V. I. Lenin

Comrades, We are living in a time that is so critical, events are moving
at such incredible speed that a publicist, placed by the will of
fate somewhat aside from the mainstream of history, constantly
runs the risk either of being late or proving uninformed,
especially if some time elapses before his writings appear in
print. Although I fully realise this, I must nevertheless
address this letter to the Bolsheviks, even at the risk of its
not being published at all, for the vacillations against which I
deem it my duty to warn in the most decisive manner are of an
unprecedented nature and may have a disastrous effect on the
Party, the movement of the international proletariat, and the
revolution. As for the danger of being too late, I will prevent
it by indicating the nature and date of the information I
possess.

It was not until Monday morning, October 16, that I saw a
comrade who had on the previous day participated in a very
important Bolshevik gathering in Petrograd, and who informed me
in detail of the discussion. [1] The subject of discussion was that same
question of the uprising discussed by the Sunday papers of all
political trends. The gathering represented all that is most
influential in all branches of Bolshevik work in the capital. Only a most insignificant minority of the gathering,
namely, all in all two comrades, took a negative stand. The
arguments which those comrades advanced are so weak, they are a
manifestation of such an astounding confusion, timidity, and
collapse of all the fundamental ideas of Bolshevism and
proletarian revolutionary internationalism that it is not easy
to discover an explanation for such shameful vacillations. The
fact, however, remains, and since the revolutionary party has no
right to tolerate vacillations on such a serious question, and
since this pair of comrades, who have scattered their principles
to the winds, might cause some confusion, it is necessary to
analyse their arguments, to expose their vacillations, and to
show how shameful they are. The following lines are an attempt
to do this.

"We have no majority among the people, and without this
condition the uprising is hopeless. . . ."

People who can say this are either distorters of the truth or
pedants who want an advance guarantee that throughout the whole
country the Bolshevik Party has received exactly one-half of the
votes plus one, this they want at all events, without taking the
least account of the real circumstances of the revolution. History has never given such a guarantee, and is
quite unable to give it in any revolution. To make such a demand
is jeering at the audience, and is nothing but a cover to hide
one's own flight from reality.

For reality shows us clearly that it was after the July days
that the majority of the people began quickly to go over to the
side of the Bolsheviks. This was demonstrated first by the
August 20 elections in Petrograd, even before the Kornilov
revolt, when the Bolshevik vote rose from 20 to 33 per cent in
the city not including the suburbs, and then by the district
council elections in Moscow in September, when the Bolshevik
vote rose from 11 to 49.3 per cent (one Moscow comrade, whom I
saw recently, told me that the correct figure is 51 per
cent). This was proved by the new elections to the Soviets. It
was proved by the fact that a majority of the peasant Soviets,
their "Avksentyev" central Soviet notwithstanding, has expressed
itself against the coalition . To be against the coalition means in practice to follow the
Bolsheviks. Furthermore, reports from the front prove more
frequently and more definitely that the soldiers are passing
en masse over to the side or the Bolsheviks with ever greater determination, in spite of the malicious slanders and
attacks by the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders,
officers, deputies, etc., etc.

Last, but not least, the most outstanding fact of present day
Russian life is the revolt of the peasantry . This shows
objectively, not by words but by deeds, that the people are
going over to the side of the Bolsheviks. But the fact remains,
notwithstanding the lies of the bourgeois press and its
miserable yes-men of the "vacillating" Novaya Zhizn crowd, who shout about riots and anarchy. The peasant movement
in Tambov Gubernia [2] was an uprising both in the physical
and political sense, an uprising that has yielded such splendid
political results as, in the first place, agreement to transfer
the land to the peasants. It is not for nothing that the
Socialist-Revolutionary rabble, including Dyelo Naroda ,
who are frightened by the uprising, now scream about the need to transfer the land to the peasants. Here is a
practical demonstration of the correctness of
Bolshevism and of its success. It proved to be impossible to
"teach" the Bonapartists and their lackeys in the Pre-parliament
otherwise than by an uprising.

This is a fact and facts are stubborn things. And such a factual
"argument" in favour of an uprising is stronger than thousands of "pessimistic" evasions on the part of confused and
frightened politicians.

If the peasant uprising were not an event of nation-wide
political import, the Socialist-Revolutionary lackeys from the
Pre-parliament would not be shouting about the need to hand over
the land to the peasants.

Another splendid political and revolutionary consequence of the
peasant uprising, as already noted in Rabochy Put , is the delivery of grain to the railway stations in Tambov
Gubernia. Here is another "argument" for you, confused gentlemen, an argument in favour of the uprising as the only
means to save the country from the famine that is knocking at
our door and from a crisis of unheard-of dimensions. While the
Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik betrayers of the people
are grumbling, threatening, writing resolutions, promising to
feed the hungry by convening the Constituent Assembly, the
people are beginning to solve the bread problem
Bolshevik-fashion , by rebelling against the landowners, capitalists, and speculators.

Even the bourgeois press, even Russkaya Volya , was compelled to admit the wonderful results of such a
solution (the only real solution) of the bread problem, by publishing
information to the effect that the railway stations in Tambov
Gubernia were swamped with grain. . . . And this after the peasants had revolted!

To doubt now that the majority of the people are following and
will follow the Bolsheviks is shameful vacillation and in
practice is the abandoning of all the principles of proletarian revolutionism, the complete renunciation of
Bolshevism.

"We are not strong enough to seize power, and the bourgeoisie is
not strong enough to hinder the convening of the Constituent
Assembly."

The first part of this argument is a simple paraphrase of the
preceding one. It does not gain in strength or power of
conviction, when the confusion of its authors and their fear of
the bourgeoisie are expressed in terms of pessimism in respect
of the workers and optimism in respect of the bourgeoisie. If
the officer cadets and the Cossacks say that they will fight
against the Bolsheviks to the last drop of blood, this deserves
full credence; if, however, the workers and soldiers at hundreds
of meetings express full confidence in the Bolsheviks and affirm
their readiness to defend the transfer of power to the Soviets,
then it is "timely" to recall that voting is one thing and
fighting another!

If you argue like that, of course, you "refute" the possibility
of an uprising. But, we may ask, in what way does this peculiarly orientated "pessimism" with its peculiar urge differ
from a political shift to the side of the bourgeoisie?

Look at the facts. Remember the Bolshevik declarations, repeated
thousands of times and now "forgotten" by our pessimists. We
have said thousands of times that the Soviets of Workers' and
Soldiers' Deputies are a force, that they are the vanguard of
the revolution, that they can take power. Thousands of times have we upbraided the Mensheviks and
Socialist-Revolutionaries for phrase-mongering about the
"plenipotentiary organs of democracy" accompanied by fear to transfer power to the Soviets.

And what has the Kornilov revolt proved? It has proved that the
Soviets are a real force.

And, now, after this has been proved by experience, by facts, we
are expected to repudiate Bolshevism, deny ourselves, and say
that we are not strong enough (although the Soviets of Petrograd
and Moscow and a majority of the provincial Soviets are on the
side of the Bolsheviks)! Are these not shameful vacillations? As
a matter of fact, our "pessimists" are abandoning the slogan of
"All Power to the Soviets", though they are afraid to admit it.

How can it be proved that the bourgeoisie are not strong enough
to hinder the calling of the Constituent Assembly?

If the Soviets have not the strength to overthrow the bourgeoisie, this means the latter are strong enough to
prevent the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, for there
is nobody else to stop them. To trust the promises of Kerensky
and Co., to trust the resolutions of the servile
Pre-parliament—is this worthy of a member of a proletarian
party and a revolutionary?

Not only has the bourgeoisie strength enough to hinder the convocation of the Constituent Assembly if the present
government is not overthrown, but it can also achieve this
result indirectly by surrendering Petragrad to the
Germans, laying open the front, increasing lockouts, and
sabotaging deliveries of foodstuffs. It has been proved by
facts that the bourgeoisie have already been partly doing this, which means that they are capable of doing it to the full extent , if the workers and soldiers do not
overthrow them.

"The Soviets must be a revolver pointed at the head of the
government with the demand to convene the Constituent Assembly
and stop all Kornilovite plots."

This is how far one of the two sad pessimists has gone.

He had to go that far, for to reject the uprising is the same as rejecting the slogan "All Power to the Soviets".

Of course, a slogan is "not sacred"; we all agree to that. But
then why has no one raised the question of changing this slogan (in the same way as I raised the question after the
July days [See present edition, Vol. 25,"On Slogans", pp. 185-193.— Ed .] )? Why be
afraid to say it openly, when the Party, since
September, has been discussing the question of the uprising,
which is now the only way to realise the slogan "All
Power to the Soviets".

There is no way for our sad pessimists to turn. A renunciation
of the uprising is a renunciation of the transfer of power to
the Soviets and implies a "transfer" of all hopes and expectations to the kind bourgeoisie, which has "promised" to
convoke the Constituent Assembly.

Is it so difficult to understand that once power is in the hands of the Soviets, the Constituent Assembly and its
success are guaranteed ? The Bolsheviks have said so thousands of times and no one has ever attempted to
refute it. Everybody has recognised this "combined type", but to
smuggle in a renunciation of the transfer of power to the Soviets under cover of the words "combined type", to smuggle
it in secretly while fearing to renounce our slogan openly is a matter for wonder. Is there any parliamentary
term to describe it?

Someone has very pointedly retorted to our pessimist: "Is it a
revolver with no cartridges?" If so, it means going over
directly to the Lieberdans, who have declared the Soviets a
"revolver" thousands of times and have deceived the people
thousands of times. For while they were in control the
Soviets proved to be worthless.

If, however, it is to be a revolver "with cartridges", this
cannot mean anything but technical preparation for an uprising; the cartridges have to be procured, the revolver has
to be loaded—and cartridges alone will not be enough.

Either go over to the side of the Lieberdans and openly
renounce the slogan "All Power to the Soviets", or start the
uprising.

There is no middle course.

"The bourgeoisie cannot surrender Petrograd to the Germans,
although Rodzyanko wants to, for the fighting is done not by the
bourgeoisie, but by our heroic sailors."

This argument again reduces itself to the same "optimism" in respect of the bourgeoisie which is fatally manifested at
every step by those who are pessimistic about the revolutionary
forces and capabilities of the proletariat.

The fighting is done by the heroic sailors, but this did not prevent two admirals from disappearing
before the capture of Esel!

That is a fact and facts are stubborn things. The facts prove
that admirals are capable of treachery no less than
Kornilov. It is an undisputed fact that Field Headquarters has
not been reformed, and that the commanding staff is Kornilovite
in composition.

If the Kornilovites (with Kerensky at their head, for he is also
a Kornilovite) want to surrender Petrograd, they can do
it in two or even in three ways.

First, they can, through an act of treachery on the part of the
Kornilovite officers, open the northern land front.

Second, they can "agree" on freedom of action for the entire
German navy, which is stronger than we are; they can agree both with the German and the British
imperialists. Moreover, the admirals who have disappeared may
have delivered the plans to the Germans as well .

Third, they can, by means of lockouts, and by sabotaging the
delivery of food, bring our troops to complete desperation and impotence.

Not a single one of these three ways can be denied. The facts
have proved that the bourgeois-Cossack party of Russia has
already knocked at all three doors and has tried to force open
each of them.

What follows? It follows that we have no right to wait until the bourgeoisie strangle the revolution.

Experience has proved that Rodzyanko's wishes are no trifle. Rodzyanko is a man of affairs. Rodzyanko is backed by
capital . This is beyond dispute. Capital is tremendous
strength as long as the proletariat do not have power. For decades , Rodzyanko has faithfully and truly carried out the
policies of capital.

What follows? It follows that to vacillate on the question of an
uprising as the only means to save the revolution means to sink
into that cowardly credulity in the bourgeoisie which is
half-Lieberdan, Socialist-Revolutionary-Menshevik and half
"peasant-like" unquestioning credulity, against which the Bolsheviks have been battling most of all.

Either fold your idle arms on your empty chest, wait and swear
"faith" in the Constituent Assembly until Rodzyanko and Co. have
surrendered Petrograd and strangled the revolution or start an
uprising. There is no middle course.

Even the convocation of the Constituent Assembly does not, in
itself, change anything, for no "constituting", no voting by any
arch-sovereign assembly will have any effect on the famine, or
on Wilhelm. Both the convocation and the success of the
Constituent Assembly depend upon the transfer of power to the
Soviets. This old Bolshevik truth is being proved by reality
ever more strikingly and ever more cruelly .

"We are becoming stronger every day. We can enter the
Constituent Assembly as a strong opposition; why should we stake
everything?. . ."

This is the argument of a philistine who has "read" that the
Constituent Assembly is being called, and who trustingly
acquiesces in the most legal, most loyal, most constitutional
course.

It is a pity, however, that waiting for the Constituent
Assembly does not solve either the question of famine or the
question of surrendering Petrograd . This "trifle" is forgotten
by the naïve or the confused or those who have allowed themselves to be frightened.

The famine will not wait. The peasant uprising did not wait. The
war will not wait. The admirals who have disappeared did not
wait.

Will the famine agree to wait, because we Bolsheviks proclaim faith in the convocation of the Constituent
Assembly? Will the admirals who have disappeared agree to wait?
Will the Maklakovs and Rodzyankos agree to stop the lockouts and
the sabotaging of grain deliveries, or to denounce the secret
treaties with the British and the German imperialists?

This is what the arguments of the heroes of "constitutional illusions" and parliamentary cretinism amount
to. The living reality disappears, and what remains is only a
paper dealing with the convocation of the Constituent Assembly; there
is nothing left-but to hold elections.

And blind people are still wondering why hungry people and
soldiers betrayed by generals and admirals are indifferent to
the elections! Oh, wiseacres!

"Were the Kornilovites to start again, we would show them! But
why should we take risks and start?"

This is extraordinarily convincing and revolutionary. History
does not repeat itself, but if we turn our backs on it,
contemplate the first Kornilov revolt and repeat: "If only the
Kornilovites would start"—if we do that, what excellent
revolutionary strategy it would be. How much like a waiting game
it is! Maybe the Kornilovites will start again at an inopportune
time. Isn't this a "weighty" argument? What kind of an earnest
foundation for a proletarian policy is this?

And what if the Kornilovites of the second draft will have
learned a thing or two? What if they wait for the hunger riots to begin, for the front to be broken through, for
Petrograd to be surrendered, before they begin ? What then?

It is proposed that we build the tactics of the proletarian
party on the possibility of the Kornilovites' repeating one of
their old errors!

Let us forget all that was being and has been demonstrated by the Bolsheviks a hundred times, all that
the six months' history of our revolution has proved, namely,
that there is no way out, that there is no objective way out and can be none except a dictatorship of the
Kornilovites or a dictatorship of the proletariat. Let us forget
this, let us renounce all this and wait! Wait for what? Wait for
a miracle, for the tempestuous and catastrophic course of events
from April 20 to August 29 to be succeeded (due to the prolongation of the war and the spread of famine) by a peaceful,
quiet, smooth, legal convocation of the Constituent Assembly and
by a fulfilment of its most lawful decisions. Here you have the
"Marxist" tactics! Wait, ye hungry! Kerensky has promised to
convene the Constituent Assembly.

"There is really nothing in the international situation that
makes it obligatory for us to act immediately, we would be more
likely to damage the cause of a socialist revolution in the
West, if we were to allow ourselves to be shot. . . ."

This argument is truly magnificent: Scheidemann "himself", Renaudel "himself" would not be able to "manipulate"
more cleverly the workers' sympathies for the international
socialist revolution!

Just think of it: under devilishly difficult conditions, having
but one Liebknecht (and he in prison) with no newspapers, with no freedom of assembly, with no Soviets, with
all classes of the population, including every well-to-do peasant, incredibly hostile to the idea of
internationalism, with the imperialist big, middle, and petty
bourgeoisie splendidly organised—the Germans, i.e., the
German revolutionary internationalists, the German workers
dressed in sailors' jackets, started a mutiny in the navy with
one chance in a hundred of winning.

But we, with dozens of papers at our disposal, freedom of
assembly, a majority in the Soviets, we, the best situated proletarian internationalists in the world, should
refuse to support the German revolutionaries by our uprising. We
ought to reason like the Scheidemanns and Renaudels, that it is
most prudent not to revolt, for if we are shot, then the world
will lose such excellent, reasonable, ideal internationalists!

Let us prove how reasonable we are. Let us pass a resolution of
sympathy with the German insurrectionists , and let us renounce the insurrection in Russia. This would be
genuine, reasonable internationalism. Imagine how fast world
internationalism would blossom forth, if the same wise policy
were to triumph everywhere !

The war has fatigued and tormented the workers of all countries
to the utmost. Outbursts are becoming frequent in Italy, Germany
and Austria. We alone have Soviets of Workers' and
Soldiers' Deputies. Let us then keep on waiting . Let us
betray the German internationalists as we are betraying the
Russian peasants, who, not by words but by deeds, by their
uprising against the landowners, appeal to us to rise against
Kerensky's government. . . .

Let the clouds of the imperialist conspiracy of the capitalists
of all countries who are ready to strangle the Russian revolution gather—we shall wait patiently until we are
strangled by the ruble ! Instead of attacking the conspirators and breaking their ranks by a victory of the
Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, let us wait for the
Constituent Assembly, where all international plots will be
vanquished by voting , provided Kerensky and Rodzyanko conscientiously convene the Constituent Assembly. Have we any
right to doubt the honesty of Kerensky and Rodzyanko?

"But 'everyone' is against us! We are isolated; the Central
Executive Committee, the Menshevik internationalists, the
Novaya Zhizn people, and the Left
Socialist-Revolutionaries have been issuing and will continue to
issue appeals against us!"

A crushing argument. Up to now we have been mercilessly
scourging the vacillators for their vacillations. By so doing , we have won the sympathies of the people. By so doing , we have won over the Soviets, without which the
uprising could not be safe, quick, and sure. Now let us use the
Soviets which we have won over in order to move into the camp of the vacillators . What a splendid career for
Bolshevism!

The whole essence of the policy of the Lieberdans and Chernovs,
and also of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks,
consists in vacillations . The Left
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Menshevik internationalists have
tremendous political importance as an indication of the
fact that the masses are moving to the left . Two such facts as the passing of some 40 per cent of both Mensheviks and
Socialist-Revolutionaries into the camp of the Left, on the one
hand, and the peasant uprising, on the other, are clearly and
obviously interconnected.

But it is the very character of this connection that reveals the
abysmal spinelessness of those who have now under taken to
whimper over the fact that the Central Executive Committee,
which has rotted away, or the vacillating Left
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Co., have come out against us. For
these vacillations of the petty-bourgeois leaders—the Martovs, Kamkovs, Sukhanovs and Co.—have
to be compared to the uprising of the peasants. Here is
a realistic political comparison. With whom shall we go? Should it be with the vacillating handfuls of Petrograd
leaders, who have expressed indirectly the leftward swing of the masses, but who, at every political
turn, have sbamefully whimpered, vacillated, run to ask
forgiveness of the Lieberdans, Avksentyevs and Co., or with those masses that have moved to the left ?

Thus, and only thus, can the question be presented.

Because the peasant uprising has been betrayed by the Martovs,
Kamkovs, and Sukhanovs, we, the workers' party of revolutionary
internationalists, are asked to betray it, too. This is what the
policy of blaming the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries and
Menshevik internationalists reduces itself to.

But we have said that to help the vacillating, we must stop
vacillating ourselves. Have those "nice" Left petty-bourgeois
democrats not "vacillated" in favour of the coalition? In the
long run we succeeded in making them follow us because we
ourselves did not vacillate. Events have shown we are right.

These gentlemen by their vacillations have always held back the
revolution; We alone have saved it. Shall we now give up, when
the famine is knocking at the gates of Petrograd and Rodzyanko
and Co. are preparing to surrender the city?!

"But we have not even firm connections with the railwaymen and
the postal employees. Their official representatives are the Plansons.
And can we win without the post office and without railways?"

Yes, yes, the Plansons here, the Lieberdans there. What
confidence have the masses shown them? Have we not always shown that those leaders betrayed the masses ?
Did the masses not turn away from those leaders towards us , both at the elections in Moscow and at the elections to
the Soviets? Or perhaps the mass of railway and postal employees
are not starving! Or do not strike against Kerensky and Co.?

"Did we have connections with these unions before February 28?"
one comrade asked a pessimist. The latter replied by pointing
out that the two revolutions could not be compared. But this
reply only strengthens the position of the one who asked the question. For it is the Bolsheviks who have spoken
thousands of times about prolonged preparation for the proletarian revolution against the bourgeoisie
(and they have not spoken about it in order to forget their
words when the decisive moment is at hand). The political and
economic life of the unions of postal and telegraph employees
and railwaymen is characterised by the very separation of the proletarian elements of the masses from the
petty-bourgeois and bourgeois upper layer. It is not absolutely
necessary to secure "connections" with one or the other union
before hand; what matters is that only a victory of a proletarian and peasant uprising can satisfy the
masses both of the army of railwaymen and of postal and
telegraph employees.

"There is only enough bread in Petrograd for two or three
days. Can we give bread to the insurrestionists?"

This is one of a thousand sceptical remarks (the sceptics can
always "doubt" and cannot be refuted by anything but experience), one of those remarks that put the blame on the
wrong shoulders.

It is Rodzyanko and Co., it is the bourgeoisie that are
preparing the famine and speculating on strangling the revolution by famine. There is no escaping the famine and
there can be none except by an uprising of the peasants
against the landowners in the countryside and by a victory of
the workers over the capitalists in the cities and Petrograd and
Moscow. There is no other way to get grain from the rich, or to transport it despite their sabotage, or to break the
resistance of the corrupt employees and the capitalist profiteers, or to establish strict accounting. The history of
the supply organisations and of the food difficulties of the
"democracy" with its millions of complaints against the
sabotage of the capitalists, with its whimpering and supplication is proof of this.

There is no power on earth apart from the power of a victorious
proletarian revolution that would advance from complaints and
begging and tears to revolutionary action . And the longer the proletarian revolution is delayed, the longer it is
put off by events or by the vacillations of the wavering and confused, the more victims it will claim and the
more difficult it will be to organise the transportation and distribution of food.

"In insurrection delay is fatal" this is our answer to those
having the sad "courage" to look at the growing economic ruin,
at the approaching famine, and still dissuade the workers from the uprising ( that is , persuade them to wait and place confidence in the bourgeoisie for some further time ).

"There is not yet any danger at the front either. Even if the
soldiers conclude an armistice themselves, it is still not a
calamity."

But the soldiers will not conclude an armistice. For this state
power is necessary and that cannot be obtained without an
uprising. The soldiers will simply desert . Reports from
the front tell that. We must not wait because of the risk of
aiding collusion between Rodzyanko and Wilhelm and the risk of
complete economic ruin, with the soldiers deserting in masses, once they ( being already close to desperation )
sink into absolute despair and leave everything to the mercy of
fate.

"But if we take power, and obtain neither an armistice nor a
democratic peace, the soldiers may not be willing to fight a
revolutionary war. What then?"

An argument which brings to mind the saying: one fool can ask
ten times more questions than ten wise men can answer.

We have never denied the difficulties of those in power
during an imperialist war. Nevertheless, we have always
preached the dictatorship of the proletariat and the poor peasantry. Shall we renounce this, when the moment to act
has arrived?

We have always said that the dictatorship of the proletariat in
one country creates gigantic changes in the international
situation, in the economic life of the country, in the condition
of the army and in its mood—shall we now "forget" all this,
and allow ourselves to be frightened by the "difficulties" of
the revolution?

"As everybody reports, the masses are not in a mood that would
drive them into the streets. Among the signs justifying
pessimism may be mentioned the greatly increasing circulation of
the pogromist and Black-Hundred press."

When people allow themselves to be frightened by the bourgeoisie, all objects and phenomena naturally appear yellow
to them. First, they substitute an impressionist, intellectualist criterion for the Marxist criterion of the
movement; they substitute subjective impressions of moods for a political analysis of the development of
the class struggle and of the course of events in the entire
country against the entire international background. They
"conveniently" forget, of course, that a firm party line, its
unyielding resolve, is also a mood-creating factor , particularly at the sharpest revolutionary moments. It is
sometimes very "convenient" for people to forget that the
responsible leaders, by their vacillations and by their
readiness to burn their yesterday's idols, cause the most
unbecoming vacillations in the mood of certain strata of the
masses.

Secondly—and this is at present the main thing—in speaking about the mood of the masses, the spineless people
forget to add:

that "everybody" reports it as a tense and expectant mood; that "everybody" agrees that, called upon by the Soviets for the
defence of the Soviets, the workers will rise to a man; that "everybody" agrees that the workers are greatly
dissatisfied with the indecision of the centres concerning the
"last decisive struggle", the inevitability of which they
clearly recognise; that "everybody" unanimously characterises the mood of the
broadest masses as close to desperation and points to the
anarchy developing therefrom; that "everybody" also recognises that there is among the
class-conscious workers a definite unwillingness to go out into
the streets only for demonstrations, only for partial struggles, since a general and not a partial struggle is
in the air, while the hopelessness of individual strikes,
demonstra tions and acts to influence the authorities has been
seen and is fully realised.

And so forth .

If we approach this characterisation of the mass mood from the
point of view of the entire development of the class and
political struggle and of the entire course of events during the
six months of our revolution, it will become clear to us how
people frightened by the bourgeoisie are distorting the
question. Things are not as they were before April 20-21, June
9, July 3, for then it was a matter of spontaneous excitement which we, as a party, either failed to
comprehend (April 20) or held back and shaped into a peaceful
demonstration (June 9 and July 3), for we knew very well at that
time that the Soviets were not yet ours, that the peasants still trusted the Lieberdan-Chernov and not
the Bolshevik course (uprising), that consequently we could not
have the majority of the people behind us, and that consequently
the uprising would be premature.

At that time the majority of the class-conscious workers did not
raise the question of the last decisive struggle at all;
not one of all our Party units would have raised it at that time. As for the unenlightened and very broad masses, there
was neither a concerted effort nor the resolve born out of
despair; there was only a spontaneous excitement with the naïve hope of "influencing" Kerensky and the bourgeoisie by
"action", by a demonstration pure and simple.

What is needed for an uprising is not this, but, on the one
hand, a conscious, firm and unswerving resolve on the part of
the class-conscious elements to fight to the end; and on the
other, a mood of despair among the broad masses who feel that nothing can now be saved by half-measures;
that you cannot "influence" anybody; that the hungry will "smash
everything, destroy everything, even anarchically", if the Bolsheviks are not able to lead them in a decisive battle.

The development of the revolution has in practice brought
both the workers and the peasantry to precisely this combination of a tense mood resulting from
experience among the class-conscious and a mood of hatred
towards those using the lockout weapon and the capitalists that
is close to despair among the broadest masses.

We can also understand the "success" on this very soil of the
scoundrels of the reactionary press who imitate Bolshevism. The
malicious glee of the reactionaries at the approach of a
decisive battle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat has
been observed in all revolutions without exception; it has
always been so, and it is absolutely unavoidable. And if you
allow yourselves to be frightened by this circumstance,
then you have to renounce not only the uprising but the
proletarian revolution in general. For in a capitalist society
this revolution cannot mature without being accompanied by malicious glee on the part of the reaction arises
and by hopes that they would be able to feather their nest in
this way.

The class-conscious workers know perfectly well that the Black
Hundreds work hand in hand with the bourgeoisie, and that a
decisive victory of the workers (in which the petty bourgeoisie
do not believe, which the capitalists are afraid of, which the
Black Hundreds sometimes wish for out of sheer malice, convinced
as they are that the Bolsheviks cannot retain power)—that
this victory will completely crush the Black Hundreds, that the Bolsheviks will be able to retain power firmly
and to the greatest advantage of all humanity tortured and
tormented by the war.

Indeed, is there anybody in his senses who can doubt that the
Rodzyankos and Suvorins are acting in concert, that the
roles have been distributed among them?

Has it not been proved by facts that Kerensky acts on
Rodzyanko's orders, while the State Printing Press of the
Russian Republic (don't laugh!) prints the Black-Hundred
speeches of reactionaries in the "Duma" at the expense of the
state. Has not this fact been exposed even by the lackeys from Dyelo Naroda , who serve "their own
mannikin"? Has not the experience of all elections proved that the Cadet lists were fully supported by Novoye Vremya , which is a venal paper controlled by the
"interests" of the tsarist landowners?

Did we not read yesterday that commercial and industrial
capitalists (non-partisan capitalists, of course; oh, non-partisan capitalists, to be sure, for the Vikhlayevs and
Rakitnikovs, the Gvozdyovs and Nikitins are not in coalition
with the Cadets—God forbid—but with non-partisan commercial and industrial circles!) have
donated the goodly sum of 300,000 rubles to the Cadets?

The whole Black-Hundred press, if we look at things from a class
and not a sentimental point of view, is a branch of the firm "Ryabushinsky, Milyukov, and Co.". Capitalists buy,
on the one hand, the Milyukovs, Zaslavskys, Potresovs, and so
on; on the other, the Black Hundreds.

The victory of the proletariat is the only means of putting an end to this most hideous poisoning of the people by
the cheap Black-Hundred venom.

Is it any wonder that the crowd, tired out and made wretched by
hunger and the prolongation of the war, clutches at the
Black-Hundred poison? Can one imagine a capitalist society on
the eve of collapse in which the oppressed masses are not desperate? Is there any doubt that the desperation
of the masses, a large part of whom are still ignorant,
will express itself in the increased consumption of all
sorts of poison?

Those who, in arguing about the mood of the masses, blame the
masses for their own personal spinelessness, are in a hopeless
position. The masses are divided into those who are consciously
biding their time and those who unconsciously are ready to sink
into despair; but the masses of the oppressed and the hungry are
not spineless.

"On the other hand, the Marxist party cannot reduce the question
of an uprising to that of a military conspiracy. . . ."

Marxism is an extremely profound and many-sided doctrine. It is,
therefore, no wonder that scraps of quotations from
Marx—especially when the quotations are made inappropriately—can always be found among the "arguments"
of those who break with Marxism. Military conspiracy is
Blanquism, if it is organised not by a party of a definite class, if its organisers have not analysed the
political moment in general and the international situation in
particular, if the party has not on its side the sympathy of the majority of the people, as proved by objective
facts, if the development of revolutionary events has not brought about a practical refutation of the conciliatory
illusions of the petty bourgeoisie, if the majority of the Soviet-type organs of revolutionary struggle that have been
recognised as authoritative or have shown themselves to be such
in practice have not been won over, if there has not matured a sentiment in the army (if in war-time) against the
government that protracts the unjust war against the will of the
whole people, if the slogans of the uprising (like "All
power to the Soviets" "Land to the peasants", or "Immediate
offer of a democratic peace to all the belligerent nations, with
an immediate abrogation of all secret treaties and secret
diplomacy", etc.) have not become widely known and popular,
if the advanced workers are not sure of the desperate situation of the masses and of the support of the countryside, a
support proved by a serious peasant movement or by an uprising
against the landowners and the government that defends the
landowners, if the country's economic situation inspires earnest hopes for a favourable solution of the crisis
by peaceable and parliannentary means.

This is probably enough.

In my pamphlet entitled: Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power? (I hope it will appear in a day or
two), there is a quotation from Marx which really bears upon the
question of insurrection and which enumerates the features of
insurrection as an "art".

I am ready to wager that if we were to propose to all those
chatterers in Russia who are now shouting against a military
conspiracy, to open their mouths and explain the difference
between the "art" of an insurrection and a military conspiracy
that deserves condemnation, they would either repeat what was
quoted above or would cover themselves, with shame and would
call forth the general ridicule of the workers. Why not try, my
dear would-be Marxists! Sing us a song against "military conspiracy"!

POSTSCRIPT

The above lines had been written when I received, at eight
o'clock Tuesday evening, the morning Petrograd papers; there was
an article by Mr. V. Bazarov in Novaya Zhizn . Mr. V. Bazarov asserts that "a handwritten manifesto
was distributed in the city, in which arguments were presented
in the name of two eminent Bolsheviks, against immediate
action".

If this is true, I beg the comrades, whom this letter cannot
reach earlier than Wednesday noon, to publish it as quickly as possible.

I did not write it for the press; I wanted to talk to the
members of our Party by letter. But we cannot remain silent when
the heroes of Novaya Zhizn , who do not belong to the
Party and who have been ridiculed by it a thousand times for
their contemptible spinelessness (they voted for the Bolsheviks
the day before yesterday, for the Mensheviks yesterday, and who
almost united them at the world-famous unity congress)—when such individuals receive a
manifesto from members of our Party in which they carry
on propaganda against an uprising. We must agitate also in favour of an uprising. Let the anonymous individuals come
right out into the light of day, and let them bear the punishment they deserve for their shameful vacillations, even if
it be only the ridicule of all class-conscious workers. I have
at my disposal only one hour before I send the present letter to
Petrograd, and I therefore can say only a word or two about one
of the "methods" of the sad heroes of the brainless Novaya Zhizn trend. Mr. V. Bazarov attempts to polemise against
Comrade Ryazanov, who has said, and who is a thousand times
correct in saying, that "all those who create in the masses a
mood of despair and indifference are preparing an uprising".

The sad hero of a sad cause "rejoins" as follows:

"Have despair and indifference ever conquered?"

O contemptible fools from Novaya Zhizn ! Do they know such examples of uprising in history, in which the masses of the
oppressed classes were victorious in a desperate battle without
having been reduced to despair by long sufferings and by an
extreme sharpening of all sorts of crises, in which those masses
had not been seized by indifference towards various lackey-like
pre-parliaments, towards idle playing at revolution, towards the
Lieberdans' reduction of the Soviets from organs of power and
uprising to empty talking shops?

Or have the contemptible little fools from Novaya Zhizn
perhaps discovered among the masses an indifference—to the
question of bread, to the prolongation of the war, to and for
the peasants?