STATEMENT TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RSDLP.
TO THE C.C. OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
[May 2, 1910*. Paris.]
Dear Comrades! We feel it our duty to bring to your attention the fact that, in our deep and firm conviction, the state of affairs within the editorial board of the Central Organ has become utterly
[impossible] intolerable—and that without a change in the composition of the Central Organ’s editorial board, the conduct of the Party’s line appears to us absolutely
impossible.
Only the first two meetings of the Central Organ’s editorial board following the Plenum had given us hope that joint work with Comrades Martov and Dan might still be possible. Comrade Martov’s agreement with the Central Committee’s letter regarding the conference (see “No. 11 of the Central Organ”—Martov signed this letter)3 clearly demonstrated his earnest desire to carry out the Party’s directives loyally.
* The letter is accompanied by an envelope bearing the address to which it was sent via pneumatic post: “To Mr. Lubimoff, E. V., Rue Campagne Première, 7. Sender: Chatzky, Paris, Boulevard Brune, 99.” The letter was drafted by Zinoviev and signed by Lenin. Ed.

THE STRUGGLE ON TWO FRONTES

the resolutions of the Plenum. From the very outset, Comrade Dan adopted a different tone, declaring the leading article in No. 11 of the Central Organ4 to be harmful—and, in our presence, he accused Martov of “centralist opportunism.” Even from this alone, it became clear to us that the staunch votants regarded Martov as an “opportunist” in the sense that he was too readily inclined to yield to the Party’s decisions, and that the whole question now came down to whether Martov would succumb to their pressure.
Martov’s article “On the Right Path”5 showed that he would. His refusal to submit the article for publication in the Discussion Sheet—though it clearly disputed the Central Committee’s decision on the composition of the Central Organ6—was itself a sign of the war that had begun. On the question of the relationship between illegal organizations and their leaders and the legal organizations, Martov explicitly shifted, in this very article, away from the Central Committee’s position (as expressed in the letter about the conference, which Martov had signed) toward Dan. The “theory of equality” between illegals* and legalists** began precisely with this departure from the Central Committee’s letter; it marked Martov’s turn, for anyone who refused to close their eyes to the truth could see that this “theory” was in direct contradiction with the Central Committee’s letter.
When Martov, after his article was rejected (he declined to include a note, and likewise withdrew it from the Discussion Sheet), announced in the editorial board of the Central Organ that he was launching military operations against them—his position, along with Dan’s, became perfectly clear to us.
For the Party, its position became fully apparent: 1) through the actions of Mikhail], Roman, and Yuri***7; 2) through the manifesto of the Sixteen Russian Mensheviks8; 3) through Nos. 19–20 of Golos9; and 4) through the schismatic manifesto issued by the four editors of Golos10. Now, to this was added yet another development: 5) Potresov’s openly****-liquidationist stance in Our Dawn, No. 2, where he wrote alongside Martov and others, and 6) the editorial board of Golos—Social-Democrat’s—public attack on Plekhanov (“A Necessary Supplement to the ‘Diaries’”)12, where, alongside the same Potresov, Martynov, Martov, and Axelrod denigrated the Central Organ of the Party and denounced Party Menshevism as “canaille” (as mere riffraff).
The word “illegals” in the manuscript was corrected by G. Zinoviev’s hand to read “illegal party,” and he further inserted: “as one side.” Ed.
After the word “legalists,” G. Zinoviev’s hand added: “as the other.” Ed.
I. A. Isuva, K. M. Ermolaeva, and P. A. Bronstein. Ed.
The word “openly” was written over some other crossed-out, undeciphered word. Ed.

In our leaflet “The Voice of the Liquidators Against the Party” and in No. 12 of the Central Organ13, we offered an assessment of the first four such interventions. In No. 13 of the Central Organ, published a week later, Plekhanov provided his own evaluation of Potresov’s article in Our Dawn14.
Against Golos—Social-Democrat, which had definitively turned toward the liquidators, Party Mensheviks began to unite and speak out—as evidenced by the four resolutions passed by Menshevik groups and by parts of Menshevik groups abroad (Paris, Nice, San Remo, Geneva)13. Party Mensheviks openly opposed Golos and the Russian liquidators, openly acknowledging Golos’s shift toward liquidationism after the Plenum.
The Party’s situation had changed significantly compared to what it had been at the time of the Plenum—and thus it was absolutely necessary to make changes in the composition of the Central Organ. The Plenum had sought to give all votants, all Social Democrats, all legal activists of the workers’ movement who wished to adopt a Party-oriented stance the opportunity to return to the Party and to work loyally within it. The Plenum had counted on the fact that, rather than splitting the Menshevik movement into two factions, both sides would collectively move toward a Party-oriented position.
But things turned out differently for the Russian center of legalists (Potresov, Mikhail, and Co.) and for Golos—Social-Democrat. Their split from the Party’s legalists became a reality. We rallied around the Central Organ and the Discussion Sheet a number of Party legalists (Plekhanov, Rappoport, Avdeev), with whom we were able to establish a Party-oriented working relationship entirely free from factionalism—despite all our differences. Beyond the borders, steps were being taken toward uniting the group of non-Party legalists and the Party’s legalist members. By contrast, the Golos group resolutely took a stand against unity.
Thus, it was not by chance nor for personal reasons that an utterly impossible situation arose within the editorial board of the Central Organ.
If our editorial board is now consumed by constant, intractable strife—if the three of us are utterly unable to overcome the hostile stance of the two editors—if all work in the Central Organ is brought to a grinding halt—then this is the inevitable result of a fundamentally flawed situation. According to the spirit of the Plenum’s resolutions, rapprochement with Party legalists was essential—but in the Central Organ, anti-Party legalists waged a relentless struggle against those Party legalists who stood outside the Central Organ and who supported it!

THE STRUGGLE ON TWO FRONTES

We are fully confident that the comrades in the Central Committee themselves understand the utter impossibility of such a situation and will not require us to illustrate it with the countless clashes and scandals that have occurred within the editorial board. These clashes, these accusations, these frictions, this complete breakdown of work—are simply the natural outcome of a changed political situation that must inevitably lead to the dissolution of the Central Organ—if we fail to take the step prescribed by the spirit of the Plenum’s resolutions: namely, to replace the anti-Party, liquidationist, Golos-oriented legalists with Party legalists—whom we must help to fully enter the Party and its * guiding institutions.
Party legalists have already declared in the Central Bureau of the Central Committee their desire to have representatives of the Party Menshevism in the editorial board of the Central Organ (and in the Central Bureau of the Central Committee).
From our side, we declare that we are absolutely unable to lead the Party’s Central Organ in cooperation with the Golos-oriented elements—those who are fighting against Plekhanov and supporting Potresov, Mikhail, and Co. In fact, we run the Central Organ, and we can only run it in alliance with
those legalists whom
Dan, Martov, and the other Golos-oriented elements denigrate as “canaille” (see “A Necessary Supplement”), and who are ready to support a Party-oriented Central Organ—not a Central Organ in which Menshevism is represented by the Golos-oriented elements—for [to do so] would mean that it is impossible to carry out work solely through the mechanical imposition of authority upon people with whom there is no common Party ground.
We hope that the Central Committee will take the necessary organizational steps to change the composition of the Central Organ’s editorial board and to create a functioning Party collegium.
Members of the Central Organ’s editorial board, Lesch*\
1 The date is established based on the letter’s reference to the forthcoming “publication in a week” of No. 13 of Social-Democrat, which appeared on May 9 (April 26), 1910.
3 The reference is to the unifying January (1910) Plenum of the Central Committee, held in Paris from January 15 to February 5, 1910. (For more details, see Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume XIV, p. 533, note 139.)
Following the Plenum of the Central Committee, the editorial board of the Central Organ included: Lenin and Zinoviev from the Bolsheviks, Martov and
Lach—from the Mensheviks, and Barsky from the Poles.
3 The letter refers to the Central Committee’s letter to Party organizations concerning preparations for
In the manuscript, the phrase “into the Party and into its” was replaced by Zinoviev’s hand with the phrase “into the common Party work and.” Ed.
** The statement was signed, besides
Lenin, by Barsky and
Zinoviev.
(“Grigory”). Ed.

the next Party conference. According to the Central Committee’s letter, the preparatory campaign for the all‑Party conference was intended to strengthen and consolidate all elements and organizational links of the existing illegal Party organization (calling local conferences through grassroots illegal cells, conducting elections at every level, starting from the cells, and involving illegal Party groups from among the ranks of legal workers’ organizations in the campaign). This letter from the Central Committee was drafted by a special commission composed of G. Zinoviev, I. Dubrovinsky, and Yu. Martov, and was adopted unanimously by the commission.
4 The leading article in No. 11 of Social-Democrat, entitled “To Unity,” was written by Lenin and devoted to the outcomes of the January Plenum of the Central Committee (see Collected Works, Volume XIV, p. 245).
5 Martov’s article “On the Right Path” was published in the Mensheviks’ factional organ, Golos Sozialdemokrata, Nos. 19–20 for January–February 1910. It was accompanied by the following note from the author:
“This article was proposed by the author to the editorial board of our Central Organ as a necessary supplement to the article published therein on the resolutions of the Plenum of the Central Committee (to Lenin’s leading article ‘To Unity.’ Ed.). The author had hoped that publishing his article (signed) alongside the Central Organ’s editorial article would somewhat soften the impression that the latter article was bound to make on Party members who had at least some understanding of the true meaning of the Central Committee’s resolutions. Unfortunately, the editorial board did not deem it necessary to publish my article in Social-Democrat, instead suggesting that I submit it to the Discussion Collection—which I absolutely could not agree to, since my article did not discuss the Plenum’s resolutions at all, but rather promoted them; it did not engage in polemics with anyone, and its publication in the Central Organ would have carried significant weight as a sign that, after the Central Committee’s meeting, the Central Organ was truly embarking on the path of genuine unity. The article is published without any alterations.”
Despite his claim that his article served as a “marker” of the “Mensheviks’ move onto the path of genuine unity,” Martov argued in his article for the continued existence of the Mensheviks’ factional organ (Golos Sozialdemokrata), even as the Bolsheviks dissolved their factional center and closed their own organ (Proletariy), and even as the Plenum of the Central Committee resolved to close the Mensheviks’ organ as well.
6 The Plenum of the Central Committee had decided that the editorial board of the Central Organ should be composed of “2 Bolsheviks, 2 Mensheviks, and 1 representative of the SDP.” Martov challenged this Plenum resolution in his article, arguing that it followed the “line of the London Congress,” and he countered it with the viewpoint of the “Mensheviks, the ‘Rightists’” (Trotsky’s Vienna-based ‘Pravda’ group) and the Bundists—who, at the Plenum, “had proposed a composition of the Central Organ that would ensure the ‘neutralization’ of two opposing currents of Party thought, would deny any clear majority to either of them, and thereby compel the Party body to work out, on every crucial issue, that middle line which could unite the majority of Party workers.”

THE STRUGGLE ON TWO FRONTES

7 Three Mensheviks—I. Isuv, K. Ermolaeva, and P. Bronstein—having been invited after the Plenum of the Central Committee to join the Russian Bureau of the Central Committee, demonstratively refused, stating that they considered not only the Plenum’s resolutions harmful, but also found the very existence of the Central Committee itself to be detrimental.
8 We are speaking here of the “Open Letter” from 16 practical Mensheviks—liquidators—published in the same Nos. 19–20 of Golos Sozialdemokrata, where Martov’s article “On the Right Path” had also been printed. The “Open Letter” from 16 Mensheviks was directed against Plekhanov, against his intervention in the Social-Democrat’s “Diary” against the liquidators.
0 Besides Martov’s article “On the Right Path” and the “Open Letter” from 16 Mensheviks, Nos. 19–20 of Golos Sozialdemokrata also featured a number of other articles aimed at challenging the resolutions of the Plenum of the Central Committee and defending the positions of liquidationism. Among these were Dan’s article “The Struggle for Legality,” the article “The State of Affairs in the Party (Results of the Plenum of the Central Committee),” and Martov’s article “The All‑Party Conference.”
10 We are speaking here of the “Letter to Comrades” issued in Paris at the end of March or early April 1910, penned on behalf of and signed by the four editors of Golos Sozialdemokrata—P. Axelrod, F. Dan, L. Martov, and A. Martynov. The “Letter” was intended to justify the continued existence of the Mensheviks’ factional organ, Golos Sozialdemokrata, despite the January 1910 Plenum of the Central Committee’s resolution. The rationale behind the “Letter” for the editorial board of Golos S.-D. to defy the Plenum’s decision to close the newspaper was as follows: 1) the editorial board of Golos is not a factional center, but merely represents “a literary organization of a well-known current”; 2) the Plenum of the Central Committee did not actually resolve to close Golos S.-D.—it merely expressed the conviction that, “in the interests of Party unity,” Golos would be closed in the near future.
The authors of the “Letter” challenged the composition of the Central Organ’s editorial board as established by the Plenum of the Central Committee and insisted on reorganizing it on the basis of equal representation for Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. (See the text of the “Letter” in the documents and materials accompanying Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume XIV, p. 476.)
11 Here, Lenin refers to A. Potresov’s contribution in his article “Critical Sketches—On Why Trifles Have Prevailed” in No. 2 of the legal St. Petersburg journal Our Dawn for 1910. (The Mensheviks–liquidators, led by A. Potresov and grouped around this journal, constituted the de facto legal center of liquidationism.)
12 “A Necessary Supplement to G. V. Plekhanov’s ‘Diaries’” was a publication issued by the editorial board of Golos Sozialdemokrata, released as a separate leaflet following Nos. 19–20 of Golos S.-D., and comprising a collection of articles by Martynov, Martov, I. Axelrod, Potresov, and other Mensheviks directed against Plekhanov.
13 “The Voice of the Liquidators Against the Party,” an editorial article written by Lenin for No. 12 of Social-Democrat, was first published in late March as a separate print, and then was subsequently printed in No. 12 of Social-Democrat on April 5 (March 23), 1910. (See Collected Works, Volume XIV, p. 254.)
^

14 In No. 13 of Social-Democrat, dated May 9 (April 26), 1910, Plekhanov’s article “On Trifles, Especially About A. Potresov” was published, in response to Potresov’s liquidationist intervention in No. 2 of Our Dawn.
15 In No. 13 of Social-Democrat, dated May 9 (April 26), 1910, Lenin’s note “Party Unification Abroad” quoted excerpts from the resolutions of the aforementioned Menshevik groups. The note also cited a resolution (also directed against Golos Sozialdemokrata) from the Menshevik group in Lausanne, stating that “a significant portion of the Menshevik group in Zurich and the majority of the group in Bern share the same viewpoint (that is, against liquidationism and in favor of Party unification, ed.)” (see Collected Works, Volume XIV, p. 282).