II
ABOUT THE DUMA
The Controversy in the Press Over the Formation of an S-D [Social-Democrat] Faction in the State Duma.
The formation of a 21-member Social-Democratic faction within the State Duma is undoubtedly an important matter in the life and party alignment of our first parliament. One cannot but agree with Mr. G. Yollos, that “the fact of the formation of a particular workers’ party carries a serious significance: it should not be ignored just because the debut of these new individuals was not entirely successful.” [“Russkiye Vedomosti”, № 158]. Seemingly, there are no objections that can be raised against the Social-Democrats forming their faction, either in terms of form or substance. However, both of these types of objections have surfaced and, strange as it may seem, have come from the left — mainly from those who generally exaggerate the significance and role of the workers’ group in the Duma, idealizing the group in every way possible. These objections originate in the certainty that the formation of an independent Social-Democratic faction will weaken the workers’ group as the exponent of “the revolutionary mood of the country” and as the representative of the “unity of the far left elements in the Duma.” In “Mysl’” [№ 1], formal claims were made indicating the duplicitous make-up of this new faction which threatens its solidarity. It was concluded that the faction is made up of members from the Caucasus who entered the election under the Social-Democratic banner. Of these, 14 are workers’ Deputies who entered the Duma “despite the boycott by revolutionary parties”, meaning that they were not members of the party. These indications do not seem significant to us to any degree. In terms of the conspiratorial life of the leftist parties — their organization, their influence over the broad masses, their party discipline — all of this is entirely relative. Those Delegates who entered the Duma under some specific party banner would find it uncomfortable to side with the Social-Democratic Party in the Duma but, as far as we can tell, this was not the case with a single one of the 14 Deputies who, from the State Duma’s earliest days, clearly showed their inclination to align themselves under the Social-Democratic banner. For any attentive observer of the State Duma’s proceedings, it would be quite obvious that the question regarding the organization of a Social-Democratic faction is a question of leaders, of which there were none among the 14 Deputies in the group. The question was successfully resolved when the Social-Democratic delegates from the Caucasus arrived in the State Duma…
Mr. Vodovozov reacted angrily to the formation of the Social-Democratic faction, seeing it as “a mistake, reminiscent of their first mistake” which concluded with the decision to boycott the election. In “Nasha Zhizn’” [№ 475], Mr. Vodovozov writes, “Breaking apart the workers’ group, they deprive it of that character, that significance which it possessed up until now: the character and significance of the Duma’s true exponent of the actual revolutionary mood of all workers, peasants, and the struggling masses.” The workers in the Duma, Mr. Vodovozov assures us, made errors more than once, in tow behind the Kadets “at the very time when they should have and, it seems, could draw them behind themselves as a group, truly expressing the revolutionary mood of the country.” “And along with that, the entire course of the Duma’s sessions proves that the Kadets instinctively feel a strength to their left, not yet fully formed, and which, with deft parliamentary methods, might be made to serve them, but a strength that is mighty and dangerous: a strength which will not be content for long with a parody of parliamentarianism.” We hope that Mr. Vodovozov did not mean to say that the Kadets see a danger in the strength of the workers’ group and its inability to “be content with a parody of parliamentarianism”? And, in general, we do not understand where Mr. V. Vodovozov saw that the Kadets sense a dangerous strength in the workers’ group? This is his secret; he does not reveal it to his readers. “To serve them” — neither with deft parliamentary “methods” nor with any other means has the Peoples’ Freedom Party forced anyone or even considered doing so. If all of the Party’s considerations in the Duma have brought about and bring about the establishment of solidarity by tactics which seem the most expedient in the fight to create true parliamentarianism instead of its parody, it is only because this is how they can best serve the Peoples’ Freedom Party since the struggle for true parliamentarianism forms its essence, its soul. We believe that since the cause of Russian freedom depends on the will, the aspirations and, in general, the work of the Peoples’ Freedom Party, this cause can be considered secure: sooner or later the party will be organically incapable of “contenting themselves with a parody of parliamentarianism.” In the Duma, the Peoples’ Freedom Party never saw any danger in party groupings of politically like-minded members who held opinions in contrast to its own. In particular, the party never displayed any desire to encroach upon the independence of the workers’ group, or to “haul it along in tow.” And now, the Peoples’ Freedom Party welcomes the formation of the Social-Democratic faction whole-heartedly. There is absolutely nothing against grouping according to party affiliation or policy: there is no danger in elucidating all socio-political orientations, as long as party groups do not place their own special concerns and interests above any common national ones. Mr. Vodovozov overstates the “mighty” strength of the workers, he exaggerates the significance of the leftist elements’ unity within the Duma under the banner of this group. “Mighty strength” should lie not in some parliamentary faction or other, but in the Duma as a whole, as the national popular government. Party organizations do not interfere at all with the formation of this “might” as long as they do not interfere with the necessary solidarity needed to advocate for the peoples’ basic rights. The historical national problems that we are currently going through are the first priority: nothing must stand in the way of the unity needed to fight for their successful resolution. Back in 1888, one of the ideological forerunners of the Peoples’ Freedom Party put it very well: “A unanimous denial of the old order and a distinct demand for new institutions, clearly recognized by society, always disarms the most reactionary of governments.” (M. Dragomanov, “Zemsky Liberalizm v Rossii.”) Those who clearly recognize the State Duma’s historic mission understand the full meaning of the slogan, “Strike together”. They understand the significance of solidarity and they observe the conversations about who is hauling whom in tow as ludicrous and criminal localisms. They disapprove of these attempts to artificially separate those who still have a long time to walk the road together. The danger is not in the organization of parties, groups, or factions, but in any false tactics assimilated by them. If they come into conflict there, where their solidarity is needed, the pursuit of national freedom is lost… But this is not at all inevitable. In particular, the Social-Democratic faction acknowledges “its solidarity with all other classes in pursuing the achievement of political freedom.” If this is the basis of its parliamentary tactics, then all negative reactions to the organization of a separate Social-Democratic faction will be rendered meaningless. From our point of view, we welcome the creation of a parliamentary Social-Democratic faction because we believe this experience should play a significant and important future role in the life of the Social-Democratic Party as a whole. Taking part in parliamentary life first-hand, this faction will allow its Party to move away from the party organism that, with its foreign accretions, was formulated on the German Social-Democratic model with its wide and deep influence on political life. And this will facilitate the task, posed to the new parliamentary faction by Mr. Yollos, of giving “true supporters of social reform the ability to find out precisely that which they do not know: the psychology of the labouring masses and their most pressing needs.” Finally, the statement by Mr. Vodovozov loses significance by saying that according to Duma legislation, 30 signatories are needed for each draft law and inquiry and, since the Social-Democratic party has only 21 representatives in the Duma, it “is doomed in the Duma, no matter how much it acts on its own”… it is almost completely powerless. The isolation of the Social-Democrats as a party does not in any way interfere with them easily finding 9 signatories for their draft laws and inquiries… In the end, it is entirely possible that the group will expand to 30 individuals: the entire Duma has not yet arranged itself according to party membership, and its current members have not yet settled their political self-determination…
We repeat once more that the fact of the Social-Democratic Party’s organization in the Duma in no way impedes the possibility of solidarity in the Duma as it fights for the peoples’ freedom. An active striving toward the creation and consolidation of this solidarity must be the aim of all groups and parties within the Duma. An aspiration to such unity makes up the entire meaning and the content of every tactic of the Peoples’ Freedom Party.
The Lawfulness of the Government
Without doubt, lawfulness is one of the most important foundations of any normal civil society. But when they speak of lawfulness under martial law, under enhanced and emergency security measures, it naturally feels sinister to the average man in the street since all of these exceptional measures legitimize lawlessness and tyranny. As early as 13 May, the Minister of Justice, Mr. Shcheglovitov made a sweetly-worded promise in the name of the Goremykin Cabinet that lawfulness would be strictly observed. When answering a question in the Duma on 9 June, he gave us a very clear understanding of what this lawfulness implied. Two under-aged youths had beaten a teacher and, by order of the Governor-General, the case was removed from civil court and transferred to military court in conformity with Article 279 of the Military Charter… This is lawful, for Governor-Generals are given the right to pass on all criminal cases to military courts for trial during times of martial law. If the military court views the beating as an attempted murder, and the two youths are sentenced to death and executed, this will all be lawful. Social consciousness may rise in indignation and exasperation, but the Messrs. Ministers will calmly answer this outcry by saying it is lawful, — dura lex, sed — lex! [tr. The law is hard, but it is the law]… And under the impact of these extraordinary measures, all of Russian life is a continuous revelry of unchecked tyranny. The administration is allotted extraordinarily wide powers. These are incapable of establishing order but, without doubt, they do create anarchy. Mr. Shcheglovitov benevolently agreed that our current laws are poor but we need to reckon with them, he said, until they have been replaced with better ones. But it would not take a long time for the administration to lift all of the extraordinary measures, thus abolishing the effect of even the bad laws. Why haven’t any of these extraordinary measures been lifted up until now? The answer is simple: because a bureaucratic government does not see how it can possibly rule without tyranny and violence. If, one fine day, a rule was added to the list of basic laws that every governor, policeman, bailiff and guard had the right to do everything they deemed necessary in the name of maintaining “order” (in fact, our present-day reality is completely governed by this rule), then nothing would stand in Mr. Shcheglovitov’s way when he speaks of “the lawfulness of the government.” All kinds of nonsense would be lawful…
But such “lawfulness of government” leads the country to those terrible upheavals which are unknown where lawfulness is, in fact, the highest blessing of citizenship…
Nightmare
For modern consciousness, the death penalty — is a nightmare. When arguments are made for its necessity, for its expediency, how pitiful, how blasphemous is the reasoning of those who defend it. In the State Duma, Mr. Sposobny argued for the death penalty “from the gastronomical point of view.” In the journal “Novoye Vremya”, Mr. A. Stolypin refers to some lists from the Police Department and… the Gospel. The lists from the Police Department contend that in Riga, since the introduction of martial law — that is, since the time the death penalty was applied to political murders — these murders ceased… The Gospel says: “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword”, and Mr. Stolypin concluded that the death penalty for murder is an evangelical act. One cannot scoff more cynically at logic, or facts that are obvious to everyone, or Christian teachings… Martial law, the death penalty — do these put an end to political assassinations? So why hasn’t the epidemic of assassinations stopped by now? Have too few been put to death? Does the Gospel sanctify… the death penalty? Was there not, for Mr. Stolypin, along with the lists from the Police Department proving the expediency of the death penalty, the addition of the Gospel, corrected and supplemented by the Police Department? — the Gospel of those who are “townsmen and cavalry sergeant majors by upbringing, but pogromshchiks by conviction”?, the Gospel of the publicists who sing their praises and affirm their power?.. And the preacher of such a “Gospel” dares to reproach the State Duma for refusing to “condemn” political assassinations! Hypocritically, he does not understand the truth pointed out in the Duma by Mr. Kuzmin-Karavayev: “Political assassinations cannot stop as long as the death penalty exists”… They sowed the seeds of assassination across the country with their ignorant and blind politics, seeds of an ever-growing anarchy, and when the seeds germinated they learned the vulgar and hypocritical phrase by rote: “let them start first!”..
Uttering this phrase, they cynically admit that the government does not ‘execute’, but ‘murders’, putting state power on par with the murderers. And there is a terrible truth in this. When they speak of “execution without trial,” they obviously misuse these words since, without a trial, there can be no execution. There is only villainy. Having read the story of the “Golutvinsky atrocities”, and the exploits of Riman, we are aware that we are dealing with a crime, with the triumph of the man-beast, unpunished only because they signal the corruption, the decay of power.
No one names these shameful acts as lawful; their nature is in violation of every law, both God’s and man’s. The idea of execution is, after all, a legal idea. But modern consciousness has outgrown the permissibility of execution as a punishment and the death penalty still makes a person’s blood run cold. A judge who passes a death sentence is a murderer, even though he acts according to the law. Consciousness cannot reconcile itself with this order of things. It has adopted the unquestionable truth that “to be killed for having killed is a disproportionately larger punishment than the crime itself. Murder by verdict is disproportionately more terrible than murder by plunder.” (Dostoyevsky, “The Idiot”). Looked at from any point of view, murder and the death penalty are incommensurate, not least from the primary view of the victim’s torment. Murder takes the victim unawares, without warning; there is no time to think about what is taking place. From this standpoint, death sentences without trial — that is, unlawful executions — are more humane than lawful executions by verdict which force the felon to suffer through all the stages of legal procedure. Through the words of Prince Myshkin, Dostoyevsky speaks rightly of those awaiting execution: “You see, the most important, the most powerful pain, is that one knows that certainly, within an hour, and then within ten minutes, and then within half a minute, and then at this moment — the soul will fly from the body, and one will no longer exist as a man, and that this is an actual certainty; the most important thing is that it is certain.” (“The Idiot”). The murderer is blinded by passion, he is in danger, in the end he takes the risk; we allow that occasionally the murderer lacks all human feeling. But what can be said of laws that turn those into murderers who find themselves in no danger, who conduct themselves calmly, people who we suppose do not lack human feeling? What can we say of those who are forced to become virtual murderers (judges and executioners) by conscientious fulfillment of their obligation to others? The existence of laws such as these undermines respect for the law and for rights. Such laws should invoke that same horror, that same contempt and repugnance that is provoked by the one who fulfills them — the executioner. The executioner invokes repugnance. And the judge forces the executioner to do his work… And the publicists approve of this work with references to lists from the Police Department and… the Gospel?..
Lists from the Police Department testify that applying the death penalty stops the hand of the assassin?.. This assertion contradicts the sad facts of Russian reality, it argues against universally known facts and statistics.
Mr. Stolypin demands the “condemnation” of political assassinations. Does he not know that a large number of assassins themselves condemn these acts? How can he not know the horror of Russian life, which incites many noble people to murder and for whom it is easier to go to the gallows than to kill? Does he not know that they sentenced themselves to the death penalty, deciding on assassination and then calmly going to their execution, to which they were condemned by the court? Does he not know that, if human life has become cheapened in Russia and assassinations occur daily in terrible numbers, then that anarchy which creates the collapse of respect for laws and rights is to blame? Does he not know that this respect was killed by the courts, which have turned to slaughter? Does he not understand that in order to put an end to this nightmare of Russian life, no moral condemnation can be made until the governing power becomes ashamed of its likeness to the assassins?
The Minister of Justice supposes that “ the abolition of the death penalty would signify a rejection by the government of its role as protector of its faithful sons.” But it is absolutely clear that the death penalty never protected anyone. Its use for the sake of “protection”, contrary to moral consciousness, turns the government into a murderer and makes ready its downfall. But the death penalty is not only murder, it is worse, more terrible than murder: they commit it calmly, thoughtfully, with all of the power that is found in the government’s hands. The death penalty — this is bloodthirsty vengeance…
We do not condone assassination from the moral perspective. We see it as disastrous from the point of view of political expediency. But we recognize any “condemnation” as useless and rather tactless politically. And, most importantly, — we are certain that “assassinations cannot be stopped while the death penalty exists”…
The death penalty is the nightmare of Russian life.
Down with the death penalty!
The Question of a Peasant Union Within the State Duma
As is widely known, the organization of a Peasant Union met with the most bitter and severe persecution: even now many activists for the Union languish in prisons. The State Duma could not ignore these persecutions since, besides their lawlessness, and from the point of view of expediency and a correct understanding of the state’s task, one cannot but see that the guarantee of peaceful renewal for Russia lies in organizing the social forces of the country. During the debates about the question of a Peasant Union, The Vice-Chairman of the State Duma, Prince P.D. Dolgorukov, admitted to a heavy weight on his conscience since he was aware that some of those who had worked along with him to organize such a Union were still in prison… And we were reminded of Prince Dolgorukov’s articles, published in “Prava” under the title “The Agrarian Wave”, which drew an uncommonly detailed picture of the scandalous absurdity of the persecutions which were raised against the Union. There is no doubt that a peasant organization would be a factor of extreme political import, furthering the reorganization of the entire state structure to a significant extent. The Duma member L.N. Yasnopolsky was absolutely correct when he pointed out that the government, by fighting against the idea of a Peasant Union, admitted its own weakness. The impotence of fighting against an idea did not hinder that intractable malice which dashed the possibility of a peaceful solution to the historical drama we are currently experiencing. The workers’ group in the State Duma, if it does not put aside its own preconceived notions, cannot act as the mouthpiece for the peasants’ moods or their aspirations. According to the workers’ group’s leaders, these moods and aspirations should aim in the direction which, in their view, is mostly or even entirely in line with national interests. But the leaders of this group cannot give their assurance that these are the actual moods and aspirations of the peasants. They themselves stand at a distance from the genuine peasantry, both psychologically and in terms of its entire spiritual order. Finally, even the peasants’ theory of social justice, from the point of view of its true alignment with national interests, is not indisputable. Radicalism and determination do not always guarantee confidence that the most valuable goods are being conveyed under their flag. It seems to many, for example, that the confiscation of land without payment is summum — devotion to the peasants’ interests. Meanwhile, one cannot but agree with Mr. Turan-Baranovsky (Ukrainskii Vestnik” № 4), that “the confiscation of land, while denying the payment of debts owed on that land, is without doubt the most expensive way for the people to get their land back. Therefore, in the end, this method is bound to throw the whole of Russia’s national economy into disorder.” We are convinced that a free peasant organization, either as a union or as a party, would be the most reliable bulwark against demagoguery. This is why it seems to us that state interests demand the granting of freedom to political groups and formations. Forced underground, the healthy seeds of a social movement might be perverted. A Peasant Union, or Peasant Party would also contribute to a more defined position for the workers’ group, giving it a firmer foundation. It would be protected from all kinds of chance influences, nourished by living contact with organized people. We would have an authentic expression of the peoples’ will, rather than a pretence of this expression by those elements who, on occasion, stand at quite a distance from the people.
The Legalization of the Peoples’ Freedom Party*
*) This note was written in response to a newspaper article that was found to be unreliable.
Up until now, the position of the Peoples’ Freedom Party has remained completely irregular. Having a huge number of its own representatives in the State Duma, having a complex and broad party organization throughout the country, the Party remained a completely illegal entity. In its implementation and activities, it was often dependent on the discretion of separate representatives
of the administration. It is known that “every Baron has his own fantasy”. And it was enough for some “baronial” fantasy to find that the Peoples’ Freedom Party is a revolutionary Party and thus subject to eradication in the “Baron’s” satrap — whether it be called a province, a town, or a district is all the same — so that furthering the Party’s activities became completely impossible. The electoral period was the time of greatest tension, a time when “baronial” fantasies were in bloom. Yet, after the elections it was left to the various Party organs to take on the responsibility of an important and crucial task, or better yet, a whole complex of tasks: to acquaint the people with the work of the State Duma, and to organize public opinion in support of the Duma in its fight with the bureaucratic stronghold of tyranny etc…
Solving these problems was almost impossible in the face of administrative constraints founded on “baronial” fantasies and whims. That is why we cannot but welcome the successful legalization of the Peoples’ Freedom Party, granting it the legal right to exist not only as a central Party organization, but also as a provincial one. We know that under the lawless regime which still weighs down upon this miserable country, the dodgy “Baron’s” fantasy does not give up without a fight. Forced to yield to the law, they will place obstacles before the Peoples’ Freedom Party as its enemies, using back-room intrigue and provocative tricks. The members of the Peoples’ Freedom Party must seize this opportunity energetically and establish their Party’s legalization in order to develop the most intensive campaigns among the broad masses of the population. In the soul of the Party, there lies the desire to create a system in which all “baronial” fantasies will lose their power over the lives of the people, where social and political life will be regulated by laws alone, created by the will of popular government. To achieve this kind of order, what is presently needed is solidarity, solidarity, and more solidarity!
Mr. Lokot’ Grows Angry…
T. Lokot’, a member of the State Duma, became angry with, as he expressed it, the “good manners” of the Kadets… In place of arguments, of which there are none anywhere in his article “The Good Manners of the Kadets and the Obstruction of the Workers” (“Nasha Zhizn’” № 479), the piece is filled with the ringing brass of shouts: “Pathetic logic; pathetic “power”; pathetic understanding of the dignity of popular government; pathetic “parliamentary” tactics!” (the irony of the quotation marks and the wrath of the exclamation mark are meant to absolutely shatter the “well-mannered” Kadets.) In unison with Mr. Lokot’, we could write, “pathetic polemics!”… etc. about his article, but one may venture to ask what aim is served by such writing? Or Mr. Lokot’ supposes that even in journalism, a surplus of feeling (and can there be any doubt as to his surplus of anger against the Kadets?) demands a special language?
…”In the moment” Mr. Lokot’ writes, “when insults reach the popular government, the Duma cannot remain calm, but must speak in the same language as the one being used by the workers’ group”… We are no longer speaking about the absurd claim to teach the Duma which language it should use in response to insults (this claim, truly, is absurd and even more than absurd!).
It is in vain that Mr. Lokot’ chose to evaluate tactics in terms of good or bad manners, good or bad upbringing. The orators of the Peoples’ Freedom Party did not take this perspective. When Mr. Lokot’ assures us that the Kadets came forward against the workers’ group “with a declaration of their own good manners”, he completely misconstrues the meaning of what went on in the State Duma during discussions of the scandalous use of force by the police against the deputy Sedelnikov. The point is not at all in the tone of the speeches delivered in the Duma, although the use of strong expressions, even approaching insults and name-calling, is not evidence of an extreme reaction to insults. The matter lies more with those statements made by the Deputy Aladin in the name of the workers’ group and against whose content the representatives of the Peoples’ Freedom Party protested. The tactics of his comrades in the workers’ group may seem to Mr. Lokot’ to be more dignified and more expedient than the tactics of the Kadets, but let him prove their matchless dignity and expediency with arguments rather than mere words. He only needs to succeed in proving that the tactics of his comrades are stronger and respond more immediately to Russian reality, with its living impressions of horror and outrage! It is difficult to determine the extent of a person’s depth of feeling. But from the outside, as much as this may seem strange to Mr. Lokot’, the calm and confident restraint of Mr. Nabokov, whose stand against Aladin seems so inappropriate to Mr. Lokot’, seems to us more immediately filled with emotion than the artificial effects of Mr. Aladin and the exclamation marks of Mr. Lokot’ himself. We do not suspect the sincerity of the latter’s indignation, but his rhetoric leaves us cold, no matter how often he cries out “about deeply insulted human dignity.” How individuals react to assaults on human dignity depends on many things: for example, on their spiritual state, their temperament — to a certain extent, of course, — and on their upbringing… But political tactics, generally speaking, do not build themselves on this or that response to insult. And in particular, the tactical decision — to not permit the Ministers to speak on certain occasions — contains no more immediacy in itself than the tactical position taken by Mr. Nabokov and his Party colleagues. As to expediency and to what extent the decision conforms with the dignity of the Duma, that… we will speak of when Mr. Lokot’ also offers his arguments in support of the decision which, today, he hotly defends (with exclamation marks) in terms of immediacy, regarding events from which he was, perhaps, absent.
Defenders of the Death Penalty
The State Duma’s first bill has been received by the State Council. It is not by chance that this was the bill to abolish capital punishment, unanimously approved by the State Duma. The first law to be adopted by a popular government must be an act of statesmanship and inspired by a noble impulse of magnanimous feelings — to put an end to the madness of bloodshed and the horrors of murder by law. The national conscience demands the abolition of barbarism, the abolition of the death penalty. In the Duma, the vote for the bill to abolish the death penalty was unanimous… In the State Council, voices were heard clearly confirming that it was not blind doctrinairism that caused them to believe that the system of popular representation established by law on 20 February was inadequate.
Kasatkin-Rostovsky, von-Kramer, Goncharev, Samarin, and the Archpriest Butkevich raised their voices in defence of that evil act, in defence of the death penalty.
How wretched, how blasphemous were their arguments! Von-Kramer said that the revolution can only be crushed by brute force, not understanding that it is precisely the triumph of brute force that creates revolution… The priest Butkevich assured us that Christ was not an opponent of the death penalty… Kasatkin-Rostovsky maintained that he could refute the scientific facts and recounted some Black Hundreds nonsense in the style of the hooligans’ leaflets, slandering the Russian people. Butlerov considered that the death penalty does not need to be abolished, but regulated… And with this a snake’s hiss against the State Duma could be heard, forcing the chairman to stop these various speakers.
Quem Deus perdere vult, — dementat [tr. Those who God wishes to destroy — he first deprives of reason]… is all that can be said about these blind and blasphemous speeches… The State Council received this bill from the Duma under recognized restrictions. The Upper Chamber could not reject the Duma’s bill because, by voting against the abolition of the death penalty, the State Council would sign its own death sentence. If we look at the decision of the State Council from this perspective, then we must admit that a stronger agitational method against the Council, the Second Chamber, could not be thought of by its bitterest enemies than a vote against the abolition of the death penalty. Modern consciousness cannot tolerate this remnant of barbarism and the death penalty should be and will be abolished!
Or we will move forward, step by step, to a complete degradation of the state and the triumph of anarchy…
Wisdom and patriotism command us with sovereign authority not to oppose the will of our popular representatives.
But, generally speaking, do they really have wisdom?, is patriotism not foreign to them?
The Government and the Press
During a conversation with a Reuters correspondent from London, D.F. Trepov expressed a very flattering opinion of the press’s strength: “The main strength of the revolution, in his opinion, consists in its now having almost the entire press at its disposal.” A person as resolute as D.F. Trepov, who not so long ago gave his historical order to “spare no cartridges”, would not be inclined to spare the press. One fine day, all of its organs would run the danger of ending their precarious existence, if D.F. Trepov was looking at things superficially and expecting beneficial consequences from an automatic cessation of the press organs feeding the revolution. However, it turns out that D.F. Trepov is looking at things almost “at their root”… The trouble is not that there is a revolutionary press. The trouble, so he complains to the correspondent from The Daily Telegraph, is “that in Russia there is not one honest, decent newspaper that will take a stand in defence of the government.” This, without doubt, is a very valuable admission! The reptilian press, shedding its skin in order to oblige whoever comes next, is not recognized by those it serves so zealously (yet not unselfishly), as honest and decent. And it turns out that the “revolution’s strength” does not lie in having the press at its disposal at all, but in the fact that the current government’s affairs are such that not a single honest, decent organ of the press will take a stand in its defence. Truly, with such a morally decadent government, hardly anything can be achieved through administrative and police repression of an honest, decent press. Count Witte, in vain, tried to create an honest newspaper out of “Russkoye Gosudarstvo”. And, of course, Mr. Stolypin will be no more successful in this regard, informing the Governors by memo that the Council of Ministers had chosen the paper “Rossiya” for the communication of “true, factual information about all of the most important questions and events” so that through this paper “it would be possible to get information about the actual views and suppositions of the government.” With only memos, even the Minister of Internal Affairs, “with all of his might”, cannot create honesty and decency. But here, the issue is not so much the weakness of memos, as it is the hopelessness of that which is being defended. Reading in “Rossiya” — “we cannot but mark the foolish activities of those individuals who, clothing themselves in the mantle of representatives of the people, attempt to carry the country into the abyss of anarchy,” one begins to understand perfectly why “there isn’t a single honest and decent newspaper which will take a stand in defence of the government”… “The actual views of the government” make this morally impossible.
Only a reptilian press arises in defence of such a government… An honest and decent press distinguishes itself by piously keeping the commandment — “The word must be treated honestly”…
The Union of Autonomists and National Factions in the State Duma
From the earliest days of its active work, representatives of separate nationalities began to form special unions in the State Duma — national factions which later amalgamated into a Union of Autonomists. V. Shemet says that “the question of forming a Ukrainian parliamentary faction within the State Duma was decided long before this, still in the provinces. It was for this purpose that several Ukrainian deputies were given their mandate by their constituents.” (“Ukr. Vestn. № 2). And it seemed to us that the formation of national parliamentary factions, testifying to the vitality of national aspirations, cannot call up any objections from the defenders and supporters of “broad regional and autonomous national self-government and separate provinces in our vast empire.” However, Mr. K. Arabazhin, identifying himself as a supporter of the autonomists’ goal (“Nasha Zhizn”, № 471), finds such an objection. He contends that groupings “along national lines” — in the name of national autonomy — “are, beyond any doubt, artificial.” Mr. Arabazhin thinks that such an attempt at national “unity” would only achieve an “obscuring of class consciousness with which we cannot be in sympathy.” If the idea of nationhood represents “the obscuring of class consciousness”, then Mr. Arabazhin, of course, is correct, as are all of his subsequent conclusions. But you see, Mr. Arabazhin also admits the desirability of this unity “since it is the means to a simultaneous and friendly onslaught.” And since he is a supporter of the “autonomous self-government of nationalities”, then it would seem inconsistent to deny the national groups and the single general union of nationalities that have formed in the Duma their natural course. They strive to apply a “simultaneous and friendly onslaught” in their struggle to satisfy — in the language of a Duma address — “the urgent demands of the individual nationalities that cannot be put off.” It is true, Mr. Arabazhin attaches a reservation to the desirability of a nationalist union as the means to “ a simultaneous and friendly onslaught” — “It must not become a hegemony by some sort of privileged class over others; it must not act as a restraint in questions of programmes and tactics.” We will not argue against this, but the formation of national factions does not aim to give a “hegemony” to any privileged class. One of the members of the Union of Autonomists, Mr. Shrag, speaks to this point most decidedly: “National groups, just as individual Deputies, joining a parliamentary faction, combine their efforts in defence of the principles of autonomy and broad national self-determination. The parliamentary faction of members of this union does not see itself as a party, joined together by a general programme that encompasses all political, economic, and social issues. Rather, it sees itself only as a “faction”, and many autonomists who are affiliated with it remain members of their own parties, formed within the Duma, joining whichever one of them best approaches their own views on general political, economic, or social questions.” (“Ukr. Vestn.”, № 1). Mr. Arabazhin’s claim that “the Union of Autonomists, for the present, has been reactionary, strengthening the so-called “moderate” forces in the Duma” is completely unsubstantiated and has no basis. His assurance that “subsequently, the reactionary character of the nationalist clubs will manifest itself more vividly” is founded on evidence whose entire strength depends on its arbitrariness. “As is known, 19 members of the Ukrainian Club belong to the Peoples’ Freedom Party, 15 to the workers’ group. Let us assume that there are 5 such clubs with similar numbers relating to party strengths. If these clubs establish the same obligatory party discipline [underlined by the author) as that which is already established, for example, with the Poles — up to 75 members (5 X 15) will be compelled to add their support to the K-D Party’s agrarian resolution, rather than siding with the Workers.” Only one thing is made evident by this example. The Poles have taken the wrong path. That is, with the drawing up of an obligatory club discipline they have stepped away from that principle adopted by the Union of Autonomists which has been noted above by Shrag and which, in our opinion, is especially important. If this principle is adhered to by all national factions, there will be no danger that a “virtual minority in the Duma will be able to exert control as a parliamentary majority with the help of the national clubs”. And “a union of diverse popular representatives in a single club based on their national identity” will never amount to being an instrument in the hands of the nation’s reactionary and bourgeois elements. Reasoning further along these lines, one can even arrive at the denial of parliamentarianism, since the creation of a national or governmental unity “through the organ of popular government can be interpreted as the ‘obscuring of class consciousness’”. But apparently Mr. Arabazhin does not value this logical extension of the theory of class struggle?
The historical conditions in which the State Duma has been called forth to accomplish its great mission are such that what is required from the mindful elements of all classes and all national groups, more than anything else, is solidarity. Paraphrasing the famous words of Danton, we will say that in order to defeat the enemies of our motherland, we need solidarity, more solidarity, and more solidarity!.. It is highly likely that the Union of Autonomists and the national factions, in pursuit of their own particular goals, will not be fated to play an important political role in the first State Duma to any extent. One can think of nothing — neither gratifying urgent demands of separate nationalities, nor solving the agrarian question, nor anything else — which is as important for calming the entire nation so agitated by the flames of revolution as addressing the historical problem of the moment by strengthening and consolidating a properly functioning democratic parliament.
Only political tact and a healthy sense of realism can guide to what extent and by what steps certain national demands are asserted. And for the collective whole, it is much easier and more natural for the factions, the Union, to define these measures and steps.
For this alone, the formation of national groups in the Duma is necessary. We are not speaking of those minor cultural questions which determine or, at least, outline which national factions or their union carry most force. In particular, the parliamentary national factions are able to bring their own important work to the elaboration of the agrarian question. For us, the working out of the agrarian question does not come down to a vote for the K-D Party bill, or that of the workers’ group. Within the factions, as in the Duma, we may expect collaboration between the K-D Party and the workers’ group. Their irreconcilability originates only in the demagogic efforts of those who unswervingly adhere to a narrowly understood doctrine of class struggle, seeing devotion to the progress of class consciousness in artificial exaggerations of often non-existent disagreements. A portion of the work which will be needed to address the agrarian question and which must be done in the provinces can already now be carried out by the efforts and labours of the national factions. At the same time, since national demands, in and of themselves, will be satisfied as a result of the consistent progress of democracy, we cannot allow the contraband of class-based desires to be smuggled in under the banner of national necessity. The formation of these national factions leads us to require a revision of the programme. Opponents of democracy, landowners, and supporters of the social status quo in general should not be granted admission to the national factions. If such a request is observed, there would be no reason to expect any reactionary results from the formation of national factions and no reason to break up existing parties into several national factions, as Mr. Arabazhin has suggested we do. The national factions of separate parties, even of large parties, will often be absurdly small groups; the representatives of a single nationality will break up into many other factions and such a group would be devoid of any purport or meaning, not only in supporting “the business of autonomy” but anything else there may be.
The Kadets’ “Unreliability”
In Shchedrin’s “Pompadours and Pompadouresses” there is an immortal scene in which the conditions of Russian society are given a certain symbolic meaning much broader than the author had originally intended. On the eve of the nobility’s elections, the pompadour, passionately wishing to ‘ruin’ the Marshall of the Nobility whom he hated, resorted to a particular “machiavellianism”: he took the Marshall by the arm and kept him in “friendly” conversation for quite some time. The next day, the Marshall “was taken for a ride”… General D.F. Trepov displayed a no less shrewd machiavellianism when he expressed his views of the “Kadets” during an interview with some journalists. And those politicians and publicists who were caught by this bait turned out to be no less astute than Shchedrin’s nobility: they could not deny themselves the pleasure, whether opportunity presented itself or not, of speaking of the “Kadet’s” inclination to “sell the peoples’ freedom”… At the same time, some began to speak of it frankly and openly, in black and white. But that which seems natural for ardent ‘Bolsheviks’ is unforgivable in more serious politicians. Because of this, it was with no small wonder that we read the article by V.H.V. in “Nasha Zhizn” (№ 487): “What Kind of Ministry Should Be Expected”. The author clothed his “doubts” regarding the “Kadets” and their “trustworthiness” in a negative form: “We think too well of the Kadets to suppose they are capable of going into a joint ministry, agreeing to keep exceptional laws, the death penalty, and other delights of the existing regime. Besides, this would be extremely unwise on the part of the Kadets. For they”… Let’s not follow up on the evidence showing why this would be “unwise”… We believe that thinking “well”, and even “too well” of someone is not motivated in this way… It would be better to say “the Kadet traitors”, than make assurances about one’s own conviction that the Kadets could not become reconciled with the “delights of the existing regime.” Truly, the Kadets do not need this kind of “certificate of trustworthiness.”
The machiavellianism of Shchedrin’s “pompadour”, even in the hands of General Trepov, catches only unsophisticated, artless Russian politicians.
7 July
In the journal “Rech’”, the leader of the Peoples’ Freedom Party P. N. Milyukov, in answer to an open letter by N.I. Kulyabko-Koretsky (“Rech’”, № 117), states with melancholy that “the political mood, illusive and intangible, unhappily has begun to align itself against the Peoples’ Freedom Party through, I believe, no fault of its own.” With regret, it is difficult to dispute the characterization which P.N. Milyukov gives the “political mood” and, truly, this mood threatens not to bode well. But whatever happens, whatever direction events take in the future — events which already throw their shadows over us — the Peoples’ Freedom Party can console itself with the fact that “conscious of vital skills and practices, it laid down the primary and essential groundwork for the strengthening of political freedom”. But what is more definite and more precise is that, while the Peoples’ Freedom Party may lose its “shining” reputation, and might even leave the stage of political struggle that we are experiencing in this historical moment, in the end, it can celebrate its triumph and the realization of its programmes. Not to believe this would be, for us, a rejection of faith in the great future of our motherland, which we love wholeheartedly. Let the “patriots” from “Novaya Vremya”, under the direction of A.S. Suvorin himself, tell lies and spread slander, as do “publicists” such as Mr. A. St—n, inspired by various documents from the Police Department to which they have access through “family ties” and, most likely, personal inclination. Let the sincere but blind, ardent defenders of workers’ interests speak of “treason”. History will speak its honest, truthful word about those who defended their difficult positions out of duty to their conscience and reason. This position will not be given up without a struggle during which, perhaps, many will join together. We must throw aside the conventional and false, superficial labels of “left”, “right”, and “moderate”. We need to look deeper, we need to try and understand the heart of the matter. The “moderation” of the Kadets, their tactical opportunism are full of rebellious emotions, full of anger and sorrow. It is only the blindly doctrinaire or the dishonest politician who cannot see this, who is incapable of understanding this. There is no point in conversing with the latter, but we still hold out hope for the blind to recover their sight although, we must admit, that hope is fading more and more. And we cannot but grieve about this: the blind, however many there are, resemble us in our mood, in our idealism. Life breaks down illusions and dreams, nothing can be done about this. But rising above the concrete and the temporal, we still perceive the eternal triumph… With this consciousness, we call on everyone to do their work honestly and sincerely, without considering what awaits us tomorrow. History will not come to an end tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow it will pass its impartial judgement on that which we cannot pretend to appraise impartially today.