To Conscious Workers

In No. 63 of *Putj Pravdy*, the Russian Social-Democratic faction made a final attempt to clarify whether the 6 deputies (the Chkheidze faction) now—after the vast majority of conscious workers condemned their alliance with the liquidators—are willing to move toward agreement with the RSDRP{93}.

The Russian social-democratic workers' faction posed the question to the "s.-d. faction": does it now intend to recognize without any reservations the decisions of the Marxist whole from 1903 (program) and 1908–1910 (condemnation of liquidationism)? It is understandable why the RSDRP posed this question first and foremost: the decisions of 1903, 1908, and 1910 were adopted before any splits between Marxists and liquidators; these decisions are the banner of all Marxists; if any agreement between the RSDRP and the "s.-d. faction" is possible, it is of course only on the basis of unconditional recognition of these decisions, adopted before the split.

In No. 2 of *Nasha Rabochaya Gazeta*, the Chkheidze faction responded with an "Open Reply," which finally established clarity and therefore deserves the most serious attention of all workers who wish to seriously understand the disagreements and desire genuine unity.

1. The Program and the National Question

At the Marxist congress that worked out the program (1903), the Bundists (Jewish liquidators) proposed including in the program the demand for "the creation of institutions guaranteeing them complete freedom of cultural development." Against this, the present-day liquidators Martynov, Martov, and Koltsov spoke up. They argued quite correctly that this demand contradicted the international principles of social-democracy. By a unanimous vote against the Bundists, the congress rejected this demand (see protocols).

Marxists affirm that "the creation of institutions" is precisely "cultural-national autonomy," which social-democracy rejects.

In the "Open Reply," the six deputies assert the opposite. They say: "the creation of institutions" we have proclaimed, but we have not proclaimed cultural-national autonomy.

—Very well, we answer them. Let us suppose for a moment that these are indeed not one and the same thing. But the congress, after all, rejected the "creation of institutions." You know this perfectly well. You know that you departed from the program to please the nationalists. The Bundists, whose proposal the congress rejected, greeted you precisely for this violation of the program.

Following the declaration of the s.-d. faction at the beginning of the Fourth Duma, they wrote:

—"One can point out that the formula of the s.-d. (i.e., the liquidators) was insufficiently clear. Quite right. But what is important is that the workers' deputies (i.e., supporters of Chkheidze) departed from the ossified point of view on which official theory stands on the national question" (*Tsayt* No. 9, editorial, col. 3).

"Official theory" is precisely the program. The Bundists praise Chkheidze and his friends for violating the program. The RSDRP asked: does the "s.-d. faction" agree to take back this violation of the program?

The answer was clear: "this formula (i.e., 'the creation of institutions') contains absolutely nothing from which the s.-d. faction would need to refrain" (see "Open Reply"). We do not wish to refrain from violating the program—such is the answer of the "s.-d. faction."

2. The 1908 Decision

The RSDRP further asked the "s.-d. faction" whether it agreed to recognize the decision of the Marxists from 1908, recently confirmed also by the conciliationist Latvians.

This decision states:

"Liquidationism is—the attempts of a certain part of the party intelligentsia to liquidate" (i.e., dissolve, destroy, annul, terminate) "the existing organization of the party and to replace it with a formless amalgamation within the framework of legality" (i.e., lawfulness, "open" existence) "at any cost, even if the latter be purchased at the price of an obvious renunciation of the program, tactics, and traditions" (i.e., previous experience) "of the party."

And this decision recognizes as "necessary the most decisive ideological and organizational struggle against liquidationist attempts" (see report, p. 38){94}.

This decision was adopted by the Marxist whole, in the presence of representatives of all factions, including liquidators (Dan, Axelrod, and others), Bundists, and so forth. It was adopted in December 1908, before any splits.

The RSDRP asked the Chkheidze faction whether it recognizes this 1908 decision condemning liquidationism.

What did the Chkheidze faction answer?

Not a word!! Not a sound! It passed over this 1908 decision as if it did not exist at all. It is incredible, but it is a fact. And this silence speaks louder than any words. It shows an incredibly brazen attitude toward decisions. Those decisions which I do not like simply do not exist for me—such is the morality of the deputies given to liquidationism.

These deputies acted in the same way regarding the question of admitting deputy Yagello to the faction. They are pointed out that the 1908 decision rejected "unity" with Yagello's non-s.-d. party. And they object that in 1907, i.e., a year before this decision, the second-duma faction admitted to its ranks indisputable s.-d.—Lithuanians. This is an obvious mockery of the decisions.

3. The 1910 Decision

This decision states:

"The historical situation of the social-democratic movement in the epoch of bourgeois counter-revolution inevitably produces, as a manifestation of bourgeois influence on the proletariat, on one side, a denial of the illegal social-democratic party, a disparagement of its role and significance, attempts to curtail the programmatic and tactical tasks and slogans of consistent social-democracy, and so forth; on the other side, a denial of Duma work by social-democracy and the utilization of legal possibilities, a lack of understanding of the importance of both, an inability to adapt consistent social-democratic tactics to the peculiar historical conditions of the present moment, and so forth.

An indispensable element of social-democratic tactics under these conditions is the overcoming of both deviations by the broadening and deepening of s.-d. work in all spheres of class struggle of the proletariat and the elucidation of the danger of these deviations."

It was adopted unanimously before any splits, in the presence of representatives of all factions. It condemns both liquidationism and otzovism.

The RSDRP asks the "s.-d. faction": do you recognize this decision? The latter replies: but after all "there is not even the word liquidationism in the 1908 decisions."

Not the "word"! And whom did the Marxist whole have in mind when it condemned "the denial of the illegal s.-d. party, a disparagement of its role and significance"?? Whom, if not the liquidators?

Finally, we have the most precise document, published three years ago and refuted by no one, a document emanating from all the "national" (Latvian, Bundist, Polish) Marxists and from Trotsky (witnesses which the liquidators cannot produce any better); this document states directly that "in substance it would be desirable to call liquidationism the tendency indicated in the resolution, with which it is necessary to struggle…"

How then do the deputies dare so un-…beautifully to lead the workers into…obvious delusion?

The "s.-d. faction" does not wish to recognize the 1908 decision! Instead, it declares its "complete solidarity" with the liquidationist *Nasha Rabochaya Gazeta*.

The decisions of the Marxist whole from 1903, 1908, 1910 do not exist for the deputies given to liquidationism. For them, only the "decisions" of the liquidationist newspaper exist.

4. "Tendencies"

Denying direct decisions, ignoring the will of the workers, the "s.-d. faction" speaks at length about the benefits of all "tendencies within Marxism."

All over the world, Marxists proceed from workers' organizations; here they wish to proceed from elusive "tendencies." In Germany, and indeed throughout the world, social-democracy unites workers, their cells, organizations, groups. Here they wish to unite some kind of "tendencies."

"All tendencies among Marxists"! But among the liquidators alone there are now a minimum of two "tendencies": *Borba* and *Nasha Rabochaya Gazeta*, disputing over who better preserves the "August legacy."

The unification of 10 "tendencies," torn from the masses, is a hopeless matter. The unification of all workers desiring to build the Marxist whole is a great matter, being accomplished before our eyes with the warm support of the RSDRP.

Clarity has been established. The overwhelming majority of workers (see data on insurance elections, group collections, communications of workers' groups with both Duma factions) have spoken for the Marxists, for the RSDRP against the liquidators. The August bloc has disintegrated: the Latvian s.-d. have left, Buryanov has left, supporters of Ana and *Borba* are leaving. The 6 deputies grouping themselves around Chkheidze have attached themselves to the worst, to the most liquidationist remnant of the August bloc. The workers must draw their own conclusions.

*Trudovaya Pravda* No. 7, June 5, 1914

Printed from the text of the newspaper *Trudovaya Pravda*