In a special supplement to the present issue of *Proletariat*, readers will find a report on the Bolshevik conference and the text of the resolutions adopted by it[4]. In the present article we intend to dwell on assessing the significance of this conference and the split that occurred there involving a small part of the Bolsheviks, from the viewpoint both of our faction and of the entire RSDLP as a whole.

The two past years, beginning approximately with the state coup of June 3, 1907{23} and extending to the present time, represent an epoch of sharp upheaval, a grave crisis in the history of the Russian revolution and in the development of the Russian working-class movement and the RSDLP. The All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP in December 1908 summed up the issues concerning the contemporary political situation, the state of the revolutionary movement and its perspectives, and the tasks of the workers' party at the moment it is experiencing. The resolutions of this conference are the firm property of the party, and those Menshevik opportunists who wished at all costs to criticize them only revealed with particular clarity the impotence of their "critique," incapable of counterposing anything sensible, integral, or systematic to the questions resolved in these resolutions.

But the party conference gave us more than this. It played the most important role in the life of the party by outlining new ideological groupings in both factions: among both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. The struggle between these factions has filled, one can say without exaggeration, the entire history of the party both immediately before the revolution and during the revolution. Therefore these new ideological groupings represent a very important phenomenon in the life of the party, which all Social Democrats must think through, understand, and assimilate in order to be able to approach consciously the new questions of the new situation.

These new ideological groupings can be briefly characterized as the appearance on both extreme flanks of the party of liquidationism and as the struggle against it. Among the Mensheviks, liquidationism revealed itself by December 1908 with complete clarity, while the struggle against it was conducted then almost exclusively by other factions (Bolsheviks, Poles, Latvian Social Democrats, part of the Bundists). The party-minded Mensheviks, Mensheviks opposed to liquidationism, barely outlined themselves at that time as a tendency, not appearing in any cohesive or open way. Among the Bolsheviks, both parts clearly emerged and openly appeared: both the overwhelming majority of orthodox Bolsheviks, who resolutely fought with otzovism and carried through all the conference resolutions in their spirit, and the minority of "otzovists," who defended their views as a separate group, receiving on more than one occasion support from the "ultimatists" wavering between them and the orthodox Bolsheviks. That the otzovists (and ultimatists, insofar as they slide toward them) represent Menshevism inside-out, liquidators of a new type—this has been repeatedly stated and demonstrated in *Proletariat* (see especially nos. 39, 42, 44[5]). Thus: among the Mensheviks an overwhelming majority of liquidators and barely beginning signs of protest and struggle by party-minded elements against them; among the Bolsheviks complete dominance of orthodox elements with an openly appearing minority of otzovists—such was the internal party situation that became clear at the December All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP.

What then is this liquidationism? What are the causes of its appearance? Why do the otzovists (and God-builders, of whom we shall say a few words below) represent also liquidators, Menshevism inside-out? In a word, what is the social meaning and what is the social significance of the new ideological grouping within our party?

Liquidationism in the strict sense of the word, Menshevik liquidationism, consists ideologically in the denial of revolutionary class struggle by the socialist proletariat in general and, in particular, in the denial of the hegemony of the proletariat in our bourgeois-democratic revolution. This denial takes, of course, various forms, occurs more or less consciously, sharply, and consistently. As examples one can cite Cherevanin and Potresov. The former gave such an assessment of the role of the proletariat in the revolution that the entire editorial board of *Voice of the Social Democrat* even before the split within it (that is, both Plekhanov and Martov—Dan—Axelrod—Martynov) found itself compelled to disavow Cherevanin, although it did so in an extremely improper manner: namely, it disavowed the consistent liquidator in *Vorwärts*{24}, before the Germans, without publishing its declaration in *Voice of the Social Democrat* for Russian readers! Potresov in his article in *The Public Movement in Russia at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century* so successfully liquidated the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat in the Russian revolution that Plekhanov withdrew from the collective liquidationist editorial board.

Organizationally, liquidationism is the denial of the necessity of an illegal Social Democratic party and the connected renunciation of the RSDLP, withdrawal from it, struggle against it on the pages of the legal press, in legal workers' organizations, trade unions, cooperatives, at congresses where workers' deputies participate, and so forth. Examples of such liquidationism by Mensheviks abound in the history of any party organization in Russia in the past two years. As a particularly glaring example of liquidationism we have already pointed out (*Proletariat* no. 42, reprinted in the pamphlet: *All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP in December 1908*) the case when Menshevik Central Committee members attempted directly to sabotage the party's Central Committee, to halt the functioning of this institution. As evidence of an almost complete disintegration of the illegal Menshevik organizations in Russia, one can point to the fact that the "Caucasian delegation" to the last party conference consisted entirely of émigrés, and the editorial board of *Voice of the Social Democrat* was confirmed (in early 1908) by the party's Central Committee as a separate literary group without any connection to any organization functioning in Russia.

The Mensheviks do not sum up all these manifestations of liquidationism. They partly conceal them, partly are confused themselves, not understanding the significance of individual facts, getting lost in trifles, cases, personalities, unable to generalize, not understanding the meaning of what is occurring.

But this meaning consists in the fact that the opportunist wing of the workers' party in the epoch of bourgeois revolution inevitably had to, in periods of crisis, disintegration, and breakdown, prove to be either wholly liquidationist or in the thrall of liquidators. In the epoch of bourgeois revolution, the inevitable joining of the proletarian party by petty-bourgeois fellow travelers (Mitläufer, as it is called in German), those least capable of assimilating proletarian theory and tactics, least capable of holding out in an epoch of breakdown, most inclined to carry opportunism to its conclusion. Disintegration has set in—a mass of Menshevik intellectuals, Menshevik literateurs has factually gone over to the liberals. The intelligentsia has flowed away from the party—consequently, Menshevik organizations have fallen apart above all. Those Mensheviks who sincerely sympathized with the proletariat and proletarian class struggle, proletarian revolutionary theory (and such Mensheviks have always existed, justifying their opportunism in the revolution by a desire to take into account all shifts in the situation, all twists of the complicated historical path), turned out to be "in the minority once again," in a minority among Mensheviks, without the resolve to wage struggle against the liquidators, without the strength to wage it successfully. But the opportunist fellow travelers go further and further into liberalism, Plekhanov becomes intolerant of Potresov, *Voice of the Social Democrat* of Cherevanin, Moscow workers-Mensheviks of Menshevik intellectuals, and so forth. The party-minded Mensheviks, the orthodox Marxist Mensheviks begin to split off, and by force of circumstances, insofar as they turn toward the party, they find themselves turning toward the Bolsheviks. And our task is to understand this situation, and everywhere and in every way to strive to separate the liquidators from the party-minded Mensheviks, to draw closer to the latter not in the sense of erasing principled disagreements, but in the sense of consolidating a genuinely unified workers' party, in which disagreements should not hinder common work, common pressure, common struggle.

But are petty-bourgeois fellow travelers of the proletariat the exclusive possession of the Menshevik faction alone? No. We have already pointed out in no. 39 of *Proletariat*[6] that they exist among the Bolsheviks as well, as evidenced by the entire manner of argumentation of the consistent otzovists, the entire character of their attempts to justify the "new" tactic. No part of a mass workers' party of any significance could, from the very nature of the matter, avoid including, in the epoch of bourgeois revolution, a certain number of fellow travelers of various shades. This phenomenon is inevitable even in the most developed capitalist countries after the complete completion of the bourgeois revolution, since the proletariat always comes into contact with the most diverse strata of the petty bourgeoisie, is always recruited again and again from these strata. There is nothing abnormal or alarming in this phenomenon, if only the proletarian party knows how to digest foreign elements, subordinate them to itself rather than be subordinated by them, knows how to recognize in good time that certain elements are truly foreign elements and that it is necessary under certain conditions to mark itself off from them clearly and openly. The difference between the two factions of the RSDLP in this regard comes down precisely to the fact that the Mensheviks proved to be in thrall to the liquidators (that is, the fellow travelers)—this is attested to by their own ranks both by the Moscow supporters in Russia and by Plekhanov through his separation from Potresov and from *Voice of the Social Democrat* abroad, while among the Bolsheviks the liquidationist elements of otzovism and God-buildism proved from the very beginning to be in a small minority, proved from the very beginning to be neutralized, and then pushed aside.

That otzovism is Menshevism inside-out, that it inevitably also leads to liquidationism, only of a somewhat different kind—there can be no doubt about this. The question is, of course, not about individuals and not about separate groups, but about the objective tendency of this direction, once it ceases to be merely a mood and attempts to take shape as a distinct direction. The Bolsheviks stated with complete clarity before the revolution, first, that they did not want to create a special direction within socialism, but to apply to the new conditions of our revolution the basic principles of the entire international revolutionary, orthodoxly Marxist Social Democracy; second, that they would be able to fulfill their duty even in the most difficult, slow, gray, everyday work, if, after the struggle, after exhausting all available revolutionary possibilities, history forces us to drag ourselves along the paths of "autocratic constitutionalism." Every sufficiently attentive reader will find these statements in the literature of Social Democrats in 1905. These statements have enormous significance as an obligation of the entire faction, as a conscious choice of path. To fulfill this obligation before the proletariat, it was necessary to steadily digest and educate those who had been attracted to Social Democracy by the days of freedom (there even formed a type of "Social Democrats of the days of freedom"), who had been inspired mainly by decisiveness, revolutionariness, the "vividness" of slogans, who lacked the endurance to struggle not only in days of revolutionary festivals but also in counter-revolutionary everyday life. Part of these elements gradually became involved in proletarian work and assimilated a Marxist worldview. Another part only learned by rote rather than assimilated several slogans, repeating old words and unable to apply old principles of revolutionary Social Democratic tactics to the changed conditions. The fate of both parts is vividly illustrated by the evolution of those who wanted to boycott the Third Duma. In June 1907 there were a majority of the Bolshevik faction. But *Proletariat* steadily pursued an anti-boycott line. Life tested this line, and a year later the "otzovists" found themselves in a minority among the Bolsheviks (14 votes against 18 in the summer of 1908) in the Moscow organization—the stronghold of former "boycottism." Another year later, after comprehensive and repeated clarification of the erroneousness of otzovism, the Bolshevik faction—and in this lies the significance of the recent Bolshevik conference[7]—finally liquidated otzovism and the ultimatism sliding toward it, finally liquidated this peculiar form of liquidationism.

Let no one therefore reproach us for the "new split." We explain in detail in our report on our conference our tasks and our attitude to the matter. We have exhausted all possibilities and all means of persuading disagreeing comrades; we worked on this for more than a year and a half. But as a faction—that is, as a union of like-minded individuals in the party—we cannot work without unity on fundamental questions. A split from the faction is not the same as a split from the party. Those splitting from our faction do not in the least lose the possibility of working in the party. Either they will remain "wild," that is, outside of factions, and the general situation of party work must draw them in. Or they will attempt to create a new faction—this is their legitimate right if they want to defend and develop their particular shade of views and tactics—and then the entire party will very quickly see manifested in deed those tendencies whose ideological significance we have attempted to assess above.

The Bolsheviks have to lead the party. To lead, one must know the path, must stop wavering, must stop wasting time convincing the vacillating, on struggle within the faction with dissenters. Otzovism and ultimatism sliding toward it are incompatible with the work that the present circumstances now require of revolutionary Social Democrats. We learned during the revolution how to "speak in French," that is, to introduce into the movement the maximum of forward-pushing slogans, to raise the energy and scope of immediate mass struggle. We must now, during a period of stagnation, reaction, and disintegration, learn to "speak in German," that is, to act slowly (there is no other way while there is no new upsurge), systematically, stubbornly, moving step by step, conquering inch by inch. Whoever is bored with this work, who does not understand the necessity of preserving and developing the revolutionary foundations of Social Democratic tactics on this path, on this turn of the path—that person vainly assumes the name of Marxist.

Our party cannot move forward without decisive liquidation of liquidationism. And liquidationism includes not only the direct liquidationism of the Mensheviks and their opportunist tactics. It includes Menshevism inside-out. It includes otzovism and ultimatism, which oppose the fulfillment by the party of its immediate task, which constitutes the peculiar characteristic of the moment—the task of utilizing the Duma tribune and creating bases of support from all manner of semi-legal and legal organizations of the working class. It includes God-buildism and the defense of God-building tendencies, which break with the very foundations of Marxism. It includes a failure to understand the party tasks of the Bolsheviks—tasks which in 1906–1907 consisted in the overthrow of the Menshevik Central Committee which was not supported by the majority of the party (not only the Poles and Latvians but even the Bundists did not support the purely Menshevik Central Committee at that time)—tasks which now consist in patient education of party elements, in their consolidation, in the creation of a genuinely unified and solid proletarian party. The Bolsheviks cleared the ground for partisanship through their uncompromising struggle against anti-party elements in 1903–1905 and in 1906–1907. The Bolsheviks must now build the party, build from a faction into a party, build the party with the help of those positions which have been conquered through factional struggle.

Such are the tasks of our faction in connection with the political moment we are experiencing and the general situation of the entire RSDLP. These tasks are repeated once again and with particular detail and developed in the resolutions of the recent Bolshevik conference. The ranks have been reorganized for new struggle. The changed conditions have been taken into account. The path has been chosen. Forward along this path—and the revolutionary Social Democratic workers' party of Russia will rapidly take shape into a force that no reaction will shake and which will stand at the head of all fighting classes of the people in the next campaign of our revolution[8].

*Proletariat* no. 46, July 11 (24), 1909

Printed from the text of the newspaper *Proletariat*