V. I.

Lenin

Controversial Issues

AN OPEN PARTY AND THE MARXISTS

II. THE DECISION OF 1910

In our first article ( Pravda No. 289) we quoted the first and
basic document with which those workers who wish to discover the truth in
the present disputes must make themselves familiar, namely, the Party
decision of December 1908 on liquidationism.

Now we shall quote and examine another, no less important Party
decision on the same question adopted three and a half years ago, in
January 1910. This decision is especially important because it was carried
unanimously : all the Bolsheviks, without exception, all the
Vperyod group, and finally (this is most important) all
the Mensheviks and the present liquidators without exception, and also all
the “national” (i.e., Jewish, Polish and Latvian) Marxists accepted this
decision.

We quote here in full the most important passage in this decision:

“ The historical situation of the Social-Democratic movement in the period of bourgeois counter-revolution inevitably gives
rise, as a manifestation of bourgeois influence over the proletariat, on
the one hand, to the renunciation of the illegal Social-Democratic
Party,

the belittling of its role and importance, attempts to curtail the
programmatic and tactical tasks and slogans of consistent Social-Democracy,
etc.; on the other hand, it gives rise to the renunciation of
Social-Democratic activities in the Duma and of the utilisation of legal
possibilities, to failure to understand the importance of both, to
inability to adapt consistent Social-Democratic tactics to the peculiar
historical conditions of the given moment, etc.

“ It is an integral part of Social-Democratic tactics under such conditions to overcome both deviations by broadening and
deepening Social-Democratic work in all spheres of proletarian class
struggle and to explain the danger of such deviations.” [1]

This decision clearly shows that three and a half years ago all the
Marxists, as represented by all the trends without exception, were obliged
unanimously to recognise two deviations from Marxist tactics. Both deviations were recognised as dangerous . Both
deviations were explained as being due, not to accident, not to the evil
will of certain individuals, but to the “ historical situation ”
of the working-class movement in the present period.

Moreover, this unanimous Party decision points to the class
origin and significance of these deviations. For Marxists do not confine
themselves to bare and hollow references to disruption and
disintegration. That sense of confusion, lack of faith, despondency and
perplexity reign in the minds of many adherents of democracy and socialism
is obvious to all. It is not enough to admit this. It is necessary to
understand the class origin of the discord and disintegration, to
understand what class interests emanating from a non-proletarian
environment foster “confusion” among the friends of the proletariat.

And the Party decision adopted three and a half years ago gave an
answer to this important question: the deviations from Marxism are
generated by “bourgeois counter revolution”, by “ bourgeois influence over the proletariat ”.

What are these deviations that threaten to surrender the proletariat to
the influence of the bourgeoisie? One of these deviations, connected with
the Vperyod line and renouncing Social-Democratic activities in
the Duma and the utilisation of legal possibilities, has almost completely disappeared . None of the Social-Democrats in Russia now
preach these erroneous non-Marxian views. The Vperyod group (including Alexinsky and others) have begun to work in
Pravda alongside the pro-Party Mensheviks.

The other deviation indicated in the Party decision is liquidationism . This is obvious from the reference to the
“renunciation” of the underground and to the “belittling” of its role
and importance. Finally, we have a very precise document, published
three years ago and refuted by no one, a document emanating from
all the “national” Marxists and from Trotsky (better witnesses
the liquidators could not wish for). This document states directly that
“in essence it would be desirable to call the trend indicated in the
resolution liquidationism , a trend which must be combated ...

Thus, the fundamental and most important fact that must be known by
everyone who wants to understand what the present controversy is about is
the following—three and a half years ago the Party unanimously
recognised liquidationism to be a “dangerous” deviation from
Marxism, a deviation which must be combated and which expresses
“ bourgeois influence over the proletariat ”.

The interests of the bourgeoisie, whose attitude is against democracy,
and, generally speaking, counter-revolutionary, demand the
liquidation , the dissolution of the old Party of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are doing everything they can to spread and
foster all ideas aimed at liquidating the party of the working
class. The bourgeoisie are trying to encourage renunciation of the old
tasks, to “dock” them, cut them back, prune them, sap them of meaning, to
substitute conciliation or an agreement with the Purishkeviches and Co. for
the determined destruction of the foundations of their power.

Liquidationism is, in fact, the spreading of these bourgeois ideas of
renunciation and renegacy among the proletariat.

Such is the class significance of liquidationism as indicated
in the Party decision unanimously adopted three and a half years
ago. It is in this that the entire Party sees the greatest harm and the
danger of liquidationism, its pernicious effect on the working-class
movement, on the consolidation of an independent (not merely in word but in
deed) party of the working class.

Liquidationism means not only the liquidation (i.e., the dissolution,
the destruction) of the old party of the working class, it also means the destruction of the class independence of
the proletariat, the corruption of its class-consciousness by
bourgeois ideas.

We shall give an illustration of this appraisal of liquidationism in
the next article, which will set forth in full the most important arguments
of the liquidationist Luch . Now let us sum up briefly what we have
stated. The attempts of the Luch people in general, and of
Messrs. F. Dan and Potresov in particular, to make it appear that
“liquidationism” is an invention, are astonishingly mendacious
subterfuges based on the assumption that the readers of Luch are
completely uninformed. Actually, apart from the Party decision of 1908,
there is the unanimous Party decision of 1910, which gives a
complete appraisal of liquidationism as a bourgeois deviation from the
proletarian path, a deviation that is dangerous and disastrous to the
working class. Only the enemies of the working class can conceal or evade
this Party appraisal.