Karl Kautsky’s name is not new to us. He has long been known as an outstanding theoretician of Social-Democracy. But Kautsky is known not only from that aspect; he is notable also as a thorough and thoughtful investigator of tactical problems. In this respect he has won great authority not only among the European comrades, but also among us. That is not surprising: today, when disagreements on tactics are splitting Russian Social-Democracy into two groups, when mutual criticism often aggravates the situation by passing into recrimination and it becomes extremely difficult to ascertain the truth, it is very interesting to hear what an unbiassed and experienced comrade like K. Kautsky has to say. That is why our comrades have set to work so zealously to study Kautsky’s articles on tactics: “The State Duma,” “The Moscow Insurrection,” “The Agrarian Question,” “The Russian Peasantry and the Revolution,” “The Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia,” and others. But the present pamphlet has engaged the attention of the comrades far more than those works, and that is because it touches upon all the main questions that divide Social-Democracy into two groups. It appears that Plekhanov, who recently sought the advice of foreign comrades to clear up our burning problems, submitted these problems also to Kautsky with a request to answer them. As is evident from what Kautsky says, the present pamphlet is an answer to that request. After that, it was, of course, natural that the comrades should pay greater attention to the pamphlet. Obviously, that also enhances the importance of the pamphlet for us.

It will be very useful, therefore, if we recall, if only in general outline, the questions of our disagreements and, in passing, ascertain Kautsky’s views on this or that question.

On whose side is Kautsky, whom does he support, the Bolsheviks or the Mensheviks?

The first question that is splitting Russian Social-Democracy into two parts is the question of the general character of our revolution. That our revolution is a bourgeois-democratic and not a socialist revolution, that it must end with the destruction of feudalism and not of capitalism, is clear to everybody. The question is, however, who will lead this revolution, and who will unite around itself the discontented elements of the people: the bourgeoisie or the proletariat? Will the proletariat drag at the tail of the bourgeoisie as was the case in France, or will the bourgeoisie follow the proletariat? That is how the question stands. The Mensheviks say through the mouth of Martynov that our revolution is a bourgeois revolution, that it is a repetition of the French revolution; and as the French revolution, being a bourgeois revolution, was led by the bourgeoisie, so our revolution must also be led by the bourgeoisie. “The hegemony of the proletariat is a harmful utopia. . . .” “The proletariat must follow the extreme bourgeois opposition” (see Martynov’s Two Dictatorships). The Bolsheviks, however, say: True, our revolution is a bourgeois revolution, but that does not mean in the least that it is a repetition of the French revolution, that it must necessarily be led by the bourgeoisie, as was the case in France. In France, the proletariat was an unorganised force with little class consciousness and, as a consequence, the bourgeoisie retained the hegemony in the revolution. In our country, however, the proletariat is a relatively more class conscious and organised force; as a consequence, it is no longer content with the role of appendage to the bourgeoisie and, as the most revolutionary class, is coming out at the head of the present-day movement. The hegemony of the proletariat is not a utopia, it is a living fact; the proletariat is actually uniting the discontented elements around itself. And whoever advises it “to follow the bourgeois opposition” is depriving it of independence, is converting the Russian proletariat into a tool of the bourgeoisie (see Lenin’s Two Tactics).

What is K. Kautsky’s view on this question? “The liberals often refer to the great French revolution and often do so without justification. Conditions in present-day Russia are in many respects quite different from what they were in France in 1789” (see Chapter III of the pamphlet). . . . “Russian liberalism is quite different from the liberalism of Western Europe, and for this reason alone it is a great mistake to take the great French revolution simply as a model for the present Russian revolution. The leading class in the revolutionary movements in Western Europe was the petty bourgeoisie, especially the petty bourgeoisie in the large cities” (see Chapter IV). . . . “The day of bourgeois revolutions, i.e., revolutions in which the bourgeoisie was the driving force, has passed away, and it has passed away also for Russia. There, too, the proletariat is no longer a mere appendage and tool of the bourgeoisie, as was the case during the bourgeois revolutions, but is an independent class, with independent revolutionary aims” (see Chapter V). That is what K. Kautsky says about the general character of the Russian revolution; that is how Kautsky understands the role of the proletariat in the present Russian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot lead the Russian revolution—hence, the proletariat must come out as the leader of the revolution.

The second question of our disagreements is: Can the liberal bourgeoisie be at least an ally of the proletariat in the present revolution?

The Bolsheviks say that it cannot. True, during the French revolution, the liberal bourgeoisie played a revolutionary role, but that was because the class struggle in that country was not so acute, the proletariat had little class consciousness and was content with the role of appendage to the liberals, whereas in our country, the class struggle is extremely acute, the proletariat is far more class conscious and cannot resign itself to the role of appendage to the liberals. Where the proletariat fights consciously, the liberal bourgeoisie ceases to be revolutionary. That is why the Cadet-liberals, frightened by the proletariat’s struggle, are seeking protection under the wing of reaction. That is why
they are fighting the revolution rather than the reaction. That is why the Cadets 2 would sooner conclude an alliance with the reaction against the revolution than with the revolution. Yes, our liberal bourgeoisie, and its champions the Cadets, are the allies of the reaction, they are the “enlightened” enemies of the revolution. It is altogether different with the poor peasants. The Bolsheviks say that only the poor peasants will extend a hand to the revolutionary proletariat, and only they can conclude a firm alliance with the proletariat for the whole period of the present revolution. And it is those peasants that the proletariat must support against the reaction and the Cadets. And if these two main forces conclude an alliance, if the workers and peasants support each other, the victory of the revolution will be assured. If they do not, the victory of the revolution is impossible. That is why the Bolsheviks are not supporting the Cadets, either in the Duma or outside the Duma, in the first stage of the elections. That is why the Bolsheviks, during the elections and in the Duma, support only the revolutionary representatives of the peasants against the reaction and the Cadets. That is why the Bolsheviks unite the broad masses of the people only around the revolutionary part of the Duma and not around the entire Duma. That is why the Bolsheviks do not support the demand for the appointment of a Cadet ministry (see Lenin’s Two Tactics and “The Victory of the Cadets”). The Mensheviks argue quite differently. True, the liberal bourgeoisie is wavering between reaction and revolution, but in the end, in the opinion of the Mensheviks, it will join the revolution and, after all, play a revolutionary role. Why? Because the liberal bourgeoisie played a revolutionary role in France, because it is opposed to the old order and, consequently, will be obliged to join the revolution. In the opinion of the Mensheviks, the liberal bourgeoisie, and its champions the Cadets, cannot be called traitors to the present revolution, they are the allies of the revolution. That is why the Mensheviks support them during the elections and in the Duma. The Mensheviks assert that the class struggle should never eclipse the general struggle. That is why they call upon the masses of the people to rally around the entire Duma and not merely around its revolutionary part; that is why they, with all their might, support the demand for the appointment of a Cadet ministry; that is why the Mensheviks are ready to consign the maximum programme to oblivion, to cut down the minimum programme, and to repudiate the democratic republic so as not to frighten away the Cadets. Some readers may think that all that is libel against the Mensheviks and will demand facts. Here are the facts.

The following is what the well-known Menshevik writer Malishevsky wrote recently:

“Our bourgeoisie does not want a republic, consequently, we cannot have a republic . . . ,” and so “. . . as a result of our revolution there must arise a constitutional system, but certainly not a democratic republic.” That is why Malishevsky advises “the comrades” to abandon “republican illusions” (see First Symposium,3 pp. 288, 289). That is the first fact.

On the eve of the elections the Menshevik leader Cherevanin wrote: “It would be absurd and insane for the proletariat to try, as some people propose, jointly with the peasantry,
to enter into a struggle against both the government and the bourgeoisie for a sovereign and popular Constituent Assembly.” We, he says, are now trying to reach agreement with the Cadets and to get a Cadet ministry (see Nashe Delo,4 No. 1).

That is the second fact.

But all that was only written words. Another Menshevik leader, Plekhanov, did not confine himself to that and wanted to put what was written into practice. At the time when a fierce debate was raging in the Party on the question of electoral tactics, when everybody was asking whether it was permissible to enter into an agreement with the Cadets during the first stage of the elections, Plekhanov held even an agreement with the Cadets inadequate, and began to advocate a direct bloc, a temporary fusion, with the Cadets. Recall the newspaper Tovarishch of November 24 (1906) in which Plekhanov published his little article. One of the readers of Tovarishch asked Plekhanov: Is it possible for the Social-Democrats to have a common platform with the Cadets; if it is, “what could be the nature . . . of a common election platform?” Plekhanov answered that a common platform was essential, and that such a platform must be “a sovereign Duma.” . . . “There is no other answer, nor can there be” (see Tovarishch, November 24, 1906). What do Plekhanov’s words mean? They have only one meaning, namely, that during the elections the Party of the proletarians, i.e., Social-Democracy, should actually join with the party of the employers, i.e., the Cadets, should jointly with them publish agitational leaflets addressed to the workers, should in fact renounce the slogan of a popular Constituent Assembly and the Social-Democratic minimum programme and instead issue the Cadet slogan of a sovereign Duma. Actually, that means renouncing our minimum programme to please the Cadets and to enhance our reputation in their eyes. That is the third fact.

But what Plekhanov said somewhat timidly was said with remarkable boldness by a third Menshevik leader, Vasilyev. Listen to this:

“First of all, let the whole of society, all citizens . . . establish constitutional government. Since this will be a people’s government, the people, in conformity with their grouping according to class and interests . . . can proceed to settle all problems. Then the struggle of classes and groups will not only be appropriate, but also necessary. . . . Now, however, at the present moment, it would be suicidal and criminal. . . .” It is therefore necessary for the various classes and groups “to abandon all ‘the very best of programmes’ for a time and merge in one constitutional party. . . .” “My proposal is that there should be a common platform, the basis of which should be the laying of the elementary foundations for a sovereign society which alone can provide a corresponding Duma. . . .” “The contents of such a platform are . . . a ministry responsible to the people’s representatives . . . free speech and press . . .” etc. (see Tovarishch, December 17, 1906). As regards the popular Constituent Assembly, and our minimum programme in general, all that must be “abandoned” according to Vasilyev. . . . That is the fourth fact.

True, Martov, a fourth Menshevik leader, disagrees with the Menshevik Vasilyev and haughtily reproves him for having written the above-mentioned article (see