V. I.

Lenin

The Guilty Blaming the Innocent [1]

Iskra ,No. 92, contains an article “The
Zigzags of a Firm Course”, purporting to show that, in reality,
Vperyod is not at all maintaining the principles and the line of
the old Iskra firmly and consistently, but, on the contrary, is
zigzagging in the wake of the new Iskra. Strictly speaking, this
allegation is too ludicrous to merit serious consideration. What strikes us
here is not the content of the new Iskra polemic, for it has no
content, but its methods. These methods are worth considering; upon
examination they reveal that there are polemics and polemics. The old
Iskra was disliked for its polemics, but no one ever thought of
calling them unprincipled. The new Iskra is despised for its
polemics, because their unprincipled nature is evident to the mass of the
Party members engaged in practical work and the consistent Rabocheye Dyelo -ists, as well as to the “conciliators” headed by
Plekhanov.

Itis our intention to show the reader with what methods these polemics
operate.

Letus follow Iskra step by step. Vperyod is leading the Party towards a split, it says. This is not true. All who have studied
the Party crisis, not from old wives’ tales, but from documents, know that
it was the Minority that split the Party immediately after the Second
Congress, and that it did so clandestinely by setting up a secret
organisation. Iskra is engaging in hypocrisy now and is
misrepresenting the facts. An open split may evoke hatred, but a secret
split can evoke only contempt. Vperyod wants no secret split; that
is all there is to it.

Further,they want to charge us with contradicting our selves on the question of autonomy and centralism. Lenin, they allege, asserted in

Steps [2] that autonomy is a principle of opportunism, whereas now the Bureau of
Committees of the Majority itself is in favour of the broadest possible
autonomy for the local committees. Lenin maintained that bureaucracy stands
in the same relation to democracy as the organisational principle of
revolutionary Social-Democracy to the organisational principle of the
opportunists, whereas now the Bureau of Committees of the Majority itself
complains of bureaucracy. This is the substance of their accusation against
us. This charge too is built on downright false hood. In Steps
(and, before Steps , in his “Letter to

Iskra ” [3]

),

Lenin cautioned; declared, reiterated, and emphasised countless times that
the phrases used against bureaucracy, for autonomy, etc., were extremely
vague, that they were open to any number of different constructions and
could be made to mean almost anything. Lenin declared hundreds of times
that, in substance, these phrases were used exclusively to veil the desire
for co-optation. These words of Lenin have now been fully borne out by the
most authentic documentary evidence. If, however, we take these words in
the sense of principle, said Lenin ( if we take!), we shall find
the following: Bureaucracy, taken in general, may denote officialism, red
tape, formalism, paper answers. This sort of bureaucracy is evil, said
Lenin, illustrating his remarks with Martov’s well-known draft of the
Rules. It is clear to every reader who is at all conscientious that this is
the kind of bureaucracy meant by the Bureau of Committees of the Majority,
so that to accuse Vperyod of contradicting itself is utter
childishness. Bureaucracy may mean infringement of the legitimate and, if
we may say so, of the “natural” rights of every opposition, a
fight waged against a minority by unfair means. Such bureaucracy is
possible, said Lenin, but there is no principle involved in it. It must be
combated by the establishment of constitutional guarantees of the rights of
minorities. Such guarantees were proposed clearly, frankly, and openly for the first time by the
Stone-Hards, or Vperyod -ists, as they are now called, in the
well-known Declaration of the

Twenty-Two, [4] which was issued in August, seven months ago, without having since evoked the slightest attempt on the part of
the new-Iskrists unequivocally to define their attitude to wards it.

Butapart from these interpretations of bureaucracy, anti-autonomy, etc., it is
possible to have interpretations based on real principles—not in the form
of any irregularities, extremes, etc., but as general principles governing the
entire organisation. This was the interpretation the Mensheviks tried to force
upon us against our will, despite our resistance. Lenin, both in his
“Letter to Iskra” and in Steps , sounded innumerable warnings against such an interpretation, which obscures the actual
concrete course that the crisis and the split have been taking. Lenin made a
straightforward appeal in his “Letter to Iskra”: Drop this
nonsense, gentlemen; nine-tenths of it is squabbling! Lenin was attacked for
this, and the Central Organ tried to prove that principles were involved. Well,
if that is so, Lenin replied and the Vperyod -ists always will reply,
then the principle of autonomy is really an opportunist principle for a
Social-Democratic organisation. If that is so, then your outcries against
bureaucracy are, in principle, of a piece with those of the Jaurèsists in
France, the Bernsteinians in Germany, and the reformists in Italy. That is how
the matter stands; and to prove it, one has only to study the Party crisis from
documents and not from the assurances of friends. Lenin had told the Bundist
Lieber at the Second Congress (see proceedings) that he would defend the
autonomy of “any”, even a Tula, Committee, [5] against petty centralism; Lenin did not utter a word against the
guarantee of such autonomy in
Clause 8 of our Party Rules. The principle of autonomy, however, was
never defended either by Lenin or by the Bureau of Committees of the Majority;
it was defended by Akimov, by Lieber, by the new-Iskrists. It is not difficult,
of course, to confuse the issue in the mind of the unenlightened reader by tearing words from their context regardless
of the circumstances under which they were used and of their original
meaning; but newspapers that employ such methods in polemics can only expect to
be treated like Novoye Vremya . [11]

Letus take the pamphlet by “A Worker”. What essentially is the
point that Iskra confuses? It is that certain unprincipled people have
only let themselves in for it with their shouting about the principle of
autonomy and the like, since the only reply could be a demand for the elective
principle. Thereupon these people began to beat a retreat The
Vperyod -ists, on the other hand, have always held that talking big and
flaunting the “principles” of autonomy and democracy is indecent;
but if the Rules require serious, practical amendments along the line of
democracy, as far as it is feasible under Russian conditions, let us discuss
them openly and above-board. Vperyod challenged “A Worker”
to produce, if he could, any passage in Social-Democratic literature where the
necessity of drawing workers into the Party committees is put as clearly as
Lenin put it. [6] “A Worker”, led astray by the new-Iskrists, replied
in print that he accepted the challenge; it turned out, however, that he did not
understand what accepting the challenge implied, for he did not point out any
such passage, but only threatened to “give it” to Lenin, to
“get even” with him. Naturally, Vperyod left these terrible
threats unanswered.

Nowlet us take again the question of a single centre. Lenin, it is alleged,
said in Steps that it was the opportunists who stood for a single
centre, whereas now this is the position of the Bureau of Committees of the
Majority. Again the same gross distortion of facts, with an eye to the
uninformed or inattentive reader. Whoever wishes to read Steps will
find (on page 28, mention of which is so studiously avoided by the
Iskra columnist) that long before the first article written by a
Bolshevik against two centres (Ryadovoi’s articles in Our Misunderstandings ), Lenin had written that the idea of two centres
“took into account the temporary [mark this!] and special requirements of
the Russian Social-Democratic working-class movement in the existing conditions of political slavery, with the initial base of operations
for the revolutionary assault being set up abroad”. “The first
idea,” the author of Steps goes on to say at once in regard to
the idea of centralism in general, “as the one [!] matter of
principle, had [according to the plan of the old Iskra ] to pervade
the entire Rules; the second, being a particular idea necessitated by
temporary circumstances of place and mode of action, took the form of a
seeming departure from centralism in the proposal to set up two
centres” (p. 28). [7]

Now, we leave it to the reader to judge the methods of controversy employed by our Party’s Novoye Vremya! Iskra
simply tries to mislead the reader by keeping back from him the
fact

(1)
that Lenin pointed out long ago the temporary, particular
significance of the idea of two centres; and (2) that, therefore, Lenin
never explained the opportunists’ defence of a single centre by general
principles, but only by “temporary circumstances of place and mode of
action”, by circumstances under which the opportunist wing of the
Party actually stood for and had to stand for a single centre. That
the old Iskra was a bulwark in the struggle against opportunism is
a fact. That it was the opportunist wing which constituted the minority at
the Congress is also a fact. Why, then, should it be a matter of surprise
that vow, when the new Iskra has turned out to be opportunist and
when those in Russia have shown greater firmness in principle and Party
consistency than those abroad, the “temporary circumstances”
have changed? We should not be at all surprised now if the Rabocheye Dyelo -ists, Martynov, the “Marsh”, and the new-Iskrists
all took up a stand (say, at the Third Congress) for two centres, while all
the Bolsheviks (or nearly all) stood for one centre. It would only be a
change, in keeping with the “temporary circumstances”, in the
methods of struggle for the same principles of revolutionary
Social-Democracy, the principles of the old Iskra for which Lenin
and the Bolsheviks fought and continue to fight steadfastly. It is only
people of the Novoye Vremya type who can see anything “miraculous” in such a change. (We said that nearly all
Bolsheviks were likely to stand for one centre. We have yet to see how
things

will turn out at the Third Congress. There are differences of opinion among us
as to the significance of “temporary circumstances of place and mode of
action”. We shall compare these different opinions at the Congress and
“strike a balance”.)

The new-Iskra methods of polemising would seem to have been made
sufficiently clear in the foregoing, so that we can now be more
brief. Iskra contends that the Bureau of Committees of the Majority
violated Party discipline by calling the Congress, in contravention of the
Rules, over the head of the Council. This is untrue, for the Council had broken
the Rules long before by its evasion of the Congress. We openly declared this in
the press quite some time ago (Orlovsky). [12]

After the Mensheviks had torn the Party asunder by a secret split and dodged the Congress on all kinds of
false pretexts, we had no practical way out of the preposterous situation other
than to convene the Congress against the will of the centres. Iskra
says that the editorial in issue No. 9 of Vperyod , “New Tasks and
New Forces”, by insisting on the necessity of considerably increasing the
number of Party organisations of every description, contradicts the spirit of
Clause I of the Rules as formulated by Lenin, who, in defending his idea at the
Congress, had urged the necessity of narrowing the concept of Party. The
objection raised by Iskra can be recommended as a high-school problem
in logic to train young people in debating. The Bolsheviks have always held that
the Party should be limited to the sum-total of Party organisations and that
the number of these organisations should then be increased (see Proceedings of
the Congress and Steps , p. 40 et al. , particularly pp. 40-41
and

46). [8]

The new Iskra confounds extension of the Party’s framework with extension of the concept of Party, it
confounds extension of the number of Party organisations with
extension of the Party beyond the limits of the Party organisations! To explain
this perplexing riddle, we shall give a plain, easy illustration: let us assume
for the sake of simplicity an army consisting exclusively of men of a single arm
of the service; the manpower of the army must be narrowed down to a total of men
who have actually proved themselves able to shoot, with none allowed to get past with general phrases or
verbal assurances of military fitness; after that every effort must be
made to increase the number of men who can pass the rifleman’s
test. Aren’t you beginning to see a glimmer of light, gentlemen of the
new Iskra ?

Iskra writes, accusing Vperyod: “Previously only consistent
Social-Democrats, who had to be recognised as such, were wanted; now all sorts
of elements are admitted to the holy of holies, except those that are avowedly
non-Social-Democratic.” Take Vperyod , No. 9. There you will read:
“Let all ... circles, except those that are avowedly non Social-Democratic,
either directly join the Party or align themselves with the Party
[author’s italics]. In the latter event we must not demand that they accept our
programme or that they necessarily enter into organisational relations with us....” [9]

Is it not clear that Iskra is simply juggling, confounding
what was “previously needed” for joining the Party with what
“is now permitted” for aligned groups? The Bolsheviks have
constantly said, and say now in Vperyod , that self-enrolment in the
Party is intellectualist anarchism, that Party members must accept
“obligatory organisational relations” not in words alone. Only
people set on creating confusion can fail to understand this. Vperyod’s
slogan was: Organise new forces for the new tasks into Party organisations or,
at least, into organisations aligned with the Party. Iskra’s slogan is:
“Open the doors wider!” The ones say: “Take new marksmen into your
regiments, organise those who are learning to shoot into auxiliary units.” The
others say: “Open the doors wider! Let all comers enroll themselves in the
army, any way they please!”

Asto the question of organising the revolution and organising the arming,
Iskra now seeks to assure us that it has no differences with
Vperyod. We would ask first of all: what about Parvus? If the
differences have merely been invented by the perfidious Vperyod , why
don’t you have it out with the new-Iskrist Parvus, who cannot be suspected of
picking on Iskra? You yourselves had to admit your disagreement with
Parvus and were the first to do so. Why then this game of hide-and-seek? Essentially, the new Iskra argues here against
Vperyod in the very manner in which Rabocheye Dyelo used to
argue against the old Iskra. We cannot too strongly advise comrades
interested in the history of their own Party to reread Rabocheye Dyelo , particularly issue No. 10. It had been pointed out to Rabocheye Dyelo that it minimised the tasks of the political struggle. Its retort was
that Iskra under estimated the economic struggle. It is pointed out to
the new Iskra that it minimises the tasks of organising the
revolution, the conduct of the uprising and the arming of the workers,
and the participation of Social-Democracy in the provisional revolutionary
government. The new Iskra retorts that Vperyod underestimates
the spontaneity of revolution and insurrection, the primacy of politics over
“technique” (arming). Like tail-ender views lead to like tail-ender
conclusions. These people seek to cover up their inability to provide a guiding
slogan for the new tasks by moralising on the importance of the old tasks. Words
are torn out of context to show that the opponent himself appreciates the importance
of the old tasks, the significance of the ABC of Social-Democracy. Of
course, comrades of the new Iskra , we prize the ABC of
Social-Democracy very highly, but we do not want to remain at the abecedarian stage forever. Let this be plain. Neither Parvus nor the
Bureau of Committees of the Majority nor Vperyod would ever think of
disputing the elementary truth that the workers themselves can, will, and must
arm, even without the organisations and the Party. But if Iskra makes
its famous “self-arming” a slogan—then , of course, everyone smiles at the sight of such a worshipful attitude towards
spontaneity. When Iskra, correcting Parvus, discovers a new
task—worthy of the lucubrations of Krichevsky and Akimov—the task
of “arming the workers with a sense of the burning necessity to
arm”, it is only natural that it should meet with nothing but
ridicule. If at a time when the new tasks of arming the masses,
organising street fighting, etc., have been added to the old tasks of Social-Democracy,
Iskra hastens to belittle these tasks (which we have scarcely begun to tackle) with its disparaging
sophisms about “technique” and its secondary role; if instead of
supplementing the old, customary, constant political tasks of the Party
with the new tasks of “technique”, Iskra argues about the separation of the former
from the latter, then, of course, everyone regards such arguments as a new
variety of tail-ism.

Inconclusion, as a curiosity, we would mention Iskra’s attempt to
discard its sterling reputation as the author of the famous no-panic-mongering
theory. Iskra itself now calls this a “famous” question and
tries to prove that the Bureau of Committees of the Majority, too, advocates
“no panic mongering” when in its leaflet on the insurrection it
recommends caution in destroying property belonging to petty bourgeois (except
in cases of absolute necessity), so as not to frighten them
needlessly. [13] “Ah,” Iskra exults, “so you, too, do not want to
frighten people!”

Isn’tthis just too precious? An agreement with the Zemstvo men not to cause a
panic during a peaceful demonstration is compared to a warning against the
unwarranted destruction of property during the uprising! In the first case,
moreover, it is “demonstrations of a higher type”; in the second,
the base, contemptible “technique” of armed street fighting.... Just
one slight question, friends: why is it that every

Social-Democrat [10] agrees and will agree with the advice not to frighten the petty bourgeoisie needlessly
during an uprising? And why, on the other hand, did your plan for a Zemstvo
campaign become “famous” among Social-Democrats, by your own
admission? Why did Parvus and many others from your own ranks protest against
it? Why are you yourselves to this very day ashamed to publish
this famous plan? Is it not because the advice contained in your notorious
letter was as irrelevant and ridiculous as the advice of the Bureau is
indisputably correct and generally accepted by Social-Democrats?

---
Notes:
[1]
Delayed for lack of space. — Lenin

[2]
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back , Geneva, May 1904. See
present. edition, Vol. 7, pp. 203-425.—Ed .

[3]
Iskra , November 25, 1903. See present edition, Vol. 7,
pp. 115-18.— Ed .

[4]
“To the Party”. See present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 454-61.— Ed .

[5]
See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 487.— Ed .

[6]
See pp. 58-59 of this volume.– Ed .— Lenin

[7]
See present edition, Vol. 7, p. 242.— Ed.

[8]
See present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 258-60 and 265-66.— Ed .

[9]
See p. 219 of this volume.— Ed .

[10]
So far only the anarchists have expressed their disagreement on this
point. They attacked Vperyod in their paper, revealing an absolute
lack of understanding of the difference between a democratic and a
socialist revolution.— Lenin

[11]
The reactionary newspaper Novoye Vremya (New Times ) waged against its political opponents a virulent campaign in which
it made wide use of malicious slander and other dishonest methods of controversy.

Furtherbelow, Lenin calls the Menshevik Iskra “our Party’s
Novoye Vremya” and the Mensheviks “people of the Novoye Vremya type”.

[12]
The reference is to the pamphlet by Orlovsky (V. V. Vorovsky) The Council Against the Party , published in Geneva in 1904.

[13]
The leaflet on the insurrection , signed by the Bureau of Committees of
the Majority, was published in full in Vperyod , No. 9, March 8
(February 23), 1905, under the title “Pressing Problems”.