Recently, in the Austrian Social-Democratic monthly magazine "The Struggle" {86}, a sensational note appeared under the signature of F. A., claiming that the well-known leader of German opportunists Eduard Bernstein had renounced his revisionist, opportunistic views and returned once again to Marxism.

Revisionism, or the "revision" of Marxism, is at present one of the principal, if not the very principal, manifestations of bourgeois influence upon the proletariat and the bourgeois corruption of proletarians. This is precisely why the leader of opportunists, Eduard Bernstein, has acquired such (lamentable) worldwide notoriety.

And supposedly Eduard Bernstein had returned once again to Marxism? The news ought to have appeared strange to anyone at all familiar with German Social-Democratic literature: the main organ of opportunists, the "Socialist Monthly" (in the German language), continues to be published, continues to preach purely bourgeois views, which in essence amount to complete betrayal of socialism. Bernstein continues to be a prominent contributor to this journal. What then is the matter?

The matter is that Bernstein delivered a lecture in Budapest, and, according to the account given by the local newspaper, in this lecture he supposedly renounced revisionism.

The Austrian F. A. proved to be excessively credulous and unreasonably hasty when he rushed to announce to the entire world about this new change in Bernstein's views. And the liquidationist V. Levitsky, one of the most prominent opportunistic contributors to the opportunistic journal "Our Dawn" (this journal was declared by the Menshevik Plekhanov to be the Russian "Socialist Monthly"), proved to be ten times more unreasonable by writing, merely on the basis of F. A.'s account, in the "Northern Workers' Gazette" (of April 3, no. 46) an entire enormous feuilleton under the resounding title: "From Revisionism to Marxism."

Mr. Levitsky did not even wait for Bernstein's report to appear in print. Make haste slowly.

Ed. Bernstein, having heard what "fame" had spread throughout the entire world concerning his Budapest lecture, wrote on April 11 (new style) a letter to the Brussels Social-Democratic newspaper "The People" {87}, and in this letter declared directly: "the communication in 'The Struggle' is completely incorrect; I said nothing new in Budapest; I have not departed in any respect from the views of 'The Preconditions of Socialism' (Bernstein's principal opportunistic work); rather, the account in the Budapest newspaper simply confused my words with the remarks of the person who compiled the report!!"

The entire fuss turned out to be an ordinary newspaper hoax.

What was revealed in the process was only the lamentable weakness of certain Austrian (and only Austrian?) Social-Democrats in obscuring opportunism and proclaiming it to have vanished.

The zealous Mr. Levitsky, not guided by Reason, simply bashed his head against a wall. He wrote in the "Northern Workers' Gazette": "After the conversion (?) of the founder (?) of revisionism Bernstein to Marxism, revisionism within German Social-Democracy is finally (!!?) killed."

Here every word is a pearl of absurdity. There was no conversion. Bernstein is not the founder. Revisionism is not killed.

"…In Russia," writes the zealous Mr. Levitsky, "revisionism ceased to be a theoretical fashion even among the left Narodniks, who for a time were not averse to relying upon this doctrine in their struggle against Marxism. Within Russian Social-Democracy itself, it had no influence whatsoever, despite the attempts of individual writers to transplant it onto Russian soil…"

Again, every word is untruth. The left Narodniks even now, on all the most important questions, "rely upon" revisionist "doctrines"; this is evident from every issue of "Russian Wealth" and "Precepts," from every number of "Firm Thought." To obscure the opportunism of the left Narodniks is harmful.

In Russian Social-Democracy, revisionism has had influence since the very beginning of the mass workers' and mass Social-Democratic movement, 1895–1896. Surely Mr. Levitsky has not failed to hear of the many years of struggle by consistent Marxists and supporters of the old "Spark" against the "Economists"? Surely he has not failed to hear of the party resolutions and numerous articles of that epoch affirming, proving, and explaining that "Economism" is the Russian form of revisionism, of opportunism? Surely Mr. Levitsky has not forgotten Mr. A. Martynov, today's prominent liquidationist, yesterday's prominent "Economist"?

Mr. Levitsky repudiates revisionism in order to conceal his revisionism. Let us remind him at least of the following four things: 1) did not the Menshevik Plekhanov declare in print in 1909–1910 that the Mensheviks had recruited for themselves an entire series of opportunistic elements? 2) did not the same Plekhanov prove the opportunistic character of the liquidationist slogan: "struggle for legality"? 3) did not several Menshevik anti-liquidationists prove the connection of liquidationism with "Economism"? 4) is it not opportunism—Koltsov's denial of "two of the whales" (out of three) from the standpoint of their suitability for agitation?

Even these four facts—and one could cite forty-four of them—speak clearly to the effect that "Economism" of 1895–1902, "Menshevism" of 1903–1908, liquidationism of 1908–1914 is nothing other than the Russian form or variety of opportunism and revisionism.

"Enlightenment" no. 5, May 1914. Signed: V. I.

Printed according to the text of the journal "Enlightenment"