But at times avoids an issue,
That is painful, hard to solve. [118]
   
The years 1911 and 1912 were the most difficult and painful period for the Social-Democrats in the epoch of the Third and the beginning of the Fourth Duma. The working-class press -- liquidators' and anti-liquidators' -- took shape. Chkheidze "avoided the issue". He did not go with either one or the other. He was a near-Party Social-Democrat. He seemed to be waiting and watching; on the one hand, there was no party but the old one, and on the other hand, it might happen that "they" would bury the party a little bit. . . . You read his speeches and quite often applaud a sally against the Rights that is often witty and stinging, his heated and astringent words, his defence of the old traditions, and at the same time you have to hold your nose when you open a liquidators' newspaper that thunders against "crazes", waves tradition carelessly aside and teaches the workers disdain for organisation -- all apparently with the approval of Chkheidze, whose name is an ornament to the list of contributors. You come across an article by An accompanied by a sharp criticism of him from the Luch editors and cannot help but wonder -- have not our poor Chkheidze and our kindly An suffered a tragi-comic defeat in their attempt to cast off the yoke of Dan. . . .
page 414
   
There are people who, in the name of the great principle of proletarian unity, advise the Party to come to an agreement with one of the groups of near-Party, almost Social-Democrats, that wants to "avoid", or is wavering on, the question of whether to bury or to strengthen the old organisation. It can well be understood that these people are themselves wavering or have a very poor acquaintance with the real state of affairs. A party that wants to exist cannot allow the slightest wavering on the question of its existence or any agreement with those who may bury it. There is no end to those who want to act as intermediaries in such an agreement, but they are all people, who, to use an old expression, are burning their oil in vain and wasting their time.
   
P.S.
   
P. B. Axelrod's concluding article in No. 13 of Zhivaya Zhizn (July 25, 1913) headed "Then and Now" provided an amazingly vivid confirmation of our words. The real essence of this well-padded article is not, of course, in its amusing boosting of the liquidators' August Conference, but in the resurrection of the labour congress question. It goes without saying that Axelrod prefers to say nothing about his bitter and painful experience with the idea of a labour congress in 1906 and 1907 -- why rake up the past? Nor does Axelrod mention the specific conditions of the present day, when it appears possible to hold labour congresses of a special character, as it were, and for special reasons (a shop-assistants' congress today, perhaps an insurance or trade union congress tomorrow, etc.). Axelrod is probably not pleased with the experience of the shop assistants' congress, at which the majority (as the liquidators have been forced to admit in Zhivaya Zhizn ) was against the liquidators.
   
Axelrod does not say anything about what has been and what is. He prefers to let his imagination run wild on the future "thaw" -- luckily we cannot know anything about its concrete conditions! He toys with the idea of convening "a Social-Democratic labour congress if not of all Russia, then one of all Russians" -- which is then called exactly that, a congress of all Russians.
page 415
   
Thus there are two changes to the former brilliant plan; first, it is not merely a labour congress, but a Social-Democratic labour congress. That is progress. Let us congratulate Axelrod on having taken a step forward in six years. Let us congratulate him if he has become convinced of the harm caused by fantastic plans to "unite" with the Left Narodniks. Secondly, he replaces "all-Russia congress" by "congress of all Russians". That signifies rejection of complete unity with workers of non-Russian nationality in Russia (Axelrod regards the collapse among them of the idea of a labour congress as being final!). That is two steps backward. That is the hallowing of separatism in the working-class movement.
   
But this is still not the best part. Why was Axelrod dreaming of a labour congress? This is why:
   
"The labour congress will complete the liquidatory process that has been going on during the past few years, the liquidation of the old party regime that grew up on the outdated historical basis of the feudal state and the hierarchical socio-political regime and at the same time will mark the beginning of a completely new epoch in the historical life of Russian Social-Democrats, the epoch of development on exactly the same lines as the Social-Democratic parties in the west."
   
Everybody knows that "exactly the same lines" are the lines of a legal party. Speaking without equivocation, this means that the liquidators need the labour congress to "complete the liquidation " of the old party and to found a new, legal party.
   
Such, in brief, is the idea behind Axelrod's long disquisitions.
   
Here you have the last word in near-Party Social-Democracy! For the members of the party to work in the party and strengthen it is an old, outdated idea that Axelrod has banished to the archives. We are not liquidating anything, that is libel, we only "stand aside" and shout for all to hear about the "completion of the liquidation of the Party". We vow and swear that tomorrow we shall be excellent members of the future legal party.
   
These sweet near-Party Social-Democrats of 1913 are very much like those liberals of 1903 who assured us that they were proper Social-Democrats and would certainly
page 416
become members of the Social-Democratic Party -- when it became legal, of course.
   
We do not for a moment doubt that there will be a period of political liberty in Russia and that we shall have a legal Social-Democratic Party. Probably some of those near Party Social-Democrats of today will become members of it.
   
And so -- until we meet again in the ranks of the future, legal party, our future comrades! In the meantime, excuse us, we are not going the same way, because as yet you, near Party Social-Democrats, are carrying on liberal and not Marxist work.