We were greatly astonished to read in No. 7 of *Zhivoe Delo* a reprint from *Rech'* of the querulous statement of Mr. Beloussov.{83} That *Rech'* accepted this declaration from a new turncoat is nothing surprising. It is natural for *Rech'* to print the outbursts of a former Social-Democrat, as if the Social-Democratic Duma faction's evaluation of his defection had been dictated by a "spirit of revenge." But why does *Zhivoe Delo* reprint this? And is it not strange to see in that same *Zhivoe Delo* an article "On the Withdrawal of Deputy Beloussov" in which sugary speeches are made to the effect that "we should not be troubled by those instances of desertion that have occurred"?

On the one hand, *Zhivoe Delo* "does not consider itself entitled to assess Beloussov's step until the motives that guided him have been made public." On the other hand, it does stop anyway—halfway—speaking with grimaces about "such desertion"!

What is the point of this game? Is it not high time that the press fulfill its duty of open discussion of facts of political significance?

The Duma Social-Democratic faction unanimously declared that Mr. Beloussov ought to resign immediately from his deputy mandate, since he was elected to the Duma by Social-Democratic votes and had been in the Duma Social-Democratic faction for four and a half years.

Mr. Beloussov publishes a reply in *Rech'*, completely avoiding the essence of the matter. But the public opinion of conscious workers must not allow this question to be passed over in silence. If Mr. Beloussov wishes to keep quiet, we have no right to be silent. What is the point of a workers' press, if not for the discussion of facts important for the Duma representation of the working class?

Is it permissible from the standpoint of the duties of any democrat if a deputy elected as a Social-Democrat and who has been in the Social-Democratic Duma faction for four and a half years withdraws from the faction a few months before elections, without withdrawing from the Duma? Here is a question of general significance. Not a single democrat conscious of his duties to his constituents—not in the sense of the duties of a "petitioner" for local interests, but in the sense of the duties of a political figure who appeared before the whole people in elections under a definite banner—not a single democrat will deny that this question is a matter of principle and of extreme importance.

Let all workers who read the workers' press and are interested in the question of workers' representation in the State Duma treat with the greatest attention the withdrawal of Mr. Beloussov, think over and discuss this question. One cannot be silent. It is unworthy of a conscious worker to be silent in such cases. One must know how to defend one's right, the right of every elector, that the deputies chosen by them remain faithful to their banner, that they do not dare to desert with impunity.

Is the Duma faction right that a deputy who has been in it for four and a half years and was elected to the State Duma with Social-Democratic votes is obligated, upon withdrawing from the faction now, to withdraw from the Duma? Yes! The Social-Democratic faction is absolutely right! If we stand not merely in words but in deed for the unity, cohesion, integrity, and principled steadfastness of working-class representation, we must declare our opinion, we must, all of us and each one, individually and collectively, address both *Zvezda* and the Duma faction with letters (which must be communicated to the local press as well), that we decisively and irrevocably condemn Mr. Beloussov's action, that not only every supporter of the working class but every democrat ought to express condemnation of such actions. Just think what kind of "people's representation" it will be if deputies, elected under a definite banner, who have served under it for nine-tenths of the Duma session, at the eve of elections will declare: I withdraw from the faction, but I remain a deputy, I wish to remain a "people's" representative!

Pardon me, sir turncoat! What people do you now represent? Not the one that elected you as a Social-Democrat! Not the one that saw you for 9/10 of the Duma session in the ranks of the Social-Democratic Duma faction! You are not a representative of the people, but a deceiver of the people, because in the time remaining before the elections it is impossible, physically impossible for the people (even if that people enjoyed complete political freedom) to learn now in fact, on the basis of your actions, who you are, what you have become, where you are heading, to whom or to what you have turned. You must withdraw from the Duma, or everyone and each shall be justified in treating you as a political adventurer and deceiver!

There are withdrawals and withdrawals. There are changes of views so obvious, definite, and open, so motivated by facts known to all, that disagreements in evaluating certain withdrawals do not arise, that there is nothing blameworthy or dishonorable in certain withdrawals. But is it not the case that it is not by chance, only now, and only in this given case, that the Duma faction has come forward with a printed protest! The Social-Democratic faction speaks plainly, that Mr. Beloussov "expressed a wish that the fact of his withdrawal from the faction should not be made public." Mr. Beloussov rails in his reply, reprinted by *Zhivoe Delo*, but does not refute the fact. We ask: what should each worker think of a man who, upon withdrawing from the faction, expresses a wish to conceal his withdrawal? If this is not deception, then what in the world is called deception?

The Social-Democratic faction states plainly that "it is completely unable to discern the limits of the further evolution of its former member." Let the reader ponder over these most significant words! The Duma Social-Democratic faction speaks such serious things not about all who have withdrawn, but only about one given person who has withdrawn. This is a *votum* (a decision by vote) of complete lack of confidence. More than that. This is a warning to all electors, to all the people, that such-and-such a deputy cannot be trusted at all. The Social-Democratic Duma faction unanimously warns everyone and each one of this. Every conscious worker must now respond that he has received this warning, that he has understood it, that he shares it, that he will not silently stand by while such parliamentary customs (or rather: such parliamentary immorality) become established in Russia, in the circles of people who count themselves democrats, when deputies catch mandates like prey for "free" dealings with this prey. This has happened, this does happen in all bourgeois parliaments, and everywhere workers who have understood their historical role struggle against this, through struggle they educate themselves into their own, workers', deputies, not mandate-hunters, not dealers in parliamentary schemes, but trustees of the working class.

And let workers not allow themselves to be deceived by sophisms. Such a sophism is the reasoning of *Zhivoe Delo*: "we do not consider ourselves entitled to assess the step of T. O. Beloussov until the motives that guided him have been made public."

First, in the statement of the Duma Social-Democratic faction we read: "Mr. Beloussov motivated his withdrawal by the fact that the faction became a completely alien environment for him two years ago." Is this not a publication of the motives? Are these not plain Russian words? If *Zhivoe Delo* does not believe the statement of the faction, let it say so directly, rather than wriggling, squirming, and saying that it is "not entitled to assess" when the faction has already assessed, has already made public the motives, or the motive, which the faction considers the main one.

Second, in Mr. Beloussov's reply, published by the Cadet *Rech'* and the Liquidationist *Zhivoe Delo*, we read: "I will report that the faction in its statement said absolutely nothing (??!) about the real motives for my break with it. I know that circumstances beyond my control do not allow the faction to make public my disagreements with it, set forth both orally and in written explanation."

Look at what is happening here. The faction officially makes public Mr. Beloussov's motivation. Mr. Beloussov rails ("insinuations, slanders," etc.), but does not refute this motivation. He declares that circumstances beyond control do not allow the faction to make public something else. (If circumstances really do not allow it to be made public, then why do you, my good sir, make public a hint at what cannot be made public? Is not your method approaching insinuation?) And *Zhivoe Delo*, reprinting Mr. Beloussov's glaring falsehood, which hits one in the face, immediately says on its own: "we are not entitled to assess until the motives are made public…," the publication of which "is not allowed by" circumstances beyond control!! In other words: for assessing Mr. Beloussov's withdrawal *Zhivoe Delo* will wait for the publication of that which (according to the statement of Mr. Beloussov himself) cannot be published.

Is it not plain that *Zhivoe Delo*, instead of exposing the falsehood of Mr. Beloussov that it reprints, is covering up this falsehood?

We have little more to add. To refer to the non-publication of that which cannot be published means to expose oneself. But to assess that which has already been made public, which is already known, is necessary and obligatory for anyone who values the Duma representation of the working class. Mr. Beloussov assures us: "my withdrawal from the faction has not changed the direction of my political and public activity by a jot." These are empty words, repeated by all renegades. These words contradict the statement of the faction. We believe the Social-Democratic faction, not the turncoat. Regarding the "direction" of Mr. Beloussov, we, like the majority of Marxists, know one thing only: it was a sharply Liquidationist direction. Mr. Beloussov went so far in Liquidationism that the faction finally "liquidated" his connection with Social-Democracy. So much the better for it, for the workers, for the workers' cause.

And Mr. Beloussov's withdrawal from the Duma should be demanded not only by all workers but by all democrats.

*Zvezda* No. 17 (53), March 13, 1912. Signed: T.

Published according to the text of the newspaper *Zvezda*