Date: 1913
Source: ru:PSS/v22
Source: CW vol 22

I

Recently, a regular meeting of the Cadet deputies with local figures of this party took place.

As expected, they discussed the peculiarities of the current political moment. The liberal assessment of this moment is as follows:

"Attention was drawn to the growing discrepancy between the country's needs for fundamental legislation and the impossibility of satisfying them under the present arrangement of legislative institutions and the current attitude of the authorities towards the people's representation."

The language is as tangled as a ball of yarn that a kitten has been playing with for a long time. Poor little liberals, there is no place for them to express their thoughts clearly!

But look closer: it is not so much that there is no place, but rather that the liberals have nothing to say. The discrepancy is growing not only between the country's needs and the hopelessness of the "present arrangement" and so on, but also between the country's needs and the helplessness of liberalism.

Why is it impossible to satisfy the country's needs, gentlemen liberal politicians? The Cadets' answer: the present arrangement of legislative institutions and the current attitude of the authorities towards the people's representation are hindering it.

Conclusion: a different arrangement and a different attitude of the authorities are necessary. What exactly, we will see when analyzing the "four points" of the Cadet meeting in the following articles.

But first, we must raise the main question: what explains the "present" "arrangement and attitude"? Where can a different one come from? The Cadets did not even think about this! Their silence on this fundamental question boils down to a callous, Asian philistinism, like the idea that there were bad advisors, and there could be good ones...

Is there no connection, gentlemen Cadets, between the "present" and the interests of any class, for example, the class of large landowners? Or the wealthiest bourgeoisie? Is there not a complete correspondence between the "present" and the interests of certain classes? Is it not clear that discussing the political moment without considering the interrelations between all classes means engaging in idle chatter?

Alas! Besides idle chatter, the Cadets have nothing to cover up the "growing discrepancy" between their policy and the needs of the country.

II

Our liberals in general – and behind them, the liberal working-class politicians (liquidators) – love to talk and talk about the "Europeanization" of Russia. A tiny bit of truth serves here to conceal a big lie.

Undoubtedly, Russia, generally speaking, is Europeanizing, that is, being restructured in the image and likeness of Europe (whereby "Europe" now includes, contrary to geography, Japan and China). But this general Europeanization has been going on since Alexander II, if not since Peter the Great, and it continues during the upsurge (1905), during the reaction (1908–1911), and even in the police and among landowners of the type of Markov, who "Europeanize" their methods of struggle against democracy.

The word "Europeanization" turns out to be so general that it serves to confuse the issue, to obscure the pressing questions of politics.

Liberals want the Europeanization of Russia. But the United Nobility Council, with its law of November 9, 1906 (June 14, 1910), also strives for Europeanization.

Liberals want a European constitution. But the constitutions established in various European countries were the result of a long and hard class struggle between feudalism and absolutism on one side, and the bourgeoisie, peasants, and workers on the other. The written and unwritten constitutions, which our reactionaries are "shamed" by the liberals, are merely a record of the results of the struggle, achieved after a series of hard-won victories of the new over the old and a series of defeats inflicted on the new by the old.

Liberals want us to have the results without the sum of pluses and minuses that make up those results! The liberal program and liberal tactics boil down to this: let us have a European order without the heavy struggle that created it in Europe!

It is understandable that our Kobylin types meet the wishes and arguments of the liberals with contemptuous outbursts against "shopkeepers" and "peasants." – You want, gentlemen liberals, – say the Kobylin types, – to write down on paper the victories you have not yet won in life.

III

The Cadet meeting adopted four points on the question of tactics. The first reads:

"The tactic of united action by the entire front of the opposition, while being a necessary condition for the implementation of the current practical activities of the State Duma, does not, however, guarantee either the obtaining of a stable and permanent majority in the State Duma for the opposition's bills, or the actual implementation of those bills which the opposition could pass through the State Duma with the help of the Duma center."

This gibberish, translated into Russian, means the following:

Liberals can only form a majority in the State Duma with the Octobrists. Such a majority is not permanent, and its decisions do not go into effect.

Correct. But the conclusion from this is that calling these decisions "necessary," "current," and "practical" (!??) activity means deceiving oneself and the people.

While defeating the rightists by voting with the Octobrists, we should not adopt the point of view of legislating in the Fourth Duma, nor should we sow constitutional illusions – this is what the Cadets should have said to the people if they wanted to be democrats not just in words.

The first "point" of the Cadet meeting is striking in its illogicality. The adoption of unimplementable bills by an unstable and non-permanent majority of the Fourth Duma is called "practical" activity!! The Cadets themselves have hundreds of times called this, and rightly so, vermicelli and boredom.

But the Cadet tactics, outrageously absurd from the standpoint of logic, become understandable from the standpoint of class interests. Let us recall what the Social-Democrats said about the Third and Fourth Dumas starting from 1907. – In the Duma, there are two majorities, they said: the right-Octobrist and the Octobrist-Cadet. Both stand on counter-revolutionary ground (cf. "Prosveshcheniye," 1913, No. 1, p. 13[50]).

The February 1913 Cadet meeting confirmed what we had been saying in our official resolutions since 1907.

"The tactic of united action by the entire front of the opposition... with the help of the Duma center" is necessary for the Cadets because, like the Octobrists, they stand on counter-revolutionary ground. Given the internal kinship of both, it is understandable that they are drawn to joint "practical" activity, despite its current hopelessness.

The Octobrists constantly whine in their press, scolding the revolution, scolding the government, the rightists, the State Council, – but in the Duma, they limit themselves to wishes for reforms and follow the government.

The Cadets whine even more in their press, scolding the revolution, scolding the government, the rightists, the State Council, and the Octobrists, – but in the Duma, they limit themselves to wishes for reforms and try to adjust their oppositional stance to that of the Octobrists.

IV

The second point of the Cadet meeting reads:

"Essential strengthening of the State Duma as a legislative and political factor can be achieved only through the realization of three basic conditions: democratization of the electoral law (universal suffrage), a radical reform of the State Council, and ministerial responsibility."

The essence of the tactics outlined here can be expressed in one word: reformism.

Historical science tells us that the difference between reformist and non-reformist changes in a given political system, generally speaking, lies in the fact that in the former, power remains in the hands of the former ruling class; in the latter, power passes from the hands of the former class to the hands of the new one. The Cadets do not understand the class basis of historical transformations. This is the fundamental error of the Cadets from the theoretical point of view.

From the practical point of view, the indicated theoretical distinction boils down to whether the private changes while the general and fundamental remain unchanged, or whether the latter changes.

In different countries at different moments in history, the bourgeoisie has been reformist, and at other times, it has not limited itself to reformism. On the other hand, the working class, while never recognizing the ability of reforms to bring about essential changes, by no means refuses to put forward immediate demands in the form of reforms under certain conditions.

On the one hand, the working class, never recognizing reforms as capable of bringing about substantial changes, does not, under certain conditions, refuse to put forward immediate demands in the form of reforms.

The point is that the Cadets consider it indisputable to maintain the dominance of the present ruling class, i.e., the large feudal-type landowners. The Cadets continue to stand on the viewpoint of opposition with a genitive case, continuing to adhere to the view that "thank God, there is a constitution in Russia."

In other words, the "three basic conditions" of the Cadets are the conditions proposed by the liberal bourgeoisie for an amicable division of economic and political privileges between feudal land ownership and capital.

The Octobrists stand on the same viewpoint ("reconciliation of the government with the country" – in the language of either an Octobrist or a Cadet, Maklakov), but the Octobrists put forward more "complaisant" conditions for the division for the landowners.

The greater complaisance of the Octobrists has gone bankrupt. What grounds are there to expect a different result from the lesser complaisance of the Cadets? From the standpoint of reformism, the Octobrists are much more consistent, for whoever takes this standpoint must take into account the acceptability of reforms, and the Octobrist "reforms" are much more "acceptable."

The conclusion is one: the discrepancy between liberal reformism and the needs of the country is increasing.

V

The third resolution of the C.-D. [Cadet] conference states:

"The preparation of these conditions should be made the main task of the tactics of the C.-D., while the current legislative activity, jointly with other opposition groups and with the center, should be utilized, insofar as it proves feasible, but it should not come into conflict with the implementation of these main tasks" (Rech No. 34, February 4).

The previous "resolution" was a concession to the left Cadets or, rather, a lure for democracy: support us, the Cadets, because we are "democrats," we are for universal suffrage!

After a nod to the left – a serious turn to the right: the 3rd resolution, translated from gibberish into Russian, reads: with the Progressists and the Octobrists, we, the C.-D., recognize joint current legislative activity!

But isn't this "current" legislation producing unfeasible bills, as recognized in the first resolution? The Cadets have a reservation: "insofar as it is feasible." That is, to put it more directly, we will engage in trifles, but let the responsibility for this fall on the Octobrists! Our Cadets are really amusing...

Furthermore, neither the Progressists nor the Octobrists, standing more consistently than the C.-D. on the reformist position, agree to such "excessively" liberal demands as universal suffrage, a fundamental reform of the State Council, etc. How can the Cadets, who still claim to be democratic, proclaim joint current legislative activity with these known opponents of democracy?

And here the Cadets have a reservation: we, the C.-D., are engaged in preparing for universal suffrage, preparing through joint activity with the Octobrists, which "should not come into conflict with the implementation" of universal suffrage!

A simple loophole: we declare Rodzyanko's speech "constitutional," we vote (not by mistake, like the S.D. [Social Democrats], but out of conviction) for the Octobrist formula on the ministerial declaration, for all this does not contradict the "preparation" for universal suffrage!!

Here it cannot be said that the Cadets are amusing. Here another word should be used...

In all European countries, the counter-revolutionary, democracy-abandoning liberal bourgeoisie continues to assert that it is engaged in preparing (jointly with the National Liberals – in Prussia, jointly with all Progressists – in France) "basic" democratic reforms.

That bourgeoisie which has finally moved onto the reformist path is a rotten bourgeoisie, powerless in its liberalism, hopeless in the cause of democratic change, hostile to the workers, and gone over to the right from the people.

VI

The last, 4th, resolution of the C.-D. conference states:

"The conference considers it timely, along with putting forward the aforementioned three slogans, to raise the question of applying more active tactical measures of parliamentary struggle."

Only parliamentary? and only to raise the question?

What exactly "more active tactical measures of parliamentary struggle" means, Allah knows. The Cadet conference deliberately formulated its resolutions in the most incomprehensible language.

Speaking of more active measures, the Cadets clearly want to show that they are moving to the left. But this is precisely just a show, for nothing definite can be read from it.

What "measures" of parliamentary struggle can generally be called more active?

Not to vote for the Octobrist and Progressist transition formulas.

Not to make speeches about "reconciliation of the government with the country."

Never to be silent when the right-Octobrist majority carries out anti-democratic measures.

Not to agree to the closure and curtailment of general, principled debates.

We advise everyone who comes into contact with the Cadets not to forget to ask them: have they "raised" the question of more active measures? how did they decide this question if they intended to raise it? how do they apply "more active measures" in practice?

The country is moving to the left. A new democracy is awakening to life. The ostentatious slight move to the left by the Cadets has a completely definite political significance: to deceive this new democracy, to lead it behind them, to pass themselves off as its representatives.

The pressing task of democracy is to prevent this deception. Whoever has not drawn from the heavy lessons of the past the conclusion that even partial leadership of democratic elements by the Cadets inevitably leads to vacillations, betrayals, inglorious defeats without a fight, has learned nothing. Such a person must be regarded as an enemy of democracy.

VII

Taken as a whole, the Cadet conference represents an interesting document on the political life of our "center." Usually, little attention is paid to such documents, to precise and formal decisions of organized parties. "Resolutions" are disliked. Interviews and gossip are preferred.

But a serious attitude towards politics requires the most careful analysis of party decisions, and Marxists will do everything in their power for such an analysis.

We have called the Cadets the "center." It is customary to call the Octobrists, who stand between the rights and the opposition, the center.

However, from the standpoint of the class foundations of political parties and the essence of contemporary politics in general, one cannot limit oneself to the Duma in analyzing parties; one cannot consider only the Octobrists as the "center."

Look at the class foundations of our parties: the rights and the nationalists, in general, are serf-owning landlords. They stand for the preservation and "intensification" of the present regime.

Among the Octobrists, Progressists, and Cadets, we see a landlord, undoubtedly of a more bourgeois type, and then a mass of big bourgeoisie. All these parties want reforms. All of them form the real center between the serf-owning landlords and democracy (peasant and worker).

The bourgeoisie fears democracy more than reaction; this applies to both the Progressists and the Cadets. The oppositional nature of the latter two parties, of course, must be taken into account in the practical tasks of everyday politics, but this oppositional nature should not obscure from us the class kinship of these parties with the Octobrists.

The serf-owning landlords rule both alone and in a bloc with the upper echelons of the bourgeoisie. The serf-owning landlords are against reforms. The bourgeoisie, generally speaking, is for reforms, although it limits itself to a reformist position, which cannot be said of either peasant or, especially, worker democracy.

The Cadet conference clearly shows us the reformism of the Cadets as their exclusive tactic. It is most important to understand the connection of this tactic with the class interests of the bourgeoisie and the inadequacy of this tactic, its "growing inconsistency" with the needs of the country. It is most important to understand the fundamental kinship of the C.-D. with the Octobrists and the absolute impossibility of any success for democracy under the leadership of the Cadets.

VIII

inconsistency" with the needs of the country. It is most important to understand the fundamental kinship of the Cadets with the Octobrists and the absolute impossibility of any successes for democracy under the leadership of the Cadets.

VIII

My little article was already finished when I received No. 30 of the newspaper "Voice of Moscow" with an editorial article "What Next?" dedicated to the Cadet conference.

This article, in connection with the Duma votes on February 6 (the adoption of the transition formula according to Kasso's explanations){179}, is of such importance and sheds such a bright light on the question of the Cadets' attitude towards the Octobrists that it becomes absolutely necessary to talk about them.

The official organ of the Octobrists, "Voice of Moscow," portrays the Cadet conference (for some reason, it calls it a convention) as a victory of the left Cadets, led by Milyukov, over the right Cadets.

"Legislative activity," so "Voice of Moscow" presents the Cadet resolution, "can be utilized only insofar as it does not contradict these basic tasks" (i.e., universal suffrage, reform of the State Council, and ministerial responsibility).

"In other words, the adoption of such a formula is equivalent to a refusal to engage in any legislative work within the limits of real feasibility, and the Cadet opposition from now on takes on the character of an openly irresponsible one."

"Voice of Moscow" concludes from this that there is nothing left but to dissolve the Duma, because the Octobrists will never take such a "uncompromising (no joking!)" position as the Cadets, there is no majority in the Duma, "complete hopelessness"...

This is how history is written!

Here is where the deepest kinship of the Cadets with the Octobrists and the true nature of their "quarrels" are remarkably revealed: lovers' quarrels...

On February 6, in Moscow, the official organ of the Octobrists, as we have seen, announced the complete destruction of the Octobrist-Cadet bloc after the Cadet conference, which took place before February 4 (on February 4, "Rech" published about the conference).

On the same day, February 6, in St. Petersburg, in the IV State Duma, the Octobrists and Cadets together adopted the Octobrist-Cadet transition formula to Kasso's explanations by 173 votes against 153—a formula that was then accidentally rejected during the verification vote!!

Isn't it nice?

Before us is a classic example of how the Octobrists and Cadets handle their political "deals." They are not in any "bloc," God forbid! But they distribute roles among themselves for deceiving the public so "skillfully" that no formal bloc would give them such "conveniences." The Cadets see that the country is moving to the left, that a new democracy is emerging, and therefore they play at being left, putting into circulation, through their conference, several absolutely meaningless, completely contentless, but seemingly left phrases. The Octobrists support this mood or impression in the public, as if the Cadets had moved to the left, by officially, in the editorial of "Voice of Moscow," declaring the Cadets' position uncompromising, declaring the formation of a majority in the Duma through the union of the Octobrists with the Cadets impossible, denouncing the Cadets for their leftism, making noise about dissolving the Duma, etc., and so on.

In reality—under the cover of this noise—they are bargaining with the Cadets and, precisely at the time of their sharpest attack on the Cadets' leftism, they come to an agreement with them on a common formula!!

"The wolves are fed, and the sheep are safe." And democracy is led by the nose, deceived, lured into the Cadet flock (after all, the Cadets are such leftists... look how the Octobrists curse them for their leftism!), and the Octobrist-Cadet bloc in the Black Duma is preserved, strengthened, and developed.

One wants to exclaim: oh, heavens! When will the Russian democracy understand this simple mechanism of liberal Cadet deception? After all, in all European countries, liberal bourgeois politicians, one way or another, play exactly this game; in front of the people, for elections, in official speeches, they shout and swear that they are democrats, radicals (German "free thinkers," Lloyd George and Co. in England), even socialists (radical-socialists in France). But in reality, in their real politics, they go hand in hand with unconditionally anti-democratic governments and parties, with Octobrists of various shades and nationalities.

How old this story is and how infinitely often the Cadets repeat it!

IX

"Voice of Moscow" asserts that before the Cadet elections, "they engaged in fierce polemics with the left, proving the necessity of legislative work within the limits of real conditions. This gave grounds to hope for the possibility of an agreement between the Duma center and the opposition. But after the elections, there was a significant change in the views of the leaders of the Cadet party. The resolution proposed by Milyukov and adopted by the conference on the issue of Duma tactics fundamentally differs from everything that was said during the elections, obviously to attract the votes of the large urban bourgeoisie. The latter would hardly agree to support the Cadets on the platform now put forward by the conference."

Here is an example of judgments in which one does not know what to marvel at: naive cunning or naive ignorance.

There is no change in the views of the Cadets. They have always been and remain a liberal party, leading democracy by deception. And in the 1912 elections, the Cadets, in front of the large bourgeoisie, put forward their "true" face, their "solidarity" of businessmen, their "sobriety" as servants of the capitalist class. And in front of the democratic electorate, the same Cadets at the same time raved that they were democrats and that their tactics in the Duma did not differ substantially from the Social-Democratic ones.

These two sides of Cadet policy are a necessary "accessory of the costume" of every liberal party in all civilized countries. Of course, individual members of the party often choose as their specialty, some playing at being democratic, others sobering up the "enthusiasts" and conducting "serious" bourgeois politics. But this happens in all countries. For example, the well-known liberal charlatan in England, Lloyd George, portrays himself in speeches to the people as almost a revolutionary and a bit of a socialist, while in reality, this minister follows his leader, Asquith, who yields nothing to a conservative.

If the "Voice of Moscow" article portrays Mr. Milyukov as a representative of the left Cadets, it only evokes a smile. Mr. Milyukov, in fact, is a representative of the official Cadet diplomacy, reconciling the undemocratic essence of the party with democratic rhetoric.

"Voice of Moscow" writes:

"This new 'post-election' position of Mr. Milyukov was approved by the conference far from unanimously. A significant part of its members insisted on a tactic of agreement with the Duma center to pass individual projects and cultural reforms. Supporters of this point of view argued that in discussing various bills, the faction should go for compromises, trying to pass them in a liberal spirit and by no means making them unacceptable." This is followed by a dig at the "famous Cadet discipline" and the "unquestioning subordination" of the Cadets to the "autocratic will" of Mr. Milyukov.

The game is obvious. Stitched with white thread. The Octobrists "tease" the right Cadets, trying to portray them as defeated and provoke them into a more decisive struggle with the left Cadets. But this game of the Octobrists (which would be impossible if the Cadets and Octobrists were not members of the same family) does not eliminate the indisputable fact of the difference in shades between the left and right Cadets, between the Lloyd Georges and Asquiths of our liberalism.

Look at "Russian Public Opinion." This organ of the Progressists, the organ preaching compromise between the Octobrists and the Cadets, is attracting more and more official members of the Cadet party. Not immediately, but gradually, following the "Vekhi" leader Struve, Mansyrev, Maklakov, Obolensky, Gredeskul, and Alexandrov found themselves there. That such a crowd was drawn to a closer rapprochement with the Octobrists is beyond doubt. It could not be otherwise. But it is equally beyond doubt that Milyukov reconciles them with the "left Cadets" on a platform with a democratic sign and an Octobrist essence.

X

His rapprochement with the Octobrists is undoubtedly so. It could not have been otherwise. But it is equally certain that Milyukov reconciles them with the "left k.-d." on a platform with a democratic facade and an Octobrist essence.

X

The Duma formulas for the transition of various parties, as explained by Kasso, are of great interest. They provide us with precise, officially approved material by deputies of different parties for political analysis. It is precisely this analysis that is most often lacking in this material. It gets lost in the daily press notes or in the mass of stenographic reports of the Duma. And yet, it is very worthwhile to dwell on it to clarify the true nature of the different parties.

The editorial in "Rech" the day after the adoption of the no-confidence formula states: "Thus, Russian society has received from the State Duma what it had a right to expect" (No. 37, February 7). It seems as if "society" only needs to know whether the Duma trusts Mr. Kasso or not, nothing more!

This is incorrect. The people and the democracy need to know the reasons for the lack of trust, in order to understand the causes of a phenomenon recognized as abnormal in politics, and to be able to find a way to the normal. Uniting on the single word "we do not trust" the k.-d., the Octobrists, and the s.-d. gives too little on these most serious issues. Here is the transition formula of the Octobrists:

"The State Duma... considers: 1) any involvement of secondary school students in political struggle to be fatal for the spiritual development of young forces in Russia and harmful to the normal course of public life; 2) the necessity, in cases of timely awareness by the authorities of undesirable phenomena in secondary schools, of preventive measures, rather than waiting until the phenomena take on an abnormal character[51]; 3) resolutely speaks out against the application to students of those police measures which took place on December 10, 1912, without the knowledge of the educational authorities, instead of natural pedagogical influence; 4) recognizes as anti-pedagogical the slowness in resolving the fate of students expelled from educational institutions, and, awaiting the immediate resolution of this case in a favorable sense for the students, moves to the next business."

What are the political ideas of this vote?

Politics in schools is harmful. Students are at fault. But they should be punished by educators, not by the police. We are dissatisfied with the government for its lack of "goodwill" and for its slowness.

These are anti-democratic ideas. This is liberal opposition: let the old system of power remain, but apply it more gently. Beat, but in moderation and without publicity.

Look at the transition formula of the Progressists:

"...The Duma finds: 1) the Ministry of Public Enlightenment, being informed about what was happening in the secondary schools of St. Petersburg recently, showed an indifferent attitude towards its duties and did not protect the secondary school from the intrusion of the police; 2) the methods allowed by the police, which were accepted without protest from the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and consisted of searches of schools, taking and holding children under arrest, and unacceptable methods of investigation, cannot be justified in any way, especially since the matter here was not about protecting state security, but about restoring order in the secondary school; 3) the entire system of measures of the Ministry of Public Enlightenment, aimed at alienating the school from the family, soulless formalism, oppressing the moral and intellectual development of the younger generation, creates conditions favorable for the emergence of abnormal phenomena in school life. Considering the explanations of the Minister of Public Enlightenment unsatisfactory, the Duma moves to the next business."

This formula was introduced on January 30, and the Progressists then declared that they would vote for the Octobrists if they added a no-confidence vote. We saw the results of this bargain above.

On what ground could the bargaining take place? On the ground of basic agreement.

The Progressists also consider politics in schools to be abnormal, also demand "restoration of order" (feudal). They also have an opposition with a genitive case, an opposition not to the old system of power, but to its application – "indifferent, soulless," etc. Pirogov in the 1860s agreed that flogging was necessary, but demanded that it be done not indifferently, not soullessly. The Progressists are not against the current social elements "restoring order," but they are advised to do it "more sympathetically." What progress we have made in half a century!

The transition formula of the Cadets:

"After hearing the explanations of the Minister of Public Enlightenment and recognizing: 1) that there is a complete confusion of the pedagogical point of view with the police point of view; 2) that these explanations represent a complete denial of the normal foundations on which friendly relations of cooperation between the school and the family can be established; 3) that the policy of the ministry, causing deep dissatisfaction among students and legitimate irritation in society, itself contributes to the creation of an atmosphere that favors the early involvement of student youth in politics and thus itself creates conditions whose emergence it should have prevented; 4) that treating students as state criminals cripples the lives of the most gifted of the rising generation, tears numerous victims from their ranks, and poses a threat to the future of Russia, – the Duma deems the minister's explanations unsatisfactory and moves to the next business."

In a much milder and veiled form, the "early" involvement in politics is also condemned here. This is an anti-democratic viewpoint. Both the Octobrists and the Cadets condemn police measures only because they demand prevention instead. Not to disperse meetings, but to prevent them, the system should. It is clear that the system itself will only be slightly colored by such a reform, but will not change. We are dissatisfied with the policy of the ministry, say the k.-d., and it turns out, quite in the Octobrist manner, that it is possible to wish for a change in this policy without something much deeper.

The k.-d. express themselves much more sharply against the government than the Octobrists, and politically undeveloped elements, behind this sharpness of words, overlook the complete identity of the liberal, anti-democratic, framing of the question by the k.-d. and the Octobrists.

The Duma must seriously teach the people politics. Whoever learns politics from the Cadets corrupts, not develops, their consciousness.

That the Octobrists, Progressists, and Cadets bargained and came to an agreement on a common formula is not a coincidence, but the result of their ideological and political solidarity in the main. There is nothing more petty than Cadet politics: to agree to directly condemning politics in schools for the sake of recognizing the explanations as unsatisfactory. But the Cadets agreed to this because they themselves condemn the "early" involvement.

The Labor Group's formula:

"Taking into account: 1) that the brutal violence committed on December 9, 1912, against the student youth of secondary schools, shocking society with the shameful involvement of the security department in the pedagogical supervision of secondary school students, found in the explanation of the Minister of Public Enlightenment, Mr. Kasso, only complete approval and malicious mockery of public opinion; 2) that the system of surveillance and protection, resulting from the entire policy of the unified ministry and, in particular, the Minister of Public Enlightenment Kasso, leads to the final ruin and threatens in the future with heavy shocks for the rising generation, – the State Duma demands: the immediate readmission of all dismissed on December 9, and, deeming the explanations of the Minister of Public Enlightenment Kasso unsatisfactory, – his immediate resignation and moves to the next business."

": immediate reinstatement of all those dismissed on December 9, and, deeming the explanations of the Minister of Public Enlightenment Kasso unsatisfactory, his immediate resignation, and proceeds to the next items of business."

This formula, strictly speaking, is a sharply liberal one, but it lacks what a democrat, as distinct from a liberal, should say. A liberal may consider it shameful to involve the police in pedagogical supervision, but a democrat must say (and must teach the people) that no "supervision" has the right to encroach upon the free organization of circles and discussions on politics. And a liberal may condemn "the entire policy of the united ministry," but a democrat in Russia must explain that there are certain general conditions under which any other ministry would be compelled to pursue essentially the same policy.

The democratic character of the Trudovik formula is evident only in its tone, in the mood of its authors. Mood is a political symptom, no doubt. But it is not amiss to demand from a transitional formula a well-considered thought, and not just an "inspiring" mood.

The transitional formula of the Social-Democrats:

"Having heard the explanations of the Minister of Public Enlightenment and discerning in them: 1) a determination to combat the natural and commendable desire of the student youth to broaden their intellectual horizons through self-education and to engage in comradely communication; 2) a justification of the system of bureaucratic formalism, espionage, and police surveillance, implanted in higher, secondary, and elementary schools, which intellectually and morally maims the youth, ruthlessly suppresses every spark of independent thought and character, and engenders an epidemic of suicides among students, – the State Duma deems these explanations unsatisfactory. Recognizing, at the same time, that 1) the dominance of the police viewpoint in the matter of public enlightenment is inextricably linked with the dominance of the security police over all Russian life, the suppression of all forms of organized civic activity and the disenfranchisement of citizens, and that 2) only a fundamental transformation of the state system and the system of state administration can liberate citizens from the police yoke, and thereby also liberate the school, – the State Duma proceeds to the next items of business."

It is hardly possible to consider this formula flawless. One cannot help wishing for a more popular and detailed exposition, and regretting that the legality of engaging in politics, etc., is not indicated.

But our criticism of all formulas is not directed at the specifics of editing, but exclusively at the basic political ideas of the authors. The democrat should have said the main thing: circles and discussions are natural and commendable. This is the essence. Any condemnation of involvement in politics, even if "premature," is hypocrisy and obscurantism. The democrat should have raised the question from the "united ministry" to the state system. The democrat should have noted the "inextricable connection," first, with the "dominance of the security police," and second, with the dominance in economic life of the class of large feudal-type landowners.

Written February 6–9 (19–22), 1913

Published in March and April 1913 in the journal "Prosveshchenie" Nos. 3 and 4
Signed: V. Ilyin

Printed from the text of the journal