V. I. Lenin

The Russian Social-Democrats drew the main lessons of the
revolution in the London resolution on the non-proletarian parties. {1} In this resolution the Social-Democratic proletariat made a
clear and precise appraisal of the class relations in the revolution,
defined the social basis of all the major parties and the general tasks of
the workers’ movement in the fight for democracy . The resolution
of the December Party Conference of 1908 was a further development of these
fundamental views of Social-Democracy.

Now,a year after this Conference, two and a half years after the
London Congress, it is extremely instructive to see the views on the
present position and the tasks of democracy that are being reached by the
most influential representatives of Russian liberalism. The recent
“conference” of leading members of the Cadet Party is particularly
interesting in this respect. The “conference” endorsed the report of the
leader of the party, Mr. Milyukov, who has now had it printed in
Rech under the heading: “The Political Parties in the Country and
in the Duma”. This report is an extremely important political document. In
it we have what is hence forth the official platform of the Cadet
Party. Furthermore, we have here an answer to questions which the Social-
Democratic Party raised and settled long ago—an answer supplied by one of
the shrewdest diplomats and politicians in the liberal camp, and at the
same time one of the most adept historians, who has learned a thing or two
from historical materialism, by which he was unmistakably influenced
... when he was a historian.

Thehistorian Milyukov tries to put the question on a thoroughly
scientific, i.e., materialist basis. To obtain “firm strongpoints” for party tactics there must be “a uniform conception of
what is taking place in the country”. And to understand this one must see
how the chief political parties or “political trends” are striving to
“find support” in “broad circles of the population

Themethod is excellent. Its application immediately reveals to us the
transformation of the adept historian into a commonplace liberal sycophant:
the Cadets, you see, and everything to the right of them, constitute the
“three chief political trends”, while everything to the “left” of the
Cadets is a “political paroxysm”. Thank you for your candour,
Mr. Liberal! But we’ll see nevertheless what you have to say as a
historian? Three chief trends:

the first is “demagogic monarchism”. Its “purpose” is to “defend the
old social foundations of life”, a “combination of unlimited autocracy
[the liberal, the Constitutional-Democrat unconsciously goes over to the
standpoint of the Octobrist who upholds limited autocracy] with the
peasantry on the basis of those patriarchal relations in which the nobility
is the natural intermediary between the one and the other”.... Translated
from the language of liberalism into plain ordinary Russian this means the
domination of the feudal (“patriarchal”) landlords and Black-Hundred
tsarism. Mr. Milyukov rightly remarks that this tsarism is becoming
“demagogic”, that it is “abandoning the old artificial non-partyism or
above-partyism and is intervening actively in the process of the
organisation of par ties in the country”. It is this, incidentally, that
constitutes the step towards the conversion of the autocracy into a
bourgeois monarchy which is dealt with in the resolution of the December
Conference of the Social-Democrats in 1908. This is the new development
which constitutes the specific peculiarity of the present moment
and which was taken into account by our Party in formulating the
present tactical aims. Although he correctly notes certain
features of the process, Mr. Milyukov; firstly, has not fully thought out
the economic roots of it and, secondly, he is afraid to draw the
logical conclusion about the reasons for the strength of the feudal
landlords. This strength is expressed in the fact that in European Russia,
according to the official statistics of 1905, ten million poor peasants
have 75 million dessiatines of land, while 30,000 big landlords (including
the crown lands, i.e., those of Nicholas Romanov and his family) own, 70 million dessiatines. Can
Russia be delivered from “patriarchal” relations without the total abolition of these feudal latifundia of the upper thirty thousands,
what do you think, Mr. Historian?

Thesecond trend is “bourgeois constitutionalism”. Thus Mr. Milyukov
names the Octobrists. “For the big bourgeoisie,” he writes, “this trend,
perhaps, is too conservative be cause of its close ties with the
bureaucracy and the nobility.” They are united by “a negative aim: joint
defence against the more radical social or political trends”. “The
bourgeois constitutionalists of June 3 and November 9”, seeking
strong-points for themselves, are trying “to assimilate at least the upper
section of the mass of the peasantry [the strong and virile ones, as
Mr. Stolypin calls them]. But for the time being this sort of social basis
lies entirely in the future.” “That is why this trend has perhaps the
weakest prospects of finding a social basis”!!

Itis a favourite tendency in our country—unfortunately even among
would-be Social-Democrats—to attack “revolutionary illusions”. But
could anything be more naïve than this liberal illusion that
the social basis of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie (“joint
defence”) and the landlords is weak”, that they can be defeated by other
means than a most vigorous, and ruthless revolutionary offensive of the
masses, an uprising of the masses? The serious historian again gives way to
the commonplace liberal.

Thethird trend is the Cadets. Mr. Milyukov calls it “democratic
constitutionalism” and explains that “the essence of this position
consists in a combination of a radical political and radical social
programme”. The historian is quite eclipsed by the diplomatist and
politician. In actual fact the entire policy of the Cadets runs counter to
the radicalism of the masses. In words—especially at a “conference”
where there are Cadets from the provinces who are somewhat more closely
aware of the sentiments of the masses—we are radicals, we are concerned
for democracy and the masses.

Mr. Milyukov(particularly under the influence of the “conference”,
we may be sure) makes no mistakes about the masses. He recognises as an
indisputable fact, that the “growth of political consciousness in recent
years has been tremendous”, that “the causes of mass discontent have not disappeared: it
is possible that they have even increased in number and that their effect
has grown stronger in proportion to the growth of political
consciousness”. But, although the historian has to admit this, the liberal
gets the upper hand just the same: ... “among the masses, unfortunately,
it turned out [during the revolution] that only a bolder secret demagogy
was effective, one which flattered the traditional opinions and customary
expectations of the masses. This demagogy united in a purely artificial
manner the intelligible and legitimate mass slogan of ‘land’ with the
unintelligible and misinterpreted slogan of ‘liberty’. Under these
circumstances even the grasping by people’s minds of the natural connection
between the two slogans was only a source of new misunderstandings and gave
rise to the same illusions,” and so on and so forth, right down to the
“principle”: neither revolution nor reaction, but “a legal
constitutional struggle”. The question of returning to the “old tactics
of 1905” “must be answered with a categorical and emphatic negative

Asthe reader sees, all the good intentions of the historian Milyukov
to find strongpoints for party tactics among broad circles of the
population came to nothing as soon as it was a question of the peasantry
and the proletariat. Mr. Milyukov gives the latter up as a bad job,
admitting that “democratic constitutionalism has a wider, better organised
and more politically conscious social basis among the urban democracy than
any other political party can show, with the exception of the Social-Democratic Party, which is relying on the working class .” But
Mr. Milyukov does not lose hope of the peasantry. “In spite of the
existence of such obstacles” as “demagogy”, etc., he writes, “the
possibility is not excluded of democratic constitutionalism acting
parallel [Milyukov’s italics] to the direct expressions of the
desires of the popular masses.”

Parallelactivity!—there you have the new catchword for old liberal
tactics. Parallel lines never meet. The bourgeois intellectuals have
understood that their liberalism will never meet the masses, i.e.,
will not become their voice and leader in Russia—“never”,
because of the growth of political consciousness after 1905. But the
liberals of the Cadet type continue to count on the masses as a
stepping stone to success, to domination. Translated into simple and clear language, to proceed
“parallel” means to exploit the masses politically, trapping them with
democratic words and betraying them in practice. “To Support them [the
Octobrists I systematically in constitutional questions”, these words in
Mr. Milyukov’s report express the essence of the policy of the
Cadets. In practice the Cadets are accomplices of Octobrism, they are a
wing of bourgeois constitutionalism. Struve and the other Vekhists admit
this in candid, blunt and straightforward terms, and demand that the Cadets
should stop “ogling the left and fawning on the revolutionaries who
despise them” (the words of the well-known renegade Mr. Izgoyev in
Moskovsky Yezhenedelnik , {2} 1909, No. 46, page 10). Milyukov and Co. are
dissatisfied only with the bluntness and straight forwardness of
the Vekhists only because the Vekhists are spoiling their
diplomacy, are making it hard for them to lead the backward elements of the
masses by the nose. Milyukov is the practical politician, Struve—the
liberal doctrinaire, but their peaceful coexistence in the same party is no
accident, but a necessity, because by the very nature of the case
the bourgeois intellectual vacillates between placing hopes in the masses
(who can help to pull the chestnuts out of the fire) and placing hopes in
the Octobrist bourgeoisie.

“Thefact that it is impossible for the present regime to permit
free intercourse between the democratic elements who are politically
enlightened and the democratic masses prevents the realisation of the main
promises contained in the Manifesto of October 17,” writes
Mr. Milyukov. Here, inadvertently, he has spoken a deeper truth than he
intended. Firstly, if it is true that it is impossible for the
present regime to permit intercourse between the masses and the democrats
(and that is unquestionably true) then revolutionary tactics are
necessary, not a “constitutional” struggle; the people need to be led to
the overthrow of this regime, not its reformation. Secondly,
October-December 1905 and the First Duma and the Second Duma all
proved that “it is impossible to permit free intercourse”
between the “democratic masses” and the Social-Democrats or even the
Narodniks of all shades not only “for the present regime” but also
for the Russian liberals, the Russian Cadets . The Cadets were unable to lead the democracy not only of the workers but also of the
peasants during the period of civil liberties in October-December 1905, and
even during the time of the Dumas watched over by the Goremykins and
Stolypins the democracy was not reconciled to the leadership of the Cadets.

Thepolitical significance of the Cadet “conference” at the end of
1909 and of Mr. Milyukov’s report lies in the fact that the educated
representatives of liberalism, being most bitter enemies of revolutionary
Social-Democracy, have given signal confirmation of the correctness of its
estimate of the moment and of its tactics. Everything of value and truthful
in the report merely pads out and repeats over and over again our own basic
thesis that the chief mark of distinction of the present moment is the step
taken by the autocracy along the path towards transformation into a
bourgeois monarchy. This is what distinguishes it from yesterday and
tomorrow. This is the basis of the tactics peculiar to the
Social-Democrats; tactics which require the application of the
principles of revolutionary Marxism to altered conditions, and not simply
the repetition of some slogans or other.

Theliberals have recognised that the big bourgeoisie are
counter-revolutionary, they have recognised that the masses are becoming
more politically conscious and discontented. Then why don’t they resolutely
enter the service of the big bourgeoisie if they repudiate the revolution,
1905, and the “demagogy” of “land and liberty”, if they recognise that
Octobrism is too conservative for the big bourgeoisie? Because the
“conference” of provincials made it crystal clear to them that the new
Stolypin, bourgeois policy of the autocracy is a failure . The new
social basis for the monarchy “ still lies wholly in the future ”—there you have the liberals’ most valuable
admission. Well-ordered bourgeois constitutionalism with a monarchy at the
head is a very fine thing, but it is not forthcoming , it will
not come without a new movement of the masses —such is the
summing up of the Cadet “conference”. We hate the movement of
the masses, we hate the “demagogy” of “land and liberty”, we hate
“political paroxysms” but we are realistic politicians, we must reckon
with facts, we must shape our policy to run parallel with the
movement of the masses, since it is inevitable. “The possibility is not excluded” that we can successfully contend for the
leadership of the rural and urban masses (except the workers):

let us try by talking about our “radicalism.” to secure a niche in
the people’s movement just as our talk of being His Majesty’s
Opposition secured us a niche in London.

Inadvertentlythe Cadet conference has signally confirmed the tactics of our
Party. We must survive this new historical period when the autocracy is trying
to save itself in a new way and is plainly heading for bankruptcy
again on this new path. We must survive this period, systematically,
persistently, patiently working to build up a broader and stronger organisation
of the more politically conscious masses of the socialist proletariat and the
democratic peasantry. We must utilise all conditions and opportunities for Party
activity at a time when, both the Black-Hundred Duma and the monarchy are
obliged to take the path of partyism. We must use this time as a period for
training fresh masses of the people, on a new basis, under new conditions, to
wage a more vigorous revolutionary struggle for our old demands. The revolution
and the counter-revolution have shown that the monarchy is quite incompatible
with democracy, rule by the people, freedom of the people—we must carry
out among the masses propaganda for the abolition of the monarchy, for
republicanism, as the condition without which the people cannot be
victorious, we must make the slogan of “down with the monarchy” as popular a “household word” as the slogan of
“down with the autocracy” became as a result of the long years of
persistent work by the Social-Democrats in 1895–1904. The revolution and the
counter-revolution have shown in practice the full power and significance of the
landlord class—we must sow among the masses of the peasantry propaganda
for the complete abolition of this class, the complete destruction of
landlordism. The revolution and counter-revolution have shown in actual fact the
true nature of the liberals and bourgeois intelligentsia—we must ensure
that the masses of the peasantry clearly understand that the leadership of the
liberals will ruin their cause, that without independent revolutionary mass
struggle whatever the Cadet “reforms”, they will inevitably remain
in bondage to the landlord. The revolution and counter-revolution have shown us
the alliance of autocracy and the bourgeoisie, the alliance of the Russian and international bourgeoisie—we must educate, rally and
organise in three times greater numbers than in 1905 the masses of the
proletariat, which alone, led by an independent Social-Democratic Party and
marching hand in hand with the proletariat of the advanced countries, is capable
of winning freedom for Russia.

---
Notes:
{1}
This refers to the resolution of the Fifth (London) Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P. “On the Attitude to Non-proletarian Parties” (see The C.P.S.U. in Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences and Plenary Meetings of the Central Committee , 7th Russian ed., Part 1,
1953, pp. 164–65).

{2}
Moskovsky Yezhenedelnik ( Moscow Weekly) —a weekly magazine, organ of the bourgeois-landlord counter-revolutionary “Party of
Peaceful Renovation”, published in Moscow from 1906 to 1910.