The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It
V.I. Lenin

Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/index.htm

V. I. Lenin

## The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It

## Famine Is Approaching

Unavoidable catastrophe is threatening Russia. The railways are
incredibly disorganised and the disorganisation is progressing. The railways will come to a standstill. The delivery
of raw materials and coal to the factories will cease. The
delivery of grain will cease. The Capitalists are deliberately and
unremittingly sabotaging (damaging, stopping, disrupting,
hampering) production, hoping that an unparalleled catastrophe
will mean the collapse of the republic and democracy, and of the
Soviets and proletarian and peasant associations generally, thus
facilitating the return to a monarchy and the restoration of the
unlimited power of the bourgeoisie and the landowners.

The danger of a great catastrophe and of famine is imminent. All
the newspapers have written about this time and again. A
tremendous number of resolutions have been adopted by the
parties and by the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’
Deputies—resolutions which admit that a catastrophe is unavoidable, that it is very close, that extreme measures are
necessary to combat it, that "heroic efforts" by the people are
necessary to avert ruin, and so on.

Everybody says this. Everybody admits it. Everybody has decided it is so.

Yet nothing is being done.

Six months of revolution have elapsed. The catastrophe is even
closer. Unemployment has assumed a mass scale. To think that
there is a shortage of goods in the country, the country is
perishing from a shortage of food and labour, although there is
a sufficient quantity of grain and raw materials, and yet in
such a country, at so critical a moment, there is mass unnemployment! What better evidence is needed to show that after
six months of revolution (which some call a great revolution,
but which so far it would perhaps be fairer to call a rotten
revolution), in a democratic republic, with an abundance of
unions, organs and institutions which proudly call themselves
"revolutionary democratic", absolutely nothing of any importance has actually been done to avert catastrophe, to avert
famine? We are nearing ruin with increasing speed. The war will
not wait and is causing increasing dislocation in every sphere
of national life.

Yet the slightest attention and thought will suffice to satisfy
anyone that the ways of combating catastrophe and famine are
available, that the measures required to combat them are quite
clear, simple, perfectly feasible, and fully within reach of the
people’s forces, and that these measures are not being adopted only because, exclusively because, their
realisation would affect the fabulous profits of a handful of
landowners and capitalists.

And, indeed, it is safe to say that every single speech, every
single article in a newspaper of any trend, every single
resolution passed by any meeting or institution quite clearly
and explicitly recognises the chief and principal measure of
combating, of averting, catastrophe and famine. This measure is
control, supervision, accounting, regulation by the state,
introduction of a proper distribution of labour-power in the
production and distribution of goods, husbanding of the people’s
forces, the elimination of all wasteful effort, economy of
effort. Control, supervision and accounting are the prime
requisites for combating catastrophe and famine. This is
indisputable and universally recognised. And it is just what is not being done from fear of encroaching on the
supremacy of the landowners and capitalists, on their immense,
fantastic and scandalous profits, profits derived from high
prices and war contracts (and, directly or indirectly, nearly
everybody is now “working” for the war), profits about which
everybody knows and which everybody sees, and over which
everybody is sighing and groaning.

And absolutely nothing is being done to introduce such control,
accounting and supervision by the state as would be in the least
effective.

## Notes

V. I. Lenin

## The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It

## Complete Government Inactivity

There is a universal, systematic and persistent sabotage of
every kind of control, supervision and accounting and of all
state attempts to institute them. And one must be incredibly
naïve not to understand, one must be an utter hypocrite to
pretend not to understand, where this sabotage comes from and by
what means it is being carried on. For this sabotage by the
bankers and capitalists, their frustration of every kind of control, supervision and accounting, is being adapted to
the state forms of a democratic republic, to the existence of
“revolutionary-democratic” institutions. The capitalist
gentlemen have learnt very well a fact which all supporters of
scientific socialism profess to recognise but which the
Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries tried to forget as soon
as their friends had secured cushy jobs as ministers, deputy
ministers, etc. That fact is that the economic substance of
capitalist exploitation is in no wise affected by the substitution of republican-democratic forms of government for
monarchist forms, and that, consequently, the reverse is also
true—only the form of the struggle for the inviolability and sanctity of capitalist profits need be changed
in order to uphold them under a democratic republic as effectively as under an absolute monarchy.

The present, modern republican-democratic sabotage of every kind
of control, accounting and supervision consists in the capitalists “eagerly” accepting in words the “principle” of
control and the necessity for control (as, of course, do all
Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries), insisting only that
this control be introduced “gradually”, methodically and in a
“state-regulated” way. In practice, how ever, these specious
catchwords serve to conceal the frustration of control,
its nullification, its reduction to a fiction, the mere playing
at control, the delay of all business-like and practically
effective measures, the creation of extraordinarily complicated,
cumbersome and bureaucratically lifeless institutions of control
which are hopelessly dependent on the capitalists, and which do
absolutely nothing and cannot do anything.

So as not to trot out bald statements, let us cite witnesses
from among the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, i.e.,
the very people who had the majority in the Soviets during the
first six months of revolution, who took part in the "coalition
government" and who are therefore politically responsible to the
Russian workers and peasants for winking at the capitalists and
allowing them to frustrate all control.

Izvestia TsIK (i.e., the newspaper of the Central
Executive Committee of the All-Russia Congress of Soviets of
Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies), the official organ
of the highest of the so-called "fully authorised" (no joke!)
bodies of “revolutionary” democracy, in issue No. 164, of
September 7, 1917, printed a resolution by a special control organisation created and run by these very Mensheviks
and Socialist-Revolutionaries. This special institution is the
Economic Department of the Central Executive Committee. Its
resolution officially records as a fact " the complete inactivity of the central bodies set up under the government for
the regulation of economic life ".

Now, how could one imagine any more eloquent testimony to the
collapse of the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary policy
than this statement signed by the Mensheviks and
Socialist-Revolutionaries themselves?

The need for the regulation of economic life was already
recognised under tsarism, and certain institutions were set up
for the purpose. But under tsarism economic chaos steadily grew
and reached monstrous proportions. It was at once recognised
that it was the task of the republican, revolutionary government
to adopt effective and resolute measures to put an end to the
economic chaos. When the “coalition” government was formed with
the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries participating, it
promised and undertook, in its most solemn public declaration of
May 6, to introduce state control and regulation. The Tseretelis
and Chernovs, like all the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary
leaders, vowed and swore that not only were they responsible for
the government, but that the "authorised bodies of revolutionary
democracy" under their control actually kept an eye on the work
of the government and verified its activities.

Four months have passed since May 6, four long months, in which
Russia has sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands of
soldiers for the sake of the absurd imperialist “offensive”, in
which chaos and disaster have been advancing in seven-league
strides, in which the summer season afforded an exceptional
opportunity to do a great deal in the matter of water transport,
agriculture, prospecting for minerals, and so on and so forth—and after four months the Mensheviks and
Socialist-Revolutionaries have been obliged officially to admit
the "complete inactivity" of the control institutions set up
under the government!!

And these Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, with the
serious mien of statesmen, now prate (I am writing this on the
very eve of the Democratic
Conference of
September 12 [1] )

that matters can be furthered by replacing the coalition with the Cadets by a coalition with
commercial and industrial Kit
Kityches , [2] the Ryabushinskys, Bublikovs, Tereshchenkos and
Co.

How, one may ask, are we to explain this astonishing blindness
of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries? Are we to
regard them as political babes in the wood who in their extreme
foolishness and naïveté do not realise what they are doing
and err in good faith? Or does the abundance of posts they
occupy as ministers, deputy ministers, governors-general,
commissars and the like have the property of engendering a
special kind of “political” blindness?

## Notes

[1] The All-Russia Democratic Conference was held in Petrograd between
September 14 and 22 (September 27–October 5), 1917. It was called
by the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries to stem the rising
tide of the revolution. The delegates represented petty-bourgeois
parties, the compromising Soviets, the trade unions, Zemstvos,
commercial and industrial circles, and troop units. The Bolsheviks
attended with the aim of exposing the designs of the Mensheviks
and S.R.s. The conference elected a pre-parliament (Provisional
Council of the Republic) through which the Mensheviks and S.R.s
hoped to check the revolution and divert the country on to the track
of a bourgeois parliamentary system.

On Lenin’s proposal, the Central Committee of the Party decided
that the Bolsheviks should withdraw from the pre-parliament.
Only the capitulators Kamenev, Rykov and Ryazanov, who were
against the Party’s course for the socialist revolution, insisted
on participation in the pre-parliament. The Bolsheviks exposed
the treacherous activity of the pre-parliament as they trained the
people for an armed uprising.

[2] Kit Kitych (literally, Whale Whaleson)—nickname of Tit Titych,
a rich merchant in Alexander Ostrovsky’s comedy Shouldering
Another’s Troubles . Lenin applies the nickname to capitalist
tycoons.

V. I. Lenin

## The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It

## Control Measures Are Known To All and Easy To Take

One may ask: aren’t methods and measures of control extremely
complex, difficult, untried and even unknown? Isn’t the delay due
to the fact that although the statesmen of the Cadet Party, the
merchant and industrial class, and the Menshevik and
Socialist-Revolutionary parties have for six months been toiling
in the sweat of their brow, investigating, studying and
discovering measures and methods of control, still the problem is
incredibly difficult and has not yet been solved?

Unfortunately, this is how they are trying to present matters to
hoodwink the ignorant, illiterate and downtrodden muzhiks and
the Simple Simons who believe everything and never look into
things. In reality, however, even tsarism, even the “old
regime", when it set up the War
Industries
Committees [1] knew the principal measure, the chief method and way to introduce control, namely, by
uniting the population according to profession, purpose of work,
branch of labour, etc. But tsarism feared the union of the population and therefore did its best to restrict and
artificially hinder this generally known, very easy and quite
practical method and way of control.

All the belligerent countries, suffering as they are from the
extreme burdens and hardships of the war, suffering—in one degree or another—from economic chaos and famine,
have long ago outlined, determined, applied and tested a whole series of control measures, which consist almost
invariably in uniting the population and in setting up or
encouraging unions of various kinds, in which state representatives participate, which are under the supervision of
the state, etc. All these measures of control are known to all,
much has been said and written about them, and the laws passed
by the advanced belligerent powers relating to control have been
translated into Russian or expounded in detail in the Russian
press.

If our state really wanted to exercise control in a business like and earnest fashion, if its institutions had not
condemned themselves to "complete inactivity" by their servility
to the capitalists, all the state would have to do would be to
draw freely on the rich store of control measures which are
already known and have been used in the past. The only obstacle
to this—an obstacle concealed from the eyes of the people
by the Cadets, Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks—was, and still is, that control would bring to light the
fabulous profits of the capitalists and would cut the ground
from under these profits.

To explain this most important question more clearly (a question
which is essentially equivalent to that of the programme of any truly revolutionary government that would wish to
save Russia from war and famine), let us enumerate these
principal measures of control and examine each of them.

We shall see that all a government would have had to do, if its
name of revolutionary-democratic government were not merely a
joke, would have been to decree, in the very first week of its
existence, the adoption of the principal measures of control, to
provide for strict and severe punishment to be meted out to
capitalists who fraudulently evaded control. and to call upon
the population itself to exercise supervision over the capitalists and see to it that they scrupulously observed the
regulations on control—and control would have been introduced in Russia long ago.

These principal measures are:

(1) Amalgamation of all banks into a single bank, and state
control over its operations, or nationalisation of the banks.

(2) Nationalisation of the syndicates, i.e., the largest,
monopolistic capitalist associations (sugar, oil, coal, iron
and steel, and other syndicates).

(3) Abolition of commercial secrecy.

(4) Compulsory syndication (i.e., compulsory amalgamation into
associations) of industrialists, merchants and employers
generally.

(5) Compulsory organisation of the population into consumers’
societies, or encouragement of such organisation, and the
exercise of control over it.

Let us see what the significance of each of these measures would
be if carried out in a revolutionary-democratic way.

## Notes

[1] The War Industries Committees , which came into being in May
1915, were formed by Russia’s big imperialist bourgeoisie to help
the tsarist regime with the war. The chairman of the Central War
Industries Committee was the Octobrist leader A. I. Guchkov,
a big capitalist. Among its members were the manufacturer
A. I. Konovalov and the banker and sugar manufacturer M. I.
Tereshchenko. In an effort to bring the workers under its sway and
inspire them with defencist sentiments, the bourgeoisie decided
to form “workers’ groups” under the committees and thereby to
show that “class peace” had been established between the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat of Russia. The Bolsheviks declared
a boycott of the committees, and maintained it with support
from the majority of the workers.

As a result of the Bolsheviks’ explanatory work, elections to
the “workers’ groups” took place only in 70 out of the 239 regional
and local War Industries Committees, workers’ representatives
being elected to only 36 Committees.

V. I. Lenin

## The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It

## Nationalisation of the Banks

The banks, as we know, are centres of modern economic life, the
principal nerve centres of the whole capitalist economic
system. To talk about "regulating economic life" and yet evade the
question of the nationalisation of the banks means either
betraying the most profound ignorance or deceiving the "common
people" by florid words and grandiloquent promises with the
deliberate intention of not fulfilling these promises.

It is absurd to control and regulate deliveries of grain, or the
production and distribution of goods generally, without
controlling and regulating bank operations. It is like trying to
snatch at odd kopeks and closing one’s eyes to millions of
rubles. Banks nowadays are so closely and intimately bound up
with trade (in grain and everything else) and with industry that
without "laying hands" on the banks nothing of any value,
nothing “revolutionary-democratic”, can be accomplished.

But perhaps for the state to "lay hands" on the banks is a very
difficult and complicated operation? They usually try to scare
philistines with this very idea—that is, the capitalists
and their defenders try it, because it is to their advantage to
do so.

In reality, however, nationalisation of the banks, which would
not deprive any “owner” of a single kopek, presents absolutely
no technical or cultural difficulties, and is being delayed exclusively because of the vile greed of an
insignificant handful of rich people. If nationalisation of the
banks is so often confused with the confiscation of private
property, it is the bourgeois press, which has an interest in
deceiving the public, that is to blame for this widespread
confusion.

The ownership of the capital wielded by and concentrated in the
banks is certified by printed and written certificates called
shares, bonds, bills, receipts, etc. Not a single one of these
certificates would be invalidated or altered if the banks were
nationalised, i.e., if all the banks were amalgamated into a
single state bank. Whoever owned fifteen rubles on a savings
account would continue to be the owner of fifteen rubles after
the nationalisation of the banks; and whoever had fifteen
million rubles would continue after the nationalisation of the
banks to have fifteen million rubles in the form of shares,
bonds, bills, commercial certificates and so on.

What, then, is the significance of nationalisation of the banks?

It is that no effective control of any kind over the individual
banks and their operations is possible (even if commercial
secrecy, etc., were abolished) because it is impossible to keep
track of the extremely complex, involved and wily tricks that
are used in drawing up balance sheets. founding fictitious
enterprises and subsidiaries, enlisting the services of
figureheads, and so on, and so forth. Only the amalgamation of
all banks into one, which in itself would imply no change
whatever in respect of ownership. and which, we repeat, would
not deprive any owner of a single kopek, would make it possible to exercise real control—provided, of
course, all the other measures indicated above were carried
out. Only by nationalising the banks can the state put itself in a position to know where and how, whence
and when, millions and billions of rubles flow. And only control
over the banks, over the centre, over the pivot and chief
mechanism of capitalist circulation, would make it possible to
organise real and not fictitious control over all economic life,
over the production and distribution of staple goods, and
organise that "regulation of economic life" which otherwise is
inevitably doomed to remain a ministerial phrase designed to
fool the common people. Only control over banking operations,
provided they were concentrated in a single state bank, would
make it possible, if certain other easily-practicable measures
were adopted, to organise the effective collection of income tax
in such a way as to prevent the concealment of property and
incomes; for at present the income tax is very largely a
fiction.

Nationalisation of the banks has only to be decreed and it would
be carried out by the directors and employees themselves. No
special machinery, no special preparatory steps on the part of
the state would be required, for this is a measure that can be
effected by a single decree, "at a single stroke". It was made
economically feasible by capitalism itself once it had developed
to the stage of bills, shares, bonds and so on. All that is
required is to unify accountancy . And if the revolutionary-democratic government were to decide that
immediately, by telegraph, meetings of managers and employees
should be called in every city, and conferences in every region
and in the country as a whole, for the immediate amalgamation of
all banks into a single state bank, this reform would be carried
out in a few weeks. Of course, it would be the managers and the
higher bank officials who would offer resistance, who would try
to deceive the state, delay matters, and so on, for these
gentlemen would lose their highly remunerative posts and the
opportunity of performing highly profitable fraudulent operations. That is the heart of the matter . But there
is not the slightest technical difficulty in the way of the
amalgamation of the banks; and if the state power were revolutionary not only in word (i.e., if it did not fear to do
away with inertia and routine), if it were democratic not only
in word (i.e., if it acted in the interests of the majority of
the people and not of a handful of rich men), it would be enough
to decree confiscation of property and imprisonment as the
penalty for managers, board members and big shareholders for the
slightest delay or for attempting to conceal documents and
accounts. It would be enough, for example, to organise the
poorer employees separately and to reward them for detecting fraud and delay on the part of the rich for
nationalisation of the banks to be effected as smoothly and
rapidly as can be.

The advantages accruing to the whole people from nationalisation
of the banks— not to the workers especially (for the workers have little to do with banks) but to the mass of
peasants and small industrialists—would be enormous. The
saving in labour would be gigantic, and, assuming that the state
would retain the former number of bank employees, nationalisation would be a highly important step towards making
the use of the banks universal, towards increasing the number of
their branches, putting their operations within easier reach,
etc., etc. The availability of credit on easy terms for the small owners, for the peasants, would increase
immensely. As to the state, it would for the first time be in a
position first to review all the chief monetary operations, which would be unconcealed, then to control them, then to regulate economic life, and finally to obtain millions and billions for major state
transactions, without paying the capitalist gentlemen sky-high
“commissions” for their “services”. That is the reason—and the only reason—why all the capitalists, all the
bourgeois professors, all the bourgeoisie, and all the
Plekhanovs, Potresovs and Co., who serve them, are prepared to
fight tooth and nail against nationalisation of the banks and
invent thousands of excuses to prevent the adoption of this very
easy and very pressing measure, although even from the standpoint of the “defence” of the country, i.e., from the
military standpoint, this measure would provide a gigantic
advantage and would tremendously enhance the "military might"
of the country.

The following objection might be raised: why do such advanced
states as Germany and the U.S.A. "regulate economic life" so
magnificently without even thinking of nationalising the banks?

Because, we reply, both these states are not merely capitalist, but also imperialist states, although one of them is
a monarchy and the other a republic. As such, they carry out the
reforms they need by reactionary-bureaucratic methods, whereas
we are speaking here of revolutionary-democratic methods.

This "little difference" is of major importance. In most cases
it is "not the custom" to think of it. The term "revolutionary
democracy" has become with us (especially among the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks) almost a conventional
phrase, like the expression "thank God", which is also used by
people who are not so ignorant as to believe in God; or like the
expression "honourable citizen", which is sometimes used even in
addressing staff members of Dyen or Yedinstvo , although nearly everybody guesses that these newspapers have
been founded and are maintained by the capitalists in the
interests of the capitalists, and that there is therefore very
little “honourable” about the pseudo-socialists contributing to
these newspapers.

If we do not employ the phrase "revolutionary democracy" as a
stereotyped ceremonial phrase, as a conventional epithet, but reflect on its meaning, we find that to be a democrat
means reckoning in reality with the interests of the majority of
the people and not the minority, and that to be a revolutionary
means destroying everything harmful and obsolete in the most
resolute and ruthless manner.

Neither in America nor in Germany, as far as we know, is any
claim laid by either the government or the ruling classes to the
name "revolutionary democrats", to which our
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks lay claim (and which
they prostitute).

In Germany there are only four very large private banks of
national importance. In America there are only two . It
is easier, more convenient, more profitable for the financial
magnates of those banks to unite privately, surreptitiously, in
a reactionary and not a revolutionary way, in a bureaucratic and
not a democratic way, bribing government officials (this is the
general rule both in America and in Germany ), and preserving the private character of the banks in order to
preserve secrecy of operations, to milk the state of millions
upon millions in “super-profits”, and to make financial frauds
possible.

Both America and Germany "regulate economic life" in such a way
as to create conditions of war-time penal servitude for
the workers (and partly for the peasants) and a paradise for the bankers and capitalists. Their
regulation consists in “squeezing” the workers to the point of
starvation, while the capitalists are guaranteed (surreptitiously, in a reactionary-bureaucratic fashion) profits higher than before the war.

Such a course is quite possible in republican-imperialist Russia
too. Indeed, it is the course being followed not only by the
Milyukovs and Shingaryovs, but also by Kerensky in partnership
with Tereshchenko, Nekrasov, Bernatsky, Prokopovich and Co., who also uphold , in a reactionary-bureaucratic manner, the
“inviolability” of the banks and their sacred right to fabulous
profits. So let us better tell the truth , namely, that
in republican Russia they want to regulate economic life in a
reactionary-bureaucratic manner, but “often” find it difficult
to do so owing to the existence of the “Soviets”, which Kornilov
No. 1 did not manage to disband, but which Kornilov No. 2 will
try to disband.

That would be the truth. And this simple if bitter truth is more
useful for the enlightenment of the people than the honeyed lies
about “our”, “great”, “revolutionary” democracy.

Nationalisation of the banks would greatly facilitate the
simultaneous nationalisation of the insurance business, i.e.,
the amalgamation of all the insurance companies into one, the
centralisation of their operations, and state control over
them. Here, too, congresses of insurance company employees could
carry out this amalgamation immediately and without any great
effort, provided a revolutionary-democratic government decreed
this and ordered directors and big shareholders to effect the
amalgamation without the slightest delay and held every one of
them strictly accountable for it. The capitalists have invested
hundreds of millions of rubles in the insurance business; the
work is all done by the employees. The amalgamation of this
business would lead to lower insurance premiums, would provide a
host of facilities and conveniences for the insured and would
make it possible to increase their number without increasing
expenditure of effort and funds. Absolutely nothing but the
inertia, routine and self-interest of a handful of holders of
remunerative jobs are delaying this reform, which, among other
things, would enhance the country’s defence potential by
economising national labour and creating a number of highly
important opportunities to "regulate economic life" not in word,
but in deed.

## Notes

V. I. Lenin

## The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It

## Nationalisation of the Syndicates

Capitalism differs from the old, pre-capitalistic systems of
economy in having created the closest interconnection and
interdependence of the various branches of the economy. Were
this not so, incidentally, no steps towards socialism would be
technically feasible. Modern capitalism, under which the banks
dominate production, has carried this interdependence of the
various branches of the economy to the utmost. The banks and the
more important branches of industry and commerce have become
inseparably merged. This means, on the one hand, that it is
impossible to nationalise the banks alone, without proceeding to
create a state monopoly of commercial and industrial syndicates
(sugar, coal, iron, oil, etc.), and without nationalising
them. It means, on the other hand, that if carried out in
earnest, the regulation of economic activity would demand the
simultaneous nationalisation of the banks and the syndicates.

Let us take the sugar syndicate as an example. It came into
being under tsarism, and at that time developed into a huge
capitalist combine of splendidly equipped refineries. And, of
course, this combine, thoroughly imbued with the most reactionary and bureaucratic spirit, secured scandalously high
profits for the capitalists and reduced its employees to the
status of humiliated and downtrodden slaves lacking any
rights. Even at that time the state controlled and regulated
production — in the interests of the rich, the magnates.

All that remains to be done here is to transform reactionary-bureaucratic regulation into
revolutionary-democratic regulation by simple decrees providing
for the summoning of a congress of employees, engineers,
directors and shareholders, for the introduction of uniform
accountancy, for control by the workers’ unions, etc. This is an
exceedingly simple thing, yet it has not been done! Under what
is a democratic republic, the regulation of the sugar industry actually remains reactionary-bureaucratic; everything
remains as of old—the dissipation of national labour, routine and stagnation, and the enrichment of the Bobrinskys and
Tereshchenkos. Democrats and not bureaucrats, the workers and
other employees and not the "sugar barons", should be called
upon to exercise independent initiative—and this could and should be done in a few days, at a single stroke, if only
the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks did not befog the
minds of the people by plans for “association” with these very
sugar barons, for the very association with the wealthy from
which the "complete inaction" of the government in the matter of
regulating economic life follows with absolute inevitability,
and of which it is a consequence. [1]

Take the oil business. It was to a vast extent “socialised” by
the earlier development of capitalism. Just a couple of oil
barons wield millions and hundreds of millions of rubles,
clipping coupons and raking in fabulous profits from a “business” which is already actually, technically and
socially organised on a national scale and is already being conducted by hundreds and thousands of employees,
engineers, etc. Nationalisation of the oil industry could be
effected at once by, and is imperative for, a revolutionary-democratic state, especially when the latter
suffers from an acute crisis and when it is essential to
economise national labour and to increase the output of fuel at
all costs. It is clear that here bureaucratic control can
achieve nothing, can change nothing, for the "oil barons" can
cope with the Tereshchenkos, the Kerenskys, the Avksentyevs and the Skobelevs
as easily as they coped with the tsar’s ministers—by means of delays, excuses and promises, and by bribing the
bourgeois press directly or indirectly (this is called "public
opinion", and the Kerenskys and Avksentyevs “reckon” with it),
by bribing officials (left by the Kerenskys and Avksentyevs in
their old jobs in the old state machinery which remains
intact).

If anything real is to be done bureaucracy must be abandoned for
democracy, and in a truly revolutionary way, i.e., war must be
declared on the oil barons and shareholders, the confiscation of
their property and punishment by imprisonment must be decreed
for delaying nationalisation of the oil business, for concealing
incomes or accounts, for sabotaging production, and for failing
to take steps to increase production. The initiative of the
workers and other employees must be drawn on; they must
be immediately summoned to conferences and congresses; a certain
proportion of the profits must be assigned to them , provided they institute overall control and increase
production. Had these revolutionary-democratic steps been taken
at once, immediately, in April 1917, Russia, which is one of the
richest countries in the world in deposits of liquid fuel,
could, using water transport, have done a very great deal during
this summer to supply the people with the necessary quantities
of fuel.

Neither the bourgeois nor the coalition
Socialist-Revolutionary-Menshevik-Cadet government has done
anything at all. Both have confined themselves to a bureaucratic
playing at reforms. They have not dared to take a single
revolutionary-democratic step. Everything has remained as it was
under the tsars—the oil barons, the stagnation, the hatred of the workers and other employees for their exploiters,
the resulting chaos, and the dissipation of national labour—only the letterheads on the incoming and
outgoing papers in the “republican” offices have been changed!

Take the coal industry. It is technically and culturally no less
“ripe” for nationalisation, and is being no less shamelessly
managed by the robbers of the people, the coal barons, and there
are a number of most striking facts of direct sabotage,
direct damage to and stoppage of production by the industrialists. Even the ministerial Rabochaya Gazeta of the Mensheviks has admitted these facts. And what do we find?
Absolutely nothing has been done, except to call the old,
reactionary-bureaucratic meetings "on a half-and-half basis"—an equal number of workers and bandits from the coal
syndicate! Not a single revolutionary-democratic step has been
taken, not a shadow of an attempt has been made to establish the
only control which is real—control from below , through the employees’ union, through the workers, and by using
terror against the coal industrialists who are ruining the
country and bringing production to a standstill! How can this be
done when we are “all” in favour of the “coalition”—if not with the Cadets, then with commercial and industrial
circles. And coalition means leaving power in the hands of the
capitalists, letting them go unpunished, allowing them to hamper
affairs, to blame everything on the workers, to intensify the
chaos and thus pave the way for a new Kornilov revolt!

## Notes

[1] These lines had been written
when I learnt from the newspapers that the Kerensky government
is introducing a sugar monopoly, and, of course, is introducing
it in a reactionary-bureaucratic way, without congresses of
workers and other employees, without publicity, and without
curbing the capitalists!
— Lenin

V. I. Lenin

## The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It

## Abolition of Commercial Secrecy

Unless commercial secrecy is abolished, either control over
production and distribution will remain an empty promise, only
needed by the Cadets to fool the Socialist-Revolutionaries and
Mensheviks, and by the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks
to fool the working classes, or control can be exercised only by
reactionary-bureaucratic methods and means. Although this is
obvious to every unprejudiced person, and although Pravda
persistently demanded the abolition of commercial secrecy [1] (and was
suppressed largely for this reason by the Kerensky government
which is subservient to capital), neither our republican
government nor the "authorised bodies of revolutionary democracy" have even thought of this first step to real
control.

This is the very key to all control. Here we have the most
sensitive spot of capital, which is robbing the people and
sabotaging production. And this is exactly why the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are afraid to do
anything about it.

The usual argument of the capitalists, one reiterated by the
petty bourgeoisie without reflection, is that in a capitalist
economy the abolition of commercial secrecy is in general
absolutely impossible, for private ownership of the means of
production, and the dependence of the individual undertakings on
the market render essential the "sanctity" of commercial books
and commercial operations, including, of course, banking
operations.

Those who in one form or another repeat this or similar
arguments allow themselves to be deceived and themselves deceive
the people by shutting their eyes to two fundamental, highly
important and generally known facts of modern economic activity. The first fact is the existence of large-scale
capitalism, i.e., the peculiar features of the economic system
of banks, syndicates, large factories, etc. The second fact is
the war.

It is modern large-scale capitalism, which is everywhere
becoming monopoly capitalism, that deprives commercial secrecy
of every shadow of reasonableness, turns it into hypocrisy and
into an instrument exclusively for concealing financial swindles
and the fantastically high profits of big capital. Large-scale
capitalist economy, by its very technical nature, is socialised
economy, that is, it both operates for millions of people and,
directly or indirectly, unites by its operations hundreds,
thousands and tens of thousands of families. It is not like the
economy of the small handicraftsman or the middle peasant who
keep no commercial books at all and who would therefore not be
affected by the abolition of commercial secrecy!

As it is, the operations conducted in large-scale business are
known to hundreds or more persons. Here the law protecting
commercial secrecy does not serve the interests of production or
exchange, but those of speculation and profit-seeking in their
crudest form, and of direct fraud, which, as we know, in the
case of joint-stock companies is particularly widespread and
very skilfully concealed by reports and balance-sheets, so
compiled as to deceive the public.

While commercial secrecy is unavoidable in small commodity
production, i.e., among the small peasants and handicraftsmen,
where production itself is not socialised but scattered and
disunited, in large-scale capitalist production, the protection
of commercial secrecy means protection of the privileges and
profits of literally a handful of people against the interest of the whole people. This has already been recognised
by the law, inasmuch as provision is made for the publication of
the accounts of joint-stock companies. But this control, which
has already been introduced in all advanced countries, as well
as in Russia, is a reactionary-bureaucratic control which does
not open the eyes of the people and which does not allow the whole truth about the operations of joint-stock
companies to become known.

To act in a revolutionary-democratic way, it would be necessary
to immediately pass another law abolishing commercial secrecy,
compelling the big undertakings and the wealthy to render the
fullest possible accounts, and investing every group of citizens
of substantial democratic numerical strength (1,000 or 10,000
voters, let us say) with the right to examine all the records of any large undertaking. Such a measure could be fully
and easily effected by a simple decree. It alone would allow full scope for popular initiative in control,
through the office employees’ unions, the workers’ unions and
all the political parties, and it alone would make control
effective and democratic.

Add to this the war. The vast majority of commercial and
industrial establishments are now working not for the "free
market", but for the government , for the war. This is why I have already stated in Pravda that people who
counter us with the argument that socialism cannot be introduced
are liars, and barefaced liars at that, because it is not a
question of introducing socialism now, directly. overnight, but
of exposing plunder of the state [2] .

Capitalist “war” economy (i.e., economy directly or indirectly
connected with war contracts) is systematic and legalised
plunder, and the Cadet gentry, who, together with the Mensheviks
and Socialist-Revolutionaries, are opposing the abolition of
commercial secrecy, are nothing but aiders and abettors of
plunder .

The war is now costing Russia fifty million rubles a day . These fifty million go mostly to army contractors. Of
these fifty, at least five million daily , and probably
ten million or more, constitute the "honest income" of the
capitalists, and of the officials who are in one way or another
in collusion with them. The very large firms and banks which
lend money for war contracts transactions thereby make fantastic
profits, and do so by plundering the state, for no other epithet
can be applied to this defrauding and plundering of the people
"on the occasion of" the hardships of war, "on the occasion of"
the deaths of hundreds of thousands and millions of people.

“ Everybody” knows about these scandalous profits made on war
contracts, about the "letters of guarantee" which are concealed
by the banks, about who benefits by the rising cost of living. They are smiled on in “society”. Quite a number of
precise references are made to them even in the bourgeois press, which as a general rule keeps silent about
“unpleasant” facts and avoids “ticklish” questions. Everybody
knows about them, yet everybody keeps silent, everybody
tolerates them, everybody puts up with the government, which
prates eloquently about “control” and “regulation”!!

The revolutionary democrats, were they real revolutionaries and
democrats, would immediately pass a law abolishing commercial
secrecy, compelling contractors and merchants to render accounts
public, forbidding them to abandon their field of activity
without the permission of the authorities, imposing the penalty
of confiscation of property and shooting [3] for concealment and for deceiving the people,
organising verification and control from below , democratically, by the people themselves, by unions of workers
and other employees, consumers, etc.

Our Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks fully deserve to be
called scared democrats, for on this question they repeat what
is said by all the scared philistines, namely, that the
capitalists will "run away" if "too severe" measures are
adopted, that “we” shall be unable to get along without the
capitalists, that the British and French millionaires, who are,
of course, “supporting” us, will most likely be “offended” in
their turn, and so on. It might be thought that the Bolsheviks
were proposing something unknown to history, something that has
never been tried before, some thing “utopian”, while, as a
matter of fact, even 125 years ago, in France, people who were
real "revolutionary democrats", who were really convinced of the
just and defensive character of the war they were waging, who
really had popular support and were sincerely convinced of this,
were able to establish revolutionary control over the rich and to achieve results which earned the admiration of the
world. And in the century and a quarter that have since elapsed,
the development of capitalism, which resulted in the creation of
banks, syndicates, railways and so forth, has greatly facilitated and simplified the adoption of measures of really
democratic control by the workers and peasants over the
exploiters, the landowners and capitalists.

In point of fact, the whole question of control boils down to
who controls whom, i.e., which class is in control and which is
being controlled. In our country, in republican Russia, with the
help of the "authorised bodies" of supposedly revolutionary
democracy, it is the landowners and capitalists who are still
recognised to be, and still are, the controllers. The inevitable
result is the capitalist robbery that arouses universal
indignation among the people, and the economic chaos that is
being artificially kept up by the capitalists. We must resolutely and irrevocably, not fearing to break with the old,
not fearing boldly to build the new, pass to control over the
landowners and capitalists by the workers and peasants. And this
is what our Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks fear worse
than the plague.

## Notes

[1] See present edition, Vol. 24, pp. 521–22, and this volume,
pp. 140–41.— Ed .

[2] See pp. 68–69 of this volume.— Ed .

[3] I have already had
occasion to point out in the Bolshevik press that it is right to
argue against the death penalty only when it is applied by the
exploiters against the mass of the working people with the
purpose of maintaining exploitation. It is hardly likely that
any revolutionary government whatever could do without applying
the death penalty to the exploiters (i.e., the landowners and
capitalists).
— Lenin

V. I. Lenin

## The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It

## Compulsory Association

Compulsory syndication, i.e., compulsory association, of the
industrialists, for example, is already being practised in
Germany. Nor is there anything new in it. Here, too, through the
fault of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, we see
the utter stagnation of republican Russia, whom these none-too-respectable parties "entertain" by dancing a quadrille
with the Cadets, or with the Bublikovs, or with Tereshchenko and
Kerensky.

Compulsory syndication is, on the one hand, a means whereby the
state, as it were, expedites capitalist development, which
everywhere leads to the organisation of the class struggle and
to a growth in the number, variety and importance of unions. On
the other hand, compulsory "unionisation" is an indispensable
precondition for any kind of effective control and for all
economy of national labour.

The German law, for instance, binds the leather manufacturers of
a given locality or of the whole country to form an association,
on the board of which there is a representative of the state for
the purpose of control. A law of this kind does not directly,
i.e., in itself, affect property relations in any way; it does
not deprive any owner of a single kopek and does not predetermine whether the control is to be exercised in a
reactionary-bureaucratic or a revolutionary-democratic form,
direction or spirit.

Such laws can and should be passed in our country immediately,
without wasting a single week of precious time; is should be
left to social conditions themselves to determine the more specific forms of enforcing the law, the speed with which
it is to be enforced, the methods of supervision over its
enforcement, etc. In this case, the state requires no special
machinery, no special investigation, nor preliminary enquiries
for the passing of such a law. All that is required is the
determination to break with certain private interests of the
capitalists, who are "not accustomed" to such interference and
have no desire to forfeit the super-profits which are ensured by
the old methods of management and the absence of control.

No machinery and no "statistics" (which Chernov wanted to
substitute for the revolutionary initiative of the peasants) are
required to pass such a law, inasmuch as its implementation must be made the duty of the manufacturers or
industrialists themselves, of the available public forces, under the control of the available public (i.e., non-government, non-bureaucratic) forces too, which, however,
must consist by all means of the so-called "lower estates",
i.e., of the oppressed and exploited classes, which in history
have always proved to be immensely superior to the exploiters in their capacity for heroism, self-sacrifice and
comradely discipline.

Let us assume that we have a really revolutionary-democratic
government and that it decides that the manufacturers and
industrialists in every branch of production who employ, let us
say, not less than two workers shall immediately amalgamate into
uyezd and gubernia associations. Responsibility for the strict
observance of the law is laid in the first place on the
manufacturers, directors, board members, and big shareholders
(for they are the real leaders of modern industry, its real
masters). They shall be regarded as deserters from military
service, and punished as such, if they do not work for the
immediate implementation of the law, and shall bear mutual
responsibility, one answering for all, and all for one, with the
whole of their property. Responsibility shall next be laid on
all office employees, who shall also form one union, and on all workers and their trade union. The purpose of
“unionisation” is to institute the fullest, strictest and most
detailed accountancy, but chiefly to combine operations in the purchase of raw materials, the sale of products, and the economy of national funds and forces. When the separate
establishments are amalgamated into a single syndicate, this
economy can attain tremendous proportions, as economic science
teaches us and as is shown by the example of all syndicates,
cartels and trusts. And it must be repeated that this unionisation will not in itself alter property relations one
iota and will not deprive any owner of a single kopek. This
circumstance must be strongly stressed, for the bourgeois press
constantly “frightens” small and medium proprietors by asserting
that socialists in general, and the Bolsheviks in particular,
want to “expropriate” them—a deliberately false assertion, as socialists do not intend to, cannot and will not
expropriate the small peasant even if there is a fully socialist revolution . All the time we are speaking only of
the immediate and urgent measures, which have already been
introduced in Western Europe and which a democracy that is at
all consistent ought to introduce immediately in our country to
combat the impending and inevitable catastrophe.

Serious difficulties, both technical and cultural, would be
encountered in amalgamating the small and very small proprietors
into associations, owing to the extremely small proportions and
technical primitiveness of their enterprises and the illiteracy
or lack of education of the owners.. But precisely such
enterprises could be exempted from the law (as was pointed out
above in our hypothetical example). Their non-amalgamation, let
alone their belated amalgamation, could create no serious
obstacle, for the part played by the huge number of small
enterprises in the sum total of production and their importance
to the economy as a whole are negligible , and, moreover, they are often in one way or another dependent on the
big enterprises.

Only the big enterprises are of decisive importance; and here
the technical and cultural means and forces for “unionisation” do exist ; what is lacking is the firm, determined
initiative of a revolutionary government which should be ruthlessly severe towards the exploiters to set these forces
and means in motion.

The poorer a country is in technically trained forces, and in
intellectual forces generally, the more urgent it is to
decree compulsory association as early and as resolutely as
possible and to begin with the bigger and biggest enterprises
when putting the decree into effect, for it is association that
will economise intellectual forces and make it possible
to use them to the full and to distribute them more correctly. If, after 1905, even the Russian peasants in their
out-of-the-way districts, under the tsarist government, in face
of the thousands of obstacles raised by that government, were
able to make a tremendous forward stride in the creation of all
kinds of associations, it is clear that the amalgamation of
large- and medium-scale industry and trade could be effected in
several months, if not earlier, provided compulsion to this end
were exercised by a really revolutionary-democratic government
relying on the support, participation, interest and advantage of
the "lower ranks", the democracy, the workers and other
employees, and calling upon them to exercise control.

## Notes

V. I. Lenin

## The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It

## Regulation of Consumption

The war has compelled all the belligerent and many of the
neutral countries to resort to the regulation of consumption. Bread cards have been issued and have become
customary, and this has led to the appearance of other ration
cards. Russia is no exception and has also introduced bread
cards.

Using this as an example, we can draw, perhaps, the most
striking comparison of all between reactionary-bureaucratic
methods of combating a catastrophe, which are confined to
minimum reforms, and revolutionary-democratic methods, which, to
justify their name, must directly aim at a violent rupture with
the old, obsolete system and at the achievement of the speediest
possible progress.

The bread card—this typical example of how consumption is
regulated in modern capitalist countries—aims at, and achieves (at best), one thing only, namely, distributing
available supplies of grain to give everybody his share. A
maximum limit to consumption is established, not for all
foodstuffs by far, but only for principal foodstuffs, those of
“popular” consumption. And that is all. There is no intention of
doing anything else. Available supplies of grain are calculated
in a bureaucratic way, then divided on a per capita basis, a
ration is fixed and introduced, and there the matter ends. Luxury articles are not affected, for they are “anyway”
scarce and “anyway” so dear as to be beyond the reach of the
“people”. And so, in all the belligerent countries without exception, even in Germany, which evidently,
without fear of contradiction, may be said to be a model of the
most careful, pedantic and strict regulation of consumption— even in Germany we find that the rich
constantly get around all “rationing”. This, too, “everybody” knows and “everybody” talks about with a smile; and
in the German socialist papers, and sometimes even in the
bourgeois papers, despite the fierce military stringency of the
German censorship, we constantly find items and reports about
the “menus” of the rich, saying how the wealthy can obtain white
bread in any quantity at a certain health re sort (visited, on
the plea of illness, by everybody who has plenty of money), and
how the wealthy substitute choice and rare articles of luxury
for articles of popular consumption.

A reactionary capitalist state which fears to undermine
the pillars of capitalism, of wage slavery, of the economic
supremacy of the rich, which fears to encourage the initiative of the workers and the working people generally,
which fears to provoke them to a more exacting attitude— such a state will be quite content with bread
cards. Such a state does not for a moment, in any measure it
adopts, lose sight of the reactionary aim of strengthening capitalism, preventing its being undermined, and
confining the "regulation of economic life" in general, and the
regulation of consumption in particular, to such measures as are
absolutely essential to feed the people, and makes no attempt whatsoever at real regulation of consumption by
exercising control over the rich and laying the greater part of the burden in war-time on those who are
better off, who are privileged, well fed and overfed in
peace-time.

The reactionary-bureaucratic solution to the problem with which
the war has confronted the peoples confines itself to bread
cards, to the equal distribution of “popular” foodstuffs, of
those absolutely essential to feed the people, without retreating one little bit from bureaucratic and reactionary
ideas, that is, from the aim of not encouraging the initiative of the poor, the proletariat, the mass of the people
(“demos”), of not allowing them to exercise control over the rich, and of leaving as many loopholes as possible for the rich to compensate themselves with
articles of luxury. And a great number of loopholes are left in all countries, we repeat, even in Germany—not to
speak of Russia; the "common people" starve while the rich visit
health resorts, supplement the meagre official ration by all
sorts of “extras” obtained on the side, and do not allow themselves to be controlled.

In Russia, which has only just made a revolution against the
tsarist regime in the name of liberty and equality, in Russia,
which, as far as its actual political institutions are concerned, has at once become a democratic republic, what
particularly strikes the people, what particularly arouses
popular discontent, irritation, anger and indignation is that everybody sees the easy way in which the wealthy get around the bread cards. They do it very easily indeed. "From
under the counter", and for a very high price, especially if one
has “ pull ” (which only the rich have), one can obtain
anything, and in large quantities, too. It is the people who are
starving. The regulation of consumption is confined within the
narrowest bureaucratic-reactionary limits. The government has
not the slightest intention of putting regulation on a really
revolutionary-democratic footing, is not in the least concerned
about doing so.

“ Everybody” is suffering from the queues but—but the rich
send their servants to stand in the queues, and even engage
special servants for the purpose! And that is “democracy”!

At a time when the country is suffering untold calamities, a
revolutionary-democratic policy would not confine itself to
bread cards to combat the impending catastrophe but would add,
firstly, the compulsory organisation of the whole population in
consumers’ societies, for otherwise control over consumption
cannot be fully exercised; secondly, labour service for the
rich, making them perform without pay secretarial and similar
duties for these consumers’ societies; thirdly, the equal
distribution among the population of absolutely all consumer
goods, so as really to distribute the burdens of the war
equitably; fourthly, the organisation of control in such a way
as to have the poorer classes of the population exercise control
over the consumption of the rich.

The establishment of real democracy in this sphere and the
display of a real revolutionary spirit in the organisation of
control by the most needy classes of the people would be a-very
great stimulus to the employment of all available intellectual
forces and to the development of the truly revolutionary
energies of the entire people. Yet now the ministers of
republican and revolutionary-democratic Russia, exactly like
their colleagues in all other imperialist countries, make
pompous speeches about "working in common for the good of the
people" and about "exerting every effort", but the people see,
feel and sense the hypocrisy of this talk.

The result is that no progress is being made, chaos is spreading
irresistibly, and a catastrophe is approaching, for our
government cannot introduce war-time penal servitude for the
workers in the Kornilov, Hindenburg, general imperialist way—the traditions, memories, vestiges, habits and
institutions of the revolution " are still too much alive among the people; our government does not want to take any
really serious steps in a revolutionary-democratic direction,
for it is thoroughly infected and thoroughly enmeshed by its
dependence on the bourgeoisie, its “coalition” with the
bourgeoisie, and its fear to encroach on their real privileges.

## Notes

V. I. Lenin

## The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It

## Government Disruption of the Work of the Democratic Organisations

We have examined various ways and means of combating catastrophe
and famine. We have seen everywhere that the contradictions
between the democrats, on the one hand, and the government and
the bloc of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks which
is supporting it, on the other, are irreconcilable. To prove
that these contradictions exist in reality, and not merely in
our exposition, and that their irreconcilability is actually " borne out by conflicts affecting the people
as a whole, we have only to recall two very typical “results”
and lessons of the six months’ history of our revolution.

The history of the “reign” of Palchinsky is one lesson. The
history of the “reign” and fall of Peshekhonov is the other.

The measures to combat catastrophe and hunger described above
boil down to the all-round encouragement (even to the extent of
compulsion) of “unionisation” of the population, and primarily
the democrats, i.e., the majority of the population, or, above
all, the oppressed classes, the workers and peasants, especially
the poor peasants. And this is the path which the population
itself spontaneously began to adopt in order to cope with the
unparalleled difficulties, burdens and hardships of the war.

Tsarism did everything to hamper the free and independent
“unionisation” of the population. But after the fall of the
tsarist monarchy, democratic organisations began to spring up
and grow rapidly all over Russia. The struggle against the
catastrophe began to be waged by spontaneously arising democratic organisations—by all sorts of committees of
supply, food committees, fuel councils, and so on and so forth.

And the most remarkable thing in the whole six months’ history
of our revolution, as far as the question we are examining is
concerned, is that a government which calls itself republican
and revolutionary, and which is supported by the Mensheviks and
Socialist-Revolutionaries in the name of the "authorised bodies
of revolutionary democracy", fought the democratic organisations
and defeated them !!

By this fight, Palchinsky earned extremely wide and very sad
notoriety all over Russia. He acted behind the government’s
back, without coming out publicly (just as the Cadets generally
preferred to act, willingly pushing forward Tsereteli "for the
people", while they themselves arranged all the important
business on the quiet). Palchinsky hampered and thwarted every
serious measure taken by the spontaneously created democratic
organisations, for no serious measure could be taken without
“injuring” the excessive profits and wilfulness of the Kit
Kityches. And Palchinsky was in fact a loyal defender and
servant of the Kit Kityches. Palchinsky went so far—and
this fact was reported in the newspapers—as simply to annul the orders, of the spontaneously created
democratic organisations!

The whole history of Palchinsky’s “reign”—and he “reigned” for many months, and just when Tsereteli, Skobelev and
Chernov were “ministers”—was a monstrous scandal from beginning to end; the will of the people and the decisions of
the democrats were frustrated to please the capitalists
and meet their filthy greed. Of course, only a negligible part
of Palchinsky’s “feats” could find its way into the press, and a
full investigation of the manner in which he hindered the struggle against famine can be made only by a truly
democratic government of the proletariat when it gains power and
submits all the actions of Palchinsky and his like, without
concealing anything, to the judgement of the people.

It will perhaps be argued that Palchinsky was an exception, and
that after all he was removed. But the fact is that Palchinsky
was not the exception but the rule, that the situation has in no
way improved with his removal, that his place has been taken by
the same kind of Palchinskys with different names, and that all
the “ influence ” of the capitalists, and the entire policy of frustrating the struggle against hunger to please
the capitalists , has remained intact. For Kerensky and
Co. are only a screen for defence of the interests of the
capitalists.

The most striking proof of this is the resignation of
Peshekhonov, the Food Minister. As we know, Peshekhonov is a
very, very moderate Narodnik. But in the organisation of food
supply he wanted to work honestly, in contact with and supported
by the democratic organisations. The experience of
Peshekhonov’s work and his resignation are all the more
interesting because this extremely moderate Narodnik, this
member of the Popular Socialist Party, who was ready to accept
any compromise with the bourgeoisie, was nevertheless compelled
to resign! For the Kerensky government, to please the capitalists, landowners and kulaks, had raised the
fixed prices of grain!

This is how M. Smith describes this “step” and its significance
in the newspaper Svobodnaya
Zhizn [1] No. 1, of September 2:

“ Several days before the government decided to raise the fixed prices, the following scene was enacted in the
national Food Committee: Rolovich, a Right-winger, a stubborn
defender of the interests of private trade and a ruthless opponent
of the grain monopoly and state interference in economic affairs,
publicly announced with a smug smile that he understood the fixed
grain prices would shortly be raised. “ The representative of the Soviet of Workers’
and Soldiers’ Deputies replied by declaring that he knew nothing
of the kind, that as long as the revolution in Russia lasted such
an act could not take place, and that at any rate the government
could not take such a step without first consulting the authorised
democratic bodies—the Economic Council and the national
Food Committee. This statement was supported by the representative
of the Soviet of Peasants’ Deputies. “ But, alas, reality introduced a very harsh
amendment to this counter-version! It was the representative of
the wealthy elements and not the representatives of the democrats
who turned out to be right. He proved to be excellently informed
of the preparations for an attack on democratic rights, although
the democratic representatives indignantly denied the very
possibility of such an attack.”

“ Several days before the government decided to raise the fixed prices, the following scene was enacted in the
national Food Committee: Rolovich, a Right-winger, a stubborn
defender of the interests of private trade and a ruthless opponent
of the grain monopoly and state interference in economic affairs,
publicly announced with a smug smile that he understood the fixed
grain prices would shortly be raised.

“ The representative of the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies replied by declaring that he knew nothing
of the kind, that as long as the revolution in Russia lasted such
an act could not take place, and that at any rate the government
could not take such a step without first consulting the authorised
democratic bodies—the Economic Council and the national
Food Committee. This statement was supported by the representative
of the Soviet of Peasants’ Deputies.

“ But, alas, reality introduced a very harsh amendment to this counter-version! It was the representative of
the wealthy elements and not the representatives of the democrats
who turned out to be right. He proved to be excellently informed
of the preparations for an attack on democratic rights, although
the democratic representatives indignantly denied the very
possibility of such an attack.”

And so, both the representative of the workers and the representative of the peasants explicitly state their opinion in
the name of the vast majority of the people, yet the Kerensky
government acts contrary to that opinion, in the interests of
the capitalists!

Rolovich, a representative of the capitalists, turned out to be
excellently informed behind the backs of the democrats—just as we have always observed, and now observe, that the
bourgeois newspapers, Rech and Birzhevka , are best informed of the doings in the Kerensky government.

What does this possession of excellent information show?
Obviously, that the capitalists have their “channels” and virtually hold power in their own hands. Kerensky is a
figurehead which they use as and when they find necessary. The
interests of tens of millions of workers and peasants turn out
to have been sacrificed to the profits of a handful of the
rich.

And how do our Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks react to
this outrage to the people? Did they address an appeal to the
workers and peasants, saying that after this, prison was the
only place for Kerensky and his colleagues?

God forbid! The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks,
through their Economic Department, confined themselves to
adopting the impressive resolution to which we have already
referred! In this resolution they declare that the raising of
grain prices by the Kerensky government is "a ruinous measure which deals a severe blow both at the food
supply and at the whole economic life of the country", and that
these ruinous measures have been taken in direct “ violation ” of the law!!

Such are the results of the policy of compromise, of flirting
with Kerensky and desiring to “spare” him!

The government violates the law by adopting, in the interests,
of the rich, the landowners and capitalists, a measure which ruins the whole business of control, food supply and
the stabilisation of the extremely shaky finances, yet the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks continue to talk about
an understanding with commercial and industrial circles,
continue to attend conferences with Tereshchenko and to spare
Kerensky, and confine themselves to a paper resolution of
protest, which the government very calmly pigeonholes!!

This reveals with great clarity the fact that the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks have betrayed the
people and the revolution, and that the Bolsheviks are becoming
the real leaders of the masses, even of the
Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik masses.

For only the winning of power by the proletariat, headed by the
Bolshevik Party, can put an end to the outrageous actions of
Kerensky and Co. and restore the work of democratic food distribution, supply and other organisations, which
Kerensky and his government are frustrating .

The Bolsheviks are acting—and this can be very clearly seen from the above example—as the representatives of the
interests of the whole people, which are to ensure food
distribution and supply and meet the most urgent needs of the
workers and peasants , despite the vacillating, irresolute and truly treacherous policy of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, a policy which has
brought the country to an act as shameful as this raising of
grain prices!

## Notes

[1] Svobodnaya Zhizn (Free Life)—a newspaper with a Menshevik
trend published in Petrograd from September 2–8 (15–21), 1917,
instead of the suspended Novaya Zhizn .

V. I. Lenin

## The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It

## Financial Collapse and Measures To Combat It

There is another side to the problem of raising the fixed grain
prices. This raising of prices involves a new chaotic increase
in the issuing of paper money, a further increase in the cost of
living, increased financial disorganisation and the approach of
financial collapse. Everybody admits that the issuing of paper
money constitutes the worst form of compulsory loan, that it
most of all affects the conditions of the workers, of the
poorest section of the population, and that it is the chief evil
engendered by financial disorder.

And it is to this measure that the Kerensky government,
supported by the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, is
resorting!

There is no way of effectively combating financial disorganisation and inevitable financial collapse except that of
revolutionary rupture with the interests of capital and that of
the organisation of really democratic control, i.e., control
from "below", control by the workers and the poor peasants over the capitalists, a way to which we referred
throughout the earlier part of this exposition.

Large issues of paper money encourage profiteering, enable
the capitalists to make millions of rubles, and place tremendous difficulties in the way of a very necessary
expansion of production, for the already high cost of materials, machinery, etc., is rising further by leaps and
bounds. What can be done about it when the wealth acquired
by the rich through profiteering is being concealed?

An income tax with progressive and very high rates for larger and very large incomes might be introduced. Our
government has introduced one, following the example of
other imperialist governments. But it is largely a fiction,
a dead letter, for, firstly, the value of money is falling
faster and faster, and, secondly, the more incomes are derived from profiteering and the more securely commercial
secrecy is maintained, the greater their concealment.

Real and not nominal control is required to make the tax
real and not fictitious. But control over the capitalists is
impossible if it remains bureaucratic, for the bureaucracy
is itself bound to and interwoven with the bourgeoisie by
thousands of threads. That is why in the West-European imperialist states, monarchies and republics alike,
financial order is obtained solely by the introduction of
"labour service", which creates war-time penal servitude
or war-time slavery for the workers.

Reactionary-bureaucratic control is the only method known to
imperialist states—not excluding the democratic republics of France and America—of foisting the
burdens of the war on to the proletariat and the working
people.

The basic contradiction in the policy of our government is
that, in order not to quarrel with the bourgeoisie, not to
destroy the “coalition” with them, the government has to
introduce reactionary-bureaucratic control, which it calls
“revolutionary-democratic” control, deceiving the people at
every step and irritating and angering the masses who have
just overthrown tsarism.

Yet only revolutionary-democratic measures, only the organisation of the oppressed classes, the workers and
peasants, the masses, into unions would make it possible to
establish a most effective control over the rich and wage a most successful fight against the concealment of
incomes.

An attempt is being made to encourage the use of cheques as
a means of avoiding excessive issue of paper money. This
measure is of no significance as far as the poor arc concerned, for anyway they live from hand to mouth, complete
their "economic cycle" in one week and return to the capitalists the few meagre coppers they manage to earn. The
use of cheques might have great significance as far as the
rich are concerned. It would enable the state, especially in
conjunction with such measures as nationalisation of the
banks and abolition of commercial secrecy, really to control the incomes of the capitalists, really to
impose taxation on them, and really to “democratise” (and at
the same time bring order into) the financial system.

But this is hampered by the fear of infringing the privileges of the bourgeoisie and destroying the “coalition”
with them. For unless truly revolutionary measures are adopted and compulsion is very seriously resorted to, the
capitalists will not submit to any control, will not make
known their budgets, and will not surrender their stocks of
paper money for the democratic state to "keep account" of.

The workers and peasants, organised in unions, by nationalising the banks, making the use of cheques legally
compulsory for all rich persons, abolishing commercial secrecy, imposing confiscation of property as a penalty for
concealment of incomes, etc., might with extreme ease make
control both effective and universal—control, that is, over the rich, and such control as would secure the
return of paper money from those who have it, from those who conceal it, to the
treasury , which issues it.

This requires a revolutionary dictatorship of the democracy,
headed by the revolutionary proletariat; that is, it requires that the democracy should become revolutionary in fact . That is the crux of the matter. But that
is just what is not wanted by our Socialist-Revolutionaries
and Mensheviks, who are deceiving the people by displaying
the flag of "revolutionary democracy" while they are in fact supporting the reactionary-bureaucratic policy
of the bourgeoisie, who, as always, are guided by the rule:
" Après nous le déluge "—after us the deluge!

We usually do not even notice how thoroughly we are permeated by anti-democratic habits and prejudices
regarding the “sanctity” of bourgeois property. When an engineer or banker publishes the income and expenditure of
a worker, information about his wages and the productivity
of his labour, this is regarded as absolutely legitimate
and fair. Nobody thinks of seeing it as an intrusion into
the "private life" of the worker, as "spying or informing"
on the part of the engineer. Bourgeois society regards the
labour and earnings of a wage-worker as its open book, any bourgeois being entitled to peer into it at any
moment, and at any moment to expose the "luxurious living"
of the worker, his supposed “laziness”, etc.

Well, and what about reverse control? What if the unions
of employees, clerks and domestic servants were invited by a democratic state to verify the
income and expenditure of capitalists, to publish information on the subject and to assist the government in
combating concealment of incomes?

What a furious howl against “spying” and “informing” would
be raised by the bourgeoisie! When “masters” control servants, or when capitalists control workers, this is
considered to be in the nature of things; the private life
of the working and exploited people is not considered inviolable. The bourgeoisie are entitled to
call to account any "wage slave" and at any time to make
public his income and expenditure. But if the oppressed
attempt to control the oppressor, to show up his income and expenditure, to expose his luxurious living
even in war-time, when his luxurious living is directly responsible for armies at the front starving and
perishing—oh, no, the bourgeoisie will not tolerate “spying” and “informing”!

It all boils down to the same thing: the rule of the bourgeoisie is irreconcilable with
truly-revolutionary true democracy. We cannot be revolutionary democrats in the twentieth century and in a
capitalist country if we fear to advance towards socialism.

## Notes

V. I. Lenin

## The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It

## Can We Go Forward If We Fear To Advance Towards Socialism?

What has been said so far may easily arouse the following
objection on the part of a reader who has been brought up on
the current opportunist ideas of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. Most measures
described here, he may say, are already in effect socialist and not democratic measures!

This current objection, one that is usually raised (in one
form or another) in the bourgeois, Socialist-Revolutionary
and Menshevik press, is a reactionary defence of backward capitalism, a defence decked out in a Struvean
garb. It seems to say that we are not ripe for socialism,
that it is too early to "introduce" socialism, that our
revolution is a bourgeois revolution and therefore we must
be the menials of the bourgeoisie (although the great bourgeois revolutionaries in France 125 years ago made
their revolution a great revolution by exercising terror against all oppressors, landowners and
capitalists alike!).

The pseudo-Marxist lackeys of the bourgeoisie, who have
been joined by the Socialist-Revolutionaries and who argue
in this way, do not understand (as an examination of the
theoretical basis of their opinion shows) what imperialism
is, what capitalist monopoly is, what the state is, and
what revolutionary democracy is. For anyone who understands this is bound to admit that there can be no
advance except towards socialism.

Everybody talks about imperialism. But imperialism is merely monopoly capitalism.

That capitalism in Russia has also become monopoly capitalism is sufficiently attested by the examples of the
Produgol, the Prodamet, the Sugar Syndicate, etc. This
Sugar Syndicate is an object-lesson in the way monopoly
capitalism develops into state-monopoly capitalism.

And what is the state? It is an organisation of the ruling
class — in Germany, for instance, of the Junkers and capitalists. And therefore what the German Plekhanovs
(Scheidemann, Lensch, and others) call "war-time socialism" is in fact war-time state-monopoly capitalism,
or, to put it more simply and clearly, war-time penal servitude for the workers and war-time protection for
capitalist profits.

Now try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state
which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and
does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really
revolutionary-democratic state, state- monopoly capitalism
inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than
one step, towards socialism!

For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly,
it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become
a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed
organisation of the population, the workers and peasants
above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose
interest?

Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists,
in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but
a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.

Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism .

For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism
is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to
that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

There is no middle course here. The objective process of
development is such that it is impossible to advance from monopolies (and the war has
magnified their number, role and importance tenfold)
without advancing towards socialism.

Either we have to be revolutionary democrats in fact, in
which case we must not fear to take steps towards socialism. Or we fear to take steps towards socialism,
condemn them in the Plekhanov, Dan or Chernov way, by arguing that our revolution is a bourgeois revolution,
that socialism cannot be “introduced”, etc., in which case
we inevitably sink to the level of Kerensky, Milyukov and
Kornilov, i.e., we in a reactionary-bureaucratic way suppress the “revolutionary-democratic” aspirations of
the workers and peasants.

There is no middle course.

And therein lies the fundamental contradiction of our revolution.

It is impossible to stand still in history in general, and
in war-time in particular. We must either advance or retreat. It is impossible in twentieth-century
Russia, which has won a republic and democracy in a revolutionary way, to go forward without advancing towards socialism, without taking steps
towards it (steps conditioned and determined by the level
of technology and culture: large-scale machine production
cannot be “introduced” in peasant agriculture nor abolished in the sugar industry).

But to fear to advance means retreating—which the Kerenskys, to the delight of the Milyukovs and
Plekhanovs, and with the foolish assistance of the
Tseretelis and Chernovs, are actually doing.

The dialectics of history is such that the war, by extraordinarily expediting the transformation of monopoly
capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism, has thereby extraordinarily advanced mankind towards
socialism.

Imperialist war is the eve of socialist revolution. And
this not only because the horrors of the war give rise to
proletarian revolt—no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are
ripe—but because state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of
history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs .

Our Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks approach the
question of socialism in a doctrinaire way, from the standpoint of a doctrine learnt by heart but poorly
understood. They picture socialism as some remote, unknown
and dim future.

But socialism is now gazing at us from all the windows of
modern capitalism; socialism is outlined directly, practically , by every important measure that
constitutes a forward step on the basis of this modern capitalism.

What is universal labour conscription?

It is a step forward on the basis of modern monopoly capitalism, a step towards the regulation of economic life
as a whole, in accordance with a certain general plan, a
step towards the economy of national labour and towards
the prevention of its senseless wastage by capitalism.

In Germany it is the Junkers (landowners) and capitalists
who are introducing universal labour conscription, and therefore it inevitably becomes war-time penal servitude
for the workers.

But take the same institution and think over its significance in a revolutionary-democratic
state. Universal labour conscription, introduced, regulated and directed by the Soviets of Workers’,
Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, will still not be socialism, but it will no longer be
capitalism. It will be a tremendous step towards socialism, a step from which, if complete democracy is
preserved, there can no longer be any retreat back to capitalism, without unparalleled violence being committed
against the masses.

## Notes

V. I. Lenin

## The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It

## The Struggle Against Economic Chaos—and the War

A consideration of the measures to avert the impending catastrophe brings us to another supremely important
question, namely, the connection between home and foreign
policy, or, in other words, the relation between a war of
conquest, an imperialist war, and a revolutionary, proletarian war, between a criminal predatory war and a just
democratic war.

All the measures to avert catastrophe we have described
would, as we have already stated, greatly enhance the defence potential, or, in other words, the military might
of the country. That, on the one hand. On the other hand,
these measures cannot be put into effect without turning
the war of conquest into a just war, turning the war waged
by the capitalists in the interests of the capitalists into a war waged by the proletariat in the interests of
all the working and exploited people.

And, indeed, nationalisation of the banks and syndicates,
taken in conjunction with the abolition of commercial secrecy and the establishment of workers’ control over the
capitalists, would not only imply a tremendous saving of
national labour, the possibility of economising forces and
means, but would also imply an improvement in the conditions of the working masses , of the majority
of the population. As everybody knows, economic organisation is of decisive importance in modern
warfare. Russia has enough grain, coal, oil and iron; in
this respect, we are in a better position than any of the
belligerent European countries. And given a struggle against economic chaos by the measures indicated above,
enlisting popular initiative in this struggle, improving
the people’s conditions, and nationalising the banks and
syndicates, Russia could use her revolution and her democracy to raise the whole country to an incomparably
higher level of economic organisation.

If instead of the “coalition” with the bourgeoisie, which
is hampering every measure of control and sabotaging production, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks
had in April effected the transfer of power to the Soviets
and had directed their efforts not to playing at "ministerial leapfrog", not to bureaucratically occupying,
side by side with the Cadets, ministerial, deputy-ministerial and similar posts, but to guiding the
workers and peasants in their control over the capitalists, in their war against the
capitalists, Russia would now be a country completely transformed economically, with the land in the hands of
the peasants, and with the banks nationalised, i.e., would to that extent (and these are extremely important
economic bases of modern life) be superior to all other capitalist countries.

The defence potential, the military might, of a country
whose banks have been nationalised is superior to that of a country whose banks remain in private hands. The
military might of a peasant country whose land is in the
hands of peasant committees is superior to that of a country whose land is in the hands of landowners.

Reference is constantly being made to the heroic patriotism and the miracles of military valour performed
by the French in 1792-93. But the material, historical economic conditions which alone made such miracles
possible are forgotten. The suppression of obsolete feudalism in a really revolutionary way, and the
introduction throughout the country of a superior mode of
production and free peasant land tenure, effected, moreover, with truly revolutionary democratic speed,
determination, energy and devotion—such were the material, economic conditions which with “miraculous”
speed saved France by regenerating and renovating her economic foundation.

The example of France shows one thing, and one thing only,
namely, that to render Russia capable of self-defence, to
obtain in Russia, too, “miracles” of mass heroism, all that is obsolete must be swept away with “Jacobin”
ruthlessness and Russia renovated and regenerated economically . And in the twentieth century this
cannot be done merely by sweeping tsarism away (France did
not confine herself to this 125 years ago). It cannot be
done even by the mere revolutionary abolition of the landed estates (we have not even done that, for the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks have betrayed the
peasants), by the mere transfer of the land to the peasants. For we are living in the twentieth century, and
mastery over the land without mastery over the banks cannot regenerate and renovate the life of the
people.

The material, industrial renovation of France at the end
of the eighteenth century was associated with a political
and spiritual renovation, with the dictatorship of revolutionary democrats and the revolutionary proletariat
(from which the democrats had not dissociated themselves
and with which they were still almost fused), and with a
ruthless war declared on everything reactionary. The whole
people, and especially the masses, i.e., the oppressed classes, were swept up by boundless
revolutionary enthusiasm; everybody considered the war a just war of defence, as it actually
was . Revolutionary France was defending herself against reactionary monarchist Europe. It was not in
1792-93, but many years later, after the victory of reaction within the country, that the
counter-revolutionary dictatorship of Napoleon turned
France’s wars from defensive wars into wars of conquest.

And what about Russia? We continue to wage an imperialist
war in the interests of the capitalists, in alliance with
the imperialists and in accordance with the secret treaties the tsar concluded with the capitalists of
Britain and other countries, promising the Russian capitalists in these treaties the spoliation of foreign
lands, of Constantinople, Lvov, Armenia, etc.

The war will remain an unjust, reactionary and predatory
war on Russia’s part as long as she does not propose a just peace and does not break with imperialism. The social
character of the war, its true meaning, is not determined
by the position of the enemy troops (as the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks think, stooping
to the vulgarity of an ignorant yokel). What determines
this character is the policy of which the war is a continuation ("war is the continuation of politics"),
the class that is waging the war, and the aims for which it is waging this war.

You cannot lead the people into a predatory war in accordance with secret treaties and expect them to be
enthusiastic. The foremost class in revolutionary Russia,
the proletariat, is becoming increasingly aware of the criminal character of the war, and not only have the
bourgeoisie been unable to shatter this popular conviction, but, on the contrary, awareness of the
criminal character of the war is growing. The proletariat
of both metropolitan cities of Russia has definitely become internationalist!

How, then, can you expect mass enthusiasm for the war!

One is inseparable from the other—home policy is inseparable from foreign policy. The country cannot be
made capable of self-defence without the supreme heroism
of the people in boldly and resolutely carrying out great
economic transformations. And it is impossible to arouse
popular heroism without breaking with imperialism, without
proposing a democratic peace to all nations, and without
thus turning the war from a criminal war of conquest and
plunder into a just, revolutionary war of defence.

Only a thorough and consistent break with the capitalists
in both home and foreign policy can save our revolution
and our country, which is gripped in the iron vice of imperialism.

## Notes

V. I. Lenin

## The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It

## The Revolutionary Democrats and the Revolutionary Proletariat

To be really revolutionary, the democrats of Russia today
must march in very close alliance with the proletariat,
supporting it in its struggle as the only thoroughly revolutionary class.

Such is the conclusion prompted by an analysis of the means of combating an impending catastrophe of
unparalleled dimensions.

The war has created such an immense crisis, has so strained the material and moral forces of the people, has
dealt such blows at the entire modern social organisation
that humanity must now choose between perishing or entrusting its fate to the most revolutionary class for
the swiftest and most radical transition to a superior mode of production.

Owing to a number of historical causes—the greater backwardness of Russia, the unusual hardships brought upon
her by the war, the utter rottenness of tsarism and the
extreme tenacity of the traditions of 1905—the revolution broke out in Russia earlier than in other
countries. The revolution has resulted in Russia catching
up with the advanced countries in a few months, as far as
her political system is concerned.

But that is not enough. The war is inexorable; it puts the
alternative with ruthless severity: either perish or overtake and outstrip the advanced countries economically as well .

That is possible, for we have before us the experience of
a large number of advanced countries, the fruits of their
technology and culture. We are receiving moral support from the war protest that is growing in Europe, from the
atmosphere of the mounting world-wide workers’ revolution. We are being inspired and encouraged by a
revolutionary-democratic freedom which is extremely rare
in time of imperialist war.

Perish or forge full steam ahead. That is the alternative
put by history.

And the attitude of the proletariat to the peasants in such a situation confirms the old Bolshevik concept,
correspondingly modifying it, that the peasants must be
wrested from the influence of the bourgeoisie. That is the
sole guarantee of salvation for the revolution.

And the peasants are the most numerous section of the entire petty-bourgeois mass.

Our Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks have assumed
the reactionary function of keeping the peasants under the
influence of the bourgeoisie and leading them to a coalition with the bourgeoisie, and not with the
proletariat.

The masses are learning rapidly from the experience of the
revolution. And the reactionary policy of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks is meeting with
failure: they have been beaten in the Soviets of both
Petrograd and
Moscow. [1] A “Left” opposition is growing in both petty-bourgeois-democratic parties. On September 10, 1917, a city conference of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries held in Petrograd gave a two-thirds majority to the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, who incline towards an alliance
with the proletariat and reject an alliance (coalition)
with the bourgeoisie.

The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks repeat a favourite bourgeois comparison—bourgeoisie and
democracy. But, in essence, such a comparison is as meaningless as comparing pounds with yards.

There is such a thing as a democratic bourgeoisie, and there is such a thing as bourgeois democracy; one would
have to be completely ignorant of both history and political economy to deny this.

The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks needed a false comparison to conceal the indisputable fact
that between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat stand the petty bourgeoisie . By virtue of their economic
class status, the latter inevitably vacillate between the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are trying to
draw the petty bourgeoisie into an alliance with the bourgeoisie. That is the whole meaning of their
“coalition”, of the coalition cabinet, and of the whole
policy of Kerensky, a typical semi-Cadet. In the six months of the revolution this policy has suffered a
complete fiasco.

The Cadets are full of malicious glee. The revolution, they say, has suffered a fiasco; the revolution has been unable to cope either with the war or with
economic dislocation.

That is not true. It is the Cadets , and the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks who have suffered a fiasco, for this alliance has ruled
Russia for six months, only to increase economic dislocation and confuse and aggravate the military
situation.

The more complete the fiasco of the alliance of the bourgeoisie and the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks , the sooner the people will learn their lesson and the more easily they will
find the correct way out, namely, the alliance of the peasant poor, i.e., the majority of the peas ants, and
the proletariat.

September 10–14, 1917

## Notes

[1] On August 31 (September 13), 1917, the Petrograd Soviet for the
first time passed, by a majority of 279 to 115, with 50 abstentions,
a motion tabled by the Bolshevik group, emphatically rejecting
the policy of compromise with the bourgeoisie. The resolution
called for the transfer of all power to the Soviets and outlined
a programme for revolutionary changes in the country. A few days
later the Bolshevik Party won yet another major victory. On
September 5 (18) the Moscow Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’
Deputies carried a similar Bolshevik motion by a majority of
355 votes.