Date: 1917
Source: ru:PSS/v31

# 2. Report on the Current Situation. April 24 (May 7)
Source: CW vol 31

1. Record of Proceedings

Comrades, I have to address a very broad topic regarding the current situation and its assessment, which, as far as I can judge, breaks down into three parts: first, the evaluation of the political situation in Russia, the attitude towards the government and the dual power that has emerged; second, the attitude towards the war; and third, the international situation of the labor movement, which, if we speak on a global scale, has placed it directly before the socialist revolution.

I think that I will have to touch upon some points only briefly. On the other hand, I have to present to you a draft resolution on all these issues, but with the reservation that due to the extreme lack of forces among us, as well as the political crisis that has arisen here in Petrograd, we were unable not only to discuss the resolution but also to communicate it to the localities in a timely manner. Thus, I repeat, these are only preliminary drafts, facilitating the work in the commission and allowing it to focus on some of the most essential questions.

I begin with the first question. If I am not mistaken, the Moscow conference adopted the same resolution as the Petrograd city-wide one. (Voices from the floor: "With amendments.") I have not seen these amendments and cannot judge. But since the Petrograd resolution was published in Pravda, if there are no objections, I can consider it known to everyone. I submit this resolution as a draft to the present All-Russian Conference.

The majority of the parties of the petty-bourgeois bloc, which dominates the Petrograd Soviet, characterizes our policy, in contrast to their own, as a policy of hasty steps. Our policy is distinguished by the fact that we demand, above all, an exact class characterization of what is happening. The main sin of the petty-bourgeois bloc is that it hides the truth about the class character of the government from the people with phrases.

If the comrades from Moscow have amendments, they could read them now{144}.

(Reads the resolution of the Petrograd city-wide conference on the attitude towards the Provisional Government.)

"Recognizing:

1) that the Provisional Government, in terms of its class character, is an organ of the domination of the landlords and the bourgeoisie;

2) that it and the classes it represents are inextricably linked economically and politically with Russian and Anglo-French imperialism;

3) that even the program it has announced, it implements only partially and only under the pressure of the revolutionary proletariat and, to some extent, the petty bourgeoisie;

4) that the organizing forces of the bourgeois and landlord counter-revolution, hiding behind the banner of the Provisional Government, with the obvious connivance of the latter, have already begun an attack against the revolutionary democracy;

5) that the Provisional Government is delaying the appointment of elections to the Constituent Assembly, obstructing the universal arming of the people, opposing the transfer of all land to the people, imposing a landlord method of solving the agrarian question, hindering the introduction of the 8-hour working day, conniving at counter-revolutionary agitation (Guchkov and Co.) in the army, organizing the upper echelons of the army command against the soldiers, etc..."

I have read the first part of the resolution, containing the class characterization of the Provisional Government. Disagreements with the resolution of the Muscovites, as far as one can judge from the text of the resolution alone, are hardly significant, but I would consider the general characterization of the government as counter-revolutionary to be incorrect. In general, it must be clarified which revolution we are talking about. From the point of view of the bourgeois revolution, this cannot be said, as it has already ended. From the point of view of the proletarian-peasant revolution – it is premature to say this, as one cannot be sure that the peasantry will necessarily go further than the bourgeoisie, and to express confidence in the peasantry, especially now when it has turned to imperialism and defensism, i.e., to supporting the war, seems to me unfounded. And now it has entered into a whole series of agreements with the Cadets. Therefore, I consider this point of the Muscovites' resolution politically incorrect. We want the peasantry to go further than the bourgeoisie, to take the land from the landlords, but now nothing can be said definitively about its future behavior.

We carefully avoid the phrase "revolutionary democracy." When it comes to the government's attacks, then one can talk about this, but now this phrase covers the maximum deception because it is very difficult to separate the classes that have merged in this chaos. Our task is to free those who are lagging behind. For us, the Soviets are important not as a form, but it is important which classes these Soviets represent. Therefore, prolonged work is necessary to clarify the proletarian consciousness...

(Continues reading the resolution.)

"...6) that at the same time, this government relies at the moment on the trust and, to a certain extent, on a direct agreement with the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, which currently unites the recognized majority of workers and soldiers, i.e., the peasantry;

7) that every step of the Provisional Government, both in foreign and domestic policy, will open the eyes not only of the urban and rural proletarians and semi-proletarians, but also of broad layers of the petty bourgeoisie to the true character of this government;

the conference resolves that:

1) for the transfer of all state power into the hands of the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies or other bodies directly expressing the will of the people, it is necessary to carry out prolonged work to clarify the class-consciousness of the proletariat and to unite the urban and rural proletarians against the vacillations of the petty bourgeoisie, for only such work serves as a real guarantee of the successful forward movement of the entire revolutionary people;

2) for such activity, it is necessary to carry out comprehensive work within the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, to increase their number, to strengthen their power, to unite the proletarian internationalist groups of our party within them;

3) to intensify the organization of our SD forces so that the new wave of the revolutionary movement is carried out under the banner of revolutionary social democracy."

Here is the crux of our entire policy. The petty bourgeoisie is now wavering and covering up its wavering with the phrase about revolutionary democracy, and we must oppose these waverings with a proletarian line. The counter-revolutionaries wish to provoke a premature uprising. Our tasks are to increase the number of Soviets, to strengthen their power, and to unite within our party.

The Muscovites add control in the third point. This control is represented by Chkheidze, Steklov, Tsereteli, and other leaders of the petty-bourgeois bloc. Control without power is the emptiest of phrases. How will I control England? To control it, I need to seize its fleet. I understand that the undeveloped mass of workers and soldiers may naively and unconsciously believe in control, but it is enough to think about the basic aspects of control to understand that this belief is a departure from the fundamental principles of class struggle. What is control? If I write a note or a resolution, they will write a counter-resolution. To control, one needs to have power. If this is not understood by the broad masses of the petty-bourgeois bloc, we must have patience to explain it to them, but in no case should we tell them a lie. And if I hide this basic condition with control, I am telling a lie and playing into the hands of the capitalists and imperialists. – "Please, control me, and I will have the guns. Be content with control," they say. They know that it is impossible to refuse the people now. Without power, control is a petty-bourgeois phrase that slows down the progress and development of the Russian revolution. For this reason, I object to the third point of the Muscovites.

They know that it is impossible to refuse the people now. Control without power is a petty-bourgeois phrase that slows down and impedes the progress and development of the Russian revolution. This is why I object to the third point of our comrades from Moscow.

Regarding this peculiar interplay of two powers, when the Provisional Government, not having real power, cannons, soldiers, and an armed mass of people, relies on the Soviets, which, for now, trusting in promises, pursue a policy of supporting these promises, if you want to participate in this game, you will face a fiasco. Our task is not to participate in this game; we will continue to explain to the proletariat the complete inadequacy of this policy, and every step of actual life will show how right we are. We are currently in the minority, and the masses do not yet believe us. We can wait: they will come to our side when the government reveals itself. The vacillations of the government may push them away, and they will flow towards us, and, taking into account the balance of forces, we will then say: our time has come.

Now I move on to the question of war, which practically united us when we spoke out against the loan, the attitude towards which immediately showed how political forces are divided. As *Rech* wrote, all except "Unity" are wavering, the entire petty-bourgeois mass is for the loan with reservations. The capitalists make a sour face, smile as they put the resolution in their pocket, and say: "you can talk, but we will still act." Throughout the world, those who vote for the loan now are called social-chauvinists.

I will proceed directly to reading the resolution on the war. It is divided into three parts: 1) the characterization of the war from the standpoint of its class significance, 2) the revolutionary defense sentiment of the masses, which does not exist in any other country, and 3) how to end the war.

Many, including myself, have had to speak, especially to soldiers, and I think that if we explain everything from a class perspective, what is most unclear in our position for them is precisely how we want to end the war, how we consider it possible to end it. There is a great deal of misunderstanding and complete lack of comprehension of our position among the broad masses, so we must be the most popular here.

(Reads the draft resolution on the war.)

"The present war, on the part of both groups of belligerent states, is an imperialist war, i.e., one waged by capitalists for domination over the world, for the division of the spoils of the capitalists, for advantageous markets for financial and banking capital, for the strangulation of weak nationalities.

The transfer of state power in Russia from Nicholas II to the government of Guchkov, Lvov, and others, to the government of landowners and capitalists, did not change and could not change the class character and significance of the war on the part of Russia.

It was particularly evident that the new government is waging the same, such an imperialist, i.e., predatory, robber war, in the following circumstance: the new government not only did not publish the secret treaties concluded by the former tsar, Nicholas II, with the capitalist governments of England, France, etc., but formally confirmed these treaties. This was done without consulting the people and with the obvious aim of deceiving them, for it is well known that these secret treaties of the former tsar are thoroughly predatory, promising the Russian capitalists the plunder of China, Persia, Turkey, Austria, etc.

Therefore, the proletarian party cannot support either the present war or the present government or its loans, no matter how grandiloquent the names given to these loans, without completely breaking with internationalism, i.e., with the fraternal solidarity of the workers of all countries in the struggle against the yoke of capital.

No trust can be placed in the promise of the present government to renounce annexations, i.e., the conquest of foreign lands or the forcible retention within the borders of Russia of any nationalities. For, first, the capitalists, intertwined by thousands of threads of Russian and Anglo-French banking capital, defending the interests of capital, cannot renounce annexations in the present war without ceasing to be capitalists, without renouncing profits on billions invested in loans, concessions, military enterprises, etc. Second, the new government, renouncing annexations to deceive the people, declared through Milyukov on April 9, 1917, in Moscow, that it does not renounce annexations. Third, as *Delo Naroda*, a newspaper in which Minister Kerensky participates, revealed, Milyukov did not even send his declaration of renunciation of annexations abroad.

Warning the people against the empty promises of the capitalists, the conference therefore declares that it is necessary to strictly distinguish between renunciation of annexations in words and renunciation of annexations in deeds, i.e., the immediate publication of all secret, predatory treaties, all acts of foreign policy, and the immediate start of the most complete liberation of all nationalities oppressed or forcibly attached to Russia or kept in a semi-rightless position by the class of capitalists, continuing the shameful policy of the former tsar, Nicholas II."

The second half of this part of the resolution speaks about the promises that the government gives. Perhaps, for a Marxist, this part would be superfluous, but it is important for the people. Therefore, it is necessary to add why we do not believe these promises, why we should not trust the government. No trust can be placed in the promises of the present government to renounce the imperialist policy. Here, our line should not consist in pointing out that we demand from the government the publication of the treaties. That would be an illusion. To demand this from a government of capitalists is the same as demanding the disclosure of commercial fraud. If we say that it is necessary to renounce annexations and indemnities, then we must indicate how to do this; and if we are asked who will do this, we will say that this is, in essence, a revolutionary step, a step that can only be taken by the revolutionary proletariat. Otherwise, these will be just empty promises, wishes, with which the capitalists lead the people by the nose.

(Continues reading the draft resolution.)

"So-called 'revolutionary defense,' which now encompasses almost all the Narodnik parties (Narodnik Socialists, Trudoviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries) and the opportunist party of Mensheviks (OK, Chkheidze, Tsereteli, and others), as well as the majority of non-partisan revolutionaries, in terms of its class significance, on the one hand, represents the interests and viewpoint of the petty bourgeoisie, small proprietors, and well-to-do peasants, who, like the capitalists, derive profit from violence over weak peoples, and on the other hand, is the result of the deception of the masses by the capitalists, who do not publish the secret treaties and get by with promises and rhetoric.

It is necessary to recognize that very broad masses of 'revolutionary defenders' are sincere, i.e., they truly do not wish for annexations, seizures, and violence over weak peoples, and they genuinely strive for a democratic, non-violent peace between all the warring countries. This must be recognized because the class position of the urban and rural proletarians and semi-proletarians (i.e., people who live entirely or partially by selling their labor power to the capitalists) makes these classes uninterested in the profits of the capitalists.

The movement of the proletarians and semi-proletarians of town and country (i.e., people who live wholly or partly by selling their labor power to the capitalists) makes these classes uninterested in the profits of the capitalists.

Therefore, while recognizing as absolutely unacceptable and signifying in fact a complete break with internationalism and socialism any concessions to "revolutionary defensism", the conference at the same time declares that as long as the Russian capitalists and their Provisional Government confine themselves to threats of violence against the people (for example, the sadly notorious order of Guchkov, threatening punishment for the unauthorized removal of officers by soldiers), as long as the capitalists have not resorted to violence against the freely organizing and freely replacing and electing all and every kind of authority of the Soviets of workers', soldiers', peasants', farm laborers' and other deputies—until then our party will preach abstention from violence in general, fighting against the profound and fatal error of "revolutionary defensism" exclusively by methods of comradely persuasion, by explaining the truth that the blindly trusting attitude of the broad masses towards the government of the capitalists, the worst enemies of peace and socialism, is at present the main obstacle to the speedy end of the war.

A part of the petty bourgeoisie is interested in this policy of the capitalists, there can be no doubt about it, and therefore it is impermissible for the proletarian party to place hopes now on the community of interests with the peasantry. We are fighting to win the peasantry to our side, but to a certain extent, they consciously stand on the side of the capitalists.

There is no doubt that the proletariat and semi-proletariat are not interested in the war as a class. They go under the influence of traditions and deception. They do not yet have political experience. Hence, our task is prolonged explanation. We do not make the slightest principled concessions to them, but we cannot approach them as social-chauvinists. These elements of the population were never socialists, they have no conception of socialism, they are only just awakening to political life. But their consciousness is growing and expanding with extraordinary rapidity. We must know how to approach them with explanations, and this is the most difficult task, especially for a party that was still underground yesterday.

Some think, have we renounced ourselves: after all, we propagated the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war, and now we are speaking against ourselves. But in Russia, the first civil war has ended, we are now moving on to the second war—between imperialism and the armed people, and in this transitional period, while the armed force is with the soldiers, while Milyukov and Guchkov have not yet resorted to violence, this civil war turns for us into a peaceful, prolonged, and patient class propaganda. If we speak of civil war before the people have understood its necessity, then we undoubtedly fall into Blanquism. We are for civil war, but only when it is waged by a conscious class. One can overthrow those who are known to the people as oppressors. Now, however, there are no oppressors, the cannons and rifles are with the soldiers, not with the capitalists, the capitalists are not taking power now by violence, but by deception, and to shout about violence now is nonsense. We must know how to stand on the standpoint of Marxism, which says that this transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war is based on objective conditions, not subjective ones. We are temporarily giving up this slogan, but only temporarily. The weapons are now with the soldiers and workers, not with the capitalists. As long as the government has not started a war, we preach peace.

It would have been advantageous for the government if the first rash step towards an uprising had been taken by us; it would have been advantageous for them. They feel resentment because our party gave the slogan of a peaceful demonstration. To the petty bourgeoisie, which is now waiting, we must not give up a jot of our principles. There is no more dangerous mistake for a proletarian party than to build its tactics on subjective desires where organization is needed. To say that the majority is on our side is impossible; in this case, distrust, distrust, and distrust are needed. To base proletarian tactics on this means to kill it.

The third point concerns the question of how to end the war. The Marxist viewpoint is well known, but the difficulty lies in how to convey it to the masses in the clearest form. We are not pacifists, and we cannot dissociate ourselves from revolutionary war. How does the latter differ from a capitalist war? First of all, by the class that is interested in it and by the policy that the interested class pursues in this war... When speaking to the masses, one must give them specific answers. So, the first question: how to distinguish a revolutionary war from a capitalist war? The agitators do not understand what the difference is here, that the issue is one of class differences. We must not only speak theoretically, but we must also practically show that we will then wage a truly revolutionary war when power is in the hands of the proletariat. It seems to me that such a formulation of the question gives a more vivid answer to the question of what kind of war it is and who is waging it.

In Pravda, a draft appeal to the soldiers of all the warring countries was published. We have information that fraternization is occurring at the front, but it is still half-spontaneous. What is lacking in fraternization is a clear political thought. The soldiers instinctively felt that action must be from below, their class instinct of revolutionarily minded people suggested to them that this is the real path. But this is not enough for a revolution. We want to give a clear political answer. In order for the war to be ended, power must pass into the hands of the revolutionary class. I would propose on behalf of the conference to draw up an appeal to the soldiers of all the warring countries and to publish this appeal in all languages. If instead of all these clichés about peace conferences, where half of the members are secret or open agents of imperialist governments, we send out this appeal, it will bring us a thousand times closer to our goal than all the peace conferences. We do not want to deal with German Plekhanovs. When we were traveling in a carriage through Germany, these gentlemen, the social-chauvinists, the German Plekhanovs, tried to get into our carriage, but we told them that not a single socialist among them would enter, and if they did, we would not let them out without a big scandal. If, for example, Karl Liebknecht had been allowed to join us, we would have talked to him. When we issue an appeal to the workers of all countries and in it give our answer to the question of how to end the war, and when the soldiers read our answer, which provides a political way out of the war, then fraternization will take a giant step forward. This is necessary so that fraternization rises from the level of an instinctive horror of war to a clear political consciousness of how to get out of this war.

I will move on to the third question, namely, the assessment of the current moment from the standpoint of the situation of the international workers' movement and the state of international capitalism. From the standpoint of Marxism, it is absurd to stop at the position of only one country when talking about imperialism, when capitalist countries are so closely linked to each other. And now, during the war, this connection is immeasurably stronger. All of humanity is entangled in one bloody tangle, and there can be no way out of it individually. If there are more and less developed countries, then the present war has tied them together with such threads that the exit of only one country appears impossible and absurd.

It cannot be otherwise. If there are more and less developed countries, then the present war has so entangled them all with one another that the idea of a single country extricating itself from this tangle appears impossible and absurd.

We all agree that power should be in the hands of the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. But what can and must they do if power passes to them, i.e., comes into the hands of the proletariat and semi-proletariat? A complex and difficult situation arises. And when we speak of the transfer of power, a danger appears here which played a great role in previous revolutions, namely: the revolutionary class takes state power into its own hands and does not know what to do with it. There are examples in the history of revolutions of those which suffered defeat precisely for this reason. The Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, which now cover all Russia with their network, stand at the center of the whole revolution; however, it seems to me that they have not been sufficiently understood and studied by us. If they take power into their own hands, this will no longer be a state in the ordinary sense of the word. Such a state power, lasting for a long time, has never existed in the world, but the entire workers' movement of the world has been approaching it. This will be a state of the type of the Paris Commune. Such power is a dictatorship, i.e., it rests not on law, not on the formal will of the majority, but directly and immediately on force. Force is the instrument of power. In what way will the Soviets apply this power? Will they return to the old method of administration through the police, will they carry on administration through the old organs of power? In my opinion, they cannot do this, and in any case, the immediate task before them is the organization of a non-bourgeois state. I used the comparison of this state with the Paris Commune among the Bolsheviks in the sense that it smashed the old organs of administration and replaced them with entirely new, direct, and immediate organs of the workers. I am accused of having used at the present moment the word most frightening to the capitalists, since they began to interpret it as a desire for the immediate introduction of socialism. But I used it only in the sense of replacing the old organs with new, proletarian ones. Marx said that in this lies the greatest step forward in the entire world proletarian movement{145}. The question of the social tasks of the proletariat is of tremendous practical importance for us, on the one hand, because we are now linked with all other countries, and it is impossible to break out of this tangle: either the proletariat as a whole will break out, or it will be strangled; on the other hand, the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies are a fact. There is no doubt for anyone that they cover the whole of Russia, they are the power, and there can be no other power. If this is so, then we must clearly understand how they can use this power. It is said that this power is the same as in France and America, but there is nothing like it there, such direct power does not exist there.

The resolution on the current moment is divided into three parts. The first characterizes the objective situation created by the imperialist war, the position in which world capitalism finds itself; the second – the conditions of the international proletarian movement; and the third – the tasks of the Russian working class when power passes into its hands. In the first part, I formulate the conclusion that during the war, capitalism has developed even more than before the war. It has already taken entire areas of production into its hands. As far back as 1891, 27 years ago, when the Germans adopted their Erfurt Program, Engels said that it was no longer possible to interpret capitalism as lacking planning{146}. This is already outdated: if there are trusts, then there is no lack of planning. Especially in the 20th century, the development of capitalism has advanced by leaps and bounds, and the war has done what was not done in 25 years. The nationalization of industry has advanced not only in Germany but also in England. From monopoly in general, they have moved to state monopoly. The objective situation shows that the war has accelerated the development of capitalism, and it has moved forward from capitalism to imperialism, from monopoly to nationalization. All this has brought the socialist revolution closer and created the objective conditions for it. Thus, the socialist revolution has been brought closer by the course of the war.

England, before the war, was a country of maximum freedom, as pointed out by politicians of the Cadet party type. There was freedom there because there was no revolutionary movement. The war changed everything at once. A country where for decades there was no recollection of an example of an attack on the freedom of the socialist press, suddenly moved to purely tsarist censorship, and all the prisons were filled with socialists. The capitalists there had learned over centuries to govern the people without violence, and if they resorted to violence, it means they felt that the revolutionary movement was growing, that it could not be done otherwise. When we pointed out that Liebknecht represented the masses, although he was alone and against him were a hundred German Plekhanovs, we were told that this was utopia, illusion. Meanwhile, anyone who had ever attended workers' meetings abroad saw that the sympathy of the masses for Liebknecht was an undeniable fact. Even the fiercest opponents of his had to resort to trickery before the masses; and if not to feign support, then at least no one dared to come out against him. Now, however, things have gone even further. Now we are dealing with mass strikes and fraternization at the front. In this respect, it would be a great mistake to make predictions, but the fact that sympathy for the International is growing and that revolutionary ferment is beginning in the German army – this is still a fact showing that a revolution is maturing there.

Now, what are the tasks of the revolutionary proletariat? The main defect and the main error in all the arguments of the socialists is that the question is posed too generally – the transition to socialism. However, one must speak of specific steps and measures. Some of these have matured, others have not. At present, we are experiencing a transitional moment. We have clearly put forward forms that do not resemble the forms of bourgeois states: the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies – such a form of state exists in no state and has never existed. This is a form that represents the first steps towards socialism and is inevitable at the beginning of a socialist society. This is a decisive fact. The Russian revolution has created the Soviets. In no bourgeois country in the world are there such state institutions, nor can there be, and no socialist revolution can operate with any power other than this. The Soviets of W. and S. D. must take power not to create an ordinary bourgeois republic or to make an immediate transition to socialism. This is impossible. For what, then? They must take power in order to take the first specific steps towards this transition, which can and must be taken. Fear is the main enemy in this respect. The masses must be preached that these steps must be taken now, otherwise, the power of the Soviets of W. and S. D. will be meaningless and will give nothing to the people.

I am trying to give an answer to the question of what specific steps we can propose to the people without contradicting our Marxist convictions.

Why do we want power to pass into the hands of the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies?

The first measure they must implement is the nationalization of the land. All peoples are talking about it. It is said that this measure is the most utopian, and yet everyone comes to it precisely because Russian land ownership is so confused that there is no other way out except to divide all the land and turn it into state property. Private ownership of land must be abolished. This is the task that stands before us, because the majority of the people stand for it. For this, we need the Soviets. It is impossible to carry out this measure with the old state bureaucracy.

The task of land ownership. This is the task that stands before us, because the majority of the people stand for it. For this, we need Soviets. It is impossible to carry out this measure with the old state bureaucracy.

The second measure. We cannot stand for "introducing" socialism – that would be the greatest absurdity. We must preach socialism. The majority of the population in Russia are peasants, small proprietors, who cannot even think about socialism. But what can they say against having a bank in every village that would give them the opportunity to improve their farms? They can say nothing against this. We must propagate these practical measures among the peasants and strengthen in them the consciousness of their necessity.

Another matter is the sugar manufacturers' syndicate, which is a fact. Here our proposal must be immediately practical: these already matured syndicates should be transferred into state ownership. If the Soviets want to take power, then only for such purposes. There is no other reason for them to take it. The question stands as follows: either the further development of these Soviets or they will die an ignominious death, as happened during the Paris Commune. If a bourgeois republic is needed, the Cadets can do that.

I will conclude with a reference to one speech that made the greatest impression on me. A coal miner gave a remarkable speech in which, without using a single bookish word, he told how they made the revolution. For them, the question was not whether they would have a president, but his concern was when they took over the mines, they had to guard the ropes so that production would not stop. Then the question became one of bread, which they did not have, and they also agreed on how to obtain it. This is the real program of the revolution, not something read from a book. This is the real seizure of power on the spot.

The bourgeoisie has never been so well-organized as in Petrograd, and the capitalists here hold power in their hands, while in the localities, the peasants, without any socialist plans, undertake purely practical measures. I think that this program of revolutionary movement alone correctly indicates the true path of the revolution. We are for approaching these measures with the greatest caution and prudence, but they must be carried out, and this is the direction in which we must look forward; otherwise, there is no way out. Otherwise, the Soviets of workers' and soldiers' deputies will be dispersed and will die an ignominious death, and if power is really in the hands of the revolutionary proletariat, then only to move forward. And moving forward means taking concrete steps, not just securing an exit from the war with words. The complete success of these steps is possible only with a world revolution, if the revolution strangles the war and if the workers of all countries support it. Therefore, the seizure of power is the only concrete measure, the only way out.

First published in 1921 in the Collected Works of N. Lenin (V. Ulyanov), Volume XIV, Part II

Printed from a typescript copy of the stenographic record

2. Newspaper report

Comrade Lenin delivered a report on the current situation.

Outlining the party's position on the dual power, indicating that the forms of class struggle change depending on objective conditions, that the victory of the armed people over tsarism and the de facto establishment of complete political freedom made other forms of struggle against the class opponents of the proletariat unnecessary and even harmful, except for struggle through political education and socialist enlightenment of the masses (of course, as long as the capitalists themselves do not resort to violence against the majority), the speaker moved on to consider the objective situation created by the war both here and in the West.

All of humanity is entangled in one bloody tangle, and there is no way out individually. It is impossible to end the war with a unilateral refusal of the soldiers of any of the warring sides to continue it. The way out is in the transfer of power from the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie to the hands of the proletariat and the semi-proletarian layers that are close to it in their class position.

The Soviets of workers', soldiers', and other deputies, which are increasingly expanding their network throughout Russia, represent a new, unique form of state power, at least in embryo. These organizations are fundamentally different from all those that have existed up to now and are in no way suitable for establishing bourgeois institutions, for setting up a bourgeois parliamentary republic with a standing army, police, and bureaucracy.

Currently, power is directly in the hands of the organized and armed people. The instruments of force are at the disposal of the majority. The government survives due to the unconscious trust of this majority. Therefore, the task of the day is educational work, explaining the necessity of transferring power to the revolutionary class, and drawing the masses to the side of revolutionary social democracy.

If the Soviets of workers', soldiers', peasants', and farm laborers' deputies become the authority, they will apply it completely differently than the ruling classes do. An inevitable transition to specific measures, prepared by the development of capitalism and corresponding to the interests of the majority of the population – in Russia, with the overwhelming predominance of the petty bourgeoisie.

The socialist revolution, growing in the West, is not immediately on the agenda in Russia, but we have already entered a transitional state towards it. The Soviets of workers', soldiers', and other deputies are the organization of power with which the socialist revolution will have to operate. There is nothing like them in the West.

From this – our task of strengthening them. From this – the specific tasks of the Soviets of workers' and other deputies: 1) nationalization of the land (expropriation of the main means of production) – which the peasants demand, 2) merging private banks into a single state bank, nationalization of industries united in syndicates, 3) introduction of universal labor conscription.

If the Soviets of workers', soldiers', peasants', and farm laborers' deputies refuse to carry out these tasks, their fall is inevitable. They will meet the same fate that befell a number of institutions brought forth by the bourgeois revolutions of the 19th century: they will either be simply dissolved or disbanded, or they will collapse on their own, unable to cope with the tasks set before them by the revolution itself (the example of the Commune). There are only two paths: forward to decisive economic and political measures or backward – to non-existence. There is no third option.

"Pravda" No. 40, May 8 (April 25), 1917

Printed from the text of the newspaper "Pravda"