LENIN MISCELLANY
course), which could balance the reduced quality of the Russian loan." — -------
A new warning from the European bourgeoisie to the Russian
autocracy! Its credit is falling both from military defeats and from
growing discontent within the country. European bankers
are already beginning to consider the calculation on autocracy a shaky speculation,
openly recognizing the "quality" of Russian loans, in the sense of their reliability,
as declining.
And what an abyss of money this criminal war will still cost the people, absorbing probably no less than three million rubles a day!

*TO THE ARTICLE "WORKER AND BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY".
OCTOBER 1904 - JANUARY 1905. GENEVA.
Excerpts and remarks on Starover's (Potresov's) article
"Our Misfortunes. I. On Liberalism and Hegemony" are a supplement to the materials of the article "Worker and Bourgeois
Democracy", published in Lenin Miscellany V. The article "Worker and Bourgeois Democracy", reproduced here
from the manuscript, containing a number of corrections and strikeouts, and the materials for the article,
make it possible to establish the successive stages of Lenin's work on the article with sufficient completeness.
The reader will find exhaustive comments on the group of documents printed below
in Lenin Miscellany V, pp. 64-71, and Works, vol. VII, pp. 447-448, notes 29-35.

a.

* EXCERPTS FROM A. POTRESOV'S ARTICLE "OUR MISFORTUNES".
[Iskra] No. 78. Starover: "Our Misfortunes. I. On Liberalism and Hegemony". (MB)
"There is no more hackneyed question than the question of the relation of the Social Democrats to the liberation movement of the advanced elements of modern Russian society"...
It was Lenin, who fought against vile vagueness, who himself showed "the maximum sum" of it...
Lenin's "short little idea" — that the liberals are half-hearted, that they are opportunists...

TO THE ARTICLE "WORKER AND BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY"

Lenin's "monstrous lines": 1) support for the demands of the liberals ("one thing is to supp[ort the liberal] movement, another is to support the demands...... ((deep!))
2)...that the activity of the liberals and the Social Democrats mutually complements àpyi àp[uga/»....
...illusion)...
"Lenin's fantastic ideas about Russian liberalism"...
—............ moral qualities of the liberals (1/2% softness
etc.)........
"Unshakeably believing that they are liberals, poor and weak".... from No. 18 (Understood!!)\
"We sovereignly despise the liberal bourgeoisie and therefore (!!) relieve ourselves of reconciling with its class
and group psychology."
Leaders] of the nobility...
"A hodgepodge of Lenin's views" — "a monster point of view"
Ryazanov and Lenin "much that is true" (!!), but "in his own] conception of Russian; liberalism, like Lenin's, there was no place for such social elements,
to which the Social Democrats could have an impact when
ever [in the] capacity of the avant- guard of democracy"__
[Unveiling of] pseudonyms]: article in Zarya — Lenin. —
In I[skra/ "No. 26 "Political Struggle and Politicking"
idem** No. 46 "Political Agitation and Class P[oint of]
View" — 48 — "Letter to the Zemstvos". Internal/ review in No. 2/3 of Zarya.
Even clearer is the same mistake of Starover:
"If liberalism is really such.
as it is painted by
Lenin, if for that in order to quarrel with him. one has to
turn to no one else, exept to Mr.g. leaders of the nobles
— half-heartedness. Ed.
** — the same. Ed.

NAIL
of the mistake!

ty or to the Zemstvos, who stand for a qualification, then in such a case... it makes more sense to throw! the idea of hegemony overboard].... ||
...."Because that the Rossian liberalism, from which its historically-necessary part has been taken away, its
motor nerve, its bourgeois]-democratic
»
half, is good perhaps only for being scourged with scorpions"...
Here is the nail! Zemstvo + bourgeois democracy.
The leaders] of the nobility and the Zemstvos are worthless. (Bourgeois
democracy" (= Intelligentsia?) is worthwhile.
The liberalism of our] days is no longer what it was in the 50s and
70s.
— liberalism of zemstvo landowning groups and bureaucra-
cy__
+ "a significant] part of the contemporary bourgeois
democracy"....
"Intensified] democratic i attraction to the naked (??
from all ideological layers... to the unvarnished idea of constitutional fr[eedom." (Beautiful!)
And further: one phrase!
"Bourgeois democracy debuted 20 years ago... the going of democracy [to the people! to society and the zemstvo" ...,
{this = cultural activity} bourgeois democracy — intelligent
demo- crac]y (p. 3, column 3, line 9 from the bottom).
Capitalism will create " demand for labor of intelligent
democrac]y"___
----— "consolidation of zemstvo liberal circles and bourgeois democracy"__
— "3rd element" "Difference in the social j position of the converging groups"...
{Zemstvo and bourgeois democracy) vbis) p. 9, col. 1.
The question divided them: with the people and or without its participation?

TO THE ARTICLE
"WORKER AND BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY" юпо и а« " b.
*REMARKS ON A. POTRESOV'S ARTICLE "OUR MISFORTUNES".
Starover's two main ideas:
I. Lenin's conception of Russian liberalism is incorrect.
Lenin! does not see, besides the zemstvo, the bourgeois] democracy.
There is no place in Lenin's conception (in liberalism) for such soc[ial elem]ents to which the Social Democrats could have an impact in the capacity of the avant-garde.
II. It is not true that the "conditions" of the Starover's resolution
are fictitious. There may be and there is such a liberal-democratic current that will accept them.
Ad 1 — the separation of the "good" democratic bourgeoisie from the bad — glorification (and separation from the class
soil) of the intelligentsia.
Ad II — embellishment of bourgeois democracy (French radicals!, Italian republicans!, German
free-thinking individuals]\
Starover confirmed with this both of my accusations against
him in "Steps":
1) ignoring] class analysis;

(a) peasants and artisans in the people (b) Social Revolutionaries among the intelligentsia
2) inappropriate] pursuit of "conditions".
("Lenin was not given to understand my conception")
ad I. Regarding the accusation of ignoring the "3rd element]" etc. it is sufficient for me to refer to Zarya 2/3.
The promotion of the intelligentsia as bourgeois democracy is a hoax and a deviation from the class
point of view, forgetfulness of the people-mass basis of thoroughgoing democracy.

(motor nerve > 78) ("independent force" No. 77
Forgetfulness of the Social Revolutionaries among the intelligentsia
ad II. "Litmus paper, irresistible reagent"__ (beautiful!)

LENINIST NOTEBOOK
Comparison of the Plekhanovite and Staroverovite revolution
flexibility and completeness confusion of two tasks and casuistry
you should not obscure the conscious- ness of the proletariat, then agree-
ment is possible liberals, bourgeois democrats cannot but obscure
the consciousness of the proletariat.
Our agreement] with them is determined by the joint struggle,
and does not depend on "obscuring," because we, despite any agreement, will fight against
obscuring.
1. VII

6.
WORKING-CLASS AND BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY.
The question of the relationship of social democracy or working-class democracy
to bourgeois democracy is an old and at the same time eternally new question. It is old, because it has been put forward since the very moment
social democracy arose.
Its theoretical foundations were clarified in the earliest works of Marxist
literature, in the Communist Manifesto first of all, and
in Capital.
It is eternally new, because every step in the development
of every capitalist country gives a special, original combination of various shades of bourgeois democracy and various
currents in the socialist movement.
[The old principles are clarified and developed, applied to eternally new political
combinations. General theoretical questions are replaced by questions about the
correct application of the propositions established by scientific socialism
to reality.]
And in Russia, this old question has become especially new at the present time. In order to more clearly elucidate for ourselves
[Otechestvo]
Novo-Iskraite point of view for S.D.!!!
and if for S.R.??
ours:

TO THE ARTICLE ((WORKING-CLASS AND BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY))

the current formulation, we will begin with a short historical
overview. The old Russian revolutionary populism stood on a utopian, semi-anarchic point of view. The peasant-communalist
was considered a ready-made socialist. Behind the liberalism of the educated
Russian society, the aspirations of the Russian bourgeoisie were clearly seen. The struggle for political freedom was [absolutely] denied
[therefore,] as a struggle for institutions beneficial to the bourgeoisie. The Narodovoltsy took a step forward, [in a practical sense,] by switching
to political struggle, but they failed to connect it with socialism.
The explicitly socialist formulation of the question was even
obscured, when the waning faith in the socialist character of our
commune began to be renewed by theories in the spirit of Mr. V.V. about the non-class,
non-bourgeois character of the Russian democratic intelligentsia.
This laid the foundation for the fact that populism, which had previously absolutely denied bourgeois liberalism, began
to gradually merge with the latter, into a liberal-populist trend. * The bourgeois-democratic essence
of the Russian intelligentsia movement, starting from the most moderate,
culturalist, and ending with the most extreme, revolutionary-
terrorist, became clearer and clearer, simultaneously with the emergence and development of proletarian ideology (social
democracy) and the mass workers' movement. But the growth of this
latter was accompanied [as is known,] by a split [among the writers-Marxists and] among [practitioners- 1 social democrats.
The revolutionary and opportunist wings of social democracy were clearly revealed, expressing the former — proletarian, the latter — intelligentsia tendencies of our movement.
Legal Marxism soon in practice turned out to be "a reflection of Marxism in bourgeois
literature" [as Tulin called Struve's Critical Notes back in 1894] and through Bernsteiniapian opportunism went directly
to liberalism. The Economists in social democracy, on the one
hand, were carried away by the semi-anarchic conception of a purely working-class
movement, considered the support of the bourgeois opposition by socialists
a betrayal of the class point of view, and declared that bourgeois
democracy in Russia is a phantom.** On the other hand, econo-Here and below, the text enclosed between two lines is omitted
in the text of the article published in "Vpered." - Ed.
** See the Rabocheye Delo pamphlet "Two Congresses" (p. 32), directed
against Iskra. [In present times, one cannot but recommend Rabocheye Delo
literature, containing the original of all the new discoveries of the new Iskra.] mists of another shade, carried away by the same purely workers' movement, reproached the revolutionary social democrats for ignoring
the social struggle against the autocracy waged by our liberals, zemstvo members, culturalists. *
The Old Iskra [which first had to apply the principles of revolutionary social democracy to the constant assessment of current political
tasks in the era of the mass workers' movement, rose up against
all shades and directions of opportunism. It] showed the elements
of bourgeois democracy in Russia even when [many did not see them due to the absence of *Osvobozhdeniye* and the unclear
position of the Social Revolutionaries]. It demanded support
of this democracy by the proletariat (see № 2 of *Iskra* on support for the student
movement, № 8 on the illegal zemstvo congress, № 16 on the liberal leaders of the nobility, and № 18 on the ferment
in the zemstvo** etc.). It noted [at the same time with steadfastness]
constantly the class, bourgeois character of the liberal and
radical movement, its half-heartedness, indecision, narrowness,
clarifying that only the proletariat can be a consistent and resolute
fighter for democracy to the end. The Old Iskra [always recognized
the necessity] always contrasted the more consistent democrat
with the less consistent one, and, recognizing the necessity of their support by the proletariat,]
said to the wavering *Osvobozhdentsy*:
"It is time to understand the simple truth that a real (and not
verbal) community of struggle with the common enemy is ensured
not by politicking, not by what the late Stepnyak once called self-curtailment and self-concealment, not by the conditional lie
of diplomatic mutual recognition, but by factual participation
in the struggle. Factual unity of struggle. When the German
Social Democrats' struggle against the military-police and feudal-clerical
reaction really became common with the struggle of some real party based on a certain class
of people (e.g., the liberal bourgeoisie), then the community of action
was established without phrase-mongering about mutual recognition"
(№ 26).
*See the Separate Appendix to *Rabochaya Mysl*, September, 1899.
** I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to Starover
and Plekhanov, who began the extremely useful work of revealing the authors of the unsigned articles of the old Iskra. One can
hope that they will bring this work to an end - the material obtained will be
extremely characteristic for assessing the turn of the new Iskra to Rabocheye Delo.

TO THE ARTICLE ((WORKING-CLASS AND BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY))

This posing of the question by the old Iskra closely brings us to [the question of] the present disputes about the attitude of Social-Democrats towards liberals. As is known, these disputes began with the Second Congress, which produced two resolutions corresponding to the viewpoint of the majority (Plekhanov's resolution) and the minority (Starover's resolution). The first resolution accurately indicates the class character of liberalism as a movement of the bourgeoisie, and puts forward as its primary task the elucidation to the proletariat of the anti-revolutionary and anti-proletarian character of the main liberal tendency (the Liberation movement). [Clearly indicating] Recognizing the necessity of the proletariat supporting bourgeois democracy, this resolution [does not chase after "agreement," and does not fabricate "conditions" for agreement,] does not fall into political mutual recognition, but in the spirit of the old Iskra reduces the matter to joint action in the struggle: "insofar as the bourgeoisie is revolutionary or only oppositional in its struggle against tsarism," to that extent the Social-Democrats "must support" it [regardless of invented conditions (for we need support in order to strike our enemy), regardless of the degree of inconsistency and inadequacy of bourgeois democratism (for it is always inconsistent, but we support it only insofar as it fights our enemy)].

On the contrary, Starover's resolution does not give a class analysis of liberalism and democratism. It is full of good intentions, [composing] it composes conditions of agreement as high and good as possible, but, unfortunately, – fictitious [and], verbal [The proletarian point of view puts the actual joint struggle in the foreground. The point of view of the intellectual (even if he adheres to Social-Democracy) puts the verbal conditions of agreements in the foreground: liberals or democrats must declare such-and-such, not put forward such-and-such demands, make such-and-such their slogan. As if the history of bourgeois democracy everywhere and always did not warn the workers against believing in declarations, demands and slogans! As if history did not show us hundreds of examples when bourgeois democrats came out with slogans not only of complete freedom, but also of equality, with slogans of socialism, [not only] without ceasing to be bourgeois democrats because of this, [but on the contrary] and thereby introducing even more "obscuring" of the consciousness of the proletariat! The intellectual wing of Social-Democracy wants to fight against this obscuring by presenting conditions to bourgeois democrats about non-obscuring. The proletarian wing fights with an analysis of the class content of democratism.