V. I.

Lenin

We have received No. 6 of Plekhanov’s
Dnevnik [1] —twelve small pages published in Geneva. We were agreeably surprised
to find that this time, for once, the Russian liberal-bourgeois press
refrained from praising Plekhanov. The dissolution of the Duma must have
dispelled Comrade Plekhanov’s optimism, we thought, when we found the liberal
press reporting the appearance of this issue without the usual sympathetic
quotations.

Indeed, in No. 6 of his Dnevnik Comrade Plekhanov abandons the
position of extreme Right-wing Menshevism which he occupied (with Comrade
Rakhmetov) at the time of the Duma. He completely dissociates himself from the
attempts of the Mensheviks to weaken the revolutionary slogan
“for a constituent assembly” by adding: “through the
Duma”, “for the Duma”, etc. Plekhanov rightly argues that the
only slogan possible is that for convening a constituent assembly, and he justly
criticises the Vyborg Manifesto for its omission of this slogan. Plekhanov also
completely dissociates himself from the Menshevik aim of connecting
“action” with the Duma at all costs, even if it be a partial instead
of a general action, even if it be an immediate and unprepared action instead of
a later and more mature one. And lastly, this time Plekhanov not only refrains
from adapting the slogans of Social-Democracy to those of the Cadets, or from
identifying the latter with the slogans of bourgeois democracy in general, but,
on the contrary, straightforwardly and openly criticises the lukewarmness of the
Cadets (small wonder the Cadet newspapers are now silent about Plekhanov!)
and draws a very forcible contrast between them and the
“toiling” peasantry.

This is all very gratifying to us. Only it is a pity that Plekhanov is still
evasive and vacillating on a number of tactical points.

Plekhanov justly criticises the authors of the Vyborg Manifesto for
“restricting” themselves to an appeal not to pay taxes or furnish
recruits for the army, and for striving to keep within the law. They should have
said, says Plekhanov, “Prepare, for the time is approaching.” They should
have issued the slogan of a constituent assembly.

But refusal to pay taxes, etc., is a means of waging the struggle. The
convocation of a constituent assembly is the immediate object of the
struggle. In reproaching the Cadets for wanting to restrict themselves only to
one means, he should have pointed to other means and analysed the
conditions under which they can be applied, their significance, etc. To evade this
question, as Plekhanov did, with the re mark “sufficient unto the day is
the evil thereof”, is wrong. The Social-Democratic Party must guide the
proletariat not only in presenting the right slogans, but also in choosing the
most effective and expedient means of struggle. The Russian revolution
has already given us much evidence showing that as the objects of the struggle
become wider and as the numbers participating in the struggle increase, there is
a corresponding change in the means and methods of struggle, which become more
drastic and aggressive. Particularly at a moment like the present, it is our
duty not to remain silent on this question, but to make a careful study of
various means of struggle, such as: the political strike, the armed uprising,
etc. These are burning issues; and the advanced workers are rightly demanding an
answer to these questions from us.

Analysing the relation between the interests of the various classes and the
demand for a constituent assembly, Plekhanov distinguishes three
classes.

(1) As regards the proletariat, he states that its class interests
entirely coincide with the interests of the nation as a whole.

(2) As regards the “toiling peasantry”, he notes the possibility that, under
certain circumstances, their interests might diverge from those of the nation as
a whole; but he emphasises that “their class interests” demand the
convocation of a constituent assembly.

(3) As regards “those strata which are represented by the

Constitutional-Democratic Party”, Plekhanov admits that their “class
interests” will make them mistrustful of the con vocation of a constituent
assembly; that this will prove that they are “reconciled” to the
actions of Stolypin & Co., that they are afraid of losing the big landed
estates without compensation, etc. And Plekhanov states that he “does not
pro pose to prophesy” whether among the Cadets class interests will
outweigh the interests of the nation, or vice versa.

Prophecies refer to the future, but the repudiation of the constituent assembly
slogan and of the revolutionary struggle for it by the Cadets is a fact of the
present. To hush it up is not only futile but harmful. But if it is not hushed
up, then obviously it should be admitted that:

“The proletariat together with the politically conscious toiling
peasantry are opposed to the unreliable and vacillating Cadets.”
Plekhanov has now come very close to this tactical line, which logically follows
from his present formulation of the question.

He writes: “All the parties which are taking part in this movement [the
struggle for a constituent assembly] should immediately come to an agreement for
mutual assistance.” Quite right! Which parties are these? Those to the
Left of the Cadets, and which should be called the parties of the
revolutionary bourgeois and petty-bourgeois democrats (for the
constituent assembly slogan is a revolutionary slogan, in contrast to
the oppositional and “loyal” slogan of the Cadets:
“A new Duma as soon as possible”). Thus, a fighting agreement between the party of the proletariat and the parties of the revolutionary democrats .

That is just what we have always insisted on. It only re mains for us to express
the wish that Plekhanov will hence forth consistently carry out this policy. And
carrying it out consistently means making this fighting agreement
conditional not only on the recognition of the revolutionary- democratic slogan (a constituent assembly), but also on
the recognition of the revolutionary means of struggle for which our movement
has already matured, and which it will inevitably have to apply in fighting for
a constituent assembly, in other words, the recognition of a people’s uprising . Further, to make the constituent assembly slogan really clear and
not merely to repeat it, we must raise the question of a provisional revolutionary government . By failing to raise this question
Plekhanov fails to delimit properly the interests of the
“toiling” peasantry and the class interests of “those strata which are represented by the Cadet Party”. By failing to raise
this question Plekhanov leaves a yawning gap in our propaganda and
agitation, for every agitator will be asked: Who, in the opinion of the
workers’ party, is to convene the constituent assembly?

As we have already stated, Plekhanov quite groundlessly evades the question of
an uprising as well as the question of the means of struggle in general. lie
writes: “At the present time an uprising could only be an outbreak of
popular indignation, only a riot, which would easily be suppressed by the
authorities; but what we want is not riots or outbreaks; we want a victorious
revolution.”

This is just as if Nogi, in August 1905, had said: “What we want is
not an attack on Port Arthur, but the capture of Port Arthur.”
Untimely attacks may be contrasted to timely attacks, ill-prepared to
well-prepared attacks; but attacks in general cannot be contrasted to
“capturing” a fortress. That would be a mistake. It would be an
evasion of the question of the means of capturing the fortress. And it is
precisely this mistake Comrade Plekhanov makes.

Either he is not saying all he thinks, or he himself is not clear about the
question.

The difference between a demonstration strike and a strike for an uprising is
clear. The difference between “partial mass expressions of protest”
and a general, all-Russian action is clear. So is the difference between partial
and local risings and a general, all-Russian uprising, supported by all
the revolutionary parties and elements. If you call demonstrations, partial
protests, partial risings—“outbreaks”, people will understand what
you mean, and your protests against “putsches” will be perfectly justified.

But to say: “we want not outbreaks, but a victorious revolution”, means to say nothing. Even worse, it is a platitude made to
sound significant. It is a resounding but meaning less phrase intended to
befuddle the reader. It would be very difficult to find two sane
revolutionaries who would not agree that we want “not outbreaks,
but a victorious revolution”. But neither would it be very easy to find
two sane revolutionaries who would agree as to what particular means of
struggle at what particular moment would be, not an “outbreak”, but a real step towards a victorious revolution.
Plekhanov does not make much progress by looking wise and repeating things which
nobody has any doubt about and evading the really difficult part of the problem.

In conclusion, we must add that Plekhanov naturally has a passing
“thrust” at the Bolsheviks: they are “Blanquists”, because they boycott the Duma, and “frivolous”, because, he alleges,
they were unaware (until enlightened by Comrade Plekhanov in No. 6 of his
Dnevnik ) that it was necessary to increase activities among the
troops. We think it sufficient just to mention these thrusts; they are
not worth answering. If Comrade Plekhanov imagines that by his present
tactics he is strengthening the Menshevik wing in our Party and weakening the
Bolsheviks, we have no objection to leaving him in this state of blissful
delusion.

---
Notes:
[1]
Dnevnik Sotsial-Demokrata ( Diary of a Social-Democrat )—a non-periodical organ published by Plekhanov
in Geneva from March 1905 to April 1912. In all sixteen issues were brought
out, at considerable intervals. Publication was resumed in Petrograd in 1916,
but only one issue appeared.