to defend our speaker, declared that obviously the word "catch" was dropped in the heat of polemics.
For my part, I think the speaker responsible for uttering the word under discussion was not at all pleased with this "defence." I think the word "catch" was a "true word spoken in jest": We have always accused Rabocheye Dyelo of instability and vacillation and, naturally, we had to try to catch it in order to put a stop to this vacillation. There is not the slightest suggestion of evil intent in this, for we were discussing instability of principles. And we succeeded in "catching" the "League" in such a comradely manner[1] that B. Krichevsky himself and one other member of the Managing Committee of the "League" signed the June resolutions.
The articles in Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10 (our comrades saw this number for the first time when they arrived at the congress, a few days before the :meetings started), clearly showed that the "League" had taken a new turn in the period between the summer and the autumn: the Economists had again got the upper hand on the editorial board, which tUrned with every "wind," and the board again defended "the most pronounced Bernsteinists," "freedom of criticism" and "spontaneity," and through the mouth of Martynov began to preach the "theory of restricting" the sphere of our political influence (for the alleged purpose of making this influence more complex). Once again Parvus' apt observation that it was difficult to catch an opportunist with a formula was proved correct. An opportunist will put his name to any formula and as readily abandon it, because opportunism is precisely a lack of definite and firm principles. To-day, the opportunists have repudiated all attempts to introduce opportunism, repudiated all narrowness, solemnly promised "never for a moment to forget about the task of overthrowing the autocracy," to carry on "agitation not only on the
- ↑ Precisely: In the introduction to the June resolutions we said that Russian Social-Democracy as a whole always took its stand on the basis of the principles of the Emancipation of Labour group and that the "League's" merit lay particularly in its publishing and organising activity. In other words, we expressed our complete readiness to forget the past and to recognise the usefulness (for the cause) of the work of our comrades of the "League" on the condition that it completely ceased the vacillation which we tried to "catch." Any impartial person reading the June resolutions will so interpret them. If, now the "League" after having caused a split by its new turn towards Economism (in its articles in No. 10 and in the amendments), solemnly accuses us of prevaricating [Two Congresses, p. 30] because of what we said about its merits, then, of course, such an accusation can only raise a smile.
172
