More than a week has passed since the dissolution of the Fourth Duma{102}, yet the newspapers still abound in comments on it and appraisals of its activities. The general dissatisfaction with the Fourth Duma is universally recognised. Not only the liberals are dissatisfied, not only the “responsible” (to the landlords) opposition. The Octobrists, too, are dissatisfied. The Right is dissatisfied, too.

This dissatisfaction with the Black Duma on the part of the reactionary landlords and the reactionary bourgeoisie is unquestionably highly characteristic and significant. These classes did everything possible to ensure so‑called “peaceful”, “constitutional” development.

They did everything—and were forced to realise that nothing came of it! Hence the general dissatisfaction in the camp of the landlords and the bourgeoisie themselves. Both the Right and the Octobrists lack the elation with, and enthusiasm for, the third‑June system that was typical of the epoch of the Third Duma.

Our so‑called “upper” classes, the social and political “upper crust”, cannot govern Russia in the old way, despite the fact that all the foundations of the state system and administration of Russia have been entirely determined by them and set up in their interests. And the “lower depths” are full of the desire to alter this administration.

The coincidence of this impossibility for the “upper crust” to conduct state affairs in the old way and this sharpened unwillingness of the “lower depths” to put up with such conduct constitutes precisely what is called (somewhat inaccurately, it is true) a political crisis on a nation‑wide scale.

The growth of this crisis before our very eyes is a fact, and a fact that is hardly open to dispute.

From this, it would seem, it should be clear to democrats and even to sensible liberals that the centre of gravity of strivings for a better order does not lie in the Duma at all, that in this respect the Duma is merely an inaccurate indicator.

But our liberals have long been letting themselves go. “Both the Third and the Fourth Dumas are a parody of popular representation,” wrote the *Rech* leader‑writer, “but even so, it is they that exist, and hic Rhodus, hic salta” (a Latin saying that means literally: “Here is Rhodes, here you dance”, i.e., here is the main point, here is the essence, here you must prove yourself, here you must fight).

You are mistaken, gentlemen! “Rhodes” is not here, and the “dancing” will not take place here, just as it did not begin here.

Only the lackeys of the landlords and the money‑bags can regard the Fourth Duma as a “Rhodes” for democracy, can forget that besides the Duma there “exist”, for instance, the working‑class movement with its nation‑wide significance, however much the liberals hush up that significance, and however much the liberal labour politicians—the liquidators—mutilate and whittle down that significance.

“Have we done everything in our power,” exclaims *Rech*, “to influence the Duma, to compel it to follow and carry out our demands?”

This is not very grammatical, but it is clear enough. “We” means the landlords and the bourgeoisie. It is this “society” that *Rech* sees, it is only this “public” opinion, only it that interests it.

Compel the most reactionary landlords to “carry out the demands” of the liberal landlords and the liberal bourgeoisie, who themselves do not know what they should “demand”, what they want: a change for the better, or a weakening of the working‑class movement that is carrying out this change, with its nation‑wide sweep?

Poor little liberals!

*Pravda*, No. 151, July 5, 1913

Printed from the text of the newspaper *Pravda*