V. I.

Lenin

It was only natural and inevitable in our revolutionary movement that the
question of a constituent assembly should be brought forward. To sweep away the
survivals of the old, semi-feudal institutions of autocratic Russia for good and
all, to determine the institutions of new, free Russia, one cannot conceive of
any consistent and logical path save that of calling a constituent assembly of
the whole people. True, in actual life consistent and logical objectives are
rarely realised in full; life always introduces many unforeseen features
which complicate and confuse the issue, which mix up the old and the new. But
whoever sincerely wishes to have done with the old and knows how to work for
that end must define clearly what a constituent assembly stands for, and fight
with all his might for its realisation in its full and unadulterated form.

The party of the class-conscious proletariat, the Social-Democratic Party,
advanced the demand for a constituent assembly as far back as 1903, in its
Programme adopted at the Second Congress. “The Russian Social-Democratic
Labour Party,” reads the last section of our Programme, “is firmly
convinced that the complete, consistent and lasting attainment of the
above-mentioned political and economic reforms [the establishment of a
democratic state system, labour protection, etc.] [1] can be
achieved only by overthrowing the autocracy and convoking a constituent
assembly, freely elected by the whole people.”

These words clearly show that our Party is concerned not only with the purely
formal, but also with the material conditions for the convocation of a
constituent assembly, i.e., with the conditions which would make such an
assembly truly national and truly constituent. It is not enough to call an
assembly “constituent”, it is not enough to convene representatives
of the people, even though they be chosen by universal and equal suffrage,
direct elections and secret ballot, even though freedom of elections be really
guaranteed. In addition to all these conditions, it is necessary that the
constituent assembly have the authority and the force to constitute a new
order. There have been cases in the history of revolutions when an assembly was
nominally constituent, while in actual fact real force and power were not in its
hands but in the hands of the old autocracy. This was the case in the German
revolution of 1848, which explains why the “constituent” assembly
of that period, the notorious Frankfurt Parliament, acquired the shameful
reputation of a contemptible “talking shop”. That assembly babbled
about freedom, decreed freedom, but took no practical steps to remove the
government institutions which were destroying freedom. It is quite natural,
therefore, that that pitiable, assembly of pitiable liberal-bourgeois prattlers
withdrew from the scene in ignominy.

In present-day Russia the question of the convocation of a constituent assembly
heads the list of the political questions of the day. And it is now that the
practical side of this question is becoming a matter of the utmost urgency. What
is important is not so much whether a constituent assembly will be convoked (it
is probable that even Count Witte, that ministerial broker, will agree to it
tomorrow), but whether it will be a truly national and truly constituent
assembly.

As a matter of fact, the experience of our revolution, despite the fact that it
is only just beginning, has already shown clearly what jugglery may be performed
with words and promises in general, and with the constituent assembly slogan in
particular. Just call to mind the recent congress of Zemstvo and municipal
leaders—the “Cadets” [2] —in

Moscow. Recall their famous formula: a State Duma with constituent functions for drawing up a
constitution to be approved by the Emperor.... Even the bourgeois-democratic press noted the inherently contradictory nature and absurdity of this
formula. To “constitute” a new political order “to be approved”
by the head of the old government—what does this mean but legalising
two governments, two equal (on paper) supreme authorities—the
authority of the people risen in revolt and the authority of the old
autocracy. It is obvious that equality between them is a sheer semblance,
that in practice the terms of any “compromise” between them
depend on which side has the preponderance of force . Thus, in
their “ideal” plan of transition from the old Russia to the new,
the liberal bourgeois were legitimising the coexistence of two equal,
mutually hostile and contending forces, i.e., they were legitimising an
eternal and hopeless struggle.

This contradiction cannot be explained by simple formal logic. But it is fully
explained by the logic of the class interests of the bourgeoisie. The
bourgeoisie is afraid of complete freedom, of full democracy, for it knows that
the class-conscious, i.e., socialist, proletariat will use this freedom to fight
against the domination of capital. Therefore what the bourgeoisie really wants
is not complete freedom, not the full sovereignty of the people, but a deal
with reaction, with the autocracy. The bourgeoisie wants parliamentarism in
order to ensure the domination of capital rather than that of the bureaucracy,
and at the same time it wants the monarchy, a standing army, the preservation of
certain privileges for the bureaucracy, because it does not want to allow the
revolution to reach its final goal, because it does not want to arm the
proletariat—“arming” meaning both direct arming with weapons and
arming with complete freedom. The contradictory class position of the
bourgeoisie between the autocracy and the proletariat inevitably gives rise,
irrespectively of the will or consciousness of this or that individual, to
senseless and absurd formulas of “compromise The constituent assembly
slogan is turned into an empty phrase the great demand of the proletariat which
has risen to win freedom is reduced to a farce—this is the way the
bourgeoisie profanes absolutely everything, substituting haggling for struggle.

The radical bourgeois of Nasha Zhizn do not see this inevitably false
and spurious presentation of the question by the liberals, when they extol with
serious mien the “draft” for the convocation of a constituent assembly prepared by Messrs. Falbork and
Charnolusky, and then also by the Central Bureau of the Union of Unions. It is
ridiculous to make such “drafts”, gentlemen! You are following in
the footsteps of the “Cadets”, who have betrayed the revolution. You
forget that paper drafts, like all constitutional illusions, corrupt the
revolutionary consciousness of the people and weaken their fighting spirit, for
they obscure the main point and entirely distort the question itself. After all,
you are not engaged in propaganda for a political ABC. You are putting the
question practically , as is indicated by the very nature of the
discussion of the draft “by representatives of the extreme and the
moderate parties”, which you have proposed. It is
Manilovism [3] on your part, esteemed bourgeois democrats, to admit, on the one hand, that it is desirable
for the constituent assembly to possess “full” power and attempt,
on the other hand, to unite the extreme parties with the “moderate”
parties, i.e., those who desire suck full power with those who do not desire it.

Off with the frills and furbelows! We have had enough of lying liberal phrases!
It is time to draw the line. To the right —the autocracy and the liberal
bourgeoisie, who have in effect been brought together by their opposition to the
transfer of all power—sole, full and indivisible—to a constituent
assembly. To the left —the socialist proletariat and the revolutionary
peasantry or, more broadly, the whole of revolutionary bourgeois democracy. They
want the constituent assembly to have full power. For this they can and must
conclude a fighting alliance, without, of course, merging. It is not paper
drafts they need, but fighting measures, not the organisation of office
routine, but the organisation of a victorious struggle for liberty.

---
Notes:
[1]
Interpolations in square brackets (within passages quoted by Lenin)
have been introduced by Lenin, unless otherwise indicated.— Ed .

[2]
Cadets —members of the Constitutional-Democratic Party,
the chief party of the Russian liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie. The Cadet Party
was founded in October 1905, its membership including representatives of the
liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie, Zemstvo functionaries from among the landlords,
and bourgeois intellectuals. Among the more prominent Cadet leaders were
P. N. Milyukov, S. A. Muromtsev, V. A. Maklakov, A. I. Shingaryov, P. B. Strove
and F. I. Rodichev. The Cadets called themselves the “party of people’s
freedom” to mislead the working masses. In reality they never demanded
anything beyond a constitutional monarchy. Their main task they considered to ho
the fight against the revolutionary movement. They tried to persuade the tsar and the feudal landlords to share
power with them.

During the First World War the Cadets actively supported the tsarist
government’s foreign policy of conquest. At the time of the
bourgeois-democratic revolution of February 1917, they tried to save the
monarchy. In the bourgeois Provisional Government, in which they played the key
role, they pursued a counter-revolutionary policy, opposed to the interests of
the people hut favourable to the U.S., British and French
imperialists. Following the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution
the Cadets became rabid enemies of Soviet power and participated in all armed
counter revolutionary actions and the campaigns of the interventionists. When
the interventionists and whiteguards had been defeated, the Cadets fled abroad,
where they continued their anti-Soviet counter-revolutionary activity.

[3]
Manilovism —a term derived from the name of the landlord Manilov, one of the characters in Gogol’s Dead Souls.
Manilov is a typical philistine, sugary sentimentalist and empty
visionary.