V. I.

Lenin

Constitutional Illusions [2]

Constitutional illusions are what we call a political error when
people believe in the existence of a normal, juridical, orderly
and legalised—in short, “constitutional”—system, although it does not
really exist. At first glance it may appear that in Russia today, July 1917, when no
constitution has yet been drafted, there can be no question of
constitutional illusions arising. But it would be very wrong to
think so. In reality, the essential characteristic of the
present political situation in Russia is that an extremely large
number of people entertain constitutional illusions. It is
impossible to understand anything about the political situation
in Russia today without appreciating this. Positively no step
can be taken towards a correct formulation of our tactical
tasks in Russia today unless we above all concentrate on
systematically and ruthlessly exposing constitutional illusions, revealing all their roots and re-establishing a
proper political perspective.

Let us take three ideas which are most typical of the current
constitutional illusions, and look into them carefully.

Idea No. 1 is that our country is about to have a Constituent
Assembly; therefore, everything going on now is temporary,
transitory, inessential and non-decisive, and every thing will
soon be revised and firmly regulated by the Constituent
Assembly. Idea No. 2 is that certain parties, such as the
Socialist-Revolutionaries or the Mensheviks, or their alliance,
command an obvious and undisputed majority among the people or
in “the most influential” institutions, such as the
Soviets; therefore, the will of these parties and institutions,
like the will of the majority of the people in general, cannot be ignored, and even less violated, in
republican, democratic and revolutionary Russia. Idea No. 3 is
that a certain measure , such as closing down
Pravda , was not legalised either by the Provisional
Government or by the Soviets; therefore, it was only a passing
phase, a chance occurrence, which cannot at all be regarded as
something decisive.

Let us look into each of these ideas.

I

The first Provisional Government promised to convene a
Constituent Assembly. It considered that its main job was to
prepare the country for a Constituent Assembly. The second
Provisional Government fixed September 30 for convening a
Constituent Assembly. The third Provisional Government, after
July 4, solemnly reaffirmed that date.

Nevertheless, the chances are a hundred to one against the
Constituent Assembly being convened on that date. And even if it
is, the chances are again a hundred to one that it will be as
impotent and useless as was the First Duma—until a second revolution triumphs in Russia. To appreciate this, you
only have to detach yourself for a moment from the present
hubbub of empty phrases, promises and petty doings which fuddles
your thinking, and take a look at the main thing, at what
determines everything in public life—the class struggle.

It is clear that the bourgeoisie in Russia have become very
closely tied up with the landowners. This is shown by the whole
press, the elections, the entire policy of the Cadet Party and
the parties to the right of it, and by speeches made at
“congresses” of “interested” persons. The bourgeoisie understand perfectly what the
petty-bourgeois Socialist-Revolutionary and “Left”
Menshevik windbags can not understand, namely, that private
landownership in Russia cannot be abolished, and this without compensation, except by carrying through a gigantic
economic revolution, by bringing the banks under popular
control, by nationalising the syndicates and adopting the most
ruthless revolutionary measures against capital. The bourgeoisie under stand that perfectly. At the same time,
however, they must know, see and feel that the vast majority of peasants in Russia
will now be much more to the left than Chernov as well as
declaring for confiscation of the landed estates. For the
bourgeoisie know better than we do, both as to how many partial
concessions were made them by Chernov, say, from May 6 to July 2,
over delaying and curtailing the various peasant demands, and as
to how much effort it took the Right
Socialist-Revolutionaries (Chernov, believe it or not, is regarded
as a “centre” man by the Socialist-Revolutionaries!)
at the Peasant Congress and on the Executive Committee of the
All-Russia Congress of Peasants’ Deputies to “reassure” the peasants and feed them on promises.

The big bourgeoisie differ from the petty bourgeoisie in that
they have learned, from their economic and political experience,
the conditions under which “order” (i. e., keeping down the people) can be preserved under capitalism. The
bourgeoisie are businessmen, people who make big commercial
transactions and are accustomed to getting down even to
political matters in a strictly business-like manner. They take
the bull by the horns rather than putting their trust in words.

The Constituent Assembly in Russia today will yield a majority
to peasants who are more to the left than the
Socialist-Revolutionaries. The bourgeoisie know this and
therefore are bound to put up a tremendous resistance to an
early convocation. With a Constituent Assembly convened, it will be impossible, or exceedingly difficult, to
carry on the imperialist war in the spirit of the secret
treaties concluded by Nicholas II, or to defend the landed
estates or the payment of compensation for them. The war will
not wait. The class struggle will not wait. This was evident
enough even in the brief span from February 28 to April 21.

From the very beginning of the revolution there have been two
views on the Constituent Assembly. The Socialist-Revolutionaries
and Mensheviks, completely swayed by constitutional illusions, viewed the matter with the credulity
of the petty bourgeoisie who will not hear of the class
struggle: the Constituent Assembly has been proclaimed, there
will be a Constituent Assembly and that’s all there is to it!
Everything else is of the devil’s making. Meanwhile the
Bolsheviks said: only the growing strength and authority of the Soviets can guarantee the convocation and
success of the Constituent Assembly. The Mensheviks and
Socialist-Revolutionaries laid emphasis on the act of law: the
proclamation, the promise, the declaration to call a Constituent
Assembly. The Bolsheviks laid emphasis on the class struggle: if
the Soviets were to win, the Constituent Assembly would be
certain to meet; if not, there would be no such certainty.

That is exactly what happened. The bourgeoisie have all along
been waging both in the open and under cover a continuous and
relentless struggle against calling a Constituent
Assembly. This struggle was prompted by a desire to delay its
convocation until after the war. It expressed itself in the fact
that several times they postponed the date of convocation. When,
after June 18, or more than a month after the formation
of the coalition Cabinet, the convocation date was at last set,
a Moscow bourgeois paper declared this had been done under the
pressure of Bolshevik propaganda. Pravda has published an exact quotation from that paper.

After July 4, when the servility and timidity of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks had led to the
“victory” of the counter-revolution, a brief but highly significant phrase—the “impossibly
early” convocation of a Constituent
Assembly!!—slipped into Rech. And on July
16 , an item appeared in Volya Naroda and
Russkaya Volya , saying that the Cadets insisted on postponing the convocation of the Constituent Assembly under
the pretext that it was “impossible” to convene it at such “short” notice, and adding that the
Menshevik Tsereteli, a lackey of the counter-revolution, had
consented to its postponement until November 20!

Undoubtedly, this item slipped in against the will of the
bourgeoisie who cannot benefit from such “revelations”. But murder will out. The
counter-revolutionaries, letting themselves go after July 4,
blurted out the truth. The very first seizure of power by the
counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie after July 4 was immediately
followed by a measure (a very serious measure) against calling a Constituent Assembly.

That is a fact. And that fact reveals the utter futility of
constitutional illusions. Unless a new revolution takes place in Russia, unless the power of the counter-revolutionary
bourgeoisie (primarily the Cadets) is overthrown, and unless the
people withdraw their trust from the Socialist-Revolutionary
and Menshevik parties, parties compromising with the bourgeoisie, the Constituent Assembly will either never meet, or
else will be just a “Frankfurt talking shop”,  [3] an impotent and worthless assembly of petty bourgeois
people frightened to death by the war and the prospect of the
bourgeoisie “boycotting the government”, and helplessly
torn between frantic efforts to rule without the bourgeoisie
and the fear of getting along without them.

The Constituent Assembly issue is subordinate to that of the course and outcome of the class struggle between the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Some time ago, Rabochaya Gazeta blurted out the remark that the Constituent Assembly
would be a Convention. This is an example of the empty, wretched
and contemptible bragging of our Menshevik lackeys of the
counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. If it is not to be a
“Frankfurt talking shop” or a First Duma, if it is to be a Convention, it must have the courage, the capacity and
the strength to strike merciless blows at the counter revolutionaries instead of compromising with them. For this
purpose power must be in the hands of the most advanced, most
determined and most revolutionary class of today. For this
purpose that class must be supported by the whole mass of the
urban and rural poor (the semi-proletarians). For this purpose
the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, i.e., primarily the
Cadets and the high-ranking army officers, must. be dealt with
mercilessly. These are the real, the class, the material
conditions necessary for a Convention. You have only to list
these conditions in a precise and clear way to understand the
stupidity of Rabochaya Gazeta’s bragging and the utter foolishness of the constitutional illusions of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks regarding a Constituent
Assembly in Russia today.

II

When lashing the petty-bourgeois “Social-Democrats” of
1848, Marx was particularly severe in his condemnation of their
unrestrained use of empty phrases about “the people” and the majority of the people in
general. [4]
It is well to recall this in examining the second idea, in analysing
constitutional illusions about a “majority”.

For the majority in the state to really decide, definite
conditions are required, one of which is the firm establishment
of a political system, a form of state power, making it possible
to decide matters by a majority and guaranteeing the translation
of this possibility into reality. That is one thing. Another is
that the class composition of this majority and the interrelation of classes inside (and outside) it should
enable it to draw the chariot of state concertedly and effectively. Every Marxist knows that these two concrete
conditions play a decisive part in the question of a popular
majority and of the direction of state affairs in line with the
will of the majority. And yet the political literature of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and their political
conduct even more so, betray a complete lack of understanding
of these conditions.

If political power in the state is in the hands of a class whose
interests coincide with those of the majority, that state can be
governed truly in line with the will of the majority. But if
political power is in the hands of a class whose interests
diverge from those of the majority, any form of majority rule is
bound to become deception or suppression of the majority. Every
bourgeois republic provides hundreds and thousands of examples
of this kind. In Russia, the bourgeoisie rule both the economic
and political life. Their interests, particularly during the
imperialist war, violently conflict with the interests of the
majority. Hence, from a materialist and Marxist, and not from a
formally juridical point of view, we must expose this conflict,
and combat bourgeois deception of the people.

Our Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, on the contrary,
have fully demonstrated and proved that their true role is to be
an instrument of the bourgeoisie for deceiving the people (the
“majority”), to be the vehicle of that deception and contribute to it. However sincere individual
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks may be, their fundamental political ideas—that it is possible to break
free of the imperialist war and gain “peace without annexations and indemnities” without the dictatorship of
the proletariat and the triumph of socialism, and that it is possible to secure the transfer of land to the people without
compensation and establish “control” over production in the people’s interests without the same condition—these
fundamental political (and, of course, economic) ideas of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are, in practice,
nothing but petty-bourgeois self-deception, or deception of the
masses (the “majority”) by the bourgeoisie, which is the
same thing.

That is our first and main “amendment” to the majority issue as understood by the petty-bourgeois democrats,
socialists of the Louis Blanc type, Socialist-Revolutionaries
and Mensheviks. What, in fact, is the value of a “majority” when a majority is in itself only a
formal thing and when materially, in actual fact, that majority
is a majority of the parties through which the bourgeoisie
deceive the majority?

And, of course—and this leads us to our second “amendment”, to the second of the above-mentioned
fundamental conditions—this deception can only be properly
understood by ascertaining its class roots and class meaning. This is not self-deception, not (to put it bluntly) a
“swindle”, but an illusory idea arising out of the economic situation in which a class finds itself. The
petty-bourgeois is in such an economic position, the conditions
of his life are such that he cannot help deceiving himself, he
involuntarily and inevitably gravitates one minute towards the
bourgeoisie, the next towards the proletariat. It is economically impossible for him to pursue an
independent “line”.

His past draws him towards the bourgeoisie, his future towards
the proletariat. His better judgement gravitates towards the
latter, his prejudice  [5] (to use a familiar expression of Marx’s) towards the former. For the
majority of the people to become an actual majority in state administration,
the actual servant of the interests of the majority, and the actual protector of its rights, and so on, a certain
class condition is required, namely, that the majority of the
petty bourgeoisie should join forces with the revolutionary
proletariat, at least at the decisive moment and in the decisive
place.

Without this, a majority is mere fiction which may prevail for a
while, may glitter and shine, make a noise and reap laurels, but is absolutely and inevitably doomed to failure
nonetheless. This, incidentally, was where the majority of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks came to grief, as the
Russian revolution showed in July 1917.

Further, a revolution differs from a “normal” situation in the state precisely because controversial issues of
state life are decided by the direct class and popular struggle
to the point of armed struggle. It cannot be otherwise when the
masses are free and armed. This fundamental fact implies that in
time of revolution it is not enough to ascertain the “will
of the majority”—you must prove to be stronger at the decisive moment and in the decisive place; you must
win. Beginning with the Peasant War in the Middle Ages in Germany, and throughout all the big revolutionary movements
and epochs, including 1848, 1871 and 1905, we have seen
innumerable examples of the better organised, more politically-conscious and better armed minority forcing its
will upon the majority and defeating it.

Frederick Engels particularly stressed the lesson to be drawn
from experience, a lesson which to some degree is common to the
peasant revolt of the sixteenth century and to the Revolution of
1848 in Germany, namely, disunity of action and lack of
centralisation on the part of the oppressed owing to their
petty-bourgeois status in life. [6]
Examining the matter from this point of view, we come to the same conclusion,
namely, that a simple majority of the petty-bourgeois masses
does not and cannot decide anything, for the disunited millions
of rural petty proprietors can only acquire organisation, political consciousness in action and
centralisation of action (which is indispensable for victory)
when they are led either by the bourgeoisie or by the proletariat.

In the long run we know that the problems of social life are
resolved by the class struggle in its bitterest and fiercest
form—civil war. In this war, as in any other war—a fact also well known and in principle not disputed by
anyone—it is economics that decide. It is quite typical
and significant that the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks,
while not denying this “in principle” and while realising perfectly the capitalist character of Russia today,
dare not face the truth soberly. They are afraid to admit the
truth

that every capitalist country, including Russia, is basically
divided into three main forces: the bourgeoisie, the petty
bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The first and third are spoken
of and recognised by all. Yet the second—which really is
the numerical majority! —nobody cares to appraise soberly, neither from the economic, political nor military point
of view.

Truth does not flatter. That is why the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks shrink from recognising
themselves.

III

When I was just beginning this article, the closing down of
Pravda was merely an “incident”, one that had not yet been legalised by the government. But now, after
July 16, the government has formally closed Pravda down.

If viewed historically and as a whole, throughout the process of
its preparation and realisation, this measure casts a remarkably
bright light on the “nature of the constitution” in
Russia and on the danger of constitutional illusions.

It is known that the Cadet Party, headed by Milyukov and the
newspaper Rech , has been demanding repressive measures
against the Bolsheviks ever since April. This demand for
repression, presented in various forms—from “statesman-like” articles in Rech to
Milyukov’s repeated cries “Arrest them” (Lenin and other Bolsheviks)—has been one of the major components, if
not the major component, of the Cadet political programme in
the revolution.

The Cadet Party had been systematically, relentlessly and
continuously demanding repressive measures against the
Bolsheviks long before Alexinsky and Co. in June and July
invented and fabricated the foully slanderous charge that the
Bolsheviks were German spies or were receiving German money, and
long before the equally slanderous charge—running counter
to generally known facts and published documents—of “armed uprising” or of
“rebellion”. Since this demand has now been met, what are we to think of the honesty or intelligence of those who
forget, or pretend to forget, the true class and party origin of
this demand? How on earth can we help describing as crude
falsification or incredible political stupidity the futile
efforts of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks to make
out they believe the “occasion” which presented itself on
July 4 for the repressive measures against the Bolsheviks
was an “accident” or an “isolated” incident? There must surely be a limit to
the distortion of indisputable historical facts!

You have only to compare the movement of April 20–21 with that
of July 3–4 to realise immediately that they are alike in
character: both contained such objective facts as the spontaneous popular outburst of discontent, impatience and
indignation, the provocative shots from the right, the killings
on Nevsky, the slanderous outcries from the bourgeoisie,
particularly the Cadets, to the effect that “it was the
Lenin people who fired the shots on Nevsky”, the extreme
aggravation and exacerbation of the struggle between the workers
and the bourgeoisie, the utter confusion of the petty-bourgeois
parties, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and the
tremendous range of vacillation in their policy and in their
approach to the issue of state power generally. June 9-10 and
June 18 give us just the same class picture in a different form.

The course of events is as clear as can be: it shows growing
popular discontent, impatience and indignation and an increasing
aggravation of the struggle between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie, particularly for influence over the petty-bourgeois
masses. Linked with this are two very important historical
developments which have made the Socialist-Revolutionaries and
Mensheviks dependent on the counter-revolutionary Cadets. These
developments are, first, the formation on May 6 of a coalition
Cabinet in which the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks
turned out to be the hangers-on of the bourgeoisie, getting them
selves more and more into a tangle by making deals and agreements with the latter, rendering them thousands of “services”, delaying the most essential
revolutionary measures time and again; and secondly, the
offensive at the front. The offensive inevitably implied the
resumption of the imperialist war, a vast increase in the
influence, weight and role of the imperialist bourgeoisie, the
most widespread chauvinism among the people, and, last but not
least [1]

,

the transfer of power—first military power and then state power generally—to the counter-revolutionary
high-ranking army officers.

This was the course of historical events which between April
20–21 and July 3–4 deepened and sharpened class antagonisms, and
which after July 4 enabled the counter revolutionary bourgeoisie
to accomplish what on April 20–21 had stood out very clearly as
their programme and tactics, their immediate aim and their
“clean” methods, which were to lead to the achievement of that aim.

Nothing could be more pointless historically, more pitiful
theoretically or more ridiculous practically than the philistine
whining (echoed, incidentally, by L. Martov as well) over July 4, to the effect that the Bolsheviks “contrived” to
defeat themselves, that this defeat came from their own
“adventurism”, and so on, and so forth. All this whining, all these arguments to the effect that we “should
not have” participated (in the attempt to lend a “peaceable and organised” character to the perfectly
legitimate popular discontent and indignation!!), are either
sheer apostasy, if coming from Bolsheviks, or the usual
expression of the usual cowed and confused state of the petty
bourgeoisie. In actual fact, the movement of July 3–4 grew out
of the movement of April 20–21 and after as inevitably as summer
follows spring. It was the imperative duty of the proletarian
party to remain with the masses and try to lend as peaceable and
organised a character as possible to their justified action
rather than stand aside and wash its hands like Pontius Pilate,
on the pedantic plea that the masses were not organised down to
the last man and that their movement some times went to
excesses—as though there had been no excesses on April
20–21, as though there had ever in history been a serious
popular movement free of excesses!

The defeat of the Bolsheviks after July 4 followed with
historical inevitability from the whole preceding course of
events because on April 20–21 the petty-bourgeois masses and
their leaders, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks,
were not yet tied by the offensive and had not yet got themselves into a tangle by their deals with the bourgeoisie in
the “coalition Cabinet”, whereas by July 4 they had become so tied and entangled they could not but stoop to
co-operation (in repressive measures, in slander, in butchery)
with the counter-revolutionary Cadets. On July 4 the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks slid for good into the
cesspool of counter-revolution; they had been steadily sliding
towards it throughout May and June due to their role in the
coalition Cabinet and their approval of the policy of offensive.

We may appear to have digressed from our subject, the closing
down of Pravda , to a historical estimation of the events of July 4. But this only appears so, for the one can not
be understood without the other. We have seen that, if we look
into the matter and the interconnection of events, the closing
down of Pravda , and the arrests and the other forms of
persecution of the Bolsheviks are nothing but the realisation of
the long-standing programme of the counter-revolutionaries, the
Cadets in particular.

It would now be highly instructive to see who specifically carried out this programme, and by what means.

Let us have a look at the facts. On July 2–3 the movement was
growing; the people were seething with indignation at government
inaction, the high cost of living, economic dislocation and the
offensive. The Cadets withdrew, playing a give-away game and
presenting an ultimatum to the Socialist-Revolutionaries and
Mensheviks, leaving them, tied to power but lacking power, to
pay for the people’s defeat and indignation.

On July 2–3 the Bolsheviks were trying to restrain the masses
from action. This has been acknowledged even by an eyewitness from Dyelo Naroda , who reported on what took
place in the Grenadier Regiment on July 2. On the evening of
July 3, the movement overflowed its banks and the Bolsheviks
drew up an appeal stressing that the movement must be “peaceable and organised”. On July 4, provocative shots from the right increased the number of victims of the
firing on both sides. It should be pointed out that the
Executive Committee’s promise to investigate the incidents, to
issue bulletins twice a day, etc., etc., has remained an empty
promise! The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks did
nothing whatsoever, they didn’t even publish a complete list of
the dead on both sides!!

On the night of July 4 the Bolsheviks drew up an appeal to stop
the action and Pravda printed it that same night.

But that same night, firstly, counter-revolutionary troops began
to arrive in Petrograd (apparently upon the summons or with the
consent of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, of
their Soviets—a “delicate” point regarding which, of course, the strictest silence is maintained even now
when every bit of need for secrecy is past!). Secondly, that
same night military cadets and suchlike, clearly acting upon
instructions from Polovtsev, commanding, and from the General
Staff, began raids on the Bolsheviks. On the night of July 4–5,
Pravda’s office was raided. On July 5 and 6, its printers’, “Trud”, was wrecked; a worker named
Voinov was murdered in broad daylight for carrying Listok “Pravdy” from the printers’; house searches
and arrests were made among the Bolsheviks and the revolutionary
regiments were disarmed.

Who started it all? Not the government or the Soviet, but the
counter-revolutionary military gang grouped around the General
Staff and acting in the name of the “counter intelligence
service”, circulating the lies of Pereverzev and Alexinsky
in order to stir up the army, and so on.

The government is absent. So are the Soviets; they are trembling
for their own fate as they receive message after message that
the Cossacks may come and smash them up. The Black Hundred and
Cadet press, which led the hounding of the Bolsheviks, is
beginning to hound the Soviets.

The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks have bound
themselves hand and foot by their entire policy. Being bound,
they called (or tolerated the calling of) counter revolutionary
troops to Petrograd. And that bound them even more. They have
sunk to the very bottom of the foul counter-revolutionary
cesspool. They cravenly dismissed their own commission,
appointed to investigate the “case” of the
Bolsheviks. They basely betrayed the Bolsheviks to the counter-revolutionaries. They abjectly participated in the
funeral procession of the Cossacks who were killed, and so
kissed the hand of the counter-revolutionaries.

They are completely bound. They are at the bottom of the
cesspool.

They try this, that and the other; they hand Kerensky the
Cabinet, they go to Canossa to the Cadets, they organise a
“Zemsky Sobor” or a “coronation” of the counter-revolutionary government in
Moscow. [7]
Kerensky dismisses Polovtsev.

But nothing comes of all those efforts. They in no way change
the actual state of affairs. Kerensky dismisses
Polovtstev, but at the same time gives shape and legality to
Polovtsev’s measures and to his policy; he closes down
Pravda , he introduces capital punishment for the soldiers, he bans meetings at the front, he continues to arrest
Bolsheviks (even Kollontai!) in accordance with Alexinsky’s
programme.

The “nature of the constitution” in Russia is coming out with striking clarity: the offensive at the front and
the coalition with the Cadets in the rear have cast the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks into the cesspool of
counter-revolution. In reality , state power is passing
into the hands of the counter-revolutionaries, the military
gang. Kerensky and the government of Tsereteli and Chernov are
only a screen for it; they are compelled to legalise its measures, actions and policies post factum .

The haggling going on between the Cadets and Kerensky, Tsereteli
and Chernov is of secondary importance, if not entirely
unimportant. Whether the Cadets win in this haggling, or whether
Tsereteli and Chernov hold out “alone”, will have no effect on the actual state of affairs. The fundamental, the
main and decisive fact is that the Socialist-Revolutionaries
and Mensheviks have swung over to the counter-revolutionaries (a
swing forced by the policy they have been pursuing since May 6).

The cycle of party development is complete. The
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks have slid steadily
downwards—from their expression of “confidence” in
Kerensky on February 28 to May 6, which bound them to the counter revolutionaries, and then to July 5, when they touched
rock bottom.

A new period Is coming in. The victory of the counter revolutionaries is making the people disappointed with the
Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties and is paving the
way for the masses to adopt a policy of support for the
revolutionary proletariat.

---
Notes:
[1]
These four words are given in English by Lenin.– Ed .
— Lenin

[2]
The article “ Constitutional Illusions ” was first published in Rabochy i Soldat in 1917 and then appeared in pamphlet form under
the title of “The Current Situation”. To prevent the suppression
of the newspaper and ensure the secrecy of the Bolshevik Party’s
preparations for an armed uprising, the editors substituted “
including its drastic forms” for “including armed struggle”.

[3]
Lenin is referring to the Frankfurt Parliament, a national assembly
convened in Germany in May 1848, after the March revolution.
The majority in it was held by the liberal bourgeoisie, which
engaged in fruitless talk on a draft constitution, while leaving
power in the king’s hands.

[4]
Reference is to Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works , Vol. 1,
Moscow, 1973, pp. 394–487).

__PRINTERS_P_521_COMMENT__
17—874

[5]
See Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (Karl
Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works , Vol. 1, Moscow, 1973,
p. 480).

[6]
See Frederick Engels, The Peasant War in Germany , Moscow, 1965.

[7]
Reference is to the State Conference planned by the Provisional
Government. It was called in Moscow on August 12 (25), 1917.
Most of the delegates were landowners, members of the bourgeoisie,
generals, officers and Cossack leaders. The Soviet delegation was
composed of Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. The
conference was expected to rally the counter-revolutionary forces of
the bourgeoisie and landowners to defeat the revolution. Kornilov,
Alexeyev, Kaledin and others put forward a programme for
crushing the revolution. Kerensky threatened in his speech to put down
the revolutionary movement and prevent seizures of the landed
estates by the peasants. The Central Committee of the Bolshevik
Party called on the working class to join in a protest action against
the conference. On the opening day of the conference the Bolsheviks
organised a one-day general strike in Moscow involving over
400,000 people. Protest meetings and strikes took place in several
other cities.