In view of all this we should not wonder that such great
differences exist. The Social Democratic
organization of the peoples
of the Caucasus (the Armenians, Georgians, etc.) constitute an integral portion of the Russian Social Democracy. These latter as a whole, together with the Jewish “Bund,” the Social Democracy of Poland and Lithuania and the Livonian Social Democracy formed a socialist “Bloc” which seems to promise a mutual co-operation of these organizations.
Of a wholly different character than the national
differences are those inside the
organization of the Social Democratic Labor Party of Russia. Here we have to do with actual differences which have formed two factions inside the party each of which have their organ. One of these is the
Iskra (
Spark) among whose contributors are, many who are well known to the German comrades, especially Axelrod, Deutsch, Plekhanov, and Vera Zassulich. The other is
Vperyod (
Forward) whose most prominent representative is Lenin.
So far as programme and tactical principles are concerned both factions are completely agreed, much more than are the German Social Democracy. There are no revisionists among them. The only question at issue between them is that concerning the best form of party organization. These differences can be well compared to those which existed between the Lasalleans and Eisenachers and Lenin is often compared by his critics to Schweitzer. He demands strong centralization with dictatorial powers vested in a central committee, while Axelrod and his friends would leave much greater freedom of action to the individual local committee. The longer the separation continues, as with every quarrel, the more, no matter what may have been its origin, do personal antagonisms develop, together with other reasons for antagonism. The contest, however, of organization is pushed into the back ground by the tactical question of the best means to overthrow absolutism.
There is no doubt but what all these are extremely important questions whose discussion is very necessary. Nevertheless there is no doubt but what the feud of the two papers is at the present time injuring the Russian revolutionist movement; something that is all the more to be regretted since the actual differences of opinion are not so great as to make the cooperation of the opponents impossible. We can not set these differences on the same level with those which divided the French socialists at the Paris and Amsterdam congresses. In France. it was a question of different tactical principles , which gave different character to the continuous work of the party. In the Russian social democracy there is complete unity concerning tactics, and differences exist only over the question as to the form of practical application of these principles to the immediate situation . These differences must disappear with the situation that brought them forth. They may lead to differences of opinion and to discussion, but not to separation.
But because the antagonism between
Iskra and
Wperjod are wholly different than those between the Parti Socialiste Français and the Parti Socialiste de France it does not necessarily follow that outsiders should mix in or that they can be decided by an international congress. There are certain tactical principles which follow from our programme and which are the same for all socialist parties. An international congress can give a decision on these, and especially if in case of a division concerning them one of the contending parties ask for a decision as was the case with the French, where in Paris both divisions, and in Amsterdam at least one appealed to the congress. How can an international congress, however, decide which form of organization is best in Russia, or under what circumstances the armed revolt, the strike or the peasant uprising isthe most effective, or what we may expect from the Russian laborers?