The visit to Russia of the President of the International Socialist Bureau, Emile Vandervelde, naturally revived the discussion of the question of unity. To gather information on this question, to sound out the ground and to take possible steps in favour of unity was the direct task of E. Vandervelde. It is known from the newspapers that he visited the editorial offices of both newspapers, the Marxist and the Liquidator, and exchanged views with representatives of both at a “banquet”.

As soon as E. Vandervelde returned home from Russia, i.e., to Brussels, interviews with the President of the International Socialist Bureau appeared in two main daily organs of socialism in the French language, the Paris *L’Humanité*{131} and the Brussels *Le Peuple*, on Sunday, June 21, New Style. Vandervelde formulated the disagreements among the Russian Social-Democrats inaccurately in doing so. Some, he said, “want to organise legally and demand the right of coalition, others want to achieve directly the proclamation... of the ‘whale’... and the expropriation of the land.” Vandervelde called this disagreement “rather childish.”

We shall hardly be mistaken if we assume that the class-conscious workers of Russia, having read such a comment from Vandervelde, will smile “rather good-naturedly.” If “some” “want to organise legally,” i.e., stand for an open, legal party, then, obviously, others object on this point not by pointing to a “whale” or “whales,” but by defending the underground and by a categorical refusal to participate in the “struggle for an open party.” Such a disagreement is a divergence on the question of the existence of the party, and here—with all due respect to Comrade E. Vandervelde—no “conciliation” is possible. One cannot half-bury the underground and half-replace it with a legal party...

But Vandervelde did not only inquire about disagreements: on this question, the portfolio of the President and Secretary of the I.S.B. contains a mass of papers, reports and letters from representatives of all and sundry, real and fictitious, “leading bodies.” Vandervelde evidently tried to take advantage of his stay in Petersburg to gather some factual data on the extent of the mass influence of the various trends and groups of socialism (and “also-socialism”) in Russia. Vandervelde is a man of no small political experience, and, of course, he knows perfectly well that in politics in general, and in the working-class movement in particular, only trends that have a mass following can be taken seriously.

On this question, in both of the above-mentioned French socialist newspapers, we find the following report from Vandervelde: “The socialists in Russia have three daily newspapers. The revolutionaries” (evidently referring to the Left Narodniks) “print their newspapers in a quantity of from 10 to 12 thousand copies; the Leninists from 35 to 40 thousand; the moderates (*modérés*)” (evidently referring to the Liquidators) — “about 16 thousand.”

E. Vandervelde made one small mistake here: the newspaper of the Left Narodniks appears, as is well known, not daily, but three times a week. Furthermore, the maximum circulation of the Pravdist newspaper, according to our information, is understated: it reached 48 thousand. It would be desirable for precise data on this question, so important (for the self-cognition of the working-class movement), to be collected over a whole month, for example, if it is not possible to collect them over a year.

But how great is the difference between the genuine European Vandervelde, who attaches no importance to the Asiatic “taking at one’s word” or “eye estimate,” but gathers facts—and the Russian Liquidator and liberal-bourgeois windbags who pose as “Europeans”! In the newspaper *Rech*, the official representatives of the Cadets wrote, for example, in an article: “E. Vandervelde and the Russian Socialists” (No. 152 of June 7 (20), precisely on the eve of the interview with Vandervelde in Paris and Brussels):

“When, at the dinner, one of the Bolsheviks assured Vandervelde that they had no one to unite with, since ‘in the workshops, in the working class, everything is already united around a single Pravdist banner, outside of which remains only a handful of intellectuals,’ he, of course, resorted to an excessive polemical exaggeration.”

Before us is a specimen of Liquidator and liberal lies, decked out in smooth, sleek phrases.

“Excessive polemical exaggeration”! As if there could be non-excessive exaggeration... But the official Cadets not only write in an illiterate manner, but directly deceive their readers. If the Bolsheviks are guilty of “polemical exaggeration,” why, gentlemen Cadets, do you, since you undertake to speak in the press on the question you have raised, not cite data that are not exaggerated, that are free of polemics?

Vandervelde, who does not know Russian, managed to gather objective data in 3–4 days of his stay in Russia. But the Petersburg Cadet gentlemen, exactly like the Petersburg Liquidators,[51] have never once in their newspapers cited any objective data, accusing the Pravdists groundlessly and hypocritically of “exaggeration”!

Let us take Vandervelde’s data. The weekly circulation of the Marxist, Liquidator and Narodnik newspapers will be expressed, according to these data, in the following figures:

Here you have objective data, gathered by the President of the I.S.B. Even adding the Narodniks, with whom only the Liquidators, the Machists and Plekhanov – who, however, are afraid to say so directly – want to “unite,” we get a Pravdist majority of almost two-thirds. And if we do not count the Narodniks, the Pravdist majority over the Liquidators amounts to 71.4 percent, i.e., over seven-tenths!

But newspapers are read and maintained not only by workers. Objective data on collections, published both in the Marxist and in the Liquidator newspapers, showed (for the period from January 1 to May 13, 1914) 80 percent workers’ groups among the Pravdists, with this percentage rising to 86 percent in Petersburg. Of the 21 thousand roubles collected by the Pravdists, over eight-tenths was collected by workers, whereas more than half of the Liquidators’ funds came from the bourgeoisie.[52] This proves fully and unconditionally that the information about newspaper circulation understates the predominance of the Pravdists, since the Liquidator newspaper is maintained by the bourgeoisie. And no less objective data on the elections to the insurance institutions show that the Pravdists had 47 delegates out of 57 in the elections to the all-Russian insurance body, i.e., 82.4 percent.

By hurling into the working masses, through their press, an accusation of “exaggeration” (and even “excessive exaggeration”) against the Pravdists, and by citing no objective data – neither on newspaper circulations, nor on workers’ groups, nor on elections to the insurance institutions – the Cadets are shamelessly lying, extolling the Liquidators.

Of course, the class interests of the Russian liberal bourgeoisie compel it to defend the Liquidators, who were unanimously recognised by the Marxists (the 1910 decision) as “conduits of bourgeois influence on the proletariat.” But if, in doing so, the liberals pose as “impartial” people, their lie becomes especially hypocritical and repulsive.

The political significance of the Cadet speeches is one, and only one: to strive, through the Liquidators, to channel bourgeois influence to the workers.

“There can be no doubt,” continues *Rech*, “that the genuine (!!) worker intelligentsia, those workers who on their own shoulders carried out the Social-Democratic” (!! according to the assessment of the Cadets, these connoisseurs of Social-Democratism) “work in the hardest years, sympathise not with the Bolsheviks, but with their opponents (the Liquidators, the Mensheviks). The severing of these elements from the Russian workers’ party would mean such an intellectual diminishment of it that the Bolsheviks themselves would be horrified by the results of their own handiwork.”

Thus write the Cadets in a leading article of *Rech*.

And here, for comparison, is what the ideological leader of the Liquidators, Mr. L. M., writes in No. 3 of *Nasha Zarya* (1914, p. 68):

“This is a revolt” (of the Pravdist workers) “against the Dementievs, Gvozdevs, Chirkins, Romanovs, Bulkins, Kabtsanovs, etc., as representatives of a whole, fairly dense in the capitals, stratum of Marxist workers who tried and are trying to ‘liquidate’ the infantile-romantic stage of the Russian working-class movement.”

The identity, as you see, is complete. The Cadets, in their own name, in the leading articles of *Rech*, echo in full what L. M. sings in *Nasha Zarya*. The Cadet newspapers make up for the insufficient circulation of *Nasha Zarya* and *Our Liquidator Newspaper*, vouching to the public for the Social-Democratism of the Bulkins, Chirkins & Co.

Mr. L. M. enumerates the names of a handful of Liquidator workers. We shall gladly repeat these names. All class-conscious workers of Russia will immediately recognise the liberal workers, long known for their struggle against the underground, i.e., against the party. Read Bulkin in the same *Nasha Zarya* alongside L. M., and you will see how both of them renounce the underground and, to the satisfaction of the liberals, curse it.

So let us note it down, so let us know that the “Dementievs, Gvozdevs, Chirkins, Romanovs, Bulkins, Kabtsanovs” named by Mr. L. M. are, according to the assurance of the Cadets, the “genuine worker intelligentsia.” Indeed, these are genuine liberal workers! Bulkin’s article has fully proved this. We strongly recommend it to the attention of class-conscious workers who have not yet heard the speeches of the named liberal proletarians in person.

The liberal *Rech* frightens us with the prospect of “severing from the workers’ party” these (according to the assurance of *Rech*) Social-Democrats, these Social-Democrats extolled by *Rech*.

But we shall only smile in reply, for everyone knows that the named handful itself severed itself, by going over to the liberal-Liquidators, and that this “severing” was the pledge and foundation of the formation of a genuinely workers’ (and not liberal-workers’) party.

*Rech*, in the same leading article, praises the “civic courage of the calm, sobering words” of the Liquidators and liberal workers. No wonder *Rech* and the liberals praise them! In Russia, especially after the fifth year, the liberals cannot directly influence the workers. How could they not value the Liquidators, who, under the guise of Social-Democratism, carry on the same liberal “sobering” work, channel the same “bourgeois influence on the proletariat” (see the 1910 decision!).

“The disagreements between them” (the Social-Democratic factions) “will not be eliminated soon,” writes *Rech*, “but even while preserving their physiognomy, they must unite and not introduce their discords into the working mass, which is only just awakening to conscious political life. The split in the working milieu brings great joy to the reaction. This alone is sufficient to impel honest people of both factions sincerely and seriously to strive for unification.”

Thus writes *Rech*.

We are very glad that we do not belong to the liberal company of “honest” people, nor to those whom this company considers “honest.” We would consider it a dishonour for ourselves to belong to these people. In our conviction, only completely naive or unwise people can believe in the “impartiality” of the liberal bourgeoisie, especially when the discussion concerns the liberation movement of the working class, i.e., its movement against the bourgeoisie.

In vain do the Cadets think that the Russian workers are childishly naive, that they are capable of believing in an “impartial” assessment of “honesty” by the liberal bourgeoisie. The liberal bourgeoisie considers the Liquidators and their defenders “honest” for the sole reason that Liquidationism renders a political service to the bourgeoisie, channeling bourgeois influence to the proletariat.

The united Marxists of Russia directly, openly, before all workers of Russia, taking upon themselves full responsibility for their actions, have recognised a definite group of Liquidators, the group of *Nasha Zarya* and *Luch*, etc., as standing outside the party. This was stated in January 1912. Since then, over two and a half years—5,674 workers’ groups against 1,421 among the Liquidators and all their defenders, i.e., four-fifths of the class-conscious workers of Russia, have adhered to “Pravdism,” i.e., approved the January decision. The Liquidators behaved in practice in such a way that the workers left them. Our decision has been confirmed by life and by the experience of the vast majority of the workers.

The liberals defend “unity” (of the workers with the Liquidators) in their own selfish class interests. The separation of the Liquidators from the workers’ party alone allowed this party to emerge with honour—we understand this word differently, gentlemen of *Rech*!—from the period of hard times. The separation of the Liquidators from the workers’ party brought the reaction not “joy,” but grief, because the Liquidators hindered the recognition of the old forms, the old “hierarchy,” the old decisions, etc., having proved absolutely incapable, over two and a half years, of creating any kind of organisation whatsoever. The “August” (1912) bloc of the Liquidators and their friends disintegrated.

Only in defiance of the Liquidators, only without them and against them, did the workers carry out, and could carry out, that brilliant campaign of the strike movement, the insurance movement, the creation of newspapers—the campaign which has now established everywhere a majority of four-fifths against the adherents of Liquidationism.

By “split” the liberals mean the removal from the workers’ ranks of the opponents of the underground, a handful of intellectual-Liquidators. By “unity” the liberals mean preserving the influence of the Liquidators over the workers.

We look at it differently: by “unity” we mean the rallying of four-fifths of the workers around the old banner; by a breakaway we mean the unwillingness of the little Liquidator group to recognise the will of the majority of the workers and to submit to it, their wrecking of this will. Having become convinced through experience that Pravdism has rallied four-fifths of the workers over two and a half years, we consider it necessary to go further, towards an even more complete unity, from four-fifths to nine-tenths, and then to ten-tenths of the workers, by the same path.

Two opposing views on the Liquidators, our view and the liberal view, flow from the difference in the position and standpoints of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

What explains Plekhanov’s position? He broke so resolutely with the Liquidators in 1908 and for a time so firmly carried out in the press the party’s decisions against the Liquidators, that some hoped for an end to Plekhanov’s vacillations. Now, when four-fifths of the workers have rallied around Pravdism, Plekhanov begins to vacillate again. By nothing, except his personal vacillations—a malady that began with him in 1903—can his “position” be explained, which in substance now fully coincides with the position of the liberal *Rech*.

Like *Rech*, Plekhanov now calls “unity” the securing of the Liquidators’ influence over the workers contrary to the will of the workers, contrary to the decisions of the party, contrary to the wrecking of these decisions by the Liquidators. Yesterday, he compared Mr. Potresov to Judas and correctly reasoned that without Judas the apostles were stronger than with Judas; today, when facts have definitively proven that the Liquidators are fully in solidarity with Potresov and spit on the decisions of the party, today Plekhanov turns towards the Liquidators and advises the Pravdists not to speak to them “in the language of victors”!!! That is, to put it more plainly and simply, the majority of the workers must not demand recognition of its will and respect for its decisions from the minority, which follows the direct violators of the party’s decisions!!!

Class-conscious workers will have to recognise with regret that Plekhanov’s political malady of waverings and vacillations, which began ten years ago, has flared up in him again—and will pass him by.

There is, by the way, another explanation for Plekhanov’s vacillations, which we place second, for it is much worse for Plekhanov. Between the struggling currents: the Liquidator (drawing its social strength from the sympathy of the liberal bourgeoisie) and the “Pravdist” (drawing its strength from the consciousness and solidarity of the majority of the workers of Russia awakening from darkness to light), inevitably arise wavering intellectual little groups. They have no social force behind them, they cannot have any mass influence over the workers, politically they are zeroes. In place of a firm, clear line, attractive to the workers and confirmed by the experience of life, circle diplomacy reigns in these little groups. The absence of ties with the masses, the absence of historical roots in the mass trends of Social-Democracy in Russia (Social-Democracy became a mass phenomenon in Russia from the time of the strikes of 1895), the absence of a consistent, integral, clear, fully defined line, tested by many years of experience, i.e., answers to questions of tactics, organisation, programme—this is the soil on which circle diplomacy grows, these are its characteristics.

Plekhanov’s newspaper *Yedinstvo*, as a political collective, fully fits these characteristics (like Trotsky’s *Borba*: by the way, let the readers ponder the reasons for the disunity of these alleged “uniters,” *Borba* and *Yedinstvo*...). Deputy Buryanov, like any deputy of comparatively “long duration” among the very short-lived politicians of Russia, was long a Liquidator, and has now “swung over” to Plekhanov. For how long and precisely whither he has swung, he himself does not know. But for circle diplomacy, of course, there is no greater happiness than such a “swinging” deputy, who dreams of the “unity” of the six dreaming of helping the Liquidators of the party to wreck the will of the majority of the workers, with the six wishing to carry out this will.

Imagine the “unity” of the two sixes independently of the will of the majority of the workers. This is a monstrous conception, you will object, for the deputies must carry out the will of the majority! But it is precisely what is monstrous for the proletariat that the liberals call virtue, good, benefit, honesty, even, probably, sanctity (Struve in *Russkaya Mysl* will surely prove tomorrow, with the help of Berdyaev, Izgoev, Merezhkovsky & Co., that the “Leninists” are sinful “splitters,” while the Liquidators and Plekhanov, who now defends them from the “victor” workers, are holy executors of God’s will).

Stand for a moment on this (in fact, liberal) point of view of the “unity” of the two Duma sixes independently of the majority of the workers. You will immediately understand, having adopted this point of view, the circle interest of Buryanov and the little group of writers of *Yedinstvo* in playing on the divergence between the two sixes, in using their disagreements for the eternal role of... “conciliator”!

On the one hand, such a conciliator—Buryanov, Trotsky, Plekhanov, Sher, Chernov, Sukhanov or whoever—might say, on the one hand, the Liquidators-six are wrong because they liquidate the decisions of the party. On the other hand, the Pravdists-six are wrong because they speak in an inappropriate and indecent, sinful “tone of victors,” on behalf, as it were, of some majority, to their colleagues. Perchance even, such a “conciliator” will call his eclectic and scheming conduct “dialectical” and will lay claim to the title of “uniter”... This has indeed happened in our party: recall at least the role of the Bundists and Tyszka at the Stockholm and London Congresses and in general during the period 1906-1911!

There were these happy times for circle diplomats, these sad times for the workers’ party, when the rallying of class-conscious workers against the conduits of bourgeois influence, the “Economists” and “Mensheviks,” was still insufficiently consolidated.

Now these times are passing. *Rech* of the Cadet gentlemen lamentes the “introduction of discords into the working mass.” This is the standpoint of the liberal gentleman. We welcome the “introduction of discords into the working mass,” for it is precisely this mass, and only it, that will separate “discords” from disagreements of substance, will itself sort out the disagreements, will work out its own opinion, will decide the question not “with whom to go, but where to go,”[53] i.e., the question of its own definite, clear line, thought through and tested by the workers themselves.

This time has already come, and is coming. The mass of Pravdist workers already distinguishes “discords,” it has already sorted out the disagreements, it has already defined its own line itself. The data on workers’ groups after two years of open struggle (1912 and 1913) prove this in practice.

The end of circle diplomacy is nigh.[54]