In No. 12 of *Proletariat*, which appeared on August 3 (16), we spoke of the possibility of an imminent convocation of the Bulygin Duma and analyzed the tactics of Social-Democracy toward it.[63] Now the Bulygin project has become law, and the manifesto of August 6 (19) proclaimed the convocation of the "State Duma" "not later than the middle of January 1906."

Precisely on the anniversary of January 9th, when the Petersburg workers sealed with their blood the beginning of revolution in Russia and their determination to fight desperately for its victory—precisely on the anniversary of this great day the tsar intends to convoke in the crudest manner a counterfeit, sifted through police sieves, assembly of landowners, capitalists, and a negligible number of wealthy and servile peasant householders. With this assembly the tsar intends to consult as with a gathering of representatives of the "people." Meanwhile, the entire working class, all millions of toiling and landless workers are not admitted to any participation in the elections of "people's representatives." Time will tell whether this tsar's calculation on the impotence of the working class will be vindicated...

As long as the revolutionary proletariat has not armed itself and defeated the autocratic government, one could expect nothing other than this pittance—worth nothing to the tsar and obligating him to nothing—granted to the large bourgeoisie. And this pittance probably would not have been granted at this moment if the menacing question of war or peace were not looming. Without consultation with the landowners and capitalists, the autocratic government does not dare either to impose upon the people the burdens of the senseless continuation of the war, or to work out measures to unload from the shoulders of the wealthy and place entirely upon the shoulders of the workers and peasants the full weight of paying for the war.

As for the very content of the law on the State Duma, it fully confirmed our most dire expectations. It is unknown whether this Duma will actually be convoked—such pittances are not difficult to withdraw, and such promises the autocratic monarchs of every country have made and violated dozens of times; it is still unknown to what extent this future Duma, should it assemble and not be dispersed, will be able to become a center of genuinely broad political agitation in the masses of the people against autocracy. But that the very content of the new law on the State Duma provides the richest material for our agitation, for explaining the essence of autocracy, for exposing its class basis, for uncovering the complete irreconcilability of its interests with those of the people, for spreading and popularizing our revolutionary-democratic demands—this admits not the slightest doubt. One can say without exaggeration that the manifesto and law of August 6 (19) should now become the handbook of every political agitator, every conscious worker, for this is truly a "mirror" of all the abominations, obscenities, Asian despotism, violence, and exploitation that pervade the entire social and political system of Russia. Scarcely a single phrase of this manifesto and this law fails to serve as ready canvas for the richest and most substantive political commentaries, awakening democratic thought and revolutionary self-consciousness.

There is a saying: don't touch it—and it won't stink. When one reads the manifesto and law on the State Duma, one feels as though a heap of filth accumulated since time immemorial were beginning to be unrolled under one's nose.

Autocracy has been sustained by the centuries-long oppression of the toiling people, by their benightedness, their downridden condition, the stagnation of economic and all other culture. On this soil there grew unimpeded and spread hypocritically the doctrine of the "inviolable union of the tsar with the people and of the people with the tsar," the doctrine that the autocratic power of the tsar stands above all estates and classes of the people, above the division into poor and rich, that it expresses the universal interests of all the people. Now behold an attempt to manifest in practice this "union" in its most timid, embryonic form, as a simple consultation with "elected men from all the Russian land." And what happens? It immediately becomes apparent that the "union of the tsar with the people" is possible only through the mediation of an army of officials and police, guarding the solidity of the muzzle fastened upon the people. For "union" it is necessary that the people dare not open their mouths. Only landowners and capitalists, admitted to the two-stage elections (they first elect electors by districts or urban districts, and the electors then elect members of the State Duma), are considered "the people." Peasant householders are considered the people only if filtered through four-stage elections under the supervision, with the assistance and instruction of leaders of the nobility, land captains, and police officials. First, householders elect members of volost' assemblies. Next, the volost' assemblies elect plenipotentiaries from the volosts', two from each assembly. Then these plenipotentiaries from the volosts' elect provincial electors. Finally, these provincial electors from the peasants, together with provincial electors from the landowners and capitalists (townspeople), elect members of the State Duma! Among the total number of provincial electors, the peasants almost everywhere constitute a minority. They are assured only of one seat for each gubernia, necessarily filled from among the peasants themselves—that is, 51 seats out of 412 (in 51 gubernias of European Russia).

The entire urban working class, all the rural poor, hired laborers, landless peasants are not permitted to participate in any elections whatsoever.

The union of the tsar with the people is the union of the tsar with the landowners and capitalists with an addition of a handful of wealthy peasants and with the subjection of all elections to the strictest police supervision. There is no talk whatsoever of freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, without which elections are the purest farce.

The State Duma has not the slightest rights, for all its decisions are not binding but merely advisory in character. All its decisions go to the State Council, that is, for review and approval by those same officials. This is merely a toy appendage to the bureaucratic and police building. The public is not admitted to the sessions of the State Duma. Reports on the sessions of the State Duma are permitted to be published in the press only when the sessions are not declared closed, and a bureaucratic order suffices to close them—that is, the reference of the question under consideration by the minister to the category of state secrets.

The new State Duma is the same Russian police station in expanded form. A wealthy landowner and factory capitalist (rarely a wealthy peasant) is admitted to "consult" at the "open" sessions of the police station (or land captain's office, or factory inspector's office, etc.); they always have the right to lay their opinions before the "favorable consideration" of the emperor—that is, the district superintendent. But the "common people," the urban workers and rural riff-raff, of course, are never admitted to any "consultations."

The only difference is that there are many police stations and everything in them is kept secret. But the State Duma is one, and now it has become necessary to publish the order of its elections and the limits of its powers. This publication, we repeat, is in itself an excellent exposé of all the abominations of tsarist autocracy.

From the standpoint of the interests of the people, the State Duma is the most brazen mockery of "popular representation." And as if expressly to emphasize this mockery further, such facts appear as the speech of Mr. Durnovо, the arrest of Mr. Milyukov and Co., the outburst of Mr. Sharapov. The new Moscow governor-general Durnovo, enthusiastically hailed by the reactionary press, blurted out in his speech the true plans of the government, which, together with the manifesto and law on the State Duma of August 6th, issued on that same August 6th a decree revoking the "decree to the Senate" issued on February 18, 1905. The February 18 decree had permitted private individuals to work out views and proposals on questions of state welfare. Upon this decree relied the zemstvos and representatives of the intelligentsia, arranging assemblies, consultations, congresses tolerated by the police. Now this decree is revoked. Now all "views and proposals on questions of state welfare" must "ascend" to the autocratic government "by the procedure established in the institution of the State Duma"! This means—an end to agitation, an end to assemblies and congresses. There is a State Duma, and—there is nothing more to talk about. This is precisely what Mr. Durnovo said, declaring that he will not tolerate any more zemstvo congresses.

The liberals of our "constitutional-democratic" (read: monarchical) party turn out to be duped once again. They reckoned on a constitution, and now they are forbidden any constitutional agitation regarding such an "grant" of an institution which is a mockery of constitution!

And Mr. Sharapov blurts out even more. In his government-subsidized newspaper (*Russian Cause*{80}) he directly advises stocking that palace where the Duma will sit with Cossacks... in case of "inappropriate" outbursts from this Duma. For the union of the tsar with the people, the representatives of the people must speak and act as the tsar wishes. Otherwise the Cossacks will disperse the Duma. Otherwise—members of the Duma can be arrested without Cossacks even before they enter the Duma. On Saturday, August 6th, the manifesto on the union of the tsar with the people was issued. On Sunday, August 7th, one of the leaders of the moderate wing of the Liberationists or "constitutional-democratic" (read: monarchical) party, Mr. Milyukov, was arrested near Petersburg together with a dozen of his political colleagues. They want to prosecute them for participation in the "Union of Unions." They will probably be released soon, but it will be easy to close the Duma's doors to them: it suffices to declare them "brought in for investigation or trial"!...

The Russian people receive their first small lessons in constitutionalism. The value of any laws on the elections of people's representatives is a copper kopeck as long as there is no actually conquered autocracy of the people, no complete freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, as long as there is no arming of citizens capable of ensuring the inviolability of the person. We said above that the State Duma is a mockery of popular representation. This is beyond doubt true from the standpoint of the theory of the autocracy of the people. But this theory is recognized by neither the autocratic government nor by the monarchical liberal bourgeoisie (the Liberationists or the constitutional-monarchist party). Before us in contemporary Russia stand three political theories, on the significance of which we shall speak more than once. 1) The theory of the tsar's consultation with the people (or "the union of the tsar with the people and of the people with the tsar," as the manifesto of August 6th says). 2) The theory of the tsar's agreement with the people (the program of the Liberationists and zemstvo congresses). 3) The theory of the autocracy of the people (the program of Social-Democracy, and also of revolutionary democracy in general).

From the standpoint of the theory of consultation, it is perfectly natural that the tsar arranges consultation only with those with whom he wishes and only in the manner he wishes. And with whom and in what manner the tsar wishes to consult, the State Duma demonstrates with magnificent clarity. From the standpoint of the theory of agreement, the tsar is not subject to the will of the people but merely must reckon with it. But how exactly to reckon, within what limits to reckon—this cannot be derived from the "Liberationist" theory of "agreement," and as long as real power remains in the hands of the tsar, the "Liberationist" bourgeoisie is inevitably condemned to the pitiable position of a beggar or broker wishing to use the victories of the people against the people. From the standpoint of the autocracy of the people, it is necessary first to ensure in practice complete freedom of agitation and elections, and then to convoke a truly all-national constituent assembly, that is, one which would be elected by universal, direct, equal, and secret ballot and which would hold in its hands all power, complete, unified and indivisible power, which would express in fact the autocracy of the people.

Thus we have arrived at our slogan (the slogan of the RSDLP) for agitation regarding the State Duma. Who can in fact ensure freedom of elections and the fullness of power of a constituent assembly? Only the armed people, organized into a revolutionary army, having drawn to its side all that is living and honest in the tsar's army, having defeated the tsar's forces and replaced the tsar's autocratic government with a temporary revolutionary government. The institution of the State Duma, which on the one hand "entices" the people with the thought of representative government, and on the other hand is the crudest counterfeit of popular representation, gives an inexhaustible source for the broadest revolutionary agitation among the masses, serves as an excellent occasion for the organization of assemblies, demonstrations, political strikes, etc. The slogan of all this agitation: armed uprising, the immediate formation of detachments and units of a revolutionary army, the overthrow of tsarist power and the establishment of a temporary revolutionary government for the convocation of an all-national constituent assembly. The determination of the moment of uprising, of course, depends on local conditions. We can only say that in general it is advantageous for the revolutionary proletariat now to postpone somewhat the moment of uprising: the arming of the workers is advancing gradually, the mood of the troops is becoming ever more unreliable, the military crisis stands on the eve of resolution (war or a harsh peace), premature attempts at uprising could cause tremendous harm under such circumstances.

In conclusion, we must briefly compare the slogan of tactics outlined above with other slogans. As we have already indicated in No. 12 of *Proletariat*, our slogan coincides with what the majority of comrades working in Russia understand by "active boycott." The tactic of *Iskra*, which recommended in No. 106 the immediate organization of revolutionary self-government and the election of representatives by the people as a possible prelude to uprising, is completely mistaken. As long as there are not yet forces for armed uprising and its victory, it is ridiculous even to speak of revolutionary self-government of the people. This is not a prelude but an epilogue to uprising. Such erroneous tactics would play only into the hands of the "Liberationist"[64] bourgeoisie, first, by obscuring or pushing back the slogan of uprising with the slogan of organizing revolutionary self-government; secondly, by making it easier for the liberal bourgeoisie to pass off their (zemstvo and urban) elections as elections of the people, for popular elections cannot exist while power remains in the tsar's hands, whereas zemstvo and urban elections may still succeed for the liberals despite the threats of Mr. Durnovo.

The proletariat is excluded from elections to the Duma. Strictly speaking, the proletariat has nothing to boycott in the Duma, for this tsarist Duma itself by its very institution boycotts the proletariat. But it is advantageous for the proletariat to support that part of the bourgeois democracy which inclines toward revolutionary action rather than haggling, toward boycott of the Duma, toward intensified agitation among the people to protest against this Duma. The proletariat must not pass silently by this first betrayal or inconsistency of bourgeois democracy, when its representatives speak of boycotting the Duma (indeed, even at the initial voting a majority at the July congress of zemstvos declared for boycott), speak grandiose phrases about appealing to the people rather than the tsar (Mr. I. Petrunkevich at that same congress), but are in fact ready to leave without protest in the true sense of the word, without broad agitation, this new mockery of popular demands, ready to abandon the idea of boycott and enter the Duma. The proletariat cannot leave unanswered the lying phrases with which articles now abound in the legal liberal press (see, for example, *Rus'*{81} of August 7), which has rushed to wage war against the idea of boycott. The gentlemen liberal newspapermen are corrupting the people with their assurances of the possibility of a peaceful path, of "peaceful struggle of opinions" (why is it, gentlemen, that Milyukov could not "peacefully" struggle with Sharapov?). The gentlemen liberal newspapermen are deceiving the people by declaring that the zemstvos "can to a certain extent (!) paralyze (!!) the undoubtedly forthcoming influence on peasant voters from the land captains and in general the local administration" (*Rus'*, ibid.). The liberal newspapermen fundamentally distort the significance of the State Duma in the course of the Russian revolution when they compare this Duma to the Prussian chamber of the era of the budget conflict with Bismarck (1863){82}. In fact, if one must make a comparison, one ought to take not the constitutional epoch but the epoch of struggle for a constitution, the epoch of the beginning of revolution. To act otherwise is to leap directly from the epoch of revolutionary bourgeoisie to the epoch of bourgeoisie reconciled with reaction. (Compare No. 5 of *Proletariat* on the parallel between our Messrs. Petrunkevich and "the former revolutionary," then minister, Andrássy.[65]) The State Duma resembles the Prussian "United Landtag" (Sejm) established on February 3, 1847, a year before the revolution. The Prussian liberals at that time also intended to boycott (though they did not) this consultative landowners' chamber and asked the people: "Annehmen oder ablehnen?" ("Accept or reject?"—the title of a pamphlet by the bourgeois liberal Heinrich Simon, published in 1847). The Prussian United Landtag convened (the first session was opened on April 11, 1847, closed on June 26, 1847), led to a series of conflicts between constitutionalists and the autocratic power, but it remained nonetheless a dead institution until the revolutionary people and proletariat of Berlin under its leadership defeated the royal troops in the uprising of March 18, 1848. Then the State Duma... or rather the United Landtag went to the devil. Then there was convoked (unfortunately not by a revolutionary government but by the king, whom the heroic workers of Berlin did not finish off) a popular assembly of representatives on the basis of universal suffrage with comparative freedom of agitation.

Let the bourgeois traitors of the revolution go into this stillborn State Duma. The Russian proletariat will undertake intensified agitation and preparation for our Russian March 18, 1848 (or better August 10, 1792).

*Proletariat*, No. 14, August 29 (16), 1905

Printed according to the text of the newspaper *Proletariat*, collated with the manuscript