Can abuse have political significance? — the reader will ask.

Undoubtedly. Here is an example from the sphere that interests all class-conscious workers.

We, the Pravdists, are abused as “usurpers” (illegal seizure-makers). Around this abuse in March 1912, the Plekhanovites, Vperyodists, Trotskyists, liquidators and a host of other small groups “united.”

Now, in June 1914, more than two years later, the supporters of “Unity,” the liquidators, Vperyodists, Trotskyists, and probably a dozen more small groups are again “uniting” around this abuse against us.

In order to reflect on the political significance of this abuse, we invite the reader to recall some elementary things that the supporters of “Unity” and Co. want to “drown out” with noise and abuse.

They all declared the Conference of January 1912 a usurpation, an illegal seizure. It, allegedly, had no right to call itself the supreme body, the institution of the whole.

Excellent, gentlemen! Just see how political facts expose all the emptiness and falsity of your phrases.

Suppose you are right, suppose the January 1912 Conference was an “illegal seizure.” What follows from this?

From this it follows that all groups, trends, circles, all Social-Democrats, offended by this “illegal seizure,” should have come out for “legality”? Is that not so? To unite not only to abuse the usurpers, but also to overthrow them.

That seems indisputable?

It seems that the brave Plekhanov, the courageous Trotsky, the bold Vperyodists, the noble liquidators could not have united to curse the usurpers without also uniting to overthrow the usurpers.

For if our heroes had not done this, they would have turned out to be empty windbags, would they not?

And what was required to overthrow the “usurpers”?

For this it would have been enough for the noble protesters against usurpation to gather together without the usurpers, to condemn them and to show the workers an example, experience, a fact—a fact, not a promise, a deed, not a phrase—of legal institutions as distinct from usurper ones.

Anyone who does not consider all the class-conscious workers of Russia idiots will, of course, agree that these workers, seeing the united work of the noble protesters against the “usurpers,” would have supported those protesters, thrown out the usurpers, and rewarded them with ridicule and condemnation!!

That seems clear?

It seems absolutely indisputable that not only a Marxist, but any self-respecting democrat would have been obliged to join with all opponents of “usurpation” to overthrow the usurpers?

And in fact?

What happened in fact?

What resulted two years after our noble opponents of “usurpation” went on a campaign against the usurpers?

What resulted was that the “usurpers” united around their decisions four-fifths (4/5) of all the class-conscious workers of Russia.

Over the 2 1/2 years, from January 1, 1912 to May 13, 1914, the Pravdist newspapers were assisted with contributions by 5,674 workers’ groups, while the noble opponents of “usurpation,” the liquidators and their friends, received assistance from 1,421 workers’ groups.

The “usurpers” achieved the unity of four-fifths of the workers of Russia, in deed, not in word.

And the noble enemies of “usurpation” crumbled into dust, for their August bloc fell apart, Trotsky, the Latvians, the Caucasian leaders and others broke away into separate small groups, which in the actual movement proved to be ciphers both individually and together.

What a wonder?

How could four-fifths of the workers stand up for the vile “usurpation,” against the numerous, diverse noble enemies of usurpation, representing a “multitude of trends”?

This could and had to happen, reader, for the following reason: abuse in politics often covers up complete lack of principle and helplessness, impotence, angry impotence of those abusing.

That is all.

But the class-conscious workers, despite all the abuse against the “Pravdists,” “usurpers,” “Leninists” and so on and so forth, unite and will unite around the ideas and tactics of consistent Marxism. Despite all this abuse, they recognize unity only from below, the unity of the workers on the basis of condemning liquidationism, on the basis of recognizing all the decisions of the “whole.” Only the subordination of the minority to the majority can be the principle of the working-class movement, not agreement with intellectual groups.

Trudovaya Pravda No. 23, June 24, 1914.

Printed from the text of the newspaper Trudovaya Pravda.