Date: 1905-07
Source: ru:LS/v16

DICTATORSHIP OF TREPOV II, THE CANDIDACY OF SHIPOV

Please send us the brochure containing this speech as soon as possible—or, if you could provide us with detailed information about it…*
I apologize for my poor French.
[Translation, j
Dear Comrade!
You mentioned to Comrade Velsky that P. Lafargue had delivered a speech on the Social Democrats’ participation in the Provisional Revolutionary Government. We would be greatly obliged if you could send us, as soon as possible, the brochure in which this speech is printed—or, failing that, if you could share with us comprehensive details about the speech…
My apologies for my poor French.
1 Bracke—pseudonym of S.D. Derousscau. For Bracke’s conversation with Velsky (P. Krasikov), as well as for Lafargue, Bracke, and Gede’s views on the issue at hand, see pp. 241–242.
The documents printed below constitute a draft and outline for an essay on the topic: “The Dictatorship of Treпов and the Candidacy of Shipov.” It has not been possible to complete the essay in its final form.
::g,7
THE DICTATORSHIP OF TREPOV AND THE CANDIDACY OF SHIPOV,
(Or: What Is Happening Behind the Scenes?)
July, post July 7, 1901, Geneva.
a.
* ARTICLE OUTLINE.
A revolution imported by Germany.
Granted by the Japanese—and wrested back by the zemstvos.
Not a single victory for the Russian proletariat.
* One inscribed word remains undeciphered. Ed.
** On the reverse side of the copy of his letter to Derussau, Lenin wrote: “Received on June 1, 1905, in Geneva.” Whether these words refer to Derussau’s reply, or to Krasikov’s report of his conversation with Derussau, remains uncertain. Ed.

LEPSKII COLLECTION
They did not fight; they were fought against.
They bargain.
Rumors and Facts. Shipov and Treпов.
Providence-driven rumors.
Military tales (about the Japanese War) and their consequences.
This very end—Shipov and Treпов, Treпов and Shipov—is highly probable.

ft
* UNFINISHED ESSAY OUTLINE.
As the vanguard of our bourgeoisie coalesces into the “Constitutional-Democratic Party,” the conscious representatives of the proletariat bear a grave responsibility: to closely monitor the policies of this party and to enlighten the party itself regarding those very policies. We have already pointed out more than once the collusion between the Zemstvo Fraction and autocracy—and between the Liberation Union and the Zemstvo Fraction. Now we must acknowledge yet another instance of this collusion. The rumor of Mr. Shipov’s candidacy for the post of Minister of Internal Affairs had already begun to circulate in the foreign press. Now, correspondents from France and England—among the most influential bourgeois newspapers, Le Temps and The Times—report on this development in detail.

Here is what the former of these newspapers reported from St. Petersburg on July 7, 1901: If proof were needed to confirm the Tsar’s genuine desire to carry out reforms, then the fact that Mr. Shipov was offered the portfolio of Minister of Internal Affairs would serve as such proof. Mr. Shipov, who had belonged to the Zemstvo anti-(anti-)constitutionalist minority and whose draft for a people’s representative body had been heavily influenced by Mr. Bulygin, had declared at the May Congress that he aligned himself with the majority—namely, the constitutionalists. Thus, this man represents the golden mean—a figure who could satisfy both extremes of the party while at the same time managing to adapt to the extraordinary police powers vested in none other than Mr. Minister of Internal Affairs Treпов.
“As they say, Mr. Shipov has made it a condition of his acceptance of this post that the Tsar grant freedom of the press.”

DICTATORSHIP OF TREPOV II, THE CANDIDACY OF SHIPOV

The Times correspondent telegraphs: “The latest news, which overshadows all other events today, is the proposal to appoint Mr. Shipov as Minister of Internal Affairs. While the possibility of such a nomination had been hinted at before, this development nonetheless comes as a complete surprise. In recent times, Mr. Shipov had reached a truce with the Zemstvo majority; it was therefore only natural to assume that his candidacy for the ministerial post would be impossible. The Tsar’s sudden decision to entrust him with the legacy of Mr. Bulygin—after Ignatiev’s appointment had nearly been finalized—indicates a profound shift in the Tsar’s plans. Some believe that the Tsar was influenced by the recent tragic events in southern Russia, which eloquently attest to the spread of revolutionary sentiments even among the staunchest defenders of tsarist authority.”
“However, it is also pointed out that Mr. Shipov’s selection was not made without ulterior motives: perhaps, by means of a liberal frontman, the old order might gain a semblance of popular appeal. At the very least, the Bulygin-style electoral reform—borrowed in essence from Mr. Shipov’s original draft—might no longer encounter the Zemstvo’s uncompromising [ruthless] opposition. There is some truth to this line of reasoning, for it would be far too much to expect that the bureaucracy would suddenly abandon its policy of obstruction and dissimulation.”
“But the central question surrounding Mr. Shipov’s candidacy is this: Is it possible to accept his appointment while preserving the police dictatorship? Mr. Shipov put an end to all speculation on this matter when he declared that he was prepared to obey the Tsar’s will—on one condition: that His Majesty guarantee freedom of the press. G /
1 Quoted from a dispatch from St. Petersburg dated July 7, under the headline “La situation politique, et la question de la paix en Russie” (“The Political Situation and the Question of Peace in Russia”) in No. 168 of Le Temps, July 8, 1905.
The document printed below contains a paragraph that was struck out in the manuscript of the article “The Revolutionary Army and the Revolutionary Government,” published in No. 7 of Proletarii on July 40 (June 27), 1905. The deleted paragraph in the manuscript precedes the paragraph beginning with the words: “The task of establishing…” (see Vol. VII, p. 385).
* Here the manuscript abruptly ends. Ed.

LENIN’S COLLECTION
148”
THE REVOLUTIONARY ARMY AND THE REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT.
[July, before the 10th, 1905, Geneva]
Social Democracy has never regarded war from a sentimental perspective—and it never will. While unswervingly condemning wars as barbaric means of settling human disputes, Social Democracy knows that wars are inevitable so long as society remains divided into classes, so long as exploitation of man by man persists. And to eradicate this exploitation, we cannot do without war—war that is always and everywhere initiated by the very exploiting, dominating, and oppressive classes themselves. There is war—and there is war as adventure, satisfying the interests of dynasties, the appetites of predatory bands, the ambitions of capitalist profiteers. But there is also war—and this is the only legitimate war in capitalist society—waged against the oppressors and the enslaved of the people. Only utopians or philistines can fundamentally condemn such a war. Only bourgeois betrayers of freedom can now turn away from this war in Russia—the war for freedom, the war for the will of the people. Once the great liberating war has begun in Russia, it will be able to continue, as the people themselves form units of the revolutionary army, recruiting soldiers who have defected to our side or conscripts who have gone over to our ranks, drawing in the peasantry, filling the ranks of those who are being forged and tempered in the fires of civil war with the heroism and enthusiasm of citizens of Russia who fight for the freedom and happiness of all humanity.
* To G/GAGHIE: “THE BOURGEOISIE BARGAINS WITH AUTOCRACY; AUTOCRACY BARGAINS WITH THE BOURGEOISIE.”
JULY, BEFORE THE 10TH, 1905, GENEVA.
The issues of Lenin’s articles printed below—taken from Russian newspapers and from the Geneva-based journal La Revue de Genève—are used in the essay “The Bourgeoisie Bargains with Autocracy; Autocracy Bargains with the Bourgeoisie,” published in No. 7 of Proletarii on July 21 (June 21), 1905. (Works, Vol. VII, pp. 393–394.)