V. I.

Lenin

As is known, the most desperate efforts are being made at
present to arouse the entire priesthood for the elections to the
Fourth Duma and to organise it as a solid Black-Hundred force.

It is most instructive to see that the whole Russian bourgeoisie—governmental, Octobrist, and oppositional Cadet alike—with
equal zeal and agitation is exposing and condemning these plans of the
government.

The Russian merchant and the Russian liberal landlord (or rather the
landlord playing the liberal) fear the strengthening of an irresponsible
government which desires to “cull” for itself the votes of obedient
priests. It goes without saying that the democrats’ opposition (to use a
mild and inexact term) on this point is far more resolute than that of the
liberals.

We have already pointed out in Pravda the undemocratic approach to the question of the priesthood by the liberals, who either
frankly defend the arch-reactionary theory of “non-interference” of the
priesthood in politics, or reconcile themselves to this theory. [1]

A democrat is absolutely hostile to the slightest falsification of suffrage and elections, but he is absolutely
in favour of the widest masses of any priesthood being directly
and openly drawn into politics. Non-participation of the priest hood in the
political struggle is the most harmful hypocrisy. In reality the priesthood
has always participated in politics covertly, and the people would
only benefit if it were to pass to overt politics.

Of outstanding interest in this respect is the article published in
Rech a few days ago by Bishop Mikhail, an adherent of the old rites. [2] That writer’s views are very naïve. He is under the
impression, for example, that “clericalism is unknown [to us] in Russia”,
that prior to the revolution it (the priesthood) concerned itself only with
heavenly matters, and so on.

But the instructive thing is the actual appraisal of events by this
apparently informed man.

“ It seems indisputable to me that the triumph of the elections will not be a triumph of clericalism,” wrote Bishop
Mikhail. “United, if artificially, and at the same time, of course,
offended by this lording it over their votes and their conscience, the
priesthood will see themselves standing between two forces.... Hence the
need of a radical change, a crisis, a return to a natural alliance with the
people. If the clerical and reactionary trend ... succeeded in growing
strong and maturing by itself, this perhaps would not come about. Now that
the priesthood has been roused from its quiescence while still with
remnants of its former confusion, it will continue its history. And the
democracy of the priesthood is the inevitable and closing stage of this
history, which will be linked to the priesthood’s struggle in its own
behalf.”

Actually it should be a question of a distribution between the
contending classes, and not of “a return to a natural alliance”, as the
author na\"ively believes. If the priesthood is drawn into politics, this
distribution will certainly gain in clarity, breadth and political
consciousness.

As for the fact that informed observers acknowledge the existence,
vitality and force of the “remnants of the former confusion” even in such
a social stratum of Russia as the priesthood, it is well worth putting on
record.

---
Notes:
[1]
See pp. 227–28 of this volume.— Ed .

[2]
Adherents of the old rites —followers of a Russian religious
movement against the official Orthodox Church. The movement arose in the
mid-seventeenth century following the alteration of church rites by
Patriarch Nicon. In tsarist times it was subjected to persecution.