In No. 4 of *Zvezda*{56} it was justly noted in the press review that liquidationism, and in connection with it the assessment of the question of hegemony, is at present interesting to Marxist circles, and that polemic on this important question, in the interests of fruitfulness, should be principled, "and not personal and malicious polemic of 'Our Dawn'."

Fully sharing this opinion, I shall pass over in complete silence the outbursts of this journal on the subject of the claim that one can understand only about whom, and not about what, the question is (''Our Dawn'' No. 11–12, p. 47). I shall take the journal ''Our Dawn'' for the year directly – this will be precisely opportune with regard to the annual jubilee of this organ – and shall attempt to examine what the question is about in it.

The first issue of ''Our Dawn'' appeared in January 1910. Already in the second, February, issue, Mr. Potresov proclaimed that to the number of "trifles" belongs also the dispute of the Machists with the Marxists and the question of liquidationism. "For can there exist," Mr. Potresov wrote, asking the reader, "in the year 1909, not as a phantom in a sick imagination, but as genuine reality, a liquidationist current, a current liquidating that which no longer is subject to liquidation, which in fact no longer exists as an organized whole?" (p. 61).

Mr. Potresov by this unsuccessful attempt to sidestep the question gave the best, unexpected, in its herostratan boldness, confirmation of the very view which he was attempting to refute. Precisely in January and February 1910, Mr. Potresov could not but know that his opponents would not agree with his assessment of the actual state of affairs. This means that to attempt to dispose of matters by saying—well, "there is nothing," "there is nothing, and there is no case"—is impossible. The question is not whether in practice one-tenth or one-twentieth, or one-hundredth, or some other fraction equals zero. The question is whether there exists a current which considers this fraction to be unnecessary. The question is whether there exists a principled disagreement about the significance of the fraction, about the attitude toward it, about increasing it, etc. By answering essentially this very question with "there is nothing," "zero," "zero is zero," Mr. Potresov fully expressed the liquidationist current which he was denying. In his outburst there was only extreme "maliciousness" (in the apt expression of the press review in No. 4 of *Zvezda*), there was only a lack of directness, of journalistic clarity. But precisely because the question is not about persons, but about a current, Moscow came to the aid of Petersburg. Moscow's ''Vozrozhdeniye'' in No. 5 of March 30, 1910, sympathetically citing Mr. Potresov, wrote: "There is nothing to liquidate, and, let us add on our part, – the dream of restoring this hierarchy – in its old form is simply harmful, reactionary utopia" (p. 51).

It is completely obvious that the question is precisely not about the old form, but about the old essence. It is also completely obvious that the question of "liquidation" is inseparably connected with the question of "restoration." ''Vozrozhdeniye'' took a small step forward from Mr. Potresov, somewhat more clearly, more directly, more honestly expressed the same thought. Here it is not persons, here it is a current. Persons may differ not in directness, but in evasiveness; currents, however, manifest themselves in the most various cases, types, forms.

Here, for example, Mr. Bazarov was once a Bolshevik and perhaps continues to consider himself one – in our time curiosities are of all kinds. But in the April issue of ''Our Dawn'' he so successfully, so fortunately (for Potresov) refuted Mr. Potresov that he declared literally "one of the grossest and most trivial misunderstandings" the "notorious question of hegemony" (p. 87). Note: Mr. Bazarov calls this question "notorious," i.e., already raised, already known in April 1910! We note this fact – it is extremely important. We note that Mr. Bazarov's statement, that "there will not be the slightest mention of 'hegemony'" (p. 88), on condition that the petty bourgeoisie of cities and villages "will be sufficiently radically disposed against political privileges," etc., "but imbued with sharp nationalist spirit," – is in fact a complete misunderstanding of the idea of hegemony and a renunciation of it. It is precisely the struggle against "nationalism," it is precisely the cleansing from it of the "sentiments" presupposed by Bazarov, that is the work of the "hegemon." The success of this work is not measured by immediate, direct, today's results. There are times when the results of resistance to nationalism, resistance to the swamp spirit, resistance to liquidationism, which, incidentally, is just as much a manifestation of the influence of the bourgeoisie on the proletariat as nationalism, which sometimes seizes part of the workers, – there are times when these results manifest themselves only after years, after long, sometimes, years. It happens that for years a tiny spark smolders, which the petty bourgeoisie considers, declares, proclaims non-existent, liquidated, dead, etc., and which in fact lives, offers resistance to the spirit of despair and renunciation, manifests itself after a long period. Opportunism always and everywhere in the world clings to the minute, to the moment, to today, being unable to understand the connection between "yesterday" and "tomorrow." Marxism demands clear consciousness of this connection, consciousness not in words, but in deeds. Marxism is therefore in irreconcilable contradiction with the liquidationist current in general, with the denial of hegemony – in particular.

After Petersburg – Moscow. After the Menshevik Mr. Potresov – the former Bolshevik Mr. Bazarov. After Bazarov – Mr. V. Levitsky, a more direct, more honest opponent than Mr. Potresov. In the July issue of ''Our Dawn'' Mr. V. Levitsky writes: "If the former (form of unifying conscious workers) was the hegemon in the all-national struggle for political freedom, then the future will be the class (italics Mr. Levitsky's) party of masses entering into their historical movement" (p. 103).

In this one phrase remarkably successfully expressed, concentrated, stamped is the spirit of all the writings of Messrs. Levitsky, Potresov, Bazarov, all of ''Vozrozhdeniye,'' all of ''Our Dawn,'' and all of ''The Cause of Life.'' One could supplement, replace, develop, clarify the cited quotation from V. Levitsky with hundreds of citations. This is the same sort of "classical" phrase as the famous Bernsteinian "movement is everything, the final goal is nothing"{57} or as the Prokopovich (from ''Credo'' 1899): to workers – economic, to liberals – political struggle{58}.

Mr. Levitsky is theoretically wrong when he opposes hegemony to the class party. This one opposition alone is sufficient to say: not Marxism, but liberalism constitutes the party which ''Our Dawn'' actually follows. Only theorists of liberalism throughout the world (recall even Sombart and Brentano) understand the class workers' party the way Levitsky "understands" it. From the standpoint of Marxism, a class which denies the idea of hegemony or misunderstands it is not a class or not yet a class, but a guild or a sum of various guilds.

But, being unfaithful to Marxism, Mr. Levitsky is fully faithful to ''Our Dawn,'' that is, to the liquidationist current. He spoke the sacred truth about the essence of this current. In the past (for the adherents of this current) there was "hegemony," in the future there will not be, should not be; but in the present? In the present there exists that formless agglomerate which constitutes the circle of writers and friends-readers of ''Our Dawn,'' ''Vozrozhdeniye,'' ''The Cause of Life,'' and which now, in the year 1911, is occupied precisely with preaching the necessity, obligation, usefulness, lawfulness of the transition from past hegemony to future Brentano-class (one may say with equal right: Struve or Izgoyev-class) party{59}. That formlessness is one of the principles of liquidationism was said directly by its opponents as early as 1908, a year before ''Our Dawn.'' If Mr. Mayevsky in December 1910 asks what liquidationism is, let him turn to the answer given officially exactly two years before that{60}. He will see in this answer a characterization, the most precise and complete, of ''Our Dawn,'' which arose a year after this review. How was this possible? This was possible because the question was being discussed and is being discussed not about persons, but about a current, which in 1907 was being outlined (see at least at the end of the pamphlet by Mr. Cherevanin himself about the events of spring 1907{61}), in 1908 clearly manifested itself, at the end of 1908 was assessed by its opponents, in 1910 created for itself an open print organ and organs.

To say: in the past hegemony, and in the future there should be a "class party," means to demonstrate clearly the connection of liquidationism with renunciation of hegemony and the break of this current with Marxism. Marxism says: since in the past there was "hegemony," then, consequently, from the sum of professions, specialties, guilds there grew a class, for it is precisely the consciousness of the idea of hegemony, it is precisely the embodiment of it in life by its activity that transforms a sum of guilds into a class. And once matured to "class," no external conditions, no hardships, no reduction of the whole to a fraction, no exultation of the Vekhovites, no faintheartedness of opportunists is capable of strangling this sprout. Let it not be "visible" on the surface (Messrs. Potresovs do not see or pretend not to see it, because they do not wish to see it), but it lives, it is alive, it preserves and in the present the "past," it carries it over into the future. Since hegemony was in the past, therefore Marxists are obliged, contrary to all and sundry apostates, to defend its idea in the present and future, – which ideological task fully corresponds to those material conditions which from guilds created a class, continue to create, expand, strengthen the class, strengthen its resistance to all "manifestations of the influence of the bourgeoisie."

The journal ''Our Dawn'' for the whole year precisely concentrates in itself the manifestation of the influence of the bourgeoisie on the proletariat. Liquidationism exists not only as a current among people wishing to be adherents of a given class. It represents only one of the rivulets of that broad, general to several classes "backward" current, which is characteristic of the entire three-year period 1908–1910 and possibly will be characteristic of several more years. In the present article I had to limit myself to the characterization of this rivulet from citations from issues 2–7 of ''Our Dawn.'' In subsequent articles I hope to dwell on issues 10, 11, and 12 of this journal, as well as on more detailed proof of the idea that the rivulet of liquidationism is merely a part of the current of Vekhovism.

Written after January 22 (February 4), 1911

Published April 22, 1911 in No. 3 of the journal ''Contemporary Life'' (Baku)
Signature: V. Ilyich

Printed from the journal text