V. I.

Lenin

Is There a Danger of the Black Hundreds Winning the St. Petersburg Elections?

The State Duma elections in the City of St. Petersburg are to take place
shortly. The city voters, who number about 130,000, will have to elect 160
electors for the entire city. These 160 electors, together with the 14 electors
from the workers, will elect 6 deputies to the Duma.

Whoshould be elected to the Duma?

Three main parties are contesting the elections in St.
Petersburg: the Black Hundreds (the Right parties), the
Cadets (the so-called people’s freedom party), and the
Social-Democrats.

Thesmaller parties and trends (Trudoviks, non-party people, Popular Socialists,
radicals, etc.) may join partly the Cadet election list, and partly the
Social-Democratic list. This has not yet been definitely decided.

Atall events, there is no doubt that there will be three election
lists in St. Petersburg—the Black-Hundred, the Cadet, and the
Social-Democratic.

Allvoters must, therefore, clearly realise whom they are sending to the
Duma:

the Black Hundreds , i.e., the Right parties, who are for a government
based on military courts, for pogroms and violence?

the Cadets , i.e., the liberal bourgeoisie, who go to the Duma to
legislate, i.e., to compromise with the Gurkos, who actually enjoy both the
right to legislate and the right to dissolve the Duma if it incurs their
displeasure?

orthe Social-Democrats , i.e., the party of the working class, which,
at the head of the whole people, is fighting for full freedom and socialism, for the emancipation of all working people from
exploitation and oppression?

Letevery voter know that he must choose between these three
parties. He must decide whom to vote for: the champions of police tyranny and
violence; the liberal capitalists, who through the Kutlers are bargaining with
Gurkos; or for the champions of the interests of the working class and of all
working people?

Citizensand voters! You are told that the Cadets and the Social-Democrats may
enter into an election agreement, that they may put up a joint election list.

Thisis not true . Let everybody know that whatever happens there will
be three lists in St. Petersburg: the Black-Hundred, the Cadet and the
Social-Democratic.

Youare told that if the Cadets and the Social-Democrats put up separate lists,
they may split the vote and thus help the Black Hundreds to win.

Thisis not true. We are going to prove to you that even in the
worst possible case of a split vote, i.e., even if the votes are
evenly divided between the Cadets and the Social-Democrats in
all election wards of St. Petersburg—even in that case a
Black-Hundred victory in St. Petersburg is impossible .

Itis common knowledge that during the elections to the First Duma there were
two principal lists of candidates in St. Petersburg: the Cadet and the
Black-Hundred (or the so-called bloc, or coalition, of the Right parties). The
Cadets were victorious in all the districts of St. Petersburg.

Nowthere will be three lists: the Black-Hundred, the Cadet and the
Social-Democratic. That means that the Social-Democrats expect to win part of
the Cadet votes and also to win the support of those who did not vote in the
elections to the First Duma.

Youare told that this split of the Cadet and Social-Democratic vote may help
the Black Hundreds to win, for the Cadets and the Social-Democrats together
would be stronger than the Black Hundreds, whereas separately they may prove
weaker, i.e., be defeated.

Tosee whether this is possible, let us take the figures of the votes cast in
all the wards of St. Petersburg in the elections to the First Duma. Let
us see how the votes were distributed between the Cadets and the Black Hundreds in the various wards. We
will take the least favourable case in each ward, i.e., the
lowest vote cast for a Cadet (for different candidates received a
different number of votes) and the highest vote cast for a
Black-Hundred candidate.

Wewill halve the lowest Cadet vote, on the assumption that
the Social-Democrat will divert exactly half the votes (this is the least
favourable to us, and the most favourable to the Black Hundreds).

Letus now compare this half of the lowest Cadet vote with the highest vote cast for a Black-Hundred
candidate in each ward. We will get the following figures:

| Wards | Lowest Cadet vote | One half of that number | Highest Right vote | Number of electors |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Admiralty | 1,395 | 697 | 668 | 5 |
| Alexander-Nevsky | 2,929 | 1,464 | 1,214 | 16 |
| Kazan | 2,135 | 1,067 | 985 | 9 |
| Narva | 3,486 | 1,743 | 1,486 | 18 |
| Vyborg | 1,853 | 926 | 652 | 6 |
| Petersburg | 4,788 | 2,394 | 1,729 | 16 |
| Kolomna | 2,441 | 1,070 | 969 | 9 |
| Moscow | 4,937 | 2,468 | 2,174 | 20 |
| Spassky | 4,873 | 2,436 | 2,320 | 15 |
| Liteiny | 3,414 | 1,707 | 2,097 | 15 |
| Rozhdestvensky | 3,241 | 1,620 | 2,066 | 14 |
| Vasilyevsky Ostrov | 3,540 | 1,770 | 2,250 | 17 |

Thesefigures show clearly that even in the most unfavourable case of a split
in the Cadet vote, the Black Hundreds would have been successful in the 1906
elections in only three wards out of the twelve . They would
have had only 46 electors out of 174 (160 from the city and 14 from the
workers). This means that the Black Hundreds could not have been
elected to the Duma at the first elections even if the Cadet vote had been
split equally between the Cadet and the Social-Democratic candidates in
all wards.

Thus,those who are trying to scare the voters with the possibility of a Black-Hundred victory if the Cadets and Social-Democrats split the vote , are deceiving the people .

The Black Hundreds cannot win as a result of a vote split between the
Cadets and Social-Democrats.

The Cadets are deliberately spreading false rumours of a “Black-Hundred
danger” so as to deter the voters from voting for the socialists .

Citizensand voters! Do not believe the yarns about the Black Hundreds winning
if the votes are divided between the Cadets and Social-Democrats. Vote freely
and boldly according to your convictions—for the Black Hundreds, for the
bourgeois liberals, or for the socialists.

*     * *
Butperhaps the Cadets, who are spreading false rumours about a
“Black-Hundred danger” through the newspapers Rech, Tovarishch, Sevodnya, Rodnaya Zemlya, Rus, Strana , [2] and many others, will try to advance some other
arguments, try some other subterfuges.

Letus consider all possible arguments.

Perhapsthe Cadet vote will be split between three and not two lists? In that
case will not the Black Hundreds win in all the wards and be elected to the
Duma?

No. The Cadet vote cannot be split between three lists, for there will by
only three lists in St. Petersburg. Apart from the Black Hundreds, the
Cadets and the Social-Democrats, there is not a single party of any
importance that is putting up an independent list.

Allparties in Russia have their representatives in
St. Petersburg. All parties and trends have already announced their
positions in the elections. Not a single party, except for the three main
parties mentioned above, not one little group, even thinks of
contesting the elections independently. All the smaller parties, all the trends, except the three main ones , are wavering only between these three election lists . All progressive parties and groups which
sympathise with freedom are wavering only between the Cadets and the
Social-Democrats.

Notone of the Trudovik parties, neither the Socialist-Revolutionaries,
the Committee of the Trudovik Group, nor the Popular
Socialists, has expressed the desire to put up an independent list. On the
contrary, all these Trudovik parties are negotiating to join either the Cadet or the
Social-Democratic list.

Hence,those who say that the Cadet vote may be split between three lists are
deceiving the people. In St. Peters burg there will be only three main lists:
the Black-Hundred, the Cadet, and the Social-Democratic.

*     * *
Asecond possible argument: it is said that as a result of the Senate interpretations [3] the number of voters, especially those of the poor
classes, has been reduced, and that therefore the Cadets may not poll as
many votes as they did in the elections to the First Duma.

Thatis not true. In the First Duma elections the total number of voters in
St. Petersburg was about 450,000; it is now about 130,000. The number who voted
last year was no more than 60,000 to 70,000. Hence, there is no reason to fear
a change in the temper and views of the bulk of the voters. There cannot be the
slightest doubt that the majority of the 130,000 voters in
St. Petersburg belong to the needy strata of the population , who might
prefer a capitalist to a worker only owing to misunderstanding, ignorance or
prejudice. If all socialists do their duty and carry on agitation to enlighten
the city population, they will certainly be able to count on winning not ten
thousand, but several tens of thousands of the 130,000 voters.

*     * *
Athird possible argument: it is said that the Black Hundreds may get a bigger
vote this year, and that we cannot judge from last year’s figures.

Thatis not true. From all the newspaper reports, all the meetings and the
information available about the state of the various parties, we see that the
Black hundreds in St. Petersburg are not stronger, but probably much weaker than
they were last year. The people have become politically more conscious; the

Octobrists [4] are howled down at every meeting; and the dissolution of
the Duma, the government’s policy of violence and the Gurko-Lidval policy are completely
alienating voters from the government. At the first elections the Black
Hundreds were still able to crow; but they subsided altogether, as soon as
election time began to draw near.

*     * *
Afourth possible argument: it is said that the government has refused to issue
election forms to the Left parties, is not permitting them to hold meetings,
publish newspapers, etc., and that, therefore, it is safer and surer for all the
Lefts to combine in one election list with the Cadets.

Thatis not true. The fact that the government is resorting to violence, is
breaking the law and encroaching on the freedom of elections, can only stiffen
the backs of the mass of voters. We Social-Democrats do not lose, but gain in
the eyes of the voters from the fact that the police, with increasing frequency,
are closing down meetings because of our speeches. As for fighting the
government for its breaking the law—how would an agreement with the Cadets
help in this? It would hinder, not help things, for the Cadet Party is the
most cowardly of all opposition parties, the one most given to treachery. Is it
possible to combat infringement of the law by Cabinet Ministers jointly with a
party of which the ex-Minister Kutler, a recent colleague of Witte and Durnovo,
is a member? On the contrary, it is because the Kutlers are very much closer to
the Durnovos and Stolypins than to the masses of workers and shop-assistants
that we, in the interests of the fight for freedom, must remain independent of
the Cadet Party, the party of the Kutlers.

Letus assume that the government has decided to seize, to arrest, the Left
electors. Will an agreement with the Cadets be of any avail? Or should the
socialists rely on the Cadet Kutler petitioning the Cabinet Ministers Stolypin
and Gurko, his recent colleagues, on behalf of the revolutionaries?

Thenewspapers recently reported that Stolypin is granting an audience to
Mr. Milyukov, the Cadet leader, to discuss the legalisation of the Cadet

Party. [1]

Are the socialists to rely on the
Cadet gentlemen “petitioning” for the legalisation of the Trudovik,
the Socialist-Revolutionary and the Social-Democratic parties?

Asocialist with a conscience and a sense of shame will never appear in a joint
list with the Kutlers and the Milyukovs.

*     * *
Canthe Social-Democrats win in the St. Petersburg elections?

Takingadvantage of the government’s ban on Social-Democratic newspapers,
the Cadet newspapers are dinning into their readers’ ears
that a Social-Democratic victory at the elections is inconceivable without the
aid of the Cadets.

Thatis not true. It is quite possible for the Social-Democrats in
St. Petersburg to gain a victory over the Black Hundreds and the Cadets.

The Cadets pretend not to see this, deliberately forgetting that a split vote
may be to the advantage of any party, and not the Black Hundreds
alone. The Black Hundreds may win three wards out of twelve if the vote is split
equally between the Cadets and Social-Democrats.

The Social-Democrats may win twelve election wards out of twelve if the vote is split between the Cadets and Black Hundreds .

Toconvince oneself of this, one need only consider the figures quoted
above. They show that, by polling in each ward one vote more than half the Cadet total (polled at the last elections) it is possible to win in the whole of St. Petersburg .

Forthis we must have not less than 14,274 votes in the nine
“safe” wards of St. Petersburg (which does not include the three
where the Black Hundreds may win).

Andis it really impossible for the Social-Democrats to poll 15,000 to 20,000 votes in St. Petersburg?

In St. Petersburg enfranchised shop-assistants and clerks alone number 30,000 to
50,000. Golos Prikazchika , [5] the shop-assistants trade union paper, was
conducted on Social-Democratic lines. If all socialists were to unite for
agitation among shop-assistants, and were to agree to include the Trudoviks
in their list, these shop and office employees alone could ensure victory
for a joint Social-Democratic and Trudovik election list.

Moreover,there are a very large number of poor tenants, fully capable of
understanding that the socialists will defend their interests better than the
liberal houseowners and landlords, the rich lawyers and the government
officials, the Petrunkeviches, Rodichevs, Vinavers, and Kutlers.

Lookat the election meetings in St. Petersburg. Even the Cadet newspapers,
whose accounts of these meetings are atrociously distorted to favour the Cadets,
are compelled to admit that the real contest lies between the Cadets and the
socialists, and not between the Rights and the Lefts. St. Petersburg election
meetings arc incontrovertible proof that the Social-Democrats ,
particularly in alliance with the Trudoviks, are stronger than the Cadets in St. Petersburg.

Howmany voters will attend election meetings? Cautious people estimate not
more than one-tenth of the total number of voters will. Let us accept even this
figure, which is the lowest estimate. That gives us 13,000 voters. Further, we
may take it for granted that every voter who has attended meetings will take
along with him to the polling-booth at least two others who have not attended
any meetings. Judging from all facts and observations, 20,000 of the 39,000
voters will be for the Social Democrats in alliance with the Trudoviks.

Therefore,these figures, too, show that a victory of the Social-Democrats over
the Cadets and the Black Hundreds in St. Petersburg is quite possible .

All St. Petersburg voters should know that it depends entirely on them
whether the Cadets or the Social-Democrats win.

*     * *
Thesocialists are conducting their election campaign in St. Petersburg
primarily and mainly for the purpose of enlightening and rallying the
masses. The socialists are striving to make clear to the masses the tasks now
confronting the people in their struggle for freedom. The liberals, however, are
not bothering about anything but seats in the Duma, and do not care whether the
voters have any clear and definite ideas.

Theliberals, i.e., the Cadets, and the vacillators who follow in their train,
sometimes take a vote at election meetings, at some of which they succeed in
winning overwhelming majorities for resolutions calling for an agreement among
all the Lefts, on the understanding that two seats out of the six should go to
the Cadets.

Thosewho propose such resolutions and those who vote for them show that they
fail to realise the situation in the St. Petersburg elections. There will not
and cannot be an agreement of “all the Lefts” in
St. Petersburg. There will be three election lists in St. Petersburg: the
Black-Hundred, the Cadet, and the Social-Democratic.

Moreover,it is ridiculous even to vote for the Cadets getting two seats out of
the six. Those who really want such an outcome must understand that it
cannot be effected by a deal with the Cadets. It can be done only by
voting for the Social-Democrats .

Infact, the result that some people desire (six beats for the Lefts, of which
two go to the Cadets) can be achieved only it the Social-Democrats gain a
partial victory in St. Petersburg. Let us assume, for example, that the
Social-Democrats win only in four constituencies, say, in the Spassky, Moscow,
Petersburg and Vyborg wards. They would then have 60 electors, and with the
worker curia, 74 electors. The Black Hundreds (we take the most unfavourable and
most unlikely case) will have 46 electors (Liteiny, Rozhdestvensky and
Vasilyevsky Ostrov wards). The Cadets will then have the remaining 54
electors. This is the way we could really secure the election of Left
Duma deputies for St. Petersburg, with a preponderance of those standing Left of
the Cadets. It cannot be achieved by bargaining with the Cadets, as certain unintelligent and vacillating people are
doing.

*     * *
Letus briefly recapitulate the conclusions we have drawn. Only three main
parties are contesting the St. Peters burg elections, and electors will have
three lists before them: the Black-Hundred, the Cadet, and the
Social-Democratic.

Thedanger of a Black-Hundred victory in St. Petersburg is an absurd
fabrication.

Evenif the Cadet vote is split least favourably between the Cadets and the
Social-Democrats, a Black-Hundred victory is impossible.

Thefable of the “Black-Hundred danger” in St. Petersburg is
deliberately fostered by the Cadets to avert the real danger threatening
them in the form of a socialist victory.

The Trudoviks, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and several small groups have not
yet made up their minds whether to follow the Cadets or the Social-Democrats.

In St. Petersburg it is quite possible for the Social-Democrats to win complete
victory over the Black Hundreds and the Cadets.

Votersmust vote in accordance with their convictions and sympathies, and not
out of fear of a fictitious Black-Hundred danger.

Areyou for the government, the liberal bourgeoisie, or the Social-Democrats?

Citizens,make your choice!

---
Notes:
[1]
At an election meeting at the Tenishev School on January 22 Mr
Vodovozov stated that Mr. Milyukov had been to see Stolypin and had come to
terms with him, and that the people’s freedom party is responsible
for its leaders. Without denying this fact, Mr. Gredeskul declared that if
Mr. Milyukov had been to see Stolypin, it was in the interest of the
country and the party.— Lenin

[2]
Sevodnya ( Today )—a liberal-bourgeois evening newspaper
published in St. Petersburg from 1906 to 1908.

Rus ( Russia )—a liberal-bourgeois daily newspaper published in
St. Petersburg from 1903 to 1908 with intervals and under different
names— Rus ( Russia ), Molva ( Hearsay ), Dvadtsaty Vek ( The Twentieth Century ).

Strana ( The Country )—a liberal-bourgeois daily newspaper
published in St. Petersburg in 1906 and 1907.

[3]
Senate interpretations —instructions on and interpretations of the State Duma election law of December 11 (24), 1905,
published by the Senate. The interpretations of the Senate deprived various
groups of the population—some of the workers, peasants and
non-Russians—of their franchise p. 51

[4]
Octobrists —members of the Union of October
Seventeenth, a party formed in Russia after the publication of the tsar’s
manifesto on October 17, 1905. This was a counter-revolutionary party
representing and defending the interests of the big bourgeoisie, and land owners
engaged in capitalist farming. It was headed by the prominent industrialist and
Moscow house-owner A. I. Guchkov, and the big landowner M. V. Rodzyanko. The
Octobrists gave full support to the domestic and foreign policy of the tsarist
government.

[5]
Golos Prikazchika ( Shop-Assistant’s Voice )– a weekly newspaper
published in St. Petersburg from April to October 1906. p. 54