V. I.

Lenin

In Golos Truda , [2]

Comrade N. Rakhmetov discusses “the political tasks of Russian
Social-Democrats”. Four columns of this article are taken up by
arguments to prove that “itis not to the advantage of the proletariat, as one of the classes that
are active in Russia today, to leave the Duma to its own resources. That would
mean that the proletariat would strike itself off from the list of vital
political forces, and the only result would he that the proletariat would fail
to utilise the Russian bourgeois revolution to the extent it could do.”

“Itis enough to formulate the question in this way,” says N. Rakhmetov,
“to see that there can only be one answer to it.” Quite true, Comrade
Rakhmetov. The unfortunate thing, however, is that this is not a
“formulation of the question”, but a threadbare platitude.

The“question” has never been formulated in this way . It is
quite evident, however, that Comrade Rakhmetov knows how it has
been—and is now—formulated, for from the above quoted tirade he very
surprisingly draws the following conclusion:

“Itis the proletariat’s duty—to itself as well as to the whole
country—not only to refrain from being passively neutral in the struggle
between the Duma and the autocracy, but boldly and resolutely to take the side of the Duma against the government in this struggle .”

Nowthis is where the “question” does arise. And Comrade Rakhmetov
realises it, for he foresees that “thenewspaper

Svetoch [1] will probably be very sceptical about such tactics. That newspaper writes:

’The only flaw in this flawless dialectical plan of a “revolution through the Duma” is that
it leaves out of account the mundane, prosaic fact that the present Duma
consists, in the main, of bourgeois elements who dread revolution and,
consequently, are hostile to it.’ Arguments like these may serve as a splendid
illustration of how a Social-Democrat should never argue under any
circumstances. A Social-Democrat ought to know that the political tactics of the
proletariat are not dictated by the moods of other social groups, but
by the objective historical process that compels these groups to
act in a certain way. A Social-Democrat ought to know and take into
account what the classes with which he has to deal are compelled to
do. If he formulates the question in this way he will be convinced of the
following: by expressing readiness to render the Duma revolutionary support
against tsarism, the proletariat will thereby compel the Duma to become
more revolutionary in its actions. Politically, one must be very immature indeed
not to understand this simple ’truth’.”

Whata queer argument! According to Comrade Rakhmetov, even though our
bourgeoisie is counter-revolutionary, it can be compelled to become
revolutionary.

Forthis purpose, it appears, “the Duma must be surround ed with a flaming
circle of revolutionary pressure”. The Duma will then be confronted with
the “question”: “either be consumed in the flames or merge
with them”; “the question of life or death”.

Weare very much afraid that Comrade Rakhmetov will get a severe gruelling from
Comrade Plekhanov for his metaphysical “formulation of the
question”, for his inability to formulate a most important political
question dialectically. How often the former Mensheviks, and Comrade Plekhanov,
have protested against this “either—or” method of formulating
political questions! Why necessarily “either be consumed in the flames or
merge with them”? Does Comrade Rakhmetov really think that the Herzenstein and
Nabokov faction has no other alternative? Why, for example, should they not, in
alliance with the more “decent” bureaucrats, attempt to break
through this “flaming circle of revolutionary pressure”?

We,for example, think that if the victoriously rising tide of revolution
compels the leading elements of the Cadet

Party to do anything at all, it will be to try this third way out, i.e., simply
to make a deal with the bureaucrats.

Itis quite probable that the “party of people’s freedom” in its
present shape may be “consumed” in this attempt; but when will
comrades like Rakhmetov understand, at last, that all the noise and fuss the
Cadets have been making about people’s freedom has been simply a stepping stone
to ministerial portfolios and not to the “struggle against tsar
ism”, which comrades like Rakhmetov are so unsuccess fully trying to foist
upon them. And speaking generally, the masters of the Duma—for the time
being—are the Cadet Centre; and you want to surround this Duma
“with a flaming circle of revolutionary pressure”. That is all very
well; it is certainly important and necessary. But should not all those who are
“pressing” constantly be warned that they will inevitably ... press
the present masters of the Duma into the arms of the bureaucrats? Shouldn’t
they, Comrade Rakhmetov?

---
Notes:
[1]
The organ of the Moscow Social-Democrats, recently suppressed by the
government. [3] — Lenin

[2]
Golos Truda ( Voice of Labour )—a Menshevik daily newspaper published in St. Petersburg in June-July 1906.

[3]
Svetoch ( Torch )—a legal Bolshevik daily newspaper published in Moscow from May 11(24) to May 31 (June 13), 1906. Seventeen issues
appeared. Contributors included I. I. Skvortsov-Stepanov,
M. N. Pokrovsky, and others. The newspaper was closed down by order of the
Moscow Central Court.