V. I. Lenin

Notes of a Publicist ( The “Unity Crisis” in our Party )

( II )

1. Two Views on Unity

Withtouching unanimity the liquidators and the otzovists
are abusing ,the Bolsheviks up hill and down dale (the liquidators attack
Plekhanov as well). The Bolsheviks are to blame, the Bolshevik Centre is to
blame, the “‘individualistic’ habits of Lenin and Plekhanov”
(p. 15 of the “Necessary Supplement”) are to blame, as well as the
“irresponsible group” of “former members of the Bolshevik Centre” (see
the leaflet of the Vperyod grout). In this respect the liquidators
and the otzovists are entirely at one; their bloc against orthodox
Bolshevism (a bloc which more than once characterised the struggle
at the plenum, which I deal with separately below) is an indisputable fact;
the representatives of two extreme tendencies, each of them equally
expressing subordination to bourgeois ideas, each of them equally
anti-Party, are entirely at one in their internal Party policy, in their
struggle against the Bolsheviks and in proclaiming the Central Organ to be
“Bolshevik”. But the strongest abuse from Axelrod and Alexinsky only
serves to screen their complete failure to understand the meaning and
importance of Party unity. Trotsky’s (the Viennese) resolution only differs
outwardly from the “effusions” of Axelrod and Alexinsky. It is drafted
very “cautiously” and lays claim to “above faction” fairness. But what
is its meaning? The “Bolshevik leaders” are to blame for everything—this is the same “philosophy of history” as that
of Axelrod and Alexinsky.

Thevery first paragraph of the Vienna resolution states:

... “the representatives of all factions and trends... by their decision
[at the plenum] consciously and deliberately assumed responsibility for
carrying out the adopted resolutions in the present conditions, in co-operation with the given persons, groups and institutions ”. This
refers to “conflicts in the Central Organ”. Who is “responsible for
carrying out the resolutions” of the plenum in the Central Organ?
Obviously the majority of the Central Organ, i. e., the Bolsheviks and the
Poles; it is they who are responsible for carrying out the resolutions of
the plenum—“in co-operation with the given persons”, i. e., with the
Golosists and Vperyodists.

Whatdoes the principal resolution of the plenum say in that part of it
which deals with the most “vexed” problems of our Party, with questions
which were most disputable before the plenum and which should have become
least disputable after the plenum?

Itsays that bourgeois influence over the proletariat manifests itself , on the one hand, in rejecting the illegal Social-Democratic
Party and belittling its role and importance, etc., and, on the other hand,
in rejecting Social-Democratic work in the Duma as well as the utilisation
of legal possibilities, the failure to grasp the importance of both the one
and the other, etc.

Nowwhat is the meaning of this resolution?

Doesit mean that the Golosists should have sincerely and
irrevocably put an end to rejecting the illegal Party and belittling it,
etc., that they should have admitted this to be a deviation, that they
should have got rid of it, and done positive work in a spirit hostile to
this deviation; that the Vperyodists should have sincerely and irrevocably
put an end to rejecting Duma work and legal possibilities, etc., that the
majority of the Central Organ should in every way have enlisted the
“co-operation” of the Golosists and Vperyodists on condition
that they sincerely, consistently and irrevocably renounced the
“deviations” described in detail in the resolution of the plenum?

Or does the resolution mean that the majority of the Central
Organ is responsible for carrying out the resolutions (on the overcoming of liquidationist and otzovist deviations) “in
co-operation with the given ” Golosists, who continue as
before and even more crudely to defend liquidationism, and with the given
Vperyodists, who continue as before and even more crudely to assert the
legitimacy of otzovism, ultimatumism, etc.?

Thisquestion needs only to be put for one to see how hollow are the
eloquent phrases in Trotsky’s resolution, to see how in reality
they serve to defend the very position held by Axelrod and Co., and
Alexinsky and Co.

Inthe very first words of his resolution Trotsky expressed the full
spirit of the worst kind of conciliation, “conciliation” in inverted
commas, of a sectarian and philistine conciliation, which deals with the
“given persons” and not the given line of policy, the given spirit, the
given ideological and political content of Party work.

Itis in this that the enormous difference lies between real partyism,
which consists in purging the Party of liquidationism and otzovism, and the
“conciliation” of Trotsky and Co., which actually renders the most
faithful service to the liquidators and otzovists, and is therefore an evil
that is all the more dangerous to the Party the more cunningly, artfully
and rhetorically it cloaks itself with professedly pro-Party, professedly
anti-factional declamations.

Inpoint of fact, what is it that we have been given as the task of the
Party?

Isit “given persons, groups and institutions” that we have been
“given” and that have to be “reconciled” irrespective of
their policy, irrespective of the content of their work, irrespective of
their attitude towards liquidationism and otzovism?

Orhave we been given a Party line, an ideological and political
direction and content of our entire work, the task of purging this work of
liquidationism and otzovism—a task that must be carried out irrespective
of “persons, groups and institutions”, in spite of the opposition of
“persons, institutions and groups” which disagree with that policy or do
not carry it out?

Twoviews are possible on the meaning of and conditions for the
achievement of any kind of Party unity. It is extremely important to grasp
the difference between these views, for they become entangled and confused in the course of development
of our “unity crisis” and it is impossible to orientate ourselves in this
crisis unless we draw a sharp line between them.

Oneview on unity may place in the forefront the “reconciliation” of
“given persons, groups and institutions”. The identity of their views on
Party work, on the policy of that work, is a secondary matter. One should
try to keep silent about differences of opinion and not elucidate their
causes, their significance, their objective conditions. The chief thing is
to “reconcile” persons and groups. If they do not agree on carrying out a
common policy, that policy must be interpreted in such a way as to be
acceptable to all. Live and let live. This is philistine “conciliation”,
which inevitably leads to sectarian diplomacy. To “stop up” the sources
of disagreement, to keep silent about them, to “adjust” “conflicts” at
all costs, to neutralise the conflicting trends—it is to this that the
main attention of such “conciliation” is directed. In circumstances in
which the illegal Party requires a base of operations abroad, this
sectarian diplomacy opens the door to “persons, groups and institutions”
that play the part of “honest brokers” in all kinds of attempts at
“conciliation” and “neutralisation”

Hereis what Martov, in Golos No. 19-2O, relates of one such
attempt at the plenum:

“The Mensheviks, Pravdists and Bundists proposed a composition of the Central Organ which would ensure
‘ neutralisation ’ of the two opposite trends In the Party ideology,
and would not give a definite majority to either of them, thus
compelling the Party organ to work out, in relation to each
essential question, that mean course which could unite the
majority of Party workers.”

Asis known, the proposal of the Mensheviks was not adopted. Trotsky,
who put himself forward as candidate for the Central Organ in the capacity
of neutraliser , was defeated. The candidature of a Bundist for the
same post (the Mensheviks in their speeches proposed such a candidate) was
not even put to the vote.

Suchis the actual role of those “conciliators”, in the bad
sense of the word, who wrote the Vienna resolution and whose views are
expressed in Yonov’s article in No. 4 of

Otkliki Bunda , which I have just received. The Mensheviks did not venture to propose a Central Organ with a majority of their own trend, although, as is seen from Martov’s argument above quoted,
they recognised the existence of two opposite trends in the
Party. The Mensheviks did not even think of proposing a Central Organ with
a majority of their trend. They did not even attempt to insist on
a Central Organ with any definite trend at all (so obvious at the plenary
session was the absence of any trend among the Mensheviks, who were only
required, only expected, to make a sincere and consistent renunciation of
liquidationism). The Mensheviks tried to secure “neutralisation” of the
Central Organ and they proposed as neutralisers either a Bundist
or Trotsky. The Bundist or Trotsky was to play the part of a matchmaker who
would undertake to “unite in wedlock” “given persons, groups and
institutions”, irrespective of whether one of the sides had renounced
liquidationism or not.

Thisstandpoint of a matchmaker constitutes the entire “ideological
basis” of Trotsky’s and Yonov’s conciliation. When they complain and weep
over the failure to achieve unity, it must be taken cum grano salis . It must be taken to mean that the matchmaking failed. The
“failure” of the, hopes of unity cherished by Trotsky and Yonov, hopes of
unity with “given persons, groups and institutions” irrespective of their
attitude to liquidationism, signifies only the failure of the matchmakers,
the falsity, the hopelessness, the wretchedness of the matchmaking point of
view, but it does not at all, signify the failure of Party unity.

Thereis another view on this unity, namely, that long ago a number of
profound objective causes, independently of the particular composition of
the “given persons, groups and institutions” (submitted to the plenum and
at the plenum), began to bring about and are steadily continuing to bring
about in the two old and principal Russian factions of Social-Democracy
changes that create—sometimes undesired and even unperceived by some of
the “given persons, groups and institutions”—ideological and
organisational bases for unity. These objective conditions are rooted in
the specific features of the present period of bourgeois development in Russia, the period of bourgeois counter revolution and
attempts by the autocracy to remodel itself on the pattern of a bourgeois
monarchy. These objective conditions simultaneously give rise to
inseparably inter connected changes in the character of the working-class
movement, in the composition, type and features of the Social-Democratic
vanguard, as well as changes in the ideological and political tasks of the
Social-Democratic movement. Hence the bourgeois influence over the
proletariat that gives rise to liquidationism (=semi-liberalism, which
likes to consider itself part of Social-Democracy) and otzovism
(=semi-anarchism, which likes to consider itself part of Social-Democracy)
is not an accident, nor evil design, stupidity or error on the part of some
individual, but the inevitable result of the action of these objective
causes, and the superstructure of the entire labour movement in present-day
Russia, which is inseparable from the “basis”. The realisation of the
danger, of the non-Social-Democratic nature and harmfulness to the labour
movement of both these deviations brings about a rapprochement between the
elements of various factions and paves the way to Party unity “despite all
obstacles”.

Fromthis point of view the unification of the Party may proceed
slowly, with difficulties, vacillations, waverings and relapses, but
proceed it must. From this point of view the process of unification does
not necessarily take place among “given persons, groups and
institutions”, but irrespective of given persons, subordinating them,
rejecting those of them who do not understand or who do not want to
understand the requirements of objective development, promoting and
enlisting new persons not belonging to those “given”, effecting changes,
reshufflings and regroupings within the old factions, trends and divisions,
From this point of view, unity is inseparable from its ideological
foundation, it can grow only on the basis of an ideological rapprochement,
it is connected with the appearance, development and growth of such
deviations as liquidationism and otzovism, not by the accidental connection
between particular polemical statements of this or that literary
controversy, but by an internal, indissoluble link such as that which binds
cause and effect.

---
Notes: