V. I. Lenin

Notes of a Publicist

2. “The Fight on Two Fronts” and the Overcoming of
Deviations

Such are the two fundamentally different and radically divergent views on the nature and significance of our Party unity.

The question is, which of these views forms the basis of the plenum
resolution? Whoever wishes to ponder over it will perceive that it is the
second view that forms the basis , but in some passages the
resolution clearly reveals traces of partial “amendments” in the spirit
of the first view. However, these “amendments”, while worsening
the resolution, in no way remove its basis , its main content,
which is thoroughly imbued with the second point of view.

In order to demonstrate that this is so, that the “amendments” in the
spirit of sectarian diplomacy are really in the nature of partial
amendments, that they do not alter the essence of the matter and the
principle underlying the resolution, I shall deal with certain points and
certain pas sages in the resolution on the state of affairs in the Party,
which have already been touched upon in the Party press. I shall start from
the end.

After accusing the “leaders of the old factions” of doing everything
to prevent unity being established, of behaving in the same way at the
plenum too so that “every inch of ground had to be taken from them by
storm”, Yonov writes:

“Comrade Lenin did not want ‘to overcome the dangerous deviations’
by means of ‘broadening and deepening Social-Democratic activities’. He
strove quite energetically to put the theory of the ‘fight on two
fronts’ in the centre of all Party activities. He did not even think of
abolishing ‘the state of reinforced protection’ within the Party”
(p. 22, Art. 1).

This refers to § 4, clause “b”, of the resolution on the
situation in the Party. The draft of this resolution was submitted to the
Central Committee by myself, and the clause in question was altered by the
plenum itself after the commission had finished its work; it was altered on
the motion of Trotsky, against whom I fought without success. In this
clause I had, if not literally the words “fight on two fronts”, at all
events, words to that effect. The words “overcoming by means of broadening
and deepening” were inserted on the proposal of Trotsky. I am very glad that Comrade
Yonov, by telling of my struggle against this proposal, gives me a
convenient occasion for expressing my opinion on the meaning of the
“amendment”.

Nothing at the plenum aroused more furious—and often comical—indignation than the idea of a “fight on two fronts”. The very
mention of this infuriated both the Vperyodists and the Mensheviks. This
indignation can be fully explained on historical grounds, for the
Bolsheviks have in fact from August 1908 to January 1910 waged a
struggle on two fronts, i.e., a struggle against the liquidators and
against the otzovists. This indignation was comical because those who waxed
angry at the Bolsheviks were thereby only proving their own guilt, showing
that they were still very touchy about condemnation of liquidationism and
otzovism. A guilty conscience is never at ease.

Trotsky’s proposal to substitute “overcoming by means of broadening
and deepening” for the fight on two fronts met with the ardent support of
the Mensheviks and the Vperyodists.

And now Yonov and Pravda and the authors of the Vienna resolution and Golos Sotsial-Demokrata are all rejoicing over that
“victory”. But the question arises: have they, by deleting from this
clause the words about the fight on two fronts, eliminated from the
resolution the recognition of the need for that fight? Not at all ,
for since “deviations”, their “danger”, and the necessity of
“explaining” that danger, are recognised, and since it is also recognised
that these deviations are a “manifestation of bourgeois influence over the
proletariat”—all this in effect means that the fight on two
fronts is recognised! In one passage an “unpleasant” term (unpleasant to
one or other of their friends) was altered, but the basic idea was left
intact! The result was only that one part of one clause was confused,
watered down and marred by phrase-mongering.

Indeed, it is nothing but phrase-mongering and a futile evasion when
the paragraph in question speaks of overcoming by means of broadening and
deepening the work. There is no clear idea here at all. The work must
certainly at all times be broadened and deepened; the entire third
paragraph of the resolution deals with this in detail before it passes on to the specific “ideological and political tasks”, which are
not always or absolutely imperative but which result from the conditions of
the particular period. § 4 is devoted only to these special tasks, and
in the preamble to all of its three points it is directly stated that these
ideological and political tasks “ have come to the fore in their
turn”.

What is the result? It is nonsense, as if the task of broadening and
deepening the work has also come to the fore in its turn! As if
there could be a historical “turn” when this task was not present, as it is always!

And in what way is it possible to overcome deviations by means
of broadening and deepening Social-Democratic work? In any broadening and
deepening of our work the question of how it should be broadened and
deepened inevitably rises; if liquidationism and otzovism are not
accidents, but trends engendered by social conditions, then they can assert
themselves in any broadening and deepening of the work. It is possible to
broaden and deepen the work in the spirit of liquidationism—this is being
done, for instance, by Nasha Zarya and

Vozrozhdeniye {1} ; it is also possible to do so in the spirit of
otzovism. On the other hand, the overcoming of deviations, “overcoming”
in the real sense of the word, inevitably deflects certain forces, time and
energy from the immediate broadening and deepening of correct
Social-Democratic work. The same Yonov, for instance, writes on the same
page of his article:

“The plenum is over. Its participants have gone their several
ways. The Central Committee in organising its work has to overcome
incredible difficulties, among which not the least is the conduct of the
so-called [only “so-called”, Comrade Yonov, not real, genuine ones?]
liquidators whose existence Comrade Martov so persistently denied.”

Here you have the material—little, but characteristic material—which makes it clear how empty Trotsky’s and Yonov’s phrases
are. The overcoming of the liquidationist activities of Mikhail, Yuri and
Co. diverted the forces and time of the Central Committee from the
immediate broadening and deepening of really Social-Democratic work. Were
it not for the conduct of Mikhail, Yuri and Co., were it not for
liquidationism among those whom we mistakenly continue to regard as our
comrades, the broadening and deepening of Social-Democratic work would have proceeded more successfully,
for then internal strife would not have diverted the forces of the Party.
Consequently, if we take the broadening and deepening of Social-Democratic
work to mean the immediate furthering of agitation, propaganda and economic
struggle, etc., in a really Social-Democratic spirit, then in regard to
this work the over coming of the deviations of Social-Democrats from
Social-Democracy is a minus, a deduction, so to speak, from “positive
activity”, and therefore the phrase about overcoming deviations by means of broadening, etc., is meaningless.

In reality this phrase expresses a vague longing, a pious, innocent
wish that there should be less internal strife among Social-Democrats! This
phrase reflects nothing but this pious wish; it is a sigh of the
so-called conciliators: Oh, if there were only less struggle against
liquidationism and otzovism!

The political importance of such “sighing” is nil, less than nil. If
there are people in the Party who profit by “persistently denying” the
existence of liquidators (and otzovists), they will take advantage of the
“sigh” of the “conciliators” to cover up the evil. That is precisely
what Golos Sotsial-Demokrata does. Hence the champions of such
well-meaning and hollow phrases in resolutions are only so-called
“conciliators”. In actual fact, they are the abettors of the liquidators
and otzovists, in actual fact, they do not deepen Social-Democratic work
but strengthen deviations from it; they strengthen the evil by temporarily
concealing it and thereby making the cure more difficult.

In order to illustrate for Comrade Yonov the significance of this evil,
I shall remind him of a passage in an article by Comrade Yonov in
Diskussionny Listok No. 1. Comrade Yonov aptly compared
liquidationism and otzovism to a benignant ulcer which “in the
process of swelling draws all the noxious elements from the entire
organism, thus contributing to recovery

That’s just it. The process of swelling, which draws the “noxious
elements” out of the organism, leads to recovery. And that which hampers
the purification of the organism from such elements is harmful to it. Let
Comrade Yonov ponder over this helpful idea of Comrade Yonov.

---
Notes:
{1}
Vozrozhdeniye ( Regeneration )—a Menshevik liquidationist magazine legally published in Moscow from December 1908 to
July 1910; its place was taken by the magazines Zhizn ( Life ) in 1910, and Dyelo Zhizni ( Cause of Life )
in 1911.