Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 13 - From Marx to Mao

BUT WHO ARE THE JUDGES?155one time convinced, apparently quite sincerely, that theadvent of political liberties would spell political death toour party.... The epoch of liberties has proved the reverse”(p. 28 of the supplement to the Minutes). You don’t reallymean that, Mr. Tuchkin, do you? Is that what the epochof liberties proved? Is that what the actual policy of theparty of Socialist-Revolutionaries proved in 1905? In 1906?In 1907?Let us turn to the facts.In the minutes of the Congress of the Socialist-Revolutionaries(December 1905, published in 1906!) we read thatafter October 17 a writers’ group, which had a voice but novote at this Congress, “urged the Central Committee of theSocialist-Revolutionaries to organise a legal party” (p. 49of the Minutes, further quotations are from the same source).The Central Committee of the Socialist-Revolutionaries“was asked to set up not a legal organisation of the Partyof Socialist-Revolutionaries, but a special parallel PopularSocialist Party” (51). The Central Committee refused andreferred the question to the Congress. The Congress rejectedthe motion of the Popular Socialists by a majority of allagainst one with seven abstentions (66). “Is it conceivableto be in two parallel parties?” cried Mr. Tuchkin, beatinghis breast (p. 61). And Mr. Shevich hinted at the PopularSocialists’ kinship with the liberals, so that the PopularSocialist Mr. Rozhdestvensky began to lose his equanimity(p. 59) and avowed that “no one has the right” to call them“semi-liberals” (59).*Such are the facts. In 1905, the Socialist-Revolutionariesbroke with the “semi-liberal” Popular Socialists. Butdid they?In 1905, a powerful means for the party openly to influencethe masses was the press. During the October “daysof liberty” the Socialist-Revolutionaries ran a newspaperin a bloc with the Popular Socialists, prior to the DecemberCongress, it is true. Formally the Socialist-Revolutionaries* Mr. Shevich retreated somewhat in face of this resentmenton the part of a Popular Socialist who had lost his equanimity and“corrected himself”—p. 63—saying, “by way of personal [!!] explanation”:“I had no intention of suggesting that the speaker was a memberof the liberal party”.