Page:Lenin - What Is To Be Done - tr. Joe Fineberg (1929).pdf/176

 and by that called for the introduction of system and unity in all these manifestations of the struggle, the "League" added the absolutely superfluous sentence to the effect that "the economic struggle is a powerful stimulus to the mass movement" (taken by itself, this assertion cannot be disputed, but in view of the existence of narrow Economism it cannot but give occasion for false interpretations). More than that, the restriction of "politics" was introduced into the June resolution by the deletion of the words "not for a moment" (forget the aim of overthrowing the autocracy) as well as by the addition of the words "the economic struggle is the most widely applicable means of drawing the masses into active political struggle. It is quite understandable that after such amendments had been introduced all the speakers on our side should one after another refuse to take the floor on the ground that further negotiations with people who were again turning towards Economism and who were striving to secure for themselves freedom of vacillation were useless.

"It was precisely the fact that the 'League' regarded the preservation of the independent features and the autonomy of Rabocheye Dyelo as the sine qua non of the durability of our future agreement, that Iskra regarded as the rock upon which our agreement fell to pieces" [Two Congresses, p. 25]. This is very inexact. We never had any designs against Rabocheye Dyelo's autonomy. We did indeed absolutely refuse to recognise the independence of its features, if by "independent features" is meant independence on questions of principle regarding theory and practice: The June resolutions did indeed absolutely repudiate such independence of features because, in practice, such "independent features" meant, as we have said already, vacillation and support for the vacillations that now prevail among us, and the intolerable confusion that reigns in party affairs. Rabocheye Dyelo's articles in its issue No. 10, and its "amendments" clearly revealed its desire to preserve precisely this kind of independence of features, and such a desire naturally and inevitably led to a rupture and a declaration of war. But we were all ready to recognise Rabocheye Dyelo's "independent features" in the sense that it should concentrate on definite literary functions. A