The above-described tactics of the R.S.D.L.P. in relation to
the war are the inevitable result of the thirty years’ development of
Social-Democracy in Russia. These tactics, and the present state of
Social-Democracy in our country, cannot be properly understood unless one
ponders over the history of our Party. That is why we must here too remind
the reader about the major facts in this history.

As an ideological trend, Social-Democracy arose in 1883, when
Social-Democratic views applied to Russia were for the first time
systematically expounded abroad by the Emancipation of Labour Group. Until
the beginning of the nineties, Social-Democracy remained an ideological
trend with no connection with the mass working-class movement in Russia. At
the beginning of the nineties, the upswing of the social movement, the
unrest and strike movement among the workers, transformed Social-Democracy
into an active political force inseparably connected with the struggle (both
economic and political) of the working class. And from that very moment
Social-Democracy began to split into “Economists” and “ Iskra -ists.”

The “Economists” and the old Iskra (1894–1903)

“ Economism” was an opportunist trend in Russian
Social-Democracy. Its political essence was summed up in the programme:
“for the workers – the economic struggle; for the liberals
– the political struggle.” Its chief theoretical prop was
so-called “legal Marxism” or “Struveism” which “recognised” a “Marxism“ that was completely purged
of every scrap of revolutionary spirit and was adapted to the requirements
of the liberal bourgeoisie. On the plea that the masses of the workers in
Russia were immature, and wishing to “march with the masses,”
the “Economists“ restricted the tasks and scope of the working-class movement to the economic struggle and political support for
liberalism, and did not set themselves independent political or any
revolutionary tasks.

The old
Iskra [1] (1900–1903) waged a victorious struggle against “Economism” for the principles of revolutionary
Social-Democracy. The entire flower of the class-conscious proletariat
took the side of Iskra . For a number of years before the
revolution Social-Democracy advocated the most consistent and
uncompromising programme. Both the class struggle and the action of the
masses during the 1905 revolution confirmed the correctness of this
programme. The “Economists” adapted themselves to the backwardness of the masses. Iskra trained the vanguard of
the workers that was capable of leading the masses forward. The arguments
at present advanced by the social-chauvinists (that it is necessary to
reckon with the masses, that imperialism is progressive, about the
“illusions” harboured by revolutionaries, etc.), had all been
advanced by the Economists. The opportunist alteration of Marxism to the
“Struveist” style became known to Social-Democracy in Russia
twenty years ago.

Menshevism and Bolshevism (1903–1908)

The epoch of bourgeois-democratic revolution gave rise to a
new struggle between trends in Social-Democracy that was the direct
continuation of the preceding struggle. “Economism” changed into
“Menshevism.” The championing of the revolutionary tactics of
the old Iskra gave rise to “Bolshevism.”

In the turbulent years of 1905–1907, Menshevism was an opportunist trend
backed by the bourgeois liberals, and carded liberal-bourgeois trends into
the working-class movement. Adaptation of the working-class struggle to
liberalism – such was its substance. Bolshevism, on the contrary, set
the Social-Democratic workers the task of rousing the democratic peasantry
for the revolutionary struggle despite the vacillation and treachery of
liberalism. And the masses of the workers, as the Mensheviks themselves
admitted more than once, marched with the Bolsheviks during the revolution
in all the biggest actions.

The 1905 revolution tested, strengthened, deepened and steeled the
uncompromisingly revolutionary Social-Democratic tactics in Russia. The open
actions of classes and parties repeatedly disclosed the connection between
Social-Democratic opportunism (“Menshevism”) and liberalism.

Marxism and Liquidationism (1908–1914)

The counter-revolutionary epoch again, in an entirely new
form, placed the question of the opportunist and revolutionary tactics of
Social-Democracy on the order of the day. The chief current of Menshevism,
in spite of the protests of many of its best representatives, gave rise to
the trend of liquidationism, renunciation of the struggle for a new
revolution in Russia, renunciation of secret organisation and activity,
contempt for and ridicule of the “underground,” of the slogan of
a republic, etc. The group of legal writers for the magazine Nasha Zarya (Messrs. Potresov, Cherevanin, and others) constituted a
nucleus, independent of the old Social-Democratic Party, which in a thousand
ways was supported, boosted and nursed by the liberal bourgeoisie of Russia
which wanted to wean the workers from the revolutionary struggle.

This group of opportunists was expelled from the Party by the January
Conference of the R.S.D.L.P., 1912, [2] which restored the Party in spite of the furious
resistance of a number of groups and coteries abroad. For more than two
years (beginning of 1912 to the middle of 1914) a stubborn struggle raged
between the two Social-Democratic parties: the Central Committee that was
elected in January 1912 and the “Organisation Committee” which
refused to recognise the January Conference and wanted to restore the Party
in a different way, by maintaining unity with the Nasha Zarya group. A stubborn struggle raged between the two daily
workers’ newspapers ( Pravda and
Luch [3] and their successors), and between the two Social-Democratic groups in the Fourth
State Duma (the R.S.D.L. group of Pravdists, or Marxists, and the
“Social-Democratic group” of the Liquidators headed by
Chkheidze).

Championing loyalty to the Party’s revolutionary principles,
fostering the incipient revival of the working-class movement (especially
after the spring of 1911), combining underground with open organisation,
press and agitation, the Pravdists raffled around themselves the
overwhelming majority of the class-conscious working class, whereas the
Liquidators – who as a political force operated exclusively though the
Nasha Zarya group – leaned on the all-round support of the liberal-bourgeois elements.

The open financial contributions of workers’ groups to the
newspapers of the two parties, which was at that time a form of
Social-Democratic membership dues adapted to Russian conditions
(and the only one legally possible and freely verifiable by all), strikingly
confirmed the proletarian source of the strength and influence of the
Pravdists (Marxists) and the bourgeois-liberal source of that of the
Liquidators (and their “O.C.”). Here are brief figures of these
contributions, which are given in full in the book Marxism and Liquidationism [4] and in an abbreviated form in the German
Social-Democratic newspaper The Leipzig People’s Paper [5] of July 21, 1914.

Number and amounts of contributions to the daily St. Petersburg
newspapers, Marxist (Pravdist) and liquidationist, from January 1 to May 13,
1914:

| | Pravdist | Liquidationist |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Number of contributions | Amount in rbls. | Number of contributions | Amount in rbls. |
| From workers’ groups | 2,873 | 18,934 | 671 | 5,296 |
| From non-workers’ groups | 713 | 2,650 | 453 | 6,760 |

Thus, by 1914, our Party had united four-fifths of the class-conscious workers of Russia around revolutionary Social-Democratic
tactics. For the whole of 1913 the Pravdists received contributions from
2,181 workers’ groups and the Liquidators from 661. The figures from
January 1, 1913 to May 13, 1914 will be: 5,054 contributions from
workers’ groups for the Pravdists (that is, for our Party), and
,1,332, i.e., 20.8 per cent, for the liquidators.

Marxism and Social-Chauvinism (1914–1915)

The great European war of 1914–1915 gave all the European and
also the Russian Social-Democrats the opportunity to test their tactics on a
crisis of world-wide dimensions. The reactionary, predatory and slave-owner
character of the war stands out in immeasurably more striking relief in the
case of tsarism than it does in the case of the other governments. Nevertheless, the major group of Liquidators (the only group
besides ours which has serious influence in Russia thanks to its liberal
connections) turned towards social-chauvinism! Enjoying a monopoly of
legality for a fairly long period, this Nasha Zarya group
conducted propaganda among the masses in favour of “non-resistance to
the war,” of wishing for the victory of the triple (now quadruple)
entente, accusing German imperialism of “super-diabolical sins,”
etc. Plekhanov, who, since 1903, has repeatedly given examples of his
extreme political spinelessness and desertion to opportunism, took up still
more pronouncedly the very position that is so highly praised by the whole
of the bourgeois press of Russia. Plekhanov has sunk so low as to declare
that tsarism is waging a just war, and to publish an interview in the
government newspapers in Italy urging her to enter the war!!

The correctness of our appraisal of liquidationism and of the expulsion
of the major group of liquidators from our Party is thus fully
confirmed. The real programme of the Liquidators and the real significance
of their trend now constitute not only opportunism in general, but defence
of the imperialist privileges and advantages of the Great-Russian landlords
and bourgeoisie. It is a national-liberal labour policy trend. It
is an alliance of a section of the radical petty bourgeoisie and a tiny
handful of privileged workers with “their” national bourgeoisie
against the mass of the proletariat.

The Present State of Affairs in Russian Social-Democracy

As we have already said, neither the Liquidators, nor a
number of groups abroad (those of Plekhanov, Alexinsky. Trotsky and others),
nor the so-called “national” (i.e., non-Great Russian)
Social-Democrats have recognised our Conference of January 1911. Among the
innumerable epithets hurled against us, those most often repeated were
“usurpers” and “splitters.” We answered by quoting exact and objectively verifiable figures showing that our Party united
four-fifths of the class-conscious workers in Russia. This is no small
figure considering the difficulties of underground activities in a counter-revolutionary epoch.

If “unity” were possible in Russia on the basis of
Social-Democratic tactics without expelling the Nasha Zarya
group, why have not our numerous opponents brought it about even among themselves ? No less than three and a half years have passed since
January 1912, and during the whole of this time our opponents, much as they
have desired to do so, have failed to form a Social-Democratic party in
opposition to us. This fact is our Party’s best defence.

The entire history of the Social-Democratic groups that are fighting our
Party is a history of collapse and disintegration. In March 1912, all of
them without exception “united” in abusing us. But already in
August 1912, when the so-called “August bloc” was formed against
it, disintegration began among them. Some of the groups fell away from
them. They could not form a party and a Central Committee. They set up only
an Organisation Committee “for the purpose of restoring
unity.” Actually, this O.C. turned out to be a feeble cover for the
liquidationist group in Russia. During the whole period of the tremendous
upswing of the working-class movement in Russia and of the mass strikes of
1912–1914, the only group in the entire August bloc that conducted
activities among the masses was the Nasha Zarya group, whose strength lay in its liberal connections. And at the beginning of 1914,
the Lettish Social-Democrats officially withdrew from the “August
bloc” (the Polish Social-Democrats did not join it), while Trotsky,
one of the leaders of the bloc, left it unofficially, having again formed
his own separate group. In July 1914, at the conference in Brussels, with
the participation of the Executive Committee of the I.S.B., Kautsky and
Vandervelde, the so-called “Brussels bloc” was formed against
us, which the Letts did not join, and from which the Polish opposition
Social-Democrats forthwith withdrew. When the War broke out this bloc
collapsed. Nasha Zarya , Plekhanov, Alexinsky and
An, [6]

the leader of the
Caucasian Social-Democrats, became open social-chauvinists, preaching the
desirability of Germany’s defeat. The

O.C. and the Bund defended the social-chauvinists and the principles of social-chauvinism. The Chkheidze
Duma group, although it voted against the war credits (in Russia, even the
bourgeois democrats, the Trudoviki, voted against them), remained
Nasha Zarya ’s faithful ally. Our extreme social-chauvinists, Plekhanov, Alexinsky and Co., were quite pleased with
the Chkheidze group. In Paris, the newspaper Nashe Slovo
(formerly Golos ) was started, with the participation mainly
of Martov and Trotsky, who wanted to combine platonic defence of
internationalism with the absolute demand for unity with Nasha Zarya , the O.C. or the Chkheidze group. After 150 issues of this
newspaper, it was itself forced to admit its disintegration: one section of
the editorial board gravitated towards out Party, Martov remained faithful
to the O.C. which publicly censured Nashe Slovo for its
“anarchism” (just as the opportunists in Germany, David and Co.,
Internationale Konespondenz , [7]

Legien and Co. charge Comrade Liebknecht with anarchism); Trotsky announced his rupture with the O.C., but wanted to go
with the Chkheidze group. Here are the programme and tactics of the
Chkheidze group, enunciated by one of its leaders. In No.5, 1915 of
Sovremenny Mir [8]

,

magazine of the Plekhanov and Alexinsky trend, Chkhenkeli writes: “To say that German Social-Democracy was in a position to prevent its country from going to war but failed to do so would mean either secretly wishing that it should not only have breathed its last breath on the barricades but also have had its fatherland breathe it, last, or looking at nearby things through an anarchist telescope.” [9]

These few lines express the sum and substance of social-chauvinism: both
the justification on principle of the “defence of the fatherland” idea and mockery – with the permission of the
military censors – at the preaching and preparation of revolution. It
is not at all a question as to whether German Social-Democracy was or was
not in a position to prevent war, nor whether, in general, revolutionaries
can guarantee the success of a revolution. The question is: should we behave
like Socialists or really “breathe our last” in the embrace of
the imperialist bourgeoisie?

Our Party’s Tasks

Social-Democracy in Russia arose before the bourgeois-democratic revolution (1905) in our country and gained strength
during the revolution and counter-revolution. The backwardness of Russia
explained the extraordinary multiplicity of trends and shades of
petty-bourgeois opportunism in our country; and the influence of Marxism in
Europe and the stability of the legally existing Social-Democratic parties
before the war converted our exemplary liberals into near-admirers of the
“reasonable, “European” (non-revolutionary), “legal” “Marxist” theory and Social-Democracy. The
working class of Russia could not build up its party otherwise than in a
resolute, thirty-year struggle against all the varieties of opportunism. The
experience of the world war, which has brought about the shameful collapse
of European opportunism and has strengthened the alliance of our
national-liberals with social-chauvinist liquidationism, still further
strengthens our conviction that our Party must continue further along the
same consistently revolutionary road.