The name of Karl Kautsky is not new. He has long been known as a worthy theoretician of Social Democracy. But Kautsky is known not only from this side; he is also remarkable as a solid and thoughtful researcher of tactical questions. In this respect, he has won great authority not only among European comrades, but also among us. This is not surprising: today, when tactical disagreements are splitting Russian Social Democracy into two factions, when mutual criticism often exacerbates matters, turning into squabbles, and the clarification of the truth is extremely difficult – it is very interesting to listen to such an impartial and experienced comrade as K. Kautsky is. That is why our comrades have taken up the study of Kautsky’s tactical articles with such zeal: “The State Duma,” “The Moscow Uprising,” “The Agrarian Question,” “The Russian Peasantry and the Revolution,” “The Jewish Pogroms in Russia,” and others. But with incomparably greater attention the comrades have regarded the present pamphlet, and this is because all those main questions that divide Social Democracy into two factions are touched upon here. The fact is that Plekhanov, who recently turned to foreign comrades for clarification of our pressing issues, it turns out, also approached Kautsky with the same questions and requested a corresponding answer from him as well, to which Kautsky, as can be seen from his words, replied with the present pamphlet. After this, of course, the comrades had to regard the aforementioned pamphlet with all the more attention. It is clear that this pamphlet has all the greater significance for us.

Therefore it will be very useful if we recall, at least in general outline, the questions of our disagreements and, in passing, clarify Kautsky's views on various questions.

Whose side is Kautsky on, whom does he support, the Bolsheviks or the Mensheviks?

The first question which splits 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 one, that it must end with the destruction of feudalism and not of capitalism – this is clear to everyone. But the question is: who will lead this revolution and who will unite the discontented elements of the people around themselves – the bourgeoisie or the proletariat? Will the proletariat trail 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, through the mouth of Martynov, say that our revolution is a bourgeois revolution, that it is a repetition of the French Revolution, and since the French Revolution, as a bourgeois revolution, was led by the bourgeoisie, 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: it is true, our revolution is a bourgeois one, but this does not at all mean that it is a repetition of the French revolution, that it must necessarily be led by the bourgeoisie, as happened in France. In France, the proletariat was a poorly conscious and unorganized force, as a result of which hegemony in the revolution remained with the bourgeoisie. In our country, however, the proletariat is a comparatively more conscious and organized force, as a result of which it is no longer content with the role of an appendage of the bourgeoisie and, as the most revolutionary class, takes the lead in the contemporary movement. The hegemony of the proletariat is not a utopia, it is a living fact, the proletariat in practice unites around itself the discontented elements. And whoever advises it to "follow the bourgeois opposition" deprives the proletariat of its independence, transforms the Russian proletariat into a tool of the bourgeoisie (see Lenin's "Two Tactics").

How does K. Kautsky view this question?

"Liberals often refer to the great French Revolution, and they often refer to it without justification. The conditions of contemporary Russia are in many respects entirely different from what they were in France in 1789" (see the third chapter of the brochure)... "Russian liberalism is of an entirely different kind than the liberalism of Western Europe, and for this reason alone it is extremely erroneous to take the great French Revolution directly as a model for the present-day Russian one. The guiding class in the revolutionary movements of Western Europe was the petty bourgeoisie, especially the petty bourgeoisie of the large cities" (see the fourth chapter)... "The time of bourgeois revolutions, i.e., revolutions whose driving force was the bourgeoisie, has passed, has passed also for Russia. In it, too, the proletariat is no longer a mere appendage and tool of the bourgeoisie, as was the case during the bourgeois revolutions, but an independent class with independent revolutionary goals" (see the fifth chapter).

Thus speaks K. Kautsky about the general character of the Russian revolution, thus does Kautsky understand the role of the proletariat in the present Russian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot lead the Russian revolution—consequently, the proletariat must come forward as the leader of the revolution.

The second question of our disagreements: can the liberal bourgeoisie, at the very least, be an ally of the proletariat in the current revolution?

The Bolsheviks say that it cannot. True, in the French revolution the liberal bourgeoisie played a revolutionary role, but that was because the class struggle there was not so acute, the proletariat was insufficiently conscious, it contented itself with the role of an appendage of the liberals, whereas here the class struggle is extremely acute, the proletariat is far more conscious and cannot reconcile itself to the role of an appendage of the liberals. Where the proletariat fights consciously, the liberal bourgeoisie ceases to be revolutionary. That is why the liberal Cadets, frightened by the struggle of the proletariat, seek protection under the wing of reaction. That is why they fight more against the revolution than against reaction. That is why the Cadets [2] would sooner conclude an alliance with reaction against the revolution than with the revolution. Yes, our liberal bourgeoisie and its defenders the Cadets are allies of reaction, they are the “enlightened” enemies of the revolution. The peasant poor are a completely different matter. The Bolsheviks say that only the poorest peasantry will extend its hand to the revolutionary proletariat and only it can conclude a firm alliance with the proletariat for the entire period of the present revolution. It is this that the proletariat must support against reaction and the Cadets. And if these two main forces conclude an alliance between themselves, if the workers and peasants support each other, then the victory of the revolution will be assured. Without this, the victory of the revolution is impossible. That is why the Bolsheviks do not support the Cadets either in the Duma or outside the Duma, at the first stage of the elections. That is why the Bolsheviks, both in the elections and in the Duma, support only the revolutionary representatives of the peasants against reaction and the Cadets. That is why the Bolsheviks rally the broad popular masses 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 reason in an entirely different way. True, the liberal bourgeoisie vacillates between reaction and revolution, but in the end, in their opinion, it will nevertheless join the revolution, will nevertheless play a revolutionary role. Why? Because the liberal bourgeoisie in France played a revolutionary role, because it stands in opposition to the old order, and, consequently, it will be forced to join the revolution. In the Mensheviks' opinion, the liberal bourgeoisie and its defenders, the Cadets, cannot be called traitors to the present revolution; they are allies of the revolution. That is why the Mensheviks support them both in the elections and in the Duma. The Mensheviks keep repeating that the class struggle must never overshadow the common struggle. It is precisely for this reason that they call on the popular masses to rally around the entire Duma, and not only around its revolutionary part; it is precisely for this reason that they support with all their might the demand for the appointment of a Cadet ministry; it is precisely for this reason that the Mensheviks are prepared to consign the maximum program to oblivion, to curtail the minimum program, and to reject the democratic republic, just so as not to frighten off the Cadets. Perhaps some reader will consider all this to be slander leveled at the Mensheviks and will demand facts. Here are the facts.

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

"Our bourgeoisie does not want a republic, therefore, a republic cannot exist in our country...", so that "...as a result of our revolution, a constitutional order must emerge, but by no means a democratic republic." Therefore, Malishevsky advises "comrades" to part with "republican illusions" (see "First Collection"[3], pp. 288, 289).

This, firstly.

On the eve of the elections, the Menshevik leader Cherevanin wrote:

"It would be absurd and insane for the proletariat to attempt, as some propose, to join with the peasantry in a struggle against both the government and the bourgeoisie for a fully empowered and all-people's Constituent Assembly." We, he says, are now striving for an agreement with the Cadets and for a Cadet ministry (see Nashe Dyelo [4] No. 1).

That, secondly.

But all of this was only written. Another leader of the Mensheviks, Plekhanov, did not stop there and wished to put what was written into practice. At a time when a fierce discussion was underway in the party on the question of electoral tactics, when everyone was asking: is an agreement with the Cadets permissible at the first stage of elections, – Plekhanov considered even an agreement with the Cadets insufficient and began to preach a direct bloc, a temporary merger with the Cadets. Recall the newspaper "Tovarishch" of November 24 (1906), where Plekhanov placed his little article. One of the readers of "Tovarishch" asks Plekhanov: is a common platform possible for the Social-Democrats with the Cadets, and if possible, then "what could be... a common electoral platform?" Plekhanov replies that a common platform is necessary and such a platform should be a "fully empowered Duma"... "There is and can be no other answer" (see "Tovarishch" [5] of November 24, 1906). What do Plekhanov's words mean? They mean only that during the elections the party of the proletarians, i.e., the Social-Democracy, must in fact join the party of the entrepreneurs, i.e., the Cadets, must together with them issue agitation leaflets to the workers, must in fact renounce the slogan of a nationwide Constituent Assembly, renounce the Social-Democratic minimum program, and instead must put forward the Cadet slogan of a fully empowered Duma. In reality, this is a renunciation of our minimum program in favor of the Cadets and to enhance one's own reputation in their eyes.

This, thirdly.

But what Plekhanov said with insufficient boldness was expressed with remarkable boldness by the third leader of the Mensheviks, Vasilyev. Listen:

"First let all of society, all citizens... establish a constitutional authority. Once this authority becomes the people's, the people, according to their grouping by classes and interests... can proceed to resolve all questions. Then the struggle of classes and groups is not only appropriate but also necessary... Now, however, at this moment, it is murderous and criminal..." Therefore it is necessary for the various classes and groups "to part for a time with all 'the very best programmes' and to merge into one constitutional party..." "My proposal boils down to a common platform, the basis of which is the laying of the elementary foundation for a fully empowered society, which alone can provide a corresponding Duma. "The content of this platform... a ministry responsible to the people's representatives... freedom of speech and the press..." etc. (see "Comrade" of 17 December 1906). As for a nationwide Constituent Assembly and our minimum programme in general, all of this, in Vasiliev's opinion, must be "parted with"...

This, fourthly.

True, the fourth leader of the Mensheviks, Martov, does not agree with the Menshevik Vasilyev and arrogantly scolds him for the above-mentioned article (see “Okliki” [6] No. 2). But on the other hand, Plekhanov speaks with great praise of Vasilyev, who, in Plekhanov’s opinion, is “a tireless and beloved Social-Democratic organiser of the Swiss workers” and who “will render many services to the Russian workers’ cause” (see “Mir Bozhiy” [7] for June 1906). Which of these two Mensheviks is to be believed: Plekhanov or Martov? Besides, did not Martov himself recently write: “The strife between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat strengthens the position of the autocracy and thereby hampers the success of the people’s liberation”? (see Elmar, “The People and the State Duma”, p. 20). Who does not know that this non-Marxist view is precisely the real basis of the liberal “proposal” put forward by Vasilyev?

As you see, the Mensheviks are so carried away by the “revolutionary spirit” of the liberal bourgeoisie, they place so many hopes on its “revolutionary spirit” that, to please it, they are ready to consign the Social-Democratic programme itself to oblivion.

How does K. Kautsky view our liberal bourgeoisie, who does he consider to be the true ally of the proletariat, what does he say on this matter?

At the present time (i.e., in the current Russian revolution), the proletariat is no longer a mere appendage and tool of the bourgeoisie, as was the case during bourgeois revolutions, but an independent class with independent revolutionary aims. But where the proletariat acts in this way, the bourgeoisie ceases to be a revolutionary class. The Russian bourgeoisie, insofar as it is at all liberal and pursues an independent class policy, undoubtedly hates absolutism, but it hates revolution even more... and insofar as it wants political freedom, it wants it mainly because it sees in it the only means of putting an end to the revolution. Thus, the bourgeoisie does not belong to the driving forces of the contemporary revolutionary movement in Russia... A lasting community of interests throughout the entire period of the revolutionary struggle exists only between the proletariat and the peasantry. It is this that must form the basis of all the revolutionary tactics of Russian Social-Democracy... Without the peasantry, we cannot now achieve victory in Russia (see the fifth chapter).

So says Kautsky.

We think that comments are superfluous. The third question of our disagreements: what is the class essence of the victory of our revolution or, in other words, which classes must achieve victory in our revolution, which classes must seize power?

The Bolsheviks assert that since the main forces of the present revolution are the proletariat and the peasantry, since their victory is impossible without mutual support, it is precisely they who will win power, and therefore the victory of the revolution will represent the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry (see Lenin’s “Two Tactics” and “The Victory of the Cadets”).

The Mensheviks, on the contrary, reject the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry; they do not believe that power will be won by the proletariat and the peasantry. In their opinion, power must fall into the hands of the Cadet Duma. Consequently, they support with extraordinary enthusiasm the Cadet slogan of a responsible ministry. Thus, instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, the Mensheviks propose to us the dictatorship of the Cadets (see “Two Dictatorships” by Martynov, also the newspapers “Golos Truda”[8], “Nashe Delo,” and others).

How does K. Kautsky view this question?

On this subject Kautsky says directly that "the revolutionary strength of Russian Social-Democracy and the possibility of its victory lie in the community of interests of the industrial proletariat and the peasantry" (see Chapter Five). That is, the revolution will triumph only if the proletariat and the peasantry fight together for a common victory – the dictatorship of the Cadets is anti-revolutionary.

The fourth question of our disagreements: during revolutionary storms, of course, a so-called provisional revolutionary government will arise of itself – is the participation of Social-Democracy in a revolutionary government permissible?

The Bolsheviks say that participation in such a provisional government is not only permissible from the standpoint of principles, but will also be practically necessary, and this in order that Social-Democracy might there, in the provisional revolutionary government, worthily defend the interests of the proletariat and the revolution. If in the struggle in the streets the proletariat, jointly with the peasants, smashes the old order, if it sheds blood together with them, naturally, together with them it must enter the provisional revolutionary government in order to bring the revolution to the desired results (see Lenin’s “Two Tactics”).

The Mensheviks, on the other hand, reject participation in a provisional revolutionary government – this, they say, is impermissible for Social-Democracy, it is unbecoming for a Social-Democrat, it supposedly will ruin the proletariat (see Martynov's "Two Dictatorships").

What does K. Kautsky say on this matter?

"It is very possible that in the further course of the revolution victory will fall to the Social-Democratic party..." But this does not mean that "the revolution Russia is experiencing would now lead to the establishment in Russia of the socialist mode of production, even if it were temporarily to place the helm of power in the hands of Social-Democracy" (see Chapter Five).

As you can see, according to Kautsky, participation in a provisional revolutionary government is not only permissible, but it may even happen that “temporarily the helm of power” will pass entirely into the hands of Social-Democracy alone.

Such are Kautsky’s views on the most important questions of our disagreements.

As you see, the greatest theoretician of social democracy, Kautsky, and the Bolsheviks are in complete agreement with each other.

Even the Mensheviks do not deny this, except, of course, for certain "official" Mensheviks who, it must be assumed, have not even laid eyes on Kautsky's pamphlet. Martov, for example, directly states that "in his final conclusion Kautsky agrees with Comrade Lenin and his like-minded comrades, who have proclaimed the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" (see "Otkliki" No. 2, p. 19).

And this means that the Mensheviks do not agree with K. Kautsky, or, more precisely, Kautsky does not agree with the Mensheviks.

So, who agrees with the Mensheviks, and with whom, in the end, do the Mensheviks agree?

Here is what history recounts about this. On December 27 (1906), a debate meeting took place in the Salt Town (in Petersburg). During the debates, the leader of the Cadets, P. Struve, declared: "You will all be Cadets... The Mensheviks are already being called semi-Cadets, many consider Plekhanov a Cadet, and, indeed, much of what Plekhanov says now can be welcomed by the Cadets, it is only a pity that he did not say it back when the Cadets were alone" (see "Tovarishch" of December 28, 1906).

Here is who agrees with the Mensheviks.

What is surprising if the Mensheviks also agree with them and take the path of liberalism?..

February 10, 1907

Printed according to the text of the brochure

Signature: Koba

Translation from Georgian