V. I.

Lenin

What worker does not remember the noise the liquidators
raised when, in a special issue of our newspaper, we acquainted the reader
with the latest decisions of the Lettish Marxists and remarked that the
Letts had paid tribute to the spirit of compromise while at the same time
dealing a death blow at the liquidationist August bloc. [1]

The liquidators have used every means in their power to challenge this
conclusion. All the resourcefulness of Martov, all the ... truthfulness of
Dan, all the wit and brilliant literary talent of Semkovsky and
Yonov—everything has been mobilised for this purpose. The liquidators
have been determined at all cost to “prove” that the Lettish Congress did
not condemn the liquidators, did not come out against the August bloc,, and
so on and so forth. In a word, “It’s not me, it’s not my horse, I’m not
the driver”. [2]

Now, after a lapse of only two or three months, the journal of the
liquidators themselves ( Nasha Zarya No. 4) has published an
article by Mr. Weiss, the most “prominent” Lettish liquidator, who
fully confirms our own appraisal of events.

Mr. Weiss is a most vigorous opponent of ours. He heaps harsh
“criticism” on the Russian “Leninists” and the Lettish majority. However, he has the courage to openly admit defeat, while
promising to go on fighting for his liquidationist views. He does not shift
and shuffle; he does not, like Semkovsky, try to prove that white is black
and vice versa. One may sharply dispute with such an opponent, but he nevertheless commands respect for not having recourse to the trivial
methods of the Semkovskys.

Mr Weiss writes:

“ The predominant tendency there [at the Congress] among
the Lettish Marxists, by a majority of one, and, on some questions, a
majority of two votes, was one of sympathy ... with the ‘Lenin circle’.”

“ The Fourth Congress of the Lettish Marxists is an attempt to revert to the old ... Bolshevik ideology.”

“ The resolution on the Duma group was adopted unanimously. It was a big concession on the part of the minority
of the Congress [that is, a concession to the “Leninists”].”

“ The Lenin circle can count on the official support of
the Letts”, and so on.

The writer makes the reservation that “the minority succeeded somewhat
in marring Lenin’s triumph”. He calls (and rightly so!) “curious” the
concessions made by the majority to the conciliators.

But he clearly and unequivocally recognises the fact that the Congress
took an anti-liquidationist stand, and, on the main issue, took sides with
the Pravdists.

It is the same old story. For two or three months the liquidators raise
a hullabaloo, only to admit afterwards that it was we who correctly
presented the facts in the first instance.

To what lengths the liquidators sometimes go in their striving to
“explain” unpalatable Party decisions can be seen from the following. In
December 1908, as is known, the all-Russia conference of Marxists
rejected the proposal to amalgamate with Jagiello’s party (the
P.S.P.). This was done in the most emphatic form—by proceeding with the
agenda without debating the motion for amalgamation with the
non-Social-Democratic party of deputy Jagiello. At their Congress in 1914,
the Letts endorsed all the decisions adopted in 1908, thereby declaring
their refusal to have the non-Social-Democrat Jagiello admitted to the
Social-Democratic group. This decision is most unpalatable to the
liquidators.

And yet in Zeit , the newspaper of the Jewish liquidators, we
find this decision “explained” in the following manner:

“ What does proceeding with the agenda mean? It means that the meeting does not want to put the motion to the vote, does not want either to reject or adopt it. In such cases it calls the next business. The
question of amalgamation with the Jagiello trend was simply left open [!]
at the meeting of 1908.” ( Zeit No. 17.)

Is not such an “explanation” of Party decisions sheer... impudence?

When the liquidators’ proposal for amalgamation with the Jagiello trend
was rejected, F. Dan wrote at the time (in 1908) in his official press
report:

“ At the proposal of the Polish delegation [the Polish
Social-Democrats] the conference refused even to discuss our resolution and
passed on to the next business. In this minor fact, circle intolerance and
circle habits of thought have apparently reached their uttermost limit.”
(F. Dan’s Report, p. 45.)

F. Dan used this strong language because he knew that proceeding with
the agenda meant a flat rejection of the proposal for amalgamation
with Jagiello’s non-Social-Democratic party. And now this flat rejection is
“explained” to us as meaning that the question has been “left open”,
and that everyone is free to decide it in his own way! This is really the
last straw in the flouting of Marxist decisions.

No amount of wriggling will help the liquidators. The Marxist line has
been endorsed by life itself. Events in the Lettish Social-Democratic
movement confirm this no less strikingly than the entire course of the
working-class movement throughout Russia does.

---
Notes:
[1]
See pp.177–85 of this volume.— Ed .

[2]
A Russian proverb.— Ed .