7. The Tactic of “Removing the Conservatives from the Government”

The article we mentioned above, in the organ of the Menshevik Tiflis “Committee” (Sotsial-Demokrat, No. 1), is entitled “The Zemsky Sobor and Our Tactics”. Its author has not yet quite forgotten our programme; he puts forward the slogan of a republic, but this is how he argues about tactics:

“For the achievement of this aim (a republic) two roads may be indicated: either to pay no attention at all to the Zemsky Sobor that is being convened by the government, defeat the government arms in hand, form a revolutionary government and convene a constituent assembly; or to declare the Zemsky Sobor the centre of our action, influencing its composition and its activity arms in hand, and forcibly compel it to declare itself a constituent assembly or to convene a constituent assembly through it. These two tactics differ very sharply from each other. Let us see, then, which of them is more advantageous for us.”

This is how the Russian new-Iskrists set out the ideas that were subsequently embodied in the resolution we have analysed. This was written, note, before Tsushima, when the Bulygin “scheme” had not yet seen the light of day at all. Even the liberals were losing patience and voicing their distrust in the pages of the legal press, but the new-Iskrist Social-Democrat proved more trustful than the liberals. He declares that the Zemsky Sobor “is being convened”, and trusts the tsar so much that he proposes to make this as yet non-existent Zemsky Sobor (or perhaps a “State Duma” or a “legislative consultative assembly”?) the centre of our action. More outspoken and straightforward than the authors of the resolution adopted at the Conference, our Tiflis man does not put the two “tactics” (which he sets forth with inimitable naivety) on the same footing, but declares that the second is “more advantageous”. Listen:

“The first tactic. As you know, the coming revolution is a bourgeois revolution, that is, it aims at such a change in the present system as is of interest not only to the proletariat but to the whole of bourgeois society. All classes are in opposition to the government, even the capitalists themselves. The fighting proletariat and the fighting bourgeoisie in a certain sense march together and attack the autocracy together from different sides. The government here is completely isolated and deprived of the sympathy of society. That is why it is very easy to destroy it. The Russian proletariat as a whole is not yet sufficiently class-conscious and organised to be able to carry out the revolution by itself alone. And even if it were able to do so, it would carry out not a bourgeois but a proletarian (socialist) revolution. Therefore it is in our interest that the government should be left without allies, should be unable to split the opposition, should not win the bourgeoisie over to its side and leave the proletariat isolated…”

So it is in the interests of the proletariat that the tsarist government should not be able to split the bourgeoisie and the proletariat! Was it not by mistake that this Georgian organ was named Sotsial-Demokrat instead of Osvobozhdenie? And note what a peerless philosophy of the democratic revolution this is! Do we not see before our very eyes how the poor Tiflis man has been led completely astray by the pedantic, tailist interpretation of the concept “bourgeois revolution”? He discusses the question of the possible isolation of the proletariat in the democratic revolution and forgets… forgets a trifle… the peasantry! Of the proletariat’s possible allies he knows and favours the Zemstvo landlords, and does not know the peasants. And this in the Caucasus! Well, were we not right when we said that the new Iskra, by its arguments, sinks to the level of the monarchist bourgeoisie instead of raising the revolutionary peasantry to the position of our ally?

“… Otherwise the defeat of the proletariat and the victory of the government are inevitable. And this is just what the autocracy is striving for. In its Zemsky Sobor it will undoubtedly win over to its side the representatives of the nobility, the Zemstvos, the towns, the universities and similar bourgeois institutions. It will try to appease them with petty concessions and in this way reconcile them to itself. Strengthened in this way, it will direct all its blows against the working people, who will have been left isolated. It is our duty to prevent such an unfortunate outcome. But can this be done by the first road? Suppose we paid no attention whatever to the Zemsky Sobor, but began ourselves to prepare for an uprising, and one fine day came out armed into the street to fight. Then we should be faced not by one enemy but by two: the government and the Zemsky Sobor. While we were preparing, they would have managed to come to terms, to enter into an agreement with each other, to draw up a constitution advantageous to themselves and to divide power between them. This tactic is of direct advantage to the government, and we must reject it in the most energetic fashion…”

Now that is frank! We must resolutely give up the “tactic” of preparing an uprising, because “in the meantime” the government will strike a bargain with the bourgeoisie! Can one find in the old literature of the most inveterate “Economism” anything that even approaches such a disgrace to revolutionary Social-Democracy? Uprisings and outbreaks of workers and peasants, now here, now there, are a fact. The Zemsky Sobor is a promise of Bulygin’s. And the Sotsial-Demokrat of the city of Tiflis decides: give up the tactic of preparing an uprising and wait for a “centre of influence”, the Zemsky Sobor…

“… The second tactic, on the contrary, consists in placing the Zemsky Sobor under our supervision, in not giving it the opportunity to act according to its own will and to enter into an agreement with the government. We support the Zemsky Sobor in so far as it fights the autocracy, and fight it in those cases where it becomes reconciled with the autocracy. By energetic intervention and by force we split the deputies among themselves, attach the radicals to ourselves, remove the conservatives from the government and in this way set the whole Zemsky Sobor on the revolutionary road. Thanks to such tactics the government will always remain isolated and the opposition strong, and the establishment of a democratic system will thereby be made easier.”

Yes, indeed! Let them say now that we exaggerate the new-Iskrists’ turn towards the most vulgar semblance of “Economism”. Why, this is just like the famous powder against flies: catch the fly, sprinkle the powder on it, and it will die. Split the deputies of the Zemsky Sobor by force, “remove the conservatives from the government”, and the whole Zemsky Sobor will take the revolutionary road… Without any “Jacobin” armed uprising, but just like that, in a genteel, almost parliamentary way, by “influencing” the members of the Zemsky Sobor.

Poor Russia! It used to be said of her that she always wears the old-fashioned hats that Europe has thrown away. We have no parliament as yet, even Bulygin has not promised one, but of parliamentary cretinism we have as much as you like.

“… How is this intervention to take place? First of all, we shall demand that the Zemsky Sobor be convened on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot. Together with the announcement of such an electoral procedure, complete freedom of electoral agitation must be legalised, that is, freedom of assembly, speech and the press, the inviolability of electors and candidates, and the release of all political prisoners. The elections themselves must be fixed as late as possible, so that we have enough time to inform and prepare the people. And since the drafting of the regulations for convening the Sobor has been entrusted to the commission of Bulygin, the Minister of the Interior, we must also bring influence to bear on this commission and on its members. If the Bulygin commission refuses to satisfy our demands and grants the right of electing deputies to the propertied alone, then we must intervene in these elections and by revolutionary means compel the electors to choose advanced candidates and in the Zemsky Sobor demand a constituent assembly. Finally, by every possible means — demonstrations, strikes and, if need be, an uprising — we must compel the Zemsky Sobor to convene a constituent assembly or to declare itself one. The armed proletariat must be the defender of the constituent assembly, and both together will march to a democratic republic.

Such is the Social-Democratic tactic, and it alone will secure victory for us.”

Let not the reader imagine that all this incredible nonsense is simply the first literary attempt of some irresponsible and uninfluential new-Iskrist. No, it is said in the organ of a whole committee of new-Iskrists, the Tiflis Committee. More than that. This nonsense has been directly approved by Iskra, in No. 100 of which we read about this Sotsial-Demokrat:

“The first issue is edited with spirit and talent. The experienced, skilful hand of an editor and writer is evident… It may be said with confidence that the newspaper will brilliantly fulfil the task it has set itself.”

Yes! If that task is to show everyone clearly the complete ideological disintegration of new-Iskrism, then it has indeed been fulfilled “brilliantly”. No one could have expressed the degradation of the new-Iskrists to liberal-bourgeois opportunism with more “spirit, talent and skill”.