Now let us examine Lenin's 1906 article which, as Radek himself remarks, was directed " formally against Trotsky, but in reality against Bucharin, Piatakov, the writer of these lines (that is, Radek) and a number of other com- rades." This is a very valuable affirmation which entirely confirms my impression of that time that Lenin was directing the polemic against me only in appearance, for the contents, as I shall demonstrate forthwith, did not in reality at all refer to me. The article contains (in two lines) that very accusation concerning my alleged " nega- tion of the peasantry " which later became the main ser- mon of the epigones and their disciples. The " nail" of this article as Radek expresses it is the following passage: " Trotsky has not taken into consideration," says Lenin, quoting my words, " that this is just what the completion of the * national bourgeois revolution ' in Russia will be when the proletariat pulls along the non- proletarian masses of the village to the confiscation of the manorial land, and overthrows the monarchy, that this is just what the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry will be." (Lenin, Volume -Y777, page J.)
81 PERMANENT REVOLUTION That Lenin did not turn to the "right address" with the accusation of the "negation" of the peasantry, but really meant Bucharin and Radek, who actually wanted to skip over the democratic stage of the revolution, is clear not only from everything that has been said above, but also from the quotation adduced by Radek himself, which he rightly calls the "nail" of Lenin's article. In actuality, Lenin refers directly to the words of my article, according to which only an independent and bold policy of the prole- tariat can pull along the "non-proletarian" masses of the village to the confiscation of the manorial Iand 9 to the over- throw of the monarchy 9 etc., and Lenin adds: "Trotsky has not taken into consideration that...this is just what the revolutionary democratic dictatorship will be." In other words, Lenin confirms here and, so to speak, certi- fies that Trotsky in reality accepts the whole genuine con- tent of the Bolshevik formula (the collaboration of the workers and the peasants and the democratic tasks of this collaboration), but does not want to acknowledge that this is just what the democratic dictatorship, the completion of the national revolution, will be. In this manner, the dis- pute in the apparently "sharp" polemical article is not con- cerned with the program of the next stage of the revolu- tion and its motive class forces, but precisely with the poli- tical relationship of these forces to each other, with the political and party organizational character of the dictator- ship. If, as a result of the unclarity of the process itself on the one hand, and of factional exaggeration on the other, polemical misunderstandings were comprehensible and unavoidable in those days, it is completely incompre- hensible how Radek was able subsequently to introduce such confusion into the question.
My polemic with Lenin was concerned in essence with the possibility of the independence (and the degree of in- dependence) of the peasantry in the revolution, as well as with the possibility of an independent peasants' party. In this polemic, I accused Lenin of overestimating the inde- 82 CLASSES, TASKS & POLITICAL MECHANICS pendent r61e of the peasantry. Lenin accused me of underestimating the revolutionary r&le of the peasantry* This resulted from the logic of the polemic itself. What but contempt, however, does one deserve who today, two decades later, tears these old quotations out of the founda- tion of the then party relationships, endows every polemi- cal exaggeration and every episodic error with an absolute value, instead of revealing in the light of the greatest re- volutionary experience what the actual kernel of the diffe- rences of opinion was and what the relations looked like, not on paper, but in reality.
Compelled to limit myself in the selection of quota- tions, I want to point here only to the comprehensive theses of Lenin on the stages of the revolution, which were written at the end of 1905, and only published for the first time in 1926 in the fifth volume of his selected works (page 451). Let us recall the fact that all the Oppositionists, Radek in- cluded, regarded the publication of these theses as the handsomest gift to the Opposition, for Lenin shows him- self guilty of "Trotskyism" in it. The most important points of the resolution of the Seventh Plenum of the E. C. C. I. which condemns Trotskyism, appear, as it were, to be deliberately directed against the fundamental theses of Lenin. The Stalinists gnashed their teeth in rage at their publication. The editor of the Collection, Kamenev, admitted to me openly with the not very modest "kind- heartedness" that characterizes him: If the bloc between us were not being prepared, he would never under any circumstances have allowed the publication of the docu- ment. In an article of Kostrcheva in Bolshevik, these theses are mendaciously falsified precisely for the purpose of not bringing Lenin under the suspicion of the "Trotskyist" attitude towards the peasantry as a whole and the middle peasants in particular.
I quote here further Lenin's evaluation of his differen- ces of opinion with me, which he presented in 1909: "Comrade Trotsky himself, in this instance, grants PERMANENT REVOLUTION *the participation of the representatives of the democratic population' in the 'workers' government', that is, he grants a government of representatives of the proletariat and thft peasantry. Under what conditions the participation of the proletariat in the government of the revolution is permis- sible remains a separate question, and in this question, the Bolsheviks will most likely not come to an agreement not only with Trotsky, but also with the Polish social de- mocracy. The question of the dictatorship of the revolu- tionary classes, however, is in no case reduced to the ques- tion of the 'majority' in any revolutionary government, but to the question of the conditions under which the participa- tion of the social democracy in any government is permis- sible." (Volume XI, Part 1, page 229. My emphasis.
In this quotation from Lenin, it is again confirmed that Trotsky accepts a government of representatives of the proletariat and the peasantry, that is, does not "skip over" the latter. Lenin emphasizes in this connection that the question of the dictatorship is not reduced to the question of the majority in the government. This is incontestable. It is a question, in the first place, of the common work of the proletariat and peasantry and consequently of the struggle of the proletarian vanguard against the liberal or * 'national" bourgeoisie for the influence over the peasants. But if the question of the revolutionary dictatorship of the workers and peasants is also not reduced to the question of the majority in the government, it nevertheless inevi- tably leads, upon the victory of the revolution, to this question as the decisive one. As we have seen, Lenin (in any case) cautiously makes the reservation: Should the question arise about the participation of the party in a re- volutionary government, then we will probably have. a different opinion from Trotsky as well as from the Polish comrades over the conditions of this participation. It was a matter therefore of probable differences of opinion, in so far as Lenin considered theoretically permissible the 84 CLASSES, TASKS & POLITICAL MECHANICS participation of the representatives of the proletariat as a minority in the democratic government. Events, however, showed that we were not of different opinions. In Nov- ember 1917, a struggle raged in the summits of the party around the question of- the coalition government with the Social Revolutionists and the Mensheviks. Lenin was not opposed in principle to a coalition on the basis of the Soviets, but he categorically demanded a firm safeguarding of the Bolshevik majority. I went along with him hand in hand.
Now let us see what Radek is actually aiming at with the whole question of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry: "Wherein", he asks, "did the old Bolshevik theory of 1905 prove to be fundamentally correct? In the fact that the joint action of the Petrograd workers and peasants (the soldiers of the Petrograd garrison) overthrew czarism (in 1917. L. T.). The formula of 1905 foresees in its fun- damentals only the relationship of the classes, and not a concrete political institution.' 5 Well, well, well! When I designate the old Leninist formula as "algebraic", that is, permitting of various con- crete interpretations, it is in no case for the purpose of permitting it to be converted into an empty commonplace, as Radek does unhesitatingly. "The fundamental point was realized: the proletariat and the peasantry jointly overthrew czarism." But this "fundamental" was accom- plished without exception in every victorious or semi- victorious revolution. Czars, feudal lords, and priests were always and everywhere beaten with the fists of the proleta- rian, or the precursors of the proletarian, the plebeian and peasant. That is how it was already in the sixteenth century in Germany and even earlier. In China it was also workers and peasants who beat the militarists. What has 85 PERMANENT REVOLUTION this to do with the democratic dictatorship? It did not exist in the old revolutions, nor in China. Why not? On the backs of the workers and peasants, who did the dirty work of the revolution, sat the bourgeoisie. Radek has' "strayed" so far from political institutions that he has for- gotten what is "most fundamental" in the revolution: who leads and who seizes power? A revolution, however, is a struggle for power. It is a political struggle which the classes conduct not with empty hands but with the aid of the "political institutions" (party, etc.).
"People who have not thought out to the end the com- plexity of the method of Marxism and Leninism", Radek thunders against us sinners, "understand it this way: the affair must absolutely end with a joint government of the workers and peasants, yes, a few even imagined that it absolutely had to be a coalition government of the workers* and peasants' parties."
What blockheads these "few" are!...And what does Radek himself imagine? That a victorious revolution must not lead to a new government, or that this new gov- ernment must not reflect and insure a definite relationship of forces of the revolutionary classes? Radek has deepen- ed the "sociological" in such a way that nothing has been left of it but a shell of words.
How impermissible it is to digress from the question of the political forms of the collaboration of the workers and peasants, will best be shown to us by the words of one of Radek 's lectures in the Communist Academy in March "A year ago, I wrote an article in Pravda on this (Canton) government which I named peasants 9 and workers 9 government. The comrades of the editorial board, however, assumed that it was an oversight on my part and corrected it: workers 9 and peasants 9 government. I did not protest against this and let it stand: workers' and peasants' government."
Thus, in 1927 (not in 1905) Radek was of the opinion 86 CLASSES, TASKS & POLITICAL MECHANICS that there could be a peasants' and workers' government in distinction to a workers 9 and peasants' government. The editor of Pravda did not grasp this. I admit, neither do I. What a workers' and peasants' government is, we know. But what is a peasants' and workers' government, in distinction and in contrast to a workers' and peasants' government? Perhaps you will take the time to explain to us this mysterious transposition of adjectives? Here we are approaching the heart of the question. In 1926, Radek believed the Canton government of Chiang Kai-Shek to be a peasants' and workers' government, in 1927 he repeated it with determination. In reality, however, it proved to be a bourgeois government, which only exploited for itself the revolutionary struggle of the workers and peasants, and then drowned them in blood. How is this error to be explained? Did Radek simply deceive himself? One can be deceived at a distance. But then one must say: I did not understand it, did not scrutinize it, I made a mis- take. But no, we have here no error in fact out of the lack of information, but rather, as now appears clear a deep mistake in principle. The peasants' and workers' government in contrast to the workers' and peasants' gov- ernment that is the Kuo Min Tang. It can mean nothing else. When the peasantry does not follow the pro- letariat, it follows the bourgeoisie. I believe the question has been sufficiently clarified in my criticism of the Stalinist idea of "temporarily constituted workers' and peasants* parties" (see The Draft Program of the Comintern, A Cri- tictsm o/ Fundamentals). The Canton '"peasants" and workers' government in distinction from a workers' and peasants' government is, in the language of present-day Chinese politics, the only conceivable expression of the "democratic dictatorship" in contrast to the proletarian dictatorship, in other words, the embodiment of the Stali- nist Kuo Min Tang policy in contrast to the Bolshevik policy which the Communist International calls "Trot- skyist".
87 CHAPTER FOUR WHAT DID THE THEORY OF THE PERMANENT REVOLUTION LOOK LIKE IN PRACTISE?
IN CRITICIZING the theory, Radek supplements it, as we have seen, by the "tactics flowing from it". This is a very important supplement. The official criticism of "Trotskyism" prudently limited itself in this question to the theory. For Radek, however, this does not suffice. He is conducting a struggle against a definite (Bolshevik) tactical line in China. He must discredit this fine by the theory of the permanent revolution, and here it is neces- sary to show, or to act as though somebody has already showed, that in the past the false tactical line flowed from this theory. Here Radek is directly misleading his readers. It is possible that he himself does not know the history of the revolution, in which he never took a direct part. Rut obviously he has also not made the slightest effort to investigate the question with documents at hand. The most important of these are contained in the second volume* of my Collected Works: an investigation is thus possible for anybody who can read.
Let us therefore reveal to Radek: in almost all the stages of the first revolution there existed between Lenin and me a complete agreement in the estimation of the forces of the revolution and its actual tasks, in spite of the fact that I spent the whole of 1905 illegally in Russia and 1906 in prison. I am compelled to confine myself here to a minimum number of proofs and illustrations.
88 88 PERMANENT REVOLUTION IN PRACTISE In an article written in February and printed in March, that is two or three months before the first Bolsheivk con- vention (which passed into history as the third convention), I said: "The bitterest struggle between the people and the czar, which knows no other thought than victory; the popular insurrection as the culminating point of this struggle; the provisional government as the revolutionary culmination of. the victory of the people over the centuries old foe; the disarming of the czarist reaction and the arm- ing of the people by the provisional government; the con- vocation of the constituent assembly on the basis of general, equal, direct and secret suffrage these are the ob- jectively prescribed stages of the revolution." (Volume II, Part I page 232.)
It is enough to compare these words with the resolu- tions of the Bolshevik convention of May 1905 in order to recognize in the posing of the fundamental tactical pro- blems my complete solidarity with the Bolsheviks.
Even more, in the spirit of this article, I formulated in Petersburg, in agreement with Krassin, the theses on the provisional government which appeared illegally at that time. Krassin defended them at the Bolshevik con- vention. Lenin consented to them in the following form: "By and large, I share the opinion of comrade Krassin. It is natural that, as a writer, I took into account the literary side of the question. The importance of the aim of the struggle is very correctly presented by comrade Krassin and I am with him completely. One cannot en- gage in struggle without reckoning on capturing the posi- tion for which one is fighting..." (Volume VI, page 180.)
The largest part of the extensive Krassin amendments, to which I refer the reader, was adopted in the resolution of the convention. That these amendments are derived from me, is proved by a note from Krassin which I still possess. This whole party episode is well known to 89 PERMANENT REVOLUTION Kamenev and others.
The problems of the peasantry, their attraction to the workers' Soviets, the question of the co-operation with the peasants 9 league, engaged the attention of the Peterburg Soviet more and more every day. Perhaps Radek still knows that the direction of the Soviets devolved upon me. Here is one of the hundreds of formulations written by me at that time on the tactical tasks of the revolution: "The proletariat creates city "Soviets' which direct the fighting actions of the urban masses, and puts upon the order of the day the fighting alliance with the army and the peasantry." (Natchalo, No. |, 17-30, November It is wearisome and, I must admit, painful, to adduce quotations which are to prove that there was no question with me of a "leap" out of autocracy to socialism. But T am compelled to do it. I wrote the following, for example, in February 1906 on the tasks of the constituent assembly, in no case, however, counterposing it at the very outset to the Soviets, as Radek, following Stalin, now hastens to do in regard to China in order to wipe out the opportunist traces of yesterday with an ultra-Leftist broom: "The constituent assembly will be convoked by the liberated people by its own power. The tasks of the cons- tituent assembly will be gigantic. It will have to recons- truct the state upon a democratic foundation, that is, upon the foundation of the sovereign people's power. It will establish a people's militia, carry out an enormous land reform, and introduce the eight-hour day and a progressive income tax." (Volume //, Part /, page 3J^9.)
And now, especially on the question of the "imme- diate" introduction of socialism, from the popular leaflet written by me in 1905: "Is it possible to introduce socialism in Russia im- mediately? No, our village is still too dark and too un- enlightened. There are too few real socialists among the 90 PERMANENT REVOLUTION IN PRACTISE peasants. First and foremost, the autocracy, which keeps the masses of the people in darkness, must be overthrown. The village poor must be freed of all taxation; the progres- sive income tax, universal compulsory education must be introduced; finally, the land proletariat and semi-proleta- riat must be united with the city proletariat into a social democratic army. Only such an army will be in a position to carry through the great socialist revolution." (Volume This almost sounds as though I did indeed differentiate between the democratic and socialist stages of the revolu- tion, long before even Stalin and Thalmann, and now Radek too, began to teach me this. Twenty-two years ago, I wrote: "When the idea of the uninterrupted revolution was formulated in the socialist press, a revolution which through growing social clashes, uprisings of ever new sec- tions of the people, incessant attacks of the proletariat upon the political and economic privileges of the ruling classes combines the liquidation of absolutism and serfdom with the socialist revolution, our 'progressive' pres$ unani- mously raised a furious howl." (Our Revolution, 1906, page 258.)
First of all, I should like to call attention to the defini- tion of the uninterrupted revolution contained in these words: it combines the liquidation 'of the Middle Ages with the socialist revolution through a series of growing social clashes. Where is the leap here? Where is the ignoring of the democratic stage? And isn't this what actually hap- pened in 1917?
Let us establish in passing that the howling of the "pro- gressive" press of 1905 over the uninterrupted revolution can stand no comparison with the in no way progressive howling of the present-day writers who have intervened in the affair after a brief delay of a quarter of a century.
What was the attitude of the then leading organ of the Bolshevik faction, Novaia Zhizn, which appeared under 91 PERMANENT REVOLUTION the vigilant editorship of Lenin, to the question of the permanent revolution raised by me in the press? Surely, the question is not devoid of interest. To the article of the "radical" bourgeois journal, Nasha Zhizn, which had endeavored to set up the "more rational" views of Lenin against the "permanent revolution" of Trotsky, the Bol- shevik Novaia Zhizn replied (on November 27, 1905): "This gratuitous report is of course sheer nonsense. Com- rade Trotsky said that the proletarian revolution, without standing still at the first stage, by pressing hard upon the exploiters, can continue on its road,.while Lenin pointed out that the political revolution is only the first step. The publicist of Nasha Zhizn would like to perceive a contra- diction there...The whole misunderstanding comes, first, from the fear with which the name alone of the social re- volution fills Nasha Zhizn, secondly, out of the desire of this paper to discover some sort of a sharp and piquant difference of opinion among the social democrats, and thirdly, in the metaphorical expression of comrade Trotsky: 'at one fell swoop 9. In No. 10 of Nathshalo, com- rade Trotsky explains his ideas quite unequivocally: " 'The complete victory of the revolution signifies the victory of the proletariat', writes comrade Trotsky. 'But this victory in turn signifies, the further uninterruptedness of the revolution. The proletariat realizes the fundamen- tal tasks of democracy and the logic of its immediate struggle for the safeguarding of political domination cau- ses purely socialist problems to arise at the given moment. Between the minimum and the maximum program of the social democracy, a revolutionary continuity is establish- ed. This is not one "blow", it is not one day and not a month, it is a whole historical epoch. It would be absurd to want to determine its duration in advance.' " This reference alone exhatists, to a certain degree, the theme of this brochure. Could all the subsequent criticism of the epigones be pushed aside in advance more clearly, more surely than was done in those of my newspaper arti- 92 PERMANENT REVOLUTION IN PRACTISE cles which Lenin's Novaia Zhizn quoted so approvingly? My article set forth that the victorious proletariat, in the process of the realization of the democratic tasks, would inevitably be confronted at a certain stage, by the logic of its position, by purely socialist problems. That is Just where the continuity lies between the minimum and maxi- mum programs, which grows inevitably out of the dictator- ship of the proletariat. This is not a blow, it is not a leap I explained to my critics in the camp of the petty bourgeoisie of that time it is a whole historical epoch. And Lenin's Novaia Zhizn associated itself completely with this perspective. Even more important, I hope, is the fact that the actual course of development tested it and in 1917 finally confirmed it as correct.
Outside of the petty bourgeois democrats of Nasfea Zhizn, it was mainly the Mensheviks who, in 1905 and particularly in 1906, after the defeat of the revolution had begun, spoke of the fantastic "leap" over democracy to socialism. Among the Mensheviks, it was especially Mar- tinov and the deceased Jordansky who distinguished themselves in this field. Both of them, be it said in pas- sing, later became stalwart Stalinists. To the Menshevik writers who sought to hang the "leap to socialism" on me, I expounded, in a special article written in 1906, in detail and popularly, not only the error but also the stupidity of such a contention, which I could reprint to- day, almost unabridged, against the criticism of the epi- gones. But it will perhaps suffice to say that the resume of the article reached its culminating point in the follow- ing words: "I understand quite well as I must needs assure my reviewer (Jordansky) that a publicistic leap over a poli- tical obstacle is far from signifying its practical surmoun- ting." (Volume //, Part /, page 454.)
Perhaps this will suffice? In case it does not I can continue so that my critics, like Radek, will not be able to refer to the fact that they did not have "at hand" 98 PERMANENT REVOLUTION that over which they pass judgment so cavalierly.
Our Tactic, the brochure written by me in prison in 1906 and published immediately by Lenin, is characteriz- ed by the following conclusion: "The proletariat will be able to support itself upon the uprising of the village and, in the cities, the centers of political life, it will be in a position to complete the affair it was able to begin. Supported by the peasant element and leading it, the proletariat will not only deal reaction the final triumphant blow, but it will also understand how to secure the victory of the revolution." (Volume II, Part I, page U8.)
Does this look like an ignoring of the peasantry?
In the same brochure, moreover, the following thought also is developed: "Our tactic, calculated upon the irresistible develop- ment of the revolution, must of course not ignore the in- evitable or the possible or even only the probable phases and stages of the revolutionary movement." (Volume II, Part I, page 436.)
Does this look like a fantastic leap?
In the article The Lessons of the First Soviets (1906), I depict the perspective of the further development of the revolution (or, as happened in reality, of the new re- volution) in the following manner: "History does not repeat itself and the new Soviet will not have to go through once more the events of the fifty days (October to December 1905); but for that it will be able to borrow its program of action completely from this period. This program is completely clear. Revolutio- nary cooperation with the army, the peasantry, and the lowest strata of the city petty bourgeoisie. 'Abolition of absolutism. Destruction of its material organization: par- tial rebuilding of its formations, partial dissolution of the army, destruction of the bureaucratic police apparatus, eight-hour day, arming of the population, above all of the proletariat. Transformation of the Soviets into organs of 94 PERMANENT REVOLUTION IN PRACTISE the revolutionary city self-administration. Creation of Soviets of peasants' deputies (peasant committees) on the land, as organs of the agrarian revolution, organization of the elections to the constituent assembly and electoral struggle on the basis of a definite labor program of the people's representatives." (Volume II, Part II, page 206.)
Does this look like a skipping of the agrarian revolution, or an underestimation of the peasant question as a whole? Does this look as though I did not see the demo- cratic tasks of the revolution? No, it does not. But what then does the political daubing of Radek look like? No- thing at all.
Graciously, but very ambiguously, Radek draws a line between my position of 1905, which he distorts, and the position of the Mensheviks, without it occurring to him that he is himself repeating three-fourths of the Menshe- Vik criticism: Even though Trotsky ^employed the same method as the Mensheviks, Radek explains jesuitically, his aim was nevertheless different. By this subjective des- cription, Radek completely discredits his own attitude on the question. Lassalle already knew that the aim depends upon the method and in the final analysis is conditioned by it. He even wrote a drama, as is known, on this theme (Franz von Sickingen). But in what lay the similarity of my method with that of the Mensheviks? In the attitude towards the peasantry. As evidence, Radek adduces three polemical lines out of the 1916 article by Lenin which I have already quoted, observing himself, however, in passing that here Lenin, although he names Trotsky, was in reality polemicizing against Bucharin and against him- self, that is, Radek, Besides this quotation from Radek which, as we have already seen, is refuted by the whole content of Lenin's article, Radek makes reference to Trotsky himself. Exposing the emptiness of the Menshevik conception, I asked in 1916 in an article: If it is not the liberal bourgeoisie that will lead, then who? You, Mens- heviks, do not at any rate believe in the independent 95 PERMANENT REVOLUTION political role of the peasantry. The Mensheviks had the view that it is "impermissible" to "repulse" the liberal bour- geoisie for the sake of a dubious and unreliable alliance with the peasantry. Thifc was the "method" of the Men- sheviks. While mine consisted of pushing the liberal bour- geoisie aside and fighting for the leadership of the revolu- tionary peasantry. In this fundamental question I had no differences with Lenin. 'And when I said to the Menshe- viks in the course of the struggle against them: "You least of all are prepared to assign a leading role to the peasantry", then this was no agreement with the method of the Mensheviks, as Radek seeks to insinuate, but rather a clear alternative: either the dictatorship of the liberal plutocracy or the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The same, completely correct argument that I made in 1916 against the Mensheviks, which Radek disloyally tries to utilize against me, also, was used by me nine years b- fore that, at the London Congress of 1907, when I defend- ed the theses of the Bolsheviks on the attitude towards the non-proletarian parties. I present here the fundamen- tal part of my London speech which, in the first years of the revolution, was often reprinted in anthologies and textbooks as the expression of the Bolshevik attitude to- wards the classes and the parties in the revolution: "To the comrades of the Menshevik ranks, their own views appear unusually complicated. I have repeatedly heard accusations from them that I have over-simplified the description of the course of the Russian revolution. Despite the external amorphousness, which invests it with that complex appearance indeed just because of this amor- phousness the views of the Mensheviks may be reduced to a very simple schema which should be accessible even to the understanding of Mr. Miliukov. ,. "In the postcript to the recently published book, Ho? Did the Elections to the Second State Duma Turn Out the ideological leader of the Cadet party writes: 'As to the Left groups in the narrower sense of the word, that 96 PERMANENT REVOLUTION IN PRACTISE is, the socialist and revolutionary groups, an agreement with them will be more difficult. But even here, again, there are, if not decidedly positive, then at least very weighty negative reasons which, up to a certain point, can facilitate an approach. Their aim is to criticize and to discredit us; for that alone it is necessary that we be pre- sent and act. As we know, to the socialists, not only in Russia, but throughout the world, the revolution now tak- ing place signifies a bourgeois and not a socialist revolu- tion: a revolution which is to be accomplished by the bourgeois democracy. To capture the place of this democ- racy...for this the socialists of the whole world have not prepared, and if the country has sent them into the Duma in such great numbers, tnen it was certainly not for the purpose of realizing- socialism now or in order to carry through the necessary "bourgeois" reforms with their own hands...It will consequently be more profitable for them to criticize the role of the parliamentarians.rather than to compromise themselves in the same role.'
"As we see, Miliukov leads us to the very heart of the question. The quotation cited gives all the most important elements of the Menshevik attitude towards the revolution and the relationship between bourgeois and socialist de- mocracy/' " 'The revolution that is taking place is a bourgeois and not a socialist revolution' that's the first thing. The bourgeois revolution 'must be realized by the bourgeois democracy' that's the second point. The socialist demo- cracy cannot carry through bourgeois reforms with its own hands, its role is a purely oppositional one: 'Criticize and discredit'. And finally as the fourth point in order for the socialists to obtain the possibility of remaining in the opposition, 'it is necessary that we (that geois democracy) be present and act'."
"And if 'we' are not present? And if geois democracy capable of marching bourgeois revolution? Then it must be PERMANENT BE VOLUTION just the conclusion to which Menshevism arrives. It builds up the bourgeois democracy, and its attributes and his- tory, out of its own imagination."
"As materialists, we must in the first place pose the question of the social bases of the bourgeois democracy: upon what strata and classes can it support itself?"
"It is needless to speak about the bourgeoisie as a revolutionary power on this we are all united. Lyons in- dustrialists, even in the great French revolution, which was a national revolution in the broadest sense of the term, played a counter-revolutionary role. But we are told about the middle bourgeoisie, and particularly of the petty bourgeoisie, as the leading force of the bourgeois revolution. But what does this petty bourgeoisie represent?"