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

AGAINST BOYCOTT41which in those days was self-evident. This premise was therich revolutionary energy of the masses, which soughtand found direct outlets apart from any “constitutional”channels. This premise was the continuous offensive of therevolution against reaction, an offensive which it wouldhave been criminal to weaken by occupying and defendinga position that was deliberately yielded up by the enemyin order to weaken the general assault. Try to repeat thesearguments apart from the conditions of this fundamentalpremise and you will immediately feel that all your “music”is off-key, that your fundamental tone is false.It would be just as hopeless to attempt to justify theboycott by drawing a distinction between the Second andthe Third Dumas. To regard the difference between theCadets (who in the Second Duma completely betrayed thepeople to the Black Hundreds 19 ) and the Octobrists 20 as aserious and fundamental difference, to attach any real significanceto the notorious “constitution” which was torn upby the coup d’état of June 3, is something that in generalcorresponds much more to the spirit of vulgar democracythan that of revolutionary Social-Democracy. We havealways said, maintained, and repeated that the “constitution”of the First and Second Dumas was only an illusion,that the Cadets’ talk was only a blind to screen their Octobristnature, and that the Duma was a totally unsuitableinstrument for satisfying the demands of the proletariatand the peasantry. For us June 3, 1907 is a natural andinevitable result of the defeat of December 1905. We werenever “captivated” by the charms of the “Duma” constitution,and so we cannot be greatly disappointed by thetransition from reaction embellished and glossed over byRodichev’s phrase-mongering to naked, open, and crudereaction. The latter may even be a more effectivemeans of sobering the ranting liberal simpletons or thesections of the population they have led astray....Compare the Menshevik Stockholm resolution with theBolshevik London resolution on the State Duma. You willfind that the former is pompous, wordy, full of high-flownphrases about the significance of the Duma and puffed up bya sense of the grandeur of work in the Duma. The latteris simple, concise, sober, and modest. The first resolution