V. I.

Lenin

On Monday, September 12 (25), there opened in Moscow a Zemstvo and Municipal
Congress, which discussed and finally determined the attitude to the Duma. Like
previous Zemstvo congresses, this Congress marks a further step in the
political development and political organisation of the Russian
bourgeoisie. That is why every class-conscious worker must give attention to
this birth of a bourgeois constitutional party. The political development of the
proletariat as a class has always and everywhere proceeded hand in hand with the
political development of the bourgeoisie as a class.

Butbesides this general significance, the Zemstvo Congress is also of
tremendous importance in connection with the burning question of our attitude
towards the Duma. A compromise between the bourgeoisie and tsarism, or the
former’s more resolute struggle against the latter—such is the gist of
this question, which, as is known, is giving rise to differences on
Social-Democracy’s tactics too.

Tobegin with, let us remind the reader that at-their preceding Congress the
Zemstvo people roundly condemned the Bulygin Duma, and accepted the well-known
Osvobozhdeniye draft constitution (a monarchy and a two-chamber
system). The question of boycotting the Duma was at first decided in the
affirmative by the majority, but later it was reconsidered and deferred until
the next congress, which was to be called immediately following the
promulgation of the State Duma Act—there was even talk of calling it by
telegraph. In fact, the Congress was not called for a long time. At first, as we
noted in Proletary , No. 14, rumour had it that the Zemstvos had
cancelled the Congress. Later, the public learned of the negotiations between
Mr. Golovin and Durnovo, which we described and appraised in the preceding issue of

Proletary , [1] and which resulted in the police permitting the Congress. The Congress was therefore held under
conditions entirely different from the preceding, which had been banned by
the police, who had threatened to disperse it, had made out a report and,
after the Congress, ordered a Senate investigation. This time the Zemstvos
and the police came to terms and reached an agreement in advance.

Togive the reader a better idea of the significance of the difference between
“then” and “now”, let us remind him of the statement that appeared in the latest issue of Osvobozhdeniye .
Mr. “Independent” (probably, independent of the police?) wrote the
following in No. 76, in full accord with the author of the leading article in
that issue: “There should be no question of any sort of compromise
whatever. As be fore, liberty must be won and not begged for.... We should
not—and this is in the highest degree important—for a moment
renounce either the former methods of struggle or the positions that have
already been won. If compromises are possible here too, then that possibility
must be removed immediately and in good earnest. All that has till now been done
to organise the forces of emancipation must also be done in the future.... The
activities of the congresses, unions, and assemblies should continue in the same
spirit and in the same direction as hitherto.”

Itis impossible to express oneself more clearly. After August 6, the organ of
the Zemstvo or “Constitutional Democratic” Party resolutely and
unconditionally expresses itself against renouncing the former methods of struggle. How ever, the gist of the false stand taken by the liberal
bourgeoisie lies in the fact that, along with a desire for liberty, they no
less ardently desire a deal with tsarism. That is why they say one thing and do
another. In order “not to renounce the former methods of struggle”,
they should be boycotting the Duma. After renouncing the boycott, it was
logically inevitable for them to renounce some of the “former
methods of struggle”. Osvobozhdeniye began to fulminate against
compromises at the very moment Golovin was making a compromise with
Durnovo. Osvobozhdeniye began to vociferate, “we should not for a
moment renounce”, just when the Zemstvo Congress renounced the former
freedom of its sessions. On the occasion of the “granting” of a Duma, that purported inception
of liberty, the Zemstvos agreed to confer less freely.

Andindeed: 1) the programme for the Congress was cut down by Mr. Durnovo, i.e.,
by the police; 2) the chairman promised to adjourn the Congress in the event of
a discussion on questions not on the agenda authorised by the police; 3) the
Congress consented to hold its sittings in the presence of a police
agent—sent by Durnovo ( chef de cabinet)— who was empowered
to close the Congress if the “terms” of the agreement between
Mr. Golovin and Mr. Durnovo were infringed; 4) also on pain of closure of the
Congress, police forbade all “seditious outcries” (according to a
wire from the special correspondent of the conservative paper Le Temps ,
who added that all these terms were faithfully observed ).

Itgoes without saying that since we derive our information from foreign
newspapers we cannot vouch for the absolute accuracy or the exhaustive nature of
this information. But there are no grounds for doubting that on the whole it is
accurate. On the contrary, Mr. Golovin (who certainly did not intend his
negotiations with Durnovo to become known to the public!) most likely promised
the police even more regarding the loyal behaviour of the Zemstvos!

Theundeniable fact is that Osvobozhdeniye’s words are utterly at
variance with the deeds of its adherents. Osvobozhdeniye’s journalists
harangue against the police, while the wirepullers most amicably arrange matters
with the police. The beginning of the Zemstvo campaign for the Duma elections
coincided with the beginning of agreement between the Zemstvo bourgeoisie and
the autocracy.

Foreigncorrespondents speak unanimously of the peaceful nature of
this Zemstvo Congress as compared with the preceding. Only one speaker, or
according to other information two, favoured boycotting the Duma. The
majority stood for participation (we stated in No.

12 [2]

of Proletary , even before the Duma Act was promulgated, that the Zemstvo Right wing had
already made up its mind on this question). The majority considered that
non-participation in the elections would be a “sign of timidity”—a
view fully shared, as we know, by Parvus and the new Iskra. On the
other hand, our Zemstvos displayed their boldness ... by coming to terms with the
police....

The Congress adopted a resolution which, instead of condemning the Duma, merely
states (we are at a loss to say whether timidly or boldly) that the “Duma
will not be a popular representative body in the literal sense of the
term”. Russian citizens are invited to unite on the programmes adopted at
previous Zemstvo Congresses and to carry on their struggle on the basis of the
Duma. The resolution does not say a single word about fighting outside the Duma
and apart from the Duma: that is what the Osvobozhdeniye writer, who is
“independent” of the police, calls “not for a moment renouncing the former methods of struggle....”

Moderatingtheir formerly excessive “revolutionary” zeal, the
Zemstvos are applying their efforts to “constructive” work in
connection with the Duma. They have drawn up a detailed political programme (we
are not yet in possession of its complete text); they have endeavoured to cover
up their retreat from democracy by reiterating the main points of moderate
constitutionalism; they have dealt in detail with the question of the election
campaign, the organisation of local and central election committees, drawing up
lists of candidates, etc.

Afterall this is it still not clear what the landlord and merchant liberalism
of the Zemstvos and Osvobozhdeniye League is driving at?

Whatthey want is: to start discarding, one by one, the militant demands of
democracy, everything that guarantees the rights of the revolutionary people,
that develops and extends the struggle for liberty (while maintaining silence in
the resolution about the struggle apart from the Duma, etc.); to start clinching
all such demands of democracy that secure power for the bourgeoisie alone (snug
berths in the Duma above all)! Less agitation among the people and more activity
in the Duma!

As William Stead, that “liberal” who but yesterday was an admirer of
the autocracy, so aptly put it (see his letter to The Times of
September 26), external peace called for peace within the country, peace between
the tsar and the liberal bourgeoisie, such as was proclaimed by the Law of
August 6! By their behaviour the Zemstvos are proving that they are willing to make peace , although, of course, by no means
immediately or in all respects. “Mr. Mikhail Stakhovich, a friend and
colleague of Shipov’s,” wrote the Temps correspondent on September
27, “is counting on the creation of a party of the centre, which would
favour the autocracy and a consultative Duma; he asserts that many members
of the extreme parties” (!! what aspersion on the
Osvobozhdeniye supporters— Editors of “ Proletary ”) “are prepared to join this party.”
Mr. Stakhovich’s assertion is confirmed not only by the statements of many
legally published news papers, but even more so by the Zemstvo gentlemen’s
deeds . The Times correspondent informs us on September 26
that Mr. M. Stakhovich was present at the Congress. “The last named is
still a strong believer in the victory of the moderate elements, indeed, the
almost total absence of the usual fiery denunciations of the
government, except casual [!!] references to the horrors of the Caucasus,
rather confirms his forecast.” The same correspondent of this conservative
British paper writes: “The temper of the Assembly offers a singular
contrast to the sentiment dominating the July Congress, when a large number
of delegates advocated a boycott of the government [Duma] scheme.”

Canit be that Iskra will still refuse to abandon its erroneous opinion
that those who favoured a boycott wanted passive abstention, whereas the
Stakhoviches, who favour participation, want a serious struggle? Will it really
continue even now to stand, together with Parvus, for an agreement with the
Osvobozhdeniye adherents and support for them, after they have
obviously begun to come to terms with the Durnovos?

P.S. In all fairness it must be said that more and more information keeps
coming in showing that the Russian new Iskrists do not agree with the new
Iskra . We have just received a leaflet issued by the St. Petersburg
(Menshevik) group, entitled: “The State Duma or a Constituent Assembly.”
Together with criticism of the Duma we find here the slogan “Down with the
Duma !" The workers’ representatives are urged to tell the liberals
“that they must not recognise the State Duma”, “that they must
renounce their right [the print in the leaflet is not legible] of election to
the Duma”, that they must help the workers “to arm for the struggle
against the Black Hundreds and the State Duma”.

The St.. Petersburg Mensheviks have thus adopted the slogan of an active
boycott. Here too, as in the well-known case of the “Zemstvo
campaign plan”, [3]
Iskra is at variance with its adherents in Russia. Only in one respect do the St. Peters burg
Mensheviks come close to Iskra: they urge the workers immediately
to elect “representatives in factories, work shops, and departments,
just as they did for the Shidlovsky [4]

Commission.... When they meet, let our representatives wage a struggle against the State Duma, just
as our delegates in the Shidlovsky Commission fought against that cunning
trap set by the autocracy.” This slogan is very similar to the
Iskra slogan calling for “revolutionary self-government”, although the comrades of the St. Petersburg group do
not, of course, use this inept and high-sounding phrase. We have no doubt
but that the St. Petersburg workers will see the erroneousness of this
slogan and a false analogy with the Shidlovsky Commission. At that time the
workers were boycotting the Commission; now the Duma is boycotting the
workers.

Whilethe tsar retains power, revolutionary self-government can be
only a fragment of the revolution (the decision of the Smolensk Municipal
Council, etc.). Making it the main slogan of the revolutionary proletariat means
sowing confusion and playing into the hands of the Osvobozhdeniye
people. In developing, extending, strengthening, and spreading the organisation
of the revolutionary forces of the proletariat and the peasantry, we
must not confuse this organisation of war, this organisation of an uprising,
with self-government . In purpose, manner of origin, and character, the
organisation of an armed uprising, the organisation of a revolutionary army, is
quite unlike the organisation of revolutionary self-government. The
more zealously the liberal bourgeoisie, the Osvobozhdeniye gentry,
endeavour to curtail, blur, and dock the consistent revolutionary-democratic
slogans, the more clearly and directly must we bring forward such
slogans—the convocation of a popular constituent assembly by a provisional
revolutionary government, the organisation of an armed uprising, and a
revolutionary army for the overthrow of tsarist rule.

---
Notes:
[1]
See pp. 253-61 of this volume.— Ed .

[2]
See pp. 179-87 of this volume.— Ed .

[3]
The reference is to the Mensheviks’ plan of support for the
“Zemstvo campaign” which was conducted by bourgeois liberals between
the autumn of 1904 and January 1905. The campaign consisted of a series of
conferences, public meetings, and banquets arranged by Zemstvo leaders. At these
affairs speeches were made and resolutions passed in support of moderate
constitutionalist demands. Lenin sharply criticised the “plan of fire
Zemstvo campaign” in an article entitled “The Zemstvo Campaign and
Iskra’s Plan” (see present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 497-518).

[4]
The Shidlovsky Commission , which was headed by
Senator Shidlovsky, was set up by an imperial ukase of January 29 (February
11), 1905 ostensibly “to enquire without delay into the causes of
discontent among the workers in the city of St. Petersburg and its
suburbs”. The commission was made up of officials, the heads of
government-owned factories, and factory owners. The intention was also to
include elected representatives of the workers. The Bolsheviks, who considered
this manoeuvre on the part of the tsarist regime an attempt to distract the
workers from the revolutionary struggle, proposed that elections to the
commission be used to p resent political demands to the tsar’s government (see
the book Leaflets of the St. Petersburg Bolsheviks , Vol. 1, 1939,
pp. 197-202). When the demands were rejected by the government the electors
refused to nominate their representatives to the commission, and called upon the
St. Petersburg workers to strike. On the following day mass political strikes
began, and on February 20 (March 5) the authorities were obliged to abolish
the commission.