The question of the crisis in our Party has again been given priority by the Social-Democratic press abroad, leading to stronger
rumours, perplexity and vacillation among wide Party circles. It is,
therefore, essential for the Central Organ of the Party to clarify this
question in its entirety. Martov’s article in Golos , No. 23, and
Trotsky’s statement of November 26, 1910 in the form of a “resolution” of
the “Vienna Club”, published as a separate leaflet, present the question
to the reader in a manner which completely distorts the essence of the
matter.

Martov’s article and Trotsky’s resolution conceal definite practical
actions—actions directed against the Party . Martov’s article is
simply the literary expression of a campaign launched by the Golos
group to sabotage the Central Committee of our Party. Trotsky’s
resolution, which calls upon organisations in the localities to prepare for
a “general Party conference “independent of, and against, the Central
Commit tee, expresses the very aim of the Golos group—to
destroy the central bodies so detested by the liquidators, and with them, the Party as an organisation . It is not enough to lay bare the
anti-Party activities of Golos and Trotsky; they must be
fought . Comrades to whom the Party and its revival are dear must
come out most resolutely against all those who, guided by purely factional
and narrow circle considerations and interests, are striving to destroy the
Party .

Martov’s article “Where Have We Landed?” is poorly disguised mockery
of the Plenary Meeting’s decisions and the rejoicing of a liquidator over
the adversities suffered by the Party. “ Not once did they succeed
in convening in
Russia the Collegium of the Central Committee although it consists
of only a few members”—this is how Martov writes, using italics, as if
bubbling over with the pleasure all liquidators will derive from the
publication of this fact.

Unfortunately, what Martov says is true. The Russian Central Committee
has riot succeeded in meeting. But Martov is mistaken if he thinks that he
can evade the question as to who sabotaged the work of the Central
Committee in Russia. It was not only the police who hindered the holding of
the meeting, in addition to the police there was one obstacle of a
political nature. That obstacle was the well-known refusal by
Mikhail, Roman, and Yuri to attend a meeting of the Central Committee even
if only to co-opt new members, and their statement that they
“consider the very existence of the Central Committee harmful”.

It cannot be denied that refusal to attend even one meeting for the
purpose of co-option, refusal to attend at the invitation of people who
carry on their work amid a host of obstacles placed in their way by the
police, means sabotaging the work of the Central Committee . Nor
can it be denied that this political act, accompanied by a statement that
its motives were matters of principle , was carried out by members
of the group of “most prominent” Golos contributors in Russia
(the letter of the sixteen [6] in Golos , No. 19–20), who are also members
of the liquidationist legal groups of Potresov and Co. All these
are facts. The group of independent legalists, the enemies of the Social-Democratic Party—these are the people who sabotaged the work of the Central Committee in Russia .

When Axelrod asserts (in Golos , No. 23) that the “label” of
liquidator is tacked on “indiscriminately”, when lie stoops even to such
nonsense as to state that we are capable of calling a liquidator someone
who is physically tired or crushed by the struggle for his daily bread;
when, indulging as he does in this kind of infantile twaddle, he
maintains silence about that particular group and those very
groups of liquidators who have been mentioned in the Central Organ of the
Party by name , then there is no need to prove the unscrupulousness
of such subterfuges. When Martov and other Golos people pretend to
“argue” in Golos against the liquidators in Russia, declaring that their acts are “frivolous” (!), and exhorting”
them to wait a little longer (Martov on Levitsky in No. 23), and at the same time work hand in glove with them, and, together with them, form
a separate faction abroad for the purpose of fighting the Party
and lending support to its enemies, such as Mr. Potresov, we can see in
this but one of many manifestations of political hypocrisy. No
politically-minded person will say that Mr. Milyukov is seriously fighting
the

Vekhi [7] writers when he “argues” with them, declares them to
be “frivolous”, and at the same time works hand in glove with
them politically. Everyone will see that this only proves Mr. Milyukov’s
hypocrisy, and by no means disproves his political solidarity with
Vekhi . No politically-minded person will say that Mr. Stolypin and
his government are seriously fighting the Black

Hundreds [8] when he “argues” with them (in

Rossiya [9] ), accuses them of “frivolity”, but at the same
time works hand in glove with them. Everyone will see that
Mr. Stolypin and the tear’s government thereby prove nothing but their
hypocrisy, that this by no means disproves the fact of their political
solidarity with the Purishkeviches.

But if everyone is clear about the political hypocrisy of
Golos , Martov’s hint that “legality finishes” the official representatives of the Party cannot be clear to 999 out
of 1,000 readers, because it is a deliberately vague hint.

It is the duty of the Central Organ to disperse any haze enveloping our
Party affairs, so that the substance of the differences may become clear to
everyone .

What Martov means is that, apart from a decision of the
Central Committee, there is no other way out of the crisis that
would conform to Party legality. Consequently, since the
liquidators in Russia have succeeded in sabotaging the work of the Central
Committee there ( and if the liquidators abroad succeed in preventing the Central Committee from meeting even outside Russia ), there will be
no legal way out of the situation. And Martov rejoices in advance: the
Central Committee, he says, has been completely wrecked, there is no legal way out, and the liquidators, ire thinks, have won their
game.

Martov was in too much of a hurry. He has blurted out too soon
what Mr. Potresov and the other enemies of the Party have kept to themselves .

Yes, Martov is right! The Central Committee alone can find the way out
of the crisis in the Party. Hence, if, on account of police obstacles, and
on account of the above-mentioned political obstacles, the Central
Committee is prevented from meeting in Russia, it must be convened
abroad. This is the only way of approaching a solution to the
crisis. The Bolsheviks, one of the Party trends that concluded at the last
Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee the agreement which provided for
joint Party work out side the factions, took measures to hasten the only
possible solution to the Party crisis. The representatives of the Bolshevik
group placed its property at the disposal of the Party, on condition that simultaneously with the dissolution of its own group
centre, those of the Mensheviks (the Golos group) and the
otzovists (the Vperyod group) would also be dissolved.
This has not been done . What is more, Golos Sotsial-Demokrata (the leading organ of the Golos group), has
deliberately taken under its wing and protection the enemies within the
Party, whom the Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee unanimously
instructed us to fight most resolutely, as representing bourgeois and
anti-Party deviations from Social-Democracy. In view of this obvious
violation of the terms of the agreement concluded at the Plenary Meeting
between all the Party trends and groups, in view of the obvious anti-Party
policy of one of the parties to the agreement, the Bolsheviks thought it
necessary to demand the return of the funds which a year before they had
placed at the disposal of the Party on definite conditions. On December 5,
1910, they filed an application to this effect with the Central Committee
Bureau Abroad. Whether the Bolsheviks were right or wrong in acting as they
did will be determined by the body appointed by the Plenary Meeting. The
point is that now , since the representatives of the Bolshevik
trend have filed their application, it is imperative to convene a plenary
meeting of the Central Committee abroad, and not only for the purpose of
finding a way out of the internal crisis in the Party; it is
imperative as a step dictated to all the trends and groups which
concluded the agreement of January 6, 1910, according to the obligation they themselves assumed, in the resolution which they themselves adopted unanimously . [1]

The convocation of a plenary meeting of the Central Committee has become
not only a necessity in the interests of the Party, it has become a
juridical obligation . We see again that there can be no legal way out of the situation, other than the convening of a plenary meeting of the Central Committee ....

It is on this point that the policy of the Golos group immediately revealed itself.

It would appear that, according to the clear and unequivocal decision
of the Central Committee, the only thing for its Bureau Abroad to do, in
view of the application filed by the Bolsheviks, was to call a plenary
meeting; and only if the attempts to convene it in the course of three
months failed, was the Bureau to resort to the other method of settling the
question as provided by the Central Committee. But the Golos group
acted differently.

On December 12, Igorev of Golos , a member of the Central
Committee Bureau Abroad, filed a written statement in which he declared
that he was against calling a plenary meeting and would agree only
to a commission.

It is obvious wherein lies the rub: a plenary meeting is a sovereign
body and, if it were convened, could find a legal way out
of the crisis, a legal way out of the impossible state of affairs in
Russia. A commission on the other hand, is not a sovereign body,
it has no rights (except that of examining the Bolsheviks’ claim to their
funds); it cannot find any legal way out of the crisis.

The saying has proved true—he who diggeth a pit shall fall into it.

The kind-hearted Martov had hardly shown the Party the “pit” of the
allegedly hopeless, from the legal point of view, situation in which the
liquidators would be so happy to see the official Party) when Igorev of Golos found himself in that very pit !

The Russian liquidators have sabotaged the work of the Central
Committee in Russia. Now the liquidators abroad are trying to prevent the
meeting of the Central Committee outside Russia. The liquidators are happy
in anticipation of that greatest of joys (for Stolypin and for the
liquidators)—the absence of any Central Committee. What a boon
that would be for the Potresovs and for the Vperyod faction!

We shall not dwell here on the subterfuges of Igorev of the
Golos group and on their refutation in the counter-statement filed
by a Bolshevik member of the Central Committee Bureau

Abroad. [2]

We shall only note the fact that Igorev of Golos obligingly and
bluntly declared that he would protest against a plenary meeting even if it were convened in conformity with the general Rules (for
which a unanimous decision of the Central Committee Bureau Abroad is
required), and not by the adoption of a special decision based on an
application. In the opinion of Igorev of Golos a plenary meeting
is “unwieldy”, etc. Naturally—since for the liquidators the very
existence of our illegal Party is too “unwieldy”. The other “reason”
advanced by Igorev is that the plenary meeting would be made up mostly of
exiles. But this does not prevent the Golos group from lending
every support to Trotsky’s purely émigré plan of calling a “general Party” conference independently of, and against, the
Central Committee....

The Golos group have decided to disrupt any and every attempt to convene the Central Committee.

Further, we must draw the attention of Party members to a more general
problem—the state of affairs in the R.S.D.L.P. Like every revolutionary
party, our Party can exist and develop only if there is at least an
elementary desire on the part of revolutionaries to help one another in carrying out
common work.

If the Party Rules and decisions (the Party’s “legality”) do not
serve to facilitate this joint work, but are used as pretexts for people in some of the most important Party bodies to
hamper this work from within, then Party work becomes an
indignified farce. In any other party the difficulties attending the
convening of the Central Committee would have led at once to dozens of ways
and means being found to circumvent police obstacles, they would have
produced a host of new methods of work. We, however, find factionalists
inside the Party, some of whom serve the Potresovs, and others the
out-and-out otzovists and semi-anarchists, outside the Party. In
the hands of people like Igorev of Golos , “legality” is
converted into an instrument for damaging the Party from within ,
for hampering its work, for helping the Potresovs to destroy the

Party [3]

.

This is an impossible situation. And it will not be remedied by
“well-meaning resolutions” which Martov legitimately holds up to
ridicule. In order to help matters, we must, first of all,
understand them. We must understand why it is absurd, unbecoming,
and ridiculous to concoct well-meaning resolutions about joint work with
gentlemen like Potresov and Co. Once the Party realises that we have here
two incompatible policies, that it is a question of Social-Democracy versus
liberalism, it will rapidly find a way out. Then we shall succeed in
creating a “legality” which the liquidators will be unable to
use as a means of tripping up the Party.

It must be admitted that Mr. Potresov and his friends, as well as
Igorev of Golos , deserve our thanks for the successful
way in which they are helping the Party to realise this.

Trotsky’s statement, though outwardly entirely unconnected
with Martov’s jeering at the adversities of the Party, and with the
attempts of the Golos supporters to sabotage the Central
Committee, is actually connected with the one and the other by inseverable ties, by the ties of “interest”. There are
many Party members who still fail to see this connection. The Vienna
resolution of November 26, 1910, will undoubtedly help them understand the
essence of the matter.

The resolution consists of three parts:

(1) a declaration of war against Rabochaya Gazeta (a call to
“ rebuff it resolutely ” as one of the “new factional group
undertakings”, using Trotsky’s expression); (2) polemics against the line of the Bolshevik-Plekhanov “bloc”; (3) a declaration that the “meeting of the Vienna Club [i.e., Trotsky and
his

circle] [4] resolves: to organise a general Party fund for the purpose of preparing and
convening a conference of the R.S.D.L.P.”.

We shall not dwell on the first part at all. Trotsky is quite right in
saying that Rabochaya Gazeta is a “private undertaking”, and
that “ it is not authorised to speak in the name of the Party as a whole ”.

Only Trotsky should not have forgotten to mention that he and his
Pravda are not authorised to speak in the name of the Party
either . In saying that the Plenary Meeting recognised the work of
Pravda as useful, he should not have forgotten to mention that it
appointed a representative of the Central Committee to the
Editorial Board of Pravda . When Trotsky, in referring to ’the
Meeting’s decisions on Pravda , fails to mention this fact, all one
can say about it is that he is deceiving the workers . And this
deception on the part of Trotsky is all the more malicious, since in
August 1910 Trotsky removed the representative of the
Central Committee from Pravda . Since that incident, since
Pravda has severed its relations with the Central Committee,
Trotsky’s paper is nothing but a “private undertaking”, and one,
moreover, that has failed to carry out the obligations it assumed. Until
the Central Committee meets again, the only judge of the relations
between Pravda and the Central Committee is the Central Committee
representative appoint ed by the Plenary Meeting who has
declared that Trotsky behaved in a manner hostile to the Party .

That is what emerges from the question, so opportunely raised by
Trotsky, as to who is “authorised to speak in the name of the Party as a
whole”.

Nor is that all. Inasmuch as (and so long as) the legalist
liquidator-independents obstruct the Central Committee in Russia, and
inasmuch as (and so long As) the Golos group obstruct the Central
Committee abroad, the sole body authorised “to speak in the name
of the Party as a whole” is the Central Organ .

Therefore, we declare, in the name of the Party as a whole ,
that Trotsky is pursuing an anti-Party policy; that, by failing to make the
least mention of the Central Committee in his resolution (as if he had
already come to an understanding with Golos that the work of the
Central Committee would be sabotaged), and by announcing in the name of
one group abroad the “ organisation of a fund for the purpose of convening a conference of the R.S.D.L.P.”, he is
contravening Party legality and is embarking on the path
of adventurism and a split . If the efforts of the liquidators to sabotage the work of the Central Committee meet with
success, we, as the sole body authorised to speak in the name of the Party
as a whole, will immediately declare that we take no part whatever
in Trotsky’s “fund” or in his venture, and that we shall recognise as a
general Party conference only one convened by the Central Organ , not one convened by Trotsky’s circle. [5]

But so long as events have not brought about the final wrecking of the
Central Committee, there is still hope for a way out that is entirely
legal from the Party point of view.

While calling upon Party members to fight resolutely for this solution
based on Party legality, we shall try to investigate “the fundamental
principles” of the differences which the Golos group and Trotsky
are in a hurry to carry to the point of a split—the former, by
obstructing the work of the Central Committee, and the latter, by ignoring
it and “organising a fund” for the purpose of convening a
“conference of the R.S.D.L.P.” (no joke!) by Trotsky’s circle.

Trotsky writes in his resolution that at present “there is no basis
for the struggle on principle” being waged by the “Leninists and
Plekhanovites” (in thus substituting personalities for the
trends of Bolshevism and pro-Party Menshevism, Trotsky aims at
disparagement, but succeeds only in expressing his own lack of
understanding).

It is to investigate these fundamental principles that the Central
Organ calls upon Social-Democrats throughout Russia—examine this very
interesting question while the “uninteresting” struggle over the
convocation of the plenary meeting is still going on.

We quote in full the reasons given by Trotsky for his statement that
the struggle of the Central Organ is not justified by any basic difference
of principle.

“The conviction has taken firm root among all [Trotsky’s italics] Party trends, that it is necessary to
restore the illegal organisation, to combine legal with illegal work,
and to pursue consistent Social-Democratic tactics. These fundamental
directives were unanimously adopted by the last Plenary
Meeting.

“The difficulty now, a year after the Meeting, is not the proclamation of these truths, but their application in practice . The way to achieve this is by harmonious work carried on
jointly by all sections of the Party—the ‘ Golos ’, ‘Plekhanov’, ‘Leninist’, and ‘ Vperyod ’ groups, and the
non-factionalists. The Party has already spiritually outgrown the period
of its infancy, and it is time that all its members felt and acted as
revolutionary Social-Democrats , as patriots of their Party and
not as members of factions. This co-operation must take place within the
framework of the Party as a whole, not around factional bodies.”

That is an example of how fine words are worn into shreds by
phrase-mongering intended to disguise a monstrous untruth, a monstrous
deception both of those who revel in phrase-mongering and of the whole
Party.

It is a plain and crying untruth that all Party trends are convinced of the need to, revive the illegal organisation. Each
issue of Golos shows that its writers regard Mr. Potresov’s group
as a Party trend , and that not only do they “regard” it as such
but that they systematically take part in its “work”. Is it not
ridiculous, is it not disgraceful today, a year after the Plenary Meeting,
to play at hide and seek, to deceive oneself and deceive the workers, to
indulge in verbal tricks, when it is a question, not of empty phrases, but of
“ application in practice ”?

Yes or no? Does Trotsky regard the Potresovs who were specifically
mentioned In the Central Organ, as a “Party trend” or not? This is
precisely a question of the “application in practice” of the decisions of
the Plenary Meeting, and it is now a year since it was posed by
the Central Organ clearly, bluntly, and unambiguously, so that there could
be no evasions!

Trotsky is trying again and again to evade the question by passing it
over in silence or by phrase-mongering; for he is concerned to keep the
readers and the Party ignorant of the truth , namely, that
Mr. Potresov’s group, the group of sixteen, etc., are absolutely
independent of the Party, represent expressly distinct factions, are not
only doing nothing to revive the illegal organisation, but are obstructing
its revival, and are not pursuing any Social-Democratic
tactics. Trotsky is concerned with keeping the Party ignorant of the truth,
namely, that the Golos group represent a faction abroad, similarly
separated from the Party, and that they actually render service to the
liquidators in Russia.

And what about the Vperyod group? Trotsky knows perfectly well
that ever since the Plenary Meeting they have been strengthening
and developing their separate faction, disposing of funds independently of
the Party, and maintaining a separate factional school in which they teach,
not “consistent Social-Democratic tactics”, but that “otzovism is a
legal shade of opinion”; in which they teach otzovist views on the role of
the Third Duma, views expressed in the factional platform of
Vperyod .

Trotsky maintains silence on this undeniable truth, because the truth
is detrimental to the real aims of his policy. The real aims,
however, are becoming clearer and more obvious even to the least
far-sighted Party members. They are: an anti-Party bloc of the Potresovs with the Vperyod group —a
bloc which Trotsky supports and is organising. The adoption of Trotsky’s
resolutions (like the “Vienna” one) by the Golos group,
Pravda’s flirtation with the Vperyod group, Pravda’s allegations that only members of the Vperyod
group and Trotsky’s group are active in the localities in Russia, the
publicity given by Pravda to the Vperyod factional school, Trotsky’s direct assistance to this school, these are all
facts which cannot long remain concealed. Murder will out.

The substance of Trotsky’s policy is “harmonious work” carried on by
Pravda together with the factions of the Potresovs and
Vperyod . The various roles in this bloc have been clearly cast:
Mr. Potresov and Co. are continuing their legalistic work, independently of
the Party, work of destroying the Social-Democratic Party; the
Golos group represent the foreign branch of this faction; and
Trotsky has assumed the role of attorney, assuring the naïve public
that “consistent Social-Democratic tactics” has taken “firm root among
all Party trends”. The Vperyod group also enjoy the services of this attorney, who pleads their right to maintain a factional
school and resorts to hypocritical and formal phrases in order to gloss
over their policy. Naturally, this bloc will support Trotsky’s “fund” and
the anti-Party conference which he is convening, for here the Potresovs and
the Vperyod group are getting what they want, namely, freedom for
their factions, blessings of the conference for those factions, a cover for
their activity, and an attorney to defend that activity before the workers.

Therefore, it is from the standpoint of “fundamental principles” that
we must regard this bloc as adventurism in the most literal
meaning of the term. Trotsky does not dare to say that he sees in
Potresov and in the otzovists real Marxists, real champions of loyalty to
the principles of Social-Democracy. The essence of the position of an
adventurer is that he must forever resort to evasions. For it is obvious
and known to everyone that the Potresovs and the otzovists all
have their own line (an anti-Social-Democratic line) and that they
are pursuing it, while the diplomats of Golos and
Vperyod only serve as a screen for them.

The most profound reason why this bloc is doomed to failure—no matter how great its success among the philistines and no
matter how large the “funds” Trotsky may succeed in collecting with the
assistance of Vperyod and Potresov’s “sources”—is that it is
an unprincipled bloc. The theory of Marxism, “ the fundamental principles ” of our entire world outlook and of our entire Party
programme and tactics, is now in the forefront of all Party life not by
mere chance, but because it is inevitable. It was no mere chance that since the
failure of the revolution, all classes of society, the widest
sections of the popular masses , have displayed a fresh interest in
the very fundamentals of the world outlook, including the questions of
religion and philosophy, and the principles of our Marxist
doctrine as a whole ; that was inevitable. It is no mere chance
that the masses, whom the revolution drew into the sharp struggle over
questions of tactics, have subsequently, in the period characterised by the
absence of open struggle, shown a desire for general theoretical
knowledge; that was inevitable. We must again explain the fundamentals of Marxism to these masses; the defence of Marxist theory is again on
the order of the day.
When Trotsky declares that the rapprochement between the pro-Party
Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks is “devoid of political content” and
“unstable”, he is thereby merely revealing the depths of his own
ignorance, he is thereby demonstrating his own complete emptiness. For it
is precisely the fundamental principles of Marxism that have triumphed as a
result of the struggle waged by the Bolsheviks against the
non-Social-Democratic ideas of Vperyod , and as a result of the
struggle waged by the pro-Party Mensheviks against the Potresovs and
Golos . It was precisely this rapprochement on the question of
the fundamental principles of Marxism that constituted the real basis for really harmonious work between the pro-Party Mensheviks
and the Bolsheviks during the whole year following the Plenary
Meeting. This is a fact—not words, nor promises, nor “well-meaning
resolutions”. And no matter what differences divided the Mensheviks and
the Bolsheviks in the past, and will divide them in future (only
adventurers are capable of attracting the crowd with promises that
the differences would be set aside, or that they would be “liquidated” by
this or that resolution)—this fact cannot be expunged from history. Only
the internal development of the principal factions themselves ,
only their own ideological evolution, can provide the guarantee
that the factions will really be abolished as a result of their drawing
closer together, as a result of their being tested in joint work. This
began after the Plenary Meeting. We have so far not seen
harmonious work between Potresov and the Vperyod group and
Trotsky; all we have seen is group diplomacy, juggling with words, solidarity in
evasions. But the Party has seen the pro-Party Mensheviks and the
Bolsheviks work in harmony for a whole year, and anyone who is capable of
valuing Marxism , any one who holds dear the “fundamental
principles” of Social-Democracy, will not doubt for a moment that
nine-tenths of the workers belonging to both groups will be fully
in favour of this rapprochement.

It is precisely from the standpoint of “fundamental principles” that
Trotsky’s bloc with Potresov and the Vperyod group is adventurism. And it is equally so from the stand point of the Party’s political tasks. These tasks were indeed pointed out by the Plenary
Meeting unanimously , but that does not mean that they can be
reduced to that banal phrase—combining legal with illegal work (for the

Cadets [10] also “combine” the legal

Rech [11] with the illegal Central Committee of their party)—which Trotsky deliberately uses in order to please the Potresovs
and the Vperyod group, who do not object to hollow phrases and
platitudes.

“The historical circumstances in which the
Social-Democratic movement finds itself in the period of bourgeois
counter-revolution,” the resolution of the Plenary Meeting states,
“inevitably beget—as a manifestation of bourgeois influence upon the
proletariat—on the ,one hand, the repudiation of the illegal
Social-Democratic Party, the belittling of its role and importance,
attempts to curtail the programmatical and tactical tasks and slogans of
revolutionary Social-Democracy, etc.; and, on the other hand, repudiation
of Social-Democratic work in the Duma and of the utilisation of
opportunities for legal work, failure to appreciate the importance of the
one and the other, inability to adapt revolutionary Social-Democratic
tactics to the peculiar historical conditions of the present moment, etc.”

After a year’s experience , no one can evade a direct answer to
the question as to the real meaning of these points. Nor must it
be forgotten that at the Meeting all the representatives of the
non-Russian nationalities (joined at the time by Trotsky, who is in the
habit of joining any group that happens to be in the majority at
the moment) declared in a written statement that “ in point of fact it would be desirable to describe the trend mentioned in the
resolution as liquidationism, against which it is essential to fight”.

The experience of the year since the Plenary Meeting has shown in
practice that it is precisely Potresov groups and the Vperyod faction that are the embodiment of this
bourgeois influence upon the proletariat. The evasion of this
obvious fact is what we call adventurism, for so far nobody has dared to
say openly that the line of Potresov and his friends is not
liquidationism, or that recognition of otzovism as “a legal shade of
opinion” conforms to the line of the Party. The year that
followed the Meeting has not been wasted on us. We have enriched our
experience. We have seen the practical manifestation of the
tendencies noted at the time. We have seen factions arise that
embody those tendencies. And words about the “harmonious work”
of these anti-Party factions in an allegedly “Party” spirit can
no longer deceive any large sections of the workers.

Thirdly and lastly, Trotsky’s policy is adventurism in the
organisational sense; for, as we have already pointed out, it
violates Party legality; by organising a conference in the name of one
group abroad (or of a bloc of two anti-Party factions—the
Golos and Vperyod factions), it is directly making for a
split. Since we are authorised to speak in the name of the whole Party, it
is our duty to uphold Party legality to the end. But we by no means want
the Party membership to see only the form of “legality” and to
overlook the essence of the matter. On the contrary, we draw the
main attention of Social-Democrats to the essence of the
matter, which consists in the bloc formed by the Golos and Vperyod groups—a bloc which stands for full freedom for
Potresov and his friends to engage in liquidationist activity and for the
otzovists to destroy the Party.

We call upon all Social-Democrats to fight resolutely for Party
legality, to fight the anti-Party bloc, for the sake of the fundamental
principles of Marxism, and in order to purge Social-Democracy of the taint
of liberalism and anarchism.

P. S. The publication of the above article in a special edition
(decided on by the vote of a majority of the Editorial Board—two
representatives of the Bolshevik trend and one representative of the Polish
organisation) has led to a pro test (published as a separate leaflet) on
the part of the two other members of the Editorial Board who belong to the
Golos trend. The authors of the leaflet do not deal with the
contents of the article, The State of Affairs in the Party , on
their merits, but accuse the majority of the Editorial Board (1) of violating their formal rights as co-editors, and (2) of committing an act of “police informing”. Since the dispute is not
conducted on the plane of principles and tactics but along the lines of an
organisational squabble and personal attacks, we consider that the most
proper procedure is to refer it entirely to the Central Committee. We
believe that, even before the Central Committee comes to a decision on this
question, all Party comrades will be able to form a proper opinion
of the “polemical” methods of the two members of the Editorial
Board—Martov and Dan.

---
Notes:
[1]

* At the Plenary Meeting, the Central Committee entered into an
agreement with certain representatives of the Bolshevik trend, providing
for the conditional transfer of their funds to the Party. This
agreement was recognised as Party law , as the source of Party
legality . It was published in the Central Organ (No. 11), together
with the entire procedure stipulated by the Meeting in connection with the
agreement. The principal provision was, that if the Bolsheviks filed an
application showing that the Golos and Vperyod trends violated the terms of amalgamation, a plenary meeting was to be called
(abroad). The decision printed in No. 11 of the Central Organ, states:
“Should it prove impossible for various reasons to arrange a plenary
meeting within three months after the representatives of the Bolshevik
trend have filed their application”, a special commission “is to be set
up”. — Lenin

[2]

In a letter addressed to the Central Organ this comrade requests us to
help him inform the Party of the Golos group’s attempts to prevent
the plenary meeting. — Lenin

[3]

When Martov jeers at official Party institutions, saying that
“legality finishes them”, he is right insofar as the fruitfulness of the Work is killed by such “legal” (i.e.,
created in accordance with the Party Rules or by decisions of the Plenary
Meeting) forms of these institutions as permit Mikhail, Roman,
Yuri, the Golos group (as represented by Igorev), etc., to hamper
the work. — Lenin

[4]

Interpolations in square brackets (within passages quoted by Lenin)
have been introduced by Lenin, unless otherwise indicated.— Ed .

[5]
That a general Party conference, one convened by the Central Committee
of the Party, is really needed and should be called as soon as possible —of that there can be no question. — Lenin

[6]
The letter of the sixteen —an open letter of the
Menshevik-liquidators, their reply to G. V. Plekhanov’s statement in No. 9
of The Diary of a Social-Democrat (August 1909) against the
liquidators and their leader, A. N. Potresov.

Lenin called the letter of the sixteen a “document, which ... will
have the ill-fame attaching to the name of Herostratus”

[7]
Vekhi group—contributors to a Cadet symposium entitled
Vekhi (Landmarks), published in Moscow in the spring of 1909,
containing articles by N. Berdyaev, S. Bulgakov, P. Struve,
M. Herschensohn, and other representatives of the counter-revolutionary
liberal bourgeoisie. In articles on the Russian intelligentsia these
writers tried to discredit the revolutionary-democratic traditions of the
best representatives of the Russian people, including V. G. Belinsky and
N. 0. Chernyshevsky. They vilified the revolutionary movement of 1905, and
thanked the tsarist government for having “with its bayonets and jails”
saved the bourgeoisie from “the fury of the people”. They urged the
intelligentsia to serve the autocracy. Lenin compared the philosophy and
politics of Vekhi with that of the Black-Hundred newspaper
Moskovskiye Vedomosti ( Moscow Recorder ), and called the
symposium an “ encyclopaedia of liberal renegacy ”, “nothing but
a flood of reactionary mud poured on democracy”.

[8]
Black Hundreds —monarchist bands, set up by the tsarist
police to fight the revolutionary movement. They murdered revolutionaries,
assaulted progressive intellectuals, and organised anti-Jewish pogroms.

[9]
Rossiya ( Russia )—a daily newspaper of a reactionary
Black-Hundred type published in St. Petersburg from November 1905 to
April 1914. From 1906 it was the organ of the Ministry of the Interior. The
newspaper was subsidised from the secret government fund put at the
disposal of the Ministry of the Interior. Lenin called Rossiya a
“venal police newspaper”.

[10]

“Cadets—members of the Constitutional-Democratic Party, the leading
party of the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie in Russia. Founded in
October 1905, its membership was made up of representatives of the
bourgeoisie, Zemstvo leaders of the landowning class, and bourgeois
intellectuals. Its leading members were: P. N. Milyukov, S. A. Muromtsev,
V. A. Maklakov, A. I. Shingaryov, P. B. Struve, F. I. Rodichev, and
others. In order to hoodwink the working people, the Cadets hypocritically
called themselves “the party of people’s freedom”, while in actual fact
they did not go beyond the demand for a constitutional monarchy. They
considered a struggle against the revolutionary movement to be their
primary task; they hoped to share power with the tsar and the feudal
landlords. During the First World War they actively sup ported the tsarist
government’s predatory foreign policy, and did their best to save the
monarchy during the bourgeois-democratic revolution of
February 1917. Holding leading posts in the bourgeois Provisional
Government they carried out a counter-revolutionary policy opposed to the
interests of the people, but approved by U.S., British and French
imperialists. After the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution
the Cadets became irreconcilable enemies of Soviet power and actively
participated in all armed counter-revolutionary acts and campaigns of the
interventionists. They continued their anti-Soviet counter-revolutionary
activities when they fled abroad after the rout of the interventionists and
whiteguards.

[11]
Rech ( Speech) —a daily newspaper, the central organ of the Cadet Party, published in St. Petersburg from February 1906. It was
closed down by the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet
on October 26 (November 8), 1917.