1133

Iskra No. 78. Starover: "Our Misadventures. I. On Liberalism and Hegemony." (NB)

..."There is no more hackneyed question than the question of the attitude of the Social Democrats toward the liberation movement of the advanced elements of contemporary Russian society"...

It was precisely Lenin, who fought against the vile vagueness, who himself displayed its "maximum sum"...

Lenin's "stunted little idea" — that the liberals are half-hearted, that they are opportunists...

"Monstrous lines" from Lenin: 1) support for the demands of the liberals ("one thing is to support the liberal movement, another is to support the demands.... ((profound!)) 2)...that the activity of the liberals and the Social Democrats should mutually complement each other"....

...(illusion)...

"Lenin's fantastic notions about Russian liberalism"...

— moral qualities of the liberals (half-heartedness, flabbiness, etc.)......

"Firmly believing that they, the liberals, are poor and weak".... from (No. 18) (*He understood!!*)¹

|| "We sovereignly despise the liberal bourgeoisie and therefore (!!) relieve ourselves of settling accounts with its class and group psychology."

The marshals of the nobility...

"Lenin's jumble of views".... "monstrous point of view" — Ryazanov and Lenin

↓
NB
the crux
of the error!
"much that is true" (!!), but "in his own conception of Russian liberalism, as in Lenin's, there was no place for such social elements upon which Social Democracy could ever exert its influence in the capacity of vanguard of democracy"....

Revelation of pseudonyms: article in Zarya — by Lenin. — In Iskra No. 26 "Political Struggle and Politicking" idem** No. 16 "Political Agitation and the Class Point of View" — No. 18 — "Letter to the Zemstvoists." Internal Review in No. 2/3 of Zarya.

Even clearer is the same error of Starover:

|| "If liberalism is really such as Lenin depicts it, if to operate with it one must turn to none other than the marshals of the nobility...

— * — half-heartedness. Ed.
** — the same. Ed.

|| ...it would be more reasonable to throw overboard the idea of hegemony...." ||
|| ...."Because Russian liberalism, deprived of its historically necessary part, its driving nerve (!), its bourgeois-democratic half, is fit only to be scourged with scorpions"...

Here is the crux! Zemstvo + bourgeois democracy. The marshals of the nobility and the zemstvoists are unfit. "Bourgeois democracy" (= intelligentsia) is fit.
The liberalism of our day is far from what it was in the 50s and 70s.
— liberalism of the landowning groups and bureaucracy,...
+ "a significant part of the contemporary bourgeois democracy"....
"An intensified democratic gravitation toward the naked (??) of all ideological encrustations... toward the unvarnished idea of constitutional freedom." (Beautiful!)
And further: one phrase!
"Bourgeois democracy made its debut 20 years ago... the walking of democracy [among the people] into society and the zemstvo"...,
{this = culturalism}
bourgeois democracy — intelligent democracy (p. 3, column 3, line 9 from bottom).
Capitalism creates "a demand for the labor of intelligent democracy"....
.... — "consolidation of zemstvo liberal circles and bourgeois democracy"...
— "the third element"
"The difference in social position of the converging groups"... ⟨zemstvoists and bourgeois democracy⟩ (bis) p. 9, col. 1. They were divided by the question: with the people or without its participation?