V. I.

Lenin

Wehave on repeated occasions (in Proletary , No. 12, before
promulgation of the State Duma Act, and in Nos. 14 to 17 after August
6) enlarged on our tactics with regard to the State Duma, and now we must
consider them anew in their relation to the new views expressed by Parvus
(special reprint from Iskra , No. 110, the article:
“Social-Democracy and the State Duma”).

Letus first follow Parvus’s main arguments step by step. He begins his article
by stating, “We must fight to the last against a packed parliament, that
mixture of baseness and paltriness”, and to this true statement he
immediately adds the following, which is no less true: “We can overthrow
the State Duma ... only by a popular uprising. Likewise, it is only by a popular
uprising that we can force the government to change the election laws and
extend the rights of the Duma.” Excellent. What, it may be asked, should be our
slogans of agitation with regard to the State Duma? What are the main
and particularly important forms of organisation for the struggle
against the mixture of baseness and paltriness? Parvus puts the question in
essentially the same way when he says: “What we, for our part, can
contribute to the preparation of an uprising is agitation and organisation.” And
here is how he answers the first part of this question, about the attitude to
election meetings.

"Ifwe interfere with these meetings,” writes Parvus, “if we disrupt
them, we shall merely be rendering a service to the government.”

So Parvus is opposed to having the workers interfere with the attempts
of a handful of landlords and merchants to limit the subject of
discussion at election meetings to the base and paltry State Duma? He is against workers taking advantage of the
election meetings in order to criticise the “base” State Duma
and to expound their Social-Democratic views and their slogans?

Soit seems, but, immediately after the sentence quoted, Parvus states something
that is already quite different. “What is not given to the workers
voluntarily,” we read in his article, “they must take by force. They must
show up at assemblies of voters en masse and transform them into workers’ meetings .” (The italics in the quotations are ours
throughout— Editorial Board of “ Proletary ”.)
“Instead of discussing whether to elect Ivan Fomich or Foma Ivanich,
they will put political questions on the agenda.” (Parvus probably wanted to say
Social-Democratic questions, for the question of the election of Ivan or Foma is
also a political question.) “At these meetings we can discuss the policy
of the government, the tactics of the liberals, the class struggle, and the
State Duma itself. All this will lead to the masses becoming revolutionised.”

Nowsee how it all works out in Parvus’s article. On the one hand, we must not
interfere with the meetings of the Trubetskois, Petrunkeviches, and
Stakhoviches. At the end of his article Parvus definitely condemns the idea of a
boycott. On the other hand, we must show up at the meetings

1) by force;

2)
“transform” the meetings of the Petrunkeviches and
Stakhoviches into “workers’ meetings”;

3) instead of
discussing the question for which the meetings have been called (whether to
elect Foma or Ivan?), we must discuss our Social-Democratic questions—the
class struggle, socialism, and, of course, the need for a popular uprising, the
requisites for it, its aims, means and methods, weapons, and its organs, such as
a revolutionary army and a revolutionary government. We say “of
course”, for even though he did not say a word about preaching
insurrection at the election meetings, Parvus himself acknowledged at the outset
that we must fight to the last and that we can attain our immediate objects
only by means of an uprising.

Itis obvious that Parvus has got into a tangle. He fights against the idea of a
boycott, does not advise interfering with meetings and disrupting them, and yet
simultaneously, Bide by side with this, he advises breaking into meetings by force (does this not mean “disrupting”?), transforming them
into workers’ meetings (does this not mean “interfering” with the
Petrunkeviches and Stakhoviches?), and discussing not the Duma , but our
own Social-Democratic, revolutionary questions, which the Petrunkeviches do not
want to discuss seriously, but which the workers and class-conscious peasants
are very eager to discuss, and undoubtedly will discuss.

Whyhas Parvus got into such a tangle? Because he has failed to understand the
point at issue. He set out to fight against the idea of a boycott, imagining
that a boycott means mere abstention, rejection of the idea of utilising
election meetings for the purposes of our agitation. Yet no one, even
in the legal press, let alone the illegal press, advocates such a passive
boycott. Parvus reveals utter ignorance of Russian political problems when he
confuses a passive and an active boycott, when, in discussing the boycott, he
does not devote a single word to an analysis of the second kind of boycott .

Wehave more than once spoken of the conventional meaning of the term “an
active boycott”, and stated that there is no need for the workers to
boycott the Duma, since the Duma itself is boycotting them. We, however, clearly
defined the real content of this conventional term from the very outset, as far
back as a month and a half ago, when we wrote in Proletary , No. i2,
prior to the promulgation of the State Duma Act: “As distinct from passive
abstention, an active boycott should imply increasing agitation ten fold,
organising meetings everywhere, taking advantage of election meetings, even if
we have to force our way into them, holding demonstrations, political strikes,
and so on and so forth.” And somewhat further: “‘An active boycott’” (we
give this term in quotation marks as a conventional term) “means
agitation, recruiting, organising the revolutionary forces on a larger scale,
with redoubled energy and bringing triple pressure to bear.”

Thisis expressed so clearly that only people completely alien to Russian
political problems could fail to under stand it, or people with hopelessly
confused thinking, Konfusionsräthe ("councillors of confusion”),
as the Germans say.

Nowthen, what is it that Parvus really wants? When he advises breaking into
election meetings by force, transforming them into workers’ meetings,
discussing Social-Democratic questions and insurrection, “instead
of discussing whether to elect Ivan Fomich or Foma Ivanich” (note
“instead of” and not “together with, in addition to”), what he is advising is an active boycott. As you see, Parvus met with a
slight mishap: he was heading for one door, but stumbled through
another. He declared war on the idea of a boycott, but himself declared
(on the question of election meetings) in favour of an active boycott,
i.e., the only kind of boycott that was discussed in the Russian political
press.

Ofcourse, Parvus may object that conventional terms are not binding on
him. Formally, such an objection would be justified, but it is worthless in
essence. One must surely know what is under discussion. We are not going to
quibble about words, but here we are dealing with political terms which have
already taken root in Russia, on the scene of action—a fait accompli that must be reckoned with. Any Social-Democratic writer abroad
who took it into his head to ignore slogans which develop on the scene of action
would merely be displaying narrow-minded and sterile literary conceit. We
repeat: no one in Russia ever spoke, and no one ever wrote in the revolutionary
press, of any other boycott but an active one. Parvus might be fully entitled to
criticise the term, reject its conventional meaning, or interpret it
differently, etc., but to ignore it, or to distort the meaning it has already
acquired, means confusing the issue.

Wehave pointed out above that Parvus says “not together with” but
“instead of”. What Parvus advises is not bringing forward our
Social-Democratic questions and the question of an uprising together with that
of having Foma or Ivan elected, but bringing forward the question of the class
struggle and an uprising instead of the question of elections. This
distinction between “not together with” and “instead of”
is highly significant and calls for attention, the more so that, as is shown by
the further content of his article, it might have entered Parvus’s head to
change the wording and say: not instead of but together with.

Wemust consider two questions:

1) Is it possible to discuss, at election
meetings, the election of Ivan or of Foma “together with” the class
struggle, socialism, and insurrection?

2) If that is possible, should the
former and the latter questions be discussed together, or the latter in place of
the former? Anyone who is familiar with Russian conditions will scarcely be at a
loss in replying to these two questions. Getting into election meetings and
transforming them into workers’ meetings calls for the use of force, i.e.,
crushing the resistance of the police and the military first of all. In the more
or less important workers’ centres (and it is only there that the workers’
Social-Democratic Party can count on leading a really broad, popular movement),
the resistance of the police and the military will be most serious. It would be
plain folly on our part to shut our eyes to this. Parvus himself says that the
“election agitation may at any moment turn into a revolutionary
uprising”. If that is so, then it is our duty to take stock of our forces
and adapt them to this very task of insurrection , and not to the task
of furthering the election of Foma as against Ivan to the State Duma. If that is
so, the main and central slogan of our entire Duma campaign of agitation should
be one calling for an insurrection, a revolutionary army, and a revolutionary
government. If that is so, then it is our duty, before and above all else, to
advocate and explain these very slogans at each and every meeting. Hence, Parvus
once again blows up his own argument in, on the one hand, expecting an uprising
“at any moment”, and, on the other, maintaining complete silence
about propaganda of insurrection and an analysis of its prerequisites, methods,
and organs as the “mainspring” of the Duma campaign.

Toproceed. Let us consider another contingency, possible in individual centres,
especially the smaller. Let us assume that attempts to force our way into
meetings do not give rise to a serious struggle against the government, or go so
far as an insurrection. Let us assume that in individual instances these
attempts are crowned with success. In that case, we must in the first place not
lose sight of an institution called martial law. To every partial
victory of the people over the police and the military, the government
retaliates, as is probably known even to Parvus, by proclaiming martial law. Does this prospect frighten us? No, because it is a step that brings the
uprising nearer and renders the entire struggle in general more
acute. Does it frighten the Zemstvos and the Duma electors generally? It
undoubtedly does, for it would facilitate the arrest of the Milyukovs, for
it provides the government with pretexts for banning some election
meetings, and perhaps all meetings and the whole Duma to boot!
Consequently, it all boils down again to the fact that some want an
uprising, advocate it, make preparations for it, agitate for it, organise
insurrectionary detachments, etc., whereas others do not want an uprising,
struggle against the idea of insurrection, condemn the advocacy
of insurrection as mad and criminal, etc. Is Parvus really
ignorant of the fact that these “others” are all Osvobozhdeniye League members , i.e., even the extreme Left
wing of the bourgeois democrats who may get into the Duma??

And(this in the second place) if Parvus does know this, then he must also know
the following. Resistance to forcible entry into election meetings and to their
transformation into workers’ meetings will be offered not only (and some times
even not so much) by the police and the military, but by the Zemstvo and “Osvobozhdeniye” people themselves. Only infants can shut their
eyes to this. The Zemstvo and the Osvobozhdeniye people pose the
question more clearly and directly than some Social-Democrats do: either prepare
an uprising and make it the hub of our agitation and all our work, or go over to
the Duma platform and make it the basis of all political struggle. The Zemstvo
and Osvobozhdeniye people have already solved this question, as we
have often pointed out and emphasised in Proletary , beginning with
No. 12. They call meetings precisely and solely in order to discuss the election
of Foma or Ivan, Petrunkevich or Stakhovich, and to adopt a programme of
“struggle” ("struggle” in quotation marks, struggle while
wearing a lackey’s white gloves) based on the Duma, and not on insurrection. The
Zemstvo and Osvobozhdeniye people (we are linking the two together
purposely, for there are no grounds for drawing any political distinction
between them) will certainly not be averse to admitting revolutionaries and
Social-Democrats to a meeting of theirs (only when and where this can be done
without recourse to any considerable degree of force!!), if they can find among them stupid people who are ready to
promise “support” to Foma as against Ivan, to Petrunkevich as
against Stakhovich. But the Zemstvos will never tolerate any attempts to ’have
their meetings transformed into workers’ meetings, to have
their meetings turned into revolutionary mass meetings, to make open
and direct appeals for armed insurrection from their tribune. It is
even somewhat awkward to go into elaborate explanations of this obvious truth,
but it has to be masticated for the benefit of Parvus and Iskra . The
Zemstvo and Osvobozhdeniye people will inevitably resist such
use being made of their meetings, although these bourgeois hagglers will of
course offer resistance not by force, but by safer, “peaceful”, and
circuitous means. They will enter into no deals with people who promise them
“popular” support for Petrunkevich against Stakhovich, for
Stakhovich against Gringmut, otherwise than on condition that election meetings
are not turned into workers’ meetings, that their platform is not used for a
call to insurrection. If they learn that workers are coming to their meetings
(and they almost always will find this out, since one cannot conceal a mass
demonstration) some of them will straightaway inform the authorities, others
will take to urging the Social-Democrats to refrain, a third group will hasten
to assure the Governor that “they are not to blame”, that they want
a Duma, want to enter the Duma, and that they have always, through their
“faithful colleague” Mr. Struve, condemned the “mad and
criminal” advocacy of insurrection; a fourth group will advise changing
the time and place of the meeting; a fifth group, those who are
“bolder” and shrewder politically, will discreetly say that they
will be delighted to hear the workers, will thank the Social-Democratic
speaker, will scrape and bow to the “people”, will make high-flown,
pretentious, and emotion-charged speeches assuring each and all that they are
always for the people, heart and soul for the people, that they are with the
people and not with the tsar, that “their” Petrunkevich said so a
long time ago, that they “fully agree” with the Social-Democratic
speaker about the “baseness and paltriness” of the State Duma, but
that it is necessary, in the splendid words of that highly esteemed
parliamentarian, Parvus, who so appropriately transplants to non-parliamentary Russia the parliamentary patterns of the Vollmar alliances
between the Social-Democrats and the Catholics—that it is necessary
“not to interfere with the election campaign, but rather to extend
it”; extending it means not senselessly jeopardising the fate of the
State Duma, but getting the whole people to “support” Foma’s
election instead of Ivan’s, the election of Petrunkevich and Rodichev
instead of Stakhovich, Stakhovich instead of Gringmut, and so on.

Ina word, the more stupid and the more cowardly the Zemstvos will be, the less
chance will there be of their listening to Parvus at their election meeting. The
more intelligent and bolder the Zemstvo people, the more chance of that will
there be, and also the more chances, that, in his role of supporter of Foma
against Ivan, Parvus will have proved the dupe.

No,my dear Parvus! So long as there is no parliament in Russia, applying the
tactics of parliamentarianism to Russia means so much unbecoming playing at
parliamentarianism, means turning into hangers-on to the landlords, instead of
being leaders of the revolutionary workers and politically conscious
peasants. To enter into secret deals with the Rodichevs and the Petrunkeviches
about support for them against Stakhovich, as a substitute for temporary
agreements between open political parties, which are non-existent in our
country, means sowing corruption in the workers’ midst.

Tothe direct and clear slogan of the Zemstvo and Osvobozhdeniye
people—down with criminal advocacy of insurrection, let us work in the
Duma and through the Duma—we must reply with our direct and clear
slogan—down with the bourgeois betrayers of liberty, the
Osvobozhdeniye gentry and their like, down with the Duma, and hail the
armed uprising!

Tocombine the insurrection slogan and “participation” in the
elections of Foma or Ivan means introducing utter confusion, under the pretext
of “comprehensiveness” and “multiformity” of agitation, and
“flexibility” and “responsiveness” of slogans; in practice such a combination amounts to Manilovism. In practice, Parvus’s and
Martov’s appearance before the Zemstvos in “support” of
Petrunkevich against Stakhovich (admitting the possibility of exceptional cases when such an appearance would be at all feasible) will not be an open
appearance before the mass of the people, but the backstage appearance of a
duped leader of the workers before a handful of betrayers of the workers. From
the standpoint of theory or of the general principles of our tactics, to combine
these slogans now, at the given moment, is a variety of parliamentary
cretinism. For us revolutionary Social-Democrats insurrection is not an absolute
slogan, but a concrete one. We put it off in 1897, in 1902 we put it forward in
the sense of general preparations, and only after January 9, 1905, did we
advance it as a direct appeal. We do not forget that Marx was in favour of an
uprising in 1848, whereas in 1850 he condemned the ravings and phrase mongering
about an uprising [5] ; that before the war of
1870-71 Liebknecht denounced participation in the Reichstag, whereas after the
war he participated in it himself. We at once stated in Proletary ,
No. 12, that it would be ridiculous to renounce for the future all struggle
based on the Duma. We know that not only a parliament but even a travesty of a
parliament may, when the conditions for an uprising are lacking, become the
focal point of all our agitation for the entire period when an uprising is out
of the question.

However,we demand a clear and precise presentation of the question. If you
think that the period of insurrection is over in Russia—say so, and uphold
your opinion openly. We shall appraise and discuss it thoroughly and calmly,
from every angle, from the standpoint of the concrete conditions. But when you
yourselves talk of the possibility of an uprising “at any moment”
and of its necessity—then we denounce, and shall continue to denounce as
miserable Manilovism, all the various disquisitions against an active boycott of
the Duma. If an uprising is possible and necessary, then that is precisely what
we must make the central slogan of the whole of our campaign around the Duma;
then we must expose the venal soul of a “Frankfort Parliament
windbag” in every Osvobozhdeniye adherent who shuns this slogan
of insurrection. If an uprising is possible and necessary, that means there can
be no legal centre for a legal struggle for the aims of the uprising, nor can
Manilov-like phrase-mongering take its place. If an uprising is possible and necessary, it means that the government “ has placed the bayonet as the main point on the agenda ”, has launched civil war,
proclaimed martial law as a form of counter-criticism of democratic
criticism; under such circumstances, to take the “near-parliamentary” signboard of the State Duma seriously, to
begin to play a shady and furtive two some at parliamentarianism with the
Petrunkeviches, means substituting the political chicanery of clowning
intellectuals for the policy of the revolutionary proletariat.

Havingshown the basic falsity of Parvus’s position, we can deal only briefly
with a few of the most glaring manifestations of this falsity. Parvus writes:
“Before the elections or after the elections, a legal basis for
the existence of political parties is created in connection with the
State Duma.” That is not true. What is actually being created now is a “legal
basis” for governmental manipulation of elections. That basis is termed:

1) the Rural Superintendent (peasant elections are entirely under his
thumb);

2) the secret police (the arrest of Milyukov);

3) martial law. When a “legal
basis for the existence of political parties” (including the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party) is created in fact , and not in the
language of journalists, then we shall have to reconsider the whole question of
insurrection, for to us insurrection is only one of the important means, but
one that is not always obligatory, of clearing the way for the struggle for
socialism.

"Itis necessary to come out immediately, not as individual social groups,
not as lawyers, engineers, or Zemstvo members, but as liberal, democratic,
Social-Democratic, parties—officially and openly. The representatives of
the various tendencies could come to an agreement among themselves in this
respect, just as agreements are made between the various parties in a
parliament.”

Yes,this they can do, only not openly but in secret, for if Parvus has
forgotten Trepov, Trepov has not forgotten Parvus. What Parvus terms a
parliamentary agreement (sometimes indispensable to Social-Democrats in a
parliamentary country) is in present-day Russia, in September 1905,
the most contemptible playing at parliamentarianism.

The betrayers of the revolution are now making an agreement between the
Osvobozhdeniye supporters and the revolutionaries their prime
objective; the supporters of revolution—an agreement between the
Social-Democrats and all revolutionary democrats, i.e., supporters of an
uprising. If the new Iskra , Parvus, and

Plekhanov [1] now enter into a “parliamentary” agreement with the Osvobozhdeniye
group (about the latter forming a party—see above, the article entitled
“Friends

Meet” [2]

),

we shall publicly declare that these Social-Democrats have lost all sense of reality and must go by the board. We shall then conclude
an agreement with the revolutionary democrats on the basis of joint agitation
for an uprising, for its preparation, and accomplishment.

Wehave already shown, in an analysis of the new-I skra resolutions
(Lenin: Two Tactics ), that Iskra is descending to the level of
the liberal landlord, whereas Proletary is raising and inspiring the
revolutionary peasant. [3] "Eachparty should organise its own election committee for the conduct of
the election campaign throughout the country. The parties should agree among
themselves about practical measures for extending freedom of speech, of
assembly, and so forth, during the elections. They should bind themselves by
joint political responsibility” (just listen, fellow-workers!
The new- Iskra group want to bind you to the Petrunkeviches!
Down with the
Petrunkeviches and the new-Iskrists!) “so that if an official
representative of any political party is prosecuted as such by the police or is
condemned in court, the representatives of all the other [!] parties should
declare their solidarity with him and all together organise [!] a popular [??]
protest and, if possible, [mark this!] a popular uprising in his defence.”

Goodriddance to you, my dear Parvus! Organise protests and an uprising with the
Petrunkeviches (democrats) and the Stakhoviches (liberals)—our ways have parted. It is with the
revolutionary democrats that we shall do that. Only, while you
are about it, change your slogans as well, most esteemed heroes of
“parliamentary agreement”. Instead of the slogan “an uprising is imperative”, just say: “an uprising, if possible , will supplement the protests”. Then all the
Osvobozhdeniye supporters will agree with you! Instead of the
slogan “universal and equal suffrage, direct elections and secret
ballot”, advance the following: “If possible , the government should guarantee direct, equal, universal and secret
suffrage”. Good riddance to you, gentle men! We shall patiently wait
for Parvus, Petrunkevich, Stakhovich, and Martov to “organise a
popular protest and. if possible, a popular uprising” in defence of
Milyukov. For in our “near-parliamentary” era it seems to be
more timely, gentlemen, to defend Mr. Milyukov than the hundreds and
thousands of workers who are being arrested and beaten up!...

Parvusdeclares categorically: “We have no chance what ever of getting our
representatives elected to the Duma independently.” Yet he writes: “If,
however, election committees prove unfeasible. we shall still have to bend
every effort to put up our own candidates.” Despite the qualifications demanded
Parvus believes that “in individual cases the possibility of putting up
Social-Democratic candidates is not excluded”. “One or two
Social-Democratic candidates, irrespective of where they may be put up, will
become a political slogan for the whole country.”

Thankyou for at least being clear. But then, what stands in your way,
gentlemen? The newspaper Bus long ago put forward its candidates, all
those Stakhoviches, Petrunkeviches, and other betrayers of the revolution who
cool their heels in Mr. Durnovo’s antechamber. Why is Iskra silent? Why
does it not go from words to deeds? Why does it not put forward Axelrod,
Starover, Parvus, and Martov as candidates for the State Duma? Try it,
gentlemen, conduct an experiment, experimentum in corpore vili . [4]

Try it, and we shall see at once which of us is right: you who believe
that these candidates will become “a slogan for the whole country”, or we who believe that at the present time these candidates will
only play the role of buffoons.

Parvuswrites: “The government has given a handful of people the right to
elect a body which is to manage the affairs of the whole nation. This imposes on
the artificially selected voters the duty of using their exclusive right with
due regard to the opinion of the popular masses and of not being guided by
arbitrary personal” (but by class and party?) “considerations. Our
task is to remind them of this duty, force [!!] them to perform it, and we
must stop at nothing in carrying out this task.”

Thisreasoning, quite naturally supplemented by the assurance that the tactics
of (active) boycott expresses disbelief in the “revolutionary forces of
the country” ( sic !), is fundamentally wrong. It is a typically
bourgeois-sentimentalist presentation of the question that all Social-Democrats
should rise up against. Parvus’s reasoning is bourgeois, for he fails to see the
class essence of the Duma—the agreement between the bourgeoisie and the
autocracy. Parvus’s reasoning is so much empty and sentimental phrase-mongering,
for he is prepared—even if fleetingly—to take seriously
the false words of the
Osvobozhdeniye adherents that they desire to “act with due regard
to the opinion of the popular masses”. The esteemed Parvus is some three
years behind the times. When the liberals had no press and no illegal
organisation, whereas we possessed both, we helped them in their political
development. History will not fail to record this service among the deeds of the
Social-Democratic movement. But from political sucklings the liberals have now
become the chief political wirepullers and have shown their treachery to the
revolution in deed. To lay the main stress at the present time not on
the need to expose the treachery of the bourgeois compromisers”, but to
remind them of their “duty” to manage the affairs ( not of the bourgeoisie, but ) of the whole people, means toadying to the
Osvobozhdeniye League! It is only they who can seriously seek an
expression of “the revolutionary forces of the country” in the State
Duma. The Social-Democrats know that the best we can achieve now is
the neutralisation, the paralysing of the bourgeoisie’s efforts at treachery. The
Zemstvo and the Osvobozhdeniye people are not “a revolutionary
force of the country”, and you should feel ashamed to be ignorant of that, Comrade Parvus. The proletariat and the
peasantry, which is fighting against the landlords, are now the only
revolutionary force in the democratic revolution.

Theformulation of the conditions of proletarian support for the
Osvobozhdeniye League is the gem of gems in Parvus’s remarkable
article. “It is necessary,” writes Parvus, “to impose definite
political demands on the opposition candidates who wish to avail themselves of
our support.” “These might, for instance, be: 1) the demand in the Duma
itself that it be immediately dissolved.and a constituent assembly convened,
elected on the basis of universal, equal, and direct suffrage by secret ballot;
2) the denial of all military and financial credits to the government until this
demand is fulfilled.” (A poor Russian translation from the German, but the
meaning is clear.)

Onedownward step is followed by another. One misstep on to an inclined plane,
and the fall becomes headlong. Our supermen like Parvus and Plekhanov, who hold
themselves aloof from both sections of the Party, loftily ignore those very
new-Iskra resolutions for which they are morally and politically
responsible. These supermen imagine themselves superior to both the
“Majority” and the “Minority”; in actual fact they are inferior to both, since to all the shortcomings in the Majority they
have been able to add the shortcomings in the Minority, as well as all the shortcomings of the turncoat .

Take Parvus. He has always gone hand in glove with Iskra , even when the
plan of the Zemstvo campaign and of January 9 opened his eyes, though not for
long, to its opportunist stand. Nevertheless, Parvus wanted to be considered a
“conciliator”—most likely because of the fact that when, after
January 9, he began to advance the slogan calling for a provisional government,
the Bolsheviks were obliged to correct him and point out that his slogans
contained elements of phrase-mongering. “No tsar, but a workers’
government !" Parvus vociferated under the impression of January
9. “Without the people, but with a liberal Duma!” is what his present
“tactics” amount to after August 6. No, comrade, we shall not base
our tactics on fleeting impulses, bowing to the exigencies of the moment!

Parvushas now concocted “new” conditions for the liberals.

Poor new-Iskrists, how exhausted they must feel after concocting
“conditions” for an agreement with the Osvobozhdeniye
League! At the Second Congress, Starover (see his resolution, which was
rejected by the Third Congress) concocted one set of conditions, which
immediately fell through, for neither in the plan of the Zemstvo campaign, nor
now have these conditions been advanced in full by any of the new Iskrists who
wrote about an “agreement” with the Osvobozhdeniye
League. The new-Iskra Conference advanced other and stricter conditions
in the resolution on the attitude to the liberals. Parvus of the Iskra
bears moral responsibility for this resolution—but what do literary
supermen care for mere resolutions drawn up with the participation of
responsible representatives of the proletariat! Supermen snap their fingers at
Party resolutions!

The new-Iskra resolution on the attitude to opposition parties
states in black and white that the Social-Democrats “demand of all enemies
of tsarism”:

"1)Active and unequivocal support of all determined action by the
organised proletariat directed towards dealing fresh blows at tsarism.”

Inproposing an “agreement” with the Osvobozhdeniye League
and promising them “support”, Parvus demands nothing of the kind.

"2)Open recognition and unqualified support of the demand for a popular
constituent assembly elected on the basis of universal, etc., suffrage, and open action against all parties and groups that are trying to curtail the rights of the people , whether it be by limiting suffrage or by accepting the grant
of a monarchist constitution in lieu of a constituent assembly.”

Parvusrepudiates the whole of the second part of these conditions. He even
completely disregards the question of whom the Osvobozhdeniye League
members in the Duma should “demand the convocation” of a constituent
assembly from. From the tsar, no doubt? But why shouldn’t you convoke it
yourselves, esteemed heroes of “parliamentary agreement”? Or are you no
longer opposed to having it “granted” by the tsar?

"3)Resolute support of the working-class struggle against the government
and the magnates of capital, for the right to strike and the right of
association.”

Parvusexempts the Osvobozhdeniye League from this “condition”, evidently on the occasion of the Duma ’s
convocation and the injuriousness of the tactic—“the worse,
the better” (although in the same breath Parvus mockingly
assures the reader that it would be worse if the Duma had
legislative rights, i.e., that the one step towards something
better, the one the Osvobozhdeniye League is striving for, is a step for the worse!!).

"4)Open resistance to all attempts by the government and the feudal
nobility to suppress the peasant revolutionary movement by measures of barbarous
violence against the persons and property of the peasants.”

Whyhave you forgotten this condition, my good Parvus? Can it be that you are no
longer prepared to put this excellent demand to Petrunkevich? Stakhovich?
Rodichev? Milyukov? Struve?

"5)Refusal to support any measures intended to preserve, in a free Russia,
any restrictions of the rights of individual nationalities and any traces of
national oppression.”

And

"6)Active participation in helping the people to arm them selves for the
fight against reaction, and support for the Social-Democrats’ endeavours to
organise an armed mass struggle.”

Why,my dear Parvus, have you forgotten these conditions ?

---
Notes:
[1]
We mention Plekhanov because he has stated in print that
Iskra’s tactic is better than Proletary’s . True, Plekhanov makes no mention of the new-“Iskra” resolutions and
those of the Third Congress; however, dodges and evasions on the part of a
Social-Democratic writer are a circumstance that enhances rather than
extenuates the blame attaching to him.— Lenin

[2]
See pp. 254-55 of this volume— Ed .

[3]
See p. 47 of this volume.— Ed .

[4]
An experiment on a vile body.— Ed .

[5]
The reference is to the following works: K. Marx and F. Engels, Revue, Mai bis October , 1850; K. Marx, Enthüllungen über den Kommunistenprozess zu Köln (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Werke , Berlin 1960, Band 7,
S. 440-41 and Band 8, S. 412-13).