V. I.

Lenin

Deputy T. O. Belousov’s Withdrawal from the Social-Democratic Group in the Duma

We were greatly surprised to find in No. 7 of Zhivoye Dyelo a reprint from Rech of Mr. Belousov’s acrimonious statement. [1] There is nothing surprising in the fact that
Rech opened its columns to this statement of the latest turn
coat. It is natural for Rech to print the outcries of a former
Social-Democrat who alleges that the appraisal of his defection given by
the Social-Democratic group in the Duma was prompted by “feelings of
revenge”. But why does Zhivoye Dyelo reprint this? And is it not
strange that the same Zhivoye Dyelo carries an article, “The
Withdrawal of Deputy Belousov”, with bitter-sweet statements to the effect
that “we must not be upset by the cases of desertion which have
occurred.”

Zhivoye Dyelo does “not deem it proper to go into an appraisal of Belousov’s step so long as the motives by which he was guided
have not been made public”. Nevertheless, it does attempt it ... but stops
half-way and merely pulls faces at “this kind of desertion”!

Why this game? Surely it is time for the press to do its duty by openly
discussing facts of political importance.

The Social-Democratic group in the Duma gave a its unanimous
opinion that the proper procedure for Mr. Belousov would ho immediately to resign his of flee as deputy since he was elected by the votes of
Social-Democrats and had been a member of the Social-Democratic group in
the Duma for four and a half years.

Mr. Belousov’s answer, printed in Rech , entirely evades this issue. But the voice of class-conscious workers
must not permit this question to be passed over in silence. Mr. Belousov may prefer to keep silent, but we have no right
to. What would be the use of the working-class press if it refrained from
discussing facts which are of importance to working-class representation in
the Duma?

Is it permissible, from the standpoint of the obligations of any
democrat, for a deputy who was elected as a Social-Democrat and
for four and a half years had belonged to the Social-Democratic group in
the Duma to withdraw from the group a few months before the elections,
without at the same time resigning from the Duma ? This is a
question of general interest. No democrat who is aware of his obligations
to his constituents—not in the sense of being a “solicitor” on behalf
of local interests, but of the obligations of a politician who in
the elections paraded before all the people under a definite banner—not a single democrat will deny that this is an
extremely important question of principle.

Let all workers who read the working-class press and who are interested
in the question of workers’ representation in the State Duma pay the
closest attention to Mr. Belousov’s withdrawal, let them ponder over and
discuss this question. They mast not keep silent . It would be
unworthy of a class-conscious worker to keep silent on an occasion like
this. The workers must learn to stand by their rights , by the
right of all voters to insist that deputies elected by them remain true to
their banner, their right to show these deputies that they dare not desert, that they cannot do so with impunity.

Is the Social-Democratic group in the Duma right in insisting that a
deputy who has belonged to it for four and a half years, and who was
elected to the State Duma by Social-Democratic votes, is in duty bound, now that he has withdrawn from the group, to resign from the Duma as
well? Yes, it is absolutely right! If we are for unity, solidarity,
integrity and loyalty to principles on the part of working-class
representatives, not only in words, but in fact , then we must
voice our opinion, we must, each and every one of us, individually and
collectively, write to

Zvezda and to the Duma group (also sending copies of the letters
to the local press) stating that we emphatically and irrevocably condemn
Mr. Belousov’s conduct, that not only every supporter of the working class,
but every democrat as well, must condemn conduct of this
kind. What, indeed, will our “popular representation” be like,
if deputies who were elected under a definite banner and who during
nine-tenths of the Duma sessions professed allegiance to that banner,
declare on the eve of new elections : “I withdraw from the group,
but I retain my mandate, I desire to remain a representative of
the ‘people’”!

Not so fast, Mr. Turncoat! What people do you now represent?
Surely not the people that elected you as a Social-Democrat!
Not the people who, for nine-tenths of the Duma sessions, saw you
in the ranks of the Social-Democratic group in the Duma! You are not a
representative of the people but a deceiver of the people; for during the
time left to the elections it is impossible , physically
impossible, for the people (even if they enjoyed complete political
liberty) to study from the facts, on the basis of your conduct,
who you are, what you have become, where you have landed, who or what is attracting you. You are in duty bound
to quit the Duma, otherwise everyone will have a right to treat you as a
political adventurer and a fraud!

There may be many reasons for a withdrawal. There may be a change of
views so obvious, definite, open, and motivated by universally known facts,
as to prompt a withdrawal which raises no doubts, in which there is nothing
reprehensible or dishonourable. But, surely, it is not an accident that at
present, and only at present, only in this case, has the
Duma group published a protest in the press! The Social-Democratic group
states openly that Mr. Belousov “expressed the desire that the fact of his
withdrawal from the group should not be made public”. In his answer, re
printed by Zhivoye Dyelo , Mr. Belousov is abusive, but he does not
deny the fact. We ask: what must every worker think of a man who, while
leaving the group, expresses the desire to conceal his withdrawal? If this
is not deception, what is?

The Social-Democratic group states in plain words that it “is quite
unable to gauge the limits of the further evolution of its former member”. Let the reader give some thought to these highly
significant words! The Social-Democratic group in the Duma made no such
grave statements in the case of others who have left it. In the present
case it is, therefore, a vote of complete non-confidence. More than that,
it is a warning to all the voters, to the whole people that no confidence
whatsoever may be placed in this deputy. The Social-Democratic group has
issued this unanimous warning to all. It is now up to every class-conscious
worker to reply that he has heard the warning, has understood it and agrees
with it, that he will not tolerate in silence the creation in Russia, among
people professing to be democrats, of such parliamentary morals (or,
rather, parliamentary immorality) which allow deputies to grab mandates for
personal gain, for the purpose of “freely” manipulating these
spoils. This has been the case in all bourgeois parliaments, and everywhere
the workers who are aware of their historic role are fighting these
practices and, in the process of the struggle , are training their
own working-class members of parliament, men who are not out for mandates,
not out to profit by parliamentary manipulations, but are the trusted
envoys of the working class.

The workers should not allow themselves to he hood winked by
sophistry. One such piece of sophistry is the statement of Zhivoye Dyelo : “we do not deem it proper to go into an appraisal of
T. 0. Belousov’s step so long as the motives by which he was guided have
not been made public”.

To begin with, we read in the statement of the Social-Democratic group
in the Duma: “In justifying his withdrawal, Mr. Belousov explained that as
much as two years ago the group had become utterly alien to him.” Is not
this making a motive public? Is this not plain language? If Zhivoye Dyelo does not believe the statement of the group, let it say so
outright—let it not twist and squirm, let it not tell us that it does
“not deem it proper to go into”, when, as a matter of fact, the group has
already gone into and made public the motives, or the motive,
which it considers to be the most important.

Secondly, we read in Mr. Belousov’s reply printed in the Cadet
Rech and the liquidationist Zhivoye Dyelo : “I declare that in its statement the group said absolutely nothing [?!] about
the real motives of my rupture with it. I know that circumstances beyond
its control do not permit the group to make public my differences with it,
which I have set forth both in my oral and written statements”.

Now, see how it all works out. The group officially makes public what
Mr. Belousov represented as his motive. Mr. Belousov fulminates
(“insinuations, innuendoes”, etc.), but does not deny that this was what
he said; he declares that circumstances beyond the control of the group
do not permit the latter to “make public” something else. (If it
is true that circumstances do not permit it to be made public , why
do you, sir, make a public hint at what cannot be made public?
Does not your method smack of insinuation?) Yet Zhivoye Dyelo
reprints Mr. Belousov’s flagrant and crying untruth and adds, on its own
behalf: “We do not deem it proper to go into ... so long as the
motives ... have not been made public”—the very motives which cannot be
made public because circumstances beyond control “do not permit” it! In
other words, Zhivoye Dyelo will withhold its opinion of
Mr. Belousov’s withdrawal until the publication of things which (according
to the statement of Mr. Belousov himself) cannot be made public.

Is it not obvious that, instead of exposing the falsehood of
Mr. Belousov’s statement reprinted in its pages, Zhivoye Dyelo
covers up the falsehood?

There is little more that we can add. One who pleads the
non-publication of things which cannot be made public, thereby gives his
own game away. But it is indispensable and obligatory for everybody who
holds dear working-class representation in the Duma to appraise those
things which have already been made public and are already
known. Mr. Belousov asserts: “My withdrawal from the group has not altered
the tendency of my political and public activity one iota”. These are
hollow words. This is what all renegades say. These words contradict the
statement made by the group. We believe the Social-Democratic group, and
not the turncoat. As regards Mr. Belousov’s “tendency”, we, as well as
most other Marxists, know one thing—that it has been a sharply
liquidationist tendency. Mr. Belousov has gone to such lengths of
liquidationism that the group has finally “liquidated” his connections with the Social-Democratic
movement. All the better for the movement, for the workers, for the cause
of the workers.

And not only the workers but all democrats must demand Mr. Belousov’s
resignation from the Duma.

---
Notes:
[1]
In February 1912, the Menshevik-liquidator T. O. Belousov, deputy to
the Third Duma from Irkutsk Gubernia, notified the Social-Democratic group
of his withdrawal from the group. The group unanimously demanded that
Belousov immediately resign his seat, and published this demand in
Zvezda , No. 12, February 23, 1912. Two days later, Belousov
published a letter in Rech , which also appeared in Zhivoye Dyelo , in which he criticised the statement of the group and tried to
justify his withdrawal from it. The Irkutsk Stock-Exchange Committee at its
meeting of February 29 (March 13) discussed the question of Belousov’s
resignation from the Duma, and these representatives of commerce and
industry asked him to continue as a member of the Duma. Belousov expressed
his thanks to the Committee “for their support and faith in him”. When he
wrote his article Lenin was unaware of Belousov’s correspondence with the
Irkutsk Stock-Exchange Committee, but on Its publication Zvezda
informed its readers of the contents of this correspondence.

Following the appearance of Lenin’s article in Zvezda Belousov
sent a new statement to the group full of abuse of the revolutionary
Social-Democrats.