V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:LS/v26;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

Date: 1906
Source: Lenin Miscellany, Volume 26
Pages: 195-197

---

AMENDMENTS IN THE MANUSCRIPT OF THE ARTICLE “AT THE TAIL OF THE MONARCHIST BOURGEOISIE OR AT THE HEAD OF THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT AND THE PEASANTRY?”*
No. 10 of “PROLETARY”, SEPTEMBER 8 (AUGUST 23), 1906.
At the Tail of the Monarchist Bourgeoisie or at the Head of the Revolutionary Proletariat and the Peasantry?

Therefore, if now *Iskra* in No. 108 throws out [again vague] some hints about the theory of “non-interference”, “absenteeism”, “abstention”, “folded arms”, etc., we first of all brush aside such “objections”, for this is not polemics, but [an impudent, shabby] merely an attempt [“to scratch”] to “scratch” the opponent. [by means of crude distortions.] By such methods of “polemics”—which culminate in the insinuation that certain leaders themselves want to get into the provisional government—the new *Iskra* has long since evoked among the very broadest circles of Social-Democracy a fully deserved contempt for it**.

...All the other points of disagreement
[(“pressure” on the elections, “stigmatising” the bourgeois “conciliators” or traitors, etc.)] are of comparatively less importance... *Iskra* goes so far as to say that “the organisation of revolutionary self-government, that is the only way of really ‘organising’” [(there must be ironic quotation marks of our new-Iskra Petrushkas!)] a nation-wide uprising.

...The bourgeois “conciliators” want to obtain a constitution
* See Works, Vol. VII, pp. 166-175. Ed.
** The words “fully deserved contempt for it” were replaced by Olminsky with the words: “a definite attitude towards it”. Ed.

with the aim of suppressing the revolution; Mr. Vinogradov (see below) expressed this striving of the liberal bourgeoisie, which inevitably follows from its class position, with [complete] particular clarity.

...But it would be a mistake to forget that this intelligentsia is more capable of expressing
[the broad and lasting] the broadly understood essential interests of the entire class of the bourgeoisie as distinct from the temporary and narrow interests of only the “upper crust” of the bourgeoisie...

...The second group are thinking whether they should not go to the people, [by no means] without yet finally breaking with the theory of “agreement” and without fully adopting the revolutionary path.

...But the big bourgeoisie will never be able to become a [firm] reliable and faithful supporter of the autocracy of the people. It will always with one hand [“give”] take the constitution (for itself), and with the other hand take away rights from the people or oppose the extension of the people’s rights...

In such a state of affairs, to attack the idea of boycott would mean
[for] the Social-Democrats to play the role of political simpletons*...

...“Thus the possibility of making the State Duma an instrument of the democratic revolution is excluded, and agitation directed to this end is obviously rejected.”
[the words we have underlined show precisely the error just outlined. “An instrument of the democratic revolution” cannot be made of the State Duma, nor is there any point in making it so, for the State Duma inevitably and on every occasion will be partly its instrument.
Partly, i.e., insofar as constitutional conflicts with the tsar on the part of the big bourgeoisie are inevitable in it. But for us the centre of gravity must lie not in it, for it will inevitably betray the proletariat, but in the mass of the peasantry and in the radical intelligentsia capable of drawing close to this mass. What is more important: to prevent the agreement between the landlords and the tsar or to help the agreement between the peasantry and the proletariat? T. Cherevanin will object: let the second be more important, but the first must also be done. Very well. Then let us see how to do it. . . .

...When a certain Russian dignitary was asked why an amnesty was not granted on August 6, he replied: why on earth should we release 10,000 people whom it cost us no little trouble to arrest and who would begin a desperate struggle with us the very next day. That dignitary reasoned wisely, but those who speak of “revolutionary self-government” before the release of these 10,000 reason [stupidly] unwisely.

* The word “simpletons” was replaced by Olminsky with “fools”. Ed.