Trotsky calls his new journal "non-factional". He puts this word in the top line in his advertisements; this word is stressed by him in every key, in the editorial articles of Borba itself, as well as in the liquidationist Severnaya Rabochaya Gazeta, which carried an article on Borba by Trotsky before the latter began publication.

    What is this "non-factionalism"?

    Trotsky's "workers' journal" is Trotsky's journal for workers, as there is not a trace in it of either workers' initiative, or any connection with working-class organisations. Desiring to write in a popular style, Trotsky, in his journal for workers, explains for the benefit of his readers the meaning of such foreigh words as "territory", "factor", and so forth.

    Very good. But why not also explain to the workers the meaning of the word "non-factionalism"? Is that word more intelligible than the words "territory" and "factor"?

    No, that is not the reason. The reason is that the label "non-factionalism" is used by the worst representatives of the worst remnants of factionalism to mislead the younger generation of workers. It is worth while devoting a little time to explaining this.

    Group-division was the main distinguishing feature of the Social-Democratic Party during a definite historical period. Which period? From 1903 to 1911.

    To explain the nature of this group-division more clearly we must recall the concrete conditions that existed in, say, 1906-07. At that time the Party was united, there was no split, but group-division existed, i.e., in the united Party there were virtually two groups, two virtually separate organisations. The local workers' organisations were united, but on every important issue the two groups devised two sets of tactics. The advocates of the respective tactics disputed among themselves in the united workers' organisations (as was the case, for example, during the discussion of the slogan: a Duma, or Cadet, Ministry, in 1906, or during the elections of delegates to the London Congress in 1907), and questions were decided by a majority vote. One group was defeated at the Stockholm Unity Congress (1906), the other was defeated at the London Unity Congress (1907).

    These are commonly known facts in the history of organised Marxism in Russia.

    It is sufficient to recall these commonly known facts to realise what glaring falsehoods Trotsky is spreading.

    For over two years, since 1912, there has been no factionalism among the organised Marxists in Russia, no disputes over tactics in united organisations, at united conferences and congresses. There is a complete break between the Party, which in January 1912 formally announced that the liquidators do not belong to it, and the liquidators. Trotsky often calls this state of affairs a "split", and we shall deal with this appellation separately later on. But it remains an undoubted fact that the term "factionalism" deviates from the truth.

    As we have said, this term is a repetition, an uncritical, unreasonable, senseless repetition of what was true yesterday, i.e., in the period that has already passed. When Trotsky talks to us about the "chaos of factional strife" (see No. 1, pp. 5, 6, and many others) we realise at once which period of the past his words echo.

    Consider the present state of affairs from the viewpoint of the young Russian workers who now constitute nine-tenths of the organised Marxists in Russia. They see three mass expressions of the different views, or trends in the working-class movement: the Pravdists, gathered around a newspaper with a circulation of 40,000; the liquidators (15,000 circulation) and the Left Narodniks (10,000 circulation). The circulation figures tell the reader about the mass character of a given tenet.

    The question arises: what has "chaos" got to do with it? Everybody knows that Trotsky is fond of high-sounding and empty phrases. But the catchword "chaos" is not only phrase-mongering; it signifies also the transplanting, or rather, a vain attempt to transplant, to Russian soil, in the present period, the relations that existed abroad in a bygone period. That is the whole point.

    There is no "chaos" whatever in the struggle between the Marxists and the Narodniks. That, we hope, not even Trotsky will dare to deny. The struggle between the Marxists and the Narodniks has been going on for over thirty years, ever since Marxism came into being. The cause of this struggle is the radical divergence of interests and viewpoints of two different classes, the proletariat and the peasantry. If there is any "chaos" anywhere, it is only in the heads of cranks who fail to understand this.

    What, then, remains? "Chaos" in the struggle between the Marxists and the liquidators? That, too, is wrong, for a struggle against a trend, which the entire Party recognised as a trend and condemned as far back as 1908, cannot be called chaos. And everybody who has the least concern for the history of Marxism in Russia knows that liquidationism is most closely and inseverably connected, even as regards its leaders and supporters, with Menshevism (1903-08) and Economism (1894-1903). Consequently, here, too, we have a history extending over nearly twenty years. To regard the history of one's own Party as "chaos" reveals an unpardonable empty-headedness.

    "Although there is no group-division, i.e., nominal recognition of unity, but actual disunity, among you, Pravdists, there is something worse, namely, splitting tactics," we are told. This is exactly what Trotsky says. Unable to think out his ideas or to get his arguments to hang together, he rants against group-division at one moment, and at the next shouts: "Splitting tactics are winning one suicidal victory after another". (No. 1, p. 6.)

    This statement can have only one meaning: "The Pravdists are winning one victory after another" (this is an objective, verifiable fact, established by a study of the mass working-class movement in Russia during, say, 1912 and 1913), but I, Trotsky, denounce the Pravdists (1) as splitters, and 2) as suicidal politicians.

    Let us examine this.

    First of all we must express our thanks to Trotsky. Not long ago (from August 1912 to February 1914) he was at one with F. Dan, who, as is well known, threatened to "kill " anti-liquidationism, and called upon others to do so. At present Trotsky does not threaten to "kill" our trend (and our Party -- don't be angry, Citizen Trotsky, this is true!), he only prophesies that it will kill itself !

    This is much milder, isn't it? It is almost "non-factional", isn't it?

    But joking apart (although joking is the only way of retorting mildly to Trotsky's insufferable phrase-mongering).

    "Suicide" is a mere empty phrase, mere "Trotskyism".

    Splitting tactics are a grave political accusation. This accusation is repeated against us in a thousand different keys by the liquidators and by all the groups enumerated above, who, from the point of view of Paris and Vienna, actually exist.

    And all of them repeat this grave political accusation in an amazingly frivolous way. Look at Trotsky. He admitted that "splitting tactics are winning [read: the Pravdists are winning] one suicidal victory after another". To this he adds:

    "Numerous advanced workers, in a state of utter poiltical bewilderment, themselves often become active agents of a split ." (No. 1, p. 6.)

    Are not these words a glaring example of irresponsibility on this question?

    You accuse us of being splitters when all that we see in front of us in the arena of the working-class movement in Russia is liquidationism. So you think that our attitude towards liquidationism is wrong? Indeed, all the groups abroad that we enumerated above, no matter how much they may differ from each other, are agreed that our attitude towards liquidationism is wrong, that it is the attitude of "splitters". This, too, reveals the similarity (and fairly close political kinship) between all these groups and the liquidators.

    If our attitude towards liquidationism is wrong in theory, in principle, then Trotsky should say so straightforwardly, and state definitely, without equivocation, why he thinks it is wrong. But Trotsky has been evading this extremely important point for years.

    If our attitude towards liquidationism has been proved wrong in practice, by the experience of the movement, then this experience should be analysed; but Trotsky fails to do this either. "Numerous advanced workers," he admits, "become active agents of a split" (read: active agents of the Pravdist line, tactics, system and organisation).

    What is the cause of the deplorable fact, which, as Trotsky admits, is confirmed by experience, that the advanced workers, the numerous advanced workers at that, stand for Pravda ?

    It is the "utter political bewilderment" of these advanced workers, answers Trotsky.

    Needless to say, this explanation is highly flattering to Trotsky, to all five groups abroad, and to the liquidators. Trotsky is very fond of using, with the learned air of the expert, pompous and high-sounding phrases to explain historical phenomena in a way that is flattering to Trotsky. Since "numerous advanced workers" become "active agents" of a political and Party line which does not conform to Trotsky's line, Trotsky settles the question unhesitatingly, out of hand: these advanced workers are "in a state of utter political bewilderment", whereas he, Trotsky, is evidently "in a state" of political firmness and clarity, and keeps to the right line! . . . And this very same Trotsky, beating his breast, fulminates against factionalism, parochialism, and the efforts of intellectuals to impose their will on the workers!

    Reading things like these, one cannot help asking oneself: is it from a lunatic asylum that such voices come?

    The Party put the question of liquidationism, and of condemning it, before the "advanced workers" as far back as 1908, while the question of "splitting" away from a very definite group of liquidators (namely, the Nasha Zarya group), i.e., that the only way to build up the Party was without this group and in opposition to it -- this question was raised in January 1912, over two years ago. The overwhelming majority of the advanced workers declared in favour of supporting the "January (1912) line". Trotsky himself admits this fact when he talks about "victories" and about "numerous advanced workers". But Trotsky wriggles out of this simply by hurling abuse at these advanced workers and calling them "splitters" and "politically bewildered"!

    From these facts sane people will draw a different conclusion. Where the majority of the class-conscious workers have rallied around precise and definite decisions, there we shall find unity of opinion and action, there we shall find the Party spirit, and the Party.

    Where we see liquidators who have been "removed from of fice" by the workers, or half a dozen groups outside Russia, who for two years have produced no proof that they are connected with the mass working-class movement in Russia, there, indeed, we shall find bewilderment and splits. In now trying to persuade the workers not to carry out the decisions of that "united whole", which the Marxist Pravdists recognise, Trotsky is trying to disrupt the movement and cause a split.

    But there is still another method, and a very important one, of verifying the correctness and truthfulness of Trotsky's accusations about splitting tactics.

    You consider that it is the "Leninists" who are splitters? Very well, let us assume that you are right.

    But if you are, why have not all the other sections and groups proved that unity is possible with the liquidators without the "Leninists", and against the "splitters"? . . . If we are splitters, why have not you, uniters, united among yourselves, and with the liquidators? Had you done that you would have proved to the workers by deeds that unity is possible and beneficial! . . .

    Let us go over the chronology of events.

    In January 1912, the "Leninist" "splitters" declared that they were a Party without and against the liquidators.

Party Mensheviks", in their Russian news sheets and in the columns of the German Social-Democratic newspaper Vorwärts, united against these "splitters". All of them unanimously, in chorus, in unison and in one voice vilified us and called us "usurpers", "mystifiers", and other no less affectionate and tender names.

    Very well, gentlemen! But what could have been easier for you than to unite against the "usurpers" and to set the "advanced workers" an example of unity ? Do you mean to say that if the advanced workers had seen, on the one hand, the unity of all against the usurpers, the unity of liquidators and non-liquidators, and on the other, isolated "usurpers", "splitters", and so forth, they would not have supported the former?

    If disagreements are only invented, or exaggerated, and so forth, by the "Leninists", and if unity hetween the liquidators, Plekhanovites, Vperyodists, Trotskyists, and so forth, is really possible, why have you not proved this during the past two years by your own example?

    In August 1912, a conference of "uniters" was convened. Disunity started at once: the Plekhanovites refused to attend at all; the Vperyodists attended, but walked out after protesting and exposing the fictitious character of the whole business.

    The liquidators, the Letts, the Trotskyists (Trotsky and Semkovsky), the Caucasians, and the Seven "united". But did they? We stated at the time that they did not, that this was merely a screen to cover up liquidationism. Have the events disproved our statement?

    Exactly eighteen months later, in February 1914, we found:

    1. that the Seven was breaking up. Buryanov had left them.

    2. that in the remaining new "Six", Chkheidze and Tulyakov, or somebody else, could not see eye to eye on the reply-to be made to Plekhanov. They stated in the press that they would reply to him, but they could not.

    3. that Trotsky, who for many months had practically vanished from the columns of Luch, had broken away, and had started "his own" journal, Borba. By calling this journal "non-factional", Trotsky clearly (clearly to those who are at all familiar with the subject) intimates that in his, Trotsky's, opinion, Nasha Zarya and Luch had proved to be "factional", i. e., poor uniters.

    If you are a uniter, my dear Trotsky, if you say that it is possible to unite with the liquidators, if you and they stand by the "fundamental ideas formulated in August 1912" (Borba No. 1, p. 6, Editorial Note), why did not you yourself unite with the liquidators in Nasha Zarya and Luch ?

    The editorial article in issue No. 1 of Borba entitled "The Split in the Duma Group" contains advice from a conciliator to the seven pro-liquidator (or inclining towards liquidationism) members of the Duma. The gist of this advice is contained in the following words:

    "first of all consult the Six whenever it is necessary to reach an agreement with other groups. . . ." (P. 29.)

    This is the wise counsel which, among other things, is evidently the cause of Trotsky's disagreement with the liquidators of Luch. This is the opinion the Pravdists have held ever since the outbreak of the connict between the two groups in the Duma, ever since the resolution of the Summer (1913) Conference was adopted. The Russian Social-Democratic Labour group in the Duma has reiterated in the press, even after the split, that it continues to adhere to this position, in spite of the repeated refusals of the Seven.

    From the very outset, since the time the resolution of the Summer Conference was adopted, we have been, and still are, of the opinion that agreements on questions concerning activities in the Duma are desirable and possible; if such agreements have been repeatedly arrived at with the petty-bourgeois peasant democrats (Trudoviks), they are all the more possible and necessary with the petty-bourgeois, liberal-labour politicians.

    We must not exaggerate disagreements, but we must face the facts: the Seven are men, leaning towards liquidationism, who yesterday entirely followed the lead of Dan, and whose eyes today are travelling longingly from Dan to Trotsky and back again. The liquidators are a group of legalists who have broken away from the Party and are pursuing a liberallabour policy. Since they repudiate the "underground", there can be no question of unity with them In matters concerning Party organisation and the working-class movement. Whoever thinks differently is badly mistaken and fails to take into account the profound nature of the changes that have taken place since 1908.

    But agreements on certain questions with this group, which stands outside or on the fringe of the Party, are, of course, permissible: we must always compel this group, too, like the Trudoviks, to choose between the workers' (Pravdist) policy and the liberal policy. For example. on the question of fighting for freedom of the press the liquidators clearly revealed vacillation between the liberal formulation of the question, which repudiated, or overlooked, the illegal press, and the opposite policy, that of the workers.

    Within the scope of a Duma policy in which the most important extra-Duma issues are not directly raised, agreements with the seven liberal-labour deputies are possible and desirable. On this point Trotsky has shifted his ground from that of the liquidators to that of the Party Summer (1913) Conference.

    It should not be forgotten, however, that to a group standing outside the Party, agreement means something entirely different from what Party people usually understand by the term. By "agreement" in the Duma, non-Party people mean "drawing up a tactical resolution, or line". To Party people agreement is an attempt to enlist others in the work of carrying out the Party line.

    For example, the Trudoviks have no party. By agreement they understand the "voluntary", so to speak, "drawing up" of a line, today with the Cadets, tomorrow with the Social-Democrats. We, however, understand something entirely different by agreement with the Trudoviks. We have Party decisions on all the important questions of tactics, and we shall never depart from these decisions; by agreement with the Trudoviks we mean winning them over to our side, convincing them that we are right, and not rejecting joint action against the Black Hundreds and against the li berals.

    How far Trotsky has forgotten (not for nothing has he associated with the liquidators) this elementary difference between the Party and non-Party point of view on agreements, is shown by the following argument of his:

    "The representatives of the International must bring together the two sections of our divided parliamentary group and jointly with them ascertain the points of agreement and points of disagreement. . . . A detailed tactical resolution formulating the principles of parliamentary tactics may be drawn up. . . ." (No. 1, pp. 29-30.)

    Here you have a characteristic and typical example of the liquidationist presentation of the question! Trotsky's journal forgets about the Party; such a trifle is hardly worth remembering!

    As to the substance of his own views, Trotsky contrived to say as little as possible in his new journal. Put Pravdy (No. 37) has already commented on the fact that Trotsky has not said a word either on the question of the "underground" or on the slogan of working for a legal party, etc.* That, among other things, is why we say that when attempts are made to form a separate organisation which is to have no ideological and political physiognomy, it is the worst form of factionalism.

    Although Trotsky has refrained from openly expounding his views, quite a number of passages in his journal show what kind of ideas he has been trying to smuggle in.

    In the very first editorial article in the first issue of his journal, we read the following:

    "The pro-revolutionary Social-Democratic Party in our country was a workers' party only in ideas and aims. Actually, it was an organisation of the Marxist intelligentsia, which led the awakening working class." (5. )

    This is the old liberal and liquidationist tune, which is really the prelude to the repudiation of the Party. It is based on a distortion of the historical facts. The strikes of 1895-96 had already given rise to a mass working-class movement, which both in ideas and organisation was linked with the Social-Democratic movement. And in these strikes, in this economic and non-economic agitation, the "intelligentsia led the working class"!?

    Or take the following exact statistics of political offences in the period 1901-03 compared with the preceding period.

    We see that in the eighties, when there was as yet no Social-Democratic Party in Russia, and when the movement was "Narodnik", the intelligentsia predominated, accounting for over half the participants.

    But the picture underwent a complete change in 1901-03, when a Social-Democratic Party already existed, and when the old Iskra was conducting its work. The intelligentsia were now a minority among the participants of the movement; the workers ("industry and commerce") were far more numerous than the intelligentsia, and the workers and peasants together constituted more than half the total.

    It was precisely in the conflict of trends within the Marxist movement that the petty-bourgeois intellectualist wing of the Social-Democracy made itself felt, beginning with Economism (1895-1903) and continuing with Menshevism (1903-1908) and liquidationism (1908-1914). Trotsky repeats the liquidationist slander against the Party and is afraid to mention the history of the twenty years' conflict of trends within the Party.

    Here is another example.

one small fact, one of the very latest. Trotsky merely slings words about; we should like the workers themselves to ponder over the facts.

    It is a fact that Severnaya Rabochaya Gazeta for March 13 wrote the following:

    "Instead of emphasising the definite and concrete task that confronts the working class, viz., to compel the Duma to throw out the bill [on the press ], a vague formula is proposed of fighting for the 'uncurtailed slogans ', and at the same time the illegal press is widely advertised, which can only lead to the relaxation of the workers' struggle for their legal press."

    This is a clear, precise and documentary defence of the liquidationist policy and a criticism of the Pravda policy. Well, will any literate person say that both trends employ "the same methods of struggle and organisation" on this question? Will any literate person say that the liquidators are not pursuing a liberal-labour policy on this question, that the liberal menace to the working-class movement is purely imaginary?

    The reason why Trotsky avoids facts and concrete references is because they relentlessly refute all his angry outcries and pompous phrases. It is very easy, of course, to strike-an attitude and say: "a crude and sectarian travesty". Or to add a still more stinging and pompous catch-phrase, such as "emancipation from conservative factionalism".

    But is this not very cheap? Is not this weapon borrowed from the arsenal of the period when Trotsky posed in all his splendour before audiences of high-school boys?

    Nevertheless, the "advanced workers", with whom Trotsky is so angry, would like to be told plainly and clearly: Do you or do you not approve of the "method of struggle and organisation" that is definitely expressed in the above quoted appraisal of a definite political campaign? If you do, then you are pursuing a liberal-labour policy, betraying Marxism and the Party; to talk of "peace" or of "unity" with such a policy, with groups which pursue such a policy, means deceiving yourself and others.

    If not, then say so plainly. Phrases will not astonish, satisfy or intimidate the present-day workers.

    Incidentally, the policy advocated by the liquidators in the above-quoted passage is a foolish one even from the liberal point of view, for the passage of a bill in the Duma depends on "Zemstvo-Octobrists" of the type of Bennigsen, who has already shown his hand in the committee.

    The old participants in the Marxist movement in Russia know Trotsky very well, and there is no need to discuss him for their benefit. But the younger generation of workers do not know him, and it is therefore necessary to discuss him, for he is typical of all the five groups abroad, which, in fact, are also vacillating between the liquidators and the Party.