BEWILDERED NON-PARTY PEOPLE

One of the most widespread and unhealthy symptoms of
our public life is the contempt (if not open hostility) that
is displayed towards adherence to a party.

It is characteristic of political free lances, political adven-
turers and political Manilovs to repudiate party affiliations
and to talk pompously about party "bigotry", "dogmatism",
intolerance, and so on, and so forth. As a matter of fact,
the use of such expressions merely reflects the ridiculous
and paltry conceit or self-justification of intellectuals who
are shut off from the masses and feel compelled to cover up
their feebleness. Serious politics can only be promoted by the
masses; non-party masses that do not follow the lead of a
strong party are, however, disunited, ignorant masses, with-
out staying power, prone to become a plaything in the hands
of adroit politicians, who always emerge "opportunely" from
the ranks of the ruling classes to take advantage of "favour-
able" circumstances.

Russia is one of the most petty-bourgeois countries in
the world and is least accustomed to free political activ-
ities. This, and this alone, explains the contempt that
is so widespread in this country for adherence to a party.
One of the tasks of class-conscious workers in Russia (and
one of the great historical services they must render) is to
wage a systematic and persevering struggle against this
attitude.

The following is one of the latest examples of the smug non-
partisanship that reigns among the near-Party intellectuals.

The workers have organised the collection of funds for
working-class newspapers on an extensive scale. It is not
difficult to understand that when the masses have con-
sciously decided for themselves which newspaper to assist
and which trend to support, such collections teach them ideo-
logically sound and principled politics.

The liquidators, who so-often descend to non-party poli-
tics, have launched their notorious campaign for the col-
lections to be shared equally. In this they were prompted
solely by the desire to cover up their own weakness, and in
their haste they did not have time to think and realise that
the principle underlying such a campaign is precisely the
principle of non-partisanship.

They were immediately exposed by the real state of
affairs. Russian petty-bourgeois society made the liquidators'
slogan its own: share and share alike with everybody, with
the liquidators and with the Narodniks!

When their political gamble is exposed, these non-party
people who have renounced the Marxist past for the sake of
visions of something as "broad" as it is unprincipled, begin
to twist and turn. G. R., in No. 24 of the liquidators' news-
paper, assures us that the liquidators are not at all in favour
of uniting with the Narodniks, and alleges that such union
has been "systematically advocated" by the Marxists.

A cruder distortion of the truth could scarcely be imag-
ined. If G. R. and Co. were not non-party, if they did not
treat the history of Marxism like philistines, they would
know that it was only due to the Marxists (supporters of
Pravda) that the question of the attitude the workers should
adopt to the various parties was settled quite officially more
than six years ago.* The Marxists alone gave a precise defini-
tion of the class basis of all the important parties in Russia;
the liquidators have never been able to do this. The Marxists
alone of all the parties in Russia, six years ago, defined the
exact nature of the various "trends" and the attitude that
should be adopted towards them in place of a chaotic, un-
principled attitude ("as circumstances demand") towards
individual parties.

Since then, events have brilliantly confirmed the correct-
ness of this definition in the most unquestionable manner.

The definition states clearly and precisely that the Na-
rodniks are petty-bourgeois democrats with whom "joint
action" is possible only against reaction and against liber-
alism.

Now, G. R. and Co., in asserting that they are opposed
to uniting with the Narodniks, want to wriggle out of it
by saying: "We are in favour of the collections being shared
equally between the two newspapers when 'mass collections'
are made, but we are opposed to this when collections are
made 'among groups of politically conscious supporters'!"
(See Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta No. 24.)

In the first place, it has already been proved by actual
experience that a non-party plan emerges from your advoc-
acy of share and share alike. This is a fact. This very issue
No. 24, contains a resolution adopted by one workers'
group which says: equally with the Narodniks, too. As is
always the case with them, our non-partisans or independ-
ents, find themselves in the wrong box!

In the second place, can a group of politically conscious
supporters be called such if it is unable to enlighten the
masses? No, gentlemen, non-partisans, it cannot! Politically
conscious supporters will say to the masses — let everybody
contribute, let everybody unite, but try, in doing so, to dis-
tinguish the trends of the different newspapers!

To contribute and say "share and share alike" means
being non-party, indifferent and not politically conscious.
To contribute and say, "for such and such a trend", means
being politically conscious, and taking part consciously in
a common action.

G. R. distorts this political ABC. The result is that G. R.
and Co., the liquidators, while asserting that they are op-
posed to uniting with the Narodniks, are actually continuing
their policy of uniting with them on a non-party basis;
they are continuing a non-party policy extremely harmful
to the workers, one which cannot be tolerated.

Worker democrats have more than once offered determined
resistance to the advocacy of non-partisanship and must do
so again in the future, for it dulls the political consciousness
of the workers and makes it easier for all sorts of frauds to
be perpetrated upon them.
October 4, 1913
Lenin CW Vol.19