V. I.

Lenin

At p resent i t seems that the home policy of the Russian Government can least of all he
accused of insufficient resoluteness and clarity. The fight against the
enemy at home is in full swing. Hardly ever has there been a time when
fortresses, prisons, police stations, and even private homes and
apartments temporarily converted into lock-ups have been so crammed with
persons under arrest. There is no room for all those who have been seized;
it is impossible to send all the exiles to Siberia by the usual
“means of transportation,” without equipping extraordinary
“expeditions”; there are neither the forces nor the means for
instituting a uniform regime for all prisoners, and the wholly arbitrary
behaviour of the distraught and tyrannical local authorities especially
rouses the indignation of the prisoners and drives them to protest,
struggle, and hunger-strikes. The higher authorities, however, while
leaving it to the small fry to deal with the internal enemies already in
custody, are zealously continuing their labours to “improve”
and reorganise the police with a view to striking further against the very
roots and branches. It is war pure and simple, and it is not only be
coming apparent to ever greater masses of the Russian population, but is
actually being more or less directly felt by them. The vanguard of police
and gendarmerie flying squads are slowly but surely followed by the heavy
artillery of the law. Take the laws of the preceding month, and the first
things to strike you are the new ukases which destroy the last vestiges of
Finland’s liberties, and in addition, perhaps, the extensive law on mutual
aid societies for the nobility. The first of these measures completely
under mines the independence of the Finnish courts and

S enate, m aking i t possible for the Governor-General to know every thing, to control
everything, i. e., actually converting Finland into one of those numerous
Russian provinces which enjoy no rights and are abased. From now on,
remarks Finlandskaya Gazeta , the police-controlled government
newspaper, there is hope for the “harmonious” activity of all
local institutions.... I am at a loss to say whether this is a malicious
sneer at an unarmed foe who has been dealt a most foul and deliberate
blow, or unctuous twaddle in the spirit of “Judas”

Golovlyov. [2]

The second of the laws mentioned above is the latest offspring of the same
Select Committee for Affairs of the Nobility, which has already blessed
the fatherland with the looting of Siberian lands (“the imposition of
landed proprietorship in

Siberia”). [3]
At a time of severe commercial and industrial crisis and complete
impoverishment in the countryside, when millions of workers and peasants
are prey to hunger, malnutrition, and distress, it is of course impossible
even to imagine a better way of using the people’s money than for
hand-outs to the unfortunate landed gentry. First, the government will
grant to each mutual aid society for the nobility a certain lump sum
(“at the discretion of His Majesty the Emperor”!), and, secondly,
over a period of ten years it will grant them as much again as members of
the local nobility will themselves contribute. The societies will assist
those who have difficulty in paying interest on loans. The gentlemen of
the nobility need have no compunction about accepting loans when they have
been shown such an easy way of getting money for payments from the pockets
of the people.

And as if deliberately to sum up this policy of persecution, violence, and
plunder, to generalise and consecrate it, there came the tsar’s addresses
to the nobility, Zemstvoists, peasants, and workers (in Kursk and
St. Peters burg). The tsar thanked the nobility for the service it had
rendered him, service “dictated by conscience rather than by fear,”
and promised to display ceaseless concern in the promotion of landed
proprietorship, “which constitutes the age-old pillar of law and
order and of the moral strength of Russia.” To the Zemstvoists the tsar
said nothing at all either about a pillar, or about the moral strength of

R ussia, or about service dictated by conscience rather than by fear. He
told them briefly and plainly that their “mission is to organise
local efforts in the sphere of economic requirements,” and that only if
they bore this in mind, only if they discharged this mission successfully,
could they be assured of his graciousness. This was an absolutely definite
answer to the constitutional yearnings of the Zemstvoists, a direct
warning (or, to be more exact, challenge) to them, a threat to withhold
his “graciousness” in the event of the slightest transgression
on their part beyond the bounds of “local efforts in the sphere of
economic requirements.”

Further, to the peasants the tsar openly expressed censure for the
“disturbances” and the “plunder of estates,” describing
as “merited punishment” the brutal beating and torture of the
muzhiks who had risen in hunger and desperation,.

and recalling the words of Alexander III, who had en joined them to
“obey the Marshals of the Nobility.” Lastly, to the workers the
tsar spoke neither more nor less than “about enemies,” his
enemies, who should also be the enemies of the workers.

And so, the noblemen are the faithful servants and the age-old pillar of
law and order. The Zemstvoists (or Zemstvo noblemen?) get a warning. The
peasants too are censured and are commanded to obey the noblemen. The
workers are faced squarely with the question of enemies.
Instructive speeches. It is instructive to compare them, and it would be
most desirable to acquaint as many people as possible both with the exact
text and the real meaning of these speeches, through the medium of
proclamations, leaflets, and talks in study circles and at
meetings. Simple explanatory notes to the text of these speeches would
serve as splendid material for agitation among the most unenlightened part
of the most backward sections of the working class, the small traders.and manufacturers, and the peasantry. And not only the “ignorant,” but
also many an enlightened and educated Russian citizen would also benefit
by careful pondering over the tsar’s speeches—especially from among
the liberals in general and among the Zemstvoists in particular. It is not
often that one hears from the lips of royalty such an explicit avowal,
confirmation, and declaration of war at home: war of the various classes of the population, war against domestic
enemies. And an open avowal of war is an excellent remedy against all and
sundry forms of political chicanery, i.e., attempts to gloss over, evade
and hush up the war, or attempts to constrict and dwarf its nature.

The political chicanery to which we refer is exhibited both by the
government and the peaceful opposition, and occasionally even by the
revolutionaries (although it is true that in the case of the latter it
assumes a special form which does not resemble the former). On the part of
the government it is deliberate enticement, bribery, and corruption, in
short, a system that has come to be known as “Zubatovism.” Promises of
more or less extensive reforms, actual readiness to carry out the tiniest
fraction of what has been promised, and the demand to refrain from
political struggle in return for this—such is the essence of
Zubatovism. Now even some of the Zemstvoists already see that the parleys
between Mr. Plehve, Minister of the Interior, and Mr. D. N. Shipov
(Chairman of the Moscow Zemstvo Board) constitute the beginning of
“Zemstvo Zubatovism.” Plehve promises to deal “more favourably” with the Zemstvo (cf. Osvobozhdeniye , No. 7),
promises to convene a conference of chair men of Zemstvo Boards early next
year for “settling all questions concerning the functioning of
Zemstvo institutions,” demanding in return that the Zemstvoists “say
nothing about representation in the higher government bodies.” It would
appear that the matter is as clear as can be: the promise is most
indefinite, while the demand is such that, if it is complied with, the
Zemstvoists’ yearnings cannot be realised. Against this political deceit,
trickery, and corruption there is only one remedy: merciless exposure of
the tricksters, and a resolute political (i. e., in Russian conditions,
revolutionary ) struggle against the police autocracy. Judging by
Osvobozhdeniye , our Zemstvoists, however, are not yet equal to
this task. They reply to political chicanery in kind, and their mouth
piece betrays utter instability. In No. 7 of Osvobozhdeniye this
instability is particularly glaring owing to the fact that opinions on the
question at issue are voiced not only by the editors but also by several
contributors with whom the editors more or less disagree. In the
editorial, the view that Plehve’s promises are a trap and an expression of Zubatovism Is given
only as the opinion of a few Zemstvoists, and right next to this we are
given the opinion of other Zemstvoists who “are inclined to follow
the minister’s instructions” (!!). The editors are far from the idea
of launching a campaign against Zemstvo Zubatovism. They have cautioned
the Zemstvoists against “concessions” to the government (in
Nos. 5 and 6), but they do not come out with a resolute condemnation of
Mr. Shipov and Co., who have heeded the advice of the old police fox and
deleted from the agenda of the spring congress of the Zemstvo Point 4
(which dealt with the necessity of supplementing the Select Committee on
the Needs of the Agricultural Industry with elected Zemstvo
representatives). The conclusion drawn by the editors in their leading
article is not that the Zemstvo is degraded because part of the
Zemstvoists have fallen for the police’s vile bait, but because the very
fact of negotiations between the government and the Zemstvo “proves
that the Zemstvo is now already a ’representative body’" (!!) andthat the
“congress” promised by Mr. Plehve (it seems to me Mr. Plehve
spoke only about a “conference”?) “is desirable in any case,”
since it “cannot but clear up the relations between the Zemstvo and
the government.” The editors are “firmly convinced that the
Zemstvoists will behave at the congress as befits them— as
representatives of the people, and not as assistants to the ministers in
the economic sphere.” If one judges solely by this leading article, one
must, on the contrary, be firmly convinced that the Zemstvoists will again
act as “assist ants” of the police authorities, as
Messrs. Shipov and Co. have done (until another Zemstvo trend thrusts them
aside, or refashions them).

A welcome relief from the political chicanery in this leading article is
offered by further articles from contributors: Mr. Anton Staritsky’s and
even more so the article of the Zemstvo Councillor Mr. T. The former calls
the action of Mr. Shipov and Co. a “false step,” advises the
Zemstvoists “not to be hasty in thinking that some sort of congress
arranged by Mr. Plehve will confirm them in their birthright,” advises
them not to fall for the bait, and refrain from political chicanery. The
editors comment:

“On the whole we agree with the author of this article,” evidently in
the opinion that, in particular, political chicanery should not be
condemned so one-sidedly. [1]

The second contributor, however, openly rebels against the entire stand of
Osvobozhdeniye , attacking its incompleteness and irresolution,
condemning such false language as, for instance, references to “the
people’s anarchy,” and declaring that “it is impossible to rest
content with half-measures, that it is necessary to decide to go on to the
very end,” that “it is necessary to have done with the servile
half-measures of the legal opposition...” “stopping at no
sacrifice,” that “unless we become revolutionaries, we [Zemstvoists]
will be unable to contribute anything substantial to the cause of the
political emancipation of Russia.” From the bottom of our hearts we
welcome these honest and firm statements by the Zemstvo councillor and
earnestly advise everyone who takes an interest in the problem under
examination to make a study of them. He fully confirms the
appraisal of the Osvobozhdeniye programme given by us in
Iskra . More than that: his article shows not only the correctness
of our point of view, but also the expediency of our sharp exposure of the
half-heartedness of liberalism. It appears that among the Zemstvoists
themselves there are people who are repelled by shilly-shallying of any
sort and whom we must make special efforts to support by ruthlessly
criticising such shilly-shallying from our standpoint.

The editor of Osvobozhdeniye , of course, does not agree with
Zemstvo Councillor T. and—respectfully but firmly— declares:
“We see many things in a different light....” To say the least! And
what then are the objections of the editors? They boil down to two main
points: firstly, Mr. Struve prefers peaceful paths “on principle,”
in contrast, as he believes, to some revolutionaries; secondly, he accuses
the latter of insufficient tolerance. Let us examine these objections.

In an article headed “Apropos of a Reproach” Mr. Struve (the
article is over his signature.—Ed.) quotes my article in No. 2-3 of
Zarya (“The Persecutors of the Zemstvo and the Hannibals of
Liberalism”). What displeased him particularly, of course, were the words:
“if, for once at least, the people taught the government a good
lesson” it would be of “enormous historical significance.” [ See present edition, Vol. 5.— Ed . ]

You see, Mr. Struve decidedly and categorically disagrees that violent
revolution is preferable to peaceful reform. The most resolute Russian
revolutionaries, he says, preferred the peaceful path on principle, and no
doctrines whatever can stifle this glorious tradition.

It is difficult to conceive of anything more fallacious and laboured than
this argument. Does Mr. Struve really fail to understand that a slave who
has risen in revolt is morally entitled to speak about the preferability
of peace with the slaveowner, whereas a slave who renounces rebellion
sinks into shameful hypocrisy when he repeats the very same words?
“The elements of revolution in Russia are, unfortunately or fortunately , not yet ripe,” says Mr. Struve, and this word
“fortunately” shows him up completely.

As for the glorious traditions of revolutionary thought, Mr. Struve would
be well advised to keep silent on this score. We need only refer to the
famous closing words of the Communist Manifesto. [4]

We need only recollect that thirty years after the publication of the
Manifesto , when the German workers were deprived of a portion of
the rights which the Russian people have never had, Engels retorted to
Dühring in the following words:

“To Herr Dühring force is the absolute evil; the first act of
force is to him the original sin; his whole exposition is a jeremiad on
the contamination of all subsequent his tory consummated by this original
sin; a jeremiad on the shameful perversion of all natural and social laws
by this diabolical power, force. That force, however, plays also another
role in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is
the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one, that it is the
instrument with the aid of which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead,
fossilised political forms—of this there is not a word in Herr
Dühring. It is only with sighs and groans that he admits the
possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of the
economic system of exploitation—unfortunately, because all use of
force, for sooth, demoralises the person who uses it. And this in spite of
the immense moral and spiritual impetus which has been given by every
victorious revolution! And this in Germany, where a violent
collision—which indeed may be forced on the people—would at
least have the advantage of wiping out the servility which has permeated
the national consciousness as a result of the humiliation of the Thirty
Years’ War. And this parsons’ mode of thought—lifeless, insipid and
impotent—claims the right to impose itself on the most revolutionary
party that history has known!" [5]

Let us proceed to the second point, dealing with tolerance. What we need
is “mutual understanding,” “complete frankness,” and “great tolerance” in relations between the various trends, we
are unctuously instructed by Mr. Struve (like many
Socialist-Revolutionaries and exponents of public opinion). Well, and what
should we do, we ask him, if our complete frankness will seem to you to be
lack of tolerance? If we, for example, find that Osvobozhdeniye
has a right hand and a left hand, a pernicious and treacherous left hand,
does not complete frankness make it incumbent upon us to wage ruthless
battle against this left hand? Does not such frankness oblige us to fight
against the adventurism (and political chicanery) of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries, when they display it both in questions of the
theory of socialism and in the attitude they have towards the class
struggle in all their tactics? Is there even the slightest trace of
political sense in the demand to water down this struggle and to render it
innocuous for the sake of that which the very people this struggle is
directed against are pleased to term tolerance?

It is high time to dispense with your tawdry show of naïveté,
gentlemen! High time to understand the simple truth that it is not
political chicanery, not what the late

Stepnyak [6] once called self-restriction and self-concealment, not the conventional lie of
diplomatic mutual recognition that ensure a genuine (and not merely an alleged) joint struggle against
the common enemy, but actual participation in the struggle, actual unity
in struggle. When the struggle of the German Social-Democrats against the
military-police and feudal-clerical reaction really became one with the
struggle of any genuine party which relied for support upon a definite
class of the people (for instance, the liberal bourgeoisie), then joint
action was instituted without any phrase-mongering about mutual
recognition. One does not talk about recognising a fact that is obvious to
everyone and felt by everyone (we, for instance, do not ask anyone to
recognise the working-class movement!). Only people who confuse politics
with political chicanery can think that the “tone” of polemics
can interfere with a genuine political alliance. But so long as we have
evasive talk instead of genuine participation in our struggle, so long as
we have only adventurist tactics instead of a genuine advance towards our
struggle on the part of some other social stratum or class, no spate of
threatening or miserable words will bring “mutual recognition”
one iota nearer.

---
Notes:
[1]
In No. 8 of Osvobozhdeniye , which we have just received, we
already have a more resolute condemnation of political chicanery and
Mr. Shipov’s false step. Good! Perhaps the incident with this respected
personage will induce the editors to look for the roots of
“political chicanery” in their fundamental views about the
relations between liberalism and the revolutionary trends?
— Lenin

[2]
Lenin refers to Porphiry (nicknamed “Judas”) Golovlyov, a
sanctimonious, hypocritical landlord serf-owner described in
M. Y. Saltykov-Shchedrin’s The Golovlyov Family.

[3]
Lenin is referring to the Law of June 8(21), 1901, which turned government
lands in Siberia over to private persons. The Law gave exceptional
advantages to the landed nobility. Lenin made a detailed analysis and
appraisal of this Law in his article, “Serf-Owners at Work”
(see present edition, Vol. 5).

[4]
Marx and Engels, Selected Works , Vol. I, Moscow, 1958, pp.
64-65.

[5]
Lenin is quoting from Engels’ Anti-Dühring (see Frederick
Engels, Anti-Dühring , Moscow, 1959, pp. 253-54).

[6]
Stepnyak-Kravchinsky —the Russian Narodnaya Volya writer.