V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v23; en:CW/CW36;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

THE ADOPTION of the so-called vote of no-confidence in the government (on the estimates of the Ministry of the Interior) by the Fourth Duma, with the votes of the Octobrists and Cadets, continues to attract the attention of the press. And indeed, this vote—like the comments on it in the liberal press—deserves serious discussion. The questions raised here are truly of principle: it is necessary to return to them again and again.

The leading article in *Rech* (No. 137) solemnly declared that the day this vote was adopted, May 21, “will retain the significance of a historic date.” Our liberals are great masters of such high-sounding and high-flown phrases, but the very first attempt at a serious analysis of the question of the significance of this Duma decision reveals their astonishing lack of ideas and helplessness.

The liberals do not want to see the most fundamental and indisputable facts that determine the significance of the Duma vote.

First, of the parties that adopted this vote, neither the Octobrists nor the Progressists (with whom the Cadets are in fact inseparably linked!) proposed rejecting the estimates. And on the part of the Cadets, the rejection of the estimates was merely a theatrical gesture to bait the democracy, for everyone knew perfectly well that the Cadets would in fact support the Octobrists.

The “historic” vote is a phrase, because even their indisputable “parliamentary” right to reject the budget was not exercised by the majority of the bourgeois parties. And the Cadets, when the Octobrists and Progressists disagree with them, are a cipher both in the Duma and in the country.

Second, what is the ideological and political content of the vote? “We insist on the speediest implementation of broad reforms,” says the adopted Octobrist vote. The Progressists wrote the same. The same—even stronger: “radical reforms!”—from the “centre” (i.e., semi-Octobrists, semi-Nationalists). The Cadet vote also stands entirely on the same reformist point of view: their expressions are merely sharper, but the ideas are exclusively reformist.

Third, in all the votes, from the Cadets to the Octobrists, the reactionary point of view is clearly expressed.

In this respect, contrary to the lying assurances of *Rech*, the Octobrist vote is not more to the right, but more to the left than the Progressist and even the Cadet vote. Look and judge:

1) from the Progressists: (the ministry) “sows seeds of discord in the country, threatening state security”;
2) from the Cadets: “such a situation presents a serious threat to state and public security”;
3) from the Octobrists: “the ministry kills in the people respect for law and authority and thereby strengthens the opposition mood.”

Translated from the language of “high politics” into plain human language, this means one thing: both the Cadets and the Octobrists and Progressists promise to protect landlord security—as a class, not individuals, of course—better than under the present system.

Fourth, all three of these parties stand on the point of view of nationalism and chauvinism: the ministry allegedly “weakens the might of Russia” (among the Octobrists and Progressists) or “the external might” (even clearer!) “of the state” (among the Cadets).

Such are the facts that the liberals hush up and distort. The “historic” vote of the Fourth Duma is an agreement between the Cadets and the Octobrists, through the mediation of the Progressists, to condemn the government and express a wish for “radical reforms,” on condition of voting the budget and clearly expressing the point of view of reactionary nationalism and chauvinism.