After the failed attempt to form a coalition with a ministry composed of Kadets, Octobrists, and bureaucrats, the government tried to intimidate the Kadets by brandishing the threat of dictatorship. Now it is the Kadets who are frightening the government—with revolution. “Retch” writes:

“The flames are raging—such is the impression one gets from the telegrams pouring in from every corner of Russia… It is no longer the revolutionary intelligentsia, nor even the working class that is aflame; it is the peasantry, it is the armed forces that are burning. To put it more accurately, all of Russia is ablaze… At the slightest provocation, peasants begin to gather in crowds numbering in the thousands, meting out their own justice upon the authorities, upon landowners, upon estates and manors.”

In response to this “conflagration,” Professor Gredeskul hastens to display the depth of his understanding of historical events:

“We are undoubtedly on the eve of momentous developments. Either the government will come to its senses within the very next few days and hand power over to a Duma-based ministry, or it will plunge us into the greatest of catastrophes.”

Thus, either revolution or a Kadet ministry. It is hardly surprising that the Kadets exploit every possible avenue—and above all the people’s revolutionary self‑activity—to prove the necessity of a Kadet ministry. Yet their hopes are in vain: against the poison of revolutionary self‑activity, against the very tendency—acknowledged by “Retch” itself—that the masses seek to exercise their rights to freedom of assembly (not the Kadets’ narrow conception of assembly, but full, unqualified freedom) and to the entire land, the antidote—the Kadet ministry—that Kadet soothsayers now prescribe for the revolution will prove utterly ineffective.

Strive as you might, gentlemen, if the revolution has already overcome the system of Witte and Durnovo, it will surely overcome the Kadet antidotes as well.

“Either revolution or a Kadet ministry,” says “Retch,” adding, “As for us, we in the revolution—we have no fear, but you will fare far worse.” Yet everyone who knows how to stand firm on the battlefield during times of crisis understands the true price of such rhetoric. Even the organ of pogromists and warrant officers, “Novoe Vremya,” fully grasps that Messrs. Gredeskul only speak of revolution because they fear it more than fire itself. And so, in our view, “Novoe Vremya” reveals the psychology and political essence of the deal being hatched far more clearly when it declares: “We and you, gentlemen Kadets, fear revolution equally—but we have nearly exhausted our resources in the struggle against it, while you still retain some reserves… So go ahead and try your hand at it—but don’t drag things out.” That is precisely the truth. The Kadets say, “We can afford to wait a bit,” while the men of “Novoe Vremya” urge, “Hurry up—before the revolution gains the upper hand!”

In its latest issue, “Novoe Vremya” puts it this way:

“…a cataclysm will occur, and the responsibility for it will fall not only on the current ministry, but also on the Kadet Party—guilty of having, out of timidity and a desire to avoid losing some of its popularity among the extreme left, led the Duma down the path of a fatal, protracted conflict and committed a crime against the law of peaceful evolution by insisting on the immediate, militant implementation of the political program—when, in fact, such implementation would require a very, very long period of time.”

And so it goes: they bargain, they threaten each other, then finally reach an agreement—after all, the stakes are the same, and the goal is one and the same.

Yesterday, we pointed out[53] that there was no reason for Treptov to part ways with the Kadets merely because the principle of compulsory land expropriation in favor of the peasantry was fundamentally unacceptable—especially since the Kadets were willing to pay the peasants good money for the land being taken, valuing it “according to fair market assessment.” Today, “Slovo” states:

“The agrarian reform is the cornerstone of all the rumors circulating about the formation of a new cabinet drawn from the Duma majority. According to the reports reaching us from other sources, the foundation upon which an agreement on the formation of a Duma-based cabinet might be built is the ground provided by a new loan.

The primary purpose of the loan is to resolve the long‑standing land question. According to our calculations, to address this issue—while avoiding the unacceptable notion of forced expropriation—two billion rubles will be required. The second half of the loan, meanwhile, should be allocated for the unrestricted use of the War and Navy Ministries, to strengthen the combat readiness of the army and navy.”

Thus, the deal is struck: for two billion to compensate the expropriated landowners and others, plus another two billion to be placed under the unfettered control of the War and Navy Ministries, Treptov agrees to bring the Kadets into power—no longer bound by principle. Not a bad price, is it, gentlemen Kadets?

“Our Life” is anxious about the idea of a new congress of our party. It strives to portray the upcoming congress as some kind of catastrophe, as a symptom of an incurable party malady. “Another congress!” it laments. Yes, another congress—as an inevitable outcome of the situation that has arisen within the party, where the Central Committee and its directives have come into contradiction with the collective consciousness of the entire party. The party has now been reorganized along democratic lines, and we would ask the democrats of “Our Life”: how else could the organized opinion of a democratic party be expressed, if not through a congress? These gentlemen cite in their newspaper information published in “Ekho”{110} regarding the number of organizations and votes that have spoken out against the policies of the Central Committee—and yet they recoil in horror at the prospect of a congress.

No, the idea of a new congress is not a catastrophe—it is a sign of the party’s vitality, a testament to the strength of public opinion within the party, and an indication that the party can readily and effortlessly find a way out of the predicament created by prevailing circumstances. We are confident that no one in the party—and certainly not our responsible governing body, the Central Committee—can regard the congress as a disaster. For the party, the congress is now a necessity; for the Central Committee, it is a duty; for the Cadets and their lackeys, it may well be an unwelcome development. But what can be done! We know that, regardless of which faction emerges victorious at the congress, it will nonetheless prove to be a major setback for the bourgeoisie.

The newspaper “Voice of Labor” (No. 7) published the following:

“We have granted Comrade Rakhmetov the right to express himself freely. As for us, we stand firmly on the ground laid down by the Amsterdam Resolution and have made this stance abundantly clear and unambiguous in our guiding articles on the most diverse issues of current politics—ever since the very first day when the Kadet Party stepped onto the political stage.”

We do not know what exactly Comrade K. P.—w wrote to the editors of “Voice of Labor,” but we cannot help but feel a certain sense of bewilderment: did the editorial board really need to receive this letter in order to “understand” N. Rakhmetov’s article? And if the editors already understood, even without Comrade K. P.—w, that they disagreed with N. Rakhmetov, then how could they possibly publish fundamental, guiding articles without explicitly stating the editors’ dissent? Moreover, the article’s length—interesting, in essence, only for its sharpness and for the “extremity” of its conclusions and slogans—tempted quite a few readers into believing that its author was closely aligned with the party’s leading circles. Yet despite this feeling of bewilderment, we are also filled with a measure of satisfaction: it is true that “Voice of Labor” took a full week to disavow N. Rakhmetov—but better late than never.

Written on June 28 (July 11), 1906

Published on June 29, 1906, in the newspaper “Echo,” No. 7

Printed according to the newspaper’s text