Below, readers will find the text of the resolutions adopted at the last meeting of the expanded editorial board of *Pravda*. The composition of the meeting was as follows: 4 members of the editorial board of *Pravda*, 3 representatives of Bolsheviks working in local organizations—the Petersburg organization and the regional Moscow organization (central Russia) and the Ural organization—and 5 members of the Central Committee, all Bolsheviks.

The debates that unfolded at the meeting are, without question, of major significance for the whole party. They gave greater determinateness and, to a certain degree, completeness to that political line which the leading organ of the Bolshevik faction has been systematically pursuing of late and which among a certain section of comrades who regard themselves as Bolsheviks has of late provoked no small number of attacks. A necessary clarification took place at the meeting, at which the opposition was represented by two comrades.

In view of all this, the editorial board of *Pravda* will exert all efforts to prepare and publish as complete a protocol of the meeting as possible. In the present notice, however, we wish only to touch upon those points which, under a certain interpretation, may occasion—and are already occasioning among comrades abroad—misunderstandings. The extensive and sufficiently definitive resolutions of the meeting speak, in essence, for themselves; the protocol of the meeting will provide ample material for a comprehensive understanding of the resolutions as a whole. The task of the present notice is to provide explanations concerning principally the intra-factional significance of the adopted decisions and resolutions.

Let us begin with the resolution "On Recallism and Ultimatism."

As regards the part of the resolution directly aimed at recallism, it, in essence, encountered no major objections from the representatives of the opposition at the meeting. Both representatives of the latter acknowledged that recallism, insofar as it is taking shape as a definite trend, is increasingly departing from social-democracy, that certain representatives of recallism, in particular its recognized leader, comrade St., have even succeeded in acquiring "a certain anarchist tint." The persistent and systematic struggle against recallism as a trend was unanimously recognized at the meeting as necessary. The matter is different with ultimatism.

Both representatives of the opposition at the meeting called themselves ultimatists. And both of them, in a written statement submitted during the voting on the resolution, declared that they were ultimatists, that the resolution proposes to dissociate from ultimatism, that for them this would mean dissociating from themselves, and they could not sign on to this. Subsequently, when several other resolutions were adopted against the opposition's vote, the two representatives of the opposition declared in writing that they considered the resolutions of the meeting to be illegitimate, that in adopting them the meeting was proclaiming a split in the faction, that they would neither obey them nor implement them in practice. We shall dwell on this incident in greater detail in what follows, because it formally culminated in the secession of one of the opposition representatives, comrade Maksimov, from the expanded editorial board of *Pravda*. Here, however, we wish to approach it from another angle.

In evaluating ultimatism, as indeed also in evaluating that consistent ultimatism whose name is recallism, we must, unfortunately, deal not so much with writings as with oral tradition. Neither ultimatism nor recallism has heretofore received expression in any coherent "platform." And one is obliged to take ultimatism in its only concrete expression—in the demand to present an ultimatum to the social-democratic faction in the Duma to be strictly party-minded and obey all directives of party centers or renounce their deputy mandates. But it turns out that one cannot assert such a characterization of ultimatism to be wholly true and precise. And here is why. Comrade Marat, one of the two ultimatists participating in the meeting, declared that this characterization did not apply to him. He, comrade Marat, acknowledged that the activity of the social-democratic Duma faction has improved significantly of late and that he does not and never has intended to present it with an ultimatum now, immediately. He only holds that the party should pressure the Duma faction by all means, including the presentation to it of the ultimatum set forth above.

Coexistence within one faction with such ultimatists is, of course, possible. Such an ultimatist should reduce his ultimatism to nothing as the activity of the Duma faction improves. Such ultimatism does not exclude, but rather presupposes, the party's long-term work with the Duma faction and over the faction, protracted and stubborn work on the part of the party in the sense of skillfully utilizing Duma activity for the needs of agitation and organization. Once a clear tendency toward improvement in the faction's activity becomes apparent, then one must, consequently, continue to work persistently and insistently in the same direction. Ultimatism thereby will gradually lose its objective meaning. With respect to such ultimatist Bolsheviks, there can be no question of a split. With respect to them, the dissociation mentioned in the resolution "On Recallism and Ultimatism" and in the resolution "The Tasks of Bolsheviks in the Party" is scarcely even appropriate. Such ultimatism is simply an inflection in the posing and resolution of a particular practical question; there is no notable principled disagreement here.

Ultimatism, from which the resolution finds it necessary to dissociate Bolshevism as an ideological trend in the party, is a phenomenon of another kind. This ultimatism—and it undoubtedly exists—excludes the party's long-term work and that of its centers over the Duma faction, excludes the party's long-term, patient work among workers in the sense of skillfully utilizing the rich agitational material provided by the Third Duma. This ultimatism excludes positive, creative work by the party over the Duma faction. The only instrument of such ultimatism is its ultimatum, which the party should hold over the head of its Duma faction like the sword of Damocles, and which should replace for the RSDLP all that experience of genuinely revolutionary use of parliamentarism which Western European social-democracy accumulated at the cost of persistent, long-term learning. To dissociate such ultimatism from recallism is impossible. United by the common spirit of adventurism, they are inseparably bound together. And from both the one and the other equally must Bolshevism dissociate itself, as a revolutionary trend in Russian social-democracy.

But what do we understand, what did the meeting understand, by this "dissociation"? Are there any grounds whatever for asserting that the meeting proclaimed a split in the Bolshevik faction, as certain representatives of the opposition would have us believe? There are no such grounds. The meeting declared by its resolutions: trends are taking shape within the Bolshevik faction which contradict Bolshevism with its definite tactical physiognomy. Bolshevism is represented among us by the Bolshevik faction of the party. But a faction is not the party. A party may encompass an entire gamut of shadings, of which the extreme may even sharply contradict one another. In the German party, alongside the prominently revolutionary wing of Kautsky, we see the arch-revisionist wing of Bernstein. Such is not a faction. In the party, a faction is a group of like-minded individuals formed with the aim of influencing, above all, the party in a definite direction, with the aim of conducting one's principles within the party in as pure a form as possible. For this, genuine unanimity of thought is necessary. This distinction between the requirements we place on party unity and on faction unity must be understood by anyone wishing to clarify for himself the true state of the question of internal friction within the Bolshevik faction. The meeting did not proclaim a split in the faction. Those local workers would fall into a profound error who understood the resolutions of the meeting as a call to expel workers with recallist sentiments from organizations or, still less, to split organizations immediately where recallist elements exist. With the greatest firmness we caution local workers against such steps. Recallism, as a formed, independent trend, does not exist among the working masses. The attempts of recallists to define themselves, to follow through to the end fatally lead to syndicalism, to anarchism. Any consistent adherents of these latter trends exclude themselves from both the faction and the party. To refer to this those, perhaps extensive, groups of workers who are disposed toward recallism would be absurdity. Recallism of this sort is, principally, a product of ignorance regarding the activity of the Duma faction. The most suitable instrument for struggling with such recallism is broad and complete informing of workers about the activity of the faction, on the one hand, and providing workers with means to communicate with the faction and influence it, on the other. To undermine recallist sentiment in Petersburg to a significant degree, for instance, it would have sufficed to hold a series of conversations between comrade Duma deputies and Petersburg workers. All efforts should therefore be directed at avoiding organizational split with recallists. Any persistent and consistent ideological struggle against recallism and the syndicalism akin to it will soon render all talk of organizational split utterly idle, and in the worst case will lead to individual and group secessions of recallists from the Bolshevik faction and from the party.

This was precisely how things stood, in particular, at the meeting of the expanded editorial board of *Pravda*. Comrade Maksimov's ultimatism proved to be completely irreconcilable with the position of Bolshevism as formulated once more by the meeting. After the basic principled resolutions were adopted, he declared that he considered them illegitimate, despite the fact that they were adopted by ten votes to two, and some by ten to one (Maksimov) with one abstention (for example, the resolution "On Recallism and Ultimatism" as a whole). Then the meeting passed a resolution that it was lifting from itself all responsibility for all political steps taken by comrade Maksimov. The matter is clear: once comrade Maksimov decisively rejects all the principled resolutions adopted by such an overwhelming majority of the meeting, he must understand that between him and the meeting there is not that unanimity of thought which is an elementary condition for the existence of a faction within the party. But comrade Maksimov did not stop there: he decisively declared that not only did he not intend to implement these resolutions in practice, but would not obey them either. The meeting was obliged to lift from itself all responsibility for the political activity of comrade Maksimov, but in doing so it declared (see the statement of the Petersburg delegate M. T. and others), "that what is at issue here is not a split in the faction, but the secession of comrade Maksimov from the expanded editorial board of *Pravda*."[1]

We also find it necessary to draw all comrades' attention to the resolutions of the meeting: "The Tasks of Bolsheviks in the Party" and "On the Relation of Duma Activity to Other Branches of Party Work." It is important here to understand correctly the posing of the question of the "party line" of the Bolsheviks and of the attitude toward legal possibilities in general, toward the Duma tribune in particular.

Our immediate task is the preservation and strengthening of the RSDLP. In the very fulfillment of this great task there is one extremely important moment: this is the struggle against liquidationism of both kinds—liquidationism from the right and liquidationism from the left. Right liquidators say that the illegal RSDLP is not needed, that the center of gravity of social-democratic activity should be exclusively or almost exclusively legal possibilities. Left liquidators turn the matter on its head: legal possibilities do not exist for them in party activity, illegality at all costs—that is everything for them. Both the one and the other are liquidators of the RSDLP, roughly equally, because without a planned, purposeful combination of legal and illegal work, given the present situation imposed on us by history, any "preservation and strengthening of the RSDLP" is unthinkable. Right liquidationism rages, as is known, with particular force in the Menshevik faction, and in part in the Bund.[2] But of late among the Mensheviks there has been a remarkable phenomenon of a return to party-mindedness, which cannot but be welcomed: the "minority of the [Menshevik] faction,"[3] as the resolution of the meeting states, "having tested to its conclusion the path of liquidationism, is already raising its voice in protest against this path and is seeking anew a party foundation for its activity."[2]

What, then, are the tasks of the Bolsheviks with respect to this still small section of Mensheviks conducting a struggle against right liquidationism? The Bolsheviks must, without question, strive for rapprochement with this section of party members—with a Marxist and party-minded section. The question here is in no way one of liquidating our tactical disagreements with the Mensheviks. Against Menshevik departures from the line of revolutionary social-democracy we conduct and will continue to conduct the most decisive struggle. The question is in no way one of, needless to say, any dissolution of the Bolshevik faction in the party. In terms of conquering party positions for Bolshevism, very much has been done, but much work in this direction still lies ahead. The Bolshevik faction, as a definite ideological trend in the party, should continue to exist as before. But one thing must be firmly remembered: responsibility for the "preservation and strengthening" of the RSDLP, of which the resolution speaks, now rests principally, if not exclusively, on the Bolshevik faction. All, or nearly all, of the existing party work—especially at the local level—is now borne by the Bolsheviks. And on them, as firm and consistent defenders of party-mindedness, now rests the task of great importance—to attract to the work of party-building all suitable elements for it. And at this present heavy moment it would be truly a crime on our part not to extend a hand to party-minded comrades from other factions who are coming out in defense of Marxism and party-mindedness—against liquidationism.

This position was recognized by the vast majority of the meeting and including all representatives of Bolsheviks from local organizations. The opposition wavered, not daring to take a definite position either for or against us. But, nevertheless, precisely for this line did comrade Maksimov reproach the meeting with "betrayal of Bolshevism," with going over to the Menshevik point of view, and so forth. We replied to this with one thing: state this more quickly openly in print, before the face of the whole party and the whole Bolshevik faction, then we shall have the opportunity once more to expose the true meaning of your "revolutionism," the true character of your "defense" of Bolshevism.

We propose that comrades direct their attention to the resolution of the meeting "On the Relation to Duma Activity, etc." We have already indicated above the close connection of the question of "legal possibilities" with liquidationism of various kinds. The struggle against left liquidationism is now just as obligatory as the struggle against right liquidationism. Parliamentary cretinism, for which the entire party organization must be reduced to grouping workers around "legal possibilities," in particular around Duma activity, is just as deeply repugnant to revolutionary social-democracy as recallism with its misunderstanding of the significance of legal possibilities for the party, in the interests of the party. In the resolutions of the meeting, the utilization of legal possibilities for the party is recognized as a matter of enormous importance. But nowhere in these resolutions are legal possibilities and their utilization examined as an end unto themselves. Everywhere they are placed in close connection with the tasks and methods of illegal activity. And this connection deserves special attention at the present time. Certain practical directions on this score are given in the resolution itself. But these are only directions. Generally speaking, the question should now be not so much about the precise place of "legal possibilities" among other branches of party work, but about how to utilize the existing "legal possibilities" to the greatest advantage for the party. During long years of underground work in the party, enormous experience has accumulated regarding illegal work. One cannot say the same of the other area—the utilization of legal possibilities. Here the party, in particular the Bolsheviks, has done insufficiently. To the utilization of this area one should direct more attention, initiative, and effort than has been done heretofore. The utilization of legal possibilities must be learned and learned as persistently as we have learned and are learning the methods of illegal activity. To this very work of persistently utilizing legal possibilities for the benefit of the party, the meeting calls all to whom the interests of the RSDLP are dear.

Our attitude toward illegal party work remains and must, of course, remain unchanged. The preservation and strengthening of the RSDLP is the basic task to which everything must be subordinated. Only by achieving this strengthening shall we be able to utilize to the interests of the party those same legal possibilities. The most intense attention must be directed to those worker groups that are forming in the industrial centers and into whose hands the general direction of party work must pass—and gradually is passing. All our efforts in all areas of our activity must be directed toward creating from these groups genuine party social-democratic cadres. Only on this foundation does the preservation and strengthening of the RSDLP become truly possible.