STATEMENT TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE CENTRAL ORGAN («SOCIAL DEMOCRAT») Λ
[November 5–6, 1909. Paris–Brussels.]
We hereby inform the editorial board of the Central Organ that, just as Comrade Lenin has withdrawn his resolution (on intra-party organizational tactics), so too have Comrades Grigory and Kamenev withdrawn their resolution (on whether to publish Lenin’s article—or on the advisability of publishing it). In light of this development, Lenin is withdrawing his earlier declaration of resignation from the editorial board of the Central Organ. At the same time, we, the undersigned, hereby vote to regard the entire ((incident)), being one rooted in a misunderstanding, as null and void *\
Paris, November 5, 1909.
Grigory.
Yu. Kamenev.
Brussels, November 6, 1909. Lenin.
Brussels, November 6. A. Barsky.
1 This statement to the editorial board of “Social Democrat” effectively brings to a close the incident that had arisen within the editorial office over the rejection of Lenin’s article and resolution concerning the methods for strengthening the Party and securing its unity.

ON THE IDEOLOGICAL DISINTEGRATION AND DISCORD AMONG RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRATS
K
[Late November–early December, prior to November 11, 1909. Paris.]
The struggle against recallism and liquidationism—naturally occupying first place among the tasks facing those elements within our Party who were genuinely Marxist and [social]-[democratic]—must not, however, obscure from our view the deeper evil that, in essence, gave rise to both recallism and liquidationism—and, judging by all appearances, will yet give rise to many more tactical blunders. This evil is ideological disintegration and discord, which has been utterly captured by liberalism and is steadily making its way into our Party from every direction.
* The text of the document was written in the hand of G. Zinoviev; the signatures are, in fact, handwritten. Ed.
** Invalid. Ed.
*** The heading was added by the editorial staff. Ed.

Here is but one of the many illustrations of this widespread disarray. A comrade who had long been active in the Party—a veteran Iskra member and an old Bolshevik—had been kept away from participation in the movement by imprisonment and exile for a very long time, almost since the beginning of 1906. Only recently had he returned to work, whereupon he became acquainted with recallist–ultimatumist tendencies. He rejected them with indignation and outrage, seeing in them a grotesque perversion of revolutionary [social]-[democratic] tactics. After gaining a sense of the state of affairs in Odessa and St. Petersburg, this comrade arrived, among other things, at the following conclusion—or rather, at an “unformulated result” of his observations: … “It seems to me that the most difficult period has passed, and that what remains is the task of liquidating the remnants of an era of breakdown and disintegration.” Yet these remnants are far from insignificant.
“In all of the work in St. Petersburg,” we read in the same letter, “there is a palpable lack of a guiding, unified center; there is indiscipline, disorder, a complete absence of coordination between the various sections, a lack of unity and systematic planning in the work. Everyone works at their own risk and peril. Within the illegal organization, recallist tendencies are strong—they even capture those who oppose recallism…” (Evidently, here we are speaking of those Bolsheviks who, despite repeated and resolute appeals from ‘Proletariat,’ do not break with the recallists, do not wage a relentless struggle against them, but instead attempt to reconcile with them, vainly delaying the inevitable showdown and failing to secure any real renunciation from the recallist–ultimatumists of their absurd tactics)… “On this basis, a characteristic phenomenon is developing—one that has emerged quite independently, even in Odessa: revolutionary idleness. Wherever the spirit of recallism prevails, it becomes strikingly clear that the illegal organizations are accomplishing nothing. One or two propaganda circles, a struggle against legal possibilities—this is the entirety of the work. By and large, it assumes a highly disruptive character, as you can see from the extensive materials I sent you from Odessa”… (used in the article:*)… “As for legal opportunities, they are lacking in consistent [social]-[democratic] line. In the darkness of reaction, the opportunists of [social]-[democratic] politics have raised their voices and ‘dare’—knowing full well that such actions are no longer dangerous—to challenge the fundamental prin-
The manuscript then leaves a blank space for the title of the article*, left unfilled. Ed.

THE STRUGGLE ON TWO FRONTES

ciples of [social]-[democratic] politics. Here you will encounter a comprehensive reevaluation of revolutionary [social]-[democratic] politics, of its program and tactics—so thorough that, by comparison, Bernstein’s reevaluation will seem like a childish pastime, a mere child’s play. The R.S.D.R.P. does not understand Marx; it has produced a flawed analysis of the trends in Russia’s economic development. In Russia, there never existed a feudal serfdom; rather, there prevailed a system that was both serf-based and mercantile. There was never—and still is not—a contradiction between the interests of the bourgeoisie and those of the landed gentry; nor is there any alliance between them, for these two classes, invented by Russian [social]-[democratic] politics, in fact represent a single bourgeois class (this is a distinctive feature of Russia). Autocracy is, in essence, the organizational form of this very class. The weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie—upon which the slogan “dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry” was supposedly founded (??—the question marks belong to the author of the letter)—is entirely fabricated; moreover, this slogan was—and remains—a utopian one. It should be discarded along with the democratic republic, for the Russian train has now switched onto German rails…
It is clear that we are looking at a snapshot of one of the many tributaries flowing into that broad stream of ideological confusion which gives rise to recallism and liquidationism, often blending—and even bringing together—the postulates of extreme right-wing and extreme “left-wing” folly. The first half of these postulates (the supposed absence of contradiction between the bourgeoisie and serf-owning landholding, etc.) is so absurd and nonsensical that it is hardly worth taking seriously. There is no need to cry *
This passage represents the opening of a note that Lenin wrote for No. 50 of “Proletariat.” The article was undoubtedly completed and fully prepared for publication—but its concluding section has not survived. Later, Lenin apparently abandoned plans to print this note, instead turning to the larger essay “On Certain Sources of Contemporary Ideological Discord,” the first half of which he published in “Proletariat” No. 50, dated December 11 (November 28), 1909 (see Collected Works, Vol. XIV, p. 197). In the same issue of “Proletariat,” among the “Letters from St. Petersburg” (Letter III), there was also printed that letter from the “old Iskra member and old Bolshevik” which Lenin had originally intended to use in his present note. The letter was published under the signature “Tr.” It is possible that its author was S. I. Gusev (“Travin”).
* The manuscript ends abruptly here. Ed.

19th:
NOTES ON F. M. IONOVA’S ARTICLE *1.
[Late December 1909–early January, prior to January 6, 1910. Paris.]
1) p. 7, at the end, and p. 8, at the beginning: “complication” of life?
Incorrect: Rather, it is a matter of simplification—but on a changed foundation
[same as p. 11, at the end]. Delete this.
2) p. 8. “Apart from the recallists, no one proceeds from any particular solution to the question of the future revolutionary explosion.” Incorrect! Delete **.
3) p. 8, at the end: “It has no actual [political] significance.” Pure, trivial nonsense.
4) p. 9: “the multiplicity of political problems”
(Confusing! Delete.)
5) p. 10: “Thus, the former single, overarching task of abolishing absolutism is, as it were, broken down into a series of concrete political tasks.”
6) — likewise, p. 11, at the beginning, regarding the “breakdown” into a series of questions.
6) p. 11: “For a long time, one cannot respond in diverse ways.”
(An invalid argument.)
7) p. 11: “Has the revolution come to an end?”—the question has lost its sharpness [delete, because either this must be thoroughly explained—which the author fails to do—or there is no need to dwell on it at all.]
8) p. 12: a very vague and carelessly expressed argument,
which would be better off removed, for it almost suggests that, after the revolution, the [social]-[democratic] movement was farther from the working masses than it is today.
[The correct point should not be argued in this way. What ought to be said is that it was precisely the revolution that secured the masses of the [working] class to the [social]-[democratic] cause.]
* Printed from a manuscript that continues two points of commentary written by G. Zinoviev. Zinoviev’s text is written in ink, while Lenin’s is in pencil. Zinoviev’s text was incorporated by Lenin into the overall text of the numbered comments. In doing so, the two points of Zinoviev’s commentary written at the beginning of the manuscript were renumbered, becoming points 2 and 5. Here, the comments are arranged according to Lenin’s numbering. “Ionov” = F. M. Koygen. Ed.
These remarks by Lenin refer to the word “no one” that he had underlined in the excerpt from Popov’s article, as transcribed by Zinoviev. Ed.

THE STRUGGLE ON TWO FRONTES

9) p. 19: “They will speak of opportunism.” Dear Comrade Ionov, we will not accuse you of opportunism for that reason—not for that passage, but for other passages!!
10) p. 21 and following: “the resolutions” of the ME and BE* “fit closely together”
[Incorrect. Inaccurate. The author speaks worse than he thinks.]
11) pp. 33–34. Comrade Ionov! Do you not notice that you are quoting liquidationist positions—and in any case, leaving doors wide open for the liquidators, while presenting these positions as if they were party positions!
(the final sentence of p. 33 and the first two lines of p. 34).
12) Likewise, p. 34, in the middle. [Likewise, pp. 39–40.]
13) p. 35: “it is clear that, like the Becks and Meckis, they seek to consolidate.”
\ Incorrect! You’ve got everything mixed up, Comrade Ionov!]
14) p. 38, at the end. Ionov has fallen into a “misunderstanding.”
The first eight points should be directly suggested to Ionov for deletion, while the remaining six (Nos. 9–14) should merely be noted to him in a friendly manner, as part of a conversation with a colleague.
1 F. M. Ionov’s article, “Is Party Unity Possible?”, was intended for publication in the Central Organ (“Social Democrat”); in No. 10 of “Social Democrat,” dated January 6, 1910, a note from the editorial board (at the end of the issue) stated that the aforementioned article was postponed until the next issue. Based on this indication, the approximate date of the present document has been established. Ionov’s article was not published in “Social Democrat,” but in “Discussion Sheet,” No. 1, dated March 19, 1910. A comparison of the text of the published article with the present notes on it reveals that the author followed the editorial board’s (Lenin’s) suggestion and deleted nearly all of the passages marked in points 1–8 of the notes, while taking into account the remaining remarks (Nos. 9–14).
“Discussion Sheet,” a supplement to the Central Organ of the RSDLP (“Social Democrat”), began publication on March 19, 1910, pursuant to a resolution adopted at the January 1910 Plenum of the Central Committee. The editorial board of the “Sheet” included: G. Zinoviev—representing the Bolsheviks; Yu. Martov—representing the Mensheviks; Chernov (“Olgyn,” V. Fomin)—representing the Menshevik Party members; G. Aleksinsky—representing the Forwardists; A. Barsky—representing the Poles; F. Ionov—representing the Bundists; P. Berzin—representing the Latvians. A total of three issues were published; the last appeared on May 25 (May 12), 1911.
* Among the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. Ed.