Lenin: Party Unity Abroad (2024)

V. I. Lenin

Party Unity Abroad

Published: Sotsial-Demokrat No.13, April26 (May9), 1910. Published according to the text in Sotsial-Demokrat.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, [1974], Moscow, Volume16, pages185-188.
Translated:
Transcription\Markup:R. Cymbala
Copyleft: V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marxists.org) ©2004 Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

A base of operations abroad is necessary and inevitable fora party which is working in conditions like ours. Every one who reflects onthe position of the Party will admit this is so. However pessimistic thecomrades in Russia feel about “abroad” it will be far from disserviceableto them to know what is going on here, particularly after therecent plenary session.

Has unity been achieved abroad? No. And for a very simple reason: oneof the sides—the Golosists—shows absolutely no desire to respond to theunanimous appeal of the Central Committee to put an end to the splitabroad. The factional Golos, contrary to the unanimous decision ofthe Central Committee, did not close down, although at the plenum one ofIts editors, Comrade Martov, officially declared (see the minutes of theplenum) that he would try to get it stopped temporarily at anyrate.^[1]Before the Central Committee Bureau Abroad had time to take any stepstowards unity the four editors of Golos (two of them members ofthe editorial board of the Central Organ!!) issued a manifesto with athinly veiled injunction not to aim at unity. The foreignC.B.G.A. (“Central Bureau of Groups Abroad”, which was elected in Basleone-and-a-half years ago at a factional Congress of Mensheviks)did the same. This C.B.G.A. now does not even represent all the Mensheviks but only theirGolosist section. But with the support of Golos it is strongenough to disrupt unity. All the Central Committee Bureau Abroad can do nowis to appeal to the groups themselves, the pro-Party elements and above allthe workers. But—for reasons which are discussed be low—this is notbeing done, or is being done very unsatisfactorily. As before, the CentralCommittee abroad can count so far only on the support of the Bolshevikgroups. Lately, however, they are being reinforced by the pro-PartyMensheviks, the enemies of liquidationism (for the most part they are onthe side of Comrade Plekhanov’s Dnevnik).

The ideological differentiation of the Mensheviks abroad has, ofcourse, considerable significance as a symptom, as a reflection of what istaking place—perhaps less obviously—in Russia as well. The pro-PartyMensheviks have already passed a number of resolutions in thisconnection. Here are a few excerpts from them. The anti-Golosist Mensheviksin Paris (there are about 20 of them) write:“...in No. 19–20 of this organ (Golos) a new course isundoubtedly indicated, incidentally, in Comrade Dan’s article ‘The Fightfor Legality’, which seeks to replace Social-Democratic slogans by aspecific slogan, ambiguous to say the least, which is the very twin of theslogan of the ‘Economic’ period: the fight for rights”,... “liquidationism, which the editorial board of Golos hasrepudiated until now, has found frank expression in the last issue of thisnewspaper”. The pro-Party Mensheviks in Geneva (14 persons) find that“the cessation of the factional Golos Sotsial-Demokrata is anessential condition for strengthening Party unity”.

The group of pro-Party Mensheviks in Nice is of the opinion(unanimously) that “in No. 19–20 of this organ (Golos),liquidationism has already been frankly expressed in a number ofarticles. The group finds that such a policy on the part of GolosSotsial-Demokrata is harmful and refuses to give it any supportwhatsoever. The group is indignant at the behaviour of Mikhail, Roman andYuri, who have proved unworthy of the confidence of the last Party Congressand have carried liquidationist tendencies to their ghastly conclusion asregards practical manifestations”. The group of pro-Party Mensheviks inSan Remo “unanimously refuse any support whatsoever for the said publication (Golos) becausethey do not subscribe to its liquidationist tendencies. The group cannotrestrain their indignation evoked by the conduct of Mikhail, Roman andYuri”. The pro-Party Mensheviks in Liége write in their resolution:“The letter from Stiva Novich and F.Dan’s article ‘The Fight forLegality’ (in Golos No. 19–20) make quite definite the anti-Partytrend of this organ.... Golos Sotsial-Demokrata is a centre aroundwhich the liquidationist tendencies are grouping.” The same point of viewis taken by a considerable section of the Menshevik group in Zurich and themajority of the group in Berne. There are supporters of the pro-PartyMensheviks in other cities too.

Only by uniting these Menshevik pro-Party elements with theBolsheviks and the non-factional Party members who are opposed toliquidationism could the Central Committee Bureau Abroad achieve resultsand help the work in Russia. And this is exactly what the Bolsheviks abroadare exhorting all comrades to do (see the resolution of the second Parisgroup).^{2} A struggle against the Golosists who are disrupting unity andagainst the otzovist-ultimatumists who walked out of the editorial board ofDiskussionny Listok and the general Party committee of the schooland who are also undermining Party unity is inevitable if all the realpro-Party elements are to be brought solidly together. So far this has beenleft to the private initiative of the pro-Party elements, for theC.C. Bureau Abroad has so far proved incapable of adopting theproper position. According to the new Rules, three of the five members ofthe Bureau Abroad are appointed by “nationals”; thus it is notthe Central Committee of the Party that determines the personnel of themajority of the C.C. Bureau Abroad, and this produces some unexpected andsurprising results. For instance, at a recent session of the C.C. BureauAbroad a majority was formed against the line of the CentralCommittee. A new majority consisting of one Golosist and two alleged,“non-factional” nationals refused to endorse the “modus” of uniting thegroups (in the spirit of the decisions of the plenum, i.e., with the demandthat all funds be turned over to the Central Committee and not tothe factional organs) which was worked out directly after the plenum of theCentral Committee. It turned down the proposal (of a Bolshevik and a Polish Social-Democrat) in a letter toeach of the groups that the slogan should be put forward: all funds to begiven to the general Party bodies and not to the factional newspapers(i.e., Golos Sotsial-Demokrata). This decision evoked a sharpprotest from two members of the C.C. Bureau Abroad (a Bolshevik and aPolish Social-Democrat), who have sent their protest to the CentralCommittee.

Notes

[1]Here is the text of the statement:

“Comrade Martov declares that although he cannot speakofficially for the editorial board of GolosSotsial-Demokrata, he can say for himself personally that there willbe no obstacles in the editorial board of “GolosSotsial-Demokrata” to stopping “Golos”temporarily after the next issue (for a couple of months or even longer) asan experiment pending the results of the work of the new editorial board ofthe Central Organ.” —Lenin

{2}The Second Paris Group for Assistance to the R.S.D.L.P. wasformed in November 1908. It was an offshoot of the general Paris group thatincluded the Mensheviks and was a union of the Bolsheviks alone, includingmembers of the Bolshevik Centre, headed by Lenin. The resolution of theSecond Paris (Bolshevik) Group for Assistance to the R.S.D.L.P. was adoptedat a meeting on March17 (30), 1910, and was printed as a separate leaflet.