V. I.

Lenin

We are constantly making the mistake in Russia of judging
the slogans and tactics of a certain party or group, of judging its general
trend, by the intentions or motives that the group claims for itself. Such
judgement is worthless. The road to hell—as was said long ago—is paved
with good intentions.

It is not a matter of intentions, motives or words but of the objective
situation, independent of them, that determines the fate and significance
of slogans, of tactics or, in general, of the trend of a given party or
group.

Let us approach the analysis of the most important questions of the
contemporary working-class movement from that point of view. The strike in
St. Petersburg on July 1–3 involved over 62,000 workers even according to
the estimates of the bourgeois papers Rech and Russkoye Slovo , which always give reduced figures in these cases.

We are, therefore, faced with the fact that a mass, over 60,000 strong,
went into action. As we know, the direct reason for the strike was to
protest against the persecution of the working-class press, the daily
confiscation of newspapers, etc., etc. We also know from reports even in
such newspapers as Novoye Vremya , Rech , Sovremenka [1] and Russkoye Slovo that workers
stressed, in their speeches and in other ways, the nation-wide significance
of the protest.

How did the various classes of Russian society react to the event? What
position did they adopt?

We know that
Rossiya , [2] Zemshchina and similar papers printed the
usual sharply condemnatory statements—often accompanied by the crudest
invective, threats, etc. There is nothing new in that. It is
understandable. It is inevitable.

Much “newer” is the amazing indifference of the bourgeoisie, as
reflected in the indifference of the liberal news papers; furthermore, in
many cases this indifference changes to a negative attitude, whereas
working-class actions that were less important, numerically less
significant (17 or 18 years ago), met with the obvious sympathy of
liberal-bourgeois society. Here we undoubtedly have a decisive liberal turn
to the right, away from democracy and against democracy.

With reference to the events of July 1–3 in St. Petersburg, one of the
most widely circulated, if not the most widely circulated, newspapers in
Russia (the liberal Russkoye Slovo ) said:

“ It is interesting to note the attitude to this strike
on the part of the Social-Democratic newspapers published in
St. Petersburg. The Social-Democratic Pravda devotes considerable
space to yesterday’s [written on July 3] strike, but the organ of the
so-called liquidators’ group, the newspaper Luch , confines itself
to a small note on the strike and devotes a leading article to political
strikes [ Luch , July 2], in which the newspaper protests against
such actions by the workers.” ( Russkoye Slovo , July 3, 1913.)

Such are the facts. Hostility on the part of the reactionaries. Indifference and denial by the liberals and
liquidators. Unity of liberalism and liquidationism in deed. Unity of mass
working-class action, possible only in the struggle against the
liquidators.

The proletariat cannot do its democratic duty, serve as the advanced
contingent, give service to, educate and consolidate the masses of the
people other than by a decisive struggle against the liquidators, who, in
fact, are completely dependent on liberalism.

The liberals, too, frequently play at being radicals from the Duma
rostrum and do it as well as the various near-Marxist or wavering elements,
hut that does not prevent the liberals from fighting (with the aid of the
liquidators) the democratic aspirations of the masses outside the Duma.

---
Notes:
[1]
Sovremenka refers to Sovremennoye Slovo ( Contemporary Word )—a Cadet daily published in St. Petersburg from 1907 to
1918.

[2]
Rossiya ( Russia )—a Black-Hundred daily published in
St. Petersburg from 1905 to 1914. From 1906 onwards it was the organ of the
Ministry of the Interior. Lenin called it “a venal police news
paper”