[a.k.a. The April Theses]

This article contains Lenin’s famous April Theses read by him at
two meetings of the All-Russia Conference of Soviets of Workers’
and Soldiers’ Deputies, on April 4, 1917.

[Introduction]

I did not arrive in Petrograd until the night of April 3, and
therefore at the meeting on April 4, I could, of course, deliver the
report on the tasks of the revolutionary proletariat only on my own behalf, and with reservations as to insufficient
preparation.

The only thing I could do to make things easier for myself—and for honest opponents—was to prepare the theses
in writing . I read them out, and gave the text to Comrade Tsereteli . I
read them twice very slowly: first at a meeting of Bolsheviks
and then at a meeting of both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks .

I publish these personal theses of mine with only the briefest
explanatory notes, which were developed in far greater detail in the report.

## THESES

1) In our attitude towards the war , which
under the new [provisional] government of
Lvov and
Co. unquestionably remains on Russia’s part a predatory imperialist
war owing to the capitalist nature of that government, not the
slightest concession to “revolutionary defencism” is permissible.

The class-conscious proletariat can give its consent to a revolutionary
war, which would really justify revolutionary defencism, only on condition:

(a) that the power pass to the proletariat and the poorest sections of
the peasants aligned with the proletariat; (b) that all annexations be
renounced in deed and not in word; (c) that a complete break be effected
in actual fact with all capitalist interests.

In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the
mass believers in revolutionary defencism who accept the war only as a
necessity, and not as a means of conquest, in view of the fact that
they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with
particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their
error to them, to explain the inseparable connection existing between
capital and the imperialist war, and to prove that without
overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a
truly democratic peace, a peace not imposed by violence.

The most widespread campaign for this view must be organised in
the army at the front.

Fraternisation.

2) The specific feature of the present situation in Russia is that the
country is passing from the first stage of the revolution—which,
owing to the insufficient class-consciousness and organisation of the proletariat, placed power in the hands of the
bourgeoisie—to its second stage , which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the
peasants.

This transition is characterised, on the one hand, by a maximum of
legally recognised rights (Russia is now the freest of all
the belligerent countries in the world); on the other, by the absence
of violence towards the masses, and, finally, by their unreasoning
trust in the government of capitalists, those worst enemies of peace
and socialism.

This peculiar situation demands of us an ability to adapt ourselves
to the special conditions of Party work among unprecedentedly
large masses of proletarians who have just awakened to political life.

3) No support for the Provisional Government ; the utter falsity of all its promises should be made
clear, particularly of those relating to the renunciation of
annexations. Exposure in place of the impermissible, illusion-breeding
“demand” that this government, a government of capitalists,
should cease to be an imperialist government.

4) Recognition of the fact that in most of the Soviets of Workers’
Deputies our Party is in a minority, so far a small minority, as
against a bloc of all the petty-bourgeois opportunist elements, from the Popular Socialists and the Socialist-Revolutionaries
down to the Organising Committee ( Chkheidze , Tsereteli ,
etc.), Steklov, etc., etc., who have yielded to the influence of the
bourgeoisie and spread that influence among the proletariat.

The masses must be made to see that the Soviets of
Workers’ Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary
government, and that therefore our task is, as long as this
government yields to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a
patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their
tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical
needs of the masses.

As long as we are in the minority we carry on the work of
criticising and exposing errors and at the same time we preach
the necessity of transferring the entire state power to the
Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, so that the people may overcome
their mistakes by experience.

5) Not a parliamentary republic—to return to a parliamentary republic from
the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies would be a retrograde step—but a republic
of Soviets of Workers’, Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies
throughout the country, from top to bottom.

Abolition of the police, the army and the bureaucracy. [1]

The salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable
at any time, not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker.

6) The weight of emphasis in the agrarian programme to be shifted to the Soviets
of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies.

Confiscation of all landed estates.

Nationalisation of all lands in the country, the land to
be disposed of by the local Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ and
Peasants’ Deputies. The organisation of separate Soviets of Deputies
of Poor Peasants. The setting up of a model farm on each of the large
estates (ranging in size from 100 to 300 dessiatines , according to local and other conditions, and to the decisions of the
local bodies) under the control of the Soviets of Agricultural
Labourers’ Deputies and for the public account.

7) The immediate union of all banks in the country into a single national
bank, and the institution of control over it by the Soviet of Workers’
Deputies.

8) It is not our immediate task to “introduce” socialism, but
only to bring social production and the distribution of products at
once under the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies.

9) Party tasks:

(a) Immediate convocation of a Party congress; (b) Alteration of
the Party Programme, mainly:

(1) On the question of imperialism and the imperialist war, (2) On our attitude towards the state and our demand for a “commune
state” [2] ; (3) Amendment of our out-of-date minimum programme; (c) Change of the Party’s
name. [3]

10. A new International.

We must take the initiative in creating a revolutionary
International, an International against the social-chauvinists
and against the “Centre”. [4]

In order that the reader may understand why I had especially to
emphasise as a rare exception the “case” of honest opponents, I invite
him to compare the above theses with the following objection by
Mr. Goldenberg:

Lenin, he said, “has planted the banner of civil war in the midst of
revolutionary democracy” (quoted in No. 5 of Mr. Plekhanov ’s
Yedinstvo ).

Isn’t it a gem?

I write, announce and elaborately explain: “In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the
mass believers in revolutionary defencism ... in view of the
fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary
with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them....”

Yet the bourgeois gentlemen who call themselves Social-Democrats,
who do not belong either to the broad sections or to the mass believers in defencism, with serene brow present my views thus:

“The banner[!] of civil war” (of which there is not a word in the
theses and not a word in my speech!) has been planted(!) “in the midst
[!!] of revolutionary democracy...”.

What does this mean? In what way does this differ from riot-inciting agitation, from Russkaya Volya ?

I write, announce and elaborately explain: “The
Soviets of Workers’ Deputies are the only possible form of
revolutionary government, and therefore our task is to present a
patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors
of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical
needs of the masses.”

Yet opponents of a certain brand present my views as a call to
“civil war in the midst of revolutionary democracy”!

I attacked the Provisional Government for not having appointed an early date or any date at all, for the convocation of the
Constituent Assembly , and for confining itself to promises. I argued that
without the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies the
convocation of the Constituent Assembly is not guaranteed and its
success is impossible.

And the view is attributed to me that I am opposed to the speedy
convocation of the Constituent Assembly!

I would call this “raving”, had not decades of political struggle
taught me to regard honesty in opponents as a rare exception.

Mr. Plekhanov in his paper called my speech “raving”. Very good, Mr. Plekhanov! But
look how awkward, uncouth and slow-witted you are in your polemics. If
I delivered a raving speech for two hours, how is it that an audience
of hundreds tolerated this “raving”? Further, why does your paper
devote a whole column to an account of the “raving”? Inconsistent,
highly inconsistent!

It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to
attempt to relate, to explain, to recall what Marx and Engels
said in 1871, 1872 and 1875 about the experience of the Paris Commune and about the kind of state the proletariat
needs. [See: The Civil War in France and Critique of the Gotha Programme ]

Ex-Marxist Mr. Plekhanov evidently does not care to recall Marxism.

I quoted the words of Rosa Luxemburg , who on August 4, 1914 , called

German Social-Democracy a “stinking corpse”. And the Plekhanovs,
Goldenbergs and Co. feel “offended”. On whose behalf? On behalf of the
German chauvinists, because they were called chauvinists!

They have got themselves in a mess, these poor Russian social-chauvinists—socialists in word and chauvinists in deed.

---
Notes:
[1]

i.e. the standing army to be replaced by the arming of the whole people.— Lenin

[2]

i.e., a state of which the Paris Commune was the prototype.— Lenin

[3]

Instead of “Social-Democracy”, whose official leaders throughout the world have betrayed socialism and deserted to the
bourgeoisie (the “defencists” and the vacillating “Kautskyites”),
we must call ourselves the Communist Party .— Lenin

[4]

The “ Centre ” in the international Social-Democratic movement is the trend which
vacillates between the chauvinists (=“defencists”) and internationalists, i.e., Kautsky and Co. in Germany, Longuet and
Co. in France, Chkheidze and Co. in Russia, Turati and Co. in Italy,
MacDonald and Co. in Britain, etc.— Lenin