Mr. Struve belongs to the category of the most frank counter-revolutionary liberals. Therefore, it is often very instructive to examine the political arguments of a writer who has particularly vividly confirmed the Marxist analysis of opportunism (for Mr. Struve, as is well known, began with opportunism, with "a critique of Marx," and descended in the course of a few years to counter-revolutionary bourgeois national-liberalism).

In the January issue of *Russkaya Mysl'*, Mr. Struve reasons about "the restoration of authority." He acknowledges, first and foremost, the bankruptcy of Stolypin's policy, as well as that of the entire reaction of 1907–1914 and of Octobrism. Reaction "has run up against a crisis"—writes Mr. Struve. Attempts at backward reforms, such as transforming the Duma into a merely consultative body, will lead, in his opinion, to putting "authority in precisely the same position in which it already found itself before 1905," with the essential difference that the people have become different. "The sympathies and instincts of the popular masses in 1905 shifted in the direction of the intelligentsia."

This is written by one of the *Vekhi* contributors, a passionate opponent of revolution, an advocate of the most obscurantist theories. And he is forced to acknowledge that the masses have become leftward-inclined, but he does not dare to speak more directly, more clearly, more precisely—what classes within these masses have aligned themselves with what parties!

"Our people have not yet taken shape and have not yet differentiated. The fact that it was long inert and suddenly became revolutionary—this says nothing about what it will be when all the possibilities latent within it can develop."

Here is a specimen of the phrases with which the bourgeoisie cover up truths unpleasant to them. By "the people" here is plainly meant the peasantry, for the bourgeoisie (not to mention the landowners) and the working class have sufficiently taken shape, have sufficiently defined themselves. The liberal does not dare to directly acknowledge that bourgeois peasantry "has not yet taken shape," despite the convulsive efforts of the new agrarian policy.

"What then is the way out of the situation that has arisen?"—asks Mr. Struve and answers: "There can be only two ways out: either a gradual intensification of state turmoil, in which the middle classes and the moderate elements expressing them…" (so, do moderate elements "express" the middle classes?—this is not very literate, but rather clear in a political sense; what elements "express" the peasantry and the workers?) "will once again be pushed to the background by the spontaneous onslaught of popular masses, inspired by extreme elements, or the restoration of authority. The first way out is not subject to our discussion at present. We consciously stand in Russian conditions at a point of view that excludes for us the possibility both of effectively striving toward this way out and even simply desiring it…" (We thank you for your frankness, Mr. Struve! Now that's something for our liquidators to learn from—such directness and frankness, instead of going round and about like L. M. in the January issue of *Nasha Zar'a*.)

"…Therefore, it remains for us only to pose directly before public consciousness the second way out, as such an urgent problem that must be realized by the combined efforts of all progressive and at the same time conservative forces."

On the second way out, Mr. Struve can say nothing but empty phrases—absolutely nothing. The bourgeoisie for moderation, the masses for "extremism,"—this the liberal was forced to acknowledge. But as for what is the social structure (system, organization) of the "authority" that requires restoration, what is its class base, what became of the landowners who reigned and ruled absolutely before the bourgeoisie came to power, about all this Mr. Struve is afraid even to think. Helplessness, impotence, lack of any ideas—these are the inevitable traits of liberal bourgeoisie, so long as it crawls (as Mr. Struve and Company do) before the Purishkevichs.

"Strange as it may seem," writes Mr. Struve, "but one cannot wish the authority anything more than to forget that once there were those events and facts and moods that are customary to designate as the Russian revolution."

An excellent, profound, intelligent, serious piece of political advice! Let the "authority forget"—after all, old people do sometimes forget everything that happens to them and around them!

The representatives of the senile decay of Russian liberalism measure others by their own measure.

*Put' Pravdy* No. 18, February 21, 1914

Printed according to the text of the newspaper *Put' Pravdy*