A. Who Was Offended by the Article “Where to Begin”?

We shall quote a bouquet of the expletives and exclamations that Rabocheye Dyelo hurled at us. “A newspaper cannot create a party organisation; on the contrary, a party organisation must create a newspaper... .” “A newspaper, standing above the party, outside of its control and independent of it, thanks to its having its own staff of agents... .” “By what miracle has Iskra forgotten about the actual existence of the Social-Democratic organisations of the ” “Those who possess firm principles party to which it belongs? ... and a corresponding plan are the supreme regulators of the real struggle of the party and dictate to it their plan... .” “The plan drives our lives and virile organisations into the kingdom of shadows and desires to call into being a fantastic network of agents. . . .” “If Iskra’s plans were carried out, every trace of the Russian Social- Democratic Labour Party, which is growing up in Russia, would ” “The propagandist organ becomes be completely wiped out... . an uncontrolled autocratic legislator for the whole of the practical revolutionary struggle... .” “What should be the attitude of our party towards the propsal for its complete subordination to an autonomous editorial board?”, etc., etc.

As the reader can see from the contents and tone of the above quotations, Rabocheye Dyelo feels offended. But it is offended, not for its own sake, but for the sake of the organisations and committees of our party which it alleges Jskra desires to drive into the kingdom of shadows, and the traces of which it desires to obliterate. Terrible, isn’t it? But a curious thing should be noted. The article “Where to Begin” appeared in May, 1901. The articles in Rabocheye Dyelo appeared in September, 1901. Now we are ir the middle of January, 1902. During these five months, not a single committee and not a single organisation of the party (neither before nor after September) protested against this monster which desires to drive them into the kingdom of shadows; and yet scores and hundreds of communications from all parts of Russia have appeared during this period in Jskra, and in numerous local and non-local publications. How is it that those whom it is desired to drive into the kingdom of shadows are not aware of it and have not felt offended about it, but a third party is offended over it?

This is to be explained by the fact that the committees and other organisations are engaged in real work and do not play at “democracy.” The committees read the article “Where to Begin,” saw that it was an attempt “to work out a certain plan of organisation by which the setting up of this organisation could be approached from all sides,’ and as they knew very well that not one of these “sides” will dream of “setting to work to build it” until it is convinced of its necessity, and of the correctness of the architectural plan, they naturally felt no offence at the boldness of the people who in Iskra said: “In view of the urgency and importance of the question, we take it upon ourselves to submit to our comrades an outline of a plan which is developed in greater detail in a pamphlet that we are preparing for the press.” Assuming people were actuated by motives of good-will, would they not understand that if the comrades accepted the plan submitted to them, they would carry it out, not because they are “subordinate” but because they were convinced of its necessity for our common cause, and that if they did not accept it, then the “outline” (a pretentious word, is it not?) would remain merely an outline? Is it not sheer demagogy to oppose the outline of a plan, not only by “picking it to pieces” and advising comrades to reject it, but also by inciting those inexperienced in revolutionary affairs against the authors of the plan merely on the grounds that they dare to “legislate” and come out as the “supreme regulators,” i. e., because they dare to propose an outline of a plan? Can our party develop and make progress if an attempt to broaden the outlook of local party workers so that they may be able to appreciate broader views, tasks, plans, etc., is objected to, not on the ground that these views are wrong, but on the grounds that the very “desire” to broaden is “offensive”? L. Nadezhdin also “picked our plan to pieces,” but he did not sink to such demagogy—demagogy that cannot be explained by naiveté or by primitiveness of political views. Right from the outset, he emphatically rejected the charge that we intended to establish an “‘inspectorship over the party.” That is why Nadezhdin’s criticism of the plan deserves serious treatment, while Rabocheye Dyelo deserves only to be treated with contempt.

But contempt for a writer, who sinks to shouting about “autocracy” and “subordination,” does not relieve us of the duty of disentangling the confusion that such people create in the minds of their readers, and here we can demonstrate to the world the nature of the catchwords like “broad democracy.” We are accused of forgetting the committees, of desiring or attempting to drive them into the kingdom of shadows, etc. How can we reply to these charges when, owing to considerations of secrecy, we are not in a position to tell the reader anything about our real relationships with the committees? The people who broadcast slashing accusations which excite the people appear to be ahead of us because of their recklessness and their neglect of the duty of a revolutionist carefully to conceal from the eyes of the world the relationships and contacts he has, which he is establishing or trying to establish. Naturally, we absolutely refuse once for all to compete with such people on the field of “democracy.”

As for the reader who is not enlightened on all party affairs, the only way in which we can fulfil our duty to him is to tell him, not about what is and what is im Werden * but about a particle of what has taken place and what it is permissible to tell him in view of its being an event of the past.

The Bund hints that we are “pretenders”; ** the League abroad accuses us of attempting to obliterate all traces of the party. Gentlemen, you will get complete satisfaction when we relate to the public four facts concerning the past.

First fact.*** The members of one of the Leagues of Struggle, who took a direct part in the formation of our party, and in sending a delegate to the party congress which established the party, came to an agreement with one of the members of the Iskra group about the foundation of a special workers’ library in order to satisfy the needs of the whole of the movement. The attempt to publish a library failed, and the pamphlets written for it: The Tasks of Russian Social-Democrats, and The New Factory Act,**** by a roundabout way, and through the medium of third parties, found their way abroad, and were there published.

Second fact. The members of the Central Committee of the Bund came to one of the members of the Iskra group with the proposal to organise what the Bund then described as a “literary laboratory.” In making the proposal, they stated that unless this was done, the movement would retrogress very much. The result of these negotiations was the appearance of the pamphlet, The Cause of Labour in Russia.***** Third fact. The Central Committee of the Bund, via a provincial town, came to one of the members of Jskra with the proposal that he accept the post of editor of the revived Rabochaya Gazeta and, of course, received his consent. This proposal was later modified. The comrade in question was invited to act as a contributor, in view of a new arrangement that had been made with the editorial board. To this also consent was, of course, given. Articles were sent (which we managed to preserve); “Our Programme” which was a direct protest against Bernsteinism, against the change of policy in legal literature and in Rabochaya Mysl; “Our Immediate Tasks” (“The publication of a party organ that shall appear regularly and have close contacts with all the local groups”; the drawbacks of the prevailing “primitive methods”); “Urgent questions” (an examination of the argument that it is necessary first of all to develop the activities of local groups before undertaking the publication of a central organ; an insistence on the paramount im- > and on the necessity of portance of a “revolutionary organisation,’ “developing organisation, discipline, and the technique of secrecy to the highest stage of perfection”).* The proposal to resume publication of Rabochaya Gazeta was not carried out, and the articles were not published.

* What is in the process of becoming.—Ed.

** Iskra, No. 8. The reply of the Central Committee of the Bund to our article on the national question.

*** We deliberately refrain from relating these facts in the order in which they occurred.

*##* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. Il.—Ed.

***** The author of this pamphlet asks me to state that this pamphlet, like the one he wrote previously, was sent to the League on the assumption that the editors of its publications were the Emancipation of Labour group (owing to certain circumstances, he could not then—February, 1899—know about the change in the editorship). This pamphlet will be republished by the League at an early date.

Fourth fact. A member of the committee that organised the second regular congress of our party communicated to a member of the Iskra group the programme of the congress, and proposed that group for the office of editing the revived Rabochaya Gazeta. This preliminary step, as it were, was later sanctioned by the committee to which this member belonged, and by the Central Committee of the Bund; the Jskra group was notified of the place and time of the congress and (not being sure of being able, for certain reasons, to send a delegate to the congress), drew up a written report for the congress. In this report, the idea was suggested that the mere election of a central committee would not only not solve the question of the amalgamation at a time like this, when complete confusion reigns, but may even compromise the grand idea of establishing a party, in the event of an early and complete discovery of the organisation, and a raid by the police, which was more than likely in view of the prevailing lack of secrecy, and that therefore, a beginning should be made by inviting all committees and all other organisations to support the revived common organ, which will establish real contacts between all the committees and really train a group of leaders to lead the whole movement; that the committees and the party could very easily transform this group into a central committee as soon as the group had grown and become strong. The congress, however, never took place owing to a number of police raids and arrests; for reasons of secrecy, the report was destroyed, having been read only by several comrades including the representatives of one committee.

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. I1—Ed.

Let the reader now judge for himself the character of the methods employed by the Bund in hinting that we were pretenders, or by Rabocheye Dyelo, who accuses us of trying to relegate the committees to the kingdom of shadows, and to “substitute” an organisation for advocating the idea of a single newspaper for the organisation of a party. Yes, we did report to the committees, on their repeated invitation, on the necessity for accepting a definite plan of work in common. It was precisely for the party organisations that we drew up this plan, in articles published in Rabochaya Gazeta, and in the report to the party congress, again on the invitation of those who occupied such an influential position in the party that they took the initiative in its (actual) revival. And only after the two-fold attempt of the party organisation, in conjunction with ourselves, to revive the central organ of the party officially had failed, did we think it our bounden duty to publish an unofficial organ, in order that with this third attempt the comrades may have before them the results of an experiment and not merely problematical proposals. Now certain results of this experiment are available to the view of ali, and all comrades may now judge as to whether we properly understood our duties, and what must be thought of people who strive to mislead those who are unacquainted with the immediate past, simply because they are chagrined at our having proved to some their inconsistency on the “national” question, and to others the inadmissibility of their waverings in matters of principle.