Date: 1909
Source: ru:PSS/v17

This outstanding article is reprinted from No. 7 of “Workers’ Banner”—the organ of the Central Industrial District—and serves as a response to the article by the “recallist” published in No. 5 of the same newspaper. The recallist’s article had been included as a matter of debate, with the editorial board of “Workers’ Banner” explicitly stating that it did not concur with the author’s views. By contrast, this article was not qualified in any way by the editorial board in No. 7 and thus unequivocally expresses the editorial position itself.

In “Proletariat,” we have long since taken a firm stand against recallism, clearly pointing out that when recallism ceases to be a mere mood or fleeting sentiment and instead evolves into a distinct political orientation—a fully developed system of policy—it inevitably departs from the path of revolutionary Marxism and fundamentally breaks with Bolshevism. Yet after reading this latest article from the Moscow-based Bolshevik organ, we must acknowledge that we had, until now, failed to address the issue of recallism with sufficient sharpness, underestimating the danger that threatened the principled steadfastness of our Bolshevik faction—namely, the threat posed by those who sought to blend recallism with Bolshevism. We now recognize that Comrade Moskvich, the author of the article reprinted above, has framed the question as sharply, as decisively, and as fundamentally as we ourselves had done in our private discussions with recallists: encountering daily the living representatives of recallism, witnessing firsthand their practical recallist agitation—which each passing day increasingly risked straying farther from the path of revolutionary social democracy—the Moscow organ was compelled to pose the question with the same degree of sharpness and uncompromising principle that it rightly deserved. Either revolutionary Marxism—in Russia, that means Bolshevism—or recallism, that is, the abandonment of Bolshevism—such was the stark choice posed by our comrade from Moscow. In doing so, he fully aligned himself with the very formulation of the question that we had advanced in our preliminary debates with recallist comrades prior to the All‑Party Conference.

We know that there are working‑class Bolsheviks who currently harbor sympathies for recallism; yet in most cases, their “recallism” is nothing more than a transient mood, sustained by the grave errors committed by our Duma faction. Of course, none of what the author of the article—and we ourselves—have said applies to them. But when recallism is elevated into a theory, when it is reduced to an entire system of political practice—and this is being done by a small group that fancies itself the true embodiment of “authentic” revolutionary spirit—then the ideological struggle becomes one of absolute irreconcilability! The author of the reprinted article is entirely correct when he asserts that the recallist’s arguments in No. 5 of “Workers’ Banner” (an article we have reprinted in No. 39 of “Proletariat”) and, indeed, recallism as a whole, are little more than a mirror image of Menshevism—its doctrine of the “workers’ congress” and the like. And he is even more right when he notes that the principled justifications offered by certain recallists in defense of their own orientation—beyond their own political consciousness—are, objectively speaking, liable to draw them ever closer to the anarcho‑syndicalists, or even to outright anarchists.

The way the question was posed in Moscow made abundantly clear how politically myopic—even amid all their good intentions—those Bolsheviks were who refused to recognize the fundamental dangers inherent in recallism; who saw in it merely “practical differences”; who viewed recallism as containing a “healthy core,” rather than as the embryonic seed of left‑wing liquidationism. The article by our comrade from Moscow should make it plain to them that, while ideologically shielding the recallists—or even maintaining an ostensibly friendly, neutral stance toward them—they are in effect pouring water into the mills of the recallists; they become their prisoners of war; they do harm to Bolshevism.

Recallism is not Bolshevism—but rather the worst possible political caricature of it, one that even its most bitter political adversaries could scarcely have imagined. Here, complete clarity is essential. We believe it is imperative that every Bolshevik, down to the smallest circle, gain a clear understanding of the true significance of recallism, thoroughly examine the matter, and ask themselves: Are we, under the banner of “revolutionary fervor” and “leftism,” in fact openly renouncing the glorious traditions of old‑style Bolshevism as it took shape in the pre‑revolutionary era and in the fires of revolution?

To this end, we have opened up a discussion on these questions in “Proletariat.” We have published everything submitted to us and reprinted all that Bolsheviks in Russia have written on the subject. To date, we have rejected not a single debate‑oriented article—and we will continue to do so in the future. Unfortunately, the recallists and their sympathetic comrades have, until now, contributed relatively little material to our newspaper, generally shying away from openly and fully articulating their fundamental convictions in the printed pages, preferring instead to conduct their discussions “among themselves.” We invite all comrades—both recallists and orthodox Bolsheviks—to set forth their views on the pages of “Proletariat.” Should the need arise, we will publish the materials submitted in a special pamphlet. What we need above all—especially in this difficult moment—is ideological clarity and unwavering consistency.

Let us leave it to the Socialist-Revolutionaries to obscure their differences and congratulate themselves on their “unanimity,” at a time when it is only too rightly said of them: “Ask them for anything you like—and they’ll give it to you,” ranging from Enes’s brand of liberalism to liberalism armed with bombs.

Let us leave it to the Mensheviks to ideologically coexist with Cherevanin and Co.—let them practice the art of double‑entry bookkeeping (denying Cherevanin before the Germans while kissing one another in the Russian press), let them live side by side with those who seek to liquidate the very foundations of revolutionary Marxism, let them smooth over their differences with such virtuosity that they can reduce the task to little more than a simple patching job (see “Voice of the Social Democrat,” Nos. 10–11), where the Mensheviks’ divergence from Plekhanov is “resolved” simply by slapping on a bandage{141}.

Our faction must not fear internal ideological struggles—so long as they are necessary. On the contrary, it will emerge from them all the stronger. Indeed, the more we are obliged to clarify our differences, the more we realize that our current tendency is increasingly coming to resemble the entire Party. We call upon all Bolshevik comrades to strive for ideological clarity and to cast aside all underground gossip, no matter where it may originate. To substitute serious, fundamental questions with petty squabbles—following the pattern of the Mensheviks after the Second Congress—is the work of countless opportunists. Such practices have no place in the Bolshevik milieu. Working‑class Bolsheviks must meet such attempts with resolute resistance and demand but one thing: ideological clarity, well‑defined positions, and a principled line. It is precisely through this kind of complete ideological certainty that all Bolsheviks will be able, on an organizational level, to act as united and cohesive as our faction has always been up to this point.

“Proletariat,” No. 42, February 12 (25), 1909

Printed according to the text of the newspaper “Proletariat.”