V. I.

Lenin

A Conversation Between a Legalist and an Opponent of Liquidationism [1]

Legalist: It seems to me that the extreme bitterness of the struggle and controversy with the liquidators in the
Social-Democratic press has over-inflamed passions and somewhat obscured
the substance of the disagreement.

Anti-liquidator: Isn’t it the other way round? Isn’t the
sharpness of the struggle due to the profundity of the ideological
differences? Or you have, perhaps, also joined the camp of the
“vacillators”—in other words, the “conciliators”—who are trying to
bridge the gulf with hollow phrases and sweeping platitudes?

Legalist: Oh no! I am not at all inclined to “conciliate”. On the contrary. The point I want to make is that the
liquidators have not enough understanding of what they want and hence are
not resolute enough. They are still groping in the dark and developing
spontaneously, if one may put it that way. They are still afraid of
pursuing their line of thought to its conclusion. That is the reason for
that inconsistency, confusion and hesitancy which their opponents mistake
for hypocrisy and for fraudulent methods of struggle against the illegal
party, etc. The result is a free-for-all and the public at large, for whose
benefit the controversy is being conducted, no longer understands what it
is all about. Had they had fewer smart diplomats and more confidence in
themselves, the liquidators would have proved their case sooner and smashed
you to pieces.

Anti-liquidator: That all sounds very nightmarish.... Still,
it would be interesting to hear your arguments.

Legalist: In my opinion, the liquidators are right. They ought
to adopt the legalist label which has been hurled at them. We shall adopt
it and prove that it is the legalists who give the only correct
answer—correct from the standpoint of Marxism—to the vexed problems of the working-class movement
in Russia today. Do you or do you not admit that the period we are now
passing through represents in some ways a distinctive stage in the economic
and political evolution of Russia?

Anti-liquidator: I do.

Legalist: You do so only in words, just as your notorious
“December” (1908) resolutions do. Seriously considered, an admission of
this sort means that the open existence of, let us say, the
Social-Democratic group in the Third Duma is not an accident, but an
inseparable constituent of “the present moment”. The sum total of the
present political conditions, the sum total of the conditions obtaining in
the working-class movement, is such that it is possible and essential to
have an open, legal Social-Democratic group in the Duma, and it is
possible and essential to have an open, legal Social-Democratic
workers’ party.

Anti-liquidator: Isn’t it rather risky—this jump from a
Social-Democratic group in the Duma to a Social-Democratic workers’ party?

Legalist: Not in the least. The only difference is that the
forms in which the Social-Democratic group in the Third Duma exists were
determined for us from outside; all we had to do was to accept them, to
enter, so to speak, into previously prepared premises, whereas it is up to
us to find the forms for the existence of a legal workers’ party. Here we
must show initiative, we must fight for new forms. Those whom you
contemptuously call liquidators have embarked upon this fight, have entered
on the new path; but, unfortunately, they have only made the first
step. Unfortunately, they are still timid about it, keep looking back and
confine themselves to half-measures. This may be inevitable at the
beginning of the new road; but the beginning will be followed by further
steps. The indecision of the first steps will disappear, and the mistakes
will be rectified.

Anti-liquidator: Excellent. Will you be kind enough to explain
what these mistakes are and how they will be corrected.

Legalist: With pleasure! We cannot foretell exactly what the
legal workers’ party of tomorrow will be like, but we can see the general
direction in which the working-class movement is developing. Once we grant that this is the direction, I can
boldly draw a picture of the legal party, knowing that the actual party may
not be exactly like the picture, but it will be something like it . And in order to draw this picture for you I don’t have to
“invent” anything. All I need is to consider the lessons life teaches us,
the experience of activity under the new, post-revolutionary conditions. I
need only to sum up this experience, disregarding the irrelevant details,
and following the main thread. The working class is legally represented in
the Duma. There is a legal Social-Democratic group in the Duma. It is
hounded, spied on; it is not allowed to hold meetings, it is deprived of
experienced people; tomorrow it may perhaps be scattered in prisons and
places of exile—a legal party by no means precludes judicial and police
persecution, as your short-sighted followers believe. But the legal group
in the Duma exists despite the persecutions. There are legal trade unions
and clubs, legal Marxist monthly and weekly journals; they are even more
hounded, they are being suppressed, bled white by fines, their editors pay
perhaps with a month and a half in prison for each month in the editorial
office, the unions are constantly being disbanded but still they
exist. Think this over. It is one thing when there are no legal trade
unions, no legal Marxist press, and no legal Social-Democratic
deputies. That was the position up to 1905. It is a different thing when
they do exist, even if they are hounded all the time, even if they
are constantly being suppressed. This has been the state of affairs since
1907. This is the new feature in the situation. It is this “new feature”
that we must be able to turn to account, so as to extend, reinforce, and
consolidate it.

Anti-liquidator: You started with the promise to be a more
courageous and a more consistent legalist than those whom we have heard
before, but so far you have done nothing but repeat what all the
liquidators said long ago.

Legalist: As I said before, the picture of a consistent and
convinced legalism follows logically from close observation of the
experience provided by life. Actually all the various elements that go to
make up a legal Social-Democratic workers’ party already exist. We must
speak out loudly and bluntly and call things by their real names. We must
fearlessly recognise that these disjointed elements will be, must be, brought
together—if not today then tomorrow—and such a party will then
emerge. It must be founded, and will be founded. It will be persecuted, but
nevertheless it will exist, the years when there was no legal workers’
party will be succeeded by years during which a legal workers’ party will
lead a precarious existence interrupted by numerous persecutions; and these
years in their turn will be succeeded by years when Russia will have a
legal Social-Democratic party following the purely European pattern. The
years for a legal Social-Democratic party have already begun and It is
already something more real than your underground organisation
which is ninety-nine per cent demolished. In order fully to rally the
legalists and imbue their activity with more confidence, system, and
steadfastness, we must not be afraid of speaking of things as they are, we
must not be afraid of calling this reality by its real name, we must not be
afraid of issuing the slogan and raising the banner. What if the courts and
the police wrench the banner from our hands, what if they wrench it from us
scores of times—they cannot destroy it, they cannot take it from
us for long; for it sums up what actually exists, is growing and is bound
to continue growing.

Anti-liquidator: Keep to the point. Or I may have to remind
you of the saying: “He sings well, but nobody knows what the end will
be”. You promised to speak plainly. Well then, make it plain and more
concrete: what are you going to inscribe on your banner?

Legalist: That is exactly what I have been leading up to. We
establish a legally functioning association to promote the working-class
movement. This association is based on the principles of Marxism. Its aim
is to bring about a change in the social conditions of life along Marxist
lines, to abolish classes, to abolish the anarchy of production, etc. The
immediate aim of the legal party, that is to say, of our association, is
the complete democratisation of the political and social system, help in
solving the agrarian problem along democratic lines, on the basis of
Marxist views, and extensive labour legislation. Finally, the means by
which the new association carries on its activity are all the legal means
of propaganda, agitation, and organisation.

Anti-liquidator: You don’t suppose that our government will
permit such an association to be officially registered, do you?

Legalist: Don’t worry, I am not as naïve as that. Of course, our association will not be registered; but neither will it be
right to regard it as illegal—that is the task we set ourselves. In each
gubernia, worker after worker will draw up the rules of such an association
and submit them to the authorities for endorsement. That will be a
consistent and unremitting struggle for legality. The founders and members
of such an association will not be liable to prosecution for the
“dreadful” clauses of the programme of what is at present our apology for
a party; for the R.S.D.L.P. today is nothing but an apology for a party,
and the “dreadful” clauses of its programme, such as the demand for a
republic and the dictatorship of the proletariat—to say nothing of the
“dreadful” clauses in the numerous resolutions about an armed uprising,
etc.—frighten no one, are of no significance, and play no role whatever,
unless we mean their. “ role ” in causing people to be sent to
penal servitude, although in actual fact they are not guilty of
anything illegal. This is the point, this is the tragicomedy of the present
situation in the Party. The hand of the dead grips the living. The obsolete
“clauses” of various resolutions and of the old Party programme—“clauses” which life itself has repudiated, which have become
useless and have actually been relegated to the archives—only serve our
enemies, only help them to suppress us, and render no useful purpose, none
whatsoever, in promoting the real movement of our days, the actual
Social-Democratic work now being carried on in the Third Duma, in
the legally published magazines and newspapers, in the legally existing
unions, in the legally held congresses, and so on, and so forth. That is
why as far as we legalists are concerned, the essence of the
question is not the desire to avoid the most dangerous persecutions and
penalties (as your followers, who, forgive me for saying so, have been
coached to hound the liquidators, would be prepared to conclude), but is,
first, the importance in principle of an open working-class
movement, and, secondly, in taking advantage of the contradictions of the
present regime. Yes, yes, Mr. Orthodox, the principles of Marxism can by no means be reduced to a sum of words learned by rote, or to
“orthodox” formulas fixed once and for all; no, they consist in helping
the broad working-class movement, in promoting the organisation and
initiative of the masses. What if some word or other remains
“ unspoken ”—I am fully aware that you and your followers make
it a point to “voice” what has been left unsaid by the Social-Democratic
group in the Duma, by the legally published magazines, etc.; what if some
words do remain “ unspoken ”—what of it, the cause will still go
on. Larger sections of the workers will be drawn into the movement. A
resolute step will be taken towards uniting open actions. Every
politically-conscious worker will strike a blow at the regime which
oppresses him, he will aim at the very contradiction most
characteristic of that regime at the moment, the contradiction between the
formal recognition of legality and the actual refusal to grant it, between
“toleration” of the Social-Democratic group in the Duma and the attempts
to suppress the Social-Democratic party, between the recognition of
workers’ associations in official statements and their persecution in
actual fact. To strike a blow at the contradictions of the regime which
oppresses the proletariat—that and not dead formulas, is the living soul of Marxism. One of the principal—I may even say one of the
fundamental—reasons why the German Social-Democratic Party has been
successful, is that it has always been willing to sacrifice the
formula in the interests of the movement. After 1871 it succeeded
in creating a party whose programme recognised only “lawful” methods of
political activity. It succeeded in building up the strongest
Social-Democratic movement in the world by means of a Social-Democratic
programme which is much more “ legal ” than ours, for it does not
contain and never has contained anything about a republic. You, however,
are prepared to show the world an example of a “model-radical”
Social-Democratic programme in the model-radical absence of a
Social-Democratic mass organisation, of a Social-Democratic mass movement.

Anti-liquidator: So far your entire plan reduces itself in
practice to a “mass movement” of incoming and outgoing papers in the
government offices dealing with the affairs of associations and unions,
assuming that in every gubernia every politically-conscious worker copies your draft plan for a legal
Marxist “association” and submits them to the authorities for
endorsement. Since you, yourself, say that this association will not be
permitted, that means that no open movement, not even an “open”
association, is going to be launched anywhere, except in your legalist
imagination. But before answering you in detail, I should like to ask you
one more question: do you conceive of this legal Marxist “association” as
existing in place of the old, i. e., the present Party, or
alongside it?

Legalist: That’s just it. You have touched upon a very interesting point! This is one of the unfortunate errors committed by the
official leaders of liquidationism. They are afraid of taking a big step
forward along the obviously correct road; but at the same time they are
taking a number of extremely hazardous steps, totally unnecessary for the
cause, in a different direction—namely, that of opportunism. For my part,
I would say that one can be a legalist, without being a liquidator. One
should be a legalist, without being an opportunist. We must accept the
legal forms of the movement, and we must accept them not half way,
not in words alone, but seriously and in practice, that is to say, we must
immediately set up a legal Marxist workers’ party; but it would be
impermissible opportunism to renounce the revolution. Yet many, if not the
majority, of our liquidators do reveal such a tendency. The denial of the
hegemony of the working class is opportunism, and I roundly condemn
it. There is no need for us to renounce anything, to liquidate
anything. The new, legal party must exist together with the old, alongside of it. They will reinforce one another.

I see you are smiling. But there is nothing funny in this. You may say
that it is “double-entry bookkeeping”. But, then, let me ask you this: Is
not the joint existence of a legal and illegal press something fully
analogous to my plan, or rather to the conclusions I draw from all the
lessons of present-day experience? Before 1905, émigrés could
not contribute to the legal press; in those days periodicals were banned
for printing articles written by such émigrés, even under a
nom de plume , but it is typical of our contradictory era, that
well-known émigrés sign their own names to articles appearing both in the illegal and legal press. Yet you do not object to this instance of “double-entry bookkeeping”! It causes no
“confusion” whatever. It is force of habit and nothing else that prevents
you from realising that this “double entry bookkeeping” is dictated by
all the conditions of our epoch, that we must turn its contradictions to
account and know what action to take in that sphere in which the
most important events of our times are taking place. In words you
all subscribe to the “combination of illegal with legal work”. Then apply
it in practice. Having said A, don’t be afraid to say B. Since you have
accepted this fundamental thesis for tactics and organisation in general,
don’t be afraid to accept it for Party organisation. Get rid of
the absurd anarchist prejudice against legality, can’t you, and do it
resolutely, seriously and sincerely.

Anti-liquidator: That is just the trouble with you; you are
merely playing at “legality”, pretending “legality”, whereas the
Germans relied on a legality which actually existed. The example of the
legal and illegal press is a particularly glaring argument against
you. When a Social-Democrat who is working illegally uses the legal press
to publish what is legally permissible, he is not playing at legality, but
is actually taking advantage of a legality that, within certain narrow
limits, actually does exist. Your legal workers’ party, however, or Marxist
association (as well as the “open workers’ party” of the liquidators from
whom you do not really differ at bottom ) is just a legalist
mirage, nothing more; for you, yourself, admit that it will not be
permitted, that actually these so-called “legal” associations
will have no legal existence. Just as the anarcho-syndicalists indulge
mainly in “revolutionary acrobatics”, so all you manage to achieve is
“legalistic acrobatics”. The Cadets have a party that functions legally
although it is legally non-existent, not because they have turned the
contradictions to account, but because there is nothing revolutionary in
the content of their work, and it does not imply any democratic
organisational activity among the masses. Their work is of a
liberal-monarchist nature, and the autocracy can afford to permit and
tolerate political activity of this kind. But the autocracy cannot afford
to tolerate the activity of Marxists among the working class, and it is
naive to try to promote the cause by a masquerade. Your “legal association”, as well as the open workers’
party” of the liquidators, is nothing but a sham association, a
masquerade, for actually you are counting on the Social-Democrats. The
ambiguous and vague formulations which you have chosen to define the aims,
platform and tactics of your “association” are but a verbal disguise,
flimsy defences, the same sort of legalistic acrobatics. Our Party must
speak out in the Duma, found legally functioning trade unions and
speak at legally held congresses and it would be sheer anarchism or
intellectualist nihilism to deny this. It is by recognising this
kind of activity that we take into account the new conditions of the new
epoch. But legality for political activity is still out of the
question (except for intellectual opportunists), because the conditions for
such legality have not yet been won, and it is a futile dream to think that
you can “creep into” it. In the case of the Germans, such legality had
been fully created by 1871, the transformation of the country on bourgeois
lines had been completed and the conditions for a directly revolutionary
movement had entirely disappeared. It is these real conditions and
not the skill of the German Social-Democrats that made possible
the emergence of a Social-Democratic party that is really legal
and does not play at legality or indulge in “legalist acrobatics”.

It is a naive dream and a meaningless pastime to try to copy
some of the legal clauses of the programme of such legal party, some of its
resolutions, etc., and transfer this sort of “legality” to Russia, for
you cannot transfer to Russia the German completion of the
bourgeois revolution, the German history of a democracy that had spent
itself, the German “revolution from above” of the

1860s, [2] and the actually existing German legality. There are
some monarchist countries in which republican parties exist legally; what
legality will actually be like in Russia after her bourgeois revolutions
have been achieved and we have a bourgeois system similar to that existing
in Europe, remains to be seen when the future battles are over; it will be
deter mined by their outcome. The task of the Social-Democratic movement
today is to be able to prepare itself and the masses for revolution under
the special conditions of the period of the June Third regime.

Under these conditions a legal party of the working class, an open
workers’ party, is a hollow phrase—it simply conceals the desire for the
legalisation of ... a group of legalist opportunists. This is the kind of legalisation actually enjoyed by
the Popular Socialists. This legalisation is actually enjoyed by
the group of our legal, liquidationist journalists. It is not by chance but
of necessity, not due to the “errors” of some liquidators but by virtue
of the social composition of all the intellectual-liquidationist groups,
that all opportunist elements—all those who nurture the idea of
renouncing the revolution and repudiating the hegemony of the
proletariat—gravitate and cannot help gravitating toward them. The only
way in which the legalist may be distinguished from these people is by his
good intentions; actually, he is indistinguishable. The real
conditions of the present epoch are such that the legalisation of the
Popular Socialists and the legalisation of the group of liquidationist
writers is possible and inevitable; but the legalisation of a workers’
party is mere words.

The illegal party of the working class exists, and even the fact that
it has, in our days, been extremely weakened, and that most of its
organisations have fallen to pieces, does not militate against its
existence. Again and again the revolutionary underground is given fresh
impetus by newly-emerging study circles and groups. The question reduces
itself to the following: what is the organised force, what is the
ideological tradition, what is the party capable of influencing, and which
will influence, the open actions of the worker deputies in the Duma, of the
workers’ trade unions, of the workers’ clubs, and of the workers’ delegates
at various legally held congresses? The revolutionary proletarian party,
the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, or the opportunist group of
liquidationist writers? That is the real essence of the “struggle
against liquidationism”, that is the real background which creates a gulf
between the adversaries in this conflict. And this gulf cannot be bridged
by any good intentions, by any attempts to draw a verbal distinction
between legalism and liquidationism.

---
Notes:
[1]
This article was written following an article by N. A. Rozhkov “An
Essential Beginning” sent to the editors of Sotsial-Demokrat .

In this article Rozhkov developed his liquidationist plan for the creation
of a legal labour party under the Stolypin regime. Lenin attempted to
convince Rozhkov of the incorrectness of his views. “... I earnestly
implore you to delay, give up, think over, correspond...” he wrote to
Rozhkov on February 23 (March 8), 1911 ( Lenin Miscellany XXV ,
p. 66). When it became clear that Rozhkov insisted on the publication of
this article, Lenin published his reply in Diskussionny Listok
( Discussion Bulletin ), No. 3, a supplement to
Sotsial-Demokrat , on April 29 (May 12), under the above heading.

[2]
After the defeat of the 1848–49 Revolution, whose main aim had been
the reunification of Germany into a single democratic republic, reactionary
Prussian Junkers led by Bismarck carried out a policy of uniting Germany
“by blood and iron”. Its aim was the formation of a single monarchist
state with a Prussian king as monarch. The Prussian Junkers relied on the
support of the big German bourgeoisie for the fulfilment of this
“revolution from above”.