance of the matter in dispute? I
already said at the Congress, and have since repeated it time
and again, that “I by no means consider our difference [over
Paragraph 1] so vital as to be a matter of life or death to the
Party. We shall certainly not perish because of an unfortunate
clause in the Rules!”

(p. 250.) [1]

Taken by itself, this difference, although it did reveal shades of
principle, could never have called forth that divergence
(actually, to speak unreservedly, that split) which took place
after the Congress. But every little difference may become a big one if it is insisted on, if it is put
into the foreground, if people set about searching for all the roots and branches of the difference. Every
little difference may assume tremendous importance if it serves as the starting-point for a
swing towards definite mistaken views, and if these mistaken views are combined, by virtue of new and additional
divergences, with anarchistic actions which bring the
Party to the point of a split.

And that is just what happened in the present case. The
comparatively slight difference over Paragraph 1 has now
acquired tremendous importance, because it was this that started
the swing towards the opportunist profundities and anarchistic
phrase-mongering of the minority (especially at the League
Congress, and subsequently in the columns of the new
Iskra as well). It was this that marked the beginning of the coalition of the Iskra -ist
minority with the anti- Iskra -ists and the Marsh, which
assumed final and definite shape by the time of the elections,
and without understanding which it is impossible to understand the major and fundamental divergence over the
composition of the central bodies. The slight mistake of Martov
and Axelrod over Paragraph 1 was a slight crack in our pot (as I
put it at the League Congress). The pot could be bound tight
with a hard knot (and not a hangman’s knot, as it was misunderstood by Martov, who during the League Congress was in a
state bordering on hysteria); or all efforts could be directed towards widening the crack and breaking the pot in
two. And that is what happened, thanks to the boycott and
similar anarchistic moves of the zealous Martovites. The
difference over Paragraph 1 played no small part in the
elections to the central bodies, and Martov’s defeat in the
elections led him into a “struggle over principles” with the use
of grossly mechanical and even brawling methods (such as his
speeches at the Congress of the League of Russian Revolutionary
Social-Democracy Abroad).

Now, after all these happenings, the question of Paragraph 1 has
thus assumed tremendous importance , and we must clearly
realise both the character of the Congress groupings in the
voting on this paragraph and—far more important still—the real nature of those shades of opinion
which revealed or began to reveal themselves over Paragraph
1. Now , after the events with which the reader is
familiar, the question stands as follows: Did Martov’s formulation, which was supported by Axelrod, reflect his (or
their) instability, vacillation, and political vagueness, as I
expressed it at the Party Congress (p. 333), his (or their)
deviation towards

Jaurèsism and anarchism, as Plekhanov suggested at the League Congress (League Minutes, p. 102 and
elsewhere)? Or did my formulation, which was supported by
Plekhanov, reflect a wrong, bureaucratic, formalistic, Jack-in-office, un-Social-Democratic conception of centralism?
Opportunism and anarchism , or bureaucracy and formalism ?—that is the way the question stands now , when the little difference has become a big one. And
when discussing the pros and cons of my formulation on their merits , we must bear in mind just this
presentation of the question, which has been forced upon us all
by the events, or, I would say if it did not sound too pompous,
has been evolved by history.

Let us begin the examination of these pros and cons with an
analysis of the Congress debate. The first speech, that of
Comrade Egorov, is interesting only for the fact that his
attitude (non liquet , it is not yet clear to me, I do not yet know where the truth lies) was very characteristic of
the attitude of many delegates, who found it difficult to grasp
the rights and wrongs of this really new and fairly complex and
detailed question. The next speech, that of Comrade Axelrod, at
once made the issue one of principle. This was the first speech
Comrade Axelrod made at the Congress on questions of principle,
one might even say the first speech he made at all, and it can
scarcely be claimed that his debut with the celebrated “professor” was particularly fortunate. “I think,” Comrade
Axelrod said, “that we must draw a distinction between the
concepts party and organisation. These two concepts are being
confused here. And the confusion is dangerous.” That was the
first argument against my formulation. Examine it more closely. When I say that the Party should be the sum (and not
the mere arithmetical sum, but a complex) of organisations , [2]
[2] The word “organisation” is commonly employed in two senses, a broad and a narrow one. In the narrow sense it signifles an individual nucleus of a collective of people with at least a minimum degree of coherent form. In the broad sense it signifies the sum of such nuclei united into a whole. For example, the navy, the army, or the state is at one and the same time a sum of organisations (in the narrow sense of the word) and a variety of social organisation (in the broad sense of the word). The Department of Education is an organisation (in the broad sense of the word) and consists of a number of organisations (in the narrow sense of the word). Similarly, the Party is an organisation, should be an organisation (in the broad sense of the word); at the same time, the Party should consist of a whole number of diversified organisations (in the narrow sense of the word). Therefore, when he spoke of drawing a distinction between the concepts party and organisation, Comrade Axelrod, firstly, did not take account of the difference between the broad and the narrow sense of the word “organisation”, and, secondly, did not observe that he was himself confusing organised and unorganised elements. — Lenin does that mean that I “confuse”

the concepts party and organisation? Of course not. I thereby
express clearly and precisely my wish, my demand, that the
Party, as the vanguard of the class, should be as organised as possible, that the Party should admit to
its ranks only such elements as allow of at least a minimum of organisation .My opponent, on the contrary, lumps together in the Party organised and unorganised elements,
those who lend themselves to direction and those who do not, the
advanced and the incorrigibly backward—for the corrigibly
backward can join an organisation. This confusion is indeed dangerous . Comrade Axelrod further cited the
“strictly secret and centralised organisations of the past”
(Zemlya i

Volya [13] and Narodnaya

Voly [14] ):

around them, he said, “were grouped a large number of people who did not belong to the
organisation but who helped it in one way or another and who
were regarded as Party members.... This principle should be
even more strictly observed in the Social-Democratic organisation.” Here we come to one of the key points of
the matter: is “this principle” really a Social-Democratic
one—this principle which allows people who do not belong to
any of the organisations of the Party, but only “help it in one
way or another”, to call themselves Party members? And Plekhanov
gave the only possible reply to this question when he said:
“Axelrod was wrong in citing the seventies. At that time there
was a well-organised and splendidly disciplined centre; around
it there were the organisations of various categories, which it
had created; and what remained outside these organisations was
chaos, anarchy. The component elements of this chaos called
themselves Party members, but this harmed rather than benefited
the cause. We should not imitate the anarchy of the seventies,
but avoid it.” Thus “this principle”, which Comrade Axelrod
wanted to pass off as a Social-Democratic one, is in reality an
anarchistic principle . To refute this, one would have to show that control, direction, and discipline are possible outside an organisation, and that conferring the
title of Party members on “elements of chaos” is necessary . The supporters of Comrade Martov’s formulation
did not show, and could not show, either of these things. Comrade Axelrod took as an example “a professor who
regards himself as a Social-Democrat and declares himself
such”. To complete the thought contained in this example,
Comrade Axelrod should have gone on to tell us whether the
organised Social-Democrats themselves regard this professor as a
Social-Democrat. By failing to raise this further question,
Comrade Axelrod abandoned his argument half-way. After all, one
thing or the other. Either the organised Social-Democrats regard
the professor in question as a Social-Democrat, in which case
why should they not enrol him in one of the Social-Democratic
organisations? For only if the professor is thus enrolled will
his “declaration” answer to his actions, and not be empty talk
(as professorial declarations all too frequently are). Or the
organised Social Democrats do not regard the professor as a Social-Democrat, in which case it would be absurd,
senseless and harmful to allow him the right to bear the honourable and responsible title of Party member. The matter
therefore reduces itself to the alternative: consistent
application of the principle of organisation, or the sanctification of disunity and anarchy? Are we to build the
Party on the basis of that already formed and welded core of
Social-Democrats which brought about the Party
Congress, for instance, and which should enlarge and multiply
Party organisations of all kinds; or are we to content ourselves
with the soothing phrase that all who help are
Party members? “If we adopt Lenin’s formula,” Comrade Axelrod
continued, “we shall be throwing overboard a section of those
who, even if they cannot be directly admitted to an organisation, are nevertheless Party members.” The confusion of
concepts of which Comrade Axelrod wanted to accuse me stands out
here quite clearly in his own case: he already takes it for
granted that all who help are Party members, whereas that is
what the whole argument is about and our opponents have still to
prove the necessity and value of such an interpretation. What is the meaning of the phrase “throwing over
board”, which at first glance seems so terrible? Even if only members of organisations recognised as Party organisations are
regarded as Party members, people who cannot “directly” join any
Party organisation can still work in an organisation which does
not belong to the Party but is associated with it. Consequently,
there can be no talk of throwing anyone overboard in the sense
of preventing them from working, from taking part in the
movement. On the contrary, the stronger our Party organisations,
consisting of real Social-Democrats, the less wavering and instability there is within the Party, the broader,
more varied, richer, and more fruitful will be the Party’s
influence on the elements of the working-class masses surrounding it and guided by it. The Party, as the vanguard of
the working class, must not be confused, after all, with the
entire class. And Comrade Axelrod is guilty of just this
confusion (which is characteristic of our opportunist Economism
in general) when he says: “First and foremost we are, of course,
creating an organisation of the most active elements of the
Party, an organisation of revolutionaries; but since we are the
Party of a class, we must take care not to leave outside the
Party ranks people who consciously, though perhaps not very
actively, associate themselves with that Party.” Firstly, the
active elements of the Social-Democratic working-class party
will include not only organisations of revolutionaries, but a
whole number of workers’ organisations recognised as
Party organisations. Secondly, how, by what logic, does the fact
that we are the party of a class warrant the conclusion that it
is unnecessary to make a distinction between those who belong to the Party and those who associate
themselves with it? Just the contrary: precisely because there
are differences in degree of consciousness and degree of
activity, a distinction must be made in degree of proximity to
the Party. We are the party of a class, and therefore almost the entire class (and in times of war, in a period of civil
war, the entire class) should act under the leadership of our
Party, should adhere to our Party as closely as possible. But it
would be

Manilovism [15] and “tail-ism” to think that the entire class, or almost the
entire class, can ever rise, under capitalism, to the level of
consciousness and activity of its vanguard, of its
Social-Democratic Party. No sensible Social-Democrat has ever
doubted that under capitalism even the trade union organisations
(which are more primitive and more comprehensible to the
undeveloped sections) are incapable of embracing the entire, or
almost the entire, working class. To forget the distinction
between the vanguard and the whole of the masses gravitating
towards it, to forget the vanguard’s constant duty of raising ever wider sections to its own advanced level,
means simply to deceive oneself, to shut one’s eyes to the
immensity of our tasks, and to narrow down these tasks. And it
is just such a shutting of one’s eyes, it is just such forgetfulness, to obliterate the difference between those who
associate themselves and those who belong, those who are
conscious and active and those who only help.

To argue that we are the party of a class in justification of organisational looseness, in
justification of confusing organisation with disorganisation, is to repeat the mistake of Nadezhdin, who
confused “the philosophical and social historical question of
the ’depth’ of the ’roots’ of the movement with the technical
and organisational question” (What Is To Be Done?,

p. 91). [3]

It is this confusion, wrought by the deft hand of Comrade Axelrod, that was then repeated
dozens of times by the speakers who defended Comrade Martov’s
formulation. “The more widespread the title of Party member, the
better,” said Martov, without, however, explaining the benefit
of a widespread title which did not correspond to fact. Can it be denied that control over Party members who do
not belong to a Party organisation is a mere fiction? A
widespread fiction is not beneficial, but harmful. “We could
only rejoice if every striker, every demonstrator, answering for
his actions, could proclaim himself a Party member” (p. 239). Is
that so? Every striker should have the right to proclaim himself a Party member ? In this statement Comrade
Martov instantly carries his mistake to the point of absurdity,
by lowering Social-Democracy to the level of mere strike-making, thereby repeating the misadventures of the
Akimovs. We could only rejoice if the Social-Democrats succeeded
in directing every strike, for it is their plain and unquestionable duty to direct every manifestation of the class
struggle of the proletariat, and strikes are one of the most
profound and most powerful manifestations of that struggle. But
we should be tail-enders if we were to identify this primary form of struggle, which ipso facto is no more
than a trade unionist form, with the all-round and conscious
Social Democratic struggle. We should be opportunistically
legitimising a patent falsehood if we were to allow every striker the right to “proclaim himself a Party member”,
for in the majority of cases such a “proclamation” would be false . We should be indulging in complacent
daydreaming if we tried to assure ourselves and others that
every striker can be a Social-Democrat and a member of the Social-Democratic Party, in face of that infinite
disunity, oppression, and stultification which under capitalism
is bound to weigh down upon such very wide sections of the
“untrained”, unskilled workers. This example of the "striker " brings out with particular clarity the
difference between the revolutionary striving to direct
every strike in a Social-Democratic way and the opportunist phrase-mongering which proclaims every
striker a Party member. We are the Party of a class inasmuch as
we in fact direct almost the entire, or even the entire, proletarian class in a Social-Democratic way; but only
Akimovs can conclude from this that we must in word identify the Party and the class.

“I am not afraid of a conspiratorial organisation,” said Comrade
Martov in this same speech; but, he added, “for me a conspiratorial organisation has meaning only when it is
enveloped by a broad Social-Democratic working-class party”
(p. 239). To be exact he should have said: when it is enveloped
by a broad Social-Democratic working-class movement .
And in that form Comrade Martov’s proposition would have been
not only indisputable, but a plain truism. I dwell on this point
only because subsequent speakers turned Comrade Martov’s truism
into the very prevalent and very vulgar argument that
Lenin wants “to confine the sum-total of Party members to the
sum-total of conspirators”. This conclusion, which can only
provoke a smile, was drawn both by Comrade Posadovsky and by
Comrade Popov; and when it was taken up by

Martynov and Akimov, its true character of an opportunist phrase became altogether
manifest. Today Comrade Axelrod is developing this same argument
in the new Iskra by way of acquainting the reading public with the new editorial board’s new views on
organisation.

Already at the Congress, at the very first sitting where Paragraph 1 was discussed, I noticed that our opponents
wanted to avail themselves of this cheap weapon, and therefore
warned in my speech (p. 240): “It should not be imagined that
Party organisations must consist solely of professional
revolutionaries. We need the most diverse organisations of all
types, ranks, and shades, beginning with extremely limited and
secret and ending with very broad, free, lose Organisationen .” This is such an obvious and self-evident
truth that I did not think it necessary to dwell on it. But
today, when we have been dragged back in so many respects, one
has to “repeat old lessons” on this subject too. In order to do
so, I shall quote certain passages from What Is To Be Done? and A Letter to a Comrade .

“. . . A circle of leaders of the type of Alexeyev and Myshkin,
of Khalturin and Zhelyabov, is capable of coping with political
tasks in the genuine and most practical sense of the term, for
the reason and to the extent that their impassioned propaganda
meets with response among the spontaneously awakening masses,
and their sparkling energy is answered and supported by the
energy of the revolutionary class.” [4]

In
order to be a Social-Democratic party , we must win the
support precisely of the class . It is not that the Party should envelop the conspiratorial organisation, as
Comrade Martov thought, but that the revolutionary class, the
proletariat, should envelop the Party, the latter to include
both conspiratorial and non-conspiratorial organisations.

“. . . The workers’ organisations for the economic struggle
should be trade union organisations. Every Social-Democratic
worker should as far as possible assist and actively work in
these organisations. But . . . it is certainly not in our
interest to demand that only Social-Democrats should be eligible
for membership in the trade unions since that would only narrow
the scope of our influence upon the masses. Let every worker who
understands the need to unite for the, struggle against the
employers and the government join the trade unions. The very aim
of the trade unions would be impossible of achievement if they
did not unite all who have attained at least this elementary
degree of understanding—if they were not very broad organisations. The broader these organisations,
the broader will be our influence over them—an influence
due, not only to the ’spontaneous’ development of the economic
struggle, but to the direct and conscious effort of the
socialist trade union members to influence their comrades” (p. 86). [5]

Incidentally, the example of the trade unions is particularly significant for an assessment
of the controversial question of Paragraph 1. That these unions
should work “under the control and direction” of the
Social-Democratic organisations, of that there can be no two
opinions among Social-Democrats. But on those grounds to
confer on all members of trade unions the right to “proclaim
themselves” members of the Social-Democratic Party would be an
obvious absurdity and would constitute a double danger: on the
one hand, of narrowing the dimensions of the trade union movement and thus weakening the solidarity of the workers;
and, on the other, of opening the door of the Social-Democratic
Party to vagueness and vacillation. The German Social-Democrats
had occasion to solve a similar problem in a practical instance,
in the celebrated case of the Hamburg bricklayers working on
piece

rates. [16] The
Social-Democrats did not hesitate for a moment to proclaim strike breaking dishonourable in Social-Democratic
eyes, that is, to acknowledge that to direct and support strikes
was their own vital concern; but at the same time they just as resolutely rejected the demand for identifying the
interests of the Party with the interests of the trade unions,
for making the Party responsible for individual acts of
individual trade unions. The Party should and will strive to
imbue the trade unions with its spirit and bring them under its
influence; but precisely in order to do so it must distinguish
the fully Social-Democratic elements in these unions (the
elements belonging to the Social-Democratic Party) from those
which are not fully class-conscious and politically active, and
not confuse the two, as Comrade Axelrod would have us do.

“... Centralisation of the most secret functions in an organisation of revolutionaries will not diminish, but rather
increase the extent and enhance the quality of the activity of a
large number of other organisations that are intended for a
broad public and are therefore as loose and as non-secret as
possible, such as workers’ trade unions; workers’ self-education
circles and circles for reading illegal literature; and
socialist, as well as democratic, circles among all other sections of the population; etc., etc. We must have such
circles, trade unions, and organisations everywhere in as large a number as possible and with the widest variety of
functions; but it would be absurd and harmful to confound them with the organisation of
revolutionaries , to efface the border-line between them
. . .”

(p. 96). [6]

This quotation shows how out of place it was for Comrade Martov to remind me that the
organisation of revolutionaries should be enveloped by broad organisations of workers. I had already pointed this out
in What Is To Be Done? —and in A Letter to a Comrade I developed this idea more concretely. Factory
circles, I wrote there, “are particularly important to us: the
main strength of the movement lies in the organisation of the
workers at the large factories, for the large factories
(and mills) contain not only the predominant part of the working
class, as regards numbers, but even more as regards influence,
development, and fighting capacity. Every factory must be our
fortress.... The factory subcommittee should endeavour to
embrace the whole factory, the largest possible number of the
workers, with a network of all kinds of circles (or agents).... All groups, circles, subcommittees, etc., should
enjoy the status of committee institutions or branches of a
committee. Some of them will openly declare their wish to join
the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party and, if endorsed by the committee, will join the Party, and will
assume definite functions (on the instructions of, or in
agreement with, the committee), will undertake to obey the
orders of the Party organs, receive the same rights as all Party members , and be regarded as immediate candidates for
membership of the committee, etc. Others will not join the R.S.D.L.P., and will have the status of circles formed by
Party members, or associated with one Party group or another,
etc.”

(pp. 17-18). [7]

The words I have underlined make it particularly clear that the
idea of my formulation of Paragraph 1 was already fully
expressed in A Letter to a Comrade . The conditions for
joining the Party are directly indicated there, namely: 1) a
certain degree of organisation, and 2) endorsement by a Party
committee. A page later I roughly indicate also what groups and
organisations should (or should not) be admitted to the Party,
and for what reasons: “The distributing groups should belong to
the R.S.D.L.P. and know a certain number of its members and
functionaries. The groups for studying labour conditions and
drawing up trade union demands need not necessarily belong to
the R.S.D.L.P. Groups of students, officers, or office employees
engaged in self-education in conjunction with one or two Party members should in some cases not even be aware that
these belong to the Party, etc.”

(pp. 18-19). [8]

There you have additional material on the subject of the “open
visor”! Whereas the formula of Comrade Martov’s draft does not
even touch on relations between the Party and the organisations,
I pointed out nearly a year before the Congress that some
organisations should belong to the Party, and others not. In
A Letter to a Comrade the idea I advocated at the
Congress was already clearly outlined. The matter might be put
graphically in the following way. Depending on degree of
organisation in general and of secrecy of organisation in
particular, roughly the following categories may be distinguished:
1) organisations of revolutionaries;
2)
organisations of workers, as broad and as varied as possible (I
confine myself to the working class, taking it as self-evident
that, under certain conditions, certain elements of other
classes will also be included here). These two categories
constitute the Party. Further,
3) workers’ organisations
associated with the Party;
4) workers’ organisations not
associated with the Party but actually under its control and
direction;
5) unorganised elements of the working class, who in
part also come under the direction of the Social-Democratic
Party, at any rate during big manifestations of the class
struggle. That, approximately, is how the matter presents itself
to me. As Comrade Martov sees it, on the contrary, the border-line of the Party remains absolutely vague, for “every
striker” can “proclaim himself a Party member”. What benefit is
there in this looseness? A widespread “title”. Its harm is that
it introduces a disorganising idea, the confusing of class and party.

In illustration of the general propositions we have adduced, let
us take a cursory glance at the further discussion of Paragraph
1 at the Congress. Comrade Brouckère (to the great glee of
Comrade Martov) pronounced in favour of my formulation, but
his alliance with me, unlike Comrade Akimov’s with
Martov, turned out to be based on a misunderstanding. Comrade
Brouckère did “not agree with the Rules as a whole, with
their entire spirit” (p. 239), and defended my formulation
as the basis of the democracy which the supporters of
Rabocheye Dyelo desired. Comrade Brouckère had not yet risen to the view that in a political struggle it is
sometimes necessary to choose the lesser evil ; Comrade
Brouckère did not realise that it was useless to advocate
democracy at a Congress like ours. Comrade Akimov was more
perspicacious. He put the question quite rightly when he stated
that “Comrades Martov and Lenin are arguing as to which
[formulation] will best achieve their common aim” (p. 252);
“Brouckère and I,” he continued, “want to choose the one
which will least achieve that aim . From this angle I choose Martov’s formulation.” And Comrade Akimov frankly
explained that he considered “their very aim” (that is, the aim
of Plekhanov, Martov, and myself—the creation of a directing organisation of revolutionaries) to be “impracticable
and harmful”; like Comrade

Martynov, [9]
[9] Comrade Martynov, it is true, wanted to be different from Comrade Akimov, he wanted to show that conspiratorial did not mean secret, that behind the two different words were two different concepts. What the difference is, neither Comrade Martynov nor Comrade Axelrod, who is now following in his footsteps, ever did explain. Comrade Martynov “acted” as if I had not—for example in What Is To Be Done? (as well as in the Tasks [see present edition, Vol. 2, pp. 323-51.— Ed .])—resolutely opposed “ confining the political struggle to conspiracy”. Comrade Martynov was anxious to have his hearers forget that the people I had been fighting had not seen any necessity for an organisation of revolutionaries , just as Comrade Akimov did not see it now. — Lenin he advocated the Economist
idea that “an organisation of revolutionaries” was unnecessary. He was “confident that in the end the realities of
life will force their way into our Party organisation, whether
you bar their path with Martov’s formulation or with
Lenin’s”. It would not be worth while dwelling on this “tail-ist” conception of the “realities of life” if we did not
encounter it in the case of Comrade Martov too. In general,
Comrade Martov’s second speech (p. 245) is so interesting that
it deserves to be examined in detail.

Comrade Martov’s first argument: control by the Party organisations over Party members not belonging to them “is
practicable, inasmuch as, having assigned a function to someone,
the committee will be able to watch over it” (p. 245). This
thesis is remarkably characteristic, for it “betrays”, if one
may so put it, who needs Martov’s formulation and whom it will serve in actual fact —free-lance
intellectuals or workers’ groups and the worker masses. The fact
is that there are two possible interpretations of Martov’s
formulation: 1) that anyone who renders the Party regular
personal assistance under the direction of one of its organisations is entitled to " proclaim himself "
(Comrade Martov’s own words) a Party member; 2) that a Party
organisation is entitled to regard as a Party member anyone who renders it regular personal assistance under its
direction. It is only the first interpretation that really gives
“every striker” the opportunity to call himself a Party member,
and accordingly it alone immediately won the hearts of the Liebers, Akimovs, and Martynovs. But this interpretation is
manifestly no more than a phrase, because it would apply to the
entire working class, and the distinction between Party and
class would be obliterated; control over and direction of “every
striker” can only be spoken of “symbolically”. That is why, in
his second speech, Comrade Martov at once slipped into the
second interpretation (even though, be it said in parenthesis,
it was directly rejected by the Congress when it turned
down Kostich’s resolution—p. 255), namely, that a committee
would assign functions and watch over their fulfilment. Such
special assignments will never, of course, be made to the
mass of the workers, to the thousands of proletarians (of whom Comrade Axelrod and Comrade Martynov
spoke)—they will frequently be given precisely to those
professors whom Comrade

Axelrod mentioned, to those high-school students for whom Comrade Lieber and
Comrade Popov were so concerned (p. 241), and to the revolutionary youth to whom Comrade Axelrod referred in
his second speech (p. 242). In a word, Comrade Martov’s formula
will either remain a dead letter, an empty phrase, or it will be
of benefit mainly and almost exclusively to “ intellectuals who are thoroughly imbued with bourgeois individualism ” and
do not wish to join an organisation. In words , Martov’s
formulation defends the interests of the broad strata of the
proletariat, but in fact it serves the interests of the
bourgeois intellectuals , who fight shy of proletarian discipline and organisation. No one will venture to deny that
the intelligentsia , as a special stratum of modern capitalist society, is characterised, by and large,
precisely by individualism and incapacity for discipline and organisation (cf., for example, Kautsky’s
well-known articles on the intelligentsia). This, incidentally,
is a feature which unfavourably distinguishes this social
stratum from the proletariat; it is one of the reasons for the
flabbiness and instability of the intellectual, which the
proletariat so often feels; and this trait of the intelligentsia
is intimately bound up with its customary mode of life, its mode
of earning a livelihood, which in a great many respects
approximates to the petty-bourgeois mode of existence (working in isolation or in very small groups, etc.). Nor is it
fortuitous, lastly, that the defenders of Comrade Martov’s
formulation were the ones who had to cite the example of
professors and high school students! It was not champions of a
broad proletarian struggle who, in the controversy over
Paragraph 1, took the field against champions of a radically
conspiratorial organisation, as Comrades Martynov and Axelrod
thought, but the supporters of bourgeois-intellectual individualism who clashed with the supporters of
proletarian organisation and discipline .

Comrade Popov said: “Everywhere, in St. Petersburg as in
Nikolayev or Odessa, as the representatives from these towns
testify, there are dozens of workers who are distributing
literature and carrying on word-of-mouth agitation but who
cannot be members of an organisation. They can be attached to an
organisation, but not regarded as members” (p. 241). Why they
cannot be members of an organisation remained Comrade Popov’s
secret. I have already quoted the passage from A Letter to a Comrade showing that the admission of all such workers (by
the hundred, not the dozen) to an organisation is both possible
and necessary, and, more over, that a great many of these
organisations can and should belong to the Party.

Comrade Martov’s second argument: “In Lenin’s opinion there
should be no organisations in the Party other than Party
organisations....” Quite true! “In my opinion, on the contrary, such organisations should exist. Life creates and
breeds organisations faster than we can include them in the
hierarchy of our militant organisation of professional revolutionaries....” That is untrue in two respects: 1) the
number of effective organisations of revolutionaries that “life”
breeds is far less than we need, than the working-class movement
requires; 2) our Party should be a hierarchy not only of
organisations of revolutionaries, but of a mass of workers’
organisations as well.... "Lenin thinks that the Central
Committee will confer the title of Party organisations only on
such as are fully reliable in the matter of principles. But
Comrade Brouckère understands very well that life
[ sic !] will assert itself and that the Central
Committee, in order not to leave a multitude of organisations
outside the Party, will have to legitimise them despite their
not quite reliable character; that is why Comrade Brouckère
associates himself with Lenin...." What a truly tail-ist
conception of “life”! Of course, if the Central Committee had
necessarily to consist of people who were not guided by
their own opinions, but by what others might say (vide the Organising Committee incident), then “life” would “assert
itself” in the sense that the most backward elements in the
Party would gain the upper hand (as has in fact happened now when the backward elements have taken shape as the Party “minority” ). But no intelligent reason can be
given which would induce a sensible Central Committee to admit “unreliable” elements to the Party. By this reference
to “life”, which “breeds” unreliable elements, Comrade Martov
patently revealed the opportunist character of his plan of
organisation! . . . “I for my part think,” he continued, “that
if such an organisation [one that is not quite reliable] is
prepared to accept the Party programme and Party control, we may
admit it to the Party, without thereby making it a Party
organisation. I would consider it a great triumph for our Party
if, for example, some union of ’independents’ were to declare
that they accepted the views of Social-Democracy and its
programme and were joining the Party; which does not, however,
mean that we would include the union in the Party organisation....” Such is the muddle Martov’s formulation
leads to: non-Party organisations belonging to the Party! Just
imagine his scheme: the Party = 1) organisations of revolutionaries, + 2) workers’ organisations recognised as Party
organisations, + 3) workers’ organisations not recognised as
Party organisations (consisting principally of “independents”),
+ 4) individuals performing various functions—professors,
high-school students, etc., + 5) “every striker”. Alongside of
this remarkable plan one can only put the words of Comrade
Lieber: “Our task is not only to organise an organisation [!!];
we can and should organise a party” (p. 241). Yes, of course, we
can and should do that, but what it requires is not meaningless
words about “organising organisations”, but the unequivocal demand that Party members should work to create an
organisation in fact. Me who talks about “organising a party”
and yet defends using the word party to cover disorganisation
and disunity of every kind is just indulging in empty words.

“Our formulation,” Comrade Martov said, “expresses the desire to
have a series of organisations between the organisation of
revolutionaries and the masses.” It does not. This truly
essential desire is just what Martov’s formulation does not
express, for it does not offer an incentive to organise , does not contain a demand for organisation, does
not separate organised from unorganised. All it offers is a title , [10]
[10] At the League Congress, Comrade Martov adduced one more argument in support of his formulation an argument that deserves to be laughed at. “We might point out,” he said, “that, taken literally Lenin’s formulation excludes the agents of the Central Committee from the Party, for they do not constitute an organisation” (p. 59). Even at the League Congress this argument was greeted with laughter, as the minutes record. Comrade Martov supposes that the “difficulty” he mentions can only be solved by including the Central Committee agents in “the organisation of the Central Committee”. But that is not the point. The point is, that Comrade Martov’s example saliently demonstrates that he completely fails to understand the idea of Paragraph 1 ; it was a sheer specimen of pedantic criticism that did indeed deserve to be laughed at. Formally speaking , all that would be required would be to form an “organisation of Central Committee agents” pass a resolution to include it in the Party, and the “difficulty” which caused Comrade Martov so much brain-racking would immediately vanish. The idea of Paragraph 1 as formulated by me consists in the incentive to organise; it consists in guaranteeing actual control and direction. Essentially , the very question whether the Central Committee agents will belong to the Party is ridiculous, for actual control over them is fully and absolutely guaranteed by the very fact that they have been appointed agents and that they are kept on as agents. Consequently, here there can be no question of any confusion of organised and unorganised (which is the root mistake in Comrade Martov’s formulation). Why Comrade Martov’s formulation is no good is that it allows anyone, any opportunist, any windbag, any “professor”, and any “high-school student” to proclaim himself a Party member. It is in vain for Comrade Martov to try to talk away this Achilles heel of his formulation by examples in which there can be no auestion of people arbitrarily styling or proclaiming themselves members. — Lenin and in this connection we cannot but recall

Comrade Axelrod’s words: “No decree can forbid them
[circles of revolutionary youth and the like] or individuals to
call themselves Social-Democrats [true enough!] and even to
regard themselves as part of the Party”—now that is not true at all ! It is impossible and pointless to
forbid anyone to call himself a Social-Democrat, for in its
direct sense this word only signifies a system of convictions, and not definite organisational relations. But as
to forbidding various circles and persons to “regard themselves
as part of the Party”, that can and should be done if these
circles and persons injure the Party, corrupt or disorganise
it. It would be absurd to speak of the Party as of a whole, as of a political entity, if it could not “by decree
forbid” a circle to “regard itself as part” of the whole! What
in that case would be the point of defining the procedure and
conditions of expulsion from the Party? Comrade Axelrod reduced
Comrade Martov’s fundamental mistake to an obvious absurdity; he
even elevated this mistake to an opportunist theory when he added: “As formulated by Lenin, Paragraph 1 directly
conflicts in principle with the very nature [!!] and aims of the
Social-Democratic Party of the proletariat” (p. 243). This means
nothing less than that making higher demands of the Party than
of the class conflicts in principle with the very nature of the
aims of the proletariat. It is not surprising that Akimov was
heart and soul in favour of such a theory .

It should be said in fairness that Comrade Axelrod—who now
wants to convert this mistaken formulation, one obviously
tending towards opportunism, into the germ of new views—at the Congress, on the contrary, expressed a
readiness to “bargain”, saying: “But I observe that I am
knocking at an open door” (I observe this in the new
Iskra too), “because Comrade Lenin, with his peripheral
circles which are to be regarded as part of the Party organisation, goes out to meet my demand.” (And not only with
the peripheral circles, but with every kind of workers’ union:
cf. p. 242 of the Minutes, the speech of Comrade Strakhov, and
the passages from What Is To Be Done? and A Letter to a Comrade quoted above.) “There still remain the
individuals, but here, too, we could bargain.” I replied to
Comrade Axelrod that, generally speaking, I was not averse to
bargaining, and I must now explain in what sense this was
meant. As regards the individuals—all those professors,
high-school students, etc.—I would least of all have agreed
to make concessions; but if doubts had been aroused as to the
workers’ organisations, I would have agreed (despite the utter
groundlessness of such doubts, as I have proved above) to add to
my Paragraph 1 a note to the following effect: “Workers’
organisations which accept the Programme and Rules of the
Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party should be included in the
largest possible numbers among the Party organisations.”
Strictly speaking, of course, the place for such a recommendation is not in the Rules, which should be confined to
statutory definitions, but in explanatory commentaries and
pamphlets (and I have already pointed out that I gave such
explanations in my pamphlets long before the Rules were drawn
up); but at least such a note would not contain even a shadow of
wrong ideas capable of leading to disorganisation, not a shadow of the opportunist arguments [11]
[11] To this category of arguments, which inevitably crop up when attempts are made to justify Martov’s formulation belongs, in particular, Comrade Trotsky’s statement (pp. 248 and 346) that “opportunism is produced by more complex [or: is determined by deeper] causes than one or another clause in the Rules; it is brought about by the relative level of development of bourgeois democracy and the proletariat....” The point is not that clauses in the Rules may produce opportunism, but that with their help a more or a less trenchant weapon against opportunism can be forged. The deeper its causes, the more trenchant should this weapon be. Therefore, to justify a formulation which opens the door to opportunism on the grounds that opportunism has deep causes is tail-ism of the first water. When Comrade Trotsky was opposed to Comrade Lieber, he understood that the Rules constitute the “organised distrust” of the whole towards the part, of the vanguard towards the backward contingent, but when Comrade Trotsky came to be on Comrade Lieber’s side, he forgot this and even began to justify the weakness and instability of our organisation of this distrust (distrust of opportunism) by talking about “complex causes”, the “level of development of the proletariat”, etc. Here is another of Comrade Trotsky’s arguments: “It is much easier for the intellectual youth, organised in one way or another, to enter themselves [my italics ] on the rolls of the Party.” Just so. That is why it is the formulation by which even unorganised elements may proclaim themselves Party members that suffers from intellectualist vagueness, and not my formulation, which obviates the right to “enter oneself ” on the rolls. Comrade Trotsky said that if the Central Committee “refused to recognise” an organisation of opportunists, it would only be because of the character of certain individuals, and that since these individuals would be known, as political personalities, they would not be dangerous and could be removed by a general Party boycott. This is only true of cases when people have to be removed from the Party (and only half true at that, because an organised party removes members by a vote and not by a boycott). It is absolutely untrue of the far more frequent cases when removal would be absurd, and when all that is required is control . For purposes of control, the Central Committee might, on certain conditions, deliberately admit to the Party an organisation which was not quite reliable but which was capable of working; it might do so with the object of testing it, of trying to direct it on to the right path , of correcting its partial aberrations by guidance etc. This would not be dangerous if in general “ self-entering ” on the Party rolls were not allowed. It would often be useful for an open and responsible, controlled expression (and discussion) of mistaken views and mistaken tactics. “But if statutory definitions are to correspond to actual relations, Comrade Lenin’s formulation must be rejected,” said Comrade Trotsky, and again he spoke like an opportunist. Actual relations are not a dead thing, they live and develop. Statutory definitions may correspond to the progressive development of those relations, but they may also (if the definitions are bad ones) “correspond” to retrogression or stagnation. The latter case is the “case” of Comrade Martov. — Lenin and “anarchistic conceptions ” that are undoubtedly inherent
in Comrade Martov’s formulation.

This last expression, given by me in quotation marks, is that of
Comrade Pavlovich, who quite justly characterised as anarchism the recognition of “ irresponsible
and self-enrolled Party members”. “Translated into simple terms,” said Comrade Pavlovich, explaining my formulation
to comrade Lieber, “it means: ’if you want to be a Party member,
your acceptance of organisational relations too must be not
merely platonic’.” Simple as this “translation” was, it seems it
was not superfluous (as events since the Congress have shown)
not only for various dubious professors and high-school
students, but for honest-to-goodness Party members, for people
at the top.... With no less justice, Comrade Pavlovich pointed to the contradiction between Comrade Martov’s
formulation and the indisputable precept of scientific socialism
which Comrade Martov quoted so unhappily: “Our Party is the
conscious spokesman of an unconscious process.” Exactly. And for
that very reason it is wrong to want “every striker” to have the
right to call himself a Party member, for if “every strike” were
not only a spontaneous expression of the powerful class instinct
and of the class struggle which is leading inevitably to the
social revolution, but a conscious expression of that process, then . . . then the general strike would not be an
anarchist phrase, then our Party would forthwith and at once
embrace the whole working class, and, consequently, would at once put an end to bourgeois society as a whole . If it is to be a conscious spokesman in fact, the
Party must be able to work out organisational relations that
will ensure a definite level of consciousness and systematically raise this level. “If we are to go the way of
Martov.” Comrade Pavlovich said, “we should first of all delete
the clause on accepting the programme , for before a programme can be accepted it must be mastered and
understood.... Acceptance of the programme presupposes a
fairly high level of political consciousness.” We shall never
allow support of Social-Democracy, participation in the struggle it directs, to be
artificially restricted by any requirements (mastery, understanding, etc.), for this participation itself,
the very fact of it, promotes both consciousness and the instinct for organisation; but since we have joined together in a party to carry on systematic work, we must
see to it that it is systematic.

That Comrade Pavlovich’s warning regarding the programme was not
superfluous became apparent at once , during that very same sitting. Comrades Akimov and Lieber, who secured
the adoption of Comrade Martov’s formulation, [12]
[12] The vote was twenty-eight for and twenty-two against. Of the eight anti- Iskra -ists, seven were for Martov and one for me. Without the aid of the opportunists, Comrade Martov would not have secured adoption of his opportunist formulation. (At the League Congress Comrade Martov tried very unsuccessfully to refute this undoubted fact, for some reason mentioning only the votes of the Bundists and forgetting about Comrade Akimov and his friends—or rather remembering them only when it could serve against me: Comrade Brouckère’s agreement with me.) — Lenin
at once betrayed their true nature by demanding (pp. 254-55)
that in the case of the programme too only platonic acceptance,
acceptance only of its “basic principles”, should be required
(for “membership” in the Party). “Comrade Akimov’s proposal is
quite logical from Comrade Martov’s standpoint,” Comrade
Pavlovich remarked. Unfortunately, we cannot see from the
minutes how many votes this proposal of Akimov’s secured—in all probability, not less than seven (five
Bundists, Akimov, and Brouckère). And it was the withdrawal
of seven delegates from the Congress that converted the
“compact majority” (anti- Iskra -ists, “Centre”, and
Martovites) which began to form over Paragraph 1 of the Rules
into a compact minority! It was the withdrawal of seven
delegates that resulted in the defeat of the motion to endorse
the old editorial board—that supposed howling violation of
“continuity” in the Iskra editorship! A curious seven it was that constituted the sole salvation and
guarantee of Iskra “continuity”: the Bundists, Akimov and Brouckère, that is, the very delegates who voted
against the motives for adopting Iskra as the
Central Organ, the very delegates whose opportunism was
acknowledged dozens of times by the Congress, and acknowledged
in particular by Martov and Plekhanov in the matter of toning down Paragraph 1 in reference to the
programme. The “continuity” of Iskra guarded by the anti- Iskra -ists!—this brings us to the
starting-point of the post-Congress tragicomedy.

*     * *
The grouping of votes over Paragraph 1 of the Rules revealed a
phenomenon of exactly the same type as the equality of languages
incident: the falling away of one-quarter (approximately) of the
Iskra majority made possible the victory of the anti- Iskra -ists, who were backed by the “Centre”. Of
course, here too there were individual votes which disturbed the
full symmetry of the picture—in so large an assembly as our
Congress there are bound to be some “strays” who shift quite
fortuitously from one side to the other, especially on a
question like Paragraph 1, where the true character of the
divergence was only beginning to emerge and many delegates had
simply not yet found their bearings (considering that the question had not been discussed before hand in the
press). Five votes fell away from the majority
Iskra -ists (Rusov and Karsky with two votes each, and
Lensky with one); on the other hand, they were joined by one
anti- Iskra -ist (Brouckère) and by three from the
Centre (Medvedev, Egorov and Tsaryov); the result was a total of
twenty-three votes (24 - 5 + 4), one vote less than in the final
grouping in the elections. It was the anti- “ Iskra ” -ists who gave Martov his majority , seven of them voting for him and one for me (of
the “Centre” too, seven voted for Martov, and three for
me). That coalition of the minority Iskra -ists with the
anti- Iskra -ists and the “Centre” which formed a compact
minority at the end of the Congress and after the Congress
was beginning to take shape . The political error of
Martov and Axelrod, who undoubtedly took a step towards opportunism and anarchistic individualism in their
formulation of Paragraph 1, and especially in their defence of
that formulation, was revealed at once and very clearly thanks
to the free and open arena offered by the Congress; it was
revealed in the fact that the least stable elements, the least
steadfast in principle, at once employed all their forces to
widen the fissure, the breach, that appeared in the views of the
revolutionary Social-Democrats. Working together at the Congress
were people who in matters of organisation frankly pursued
different aims (see Akimov’s speech)—a circumstance which at once induced those who were in principle opposed to our organisational plan and our Rules
to support the error of Comrades Martov and Axelrod. The
Iskra -ists who on this question too remained faithful to the views of revolutionary Social-Democracy found themselves
in the minority . This is a point of the utmost importance , for unless it is grasped it is absolutely
impossible to understand either the struggle over the details of
the Rules or the struggle over the personal composition of the
Central Organ and the Central Committee.

---
Notes:
[1]
See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 501.— Ed .

[2] Note: This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[3]
See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 461.— Ed .

[4]
See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 447.— Ed .

[5]
See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 454.— Ed .

[6]
See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 466.— Ed .

[7]
See present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 243, 245, 246.— Ed .

[8]
See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 247.— Ed .

[9] Note: This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[10] Note: This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[11] Note: This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[12] Note: This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[13]
Zemlya i Volya (Land and Freedom ) was a revolutionary Narodnik
organisation formed in St. Petersburg in the autumn of 1816; erig inally
known as the Northern Revolutionary Narodnik Group, it took the name Zemlya
i Volya in 1878. Among the members were Mark and Olga Natanson,
G. V. Plekhanov, 0. V. Aptekman, A. D. and A. F. Mikhailov,
A. A. Kvyatkovsky, M. R. Popov, S. M. Kravchinsky, D. A. Kiements,
A. D. Oboleshev, Sophia Perovskaya, and other prominent revolutionaries of
the seventies. While not renouncing socialism as the ultimate goal, Zemlya i
Volya put for ward as the immediate aim the satisfaction of “the
people’s demands and desires as they are at the moment”, namely, the
demand for “land and freedom”. “Needless to say”, its programme declared, “this formula can be made a reality only through violent revolu tion” , with a view to which it advocated
exciting “popular discon tent” and “disorganising the power of the state”. For the purpose of agitation among the peasantry,
members of the orgj)anisation set up rural “colonies”, chiefly
in the agricultural gu ernias along the Volga and in the fertile central
regions. They also carried on agitation among the workers and the student
youth. On Decem ber 6 (18), 1876, they organised a demonstration in the
Kazan Square in St. Petersburg. In the course of 1878-79 Zemlya i Volyn
published five issues of a journal of the same name.

Although connected with some of the workers’ circles, Zemlya i Volya could not and
did not want to he the leader of the working- class movement, since in
common with other Narodniks it denied the vanguard role of the working
class. Nor did it understand the importance of political struggle, which in
its view only diverted the revolutionaries’ energies and might weaken their
ties with the people.

Unlike the Narodnik groups of the early seventies, Zemlya i Volya built up a
close-knit organisation, based on principles of strict centralisation and discipline. There was a central “core”
and around it there were territorial and specialised groups (for work among
the peasantry and among the workers, for “disorganising”
activities, and so on); the “core” was headed by an “administration” (or “commission”) which controlled the
activities of the groups and supplied them with literature, funds, etc. The
Zernlya i Volya Rules, adopted in the winter of 1876-77, stipulated
subordination of minority to majority, bound every member to dedicate and
sacrifice to the organisation’s interests “all his energies, means,
connections, sympathies and antipathies, and even life itself”, and
imposed absolute secrecy in regard to all the organisation’s internal
affairs.

By 1879, with their socialist agitation among the peasants having little
effect and with government persecution increasing, the major ity of the
members began to loan towards political terrorism as the principal means of
achieving their programme. There were sharp disagreements about this, and at
its Voronezh Congress in June 1879 Zemlya i Volya split in two: the
adherents of the old tactics (headed by Plekhanov) formed an organisation
called Chorny Peredel (General Redistribution), while the advocates
of terrorism (A. I. Zhelyabov and others) founded Narodnaya Volya (People’s
Will).

[14]
Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will)—the secret political organisa tion of the terrorist Narodniksformed in August
1879 following the split in Zemlya i Volya. It was headed by an Executive
Committee consisting of A. I. Zhelyabov, A. D. Mikhailov, M. F. Frolenko,
N. A. Morozov, Vera Figner, Sophia Perovskaya, A. A. Kvyatkov sky, and
others.

While still adhering to the Narodnik utopian-socialist ideas, Narodnaya
Volya believed in political struggle also, regarding the overthrow of the
autocracy and the achievement of political freedom as a major aim. Its
programme envisaged a “permanent popular representative body”
elected by universal suffrage, the proclamation of democratic liberties, the
transfer of the land to the people, and measures to put the factories in the
hands of the work ers. “The Narodnaya Volya members,” Lenin wrote,
“made a step forward when they took up the political struggle, but
they failed to connect it with socialism” (see present edition,
Vol. 8, “Working Class Democracy and Bourgeois Democracy”).

Narodnaya Volya fought heroically against the tsarist autocracy. But, going
by the erroneous theory of “active” heroes and a “pas sive” mass, it expected to achieve the remaking of society without the
participation of the people, by its own efforts, through individ ual
terrorism that would intimidate and disorganise the govern ment. After the
assassination of Alexander II on March 1, 1881, the government was able, by
savage reprisals, death sentences, and acts of provocation, to crush it out
of existence.

Repeated attempts to revive the organisation during the eighties ended in
failure. Thus, in 1886 a group in the Narodnaya Volya tradition was formed
by A. I. Ulyanov (elder brother of Lenin)

and P. Y. Shevyryov; but after an unsuccessful attem Pt to assa si nate
Alexander III in 1887, the group was uncovered and its active members
executed.

While criticising Narodnaya Volya’s erroneous, utopian pro gramme, Lenin
expressed great respect for its members’ selfless struggle against
tsarism. In A Protest by Russian Social-Demo crats (1899) he
pointed out that “the members of the old Narodnaya Volya managed to
play an enormous role in the history of Russia, despite the fact that only
narrow social strata supported the few heroes, and despite the fact that it
was by no means a revolutionary theory which served as the banner of the
movement” (see present edition, Vol. 4, p. 181).

[15]
Manilovism (from the name ot Manilov in Gogol’s Dead Souls)— smug complacency, empty sentimental day-dreaming.

[16]
The reference is to an incident which took place in Hamburg in 1900 in
connection with the conduct of a group of members of the Free Bricklayers’
Union who performed piece work during a strike, in violation of the
instructions of the trade union centre. The Hamburg Bricklayers’ Union
complained to the local Sociai Democratic Party organisation about the
strike-breaking activities of the Social-Democrat members of the group. A
court of arbitration appointed by the Central Executive of the
Social-Democratic Party condemned the conduct of these Social-Democrats but
turned down the proposal that they be expelled from the Party.