The Economists in Retreat¶
Core Argument¶
Here, the narrative shifts from the struggle against the Economists to the internal contradictions within the victorious Iskra camp itself, on the eve of the Second Congress. The chapter’s core argument is that the organisational and political consolidation of the revolutionary party, spearheaded by Iskra, was achieved only through immense practical labour and against growing tensions within its own leading circle, tensions which foreshadowed the split at the Congress. The Economists, having lost ground, are shown in retreat, resorting to desperate manoeuvres. Their last redoubt, the émigré ‘Union of Social Democrats Abroad’, attempted a pre-emptive strike by hastily convening a Party Congress at Byelostok in March 1902, in league with the Bund. The Bund’s demand for exclusive rights to represent Jewish workers is presented as a suicidal, separatist tactic, directly contradicted by the Iskra position, cited from Krupskaya, that Jewish workers could only become strong by merging their forces with the proletariat of the whole of Russia. The Byelostok gathering was exposed as unrepresentative; Iskra’s representative, Fyodor Dan, compelled its re-designation as a conference and the election of an Organising Committee. After mass arrests, the task of convening the Congress fell entirely to Iskra, leading to a new Organising Committee with an Iskra majority at Pskov in November 1902.
The chapter then pivots to the formidable practical challenges of building the party. The logistical nightmare of smuggling Iskra into Russia is detailed—via double-bottomed suitcases, book bindings, and routes through Marseilles, Stockholm, Romania, Persia, and Egypt—with Krupskaya estimating that not one-tenth got through. The correspondence was haphazard, addresses illegible, and ciphered messages faded. Despite this, Iskra’s success is attributed to its professionalism: a regular, professionally written journal, in contrast to the amateurish local papers of its rivals. This success enhanced the authority of the London-based Editorial Board, which provided both theoretical guidance and practical directives.
However, the chapter’s central polemic is not against the Economists, but an internal one: the growing, unbearable tensions within the Iskra Editorial Board itself. The great bulk of the work fell on Lenin and Krupskaya, while the older members of Plekhanov’s Emancipation of Labour Group—Axelrod, Zasulich, Deutsch—played little role, accustomed to the informality of small émigré circles. The six-strong Editorial Board (Lenin, Plekhanov, Axelrod, Zasulich, Martov, Potresov) was the scene of bitter arguments, particularly over the party programme. The chapter presents a detailed account of the clash between Lenin and Plekhanov over the draft programme. The initial disagreement was over Plekhanov’s formula that capitalism was “becoming the dominant form of production” versus Lenin’s insistence that it “has already become dominant.” This is presented not as a mere nuance, but as a fundamental difference in political psychology: Lenin, the revolutionary realist impatient with abstract formulae, versus Plekhanov, the immensely talented but abstract propagandist, whose formulations were a textbook for students, not a guide to revolutionary action. Lenin’s draft was met by Plekhanov with sarcastic underlinings and exclamation marks. Relations neared a breaking point; Lenin considered “going public” but drew back to avoid a split on the eve of the Congress. The strain undermined Lenin’s health, leading to a breakdown.
The chapter introduces Trotsky as the figure Lenin desperately sought to co-opt onto the Editorial Board to break the deadlock. Krupskaya’s original memoirs are quoted at length, describing Lenin’s enthusiastic attitude to the “young eagle” and his formal proposal to Plekhanov to co-opt ‘Pero’ as a seventh member. Lenin’s letter is reproduced, arguing for Trotsky’s ability, energy, and promise. Plekhanov, guessing Trotsky would support Lenin, angrily vetoed the proposal. The chapter concludes by noting that the experiences of the past three years showed the need for a decisive break with amateurism and localism, and for centralism. It ends with a striking anecdote: Trotsky