V. I. Lenin

In No. 5 of Znamya Truda , {1} the Central Organ of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, we
find an editorial on the Stuttgart Congress, which is Written in a torrent
of words and immoderate boasting, the habitual style of the S.R.s. There is
a reprint of the telegram in which the C.C. of the S.R. Party informed
Europe that “the revolutionary struggle commands it to remain at its
post”. The selfsame C.C. voices its complete satisfaction over the “usual
energy” displayed by the Socialist-Revolutionary representative in the
Bureau. {2} “By its resolution, the Socialist International endorsed
the view of the trade union movement which we have always supported,”
Znamya Truda assures us. Despite the dogmatist Kautsky, the
Congress “turned out to be on our side” on the question of a legislative
introduction of a minimum wage. Within three years, “we Russian socialists
have grown into a great mass party, a fact the International has openly and
respectfully (!!!) recognised”.

Inshort, thirty thousand couriers were dispatched from Europe to pay
their respects to the Socialist-Revolutionaries.

Meanwhile,the malignant Social-Democrats carried on with their “petty
intrigues” in the Russian section, namely, they fought against the
equality of votes for the S.D.s and the S.R.s which the
Socialist-Revolutionaries demanded. The Social-Democrats demanded 11 votes
for themselves, 6 for the Socialist-Revolutionaries and 3 for the trade
unions. The Bureau resolved: 10 for the S.D.s, 7 for the S.R.s and 3 for
the trade unions. “Adler and Bebel, who voted against our demand, declared
that they had no wish at all to minimise the importance of the S.R. Party, which they recognised as an important
factor of Russian socialism and the revolution. But they wanted to be fair
and to state the approximate balance of forces” ( Znamya Truda ).

Our Khlestakovs {3} are imprudent, oh so imprudent! There was not and
could not have been any question in the Bureau either of the
significance of the S.R.s, or of the “important factor”. Once a party has
been admitted to the Congress and the Bureau, the Bureau and its members
will not bother to assess its significance and importance. The only thing
the Bureau can assess is the strength of the par ties for
apportioning the votes. Bebel and Adler agreed with the arguments of our
Social-Democratic representative in the Bureau that the S.D.s and the S.R.s
are not equal in strength. Having agreed with these arguments,
they naturally noted that they were not passing judgement either on
principles or trends, that they were not deciding on the dispute between
the S.D. and the S.R. programmes, but were merely weighing their strength
for apportioning the votes. It is entirely in the Khlestahov Spirit to
interpret this self-evident reservation to mean recognition of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries as “an important factor”.

TheS.R.s are being doubly imprudent when, in reporting from memory and
distorting the meaning of Bebel and Adler’s reservation, they say nothing
at all about the arguments on the substance of the case . They give
us Bebel’s reservations with embellishments, but are silent on the
substance of our dispute. Why is that so?

Insubstance, our representatives in the Bureau had the following
argument. The Social-Democrat referred to the number of deputies in the
Second Duma as the most precise criterion of party strength, adding that
the electoral law favoured the peasants over the workers. The S.R. replied
that apart from the S.R. group there were some near-S.R.s in the Duma—the
Trudoviks and the Popular Socialists. A portion of them, he implied, should
be added to the S.R.s! Besides, the Popular Socialists have some
“first-class writers” (“écrivains de premier ordre”, said
Rubanovich). Those were the Socialist-Revolutionary’s very words.

Tothis the S.D. representative replied: indeed, the Popular Socialists
do have some “first-class writers” as do the

French Radical-Socialists and the
Radicals, {4} say, a man like Clemenceau (also a “first-class
writer”). But is it proper for an independent party to refer to
another party as evidence of its own strength? Is it proper, when
the “first-class writers” among the Popular Socialists have not the
slightest intention of requesting admission to the Congress?

Isit proper, let us add, to present oneself as an ultra-revolutionary
in Russia and to drag along the Popular Socialists for help in Europe?

---
Notes:
{1}
Znamya Truda (Banner of Labour)—the Central Organ of the
S.R. Party published in Paris from July 1907 to April 1914.

p. 207

{2}
The International Socialist Bureau (I.S.B.)—the standing
executive and information organ of the Second International; the decision
to set up the I.S.B., consisting of representatives of the socialist
parties of all countries, was adopted at the Paris Congress of the Second
International in September 1900. G. V. Plekhanov and B. N. Krichevsky were
the Russian Social-Democrats elected to the I.S.B. From 1905, Lenin was the
R.S.D.L.P. representative on the I.S.B. In the I.S.B., Lenin carried on a
resolute struggle against the opportunist leaders of the Second
International. The I.S.B. wound up its activities in 1914.

p. 207

{3}
Khlestakov —a liar and boaster in Nikolai Gogol’s comedy
The Inspector-General .

p. 208

{4}
French Radicals and Radical-Socialists —a bourgeois party in

France, formalised, in 1901, actually existing since the 1880s. Until the
First World War (1914–18), it mainly represented the interests of the
petty and middle bourgeoisie; in the inter-war period, the influence of the
big bourgeoisie increased in the party whose leaders have repeatedly headed
the French Government.

p. 209