V. I.

Lenin

At the last, London, congress of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party the question of the attitude to wards
bourgeois parties was discussed and a resolution adopted on the
subject. Controversy was particularly aroused at the Congress by the
passage in this resolution which speaks of deception of the people
by the

liberals. [1]

The Social-Democrats of the Right wing of our Party thought this pas sage
to be highly incorrect. They even declared that it was not Marxist to speak
in the resolution about the liberals’ “deception” of the
people, i.e., to account for certain sections of the population joining a
given party (in this case the Cadet Party) not by the class interests of
these sections, but by the “immoral” political practices of one
or another group of parliamentarians, lawyers, journalists, and so on.

As a matter of fact, these specious arguments, arrayed in ostensibly
Marxist garb, concealed a policy of weakening the class independence of the
proletariat and subordinating it (in effect) to the liberal
bourgeoisie. For these gentlemen do not seriously defend the interests of
the democratic petty bourgeoisie who follow the Cadets, but betray
them by their policy of intrigues and deals with the government, with the
Octobrists, with the “historic authority” of the tsarist
autocracy.

Extremely interesting material throwing new light, on this
question—one of the fundamental questions of Social-Democratic
tactics in all capitalist countries—is afforded by the present
struggle for universal suffrage in the Prussian Landtag (Diet). German
Social-Democracy raised the banner of that struggle. The proletariat of
Berlin, followed by all the large cities of Germany, came out into the street, organised imposing
demonstrations of tens of thousands of people, and inaugurated a broad mass
movement, which already, at its very outset, has led to violent acts on the
part of the constitutional authorities, to the use of military force and
the beating up of the unarmed masses. Struggle grows out of struggle! The
leaders of the revolutionary proletariat met these acts of violence proudly
and bravely. But here the question came up of the attitude towards the
democratic (and liberal) bourgeoisie in the struggle for the franchise. The
debates on this question between the German revolutionary Social-Democrats
and the opportunists (revisionists, as they are called in Germany) bear a
remarkably close re semblance to our own disputes on the subject of the
deception of the people by the liberals.

The central organ of the German Social-Democratic Labour Party,
Vorwärts , published a leading article, the gist and substance
of which is clearly expressed in its heading: “The Struggle for the
Franchise Is a Class Struggle!” As was to be expected, this article
was received by the opportunists as a challenge, although it set forth in a
positive form only established Social-Democratic axioms. The gauntlet was
taken up. Comrade Südekum, a well-known worker in the field of
municipal socialism, launched an aggressive campaign against this
“sectarians’ tactic”, against the “isolation of the proletariat”, against “Social-Democratic support of the Black
Hundreds” (the Germans use the milder term—reactionaries). For
to a German opportunist too the introduction of the class struggle into a
cause common to both the proletariat and the liberals means supporting the
reactionaries! “The introduction of universal suffrage in Prussia
instead of the present three-class system is not the concern of any single
class”, wrote Südekum. This, he said, was the affair of
“the urban population against the agrarians, of democracy against the
bureaucracy, of the peasantry against the land lords, of Western Prussia
against Eastern Prussia” (i. e., the industrially and capitalistically advanced part of the country against the economically
backward part). “What has to be done now is to unite on this point
all the friends of the reform, whatever the other issues which may divide
them.”

The reader sees that these are all very familiar arguments, that here,
too, the garb is strictly and orthodoxly “Marxist”, inclusive
of the reference to the economic position and interests of definite
elements of bourgeois democracy (the “urban democracy”, the
peasantry, etc.). There is hardly any need to add that the German
liberal-bourgeois press has been harping systematically on this note for
decades, accusing Social-Democracy of sectarianism, of supporting the
reactionaries, and of inability to isolate the reactionaries.

What arguments did the German revolutionary Social-Democrats
use to refute this reasoning. We shall list their chief arguments so as to
enable the reader—viewing German affairs as a “bystander”, “without anger or bias”—to judge
whether the predominant part is played here by references to special
conditions of place and time or to general principles of Marxism.

Yes, our freethinkers “demand” universal suffrage in their
programmes, said Vorwärts . Yes, they have become more than
usually zealous in making grandiloquent speeches about it today. But are
they fighting for reform? Do we not see, on the contrary, that the
truly popular movement, the street demonstrations, the broad agitation
among the masses, the unrest of the masses, evoke in them ill-concealed
fear, aversion, and at best, in rare cases, indifference?

We must distinguish between the programmes of the bourgeois parties,
between the banquet and parliamentary speeches of the liberal careerists
and their actual participation in the real struggle of the
people. Bourgeois politicians, one and all, in all parliamentary countries,
have always paid lip-service to democracy while betraying it.

Yes, “ within the Centre and the Party of freethinkers
[the Liberal Party] there are undoubtedly elements who are
interested in universal and equal suffrage”, said
Vorwärts . But it is not these elements that lead the bourgeois parties, not the petty artisans, not the semi-proletariat, not
the semi-ruined peasants. They follow the lead of the liberal bourgeois,
who try to keep them away from the struggle by making compromises with
reaction behind their backs, by corrupting their class-consciousness and
not really defending their interests.

To draw these elements into the struggle for universal suffrage it is
necessary to arouse their class-consciousness, to win them away from the
vacillating bourgeois parties. “Within the Liberal [freethinking]
Party they, the elements interested in universal suffrage, form an impotent
minority, which is forever being fed with promises and then always
duped once again, and whose political energy is completely
paralysed. If, however, the freethinkers and the Centre are really to be
forced to make concessions to democracy owing to the threat of losing
votes, then it is the glass struggle, which weakens the bourgeois parties,
that is the only means of pushing the reluctant bourgeoisie to the Left.”

For the political facts long ago proved that reaction is less hateful
to the freethinkers than Social-Democracy. “We must therefore not
only ruthlessly castigate the sins of all the bourgeois parties, but above
all make it clear that the betrayals of the freethinkers and the Centre on
the question of the franchise are a necessary consequence of the class
character of these parties.”

In the immediate future the question whether our Cadets are capable of
“fighting” for the democratic demands put forward in their
programme, or whether they are putting them forward merely to betray to the
Octobrists the petty bourgeois and peasants who are following the liberals’
lead, will confront the Russian Social-Democrats again and again, as it
repeatedly did before in the course of the revolution. Therefore some
people in our Party would do well to ponder these arguments of
Vorwärts .

P. S.

This article was sent to press before we read Rech , issue No. 52
(of March 1), containing an article by Mr. K. D., the Berlin
correspondent of this newspaper, entitled “The Crisis of German
Liberalism”. The writer handles the controversy of
Vorwärts with Südekum in the customary tone and with the
customary methods used by our liberal falsifiers. lie makes no attempt to
give the line of reasoning of the parties concerned or exact quotations. He
simply declares:

“The official Vorwärts promptly throws mud at the heretic, and in a leading article, extremely unappetising on account of its
offensive and blustering tone, accuses him of ignorance and unpardonable
forgetfulness of party tenets.” We leave it to the reader to judge
whether Südekum himself will find such a defence of him by the Cadets “appetising” or
not. But such is the fate of the revisionists in any country—they are
given generous support and heartfelt “recognition” of their
efforts by the bourgeoisie. An alliance between the Südekum and the
Struve gentry—could anything more “appetising” be thought
of to confirm the correctness of our position?

---
Notes:
[1]
See present edition, Vol. 12, pp. 501-02.— Ed .