Vladimir Lenin, Letter to the Comrades. October 29, 1917

Extracts

Original Source: Rabochii put', Nos. 40, 41, 42, 1-3 November (19-21 October) 1917.

It is not easy to discover an explanation for such shameful vacillations of the comrades Zinoviev and Kamenev. The revolutionary party has no right to tolerate vacillations in such a serious question, as this little pair of comrades, who have scattered their principles to the winds, might cause a certain confusion of mind, it is necessary to analyze their arguments, to expose their vacillations, to show how shameful they are ... They say "We have no majority among the people, and without this condition the uprising is hopeless ... "

Men capable of saying this are either distorters of the truth or pedants who at all events, without taking the least account of the real circumstances of the revolution, wish to secure an advance guarantee that the Bolshevik Party has received throughout the whole country no more nor less than one-half of the votes plus one. Such a guarantee history has never proffered, and is absolutely in no position to proffer in any revolution. To advance such a demand means to mock one's audience, and is nothing but a cover to hide one's own flight from reality.

For reality shows us palpably that it was after the July days that the majority of the people began quickly to go over to the side of the Bolsheviks. This was demonstrated first by the September 2 elections in Petrograd, even before the Kornilov affair, when the Bolshevik vote rose from 20 to 33 per cent in the city not including the suburbs, and also by the elections to the borough councils in Moscow in September, when the Bolshevik vote rose from 11 to 49 1/3 per cent ... It was proven by the fact that a majority of the peasant Soviets, ... has expressed itself against the coalition. To be against the coalition means in practice to follow the Bolsheviks ...

Last, but not least, the most outstanding fact in the present situation is the revolt of the peasantry. Here is an objective passing over of the people to the side of the Bolsheviks, shown not by words but by deeds. For, notwithstanding the lies of the bourgeois press and its miserable henchmen ... and their wails about pogroms and anarchy, the fact is there. The movement of the peasants in Tambov province was an uprising both in the material and political sense, an uprising that has yielded such splendid political results as, in the first place, permission to give the land to the peasants ...

This is a fact. Facts are stubborn things, And such a factual "argument" in favor of an uprising is stronger than thousands of "pessimistic" evasions on the part of confused and frightened politicians.

If the peasant uprising were not an event of nationwide political import, the S.-R. lackeys from the pre-parliament would not be shouting about the necessity of giving over the land to the peasants ...

We are not strong enough to seize power, and the bourgeoisie is not strong enough to hinder the calling of the Constituent Assembly.

The first part of this argument is a simple paraphrase of the preceding argument. It does not gain in strength and convincing power, when the confusion of its authors and their fear of the bourgeoisie is expressed in terms of pessimism concerning the workers and optimism concerning the bourgeoisie. If the military cadets and the Cossacks say that they will fight against the Bolsheviks to the last drop of their blood, this deserves full credence; if, however, the workers and soldiers at hundreds of meetings express full confidence in the Bolsheviks and affirm their readiness to stand fast for the passing of power to the Soviets, then it is "timely" to recall that voting is one thing and fighting another ! ...

Look at the facts. We have said thousands of times that the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies are the power, that they are the vanguard of the revolution ...

And what has the Kornilov affair proven' It has proven that the Soviets are a real power.

And, now, after this has been proven by experience, by facts, we shall repudiate Bolshevism, deny ourselves, and say we are not strong enough ... Are these not shameful vacillations.

How can it be proven that the bourgeoisie is not sufficiently strong to hinder the calling of the Constituent Assembly"

If the Soviets have not the power to, overthrow the bourgeoisie, this means that the latter is strong enough to hinder the calling of the Constituent Assembly, for there is nobody to prevent it from doing this. To trust the promises of Kerenskii and Co., to trust the resolutions of the pre-parliament lackeys-is this worthy of a member of a proletarian party and a revolutionist?

Not only has the bourgeoisie power to hinder the calling of the Constituent Assembly, if the present government is not overthrown, but it can also indirectly achieve this result by surrendering Petrograd to the Germans, by laying the front open. It has been proven by facts that, to a certain extent, the bourgeoisie has already been doing all this. That means that it is capable of doing all this to the full extent, if the workers and soldiers do not overthrow it ...

The bourgeoisie cannot surrender Petrograd to the Germans, although. Rodzianko wants to, for the fighting is done not by the bourgeoisie, but by our heroic sailors.

This argument again reduces itself to the same "optimism" concerning the bourgeoisie which is fatally manifested at every step by those who are pessimistic regarding the revolutionary forces and capabilities of the proletariat.

The fighting is done by the heroic sailors, but this did not prevent two admirals from disappearing before the capture of Esel!

This is a fact. Facts are stubborn things. The facts prove that the admirals are capable of treachery no less than Kornilov. That General Headquarters has not been reformed, and that the commanding staff is Kornilovite, are undisputed facts.

If the Kornilovites (with Kerenskii at their head, for he is also a Kornilovite) want to surrender Petrograd, they can do it in two or even in three ways.

First, they can, by an act of treachery of the Kornilovite commanding staff, open the northern land front.

Second, they can "agree" concerning freedom of action for the entire German fleet, which is stronger than we are; they can agree both with the German and with the English imperialists. Moreover, the admirals who have disappeared may also have delivered the plan's to the Germans.

Third, they can, by means of lockouts, and by sabotaging the delivery of foodstuffs, bring our troops to complete desperation and impotence ... The facts have proven that the bourgeois-Cossack party of Russia has already knocked at all three of these doors, that it has tried to open all of them.

What follows' It follows that we have no right to wait until the bourgeoisie strangles the revolution ...

It follows that to vacillate in the question of an uprising as the only means to save the revolution means to sink into that half-Liberdan [Lieber and Dan, two Menshevik leaders.] 'SR-Menshevik cowardly confidence toward the bourgeoisie, half peasant-like" unquestioning confidence, against which the Bolsheviks have been battling most of all ...

We are becoming stronger every day. We can enter the Constituent Assembly as a strong opposition; why should we stake everything?

This is the argument of a philistine who has "read" that the Constituent Assembly is being called, and who confidently acquiesces in the most legal, most loyal, most constitutional course.

It is only a pity that by waiting for the Constituent Assembly one can solve neither the question of famine nor the question of surrendering Petrograd. This "trifle" is forgotten by the naive or the confused or those who have allowed themselves to be frightened.

The famine will not wait. The peasant uprising did not wait. The war will not wait. The admirals who have disappeared did not wait ...

There is really nothing in the international situation that would oblige us to act immediately; rather -would we damage the cause of a, Socialist revolution in the West, if we were to allow ourselves to be shot.

This argument is truly magnificent: Scheidemann "himself," Renaudel "himself" would not be able to "manipulate" more cleverly the sympathies of the workers for the international Socialist revolution!

just think of it: under devilishly difficult conditions, having but one Liebknecht (and at bard labor at that), without newspapers, without freedom of assembly, without Soviets, with all classes of the population, including every well-to-do peasant, incredibly hostile to the idea of internationalism, with the imperialist big, middle, and petty bourgeoisie splendidly the-the Germans, i.e., the German revolutionary internationalists, the German workers dressed in sailors' jackets, started a mutiny in the navy with one chance of winning out of a hundred.

But we, with dozens of papers at our disposal, freedom of assembly, a majority in the Soviets, we proletarian internationalists, situated best in the whole world, should refuse to support the Gentian revolutionists by our uprising. We should reason like the Scheidemanns and Renaudels, that it is most prudent not to revolt, for if we are shot, then the world will lose such excellent, reasonable, ideal internationalists! ...

There is enough bread in Petrograd for two or three days. Can we give bread to the insurrectionists?

One of "a thousand skeptical remarks (the skeptics can always "doubt," and cannot be refuted by anything but experience) ...

It is Rodzianko and Co., it is precisely the bourgeoisie that is preparing the famine and speculating on strangling the revolution by famine. There is no escaping the famine and there can be none outside of an uprising of the peasants against the landowners in the village and a victory of the workers over the capitalists in the cities and in the center. Outside of this it is impossible to get grain from the rich ...

The longer the proletarian revolution is delayed, the more victims it will cost and the more difficult it will be to organize the transportation and distribution of foodstuffs.

"Delaying the uprising means death" - this is what we have to answer to those having the sad "courage" to look at the growing economic ruin, at the approaching famine, and still dissuade the workers from, the uprising ...

Source: V. I. Lenin, Toward the Seizure of Power. The Revolution of 1917, from the July Days to the October Revolution (New York: International Publishers, 1932), Vol. I, 111-128.