The "Vpered" group has published in Paris a "collection of articles on current questions" under the title "Vpered." In connection with Comrade Sazhin's pamphlet ("On the Question of the Party's Revival"), which was "published at private expense" and which can be obtained through the editorial office of the "Vpered" collection, in connection with a separate leaflet signed by the "Vpered" group, and with this group's platform, the party now has more than sufficient material to judge the "Vpereditsy."

The platform of the Vpereditsy is characterized by three following peculiarities. First, among all groups and factions of our party, it is the first to put forward philosophy, and moreover under cover of a pseudonym. "Proletarian culture," "proletarian philosophy" – that is what stands in the platform. Hidden beneath this pseudonym is Machism, that is, the defense of philosophical idealism under various sauces (empiriocriticism, empiriomonism, etc.). Second, in the sphere of politics, the group has declared otzovism a "legitimate shade" and reported that some otzovists, members of this group, disagree with the party's definition of its tasks in relation to the State Duma. The very definition itself is given in the Vpeditsy platform so unclearly and confusedly that this definition cannot be characterized otherwise than as an accommodating concession to otznovist ways of thinking. Third, finally, the platform decisively condemned factionalism and demanded the unification of factions, their merger in the party.

Thus, in sum we have – if we start from the end – one very good wish and two coverings for two very bad ideological-political tendencies, expressing a break with Marxism and the subordination of the proletariat to bourgeois ideology and politics. The "Vpered" collection clearly shows what products can result from such a mixture.

The author of the leading article in the collection, Maximov, strictly maintains the diplomacy of the platform, speaking of "proletarian culture" without any explanation of what he understands by it. In an article written with pretensions to popular exposition, this game of hide-and-seek is especially striking. What kind of popularity is this, if no reader, except those personally acquainted with Maximov or who have followed the entire dispute on Machism and in connection with Machism, can understand the true meaning of such a phrase? What kind of popularity is this when the same Maximov, on page 4 of the collection, speaks of the "danger to proletarian socialism" from those intellectuals who "uncritically accept and propagandize incorrect and harmful ideas of bourgeois science and philosophy for the proletariat…"?

The ellipsis belongs to Maximov. Whether it should denote bashful silence, we do not know. But we firmly know that to speak, especially in a "popular" article, of the harm to the proletariat from "bourgeois philosophy" and not to define precisely and clearly what philosophy is in question means resorting to the worst kind of factional diplomacy. If you consider the question of bourgeois philosophy important, if you put it forward in the leading article of a "popular" collection, then have the courage to speak directly, defend your ideas, do not hide them.

Comrade Sazhin, as a "practical man," apparently, destroys Maximov's diplomacy most ungraciously[52]. He demands on page 31 of his pamphlet that party members be "guaranteed" "complete freedom of their revolutionary and philosophical thought."

This is a thoroughly opportunist slogan. In all countries, such a slogan from within socialist parties has been put forward only by opportunists and in practice meant nothing other than "freedom" to corrupt the working class with bourgeois ideology. We demand "freedom of thought" (read: freedom of press, speech, conscience) from the state (not from the party) on an equal basis with freedom of association. The proletarian party, however, is a free association established for struggle against "thoughts" (read: against the ideology of the bourgeoisie), for the defense and realization in practice of one definite, namely: Marxist worldview. This is the ABC. And it is the falseness of their political position that has made Maximov, Sazhin and Co. forget this ABC. Not their personal hypocrisy, but precisely the political falseness of their position has engendered in them the preaching of bourgeois slogans. The falseness consists in the fact that some "Vpeditsy" with all their soul want to drag the proletariat backward, toward the ideas of bourgeois philosophy (Machism), while others are indifferent to philosophy and demand only "complete freedom"… for Machism. All together are therefore forced to engage in diplomacy, confuse matters, play hide-and-seek, grab at bourgeois slogans.

But what does "complete freedom of revolutionary thought" actually mean? Nothing but freedom for otznovist and other semi-anarchist ideas. In other words, this is the same thing that in the "platform" of the Vpeditsy is expressed in the phrase: recognition of otzovism as a "legitimate shade." Again petty diplomacy with ideas emerges, again a game of hide-and-seek, again hypocrisy, explained entirely by that same false ideological-political position: we are not Machists, but for "complete freedom" of Machism (in the party); we are not otzovists, but for "complete freedom" of the otznovist shade, or in general: of "revolutionary thought"! The confusion is further completed by the fact that two Vpeditsy, under their personal signatures (Sazhin and Worker Ar.), declare decidedly in favor of the importance and necessity of using legal possibilities and the Duma tribune. "Social-Democracy," writes Worker Ar., "must struggle with those who conduct agitation" (who conducts such agitation, Comrade Ar.? Are not these your Vpered sheep?) "against any whatsoever" (there we have it!) "use of legal possibilities, because such a mode of action is not social-democratic" (pp. 48–49 of the collection). And that very same Ar., repeating these words of the Bolsheviks of the "Proletarian" direction, calls "Proletarian" (retroactively) foul names for allegedly painting the Vpeditsy in terrible colors! That is what is called: retreating along the entire line, surrendering all one's positions, condemning in print (again: without saying it directly) those very friends of theirs, those Vpeditsy, who at the time adopted a resolution, for instance, about the boycott of the congress of factory physicians – and covering one's retreat, one's capitulation, with beating of drums. Miserable factional diplomacy!

Look at the writings of the "Vpeditsy" on the question of factions and factionalism. The "Platform" condemned factions and demanded their dissolution. Sazhin thunders against factional centers, "foreign leaders" and so forth and so on. The Vpeditsy have shed whole oceans of tears over factionalism, spoken endless words.

But their deeds? The entire history of the "Vpered" group from the time of the January (1910) "unifying" plenum is the creation of a faction from abroad. Here is an extract from one letter (dated July 15, 1910), sent by a Russian worker to a member of the Foreign Bureau of the Central Committee:

"There is a Committee (in Petersburg) and, in addition, there exists a group of 'Vpeditsy' with its own separate fund and secretary. Money was received from abroad. In Moscow" – then follows the name of a person very close to one of the most prominent otzovists, and reference is made to the pursuit of a similar policy.

Not a single person, to whatever extent acquainted with party affairs, to whatever extent attentively regarding the position of the literary group "Vpered," could have doubted for a moment the organization by it of a faction from abroad. That the notorious "school in NN" was the foreign center of the new faction was announced in print in July 1909[53], and since then even the most careless and uninformed social-democrats have been convinced of this. The notorious "platform" was worked out abroad by 8 intellectuals and 7 worker-pupils. The role of these workers, who scribbled their assent to the slogans "proletarian philosophy" and recognition of otzovism as a "legitimate shade," is too obvious to warrant further mention. Before us is the purest specimen of the creation of a faction by a group of foreign literati, who are precisely similar to "khans" (an expression of Voinov in the "Vpered" collection), for they feel their own arbitrariness, covering before the public what is especially dear to them, namely, the bourgeois philosophy of Machism and otzovism. The "Vpeditsy" cry out against "foreign leaders" and themselves organize a structure that is in fact merely a simple appendage to a handful of foreign literati; – they cry out against faction and themselves secretly build a new, petty, thoroughly lifeless, sectarian-empiriomonist faction. The political source of all this hypocrisy is the impossibility of an open, direct struggle for what is truly dear to the actual leaders of the faction.

Let us confine ourselves to two examples of particularly glaring hypocrisy. On page 53 of the collection Worker Ar. declares that the Central Committee bureau in Russia "does damn all" (these words are of course attributed to a worker "Leninist," who supposedly agitated in such a spirit of a "Vpeditsy." Oh, the naive cunning of "Worker Ar."!) – and that a Vpeditsy (again together with the "Leninist" and, of course, at his instigation) proposed to "declare the Moscow organization independent of the Russian Central Committee and not subordinate to its directives."

The bureau of the Russian Central Committee, beginning from January 1910, labored over the restoration of the central organization, against the opposition and resistance of both the liquidators-Golosovtsy (the well-known story with Mikhail, Roman, Yuri) and the Vpeditsy (who were building their little faction at this time from abroad against the Central Committee). And now these same Vpeditsy are shedding crocodile tears over the "inactivity" of the Central Committee bureau! These Vpeditsy, in fact completely "independent" of the party, completely anti-party factionalists, write in a popular collection about the necessity of declaring local organizations "independent" of the Central Committee.

Another example. In that same collection an anonymous "party member" practices carping criticism of the Foreign Bureau of the Central Committee's financial report. The anonymous critic writes, among other things, on page 60: "What such 'holders' are (the report speaks of receiving money from holders), why do they 'hold' or 'held' the Central Committee's money, for what 'special purposes' this money is intended – nothing and no one will understand here."

So it was printed. Nothing and no one will understand.

This is written by members of that very "Vpered" group, of which two representatives were at the January plenum that adopted the Bolsheviks' declaration about their conditional transfer of money to "holders" (i.e., three well-known representatives of international social-democracy{118}). What money, of what origin, who the holders are, etc. – all this was thoroughly known to the plenum, that is, to all factions, that is, including the Vpeditsy. But the Vpeditsy in the "popular" collection for deceiving workers write: "nothing and no one will understand."

This is written in that very "Vpered" collection, in which the first two articles are signed by Maximov and Domov. Both of these "Vpeditsy" know perfectly well the entire history of the Bolsheviks' receipt of this money and its transfer to the holders. And so, because it is "awkward" for them to appear personally and declare that "nothing and no one will understand," they for this errand choose anonymous critics, calling themselves "party members" in view of their anti-party behavior. Maximov and Domov through anonymous critics tell the workers in the "popular" collection a deliberate lie, to wit, that "nothing and no one will understand" about what such "holders" of money are, etc. And these gentlemen beat their breasts and rail against "factions" and against "foreign leaders."

They "criticize" through an anonymous "party member" the Central Committee's financial report, while they themselves report on the first page of their collection that until now their group had been hindered in publishing a newspaper by "lack of material means" and that "now this obstacle has been managed to eliminate." Now the "Vpered" group has received, that is, money. Pleasant news for the Vpeditsy, there is no doubt about it. Only what kind of "skull" does one need to have, oh, most esteemed "Vpeditsy," to print, in a "popular" collection, through an anonymous critic a deliberate lie about the Central Committee saying that "nothing and no one will understand" what such "holders" are and what money they have, and at the same time not say a word to the Central Committee or to other factions what sort of money the "Vpered" group received and which literati dispose of it? Is the party, apparently, obliged to render account before the Vpeditsy, while the Vpeditsy are not obliged to render account before the party?

Again and again it must be repeated that this hypocrisy of the Vpeditsy is explained not by the personal qualities of Peter or Sidor, but by the political falseness of their entire position, explained by the fact that Machist and otznovist literati cannot enter directly and openly into struggle for the non-social-democratic little ideas dear to them. Whoever understands these political conditions will not halt perplexed, bewildered, mournfully before one external aspect of the phenomenon, before a sum of personal conflicts, squabbles, wrangling, and so on. Whoever understands these political conditions will not be satisfied with a conciliatory phrase (à la Trotsky) to the effect that what is needed is "not struggle with otzovists, but overcoming otzovism," for this is an empty and contentless phrase. The objective conditions of a counter-revolutionary epoch, an epoch of disintegration, an epoch of god-building, an epoch of Machism, otzovism, liquidationism – these objective conditions have placed our party in the position of struggling with circles of literati organizing their factions, and this struggle cannot be dispensed with by a phrase. To abstain from this struggle means to abstain from one of the contemporary tasks of the workers' social-democratic party.

"Sotsial-Demokrat," Nos. 15–16, August 30 (September 12), 1910.

Printed from the text of the newspaper "Sotsial-Demokrat"