V. I.

Lenin

Therising tide of revolutionary enthusiasm among the Moscow proletariat, so
vividly expressed in the political strike and in the street fighting, has not
yet subsided. The strike continues. It has to some extent spread to St. Peters
burg, where the compositors are striking in sympathy with their Moscow
comrades. It is still uncertain whether the present movement will subside and
await the next rise of the tide, or whether it will be of a sustained
character. But certain results of the Moscow events, and very instructive ones
at that, are already apparent, and it would be worth while to dwell on them.

Onthe whole, the movement in Moscow did not attain the pitch of a decisive
battle between the revolutionary workers and the tsarist forces. It consisted
only of small skirmishes at the outposts, part perhaps of a military
demonstration in the civil war, but it was not one of those battles that
determine the outcome of a war. Of the two suppositions we advanced a week ago,
it is apparently the first that is being justified,, namely, that what we are
witnessing is not the beginning of the decisive onslaught, but only a
rehearsal. This rehearsal has nevertheless fully revealed all the characters in
the historical drama, thus spotlighting the probable—and in part even
inevitable— development of the drama itself.

The Moscow events were inaugurated by incidents which at first glance appear to
have been of a purely academic character. The government conferred partial
“autonomy”, or alleged autonomy, on the universities. The
professorate were granted self-government, and the students were granted the
right of assembly. Thus a small breach was forced in the general system of autocratic-feudal oppression. New revolutionary
currents immediately swept into this breach with unexpected force. A miserable
concession, a paltry reform, granted with the object of blunting the edge of the
political antagonisms and of “reconciling” robbers and robbed,
actually served to stimulate the struggle tremendously, and increase the number
of its participants. Workers flocked to the students’ gatherings, which began to
develop into popular revolutionary meetings, where the proletariat, the foremost
class in the struggle for liberty, predominated. The government was
outraged. The “respectable” liberals who had received professorial
self-government began to scurry back and forth between the revolutionary
students and the government of police rule and the knout. The liberals made use
of liberty in order to betray liberty, restrain the students from extending and
intensifying the struggle, and appeal for “order”—this in the face
of the bashi-bazouks and Black Hundreds, the Trepovs and the Romanovs! The
liberals made use of self-government so as to do the work of the butchers of the
people, and to close the University, that holy sanctuary of
“science” permitted by the knout-wielders, which the students
defiled by allowing the “rabble” to enter it for discussion of
questions “unauthorised” by the autocratic gang. The self-governing
liberals betrayed the people and liberty, because they feared carnage in the
University. They were punished in exemplary fashion for their contemptible
cowardice. By closing the revolutionary University they opened the way to
revolution in the streets. Wretched pedants that they are, they were ready to
jubilate in concert with rascals like Glazov over the fact that they had managed
to extinguish the conflagration in the school. But as a matter of fact they only
started a conflagration in a huge industrial city. These manikins on stilts
forbade the workers to go to the students, but they only drove the students to
the revolutionary workers. They appraised all political matters from the
standpoint of their own chicken coop, which reeks of age-old hidebound
officialism. They implored the students to spare this chicken coop. The first
fresh breeze—the manifestation of the free and youthful revolutionary
elements—was enough for the chicken coop to be forgotten, for the breeze
freshened and grew into a blast against the tsarist autocracy, the prime source of all officialism and all
the humiliations heaped upon the Russian people. And even now, when the
first danger has passed and the storm has clearly subsided, the lackeys of
the autocracy still quake at the mere recollection of the chasm that
yawned before them during the days of bloodshed in Moscow. “It is
not yet a conflagration, but that it is arson is already beyond question,”
mutters Mr. Menshikov in the servile Novoye Vremya (of September
30). “It is not yet a revolution... but it is already the prologue to
a revolution.” “‘It is on the move,’ I [Mr. Menshikov] argued in
April. And what frightful strides ‘it’ has since made! The popular element
has been stirred to its very depths....”

Yes,the Trepovs and the Romanovs, together with the treacherous liberal
bourgeoisie, have got themselves into a predicament. Open the
University—and you provide a platform for popular revolutionary meetings,
and render invaluable service to the Social-Democrats. Close the University
down—and you open the way for a street struggle. And so our knights of the
knout dash to and fro, gnashing their teeth. They reopen Moscow University,
pretending that they want to allow the students to maintain order them selves
during street processions; they turn a blind eye to revolutionary
self-government of the students, who are dividing into Social-Democrats,
Socialist-Revolutionaries, etc., thus bringing about proper political
representation in the student “parliament” (and, we are confident,
will not confine themselves to revolutionary self-government, but will
immediately and in dead earnest set about organising and equipping contingents
of a revolutionary army). Together with Trepov, the liberal professors are
dashing to and fro, hastening one day to persuade the students to be more moderate, and
the next day to persuade the knout-wielders to be more lenient. The scurryings
of both of these give us the greatest satisfaction; they show that a fine
revolutionary breeze must be blowing if the political-commanders and the
political turncoats are staggering about on the upper deck in such a lively
manner.

Butbesides legitimate pride and legitimate satisfaction, true revolutionists
must derive something else from the Moscow events—an understanding of the
social forces operating in the Russian revolution and just how they operate, and a clearer idea of
the forms they take when they operate. Call to mind the political sequence of
the Moscow events, and you will see a remarkably typical picture of the whole
revolution, one that is characteristic of the class relation ships. Here is the
sequence: a small breach is forced in the old order; the government tries to
mend the breach with petty concessions, illusory “reforms”, etc.;
instead of calming down, the struggle becomes even more acute and wide spread;
the liberal bourgeoisie wavers and dashes from one thing to another, urging the
revolutionists to desist from revolution, and the police to desist from
reaction; headed by the proletariat, the revolutionary people arrive on the
scene, and the open struggle gives rise to a new political situation; the
conflict shifts to the newly won battlefield—a more elevated and broader
field—a new breach is made in the enemy strongholds, and in that way the
movement proceeds to an ever higher plane. A general retreat on the part of the
government is taking place before our eyes, as Moskovskiye Vedomosti
aptly remarked recently. A certain liberal newspaper [1] rather
cleverly added: a retreat under cover of rearguard action. On October 3 (16) the
St. Petersburg correspondent of the liberal Berlin Vossische Zeitung
wired to his paper about his interview with Trepov’s chef de cabinet .
As the police underling told the correspondent: “You cannot expect the
government to follow a consistent plan of action, since every day brings with it
events that could not have been foreseen. The government is obliged to
manoeuvre. Force cannot crush the present movement which may last for two months
or two years.

Indeedthe government’s tactics have now become quite clear. They indubitably
lie in manoeuvring and retreating under cover of rearguard action. Such tactics
are quite correct from the standpoint of the autocracy’s interests. It would be
a grievous error and a fatal illusion for revolutionists to forget that the
government can still continue to retreat for a very long time to come, without
losing what is most essential. The example of the abortive, unfinished
semi-revolution in Germany, in 1848—an example to which we shall return in
the next issue of Proletary , and which we shall never tire of
recalling—shows that even if it retreats so far as to convoke a ( nominally ) constituent
assembly, the government will still retain sufficient strength to defeat the
revolution in the final and decisive battle. That is why, in studying the
Moscow events, the most recent in a long series of conflicts in our civil
war, we must soberly consider the developments, prepare with the maximum of
energy and persistence for a long and desperate war, and be on our guard
against such allies that are already turncoat allies. When absolutely
nothing decisive has as yet been won, when the enemy still has an enormous
area. for further advantageous and safe retreats, when battles are becoming
ever more serious—confidence in such allies, attempts to conclude
agreements with them or simply to support them on certain conditions may
prove not only stupid but even treacherous to the proletariat.

Indeed,was the liberal professors’ behaviour before and during the Moscow
events fortuitous? Was it an exception, or is it the rule for the entire
Constitutional-Democratic Party? Does this behaviour express the
individual peculiarities of a given group of the liberal bourgeoisie,
or does it express the fundamental interests of this entire class in
general? Among socialists there can be no two opinions on these
questions, but not all socialists know how to consistently pursue
genuinely socialist tactics.

Fora clearer understanding of the gist of the matter, let us take the liberals’
own exposition of their tactics. They avoid coming out against the
Social-Democrats or even speaking directly about them in the columns of the
Russian press. But here is an interesting report in the Berlin Vossische Zeitung , which undoubtedly is more outspoken in its expression of the
liberals’ views:

"Extremelystormy student disturbances have reoccurred both in
St. Petersburg and in Moscow since the very beginning of the academic year,
although autonomy has been granted—belatedly, it is true—to the
universities and other higher educational institutions. Moreover, in Moscow
these disturbances are accompanied by a wide spread workers’ movement. These
disturbances indicate that a new phase has begun in the Russian revolutionary
movement. The course of the student meetings and their resolutions show that the
students have adopted the watchword of the Social-Democratic leaders to convert
the universities into popular meeting places, and thus spread revolution among wide sections of the population. The Moscow students have
already shown how this is being put into effect: they invited to the University
premises such large numbers of workers and other persons who have no connection
with the University that the students themselves were in a minority. It stands
to reason that such a state of affairs cannot go on for long under the existing
conditions. The government will close the universities rather than tolerate such
meetings. This is so obvious that at first glance it appears inconceivable that
the Social-Democratic leaders could have issued such a watchword. They knew
perfectly well what this would lead to, but what they wanted was for the
government to close the universities. For what purpose? Simply because they
intend to hinder the liberal movement by all available means. They
admit that they are not strong enough to effect any major political action with
their own forces; therefore the liberals and radicals must not do anything
either, for that would allegedly only harm the socialist proletariat. The latter
must win its rights for itself. The Russian Social-Democratic Party may take
great pride in these ’inflexible’ ( unbeugsame ) tactics, but they must
appear very short-sighted to any unprejudiced observer; they will scarcely lead
Russian Social-Democracy to victories. It is quite incomprehensible what it will
gain by the closing of the universities, which is inevitable if the present
tactics continue. On the other hand, it is of the utmost importance to all
progressive parties that there should be no interruption in the work of the
universities and higher schools. The protracted strikes of students and
professors have already caused great damage to Russian culture. It is imperative
that academic work be resumed. Autonomy has enabled the professors to conduct
their classes freely. That is why the professors of all universities and higher
schools are agreed that it is necessary to start tuition once more and in
energetic fashion. They are exerting all their influence to persuade the
students to abandon their efforts to give effect to the Social-Democratic watchword.”

Thus,the struggle between bourgeois liberalism (the Constitutional-Democrats)
and the Social-Democrats has taken definite shape. Do not hinder the liberal
movement! Such is the slogan so splendidly expressed in the article quoted
above. What does this liberal movement amount to? It is a retrograde movement , for the professors use and desire to use the freedom of the
universities not for revolutionary propaganda, but for counter-revolutionary propaganda; not to fan the conflagration, but to
extinguish it; not to extend the field of battle, but to draw the masses away
from decisive struggle and induce them to collaborate peacefully with the
Trepovs. With the struggle becoming more acute, the “liberal”
movement (as we have seen in practice) has become marked by desertion from
revolution to reaction. Of course, the liberals are, in a way, useful to us, since they introduce vacillation into
the ranks of the Trepovs and other lackeys of Romanov. This good, however,
will’ be outweighed by the harm they cause by bringing vacillation into
our ranks, unless we make a clean break with the
Constitutional-Democrats, and brand every hesitant step they
take. Their knowledge, or, more frequently, their sense of their dominant position in the existing
economic system has led the liberals to aspire to dominate the revolution
as well. They say that each step aimed at continuing, extending
and intensifying the revolution and taking it farther than the most ordinary
patchwork is a “hindrance” to the liberal movement. Fearful for the fate of the so-called freedom of the universities
granted by Trepov, they are today fighting against revolutionary
freedom. Fearful for the legal “freedom of assembly” which the
government will grant tomorrow in a police-distorted form, they will hold us
back from using these assemblies for genuinely proletarian aims. Fearful for
the fate of the State Duma, they already displayed wise moderation at the
September Congress, and continue to display it now by combating the idea of
a boycott; why, they say, you must not hinder us from getting things done in
the State Duma!

Itmust be confessed that, to the shame of Social-Democracy, there have been
opportunists in its ranks who fell for this bait by reason of their doctrinaire
and lifeless distortion of Marxism! They argue that the revolution is a
bourgeois one and therefore ... therefore we must retrace our steps in the
measure the bourgeoisie succeeds in obtaining concessions from tsarism. To this
day the new Iskrists have not seen the real significance of the State Duma,
because they are themselves drawing back and therefore naturally do not notice
the Constitutional-Democrats’ regression. That the Iskrists have already
retraced their steps since the promulgation of the State Duma Act is an
indisputable fact. Prior to the State Duma Act they never thought of placing the
question of an agreement with the Constitutional-Democrats on the order of the
day. After the State Duma Act they (Parvus, Cherevanin and Martov) raised this
question, and not merely as a matter of theory, but in an immediately practical
form. Prior to the State

Duma Act they presented quite stringent conditions to the democrats (right up to
co-operation in arming .the people, etc.). After the State Duma Act they
immediately reduced the conditions, confining themselves to a promise to convert
the Black-Hundred or the liberal Duma into a revolutionary one. Prior to the
State Duma Act the reply their official resolution gave to the question as to
who should convoke the popular constituent assembly was: either, a provisional
revolutionary government or a representative institution. After the State Duma
Act they deleted the provisional revolutionary government, and they now say:
either “democratic” (like the Constitutional-Democrats?)
“organisations of the people” (?), or ... or the State Duma. We thus
see in fact how the new-Iskrists are guided by their magnificent
principle: the revolution is a bourgeois revolution—therefore, comrades,
watch out lest the bourgeoisie recoil!

The Moscow events, which for the first time since the State Duma Act have shown
the real nature of the Constitutional-Democrats’ tactics at grave
political junctures, have also shown that Social-Democracy’s opportunist
appendage, which we have described, is inevitably being transformed into a mere
appendage to the bourgeoisie. We have just said: a Black-Hundred or a liberal
State Duma. To an Iskra supporter these words would appear monstrous,
for he considers distinction between a Black-Hundred State Duma and a liberal
State Duma highly important. But these selfsame Moscow events have disclosed the
fallaciousness of this “parliamentary” idea, which had been so
inappropriately advanced in a pre-parliamentary period. The Moscow events have
shown that the liberal turncoat has actually played the part of a Trepov. The
closing of the University, which would have been decreed by Trepov yesterday,
has been carried out today by Messrs. Manuilov and Trubetskoi. Is it not clear
that the “Duma” liberals will also scurry back and forth between
Trepov and Romanov, on the one hand, and the revolutionary people on the other?
Is it not clear that the slightest support for liberal turncoats is something
befitting only political simpletons?

Undera parliamentary system it is often necessary to support a more liberal
party against a less liberal one. But during a revolutionary struggle for a
parliamentary system it is treachery to support liberal turncoats who are “reconciling”
Trepov with the revolution.

Theevents in Moscow have revealed in practice the alignment of social forces
that Proletary has spoken of so many times: the socialist proletariat
and the vanguard of revolutionary bourgeois democracy have waged a struggle , while the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie has conducted negotiations. Therefore, fellow-workers, study the lessons of the Moscow
events, and do so most attentively. For it is in this way, and inevitably so,
that matters will take their course throughout the whole of the Russian
revolution. We must rally more solidly than ever in a genuinely socialist party,
which shall consciously express the interests of the working class, and not
drift along in the wake of the masses. In the struggle we must place reliance
only on revolutionary democrats, permit agreements with them alone, and carry
out these agreements only on the field of battle against the Trepovs and
Romanov. We must bend every effort to rouse, in addition to the students, who
are the vanguard of revolutionary democracy, also those broad masses of the
people whose movement is not only democratic in a general way (today every
turncoat calls himself a democrat), but a genuinely revolutionary
movement—namely, the masses of the peasantry. We must remember that the
liberals and Constitutional-Democrats, who are bringing vacillation into the
ranks of supporters of the autocracy, will inevitably strive in every way to
bring vacillation into our ranks as well. Only an open revolutionary struggle
which consigns all liberal chicken coops and all liberal Dumas to the rubbish
heap will be of serious and decisive consequence. There fore, prepare for ever
new battles, without losing a single moment! Arm as best you can; immediately
form squads of fighters who will be prepared to battle with devoted energy
against the accursed autocracy; remember that tomorrow or the following day
events will certainly call you to rise in revolt, and the question now is only
whether you will be able to take prepared and united action, or whether you will
be caught off your guard and disunited!

Theevents in Moscow have once again and for the hundredth time confuted the
sceptics. They have shown that we are still inclined to underestimate the
revolutionary activity of the masses. They will bring round many of those who have already
begun to waver, who have begun to lose faith in the idea of an uprising
after the conclusion of peace and the granting of a Duma. No, it is
precisely now that the uprising is gaining ground and increasing in
intensity with unparalleled rapidity. Let us all be at our posts when the
imminent explosion comes, one in comparison with which both January 9 and
the memorable Odessa days will seem mere child’s play.

---
Notes:
[1]
The reference is to the liberal-bourgeois newspaper
Rus which came out at intervals in St. Petersburg between 1903 and 1908
under various names, such as Bus ( Russia ), Molva ( Hearsay ),
and Dvadtsaty Vek ( The Twentieth Century ).