Such are two fundamentally distinct, radically divergent views on the essence and significance of our party unification.

Now the question arises: which of these views underlies the resolution of the plenum? Whoever cares to think it through will see that the second view forms its basis, but in certain places the resolution clearly bears the traces of particular "amendments" in the spirit of the first, and these "amendments," while worsening the resolution, in no way eliminate its foundation, its main content, thoroughly permeated by the second view.

To demonstrate that this is so, that the "amendments" in the spirit of circle diplomacy truly bear the character of particular amendments, that they do not change the essence of the matter and the principled foundation of the resolution, I shall dwell on the individual points and passages of the resolution on the state of affairs in the party that have already been touched upon by the party press. I shall begin at the end.

Accusing "the leaders of the old factions" of doing everything to obstruct the establishment of unity, of conducting themselves the same way at the plenum, of the fact that "every step had to be wrested from them in battle," Ionov writes:

"Comrade Lenin did not wish to 'overcome dangerous deviations' by means of 'the broadening and deepening of social-democratic work.' He pursued with sufficient energy the establishment at the center of all party initiatives of the theory of 'struggle on two fronts.' He would not even entertain the thought of the abolition in the party of the 'regulations on intensified protection'" (p. 22, col. 1).

The matter concerns § 4, point b, of the resolution on the state of affairs in the party. The draft of this resolution was submitted by me to the Central Committee, and this point was altered after the work of the commission by the plenum itself, altered at the proposal of Trotsky, against which I fought unsuccessfully. In this point I had, if not literally the words "struggle on two fronts," then at any rate words expressing this idea. "Overcoming by means of broadening and deepening" was inserted at the proposal of Trotsky. I am very glad that Comrade Ionov, in his account of my struggle against this proposal, gives me a convenient opportunity to express myself on the significance of this "amendment."

Nothing provoked at the plenum such fierce—often comic—indignation as the idea of "struggle on two fronts." The mere mention of this threw both the Forward-ists and the Mensheviks into a frenzy. This indignation is historically quite explicable, for the Bolsheviks actually conducted, from August 1908 to January 1910, a struggle on two fronts, that is to say, a struggle against the liquidators and the recallists. But this indignation was comic because those who were angry at the Bolsheviks thereby only proved their own guilt, proved that every condemnation of liquidationism and recallism continues to wound them. The thief is crying out that he is being robbed.

Trotsky's proposal to put in place of the struggle on two fronts—"overcoming by means of broadening and deepening"—met with warm support from the Mensheviks and Forward-ists.

And now both Ionov and "Pravda" and the Vienna resolution and the "Voice of the Social-Democrat" are gloating over this "victory." But the question arises: in expunging from this point the words about struggle on two fronts, did they expunge the recognition of the necessity of this struggle from the resolution? Not in the least, for once "deviations" are recognized, once their "danger" is recognized, once it is recognized as necessary to "explain" this danger, once it is recognized that deviations are "manifestations of bourgeois influence on the proletariat," then by this very fact the struggle on two fronts is precisely recognized! They changed an "unpleasant" (to one crony or another) term in one place, but left the fundamental idea intact! The result was merely obfuscation, dilution with small talk, the spoiling of one part of one point with a phrase.

In fact, this is precisely a phrase and a helpless evasion if in the given paragraph it is a matter of overcoming by means of broadening and deepening work. There is no clear idea here whatsoever. It is always and unconditionally necessary to broaden and deepen work; the entire third paragraph of the resolution speaks of this in detail, speaks of it prior to the transition to specific—not always and not unconditionally obligatory, but generated by the conditions of a particular period—"ideological-political tasks." Only to these special tasks is the 4th § devoted, and in the introduction to all three of its points it is directly stated that these ideological-political tasks "have come to the fore in their turn."

What was the result? The result was nonsense, as though the task of broadening and deepening work also "came to the fore in its turn"! As though there could be such a historical "turn of events" when this task does not stand, as it always does!

And how can one overcome deviations by means of broadening and deepening social-democratic work? With any broadening and with any deepening, the question inevitably arises: how to broaden and how to deepen; if liquidationism and recallism are not accidents, but currents generated by social conditions, then they can penetrate into any broadening and any deepening of work. One can broaden and deepen work in the spirit of liquidationism—this is done, for example, by "Our Dawn" and "Rebirth";{105} one can do this in the spirit of recallism as well. On the other hand, the overcoming of deviations, in the proper meaning of the word "overcoming," inevitably diverts certain forces, time, and energy from the direct broadening and deepening of correct social-democratic work. For example, that same Ionov on the same page of his article writes:

"The plenum is over. Its participants have dispersed. The Central Committee, in organizing work, has to overcome immense difficulties, among which not the least place is occupied by the conduct of the so-called" (only so-called, Comrade Ionov, and not real, not genuine?) "liquidators, whose existence Comrade Martov so persistently denied."

There you have the material—small, but characteristic material—to illustrate how empty are the phrases of Trotsky and Ionov. Overcoming the liquidationist steps of Mikhail, Yuri and Co. consumed the forces and time of the Central Committee from the direct broadening and deepening of genuinely social-democratic work. If there had been no steps by Mikhail, Yuri and Co., if there had been no liquidationism among those whom we mistakenly continue to regard as our comrades, then the broadening and deepening of social-democratic work would have proceeded more successfully, for internal struggle would not have diverted the party's forces. Consequently, if by broadening and deepening social-democratic work one understands the direct development of agitation, propaganda, economic struggle, and so forth in a genuinely social-democratic spirit, then for this work the overcoming of the deviations of social-democrats from social-democracy is a minus, a subtraction, so to speak, from "positive activity," and therefore the phrase about overcoming deviations by means of broadening, etc., makes no sense.

This phrase in fact expresses a vague wish, a good, innocent wish that there be less internal struggle among social-democrats! Nothing but this innocent wish is reflected in this phrase; it is a sigh of the so-called conciliators: oh, if only there were less struggle against liquidationism and recallism!

The political significance of such "sighing"—is zero, worse than zero. If there are people in the party to whom it is profitable to "persistently deny" the existence of liquidators (and recallists), they use the "sigh" of the "conciliators" to cover up the evil. So the "Voice of the Social-Democrat" does. And therefore the defenders of such well-intentioned, empty phrases in resolutions—are only the so-called "conciliators." In fact, they are accomplices of the liquidators and recallists, in fact they deepen not social-democratic work, but strengthen precisely the deviations from it, strengthen precisely the evil, temporarily concealing it, hindering the cure of it.

To illustrate for Comrade Ionov the significance of this evil, I shall remind him of one passage from Comrade Ionov's article in No. 1 of the "Discussion Sheet." Comrade Ionov aptly compared liquidationism and recallism to a benign abscess, which "in the process of suppuration draws to itself from the entire organism all harmful elements and thus contributes to its healing."

Exactly so. The process of suppuration, which draws harmful elements from the organism, leads to its healing. But that which hinders the cleansing of the organism from such elements does it harm. Let Comrade Ionov think over this useful thought of Comrade Ionov!