Date: 1906
Source: ru:PSS/v13

We have received No. 6 of Plekhanov’s “Diary” — twelve pages printed in Geneva. What pleasantly struck us was that, for once, the Russian liberal-bourgeois press refrained from lavishly praising Plekhanov, an unusual departure from its usual practice. “The dissolution of the Duma must have dampened Comrade Plekhanov’s optimism,” we thought as we read in the liberal newspapers the reports on the release of No. 6 of the “Diary,” devoid of the customary sympathetic quotations.

Indeed, in No. 6 of the “Diary,” Comrade Plekhanov abandons the far-right position within Menshevism that he had held (together with Comrade Rakhmetov) during the Duma period. He remains utterly opposed to the Mensheviks’ attempt to dilute the revolutionary slogan “For a Constituent Assembly” by appending such phrases as “through the Duma,” “in support of the Duma,” and the like. Plekhanov rightly demonstrates that the only legitimate slogan can be the convocation of a Constituent Assembly, and he justly criticizes the Vyborg Manifesto for failing to include this very slogan. Plekhanov also remains firmly opposed to the Mensheviks’ insistence on tying “action” to the Duma—whether it be partial action instead of total mobilization, or immediate, unprepared action rather than later, more fully matured action. Finally, Plekhanov not only refrains from adapting Social-Democratic slogans to suit the Cadets; he does not merely equate the latter with bourgeois democracy in general—but, on the contrary, he openly and forthrightly criticizes the Cadets’ half‑measures (which is precisely why the Cadet papers fell silent about Plekhanov!), sharply contrasting them with the “laboring” peasantry.

All of this fills us with great satisfaction. Yet it is regrettable that a number of tactical ambiguities and hesitations still remain in Plekhanov’s approach.

Plekhanov rightly reproaches the authors of the Vyborg Appeal for having “limited themselves” to calling for a refusal to pay taxes and to provide recruits, for seeking to preserve the veneer of legality. “They should have said,” he argues, “‘Prepare yourselves, for the hour is at hand.’ They should have raised the banner of the Constituent Assembly.”

But refusing to pay taxes and the like is but one means of struggle; the convocation of a Constituent Assembly is the immediate goal of the struggle. In criticizing the Cadets for seeking to confine themselves to a single means, Plekhanov ought to have pointed out other possible means, analyzed the conditions under which they might be employed, their respective significance, and so forth. To sidestep this question—as Plekhanov does by remarking, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof”—is mistaken. The Social Democrats are obligated not only to guide the proletariat in formulating correct slogans, but also in selecting the most resolute and most appropriate means of struggle. The experience of the Russian Revolution has already provided us with ample material showing how, as the tasks of the struggle expand and the mass of participants grows, the means, methods, and techniques of struggle likewise evolve, becoming ever more resolute and more offensive. It is precisely at moments like the present that we must not remain silent, but rather study with particular care the various means of struggle—such as political strikes, armed uprisings, and the like. These are the pressing issues of the day, and the advanced workers rightly demand that we provide clear answers to these questions.

In examining the relationship between the interests of different classes and the demand for a Constituent Assembly, Plekhanov draws a distinction among three classes. (1) With regard to the proletariat, he asserts that its class interests are entirely aligned with the interests of the entire people. (2) With respect to the “laboring peasantry,” he notes that under certain conditions their interests may diverge from those of the people as a whole—but he emphasizes that “their class interest” nonetheless calls for the convocation of a Constituent Assembly. (3) As for “those strata represented by the Kadet Party,” Plekhanov acknowledges that their “class interests” will lead them to view the convocation of a Constituent Assembly with suspicion, that this very stance will reveal their “reconciliation” with the actions of Messrs. Stolypin, their fear of losing landed estates without any compensation, and so forth. Plekhanov declares that he “does not wish to venture predictions” as to whether the class interest will ultimately prevail over the popular interest among the Kadets—or vice versa.

To predict the future is one thing; yet the Kadets’ rejection of the Constituent Assembly slogan and of the revolutionary struggle for it is the reality of the present. To remain silent about this is not only futile—it is harmful. And if we do not remain silent, then it becomes clear that we must acknowledge: “The proletariat, together with the conscious laboring peasantry, stands against the unreliable and vacillating Kadets.” Plekhanov has come remarkably close to formulating this tactical directive, which inevitably follows from his current approach to the question.

He writes: “All parties participating in this movement (the struggle for a Constituent Assembly) ought to immediately come to an understanding among themselves, so that they may mutually assist one another in this endeavor.” How right he is! But which parties are these? Those that stand to the left of the Kadets—and which must be designated as the parties of revolutionary bourgeois and petty‑bourgeois democracy (for the slogan of the Constituent Assembly is a revolutionary slogan, in contrast to the oppositional and “loyal” slogan of the Kadets: “A new Duma, as soon as possible”). Thus, the militant alliance between the party of the proletariat and the parties of revolutionary democracy.

This is precisely what we have always insisted upon. All that remains is to hope that Plekhanov will consistently uphold this viewpoint from now on. To pursue this line consistently, it will be necessary not only to make the recognition of the revolutionary-democratic slogan—the Constituent Assembly—the precondition for such a militant alliance, but also to recognize the revolutionary means of struggle that our movement has already come to embrace and that it will inevitably have to employ in the struggle for a Constituent Assembly—that is, to recognize the necessity of a nationwide uprising. Furthermore, in order truly to explain the slogan of the Constituent Assembly, rather than merely repeating it, we must also address the question of a temporary revolutionary government. Without raising this question, Plekhanov will fail to properly distinguish the interests of the “laboring” peasantry from the class interests of “those strata represented by the Kadet Party.” Without posing this question, Plekhanov will leave a gaping void in our propaganda and agitation, for every agitator will inevitably be asked: According to the working-class party, who ought to convene the Constituent Assembly?

As we have already noted, Plekhanov quite unjustifiably sidesteps the question of insurrection—as well as the broader question of the means of struggle in general. He writes: “At this very moment, an insurrection could amount only to a fleeting outbreak of popular indignation, a mere riot that the authorities could easily suppress; but we do not need riots or outbreaks—we need a victorious revolution.”

This is akin to Nogi saying in August 1905: “We do not need attacks on Port Arthur; we need to capture Port Arthur.” One may contrast untimely attacks with timely ones, unprepared actions with prepared ones—but one cannot simply oppose all attacks to the “capture” of a fortress. That would be a mistake. It would mean evading the question of how to capture a fortress. And it is precisely this error that Comrade Plekhanov makes.

Either he fails to state things clearly, or the question itself remains unclear to him.

The distinction between a strike‑demonstration and a strike‑uprising is clear. The difference between “partial, mass expressions of protest” and a general, nationwide mobilization is equally clear. The distinction between partial, local uprisings and a general, nationwide uprising—supported by all revolutionary parties and elements—is likewise evident. If you label demonstrations, partial protests, or even partial uprisings as “outbreaks,” your meaning will be clear enough, and your critique of “outbreak‑mongering” will be entirely justified.

But to say, “We do not need outbreaks; we need a victorious revolution,” is to say nothing at all. Worse still: it is to clothe emptiness in the guise of profundity. It is to delude the reader with the ringing sound of a flashy but hollow phrase. It is exceedingly difficult to find two revolutionaries—not driven mad—who would not agree that we need “not outbreaks, but a victorious revolution.” Yet at the same time, it is not easy to find two perfectly sane revolutionaries who would agree on exactly which means of struggle, at exactly which moment, would not be a “mere outbreak,” but a sure step toward a victorious revolution. By repeating—with a showy air—a truth that no one doubts, while avoiding the very issue where the real difficulty lies, Plekhanov is hardly making much progress.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that Plekhanov, of course, occasionally tries to “nibble” at the Bolsheviks: they are Blanquists, since they boycotted the Duma; they are “frivolous,” because they supposedly did not know—until Comrade Plekhanov’s instruction in No. 6 of the “Diary”—of the need for intensified work among the troops. There is no need to respond to these jibes; it suffices to point them out. If Comrade Plekhanov believes that his current tactical stance strengthens the Mensheviks within our party and weakens the Bolsheviks, then we have no objection to letting him continue to cherish this pleasant delusion.

“Proletary,” No. 2, August 29, 1906

Printed according to the text of the newspaper “Proletary.”