Bernsteinism? If it was not, then the reference to Luebeck is utterly absurd! But it is not true to say that it "restricts freedom of criticism." In passing their Hanover resolution, the Germans, point by point, rejected precisely the amendments proposed by Bernstein, while in their Luebeck resolution they cautioned Bernstein personally, and named him in the resolution. Our "free" imitators, however, do not make a single reference to a single manifestation of Russian "criticism" and Russian Economism, and in view of this omission, the bare reference to the class and revolutionary character of the theory, leaves exceedingly wide scope for misinterpretaion, particularly when the League refuses to identify "so-called Economism" with opportunism [Two Congresses, p. 8]. But all this en passant. The important thing to note is that the opportunist attitude towards revolutionary Social-Democrats in Russia is the very opposite to that in Germany. In Germany, as we know, revolutionary Social-Democrats are in favour of preserving what is: They stand in favour of the old programme and tactics which are universally known, and after many decades of experience have become clear in all their details. The "critics" desire to introduce changes, and as these critics represent an insignificant minority, and as they are very shy and halting in their revisionist efforts, one can understand the motives of the majority in confining themselves to the dry rejection of "innovations." In Russia, however, it is the critics and Economists who are in favour. of preserving what is: The "critics" wish us to continue to regard them as Marxists, and to guarantee them the "freedom of criticism" which they enjoyed to the full (for as a matter of fact they never recognised any kind of party ties[1]
- ↑ The absence of recognised party ties and party traditions by itself marks such a cardinal difference between Russia and Germany that it should have warned all sensible Socialists from being blindly imitative. But here is an example of the lengths to which "freedom of criticism" goes in Russia. Mr. Bulgakov, the Russian critic, utters the following ,reprimand to the Austrian critic Hertz: "Notwithstanding the independence of his conclusions, Hertz, on this point [on co-operative societies] apparently remains tied by the opinions of his party, and although he disagrees with it in details, he dare not reject common principles" [Capitalism and Agriculture, Vol. II, p. 287]. The subject of a politically enslaved state, in which nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand of the population are corrupted to the marrow of their bones by political subservience and completely lack the conception of party honour and party ties, superciliously reprimands a citizen of a constitutional state for being excessively "tied by the opinion of his party"! Our illegal organisations have nothing else to do, of course but draw up resolutions about freedom of criticism. …
25
