V. I.

Lenin

Introduction to the Pamphlet Two Parties

Kamenev’s pamphlet represents a systematised summary of the
material on the struggle against the liquidationist trend waged during the
period of counter-revolution by the Bolsheviks and, following their lead,
by the whole R.S.D.L.P. Quite naturally, Kamenev devotes most of his space
to an elucidation of the divergence on questions of principle between
Social-Democracy and the liquidationist trend, a subject to which

Proletary [2] and the Central Organ of the Party, Sotsial-Demokrat , also devoted most of their space during the
period from 1908 to 1911.

Kamenev has proved conclusively that, in point of fact , the
liquidationist group represents a separate party, not the
R.S.D.L. Party. His evidence sums up the experience primarily of the years
1909–11, which confirmed the resolution of December 1908. That resolution,
which was moved and carried by the Bolsheviks on behalf of the R.S.D.L.P.,
had already declared that the liquidators were endeavouring to
“ substitute ” for the R.S.D.L.P. an “amorphous” legally
existing federation. That amorphous legally existing federation of
Potresov, Larin, Levitsky and Co. (with Mr. Martov and the Golos
group abroad trailing behind), has now fully revealed itself. It is a group
of literary men who have nothing in common with the R.S.D.L.P., and who
pursue, not a Social-Democratic, but a liberal labour policy. They are the
leading lights of a Stolypin “labour” party.

It is a feature specific of Russia at the turn of the century that we
often meet with cases of extremely rapid and sometimes very “unexpected”
transition from Marxism to liberalism. The Economists and
Credo —Mr. Struve and Co.—the liquidators, are all rungs of one
ladder, stages in a single process of evolution, expressions of the same tendency. The party of
the working class in Russia began to form shortly before the Revolution of
1905; now, in the period of counter-revolution, this party is being
reconstructed, and to a certain extent built anew, on a more solid
foundation. The bourgeois intelligentsia, attracted to the revolution by
the knowledge that Russia has not yet passed through the epoch of
democratic revolutions, has been joining the proletariat group after
group—and group after group has again deserted the proletariat, having
found out through experience that they cannot live up to revolutionary
Marxism, that their real place is outside the ranks of the
Social-Democratic Party. Such are our liquidators, too, some of whom are
already speaking quite clearly, bluntly, and frankly of a new
party they are creating.

Otzovism and liquidationism, while similar in the sense that both
represent non-Social-Democratic, bourgeois trends, differ materially in
respect of the fate that attended their political evolution. Otzovism was
nipped in the bud by the Bolsheviks, and it has not gone so far as to
attempt to create a party of its own; today it represents an insignificant
group abroad, whose activity has been reduced to aiding the liquidators in
their intrigues and struggle against the R.S.D.L.P. The liquidationist
trend, on the other hand, has its centre (in the first place, political,
and then organisational) in Russia; it has created a party of its own , even though it is an amorphous one (so far it is amorphous). That
is why it has been necessary for Kamenev to dwell at length on the
liquidationist tendency and to touch upon otzovism only in passing.

There are not many people among the adherents of the R.S.D.L.P. capable
of sincerely defending the liquidationist trend. [1]

Unfortunately, there are still quite a number of people who are sincerely opposed to liquidationism, but do not understand the conditions under which the struggle against it has to
be waged. Of course, they say, liquidationism is a bourgeois trend in the
Social-Democratic movement; but why not fight it in the ranks of a single
party, just as the Germans fight the Bernsteinians? Why not try to come to
an “agreement” with the liquidators?

Our champions of “agreement” fail to understand a very important and
very simple thing: the liquidators are not only opportunists (like
Bernstein and Co.); they are also trying to build a separate party
of their own, they have is sued the slogan that the R.S.D.L.P. does not exist ; they pay no heed whatever to the decisions of the
R.S.D.L.P. That is the difference between us and “Europe”, and only
people who have not given sufficient thought to the question, or who are
not acquainted with Russian conditions, can invoke the example of
“Europe”. In Europe, an opportunist guilty of but one-tenth of what the
Potresovs, Igorevs, Bers, Martovs, Dans, and their like have done and are
doing against their Party and in defiance of its decisions would not be
tolerated in the ranks of the party a single month. In Europe the parties
function openly, and it is possible to see at once whether one belongs to
an organisation and submits to its decisions.

Our Party is illegal. It is impossible to “see”, and it is
impermissible (unless one is an agent of the secret police) to talk openly
of whether X, Y, or Z belongs to the organisation. But it is a fact that
the Potresovs do not belong to the organisation, and that they
sneer at all its decisions, just as the Golos people do. How can we come to an “agreement” with the Potresovs who have
proved that as far as they are concerned the Party does not exist ? Or with the Martovs and Dans who have proved the same thing?
What can we agree on with the liquidators, unless it is
the destruction of the R.S.D.L.P.?

Let the advocates of “agreement” try to name the terms of
agreement with the liquidators, the means of exercising control over the fulfilment of the terms, the facts proving that
they would be fulfilled. They can name none of these. And
therefore it is beyond any doubt that references to “agreement” are
nothing but idle and puerile talk. This talk only helps the intrigues of
the circles abroad (such as the Vperyod and Golos circles, and the Trotskyites), who have fully demonstrated that they ignore
the decisions of the Party, and that they refuse to give up an iota of their “freedom” to support the liquidators.

In Russia, in the meantime, the illegal workers’ circles have been
drawing away from the liquidators, and are dissociating themselves from
them to an ever greater extent with each passing day, at the same time
slowly and laboriously building up the revolutionary R.S.D.L.P. The task of
the adherents of the Social-Democratic Labour Party is to help
these circles, to translate the decisions of the R.S.D.L.P. into practical
work, and to put an end to the game of agreement with the windbags abroad
(the Golos group, the strongest group abroad, are also mere
windbags). Membership of the Party means fighting for the Party. All talk
about “agreement” with the liquidators who are building a
non-Social-Democratic party, is a violation of the duty deriving from Party
membership.

August 2, 1911

N. Lenin

P.S. It should be added that the analysis of the “charges” levelled against the Bolshevik Centre, given in the Appendix,
represents our collective opinion and has been elaborated on the basis of
material and documents in the hands of the Bolshevik Centre, as well as on
the basis of information sup plied by comrades of the Bolshevik Centre who
personally conducted some of its affairs.

N. Lenin

---
Notes:
[1]
Obviously it would be ridiculous to talk of sincerity on the part of
the Golos group abroad. They are past masters at blackmail and
slander, with gentry like Martov in the lead in this respect. The decision
arrived at by Kautsky, Mehring and Zetkin that the disputed funds be turned
over, not to the Central Committee Bureau Abroad, but to
the Technical

Commission [3] (see Bulletin of the Organising Commission,
August 1, 1911), means complete vindication of Comrade Alexandrov and all
the Bolsheviks (who are fully in agreement with Alexandrov) and
complete condemnation of the foul slander spread by Martov, Dan, Martynov and Axelrod. We also draw readers’
attention to Comrade

Victor’s [4] letter printed in the Appendix. It shows what vile means
Mr. Martov and his abettors stoop to in their fight against political
adversaries. — Lenin

[2]
Proletary —an illegal newspaper founded by the Bolsheviks
after the Fourth (Unity) Congress of the Party. Published from August 21
(September 3), 1906 to November 28 (December 11), 1909 under Lenin’s
editorship. The organ of the Moscow and St. Petersburg Party Committees,
and for a time also of the Moscow District, Perm, Kursk and Kazan
Committees, Proletary was actually the Bolshevik Central
Organ. Altogether fifty issues appeared (the first twenty in Vyborg,
Finland). From February 13 (26) to December 11 (14), 1908,
Proletary was published in Geneva, and from January 8 (21) to
November 28 (December 11), 1909, in Paris.

Proletary carried over one hundred articles and shorter items
by Lenin. During the Stolypin reaction it played an outstanding part in
preserving and strengthening the Bolshevik organisations.

[3]
The Technical Commission (the Technical Commission Abroad,
T.C.A.) was set up at the Meeting of C.C. members in June 1911 to deal with
technical matters (publishing, transport, etc.). It was an ad hoc
Commission designed to function until the convening of the plenary meeting
of the C.C., and subordinate to a group of C.C. members who took part in
the Meeting of June 1911. It consisted of one representative each, from the
Bolsheviks, conciliators, and Polish Social-Democrats respectively. The
conciliators were in the majority and sabotaged the organisational work of
the Bolsheviks; refused to abide by the decisions of the Russian Organising
Commission and stopped allocating funds for the publication of the Party’s
Central Organ— Sotsial-Demokrat . They also attacked Lenin and the
Bolsheviks in the press (publishing leaflets and the Information Bulletin ).

M. F. Vladimirsky, the Bolshevik representative on the Commission,
withdrew from it on October 19 (November 1), 1911, and the Bolsheviks
severed all connections with it.

[4]
A letter “To the Party” from the Bolshevik V. K. Taratuta was written
because of rumours spread in 1906 about his alleged provocative
actions. The investigating committee appointed by the January Plenary
Meeting of the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. in 1910 went into this
matter and unanimously decided that in view of the absence of any
incriminating facts, the matter be considered closed and that Taratuta be
reinstated with full Party rights.