V. I.

Lenin

The Anonymous Writer in Vorwärts and the State of Affairs in the R.S.D.L.P. [5]

PREFACE

Vorwärts of March 26 carried an official statement on the Conference of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party
and an anonymous article whose author, in line with a resolution adopted by
Russian Social-Democratic groups abroad, [6] heaps abuse on the Conference. The Conference was the
culmination of the four years’ struggle of the R.S.D.L.P. against the
liquidators, and it was held in spite of all the intrigues of the
liquidators who endeavoured at all costs to hinder the rebuilding of the
Party. The Conference placed the liquidators outside the Party. It is
therefore quite natural that the liquidators and their supporters should
now attack the Conference.

Since Vorwärts refuses to print our reply to the infamous
lying article of the anonymous writer and continues its campaign in favour
of the liquidators, we are publishing this reply as a separate pamphlet for
the information of the German comrades. It is devoted, mainly, to a brief
statement of the significance, course and results of the fight against the
liquidators.

Editorial Board of Sotsial-Demokrat, Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P.

P.S. Our pamphlet had already been sent to the printer when we received
Plekhanov’s Diary of a Social-Democrat No. 16 (April 1912). This
issue provides the best proof that Vorwärts was deceived by
the anonymous writer and, in its turn, misled the German workers.

Plekhanov, while definitely stating that he is still no supporter of
the Conference held in January 1912, says in so many words that what the
Bund is convening is not a conference of existing Party
organisations but a “ constituent ” conference, i.e., one which is
expected to found a new party; that the organisers of the conference follow
a “ typical anarchist principle ”; that they adopted a “liquidationist resolution”; that this new conference “is being convened
by liquidators

Some German comrades displayed an amazing naïveté in taking
seriously all those dreadful words like “usurpation”, “coup
d’état”, etc., which tiny groups of Russian Social-Democrats abroad
like to use in their attacks on the Conference of the Russian organisations
of the R.S.D.L.P. Still, we must not forget the saying that a man who has
been condemned to death may abuse his judges for 24 hours.

The article in the March 26 issue of Vorwärts entitled “Russian Party Life” reproduces the official statement of the Conference,
which says that the liquidators have been expelled from the Party. It is a
perfectly clear statement:

the Russian organisations of the R.S.D.L.P. have taken the viewpoint that
it is impossible to work jointly with the liquidators. One may, of course,
have a different point of view on this matter, but in that case the author
should have dealt in greater detail with the motives leading to the
decision and with the entire history of the four years’ fight against the
liquidationist trend! The anonymous author of the article in
Vorwärts , however, has not a single word to say on the merits
of this fundamental issue . It is, indeed, a sign of a very low
opinion of the readers when an author completely ignores the substance of
the matter but unburdens himself with melodramatic outpourings. How
helpless, then, is our anonymous author if his reply to the fact that the
Party has broken with the liquidationist trend contains nothing but abuse.

It is only necessary to quote at random several curious passages from
the article of the unknown author. He says that the “trends” or
“groups” represented by Vperyod , Pravda , Golos Sotsial-Demokrata , etc., did not take part in the Conference. We
should like to ask, what would you say of a German Social-Democrat who
lamented the fact that the “group” or “trend” of Friedberg or of the
Sozialistische Monatshefte was not represented at a Party
congress? We, in our Party, also adhere to the custom that organisations functioning in
Russia are entitled to take part in Party conferences, but not all sorts of
“trends” or “groups” abroad. If such “groups” are at variance with
the Russian organisations, that alone constitutes their severest
condemnation, their death sentence which they have justly deserved. The
history of the Russian political exiles, like that of exiles from all other
countries, abounds in cases of such “trends ” or “groups” having become
divorced from the activity of the Social-Democratic workers in Russia and
dying a natural death.

Don’t the cries of our author sound absurd when he alleges that the
pro-Party (i.e., anti-liquidationist) Mensheviks who took part in the
Conference have been disavowed even by Plekhanov? The Kiev organisation
could, of course, disavow the foreign “Plekhanovites” (i.e., Plekhanov’s
followers); but no writer abroad, no matter who he is, can “disavow” the
Kiev organisation. The organisations of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Moscow
District, Kazan, Saratov, Tiflis, Baku, Nikolayev, Kiev, Ekaterinoslav,
Wilno, and Dvinsk have “disavowed” all groups abroad which assisted the
liquidators or flirted with them. The outcries and abuse of the
“disavowed” are hardly likely to change anything in this respect.

Further, surely it is strange for the author to declare in so many
words that the “national” Social-Democratic organisations in Russia (the
Polish, Latvian, and the Bund) and the Transcaucasian Regional Committee
represent “the oldest and strongest organisations of our Russian Party,
those which, to all intents and purposes, constitute the backbone of the
movement”? The problematical existence of the Transcaucasian Regional
Committee is something generally known and was proved by the character of
its representation at the conference in 1908. The Polish and Latvian
organisations, during the first nine years of the R.S.D.L.P. (1898–1907),
led an existence entirely apart, and, in fact, remained isolated from it in
the 1907–11 period as well. The Bund seceded from the Party in 1903 and
remained out side it until 1906 (or, to be more exact, 1907). Nor have its
local branches fully rejoined the Party to this day, as was officially
established at the conference of the R.S.D.L.P.

in 1908. [7] Within the Latvian organisation and the Bund at one time
the liquidationist, at another the anti-liquidationist elements gained the
upper hand. As for the Poles, they sided with the Mensheviks in 1903, with
the Bolsheviks in 1905, and in 1912 made an unsuccessful attempt at a
“reconciliation” with the liquidators.

This latter failure the author diffidently tries to cover up with the
following phrase: “At the beginning a representative of the
Social-Democrats of Poland and Lithuania also attended this
Conference”. Why only at the beginning ? We find the explanation
of this diffident silence in the official communiqué of the Bund
about this Conference. There it says in black and white that the
representative of the Poles withdrew from the Conference and submitted a
written statement, which said that it had become impossible for him to
collaborate with the Conference because it revealed a spirit of bias and a
partiality for the liquidators !

To be sure, it is much easier to heap up hollow and meaningless phrases
about “unity” (with the liquidators?), as the author is fond of doing,
than to study the real essence of the trend of the liquidators, their
refusal to help rebuild the Party, and their work of disrupting the Central
Committee of the Party. And it is all the more easy to indulge in
phrase-mongering if at the same time silence is maintained regarding the
fact that the representative of the Poles refused to work jointly (because
such work would be fruit less), not with the Bolsheviks or Leninists, God
forbid, but with the Bundists and Latvians.

But what, really, is the origin of liquidationism, and why was it
necessary for the Conference of 1912 to constitute it self the supreme
Party authority and to expel the liquidators?

The counter-revolution in Russia gave rise to a very pronounced process
of disintegration in the ranks of our Party. Persecutions of unparalleled
fury rained down upon the proletariat. Defection assumed wide proportions
in the ranks of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeois fellow-travellers, who had
naturally joined the proletariat as the leader of our bourgeois revolution
in 1905, began to turn their backs on the Social-Democratic Party. This
defection took two forms—that of liquidationism and of otzovism . The nucleus of the former was made up of the majority of
Menshevik writers (Potresov, Levitsky, Larin, Martov, Dan, Martynov, etc.). They declared
that the illegal Party had already been liquidated and that any attempt to
revive it was a reactionary utopia. Their slogan was: an open labour
party. Obviously, under the political conditions prevailing in Russia,
where even the party of the liberals, the Cadets, has no legal status, the
formation of an open Social-Democratic working-class party can only remain
wishful thinking. The liquidators repudiated the illegal party, but did not
fulfil their obligation to found a legal party. In the long run, all they
did was to write articles in the legal press in which they ridiculed the
“underground”, declared, in unison with the liberals, that it was dead,
and extolled the virtues of a liberal labour policy. Plekhanov was
absolutely right when he compared the liquidationist Nasha Zarya
to the German Sozialistische Monatshefte . The Menshevik Plekhanov
(to say nothing of the Bolsheviks) declared ruthless war on the
liquidationist trend, refused to contribute to any of their publications
and broke off relations with Martov and Axelrod.

“A man for whom our Party does not exist,” wrote Plekhanov in the Central
Organ about Potresov, “does not himself exist for our Party.” As far back
as December 1908, a Party conference emphatically condemned liquidationism,
which it described as “an attempt on the part of a group of Party
intellectuals to liquidate the existing organisation of the R.S.D.L.P. and
to replace it [note this well!] by a loose association that is legal, no matter what it costs ”. It is obvious that, far from denying that
it is essential to make use of all legal opportunities, the R.S.D.L.P. has
stressed this point in no unmistakable terms. However, an open legal
party in Russia is out of the question, and only opportunist
intellectuals can speak about such a party. The type of our Party
organisation may to a certain extent, of course, be compared to the German
type of Party organisation at the time the Anti-Socialist Law was in
operation: a legally functioning group in Parliament, all sorts of legally
existing workers’ associations, as an indispensable condition, but with the
illegal Party organisation as the foundation.

The “otzovists” wanted to recall the Social-Democratic group from the
Third Duma, and issued the slogan calling for a boycott of that Duma. The otzovists were joined by a section
of the Bolsheviks, on whom Lenin and others declared implacable war. The
otzovists and their defenders formed the Vperyod group, and the
writers collaborating in the magazine of that name (Maximov, Lunacharsky,
Bogdanov, Alexinsky) have been preaching various forms of the idealistic
philosophy, which they describe by the grand name of “proletarian
philosophy”, and the amalgamation of religion with socialism. This group has never exerted any perceptible influence, and it
led some sort of existence only by pursuing a policy of compromise with
various impotent groups abroad which had lost all contact with Russia. Such
groups, inevitable in every split, vacillate now to one side, now to the
other; they engage in cheap politics, but represent no definite trend and
their activity expresses itself mainly in petty intrigue. One of these
groups is represented by Trotsky’s Pravda .

It is clear, of course, to every Marxist that both liquidationism and
otzovism are petty-bourgeois tendencies which attract the bourgeois
fellow-travellers of the Social-Democratic Party. “Peace” or
“conciliation” with these tendencies is something excluded a
priori . The alternative facing the Social-Democratic Party was
either to perish or to rid itself entirely of these tendencies.

That this theoretical conclusion is correct was proved by the attempt
at conciliation made in January 1910, when the last Plenary Meeting of the
Central Committee declared unanimously, with the liquidators and otzovists concurring , that neither of these tendencies is
Social-Democratic , But things did not go further than pious
wishes. True, both the liquidators and the otzovists “signed” the
appropriate resolution, but they continued with all their might to conduct
their anti-Party propaganda, and maintained their own organisations. All
through 1910 the fight against both tendencies was steadily growing sharper . Plekhanov’s words quoted above are dated May 1910, and in
May 1910 Lenin declared on behalf of the Bolsheviks that, since the
liquidators had violated the January resolution there could be no question
of conciliation with them. [1]

The attempt to revive the Central Committee in Russia failed because
the liquidators refused their assistance. A last means of saving the cause
of “unity” was to convene a meeting of the Central Committee abroad. This
attempt was made in May 1911. Of the fifteen members of the Central
Committee, nine were abroad. Eight came to the meeting, but
two liquidators—Igorev, adherent of Golos , and a
Bundist (Ber)—immediately withdrew and thus finally wrecked the Central
Committee of the Party.

The refusal of the liquidators to participate in the Central Committee
meant their complete secession and the dissolution of the Central
Committee. Only one central body still remained abroad at the time—the
so-called Central Committee Bureau Abroad. The Bolsheviks withdrew from it
when the Central Committee ceased to exist. Only the Poles, Latvians,
Bundists and members of the Golos group (the liquidators abroad)
remained. The reader who is familiar with the article in
Vorwärts can thus see for himself that it was the same outfit
as that of the notorious conference called by the Bund; for the
Transcaucasian Regional Committee had commissioned Golos
supporters to represent it as far back as 1908. Now, let us see what these
“oldest and strongest Russian organisations”—to use the words in which
our anonymous author describes this latest discovery of his—have done?
They could not agree and even dissolved the Bureau Abroad themselves ! Already in the autumn of 1911 the Central Committee
Bureau Abroad published a statement in which it announced its own
dissolution, and Plekhanov, in his Diary , commented on this in the
following lines: “ Requiescat in pace ! This Party institution,
which became a weapon in the hands of gentry who strove to liquidate the
Party and therefore exposed the Russian Social-Democratic movement to grave
peril, could render the revolutionary proletariat only one
service: to die in good time”. ( The Diary of a Social-Democrat ,
Part 2. Supplement to No. 15, p. 1.) This opinion, voiced by Plekhanov, of
whom nobody can say that he is a supporter of the Conference, shows with
sufficient cogency how ridiculous is the pretence of those who shout about
“usurpation” and similar things!

One more course remained open to bring about the unity of the
Party, viz., to call a conference of Russian organisations.

The national organisations of the Poles, the Latvians and the Bundists,
utterly divorced as they were from the work in Russia, could do absolutely
nothing for such a conference.

On November 26, 1910, Trotsky issued an appeal calling for a
conference. He had the support (in words) of the Vperyod and
Golos groups (the liquidators abroad). But as might have been
foreseen, all the efforts of these groups, owing to their impotence, were
fruitless.

In June 1911 an appeal signed by the Bolsheviks, “conciliators”
(otherwise known as “pro-Party Bolsheviks”) and the Poles was issued. The
first step in the work was to invite the strongest organisation at the
time, namely, the Kiev organisation. October 1911 saw the
inauguration of the Russian (i. e., working in Russia, set up by the
Russian organisations) Organising Commission for the convening of a
conference. This Commission was formed by the Kiev, Ekaterinoslav, Tiflis,
Baku and Ekaterinburg organisations, which were soon joined by twenty more
organisations. The enlistment of representatives of the Russian
organisations revealed at once the absolute preponderance of the
Bolsheviks (so-called “Leninists”) and the pro-Party Mensheviks.

Inde ira [2] of the groups abroad which found themselves “disavowed”, because they had
no followers in Russia.

In January 1912 the Russian Organising Commission at last convened the
Conference, which all the Russian organisations, without
exception, had been invited to attend. Neither the liquidators, nor the
“non-Russians” (the Poles, the Latvians, and the Bund), nor the
vacillating groups abroad sent delegates. When the Conference was convinced
that the Russian organisations were represented as fully as
possible considering the unprecedentedly difficult conditions under which
the Party worked, when it established that without a central body in Russia
the Party was doomed, that the split abroad was continuing and that the
forthcoming elections to the Fourth Duma demanded the rebuilding of the
Party without any further delay, it had to constitute itself the
supreme authority of the Party , elect a Central Committee and
place the liquidators outside the Party.

Such was the course and the outcome of the protracted fight. The future
will show whether the liquidators will succeed in creating an “open”
party, or whether they will concoct some kind of fiction of a party on the
basis of a rotten compromise.

Are there any clear and easily verifiable data on the strength of the
liquidators and the pro-Party people, the followers of the Conference, in
Russia itself ? Yes, there are. There exist two —and only
two—all-Russia political organs in Russia, to which Marxist writers and
members of the Social-Democratic group in the Duma contribute. These organs
represent trends —not like the sheets abroad, which are full of
abuse, but in the form of open and serious literary work carried on over a
number of years. To be sure, they are not Party organs; they are strictly
legal and keep within the bounds fixed by the regime now existing in
Russia. However, all the most important shades of theoretical
thought in the ranks of the Social-Democratic movement find in these
organs, on the whole, an unquestionably correct expression. Only
two “trends”—liquidationism and anti liquidationism (the
followers of the Conference)—are represented; for no other more
or less serious “trends” exist . All those tiny groups, such as
the Pravda , Vperyod , “pro-Party Bolsheviks” (or “conciliators”, inclining to conciliatory sentiments), etc., count for
nothing. The views of the liquidators find expression in Russia in the
monthly Nasha Zarya (founded in 1910) and in the weekly
Zhivoye Dyelo (last issue No. 8). The views of the Party people
(Bolsheviks and pro-Party Mensheviks) find expression in the monthly

Prosveshcheniye [8] (founded in 1911—previously appeared
under the name of Mysl ) and in the newspaper Zvezda (last
issue No. 53). There is nothing more erroneous than the view that the
pro-Party Social-Democrats repudiate “legal” activity. The very opposite
is the truth, since in this activity too they are stronger than
the liquidators. The sole undisputed all-Russia open organisation of
legally functioning Social-Democrats is the Social-Democratic group in the
Duma. It is strictly legal and is not directly connected with the
Party. But all its members are known, and it is also known which trend each
of them represents.

The liquidationist Zhivoye Dyelo counts among its permanent
contributors two members of the group in the Duma—Astrakhantsev
and

Kuznetsov. [3]

In the anti-liquidationist Zvezda there are eight members of the
group—Voronin, Voiloshnikov, Yegorov, Zakharov, Pokrovsky, Predkaln,
Poletayev, and Surkov. Two members of the Duma, Chkheidze and Gegechkori,
contribute to neither of these organs. One (Shurkanov) contributes to both.

The ratio is 2 to 8! These are indeed indisputable, easily verifiable
and clear data enabling us to judge of the relation of forces between the
liquidators and the anti-liquidators.

This being so it is unnecessary to waste words on the unknown author’s
tall talk to the effect that the overwhelming majority follows the
liquidators, etc. These phrases à la Tartarin de Tarascon
are all too reminiscent of

Trotsky, [4] so that it is not worth while discussing them seriously.

The struggle within the R.S.D.L.P. at times assumes very bitter
forms. Nothing else could be expected under the conditions of life in
exile; nothing else could ever be expect ed in any other country whose lot
it was to endure counter revolution and exile.

It is nothing but frivolous on the part of anyone to “condemn” these
forms of the struggle in high-sounding phrases, to brush them aside and
merely indulge in philistine and unctuous reflections on the “merits of
unity”. Anyone who seriously intends to study the history of the
R.S.D.L.P. in the trying period 1908–11 will find at his disposal plenty
of illegal and even more of legal literature. This literature contains
highly instructive material on the nature of the trends, the fundamental
significance of the differences, the roots of the fight, the circumstances
and conditions of its development, etc.

No Social-Democratic Party in the world was ever formed—particularly
in the period of bourgeois revolutions—with out a hard struggle and a
number of splits with the bourgeois fellow-travellers of the
proletariat. The same is true of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour
Party, which ever since 1898 has been taking shape, growing, gaining in
strength and becoming tempered, despite all obstacles, in the hard struggle
against such fellow-travellers.

---
Notes:
[1]