V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v25; en:CW/CW20;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

Workers who read the liquidationist press know how often the Russian liquidators have boasted that the Latvian Marxist workers were allegedly on their side. When the liquidators caused a split in the Social-Democratic group in the Duma, they also strenuously referred to the Latvians. No one, they wrote, would dare to accuse the Latvian Social-Democratic workers of denying the “underground”, and yet even these Latvian workers were on their side.

Those who knew the facts well had no doubt that the liquidators were… straying from the truth. When the question of the “Six” and the “Seven” came up for discussion among the Latvian workers, the vast majority of these workers began to come out in support of the “Six”. In *Pravda*{15} scores of resolutions were published from hundreds upon hundreds of Latvian Social-Democratic workers and from a whole number of groups in Riga, Mitau, Libau and other places—in defence of the position taken by the six workers’ deputies. After St. Petersburg, the most ardent response came from Riga, the largest workers’ centre of the Latvians. The resolutions of the overwhelming majority of the Riga workers breathed the most ardent devotion to the ideas of consistent Marxism and the most sincere indignation against liquidationism.

But one thing was true: the Latvian “upper circles” came out with great zeal for the liquidators and their “Seven”. The Latvian newspaper, which was then run by the liquidators, printed articles against the “Six” which, both in scandalous tone and liquidationist content, were in no way inferior to the articles in the St. Petersburg newspaper of the Russian liquidators.

True, only an insignificant number of Latvian workers supported the liquidationist campaign. But the “leading” body was on the side of the liquidators. And they continued to speak “in the name of” the organised Latvian proletariat…

But a short time passed. The representatives of all the Latvian Marxist workers assembled{16}. The question of the split in the Social-Democratic group in the Duma naturally occupied a very prominent place there. The “leading” liquidators did everything possible and impossible to support the “Seven” or at least to hush up the question. Alas! They did not succeed. The Latvian Social-Democratic workers, through their official representatives, adopted the following resolution (we quote it verbatim, with only unavoidable changes{17}):

**On the Split in the Social-Democratic Group in the State Duma**

“The representatives of all the Latvian Marxist workers express their profound regret at the split in the Social-Democratic group in the State Duma and find that this split was the inevitable consequence of the split outside the group, in the midst of the Russian Marxists.

They emphasise that the unity of the group is necessary, and recognise that this unity can be achieved:

1) by taking as the basis for unification those decisions which, before the split of the Marxist whole, were adopted by its supreme bodies: the programme of the Marxist whole, its rules, the London decisions, the decisions of the all-Russian representation of Marxists of December 1908 and January 1910;

2) by finding such a modus of joint activity as would guarantee the rights of the minority in the group.

The Latvian Marxist workers instruct their leading body to support all steps towards unification in accordance with the views expressed in this resolution.”

Such is the resolution. Its crux, as the reader sees, is that recognition of the old Marxist whole is made an obligatory condition for unification. With those who do not recognise the programme, the rules, the decisions of 1907, 1908 and 1910{18}, unity is impossible. That is what the Latvian workers said. In this lies the important significance of the Latvian resolution.

There is no doubt that conciliatory tendencies were very strong at the Latvian congress. The Latvians did not want to declare directly and openly to the liquidationist Duma group that it was a group of splitters violating the will of the workers, that it was obliged to surrender its Duma mandates. They did not want to do so because the Latvian minority does not go as far as the Russian liquidators, and because the Latvians still cherish some hopes of the possibility of reconciliation with the Chkheidze group.

But, in any case, the Latvian workers advanced precise and clear conditions for unity.

Indeed, how are the controversial questions that split the group decided from the standpoint of the Latvian resolution?

The Latvians demand, first, recognition of the programme. This means that they condemn the advancing from the Duma tribune of the notorious “cultural-national autonomy”. For the programme officially rejected this demand, for even the liquidator L. Martov admitted that “cultural-national autonomy” is poorly compatible with the programme. To make unity possible, the liquidators must renounce cultural-national autonomy. Such is the meaning of the Latvian answer to the first controversial question.

Next comes the dispute over the admission of Deputy Yagello to the group. How do the Latvian workers decide this dispute?

They say: look at the decision of December 1908. We open the corresponding document, look and read:

“On unification with the PPS ‘Left’.

Having heard the proposal of Comrade Mensheviks on unification with the PPS ‘Left’, the all-Russian representation of Marxists passes on to the next business without debate.” (See report, p. 46.)

The matter is clear. The all-Russian decision of 1908 would not hear of any unification with Yagello’s party. The liquidators violated this decision. Consequently, they must withdraw their splitting decision regarding Yagello.

Further, the Latvians demand recognition of all the principled decisions of December 1908 and January 1910 in general. What are these decisions, how do they assess liquidationism? We open the corresponding documents and read:

“Stating that in a number of places attempts are observed on the part of a section of the Party intelligentsia to liquidate the ‘underground’ and replace it with a formless unification within the framework of legality at all costs, even if the latter is purchased at the price of an open renunciation of the programme, tactics and traditions of the Marxist whole… finds it necessary to wage the most resolute struggle against liquidationist attempts and calls upon all truly Marxist workers, irrespective of factions and trends, to offer the most energetic resistance to these attempts.”

Thus the decisions of 1908 condemned liquidationism (see p. 38 of the report). The Latvians demanded recognition of these decisions.

Next come the decisions of January 1910. In them we read: “The historical situation of the Social-Democratic movement in the epoch of bourgeois counter-revolution inevitably engenders, as a manifestation of bourgeois influence on the proletariat… the denial of the illegal party, the belittling of its role and significance, attempts to curtail the programme and tactical tasks and slogans of the Marxist whole.”

Thus the decisions of 1910 condemned liquidationism. The Latvians again demanded from the liquidators recognition of these decisions.

The Latvian resolution was adopted unanimously. Even the Latvian liquidators who were present did not dare to vote against it. They received a sufficiently impressive lesson from the Latvian workers, who respect the “underground” and recognise the decisions of the old Marxist whole. To vote against this resolution would have meant challenging all the Latvian proletarians and losing the last supporters among the workers.

Such is the decision of the Latvian workers (over 3,000 organised workers were represented).

In a very polite form, without the slightest harsh word, but resolutely and insistently, the Latvian workers declared to the Chkheidze group:

“You want unity? Recognise the most important decisions of the old Marxist whole, withdraw your violations of the programme and the decisions of 1908–1910, repudiate those who have repudiated the ‘underground’, in a word, take your stand on the ground of Marxism.”

The last genuinely workers’ organisation, in whose name the Chkheidze group tried to speak, has turned away from that group. Behind the seven deputies, who are wavering towards liquidationism, there remain—as was to be expected—only handfuls of liquidators. Everything proletarian is leaving and has left them.

A group without workers—that is what the liquidationist group in the Duma is.

After the decision of the Latvians this is absolutely indisputable.