V. I.

Lenin

Thenewspaper Tovarishch has today (January 20) published lengthy
excerpts from the manifesto of the thirty-one Mensheviks who seceded from the
socialist organisation on the eve of the St. Petersburg elections.

Firstof all, let us briefly recall the actual history of what the
Menshevik seceders from the Social-Democrats have done since they walked out of
the Conference.

(I) After breaking away from the Social-Democrat workers, they entered into a bloc with the petty bourgeoisie (the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the
Trudoviks and the Popular Socialists ) in order jointly to bargain with
the Cadets for seats. The written agreement under which the seceding
Social-Democrats joined the petty-bourgeois bloc was concealed from the workers and from the public.

However,we still have hopes that this agreement will eventually be published,
and the secret revealed.

(2)As a constituent part of the petty-bourgeois bloc (incorrectly styled the
“Left bloc” by the newspapers), the breakaway Mensheviks
bargained with the Cadets for three places out of the six for this bloc. The
Cadets offered two seats. They could not come to terms. The meeting between
the petty-bourgeois “conference” (this expression is not
ours—we borrow it from the newspapers) and the Cadets was held on
January 18 . Both Rech and Tovarishch reported it. Rech announces today that no agreement was reached (although we
must, of course, be prepared to hear that negotiations are still being
conducted behind the scenes).

Sofar the Mensheviks have made no announcement in the press concerning their
operation for the sale of workers’ votes to the Cadets.

Theywill probably report to the petty-bourgeois bloc, part of which they formed
during the negotiations, and not to the workers’ party!

Theyprobably do not like to say why Comrade Dan took part in the
negotiations, although he had been authorised to do so neither by the group of
thirty-one nor by any other Party organisation.

Suchare the deeds of the thirty-one Mensheviks.

Whatare their words ?

Theirfirst argument is that, having denied that there is a Black-Hundred danger
in St. Petersburg, the Bolsheviks had no right to declare in favour of an
agreement with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Trudoviks, as that runs
counter to the decisions of the All-Russian Conference, which demand independent
action on the part of the Social-Democrats in the absence of a Black-Hundred
danger.

Thisargument is false from beginning to end.

Thethirty-one breakaway Mensheviks are deceiving the reading
public. No Party body has ever laid an official ban on agreements with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Trudoviks in the absence
of a Black-Hundred danger. Such an agreement has been concluded in Moscow, for
instance, and the Central Committee has not challenged it.

Butthat is not all. The extent to which the thirty-one Mensheviks are
distorting the truth when they invoke the decision of the All-Russian
Social-Democratic Conference can be seen from the following. It is common
knowledge that the decisions of this (advisory) Conference were carried by the
votes of the Mensheviks and the Bundists against those of the
Bolsheviks, the Poles and the Letts. And these very Bundists who were
instrumental in getting the decision of the All-Russian Social-Democratic
Conference passed, have officially sanctioned blocs with the Socialist
Revolutionaries, and with revolutionary democrats in general, where there is no
Black-Hundred danger, but where there is a Cadet danger . The Central
Committee of the Bund has adopted a decision to that effect, and no one
has protested against it. It was reported in Nasha Tribuna , the

Russian organ of the Bund, and all Russian Social-Democrats who are able to
read know it.

Thethirty-one Mensheviks are deceiving the workers and the entire reading
public.

Wehave also explained that the All-Russian Social-Democratic Conference
authorised the Central Committee everywhere to exclude non-Social-Democrats from the Social-Democratic election list, i.e., to demand
absolutely independent action on the part of the Social-Democrats. So far the
Central Committee has nowhere exercised this right, thus, in effect,
recognising the autonomy of the Bund and of all other organisations of the
Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.

Further,the thirty-one Mensheviks are displeased because the Conference
excluded the Popular Socialists (P.S., or Social Narodniks) from the Trudovik
bloc. The thirty-one Mensheviks write: “It is common knowledge that these
three parties [the Socialist: Revolutionaries, the Popular Socialists and the
Trudoviks; the latter are not a party] formed a tight bloc in St. Petersburg
long ago and are acting jointly.”

Thatis another untruth. First, it has never been officially declared anywhere
that such a bloc has been formed and that its terms are really of a nature that
would make it a “tight bloc”. There have been only the vaguest newspaper reports, and they cannot be relied upon where
important affairs are concerned and official relations between parties
exist. Secondly, the fact that the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Committee
of the Trudovik Group, who were approached by the Social-Democratic Conference,
started negotiations without the Popular Socialists proves
that the bloc of the three Trudovik parties and groups was not a particularly
“tight” one. A bloc which does not prevent any of its constituent
parts from conducting negotiations independently of the other cannot be called a
tight bloc. We have so far received no official answer from the
Socialist-Revolutionaries with the demand that we consent to an agreement with
the Popular Socialists too. Thirdly, Tovarishch publishes, on the same
page as the communication of the thirty-one Mensheviks, the “January 16
resolution of the St. Petersburg Committee of the Socialist-

Revolutionary Party”. A note to this resolution reads as follows:
“ The withdrawal from the agreement that is, the agreement
between the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Trudoviks and the Popular
Socialists] of the Popular Socialist Group will not dissolve the agreement. The withdrawal of any other socialist group or party, however, will dissolve that agreement .”

Thus,the facts prove that the thirty-one Mensheviks were not speaking the truth when they called the Trudovik bloc a tight bloc.

The Conference of the St. Petersburg Social-Democrats was right in
rejecting the Popular Socialists. Firstly, it was right in principle, for there
is no doubt that the Popular Socialist Party stands more to the Right, is more
unreliable and closer to the Cadets, than any other Trudovik party. Secondly,
it was right from the standpoint of practical politics, for it made a correct
forecast of that line of division between the Trudovik parties which
inevitably revealed itself in the course of the political campaign . It
is now clear to all that, had the Trudoviks nevertheless succeeded in
foisting the Popular Socialists on us (it would, of course, be ridiculous to
fear the inclusion of the Popular Socialists in the Trudovik bloc if that could
ensure victory over the Cadets in St. Petersburg), the responsibility
for the unreliable Trudoviks would have rested entirely with the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and not with the Social-Democrats. The workers’ party
took care to let all workers and all citizens know the real difference
between the more reliable and the less reliable Trudoviks; it took care that
responsibility for the bad Trudoviks should rest with the
Socialist-Revolutionaries, not with the party of the proletariat.

Whatconclusion should be drawn from all this fuss over the Popular Socialists?

Theconclusion is that the Mensheviks behaved in an unprincipled manner
in joining a petty-bourgeois bloc without any discrimination , and
proved incapable of doing what Social-Democrats are in duty bound to do in an
election campaign, namely, to teach the masses to draw strict and proper
distinctions between parties. The Mensheviks hastened to take their place in
a single petty-bourgeois bloc with the Popular Socialists, in other words, with a semi-Cadet group!

The Bolsheviks were consistent in matters of principle. They started with an
open resolution, published everywhere in the name of an official
Social-Democratic body, informing all and sundry of the Popular
Socialist Party’s unreliability. The Bolsheviks have now achieved the
result that the more revolutionary Trudoviks (the Socialist-Revolutionaries)
have themselves declared that the Popular Socialists may leave the
Trudovik bloc without leading to its dissolution!

The Bolsheviks have achieved the separation of the revolutionary
Trudoviks from the opportunist Trudoviks. The Mensheviks are immersed right up
to their ears in an opportunist petty-bourgeois bloc.

The Bolsheviks have openly and publicly called upon the Trudoviks to join them
in battle against the Cadets, and have already achieved undoubted political
results, although they have not as yet entered into any bloc with
anybody. Secretly from the workers, and discarding all principles, the
Mensheviks have crawled into a petty-bourgeois bloc so as to haggle with the
Cadets.

Fromthis the workers can judge whither the Mensheviks are
really leading them.

Thethird and last argument of the thirty-one Mensheviks is that an agreement
between the Social-Democrats and the Trudoviks in St. Petersburg would not
diminish the Black-Hundred danger, but increase it. This assertion is
so absurd, or so hypocritical, that we shall quote the Menshevik argument in
full:

“Ajoint Social-Democratic and Narodnik election list will be popular
enough to divert many votes from the Cadets, but not popular enough to achieve
victory throughout St. Petersburg, especially if, in the eyes of the average
voter, the blame for the non-conclusion of an agreement between all the
revolutionary and opposition par ties lies with the Social-Democrats and their
allies. In that case, a considerable diversion of votes from the Cadets will
benefit the united Black Hundreds, who will defeat both the Cadet and the Left
election lists.”

Thiswhole argument is a piece of sheer hypocrisy in tended to screen the
bargaining for seats that is going on between the Mensheviks and the Cadets.

Indeed,just think what the Mensheviks are saying:

an agreement between the Social-Democrats and the Trudoviks will increase the
Black-Hundred danger, for it will divert many votes from the Cadets!
Very well, my dear comrades! But when, in your opinion, is the danger of a
Black-Hundred victory greatest—when all the non-Black-Hundred votes are
split between two election lists or when they are split between
three? Let us assume that the Black Hundreds have 1,000 votes and the
rest 2,100. When is the danger of a Black-Hundred victory greatest: when these
2,100 votes are split between two lists, or when they are split between
three ?

Thethirty-one Mensheviks can apply to any schoolboy to help them solve this
brain-racking problem.

Butwe shall proceed. The thirty-one Mensheviks are not only talking rank
nonsense when they profess not to under stand that if the Social-Democrats and
the Trudoviks come to an agreement there will be only two anti-Black-Hundred
lists in St. Petersburg, while if there is no such agreement, there may be
three. But that is not all.

Inaddition, the thirty-one Mensheviks are so ignorant of the history of the
first elections that they do not know the relative proportion of Black-Hundred
and Cadet votes in the St. Petersburg elections to the First Duma. We did not
take 1,000 votes for the Black Hundreds and 2,100 for the rest at
random. This example was typical of nine out of the twelve districts of St. Petersburg in the First Duma elections!

Inthese nine districts, which together returned 114 electors out of 160, the
lowest Cadet vote was more than twice as high as the highest
vote cast for the Black Hundreds, or the so-called Right bloc.

Whatdoes this show?

Itshows that if there are two “Left” (i.e., non-Black-Hundred) election lists in St. Petersburg, no conceivable
division of votes between the Lefts can give the victory to the Black Hundreds.

Sincethe thirty-one Mensheviks are apparently weak in elementary arithmetic,
let us explain it to them: let them try to divide 2,100 into two parts in such a
way that 1,000 Black-Hundred votes will defeat both these parts.

Letthe Mensheviks rack their brains over this problem, as well as over the
problem of whether three lists instead of two will increase or diminish the
Black-Hundred danger.

Thereare no grounds whatever for supposing that the Black Hundreds will be
stronger in this year’s St. Petersburg elections than they were in last
year’s. No right-minded politician would venture to make such an assertion. It
is clear to everybody that the Black Hundreds are completely discredited after
the disclosures of the Lidval case, the assassination of

Herzenstein, [1] etc. It is common knowledge that news of Left victories
in the elections is now coming in from all parts of Russia.

Undersuch circumstances, the cries about the Black-Hundred danger are the
result either of absolute ignorance or of hypocrisy . And it is those
who conceal their real aims and act behind the scenes that must play
the hypocrite. The Mensheviks are raising an outcry about the Black-Hundred
danger in order to divert the workers’ attention from the game they,
the Mensheviks, are playing, or did play recently, by joining the petty-bourgeois bloc and bar gaining with the Cadets.

If two Left lists are put up, no split in the votes can give
the victory to the Black Hundreds in St. Petersburg, unless the latter obtain a
higher vote than they did at the last elections—and everything goes to
indicate that their vote will not increase, but will decrease.

Thus,it was by no means for the purpose of combating the Black-Hundred danger
that the Mensheviks joined the petty-bourgeois bloc and bargained with the
Cadets—this is a childish fable that can deceive only those who are
absolutely ignorant or hopelessly stupid.

The Mensheviks bargained with the Cadets to get their man into the Duma, in spite of the workers, with the aid of the Cadets —such is the simple
explanation of all these peregrinations from the Social-Democrats to the
petty-bourgeois bloc and from the petty-bourgeois bloc to the Cadets.

Nonebut the very naïve can fail to see the purpose behind the Mensheviks’
actions, which they are trying to conceal by raising an outcry about the Black-Hundred danger.

Whilethey were in the petty-bourgeois bloc, the Mensheviks insisted on
three seats in the Duma so as to make sure of one seat for themselves . If the Cadets had conceded only two seats, the Mensheviks might
not have obtained even one. The Cadets directly offered one seat to the
Narodniks (Popular Socialists), but dared not take the other from the worker
curia. And it is not yet certain who will win in the worker curia.

Thatis why the Mensheviks concealed from the public on what authority
Comrade Dan was acting, on what terms they joined the petty-bourgeois bloc, what
exactly was discussed at the “conference” of the petty-bourgeois
bloc with the Cadets, etc., etc. After such behaviour on the part of
the Mensheviks, we still do not and cannot know where they will turn now that
the Cadets have rejected them. Will the Popular Socialists combine with the
Mensheviks to wheedle two seats out of the Cadets at the expense of the
worker curia (an editorial in Rech spoke of the possibility of
such a decision); or will the Mensheviks decide on independent
Social-Democratic lists, i.e., to have three Left lists in
St. Petersburg instead of two? Or will they return to the Social-Democratic
Labour Party and to its decision, following their luckless visits to the
drawing-rooms of the petty bourgeoisie and the ante-chamber of the Cadets?

Ifthe Mensheviks were really guided by fear of the Black-Hundred danger, and
not by a craving to gain a seat in the Duma from the Cadets, could they possibly have broken with the Cadets over the number of the seats?

Whena socialist really believes in a Black-Hundred danger and is sincerely
combating it—he votes for the liberals without any bargaining, and does
not break off negotiations if two seats instead of three are offered him. For
instance, it may happen that at a second ballot in Europe a Black-Hundred danger
arises when the liberal obtains, say, 8,000 votes, the Black-Hundred
representative or reactionary, 10,000, and the socialist 3,000. If a socialist
believes that the Black-Hundred danger is a real danger to the working class, he
will vote for the liberal. We have no second ballot in Russia, but we may get a
situation analogous to a second ballot in the second stage of the elections. If out of 174
electors, say, 86 are of the Black Hundreds, 84 Cadets and 4 socialists, the
socialists must cast their votes for the Cadet candidate, and so far
not a single member of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party has questioned
this.

The Mensheviks assert that they fear a Black-Hundred danger in St. Petersburg,
and yet they break with the Cadets over the question of two seats or three!

Thisis sheer hypocrisy, calculated to screen how the petty-bourgeois section of
the workers’ party is haggling over a miserable seat in the Duma, begged from
the Cadets.

Equallyhypocritical is the talk the Mensheviks now indulge in about an
independent Social-Democratic campaign in St. Petersburg, without the
Trudoviks. For example:

Tovarishch has published the following report of a speech delivered by
Mr. Levitsky, a Menshevik, at a meeting in the Nemetti Theatre on January 19:
“The Social-Democrats sacrificed their independence in the election
campaign only in order to avert the Black-Hundred danger. Since they have failed
in their object, the Social-Democrats must at least attempt to develop broad
agitation, and the speaker, therefore, declared in favour of independent
action by the Social-Democrats.”

Assumingthis Levitsky is sound in mind and judgement, is he not, may we ask, a
hypocrite? Since they have failed “to avert the Black-Hundred
danger” by putting up one joint list for all the Lefts, including
the Cadets, Levitsky wants three Left lists—Cadet, Social-Democratic and Trudovik!

Whatis this but the floundering of an opportunist who feels that the ground has
slipped from under his feet, who thinks he can make us forget that the day
before yesterday the Mensheviks were in a petty-bourgeois bloc, and yesterday
were bargaining with the Cadets!

The Mensheviks betrayed the workers, went over to the Cadets; and now that their
shady deal has failed, they want to clear themselves by merely talking
about independent Social-Democratic action! But this is just empty talk, mere
eyewash; even if there were three Left lists in St. Petersburg, the Black
Hundreds could win only in the event of the Left vote being split; and the Mensheviks themselves have
strengthened the position of the petty-bourgeois bloc by renouncing
the proletarian party and entering the bloc to bargain with the
Cadets together with that bloc.

Indeed,the Mensheviks have plenty to “clear themselves” of
now—such is the discredit they have brought upon themselves by their
entire conduct in the St. Petersburg election campaign. Indeed, the only thing
the Mensheviks can now do is to indulge in empty and sonorous phrases, for they
themselves do not seriously believe that a purely Social-Democratic list can be
put up in St. Petersburg at the present time.

Andwe most emphatically warn the Bolsheviks not to trust these sonorous and
hypocritical phrases.

The Bolsheviks have nothing to “clear themselves” of, nothing to
repent of. Our political line, which at first was ridiculed by all the bourgeois
press in the capital, is now being magnificently and strikingly justified by the
entire course of events. The absurdity of the Black-Hundred danger tale is
becoming clear. The Cadet danger is becoming obvious. The policy of the Cadets,
whose lender is being (or has been?) received in audience by Stolypin, is now
being exposed.

The Bolsheviks did not enter a petty-bourgeois bloc behind the back of the
workers’ party. They did not strength en that bloc by sanctioning the
participation of the semi-Cadet Popular Socialist Party along with the
Trudoviks. The Bolsheviks have not taken a single step or uttered a single word
that the petty-bourgeois parties can interpret as a renunciation of independent
action by the Social-Democrats.

While Milyukov was grovelling at Stolypin’s feet and Mensheviks and
Trudoviks of all shades were grovelling at Milyukov’s feet—the Bolsheviks alone stood firm, never for a moment ceasing
to do what Levitsky and his like have now remembered to do because they have
quarrelled with the Cadets.

Therefore,we must not under any circumstances do the stupid thing which the
dismayed and hypocritical Mensheviks are prattling about; we must not reject a
revolutionary bloc and petty-bourgeois support for the socialists against the Cadets.

Itwas because the Bolsheviks took the right course at once, without
hesitation, that the instability of the Trudoviks and the firmness of the
workers’ party (except for its opportunist appendage, of course) has now become
clear to all . It has become really clear that the Social-Democratic
proletariat is going its own independent way, directing all
the other elements against the Black Hundreds and against the liberals,
freeing all the petty-bourgeois parties and trends from the influence
of Cadet ideology and Cadet policy, and publicly assessing the degree
of reliability and suitability of the revolutionary and the opportunist groups
among the Trudoviks.

Andto be afraid to lead all the Trudoviks now, when they have tasted the
bitterness of Cadet benevolence and are prepared to fight the Cadets, would be
unpardonable childishness and a manifestation of political spinelessness.

Thethirty-one Mensheviks who have entangled them selves in the bargaining with
the Cadets are now compelled to admit, in spite of themselves, that “a
joint Social-Democratic and Trudovik list will be popular enough to divert many votes from the Cadets...”. Yes, that is exactly how it is! And that is
exactly why we cannot neglect the task of undermining the hegemony of
the Cadets in the capital , to wards which the eyes of all Russia are
turned.

Ifwe capture half the Cadet vote in several districts plus one extra vote, we shall win , for we shall have all the advantage of the split between the
Black-Hundred bourgeoisie and the liberal conciliatory bourgeoisie (there is no
danger in this, for in nine districts the Cadets have more than twice
as many votes as the Black Hundreds).

Itis becoming clearer every day that the Mensheviks took the wrong political
course when they raised an outcry about the Black-Hundred danger. It is becoming
clear that the delegates and electors stand more to the Left this year
than they did last year. Instead of acting as the ludicrous and shameful
accomplices of the liberal landlords (which cannot be justified by the plea of a
Black-Hundred danger, for none exists), a useful and responsible role awaits us;
to exercise the hegemony of the proletariat over the democratic petty bourgeoisie in the struggle to prevent subordination of
the unenlightened masses to the leadership of the liberals .

Thefirst elections to the Duma resulted in a Cadet victory, and these liberal
bourgeois are exerting every effort to consolidate and perpetuate a hegemony
that rests on the stultification of the masses, on their failure to think
independently and to pursue an independent policy.

Itis our bounden duty to bend every effort to rally around ourselves,
particularly in St. Petersburg, all those who are capable of fighting
the Black Hundreds and the Cadets—to rally them for the aims of the
people’s revolution, for independent action by the vast masses of the
people.

Andwe shall do this without sacrificing an iota of the ideological independence
of our Social-Democratic agitation, without retreating in the least
from our socialist aims but giving them full expression, and without
for a moment ceasing to expose the vacillation and treachery of the petty
bourgeoisie.

Therevolutionary Social-Democrats alone stand firmly and resolutely on the
positions of the struggle for freedom and the struggle for socialism.

---
Notes:
[1]
Lidval case —E. Lidval was a large-scale speculator who supplied food for the famine-stricken gubernias in 1906; he was
Deputy to V. I. Gurko, Minister of the Interior. The exposure of his
embezzlement of government funds and speculation on the famine forced the
tsarist government to indict him. The guilty, however, were not punished.

Theassassination of Herzenstein , a Cadet deputy to the First State
Duma, was the work of the Black Hundreds; it occurred in Finland on July

18(31),

1906. p. 39