are described as a firm and realistic basis!
The millionaire Ryabushinsky is a Progressist. Utro Rossii  is the mouthpiece of this and similar Progressists. And none other than Rech, the paper of the Cadets, who have formed a bloc with the Progressists, wrote: "Utro Rossii, organ of the Moscow industrialists, is gratified [by Kokovtsov's speech] more than anyone else. . . . It echoes Krestovnikov: 'Commercial and industrial Moscow can feel satisfied.'" And Rech added for its own part: "As far as Golos Moskvy and Utro Rossii are concerned, they are willing not to pursue any line, and feel perfectly satisfied."
The question arises: where is the evidence that Yefremov or other Progressists have a "line"? There is no such evidence. For democrats to support this sort of progressism, whether it is called progressism or Cadetism, would mean only surrendering their position. But using the conflicts between the bourgeoisie and the landlords, between the liberals and the Rights, is another matter. That is the only way in which a democrat can formulate his task.
To fulfil this task, to politically enlighten and organise
the very wide masses that are economically dependent on the Yefremovs and Ryabushinskys, one has to be well aware of the counter-revolutionary nature of Cadet and Progressist liberalism. The lack of this awareness is the chief defect of both the Trudoviks and the liquidators. The Trudoviks say nothing at all about the class characteristics of liberalism. The liquidators utter phrases about "wresting the Duma from the hands of the reactionaries", about the Cadets and Progressists coming closer to power, and about the historically progressive work they are doing (see Martov and Dan). Taken as a whole, it adds up to that very role of a Cadet "flank" which pleases R. B. so much.
To be sure, these are not the subjective wishes of the Trudoviks and the liquidators and, indeed, it is not a question of their subjective plans, but of the objective alignment of the social forces. And in spite of all the adherents of the idea of two camps, in spite of the malicious shouts about disorganisation in the workers' democratic movement (see the same article by Mr. R. B.), this alignment clearly shows us that a third camp has formed. Its line is clearly presented and is known to all. The anti-liquidationist workers are pursuing this line, rallying all the democrats in the struggle both against the Rights and against the liberals. Without entertaining any illusions about the impotent liberalism of the Cadets, who are grovelling before the reaction in all fundamental questions, the workers are using clashes between that liberalism and the reaction to promote their own cause, their own class organisation, their own democracy, which is now quietly ripening in the broad mass of the people enslaved by the Yefremovs and Ryabushinskys.
Thanks to the anti-liquidationist tactics of the workers, the fight between the Rights and the "responsible" opposition must, and will, serve to develop the political consciousness and independent organisation of an "opposition" which lays no claim to the scarcely honourable title of "responsible".