V. I.

Lenin

All class-conscious workers in Russia undoubtedly showed
interest in the resolution on Russian affairs passed by the International
Bureau and paid attention to it. It is known that the pivot of this
resolution was the decision to organise or arrange a “ general exchange of opinion ” among “all sections of the working-class movement” of
Russia, including those which accept the Social-Democratic programme, as
well as those whose programmes “are in agreement” (or “in
harmony”— im Einklange ) with it.

The latter definition is extremely broad, for it embraces not only the
supporters of Jagiello, but also every group that wishes to declare that
its programme “harmonises” or “is in agreement with” the
Social-Democratic programme. This broad definition, however, will not do
any harm for, of course, it is desirable that the widest Possible circle
should participate in this “ exchange of opinion ” so as not to
exclude any of those with whom even individual groups of Social-Democrats
might desire to unite. We must not forget that two plans were
proposed at the meeting of the International Socialist Bureau:
(1) Kautsky’s plan to “arrange a general exchange of opinion” and no more . An exchange of opinion before impartial colleagues, the
Executive Committee of the International Socialist Bureau, will
ascertain the state of affairs and the depth of the disagreements;
=

(2) The plan pro posed by Rosa Luxemburg, but withdrawn after Kautsky’s
objections. This plan proposed a “unification conference”
( Einigungskonferenz ) “to restore the united party”.

This second plan was not so good, of course, for, the first essential
is to gather precise data, apart from the fact that Rosa Luxemburg was
merely trying to smuggle in “restoration” of the notorious “Tyszka
group”.

The plan accepted was Kautsky’s; it was more cautious and approached
the question of unity more systematically, through a preliminary
“exchange of opinion and the study of precise data. It is quite natural
therefore that Kautsky’s resolution should have been adopted unanimously.

But a distinction must be drawn between Kautsky’s resolution, which was
adopted by the Bureau, and the speech he made, in the course of
which he said some monstrous things on one point. We have already
commented briefly on this matter, but the appearance of the report of
Kautsky’s speech in Vorw\"arts (the chief organ of the German
party) [1] compels us to deal with this important question in greater
detail.

Objecting to Rosa Luxemburg, Kautsky said that “the old party had
disappeared although old names had been retained which, however, in the
course of time ( im Laufe der Jahre —during the past few years)
had acquired a new content. Old comrades could not simply be excluded
merely because their party ( ihre Partei ) did not bear the old
name”.

When Rosa Luxemburg objected to this and said that “Kautsky’s
statement that the Russian party was dead [ sei tot ] was a
thoughtless expression”, Kautsky limited himself to “protesting that he
did not say that Russian Social-Democracy was dead. He merely said that the
old forms were broken, and that a new form would have to be created”.

This is the translation of the official record of the passages relevant
to our question.

It is obvious that Kautsky did not say and could not have said that
Social-Democracy was dead. But he did say that the party
had disappeared, and this he did not withdraw , in spite of the
protest that was made!

This is incredible, but it is a fact.

The confusion Kautsky betrayed here is stupendous. To the exclusion of
which “old comrades” did he refer? Potresov and Co.? By
“their party” did he mean liquidator amorphousness?

Or did Kautsky have in mind the “P.S.P. Left wing” which was excluded
by Rosa Luxemburg’s formula? If so, then his expression “old comrades” is
unintelligible, for never since the Social-Democratic Party has
been in existence, i.e., since 1898, have the members of the P.S.P. and Social-Democrats been
fellow party members.

As far as we are concerned the two interpretations are the same, for it
would be ridiculous indeed to exclude the liquidators from an “exchange of
opinion” on the question of unity (for the whole question centres round
them), just as it would be ridiculous to exclude the P.S.P. Left wing
(speaking abstractly, the liquidators—anything can be expected of
them—are quite capable of making an ultimatum of their defence of their
break-away alliance with the non Social-Democratic P.S.P.). At all
events it must be ascertained exactly not only what the liquidators want of
the party, but also what their allies want.

The undoubted fact remains that at the Bureau, Kautsky went to the
length of saying that the Russian party had disappeared.

How could he have descended to such a monstrous statement? To
understand this the Russian workers must know who informs the
German Social-Democratic press about Russian affairs? When the Germans
write they usually avoid the question of our disagreements. When Russians
write for German Social-Democratic publications we either see all the
émigré coteries allied with the liquidators in a campaign of
scurrilous abuse against the “Leninists” (as was the case in
Vorw\"arts in the spring of 1912), or the writings of the Tyszkas
and Trotskys, or a member of some other émigré coterie,
deliberately obscuring the issue. For years there has not been a
single document, collection of resolutions, analysis of ideas, or a single
attempt to collect the facts!

We regret that the German leaders (who show ability in collecting and
analysing facts when they study theory) are not ashamed to listen to and
repeat the fairy-tales of their liquidator informants.

The Bureau’s resolution will be carried out, but Kautsky’s
speech will remain a sad curiosity.

---
Notes:
[1]
Vorw\"arts ( Forward )—the central organ of the
German Social-Democratic Party; from 1876 onwards it was edited by Wilhelm
Liebknecht and others. Engels conducted a struggle in the paper’s columns
against all manifestations of opportunism. From the middle nineties, after
the death of Engels, Vorw\"arts regularly published articles by
the opportunists dominant in the German Social-Democratic Party and in the
Second International. During the First World War Vorw\"arts
adopted a social-chauvinist position.