What Is To Be Done? (Lenin, 1935)/Appendix
APPENDIX
THE ATTEMPT TO UNITE ISKRA WITH RABOCHEYE DYELO
It remains for us to describe the organisational tactics Iskra adopted towards Rabocheye Dyelo. These tactics have been already fully expressed in Iskra, No. 1, in an article entitled "The Split in the League of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad."[1] From the outset we adopted the point-of-view that the real League of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, which at the first congress of our party was recognised as the party's representative abroad, had split into two organisations;—that the question of the party's representation remains an open one and that the settlement reached at the International Congress at Paris by the election of two members to represent Russia on the International Socialist Bureau, one from each of the two sections of the divided League, was only a temporary and conditional settlement. We declared that on essentials Rabocheye Dyelo was wrong; in principle we emphatically took the side of the Emancipation of Labour group, but at the same time we refused to enter into the details of the split and noted the services rendered by the League in the sphere of purely practical work.[2]
Consequently, ours was, to a certain extent, a waiting policy; we made a concession to the opinion prevailing among the majority of the Russian Social-Democrats that the most determined opponents of Economism could work hand in hand with the "League" because, it was said, the "League" has frequently declared its agreement in principle with the Emancipation of Labour group and that it did not claim an independent position on fundamental questions of theory and tactics. The correctness of the position we took up has been proved indirectly by the fact that almost simultaneously with the publication of the first number of Iskra [December, 1900] three members separated from the League and formed the so-called "Group of Initiators" and offered their services: 1. To the foreign section of the Iskra organisation; 2. To the Revolutionary Social-Democrat Organisation; and 3. To the "League" as mediators in negotiations for reconciliation. It is true that when a speaker related these facts at the "Unity" Congress last year, a member of the Management Committee of the "League" declared that their rejection of the offer was due entirely to the fact that the League was dissatisfied with the composition of the Initiators' group. While I consider it my duty to quote this explanation I cannot, however, refrain from observing that the explanation is an unsatisfactory one; knowing that two organisations had agreed to enter into negotiations, the "League" could have approached them through other intermediaries, or directly.
In the spring of 1901 both Zarya [No. 1, April] and Iskra [No. 4, May] entered into open polemics with Rabocheye Dyelo. Iskra particularly attacked the "historical turn" taken by Rabocheye Dyelo which, in its April supplement, and consequently after the spring events, revealed instability in regard to terror, and the calls for "blood," with which many had been carried away at the time. Notwithstanding these polemics, the "League" agreed to the resumption of negotiations for reconciliation through the mediation of a new group of "conciliators." A preliminary conference of representatives of the three organisations named above took place in June at which a draft agreement was drawn up on the basis of a detailed "agreement on principles" that was published by the "League" in the pamphlet Two Congresses and by the League in the pamphlet entitled Documents of the Unity Congress.[3]
The contents of this agreement on principles (or as it is more frequently named, the Resolutions of the June Conference), clearly shows that we put forward as an absolute condition for unity the most emphatic repudiation of all manifestations of opportunism generally and of Russian opportunism in particular. Paragraph 1 reads: "We repudiate every attempt to introduce opportunism into the proletarian class struggle—attempts which are expressed in so-called Economism, Bernsteinism, Millerandism, etc." "The sphere of Social-Democratic activities include … intellectual struggle against all opponents of revolutionary Marxism" [ 4, C]; "In every sphere of organisational and agitational activity Social-Democracy must not for a moment forget that the immediate task of the Russian proletariat is—to overthrow the autocracy" [5, A]; "… agitation, not only on the basis of the every-day struggle between wage labour and capital" [5, B]; "… not recognising … stages of purely economic struggles and of struggles for partial political demands" [5, C]; "… we consider important for the movement criticism of the tendency which elevates primitiveness … and restrictedness of the lower forms of the movement into a principle" [5, C–D]. Even a complete outsider, who has read these resolutions at all attentively, will have realised from the very way in which they are formulated that they are directed against those who are opportunists and Economists, against those who, even for a moment, forget about the task of overthrowing the autocracy, who recognise the theory of stages, who have elevated narrowness to a principle, etc. And any one who has any acquaintance at all with the polemics conducted by the Emancipation of Labour group, Zarya and Iskra against Rabocheye Dyelo, cannot hut he convinced that these resolutions repudiate point by point the very errors into which Rabocheye Dyelo had wandered. Consequently, when one of the members of the "League" declared at the "Unity" Congress that the articles in No. 10 of Rabocheye Dyelo were prompted, not by a new "historical turn" on the part of the "League," but by the fact that the resolutions were too "abstract,"[4] this assertion was quite justly ridiculed by one of the speakers. The resolutions are not abstract in the least, he said, they are incredibly concrete: a single glance at them is sufficient to see that there is a "catch" in this.
The latter rem.ark served as the occasion for a characteristiC episode at the congress. On the one hand, B. Krichevsky seized upon the word "catch" in the belief that this was a slip of the tongue which betrayed our evil intentions ("To set a trap") and pathetically exclaimed: "A catch, for whom?" "Yes, indeed, for whom?"—Plekhanov rejoined sarcastically. "I will stimulate Comrade Plekhanov's perspicacity," replied B. Krichevsky, "I will explain to him that the trap was set for the editorial board of Rabocheye Dyelo (general laughter) "but we have not allowed ourselves to be caught!" (A remark from the left: all the worse for you!) On the other hand a member of the Borba group (the conciliators), in opposing the "League's" amendment to the resolution and wishing to defend our speaker, declared that obviously the word "catch" was dropped in the heat of polemics.
For my part, I think the speaker responsible for uttering the word under discussion was not at all pleased with this "defence." I think the word "catch" was a "true word spoken in jest": We have always accused Rabocheye Dyelo of instability and vacillation and, naturally, we had to try to catch it in order to put a stop to this vacillation. There is not the slightest suggestion of evil intent in this, for we were discussing instability of principles. And we succeeded in "catching" the "League" in such a comradely manner[5] that B. Krichevsky himself and one other member of the Managing Committee of the "League" signed the June resolutions.
The articles in Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10 (our comrades saw this number for the first time when they arrived at the congress, a few days before the :meetings started), clearly showed that the "League" had taken a new turn in the period between the summer and the autumn: the Economists had again got the upper hand on the editorial board, which tUrned with every "wind," and the board again defended "the most pronounced Bernsteinists," "freedom of criticism" and "spontaneity," and through the mouth of Martynov began to preach the "theory of restricting" the sphere of our political influence (for the alleged purpose of making this influence more complex). Once again Parvus' apt observation that it was difficult to catch an opportunist with a formula was proved correct. An opportunist will put his name to any formula and as readily abandon it, because opportunism is precisely a lack of definite and firm principles. To-day, the opportunists have repudiated all attempts to introduce opportunism, repudiated all narrowness, solemnly promised "never for a moment to forget about the task of overthrowing the autocracy," to carry on "agitation not only on the basis of the every-day struggle between wage labour and capital," etc., etc. But to-morrow they will change their form of expression and revert to their old tricks on the pretext of defending spontaneity and the forward march of the drab every-day struggle, of proclaiming demands promising palpable results, etc. By asserting that in the articles in No. 10 "the 'League' did not and does not now see any heretical departure from the general principles of the draft adopted at the conference" [Two Congresses, p. 26], the "League" reveals a complete lack of ability, or a lack of desire, to understand the essential points of the disagreements.
After the appearance of Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, only one thing remained for us to do and that was to open a general discussion in order to ascertain whether all the members of the "League" agree with these articles and with its editorial board. The "League" is particularly displeased with us because of this and accuses us of sowing discord in the "League," of not minding our own business, etc. These accusations are obviously unfounded because with an elected board which "turns" with every breeze, everything depends precisely upon the direction of the wind, and we defined the direction of the wind at private meetings at which no one, except members of the organisations who had gathered together for the purpose of uniting, were present. The amendments to the June resolutions submitted in the name of the "League" have removed the last shadow of a hope of an agreement. The amendments are documentary evidence of the new turn towards Economism and of the fact that the majority of the members of the "League" are in agreement with Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10. Amendments were moved to delete the words "so-called Economism" from the reference in the resolution to manifestations of opportunism (on the pretext that "the sense" of these three words "was vague"—but if that were so, all that was required was a more precise definition of the nature of a widespread error), and to delete "Millerandism" (although B. Krichevsky defended it in Rabocheye Dyelo, Nos. 2 and 3, pp. 83–84, and still more openly in the Vorwärts).[6] Notwithstanding the fact that the June resolutions definitely indicated the tasks of Social-Democracy, viz., "to guide every manifestation of the proletarian struggle against all forms of political, economic and social oppression," and by that called for the introduction of system and unity in all these manifestations of the struggle, the "League" added the absolutely superfluous sentence to the effect that "the economic struggle is a powerful stimulus to the mass movement" (taken by itself, this assertion cannot be disputed, but in view of the existence of narrow Economism it cannot but give occasion for false interpretations). More than that, the restriction of "politics" was introduced into the June resolution by the deletion of the words "not for a moment" (forget the aim of overthrowing the autocracy) as well as by the addition of the words "the economic struggle is the most widely applicable means of drawing the masses into active political struggle. It is quite understandable that after such amendments had been introduced all the speakers on our side should one after another refuse to take the floor on the ground that further negotiations with people who were again turning towards Economism and who were striving to secure for themselves freedom of vacillation were useless.
"It was precisely the fact that the 'League' regarded the preservation of the independent features and the autonomy of Rabocheye Dyelo as the sine qua non of the durability of our future agreement, that Iskra regarded as the rock upon which our agreement fell to pieces" [Two Congresses, p. 25]. This is very inexact. We never had any designs against Rabocheye Dyelo's autonomy.[7] We did indeed absolutely refuse to recognise the independence of its features, if by "independent features" is meant independence on questions of principle regarding theory and practice: The June resolutions did indeed absolutely repudiate such independence of features because, in practice, such "independent features" meant, as we have said already, vacillation and support for the vacillations that now prevail among us, and the intolerable confusion that reigns in party affairs. Rabocheye Dyelo's articles in its issue No. 10, and its "amendments" clearly revealed its desire to preserve precisely this kind of independence of features, and such a desire naturally and inevitably led to a rupture and a declaration of war. But we were all ready to recognise Rabocheye Dyelo's "independent features" in the sense that it should concentrate on definite literary functions. A proper distribution of functions naturally called for: (1) A scientific magazine, (2) a political newspaper, and (3) a popular symposium of articles and popular pamphlets. Only by agreeing to such a distribution of functions would Rabocheye Dyelo have proved that it sincerely desired to abandon once and for all its erring ways against which the June resolutions were directed. Only such a distribution of functions would have removed all possibility of friction and would have guaranteed a durable agreement which would at the same time have served as a basis for a fresh revival and new successes of our movement.
Not a single Russian Social-Democrat can have any doubts now about the fact that the final rupture between the revolutionary and opportunist tendencies was brought about, not by any "organisational" circumstances, but by the desire of the opportunists to perpetuate the independent features of opportunism and to continue to cause confusion of mind by arguments like those advanced by the Krichevskys and Martynovs.
- ↑ See article of the same title, The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 65.—Ed.
- ↑ Our opinion of the split was based not only upon a perusal of the literature on the subject but also on information gathered by several members of our organisation who had been abroad.
- ↑ The "League," in quotation marks, is the section of the League of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad that supported Rabocheye Dyelo, and the League, without quotation marks, is that section which supported Iskra. In the Russian text the former is described as the "Soyus," which means League, an the latter as "Liga," and in this way the two sections were distinguished from one another.—Ed.
- ↑ This expression is repeated in Two Congresses, p. 25.
- ↑ Precisely: In the introduction to the June resolutions we said that Russian Social-Democracy as a whole always took its stand on the basis of the principles of the Emancipation of Labour group and that the "League's" merit lay particularly in its publishing and organising activity. In other words, we expressed our complete readiness to forget the past and to recognise the usefulness (for the cause) of the work of our comrades of the "League" on the condition that it completely ceased the vacillation which we tried to "catch." Any impartial person reading the June resolutions will so interpret them. If, now the "League" after having caused a split by its new turn towards Economism (in its articles in No. 10 and in the amendments), solemnly accuses us of prevaricating [Two Congresses, p. 30] because of what we said about its merits, then, of course, such an accusation can only raise a smile.
- ↑ A controversy over this subject had started in the Vorwärts between its present editor, Kautsky, and the editorial board of Zarya. We shall not fail to acquaint the reader with the nature of this controversy.
- ↑ That is if the editorial consultations that were proposed in connection with the establishment of a joint supreme council of the combined organisations are not to be regarded as a restriction of autonomy. But in June Rabocheye Dyelo agreed to this.