V. I.

Lenin

156

To:   A. V. LUNACHARSKY

October 14

Dear An. Vas., Your article deals with a subject that is extremely interesting and very
timely. [2] Recently, in a leading article, Leipziger Volkszeitung [3] ridiculed the Zemstvo members for their
September Congress, for “playing at a Constitution”, for
already posing as parliamentarians, etc., etc. The mistake of Parvus
and Martov needs analysing from this aspect. But your article gives no
analysis. I believe the article should be revised along one of two lines: either
the weight of emphasis should be shifted to our new-Iskrists, who are
“playing at parliamentarism”, and you should demonstrate in detail
the relative, temporary importance of parliamentarism, the futility of
“parliamentary illusions” in an era of revolutionary struggle, etc.,
by explaining the whole thing from the beginning (for Russians this is very
useful!) and introducing a bit of
Hilferding, [4] just by way of illustration; or else you should take Hilferding as a
basis—the article will then need less revision—give it a different
heading, but describe more clearly Hilferding’s method of presenting the
question. Of course, you may find another plan of revision, but please set to
work on it at once, without fail. You have time for it, since the article could
not go into this issue (the Moscow events [5] + the old material
have taken up all the space). So, the deadline is Tuesday, October 17. Please
make it a comprehensive article and send it by October 17. It would be better
to revise it along the first lines, it may then turn out to be an editorial!

If we already had a parliament, we would certainly support the
Cadets, [6]
Milyukov and Co. contra Moskov- skiye Vedomosti . For example, when balloting, etc. Such action there would
not in the slightest degree violate the independence of the class party of
Social-Democracy. But in an era not of parliament, but of revolution (you make
the distinction in the very heading), support for people who are incapable of fighting in a revolutionary way is 1) violation of the independence of
our Party. The deal cannot be clear and above-hoard. It is precisely the
“sale” of our right to revolution, as you say, and not the
use of our right for the purpose of support. In a parliament we give
support without in any way disappearing. Now we are disappearing by
obliging the Milyukovs to speak for us on definite terms. Further, what is most important 2) such support is betrayal of the
revolution. There is no parliament as yet, it is only an illusion of
the Milyukovs. We must fight in a revolutionary way for a parliament,
but not in a parliamentary way for a revolution; we must fight in a
revolutionary way for a strong parliament, and not in an
impotent “parliament” for a revolution. In Russia now, without the victory of the revolution, all victories in
“parliament” (the Duma or the like) are nothing , worse than
nothing, for they blind the eyes by a fiction . Parvus has not
understood this.

The Cadets have already become regierungsfähig [1] (the Trubetskois and
Manuilovs in the role of rectors, etc.), they have already climbed to the second
storey of freedom of assembly (at the price of debasing assemblies), the storey
of quasi-parliamentarism. All they need is that the proletariat, while
remaining actually in the basement , should imagine itself on the second
storey, should fancy itself a parliamentary force and agree to
“conditions” about “support” and so on. That is a rich theme! We now are strong owing to the revolutionary struggle of the people and
weak in a quasi-parliamentary respect. With the Cadets it is just the reverse . They calculate on dragging us into
quasi-parliamentarism. Iskra has allowed itself to be fooled. It is on
this point that a detailed analysis of the relation of “‘parliamentarism’ to revolution” would be appropriate (cf. Marx on
the class struggles in France in
1848). [7]

These ideas outlined by you (I am stating them, of course, in a very general and
inexact way) must be amplified, mulled over, and served up. People in Russia are
now badly in need of having the relation between parliamentarism and revolution
explained to them from the very beginning. But Martov and Co. go into hysterics
and scream: if only we would become legal! If only we would act openly! It
doesn’t matter how, so long as it’s legal! It is now of all times that we
need steadfastness, the continuation of the revolution, struggle against a
wretched semi-legality. Iskra has failed to understand this. Like all
opportunists, they do not believe in the energy and stubbornness of the workers’
revolutionary struggle. Moscow is a lesson to them. And here we have that
vulgarian Parvus applying to Russia the tactics of petty deals!

Did you receive my letter? All the very best to you and to An. Al.

Yours, Lenin

---
Notes:
[1]
Fit to govern.— Ed .

[2]
The reference is to Lunacharsky’s article published, apparently, after
Lenin’s suggested revision, under the heading “Parliament and Its
Significance” in Proletary No. 25, for November 16 (3), 1905.

[3]
Leipziger Volkszeitung —organ of the Left wing of German
Social-Democracy. The newspaper was published daily from 1894 to 1933; for
a number of years it was edited by Franz Mehring and Rosa Luxemburg. From
1917 to 1922 the paper was the mouthpiece of the German
“Independents”. After 1922 it was the organ of the Right
Social-Democrats.

[4]
Lenin is referring to Rudolph Hilferding’s article “Parlamentarismus und
Massenstreik” published in Die Neue Zeit No. 51, for September
13, 1905.

[5]
The Moscow events —the strikes and demonstrations started by the
Moscow workers, which Lenin dealt with in his articles “The Political
Strike and the Street Fighting in Moscow” and “The Lessons of the Moscow
Events”^^(see Vol. 9 of this edition)^^. The strike movement spread to
St. Petersburg and was followed by a general political strike all over the
country^^(see Lenin’s article “The All-Russia Political Strike”, Vol. 9
of this edition)^^.

[6]
Cadets —abbreviated name for members of the
Constitutional-Democratic Party, the chief party of the liberal-monarchist
bourgeoisie in Russia. Founded in October 1905, its membership was made up
of representatives of the bourgeoisie, Zemstvo leaders of the landowning
class and bourgeois intellectuals. The Cadets called themselves the “party
of people’s freedom”. Actually they strove towards a deal with the
autocracy in order to preserve tsarism in the form of a constitutional
monarchy. Their watchword from the beginning of the imperialist war was
“war to a victorious finish”. After the February revolution of 1917, as a
result of a deal with the S.R. and Menshevik leaders of the Petrograd
Soviet, they occupied key positions in the bourgeois Provisional Government
and pursued a counter-revolutionary policy opposed to the interests of the
people.

After the victory of the October Revolution the Cadets came out as
implacable enemies of the Soviet power. They took part in all the
counter-revolutionary armed actions and campaigns of the
interventionists. Living abroad as émigrés after the defeat of the
interventionists and whiteguards, the Cadets did not cease their
anti-Soviet activities.

[7]
Karl Marx, “The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850”^^(see Marx and
Engels, Selected Works , Vol. 1, Moscow 1962, pp. 139–242)^^.