V. I.

Lenin

Thisis an old story: the boycott of the State Duma. A Menshevik comrade writing
in Sotsial-Demokrat , No. 3 (“Situation or Position?”) tells it in
the following way:

“Whenhistory presented us with the plan of the Bulygin Duma, we, acting
upon our general principles, recommended the organisation of parallel
unofficial elections to a People’s Duma, in opposition to the Bulygin Duma, to
which we had no access. But when, after the December uprising, we were faced

Stop,my dear historian, one moment! That you skip over the events between the
Bulygin plan and the December uprising is a small matter, merely a chronological
leap. But to do likewise with your tactics and “principles” is
another thing; this leap is—to say the least—diplomatic. Did you
recommend only “unofficial elections”? Did you treat the Bulygin
Duma only as an institution to which you “had no access”? And so,
for the sake of your People’s Duma you in tended to boycott the Bulygin Duma? Or
ignore it? But did you not at that time wage war on certain boycottists? Did you
not insist that an active part should be taken in the “Bulygin”
election campaign which was expected at that time? Did you not demand that the
Party should support the Left liberals at the elections, etc.? How is it that
you have for gotten all that?

“Butwhen, after the December uprising, we were faced....” Stop, you have
omitted another small point. Russia boycott ed the Bulygin Duma, but up to now
there is still no People’s Duma.... Well, have you admitted that your tactics
in those days were mistaken? No, your answer to the boycottists was that your
tactics in regard to the Bulygin Duma were correct, only the revolution
prevented them from being seen in all their glory.... Now, having recalled all this , continue
your story.

“Butwhen, after the December uprising, we were faced with the convocation
of the new Witte Duma, we recommended participation in the primary stages of the
elections, counting upon two possibilities: either the very fact of our
participation would evoke a revolutionary upsurge that would sweep away the
Witte Duma....”

Stop,my dear historian, stop, what has come over you?

“The fact of our participation would evoke a revolutionary upsurge....”

No, really, you must be joking! You have always accused the
Bolsheviks of naïvely exaggerating our strength—and to think that you should speak seriously of a
revolutionary upsurge—and what an upsurge: one “that would sweep
away”, etc.—which could be evoked by the “fact of our participation”. No, of course, not seriously.

Andso:

“... either the very fact of our participation would evoke a
revolutionary upsurge that would sweep away the Witte Duma and call into being
a representative institution more advantageous to us; or the revolutionary
upsurge would not come immediately, in which case, not only would we be able to
go into the Duma, but the very state of affairs would compel us to do so, as was
the case in Lefortovo District of Moscow.”

Excuseme, but, if I remember rightly, you never said a word about this
“or” at the time.

True,we did not—our historian replies.

“True,in the pamphlet published by the joint editorial board we said that we did
not recommend participation in the elections directly to the Duma. But we did
it, we tied our hands beforehand, only for the sake of a compromise, in the hope
of arriving at some agreement with the boycottists for working out uniform
tactics. This was ’opportunism’ on our part—we deliberately adapted
ourselves to the obsolete, short-sighted views of our boycottist comrades, and
this we sincerely repent.”

Sothat’s it! You were saying one thing and thinking an other. And you said it
to the proletariat and the whole revolutionary people.... You
“repent” it! But don’t you know the saying: “Caught lying
once, who will trust you again?” What if your “repentance” is also
caused by your “adapting” yourselves to somebody’s “obsolete” or “short-sighted” views? Where is the limit
to such “opportunism”, to such “compromises”? What should be our attitude to any of your slogans
when you yourselves admit that your slogan on one of the most important tactical
questions was not put forward sincerely? Why, anyone might well believe, after
this, that you call yourselves Social-Democrats only for the sake of
“adapting” yourselves “to the obsolete and short sighted
views” of the revolutionary proletariat.

Well,I must say something in your defence. In the heat of controversy you have
cruelly wronged yourselves. You were sincere boycottists at the third stage of
the elections, just as we were sincere boycottists at all st ages of the
elections. But we were boycottists all together.

Nebst gefangen, nebst gehangen —“caught together, hanged
together”.

You want to “hang” us now for having been boycottists. But in that case, my dear
comrades, you will have to hang yourselves as well: you have been caught at the
same game. “But we have repented,” you declare. Well, that mitigates your
offence. But it does not acquit you, or exempt you from punishment. Well, not
hanging, but how about a good flogging, for instance? Is that what you are
after?

Asfor ourselves—we have not repented. We said and still say: boycott or
non-boycott is a question not of principle, but of expediency. The boycott of
the First Duma was expedient. It gave the mass of the people a vivid, concrete,
proletarian appraisal of the Duma as an institution incapable of solving the
fundamental problems of the revolution. The dissolution of the Duma and all that
followed it have confirmed this appraisal; the mass of the people clearly
perceives that here, too, the proletariat proved to be their natural leader in
the revolution, warning them beforehand of the sterility of constitutional
illusions! The boycott diverted the attention and the forces of the government,
and thus contributed to the victory of the bourgeois opposition at the
elections. The boycott united the broad proletarian masses in a single act of
revolutionary protest. Its agitational and organisational effect was enormous.

Theboycott performed a great service—but its work is already
done. A proper appraisal of the Duma was given, a telling blow was struck at
parliamentary illusions—there is no need to do it over again. At the
present time a boycott will not divert the forces of the government—the
latter has certainly learned the lesson of the past elections. The work of agitation and
organisation can be performed just as well by taking part in elections as
by boycotting them—unless the electoral law is changed very much for
the worse. If it is, then, perhaps, we may have to resort to the boycott
again. But we may not have time to bother with Duma elections
at all if big revolutionary battles begin again.

Thus,boycotting remains a question of expediency. The only point is that
for the time being we do not see sufficient grounds for a boycott.

Whoeverfeels guilty, let him repent; but in doing so, let him strew ashes on
his own head and let him rend his own garments, not other
people’s. And one should not distort history and commit libel in a fit of
repentance—not even against oneself.

---
Notes: