One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (THE CRISIS IN OUR PARTY)

C. Beginning of the Congress. The Organising Committee
Incident

The most convenient way to analyse the debates and the voting is
to take them in the order of the Congress sittings, so as
successively to note the political shades as they became more
and more apparent. Only when absolutely necessary will departures from the chronological order be made for the purpose
of considering together closely allied questions or similar
groupings. For the sake of impartiality, we shall endeavour to
mention all the more important votes, omitting, of course, the
innumerable votes on minor issues, which took up an inordinate
amount of time at our Congress (owing partly to our inexperience
and inefficiency in dividing the material between the commissions and the plenary sittings, and partly to quibbling
which bordered on obstruction).

The first question to evoke a debate which began to reveal
differences of shades was whether first place should be given
(on the Congress “order of business”) to the item: “Position of
the Bund in the Party” (Minutes, pp. 29-33). From the standpoint
of the Iskra -ists, which was advocated by

Plekhanov , Martov, Trotsky , and myself, there could be no doubt on this score. The Bund’s
withdrawal from the Party strikingly bore out our view: if the
Bund refused to go our way and accept the principles of
organisation which the majority of the Party shared with
Iskra , it was useless and senseless to “make believe” that we were going the same way and only drag out the Congress
(as the Bundists did drag it out). The matter had already been
fully clarified in our literature, and it was apparent to any at
all thoughtful Party member that all that remained was to put
the question frankly, and bluntly and honestly make the choice:
autonomy (in which case we go the same way), or federation (in
which case our ways part).

Evasive in their entire policy, the Bundists wanted to be
evasive here too and postpone the matter. They were joined by
Comrade Akimov, who, evidently on behalf of all the followers of
Rabocheye Dyelo , at once brought up the differences with Iskra over questions of organisation (Minutes,
p. 31). The Bund and Rabocheye Dyelo were supported by
Comrade Makhov (representing the two votes of the Nikolayev
Committee—which shortly before had expressed its solidarity
with Iskra !). To Comrade Makhov the matter was altogether unclear, and another “sore spot”, he considered, was
“the question of a democratic system or, on the contrary [mark
this!], centralism”—exactly like the majority of our present “Party” editorial board, who at the Congress had not yet
noticed this “sore spot”!

Thus the Iskra -ists were opposed by the Bund, Rabocheye Dyelo and Comrade Makhov, who together
controlled the ten votes which were cast against us (p. 33). Thirty votes were cast in favour —this is the figure, as we shall see later,
around which the votes of the Iskra -ists often fluctuated. Eleven abstained, apparently not taking the side of
either of the contending “parties”. It is interesting to note
that when we took the vote on Paragraph 2 of the Rules of the
Bund (it was the rejection of this Paragraph 2 that caused the
Bund to withdraw from the Party), the votes in favour of it and
the abstentions also amounted to ten (Minutes, p. 289), the
abstainers being the three Rabocheye Dyelo -ists (Brouckère, Martynov, and Akimov) and Comrade
Makhov. Clearly, the grouping in the vote on the place of the Bund item on the agenda was not fortuitous .
Clearly, all these comrades differed with Iskra not only on the technical question of the order of discussion, but
in essence as well . In the case of Rabocheye Dyelo , this difference in essence is clear to everyone,
while Comrade Makhov gave an inimitable description of his
attitude in the speech he made on the withdrawal of the Bund
(Minutes, pp. 289-90). It is worth while dwelling on this
speech. Comrade Makhov said that after the resolution rejecting
federation, “the position of the Bund in the R.S.D.L.P. ceased
to be for me a question of principle and became a question of
practical politics in relation to an historically evolved
national organisation”. “Here,” the speaker continued, “I could
not but take into account all the consequences that might follow
from our vote, and would therefore have voted for Paragraph 2 in
its entirety.” Comrade Makhov has admirably imbibed the spirit
of “practical politics”: in principle he had already rejected federation, and therefore in practice he would have voted for including in the Rules a point that
signified federation! And this “practical” comrade explained his
profound position of principle in the following words: “But [the
famous Shchedrin “but”!] since my voting one way or the other
would only have significance in principle [!!] and could not be
of any practical importance, in view of the almost unanimous
vote of all the other Congress delegates, I preferred to abstain
in order to bring out in principle [God preserve us from such
principles!] the difference between my position on this question
and the position of the Bund delegates, who voted in favour. Conversely, I would have voted in favour if the Bund
delegates had abstained, as they had at first insisted.” Can you
make head or tail of it? A man of principle abstains from loudly
saying “Yes” because practically it is useless when everybody
else says “No”.

After the vote on the place of the Bund item on the agenda, the
question of the Borba group cropped up at the Congress; it too
led to an extremely interesting grouping and was closely bound
up with the “sorest” point at the Congress, namely, the personal
composition of the central bodies. The committee appointed to
determine the composition of the Congress pronounced against
inviting the Borba group, in accordance with a twice-adopted decision of the Organising Committee (see
Minutes, pp. 383 and 375) and the report of the latter’s representatives on this committee (p. 35).

Thereupon Comrade Egorov, a member of the Organising Committee , declared that “the question of Borba” (mark, of
Borba, not of some particular member of it) was “new to him”,
and demanded an adjournment. How a question on which the
Organising Committee had twice taken a decision could be new to
a member of the Organising Committee remains a mystery. During
the adjournment the Organising Committee held a meeting
(Minutes, p. 40), attended by such of its members as happened to
be at the Congress (several members of the Organising Committee,
old members of the Iskra organisation, were not at the

Congress). [1]

Then began a debate about Borba. The Rabocheye Dyelo -ists spoke in
favour (Martynov, Akimov, and Brouckère—pp. 36-38), the Iskra -ists (Pavlovich, Sorokin, Lange, [3] Trotsky,
Martov, and others)—against. Again the Congress split up
into the grouping with which we are already familiar. The
struggle over Borba was a stubborn one, and Comrade Martov made
a very circumstantial (p. 38) and “militant” speech, in which he
rightly referred to “inequality of representation” of the groups
in Russia and abroad, and said that it would hardly be “well” to
allow a foreign group any “privilege” (golden words, particularly edifying today, in the light of the events since
the Congress!), and that we should not encourage "the organisational chaos in the Party that was characterised by a
disunity not justified by any considerations of principle" (one
right in the eye for . . . the “minority” at our Party
Congress!). Except for the followers of Rabocheye Dyelo , nobody came out openly and with reasoned
motives in favour of Borba until the list of speakers was closed
(p. 40). It should be said in fairness to Comrade Akimov and his
friends that they at least did not wriggle and hide, but frankly
advocated their line, frankly said what they wanted.

After the list of speakers had been closed, when it was
already out of order to speak on the issue itself, Comrade Egorov “insistently demanded that a decision just
adopted by the Organising Committee be heard”. It is not
surprising that the delegates were outraged at this manoeuvre,
and Comrade Plekhanov, the chairman, expressed his “astonishment
that Comrade Egorov should insist upon his demand”. One thing or
the other, one would think: either take an open and definite
stand before the whole Congress on the question at issue, or say
nothing at all. But to allow the list of speakers to be closed
and then, under the guise of a “reply to the debate”, confront
the Congress with a new decision of the Organising
Committee on the very subject that had been under discussion,
was like a stab in the back!

When the sitting was resumed after dinner, the Bureau still in
perplexity, decided to waive “formalities” and resort to the
last method, adopted at congresses only in extreme cases, viz.,
“comradely explanation”. The spokesman of the Organising
Committee, Popov, announced the committee’s decision, which had
been adopted by all its members against one, Pavlovich (p. 43),
and which recommended the Congress to invite Ryazanov.

Pavlovich declared that he had challenged and continued to
challenge the lawfulness of the Organising Committee meeting,
and that the Committee’s new decision “ contradicts its earlier decision ”. This statement caused an uproar. Comrade
Egorov, also an Organising Committee member and a member of the
Yuzhny Rabochy group, evaded answering on the actual point in question and tried to make the central issue one of
discipline. He claimed that Comrade Pavlovich had violated Party
discipline (!), for, having heard his protest, the Organising
Committee had decided “not to lay Pavlovich’s dissenting opinion
before the Congress”. The debate shifted to the question of
Party discipline, and Plekhanov, amid the loud applause of the
delegates, explained for the edification of Comrade Egorov that
“we have no such thing as binding instructions ” (p. 42;
cf. p. 379, Regulations for the Congress, Point 7: “The powers
of delegates must not be restricted by binding instructions. In
the exercise of their powers, delegates are absolutely free and
independent”). “The Congress is the supreme Party authority”,
and, consequently, he violates Party discipline and the Congress
Regulations who in any way restricts any delegate in taking
directly to the Congress any question of Party life whatsoever. The issue thus came down to this: circles or a
party? Were the rights of delegates to be restricted at the
Congress in the name of the imaginary rights or rules of the
various bodies and circles, or were all lower bodies and old
groups to be completely , and not nominally but actually, disbanded in face of the Congress, pending the
creation of genuinely Party official institutions? The reader
will already see from this how profoundly important from the
standpoint of principle was this dispute at the very outset (the
third sitting) of this Congress whose purpose was the actual
restoration of the Party. Focused in this dispute, as it were,
was the conflict between the old circles and small groups (such
as Yuzhny Rabochy) and the renascent Party. And the anti- Iskra groups at once revealed themselves: the
Bundist Abramson, Comrade Martynov, that ardent ally of the
present Iskra editorial board, and our friend Cornrade
Makhov all sided with Egorov and the Yuzhny Rabochy group against Pavlovich. Comrade Martynov, who now vies with
Martov and Axelrod in sporting “democracy” in organisation, even
cited the example of . . . the army, where an appeal to a
superior authority can only be made through a lower one!! The
true meaning of this “compact” anti- Iskra opposition was quite clear to everyone who was present at the Congress or
who had carefully followed the internal history of our Party
prior to the Congress. It was the purpose of the opposition
(perhaps not always realised by all of its representatives, and
sometimes pursued by force of inertia) to guard the independence, individualism and parochial interests of the
small, petty groups from being swallowed up in the broad Party
that was being built on the Iskra principles.

It was precisely from this angle that the question was approached by Comrade Martov, who had not yet joined forces with
Martynov. Comrade Martov vigorously took the field, and rightly
so, against those whose “notion of Party discipline does not go
beyond a revolutionary’s duty to the particular group of a
lower order to which he belongs”. “No compulsory [Martov’s italics] grouping can be tolerated
within a united Party,” he explained to the champions of the
circle mentality, not foreseeing what a flail these words would
be for his own political conduct at the end of the Congress and
after.... A compulsory grouping cannot be tolerated in the
case of the Organising Committee, but can quite well be
tolerated in the case of the editorial board. Martov condemns a
compulsory grouping when he looks at it from the centre, but
Martov defends it the moment he finds himself dissatisfied with
the composition of the centre....

It is interesting to note that in his speech Comrade Martov laid
particular stress not only on Comrade Egorov’s “profound error”,
but also on the political instability the Organising Committee
had displayed. “A recommendation has been submitted on behalf of
the Organising Committee,” he exclaimed in just indignation,
“which runs counter to the committee report [based, we will add, on the report of members of the Organising
Committee—p. 43, Koltsov’s remarks] and to the Organising Committee’s own earlier recommendations .” (My
italics.) As we see, at that time , before his “swing-over”, Martov clearly realised that substituting Ryazanov
for Borba in no way removed the utter contradictoriness and
inconsistency of the Organising Committee’s actions (Party
members may learn from the League Congress Minutes, p. 57, how
Martov conceived the matter after his swing-over). Martov did
not confine himself then to analysing the issue of discipline;
he bluntly asked the Organising Committee: “What new circumstance has arisen to necessitate the change ?” (My
italics.) And, indeed, when the Organ ising Committee made its
recommendation, it did not even have the courage to defend its
opinion openly, as Akimov and the others did. Martov denies this
(League Minutes p. 56), but whoever reads the minutes of the
Congress will see that he is mistaken. Popov, in submitting the
Organising Committee recommendation, did not say a word
about the motives (Party Congress Minutes, p. 41). Egorov
shifted the issue to one of discipline, and all he said on the
question itself was: "The Organising Committee may have had new
reasons [but whether it did, and what those new reasons were, is
unknown]; it could have forgotten to nominate somebody, and so
on. [This “and so on” was the speaker’s sole refuge, for the
Organising Committee could not have forgotten about
Borba, which it had discussed twice before the Congress and once
in the committee.] The Organising Committee did not adopt this
decision because it has changed its attitude towards the Borba
group, but because it wants to remove unnecessary rocks in the
path of the Party’s future central organisation at the very
outset of its activities." This is not a reason, but an evasion
of a reason. Every sincere Social-Democrat (and we do not
entertain the least doubt about the sincerity of any Congress
delegate) is concerned to remove what he considers to be sunken rocks, and to remove them by those methods
which he considers advisable. Giving reasons means explicitly stating and explaining one’s view of things, and not
making shift with truisms. And they could not give a reason
without “changing their attitude towards Borba”, because in its
earlier and contrary decisions the Organising Committee had also
been concerned to remove sunken rocks, but it had then regarded
the very opposite as “rocks”. And Comrade Martov very severely
and very rightly attacked this argument, saying that it was
“ petty ” and inspired by a wish to “ burke the issue ”, and advising the Organising Committee “ not to be afraid of what people will say ”. These words
characterise perfectly the essential nature of the political
shade which played so large a part at the Congress and which is
distinguished precisely by its want of independence, its
pettiness, its lack of a line of its own, its fear of what
people will say, its constant vacillation between the two
definite sides, its fear of plainly stating its credo —in a word, by all the features of a “Marsh”. [2]
[2] There are people in our Party today who are horrified when they hear this word, and raise an outcry about uncomradely methods of controversy. A strange perversion of sensibility due to . . . a misapplied sense of official form! There is scarcely a political party acquainted with internal struggles that has managed to do without this term, by which the unstable elements who vacillate between the contending sides have always been designated. Even the Germans, who know how to keep their internal struggles within very definite bounds indeed, are not offended by the word versumpft (sunk in the marsh— Ed.) are not horrified, and do not display ridiculous official prudery. — Lenin

A consequence of this political spinelessness of the unstable
group was, incidentally, that no one except the Bundist
Yudin (p. 53) did put before the Congress a resolution to invite
one of the members of the Borba group. Yudin’s resolution
received five votes—all Bundists, apparently: the vacillating elements had changed sides again! How large was the
vote of the middle group is shown approximately by the voting on
the resolutions of Koltsov and Yudin on this question: the
Iskra -ist received thirty-two votes (p. 47), the
Bundist received sixteen, that is, in addition to the eight
anti- Iskra -ist votes, the two votes of Comrade Makhov
(cf. p. 46), the four votes of the members of the Yuzhny Rabochy group, and two others. We shall show in a moment
that this alignment can by no means be regarded as accidental;
but first let us briefly note Martov’s present opinion of this Organising Committee incident. Martov maintained at the
League that “Pavlovich and others fanned passions”. One has only
to consult the Congress Minutes to see that the longest, most
heated and sharpest speeches against Borba and the Organising
Committee were delivered by Martov himself. By trying to lay the
“blame” on Pavlovich he only demonstrates his own instability:
it was Pavlovich he helped to elect prior to the Congress as the
seventh member of the editorial board; at the Congress he fully
associated himself with Pavlovich (p. 44) against Egorov; but
afterwards, having suffered defeat at the hands of Pavlovich, he
began to accuse him of “fanning passions”. This is ludicrous.

Martov waxes ironical in Iskra (No. 56) over the importance that was attached to whether X or Y should be
invited. But again the irony turns against Martov, for it was
this Organising Committee incident that started the dispute over
such an “important” question as inviting X or Y on to the
Central Committee or the Central Organ. It is unseemly to
measure with two different yardsticks, depending on whether the
matter concerns your own “group of a lower order” (relative to the Party) or someone else ’s. This is
precisely a philistine and circle, not a Party attitude. A
simple comparison of Martov’s speech at the League (p. 57) with
his speech at the Congress (p. 44) sufficiently demonstrates
this. “I can not understand,” Martov said, inter alia, at the League, “how people can insist on calling themselves
Iskra -ists and at the same time be ashamed of being
Iskra -ists.” A strange failure to understand the difference between “calling oneself” and “being”—between
word and deed. Martov himself, at the Congress, called himself an opponent of compulsory groupings, yet, after the
Congress, came to be a supporter of them....

---
Notes:
[1]
Concerning this meeting, see the “Letter” of
Pavlovich, [4] who was a member of the Organising Committee and who before the
Congress was unanimously elected as the editorial board’s trusted
representative, its seventh member (League Minutes, p. 44). — Lenin

[2] Note: This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[3]
Sorokin —pseudonym of the Bolshevik N. E. Bauman; Lange —pseudonym of the Bolshevik A. M. Stopani.

[4]
Pavlovich, Letter to the Comrades on the Second Congress of the R. S. D. L. P., Geneva, 1904.