1 (Stuttgart, 1902), p. 140.

2 (Geneva, 1900), Introduction, p. 30 (hereafter cited as Vademecum).

3 Ibid., p. 41.

4 Among Social Democratic accounts of the “economist” controversy, the following ones are probably the most influential: Plekhanov's introduction to his Vademecum; , 1901, pp. 1-32; , No. 53, Nov. 25, 1903; , pp. 19-38, 138-40; (Berlin, 1922), pp. 398- 412; (Petrograd, 1918), pp. 9-54; ( (New York, 1946), pp. 221-50. Their thesis was early challenged at a number of points by V. Akimov in his prophetic (Geneva, 1904) and, again, in greater detail in his (1st ed.; Geneva, 1904). Leonard Schapiro in his The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (London, 1960), pp. 27-35, is skeptical of the traditional account, but, in the main, its general outlines have been accepted by Western and Soviet historians. Dietrich Geyer, in his impressive new book Lenin in der Russischen Sozialdemokratie (Cologne, 1962), which I received some months after the completion of this article, shares many of the conclusions advanced here (see particularly pp. 192-94).

5 (Geneva, 1896), p. 8. This brochure carries the date 1896 but was actually published late in 1897.

6 The Group for the Liberation of Labor will henceforward usually be referred to as the Group; and the Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad, as the Union (it should be remembered that the character of the Union changed in November, 1898, when it passed under the control of the “young opposition” and began to publish Rabochee delo).

7 P. B. Akselrod's introduction to Lenin (Geneva, 1898); (Geneva, 1899); G. V. Plekhanov's introduction to his Vademecum.

8 The review of , No.1, pp. 139- 42; the appendix to the “Credo” and “The Protest of the Seventeen, ” , No. 4-5, pp. 24-27; and (Geneva, 1900).

9 , No. 1, pp. 141-42.

10 (Geneva, 1900), p. 22.

11 See Lenin's letters of 1898 and 1899 to Plekhanov and Potresov, (Moscow and Leningrad, 1928), pp. 33-48; and also Martov's account of his eagerness to rebut publicly some of the theses advanced in Akselrod's (Geneva, 1898), , pp. 399-402. Riazanov and Steklov, politiki but never Iskrovtsy, both saw Martov in the years 1897-99 as a “typical economist. (Geneva, 1903), pp. 143-44, and , No. 17, 1923, p. 203.

12 The second letter of Grishin, see Vademecum, p. 35.

13 , No. 4, p. 4; Sept., 1899, pp. 3 ff.; , No. 11, p. 1. K. M. Takhtarev explains this inconsistency by the rapid turnover of the journal's editorial group, (St. Petersburg, 1921), pp. 76-96.

14 On the November Congress, see (Geneva, 1899); the “Bundist” Der Yiddishe Arbeiter, No. 7, p. 5; and the eyewitness accounts of Zasulich and Akselrod, (Moscow and Leningrad, 1926), VI, 225; (Moscow, 1925), II, 100.

15 See Plekhanov's introduction to his (Geneva, 1892); his of the same year; Akselrod's articles of 1897-98 and the in Vademecum.

16 On these early—and poorly documented—disputes, see , I, 27-30; 72-97; the letters of 1893 from Zasulich to Akselrod in the Akselrod Archive (to which I was generously given full access by the International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam); the letters of 1894 from Plekhanov to Engels, ed. and introd. by , No. 11-12, 1923; .., pp. 70-74; 0. A. (Moscow and Leningrad, 1927), pp. 25-38.

17 Innumerable examples could be cited to illustrate this feeling of the Group that a true Russian revolutionary, if not necessarily a Great Russian, should at least talk and behave like one. For instance, Vera Zasulich in support of Ivanshin's application for membership in the Union pointed out that he was “a genuine Russian, a St. Petersburg man” (isty russak, peterburzhets), ., VI, 213. In another letter she praised the Jewish “Bund, ” centered at Vilna, for its rapid recovery from the mass arrests it had suffered in July, 1898—she called it a “jack-in-the-box” and added: “It is a shame that, active people as they are, they are not Russians [russkie], but one has to give them their due” (ibid., p. 220). Lenin was astonished when he met Plekhanov in August, 1900, to hear him declare that “the ‘Bund’ is not a social-democratic organization, but simply an organization of exploitation—to exploit the Russians. A Russian [russkaia] Party must be Russian and not give itself into captivity to the tribe of Gad. (5th ed.; Moscow, 1959), IV, 338-39.

18 For example, the quarrel between Plekhanov and Kremer. , No. 2, 1908, pp. 133-34; and Medem, V. in Arkadi, zamelbukh tsum andenk fon Arkadi Kremer (Yiddish) (New York, 1942), p. 234.Google Scholar

19 In a letter of 1887, Akselrod wrote to Plekhanov that as their young comrades abroad were “people who have not been through the revolutionary school, it would suit us better to utilize their forces in this manner [in a Union] rather than to accept them formally into the Group.” , 1, 27.

20 i n a letter of Mar. 13, 1893, Zasulich wrote to Akselrod that she was opposed to the Group's joining the Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad, which was then being planned, because it was impossible to find “true-believing” (pravovernye) Social Democrats among the younger generation. She specifically included in this condemnation no less a person than Liubov Akselrod-“Orthodox, ” who became known as a lifelong and loyal ideological disciple of Plekhanov. (The letter is in the Akselrod Archive, Amsterdam.)

21 That is, the “Sotsial-demokraticheskaia biblioteka” of Grozovsky and Krichevsky, and the publishing project of Kurnatovsky and Ermansky which brought out the pamphlet The Workers’ Day.

22 See Plekhanov's letter to Engels, May 16, 1894, , No. 11-12, 1923, pp. 18-19.

23 Ibid., p. 16.

24 On this meeting see (Moscow and Leningrad, 1925), pp. 21-22.

25 … , I, 265-75.

26 , Op. Clt., p. 33.

27 This agreement is mentioned by Krichevsky in his supplement to …, pp. 74-75, and by Zasulich in her letter to Plekhanov of May 25, 1898, ., VI, 207.

28 Akselrod's reluctance to undertake the publication of the Listok emerges clearly from the letters addressed to him in the latter half of 1896 by Koltsov and Bukholts (Akselrod Archive, Amsterdam).

29 ., VI, 205.

30 …, II, 33.

31 Ibid., p. 19.

32 On this hostility to Koltsov, see his own letter to Akselrod of March 1, 1898 (Akselrod Archive, Amsterdam) and E. D. Kuskova, (New York), July 24, 1954. Among those who disliked Koltsov—despite his ideological loyalty to Plekhanov—was Zasulich. In a letter to Plekhanov, for instance, she wrote that “unlike our Ginzburg [Koltsov], Grishin is a man who is entirely taken up with the interests of the cause and is utterly unconcerned with place, rank, medals and petty conceit.” ., VI, 205.

33 ibid., IV, 252. 34Ibid., VI, 187.

35 This fact was mentioned by Koltsov in a letter to Akselrod in the latter half of 1897 (Akselrod Archive, Amsterdam).

36 ., VI, 180.

37 I n a letter to Plekhanov of Mar. 13, 1898, Akselrod referred to these plans to remove Koltsov as “a revolution prepared by V. Iv. [Zasulich], myself and the Berliners.“ … , I, 206.

38 Ibid., p. 182.

39 Ibid., p. 200.

40 For example, “We desire as wide a development as possible of such workers’ literature as Rabochaia mysl'” (V. Zasulich in No. 7, p. 21).

41 , 8-43; . 7., VI, 204-12.

42 See the letters from Kuskova to Grishin reproduced in , No. 74 (Mar., 1928), pp. 154 fit. The brochure, prepared by Prokopovich with the assistance of Kuskova, was eventually published in Plekhanov's Vademecum.

43 Vademecum, p. 51.

44 Ibid., p. 44.

45 ibid., p. 59n.

46 …, II, 18. In a later letter, Plekhanov described Prokopovich as an “archswindler and supreme rogue [arkhiplut i protobestiia]” (ibid., p. 39). According to Akselrod, Plekhanov was now ready “to wage war—and war alone—regardless of us, without us“ (ibid., p. 35).

47 Vademecum, p. 60.

48 Ibid., pp. 35-36. Zasulich seems on occasion to have sympathized with this argument. In a letter of June, 1898, Akselrod wrote to Plekhanov that she considered “the tone and the wiles of S. N. [Prokopovich] to be normal in an opponent by which she means a comrade differing on tactical details.” … , IT, 42.

49 , No. 74, p. 162.

50 ., VI, 207-8.

51 Ibid., p. 233.

52 On Grishin's attempts to persuade Prokopovich first to modify his brochure and then to withdraw permission for its publication see ibid., pp. 213-14. Plekhanov's introduction to his Vademecum, p. 26; …, II, 42-43.

53 No. 9-10, Nov., 1898, was prepared by Ivanshin and the “youngsters, ” although final editorial responsibility remained with Zasulich. ., VI, 228-31.

54 ibid., pp. 225, 236-37, 240.

55 In the following articles, members of both camps within the Union discussed Rabochaia mysl': Zasulich's book review, No. 7 (Apr., 1898); Ivanshin's book review, No. 9-10 (Nov., 1898); , No. 4-5 (early 1899); and , No. 4-5 (Dec, 1899). The unqualified praise of Zasulich was followed by the very cautious criticism of Ivanshin; that, by the more outspoken attack of Plekhanov's disciple, Koltsov; and that, in turn, by the fullblooded criticism of Sibiriak-Teplov.

56 Akselrod wrote to Plekhanov that “with the publication of the ‘Resolution’ [the Protest of the Seventeen] Grishin and Co. have tricked us.” … , II, 100.

57 Ibid., p. 72.

58 ibid., p. 86.

59 ibid., p. 93.

60 …, p. 51.

61 In his letter of Oct. 23-24, 1899, Akselrod wrote to Plekhanov that he had “received news that you have quarreled with Ivanshin … and that you have declared war on him.“ …, II, 96.

62 Ibid., p. 110.

63 Ibid., p. 118.

64 Unlike Potresov, Martov and even Lenin were long ignorant of the split in the movement and were therefore slow to promise support. See , pp. 401-3, 408- 12; Potresov's letter to the Group, V, 149-51; Lenin's letters to Potresov and Plekhanov, , pp. 33-48; and Lenin's sharply contrasting articles of 1897- 99: , his letter to the editors of , see IV, 179-81, and his ibid., pp. 240-73.

65 VI, 250.

66 ., IV, 337.

67 This view was strongly argued by V. Akimov in his Professor Allan Wildman in his recently completed Ph.D. thesis, which traces in detail the organizational and ideological development of the labor movement in Russia during the 1890's, has substantiated Akimov's argument. His work includes a thorough and rewarding study of the material published since Akimov's time. See Allan Wildman, “The Proletarian Prometheans: The Young Social-Democrats of Russia and the Workers’ Movement, 1894-1901, “ unpub. Ph.D. diss. (Chicago, 1961).

68 In a letter of late 1897 to the editors of the Kiev Rabochaia gazeta, Plekhanov wrote that he might contribute an article on the current tactics of the movement in Russia, but he avoided making any definite commitment and for the time being merely recommended Akselrod's articles. On this episode, see , No. 19, 1926, pp. 208 ff.

69 As early as 1904 Akimov remarked on this fact: “During his life, Plekhanov has made two unforgivable and unjustifiable mistakes. When … ‘economism, ’ devoted to its everyday concerns, underestimated our political tasks [and] narrowed our program … he remained silent. When the brochure Ob agitatsii appeared, he remained silent; when it was printed on his press, he remained silent and only six years later, when a new era had begun, did he say: ‘I am very sorry, but there is no doubt that the brochure was written by intelligent and earnest people, but it contains the seeds of ‘economism.’ Then the bow was bent in the other direction…. In Lenin's booklet [Chto delat'?], the basic principles of scientific socialism were distorted. He remained silent.” … , p. 72.

70 , No. 10, 1906, p. 326n.

71 , p. 10.

72 … , p. 52