Let us now turn to clarifying what happened after the plenum. On this question Trotsky and Ionov give a concordant and simple answer. "Neither in the external conditions of political life," states the Vienna resolution, "nor in the internal relations of our party did any real changes occur after the plenum that would hinder the work of party construction…." A factional relapse, an unextirpated legacy of factional relations—that is all.

Ionov offers the same explanation "in persons."

"The plenum is over. Its participants have dispersed… The leaders of the old factions found themselves at liberty, emancipated from all manner of external influences and pressures. To boot, considerable reinforcements arrived. For some—in the person of comrade Plekhanov, who of late has been energetically preaching the declaration of the party in a state of war. For others—in the person of sixteen 'old party workers, well known to the editorial staff of the *Voice of the Social-Democrat*'" (see no. 19–20, "Open Letter"). "How could they not rush into battle under such conditions? And so they set about the old 'business' of mutual destruction" ("Echoes of the Bund," no. 4, p. 22).

"Reinforcements" arrived for the factionalists and—they clashed again, nothing more. True, as "reinforcement" for the Bolsheviks came a party Menshevik, Plekhanov, who "arrived" with war against the liquidators, but this is all the same to Ionov. Ionov apparently does not like Plekhanov's polemic against Potresov, and so forth (who proposed "dissolving everything"), etc. It is his right, of course, to criticize this polemic. But how can one call it an "announcement of the party in a state of war"? War with the liquidators is an announcement of the party in a state of war—let us remember this "philosophy" of comrade Ionov.

For the foreign Mensheviks, reinforcement came from Russian Mensheviks. But this circumstance does not in the least cause comrade Ionov to pause and reflect.

It is clear what practical conclusion flows from such an "assessment of the moment" by Trotsky and Ionov. Nothing special has occurred. Simply a factional squabble. Station some new neutralizers—and the matter will be settled. Everything is explained from the standpoint of circle diplomacy. All practical prescriptions are nothing but circle diplomacy. There are "those who rushed into battle," there are those wishing to "reconcile": here strike out a mention of "foundation," there add someone's name to an "institution," there "concede" to the legalists on the procedures for convening a conference… The old, but eternally new story of foreign circle faction-mongering!

Our view of what happened after the plenum is different.

Having achieved unanimous resolutions, having eliminated all "squabbling" accusations, the plenum finally cornered the liquidators. They can no longer hide behind squabbling. They can no longer appeal to intransigence and "mechanical suppression" (variant: intensified surveillance, martial law, siege conditions, etc.). One can only depart from the party because of liquidationism (just as the Forwards can depart only because of recallism and anti-Marxist philosophy).

Cornered, the liquidators revealed their "true face." Their Russian center—whether formally so or not, semi-illegal (*Mikhail* and Co.) or fully legal (*Potresov* and Co.)—answered the call to return to the party with a refusal. Russian legalist-liquidators have finally broken with the party, uniting into a group of independent socialists (independent from socialism and dependent on liberalism, of course). The reply of *Mikhail* and Co., on the one hand, and the pronouncements of *Our Dawn* and *Renaissance*, on the other—mark precisely the consolidation of anti-party circles of "social-democrats" (more accurately: ostensible s.-d.'s) into a group of independent socialists. Therefore, the "reconciliation" efforts of Trotsky and Ionov are now ridiculous and pathetic. Only complete incomprehension of what is occurring can explain these efforts, which are now harmless, since behind them stands no one except circle diplomats abroad, except incomprehension and ignorance somewhere in the boondocks.

Reconcilers à la Trotsky and Ionov erred in taking the particular conditions that gave rise to reconciliation diplomacy at the plenum to be general conditions of present-day party life. They erred in treating diplomacy, which played its role at the plenum thanks to the existence of conditions that produced deep strivings toward reconciliation (party unification) in both main factions—they treated this diplomacy as a self-sufficient end, as an enduring instrument of play among the "given persons, groups, and institutions."

At the plenum there was indeed a place for diplomacy, because party unification of party Bolsheviks and party Mensheviks was necessary, and without concessions, without compromise, it was impossible. In determining the measure of concessions, the "honest brokers" inevitably came to the fore—inevitably, because for party Mensheviks and party Bolsheviks the question of the measure of concessions was a secondary question, so long as the principled basis of the entire unification remained in force. Having come to the fore at the plenum, having been given the opportunity to play a role as "neutralizers," as "judges" for eliminating squabbles, for satisfying "claims" against the CC, the "reconcilers" à la Trotsky and Ionov imagined that, as long as there existed "given persons, groups, and institutions," they would always be able to play this role. An amusing delusion. Brokers are needed when it is necessary to determine the measure of concessions required to achieve unanimity. The measure of concessions must be determined when there is an admittedly common principled basis of unification. The question of who would enter this unification after all concessions remained open, because in principle it was inevitably a conditional assumption that all social-democrats would wish to enter the party, all Mensheviks would wish loyally to carry out the anti-liquidationist resolution, all Forwards—the anti-recallist resolution.

Now, however, brokers are not needed; they have no place, because there is no question of the measure of concessions. And there is no question of the measure of concessions because there is no question of any concessions whatsoever. All concessions (and even excessive ones) were made at the plenum. Now the question stands exclusively on the principled position of struggle against liquidationism, and moreover not against liquidationism in general, but against a definite group of liquidator-independents—the group of *Mikhail* and Co., the group of *Potresov* and Co. If Trotsky and Ionov now attempt to "reconcile" the party with these persons, groups, and institutions, then to us, to all party Bolsheviks and to all party Mensheviks, they will simply be traitors to the party, nothing more.

The reconciler-diplomats were "strong" at the plenum exclusively because and to the extent that both party Bolsheviks and party Mensheviks desired peace, and attributed subordinate significance to the question of the conditions of peace in relation to the question of anti-liquidationist and anti-recallist party tactics. I, for example, found the concessions excessive and fought over the measure of concessions (which the *Voice* hints at in no. 19–20 and which Ionov states directly). But I was ready then to make peace, and would be ready now to make peace even with excessive concessions, provided that the party line was not thereby undermined, provided that the concessions did not lead to the negation of this line, provided that the concessions served as bridges for drawing people away from liquidationism and recallism toward the party. But after the consolidation and pronouncement of *Mikhail* and Co., *Potresov* and Co. against the party and against the plenum, I will not enter into any discussions about any concessions whatsoever, because the party is now obligated to break with these independents, obligated to struggle decisively against them as fully and finally determined liquidators. And I can speak with confidence not only for myself, but for all party Bolsheviks. The party Mensheviks have expressed themselves with sufficient clarity, through the mouths of Plekhanov and others, in the same spirit, and given such a state of affairs in the party, "reconciler"-diplomats à la Trotsky and Ionov will have to either abandon their diplomacy or go over to the independents away from the party.

To be convinced of the final consolidation of the legalists into a group of independent socialists, one need only take a general look at events after the plenum, one need only evaluate them in substance, rather than from the point of view of the petty and trivial history of "conflicts" to which Ionov confines himself.

1) *Mikhail*, *Roman*, and *Yuri* declare both the CC resolutions (of the plenum) and its very existence to be harmful. Since the publication of this fact, approximately two months have passed, and the fact has not been refuted. Clearly, it is true.[43]

2) Sixteen Russian Mensheviks, including at least two of the above-named trio and a number of prominent Menshevik litterateurs (*Cherevanin*, *Koltsov*, etc.), appear in the *Voice*, with the approval of the editorial staff, justifying the departure of Mensheviks from the party, coming forward with a purely liquidationist manifesto.

3) The Menshevik legal journal *Our Dawn* publishes a programmatic article by Mr. *Potresov*, in which he states directly that "there is no party, as a coherent and organized hierarchy of institutions" (no. 2, p. 61), that one cannot liquidate "that which in reality no longer exists, as an organized whole" (ibid.). Among the contributors to this journal are listed *Cherevanin*, *Koltsov*, *Martynov*, *Avgustovskii*, *Maslov*, *Martov*—that very L. *Martov* who is capable of occupying a place in the "organized hierarchy of institutions" of an illegal party possessing a center, as an "organized whole" possesses, and remaining in a legal group which, by the gracious permission of *Stolypin*, proclaims this illegal party non-existent.

4) In the popular Menshevik journal *Renaissance* (no. 5, 30 March 1910), with the same composition of contributors, an unsigned, i.e., editorial, article praises the above-mentioned article by Mr. *Potresov* from *Our Dawn* and adds, after citing the same quotation that I cited above:

"There is nothing to liquidate—and, we add" (i.e., the editorial staff of *Renaissance*) "for our part—the dream of restoring this hierarchy in its old, underground form is simply harmful, reactionary utopia, signifying the loss of political sense in the representatives of the once most realistic party" (p. 51).

Whoever considers all these facts mere chance obviously does not wish to see the truth. Whoever thinks to explain these facts by a "relapse of factionalism" lulls himself with a phrase. What have factionalism and factional struggle to do with it—from which both the group of *Mikhail* and Co. and the group of *Potresov* and Co. have long stood apart? No, for anyone who does not deliberately close their eyes, there can be no doubt here. The plenum removed all obstacles (real or imaginary) for the return of party legalists to the party, all obstacles to the construction of an illegal party taking account of new conditions and new forms of utilizing legal possibilities. Four Menshevik CC members and two editors of the *Voice* recognized all obstacles to joint party work as removed. The group of Russian legalists has given its answer to the plenum. This answer is negative: we do not wish to occupy ourselves with restoring and strengthening the illegal party, because this is a reactionary utopia.

This answer is the most significant political fact in the history of social-democratic movement. The group of independents (from socialism) has finally consolidated and finally broken with the social-democratic party. To what extent this group is formally organized, whether it consists of a single organization or of a series of separate circles loosely (lose) bound to one another, we do not yet know, nor is it particularly important. What matters is that the tendencies toward the formation of groups independent of the party—long existing among the Mensheviks—have now led to a new political formation. And henceforth all Russian social-democrats who do not wish to deceive themselves must reckon, as with a fact, with the existence of this group of independents.

To clarify the significance of this fact, let us first remind ourselves of the "independent socialists" of France, who in the most advanced, most purified of the old bourgeois state, brought to the furthest conclusion the tendencies of this political direction. *Millerand*, *Viviani*, *Briand* belonged to the socialist party, but repeatedly acted independently of its decisions, against them, and *Millerand's* entry into a bourgeois ministry, under the pretext of saving the republic and protecting the interests of socialism, led to his break with the party. The bourgeoisie rewarded the traitors of socialism with ministerial positions. The trio of French renegades continues to call itself and its group independent socialists, continues to justify its behavior by the interests of the workers' movement and social reform.

Our independents, of course, cannot be rewarded by bourgeois society so quickly: they begin under conditions immeasurably more backward; they must content themselves with the praises and assistance of liberal bourgeoisie (which has long supported the Menshevik tendencies toward "independence"). But the basic tendency is one in both cases: independence from the socialist party is motivated by the interests of the workers' movement; "struggle for legality" (a slogan in *Danov's* formulation, taken up with all eagerness in the renegade *Renaissance*, no. 5, p. 7) is proclaimed a slogan of the working class; bourgeois intellectuals group themselves in practice (*parliamentarians* in France, litterateurs among us), acting hand in hand with liberals; subordination to the party is rejected: the party is declared insufficiently "realistic" both by *Millerand* and Co., and by *Renaissance* and the *Voice*; the party is said to be "the dictatorship of closed underground circles" (*Voice*), that it shuts itself up in a narrowly revolutionary association, injurious to broad progress (*Millerand* and Co.).

Take further, to clarify the position of our independents, the history of the formation of our Russian "People's Socialist party." This history will help those understand the substance of the matter who do not see the kinship of our independents to *Millerand* and Co. because of the enormous difference in the external conditions of their "work." That our "Enes" represent the legalist and moderate wing of petty-bourgeois democracy is universally known, and it seems no Marxist has doubted it. The People's Socialists appeared as liquidators of the program, tactics, and organization of the revolutionary party of petty-bourgeois democrats at the S-R congress at the end of 1905; they appeared in the closest bloc with S.-R.'s in the newspapers of the days of freedom in autumn 1905 and spring 1906. They legalized themselves and separated into an independent party in autumn 1906, which did not prevent them from, in the elections to the Second Duma and in the Second Duma, almost merging from time to time with the S-R.'s.

In autumn 1906 I happened to write in *Proletarian* about the People's Socialists, and I called them "S-R. Mensheviks."[44] Three and a half years have passed, and *Potresov* and Co. have managed to prove the party Mensheviks that I was right. One must only admit that even Messrs. *Peshekhonov* and Co. acted politically more honestly than Mr. *Potresov* and his group, when, after a series of factually independent of party S-R. political acts, they declared themselves openly independent of the S-R.'s, a separate political party. Of course, this "honesty" is conditioned, among other things, also by the correlation of forces: *Peshekhonov* considered the S-R. party powerless and believed he was losing by remaining informally connected with it; *Potresov* believes he is gaining from political *Azeffism*{112}—continuing to be counted a social-democrat while factually independent of the social-democratic party.

Mr. *Potresov* and Co. consider it most advantageous for themselves for the time being to cover themselves with another's name, to piratically utilize the prestige of the RSDLP, decomposing it from within, acting factually against it, and not merely independently of it. It is possible that the group of our independents will strive for as long as possible to clothe themselves in borrowed plumes; it is possible that after some blow to the party, after some major collapse of the illegal organization, or under especially tempting circumstances, such as the possibility of passing, say, into the Duma independently of the party, the independents themselves will shed their mask—we cannot foresee all and every episode of their political charlatanism.

But one thing we know firmly, namely, that to the workers' class party, the RSDLP, the covert activity of the independents is harmful, ruinous, and that we must by all means expose it, bring the independents out into the open, and declare the breaking of all their connection with the party. The plenum made an enormous step forward on this path: strange as it may seem at first glance, it is precisely the agreement (insincere or unconscious) of *Martov* and *Martynov*, it is precisely the maximal, even excessive concessions to them that helped expose the abscess of liquidationism, the abscess of independence in our party. No honest social-democrat, no party member, whatever faction he sympathizes with, can now deny that the group of *Mikhail* and Co., the group of *Potresov* and Co., are independents, that they in reality do not recognize the party, do not want the party, work against the party.

How quickly or slowly the process of the ripening of the split of the independents and their formation into a separate party develops depends, of course, on many causes and circumstances that do not lend themselves to calculation. The People's Socialists had a special group existing before the revolution, and the separation of this group, temporarily and incompletely attached to the Socialist-Revolutionaries, was especially easy. Our independents still have personal traditions, connections with the party, that hinder the process of the split, but these traditions are weakening, and besides, revolution and counter-revolution are bringing forward new people, free from any revolutionary and party traditions. The surrounding atmosphere of "Vekhi" sentiments with extraordinary speed is pushing the characterless intelligentsia toward independence. The "old" generation of revolutionaries is leaving the scene; *Stolypin* is hunting with all his might the representatives of this generation, most of whom have revealed all their pseudonyms and all their conspiracy during the days of freedom, in the years of revolution. Prison, exile, hard labor, emigration—all are increasing the ranks of those dropping out, while the new generation is growing slowly. Among the intelligentsia, especially that which has "settled into" one or another legal activity, there develops complete disbelief in the illegal party, unwillingness to expend strength on especially difficult and especially ungrateful work in these times. "Friends show themselves in misfortune," and the working class, experiencing difficult years of onslaught from both old and new counter-revolutionary forces, will inevitably observe the falling away of many and many of its intellectual "friends for the hour," friends for the time of holiday, friends only for the time of revolution—friends who were revolutionaries during the revolution, but who yield to the epoch of decline and are ready to proclaim "struggle for legality" at the first successes of counter-revolution.

In a number of European countries counter-revolutionary forces succeeded in sweeping clean the remnants of revolutionary and socialist organizations of the proletariat after 1848. The bourgeois intellectual, in the days of youth having attached himself to social-democracy, by the whole of his petty-bourgeois psychology is inclined to wave his hand: so it was—so it will be; to defend the old illegal organization—a hopeless business, to create a new one—all the more hopeless; we in general "exaggerated" the forces of the proletariat in the bourgeois revolution, we erroneously ascribed to the role of the proletariat "universal" significance—all these notions of the renegade *Public Movement* directly and indirectly push toward renunciation of the illegal party. Once he has taken the first step down the slippery slope, the independent does not notice how he is sliding ever lower, does not notice that he is working hand in hand with *Stolypin*: *Stolypin* physically, by police means, by the gallows and hard labor, destroys the illegal party—the liberals directly do the same by open propaganda of Vekhi ideas—the independents among the social-democrats indirectly contribute to the destruction of the illegal party, crying out about its "deadness," refusing to help it, justifying (see the letter of the 16 in no. 19–20 of the *Voice*) their departure from it. Step by step.

Let us not close our eyes to the fact that the struggle for the party will become all the more difficult for us the longer the counter-revolutionary period is drawn out. That party members do not underestimate the danger, that they look it directly in the eye, is shown, for example, by the article of comrade K. in no. 13 of the Central Organ. But decisive and frank recognition of party weakness, of the dispersal of organizations, and of the difficulty of the situation does not cause comrade K.—as it causes no party member—a moment's wavering regarding whether it is needed, whether work on its restoration is necessary. The more difficult our position, the more the number of enemies grows—day before yesterday Vekhi adherents were added to them, yesterday the People's Socialists, today the independent social-democrats—the more tightly will all social-democrats without distinction of shade consolidate in defense of the party. Many an s.-d. whom the question of how to lead the masses, revolutionary-minded and believing in social-democracy, to the assault—could have split—will be consolidated by the question of whether it is obligatory to struggle for the preservation and strengthening of an illegal social-democratic workers' party, created in the years 1895–1910.

As for the *Voice* and its people, they have remarkably clearly confirmed what was said about them by the resolution of the expanded editorial board of the *Proletarian* in June of last year. "In the Menshevik camp of the party," states this resolution (see Appendix to no. 46 of the *Proletarian*, p. 6), "with the complete capture by Menshevik-liquidators of the official organ of the faction, the *Voice of the Social-Democrat*, the minority of the faction, having experienced to the end the path of liquidationism, is already raising its voice in protest against this path and is seeking again the party soil for its activity…"[45] The distance to the "end" of the path of liquidationism turned out to be longer than we thought then, but the correctness of the basic idea of the cited words has been confirmed since by facts. The term "capture by liquidators" has been especially confirmed in application to the *Voice of the Social-Democrat*. These are indeed captives of the liquidators, not daring either directly to defend liquidationism or to rise up against it. At the plenum too they accepted the resolutions unanimously not as free people, but as captives, for a brief period having received from their "masters" a furlough and again returning to slavery the day after the plenum. Being unable to defend liquidationism, they pressed with all their might on every possible (and all invented!) obstacle, unconnected with principled questions, but preventing them from renouncing liquidationism. And when all these "obstacles" were removed, when all their extraneous, personal, organizational, financial and other claims were satisfied—they unwillingly "voiced" a renunciation of liquidationism. Poor wretches! They did not know that at that very time the manifesto of the 16 was already on its way toward Paris, that the group of *Mikhail* and Co., the group of *Potresov* and Co. were growing strong in their defense of liquidationism. And they obediently turned after the 16, after *Mikhail*, after *Potresov* again toward liquidationism!

The greatest crime of the characterless "reconcilers," like *Ionov* and *Trotsky*, defending or justifying these people, consists in that they are ruining them, reinforcing their dependence on liquidationism. At a time when a decisive pronouncement of all non-factional social-democrats against *Mikhail* and Co., against *Potresov* and Co. (these groups don't after all dare have *Trotsky* or *Ionov* defend them!) could have won back some of the Voice captives of liquidationism to the party—the affectations and squeamishness of the "reconcilers," while in no way reconciling the party with the liquidators, only inspire the Voice people with "senseless hopes."

However, these affectations and this squeamishness are doubtless explained in no small degree by simple incomprehension of the situation. Only because of incomprehension can comrade *Ionov* limit himself to the question of the placement or non-placement of *Martov's* article, can the Viennese supporters of *Trotsky* reduce the matter to "conflicts" in the Central Organ. Both *Martov's* article ("On the Right Path"… toward liquidationism) and the conflicts in the Central Organ are merely particular episodes, which cannot be understood outside the connection with the whole. For example, *Martov's* article clearly showed us, who have studied all the shades of liquidationism and Voice-ism for a year, that *Martov* has turned (or has been turned). One and the same *Martov* could not sign the CC "Letter" about the conference and write the article "On the Right Path." By tearing *Martov's* article out of the chain of events, out of the preceding "CC Letter," out of the following no. 19–20 of the *Voice*, the manifesto of the 16, the articles by *Dan* ("Struggle for Legality"), *Potresov*, and *Renaissance*, by tearing from the same chain of events the "conflicts" in the Central Organ, *Trotsky* and *Ionov* deprive themselves of the possibility of understanding what is occurring.[46] And on the contrary, everything becomes fully comprehensible once one places at the center what lies at the basis of everything, namely: the final consolidation of Russian independents and their final break with the "reactionary utopia" of restoring and strengthening the illegal party.