basis of the every-day struggle between wage labour and capital," etc., etc. But to-morrow they will change their form of expression and revert to their old tricks on the pretext of defending spontaneity and the forward march of the drab every-day struggle, of proclaiming demands promising palpable results, etc. By asserting that in the articles in No. 10 "the 'League' did not and does not now see any heretical departure from the general principles of the draft adopted at the conference" [Two Congresses, p. 26], the "League" reveals a complete lack of ability, or a lack of desire, to understand the essential points of the disagreements.
After the appearance of Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, only one thing remained for us to do and that was to open a general discussion in order to ascertain whether all the members of the "League" agree with these articles and with its editorial board. The "League" is particularly displeased with us because of this and accuses us of sowing discord in the "League," of not minding our own business, etc. These accusations are obviously unfounded because with an elected board which "turns" with every breeze, everything depends precisely upon the direction of the wind, and we defined the direction of the wind at private meetings at which no one, except members of the organisations who had gathered together for the purpose of uniting, were present. The amendments to the June resolutions submitted in the name of the "League" have removed the last shadow of a hope of an agreement. The amendments are documentary evidence of the new turn towards Economism and of the fact that the majority of the members of the "League" are in agreement with Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10. Amendments were moved to delete the words "so-called Economism" from the reference in the resolution to manifestations of opportunism (on the pretext that "the sense" of these three words "was vague"—but if that were so, all that was required was a more precise definition of the nature of a widespread error), and to delete "Millerandism" (although B. Krichevsky defended it in Rabocheye Dyelo, Nos. 2 and 3, pp. 83–84, and still more openly in the Vorwärts).[1] Notwithstanding the fact that the June resolutions definitely indicated the tasks of Social-Democracy, viz., "to guide every manifestation of the proletarian struggle against all forms of political, economic and social oppres-
- ↑ A controversy over this subject had started in the Vorwärts between its present editor, Kautsky, and the editorial board of Zarya. We shall not fail to acquaint the reader with the nature of this controversy.
173
