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

H. Discussion on Centralism Prior to the Split
Among the Iskra -ists

Before passing to the really interesting question of the
formulation of Paragraph 1 of the Rules, a question which
undoubtedly disclosed the existence of different shades of
opinion, let us dwell a little on that brief general discussion
of the Rules which occupied the 14th and part of the 15th
Congress sittings. This discussion is of some significance
inasmuch as it preceded the complete divergence within the Iskra organisation over the composition of the
central bodies, whereas the subsequent debate on the Rules in
general, and on co-optation in particular, took place after this divergence in the Iskra
organisation. Naturally, before the divergence we were able to express our views more impartially, in the sense that
they were more independent of views about the personal composition of the Central Committee, which became such a keen
issue with us all. Comrade Martov, as I have already remarked,
associated himself (p. 157) with my views on organisation, only making the reservation that he differed on
two points of detail . Both the anti- Iskra -ists and the “Centre”, on the contrary, at once took the field
against both fundamental ideas of the whole
Iskra organisational plan (and, consequently, against the Rules in their entirety): against centralism and against
“two centres” Comrade Lieber referred to my Rules as “organised
distrust” and discerned decentralism in the proposal for two centres (as did Comrades Popov and Egorov). Comrade
Akimov wanted to broaden the jurisdiction of the local committees, and, in particular, to grant them themselves “the
right to alter their composition”. “They should be allowed
greater freedom of action.... The local committees should be
elected by the active workers in their localities, just as the
Central Committee is elected by the representatives of all the
active organisations in Russia. And if even this cannot be
allowed, let the number of members that the Central Committee
may appoint to local committees be limited. . .”
(p. 158). Comrade Akimov, as you see, suggested an argument
against “hypertrophy of centralism”, but Comrade Martov remained
deaf to these weighty arguments, not yet having been induced by
his defeat over the composition of the central bodies to follow
in Akimov’s wake. He remained deaf even when Comrade Akimov
suggested to him the " idea" of his own Rules (Paragraph 7—restriction of the Central Committee’s right
to appoint members to the committees)! At that time Comrade
Martov still did not want any “dissonance” with us, and for that
reason tolerated a dissonance both with Comrade Akimov and with
himself.... At that time the only opponents of “monstrous
centralism” were those to whom Iskra ’s centralism was clearly disadvantageous : it was opposed by Akimov,
Lieber, and Goldblatt, followed , cautiously and circumspectly (so that they could always turn back), by Egorov
(see pp. 156 and 276) and such like. At that time it was still
clear to the vast majority of the Party that it was the
parochial, circle interests of the Bund, Yuzhny Rabochy , etc., that evoked the protest against
centralism. For that matter, now too it is clear to the majority
of the Party that it is the circle interests of the old
Iskra editorial board that cause it to protest against centralism....

Take, for example, Comrade Goldblatt’s speech (pp. 160-61). He
inveighs against my “monstrous” centralism and claims that it
would lead to the “destruction” of the lower organisations, that
it is “permeated through and through with the desire to give the
centre unrestricted powers and the unrestricted right to
interfere in everything”, that it allows the organisations “only
one right—to submit without a murmur to orders from above”,
etc. “The centre proposed by the draft would find itself in a
vacuum, it would have no peripheral organisations around it, but
only an amorphous mass in which its executive agents would
move.” Why, this is exactly the kind of false phrase-mongering to which the Martovs and Axelrods
proceeded to treat us after their defeat at the Congress. The
Bund was laughed at when it fought our centralism while
granting its own central body even more definite unrestricted rights (e.g., to appoint and expel
members, and even to refuse to admit delegates to congresses). And when people sort things out, the howls of the
minority will also be laughed at, for they cried out against centralism and against the Rules when they were in the
minority, but lost no time in taking advantage of the Rules once
they had managed to make themselves the majority.

Over the question of two centres, the grouping was also clearly
evident: all the Iskra -ists were opposed by Lieber, by
Akimov (the first to strike up the now favourite Axelrod Martov
tune about the Central Organ predominating over the Central
Committee on the Council), by Popov, and by Egorov. From the
ideas of organisation which the old Iskra had always advocated (and which the Popovs and Egorovs had
verbally approved!), the plan for two centres followed of itself. The policy of the old Iskra cut across the
plans of Yuzhny Rabochy , the plans to create a parallel
popular organ and to convert it virtually into the dominant
organ. There lies the root of the paradox, so strange at first
glance, that all the anti- Iskra -ists and the entire
Marsh were in favour of one central body, that is, of seemingly greater centralism . Of course, there were some
delegates (especially among the Marsh) who probably did not have
a clear idea where the organisational plans of Yuzhny Rabochy would lead, and were bound to lead in the nature of
things, but they were impelled to follow the anti- Iskra -ists by their very irresoluteness and
unsureness of themselves.

Of the speeches by Iskra -ists during this debate on the Rules (the one preceding the split among the
Iskra -ists), particularly noteworthy were those of
Comrades Martov (“association” with my ideas of organisation)
and Trotsky. Every word of the answer the latter gave Comrades
Akimov and Lieber exposes the utter falsity of the “minority’s”
post-Congress conduct and theories. "The Rules, he [Comrade
Akimov] said, do not define the jurisdiction of the Central
Committee with enough precision. I cannot agree with him. On the
contrary, this definition is precise and means that inasmuch as
the Party is one whole, it must be ensured control over the
local committees. Comrade Lieber said, borrowing my expression,
that the Rules were ’organised distrust’. That is true. But I
used this expression in reference to the Rules proposed by the
Bund spokesmen, which represented organised distrust on the part
of a section of the Party towards the whole Party. Our Rules, on
the other hand" (at that time, before the defeat over the
composition of the central bodies, the Rules were “ours”!),
“represent the organised distrust of the Party towards all its
sections, that is, control over all local, district, national,
and other organisations” (p. 158). Yes, our Rules are here correctly described, and we would advise those to
bear this more constantly in mind who are now assuring us with
an easy conscience that it was the intriguing majority who
conceived and introduced the system of “organised distrust” or,
which is the same thing, the “state of siege”. One has only to
compare this speech with the speeches at the Congress of the
League Abroad to get a specimen of political spinelessness, a
specimen of how the views of Martov and Co. changed depending on
whether the matter concerned their own group of a lower order or
someone else’s.