Date: 1913-04
Source: ru:LS/v21

Source: LS/v21 vol XXI

CONVERSATION
€. d. of the Duma faction in the Fourth State Duma, about which the faction published a special appeal addressed to all workers in M 36
“Za Pravdu” of November 43, 1939.
The document was published by the Institute
& M 423 “Pravda,” June 1932.
CONVERSATION.
[March–April 1913]
First outsider. I observe, as best I can, the struggle among the workers over “sixes and sevens.” I endeavor
to keep abreast of both newspapers, comparing, as far as possible,
the commentary of the bourgeois press and the black press… And you know what? It seems to me that the struggle is taking on grave forms, that it is degenerating into petty squabbles, into bickering—and that the outcome will be, at the very least, a profound demoralization.
Second outsider. Nothing to be done about it. Where in this world have you ever seen a serious struggle over anything that did not assume grave forms? Precisely because a struggle resolves a fundamental question, one cannot get by with a mere “light” quarrel. Those who have grown accustomed to denying—and continue to deny—the principles of party building will never yield without the most desperate resistance. Desperate resistance, everywhere and always, gives rise to “grave forms,” to attempts to shift the dispute from the realm of principle into the domain of petty squabbling. So what? Are we to abandon the struggle for the fundamental principles of party building because of that?
Fourth outsider. You are straying somewhat from the question I posed and are rushing too quickly “to the offensive.”
Every workers’ circle, on both sides, is eager to “draft” a resolution—and a veritable competition is unfolding over who can outdo whom with the sharpest, most forceful rhetoric. How much vitriol! How many bitter words drive away from the workers’ press those masses of working people who are seeking socialist enlightenment—people who may well toss the paper aside, feeling less wonder than bewilderment, less pride than a certain shame at socialism… Perhaps they will even lose faith in socialism for a long time to come. The competition in invective creates
Lenin’s Assembly X X I


an atmosphere of some “unnatural selection,” elevating to the forefront “boxing experts”... On both sides, there is encouragement of reckless, aggressive attacks against one’s opponent.
Should the socialist party be fostering such an upbringing for the proletariat? Does this not amount to condoning—or at the very least, tolerating—opportunism, since opportunism means sacrificing the fundamental interests of the workers’ movement for fleeting success? The fundamental interests of the workers’ movement are sacrificed by both sides in the name of short‑term gain… Instead of rejoicing in socialist work, in its penetration into the lives of the masses, in a serious, committed engagement with it, socialists end up driving the masses away from socialism. One cannot help but recall the bitter words: the proletariat will come to socialism in spite of the socialists. Second outsider. Both you and I are outsiders—meaning we do not take direct part in the struggle. Yet outsiders, as they try to make sense of what is unfolding before their eyes, may regard the struggle in two different ways. From the outside, one can see only the external, so to speak, face of the struggle: figuratively speaking, one sees nothing but clenched fists, contorted faces, grotesque scenes; one can condemn all of this, weep and lament over it. But one can also, from the outside, grasp the deeper meaning of the struggle—a meaning that, if you’ll excuse me, is a bit more interesting and, historically speaking, far more instructive than the scenes and images of so‑called “excesses” or “extremes” in the struggle. There is no struggle without passion. And there is no passion without extremes; and as for me, I hate above all those who, in class struggles, in party struggles, in factional conflicts, see above all else “extremes.” I am always tempted—excuse me—to shout at these people: “To me, it’s better to drink your fill and understand the matter at hand.”
But the stakes here are high—historically high. A workers’ party is being forged. The self‑determination of the working class, the influence workers wield over their own factions, the capacity of workers themselves to decide the questions facing their party—this is the great historical significance of what is happening; this is what, once a hopeful aspiration, becomes a concrete reality unfolding before our very eyes. You are frightened and saddened by “extremes,” while I watch the struggle with delight, for it is in this very struggle that the working class of Russia is truly maturing and coming of age—I am furious only because I am an outsider, because I cannot plunge into the very heart of this struggle…
Fourth outsider. And into the very heart of “extremes,” you say? [And if “extremes” lead to the fabrication of resolutions, will you too proclaim

CONVERSATION

“hatred” toward those who point this out, who are outraged by it, who demand, at all costs, that it be brought to an end?]
Second outsider. Please, don’t frighten us! You won’t scare us! Good heavens, you’re starting to sound like those people who eagerly await publicity whenever false information is revealed.
I remember how, back when “Pravda” first reported on the political dishonesty of a certain SD member—an account later proven to be false—how that SD member must have felt from the moment the report was published until the day it was refuted! But publicity is a sword that heals the wounds it inflicts. [Will resolutions be fabricated? The forgers will be exposed and cast out—nothing more.] No serious battle takes place without field hospitals near the battlefield. But to let oneself be intimidated—or to allow oneself to be paralyzed by “field hospital” scenarios—is utterly unforgivable. If you fear wolves, you shouldn’t go into the forest.
As for opportunism—that is, the forgetting of socialism’s fundamental goals—you are simply shifting blame from the sick head onto the healthy one. You seem to regard these fundamental goals as something akin to an “angelic ideal,” detached from the “sinful” struggle for the cause of the day, for the passions of the present moment. To view it that way is to turn socialism into a sweet phrase, into a sugary indulgence. In every struggle for every pressing issue of the day, we must maintain an unbreakable connection with the fundamental goals. Only by grasping the historical significance of the struggle—by deepening and intensifying it—can we reject what is bad, that “bravado,” that “boxing”—which is inevitable wherever there is crowd, noise, shouting, and jostling—but which ultimately rejects itself.
You speak of a socialist party that educates the proletariat. Yet in this very struggle, the question at hand is precisely whether we will uphold the basic principles of party life. Before each workers’ circle looms, in sharp, uncompromising terms, demanding an immediate and direct answer, the question: What kind of politics does it intend to pursue in the Duma? How does it regard the open party and the underground? Does it see the Duma faction as standing above the party—or vice versa? After all, these are the very ABCs of party existence; these are the questions of whether a party shall exist at all.
Socialism is not a ready‑made system destined to benefit humanity. Socialism is the class struggle of the modern proletariat, moving from one goal today to another tomorrow—in the name of its fundamental purpose, drawing ever closer to it with each passing day. Today, socialism is unfolding in a country called