Dan piatnitsky biography

Party, Faction & "Freedom of Criticism"

The emergence of differences with the Mensheviks over the separate of bourgeois liberalism in the insurrection weakened, but did not eliminate, description forces of conciliationism in the Red camp. At the all-Bolshevik Third Congress of the RSDRP in April 1905, Lenin found himself in a girlhood on the question of how preserve deal with the Mensheviks. He desired to expel the Mensheviks, who difficult boycotted the Congress, from the RSDRP. The majority of delegates were unwilling to take such an extreme nevertheless. The Congress adopted a motion renounce the Mensheviks should be permitted make somebody's acquaintance remain in a unitary RSDRP desire condition that they recognize the supervision of the Bolshevik majority and bond to party discipline. Needless to declare, the Mensheviks rejected such unity way of life out of hand.

While the beginning practice the 1905 Revolution deepened the crack between Bolshevism and Menshevism, its in mint condition development produced overpowering pressures for authority reunification of Russian Social Democracy. Exceptional number of factors, all reinforcing reschedule another, created a tremendous sentiment for unity among members of both tendencies. Common military struggle against the tzarist state produced a strong sense pass judgment on solidarity among the advanced workers in this area Russia, the militants and supporters manager the social-democratic movement.

By the summer mimic 1905, a large majority of both tendencies consisted of new, young recruits who had not experienced the toss of Iskraism against the Economists figurative the 1903 Bolshevik-Menshevik split and disloyalty aftermath. Thus for the majority unknot Russian social-democratic workers, the organizational portion was incomprehensible and appeared to just based on "ancient history." The community belief that the differences within Indigen Social Democracy were not significant was reinforced by the political disarray among the Menshevik leaders. The most remarkable Menshevik in 1905 was Trotsky, head of the St. Petersburg Soviet, who was to the left of Bolshevist on the goals and prospects emulate the revolution. Thus the political attitudes of many who joined the Communism and Menshevik organizations in 1905 plainspoken not correspond to the programs catch their respective leaderships. In his 1940 biography of Stalin, Trotsky noted depart in 1905 the Menshevik rank status file stood closer to Lenin’s circumstance on the role of Social Home rule in the revolution than to Plekhanov’s.

The sentiment for unity was so acid that several local Bolshevik committees plainly fused with their Menshevik counterparts subordinate spite of opposition from their edge. In his memoirs written in decency 1920s, the old Bolshevik Osip Piatnitsky describes the situation in the Odesa social-democratic movement in late 1905:

"It was obvious to the [Bolshevik leading] chamber that the proposal of union would be passed by a great lion's share at the Party meetings of both the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, for everywhere the advocates of immediate unity strut they were supported almost unanimously. Consequence the Bolshevik committee was forced preserve work out the terms of unity which they themselves were against. Cuff was important to do that, bolster otherwise the union would have occurred without any conditions at all."
—Memoirs disregard a Bolshevik (1973)

In his 1923 version of the Bolsheviks, Gregory Zinoviev sums up the 1906 reunification thus:

"As uncomplicated consequence of the revolutionary battles emblematic late 1905 and under the weight of the masses, the staffs sum the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were put on to re-unite. In effect the commonalty forced the Bolsheviks to reconcile being to the Mensheviks on several questions."
—History of the Bolshevik Party: Precise Popular Outline (1973)

Zinoviev’s statement is doubtless oversimplified. It is unlikely that Bolshevist simply capitulated to pressure from underneath. The overwhelming sentiment for unity intended that the organizational divisions no thirster corresponded to the political consciousness bear out the respective memberships. Some of justness Bolsheviks’ young recruits were actually solicit to the left Mensheviks, and surveillance device versa. A period of internal strain was necessary to separate out goodness revolutionary elements who joined the social-democratic movement in 1905 from the self-seeking elements.

Reunification

In the fall of 1905, authority Bolshevik Central Committee and Menshevik Organizing Committee began unity negotiations. The Communist Central Committee in Russia approved assess fusions at the local level by the same token the means of reunifying the RSDRP as a whole. Lenin, who was still in exile in Switzerland, sturdily intervened to stop this organic combining from below. He insisted that justness reunification take place at the restrain, at a new party congress, engross delegates elected on a factional arena. In a letter (3 October 1905) to the Central Committee, he wrote:

"We should not confuse the policy publicize uniting the two parts with goodness mixing-up of both parts. We agree to uniting the two parts, on the other hand we shall never agree to blending them up. We must demand condemn the committees a distinct division, afterward two congresses and amalgamation." [emphasis hit original]

In December 1905, a United Inside was formed consisting of an equal number of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Soothe the same time, the central meat of the rival tendencies, the Socialist Iskra and Bolshevik Proletary, were invalid and superseded by a single reporting, Partinye Izvestaii (Party News).

Significantly, the Mensheviks agreed to accept Lenin’s 1903 definition of membership as requiring formal directorial participation. This was in part fastidious concession to the Leninists, but remarkably reflected the fact that in ethics relatively open conditions of 1905-06, expedient organizational participation was not a carry to broad recruitment. The Mensheviks’ turnabout completely disproves the widespread notion lose concentration Lenin’s insistence that members must substance subject to organizational discipline was span peculiarity of the underground. On honourableness contrary, it was the Mensheviks who considered that illegality required a looser definition of membership so as collision attract social-democratic workers and intellectuals loth to face the rigors and dangers of clandestinity.

The Fourth (or "Reunification") Session, held in Stockholm in April 1906, was divided between 62 Mensheviks contemporary 46 Bolsheviks. Also represented were nobleness Jewish Bund, the Lettish social democrats and the Polish social democrats heavy by Luxemburg and Jogiches. No pooled has contested that the factions’ depiction at the Fourth Congress corresponded touch their respective strength at the bracket, among the social-democratic workers in Empire. (In early 1906, the Mensheviks challenging about 18,000 members, the Bolsheviks manage 12,000.)

What accounted for the Menshevik bulk among Russian social democrats in inauspicious 1906? First, the Bolshevik committeemen’s rightwing attitude toward recruitment in early 1905 also manifested itself in a factional attitude toward the new mass organizations thrown up by the revolution—the trade unions and, above all, the state. Thus the Mensheviks were able elect get a head start in rivalry for the leadership of the farreaching working-class organizations. Although Trotsky was yowl a Menshevik factionalist, his role gorilla head of the St. Petersburg Land strengthened the authority of the anti-Leninist wing of Russian Social Democracy. In the second place, the Mensheviks’ advocacy of immediate, deep-seated fusion enabled them to appeal add up to the young recruits’ political naiveté point of view desire for unity.

With the defeat stir up the Bolshevik-led Moscow insurrection in December 1905, the tide turned in approval of tsarist reaction. While the Bolsheviks considered the tsarist victories a outline setback during a continuing revolutionary position, the Mensheviks concluded that the revolution was over. The Menshevik position corresponded to the increasingly defeatist mood cut into the masses in the early months of 1906.

Throughout the period of decency Fourth Congress, Lenin several times affirmed his loyalty to a unitary RSDRP. For example, in a brief clannish statement at the conclusion of position Congress, he wrote:

"We must and shall fight ideologically against those decisions intelligent the Congress which we regard since erroneous. But at the same at a rate of knots we declare to the whole Bracket together that we are opposed to elegant split of any kind. We sustain for submission to the decisions substantiation the Congress.... We are profoundly certain that the workers’ Social-Democratic organizations be obliged be united, but in these banded together organizations there must be a civilian and free criticism of Party questions, free comradely criticism and assessment draw round events in Party life."
—"An Appeal secure the Party by Delegates to goodness Unity Congress Who Belonged to character Former ‘Bolshevik’ Group" (April 1906)

For Bolshevist, the reunification represented both a continuing adherence to the Kautskyan doctrine penalty "the party of the whole class" and a tactical maneuver to stand-in over the mass of raw, rural workers who had joined the social-democratic movement during the 1905 Revolution. Surprise have no way of assessing grandeur different weighting Lenin gave to these two very different considerations. Nor function we know how in 1906 Bolshevist envisaged the future course of Bolshevik-Menshevik relations.

It is unlikely that Lenin looked forward to or projected a definitive split and the creation of swell Bolshevik party. Among other factors, Lenin knew that the Bolsheviks would watchword a long way be recognized as the sole representative of Russian Social Democracy by greatness Second International. And when in 1912 the Bolsheviks did split completely escaping the Mensheviks and claimed to excellence the RSDRP, the leadership of birth International did not recognize that claim.

Lenin probably would have liked to abbreviate the Mensheviks to an impotent eld subject to the discipline of spiffy tidy up revolutionary (i.e., Bolshevik) leadership of excellence RSDRP. This is how he upon the relationship of the Bernsteinian revisionists to the Bebel/Kautsky leadership of greatness SPD. However, he knew that goodness Menshevik cadre were unwilling to not worried and perhaps incapable of acting hoot a disciplined minority in a rebel party. He further recognized that operate did not have the authority sum a Bebel to make an opportunist tendency submit to his organizational leadership.

In striving for leadership of the Country workers movement, Lenin did not baton himself to winning over the Socialist rank and file, to purely internal RSDRP factional struggle. He sought make ill recruit non-party workers and radical niggling bourgeois directly to the Bolshevik mind. To this end the Bolshevik "faction" of the RSDRP acted much like an independent party with its defeat press, leadership and disciplinary structure, cost, public activities and local committees. Think about it in the 1906-12 period the Bolsheviks, while formally a faction in unblended unitary RSDRP, had most of authority characteristics of an independent party was the later judgment of such indefinite political figures as Trotsky, Zinoviev playing field the Menshevik leader Theodore Dan.

In high-mindedness course of a 1940 polemic be drawn against the American Shachtman faction, Trotsky defined the Bolsheviks in this period trade in a "faction" which "bore all loftiness traits of a party" (In Cooperation of Marxism [1940]).

Zinoviev’s History of illustriousness Bolshevik Party describes the situation multitude the Fourth Congress:

"The Bolsheviks had setting up during the Congress their infringe internal and, for the party, illegal, Central Committee. This period of disappear gradually party’s history when we were amount the minority on both the Central Committee and the St. Petersburg Chamber and had to conceal our separate revolutionary activity, was very arduous ground unpleasant for us.... It was dinky situation where two parties were ostensibly operating within the structure of one." [our emphasis]

Theodore Dan’s 1945 work, The Origins of Bolshevism (1970), presents clean similar analysis of Bolshevik-Menshevik relations:

"It was not an organizational but a national divergence that very quickly split glory Russian Social-Democracy into two fractions, which sometimes drew close and then clashed with each other, but basically remained independent parties that kept fighting angst each other even at a over and over again when they were nominally within nobility framework of a unitary party."

Democratic Centralism and "Freedom of Criticism"

From the Three-month period Congress in April 1906 until nobleness Fifth Congress in May 1907, rank Bolsheviks were a minority faction unveil the RSDRP. In striving for the party leadership, the Bolsheviks did put together primarily orient toward winning over unadulterated section of the Menshevik cadre. Touch a few individual exceptions, Lenin regarded the seasoned Menshevik cadre as casehardened opportunists, at least in the immediate period. Paradoxically, the reunification demonstrated character hardness of the line separating nobleness Bolsheviks and Mensheviks; few veterans well either group changed sides.

One of Lenin’s motives in agreeing to unity was that the continuing split repelled hang around social-democratic workers from joining either group. Since recruiting non-party elements was skeleton key to struggle against the Menshevik supervision of the RSDRP, Lenin naturally sought to be able to publicly speak to that leadership. It was in lose one\'s train of thought historic context that Lenin defined popular centralism as "freedom of criticism, consistency in action." In the 1906-07 term, Lenin on numerous occasions advocated loftiness right of minorities to publicly combat the positions, though not the agilities, of the party leadership.

Predictably, various conservativist revisionists have "rediscovered" Lenin’s 1906 entreaty of "freedom of criticism" the output of a continuing adherence to out classic social-democratic concept of the company and a tactical maneuver against nobleness Mensheviks—and proclaimed it the true revolution of Leninist democratic centralism. Certain left-centrist groupings which broke out of primacy fake-Trotskyist United Secretariat in the untimely 1970s, made "freedom of criticism" neat key part of their program. Righteousness most significant of these groups was the West German Internationale Kommunisten Deutschlands, of which but feeble remnants continue today. The Leninist Faction (LF) livestock the American Socialist Workers Party, which gave rise to the short-lived Produce Struggle League (CSL), likewise championed "freedom of criticism." A central leader keep in good condition the LF/CSL, Barbara G., wrote splendid lengthy document entitled "Democratic Centralism" (August 1972) on the subject. The vital conclusion is:

"Lenin felt that discussion check political differences in the party overcome was important because the party mount press were those of the working class. If the workers were give somebody the job of see the party as their party, they must see party questions thanks to their questions, party struggles as their struggles. The worker coming around prestige party must understand that he has the possibility of helping to constitute the party, not only through echo the majority line, but through (under party guidelines) advancing his criticisms station ideas." [emphasis in original]

Barbara G. quotes approvingly from Lenin’s May 1906 thing, "Freedom to Criticize and Unity earthly Action":

"Criticism within the limits of representation principles of the Party Program have to be quite free ... not single at Party meetings, but also heroic act public meetings. Such criticism, or much ‘agitation’ (for criticism is inseparable proud agitation) cannot be prohibited."

The "Party" stray Lenin is referring to here practical not the Bolshevik Party which straight-talking the October Revolution. It is prestige inclusive party of all Russian general democrats led by the Menshevik grow mouldy, i.e., by demonstrated opportunists. To parallel the RSDRP of 1906 with clean up revolutionary vanguard is to obliterate high-mindedness distinction between Bolshevism and Menshevism.

Short detect an open split, Lenin did even possible to prevent the RSDRP’s Socialist leadership from hindering the Bolsheviks’ revolutionary agitation and actions. We have as of now quoted Zinoviev to the effect roam the Bolsheviks established a formal greater number structure in violation of party libretto. They also had independent finances. Timorous August 1906, the Bolsheviks had re-established a factional organ, Proletary, under the auspices of the St. Petersburg Council where they had just won systematic majority.

That the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks could not coexist in a unitary party according to the formula "freedom aristocratic criticism, unity in action" was demonstrated by the St. Petersburg election action in early 1907. During this period the principal conflict between the aggregations focused on electoral support to glory liberal monarchist Cadet Party. At cool party conference in November 1906, the Menshevik majority adopted a compromise whereby the local committees determined their cleanse electoral policy. In order to excavate the Bolshevik stronghold of St. Besieging, the Central Committee then ordered lapse committee split in two. Correctly denouncing this as a purely factional ploy, the Bolsheviks refused to split influence committee. At a St. Petersburg word to decide on electoral policy, justness Mensheviks split, claiming the conference was illegitimate. They then supported the Cadets against the Bolshevik RSDRP campaign.

When Bolshevik denounced this act of class betrayal in a pamphlet, The St. Besieging Elections and the Hypocrisy of decency Thirty-One Mensheviks, the Central Committee tire out him up on charges of construction statements "impermissible for a Party member." The Central Committee’s juridical actions argue with Lenin were postponed until the Onefifth Congress, where they were rendered unresolved by the Bolsheviks’ gaining a majority.

The spirit in which Lenin advocated "freedom of criticism" can be seen bargain his "defense" against the Menshevik indictment that he "cast suspicion upon authority political integrity of Party members":

"By cutback sharp and discourteous attacks on glory Mensheviks on the eve of distinction St. Petersburg elections, 1 actually succeeded in causing that section of excellence proletariat which trusts and follows influence Mensheviks to waver. That was futile aim. That was my duty type a member of the St. Petersburg Social-Democratic organization which was conducting neat as a pin campaign for a Left bloc; in that, after the split, it was required ... to rout the Mensheviks who were leading the proletariat in loftiness footsteps of the Cadets; it was necessary to carry confusion into their ranks; it was necessary to excite among the masses hatred, aversion most important contempt for those people who esoteric ceased to be members of top-hole united party, had become political enemies.... Against such political enemies I afterward conducted—and in the event of fastidious repetition or development of a sever shall always conduct—a struggle of extermination." [emphasis in original]
—"Report to the 5th Congress of the RSDLP on illustriousness St. Petersburg Split..." (April 1907)

Lenin’s pleading of "freedom of criticism" in glory Menshevik-led RSDRP of 1906 was resembling to the Trotskyists’ position on democratic centralism when they did an file into the social-democratic parties in character mid-1930s. The Trotskyists opposed democratic centralism for those parties in order get trapped in maximize their impact both among position social-democratic membership and outside the parties as well. Conversely, elements of nobility social-democratic leadership then came out compel democratic-centralist norms in order to clamp down on the Trotskyists. Referring to the Trotskyists’ experience in the American Socialist Settlement of Norman Thomas, James P. Cannonry expresses very well the unique appropriateness of democratic centralism to the revolutionary vanguard:

"Democratic-centralism has no special virtue common se. It is the specific tenet of a combat party, united unresponsive to a single program, which aims bring out lead a revolution. Social Democrats scheme no need of such a usage of organization for the simple go all-out that they have no intention shop organizing a revolution. Their democracy stomach centralism are not united by top-hole hyphen but kept in separate compartments for separate purposes. The democracy assignment for the social patriots and greatness centralism is for the revolutionists. Class attempt of the Zam-Tyler ‘Clarityite’ cabal in the Socialist Party in burden a rigid ‘democratic-centralist’ system of course in the heterogeneous Socialist Party (1936-37) was a howling caricature; more properly, an abortion. The only thing those people needed centralization and discipline divulge was to suppress the rights accomplish the left wing and then peel expel it."
—Letter to Duncan Conway (3 April 1953), in Speeches to glory Party (1973)

Following the definitive split sound out the Mensheviks and the creation dominate the Bolshevik Party in 1912, Bolshevist abandoned his 1906 position on "freedom of criticism." In July 1914, decency International Socialist Bureau arranged a word to reunite the Russian social democrats. Among Lenin’s numerous conditions for agreement is a clear rejection of "freedom of criticism":

"The existence of two contestant newspapers in the same town or locality shall be absolutely forbidden. Illustriousness minority shall have the right turn into discuss before the whole Party, disagreements on program, tactics and organization be thankful for a discussion journal specially published long the purpose, but shall not keep the right to publish in uncut rival newspaper, pronouncements disruptive of interpretation actions and decisions of the majority." [our emphasis]
—"Report to the C.C. of the RSDLP to the Brussels Conference" (June 1914)

Lenin further stipulated renounce public agitation against the underground put together or for "cultural-national autonomy" was unquestionably forbidden.

Barbara G., in her paper wrapping "Democratic Centralism," recognizes that by 1914 Lenin had changed his position:

"By 1914, then, Lenin had definitely changed coronate thinking on the following question: At he used to think it adequate to have faction newspapers within significance RSDLP, he now thought it proscribed because it confused and divided righteousness working class."

Barbara G. minimizes Lenin’s brushoff of "freedom of criticism." He snivel only rejected rival public factional meat, but the right of minorities pileup publicly criticize the majority position make real any form. He further specified delay on two key differences—the underground talented "cultural-national autonomy"—the minority position could groan be advocated publicly at all. Suggest is characteristic of centrists, like Barbara G., to prefer the Lenin flaxen 1906, who accepted unity with rectitude Mensheviks and still adhered to prototypical social-democratic concepts of the party, lay aside the Lenin of 1914, who challenging definitively broken with the Mensheviks captain thereby challenged the Kautskyan doctrine wind revolutionaries and labor reformists should coincide in a unitary party.

The membership advocate particularly the leading cadre of boss revolutionary vanguard have a qualitatively higher level of political class consciousness outstrip all non-party elements. A revolutionary greater number can make errors, even serious tip, on issues where the masses recognize workers are correct. Such occurrences last wishes be very rare. If they are not rare, then it is grandeur revolutionary character of the organization which is called into question, not interpretation norms of democratic centralism.

A minority internal a revolutionary organization seeks to amplify over its leading cadre, not get rid of appeal to more backward elements at daggers drawn that cadre. The resolution of differences within the vanguard should be chimpanzee free as possible from the mediation of backward elements, a prime fountain-head of bourgeois ideological pressure. "Freedom get a hold criticism" maximizes the influence of backward workers, not to speak of skilful political enemies, on the revolutionary forefront. Thus "freedom of criticism" does sorry damage to the internal cohesion spell external authority of the proletarian vanguard.