The Present State of Affairs in Social-Democracy in Russia
Теперешнее положение дел в с.-д. России
Date: 1912-01
Source: PSS vol 26
Translated by: AI (Claude)

As we have already said, neither the Liquidators, nor a whole series of emigré groups (Plekhanov's, Alexinsky's, Trotsky's, etc.), nor the so-called "national" (i.e., non-Great Russian) Social-Democrats recognized our January Conference of 1912. Of the countless abuses with which they showered us, the accusation of "usurpation" and "splitting" was most often repeated. Our answer to this consisted in citing precise and objectively verifiable figures proving that our party united four-fifths of the conscious workers of Russia. This is not little—with all the difficulties of illegal work in a counter-revolutionary epoch.

If "unity" were possible in Russia on the basis of Social-Democratic tactics, without exclusion of the "Nashe Zarya" group, then why did our numerous opponents not achieve it even among themselves? Since January 1912 a whole 3½ years have passed, and during all this time our opponents could not create, despite all their desire, a Social-Democratic party against us. This fact is the best defense of our party.

The entire history of the Social-Democratic groups fighting against our party is a history of collapse and disintegration. In March 1912 all without exception "united" in abuse against us. But already in August 1912, when the so-called "August bloc" was created against us, their disintegration began. Part of the groups fell away from them. They cannot create a party and a CC. They create only an OC "for the restoration of unity." But in fact this OC proved to be an impotent cover for the Liquidationist group in Russia. During the entire period of enormous upsurge of the workers' movement in Russia and mass strikes of 1912-1914, the only group from the entire "August bloc" conducting work among the masses remains the "Nashe Zarya" group, whose strength is constituted by its liberal connections. And at the beginning of 1914 the Latvian Social-Democrats formally exit from the "August bloc" (the Polish Social-Democrats were not in it), and Trotsky, one of the bloc's leaders, left it informally, creating again his own separate group. In July 1914 at a conference in Brussels, with the participation of the Executive Committee of the ISB, Kautsky and Vandervelde, the so-called "Brussels bloc" was formed against us, which the Latvians did not enter and from which the Polish Social-Democrats—the opposition—immediately fell away. After the war this bloc disintegrates. "Nashe Zarya," Plekhanov, Alexinsky, the leader of the Caucasian Social-Democrats An become open social-chauvinists, preaching the desirability of Germany's defeat. The OC and the Bund defend the social-chauvinists and the foundations of social-chauvinism. The Chkheidze faction, although voting against war credits (in Russia even bourgeois democrats, Trudoviks, voted against them), remains a faithful ally of "Nashe Zarya." Our extreme social-chauvinists, Plekhanov with Alexinsky and Co., are quite satisfied with the Chkheidze faction. In Paris a newspaper "Nashe Slovo" ("Our Word") is formed (formerly "Golos"—"The Voice") with the participation mainly of Martov and Trotsky, who wish to combine platonic defense of internationalism with an unconditional demand for unity with "Nashe Zarya," the OC, or the Chkheidze faction. After 250 issues of this newspaper it itself is forced to acknowledge its disintegration: one part of the editorial board gravitates toward our party, Martov remains faithful to the OC, which publicly censures "Nashe Slovo" for "anarchism" (as the opportunists in Germany, David and Co., "Internationale Korrespondenz," Legien and Co. accuse Comrade Liebknecht of anarchism); Trotsky announces his break with the OC, but wishes to go together with the Chkheidze faction. Here is the program and tactics of the Chkheidze faction, set forth by one of its leaders. In No. 5 of "Sovremennyy Mir," 1915, a journal with the orientation of Plekhanov and Alexinsky, Chkhenkeli writes:

"To say that German Social-Democracy was in a position to prevent its country's military action and did not do this would mean either covertly wishing that it should find on the barricades not only its own but also its fatherland's last death agony, or looking at objects lying side by side through an anarchist telescope."

In these few lines is expressed the whole essence of social-chauvinism: both the principled justification of the idea of "defense of the fatherland" in the present war, and mockery—with the permission of military censors—of the preaching and preparation of revolution. The question is not at all whether German Social-Democracy was in a position to prevent the war, just as it is not whether revolutionaries in general can vouch for the success of revolution. The question is whether to conduct oneself as socialists, or to truly "expire" in the embrace of the imperialist bourgeoisie.