Date: 1909
Source: ru:PSS/v19

Comrades Maximov and Nikolaev have issued a special leaflet entitled "Report to the Bolshevik Comrades of the Removed Members of the Expanded Editorial Board of 'Proletary'." Our removed ones bitterly complain to the public about the grievances inflicted upon them by the editorial board and how it removed them.

To show the party of the working class what sort of people these bitterly complaining removed ones are, let us first consider the principled content of the leaflet. From No. 46 of "Proletary" and from the appendix to this issue, readers know that the Conference of the Expanded Editorial Board of "Proletary" recognized Comrade Maximov as one of the organizers of a new faction in our party – a faction with which Bolshevism has nothing in common – and disclaimed "all responsibility for all political steps of Comrade Maximov." From the resolutions of the Conference, it is clear that the basis of the disagreement with the new faction that has broken away from the Bolsheviks (or rather: with Maximov and his friends who have broken away) is, firstly, recallism and ultimatumism; secondly, god-building. Three detailed resolutions set out the view of the Bolshevik faction on both currents.

What do the bitterly complaining removed ones answer now?

I

Let's start with recallism. The removed ones sum up the parliamentary or Duma experience of the past years, justify the boycott of the Bulygin and Witte Dumas, as well as participation in the Second Duma, and continue:

"...With acute and increasing reaction, all this changes again. The party cannot then conduct a large and bright election campaign, cannot obtain parliamentary representation worthy of itself..."

The very first phrase of independent reasoning, not copied from old Bolshevik publications – and before us is the whole bottomless abyss of recallist political lack of thought. Well, think about it, dearest ones, can the party, with acute and increasing reaction, conduct a "large and bright" organization of "instructor groups and schools" for militants, which you talk about on the same page, in the same column of your work? Think about it, dearest ones, can the party obtain "representation worthy of itself" in such schools? If you could think and were at least somewhat capable of reasoning politically, oh, unfairly removed ones, you would notice that you are producing the greatest absurdity. Instead of thinking politically, you cling to a "bright" sign and from this you find yourselves in the position of party simpletons. You chatter about "instructor schools" and about "strengthening (!) propaganda in the troops" (ibid.), because you, like all political undergrowths from the camp of recallists and ultimatumists, consider this kind of activity especially "bright," but you are unable to think about the conditions for the actual (and not verbal) application of these forms of activity. You have learned fragments of Bolshevik words and slogans, but you have understood absolutely nothing in them. "With acute and increasing reaction," all work is difficult for the party, but no matter how great the difficulties, it is still possible to achieve worthy parliamentary representation. This is proven, for example, by the experience of German Social Democracy in the era of "acute and increasing reaction," at least during the time of the introduction of the Exceptional Law{43}. By denying this possibility, Maximov and Co. only reveal their complete political ignorance. To recommend "instructor schools" and "strengthening propaganda in the troops" "with acute and increasing reaction" – and at the same time deny the possibility for the party to have worthy parliamentary representation – means speaking obvious inconsistencies, worthy of being placed in a collection of logical absurdities for students in the lower grades of gymnasium. Both instructor schools and strengthening propaganda in the troops presuppose the obligatory violation of old laws, breaking through them – whereas parliamentary activity does not necessarily and, in any case, immeasurably less often presuppose breaking through old laws by a new social force. Now think, dear ones, when is it easier to break through old laws: with acute and increasing reaction or with an upsurge of the movement? Think, oh, unfairly removed ones, and be ashamed of the nonsense you speak, defending the recallists who are dear to your hearts.

Further. What kind of activity presupposes a greater scope of energy of the masses, a greater influence of the masses on direct political life – parliamentary activity according to the law created by the old power, or military propaganda, undermining directly and immediately the instruments of the material force of this power? Think, dear ones, and you will see that parliamentary activity lags behind in this respect. And what follows from this? And from this it follows that the stronger the direct movement of the masses, the greater the scope of their energy, in other words: the more one can speak of an "acute and increasing" revolutionary onslaught of the people, and not of an "acute and increasing reaction" – the more possible, the more inevitable, the more successful propaganda in the troops and combat actions will become, actually connected with the mass movement, and not reduced to the adventurism of rabid militants. Precisely therefore, oh, unfairly removed ones, Bolshevism was able to put forward both combat activity and propaganda in the troops especially strongly during the period of "acute and increasing" revolutionary upsurge; – precisely therefore Bolshevism was able to carry out (starting in 1907) and finally carried out by 1909 the separation of its faction from that militantism which "with acute and increasing reaction" was reduced, inevitably reduced, to adventurism.

With our heroes, who have learned fragments of Bolshevik words, everything turns out the other way around: the highest forms of struggle, which have never and nowhere in the world succeeded without the direct onslaught of the masses, are recommended in the first place as "possible" in an era of acute reaction – and the lower forms of struggle, presupposing not so much the direct breakthrough of the law by the struggle of the masses, as the use of the law for propaganda and agitation, preparing the consciousness of the masses for struggle, are declared "impossible"!!

Recallists and their "removed" underlings have heard and learned that Bolshevism considers the direct struggle of the masses, involving even the troops in the movement (i.e., the most hardened part of the population, the least mobile, the most protected from propaganda, etc.) and turning combat actions into the actual beginning of an uprising – a higher form of movement, and parliamentary activity without the direct movement of the masses – a lower form of movement. Recallists and their underlings, like Maximov, have heard and learned this, but have not understood it, and therefore have disgraced themselves. The higher – means "bright," thinks the recallist and Comrade Maximov – well, I'll shout "brighter": it will probably be the most revolutionary of all, and figuring out what's what is from the evil one!

Listen further to Maximov's reasoning (we continue the quote at the interrupted place):

"...The mechanical force of reaction breaks the connection of the already established party faction with the masses and greatly hinders the party's influence on it, and this leads to the inability of such representation to conduct sufficiently broad and deep organizational and propaganda work in the interests of the party. With the weakening of the party itself, the danger of degeneration of the faction, its deviation from the main path of Social Democracy, is not even excluded..."

Isn't it true, how incomparably sweet this is? When it comes to lower, legal forms of struggle, then they begin to frighten us: "the mechanical force of reaction," "the inability to conduct sufficiently broad work," "the danger of degeneration." And when it comes to higher forms of class struggle, breaking through the old laws, then the "mechanical force of reaction" disappears, there is no "inability" to conduct "sufficiently broad" work in the troops, there can be no talk of any "danger of degeneration" of instructor groups and schools, if you please!

This is the best justification for the editorial board of "Proletary" as to why it had to remove political figures who carry such ideas to the masses.

Take note, oh, unfairly removed ones: when there are indeed conditions of acute and increasing reaction, when the mechanical force of this reaction actually breaks the connection with the masses, hinders sufficiently broad work, and weakens the party, it is precisely then that the specific task of the party becomes mastering the parliamentary weapon of struggle; and this is not because, oh, unfairly removed ones, that parliamentary struggle is higher than other forms of struggle; no, it is precisely because it is lower than them, lower, for example, than such a struggle that draws even the army into the mass movement, that creates mass strikes, uprisings, etc. In what way can mastering a lower form of struggle become the specific (i.e., distinguishing this moment from other moments) task of the party? And in such a way that the stronger the mechanical force of reaction and the more weakened the connection with the masses, the more the task of preparing the consciousness of the masses is put on the agenda (and not the task of direct action), the more the use of the paths of propaganda and agitation created by the old power is put on the agenda (and not the direct onslaught of the masses against this old power itself).

II

For every Marxist who has at least somewhat thought about the worldview of Marx and Engels, for every Social Democrat who is at least somewhat familiar with the history of the international socialist movement, this transformation of one of the lower forms of struggle into a specific instrument of struggle of a particular historical moment represents absolutely nothing surprising. Anarchists have absolutely and never been able to understand this simple thing. Now our recallists and their removed underlings are trying to transfer the methods of thinking of anarchism into the Russian Social Democratic environment, shouting (like Maximov and Co.) that "Proletary" is dominated by the theory of "parliamentarism at all costs."

To explain to what extent these cries of Maximov and Co. are unintelligent and unsocial-democratic, one has to start again from the basics. Think, oh, unfairly removed ones, what constitutes the specific difference between the politics and tactics of German Social Democracy compared to the socialist workers' parties of other countries? The use of parliamentarism; the transformation of bourgeois-Junker (in Russian, approximately: Octobrist-Black Hundred) parliamentarism into an instrument of socialist education and organization of the working masses. Does this mean that parliamentarism is the highest form of struggle of the socialist proletariat? Anarchists all over the world think that it means. Does this mean that German Social Democrats stand on the point of view of parliamentarism at all costs? Anarchists all over the world think that it means, and therefore they have no enemy more hateful than German Social Democracy, no target more beloved than the German Social Democrats. And in Russia, when our Social Revolutionaries begin to flirt with anarchists and advertise their "revolutionism," they necessarily try to pull out certain real or imaginary mistakes of the German Social Democrats and draw conclusions from this against Social Democracy.

Now let's go further. What is the error of the anarchists' reasoning? In the fact that they, in view of fundamentally incorrect ideas about the course of social development, are unable to take into account the peculiarities of the concrete political (and economic) situation in different countries, which determine the specific significance for a certain period of time of one or another means of struggle. In fact, German Social Democracy not only does not stand on the point of view of parliamentarism at all costs, not only does not subordinate everything to parliamentarism, but on the contrary: it is precisely it that has best of all in the international army of the proletariat deployed such extra-parliamentary instruments of struggle as the socialist press, as trade unions, as the systematic use of public meetings, as the education of youth in the socialist spirit, etc., etc.

What is the essence here? In the fact that the totality of a number of historical conditions has made parliamentarism for Germany of a certain period a specific instrument of struggle, not the main, not the highest, not the large, not the essential compared to others, but precisely the specific, the most characteristic compared to other countries. The ability to use parliamentarism therefore turned out to be a symptom (not a condition, but a symptom) of the exemplary setting of the entire socialist cause, in all its ramifications listed above.

Let's move from Germany to Russia. Those who would think of completely equating the conditions of one or another country would fall into a number of major errors. But try to pose the question as a Marxist must necessarily pose it: what is the specific feature of the politics and tactics of Russian Social Democrats at this moment? We must preserve and strengthen the illegal party – as before the revolution. We must steadily prepare the masses for a new revolutionary crisis – as in 1897-1903. We must strengthen the party's connection with the masses in every possible way, develop and use all kinds of workers' organizations for the purposes of socialism – as always and everywhere all Social Democratic parties do. The specific feature of the moment is precisely the attempt (and unsuccessful attempt) of the old autocracy to solve new historical tasks with the help of the Octobrist-Black Hundred Duma. Therefore, the specific task of tactics for Social Democrats is to use this Duma for their own purposes, for the purposes of spreading the ideas of revolution and the ideas of socialism. The point is not that this specific task is especially high, that it opens up broad prospects, that it equals or at least approaches in its significance those tasks that arose before the proletariat, for example, in 1905-1906. No. The point is that this is a feature of the tactics of today's moment, its difference from the period that has passed and from the period to come (for this coming period will probably bring us specific tasks that are more complex, higher, more interesting than the task of using the Third Duma). It is impossible to master the modern moment, it is impossible to solve the entire set of tasks that it poses to the Social Democratic party, without solving this specific task of the moment, without turning the Black Hundred-Octobrist Duma into an instrument of Social Democratic agitation.

Recallist windbags chatter, for example, following the Bolsheviks, about taking into account the experience of the revolution. But they do not understand what they are saying. They do not understand that taking into account the experience of the revolution includes defending the ideals and tasks and methods of the revolution from within the Duma. To fail to defend these ideals, tasks, and methods from within the Duma, through our party workers who can pass and who have passed into this Duma, means failing to take the first step in the matter of politically taking into account the experience of the revolution (for we are talking here, of course, not about taking into account theoretical experience, in books and in research). Our task is by no means and in no case exhausted by this first step. Steps two and three will be incomparably more important than the first step, i.e., the transformation of the experience already taken into account by the masses into ideological baggage for new historical action. But if these very recallist windbags themselves talk about the "inter-revolutionary" era, then they should have understood (if they could think, could reason in a Social Democratic way) that "inter-revolutionary" precisely means putting elementary, preliminary tasks on the agenda. "Inter-revolutionary" is a characteristic of an unstable, indefinite situation, when the old power, convinced of the impossibility of ruling with the help of only the old instruments, tries to use a new instrument in the general environment of the old order. This is an internally contradictory, impossible attempt, on which the autocracy is again going, inevitably going to collapse, again leading us to a repetition of the glorious era and the glorious battles of 1905. But it is going not as it went in 1897-1903, leading the people to revolution not as it led before 1905. This "not so" must be understood; one must be able to modify one's tactics, adding to all the basic, universal, primary, and most important tasks of revolutionary Social Democracy one more, not very large, but specific task of this moment, of the new moment: the task of the revolutionary-Social Democratic use of the Black Hundred Duma.

Like any new task, this task seems more difficult than others, for it requires from people not a simple repetition of learned slogans (the recallists and Maximov do not have enough intelligence beyond this repetition), but some initiative, flexibility of mind, ingenuity, independent work on an original historical task. But in fact, this task can seem especially difficult only to people who are unable to think independently and work independently: in fact, this task, like any specific task of the moment, is easier than others, for its resolvability lies precisely in the conditions of this moment. In the era of "acute and increasing reaction," it is impossible to solve the task of a truly serious setting of "instructor schools and groups," i.e., such a setting in which they would be actually connected with the mass movement, actually subordinated to it, for the task is posed stupidly, posed by people who have copied the formulation of this task from a good brochure, taking into account the conditions of another moment. But it is possible to solve the task of subordinating the mass party and the interests of the masses to the speeches, performances, and policies of Social Democrats in the Third Duma. Not easy, if one considers the repetition of what has been learned to be an "easy" matter, but feasible. No matter how much we strain all the forces of the party now, we cannot solve the task of the Social Democratic (and not anarchist) setting of "instructor schools" at this "inter-revolutionary" moment, for completely different historical conditions are needed for the resolvability of this task. On the contrary, straining all our forces, we will solve (and we are already beginning to solve) the task of the revolutionary-Social Democratic use of the Third Duma – we will solve it not in order, oh, offended by the removal and offended by God recallists and ultimatumists! – to erect parliamentarism on some high pedestal, to proclaim "parliamentarism at all costs," but in order, after solving the "inter-revolutionary" task corresponding to today's "inter-revolutionary" moment, to move on to solving higher revolutionary tasks that will correspond to tomorrow's, higher, i.e., more revolutionary moment.

III

Especially curious are these silly cries of Maximov and Co. about "parliamentarism at all costs" among the Bolsheviks from the point of view of the actual history of recallism. It is curious that it was precisely those people who created and are creating a special trend exclusively on the question of their attitude to parliamentarism who shouted about the exaggeration of parliamentarism! What do you call yourselves, dearest Maximov and Co.? You call yourselves "recallists," "ultimatumists," "boycottists." Maximov still cannot admire himself as a boycottist of the Third Duma, and always accompanies his rare party speeches with the signature: "reporter of the boycottists at the July conference of 1907"{44}. One writer used to sign: "actual state councilor and cavalier." Maximov signs: "reporter of the boycottists" – he's also a cavalier!

In that political situation in June 1907, when Maximov defended the boycott, the mistake was still very, very small. But when in July 1909, speaking with a kind of manifesto, Maximov continues to admire his "boycottism" in relation to the Third Duma, then this is already completely stupid. Both boycottism, and recallism, and ultimatumism – these very expressions alone mean the creation of a trend from the question of the attitude to parliamentarism and only from this question. And to single oneself out on this question, to continue (two years after the matter was decided in principle by the party!) to single oneself out on this question is a sign of boundless narrow-mindedness. It is precisely those who act in this way, i.e., both the "boycottists" (of 1909), and the recallists, and the ultimatumists, thereby prove that they do not think in a Social Democratic way, that they erect parliamentarism on a special pedestal, that they create a trend from individual recipes completely analogous to the anarchists: to boycott such and such a Duma, to recall from such and such a Duma, to put an ultimatum to such and such a faction in the Duma. To act in this way means to be a caricatured Bolshevik. Among the Bolsheviks, the trend is determined by their general view of the Russian revolution, and the Bolsheviks have emphasized a thousand times (as if warning political undergrowths in advance) that to identify Bolshevism with boycottism or with militantism is a ridiculous distortion and vulgarization of the views of revolutionary Social Democracy. Our view on the obligatory participation of Social Democrats in the Third Duma, for example, follows with inevitability from our view on the modern moment, on the attempts of the autocracy to take a step forward along the path of creating a bourgeois monarchy, on the significance of the Duma as an organization of counter-revolutionary classes in a representative institution of a national scale. Just as anarchists reveal parliamentary cretinism inside out when they single out the question of parliament from the entire integral question of bourgeois society in general and try to create a trend from cries directed against bourgeois parliamentarism (although the criticism of bourgeois parliamentarism in principle is homogeneous with the criticism of the bourgeois press, bourgeois syndicalism, etc.) – so our recallists-ultimatumists-boycottists reveal completely the same Menshevism inside out when they single themselves out into a trend on the question of the attitude to the Duma, on the question of the means of combating deviations of the Social Democratic Duma faction (and not with deviations of bourgeois writers who fleetingly run into Social Democracy, etc.).

This parliamentary cretinism inside out reached the Pillars of Hercules in the famous reasoning of the leader of the Moscow recallists, covered by Maximov: the recall of the faction should emphasize that the revolution is not buried!{45} And Maximov, with a clear brow, does not hesitate to declare publicly: "recallists have never (oh, of course, never!) expressed themselves in the sense of anti-parliamentarism in general."

This covering up of the recallists by Maximov and Co. is one of the most characteristic features in the physiognomy of the new faction, and we must dwell on this feature in all the more detail because the uninformed public especially often falls for the bait of the bitterly complaining removed ones here. The covering up, firstly, consists in the fact that Maximov and Co. tirelessly declare, beating themselves on the chest: we are not recallists, we do not share the opinions of the recallists at all! Secondly, Maximov and Co. accuse the Bolsheviks of exaggerating the struggle against the recallists. The story with the attitude of the Economists (in 1897-1901) to the Rabochemyslentsy{46} is repeated exactly. We are not "Economists," exclaimed the Economists, beating themselves on the chest, we do not share the views of "Rabochaya Mysl," we argue with it (in exactly the same way as Maximov "argued" with the recallists!), it is only the evil Iskrists who have slandered us, slandered us, "inflated" "Economism," etc., etc., etc. Therefore, among the Rabochemyslentsy – open and honest "Economists" – there were not a few people who were sincerely mistaken, not afraid to defend their opinion, and who could not be denied respect – and the foreign company of "Rabocheye Delo" was dominated by specific intrigue, covering up tracks, playing hide-and-seek, deceiving the public. The attitude of consistent and open recallists (like Vsev. and Stan., known to party circles) to Maximov's foreign company is exactly the same.

We are not recallists, cries this company. But force any of them to say a couple of words about the modern political situation and the tasks of the party, and you will hear all the recallist reasoning in its entirety, slightly diluted (as we saw with Maximov) with the water of Jesuit reservations, additions, silences, mitigations, confusions, etc. This Jesuitism does not absolve you, oh, unfairly removed ones, from the accusation of recallist lack of thought, but increases your guilt tenfold, for hidden ideological confusion corrupts the proletariat a hundred times more, harms the party a hundred times more[10].

We are not recallists, cries Maximov and Co. Meanwhile, since June 1908, having left the narrow editorial board of "Proletary," Maximov formed an official opposition within the collegium, demanded and received freedom of discussion for this opposition, demanded and received special representation for the opposition in the most important executive bodies associated with the distribution of the newspaper, organization. It goes without saying that, starting from the same time, i.e., for more than a year, all the recallists have always been in the ranks of this opposition, jointly organizing the Russian agency, jointly setting up a foreign school for the purposes of the agency (more on it below), etc., etc.

We are not recallists, cries Maximov and Co. Meanwhile, at the All-Russian Party Conference in December 1908, when the more honest recallists from this opposition separated before the entire party into a special group, into a special ideological trend, and received as such the right to put forward their speaker (at the conference it was decided that only special ideological trends or special organizations could put forward – due to the shortness of time – a special speaker), then the speaker from the recallist faction turned out to be – for purely accidental reasons! for completely accidental reasons! – Comrade Maximov...

This deception of the party by concealing recallism is carried out systematically by Maximov's foreign group. In May 1908, recallism suffered a defeat in open struggle: it was defeated by 18 votes against 14 by the citywide conference in Moscow (in this area in July 1907, almost all Social Democrats without exception were boycottists, who, however, unlike Maximov, had already understood by June 1908 that insisting on the "boycott" of the Third Duma would be an unforgivable stupidity). After this, Comrade Maximov abroad organizes a formal opposition to "Proletary" and begins a discussion on the pages of the Bolshevik periodical organ that had never been practiced before. And so, when in the autumn of 1908, during the elections to the All-Russian Conference, the entire St. Petersburg organization is divided into recallists and non-recallists (the expression of the workers), when discussions are held in all districts and sub-districts of St. Petersburg on the platform not of the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, but of the recallists and non-recallists, the platform of the recallists is hidden from the eyes of the public. It is not reported to "Proletary." It is not allowed into the press. At the All-Russian Conference in December 1908, it is not reported to the party. Only after the conference, at the insistent demands of the editorial board, was this platform delivered to us and printed by us in No. 44 of "Proletary" ("Resolution of the St. Petersburg Recallists").

In the Moscow region, the leader of the recallists, known to everyone, "edited" the article of a worker recallist placed in No. 5 of "Rabocheye Znamya"{47}, but we have not yet received the leader's own platform. We know perfectly well that as early as the spring of 1909, when preparations were underway for the regional conference of the Central Industrial Region, the leader's platform was read and circulated. We know from reports of the Bolsheviks that there were incomparably more pearls of unsocial-democratic reasoning in this platform than in the St. Petersburg one. But the text of the platform was never delivered to us – probably, also for such accidental, completely accidental reasons, for which Maximov spoke at the conference, authorized by the recallist faction.

Maximov and Co. also covered up the question of using legal opportunities with a "smooth" phrase that this is "self-evident." It would be interesting to know whether this is "self-evident" now also for the practical leaders of the Maximov faction, Comrades Lyadov and Stanislav, who three months ago passed in the Regional Bureau of the Central Industrial Region, which was then in their hands (the very composition of the Regional Bureau that approved the notorious "school"; the composition of the Regional Bureau has now changed) a resolution against the participation of Social Democrats in the congress of factory doctors. As is known, this was the first congress at which revolutionary Social Democrats were in the majority. And all the most prominent recallists and ultimatumists agitated against participation in this congress, declaring participation in it a "betrayal of the cause of the proletariat." And Maximov covers up the tracks – "self-evident." "Self-evident" that more frank recallists and ultimatumists openly undermine practical work in Russia, and Maximov and Co., who are kept awake by the laurels of Krichevsky and Martynov, gloss over the essence of the matter: there are no disagreements, there are no opponents of the use of legal opportunities.

The restoration of foreign party bodies, foreign groups for organizing relations, etc., inevitably leads to a repetition of the old abuses, which must be fought in the most merciless way. The story with the "Economists" is repeated in its entirety, who in Russia conducted agitation against political struggle, and abroad were covered by "Rabocheye Delo." The story with the bourgeois-democratic "credo" (credo = symbol of faith) is repeated in its entirety, which was propagated in Russia by Prokopovich and Co. and which, against the will of the authors, was announced in the press by revolutionary Social Democrats{48}. There is nothing more corrupting to the party than this game of hide-and-seek, than this use of the difficult conditions of illegal work against party publicity, than this Jesuitism, when Maximov and Co., acting entirely and in everything hand in hand with the recallists, beat themselves on the chest in print, assuring that all this recallism is deliberately inflated by "Proletary."

We are not pettifoggers, not formalists, but people of revolutionary work. We are not interested in verbal differences, which can be established between recallism, ultimatumism, "boycottism" (of the Third Duma). We are interested in the actual content of Social Democratic propaganda and agitation. And if, under the guise of Bolshevism, views are preached in illegal Russian circles that have nothing in common either with Bolshevism or with Social Democratism in general, then people who hinder the full exposure of these views, the full explanation of their erroneousness before the entire party, such people act as enemies of the proletariat.

IV

In the question of god-building, these people also showed themselves. The expanded editorial board of "Proletary" adopted and published two resolutions on this issue: one on the merits of the case, the other specifically regarding Maximov's protest. The question is, what does this Maximov say now in his "Report"? He writes the "Report" in order to cover up the tracks – completely in the spirit of that diplomat who said that language is given to man in order to hide his thoughts{49}. Some "incorrect information" is being spread about the "allegedly god-building" trend of Maximov's company, that's all.

"Incorrect information," you say? Oh no, dearest, you were covering up the tracks here precisely because you know perfectly well the complete accuracy of the "information" regarding god-building that "Proletary" has. You know perfectly well that this "information," as stated in the announced resolution, relates primarily to literary works emanating from your literary company. These literary works are indicated with complete accuracy in our resolution; only it was not added in it – it could not have been added in the resolution – that for about a year and a half the strongest dissatisfaction with the "god-building" of your comrades has been expressed among the leading circles of the Bolsheviks and that it was precisely on this basis (in addition to the basis indicated above) that the new faction of caricatured Bolsheviks poisoned us with every opportunity to work with evasions, tricks, quibbles, claims, and slanders. One of the most remarkable of these slanders is especially well known to Maximov, for it is a protest written and formally submitted to the editorial board of "Proletary" against the placement of the article "Not on the Way" (No. 42 of "Proletary"). Maybe this is also "incorrect information," oh, unfairly removed one? Maybe this was also an "allegedly protest"?

No, you know, the policy of covering up tracks does not always succeed, and in our party it will never succeed for you. There is no need to play hide-and-seek and try to make a secret of what is known to everyone interested in Russian literature and Russian Social Democracy. There is a literary company that floods our legal literature with the help of several bourgeois publishing houses with the systematic preaching of god-building. Maximov also belongs to this company. This preaching has become systematic precisely over the past year and a half, when the Russian bourgeoisie in its counter-revolutionary goals needed to revive religion, to increase the demand for religion, to compose religion, to instill in the people or to strengthen religion in the people in a new way. The preaching of god-building has therefore acquired a social, political character. Just as during the revolution the bourgeois press kissed and kissed the most zealous Mensheviks for their Cadet-loving, so in the period of counter-revolution the bourgeois press kisses and kisses the god-builders from among – a joke to say! – from among the Marxists and even from among the "also Bolsheviks." And when the official organ of Bolshevism in an editorial article stated that Bolshevism is not on the way with such preaching (this statement in the press was made after the failure of countless attempts by letters and personal conversations to induce the cessation of the shameful preaching), then Comrade Maximov submitted a formal written protest to the editorial board of "Proletary." He, Maximov, was elected by the London Congress{50}, and therefore his "acquired right" is violated by those who dared to officially renounce the shameful preaching of god-building. "Is our faction in captivity, or what, to the god-building writers!" This remark escaped during a stormy scene in the editorial board from Comrade Marat – yes, yes, from that very Comrade Marat, who is so modest, benevolent, conciliatory, kind-hearted that he still cannot properly decide whether to go with the Bolsheviks or with the divine recallists.

Or maybe all this is also "incorrect information," oh, unfairly removed Maximov? There is no company of god-building writers, there was no defense of them by you, there was no protest from you against the article "Not on the Way"? huh?

Comrade Maximov speaks about "incorrect information" about the god-building trend in his "Report" in connection with the foreign school that is being organized by the new faction. Comrade Maximov so strongly emphasizes this "organization of the first (Maximov's italics) party school abroad," so strongly leads the public by the nose on this issue, that we will have to say more about the notorious "school."

Comrade Maximov bitterly complains:

"Not a single attempt was made, not only to assist the school, but even to take control of it, on the part of the editorial board ("Proletary"); spreading false information about the school, obtained from an unknown source, the editorial board did not make a single request to the organizers of the school in order to verify this information. Such was the attitude of the editorial board to this whole matter."

So. So. "Not a single attempt even to take control of the school..." Maximov's Jesuitism in this phrase has reached the point that it exposes itself.

Recall, reader, the Yerogin dormitory in the era of the First Duma. Retired district chief (or some official cavalier in general of this kind) Yerogin organized a dormitory in St. Petersburg for visiting peasant deputies, wanting to assist the "views of the government." Inexperienced village muzhiks, getting to the capital, were intercepted by Yerogin's agents and sent to Yerogin's dormitory, where, of course, they found a school in which the perverse teachings of the "left" were refuted, the Trudoviks were poured with slop, etc., in which the novice members of the Duma were taught "truly Russian" state wisdom. Fortunately, the location of the State Duma in St. Petersburg forced Yerogin to set up his dormitory in St. Petersburg as well, and since St. Petersburg is a sufficiently broad and free center of ideological and political life, Yerogin's deputies, of course, very soon began to leave Yerogin's dormitory and move to the camp of the Trudoviks or to the camp of independent deputies. Only shame came out of Yerogin's venture, both for him and for the government.

Now imagine, reader, that a Yerogin dormitory similar to this is set up not in some foreign St. Petersburg, but in some foreign Tsarevokokshaisk. If you imagine this, then you will have to agree that the recallist-god-building Yerogins used their acquaintance with Europe in order to be more cunning than the truly Russian Yerogin. People calling themselves Bolsheviks collected their cash register – not dependent on the only, as far as we know, common Bolshevik cash register, from which the expenses for the publication and distribution of "Proletary" are covered – organized their agency, brought several "their" agitators to Tsarevokokshaisk, brought several party Social Democratic workers there and proclaimed this (hidden from the party in Tsarevokokshaisk) Yerogin dormitory the "first party" (party – because it is hidden from the party) "school abroad."

We hasten to stipulate – in view of the fact that the removed Comrade Maximov raised with particular zeal the question of whether his removal is legal or illegal (more on this question below) – we hasten to stipulate that there is absolutely nothing "illegal" in the actions of the recallist-god-building Yerogins. Absolutely nothing. Everything here is completely legal. It is legal that like