Date: 1910-10-07
Source: ru:PSS/v47
Source: CW vol 47

"Spuren bekommen..; for Russia, a picture was painted of how the 100 million
peasants, who have not yet been taken to school by the capitalist bourgeoisie, would unite with the proletariat..."
("Neue Zeit", p. 909). This is precisely Russian quesseltum!
The Russian Quessel forgot to mention that in the agrarian program of the Russian Social-Democrats (adopted in Stockholm in 1906, when the Mensheviks had a majority!!)
it states "support for the revolutionary uprisings of the peasantry up to and including the confiscation
of the landed estates." Is there anything similar in "Europe," oh, Russian Quessel?

No, because in Europe, the revolutionary setting of the questions of the bourgeois revolution has already passed. The "school of the capitalist bourgeoisie" for the Russian peasants is a school of treachery and
betrayal by the liberal bourgeoisie (which betrayed the peasants to the landowners and absolutism), and only extreme opportunists can defend such a school.

By ridiculing the "union of 100 million peasants with the proletariat," Martov ridicules
the entire revolution, which in practice showed such a union both on the arena of the uprising (October, November-December 1905) and on the arena of both the first Dumas (1906 and 1907).

Martov helplessly wavers between the liberals (who are against "confiscation of lands," against "revolutionary uprisings of the peasantry") and the Social-Democrats,
who have not yet renounced in the slightest their support for the peasant uprising and
their declaration of this in their program.

Martov thinks that the question on the agenda during the years of the revolution (1905-7) was not about
a republic, but "die Frage der Unabhangigkeit der Volksvertretung" (p. 918)*. Independence from whom? from the monarchy, which was carrying out

* - "the question of the independence of the people's representation" (p. 918). Ed.

Staatsstreiche*? The Russian opportunists forget even the connection between the agrarian and political revolutions (is it possible to fight for the confiscation of lands without fighting for a republic?), they forget that the era of Staatsstreiche, Aufstande, Niederwerfungsstreiks** due to its objective conditions, and not our will, puts the question of the republic on the agenda. "Republic" as a slogan of the day in 1905 = "romanticism"; "independence" (from
the monarchy, which was carrying out Staatsstreiche and leading den Burgerkrieg***) = Realpolitik****, -
isn't that right, oh, Russian Quessel?

A propos*****. Rosa Luxemburg argued with Kautsky about whether the moment for Niederwerfungsstrategie****** had arrived for Germany,
whereupon Kautsky clearly and directly said that he considered
this moment inevitable and close, but not yet arrived. And Martov, "deepening" (verballhornend) Kautsky, denies the applicability of Niederwerfungsstrategie to 1905
in Russia!! Martov believes that the December 1905 uprising was "kunstlich"******* provoked
("Neue Zeit", p. 913). Die Leute, welche so glauben, konnen nur kunstlich zur
Sozialdemokratie gerechnet werden. Naturlich sind sie Nationalliberale********
Martov ridicules the view that the proletariat is "die ausschlaggebende Macht"********* (p. 909) in the revolution. Only the liberals have so far dared (and even then not always) to deny the indisputable historical fact that the Russian proletariat in 1905 played the role of "the decisive force." And when the theory that denies

* - coups d'état. Ed.

** - coups d'état, uprisings, mass political strikes. Ed.

*** - civil war. Ed.

**** - realpolitik. Ed.

***** - Incidentally. Ed.

****** - the strategy of overthrow. Ed.

******* - "artificially." Ed.

******** - People who think this way can only be artificially counted as Social-Democrats. In essence, they are National Liberals. Ed.

********* - "the decisive force" (in this case, the leading, guiding force). Ed.