V. I.

Lenin

The Split in the Russian Social-Democratic Duma Group [2]

Dear Comrades, In issue No. 266 of your newspaper, you published an article by your
“Russian correspondent” on the split in the Russian Social-Democratic
Duma group. Unfortunately, that article is far from objective and in a
certain respect may mislead the German reader. We hope, Comrades, that you
will respond to our request to publish this brief denial so that German
workers and the fraternal German party will be correctly informed on these
elementary facts.

1)
Your Russian correspondent begins by saying that Social-Democracy in Russia
“suffers from fragmentation into many organisations, groups and
trends”. This in itself is absolutely untrue. Every Russian
Social-Democrat and, in general, everyone interested in the historical
struggle in Russia, knows that at present in the Russian working-class
movement there are only two trends, two leading newspapers in St. Petersburg and two political lines—the Marxists and the
liquidators. The former, i.e., the Marxists, publish in St. Petersburg the
daily newspaper Za Pravda (very recently the government destroyed
their second newspaper in Moscow Nash Put ). The latter publish
Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta in St. Petersburg. There are no other “trends” of any kind in the Russian working-class movement;
even among Russian students abroad and among émigrés all
other intermediate, so-called “trends” are disappearing. Every Russian
Social-Democrat today has to choose between the Marxists and the
liquidators.

2)
Your “Russian correspondent” defines the difference between the Russian
Marxists and the liquidators as being the same as that between radicals and revisionists in Germany, as being the
same as the difference “between a Bebel or a Ledebour on the one hand and
a Frank or a David on the other”. But that is not quite true. The Russian
liquidator, it goes without saying, supports the revisionist platform. He
has adopted the worst features of West-European opportunism. Nevertheless,
there is a substantial difference between the liquidators and the
revisionists. A Frank or a David would never assert that the existence of
the present German Social-Democratic Party and its organisation is
“harmful”. Our liquidators, however, are struggling against the very
existence of the Party, they are actually destroying (“liquidating”) its
underground organisation, they struggle even against its decisions during
(political) strikes, and as a reward for this activity enjoy the applause
and whole-hearted support of the entire Russian bourgeoisie.

3)
Your correspondent writes that “a political disagreement in the Duma
group” between the six Marxists and the seven deputies with liquidator
tendencies emerged only on one occasion. But that is not so. Disagreements
occurred at every step, as has been incontrovertibly proved by the
St. Petersburg working-class press. Things went so far that the seven, by a
majority of one, voted to renounce the Programme of our Party. In the very
first political declaration proclaimed from the Duma rostrum, the seven
deputies renounced before the whole of Russia the Programme adopt ed at the
Second Party Congress in 1903. To the joy of those nationalist elements
(the Bund) that adhere to the liquidators, they declared that Russian
Social-Democrats defend what is known as “cultural-national
autonomy”. The Party, however, rejects this demand, which in Russia is
supported by almost all bourgeois nationalists. When the Programme of the
Party was being elaborated this demand was rejected by all Russian
Social-Democrats. Quite recently Plekhanov described this demand as the
“adaptation of socialism to nationalism ”. The six Marxist
deputies made a sharp protest against this betrayal of the Programme. The
seven deputies, however, stuck to their decision, which was directed
against the Party.

4)
Your correspondent says it can only be proved “in directly” that the six
Marxist deputies represent the majority of the working class. This is absolutely untrue. We shall quote a
few exact figures to show how many workers are represented by the
six and how many by the seven.

| Gubernia | Name of Marxist deputy | Number of workers according to factory inspectorate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| St. Petersburg | Badayev | 197,000 |
| Moscow | Malinovsky | 351,000 |
| Vladimir | Samoilov | 205,000 |
| Ekaterinoslav | Petrovsky | 118,000 |
| Kostroma | Shagov | 91,000 |
| Kharkov | Muranov | 46,000 |
| | Total | 1,008,000 |

| Gubernia | Other deputies | Number of workers according to factory inspectorate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Warsaw | Jagiello | 78,000 |
| Don Region | Tulyakov | 59,000 |
| Ufa | Khaustov | 37,000 |
| Taurida | Buryanov | 20,000 |
| Irkutsk | Mankov | 13,000 |
| Tiflis | Chkheidze | 5,000 |
| Kars Region | Chkhenkeli | 2,000 |
| | Total | 214,000 |

The entire worker curia is represented by Marxist deputies. The six Marxist deputies represent a number of workers that is
five times greater, by a conservative estimate, titan that
represented by the seven who favour liquidationism.

Is this an “indirect” proof?

Here are some more figures on the number of workers’ groups
supporting the legal press of the Marxists and of tile liquidators by the
collection of funds.

| | Pravda | Moscow newspaper | Total for Marxist press | Liquida- tors’ newspaper |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1912 . . . . . . . . . . | 620 | 5 | 625 | 89 |
| 1913 to April 1 . . . . | 309 | 129 | 438 | 139 |
| 1913, from April to Oc- tober . . . . . . | 1,252 | 261 | 1,513 | 328 |
| Totals for the two years | 2,181 | 395 | 2,576 | 556 |

These figures were published in the St. Petersburg newspaper Za Pravdu
No. 22, [1] and no one has disputed them . Your correspondent should have known
them. Contributions from groups are always acknowledged in both newspapers,
and the figures are regarded by our enemies in the bourgeois camp as
evidence of the alignment of forces of the two trends.

Here, too, the figures show that the Marxists are supported by five
tunes as many workers’ groups as the liquidators.

Can this be called “indirect” proof?

Unlike the legal Social-Democratic parties in Western Europe, we cannot
at the present time publish the exact strength of our membership. Nevertheless, we also have direct proof of whom the workers
support.

In the Second Duma, among the twenty-three deputies from the worker
curia (all Social-Democrats) eleven (i.e., 47 per cent) were Bolsheviks. In
the Third Duma, four out of eight, i.e., 50 per cent were Bolsheviks. In
the Fourth Damn, six out of nine, i.e., 67 per cent. Perhaps these data on
the elections to three Dumas in five years (1907–12) are
also “indirect proofs”?

Now that a statement of the six against the seven has been published in
the press, all trade unions that have expressed an opinion are on the side
of the six deputies against the seven. Every day the Marxist newspaper in
St. Petersburg publishes numerous resolutions of many workers, elected
representatives, trade unions, and workers’ cultural and educational
organisations that support the six deputies.

The six workers’ deputies, who represent the whole working class of Russia, have
formed their own Social-Democratic workers’ group in the Duma, which in all
respects submits to the will of worker Social-Democrats. The seven deputies act
as an “independent” group. The six workers’ deputies have proposed
to the seven an agreement for work in the Duma. Up to now the seven have
bluntly rejected the proposal. An agreement, however, is inevitable.

Such is the true state of affairs.

Editorial Board of the Central Organ of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party —“ Sotsial-Demokrat ”

---
Notes:
[1]
See pp. 461 and 465 of this volume.— Ed .

[2]
This article was written in answer to a slanderous version of the split
in the Russian Social-Democratic Duma group that was published unsigned in
the German Social-Democratic Leipziger Volkszeitung on November 15
(N.S.), 1913.

Lenin tried to acquaint the International Social-Democratic movement,
and especially the German Social-Democrats, with the true state of affairs
in the working-class movement in Russia, but the opportunist leadership of
the German Social-Democratic Party did not print articles by Bolsheviks in
Vorw\"arts , its central organ. Leipziger Volkszeitung alone published the article after a long delay, which it explained as due
to lack of space and “other reasons”.