V. I.

Lenin

Mr. Struve is one of the most outspoken of the counter revolutionary liberals. It is often very instructive, there fore, to lend
an ear to the political comments of a writer who is a striking illustration
of the correctness of the Marxian analysis of opportunism (for Mr. Struve,
as we know, began with opportunism, with a “criticism of Marxism”, and in
a few years fell as low as counter-revolutionary, bourgeois
national-liberalism).

In the January issue of Russkaya Mysl , Mr. Struve discussed
the need “to reform the government”. In the first place, he admits the
failure of the Stolypin policy, [1] as well as of the entire reaction of 1907–14 and
Octobrism. [2] Reaction “faces a crisis”, writes Mr. Struve. In his
opinion, attempts at back-pedalling reforms, such as turning the Duma into
a legislative-consultative body, will “put the government in the same
position it was in before 1905”, with this important difference, however,
that the people have changed since then. “In 1905 the sympathies and
instincts of the masses swung over to the intelligentsia.”

This is written by a
Vekhist, [3] a fervent opponent of revolution and an exponent of the most
obscurantist theories. Even he is compelled to admit that the
masses have swung to the left; but this liberal dares not say more
plainly, clearly and exactly which classes among these masses have aligned
themselves with which parties.

“ Our people has not taken shape yet, has not yet separated into its elements. The fact that it has been conservative for
such a long time and gone revolutionary overnight, as it were, does not
tell us what it will become when all its latent potentialities will have
developed.”

This is a specimen of the phrase-mongering with which the bourgeoisie
covers up unpalatable truths. Obviously, what is implied here by
the term people is the peasantry, since the bourgeoisie (let alone the
landlords) and the working class have sufficiently taken shape, and are
sufficiently differentiated. The liberal dares not in so many words admit
that the bourgeois peasantry “has not yet taken shape”,
despite the frantic efforts of the new agrarian policy.

“ What is the way out of the present situation?” Mr. Struve asks, and
replies: “There is only a single alternative: either steadily increasing
political unrest, in which the middle classes and the moderate elements
that represent them... [so the moderate elements “represent” the middle
classes? This is not very intelligent but politically it is fairly clear;
which elements, then, “represent” the peasantry and the workers?] will
again be pushed into the background by the elemental pressure of the
popular masses who will be in spired by the extreme elements, or, the reform of government . We shall not deal here with the first way
out. Under the conditions prevailing in Russia we definitely adhere to the
point of view that it is impossible for us either to work effectively
towards such a solution, or even simply to desire it....” (Thank you for
being so candid, Mr. Struve! Our liquidators could well take a lesson in
plain-speaking and candour from this man, instead of beating about the bush
the way L. M. does in the January issue of Nasha Zarya .)

“ It is left for us to suggest to the public mind the second way out as being an urgent problem which has to be solved by the
joint efforts of all progressive and, at the same time, preservatory
forces.”

Of this second way out Mr. Struve has absolutely nothing to say except
empty phrases. The bourgeoisie is for moderation, the masses are for
“extremes”—this the liberal is compelled to admit. As to what the
social structure of the reformable “government” must be, what its class
basis should be, and what has become of the landlords who reigned and
governed unchallenged prior to the bourgeoisie—of all this Mr. Struve
dares not even think. Helplessness, impotence and complete lack of
principles and ideals—such are the inevitable features of the liberal
bourgeoisie so long as it fawns (as Messrs. Struve and Co. do) on the
Purishkeviches.

“ Strange as it may appear,” Mr. Struve writes, “there is nothing that we could wish the government more than that it should
forget that there ever were events, facts and moods which we are accustomed
to call the Russian revolution.”

Splendid, profound, wise, and earnest political advice! Let the
“government forget”. After all, aged people do some times forget what is
happening to them and around them!

The spokesmen of senile Russian liberalism measure others with their
own yardstick.

---
Notes:
[1]
Stolypin, P. A. (1862–1911)—an extreme reactionary, Chairman of the Council of Ministers in 1906–11. His name is associated
with the suppression of the first Russian revolution (1905–07) and the
ensuing period of harsh political reaction.

[2]
Octobrists —members of the “Union of October Seventeenth”
Party formed in Russia after the promulgation of the tsar’s Manifesto of
October 17, 1905. It was a counter-revolutionary party, representing the
interests of the big bourgeoisie and landlords who had gone over to
capitalist forms of ownership. Its leaders were the well-known
industrialist and Moscow house-owner A. I. Guchkov, and the big landowner
M. V. Rodzyanko. The Octobrists wholly supported the home and foreign
policies of the tsarist government.

[3]
Vekhists —participants of the symposium Vekhi ( Landmarks )—a collection of articles by prominent Cadet
publicists representing the counter-revolutionary liberal bourgeoisie: =

N. A. Berdayev, S. N. Bulgakov, M. 0. Herschensohn, A. S. Izgoyev,
B. A. Kistyakovsky, P. B. Struve and S. L. Frank. Issued in Moscow in the
spring of 1909.

In articles on the Russian Intelligentsia the Vekhists tried to malign
the revolutionary-democratic traditions of the Russian nation’s finest
sons, among them V. G. Belinsky and N. G. Chernyshevsky. They vilified the
revolutionary movement, of 1905 and thanked the tsarist government for
having saved the bourgeoisie from “the fury of the people with its
bayonets and jails”. The symposium called upon the intelligentsia to serve
the autocracy. Lenin compared the Vekhi programme in philosophy
and journalism with that of the Black-Hundred newspaper Moskovskiye Vedomosti , and called the symposium “an encyclopaedia of liberal
renegacy” “nothing but a flood of reactionary mud poured on
democracy”. (See present edition, Vol. 16, p. 453.)