V. I. Lenin

Bythe time this issue of Proletary reaches Russia the election campaign in St. Petersburg will be over. Hence it is quite in
place now to discuss with the St. Petersburg Bolsheviks—and all the
Russian Social-Democrats—the struggle with the ultimatumists, which
almost came to the point of a total split in St. Petersburg during the
election and which is of tremendous significance for the whole
Social-Democratic Labour Party in Russia.

Firstof all the four stages of this struggle have to be clearly
established, after which we shall dwell on the significance of the struggle
and on certain differences of opinion between ourselves and a section of
the Bolsheviks in St. Petersburg. These four stages are as follows:

1) At the Conference of the enlarged editorial board of Proletary
held abroad the attitude of the Bolsheviks to otzovism and ultimatumism was
definitely stated, and the fact of Comrade Maximov’s splitting off was also
noted ( Proletary No. 46 and its

Supplement {1}

).

2) In a special leaflet likewise printed and circulated abroad, entitled
“Report of the Members Removed from the Enlarged Editorial Board of
Proletary to the Bolshevik Comrades”, Comrades Maximov and
Nikolayev (condition ally and partially supported by Comrades Marat and
Domov) set out their views on the policy of Proletary as a
“Menshevik” policy, etc., and defended their ultimatumism. An analysis of
this leaflet was given in a special supplement to Proletary No.

47–48. {2}

3) At the very beginning of the election campaign in St. Petersburg the
Executive Committee of, the St. Petersburg Committee of our Party adopted
an ultimatumist resolution on the election. The text of this resolution is given elsewhere
in this issue.

4) The adoption of this resolution raised a regular storm in Bolshevik
Party circles in St. Petersburg. The storm raged, if you will permit the
expression, from above and from below. “From above”—the indignation and
protests of the representatives of the Central Committee and members of the
enlarged editorial board of Proletary . “From below”—the
calling of a non-official inter-district meeting of Social-Democratic
workers and functionaries in St. Petersburg. The meeting adopted a
resolution (see text in this issue) of solidarity with the editorial board
of Proletary , but sharply censured the “splitting actions” of
both this editorial board and of the otzovist ultimatumists. Then
a new meeting of the St. Petersburg Committee and Executive Committee was
held and the ultimatumist resolution was rescinded . A new
resolution was adopted in harmony with the policy of
Proletary . The text of this resolution is quoted in full in the
Current Events column of the present issue.

Such,in the main, is the picture of events. The significance of the
notorious “ultimatumism” in our Party has now been completely
demonstrated in practice and all Russian Social-Democrats should
ponder carefully over the questions in dispute. Further, the censure which
a section of our comrades in St. Petersburg passed on our “splitting”
policy gives us a welcome opportunity to explain ourselves
definitively to every Bolshevik on this, important question as well. It is
better to “explain ourselves” fully now than to arouse new friction and
“misunderstandings” at every step in our practical Work.

Firstof all let; us establish what exactly was the stand
point we adopted on the question of a split immediately after the
Conference of the enlarged editorial board of Proletary . The
“Communication” on this Conference (Supplement to Proletary

No. 46 {3}

)

states from the outset that ultimatumism, as the trend proposing that an
ultimatum should be presented to the Social-Democratic group in the Duma,
is vacillating between otzovism and Bolshevism. One of our ultimatumists
abroad—says the “Communication”—“admitted that there had been a great improvement lately in the work of the
Social-Democratic group in the Duma, and that he did not intend to present
an ultimatum to it now? immediately”.

“Itis of course possible,” the “Communication” continues, “to get
along with ultimatumists like this within one and the same wing of
the Party.... In the case of such Bolshevik ultimatumists a split
is out of the question.” It would be ridiculous even to speak of such a
thing.

Furtheron, on the second page of the “Communication” we read:

“Itwould be a profound mistake for any local functionary to
understand the resolutions of the Conference as an instruction to expel
otzovist-minded workers, let alone bring about an immediate split in
organisations where there are otzovist elements. We warn local
functionaries in all seriousness against such actions.”

Itwould be impossible to express oneself more clearly, one would
think. The splitting off of Comrade Maximov, who refuses to submit
to the resolutions of the Conference, is inevitable. As for the
vacillating, indefinite otzovist-ultimatumist elements, far from declaring
a split with them we emphatically warned against it.

Nowlook at the second stage of the struggle. Comrade Maximov and
Co. publish a leaflet abroad, in which on the one hand we are accused of a
split, while on the other hand the policy of the new Proletary
(which is supposed to have betrayed the old Proletary , the old
Bolshevism) is declared Menshevist, “Duma-ist” and so forth. Is it not
absurd to complain of a split in the factions i. e., in a union of kindred minds within a party , if you yourselves admit that there is no
unanimity? Defending their ultimatumism Comrade Maximov and Co. wrote in
their leaflet that “the Party cannot then [i. e., in the conditions of
acute and increasing reaction characteristic of the present time] carry out
a big and spectacular election campaign, nor obtain worth-while
parliamentary representation”—that the “question of the actual
usefulness of taking part in a pseudo-parliamentary institution then
becomes doubtful and disputable”—that “in essence” Proletary
was “going over to the Menshevik point of view of parliamentarism at any
price”. These phrases are accompanied by an evasive defence of otzovism
(“the

otzovists have never [!!!] expressed anti-parliamentary sentiments at
all”) and an evasive repudiation of otzovism (We are not otzovists; the
Party must not liquidate the, Social-Democratic group in the Duma now;
“the Party must”... “decide whether in the last analysis the whole
undertaking—participation in the Third Duma—has not been
disadvantageous to it”, as though the Party had not decided this
question already!).

Thisevasiveness of Maximov and Co. has deceived and still deceives
many people. They say: “Well, what harm can the Party or even the faction
suffer from people who do not at all refuse to carry out the Party’s
decisions but only cautiously defend their own somewhat different point of
view on tactics?”

Sucha reaction to the propaganda of Maximov and Co. is very widespread
among the unthinking public who give credence to words without
taking into account the concrete political significance of
evasive, guarded, diplomatic phrases in the circumstances of the
present Party situation. Now they have received an excellent
lesson.

Maximovand Co.’s leaflet is dated July 3 (16), 1909. In August the Executive Committee of the St. Petersburg Committee passed
the following resolution by three ultimatumist votes to two on the
prospective election, campaign in St. Petersburg (which is now over).

“Onthe question of the election the Executive
Committee, without attaching special importance to the State Duma and our
group there, but being guided by the general Party decision, resolves to
take part in the election, not investing all the available forces, but
merely putting forward its own candidates to gather the Social-Democratic
votes and organising an election committee subordinated to the Executive
Committee of the St. Petersburg Committee through its representative.”

Letreaders compare this resolution with Maximov’s foreign leaflet. A
comparison of these two documents is the best and surest way of opening the
eyes of the public to the true character of Maximov’s group
abroad. This resolution, just like Maximov’s leaflet, professes submission
to the Party but, again just like Maximov, in principle defends
ultimatumism. We do not at all mean to say that the St. Petersburg
ultimatumists have been guided directly by

Maximov’s leaflet—we have no data on this subject. And it is not
important. We assert that the ideological affinity of the
political stand here is indubitable. We assert that this is a particularly
clear example of the application of “cautious”, “diplomatic”,
tactical, evasive—call it what you will—ultimatumism in practice , an application that, to any person who is close to Party
work, is familiar from a hundred analogous cases which are less
“striking”, are not authenticated by official document5 and concern
matters that a Social-Democrat cannot tell to the public for reasons of
secrecy, etc. Of course, the St. Petersburg resolution is less skilful as
regards literary technique than Maximov’s leaflet. But in practice the
views of Maximov will always (or in 999 cases out of a thousand) be applied
in the local organisations not by Maximov himself but by his less
“skilful” supporters. What concerns the Party is not who is more
“skilful” in covering up tracks, but what is the actual content
of Party work, what is the actual trend imparted to it by
particular leaders.

Andwe ask any impartial person: is it possible for the supporters of
Proletary and the authors of such resolutions to work in one
faction, i. e., in one union of Party members with kindred opinions? Is it
possible to speak seriously of putting into effect the Party
decision to utilise the Duma and the Duma tribune when such resolutions are
passed by the governing bodies of the local committees?

Thatthe resolution of the Executive Committee did in effect
put a spoke in the wheel of the election campaign that had just begun, that
this resolution did in effect disrupt the election campaign, was
immediately understood by everyone (except the authors of it and the
ultimatumists who were enraptured by Maximov’s “art” in covering up the
tracks). We have already related how the Bolsheviks in St. Petersburg
reacted to this resolution and we shall say more farther on. As for
ourselves, we immediately wrote an article entitled “The
Otzovist-Ultimatumist

Strike-breakers” {5} —strike-breakers because the ultimatumists, by the
position they took, were obviously betraying the Social-Democratic
election campaign to the Cadets —in which we showed what a
downright disgrace it was for Social-Democrats to pass such a resolution
and invited the Executive Committee which passed this resolution to
immediately withdraw from

Proletary the beading “Organ of the St. Petersburg Committee” if
this Executive Committee claimed to voice the views of the St. Petersburg
Social-Democrats: we do not want to be hypocritical—said this:
article—we have never been and never will be the organ of such ... also-Bolsheviks.

Thearticle was already set up and even in page proof when we received
a letter from St. Petersburg informing us that the notorious resolution had
been rescinded . We had to postpone publication (as a result
No. 47–48 came out a few days later than it should have). Now,
fortunately, we have to speak of the ultimatumists resolution not in
connection with an election, campaign in process but in an account of
something that is past... and it would be well if it were “buried in
oblivion”.

Hereis the text of the resolution passed by the St. Petersburg
Bolsheviks at a non-official meeting called after the adoption of the
notorious resolution:

“Thisnon-official inter-district meeting of
Social-Democratic workers and functionaries, having discussed the
resolutions of the enlarged editorial board of Proletary ,
expresses complete solidarity with the political line of the resolutions:
‘The Tasks of the Bolsheviks in the Party’, ‘The Attitude to Duma
Activities, etc.’ and ‘On Ultimatumism and Otzovism’.

“Atthe same time the meeting strongly disagrees with the methods of struggle against the ultimatumist comrades pursued by the
editorial board in the said resolutions, considering such methods an
obstacle to the solution of the basic tasks outlined by the editorial board
of Proletary —the rebuilding of the Party.

“Themeeting protests no less strongly against the splitting actions
of our ultimatumist and otzovist comrades.”

After,this resolution was adopted the St. Petersburg Committee held a
new meeting which rescinded the ultimatumist resolution and adopted a new
one (see Current Events). This new resolution concludes:

“Considering it highly important and essential to utilise the forthcoming
election campaign, the St. Petersburg Committee resolves to take an active
part in it.”

Beforewe go on to reply to the comrades who do not agree with what
they call, our splitting policy we shall quote some passages from a letter
sent by one of these comrades:

...“But if the participants in the meeting (the non-official
inter-district meeting), two-thirds of them workers, were unanimous in
their estimate of the present period and of our tactical moves resulting from it, they were no less unanimous in their disapproval of the methods of
struggle which the editorial board of Proletary proposed against
our tactical opponents—the ultimatumists. They did not agree with the
resolutions of Proletary that it is necessary to make a factional
break with these comrades, but considered that such a break would be a step
endangering the existence of the Party....

I am sure that I correctly express the opinion and sentiment of the meeting
if I say: we shall not allow a split .

Comrades! You people abroad have conjured up for yourselves a dreadful
demon of ultimatumism that in reality does not exist over here. A
chance combination in the St. Petersburg, Committee and the
Executive Committee produced an ultimatumist majority, the result of which
was the adoption of a silly, illiterate resolution which dealt these
ultimatumists such a moral blow that they can scarcely recover from it....

At the meeting of the St. Petersburg Committee which adopted this
resolution there were no representatives from three districts, and it has
now come to light that the representative of the fourth district was not
entitled to vote. So there were in effect no representatives from four
districts and the one vote which gave the majority to the ultimatumists, is
“accounted for”. So it turns out that even with the St. Petersburg
Committee meeting under strength the ultimatumists did not have a
majority....

As regards the resolution of the St. Petersburg Committee en the election,
the meeting resolved to get it reconsidered and there is no doubt that at
the very next meeting of the St. Petersburg Committee, where it now appears
that we shall be in the majority, a different resolution will be
adopted. The ultimatumists themselves are ashamed of their resolution and
agree to have it reconsidered. They all agree, the proposer himself not
excepted, it seems that it is altogether stupid, but—and I emphasise
this—there is nothing criminal in it. The ultimatumist comrades who voted
for it voiced their disagreement with the author of the resolution who was
really following the advice of the saying that one should behave so as ‘to
acquire capital without incurring blame’."

Thusour supporter charges us with spending our time abroad conjuring
up a vision of a dreadful demon of ultimatumism, and with impeding (or
undermining) the cause of rebuilding the Party by our splitting attacks on
the ultimatumists.

Thebest reply to this “charge” is the history of what took place in
St. Petersburg. That is why we have told it in such detail. The facts speak
for themselves.

Weconsidered that Comrade Maximov had broken with our faction because
he refused to submit to the resolutions of the enlarged editorial board and
organised under the guise of the notorious “school” the ideological and
organisational centre of a new organisation abroad. For this we are being
censured by some of our supporters who in St. Petersburg had to use the most drastic measures (a special non-official meeting of influential
workers and the reconsideration of a resolution already adopted!) to rescind an “ altogether stupid ” resolution that reproduced the views of Maximov!!

No,comrades, when you accuse us of splitting and of “conjuring-up
demons” you only prove over and over again that it was imperatively
necessary to recognise that Maximov had broken with our faction, you only
prove that we should have hopelessly disgraced Bolshevism and done
irreparable damage to the Party cause if we had not dissociated ourselves
from Maximov on the eve of the election in St. Petersburg. Your
deeds , comrades who accuse us of a split, contradict your
words .

You“differ only” with our methods of combating the ultimatumists. We do not differ at all with your methods of
combating the ultimatumists, we whole-heartedly and entirely approve of
both your methods and the victory you won by them—but we are most
profoundly convinced at the same time that your methods are
nothing more than the practical application of “our” methods to
a certain Party milieu.

Inwhat do our “bad” methods consist? In the tact that we called for
a dissociation from Maximov and Co.? In what do your good methods
consist?. In the fact that you condemned as “altogether stupid” a
resolution wholly advocating Maximov’s views, called a special meeting,
raised a campaign against this resolution, with the result that the authors
themselves became ashamed of it, that it was rescinded and another
resolution passed in its stead, not ultimatumist but
Bolshevist.

Your“campaign”, comrades, does not cut across our campaign but is a
continuation of it.

“Butwe do not admit that anyone has broken away,” you will say. Very
well. If you want to “refute” our, bad method, try to do abroad what you
have done in St. Petersburg. Try to secure that Maximov and his supporters
(if only at the site of the celebrated Yerogin “school”) admit that the
ideological content of Maximov’s leaflet (“Report to the Bolshevik
Comrades”) is “altogether stupid”, to secure that Maximov and his clique
become “ashamed” of this leaflet, that the notorious “school” issue a
leaflet with a diametrically opposite ideological content. [4]

If you could secure this you would really refute our methods of struggle and we should gladly
admit that “your” methods were better.

In St. Petersburg there was vital, urgent, general Party business in
hand: the election. In St. Petersburg the Social-Democratic proletariat
immediately called the ultimatumists to order in such a tone that they obeyed at once: the Party spirit prevailed,
the proximity of the proletarian masses exerted a favourable influence; it
at once became clear to all that the ultimatumist resolution made work
impossible. The ultimatumists were immediately presented with an
ultimatum , and the St. Petersburg ultimatumists ( to their honour be it said ) replied to this ultimatum of the Bolsheviks by
submitting to the Party, by submitting to the Bolsheviks, and not by waging
a struggle against the Bolsheviks (at least, not at the election; whether
they will refrain from a struggle after the election remains to be seen).

Maximovand Co. are ultimatumists not only in sentiment. They are
trying to make ultimatumism a whole political line. They are building a
complete system of ultimatumist policy (we say nothing of their friendship
with the god-builders, for which the St. Petersburg ultimatumists are
probably not to blame), they are creating a new trend on this basis, they
have begun to wage systematic war against

Bolshevism. Of course these inspirers of the otzovists, too, will suffer
(and are already suffering) defeat, but to rid our faction and Party more
rapidly of the disease of otzovism-ultimatumism, more drastic methods are
required and the more decisively we combat the overt and covert otzovists
the sooner we shall be able to rid the Party of this disease.

“Anaccidental majority” of the ultimatumists—say our friends in
St. Petersburg. You are profoundly mistaken, comrades. What you see at
present among you is a small particle of the general phenomenon
and you call it “accidental” because you do not see its connection with
the whole. Recall the facts. In the spring of 1908 otzovism raises its head
in the Central Region and collects 14 votes (out of 32) at the Moscow City
Conference. In the summer and autumn of 1908 the otzovist campaign in
Moscow: Rabocheye Znamya opens a discussion and refutes
otzovism. In August 1908 Proletary too takes up the controversy. The autumn of 1908: the otzovists form a separate “trend” at
the Party’s All-Russian Conference. The spring of 1909: the otzovists’
campaign in Moscow (see Proletary No. 47–48, “Conference of the
Moscow Area Organisation”). The summer of 1909: the ultimatumist
resolution of the Executive Committee of the St. Petersburg Committee.

Inthe face of these facts to speak of the ultimatumist majority as
“accidental” is sheer naïveté. In some localities very marked
variations in the make-up of our organisations are inevitable, while
reaction is so strong and the member ship of the Social-Democratic
organisations is so weak, as is the ease now; Today the Bolsheviks declare
“accidental” an ultimatumist majority in X. Tomorrow the ultimatumists
declare “accidental” a Bolshevik majority in Y. There are hosts of people
ready to squabble on this score—but we are not among them. It must be
understood that these squabbles and wrangles are a product of a
deep-seated ideological divergence. Only if we understand this can we help
the Social-Democrats to replace fruitless and degrading squabbles (over
“accidental” majorities, organisational conflicts, money matters,,
contacts, etc.) by an explanation of the ideological causes of the divergence . We know perfectly well that in many towns the struggle
between the ultimatumists and the Bolsheviks has spread to the most diverse branches of work, and has sown discord and disorder also in activities in
legal unions, associations, congresses and assemblies. We have letters from
the “field of battle” about this discord and disorder—unfortunately,
the requirements of secrecy allow us to publish only a tenth, if not a
hundredth, part of what we have received on this subject . We
declare most categorically that the fight against the ultimatumists in
St. Petersburg election was no accident , but was one of the
innumerable symptoms of a general disease.

Hencewe repeat over and over again to all our Bolshevik comrades to
all workers who cherish the cause of revolutionary Social-Democracy: there
is nothing more erroneous and harmful than attempts to conceal this
disease. We must lay bare for all to see the causes, the nature and the
significance of our difference with the supporters of otzovism,
ultimatumism and, god-building. The Bolshevik faction, i. e., the union of
like-minded Bolsheviks, who want to lead the Party along the line
set by Proletary and known to all, must be clearly separated,
demarcated from the new faction which today leads its supporters inevitably
to “accidental” anarchist phrases in the platforms of the Moscow and
St. Petersburg otzovists, tomorrow to an “accidental” caricature of:
Bolshevism in Maximov’s leaflet, and the day after that to an accidentally
“stupid” resolution in St. Petersburg. We must understand this disease
and energetically co-operate to cure it. Where it can be treated by the
St. Petersburg method, i. e., by an immediate and successful appeal to the
Social-Democratic consciousness of the advanced workers, such treatment is
the best of all, there no one has ever preached splitting off and
demarcation at all costs. But wherever, due to various conditions, centres
and circles are being formed on anything like a permanent basis for the
propagation of the ideas of the new faction, demarcation is essential,
There demarcation from the new faction is an earnest of
practical unity of work in the ranks of the Party , for in
St. Petersburg the Party practical workers themselves have just admitted
that such work is impossible under the banner of ultimatumism.

---
Notes:
{1}
See present edition, Vol. 15, pp. 425-33, 442-60.— Ed .

{2}
See pp. 29-61 of this volume.— Ed .

{3}
See present edition, Vol. 15, pp. 425-33.— Ed .

[4]
Here, incidentally, is an illustration how Maximov and the notorious
“school” cover their tracks. The school issued a printed leaflet, dated August 26, t909, containing, the programme of the school, a letter
from Kautsky (who very mildly advises that philosophical differences should
“not be brought to the fore”, and declares that he “does not consider
justified the sharp criticism of the Social-Democratic group in the Duma”,
not to speak of “ultimatumism"!), a letter of Lenin’s (see present
edition, Vol. 45, pp. 468-69— Ed .) and a resolution passed by the
school Council. This droll Council declares that “factional strife has
absolutely no relation to its (the school’s) aims and objects, which
strictly coincide with the general aims and objects of the Party”. We read
the signatories to the leaflet. Lecturers:

Maximov, Gorky, Lyadov, Lunacharsky, Mikhail, Alexinsky. Only think: a
school with such a roster of lecturers “has absolutely no
relation” to “factional strife”. Listen, my dear comrades: ... invent,
but don’t stretch it too far!—We shall be told that the school has
“invited” other lecturers too. In the first place, it did so, knowing
that these others would practically never be able to come. In the second
place, it sent out invitations, but.... “But the school could not offer
them (the other lecturers) travelling expenses and maintenance during the
period of the lectures.” (Leaflet of August 26, 19O9). Nice that, is It
not? We are absolutely not factionalists, but we “cannot offer”
travelling expenses to anyone but our “own” people.... — Lenin

{5}
Lenin’s work The Otzovist-Ultimatumist Strike-breakers has not
been found.