V. I.

Lenin

Apropos of the Profession de Foi [1]

Althoughthe Profession de foi , composed by the Kiev Committee,
is only a rough draft, for the elaboration and polishing of which,
according to the Committee, there was an insufficiency of time, it
nevertheless allows one to obtain quite a clear idea of the views of the
Kiev Committee. These views must certainly call forth an emphatic protest
from those Russian Social-Democrats who abide by the viewpoint of the old
principles of Social-Democracy proclaimed in Russia by the Emancipation of
Labour group, enunciated repeatedly in the publications of the
R.S.D.L.P. and reaffirmed in its manifesto. There is no doubt that the
views of the Kiev Committee reflect the very considerable
influence of the new trend of the “young Russian Social-Democrats,”
which, when developed to the extreme, has merged with Bernsteinism and
yielded such products as the famous Separate Supplement to “Rabochaya Mysl” (September 1899) and the no less famous
Credo .

Itcannot be said that the Profession de foi has gone all the
way towards this opportunist and reactionary trend, hut it has taken
such serious steps in that direction arid denotes such confusion in the
basic ideas of Social-Democracy, such a vacillation in revolutionary
thinking, that we consider it our duty to give warning to the comrades
in Kiev and to analyse in detail their deviation from principles long
established both in international and in Russian Social-Democracy.

Thevery first sentence of the Profession de foi gives rise to
the most serious bewilderment: “While admitting that the struggle
for the political rights of the proletariat is the immediate general task
of the working-class movement in Russia, the Kiev Committee nevertheless
does not believe it possible at the present time to turn to the mass of
the workers and call on them to take political action, in other words, it
does not believe it possible to carry on political agitation,
because the Russian workers have not, in the mass, attained the maturity
for political struggle." We shall not discuss the formulation of this
passage; of importance to us only are the ideas contained in it and
reiterated (note this) in many other places in the Profession de foi , ideas of such a nature that they simply leave us wondering: Can
those who wrote this really be Social-Democrats?

“The Russian workers have not, in the mass, attained the maturity for
political struggle”! If this is true, it is tantamount to a death sentence
for Social-Democracy as a whole; for it means that the Russian workers
have not, in the mass, reached the maturity necessary for
Social-Democracy. In actual fact, there is not and never has been a
Social-Democracy anywhere in the world that is not inseparably and
indivisibly bound up with the political struggle. Social-Democracy without
the political struggle is a river without water, it is a howling
contradiction, it is either something in the nature of a return to the
utopian socialism of our forefathers who despised “politics,” or to
anarchism, or to trade-unionism.

Thefirst profession de foi of world socialism, the Communist Manifesto , established a truth that has since become an elementary
verity—that every class struggle is a political struggle, that the
working-class movement only then grows out of its embryonic state, its
infancy, and becomes a class movement when it makes the
transition to the political struggle. The first profession de foi of Russian socialism, Plekhanov’s booklet, Socialism and the Political Struggle , which appeared in 1883, reaffirmed this
elementary truth in its application to Russia and showed precisely how
and why the Russian revolutionary movement must bring about a fusion of
socialism and the political struggle, a fusion of the spontaneous
movement of the masses of workers and the revolutionary movement, a fusion of the class struggle and
the political struggle. By adopting the standpoint of socialism and the
class struggle and simultaneously rejecting the possibility of
“calling at the present moment on the masses to take political
action,” the Kiev Committee is, in essence, departing completely from the
principles of Social-Democracy, and the desire to remain true to these
principles has led the Committee into a number of glaring contradictions.

Indeed,how can one speak of the “political education” of the
workers, if one does not recognise the possibility of conducting political
agitation and political struggle? Surely there is no need to prove to
Social-Democrats that there can be no political education except through
political struggle and political action. Surely it cannot be imagined that
any sort of study circles or books, etc., can politically educate the
masses of workers if they are kept away from political activity and
political struggle. Surely Russian Social-Democracy does not have to go
back to the viewpoint of the serf-owners who declared that it was first
necessary to educate the peasants and then to emancipate them, or to the
viewpoint of those ink-slingers who grovel before the government and say
that the people must first be educated and then granted political
rights. How can one undertake to bring the workers to recognition of the
need to struggle for political rights and at the same time not believe in
the possibility of calling on them to take political action, in the
possibility of conducting political agitation? Arouse the consciousness of
the need for political struggle and at the same time not call for
political struggle?! What falderal is this? What does it mean? This kind
of tangle is not the result of something left unsaid or of the unfinished
nature of a rough draft; it is the natural, inevitable result of the
dualism and equivocation that permeate all the views of the Kiev
Committee. The Committee wants, on the one hand, to remain true to the
basic principles long established in international and Russian
Social-Democracy and, on the other, is infatuated with the fashionable
Bernsteinian catchwords, “necessity,” “gradualness” (end
of Section 1 of the Kiev Committee’s Profession de foi ),
“the directly economic character of the movement,” the impossibility of political agitation and struggle, the
necessity of adhering to the solid ground of real demands and needs (as
though the struggle for political liberty is not called forth by the most
real demand and need!); in a word, it is infatuated with the fashionable
catchwords out of which such writings à la mode as the
Credo and the Separate Supplement to “Rabochaya Mysl” are spun. Let us examine in its essence the thesis in
which all the weak aspects of the Profession de foi now under
discussion are focused, the thesis that it is “impossible at the
present time to turn to the mass of the workers with the call to take
political action”; that it is impossible, in other words, to conduct
political agitation, because the Russian workers have not yet attained the
maturity for political struggle. This last assertion is, fortunately,
untrue (we say “fortunately,” for were it true, it would inevitably
lead Russian Marxists and Russian Social-Democrats into the quagmire of
trade-unionist and bourgeois-liberal vulgarisation into which the authors
of Credo , Rabochaya Mysl , and their numerous hangers-on
in our legal literature are trying to push them). The Russian workers
have, in the mass, not only attained maturity for political struggle, but
they have on many occasions demonstrated it by engaging in acts of
political struggle, often even spontaneously.

Isnot the mass distribution of manifestos in which the government is
condemned and castigated really an act of political struggle? Have not the
Russian workers in the mass “used their own means” to deal with the
police and the soldiery when these became excessively arrogant; have they
not liberated arrested comrades by force? Have they not in many places
fought in real street battles against troops and police? Have not the
Russian workers in the mass, for more than twenty years, sent the best,
most developed, most honest, and most courageous of their comrades into
the revolutionary circles and organisations? But for the sake of a
fashionable doctrine of bourgeois vulgarisation we, representatives of the
revolutionary Social-Democratic Party, are supposed to forget all that
and admit the impossibility of calling on the working masses to take
political action! The objection will probably be raised that the cited instances are more often spontaneous outbursts rather than political
struggles. To which we answer: Were not our strikes mere spontaneous
outbursts until the revolutionary circles of socialists undertook
extensive agitation and summoned the working masses to the class struggle,
to the conscious struggle against their oppressors? Can one find in
history a single case of a popular movement, of a class movement, that did
not begin with spontaneous, unorganised outbursts, that would have assumed
an organised form and created political parties without the conscious
intervention of enlightened representatives of the given class? If the
working-class urge, spontaneous and indomitable, to engage in political
struggle has so far taken mainly the form of unorganised outbursts, only
Moskovskiye Vedomosti [2] and

Grazhdanin [3] can draw from this the conclusion that the Russian workers have not yet,
in the mass, attained the maturity for political agitation. A socialist,
on the contrary, will draw from it the conclusion that the time has long
been ripe for political agitation, for the broadest possible appeal to the
working masses to engage in political action and political struggle. If we
do not make this appeal, we fail in our duty and, in actual fact, cease to
be Social-Democrats, since economic and trade-union organisations without
political struggle have always and everywhere been advocated by zealous
champions of the bourgeoisie. For this reason the persistent ignoring of
the political struggle and the political tasks of the Russian working
class, such as we see, for instance, in Rabochaya Mysl , cannot be
called anything but criminal and disgraceful. This hushing-up is
tantamount to demoralising the political consciousness of the workers, who
see and feel political oppression, who revolt spontaneously against it,
but who meet with indifference on the part of their socialist leaders or
even with polemics against the ideas of political struggle. When we are
told that the ideas of political liberty must be brought
“gradually” to the masses, what can we call this but indifference and extreme narrowness? One might think that hitherto we
have been too hasty in bringing these ideas to the masses, so that we need
to curb and moderate ourselves!!! Or, when we are told that “a
political clarification of the condition of the working class” is
necessary only “to the extent that there is reason for it in each individual case,” as though
“reasons” for political agitation are not furnished by a
multitude of the most widespread, day-to-day facts of working-class life!

Theeffort to limit political agitation to the existence of reasons in
each individual case is either senseless or it reflects a desire to take a
step backwards in the direction of Credo and Rabochaya Mysl , a desire to narrow the scope of our already far-too-narrow
propaganda and agitation. The objection will also probably be raised that
the working-class masses are not yet able to understand the idea
of the political struggle, an idea that is comprehensible only to certain,
more developed workers. To this objection, which we hear so frequently
from “young” Russian Social-Democrats, our answer is that,
firstly, Social-Democracy has everywhere and always been, and cannot but be the representative of the class-conscious, and not of the
non-class-conscious, workers and that there cannot be anything more
dangerous and more criminal than the demagogic speculation on the
underdevelopment of the workers. If the criterion of activity were that
which is immediately, directly, and to the greatest degree accessible to
the broadest masses, we should have to preach anti-Semitism or to agitate,
let us say, on the basis of an appeal to Father Johann of

Kronstadt. [4]

Itis the task of Social-Democracy to develop the political consciousness
of the masses and not to drag along at the tail-end of the masses that
have no political rights; secondly, and this is most important, it is
untrue that the masses will not understand the idea of political
struggle. Even the most backward worker will understand the idea,
provided, of course, the agitator or propagandist is able to approach him
in such a way as to communicate the idea to him, to explain it in
understandable language on the basis of facts the worker knows from
everyday experience. But this condition is just as indispensable for
clarifying the economic struggle: in this field, too, the backward worker
from the lower or middle strata of the masses will not be able to
assimilate the general idea of economic struggle; it is an idea that can
be absorbed by a few educated workers whom the masses will follow, guided by their instincts and their direct, immediate interests.

Thisis likewise true of the political sphere; of course, only the
developed worker will comprehend the general idea of the political
struggle, and the masses will follow him because they have a very good
sense of their lack of political rights (as the Kiev Committee’s
Profession de foi admits in one place), and because their most
immediate, everyday interests regularly bring them into contact with every
kind of manifestation of political oppression. In no political or social
movement, in no country has there ever been, or could there ever have
been, any other relation between the mass of the given class or people and
its numerically few educated representatives than the following: every
where and at all times the leaders of a certain class have always been its
advanced, most cultivated representatives. Nor can there be any other
situation in the Russian working-class movement. The ignoring of the
interests and requirements of this advanced section of the workers, and
the desire to descend to the level of understanding of the lower
strata (instead of constantly raising the level of the workers’
class-consciousness) must, therefore, necessarily have a profoundly
harmful effect and prepare the ground for the infiltration of all sorts of
non-socialist and non-revolutionary ideas into the workers’ midst.

Toconclude the analysis of the Kiev Committee’s views on the political
struggle [I add the following]. The Committee, in a manner that is highly
strange and, at the same time, highly typical of the entire Profession de foi , not considering it possible at the present time to call on
the masses of the workers to take political action, recognises the
desirability of organising partial demonstrations for purely
agitational purposes (and not for the purpose of bringing pressure upon
the government) on issues that are comprehensible to the broad masses
Socialists calling on the workers not to bring pressure to bear
on the government!!! That is about the limit.... Only it is beyond our ken
how demonstrations that do not bring pressure to bear on the
government are possible. Should we perhaps recommend to the workers that
they demonstrate within the four walls of their hovels and lock the doors
before they begin? Or perhaps they should demonstrate by making the gesture of the fig with their hands
in their pockets? That would probably not bring such harmful and ruinous
“pressure upon the government”! And we also despair of understanding
what is meant by a “partial demonstration.” Does it, perhaps, mean
of one trade, on issues of that trade alone (again: what has this to do
with socialism?), or, perhaps, on partial political issues and not against
the entire political system, the autocracy in its entirety? But if this is
so, are these not purely and simply the ideas of Credo and of the
sheerest opportunism, ideas that extremely lower and obscure the political
consciousness and the political tasks of the working class? If this is so,
hadn’t we better repeat the “winged phrase” of a “young” metropolitan Social-Democrat: “It is premature to
discredit the autocracy among the workers”?...

The Profession de foi displays an extreme narrowness of views not
only in regard to the question of “politics.” “At the present
time,” we read, “agitational influence brought to bear on the masses
can only take the form of, firstly, assistance in the economic struggle of
the proletariat. The Committee, therefore, takes advantage of every clash
between the workers and the employers, or every important fact of abuse on
the part of the employers, to address a manifesto to the workers
explaining to them their situation and calling on them to protest; it
takes a leading part in strikes, formulates the workers’ demands, shows
the best way to win the demands, and by all these means develops
class-consciousness in the workers." That is all; nothing more is told us
on the economic struggle. And this is a profession de foi ! Read
these passages over again carefully: Again we have here the language of
the Credo and the ideas of the Credo (which illustrates
once more the abysmal blundering of the Rabocheye Dyelo editors
who stubbornly desire to conceal the views of the “young
economists” and to see in them nothing but the deviations of
individuals).

Forthe socialist, the economic struggle serves as a basis for the
organisation of the workers into a revolutionary party, for the
strengthening and development of their class struggle against the whole
capitalist system. If the economic struggle is taken as something complete
in itself there will be nothing socialist in it; the experience of all
European countries shows us many examples, not only of socialist, but also of
anti-socialist trade unions.

Itis the task of the bourgeois politician “to assist the economic
struggle of the proletariat”; the task of the socialist is to bring
the economic struggle to further the socialist movement and the successes
of the revolutionary working-class party. The task of the socialist is to
further the indissoluble fusion of the economic and the political struggle
into the single class struggle of the socialist working-class masses. The
diffuse expressions of the Kiev Committee’s Profession de foi ,
therefore, open wide the doors to Bernsteinian ideas and legalise an
impermissibly narrow attitude to the economic struggle.

Agitationalactivity among the masses must be of the broadest nature, both
economic and political, on all possible issues and in regard to all
manifestations of oppression whatever their form. We must utilise this
agitation to attract growing numbers of workers into the ranks of the
revolutionary Social-Democratic party, to encourage the political struggle
in all conceivable manifestations, to organise this struggle and transform
it from its spontaneous forms into the struggle of a single political
party. Agitation, therefore, must serve as a means of widely
expanding the political protest and the more organised forms of political
struggle. Today our agitation is too hemmed in; the range of questions it
touches upon is too limited.

It is our duty therefore not to legitimise this narrowness but to try to liberate ourselves from it, to deepen and
expand our agitational work.

Inthe Profession de foi now under discussion this narrowness
leads, not only to the theoretical errors above analysed, but to the
narrowing of the practical tasks. This narrowing can be seen in the desire
“to make the investigation of the workers’ conditions at local
factories and works, through questionnaires and other means, the immediate
pressing task." We, of course, can have nothing against questionnaires in
general, since they constitute an essential accessory to agitation, but to
occupy ourselves with investigations means to expend unproductively
revolutionary forces that are sparse enough as it is.

Infact, much can be gathered from our legal inquiries. We must make it
our immediate and urgent task to extend agitation and propaganda (especially on the political level), all
the more so, since the very good habit, now becoming widespread among our
workers, of sending reports of their own to the socialist newspapers
guarantees an abundance of material.

Astill greater narrowing is to be seen in the fact that on the question
of funds only “trade-union strike” funds are recognised as
desirable, while not a word is said to the effect that these funds must
become integrated in the Social-Democratic Party to be used for the
political struggle.

Tolimit our secret funds to purely economic activity is a desire natural
to the authors of the Credo; but it is incomprehensible in the
Profession de foi of a committee of the Russian Social-Democratic
Labour Party.

Onthe question of legal societies the Profession de foi is no
less narrow, displaying the same effort to make concessions to the
notorious Bernsteinism. For a committee of the Social-Democratic Party to
assist in the founding of funds means again to scatter forces and to wipe
out the distinction between purely cultural activity and revolutionary
work; a revolutionary party can and must make use of legal societies for
the strengthening and consolidation of its own work, as centres
of agitation, as a convenient cover for establishing connections, etc.,
etc.— but only for this. To expend socialist forces on rendering
assistance to the founding of societies is in the highest degree
irrational; it is incorrect to accord these societies an independent
significance and it is simply ridiculous to believe that legal societies
can be “fully independent of the participation and pressure of the
employers.”

Lastly,the narrowness and specific character of the Kiev Committee’s
views are reflected in its organisational plans. It is true we agree fully
with the Kiev Committee that this is not the time to announce the
re-establishment of the Party and to elect a new Central Committee; but we
view as utterly erroneous the opinion concerning the “directly
economic character of the movement,” the opinion that the Russian
proletariat “is not prepared for political agitation.” It would also
be an error to wait until “local groups grow stronger, increase
their membership, and strengthen their connections with the working-class milieu ”—such
reinforcement often leads to immediate collapse.

Onthe contrary, we must immediately set about the work of unification and
begin it with literary unity, with the establishment of a common Russian
newspaper that must make an effort to prepare for the re-establishment of
the Party by serving as an organ for the whole of Russia; by gathering
correspondence and news items from the circles in all localities; by
providing space for the discussion of disputed questions; by extending the
scope of our agitation and propaganda; by devoting special attention to
organisational questions, to tactical and technical methods of conducting
the work; by satisfying all the demands of the most developed workers, and
by constantly raising the level of the lower strata of the proletariat
(attracted by workers’ correspondence, etc.) to an ever greater conscious
participation in the socialist movement and in the political struggle.

Onlyin this way, we are convinced, can real conditions be provided for
the unification and re-establishment of the Party, and only a direct and
frank polemic against narrow “economism” and the growing
spread of Bernsteinian ideas can ensure the correct development of the
Russian working-class movement and Russian Social-Democracy.

---
Notes:
[1]
Profession of faith, a programme, the exposition of a world out look.— Ed .

[2]
Moskovskiye Vedomosti ( Moscow Recorder )— one of the oldest Russian newspapers, originally issued (in 1756) as a small
sheet by Moscow University. In 1863 it was taken over by M. N. Katkov and
became a monarchist-nationalist organ, reflecting the views of the most
reactionary sections of the landlords and the clergy. In 1905 it became
one of the leading organs of the Black Hundreds and continued to appear
until the October Revolution in 1917.

[3]
Grazhdanin ( The Citizen )—a reactionary magazine published in St. Petersburg from 1872 to 1914. From the eighties of the
last

century it was the organ of the extreme monarchists and was edit ed
by Prince Meshchersky and financed by the government. It had a small
circulation, but it was influential in bureaucratic circles.

[4]
Johann of Kronstadt (I. I. Sergeyev)—the priest of
Kronstadt Cathedral, an obscurantist notorious for his pogrom incitements
directed against non-Russian nationalities.