V. I.

Lenin

The Social-Democratic press has repeatedly pointed out that European capital is
the saviour of Russian autocracy. Without foreign loans Russian autocracy would
not be able to survive. It was advantageous to the French bourgeoisie to support
its military ally, so long, especially, as payments on the loans were punctually
forthcoming. And the French bourgeoisie lent the autocratic government the round
little sum of ten milliard francs (about 4,000 million rubles).

However ... there is nothing eternal under the moon. The war with Japan revealed
the utter rottenness of the autocracy and ultimately undermined Russia’s credit
even with the French bourgeoisie, its “friend and ally”. In the
first place, the war showed up Russia’s military weakness; secondly, a
continuous chain of reverses, one more crushing than the other, has shown the
hopelessness of the war and the inevitability of the complete downfall of the
whole absolutist system of government; thirdly, the formidable growth of the
revolutionary movement in Russia has inspired the European bourgeoisie with a
mortal dread of an explosion that might set all Europe ablaze. Mountains of
inflammable material have piled up within the last few decades. And now all
these factors, taken together, have led ultimately to the refusal of further
loans. The recent attempt of the autocratic government to borrow from France, as
it had done in the past, ended in failure. On the one hand, capital no longer
has confidence in the autocracy; on the other, fearing a revolution, capital
wants to put pressure on the autocracy to have it conclude peace with Japan and
to come to terms with the Russian liberal bourgeoisie.

European capital is speculating on peace. The bourgeoisie in Europe as well as
in Russia has begun to see the connection between war and revolution, to
fear a really popular and victorious movement against tsarism. The
bourgeoisie wants to preserve the “social order” of a society
based on exploitation against excessive shocks; it wants to preserve the
Russian monarchy as a constitutional, or pseudo-constitutional. monarchy,
and is therefore speculating on peace in pursuance of anti-proletarian and
anti-revolutionary interests. This indubitable fact clearly shows us that
even so “simple” and plain an issue as that of war and peace cannot
properly be posed if the class antagonisms of modern society are lost sight of,
if the fact is overlooked that the bourgeoisie in everything it does, howsoever
democratic or humanitarian it may appear, defends first and foremost the
interests of its own class, the interests of “social peace”, viz.,
the suppression and disarming of all oppressed classes. The proletarians’ way of
presenting the question of peace, there fore, differs and must inevitably differ
from that of the bourgeois democrats, as it does on the questions of free
trade, anti-clericalism, etc. The proletariat struggles against war and will
always struggle against it unremittingly, without, how ever, forgetting for a
moment that war can be abolished only with the complete abolition of society’s
division into classes; that while class rule continues to exist war cannot be
regarded only from the sentimentally democratic stand point; that in a war
between exploiting nations one must distinguish between the roles of the
progressive and of the reactionary bourgeoisie of each nation. Russian
Social-Democracy has had to apply these general principles of Marxism
concretely to the war with Japan. In dealing with the significance of this war (see
Vperyod , No. 2, the article “The Fall of

Port Arthur” [1]

),

we
pointed out that not only our Socialists-Revolutionaries (who blamed Guesde and
Hyndman for sympathising with Japan), but also the new-Iskrists, had adopted a
false, bourgeois-democratic standpoint. With the latter this found expression,
first, in considerations of “peace at any price” , and,
secondly, in the contention that it is impermissible “to speculate on a
victory of the

Japanese bourgeoisie”. Both these considerations were worthy only of a
bourgeois democrat, who deals with political questions on sentimental
grounds. Reality has now shown that “peace at any price”
has become the slogan of the European financiers and reactionaries (Prince
Meshchersky in Grazhdanin [2] now speaks clearly of the need for peace
for the salvation of the autocracy). It is now perfectly clear that
speculation on peace for the purpose of suppressing the revolution is
a speculation of reactionaries, in contrast to the speculation of the progressive
bourgeoisie on a victory of the Japanese bourgeoisie. The new Iskra’s
phrase-mongering against “speculation” in general is actually mere
sentimental balderdash, far from the class standpoint and from any
consideration of the various social forces.

The events that have exposed the new visage of the reactionary bourgeoisie were
so glaring that now even Iskra has begun to see its error. Whereas in
issue No. 83 it “snapped back” at our article in Vperyod ,
No. 2, we now read with pleasure in issue No. 90 (leader): “We should not
demand only peace; for if the autocracy continues to exist, peace will
spell ruin to the country.” Exactly: we should not demand only peace; for a
tsarist peace is no better (and is some times worse) than a tsarist war. We
should not put for ward the slogan of “peace at any price”, but only
of peace with the fall of the autocracy, of peace concluded by a liberated
nation, by a free Constituent Assembly, i.e., peace not at any price, but solely
at the price of overthrowing absolutism. Let us hope that Iskra ,
having realised this, will also realise the inappropriateness of its highly
moral tirades against speculation on a victory of the Japanese bourgeoisie.

Let us return, however, to European capital and its political
“speculations”. How much tsarist Russia quails before this capital
may be seen, for instance, from the following highly instructive
incident. The Times , organ of the conservative English bourgeoisie,
published an article entitled “Is Russia Solvent?” The article described
in detail the “sub tie mechanism” of the financial manipulations of
Messrs. Witte, Kokovtsev & Co. They are always running their business at a
loss. They muddle through only by getting deeper and deeper into debt. In
between loans the proceeds of the preceding loan are placed in the Treasury,
and the “gold reserve” is then triumphantly proclaimed a “free cash
balance”. The gold obtained as a loan is shown to everybody as proof of
Russia’s wealth and solvency! Small wonder that the English merchant
compared this hanky-panky to the tricks of the Humbeds, the famous
impostors, who used to display borrowed or swindled money (or even a safe
purporting to contain money) in order to obtain new loans. The Times writes: “The frequent appearances of the
Russian Government as a borrower in the Continental money market are due,
not to capital requirements—that is to say, to reproductive
enterprises or exceptional and transitory expenses— but almost
exclusively to the normal deficiency of national income. This means that, as
she is situated today, Russia is marching direct to insolvency. Her national
balance-sheet leaves her every year deeper in debt. Her liabilities to the
foreigner are more than her people can bear, and she has practically
nothing to show for them. Her gold reserve is a colossal Humbert safe, the
vaunted millions of which are unconsciously lent by her dupes for their own
further deception.”

How artful! To pick a dupe, borrow money from him, then show him this very money
as evidence of your wealth, in order to wheedle further loans from him!

The comparison with those notorious swindlers, the Humbert family, was so apt
and the “gist” and purpose of the famous “free cash balance” were so neatly nailed that that article in such a respectable
conservative newspaper created a sensation. Kokovtsev, the Minister of Finance,
personally sent a telegram to The Times , which it printed forthwith
(March 23 [10]). In his telegram the insulted Kokovtsev invited the editors of
The Times to come to St. Petersburg and verify the gold reserve in
person. The editors thanked him for the kind invitation, but declined it, on the
simple grounds that the article which had hurt the feelings of the tsar’s
servant did not in the least deny the existence of a gold reserve. The
comparison with the Humberts implied, not that Russia did not have the gold
reserve to which it referred, but that this reserve was actually made up of
other people’s money, of wholly unsecured borrowings which did not in the least
testify to Russia’s wealth, and to which it would be ridiculous to refer as
security for fresh loans!

Mr. Kokovtsev missed the point of this witty but malicious comparison, and set the whole world laughing by his
telegram. Investigating gold reserves in banks was not in the range of duties
of journalists, The Times said in its reply to the Minister of
Finance. Indeed, it was the duty of the press to expose the trick played with
the aid of these really existing “gold reserves” fictitiously
displayed as evidence of the country’s wealth. The question is not whether you
have this gold reserve or not, the newspaper lectured the Russian Minister of
Finance in an article dealing with this comic telegram. We believe that you have
it. The question is, what are your assets and your liabilities? What is the
amount of your debts and what security have you? Or, more plainly put, is your
stored reserve your property, or is it borrowed and liable to be refunded,
which you cannot do in full because you do not possess so much? The English
bourgeois, making fun of the simple Minister, tried to explain to him this
none-too-subtle thing in a variety of ways, adding for his edification: If you
are looking for someone to investigate your assets and liabilities, why not call
on the representatives of the Russian people? As it happens, the people’s
representatives are keen to get together in a representative assembly, be it
called Zemsky Sobor or by some other name. Surely they will not refuse to
investigate properly , not only the famous “gold reserve”,
but all the finances of the autocracy. And they will certainly be able
to make a thorough job of it.

“Possibly”, The Times sarcastically concludes, “the knowledge that the representative assembly would claim this office as a
right” makes the tsarist government fear the con vocation of such an
assembly, “at least in any shape in which it could exercise real power.”

An insidious assertion. It is all the more insidious, all the more significant,
for being made, in reality, not by The Times , but by the entire
European bourgeoisie—made , not as a polemical manoeuvre, but as
an open expression of its distrust of the autocracy, of its unwillingness to
lend it money, of its desire to deal with the lawful representatives of the
Russian bourgeoisie. It is not an assertion, but a warning. It is not a sneer,
but an ultimatum , the ultimatum of European capital to the Russian
autocracy. While Japan’s allies, the English, word this ultimatum in the form of sarcasm, Russia’s allies, the French, in their most conservative, most
bourgeois paper, Le Temps , say the same thing, only a little more
mildly—sugar-coating the pill, but virtually nonetheless refusing to
lend any more, and advising the autocracy to make peace with Japan and with
the Russian bourgeois liberals. Here is another voice, that of a no less
respectable English magazine, The Economist :

“The truth about Russian finance is at length coming to be appreciated in
France. We have pointed out again and again that Russia has long been living on
borrowed money, that, despite glowing statements issued by succeeding Ministers
of Finance, the budgets have shown a large deficit year after year, though these
have been cunningly concealed by a book-keeping device, and that the
much-vaunted ’free cash balances’ of the Treasury consist principally
of the proceeds of loans and partly of the deposits of the State
Bank.”

After telling the
Russian autocracy these home truths, this financial magazine finds it necessary,
however, to add some bourgeois consolations to the effect that if you can man
age to make peace immediately and to make some paltry concessions to the
liberals, Europe will doubtlessly begin again to lend you millions upon
millions.

We are witnessing what is virtually a speculative gamble of the international
bourgeoisie to save Russia from revolution and tsarism from utter ruin. The
speculators are putting pressure on the tsar by refusing to grant loans. They
are making use of their power, the power of the money-bag. They want a moderate
and tidy bourgeois-constitutional (or pseudo-constitutional) regime in
Russia. The rapid march of events unites them ever more closely into a single
counter revolutionary bourgeois alliance, regardless of differences of
nationality—French financiers and English business magnates, German
capitalists, and Russian merchants. Osvobozhdeniye has acted in the
spirit of this mildly moderate bourgeois party. In issue No. 67, where he sets
forth the “programme of the Democratic Party” and even recognises
(for how long?) universal, direct, and equal suffrage by secret ballot (passing
over in modest silence the arming of the people!), Mr. Struve ends his new
profession de foi with the following characteristic statement, printed
in bold type “for the sake of importance”: “At the present
moment the demand for the immediate cessation of the war should stand outside and above the programme of every progressive party in Russia. In practice this means that the government now existing in Russia should, through the medium of France, begin peace
negotiations with the Japanese Government.” The distinction between the
bourgeois-democratic and the Social-Democratic demands to end the war could
hardly be stated more trenchantly. The revolutionary proletariat does not put
this demand “above the programme’; it addresses it, not to “the
government now existing”, but to the free, truly sovereign
popular Constituent Assembly. The revolutionary proletariat does not
“speculate” on the mediation of the French bourgeoisie, which is
seeking peace for avowedly anti-revolutionary and anti-proletarian purposes.

Finally, it is essentially with this same international party of the moderate
bourgeoisie that Mr. Bulygin is now bargaining—skilfully playing for time,
wearing his opponent down, feeding him with promises, but giving absolutely
nothing definite, and leaving everything, absolutely everything, in Russia as it
was before, beginning with the use of troops against strikers, continuing with
the arrest of political suspects and repressive measures against the press, and
ending with a dastardly incitement of the peasants against the intellectuals and
the brutal flogging of rebel peasants. And the liberals rise to the bait; some
are already beginning to believe ’Bulygin, while in the Lawyers’ Association
Mr. Kuzmin-Karavayev tries to persuade the liberals to sacrifice universal
suffrage for the sake of ... Mr. Bulygin’s blue eyes! [3]

There is only one force that can stand up to the international alliance of the
moderate conservative bourgeoisie, and that is the international alliance of the
revolutionary proletariat. With respect to political solidarity, this alliance
is already fully formed. As for the practical side and the revolutionary
initiative, everything depends on Russia’s working class and the success of its
joint democratic action for the decisive struggle in conjunction with the
millions of the urban and rural poor.

---
Notes:
[1]
See p. 52 of this volume.— Ed .

[2]
Grazhdanin (The Citizen)—a reactionary newspaper published in St. Petersburg between 1872 and 1914. Founded by Prince
Meshchersky. From the eighties of the last century it was the organ of the
extreme monarchists. It existed mainly on government subsidies. From 1906 it
appeared as a weekly.

[3]
Bulygin—tsarist Minister of the Interior; author of a draft law on the State Duma, which was a caricature of popular
representation (see pp. 351-55 of this volume).