V. I.

Lenin

(NOTE)

The reasons for the chaos and confusion among modern Social-Democrats
and “near Social-Democrats” are not only external (persecutions, etc.),
but also internal . A huge number of old “prominent Party people”
are completely confused, they have understood absolutely nothing about the
new state of affairs (the counter-revolution of the June Third system), and
their helpless “dithering”—today to the left, tomorrow to the
right—has caused hopeless confusion in everything they undertake.

A perfect example of this embarrassment, helplessness and confusion is
to be found in the article by A. Vlasov in Luch No. 109 (195).

There is not a single idea, a single sound word in the whole of
Vlasov’s article. It is all confusion and helpless limping after the
liquidators combined with futile efforts to disassociate himself from
them. It is not true that “formerly” our Party was sometimes built up
“without the workers themselves”, or that “the activities of the
underground amounted largely (!!?) to abstract (!?) propaganda of the ideas
of socialism”. The history of the old Iskra (1900-03), which
created the Party programme and the fundamentals of Party tactics, fully
refutes this. It is not true that the Party’s task today is “open
work (!!?), but the secret organisation of it”. A. Vlasov has
completely failed to understand the liquidationist content of the slogan
“struggle for an open party”, although it was explained in
Pravda No. 108 (312), popularly and not for the first time.

It is not true that Pravda advises “adopting the work of the
old Party organisation as an example”. “It is essential to outline, even if briefly, the nature of the activity of this (new)
underground, i.e., its tactics,” says A. Vlasov with amusing pomposity
(“we, the practical workers”). As far back as
December 1908 [1] the Party “outlined” its tactics (and in
1912 [2] and
1913 [3] confirmed and explained them) and its organisation, giving a
clear “ example ” of old tasks and new forms of preparation. If A. Vlasov has not yet understood this he has only himself
to blame: it is his fate to repeat fragments of liquidationism, the dispute
with which, incidentally, has nothing to do with the “organisation
question”.