V. I.

Lenin

Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.

July 17 (30)-August 10 (23), 1903

14. Speech on the Party Programme

July 22 (August 4)

Firstof all, I must draw attention to the highly characteristic way in
which Comrade Lieber confuses a Marshal of the Nobility with a section of
the toilers and the exploited. This confusion is a feature of all the
debates. Isolated episodes of our controversy are being everywhere
confused with the establishment of basic principles. One cannot deny, as
Comrade Lieber does, the possibility of even a section (one or
another) of the working and exploited population coming over to the side
of the proletariat. You will recall that in 1852, referring to the revolt
of the French peasants, Marx wrote (in The Eighteenth Brumaire )
that the peasantry acts sometimes as a representative of the past and
sometimes as a representative of the future; one can appeal not only to
the peasant’s prejudice, but to his judgement [1] as well. You will further recall that Marx said the Communards were quite
right in declaring the cause of the Commune that of the peasantry as well. [2]
I repeat, it cannot be doubt ed that, under certain conditions, it is by
no means impossible for one section or another of the working people to
come over to the side of the proletariat. The important thing is to define
these conditions correctly. And the condition we are speaking of is
expressed quite accurately in the words “place themselves at the
standpoint of the proletariat.” It is these words that draw a definite
line of demarcation between us, Social-Democrats, and all pseudo-socialist
trends in general, and the so-called Socialist-Revolutionaries in
particular.

Ishall now go over to that disputed passage in my pamphlet, What Is to Be Done? , which gave rise to so much discussion here. After all
this discussion, I think that the question has been so clarified that
very little remains for me to add. It is obvious that here an episode in
the struggle against “economism” has been confused with a
discussion of the principles of a major theoretical question (the
formation of an ideology). Moreover, this episode has been presented in
an absolutely false light.

Insupport of this last statement, I might refer first of all to Comrades
Akimov and Martynov, who spoke here. They made it quite clear that it was
indeed an episode in the struggle against “economism” which
was at issue here. They expressed views which have already been termed
opportunism (and quite rightly so). They actually went so far as to
“refute” the theory of impoverishment, to “dispute” the dictatorship of the proletariat, and even to
advocate the “Erfüllungstheorie,” as Comrade Akimov called it. To tell the truth, I do not quite know what that means. Perhaps
Comrade Akimov meant to say “Aushöhlungstheorie”— the “theory of the
hollowing out” of capitalism, that is, one of the most popular and
current ideas of the Bernsteinian theory. In his defence of the old
mainstays of “economism,” Comrade Akimov even advanced such an
incredibly eccentric argument as that the word proletariat does not figure
in our programme even once in the nominative case. At most, Comrade Akimov
exclaimed, they have the proletariat in the genitive case. And so it
appears that the nominative is the most honourable case, whereas the
genitive takes second place in the scale of honour. It only remains to
convey this idea—through a special commission, perhaps—to
Comrade Ryazanov, so as to enable him to supplement his first scientific
work on the letters of the alphabet with another treatise on the cases....

Asto the direct references to my pamphlet, What Is to Be Done? ,
it will be quite easy for me to show that they have been wrenched from the
context. It is claimed that Lenin says nothing about any conflicting
trends, but categorically affirms that the working-class movement
invariably “tends” to succumb to bourgeois ideology. Is that so? Have I not said that t.he working-class movement is
drawn

towards the bourgeois outlook with the benevolent assistance of
the Schulze-Delitzsches and others like them? [ See present edition, Vol. 5.— Ed . ]

And who is meant here by “others like them”? None other than the
“economists,” none other than those who, for example, used to say
then that bourgeois democracy in Russia is a phantom. Today it is easy to
talk so cheaply about bourgeois radicalism and liberalism, when examples
of them are to be found right before us. But was that the case previously?

Lenintakes no account whatever of the fact that the workers, too, have a
share in the formation of an ideology. Is that so? Have I not said time
and again that the shortage of fully class-conscious workers,
worker-leaders, and worker-revolutionaries is, in fact, the greatest
deficiency in our movement? Have I not said there that the training of
such worker-revolutionaries must be our immediate task? Is there no
mention there of the importance of developing a trade-union movement and
creating a special trade-union literature? Is not a desperate struggle
waged there against every attempt to lower the level of the advanced
workers to that of the masses, or of the average workers?[ Ibid .— Ed . ]

Toconclude. We all now know that the “economists” have gone
to one extreme. To straighten matters out some body had to pull in the
other direction—and that is what I have done. I am convinced that
Russian Social-Democracy will always vigorously straighten out whatever
has been twisted by opportunism of any kind, and that therefore our line
of action will always be the straightest and the fittest for action.

---
Notes:
[1]
Lenin is referring to Karl Marx’s Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte , Chapter VII (see Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1958, pp. 334-36).

[2]
Lenin is referring to Karl Marx’s Civil War in France (see Marx
and Engels. Selected Works , Vol. I, Moscow, 1958, p. 525).