* See pp. 114-16 of this volume. --Ed.
of the people than of reaction. The crux of the matter is that this rightward swing has not been accidental, but has been caused by the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The crux of the matter is that Struve and then Maklakov have told the truth about their class and their party more frankly than other Cadets have.
And this home truth has been very unpalatable to the diplomats of the Cadet Party (headed by Mr. Milyukov), who deem it necessary to flirt with democracy in the belief that the role of this democracy is not quite played out, and that the bourgeoisie may perhaps have to live and act in a milieu created, not only by the Purishkeviches but -- God forbid -- by the democracy, by the "mob", by the "street", by the workers.
While taking the same line as Mr. Struve and Mr. Maklakov, Mr. Milyukov tries to cover it up, show himself off before the public, fool democracy and keep it in leading strings. That is why Mr. Milyukov pretends that he disagrees with Vekhi, that he disagrees with Struve, and that he is refuting Maklakov, when as a matter of fact he is merely teaching Struve and Maklakov how to conceal their thoughts more cunningly.
The gist of Mr. Milyukov's long article against Struve is his accusation that Struve is "hopelessly muddled".
Hot and strong, is it not?
Where is the muddle? It is in Struve's holding the "optimistic" belief that the government can be reformed, while at the same time saying that it is learning no lessons from the "upheavals" and is making them inevitable. The way out, according to Mr. Struve, is either "unrest", or the reform of government. As for the first way out, Mr. Struve does not want to "effectively work" for it or even "wish" it.
Mr. Struve is indeed muddled, but then so is Mr. Milyukov -- completely, absolutely muddled, for neither can the Constitutional-Democratic Party -- of which Milyukov is the leader -- "wish" the first way out or "effectively work" for it.
This is proved, not by words (those who in politics judge men and parties by their words are foolish), but by their deeds, i.e., by the entire history of the Constitutional-Democratic Party from 1905 to 1914, for almost a decade.
The Constitutional-Democratic Party is more afraid of siding with the workers (on questions of the minimum programme, of course) than of being dependent on the Purishkeviches.
This applies to the entire party, to the entire Cadet and Octobrist bourgeoisie. And Milyukov simply makes himself ridiculous when he tries to lay the blame for this on Struve alone.
In all countries the experience of history shows that a bourgeoisie which desires progress vacillates between siding with the workers and being dependent on the Purishkeviches. In all countries -- and the more civilised and free the country, the more marked this is -- we see two types of bourgeois politicians. One type openly leans towards religion, towards the Purishkeviches, towards a forthright struggle against democracy, and tries to build up consistent theoretical evidence to support this tendency. The other type specialises in covering up this very same tendency by flirting with democracy.
There are diplomatic Milyukovs everywhere, and the workers must learn to detect the cloven hoof at once.