Date: 1914-06-09
Source: ru:PSS/v25; en:CW/CW20

Who among the workers could ever forget the uproar raised by the liquidators when, in a special issue of the newspaper, we acquainted our readers with the latest resolutions of the Latvian Marxists and remarked upon them: the Latvians had paid homage to conciliation, yet at the same time dealt a mortal blow to the liquidator August Bloc[28].

The liquidators spared no effort in their attempt to dispute this conclusion. Martov’s entire cunning, Dan’s supposed “truthfulness,” the intellect and brilliant literary talent of Semkovsky and Ionov—all were mobilized for this very purpose. At all costs, the liquidators sought to “prove” that the Latvian Congress had not condemned liquidationism in the slightest, had made no pronouncement against the August Bloc, and so on and so forth. In short: “I am not I, and the horse is not mine.”

But only two or three months passed—and in the very journal of the liquidators themselves (“Nasha Zarya,” No. 4), we now find an article by the most “prominent” of the Latvian liquidators, Mr. F. Weiss, who fully endorses the very factual assessment of events that we had offered.

Mr. Weiss is our sharpest opponent. He heaps the harshest “criticism” upon the Russian “Leninists” and upon the Latvian majority. Yet he has the courage to openly acknowledge his defeat, pledging to continue fighting for his liquidator views. Unlike Semkovsky, he does not equivocate, nor does he attempt to turn white into black—or vice versa. With such an adversary, one may engage in sharp debate, but he nonetheless deserves respect for refraining from the… most petty tactics employed by Semkovsky. Mr. Weiss writes:

– “At the Congress, though only by a single vote in some matters—by a mere two votes in others—the current among Latvian Marxists who sympathize with the ‘Leninist circle’ actually held sway.”

– “The Fourth Congress of Latvian Marxists marks an attempt to return to the old… Bolshevik ideology.”

– “The resolution on the Duma faction was adopted unanimously. It represents a major concession on the part of the Congress minority (that is, a concession to the ‘Leninists’).”

– “The Leninist circle can count on the official support of the Latvians,” and so on.

The author qualifies his remarks by noting that “the minority managed to slightly mar the Leninists’ triumph”; he even calls the concessions made by the majority to the conciliators “curious” (and rightly so!).

Yet he clearly and unequivocally acknowledges the fact: the Congress had taken up the banner of “struggle against liquidationism,” and in the main, it had sided with the Pravdists.

The old story repeats itself. For two or three months, the liquidators make quite a fuss—but in the end, they are forced to admit that it was we who had correctly described the facts.

How far the liquidators will go in their eagerness to “explain away” party decisions that displease them becomes evident from the following example. As is well known, in December 1908, the All-Russian Conference of Marxists rejected any merger with the Jagello Party (PPS). This decision was made in the most resolute manner: by moving directly to the next item on the agenda—immediately after the very proposal to merge with the non-Social-Democratic Party of Deputy Jagello. At their congress in 1914, the Latvians reaffirmed all the resolutions of 1908, thereby declaring that they condemned the admission of the non-Social-Democratic Jagello faction into the Social-Democratic Party. This decision was especially galling to the liquidators.

And what happened? In the newspaper of the Jewish liquidators, “Zeit,” this decision was “explained” as follows:

– “What does it mean to move on to the next item? It means that the assembly does not wish to put the proposal to a vote; it neither rejects nor accepts it. Instead, it moves on to another question. The 1908 assembly simply left the question of merging with the Jagello current open (!!)” (“Zeit,” No. 17).

Is such an “explanation” of party resolutions not the height of… sheer insolence?

When the liquidators’ proposal to merge with the Jagello current was rejected, F. Dan wrote in his official printed report in 1908:

– “At the suggestion of the Polish delegation (of Polish Social Democrats), the conference did not even wish to discuss our resolution; instead, it moved straight on to the next item on the agenda. In this small detail, the sectarian intolerance and sectarian modes of thought seem to have reached their absolute peak” (Report of F. Dan, p. 45).

F. Dan railed against this precisely because he knew that moving on to the next item on the agenda amounted to the most decisive rejection of any merger with the non-Social-Democratic Jagello Party. And now, we are “explained” that this very decisive rejection was, in fact, nothing more than a matter of leaving the question “open”—and that each individual is free to decide it in their own way! There is no further degree of mockery possible in the treatment of Marxist resolutions.

No matter how much the liquidators twist and turn, life ultimately prevails. Life stands firmly on the Marxist line. The developments within the Latvian Social-Democratic Party confirm this as vividly as the entire course of the workers’ movement across Russia.

“Rabochiy,” No. 7, June 9, 1914

Printed according to the text of the newspaper “Rabochiy.”