Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 16 - From Marx to Mao

METHODS OF LIQUIDATORS AND PARTY TASKS OF BOLSHEVIKS99have not called in question any “idea of hegemony”, thatyou do not approve the slightest spirit of liquidationism ...not the least bit!?On the eve of the Duma elections (in September 1909)the St. Petersburg otzovists and ultimatumists, who havelong been spoiling all the work of the St. Petersburg Committee,secured the passage of a resolution actually disruptingthe elections. The workers raised a revolt in the nameof the Party and forced the Left liquidators to rescind thisstupid resolution. Maximov now prevaricates: the resolution,he says, was “extremely mistaken” but the comrades“themselves rejected it”. “It is quite clear,” writes Maximov,“this mistake had nothing to do with ultimatumismas such.” What is clear, Comrade Maximov, is not this, butyour shielding of Left liquidationism, which is ruinous forthe Party. The Mensheviks of Vyborg District in St. Petersburgcame out against liquidationism (also, presumably,solely out of malice?). Golos at first approved them (afterProletary). Now the Menshevik liquidator G-g 54 comesforward in Golos No. 16-17, and—can you imagine?—heswears like a trooper at the Vyborg comrades, using the mostabusive language. In the Menshevik organ he abuses theMensheviks as being Bolsheviks! The editors of Golos becomemodest, very modest, innocent, very innocent, and washtheir hands of the matter in the Maximov fashion: “Weshall not take upon ourselves the responsibility” (p. 2, column2 of the Supplement to No. 16-17), “it is a questionof fact”....... Well, what wicked slanderers they are who inventedthe “legend” (Martov’s expression in Vorwärts 55 ) that Golosshields liquidationism, helps liquidationism! Is it nota slander to say that someone assists the liquidators ifin an illegal organ he ridicules the Duma work of the CentralCommittee, insinuating that this work has developed“after the majority of the Central Committee began to liveabroad” (ibid.)—taking advantage of the fact that it isimpossible to refute these insinuations, i.e., to tell the truthabout the Duma work of the illegal Central Committee....Maximov asserts that the question of the possibility ofParty leadership of the Duma group is a very, very disputableone (after two years’ experience). Golos asserts that