V. I.

Lenin

The liquidators’ journal Nasha Zarya No. 9 carried an article under this heading by G. Rakitin in which the author is forced
to admit that which the liquidators’ newspaper brushes aside in impotent
wrath. Rakitin is superior to the various F. D.’s because he at least tries
to think some things over and get an understanding of the issue
instead of treating the reader to boring invective.

“ The victory”—that is how Rakitin beams his article—“the victory won by the supporters of Pravda at the
general meeting of the St. Petersburg Metalworkers’ Union, and several
other facts that bear witness to the growing influence of Bolshevism in the
working-class milieu (especially in St. Petersburg) provide food for
thought; how has it come about that strongholds of the Menshevik trend, and
specifically of the so-called ‘liquidationism’, have begun to escape from
the influence of the trend that laid the foundation of open working-class
organisations in Russia, and that has alone worked actively in them during
the past few years?”

Notice has to be taken of this passage to show the reader a rare case
of “a bright interval” where the liquidators are compelled to admit the
truth. In the articles by F.D.& Co., Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta
merely frets and fumes when shown the exact. figures on the elections to
the Second, Third and Fourth Dumas, or on the collections made by workers’
groups, etc., figures which prove the dominance of the
Pravda trend among politically conscious (those participating in
political life) workers.

G. Rakitin admits the fact. He also admits the victory at the
metalworkers’ meeting and “ other facts ” (although he modestly
refrains from saying what those facts are—a method that is purely
literary-intellectual and is calculated to hide from the workers exact figures that would make
independent verification possible). Rakitin, in general, admits
“the growing influence of Bolshevism in the working-class milieu,
especially in St. Petersburg”; he admits that “strongholds” of
liquidationism “have begun to escape from the influence” of that
“trend”.

Rakitin strives to explain this fact, a sad one for the
liquidators, in a way most comforting to them.

What is his explanation?

“ The working-class masses” are going through a “Bolshevik stage of
the movement” admits C. Rakitin (p. 59). But “the working-class
intelligentsia”, he declares (p. 57) “are in the majority of cases
supporters of the so-called ‘liquidator’ trend”. Hence, of course, the
conclusion that “comforts” the liquidators—“the Bolshevik stage of the
movement” is a “temporary infatuation of the masses and the rising
generation of workers with Bolshevik slogans”, an influence “rather of
instinct and intuition than consciousness and calculation”; the addiction
of the working masses to “the primitive peasant world outlook”, the
“overestimation of the significance of spontaneous outbursts”; the
failure to understand the “flexible class tactics” (of the liquidators)
and its replacement by “the simplified tactics of Bolshevism”, etc., etc.

In short, the Nasha Zarya contributor provides a magnificent
explanation—Pravda’s majority is immature, undeveloped, spontaneous,
feeble and the liquidator minority is intellectualist, flexible,
politically conscious, etc. In exactly the same way all reactionary writers
always explain that the masses have democratic convictions because they are
foolish, undeveloped and so on, while the nobility and the bourgeoisie are
developed and intelligent!

But please show us, my dear Rakitin, where your proofs are. You
admitted yourself that facts bear witness to the victory of the
Pravda supporters, to the masses “going through a Bolshevik stage
of the movement”! Where are the facts proving that the overwhelming majority of the working-class intelligentsia support the
liquidators? Where are facts such as the elections to the State Duma, or
the number of collections by workers’ groups, or the victory of some list
of candidates in the trade unions?

Rakitin does not adduce a single fact, not even a single
argument!

We therefore permit ourselves to disagree with Rakitin. It is
gratifying to him, of course, to regard the Bolshevik working-class masses as undeveloped and stupid (“instinct and not
consciousness”) and the liquidator minority as developed and
intelligent. But to write history, to provide an explanation of the stages of the working-class movement basing oneself on what is
gratifying to the person of the historian and not on facts—that, if
Rakitin will excuse me, is simply amusing puerility. I cannot say, of
course, whether it is “instinct and intuition” that compel the liquidator
Rakitin to consider the liquidator minority particularly intelligent,
clever and advanced, but is it proper for a writer to be guided by
“instinct and intuition” and not by “ consciousness and calculation ”?

---
Notes: