Date: 1905
Source: ru:LS/v5

OUTLINE OF THE ESSAY

g.
shz
OUTLINE OF THE ESSAY.
1. The Buglýgin Duma (the State Duma) and the question of unity;
A Few Additional Remarks to Literary Explanations.
2. L 109 14).
(a) Injections and ((3) genuine differences.
ad a) — f 3 [em s k al] Kampanil. Compare Paryus
and the Mariupol Group in No. 109: “a failed endeavor.”
(a) — @ Independent tactics or alignment with bourgeois democracy.
(a) @ To wait passively for an uprising—and the Odessa
workers.
((3) Actual differences in action.
pr
compare the program
\esshyln[ske\ pomishety\ (3 (1) Are we opposed to revolutionary self‑government?
((((Contemptuous?)) — no, on the contrary, but that is not the point. Are we opposed
to the constitutional components of the emancipatory demands?
compare

(2) The same or not the same.
Self‑government and the revolutionary army.
(3) The center of gravity—whether to distract from elections to the Duma or
to draw closer to the people.
(4) “The chicken and the egg.”
Revolutionary self‑government—revolutionary army
back and forth
I
I
[beginning] fragments and the whole.
j NB
The dialectics of a life entangled in complexity, and the logic of a bacillus that unravels.
Unity] 15)
“The peasant at the bottom”—“Where is the guarantee?”
Two Central Organs.
Is it worth it?

*) Vladimir Ilyich has in mind the article “Revolutionary Self‑Government of Citizens” in No. 12 of the Menshevik organ, “Social Democrat,” dated August 3, 1905 (published in Geneva).
2) Here, Vladimir Ilyich sets forth the following in the form of a proportion:
the organization of revolutionary self‑government stands in the same relation to the democratic revolution as consumer cooperatives stand to the socialist revolution.
8) Sig—why?
4) First and foremost, this refers to the article “Boycott of the Buglýgin Duma and the Uprising” (Works, Vol. VIII, pp. 143–149).
5) Unbehilflich—helpless.
G) Zu viel—too much!
7) Unmoglich—impossible.
8) Stimmt—correct. The remarks about “fragments” and the subsequent lines—“the chicken and the egg,” “back and forth,” “fragments and the whole”—as well as the examples involving cooperatives, all pertain to the question that Vladimir Ilyich formulated a bit lower down in these words: “The dialectics of a tangled process and the logic of a consciousness that unravels,” “the dialectics of a life entangled in complexity and the logic of bacilli that untangle the consciousness of social democracy.” In the very article itself, Vladimir Ilyich writes:
“The process of actual development always proceeds in a tangled manner, bringing forth fragments of the epilogue before the true prologue. But does this mean that the leader of a conscious party is permitted to confuse the tasks of struggle, to blur the line between prologue and epilogue? Can the dialectics of a chaotic, spontaneous process justify confusion in the logic of conscious social democrats?” (Works, Vol. VIII, pp. 307–309.)
°) Versus—by way of contrast.
10) Konsumverein—consumer cooperative.
“ ) Works, Vol. VIII, p. 173.
12) The resolution of the Mariupol Group of the Donetsk Union was cited in F. Dan’s article “On the Question of the State Duma” in “Iskra,” No. 109, dated September 1 (August 29), 1905.
In the article “The Final Word on Iskra’s Tactics,” the position of the Mariupol Group is not examined,
13) At the end of the article “Revolutionary Self‑Government” in No. 12 of “Social Democrat,” it is stated: “Revolutionary self‑government is the path by which, with each small success, we prepare the victory of the future nationwide uprising.” i) In No. 109 of “Iskra,” Lenin employs two articles in his polemic against the Mensheviks: 1) “On the Question of the State Duma” (Dan) and 2) “Boycott of the Duma and the People’s Revolutionary Self‑Government” (Martov).
15) A series of letters from Lenin to members of the Central Committee are devoted to the question of uniting the two factions (see Section VI of the “Collection”). For information on the two Central Organs, see pp. 497 and 502.

* TO THE ARTICLE “POLITICAL STRIKE AND STREET FIGHTING IN MOSCOW.”
[October 10–12, 1905]
The article “The Bloody Days in Moscow” appears in print for the first time.
It was written by Vladimir Ilyich on October 40 (September 27), just two days before he penned an article on the same topic, published in “Proletarii” No. 24, dated October 47 (October 4), 1905, entitled “Political Strike and Street Fighting in Moscow,” whose outline is set forth below.
2 4 , a.
THE BLOODY DAYS IN MOSCOW.
Geneva, October 10 (September 27), 1905.
A new outbreak of worker unrest—a mass strike and street fighting in Moscow. On January 9, the first thunderclap of the proletarian revolutionary movement resounded in the capital. The echoes of that thunderclap swept across Russia, raising more than a million proletarians to a gigantic struggle with unprecedented speed.
Following St. Petersburg came the outlying regions, where national oppression had already intensified an already unbearable political yoke. Riga, Poland, Odessa, the Caucasus—all in turn became centers of revolt, growing in breadth and depth with each passing month, with each passing week.
Now the struggle had reached the heart of Russia, the very core of those “truly Russian” regions that had long been cherished by reactionaries for their steadfast resistance. A host of circumstances explains this relative resilience—that is, the backwardness of central Russia: less developed forms of large-scale industry, *

LESHCHSKIY COLLECTION

which had embraced vast working masses yet remained less severed from the land, less concentrated in intellectual centers;—and its greater distance from abroad;—and the absence of national strife.
The workers’ movement, which had first manifested itself with such powerful force in this region as early as 1885–86, seemed to fall into a long period of stagnation, and the efforts of social democrats were shattered time and again by the stubborn resistance of particularly difficult local working conditions.
But finally, even the center began to stir.
The Ivanovo-Voznesensk strike unexpectedly revealed the high political maturity of the workers. After this strike, fermentations throughout the central industrial region continued to intensify and spread.
Now this ferment was beginning to break free, transforming itself into open rebellion. Undoubtedly, the spark was further kindled by the revolutionary student body of Moscow, which had only recently adopted a resolution strikingly similar to that of St. Petersburg—denouncing the State Duma, calling for a struggle for a republic, for the establishment of a provisional revolutionary government.
The liberal professors, who had just elected the most liberal rector—the infamous Mr. Trubetskoy—closed the university under pressure from police threats: according to them, they feared that the Tiflis massacre might be repeated within the walls of the university.
In fact, they only hastened the bloodshed in the streets, outside the university.
As far as we can tell from brief telegraphic reports in foreign newspapers, the course of events in Moscow proceeded “normally,”
following the path that, one might say, had become the norm after January 9.
It began with a strike among typesetters, which quickly spread.
By Saturday, October 7 (September 21), printing houses, electric trams, and tobacco factories were already shut down. Newspapers did not appear. Everyone awaited the general strike of factory and railway workers. In the evening, large-scale demonstrations took place, in which, alongside typesetters, workers from other trades, students, and others also participated.
Cossacks and gendarmes dispersed the demonstrators many times, but they gathered once more.
Many policemen were wounded. Demonstrators hurled stones and fired revolvers. An officer commanding the gendarmes was seriously injured. One Cossack officer, one gendarme, and others were killed.
Bakers joined the strike on Saturday.
On Sunday, October 8 (September 25), events suddenly took a menacing turn. Starting at 11 a.m., crowds began to gather