V. I.

Lenin

Thenewspaper Trudovoi Narod , organ of the Trudoviks and members of the
Peasant Union, has defined the alignment of forces in the Duma on the land
question, that “life or death question” for the peasantry.

"The Trudoviks (100), Popular Socialists (14), and
Socialist-Revolutionaries (34), 148 in all, may act together on the
land question, to uphold the interests of the working people. Assuming that the Social-Democrats (64) will join them on
many points of that question, the total will be 212 .

“Allthese will he opposed by the Constitutional-Democrats
(91), the Polish Kolo (46), Independents (52), Octobrists and
Moderates (32), 221 in all .

“Thusthere is a preponderance of votes against. And we have counted
neither the Moslems (30) nor the Cossacks (17); it is likely that, at the very
best, one half will side with the Left, and the other half with the Right. In
any case there are more votes against the Trudoviks’ land law than for it.”

Theenumeration omits the monarchists (22), but their inclusion only bears out
the inference drawn by the Trudoviks.

Thisconclusion is of interest in two respects: firstly, it throws light on the
fundamental question of the alignment of social forces in the present Russian
revolution, and secondly, it helps to clarify the significance, for the
liberation movement, of the Duma and the struggle in the Duma.

All Social-Democrats are convinced that, in its social and economic content, the
present revolution is a bourgeois revolution. This means that it is
proceeding on the basis of capitalist production relations, and will inevitably result in a further development of those same production relations. To put it
more simply, the entire economy of society will still remain
under the domination of the market, of money, even when there is the
broadest freedom and the peasants have won a. complete victory in
their struggle for the land . The struggle for land and freedom is a
struggle for the conditions of existence of bourgeois society, for the rule
of capital will remain in the most democratic republic,
irrespective of how the transfer of “all the land to the people”
is effected.

Sucha view may seem strange to anyone unfamiliar with Marx’s theory. Yet
it is not hard to see that it is the correct view—one need but recall the
great French Revolution and its outcome, the history of the “free
lands” in America, and so on.

The Social-Democrats by no means wish to minimise the tasks of the present
revolution, or to belittle its significance, by calling it a bourgeois
revolution. On the contrary. The struggle of the working class against the
capitalist class cannot develop on a wide enough scale and end in victory until
the older historical enemies of the proletariat are overthrown.

Hence,the principal task of the proletariat at present is to win the broadest
freedom and bring about the most complete destruction of landlord (feudal)
landed proprietorship. Only by doing this, only by completely smashing the old,
semi-feudal society through democratic action, can the proletariat rise to full
stature as an independent class, lay full emphasis on its specific (i.e.,
socialist) tasks, as distinct from the democratic tasks common to “all the
oppressed”, and secure for itself the most favourable conditions for an
unrestricted, sweeping, and intensified struggle for socialism. If the
bourgeois-democratic liberation movement stops half-way, if it is not carried
through, the proletariat will have to spend a great deal more of its forces on
general democratic (i.e., bourgeois-democratic) tasks than on its own class,
proletarian, i.e., socialist, tasks.

Butcan the socialist proletariat accomplish the bourgeois revolution
independently and as the guiding force? Does not the very concept
“bourgeois revolution” imply that it can be accomplished only by the
bourgeoisie?

The Mensheviks often fall into this error, although, as a viewpoint, it is a
caricature of Marxism. A liberation movement that is bourgeois in social
and economic content is not such because of its motive forces. The motive force
may be, not the bourgeoisie, but the proletariat and the peasantry. Why is this
possible? Because the proletariat and the peasantry suffer even more than the
bourgeoisie from the survivals of serfdom, because they are in greater need of
freedom and the abolition of landlord oppression. For the bourgeoisie, on the
contrary, complete victory constitutes a danger, since the proletariat will make
use of full freedom against the bourgeoisie, and the fuller that freedom and
the more completely the power of the landlords has bee” destroyed, the
easier will it be for the proletariat to do so.

Hencethe bourgeoisie strives to put an end to the bourgeois revolution half-way
from its destination, when freedom has been only half-won, by a deal with the
old authorities and the landlords. This striving is grounded in the class
interests of the bourgeoisie. It was manifested so clearly in the German
bourgeois revolution of 1848 that the Communist Marx spearheaded proletarian policy
against the “compromising” (the expression is Marx’s) liberal bourgeoisie. [2]

Our Russian bourgeoisie is still more cowardly, and our proletariat far more
class-conscious and better organised than was the German proletariat in 1848. In
our country the full victory of the bourgeois-democratic movement is possible
only despite the “compromising” liberal bourgeoisie, only in the
event of the mass of the democratic peasantry following the proletariat in the
struggle for full freedom and all the land.

The Second Duma offers still more striking confirmation of this view. Even the
peasants have now realised that the liberal bourgeoisie, the
Constitutional-Democrats, belong to the Right, and the peasants and the workers
to the Left. True, the Trudoviks, Popular Socialists, and
Socialist-Revolutionaries constantly vacillate between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat, and as often as not are in reality political
hangers-on of the liberals (the voting for Golovin, the “tactics
of silence”, agreement to refer the budget to a commission, etc., etc. [3] ). This vacillation is not accidental. It springs from the
class nature of the petty bourgeoisie.

Whymust the Constitutional-Democrats be included among the Rights in a question
as pressing as that of the land? Because the Constitutional-Democrat
agrarian policy is essentially a landlord policy. The “compulsory alienation” advocated by the
Constitutional-Democrats actually means the landlords compelling the peasants to pay ruinous compensation, for in fact both the amount of
these payments and rates of taxation are determined by the landlords ; the land lords and officials will constitute the majority
in the local land committees (in the First Duma the Constitutional-Democrats
were opposed to the election of these committees by universal
ballot), and in the central all-Russian legislature the landlords will be
predominant through the Council of State, etc. Cadet “liberalism” is the liberalism of the bourgeois lawyer who
reconciles the peasant with the landlord, and does that to the advantage of the landlord . [1]

Takethe second question. The Constitutional-Democrats and the Rights constitute
a majority in the Duma. “ What is the way out ?” asks Trudovoi Narod . The answer is simple:

the “way out” is to rise above Duma discussions which lead nowhere.

Thiswould be necessary even if the Left had a majority in the Duma, for the
Duma is powerless, and the Council of State would, in the interests of the
landlords, “improve” any project passed by the Duma. And it
is necessary now— not from any subjective party viewpoint, but in the
objective historical sense; unless this is done , the land question can
be settled only in favour of the landlords.

---
Notes:
[1]
In view of what Rech said about the landlord affiliation of
the Constitutional-Democrats being only a platform catchword, we must add
this: we estimated 79 unmistakable Constitutional-Democrats from the
well-known book Members of the Second State Duma (St. Petersburg,
1907); of these 20 are landlords . We can name

Tuchkov , Boguslavsky , Bychkov , Bakunin, Rodichev , Bogdanov , Salazkin, Tatarinov ,
Stakhovich , Ikonnikov , Savelyev , Dolgorukov , Chelnokov , Golovin , both
Pereleshins , Volotsky , Iordansky, Chernosvitov. The underlined are Marshals of the

Nobility, [4] Rural

Superintendents [5] or chairmen of Zemstvo

Boards. [6] — Lenin

[2]
Lenin is referring to Marx’s article “The Bourgeoisie and Counter
Revolution”. (Marx-Engels-Lenin, Zur deutschen Geschichte ,
Bd. II, 1. Halbband, 1. Aufl., Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1954,
5. 302.)

[3]
Lenin is referring to the Trudoviks, Popular Socialists, and S.R.’s having
voted for F. A. Golovin, the Cadet candidate for the post of Chairman of the
Second State Duma. By “tactics of silence” Lenin means the
Trudoviks’ attitude to the government declaration, announced by Stolypin in the
Duma on March 6 (19), 1907. The Social-Democratic group proposed criticising the
government, but the Trudoviks answered that they had decided to greet the
declaration with “the silence of the grave” and that they had already
reached agreement with the majority of the oppositional groups on this
question, in particular with the Cadets. When the budget was
discussed in the Duma, the Trudoviks voted together with the Cadets to refer the
budget to the Duma Budget Commission.

[4]
Marshal of the Nobility —the representative of the nobility of a gubernia or uyezd in tsarist Russia. He was
elected by the Assembly of the Nobility for the gubernia or uyezd, and was in
charge of all the affairs of the nobility. He occupied an influential position
and took the chair at meetings of the Zemstvo.

[5]
Rural Superintendent —the administrative post introduced in 1899 by the tsarist government, in order to strengthen the
landlords’ power over the peasants. These officials were appointed from among
the local landed nobility and were given tremendous powers, both administrative
and juridical, to deal with the peasants. The powers included the right to
arrest peasants and administer corporal punishment.

[6]
Zemstvo Boards —the executive bodies of the
Zemstvos the local self-government institutions in pre-revolutionary Russia. The
Zemstvos had jurisdiction over the purely local affairs of the rural population
(road building, hospitals, schools, etc.). The landlords
dominated in the Zemstvos.