In the present issue of *Proletarii*, one of numerous letters has been published, pointing to enormous ideological disarray among social-democrats. Particular attention deserves the arguments concerning "German rails" (i.e., the repetition among us of Germany's path of development after 1848). In order to analyze the sources of erroneous views on this most important question, without clarification of which proper tactics for the workers' party are impossible, let us take the Mensheviks and *Golos Sotsial-Demokrata*, on the one hand, and Trotsky's Polish article, on the other.{61}

## I

The basis of Bolshevik tactics in the revolution of 1905–1907 was the proposition that complete victory of this revolution was possible only as a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. What is the economic justification for this view? Beginning with "Two Tactics" (1905) and continuing through numerous articles in newspapers and collections of 1906 and 1907, we always gave the following justification: bourgeois development of Russia is already completely predetermined and inevitable, but it is possible in two forms—in the so-called "Prussian" form (preservation of the monarchy and landlord land-ownership, creation of a strong, i.e., bourgeois, peasantry on the given historical soil, etc.) and in the so-called "American" form (bourgeois republic, elimination of landlord land-ownership, creation of farming, i.e., free bourgeois peasantry through a sharp rupture with the given historical circumstances). The proletariat must struggle for the second path, for it ensures the greatest freedom and rapidity of development of the productive forces of capitalist Russia, and victory in such a struggle is possible only through the revolutionary alliance of the proletariat and peasantry.

This is correct. And this is full recognition of the economic justification of Bolshevik tactics. It is not a matter of "revolutionary fervor" (as the Vekhi people and Cherevannins suppose), but of objective, economic conditions that make possible the "American" path of capitalism in Russia. In his history of the peasant movement of 1905–1907, Maslov had to acknowledge our basic premises. The agrarian "program of the Cadets," he writes there, "is the most utopian, because there is no such broad social class that would be interested in the desired solution of the question: will the interests of landowners prevail, with inevitable political concessions" (Maslov means to say: with inevitable concessions to landed bourgeoisie) "or the interests of democracy" (p. 456).

And this is correct. From this it follows that the tactic of supporting the Cadets by the proletariat was "utopian" in the revolution. From this it follows that the forces of "democracy," i.e., of democratic revolution, are the forces of the proletariat and peasantry. From this it follows that there are two roads of bourgeois development: one is led by "landowners making concessions to the bourgeoisie," the other is wanted and can be led by workers and peasants (cf. Maslov, p. 446: "If all landlord lands were transferred free for peasant use, still then... the process of capitalization of peasant economy would occur, but more painlessly...").

We see that when Maslov reasons as a Marxist, he reasons as a Bolshevik. But here is an example of how, attacking the Bolsheviks, he reasons like a liberal. This example is found, naturally, in the liquidationist book: "Public Movement in Russia at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century," published under the editorship of Martov, Maslov, and Potresov; in the "Summary" section (vol. I) we find an article by Maslov: "Development of the National Economy and Its Influence on the Class Struggle in the Nineteenth Century." In this article, on page 661, we read:

"...some social-democrats began to regard the bourgeoisie as a hopelessly reactionary class and an insignificant force. The strength and significance of the bourgeoisie were not only underestimated, but the historical role of this class was examined outside historical perspective: the participation of the middle and petty bourgeoisie in the revolutionary movement was ignored, and the sympathy of the large bourgeoisie toward it in the first period of the movement—all this and the allegedly predetermined reactionary role of the bourgeoisie in the future, etc." (exactly thus: "etc."!). "From this was drawn the conclusion about the inevitability of a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, which would contradict the entire course of economic development."

This entire tirade is wholly Vekhi-ist. All this "Marxism" is Brentanian, Sombartian, or Struvian.{63} The position of the author of this tirade is precisely the position of a liberal in distinction from a bourgeois democrat. For a liberal is a liberal precisely because he sees no other path, cannot even imagine another path of bourgeois development except the given path, i.e., that guided by landowners who make "concessions" to the bourgeoisie. A democrat is a democrat precisely because he sees another path, struggles for it, namely the path guided by the "people," i.e., by the petty bourgeoisie, peasantry, and proletariat, but does not see the bourgeois character of this path. In the "Summary" of the liquidationist book, Maslov forgot everything about the two paths of bourgeois development, about the strength of American bourgeoisie (in Russian: emerging from the peasantry, on soil cleansed by revolutionary means from landlord land-ownership), about the weakness of Prussian bourgeoisie (enslaved by "landowners"), about the fact that the Bolsheviks never spoke of the "inevitability" of "dictatorship," but of its necessity for victory of the American path, forgot that the Bolsheviks derived "dictatorship" not from the weakness of the bourgeoisie but from objective, economic conditions making possible a twofold development of the bourgeoisie. From a theoretical standpoint, the cited tirade is a solid mass of confusion (which Maslov himself renounced in vol. II of "The Agrarian Question"); from a practical-political standpoint, this tirade is liberalism, is ideological defense of extreme liquidationism.

Now observe how shakiness of position on the fundamental economic question leads to shakiness of political conclusions. Here is a citation from Martov's article "Where to Go?" (no. 13 of *Golos Sotsial-Demokrata*): "In contemporary Russia, no one can at the present moment determine whether, in a new political crisis, favorable objective conditions will be created for a radical democratic revolution; we can only outline those concrete conditions, under which such a revolution would become inevitable. Until history decides this question in the way it decided it for Germany in 1871, until then social-democracy must not renounce the task of going toward the inevitable political crisis with its revolutionary solution of political, agrarian, and national problems (democratic republic, confiscation of landlord land-ownership, and complete freedom of self-determination). But it must precisely go toward that crisis which will definitively resolve the question of "German" or "French" completion of the revolution, rather than stand in expectation of the crisis's coming."

Correct. Splendid words, recapitulating precisely the resolution of the party conference of December 1908. Such a formulation fully corresponds to the words of Maslov in the second volume of "The Agrarian Question" and to Bolshevik tactics. Such a formulation differs decisively from the position expressed in the famous exclamation: "the Bolsheviks at the conference of December 1908 decreed to push in the direction where they were once defeated."64 "To go with one's revolutionary solution of the agrarian question" is possible only with revolutionary strata of bourgeois democracy, i.e., only with the peasantry, and not with liberals satisfied with "concessions of the landowners." To go toward confiscation together with the peasantry—this formulation differs in nothing except verbal difference from the proposition: to go toward a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. But Martov, who in no. 13 of *Golos* came close to the position of our party, does not hold this position consistently, constantly slipping toward Potresov–Cherevannin, both in the liquidationist book "Public Movement" and in that same no. 13. For example, he defines the task of the moment in the same article as "struggle for open workers' movement, including struggle for achieving the open existence of its own (social-democratic party)." To speak thus means to slip into concession to the liquidators: we want the strengthening of the social-democratic party, utilizing all legal possibilities and all instances of open activity; the liquidators want the party pared down to the limits of legal and open (under Stolypin) existence. We struggle for revolutionary overthrow of Stolypin's autocracy, using for such struggle any open activity, expanding the proletarian basis of the movement toward such a goal. The liquidators struggle for the open existence of the workers' movement... under Stolypin. Martov's words that we are obligated to struggle for a republic and land confiscation are formulated so as to exclude liquidationism; his words about struggle for the open existence of the party are formulated so as not to exclude liquidationism. In the sphere of politics here is the same unsteadiness that Maslov has in the sphere of economics.{19}

In Martyno's agrarian article (nos. 10–11) this unsteadiness reaches Herculean proportions. Martyno tries to argue sharply with *Proletarii*, but what emerges, owing to his inability to pose the question properly, is helpless and clumsy floundering. It "emerges" in *Proletarii*, you see, according to Tkachev: "Now or a little more, or never!"65 This "emerges" also with Maslov and with Martov, dear comrade Martyno; this must emerge with any Marxist, for the question concerns not socialist revolution (as with Tkachev), but one of two methods of completing the bourgeois one. Think about it, comrade Martyno: can Marxists in general commit themselves to supporting confiscation of large land-ownership, or are they obligated to do so only "until" ("now or a little more"—or still for quite a long time, which you and I don't know) the bourgeois order is finally "established"? Another example. The law of November 9, 1906 "sowed great turmoil in the countryside, veritable fratricidal war, sometimes reaching knife-fighting," says Martyno correctly. His conclusion: "in the nearest future, to count on any sort of unanimous and impressive revolutionary uprising of the peasantry, on peasant insurrection, is completely unthinkable in view of this fratricidal strife." To contrast insurrection, i.e., civil war, to "fratricidal strife," is absurd, dear comrade Martyno, and the question of the nearest future is irrelevant here, for the matter concerns not practical directives but the line of all agrarian development. Another example. "Withdrawal from the commune proceeds at a forced march." Correct. Your conclusion?.. "It is obvious that the landlord reorganization will be accomplished successfully and that in the course of not many years, precisely in those vast regions of Russia where recently agrarian movement took the sharpest forms, the commune will be destroyed, and with it will vanish the main nest of Labor-party ideology. Thus, one of the two perspectives of *Proletarii*, namely the 'pleasing' one, falls away."

It is not a matter of the commune, dear comrade Martyno, for the Peasant Union in 1905 and the Labor deputies in 1906–1907 demanded the transfer of lands not to communes but to individual persons or free associations. The commune is destroyed both by Stolypin's landlord reorganization of the old land-ownership and by peasant reorganization, i.e., confiscation for creating new land arrangements. The "pleasing" perspective of *Proletarii* is connected not with the commune and not with Labor-partyism as such, but with the possibility of "American" development, the creation of free farming. Therefore, in saying that the pleasing perspective falls away, and at the same time declaring that "the slogan of expropriation of large landowners will not die," comrade Martyno confuses matters terribly. If the "Prussian" type is established, then this slogan will die, and Marxists will say: we did everything possible for more painless development of capitalism, it remains for us now to struggle for the destruction of capitalism itself. But if this slogan does not die, then it means the objective conditions will exist for putting the "train" on American "rails." And then Marxists will be able, if they do not wish to become Struvians, behind the reactionary-"socialist" phraseology of petty bourgeois, expressing their subjective views, to see the objectively real struggle of the masses for better conditions of capitalist development.

Let us sum up. Barren are disputes about tactics if they do not rest on clear analysis of economic possibilities. The question of the Prussian and American types of agrarian evolution of Russia has been posed by the struggle of 1905–1907, which proved its reality. Stolypin takes another step forward along the Prussian path—it would be ridiculous fear of bitter truth not to see this. We must overcome our peculiar historical stage on the basis of this new step. But it would be not only ridiculous but criminal not to see that thus far Stolypin has only entangled and aggravated the old situation, without creating a new one. Stolypin "bets on the strong ones" and asks for "20 years of peace and quiet" to "reform" (read: rob) Russia through the landlords. The proletariat must bet on democracy, not exaggerating its forces, not limiting itself to simple "reliance" on it, but steadily developing work of propaganda, agitation, organization, raising all forces of democracy—peasant masses first and foremost and above all—calling them to alliance with the advanced class, to "dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" for the sake of complete democratic victory and assurance of the very best conditions for the most rapid and free development of capitalism. Refusal to fulfill this democratic duty by the proletariat inevitably leads to vacillation, objectively serves only the counterrevolutionary liberals outside the workers' movement and the liquidators within it.

*Proletarii*, no. 50, November 28 (December 11), 1909.

Printed according to the text of the newspaper *Proletarii*