V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:LS/v38;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

LIBERAL POLITICS 1

One of the important results of the budget debates has not been sufficiently appreciated, and has even partly escaped the notice of our political press.

This result is the bloc of Cadets and Octobrists when voting on the formula winding up the general debate on the budget.

What is important is precisely the *principled* significance of this bloc. It is not too late to return to an appraisal of this principled significance, and we should return to it more often.

How did it happen? The Nationalists introduced a transition formula. “In substance,” wrote *Rech* (No. 130), “it contained things that were acceptable even to the Cadets. It sharply condemned the financial, economic and railway policy.”

This is a crying falsehood. There was nothing sharp about it. The words: “insufficient attention,” “threatening slowness,” etc., are absolutely not sharp. There is no condemnation of the economic, etc., policy in general in the formula; there are only the wishes of the Black-Hundred landlords, grumbling because capital is snatching a goodly share from them.

To find this landlord formula “acceptable,” to be unable to distinguish whence the principled criticism comes: from the right or from the left—this is a specimen of petty and obtuse liberal politics.

But let us go further. If the formula is “in substance” acceptable to you, gentlemen Cadets, where is your political honour and conscience? But listen:

“But behind the scenes (!!) of the Duma it was said quite definitely (!!) that this formula was inspired from circles outside the Duma, circles that are least of all sympathetic to parliamentary formulas of any kind” (*Rech*, same issue). The formula was “an instrument of personal struggle against V. N. Kokovtsov 2 in favour of certain favourites” (ibid.).

One must be struck by the amazing political lack of culture of the Russian liberal “society,” or rather, one must realise the age-long training of this society in the spirit of servility, to be able to tolerate such explanations!!

A liberal and even (don’t laugh!) a democratic party is guided by behind-the-scenes reports!! And the people do not even realise that they are committing a political dirty trick, that they are putting themselves entirely on the level of the Purishkeviches and the “At Your Service” 3 of *Novoye Vremya*—that is the worst of it!

In the first place, *Rech* itself admits that “the Nationalists, with a certain grimace, were compelled (?) to accept Shingaryov’s 4 proposal to replace the words: the Finance Department, by the word: the Government.” Consequently, not a trace of the “personal” remained in the formula!...

In the second place, the formula clearly expressed not a personal but a principled opposition of the Black-Hundred diehard (it would be inexact to say: agrarian) to capitalism.

In the third place, there cannot be a moment’s doubt that in the world of the Markovs, Antonovs (Octobrist)—Shingaryovs, personal intrigues of one against another are encountered at every step. But if the Cadets and Octobrists saw a personal intrigue in the policy of Markov & Co., they should have formally stated and explained this from the Duma rostrum. The Cadets and Octobrists are the majority in the Duma, which means they had a thousand means of doing this. Politicians with honour and conscience were obliged to do this!

Instead of this, the Cadets and Progressists, together with the Octobrists and the Centre, by 127 votes against 94 of the Rights and Nationalists, with 16 abstentions (the Social-Democrats and Trudoviks), carried the Octobrist proposal to “postpone” the formula!

What does this amount to?

Let us assume that Markov and Zamyslovsky 5 are intriguing against Kokovtsov behind the scenes of the Duma stage. Does this justify the Cadets when they intrigue for Kokovtsov on the Duma stage? when they cowardly keep silent on the Duma stage, without explaining why and in what respect they, the capitalists, are for Kokovtsov against the diehards?

Whether Markov intrigues more against Kokovtsov or vice versa is not known.

Markov and Zamyslovsky said from the Duma rostrum: down with Kokovtsov, because he is offending the landlords by giving the capitalists an “excessive” share of the spoils. The Antonovs and Shingaryovs said from the Duma rostrum: Markov’s formula is “in substance” acceptable, but... “postpone” it!

This fact shows us better than anything else the whole essence of our liberal politics.

N.