Date: 1915-03-23
Source: ru:PSS/v49

# EDITORS OF "OUR WORD". MARCH 23, 1915

Source: CW vol 49

Wasn't Alexinsky and Plekhanov (and not only them) allowed to represent "trends"? Can it be surprising after this that foreigners now consider them as representatives of "trends"? This evil cannot be remedied by any declaration. A prolonged struggle is necessary here. For it to be successful, we must once and for all acknowledge only those organizations that have been connected with the working masses for years, authorized by solid committees, etc., and condemn as a deception of the workers the system under which half a dozen intellectuals, having issued 2-3 numbers of a newspaper or journal, declare themselves a "trend" and claim "equality" with the party.

Is there agreement among us on this, dear comrades?

Then, about the internationalists. In one of the recent editorials in your newspaper, you list organizations that, in your opinion, stand on the ground of internationalism. Among them, in one of the first places, is... the Bund. We would like to know what specific grounds you have for counting the Bund among the internationalists?

The resolution of its Central Committee does not contain a single definite word on the burning questions of socialism. It exudes the most thoughtless eclecticism. The organ of the Bund ("Information Bulletin") undoubtedly stands on the position of Germanophile chauvinism, or provides a "synthesis" of French and German chauvinisms. Not without reason did Kosovsky's article adorn the pages of "Neue Zeit," a journal which (we hope you agree with us) now belongs to the number of the most indecent so-called "socialist" publications.

With all our heart, we stand for the unification of internationalists. We very much want there to be more of them. But one cannot deceive oneself, one cannot count among the internationalists people and organizations that are known to be "dead souls" in terms of internationalism.

What is meant by internationalism? Can, for example, supporters of the restoration of the International on the principle of mutual "amnesty" be counted as internationalists? As you know, the most prominent representative of the theory of "amnesty" is Kautsky. Victor Adler has also spoken in the same spirit. We consider that the defenders of "amnesty" are the most dangerous opponents of internationalism.

An International restored on the principles of "amnesty" would lower socialism by a whole head. No concessions, no agreements with Kautsky & Co. are absolutely admissible. The most resolute struggle against the theory of "amnesty" is a conditio sine qua non* of internationalism. It is in vain to speak of internationalism if there is no desire and readiness to go to the end in breaking with the defenders of "amnesty." And so, the question arises - is there agreement between us on this fundamental issue? In your newspaper, there was a fleeting mention of a seemingly negative attitude towards the policy of "amnesty." But you will agree that before undertaking any practical steps, we are entitled to ask you to express your view on this issue in detail.

In connection with this, there is the question of the attitude towards the OC. In our very first letter to you**, we found it necessary to frankly tell you that there are serious grounds to doubt the internationalism of this institution. You did not attempt to dispel this opinion. We again ask you - what data do you have to consider the OC as standing on the ground of internationalism? After all, it cannot be seriously denied that the position of P. B. Axelrod, set forth in several of his printed statements, is clearly chauvinistic (almost-Plekhanovian). And yet, Axelrod is undoubtedly the most prominent representative of the OC. Take, further, the official statements of the OC. Its report on the Copenhagen Conference was written in such tones that it was reprinted by the most extreme German chauvinists. The statements of the "Foreign Secretariat" of the OC are the same. At best, they say nothing definite. On the other hand, Larin - officially on behalf of the OC, not some foreign secretariat - made...

* - an indispensable condition. Ed.

** See this volume, pp. 60-63. Ed.