The date of the note has not been established. It was written concerning A. Martynov's pamphlet "Two Dictatorships," published in Geneva in early 1905.

* PROSPECTS OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION
(TYPE OF 1789 OR 1848)

[Early 1905]

The important question concerning the Russian revolution is this:
I will it reach the complete overthrow of the tsarist government, a republic?
II or will it be limited to a curtailment, a restriction of tsarist power, a monarchical constitution?
In other words: is a revolution of the 1789 type or the 1848 type* in store for us? (We say: of the type, so as to eliminate the absurd idea of the possibility of repeating the irrevocably past social, political, and international situation of 1789 and 1848.)

That a social democrat must desire and strive for the former is hardly open to doubt.

Meanwhile, Martynov's formulation of the question falls entirely into a tail-endist desire for a more modest revolution. Under the second type, the "danger" of the seizure of power by the proletariat and the peasantry, which frightens the Martynovs, disappears completely. To remain the "opposition" even with respect to the revolution in the second case is inevitable for Social-Democracy — Martynov precisely wants to remain in the opposition even with respect to the revolution.

The question is, which type is more probable?

In favour of I speaks (1) the incomparably greater store of bitterness and revolutionary spirit among the lower classes in Russia than in Germany in 1848. With us the break is more abrupt; between autocracy and political freedom there was and is no intermediate stage (the zemstvo does not count); with us despotism is virginally Asiatic. (2) The disastrous war makes an abrupt collapse even more likely, for it entangles the tsarist government hopelessly. (3) The international conjuncture is more favourable, for proletarian Europe will make aid to the Russian monarchy by the European monarchs impossible. (4) The development of conscious revolutionary parties, literature and their organisation is many times higher than in 1789, 1848 and 1871. (5) A whole series of nationalities oppressed by tsarism — Poles, Finns, etc. — make the onslaught on autocracy particularly energetic. (6) The peasantry is especially ruined, incredibly impoverished, and already has absolutely nothing to lose.

All these considerations, of course, are far from absolute. Other considerations can be opposed to them: (1) The remnants of feudalism are very few in Russia. (2) The government is more experienced and possesses greater means of discerning the revolutionary danger.
(3) The war complicates the immediacy of the revolutionary explosion with tasks extraneous to the revolution. The war demonstrates the weakness of the Russian revolutionary classes, who without war were unable to rise (cf. K[arl] K[autsky] in "Social Revolution")¹. (4) There is no impulse towards the overturn from other countries. (5) National movements towards the dismemberment of Russia are capable of tearing from our revolution a mass of the big and petty Russian bourgeoisie. (6) The antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is far deeper in Russia than in 1789, 1848, 1871; therefore the bourgeoisie will be more afraid of the proletarian revolution and will sooner throw itself into the arms of reaction.

All these + and – can, of course, be weighed only by history.

Our business, as Social-Democrats, is to push the bourgeois revolution as far as possible, never forgetting our main task: the independent organisation of the proletariat.

Here is where Martynov gets confused.

A complete revolution means the seizure of power by the proletariat and the poor peasantry. And these classes, when in power, cannot but strive for a socialist revolution. Ergo, the seizure of power, initially a step in the democratic revolution, will by the force of things, against the will (and sometimes the consciousness) of the participants, pass over into the socialist revolution. And here collapse is inevitable. And if the collapse of attempts at socialist revolution is inevitable, then we (like Marx in 1871, who foresaw the inevitable collapse of the uprising in Paris) must advise the proletariat not to rise, to wait, to organise, to reculer, pour mieux sauter (to retreat, to better leap forward).

That, essentially, is Martynov's thought (and that of the new Iskra), if he had thought it through.

____________________
¹ NB: here they may add — "or 1871?" This question must be examined, as a probable objection to us from many non-Social-Democrats.