V. I.

Lenin

The dissolution of the Fourth Duma in retaliation for the formation of an
Opposition bloc consisting of liberals, Octobrists and nationalists, is
one of the most vivid manifestations of the revolutionary crisis in
Russia. The defeat of the armies of the tsarist monarchy; the growth of
the strike movement and the revolutionary movement of the proletariat; the
discontent of the masses and the formation of the liberal-Octobrist bloc
for the purpose of reaching an understanding with the tsar on a programme
of reforms and mobilising industry for the victory over Germanysuch is the
sequence and texture of events at the end of the first year of war.

There is obviously a revolutionary crisis in Russia, but its significance
and the attendant tasks of the proletariat are not correctly understood by
all.

History seems to be repeating itself: again there is a war, as in 1905, a
war tsarism has dragged the country into with definite, patently
annexationist, predatory and reactionary aims. Again there is military
defeat, and a revolutionary crisis accelerated by it. Again the liberal
bourgeoisie—in this case even in conjunction with large sections of
the conservative bourgeoisie and the landowners are advocating a programme
of reform and of an understanding with the tsar. The situation is almost
like that in the summer of 1905, prior to the Bulygin Duma, or in the summer
of 1900, after the dissolution of the First Duma.

There is, however, actually a vast difference, viz., that this war has
involved all Europe, all the most advanced countries with mass and powerful
socialist movements.

The imperialist war has linked up the Russian revolutionary
crisis, which stems from a bourgeois-democratic revolution, with the growing
crisis of the proletarian socialist revolution in the West. This link is so
direct that no individual solution of revolutionary [problems] is possible
in any single country—the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution is
now not only a prologue to, but an indivisible and integral part of, the
socialist revolution in the West.

In 1905, it was the proletariat’s task to consummate the bourgeois
revolution in Russia so as to kindle the proletarian revolution in the
West. In 1915, the second part of this task has acquired an urgency that
puts it on a level with the first part. A new political division has arisen
in Russia on the basis of new, higher, more developed and more complex
international relations. This new division is between the chauvinist
revolutionaries, who desire revolution so as to defeat Germany, and the
proletarian internationalist revolutionaries, who desire a revolution in
Russia for the sake of the proletarian revolution in the West, and
simultaneously with that revolution. This new division is, in essence, one
between the urban and the rural petty bourgeoisie in Russia, and the
socialist proletariat. The new division must be clearly understood, for the
impending revolution makes it the prime duty of a Marxist, i.e., of any
class-conscious socialist, to realise the position of the various classes, and to interpret general differences over tactics and
principles as differences in the positions of the various classes.

There is nothing more puerile, contemptible and harmful, than the idea
current among revolutionary philistines, namely, that differences should he
“forgotten” “in view” of the immediate common aim in the approaching revolution. People whom the experience of the 1905-14 decade
has not taught the folly of this idea are hopeless from the revolutionary
standpoint. Those who confine themselves, at this stage, to revolutionary
exclamations, without analysing which classes have proved their
ability to adopt, and have indeed adopted, a definite revolutionary
programme, do not really differ from “revolutionaries” like
Khrustalyov, Aladyin and Alexinsky.

We have before us the clear-cut stand of the monarchy and the
feudal-minded landowners—“no surrender” of Russia to the liberal
bourgeoisie; better an understanding with the German monarchy. Equally clear
is the liberal bourgeoisie’s stand—exploit the defeat and the
mounting revolution in order to wrest concessions from a frightened monarchy
and compel it to share power with the bourgeoisie. Just as clear, too, is
the stand of the revolutionary proletariat, which is striving to consummate
the revolution by exploiting the vacillation and embarrassment of the
government and the bourgeoisie. The petty bourgeoisie, however, i. e,, the
vast mass of the barely, awakening population of Russia, is groping blindly
in the wake of the bourgeoisie, a captive to nationalist prejudices, on the
one hand, prodded into the revolution by the unparalleled horror and misery
of war, the high cost of living, impoverishment, ruin and starvation, but on
the other hand, glancing backward at every step towards the idea of
defence of the fatherland, towards the idea of Russia’s state
integrity, or towards the idea of small-peasant prosperity, to be achieved
through a victory over tsarism and over Germany, but without a victory over
capitalism.

This vacillation of the petty bourgeois, of the small peasant, is no
accident, but the inevitable outcome of his economic position. It is foolish
to shut one’s eyes to this bitter but profound truth; it must be
understood and traced back in the existing political currents and groupings, so as not to deceive ourselves and the people, and not to
weaken and paralyse the revolutionary party of the Social-Democratic
proletariat. The proletariat will debilitate itself if it permits its party
to vacillate as the petty bourgeoisie does. The proletariat will accomplish
its task only if it is able to march unfalteringly towards its great goal,
pushing the petty bourgeoisie forward, letting the latter learn from its
mistakes when it wavers to the right, and utilising all the petty
bourgeoisie’s forces to the utmost when life compels it to move to the
left.

The Trudoviks, the S.R.s, and the Organising Committee’s
liquidationist supporters—these are the political trends in
Russia which have taken shape during the past decade, have proved their
links with the various groups, elements and strata in the petty bourgeoisie,
and shown vacillation from extreme revolutionism in word, to an alliance
with the chauvinist Popular Socialists, or with Nasha Zarya , in
deed. On September 3, 1915, for instance, the five secretaries of the
Organising Committee abroad issued a manifesto on the tasks of the
proletariat, which said not a word about opportunism and social-chauvinism,
but called for a “revolt” in the rear of the German army (this
after a whole year of struggle against the slogan of civil war!) and
proclaimed a slogan praised so highly in 1905 by the Cadets, viz., a
“constituent assembly for the liquidation of the war” and for
the abolition of the autocratic
[June 3 [1] ] regime”! People who have failed to understand the need for a cleavage between the party of the
proletariat and these petty-bourgeois trends so that the revolution may he
successful, have assumed the name of Social-Democrats in vain.

No, in the face of the revolutionary crisis in Russia, which is being
accelerated by defeat—and this is what the motley opponents of
“defeatism” are afraid to admit it will be the proletariat’s duty to carry on the struggle against opportunism and
chauvinism, or otherwise it will be impossible to develop the revolutionary
consciousness of the masses, and to assist their movement by means of
straightforward revolutionary slogans. Not a constituent assembly, but the
overthrow of the monarchy, a republic, the confiscation of landed estates,
and an eight-hour day will, as hitherto, he the slogans of the
Social-Democratic proletariat, the slogans of our Party. In direct
connection with this, and to make it possible really to single out the
socialist tasks and contrast them with the tasks of bourgeois chauvinism
(including the Plekhanov and the Kautsky brands) in all its propaganda and
agitation, and in all working-class action, our Party will preserve the
slogan of “transform the imperialist war into a civil war”,
i.e., the slogan of the socialist revolution in the West.

The lessons of the war are compelling even our opponents to recognise in
practice both the stand of “defeatism” and the necessity of
issuing—at first as a spirited phrase in a manifesto, but later more
seriously and thoughtfully—the slogan of “a revolt in the
rear” of the German militarists, in other words, the slogan of
a civil war. The lessons of the war, it appears, are knocking into their
heads that which we have been insisting on since the very outset of the
war. The defeat of Russia has proved the lesser evil, for it has
tremendously enhanced the revolutionary crisis and has aroused millions,
tens and hundreds of millions. Moreover, in conditions of an imperialist
war, a revolutionary crisis in Russia could not but lead people’s
thoughts to the only salvation for the people-the idea of “a revolt in
the rear” of the German army, i.e., the idea of a civil war in all the
belligerent countries.

Life teaches. Life is advancing, through the defeat of Russia,
towards a revolution in Russia and, through that revolution and in
connection with it, towards a civil war in Europe. Life has taken this
direction. And, drawing fresh strength from these lessons of life, which
have justified its position, the party of the revolutionary proletariat of
Russia will, with ever greater energy, follow the path it has chosen.

---
Notes:
[1]
This refers to the period of the Stolypin reaction ushered in by the coup
d’état of June 3.

On June 3 (10), 1907, the tsar issued a manifesto dissolving the Second Duma and modifying the electoral law. The new law
considerably increased the Duma representation of the landowners and of the
trade and industrial bourgeoisie, and greatly reduced the number of
peasants’ and workers’ representatives, which was small enough as it
was. This was a gross violation of the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, and
the Fundamental Law of 1908 by which no laws could be passed by the
government without approval by the Duma. The Third Duma, which was elected
on the basis of this law and convened on November 1 (14), 1907, was a
Black-Hundred Octobrist Duma.