All conscious workers in Russia undoubtedly greeted the resolution of the International Bureau on Russian Affairs with keen interest and close attention. As is well known, the centerpiece of this resolution was the decision to organize—or rather, to convene—a “general exchange of views” among “all factions of the workers’ movement” in Russia—both those that recognized the Social-Democratic program and those whose programs were “in accord” (or “in harmony”—im Einklänge) with it.

The latter definition is extraordinarily broad, encompassing not only supporters of the Jagellists but also any group that might wish to declare that its program “corresponds” to, or “is in accord with,” the Social-Democratic program. Yet this expansive definition does no harm whatsoever, for when it comes to an “exchange of views,” it is, of course, desirable to define the membership as broadly as possible—without excluding even those with whom individual Social-Democratic groups might themselves be inclined to unite. We must not forget that at the meeting of the International Socialist Bureau, two plans were put forward: first, Kautsky’s plan—to “organize a general exchange of views,” nothing more. An exchange of views before an impartial body—specifically, before the Executive Committee of the International Socialist Bureau—would reveal the true state of affairs and illuminate the depth of existing differences. Second, Rosa Luxemburg had proposed another plan, which she later withdrew following Kautsky’s objections—but according to that plan, a “unification conference” (Einigungskonferenz) was to be held “for the restoration of a unified party.”

Naturally, the latter plan was far less desirable, since it was first necessary to gather accurate data; moreover, Rosa Luxemburg had sought to slip through, under the table, nothing more than a “restoration” of the infamous Tyszkiewicz Circle.

Kautsky’s plan was adopted—a more cautious approach, one that addressed the question of unity in a more systematic manner, beginning with a preliminary “exchange of views” and the careful study of concrete data. It was therefore entirely natural that Kautsky’s resolution was passed unanimously.

But Kautsky’s resolution, now transformed into the Bureau’s resolution, must be distinguished from Kautsky’s speech, in one particular point of which he went so far as to utter monstrous statements. We have already briefly noted this circumstance; now, the report on Kautsky’s speech in Vorwärts—the leading German organ{87}—compels us to dwell more fully on this crucial issue.

In responding to Rosa Luxemburg, Kautsky declared, “The old party has disappeared—though the old names remain; yet over the course of time (im Laufe der Jahre—over the past few years), these names have taken on new meaning. One cannot simply exclude old comrades merely because their party (ihre Partei) no longer bears the old name.”

When Rosa Luxemburg retorted that “Kautsky’s assertion that the Russian party is dead (sei tot) is an ill-considered remark,” Kautsky limited himself to “protesting that he had never said the Russian Social-Democracy was dead. All he had said was that the old forms had been shattered and that it was now necessary to create a new form.”

It is obvious that Kautsky neither said nor could have said that Social-Democracy was dead. But he did say that the party had disappeared—and despite all the objections raised against him, he did not retract this statement!

It is incredible, yet it is a fact.

The confusion Kautsky revealed is truly staggering. Which “old comrades” was he referring to when he spoke of exclusion? The Potresovs and their ilk? Did he even call the liquidators’ shapeless, amorphous grouping “their party”?

Or did Kautsky have in mind the Left faction of the Polish Social-Democratic Party, which was being excluded according to Rosa Luxemburg’s formula? But then the very notion of “old comrades” becomes incomprehensible—after all, ever since the very inception of the Social-Democratic Party, that is, since 1898, members of the Polish Social-Democratic Party had never, in any sense, been comrades-in-arms with Social-Democrats within the party itself!

For us, both interpretations are equally valid, for in the context of a “exchange of views” on the question of unity, it is, in fact, absurd to exclude the liquidators—just as it would be absurd to exclude the Left faction of the Polish Social-Democratic Party (even if, speaking abstractly, one might argue that the liquidators—whose ultimate goal is to defend their own schismatic bloc with the non-Social-Democratic Polish Social-Democratic Party—are capable of adopting an ultimatum-style stance). At the very least, we must ascertain precisely what both the liquidators and their allies actually seek from the party.

What remains beyond dispute is the fact that Kautsky had, in the Bureau, gone so far as to assert that the Russian party had disappeared.

How could he have arrived at such a monstrous conclusion? To understand this, Russian workers must first ask: who informs the German Social-Democratic press about Russian affairs? When Germans write, they typically sidestep the question of internal disagreements. When Russians contribute to German Social-Democratic publications, we often see either an alliance between various overseas factions and the liquidators, engaged in the most outrageous slander against the “Leninists” (as was the case in Vorwärts in the spring of 1912), or else writings by Tyszkiewiczites, Trotskyists, or other figures from overseas circles, deliberately obfuscating the real issues. For years, there has not been a single document, a single gathering of resolutions, a single analysis of ideas—not a single attempt to collect factual data!

Let us pity the German leaders, who, though capable of gathering and analyzing data when they turn to theory, do not hesitate to listen to—and repeat—the fables spun by liquidator informants.

In practice, the Bureau’s resolution will be put into effect, while Kautsky’s speech will remain a sad curiosity.

“Proletarskaya Pravda,” No. 6, December 13, 1913

Printed according to the text of the newspaper “Proletarskaya Pravda.”