"The offensive has been declared in the name of peace. And it is also “in the name of peace” that the imperialists of the world send their troops into battle."

"How can we fail to consider Rodzyanko a criminal?" First published in Pravda No. 87 July 4 (June 21), 1917.

"Let the people break with the policy of trust in the capitalists. Let them put their trust in the revolutionary class—the proletariat."

Blood has flowed in the streets of Petrograd. A tragic chapter has been added to the Russian Revolution. Who is to blame? “The Bolsheviks,” says the man in the street, repeating what his newspapers tell him. The sum total of these tragic happenings is exhausted, as far as the bourgeoisie and the time-serving politicians are concerned, in the words: Arrest the ringleaders and disarm the masses. And the object of this action is to establish “revolutionary order”. The Social-Revolutionists and the Mensheviks, in arresting and disarming the Bolsheviks, are prepared to establish “order”. There is only one question: What kind of order, and for whom?

The formation of a united or federal Central Committee by the Congress of Soviets and the Executive Committee of the Peasant Congress is due to take place in the next few days. This question is up for discussion and will be settled in a matter of days. The petty squabble between the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks over the forms in which the Central Committee should be constituted deserves no attention whatsoever, for this fight between two parties, both of which advocate defencism (i.e., support for the predatory war) and ministerialism, i.e., support for the government of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, is much too petty.

First published in Pravda No. 85, July 1 (June 18), 1917. Published according to the Pravda text.

The newspapers Dyen[2] and Novaya Zhizn, which yesterday published a more detailed report of the findings of the committee of inquiry,[3] have quoted a passage from my testimony that is missing in Birzhevka,[4] which in certain respects has published an even more complete report of the findings.

The findings of the committee of inquiry into the case of the agent provocateur Malinovsky indicate that the following fact has been established:

The ruling parties of Russia, i. e., the Cadets, who have a majority in the government and the omnipotence of capital in the economy, and the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, who now have an obvious majority in the country (but who are powerless in the government and in the country’s capitalist economy), have all suffered an obvious defeat over the Ukrainian issue, and what is more, a nation-wide defeat over an issue of vast importance.

There have never been so many pacifists as at this moment, when people are slaying each other on all the great highways of our planet. Each epoch has not only its own technology and political forms, but also its own style of hypocrisy. Time was when the nations destroyed each other for the glory of Cist’s teachings and the love of one’s neighbour. Now Cist is invoked only by backward governments. The advanced nations cut each other’s toats under the banners of pacifism a league of nations and a durable peace. Kerensky and Tseretelli shout for an offensive, in the name of an “early conclusion of peace.”

"If you want to do more than merely complain about the counter-revolution, if you want to fight it, you must join us in saying: Down with the ten capitalist Ministers!"

"The fact is there: the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are the ruling party now. And this ruling party is voluntarily ceding power (the majority in the government) to the party of the Cavaignacs!!"

"Down with the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie! Long live the free union of free peasants and workers of a free Ukraine with the workers and peasants of revolutionary Russia!"

"The foreign policy of the capitalists and the petty bourgeoisie is “alliance” with the imperialists, that is, disgraceful dependence on them. The foreign policy of the proletariat is alliance with the revolutionaries of the advanced countries and with all the oppressed nations against all and any imperialists."

"We are for unity with them as long as they fight against the counter-revolution. We are against unity with them as long as they ally themselves with the counter-revolution."

"The point is that the petty-bourgeois democrats, who take their cue from the Russian and the Allied imperialists, need to do away with the internationalist socialists once and for all."

The atmosphere in Petrograd is one of fright and confusion reaching truly unparalleled dimensions.

This was illustrated by a small incident prior to the big incident of banning the demonstration fixed by our Party for Saturday.^[1]

This incident was the seizure of Durnovo’s country-house. Minister Pereverzev first ordered the house cleared, but then declared at the Congress that he was letting the people use the garden and that the trade unions were not to be evicted from the house! All that was necessary, he said, was to arrest certain anarchists.^[2]

If the seizure of Durnovo’s country-house was unlawful, then it was wrong either to leave the garden for the people’s use or to allow the trade unions to remain in the house. If there were lawful grounds for arrest, the arrest had no bearing on the house, for it could have occurred either in the house oroutside it. As it happened, the house was not “vacated”, nor were any arrests made. The government found itself confused and frightened. Had they not become nervous, there would have been no “incident”, for nothing has clanged anyway.

The big incident was the demonstration. Our Party’s Central Committee, together with a number of other organisations, including the Trade Union Bureau, resolved to call a peaceful demonstration, a march through the streets of the capital. In all constitutional countries, the holding of such a demonstration is an absolutely incontestable civil right. A peaceful street demonstration calling, incidentally, for an amendment of the Constitution or a change in the government is in no way regarded as unlawful by the legislation of any free country.

People who were confused and frightened, including, in particular, the majority at the Congress of Soviets, made an awful “fuss” over the demonstration. The Congress majority adopted a devastating resolution against the demonstration, full of abuse against our Party, and prohibited all demonstrations, including peaceful ones, for three days.

When this formal decision had been adopted, the Central Committee of our Party, as early as 2 a. m. on Saturday, resolved to cancel the demonstration. The cancellation was effected on Saturday morning at an emergency meeting with district representatives.

The question remains: how does our second "government the Congress of Soviets, explain its ban? Agreed that every party in a free country has the right to hold demonstrations, and every government can, after proclaiming a state of emergency, prohibit them. But the political question remains: why was the demonstration banned?

Here is the only political motive, clearly stated in the resolution of the Congress of Soviets:

“We know that concealed counter-revolutionaries want to take advantage of your demonstration [i. e., the one planned by our Party]....”

That is the reason why the peaceful demonstration was banned. The Congress of Soviets “knows” that there are "concealed counter-revolutionaries" and that they wanted to "take advantage" of the action which our Party had planned.

This statement by the Congress of Soviets is highly significant. And we must re-emphasise this factual statement, which by virtue of its factualness stands out from the spate of abuse levelled at us. What measures is our second government taking against the "concealed counter-revolutionaries"? What exactly does this government “know”? How exactly did the counter-revolutionaries want to take advantage of one pretext or another?

The people cannot and will not wait patiently and passively until those concealed counter-revolutionaries act.

If our second government does not want to remain like people who by bans and torrents of abuse try to cover up their confusion and the fact that they have allowed them selves to be frightened by the Right, it will have to tell the people a great deal about the "concealed counter-revolutionaries" and do a great deal to combat them seriously.

Notes

[1] Lenin is referring to the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets banning the demonstration fixed by the Bolshevik Central Committee for June 10 (23), 1917.

Early in June tension in Petrograd grew. The prolongation of the war by the Provisional Government, preparations for an offensive at the front, and food shortages, all caused resentment and indignation among the workers and soldiers. The government’s order to troops to take over the Durnovo country-house and evict the workers’ organisations of the Vyborgskaya Storona district from it gave rise to a strike. On June 7 (20) four factories went on strike, and next day, twenty-eight. The masses were eager to hold a street demonstration.

To ward off provocation and unnecessary loss of life, a joint meeting of the Central and Petrograd Committees, the Military Organisation, and district delegates from the workers and delegates from troop units, held on June 8 (21), carried Lenin’s motion to hold a peaceful organised demonstration. The action was set for June 10 (23).

The Bolshevik Central Committee’s decision to hold a demonstration brought a ready response from the masses and alarmed the government, as well as the Mensheviks and Socialist– Revolutionaries, who resolved to foil the demonstration. On the evening of June 9 (22) the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets, led by them, passed a resolution banning all street demonstrations for three days.

A motion by Lenin, the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, not wishing to go against the Congress decision, resolved on the night of June 9–10 to call off the demonstration. Members of the Central and Petrograd Committees and other prominent members of the Party were sent to factories and barracks to dissuade the workers and soldiers from demonstrating. As a result of their explanatory work, the workers and soldiers agreed that it would be unwise to hold a demonstration just then. This indicated the Party’s growing influence, its ability to keep in touch with the people, and the flexibility of the Bolshevik leadership. Two clays later the S.R. and Menshevik leadership of the Congress of Soviets decided to hold a demonstration on June 18 (July 1)—the day when the Russian troops were to take the offensive—as proof of the people’s “confidence” in the Provisional Government.

Under Lenin’s personal leadership, the Central and Petrograd Committees did a great deal to ensure that the demonstration reflected the true sentiment of the people and win that important peaceful battle against the Mensheviks and S.R.s for influence among the people. Lenin took part in preparations for the demonstration by formulating watchwords, checking the preparation o( streamers and banners, giving directions to correspondents, writing telegrams to be sent to local Bolshevik organisations, taking steps to guarantee that there would be an adequate number of Bolshevik speakers, putting his own name on the list of speakers, and attending the Marsovo Polye meeting.

June 18 (July 1) the demonstration brought some 500,000 Petrograd workers and soldiers out into the streets. By far most of the demonstrators carried Bolshevik revolutionary slogans. Only small groups carried the conciliating parties’ slogans expressing confidence in the Provisional Government. The demonstration revealed the heightened revolutionary spirit of the people and the vastly increased influence and prestige of the Bolshevik Party. It also revealed the complete failure of the petty-bourgeois conciliating parties backing the Provisional Government. Lenin dealt with the June demonstration in “The Eighteenth of June”, “Three Crises” (see pp. 110–12 and 171–75 of this volume) and other articles.

[2] After the victory of the February revolution the workers’ organisations of the Vyborgskaya Storona district (the bakers’ union, the district branch of the people’s militia, etc.), joined by the anarchists, took over the vacant country-house of tsarist ex-Minister Durnovo and the adjoining garden (20 dessiatines in area), which the workers of the district subsequently used as recreation grounds.

On June 7 (20) the Provisional Government, backed by the S.R. and Menshevik majority on the Petrograd Soviet and then by the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets, ordered the country-house to be vacated. The order brought protests from the Petrograd workers, particularly those of Vyborgskaya Storona. Several factories struck. The government arresting 59 people. As the overwhelming majority of the arrested had nothing to do with the anarchists, they had to be released shortly after. The raid deeply angered the workers.

For several weeks the bourgeois press was busy playing up the “horrors” which it alleged to have taken place at the country-house, and used this particular incident to the hilt to campaign against the revolutionary-minded masses and the Bolsheviks.

24 June 1917

Source

The dissatisfaction voiced by most comrades over the cancellation of the demonstration is quite natural, but the Central Committee had no alternative for two reasons: first, we were formally banned from holding the demonstration by the semi-organ of power; secondly, the motive for the ban was stated as follows: "We know that concealed forces of the counter-revolution want to take advantage of your demonstration." In support of this motive, we were given names, such as that of a general, whom they promised to arrest within three days, and others. And they declared that a demonstration of the Black Hundreds^[1] had been arranged for June 10 with the intention of breaking into our demonstration and turning it into a skirmish.

First published in Pravda No. 79, June 24 (11), 1917.

Those who rant and rage and fulminate, who gnash their teeth and pour a ceaseless torrent of abusive and riot-raising words upon our Party, do not accuse us of anything directly. They merely “insinuate”.