V. I.

Lenin

A gradual increase is taking place in the number of daily periodicals with a
stand more Left than that of the Cadets. The voice of the Left section of the
Duma, the section between the Cadets and the Social-Democrats, is becoming more
audible.

The latest addition is the daily press of the Popular Socialists. Their
newspaper, Obshchestvennoye Dyelo (Sun day, April 1) immediately
adopted a highly characteristic and noteworthy tone of plaint, regret and,
repentance.

What do they complain of? They complain that the Duma is “anaemic”
(i.e., in plain Russian, bloodless and spineless).

What do they regret? The lengthy supremacy of the slogan “Save the
Duma”.

What do they repent of? Of their support for Cadet tactics.

It is true that this repentance is far from being real, Sincere and
full—it is not, as the saying goes, fully confessed and half
redressed. The repentance of the Popular Socialists is so insincere that in
their first, or repentance, issue they reply to us with a malicious statement to
the effect that we, the Bolshevik Social-Democrats, “solve differences by
calling our opponent ignorant, pitiful”, etc., and that we are
“inaccurate in our facts” in ascribing “entry on to the path of conciliation” to our opponent.

We should not, of course, have taken up our readers’ time with this question of
the sincerity of the Narodnik repentance had it not become very intimately and
directly connected with questions that have a decisive importance in assessing the Second Duma as a whole—more than that, in assessing the
entire Russian revolution.

The Narodniks are three groups in the Duma united on a number of basic questions
and conducting a more or less united common policy. These groups in some way or
another reflect the interests and views of a vast mass of the Russian people.

The majority of this category of deputies are peasants, and it can scarcely be
disputed that the peasant masses have most precisely expressed their needs (and
their prejudices) through this category of Duma deputies, and through no
other. It follows, therefore, that the policy of the Narodniks in the Duma is
connected with the question of the policy of the peasant masses, without whose
participation there can be no talk of victory for the emancipation movement.

The Popular Socialists are stating an obvious and disgraceful falsehood to the
effect that the Social-Democrats solve differences by vilification or by falsely
ascribing conciliation to the Trudoviks (i.e., the Narodniks). This is untrue,
gentlemen, because the Social-Democrats, from the very outset of the
Second Duma’s activities, and quite independently of the Narodniks and the
struggle against them, had already produced that assessment of the
notorious slogan “Save the Duma” towards which you are now hobbling.

“’Save the Duma!’" wrote our colleague

N. R., [1]

on February 21 , “is the cry that is constantly escaping the
lips of the bourgeois electors and is being repeated in the bourgeois
press, and not only the Cadet press but also such ’Left’ periodicals as
Tovarishch.... The secret of the Duma’s salvation has long
been revealed by the Black-Hundred and Octobrist press and by the
government. The Duma can easily be saved if it is ’able to function’ and
is ’obedient to the law’, i.e., if it slavishly prostrates itself to the
government, and does not venture anything more than timid requests and
degrading petitions. The Duma can easily be saved if it betrays the cause
of national emancipation, and sacrifices that cause to the Black-Hundred
gang. The Duma, therefore, can only be saved if power remains in the old
hands. That must be clear to everybody; that must not be forgotten. But
can the Duma possibly be saved when treachery is the price to be paid?
Social-Democracy answers that question clearly and loudly: Never! The
proletariat and the peasantry have no use for a treacherous Duma. Not
without reason did the Moscow peasantry declare in their mandate to their
deputy: ’Let them dissolve you, but do not betray the will of the
people’. If the Duma is to be mainly concerned with avoiding irritation
of the government, it will lose the confidence of the people and will not fulfil the tasks it has been charged with—to
assist as far as possible in organising the masses of the people for victory
over reaction and for the triumph of the emancipation movement.... Only the
strong are feared. And respect too is only for the strong. Hysterical cries of
’Save the Duma’ are unworthy of a free people and its, elected
representatives.”

This was written the day after the Second Duma was opened. And, it
would seem, it is written clearly enough.

The Narodniks who, in their literature, in their general politics and in the
Duma, represent the interests of various strata of the petty bourgeoisie, petty
proprietors (in the towns and, especially, in the countryside — i.e., the
peasantry), have now begun to understand that the Social-Democrats were
speaking the truth. Events have proved the correctness of our policy.

But in order “not to come too late”, in order not to become a
politician who is wise after the event, learning from events is not enough. You
must understand the course taken by events, understand the
basic relations between classes, which determine the policies
of the various parties and of the entire Duma.

“Save the Duma” is a Cadet slogan that gives expression to Cadet
policy. What is it, in essence? It means an agreement with the reactionaries
against the people’s demands. How is this agreement expressed? By
submitting to those institutions and those limits of activity that are fixed by
the reactionaries. By turning the demands of liberty and the demands of the
people into miserable, pitiful, false “reforms” that are kept within those limits. Why do the Social-Democrats call this liberal policy
treacherous? Because the defeat of all unsuccessful bourgeois revolutions has
always been possible only because the liberals have come to an agreement with
the reactionaries, i.e., because of their actually going over from
people’s freedom to reaction. Liberal reformism during the revolution is
a betrayal of people’s freedom. It is brought about not by accident, but
by the class interests of the bourgeoisie and part of the landlords, who
fear the people, especially the working class.

The slogan “Save the Duma” is of importance because it is a clear
expression of the general line of this treacherous policy. Individual
manifestations. of it are: the tactics of silence in response to the declaration, the curtailment of the tasks
set the food and unemployment commissions, the curtailment of speeches in
the Duma, the replacement of the Duma by commissions, the relegation of the
budget to a commission, etc.

As representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, the Narodniks have supported, and are still supporting , this Cadet policy. The Narodniks voted for
Golovin instead of abstaining from voting. The Narodniks participated in the
pitiful “tactics of silence”, and so did both the Popular Socialists
and the Socialist-Revolutionaries . Only under the repeated pressure of
the Social-Democrats did the Narodniks begin to draw away from the
Constitutional-Democrats. But even now the Trudoviks, the Popular Socialists and
the Socialist-Revolutionaries are wavering in all their policies, for they do not understand the task of the struggle against the Cadets and of their
exposure from the Duma platform.

This wavering is due to the anaemic state of the petty bourgeoisie .

This “anaemia” of the petty bourgeoisie, partially due to its
weariness from the revolution and partially to its wavering and unstable
(social) character, is the chief cause of the “anaemic state of the
Duma”. And so we say to the Narodniks—it’s no use blaming the mirror
if your looks are no good.

Don’t be anaemic in your politics, break off your connections with the
Cadets; stick determinedly to the proletariat; leave it to the liberals to save the Duma, and you yourselves openly, boldly and firmly save
the interests and traditions of the emancipation movement—then your
repentance will indeed mean “half redressing”!

---
Notes:
[1]
N. R. —N. A. Rozhkov, historian, a
Social-Democrat who sided with the Bolsheviks in 1907.