V. I. Lenin

Concerning the Editorial in the Newspaper Luch No. 189

... {1}
The phrase about a struggle waged by “every available means” does not
commit anyone to anything. That is pretty clear. On the contrary, the
phrase seems to have been deliberately chosen to justify the evasiveness of
the liberals. What are “available” means? Is the leader writer in
Luch so childishly naive, is he such a political simpleton that he
is not aware that villainous means are “available” to Russian
liberalism?? He is aware, but he says nothing, thereby putting a nice
make-up on liberalism.

Theliberal millionaire, the industrialist Konovalov, who got into the
Duma through a gross fraud on democracy (a fine villainous means!), has
obtained permission to set up a Russkaya Molva society, with a
capital of half a million rubles , with the aim of coupling the
Cadets with the Octobrists in the “Progressist” newspaper Russkaya Molva . {2}

Thatis a fact, and Luch is aware of it. But together with
these Konovalovs and their hack writers Luch signs a resolution on
a “struggle by every available means”. I put this to any worker and any
thinking peasant: isn’t it clear that this resolution cheats the people by deliberately using vague words about “availability”, while
the Konovalovs are notoriously known to regard as “available”
only those means which cannot seriously inconvenience Messrs. Purishkevich
& Co.?

Thatmuch is clear. All the activity of Messrs. Konovalovs—and, of
course, not the Konovalovs alone, but all the liberals—has provided ample
proof that the only means they regard as available are those which
do not undermine the foundations of the welfare and the
foundations of the privileges of Messrs. Purishkevich & Co.

Therewas need to attend the conference to expose for the thousandth
time (we shall never tire of doing this) the fraud and to explain to the
naive, or ignorant, or slow-witted democrats the “gist” (or, if you want
the straight truth, the dirt and the lie ) of the word “availability”.

Thisis the basest, the most loathsome, the most corrupt word in the
Russian political vocabulary. From the stand point of grammar it is
ridiculous to say: “I recognise only available means”, for who does not
know that the unavailable is not available? But the whole point is
that the question is not a grammatical, but a political one. The workers do
not regard as available the same things as Konovalov, Milyukov
& Co. do.

Letme take a negative example. The workers consider unavailable
“means” like declaring Rodzyanko’s speech “constitutional” today, and
to morrow railing about the infamy of the Octobrists (who have remained
true to themselves and to the Purishkeviches from October 17 or even
earlier).

Theworkers, a fact I am quite sure of, consider that means and that
method “unavailable” villainy. The Konovalovs and the Milyukovs consider
it “available” “constitutional tactics”.

Letme now take a positive example.... On second thoughts ... Article
129.... Now, gentlemen, after all you must allow me not to take
any positive example in this article, in this newspaper or in this
magazine! On the other hand, if I had been at the conference, and if the
Konovalovs and the Milyukovs at the conference had promised not to inform
on me, I would have cited a positive historical and statistical example
that would be fine, excellent, vivid and most convincing!... Upon my word,
it is a temptation to describe what is considered available in the sphere
of action in general and in the sphere of the purse , in
particular, by the workers on the one hand, and by the Konovalovs and the
Milyukovs on the other.... But I shall refrain....

Oneshould have attended the conference. It could have offered
more freedom of speech than “certain other places”. There the democrats
should have been invited to speak out on the harm of reformism—this would
have been opportune from the standpoint of the question that has been
raised. There would have been two resolutions: the democratic and
the liberal, one “unavailable” to the liberals (but available to the
workers and the class-conscious petty bourgeois, or at least to a section
of them) and the other “available” to the Konovalovs. The public would
have read both resolutions or would have heard about both of them and would
have given them thought . It would have thoroughly scrutinised
them. It would have used its brains. People would have started to make
comparisons.

Andsurely within a short while, the democracy which believes liberal
villainy “unavailable” and regards something quite different as available
would have started to split away from the section of democracy
which is captivated by liberal catchwords and empty phrases. That, too,
would have been “joint action”—but not in the spirit of common talk
with the liberals concerning the limits of what is “available” to
liberalism.

Yes,indeed, the newspaper Luch is being run by loathsome
liberals, but if it carries a few more useful leaders like the one in
No. 189, the workers will finally find out these “evil pastors”. Carry
on, gentlemen, and Godspeed!

---
Notes:
{1}
The beginning of the article has not been discovered.— Ed .

{2}
Russkaya Molva (Russian Tidings)—a daily of the bourgeois-landowner party of Progressists published in St. Petersburg from
December 9 (22), 1912, to August 20 (September 2), 1913.

p. 283