V. I. Lenin

Notes of a Publicist

4. Paragraph I of the Resolution on the State of Affairs in
the Party

Analysingfurther the defects of the plenum resolutions I
must now dwell on the first point of the resolution on the state of affairs
in the Party. It is true that this point does not touch on questions
relating directly to one or other conception of Party unity, but I shall
have to make a digression since the interpretation of this first point has
already given rise to no few disputes in the Party.

Inmy draft of the resolution this point was totally absent and, with
the rest of the Proletary editorial board, I most emphatically
opposed it. It was inserted by the votes of the Mensheviks and the Poles
although they were warned most seriously by a section of the Bolsheviks
that the interpretation of this vague, nebulous point would inevitably
produce misunderstandings or—worse—render a service to the liquidators.

Itneed scarcely be said that at the plenum I criticised quite a number
of the propositions in this point as inane, vacuous and tautological. To
say that the tactics of the Social-Democrats are always the same in their
basic principles without defining what these basic principles are or making
clear which of them (Marxism in general or certain propositions of Marxism) are involved and why; to say that the tactics of
the Social-Democrats are always designed to secure the maximum results
without defining either the immediate aim of the struggle (the immediate
possible results) at the present time, or the specific methods of struggle
to be applied at this time; to say that the tactics are designed for the
various courses which development might follow without defining them
concretely; to repeat truisms to the effect that our tactics must promote
the massing of forces and make the proletariat ready both for open struggle
and for the utilisation of the antagonisms within the unstable regime—all
these defects are glaringly obvious and convert the whole point into
unnecessary and useless ballast.

Butthere is something still worse in this point. It contains a
loophole for the liquidators, as was pointed out at the plenum by various
delegates, not only by the Bolsheviks but also by one of the Bundists and
even Trotsky. This loophole is a phrase to the effect that the
class-conscious proletariat has “ for the first time , by
organising into a Social-Democratic mass party, an opportunity to apply
intelligently, systematically and consistently this tactical method of
international Social-Democracy”. (What method is this ? The
previous reference was to the basic principles of the tactics not the
method, let alone a definite method.)

Whyfor the first time ? asked the critics of this point at the
plenum. If it means that any step in the development of the country
produces something new, something higher in the level of industrial
technique and clarity of class struggle, etc., then again we are faced with
a banality. Then any period will infallibly produce something that comes
about for the first time compared to a previous period. But we are
living through a definite period, a period of counter-revolutionary ebb, a
period of an enormous decline in the energy of the masses and the
Social-Democratic workers’ movement after a revolutionary upsurge. And if
it be said that such a period affords the proletariat for the first time an opportunity to apply consciously, etc., the method of
international Social-Democracy, these words will lead inevitably to a
liquidationist interpretation, a purely liberal exaltation of the Third
Duma period, an allegedly peaceful and lawful period, over the period of storm and stress, the period of revolution, when the struggle of the
proletariat took direct revolutionary forms and the liberals decried it as
“spontaneous folly”.

Inorder to direct special ’attention to this danger of a
liquidationist interpretation of this extraordinarily vague point; I
submitted a series of written statements at this meeting of the plenum,
emphasising a number of passages from the speeches contributed there. Here
are two of my statements:

1)“On Lenin’s demand the following words of

Comrade T. {3} (Polish S.D.) are entered in the minutes: ’that the
tactics of revolution are belittled here in comparison with the
counter-revolution is an absolutely false interpretation.’”

2)“On Lenin’s demand the interjection of Comrade Martov (“quite
right!”) to the statement by I. {4} (a Bolshevik who defended this
point) that the words in dispute do not belittle but enhance the
significance of the revolution and its methods in comparison with the
counter-revolutionary methods, is entered in the minutes.”

Bothstatements confirm that the Pole ’and Bolshevik, with ’the
agreement of Martov, categorically denied the slightest admissibility of a
liquidationist interpretation of this point. Of course these two comrades
did not at all intend any such interpretation.

Butit is well known from of ’old that what is applied is the law, not
the motives of the law, not the intentions of the legislator. The
significance of the present point in agitation and propaganda is determined
not by the good intentions of any of its authors, not by what they said at
the plenum, but by the objective relationship of forces and trends inside
the Russian section of the S.D. (the non-Russian Social-Democrats will
scarcely pay special attention to this vague point).

ThereforeI waited with particular interest to see how this point
would, now be interpreted in the press, preferring not to hurry with my
opinion but to hear first of all the reactions of the Social-Democrats who
were not at the plenum or the reactions of the Golosists.

Thefirst issue of Golos after the plenum provided quite
enough material to appraise our dispute as to how this point would be
interpreted.

In Golos’s leading article on the results of the plenum we
read:

“Itwould be quite inconceivable and absurd, of course, to suppose
that by these words [“for the first time”, etc.] the Central Committee
wanted to express an indirect condemnation of our former tactics,
inasmuch as they were adapted to the revolutionary situation”
(author’s italics; No. 19-20, p. 18).

Verygood! The author declares a liquidationist interpretation to be
inconceivable and absurd. However, on reading further, we find the
following assertion in the same paragraph:

“Thesewords are an official recognition of the comparative backwardness of our political life in the past in spite of the
revolutionary forms in which it was displayed, and this, incidentally, was
one of the main causes of the defeat of the revolution; these words are an
official recognition of the inordinately elementary character of our former
tactics, to which they were condemned by the backwardness of the social
relationships; these words, lastly, were an official recognition that
whatever the political situation in the future, any attempt to return to
the’ dictatorship of the exclusive Illegal circles in the movement with the
whole policy associated therewith would be a decided step back.”

Good,is it not?

Onehardly knows where to begin in sorting out this collection of
“gems”.

Ishall begin with the triple reference to “official recognition”. To
think, how much ridicule this same Golos has poured on every
official recognition by one or other resolution of an appraisal of the
past, of the revolution and of the role of the bourgeois parties, etc.!
There you have a specimen of the sincerity of the outcries against
“officiality”:

when the Golosists do not like an explicit decision of the Party
they laugh to scorn its claims to “officially” decide complex
“scientific” questions, and so on and so forth—just as the
Sozialistische Monatshefte ridicules the Dresden resolution
against the opportunists, or as the Belgian ministerialists in our own day
ridicule the Amsterdam resolution. {5} But as soon as a Golosist thinks he sees a loophole for
liquidationism, he swears and vows three times over that this is
“recognised officially”.

Andwhen a Golosist swears and vows a thing you can be sure that he is
... evading the truth. For the author of the article to speak of the
“official recognition” of his interpretation is all the more
absurd because the disputable character of the interpretation of
this point was a special subject for debate in the Central
Committee. Moreover, from statements officially entered in the minutes—yes , yes! here is something really “official”—statements
which quoted these words of the Pole and the Bolshevik, it is
clear that they would never have recognised Golos’s interpretation
to be a correct one. Our author has only disgraced himself with his talk of
official recognition.

Thewords “for the first time” are a recognition of the “comparative
backwardness of the past”—we might let that pass, although there is
nothing to show why this should be referred specifically to political life
and not to other aspects of social development; but to add “in spite of
the revolutionary forms” is to stick out too incautiously the ass’s ear of
the Vekhist. You can safely bet that of a hundred liberals reading this
passage not less than ninety will kiss the Golosists for it, and of a
hundred workers not less than ninety will turn their backs on the
opportunists. And, “incidentally”, the addition about the “causes of the
defeat of the revolution” gives away the co-authors of the liquidationist
Pentateuch completely: under cover of a vague resolution they want to
smuggle in their liberal view on the role of the proletariat in the
revolution. Therefore they speak of the “elementary character” and
even—mark this!—the inordinately elementary character “of our
former tactics”. The “inordinately” elementary character of our tactics,
do you see, ensues from the phrase “to apply ‘for the first time’
intelligently, systematically and consistently [in a mass party] the method
of international

Social-Democracy” [1]

The tactics of the period of open struggle, the period of comparative freedom of the press, mass unions, elections with the
participation of the revolutionary parties, universal excitement among the
population, rapid fluctuations in the policy of the government, the period
of certain important victories over the government—these tactics,
evidently, were inordinately elementary in comparison with the
non-elementary tactics of the years 1909-10! How rich in apostasy, how poor
in Social-Democratic understanding of events must one be to make such
interpretations!

Butto deduce from the words “for the first time” a condemnation of
the “dictatorship [!!] of the exclusive illegal circles”—this is simply
priceless. In the time of the “inordinately elementary” tactics of
1905–07 the leadership of the workers’ party was, do you see, much more
like a “dictatorship” than in 1909–10, it emanated to a far greater
extent from the “underground” organisations and indeed “circles”, which
were more “exclusive” than in our, time! To give this laughable
profundity a semblance of truth one has to remember that the opportunists
and Cadetophiles felt that they were an “exclusive circle” among the
workers during the revolution and find that now, in the struggle for legality (don’t laugh!) they are not “exclusive” (Milyukov himself
is at our side), they are not a “circle” (we have renegade periodicals
published openly), they are not “under ground”, and so on and so forth.

Forthe first time the proletariat, organising into a mass
Social-Democratic Party, observes among people who would like to consider
themselves the leaders of the proletariat such a systematic and consistent gravitation towards liberal renegacy.

Thislesson of the interpretation of the notorious point concerning
“ for the first time ” will have to be reckoned with whether they
like it or not by the Polish comrade and the

Bolshevik [2] comrade who officially declared that in their opinion a liquidationist
interpretation of their point would be absolutely false.

---
Notes:
[1]
The resolution of the C.C. is interpreted in the same spirit also by
Comrade An (see his article “Apropos the Letter from the Caucasus” in the
present issue of Diskussionny Listok ). Comrade An’s article
confirms the gravest accusations of the author of the Letter from the Caucasus , Comrade

K. St. {6} although he calls this letter a “lampoon”. We shall return
again to Comrade An’s article, which is curious in many respects. — Lenin

[2]
At the plenum, these comrades interpreted § 1 as pointing to the
growth of class differentiation, the progress of the purely socialist
consciousness of the mass of the workers, the strengthening of bourgeois
reaction. These thoughts are correct, of course, but they are not expressed (and it is not they which are expressed) in the
propositions comprising § 1. — Lenin

{3}
T .—L. Tyszka.

{4}
I .—I. F. Dubrovinsky.

{5}
Sozialistische Monatshefte ( Socialist Monthly )—the principal organ of the opportunists in German Social-Democracy and one of
the organs of international opportunism. It was published in Berlin from
1897 to 1933.

Themagazine criticised the resolution against revisionism, “On Party
Tactics”, which was adopted at the Congress of the German
Social-Democratic Party in Dresden (September 1903), Subsequently, this
resolution was reproduced almost in its entirety at the International
Socialist Congress in Amsterdam (August 1904) in the resolution on
“International Rules of Party Tactics”.

{6}
The author of “ Letter from the Caucasus ”,
K. St .—J. V. Stalin. His “Letter from the Caucasus” against
the Tiflis liquidators was written as early as December 1909 for
Sotsial-Demokrat , The Mensheviks on the editorial board refused to
print the letter in the Central Organ of the Party; it was published only
on May 25 (June 7), 1910 in Diskussionny Listok No. 2, together
with a reply to it by the leader of the Caucasian Mensheviks—An (N. Jordania).