In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1. The Historiography of the Schism The historiography of the schism has often remained engulfed in the argumentation of the polemic itself. As can be foreseen, it was primarily dominated by the communist interpretation, which emphasized the opportunistic and heretical character of the Broads and was preoccupied with establishing a direct pedigree of continuity between Narrow socialism and communism. This hermeneutic framework stressed the disinterestedness and the theoretical orthodoxy of the Narrow Socialists in contrast with the heterodox and opportunistic attitude of the Broads. The most common argument—initially advanced by Dimitŭr Blagoev—regarded Broad socialism as a direct reflex of the revisionist debate.11 Blagoev was right in identifying the ideological matrix of Sakăzov’s dissent to the discussion initiated by Bernstein. However, the relevant issue here is the question of reflex or adaptation. (Here, reflex is understood as the exact mirroring or copying of a process taking place elsewhere, and adaptation is interpreted in the sense of an eclectic sorting of relevant topics and their adjustment in a local context .) Despite common references to Bernstein, Sakŭzov never openly declared himself an adherent. Most probably, he wished to avoid categorizations that would implicate him directly in the German dispute, and label him an outright “revisionist” epigone. Perhaps another reason was his own “conviction” that he was not espousing the ultimate theoretical axioms of revisionism, but was rather “picking” out the aspects he considered most fit and valid for the Bulgarian context. In fact what is striking about the inception period of the “Broad heresy” (1900–1903) is not its ideological dependence, but rather its ideological independence. More convincing is the explanation of Armando Pitassio, who attributes Sakŭzov’s ideological experimentation to an intensive search for appropriate answers to the problems of Bulgarian society. Judging the correspondence between Sakŭzov and Bernstein, Pitassio concludes , “that it was more limited in quantity, more poor in contents, more formal and finally took place much later,” than Sakŭzov’s cor- 165 1. The Historiography of the Schism respondence with Kautsky. It was, rather, the necessity to find answers “to the needs of democracy, economic development, the strengthening of the proletariat, the relationship to the countryside, [that] push[ed] Sakŭzov, like other Socialists close to him, to search for answers in various directions.” Pitassio’s argument is even more convincing when he relates it to the translating activity of the Broads. Sakŭzov translated Kautsky from German and then worked on a translation of Isaev, the Russian humanist Socialist. Similarly, Dimitŭr Dimitrov [a Broad, and the principle translator of Bernstein into Bulgarian] undertook, along with Vasil Kolarov, a translation of a fierce polemic against Bernstein. Indeed, this translating activity does not indicate a one-sided ideological preference.12 Sina Maria Dubowoj argues for the outright failure of revisionism to implant itself in Bulgaria as such, and concludes that “theoretical disputes in Western-European social democracy were used merely as polemical weapons by both factions in the internal disputes within the Bulgarian socialist movement, both before and after the split.”13 Dubowoj pointedly identifies the popular practice of libelous campaigns; however, due to the fact that has not delved seriously into the ideological contents of the dispute between the two factions, she fails to take into account the instances of ideological kinship between revisionism and Broad socialism. The chronological horizon overlaps more or less. The revisionist debate in Germany reached its peak precisely at the end of the 1890s. On the other hand, it could be strongly argued that the theoretical “revolt” of the Broads was as much triggered by preoccupations and impasses at the local level as by theoretical impulses from the outside. What is sure is that the debate within German social democracy provided for a precedence of dissent, that is, the possibility to disagree on principles. A second basic argument relates “Broad” socialism to opportunism . In their hunt for electoral success and parliamentary careers, the Broads abandoned Marxist principles and tried to attract the masses, adulterating thus the character of the party from “proletarian” to “petty bourgeois.” Despite the ideologically loaded character of this explanation , it merits some serious consideration. What was the political profile of the Social Democratic Party? What function did it occupy in the Bulgarian public sphere? Which part of the population was inclined to be its constituency? How can the initial electoral successes of the Social Democrats in almost exclusively agrarian districts be explained?14 [3.17.28.48] Project MUSE...

Share