Lenin Collected Works Vol 8

8/8/2019 Lenin Collected Works Vol 8

1/619


2/619


3/619


4/619


5/619

W O R K E R S O F A L L C O U N T R I E S , U N I T E!

L E N I N

COLLECTED WORKS

8

A


6/619


7/619

THE RUSSIAN EDITION WAS PRINTED

IN ACCORDANCE WITH A DECISION

OF THE NINTH CONGRESS OF THE R.C.P.(B.)

AND THE SECOND CONGRESS OF SOVIETS

OF THE U.S.S.R.


8/619

CTTT KC p K KCC

B. n. l d H n H

E

a u m p m o e

M


9/619

V. I. LENIN

COLLECTED WORKS

V O L U M E

8January July 190C

PROGRESS PUBLISHERSM O S C O W


10/619

TRANSLATED FROM THE RUSSIAN BY BERNARD ISAACS

AND ISIDOR LASKER

EDITOR:V. J. JEROME

First printing 1962

Second printing 1965

Third printing 1974Fourth printing 1977

From Marx to Mao

M

L

Digital Reprints2009

www.marx2mao.com


11/619

7

C O N T E N T S

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .THE AUTOCRACY AND THE PROLETARIAT . . . . . . . . . .

GOOD DEMONSTRATIONS OF PROLETARIANS AND POOR ARGUMENTS OF CERTAIN INTELLECTUALS . . . . . . . . .

TIME TO CALL A HALT! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONFERENCES OF THE COMMITTEES . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE NEW RUSSIAN LOAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TO A. A. BOGDANOV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE FALL OF PORT ARTHUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FINE WORDS BUTTER NO PARSNIPS . . . . . . . . . . . .

A LETTER TO THE ZURICH GROUP OF BOLSHEVIKS . . . . . .

A LETTER TO Y. D. STASOVA AND TO THE OTHER COMRADESIN PRISON IN MOSCOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REVOLUTION IN RUSSIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WORKING-CLASS AND BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY . . . . . . . .

FROM NARODISM TO MARXISM. Article One . . . . . . . . .

THE ST. PETERSBURG STRIKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OUR TARTUFFES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION IN RUSSIA . . . . . .REVOLUTIONARY DAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1517

29

35

40

41

43

47

56

63

66

71

72

83

90

94

97

101


12/619

CONTENTS8

1. What is Happening in Russia? . . . . . . . . . .2. Father Gapon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. The Plan of the St. Petersburg Battle . . . . . . .

4. Supplement to the Article The Plan of the St.Petersburg Battle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Our Father the Tsar and the Barricades . . . . . .6. The First Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. The Eve of Bloody Sunday . . . . . . . . . . . . .8. The Number of Killed or Wounded . . . . . . . . .9. The Battles on the Barricades . . . . . . . . . . .

THE TSARIST PEACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A BRIEF OUTLINE OF THE SPLIT IN THE R.S.D.L.P. . . . . . .

The Letter to Greulich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TREPOV IN THE SADDLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ST. PETERSBURG AFTER JANUARY 9 . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE FIRST LESSONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A LETTER TO A. A. BOGDANOV AND S. I. GUSEV . . . . . . .

TWO TACTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A MILITANT AGREEMENT FOR THE UPRISING . . . . . . . .

SHOULD WE ORGANISE THE REVOLUTION? . . . . . . . . .

THE CONVENING OF THE THIRD PARTY CONGRESS. From theEditors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FROM THE NEW-ISKRA CAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A LETTER TO THE ORGANISATIONS IN RUSSIA . . . . . . . .

GENERAL PLAN OF THE THIRD CONGRESS DECISIONS . . . . .

DRAFT RESOLUTIONS FOR THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THER.S.D.L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Resolution on the Disruptive Behaviour of theMensheviks, or New-Iskrists . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Resolution on Conduct During the PartyCrisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

103

105

107

110

111

114

118

121

122

124

125

126

132

136

138

143

148

158

167

177

181

182

184

191

193

194Plekhanovs


13/619

9CONTENTS

3. Resolution on the Theoretical Position of the New-Iskrists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Resolution on the Relations Between Workers and In-tellectuals in the Social-Democratic Party . . . . .

MODIFICATION OF THE CLAUSE IN THE RULES CONCERNINGTHE CENTRES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

QUESTIONNAIRE. For the Third Congress of the Party . . . .

PREFACE TO THE PAMPHLET MEMORANDUM OF POLICE DEPARTMENT SUPERINTENDENT LOPUKHIN. . . . . . . .

PLAN OF A LECTURE ON THE COMMUNE . . . . . . . . . . .

NEW TASKS AND NEW FORCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OSVOBOZHDENIYE-ISTS AND NEW-ISKRISTS, MONARCHISTS ANDGIRONDISTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EVASIONS WITHOUT END . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WHOM ARE THEY TRYING TO FOOL? . . . . . . . . . . .

THE PROLETARIAT AND THE BOURGEOIS DEMOCRATS . . . . .

THE PROLETARIAT AND THE PEASANTRY . . . . . . . . . .STREET FIGHTING. (The Advice of a General of the Commune)

THE FIRST STEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ON THE HISTORY OF THE PARTY PROGRAMME . . . . . . . .

ON OUR AGRARIAN PROGRAMME. ( A Letter to the Third Congress)

WHAT THE BONAPARTISTS ARE UP TO . . . . . . . . . . .

A REVOLUTION OF THE 1789 OR THE 1848 TYPE? . . . . . .

TO THE PARTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE SECOND STEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EUROPEAN CAPITAL AND THE AUTOCRACY . . . . . . . . . .

SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY AND THE PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARYGOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

195

196

197

200

202

206

211

221

223

225

228

231

237

239

245

246

252

257

260

262

267

275

277

281


14/619

CONTENTS10

II I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE REVOLUTIONARY-DEMOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP OF THEPROLETARIAT AND THE PEASANTRY . . . . . . . . . . . .

GRAFT: A FRANCO-RUSSIAN CUSTOM . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE GUILTY BLAMING THE INNOCENT . . . . . . . . . . .

THE AGRARIAN PROGRAMME OF THE LIBERALS . . . . . . .

THE COUNCIL IS CAUGHT OUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OPEN LETTER TO COMRADE PLEKHANOV, CHAIRMAN OF THECOUNCIL OF THE R.S.D.L.P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONCERNING THE THIRD CONGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . .

PLAN FOR A MAY DAY LEAFLET . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE FIRST OF MAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE CONSTITUTIONAL MARKET-PLACE . . . . . . . . . . .

FORTNIGHTLY REPORTS OF THE PARTY ORGANISATIONS . . .

THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P., April 12 (2 5) -April 27 (May 10), 1905 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. SPEECH ON THE VALIDITY OF THE CONGRESS. APRIL 13 (2 6)

2. SPEECH ON THE QUALIFIEDNESS OF THE KAZAN ANDKUBAN COMMITTEES APRIL 1 4 (2 7) . . . . . . . . . .

3. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE ATTITUDE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.TOWARDS THE ARMED UPRISING . . . . . . . . . . .

4. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE ARMED UPRISING . . . . .

5. SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF THE ARMED UPRISING.APRIL 1 5 (2 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF THE ARMED UPRISING.APRIL 16 (2 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. RESOLUTION ON THE ARMED UPRISING . . . . . . . .

8. SPEECH ON THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE GOVERNMENTSTACTICS ON THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION. APRIL 1 8( MAY 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

286

288

293

304

306

315

330

335

344

346

348

352

357

359

363

365

368

369

370

371

373

375

MARX ON THE AMERICAN GENERAL REDISTRIBUTION. . . . 323


15/619

11CONTENTS

FROM MARX

TO MAO

NOT FOR

COMMERCIAL

DISTRIBUTION

9. ADDENDUM TO THE RESOLUTION ON THE ATTITUDETOWARDS THE GOVERNMENT'S POLICY ON THE EVE AND

AT THE MOMENT OF THE REVOLUTION . . . . . . . .

10. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE QUESTION OF OPENPOLITICAL ACTION BY THE R.S.D.L.P. . . . . . . . . .

11. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE PARTICIPATION OF THESOCIAL-DEMOCRATS IN A PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARYGOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12. ADDENDUM TO THE RESOLUTION ON THE PARTICIPATIONOF THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS IN A PROVISIONAL REVOLU-TIONARY GOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13. REPORT ON THE QUESTION OF THE PARTICIPATION OF

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS IN A PROVISIONAL REVOLUTION- ARY GOVERNMENT. APRIL 18 ( MAY 1) . . . . . . . .

14. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE PROVISIONAL REVOLUTION- ARY GOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15. SPEECH ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE RESOLUTIONON THE PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT.

APRIL 19 ( MAY 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16. REPORT ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE SUPPORT OF THEPEASANT MOVEMENT. APRIL 19 (MAY 2 ) . . . . . . . .

17. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE SUPPORT OF THE PEASANTMOVEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18. SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF THE RELATIONS BETWEENWORKERS AND INTELLECTUALS WITHIN THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC ORGANISATIONS. APRIL 2 0 (MAY 3 ) . . . .

19. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE RELATIONS BETWEENWORKERS AND INTELLECTUALS WITHIN THE SOCIALDEMOCRATIC ORGANISATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . .

20. REMARK DURING THE DISCUSSION OF THE RESOLUTIONON THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS ANDINTELLECTUALS WITHIN THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATICORGANISATIONS. APRIL 2 2 (MAY 5 ) . . . . . . . . . .

21. SPEECH ON THE PROCEDURE OF THE DISCUSSION OF THERESOLUTIONS ON THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND INTELLECTUALS WITHIN THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATICORGANISATIONS. APRIL 2 3 (MAY 6) . . . . . . . . . .

22. SPEECH DURING THE DISCUSSION OF THE PARTY RULES.APRIL 21 (MAY 4 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23. SPEECH ON THE WORDING OF CLAUSE 9 OF THE PARTYRULES. APRIL 21 (MAY 4 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

376

377

379

381

382

396

398

400

405

407

409

411

412

413

415


16/619

CONTENTS12

24. SPEECH ON AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SOCIALISTS-REVOLUTIONARIES. APRIL 23 (MAY 6 ) . . . . . . . . .

25. SPEECH ON THE REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE CENTRALCOMMITTEE.

APRIL 25(MAY 8

)

. . . . . . . . . . . .26. RESOLUTION ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE CONGRESS

PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE EVENTS IN THE CAUCASUS

POLITICAL SOPHISMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REPORT ON THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC LABOUR PARTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HOW THE CONGRESS WAS CONSTITUTED . . . . . . . . . .

THE THIRD CONGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VICTORIOUS REVOLUTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ON CONFOUNDING POLITICS WITH PEDAGOGICS . . . . . . .

A LETTER TO THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU. . . .

THE ADVICE OF THE CONSERVATIVE BOURGEOISIE . . . . .

ON THE PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT . . . .

Article One. Plekhanovs Reference to History . . . . . .

Article Two. Only From Below, or From Above As Well As From Below . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DEBACLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE AND LIBERAL BROKERAGE . . .

TO THE JEWISH WORKERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A NEW REVOLUTIONARY WORKERS ASSOCIATION . . . . . .

THE DEMOCRATIC TASKS OF THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT

THE FIRST STEPS OF BOURGEOIS BETRAYAL . . . . . . . .

REVOLUTIONARIES IN KID GLOVES . . . . . . . . . . .

OPEN LETTER TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE LEIPZIGER

VOLKSZEITUNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SKETCH OF A PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT . .

416

422

423

424

425

433

440

442

450

452

456

457

461

463

474

482

486

495

499

511

519

526

531

534


17/619

13CONTENTS

THE STRUGGLE OF THE PROLETARIAT AND THE SERVILITYOF THE BOURGEOISIE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THIRD STEP BACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TO THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU . . . . . . . .

THREE CONSTITUTIONS OR THREE SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT

THE REVOLUTIONARY ARMY AND THE REVOLUTIONARYGOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE RUSSIAN TSAR SEEKS THE PROTECTION OF THE TURKISHSULTAN AGAINST HIS PEOPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE BOURGEOISIE BARGAINS WITH THE AUTOCRACY, THE

AUTOCRACY BARGAINS WITH THE BOURGEOISIE. . . . . . .

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Life and Work of V. I. Lenin. Outstanding Dates . . . .

ILLUSTRATIONS

Front page of the Bolshevik newspaper Vperyod, No. 1, January 4,1905 (December 22, 1904), with Lenin's article The Autocracyand the Proletariat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

First page of Lenins manuscript New Tasks and New Forces,1905. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cover of Lenins pamphlet The Revolutionary-Democratic Dicta-torship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry. Published by theCaucasian League of the R.S.D.L.P., 1905 . . . . . . . . .

Cover of the book The Third Regular Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. Full Text of the Proceedings. Published by the C.C. Geneva,1905. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Front page of the Bolshevik newspaper Proletary , No. 1,May 27 (14), 1905, with Lenins article Report on the ThirdCongress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party andthe main resolutions of the Congress . . . . . . . . . . .

537

544

555

557

560

569

574

577

599

19

209

295

361

435


18/619


19/619

15

PREFACE

Volume 8 contains the works of Lenin written betweenJanuary and July 1905, during the early period of the first

Russian revolution. Most of the book consists of articles pub-lished in the underground Bolshevik newspapers Vperyodand Proletary.

The articles The Autocracy and the Proletariat, TheFall of Port Arthur, European Capital and the Autocracy,and Debacle give an analysis of the military defeat and po-litical crisis of the autocracy and predict the inevitabilityof the revolution in Russia.

The articles Two Tactics, Should We Organise the

Revolution?, New Tasks and New Forces, On the Provi-sional Revolutionary Government, The Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasant-ry, and The Revolutionary Army and the RevolutionaryGovernment examine and develop the revolutionary tacticsof the Bolshevik Party and expose and criticise the opportun-ist tactics of the Mensheviks.

Lenin's campaign against the splitting activities of theMensheviks and for preparing the Third Congress of the

R.S.D.L.P.the first Bolshevik congressis unfolded inhis articles Time to Call a Halt!, A Brief Outline of theSplit in the R.S.D.L.P., General Plan of the Third Con-gress Decisions, Draft Resolutions for the Third Congress ofthe R.S.D.L.P., The First Step, What the Bonapart-ists Are Up To, The Second Step, and Open Letter toComrade Plekhanov, Chairman of the Council of theR.S.D.L.P..

A considerable part of the volume consists of documentspertaining to the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.Le-nin's reports and speeches at the Congress, and resolutions


20/619

PREFACE16

drafted by him on the armed uprising; on the provisionalrevolutionary government, on support to the peasant move-ment, on the events in the Caucasus, and on other questions.

The volume includes articles directed against bourgeoisliberalism, such as The Agrarian Programme of the Liber-als, Political Sophisms, The First Steps of BourgeoisBetrayal, Revolutionaries in Kid Gloves, and TheStruggle of the Proletariat and the Servility of the Bourgeoi-sie.

Fourteen articles and briefer items, published for the firsttime in the Collected Works of Lenin, are devoted to an anal-ysis of the revolutionary events in Russia and to questions

pertaining to the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.In his article Revolution in Russia, Lenin for the firsttime evaluates the events of January 9 as the beginning ofthe revolution and salutes the insurgent proletariat. Hisarticles The First Steps, The Eve of Bloody Sunday, TheNumber of Killed or Wounded, The Battles on the Bar-ricades, and St. Petersburg After January 9 deal with theearly days of the revolutionary struggle in St. Petersburgand with the growing political consciousness of the Russian

proletariat.In his First of May leaflet, Lenin sets forth the tasks

of the proletariat and the peasantry in the revolution andcalls for the preparation of the popular armed uprising.

The item Conferences of the Committees reports on theconferences of the local committees which went on recordfor the immediate convocation of the Third Party Congress.The article From the New-Iskra Camp exposes the system-atic deception of the Party by the Mensheviks.

The documents Resolution on the Armed Uprising,Speech on the Procedure of the Discussion of the Resolutionson the Relations Between Workers and Intellectuals Withinthe Social-Democratic Organisations, Resolution on thePublication of the Congress Proceedings, and Draft Reso-lution on the Events in the Caucasus pertain to the materi-als of the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.

In the short article The New Russian Loan Lenin dealswith the decline of the tsarist government's credit abroaddue to the military defeats and the growing discontent with-in the country.


21/619

THEAUTOCRACYAND THE PROLETARIAT1

Published in Vperyod, No. 1 , Published according toJanuary 4 , 1905 the text in the

(December 22 , 1904) newspaper Vperyod


22/619


23/619

Front page of the Bolshevik newspaper Vperyod, No. 1,January 4, 1905 (December 22, 1904),

with Lenins article The Autocracy and the Proletariat

Reduced


24/619


25/619

21

Russia is experiencing a resurgence of the constitutionalmovement. Our generation has never witnessed anythinglike the present political ferment. Legal newspapers areattacking the bureaucracy, demanding participation of the

peoples representatives in the state administration, andpressing for liberal reforms. All varieties of meetings of Zem-stvo officials,2 doctors, lawyers, engineers, farmers, munici-pal councillors,3 etc., etc., are adopting resolutions more orless definitely demanding a constitution. Passionate appealsfor liberty and political accusations of a boldness to whichthe Russian man in the street is unaccustomed can be heard atevery turn. Under pressure of the workers and the radicalyouth, liberal gatherings are converted into open public meet-

ings and street demonstrations. Undercurrents of discontentare manifestly stirring among wide sections of the proletariat,among the poor of town and country. Although the prole-tariat is taking a comparatively small part in the more spec-tacular and ceremonious manifestations of the liberal move-ment, although it seems to be standing somewhat aloof fromthe polite conferences of the solid citizens, everything pointsto the fact that the workers are keenly interested in themovement. Everything points to the fact that the workers are

eager for big public meetings and open street demonstrations.The proletariat is holding itself back, as it were, carefullytaking its bearings, gathering its forces, and deciding thequestion whether or not the moment for the decisive strugglefor freedom has come.

Apparently, the wave of liberal excitation is beginningto subside somewhat. The rumours and foreign newspaperreports to the effect that reactionaries have gained the upperhand in the most influential Court circles are being confirmed.The ukase of Nicholas II, published the other day, wasa direct slap in the face for the liberals.4 The tsar intends to


26/619

V. I. LENIN22

preserve and uphold the autocratic regime. The tsar does notwant to change the form of government and has no intentionof granting a constitution. He promisesonly promisesall

manner of reforms of a quite paltry nature. No guarantees, ofcourse, are given that these reforms will really be implement-ed. Police restrictions against the liberal press are becomingdaily and hourly more stringent. All open demonstrationsare being suppressed again, if anything, with greater severi-ty than before. The screw is being put on the liberal council-lors again, both Zemstvo5 and municipal, still more so inthe case of those officials who play the liberal. The liberalnewspapers are falling into a despondent tone and apologis-

ing to their correspondents for not publishing their letters,which they dare not do.It is quite within the realm of possibility that the wave of

liberal agitation which rose so rapidly after the permissiongranted by Svyatopolk-Mirsky6 will abate just as quickly af-ter the new ban. One must distinguish between the profoundcauses, which inevitably and unavoidably leadand willlead more and moreto opposition and struggle against theautocracy, and the trivial reasons of a passing liberal fer-

ment. The profound causes lead to profound, powerful, andpersistent popular movements. Trivial reasons are at timesCabinet changes or the usual attempt on the part of thegovernment to pursue for an hour the policy of the sly foxafter some terrorist act. The assassination of Plehve7 evidentlycost the terrorist organisation tremendous effort and in-volved long preparation. The very success of this terrorist act

bears out all the more strikingly the experience of the entirehistory of the Russian revolutionary movement, which warns

us against such methods of struggle as terrorism. Russianterrorism has always been a specifically intellectualist methodof struggle. And whatever may be said of the importanceof terrorism, not in lieu of, but in conjunction with, thepeoples movement, the facts irrefutably testify that in ourcountry individual political assassinations have nothing incommon with the forcible actions of the peoples revolution.In capitalist society a mass movement is possible only as aclass movement of the workers. This movement is developingin Russia according to its own independent laws; it is pro-ceeding in its own way, gaining in depth and io breadth, and


27/619

23THE AUTOCRACY AND THE PROLETARIAT

passing from a temporary lull to a new upsurge. It is only theliberal wave that rises and falls strictly in accord with themoods of the different ministers, whose replacement is accel-

erated by bombs. Small wonder, then, that sympathy withterrorism is to be met with so often in our country among theradical (or radical-posing) representatives of the bourgeoisopposition. Small wonder that, among the revolutionaryintelligentsia, the people most likely to be carried away(whether for long or for a moment) by terrorism are those whohave no faith in the vitality and strength of the proletariatand the proletarian class struggle.

The fact that the spurt of liberal activity for one or anoth-

er reason is short-lived and unstable cannot, of course, makeus forget the irremovable contradiction that exists betweenthe autocracy and the needs of the developing bourgeoissociety. The autocracy is bound to be a drag on social develop-ment. The interests of the bourgeoisie as a class, as well asthe interests of the intelligentsia, without which moderncapitalist production is inconceivable, clash more and morewith the autocracy as time goes on. Superficial though thereason for the liberals declarations may be and petty though

the character of the liberals half-hearted and equivocalposition, the autocracy can maintain real peace only with ahandful of highly privileged magnates from the landowningand merchant class, but in no sense with that class as a whole.Direct representation of the interests of the ruling class in theform of a constitution is essential for a country that wants to

be a European country and, on pain of political and economicdefeat, is obliged by its position to become a European coun-try. It is therefore extremely important for the class-conscious

proletariat to have a clear understanding both of the inevita- bility of the liberals protests against the autocracy and ofthe actual bourgeois character of these protests.

The working class is setting itself the great and epoch-making aims of liberating humanity from every form ofoppression and exploitation of man by man. Throughout theworld it has striven hard for decades on end to achieve theseaims, steadily widening its struggle and organising itself inmass parties, undaunted by occasional defeats and temporarysetbacks. Nothing can be more vital for such a truly revolu-tionary class than to rid itself of all self-deception, of all


28/619

V. I. LENIN24

mirages and illusions. One of the most widespread and persist-ent illusions with us in Russia is the notion that our liberalmovement is not a bourgeois movement, and that the impend-

ing revolution in Russia will not be a bourgeois revolution.The Russian intellectual, from the most moderate Osvobozh-deniye liberal8 to the most extreme Socialist-Revolutionary,9

always thinks that one makes our revolution colourless, thatone degrades and vulgarises it, by admitting it to be a bour-geois revolution. To the Russian class-conscious proletarianthis admission is the only true class characterisation of theactual state of affairs. To the proletarian the struggle for po-litical liberty and a democratic republic in a bourgeois

society is only one of the necessary stages in the struggle for thesocial revolution which will overthrow the bourgeois system.Strictly differentiating between stages that are essentiallydifferent, soberly examining the conditions under which theymanifest themselves, does not at all mean indefinitely post-poning ones ultimate aim, or slowing down ones progress inadvance. On the contrary, it is for the purpose of accelerat-ing the advance and of achieving the ultimate aim as quicklyand securely as possible that it is necessary to understand the

relation of classes in modern society. Nothing but disillusion-ment and unending vacillation await those who shun theallegedly one-sided class point of view, who would be social-ists, yet are afraid openly to call the impending revolutionin Russiathe revolution that has begun in Russiaa

bourgeois revolution.Characteristically, at the very height of the present

constitutional movement, the more democratic of the legalpublications took advantage of the unusual freedom to

attack, not only the bureaucracy, but also the exclusive andhence erroneous theory of the class struggle which is allegedto be scientifically untenable ( Nasha Zhizn,10 No. 28).If you please, the problem of bringing the intelligentsia closerto the masses has hitherto been dealt with solely by throwingthe emphasis on the class contradictions existing betweenthe masses and those sections of society from which ... thegreater part of the intelligentsia springs. Needless to say,this presentation of the facts is completely at variance withthe real state of affairs. The very opposite is true. The entiremass of the Russian legally-active uplift intelligentsia, all


29/619


the old Russian socialists, all political figures of the Osvo-bozhdeniye type have always completely ignored the profoundnature of the class contradictions in Russia in general and in

the Russian countryside in particular. Even the extremeLeft Russian radical intelligentsia, the Socialist-Revolution-ary Party, sins most in ignoring this fact; one need onlyrecall its usual arguments about the labouring peasantry,or about the impending revolution being not a bourgeois,

but a democratic one.No, the nearer the moment of revolution draws and the

more acute the constitutional movement becomes, the morestrictly must the party of the proletariat guard its class

independence and not allow its class demands to be swampedin general democratic phrases. The more frequently anddecidedly the representatives of so-called society comeforward with what they claim to be the demands of the wholepeople, the more relentlessly must the Social-Democratsexpose the class nature of this society. Take the notoriousresolution of the secret Zemstvo congress held on Novem-

ber 6-8.11 You will find there, thrust into the background,deliberately hazy and half-hearted constitutional aspirations.

You will find mention there of the people and society, moreoften society than the people. You will find the most detailedand comprehensive suggestions for reforms of the Zemstvoand municipal institutionsinstitutions, that is, whichrepresent the interests of the landowners and the capitalists.You will find mention of reforms in the living conditions ofthe peasantry, of the liberation of the peasantry from tute-lage, and of the safeguarding of correct judicial forms. It isquite clear that you are dealing with representatives of the

propertied classes who are only bent on securing concessionsfrom the autocracy and have no thought of changing in anyway the foundations of the economic system. If people likethese want a radical [allegedly radical]* change in thepresent state of inequality and oppression of the peasantry,it only proves anew that the Social-Democrats were right intirelessly stressing the backwardness of the system and of the

* Interpolations in square brackets (within passages quoted byLenin) have been introduced by Lenin, unless otherwise indicated.Ed.


30/619

V. I. LENIN26

living conditions of the peasantry in relation to the generalconditions of the bourgeois order. The Social-Democrats havealways urged that the class-conscious proletariat should

strictly distinguish in the general peasant movement theover-riding interests and demands of the peasant bourgeoisie,however much these demands may be veiled and nebulous,and in whatever cloak of utopian levelling the peasantideology (and Socialist-Revolutionary phrase-mongering)may invest them. Take the resolutions of the engineers ban-quet in St. Petersburg on December 5. You will find that the590 banquet guests, and together with them the 6,000engineers who subscribed to the resolution, declared for a

constitution, without which Russian industry cannot be pro-perly protected, while at the same time protesting againstthe placing of government orders with foreign concerns.

Can anyone still fail to see that it is the interests of allsections of the landowning, commercial, industrial and peasant

bourgeoisie which are at the bottom of the constitutionalaspirations that have erupted to the surface? Are we to beled astray by the fact that these interests are represented bythe democratic intelligentsia, which everywhere and always,

in all European revolutions of the bourgeoisie, has assumedthe role of publicists, speakers, and political leaders?

A grave task now confronts the Russian proletariat. Theautocracy is wavering. The burdensome and hopeless war intowhich it has plunged has seriously undermined the founda-tions of its power and rule. It cannot maintain itself in powernow without an appeal to the ruling classes, without the sup-port of the intelligentsia; such an appeal and such support,however, are bound to lead to constitutional demands. The

bourgeois classes are trying to force an advantage for them-selves out of the governments predicament. The governmentis playing a desperate game; it is trying to wriggle out of itsdifficulties, to get off with a few paltry concessions, non-polit-ical reforms, and non-committal promises, with which thetsars new ukase is replete. Whether this game will succeed,even temporarily and partially, will in the long run dependon the Russian proletariat, on the degree of its organisationand the force of its revolutionary onset. The proletariat musttake advantage of the political situation, which is greatly inits favour. The proletariat must support the constitutional


31/619


movement of the bourgeoisie; it must rouse and rally to itsside the broadest possible sections of the exploited masses,muster all its forces, and start an uprising at the moment

when the government is in the most desperate straits andpopular unrest is at its highest.What immediate form should the proletariats support

of the constitutionalists take? Chiefly, the utilisation of thegeneral unrest for the purpose of carrying on agitation andorganising the least involved and most backward sections ofthe working class and the peasantry. Naturally, the organisedproletariat, Social-Democracy, should send its forces amongall classes of the population; yet the more independently

the classes now act, the more acute the struggle becomes, andthe nearer the moment of the decisive battle approaches, themore should our work be concentrated on preparing the pro-letarians and semi-proletarians themselves for the directstruggle for freedom. At such a moment only opportunistscan qualify the speeches of individual workingmen in Zemstvoand other public assemblies as a very active struggle, or anew method of struggle, or the highest type of demonstration.Such manifestations can only be of quite secondary impor-

tance. It is far more important now to turn the attention ofthe proletariat to really high and active forms of struggle,such as the famous mass demonstration in Rostov and anumber of mass demonstrations in the South.12 It is far moreimportant now to increase our ranks, organise our forces,and prepare for an even more direct and open mass conflict.

Of course, there is no suggestion in this that the ordinaryday-to-day work of the Social-Democrats should be aban-doned. Social-Democrats will never give up that work, which

they regard as the real preparation for the decisive fight;for they rely wholly and exclusively on the activity, theclass-consciousness, and the organisation of the proletariat,on its influence among the labouring and exploited masses.It is a question of pointing out the right road, of calling atten-tion to the need for going forward, to the harmfulness oftactical vacillations. The day-to-day work, which the class-conscious proletariat should never forget under any circum-stances, includes also the work of organisation. Without

broad and diverse workers organisations, and without theirconnection with revolutionary Social-Democracy, it is


32/619

V. I. LENIN28

impossible to wage a successful struggle against the autocracy.On the other hand, organisational work is impossible withouta firm rebuff to the disorganising tendencies displayed in our

country, as everywhere else, by the weak-willed intellectualelements in the Party, who change their slogans like gloves;organisational work is impossible without a struggle againstthe absurd and reactionary organisation-as-process theory,which serves to conceal confusion of every description.

The development of the political crisis in Russia willnow depend chiefly on the course of the war with Japan.This war has done more than anything else to expose the rot-tenness of the autocracy; it is doing more than anything else

to drain its strength financially and militarily, and totorment and spur on to revolt the long-suffering masses of thepeople, of whom this criminal and shameful war is demand-ing such endless sacrifices. Autocratic Russia has already

been defeated by constitutional Japan, and dragging on thewar will only increase and aggravate the defeat. The bestpart of the Russian navy has been destroyed; the position ofPort Arthur is hopeless, and the naval squadron sent to itsrelief has not the slightest chance of even reaching its desti-

nation, let alone of achieving success; the main army underKuropatkin has lost over 200,000 men and stands exhaustedand helpless before the enemy, who is bound to crush it afterthe capture of Port Arthur. Military disaster is inevitable,and together with it discontent, unrest, and indignationwill inevitably increase tenfold.

We must prepare for that moment with the utmost energy. At that moment, one of the outbreaks which are recurring,now here, now there, with such growing frequency, will develop

into a tremendous popular movement. At that momentthe proletariat will rise and take its stand at the head of theinsurrection to win freedom for the entire people and tosecure for the working class the possibility of waging theopen and broad struggle for socialism, a struggle enriched bythe whole experience of Europe.


33/619

29

GOOD DEMONSTRATIONS OF PROLETARIANSAND POOR ARGUMENTS OF CERTAIN

INTELLECTUALS

The present-day constitutional movement among the prop-ertied classes in our country differs sharply from former move-ments of the same type at the end of the fifties and seventies.The constitutional demands of the liberals are essential-ly the same. The speeches of the radical orators reiterate thefamiliar propositions of Zemstvo liberalism. The proletariatsparticipation in the movement provides a significant and veryimportant new factor. The Russian working class, whosemovement was the pivot of the entire revolutionary move-

ment of the past decade, has long since reached the stage ofopen struggle, of street demonstrations, of popular massmeetings in defiance of the police, and of head-on clasheswith the enemy in the streets of the southern cities.

And the liberal-bourgeois movement is at this momentmarked by the bold, determined, incomparably sharper andmore daring entry of the proletariat upon the scene. We wouldmention, first, the demonstration in St. Petersburg, in whichthe workers participation was unfortunately weak, owing to

the disorganising activity of the Mensheviks, and thedemonstration in Moscow. Next we would mention the pres-ence of workers at a liberal-bourgeois banquet in Smolensk; ata meeting of the Educational Society in Nizhni-Novgorod;and at conferences of scientific, medical, and other societiesin various cities. Further, there were the large meeting ofworkers in Saratov, the demonstration of November 6 in theKharkov Law Society, that of November 20 in the Ekateri-nodar Municipal Council, that of November 18 in the OdessaHealth Protection Society, and, again in Odessa, somewhatlater, in the Regional Law Court. We would add that both


34/619

V. I. LENIN30

demonstrations in Odessa and the one in Kharkov wereaccompanied by street demonstrations of workers, byprocessions with banners through the streets, by the singing

of revolutionary songs, and so forth.The last four demonstrations are described, incidentally,in Iskra , No. 79,13 under the heading Proletarian Demon-strations, to which descriptions I should like to draw thereaders attention. First, I shall indicate the facts accordingto Iskra, following which I shall give Iskras comments.

Kharkov. The Committee organises the participation ofworkers in a meeting of the Law Society. Over two hundredworkers are present; some of the workers felt embarrassed

about attending such an august assembly, while otherscould not enter because muzhiks were not admitted.The liberal chairman takes to his heels after the first revolu-tionary speech. Then follows the speech of a Social-Democrat,leaflets are tossed into the air, the Marseillaise is sung, andthe participants pour out into the street, and together with acrowd of close on 500 workers march along with a red flag,singing labour songs. Towards the end some are beaten up andarrested.

Ekaterinodar. A large crowd flocks to the hall of the munici-pal council (attracted by rumours of liberals speeches to bedelivered there). The telephone is cut off. A speaker from thecommittee makes his way into the hall with 30 or 40 workersand delivers a short, fully revolutionary Social-Democraticspeech. Applause. Leaflets. Consternation among the coun-cillors. The Mayor protests unavailingly. At the conclusion,the demonstrators leave the hall calmly. That nightnumerous house searches by the police.

Odessa. First demonstration. A meeting attended by abouttwo thousand people, the mass of them workers. A number ofrevolutionary speeches (Social-Democratic and Socialist-Revolutionary), thunderous applause, revolutionary out-cries, leaflets. Marching through the streets with revolu-tionary songs. Dispersing without a clash.

Odessa. Second demonstration. A gathering of severalthousand. A similarly vast revolutionary public rallyand march through the streets as in the previous demon-stration. A clash. Many hurt, some seriously. One womanworker dies. Sixty arrests.


35/619

31GOOD DEMONSTRATIONS OF PROLETARIANS

Such are the facts of the case. Such are the demonstrationsof the Russian proletarians.

Now, as to the line of reasoning of certain Social-Democratic

intellectuals. It relates to the demonstration in Ekateri-nodar, to which an entire article has been devoted. Readattentively: In this demonstration for the first time theorganised Russian proletariat came face to face with our liberal-minded bourgeoisie!... The demonstration is a further stepin the development of forms of political struggle; it is,when all is said and done, a really new method of politicalstruggle which yields very evident fruitful results; theworkers in such demonstrations feel that they are acting as

definite political units, they acquire a sense of competence toact as the political fighters of the party. We see spreading inthe broadest social circles the idea of the party as of some-thing quite definite, something that has taken shape, and,what is most important, something that has the right to put forth demands. People are beginning to look upon thewhole party as an active, fighting political force whichstates its demands clearly and definitely. It is necessary tomake wider use of the new method of strugglein the

councils, in the Zemstvos and at every kind of assembly ofpublic figures. And the editors ofIskra, in unison with theauthor of these views, speak of the idea of demonstrationsof a new type, of the fact that in Ekaterinodar in particularour comrades were able to show society that they wereacting as an independent party which feels capable of influenc-ing the course of events and endeavours to do so.

Well, well. In Ekaterinodar in particular.... A new step,a new method, a new practice, face to face for the first time,

very evident fruitful results, definite political units, a senseof political competence, the right to put forth demands.... Tome these pompous attempts at profound reasoning smackedof something stale, pass, and almost forgotten. But be-fore accounting to myself how I sensed the staleness, I invol-untarily asked: Pardon me, gentlemen, but why inEkaterinodar in particular? Why indeed is it a new method?Why is it that the Kharkov and Odessa comrades do not brag(excuse the vulgar expression) about the newness of the methodand the evident fruitful results, about meeting face toface for the first time, and a sense of political competence?


36/619

V. I. LENIN32

Why are the results of a meeting of a few dozen workerstogether with several hundred liberals within the four walls ofa council hall more evident and fruitful than the meetings of

thousands of workers, not only in medical and law societies,but in the streets? Can it really be that street meetings (inOdessa, as well as those previously held in Rostov-on-Donand other cities) are less likely to develop a sense of politicalcompetence and the right to put forth demands than meetingsin municipal councils?... True, I must admit that I feel ratheruncomfortable in quoting this last expression (the right to put forth demands); it is so stupid. But you cant throw thewords out of a song.

In one instance, however, this expression acquires somemeaning, and not only this expression, but Iskras entire lineof reasoning, namely, if we presume the existence of parlia-mentarism, if we visualise for a moment that the Ekaterino-dar Municipal Council has been transplanted to the banks ofthe Thames, next to Westminster Abbey. On this slightassumption it becomes clear why, within the four walls of adelegates meeting hall one can have more right to put forthdemands than in the streets; why struggle against a Prime

Minister, that is, the Mayor of Ekaterinodar, is more fruitfulthan struggle against a policeman; why the sense of politicalcompetence and the knowledge of oneself as a definite politi-cal unit is heightened precisely in the hall of a parliamentor in the hall of a Zemstvo Assembly. Indeed, why not play atparliamentarism for lack of a real parliament? One canobtain here such a vivid mental picture of a meeting face toface, of a new method, and all the rest of it. True, thesemental pictures will inevitably divert our thoughts from the

issues of a real mass struggle for parliamentarism, instead ofplaying at parliamentarism; that, however, is a trifle. Butthen what evident, tangible results....

Tangible results.... The expression immediately remindsme of Comrade Martynov and Rabocheye Dyelo.14 Withoutreverting to the latter it is impossible to appraise the newIskra correctly. The arguments about a new method ofstruggle in connection with the Ekaterinodar demonstrationare a repetition of the arguments used by the editors in theirLetter to Party Organisations (incidentally, is it wise tokeep the original a secret, stacked away, and to circulate


37/619

33GOOD DEMONSTRATIONS OF PROLETARIANS

only a copy openly for general information?). The editorsarguments follow Rabocheye Dyelos usual trend of thought,

but in another connection.

Wherein lay the error and the harmfulness of the RabocheyeDyelo theory of imparting a political character to theeconomic struggle itself, the theory of the economic struggleof the workers against the employers and the government, ofthe need to present to the government concrete demandswhich promise certain tangible results? Should we notimpart a political character to the economic struggle? Wecertainly should. But when Rabocheye Dyelo deduced the polit-ical aims of a revolutionary party of the proletariat from the

economic (trade-unionist) struggle, it unjustifiablynarrowed and vulgarised the Social-Democratic conception, itdetracted from the tasks of the proletariats all-round polit-ical struggle.

Wherein lie the error and the harmfulness of the newIskras theory of a new method, of a higher type of mobilisationof the proletarian forces, of a new way of developing the senseof political competence among the workers, their right toput forth demands, and so on, and so forth? Should we not

organise workers demonstrations both in the Zemstvo As-semblies and on the occasion of these assemblies? We certain-ly should. But in speaking of good proletarian demonstra-tions we should not talk highbrow nonsense. We shall onlydemoralise the class-consciousness of the proletariat, we shallonly divert the proletariat from the tasks, increasingly press-ing, of the real, serious, open struggle, if we extol as a newmethod those very features of our ordinary demonstrationswhich least resemble active struggle and which it would be

ludicrous to declare as productive of excellent results or asheightening the sense of political competence, etc.

Both our old acquaintance, Comrade Martynov, and thenew Iskra are guilty of the sin peculiar to the intelligentsialack of faith in the strength of the proletariat; in its ability toorganise, in general, and to create a party organisation, inparticular; in its ability to conduct the political struggle. Rabocheye Dyelo believed that the proletariat was still inca-pable, and would be incapable for a long time to come, ofconducting the political struggle that goes beyond the limitsof the economic struggle against the employers and the


38/619

V. I. LENIN34

FROM MARX

TO MAO

NOT FOR

COMMERCIAL

DISTRIBUTION

government. The new Iskra believes that the proletariat isstill incapable, and will be incapable for a long time to come,of independent revolutionary action, and it calls a

demonstration of a few dozen workers before the Zemstvopeople a new method of struggle. Both the old RabocheyeDyelo and the new Iskra religiously repeat the phrases aboutthe independent activity and self-education of the proletariatonly because this religious fervour screens the intellectualistincomprehension of the real forces of the proletariat andof the urgent tasks that confront it. Both the old RabocheyeDyelo and the new Iskra talk absolute nonsense with an airof profundity about the special significance of tangible and

evident results, and about a concrete contraposition of bour-geoisie and proletariat, thereby diverting the attention ofthe proletariat from the increasingly pressing task of a directonset upon the autocracy, at the head of a popular uprising,towards playing at parliamentarism. In undertaking to revisethe old organisational and tactical principles of revolutionarySocial-Democracy and fussily searching for new formulas andnew methods, both the old Rabocheye Dyelo and the newIskra are in fact dragging the Party back, proposing super-

seded, at times even downright reactionary, slogans.We have had enough of this new revision that leads to the

old rubbish! It is time to go forward and stop covering updisorganisation with the notorious organisation-as-processtheory; it is time, in workers demonstrations, to accentuateand advance to the foreground those features that tend to

bring them closer to the real, open struggle for freedom.

Vperyod, No. 1 , January 4 , 1905 Published according to(December

22 ,

1904) the

text

in

Vperyod


39/619

35

TIME TO CALL A HALT!

All eyewitnesses agree that the demonstration of November28 was a failure because of the almost complete absence ofworkers. But why did the workers keep away from the dem-onstration? Why did the St. Petersburg Committee, in

response to whose call the student youth had come to the dem-onstration, fail to take steps to secure the attendance of theworkers, thus defeating its own enterprise? The answer tothese questions is given in the following letter from a worker,a member of the Committee, from which we print the mostimportant passages:

Feeling (at the beginning of November) was running high and seek-ing an outlet. This outlet was to be provided by a demonstration, andin fact a leaflet did appear at that time, issued in the name of the Stu-

dents Social-Democratic Organisation and calling for a demonstra-tion on November 14. On learning of this, the Committee proposed tothe organisation that the demonstration be postponed until the end ofNovember, to permit joint participation with the St. Petersburg prole-tariat. The students agreed.... The class-conscious workers were veryeager to have a demonstration. Many workers came to Nevsky Prospekton November 14 under the impression that the students demonstra-tion would take place. When they were told that they should not havecome without a call by the Committee, they conceded the point, butsaid that they thought there would be something doing there anyway. At any rate, this fact illustrates the mood of the class-conscious work-ers.

At a meeting of the Committee on November 18 it was decided tohold the demonstration on the 28th. A subcommittee was immediatelyset up to organise the demonstration and work out a plan of action;it was decided to issue two preparatory agitational leaflets and a call.We threw ourselves into the job with all energy. The writer of theselines personally arranged several meetings of workers, study circlemembers, at which we discussed the role of the working class and theaim and significance of a demonstration at the present moment. Wediscussed the question of an armed or an unarmed demonstration, and

all these meetings adopted resolutions supporting the decision of theCommittee. The workers demanded as many leaflets as possible fordistribution. Give us wagon-loads, they said.


40/619

V. I. LENIN36

And so, a demonstration, which promised to be really impressivewas being prepared for the 28th. But here our St. Petersburg Minori-ty, like the all-Russian Minority and the Minority abroad, couldnot help playing a purely negative role, the role of a disorganiser. To

make that role perfectly clear, I shall have to say a few words about thelocal Minority and its activities. Before the demonstration, andafter, the Committee consisted largely of adherents of the Majority ofthe Second Party Congress.* Arrests and the differences that are tear-ing the Party asunder have in many ways weakened the activity of thelocal Social-Democratic organisations. In its fight against the Majori-ty the local Minority tries, for its own factional purposes, to discreditour local Committee. District representatives who adhere to theMinority do not admit comrades of the Majority into their districtsand do not supply the Committee with any contacts. The result isterrible disorganisation and lowered efficiency in the districts concerned.

The following is a case in point. For the last five or six months therepresentative of one district has been a Menshevik. Due to the factthat it has been out of touch with the genera] activity, this district haslost ground terribly. Where there were formerly from fifteen to twentystudy circles, there are now barely from four to five. The workersare dissatisfied with this state of affairs, and their representative isseeking to exploit this dissatisfaction against the Majority by settingthe workers against the Committee. The Minority seeks to turn everyweakness in the local Social-Democratic organisation to accountagainst the Majority. Whether its attempts are successful or not isanother matter, but the fact remains that this is so.

Three days before the demonstration, the Committee was calledtogether on the initiative of the Minority. For certain reasons threemembers of the Majority on the Committee could not be notified inadvance and were absent. The Minority made a motion to call offthe demonstration, threatening, otherwise, to work against it and notdistribute a single leaflet. Owing to the absence of the three comradesthat would have supported the demonstration, the motion was carried.It was decided not to distribute any leaflets and to destroy those con-taining the call.

The broad mass of the general public, as well as the workers, pre-pared to attend the demonstration and waited only for the Committeescall. Rumours began to circulate that the demonstration had beencalled off and indefinitely postponed. Many strongly objected to thecancellation; the technical workers15 protested and refused to work forthe Committee in the future.

A meeting of the Committee was called on Friday, and the threemembers who had been absent at the previous meeting protestedagainst the improper revision of the decision to hold the demonstration.

* The Russian terms for majority and minority are, respec-tively, bolshinstvo and menshinstvo . Hence, Lenins adherents, who ob-

tained a majority of votes in the elections to the leading organs of theParty at the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. held in London in1903, were called Bolsheviks, and their opponents, the minority, werecalled Mensheviks.Ed.


41/619

37TIME TO CALL A HALT!

Since a mass of people would gather in Nevsky Prospekt anyway, evenif no leaflets were distributed, they urged that all steps be taken to getthe workers as well to participate in the demonstration. A representa-tive of the Minority objected on the grounds that not all workers are

sufficiently developed to participate consciously in the demonstration andto be able to defend the demands put forward by the Committee . Thequestion was put to the vote; the meeting decided, with only oneopposing vote, to hold the demonstration. But it transpired that many ofthe printed leafletsover 12,000containing the call had been burnt.Besides, their mass distribution at the factories was impossible, sincethey could not be delivered anywhere by Saturday morning, and onSaturdays the factories stop work at two or three oclock. Thus, theleaflets could be distributed only among a small circle of workers,among acquaintances, but not among the broad masses. Under thecircumstances the demonstration was foredoomed to failure. And fail

it did....Now our Minority can rejoice. It has won! Here is a new fact that

discredits the Committee (read: the Majority). But we hope that thereader will consider more seriously the reasons why the demonstrationturned out as it did, and will say with us: Yes, as things now are inthe Party it is impossible to work with any success. We must put anend to the crisis within the Party as soon as possible, we must close ourranks, otherwise we are in danger of complete enfeeblement and, unlesswe take advantage of the present favourable moment, we shall find our-selves trailing at the tail-end of great events.

This disruptive act of the St. Petersburg Minority,which, in their own petty factional interests, prevented aproletarian demonstration, is the last drop that should makethe cup of the Partys patience run over. That our Party isseriously ill and has lost a good half of its influence duringthe past year is known to the whole world. We appeal now tothose who are incapable of regarding this serious ailmentwith sneers or malicious joy, who cannot dismiss the accursed

questions of the Party crisis with mere sighs and shakes ofthe head, with snivelling and whining, who consider it theirduty, even at the cost of a supreme effort, to achieve fullclarity on the causes of the crisisto fulfil that duty andpluck up the evil by its roots. For these people, and these people only, we shall recapitulate the history of the crisis; forwithout studying this history it is impossible to understandthe present split, which the Mensheviks have finally con-trived to bring about.

First stage of the crisis: At the Second Congress of ourParty the principles of the Iskra position win, despite theopposition of the Rabocheye Dyelo and semi-Rabocheye Dyelo


42/619

V. I. LENIN38

people. After the Congress, the Minority begins to tearthe Party asunder over the question of bringing into the Edi-torial Board persons whom the Congress rejected. Disorgani-

sation, boycott, and preparation for a split go on for threemonths, from the end of August to the end of November.Second stage: Plekhanov yields to the gentlemen who yearn

for co-optation and makes manifest to all in public print,in the article What Should Not Be Done (No. 52), that he isoffering a personal concession to the revisionists and anarch-ists-individualists in order to avert a greater evil. Thegentlemen take advantage of this concession to go on rendingthe Party. Having taken their seats on the Editorial Board

of the Central Organ and on the Council of the Party, theyform a secret organisation for the purpose of getting theirpeople into the Central Committee and obstructing the ThirdCongress. Unheard-of and incredible though it may be, thisfact is proved by documentary evidence in the form of aletter of the new Central Committee concerning deals madewith this worthy crew.

Third stage: Three members of the Central Committeeside with the conspirators against the Party. They co-opt

three pretenders from the Minority (assuring the committees,in writing, of the contrary), and, with the aid of the Council,decidedly obstruct the Third Congress, which was favoured

by the overwhelming majority of the committees that voicedtheir opinions on the crisis. In Orlovskys16 pamphlet (TheCouncil Against the Party) and in Lenins (Statement and Documents on the Break of the Central Institutions with theParty*), these facts are likewise proved by documentary evi-dence. The mass of the Party workers in Russia are unaware

of these facts, but they should be known to everyone whowishes to be a Party member in more than name.

Fourth stage: The Party workers in Russia unite for actionagainst the group abroad which has disgraced our Party.The adherents and the Committees of the Majority arrange several private conferences and elect representatives. Thenew Central Committee, which is controlled completely bythe co-opted pretenders, makes it its business to disorganise

* First published in pamphlet form, January 1905, Geneva. Seepresent edition, Vol. 7. pp. 527-37.Ed.


43/619

39TIME TO CALL A HALT!

and split all local committees of the Majority. The comradesshould not entertain any illusions on this score; the CentralCommittee has no other purpose. The creatures of the clique

abroad are preparing and forming new committees everywhere(in Odessa, Baku, Ekaterinoslav, Moscow, Voronezh, etc.).The group abroad is preparing its own, hand-picked congress.The secret organisation, having finished with the central

bodies, has turned against the local committees.The disruptive trick of the St. Petersburg Mensheviks is

no accident; it is a calculated step towards splitting the Com-mittee, a move made with the help of the Mensheviks co-opted into the Central Committee. We repeat: The Party

workers in Russia in their majority are unaware of thesefacts. We warn them and say to them most emphaticallythat everyone who wishes to struggle for the Party andagainst disorganisation, everyone who does not want to beutterly duped, must know all these facts.

We have made all possible concessions and several quiteimpossible ones in order to continue working in one partywith the Minority. Now that the Third Congress has beenobstructed and the disruptive tactics have been directed

against the local committees, all hope of achieving this islost. Unlike the Mensheviks, who work by underhandmeans, behind the Partys back, we must declare openlyand prove by deeds that the Party has broken off any andall relations with these gentry.

Vperyod, No. 1 , January 4 , 1905 Published according to(December 22 , 1904) the text in Vperyod


44/619

40

CONFERENCES OF THE COMMITTEES 17

Three conferences of local committees of our Party have re-cently been held: (1) the conference of the four Caucasiancommittees, (2) the conference of the three southern committees

(Odessa, Ekaterinoslav, and Nikolayev), and (3) the confer-ence of the six northern committees (St. Petersburg, Moscow,Tver, Riga, the North, and Nizhni-Novgorod). We hope short-ly to be able to give detailed information about theseconferences.18 For the time being we can report that allthree conferences emphatically went on record for the imme-diate convocation of the Third Congress of the Party and insupport of the publicists group of the Majority.

Vperyod, No. 1 , January 4 , 1905 Published according to(December 22 , 1904) the text in Vperyod


45/619

41

THE NEW RUSSIAN LOAN

Under the above headline, the Frankfurter Zeitung,mouthpiece of the big German stockjobbers, gives the follow-ing interesting report:

Rumours of a new big Russian loan have been current forseveral weeks now. All these rumours were promptly denied.It is now officially admitted, however, that a loan was recent-ly [reported on December 29, new style] negotiated in St.Petersburg. No doubt, these official negotiations were preced-ed by private inquiries, which gave rise to the rumours.It is reported that German financiers took part this time inthe negotiations. The loan is to be floated on the Germanmarket. Until now, since the beginning of the war, Russia

has raised funds in three different ways: first, about 300 mil-lion rubles was borrowed from the cash holdings of the Treas-ury, increased by cuts in previous allocations. This wasfollowed by a loan of 800 million francs (about 300 millionrubles) obtained through French bankers. In August Russiafloated a domestic loan of 150 million rubles. The war isconsuming heavy sums which are growing from month tomonth, and Russia is again planning to raise a big foreignloan. Russian stocks have recently shown a strong (serious,

bedenkliche) downward trend. How the German public willreact to the Russian loan is unpredictable. The fortunes ofwar, so far, have invariably favoured the Japanese. Andwhereas, so far, Russian loans have been considered a safe in-vestment, they are now becoming more or less speculative (Bei-geschmack), especially in view of the tsars recent Manifesto,which throws characteristic light on what is going on in Rus-sia. It remains to be seen whether the new loan will be offeredto the German public on terms (the interest rate and the priceof issue) that would make up for the impaired quality of theRussian loan.


46/619

V. I. LENIN42

Another warning to the Russian autocracy by the European bourgeoisie! It is losing credit as a result both of the militarydefeats and of the growing discontent within the country.

The European bankers are beginning to regard the autocracyas a gambling speculation, while the quality of Russianloans, in the sense of their reliability, is frankly declared to

be impaired. And what a mass of money this criminal war, which must

be consuming no less than three million rubles a day, is stillgoing to cost the people!

Written after December 16 (29 ), 1904First published in 1931 Published according to

in Lenin MiscellanyXVI the manuscript


47/619

43

TOA.A. BOGDANOV

January 10, 1905My dear friend,

At last we have launched Vperyod, and I would like to dis-

cuss it with you in greater detail. Issue No. 2 will appear theday after tomorrow. We intend to bring it out weekly. Wehave sufficient literary forces for the task. We are all inexcellent spirits and at the top of our working form (with theslight exception of Vasily Vasilyevich,19 who has a touch ofthe blues). We are sure that things will go well, so long as wedont go bankrupt. We need 400 francs (150 rubles) per issue,

but we have only 1,200 francs all in all. We shall need thedeuce of a lot of help for the first few months; for, unless we

can make it a regular publication, the entire position of theMajority will be dealt a terrific, well-nigh irreparable blow.Do not forget this and get whatever you can ( e s p e c i a l l yf r o m G o r k y).

Next. It is particularly important now to let Rakhmetov20

know that he should push on as hard as he can with the arrange-ments for literary contributions from Russia. The successof a weekly depends largely upon the energetic collaborationof Russian writers and Social-Democrats. Write to Rakhme-

tov that he should mobilise both F i n n and K o l l o n t a ifor the purpose (we badly need articles o n F i n l a n d), aswell as R u m y a n t s e v and A n d r e i S o k o l o v, thelatter especially and particularly. I know by long experiencethat the people in Russia are devilishly, unpardonably, andincredibly slow at this sort of thing. It is therefore necessaryto act, first of all, by personal example; secondly, not to relyon promises, but to see that you get the things written. LetRakhmetov be sure to order the articles and the correspond-ence himself, and receive them himself, and send them offhimself, keeping at it until he gets the material. (I would also


48/619

V. I. LENIN44

add S u v o r o v and L u n t s, but I am sure Rakhmetovknows many others besides.) We badly need: (1) articles onquestions of Russian life, from 6,000 to 18,000 letters; (2) para-

graphs on the same subjects, from 2,000 to 6,000 letters;(3) correspondence of diverse length about everything; (4)interesting passages and quotations from local Russian andspecial Russian publications; (5) paragraphs on articles inRussian newspapers and magazines. The last three points arequite within the range of contribution by working-class andespecially the student youth, and therefore the thing should

be given attention; this work should be popularised, peopleshould be roused and filled with zeal; they should, by con-

crete example, be taught what is wanted and how necessary itis to utilise every trifle; they should be made to see how badlyneeded the raw material from Russia is abroad (we shall beable to work it up from a literary angle and make use of itourselves), that it is foolish in the extreme to feel embarrassedabout literary shortcomings, that they must learn to speaksimply and correspond simply with the periodical abroad ifthey wish to make it their own journal. In view of this Iwould consider it simply necessary and positively essential to

hand out a Vperyod address (a foreign address, of which wehave many now and shall have more) to every student circleand to every workers group. I assure you that there is anidiotic prejudice among our committee-men against handingout addresses on a broad scale to the periphery youth. Com-

bat this prejudice with all your might, hand out the addresses,and demand direct contact with the Editorial Board ofVperyod. Unless this is done there will be no newspaper.Workers correspondence is very badly needed, and there is

so little of it. What we need is scores and hundreds of workerscorresponding directly with Vperyod.

We must also get the workers to communicate their ownaddresses to which Vperyod may be mailed in closed enve-lopes. The workers will not be afraid. The police will not beable to intercept a tenth of the envelopes. The small (four-page) size and frequent appearance of Vperyod make thequestion of envelope delivery a most vital one for ournewspaper. We should make it our direct objective to developworkers subscriptions to Vperyod, to develop the habit ofsending the money (a ruble isnt something God knows what!)


49/619

45TO A. A. BOGDANOV

and ones address abroad. If we tackle this properly, myword, we could revolutionise the distribution of undergroundliterature in Russia. Dont forget that transportation, at best,

takes four months. And thats with a weekly paper! As forthe enveloped copies, probably from 50 to 75 per cent will bedelivered at postal speed.

Now, as to the writers. They ought simply to be obligatedto write regularly once a week or once a fortnight; other-wiseso, indeed, tell themwe cannot consider them decentpeople and will have nothing more to do with them. Theusual excuse is: We dont know what theme to choose, wereafraid to waste our effort, we think they already have this.

It is against these trite and idiotic pretexts that Rakhmetovmust wage a personal, a definitely personal, fight. The prin-cipal themes are the domestic topics of Russia (of the kindthat comprise in periodical literature reviews of the domesticpolitical scene and reflections of social life), as well as arti-cles and brief comments on material appearing in Russianspecial publications (statistical, military, medical, prison,ecclesiastical, and other periodicals). We are always in needof copy for these two sections. Only people living in Russia,

and such people alone, can conduct these two sections well.The keynote here is fresh facts, fresh impressions, specialmaterials that are inaccessible to the people abroad, and not just arguments, not evaluations from the Social-Democratic point of view. Therefore, such articles and comments willnever go to waste, for we shall always make use of them.It is Rakhmetovs duty now to organise this thing at onceand give us at least half a dozen good, useful contributors,who would not be lazy or try to shirk their jobs, but would

each get in direct touch with the Editorial Board. Only bydirect contact with contributors can we arrange all thedetails of the work. People should be enlisted by being made torealise that nowhere else can they get into print as quicklyas in a weekly newspaper.

In conclusion, a word or two about the organisational slo-gan of today. After the article Time to Call a Halt! Vpe-ryod, No. 1),* this slogan should be clear; but people are soinert that Rakhmetov, here again, will have to explain and

* See pp. 35-39 of this volume.Ed.


50/619

V. I. LENIN46

explain again, and hammer it into their heads as hard as hecan. The split is now complete ; for we have exhausted allmeans. It is the Third Congress against the will of the Central

Committee and the Council and without them. Complete rup-ture with the Central Committee. An open statement that wehave our own Bureau. The complete removal of the Menshe-viks and the new-Iskrists everywhere. We did everything wecould to get on together, and should now declare openly and

bluntly that we are obliged to work separately. All trustful-ness and navet can only cause tremendous harm.

For Christs sake hurry up and issue an open and emphaticstatement on the Bureau.21 It is necessary: (1) to line up fully

with Time to Call a Halt! and re-issue its appeal; (2)to declare that Vperyod is the organ of the majority of the com-mittees and that the Bureau is working with it in completeand friendly agreement; (3) that the C.C. and the Council havedeceived the Party in the most disgraceful way and sabo-taged the Congress; (4) that there is no way out now otherthan the convening of a congress of the committees them-selves without the C.C. and the Council; (5) that the Bureauundertakes to help the constructive work of the committees;

(6) that the Central Organ has utterly lost the membershipsconfidence by its vacillations and lies.

Believe me, we highly appreciate Zemlyachka, but sheis wrong in her opposition to Papasha,22 and it is for youto correct her mistakes. Let us hurry up and break with theC.C. all along the line, and publish a statement about theBureau at once to the effect that it is the Organising Commit-tee and that it is convening the Third Congress.

First published in 1925 Published according toin the magazine Proletarskaya the manuscript

Revolutsia, No. 3 (38 )


51/619

47

THE FALL OF PORTARTHUR23

Port Arthur has surrendered.This event is one of the greatest events in modern history.

These four words, flashed yesterday to all parts of the civil-ised world, create a crushing impression, the impression of anoverwhelming and appalling catastrophe, a disaster that beg-gars description. The moral power of a mighty empire iscrumbling, the prestige of a young race is waning before ithas had the chance to prove itself. Sentence has been passedupon an entire political system. A long chain of assertedclaims has been broken and mighty efforts have been frust-rated. True, the fall of Port Arthur had long been predicted, and

for a long time people had sought to dismiss it in a fewwords and to find consolation in ready-made phrases. But thehard, brutal fact shatters all conventional lies. The sig-nificance of the disaster cannot be underrated now. For thefirst time the old world has been humiliated by an irreparabledefeat dealt it by the new world, a world mysterious, and, toall appearances, adolescent, which was only yesterday wonto civilisation.

Thus writes a respectable European bourgeois newspaper

under the direct impact of the event. Admittedly, it has donemore than merely express in trenchant words the sentimentsof the entire European bourgeoisie. Through the words ofthis newspaper speaks the true class instinct of the bourgeoi-sie of the old world, which is perturbed by the victories ofthe new bourgeois world and alarmed by the collapse of Rus-sias military power, which for a long time had been consid-ered the bulwark of European reaction. Small wonder thateven the European bourgeoisie, which has taken no part inthe war, feels humiliated and depressed. It had grown soaccustomed to identify Russias moral strength with the


52/619

V. I. LENIN48

military strength of the gendarme of Europe. In its eyes theprestige of the young Russian race was inseparably bound upwith that of tsarism, that unshakable authority, which

strongly safeguarded the existing order of things. Smallwonder that the disaster which has overtaken the rulers andcommanders of Russia seems appalling to the wholeEuropean bourgeoisie. This disaster implies a tremendousacceleration of world-wide capitalist development, a quicken-ing of historys pace; and the bourgeoisie knows only too wellfrom bitter experience that this means the acceleration of thesocial revolution of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie ofWestern Europe felt so secure in the atmosphere of long-

lasting stagnation, under the wing of the mighty Empire,and now suddenly some mysterious, adolescent power daresto disturb this stagnation and shatter this pillar.

Indeed, the European bourgeoisie has cause for alarm.The proletariat has cause for rejoicing. The disaster that hasovertaken our mortal enemy not only signifies the approachof freedom in Russia, it also presages a new revolutionaryupsurge of the European proletariat.

But why and to what extent is the fall of Port Arthur real-

ly an historic disaster?The first thing that strikes the eye is the effect of this event

on the trend of the war. The main objective of the Japanese inthis war has been attained. Advancing, progressive Asia hasdealt backward and reactionary Europe an irreparable blow.Ten years ago this reactionary Europe, with Russia in thelead, was perturbed by the defeat of China at the hands ofyoung Japan, and it united to rob Japan of the best fruits ofher victory. Europe was protecting the established relations

and privileges of the old world, its prerogative to exploit the Asian peoplesa prerogative held from time immemorialand sanctified by the usage of centuries. The recovery of Port

Arthur by Japan is a blow struck at the whole of reactionaryEurope. Russia held Port Arthur for six years and spenthundreds of millions of rubles on the building of strategicrailways, harbours, and new towns, on fortifying a strong-hold which the entire mass of European newspapers, bribed

by Russia and fawning on Russia, declared to be impreg-nable. Military commentators write that Port Arthur was asstrong as six Sevastopols. And behold, little Japan, hitherto


53/619

49THE FALL OF PORT ARTHUR

despised by all, captures this stronghold in eight months,when it took England and France together a whole year tocapture Sevastopol. The military blow is irreparable. The

question of supremacy on the seas, the main and vital issueof the present war, has been settled. The Russian Pacificfleet, which at the outset was certainly not weaker, if ac-tually not stronger, than the Japanese fleet, has been com-pletely destroyed. The very base for naval operations has

been lost, and the only thing left for Rozhdestvenskysnaval squadron is to turn back shamefully after a uselessexpenditure of more millions, after the great victory of hisformidable battleships over the English fishing smacks.

It is believed that Russias loss in naval tonnage aloneamounts to 300,000,000 rubles. More important, however,is the loss of some ten thousand of the navys best men, andthe loss of an entire army. Many European papers are nowtrying to minimise the importance of these losses, and theirefforts to do so lead them to such ridiculous assertions as thatKuropatkin is now relieved, freed of his worries over Port

Arthur! Russias military forces have also been relieved of anentire army. According to the latest English reports, no fewer

than 48,000 men have been taken prisoner, and there is notelling how many thousands more were killed in the battlesof Kinchow and at the fortress itself. The Japanese are in com-plete possession of the Liaotung Peninsula; they have acquireda base of operations of incalculable importance for exertingpressure on Korea, China, and Manchuria; they have releasedfor action against Kuropatkin a battle-tried army of from80,000 to 100,000 strong, reinforced by formidable heavyartillery which, when brought up to the Shaho River, will give

them an overwhelming superiority over the main Russianforces.

According to reports in the foreign press, the autocraticgovernment has decided to continue the war at all costs, andto send Kuropatkin 200,000 more men. It is highly probablethat the war will drag on for a long time, but its hopelessnessis already apparent, and all delays will only aggravate theinnumerable calamities which the Russian people are suffer-ing because they still tolerate the yoke of the autocracy ontheir neck. As it is, the Japanese have reinforced their troopsafter every big battle in less time and in greater numbers


54/619

V. I. LENIN50

than the Russians. And now that they have achieved com-plete supremacy on the sea and have utterly annihilated oneof Russias armies, they will be able to send twice as many

reinforcements as the Russians. As it is, the Japanese beatthe Russian generals time and again, although the bulk oftheir best artillery was engaged in siege warfare. Now theyhave achieved complete concentration of their forces, whilethe Russians have to fear for Vladivostok, as well as forSakhalin. The Japanese have occupied the best and most pop-ulated part of Manchuria, where they can maintain an armyat the expense of the conquered territory and with the help ofChina, whereas the Russians have to depend more and more

upon supplies transported from Russia, and it will soon beimpossible for Kuropatkin to increase his army any further,in view of the impossibility of bringing up sufficient sup-plies.

But the military debacle which the autocracy has sufferedhas deeper implications; it signifies the collapse of our entirepolitical system. The days when wars were fought by merce-naries or by representatives of a caste half-isolated from thepeople have gone for ever. Wars today are fought by peoples;

even Kuropatkin, according to Nemirovich-Danchenko,has begun to realise that this is the truth and not a merecopy-book motto. Wars today are fought by peoples; this now

brings out more strikingly than ever a great attribute of war,namely, that it opens the eyes of millions to the disparity

between the people and the government, which heretoforewas evident only to a small class-conscious minority. Thecriticism of the autocracy by all progressive Russians, by theRussian Social-Democrats, by the Russian proletariat, has

now been confirmed in the criticism by Japanese arms, con-firmed in such wise that the impossibility of living under theautocracy is felt more and more even by those who do notknow what autocracy means, even by those who do know, butyet would maintain it with all their soul. The incompatibil-ity of the autocracy with the interests of social development,with the interests of the entire people (apart from a handfulof bureaucrats and bigwigs), became evident as soon as thepeople actually had to pay for the autocracy with their life-

blood. Its foolish and criminal colonial adventure has landedthe autocracy in an impasse, from which the people can ex-


55/619

51THE FALL OF PORT ARTHUR

tricate themselves only by their own efforts and only at thecost of destroying tsarism.

The fall of Port Arthur is a great historic outcome of tsar-

isms crimes, which began to reveal themselves at the outsetof the war, and which will now reveal themselves more andmore extensively and unrestrainedly. After us the deluge!argued all the big and little Alexeyevs,24 scarcely thinking or

believing that the deluge would actually come. The generalsand commanders-in-chief proved themselves incompetentnonentities. In the expert opinion of an English militaryobserver (in The Times), the whole story of the 1904 campaignwas one of criminal neglect of the elementary principles of

naval and military strategy. The civil and military bureau-cracy proved as parasitic and venal now as in the days ofserfdom. The officers proved uneducated, undeveloped, anduntrained. They were not in close touch with the soldiers, nordid they enjoy their confidence. The ignorance, illiteracy,and backwardness of the peasant masses became appallinglyobvious when they came up against a progressive nation inmodern warfare, which requires high-quality manpower asimperatively as does modern technique. Success in modern

warfare is impossible without intelligent soldiers and sailorswho possess initiative. No amount of endurance or physicalstrength, no herding of men into solid ranks for mass actionscan guarantee superiority in an age of quick-firing smallarms and quick-firing cannon, when naval battles are foughtwith the aid of intricate mechanisms and land actions arefought in extended order. The military might of autocraticRussia has proved to be a sham. Tsarism has proved to be ahindrance to the organisation of up-to-date efficient warfare,

that very business to which tsarism dedicated itself so whole-heartedly, of which it was so proud, and for which it offeredsuch colossal sacrifices in defiance to all opposition on thepart