LKSXSKPYY
SBOREPIC
the hands of workers in their struggle to improve their condition. Workers’
unions will continue to be shut down, and workers’ newspapers will remain
subject to persecution. Large industrialists will, as before,
receive assistance and support from the government in every [ … *
step they take aimed at further oppressing * * the working class. Rather than
providing aid in times of dire need caused by unemployment, the government
should expect workers to face not only the intensification and aggravation of
such hardship—but also the same harsh treatment and meager crusts of bread
as reward for their toil and for their submission to the yoke of their own
brothers—the workers and peasants who are striving for freedom, who are
seeking land for the peasantry.
The government’s declaration made it abundantly clear that the government
does not seek peace, but war against the people. Yet this declaration fails to
address one crucial matter—something that the deputies whom the people have
sent to the Duma, and who remain true to the people’s interests, must make
explicit to the people: the government does not say what its declaration
implies—that it has inevitably and inexorably resolved to dissolve the Second
Duma, denying it even the chance to express the will of the people, to voice
the needs of the peasants, the workers, the soldiers, the needs of all toiling
masses, to articulate what the population entrusted them to convey in their
mandates when sending them to the Duma.
The Social Democratic
Workers’ Party has always told the people that the Duma is powerless to grant
them freedom or land. The deputies of the Duma who champion the interests of
the working class and the peasantry are ready to devote all their strength to
these very interests—to serve the people by speaking the truth in the Duma,
by means of “… ”
The crossed-out text remains unreconstructed. Reo.
The last two sentences were added later in pencil. Re<К

Appeals—Duma-based, D. F. factional, party-oriented, addressed to the
millions of people scattered across every corner of Russia—explaining to them
the harmful, anti‑people policies pursued by the government, the schemes it
hatches against the people, and the laws and measures it denies to the populace.
But the Duma deputies, however capable they may be of helping the people,
are nothing without the people themselves. If Russia has achieved even a brief
period of modest freedoms—if it has secured popular representation, if only for
a short while—then all of this has been won solely through the people’s
struggle, through the self‑sacrificing struggle of the working class, the
peasantry, the soldiers and sailors for freedom.
The government has once again declared war on the people. The government
has resolved to dissolve the Duma, to abolish the electoral law, and to return
to the old order in Russia.
It has embarked upon a path that inevitably leads to the dissolution of the
Second Duma, to the repeal of the current electoral law, and to the restoration
of the old order of the Russian autocratic system.
The working‑class deputies inform the entire people about this…
Appendix.
From the Committee of the Social Democratic
faction, to all worker organizations.
Dear comrades!
Alongside the question of amnesty, the faction was also compelled to address
the issue of how to respond to Stolypin’s declaration. While the minority*** set
itself the task of gauging strength, pushing the SDLP to the right, drawing the
“revolutionary laborites” closer, and promoting our programmatic demands and
so forth, the majority of the faction saw the SDLP’s mission as seizing the
specific political moment and, by subjecting Stolypin’s declaration to relentless
criticism, delivering the most forceful possible blow to the government and
isolating it. Confrontation with the ministry is not a maneuver—it is combat.
During combat, the SDLP cannot afford to focus on counting strengths, especially
since the SDLP’s strength within the Duma is already well known… The majority
of the faction proposed that both in speeches and in a special declaration, we
offer a comprehensive critique—grounded in democratic principles and the
interests of the proletariat—of the government’s inter‑Duma activities, that we
express our view on the relationship between the government and the Duma, and
that we support the most revolutionary formula for advancing to the next agenda
item, rather than dwelling on the elaboration of our general programmatic and
tactical views. By contrast, the minority proposed that we present, both in
speeches and in the declaration, all of our pro‑
Three lines, heavily crossed out, remain unanalyzed. ReO.
** The Bolsheviks formed a minority within the Duma faction. Ed.
*** i.e., the Bolsheviks. Ed.
. h'iiiiiiCKi'ii гборшп; X VI.
1'

grammatical demands and propose putting to a vote in the Duma a resolution
not only with a democratic but also with a socialist content.
At the next II meeting of the faction, discussion of this issue continues. The
Committee proposes to the faction the draft Duma speech it has prepared, which
reads as follows: . . .
. . . 5. The faction regards the primary goal of its post‑Stolypin speech as
delivering the strongest possible blow to the government—and accordingly sets
itself the task of fully developing, without any reservations, its position on
the conflict between the Duma and the government in its statement, and then,
during the vote, instead of dividing, to unite—as far as possible—all the
oppositional forces within the Duma against the ministry.
Representatives of the faction’s minority criticize this draft, arguing that
it is necessary to deliver an independent declaration—one that would outline
the entire course of the revolution, identify the revolutionary tasks, and set
forth all social‑democratic demands. They contend that such a resolution is
justified by the fact that we cannot reduce our entire conduct to our attitude
toward Stolypin’s declaration. A proletarian audience would not understand
such a stance—and consequently, it would fail to draw a clear line between us
and the bourgeois democrats. If we adopt this perspective, we will be unable to
make an independent speech and will not provide the masses with answers to
questions about the tasks of the revolution, about land, about full freedoms, and
so on. It was also pointed out that our speech in the Duma might prove to be
both the first and the last, given the possibility of the Duma being dissolved;
therefore, if we are to die, let us die not only “without disgrace, but with a
banner in our hands.”
The majority of the faction, however, defended the committee’s draft with the
following arguments… Last year, when the SDLP faction first took to the
parliamentary stage, it addressed the Russian proletariat and the population
with its own declaration. And rightly so. At that time, a declaration was needed:
the SDLP had to show the whole world that it stood on the ground of a truly
popular SDLP. Moreover, that declaration was needed because two thirds of the
party had boycotted the Duma: the faction had to break through the preconceptions
of its own ranks.
After thorough discussion of the committee’s proposal, the faction agreed with
its draft, adopted it—and also accepted the text of the declaration proposed by
the committee, which was read in the Duma. Following the adoption of the draft,
the faction also recognized the possibility of voting for a simple transition to
the next agenda item—in cases where there was no hope of securing a more
radical formulation . . .
St. Petersburg, March 27, 1907
Committee of the SDLP faction in the Duma.

V. LETTERS
II EDITORIAL INSTRUCTIONS FROM LENIN
TO THE CO‑EDITORS OF “VPERED” AND “PROLETARIY”
TO OLMINSKY, VOROVSKY, AND LUNACHARSKY
EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS TO AN ARTICLE BY C.O. KARPINSKY
INVITATION — 110IB1CH» IOO;î G.