V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:LS/v16;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

ANGRY IMPOTENCE

Issue No. 104 of *Iskra* contains a furious* note about our feuilleton: "The Third Step Back" (*Proletary* No. 6). In that feuilleton we stated quite calmly** that the New Iskraists had helped themselves*** to the Party's printing-press, store-rooms and funds in the name of the Party, but preferred to evade the handing over of Party property. The state of unaccountable**** fury***** to which *Iskra* was driven by this statement can be seen from the bouquet****** of expressions in the spirit of the unforgettable Bundist "foul language". *Iskra* graciously presents us with "dirty mop", "slanderous cowards", and so on and so forth. Exactly as Engels once characterised the polemics of a certain type of emigre: "Jedes Wort—ein Nachttopf und kein leerer."******* We have not, of course, forgotten the French saying: abuse is the argument of those who have no other. We now propose to unprejudiced readers calmly to weigh the reasons for this uproar. The New Iskraists did not reply to the letter of the C.C., which, after the Third Congress, proposed that they should hand over Party property. They do not recognise the Third Congress, they do not recognise the turn of the C.C. towards the Bolsheviks. Very well. But from this non-recognition it only follows that, from their point of view, the New Iskraists should have handed over not all, but a certain part of Party property. This is so clear that *Iskra* itself now says in its note about "the possibility of dividing all Party property". If that is so, our dear opponents, why did you not reply accordingly to the letter of the C.C.? As it is, despite all the force of your abuse,* the fact remains indisputable that the majority gives a public account of everything, publishing the minutes of the Third Congress, while you give no account to anyone of your use of Party property, publish no minutes, and only indulge in abuse. Think it over in a quiet moment: what impression must such behaviour produce on thinking people?

Further. *Iskra* does not like the turn of the C.C. in favour of the Congress. That is natural. But this is not its first turn. A year ago, in August 1904, the C.C. turned towards the minority. A year ago we stated in print and publicly that we did not recognise the legality of the C.C.'s actions. The question is: what did we do then with regard to Party property? We handed over the printing-press, the store-rooms and the funds to the Mensheviks. *Iskra* may abuse us as much as it likes, but this fact remains a fact. We gave an account and handed over the property to our opponents, desiring to fight by Party methods and striving for a congress. Our opponents hid from the congress and gave no accounts to anyone (except their own supporters, and even to them not publicly, for, in the first place, there are no minutes of the "Conference", and, in the second place, neither its terms of reference nor the limits of its authority are known—i.e., the limits of the binding force of its decisions for the Mensheviks themselves).

Our inner-Party struggle ended in a split; now there is only a struggle between one party and another, which is in the process of organisation. And now, taking a general view of the history of the struggle before the split, anyone—of course, anyone who studies, who makes a thorough study* of the history of his Party from documents, and does not confine himself to tales, as many newcomers from Russia do—anyone can clearly see the general character of the struggle. The majority, accused of "formalism", "bureaucratism", etc., handed over to their opponents all the formal prerogatives, all the bureaucratic institutions: first the Editorial Board of the Central Organ, then the Party Council, and finally the Central Committee. They did not and have not handed over only the congress. And the result was that the Bolsheviks restored the Party, or created their own party for themselves (as the New Iskraists naturally think), basing all their Party institutions entirely on the voluntary agreement of Party workers—first the Bureau of Committees of the Majority, then *Vperyod*, and finally the Third Party Congress. On the contrary, our opponents cling** precisely to the formal prerogatives and bureaucratic institutions that were presented to them out of pity! Look at it, indeed: was not the "Editorial Board of the C.O." presented to them by Lenin and Plekhanov? Calling itself the "C.O. of the Party", *Proletary* relies on the decisions of the Third Congress, which are not recognised by the Mensheviks, but are clearly, precisely and definitely recognised by the majority of the Party, whose composition is known to all. *Iskra*, on the other hand, calling itself the "C.O. of the Party", relies on the decisions of the Second Congress, which are now recognised neither by the Bolsheviks (we have replaced them by the decisions of the Third Congress) nor by the Mensheviks!! That is the whole point! The Menshevik Conference itself abrogated the Rules of the Second Congress. The New Iskraists are now clinging to a title which has been abrogated by their own supporters!

Even Plekhanov, who could never fully agree with the New Iskraists on principle, who nevertheless made endless personal concessions to them, who went out of his way (even beyond reason) in abusing the majority,* to whom the New Iskraists always bowed and still bow for this—even he declared that the Conference had dealt a mortal blow to the central institutions, and preferred to shake the dust off his feet. But the New Iskraists continue to call themselves the "C.O." and furiously** abuse those who point out to them not only the incorrectness, but the absolute impropriety of their entire Party position. The abuse, which started all this talk, is precisely the psychologically inevitable result of a vague consciousness of this impropriety. Let us recall that even Mr. Struve, who has many times expressed his principled sympathies with Trotsky* and Starover, with Akimov and Martynov, with the tendencies of New Iskraism in general, and with their Conference in particular, was obliged to admit at the time that their position was not quite correct, or rather, was quite incorrect (see *Osvobozhdeniye*, No. 57).²

We know perfectly well that broad circles of Social-Democrats, especially workers, are terribly dissatisfied with the split (who can be satisfied with it?) and are ready to seek a way out of it "anywhere". We fully understand and unconditionally respect this mood. But we warn everyone: mood alone is not enough. The formula "anywhere" is worthless, because it lacks the main thing: an understanding of the means of ending the split. No bitter words, no attempts to form something "third"—neither Bolshevik nor Menshevik—will help the cause, but will only confuse it still more. The example of such a strong personality as Plekhanov has proved this in practice, by the experience of two years. Let the German Social-Democrats, who, like K. Kautsky, know about our split mostly from idle tale-bearers,* get off with bitter (and pitiful)** words. Their ignorance*** is still pardonable for them—although, of course, their pretensions to judge what they are ignorant of**** are unpardonable. The Russian Social-Democrats must at last learn to despise***** people who are capable of getting off with bitter words, who rush from side to side, who talk big about "peace" and are powerless to do anything real for peace. The real path to peace and Party unity lies not through hasty agreements, which lead to new conflicts, to a new and worse confusion of the matter, but through a complete

* The words "and Trotsky" are deleted. *Ed.*
* The words "from idle tale-bearers" are corrected to: "from one-sided accounts". *Ed.*
** The words "(and pitiful)" are deleted. *Ed.*
*** The word "ignorance" is corrected to: "lack of knowledge". *Ed.*
**** The words "what they are ignorant of" are corrected to: "what they do not know". *Ed.*
***** The underlining of the word "despise" is removed. *Ed.*