V. I.

Lenin

The Information Bulletin [7] of the Technical Commission Abroad (No. 1, August 11,
1911) and the message To All Members of the R.S.D.L.P. , signed by
“A Group of Pro-Party Bolsheviks”, which appeared almost simultaneously
in Paris, are attacks identical in substance upon “official Bolshevism”
or, according to another expression, upon the “Leninist
Bolsheviks”. These documents are full of ire; they contain more angry
exclamations and declamations than real substance. Nevertheless, it is
necessary to deal with them, for they touch upon the most important
problems of our Party. It is all the more natural for me to undertake the
job of assessing the new faction, first, because it was I who wrote on
these very questions in the name of all the Bolsheviks exactly a year and a half ago (see Diskussionny Listok , No. 2 [1]

),

and, secondly, because I am fully conscious of my responsibility for
“official Bolshevism”. As regards the expression “Leninist” it is
merely a clumsy attempt at sarcasm, intended to insinuate that it is only a
question of the supporters of a single person! In reality,
everybody knows perfectly well that it is not a question of people sharing
my personal views on this or that aspect of Bolshevism.

The authors of the message, who sign themselves “pro Party
Bolsheviks”, also call themselves “non-factional Bolsheviks”, remarking
that “here” (in Paris) they are “rather ineptly” called
conciliators. Actually, as the reader will see from what follows, this
name, which gained currency over fifteen months ago, not only in Paris, not
only

abroad, but also in Russia, is the only one that correctly expresses the
political essence of the new faction.

Conciliationism is the totality of moods, strivings and views that are
indissolubly bound up with the very essence of the historical task confronting the R.S.D.L.P. during the period of the
counter-revolution of 1908–11. That is why, during this period, a number
of Social-Democrats, proceeding from essentially different premises,
“lapsed” into conciliationism. Trotsky expressed conciliationism more
consistently than anyone else. He was probably the only one who attempted
to give the trend a theoretical foundation, namely: factions and factionism
express the struggle of the intelligentsia “for influence over the
immature proletariat”. The proletariat is maturing, and factionalism is
perishing of itself. The root of the process of fusion of the factions is
not the change in the relations between the classes, not the evolution of
the fundamental ideas of the two principal factions, but the observance or
otherwise of agreements concluded between all the “intellectual”
factions. For a long time now, Trotsky—who at one moment has wavered more
to the side of the Bolsheviks and at another more to that of the
Mensheviks—has been persistently carrying on propaganda for an agreement
(or compromise) between all and sundry factions.

The opposite view (see Nos. 2 and 3 of the Diskussionny Listok [2]

)

is that the origin of the factions is to be traced to the relations between
the classes in the Russian revolution. The Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks
only formulated the answers to the questions with which the objective
realities of 1905–07 confronted the proletariat. Therefore, only the inner
evolution of these factions, of the “strong” factions, strong
because of their deep roots, strong because their ideas correspond to
certain aspects of objective reality, only the’ inner evolution of
precisely these factions is capable of securing a real fusion of
the factions, i.e., the creation of a genuinely and completely united party
of proletarian Marxist socialism in Russia. From this follows the practical
conclusion that only a rapprochement in practical work between these two
strong factions—and only insofar as they rid themselves of the non-Social-Democratic tendencies of liquidationism
and otzovism—represents a real Party policy, a policy that really brings
about unity, not easily, not smoothly, and by no means immediately, but in
a way that will produce actual results, as distinguished from the heap of
quack promises of an easy, smooth, immediate fusion of “all” factions.

These two views were observed, even before the Plenary Meeting, when in
my talks I suggested the slogan: “Rapprochement between the two strong
factions, and no whining about dissolving factions”. This was made public
immediately after the Meeting by Golos Sotsial-Demokrata . I
plainly, definitely, and systematically explained these two views in May 1910 , i.e., eighteen months ago; moreover, I did this in the
“general Party” arena, in Diskussionny Listok (No. 2). If the
“conciliators”, with whom we have been arguing on these subjects since
November :1909; have so far not found time to answer that article even once , and have not made even one attempt to examine this
question more or less systematically, to expound their views more or less
openly and consistently—it is entirely their own fault. They call their
factional statement, which was published on behalf of a separate group, a
“public answer”. But this public answer of those who kept silent
for over a year is not an answer to the question that was raised
long ago, discussed long ago, and answered long ago in two fundamentally
different ways; it is a most hopeless muddle, a most in credible confusion
of two irreconcilable answers. Every proposition the authors of the message
put forward, they immediately refute. In every single proposition, the
alleged Bolsheviks (who in reality are inconsistent Trotskyites)
echo Trotsky’s mistakes.

Indeed, look at the main ideas contained in the message.

Who are its authors? They say they are Bolsheviks who “do not share
the organisational views of official Bolshevism”. That looks as if it were
an “opposition” only on the question of organisation, does it
not? Read the next sentence: “... It is precisely the organisational
questions, the questions of building and restoring the Part a are being put
in the forefront now, as was the case eighteen months ago.” This is quite
untrue, and constitutes the very error of principle which Trotsky made, and which I exposed a year and a half
ago. At the Plenary Meeting, the organisational question probably
seemed of paramount importance only because, and only insofar as, the
rejection of liquidationism by all factions was taken to be real, because the Golos and the Vperyod
representatives “signed” the resolutions against liquidationism
and against otzovism to “console” the Party. Trotsky’s error was in
continuing to pass off the apparent for the real after
February 1910, when Nasha Zarya finally unfurled the banner of
liquidationism, and the Vperyod group—in their notorious school
at

X [8] —unfurled the banner of defence of otzovism. At the Plenary
Meeting, the acceptance of the apparent for the real may have been
the result of self-delusion. But after it, ever since the spring of 1910,
Trotsky has been deceiving the workers in a most unprincipled and
shameless manner by assuring them that the obstacles to unity were
principally (if not wholly) of an organisational nature. This deceit is
being continued in 1911 by the Paris conciliators; for to assert now that
the organisational questions occupy the first place is sheer mockery of the
truth. In reality, it is by no means the organisational question that is
now in the forefront, but the question of the entire programme, the entire
tactics and the whole character of the Party, or rather a question of
two parties—the Social-Democratic Labour Party and the
Stolypin labour party of Potresov, Smirnov, Larin, Levitsky,
and their friends. The Paris conciliators seem to have been asleep for the
eighteen months that have elapsed since the Plenary Meeting, during which
time the entire struggle against the liquidators shifted,
both in our camp and among the pro-Party Mensheviks, from
organisational questions to questions of whether the Party is to be a Social-Democratic , and not a liberal, labour party. To argue now, let
us say, with the gentlemen of Nasha Zarya about organisational
questions, about the relative importance of the legal and illegal
organisations, would be simply putting on an act, for these gentlemen may
fully recognise an “illegal” organisation like Golos , which is
subservient to the liquidators! It has been said long ago that the Cadets
are recognising and maintaining an illegal organisation that serves
monarchist liberalism. The conciliators call themselves Bolsheviks, in order to repeat, a year and a half later (and specifically stating
moreover that this was done in the name of Bolshevism as a whole! ), Trotsky’s errors which the Bolsheviks had exposed. Well, is
this not an abuse of established Party titles? Are we not obliged, after
this, to let all and sundry know that the conciliators are not Bolsheviks
at all, that they have nothing in common with Bolshevism, that they are
simply inconsistent Trotskyites?

Read a little further: “One may disagree with the way official
Bolshevism and the majority of the editors of the Central Organ understood
the task of the struggle against liquidationism...”. Is it really possible
seriously to assert that the “task of the struggle against
liquidationism” is an organisational task? The conciliators themselves
declare that they differ from the Bolsheviks not only on
organisational questions! But on what exactly do they differ? They are
silent on this. Their “public answer” continues to remain the answer of
people who prefer to keep silent ... or, shall we say, are irresponsible?
For a year and a half they did not attempt even once to correct
“official Bolshevism” or to expound their own conception of the
task of the struggle against liquidationism! And official Bolshevism has
waged this struggle for exactly three years, since August 1908. In
comparing these well-known dates we involuntarily seek for an explanation
of this strange “silence” of the conciliators, and this quest
involuntarily recalls to our mind Trotsky and

Ionov, [9] who asserted that they too were opposed to the
liquidators, but that they understood the task of combating them
differently . It is ridiculous, comrades—to declare, three years
after the struggle began, that you understand the character of this
struggle differently! Such a difference in understanding amounts
to not understanding it at all!

To proceed. In substance the present Party crisis undoubtedly reduces
itself to the question whether our Party, the R.S.D.L.P., should completely
dissociate itself from the liquidators (including the Golos group)
or whether it should continue the policy of compromise with them. It is
doubtful whether any Social-Democrat at all familiar with the case would
deny that this question constitutes the essence of the entire
Party situation today. How do the conciliators answer this question?

They write in the message: “We are told that thereby [i.e., by
supporting the Meeting] we are violating the Party forms and are causing a
split. We do not think so [ sic !]. But even if this were the case,
we would not be afraid of it.” (Then follows a statement to the effect
that the plenary meeting was sabotaged by the Central Committee Bureau
Abroad, that the “Central Committee is the object of a gamble”, that
“Party forms have begun to be filled in with a factional content”, etc.)

This answer can truly be called a “classical” specimen of ideological
and political helplessness! Think of it: they are being accused, they say,
of causing a split. And so the new faction, which claims to be able to show
the way the Party should go, declares publicly and in print: “We do not
think so” (i.e., you do not think that there is or that there will be a
split?), “but” ... but “we would not be afraid of it”.

You can be sure no other such example of confusion is to be
found in the history of political parties. If you “do not think” that
there is or that there Will be a split, then explain why! Explain
why it is possible to work with the liquidators! Say outright that
it is possible , and therefore necessary, to work with them.

Our conciliators not only do not say this; they say the opposite. In
the leading article of the Bulletin , No. 1 (it is specifically
stated in a footnote that this article was opposed by a Bolshevik who was
an adherent of the Bolshevik platform, i.e., of the resolution of the
Second Paris Group), we read the following:

“ It is a fact that joint work with the liquidators in Russia, is
impossible”, while somewhat earlier it is admitted that it is “becoming
more and more difficult to draw even the finest line of demarcation”
between the Color group and the liquidators.

Who can make head or tail of this? On the one hand, a highly official
statement is made on behalf of the Technical Commission (in which the
conciliators and the Poles, who now support them, constitute a majority
against us Bolsheviks) that joint work is impossible . In plain
language this means declaring a split. The word split has no other
meaning. On the other hand, the same Bulletin , No. 1, proclaims that the Technical Commission was set up “not for the purpose of
bringing about a split, but for the purpose of averting it”—and the
selfsame conciliators write that they “do not think so” (that there is or
that there will be a split).

Can one imagine a greater muddle?

If joint work is impossible—that can be explained to
Social-Democrats and justified in their eyes either by an
outrageous violation of Party decisions and obligations on the part of a
certain group of persons (and then a split with that group of persons is
inevitable), or by a fundamental difference in principle, a
difference which causes the entire work of a certain trend to be
directed away from Social-Democracy (and then a split with the
whole trend is inevitable). As we know, we have both these things; the
Plenary Meeting of 1910 declared it impossible to work with the
liquidationist trend , while the split with the Golos group , which violated all its obligations and definitely went over to
the liquidators, is now taking place.

Anyone who consciously says that “joint work is impossible”—anyone
who has given any thought to this statement and has grasped its fundamental
principles, would inevitably concentrate all his attention and efforts on
explaining these principles to the broadest masses so that those masses
might be spared as soon and as completely as possible all futile and
harmful attempts to maintain any relations whatsoever with those
with whom it is impossible to work. But anyone who makes this
statement and at the same time adds “we do not think” there will be a
split, “but we would not be afraid of it”, reveals by his confused and
timid language that he is afraid of himself , afraid of the step he
has taken, afraid of the situation that has been created! The message of
the conciliators produces just such an impression. They are trying to
vindicate themselves for something, to appear to be “kind-hearted” in the
eyes of someone, to give someone a hint.... Later on we shall learn the
meaning of their hints to Vperyod and Pravda . We must first finish with the question of how the conciliators interpret the
“results of the period that has elapsed since the Plenary Meeting”, the
results summed up by the Meeting of the members of the Central Committee.

It is really necessary to understand these results, to under
stand why they were inevitable, otherwise our participation in events will
be spontaneous, helpless, casual. Now see how the conciliators
understand this. How do they answer the question of why the work
and the decisions of the Plenary Meeting, which primarily were meant to
bring about unity, resulted in a split between the Central Committee Bureau
Abroad (==liquidators) and the anti-liquidators? Our inconsistent
Trotskyites have simply copied the answer to this from Trotsky and Ionov,
and I am forced to repeat what I said in last

May [3]

against those consistent conciliators.

The conciliators answer by saying: it is the fault of factionalism, the
factionalism of the Mensheviks, the Vperyod group, and of
Pravda (we enumerate the factional groups in the order in which
they appear in the message), and, finally, of the “official
representatives of Bolshevism” who “have probably outdone all these
groups in their factional efforts”. The authors of the message openly and
definitely apply the term non-factional only to themselves, the
Paris conciliators. All are wicked, they are virtuous. The conciliators
give no ideological reasons in explanation of the phenomenon in
question. They do not point to any of the organisational or other
distinguishing features of the groups that gave rise to this
phenomenon. They say nothing, not a word, to explain matters,
except that factionalism is a vice and non-factionalism a virtue. The only
difference between Trotsky and the conciliators in Paris is that the latter
regard Trotsky as a factionalist and themselves as non-factional, whereas
Trotsky holds the opposite view.

I must confess that this formulation of the question, in which
political phenomena are explained only by the wickedness of some
and the virtue of others, always calls to mind those outwardly benevolent
faces of which one cannot help thinking, “Probably a rogue

What do you think of the following comparison? Our conciliators are
non-factional, virtuous; we Bolsheviks have outdone all groups in our
factional efforts, i.e., we are the most wicked. Therefore , the
virtuous faction supported the most wicked, the Bolshevik faction in its fight against the Central
Committee Bureau Abroad!! There is something wrong here, comrades! You are
confusing matters more and more with every statement you make.

You make yourselves ridiculous when you and Trotsky hurl accusations of
factionalism at one another, as if you were playing at ball; you do not
take the trouble to think :

what is a faction? Try to give a definition, and we predict that you will
entangle yourselves still more; for you your selves are a faction—a
vacillating, unprincipled faction, one that failed to understand what took
place at the Plenary Meeting and after it.

A faction is an organisation within a party, united, not by its place
of work, language or other objective conditions, but by a particular
platform of views on party questions. The authors of the message are a
faction, because the message constitutes their platform (a very bad one;
but there are factions with wrong platforms). They are a faction, because
like every other organisation they are bound by internal discipline; their
group appoints its representative to the Technical Commission and to the
Organising Commission by a majority of votes; it was their group that drew
up and published the message-programme, and so on . Such are the
objective facts which show that outcries against factionalism are bound to
be hypocrisy . Yet Trotsky and the “inconsistent Trotskyites
maintain that they are not a faction because ... “the only”
object of their uniting (into a faction) is to abolish factions and to
advocate their fusion, etc. But all such assurances are merely self-praise
and a cowardly game of hide-and-seek, for the simple reason that the
fact that a faction exists is not affected by any (even the most
virtuous) aim of the faction. Every faction is convinced
that its platform and its policy are the best means of abolishing factions, for no one regards the existence of factions
as ideal. The only difference is that factions with clear, consistent,
integral platforms openly defend their platforms, while
unprincipled factions hide behind cheap shouts about their virtue,
about their non-factionalism.

What is the reason for the existence of factions in the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party? They exist as the continuation of the split
of 1903–05. They are the result of the weakness of the local organisations which are powerless to
prevent the transformation of literary groups that express new trends, big
and small, into new “factions”, i.e., into organisations in which
internal discipline takes first place. How can the abolition of factions
really be guaranteed? Only by completely healing the split, which
dates from the time of the revolution (and this will be brought about
only by ridding the two main factions of liquidationism and
otzovism), and by creating a proletarian organisation strong enough to
force the minority to submit to the majority. As long as no such
organisation exists, the only thing that might accelerate
the process of their disappearance is an agreement by all the
factions. Hence, both the ideological merit of the Plenary Meeting and its
conciliationist error become clear. Its merit was the rejection of
the ideas of liquidationism and otzovism; its mistake was the agreement
concluded indiscriminately with persons and groups whose deeds are not in
accordance with their promises (“they signed the resolution”). The
ideological rapprochement on the basis of the fight against liquidationism
and otzovism goes ahead—despite all obstacles and difficulties. The
conciliationist mistake of the Plenary

Meeting [4] quite inevitably brought about the failure of its conciliatory decisions,
i.e., the failure of the alliance with the Golos group. The rupture between the Bolsheviks (and later also between the
Meeting of the members of the Central Committee) and the Central Committee
Bureau Abroad corrected the conciliationist mistake of the Plenary
Meeting. The rapprochement of the factions which are actually
combating liquidationism and otzovism will now proceed despite the forms decided on by the Plenary Meeting, for these
forms did not correspond to the content. Conciliationism in general, as
well as the conciliationism of the Plenary Meeting, came to grief because
the content of the work separated the liquidators from the
Social-Democrats, and all the forms, diplomacy, and games of the
conciliators could not overcome this process of separation.

From this, and only this point of view, which I developed in May 1910,
everything that took place after the Plenary Meeting becomes
intelligible, inevitable, resulting not from the “wickedness” of some and the “virtue” of others, but from
the objective course of events, which isolates the liquidationist
trend and brushes aside all the intermediate major and minor
groups.

In order to obscure this undoubted political fact, the complete
failure of conciliationism, the conciliators are forced to resort
to a downright distortion of facts. Just listen to this: “The factional
policy of the Leninist Bolsheviks was particularly harmful because they had
a majority in all the principal Party institutions, so that their factional
policy justified the organisational separatism of other trends and armed
those trends against the official Party institutions”.

This tirade is nothing but a cowardly and belated “ justification ” of ... liquidationism, for it is precisely the
representatives of that tendency who have always justified them selves by
references to the “factionalism” of the Bolsheviks. This justification is
belated because it was the duty of every real Party member (in
contrast to persons who use the catch word “pro-Party” for
self-advertisement) to act at the time when this “factionalism”
began, and not a year and a half later! The conciliators, the defenders of
liquidationism, could not and did not act earlier, because they
had no facts . They are taking advantage of the present “time of
troubles” in order to give prominence to the unfounded arguments of the
liquidators. But the facts are explicit and unambiguous; immediately after
the Plenary Meeting, in February 1910, Mr. Potresov unfurled the banner of
liquidationism. Soon after, in February or March, Messrs. Mikhail, Roman,
and Yuri betrayed the Party. Immediately after that, the Golos
group started a campaign for Golos (see Plekhanov’s Diary
the day following the Plenary Meeting) and resumed the publication
of Golos . Immediately after that, the Vperyod people began to build up their own “school”. The first
factional step of the Bolsheviks, on the other hand, was to found
Rabochaya Gazeta in September 1910, after
Trotsky’s break with the representatives of the Central Committee.

Why did the conciliators resort to such a distortion of well-known
facts? In order to give a hint to the liquidators, and curry favour with
them. On the one hand, “joint work with the liquidators is
impossible”. On the other hand—they are “ justified ” by the factionalism of the Bolsheviks!? We ask
any Social-Democrat not contaminated with émigré diplomacy,
what political confidence can be placed in people who are themselves
entangled in such contradictions? All they deserve are the bouquets with
which Golos publicly rewarded them.

By “factionalism” the conciliators mean the ruthlessness of
our polemics (for which they have censured us thousands of times at general
meetings in Paris) and the ruthlessness of our exposure of the
liquidators (they were against exposing Mikhail, Yuri, and
Roman). The conciliators have been defending and screening the liquidators
all the time but have never dared to express their defence openly,
either in the Diskussionny Listok or in any printed public
appeal. And now they are using their impotence and cowardice to put a spoke
in the wheel of the Party, which has begun emphatically to dissociate
itself from the liquidators. The liquidators say, there is no
liquidationism, it is an “exaggeration” on the part of the Bolsheviks
(see the resolution of the Caucasian liquidators [10] and Trotsky’s speeches). The conciliators say, it is
impossible to work with the liquidators, but ... but the
factionalism of the Bolsheviks provides them with a “justification”. Is
it not clear that this ridiculous contradiction of subjective opinions has
one, and only one, real meaning: cowardly defence of liquidationism, a
desire to trip up the Bolsheviks and lend support to the liquidators?

But this is by no means all. The worst and most malicious distortion of
facts is the assertion that we had a “majority” in the “ principal Party institutions ”. This crying untruth has only one purpose: to
cover up the political bankruptcy of conciliationism. For, in
reality, the Bolsheviks did not have a majority in any of
the “principal Party institutions” after the Plenary Meeting. On the
contrary, it was the conciliators who had the majority. We challenge anyone
to attempt to dispute the following facts. After the Plenary
Meeting there were only three “principal Party institutions”:

(1) the Central Committee Bureau in Russia—composed chiefly of conciliators [5]

;

(2) the Central Committee

Bureau Abroad—on which, from January to November 1910, the Bolsheviks
were represented by a conciliator ; since the Bundist and the
Latvian officially adopted the conciliationist standpoint, the
majority, during eleven months following the Plenary Meeting, was
conciliationist ; (3) the Editorial Board of the Central Organ—on which two “Bolshevik
factionalists” were opposed by two Golos sup porters; without the
Pole there was no majority.

Why did the conciliators have to resort to a deliberate lie? For no
other purpose than that of camouflage, to cover up the political
bankruptcy of conciliationism. Conciliationism predominated at the Plenary
Meeting; it had a majority in all the principal practical centres
of the Party after the Plenary Meeting, and within a year and a half it
suffered complete collapse . It failed to “reconcile” anyone; it
did not create anything anywhere; it vacillated helplessly from side to
side, and for that it fully deserved the bouquets of Golos .

The conciliators suffered the most complete failure in Russia ,
and the more assiduously and demagogically the Paris conciliators refer to
Russia the more important is it to stress this. The leit-motif of
the conciliators is that Russia is conciliationist in contrast with what we
have abroad. Compare these words with the facts , and you
will see that this is just hollow, cheap demagogy. The facts show that for
more than a year after the Plenary Meeting there were only conciliators on the Central Committee Bureau in Russia; they
alone made official reports about the Plenary Meeting and officially
negotiated with the legalists; they alone appointed agents and sent them to
the various institutions; they alone handled all the funds that were sent
unquestioningly by the Central Committee Bureau Abroad; they alone
negotiated with the “Russian” writers who seemed promising contributors
to the muddle (i.e., in respect of conciliationism), etc.

And the result?

The result is nil. Not a single leaflet, not a single pronouncement,
not a single organ of the press, not a single “concillation”.

As against this the Bolshevik “factionalists” have put their
Rabochaya Gazeta , published abroad, on its feet after two issues
(to say nothing of other matters about which only Mr. Martov speaks openly,
thereby helping the secret police). Conciliationism is nil, words, empty
wishes (and attempts to trip up Bolshevism on the basis of these
“conciliatory” wishes); “official” Bolshevism has proved by deeds that
it is absolutely preponderant precisely in Russia.

Is this an accident? The result of arrests? But arrests “spared” the
liquidators, who did no work in the Party, while they mowed down
Bolsheviks and conciliators alike.

No, this is not an accident, or the result of the luck or success of
individuals . It is the result of the bankruptcy of a political
tendency which is based on false premises. The very foundation of conciliationism is false—the wish to base the
unity of the party of the proletariat on an alliance of all
factions, including the anti-Social-Democratic, non-proletarian factions;
false are its unprincipled “unity” schemes which lead to nothing; false
are its phrases against “factions” (when in fact a new faction
is formed)—phrases that are powerless to dissolve the anti-Party
factions, but are intended to weaken the Bolshevik faction which bore
nine-tenths of the brunt of the struggle against liquidationism and
Otzovism.

Trotsky provides us with an abundance of instances of scheming to
establish unprincipled “unity”. Recall, for example (I take one of the
most recent instances), how he praised the Paris Rabochaya Zhizn , [11] in the management of which the Paris conciliators and
the Golos group had an equal share. How wonderful!—wrote
Trotsky—“neither Bolshevik, nor Menshevik, but revolutionary
Social-Democrat”. The poor hero of phrase-mongering failed to notice a
mere bagatelle—only that Social-Democrat is revolutionary who understands
how harmful anti-revolutionary pseudo-Social-Democracy can be in a
given country at a given time (i.e., the harm of liquidationism and
otzovism in the Russia of the 19O8–10 period), and who knows how
to fight against such non-Social-Democratic tendencies. By his praise of
Rabochaya Zhizn which had never fought against the non-revolutionary Social-Democrats in Russia, Trotsky was merely
revealing the plan of the liquidators whom he serves faithfully— parity on the Central Organ implies the termination of the struggle
against the liquidators; the liquidators actually enjoy full freedom to
fight the Party; and let the Party be tied hand and foot by the
“parity” of the Golos and Party men on the Central Organ (and on the
Central Committee). This would assure complete victory for the liquidators
and only their lackeys could pursue or defend such a line of action.

Instances of unprincipled “unity” schemes that promise peace and
happiness without a long, stubborn, desperate struggle against the
liquidators were provided at the Plenary Meeting by Ionov, Innokentiev, and
other conciliators. We saw another such instance in the message of our
conciliators who justify liquidationism on the grounds of Bolshevik
“factionalism”. A further example is to be found in their speeches about
the Bolsheviks “isolating” themselves “ from other trends
[ Vperyod , Pravda ] which advocate an illegal Social-Democratic party ”.

The italics in this remarkable tirade are ours. Just as a small drop of
water reflects the sun, so this tirade reflects the utter lack of principle
in conciliationism, which is at the root of its political impotence.

In the first place, do Pravda and Vperyod represent
Social-Democratic trends? No, they do not; for Vperyod represents
a non-Social-Democratic trend (otzovism and Machism) and
Pravda represents a tiny group, which has not given an independent and consistent answer to any important fundamental
question of the revolution and counter-revolution. We can call a
trend only a definite sum of political ideas which have become
well-defined in regard to all the most important questions of
both the revolution (for we have moved away but little from it and
are dependent on it in all respects) and the counter-revolution;
ideas which, moreover, have proved their right to existence as a trend by
being widely disseminated among broad strata of the working class. Both
Menshevism and Bolshevism are Social-Democratic trends; this has been
proved by the experience of the revolution, by the eight years’ history of
the working-class movement. As for small groups not representing any
trend—there have been plenty during this period, just as there were
plenty before. To confuse a trend with minor groups means condemning
oneself to intrigue in Party politics. The emergence of unprincipled tiny groups, their ephemeral existence, their efforts to
have “their say”, their “relations” with each other as separate
powers—all this is the basis of the intrigues taking place
abroad: and from this there is not nor can there be any salvation, except
that of strictly adhering to consistent principles tested by experience in
the long history of the working-class movement.

Secondly—and here we at once observe the practical transformation of
the conciliators’ lack of principle into intrigue—the message of the
Parisians is telling a downright and deliberate lie when it declares:
“Otzovism no longer finds open adherents and defenders in our
Party”. This is an untruth, and everybody knows it. This untruth is
refuted by documentary evidence in Vperyod , No. 3 (May 1911) which
openly states that otzovism is a “ perfectly legitimate trend within our Party” (p. 78). Or will our very wise conciliators
assert that such a declaration is not a defence of otzovism?

It is when people cannot justify their close association with this or
that group on grounds of principle that they are compelled to resort to a
policy of petty lies, petty flattery, nods, hints, i.e., to all those
things which add up to the concept “intrigue”. Vperyod praises
the conciliators; the conciliators praise Vperyod and falsely
reassure the Party with regard to otzovism. As a result there is bargaining
and haggling over positions and posts with the defenders of
otzovism, with the violators of all the decisions of the
Plenary Meeting. The fate of conciliationism and the substance of its
impotent and miserable intriguing, is secretly to assist both the otzovists
and the liquidators.

Thirdly—“... joint work with the liquidators in Russia is
impossible”. Even the conciliators had to admit this truth. The question
is—do the Vperyod and Pravda groups admit this truth?
Far from admitting it, they state the very opposite , they openly
demand “joint work” with the liquidators, and they openly engage in such work (see, for example, the report of the Second Vperyod
School). Is there even a grain of principle and of honesty in the
proclamation of a policy of rapprochement with groups which give
diametrically opposite answers to fundamental questions?—we ask, because an unambiguous and unanimous resolution of the

Plenary Meeting recognised the question of liquidationism to be a
fundamental one. Obviously not; we are confronted with an ideological
chasm, and irrespective of the most pious intentions of X or Z all their
attempts to span it with a bridge of words, with a bridge of diplomacy,
inevitably condemn them to intrigues.

Until it has been shown and proved by reliable facts and a review of
the most important questions that Vperyod and Pravda represent Social-Democratic trends (and no one, during the year
and a half following the Plenary Meeting has even tried to prove this since
it cannot be proved), we shall not tire of explaining to the workers the
harmfulness of those unprincipled stratagems, of those under handed
stratagems, which are the substance of rapprochement with Vperyod
and Pravda as preached by the conciliators. It is the first duty of revolutionary Social-Democrats to isolate these
non-Social-Democratic and unprincipled groups that are aiding the
liquidators. The policy which has been and is being pursued by Bolshevism
and which it will pursue to the end despite all obstacles is to appeal to
the Russian workers who are connected with Vperyod and
Pravda , over the heads of these groups and against them.

I have said that after a year and a half of domination in the
Party centres, conciliationism has suffered complete political
bankruptcy. The usual answer to this is yes, but that is because you
factionalists were hampering us (see the letter of the conciliators— not Bolsheviks—Hermann and

Arkady [12] in Pravda , No. 20).

The political bankruptcy of a tendency or a group lies precisely in the fact that everything “hampers” it, every thing turns against it; for it has wrongly estimated this
“everything”, for it has taken as its basis empty words, sighs, regrets,
whimpers.

Whereas in our case, gentlemen, everything and everybody came to our assistance—and herein lies the guarantee
of our success. We were assisted by the Potresovs, Larins, Levitskys—for
they could not open their mouths without confirming our
arguments about liquidationism. We were assisted by the Martovs, Dans and
others—for they compelled everyone to agree with our view that
the Golos group and the liquidators are one and the same. We were
assisted by

Plekhanov to the very extent that he exposed the liquidators,
pointed out the loopholes” left open “for the liquidators” ( by the conciliators ) in the resolutions of the Plenary Meeting, and ridiculed
the “puffy” and “integralist” passages in these resolutions ( passed by the conciliators against us ). We were assisted by the Russian
conciliators whose “invitation”, extended to Mikhail, Yuri, and Roman,
was accompanied by abusive attacks upon Lenin (see Golos ), thereby
confirming the fact that the refusal of the liquidators was not
due to the insidiousness of the “factionalists”. How is it, my dear
conciliators, that, notwithstanding your virtue everybody hampered you,
whereas everyone helped us in spite of all our factional wickedness?

It was because the policy of your petty group hinged only on
phrase-mongering, often very well-meaning and well-intentioned
phrase-mongering, but empty nonetheless. A real approach to unity is
created only by a rapprochement of strong factions, strong in their ideological integrity and an influence over the
masses that has been tested by the experience of the revolution.

Even now, your outbursts against factionalism remain mere words,
because you yourselves are a faction , one of the worst, least
reliable, unprincipled factions. Your loud, sweeping pronouncement (in the
In formation Bulletin )—“not a centime for the factions”—was
mere words. Had you meant it seriously, could you have spent your
“ centimes ” on the publication of the message-platform of a new
group? Had you meant it seriously, could you have kept quiet at the sight
of such factional organs as Rabochaya Gazeta and The Diary of a Social-Democrat ? Could you have abstained from publicly
demanding that they be closed down? [6]

Had you demanded this, had you seriously stipulated such a condition, you
would simply have been ridiculed. However, if, being well aware of this,
you confine yourselves to languid sighs, does it not prove over and over
again that your conciliationism remains suspended?

The disarming of the factions is possible only on the basis of
reciprocity—otherwise it is a reactionary slogan, extremely harmful to
the cause of the proletariat; it is a demagogical slogan, for it only
facilitates the uncompromising struggle of the liquidators against
the Party. Anyone who advances this slogan now, after the attempt
of the Plenary Meeting to apply it has failed, after the attempt
to amalgamate (the factions) has been thwarted by the Golos and
Vperyod factions—anyone who does this without even daring to
repeat the condition of reciprocity, without even trying to state it
clearly, to determine the methods of control over its actual
fulfilment, is simply becoming intoxicated by sweet-sounding words.

Bolsheviks, unite—you are the only bulwark of a consistent and
decisive struggle against liquidationism and otzovism.

Pursue the policy of rapprochement with anti-liquidationist Menshevism,
a policy tested by practice, confirmed by experience—such is our
slogan. It is a policy that does not promise a land flowing with the milk
and honey of “universal peace which cannot be attained in the period of
disorganisation and disintegration, but it is a policy that in the process
of work really furthers the rapprochement of trends which
represent all that is strong, sound, and vital in the proletarian movement.

The part played by the conciliators during the period of
counter-revolution may be described as follows. With immense efforts the
Bolsheviks are pulling our Party waggon up a steep slope. The
Golos liquidators are trying with all their might to drag it
downhill again. In the waggon sits a conciliator; he is a picture
of meekness. He has such an angelic sweet face, like that of Jesus. He
looks the very incarnation of virtue. And modestly dropping his eyes and
raising his hands he exclaims: “I thank thee, Lord, that I am not as
these men are”—a nod in the direction of the Bolsheviks and
Mensheviks—“insidious factionalists who hinder all progress”. But the
waggon moves slowly forward and in the waggon sits the conciliator. When
the Bolshevik factionalists smashed the liquidationist Central
Committee Bureau Abroad, thereby clearing the ground for the building of a
new house, for a bloc (or at least a temporary alliance)

of Party factions, the conciliators entered this house and
(cursing the Bolshevik factionalists) sprinkled the new abode with the holy
water of sugary speeches about non-factionalism!

What would have become of the historically memorable work of the old
Iskra , if, instead of waging a consistent, implacable, principled
campaign against Economism and Struveism, it had agreed to some bloc,
alliance or “fusion” of all groups large and small which were as
numerous abroad in those days as they are today?

And yet the differences between our epoch and the epoch of the old
Iskra considerably increase the harm done by unprincipled and
phrase-mongering conciliationism.

The first difference is that we have risen to a far higher level in the
development of capitalism and of the bourgeoisie as well as in the clarity
of the class struggle in Russia. Certain objective soil already
exists (for the first time in Russia) for the liberal labour policy of Potresov, Levitsky, Larin, and their
friends. The Stolypin liberalism of the Cadets and the Stolypin labour
party are already in process of formation. All the more harmful in practice
are conciliationist phrases and intrigues with those groups abroad which
support the liquidators.

The second difference is the immeasurably higher level of development
of the proletariat, of its class-consciousness and class solidarity. All
the more harmful is the artificial support given by the
conciliators to the ephemeral petty groups abroad ( Vperyod ,
Pravda , etc .), which have not created and are unable to
create any trend in Social-Democracy.

The third difference is that during the Iskra period there
were illegal organisations of Economists in Russia, which had to be smashed
and split up in order to unite the revolutionary Social-Democrats against
them. Today, there are no parallel illegal organisations; today it
is only a question of fighting legal groups that have segregated
themselves. And this process of segregation (even the conciliators are
forced to admit it) is being hindered by the political game of the conciliators with the factions abroad that are
unwilling to work and incapable of working for such demarcation.

Bolshevism has “got over” the otzovist sickness, the sickness of
revolutionary phrase-mongering, the playing at “Leftism”, the swinging
from Social-Democracy to the left. The otzovists came out as a faction when
it was no longer possible to “recall” the Social-Democrats from
the Duma.

Bolshevism will also get over the “conciliationist” sickness, the
wavering in the direction of liquidationism (for in reality the
conciliators were always a plaything in the hands of the liquidators). The
conciliators are also hopelessly behindhand. They came out as a faction
after the domination of conciliationism had exhausted itself
during the eighteen months following the Plenary Meeting and there was no
one left to conciliate.

P.S. The present feuilleton was written more than a month ago. It
criticises the “theory” of the conciliators. As for the “practice” of
the conciliators, which found expression in the hopeless, absurd, futile,
and shameful squabbles which fill the pages of the conciliators’ and the
Poles’ Bulletin No. 2, it is not worth wasting a single word on.

---
Notes:
[1]
See present edition, Vol. 16, “Notes of a
Publicist. II”.— Ed .

[2]
See present edition, Vol. 16, “Notes of a Publicist” and “The
historical Meaning of the Inner-Party Struggle in Russia”.— Ed .

[3]
See present edition, Vol. 16, “Notes of a
Publicist. II”.— Ed .

[4]
See Diskussionny Listok , No. 2. (See present edition, Vol. 16,
“Notes of a Publicist. II”.— Ed .) — Lenin

[5]
Of course, not all conciliators are alike, and surely not all the
former members of the Russian Bureau could (and would) accept responsibility for all the pompous stupidities of the Paris conciliators
who are merely echoing Trotsky. — Lenin

[6]
In fairness it should be stated that the Paris conciliators, who have
now issued their message, were opposed to launching of
Rabochaya Gazeta ; they walked out of the first meeting to
which they were invited by its editors. We regret that they did not help us
(to expose the futility of conciliationism) by openly denouncing
Rabochaya Gazeta . — Lenin

[7]
The Information Bulletin of the Technical Commission Abroad
was published in Paris, two issues appearing (in August and
October 1911). The conciliators made it their factional organ, in which
they conducted an unscrupulous struggle against Bolshevism.

[8]
This school was held in Capri, in 1909, and was the factional centre of
the otzovists; it was organised by A. A. Bogdanov.

[9]
Ionov (F. M. Koigen)—one of the Bund leaders.

[10]
Lenin is referring to the resolution “On Liquidationism” adopted by
the “Conference of Transcaucasian Social-Democratic Organisations”, which
was really a conference of Caucasian liquidators. The anti-Party nature of
the “conference” was exposed in correspondence published in No. 24 of
Sotsial-Demokrat of October 18 (31), 1911.

[11]
Rabochaya Zhizn ( Workers’ Life )—a monthly newspaper, organ of the Menshevik Golos group and the
conciliators. It was published in Paris from February 21 (March 6) to
April 18 (May 1), 1911. Three issues appeared.

[12]
Hermann —K. K. Danishevsky, Arkady —F. I. Kalinin.