V. I.

Lenin

Afterthe dissolution of the Duma the government was able to hold the
indignation of the country in check only by means of military terror. The
special and emergency security regulations, endless arrests, military courts,
punitive expeditions—all these taken together cannot be called any thing
but military terror.

Thegovernment used this military suppression of the movement for freedom as a
test of its own strength. If we are strong enough—we shall not convene the
Duma at all, and at once satisfy the desires of the Union of the Russian People
and similar “truly Russian” Black-Hundred parties. If we are not
strong enough—we shall convene it once more, we shall try to modify the
electoral law, try to ensure a Black-Hundred Duma, or to tame a Cadet
Duma. That is how the government reasoned.

Themilitary strength of ruthless repression has only sufficed, so far at
least, to enable the government, by means of Senate interpretations and in
violation of the law, to deprive thousands and tens of thousands of workers,
poor peasants and railwaymen of the right to vote. The government’s financial
difficulties have increased enormously. It has failed, so far, to obtain a
loan. Inevitable bankruptcy is staring it in the face. There is not a single
party in the country it can rely on, and it is oscillating between the hooligan
gangs (the true Russians) and the Octobrists. It has been unable to reach full
agreement even with the Octobrists.

Suchare the conditions in which the election campaign for the Second Duma is
being inaugurated. The ordinary man in the street is cowed. He has been
intimidated by the military courts. He is under the spell of the government’s boast that the Duma will be
docile. He yields to this mood and is ready to forgive the Cadets all
their mistakes, to throw overboard all that the First Duma taught him and
vote for the Cadets if only the Black Hundreds arc kept out.

Thatthe ordinary man in the street should behave in this way is natural. He is
never guided by a definite world-outlook, by principles of integral party
tactics. He always swims with the stream, blindly obeying the mood of the
moment. He cannot reason in any other way than by contrasting the most moderate of
all the opposition parties to the Black Hundreds. He is incapable of thinking
for himself over the experience of the First Duma.

Butwhat is natural for the ordinary man in the street is unpardonable for a
party man, and altogether reprehensible for a Social-Democrat. Listen to the
arguments of those Social-Democrats who are calling on the socialist workers
to vote for the Cadets (it makes no difference whether it is only for
Cadets in constituencies where the Social-Democrats have refrained from putting
up their own candidates, or for Cadets and Social-Democrats where there is a
joint list). Instead of arguments you will hear only one refrain, a cry of
terror and despair: Don’t let the Black Hundreds in! Vote for the Cadets! Draw
up joint lists with the Cadets!

ASocial-Democrat, a member of the worker’s party, can not stoop to such
philistine behaviour. He must clearly understand what actual social forces are
engaged in the struggle, the real significance of the Duma in general, and of
the Cadet Party, which predominated in the First Duma, in particular. Whoever
argues about the present policy of the proletariat without thinking over all
these questions will never arrive at anything like correct conclusions, Whatis the issue in the present struggle in Russia? It is a fight for freedom,
i.e., a fight for state power to be in the hands of the representatives of the
people and not in the hands of the old government. It is a fight for land for
the peasants. The government is opposing these strivings with all its might,
fighting to retain its power, its land (for the richest landlords are among the
most aristocratic and most highly placed persons in the state). Opposed to the
government are the workers and the mass of the poor peasantry, and also, of course, the urban poor, about whom there is no need to speak
separately since they have no special interests that differ from the
fundamental interests of the proletariat and the peasantry.

Whatis the attitude of the upper classes, the landlords and the bourgeoisie, to
this struggle? At first—until October 17, a great number of them were
liberals, i.e., they sympathised with the cause of liberty, and in one way or
another even helped the workers in their struggle. The bourgeoisie was
dissatisfied with the autocratic system of government and demanded a voice in
state affairs. The bourgeoisie called itself democratic, i.e., claimed to stand
for the people’s freedom, in order to obtain the people’s backing for its
aspirations. But after October 17 the bourgeoisie was satisfied with what it had
received, i.e., participation of the landlords and capitalists in state affairs
and the promises of freedom made by the old regime, which remained intact. The
bourgeoisie was frightened by the independent struggle of the proletariat and
the peasantry, and proclaimed: “We have had enough of revolution!”

Before October 17 there was one all-inclusive liberal bourgeois party of the
Zemstvo people, who assembled at their famous semi-legal congresses and
published abroad the journal Osvobozhdeniye . After October 17 the
participants in these Zemstvo congresses split: the capitalist business men and
the bigger landlords, or landlords who conducted their estates on feudal lines,
joined the Octobrist Party, i.e., openly went over to the government. The other
section, mainly lawyers, professors and other bourgeois intellectuals, formed
the Cadet Party (the Constitutional-Democrats). This party also turned against
the revolution; it, too, was frightened by the workers’ struggle; it, too,
proclaimed:

“Enough!” But it wanted, as it wants now, to stop the struggle by more
subtle means, by small concessions to the people, land for the peasants with
compensation, etc. The Cadet Party promised that if its members were elected to
the Duma it would give the people liberty and the peasants land. The
Social-Democrats realised that the Cadets were deceiving the people and
therefore boycotted the Duma. But the ignorant peasants and the cowed ordinary
citizens nevertheless elected the Cadets to the Duma. Instead of fighting for
liberty

when they got into the Puma, the Cadets began to appeal to the people to
keep calm, while they themselves strove to obtain appointments as the
tsar’s Ministers. The Duma was dissolved because speeches were delivered
there that displeased the powers that be, because the Social-Democrats
and the bolder deputies addressed the people from the Duma tribune,
calling on them to fight.

Eventhe blindest or the most ignorant people must now realise what the Cadet
Party really is. It is not a party of the champions of the people; it is a party
of bourgeois petitioners, middlemen and hucksters. The workers and
intelligent peasants will be able to achieve their aims only when the masses cease to
believe in the Cadet Party, when the masses realise the necessity of an
independent struggle. Therefore, to vote for the Cadets, or advocate voting for
the Cadets, means misleading the masses, undermining their solidarity and
hindering them in preparing for the struggle.

Theclass-conscious workers are now confronted by quite a different task. They
must combat philistine confusion and lack of principles with consistent,
steadfast, co-ordinated socialist propaganda during the election campaign.

Theimmediate task of the class-conscious workers is to explain to the
proletarian masses and to all the progressive peasants the real nature of the
struggle, the actual position of the various classes in this struggle.

Theworkers have progressed more than any other class in the course of our
revolution. They are now coming over en masse to the
Social-Democrats. More intense and more ex tensive work must, of course, be
carried on among them; but here the road has been well explored. Work among the
peasants is much more important and much more difficult. The peasants are a
class of small proprietors. That class is far less favourably situated in regard
to the struggle for liberty and the struggle for socialism than the
workers. The peasants are not united by working in big enterprises; on the
contrary, they are disunited by their small individual farming. Unlike the
workers, the peasants do not see before them an open, obvious, single enemy in
the person of the capitalist. The peasants themselves are to a certain extent
masters and proprietors. That is why they always trail be hind the bourgeoisie
and try to imitate it. Their ambition is to develop and consolidate their small property; and not to fight in a common
struggle with the working class against the capitalist class.

Thatis why the mass of the poor peasants have always and in every country
proved to be less persistent in their struggle for liberty and for socialism
than the workers. That is why, in this country, the peasant deputies in the
Duma, the Trudoviks, have so far not succeeded, in spite of all the lessons of
Cadet treachery, in casting off the influence of the liberal bourgeoisie, its
views, its prejudices and its political methods—methods which are supposed
to be cunning and subtle, to consist of fine “manoeuvres”, where as
in fact they are stupid, futile and disgraceful for every genuine fighter.

Class-consciousworkers! Take advantage of the election campaign to open the
eyes of the people! Do not yield to the persuasions of these well-meaning but
feeble and irresolute people who are urging you to put up joint lists with the
Cadets, and to obscure the minds of the masses by means of joint slogans with
the Cadets. Do not believe the stock cries and warnings about the Black-Hundred
danger. The real and fundamental danger that confronts the Russian revolution
is the immaturity of the peasant masses, their lack of staunchness in the
struggle, their failure to understand the shallowness and treachery of bourgeois
liberalism. Fight against that danger, tell the whole truth openly to the mass
of the people. In that way you will draw them away from the Cadet windbags and
gain their support for the Social-Democrats. Only in this way will you be able
to combat the real Black-Hundred danger. No Senate interpretations, no
executions, no arrests can prevent the people from carrying on such work,
the work of raising the civic and class consciousness of the masses to a higher
level, of organising them to fight for their own and not liberal-bourgeois aims
in the struggle.

---
Notes: