Date: 1912
Source: ru:PSS/v25

All those who have taken an interest in the workers’ movement and in Marxism in Russia are well aware that in August 1912 a bloc—indeed, a coalition—was formed by the liquidators, Trotsky, the Latvians, the Bundists, and the Caucasians.

The formation of this bloc was announced with great fanfare and uproar in the newspaper “Luch”{2}, which had been founded not with workers’ funds but precisely during the elections in St. Petersburg—aimed at thwarting the will of the majority of organized workers. The “numerousness” of the bloc’s participants was lauded; the union of “Marxists of various tendencies” was celebrated; “unity” and non-factionalism were extolled; thunderous denunciations were hurled at the “schismatics,” the supporters of the January 1912 conference{3}.

Thus, the question of “unity” arose before thinking workers in a new, practical form. The facts would soon reveal who was right: those who hailed the “unifying” platform and the tactics of the “Augustans,” or those who insisted that this was nothing more than a deceptive facade, cloaking the same bankrupt liquidators in new garb?

Exactly a year and a half passed. For the upsurge of 1912–1913, that was an enormous span of time. Then, in February 1914, a new journal was founded—one that was, this time, especially “unifying,” and truly “non-factional”—a publication championed by the staunchest adherent of the August platform, Trotsky, under the title “Borba.”

Both the contents of No. 1 of “Borba,” and what the liquidators had written about “Borba” prior to its very appearance, immediately revealed to any attentive observer the unraveling of the August Bloc—and the frantic efforts to conceal this dissolution, to deceive the workers. Yet even this deception would soon be exposed.

Before “Borba” saw the light of day, the editorial board of “Severnaya Rabochaya Gazeta”{4} published a scathing note: “The true face of this journal—about which much has been said lately in Marxist circles—remains, for us, as yet unclear.”

Consider this, dear reader: since August 1912, Trotsky had been counted among the leaders of the August Unification Bloc—but already in 1913 he was being increasingly distanced from “Luch” and the “Luchists.” By 1914, this very same Trotsky was founding his own journal, while continuing, in name only, to appear in both “Severnaya Rabochaya Gazeta” and “Nasha Zarya”{5}. In “Marxist circles, much has been said” about the secret “memorandum” that Trotsky had secretly penned against the Luchists—those “strangers” like F. D., L. M., and others of their ilk.

And yet the genuinely non-factional, unifying editorial board of “Severnaya Rabochaya Gazeta” declared: “For us, the journal’s true face remains unclear!”

For them, it remained unclear that the August Bloc had collapsed!!

No, gentlemen F. D., L. M., and the other Luchists—this is perfectly clear to you; you are simply deceiving the workers.

The August Bloc turned out—as we had argued back in August 1912—to be nothing more than a hollow cover for the liquidators. It had fallen apart. Even its Russian friends could not stay together. The notorious “unifiers” were unable even to unite among themselves, resulting in two distinct “Augustan” currents: the Luchist (represented by “Nasha Zarya” and “Severnaya Rabochaya Gazeta”) and the Trotskyist (represented by “Borba”). Each held onto a fragment of the August banner they had once claimed to have jointly raised—a tattered, fragmented remnant of the “common, unified” August standard—and both, with hoarse voices, cried out for “unity”!

What, then, was the orientation of “Borba”? Trotsky had penned a lengthy feuilleton on this topic in No. 11 of “Severnaya Rabochaya Gazeta,” but the editorial board of the liquidator-run paper responded with remarkable precision, declaring that “the journal’s true face remains unclear.”

Indeed, the liquidators had their own distinctive “face”—a liberal one, not a Marxist one. Anyone familiar with the writings of F. D., L. S., L. M., Yezhov, Potresov, and Co. knew full well what that face looked like.

As for Trotsky, he had never possessed—and still does not possess—a “face” of his own; all he ever had were fleeting shifts, oscillations between liberals and Marxists and back again, fragments of words and resonant phrases snatched here and there.

Not a single living word on any contentious issue could be found in “Borba.”

It may seem unbelievable—but it is a fact.

The question of “the underground”? Not a single word.

Did Trotsky share the ideas of Axelrod, Zasulich, F. D., L. S. (No. 101 of “Luch”), and others? Not a sound.

The slogan of the struggle for an open party? Not a single word.

The liberal pronouncements of Yezhov and other Luchists concerning strikes? The abandonment of the program on the national question? Not a sound.

The speeches of L. Sedov and other Luchists against the two “giants”?{6} Not a sound. Trotsky insists that he advocates the synthesis of partial demands and the ultimate goal—but when it comes to how he approaches the liquidators’ implementation of this very “synthesis,” he remains utterly silent!

In reality, under the guise of particularly resonant, empty, and vague phrases, Trotsky, while misleading the unwitting workers, defended the liquidators by deliberately sidestepping the question of the underground, assuring everyone that we had no such thing as a liberal workers’ policy—and so forth.

To the seven deputies led by Chkheidze, Trotsky addressed them with special, lengthy exhortations on how best to cunningly deny the existence of the underground and of the party itself. These amusing admonitions clearly foreshadowed the further disintegration of the seven-member group. Buryanov had already left them. They could not agree on a response to Plekhanov. Now they wavered between Dan and Trotsky, while Chkheidze, it seemed, was straining every ounce of his diplomatic skill to smooth over the latest rift.

And these quasi-party figures—unable to unite around their own “Augustan” platform—deceived the workers with cries of “unity”! What futile efforts!

Unity consists in recognizing the “old” and in struggling against those who deny it. Unity means bringing the majority of workers in Russia together around decisions long known to all and firmly condemned the practice of liquidation. Unity means forging a bond between the deputies in the Duma and the will of the working majority—something that had already been achieved by the six worker deputies{7}.

But the liquidators and Trotsky, the “seven” and Trotsky—having torn apart their own August Bloc, having cast aside all party resolutions, having severed themselves both from the underground and from the organized workers—are the worst kind of schismatics. Fortunately, the workers have already understood this, and all conscious workers are, in practice, building their own unity against the liquidators who seek to destroy it.

“Put’ Pravdy,” No. 37, March 15, 1914

Printed according to the text of the newspaper “Put’ Pravdy.”