Comrade Plekhanov’s proposal arouses in me very mixed feelings. By talking about the causes of the struggle, he comes straight back to the wounds which Comrade Martov has pointed out we have been dealing each other. What I try to do in my draft is draw a line between what is permissible in our struggle and what is not, no matter who makes the attacks. If we started going into who did what and when, it would be the beginning of the end, that is, of the end of our discussion. For us to be our own arbiters is, just psychologically, morally, quite impossible. If we again proceed here to discuss what has produced the strained relations among the Party membership, shall we ourselves be able to rise above the level of petty squabbling? (Axelrod: “Yes, we shall!") I do not share Comrade Axelrod’s optimism. Comrade Plekhanov in his analysis of the causes of the split in the Party gave his own interpretation of the facts, with which I do not agree. But if we start arguing, we shall have to fetch out the minutes and turn to them for information. For example, Comrade Plekhanov says that over the election of the central bodies the Congress divided into two practically equal parts, that a single delegate who crossed over from the majority to the minority thereby equalised the numbers of the two halves of the Congress, that therefore the Central Committee only represents one part of the Party, and so on. But you cannot argue like that; it just isn’t possible, after all, to talk of the Central Committee only having been elected by one part of the Party. Many, perhaps, would now vote on various matters otherwise than they did at the Congress; I might vote differently on many points myself; but that is not to say that the possible changes and new combinations in this respect in any way invalidate the results of the earlier voting. When it is a question of a struggle, there is always a division of the whole into parts. Yes, the Central Committee now—but not at the Congress—is the representative of a part; but I know very well that in the opinion of the comrades the Central Organ too is, in the same way, the representative only of a part. From one standpoint only could I acknowledge Comrade Plekhanov’s expression correct, namely, from the stand point of the split that does in fact exist. It is not because the Congress did something wrong that one can speak of the composition of one or other of the central bodies being “abnormal”, but solely because, there being such-and-such circumstances, people refuse to work together.... Thus, no sooner do we touch on the causes of the abnormality than we again get involved in unravelling a skein which we, far from being able to untangle, will only tangle the more. That many are dissatisfied with the composition of the Central Committee is true; but it is equally true that a good many people are dissatisfied with the present composition of the Central Organ. To Comrade Martov’s question of whether it is permissible to “break up” existing organisations, I would reply: “Yes, to reconstruct organisations is entirely permissible!" Is it permissible for a competent Party authority to remove a particular person from a particular kind of revolutionary work? My answer is: “Yes, it is!" But if I were to ask why and how a given “encroachment” on the integrity and inviolability of an organisation arose, why so-and-so was not assigned to such-and-such a sphere of Party work, and so forth, I should again be reaching out towards that skein which it is beyond us to untangle. Thus, the matter of whether or not it is permissible to “break up” organisations also brings us back to the disagreements. All of which goes to prove that to argue now about the causes of our dissensions would be a completely useless and even harmful waste of time. Now let me come back to the question of proportional representation. One could speak of that only by starting from recognition of an already existing split. We are here representatives of two contending sides.. . (Plekhanov: “We have met here as members of the Council, not as contending sides.") Comrade Plekhanov’s remark conflicts with his own resolution, which speaks of the dissensions in the Party having split the Party into two halves, one of the halves, according to the resolution, being completely unrepresented on such a central body as the Central Committee. Of course, officially we are not the representatives of two contending sides, but since that representation emerges from the course of our debates, I had a logical right to speak of it. (Plekhanov: “The expression you used was that we had met here as the representatives of two contending sides, and that is what caused my remark.") I will not deny that perhaps the expression I used was not quite accurate. ... (Plekhanov: “It was incorrect.") Perhaps it was even incorrect, I shan’t argue the point. I am only saying that Comrade Plekhanov’s resolution shifts the argument to the basis of de facto recognition of the split. We have split, that is the fact I am noting. If it were not the case, the resolution would be out of order. The Party majority is dissatisfied, too, with the composition of the Central Organ, in which four out of the five editors belong to the minority. The Central Committee could put forward the same claim for a change in the composition of the Central Organ as is now being made in relation to the Central Committee. Essentially, Comrade Plekhanov ’s resolution amounts to a statement of the terms of only one side.... (Plekhanov: “I do not belong to either majority or minority.") Comrade Plekhanov tells us he does not belong to either majority or minority, but no one else in the Council will say that. Looked at formally, from the standpoint of the Rules, the resolution moved by Comrade Plekhanov is out of order. But, I repeat, actually one can understand it insofar as it proceeds from the fact of the split. But if one side is stating its “terms”, the other would be similarly entitled to present “terms”. We do not stand above the “two sides”, we are ourselves those “two sides”. Consequently, if we are going to recognise that actually the Party has split, we must also recognise that there is only one radical way of resolving our disputes and “misunderstandings”, namely, to apply to third persons. There are people in the Party, as I said before, who are engaged in positive work and have had no part in the struggle of “majority” and “minority”. Those are the people to turn to.
| | |
| | | | | | |