Furthermore. The editorial article of *Golos* on the plenum's results compels us to touch on the question of the removal from the resolution of the words: liquidationism and recallism. In this editorial article (No. 19–20, p. 18) with extraordinary, unprecedented boldness (nowhere seen except among our *Golos* people)… it is declared that the term "liquidator" is a rubber term, that it "bred all sorts of misunderstandings" (sic!![37]) and so on, which is why "the CC decided to eliminate this term from the resolution."

What should one call such an account of the CC's decisions concerning the elimination of the term, when the editors of *Golos* cannot help but know that this account contradicts the truth? What were these editors counting on, two of whom were at the plenum and know the "history" of the term's elimination? Did they really count on not being exposed?

In the commission that drafted the resolution, the majority affirmed the retention of the term. Of the two Mensheviks who were in the commission, one (Martov) voted for its elimination, the other (who had repeatedly inclined toward Plekhanov's position) against. At the plenum, a declaration was submitted by all the nationals (2 Poles + 2 Bundists + 1 Latvian) and by Trotsky:

"Finding that in substance it would be desirable to call the trend indicated in the resolution, with which it is necessary to struggle, 'liquidationism,' but taking into account the declaration of Comrades Mensheviks that they too consider it necessary to struggle with this trend, yet the use of such a term in the resolution has a factional character directed against them, the Mensheviks, – we, in the interests of eliminating all unnecessary obstacles to party unification, propose to strike this term from the resolution."

Thus, the CC majority, and moreover precisely all the nonfactional elements, declares in writing that the word liquidationism is correct in substance and that it is necessary to struggle with liquidationism, while the *Golos* editorial staff explains the elimination of the term by its unsuitability in substance!!

The CC majority, and moreover precisely all the nonfactional elements, declares in writing that it agrees to the elimination of the term, yielding to the Mensheviks' insistence (more precisely: yielding to an ultimatum, for the Mensheviks declared that otherwise the resolution would not be unanimous), given their promise to "struggle with this trend," while the *Golos* editorial staff writes: the resolution gave an "unambiguous answer to the question of the so-called 'struggle against liquidationism'" (p. 18, ibid.)!!

At the plenum they promise to reform themselves, they request: do not employ a "term directed against us," for henceforth we ourselves shall struggle with this trend, – and in the first issue of *Golos* after the plenum they proclaim the struggle against liquidationism as so-called struggle.

It is clear that we have here on the part of the *Golos* people a complete and decisive turn toward liquidationism, a turn that becomes understandable if one looks at it as something integral, coherent, causally conditioned – at what happened after the plenum, – especially at the pronouncements of *Nasha Zarya*, *Vozrozhdenie*, and gentlemen like Mikhail, Yury, Roman and Co. We shall speak of this below, and we shall have to show there all the superficiality of Trotsky's point of view, inclined to blame everything on "violation of moral-political obligations" (the Vienna resolution), whereas before us is evidently not a personal or group "violation of obligations," not a moral, not a juridical act, but a political one, namely: the consolidation of anti-party legalists in Russia.

Now, however, one must pause on another question, namely on the question of the causes and significance of such a step of the plenum as the elimination of the word liquidationism from the resolution. To explain this exclusively by the ill-considered zeal of such conciliators as Trotsky, Ionov and Co. would be incorrect. There is yet another factor here. The point is that a considerable part of the plenum's decisions was carried through not according to the usual principle of the minority submitting to the majority, but according to the principle of agreement between two factions, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, through the mediation of the nationals. To this circumstance, it seems, Comrade Ionov alludes in his "Echoes from the Bund" when he writes: "Comrades now clinging to formalism perfectly well know what the last plenum would have ended in if it had taken a formal point of view."

Comrade Ionov speaks in allusions in this phrase. Like Trotsky, he considers such a manner of expounding his thoughts especially "tactful," nonfactional, and specifically party-like. In reality this is precisely the mode of action of circle diplomats, bringing nothing but harm to the party and to party spirit. Allusions are lost on some, kindle circle curiosity in others, incite gossip and tale-bearing in still others. Therefore, Ionov's allusions must be deciphered. If he is not speaking here of the fact that the plenum on a number of questions sought agreement (rather than a simple decision by majority), then we invite him to express himself more clearly and not to lead foreign gossips into temptation.

If, however, Ionov is speaking here of an agreement between factions at the plenum, then his words against "comrades now clinging to formalism" strikingly show us yet another trait of those alleged conciliators who actually covertly assist the liquidators.

A series of unanimous decisions was adopted at the plenum by agreement between the factions. Why was this necessary? Because factually factional relations amounted to a split, and in any split always and inevitably the discipline of the whole collective (in this case: the party) is sacrificed to the discipline of part of the collective (in this case: the faction).

One could not proceed toward unity under Russian party relations otherwise than through agreement between the factions (whether all factions or the main ones, whether parts of factions or factions in their entirety, this is another question). Hence – the necessity of compromise, that is, such concessions on certain points which were not recognized by the majority but were demanded by the minority. One of such compromising concessions was the removal from the resolution of the word: liquidationism. A particularly striking manifestation of this compromising character of the plenum's decisions is the conditional transfer by the Bolsheviks of their factional property to third parties. A part of the party conditionally transfers its property to third parties (from international social-democracy) who are to decide whether to give these monies to the CC or return them to the faction. A completely unusual and impossible in a normal, non-split party character of this agreement clearly shows the conditions under which the Bolsheviks were accepting the agreement. The Bolsheviks' declaration, printed in No. 11 of the CO, states clearly that the basic ideological-political condition is the carrying through of a resolution "condemning liquidationism and recallism and recognizing the struggle against these trends as an inalienable element of the party's political line," that one of the guarantees for the carrying through of this line in practice is the composition of the CO, that the continuation of a factional organ and factional policy by the Mensheviks gives the Bolsheviks the right "to demand from the holder the return of the monies." The CC accepted these conditions, directly referring in its resolution on factional centers to this Bolshevik declaration.

The question arises: are these conditions subject to fulfillment or not? Are these conditions formal or not? Comrade Ionov, speaking disdainfully of "formalism," has not understood the most elementary distinction between an agreement as the basis of a contract (= the conditions concerning the transfer of monies by the Bolsheviks, the conditions affirmed by the unanimous CC resolution on factional centers) and observance of the formal conditions of the contract as the basis for preservation of unity.

If Comrade Ionov now, after the unanimous CC resolution on factional centers, dismissively waves his hand at "formalism," then he thereby waves his hand at the entire CC decision on factional centers. Comrade Ionov's sophistry reduces to this: the sum of CC decisions was achieved not only by carrying through resolutions by majority vote, but also by agreement among warring tendencies on certain most important questions; – consequently, these decisions need not be formally binding henceforth either, and the minority has the right to demand agreement! Since the CC decisions contain an element of agreement, one can always tear up these decisions, for agreement is a matter of free will!

Is such sophistry not poorly disguised defense of the liquidators?

But if Ionov's sophisms are merely laughable, then in the CC's (plenum's) striving to make the maximum possible concessions there was a moment that was psychologically and politically sound and correct. The Mensheviks and recallists converged in vicious attacks on the BC (Bolshevik Center), against which the most ferocious accusations were leveled. Not principled disagreements, but the "malice" of the BC – this is what, they said, both Mensheviks and recallists said keeps us most of all and primarily away from the party[38].

This is a very important circumstance; without clarifying it one cannot understand why the course of our unification crisis is such and not otherwise. There were no principled defenders of liquidationism and recallism: neither the Mensheviks nor the Forwardists dared to occupy such a position. Here was revealed the trait long since noted in our literature (and repeatedly noted in international literature against opportunists) of contemporary "critics" of Marxism and critics of genuinely Marxist tactics: irresolution, unprincipledness, concealment of the "new" line, masking of the consistent representatives of liquidationism and recallism. We are not liquidators, this is a factional term, – cried the Mensheviks. We are not recallists, this is factional exaggeration, – echoed the Forwardists. And thousands of accusations against the BC on all and every matter, down to the so-called "criminal acts" (read: expropriations), poured forth with the aim of obscuring and pushing to the background principled-political disagreements.

The Bolsheviks answered this: very well, gentlemen, let the CC examine all your accusations and conduct "investigation and meting out of justice" on them. Five national social-democrats enter the plenum, – on them depends the decision in general, all the more a unanimous decision. Let them be the "judges" in the examination of your (that is, Menshevik and Forwardist) accusations and in the satisfaction of your claims against the BC. The Bolsheviks went further. They agreed to the maximum of compromises in the resolutions demanded by the Mensheviks and Forwardists.

And so the maximum of concessions in the resolutions on the state of affairs in the party and on the conference has been made, all "accusations" examined and all claims against the BC satisfied on the basis of the decision of all five nationals of social-democracy.

Only by such a path could one deprive the opponents of the party line, that is, the anti-liquidationist line, of all possibility of evasion, all possibility of evading the principled posing of the question. And this possibility was taken from them.

If now Axelrod and Martov with Co. in the "Necessary Supplement," Aleksinsky and Co. in the Forwardists' leaflet attempt again to drag into the light of day accusations against the BC, gossip, slander, lies and insinuations, – then these gentlemen pronounce judgment on themselves. To deny that the plenum unanimously examined all their accusations, swept aside all accusations by its resolution and recognized them as swept aside, – to deny this is impossible, neither these nor the other heroes of strife can deny it. And if so, then for all and each it is now clear that those raising strife anew (Axelrod, Martov, Aleksinsky and Co.) – are simply political blackmailers desiring to smother principled questions with gossip. And we shall treat them in no other way than as political blackmailers. With no other questions, except the question of the party's carrying through the anti-liquidationist and anti-recallist line, shall we concern ourselves, leaving Axelrod, Martov, Aleksinsky to wallow in filth to their heart's content.

The compromises and concessions of the Bolsheviks, their agreement to resolutions in many respects insufficiently decisive, were necessary for the purity of principled demarcation. Having satisfied all the claims of the Mensheviks and recallists, recognized as proper by the majority of the nationals[39], the Bolsheviks achieved that for social-democrats without distinction of tendencies, for all save professional blackmailers, the question stood exclusively on carrying through the party line, anti-liquidationist and anti-recallist. No one, not a single person in the party, was barred access to party work, to participation in carrying through this line; no obstacles to its carrying through, no extraneous hindering circumstances remained in virtue of the decision which depended on the nationals of social-democracy. And if now the liquidators again and yet more evidently revealed themselves, then this proves that extraneous obstacles were a fabrication, a diversion, a gossipy evasion, a device of circle intriguers, nothing more.

Therefore, the demarcation and sorting out began in the proper way only after the plenum; this sorting out proceeds exclusively on the most important principled question – on the liquidation of our party. Those "conciliators" who are stunned, grieved, astonished that the demarcation began after the plenum have proven by their astonishment only their captivation by circle diplomacy. The circle diplomat could think that a conditional agreement with Martov and Martyanov, Maximov and the second Forwardist{106} is the end of all demarcation, for to such a diplomat principled disagreements are a secondary matter. On the contrary, for one to whom the principled question of liquidationism and recallism stands in the first place, – there is nothing surprising in the fact that precisely after the satisfaction of all claims by Martov, Maximov and others, precisely after maximum concessions to them on questions of organization and so on, a demarcation purely principled should begin.

What is happening in the party after the plenum is not a collapse of party unification, but the beginning of unification of those who can and want to work in the party and in a party manner, is the beginning of purification of the genuinely party bloc of Bolsheviks, party Mensheviks, nationals, nonfactional social-democrats from enemies of the party, renegades, semi-liberals and semi-anarchists[40].