the soldier-peasantry, temporarily, and by the bourgeois-peasants, permanently.) You had these two extremes: on the one hand, backward, undeveloped peasant production; and on the other, the typical concentrated industry of imperialistic Capitalism.
The inner conditions of Russian Capitalism required the intensive development and exploitation of the home market. But this meant a revolutionary struggle against Czarism. The bourgeoisie rejected this policy, mortally afraid of the consequences it might have in arousing the strength and revolutionary class consciousness of the proletariat. The home market was allowed to remain largely undeveloped; and the bourgeoisie embarked upon a .policy of export trade, exploiting Asia Minor, Persia and the Far East,—in short, Imperialism. The monopoly of military power, dominantly, instead of the monopoly of finance-capital, was the instrument of Imperialism. This was a policy apparently of no revolutionary consequences, and that promised, immediately, larger profits than the intensive development of the home market. But it also meant the end of the bourgeoisie as a liberal and revolutionary force, it meant immediately and ultimately a compromise with Czarism.
The revolution of 1905 marked the turning point of this development. During this revolution, betrayed and maligned by the "liberal" forces, the bourgeoisie beheld the spectre of a proletarian revolution, of a revolution that might not persist within the limits of bourgeois interests, and that might turn against the bourgeoisie,—as has actually been the case. The danger was too palpable: why take risks, particularly when the policy of Imperialism offered an apparently easy way out? But such are the contradictions of Capitalism, that the bourgeoisie inevitably digs its own grave no matter which way it may turn. The new policy had momentous consequences. It made the bourgeoisie reactionary; moreover, it assisted in clarifying the class consciousness of the proletariat by constituting it the revolutionary force.
The significance of Russian Imperialism in the course of the Revolution should not be confused because of the fact that Imperialism generally means the maturity of the industrial development of Capitalism. Events are not interpreted simply by formula. Japan is imperialistic in its policy, and yet it is not a fully-developed industrial country. The prevailing historical situation and modifying factors are of the first importance. The Russian bourgeoisie adopted the policy of export trade and Imperialism because of historical impulses: this Imperialism might differ in minor characteristics, but its general purposes were identical with the Imperial-
