1917 The national question

"It is a veritable Dreyfusiad, a campaign of lies and slander stemming from fierce political hatred. How foul the sources must be to substitute slander for the clash of ideas!"

"How, then, can anyone oppose the transfer of all power in the state to the Soviets? Such opposition means nothing but renouncing democracy!"

"It is impossible to participate in the imperialist war without “participating” in the capitalist business of subjugating the people with loans from the capitalist gentlemen."

"But who did the shooting? Who dares blame it on anyone without an investigation?"

 "A new cycle is beginning, one that involves not the old classes, not the old parties, not the old Soviets, but classes, parties and Soviets rejuvenated in the fire of struggle, tempered, schooled and refashioned by the process of the struggle."

It is known that when peasant deputies from all over Russia arrived in Petrograd for their All-Russia Congress, they were promised—by the Socialist-Revolutionaries and by the government—that the sale and purchase of land would be immediately prohibited.

Mr. N.Rostov quotes in the ministerial Rabochaya Gazeta several excerpts from soldiers’ letters which attest to the extreme ignorance of the peasants. The author, according to his own words, has at his disposal a bulky batch of letters sent to the Agitation Department of the Executive Committee of the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies from every part of the country. He says that all the letters clamour for one and the same thing: Papers, send us papers!

We are compelled to sound the alarm daily. All kinds of foolish people have accused us of being “too much in a hurry” to transfer all state power to the Soviets of Soldiers’, Workers and Peasants’ Deputies. They think it would be more “moderate and proper” to “wait” with dignity for a dignified Constituent Assembly.

Rabochaya Gazeta is disturbed about the political significance of the offensive. One of its contributors even reproaches another, saying that the latter’s evasive phrases ultimately amount to an admission that, objectively, the Russian revolutionary army is now shedding its blood for the annexationist plans of the Allied bourgeoisie rather than for peace without annexations (Rabochaya Gazeta No. 93, page 2, column 1).

Minister Skobelev has published an appeal to all workers of Russia. In the name of “our” (that is what it says: our) socialist ideal, in the name of the revolution, on behalf of revolutionary democrats, and so on, and so forth, he urges the workers to accept “courts of conciliation” and severely condemns all “unauthorised” actions.

How much they talk about control! And how little it all means. How they dodge the issue by resorting to general phrases, grandiloquent turns of speech, and solemn “projects” doomed for ever to remain projects only.

"The revolutionary democrat, while submitting a report to his “higher-ups”, or even before submitting it, reveals and exposes every evil and every shortcoming before the people to arouse their activity."

"The imperialist war is crushing the people and threatens to crush them completely. The petty-bourgeois democrats can perhaps stave off disaster for a while. But it is only the revolutionary proletariat that can prevent a tragic end."

"They are in the majority. They are in power. They have formed a bloc with one another. And they see that nothing comes of their efforts!! How can they help raging against the Bolsheviks?"