V. I. Lenin

Golos ( Voice ) of the Liquidators Against the Party {3}

Reply To Golos Sotsial-Demokrata

Golos Sotsial-Demokrata No. 19–20 and the manifesto of Comrades Axelrod, Dan, Martov and Martynov, published
separately under the heading “Letter to the Comrades”, are so much in the
nature of a bomb intended to disrupt the Party immediately after the unity
plenum that we are forced to come forward with an immediate, although brief
and incomplete, warning, and to address a caution to all Social-Democrats.

Weshall begin with the fact that Golos
Sotsial-Demokrata directs its fire at us, at the editorial board of
the Central Organ. It accuses us, through the mouth of Comrade Martov, of
relegating his article to Diskussionny Listok . {4} “My article does not discuss the decisions of the
plenum at all,” writes Comrade Martov and he lays stress on this; the same
thing is repeated word for word in the “Letter to the Comrades”

Anyonewho cares to read Comrade Martov’s article head ed “On the
Right Path”, will see that it directly discusses the decisions of
the plenum, directly opposes the decisions on the composition of
the Central Organ, and gives a detailed justification of the theory of the
equality of trends, of the “ neutralisation ” of trends. The
glaring untruth uttered by Comrade Martov and the whole editorial board of
Golos in alleging that this controversial article “does not
discuss” the decisions of the plenum looks like a downright mockery of
Party decisions.

Ifanyone is unclear about the difference between discussing the
decisions of the plenum and conscientiously implementing the line of the plenum in the Central Organ itself,
we invite such people, and particularly the Mensheviks , to reflect
on Comrade Plekhanov’s instructive article in the current issue of the
Central Organ and on the no less instructive No. 11 of Dnevnik Sotsial-Demokrata by the same author. A Menshevik who does not want to
flout the Party decision and Party unity cannot deny that in
Dnevnik Comrade Plekhanov discusses the decisions of the
plenum, where as in the article “In Defence of Underground Activity” he
defends the Party line . How can one fail to understand this
difference unless one is pursuing the malicious aim of disrupting
the decisions of the plenum?

Butit is not enough that Comrade Martov and the whole editorial board
of Golos utter a glaring untruth in alleging that the article “On
the Right Path” does not discuss the decisions of the plenum. The article
contains something far worse. It is based entirely on the theory of equality of the illegal Party, i.e., the R.S.D.L.P., on the one hand,
and of the legalists , who have broken away from the Party, yet
want to be called Social-Democrats, on the other. The article is based
entirely on the theory of a split between these “two parts ” of
the working-class vanguard, these “ two parts of Social-Democracy” , which should unite on the same principles of
“equality and neutralisation” on which all parts of a whole that have
split up always unite!

Shortageof space prevents us from adding to the quotations confirming
this description of Martov’s views. This will be done in a series of other
articles, if it is at all necessary, for scarcely anyone will dare to deny
that Martov puts forward the “theory of equality”.

Yetthis new theory is in direct opposition to the decisions of the
plenum; more than that, it is a downright mockery of them. The
meaning of these decisions, which is clear to all who are conscientiously
fulfilling the decisions of the plenum, is that what has to be done away
with is the split between the pro-Party Mensheviks and the pro-Party
Bolsheviks, the split between these ancient factions , and by no
means the “split” between all the legalists in general and our
illegal R.S.D.L.P. The legalists who have broken away from the Party are
not at all to be regarded as a “part of Social-Democracy” similar to the
Party or on a par with the

Party. On the contrary, they are being called back to the Party on
the definitely expressed condition that they break with
liquidationism (i.e., legalism at all costs) and come over to the Party
standpoint, to the “Party way of life”. The Central Committee’s letter on
the conference, this official commentary on the resolutions of the
plenum, one which is absolutely binding on the Party, says with the utmost
clarity that it is the illegal organisations [1] that must judge whether the legalists are in actual fact pro-Party , i.e., it specifically rejects the “theory of equality"!

Bya specific decision of the plenum this letter of the Central
Committee was drawn up by a special committee consisting of Comrades

Grigory, {5}

Innokenty {6} and Martov. The letter was endorsed unanimously by
the whole of this committee. Now Comrade Martov, as if inspired by
some evil spirit, performs a volte-face , writes an article wholly
imbued with a directly opposite theory, and in addition complains,
as if in mockery of the Party, when this article is declared controversial!

Itis quite obvious that this theory of equality, which is expressed
in all the other articles of Golos still more sharply and
crudely than in the case of Martov, leads in fact to the Party being subordinated to the liquidators , for the legalist who sets
himself against the illegal Party, considering him self on a par with it,
is nothing but a liquidator. The “equality” between an illegal
Social-Democrat who is persecuted by the police and a legalist who is
safeguarded by his legality and his divorce from the Party is in fact the
“equality” between the worker and the capitalist.

Allthis is so apparent, Golos’s contemptuous treatment of the
decision of the plenum and of the explanation of this decision in the
Central Committee’s letter is so obvious, that Martov’s article can only be
called one that points out the “ true path ” ... to the victory of the liquidators over
the Party.

Thepro-Party Mensheviks have already seen this danger. The proof is
No. 14 of Dnevnik Sotsial-Demokrata , in which the Menshevik
Plekhanov, who had only read the plenum resolutions and had not yet seen
the Central Committee’s “Letter”, expressly points out that in
the case of an “inattentive attitude” to the text of the resolution on
the legalists, who are “ready to establish a firm organisational
connection with the local Party centres”, “ the ‘liquidators’ may find here a convenient loophole for themselves ” (p. 20).

Isit not evident that Plekhanov has an excellent knowledge of his
Golosists? He has pointed out the very same loophole of the liquidators that Golos Sotsial-Demokrata No. 19–20 has been
“working on” with all its might, in almost all its articles, from the
first line to the last. Are we not entitled to call it the “voice” of the
liquidators ?

Thelengths to which the Golosists go in their defence of
liquidationism can be seen from the following passage in the “Letter to
the Comrades”: ... “The Central Organ ... has to win the confidence both
of the viable elements of the old underground organisations ... [the
underground Party organisations display full confidence in both the Central
Committee and the Central Organ; it is ridiculous to speak of “winning”
here] ... and of the new legal organisations which are now the chief centre
[there you have it!] of Social-Democratic work.” Thus the legalists who
have broken away from the Party are the chief centre . It is not
they who have to win the confidence of the Party, to become pro-Party in
reality, to join the Party, to return to the Party principle, but the Party
in the shape of the Central Organ which has to “win their
confidence”—evidently by that hidden defence of liquidationism, that
preparation of loopholes for liquidationism, which we see in
Golos !!

Thewhole of Comrade F. Dan’s article “The Fight for Legality” is
imbued with the spirit of liquidationism, going as far as downright
reformism. By saying that “the fight for legality” is “one of the
principal revolutionary tasks”, that it is the “banner”, etc., Comrade
Dan, defends not the Social-Democratic but the Cadet point of view. Comrade
Dan proclaims “illegal solidarity as an essential weapon in the fight for legality”. This is in the Cadet spirit. For the Cadets the
Party is illegal, but their illegality is merely “an essential weapon in
the fight for legality”. For the Social-Democrats legal
solidarity is at the present time one of the essential weapons of the
illegal Party .

...“Only in the light of this [the fight for legality], in its name,
is it possible at the present time for the proletariat to wage a struggle
which sets itself ... the aim ... of overthrowing the autocracy....”

Thisargument again must be turned inside-out for it to become a
Social-Democratic argument. Only in the light of the struggle to
overthrow the autocracy, only in its name, is Social-Democratic work in
legal organisations really possible. Only in the name of the struggle for
the uncurtailed revolutionary demands of the proletariat, only in the light
of the programme and tactics of revolutionary Marxism, is it possible for
Social-Democrats to make really successful use of all legal opportunities,
is it possible and necessary to defend these opportunities with the utmost
determination, and to convert them into strongpoints for our Party work.

Butthis too is not all. The Golosists act in direct contradiction to
the decisions of the plenum when they come for ward in their letter and in
their newspaper with agitation for the continuance of “ Golos ” in spite of the decisions of the Central Committee. We
are not going to examine here the ludicrous and miserable sophistry by
which they seek to justify the breach of a Party decision. We prefer to
confine ourselves—at least in the present short article—to a reference
to the voice of pro-Party Menshevism , to No. 11 of
Dnevnik . Comrade Plekhanov foresaw also this loophole of the
liquidators, saying frankly, simply and clearly something that no loyal
Social-Democrat can doubt. “The agitation against the closing
down of Golos ,” he writes on p. 18, is “an agitation against the
abolition of the faction, i.e., for reducing to naught the chief
possible result of the Central Committee’s plenary meeting.” What does
Golos Sotsial-Demokrata represent for the Mensheviks of the trend
concerned? It is their actual factional—and moreover irresponsible—centre.

Preciselyso. To reduce unity to naught—that is what the concern of Golos No. 19–20 and of the manifesto of the
four

editors of Golos against the decisions of the plenum amounts
to. After the unity plenum they came out with a much more open and much
more impudent defence of liquidationism than prior to it. When their
manifesto tells the Mensheviks that the letter of the C.C. Bureau Abroad to
the

groups, {7} which calls for the creation of real unity, was adopted against the votes of the Menshevik and Bundist members of the Bureau Abroad , everyone realises that we are confronted with a poorly
disguised call for non-compliance with this letter and for
disruption of unity abroad. Let the pro-Party Mensheviks who condemn the
Golosists pass from condemnation to action if they want at all
costs to uphold Party unity. This unity depends now on the pro-Party
Mensheviks, on their readiness and ability to wage an open fight
both against the foreign and the Russian “actual centre” of the Golosist
liquidators.

This Russian centre, the Russian M.C. (Menshevik centre) comes out
plainly in Golos No. 19–20 with an “Open Letter” in which
Plekhanov is declared “a liquidator of the ideas of Menshevism”. The
Mensheviks’ withdrawal from the Party is explained—it would be more
correct to say, is justified—by the “universally known phenomenon of the
necrosis of the Party units”!! Those who withdraw—the manifesto of the
M.C. tells us—are “falsely called liquidators” (p. 24 of
Golos ).

Weask any Social-Democrats who are at all capable of impartiality we
ask particularly working-class Social-Democrats, irrespective of trends,
whether the appearance of such a manifesto of the M.C. on the morrow of the
plenum does not reduce to naught the efforts for unity.

Weconsider it our duty to inform the whole Party of the names of those
who signed this famous document, which, we are sure, will have the ill-fame
attaching to the name of Herostratus:

1) Avgustovsky, 2) Anton, 3) Vadim, 4) V. Petrova, 5) Georgy, 6) Georg, 7)
Yevg. Ha-az, 8) Kramolnikov, 9) D. Koltsov, 10) Nat. Mikhailova, 11)
Roman , 12) Romul, 13) Solomonov, 14) Cherevanin (of course!), 15)
Yuzi , 16)

Y. P-y {8}

“Thesesignatories,” says the editorial board of Golos ,
“are old Party workers, well-known to the editorial board; some of them
have held responsible posts in the Party.”

Thesenames, we reply, will be nailed to the pillory by all
class-conscious Social-Democratic workers when they read Golos S. D . No. 19–20, when they learn the decisions of the plenum, when
they become aware of the following fact:

The Russian Bureau of the C.C. has recently sent an official letter to
the C.C.B.A. (the executive organ abroad of the Central Committee). This
letter states in so many words:

...“ We made a proposal to Comrades Mikhail, {9} Roman and Yuri [we stressed these names above] that they should set to work, but we received a reply from them saying that not only do they consider the decisions of the plenum harmful but they find the very existence of the C.C. harmful. On these grounds, they refuse even to appear at any meeting for co-optation ” [2]

....

(Letus make it clear for our own part: the chiefs of the Menshevik
centre not only themselves refuse to support the C.C., but they refuse to
appear for co-opting other Mensheviks, for co-opting Menshevik workers,
being very well aware that the refusal to appear for the co-optation will
hold up the work of the C.C., will hold up its formation ,
and will compel the C.C. to postpone , perhaps for months, the very
commencement of its work as a C.C.)

Thusthe same people who declare in print, with the assistance and
approval of Axelrod, Dan, Martov and Martynov, that Plekhanov “falsely
calls them ‘liquidators’” are directly disrupting the very
existence of the C.C. and are proclaiming its existence harmful.

Thesame people who are exclaiming in the illegal press (through
Golos ) and in the legal press (through the liberals) about “the
universally known phenomenon of the necrosis of the Party units”, are
themselves disrupting attempts to put in order, restore and set
going these Party units and even such a Party unit as the Central
Committee.

Letall Social-Democrats be aware now who the manifesto of Comrades
Axelrod, Dan, Martov and Martynov is alluding to when it speaks of
“leaders of the legal movement who have now occupied the advanced posts of
the militant proletariat”. Let all Social-Democrats be aware now who it is
that the editorial board of Golos is addressing when it writes:
“We should like the comrades [of the type of Mikhail, Roman and Yuri] to
appreciate the breach which has been made in the official dogma that has
actually condemned the Party organisation to inevitable decay, and to
attempt to occupy the positions that have been opened to them [Mikhail,
Roman, Yuri and the like] owing to this breach.”

Weaddress ourselves to all organisations, to all groups of our Party,
and we ask them: do they intend to tolerate this flouting of
Social-Democracy? Is it permissible now to remain passive spectators of
what is taking place, or is it obligatory for them to undertake a resolute
fight against the trend that is undermining the very existence of the
Party?

Weask all Russian Social-Democrats: can they now still remain in doubt
as to the practical, real political significance of the “theory of
equality” of trends, of the equality of the legalists and the illegal
Party, of the theory of the “fight for legality”, etc., etc.?

Thesetheories, these arguments, these loopholes, are the verbal shield behind which are concealed such enemies of Social-Democracy as those like Mikhail, Roman and Yuri, such political
accomplices of them as the sixteen Herostratean Mensheviks, such
ideological leaders as the literati who conduct the “Voice of the
Liquidators ”.

Andso, No. 19–20 of Golos Sotsial-Demokrata and the splitting manifesto of the four editors of Golos , “To the
Comrades”, is direct agitation:

fora factional organ against unity , againstunity abroad , indefence of flagrant liquidationism , indefence of the downright opponents of the very existence of the C.C.

Against the Party!

Theconspiracy against the Party is revealed. Let all to whom the
existence of the R.S.D.L.P. is dear come to the aid of the Party!

---
Notes:
[1]
See No. 11 of the Central Organ, pp. 11–12: “Only the local
organisations can ensure that this additional representation is extended
solely to real (the “Letter’s” italics) pro-Party elements; our
local workers will judge not only by the words of these leaders of the
legal movement, but also by their deeds , and will exert every
effort so that only those are drawn in who in essence are even now part of
our Party, who wish to join our Party organisation in order really to work
in it, to strengthen it, to subordinate themselves to it and serve it”,
etc. — Lenin

[2]
We shall cite in addition all the passages of the letters (of
the Russian Bureau of the C.C. and of one of the C.C. members operating in

Russia {10} ) relating to the convocation of the C.C. in Russia:

...“We request Comrades Martov and the Menshevik members the C.C. to
communicate to us immediately the names and addresses of the comrades whom
they propose to co-opt (the St. Petersburg Mensheviks have refused to do
this)”.... “It is impossible for the time being to convene the Russian
collegium: practically no one has agreed to be co-opted, at present only
one Bolshevik has agreed, and that conditionally.

The Mensheviks (Mikhail, Roman and Yuri) have categorically refused, considering the work of the Central Commit tee harmful. The resolutions of the plenum, in the opinion of Mikhail and others, are also harmful. The interference of the C.C. in the spontaneous process of the grouping of Social-Democratic forces in legal organisations that is now taking place is, in their words, like plucking the fruit from the mother’s womb after two months’ pregnancy . We ask you immediately to indicate to us other
comrades to whom we may address a proposal that they should be
co-opted. It is also desirable to publish the attitude of the comrades to this behaviour of Mikhail and the others .” — Lenin

{3}
The article “ Golos (Voice ) of the Liquidators Against the
Party” was written by Lenin as an editorial for No. 12 of the newspaper
Sotsial-Demokrat . The article was issued as a separate print in
the second half of March and afterwards published in the newspaper
Sotsial-Demokrat .

{4}
Diskussionny Listok ( Discussion Bulletin )—a supplement to Sotsial-Demokrat , the Central Organ of the
R.S.D.L.P. It was published in Paris by a decision of the January (1910)
plenum of the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. from March 6 (19), 1910
to April 29 (May 12), 1911; three numbers were issued.

{5}
Grigory —G. Y. Zinoviev.

{6}
Innokenty —I. F. Dubrovinsky.

{7}
The Letter of the Central Committee Bureau Abroad of the R.S.D.L.P . “To All Comrades Abroad” was published as a separate
leaflet on March 3 (16), 1910.

The Central Committee Bureau Abroad (C.C.B.A.) was set, up by
the plenum of the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. in August 1908 as the
general representative body of the Party abroad, subordinate and
accountable to the Russian Bureau of the Central Committee. Shortly after
the January plenum, a liquidationist majority developed among the members
of the C.C.B.A., and the C.C.B.A. became a centre for mobilising anti-Party
forces. The liquidationist tactics of the C.C.B.A. compelled the Leninist
Bolsheviks to recall their representative from it in May 1911. A little
later the representatives of the Polish and Lettish Social-Democrats were
recalled. In January 1912 the C.C.B.A. dissolved itself.

{8}
The reference is to the “Open Letter” advocating liquidationist
views, signed by the Mensheviks: Avgustovsky—S. 0. Tsederbaum-Yezhov;
Anton—M. S. Makadzyub; Vadim—V. K. Ikov;

V. Petrova—L. N. Radchenko; Georgy—B. S. Tseitlin-Batursky;
Georg—V. 0. Tsederbaum- Levitsky; Yevg. Ha-az—V. A. Gutovsky-Mayevsky;
Kramolnikov—G. I. Prigorny; D. Koltsov—B. A. Ginsburg; Nat. Mikhailova—R. S. Galbershtadt; Roman—K. M. Yermolayev;
Romul—M. L. Kheisin; Solomonov—S. I. Portugeis; Cherevanin—F. A. Lipkin; Yuri—P. A, Bronshtein;
Y. P-y—Y. A. Piletsky.

{9}
Mikhail —the Menshevik liquidator I. A. Isuv.

{10} “One of the C.C. members operating in Russia ”—V. P. Nogin.