Date: 1917
Source: ru:PSS/v32

The resolution of the Congress, published in today’s newspapers and condemning our Party, will undoubtedly be compared by every conscious worker and soldier with our Party’s declaration to the All‑Russia Congress of Soviets—a declaration that was made public on the 11th and printed in Pravda today{118}.

The contradictory nature of the Congress leaders’ position became starkly apparent in their resolution—and was brought into even sharper relief by our own statement.

“The foundation of the success and strength of the Russian Revolution lies in the unity of all revolutionary democracy—workers, soldiers, and peasants,” reads the first and most crucial clause of the Congress resolution. And, of course, this clause would be undeniably correct—if “unity” here were understood as unity in the struggle against counterrevolution. But what if a certain segment of “workers, soldiers, and peasants,” through its leaders, is actually aligned with, and united to, the counterrevolution? Is it not clear that this very segment of “democracy” ceases, in practice, to be “revolutionary”?

The Narodniks (Socialist-Revolutionaries) and the Mensheviks will likely take offense at the mere suggestion—on our part—that it might be possible, that it could even be conceivable, for any particular section of “workers, soldiers, and peasants” to “unite” with the counterrevolution.

To those who might seek to obscure our arguments and obfuscate the true substance of the matter through such indignation, we will respond with a simple reference to the third clause of the same resolution: “…the resistance of the counterrevolutionary strata of the propertied classes is growing.” Now that is a practical consideration! That would truly be the case—if one were to say: the bourgeoisie, or the capitalists and landowners (rather than “propertied classes,” which also includes the well-to-do segment of the petty bourgeoisie).

Undoubtedly, the resistance of the bourgeoisie is indeed growing.

But it is precisely in the hands of the bourgeoisie that the majority of the Provisional Government resides—and it is with the bourgeoisie that the leaders of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks are allied, not only in a general political sense, but also organizationally, within the same institution: the Ministry!

Herein lies the crux of the contradictory stance of the Soviet leaders—and herein also lies the primary source of instability in their entire policy: they are in alliance with the bourgeoisie through the government; they are subordinate within the government to a majority of ministers drawn from the bourgeoisie—and yet, at the same time, they are compelled to acknowledge that “the resistance of the counterrevolutionary strata of the propertied classes is growing”!!

It is clear that, given this state of affairs, the Party of the Revolutionary Proletariat can recognize the so‑called “unity” of that notorious “revolutionary” (in word only, but not in deed) democracy only “to a certain extent.” We support unity with it—as long as it fights against counterrevolution. We do not support unity with it—as long as it aligns itself with the counterrevolution.

The question of “growing resistance” from the counterrevolutionary bourgeoisie has, in fact, been placed squarely on the agenda of life itself: to sidestep this central, fundamental issue with vague generalities about “unity or coordinated action among revolutionary democrats,” while obscuring the fact that a portion of that democracy is, in reality, united with the counterrevolution, is neither logical nor wise.

From this it becomes clear that, on principled grounds, all the arguments in the Congress resolution condemning our demonstration as “secret”—and asserting that mass rallies and demonstrations may be held only with the knowledge or consent of the Soviets—simply fall away of their own accord. These arguments have no real significance. The proletarian party has never recognized them, as we already stated in our declaration to the All‑Russia Congress. For any demonstration, so long as it is peaceful, is nothing more than agitation—and agitation cannot be prohibited, nor can unity in agitation be imposed.

Formally, the resolution is even weaker. To prohibit or prescribe requires one to hold power within the state. Become that power, you present leaders of the Soviet—though we stand opposed to you—we would welcome that—but then you would indeed have the authority to prohibit or prescribe. As long as you lack nationwide power, as long as you remain subject to the authority of ten ministers drawn from the bourgeoisie—you are mired in your own weakness and indecision.

One cannot simply dismiss matters with phrases like “clearly expressed will” and the like: if a will is to be state‑sanctioned, it must be expressed as a law enacted by the authorities; otherwise, the very term “will” is but an empty sound, a futile puff of air. And once you begin to think about law, gentlemen, you cannot help but recall that the constitutions of free republics may not prohibit peaceful demonstrations or any kind of mass rally undertaken by any party, any group.

The contradiction inherent in this position has given rise to a profound strangeness in revolutionary ideas—ideas about the struggle against counterrevolution—state (constitutional) ideas—in short, legal ideas in general. Once the savage attacks against our Party subsided, nothing remained—absolutely nothing!

After the furious onslaught against our initiative to hold a demonstration—what followed was the scheduling of that very demonstration… a full week later.

Pravda, No. 81, June 27 (14), 1917

Printed according to the text of the newspaper Pravda