V. I.

Lenin

FROM WHOM DOES SUPPORT COME?

Our liberal press has taken the notorious Fourth Duma formula on the Ministry of the Interior estimates to mean
that “the government is acting in something of a vacuum....
The government has no friends in the country with the exception of the subsidised newspapers, and the handfuls
of politicians who are also subsidised and are loyal only
so long as the subsidy lasts.”

That is the opinion of the “serious”, professorial Russkiye Vedomosti , and that’s no joke!

“ The government is completely isolated, and finds no support even in the political groups it set up itself.” That
is the opinion of Rech .

It would probably be hard to match the puerility displayed in these observations by the professors, lawyers,
writers and deputies of the liberal camp. Theirs is a truly
incurable parliamentary cretinism, in a country where “there is, thank God, no
parliament”! [1]

In a vacuum, you say?

But haven’t you heard, Messrs, professors and deputies,
of the Council of the United Nobility, and of its support
of the government’s policy; of the hundred million or so
of dessiatines of the best land in the best parts of Russia
belonging to the landowning class; of all the key civil and
military posts held by the same class; of the sugar and
other finance barons among the same class?

You haven’t heard of all that? Oh, ye wise statesmen of
liberalism!

The government, you say, is completely isolated, it has
no friends in the country?

But what are you there for, gentlemen? Wasn’t it you, together with the Progressists and the Octobrists, who voted
the estimates of the Ministry of the Interior?

Imagine the existence of millionaire acquaintances who easily give you as much money as you want, while
expressing “wishes” which are not binding on anybody. Don’t you
think, gentlemen, that we should be entitled to call these
millionaires our friends, and that we should not feel ourselves “isolated” (among the millionaires)?

But by your formula you have extended to the government not only material but also great ideological support.
This is very important, and you must not think that we shall
allow you to dodge this ticklish question before the public.

What was the argument about in the Duma? To vote the funds, but to express a wish for—the reform of the police
and for “normal limits of the legal system”, said the nationalists. To vote the funds, but to express a desire for
radical or broad reforms, said the Octobrists, adding that
their unequivocal stand is counter-revolutionary nationalism and chauvinism.

And now all the liberals perform this trick: they keep silent about the addition, but express delight over the
demand for “radical reforms”! All that is lacking is an
addendum to their list, on the suggestion of some clever
liquidator, on “freedom of association and review of agrarian legislation”....

The feudal landowners are backing the old system. The bourgeoisie is in favour of reform. By its “formula” it
inflicted a moral blow on the government. But at the same time that bourgeoisie gave moral support to the
government by emphasising its counter-revolutionary attitude!
And such support is a hundred times more effective and weighty than dozens of “moral” blows.

The “historic” Duma formula provides fresh confirmation that the June Third
system [2] has entered a blind alley. And the bourgeoisie, maintaining the position
described, cannot get out of that blind alley. The experience
of history teaches us that the bourgeoisie may daydream
about reforms, stagnate in a blind alley and bear the yoke
of the Purishkeviches for decades, unless the crisis is
resolved the way the liberals dread and hope to exorcise.

---
Notes:
[1]
An exclamation of V. Kokovtsev, then Minister of Finance (later,
Prime Minister), in the Duma on April 24, 1908.

[2]
On June 3 (16), 1907, the tsarist government arbitrarily dissolved
the Second Duma and issued a new electoral law which greatly
increased the representation of the landowners and the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie and sharply reduced the number
of peasants’, workers’ and non-Russian deputies. It assured the reactionary bloc of landowners and big capitalists of complete
domination of the Third and Fourth Dumas. The June 3 coup
ushered in the period of Stolypin reaction known as the June Third
regime.