V. I.

Lenin

A Protest by Russian Social-Democrats [2]

A MEETING OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS, SEVENTEEN IN NUMBER, HELD AT A CERTAIN
PLACE (IN RUSSIA), ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION
AND RESOLVED TO PUBLISH IT AND TO SUBMIT IT TO ALL COMRADES FOR THEIR
CONSIDERATION

Atendency has been observed among Russian Social-Democrats recently to
depart from the fundamental principles of Russian Social-Democracy that
were proclaimed by its founders and foremost fighters, members of the
Emancipation of Labour group [4] as well as by the Social-Democratic publications of the
Russian workers’ organisations of the nineties. The Credo reproduced
below, which is presumed to express the fundamental Views of certain
(“young”) Russian

Social- Democrats, represents an attempt at a systematic
and definite exposition of the “new views.” The following is its full
text:

“Theguild and manufacture period in the West laid a sharp impress on
all subsequent history and particularly on the history of Social-
Democracy. The fact that the bourgeoisie had to fight for free forms, that
it strove to release itself from the guild regulations fettering
production, made the bourgeoisie a revolutionary element; everywhere in
the West it began with liberté, fraternité, égalité (liberty, fraternity, equality), with the
achievement of free political forms. By these gains, however, as Bismarck
expressed it, it drew a bill on the future payable to its
antipode—the working class. Hardly anywhere in the West did the
working class, as a class, win the democratic institutions—it made
use of them. Against this it may he argued that the working class took
part in revolutions. A reference to history will refute this opinion, for,
precisely in 1848, when the consolidation of Constitutions took place in
the West, the working class represented the urban artisan element, the
petty-bourgeois democracy; a factory proletariat hardly existed, while the proletariat employed in large-scale industry (the German weavers
depicted by Hauptmann, the weavers of Lyons) represented a wild mass
capable only of rioting, but not of advancing any political demands. It
can be definitely stated that the Constitutions of 1848 were won by the
bourgeoisie and the small urban artisans. On the other hand, the working
class (artisans, manufactory workers, printers, weavers, watchmakers,
etc.) have been accustomed since the Middle Ages to membership in
organisations, mutual benefit societies, religious societies, etc. This
spirit of organisation is still alive among the skilled workers in the
West, sharply distinguishing them from the factory proletariat, which
submits to organisation badly and slowly and is capable only of
lose-organisation (temporary organisations) and not of permanent
organisations with rules and regulations. It was these manufactory skilled
workers that comprised the core of the Social-Democratic parties. Thus,
we get the picture: on the one hand, the relative ease of political
struggle and every possibility for it; on the other hand, the possibility
for the systematic organisation of this struggle with the aid of the
workers trained in the manufacturing period. It was on this basis that
theoretical and practical Marxism grew up in the West. The starting-point
was the parliamentary political struggle with the prospect—only
superficially resembling Blanquism, but of totally different
origin—of capturing power, on the one hand, and of a
Zusammenbruch (collapse), on the other. Marxism was the
theoretical expression of the prevailing practice: of the political
struggle predominating over the economic. In Belgium, in France, and
particularly in Germany, the workers organised the political struggle with
incredible ease; but it was with enormous difficulty and tremendous
friction that they organised the economic struggle. Even to this day the
economic organisations as compared with the political organisations
(leaving aside England) are extraordinarily weak and unstable, and
everywhere laissent à désirer quelque chose (leave something to be desired). So long as the energy in the political struggle
had not been completely exhausted, Zusammenbruch was an essential
organisational Schlagwort (slogan) destined to play an extremely
important historical role. The fundamental law that can be discerned by
studying the working-class movement is that of the line of least
resistance. In the West, this line was political activity, and Marxism, as
formulated in the Communist Manifesto , was the best possible form
the movement could assume. But when all energy in political activity had
been exhausted, when the political movement had reached a point of
intensity difficult and almost impossible to surpass (the slow increase in
votes in the recent period, the apathy of the public at meetings, the note
of despondency in literature), this, in conjunction with the
ineffectiveness of parliamentary action and the entry into the arena of
the ignorant masses, of the unorganised and almost unorganisable factory
proletariat, gave rise in the West to what is now called

Bernsteinism, [5] the crisis of Marxism. It is difficult to imagine a more logical course
than the period of development of the labour movement from the
Communist Manifesto to Bernsteinism, and a careful study of this
whole process can determine with astronomical exactitude the outcome of
this “crisis.” Here, of course, the issue is not the defeat or victory of Bernsteinism—that is of little interest; It is the
radical change in practical activity that has been gradually taking place
for a long time within the party.

“Thechange will not only be towards a more energetic prosecution of
the economic struggle and consolidation of the economic organisations, but
also, and most importantly, towards a change in the party’s attitude to
other opposition parties. Intolerant Marxism, negative Marxism, primitive
Marxism (whose conception of the class division of society is too
schematic) will give way to democratic Marxism, and the social position of
the party within modern society must undergo a sharp change. The party
will recognise society; its narrow corporative and, in the
majority of cases, sectarian tasks will be widened to social tasks, and
its striving to seize power will be transformed into a striving for
change, a striving to reform present-day society on democratic lines
adapted to the present state of affairs, with the object of protecting the
rights (all rights) of the labouring classes In the most effective and
fullest way. The concept ’politics’ will be enlarged and will acquire a
truly social meaning, and the practical demands of the moment will
acquire greater weight and will be able to count on receiving greater
attention than they have been getting up to now.

“Itis not difficult to draw conclusions for Russia from this brief
description of the course of development taken by the working-class
movement in the West. In Russia, the line of least resistance will never
tend towards political activity. The incredible political oppression will
prompt much talk about it and cause attention to be concentrated precisely
on this question, but it will never prompt practical action. While in the
West the fact that the workers were drawn into political activity served
to strengthen and crystallise their weak forces, in Russia, on the
contrary, these weak forces are confronted with a wall of political
oppression. Not only do they lack practical ways of struggle against this
oppression, and hence, also for their own development, but they are
systematically stifled and cannot give forth even weak shoots. If to this
we add that the working class in our country has not inherited the spirit
of organisation which distinguished the fighters in the West, we get a
gloomy picture, one that is likely to drive into despondency the most
optimistic Marxist who believes that an extra factory chimney stack will
by the very fact of its existence bring great welfare. The economic
struggle too is hard, infinitely hard, but it is possible to wage it, and
it is in fact being waged by the masses themselves. By learning in this
struggle to organise, and coming into constant conflict with the political
regime in the course of it, the Russian worker will at last create what
may be called a form of the labour movement, the organisation or
organisations best conforming to Russian conditions. At the present, it
can be said with certainty that the Russian working-class movement is
still in the amoeba state and has not yet acquired any form. The strike
movement, which goes on with any form of organisation, cannot yet be
described as the crystallised form of the, Russian movement, while the
illegal organisations are not worth consideration even from the mere
quantitative point of view (quite apart from the question of their
usefulness under present conditions).

“Suchis the situation. If to this we add the famine and the process
of ruination of the countryside, which facilitate

Streikbrecher -ism [1] and, consequently, the even greater
difficulty of raising the masses of the workers to a more tolerable
cultural level, then ... well, what is there for the Russian Marxist to
do?! The talk about an independent workers’ political party merely results
from the transplantation of alien aims and alien achievements to our
soil. The Russian Marxist, so far, is a sad spectacle. His practical tasks
at the present time are paltry, his theoretical knowledge, insofar as he
utilises it not as an instrument br research but as a schema for
activity, is worthless for the purpose of fulfilling even these paltry
practical tasks. Moreover, these borrowed patterns are harmful from the
practical point of view. Our Marxists, forgetting that the working class
in the West entered political activity after that field had already been
cleared, are much too contemptuous of the radical or liberal opposition
activity of all other non-worker strata of society. The slightest attempt
to concentrate attention on public manifestations of a liberal political
character rouses the protest of the orthodox Marxists, who forget that a
number of historical conditions prevent us from being Western Marxists and
demand of us a different Marxism, suited to, and necessary in, Russian
conditions. Obviously, the lack in even Russian citizen of political
feeling and sense cannot be compensated by talk about politics or by
appeals to a non-existent force. This political sense can only be acquired
through education, i.e., through participation in that life (however
un-Marxian it may be) which is offered by Russian conditions. ’Negation’
is as harmful in Russia as it was appropriate (temporarily) in the West,
because negation proceeding from something organised and possessing real
power is one thing, while negation proceeding from an amorphous mass of
scattered individuals is another.

“Forthe Russian Marxist there is only one course: participation in,
i.e., assistance to, the economic struggle of the proletariat, and
participation in liberal opposition activity. As a ’negator,’ the Russian
Marxist came on the scene very early, and this negation has weakened the
share of his energy that should be turned in the direction of political
radicalism. For the time being, this is not terrible; but if the class
schema prevents the Russian intellectual from taking an active part in
life and keeps him too far removed from opposition circles, it will be a
serious loss to all who are compelled to fight for legal forms separately
from the working class, which has not yet put forward political aims. The
political innocence concealed behind the cerebrations of the Russian
Marxist intellectual on political topics may play mischief with him.”

Wedo not know whether there are many Russian Social-Democrats who share
these views. But there is no doubt that ideas of this kind have their
adherents, and we therefore feel obliged to protest categorically against such views and to warn all
comrades against the menacing deflection of Russian Social-Democracy from
the path it has already marked out—the formation of an independent
political working-class party which is inseparable from the class struggle
of the proletariat and which has for its immediate aim the winning of
political freedom.

Theabove-quoted Credo represents, first, “a brief description
of the course of development taken by the working-class movement in the West,”
and, secondly, “conclusions for Russia.”

Firstof all, the authors of the Credo have an entirely false
concept.ion of the history of the West-European working-class movement. It
is not true to say that the working class in the West did not take part in
the struggle for political liberty and in political revolutions. The
history of the Chartist movement and the revolutions of 1848 in France,
Germany, and Austria prove the opposite. It is absolutely untrue to say
that “Marxism was the theoretical expression of the prevailing
practice: of the political struggle predominating over the economic.” On
the contrary, “Marxism” appeared at a time when non-political
socialism prevailed (Owenism, “Fourierism,” “true socialism”)
and the Communist Manifesto took up the cudgels at once against
non-political socialism. Even when Marxism came out fully armed with
theory ( Capital ) and organised the celebrated International
Working Men’s

Association, [6] the political struggle was by no means the prevailing practice (narrow
trade-unionism in England, anarchism and Proudhonism in the Romance
countries). In Germany the great historic service performed by Lassalle
was the transformation of the working class from an appendage of the
liberal bourgeoisie into an independent political party. Marxism linked up
the economic and the political struggle of the working class into a single
inseparable whole; and the effort of the authors of the Credo to
separate these forms of struggle is one of their most clumsy and
deplorable departures from Marxism.

Further,the authors of the Credo also have an entirely wrong
conception of the present state of the West-European working-class
movement and of the theory of Marxism, under the banner of which that
movement is marching.

To talk about a “crisis of Marxism” is merely to repeat the
nonsense of the bourgeois hacks who are doing all they can to exacerbate
every disagreement among the socialists and turn it into a split in the
socialist parties. The notorious Bernsteinism—in the sense in which
it is commonly understood by the general public, and by the authors of the
Credo in particular—is an attempt to narrow the theory of
Marxism, to convert the revolutionary workers’ party into a reformist
party. As was to be expected, this attempt has been strongly condemned by
the majority of the German Social-Democrats. Opportunist trends have
repeatedly manifested themselves in the ranks of German Social-Democracy,
and on every occasion they have been repudiated by the Party, which
loyally guards the principles of revolutionary international
Social-Democracy. We are convinced that every attempt to transplant
opportunist views to Russia will encounter equally determined resistance
on the part of the overwhelming majority of Russian Social-Democrats.

Similarly,there can be no suggestion of a “radical change in the
practical activity” of the West—European workers parties, in
spite of what the authors of the Credo say: the tremendous
importance of the economic struggle of the proletariat, and the necessity
for such a struggle, were recognised by Marxism from the very outset. As
early as the forties Marx and Engels conducted a polemic against the
utopian socialists who denied the importance of this struggle. [7]

Whenthe International Working Men’s Association was formed about twenty
years later, the question of the importance of trade unions and of the
economic struggle was raised at its very first Congress, in Geneva, in
1866. The resolution adopted at that Congress spoke explicitly of the
importance of the economic struggle and warned the socialists and the
workers, on the one hand, against exaggerating its importance (which the
English workers were inclined to do at that time) and, on the other,
against underestimating its importance (which the French and the Germans,
particularly the Lassalleans, were inclined to do). The resolution
recognised that the trade unions were not only a natural, but also an
essential phenomenon under capitalism and considered them an extremely
important means for organising the working class in its daily struggle
against capital and for the abolition of wage-labour. The resolution declared that the trade
unions must not devote attention exclusively to the “immediate
struggle against capital,” must not remain aloof from the general
political and social movement of the working class; they must not pursue
“narrow” aims, but must strive for the general emancipation of the
millions of oppressed workers. Since then the workers’ parties in the
various countries have discussed the question many times and, of course,
will discuss it again and again—whether to devote more or less
attention at any given moment to the economic or to the political struggle
of the proletariat; but the general question, or the question in
principle, today remains as it was presented by Marxism. The conviction
that the class struggle must necessarily combine the political and the
economic struggle into one integral whole has entered into the flesh and
blood of international Social-Democracy. The experience of history has,
furthermore, incontrovertibly proved that absence of freedom, or
restriction of the political rights of the proletariat, always make it
necessary to put the political struggle in the forefront.

Stillless can there be any suggestion of a serious change in the attitude
of the workers’ party towards the other opposition parties. In this
respect, too, Marxism has mapped out the correct line, which is equally
remote from exaggerating the importance of politics, from conspiracy
(Blanquism, etc.), and from decrying politics or reducing it to
opportunist, reformist social tinkering (anarchism, utopian and pettybourgeois socialism, state socialism, professorial socialism, etc.). The
proletariat must strive to form independent political workers’ parties,
the main aim of which must be the capture of political power by the
proletariat for the purpose of organising socialist society. The
proletariat must not regard the other classes and parties as “one
reactionary mass” [8] ; on the contrary, it must take part in all political and social life,
support the progressive classes and parties against the reactionary
classes and parties, support every revolutionary movement against the
existing system, champion the interests of every oppressed nationality
or race, of every persecuted religion, of the disfranchised sex, etc. The
arguments the Credo authors advance on this subject merely reveal
a desire to obscure the class character of the struggle of the proletariat, weaken this struggle by a meaningless
“recognition of society,” and reduce revolutionary Marxism to a
trivial reformist trend. We are convinced that the over-whelming majority
of Russian Social-Democrats will resolutely reject this distortion of the
fundamental principles of Social-Democracy. Their erroneous premises
regarding the West-European working-class movement led the authors of the
Credo to draw still more erroneous “conclusions for
Russia.”

Theassertion that the Russian working class “has not yet put forward
political aims” simply reveals ignorance of the Russian revolutionary
movement. The North-Russian Workers’

Union [9] formed in 1878 and the South-Russian Workers’

Union [10] formed in 1875 put forward even then the demand for political liberty in
their programmes. After the reaction of the eighties, the working class
repeatedly put forward the same demand in the nineties. The assertion that
“the talk about an independent workers’ political party merely
results from the transplantation of alien aims and alien achievements to
our soil” reveals a complete failure to understand the historical
role of the Russian working class and the most vital tasks of Russian
Social-Democracy. Apparently, the programme of the authors of the
Credo inclines to the idea that the working class, following
“the line of least resistance,” should confine itself to the
economic struggle, while the “liberal opposition elements”
fight, with the “participation” of the Marxists, for “legal forms.” The application of such a programme would be
tantamount to the political suicide of Russian Social-Democracy, it would
greatly retard and debase the Russian working-class movement and the
Russian revolutionary movement (for us the two concepts coincide). The
mere fact that it was possible for a programme like this to appear shows
how well ground ed were the fears expressed by one of the foremost
champions of Russian Social-Democracy, P. B. Axelrod, when, at the end of
1897, he wrote of the possibility of the following prospect:

“Theworking-class movement keeps to the narrow but of purely
economic conflicts between the workers and employers and, in itself, taken
as a whole, is not of a political character, while in the struggle for
political freedom the advanced strata of the proletariat follow the revolutionary circles and groups of the so-called intelligentsia”
(Axelrod, Present Tasks and Tactics of the Russian Social-Democrats , Geneva, 1898, p. 19).

Russian Social-Democrats must declare determined war upon the whole body
of ideas expressed in the Credo , for these ideas lead straight to
the realisation of this prospect. Russian Social-Democrats must bend every
effort to translate into reality another prospect, outlined by
P. B. Axelrod in the following words:

“Theother prospect: Social-Democracy organises the Russian
proletariat into an independent political party which fights for liberty,
partly side by side and in alliance with the bourgeois revolutionary groups (if such should exist), and partly by recruiting
directly into its ranks or securing the following the most
democratic-minded and revolutionary elements from among the
Intelligentsia” ( ibid. , p. 20).

Atthe time P. B. Axelrod wrote the above lines the declarations made by
Social-Democrats in Russia showed clearly that the overwhelming majority of them
adhered to the same point of view. It is true that one St. Petersburg workers’
paper, Rabochaya Mysl , [11] seemed to incline toward the ideas of the authors of the Credo.
In a leading article setting forth its programme (No. 1, October 1897) it
expressed, regrettably, the utterly erroneous idea, an idea running
counter to Social-Democracy, that the “economic basis of the
movement” may be “obscured by the effort to keep the political
ideal constantly in mind.” At the same time, however, another
St. Petersburg workers’ newspaper, S. Peterburgsky Rabochy Listok [12]
(No. 2, September 1897), emphatically expressed the opinion that “the overthrow of the autocracy ... can be achieved
only by a well-organised and numerically strong working-class party”
and that “organised in a strong party” the workers will
“emancipate themselves, and the whole of Russia, from all political
and economic oppression.” A third newspaper, Rabochaya Gazeta , [13]
in its leading article in issue No. 2 (November
1897), wrote: “The fight against the autocratic government for
political liberty is the immediate task of the Russian working-class
movement” “The Russian working-class movement will increase
its forces tenfold if it comes out as a single harmonious whole, with a
common name and a well-knit organisation...." “The separate workers’ circles should combine into one common party.”
“The Russian workers’ party will be a Social-Democratic Party.”

Thatprecisely these views of Rabochaya Gazeta were fully shared by the
vast majority of Russian Social-Democrats is seen, furthermore, from the fact
that the Congress of Russian

Social-Democrats [14] in the spring of 1898 formed the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party,
published its manifesto and recognised Rabochaya Gazeta as the
official Party organ. Thus, the Credo authors are taking an
enormous step back ward from the stage of development which Russian
Social-Democracy has already achieved and which it has recorded in the
Manifesto of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Since
the frenzied persecution by the Russian Government has led to the present
situation in which the Party’s activity has temporarily subsided and its
official organ has ceased publication, it is the task of all Russian
Social-Democrats to exert every effort for the utmost consolidation of the
Party, to draw up a Party programme and revive its official organ. In view
of the ideological vacillations evidenced by the fact that programmes like
the above-examined Credo can appear, we think it particularly
necessary to emphasise the following fundamental principles that were
expounded in the Manifesto and that are of enormous importance to
Russian Social-Democracy. First, Russian Social-Democracy “desires
to be and to remain the class movement of the organised working masses.”
Hence it follows that the motto of Social-Democracy must be: aid to the
workers, not only in their economic, but also in their political struggle;
agitation, not only in connection with immediate economic needs, but also
in connection with all manifestations of political oppression; propaganda,
not only of the ideas of scientific socialism, but also of democratic
ideas. Only the theory of revolutionary Marxism can be the banner of the
class movement of the workers, and Russian Social-Democracy must concern
itself with the further development and implementation of this theory and
must safeguard it against the distortions and vulgarisations to which
“fashionable theories” are so often subjected (and the successes of revolutionary Social-Democracy in Russia have already made
Marxism a “fashionable” theory). While concentrating all their
present efforts on activity among factory and mine workers, Social-Democrats must not forget that with the expansion of
the movement home workers, handicraftsmen, agricultural labourers, and the
millions of ruined and starving peasants must be drawn into the ranks of the
labouring masses they organise.

Secondly:“On his strong shoulders the Russian worker must and will
carry to a finish the cause of winning political liberty.” Since its
immediate task is the overthrow of the autocracy, Social-Democracy must
act as the vanguard in the fight for democracy, and consequently, if for
no other reason, must give every support to all democratic elements of the
population of Russia and win them as allies. Only an independent
working-class party can serve as a strong bulwark in the fight against the
autocracy, and only in alliance with such a party, only by supporting it,
can all the other fighters for political liberty play an effective part.

Thirdlyand finally: “As a socialist movement and trend, the Russian
Social-Democratic Party carries on the cause and the traditions of the whole
preceding revolutionary movement in Russia; considering the winning of political
liberty to be the most important of the immediate tasks of the Party as a whole,
Social-Democracy marches towards the goal that was already clearly indicated by
the glorious representatives of the old Narodnaya

Volya. [15] ”

The traditions of the whole preceding revolutionary movement demand that
the Social-Democrats shall at the present time concentrate all their
efforts on organising the Party, on strengthening its internal discipline,
and on developing the technique for illegal work. If the members of the
old Narodnaya Volya managed to play an enormous role in the history of
Russia, despite the fact that only narrow social strata supported the few
heroes, and despite the fact that it was by no means a revolutionary
theory which served as the banner of the movement, then Social-Democracy,
relying on the class struggle of the proletariat, will be able to render
itself invincible. “The Russian proletariat will throw off the yoke
of autocracy in order to continue the struggle against capital and the
bourgeoisie for the complete victory of socialism with still greater
energy.”

Weinvite all groups of Social-Democrats and all workers’ circles in
Russia to discuss the above-quoted Credo and our resolution, and to express a definite opinion on the question
raised, in order that all differences may be re moved and the work of
organising and strengthening the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party
may be accelerated.

Groupsand circles may send their resolutions to the Union of Russian
Social-Democrats Abroad which, by Point 10 of the decision of the 1898
Congress of Russian Social-Democrats, is a part of the Russian
Social-Democratic Party and its representative abroad.