V. I. Lenin

Heroes of “Reservation” {1}

The tenth issue of Nasha Zarya , the magazine of
Mr. Potresov and Co., which we have just received, provides striking
examples of carelessness or, rather, unprincipledness in the evaluation of
Leo Tolstoy, which need to be dealt with at once, if only in brief.

Here is an article by V. Bazarov, a new warrior in Potresov’s
ranks. The editors are not in agreement with “certain propositions” in
this article, without of course mentioning which propositions they
are. That is so much more convenient for covering up confusion! As for
ourselves, we find it difficult to point out any propositions in this
article that would not arouse the indignation of anyone who has the least
bit of regard for Marxism. “Our intelligentsia,” V. Bazarov writes,
“beaten and dispirited, turned into a sort of amorphous mental and moral
slough, and now at the extreme limit of spiritual demoralisation, has
unanimously accepted Tolstoy—the whole of Tolstoy—as its
conscience.” That is not true. It is mere phrase-mongering. Our
intelligentsia in general, and particularly that of Nasha Zarya ,
certainly looks very “dispirited”, but it neither did nor could display
any “unanimity” in its appraisal of Tolstoy, and it never did or could
appraise correctly the whole of Tolstoy. It is precisely the
absence of unanimity that is concealed behind the utterly hypocritical talk
about “conscience”, a catchword fully worthy of Novoye Vremya . Bazarov does not fight the “slough”—he encourages the
slough.

Bazarov “would like to recall certain instances of injustice [!!] with
regard to Tolstoy, of which the Russian intellectuals in general, and we
radicals 6f various persuasions in particular, are guilty”. The only thing
that is true in this statement is that Bazarov, Potresov and Co. are
indeed

“radicals of various persuasions”, dependent on the universal “slough”
to such an extent that, at a time when the fundamental inconsistencies and
weaknesses of Tolstoy’s world outlook are being hushed up in the most
unpardonable fashion, they rush after “everybody” in a challenging
fashion, yelling about “injustice” to Tolstoy. They do not want to yield
to the intoxication of “that narcotic particularly wide spread among us,
which Tolstoy describes as ‘the virulence of controversy’”.
This is the very kind of talk, the kind of tune, that suits the
philistines, who turn their backs with supreme contempt on a controversy
over principles that are defended consistently and in full.

“The main power of Tolstoy lies in the fact that, having passed
through all the stages of demoralisation typical of modern educated men, he
succeeded in finding a synthesis....” This is not true. The very thing
that Tolstoy did not succeed in finding, or rather could not find, either
in the philosophical foundations of his world outlook or in his
social-political doctrine, is a synthesis. “Tolstoy was the first [!] to
objectivise, i. e., to create not only for himself but for others as well,
that genuinely human [Bazarov’s own italics throughout] religion,
of which Comte, Feuerbach, and other representatives of modern culture
could only dream subjectively [!],” etc., etc.

This kind of talk is worse than common philistinism. It is an attempt
to adorn the “slough” with spurious flowers, capable only of deluding
people. More than half a century ago Feuerbach, unable to “find a
synthesis” in his world outlook, which represented in many respects “the
last word” of German classical philosophy, became embroiled in those
“subjective dreams”, the negative role of which has long since been
appraised by the really progressive “representatives of modern
culture”. To declare now that Tolstoy “was the first to objectivise”
these “subjective dreams” is to join the camp of the retrograde, to
flatter the philistines, to echo the Vekhists.

Bazarov writes:

“It goes without saying that the movement [!?] founded by Tolstoy must undergo a profound change if it is really
destined to play a great world-wide historic role: the idealisation of
the patriarchal-peasant mode of life, the attraction towards a natural
economy, and many other utopian features of Tolstoyism, which loom large [I] at the
present Lime and, seem to be its most essential features, are actually
nothing but subjective elements not necessarily connected with the basis of
Tolstoy’s ‘religion’.”

So it turns out that Tolstoy “objectivised” Feuerbach’s “subjective
dreams”, whereas that which Tolstoy reflected both in his brilliant
literary works and in his extremely contradictory doctrine, namely, the
special economic features of Russia of the past century, noted by Bazarov,
are “nothing but subjective elements” of his doctrine. That is what is
called being wide of the mark. But then, there is nothing the
“intelligentsia, beaten and dispirited” (etc., as quoted above), enjoys,
desires and likes more, there is nothing that humours its dispiritedness
more than this exalting of Feuerbach’s “subjective dreams” which Tolstoy
“objectivised”, and this diversion of attention from the
concrete historical economic and political problems “which loom large at
the present time”!

It is obvious that Bazarov is particularly displeased with the “sharp
criticism” which the doctrine of non-resistance to evil evoked among the
“radical intelligentsia”. To Bazarov it is “clear that there is no
reason to speak here of passivity and quietism”. By way of explaining his
thought, Bazarov refers to the well-known tale of “Ivan the Fool” and
suggests that the reader “imagine that it is not the Tarakan (Cockroach)
tsar who sends soldiers against the Fools, but their own ruler Ivan, now
become wise; and that Ivan wants to use these soldiers, whom he recruited
from the ranks of the Fools themselves and who are therefore akin to the
latter by their entire way of thinking, in order to compel his subjects to
comply with some unrighteous demands. It is quite obvious that the Fools,
practically unarmed and unfamiliar with military formation, cannot even
dream of gaining a physical victory over Ivan’s troops. Even if they resort
to the most vigorous ‘resistance by force’, the Fools cannot defeat Ivan
physically, but only by means of moral influence, i. e., only by means of
the so-called ‘demoralisation’ of Ivan’s troops....” “The Fools’
resistance by force achieves the same result (only worse and at the cost of
great sacrifice) as resistance without force....” “Non-resistance to evil
with force or, to use a more general term, harmony of means and ends [!!]
is an idea that is by no means characteristic only of moral preachers who live secluded from
society. This idea is an essential component part of every integral world
outlook.”

Such are the arguments of the new warrior in Potresov’s ranks. We
cannot stop to analyse them here. It is perhaps sufficient—on this first
occasion—just to reproduce his main argument and to add five words:
Vekhism of the purest water.

From the final chords of the cantata on the theme that ears do not grow
above one’s head: “There is no need to describe our weakness as strength,
as superiority over Tolstoy’s ‘quietism’ and ‘narrow rationalism’ [and over
the inconsistency of his reasoning?]. We should not say that, not only
because it is at variance with the truth, but also because it hinders us
from learning from the greatest man of our times.”

Well, well. But, then, there is no reason why you should be getting
angry, gentlemen, and answer with ridiculous bravado and abuse (as
Mr. Potresov did in Nos. 8-9 of Nasha Zarya ) if people like
Izgoyev bless, praise and kiss you. Neither the old nor the new Warriors
in Potresov’s ranks can cleanse themselves of these kisses.

The general staff of this host provided Bazarov’s article with a
“diplomatic” reservation. But the leading article by Mr. Nevedomsky,
printed without any reservations, is not much better. “While he
absorbed,” writes this bard of the present-day intelligentsia, “and
embodied in a consummate form the fundamental aspirations and strivings of
the great epoch of the fall of slavery in Russia, Leo Tolstoy proved to be
also the purest and most consummate embodiment of the ideological principle
of humanity in general—the principle of conscience .”

Boom, boom, boom.... While he absorbed and embodied in a consummate
form the fundamental manner of declamation characteristic of
liberal-bourgeois journalism, Mr. Nevedomsky proved to be also the purest
and most consummate embodiment of the ideological principle of humanity in
general—the principle of rant.

One more—and final—statement:

“All those European admirers of Tolstoy, all those
Anatole Frances by whatever name they are called, and the Chambers of
Deputies, which recently voted by an enormous majority against the
abolition of capital punishment and today pay homage to the great integral man—the whole of that kingdom of intermediateness,
half-heartedness, reservationism—compared with them, how magnificent, how
powerful towers the figure, cast of a single pure metal, of Tolstoy, that
living embodiment of an integral principle.”

Phew! What eloquence—and not a word of truth. The figure of Tolstoy
is cast neither of a single nor a pure metal, nor of metal at all. And it
is precisely not for his “integrality”, but for his deviation
from integrality, that “all those” bourgeois admirers “pay homage” to
his memory.

There is only one apt word that Mr. Nevedomsky blurted out
inadvertently. That is the word “reservationism”, which fits the
gentlemen of Nasha Zarya just as perfectly as V. Bazarov’s
above-quoted characterisation of the intelligentsia fits
them . Throughout it is heroes of “reservation” that confront
us. Potresov makes the reservation that he is not in agreement with the
Machists, although he defends them. The editors make the reservation that
they are not in agreement with “certain propositions” of Bazarov’s,
although it is obvious to everyone that it is not a question here of
certain propositions. Potresov makes the reservation that he has been
slandered by Izgoyev. Martov makes the reservation that he is not
entirely in agreement with Potresov and Levitsky, although they are the
very people whom he renders faithful political service. All of them make
the reservation that they are not in agreement with Cherevanin, although
they approve more of his second liquidationist pamphlet, in which
the “spirit” of his first brain-child is greatly in creased. Cherevanin
makes the reservation that he is not in agreement with Maslov. Maslov
makes the reservation that he is not in agreement with Kautsky.

The only thing they all agree on is that they are not in agreement with
Plekhanov, and that he slanders them by accusing them of liquidationism,
while himself being allegedly unable to explain his present rapprochement
with his former opponents.

There is nothing simpler than the explanation of this rapprochement,
which is only inexplicable to people with reservations. When we had a
locomotive we differed very strongly on the question as to whether the
power of that locomotive, the stock of fuel, etc., warranted a speed of,
let us say, 25 or 50 miles an hour. The controversy over this question, as over any question which stirs the opponents deeply, was
conducted with passion and often with bitterness. That controversy—and
this refers to absolutely every question over which it arose—was carried
on in the open, in full view of everyone, it was thoroughly thrashed out,
without being glossed over by any “reservations”. And none of us ever
thought of retracting anything or of whining over the “virulence of the
controversy”. But today, when the locomotive has broken down, when it is
lying in a bog, surrounded by “reservationist” intellectuals who
sneeringly declare that there is “nothing to liquidate” because there is
no longer any locomotive in existence, we, the “virulent
controversionalists” of yesterday, are drawn closer together by our common
cause. Without renouncing anything, without forgetting anything, without
making any promises about setting aside differences, we are working
together for the common cause. We are devoting all our attention and all
our efforts to raise the locomotive, to renovate, strengthen and reinforce
it, to put it on the rails—as to its speed, or which way to turn one
switch or another, we shall discuss that in due time. In these difficult
days the immediate task is to create something that will be capable of
giving a rebuff to the people “with reservations” and the “dispirited
intellectuals”, who directly or indirectly promote the prevailing
“slough”. The immediate task is to dig—even under the most difficult
conditions—for ore, to extract iron, and to cast the steel of the Marxist
world outlook and of the superstructures corresponding to this world
outlook.

---
Notes:
{1}
The article “ Heroes of ‘ Reservation ’\thinspace” was published in the magazine Mysl ( Thought ).

Mysl —a Bolshevik legal monthly of a philosophical and socio-economic nature published in Moscow from December 1910. The magazine
was founded by Lenin as a counter to the liquidationist journals and for
the struggle against them. He edited the magazine from abroad. Lenin wrote
six articles for the first four issues of Mysl , including the
large work “Strike Statistics in Russia”. V. V. Vorovsky, M. S. Olminsky
and I. I. Skvortsov-Stepanov were close collaborators in the magazine, to
which pro-Party Mensheviks (G. V. Plekhanov and others) also
contributed. The magazine was published until April 1911; five issues
appeared. The last, fifth, issue was confiscated.