ON THE BROCHURE BY A. V. LUNACHARSKY (“VOINOV”) ON
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTY AND TRADE UNIONS¹.
[December 1907. Finland.]
The work of Comrade Voinov on the question of the socialist party’s relationship to the proletariat’s trade unions has given rise to much misinterpretation. This arises for two reasons: first, in his zeal to combat a narrow and distorted understanding of Marxism—by which he is often reluctant to take into account the new demands of the workers’ movement and to examine the issue more broadly and more deeply—he frequently expresses himself in overly general terms. He attacks orthodoxy—not, to be sure, “orthodoxy” in quotation marks, that is, “false orthodoxy”—or German Social Democracy in general, when in fact his criticisms are directed only at the vulgarizers of orthodoxy, only at the opportunist wing of Social Democracy. Second, the author writes for a Russian audience, paying scant regard to the various nuances inherent in the formulation of the questions he addresses within the Russian context. The standpoint of Comrade Voinov is infinitely distant from the views held by Russian syndicalists, Mensheviks, and Socialist-Revolutionaries. Yet an inattentive or even ill-intentioned reader might easily seize upon individual phrases or ideas of Voinov’s, taking advantage of the fact that the author had before his eyes primarily French and Italian comrades, without making any serious effort to distinguish himself from the many Russian confusions and misconceptions.

As an example of the latter, let us point, for instance, to the Socialist-Revolutionaries. In No. 5 of “Znamya Truda,” they declare—with their usual brazenness*—“the socialist international has always approved the view on the trade union movement that we (!) have always (!) upheld.”² Take, for example, “Collection of Articles,” No. 1 (1907), published by the “Nasha Myśl” publishing house. G. Viktor Chernov rounds on Kautsky, while remaining silent about both the Mannheim Resolution and about Kautsky’s struggle against the opportunist neutralists!³ Kautsky’s article, upon which the Socialist-Revolutionary assailant* pounces, was written on the eve of the Mannheim Congress. At Mannheim, Kautsky had been fighting against the neutralists. The Mannheim Resolution “punched a significant hole in the neutrality of trade unions” (Kautsky’s own words in his article on the Mannheim Congress, published in Neue Zeit on October 6, 1906).⁴ And now, in September 1907, there appears a critic who poses as a revolutionary, calling Kautsky “a great dogmatist and inquisitor of Marxism,” accusing him—quite in tune with the opportunist neutralists!—of downplaying the role of trade unions, of seeking to “subordinate” them to the party, and so forth. If we add to this the fact that the Socialist-Revolutionaries have always advocated the nonpartisanship of trade unions—and that as early as No. 2 of Znamya Truda (July 12, 1907), we read in the editorial: “Party propaganda has its proper place outside the trade union”—then the full picture of Socialist-Revolutionary revolutionary theory becomes clear to us.

When Kautsky waged his battle against opportunist neutrality and further developed, deepened the theory of Marxism, pushing trade unions ever further to the left, these gentlemen would tear Kautsky to shreds, parroting the slogans of the opportunists and, under cover of this, continuing to defend the nonpartisanship of trade unions. When the same Kautsky moved trade unions still further to the left, amending the Böser Resolution in Stuttgart and emphasizing the socialist tasks of trade unions in that resolution, then the SRs cried out: the socialist international has endorsed our viewpoint!

One must ask: are such tactics worthy of members of the Socialist International? Does such criticism not betray a lack of principle and a reckless disregard for the truth? **
Among the Social Democrats, a prime example of such recklessness is the deeply ingrained liberal-turned-revolutionary Plekhanov. In the preface to his pamphlet “We and They,” he declares—with unparalleled, unmatched self-satisfaction**—that the Stuttgart Resolution (on trade unions), with his amendment, renders the London Resolution (from the London Congress of the RSDLP) meaningless.⁶ Many readers, no doubt, having read this statement—this magnificent “Narcissus”—will believe*** that the struggle in Stuttgart was fought solely over Plekhanov’s amendment and that, in general, this amendment carried some serious weight.

In reality, this amendment (“one must always bear in mind the unity of economic struggle”) had no real significance; it did not even touch upon the core issues at stake in Stuttgart, nor did it address the fundamental disagreements within international socialism.

In truth, Plekhanov’s enthusiasm for “his” amendment carries a very vulgar meaning: to mislead readers by diverting their attention**** away from the truly contentious questions of the trade union movement, to conceal the defeat of the neutrality thesis in Stuttgart.

The Stockholm Congress of the RSDLP (1906), where the Mensheviks emerged victorious, adhered to the position of trade union neutrality. The London Congress of the RSDLP adopted a different stance, proclaiming the need to strive for the partisanship of trade unions. The Stuttgart International Congress passed a resolution that “puts an end forever to the idea of neutrality,” as K. Kautsky aptly put it*****. Plekhanov went to the Stuttgart Congress to defend neutrality—as * In the manuscript, this phrase was corrected in pencil by N. K. Krupskaya to read: “Among the Social Democrats, Comrade Plekhanov seeks to obscure the question of the relationship between the party and the trade unions.” Ed.
** The words “with unparalleled, unmatched self-satisfaction” were crossed out in pencil. Ed.
*** The words:
“our magnificent
Narcissus, will believe” were crossed out in pencil and replaced by a single word—“will think”—in pencil by N. K. Krupskaya. Ed.
**** The beginning of this paragraph was corrected in pencil by N. K. Krupskaya to read: “In truth, Plekhanov’s attempt to inflate the significance of this amendment is aimed at diverting readers’ attention.” Ed.
***** Vorwärts, 1907, No. 209, Supplement, Kautsky’s report to the Leipzig workers on the Congress in Stuttgart. See “Calendar for All” for 1908, published by “Zerna,” p. 173, in my article on the International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart. [See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XVIII, p. 89. Ed.]

ARTICLES, NOTES, plans—Voinov discusses all of this in detail. Meanwhile, Clara Zetkin, writing in the German women’s workers’ movement’s organ, Die Gleichheit, notes that “Plekhanov attempted, with rather unsuccessful arguments, to justify a certain limitation of this principle”* (that is, the principle of the closest possible rapprochement between trade unions and the party).

Thus, the principle of neutrality, which Plekhanov had sought to defend, suffered a fiasco. The German revolutionary Social Democrats deemed his arguments “unsuccessful.” And yet he, [with brazen self‑satisfaction]**, declares: “They have accepted ‘my’ amendment—the London Resolution loses its significance…”
Yes, yes, that St. Petersburg–bred, self‑satisfied demeanor of the socialist esteemed by liberals apparently does not lose any of its value***.
Comrade Voinov, in my view, is mistaken when he claims that German orthodox Marxists regard the idea of storming as harmful, that orthodoxy “had once embraced the entire spirit of modern economism.” One cannot say this about Kautsky—and Comrade Voinov himself acknowledges the correctness of Kautsky’s views. Indeed, when Voinov reproaches the Germans for “speaking too little about the role of trade unions as organizers of socialist production,” he recalls, in another passage, the views of Liebknecht—the father who had expressed this role in the most vivid and emphatic terms. It was also in vain that Voinov believed Plekhanov’s claim that Bebel had deliberately omitted mention of the Russian Revolution in his welcoming address, that Bebel did not wish to speak of Russia. These words of Plekhanov were nothing more than crude jests uttered by a socialist deeply respected by liberals****—and one should never have taken them seriously, not even for a moment, [nor should one] even entertain the possibility that there might be even a trace of truth in those words. For my part, I can attest that during Bebel’s speech, van Kol, sitting beside me in the bureau of the right wing of the Socialists, was carefully watching to see whether Bebel would mention Russia. And as soon as Bebel finished speaking, van Kol…
* See the same “Calendar for All,” p. 173, as well as the collection “Zarnitsy” (Sdbs, 1907), where this article from Die Gleichheit was fully translated.
The phrase “basking in self‑satisfaction” was crossed out in pencil. Ed.
This paragraph was crossed out in pencil. Ed.
**** The words “a socialist deeply respected by liberals” were crossed out in pencil. Ed.

LENIN’S COLLECTION
turned to me, expressing his surprise; he had no doubt (as no serious member of the Congress had any doubt) that Bebel had forgotten Russia by accident. Even the best and most experienced orators make mistakes. To call Bebel’s lapse “typical” on the part of Comrade Voinov, in my view, is unjustified down to the last degree. Likewise, it is profoundly unjustified to speak in general terms of a “current” opportunist Bebel. There is simply no basis for such broad generalizations.

But to avoid misunderstandings, I will say here that if anyone were to try to use these expressions of Comrade Voinov against the revolutionary German Social Democrats, it would amount to a dishonest cherry-picking of isolated phrases. Comrade Voinov has already demonstrated, through his entire pamphlet, that he stands on the side of the German revolutionary Marxists (like Kautsky), that he works alongside them to overcome old prejudices, opportunistic stereotypes, and the shortsighted arrogance of self‑satisfaction. That is why, back in Stuttgart, I was in complete agreement with Comrade Voinov on all essential matters—and today, I remain in complete agreement with him in the very character of his revolutionary critique. He is right a thousand times over when he says that we must now learn not only from the Germans, but also from the Germans themselves. Only ignorant people—who have yet to learn anything from the Germans and do not yet know the basics—can draw from this a “division” within the revolutionary Social Democrats. We must criticize the errors of German leaders without fear and in the open, if we wish to remain true to the spirit of Marx and help Russian socialists* rise to the challenges of the modern workers’ movement. Bebel, no doubt, made mistakes in Essen when he defended Noske, when he championed the distinction between defensive and offensive warfare, when he attacked the “radicals’” methods of struggle against van Kol, when he denied (together with Singer) the failure and inadequacy of the German delegation’s tactics in Stuttgart.⁷ We must not hide these errors—but rather, using them as a lesson, remind the Russian Social Democrats that they must learn to avoid such mistakes, that they must meet the higher demands of revolutionary Marxism. And let the Russian anarchists and syndicalists, the liberals and Socialist-Revolutionaries, refrain from gloating over our critique of Bebel. To these gentlemen, we will say:
* “To help
Russian socialists” was corrected in ink by Lenin from “to educate Russian socialists.” Ed.

/ s L s ?
%
+^zo^r
L
· ^ jy *
?
 
^
 
х
/
f .
C ^ > .
Р ^ с %
^ ^ Ж
-* ь < ^ ‘еЯ ,
> r
a -z /> y >
L· ^ — / y ^ l ^ L y ^ ^ P y ? < ? , ώ?
^
f / y ^ * > r . - P