V. I. Lenin

Thecrisis, affecting our Party at the present time is due,
as
we have said more than once, to the instability of the petty- bourgeois
elements who joined the working-class movement during the revolution and who
have now gone over to the liquidationism of the Mensheviks on one flank and to
otzovism and ultimatumism on the other. Hence a fight on two flanks is an
essential task for defending correct revolutionary Social-Democratic tactics
and building the Party. And this fight is being waged steadfastly by the
Bolshevik fiction, which is thereby rallying and uniting all really Party,
really Marxist, Social-Democratic elements.

Inorder to wage the fight for the Party successfully—for th,e
Party emphatically condemned liquidationism at the December Conference
in i908 and equally emphatically dissociated itself from otzovism and
ultimatumism at the same Conference —one must have a, clear idea of the
situation in which this struggle within the Social-Democratic movement has
to be carried on. Golos Sotsial-Demokrata No. 16–17 and the new
semi-newspaper of the otzovists and ultimatumists, (the
8-page leaflet of Comrades Maximov and Lunacharsky: “To All Comrades”) merit attention primarily because they clearly depict this situation. Both Golos and
Maximov and Co. shield the liquidators. The identity of the methods used by
the liquidators of the Right and of the Left is strikingly obvious and
demonstrates the equal shakiness of the two positions.

Liquidationismis “a deliberately vague, maliciously indefinite catchword”, asserts a leading article in Golos .
Maximov asserts that Proletary magnifies and inflates practical differences of opinion with the ultimatumists until they become
differences in principle. Poor Golos ! So far it has been able to
lay the blame for all “malicious invention” on the Bolsheviks, i.e., on
its “factional opponents”. Now it is Plekhanov and the Bund that have
to. be charged with malicious invention (see No. 3 of Otkliki Bunda on liquidationism in the Bund). Is it Plekhanov and the Bundists
or is it Golos who “maliciously” prevaricates; which is more
likely to be true?

Weare not liquidators, Golos assures us, we merely interpret
membership of the Party differently; in Stockholm we adopted
Clause 1. of the Rules in the Bolshevik way , but there is no harm
in that; now, after Plekhanov’s charge of liquidationism against us, we
shall bring out Clause 1. and interpret all our notorious liquidationism as
being merely. a desire to extend the concept of the Party. The Party, you
see, is not merely the sum of the Party organisations (as we ourselves
conceded to the Bolsheviks in Stockholm ), but also all those who
work outside the Party organisations under the control and
leadership of the Party!

Whata magnificent subterfuge, what a brilliant invention: there is no
liquidationism—merely the old disputes over Clause 1! The only
unfortunate thing, dear Golos-ists, is that you thereby confirm
Plekhanov’s charge, for in fact , as every Party Social-Democrat
and every worker Social-Democrat will understand at once, you have dragged
out all the old rubbish about Clause 1. precisely in defence of
liquidationism (=replacement of the Party organisation by an “amorphous”
legal organisation: see the resolution of the December 1908
Conference). In fact , what you do Is to open the door to the
liquidators, however much you assure us in words that your
“desire” is to open the door for the Social-Democratic workers.

Exactlylike Maximov, who assures us that he is not a defender of
otzovism, that he only (only!) regards the question of participation in the
Duma as. “very, very disputable”. Clause 1 is disputable, participation
in the Duma is disputable—what has this to do. with “malicious”
inventions about otzovism and liquidationism?

Weare not liquidators, Golos assures us, we only find that
Plekhanov “successfully avoided the question of what is to be done if the structure of the Party unit hinders nothing more nor
less than its rebuilding”. In actual fact Plekhanov did not avoid this
question but answered it frankly and directly: he replied to the
Bolsheviks’ removal of the otzovists and ultimatumists by a call to observe
the Party principle and by condemning splitting and liquidationism. The
Party unit is a type of illegal Party organisation in which as a rule the
Bolsheviks predominate and the rebuilding of which (for participation in
the Duma, in legal associations, etc.) the otzovists have hindered . The pro-Party Mensheviks cannot reply to the Bolsheviks’
removal of the otzovists in any other way than that of Plekhanov.
Golos , however, prevaricates and in fact supports The liquidators, repeating in an illegal publication abroad the
liberals ’ slander about the conspiratorial character of the
Bolsheviks’ organisations, about the Bolsheviks’ unwillingness to form
broad workers’ organisations, to take part in congresses, and so forth
(for, by taking part In the new “opportunities”, the Party units
were thereby reconstructed for such participation and learned
reconstruction In practice). To say that the “ structure ” of the
Party unit hinders its reconstruction means in fact to advocate a
split, to justify the splitting actions of the liquidators against
the Party, which consists of the sum of the units built precisely in the
present way.

Weare not liquidators, not legalists, we merely assert in a “Party”
(according to its signboard!) “illegal” (but approved by Mme Kuskova)
publication that the structure of the Party unit (and of the sum of the
units, the Party) hinders the rebuilding of the Party. We are not
otzovists, not wreckers of the work of the Social-Democrats In the Duma, we
only assert (in 1909) that the question of participation in the Duma is
“very disputable” and that “Duma-ism” overshadows everything for our
Party. Which of these two types of liquidator does more harm to the Party?

Plekhanovresigned from The Social Movement , declaring that
Potresov had ceased to be a revolutionary. Potresov writes a letter to
Martov: why have I been insulted. I don’t know. Martov replies: I too
don’t know. The two editors make an “investigation” ( Golos ’ s expression!) of the causes of Plekhanov’s
dissatisfaction. The two editors write to the third editor, Maslov, but it turns out that Maslov, too, does not
know why Plekhanov resigned. They had worked for years with Plekhanov, they
had tried to correct Potresov’s article in accordance with Plekhanov’s directive and, when an accusation was made against them in print and
openly, they suddenly find themselves unable to understand what Plekhanov
is accusing Potresov of and they make an “investigation” of it! Prior to
this unfortunate occurrence they were such skilled, such experienced
literati—now they have become children who “don’t know” what kind of
spirit of repudiation of the revolution emanates from Cherevanin’s
articles, from Potresov, from the whole of The Social Movement . Roland-Holst noticed this spirit in Cherevanin—obviously,
also out of malice! But Cherevanin, while continuing together with Potresov to write in the same spirit, inserted somewhere a
reservation ... where is there any liquidationism here? The
Cadets=Vekhists with reservations. Cherevanin, Potresov and The Social Movement = repudiation of the revolution with reservations. Yes, yes,
what a deliberately vague, maliciously indefinite catchword
“liquidationism” is!

Butthe catchword “god-building” is just as deliberately vague and
maliciously indefinite, cry Maximov and Lunacharsky. Cherevanin can be
shielded by writing a reservation ; in what way is Lunacharsky
worse than Cherevanin and Potresov? And Lunacharsky together with Maximov
concoct a reservation . “Why do I reject this terminology?”—such is the heading of the main paragraph in Lunacharsky’s
article. Let us change inconvenient terms, we will not speak either of
religion or of god-building... one can speak rather of “culture”... just
try afterwards to make out what we are offering you in the shape of a new,
genuinely new and genuinely socialist, “culture”. The Party is so
importunate, so intolerant (Lunacharsky’s paragraph: On
“Intolerance”)—well, let us change the terminology, they are not
fighting against ideas, you see, but against “terminology”....

Andso, dear Golosists, are you not intending in No. 18–19 to announce
your rejection of terminology ... for instance, as regards liquidationism?
And so, editors of The Social Movement , are you not intending in
Volumes III-X to explain that “you have been misunderstood”,
that you have not called in question any “idea of hegemony”, that you do not
approve the slightest spirit of liquidationism... not the least bit!?

Onthe eve of the Duma elections (in September 1909) the St. Petersburg
otzovists and ultimatumists, who have long been spoiling all the work of the St. Petersburg Committee , secured the passage of a resolution
actually disrupting the elections. The workers raised a revolt in the name
of the Party and forced the Left liquidators to rescind this
stupid resolution. Maximov now prevaricates: the resolution, he says, was
“extremely mistaken” but the comrades “themselves rejected it”. “It is
quite clear,” writes Maximov, “this mistake had nothing to do with
ultimatumism as such.” What is clear, Comrade Maximov, is not this, but
your shielding of Left liquidationism, which is ruinous for the
Party. The Mensheviks of Vyborg District in St. Peters burg came out
against liquidationism (also, presumably, solely out of
malice?). Golos at first approved them (after
Proletary ). Now the Menshevik liquidator

G-g {1} comes forward in Golos No. 16–17, and—can you imagine?—he swears like a trooper at the Vyborg comrades, using the
most abusive language. In the Menshevik organ he abuses the Mensheviks
as being Bolsheviks ! The editors of Golos become modest,
very modest, innocent, very innocent, and wash their hands of the matter in
the Maximov fashion: “We shall not take upon ourselves the
responsibility” (p. 2, column 2 of the Supplement to No. 16–17), “it is
a question of fact”....

... Well,what wicked slanderers they are who invented the “legend”
(Martov’s expression in

Vorwärts {2} ) that Golos shields liquidationism, helps liquidationism! Is it not a slander to say that someone assists the
liquidators if in an illegal organ he ridicules the Duma work of the
central Committee, insinuating that this work has developed after the
majority of the Central Committee began to live abroad” (ibid.)—taking
advantage of the fact that it is impossible to refute these
insinuations, i.e., to tell the truth about the Duma work of the
illegal Central Committee....

Maximovasserts that the question of the possibility of Party
leadership of the Duma group is a very, very disputable one (after two
years’ experience). Golos asserts that this leadership by the Party amounts to empty words (“after the
majority of the members of the Central Committee began to live
abroad”). And both Maximov and the Golosists beat their breasts and
declare that only slanderers set afloat rumours about anti-Party
activity by the Right and Left liquidators.

Both Maximov and the Golosists explain the whole struggle with
liquidationism as due to “ousting” inclinations on the part of persons or
groups. This is the word, that Maximov uses, Golos indignantly
describes Plekhanov’s call for the general delimitation as “surgery”, the
method of “hair cutting, shaving and blood-letting”, the methods of
“Sobakevich-Lenin”, the methods of the “dare-devil”

P. {3} (P.=a Plekhanov-Menshevik, who was not afraid to tell the truth
openly about the liquidationism of the Cherevanins, Larins and
Potresovs). Proletary uses diplomatic language, Dirts with
Plekhanov (Maximov), Proletary fawns on Plekhanov ( Golos :
“ Proletary’s feuilletonist”, who is “obliging” in relation to
Plekhanov). You see: the Maximovites and the Golosists explain the new
splits and the new alignments in exactly the same way.

Letus leave such explanations to the toy manikins and get down to
business.

Liquidationismis a deep-seated social phenomenon, indissolubly
connected with the counter-revolutionary mood of the liberal bourgeoisie,
with disintegration and break up in the democratic petty bourgeoisie. The
liberals and petty-bourgeois democrats are trying in thousands of ways to
demoralise the revolutionary Social-Democratic Party, to undermine and
overthrow it, to clear the way for legal workers’ associations in which
they might achieve success. And in a time like this the liquidators are
ideologically and organisationally fighting against the most important
remainder of the revolution of yesterday, against the most important
bulwark of the revolution of tomorrow. The Golosists (from whom the Party
asks no more than an honest, straight fight, without reservations, against
the liquidators ) by their prevaricating are doing the liquidators a service . Menshevism is put in a difficulty by the
history of counter revolution: it must either fight liquidationism or
become its accomplice. Menshevism inside-out, i.e., otzovism and ultimatumism, also leads in fact to strengthening liquidationism: to
continue to “dispute” about Duma and legal activity, to try to preserve
the old organisation, not adapting it to the new historical period, to the
changed conditions, means in fact a policy of revolutionary
inaction and destruction of the illegal organisation.

The Bolsheviks are faced with the task of a fight on two flanks—a
“central” task (the essence of which has not been understood by Maximov,
who sees here only insincerity and diplomacy). It is impossible to preserve
and strengthen the illegal Social-Democratic organisation without
reconstructing it systematically, undeviatingly, step by step, for
coping successfully with the present difficult period, for
persistent work through the “strongpoints” of legal possibilities of
every kind.

Objectiveconditions have dictated this task to the Party. Who will
solve it? The same objective conditions have dictated a rapprochement of pro-Party members of all factions and sections of the Party, above
all a rapprochement between the Bolsheviks and the pro-Party Mensheviks,
and with the Mensheviks of the type of the Vyborg comrades in
St. Petersburg and the Plekhanovites abroad. The Bolsheviks for their part
have openly proclaimed the need for this rapprochement, and for it we issue
a call to all Mensheviks capable of openly combating liquidationism, of openly supporting Plekhanov, and, of course, to all
Menshevik workers above all. The rapprochement will occur rapidly and
extensively if an agreement with the Plekhanovites is possible: an
agreement on the basis of the struggle for the Party and the Party
principle against liquidationism, without any ideological compromises,
without any glossing over of tactical and other differences of opinion
within the limits of the Party line. Let all Bolsheviks, and
especially working-class Bolsheviks in the localities, do everything to
achieve such agreements.

Ifthe Plekhanovites prove too weak or unorganised, or do not want to
reach an agreement, then we shall advance towards the same goal by a longer
route, but in any case we shall advance towards it and we shall reach
it. Then the Bolshevik faction remains the sole builder of the Party, at
once and immediately, in the sphere of practical work (for Plekhanov’s help is only literary). We shall exert every effort to
promote this building, we shall be merciless to the contemptible
subterfuges and prevarications of the Golosists and Maximovites; at every
step in practical Party work we shall expose and brand before the
proletariat the anti-Party nature of both of them.

Theworking class has left the imprint of its proletarian,
revolutionary Social-Democratic tactics on the entire bourgeois revolution
in Russia. No efforts of the liberals, liquidators and accomplices of
liquidationism can do away with this fact. And the advanced workers will
build, and build to completion, the revolutionary Social-Democratic Party
together with those who want to help them in this matter,
against those who do not want to help them, or are incapable of
doing so.