# The Proletarian Revolution in Russia/Part 3/Chapter 9

Published in Rabochy i Soldat Nos. 11 and 12, August 4 (August 5), 1917 and then in the pamphlet "The Current Situation" / "At the Moment"
IX
CONSTITUTIONAL ILLUSIONS
(Lenin)
Constitutional illusions is a term designating the political error comprised in people accepting as existing, normal, regular, legal, in short, as "constitutional," an order which, in reality, does not exist. At first glance, it would seem that in Russia at present, in July, 1917, when there is not, as yet, any such thing as a constitution, that there could be no question of constitutional illusions being formed. But that is a grave mistake. In fact, the key to the present political situation in Russia lies in the circumstances that exceedingly large masses of the people are permeated with constitutional illusions. It is utterly impossible to understand anything in the present political situation without having grasped this fact. It is impossible to take a single step toward properly stating the tactical problems of the present unless we first systematically and unsparingly expose these constitutional invasions, disclosing their very roots, in order to secure a proper political perspective.
Let us consider the most important aspects of contemporary constitutional illusions, analyzing them carefully.
The first aspect: Our country is on the eve of a Constituent Assembly. That is why everything that is now happening has a temporary, transitory and indecisive character. Everything will soon be changed and definitely determined by the Constituent Assembly. The second aspect: That certain parties, for instance, the Social-Revolutionists or the Mensheviki, or their allies, have an evident and undeniable majority among the people or in "influential" organizations, such as the Soviets; and for that reason the will of these parties or organizations, being in general the will of the majority of the people, cannot be overcome or, more than that, violated in a republican, democratic, revolutionary Russia.
I
The convoking of the Constituent Assembly was promised by the Provisional Government of the first period, of Lvov-Guchkov. It acknowledged as its principal aim precisely the Constituent As​sembly. The Provisional Government of the second period, of coalition, decided that the Constituent Assembly should meet on September 30. The Provisional Government of the third period, of Premier Kerensky, after the 17th of July, most solemnly affirmed that the Constituent Assembly should meet on September 30.
And yet there are ninety-nine chances out of a hundred that the Constituent Assembly will not be convoked on that date. And should it be convoked on that date—again there are ninety-nine chances out of a hundred that it will be just as powerless and worthless as the first Duma—until the second revolution is victorious in Russia. To become convinced of this fact, it is necessary to turn our attention for a brief moment away from the tinsel of the phrases, promises and trivialities which clog the brain, and to glance at the basic, the determining factor in all social relations—at the class struggle.
It is evident that the bourgeoisie in Russia has allied itself most intimately with the land-owners. The whole press, all the elections, all the politics of the Cadet party and the parties to the right of them, are proof of this alliance.
The bourgeoisie understands perfectly well that which is incomprehensible to the petty bourgeois babblers of the Social-Revolutionists and the left Mensheviki, namely: that it is impossible to abolish private ownership of land in Russia—and, still more, without compensation—without a giant economic revolution, without placing the banks under public control, without the nationalization of the syndicates (trusts), without a series of the most merciless measures against capital. The bourgeoisie understands that perfectly. And at the same time it cannot be ignorant of, it cannot blind itself to, it cannot fail to perceive the fact, that a large majority of the peasants would not only declare now for the confiscation of the land, but show itself considerably more left than Chernov. For the bourgeoisie knows better than we do the frequent and partial concessions that were made by that man, Chernov; for example, from May 18 to July 15, on the questions of protracting and curtailing different demands of the peasants; also the great effort it required for the right Social-Revolutionists (for Chernov is ​considered a centrist by the S.-R.'s!) at the Peasants' Convention and at the Executive Committee of the All-Russian Soviet of Peasants' Delegates to "soothe" the peasants and to feed them with promises.
The bourgeois class differs from the petite bourgeoisie in that it acquires from its economic and political experience a knowledge of the conditions for the preservation of "order" (that is, the subjugation of the masses), under the capitalistic regime.
The bourgeois class is composed of business people,—people with large commercial interests, accustomed to approach even political problems from a strictly business standpoint, with distrust of words and with the ability to take the bull by the horns.
The Constituent Assembly in Russia at present would give a large majority to the peasants, who are more left than the Social-Revolutionists. The bourgeoisie knows this. Knowing this, it cannot help but struggle more strenuously against an early convocation of the Constituent Assembly. To conduct an imperialistic war in the spirit of the secret treaties concluded by Nicholas II, to uphold the private control of land or to make compensation for its "confiscation"—to do all this is an impossible or unbelievably difficult task through the Constituent Assembly. The war cannot wait. The class struggle cannot wait. This was visibly demonstrated even during the short period of time from March 12 to May 2.
From the very beginning of the Revolution, two points of view on the Constituent Assembly were discernible. The Social-Revolutionists and Mensheviki, who are saturated through and through with constitutional illusions, viewed the problems with the confidence of the petty bourgeois, unwilling to recognize the class struggle. The Constituent Assembly will convene, and—enough! After that, the devil only knows!
And the Bolsheviki declared: only insofar as the power and authority of the Soviets are strengthened, only to that extent will the convocation and the success of the Constituent Assembly be assured.
The Mensheviki and the Social-Revolutionists place the centre of gravity in the juridicial act: in the proclamations, promises and declarations concerning the Constituent Assembly.
The Bolsheviki place the centre of gravity in the class struggle: if the Soviets are victorious, the Constituent Assembly will be assured; if they are not, it will not be assured.
So it happened. The bourgeois conducted a continuous strug​gle, at times hidden, at times open, but ceaselessly and uncompromisingly, against the convocation of the Constituent Assembly. That struggle was expressed in the desire to postpone its convocation untl the end of the war. That struggle was expressed by a series of postponements of the designated day of convocation of the Constituent Assembly. When finally, more than a month after the formation of the coalition ministry, the date was set for the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, a Moscow bourgeois paper announced that it was done under the pressure of Bolshevik influence.
After the 17th of July, when the subservience and the timidity of the Social-Revolutionists and Mensheviki secured a "victory" for the counter-revolutionists, there slipped into the Retch a brief but highly significant expression: "as soon as possible" let the Constituent Assembly be convened!
But on July 29, there appeared in the Volya Naroda and in the Russkaya Volya, an article stating that the Cadets demand a postponement of the convocation of the Constituent Assembly upon the pretext that it is "impossible" to call it in so "short" a time, and the Menshevik Tseretelli, fawning before the counter-revolutionists, has already agreed, according to that article, to postpone the Assembly until December 2.
There is no doubt that such a statement could have slipped in only against the desires of the bourgeoisie. It could not afford such "revelations." But the cat was out of the bag. The course of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie after July 17 is accompanied by an immediate step (and an extremely serious step) against the convocation of the Constituent Assembly.
This is a fact. And this fact exposes all the emptiness of constitutional illusions. Unless there is a new revolution in Russia, unless the people refuse to place their trust in the Social-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties—parties which ally themselves with the bourgeoisie—the Constituent Assembly will either never be called or will result in a "Frankfort Chaterbox," a powerless, worthless assembly of petty bourgeois who are frightened to death by the war and by the prospect of the "boycott of power" by the bourgeois class, and who are helplessly vacilating between their fears.
The question of the Constituent Assembly is subordinate to the question of the cause and outcome of the class war between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. It will be remembered how ​Rabochaya Gazeta once let slip the Constituent Assembly would be a convention. That is an example of the empty, petty, contemptible bragging of our Menshevik lackeys of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. In order that it shall not resolve itself into a "Frankfort chatterbox" or a first Duma, in order that it be a convention, the Constituent Assembly must have the courage, the ability, the power to strike merciless blows at the counter-revolution, and not to give in to it. In order that it succeed, it is necessary that power shold be in the hands of the most radical, the most resolute, the most revolutionary class in a given epoch. It is necessary that it be supported by the whole mass of the town and village poor (semi-proletariat). For that purpose, it is necessary, above all, to wage a decisive war against the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie.
Such are the real, the class conscious and material conditions of a convention. It is sufficient simply to enumerate these conditions precisely and clearly, to understand how laughable is the bragging of Rabochaya Gazeta, how profoundly ridiculous are the constitutional illusions of the Social-Revolutionists and Mensheviki concerning the Constituent Assembly in contemptorary Russia.
II
In attacking the petty bourgeois "Socialists" of the year 1848, Marx particularly and violently condemned their uncontrolled phrasemongery about "the people" and the majority of the people in general.
That recollection is very appropriate in considering the second aspect of constitutional illusions, in analyzing the conception of "majority."
In order that the majority should realy rule in a country, it is necessary to have definite, actual conditions, namely: it is necessary that such a form of government be established, such a governmental authority, as would furnish the opportunity to have affairs decided by a majority and to assure the development of that opportunity into reality. From another point of view, it is necessary that the majority, in accordance with its class composition and in relation to any other class within that majority (or outside of it) should be able to direct government co-operatively and successfully. It is evdent to every Marxist that these two real conditions play a decisive role in the question of the majority of the people, and in the course of governmental affairs in accordance with the will of this majority. Nevertheless, all the political literature of the Social-​Revolutionists and Mensheviki, and more than that, all of their political activity, discloses a complete lack of understandng of these conditions.
If the power of government is in the hands of a class whose interests coincide with the interests of the majority, the administration of the government can then be, in realty, identical with the will of the majority.
If, on the other hand, the government power is in the hands of a class whose interests diverge from the interests of the majority, then every attempt to govern inevitably becomes a fraud upon or a subjugation of that majority. Every bourgeois republic furnishes us with hundreds and thousands of examples of this.
In Russia the bourgeoisie reigns politically and economically. Its interests, especially during an imperialistic war, diverge most acutely from the interests of the majority. That is the reason why the key to this question, when stated from a materialistic Marxian point of view and not from a formalist-juridical one, lies in revealing that divergence, in fighting against the deception of the masses by the bourgeoisie.
But our Social-Revolutionists and Mensheviki have completely proven and revealed their real role as instruments for the deception of the masses (majority) by the bourgeoisie, being leaders and assistants in this deception. No matter how sincere some individuals among the Social-Revolutionists and Mensheviki may be, their fundamental political principles—imagining that it is possible to proceed from an imperialistic war to "a peace without annexations and indemnities" without dictatorship of the proletariat and the victory of Socialism; imagining that it is possible to transfer the land to the people without compensation and to impose "control" over production m the interests of the people without proletarian dictatorship and Socialism—these fundamental political (and, naturally, economic) principles of the Social-Revolutionists and Mensheviki present objectively in themselves the self-deception of the petty bourgeois, or, what amounts to the same thing, the deception of the masses (majority) by the bourgeoisie.
Here is our first and primary "correction" of the phrasing of the question of majorities by the petty bourgeois democrats, Socialists of the Louis Blanc type, Social-Revolutionists and Mensheviki: why discuss the question of majority when the majority itself is only a formal moment, a temporary condition, whereas materially ​and in reality this majority is the majority of the party which is realizing the deception of the majority by the bourgeoisie?
And, surely—here we come to the second "correction," to the second of the fundamental conditions previously indicated—surely, it is possible to interpret that deception properly, if only we clear out its class roots and reveal its class meaning. It is not an individual deception, it is not "trickery" (I express myself roughly). It is a deception and idea which results from the economic environment of the class. A petty bourgeois finds himself in such an economic situation, his life conditions are such, that he cannot help deceive himself; he vacillates involuntarily and inevitably between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. There cannot be any any such thing as an independent course economically for the petty bourgeois. His past draws him to the bourgeoisie, his future to the proletariat. His reason urges him to the latter course, his prejudice (according to a well-known Marxian expression) to the former. That the majority govern the state, be the real beneficiary of the majority interests, the real guardian of its rights, etc., a definite class condition is necessary: the coalition of the majority of the petite bourgeoisie, at least during the decisive moment and at the decisive place, with the revolutionary proletariat.
Without this class condition, the majority is a fiction, which may exist for some time, shine, sparkle, make noise, win laurels, but which is destined to crash to disaster with absolute inevitability. That, by the way, is precisely the disaster awaiting the majority of the Social-Revolutionists and Mensheviki, as determined by the Russian Revolution in July, 1917.
Let us proceed. A revolution differs from "the ordinary condition" of affairs in government in that disputable questions concerning society are of necessity solved by the class struggle and the mass struggle until the moment of establishing its definite and determining forms. There is no other alternative if the masses are free and armed. From that basic fact it follows that, in a real revolution, it is not enough to announce "the will of the majority"—no, it is necessary to prove yourself stronger at the decisive moment and at the decisive place; it is necessary to conquer. Beginning with the peasants' revolts in the middle ages in Germany and continuing through all the great revolutionary movements and epochs up to 1848 and 1871, to the year 1905, we see countless examples of how the better organized, the more conscious, the better armed minority imposes its will upon the majority and defeats it.
​Frederick Engels placed special emphasis on the lesson to be learned from the experience unifying to a certain extent the peasant uprisings of the 16th century and the revolution of 1848 in Germany, namely: the lack of unity of action and of centralization among the oppressed masses, due to their petty bourgeois form of life. And, from this point of view, we come to this conclusion: the simple majority of the pettybourgeois mass does not, as yet, decide anything and cannot decide anything, as long as the organization, the political consciousness and its centralization (inevitable for victory) is such that it gives the millions of petty bourgeois only the position of serving as the instrument either of the bourgeoisie or of the proletariat.
Finally, as we know, the problems of social organization are solved by the class struggle in its most aggressive, most violent form, namely, in the form of civil war. And in this civil war, as in every war the deciding factor—which as a fact and in principle is disputed by no one—is economic. It is extremely characteristic and significant that neither the Social-Revolutionists nor the Mensheviki deny this in principle, and, acknowledging the capitalistic character of contemporary Russia, dare not soberly look the truth in the face. They fear to acknowledge the truth, the fundamental division of every capitalistic country, Russia included, into three fundamental and decsive divisions: the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The first and the third are universally spoken about, universally acknowledged. The second—which happens to be the majority in point of number—is refused sober recognition from an economic, from a political, from a military point of view.
The truth is painful—that is the conclusion to which the fear of self-analysis of the Social-Revolutionists and Mensheviki leads.