V. I.

Lenin

In an editorial on May 17 Finansovaya Gazeta writes:

“ The political upheaval, which everyone looked forward to, is
assuming the form of a social revolution without precedent
anywhere. The ’class struggle’, which is a legitimate and
natural thing in a free country, has taken on with us the
character of a class war. A financial crash is imminent. An
industrial crash is unavoidable.

“ To effect a political revolution it was enough to make Nicholas
II abdicate the throne and to arrest a dozen of his ministers. That was easily done in a single day. To effect a
social revolution, however, tens of millions of citizens must be
made to abdicate their property rights and all non-socialists
must be arrested. This cannot be done in scores of years.”

That is untrue, worthy fellow-citizens. It is a glaring lie! You
choose to call control over industry by the workers “social revolution”. In doing so you are committing three
monstrous errors.

First, the revolution of February 27 was also a social revolution. Every political upheaval, if it is not a mere change
of cliques, is a social revolution. The thing is— what class makes that social revolution. The revolution of
February 27, 1917 took the power from the feudal landowners
headed by Nicholas II and gave it to the bourgeoisie. It was a
social revolution of the bourgeoisie.

By the use of clumsy unscientific terminology which confuses
“social” with “socialist” revolution, Finansovaya Gazeta tries to conceal from the people the
obvious fact that the workers and peasants cannot content
themselves with seizure of power by the bourgeoisie.

By trying to ignore this clear and simple fact the capitalists
are deceiving themselves and the people.

Secondly, “without precedent anywhere” is also applicable to the
great imperialist war of 1914–17. Such a debacle, such bloody
horrors, such a disaster, and such a break-down of our entire civilisation are “without precedent anywhere”. It is
not anybody’s impatience, not anybody’s propaganda, but
objective conditions and this unprecedented break-down of
civilisation that necessitate this control over production and
distribution, over the banks, factories, etc.

Failing this, tens of millions of people can be said without
exaggeration to face inevitable ruin and death.

In view of the freedom created by the “political upheaval” of
February 27, in view of the existence of the Soviets, such
control is impossible unless the workers and peasants unite, unless the minority of the population bows to the
majority. Nothing can alter this, protest as you may.

Third, and most important of all—even for the purpose of a
socialist revolution there is no need at all for “tens of millions of citizens to abdicate their property rights”. Not
even socialism (and control over the banks and factories
does not yet mean socialism) requires anything of the kind.

This is an infamous defamation on socialism. No socialist has
ever proposed that the “tens of millions”, i.e., the small and
middle peasants, should be deprived of their property (=“made to
abdicate their property rights”).

Nothing of the kind!

Socialists everywhere have always denied such nonsense.

Socialists are out to make only the landowners and capitalists “abdicate”. To deal a decisive blow
at those who are defying the people the way the colliery owners
are doing when they disrupt and ruin production, it is sufficient to make a few hundred , at the most one or
two thousand, millionaires, bank and industrial and commercial
bosses, “abdicate” their property rights.

This would be quite enough to break the resistance of capital. Even this tiny group of wealthy people need not have all their property rights taken away from
them; they could be allowed to keep many possessions in the way
of consumption articles and ownership of a certain modest
income.

The question at issue is merely that of breaking down the
resistance of a few hundred millionaires. Only in this way can
disaster be averted.

---
Notes: