V. I.

Lenin

The most important political result of the Duma debate on
the declaration of the government is the touching unity of the
nationalists , Octobrists and Cadets . Our Russian so-called “society” yields so readily to high-sounding and cheap phrases
that we have to lay particular emphasis on this real result of the
action of all parties, with their criticism of political questions
of principle.

“ The parties disappeared,” wrote the nationalist
Novoye Vremya (No. 13199). “Deputy Maklakov’s excellent speech
(at the December 7 sitting) united the entire Duma, which applauded him,
forgetful of all party calculations and differences of opinion.”

This comment by a nationalist paper, the chief organ of all
toadyism, of persecution of Jews and non-Russians in general. should be
remembered and pondered by all who take a serious interest in politics.

It was not because they were “forgetful” of party differences of
opinion that the Octobrists and nationalists, the Guchkovites and the
Novoye Vremya people applauded Maklakov, but because they
appreciated the profound unity of opinion of the liberal
bourgeoisie and the nationalist landlords.

Maklakov revealed that unity of opinion on the fundamental issues of
home and foreign policy. “While Russia does not seek war, neither does she
dread it,” exclaimed this Cadet, to prolonged applause by the
nationalists . How could they help applauding? Any politically
literate person realises that these words expressed the Cadets’
acceptance of the policy of resorting to the threat of war, the policy of militarism, of armaments by land and by sea that oppress and
ruin the mass of the people.

The liberals, who support militarism, are not feared by the
reactionaries, who very correctly argue that support for militarism is
action , whereas liberal exclamations are mere words which
simply cannot be made a reality so long as the reactionaries are in
power. “Give us millions to spend on armaments, and we will clap and
applaud your liberal talk”—this is what every clever semi-feudal
landlord says, and should say, to the Duma
Balalaikins. [1]

And what about Maklakov’s stand on home policy? Is it accidental that
the Right-wing priests are highly satisfied, as Rech itself
testifies, or that Novoye Vremya gleefully reprints Maklakov’s
“keynote”: “Let there be no division of Russia into two camps—the
country and the government”?

No, it is not accidental, because by his whining about the desirability
of “reconciliation” Maklakov in fact echoes Kokovtsov. For
Kokovtsov, too, desires “reconciliation”!

Kokovtsov desires no change in the balance of the social
forces. Maklakov did not show the slightest understanding
of the kind of change that is necessary or how it can be
brought about. “Reconciliation” is precisely the term which
obscures the only serious question, that of the conditions and
means of achieving this change—obscures it with rotten phrases that say
nothing, that blunt the civic consciousness of the masses and lull them.

A “society” which is capable of applauding the speeches of a Maklakov
about “reconciliation” deserves nothing but contempt.

As for the speech of Malinovsky, the workers’ representative, on the
Ministerial declaration, both the nationalists and the Cadets took pains
not to notice that in it the democrats were posing questions. But
then Malinovsky’s speech was not intended for their like at all.

---
Notes:
[1]
Balalaikin —a character in M. Saltykov-Shchedrin’s A Modern Idyll , personifying a liberal windbag, impostor and liar.