V. I.

Lenin

Social-Democracy’stactics towards the State Duma still heads all the questions
of the revolutionary struggle on the agenda of the day. The differences which
have arisen between the opportunist ( Iskra ) and the revolutionary
( Proletary ) wings of the R.S.D.L.P. on the score of these tactics
must be analysed most painstakingly not for the sake of captious polemising
(which sometimes degenerates into a squabble), but for the purpose of thoroughly
elucidating the question and assisting the comrades on the spot to work out the
most exact, definite, and uniform slogans possible.

Firstof all, a few words on the origin of these differences. Even before the
State Duma Act had been promulgated, we set forth in Proletary , No. 12
the fundamentals of our tactics and of our differences with Iskra . We
demanded:

1) support for the idea of a boycott, in the sense of increased agitation and an
appeal to the people, in the sense of the proletariat’s support for the Left
wing of bourgeois democracy, and constant exposure of the treachery of its
Right wing;

2) an active boycott at all costs, and not “passive
abstention”, i.e., “increasing agitation tenfold”, going so
far as “to force our way into election meetings”, and, finally,

3) “a clear, precise, and immediate agitational slogan”, namely,
for an armed uprising, a revolutionary army, and a provisional revolutionary
government. We categorically rejected the slogan of Iskra (No. 106)
for “organisation of a revolutionary self-government”, as
confusing and as playing into the hands of the Osvobozhdeniye
League, i.e., the monarchist bourgeoisie. At the same time, anticipating, as it were, that
Iskra would once more “beget” more differences we immediately added that we agreed with Iskra’s condemnation of the idea
of a passive boycott.

Soif Iskra , No. 108, now drops sundry hints about a theory of
“non-interference”, “absenteeism”, “abstention”, “folded arms”, and the like, we must first
of all brush aside “objections” of this sort, since this is not
polemising, but merely an attempt to “get under the opponent’s
skin”. By such methods of “polemising”, culminating in the
aspersion that some of the leaders would like to get into a provisional
government themselves, the new Iskra has long evoked a very definite
attitude towards itself among the widest circles of Social-Democrats.

Thus,the essence of the differences is that Iskra does not accept our
slogan of agitation, which we consider the main slogan (for an armed uprising, a
revolutionary army, and a provisional revolutionary government). Proletary , on the other hand, considers it absolutely
impermissible “to obscure or relegate into the background the slogan of
insurrection by bringing forward the slogan of revolutionary selfgovernment” ( Proletary , No. 12). All the other points of
disagreement are relatively less important. On the contrary, what is especially
important is that (as has been the case on more than one occasion) in No. 108
Iskra begins to back out, to twist and turn; to the slogan of
revolutionary self-government it adds the slogan of “active militant
action by the masses of the people” (wherein this differs from an armed
uprising God only knows). Iskra goes even so far as to say that the
“organisation of a revolutionary self-government is the only means of
really ’organising’ an uprising of the whole people”. Iskra ,
No. 108, is dated August 13 (26); and on August 24 (N. S.) the Vienna
Arbeiter Zeitung carried an article by Comrade Martov setting
forth Iskra ’s “plan” wholly in the spirit of
No. 106, and not in the spirit of the “amendments” in
No. 108. We are giving below [1] a translation of the most important parts of this invaluable article by Comrade
Martov, as a specimen of “Social Democratic Manilovism”.

Letus try to unravel this tangle.

Tomake matters clear it is necessary first of all to realise what forces are at
present “making history” for the Russian revolution, and just how
they are doing it. The autocracy has adopted the theory of
“consultation” between the tsar and the people. Desirous of
consulting with a police-screened handful of persons elected by the landowners
and shop keepers, the autocracy is beginning with desperate ferocity to suppress
the revolution. Broader circles of the monarchist bourgeoisie are in favour of
the theory of compromise between the tsar and the people (the
Osvobozhdeniye League, or the Constitutional-“Democratic”
Party). By this theory the bourgeoisie is showing its treachery to the
revolution, its readiness first to support it and then to unite with the
reactionaries against it. The revolutionary proletariat, inasmuch as it is led
by Social-Democracy, demands the sovereignty of the people , i.e., the
complete destruction of the forces of reaction, and, above all, the actual
overthrow of the tsarist government and its replacement by a provisional
revolutionary government. The proletariat strives (often without being aware of
it, but unswervingly and energetically) to win over the peasantry, and with the
latter’s assistance to carry forward the revolution to complete victory,
despite the bourgeoisie’s instability and treachery.

The State Duma is undoubtedly a concession to the revolution, but a concession
made (and this is still more indubitable) so as to suppress the revolution and
withhold a constitution. The bourgeois “compromisers” want to
achieve a constitution so as to suppress the revolution; this desire of the
liberal bourgeoisie, which is an inevitable result of its class position, has
been most clearly expressed by Mr. Vinogradov (in Russkiye Vedomosti ).

Thequestion now arises: under such circumstances, what is the significance of
the decision to boycott the Duma, passed by the Union of Unions (see
Proletary , No. 14), i.e., by the most comprehensive organisation of the
bourgeois intelligentsia? By and large, the bourgeois intelligentsia also wants
“a compromise”. That is why, as Proletary has repeatedly
pointed out, it too vacillates between reaction and revolution, between haggling
and fighting, between a deal with the tsar and an uprising against him. Nor can it be otherwise, in view of the class position of the bourgeois
intelligentsia. However, it would be a mistake to forget that this
intelligentsia is more capable of expressing the essential interests of the
bourgeois class as a whole, in their broadest implications, as distinct from the
temporary and narrow interests of the bourgeoisie’s “upper
crust”. The intelligentsia is more capable of expressing the interests of
the masses of the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry. With all its
vacillations, it is therefore more capable of waging a revolutionary struggle
against the autocracy, and, provided it draws closer to the people , it
could become an important force in this struggle. Powerless by itself, it could
nevertheless give quite considerable sections of the petty bourgeoisie and the
peasantry just what they lack— knowledge, programme, guidance, and
organisation.

Thus,the essence of the “boycott” idea, as it first arose in the
Union of Unions, is that the big bourgeoisie’s first step towards consultation, towards compromise with the tsar has inevitably led to the
petty-bourgeois intelligentsia’s first step towards drawing close .to the revolutionary people . The landlords and capitalists have swung to the
right, while the bourgeois intelligentsia, representing the petty bourgeoisie,
has swung to the left. The former are going to the tsar, although they have by
no means given up their intention of threatening him again and again with the
might of the people. The bourgeois intelligentsia is considering whether it
should not rather go to the people, without as yet finally breaking with the
theory of “compromise”, and without fully taking the revolutionary path.

Suchis the essence of the boycott idea, which, as we have pointed out in
Proletary , No. 12, arose among the bourgeois democrats. Only very
short-sighted and superficial people could discern in this idea
non-interference, absenteeism, abstention, and so on. The bourgeois
intelligentsia need not abstain , since the high property qualification
actually keeps it out of the State Duma. In its resolution on
the boycott the bourgeois intelligentsia makes “the mobilisation
of all the democratic elements of the country” its most
important point. The bourgeois intelligentsia is the most active,
resolute, and militant element of the Osvobozhdeniye League,
the Constitutional-“Democratic” Party. To accuse this intelligentsia of abstention, etc., because of its boycott idea, or even to
refuse to support its idea and to develop it means to display
short-sightedness and thus play into the hands of the monarchist big
bourgeoisie, whose organ, Osvobozhdeniye , has good reason to
combat the idea of a boycott.

Besidesthe general and basic considerations, the correctness of the view just
outlined is supported by the valuable admissions of
Mr. S.S. [2] in
Osvobozhdeniye , No. 75. It is highly significant that Mr. S.S.
describes advocates of the boycott idea as the “radical” group, and
opponents of that idea as the “moderate” group. He accuses the
former of a “Narodnaya Volya attitude”, of repeating the mistakes of
the “active revolutionary groups” (an accusation doing honour to
those it is levelled against by Osvobozhdeniye); about the latter he
states flatly that they stand “between two fires”, between the
autocracy and the “social [sic!] revolution”, poor Mr. S.S. being
so terrified that he has very nearly mistaken the democratic republic for a
social revolution! But the most valuable admission by Mr. S. S. is the
following: for the radicals—he says, comparing the Congress of
the Union of
Unions with the Zemstvo Congress—“every thing undoubtedly centred [mark
this!] around the demand to amend the electoral system, whereas for the more moderate group the main interest lay in extending the rights of the Duma ”.

Thissums up matters in a nutshell! Mr. S. S. has blurted out the innermost
“thoughts” of the landlords and capitalists, which we have laid
bare hundreds of times. Their “main interest” lies not in getting
the people to take part in the elections (they are afraid of that), but in
extending the rights of the Duma, i.e., in converting the assembly of the big
bourgeoisie from a consultative into a legislative body. That is the crux of the
matter. The big bourgeoisie will never be satisfied with a
“consultative” Duma. Hence, the inevitability of constitutional
conflicts in the State Duma. But the big bourgeoisie can never become a true and
depend able supporter of people’s sovereignty. It will always be taking the
constitution (for itself) with one hand, and taking away the rights of the
people, or opposing the extension of popular rights, with the other. The big
bourgeoisie cannot but strive for a constitution that secures privileges for the big
bourgeoisie. The radical intelligentsia cannot but strive to express the
interests of the broader strata of the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry. Once
it got the bird in the hand the Right wing of bourgeois democracy immediately
began to see reason, and, as we have seen, is already renouncing
“illegal” congresses. The Left wing saw itself without even a bird
in the hand; it saw that the landlords and capitalists, having taken advantage
of the services of the “third element” [3] (agitation, propaganda, organisation of the press, etc.), are now prepared to betray it,
directing their efforts in the State Duma not towards securing the people’s
rights but towards securing their own rights, which militate against those of
the people. And now sensing incipient treachery the bourgeois intelligentsia
brands the State Duma as an “audacious challenge” made by the
government to all the peoples of Russia, declares a boycott, and counsels
“the mobilisation of the democratic elements”.

Undersuch conditions the Social-Democrats would be playing the part of
political simpletons if they were to attack the idea of a boycott. The
revolutionary proletariat’s unerring class instinct has prompted most of the
comrades in Russia to adopt the idea of an active boycott. This means
supporting the Left wing and drawing it closer to us , means
endeavouring to single out the elements of revolutionary democracy , so
as to strike at the autocracy together with them. The radical intelligentsia has
held out a finger to us—we must catch it by the hand! If the boycott is
not mere bragging, if mobilisation is more than a word, if indignation at the
audacious challenge is not just mummery, then you must break with the
“compromisers”, come over to the theory of the sovereignty of the
people, and adopt, adopt in deed , the only consistent and integral
slogans of revolutionary democracy—an armed uprising, a revolutionary
army, and a provisional revolutionary government. To make all those who indeed
accept these slogans join us, and to pillory all who remain on the side of the
“compromisers — such is the only correct tactics of the
revolutionary proletariat.

Ournew-Iskrists have failed to see both the class origin and the real political
significance of the boycott idea, and have opened fire ... into the air. Comrade Cherevanin writes in No. 108:
“As is evident from the bulletins of the Don Committee and the
St. Petersburg group, both these organisations [N. B.: Menshevik
organisations. Note by the Proletary Editorial Board I have
declared for the boycott. They consider participation in elections to such
a Duma a disgrace, treason to the cause of the revolution, and they condemn
in advance those liberals who will take part in the elections. Thus, the very possibility of making the State Duma a weapon of the democratic revolution is precluded, and agitation directed towards that end is evidently rejected .” The words we have italicised reveal the mistake
indicated just now. Those who rant against “non-intervention”
are only obscuring the really important question of the
methods of intervention. There are two methods of intervention, two
types of slogans. The first method is: “increasing agitation tenfold,
organising meetings everywhere, taking advantage of election meetings, even
if we have to force our way into them, holding demonstrations, political
strikes, and so on and so forth”. ( Proletary , No. 12.) We
have already explained the slogans of this campaign of agitation. The other method is:
to demand “a revolutionary pledge to enter the State Duma for the purpose
of bringing about its transformation into a revolutionary assembly which will
depose the autocracy and convene a constituent assembly” (Comrade
Cherevanin in Iskra , No. 108), or “to bring pressure to bear on
the electors so that only resolute advocates of democratic and free
representation should be elected to the Duma” (Comrade Martov in the
Vienna Arbeiter Zeitung ).

Itis just this difference in methods that reflects the difference in the
“two tactics” of Social-Democracy. The opportunist wing of
Social-Democracy is always inclined to “bring pressure to bear” on
bourgeois democracy by demanding pledges from it. The revolutionary
wing of Social-Democracy “brings pressure to bear” on bourgeois
democracy and impels it to the left by condemning it for its shifts to the right , by spreading among the masses the slogan of a determined
revolution. The theory of “demanding pledges”, this famous Starover
litmus-test theory, is sheer naïveté and can only serve to sow
confusion among the proletariat and corrupt it. Whom will Comrade Cherevanin
hold responsible for the carrying out of the “pledges” he has received? Perhaps God Almighty?
Can it be that Comrade Cherevanin does not know that under the pressure of
material class interests all pledges will go by the board? Is it not
childishness on the part of the selfsame Comrade Cherevanin to think that the
bourgeois deputies to the State Duma can be bound to the revolutionary
proletariat by means of “binding instructions”? And if Comrade Martov
were to begin actually to carry out his plan he would have to
announce to the working class that certain members of the given
assembly of landlords are “resolute advocates of free and democratic
representation!” To make such announcements would mean sowing the greatest
political corruption!

Andnow note another thing: all these “revolutionary pledges” on the
part of the Petrunkeviches, Rodichevs, and tutti quanti , all these
“binding instructions”, all these pledges “resolutely to
support democratic and free representation” (could anyone have picked a
more general, vague, and nebulous phrase?) would be demanded and given in the name of Social-Democracy and behind the proletariat’s back. After all,
this cannot be done openly, for even in free countries, where agitation is
carried on openly, political figures are bound not so much by private deals as
by party programmes; in our case we do not and shall not have
definite and established parties at the elections to the State Duma! Just see,
comrades of the new Iskra , what a mess you have again managed to get
into: you keep repeating “the masses”, “to the masses”,
“with the masses”, “the initiative of the masses”, but in fact your “plan” boils down to secret deals obliging
Mr. Petrunkevich to be not a traitor to the revolution but its
“resolute” advocate!

Thenew-Iskrists have themselves reduced their position to absurdity. No one,
anywhere in Russia, even among their followers, would dream of concluding deals
on the basis of those absurd “revolutionary pledges”. No. This is
not the way to intervene. You must intervene by ruthlessly branding the
theory of compromise and the bourgeois compromisers, all those Petrunkeviches,
etc. Expose their bourgeois betrayal of the revolution and unite the
revolutionary forces for an uprising against the autocracy ( and, to be on the safe side, against the Duma as well)—that is the only reliable method of really “bringing pressure to bear” on the Duma,
of really paving the way for the victory of the revolution. It is only
with such a slogan that we should intervene in the election campaign, not
for electioneering purposes, deals, or pledges, but in order to preach
insurrection. And it is only the real strength of the armed people that
will enable us to take advantage of possible and probable future
conflicts within the State Duma, or between the State Duma and the tsar,
in the interests of the revolution (and not of a strictly bourgeois
constitution). Less confidence in the State Duma, gentlemen, and more
confidence in the forces of the proletariat which is now arming it self!

Wehave now come to the slogan of the organisation of revolutionary
self-government bodies. Let us examine it more closely.

Inthe first place it is wrong from a purely theoretical standpoint to give
pre-eminence to the slogan of revolutionary self-government instead of the
slogan of the people’s sovereignty. The former bears on the administration, the
second on the organisation of the state. The former is, there fore, compatible
with the treacherous bourgeois theory of “compromise” (a
self-governing people headed by the tsar, “who reigns but does not
govern”); the latter is wholly incompatible with it. The first is acceptable to
the Osvobozhdeniye League, the second is not.

Inthe second place, it is utterly absurd to identify the organisation of
revolutionary self-government with the organisation of a people’s uprising. An
uprising is civil war, and war requires an army, whereas self-government does
not in itself require an army. There are countries with a system of
self-government, but without an army. And revolutionary self-government does not
require a revolutionary army where a revolution takes place in the Norwegian
fashion: the king was “sacked” and a plebiscite held. But when the
people are oppressed by a despotic government which relies on an army and starts
civil war, then to identify revolutionary self-government with a revolutionary
army, to advocate the former and to maintain silence about the latter, is almost
indecent and signifies either betrayal of the revolution or the utmost
stupidity.

Thirdly,history also confirms the- truth (incidentally, a self-evident truth)
that only the complete and decisive victory of an uprising can make it fully
possible to establish genuine self-government. Would the municipal revolution in
France in July 1789 have been possible if on July 14 the people of Paris, who
had risen in arms, had not defeated the royal troops, taken the Bastille, and
completely smashed the resistance of the autocracy? Or will the new Iskrists,
perhaps, cite in this connection the example of the city of Montpellier, where
the municipal revolution, the establishment of revolutionary local
self-government took place peacefully, and a vote of thanks to the intendant was
even passed for the kindness with which he had assisted in his own deposition?
Does the new Iskra perhaps expect that during our Duma election
campaign we shall thank the governors for having eliminated themselves
before the capture of the Russian Bastilles? Is it not significant that
in the France of 1789 the period of the municipal revolution took place when the
emigration of reactionaries was under way, while in our country the
slogan of revolutionary self-government instead of the slogan of an
uprising is being advanced at a time when the emigration of revolutionaries is still going on? When a certain Russian high
official was asked why an amnesty was not granted on August 6 he
replied: “Why should we set free 10,000 people whom it took us
considerable trouble to arrest and who tomorrow would start a
desperate struggle against us?” This dignitary reasoned intelligently,
whereas those who speak about “revolutionary self—government” before the release of these 10,000 reason
unintelligently.

Fourthly,present-day Russian life plainly shows the inadequacy of the slogan of
“revolutionary self-government” and the need for a direct and
definite slogan of insurrection. Consider what took place in Smolensk on August
2 (Old Style). The Municipal Council declared the billeting of the Cossacks
contrary to law, stopped all payments to them, organised a city militia to
protect the population, and appealed to the soldiers to refrain from violence
against citizens. We should like to know whether our good new Iskrists find this
adequate. Should not this militia be regarded as a revolutionary army ,
as an organ of attack as well as of defence?—and of attack not only against the Smolensk Cossack
detachment, but against the autocratic government in general? Should not
this idea of proclaiming a revolutionary army and its tasks be
popularised? Can the administration of the city of Smolensk by genuine
government of the people be considered secure until a revolutionary army has won a decisive victory over the tsarist army?

Fifthly,the facts prove incontrovertibly that the slogan of revolutionary
self-government instead of the slogan of insurrection, or as implying (?) the
slogan of insurrection, is not only “acceptable” to the
Osvobozhdeniye League, but has actually been accepted by it. Take
Osvobozhdeniye , No. 74. You will find there a sweeping condemnation
of the “senseless and criminal advocacy of insurrection” and at the
same time a plea for city militias and the establishment of local
self-government bodies as elements of a future provisional government
(cf. Proletary , No. 12).

Nomatter how one approaches the question, it will invariably turn out that the
new slogan of the new Iskra is an Osvobozhdeniye slogan. The
Social-Democrats who either relegate to the background or reject a slogan
calling for an armed uprising, a revolutionary army, and a provisional
government in favour of one demanding the organisation of revolutionary
self-government are trailing along in the wake of the monarchist bourgeoisie,
instead of marching in the van of the revolutionary proletariat and peasantry.

Weare accused of stubbornly “hammering away” at the same
slogans. We think such an accusation a compliment. For it is plainly our task to
hammer away persistently at vital political slogans, while spreading the general
truths of the Social-Democratic programme. We succeded in giving the widest
publicity to the “quartet” formula so repugnant to the liberals
(universal and equal suffrage, direct elections and a secret ballot). We
acquainted the masses of the working people with the “sextet” of
political liberties (freedom of speech, conscience, the press, assembly,
association, and the right to strike). We must now repeat millions and billions
of times the “trio” of immediate revolutionary tasks (an armed
uprising, a revolutionary army, and a provisional revolutionary government). The
popular forces which will accomplish these tasks are shooting up spontaneously, not only with every day but with every hour that
passes. Attempted uprisings are becoming more frequent, their organisation is
growing, and arming is proceeding apace. From the ranks of the workers and
peasants clad in rustic coats, city suits, and uniforms nameless heroes are
emerging, people fused with the mass and ever more deeply imbued with a noble
obsession to liberate the people. It is our business to see to it that all
these rivulets merge into a mighty torrent, that the light of a class-conscious,
direct, clear, and precise revolutionary programme of our immediate tasks be
thrown on the spontaneous movement, multiplying its strength tenfold.

Tosum up. Our tactics with regard to the State Duma may be formulated in five
points: 1) intensified agitation in connection with the State Duma Act and the
elections to the Duma, the organisation of meetings, utilisation of the election
campaign, demonstrations, etc., etc.; 2) the centring of this entire agitational
campaign on slogans calling for an insurrection, a revolutionary army, and a
provisional revolutionary government; popularisation of the programme of this
provisional government; 3) gaining the adherence for the promotion of this
agitation and of the armed struggle of all revolutionary democratic elements,
and of such elements only, i.e., only those who accept the above-mentioned
slogans in deed; 4) support of the boycott idea, which arose among the Left-wing
bourgeois democrats, with the purpose of making it an active boycott in the
sense of the most wide spread agitation as described above; winning over the
Left-wing representatives of bourgeois democracy to the
revolutionary-democratic programme and to activities which will draw them
closer to the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry; 5) ruthless exposure of the
bourgeois theory of “compromise” and the bourgeois “compromisers”, and their denunciation to the broadest masses of
workers and peasants; making public and explaining every treacherous and
irresolute step they take, both before and after they enter the Duma; warning
the working class against these bourgeois betrayers of the revolution.

---
Notes:
[1]
See pp. 224-26 of this volume.— Ed .

[2]
S. S. —the pseudonym of P. N. Milyukov, leader of the
Constitutional-Democratic Party.

[3]
The third element —an expression used to designate the Zemstvo
democratic intelligentsia.