With touching unanimity, the Liquidators and Recallists curse the Bolsheviks on all counts (the former even Plekhanov). The Bolsheviks are to blame, the Bolshevik Center is to blame, the "individualistic" proclivities of Lenin and Plekhanov are to blame (p. 15 of the "Necessary Supplement"), the "irresponsible group" of "former members of the Bolshevik Center" is to blame (see the leaflet of the "Forward" group). The solidarity of the Liquidators and Recallists in this respect is complete; their bloc against orthodox Bolshevism (a bloc that has characterized the struggle more than once at the Plenum, which is discussed in detail below) is an indisputable fact; representatives of two extreme tendencies, equally expressing submission to bourgeois ideas, equally anti-party, are in complete accord in their internal party policy, in the struggle against the Bolsheviks and in proclaiming the Central Organ "Bolshevistic." But the very strongest invective of Axelrod and Aleksinsky merely masks their complete lack of understanding of the meaning and significance of party unification. Trotsky's resolution (– of the Viennese) differs from the "outpourings" of Axelrod and Aleksinsky only in outward appearance. It is composed very "cautiously" and claims "super-factional" impartiality. But what is its meaning? "Bolshevik leaders" are supposedly to blame for everything – this is the same "philosophy of history" as that of Axelrod and Aleksinsky.

In the very first paragraph of the Viennese resolution it is stated: "… representatives of all factions and tendencies… by their decision" (at the Plenum) "consciously and deliberately assumed responsibility for carrying out the adopted resolutions in the given conditions, in collaboration with the given persons, groups and institutions." The matter concerns "conflicts in the Central Organ." Who is "responsible for carrying out the Plenum's resolutions" in the Central Organ? Clearly: the majority of the Central Organ, i.e., the Bolsheviks with the Poles; they are responsible for carrying out the Plenum's resolutions – "in collaboration with the given persons," i.e., with the Golosovtsy and the Forward-ists.

What does the main resolution of the Plenum say, in that part of it devoted to the most "aching" questions of our party, questions that were the most disputed before the Plenum and that were supposed to become the least disputed after the Plenum?

That the manifestation of bourgeois influence on the proletariat is, on the one hand, the denial of the illegal Social-Democratic party, the diminishing of its role and significance, etc., and on the other hand, the denial of Duma work by Social-Democrats and the utilization of legal possibilities, a lack of understanding of the importance of both, etc.

Now the question arises: what meaning does this resolution have:

Is it that the Golosovtsy should have sincerely and irrevocably renounced their denial of the illegal party, their diminishing of it, etc., should have recognized this as a deviation, should have rid themselves of it, should have conducted positive work in a spirit hostile to this deviation; – that the Forward-ists should have sincerely and irrevocably renounced their denial of Duma work and legal possibilities, etc.; – that the majority of the Central Organ should have done everything possible to attract the Golosovtsy and Forward-ists to "collaboration" on the condition of their sincere, consistent and irrevocable renunciation of the "deviations" described in detail in the Plenum resolution?

Or is the meaning of the resolution that the majority of the Central Organ is responsible for carrying out the resolutions (concerning the overcoming of Liquidationist and Recallist deviations) "in collaboration with the given" Golosovtsy, who continue as before and even more blatantly to defend Liquidationism, with the given Forward-ists, who continue as before and even more blatantly to uphold the legitimacy of Recallism, Ultimatism, etc.?

It is sufficient to pose this question to see how devoid of content are the sonorous phrases in Trotsky's resolution – how they serve in fact to defend the very same position on which Axelrod & Co., Aleksinsky & Co. stand.

Trotsky expressed in the very first words of his resolution the entire spirit of the worst sort of conciliationism, "conciliationism" in quotation marks, a clique conciliationism, a philistine conciliationism, which takes "the given persons" and not the given line, not the given spirit, not the given ideological-political content of party work.

For therein lies the entire abyss of difference between Trotsky's and Co.'s "conciliationism," which in fact serves the truest service to the Liquidators and Recallists, and is therefore all the more a dangerous evil in the party, the more cleverly, the more refinedly, the more phraseologically it cloaks itself in supposedly party and supposedly anti-factional declamations – and between genuine party-mindedness, which consists in purifying the party from Liquidationism and Recallism.

What is actually given to us as a task of the party?

Are we given "the given persons, groups and institutions" which must be "reconciled" regardless of their line, regardless of the content of their work, regardless of their relation to Liquidationism and Recallism?

Or are we given a party line, given an ideological-political direction and content to all our work, given a task of purifying this work from Liquidationism and Recallism – a task which must be carried out regardless of "persons, groups and institutions," in spite of the resistance of those not in agreement with this line or not carrying it out, of "persons, institutions and groups"?

Two views are possible on the significance and conditions for the realization of any party unification whatsoever. It is extremely important to understand the distinction between these views, for they are confused and mixed up in the course of the development of our "unification crisis," and without demarcating one view from the other it is impossible to sort out this crisis.

One view of unification can place in the foreground the "reconciliation" of "the given persons, groups and institutions." Unity of their views on party work, on the line of this work – this is a secondary matter. Disagreements ought to be hushed up rather than having their roots, their significance, their objective conditions clarified. To "reconcile" persons and groups – that is the main thing. If they do not agree on carrying out a common line – this line must be interpreted in such a way as to be acceptable to all. Live and let others live. This is – philistine "conciliationism," inevitably leading to clique diplomacy. To "stop up" the sources of disagreement, to hush them up, to "settle" conflicts "at all costs," to neutralize warring tendencies – such is the main focus of attention of such "conciliationism." It is clear that under the conditions of a foreign base for the operations of an illegal party, this clique diplomacy opens wide the doors to "persons, groups and institutions," playing the role of "honest brokers" in all manner of attempts at "reconciliation" and "neutralization."

Here is how Martov describes one such attempt at the Plenum in no. 19–20 of "Golos":

"The Mensheviks, the 'Pravdists' and the Bundists proposed such a composition of the Central Organ as would ensure the 'neutralization' of two opposite tendencies of party thought, would give definite majority to neither and would thereby force the party organ to work out, on each essential question, that middle line which could unite the majority of party workers."

The Menshevik proposal, as is known, did not pass. Trotsky, who put his candidacy for the Central Organ in the capacity of neutralizer, failed. The candidacy for the same position of a Bundist – this candidacy was proposed by the Mensheviks in their speeches – was not even put to a vote.

Here you have the actual role of those "conciliators" in the worst sense of the word, who wrote the Viennese resolution and whose views are expressed in the article by Ionov in no. 4 of "Otklikhi Bunda" (Responses of the Bund), which I have only just received. The Mensheviks did not dare to propose a Central Organ with a majority of their tendency – while at the same time recognizing, as is evident from the reasoning of Martov which I have cited, two opposite tendencies in the party. It never even occurred to the Mensheviks to propose a Central Organ with a majority of their tendency. They did not even attempt to achieve a Central Organ with a definite direction (to such a degree was it clear at the Plenum that the Mensheviks lacked direction, from whom only a sincere and consistent renunciation of Liquidationism was still demanded, still expected). The Mensheviks strove in the Central Organ for "neutralization" and put forward a Bundist or Trotsky as neutralizers. The Bundist and Trotsky were to play the role of a matchmaker, who would take upon herself the "arranging of marriage" of "the given persons, groups and institutions" regardless of whether one side renounced Liquidationism or not.

This point of view of the matchmaker constitutes the entire "ideological basis" of Trotsky's and Ionov's conciliationism. When they lament and weep over the fact that unification did not come about, this should be understood cum grano salis.[36] It should be understood thus: the matchmaking did not come off. The "failure" of those hopes for unification which Trotsky and Ionov cherished, hopes for unification with "the given persons, groups and institutions" regardless of their relation to Liquidationism, means only the failure of matchmaking, means the futility, hopelessness, wretchedness of the matchmaker's point of view, but does not at all mean the failure of party unification.

There is another view of this unification. This other view consists in the fact that a whole series of deep, objective causes, not dependent on any particular composition of "the given (to the Plenum and at the Plenum) persons, groups and institutions," has long since begun to cause and continues steadily to bring about in the two old, two main Russian Social-Democratic factions such changes as create – sometimes contrary to the will and even the consciousness of some of "the given persons, groups and institutions," create – the ideological and organizational foundations of unification. These objective conditions are rooted in the peculiarities of the epoch of bourgeois development of Russia which we are experiencing, the epoch of bourgeois counter-revolution and attempts by autocracy to reorganize itself on the model of a bourgeois monarchy. These objective conditions create at one and the same time and in an inseparable connection with one another changes in the character of the workers' movement, in the composition, type, appearance of the workers' Social-Democratic vanguard, and changes in the ideological-political tasks of the Social-Democratic movement. Therefore, not by chance, not by any individual malevolence, stupidity or error, but as an inevitable result of the action of these objective causes – and as an inseparable superstructure from the "base" above the entire workers' movement of contemporary Russia – is that bourgeois influence on the proletariat, which creates Liquidationism (= semi-liberalism, wishing to count itself among Social-Democrats) and Recallism (= semi-anarchism, wishing to count itself among Social-Democrats). Consciousness of the danger, the un-Social-Democratic character, the harm to the workers' movement of both deviations brings about a rapprochement of elements from different factions and paves the way for party unification "through all obstacles."

From this point of view, unification can proceed slowly, with difficulty, with wavering, vacillations, relapses, but it cannot fail to proceed. From this point of view, unification proceeds not necessarily between "the given persons, groups and institutions," but independently of given persons, subjecting them to itself, casting out from "the given" those who do not understand or do not wish to understand the demands of objective development, putting forward and attracting new persons not belonging to the composition of "the given," producing changes, reshufflings, regroupings within the old factions, tendencies, divisions. From this point of view, unification is inseparable from its ideological basis; it grows only on the basis of ideological rapprochement; it is connected with the appearance, development, growth of such deviations as Liquidationism and Recallism not by an accidental connection of one or another polemical utterance, one or another literary struggle, but by an inner, inseparable connection, as cause and effect are connected.