“We must choose” — this is the reasoning that opportunists have always used, and continue to use, to justify themselves. One cannot achieve anything truly great all at once. We must strive for the small, yet attainable. But how are we to determine what is attainable? By the consensus of the greatest number of political parties or of the most “influential” politicians. The more political figures agree on a particular minor improvement, the easier it becomes to secure, the more attainable it is. There is no need to be a utopian in pursuing the great; rather, one must be a pragmatic politician, capable of aligning oneself with even the smallest demand — for it is precisely this small step that will make the struggle for the greater all the more feasible. We regard the small as the surest stage in the struggle for the great.

All opportunists, all reformists, reason in this way — in stark contrast to revolutionaries. This is exactly how the right wing of the Social Democrats reason about the Duma ministry. The Constituent Assembly is a grand demand — one that cannot be realized today. Not everyone who is genuinely conscious of the existing order yet stands firmly behind this demand.[52] But the entire State Duma supports the Duma ministry; that means the vast majority of political leaders — which, in turn, signifies “the entire people.” We must choose: between the present evil and the tiniest possible correction of it, for it is the largest number of those who are dissatisfied with the status quo who will advocate for this “smallest” of reforms. And once we have secured the small, we will have made our path to the great far easier.

Let us repeat: this is the fundamental, quintessential line of reasoning employed by opportunists the world over. To what conclusion does this reasoning inevitably lead? To the conclusion that there is no need for a revolutionary program, a revolutionary party, or a revolutionary tactic. What is needed are reforms — and nothing more. There is no need for revolutionary social democracy; what is required is a party dedicated to democratic and socialist reforms. Indeed, is it not clear that there will always be people in this world who recognize the inadequacies of the existing order? Of course there will. Is it not equally clear that the largest number of those dissatisfied with this unsatisfactory state of affairs will always advocate for the smallest possible correction of it? Of course they will. Therefore, the task of the advanced and “conscious” elements of society is always to support the most modest demands for the amelioration of evil. This is the most reliable, the most practical course of action — while all talk of “fundamental” demands and the like is nothing more than the empty rhetoric of “utopians,” mere “revolutionary phrases.” We must choose — and we must always choose between the existing evil and the smallest of the reform projects currently in circulation.

This is precisely how German Social Democratic opportunists reasoned. There is, they argued, a social-liberal current that calls for the repeal of anti-socialist exclusion laws, for the reduction of the working day, for sickness insurance, and so forth. A significant portion of the bourgeoisie also supports these demands. Do not alienate them through tactless outbursts; instead, extend a hand to them, lend your support — and you will become pragmatic politicians. You will bring at least a small but real benefit to the working class, while the only ones to suffer from your tactics will be the empty words about “revolution.” You will not, after all, accomplish a revolution anytime soon. We must choose between reaction and reform, between Bismarck’s politics and the politics of the “social empire.”

The French ministerial socialists reasoned along similar lines to the Bernsteinians. We must choose between reaction and the bourgeois radicals, who promise a series of reforms that are, in practice, quite feasible. We must support these radicals, support their ministries — while the talk of a social revolution is nothing more than the idle chatter of “Blanquists,” “Anarchists,” “Utopians,” and the like.

What, then, is the fundamental flaw in all these opportunistic arguments? It lies in the fact that, in these arguments, socialist theory — which holds that class struggle is the sole, real engine of history — is effectively supplanted by the bourgeois theory of “solidarity,” of “collective” progress. According to socialist doctrine — that is, according to Marxism (for to speak seriously of non-Marxist socialism is no longer possible) — the true engine of history is the revolutionary struggle of classes; reforms are but a secondary result of this struggle, secondary because they represent failed attempts to weaken or blunt that very struggle, and so on. According to the teachings of bourgeois philosophers, the driving force behind progress is the solidarity of all elements of society that have come to recognize the “imperfection” of a given institution. The former doctrine is materialist; the latter is idealist. The former is revolutionary; the latter is reformist. The former provides the basis for the proletariat’s tactics in modern capitalist countries; the latter, for the tactics of the bourgeoisie.

From the latter doctrine flows the tactic of the dozen or so bourgeois progressives: everywhere and always, support “what is better”; choose between reaction and the far-right wing of forces opposing that very reaction. From the former doctrine emerges the independent, revolutionary tactics of the vanguard class. Under no circumstances should we limit our task to supporting the most widely circulated slogans of the reformist bourgeoisie. We pursue an independent policy, advancing only those reformist slogans that are unequivocally beneficial to the interests of revolutionary struggle — slogans that unconditionally enhance the proletariat’s independence, consciousness, and combat readiness. Only through such tactics can we neutralize the half‑hearted, the hypocritical, the reforms that are invariably laced with bourgeois or police‑designed traps, imposed from above.

Moreover, it is only through such a tactic that we can truly advance the cause of serious reform. This may seem paradoxical, but history itself—indeed, the entire trajectory of international social democracy—confirms this very paradox: the reformist tactic is the least capable of securing genuine reforms and ensuring their realization. By contrast, the tactic of revolutionary class struggle is best suited to achieve both. In fact, it is precisely revolutionary class struggle—its independence, its mass-based strength, and its unwavering resolve—that compels the emergence of reforms. Only to the extent that this struggle is vigorous can reforms be truly realized; for reforms, however well-intentioned, are always prone to hypocrisy, double‑standard, and the lingering influence of Zubatovism. When we align our slogans with those of the reformist bourgeoisie, we weaken the cause of revolution—and by extension, the cause of reform—as we thereby undermine the independence, steadfastness, and fighting capacity of the revolutionary classes.

Some readers might ask: Why bother repeating this basic lesson of international revolutionary social democracy? The reason is simple: “Golos Truda” and many Menshevik comrades have forgotten it.

The Duma—or Kadet—ministry is nothing less than a deceitful, duplicitous, Zubatov‑style reform. To overlook its true significance as an experiment in compromise between the Kadets and the autocracy is to substitute Marxism with a liberal‑bourgeois philosophy of progress. By endorsing such a reform and incorporating it into our own programmatic demands, we not only obscure the clarity of the proletariat’s revolutionary consciousness, but also diminish its independence and its combat effectiveness. On the other hand, by firmly upholding our longstanding revolutionary slogans, we strengthen the real struggle itself—and in doing so, we enhance the likelihood of reform while simultaneously increasing the chances that reform will serve the interests of revolution rather than reaction. We cast off all that is false and hypocritical in this reform, reserving for ourselves whatever positive elements it may contain. It is only through such a tactic that we can turn the mutual stumbles of Messrs. Trepov and Nabokov to our advantage, using their missteps to topple both esteemed acrobats into the abyss. It is only through this approach that history will speak of us as Bismarck spoke of German Social Democrats: “If there were no Social Democrats, there would be no social reform.” Without a revolutionary proletariat, there would have been no October 17th. Without December, all attempts to shirk the convocation of the Duma would have been thwarted. And yet another December will come—one that will determine the further fate of the revolution…

Postscript. This article was already written when we read the lead editorial in No. 6 of “Golos Truda.” Comrades are correcting course. They insist that before the Duma ministry takes office and assumes its portfolios, it must first demand—and secure—the universal abolition of martial law and all forms of censorship, the complete amnesty of all political prisoners, and the restoration of all civil liberties. Very well, comrades! Ask the Central Committee to include these conditions in its resolution on the Duma ministry. Try to implement them yourselves—if you do, you will find that, before supporting either the Duma or the Kadet ministry, you must first demand—and secure—that the Duma, or the Kadets, embrace the path of revolution. Before backing the Kadets, you must demand—and secure—that the Kadets cease to be Kadets.

“Ekho,” No. 6, June 28, 1906

Printed according to the text of the newspaper “Ekho.”