Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 16 - From Marx to Mao

A WORD TO THE BOLSHEVIKS OF ST. PETERSBURG67“admitted that there had been a great improvement lately inthe work of the Social-Democratic group in the Duma, andthat he did not intend to present an ultimatum to it now,immediately”.“It is of course possible,” the “Communication” continues,“to get along with ultimatumists like this withinone and the same wing of the Party.... In the case of suchBolshevik ultimatumists a split is out of the question.”It would be ridiculous even to speak of such a thing.Further on, on the second page of the “Communication”we read:“It would be a profound mistake for any local functionary to understandthe resolutions of the Conference as an instruction to expelotzovist-minded workers, let alone bring about an immediate splitin organisations where there are otzovist elements. We warn localfunctionaries in all seriousness against such actions.”It would be impossible to express oneself more clearly,one would think. The splitting off of Comrade Maximov,who refuses to submit to the resolutions of the Conference,is inevitable. As for the vacillating, indefinite otzovistultimatumistelements, far from declaring a split with themwe emphatically warned against it.Now look at the second stage of the struggle. ComradeMaximov and Co. publish a leaflet abroad, in which on theone hand we are accused of a split, while on the other handthe policy of the new Proletary (which is supposed to havebetrayed the old Proletary, the old Bolshevism) is declaredMenshevist, “Duma-ist” and so forth. Is it not absurd tocomplain of a split in the faction, i.e., in a union of kindredminds within a party, if you yourselves admit that thereis no unanimity? Defending their ultimatumism ComradeMaximov and Co. wrote in their leaflet that “the Party cannotthen [i.e., in the conditions of acute and increasing reactioncharacteristic of the present time] carry out a big and spectacularelection campaign, nor obtain worth-while parliamentaryrepresentation”—that the “question of the actualusefulness of taking part in a pseudo-parliamentary institutionthen becomes doubtful and disputable”—that “inessence” Proletary was “going over to the Menshevik pointof view of parliamentarism at any price”. These phrasesare accompanied by an evasive defence of otzovism (“the