page 2

    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

    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-

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

    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

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.

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

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).

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

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

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

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

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!

    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

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.

    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

    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

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

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,

    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

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

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"

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

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

    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

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.

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-

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

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

    And then follow things that are positively funny. "Just as human beings will multiply in the old-fashioned way, notwithstanding all the discoveries of natural science, so the birth of a new social order will come about, in the future too, mainly as a result of elemental outbursts, notwithstanding all the discoveries of social science and the increase in the number of conscious fighters." (P. 19.) Just as our grandfathers in their old-fashioned wisdom used to say: "Any fool can bring forth children," today the "modern Socialists" (à la Narcissus Tuporylov)[60] in their wisdom say: Any fool can participate in the spontaneous birth of a new social order. We too are of that opinion. All that is required for participation of that kind is to yield, to Economism when Economism reigns, and to terrorism when terrorism arises. For example, in the spring of this year, when it was so important to utter a note of warning against infatuation with terrorism, the Rabocheye Dyelo stood in amazement, confronted by a problem that was "new" to it. And now, six months after, when the problem has become less topical, it, at one and the same time, pre sents us with the declaration: "We think that it is not and should not be the task of Social-Democracy to counteract the rise of terroristic sentiments" (Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, p. 23), and the congress resolution: "The congress regards systematic and aggressive terror as being inopportune" (Two Congresses, p. 18). How beautifully clear and coherent this is! Not to counteract, but to declare inopportune, and to declare it in such a way that unsystematic and defensive terror does not come within the scope of the "resolution." It must be admitted that a resolution like that is extremely safe and completely insured against error, just as a man who talks, but says nothing, is insured against error! And all that is required to frame such a resolution is: ability to keep at the

page63

tail end of the movement. When the Iskra ridiculed the Rabocheye Dyelo for declaring the question of terror to be a new one,[61] the latter angrily accused the Iskra of "having the incredible effrontery to impose upon the Party organization solutions of tactical questions proposed by a group of emigrant writers more than fifteen years ago" (p. 24). Effrontery indeed, and what an overrating of the conscious element -- first to find the theoretical solutions to problems, and then to try to prove to the organization, to the Party and to the masses that this solution is correct![*] How much better it would be to repeat something that has been learned by rote, and, without "imposing" anything upon anybody, swing with every "turn" -- whether in the direction of Economism or in the direction of terrorism. The Rabocheye Dyelo even generalizes this great precept of worldly wisdom and accuses the Iskra and the Zarya of "setting up their program against the movement, like a spirit hovering over the formless chaos." (P. 29.) But what else is the function of Social-Democracy if not to be a "spirit," not only hovering over the spontaneous movement, but also raising this movement to the level of "its program"? Surely, it is not its function to drag at the tail of the movement: at best, this would be of no service to the movement; at the worst, it would be very, very harmful. The Rabocheye Dyelo, however, not only follows this ''tactics-as-a-process," but elevates it to a principle, so that it would be more correct to describe its tendency not as opportunism, but as tail-ism (from the word tail). And it must be admitted that those who have determined always to follow behind the

*                     *                      *

omists" concerning the political struggle. We have already shown that the "Economists" do not altogether repudiate "politics," but that they are constantly straying from the Social-Democratic to the trade-unionist conception of politics. Martynov strays in exactly the same way, and we agree, therefore, to take his views as a model of Economist error on this question. As we shall endeavour to prove, neither the authors of the Special Supplement to the Rabochaya Mysl, nor the authors of the manifesto issued by the Self-Emancipation Group, nor the authors of the Economist letter published in the Iskra, No. 12, will have any right to complain against this choice.

of Europe we can still witness how the exposure of evils in some backward trade, or in some forgotten branch of domestic industry, serves as a starting point for the awakening of class consciousness, for the beginning of a trade union struggle, and for the spread of Socialism.[*]

    The overwhelming majority of Russian Social-Democrats have of late been almost entirely absorbed by this work of organizing the exposure of factory conditions. It is sufficient to recall the Rabochaya Mysl to see to what extent they were taken up by it. So much so, indeed, that they lost sight of the fact that this, taken by itself, is in essence still not Social-Democratic work, but merely trade union work. As a matter of fact, these exposures merely dealt with the relations between the workers in a given trade and their employers, and all that they achieved was that the sellers of labour power learned to sell their "commodity" on better terms and to fight the purchasers over a purely commercial deal. These exposures could have served (if

press a single view regarding political agitation and struggle. Examine this view from the standpoint of the opinion prevailing among all Economists, that political agitation must follow economic agitation. Is it true that, in general,[*] the economic struggle "is the most widely applicable means" of drawing the masses into the political struggle? It is absolutely untrue. All and sundry manifestations of police tyranny and autocratic outrage, and not only such as are connected with the economic struggle, are not one whit less "widely applicable" as a means of "drawing in" the masses. The Zemsky Nachalniks,[62] the flogging of peasants, the corruption of the officials, the police treatment of the "common people" in the cities, the fight against the famine-stricken and the suppression of the popular striving towards enlightenment and knowledge, the extortion of taxes, the persecution of the religious sects, the humiliating treatment of the soldiers and the treatment of the students and the liberal intelligentsia as if they were soldiers -- do all these and a thousand other similar manifestations of tyranny, though not directly connected with the "economic" struggle, represent, in general, less "widely applicable" means and occasions for political

struggle as the most widely applicable means of drawing the masses into active political struggle?

    The Union attaches significance to the fact that it replaced the phrase "most widely applicable means" for the phrase "the best means" contained in one of the resolutions of the Fourth Congress of the Jewish Workers' Union (Bund).[63] We confess that we hnd it difficult to say which of these resolutions is the better one. In our opinion both are "worse." Both the Union and the Bund fall into the error (partly, perhaps, unconsciously, under the influence of tradition) of giving an economic, trade-unionist interpretation to politics. Whether this is done by employing the word "best" or the words "most widely applicable" makes no material difference whatever. If the Union had said that "political agitation on an economic basis" is the most widely applied (and not "applicable") means it would have been right in regard to a certain period in the development of our Social-Democratic movement. It would have been right in regard to the Economists and to many (if not the majority) of the practical workers of 1898-1901, for these practical Economists applied political agitation (to the extent that they applied it at all!) almost exclusively on an economic basis. Political agitation on such lines was recognized and, as we have seen, even recommended by the Rabochaya Mysl and by the Self-Emancipation Group! The Rabocheye Dyelo should have strongly condemned the fact that the useful work of economic agitation was accompanied by the harmful restriction of the political struggle, but instead of that, it declares the means most widely applied (by the Economists ) to be the most widely applicable! It is not surprising that when we call these people Economists, they can do nothing else but pour every manner of abuse upon us, and call us "mystifiers," "disrupters," "papal

page 75

Nuncios," and "slanderers,"[*] go complaining to the whole world that we have mortally offended them, and declare almost on oath that "not a single Social-Democratic organization is now tinged with Economism."[**]Oh, these evil, slanderous politicians! They must have deliberately invented this Economism, out of sheer hatred of mankind, in order mortally to offend other people!

    What real concrete meaning does Martynov attach to his words about Social-Democracy taking up the task of "lending the economic struggle itself a political character"? The economic struggle is the collective struggle of the workers against their employers for better terms in the sale of their labour power, for the better conditions of life and labour. This struggle is necessarily an industrial struggle, because conditions of labour differ very much in different trades, and, consequently, the fight to improve these conditions can only be conducted in respect to each trade (trade unions in the Western countries, temporary trade associations and leaflets in Russia, etc.). Lending "the economic struggle itself a political character" means, therefore, striving to secure satisfaction of these trade demands, the improvement of conditions of labour in each separate trade by means of "legislative and administrative measures" (as Martynov expresses it on the next page of his article, p. 43). This is exactly what all workers' trade unions do and always have done. Read the works of the thoroughly scientific (and "thoroughly" opportunist) Mr. and Mrs. Webb and you will see that the British trade unions long ago recognized, and have long been carrying out,

    Thus, the pompous phrase about "lending the economic struggle itself a political character," which sounds so "terrifically" profound and revolutionary, serves as a screen to conceal what is in fact the traditional striving to degrade Social-Democratic politics to the level of trade union politics! On the pretext of rectifying the one-sidedness of the Iskra, which, it is alleged, places "the revolutionizing of dogma higher than the revolutionizing of life,"[*] we are presented with the struggle for economic reform as if it were some thing entirely new. As a matter of fact, the phrase "lending the economic struggle itself a political character" means nothing more than the struggle for economic reforms. And Martynov himself might have come to this simple conclusion had he only pondered over the significance of his own words. "Our Party," he says, turning his heaviest guns against the Iskra, "could and should have presented concrete demands to the government for legislative and administrative measures against economic exploitation, unemployment, famine, etc." (Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, pp. 42-43.) Concrete demands for measures -- does not this mean demands for social re-

then the whole of his thesis, which we have just quoted, loses all sense. Perhaps he did it because he thinks it possible and probable that the government will make "concessions" only in the economic sphere?[*] If so, then it is a strange delusion. Concessions are also possible and are made in the sphere of legislation concerning flogging, passports, land compensation payments, religious sects, the censorship, etc., etc. "Economic" concessions (or pseudo concessions) are, of course, the cheapest and most advantageous from the government's point of view, because by these means it hopes to win the confidence of the masses of the workers. For this very reason, we Social-Democrats must not under any circumstances or in any way whatever create grounds for the belief (or the misunderstanding) that we attach greater value to economic reforms, or that we regard them as being particularly important, etc. "Such demands," writes Martynov concerning the concrete demands for legislative and administrative measures referred to above, "would not be merely a hollow sound, because, promising certain palpable results, they might be actively supported by the masses of the workers. . . ." We are not Economists, oh no! We only cringe as slavishly before the "palpableness" of concrete results as do the Bernsteins, the Prokopoviches, the Struves, the R.M.'s, and tutti quanti![64] We only wish to make it understood (with Narcissus Tuporylov) that all that which "does not promise palpable results" is merely a "hollow sound"! We are only trying to argue as if the masses of the workers were incapable (and had not already proved their capabilities,

    Take for example the very "measures" for the relief of unemployment and the famine that Martynov himself advances. Whereas the Rabocheye Dyelo is engaged, judging by what it has promised, in drawing up and elaborating a program of "concrete" (in the form of bills?) "demands for legislative and administrative measures," "promising palpable results," the Iskra, which "constantly places the revolutionizing of dogma higher than the revolutionizing of life," tried to explain the inseparable connection between unemployment and the whole capitalist system; warned that "famine is coming", exposed the police "fight against the famine stricken" and the outrageous "provisional penal regulations"; and the Zarya published a special reprint, in the form of an agitation pamphlet, of a section of its "Review of Internal Affairs" dealing with the famine.[65] But good God! How "one-sided" were these incorrigibly narrow and orthodox doctrinaires; how deaf to the calls of "life itself"! Their articles contained -- oh horror! -- not a single, can you imagine it? -- not a single "concrete demand," "promising palpable results"! Poor doctrinaires! They ought to be sent to Krichevsky and Martynov to be taught that tactics are a process of growth, of that which grows, etc., and that the economic struggle i t s e I f should be given a political character!

    "In addition to its immediate revolutionary significance, the economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government" ("economic struggle against the government"!!) "has also this significance: it constantly brings it

page 80

home to the workers that they have no political rights." (Martynov, p. 44.) We quote this passage not in order to repeat for the hundredth and thousandth time what has already been said above, but in order particularly to thank Martynov for this excellent new formula: "the economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government." What a pearl! With what inimitable talent and skill in eliminating all partial disagreements and shades of differences among Economists does this clear and concise postulate express the quintessence of Economism: from calling to the workers to join "in the political struggle which they carry on in the general interest, for the purpose of improving the conditions of all the workers,"[*] continuing through the theory of stages, and ending in the resolution of the Congress on the "most widely applicable," etc. "Economic struggle against the government" is precisely trade-unionist politics, which is very, very far from being Social-Democratic politics.

    "What a large number of Social-Democratic Lomonosovs have appeared among us lately!" observed a comrade one day, having in mind the astonishing propensity of many of those who are inclined towards Economism to arrive, "all by themselves," at great truths (for example, that the economic struggle stimulates the workers to ponder over their lack of rights), and in doing so to ignore, with the supreme

Lomonosov-Martynov discovered all by himself. This author is R.M. in the Special Supplement to the Rabochaya Mysl. (P. 15.)

    A word in passing about "calls to action." The only paper which prior to the spring events[66] called upon the workers actively to intervene in a matter that certainly did not promise any palpable results whatever for the workers, i.e., the drafting of the students into the army, was the "Iskra." Immediately after the publication of the order of January 11, on "drafting the 183 students into the army," the Iskra published an article about it (in its February issue, No. 2),[67] and before any demonstration was started openly called upon "the workers to go to the aid of the students," called upon the "people" openly to take up the government's arrogant challenge. We ask: how is the remarkable fact to be explained that although Martynov talks so much about "calls to action," and even suggests "calls to action" as a special form of activity, he said not a word about this call? After this, is not Martynov's allegation, that the Iskra was one-sided because it did not sufficiently "call for" a struggle for demands "promising palpable results," sheer philistinism?

    Our Economists, including the Rabocheye Dyelo, were successful because they pandered to the backward workers. But the Social-Democratic worker, the revolutionary worker (and the number of such workers is growing) will indignantly reject all this talk about fighting for demands "promising palpable results," etc., because he will understand that this is only a variation of the old song about adding a kopek to the ruble. Such a worker will say to his counsellors of the Rabochaya Mysl and the Rabocheye Dyelo: you are wasting your time, gentlemen, and shirking your proper duties, by meddling with such excessive zeal in a job that we can very well manage ourselves. There is nothing clever in your assertion that the Social-Democrats' task is to lend the economic struggle itself a political character; that is only the beginning, it

page 90

is not the main task of Social-Democrats. For all over the world, including Russia, the police themselves often make the start in lending the economic struggle a political character, and the workers themselves learn to understand whom the government supports.[*] The "economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government," about which you make as much fuss as if you had discovered a new America, is being waged in a host of remote spots of Russia by the workers themselves who have heard about strikes, but who have heard almost nothing about Socialism. The "activity" you want to stimulate among us workers, by advancing concrete demands promising palpable results, we are already displaying and in our everyday, petty trade union work we put forward these concrete demands, very often without any assistance whatever from the intellectuals. But such activity is not enough for us; we are not children to be fed on the

thin gruel of "economic" politics alone; we want to know everything that others know, we want to learn the details of all aspects of political life and to take part actively in every single political event. In order that we may do this, the intellectuals must talk to us less of what we already know,[*] and tell us more about what we do not yet know and what we can never learn from our factory and "economic" experience, that is, you must give us political knowledge. You intellectuals can acquire this knowledge, and it is your duty to bring it to us in a hundred and a thousand times greater

measure than you have done up to now; and you must bring it to us, not only in the form of arguments, pamphlets and articles which sometimes -- excuse our frankness! -- are rather dull, but precisely in the form of live exposures of what our government and our governing classes are doing at this very moment in all spheres of life. Just devote more zeal to carrying out this duty, and talk less about "raising the activity of the masses of the workers"! We are far more active than you think, and we are quite able to support, by open, street fighting, demands that do not promise any "palpable results" whatever! And it is not for you to "raise" our activity, because activity is precisely the thing you yourselves lack! Bow less in worship to spontaneity, and think more about raising your own activity, gentlemen!

irrefutably proved by the enormous growth of the working-class movement and the eagerness with which the workers clamour for political literature, to which we have already referred above. On the other hand, calls for terror and calls to lend the economic struggle itself a political character are merely two different forms of evading the most pressing duty that now rests upon Russian revolutionaries, namely, to organize comprehensive political agitation. The Svoboda desires to substitute terror for agitation, openly admitting that "as soon as intensified and strenuous agitation is commenced among the masses the excitative function of terror will be finished." (The Regeneration of Revolutionism, p. 68.) This is exactly what proves that both the terrorists and the Economists underestimate the revolutionary activity of the masses, in spite of the striking evidence of the events that took place in the spring,[*] and whereas the former go out in search of artificial "excitants," the latter talk about "concrete demands." But both fail to devote sufficient attention to the development of their own activity in political agitation and in the organization of political exposures. And no other work can serve as a substitute for this work either at the present time or at any other time.

    We have seen that the conduct of the broadest political agitation, and consequently the organization of comprehensive political exposures, is an absolutely necessary, and the

struggle for emancipation. Compare, for example, a leader like Robert Knight (the well-known secretary and leader of the Boiler-Makers' Society, one of the most powerful trade unions in England), with Wilhelm Liebknecht, and try to apply to them the contrasts that Martynov draws in his controversy with the Iskra. You will see -- I am running through Martynov's article -- that Robert Knight engaged more in "calling the masses to certain concrete actions" (p. 39) while Wilhelm Liebknecht engaged more in "the revolutionary elucidation of the whole of the present system or partial manifestations of it" (pp. 38-39); that Robert Knight "formulated the immediate demands of the proletariat and indicated the means by which they can be achieved" (p. 41), whereas Wilhelm Liebknecht, while doing this, was not averse "simultaneously to guide the activities of various opposition strata," "dictate a positive program of action for them"[*] (p. 41); that it was precisely Robert Knight who strove "as far as possible to lend the economic struggle itself a political character" (p. 42) and was excellently able "to submit to the government concrete demands promising certain palpable results" (p. 43), while Liebknecht engaged to a much greater degree in "one-sided" "exposures" (p. 40); that Robert Knight attached more significance to the "forward march of the drab, everyday struggle" (p. 61), while Liebknecht attached more significance to the "propaganda of brilliant and finished ideas" (p. 6I); that Liebknecht converted the paper he was directing into "an organ of revolutionary opposition that exposes the state of affairs in our country, particularly the political state of affairs, in so far as it affects the interests

that these positions are "quite compatible within the common cause" (p. 63). O, Sancta simplicitas ! [68]

    To proceed: Have we sufficient forces to direct our propaganda and agitation among all classes of the population? Of course we have. Our Economists, frequently inclined as they are to deny this, lose sight of the gigantic progress our movement has made from 1894 (approximately) to 1901. Like real "tail-enders," they frequently live in the distant past, in the period when the movement was just beginning. At that time, indeed, we had astonishingly few forces, and it was perfectly natural and legitimate then to devote ourselves exclusively to activities among the workers, and severely condemn any deviation from this. The whole task then was to consolidate our position in the working class. At the present time, however, gigantic forces have been attracted to the movement; the best representatives of the young generation of the educated classes are coming over to us; all over the country there are people, compelled to live in the provinces, who have taken part in the movement in the past or who desire to do so now, who are gravitating towards Social-Democracy (whereas in 1894 you could count the Social-Democrats on your fingers). One of the principal political and organizational shortcomings of our movement is that we do not know how to utilize all these forces and give them appropriate work (we shall deal with this in greater detail in the next chapter). The overwhelming majority of these forces entirely lack the opportunity of "going among the workers," so there are no grounds for fearing that we shall deflect forces from our main work. And in order to be able to provide the workers with real, comprehensive and live political knowledge, we must have "our own people," Social-Democrats, everywhere, among all social strata, and

page 108

in all positions from which we can learn the inner springs of our state mechanism. Such people are required not only for propaganda and agitation, but in a still larger measure for organization.

    Is there scope for activity among all classes of the population? Those who fail to see this also lag, in their consciousness, behind the spontaneous awakening of the masses. The working-class movement has aroused and is continuing to arouse discontent in some, hopes for support for the opposition in others, and the consciousness of the intolerableness and inevitable downfall of the autocracy in still others. We would be "politicians" and Social-Democrats only in name (as actually very often happens), if we failed to realize that our task is to utilize every manifestation of discontent, and to collect and make the best of every grain of even rudimentary protest. This is quite apart from the fact that many millions of the labouring peasantry, handicraftsmen, petty artisans, etc., would always listen eagerly to the preachings of any at all able and intelligent Social-Democrat. Indeed, is there a single class of the population in which no individuals, groups or circles are to be found who are discontented with the lack of rights and with tyranny and, therefore, accessible to the propaganda of Social-Democrats as the spokesmen of the most pressing general democratic needs? To those who desire to have a clear idea of what the political agitation of a Social-Democrat among all classes and strata of the population should be like, we would point to political exposures in the broad sense of the word as the principal (but of course not the sole) form of this agitation.

    "We must arouse in every section of the population that is at all enlightened a passion for political exposure," I wrote in my article "Where To Begin?" (Iskra, No. 4, May 1901), with which I shall deal in greater

page 109

detail later. "We must not be discouraged by the fact that the voice of political exposure is at present feeble, rare and timid. This is not because of a wholesale submission to police despotism, but because those who are able and ready to make exposures have no tribune from which to speak, no audience to listen eagerly and approve what the speakers say, and because the latter do not see anywhere among the people forces to whom it would be worth while directing their complaint against the 'omnipotent' Russian government. . . . We are now in a position, and it is our duty, to provide a tribune for the nation-wide exposure of the tsarist government. That tribune must be a Social-Democratic paper."[69]

    The ideal audience for political exposures is the working class, which is first and foremost in need of all-round and live political knowledge, and is most capable of converting this knowledge into active struggle, even if it does not promise "palpable results." And the tribune for nation-wide exposures can be only an all-Russian newspaper. "Without a political organ, a political movement deserving that name is inconceivable in modern Europe," and in this respect Russia must undoubtedly be included in modern Europe. The press has long ago become a power in our country, otherwise the government would not spend tens of thousands of rubles to bribe it, and to subsidize the Katkovs and Meshcherskys. And it is no novelty in autocratic Russia for the underground press to break through the wall of censorship and compel the legal and conservative press to speak openly of it. This was the case in the 'seventies and even in the 'fifties. How much broader and deeper are now those sections of the people that are prepared to read the illegal underground press, and to learn from it "how to live and how to die," to use the expression of a worker who sent a letter to the Iskra (No. 7).[70] Political exposures are as much a declaration of war against the government as economic exposures are a declaration of war against the factory owners. And the moral signif-

page 110

icance of this declaration of war will be all the greater, the wider and more powerful this campaign of exposure is, the more numerous and determined the social class, which has declared war in order to commence the war. Hence, political exposures in themselves serve as a powerful instrument for disintegrating the system we oppose, a means for diverting from the enemy his casual or temporary allies, a means for spreading enmity and distrust among the permanent partners of the autocracy.

    Only a party that will organize really nation-wide exposures can become the vanguard of the revolutionary forces in our time. The word "nation-wide" has a very profound meaning. The overwhelming majority of the non-working-class exposers (and in order to become the vanguard, we must attract other classes) are sober politicians and level-headed businessmen. They know perfectly well how dangerous it is to "complain" even against a minor official, let alone against the "omnipotent" Russian government. And they will come to us with their complaints only when they see that these complaints can really have effect, and that we represent a political force. In order to become such a force in the eyes of outsiders, much persistent and stubborn work is required to raise our own consciousness, initiative and energy. To accomplish this it is not enough to attach a "vanguard" label on rearguard theory and practice.

    But if we have to undertake the organization of really nation-wide exposure of the government, what, then, will be the expression of the class character of our movement? -- the over-zealous advocates of "close organic contact with the proletarian struggle" will ask us. The reply is: the fact that we Social-Democrats will organize these public exposures; that all the questions raised by the agitation will be

page 111

    elucidated in a consistently Social-Democratic spirit, without any concessions to deliberate or non-deliberate distortions of Marxism; in the fact that this all-round political agitation will be conducted by a party which unites into one inseparable whole the pressure upon the government in the name of the whole people, the revolutionary training of the proletariat, while safeguarding its political independence, and guidance of the economic struggle of the working class, the utilization of all its spontaneous conflicts with its exploiters which rouse and bring into our camp increasing numbers of the proletariat!

    But one of the most characteristic features of Economism is its failure to understand this connection, more, this identity of the most pressing needs of the proletariat (a comprehensible political education through the medium of political agitation and political exposures) with the needs of the general democratic movement. This lack of understanding is expressed not only in "Martynovite" phrases, but also in the references to a supposedly class point of view which is identical in meaning with these phrases. Here, for example, is how it is put by the authors of the "Economist" letter in No. 12 of the Iskra.* "This fundamental defect of the Iskra " (overestimating ideology) "is the cause of its inconsistency in the question of the attitude of Social-Democrats to various social classes and tendencies. By a process of theoretical

page 112

reasoning" (and not by "the growth of Party tasks, which grow together with the Party"), "the Iskra solved the problem of immediately proceeding to the struggle against absolutism. But in all probability it senses how difficult a task this would be for the workers in the present state of affairs" . . . (not only senses, but knows perfectly well that this task appears less difficult to the workers than to those "Economist" intellectuals who are concerned about little children, for the workers are prepared to fight even for demands which, to use the language of the never-to-be-forgotten Martynov, do not "promise palpable results") . . . "and lacking the patience to wait until the workers accumulate more strength for this struggle, the Iskra begins to search for allies in the ranks of the liberals and intelligentsia". . . .

    Yes, yes, we have indeed lost all "patience" to "wait" for the blessed time that has long been promised us by diverse "conciliators" when the Economists will stop throwing the blame for their own backwardness upon the workers, and stop justifying their own lack of energy by alleging that it is the workers who lack strength. We ask our Economists: what does "the working class accumulating more strength for this struggle" mean? Is it not evident that it means the political training of the workers, exposing to them all the aspects of our despicable autocracy? And is it not clear that precisely for this work we need "allies in the ranks of the liberals and intelligentsia," who are prepared to join us in the exposure of the political attack on the Zemstvos, on the teachers, on the statisticians, on the students, etc.? Is this surprisingly "intricate mechanism" really so difficult to understand? Has not P. B. Axelrod repeated to you over and over again since 1897: "The problem of the Russian Social-Democrats acquiring adherents and direct and indirect

page 113

allies among the non-proletarian classes will be solved principally and primarily by the character of the propagandist activities conducted among the proletariat itself"? But the Martynovs and the other Economists continue to imagine that "by economic struggle against the employers and the government," the workers must first accumulate strength (for trade-unionist politics) and then "go over" -- we presume from trade-unionist "training for activity" -- to Social-Democratic activity!

    ". . . In its quest," continue the Economists, "the Iskra not infrequently departs from the class point of view, obscures class antagonisms and puts into the forefront the general character of the prevailing discontent with the government, notwithstanding the fact that the causes and the degree of this discontent vary quite considerably among the 'allies.' Such, for example, is the Iskra's attitude towards the Zemstvo. . . ." The Iskra, it is alleged, "promises the nobility, who are discontented with the government's sops, the aid of the working class, but does not say a word about the class antagonisms between these strata of the population." If the reader will turn to the articles "The Autocracy and the Zemstvo" (Nos. 2 and 4 of the Iskra), to which, in all probability, the authors of the letter refer, he will find that these articles[71] deal with the attitude of the government towards the "mild agitation of the bureaucratic Zemstvo, which is based on the Estates," and towards the "independent activity of even the propertied classes." In these articles it is stated that the workers cannot look on indifferently while the government is carrying on a fight against the Zemstvo, and the Zemstvo-ites are called upon to give up making mild speeches, and to speak firmly and resolutely when revolutionary Social-Democracy confronts the government in all its strength. What

page 114

the authors of the letter do not agree with here is not clear. Do they think that the workers will "not understand" the phrases "propertied classes" and "bureaucratic Zemstvo based on the Estates"? Do they think that urging the Zemstvo to abandon mild speeches and to speak firmly and resolutely is "overestimating ideology"? Do they imagine the workers can "accumulate strength" for the fight against absolutism if they know nothing about the attitude of absolutism also towards the Zemstvo? All this too remains unknown. One thing alone is clear and that is that the authors of the letter have a very vague idea of what the political tasks of Social-Democracy are. This is revealed still more clearly by their remark: "Such also" (i.e., also "obscures class antagonisms") "is the Iskra's attitude towards the student movement." Instead of calling upon the workers to declare by means of public demonstrations that the real centre of unbridled violence, disorder and outrage is not the students but the Russian government (Iskra, No. 2 [72]), we should, no doubt, have inserted arguments in the spirit of the Rabochaya Mysl ! And such ideas are expressed by Social-Democrats in the autumn of 1901, after the events of February and March, on the eve of a fresh revival of the student movement, which reveals that even in this sphere the "spontaneous" protest against the autocracy is outstripping the conscious Social-Democratic leadership of the movement. The spontaneous striving of the workers to stand up for the students who are being beaten up by the police and the Cossacks is outstripping the conscious activity of the Social-Democratic organization!

    "And yet in other articles," continue the authors of the letter, "the Iskra sharply condemns all compromises, and defends, for example, the intolerant conduct of the Guesdites." We would advise those who usually so conceitedly and friv-

page 115

olously declare in connection with the disagreements existing among the contemporary Social-Democrats that they are of a minor nature and do not justify a split, to ponder very deeply over these words. Is it possible to have successful activity, within one organization, by people who say that so far we have done astonishingly little to explain the hostility of the autocracy towards the various classes, and to inform the workers of the opposition of the various strata of the population towards the autocracy, and by people who see in this a "compromise" -- evidently a compromise with the theory of the "economic struggle against the employers and the government"?

    We urged the necessity of introducing the class struggle in the rural districts on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the emancipation of the peasantry (No. 3 [73]), and spoke of the irreconcilability between the local government bodies and the autocracy in connection with Witte's secret memorandum. (No. 4.) In connection with the new law we attacked the feudal landlords and the government which serves them (No. 8 [74]), and welcomed the illegal Zemstvo congress. We urged the Zemstvo to stop making degrading petitions (No. 8 [75]), and to come out and fight. We encouraged the students, who had begun to understand the need for, and to take up, the political struggle (No. 3) and, at the same time, we lashed out at the "barbarous lack of understanding" revealed by the adherents of the "purely student" movement, who called upon the students to abstain from taking part in the street demonstrations (No. 3, in connection with the manifesto issued by the Executive Committee of the Moscow students on February 25). We exposed the "senseless dreams" and the "Iying hypocrisy" of the cunning liberals of the Rossiya [76] (No. 5) and at the same time we commented on

page 116

the fury with which "peaceful writers, aged professors, scientists and well-known liberal Zemstvo-ites were manhandled" in the government's torture chambers. (No. 5, "Police Raid on Literature.") We exposed the real significance of the program of "state concern for the welfare of the workers," and welcomed the "valuable admission" that "it is better by granting reforms from above to forestall the demand for such reforms from below, than to wait for those demands to be put forward." (No. 6.[77]) We encouraged the protesting statisticians (No. 7), and censured the strikebreaking statisticians. (No. 9.) He who sees in these tactics an obscuring of the class consciousness of the proletariat and compromise with liberalism shows that he absolutely fails to understand the true significance of the program of the Credo and is carrying out that program de facto, however much he may repudiate it! Because by that he drags Social-Democracy towards the "economic struggle against the employers and the government" and yields to liberalism, abandons the task of actively intervening in every "liberal" issue and of defining his own, Social-Democratic, attitude towards this question.

practising it are usually nicknamed "Anything you wish, sir."

    The Rabocheye Dyelo imagines that in general bourgeois democracy in Russia is merely a "phantom" (Two Congresses, p. 32).[*] Happy people! Like the ostrich, they bury their heads in the sand, and imagine that everything around has disappeared. Liberal publicists who month after month proclaim to the world their triumph over the collapse and even disappearance of Marxism; liberal newspapers (the S. Peterburgskiye Vedomosti,[78] the Russkiye Vedomosti, and many others) which encourage the liberals who bring to the workers the Brentano[79] conception of the class struggle and the trade-unionist conception of politics; the galaxy of critics of Marxism, whose real tendencies were so very well disclosed by the Credo and whose literary products alone circulate in Russia without let or hindrance; the revival of revolutionary non-Social-Democratic tendencies, particularly after the February and March events -- all these, apparently, are just phantoms! All these have nothing at all to do with bourgeois democracy!

    The Rabocheye Dyelo and the authors of the Economist letter published in the Iskra, No. 12, should "ponder over the reason why the events of the spring brought about such a revival of revolutionary non-Social-Democratic tendencies

  [1] What Is To Be Done? Burning Questions of Our Movement -- a book written by Lenin in the latter part of 1901 and in the beginning of 1902. In "Where To Begin?", published in the Iskra, No. 4 (May 1901), Lenin wrote that the article represents "the outlines of a plan which is described in greater detail in a pamphlet now in preparation for the press."
    Lenin began the actual writing of the book in the autumn of 1901. In his "Preface to 'Documents of the "Unity" Congress,'" written in November 1901, Lenin stated that the book "was in preparation and would appear at an early date." Lenin subsequently described his article, "A Conversation with the Advocates of Economism" (Iskra, No. 12, December 1901) as a synopsis of What Is To Be Done? In February 1902 Lenin wrote the preface to the book, which appeared in the early days of March in Stuttgart where it was published by Dietz. An an nouncement of its publication was printed in the Iskra, No. 18, March 10, 1902.
    The ideas Lenin advanced and expounded in What Is To Be Done? were upheld and developed by Comrade Stalin. His pamphlet Briefly About the Disagreements in the Party, written in the spring of 1905, is intimately connected with What Is To Be Done? (J. V. Stalin, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 1, pp. 89-130). The defence of Lenin's ideas, enunciated in What Is To Be Done?, is taken up by Comrade Stalin also in his article "A Reply to Sotsial-Demokrat," published in the newspaper Proletariatis Brdazola (The Struggle of the Proletariat ) in August 1905 (J. V. Stalin, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 1, pp. 160-72). Lenin gave a high appraisal of this article, noting, in particular, that it contained a "splendid presentation of the question of the celebrated 'introduction of consciousness from without.'"

page 238

  In republishing What Is To Be Done? in 1907 in the collection Twelve Years, Lenin omitted section A of Chapter V "Who Was Offended by the Article ' Where To Begin?'" and announced in the preface that the book was being published "with very slight abridgements, omitting only details concerning organizational relationships and minor polemical remarks." Lenin added five footnotes to the new edition.
    The text of What Is To Be Done? given in Vol. 5 of V. I. Lenin's Collected Works (from which this translation has been made) follows the 1902 edition, checked with the text of the 1907 edition.    [p.1]

  ^[2] Iskra (The Spark ) -- the first all-Russian illegal Marxist newspaper, founded by Lenin in 1900. It played a decisive role in the formation of the Marxist party, in the defeat of the "Economists," in the unification of the dispersed Social-Democratic groups and in preparation for the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.
    The publication of a revolutionary newspaper in Russia was impossible owing to police persecution. While still in exile in Siberia, Lenin worked out all the details of a plan to publish the paper abroad and proceeded to carry out this plan as soon as his term of exile ended in January 1900.
    The first issue of Lenin's Iskra appeared on December 11 (24), 1900, in Leipzig, after which it was published in Munich, London (from April 1902) and, beginning with the spring of 1903, in Geneva.
    The editorial board of the Iskra was made up of V. I. Lenin, G. V. Plekhanov, Y. O. Martov, P. B. Axelrod, A. N. Potresov and V. I. Zasulich. N. K. Krupskaya became secretary of the editorial board in the spring of 1900. Lenin was the Iskra's actual editor-in-chief and leader of its activities. His articles in the Iskra dealt with all the fundamental problems of building the Party and of the class struggle of the proletariat in Russia as well as with outstanding events on the international scene.
    Groups and committees of the R.S.D.L.P. supporting the Lenin-Iskra line were organized in many cities of Russia, including St. Petersburg and Moscow.
    Iskra organizations were founded by and worked under the direct guidance of professional revolutionaries trained by Lenin (N. E. Bauman, I. V. Babushkin, S. I. Gusev, M. I. Kalinin and others).
    On Lenin's initiative, and with his immediate participation, the Iskra editorial board drew up a draft program of the Party (published in issue No. 21), and prepared the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., which was held in July-August 1903.
    By that time most of the Social-Democratic organizations in Russia had associated themselves with the Iskra, approved its tactics, program and organizational plan, and recognized it as their leading organ. In a

page 239

special resolution the Second Congress recorded the exceptional role of the paper in the struggle to create the Party and adopted the Iskra as the Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P.
    The Second Congress appointed an editorial board consisting of Lenin, Plekhanov and Martov. Contrary to the Congress decision, Martov refused to serve on the board, and issues 46-51 of the Iskra were edited by Lenin and Plekhanov. Subsequently, Plekhanov took his stand with the Mensheviks and demanded that all the former Menshevik editors, who had been rejected by the Congress, be included in the editorial board. Lenin could not agree to this, and on October 19 (November 1), 1903, resigned from the editorial board in order to involve himself in the Central Committee of the Party and to strike at the Menshevik opportunists from this position. Issue 52 of the Iskra was edited by Plekhanov alone. On November 13 (26), 1903, acting on his own and in defiance of the will of the Congress, Plekhanov co-opted the former Menshevik editors to the editorial board. Beginning with the 52nd issue of the Iskra, the Mensheviks converted it into their organ. From that time Lenin's Bolshevik Iskra, known in the Party as the old Iskra, was replaced by the Menshevik opportunist Iskra as the new Iskra.    [p.2]

  ^[3] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 5, pp. 1-12. p. 2    [p.2]

  ^[4] Rabocheye Dyelo (Workers' Cause ) -- a magazine published by the "Economists" at irregular intervals from April 1899 to February 1902 in Geneva. It was the organ of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, edited by B.N. Krichevsky, A. S. Martynov and V. P. Ivanshin. Altogether 12 issues (of which three were double issues) appeared.    [p.2]

  ^[5] Rabochaya Gazeta (The Workers' Gazette ) -- illegal organ of the Kiev Social-Democratic group. Two issues appeared: No. 1 in August and No. 2 in December (dated November) 1897. The First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. adopted the Rabochaya Gazeta as the official organ of the Party, but it discontinued publication after the Congress as a result of a police raid on the printing press and the arrest of members of the Central Committee.    [p.3]

  ^[6] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 5, pp. 287-93.    [p.3]

  ^[7] Lassalleans and Eisenachers -- two parties in the German working class movement in the sixties and early seventies of the nineteenth century.

    Lassalleans -- adherents and followers of Ferdinand Lassalle. The General German Labour League, founded by Lassalle in 1863, made up the core of the movement. Proceeding from the possibility of a peaceful transformation of capitalism into Socialism with the aid of workers' associations supported by the capitalist state, the Lassalleans advocated the

page 240

struggle for universal franchise and peaceful parliamentary activities as a substitute for the revolutionary struggle of the working class.
    Marx trenchantly criticized the Lassalleans, pointing out that "over a course of several years they were a hindrance to the organization of the proletariat and ended up by becoming no more than a tool in the hands of the police." Marx gives an appraisal of the theoretical views of the Lassalleans and of their tactics in Critique of the Gotha Program, Alleged Splits in the International and in correspondence with Engels.

    Eisenachers -- supporters of Marxism, ideologically influenced by Marx and Engels. Led by Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel, they founded the Social-Democratic Labour Party of Germany at the Eisenach Congress in I869.
    The two parties, which fought each other bitterly, were impelled to merge by the rise of the workers' movement and intensified reprisals by the government. The merger was effected at the Gotha Congress in 1875, when a single Socialist Labour Party of Germany was formed, in which the Lassalleans represented the opportunist wing.
    Lenin describes the Lassalleans and Eisenachers in his article "August Bebel," written in August 1913.    [p.7]

  ^[8] Guesdites and Possibilists -- two trends in the French Socialist movement; they originated in 1882 following the split in the French Labour Party.

    Guesdites -- supporters of Jules Guesde. They represented the Left, Marxist trend and maintained that the proletariat must pursue an independent revolutionary policy. In 1901 the Guesdites founded the Socialist Party of France.

    Possibilists -- a petty-bourgeois, reformist trend which sought to deflect the proletariat from revolutionary methods of struggle. They proposed to confine the activities of the working class to what was "possible" under capitalism. In 1902, in conjunction with other reformist groups, they founded the French Socialist Party.

    The Socialist Party of France and the French Socialist Party merged in 1905. During the imperialist war of 1914-18 Jules Guesde, in common with the leadership of the French Socialist Party, took his stand as a social-chauvinist.    [p.7]

  ^[9] Fabians -- members of the reformist and opportunist Fabian Society, formed by a group of British bourgeois intellectuals in 1884. The society took its name from the Roman General Fabius Cunctator (the "Delayer"), famous for his procrastinating tactics and avoidance of decisive battles. The Fabian Society represented, as Lenin put it, "the most finished expression of opportunism and liberal-labour politics." The Fabians sought

page 241

to deflect the proletariat from the class struggle and advocated the possibility of a peaceful, gradual transition from capitalism to socialism by means of reforms. During the imperialist world war (1914-18) the Fabians took a social-chauvinist stand. For a characterization of the Fabians see Lenin's "Preface to the Russian Edition of Letters by J. P. Becke, J. Dietzgen, F. Engels, K. Marx and Others to P. A. Sorge and Others" (V. I. Lenin, Marx-Engels-Marxism, Moscow, 1953, pp. 245-46), "The Agrarian Program of Social-Democracy in the Russian Revolution" (Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 15, p. 154), and "English Pacifism and English Dislike of Theory" (ibid., Vol. 21, p. 234).    [p.7]

  ^[10] Narodnaya Volya-ites -- from Narodnaya Volya (People's Freedom), a secret society founded in 1879 for revolutionary struggle against the tsarist autocracy.
    The Narodnaya Volya was smashed by the tsarist government soon after its members had assassinated Alexander II on March 1 (13), 1881. Following this the majority of the Narodniks abandoned the revolutionary struggle against tsardom, began to advocate reconciliation and agreement with the tsarist autocracy. These Epigoni of Narodism, the liberal Narodniks of the eighties and nineties of the nineteenth century actually voiced the interests of the kulaks.    [p.7]

  ^[11] According to the Roman mythology, Jupiter was the chief of the gods, while Minerva was guardian goddess of handicrafts, science and art, of teachers and doctors. Minerva was said to have sprung in helmet and armour, sword in hand, from Jupiter's head. Her mode of birth was popularly used to illustrate a person or phenomenon as being complete from the very beginning.    [p.8]

  ^[12] Lenin quotes a passage from Engels' "Preface to the Third German Edition of the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte," Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. I, p. 223.    [p.8]

  ^[13] Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.    [p.8]

  ^[14] From Ivan Andreyevich Krylov's fable "Two Barrels." One barrel was empty and rattled on the cart with such deafening noise that passers-by all tried to keep out of the way.    [p.10]

  ^[15] Union of Rursian Social-Democrats Ahroad -- founded in Geneva in 1894 on the initiative of the Emancipation of Labour group which at first supervised its activities and edited its publications. Opportunist elements (the "young leaders," the "Economists") subsequently gained the upper hand in the Union. In November 1898, at the Union's first congress, the Emancipation of Labour group declined to bear further

page 242

responsibility for the editorship of its publications. The final break with the Union and the secession of the Emancipation of Labour group occurred in April 1900, at the Union's second congress, when the Emancipation of Labour group and its followers left the congress and founded their own organization, the Sotsial-Demokrat group.    [p.11]

  ^[16] Zarya (The Dawn) -- a Marxist journal of politics published in Stuttgart by the editors of the Iskra in 1901-02.
    The following articles by V. I. Lenin appeared in the Zarya: "Casual Notes," "The Persecutors of the Zemstvo and the Hannibals of Liberalism," the first four chapters of "The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics of Marx'" (the Zarya title was "Messrs. the 'Critics' on the Agrarian Question"), "Review of Internal Affairs," "The Agrarian Program of Russian Social-Democracy." Four issues of the magazine appeared: No. 1 in April 1901 (actually on March 23, new style), No. 2-3 in December 1901, and No. 4 in August 1902.    [p.11]

  ^[17] Cadets (Constitutional-Democratic Party) -- the principal bourgeois party in Russia, the party of the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie. It was founded in October 1905. Feigning democracy and calling themselves the party of "people's freedom," the Cadets tried to win the peasantry to their side. They strove to preserve tsarism in the form of a constitutional monarchy. Subsequently, the Cadets became the party of the imperialist bourgeoisie. After the victory of the October Socialist Revolution, the Cadets organized counter-revolutionary conspiracies and revolts against the Soviet Republic.    [p.11]

  ^[18] Bezzaglavtsi -- the group that founded and edited the magazine Bez Zaglaviya (Without a Title) published in St. Petersburg in 1906. The group, which included S. N. Prokopovich, E. D. Kuskova, V. Y. Bogucharsky and others, openly advocated revisionism, supported the Mensheviks and liberals and was opposed to the proletariat pursuing an independent policy. Lenin called the Bezzaglavtsi pro-Menshevik Cadets or pro-Cadet Mensheviks.    [p.11]

  ^[19] Ilovaisky D. I. (1832-1920) -- historian, author of numerous official textbooks on history widely used in elementary and secondary schools in Russia prior to the revolution. Ilovaisky interpreted history as consisting mainly of the acts of tsars and generals, and explained the historical process by secondary and incidental factors.    [p.13]

  ^[20] The Anti-Socialist Law was introduced in Germany in 1878. It provided for the prohibition of all Social-Democratic organizations, mass labour organizations, the labour press, the confiscation of socialist literature

page 243

and the persecution of Social-Democrats. The law was repealed in 1890 under pressure by the mass working-class movement.    [p.13]

  ^[21] Vorwärts (Forward ) -- a daily newspaper, central organ of the German Social-Democratic Party. It began publication in 1876, with Wilhelm Liebknecht as editor. In its columns Frederick Engels combated all manifestations of opportunism. In the latter half of the nineties, after Engels' death, Vorwärts began systematically printing articles by opportunists who dominated the German Social-Democratic Party and the Second International. During the First World War Vorwärts took the stand of social-chauvinism. It appeared in Berlin until 1933.    [p.13]

  ^[22] The Katheder-Socialists (Socialists of the Chair) -- a trend in bourgeois political economy, originated in Germany in the seventies and eighties of the nineteenth century. The Katheder-Socialists used their position as university lecturers to preach bourgeois-liberal reformism under the guise of Socialism. Their contention was that the bourgeois state stood above classes, was capable of reconciling hostile classes, gradually introducing "Socialism" without encroaching on the interests of the capitalists and, as far as possible, of taking into account the demands of the workers. The views of the Katheder-Socialists were advocated in Russia by the "legal Marxists."    [p.13]

  ^[23] Nozdryov -- a character in Gogol's Dead Souls, landowner, troublemaker and rascal. Gogol called Nozdryov a "historical" personage because wherever he appeared he left behind a "history" of troublemaking.    [p.14]

  ^[24] The Hanover resolution regarding "attacks on the basic views and tactics of the party," adopted by the Congress of the German Social-Democratic Party in Hanover, September 27 to October 2 (October 9-14), 1899. The discussion of this question at the congress and the adoption of a special resolution were necessitated by the opportunists, led by Bernstein, advocating the revision of Marxist theory and demanding a review of Social-Democratic revolutionary policy and tactics. The Hanover resolution rejected the demands of the revisionists but failed to criticize or expose Bernsteinism. Bernstein's supporters voted for the resolution.    [p.14]

  ^[25] The Lübeck resolution -- adopted at the Congress of the German Social-Democratic Party in Lübeck, September 9-15 (22-28), 1901. The central issue at the Congress was the struggle against revisionism, which by that time had taken shape as the Right wing of the Party with its own program and press organ, the Sozialistische Monatshefte (Socialist Monthly). The leader of the revisionists, Bernstein. who had been

page 244

advocating a revision of scientific Socialism long before the Congress, demanded in his Congress speech "freedom to criticize" Marxism. The Congress rejected the resolution by Bernstein's supporters and adopted one which, though directly warning Bernstein, did not lay down the principle that Bernsteinian views were incompatible with membership in the working-class party.    [p.14]

  ^[26] The Stuttgart Congress of the German Social-Democratic Party, held on September 21-26 (October 3-8), 1898, was the first congress to discuss the question of revisionism in the German Social-Democratic movement. It heard a statement in absentia from Bernstein, in which he set forth and defended his opportunist views, expounded earlier in a number of articles. Bernstein's opponents at the congress failed to take a united stand. One section (Bebel and others) advocated ideological struggle against Bernstein and criticism of his mistakes, but did not agree to take organizational measures against him. Another section, the minority headed by Rosa Luxemburg, was more resolute in its opposition to Bernsteinism.    [p.15]

  ^[27] Starover -- pseudonym of A. N. Potresov, member of the editorial board of the Iskra; subsequently a Menshevik. p. 16    [p.16]

  ^[28] The Author Who Got a Swelled Head -- the title of one of Maxim Gorky's early stories.    [p.18]

  ^[29] Lenin refers to the symposium Materials Characterizing Our Economic Development, printed legally in 2,000 copies in April 1895. The symposium contained Lenin's article (signed K. Tulin) "The Economic Content of Narodism and a Criticism of It in Mr. Struve's Book (The Reflection of Marxism in Bourgeois Literature)," directed against the "legal Marxists." (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 1, pp. 315-484) [Transcriber's Note: Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Eng. ed., Vol. 1, pp. 333-507. -- DJR]    [p.19]

  ^[30] Herostratus was a Greek in Asia Minor. To get a name for himself, he set fire in 356 B.C. to Artemis Temple, a famous artistic building of ancient Greece.    [p.20]

  ^[31] Zubatov -- chief of the Moscow secret police, the moving spirit of "police socialism" in Russia. Zubatov set up bogus labour organizations under the aegis of the gendarmes and police, in an effort to deflect the workers from the revolutionary movement.    [p.20]

  ^[32] The "Protest of the Russian Social-Democrats" was written by Lenin in 1899, during his exile. It was directed against the Credo of a group of "Economists" (S. N. Prokopovich, E. D. Kuskova and others who subsequently became Cadets). On receiving a copy of the Credo

page 245

through his sister, A. I. Yelizarova, Lenin wrote a sharp protest in which he exposed the nature of this declaration.
    The Protest was discussed and unanimously endorsed by a meeting of seventeen exiled Marxists, convened by Lenin in the village of Yermakovskoye, Minusinsk District. The exiles in the Turukhansk District and in Orlovo (Vyatka Gubernia) subsequently associated themselves with it.
    Lenin forwarded a copy of the Protest to the Emancipation of Labour group abroad, where it was published in early 1900 by G. V. Plekhanov in his Vademecum for the Editors of the Rabocheye Dyelo.    [p.21]

  ^[33] Byloye (The Past ) -- a monthly journal on historical problems published in St. Petersburg in 1906-07. In 1908 its name was changed to Minuvshiye Gody (Years Past), and later it was banned by the tsarist government. Publication was resumed in Petrograd in July 1917 and continued until 1926.    [p.21]

  ^[34] Rabochaya Mysl (The Workers' Thought ) -- newspaper of the "Economists," published from October 1897 to December 1902. Sixteen issues appeared: Nos. 3 to 11, and 16 in Berlin, and the others in St. Petersburg. Edited by K. M. Takhtaryov and others.
    Lenin criticizes the views expounded by the Rabochaya Mysl as the Russian variety of international opportunism, in a number of his writings, particularly in his Iskra articles and in this work.    [p.22]

  ^[35] Vademecum for the Editors of the Rabocheye Dyelo -- the title of a collection of materials and documents compiled and prefaced by G. V. Plekhanov and published by the Emancipation of Labour-group in Geneva in 1900. It exposed the opportunist views of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad and of the editors of its organ, the Rabocheye Dyelo.    [p.22]

  ^[36] Profession de foi [Transcriber's Note: Profession of faith. -- DJR]-- means a belief or programme which expounds a certain world outlook. Here it refers to a leaflet setting forth the opportunist views of the Kiev Committee, issued at the close of 1899. On many points it was identical with the notorious "Economist" Credo. It is criticized by Lenin in his article "Apropos the 'Profession de foi.' " (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 4, pp. 263-73) [Transcriber's Note: Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Eng. ed., Vol. 4, pp. 286-296. -- DJR]    [p.22]

  ^[37] Special Supplement to the "Rabochaya Mysl" -- a pamphlet published by the editors of the "Economist" Rabochaya Mysl in September 1899. The pamphlet, and in particular the article "Our Realities" which appeared over the signature R. M., frankly set forth the opportunist views of the "Economists," Lenin criticizes this pamphlet in his article "The Retrograde

page 246

Trend in the Russian Social-Democracy" (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 4, pp. 234-62) [Transcriber's Note: Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Eng. ed., Vol. 4, pp. 255-285. -- DJR] and in this book. (See pp. 21-33, pp. 87-88 and pp. 103-04.)    [p.25]

  ^[38] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 4, p. 329.    [p.26]

  ^[39] Emancipation of Labour group -- the first Russian Marxist group, organized by G. V. Plekhanov in Geneva in 1883. At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. in August 1903, the group announced its dissolution.
    The group did much to spread Marxism in Russia. It translated such Marxist works as Manifesto of the Communist Party by Marx and Engels, Wage-Labour and Capital by Marx, and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels, publishing them abroad and illegally spreading them in Russia. Plekhanov and his group dealt a serious blow at Narodism. The group, however, made some serious mistakes, which were the first projections of the future Menshevik views held by Plekhanov and other members of the group.    [p.26]

  ^[40] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., PLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. II, p. 15.    [p.28]

  ^[41] Dritter Abdruck. Leipzig, 1875. Verlag der Genossenschaftsbuchdruckerei. (The Peasant War in Germany. Third imptession. Co-operative Publishers, Leipzig, 1875.)    [p.30]

  ^[42] Lenin is quoting from Engels' Prefatory Note to the Peasant War in Germany. (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. I, pp. 590-91)    [p.32]

  ^[43] The St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class was formed by V. I. Lenin in the autumn of 1895 and united all the Marxist workers' circles in St. Petersburg. It was headed by a Central Group that was directed by Lenin. The League of Struggle was the first organization in Russia to combine Socialism with the working-class movement and to pass over from the propaganda of Marxism among a small circle of advanced workers to political agitation among the broad masses of the working class.
    The importance of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Eman cipation of the Working Class consisted in the fact that, as Lenin said, it was the first real rudiment of a revolutionary party which was backed by the working-class movement.    [p.38]

  ^[44] Russkaya Starina -- a monthly journal of history published in St. Petersburg from 1870 to 1918.    [p.38]

  ^[45] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 2, pp. 71-76. [Transcriber's Note: Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Eng. ed., Vol. 2, pp. 87-92. -- DJR]    [p.38]

page 247

  ^[46] S. Peterburgsky Rabochy Listok (St. Petersburg Workers' Sheet) -- an illegal newspaper, organ of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class. Two issues appeared: No. 1 in February (marked January), 1897 (mimeographed in Russia in 300-400 copies); and No. 2 in September 1897 in Geneva.    [p.39]

  ^[47] The private meeting referred to by Lenin was held in St. Petersburg between February 14 and 17 (February 26-March 1, new style), 1897. It was attended by V. I. Lenin, A. A. Vaneyev, G. M. Krzhizhanovsky and other members bf the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class, that is, by the "veterans" who had been released from prison for three days, before being sent to exile in Siberia, and the "young" leaders of the League of Struggle who took over after Lenin's arrest.    [p.41]

  ^[48] Listok Rabotnika (The Workingman's Sheet) -- published in Geneva by the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad from 1896 to 1899; ten issues appeared. Issues 1 to 8 were edited by the Emancipation of Labour group, which, with the majority of the Union swinging to "Economism," refused to continue editing its publications. No. 9-10 was brought out by a new editorial board formed by the Union.    [p.41]

  ^[49] An article by V. I. -- reference is to an article by V. P. Ivanshin.    [p.42]

  ^[50] The tsarist gendarmes wore blue uniforms.    [p.43]

  ^[51] V. V. -- pseudonym of V. P. Vorontsov, one of the ideologists of liberal Narodism in the eighties and nineties of the nineteenth century. Lenin's words "the V. V.'s of Russian Social-Democracy" are an allusion to the "Economists," who represented the opportunist trend in Russian Social-Democracy.    [p.44]

  ^[52] The Hirsch-Duncker unions -- founded by the bourgeois liberals Hirsch and Duncker in 1868 in Germany. Hirsch and Duncker advocated "harmony of class interests," drew the workers away from the revolutionary class struggle against the bourgeoisie, reduced the tasks and role of trade union organizations to those of benefit societies and cultural and educational clubs.    [p.50]

  ^[53] Self-Emancipation of the Workers Group -- a small group of "Economists" formed in St. Petersburg in the autumn of 1898. The group, which existed only a few months, published a manifesto setting forth its aims (printed in the Nakanunye, a magazine appearing in London), a set of rules and several leaflets for distribution among the workers.    [p.53]

page 248

  ^[54] Nakanunye (On the Eve) -- a journal of the Narodnik trend published in Russian in London from January 1899 to February 1902. Thirty-seven issues appeared. The Nakanunye served as a rallying point for representatives of diverse petty-bourgeois parties.    [p.53]

  ^[55] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 2, pp. 299-326. [Transcriber's Note: V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Eng. ed., Vol. 2, pp. 323-351. -- DJR]    [p.54]

  ^[56] Ibid., Vol. 4, pp. 345-46 [Transcriber's Note: from V. I. Lenin's, "The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement," Collected Works, 4th Eng. ed., Vol. 4, pp. 366-71. The passage is on p. 371. -- DJR]    [p.57]

  ^[57] Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 6.    [p.57]

  ^[58] Lead article in the Iskra, No. 1. (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 4, p. 344.) [Transcriber's Note: from V. I. Lenin's, "The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement," Collected Works, 4th Eng. ed., Vol. 4, pp. 366-71. The passage is on p. 369. -- DJR]    [p.60]

  ^[59] Under the pseudonym of N. Beltov, G. V. Plekhanov published his well-known book On the Development of the Monistic View of History, which appeared legally in St. Petersburg in 1895.    [p.61]

  ^[60] Reference is to the satirical poem "Anthem of the Super-modern Russian Socialist" by Y. O. Martov, published in the Zarya, No. 1, April 1901, over the signature "Narcissus Tuporylov." It ridiculed the "Economists" and their adaptation to the spontaneous movement.    [p.62]

  ^[61] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 5, pp. 6-8.    [p.63]

  ^[62] Zemsky Nachalniks -- rural officials in tsarist Russia appointed from the landed nobility and exercising administrative and magisterial rights.    [p.72]

  ^[63] Bund -- the General Jewish Workers' Union of Lithuania, Poland and Russia. Founded in 1897, it embraced mainly the Jewish artisans in the western regions of Russia. The Bund joined the R.S.D.L.P. at the latter's First Congress in March 1898. At the Second R.S.D.L.P. Congress the Bund delegates insisted on their organization being recognized as the sole representative of the Jewish proletariat in Russia. The Congress rejected this organizational nationalism, whereupon the Bund withdrew from the Party.
    In 1906, following the Fourth ("Unity") Congress, the Bund reaffiliated to the R.S.D.L.P. The Bundists constantly supported the Mensheviks and waged an incessant struggle against the Bolsheviks. Despite its formal affiliation to the R.S.D.L.P., the Bund was an organization of a bourgeois-nationalist character. As opposed to the Bolshevik programmatic demand for the right of nations to self-determination, the Bund put for ward the demand for cultural-national autonomy. During the First World War of l914-18 the Bundists took the stand of social-chauvinism. In 1917 the Bund supported the counter-revolutionary Provisional Government and fought on the side of the enemies of the October Socialist Revolution.

page 249

During the Civil War prominent Bundists joined forces with the counter-revolution. At the same time a turn began among the rank-and-file members of the Bund in favour of collaboration with the Soviet government. Only when the victory of the proletarian dictatorship over the internal counter-revolution and foreign interventionists became evident did the Bund declare its abandonment of the struggle against the Soviet system. In March 1921, the Bund went into voluntary liquidation and part of its membership joined the R.C.P.(B.) in the ordinary way.    [p.74]

  ^[64] all such.    [p.78]

  ^[65] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed,. Vol. 5, pp. 231-51. p.79    [p.79]

  ^[66] The reference is to student unrest and working-class action -- meetings, demonstrations and strikes -- that took place in February and March 1901 in many cities of Russia: St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev, Kharkov, Yaroslavl, Tomsk, Warsaw, Belostok, etc.    [p.89]

  ^[67] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 4, pp. 388-93. [Transcriber's Note: V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Eng. ed., Vol. 4, pp. 414-19. -- DJR]    [p.89]

  ^[68] How simple and naïve!    [p.107]

  ^[69] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 5, pp. 9-10.    [p.109]

  ^[70] Iskra, No. 7 (August 1901), carried in its section "The Workers' Movement and Letters from the Mills and Factories," a letter from a weaver which testified to the vast influence Lenin's Iskra exercised on the advanced workers. The letter reads in part: ". . . I showed the Iskra to many fellow workers and the copy has been read to tatters; but we treasure it greatly. . . . The Iskra writes about our own cause, about the cause of all Russia which cannot be evaluated in kopeks or measured in hours of work; when you read the paper you understand why the gendarmes and police are afraid of us workers and of those intellectuals whom we follow. There is no denying that they do not simply make the bosses tremble for their pocketbooks, but inspire fear in the tsar, the employers and the rest. . . . It will not take much now to set the working folk aflame. All that is wanted is a spark to kindle the fire that is already smouldering among the people. How true are the words 'the spark will kindle a flame!'. . . . In the past every strike was an event, but today everyone sees that strikes alone are not enough, that we must now strive for liberty, win it by might and main. Today everyone, old and young, is eager to read, but the sad thing is that there are no books. Last Sunday I gathered eleven people and read them

page 250

'Where To Begin?', and we discussed it till late in the evening. How true it expresses everything, how it gets to the very heart of things. . . . And we would like to write a letter to your Iskra, to ask you to teach us not only how to begin, but how to live and how to die."    [p.109]

  ^[71] And in the interval between these articles the Iskra (No. 3) printed one specially dealing with class antagonisms in the countryside. (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 4, pp. 394-401.) [Transcriber's Note: see V. I. Lenin's "The Workers' Party and the Peasantry", Collected Works, 4th Eng. ed., Vol. 4, pp. 420-28. -- DJR]    [p.113]

  ^[72] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 4, pp. 388-93. [Transcriber's Note: see note 67 above. -- DJR]    [p.115]

  ^[73] Ibid., pp. 394-401. [Transcriber's Note: see note 71 above. -- DJR]    [p.115]

  ^[74] Ibid., Vol. 5, pp. 78-83.    [p.115]

  ^[75] Ibid., pp. 84-85.    [p.115]

  ^[76] Rossiya (Russia) -- a moderate liberal newspaper published in St. Petersburg from 1899 through 1902.    [p.115]

  ^[77] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 5, pp. 71-72.    [p.116]

  ^[78] S. Peterburgskiye Vedomosti (St. Petersburg Recorder) -- a newspaper that began publication in St. Petersburg in 1728 as a continuation of the first Russian newspaper Vedomosti, founded in 1703. From 1728 to 1874 the S. Peterburgskiye Vedomosti was published by the Academy of Sciences and from 1875 onwards by the Ministry of Education; it continued publication until the end of 1917.    [p.118]

  ^[79] L. Brentano -- a German bourgeois economist, advocate of so-called "state Socialism," who tried to prove the possibility of attaining social equality within the framework of capitalism by introducing reforms and conciliating the interests of the capitalists and workers. Using Marxist phraseology as a cover, Brentano and his followers endeavoured to subordinate the working-class movement to the interests of the bourgeoisie.    [p.118]