Category | Template | Form |
---|---|---|
Text | Text | Text |
Author | Author | Author |
Collection | Collection | Collection |
Keywords | Keywords | Keywords |
Subpage | Subpage | Subpage |
Template | Form |
---|---|
BrowseTexts | BrowseTexts |
BrowseAuthors | BrowseAuthors |
BrowseLetters | BrowseLetters |
Template:GalleryAuthorsPreviewSmall
Special pages :
Osvobozhdeniye-ists and New-Iskrists, Monarchists and Girondists
Osvobozhdeniye, No. 66, published a review of Martynovâs pamphlet Two Dictatorships (approved and recommended by the editors of Iskra; see issue No. 84). As was to be expected, the liberal bourgeois does not conceal his sympathies with the opportunist wing of the Social-Democratic movement. Osvobozhdeniye regards Martynovâs pamphlet, âlike the work of Mr. Akimovâ, as âone of the most interesting contributions to Social-Democratic literature of the present dayâ. Gould a liberal have reacted in any other way to the preaching of tail-ism, which seeks to frighten the revolutionary class with the dire perspective of participation in the provisional government and the ârevolutionary dictatorshipâ in a democratic revolution (which Martynov, in his fear of âJacobinismâ confounds with the socialist revolution!)? Is it merely a coincidence that Osvobozhdeniye, in the article âA Significant Turnâ, welcomed Plekhanovâs ideas of making concessions to the revisionists? How is one to account for Osvobozhdeniyeâs assertion (No. 57) that in fact, the Menshevists are now defending something more vital and essential than the Bolshevistsâ? Is it not because âthe only hope for the ideological vitality of Russian liberalism lies in the vitality of Social-Democratic opportunismâ (see our publication An Obliging Liberal[1] )? Was Mr. Struve right or wrong in contending that Trotskyâs pamphlet Our Political Tasks, published under the editorship of âIskraâ (see issue No. 72) âis perfectly right in defending certain ideas with which readers of Social-Democratic literature have been familiar from the writings of Messrs. Akimov, Martynov, Krichevsky, and other so-called Economistsâ (Osvobozhdeniye, No. 57)? Had Martynov and Co. stopped to think of these questions, they might perhaps have been able to grasp the puzzling (how very, very puzzling!) ideas of the old Iskra about the similarity of the relations between the Jacobins and the Girondists, on the one hand, and between the revolutionary Social-Democrats and the opportunists, on the other. (This idea was first advanced, if we are not mistaken, in the leading article of Iskra, No. 2, written by Plekhanov.) Were the Girondists traitors to the cause of the Great French Revolution? They were not. But they were inconsistent, wavering, opportunist champions of that cause. That is why they were opposed by the Jacobins, who upheld the interests of the advanced class of the eighteenth century as consistently as the revolutionary Social-Democrats uphold the interests of the advanced class of the twentieth. That is why the downright betrayers of the cause of the great revolution, the monarchists, the clerical constitutionalists, etc., supported the Girondists and shielded them from the attacks of the Jacobins. Are you beginning to see light now, most honourable Girondist Martynov? Not yet? Well, we shall try to clarify the point further. Are the new-Iskrists traitors to the proletarian cause? No. But they are inconsistent, wavering, opportunist champions of the cause (and of the organisational and tactical principles illumining the cause). That is why their position is opposed by the revolutionary Social-Democrats (by some directly and overtly, by others covertly, behind the closed doors of their editorial offices, with devices and ruses). That is why the new-Iskrists are ideologically sup ported and shielded by the Osvobozhdeniye crowdâthe down right betrayers of the proletarian cause. Are you beginning to see light now, most honourable Girondist Martynov?
- â First published as a leaflet, Geneva, November 6, 1904. See present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 486-89.âEd.