We have already stated (see No. 41 of “Social Democrat”) that “Our Word” must at least present a clear and precise exposition of its platform if it hopes to be taken seriously when it speaks of internationalism[23]. In No. 85 of “Our Word” (May 9), as if in response to us, a resolution was published—adopted by a meeting of the editorial board and the Paris-based staff of “Our Word”—in which “two members of the editorial board, while agreeing with the general tenor of the resolution, declared that they would submit a separate opinion on the organizational methods governing intra-party politics in Russia”{186}. This resolution is nothing short of a remarkable document of political confusion and impotence.

The word “internationalism” is repeated again and again; “a complete ideological break with all forms of socialist nationalism” is proclaimed, and the Stuttgart and Basel Resolutions are quoted. The intentions are noble—there is no denying that. Yet… yet it all smacks of mere rhetoric, for in truth, one cannot—and should not—seek to achieve a “complete” break with “all” varieties of social nationalism any more than one can—or ought to—attempt to exhaustively catalog every single form of capitalist exploitation in order to become an enemy of capitalism. What one can—and must—do, however, is to draw a clear and unambiguous line of demarcation with the principal currents, such as the Plekhanovist, Potresovist (“Our Cause”), Bundist, Akselrodist, and Kautskyist strands. The resolution promises far too much but delivers nothing; it threatens to sever all ties with every variety of social nationalism, yet it even hesitates to name the most important among them.

…In the British Parliament, it is considered impolite to mention names directly; instead, one customarily speaks only of “noble lords” and “honorable members representing such-and-such a constituency.” What superb anglophiles, what exquisitely refined diplomats these “Our Word” men truly are! They so elegantly sidestep the heart of the matter, so politely feed their readers formulas designed to conceal their true thoughts. They proclaim “friendly relations” (as Guizot would say—and nothing more!—as one character in Turgenev puts it{187}) with all organizations “so long as they uphold… the principles of revolutionary internationalism”… and yet they maintain “friendly relations” precisely with those who do not uphold these very principles.

The “ideological break” that the Our Word men proclaim with ever greater solemnity, the less they actually wish to—and are able to—carry out, consists in clarifying the origins of social nationalism, in identifying the forces that have given it strength, and in determining how best to combat it. Social nationalists themselves do not call themselves social nationalists, nor do they acknowledge themselves as such. They direct—and are compelled to direct—all their efforts toward hiding behind pseudonyms, toward obfuscating the eyes of the working masses, toward erasing the traces of their connections with opportunism, toward concealing their betrayal—that is, their actual shift to the side of the bourgeoisie, their alliance with governments and with general staffs. Relying on this alliance and holding all positions firmly in their grasp, social nationalists now cry loudest of all about the “unity” of social democratic parties, accusing the enemies of opportunism of factionalism—witness the latest official circular issued by the executive committee (“forstand”) of the German Social Democratic Party against genuinely internationalist journals: “Lichtstrahlen” (“Rays of Light”){188} and “Die Internationale” (“The International”){189}. These journals had no need to proclaim either “friendly relations” with revolutionaries or a “complete ideological break with all forms of social nationalism”; they began their demarcation straightforwardly—and did so in such a way that, in truth, “all varieties” of opportunists erupted into furious outcry, thereby demonstrating just how effectively their arrows had struck their mark.

And what of “Our Word”?

It raises a rebellion against social nationalism while kneeling, for “Our Word” does not expose the most dangerous defenders of this bourgeois current—such as Kautsky—it does not declare war on opportunism; on the contrary, it remains silent about it, taking no real steps to liberate socialism from the shameful bonds of patriotic captivity, nor does it point the way forward. By saying that unity is not essential, yet neither is schism inevitable with those who have gone over to the side of the bourgeoisie, “Our Word” in effect surrenders itself to the mercy of the opportunists—though it does so with a gesture so elegant that one might interpret it as a threat of stern wrath directed at the opportunists, or one might equally see it as a gesture of goodwill, a friendly nod. Most likely, the truly shrewd opportunists—who know how to value the combination of left-wing rhetoric with moderate practice—would have responded to the resolution of “Our Word” (had they been compelled to respond) in much the same way that the two editorial board members did: “We agree with the general tenor of the resolution (for we are by no means social nationalists—far from it!), but as for ‘organizational methods governing intra-party politics,’ we will submit a ‘separate opinion’ in due course.” And so both wolf and sheep remain safe and sound.

The subtle diplomacy of “Our Word” came crashing down when it came time to speak of Russia.

“Party unification under the conditions of the preceding epoch proved impossible in Russia,” declares the resolution. In other words: the merger of the workers’ party with the group of legalistic liquidators turned out to be impossible. This is an indirect acknowledgment of the collapse of the Brussels bloc—brought about in an effort to salvage the liquidators. Why does “Nashe Slovo” shy away from openly admitting this failure? Why does it hesitate to lay bare, before the working class, the true causes behind this collapse? Could it be that the very collapse of this bloc effectively exposed the falsity of the policies pursued by all its participants? Could it be that “Nashe Slovo” seeks to preserve “friendly relations” with two (at least two) “varieties” of social nationalism—namely, with the Bundists and with OK (Akselrod), who have publicly issued statements revealing their hopes—and their expectations—for a revival of the Brussels bloc?

“The new conditions… are undermining the very foundations upon which the old factions stood…” But isn’t it rather the case that the new conditions have done nothing to eliminate liquidationism, nor even to shake its core—despite all the personal vacillations and shifts among its adherents (including “Nasha Zarya”)—and instead have only deepened and intensified the rift with it, for liquidationism has now become, in addition to being liquidationist, also social-nationalist! “Nashe Slovo” brushes aside the question of liquidationism, which is so uncomfortable for it, on the grounds that the old has been undermined by the new—and it remains silent about the new, social-nationalist ground beneath the feet of that old liquidationism! What a curious evasion. We say nothing about “Nasha Zarya,” because it no longer exists; and as for “Nashe Delo,” perhaps it is because Potresov, Cherevanin, Maslov, and Co. can be regarded as political neophytes…

But not only Potresov and Co.—the editors of “Nashe Slovo” would like to regard themselves as neophytes as well. Listen:

“Faced with the fact that the factional and inter-factional groupings forged in the previous epoch still serve, even in this present transitional moment, as the sole (note well!) points of—at least highly imperfect—organized unity among the advanced workers, ‘Nashe Slovo’ believes that the interests underlying its primary task of uniting internationalists equally preclude both the organizational subordination of the newspaper, whether direct or indirect, to one of the old party groupings, and the artificial consolidation of its like-minded comrades into a distinct faction politically opposed to the old groupings.”

What is this? How is this possible? Since the new conditions are undermining the old groupings, we must therefore recognize the latter as the only truly viable entities! And since the new conditions demand a new grouping—not along liquidationist lines, but in the spirit of internationalism—we refuse to forge a unity among internationalists as something “artificial”! This is the ultimate apotheosis of political impotence.

After 200 days of preaching internationalism, “Nashe Slovo” has confessed to its utter political bankruptcy: we are not to “submit” to the old groupings (why such a fearful word? why not “join,” “support,” or “stand in solidarity”?), nor are we to create new ones. We will continue to live as before, within the liquidationist groupings, submitting to them—and let “Nashe Slovo” remain little more than a loud, attention-grabbing signboard, or a festive stroll through the gardens of internationalist rhetoric. The writers of “Nashe Slovo” will keep writing, and the readers of “Nashe Slovo” will keep reading.

For 200 days we spoke of uniting internationalists—and in the end we concluded that we cannot unite anyone at all, not even ourselves, the editors and staff of “Nashe Slovo,” and we declare such unity to be “artificial.” What a triumph for Potresov, for the Bundists, for Akselrod! And what a clever deception of the working class: on the surface, “Nashe Slovo” presents itself with striking internationalist phrases—truly non-factional, liberated from the old groupings that have outlived their time; yet beneath the surface lie the “sole” points of unity: the old groupings…

The ideological and political collapse now confessed by “Nashe Slovo” is no accident—it is the inevitable outcome of attempts to wave away, in mere words, the real power relations at play. In the workers’ movement of Russia, these relations boil down to the struggle between the liquidationist and social-patriotic currents (“Nashe Delo”) and the Marxist Social-Democratic Workers’ Party—which was reconstituted at the January Conference of 1912{190}, strengthened through elections to the Fourth State Duma in the workers’ constituency{191}, cemented by the Pravda newspapers of 1912–1914, and represented by the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Fraction. This party continued its struggle against the bourgeois current of liquidationism by waging battle against the no less bourgeois current of social-patriotism. The correctness of this party’s line—the line of our own party—is confirmed by the great, world-historical experience of the European War, as well as by the tiny, almost minuscule experiment of “Nashe Slovo’s” new, thousand-and-first, non-factional, unifying endeavor: this attempt ended in fiasco, confirming the resolution of the Bern Conference (No. 40 of “Social-Demokrat”) concerning “platonic” internationalists[24].

The genuine internationalists will neither wish to remain within the old, liquidationist groupings—concealing this fact from the workers—nor will they choose to stay outside any group altogether. They will come to our party.

“Social-Demokrat,” No. 42, May 21, 1915

Printed according to the text of the newspaper “Social-Demokrat.”