— Well, but what if your sonorous, grandiloquent, and pompous assurances will provoke distrust precisely by their very character?

— I should like to see who would dare doubt my words!

— But what if, after all, they do doubt?

— I repeat that I will not permit doubt in the words of a revolutionary; I will stop at nothing; I will go to the end; I will demand either a direct expression of distrust or a direct retreat, I…

— And if your demand for a direct expression of distrust is satisfied?

— What's that?

— If you are told directly and definitively that you are not believed?

— I will call anyone who dares say this a vile slanderer; I will brand before all the world his unprecedented deed…

— And if, in response to this, they systematically begin proving that all your conduct for a long time already makes it impossible to treat you with trust?

— I will then gather protests from everywhere against this fratricidal polemic; I will appeal to everyone with heartfelt words about truth-truthfulness and truth-justice, about crystal purity defiled by unclean hands, about the coarse and filthy crust of petty vanity, about the cleansing flame that fills my soul with selfless enthusiasm; I will compare my enemies with Pontius Pilate…

— And if such speeches of yours are compared to Tartuffe?

— Then I will demand arbitration!

— You will be immediately answered that they gladly accept the challenge and propose first of all to agree that the tribunal examine the question of whether your opponent had the right to doubt the authenticity of your statements.

— Then… then… then I will declare that "after everything that has occurred" it is ridiculous even to speak of some "agreement" between some "parties"!

Such was the "unprecedented," — in the words of Revolutionary Russia — "campaign in the matter of April second." The most respectable newspaper is most reluctant, for quite understandable reasons, to admit that this history was indeed such. The most respectable newspaper hides behind a whole series of excuses, which we are compelled to examine in detail.

Revolutionary Russia is surprised, first of all, why "instead of the organized Russian social-democracy," to which comrades Balmashev addressed themselves, the editorial board of Iskra answers. Comrades Balmashev, — we are told — "have received no answer to their perfectly definite proposal, directed to a perfectly definite address."

This is incorrect, gentlemen. You, like all and each of us, know perfectly well what the organized Russian social-democracy represents, what exactly all our organizations are. Unlike some people, new organizations do not spring up for us overnight. We have party committees; we have Iskra; we have the Central Committee, which has long been preparing the second congress of the party. To what "definite address" then did you address yourselves? To the second congress? to the Central Committee? No, contrary to your words about a definite address, you defined this address by absolutely nothing. You yourselves noted that Iskra is recognized by the majority of committees, and therefore no one could answer you except Iskra. If the second congress of our party recognizes Iskra as the organ of the party, then the answer of Iskra will be the answer of the party. If not, — then you will have to deal with another organ. This is such a simple thing that even a six-year-old child could understand it.

Revolutionary Russia "is surprised why, instead of a direct answer to the direct proposal of comrades Balmashev" (the proposal supposedly to give social-democracy the opportunity to become acquainted with the actual essence of the matter of April second) "they are proposed to recognize themselves and Iskra as parties between which, after everything that has occurred, some preliminary negotiations, 'agreements' about the formulation of the question are possible." So, "Rev. Rus." now asserts that they did not propose an arbitration tribunal, but merely proposed giving the opportunity to become acquainted. This is incorrect. The "Statement" in no. 27 of "R. R." speaks literally of "unverified accusations (against Iskra) of slander," of verification of the accusation, of providing "to one person, upon whose conscientiousness and conspiratorial reliability both we and the Central Committee (note this!) of Russian social-democracy could equally rely, the following series of proofs." "Verification of the accusation," "examination of proofs" by a person upon whom both accuser and accused rely — is this not an arbitration tribunal? Is this merely a proposal to become acquainted?? You are comedians, gentlemen. After you have already proposed agreeing on the choice of a conscientious person, you now declare, with the inimitably proud bearing of a caught Nozdrev, that no agreements are possible!

Revolutionary Russia "further asks, at whom is Iskra laughing when it speaks of agreement in the formulation of the question, while simultaneously decreeing its own formulation and categorically declaring that no other formulation of the question is possible." Before a tribunal, everyone categorically asserts his opinion and claims that it is the only correct one. Instead of giving your own definite formulation of the question, our haughty opponent begins to swagger and utter noble words!

Having swaggered, "Rev. Rus." deigns, however, to make several remarks about our formulation of the question. In her opinion, "Iskra" resorts to evasions and retreats. The question is not, she maintains, about the fact that "the Combat Organization attempted to infringe upon Iskra's right to think freely (!), to evaluate political facts from its own point of view and even (sic![68]) to harbor internal doubts about anything." This "harbor internal doubts" is truly incomparable. The "Combat Organization" is so extraordinarily liberal that it is prepared (now, after more than a year of struggle!) to permit us even to doubt — but only internally, i.e., probably in such a way that no one except the doubter himself knows about it… Perhaps these combat people permit us to "freely evaluate" only to ourselves as well?

"One might think," says "Rev. Rus", "that only Iskra's refusal to submit to such a demand was the reason for the accusation of Iskra of slander." Follow quotations from the article "Tartuffes of Revolutionary Morality" and a remark that "here we are speaking not of some modest and indefinite doubts, but of very immodest and very definite accusations."

We invite the reader to recall some well-known facts. In no. 20 of Iskra (of May 1, 1902), we evaluate Balmashev's act, having no idea whatever of any combat organization. This organization writes us a letter, demanding that we seek the motives of Balmashev's decision in its official statements. We silently throw this letter from an unknown organization into the waste basket. The letter is printed in no. 7 of "Rev. Rus." (June 1902), whose editorial board, in response to our silence alone, already shrieks about casting a shadow on the moral side, about diminishing the significance of the act, etc. We answer with an article "Forced Polemic" (no. 23 of Iskra of August 1, 1902), in which we laugh at an angry Jupiter, defend our evaluation of the April 2 act, and declare that for us Balmashev's membership in the "combat organization" is "more than questionable." Then these gentlemen socialists-revolutionaries, having extracted from us an external expression of our internal doubt, raise hysterical shrieks about an "unprecedented deed" and speak of nothing less than "filth" and "insinuation" (no. 11 of "Rev. Rus", September 1902).

Such, in the briefest outline, are the basic moments of our literary dispute. A man, who knows perfectly well that his opponent treats his words with silent distrust, comes forward publicly with a knife to the throat, demanding an open expression of either trust or distrust, and, receiving the latter, beats his breast and complains urbi et orbi{69}, how noble a being he is and how vilely he was wronged. Is this not a Nozdrev-like trick? Is it not revolutionary bravado? Was not such a man deserving of the name Tartuffe?

Whence does "Rev. Rus" derive that we are retreating, unwilling to answer for the article and for the articles on Tartuffes? From the fact that our formulation of the question does not include the theses of these articles? But were we proposed a tribunal regarding some definite articles, and not regarding the entire attitude of Iskra toward the assurances of the "socialist-revolutionary party"? Were not the initial words of the statement of comrades Balmashev in no. 27 of "Rev. Rus" — the very starting point of the entire dispute — quoted precisely from no. 23 of Iskra, that Balmashev's membership in the "combat organization" is more than questionable for us? We dare assure "Rev. Rus" that we answer for all our articles, are ready to supplement our questions for the tribunal with references to any issue of Iskra, are ready to prove before anyone that we had full moral right and all reasonable grounds to characterize, as Tartuffes, those publicists in "Rev. Rus" who went so far as the expressions cited above by us regarding our daring doubt in the authenticity of her words.

"Retreats and evasions," in fact, from whom alone? Is it not from those who now magnanimously are ready to recognize our right to evaluate freely and to harbor internal doubts, and who for more than a year practiced repulsive inflated declamation about the fact that Iskra continued stubbornly to doubt and maintained the obligation of every serious person to doubt revolutionary belle-lettres? When you saw that touching words about lofty honesty were actually causing laughter rather than tears from the audience, — you wanted a new sensation, and you came forward with a demand for arbitration. The scandal-hungry part of the émigré colonial public rubbed their hands with pleasure and eagerly whispered: "they have challenged them to court… finally! Now we will see." And now they have seen — the last scene of a vaudeville, whose hero with an indescribably aggrieved bearing of a noble man declared that "after everything that has occurred" no agreements about the formulation of questions for a tribunal are possible.

Continue calmly in the same spirit, gentlemen! But remember that no flood of pitiful words will prevent us from fulfilling our duty: to expose phrasemaking and mystification wherever they manifest themselves, whether in the "programs" of revolutionary adventurers, in the glitter of their belle-lettres, or in lofty sermons about truth-truthfulness, about cleansing flame, about crystal purity, and much else besides.

Iskra no. 48, September 15, 1903

Printed from the text of the newspaper Iskra