V. I.

Lenin

Obligingservices are welcome, as we know; But shun the service of a clumsy friend.

From such as Struve heaven us defend, Obliging Struve’s worse than any foe. [1]

Thelatest issue (No. 57) of Mr. Struve’s Osvobozhdeniye
contains the following instructive lines:

“Theprocess of disintegration within the so-called Russian
Social- Democratic Labour Party has entered a new phase. The
extreme centralists (’Leninists’, ’firm-liners’, ’Bolshevists’)
are beginning to lose ground, and the position of their
opponents is becoming stronger and stronger—at least in
the ’colonies’ abroad. Whereas the ’Menshevists’ (Martovites)
are getting the upper hand nearly everywhere and gaining control
of one party organ after another, the ’Bolshevists’ are losing
individuals and whole groups, who, while not definitely
accepting the ’platform’ of the minority, nevertheless do not
wish to war with the latter and endeavour to establish peace in
the still discordant party. ’Conciliators’ are appearing on the
scene who are anxious to put an end to this unseemly wrangling
in which people have ceased to understand not only each other)
but even themselves. The appearance of these ’conciliators’ has
corn polled the irreconcilable centralists to start a
’publishing house of Social-Democratic Party literature devoted
to the defence of the principles of the Second Party Congress
majority’. (Announcement by V. Bonch-Bruyevsch and N. Lenin.) We
have before us three products of this new publishing house:
1)
To the Party , Geneva, 1904, 16 pp., price 20 cent. or
15 pf.;
2) Galyorka, Down with Bonapartism! , Geneva,
1904, 23 pp.’ price 25 cent. or 20 pf.;
3) Galyorka and

Ryadovoy, [2] Our Misunderstandings , Geneva, 1904, price 50 cent, or 40
pf. These three pamphlets are chiefly devoted to a critical
examination of certain methods—which are indeed not altogether above reproach omployOd by the ’Monshevists’ in their
struggle against the ’majority’, and to advocacy of the thesis that
the convening of a third congress to settle party conflicts is not
only feasible, but essential.

“While formally , from the standpoint of party loyalty,
the position of the ’Bolshevists’ is the sounder one, they yield to
their opponents in substance. In substance, the latter are
now defending something more vital and effectual than the
’Bolshevists’. Only it is unfortunate that this defence is being conducted by not altogether proper, or
rather altogether improper, and sometimes positively indecent,
means. As examples of such improper methods we may cite countless
recent articles in Iskra and the newly published pamphlet
Our Political Tasks (Tactical and Organisational Questions )
by N. Trotsky, Geneva, 1904, 107 pp., price 75 cent. While marked in
many places by empty phrase mongering, this pamphlet is however quite
right in taking up the cudgels for certain ideas with which those
interested in Social-Democratic literature are already familiar from
the writings of Messrs. Akimov, Martynov, Krichevsky, and other
so-called ’Economists’. Only it is a pity that in places the author
carries their views to the point of caricature.”

Howmuch malicious rejoicing we find here over the troubles of our
Party! But then, by his very political nature your liberal is bound
to rejoice at any weakening and demoralisation of Social-Democracy.

Howmuch conscious and heartfelt sympathy for the Akimovite
substance of the minority’s views! But then, is it not a fact
that the only hope of vitality, ideological vitality, for Russian
liberalism lies in the vitality of Social- Democratic opportunism?

Thenew Iskra has no luck with its supporters.

Recall Plekhanov’s celebrated, stupendous, epoch-making “What
Should Not Be Done”. How subtly conceived was this policy of
finesse and personal concessions, and what a sad mess our diplomat
landed in! How accurately did that consistent opportunist, Mr. Struve,
perceive the “significant change of front” of the new
Iskra! The “gulf” between the old and the new
Iskra is now admitted by the leaders of the latter themselves.

Recall Plekhanov’s complacent assertion in Iskra , No. 65,
that “nobody is afraid of Akimov; you couldn’t use him now even
to scare the sparrows in a cabbage-patch”. Plekhanov made this
remark, which was not particularly mild or accommodating towards the
Rabocheye Dyelo -ists, and he also declared that at our Party
Congress “nobody spoke against orthodox Marxism except an Akimov
or so”. And then, right after these complacent assertions, the
leaflet of the Voronezh Committee—which as everybody knows
solidly supports Comrades Akimov and Brouck re—was reprinted
in full; and it turned out that the editors of the new
Iskra had concealed from the public (in No. 61) the whole section of this leaflet that had to do with principles, and all its
expressions of sympathy with the new Iskra. Who is it that
has proved to resemble a sparrow? And what Party institution may now
be likened to a cabbage-patch?

Recallthe author of “High Time!”, the article in th supplement to Nos. 73-74 of Iskra. As a frank and
honest spokesman of the views advocated throughout our Congress
by all the “Marsh” delegates, this comrade bluntly proclaimed his disagreement with Plekhanov, he bluntly stated
his opinion that “at the Congress Akimov played the part
of a spectre of opportunism rather than of a real representative
of it”. And the poor editors had once more to undergo a
self- inflicted thrashing. They appended the following note to
this statement of the author of “High Time
!":

“Wecannot agree with this opinion. Comrade Akimov’s programmatic views bear the clear stamp of opportunism, as is
admitted even by an Osvobozhdeniye critic when he says in a recent issue
that Comrade Akimov belongs to the ’realistic’—read, revisionist—trend.”

Verynice, is it not? In the programmatic views of Comrade
Akimov—with whom, in the disputes over the programme, Comrades Martynov, Brouck re, and the Bundists voted almost
invariably, and the delegates of the Marsh very often— there is opportunism. But in his tactical and organisational
views there is no opportunism—is that your idea, gentle
men? Why is it that you prefer to say nothing about these latter
views? Isn’t it because, after loudly announcing its new
differences over organisational questions, the new
Iskra has said just what, and only what, Martynov and
Akimov used to say against the old Iskra? Isn’t it because the new tactical differences that the new Iskra
has lately announced also amount to nothing but a repetition of
what Martynov and Akimov used to say long ago against the old
Iskra? How useful it would be to republish today No. 10
of Rabocheye Dyelo !

Andwhom do the editors of the new Iskra cite as judge and
witness against Comrade Akimov? Mr. Struve. And a fine judge he is,
truly a specialist, connoisseur, champion, and expert in
opportunism. All the more significant is the testimony of this
witness, summoned by the editors them selves, on the substance of
Trotsky’s views. And Trotsky’s pamphlet, please do not forget, was published under the editorship of “Iskra” (No. 72, p. 10,
col. 3). Trotsky’s “new” views are the views of the editorial board, approved by Plekhanov, Axelrod, Zasulich,
Starover, and Martov.

Emptyphrase-mongering and Akimovism, the latter, unfortunately,
in caricature—such is the verdict of a judge sympathetic
to the new Iskra and appealed to by that organ itself.

Thistime the obliging liberal inadvertently blurted out the
truth.

---
Notes:
[1]
A modification of a quatrain in Krylov’s fable “The Hermit and the
Bear”.

[2]
Ryadovoy —pseudonym of A. A. Malinovsky, better known as
Bogdanov.