Comrades!

We shall begin with the point upon which the success of the congress depends.

As a representative of *Iskra*, I consider it necessary to touch upon the history of our relations with other organizations. From the very beginning, *Iskra* came forward entirely independently, recognizing only ideological ties with Russian social-democracy, and acted on the mandate of many comrades from Russia. Already in the first issue *Iskra* declared that it would not address organizational disagreements that had occurred in the "Union of Russian Social-Democrats"{87}, and attached greatest importance to its principled position[135].

A portion of the "Union's" members proposed to us a conference for agreement with organizations abroad. We understood this proposal to mean that within the "Union" there existed a group sharing the principles we had advanced, and that one could consequently hope that the "Union" would recognize them as well. The revolutionary organization "Social-Democrat"{88}, despite the existence of organizational disagreements alongside principled ones, responded with consent. The "Union," unfortunately, declined negotiations. With the appearance of a new group of initiators{89}, the "Union" gave its consent to negotiations. Since the physiognomy of the "Union" was quite indefinite, since within the "Union" there had emerged a new current pulling toward revolutionary Marxism, one could hope that principled agreement was possible. *Iskra* and "Social-Democrat" again gave their consent, after which the Geneva conference took place. Comrade Kruglov read its resolution at the beginning of our session without making any objections to it. No one from the "Union" took the floor to speak against the resolution.

We establish that in issue No. 10 of *Rabochee Delo* it decisively broke with the traditions of revolutionary Marxism and spoke out against the principled agreement that had been worked out at the Geneva conference, with whose tendencies, evidently, the "Union" agrees.

In view of all this, my criticism will be directed against the editorial board of *R. D.*, not against the entire "Union."

Let us compare the Geneva resolution with the articles in No. 10 of *R. D.*.

The Geneva resolution strikes one with its remarkable detail and emphasis of points considered common knowledge.

Point 1 of the principled agreement states: "Recognizing the fundamental principles of scientific socialism and acting in solidarity with international revolutionary social-democracy, we reject all attempts to introduce opportunism into the class struggle of the proletariat—attempts expressed in the so-called economism, Bernsteinism, Millerandism, and the like." Here, obviously, something is being hinted at; obviously there was a struggle between opportunism and revolutionary Marxism. Whatever the contents of No. 10 of *R. D.*, in any case it cannot destroy the historical fact that the Geneva conference took place and that the resolution adopted by it can serve as a basis for unification. In its third point, for example, the Geneva resolution recognizes that social-democracy must assume hegemony in the struggle for democracy. Obviously there had been disagreements on this point as well. In its striving to distance itself from opportunism, the resolution goes almost to the point of absurdity. (See point "d" in section 5.) Consequently, there was also divergence even on such elementary questions. Now let us compare this resolution with the articles in No. 10 of *R. D.*. Unfortunately, I had only 3 days for a cursory acquaintance with them.

These articles thoroughly clarify the difference in our views; in them there are certain valid points directed at *Zarya* and *Iskra*, which we shall make use of, but that is not what interests us now. What interests us are the principles laid at the foundation of these articles. The principled position of No. 10 of *R. D.* overthrows the position taken at the Geneva conference by the "Union's" delegates. Reconciliation between these positions is impossible. One must expose the disagreements contained in them in order to know on what ground the "Union" stands, in order to know whether ideological unification is possible—without which organizational unification makes no sense; we did not seek and could not seek such unification. On pages 32 and 33 of No. 10 of *R. D.* the author of the article is displeased with the counterposition of the Mountain and the Gironde in international social-democracy{90}. Look at the Geneva conference—does it not represent a collision between the Mountain and the Gironde? Does *Iskra* not represent the Mountain? Did not *Iskra* already in its very first editorial declaration state that it desired no organizational unification before ideological demarcation? In No. 10 of *R. D.* it is said that even the most out-and-out Bernsteinites stand on the ground of class interests. The resolution specifically speaks of Bernsteinism, and in refutation of it the conference members expended tremendous effort, and now here in the articles of No. 10 of *R. D.* the same old things are being said. What is this—a challenge or mockery? Why build such a fence around the garden?! People seem to be laughing at the labor we have expended on working out a theoretical basis. We must not forget that without a common ideological basis there can be no question of unification. Then in that same article we find a promise to expand the bounds of our disagreements still further. Thus, for example, on page 33 the author says: "perhaps our disagreements stem from a different interpretation of Marxism." I repeat once more—why build such a fence around the garden?!

Point "c" of section 4 of the Geneva resolution speaks of the necessity of struggle against all opponents of revolutionary Marxism, and here we are being told that perhaps we generally understand Marxism differently.

I will also note that all this is accompanied by reasoning about the harm of fettering thought and so on—that is, precisely what all Bernsteinites say. This was already discussed at the Lübeck party conference{91}, this is also being harped upon by the Jaurèsists{92}; the points of agreement, however, do not speak of this, since the agreement was concluded on the ground of precisely revolutionary Marxism. Even weak manifestations of criticism would lead to complete rupture. We came together to discuss the content of opinions, not the freedom of opinion. References to French and German examples are entirely unsuccessful. The Germans have already achieved what we are still struggling for. They have a unified social-democracy that possesses hegemony in political struggle. We, however, still do not have social-democracy as the leader of revolutionary groups; on the contrary, we observe a revival of other revolutionary tendencies. In the articles of No. 10 of *R. D.* not only is there no complete principled break with opportunism, but there is even something worse: praise for the predominance of spontaneous movement. I am not quibbling over words. All of us, comrades from *Iskra* and "Social-Democrat" and I, pay attention only to the fundamental tendencies of the articles, but these words, as the Germans say, ins Gesicht schlagen[136]. And after all, on these points the Geneva resolution is exceedingly clear. The recently appeared "Working Party for Russia's Political Liberation"{93} conducts the same themes as these publications.

Pay attention in the article to the famous distinction between "tactics-as-a-plan" and "tactics-as-a-process." The author says that tactics-as-a-plan contradicts the fundamental spirit of revolutionary Marxism, and thinks one can speak of tactics-as-a-"process," under which he understands the growth of party tasks, growing together with the growth of the party. In my view, this is simply an unwillingness to converse. We have spent so much time and labor on formulating definite political tasks; at the Geneva conference so much was said about them. And suddenly we are now being told about "tactics-as-a-plan" and "tactics-as-a-process." This, in my view, is a return to the specifically narrow product of Bernsteinism—the "Workers' Thought," which asserted that one should conduct only that struggle which is possible, and possible is that which exists. We, on the contrary, assert that what is growing is only the distortion of Marxism. The Geneva resolution says that no stages are needed for the transition to political agitation, and suddenly thereafter an article appears in which "expository literature" is counterposed to "proletarian struggle." Martyanov writes about students and liberals, saying that they themselves, so to speak, can concern themselves with democratic demands. We, however, think that the entire peculiarity of Russian social-democracy consists in the fact that liberal democracy has not taken the initiative of political struggle upon itself. If liberals themselves better know what to do for themselves and can do it themselves, then we have nothing to do. The author of the article goes so far as to assume that the government itself will carry out concrete and administrative measures.

On the question of terror, as is known to all, certain disagreements arose at the Geneva conference. After it, a portion of the "Union," the Bund{94}, at its congress decisively spoke out against terror. On page 23, however, the author writes that we "do not wish to oppose terrorist sentiment." This is the sharpest opportunistic declaration…[137]

First published in 1946 in the 4th edition of V. I. Lenin's *Collected Works*, vol. 5

Printed according to the protocol record