V. I.

Lenin

Political Parties in Russia and the Tasks of the Proletariat [3]

INDEX:

1) What are the chief political party groupings in Russia?
2) What classes do these parties represent? What class standpoint do they express?
3) What is their attitude towards Socialism?
4) What form of government do they want at present?
5) What is their attitude towards restoration of the Romanov Monarchy?
6) What is their attitude towards the seizure of power? What do they regard as order, and what as anarchy?
7) Should the provisional government be supported?
8) For undivided power or dual power?
9) Should a constituent assembly be convened?
10) Does the state need the usual type of police and a standing army?
11) Does the state need a bureaucracy of the usual type?
12) Should officers be elected by the soldiers?
13) Is it desirable for the soldiers, on their own decision, to displace their superiors?
14) For or against the present war?
15) For or against the predatory international treaties between the Tsar, Great Britain, France, etc. (for the subjugation of Persia,the partition of China, Turkey, Austria. etc.)?
16) For or against annexattons?
17) For or against the liberty loan?
18) For or against the capitalist governments ascertaining the peoples’ will to peace?
19) Must all monarchies be abolished?
20) Shall the peasants take all the landed estates immediately?
21) Can we leave land disposal and all rural affairs in the hands of the soviets of peasants’ deputies alone?
22) Shall the people take over the largest and most powerful capitalist monopolies, the banks, the syndicates of manufacturers. etc.?
23) What kind of socialist international implementing a fraternal union of the workers of all countries do the peoples now need?
24) Should fraternisation at the front between soldiers of the belligerent countries be encouraged?
25) What colour banner would be in character with the various political parties?

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

This pamphlet was written at the beginning of April 1917,
before the coalition cabinet was formed. Since then much water has
flown under the bridge, but the principal characteristics of the
major political parties have held true in the course of all
subsequent stages of the revolution—both during the coalition
cabinet, which came into being on May 6, 1917, during the union
between the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries in June (and
July) 1917 against the Bolsheviks, during the Kornilov events, and
during the October Revolution of 1917 and after it.

The correctness of the characteristic given to the principal
parties and their class foundations has been borne out by the whole course of the Russian revolution. Today the progress of the revolution in Western Europe shows that there, too,
the line-up of the principal parties is the same. The role of
Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries is being played by the
social-chauvinists of all countries (socialists in word and
chauvinists in deed) as well as by the Kautskyites in Germany,
the Longuetists in France, and so on.

N. Lenin

Moscow, October 22, 1918

| Published in 1918 in the pamphlet: N. Lenin, Political Parties in Russia and the Tasks of the Proletariat , Kommunist Publishing House, Moscow | |
| --- | --- |
| Published according to the pamphlet text | |

The following is an attempt to formulate, first, the more
important and then the less important questions and answers
characterising the present political situation in Russia and the
way it is understood by the various parties.

QUESTIONS:

1) WHAT ARE THE CHIEF POLITICAL

PARTY GROUPINGS IN RUSSIA?

ANSWERS:

A. (to the right of the C.D.). Parties and groups to the right
of the Constitutional-Democrats.

B. (G.D.). The Constitutional-Democratic Party (Cadets, or the people’s freedom party) and kindred
groups.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). The Social-Democrats ,
the Socialist- Revolutionaries and kindred groups.

D. (" Bolsheviks ").
The party which properly should be called the Communist Party,
but which at present is named the Russian Social-Democratic
Labour Party united under the Central Committee or, popularly,
the “Bolsheviks”.

2) WHAT CLASSES DO THESE PARTIES REPRESENT?

WHAT CLASS STANDPOINT DO THEY EXPRESS?

A. (to the right of the C.D.). The feudalist landowners and the
most backward sections of the bourgeoisie (Capitalists).

B. (G.D.). The bourgeoisie as a whole, that is, the capitalist
class, and the landowners who have become bourgeois, i.e., who
have become capitalists.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). Small proprietors, small and middle
peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and that section of the workers
which has come under the influence of the bourgeoisie.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). Class-conscious proletarians, wage- workers
and the poor peasantry (semi-proletarians) standing close to
them.

3) WHAT IS THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARDS SOCIALISM?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and

B. (G.D.). Decidedly hostile, since it threatens the profits of
the capitalists and landowners.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). For socialism, but it is too early to think
of it or to take any immediate practical steps for its realisation.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). For socialism. The Soviets
must immediately take all possible practicable steps for its
realisation. [1]

4) WHAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT DO THEY WANT AT PRESENT?

A. (to the right of the C.D.). A constitutional monarchy, the
absolute power of the bureaucracy and the police.

B. (G.D.). A bourgeois parliamentary republic, i.e., the
consolidation of the rule of the capitalists, while retaining
the old bureaucracy and the police.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). A bourgeois parliamentary republic, with
reforms for the workers and peasants.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). A republic of Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’,
Peasants’, and other Deputies. Abolition of the standing army
and the police, who are to be replaced by the arming of the
whole people; officials to be not only elective, but also
displaceable; their pay not to exceed that of a competent
worker.

5) WHAT IS THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARDS RESTORATION

OF THE ROMANOV MONARCHY?

A. (to the right of the C.D.). They are for it,
but act covertly and cautiously, for they are afraid of the people

B. (C.D.). When the Guchkovs seemed to be a power, the Cadets
were for putting a brother or the son of Nicholas on the throne;
but when the people began to seem a power, the Cadets became
anti-monarchist.

C. (S.D. and SR.) and D. (“Bolsheviks”). Decidedly opposed to
restoration of the monarchy in any form.

6) WHAT IS THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE SEIZURE OF POWER?

WHAT DO THEY REGARD AS ORDER, AND WHAT AS ANARCHY?

A. (to the right of the C.D.). If a tsar or some gallant general
seizes power, that is God-given, that is order. All else is
anarchy.

B. (C.D.). If the capitalists seize power, even by force, that
is order; to seize power against the capitalists would be
anarchy.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). If the Soviets alone seize all the power,
that means a threat of anarchy. Let the capitalists keep the
power for the time being, and the Soviets keep the “Contact
Commission”. [4]

D. (“Bolsheviks”). All power must be in the hands of the Soviets
of Workers’, Soldiers’, Peasants’, Agricultural Labourers and
other Deputies. All propaganda, agitation and the organisation
of the millions must immediately be directed towards this
end. [2]

7) SHOULD THE
PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT BE SUPPORTED?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and B. (C.D.). Unquestionably,
since it is the only government capable at this moment of
safeguarding the interests of the capitalists.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). It should, but on condition that it carries
out its agreement with the Soviet and attends the meetings of
the Contact Commission .

D. (“Bolsheviks”). No; let the capitalists support it. Our job
is to prepare the people for full and undivided power wielded by the Soviets.

8) FOR UNDIVIDED POWER OR DUAL POWER?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and B. (C.D.). For the undivided
power of the capitalists and landowners.

C. (S. D. and S. R.). For dual power. The Soviets to exercise
“control” over the Provisional Government. It is bad to reflect
whether control can be effective without power.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). For the undivided power of the Soviets from
the bottom up all over the country.

9) SHOULD A CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY BE CONVENED?

A. (to the right of the C.D.). No, for it might
prejudice the landowners. You never know—the peasants in the
Constituent Assembly may decide that the landowners ought to have
their estates taken away from them.

B. (C.D.). Yes, but without fixing a date. As much time as
possible should be spent consulting professors of law; first,
because, as Bebel said, jurists are the most reactionary people
in the world; and, second, because the experience of all
revolutions has shown that the cause of popular freedom is lost
’when it is entrusted to professors.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). Yes, and as quickly as possible. A date must
be fixed; we have already said so two hundred times at the
meetings of the Contact Commission, and shall say so again
tomorrow, for the last and two-hundred-and- first time.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). Yes, and as soon as possible. But there is
only one way to assure its convocation and success, and that is
by increasing the number and strength of the Soviets and organising and arming the working-class
masses. That is the only guarantee.

10) DOES THE STATE NEED THE USUAL TYPE OF POLICE

AND A STANDING ARMY?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and B. (C.D.). It certainly does,
for they are the only firm guarantee of the rule of the
capitalists; in case of need, as the, experience of all countries has shown, the return from a republic to a monarchy is
thus greatly facilitated.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). On the one hand, they are perhaps not
necessary. On the other hand, is not so radical a change
premature? However, we shall raise the matter in the Contact
Commission.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). It definitely does not. The arming of the
entire people must be proceeded with everywhere immediately and
unreservedly, and they must be merged with the militia and the
army. The capitalists must pay the workers for days served in
the militia.

11) DOES THE STATE NEED A BUREAUCRACY OF THE USUAL TYPE?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and
B. (C.D.). Most decidedly. Nine-tenths of them are the Sons and
brothers of land owners and capitalists. They must continue to
remain a privileged and, in practice, permanent body of
people.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). It is hardly fitting to raise so hastily a
question that was raised practically by the Paris Commune.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). It certainly does not. All officials and all
and every kind of deputy must not only be elective, but
displaceable at any moment. Their pay must not exceed that of a
competent worker. They must be replaced (gradually) by the
people’s militia and its detachments.

12) SHOULD OFFICERS BE ELECTED BY THE SOLDIERS?

A. (to the right oi the C.D.) and B. (C.D.). No. That would be
detrimental to the landowners and capitalists. If the soldiers
cannot be pacified otherwise, they must be temporarily promised
this reform, but it must be withdrawn at the earliest possible
moment.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). Yes, they should.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). Not only must they be elected, but every step
of every officer and general must be supervised by persons
specially elected for the purpose by the soldiers.

13) IS IT DESIRABLE FOR THE SOLDIERS,

ON THEIR OWN DECISION,

TO DISPLACE THEIR SUPERIORS?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and B. (C.D.). It is distinctly
harmful. Guchkov has already forbidden it. He has already
threatened to use force. Guchkov must be supported.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). It is. But it is not clear whether they
should be replaced before the matter is taken up with the
Contact Commission, or vice versa.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). It is desirable and essential in every
way. The soldiers will obey and respect only elected authorities.

14) FOR OR AGAINST THE PRESENT WAR?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and
B. (C.D.). Decidedly for, because it yields the capitalists untold
profits and promises to consolidate their rule by disuniting the
workers and setting them against one another. We shall fool the
workers by calling the war a war for national defence, the real
object of which is to dethrone Wilhelm.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). In general we are opposed to imperialist
wars, but ’we are willing to be fooled, and are prepared to call
the support given to the imperialist war waged by the imperialist government of Guchkovs Milyukov and
Co. “revolutionary defencism”.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). We are decidedly against all imperialist wars
and all bourgeois governments waging such wars, including our own Provisional Government; we are decidedly
against “revolutionary defencism” in Russia.

15) FOR OR AGAINST THE PREDATORY INTERNATIONAL

TREATIES BETWEEN
THE TSAR, GREAT BRITAIN,

FRANCE, ETC. (FOR THE SUBJUGATION
OF PERSIA,

THE PARTITION OF CHINA, TURKEY,
AUSTRIA. ETC.)?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and
B. (C.D.). Absolutely and entirely for . At the same time,
we must not publish these treaties, both because Anglo-French
imperialist capital and its governments will not permit it, and
because Russian capital cannot afford to reveal its shady affairs
to the public.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). Against, but we still hope that with the aid
of the Contact Commission and a series of “campaigns” among the
masses, it may be possible to “influence” the capitalist
government.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). Against. The whole point is to enlighten the
masses as to the utter hopelessness of expecting anything in
this respect from capitalist governments, and as to the
necessity of the power being transferred to the proletariat and
the poor peasants.

16) FOR OR AGAINST ANNEXATIONS?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and B. (C.D.). If
it is a question of annexations by the German capitalists and
their robber chieftain, Wilhelm, we are against. If by the
British, we are not against, for they are “our” Allies. If by our
capitalists, who are forcibly keeping within the boundaries of
Russia the peoples who were oppressed by the tsar, we are in favour; we do not call that annexation.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). Against annexations, but we still hope it
will be possible to secure even from the capitalist government a
promise to renounce annexations.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). Against annexations. All promises on the part
of capitalist governments to renounce annexations are a sheer
fraud. There is only one method of exposing it, namely, to
demand the liberation of the peoples oppressed by their own capitalists.

17) FOR OR AGAINST THE LIBERTY LOAN?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and B. (C.D.). Decidedly for,
since it facilitates the conduct of the imperialist war, that
is, a war to determine which group of capitalists shall
rule the world.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). For, since the incorrect stand of
“revolutionary defencism” forces us into this obvious departure
from internationalism.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). Against, since the war remains an imperialist war, waged by the capitalists in alliance with the
capitalists and in the interests of the capitalists.

18
) FOR OR AGAINST THE CAPITALIST GOVERNMENTS

ASCERTAINING THE
PEOPLES’ WILL TO PEACE?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and B. (C.D.).
For, since the experience of the French republican social-chauvinists was excellent proof that the people can be
fooled in this way; we can say anything we like, but in practice
we shall keep the spoils seized from the Germans (their
colonies), while depriving the German robbers of the spoils
they have seized.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). For, since we have not yet relinquished a good many of the unfounded hopes placed by the petty
bourgeoisie in the capitalists.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). Against, since the class-conscious workers
place no hopes whatever in the capitalists, and it is our task to open the eyes of the masses to the futility of such
hopes.

19) MUST ALL MONARCHIES BE ABOLISHED?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and B. (C.D.). No;
the British, Italian and Allied monarchies generally must not be
abolished, but only the German, Austrian, Turkish, and Bulgarian,
since victory over them will multiply our profits.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). A certain “sequence” must be observed, and
in any case we should begin with Wilhelm; as to the Allied
monarchies, we had perhaps better wait a bit.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). No sequence can be established for
revolutions. We must help only the revolutionaries in deed to abolish all monarchies in all
countries without exception.

20) SHALL THE PEASANTS TAKE ALL

THE LANDED ESTATES IMMEDIATELY?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and B. (C.D.) By
no means. We must wait for the Constituent Assembly. Shingaryov
has already explained that when the capitalists seize power from
the tsar, that is a great and glorious revolution; but when the
peasants take the land away from the landowners, that is arbitrary
action. [5] Conciliation commissions must be appointed on which
landowners and peasants shall be equally represented, while the
chairmen shall be officials, that is, people drawn from among the
capitalists and landowners.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). Better the peasants waited for the
Constituent Assembly.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). All the land must be taken over
immediately. Order must be strictly maintained by the Soviets of
Peasants’ Deputies. More grain and meat must be produced, and
the soldiers better fed. Injury and damage to livestock,
implements, etc., must in no case be permitted.

21) CAN WE LEAVE LAND DISPOSAL

AND ALL RURAL AFFAIRS IN THE
HANDS

OF THE SOVIETS OF PEASANTS’ DEPUTIES ALONE?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and B. (C.D.). The land owners and
capitalists are generally opposed to full and undivided power
being vested in the Soviets of Peasants’ Deputies in the
countryside; but if these Soviets are unavoidable, then we had
better confine ourselves to them alone, for the rich peasants
are also capitalists.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). For the present, perhaps, yes, although
Social-Democrats “in principle” do not deny the necessity
of a separate organisation for the agricultural wage-workers.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). We cannot confine ourselves to the general
Soviets of Peasants’ Deputies alone, for the wealthy peasants
are also capitalists and are always liable to wrong or cheat the
agricultural labourers, day-labourers, and poor peasants. Therefore separate organisations for these groups of
the rural population must be set up immediately both within the
Soviets of Peasants’ Deputies and as separate Soviets of
deputies from the agricultural labourers.

22) SHALL THE PEOPLE TAKE OVER THE LARGEST

AND MOST POWERFUL
CAPITALIST MONOPOLIES,

THE BANKS, THE SYNDICATES OF
MANUFACTURERS. ETC.?

A. (to the right of the C.D.)and B. (C.D.). On no account, as
this might injure the landowners and capitalists.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). Generally speaking, we are in favour of
transferring such organisations to the entire people, but it is
too early just now to think of this or prepare for it.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). We must at once start preparing the
Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, the Councils of Bank Employees’
Deputies, etc., for taking practical and practicable steps
towards merging all banks into a single national bank, to be
followed by the establishment of control by the Soviets of
Workers’ Deputies over the banks and syndicates, and then by
their nationalisation, i.e., their transfer to the possession of
the whole people.

23) WHAT KIND OF SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL

IMPLEMENTING A
FRATERNAL UNION

OF THE WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES

DO THE PEOPLES NOW NEED?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and B. (C.D.). Generally speaking,
any kind of Socialist International is harmful and dangerous to
the capitalists and landowners; but if the German Plekhanov,
that is, Scheidemann, comes to an agreement and understanding
with the Russian Scheidemann, that is, Plekhanov, and if they
discover in each other vestiges of a socialist Conscience, then
it were perhaps better for us capitalists to welcome such an International of such socialists who
take the side of their own respective governments.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). We need a Socialist International that will
unite everybody: the Scheidemanns, the Plekhanovs and the
“Centrists”, i.e., those who vacillate between social-chauvinism
and internationalism. The greater the hotchpotch, the greater
the “unity”. Long live the great socialist unity!

D. (“Bolsheviks”). The peoples need only such an International
as will unite the really revolutionary workers, who are capable
of putting an end to this frightful, criminal slaughter of the
peoples and of delivering humanity from the yoke of capital. Only people (groups, parties, etc.) like the German
Socialist Karl Liebknecht , who is now in a convict prison, only people who
are resolutely fighting their own government, their own bourgeoisie, their own social chauvinists, their
own “Centre”, can and must establish immediately the
International which the peoples need.

24) SHOULD FRATERNISATION AT THE FRONT BETWEEN SOLDIERS

OF THE
BELLIGERENT COUNTRIES BE ENCOURAGED?

A. (to the right of the C.D.) and B. (CD.). No, it is bad for
the interests of the landowners and capitalists, as it is likely
to hasten the liberation of humanity from their yoke.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). Yes, it is desirable. But we are not all
fully convinced that such an encouragement of fraternisation
should be started immediately in all the belligerent countries.

D. (“Bolsheviks”).

Yes, it is desirable and essential. It is absolutely essential
to encourage immediately in all the belligerent countries
attempts at fraternisation between the soldiers of both
warring groups.

25) WHAT COLOUR BANNER WOULD BE IN CHARACTER WITH

THE VARIOUS POLITICAL PARTIES?

A. (to the right of the C.D.). Black, for they are the real Black Hundreds . [6]

B. (C.D.). Yellow, for that is the international banner of
workers who serve capitalism willingly, heart and soul.

C. (S.D. and S.R.). Pink, for their whole policy is a rose-water
one.

D. (“Bolsheviks”). Red, for this is the banner of the
international proletarian revolution.

This pamphlet was written at the beginning of April
1917 . To the question whether it is out of date now, after May 6, 1917, after the formation of the “new”, coalition,
government, my answer is: No, for the Contact Commission has not
really disappeared, it has merely moved to another room, which it
shares with the gentlemen of the cabinet. The fact that the
Chernovs and the Tseretelis have moved to another room has rot
changed their policy, nor the policy of their parties.

---
Notes:
[1]

For the nature of these steps, see questions 20 and 22.
— Lenin

[2]

Anarchy is the complete negation of State power, whereas the
Soviets are themselves a state power.
— Lenin

[3]
This pamphlet was planned originally as a leaflet, owing to the fact
that the Cadets, S.R.s and Mensheviks were making wide use of
leaflets in their propaganda and pasted them up all over the
town. Lenin believed that a Bolshevik leaflet explaining what
every party was and what it stood for should be pasted alongside
the anti-Bolshevik proclamations. The article was too long to be
issued as a leaflet; it was published in the Helsingfors
Bolshevik newspaper Volna , and then issued in pamphlet form by
the Zhizn i Znaniye publishers in fifty thousand copies. The
proprietors of the printing-press, who sympathised with the
Cadets, held up publication, but with the help of the workers’
committee the pamphlet was issued on July 4(17). Owing to the
July events, however, it was hidden away in the publishers’
warehouse. A few days later it began to circulate in the
working-class quarters. The first edition sold out quickly and,
according to the testimony of V.D. Bonch-Bruyevich, a reprint
was put out.

The pamphlet was issued with the following introductory text:
“Explanation to the draft platform outlined by N. Lenin for
discussion at meetings of the Bolsheviks. The printing of the
draft itself has been held up owing to lack of printing
facilities in Petrograd.”

The pamphlet was published in
English in the journal The Class Struggle (New York, November-December 1917, Vol. 1, No.4, pp. 49-59) as well as in
The New York Evening Post , January 15, 1918.

A second edition of was published in Moscow in 1918 with a foreword by
Lenin."

[4]



[5]



[6]