On the “Forward” Group, m.
[First half of January 1910. Paris.]
Summary:
[The Editorial Board of Proletary] Following a series of lectures delivered to comrades in the Forward Group, and after concluding discussions with them regarding party tasks and the Forward Group’s position within the Party, I find it necessary to set forth my views on the contentious issues at hand—lest misunderstandings and misinterpretations arise—in written form.
[The Editorial Board of Proletary believes] I hold that the platform of the Forward Group is thoroughly permeated by viewpoints incompatible with the Party’s resolutions (the resolutions of the December 1908 Conference³) and in direct contradiction to those very resolutions.
The Forward Group’s understanding of the contemporary moment is flawed, for it fails to take into account the economic and political transformations unfolding in Russia—transformations that mark a new stage in the autocracy’s march toward the path of bourgeois monarchy.
Consequently, the Forward Group’s platform yields, in practice, tactical conclusions that are in fact close to those of the “recallists.”
Thus, the Forward Group’s entire platform is steeped in views that deny the unconditional necessity of the Social-Democratic Party’s participation in the Third Duma—and the equally unconditional necessity of building a new type of clandestine party organization, one that is encircled by a network of legal organizations and that makes full use of every legal opportunity available.
By advancing, in its platform, the task of developing so‑called “proletarian philosophy,” “proletarian culture,” and the like, the Forward Group in fact ends up defending a circle of literary figures who pursue anti‑Marxist perspectives in these very fields.
By declaring recallism to be a “legitimate shade,” the Forward Group’s platform thereby covers up and protects recallism—a tendency that inflicts profound harm upon the Party.
* This
summary was originally drafted by Lenin on behalf of the editorial board of “Proletary,” and later, through appropriate revisions, was reworked by him so that in its final version it emanated directly from his own pen. Ed.
In the manuscript, there is a typographical error: “yields.” Ed.

THE STRUGGLE ON TWO FRONTES

In light of all this, the personal declarations made by most comrades in the Forward Group—that they will write candid correspondence to the Central Committee, that they will engage in ideological and comradely struggle against the recallists, that they will diligently work to utilize legal opportunities, that they will combat all attempts to undermine legal workers’ organizations and enterprises—these declarations inspire distrust in the Editorial Board of Proletary and lead us to fear that the Forward Group will, in its local work and in its preparations for the conference, pursue a line of struggle that runs counter to the Party’s established policy.
For me, * the Editorial Board of Proletary’s attitude toward the local workers of the Forward Group will be determined by how these workers actually conduct their activities in Russia and by how faithfully they fulfill their stated commitments.
Lenin.
1 For information on the “Forward” Group, see Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume XIV, p. 536, note 140.
The group’s platform can be found in the same volume, p. 452.
* The date is established on the basis of the text’s indication that Lenin’s present exposition of his views on the contentious issues raised by the Forward Group’s platform was composed by him “after a series of lectures delivered to comrades in the Forward Group and following a concluding discussion with them concerning party tasks and the Forward Group’s position within the Party.” Lenin delivered lectures to students at the Capri School, members of the Forward Group, in Paris no earlier than late December 1909 and no later than January 15, 1910—by which time the January Plenum of the Central Committee had already convened.
a See Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume XIV, p. 444, for the resolutions of the “December” Conference of 1908.
____________

DRAFT LETTER TO THE “HOLDERS” *
Letter to the German Triumvirate
[February–March 1910. Paris.]
To explain what may, at first glance, seem a strange proposal—and the request we address to you, together with the Central Committee—we must first clarify the situation of our Party.
* “For me” was added after the following words were crossed out: “Editorial Board of Proletary.” Ed.
** In the manuscript, there are pencil annotations at the beginning of the first page: 1) in the upper left corner, a passage carefully obscured in pencil, the text of which remains illegible, yet two words have been left unmarked in the middle of the sentence: “to the German Triumvirate:…”; 2) above the title, the text has been repeated: “Letter to the German Triumvirate”; 3) in the upper right corner, the following note has been made: “Starting from the fact that our funds are limited—and that the question is strictly confined to the [con]f[lict] across the [b]order]….” Ed.
To K. Kautsky, F. Mehring, K. Zetkin. Ed.

To grasp this situation, we must first understand, firstly,
the stark reality of the brutal crackdown on the revolutionary movement and the terrifying collapse of social‑democratic organizations and social‑democratic work; secondly, the principal ideological and political currents within our Party.
On the first point, it suffices to note the tremendous decline of organizations everywhere, with nearly complete cessation of activity in many places. A widespread exodus of the intelligentsia. Only small circles of workers and isolated individuals remain. Young, inexperienced workers are struggling to make their way forward.
On the second point: during the revolution, Social Democracy was divided into two major currents (into two factions—technically speaking, a split*): the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. Stockholm, 1906; London, 1907. The opportunistic wing and the revolutionary wing.
The upheaval of 1907–08 gave rise to (a) a shift among the petty-bourgeois elements (in terms of definition), and (ß) among the
—recallism (and ultimately, ultra‑revisionism). Definition.
(a) Beginning with the Third Duma, the Mensheviks absolutely refused to participate in the Party’s parliamentary work and even attempted to disrupt it (III Duma, 1908). Abroad, they held sway over student circles, the immature bourgeois intelligentsia, and other such groups. A complete split abroad ensued (thanks to the Mensheviks), along with their outright refusal to participate in the Party’s work—and their subsequent struggle against the Party.
The XIIth Conference of 1908 condemned this stance.
(ß) Recallism–ultra‑revisionism emerged among the Bolsheviks in 1908–09. Decisive struggles against them, and the isolation of the recallists–ultra‑revisionists. Exclusion.
The disintegration within Russia continued to deepen.
Plekhanov’s intervention in August 1909 ((“What do you desire?”—the liquidation of “Golos”; the declaration of the liquidation of the petty‑bourgeois opportunism; the call for a crisis within the Party (a terrible illness); withdrawal from the editorial board of the Public Movement, which had taken refuge in a bourgeois‑liberal publishing house ***))—
the significance of Plekhanov’s intervention
was but a faint echo, serving only to reinforce the Bolsheviks’ already well‑established claims.
* In fact, a split. Ed.
“Exclusion.” Ed.
in a bourgeois‑liberal publishing house. Re<),

THE STRUGGLE ON TWO FRONTES

The Mensheviks in Russia were drawn back to the Party (especially among the workers:
St. Petersburg, Moscow).
The experience of party unity built on this foundation, of engaging in a dual-front struggle: against liquidationism and against recallism–ultra‑revisionism.
The conditions for unity, from our side: unconditional recognition of the struggle against liquidationism (as one of the Central Committee’s measures: a personal concession); the cessation of factional struggle (which would have led to a split across the
border—especially
in the case of
the
Bolsheviks),
and
the clear subordination of the leadership to the Party’s central organs (particularly the Bolsheviks and the Poles), who had pulled the Party out of the crisis of 1907–09 and placed it on the path of decisive struggle on two fronts.
The Mensheviks’ conditions: the cover-up of the explicit resolution on liquidationism (half of the resolution’s provisions were crossed out), and equality in the Central Committee’s editorial board ((In fact, the leading, all‑party institution, despite the Central Committee’s extreme weakness and instability in Russia)).
Within the Central Committee, an extremely fragile compromise was reached: 1) a unanimous resolution bearing the overtly concealed label of “liquidationism”; 2) the struggle between the 3rd and 2nd factions within the Central Committee, amid the Mensheviks’ claim of “suppression of dissent,” “oppression of the situation,” etc.; 3) the Mensheviks’ resolute, clear, and irrevocable refusal to abandon the factional newspaper and the factional organization, and their acknowledgment of loyal subordination to the Bolsheviks.
From this, our concerns arise.
Having dissolved the faction, having handed over the funds to the Central Committee (in fact, five powers, amidst the occasional and fluctuating presence of the Bolsheviks, the dishonesty of the recallists–ultra‑revisionists), we fear—indeed, we have every reason to fear—that a foreign split among the Mensheviks might occur, and that they might push through the liquidationist agenda (in the guise of equality within the editorial board).
We are convinced that, in the event of a split attempt across the border—engineered by the Mensheviks—the Central Committee (that is, the Bolsheviks and the nationalists) will be unable to effectively combat liquidationism, and that we will be forced to resume factional struggle, responding to a split with a split of our own.
The experience of “truce”: the Bolsheviks laid down their arms. The experience of “party life.”
The Mensheviks’ conditions: (a) complete disarmament—putting an end to the factional newspaper, the factional treasury, the factional split across the border; (β) the clear implementation of

the resolution on the struggle against liquidationism; (γ) the clear subordination of the Bolsheviks to the Central Committee; (δ) the active support of the Central Committee in Russia.
Si QOQ — non*.
The Mensheviks’ flirtation with the recallists–ultra‑revisionists
only served to strengthen and empower Trotsky’s liquidationists.
1 The date is roughly established on the basis that, judging from its content, this document was written by Lenin after the January Plenum of the Central Committee in 1910—shortly after the release of Nos. 19–20 of “Golos,” the Social Democratic Voice.
2 We are referring here to Plekhanov’s polemic against liquidationism in No. 9 of the “Social Democratic Diary,” whose publication Plekhanov resumed in August 1909 after a three‑year hiatus—following his departure from the editorial board of “Golos, the Social Democratic Voice.” The entire issue was devoted entirely to the question of combating liquidationism.
“What do you desire?”—this was Plekhanov’s characterization of the position of “Golos S.-D.” and his fellow thinkers on the question of how to relate to liquidationism in the first article of the “Diary” (“Opportunism, Split, or Struggle for Influence Within the Party”).