Date: 1917
Source: ru:PSS/v34

To be truly revolutionary, the democracy of modern Russia must stand in the closest alliance with the proletariat, supporting its struggle as the only class that remains consistently revolutionary to the very end.

Such is the conclusion to which the analysis of the question concerning the means of combating an impending catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude inevitably leads.

The war has unleashed an immense crisis, strained the material and moral resources of the people to the utmost, and dealt such devastating blows to the entire structure of contemporary society that humanity now stands at a crossroads: either perish, or entrust its fate to the most revolutionary class in order to achieve the swiftest and most radical transition to a higher mode of production.

Due to a number of historical factors—Russia’s greater backwardness, the particular hardships the war imposed upon it, the extreme corruption of tsarist rule, and the extraordinarily vibrant legacy of the 1905 Revolution—it was in Russia, more than in any other country, that the revolution first erupted. Within just a few months, the revolution had brought Russia’s political system into line with those of the most advanced nations.

But this alone is not enough. The war is relentless; it poses the question with merciless clarity: either perish, or catch up with the leading nations—and surpass them economically as well.

This is possible, for before us lies the accumulated experience of numerous advanced countries, along with the matured achievements of their technology and culture. We are bolstered by the growing tide of protest against the war across Europe, by the rising atmosphere of a worldwide workers’ revolution. And we are driven forward—not by the rare revolutionary-democratic freedoms that emerged during the imperialist war, but by an unprecedented surge of such freedoms.

To perish—or to forge ahead with all our might. Such is the question history has posed to us.

And at such a moment, the proletariat’s attitude toward the peasantry confirms—and, in adapting it accordingly—reaffirms the old Bolshevik stance: to wrench the peasantry from the grip of the bourgeoisie. For only in this lies the true guarantee of the revolution’s salvation.

The peasantry, after all, constitutes the largest segment of the petty-bourgeoisie as a whole.

Our Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks have assumed a reactionary role: to keep the peasantry under the sway of the bourgeoisie, to lead the peasantry toward coalition with the bourgeoisie rather than with the proletariat.

The experience of the revolution teaches the masses with remarkable speed. And the reactionary policies of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are doomed to failure: they have been defeated in the Soviets of both capitals.{78} Within both the petty-bourgeois–democratic parties, a “left” opposition is steadily gaining strength. In Petrograd, on September 10, 1917, the city conference of the Socialist-Revolutionaries voted by a two-thirds majority in favor of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries—those who gravitated toward an alliance with the proletariat and rejected any union (coalition) with the bourgeoisie.

The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks endlessly repeat the bourgeois favorite dichotomy: bourgeoisie and democracy. Yet in essence, such a distinction is as meaningless as comparing pounds to arshins.

There is democratic bourgeoisie, and there is bourgeois democracy—only utter ignorance of both history and political economy could possibly deny this.

The erroneous dichotomy served the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks to obscure a fact beyond dispute: between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat stands the petty bourgeoisie. By virtue of its economic and class position, it is inevitably torn between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks seek to draw the petty bourgeoisie into alliance with the bourgeoisie. This is the core of their entire “coalition,” of the coalition government as a whole, and of Kerensky’s politics—a quintessential half-cadet. In the six months of the revolution, this policy suffered complete collapse.

The Cadets gloated: the revolution, they claimed, had failed; the revolution had not succeeded in overcoming either the war or the devastation.

That is not true. It was the Cadets, together with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, who suffered defeat—because this bloc (alliance) had ruled Russia for six months, and in that brief span it only deepened the devastation, further complicating and obstructing the military situation.

The more thoroughly the alliance between the bourgeoisie and the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks collapses, the faster the people will learn. The easier it will become for them to find the right path: an alliance between the poorest peasants—the vast majority of the peasantry—and the proletariat.

September 10–14, 1917