V. I.

Lenin

The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats [4]

Thesecond half of the nineties witnessed a remarkable increase in the
work being done on the presentation and solution of the problems of the
Russian revolution. The appearance of a new revolutionary party, Narodnoye

Pravo, [5] the growing influence and successes of the Social Democrats, the evolution within
Narodnaya

Volya [6] —all this has evoked a lively discussion on questions of programme both in study circles of socialist intellectuals
and workers and in illegal literature. Regarding the latter sphere,
reference should be made to “An Urgent Question” and the
“Manifesto” (1894) of the Narodnoye Pravo Party, to the
Leaflet of the Narodnaya Volya Group , to Rabotnik published abroad by the League of Russian

Social-Democrats, [7] to the increasing output of revolutionary pamphlets in Russia, mainly for workers, and the
agitation conducted by the Social-Democratic League of Struggle for the
Emancipation of the Working Class in St. Petersburg around the important
strikes there in 1896, etc.

Atthe present time (the end of 1897), the most urgent question, in our
opinion, is that of the practical activities of the
Social-Democrats. We emphasise the practical side of
Social-Democracy, because on the theoretical side the most critical
period—the period of stubborn refusal by its opponents to understand
it, of strenuous efforts to suppress the new trend the moment it arose, on
the one hand, and of stalwart defence of the fundamentals of
Social-Democracy, on the other—is now apparently behind us. Now the
main and basic features of the theoretical views of the
Social-Democrats have been sufficiently clarified. The same cannot be said about the
practical side of Social-Democracy, about its political
programme , its methods, its tactics. It is in this sphere, we
think, that misapprehension and mutual misunderstanding mostly prevail,
preventing a complete rapprochement between Social-Democracy and those
revolutionaries who in theory have completely renounced the principles of
the Narodnaya Volya and in practice are either led by the very force of
circumstances to carry on propaganda and agitation among the
workers—nay, more: to conduct their activities among the workers on
the basis of the class struggle —or else strive to base
their whole programme and revolutionary activities on democratic
tasks. If we are not mistaken, the latter description fits the two
revolutionary groups which are operating in Russia at the present time,
parallel to the Social-Democrats, namely, the Narodnaya Volya and
Narodnoye Pravo.

We,therefore, think it particularly opportune to try to explain the
practical tasks of the Social-Democrats and to state the grounds
on which we consider their programme to be the most rational of the three
now existing and the arguments advanced against it to be based very
largely on misunderstanding.

Theobject of the practical activities of the Social-Democrats is, as is
well known, to lead the class struggle of the proletariat and to organise
that struggle in both its manifestations: socialist (the fight against the
capitalist class aimed at destroying the class system and organising
socialist society), and democratic (the fight against absolutism aimed at
winning political liberty in Russia and democratising the political and
social system of Russia). We said as is well known . And indeed,
from the very moment they appeared as a separate social-revolutionary
trend, the Russian Social-Democrats have always quite definitely indicated
this object of their activities, have always emphasised the dual
manifestation and content of the class struggle of the proletariat and
have always insisted on the inseparable connection between their socialist
and democratic tasks—a connection clearly expressed in the name they
have adopted. Nevertheless, to this day you often meet socialists who have
the most distorted notions about the Social-Democrats and accuse them of ignoring the political struggle, etc. Let us,
therefore, dwell a little on a description of both aspects of the
practical activities of Russian Social-Democracy.

Letus begin with socialist activity. One would have thought that the
character of Social-Democratic activity in this respect had become quite
clear since the Social-Democratic League of Struggle for the Emancipation
of the Working Class in St. Petersburg began its activities among the
St. Petersburg workers. The socialist activities of Russian
Social-Democrats consist in spreading by propaganda the teachings
of scientific socialism, in spreading among the workers a proper
understanding of the present social and economic system, its basis and its
development, an understanding of the various classes in Russian
society, of their interrelations, of the struggle between these classes,
of the role of the working class in this struggle, of its attitude to
wards the declining and the developing classes, towards the past and the
future of capitalism, an understanding of the historical task of
international Social-Democracy and of the Russian working
class. Inseparably connected with propaganda is agitation among
the workers, which naturally comes to the forefront in the present
political conditions of Russia and at the present level of development of
the masses of workers. Agitation among the workers means that the
Social-Democrats take part in all the spontaneous manifestations of the
working-class struggle, in all the conflicts between the workers and the
capitalists over the working day, wages, working conditions, etc.,
etc. Our task is to merge our activities with the practical, everyday
questions of working-class life, to help the workers understand these
questions, to draw the workers’ attention to the most important
abuses, to help them formulate their demands to the employers more
precisely and practically, to develop among the workers consciousness of
their solidarity, consciousness of the common interests and common cause
of all the Russian workers as a united working class that is part of the
international army of the proletariat. To organise study circles among
workers, to establish proper and secret connections between them and the
central group of Social-Democrats, to publish and distribute working-class
literature, to organise the receipt of correspondence from all centres of the working-class movement, to publish agitational leaflets and
manifestos and to distribute them, and to train a body of experienced
agitators—such, in broad outline, are the manifestations of the
socialist activities of Russian Social-Democracy.

Ourwork is primarily and mainly directed to the factory, urban
workers. Russian Social-Democracy must not dissipate its forces; it must
concentrate its activities on the industrial proletariat, who are most
susceptible to Social-Democratic ideas, most developed intellectually and
politically, and most important by virtue of their numbers and
concentration in the country’s large political centres. The creation
of a durable revolutionary organisation among the factory, urban workers
is therefore the first and most urgent task confronting Social-Democracy,
one from which it would be highly unwise to let ourselves be diverted at
the present time. But, while recognising the necessity of concentrating
our forces on the factory workers and opposing the dissipation of our
forces, we do not in the least wish to suggest that the Russian
Social-Democrats should ignore other strata of the Russian proletariat and
working class. Nothing of the kind. The very conditions of life of the
Russian factory workers very often compel them to enter into the closest
relations with the handicraftsmen, the industrial proletariat scattered
outside the factory in towns and villages, and whose conditions are
infinitely worse. The Russian factory worker also comes into direct
contact with the rural population (very often the factory worker’s
family live in the country) and, consequently, he cannot but come into
close contact with the rural proletariat, with the many millions of
regular farm workers and day labourers, and also with those ruined
peasants who, while clinging to their miserable plots of land, have to
work off their debts and take on all sorts of “casual jobs,”
i.e., are also wage-labourers. The Russian Social-Democrats think it
inopportune to send their forces among. the handicraftsmen and
rural labourers, but they do not in the least intend to ignore them; they
will try to enlighten the advanced workers also on questions affecting the
lives of the handicraftsmen and rural labourers, so that when these
workers come into contact with the more backward strata of the
proletariat, they will imbue them with the ideas of the class struggle, socialism and the political tasks of Russian
democracy in general and of the Russian proletariat in particular. It is
impractical to send agitators among the handicraftsmen and rural labourers
when there is still so much work to be done among the factory, urban
workers, but in numerous cases the socialist worker comes willy-nilly into
contact with these people and must be able to take advantage of these
opportunities and understand the general tasks of Social-Democracy in
Russia. Hence, those who accuse the Russian Social-Democrats of being
narrow-minded, of trying to ignore the mass of the labouring population
for the sake of the factory workers, are profoundly mistaken. On the
contrary, agitation among the advanced sections of the proletariat is the
surest and the only way to rouse (as the movement expands) the entire
Russian proletariat. The dissemination of socialism and of the idea of the
class struggle among the urban workers will inevitably cause these ideas
to flow in the smaller and more scattered channels. This requires that
these ideas take deeper root among the better prepared elements and spread
throughout the vanguard of the Russian working-class movement and of the
Russian revolution. While concentrating all its forces on activity among
the factory workers, Russian Social-Democracy is ready to support those
Russian revolutionaries who, in practice, come to base their socialist
activities on the class struggle of the proletariat; but it does not in
the least conceal the point that no practical alliances with other groups
of revolutionaries can, or should, lead to compromises or concessions on
matters of theory, programme or banner. Convinced that the doctrine of
scientific socialism and the class struggle is the only revolutionary
theory that can today serve as the banner of the revolutionary movement,
the Russian Social-Democrats will exert every effort to spread this
doctrine, to guard it against false interpretation and to combat every
attempt to impose vaguer doctrines on the still young working-class
movement in Russia. Theoretical reasoning proves and the practical
activities of the Social-Democrats show that all socialists in
Russia should become Social-Democrats .

Letus now deal with the democratic tasks and with the democratic
work of the Social-Democrats. Let us repeat, once again, that this work is inseparably connected with
socialist activity. In conducting propaganda among the workers,
the Social-Democrats cannot avoid political problems, and they
would regard any attempt to avoid them, or even to push them aside, as a
profound mistake and a departure from the basic principles of
international Social-Democracy. Simultaneously with the dissemination of
scientific socialism, Russian Social-Democrats set themselves the task of
propagating democratic ideas among the working class masses; they
strive to spread an understanding of absolutism in all its manifestations,
of its class content, of the necessity to overthrow it, of the
impossibility of waging a successful struggle for the workers’ cause
without achieving political liberty and the democratisation of
Russia’s political and social system. In conducting agitation among the workers on their immediate economic
demands, the Social-Democrats inseparably link this with agitation on the
immediate political needs, the distress and the demands of the working
class, agitation against police tyranny, manifested in every strike, in
every conflict between workers and capitalists, agitation against the
restriction of the rights of the workers as Russian citizens in general
and as the class suffering the worst oppression and having the least
rights in particular, agitation against every prominent representative and
flunkey of absolutism who comes into direct contact with the workers and
who clearly reveals to the working class its condition of political
slavery. Just as there is no issue affecting the life of the workers in
the economic field that must be left unused for the purpose of economic
agitation, so there is no issue in the political field that does not serve
as a subject for political agitation. These two kinds of agitation are
inseparably connected in the activities of the Social-Democrats as the two
sides of the same medal. Both economic and political agitation are equally
necessary to develop the class-consciousness of the proletariat; both
economic and political agitation are equally necessary for guiding the
class struggle of the Russian workers, because every class struggle is a
political struggle. By arousing the class-consciousness of the workers, by
organising, disciplining and training them for united action and for the
fight for the ideals of Social-Democracy, both kinds of agitation will enable the workers to test their strength on
immediate issues and immediate needs, to wring partial concessions from
their enemy and thus improve their economic conditions, compel the
capitalists to reckon with the strength of the organised workers, compel
the government to extend the workers’ rights, to pay heed to their
demands and keep the government in constant fear of the hostility of the
masses of workers led by a strong Social-Democratic organisation.

Wehave pointed to the inseparably close connection between
socialist and democratic propaganda and agitation, to the complete parallelism of revolutionary activity in both
spheres. Nevertheless, there is a big difference between these two types
of activity and struggle. The difference is that in the economic struggle
the proletariat stands absolutely alone against both the landed nobility
and the bourgeoisie, except, perhaps, for the help it receives (and by no
means always) from those elements of the petty bourgeoisie which gravitate
towards the proletariat. In the democratic, political struggle,
however, the Russian working class does not stand alone; at its side are
all the political opposition elements, strata and classes, since they are
hostile to absolutism and are fighting it in one form or another. Here
side by side with the proletariat stand the opposition elements
of the bourgeoisie, or of the educated classes, or of the petty
bourgeoisie, or of the nationalities, religions and sects, etc., etc.,
persecuted by the autocratic government. The question naturally arises of
what the attitude of the working class towards these elements should
be. Further, should it not combine with them in the common struggle
against the autocracy? After all, all Social-Democrats admit that the
political revolution in Russia must precede the socialist revolution;
should they not, therefore, combine with all the elements in the political
opposition to fight the autocracy, setting socialism aside for the time
being? Is not this essential in order to strengthen the fight against the
autocracy?

Letus examine these two questions.

Theattitude of the working class, as a fighter against the autocracy,
towards all the other social classes and groups in the political
opposition is very precisely determined by the basic principles of Social-Democracy expounded in the famous
Communist Manifesto . The Social-Democrats support the progressive
social classes against the reactionary classes, the bourgeoisie against
the representatives of privileged landowning estate and the bureaucracy,
the big bourgeoisie against the reactionary strivings of the petty
bourgeoisie. This support does not presuppose, nor does it call for, any
compromise with non-Social-Democratic programmes and principles—it
is support given to an ally against a particular enemy. Moreover,
the Social-Democrats render this support in order to expedite the fall of
the common enemy, but expect nothing for themselves from these
temporary allies, and concede nothing to them. The Social-Democrats
support every revolutionary movement against the present social system,
they support all oppressed nationalities, persecuted religions,
downtrodden social estates, etc., in their fight for equal rights.

Support for all elements of the political opposition will be
expressed in the propaganda of the Social-Democrats by the fact that, in
showing that the autocracy is hostile to the workers’ cause, they
will also point to its hostility towards various other social groups; they
will point to the solidarity of the working class with these groups on
a particular issue , in a particular task , etc. In agitation, this support will be expressed by the Social-Democrats’
taking advantage of every manifestation of the police tyranny of the
autocracy to point out to the workers how this tyranny affects all Russian
citizens in general , and the representatives of the exceptionally
oppressed social estates, nationalities, religions, sects, etc., in
particular; and how that tyranny affects the working class
especially. Finally, in practice, this support is expressed in the
readiness of the Russian Social-Democrats to enter into alliances with
revolutionaries of other trends for the purpose of achieving certain
particular aims, and this readiness has been shown in practice on more
than one occasion.

Thisbrings us to the second question. While pointing to the solidarity of
one or other of the various opposition groups with the workers, the
Social-Democrats will always single out the workers from the rest, they
will always point out that this solidarity is temporary and conditional,
they will always emphasise the independent class identity of the proletariat, who
tomorrow may find themselves in opposition to their allies of today. We
shall be told that “such action will weaken all the fighters for political liberty at the present time.” We shall reply
that such action will strengthen all the fighters for political
liberty. Only those fighters are strong who rely on the consciously recognised real interests of certain classes, and any attempt to
obscure these class interests, which already play a predominant role in
contemporary society, will only weaken the fighters. That is the first
point. The second point is that, in the fight against the autocracy, the
working class must single itself out, for it is the only
thoroughly consistent and unreserved enemy of the autocracy, only
between the working class and the autocracy is no compromise possible,
only in the working class can democracy find a champion who makes
no reservations, is not irresolute and does not look back. The hostility
of all other classes, groups and strata of the population towards the
autocracy is not unqualified ; their democracy always looks
back. The bourgeoisie cannot but realise that industrial and social
development is being retarded by the autocracy, but it fears the complete
democratisation of the political and social system and can at any moment
enter into alliance with the autocracy against the proletariat. The petty
bourgeoisie is two-faced by its very nature, and while it gravitates, on
the one hand, towards the proletariat and democracy, on the other, it
gravitates towards the reactionary classes, tries to hold up the march of
history, is apt to be seduced by the experiments and blandishments of the
autocracy (for example, the “people’s policy” [8] of Alexander III), is
capable of concluding an alliance with the ruling classes against the
proletariat for the sake of strengthening its own small-proprietor position. Educated people, and the
“intelligentsia” generally, cannot but revolt against the
savage police tyranny of the autocracy, which hunts down thought and
knowledge; but the material interests of this intelligentsia bind it to
the autocracy and to the bourgeoisie, compel it to be inconsistent, to
compromise, to sell its oppositional and revolutionary ardour for an
official salary, or a share of profits or dividends. As for the democratic
elements among the oppressed nationalities and the persecuted religions, everybody knows and sees that the class
antagonisms within these categories of the population are much
deeper-going and stronger than the solidarity binding all classes within
any one category against the autocracy and in favour of democratic
institutions. The proletariat alone can be—and because of its class
position must be—a consistently democratic, determined enemy of
absolutism, incapable of making any concessions or compromises. The
proletariat alone can be the vanguard fighter for political
liberty and for democratic institutions. Firstly, this is because
political tyranny bears most heavily upon the proletariat whose position
gives it no opportunity to secure a modification of that tyranny—it
has no access to the higher authorities, not even to the officials, and it
has no influence on public opinion. Secondly, the proletariat alone is
capable of bringing about the complete democratisation of the
political and social system, since this would place the system in the
hands of the workers. That is why the merging of the democratic
activities of the working class with the democratic aspirations of other
classes and groups would weaken the democratic movement, would
weaken the political struggle, would make it less determined,
less consistent, more likely to compromise On the other hand, if the
working class stands out as the vanguard fighter for democratic
institutions, this will strength the democratic movement, will
strengthen the struggle for political liberty, because the
working class will spur on all the other democratic and political
opposition elements, will push the liberals towards the political
radicals, will push the radicals towards an irrevocable rupture with the
whole of the political and social structure of present society. We said
above that all socialists in Russia should become
Social-Democrats . We now add: all true and consistent democrats in Russia should become Social-Democrats.

Wewill illustrate what we mean by quoting the following example. Take the
civil service, the bureaucracy, as representing a special category of
persons who specialise in the work of administration and occupy a
privileged position as compared with the people. We see this institution
everywhere, from autocratic and semi-Asiatic Russia to cultured. free and
civilised England, as an essential organ of bourgeois society. The complete lack of rights of the people in
relation to government officials and the complete absence of
control over the privileged bureaucracy correspond to the backwardness of
Russia and to its absolutism In England powerful popular control is
exercised over the administration, but even there that control is far from being complete , even there the bureaucracy retains not a few of
its privileges, and not infrequently is the master and not the servant of
the people. Even in England we see that powerful social groups support the
privileged position of the bureaucracy and hinder the complete
democratisation of that institution. Why? Because it is in the interests
of the proletariat alone to democratise it completely ; the most
progressive strata of the bourgeoisie defend certain prerogatives of the
bureaucracy and are opposed to the election of all officials, opposed to
the complete abolition of electoral qualifications, opposed to making
officials directly responsible to the people, etc., because these strata
realise that the proletariat will take advantage of such complete
democratisation in order to use it against the bourgeoisie. This
is the case in Russia, too. Many and most diverse strata of the Russian
people are opposed to the omnipotent, irresponsible, corrupt, savage,
ignorant and parasitic Russian bureaucracy. But except for the
proletariat, not one of these strata would agree to the complete
democratisation of the bureaucracy, because all these strata (bourgeoisie,
petty bourgeoisie, the “intelligentsia” in general) have some
ties with the bureaucracy, because all these strata are kith and kin of the Russian bureaucracy. Who does not know how easy it is in
Holy Russia for a radical intellectual, or socialist intellectual, to turn
into an official of The Imperial Government, an official who takes comfort
from the thought that he does “good” with in the limits of
office routine, an official who pleads this “good” in justification of his political indifference, his servility towards the
government of the knout and the whip? The proletariat alone is
unreservedly hostile to the autocracy and the Russian bureaucracy, the proletariat alone has no ties with these organs of aristocratic
bourgeois society and the proletariat alone is capable of irreconcilable
hostility towards them and of waging a determined struggle against them.

Whenwe show that the proletariat, led in its class struggle by
Social-Democracy, is the vanguard fighter of Russian democracy, we
encounter the very widespread and very strange opinion that Russian
Social-Democracy relegates political tasks and political struggle to the
background. As we see, this opinion is the very opposite of the truth. How
are we to explain this astonishing failure to understand the principles of
Social-Democracy that have often been expounded and were expounded in the
very first Russian Social-Democratic publications, in the pamphlets and
books published abroad by the Emancipation of Labour group? [9] In our view, the
explanation of this amazing fact lies in the following three
circumstances.

First,it lies in the general failure of the representatives of old
revolutionary theories to understand the principles of Social-Democracy,
accustomed as they are to base their programmes and plans of activity on
abstract ideas and not on an exact appraisal of the actual classes
operating in the country, classes that have been placed in certain
relationships by history. This lack of realistic discussion of the
interests which support Russian democracy can only give rise to
the opinion that Russian Social-Democracy leaves the democratic tasks of
Russian revolutionaries in the background.

Second,it lies in the failure to understand that when economic and
political issues, and socialist and democratic activities, are united into
one whole, into the single class struggle of the proletariat ,
this does not weaken but strengthens the democratic movement and the
political struggle, by bringing it closer to the real interests of the
mass of the people, dragging political issues out of the “stuffy
studies of the intelligentsia” into the street, into the midst of
the workers and labouring classes, and replacing abstract ideas by real
manifestations of political oppression from which the greatest sufferers
are the proletariat, and on the basis of which the Social-Democrats
conduct their agitation. It often seems to the Russian radical that
instead of frankly and directly calling upon the advanced workers to join
the political struggle, the Social-Democrat points to the task of
developing the working-class movement, of organising the class struggle of
the proletariat, and thereby retreats from his democracy,
relegates the political struggle to the background. But if this is retreat , it is the kind of
retreat that is meant in the French proverb: “ Il faut reculer pour mieux sauter !” (Step back in order to leap farther
forward.)

Third,the misunderstanding arises from the fact that the very term
“political struggle” means something different to the
Narodovoltsi and Narodopravtsi, on the one hand, and to the
Social-Democrats, on the other. The Social-Democrats understand the
political struggle differently, they understand it much more broadly than do the representatives of the old revolutionary
theories. A clear illustration of this seeming paradox is provided by the
Leaflet of the Narodnaya Volya Group , No. 4, December 9,
1895. While heartily welcoming this publication, which testifies to the
profound and fruitful thinking that is going on among the present-day
Narodovoltsi, we cannot refrain from mentioning P. L. Lavrov’s
article, “Programme questions” (pp. 19-22), which vividly
reveals the different conception of the political struggle entertained by
the old-style

Narodovoltsi. [1] “... Here,” writes P. L. Lavrov, speaking of the relation of the Narodnaya Volya programme to the
Social-Democratic programme, “one thing and one thing alone is
material, viz., is it possible to organise a strong workers’ party
under the autocracy and to do so apart from the organisation of a
revolutionary party directed against the autocracy?” (p. 21,
col. 2); also a little before that (in col. 1): “. . . to organise a
Russian workers’ party while autocracy reigns without at the same
time organising a revolutionary party against this autocracy.” We
cannot at all understand these distinctions which seem to be of such
cardinal importance to P. L. Lavrov. What is the meaning of “a
workers’ party apart from a revolutionary party against the
autocracy”??

Is not a workers’ party itself a revolutionary party? Is it not
directed against the autocracy? This queer idea is explained in the
following passage in P. L. Lavrov’s article: “A Russian
workers’ party will have to be organised under the rule of the
autocracy with all its charms. If the Social-Democrats succeeded in doing
this without at the same time organising a political conspiracy [2] against the autocracy, with all
that goes with such a conspiracy , [3] then, of course, their
political programme would be a fit and proper programme for Russian
socialists, since the emancipation of the workers by the efforts of the
workers themselves would be accomplished. But this is very doubtful, if
not impossible” (p. 21, col. 1). So that’s the point! To the
Narodovoltsi, the term political struggle is synonymous with the term
political conspiracy ! It must be confessed that in these words
P. L. Lavrov has managed to bring out in bold relief the fundamental
difference between the tactics in the political struggle adopted by the
Narodovoltsi and by the Social-Democrats.

Blanquist, [10] conspiratorial traditions are fearfully
strong among the former, so much so that they cannot conceive of political
struggle except in the form of political conspiracy. The Social-Democrats,
however, are not guilty of such a narrow outlook; they do not believe in
conspiracies; they think that the period of conspiracies has long passed
away, that to reduce political struggle to conspiracy means, on the one
hand, immensely restricting its scope, and, on the other hand, choosing
the most unsuitable methods of struggle. Everyone will understand that
P. L. Lavrov’s remark that “the Russian Social-Democrats take
the activities of the West as an unfailing model” (p. 21, col. 1) is
nothing more than a polemical manoeuvre, and that actually the Russian
Social-Democrats have never forgotten the political conditions here, they
have never dreamed of being able to form a workers’ party in Russia
legally, they have never separated the task of fighting for socialism from
that of fighting for political liberty. But they have always thought, and
continue to think, that this fight must be waged not by conspirators, but
by a revolutionary party based on the working-class movement. They think that the fight against the autocracy must consist not
in organising conspiracies, but in educating, disciplining and organising
the proletariat, in political agitation among the workers which denounces
every manifestation of absolutism, which pillories all the knights of the
police government and compels this government to make concessions. Is this
not precisely the kind of activity being conducted by the St. Petersburg
League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class? Does not
this organisation represent the embryo of a revolutionary party based on
the working-class movement, which leads the class struggle of the
proletariat against capital and against the autocratic government without
hatching any conspiracies, while deriving its strength from the
combination of socialist and democratic struggle into the single,
indivisible class struggle of the St. Petersburg proletariat? Brief as
they may have been, have not the activities of the League already shown
that the proletariat, led by Social-Democracy, is a big political force
with which the government is already compelled to reckon, and to which it
hastens to make concessions? Both the haste with which the law of June 2,
1897, was passed, and the content of that law clearly reveal its
significance as a concession wrung by the proletariat, as a position won
from the enemy of the Russian people. This concession is a very tiny one,
the position won is very small, but the working-class organisation that
has succeeded in forcing this concession is also not distinguished for
breadth, stability, long standing or wealth of experience or resources. As
is well known, the League of Struggle was formed only in 1895-96, and its
appeals to the workers have been confined to hectographed or lithographed
leaflets. Can it he denied that an organisation like this, if it united,
at least, the biggest centres of the working-class movement in Russia (the
St. Petersburg, Moscow-Vladimir, and the southern areas, and also the most
important towns like Odessa, Kiev, Saratov, etc.), if it had a
revolutionary organ at its disposal and enjoyed as much prestige among the
Russian workers generally as the League of Struggle does among the
St. Petersburg workers—can it be denied that such an organisation
would be a tremendous political factor in contemporary Russia, a factor that the government would have to reckon with in its entire home
and foreign policy. By leading the class struggle of the proletariat,
developing organisation and discipline among the workers, helping them to
fight for their immediate economic needs and to win position after
position from capital, by politically educating the workers and
systematically and unswervingly attacking the autocracy and making life a
torment for every tsarist bashi-bazouk who makes the proletariat feel the
heavy paw of the police government—such an organisation would at one
and the same time be a workers’ party organisation adapted to our
conditions, and a powerful revolutionary party directed against the
autocracy. To discuss in advance what methods this organisation will
resort to in order to deliver a smashing blow at the autocracy, whether,
for example, it will prefer insurrection, a mass political strike, or some
other form of attack, to discuss these things in advance and to decide
this question now would be empty doctrinairism. It would be akin to
generals calling a council of war before they had mustered their troops,
mobilised them, and under taken a campaign against the enemy. When the
army of the proletariat fights unswervingly and under the leader ship of a
strong Social-Democratic organisation for its economic and political
emancipation, that army will itself indicate the methods and means of
action to the generals. Then, and then only, will it be possible to decide
the question of striking the final blow at the autocracy; for the solution
of the problem depends on the state of the working-class movement, on its
breadth, on the methods of struggle developed by the movement, on the
qualities of the revolutionary organisation leading the movement, on the
attitude of other social elements to the proletariat and to the autocracy,
on the conditions governing home and foreign politics—in a word, it
depends on a thousand and one things which cannot be guessed, and which it
would be useless to try to guess in advance.

Thatis why the following argument of P. L. Lavrov’s is also
extremely unfair:

“If,however, they” (the Social-Democrats) “have, in one
way or another, not only to group the workers’ forces for the
struggle against capital, but also to rally revolutionary individuals and groups for the struggle against the autocracy, the Russian
Social-Democrats will actually be adopting the programme of their
opponents, the Narodnaya Volya, no matter what they may call
themselves. Differences of opinion concerning the village community, the
destiny of capitalism in Russia and economic materialism are points of
detail of very little importance to the real cause, either facilitating or
hindering the solution of particular problems, particular methods of
preparing the main points, but nothing more” (p. 21, col. 1).

Itis strange to have to challenge this last proposition—that
differences of opinion on the fundamental questions of Russian life and of
the development of Russian society, on the fundamental problems of the
conception of history, concern only “points of detail”! It was said
long ago that without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary
movement, and it is hardly necessary to advance proof of this truth at the present time . The theory of the class struggle, the materialist
conception of Russian history and the materialist appraisal of the present
economic and political situation in Russia, recognition of the need to
relate the revolutionary struggle strictly to the definite interests of a
definite class and to analyse its relation to other classes—to call
these great revolutionary questions “points of detail” is so
colossally wrong and unexpected, coming from a veteran of revolutionary
theory , that we are almost prepared to regard this passage as a
lapsus. As for the first part of the tirade quoted, its unfairness is
still more astonishing. To state in print that the Russian
Social-Democrats only group the workers’ forces for the struggle
against capital (i.e., only for the economic struggle!) and do not rally
revolutionary individuals and groups for the struggle against the
autocracy, means that the author either does not know or does not want to
know generally known facts concerning the activities of the Russian
Social-Democrats. Or, perhaps, P. L. Lavrov does not regard the
Social-Democrats who are engaged in practical work in Russia as
“revolutionary individuals” and “revolutionary groups”?!
Or (and this, perhaps, is more likely) by “struggle” against
the autocracy he means only conspiracies against it? (Cf. p. 21, col. 2:
“. . . it is a matter of . . . organising a revolutionary
conspiracy ”; our italics.) Perhaps, in P. L. Lavrov’s opinion, those who do not
organise political conspiracies are not engaged in political struggle? We
repeat once again: opinions like these fully correspond to the old-time
traditions of the old-time Narodnaya Volya, but do not correspond at all
either to contemporary conceptions of the political struggle or to
contemporary conditions.

Wehave still to say a few words about the Narodopravtsi. P. L. Lavrov is
quite right, in our opinion, when he says that the Social-Democrats
“recommend the Narodopravtsi as being more frank, and are ready to
support them, without, however, merging with them” (p. 19, col. 2);
he should only have added: as more frank democrats , and to the degree that the Narodopravtsi act as consistent
democrats. Unfortunately, this condition is more a matter of the desired
future than of the actual present. The Narodopravtsi expressed a desire to
free the democratic tasks from Narodism and from the obsolete forms of
“Russian socialism” generally; but they themselves were still
far from being freed from old prejudices, and were far from consistent
when they described their party, exclusively a party for political
reforms, as a “social (??!)-revolutionary” party (see their
“Manifesto” dated February 19, 1894), and declared in their
“Manifesto” that “the term people’s rights includes the organisation of people’s industry” (we are
obliged to quote from memory) and thus introduced Narodnik prejudices sub
rosa. Hence, P. L. Lavrov was, perhaps, not altogether wrong when he
described them as “masquerade politicians” (p. 20, col. 2). But perhaps it would be fairer to regard the doctrine of
Narodnoye Pravo as transitional, to the credit of which it must be said
that it was ashamed of the original character of the Narodnik doctrines
and openly gave battle to those most abominable Narodnik reactionaries
who, despite the existence of absolute rule by the police and the upper
class, have the audacity to speak of the desirability of economic and not
political reforms (see “An Urgent Question,” published by the
Narodnoye Pravo Party). If the Narodnoye Pravo Party does not really
contain anybody but ex-socialists who conceal their socialist banner for
tactical considerations, and who merely don the mask of non-socialist
politicians (as P. L. Lavrov assumes, p. 20, col. 2), then, of course, that party has
no future whatever. If, however, the party also contains not masquerade,
but real non-socialist politicians, non-socialist democrats, then this
party can do no little good by striving to draw closer to the political
opposition among our bourgeoisie, by striving to arouse the political
consciousness of our petty bourgeoisie, small shopkeepers, small artisans,
etc.—the class which, everywhere in Western Europe, played a part in
the democratic movement and, in Russia, has made exceptionally rapid
progress in cultural and other respects in the post-Reform period, and
which cannot avoid feeling the oppression of the police government that
gives its cynical support to the big factory owners, the magnates of
finance and industrial monopoly. All that is needed for this is that the
Narodopravtsi should make it their task to draw closer to various strata
of the population and should not confine themselves to the very same
“intelligentsia” whose impotence, owing to their isolation
from the real interests of the masses, is admitted even in “An
Urgent Question.” What is needed is that the Narodopravtsi abandon
all idea of merging different social elements and of pushing socialism
aside in favour of political tasks, that they abandon the false shame
which prevents them from drawing closer to the bourgeois strata of the
population, i.e., that they not only talk about a programme for
non-socialist politicians, but act according to this programme, rousing
and developing the class-consciousness of those social groups and classes
for whom socialism is quite unnecessary, but who, as time goes on,
increasingly feel the oppression of the autocracy and the need for
political liberty.

Russian Social-Democracy is still very young. It is only just emerging
from its embryonic state in which theoretical questions predominated. It
is only just beginning to develop its practical activity. In place of
criticism of Social-Democratic theories and programmes, revolutionaries of
other parties have of necessity moved on to criticism of the practical activity of the Russian Social-Democrats. And it must be admitted that this latter criticism differs most sharply from the
criticism of theory, differs so much, in fact, that it was possible to
float the comical rumour that the St. Petersburg League of Struggle is not
a Social-Democratic organisation. The very fact that such a rumour
appeared shows how unfounded is the accusation now current that the
Social-Democrats ignore the political struggle. The very fact that such a
rumour appeared shows that many revolutionaries whom the
Social-Democrats’ theory could not convince are beginning
to be convinced by their practice .

Russian Social-Democracy is still faced with an enormous, almost untouched
field of work. The awakening of the Russian working class, its spontaneous
striving for knowledge, organisation, socialism, for the struggle against
its exploiters and oppressors becomes more widespread, more strikingly
apparent every day. The enormous progress made by Russian capitalism in
recent times is a guarantee that the working-class movement will grow
uninterruptedly in breadth and depth. We are apparently now passing
through the period in the capitalist cycle when industry is
“prospering,” when business is brisk, when the factories are
working at full capacity and when countless new factories, new
enterprises, joint-stock companies, railway enterprises, etc., etc., are
springing up like mushrooms. One need not be a prophet to foretell the
inevitable and fairly sharp crash that is bound to succeed this period of
industrial “prosperity.” This crash will ruin masses of small
owners, will throw masses of workers into the ranks of the unemployed, and
will thus confront all the workers in an acute form with the problems of
socialism and democracy which have long faced every class-conscious, every
thinking worker. Russian Social-Democrats must see to it that when this
crash comes the Russian proletariat is more class-conscious, more united,
able to understand the tasks of the Russian working class, capable of
putting up resistance to the capitalist class—which is now reaping
huge profits and always strives to burden the workers with the
losses—and capable of leading Russian democracy in a decisive
struggle against the police autocracy, which binds and fetters the Russian
workers and the whole of the Russian people.

Andso, to work, comrades! Let us not lose precious time! Russian
Social-Democrats have much to do to meet the requirements of the awakening
proletariat, to organise the working-class movement, to strengthen the
revolutionary groups and their mutual ties, to supply the workers with
propaganda and agitational literature, and to unite the workers’
circles and Social-Democratic groups scattered all over Russia into a
single Social-Democratic Labour Party!

To the Workers and Socialists of St. Petersburg From the League
of Struggle

The St. Petersburg revolutionaries are experiencing hard times. It seems
that the government has concentrated all its forces for the purpose of
crushing the recently born working-class movement which has given such a
display of strength. Arrests are being made on an unprecedented scale and
the prisons are overcrowded. Intellectuals, men and women, and masses of
workers are being dragged off and exiled. Almost every day brings news of
ever new victims of the police government, which has flung itself in fury
upon its enemies. The government has set itself the aim of preventing the
new trend in the Russian revolutionary movement from gaining strength and
getting on its feet. The public prosecutors and gendarmes are already
boasting that they have smashed the League of Struggle.

Thisboast is a lie. The League of Struggle is intact, despite all the
persecution. With deep satisfaction we declare that the wholesale arrests
are doing their job—they are a powerful weapon of agitation among
the workers and socialist intellectuals, that the places of the fallen
revolutionaries are being taken by new people who are ready, with fresh
energy, to join the ranks of the champions of the Russian proletariat and
of the entire people of Russia. There can be no struggle without
sacrifice, and to the brutal persecution of the tsarist bashi-bazouks we
calmly reply: Revolutionaries have perished—long live the
revolution!

Sofar, increased persecution has only been able to cause a temporary
weakening of certain functions of the League of Struggle, a temporary
shortage of agents and agitators. This is the shortage that we now feel
and that impels us to call upon all class-conscious workers and all
intellectuals desirous of devoting their energies to the revolutionary
cause. The League of Struggle needs agents. Let all study circles and all
individuals desirous of working in any sphere of revolutionary activity,
even the most restricted, inform those in touch with the League of
Struggle. (Should any group be unable to contact such individuals—this is very unlikely—they can do so through the
League of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad.) People are needed for all
kinds of work, and the more strictly revolutionaries specialise in the
various aspects of revolutionary activity, the more strictly they give
thought to their methods of underground work and ways of screening it, the
more selflessly they concentrate on the minor, unseen, particular jobs,
the safer will the whole thing be and the more difficult will it be for
the gendarmes and spies to discover the revolutionaries. In advance the
government has enmeshed not only the existing centres of anti-government
elements, but also possible and probable ones, in a network of agents. The
government is steadily developing the size and range of the activities of
those of its lackeys who are hounding revolutionaries, is devising new
methods, introducing more provocateurs, trying to exert pressure on the
arrested by means of intimidation, confrontation with false testimony,
forged signatures, planting faked letters, etc., etc. Without a
strengthening and development of revolutionary discipline, organisation
and underground activity, struggle against the government is
impossible. And underground activity demands above all that groups and
individuals specialise in different aspects of work and that the job of
co-ordination be assigned to the central group of the League of Struggle,
with as few members as possible. The aspects of revolutionary work are
extremely varied. Legal agitators are needed who can talk to the workers
in a way that does not render them liable to prosecution, and can
say just a , leaving it to others to say b and c . Literature and leaflet distributors are needed. Organisers of
workers’ study circles and groups are needed.

Correspondents are needed who can give a complete picture of events in all
factories. People are needed who will keep an eye on spies and
provocateurs. People are needed who will arrange underground meeting
places. People are needed to deliver literature, transmit instructions,
and to arrange all kinds of contacts. Fund collectors are needed. Agents
are needed to work among the intelligentsia and government officials,
people in contact with the workers and factory life, with the
administration (with the police, factory inspectors, etc.). People are
needed for contact with the different towns of Russia and other
countries. People are needed to arrange various ways of running off all
sorts of literature. People are needed to look after literature and other
things, etc., etc. The smaller and more specific the job undertaken by the
individual person or individual group, the greater will be the chance that
they will think things out, do the job properly and guarantee it best
against failure, that they will consider all the details of underground
work and use all possible means of hoodwinking and misleading the
gendarmes, the more will success be assured, the harder will it be for the
police and gendarmes to keep track of the revolutionaries and their links
with their organisations, and the easier for the revolutionary party to
replace, without prejudice to the cause as a whole, agents and members who
have fallen. We know that specialisation of this kind is a very difficult
matter, difficult because it demands from the individual the greatest
endurance and selflessness, demands the giving of all one’s strength
to work that is inconspicuous, monotonous, that deprives one of contact
with comrades and subordinates the revolutionary’s entire life to a
grim and rigid routine. But it was only in conditions such as these that
the greatest men of revolutionary practice in Russia succeeded in carrying
out the boldest undertakings, spending years on all-round preparation, and
we are profoundly convinced that the Social-Democrats will prove no less
self-sacrificing than the revolutionaries of previous generations. We are
also aware that the preliminary period envisaged by our system during
which the League of Struggle will collect the necessary information about
individuals or groups offering their services and give them something to
do by way of trial will be a very difficult one for many people eager to devote their energies to
revolutionary work. But without this preliminary testing, revolutionary
activity in present-day Russia is impossible.

Insuggesting this system of work to our new comrades we are expressing a
view arrived at after long experience, being deeply convinced that it best
of all guarantees successful revolutionary work.