Date: 1911
Source: ru:PSS/v20

The correspondence of Comrade K.{130} deserves the utmost attention of all who cherish our Party. One could scarcely imagine a more compelling exposure of “Golosov’s” policies—and of Golosov’s diplomacy—nor a more decisive refutation of the views and hopes held by our “reconciliators and compromisers.”

Is the case described by Comrade K. truly exceptional? No—it is a typical instance among the activists of the Stolypin-era Workers’ Party, for we know full well that a number of writers associated with “Nasha Zarya,” “Del Zhizni,” and similar publications have been systematically advancing precisely these liquidationist ideas for many years now. While it is not always the case that such liquidators find their way into the ranks of the Party’s workers—indeed, the Party rarely receives such precise reports about their disgraceful activities, for which we must be grateful to Comrade K.—the propaganda of the group of independent legalists has consistently been conducted in this very spirit, everywhere and at all times. To doubt this fact, when journals like “Nasha Zarya” and “Del Zhizni” are plainly before us, is simply impossible. To remain silent about this fact serves only the interests of those defenders of the liquidators who are especially cowardly and especially base.

Compare this reality with the tactics employed by figures like Trotsky, who loudly proclaim their “agreement” with others while simultaneously denouncing liquidationism. These tactics are all too familiar: they shout louder than ever that we are “neither Bolsheviks nor Mensheviks, but revolutionary Social Democrats”; they solemnly swear and vow that we are enemies of liquidationism and stand firmly behind the illegal RSDLP; they rail against those who expose the liquidators—Messrs. Potresov and Co.—and label anti-liquidationists as “exaggerators,” while saying not a single word against specific liquidationists such as Messrs. Potresov, Martov, Levitsky, Dan, Larin, and others.

The true significance of such tactics is abundantly clear. Behind the rhetoric, the real liquidationists are concealed, and every possible effort is made to obstruct the work of the anti-liquidationists. History is replete with examples of this very same kind of policy: the notorious “Rabocheye Delo”{131}, infamous in the annals of the RSDLP for its utter lack of principle, would solemnly swear and vow that we were anything but “economists,” that we were fully committed to political struggle—yet in practice it merely shielded “Rabochaya Mysl”{132} and the economists, directing all its efforts against those who exposed the economists and refuted their arguments.

It is thus evident that Trotsky and his like—“Trotskyists and compromisers”—are far more harmful than any outright liquidator, for while staunch liquidators openly state their views, making it easy for workers to recognize the fallacy of their positions, the Trotskys deceive the workers, conceal evil, render its exposure impossible, and block any path to its eradication. Anyone who supports Trotsky’s clique supports a policy of lies and deception directed at the workers—a policy of covering up liquidationism. The complete freedom of action granted to Mr. Potresov and Co. within Russia, coupled with their use of “revolutionary” rhetoric abroad to mask their true intentions—this is the essence of “Trotskyism.”

From this it becomes clear, moreover, that any “agreement” with the Golosovites that sidesteps the question of the liquidationist center in Russia—that is, the activists of “Nasha Zarya” and “Del Zhizni”—would amount to nothing less than a continuation of the same deception of the workers, the same cover-up of evil. Since the January Plenum of 1910, the Golosovites have amply demonstrated their capacity to “sign” any resolution whatsoever, without the slightest “restriction on the freedom” of their liquidationist activities—no resolution could ever constrain them. Abroad, they may sign resolutions declaring that any downplaying of the importance of the illegal party constitutes a manifestation of bourgeois influence over the proletariat; yet in Russia, they aid Messrs. Potresov, Larin, and Levitsky—men who not only do not participate in illegal work, but who mock it and actively undermine the illegal party.

At present, Trotsky, together with Bundists like Mr. Liberman (a staunch liquidator who publicly defended Mr. Potresov at conferences—and who now, in an attempt to obscure this fact, stirs up quarrels and petty squabbles), along with Latvians like Schwartz and others, are crafting precisely such an “agreement” with the Golosovites. Let no one be deceived: their agreement will be an agreement to shield the liquidators.

P.S. These lines had already been set in type when news broke in the press of the “agreement” between the Golosovites and Trotsky, the Bundist, and the Latvian liquidator. Our words have been fully confirmed: this is an agreement to shield the liquidators in Russia—an agreement forged by the henchmen of Mr. Potresov and Co.

“Social Democrat,” No. 23, September 14 (1), 1911

Printed according to the text of the newspaper “Social Democrat.”