Among Newspapers and Periodicals (June 29, 1906)

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Yesterday we showed that Trepov had no reason to fall out with the Cadets solely because he is on principle opposed to compulsory alienation of land for the benefit of the peasants, once the Cadets agree to the peasants being made to pay a round sum for the alienated land “at a fair valuation”. Today, Slovo says:

“Agrarian reform is the corner-stone of all the rumours about the formation of a new Cabinet representing the Duma majority. According to the rumours that have reached us from other sources, the basis on which an agreement may be reached on the question of forming a Duma Cabinet is—the floating of a new loan.

“The purpose of the loan is primarily to solve the urgent land question. It has been estimated that to solve this problem without having to resort to the undesirable principle of compulsory alienation, two thousand million rubles will be needed. The other half of the loan is to be placed at the absolute disposal of the Ministry of War and the Ministry of the Navy for the purpose of increasing the fighting efficiency of the Army and Navy.”

Thus, everything is going smoothly: for two thousand million to compensate the expropriated landlords and others plus two thousand million to be placed at the absolute disposal of the Ministry of War and the Ministry of the Navy, Trepov is willing to put the Cadets in power, and let his principles go hang. It is not a high price he asks, is it, gentle men of the Cadet Party?

* *

*

Nasha Zhizn is very much disturbed at the idea of a new congress of our Party. It is trying to make out that this new congress will be some sort of disaster, a symptom of some incurable sickness of the Party. “What, another congress!”—it cries in horror. Yes, another congress—as the inevitable way out of the situation in the Party, when the Central Committee and its directives are out of harmony with the opinion of the whole Party. The Party has now been reorganised on democratic lines, and we would ask the democrats of Nasha Zhizn how the organised opinion of a democratic party can be expressed if not through a congress. In their newspaper these gentlemen quote the figures published in Ekho showing the number of organisations and Party members that have expressed opposition to the Central Committee’s policy; and yet they are horror-struck at the idea of a congress. No, the idea of a new congress is not disastrous; it is a symptom of the Party’s vitality, a symptom of the strength of public opinion in the Party. It is a sign that the Party is finding a simple and easy way out of the situation that circumstances have created. And we are sure that nobody in the Party, least of all our responsible Cabinet—the Central Committee—will regard a congress as a disaster. For the Party, the convocation of a congress is now a necessity; for the Central Committee it is an obligation; for the Cadets and their yes-men, perhaps, it may be unpleasant. But what can one do! We know that whichever side is victorious at the congress, the congress will be very unpleasant for the bourgeoisie.

* *

*

The following is printed in Golos Truda (No. 7):

“Editorial note. We have received a letter from Comrade K. P—v concerning the article by Comrade N. Rakhmetov. We deem it necessary to state that we do not fully share some of Rakhmetov’s views, and in particular, we totally disagree with his opinion about ’a political coalition’ with the Cadets.

“We allowed Comrade Rakhmetov the right freely to express his views. We ourselves stand by the Amsterdam Resolution, and we have made this sufficiently clear and definite in leading articles on the most diverse topics of current politics from the very first day the Constitutional-Democratic Party appeared in the political arena.”

We do not know what Comrade K. P—v actually wrote to the editors of Golos Truda; but the perplexing thought that involuntarily rises in one’s mind is: Did the editors need this letter to enable them to “understand” N. Rakhmetov’s article? If they did understand it without Comrade K. P—v’s assistance and did not agree with N. Rakhmetov, how is it that they publish leading articles on matters of principle without indicating that they disagree with them? Moreover, the length of the article—interesting indeed only because of its slashing style and its “extreme” deductions and slogans—must have misled a fairly large number of readers who concluded that the author was in close touch with leading circles in the Party. Nevertheless, our feeling of perplexity is to some extent mingled with a feeling of satisfaction. True, it has taken Golos Truda a week to dissociate itself from N. Rakhmetov; but better late than never.