V. I.

Lenin

THE MUNICIPAL PLATFORM OF THE PROLETARIAN PARTY

Elections to the district councils being close at hand, the two
petty-bourgeois democratic parties, the Narodniks and the
Mensheviks, have come out with high-sounding platforms. These
platforms are exactly the same as those of the European bourgeois
parties who are engaged in angling for the gullible uneducated
mass of voters from among the petty proprietors, etc., such as,
for instance, the platform of the Radical and
Radical-Socialist Party of France . [1] The same specious phrases, the same lavish
promises, the same vague formulations, the same silence on or
forgetfulness of the main thing, namely, the actual conditions on which the practicability of these promises
depends.

At present these conditions are:

(1) the imperialist war; (2) the existence of a capitalist government;
(3) the impossibility of seriously improving the condition of
the workers and the whole mass of working people without
revolutionary encroachment on the “sacred right, of capitalist private property”;
(4) the impossibility of carrying out the reforms promised by
those parties while the old organs and machinery of government remain intact, while there exists a police force
which is bound to back the capitalists and put a thousand
and one obstacles in the way of such reforms.

For example: “House rents is in war time to be controlled”,
“such stocks to be requisitioned for the public needs” (that is
stocks of foodstuffs kept in stores or by private individuals)
“communal stores, bakeries, canteens, and kitchens to be
organized”—write the Mensheviks. “Proper attention to be
paid to sanitation and hygiene,” echo the Narodniks (the
Socialist-Revolutionaries)

Excellent wishes, to be sure. The trouble is that they cannot be
carried out unless one stops supporting the imperialist
war, stops supporting the loan (which is profitable to the
capitalists), stops supporting the capitalist government, which
safeguards capitalist profits, stops preserving the police, who
are bound to obstruct, thwart, and kill any such reform, even if
the government and the capitalists themselves did not present an
ultimatum to the reformers (and they certainly will, once
capitalist profits are involved).

The trouble is that once we forget the harsh and rigid conditions of capitalist domination, then all such platforms,
all such lists of sweeping reforms are empty words, which in
practice turn out to be either harmless “pious wishes”, or
simple hoodwinking of the masses by ordinary bourgeois politicians.

We must face the truth squarely. We must not gloss it over, we
must tell it to people in a straightforward manner. We must not
brush the class struggle under the carpet, but clarify what
relation it bears to the high-sounding, specious, delightful
“radical” reforms.

Comrade workers, and all other citizens of Petrograd! In order
to give the people all those pressing and essential reforms of
which the Narodniks and the Mensheviks speak, one must throw
over the policy of support for the imperial 1st war and war
loans, support for the capitalist government and for the
principle of the inviolability of capitalist profits. To carry
out those reforms, one must not allow the police to be reinstated , as the Cadets are now doing, but have it
replaced by a people’s militia. This is what the party of the
proletariat should tell the people at elections, this is what it
must say against the petty-bourgeois parties of the
Narodniks and the Mensheviks. This is the essence of the
proletarian municipal platform that is being glossed over by the
petty-bourgeois parties.

Foremost in this platform, topping the list of reforms, there
must be, as a basic condition for their actual realisation, the
following three fundamental points:

1. No support for the imperialist war (either in the form of
support for the war loan, or in any other form).

2. No support to the capitalist government.

3. No reinstatement of the police, which must be replaced by a
people’s militia.

Unless attention is focused on these cardinal questions, unless
it is shown that all municipal reforms are contingent upon them,
the municipal programme inevitably becomes (at best) a pious
wish.

Let us examine point 3.

In all bourgeois republics, even the most democratic, the police
(like the standing army) is the chief instrument of oppression
of the masses, an instrument making for a possible restoration
of the monarchy. The police beats up the “common people” in the
police stations of New York, Geneva, and Paris; it favours the
capitalists either because it is bribed to do so (America and
other countries), or because it enjoys wealthy “patronage” and
“protection” (Switzerland), or because of a combination of both
(France). Separated as it is from the people, forming a
professional caste of men trained in the practice of violence
upon the poor, men who receive somewhat higher pay and the
privileges that go with authority (to say nothing of “gratuities”), the police everywhere, in every republic, however
democratic, where the bourgeoisie is in power, always remains
the unfailing weapon, the chief support and protection of the
bourgeoisie. No important radical reforms in favour of the
working masses can be implemented through the police. That is
objectively impossible.

A people’s militia instead of the police force and the standing
army is a prerequisite of effective municipal reforms in the interests of the working people. At a time of revolution
this prerequisite is practicable. And it is on this that we must
concentrate the whole municipal platform, for the other two
cardinal conditions apply to the state as a whole, and not only
to municipal governments.

Just how this people’s militia can be brought into existence is
something which experience will show. To enable the proletarians
and semi-proletarians to serve in this militia, the employers
must be made to pay them their full wages for the days and hours
they spend in service. This is practicable. Whether we should
first organise a workers’ militia by drawing upon the workers employed at the large factories, i.e.. the workers who
are best organised and most capable of fulfilling the task of
militiamen, or whether we should immediately organise general compulsory service for all adult men and women, who
would devote to this service one or two weeks a year and so on,
is not a question of fundamental importance. There is no harm in
the different districts adopting different procedures—in
fact, it would make for richer experience, and the process of
organisation would develop more smoothly and come closer to
life’s practical requirements.

A people’s militia would mean education of the masses in the practices of democracy.

A people’s militia would mean government of the poor by the
people themselves, chiefly by the poor, and not by the rich, not through their police.

A people’s militia would mean that control (over factories,
dwellings, the distribution of products, etc.) would be
real and not merely on paper.

A people’s militia would mean distribution without any bread
queues, without any privileges for the rich.

A people’s militia would mean that quite a number of the serious
and radical reforms listed also by the Narodniks and the
Mensheviks would not remain mere pious wishes.

Comrades, working men and women of Petrograd! Go to the district
council elections. Protect the interests of the poor population. Come out against the imperialist war, against
support of the capitalist government, against the restoration of
the police and for the immediate unqualified replacement of the
police by a people’s militia.

---
Notes:
[1]