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

Appendix

This incident is closely bound up with the so-called "false"
(Comrade Martov’s expression) list mentioned in the letter of
Comrades Martov and Starover, which has been quoted in Section
J. The substance of it is as follows. Comrade Gusev informed
Comrade Pavlovich that this list, consisting of Comrades Stein,
Egorov, Popov, Trotsky, and Fomin, had been communicated to him,
Gusev, by Comrade Deutsch (Comrade Pavlovich’s Letter,
p. 12). Comrade Deutsch accused Comrade Gusev of "deliberate
calumny" on account of this statement, and a comrades’ arbitration court declared Comrade Gusev’s "statement"
" incorrect " (see the court’s decision in
Iskra , No. 62). After the editorial board of
Iskra had published the court decision, Comrade Martov (not the editorial board this time) issued a special
leaflet entitled The Decision of the Comrades’ Arbitration Court , in which he reprinted in full, not only the decision
of the court, but the whole report of the proceedings, together
with a postscript of his own. In this postscript, Comrade Martov among other things spoke of "the disgraceful fact
of the forgery of a list in the interests of a factional
struggle". Comrades Lyadov and Gorin, who had been delegates to
the Second Gongress, replied to this leaflet with one of their
own entitled An Onlooker at the Arbitration Court , in which they "vigorously protest against Comrade Martov permitting
himself to go further than the court decision and to ascribe
evil motives to Comrade Gusev", whereas the court did not find
that there had been a deliberate calumny, but only that Comrade
Gusev’s statement was incorrect. Comrades Gorin and Lyadov
explained at length that Comrade Gusev’s statement might have
been due to a quite natural mistake, and described as " unworthy " the conduct of Comrade Martov, who had
himself made (and again made in his leaflet) a number of
erroneous statements, arbitrarily attributing evil intent to
Comrade Gusev. There could be no evil intent there at all, they
said. That, if I am not mistaken, is all the "literature" on
this question, which I consider it my duty to help clear up.

First of all, it is essential that the reader have a clear idea
of the time and conditions in which this list (of candidates for
the Central Committee) appeared. As I have already stated in
this pamphlet, the Iskra organisation conferred during the Congress about a list of candidates for the Central
Committee which it could jointly submit to the Congress. The
conference ended in disagreement: the majority of the
Iskra organisation adopted a list consisting of
Travinsky, Glebov, Vasilyev, Popov, and Trotsky, but the
minority refused to yield and insisted on a list consisting of
Travinsky, Glebov, Fomin, Popov, and Trotsky. The two sections
of the Iskra organisation did not meet together again after the meeting at which these lists were put forward and
voted on. Both sections entered the arena of free agitation at
the Congress, wishing to have the issue between them settled by
a vote of the Party Congress as a whole and each trying to win
as many delegates as it could to its side. This free agitation
at the Congress at once revealed the political fact I have
analysed in such detail in this pamphlet, namely, that in order
to gain the victory over us, it was essential for the
Iskra -ist minority (headed by Martov) to have the support of the "Centre" (the Marsh) and of the
anti- Iskra -ists. This was essential because the vast majority of the delegates who consistently upheld the programme,
tactics, and organisational plans of Iskra against the onslaught of the anti- Iskra -ists and the "Centre" very
quickly and very staunchly took their stand on our side. Of the
thirty-three delegates (or rather votes) not belonging to the
anti- Iskra -ists or the "Centre", we very quickly won twenty-four and concluded a "direct agreement" with them,
forming a "compact majority". Comrade Martov, on the other hand,
was left with only nine votes; to gain the victory, he needed
all the votes of the anti- Iskra -ists and the "Centre"—with which groups he might join forces (as over
Paragraph 1 of the Rules), might form a "coalition", that is,
might have their support, but with which he could not conclude a
direct agreement—could not do so because throughout the
Congress he had fought these groups no less sharply than we
had. Therein lay the tragicomedy of Comrade Martov’s position!
In his State of Siege Comrade Martov tries to annihilate me with the deadly venomous question: "We would
respectfully request Comrade Lenin to answer explicitly— to whom at the Congress were the
Yuzhny Rabochy group an outside element?" (p. 23, footnote.) I answer respectfully and explicitly: they were an
outside element to Comrade Martov. And the proof is that whereas
I very quickly concluded a direct agreement with the
Iskra -ists, Comrade Martov did not conclude, and could
not have concluded, a direct agreement with Yuzhny Rabochy , nor with Comrade Makhov, nor with Comrade
Brouckère.

Only when we have got a clear idea of this political situation
can we understand the "crux" of this vexed question of the
celebrated "false" list. Picture to yourself the actual state of
affairs: the Iskra organisation has split, and we are freely campaigning at the Congress, defending our respective
lists. During this defence, in the host of private conversations, the lists are varied in a hundred different
combinations: a committee of three is proposed instead of
five;all sorts of substitutions of one candidate for another are
suggested. I very well recall, for instance, that the candidatures of Comrades Rusov, Osipov, Pavlovich, and

Dyedov [1] were suggested in private conversations among the majority, and
then, after discussions and arguments, were withdrawn. It may
very well be that other candidatures too were proposed of which
I have no knowledge. In the course of these conversations each
Congress delegate expressed his opinion, suggested changes,
argued, and so on. It is highly unlikely that this was the case
only among the majority. There is no doubt, in fact, that the
same sort of thing went on among the minority, for their
original five (Popov, Trotsky, Fomin, Glebov, and Travinsky)
were later replaced, as we have seen from the letter of Comrades
Martov and Starover, by a trio—Glebov, Trotsky, and
Popov—Glebov, moreover, not being to their taste, so that
they were very ready to substitute Fomin (see the leaflet of
Comrades Lyadov and Gorin). It should not be forgotten that my
demarcation of the Congress delegates into the groups defined in
this pamphlet was made on the basis of an analysis undertaken
post factum ; actually, during the election agitation these groups were only just beginning to emerge and the exchange
of opinions among the delegates proceeded quite freely; no
"wall" divided us, and each would speak to any delegate he
wanted to discuss matters with in private. It is not at all
surprising in these circumstances that among all the various
combinations and lists there should appear, alongside the list
of the minority of the Iskra organisation (Popov, Trotsky, Fomin, Glebov, and Travinsky), the not very different
list: Popov, Trotsky, Fomin, Stein, and Egorov. The appearance
of such a combination of candidates was very natural, because
our candidates, Glebov and Travinsky, were patently not to the
liking of the minority of the Iskra organisation (see their letter in Section J, where they remove Travinsky from the
trio and expressly state that Glebov is a compromise). To
replace Glebov and Travinsky by the Organising Committee members
Stein and Egorov was perfectly natural, and it would have been
strange if no one of the delegates belonging to the Party
minority had thought of it.

Let us now examine the following two questions: 1) Who was the
author of the list: Egorov, Stein, Popov, Trotsky, and Fomin?
and 2) Why was Comrade Martov so profoundly incensed that such a
list should be attributed to him? To give an exact answer to the
first question, it would be necessary to question all the
Congress delegates. That is now impossible. It would be
necessary, in particular, to ascertain who of the delegates
belonging to the Party minority (not to be confused with the
Iskra organisation minority) had heard at the Congress of the lists that caused the split in the Iskra
organisation; what they had thought of the respective lists of
the majority and minority of the Iskra organisation; and whether they had not suggested or heard others suggest or
express opinions about desirable changes in the list of the
minority of the Iskra organisation. Unfortunately, these questions do not seem to have been raised in the
arbitration court either, which (to judge by the text of its
decision) did not even learn over just what lists of five the
Iskra organisation split. Comrade Byelov, for example (whom I class among the "Centre"), "testified that he had been
on good comradely terms with Deutsch, who used to give him his
impressions of the work of the Congress, and that if Deutsch had
been campaigning on behalf of any list he would have informed
Byelov of the fact." It is to be regretted that it was not
brought out whether Comrade Deutsch gave Comrade Byelov at the
Congress his impressions as to the lists of the Iskra organisation, and if he did, what was Comrade Byelov’s reaction
to the list of five proposed by the Iskra organisation minority, and whether he did not suggest or hear others suggest
any desirable changes in it. Because this was not made clear, we
get that contradiction in the evidence of Comrade Byelov and
Comrade Deutsch which has already been noted by Comrades Gorin
and Lyadov, namely, that Comrade Deutsch, notwithstanding his
own assertions to the contrary, did "campaign in behalf of
certain Central Committee candidates" suggested by the
Iskra organisation. Comrade Byelov further testified that "he had heard about the list circulating at the Congress a
couple of days before the Congress closed, in private conversation, when he met Comrades Egorov and Popov and the
delegates from the Kharkov Committee. Egorov had expressed
surprise that his name had been included in a list of Central
Committee candidates, as in his, Egorov’s, opinion his candidature could not inspire sympathy among the Congress
delegates, whether of the majority or of the minority." It is
extremely significant that the reference here is apparently to
the minority of the "Iskra" organisation, for among the rest of the Party Congress minority the candidature of
Comrade Egorov, a member of the Organising Committee and a
prominent speaker of the "Centre", not only could, but in all
likelihood would have been greeted sympathetically. Unfortunately, we learn nothing from Comrade
Byelov as to the sympathy or antipathy of those among the Party
minority who did not belong to the Iskra organisation. And yet that is just what is important, for
Comrade Deutsch waxed indignant about this list having been
attributed to the minority of the Iskra organisation, whereas it may have originated with the minority which did not
belong to that organisation!

Of course, it is very difficult at this date to recall who first
suggested this combination of candidates, and from whom each of
us heard about it. I, for example, do not undertake to recall
even just who among the majority first proposed the candidatures
of Rusov, Dyedov, and the others I have mentioned. The only
thing that sticks in my memory, out of the host of conversations, suggestions, and rumours of all sorts of
combinations of candidates, is those "lists" which were directly
put to the vote in the Iskra organisation or at the private meetings of the majority. These "lists" were mostly
circulated orally ( Letter to the Editors of "Iskra ",
p. 4, line 5 from below, it is the combination of five
candidates which I orally proposed at the meeting that I call a
"list"); but it also happened very often that they were jotted
down in notes, such as in general passed between delegates
during the sittings of the Congress and were usually destroyed
after the sittings.

Since we have no exact information as to the origin of this
celebrated list, it can only be assumed that the combination of
candidates which we have in it was either suggested by some
delegate belonging to the Party minority, without the knowledge
of the Iskra organisation minority, and thereafter began to circulate at the Congress in spoken and written form;
or else that this combination was suggested at the Congress by
some member of the Iskra organisation minority who subsequently forgot about it. The latter assumption seems to me
the more likely one, for the following reasons: already at the
Congress the Iskra organisation minority were undoubtedly sympathetic towards the candidature of
Comrade Stein (see present pamphlet); and as to the candidature
of Comrade Egorov, this minority did undoubtedly arrive
at the idea after the Congress (for both at the League Congress
and in State of Siege regret was expressed that the
Organising Committee had not been endorsed as the Central
Committee—and Comrade Egorov was a member of the Organising
Committee). Is it then not natural to assume that this idea,
which was evidently in tho air, of converting the members of the
Organising Committee into members of the Central Committee was
voiced by some member of the minority in private conversation at
the Party Congress too?

But instead of a natural explanation, Comrade Martov and Comrade
Deutsch are determined to see here something sordid—a plot,
a piece of dishonesty, the dissemination of " deliberately false rumours with the object of
defaming", a " forgery in the interests of a factional struggle ", and so forth. This morbid urge can only be
explained by the unwholesome conditions of émigré life, or by an abnormal nervous condition, and I would not even
have taken the question up if matters had not gone to the length
of an unworthy attack upon a comrade’s honour. Just think: what
grounds could Comrades Deutsch and Martov have had for detecting
a sordid, evil intent in an incorrect statement, in an incorrect
rumour? The picture which their morbid imaginations conjured up
was apparently that the majority "defamed" them, not by pointing
to the minority’s political mistake (Paragraph 1 and the
coalition with the opportunists), but by ascribing to the
minority "deliberately false" and "forged" lists. The minority
preferred to attribute the matter not to their own mistake, but
to sordid, dishonest, and disgraceful practices on the part of
the majority! How irrational it was to seek for evil intent in
the "incorrect statement", we have already shown above, by
describing the circumstances. It was clearly realised by the
comrades’ arbitration court too, which did not find any calumny,
or any evil intent, or anything disgraceful. Lastly, it is most
clearly proved by the fact that at the Party Congress itself,
prior to the elections, the minority of the Iskra organisation entered into discussions with the majority
regarding this false rumour, and Comrade Martov even stated his
views in a letter which was read at a meeting of all the
twenty-four delegates of the majority!It never even occurred to
the majority to conceal from the minority of the Iskra organisation that such a list was circulating at the Congress:
Comrade Lensky told Comrade Deutsch about it (see the court
decision); Comrade Plekhanov spoke of it to Comrade Zasulich
("You can’t talk to her, she seems to take me for

Trepov," [2]
Comrade Plekhanov said to me, and this joke, repeated many times
after, is one more indication of the abnormal state of excitement the minority were in); and I informed Comrade Martov
that his assurance (that the list was not his, Martov’s) was
quite enough for me (League Minutes, p. 64). Comrade

Martov (together with Comrade Starover, if I remember rightly)
thereupon sent a note to us on the Bureau which ran roughly as
follows: "The majority of the Iskra editorial board request to be allowed to attend the private meeting of the
majority in order to refute the defamatory rumours which are
being circulated about them." Plekhanov and I replied on the
same slip of paper, saying: "We have not heard any defamatory
rumours. If a meeting of the editorial board is required, that
should be arranged separately. Lenin, Plekhanov." At the meeting
of the majority held that evening, we related this to all the
twenty-four delegates. To preclude all possible misunderstanding, it was decided to elect delegates from all the
twenty-four of us jointly and send them to talk it over with
Comrades Martov and Starover. The delegates elected, Comrades
Sorokin and Sablina, went and explained that nobody was
specifically attributing the list to Martov or Starover,
particularly after their statement, and that it was of absolutely no importance whether this list originated with the
minority of the Iskra organisation or with the Congress
minority not belonging to that organisation. After all, we could
not start an investigation at the Congress and question all the
delegates about this list! But Comrades Martov and Starover, not
content with this, sent us a letter containing a formal denial
(see Section J). This letter was read out by our representatives, Comrades Sorokin and Sablina, at a meeting of
the twenty-four. It might have seemed that the incident could be
considered closed—not in the sense that the origin of the
list had been ascertained (if anybody cared about that), but in
the sense that the idea had been completely dispelled that there
was any intention of "injuring the minority", or of "defaming"
anybody, or of resorting to a "forgery in the interests of a
factional struggle". Yet at the League Congress (pp. 63-64)
Comrade Martov again brought forth this sordid story conjured up
by a morbid imagination, and, what is more, made a number of
incorrect statements (evidently due to his wrought-up condition). He said that the list included a Bundist. That was
untrue. All the witnesses in the arbitration court, including
Comrades Stein and Byelov, declared that the list had Comrade
Egorov in it. Comrade Martov said that the list implied a
coalition in the sense of a direct agreement. That was untrue,
as I have already explained. Comrade Martov said that there were
no other lists originating with the minority of the
Iskra organisation (and likely to repel the majority of
the Congress from this minority), "not even forged ones". That
was untrue, for the entire majority at the Party Congress knew
of no less than three lists which originated with Comrade Martov
and Co., and which did not meet with the approval of the
majority (see the leaflet by Lyadov and Gorin).

Why, in general, was Comrade Martov so incensed by this list?
Because it signified a swing towards the Right wing of the
Party. At that time Comrade Martov cried out against a "false
accusation of opportunism" and expressed indignation at the
"misrepresentation of his political position"; but now everybody
can see that the question whether this list belonged to Comrade
Martov and Comrade Deutsch could have had no political significance whatever, and that essentially , apart from this or any other list , the accusation was not false,
but true, and the characterisation of his political position
absolutely correct.

The upshot of this painful and artificial affair of the
celebrated false list is as follows:

1) One cannot but join Comrades Gorin and Lyadov in describing
as unworthy Comrade Martov’s attempt to asperse Comrade
Gusev’s honour by crying about a "disgraceful fact of the
forgery of a list in the interests of a factional struggle".

2) With the object of creating a healthier atmosphere and of
sparing Party members the necessity of taking every morbid
extravagance seriously, it would perhaps be advisable at the
Third Congress to adopt a rule such as is contained in the
Rules of Organisation of the German Social-Democratic Labour
Party. Paragraph 2 of these Rules runs: "No person can belong
to the Party who is guilty of a gross violation of the principles of the Party programme or of dishonourable
conduct. The question of continued membership in the Party
shall be decided by a court of arbitration convened by the
Party Executive. One half of the judges shall be nominated by
the person demanding the expulsion, the other half by the
person whose expulsion is demanded; the chairman shall be
appointed by the Party Executive. An appeal against a decision of the court of arbitration may be made to the
Control

Commission or to the Party Congress." Such a rule might serve as
a good weapon against all who frivolously level accusations (or
spread rumours) of dishonourable conduct. If there were such a
rule, all such accusations would once and for all be classed as
indecent slanders unless their author had the moral courage to
come forward before the Party in the role of accuser and seek
for a verdict from the competent Party institution.

---
Notes:
[1]
Dyedov —pseudonym of the Bolshevik Lydia Knipovich.

[2]
Trepov, F. F. —Governor of St. Petersburg, whom Vera Zasulich fired at in
1878 in protest against his orders to flog the political prisoner
Bogolyubov.