…[17] The phrase about waging struggle “by all available means” does not bind anyone to anything. This is perfectly clear. On the contrary, this very phrase was deliberately chosen to justify the evasiveness of the liberals. What, exactly, are “available” means? Is the editor of “Luch” so childishly naive, so politically simple-minded that he is unaware of the “availability” of crude, boorish tactics for Russian liberalism?? He knows full well—but he remains silent, cloaking liberalism in a veneer of respectability.

The liberal millionaire and industrialist Konovalov, who entered the Duma through the crude sham of democracy (a fine example of boorish tactics!), obtained permission to establish the society “Russian Rumor,” with a capital of half a million rubles, its purpose being to bring together the Cadets and the Octobrists in the “progressive” newspaper “Russian Rumor.”{70}

This is a fact. “Luch” knows it well. And “Luch,” along with these Konovalovs and their hired scribes, endorses a resolution calling for “struggle by all available means.” I ask any worker or any literate peasant: is it not obvious that this resolution deceives the people by deliberately using vague language about “availability,” when the Konovalovs knowingly regard as “available” only those means that are incapable of causing serious concern to Messrs. Purishkevich and Co.?

It is plain enough. The entire record of Messrs. Konovalov’s activities—and, of course, not just Konovalov’s, but that of all liberals—has amply demonstrated that they consider “available” only those means which do not undermine the foundations of prosperity or the bases of privilege enjoyed by Messrs. Purishkevich and Co.

We should have gone to the meeting—not to repeat ourselves for the thousandth time (though we will never tire of doing so)—but to expose the deception and to explain to the naive, the ignorant, or the shortsighted democrats what truly lies at the heart of that little word about “availability”—or, if you prefer to speak plainly, what is filth and what is falsehood.

This is the most disgusting, the most depraved, the most insidious term in the Russian political lexicon. From a grammatical standpoint, it is almost laughable to say, “I recognize only those means that are available,” since everyone knows that what is unavailable is, by definition, not available. But here lies the crux of the matter: the issue is not grammatical—it is political. Workers do not regard as “available” what Konovalovs, Miliukovs, and Co. deem “available.”

Let me offer a negative example. Workers regard as “unavailable” such a “means” as declaring Rodzianko’s speech “constitutional” one day, only to denounce the Octobrists the next (who, since October 17—or even earlier—have remained true to themselves and true to the Purishkevichs) for their abject moral turpitude.

As far as I know, workers regard such a tactic—and indeed such a method—as “unavailable” boorishness. Konovalovs and Miliukovs, however, see in this a “available” form of “constitutional” maneuvering.

Now let me turn to a positive example… Though, to be honest… Article 129… No, you know what, gentlemen, allow me, in this article, in this newspaper, or in this journal, to refrain from offering a positive example! But had I been at the meeting—and had the Konovalovs and Miliukovs there pledged not to become informers—I would have cited a vivid, excellent, outstanding, utterly convincing, historically significant, and statistically robust positive example!… It would have been tempting, by God, to describe what workers on the one hand, and Konovalovs and Miliukovs on the other, regard as “available” both in the realm of action in general and in the realm of the purse in particular… But I shall refrain…

We should have gone to the meeting. There might have been more freedom of speech there than “in certain other places.” There, we should have invited democracy to speak out about the harm wrought by reformism—that would have been highly pertinent, given the question at hand. Two resolutions could have emerged: a democratic resolution and a liberal resolution—“unavailable” to the liberals (yet accessible to workers and to conscious petty bourgeois, even if only some of them), while “available” to the Konovalovs. The public would have read both resolutions—or heard about both—and pondered them. They would have delved into the issues. Minds would have begun to stir. People would have started to compare and contrast.

And after some time, no doubt, a segment of democracy—captivated by liberal rhetoric and empty phrases—would have begun to break away from that democracy which regards liberal boorishness as “unavailable,” while finding something else to be “available.” That too would have been a “joint endeavor”—only not in the spirit of those joint conversations with the liberals about the limits of what is “available” to liberalism.

Yes, yes, the newspaper “Luch” is published by despicable liberals—but with just a few more useful editorials like the one in Issue No. 189, workers will finally recognize these “bad shepherds.” Carry on, dear “Luch”-readers—let the road unfold before you like a tablecloth!

Written in May, no earlier than May 10 (23), 1913. Signed: An Outsider

First published, based on the manuscript.