Russian opportunists). [Cf. Rabocheye Dyelo, Nos. 2–3, pp. 83–84]. The reference to the "intolerance" of the French, apart from its "historical" significance (in the Nozdrev sense),[1] turns out to be merely an attempt to obscure a very unpleasant fact with angry invectives.
But we are not even prepared to make a present of the Germans to B. Krichevsky and to the other numerous champions o£ "freedom of criticism." The "most pronounced Bernsteinists" are still tolerated in the ranks of the German Party only because they submit to the Hanover resolution which emphatically rejected Bernstein's "amendments," and to the Luebeck resolution, which, notwithstanding the diplomatic terms in which it is couched, contains a direct warning to Bernstein. It is a debatable point from the standpoint of the interests of the German party, as to whether diplomacy was appropriate in this case and whether, in this case, a bad peace is better-than a good quarrel.[2] Opinions may differ in regard to the expediency or not of the methods employed to reject Bernsteinism, but the fact remains that the German party did reject Bernsteinism on two occasions. Therefore, to think that the German example endorses the thesis: "The most pronounced Bernsteinists stand for the proletarian class struggle, for its economic and political emancipation," means to fail absolutely to understand what is going on before one's eyes.[3]
- ↑ A character in Gogol's novel Dead Souls. An unusual liar, rogue, an intriguer, he was frequently beaten for cheating, but he never took matters to heart; to blackmail even a friend was an ordinary thing for him and he "bore no grudge against that person."—Ed.
- ↑ This is a Russian proverb.—Ed.
- ↑ It must be observed that Rabocheye Dyelo always confines itself to a bare statement of facts concerning Bernsteinism, and "refrains" from expressing its own opinion on it. See, for example, the reports of the Stuttgart Congress in Nos. 2–3 [p. 66], in which all the disagreements are reduced to disagreements over "tactics," and the bare statement is made that the overwhelming majority remain true to the previous revolutionary tactics. Or take Nos. 4–5 [p. 25 ff.], in which we have a bare paraphrasing of the speeches delivered at the Hanover Congress, and a reprint of the resolution moved by Bebel. An explanation and criticism of Bernstein is again put off (as was the case in Nos. 2–3) to be dealt with in a "special article." Curiously enough, in Nos. 4–5 [p. 33], we read the following: "… the views expounded by Bebel have the support of the enormous majority of the congress," and a few lines lower: "… David defended Bernstein's views. … First of all, he tried to show that … Bernstein and his friends, after all is said and done [sic!], stand for class struggle. …" This was written in December, 1899, and in September, 1901, Rabocheye Dyelo, having perhaps lost faith in the correctness of Bebel's views, repeats David's views as its own!
18
