Mr. Plekhanov elucidates this excellently. In his "May Day" letter to the "artel of socialist students," printed today in *Rech*, *Delo Naroda*, and *Yedinstvo*, he writes:

"…It (the international socialist congress of 1889) understood that the social, more precisely: socialist revolution presupposes lengthy educational and organizational work in the depths of the working class. People who are calling the Russian laboring masses to seize political power are forgetting this now—a seizure which could make sense only if objective conditions necessary for social revolution were present. These conditions do not yet exist…" and so forth, right up to the call to "unitedly support" the Provisional Government.

This reasoning of Mr. Plekhanov—is the most typical reasoning of a bunch of "has-beens" who call themselves social-democrats. And precisely because it is typical, it is worth dwelling on in detail.

First of all, is it rational and conscientious to refer to the first congress of the II International, and not the last?

The first congress of the Second International (1889–1914) was in 1889; the last was in Basel in 1912. The Basel Manifesto, unanimously accepted by all, speaks precisely, definitively, directly, clearly (so that even Messrs. Plekhanovs cannot distort it) about proletarian revolution, and moreover precisely in connection with that very war which broke out in 1914.

It is not difficult to understand why socialists who have gone over to the side of the bourgeoisie are compelled to "forget" either the entire Basel Manifesto or its most important part.

Second, the seizure of political power by the "Russian laboring masses," writes our author, "could make sense only if objective conditions necessary for social revolution were present."

This is—mush instead of thought.

Let us suppose even that "social" is a typo for "socialist." The mush lies not only in that. Of what classes does the Russian laboring masses consist? Everyone knows: of workers and peasants. Which of them is in the majority? The peasants. What are these peasants in terms of their class position? Petty proprietors or little proprietors. The question arises: if petty proprietors make up the majority of the population and if there are no objective conditions for socialism, how can the majority of the population declare itself for socialism?! Who can speak and who does speak of introducing socialism against the will of the majority?!

Mr. Plekhanov has immediately tangled himself up in the most ridiculous fashion.

To fall into a ridiculous position is the least punishment for one who, following the example of capitalist newspapers, himself draws up an "enemy" instead of making a precise reference to the words of this or that political opponent.

Let us proceed further. In whose hands should "political power" be, even from the point of view of a vulgar bourgeois democrat from *Rech*? In the hands of the majority of the population. Does the "Russian laboring masses," of which the befuddled social-chauvinist spoke so unsuccessfully, constitute the majority of Russia's population? Undoubtedly, and an overwhelming majority!

How then can one, without betraying democracy—even a Milyukovian understanding of democracy—be against the "seizure of political power" by the "Russian laboring masses"?

The deeper into the woods, the more wood. Each step of analysis reveals new abysses of confusion in Mr. Plekhanov's reasoning.

A social-chauvinist against the transfer of political power to the majority of Russia's population!

Mr. Plekhanov heard the sound but did not understand whence it came. He has also confused—although Marx as far back as 1875 specially warned against this confusion—the "laboring masses" with the masses of proletarians and semi-proletarians{136}. Let us clarify this difference for the former Marxist Mr. Plekhanov.

Can the majority of peasants in Russia demand and introduce nationalization of the land? Undoubtedly, yes. Is this a socialist revolution? No. It is still a bourgeois revolution, for nationalization of land is a measure compatible with capitalism. But it is at the same time a blow to private property in the most important means of production. Such a blow strengthens proletarians and semi-proletarians immeasurably more than occurred in the revolutions of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries.

Further. Can the majority of peasants in Russia declare themselves for the merger of all banks into one? for each small village to have a branch of a single national state bank?

They can, for the convenience and benefits to the people from such a measure are undoubted. Even "defensists" can be for it, for it would increase Russia's capacity for "defense" many times over.

Is it economically possible to immediately carry through such a merger of all banks into one? Undoubtedly, entirely possible.

Is this a socialist measure? No, this is not yet socialism.

Further. Can the majority of peasants in Russia declare themselves in favor of the sugar-factory syndicate passing into the hands of the state, under the control of workers and peasants, and the price of sugar being lowered?

Entirely possible, for this benefits the majority of the people.

Is this economically possible? Entirely possible, for the sugar-factory syndicate has not only in fact already merged into a single production organism of state-wide proportions, but already stood under the control of "the state" (i.e., officials serving the capitalists) back under tsarism.

Will the transfer of the syndicate into the hands of a democratically-bourgeois, peasant state be a socialist measure?

No, this is not yet socialism. Mr. Plekhanov would easily convince himself of this if he recalled the well-known truths of Marxism.

The question is: will such measures as the merger of all banks into one and the transfer of the sugar-factory syndicate into the hands of a democratic, peasant state strengthen or weaken the significance, role, and influence of proletarians and semi-proletarians in the total mass of all the population?

Undoubtedly strengthen, for these are not "petty-proprietor" measures, for the possibility of them has been created precisely by those "objective conditions" which did not yet exist in 1889, which now already exist.

Such measures will inevitably strengthen the significance, role, and influence on the entire population, especially of urban workers, as the vanguard of proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and countryside.

After such measures, further steps toward socialism in Russia will become entirely possible, and on condition of aid to our workers from the more developed and prepared, having broken with West European Plekhanovs, West European workers, Russia's actual transition to socialism will be inevitable, and the success of such a transition is assured.

That is how every Marxist and every socialist who has not gone over to the side of "his own" national bourgeoisie must reason.

Written April 20 (May 3), 1917.

Printed May 4 (April 21), 1917 in the newspaper *Pravda* No. 37.

Printed according to the newspaper text.