In No. 92 of *Pravda's Path*, dated 21 May 1914, a resolution was published from representatives of ten professional societies of Moscow. In this resolution, the disorganizing departure of Malinovsky was condemned in the most decisive and sharp manner as a "crime"; thereupon full confidence was expressed in the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' faction of the State Duma ("go firmly your own path – the working class is with you!"); and finally, the liquidators of *Our Workers' Gazette* were publicly stigmatized as people "hurling filthy slander after the departed deputy"; the conduct of these people was placed on a level with "the dissemination by the rightist press of slanderous rumors with the aim of sowing confusion in the ranks of workers."

"A sacred obligation for all to whom the workers' cause is dear," wrote the representatives of ten professional societies of Moscow in their resolution, "is to unite and give a resolute rebuff to the slanderers." "The working class, in response, will close its ranks more tightly around its representatives" (i.e., the RSD workers' faction) "and with contempt will pass by the slanderers."

We have no need to cite other numerous resolutions of workers with similar content, the response of the Latvian workers' newspaper,[55] and so forth. This would only mean repeating ourselves.

Let us examine what has occurred.

Why did conscious workers of Russia, represented by delegates of ten professional societies of Moscow and many others, publicly condemn the liquidators of *Our Workers' Gazette* as filthy slanderers and invite the working class to pass by them with contempt?

What did *Our Workers' Gazette* do?

It disseminated anonymous (unnamed) rumors and dark hints concerning Malinovsky's alleged provocation.

Not a single accuser's name was given. Not a single precise fact was adduced. Not one definite, substantiated allegation – supported by references to at least codenames, failed raids, dates, evidence – not a single such piece of evidence was presented.

Only dark rumors, only an amplification of the "unexplanainability" of the departure from the Duma. But it was precisely for this unexplainability of his departure, for his secret flight, that organized workers, members of the workers' party, condemned Malinovsky harshly.

Organized Marxist workers immediately assembled all of theirs – all possible local, professional, Duma, all-Russian, and governing institutions – and directly, openly, for all to hear, declared to the proletariat and the entire world: Malinovsky did not explain his departure to us and did not forewarn us of it. This unexplainability, this unheard-of willfulness makes his act the act of a deserter, and we are waging serious, difficult, responsible class war. We have judged the deserter, we condemn him mercilessly and have condemned him. And that is that. The matter is closed.

"One – is nothing. The class – is all. Steadfastly defend the positions you have occupied. We are with you" (telegram from forty Moscow commercial employees to the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' faction. See No. 86 of *Pravda's Path* from 14 May 1914).

The matter is closed. Organized workers have organizationally brought the matter to a conclusion and closed ranks for further work. Forward to work!

But intellectual circles behave differently. The "unexplainability" evokes in them not an organized approach to the matter (not a single directing institution of the liquidators or their friends came forward with an open, direct, complete evaluation of the matter on its merits!!!), but rather gossip-mongering interest. Ah-h, "unexplainability?" – the gossipy aunties of intellectual society are intrigued.

The gossips have no facts whatsoever. The aunties of Martov's circle are incapable of organized action: of convening one or another collegium, gathering information of political interest or significance, verifying, analyzing, thinking it through together, rendering a formal, responsible decision giving guidance to the proletariat. The aunties are incapable of this.

But to prattle and gossip, to go to Martov (or to those like him, filthy slanderers) or away from Martov and fan dark rumors, to catch and pass along hints – oh, intellectual aunties are veritable masters at this! Whoever has once in his life seen this environment of gossiping intellectual aunties will surely (if he is not himself an auntie) retain a lifelong aversion to these repulsive creatures.

To each his own. Each social layer has its own "manner of life," its own habits, its own inclinations. Each insect has its own weapon of struggle: there are insects that struggle by secreting a foul-smelling liquid.

Organized Marxist workers acted in an organized fashion. They organizationally concluded the matter of the willful departure of their former colleague and organizationally proceeded to further work, to further struggle. The intellectual aunties of the liquidators could not and did not go further than filthy gossip and slander.

Organized worker-Marxists, right from the first articles of *Our Workers' Gazette*, recognized these aunties and immediately assessed them quite correctly: "filthy slander," "pass by with contempt." Not a shadow of trust in the "rumors" of Martov and Dan, a firm resolve to pay them no attention, to attach no significance to them.

By the way. In the resolutions of workers indignant at the liquidators, there was talk of liquidators in general. In my view, it would have been far more correct to speak of Messrs. Martov and Dan, as was done in Lenin's telegram[132] and in some articles and resolutions. We have no grounds to accuse and publicly stigmatize all liquidators in general for filthy slander, but it is precisely Martov and Dan who, over the course of ten years, beginning with their attempt to thwart the will of the second (1903) Party Congress, have repeatedly demonstrated their "manner" of conducting struggle through insinuations and filthy slander. These two subjects did well to hide behind the claim that someone is exposing the actual editors of *New Workers' Gazette*. Not a word, not a sound was uttered anywhere about editorship or actual editorship.

But slanderers known to the workers' party from ten years of its history had to be named by name, and they were named.

The slanderers tried to confound completely inexperienced or completely unthinking people with the "respectable" demand for an "unofficial" court; we, they said, know nothing entirely definite, we accuse no one, rumors are "insufficient" for accusation, they suffice only for "investigation"!

But precisely herein lies the entire "composition," to speak legally, of filthy slander – that people publish dark, anonymous rumors, being unable to furnish a single guarantor from a single honest citizen, or from a single solid, responsible democratic institution, for the seriousness of these rumors!

In this lies the whole crux of the matter.

Martov and Dan are long-known, repeatedly exposed slanderers. Dozens of times this has been said in the émigré press. When Martov, with the participation and responsibility of Dan, wrote a specially slanderous pamphlet, *Saviors or Abolishers*, even the mild and cautious Kautsky, latterly especially inclined toward "concessions" to the liquidators, called it "abominable."

This is a fact. It has long been published in the émigré press.

And after this Martov and Dan want, at their instigation, on the basis of their slanderous pronouncement, that we agree to conduct an investigation with the participation of those grouplets that cover for Martov and Dan!!!

This is the height of audacity on the part of slanderers and the height of absurdity.

We believe not a single word of Dan and Martov. We will never agree to any "investigation" of dark rumors with the participation of the liquidators and grouplets helping them. For this would mean covering up the crime of Martov and Dan, and we will expose it completely before the working class.

When Martov and Dan, plus their protectors, the Bundists, Chkheidze and Co., the "Augustists" and others, directly or indirectly invite us to a joint "investigation" with them, we answer them: We do not believe Martov and Dan. We do not consider them honest citizens. We will treat them only as low slanderers, and in no other way.

Let the protectors of Dan and Martov or weak-nerved intellectuals believing the "rumors" of these gentlemen lament and cry at the thought of a bourgeois court. We will not be frightened by this. Against blackmailers we are always and unconditionally in favor of bourgeois legality, of the bourgeois court.

When a man says: give me 100 rubles, otherwise I will expose that you are deceiving your wife and living with NN – this is criminal blackmail. We are in favor of the bourgeois court in this case.

When a man says: give me political concessions, recognize me as an equal comrade of the Marxist whole, otherwise I will cry out about rumors of Malinovsky's provocation – this is political blackmail.

We are in favor of the bourgeois court in this case.

And the workers themselves took precisely this position when, on the basis of the very first articles of Dan and Martov, they did not treat them with trust, did not ask themselves: indeed, perhaps these "rumors" are correct, since Martov and Dan are writing about them? – No, the workers immediately grasped the essence and proclaimed: "the working class will pass by filthy slander with contempt."

Either come forward under your own signature with a direct accusation, so that the bourgeois court can expose and punish you (no other means of fighting blackmail exist), or remain with the stigma of people whom representatives of ten professional societies of workers publicly called slanderers. There is your choice, Messrs. Martov and Dan!

The directing institution investigated the rumors and declared them nonsense. The workers of Russia trust this institution, and it will expose the spreaders of slander to the very end. Let Martov not think that he will remain unexposed.

But political grouplets defending the liquidators or sympathizing with them at least in part – do they not trust our directing institution? Of course not! We have no need of their trust; we will not take a single step that reveals even a shadow of trust in them.

We say: Gentlemen members of grouplets trusting Martov and Dan, desiring to "unite" with them, all of you – Augustists, Trotskyists, Forwardists, Bundists and so forth and so forth – please, come forward and show yourselves! One of two things, gentlemen:

If you yourselves want and are calling the workers to "unite" with Martov and Dan, then, that means, you possess (which is lacking in us) elementary trust in them, the acknowledged leaders of an ideological-political direction of liquidationism. Once you possess this trust, once you recognize and preach the possibility of "uniting" with them, then proceed to action, do not limit yourselves to words!

Either you will demand from Dan and Martov (you trust them, they trust you) an indication of the sources of "rumors," examine them yourselves and declare publicly before the working class: we vouch that here it is not the stupid gossip of aunties, not the malicious whispering of exasperated liquidators, but weighty, serious evidence. Once you had done this and once it had been proven that, at the very moment of the emergence of the rumors, the liquidationist, Plekhanovist, etc. directing institutions, having verified them, immediately reported them to the Pravda directing institution, then we would answer: we are convinced that you are mistaken, gentlemen, and we will prove your error to you, but we recognize that you have acted as honest democrats.

Or you will hide, gentlemen leaders of "tendencies" and grouplets calling on workers to unite with the liquidators – hide behind the backs of Dan and Martov, let them slander all they wish, without demanding from them an indication of sources, without undertaking the labor (and political responsibility) of verifying the seriousness of the rumors.

Then we will openly declare to the workers: Comrades, do you not see that all these leaders of grouplets are participants and accomplices of filthy slanderers?

Let us see how the workers decide.

To clarify the matter, let us take a concrete case. When the directing institution, recognized by 4/5 of the conscious workers of Russia, declared that it had investigated the rumors and was absolutely convinced of their utter nonsensicality (if not worse), two groups came forward in the press: 1) the group of Chkheidze, Chkhenkeli, Skobелев, Khaustov, Tulikov, Man'kov, and Yagello; 2) the "Augustists," i.e., the directing August institution of the liquidators.

What did they say?

Only that they had not participated in the investigation of the rumors by the directing institution of the Pravda people!! Only this!

Let us analyze this case.

Let us imagine, first of all, that instead of the group of Chkheidze and Co. we see before us honest democrats. These men had elected Malinovsky to the position of vice-chairman of their Duma faction. And suddenly rumors appear in the press, in an organ for which they bear political responsibility, alleging that Malinovsky is a provocateur!

Can there be two opinions about what the most elementary, most absolute obligation of any honest democrats would be in such a case?

Immediately create a collegium from among themselves or from anyone at all, immediately investigate where the rumors come from, who and when spread them, verify the conscientiousness and seriousness of these rumors and declare publicly, directly, honestly to the working class: comrades, we have worked, we have investigated, we vouch before you that there is something serious here.

This is how honest democrats would have acted. To remain silent, not to investigate, to continue bearing responsibility for a press organ spreading dark rumors, is the height of baseness and depravity, unworthy of honest citizens.

Let us imagine, second, that instead of Chkheidze and Co. we see accomplices and concealers of filthy slander, who either themselves have heard dark rumors from Martov or his friends, but have never even thought to take them seriously (for who, among those involved in Social-Democratic work, has not heard dozens of times stupid, patently absurd "rumors" which it is ridiculous to pay attention to?), or have heard nothing at all, but, knowing well the "manner" of Dan and Martov, prefer to "walk around the question difficult and sore,"[133] fearing to soil themselves and bring shame upon themselves for life by direct expression of trust in the seriousness of rumors disseminated in Martov and Dan's press, while wishing at the same time secretly to cover for Martov and Dan.

Such people, corresponding to our second supposition, would have acted precisely as Chkheidze and Co. have acted.

What has been said applies entirely to the "Augustists" as well.

Let the workers themselves choose one of these two suppositions, let them analyze and think through the behavior of Chkheidze and Co. themselves.

Let us further analyze Plekhanov's behavior. In No. 2 of *Edinstvo*, he calls the articles of the liquidators about Malinovsky "outrageous" and "abominable," while at the same time adding, with evident reproach to the Pravda people: there are the fruits of your split – "having cut off the head, one does not weep over the hair"!

What is the meaning of such behavior by Plekhanov?

If he, despite the direct statement of Dan and Martov that they consider the rumors serious and conscientious (for otherwise they would not demand an investigation), – if Plekhanov, despite this, declares the articles of the liquidators outrageous and abominable, then it means he has not the slightest trust in Dan and Martov!! It means he considers them filthy slanderers too!!

For how else, on what rational basis, could one declare publicly "abominable" the articles of people wishing (according to their words) to benefit democracy and the proletariat by exposing a serious and terrible evil, provocation??

But if Plekhanov does not believe a single word of Martov and Dan, considers them filthy slanderers, then how can he blame us Pravda people for such methods of struggle by liquidators excluded from the party? How can he write: "having cut off the head, one does not weep over the hair"? For this means that he is justifying Dan and Martov on the grounds of the "split"!!

This is monstrous, but it is a fact.

Plekhanov justifies filthy slanderers in whom he himself does not believe a whit – by the fact that the Pravda people are guilty of excluding them from the party.

Such behavior by Plekhanov is "diplomatic" (as publicly was already said to him by "a group of Marxists," ready to believe Plekhanov but quickly disappointed) – diplomatic, that is, prompted by circle diplomacy, – a defense of blackmailers, objectively equivalent to encouraging blackmailers to continue their exploits.

If, Martov and Dan should reason, we have immediately achieved the result that the "anti-liquidator" Plekhanov, not believing us, accuses, albeit indirectly, albeit in part, the Pravda people for the fact that through the "split" they brought us to such desperate struggle, – then… then, go ahead! continue in the same spirit! Plekhanov encourages us, saying that we will receive concessions as a reward for our blackmail!![56]

Plekhanov's circle diplomacy has already immediately exposed itself before the workers. This was proven by the response of Muscovites to No. 1 of *Edinstvo* and the answer of the "group of Marxists," ready to trust Plekhanov, who called Plekhanov a "diplomat."[134] Plekhanov's circle diplomacy will expose itself completely very quickly.

Representatives of the workers formally and publicly excluded from the party in January 1912 a definite group of liquidators with Martov and Dan at their head. Since then, over 2½ years, the workers of Russia by a majority of 4/5 have approved and recognized this decision as their own. The blackmail and slander of Martov and Dan will not impel the workers to "concessions" but to an even firmer conviction that only without the liquidators and against them can one build the workers' Marxist "whole," already built 4/5 of the way.

Everyone is speaking now about the growth of political consciousness of Russian workers, about the transition of the workers' party's affairs entirely and exclusively into their hands, about the enormous increase in their maturity and independence after the revolution. Both Trotsky and Plekhanov appeal to the workers against "intellectual circles" or "intellectual factionalism." But – a remarkable circumstance! – as soon as the question arises of objective data concerning what political direction the present conscious workers of Russia choose, approve, and create, both Plekhanov and Trotsky and the liquidators change front and cry: these workers, the Pravda workers, constituting the majority among the conscious workers of Russia, go after Pravdaism only out of "bewilderment" (*Struggle* No. 1, p. 6), they only submit to "demagogy" or factionalism, etc., etc.

It turns out that the liquidators, Plekhanov, and Trotsky recognize the will of the majority of conscious workers not in the present but in the future – precisely in that and only in that future when the workers agree with them, with the liquidators, with Plekhanov, with Trotsky!!

Amusing subjectivism! Amusing fear of objective data! Yet if one is not to engage in mere hurling of accusations of intellectual circle-narrowness at one another, one must take precisely the present and precisely the objective data.

Regarding the political enlightenment of workers, which, by general admission, is advancing, our conciliators, Plekhanov, Trotsky and Co., again reason with amusing subjectivism. Plekhanov and Trotsky waver between two struggling currents in the Social-Democratic class movement, and they impose their subjective wavering on the workers, saying: workers' participation in the struggle of currents is unconsciousness on the part of workers, but once they become more conscious, they will cease to struggle, they will not be "factional" (Plekhanov, just as Trotsky, repeats out of "force of habit" the memorized little word "factionalism," though the Pravda people, since January 1912, that is, 2½ years ago, concluded with "factionalism" directly and openly by excluding the liquidators).

The subjectivism of such an assessment of the matter by Plekhanov and Trotsky is striking. Take history – surely there is no harm in taking the history of the movement for a Marxist! – it shows you an almost twenty-year struggle against bourgeois currents: "Economism" (1895–1902), Menshevism (1903–1908), and liquidationism (1908–1914). The inseparable connection and continuity of these three varieties of "bourgeois influence on the proletariat" is beyond any doubt. That the advanced workers of Russia each time participated in this struggle and took the side of the "Iskrists" against the "Economists," – the side of the Bolsheviks against the Mensheviks (admissions forced from Levitsky by the mass of objective facts), – finally, the side of "Pravdaism" against liquidationism, – this is a historical fact.

The question arises: does this historical fact, relating to the mass Social-Democratic movement of workers, not tell us something far more serious than the subjective good wishes of Plekhanov and Trotsky, who for the past ten years have seen their merit in the fact that they simply cannot strike the right note with the mass Social-Democratic direction of the workers?

The objective facts of the present epoch, drawn from both sources, the liquidationist and the Pravda, – and then the twenty-year history, all this proves with obviousness that it is precisely in the struggle against liquidationism and in the victory over it that the political enlightenment of Russian workers and the creation of a genuine workers' party, not yielding to petty-bourgeois influences in a petty-bourgeois country, manifests itself.

Plekhanov and Trotsky, presenting to the workers their subjective good wishes (not taking into account either history or mass trends among the Social-Democrats) about avoiding struggle, regard the matter of workers' political enlightenment from the point of view of primers. There was history before – as Marx joked against Proudhon – but now it exists no longer![135] For twenty years, workers' political enlightenment proceeded in no other way than in struggle against the bourgeois current of "Economism" and against the later manifestations of a kindred direction, – but now, after a couple of "primer" truths about the harm of struggle imparted by Plekhanov and Trotsky, history will cease its course, the mass roots of liquidationism, owing to bourgeois support, will disappear, the mass (become mass exclusively owing to workers' "bewilderment"!) "Pravdaism" will vanish, and something "genuine" will be established… Amusing is the reasoning of Plekhanov and Trotsky!

Genuine political enlightenment of workers can proceed in no other way than in a consistent, sustained, carried-through struggle of proletarian influences, strivings, and directions against bourgeois ones. And that liquidationism (like "Economism" of 1895–1902) is a manifestation of bourgeois influence on the proletariat – even Trotsky does not dare dispute, and Plekhanov himself in the distant past, a mere 1½–2½ years ago, defended the party decision that established this truth.

But bourgeois influences on workers have never consisted and nowhere in the world will consist solely of ideological influences. When the ideological influence of the bourgeoisie on workers falls, is undermined, weakens, the bourgeoisie everywhere and always has resorted and will resort to the most desperate lies and slander. Martov and Dan precisely when they were thwarting the will of the majority of organized Marxists, precisely when they lacked the weapon of ideological struggle, constantly grasped for the weapon of insinuation and slander.

Only until now they have done this in the émigré environment, before relatively narrow circles of "listeners," and much has gotten away with them. Now they have come forward before tens of thousands of Russian workers – and immediately faltered. The "number" of émigré gossip and slander did not go through. The workers proved already so politically conscious that they saw the insincerity, the lack of conscientiousness of Martov and Dan's pronouncements right away from the character of these pronouncements and publicly stigmatized them, before all of Russia, as slanderers.

The advanced workers of Russia have taken yet another step forward on the path of their political enlightenment, knocking the weapon of slander out of the hands of one bourgeois group (the liquidators).

Neither the bourgeois alliance of liquidationist leaders, Plekhanov, and Trotsky with the Populists, nor the efforts of the liberal press to declare the task of "honest" people to be the unification of workers with the liquidators of the workers' party, nor the slanderous campaign of Martov and Dan will stop the growth and development of proletarian cohesion around the ideas, program, tactics, and organization of "Pravdaism."

*Enlightenment*, No. 6, June 1914. Signed: V. Ilin

Printed from the text of the journal *Enlightenment*