In No. 92 of *Iskra* there appeared an article entitled "Zigzags of a Firm Course," attempting to prove that *Vpered* does not in fact hold firmly and consistently to the principles and line of the old *Iskra*{18}, but rather zigzags in the footsteps of the new *Iskra*. In essence, this assertion is so amusing that it would hardly be worth stopping to discuss seriously. What is characteristic here is not the content of the new-*Iskra* polemic, for it is precisely devoid of content, but rather its methods. It is worth dwelling on these methods; their analysis shows us that there is polemic and then there is polemic. The old *Iskra's* polemic was disliked, but not a single person ever dreamed of declaring that polemic unprincipled. The new *Iskra's* polemic is despised because both the mass of practical workers and consistent advocates of work among workers and "reconcilers" with Plekhanov at their head see the unprincipled character of this polemic.

What methods does such a polemic employ? We intend to show the reader.

Let us follow *Iskra* step by step. *Vpered* is pushing the party toward a split, says *Iskra*. This is false. All those who have studied the party crisis not from hearsay but from documents know that it was precisely the minority that split the party immediately after the Second Congress{19}, but secretly, by creating a secret organization. In speaking this falsehood now, *Iskra* is being hypocritical. An open split can be hated; a secret one cannot but be despised. *Vpered* does not want a secret split, and that is all.

Furthermore, they wish to convict us of contradiction on the question of autonomism and centralism. Lenin, they say, in "*Shagi*"[17] assured us that autonomism is a principle of opportunism, and now the Bureau of Committees of the Majority itself stands for the broadest possible autonomy of local committees. Lenin assured us that bureaucratism in relation to democratism is an organizational principle of revolutionary social-democracy in relation to the organizational principle of opportunists, and the BCM itself speaks of bureaucratism. Such is the content of the accusation against us. It is again built on outright falsehood. In "*Shagi*" (and before "*Shagi*" in his "Letter to the Editorial Board of *Iskra*"[18]), Lenin dozens and hundreds of times made reservations, declared, reminded us, and emphasized that phrases against bureaucratism, for autonomism, and so on are extremely indefinite, have the most varied meanings, changed arbitrarily at will. In substance, Lenin said hundreds of times, these phrases serve exclusively to cloak the desire for cooptation. Lenin's words have now been confirmed completely and in the most documentary fashion. If one agrees to take these words on principle, said Lenin (if one agrees!), then we shall see the following. Bureaucratism, taken in general, can mean red-tapeism, procrastination, paperwork, perfunctory replies. Such bureaucratism is bad, said Lenin, and he illustrated his words with the well-known draft charter of Martov. For any reasonably conscientious reader it is clear that the BCM speaks of such bureaucratism, and the accusation of *Vpered* of contradiction turns out to be childish. Bureaucratism can mean violation of the legitimate and, if I may so express it, "natural" rights of any opposition, struggling against the minority by improper means. Such bureaucratism is possible, said Lenin, but there is nothing principled about it. One must struggle against it by developing constitutional guarantees of the rights of the minority. Such guarantees were first proposed clearly, directly, and openly by the firm-principled or, as they are now called, *Vpered* advocates in the well-known declaration of the Twenty-Two{20}, which appeared in August, seven months ago, without evoking since then the slightest attempt on the part of new-*Iskra* adherents to unambiguously define their attitude toward this declaration.

But beyond these understandings of bureaucratism, anti-autonomism, and so on, there is a genuinely principled understanding of them—not as separate irregularities, excesses, and so on, but as general principles of the entire organization. It was this understanding that the Mensheviks tried to impose upon us, against our will, against our resistance. Lenin, both in his "Letter to the Editorial Board of *Iskra*" and in "*Shagi*," hundreds of times warned against such an understanding, which obscures the concrete and factual course of the crisis and split. Lenin directly called out in his "Letter to the Editorial Board of *Iskra*": Stop this nonsense, gentlemen, here it is 9/10 squabbling! Lenin was attacked for this, and the Central Organ began to prove that there are principles. Well, if that is so, then the principle of autonomism is indeed genuinely an opportunistic principle of socialist-democratic organization, replied Lenin and will always reply the *Vpered* advocates. If that is so, then your cries against bureaucratism are on principle entirely homogeneous with the cries of the Jaurèsists in France, the Bernsteinists in Germany, the reformists in Italy. This is how matters stand; to convince oneself of this, one need only study the party crisis from documents, not from friendly assurances. Lenin already at the Second Congress told the Bundist Liber (see the protocols) that against petty centralism he would defend the autonomy of "some" Tula committee[19]; Lenin did not raise the slightest objection to securing this autonomy in § 8 of our party charter. But Lenin, nor the BCM, ever defended the principle of autonomism; it was defended by Akimov, Liber, and the new-*Iskra* adherents. Before an uninformed reader it is not difficult, of course, to confuse matters by seizing upon individual words said in completely different conditions and having completely different meanings—but newspapers that engage in polemic through such seizures are treated like *Novoe Vremya*{21}.

Take the pamphlet "*Rabochego*." What is the essence of the matter that *Iskra* obscures? It is that unprincipled people came up short with their cries about the principle of autonomism and so on, because the only possible response was demand for the elective principle. Then these people beaten back gave in. The *Vpered* advocates, on the other hand, spoke and speak: it is unseemly to parade phrases and "principles" of autonomism, democratism, and if serious, businesslike changes to the charter in the spirit of democratism possible under Russian conditions are needed, then let us discuss them directly and openly. *Vpered* challenged "*Rabochego*": point out even one place in socialist-democratic literature where the necessity of admitting workers into party committees is stated as clearly as in Lenin[20]. "*Rabochego*," confused by the new-*Iskra* adherents, answered in print that it accepts the challenge; but it turned out that it did not understand what it means to accept the challenge, for it showed no other place anywhere, but only threatened to "give it to" Lenin or "settle accounts" with him. Naturally, *Vpered* did not respond to these terrible threats.

Now take the question of one center. Lenin, they say, in "*Shagi*" spoke of opportunists standing for one center, and now the BCM stands for one center. Again the same crude misrepresentation, calculated on an uninformed or inattentive reader. Whoever wishes to read "*Shagi*" will see (on page 28, carefully avoided by the feuilletonist of *Iskra*) that Lenin, long before the first article of a Bolshevik against two centers (an article by an Ordinary Member in "Our Misunderstandings"), wrote that the idea of two centers "took account of the temporary (listen!) and special needs precisely of Russian socialist-democratic workers' movement in conditions of political slavery, provided that an initial operational base of revolutionary onslaught was created abroad." "The first idea," it is said in "*Shagi*" immediately after, concerning the idea of centralism in general, "as the sole (listen!) principled one, ought to have penetrated (according to the plan of the old *Iskra*) the entire charter; the second, as a particular one, engendered by temporary circumstances of place and mode of action, was expressed in what appeared to be a departure from centralism, in the creation of two centers" (p. 28)[21]. We now leave it to the reader to judge the methods of polemic of our party's "*Novoe Vremya*"! *Iskra* simply attempts to deceive the reader by concealing from him 1) that Lenin long ago indicated the temporary, particular significance of the idea of two centers; 2) that therefore the defense of one center by opportunists Lenin never explained by general principles, but exclusively by "temporary circumstances of place and mode of action," circumstances in which it was actually and ought to have been the opportunistic wing of the party that stood for one center. That the old *Iskra* was a bulwark of the struggle against opportunism is a fact. That at the Congress it was precisely the opportunistic wing that constituted the minority is also a fact. What is surprising, then, that now, when the new *Iskra* has turned out to be opportunistic, when Russia has demonstrated greater principled steadfastness and party discipline than abroad, what is surprising that now "temporary circumstances" have changed? We would not be the slightest bit surprised if, now, the advocates of workers' affairs, Martynovism, the "swamp," and new-*Iskra* adherents were to arise (let us say, at the Third Congress) for two centers, while all Bolsheviks (or almost all) stood for one center. This would be merely a change, in accordance with "temporary circumstances," in the means of struggling for those very same principles of revolutionary social-democracy, the principles of the old *Iskra*, for which Lenin and the Bolsheviks have striven unwaveringly and continue to strive. Only people of the *Novoe Vremya* type can see "miracles" in such a turn. (We said that almost all Bolsheviks may stand for one center. How matters will be at the Third Congress, we shall yet see. Among us there are different opinions on the significance of "temporary circumstances of place and mode of action," and we shall compare and "sum up" all these opinions at the Congress.)

It seems that the methods of polemic of the new *Iskra* have been sufficiently clarified from the foregoing, and we can now be briefer. *Iskra* says that the BCM violated party discipline by convening a Congress contrary to the charter, without the Soviet{22}. This is false, for the Soviet violated the charter much earlier by evading the Congress. We have long and openly set forth this in print (*Orlovskii*){23}. After the Mensheviks, through secret split, tore the party asunder and through deceptions evaded the Congress, we had no other practical way out of the absurd situation but a Congress, contrary to the will of the centers. *Iskra* says that the leading article of No. 9 of *Vpered* – "New Tasks and New Forces"[22], insisting on the necessity to expand significantly the number of the most diverse party organizations, contradicts the idea of Lenin's first paragraph of the charter, because Lenin, defending his idea at the Congress, spoke of the necessity to narrow the concept of the party. This objection of *Iskra* can be recommended as a high school logic problem for teaching youth to understand polemic. The Bolsheviks spoke and speak of the necessity to narrow the party to a sum, or complex, of party organizations and then to increase the number of these organizations (see the Congress protocols and "*Shagi*," pp. 40 and elsewhere, esp. 40–41 and 46)[23]. The new *Iskra* confuses the broadening of the scope of the party with the broadening of the concept of the party, the broadening of the number of party organizations with the broadening of the party beyond the limits of party organizations! To clarify this most confounding business, we shall provide a simple little example: let us suppose, for simplicity, that the entire army consists exclusively of people of one type of weapon; the composition of the army must be narrowed to a sum of persons who, upon verification, actually know how to shoot, not permitting them to get away with phrases and assurances of their military fitness; then one must endeavor in every way to broaden the number of people capable of passing the test in the ability to shoot. Do you now begin to understand a little, gentlemen new-*Iskra* adherents, what this is about?

*Iskra* writes, exposing *Vpered*: "Previously only steadfast social-democrats were required, who had to be recognized as such; now into the holy of holies are admitted all elements except consciously non-social-democratic ones." Take No. 9 of *Vpered* and read: "Let all… circles, except consciously non-social-democratic ones, either directly enter the party or attach themselves to the party (italics of the author). In the latter case, one cannot demand either acceptance of our program or obligatory organizational relations with us…"[24] Is it not clear that *Iskra* is committing outright misrepresentation by confusing what "previously was required" for inclusion in the party with what "is now admitted" for a group attaching itself to the party? The Bolsheviks both previously and now in *Vpered* speak of self-enrollment in the party as intelligentsia anarchism, that members of the party must recognize not in words only "obligatory organizational relations." Only those who set themselves the goal of introducing confusion can fail to understand this. The slogan of *Vpered* was: for new tasks, organize new forces into party organizations or, at least, into organizations attaching themselves to the party. The slogan of *Iskra* is "wider doors." Some say: take new shooters into your units, organize those learning to shoot into auxiliary detachments. Others say: wider doors! let whoever wishes enroll himself in the army!

Regarding the organization of revolution and the organization of arming, *Iskra* now wants to assure us that there is no disagreement between it and *Vpered*. We shall ask first: and what about Parvus? If the villainous *Vpered* invented the disagreements, then why do you not explain yourselves frankly with the new-*Iskra* adherent Parvus, who cannot be suspected of being overly critical of *Iskra*? After all, you yourselves should have been the first to acknowledge your disagreement with Parvus? Why this game of hide-and-seek? In substance, the new *Iskra* objects to *Vpered* in exactly the same way as "*Rabochee Delo*" objected to the old *Iskra*. We cannot too much recommend to comrades interested in the history of their party that they reread "*Rabochee Delo*," especially No. 10. "*Rabochee Delo*" was shown that it was belittling the tasks of political struggle. It objected: but *Iskra* insufficiently appreciates economic struggle. The new *Iskra* is shown that it is belittling the tasks of organizing revolution, conducting uprising, arming the workers, tasks of social-democracy's participation in a temporary revolutionary government. The new *Iskra* objects: but *Vpered* insufficiently appreciates the spontaneity of revolution and uprising, the predominance of politics over "technique" (arming). A homogeneous tailist position leads to homogeneous arguments. People cover up their inability to give a guiding slogan on the question of new tasks with philosophical ratiocination to the effect that the old tasks are supremely important. Individual words are seized to show how the opponent himself values the significance of the old tasks, the significance of the ABC of social-democracy. Of course, comrades[25] of the new *Iskra*, we very much value the ABC of social-democracy, but we do not wish to remain forever at the ABC stage alone. That is all. Neither Parvus, nor the BCM, nor *Vpered* ever thought of disputing against the ABC that workers themselves can, will, and must arm themselves, independently of organizations and party. But if *Iskra* puts forward, as a slogan, its famous "self-arming," then, of course, everyone smiles, seeing such servility before spontaneity. If *Iskra*, correcting Parvus, reveals a new task, worthy of the deepest-thinking productions of Krichevskii and Akimov, to "arm workers with the burning necessity of self-arming," then naturally it meets with nothing but ridicule. If *Iskra*, at such a moment when new tasks have been added to the old tasks of social-democracy—the arming of the masses, street struggle, and so on—hastily rushed to belittle these tasks (to the accomplishment of which barely a start has been made) with contemptuous sophistry concerning "technique" and its secondary role, if, instead of supplementing the old, usual and constant political tasks of the party with new tasks of "technique," *Iskra* puts forward discussions of the separation of the one from the other, then, of course, everyone attributes these discussions to new variants of tailism.

In conclusion, as a curiosity, we shall note *Iskra's* attempt to shake off its well-deserved reputation for the famous theory of non-creation of panic. *Iskra* itself already now calls this question "famous," attempting to prove that the BCM too preaches "non-creation of panic," when in its leaflet on uprising it recommends being cautious (without extreme necessity) in the destruction of property of petty bourgeois, so as not to needlessly frighten them{24}. *Iskra* exults: you see, you too don't want to frighten them!

Is this not lovely? An agreement with the zemstvo members about non-creation of panic during peaceful demonstration is compared with a warning against unnecessary destruction of property during uprising! And besides: on one side, "demonstrations of the highest type," on the other—contemptible, base "technique" of armed street struggle… One small question, friends[26]: why is it that every social-democrat[27] agrees and will agree with the advice not to frighten petty bourgeois needlessly during an uprising? and why, conversely, has your plan of a zemstvo campaign become, by your own admission, "famous" among social-democrats? why did even from your own ranks both Parvus and many others protest against it? why do you yourselves still not dare to publish this famous plan? Is it not because your advice in the notorious letter of yours were as out of place and ridiculous as the BCM's advice is beyond dispute and universally recognized by social-democracy?

Written in March, before the 30th (April 12), 1905.

Published April 20 (April 7), 1905 in the newspaper *Vpered* No. 15

Printed according to the newspaper text, collated with the manuscript