V. I.

Lenin

Draft Platform for the Fourth Congress of Social-Democrats of the Latvian Area [2]

The revolutionary upsurge of the working-class movement in Russia, the
sharpening of the political crisis in the country, the economic crisis that
will begin in the near or not far distant future, the wavering and
confusion among the many groups and circles of Social-Democrats—all this
compels class-conscious Latvian workers to appeal to their comrades to make
intensive preparations for the convocation of the Fourth Congress of
Social-Democrats of the Latvian Area and to engage in a thorough discussion
of the tasks now confronting revolutionary Social-Democracy.

A group consisting of members of various Latvian Social-Democratic
organisations proposes to all Social-Democratic organisations, as material
for discussion, the following platform of views on the most
important questions of principle, questions that concern the very existence
of our Social-Democratic Labour Party, and the whole direction its
activities should take—in particular those questions which the present
Central Committee of the Latvian Social-Democratic Party stubbornly ignores
or, we are convinced, decides in correctly.

APPRAISAL OF THE POLITICAL SITUATION AND THE GENERAL TACTICAL TASKS OF
THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS

It is an open secret that the prevalence of counter-revolution has
brought about a deep-going ideological disintegration and a confusion of
mind among Social-Democrats. Everywhere there are Social-Democrats who, as
Comrade
An [3] so aptly put it ( Luch No. 95), are wandering about like lost sheep. Views are expressed in the Social-Democratic press to the
effect that workers should not prepare for a revolution, that they should
not expect a revolution, that the democratic revolution is over, etc. The
so-called liquidators ( Nasha Zarya and Luch ), supported
by the present Central Committee of the Social-Democratic Party of the
Latvian Area, regularly base their tactical arguments on such views,
although no responsible group or organisation of the R.S.D.L.P. has
expounded them in a manner that is in any way definite, precise and formal.

In the press of this trend we meet at every turn with references to the
fundamental difference between Russia’s present state system and the
pre-October system (as though we no longer needed a revolution to win for
ourselves the elements of political liberty), or comparisons of the present
tactics of the Russian Social-Democrats with those of European
Social-Democrats living under a constitution, the tactics, for example, of
the Austrians and Germans in the seventies of the nineteenth century (as
though a constitution already existed in Russia, as Milyukov thinks it
does), or the promulgation of the slogan of an open workers’ party and
freedom to form associations (a slogan that could be understood only if
there existed the general foundation and the pillars of political liberty
and a bourgeois constitution in the country), and so on and so forth.

Under such circumstances, to refuse to give a precise definition of the
tactical tasks of Social-Democrats or an appraisal of the political
situation, or to postpone this appraisal or definition, would mean not only
not fighting against ideological confusion, disintegration, despondency and
lack of faith, it would mean directly assisting that disintegration and
giving indirect support to views that nullify the old revolutionary Party
decisions adopted by the Social-Democrats.

The R.S.D.L.P., however, has an accurate Party answer to these urgent
and fundamental questions. The answer was given in the resolution of
December 1908, which is a resolution binding on Party members and has not
been annulled by anyone.

The years that have passed since the resolution was adopted have fully
confirmed its correctness—its statements on the change in the nature of the autocracy, on the counter revolutionary
nature of liberalism, etc., and its conclusion that the autocracy continues
to exist, although in a partly renovated form, that the conditions that
gave rise to the 1905 Revolution are still there, that the
Social-Democratic Party is confronted with the old tasks that
demand a revolutionary solution and revolutionary tactics. The employment
of the Duma as a tribune, and of all legal opportunities, which is
Categorically demanded in the decisions of the same conference of the
R.S.D.L.P. (December 1908), must be effected entirely in the
spirit of these revolutionary tactics and in the name of the old
revolutionary tasks of the R.S.D.L.P. We therefore suggest that all
Social-Democratic organisations once more hold a thorough discussion of the
resolution, which was, incidentally, confirmed by the January 1912
Conference of the R.S.D.L.P., and propose to the Congress of Social-Democrats of the Latvian Area that it definitely confirm this resolution .

We call the serious attention of all comrades to the anti-Party method
of the August 1912 (liquidators’) Conference of “Social-Democratic
organisations”, which removed from the agenda the appraisal of the current
situation and the definition of general tactical tasks, thus throwing open
the door to every possible renunciation of revolutionary tasks (on
the excuse that “the forecast” concerning the revolution had not been
proved, etc.).

We protest in particular against the Bund, which played such an
important role at the August Conference, and which at its own Ninth
Conference went so far in renouncing revolutionary tasks as to withdraw the
slogan of a democratic republic and confiscation of landed estates!

THE QUESTION OF THE UNITY OF THE R.S.D.L.P.

The more widespread the economic and political struggle of the workers,
the more urgently they feel the need for unity. Unless the working class is
united, its struggle cannot be successful.

What is this unity? Obviously, the unity of the Social Democratic Party . All Latvian Social-Democratic workers belong to the
Social-Democratic Party and know full well that the Party is illegal, underground, and cannot be anything else.

There cannot, therefore, be any other way in which unity
in deed (not merely in word) can be achieved except from below, by
the workers themselves, in their underground organisations.

It is this demand for unity that the Congress of Social-Democrats of the Latvian Area must definitely recognise . It was, incidentally,
put forward by the February 1913 meeting held at the Central Committee of
the R.S.D.L.P.

If Luch answered such an appeal for unity by ridiculing “Lenin’s party”, and if the Bund (in the shape of “active
Jewish members of the working-class movement”) rejected the appeal, both
of them, the “Luchists” and Bund members, thereby proved their
allegiance to the liquidators.

Latvian social-Democratic workers, who recognise the illegal Party not
merely in word but in deed, will not allow themselves to be deceived by
legal orations in favour of unity. Let him who wants unity join the illegal
Party!

ATTITUDE TO THE LIQUIDATORS

The question of liquidationism, which was first brought up by Party
decisions and by the press abroad, has now been offered for the judgement
of all class-conscious workers in Russia. Latvian Social-Democratic workers
must also endeavour to ensure that there are no evasions or reservations on
this question, that it is presented clearly, discussed from all angles and
given a definite solution.

We have had enough fairy-tales about the liquidators being the
champions of an open movement. These tales have been refuted by
facts proving that Party members who are against the liquidators,
those who are unmistakably supporters of the underground movement, are
incomparably stronger than the liquidators in all spheres
of the open movement.

Liquidationism is the rejection or the belittling of the underground,
that is, the illegal (and only existing) Party. It is only the underground
that works out revolutionary tactics and takes those tactics to
the masses through both the illegal and the legal press.

The decisions adopted by the R.S.D.L.P. in December 1908 and
January 1910, which no one has annulled, and which are obligatory for all
Party members, clearly and precisely recognise the content of
liquidationism as described above, and roundly condemn it.

Nevertheless, Nasha Zarya and Luch continue preaching liquidationism. In Luch No. 15 (101) the growth of sympathy for
the underground on the part of the workers was declared
deplorable . In Nasha Zarya No. 3 (March 1913) the author
of that article (L. Sedov) emphasised his liquidationism more than ever . This was admitted even by An in Luch (No. 95)!
And the Luch editors, replying to An, defend the liquidator Sedov .

Latvian Social-Democratic workers must at all costs ensure that the
Congress of Social-Democrats of the Latvian Area resolutely condemns the liquidationism of “ Nasha Zarya ” and
“ Luch ”. The conduct of these periodicals has fully confirmed and
is daily continuing to confirm the correctness of the resolution on
liquidationism adopted at the meeting in February 1913 at the Central
Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.

THE QUESTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE LIQUIDATORS’ CONFERENCE AND ORGANISING
COMMITTEE BY THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE
LATVIAN AREA

The present Central Committee of the Social-Democratic Party of the
Latvian Area maintains that it supports the August Conference and the
Organising Committee not be cause they are liquidator institutions
but for the sake of unity in the R.S.D.L.P.

Such an answer could satisfy only children, and the Latvian
Social-Democratic workers are not children.

Those who organised the August Conference themselves invited
Plekhanov and the
Vperyod [4] group to it. Neither of them had taken part in the
January Conference, that is, they showed not merely in word but in
deed that they are neutral in the struggle between the trends.

And what did these neutral Social-Democrats say? Plekhanov and
Alexinsky forthrightly recognised the August

Conference to be a liquidators’ conference. The resolutions of that
conference show its liquidationist character to the full. Luch , by
announcing that it supports the decisions of the August Conference, is
preaching liquidationism.

Whom are the worker Social-Democrats of Russia following?

This was demonstrated by the elections to the Duma in the worker curia
and by the data on the working-class press.

In the Second Duma the Bolsheviks gained 47 per cent of the votes of
the workers’ curia (11 deputies out of 23); in the Third Duma they had 50
per cent (4 out of 8) and in the Fourth Duma they had 67 per cent (6 out of
9). The working-class press of the anti-liquidators ( Pravda and
the Moscow newspaper) is supported by 1,199 groups of workers as compared
with 256 groups supporting Luch .

And so, the present Central Committee of the Social-Democratic Party of
the Latvian Area, in the name of Latvian revolutionary worker
Social-Democrats, supports the liquidators against the obvious
majority of worker Social-Democrats in Russia!

An end must be put to this. We all recognise the under ground and
revolutionary tactics. We must support the Central Committee of the
R.S.D.L.P., which implements these tactics and which has behind it the
overwhelming majority of worker Social-Democrats in Russia both in
the under ground and in the open movement.

THE NATIONAL QUESTION

This question, both in its general theoretical, socialist presentation,
and from the practical, organisational point of view (the organisation of
our own Party) is in urgent need of discussion and solution by all
Social-Democratic organisations.

The liquidators’ conference in August 1912—as was admitted even by
the neutral Menshevik Plekhanov—contravened the Programme of the
R.S.D.L.P. in the spirit of “ adaptation of socialism to nationalism ”.

In fact, this conference recognised, on the proposal of the Bund, the
permissibility of the slogan of “cultural-national autonomy”, which was contrary to the decision taken by the Second Party
Congress.

This slogan (defended in Russia by all the bourgeois Jewish
nationalist parties) contradicts the internationalism of
Social-Democracy. As democrats, we are irreconcilably hostile to any,
however slight, oppression of any nationality and to any privileges for any
nationality. As democrats, we demand the right of nations to
self-determination in the political sense of that term (see the
Programme of the R.S.D.L.P.), i.e., the right to secede. We demand
unconditional equality for all nations in the state and the
unconditional protection of the rights of every national minority. We
demand broad self-government and autonomy for regions, which must be
demarcated, among other terms of reference, in respect of nationality too.

All these demands are obligatory for every consistent democrat, to say
nothing of a socialist.

Socialists, however, do not limit themselves to general-democratic
demands. They fight all possible manifestations of bourgeois nationalism , crude or refined. “National-cultural autonomy” is a
manifestation precisely of this type—it joins the proletarians
and bourgeoisie of one nation and keeps the proletarians
of different nations apart .

Social-Democrats have always stood and still stand for the
internationalist point of view. While protecting the equality of
all nationalities against the serf-owners and the police state we do not
support “ national culture ” but inter national culture,
which includes only part of each national culture—only the consistently
democratic and socialist content of each national culture.

The slogan of “national-cultural autonomy” deceives the workers with
the phantom of a cultural unity of nations, whereas in every nation today a
landowners’, bourgeois or petty-bourgeois “culture” predominates.

We are against national culture as one of the slogans of bourgeois
nationalism. We are in favour of the international culture of a fully democratic and socialist proletariat .

The unity of the workers of all nationalities coupled with the
fullest equality for the nationalities and the most consistently democratic
state system—that is our slogan, and it is the slogan of international
revolutionary Social-Democracy.

This truly proletarian slogan will not create the false phantom and
illusion of “national” unity of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie,
while the slogan of “national-cultural autonomy” undoubtedly does create
that phantom and does sow that illusion among the working people.

We, Latvian Social-Democrats, living in an area with a population that
is very mixed nationally, we, who are in an environment consisting of
representatives of the bourgeois nationalism of the Letts, Russians,
Estonians, Germans, etc., see with particular clarity the bourgeois falsity
of the slogan of “cultural-national autonomy”. The slogan of the
unity of all and every organisation of workers of all nationalities, tested in practice in our own Social-Democratic
organisation, is particularly dear to us.

Reference is frequently made to Austria in justification of the slogan
of “national-cultural autonomy”. As far as this reference is concerned it
must be remembered that: first, the point of view of the chief Austrian
theoretician on the national question, Otto Bauer (in his book The National Question and Social-Democracy ) has been recognised as an
exaggeration of the national factor and a terrible underestimation of the international factor even by such a cautious
writer as Karl Kautsky (see: K. Kautsky, Nationalit\"at und Internationalit\"at ; it has been translated into Russian); secondly,
in Russia only the Bund members, together with all Jewish
bourgeois parties, have so far defend ed “cultural-national autonomy”,
whereas neither Bauer nor Kautsky recognise national autonomy for the Jews, and Kautsky ( op. cit. ) declares
outright that the Jews of Eastern Europe (Galicia and Russia) are a caste and not a nation; thirdly, the
Br\"unu [1] national programme of the Austrian Social-Democratic Party
(1899) [5] does not fully recognise extra-territorial (personal)
national autonomy and goes only as far as to demand the union of all
national regions of one nationality throughout the state (Sec. 3 of the
Br\"unn Programme); fourthly, even this programme, obviously a compromise
(and unsatisfactory from the standpoint of internationalism), was a complete fiasco in Austria itself, because the compromise did not
bring peace but led, instead, to the secession of the Czech separatists; fifthly, these Czech
separatists, unanimously condemned at the Copenhagen Congress by the entire
International, declare the Bund type of separatism to be close to them
(see: Der Čechoslavische Sozial-demokrat No. 3, organ of the
separatists, which may be obtained gratis from Prague: Praha,
Hybernska 7); sixthly, Bauer himself demands the unity of Social-Democratic
political organisations of various nationalities in each locality . Bauer himself considers the “national system” of the
Austrian party, which has now led to a complete schism, to be
unstable and contradictory.

In short, references to Austria speak against the Bund and not
in its favour .

Unity from below, the complete unity and consolidation in each locality
of Social-Democratic workers of all nationalities in all working-class
organisations—that is our slogan. Down with the deceptive bourgeois,
compromise slogan of “cultural-national autonomy”!

We are against federation in the structure of our Party, too;
we are for the unity of local (and not only central) organisations
of Social-Democrats of all nations.

The Congress must reject both the slogan of cultural-national autonomy
and the principle of federation in the structure of the Party. The Latvian
Social-Democrats, like the Polish Social-Democrats, like the
Social-Democrats of the Caucasus throughout the period from 1898 to 1912
(for 14 whole years of Party history) must remain true to
Social-Democratic internationalism.

---
Notes:
[1]
Now Brno in Czechoslovakia.— Ed .

[2]
Lenin wrote this Draft Platform for the Latvian Bolsheviks in May 1913,
when preparations were being made to convene the Fourth Congress of the
Social-Democrats of the Latvian Area. It was a time when the struggle
between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in the Latvian Social-Democratic
Party had become sharper; all the central positions in the Party had been
seized by Menshevik liquidators and conciliators. The Latvian Bolsheviks
formed their own group with the support of Bolshevik-minded workers. Lenin
helped them in their struggle against the liquidationist leadership.

The Bolshevik leaders of the Latvian Social-Democrats set up their
centre abroad—the Bureau of Groups Abroad—and published Lenin’s
platform as a reprint from No. 8 of their Bilitens ( Bulletin ) under the heading “Our Platform for the Fourth
Congress of Social-Democrats of the Latvian Area”. The Draft Platform was
republished in issue No. 9–10 of the Bilitens . The editors of the
Bilitens , influenced by the conciliatory elements among them,
omitted the section of the platform dealing with the national question, and
made some alterations and deletions in other sections.

[3]
An —pseudonym of N. N. Jordania, leader of the Caucasian
Mensheviks.

[4]
Vperyod group—an anti-Party group consisting of otzovists,
ultimatumists, god-builders, empirio-monists (supporters of the reactionary
idealist philosophy of Mach and Avenarius); it was organised abroad in
December 1909 and was headed by A. Bogdanov and G. Alexinsky; there were
several small circles, mainly of intellectuals, in Paris, Geneva and
Tiflis. The views of the Vperyod group were, to use Lenin’s words, “a caricature of Bolshevism”. The group
found no support among the workers and disintegrated in 1913.

[5]
The programme referred to is the Austrian Social-Democratic Party’s
Programme on the National Question adopted at the Congress in Br\"unn
(Brno) in September 1899.