V. I. LENIN WHAT IS  TO BE DONE?  Burning Questions of Our Movement FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1973 First Edition 1973

The present English translation of V. I. Lenin's What Is To Be Done? is taken from the text given in the 1952 edition of the pamphlet by the same name, published in Moscow, with changes according to other English translations of the pamphlet. The notes at the end of the book are based on those given in the Moscow edition and in the Chinese edition published by the People's Publishing House, Peking, March 1965.

page 2





PREFACE



    According to the author's original plan, the present pamphlet was to have been devoted to a detailed development of the ideas expressed in the article "Where To Begin?" (Iskra,[2] No. 4, May 19O1).[3] And we must first of all apologize to the reader for the delay in fulfilling the promise made in that article (and repeated in reply to many private in quiries and letters). One of the reasons for this delay was the attempt made last June (1901) to unite all the Social-Democratic organizations abroad. It was natural to wait for the results of this attempt, for if it were successful it would perhaps have been necessary to expound the Iskra's views on organization from a somewhat different angle; and in any case, such a success promised to put a very early end to the existence of the two trends in the Russian Social-Democratic movement. As the reader knows, the attempt failed, and, as we shall try to show here, was bound to fail after the new swing of the Rabocheye Dyelo,[4] in its issue No. 10, towards Economism. It proved absolutely essential to commence a determined fight against this diffuse and ill-defined, but very persistent trend, one capable of appearing

page 3

again in diverse forms. Accordingly, the original plan of the pamphlet was altered and very considerably enlarged.

    Its main theme was to have been the three questions raised in the article "Where To Begin?" -- viz., the character and principal content of our political agitation, our organizational tasks; and the plan for building, simultaneously and from various ends, a militant, all-Russian organization. These questions have long engaged the mind of the author, who already tried to raise them in the Rabochaya Gazeta [5] during one of the unsuccessful attempts to revive that paper (see Chap. V). But the original plan to confine this pamphlet to an analysis of only these three questions and to set forth our views as far as possible in a positive form, without entering, or almost without entering, into polemics, proved quite impracticable for two reasons. One was that Economism proved to be much more tenacious than we had sup posed (we employ the term Economism in the broad sense, as explained in the Iskra, No. 12 [December 1901], in an article entitled "A Conversation With the Advocates of Economism," which was a synopsis, so to speak, of the present pamphlet[6]). It became clear beyond doubt that the differences as to how these three questions should be answered were due much more to the fundamental antithesis between the two trends in the Russian Social-Democratic movement than to differences over details. The second reason was that the perplexity displayed by the Economists over the practical application of our views in the Iskra revealed quite clearly that we often speak literally different languages, that therefore we cannot come to any understanding without beginning ab ovo, and that an attempt must be made, in the simplest possible style and illustrated by numerous and concrete examples, systematically to "thrash out" all our fundamental

page 4

points of difference with all the Economists. I resolved to make such an attempt to "thrash out" the differences, fully realizing that it would greatly increase the size of the pamphlet and delay its publication, but at the same time I saw no other way of fulfilling the promise I made in the article "Where To Begin?" Thus, in addition to apologizing for the delay, I must apologize for the numerous literary shortcomings of the pamphlet. I had to work in the greatest of haste, and was moreover frequently interrupted by other work.

    The examination of the three questions mentioned above still constitutes the main theme of this pamphlet, but I found it necessary to begin with two questions of a more general nature, viz., why an "innocent" and "natural" slogan like "freedom of criticism" should be a real fighting challenge for us, and why we cannot come to an understanding even on the fundamental question of the role of Social-Democrats in relation to the spontaneous mass movement. Further, the exposition of our views on the character and substance of political agitation developed into an explanation of the difference between a trade-unionist policy and Social-Democratic policy, while the exposition of our views on organizational tasks developed into an explanation of the difference between the amateurish methods which satisfy the Economists, and an organization of revolutionaries which in our opinion is indispensable. Further, I advance the "plan" for an all-Russian political newspaper with all the more insistence because of the flimsiness of the objections raised against it, and because no real answer has been given to the question I raised in the article "Where To Begin?" as to how we can set to work from all sides simultaneously to erect the organization we need. Finally, in the concluding part of this pamphlet, I hope to show that we did all we could to

page 5

prevent a decisive rupture with the Economists, which nevertheless proved inevitable; that the Rabocheye Dyelo has acquired a special significance, a "historical" significance, if you will, because it most fully and most graphically expressed, not consistent Economism, but the confusion and vacillation which constitute the distinguishing feature of a whole period in the history of the Russian Social-Democratic movement; and that therefore the controversy with the Rabocheye Dyelo, which may at first sight seem to be waged in too excessive detail, also acquires significance, for we can make no progress until we finally put an end to this period.

N. Lenin

February 1902





page 6





I

DOGMATISM AND "FREEDOM OF CRITICISM"


A. WHAT IS "FREEDOM OF CRITICISM"?

   "Freedom of criticism" is undoubtedly the most fashionable slogan at the present time, and the one most frequently employed in the controversies between the Socialists and democrats of all countries. At first sight, nothing would appear to be more strange than the solemn appeals by one of the parties to the dispute to freedom of criticism. Have voices been raised in the advanced parties against the constitutional law of the majority of European countries which guarantees freedom to science and scientific investigation? "Something must be wrong here," will be the comment of the onlooker, who has not yet fully grasped the essence of the disagreements among the disputants, but has heard this fashionable slogan repeated at every crossroad. "Evidently this slogan is one of the conventional phrases which, like a nickname, becomes legitimatized by use, and becomes almost an appellative," he will conclude.

page 7

    In fact, it is no secret that two trends have taken shape in the present-day international[*] Social-Democracy. The fight between these trends now flares up in a bright flame, and now dies down and smoulders under the ashes of imposing "truce resolutions." What this "new" trend, which adopts a "critical" attitude towards "obsolete dogmatic" Marxism, represents has with sufficient precision been stated by Bernstein, and demonstrated by Millerand.

    Social-Democracy must change from a party of the social revolution into a democratic party of social reforms. Bernstein has surrounded this political demand with a whole battery of symmetrically arranged "new" arguments and reasonings. The possibility of putting Socialism on a scientific basis and of proving from the point of view of the materialist concep tion of history that it is necessary and inevitable was denied, as was also the growing impoverishment, proletarianization and the intensification of capitalist contradictions. The very conception, "ultimate aim," was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was abso-

---

   * Incidentally, this perhaps is the only occasion in the history of modern Socialism in which controversies between various trends within the socialist movement have grown from national into international controversies; and this, in its own way, is extremely encouraging. Formerly, the disputes between the Lassalleans and the Eisenachers,[7] between the Guesdites and the Possibilists,[8] between the Fabians[9] and the Social-Democrats, and between the Narodnaya Volya-ites[10] and Social-Democrats, remained purely national disputes, reflected purely national features and proceeded, as it were, on different planes. At the present time (this is quite evident now), the English Fabians, the French Ministerialists, the German Bernsteinians and the Russian critics -- all belong to the same family, all extol each other, learn from each other, and together come out against "dogmatic" Marxism. Perhaps in this first really international battle with socialist opportunism, international revolutionary Social-Democracy will become sufficiently strengthened to put an end to the political reaction that has long reigned in Europe?

page 8

lutely rejected. It was denied that there is any counter-distinction in principle between liberalism and Socialism. The theory of the class struggle was rejected on the grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society, governed according to the will of the majority, etc.

    Thus, the demand for a resolute turn from revolutionary Social-Democracy to bourgeois social-reformism was accompanied by a no less resolute turn towards bourgeois criticism of all the fundamental ideas of Marxism. As this criticism of Marxism has been going on for a long time now, from the political platform, from university chairs, in numerous pamphlets and in a number of learned treatises, as the entire younger generation of the educated classes has been systematically trained for decades on this criticism, it is not surprising that the "new, critical" trend in Social-Democracy should spring up, all complete, like Minerva from the head of Jupiter.[11] The content of this new trend did not have to grow and take shape, it was transferred bodily from bourgeois literature to socialist literature.

    To proceed. If Bernstein's theoretical criticism and political yearnings are still unclear to anyone, the French have taken the trouble graphically to demonstrate the "new method." In this instance, too, France has justified its old reputation of being the country in which "more than anywhere else, the historical class struggles were each time fought out to a decision. . . ." (Engels, in his introduction[12] to Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire.[13]) The French Socialists have begun, not to theorize, but to act. The democratically more highly developed political conditions in France have permitted them to put "Bernsteinism into practice" immediately, with all its consequences. Millerand has provided an excellent example of practical Bernsteinism; not without reason

page 9

did Bernstein and Vollmar rush so zealously to defend and praise him I Indeed, if Social-Democracy, in essence, is merely a party of reform, and must be bold enough to admit this openly, then not only has a Socialist the right to join a bourgeois cabinet, but must always strive to do so. If democracy, in essence, means the abolition of class domination, then why should not a Socialist minister charm the whole bourgeois world by orations on class collaboration? Why should he not remain in the cabinet even after the shooting down of workers by gendarmes has exposed, for the hundredth and thousandth time, the real nature of the democratic collaboration of classes? Why should he not personally take part in greeting the tsar, for whom the French Socialists now have no other name than hero of the gallows, knout and exile (knouteur, pendeur et déportateur)? And the reward for this utter humiliation and self-degradation of Socialism in the face of the whole world, for the corruption of the socialist consciousness of the worker masses -- the only basis that can guarantee our victory -- the reward for this is pompous plans for niggardly reforms, so niggardly in fact that much more has been obtained from bourgeois governments!

    He who does not deliberately close his eyes cannot fail to see that the new "critical" trend in Socialism is nothing more nor less than a new variety of opportunism. And if we judge people not by the brilliant uniforms they don, not by the high-sounding appellations they give themselves, but by their actions, and by what they actually advocate, it will be clear that "freedom of criticism" means freedom for an opportunistic trend in Social-Democracy, the freedom to convert Social-Democracy into a democratic party of reform, the freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into Socialism.

page 10

    "Freedom" is a grand word, but under the banner of free trade the most predatory wars were conducted; under the banner of free labour, the toilers were robbed. The modern use of the term "freedom of criticism" contains the same inherent falsehood. Those who are really convinced that they have advanced science would demand, not freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old. The cry "Long live freedom criticism," that is heard today, too strongly calls to mind the fable of the empty barrel.[14]

    We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance under their almost constant fire. We have combined voluntarily, precisely for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not to retreat into the adjacent marsh, the inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And now several among us begin to cry out: let us go into this marsh! And when we begin to shame them, they retort: how conservative you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to take a better road! Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands, don't clutch at us and don't besmirch the grand word "freedom," for we too are "free" to go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh!

page 11





B. THE NEW ADVOCATES OF "FREEDOM
OF CRITICISM"!

    Now, this slogan ("freedom of criticism") has been solemnly advanced, very recently, in No. 10 of the Rabocheye Dyelo, the organ of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad,[15] not as a theoretical postulate, but as a political demand, as a reply to the question: "is it possible to unite the Social-Democratic organizations operating abroad?" -- "in order that unity may be durable, there must be freedom of criticism." (P. 36.)

    From this statement two quite definite conclusions follow: 1) that the Rabocheye Dyelo has taken under its wing the opportunist trend in international Social-Democracy in general, and 2) that the Rabocheye Dyelo demands freedom for opportunism in Russian Social-Democracy. Let us examine these concluslons.

    The Rabocheye Dyelo is "particularly" displeased with the Iskra's and the Zarya's[16] "inclination to predict a rupture between the Mountain and the Gironde in international Social-Democracy."*

    "Generally speaking," writes B. Krichevsky, editor of the Rabocheye Dyelo, "this talk about the Mountain and the Gironde that is heard in

---

   * A comparison between the two trends among the revolutionary proletariat (the revolutionary and the opportunist), and the two trends among the revolutionary bourgeoisie in the eighteenth century (the Jacobin, known as the Mountain, and the Girondist) was made in a leading article in No. 2 of the Iskra (February 1901). This article was written by Plekhanov. The Cadets,[17] the Bezzaglavtsi[18] and the Mensheviks to this day love to refer to the Jacobinism in Russian Social-Democracy but they prefer to remain silent about, or . . . to forget the circumstance that Plekhanov used this term for the first time against the Right wing of Social-Democracy. (Author's note to the 1907 edition. --Ed.)

page 12

the ranks of Social-Democracy represents a shallow historical analogy, a strange thing to come from the pen of a Marxist. The Mountain and the Gironde did not represent different temperaments, or intellectual trends, as ideologist historians may think, but different classes or strata -- the middle bourgeoisie, on the one hand, and the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat, on the other. In the modern socialist movement, however, there is no conflict of class interests; the socialist movement in its entirety, all of its diverse forms," (B. K.'s italics) "including the most pronounced Bernsteinians, stand on the basis of the class interests of the proletariat and of its class struggle for political and economic emancipation." (Pp. 32-33.)

    A bold assertion! Has not B. Krichevsky heard of the fact, long ago noted, that it is precisely the extensive participation of an "academic" stratum in the socialist movement in recent years that has secured such a rapid spread of Bernsteinism? And what is most important -- on what does our author base his opinion that even "the most pronounced Bernsteinians" stand on the basis of the class struggle for the political and economic emancipation of the proletariat? No one knows. This determined defence of the most pronounced Bernsteinians is not supported by any argument or ideas whatever. Apparently, the author believes that if he repeats what the most pronounced Bernsteinians say about themselves, his assertion requires no proof. But can anything more "shallow" be imagined than this opinion of a whole tendency based on nothing more than what the representatives of that tendency say about themselves? Can anything more shallow be imagined than the subsequent "homily" about the two different and even diametrically opposite types, or paths, of party development? (Rabocheye Dyelo, pp. 34-35.) The German Social-Democrats, you see, recognize complete freedom of criticism, but the French do not, and it is precisely their example that demonstrates all the "harmfulness of intolerance."

page 13

    To which we reply that the very example of B. Krichevsky proves that the name of Marxists is sometimes assumed by people who regard history literally from the ''Ilovaisky''[19] point of view. To explain the unity of the German Socialist Party and the disunity of the French Socialist Party, there is no need whatever to go into the special features in the history of these countries, to contrast the conditions of military semiabsolutism in the one country with republican parliamentarism in the other, or to analyze the effects of the Paris Commune and the effects of the Anti-Socialist Law;[20] to compare the economic life and economic development of the two countries, or recall that "the unexampled growth of German Social-Democracy" was accompanied by a strenuous struggle, unexampled in the history of Socialism, not only against mistaken theories (Muhlberger, Duhring,* the Katheder-Socialists[22]), but also against mistaken tactics (Lassalle), etc., etc. All that is superfluous! The French quarrel among themselves because they are intolerant; the Germans are united because they are good boys.

---

   * At the time Engels dealt his blows at Duhring, many representatives of German Social-Democracy inclined towards the latter's views, and accusations of acerbity, intolerance, uncomradely polemics, etc., were even publicly hurled at Engels at the Party Congress. At the Congress of 1877, Most, and his supporters, moved a resolution to prohibit the publication of Engels' articles in the Vorwärts [21] because "they do not interest the overwhelming majority of the readers," and Wahlteich declared that the publication of these articles had caused great damage to the Party, that Duhring too had rendered services to Social-Democracy: "We must utilize everyone in the interest of the party; let the professors engage in polemics if they care to do so, but the Vorwärts is not the place in which to conduct them." (Vorwärts, No. 65, June 6, 1877.) This, as you see, is another example of the defence of "freedom of criticism," and our legal critics and illegal opportunists, who love so much to cite the example of the Germans, would do well to ponder over it!

page 14

    And observe, this piece of matchless profundity is intended to "refute" the fact which is a complete answer to the defence of the Bernsteinians. The question as to whether the Bernsteinians do stand on the basis of the class struggle of the proletariat can be completely and irrevocably answered only by historical experience. Consequently, the example of France is the most important one in this respect, because it is the only country in which the Bernsteinians attempted to stand independently, on their own feet, with the warm approval of their German colleagues (and partly also of the Russian opportunists; cf. the Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 2-3, pp. 83-84). The reference to the "intolerance" of the French, apart from its "historical" significance (in the Nozdryov sense[23]), turns out to be merely an attempt to obscure very unpleasant facts with angry invectives.

    Nor are we at all prepared to make a present of the Germans to B. Krichevsky and to the numerous other champions of "freedom of criticism." If the "most pronounced Bernsteinians" are still tolerated in the ranks of the German party, it is only to the extent that they submit to the Hanover resolution,[24] which emphatically rejected Bernstein's "amendments," and to the Lubeck resolution,[25] which (notwithstanding the diplomatic terms in which it is couched) contains a direct warning to Bernstein. It is debatable, from the standpoint of the interests of the German party, whether diplomacy was appropriate and whether, in this case, a bad peace is better than a good quarrel; in short, opinions may differ as to the expediency of one or another method employed to reject Bernsteinism, but that the German party did reject Bernsteinism on two occasions is a fact no one can fail to see. Therefore, to think that the German example confirms the thesis: "The most pronounced Bernsteinians stand

page 15

on the basis of the class struggle of the proletariat, for political and economic emancipation," means failing absolutely to understand what is going on before everybody's eyes.[*]

    Nor is that all. As we have already observed, the Rabocheye Dyelo demands "freedom of criticism," and defends Bernsteinism before Russian Social-Democracy. Apparently it came to the conclusion that we were unfair to our "critics" and the Bernsteinians. Which ones? Who was unfair? Where and when? What was the unfairness? About this not a word. The Rabocheye Dyelo does not name a single Russian critic or Bernsteinian! All that is left for us to do is to make one of two possible suppositions: Either, that the unfairly treated party is none other than the Rabocheye Dyelo itself (and this is confirmed by the fact that in the two articles in No. 10 reference is made only to the wrongs suffered by the Rabocheye Dyelo at the hands of the Zarya

---

   * It should be observed that the Rabocheye Dyelo has always confined itself to a bare statement of facts concerning Bernsteinism in the German party, and completely "refrained" from expressing its own opinion on these facts. See, for example, the reports of the Stuttgart Congress[26] in No. 2-3 (p. 66), in which all the disagreements are reduced to disagreements over "tactics," and the bare statement is made that the overwhelming majority remain true to the previous revolutionary tactics. Or take No. 4-5 (p. 25 et seq.), in which we have a bare paraphrasing of the speeches delivered at the Hanover Congress, and a reprint of the resolution moved by Bebel. An exposition and criticism of Bernstein's views is again put off (as was the case in No. 2-3) to be dealt with in a "special article." Curiously enough, in No. 4-5 (p. 33), we read the following: ". . . the views expounded by Bebel have the support of the enormous majority of the congress," and a few lines lower: ". . . David defended Bernstein's views. . . . First of all, he tried to show that . . . Bernstein and his friends, after all is said and done," (sic!) stand on the basis of the class struggle. . . ." This was written in December 1899, and in September 1901 the Rabocheye Dyelo, apparently having lost faith in the correctness of Bebel's position, repeats David's views as its own!

page 16

and the Iskra). If that is the case, how is the strange fact to be explained that the Rabocheye Dyelo, which always vehemently dissociates itself from all solidarity with Bernsteinism, could not defend itself, without putting in a word on behalf of the "most pronounced Bernsteinians" and of freedom of criticism? Or some third persons have been treated unfairly. If this is the case, then what reasons may there be for not naming them?

    We see, therefore, that the Rabocheye Dyelo is continuing to play the game of hide-and-seek that it has played (as we shall show further on) ever since it commenced publication. And note this first practical application of the much vaunted "freedom of criticism." As a matter of fact, not only was it forthwith reduced to abstention from all criticism, but also to abstention from expressing independent views altogether. The very Rabocheye Dyelo which avoids mentioning Russian Bernsteinism as if it were a shameful disease (to use Starover's[27] apt expression) proposes, for the treatment of this disease, to copy word for word the latest German prescription for the treatment of the German variety of the disease! Instead of freedom of criticism -- slavish (worse: monkeylike) imitation. The very same social and political content of modern international opportunism reveals itself in a variety of ways according to its national peculiarities. In one country the opportunists long ago came out under a separate flag, in another they ignored theory and in practice pursued the policy of the Radical-Socialists; in a third country, several members of the revolutionary party have deserted to the camp of opportunism and strive to achieve their aims not by an open struggle for principles and for new tactics, but by gradual, imperceptible and, if one may so express it, unpunishable corruption of their party. In a

page 17

fourth country again, similar deserters employ the same methods in the gloom of political slavery, and with an absolutely unique combination of "legal" with "illegal" activity, etc., etc. To talk about freedom of criticism and Bernsteinism as a condition for uniting the Russian Social-Democrats, and not to explain how Russian Bernsteinism has manifested itself, and what particular fruits it has borne, is tantamount to talking for the purpose of saying nothing.

    Let us ourselves try, if only in a few words, to say what the Rabocheye Dyelo did not want to say (or perhaps did not even understand).




C. CRITICISM IN RUSSIA

    The chief distinguishing feature of Russia in regard to the point we are examining is that the very beginning of the spontaneous working-class movement, on the one hand, and the change of progressive public opinion towards Marxism on the other, was marked by the combination of obviously heterogeneous elements under a common flag for the purpose also of fighting a common enemy (an obsolete social and political world outlook). We refer to the heyday of "legal Marxism." Speaking generally, this was an altogether curious phenomenon that no one in the 'eighties or the beginning of the 'nineties would have believed possible. In a country ruled by an autocracy, in which the press is completely shackled, and in a period of terrific political reaction in which even the tiniest outgrowth of political discontent and protest was persecuted, the theory of revolutionary Marxism suddenly forces its way into the censored literature, and though expounded in Aesopian language, is

page 18

understood by the "interested." The government had accus tomed itself to regarding only the theory of (revolutionary) Narodnaya Volya-ism as dangerous, without, as is usually the case, observing its internal evolution, and rejoicing at any criticism levelled against it. Quite a considerable time elapsed (according to our Russian calculations) before the government realized what had happened and the unwieldy army of censors and gendarmes discovered the new enemy and flung itself upon him. Meanwhile, Marxist books were published one after another, Marxist journals and newspapers were founded, nearly everyone became a Marxist, Marxists were flattered, Marxists were courted and the book publishers rejoiced at the extraordinary, ready sale of Marxist literature. It was quite natural, therefore, that among the Marxist novices who were caught in this atmosphere, there should be more than one "author who got a swelled head. . . ."[28]

    We can now speak calmly of this period as of an event of the past. It is no secret that the brief period in which Marxism blossomed on the surface of our literature was called forth by an alliance between people of extreme and of very moderate views. In point of fact, the latter were bourgeois democrats; and this was the conclusion (so strik ingly confirmed by their subsequent "critical" development) that suggested itself to some people even when the "alliance" was still intact.*

    That being the case, does not the responsibility for the subsequent "confusion" rest mainly upon the revolutionary

---

   * This refers to an article by K. Tulin (Lenin --Ed.) written against Struve: (See Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. I, pp. 315-484. --Ed.) The article was compiled from an essay entitled "The Reflection of Marxism in Bourgeois Literature." (Author's note to the l907 edition. --Ed.) [Transcriber's Note: See note [29]. -- DJR]

page 19

Social-Democrats who entered into the alliance with the future "critics"? This question, together with a reply in the affirmative, is sometimes heard from people with excessively rigid views. But these people are absolutely wrong. Only those who are not sure of themselves can fear to enter into temporary alliances even with unreliable people; not a single political party could exist without such alliances. The combination with the "legal Marxists" was in its way the first really political alliance entered into by Russian Social-Democrats. Thanks to this alliance, an astonishingly rapid victory was obtained over Narodism, and Marxist ideas (even though in a vulgarized form) became very widespread. More over, the alliance was not concluded altogether without "conditions." The proof: the burning by the censor, in 1895, of the Marxist symposium, Materials on the Problem of the Economic Development of Russia.[29] If the literary agreement with the "legal Marxists" can be compared with a political alliance, then that book can be compared with a political treaty.

    The rupture, of course, did not occur because the "allies" proved to be bourgeois democrats. On the contrary, the representatives of the latter trend are natural and desirable allies of Social-Democracy in so far as its democratic tasks, brought to the front by the prevailing situation in Russia, are concerned. But an essential condition for such an alliance must be the full opportunity for the Socialists to reveal to the working class that its interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the bourgeoisie. However, the Bernsteinian and "critical" trend, to which the majority of the "legal Marxists" turned, deprived the Socialists of this opportunity and corrupted socialist consciousness by vulgarizing Marxism, by advocating the theory that social antag-

page 20

onisms were being toned down, by declaring the idea of the social revolution and of the dictatorship of the proletariat to be absurd, by reducing the working-class movement and the class struggle to narrow trade unionism and to a "realistic" struggle for petty, gradual reforms. This was tantamount to bourgeois democracy denying Socialism's right to independence and, consequently, of its right to existence; in practice it meant a striving to convert the nascent working-class movement into an appendage of the liberals.

    Naturally, under such circumstances a rupture was necessary. But the "peculiar" feature of Russia manifested itself in that this rupture simply meant the elimination of the Social-Democrats from the most accessible and widespread "legal" literature. The "ex-Marxists" who took up the flag of "criticism," and who obtained almost a monopoly of "demolishing" Marxism, entrenched themselves in this literature. Catchwords like: "Against orthodoxy" and "Long live freedom of criticism" (now repeated by the Rabocheye Dyelo ) immediately became the fashion, and the fact that neither the censor nor the gendarmes could resist this fashion is apparent from the publication of three Russian editions of Bernstein's celebrated book (celebrated in the Herostratus sense)[30] and from the fact that the books by Bernstein, Mr. Prokopovich and others were recommended by Zubatov.[31] (Iskra, No. 10.) Upon the Social-Democrats was now imposed a task that was difficult in itself, and made incredibly more difficult by purely external obstacles, viz., the task of combating the new trend. And this trend did not confine itself to the sphere of literature. The turn towards "criticism" was accompanied by the inclination towards "Economism" among Social-Democratic practical workers.

page 21

    The manner in which the connection between, and inter-dependence of, legal criticism and illegal Economism arose and grew is an interesting subject in itself, and could serve as the subject of a special article. We need only note here that this connection undoubtedly existed. The notoriety deservedly acquired by the Credo was due precisely to the frankness with which it formulated this connection and blurted out the fundamental political tendency of "Economism," viz., let the workers carry on the economic struggle (it wouid be more correct to say the trade-unionist struggle, because the later also embraces specifically working-class politics), and let the Marxist intelligentsia merge with the liberals for the political "struggle." Thus, trade-unionist work "among the people" meant fuifilling the first part of this task, and legal criticism meant fuifilling the second part. This statement was such an excellent weapon against Economism that, had there been no Credo, it would have been worth inventing.

    The Credo was not invented, but it was published without the consent and perhaps even against the will of its authors. At all events the present writer, who took part in dragging this new "program" into the light of day,* has heard complaints and reproaches to the effect that copies of the résumé of the speakers were distributed, dubbed the Credo, and even published in the press together with the protest! We refer to this episode because it reveals a very peculiar feature of

---

   * Reference is to the Protest of the Seventeen[32] against the Credo. The present writer took part in drawing up this protest (the end of 1899). The protest and the Credo were published abroad in the spring of 1900. (See Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. IV, pp. 149-63. --Ed.) It is now known from the article written by Madame Kuskova, I think in Byloye,[33] that she was the author of the Credo, and that Mr. Prokopovich was very prominent among the "Economists" abroad at that time. (Author's note to the 1907 edition. --Ed.)

page 22

our Economists, viz., a fear of publicity. This is a feature of Economism generally, and not of the authors of the Credo alone. It was revealed by that most outspoken and honest advocate of Economism, the Rabochaya Mysl,[34] and by the Rabocheye Dyelo (which was indignant over the publication of "Economist" documents in the Vademecum[35]), as well as by the Kiev Committee, which two years ago refused to permit the publication of its profession de foi,[36] together with a repudiation of it,[*] and by many, many other individual representatives of Economism.

    This fear of criticism being displayed by the advocates of freedom of criticism cannot be attributed solely to craftiness (although, on occasion, no doubt craftiness has something to do with it: it would be unwise to expose the young and as yet frail shoots of the new trend to attacks by opponents). No, the majority of the Economists quite sincerely disapprove (and by the very nature of Economism they must disapprove) of all theoretical controversies, factional disagreements, broad political questions, schemes for organizing revolutionaries, etc. "Leave all that to the people abroad!" said a fairly consistent Economist to me one day, and thereby he expressed a very widespread (and again a purely trade-unionist) view: our work, he said, is the working-class movement, the workers' organizations, here, in our parts; all the rest are merely the inventions of doctrinaires, an "exaggeration of the importace of ideology," as the authors of the letter, published in the Iskra, No. 12, expressed it, in unison with the Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10.

    The question now arises: such being the peculiar features of Russian "criticism" and Russian Bernsteinism, what should

---

   * As far as our information goes, the composition of the Kiev Committee has changed since then.

page 23

have been the task of those who desired to oppose opportunism, in deeds and not merely in words? First of all, they should have made efforts to resume the theoretical work that the period of "legal Marxism" had only just begun, and that has now again fallen on the shoulders of the illegal workers. Without such work the successful growth of the movement was impossible. Secondly, they should have actively combated legal "criticism" that was greatly corrupting people's minds. Thirdly, they should have actively opposed confusion and vacillation in the practical movement, exposing and repudiating every conscious or unconscious attempt to degrade our program and tactics.

    That the Rabocheye Dyelo did none of these things is well known, and further on we shall deal in detail with this well-known fact from various aspects. At the moment, however, we desire merely to show what a glaring contradiction there is between the demand for "freedom of criticism" and the specific features of our native criticism and Russian Economism. Indeed, glance at the text of the resolution in which the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad endorsed the point of view of the Rabocheye Dyelo.

    "In the interests of the further ideological development of Social-Democracy, we recognize the freedom to criticize Social-Democratic theory in Party literature to be absolutely necessary in so far as this criticism does not run counter to the class and revolutionary character of this theory." (Two Congresses, p. 10.)

    And the argumentation? The resolution "in its first part coincides with the resolution of the Lübeck Party Congress on Bernstein. . . . " In the simplicity of their souls the "Unionists" failed to observe what a testimonium paupertatis (certificate of poverty) they give themselves by this piece of imitativeness. . . . "But . . . in its second part, it restricts

page 24

freedom of criticism much more than did the Lübeck Party Congress."

    So the Union's resolution was directed against the Russian Bernsteinians? If it was not, then the reference to Lübeck would be utterly absurd! But it is not true to say that it "restricts freedom of criticism." In passing their Hanover resolution, the Germans, point by point, rejected precisely the amendments proposed by Bernstein, while in their Lübeck resolution they cautioned Bernstein personally, by naming him in the resolution. Our "free" imitators, however, do not make a single allusion to a single manifestation of Russian "criticism" and Russian Economism and, in view of this omission, the bare reference to the class and revolutionary character of the theory leaves far wider scope for misinter pretation, particularly when the Union refuses to identify "so-called Economism" with opportunism. (Two Congresses, p. 8, par. I.) But all this en passant. The main thing to note is that the opportunist attitude towards revolutionary Social-Democrats in Russia is the very opposite of that in Germany. In that country, as we know, revolutionary Social-Democrats are in favour of preserving what is: the old program and tactics which are universally known, and have been elucidated in all their details by many decades of experience. The "critics" want to introduce changes, and as these critics represent an insignificant minority, and as they are very timid in their revisionist efforts, one can understand the motives of the majority in confining themselves to the dry rejection of "innovations." In Russia, however, it is the critics and Economists who are in favour of preserving what is: the "critics" want us to continue to regard them as Marxists, and to guarantee them the "freedom of criticism" which they enjoyed to the full (for, as a matter of fact, they

page 25

never recognized any kind of Party ties,[*] and, moreover, we never had a generally recognized Party body which could "restrict freedom" of criticism, if only by council); the Economists want the revolutionaries to recognize the "sovereign character of the present movement" (Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, p. 25), i.e., to recognize the "legitimacy" of what exists; they want the "ideologists" not to try to "divert" the movement from the path that "is determined by the interaction of material elements and material environment" ("Letter" published in the Iskra, No. 12); they want recognition for the struggle "that is at all possible for the workers under the present conditions," and, as the only possible struggle, the one "they are actually conducting at the present time." (Special Supplement to the Rabochaya Mysl,[37] p. 14.) We revolutionary Social-Democrats, on the contrary, are dissatisfied with this worshipping of spontaneity, i.e., worshipping what is "at the present moment": we demand that the tactics that have prevailed in recent years be changed; we declare

---

   * The very absence of public Party ties and Party traditions marks such a cardinal difference between Russia and Germany that it should have warned all sensible Socialists against blind imitation. But here is an example of the lengths to which "freedom of criticism" goes in Russia. Mr. Bulgakov, the Russian critic, utters the following reprimand to the Austrian critic, Hertz: "Notwithstanding the independence of his conclusions, Hertz, on this point" (on cooperative societies) "apparently remains excessively tied by the opinions of his Party, and although he disagrees with it in details, he dare not reject the common principle." (Capitalism and Agriculture, Vol. II, p. 287.) The subject of a politically enslaved state, in which nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand of the population are corrupted to the marrow of their bones by political subservience, and completely lack the conception of Party honour and Party ties, superciliously reprimands a citizen of a constitutional state for being excessively "tied by the opinion of his Party"! Our illegal organizations have nothing else to do, of course, but draw up resolutions about freedom of criticism. . . .

page 26

that "before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw hrm and definite lines of demarcation." (See announcement of the publication of the Iskra.)[38] In a word, the Germans stand for what is and reject changes; we demand changes, and reject subservience to, and conciliation with, what is.

    This "little" difference our "free" copyists of German resolutions failed to notice!




D. ENGELS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
THEORETICAL STRUGGLE

    "Dogmatism, doctrinairism," "ossification of the Party -- the inevitable retribution that follows the violent strait-lacing of thought" -- these are the enemies against which the knightly champions of "freedom of criticism" in the Rabocheye Dyelo rise up in arms. We are very glad that this question has been placed on the order of the day and we would only propose to add to it another question:

    Who are the judges?

    Before us lie two publisher's announcements. One, The Program of the Periodical Organ of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats -- the "Rabocheye Dyelo" (reprint from No. 1 of the Rabocheye Dyelo), and the other an announcement of the resumption of the publications of the Emancipation of Labour group.[39] Both are dated 1899, a time when the "crisis of Marxism" had long since been under discussion. And what do we find? You would seek in vain in the first announcement for any reference to this phenomenon, or a definite statement of the position the new organ intends to adopt on this question. Of theoretical work and the

page 27

urgent tasks that now confront it not a word is said, either in this program or in the supplements to it that were adopted by the Third Congress of the Union in 1901 (Two Congresses, pp. 15-18). During the whole of this time the editorial board of the Rabocheye Dyelo ignored theoretical questions, in spite of the fact that these questions were agitating the minds of all Social-Democrats all over the world.

    The other announcement, on the contrary, points first of all to the decreased interest in theory observed in recent years, imperatively demands "vigilant attention to the theoretical aspect of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat," and calls for "ruthless criticism of the Bernsteinian and other antirevolutionary tendencies" in our movement. The issues of the Zarya that have appeared show how this program has been carried out.

    Thus we see that high-sounding phrases against the ossification of thought, etc., conceal unconcern for and impotence in the development of theoretical thought. The case of the Russian Social-Democrats very strikingly illustrates the phenomenon observed in the whole of Europe (and long ago noted also by the German Marxists) that the celebrated freedom! of criticism does not imply the substitution of one theory for a other, but freedom from all integral and considered theory; it implies eclecticism and lack of principle. Those who have the slightest acquaintance with the actual state of our movement cannot but see that the wide spread of Marxism was accompanied by a certain lowering of the theoretical level. Quite a number of people with very little, and even a total lack of theoretical training joined the movement because of its practical significance and its practical successes. We can judge from that how tactless the Rabocheye Dyelo is when, with an air of triumph, it quotes Marx's statement: "Every

page 28

step of real movement is more important than a dozen programs."[40] To repeat these words in a period of theoretical chaos is like wishing mourners at a funeral "many happy returns of the day." Moreover, these words of Marx are taken from his letter on the Gotha Program, in which he sharply condemns eclecticism in the formulation of principles: If you must unite, Marx wrote to the party leaders, then enter into agreements to satisfy the practical aims of the movement, but do not allow any bargaining over principle, do not make "concessions" in questions of theory. This was Marx's idea, and yet there are people among us who strive -- in his name -- to belittle the significance of theory!

    Without a reolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This thought cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity. Yet, for Russian Social-Democrats the importance of theory is enhanced by three more circumstances, which are often forgotten: firstly, by the fact that our Party is only in process of formation, its features are only just becoming outlined, and it is yet far from having settled accounts with other trends of revolutionary thought, which threaten to divert the movement from the correct path. On the contrary, precisely the very recent past was marked by a revival of non-Social-Democratic revolutionary trends (which Axelrod long ago warned the Economists would happen). Under these circumstances, what at first sight appears to be an "unimportant" mistake may lead to most deplorable consequences, and only shortsighted people can consider factional disputes and a strict differentiation between shades inopportune or superfluous. The fate of Russian

page 29

Social-Democracy for many, many years to come may depend on the strengthening of one or other "shade."

    Secondly, the Social-Democratic movement is in its very essence an international movement. This means not only that we must combat national chauvinism, but also that a movement that is starting in a young country can be successful only if it implements the experience of other countries. And in order to implement this experience, it is not enough merely to be acquainted with it, or simply to transcribe the latest resolutions. What it requires is the ability to treat this experience critically and to test it independently. Anybody who realizes how enormously the modern working-class movement has grown and branched out will understand what a reserve of theoretical forces and political (as well as revolutionary) experience is required to fulfil this task.

    Thirdly, the national tasks of Russian Social-Democracy are such as have never confronted any other socialist party in the world. Further on we shall have occasion to deal with the political and organizational duties which the task of emancipating the whole people from the yoke of autocracy imposes upon us. At this point, we only wish to state that the role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory. In order to get some concrete understanding of what this means, let the reader recall such predecessors of Russian Social-Democracy as Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and the brilliant galaxy of revolutionaries of the 'seventies; let him ponder over the world significance which Russian literature is now acquiring; let him . . . but that is enough!

    Let us quote what Engels said in 1874 concerning the significance of theory in the Social-Democratic movement. Engels recognizes not two forms of the great struggle of Social-

page30

Democracy (political and economic), as is the fashion among us, but three, placing on a par with the first two the theoretical struggle. His recommendations to the German working class movement, which had become strong, practically and politically, are so instructive from the standpoint of present day problems and controversies, that we hope the reader will not be vexed with us for quoting a long passage from his prefatory note to Der deutsche Bauernkrieg,[41] which has long become a great bibliographical rarity.

    "The German workers have two important advantages over those of the rest of Europe. First, they belong to the most theoretical people of Europe; and they have retained that sense of theory which the so-called 'educated' classes of Germany have almost completely lost. Without German philosophy which preceded it, particularly that of Hegel, German scientific Socialism -- the only scientific Socialism that has ever existed -- would never have come into being. Without a sense of theory among the workers, this scientific Socialism would never have entered their flesh and blood as much as is the case. What an immeasurable advantage this is may be seen, on the one hand, from the indifference towards all theory, which is one of the main reasons why the English working-class movement crawls along so slowly in spite of the splendid organization of the individual unions; on the other hand, from the mischief and confusion wrought by Proudhonism, in its original form, among the French and Belgians, and, in the form further caricatured by Bakunin, among the Spaniards and Italians.

    "The second advantage is that, chronologically speaking, the Germans were about the last to come into the workers' movement. Just as German theoretical Socialism will never forget that it rests on the shoulders of Saint-Simon, Fourier

page 31

and Owen -- three men who, in spite of all their fantastic notions and all their utopianism, have their place among the most eminent thinkers of all times, and whose genius anticipated innumerable things the correctness of which is now being scientifically proved by us -- so the practical workers' movement in Germany ought never to forget that it has developed on the shoulders of the English and French movements, that it was able simply to utilize their dearly-bought experience, and could now avoid their mistakes, which in their time were mostly unavoidable. Without the precedent of the English trade unions and French workers' political struggles, without the gigantic impulse given especially by the Paris Commune, where would we be now?

    "It must be said to the credit of the German workers that they have used the advantages of their situation with rare understanding. For the first time since the working-class movement has existed, the struggle is being waged in a planned way from its three coordinated and interconnected sides, the theoretical, the political and the practical-economic (resistance to the capitalists). It is precisely in this, as it were, concentric attack, that the strength and invincibility of the German movement lies.

    "Due to this advantageous situation, on the one hand, and to the insular peculiarities of the English and the forcible suppression of the French movement, on the other, the German workers have for the moment been placed in the vanguard of the proletarian struggle. How long events will allow them to occupy this post of honour cannot be foretold. But let us hope that as long as they occupy it, they will fill it fittingly. This demands redoubled efforts in every field of struggle and agitation. In particular, it will be the duty of the leaders to gain an ever clearer insight into all the-

page 32

oretical questions, to free themselves more and more from the influence of traditional phrases inherited from the old world outlook, and constantly to keep in mind that Socialism, since it has become a science, demands that it be pursued as a science, i.e., that it be studied. The task will be to spread with increased zeal among the masses of the workers the ever more clarified understanding thus acquired, to knit together ever more firmly the organization both of the party and of the trade unions.

    " . . . If the German workers proceed in this way, they will not be marching exactly at the head of the movement -- it is not at all in the interest of this movement that the workers of any particular country should march at its head -- but will, nevertheless, occupy an honourable place in the battle line; and they will stand armed for battle when either unexpectedly grave trials or momentous events demand of them increased courage, increased determination and energy.[42]

    Engels' words proved prophetic. Within a few years the German workers were subjected to unexpectedly grave trials in the shape of the Anti-Socialist Law. And the German workers really met them armed for battle and succeeded in emerging from them victoriously.

    The Russian proletariat will have to undergo trials immeasurably more grave; it will have to fight a monster compared with which the Anti-Socialist Law in a constitutional country seems but a pigmy. History has now confronted us with an immediate task which is the most revolutionary of all the immediate tasks that confront the proletariat of any country. The fulfilment of this task, the destruction of the most powerful bulwark, not only of European, but also (it may now be said) of Asiatic reaction, would make the Russian

page 33

proletariat the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat. And we have the right to count upon acquiring this honourable title already earned by our predecessors, the revolutionaries of the 'seventies, if we succeed in inspiring our movement -- which is a thousand times broader and deeper -- with the same devoted determination and vigour.

page 34





II

THE SPONTANEITY OF THE MASSES AND
THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE
SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS





    We have said that our movement, much wider and deeper than the movement of the 'seventies, must be inspired with the same devoted determination and vigour that inspired the movement at that time. Indeed, no one, we think, has up to now doubted that the strength of the present-day movement lies in the awakening of the masses (principally, the industrial proletariat), and that its weakness lies in the lack of consciousness and initiative among the revolutionary leaders.

    However, of late a most astonishing discovery has been made, which threatens to overthrow all the views that had hitherto prevailed on this question. This discovery was made by the Rabocheye Dyelo, which in its controversy with the Iskra and the Zarya did not confine itself to making objections on separate points, but tried to ascribe "general disagreements" to a more profound cause -- to the "different appraisals of the relative importance of the spontaneous and consciously 'methodical' element." The Rabocheye Dyelo

page 35

formulated its indictment as a belittling of the significance of the objective or the spontaneous element of development."[*] To this we say: if the controversy with the Iskra and the Zarya resulted in nothing more than causing the Rabocheye Dyelo to hit upon these "general disagreements," that result alone would give us considerble satisfaction, so significant is this thesis and so clearly does it illuminate the quintessence of the present-day theoretical and political differences that exist among Russian Social-Democrats.

    That is why the question of the relation between consciousness and spontaneity is of such enormous general interest, and that is why this question must be dealt with in great detail.




A. THE BEGINNING OF THE SPONTANEOUS
UPSURGE

    In the previous chapter we pointed out how universally absorbed the educated youth of Russia was in the theories of Marxism in the middle of the 'nineties. The strikes that followed the famous St. Petersburg industrial war of 1896 assumed a similar wholesale character. The fact that these strikes spread over the whole of Russia clearly showed how deep the newly awakening popular movement was, and if we are to speak of the "spontaneous element" then, of course, it is this movement which, first and foremost, must be regarded as spontaneous. But there is spontaneity and spontaneity. Strikes occurred in Russia in the 'seventies and

---

   * Rabocbeye Dyelo, No. 10, September 1901, pp. 17-18. Rabocheye Dyelo's italics.

page 36

'sixties (and even in the first half of the nineteenth century), and were accompanied by the "spontaneous" destruction of machinery, etc. Compared with these "riots" the strikes of the 'nineties might even be described as "conscious," to such an extent do they mark the progress which the working-class movement had made in that period. This shows that the "spontaneous element," in essence, represents nothing more nor less than consciousness in an embryonic form. Even the primitive riots expressed the awakening of consciousness to a certain extent: the workers were losing their agelong faith in the permanence of the system which oppressed them. They began . . . I shall not say to understand, but to sense the necessity for collective resistance, and definitely abandoned their slavish submission to their superiors. But this was, nevertheless, more in the nature of outbursts of desperation and vengeance than of struggle. The strikes of the 'nineties revealed far greater flashes of consciousness: definite demands were advanced, the strike was carefully timed, known cases and examples in other places were discussed, etc. While the riots were simply revolts of the oppressed, the systematic strikes represented the class struggle in embryo, but only in embryo. Taken by themselves, these strikes were simply trade union struggles, but not yet Social-Democratic struggles. They testified to the awakening antagonisms between workers and employers, but the workers were not, and could not be, conscious of the irreconcilable antagonism of their interests to the whole of the modern political and social system, i.e., theirs was not yet Social-Democratic consciousness. In this sense, the strikes of the 'nineties, in spite of the enormous progress they represented as compared with the "riots," remained a purely spontaneous movement.

page 37

    We have said that there could not yet be Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It could only be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.[*] The theory of Socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals. According to their social status, the founders of modern scientific Socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose quite independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement, it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of ideas among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia. At the time of which we are speaking, i.e., the middle of the 'nineties, this doctrine not only represented the completely formulated program of the Emancipation of Labour group, but had already won over to its side the majority of the revolutionary youth in Russia.

    Hence, we had both the spontaneous awakening of the masses of the workers, the awakening to conscious life and conscious struggle, and a revolutionary youth, armed with the Social-Democratic theory, eager to come into contact with

---

   * Trade unionism does not exclude "politics" altogether, as some imagine. Trade unions have always conducted some political (but not Social-Democratic) agitation and struggle. We shall deal with the difference between trade union politics and Social-Democratic politics in the next chapter.

page 38

the workers. In this connection it is particularly important to state the oft-forgotten (and comparatively little-known) fact that the early Social-Democrats of that period zealously carried on economic agitation (being guided in this by the really useful instructions contained in the pamphlet On Agitation that was still in manuscript), but they did not regard this as their sole task. On the contrary, right from the very beginning they advanced the widest historical tasks of Russian Social-Democracy in general, and the task of overthrowing the autocracy in particular. For example, already towards the end of 1895, the St. Petersburg group of Social-Democrats, which founded the League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class,[43] prepared the first issue of a newspaper called the Rabocheye Dyelo. This issue was ready to go to press when it was seized by the gendarmes who, on the night of December 8, 1895, raided the house of one of the members of the group, Anatoli Alexeyevich Vaneyev,[*] and so the original Rabocheye Dyelo was not destined to see the light of day. The leading article in this issue (which perhaps in some thirty years' time some Russkaya Starina"[44] will unearth in the archives of the Department of Police) described the historical tasks of the working class in Russia, of which the achievement of political liberty is regarded as the most important. This issue also contained an article entitled "What Are Our Cabinet Ministers Thinking Of?"[45] which dealt with the breaking up of the elementary education

---

    * A. A. Vaneyev died in Eastern Siberia in 1899 from consumption, which he contracted during solitary confinement in prison prior to his banishment. That is why we considered it possible to publish the above information, the authenticity of which we guarantee, for it comes from persons who were closely and directly acquainted with A. A. Vaneyev.

page 39

committees by the police. In addition, there was some correspondence, not only from St. Petersburg, but from other parts of Russia too (for example, a letter about the assault on the workers in Yaroslavl Gubernia). This, if we are not mistaken, "first effort" of the Russian Social-Democrats of the 'nineties was not a narrow, local, and certainly not an "economic" newspaper, but one that aimed to unite the strike movement with the revolutionary movement against the autocracy, and to win all who were oppressed by the policy of reactionary obscurantism over to the side of Social-Democracy. No one in the slightest degree acquainted with the state of the movement at that period could doubt that such a paper would have met with warm response among the workers of the capital and the revolutionary intelligentsia and would have had a wide circulation. The failure of the enterprise merely showed that the Social-Democrats of that period were unable to meet the immediate requirements of the time owing to their lack of revolutionary experience and practical training. The same thing must be said with regard to the S. Peterburgsky Rabochy Listok [46] and particularly with regard to the Rabochaya Gazeta and the Manifesto of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party which was founded in the spring of 1898. Of course, we would not dream of blaming the Social-Democrats of that time for this unpreparedness. But in order to profit from the experience of that movement, and to draw practical lessons from it, we must thoroughly understand the causes and significance of this or that shortcoming. For that reason it is extremely important to establish the fact that part (perhaps even a majority) of the Social-Democrats, operating in the period of 1895-98, quite justly considered it possible even then, at the very beginning of the "spontaneous" movement, to

page 40

come forward with a most extensive program and militant tactics.[*] The lack of training of the majority of the revolutionaries, being quite a natural phenomenon, could not have aroused any particular fears. Since the tasks were correctly defined, since the energy existed for repeated attempts to fulfil these tasks, temporary failures were not such a great misfortune. Revolutionary experience and organizational skill are things that can be acquired provided the desire is there to acquire them, provided the shortcomings are recognized -- which in revolutionary activity is more than halfway towards removing them!

    But what was not a great misfortune became a real misfortune when this consciousness began to grow dim (it was very much alive among the workers of the group mentioned), when people -- and even Social-Democratic organs -- appeared who were prepared to regard shortcomings as virtues, who even tried to invent a theoretical basis for slavish cringing before spontaneity. It is time to summarize this trend,

---

    * "In adopting a hostile attitude towards the activities of the Social-Democrats of the end of the 'nineties, the Iskra ignores the fact that at that time the conditions for any other kind of work except the struggle for petty demands were absent," declare the Economists in their Letter to Russian Social-Democratic Organs. (Iskra, No. 12.) The facts quoted above show that the assertion about "absent conditions" is the very opposite of the truth. Not only at the end, but even in the middle of the 'nineties, all the conditions existed for other work, besides fighting for petty demands, all the conditions -- except sufficient training of the leaders. Instead of frankly admitting our, the ideologists', the leaders', lack of sufficient training -- the "Economists" want to shift the blame entirely upon the "absent conditions," upon the influences of material environment that determine the road from which it will be impossible for any ideologist to divert the movemcnt. What is this but slavish cringing before spontaneity, but the infatuation of the "ideologists" with their own short comings?

page 41

the substance of which is incorrectly and too narrowly described as "Economism."




B. BOWING TO SPONTANEITY.
THE RABOCHAYA MYSL

    Before dealing with the literary manifestation of this subservience, we should like to note the following characteristic fact (communicated to us from the above-mentioned source), which throws some light on the circumstances in which the two future conflicting trends in Russian Social-Democracy arose and grew among the comrades working in St. Petersburg. In the beginning of 1897, just prior to their banishment, A. A. Vaneyev and several of his comrades attended a private meeting[47] at which "old" and "young" members of the League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class gathered. The conversation centred chiefly around the question of organization, and particularly around the "rules for the workers' benefit fund," which, in their final form, were published in the Listok Rabotnika,[48] No. 9-10, p. 46. Sharp differences were immediately revealed between the "old" members ("Decembrists," as the St. Petersburg Social-Democrats jestingly called them) and several of the "young" members (who subsequently actively collaborated on the Rabochaya Mysl ), and a very heated discussion ensued. The "young" members defended the main principles of the rules in the form in which they were published. The "old" members said that the prime necessity was not this, but the consolidation of the League of Struggle into an organization of revolutionaries to which all the various workers' benefit funds, students' propaganda circles, etc., should be subordinated. It

page 42

goes without saying that the controversialists had no suspicion at that time that these disagreements were the beginning of a divergence; on the contrary, they regarded them as being of an isolated and casual nature. But this fact shows that in Russia too "Economism" did not arise and spread without a fight against the "old" Social-Democrats (the Economists of today are apt to forget this). And if, in the main, this struggle has not left "documentary" traces behind it, it is solely because the membership of the circles functioning at that time underwent such constant change that no continuity was established and, consequently, differences were not recorded in any documents.

    The appearance of the Rabochaya Mysl brought Economisn to the light of day, but not all at once. We must picture to ourselves concretely the conditions of the work and the short-lived character of the majority of the Russian circles (and only those who have experienced this can have any exact idea of it), in order to understand how much there was accidental in the successes and failures of the new trend in various towns, and for how long a time neither the advocates nor the opponents of this "new" trend could make up their minds -- indeed they had no opportunity to do so -- as to whether this was really a distinct trend or whether it was merely an expression of the lack of training of certain individuals. For example, the first mimeographed copies of the Rabochaya Mysl never reached the great majority of Social-Democrats, and we are able to refer to the leading article in the first number only because it was reproduced in an article by V. I.[49] (Listok Rabotnika, No. 9-10, p. 47 et seq.), who, of course, did not fail to extol with more zeal than reason the new paper, which was so different from the papers and the

page 43

plans for papers mentioned above.[*] And this leading article deserves to be dealt with because it so strongly expresses the spirit of the Rabochaya Mysl and Economism generally.

    After stating that the arm of the "blue-coats"[50] could never stop the progress of the working-class movement, the leading article goes on to say: ". . . The virility of the working-class movement is due to the fact that the workers themselves are at last taking their fate into their own hands, and out of the hands of the leaders," and this fundamental thesis is then developed in greater detail. As a matter of fact the leaders (i.e., the Social-Democrats, the organizers of the League of Struggle) were, one might say, torn out of the hands of the workers[**] by the police; yet it is made to appear that the workers were fighting against the leaders, and liberated themselves from their yoke! Instead of sounding the call to go forward, towards the consolidation of the revolutionary organization and to the expansion of political activity, the call for a retreat to the purely trade union struggle was issued. It was announced that "the economic basis of the movement is eclipsed by the effort never to forget the political ideal," and that the watchword for the working-class movement was "Fight for economic conditions" (!) or, still better, "The

---

    * It should be stated in passing that the praise of the Rabochaya Mysl in November 1898, when Economism had become fully defined, especially abroad, emanated from that same V. I., who very soon after became one of the editors of the Rabocheye Dyelo. And yet the Rabocheye Dyelo denied that there were two trends in Russian Social-Democracy, and continues to deny it to this day!
    ** That this simile is a correct one is shown by the following characteristic fact. When, after the arrest of the "Decembrists," the news was spread among the workers of the Schlüsselburg Road that the discovery and arrest were facilitated by an agent-provocateur, N. N. Mikhailov, a dental surgeon, who had been in contact with a group associated with the "Decembrists," the workers were so enraged that they decided to kill him.

page 44

workers for the workers." It was declared that strike funds "are more valuable for the movement than a hundred other organizations" (compare this statement made in October 1897 with the controversy between the "Decembrists" and the young members in the beginning of 1897), and so forth. Catchwords like: We must concentrate not on the "cream" of the workers, but on the "average," mass worker: "Politics always obediently follows economics,"[*] etc., etc., became the fashion, and exercised an irresistible influence upon the masses of the youth who were attracted to the movement, but who, in the majority of cases, were acquainted only with such fragments of Marxism as were expounded in legally appearing publications.

    Consciousness was completely overwhelmed by spontaneity -- the spontaneity of the "Social-Democrats" who repeated Mr. V. V.'s "ideas," the spontaneity of those workers who were carried away by the arguments that a kopek added to a ruble was worth more than Socialism and politics, and that they must "fight, knowing that they are fighting not for some future generation, but for themselves and their children." (Leading article in the Rabochaya Mysl, No. 1.) Phrases like these have always been the favourite weapons of the West-European bourgeoisie, who, in their hatred for Socialism, strove (like the German "Sozial-Politiker" Hirsch) to transplant English trade unionism to their native soil and to

---

    * These quotations are taken from the leading article in the first number of the Rabochaya Mysl already referred to. One can judge from this the degree of theoretical training possessed by these "V. V.'s of Russian Social-Democracy,''[51] who kept repeating the crude vulgarization of "economic materialism" at a time when the Marxists were carrying on a literary war against the real Mr. V. V., who had long ago been dubbed "a past master of reactionary deeds," for holding similar views on the relations between politics and economics!

page 45

preach to the workers that by engaging in the purely trade union struggle[*] they would be fighting for themselves and for their children, and not for some future generation with some future Socialism. And now the "V. V.'s of Russian Social-Democracy" have set about repeating these bourgeois phrases. It is important at this point to note three circumstances which will be useful to us in our further analysis of contemporary differences.[**]

    First of all, the overwhelming of consciousness by spontaneity, to which we referred above, also took place spontaneously. This may sound like a pun, but, alas, it is the bitter truth. It did not take place as a result of an open struggle between two diametrically opposed points of view, in which one triumphed over the other; it occurred because an increasing number of "old" revolutionaries were "torn away" by the gendarmes and because increasing numbers of "young" "V.V.'s of Russian Social-Democracy" appeared on the scene. Everyone, who -- I shall not say has participated in the contemporary Russian movement? but has at least breathed its atmosphere -- knows perfectly well that this is precisely the case. And the reason why we, nevertheless, strongly insist that the reader be fully clear on this universally known fact, and why in order to be quite explicit, so to speak, we cite the details concerning the Rabocheye Dyelo as it first appeared, and concerning the controversy between the "old"

---

    * The Germans even have a special expression: "Nur-Gewerkschaftler," which means an advocate of the "purely trade union" struggle.
    ** We emphasize the word contemporary for the benefit of those who may pharisaically shrug their shoulders and say: it is easy enough to attack the Rabochaya Mysl now, but is not all this ancient history? Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur (change the name and the tale refers to you --Tr.), we reply to such contemporary pharisees whose complete subjection to the ideas of the Rabochaya Mysl will be proved further on.

page 46

and the "young" at the beginning of 1897 -- is that certain persons are speculating on the public's (or the very youthful youths') ignorance of this fact, and are boasting of their "democracy." We shall return to this point further on.

    Secondly, in the very first literary manifestation of Economism, we can already observe the extremely curious phenomenon -- one highly characteristic for an understanding of all the differences prevailing among contemporary Social-Democrats -- that the adherents of the "pure" working-class movement, the worshippers of the closest "organic" (the term used by the Rabocheye Dyelo) contacts with the proletarian struggle, the opponents of any non-worker intelligentsia (even if it be a socialist intelligentsia) are compelled, in order to defend their positions, to resort to the arguments of the bourgeois "pure" trade unionists. This shows that from the very outset the Rabochaya Mysl began -- unconsciously -- to carry out the program of the Credo. This shows (something the Rabocheye Dyelo cannot understand at all) that all worship of the spontaneity of the working-class movement, all belittling of the role of "the conscious element," of the role of Social-Democracy, means, quite irrespective of whether the belittler wants to or not, strengthening the influence of the bourgeois ideology over the workers. All those who talk about "overrating the importance of ideology,"* about exaggerating the role of the conscious element,** etc., imagine that the pure working-class movement can work out, and will work out, an independent ideology for itself, if only the workers "wrest their fate from the hands of the leaders." But this is a profound mistake. To supplement

---

    * Letter of the "Economists," in the Iskra, No. 12.
    ** Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10.

page 47

what has been said above, we shall quote the following profoundly just and important utterances by Karl Kautsky on the new draft program of the Austrian Social-Democratic Party:[*]

    "Many of our revisionist critics believe that Marx asserted that economic development and the class struggle create not only the conditions for socialist production, but also, and directly, the consciousness (K. K.'s italics) of its necessity. And these critics aver that England, the country most highly developed capitalistically, is more remote than any other from this consciousness. Judging from the draft, one might assume that this allegedly orthodox-Marxist view, which is thus refuted, was shared by the committee that drafted the Austrian program. In the draft program it is stated: 'The more capitalist development increases the numbers of the proletariat, the more the proletariat is compelled and becomes fit to fight against capitalism. The proletariat becomes conscious' of the possibility and of the necessity for Socialism. In this connection socialist consciousness appears to be a necessary and direct result of the proletarian class struggle. But this is absolutely untrue. Of course, Socialism, as a doctrine, has its roots in modern economic relationships just as the class struggle of the proletariat has, and, just as the latter, emerges from the struggle against the capitalist-created poverty and misery of the masses. But Socialism and the classs struggle arise side by side and not one out of the other; each arises under different conditions. Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge. Indeed, modern economic science is as much a condition for socialist production as, say, modern technology, and the proletariat can create neither the one nor the other, no matter how much it may desire to do so; both arise out of the modern social process. The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia (K. K.'s italics): it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern Socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done. Thus, socialist consciousness is something introduced into the

---

    * Neue Zeit, 1901-02, XX, I, No. 3, p. 79. The committee's draft to which Kautsky refers was adopted by the Vienna Congress (at the end of last year) in a slightly amended form.

page 48

proletarian class struggle from without (von Aussen Hineingetragenes) and not something that arose within it spontaneously (urwüchsig). Accordingly, the old Hainfeld program quite rightly stated that the task of Social-Democracy is to imbue the proletariat (literally: saturate the proletariat) with the consciousness of its position and the consciousness of its task There would be no need for this if consciousness arose of itself from the class struggle. The new draft copied this proposition from the old program, and attached it to the proposition mentioned above. But this completely broke the line of thought. . . ."

    Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology being developed by the masses of the workers themselves in the process of their movement* the only choice is: either the bourgeois or the socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for humanity has not created a "third" ideology, and, moreover, in a society torn class antagonisms there can never be a non-class or above-class ideology. Hence, to belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn away from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology.

---

    * This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. But they take part not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings; in other words, they take part only when, and to the extent that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and advance that knowledge. And in order that workingmen may be able to do this more often, every effort must be made to raise the level of the consciousness of the workers generally; the workers must not confine themselves to the artificially restricted limits of "literature for workers" but should learn to master general literature to an increasing degree. It would be even more true to say "are not confined," instead of "must not confine themselves," because the workers themselves wish to read and do read all that is written for the intelligentsia and it is only a few (bad) intellectuals who believe that it is sufficient "for the workers" to be told a few things about factory conditions, and to have repeated to them over and over again what has long been known.

page 49

There is a lot of talk about spontaneity, but the spontaneous development of the working-class movement leads to its be coming subordinated to the bourgeois ideology, leads to its developing according to the program of the Credo, for the spontaneous working-class movement is trade unionism, is Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei, and trade unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie. Hence, our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the working-class movement from this spontaneous, trade-unionist striving to come under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social-Democracy. The phrase employed by the authors of the "economic" letter in the Iskra, No. 12, about the efforts of the most inspired ideologists not being able to divert the working-class movement from the path that is determined by the interaction of the material elements and the material environment, is absolutely tantamount therefore to the abandonment of Socialism, and if only the authors of this letter were capable of fearlessly, consistently and thoroughly considering what they say, as everyone who enters the arena of literary and public activity should do, there would be nothing left for them but to "fold their useless arms over their empty breasts" and . . . Ieave the field of action to Messrs. the Struves and Prokopoviches who are dragging the working-class movement "along the line of least resistance," i.e., along the line of bourgeois trade unionism, or to the Zubatovs, who are dragging it along the line of clerical and gendarme "ideology."

    Recall the example of Germany. What was the historical service Lassalle rendered to the German working-class movement? It was that he diverted that movement from the path

page 50

of trade unionism and cooperation preached by the Progressives along which it had been travelling spontaneously (with the benign assistance of Schulze-Delitzsch and those like him ). To fulfil a task like that it was necessary to do something altogether different from indulging in talk about underrating the spontaneous element, about tactics-as-a-process, about the interaction between elements and environment, etc. A fierce struggle against spontaneity was necessary, and only after such a struggle, extending over many years, was it possible, for instance, to convert the working population of Berlin from a bulwark of the Progressive Party into one of the finest strongholds of Social-Democracy. This fight is by no means finished even now (as might seem to those who learn the history of the German movement from Prokopovich, and its philosophy from Struve). Even now the German working class is, so to speak, broken up among a number of ideologies. A section of the workers is organized in Catholic and monarchist labour unions; another section is organized in the Hirsch-Duncker unions,[52] founded by the bourgeois worshippers of English trade unionism, while a third section is organized in Social-Democratic trade unions. The last is immeasurably more numerous than all the rest, but the Social Democratic ideology was able to achieve this superiority, and will be able to maintain it, only by unswervingly fighting against all other ideologies.

    But why, the reader will ask, does the spontaneous movement, the movement along the line of the least resistance, lead to the domination of the bourgeois ideology? For the simple reason that the bourgeois ideology is far older than the socialist ideology; because it is more fully developed and because it possesses immeasurably more op-

page 51

portunities for being spread.[*] And the younger the socialist movement is in any given country, the more vigorously must it fight against all attempts to entrench non-socialist ideology, and the more strongly must the workers be warned against those bad counsellors who shout against "overrating the conscious element," etc. The authors of the economic letter, in unison with the Rabocheye Dyelo, declaim against the intolerance that is characteristic of the infancy of the movement. To this we reply: yes, our movement is indeed in its infancy, and in order that it may grow up the more quickly, it must become infected with intolerance against those who retard its growth by their subservience to spontaneity. Nothing is so ridiculous and harmful as pretending that we are "old hands" who have long ago experienced all the decisive episodes of the struggle.

    Thirdly, the first number of the Rabochaya Mysl shows that the term "Economism" (which, of course, we do not propose to abandon because, however it may be, this appellation has already established itself) does not adequately convey the real character of the new trend. The Rabochaya Mysl does not altogether repudiate the political struggle: the rules

---

    * It is often said: the working class spontaneously gravitates towards Socialism. This is perfectly true in the sense that socialist theory defines the causes of the misery of the working class more profoundly and more correctly than any other theory, and for that reason the workers are able to assimilate it so easily, provided, however, that this theory does not itself yield to spontaneity, provided it subordinates spontaneity to itself. Usually this is taken for granted, but it is precisely this which the Rabocheye Dyelo forgets or distorts. The working class spontaneously gravitates towards Socialism, but the more widespread (and continuously revived in the most diverse forms) bourgeois ideology nevertheless spontaneously imposes itself upon the working class still more.

page 52

for a workers' benefit fund published in the Rabochaya Mysl, No. 1, contain a reference to combating the government. The Rabochaya Mysl believes, however, that "politics alwavs obediently follows economics" (and the Rabocheye Dyelo gives a variation of this thesis when, in its program, it asserts that "in Russia more than in any other country, the economic struggle is inseparable from the political struggle"). If by politics is meant Social-Democratic politics, then the postulates advanced by the Rabochaya Mysl and the Rabocheye Dyelo are absolutely wrong. The economic struggle of the workers is very often connected (although not inseparably) with bourgeois politics, clerical politics, etc., as we have already seen. The Rabocheye Dyelo's postulates are correct if by politics is meant trade union politics, i.e., the common striving of all workers to secure from the government measures for the alleviation of the distress characteristic of their position, but which do not abolish that position, i.e., which do not remove the subjection of labour to capital. That striving indeed is common to the British trade unionists who are hostile to Socialism, to the Catholic workers, to the "Zubatov" workers, etc. There are politics and politics. Thus, we see that the Rabochaya Mysl does not so much deny the political as to bow to its spontaneity, to its lack of consciousness. While fully recognizing the political struggle (it would be more correct to say the political desires and demands of the workers), which arises spontaneously from the working-class movement itself, it absolutely refuses independently to work out a specifically Social-Democratic policy corresponding to the general tasks of Socialism and to contemporary conditions in Russia. Further on we shall show that the Rabocheye Dyelo commits the same error.

page 53





C. THE SELF-EMANCIPATION GROUP^[53]
AND THE RABOCHEYE DYELO

    We have dealt at such length with the little-known and now almost forgotten leading article in the first number of the Rabochaya Mysl because it was the first and most striking expression of that general stream of thought which afterwards emerged into the light of day in innumerable streamlets. V. I. was absolutely right when, in praising the first number and the leading article of the Rabochaya Mysl, he said that it was written in a "sharp and challenging" style. (Listok Rabotnika, No. 9-10, p. 49.) Every man with convictions who thinks he has something new to say writes "challengingly" and in such a way as to make his views stand out in bold relief. Only those who are accustomed to sitting between two stools lack "challenge"; only such people are able to praise the challenge of the Rabochaya Mysl one day, and attack the "challenging polemics" of its opponents the next.

    We shall not dwell on the Special Supplement to the Rabochaya Mysl (further on we shall have occasion, on various points, to refer to this work, which expresses the ideas of the Economists more consistently than any other) but shall briefly mention the Manifesto of the Self-Emancipation of the Workers Group (March 1899, reprinted in the London Nakanunye,[54] No. 7, July 1899). The authors of this manifesto quite rightly say that "the workers of Russia are only just awakening, are only just looking around, and instinctively clutch at the first available means of struggle." But from this they draw the same incorrect conclusion that is drawn by the Rabochaya Mysl, forgetting that instinctiveness is that unconsciousness (spontaneity) to the aid of which Socialists must come; that the "first available means of struggle" will always

page 54

be, in modern society, the trade union means of struggle, and the "first available" ideology will be the bourgeois (trade union) ideology. Similarly, these authors do not "repudiate" politics, they merely say (merely!), repeating what was said by Mr. V. V., that politics is the superstructure, and therefore, "political agitation must be the superstructure to the agitation carried on in favour of the economic struggle; it must arise on the basis of this struggle and follow in its wake."

    As for the Rabocheye Dyelo, it started out on its career by "defending" the Economists. It uttered a downright falsehood in its very first issue (No. 1, pp. 141-42) when it stated that it "does not know which young comrades Axelrod referred to" in his well-known pamphlet,[*] in which he uttered a warning to the Economists. In the controversy that flared up with Axelrod and Plekhanov over this falsehood, the Rabocheye Dyelo was compelled to admit that "by expressing perplexity, it desired to defend all the younger Social-Democrats abroad from this unjust accusation" (Axelrod accused the Economists of having a narrow outlook). As a matter of fact this accusation was absolutely just, and the Rabocheye Dyelo knows perfectly well that, among others, it applied to V. I., a member of its editorial staff. Let me note in passing that in this controversy Axelrod was absolutely right and the Rabocheye Dyelo was absolutely wrong in their respective interpretations of my pamphlet The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats.[55] That pamphlet was written in 1897, before the appearance of the Rabochaya Mysl when I thought, and rightly thought, that the original tendency of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle, which I described above, was the predominant one. And that

---

    * The Contemporary Tasks and Tactics of the Russian Social-Democrats, Geneva, 1898. Two letters written to the Rabochaya Gazeta in 1897.

page 55

tendency really was the predominant one, at any rate until the middle of 1898. Consequently, the Rabocheye Dyelo had no right whatever, in its attempt to refute the existence and dangers of Economism, to refer to a pamphlet which expressed views that were squeezed out by "Economist" views in St. Petersburg in 1897-98.[*]

    But the Rabocheye Dyelo not only "defended" the Economists -- it itself constantly fell into their fundamental errors. The source of this confusedness is to be found in the ambiguity of the interpretation given to the following thesis of the Rabocheye Dyelo program: "We consider that the most important phenomenon of Russian life, the one that will mainly determine the tasks" (our italics) "and the character of the literary activity of the Union, is the mass working-class movement" (Rabocheye Dyelo's italics) "that has arisen in recent years." That the mass movement is a most important phenomenon is a fact about which there can be no dispute. But the crux of the question is, how is one to understand the statement that the mass working-class movement will "determine the tasks"? It may be interpreted in one of two ways.

---

    * To its defence of the first untruth it uttered ("we do not know which young comrades Axelrod referred to"), the Rabocheye Dyelo added a second, when, in its Reply, it wrote: "Since the review of The Tasks was published, tendencies have arisen, or have become more or less clearly defined among certain Russian Social-Democrats, towards economic one-sidedness, which represent a step backwards from the state of our movement as described in The Tasks" (p. 9). This is what the Reply says, published in 1900. But the first number of the Rabocheye Dyelo (containing the review) appeared in April 1899. Did Economism really arise only in 1899? No. The year 1899 saw the first protest of the Russian Social-Democrats against Economism (the protest against the Credo). Economism arose in 1897, as the Rabocheye Dyelo very well knows, for already in November 1898, V. I. was praising the Rabochaya Mysl (see the Listok Rabotnika, No. 9-10).

page 56

Either it means bowing to the spontaneity of this movement, i.e., reducing the role of Social-Democracy to mere subservience to the working-class movement as such (the interpretation given to it by the Rabochaya Mysl, the Self-Emancipation Group and other Economists); or it means that the mass movement puts before us new theoretical, political and organizational tasks, far more complicated than those that might have satisfied us in the period before the rise of the mass movement. The Rabocheye Dyelo inclined and still inclines towards the first interpretation, for it has said nothing definite about any new tasks, but argued all the time just as if the "mass movement" relieves us of the necessity of clearly appreciating and fulfilling the tasks it sets before us. We need only point out that the Rabocheye Dyelo considered that it was impossible to set the overthrow of the autocracy as the first task of the mass working-class movement, and that it degraded this task (in the interests of the mass movement) to that of a struggle for immediate political demands. (Reply, p. 25.) We shall pass over the article by B. Krichevsky, the editor of the Rabocheye Dyelo, entitled "The Economic and Political

page 57

Struggle in the Russian Movement," published in No. 7 of that paper, in which these very mistakes[*] are repeated, and proceed directly to the Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10. We shall not, of course, enter in detail into the various objections raised by B. Krichevsky and Martynov against the Zarya and the Iskra. What interests us here solely are the principles expounded by the Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10. For example, we shall not examine the curiosity -- that the Rabocheye Dyelo saw a "diametrical contradiction" between the proposition:

    "Social-Democracy does not tie its hands, it does not restrict its activities to some one preconceived plan or method of political struggle; it recognizes all means of struggle, as long as they correspond to the forces at the disposal of the Party," etc. (Iskra, No.1)[56]

and the proposition:

"Without a strong organization, tested in the political struggle carried on under all circumstances and in all periods, there can be no talk of a systematic plan of activity, enlightened by firm principles and unswervingly carried out, which alone is worthy of being called tactics." (Iskra, No. 4.)[57]

    To confuse the recognition, in principle, of all means of struggle, of all plans and methods, as long as they are ex-

---

    * [Transcriber's Note: For some reason the publisher began Lenin's following note on the preceeding page (p. 56). -- DJR]

    The "stages theory," or the theory of "timid zigzags" in the political struggle, is expressed, for example, in this article, in the following way: "Political demands, which in their character are common to the whole of Russia, should, however, at first" (this was written in August 1900!) "correspond to the experience gained by the given stratum" (sic!) "of workers in the economic struggle. Only (!) on the basis of this experience can and should political agitation be taken up," etc. (P. 11.) On page 4, the author, protesting against what he regards as the absolutely unfounded charge of Economist heresy, pathetically exclaims: "What Social-Democrat does not know that according to the theories of Marx and Engels the economic interests of various classes play a decisive role in history, and, consequently, that particularly the proletariat's struggle for the defence of its economic interests must be of first-rate importance [cont. onto p. 57. -- DJR] in its class development and struggle for emancipation?" (Our italics.) The word "consequently" is absolutely out of place. The fact that economic interests play a decisive role does not in the least imply that the cconomic (i.e., trade union) struggle is of prime importance, for the most essential, the "decisive" interests of classes can be satisfied only by radical political changes in general. In particular the fundamental economic interests of the proletariat can be satisfied only by a political revolution that will replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by the dictatorship of the proletariat. B. Krichevsky repeats the arguments of the "V. V.'s of Russian Social-Democracy" (i.e., politics follow economics, etc.) and the Bernsteinians of German Social-Democracy (for example, by arguments like these, Woltmann tried to prove that the workers must first of all acquire "economic power" before they can think about political revolution) .

page 58

pedient -- with the demand that at a given political moment, if we are to talk of tactics, we be guided by a strictly observed plan, is tantamount to confusing the recognition by medical science of various methods of treatment of diseases with the necessity for adopting a certain definite method of treatment for a given disease. The point is, however, that the Rabocheye Dyelo, while itself the victim of a disease which we have called bowing to spontaneity, refuses to recognize any "method of treatment" for that disease. Hence, it made the remarkable discovery that "tactics-as-a-plan contradicts the fundamental spirit of Marxism" (No. 10, p. 18), that tactics are "a process of growth of Party tasks, which grow together with the Party." (P. 11, the Rabocheye Dyelo's italics.) The latter remark has every chance of becoming a celebrated maxim, a permanent monument to the Rabocheye Dyelo "trend." To the question: whither a leading organ replies: movement is a process of altering the distance between the starting point and subsequent points of the movement. This matchless example of profundity is not merely a curiosity (if it were, it would not be worth dealing with at length), but the program of a whole trend, i.e., the very program which R.M. (in the Special Supplement to the Rabochaya Mysl ) expressed in the words: That struggle is desirable which is possible, and the struggle which is possible is the one that is going on at a given moment. This is precisely the trend of unbounded opportunism, which passively adapts itself to spontaneity.

    "Tactics-as-a-plan contradicts the fundamental spirit of Marxism!" But this is a libel on Marxism; it means turning it into the caricature of Marxism that was set up by the Narodniks in their fight against us. It means belittling the

page 59

initiative and energy of class-conscious fighters, whereas Marxism, on the contrary, gives a gigantic impetus to the initiative and energy of the Social-Democrat, opens up for him the widest perspectives and (if one may so express it) places at his disposal the mighty force of millions and millions of workers "spontaneously" rising for the struggle! The whole history of international Social-Democracy seethes with plans advanced now by one, now by another political leader; some confirming the farsightedness and correct political and organizational views of their authors and others revealing their shortsightedness and political errors. At the time when Germany was at one of the most important turning points in its history -- the formation of the Empire, the opening of the Reichstag and the granting of universal suffrage -- Liebknecht had one plan for Social-Democratic policy and work in general and Schweitzer had another. When the Anti-Socialist Law came down on the heads of the German Socialists, Most and Hasselmann had one plan, they were prepared there and then to call for violence and terror; Höchberg, Schramm and (partly) Bernstein had another: they began to preach to the Social-Democrats that they themselves had provoked the enactment of the Law by being unreasonably bitter and revolutionary, and must now earn forgiveness by their exemplary conduct. There was yet a third plan proposed by those who paved the way for and carried out the publication of an illegal organ. It is easy, of course, in retrospect, many years after the fight over the selection of the path to be followed has ended, and after history has pronounced its verdict as to the expediency of the path selected, to utter profound maxims about the growth of Party tasks, which grow together with the Party. But at a time of con-

page 60

fusion,[*] when the Russian "critics" and Economists are degrading Social-Democracy to the level of trade unionism, and when the terrorists are stronglv advocating the adoption of "tactics-as-a-plan" that repeats the old mistakes, at such a time, to confine oneself to such profundities, means simply issuing oneself a "certificate of poverty." At a time when many Russian Social-Democrats suffer from lack of initiative and energy, from a lack of "scope of political propaganda, agitation and organization,"[58] a lack of "plans" for a broader organization of revolutionary work, at such a time, to say: "tactics-as-a-plan contradicts the fundamental spirit of Marxism," means not only vulgarizing Marxism in the realm of theory, but also dragging the Party backward in practice.

    The Rabocheye Dyelo goes on to sermonize:

    "The task of the revolutionary Social-Democrat is only to accelerate objective development by his conscious work; not to obviate it or substitute his own subjective plans for this development. The Iskra knows all this in theory. But the enormous importance which Marxism quite justly attaches to conscious revolutionary work causes it in practice, owing to its doctrinaire view of tactics, to belittle tbe significance of the objective or the spontaneous element of development." (P. 18.)

    Another example of the extraordinary theoretical confusion worthy of Mr. V.V. and that fraternity. We would ask our philosopher: how may a deviser of subjective plans "belittle" objective development? Obviously by losing sight of the fact that this objective development creates or strengthens, destroys or weakens certain classes, strata, groups, certain nations, groups of nations, etc., and in this way serves as the

---

    * "Ein Jahr der Verwirrung" ("Year of Confusion") is the title Mehring gave to the chapter of his History of German Social-Democracy in which he describes the hesitancy and lack of determination displayed at first by the Socialists in selecting the "tactics-as-a-plan" for the new situation.

page 61

premise for a definite international political alignment of forces, for determining the position of revolutionary parties, etc. If the deviser of plans did that, his guilt would not be that he belittled the spontaneous element, but, on the contrary, that he belittled the conscious element, for he would then show that he lacked the "consciousness" properly to understand objective development. Hence, the very talk about "estimating the relative significance" (the Rabocheye Dyelo's italics) of spontaneity and consciousness itself reveals a complete lack of "consciousness." If certain "spontaneous elements of development" can be grasped at all by human understanding, then an incorrect estimation of them will be tantamount to "belittling the conscious element." But if they cannot be grasped, then we cannot know them, and therefore cannot speak of them. What is B. Krichevsky arguing about then? If he thinks that the Iskra's "subjective plans" are erroneous (as he in fact declares them to be), then he ought to show what objective facts are ignored in these plans, and then charge the Iskra with a lack of consciousness for ignoring them, with, to use his own words, "belittling the conscious element." If, however, while being displeased with subjective plans he can bring forward no other argument than that of "belittling the spontaneous element" (!!) he merely shows: 1) that theoretically he understands Marxism à la the Kareyevs and Mikhailovskys, who have been sufficiently ridiculed by Beltov,[59] and 2) that, practically, he is quite pleased with the "spontaneous elements of development" that have drawn our legal Marxists towards Bernsteinism and our Social-Democrats towards Economism, and that he is full of wrath against those who have determined at all costs to divert Russian Social-Democracy from the path of "spontaneous" development.

page 62