V. I.

Lenin

How the Workers Responded to the Formation of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Group in the Duma [5]

It was natural that the open struggle against the liquidators should flare up more strongly than ever with the formation of
the independent Russian Social-Democratic Labour group in the Duma. A more
convenient and plausible excuse for the liquidators of the Party (and for
their overt and covert defenders) to shout about “unity” could not be
imagined. From the point of view of the man in the street, the whole issue
would seem to centre on the question whether one or two Duma groups want to
call them selves Social-Democratic. As to whose will one or the other group
is carrying out, what decisions the majority of the class-conscious and
organised workers have adopted, or what is the “underground”—the man in
the street is incapable of grasping this, and indeed shrinks from doing so.

Therefore, if there was any point on which the liquidators could count
on the sympathy of the man in the street and philistines, who do not care a
hang about parties, it was precisely on the point of what is known as the
“split” in the Social-Democratic group in the Duma. The outcries from
philistines who would call themselves Social-Democrats have never been so
loud and so piteous. The open nature of all these events made it much
easier for the workers and the public at large to appraise them, and
Pravda , in unison with the liquidators’ newspaper, has called upon
the class-conscious proletariat to express its opinion.

Letters, statements and resolutions from workers have begun to fill the
columns of both newspapers.

Many months have passed since the independent Russian Social-Democratic
Labour group in the Duma was formed (at the end of October 1913). The
campaign of resolutions in the respective newspapers, in favour of the Six
(Russian Social-Democratic Labour group) or of the Seven (the liquidators)
is now over.

The question arises, what are the results of this campaign? On this
point we have first of all the following statement by Mr. L. Martov in
Nasha Zarya No. 10–11:

“ What,” writes Mr. L. Martov, “was the proletariat’s attitude towards the split in the Duma group, which it had come to look
upon as a united whole? It is difficult [!?] to judge of this from the
figures given in the press. Over ten thousand workers expressed their
opinion on this question in Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta and in
Za Pravdu . Of this number, slightly more than half
[italics ours] approved of the way the Six had acted. But the significance
of this preponderance is diminished [listen to this!] by the fact that
opposition to the split and, consequently, support for the majority in the
Social-Democratic Duma group, was expressed by numerous Party groups,
including several which unite a relatively large number of workers.”
( Nasha Zarya , 1913, No. 10–11, p. 97.)

So much for Mr. Martov’s argument, which for the thousandth time
glaringly reveals the truly Burenin methods [6] he employs in distorting the truth! “Slightly more than
half”! Can anything be more evasive? Fifty-one and ninety-nine out of a
hundred would both be “slightly more than half”.

How can the preponderance be “diminished” by the fact that there were
numerous Party groups? In the first place, no figures are given. The term
“numerous” can be interpreted in whatever way one pleases. One would
think Mr. Martov had deliberately invented the term in order to
conceal the truth. Secondly, and most important : if it is
true that numerous Party groups are supported by a minority of the
workers, then it is obvious that these groups are fictitious , for
only the totally uninformed or inattentive reader will believe
Mr. L. Martov’s suggestion that it is possible for a non-fictitious group to fail to collect in a news paper
the opinions of all the workers it represents on an important and
burning issue.

Mr. L. Martov has overreached himself. He has not only admitted that
the majority or the workers have condemned the liquidationist section of the Duma Social-Democratic group, i.e., the Seven, but also that the liquidators claim to have groups
which are actually fictitious and are not supported by the workers.

While acknowledging defeat, Mr. Martov, by his reference to fictitious
“groups”, tried to conceal, à la Burenin, the magnitude of this defeat. And that is the crux of the matter. As
regards the magnitude of this defeat, exact figures were published
and reported to Martov’s friends at the meeting of the International
Socialist Bureau as far back as December 1 (14), 1913! Why did not
the liquidators ever say a single word in the press about these
figures? Was it because their conscience was not clear?

These figures gave the results up to November 20, 1913: Only the
signatures attached to pronouncements by workers were taken, i.e.,
data of the most precise kind, which have never been challenged. These figures show 4,850 signatures in favour of the Six, and
only 2,539 (of which 1,086 came from the Bund and 636 from the Caucasus) in
favour of the liquidators, i. e., of the Seven.

Now ask yourselves how the methods of a writer should be qualified who
tries to assure the public that the preponderance of the opponents of
liquidationism is “diminished” by the fact that there were “numerous”
(fictitious) groups, which together succeeded in obtaining all
over Russia the support of only one-third of the workers who
expressed their opinions!

Below we give the number of signatures attached to definitely
expressed resolutions published in both newspapers during the whole period of the campaign (which ended at the beginning of January); Number of signatures to published resolutions and
statements
In favour of the Six (of the Party) In favour of the seven (of the liquidators) Total
St. Petersburg . . . . 621 5,003 5,624
The rest of Russia . . . 559 1,511 2,070
The Caucasus . . . . . 719 208 927
The Bund . . . . . . . 1,086 — Total . . 6,722 2,985 9,707

The liquidators have so corrupted their readership with their
incredibly brazen reiteration of false, absolutely unsupported and
absolutely unverifiable statements, that we cannot stress the importance of
the above-quoted figures too strongly. They have been taken from both rival
newspapers, and any literate person can verify our calculation, and make
his own.

These figures give us a highly illuminating picture of the state of
Party affairs among Marxists in Russia. No other political party in Russia
can show, for the whole period of the counter-revolution in general and for
1913 in particular, a similar open and mass opinion poll of all its members on a most important issue of Party life. None of the legalised
parties in Russia, none of the wealthy liberal and democratic parties,
which have a host of intellectualist forces and all sorts of publications
at their command, has done as much as the party of the working class, the
party of propertyless proletarians, who have been driven underground and
maintain their newspaper with the kopeks they collect.

The workers’ party has set all parties in Russia an example of
how the masses of the rank-and-file members should be drawn into an open and all-round discussion of controversial issues. The
liberals and philistines of all parties, of all ages and of all types, are
fond of bewailing the “splits” in the ranks of the
Social-Democrats. These good souls do not realise that it is impossible to
carry out the will of the majority without a struggle; and unless the will
of the majority is carried out there is no use talking about the Party
spirit, or even of organised political action in general.

By “unity”, foolish people mean a “system” under which thirteen
members of the Duma act in defiance of the will of the majority of the organised and class-conscious Marxist workers of
Russia; by a “split” they mean the formation, by the six Duma members, of
an independent group acting in harmony with this majority of
workers, with the purpose of carrying out its will.

Do not these foolish people cut a ridiculous figure? Are they not
contemptible?

It should now be clear to everybody, except to those who are out to
deceive the workers, that the much bruited “unity” of the thirteen
deputies (about which the liquidators and conciliators talk so much) was actually the flouting of the will
of the Party, mockery of the will of the majority of the workers.

And vice versa. Consider the matter from another angle. No person in
his right mind has ever attempted to question the fact that in the summer
of 1913 a conference of Marxists ( far from open ) was held, whose
decision, endorsed by the leading body of the Party, became the Party’s
will and decision. This decision demanded that the Six should act independently. [1]

You vilify this conference, Messrs. liquidators and conciliators? You call
it a circle, a packed meeting, a piece of fiction, etc.? Very well! But
your abuse only expresses your impotence, for the objective facts are
indisputable: by a decision of this “circle”, two-thirds of the
class-conscious workers of Russia came out to the man in favour of
the conference, in favour of carrying out its will.

This is precisely what we call a party , you gentlemen who
babble about “unity”, but, by “unity”, mean permitting the
liquidators to flout the will of the Party.

Note that with two rival dailies there could be no question of anybody
trying to prevent even a single class-conscious worker from expressing his
opinion if he desired to do so. As it turned out, less than a third
supported the liquidators; and of the total number of votes cast for the
liquidators, more than half came from the Bund and the Caucasus. Moreover,
the figures we have quoted contain hardly any signatures of
Lettish workers (there were 98 signatures for the Six and 70 for the
liquidators, whereas, among the Lettish workers who voted on this question
with out giving their signatures, 863 voted for the Six and 347 for the
liquidators); nor do they contain the votes of over 800 Polish
Social-Democratic workers who also voted for the Six but did not give their
signatures (in the same way, about 400 supporters of the Left wing voted
for the liquidators).

WHAT is SHOWN by the ACTIVITIES of the TWO GROUPS DURING the FIRST
QUARTER

We cannot dwell here upon the political content of these
activities. This most interesting question of how the activities of the Six
have gained from the needs, demands, views and will of the
majority of the workers now being proclaimed from the Duma rostrum
must regretfully be left for another occasion. We shall merely state
briefly that in the speeches they delivered on March 4, 1914; Badayev and
Malinovsky, spokesmen of the Six in the Duma, formulated for the first time the question of freedom of the press, not in a
liberal manner, but in a manner worthy of the proletariat, whereas the
liquidators, both in the literary world and in the columns of their
newspapers, as well as in the speeches delivered in the Duma by their Seven
floundered on this question in a purely liberal manner. One may read in
Severnaya Rabochaya Gazeta of as recent a date as March 13, on
p. 2 of that issue, an argument to the effect that “advertising the
illegal press can only weaken the workers’ struggle for their legal
press”. How important it was in principle to form an independent
Russian Social-Democratic Labour group in the Duma to combat shameful
renegade statements and opinions of the kind just quoted, has already been
stressed in this volume and will be stressed again more than once.

For the moment, we shall undertake the more modest task of drawing our
readers’ attention to the “external”, if one may so express it, evidence
showing what the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group in the
Duma at once became as distinct from the seven liquidators.

Each Duma group publishes in its newspaper the financial reports of its
treasurer, showing the sums that have passed through its hands. These sums,
designated for the relief of comrades in prison or in exile, for aid to
strikers in different factories and industries, and for various other needs
of the working-class movement, reveal to us a number of aspects of
working-class life ; they strikingly reveal—by exact, indisputable and impartial figures—what links each of the groups
in the Duma has with the working-class movement.

In both newspapers and in both Duma groups, the latest report of this
kind covers the period up to January 21, 1914. Thus, we have
reports for only three months of the period during which the two
groups have existed separately, viz., from the end of October to the end of
January. The following is a summary of the reports of the two groups for
the quarter mentioned:

Total collections From non - workers From workers Number of workers’ groups
1) By the R.S.D.L. group . . 6,173.00 71.31 6,101.69 719
2) By the S.D. group . . 2,212.78 765.80 1,446.98 94 [2]

These bare figures give us a remarkably striking picture of the
organisational contacts and of the whole life of the two Duma
groups. The number of workers’ groups which addressed the Duma group of
liquidators during the quarter is almost one-eighth of the number
that addressed the Duma group of Party men.

On the other hand, the amount received by the liquidationist group from
=

non -workers [3] is ten times as much as that received by the R.S.D.L. group from
this source: 765 rubles as against 71 rubles. Collections from
non -workers [4] received by the Party men are one per cent of the total sum
collected (71 rubles out of 6,173 rubies). Collections from this source
received by the liquidators are thirty-four per cent of the total
sum collected (765 rubles out of 2,213 rubles).

These figures enable the general public, who are unfamiliar with the
activities of the Duma groups, to weigh up exactly and give thorough
thought to facts which people familiar with the life of the groups have
gleaned from a thousand and one “trifles” of everyday life, namely:

that the liquidationist group (the Seven) is a group without workers.

that the liquidationist group has thirty times as many contacts with non-worker circles than the Russian Social-Democratic Labour
group.

These facts were commented on long ago and from different angles. The
liberal newspaper Rech rightly called the liquidationist group a
group of “intellectuals”, and the entire liberal press has endorsed this
over and over again. Plekhanov long ago pointed out that the liquidators
have taken into their ranks quite a number of petty-bourgeois opportunist
elements, in addition to Mr. Potresov. The numerous contributors to liberal
newspapers in the ranks of the liquidators and vice versa (Enzis,
Yegorov, S. Novich, Y. Smirnov, Antid Oto, Nevedomsky, Lvov-Rogachevsky,
Cherevanin, [7] and many others) have been named by Put Pravdy .

In point of social significance, the liquidators are essentially a
branch of the liberal-bourgeois party, whose aim is to instil into the
proletarian midst the ideas of liberal-labour policy and to flout
the will of the majority of the organised and class-conscious workers of
Russia.