V. I.

Lenin

A New Coup D’État in Preparation

Guchkov’sletter to Trubetskoi [1] long engaged, and to some extent is still engaging, the attention of
our political press, if such a term may be applied to the reptile
press, [2] and to the few surviving liberal newspapers. This letter really
has a certain significance. It marks a big stride in the development
of the counter-revolutionary trend among wide sections of the Russian
big bourgeoisie. For these sections, the political strike in October
was already a decisive turning-point. After October 17 the big
bourgeois at once cried:

“Enough!” Therefore, a singular and very characteristic feature of the
Russian revolution is the fact that the date of the Constitutional Manifesto was
used as the name of their party by the elements of the big bourgeoisie who took
the side of the tsarist government, which began to adapt the new constitution to
the autocratic regime. October is the date of the only partial victory the
revolution in Russia has gained so far. Octobrists is the name adopted by the
counter-revolutionary party of the big bourgeoisie.

Thiscontradiction clearly reveals the class antagonisms in the Russian
revolution. The explanation of it is provided by the Marxist view of the present
revolution in Russia. It is a bourgeois revolution. At all events, it is
clearing the ground for a wider and more rapid development of capital ism.

To
regard a full triumph of the revolutionary peasantry in its struggle for land as
a victory for the “labour principle”, as a transition to
“socialisation”, is a sheer petty-bourgeois illusion. But the
inevitable clearing of the ground for capitalism may proceed along two main
lines. Feudal Russia can be transformed into bourgeois Russia if conditions are
created that provide the mass of the peasantry and proletariat with the maximum welfare conceivable under capitalism. This
transformation is also possible if conditions are created which mainly
ensure the interests of the propertied classes, the landlords and
capitalists. So far our revolution is following the second line. If it
fails to gain another big victory there can be no doubt that the
counter-revolutionary bourgeois Octobrists will be the legal executors of
the Russian revolution, just as the Junker Bismarck became the legal
executor of the half-hearted German Revolution of 1848.

Mr. Guchkov is no simpleton. He is already anticipating the pleasure of taking
the reins of government in his hands after the final defeat of the revolution,
and of combining business-like, geschäftmacher , bourgeois
“liberalism” with ruthless military and police measures of
repression against the discontented “lower classes”. Like a
practical, non-idealistic, bourgeois businessman, Mr. Guchkov has grasped the
actual political situation better than many philosophers and phrase-mongers
among our bourgeois intelligentsia ( l’ignorance est moins eloignée de la verité que le préjugé !—ignorance is less removed from truth than
prejudice).

Mr. Guchkov brings the bourgeois ideals of the Cadets down to
earth. Especially notable in this connection is the following passage in his
letter which has not been appreciated by our slavish press:

“Thereis no doubt now,” writes Guchkov to Trubetskoi, “that the
triumph of the revolution, or even a new intensification of the revolutionary
crisis, will put an end to our young political liberty and the remnants of our
civilisation and prosperity.”

Thisis a remarkably correct and remarkably apt estimation of the present
political situation from the point of view of the interests of the capitalist
and landlord. Mr. Guchkov takes the bull by the horns. The issue in the present
political situation is indeed whether we are in for a new intensification of the revolutionary crisis . We thank you for your candour, Mr. Guchkov! We
quite realise that the bourgeois professors and diplomats on Rech
dislike your determination, straightforwardness, quickness and aggressiveness,
your—pardon the vulgar expression—capacity for “dropping
bricks”, but we socialists are delighted by it. It just suits us.

Thus,anyone who wishes to be serious about the present political situation must
first take a clear stand on the question of a new intensification of the revolutionary crisis . That is exactly what Mr. Guchkov is doing. His whole
letter says: “I am against it.” I subordinate everything to the task of
combating this intensification, to the task of suppressing everything that is
conducive to it. The reason is clear. A new intensification of the revolutionary
crisis contains the threat of the triumph of the revolution , which, in
turn, will threat en the “remnants” ... of the landed estates of
Messrs. Guchkov, Romanov, Stolypin and the rest of the gang of pogrom-mongers,
the “remnants” of bourgeois privileges which can serve as a
protection against the further struggles of the proletariat, in short, the
“remnants of our [Guchkov’s, Romanov’s, Stolypin’s] prosperity”.

Mr. Guchkov argues correctly, far more correctly and consistently than the
Cadets who are now howling against him, who, through their spokesmen, the
Vinogradovs, Struves, Izgoyevs, Berdayevs and Milyukovs, have hundreds of times
bewailed the impending end of “liberty and civilisation” and the
triumph of “spontaneous insanity”.

Norwould it harm revolutionaries to take a lesson from the reactionaries in the
logical presentation of the question of the present political situation,
that is to say , of “a new intensification of the revolutionary
crisis”. Such an intensification will inevitably imply mass action on a
still wider scale than before, enriched with the experience of the great year of
the great Russian revolution. And the experience of that year, from the October
strike through the December insurrection, the peaceful Duma and its dissolution,
leads to an aggressive, all-Russian, armed uprising, with strikes as an
auxiliary and subsidiary means of struggle.

Thegovernment has shaped its entire policy to meet this universally expected,
new intensification of the revolutionary crisis. There is no doubt that it has
deliberately refrained from fixing the date for the new Duma elections in order
to have its hands free, in order, if the popular struggle becomes very acute, to
try to split it up by suddenly appointing the elections. Nor is there any doubt
that this is the angle from which it is carefully studying the question whether
to summon a new Duma and whether the old electoral law should remain in force . Social-Democrats have less right than
anyone to treat this question lightly.

Thegovernment is in a dilemma: Should it try to summon the Duma again on the
basis of the existing electoral law, while increasing repression, exercising
pressure on the electors and organising Black-Hundred gangs, or should it amend
the electoral law before the Second Duma is convened, so as to ensure a
Duma “capable of working”, i.e., a Black-Hundred Duma? Reaction
among the landlord class, the victories of the Black-Hundred landlords in the
Zemstvo, the obvious growth of discontent among the people—all these
prompt the government to repeal the present electoral law at once, to limit
the franchise in the sense of reverting from the Witte Duma to the Bulygin Duma,
if not something worse, or simply to call together the elected representatives
of the Zemstvos in the Second Duma. Our reptile press is already dropping hints
about some such plans in “higher quarters”, i.e., the Court set,
and are preparing the ground by arguing that the autocracy has the
“right” to promulgate a new electoral law without consulting the
Duma.

Letus consider which of these “lines” of government policy is the
more probable. Constitutional “legality”, political caution and
loyalty favour preservation of the electoral law of December 11. As you see,
these are all “idealistic” considerations which the Romanovs and
Pobedonostsevs are accustomed to despise. Besides, it is ridiculous to think
that men covered from head to foot with blood and mud, fighting their last
desperate battle to maintain their slaveowners’ rights, would be influenced by
such considerations. It is ridiculous to think that the tsar and his gang would
have any qualms about “legality” when they had no qualms about
promulgating the Law of December 11, the Law of February 20, [3] etc., and are not in the least disturbed by the present downright
mockery of the “law”. No, these arguments are too flimsy.

Theopinion of Europe? The need of a loan? This need is very urgent. And
European capital will lend money only on the guarantee of
“order”. ’What kind of “order”, however, is immaterial to capital—it would even prefer the order that prevails in the
graveyard. But a second Cadet Duma (or, which God forbid, a still more radical
one!) threatens further financial disclosures, further “disorder”! No, precisely from the point of
view of obtaining a loan in Europe it would pay the government best to annul the
present electoral law so as to ensure the election of a Black-Hundred Duma which
will sanction any and all loans.

Ofcourse, we must not forget that, actually, profound economic and political
causes make an agreement between the autocracy and the liberal-monarchist
bourgeoisie necessary . The failure of the first attempt to come to
terms through the medium of the First Duma is by no means proof, and can not be
a proof, that all such attempts will fail—and very many such attempts will
still be made. But an agreement through a Cadet Duma must not now be regarded
(and the autocracy cannot regard it) as being very likely.

Revolutionarieslearn from the experience of revolution; but so does the
autocracy, and very attentively. Everyone can see that there is practically no
hope of a Duma more to the right under the present electoral law. The Second
Duma is to be summoned at the end of the winter, just when it is usual for
starvation, unemployment and want to become particularly acute among the
masses. The parties to the left of the Cadets will now undoubtedly be far less
disposed than formerly to be guided by the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie; they
will be far more capable of undertaking independent, decisive and energetic
political action. No! We must harbour no illusions, we must not imagine the
enemy to be altogether lacking in brains, perspicacity or discretion. We need
have no doubt that after the experience of the Cadet Duma the “heroes of
thought and action” in this Black-Hundred government are exerting
themselves to the utmost to prevent a repetition of it.

Thegovernment has seen that the dissolution of the Duma did not result in an
immediate widespread uprising of the whole people. The coup d’état which had
been prepared silently and secretly was very much to the liking of the
“higher quarters”. They have been immensely impressed by what seems
to them to have been a bold and successful attack on the revolution. They cannot
help contemplating now another attack of the same kind made beforehand ,
to prevent a “new intensification of the revolutionary crisis”. The
tsar’s courtiers are military men. They fully appreciate the advan of taking the offensive, of taking the initiative in military
operations. Fear an uprising? But it is inevitable, one way or
another—workers’ strikes, mutiny in the armed forces and peasant
revolts have been proving this for a whole year. A second Cadet
Duma would create a situation for an uprising still more favourable for the
people: the final bankruptcy of the policy of “military-court
liberalism”, the fact that the people are sick and tired of the
repressions, etc., etc. If a “new intensification of the revolutionary
crisis” is inevitable, then we must attack first—that is what Ignatyev is thinking, what he must be thinking. And he will
attack—on the eve of the elections the tsar will annul the electoral
law of December II and promulgate a new law which will guarantee a
Duma of Black-Hundred elements.

Wedo not claim to be prophets able to foresee all the possible outcomes of the
present highly complicated political situation. Social-Democrats, however, must
carefully weigh up the trends of all the forces that are operating in politics
in order wisely to decide their own tactics. If they do that they will arrive at
the following inexorable conclusion: Workers! Be prepared for the promulgation
by the government of a Black-Hundred electoral law by the time of the elections!
Peasants! Beware, the government is planning to change the electoral system so
that peasant deputies, Trudoviks, cannot be elected to the Duma!

Wemust not let the government catch us unawares. We must conduct the most
vigorous agitation among the masses to explain the danger that is
threatening—we must shatter their naive faith in the permanence of the
electoral law as a “constitutional” institution—we must
destroy constitutional illusions—we must recall the examples of the
European revolutions with their frequent alterations of the electoral
laws—we must spare no effort to spread the conviction that the crisis now
maturing is not a parliamentary or constitutional crisis, but a revolutionary
crisis, which force alone will decide, and which only a victorious armed
uprising will resolve.

---
Notes:
[1]
This refers to A. I. Guchkov’s letter, “Reply to
Count Y. N. Trubetskoi”, published in the newspaper Russkiye Vedomosti , No. 224, on September 10(23), 1906.

On August 24 (September 6), 1906, the tsarist government published a statement
on the establishment of military courts and openly proclaimed its programme to
be the abolition of all concessions won through the revolutionary upsurge in
October-December 1905. In an interview in Novoye Vremya , the leader
of the Octobrists, Guchkov, approved both the establishment of military courts
and the entire counter-revolutionary programme of the government. Guchkov’s
unreserved agreement with the government’s policy caused dissatisfaction among
some representatives of the bourgeoisie. In particular, Count Trubetskoi, one of
the organisers of the Party of “Peaceful Renovation” wrote a letter
to Guchkov asking him whether he belonged to the party of
“peaceful” or “military” renovation. Guchkov’s letter in
reply, to which Lenin refers, fully confirmed his agreement with the
government’s policy and approved the dissolution of the First State Duma.

[2]
“Reptiles” was the name given to the venal press organs in the pay of the tsarist government and grovelling
before it.

[3]
On February 20 (March 5), 1906 a law and two ukases to the Senate on the State
Duma and Council of State were published. By this law the tsarist government
virtually annulled its Manifesto of October 17.

Accordingto the new law the Council of State; half of which was appointed by
the supreme power and the other half elected from Black-Hundred sections of the
nobility, big capitalists and clergy, was converted from a consultative into a
legislative body. The Council of State could veto any decision of the Duma.