V. I.

Lenin

Articles for “Rabochaya Gazeta”

International Social-Democracy is at present in a state of ideological
wavering. Hitherto the doctrines of Marx and Engels were considered to
be the firm foundation of revolutionary theory, but voices are now being
raised every where to proclaim these doctrines inadequate and
obsolete. Whoever declares himself to be a Social-Democrat and intends
to publish a Social-Democratic organ must define precisely his attitude
to a question that is preoccupying the attention of the German
Social-Democrats and not of them alone.

Wetake our stand entirely on the Marxist theoretical position: Marxism
was the first to transform socialism from a utopia into a science, to lay
a firm foundation for this science, and to indicate the path that must be
followed in further developing and elaborating it in all its parts. It
disclosed the nature of modern capitalist economy by explaining how the
hire of the labourer, the purchase of labour-power, conceals the
enslavement of millions of propertyless people by a handful of
capitalists, the owners of the land, factories, mines, and so forth. It
showed that all modern capitalist development displays the tendency of
large-scale production to eliminate petty production and creates
conditions that make a socialist system of society possible and
necessary. It taught us how to discern, beneath the pall of rooted
customs, political intrigues, abstruse laws, and intricate
doctrines—the class struggle , the struggle between the
propertied classes in all their variety and the propertyless mass, the
proletariat , which is at the head of all the propertyless. It
made clear the real task of a revolutionary socialist party: not to draw up plans for refashioning
society, not to preach to the capitalists and their hangers-on about
improving the lot of the workers, not to hatch conspiracies, but to organise the class struggle of the proletariat and to lead this struggle, the ultimate aim of which is the conquest of political power by the proletariat and the organisation of a socialist society .

Andwe now ask: Has anything new been introduced into this theory by its
loud-voiced “renovators” who are raising so much noise in
our day and have grouped themselves around the German socialist
Bernstein? Absolutely nothing. Not by a single step have they
advanced the science which Marx and Engels enjoined us to develop; they
have not taught the proletariat any new methods of struggle; they have
only retreated, borrowing fragments of backward theories and preaching
to the proletariat, not the theory of struggle, but the theory of
concession—concession to the most vicious enemies of the
proletariat, the governments and bourgeois parties who never tire of
seeking new means of baiting the socialists. Plekhanov, one of the
founders and leaders of Russian Social-Democracy, was entirely right in
ruthlessly criticising Bernstein’s latest “critique” [1] ;
the views of Bern stein have now been rejected by the representatives of the German workers as well (at the Hannover

Congress). [2]

Weanticipate a flood of accusations for these words; the shouts will
rise that we want to convert the socialist party into an order of
“true believers” that persecutes “heretics” for deviations from “dogma,” for every independent opinion, and so
forth. We know about all these fashionable and trenchant phrases. Only
there is not a grain of truth or sense in them. There can be no strong
socialist party without a revolutionary theory which unites all
socialists, from which they draw all their convictions, and which they
apply in their methods of struggle and means of action. To defend such a
theory, which to the best of your knowledge you consider to be true,
against unfounded attacks and at tempts to corrupt it is not to imply
that you are an enemy of all criticism. We do not regard Marx’s
theory as some thing completed and inviolable; on the contrary, we arc
convinced that it has only laid the foundation stone of the science
which socialists must develop in all directions if they wish to keep pace with life. We think that an independent
elaboration of Marx’s theory is especially essential for Russian
socialists; for this theory provides only general guiding
principles, which, in particular , are applied in England
differently than in France, in France differently than in Germany, and in
Germany differently than in Russia. We shall therefore gladly afford space
in our paper for articles on theoretical questions and we invite all
comrades openly to discuss controversial points.

Whatare the main questions that arise in the application to Russia of the
programme common to all Social-Democrats? We have stated that the essence
of this programme is to organise the class struggle of the proletariat and
to lead this struggle, the ultimate aim of which is the conquest of
political power by the proletariat and the establishment of a socialist
society. The class struggle of the proletariat comprises the economic
struggle (struggle against individual capitalists or against individual
groups of capitalists for the improvement of the workers’ condition) and
the political struggle (struggle against the government for the broadening
of the people’s rights, i.e., for democracy, and for the broadening of the
political power of the proletariat). Some Russian Social-Democrats (among
them apparently those who direct Rabochaya Mysl ) regard the
economic struggle as incomparably the more important and almost go so far
as to relegate the political struggle to the more or less distant
future. This standpoint is utterly false. All Social- Democrats are agreed
that it is necessary to organise the economic struggle of the working
class, that it is necessary to carry on agitation among the workers on
this basis, i.e., to help the workers in their day-to-day struggle against
the employers, to draw their attention to every form and every case of
oppression and in this way to make clear to them the necessity for
combination. But to forget the political struggle for the economic would
mean to depart from the basic principle of international Social-Democracy,
it would mean to forget what the entire history of the labour movement
teaches us. The confirmed adherents of the bourgeoisie and of the
government which serves it have even made repeated attempts to organise
purely economic unions of workers and to divert them in this way from
“politics,” from socialism. It is quite possible that the Russian Government, too, may
undertake something of the kind, as it has always endeavoured to throw
some paltry sops or, rather, sham sops, to the people, only to turn their
thoughts away from the fact that they are oppressed and without rights. No
economic struggle can bring the workers any lasting improvement, or can
even be conducted on a large scale, unless the workers have the right
freely to organise meetings and unions, to have their own newspapers, and
to send their representatives to the national assemblies, as do the
workers in Germany and all other European countries (with the exception of
Turkey and Russia). But in order to win these rights it is necessary to
wage a political struggle. In Russia, not only the workers, but
all citizens are deprived of political rights. Russia is an absolute and
unlimited monarchy. The tsar alone promulgates laws, appoints officials
and controls them. For this reason, it seems as though in Russia
the tsar and the tsarist government are independent of all classes and
accord equal treatment to all. But in reality all officials are
chosen exclusively from the proper tied class and all are subject to the
influence of the big capitalists, who make the ministers dance to their
tune and who achieve whatever they want. The Russian working class is
burdened by a double yoke; it is robbed and plundered by the capitalists
and the landlords, and to prevent it from fighting them, the police bind
it hand and foot, gag it, and every attempt to defend the rights of the
people is persecuted. Every strike against a capitalist results in the
military and police being let loose on the workers. Every economic
struggle necessarily becomes a political struggle, and Social-Democracy
must indissolubly combine the one with the other into a single class struggle of the proletariat. The first and chief aim of such a
struggle must be the conquest of political rights, the conquest of political liberty. If the workers of St. Petersburg alone, with a
little help from the socialists, have rapidly succeeded in wringing a
concession from the government—the adoption of the law on the
reduction of the working day [3] —then the Russian working class as a whole, led by a single Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party, will be able, in persistent struggle, to
win incomparably more important concessions.

The Russian working class is able to wage its economic and political
struggle alone, even if no other class comes to its aid. But in the
political struggle the workers do not stand alone. The people’s complete
lack of rights and the savage lawlessness of the bashi-bazouk officials
rouse the indignation of all honest educated people who cannot reconcile
themselves to the persecution of free thought and free speech; they rouse
the indignation of the persecuted Poles, Finns, Jews, and Russian
religious sects; they rouse the indignation of the small merchants,
manufacturers, and peasants, who can nowhere find protection from the
persecution of officials and police. All these groups of the population
are incapable, separately, of carrying on a persistent political
struggle. But when the working class raises the banner of this struggle,
it will receive support from all sides. Russian Social-Democracy will
place itself at the head of all fighters for the rights of the people, of
all fighters for democracy, and it will prove invincible!

Theseare our fundamental views, and we shall develop them systematically
and from every aspect in our paper. We are convinced that in this way we
shall tread the path which has been indicated by the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party in its published Manifesto .