In connection with the Copenhagen International Congress, a number of publications carried articles about the situation in our party. We shall dwell briefly on three articles written by representatives of three different party (or rather: anti-party) tendencies.

In the first place, by virtue of its sheer audacity, there deserves to be mentioned an article that appeared, unfortunately, in the central organ of our German comrades (*Vorwärts* of August 28). This article is anonymous. It bears only a subheading: "From Our Russian Correspondent."

From it the reader learns that "never before have Russian émigrés, who play a disproportionately large role in our party, been so alien to the interests and needs of the Russian workers' movement as now," that the Central Organ of our party, *Social-Democrat*, "is conducted in a narrow factional spirit," and that the Bolsheviks are distinguished by "formal and external radicalism," that they arrived, finally, as a result of evolution, at the "recognition" of parliamentarism, and so forth. Our author is extremely dissatisfied with the majority of our party. The entire situation of the party is depicted by the author in a very gloomy light. Our author discerned but one bright spot in the life of the RSDLP. This is the workers' newspaper *Pravda*, "published in Vienna… which from the very beginning stands completely aloof from factional polemic and sets itself the task of political agitation," and so forth.

Are you not beginning to guess, reader, to whose "non-factional" pen does this article belong? You are, of course, not mistaken. Yes, it is the "non-factional" Trotsky who did not hesitate to come forward with open advertisement of his faction's little newspaper. It is he who, before insufficiently informed German readers, gives the same assessment of the position of the party majority as do the liquidators.[59]

The task of slandering our party in the organ of German revisionists was taken upon himself by another writer: R. Streltsov. His article appeared in *Sozialistische Monatshefte*, edited by Mr. Bloch, whom Bebel in Magdeburg justly called a national-liberal. R. Streltsov—colleague of Mr. Prokopovich at the newspaper *Tovarishch*{125}—already openly takes the liquidators under his protection. "There is nothing more absurd than the accusation leveled against them." The true social-democrats are precisely the liquidators. And the party majority—it, you see, "considers superfluous the utilization of so-called legal opportunities, that is, participation of social-democrats in trade unions, cooperatives, open congresses, and so forth." Yes, a correct understanding will the German reader obtain if he studies the history of the Russian revolution according to Cherevanin, and the contemporary situation and tactical struggle within our party according to Streltsov and Trotsky!..

The third article belongs to the pen of the ultimatist (also a god-builder) Voinov, who appeared in the organ of the Belgian comrades *Le Peuple*[60] {126}. And although Voinov gave a distorted representation to the Belgian comrades of the "tactical tendencies in our party" (the title of his article), nevertheless in one respect his article rendered considerable service: it revealed to us once again the essence of the otzovists-ultimatist tactics. There are indeed such blessed writers in the *Vperyod* group who openly set forth the aims of the otzovists-ultimatists, rather than obscuring them, as is usually done in the literary pronouncements of the "*Vperyod*-ites." Just listen to this. Which "*Vperyod*-ite" would now admit to you directly that the otzovists-ultimatists are now enamored with dreams of combat squads and the like? But the forthright Voinov directly writes that he and his friends want to "continue and develop our combat training," whereas the rightward-leaning Lenin denies for the present moment, "for example, the necessity of instructor schools." Which "*Vperyod*-ite" now speaks directly of the necessity of an "ultimatum" addressed to the Duma faction? But good Voinov frankly informs us that the "revival of the party" is necessary to his friends in order to "present our deputies with an ultimatum"… Which "*Vperyod*-ite" will tell you in print for what purpose the otzovists-ultimatists need a "party school" abroad? But the talkative Voinov did not fail to inform us that the "school" is needed for the preparation of a "new congress" of the party and the election of another Central Committee in place of the present "rightist" Central Committee[61]. They will hardly praise Voinov for this candor, the "*Vperyod*" "diplomats"!

Trotsky, Voinov, and Streltsov fraternally clasped hands in the struggle against the party line…

*Social-Democrat* No. 17, September 25 (October 8), 1910

Printed according to the text of the newspaper *Social-Democrat*