V. I.

Lenin

The opening of the last session of the Third Duma immediately raised the question as to the results of the work of that
body. One of the principal results maybe formulated in the words of
Rech , which recently stated in a leading article:

“ A number of votes recently taken in the Duma actually reflect the
domination of a ‘Left Centre’ in that body.... The real activity of the
Duma, that concerns the vital interests and demands of life, from the very
beginning of the session has invariably and systematically proceeded along
the lines of a Left Centre (non-existent, of course).”

And, as if to catch out the Prime Minister himself, Rech
exclaims in a transport of rejoicing: “Mr. Kokovtsov did not hesitate [in
his first speech] to declare three times that he was fully in agreement
with the arguments of [the Cadet] Stepanov”.

It is an indisputable fact that a “Left Centre” actually does
exist. Only, it is open to question whether this fact is a symptom of
“life” or of stagnation.

From the very beginning there have been two possible majorities in the
Third Duma. As far back as the end of 1907, before this Duma began its
“activities”, the Marxist estimate of the situation and of the Third Duma
centred around the recognition of the existence of these “two possible
majorities” and their characterisation.

One majority is the Black-Hundred and Right-Octobrist combination, the
other—that of the Octobrists and Cadets. The Third Duma was elected on
the basis of a law so devised as to produce these two possible
majorities. Our liberals pretend in vain that they do not see this.

It was neither accident nor the, cunning calculation of individuals,
but the entire course of the class struggle in the 1905–07 period, that
forced the government to take this path, and no other. Events had shown
that it was impossible to bank on the mass of the population. Previously,
before the “events”, it had been possible to maintain the illusion of an
official “popular policy”, but that illusion had been shattered by the
events. It had become necessary to bank openly and cynically on one ruling
class—the class of the Purishkeviches and Markovs—and on the sympathy
or the fright of the bourgeoisie. The dominating tendency among some
sections of the bourgeoisie was an eager desire to render systematic
support (the Octobrists); among other sections it was sympathy for
so-called “law and order” or fright (the Cadets)—the difference was of
no material importance.

The change referred to in the entire political system of
Russia was already indicated by the conversations which Witte, Trepov, and
Stolypin had conducted since the end of 1905 with Urusov, Trubetskoi,
Guchkov, Muromtsev, and Milyukov. This change became fully defined and
assumed a state-constitutional form in the Third Duma with its two possible
majorities.

There is no need to dwell upon the reason why the present political
regime is in need of the first majority. But people are wont to forget that
it stands in just as much need of the second—that of the Octobrists and
the Cadets. Without the “bourgeois plaintiff” the government could not be
what it is. Unless it comes to terms with the bourgeoisie it cannot
exist. Without attempts to reconcile the Purishkeviches and Markovs with a
bourgeois system and with the bourgeois development of Russia, neither the
Ministry of Finance nor all the ministries combined can survive.

And if today the “Left Centre”, despite its unassuming character,
proves to be dissatisfied, it testifies, of course, to the growing
conviction among the bourgeoisie as a whole that its sacrifices on
the altar of the Purishkeviches have been made in vain.

But “the vital interests and demands of life” cannot be satisfied by
these lamentations and complaints of the “Left Centre”; they can only be
satisfied if all the forces of democracy are aware of the causes of the
impotence and wretched position of the Centre. This is because the entire Centre, including the
Loft, is counter-revolutionary: the Purishkeviches make them groan but the
Centre will not and cannot dispense with them. That is why theirs
is such a bitter lot, that is why the Left Centre cannot boast a single
victory, not even a shred of a victory.

The “Left Centre” of which Rech speaks, represents death and
not life—at decisive moments of Russian history, all those belonging to
it became scared of democracy and turned their backs on it. But the cause
of democracy is a live cause, the most vital in Russia.

The vital interests and demands of life are asserting them selves in
spheres that are far removed from the “Left Centre” which occupies the
whole attention of the Cadets. On reading, for instance, the reports on the
Duma debate on the secret political police, the thoughtful reader naturally
could not help noticing that the presentation of the question in the
speeches of Pokrovsky the Second and, particularly, of Gegechkori, was
vastly different from that of Rodichev and his colleagues, as different as
earth and sky, as life and death.

---
Notes: