Page:Nikolai Bukharin - Programme of the World Revolution (1920).djvu/40

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

36

But if at the present moment they do not in any way differ from the Black Hundred horde, then they can hardly expect us to encourage them.

But whilst the bourgeoisie and all the other enemies of the proletariat and poorest peasantry require a bridle to restrain them, the proletariat and peasantry, on the other hand, need complete freedom of speech, of association, and of the press, etc., not only in word, but in fact. Never, under any government, was there such a number of workers' and peasants' organisations as there are now in the Soviet Government. Never did any government support such a vast number of workers' and peasants' organisations as does the Soviet Government. This is because the Soviet Government is the government of workers and peasants themselves, and it is no wonder therefore that such a government supports all other working class organisations as far as it lies in its power. We repeat, the Communists carry all this freedom into effect instead of merely proclaiming it before the world. Here is a little example: the freedom of the workers' press. Under the pressure of the working class even the bourgeoisie might agree to a greater or smaller amount of freedom for the workers' press. But the workers have no means; all the printing works are in the hands of the capitalists. Paper is in the hands of the capitalists, who have bought up everything. The workers have the right to a free press, but they are unable to make use of it. We, Communists, on the other hand, approach the owners of printing works and of paper works, and we say to them: "the proletarian government is about to confiscate your works and declare them to be the property of the workers' and peasants' government, and to place them at the disposal of the workers"; let them now put their right to a free press into execution. Of course the capitalists will set up a howl at such proceedings, but it is the only way to attain real freedom of the workers' press.

Another question may be put to us: why did the bolsheviks never before speak of the complete destruction of the freedom of the bourgeois press? Why were they formerly on the side of a bourgeois democratic republic? Why did they themselves side with the Constituent Assembly without ever expressing themselves in favour of depriving the bourgeoisie of the franchise? In a word, why have they changed their attitude now in connection with this question?

The reason is very simple. The working class at that time