Date: 1899

The Profession de foi (confession of faith, exposition of views) of the Kiev Committee of the R.S.-D.R.P. belongs to the number of the least known works of the "economistic" tendency in Russian social democracy. While the Petersburg Credo — the most vivid document of economism — achieved wide notoriety and served as the subject of heated discussion in social-democratic circles (mention of the Credo for a long time did not disappear from the pages of revolutionary-Marxist publications), the Profession de foi circulated, it seems, in very narrow circles and represents at the present time a bibliographic rarity. Neither the author, or authors, of the Profession de foi, nor the precise date (end of 1898 — first half of 1899?), nor the circumstances of its composition are known to us. Both the Profession de foi and the critical review of it, written from the perspective of revolutionary Marxism and published together with the Profession de foi, are known in the literature only through those brief excerpts from both works which are cited by V. Akimov-Makhnovets in his "Materials for the Characterization of the Development of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party" (1904, pp. 88-91; see also Works of Lenin, vol. IV, note 475). According to Akimov, the Profession de foi was published (apparently on a hectograph) together with a critical review of it, a year and a half after the composition of this document, and it was published not by its author, but by a person who held negative views toward the positions expressed in the Profession de foi. Akimov expresses the supposition that the critique of the Profession de foi was written by Lenin. Acquaintance with the text of the critique (the Profession de foi and critical review exist in the Lenin Institute only in a copy received from the Bund archive) leaves no doubt whatsoever that the author of this work is Lenin.

Lenin mentions the Profession de foi in his works only once — in "*What Is to Be Done?*" Emphasizing the "fear of publicity" among the representatives of economism, Lenin refers, among other things, to the Kiev Committee, which "a year or two ago [written in the second half of 1904. Ed.] refused to give permission to publish its Profession de foi together with the refutation written against it" (Works, vol. IV, p. 576).

Just as with the Credo, the Profession de foi was published by Lenin contrary to the intentions of its authors, who considered it inopportune and generally disadvantageous for the tendency they represented to make public to wider party circles their opportunism-permeated political program, and who preferred "quiet" opportunistic practice to "loud" theoretical discussion. The publication of the Credo and Profession de foi, together with Lenin's "protest" and "refutation" written against them, contributed to the speedier exposure of the opportunistic current in Russian social democracy in its earliest manifestations and facilitated the process of self-determination of revolutionary Marxism, which from particular and episodic clashes and battles with economism soon — in "*Iskra*" and "*Zaria*" — transitioned to systematic and merciless struggle against the right wing of Russian social democracy.

In the text of Lenin's article "On the Subject of 'Profession de foi'" which the Institute possesses, there are certain distortions that occurred during the recopying of the article for its hectographed edition; the corrections we have made are noted in footnotes. The "Profession de foi of the Kiev Committee" is given by us in the appendix to the present article by Lenin.

## I.

## ON THE SUBJECT OF "PROFESSION DE FOI"

The Profession de foi compiled by the Kiev Committee, notwithstanding the fact that it is merely a rough draft, on the elaboration and refinement of which, according to the Kiev Committee itself, there was positively no time, nevertheless gives the possibility of forming a sufficiently accurate conception of the views of the Kiev Committee, and these views must, without doubt, evoke an energetic protest from those Russian social-democrats who stand on the standpoint of the old principles of social democracy, proclaimed in Russia by the Group "Liberation of Labour," expounded repeatedly in the publications of the R.S.-D.P., and confirmed by its manifesto. The views of the Kiev Committee undoubtedly reflect the considerable influence of that new tendency among "young Russian social-democrats," which in its extreme development merged with Bernsteinism and gave rise to such products as the famous separate supplement to "*Workers' Thought*" (September 1899) and the no less famous "Credo."

One cannot say that the Profession de foi entirely corresponds to this opportunistic and reactionary tendency, but the Profession de foi takes such serious steps in this direction, betokens such confusion in the fundamental ideas of social democracy, such wavering of revolutionary thought, that we consider it our duty to warn our comrades and to examine in detail their deviation from the long-established principles of international and Russian social democracy.

Already the first phrase of the Profession de foi arouses the most serious perplexity: "Recognizing the immediate common task of the workers' movement in Russia to be the struggle for the political rights of the proletariat, the Kiev Committee does not, however, consider it possible at the present moment to appeal to the masses of workers with a call to political action, in other words, to conduct political agitation, since the Russian workers in the mass have not yet matured for political struggle." We do not concern ourselves with the formulation of this passage; we care only about the thoughts expressed here and repeated (note this) repeatedly in other places in the Profession de foi, and these thoughts are such that we can only ask ourselves: "Can those who wrote this really be social-democrats?"

"The Russian worker in the mass has not yet matured for political struggle!" If this is true, then it is equivalent to a death sentence upon all of social democracy, for it means that the Russian worker in the mass has not yet matured for social democracy. In fact, there has never been and is not anywhere in the world such a social democracy as was not inseparably and indissolubly linked with political struggle. Social democracy without political struggle — this is a river without water, this is some kind of glaring contradiction, this is some kind of return either to the utopian socialism of our great-great-ancestors, who disdained "politics," or to anarchism, or to trade-unionism.

The first profession de foi of world socialism, the Communist Manifesto, established long ago that commonplace truth which has since become elementary, that every class struggle is a political struggle, that the workers' movement only then outgrows the stage of embryonic existence and childhood, only then becomes a class movement, when it transitions to political struggle. The first profession de foi of Russian social democracy, Plekhanov's pamphlet "*Socialism and the Political Struggle*," published in 1883, confirmed this truth as applied to Russia and showed how and why precisely the Russian revolutionary movement must lead to the fusion of socialism and political struggle, to the fusion of the spontaneous movement of the workers' masses with the revolutionary movement, to the fusion of class struggle and political struggle. By taking the standpoint of socialism and class struggle while at the same time rejecting the possibility of "appealing at the present moment to broad masses for political action," the Kiev Committee in essence deviates completely from the principles of social democracy, and the desire to remain on the basis of these principles leads it into a series of glaring contradictions.

Indeed, how is it possible to speak of "political education" of the workers if one does not recognize the possibility of conducting political agitation and political struggle? Is it really necessary among social-democrats to prove anew that there can be no political education outside political struggle and political action? Can one really think that the workers' masses can be politically educated through some kind of lessons or books, etc., apart from political activity and political struggle? Must Russian social democracy return to the standpoint of the serf-owners, who said that first one must educate the peasants and then liberate them, or to the standpoint of our scribblers who grovel before the government, who say that first one must educate the people and only then give them political rights? How can one set for oneself the task of awakening consciousness of the necessity of struggling for political rights and at the same time not consider it possible to call upon workers for political action, not consider it possible to conduct political agitation? To awaken consciousness of the necessity of political struggle and at the same time not call for political struggle? What does this mean? How is this possible? And such confusion is not at all the result of misunderstandings or the incompleteness of a rough draft, but the natural, inevitable result of that dualism and half-heartedness which permeates all the views of the Kiev Committee. On the one hand, it wishes to remain on the basis of the long-established fundamental principles of international and Russian social democracy; on the other hand, it is carried away by those fashionable Bernsteinian catchwords about the "necessity," the "gradualness" (section 1 of the Profession de foi of the Kiev Committee), the "directly-economic character of the movement," of the impossibility of political agitation and struggle, of the necessity of adhering to firm ground of actual needs and requirements (as if the struggle for political freedom were not called forth by actual need and requirement itself!), in short, by those fashionable catchwords from which such fashionable works as "Credo" and separate supplements to "*Workers' Thought*" are woven together. Let us focus substantively on that proposition in which all the weak sides of the examined Profession de foi are concentrated as in a focal point, namely on the proposition that "it is impossible at the present moment to appeal to the masses of workers with a call to political action," in other words, to conduct political agitation, since the Russian worker has not yet matured for political struggle. This last assertion is completely false — fortunately (we say: fortunately, for were it true, it must inevitably have led Russian Marxists and social-democrats into that swamp of trade-unionism and bourgeois liberal degradation into which the authors of "Credo," "*Workers' Thought*" and their numerous henchmen in our legal literature are trying to drag them). The Russian worker in the mass has not only matured for political struggle, but has already many times demonstrated his maturity and many times committed acts of political struggle, and moreover, often committed them spontaneously.

Indeed, does not the mass distribution of proclamations in which the government is condemned, the government is scourged, constitute an act of political struggle? Has not the Russian worker in the mass dealt with overly impudent policemen and soldiers "by his own means"; has he not forcibly liberated his arrested comrades? Has he not struggled in numerous leaflets, in direct street combat with troops and police? Has not the Russian worker in the mass furnished, over the course of more than twenty years, his best, most developed, most honest and most courageous comrades to the ranks of revolutionary circles and organizations? But in deference to the fashionable doctrine of bourgeois degradation, we, representatives of the revolutionary social-democratic party, must forget all this and recognize it impossible to call upon the workers' masses for political action! We shall be objected to, perhaps, that the cited facts often appear to be rather spontaneous outbursts than political struggle. Shall we not answer that our strikes did not represent merely spontaneous outbursts until such time as revolutionary circles of socialists undertook broad agitation, undertook to call upon the workers' masses to class struggle, to conscious struggle against their oppressors? Can one point to in history even one popular, even one class movement, which did not begin with spontaneous unorganized outbursts, which without the conscious intervention of intelligent representatives of the given class would assume organized form, would create political parties? If the irresistible spontaneous inclination of the working class toward political struggle manifests itself up to now for the most part only in unorganized outbursts, then only "*Moscow News*" and "*Citizen*" will draw from this the conclusion that the Russian worker in the mass has not yet matured for political agitation. The socialist will draw from this the conclusion that long ago there matured the necessity for political agitation, the broadest possible call of the workers' masses to political action and political struggle; by not making this call, we do not fulfill our duty and in essence cease to be social-democrats, for economic and professional organizations without political struggle have always and everywhere been preached by ardent defenders of the bourgeoisie; therefore, one cannot call otherwise than criminal and shameful that systematic silence about political struggle and the political tasks of the Russian working class which we have seen, for example, in the newspaper "*Workers' Thought*." This silence is equivalent to the corruption of the political consciousness of the workers, who see and feel political oppression, who spontaneously rise up against it, but encounter from their socialist leaders either indifference or even polemics against the ideas of political struggle. One cannot but call it indifference and extreme narrowness when we are told that the ideas of political freedom must be propagated in the masses "gradually" — perhaps up to now we have been too hasty in propagating these ideas into the masses; we must be moderated and held back!!! Or when we are told that "to illuminate politically the position of the working class" one must only "insofar as there is occasion for this in each particular case," as if the occasions for political agitation were not given us by the very everyday, widespread mass facts of the workers' lives!

The striving to limit political agitation to the presence of occasions in each particular case either makes no sense, or expresses only the striving to take a step backward in the direction of "Credo" and "*Workers' Thought*," the striving to narrow the already far too narrow bounds of our propagandist and agitational activity. We shall be objected to further, perhaps, that the workers' masses do not yet understand the idea of political struggle. To this objection, which we so often hear from "young" Russian social-democrats, we shall answer that, in the first place, social democracy has always and everywhere been and cannot but be the representative of conscious, not unconscious workers, that there can be nothing more dangerous and criminal than demagogic pandering to the underdevelopment of the workers. If one takes as the criterion of activity that which is immediately accessible in the greatest degree to the broadest mass, then one would have to preach antisemitism or agitate, say, on the basis of an appeal to Father John of Kronstadt.

The task of social democracy is to develop the political consciousness of the masses, not to drag along in the tail of a politically disfranchised mass; secondly — and this is the main point — not to believe that the masses will not understand the idea of political struggle. The most ordinary worker will understand this idea, provided of course that the agitator or propagandist knows how to approach him in such a way as to convey this idea to him, knows how to transmit it in understandable language and relying on facts of everyday life known to him, and this condition is certainly necessary also for transmitting the conditions of economic struggle: in this domain too the most ordinary worker from the lower and middle layers of the masses is incapable of assimilating the general idea of economic struggle; this idea is assimilated by few intelligent workers, whom the mass follows, guided by instinct and immediate practical interest.

The same is true in the realm of politics: the general idea of political struggle will be assimilated, of course, only by the intelligent worker, whom the mass will follow, for it feels perfectly well its political disfranchisement (as the Profession de foi of the Kiev Committee itself admits in one place), and the most immediate everyday interests constantly bring it into collision with every manifestation of political oppression. In no political or social movement, in no country, never has there been and can there be any other relationship between the mass of a given class or people and the few intelligent representatives of it, than precisely this one: always and everywhere the leaders of a given class are its most advanced, most intelligent representatives. And in the Russian workers' movement it cannot be otherwise. And therefore the ignoring of the interests and demands of this advanced stratum of workers, the striving to descend to the level of understanding of the lower strata (instead of constantly raising the level of workers' consciousness) must necessarily have a deeply harmful effect and prepare the ground for the penetration into the workers' milieu of all manner of non-socialist and non-revolutionary ideas.

To complete the examination of the Kiev Committee's views on political struggle, it is ... extraordinarily strange and at the same time extraordinarily characteristic for the entire Profession de foi that the Committee, not considering it possible to call upon broad workers' masses for political action at the present moment, recognizes it desirable to organize partial demonstrations with purely agitational purpose (and not with the aim of influencing the government) on occasions accessible to the understanding of broad masses. Socialists call upon workers not to exert influence on the government!!! One cannot go further ... It is incomprehensible only how demonstrations are possible that do not exert influence on the government. Is one to recommend to workers to demonstrate within the four walls of their hovels, having locked the doors beforehand? or perhaps to demonstrate by making an obscene gesture in their pocket; that surely will not exert such malevolent and pernicious "influence on the government." What "partial demonstration" means, we likewise refuse to understand. Does it mean: professional, only on professional questions (again: what has this to do with socialism?) or perhaps on partial political occasions, not against the entire political system, against autocracy in general? But if so, is this not the purest ideas of "Credo" and extreme opportunism, extreme degradation, darkening of the political consciousness and political tasks of the working class? If so, then should we not repeat the "famous words" of "one young" metropolitan social-democrat: "it is premature to discredit autocracy among the workers"?..

Extreme narrowness of views runs through the Profession de foi not only on the question of "politics." Agitational influence on the mass — we read — in the present time can express itself only, first, in furthering the economic struggle of the proletariat: therefore the Committee uses every instance of collision between workers and employers or every major fact of abuse by employers to appeal to the workers with a proclamation, elucidating to the workers their position, calling them to protest, taking a guiding role in strikes, formulating their demands, indicating the best paths for their achievement, developing thereby in the working class self-consciousness and only that — they say nothing more about economic struggle, and this a Profession de foi! Reread carefully these passages: this again is the language of "Credo" and the thoughts of "Credo," which again and again illustrates the profound delusion of the editors of "*Workers' Cause*," persistently wishing to cover up the views of the "young economists" and to see in them only the deviation of individual personalities.

For a socialist, economic struggle serves as the basis for organizing workers into a revolutionary party, for uniting and developing their class struggle against the entire capitalist system. But if one takes economic struggle as something self-sufficient, then there is nothing socialist in it, and the experience of all European countries shows us a multitude of examples not only of socialist but also of anti-socialist professional unions.

The task of bourgeois politics is to "further the economic struggle of the proletariat"; the task of the socialist is to make economic struggle serve the socialist movement and the successes of the revolutionary workers' party. The task of the socialist is to further the inseparable fusion of economic and political struggle into a single class struggle of socialist workers' masses. Thus, the vague expressions of the Profession de foi of the Kiev Committee open the doors wide to Bernsteinian ideas and legalize an impermissibly narrow attitude toward economic struggle.

Agitational influence on the mass must consist in the broadest agitation, both economic and political, on all occasions and manifestations of every kind of oppression, agitation which we must use to attract an ever greater number of workers into the ranks of the revolutionary social-democratic party, to encourage every possible manifestation of political struggle, to organize this struggle from its spontaneous forms into the form of struggle of a single political party. Agitation must thus serve as the means of broad dissemination of political protest and more organized forms of political struggle. At the present time, the bounds of our agitation are too narrow, the circle of questions it addresses is too limited, and our obligation is not to legalize this narrowness, but to strive to free ourselves from it, to strive to deepen and broaden our agitational activity.

In the examined Profession de foi this narrowness leads not only to the theoretical errors examined above, but also to a narrowing of practical tasks. Such narrowing is evident in the desire to "set as the immediate next task the investigation of the condition of workers in local factories and plants through questionnaires and other means." We of course can raise no objection against questionnaires in general, which constitute a necessary part of agitation — but to engage in investigation means to expend unproductively the already meager revolutionary forces.

Much can be gleaned from our legal investigations; as the immediate next task one should set the broadening of agitation and propaganda (especially political), all the more so since the excellent custom spreading among our workers of sending independent correspondence to socialist newspapers ensures sufficient abundance of material.

Even greater narrowing is evident in that on the question of funds only "professional strike funds" are recognized as desirable, and not a word is said about these funds being links in the social-democratic party, serving for political struggle.

To limit our conspiratorial funds to economic activity alone — this striving is natural for the authors of Credo, but incomprehensible in the Profession de foi of the Committee of the Russian S.-D. Workers' Party.

On the question of legal associations, the positions of the Profession de foi are no less narrow, and likewise express the striving to make concessions to the notorious Bernsteinism: to render assistance to the emergence of funds on the part of the Committee of the S.D. Party means once again to scatter forces and to blur the distinction between cultural and revolutionary work; a revolutionary party can and must use legal associations to strengthen and consolidate its work, as centers for agitation, convenient covers for contacts, etc., and only that. To expend the forces of socialists on assistance to the emergence of associations is exceedingly irrational. To ascribe independent significance to these associations is incorrect; to think that in legal associations "complete independence from the participation and pressure of employers" is possible — is simply absurd.

Finally, the narrowness of the Kiev Committee's views and their specific peculiarity are reflected also in its organizational plans. True, we fully agree with the Kiev Committee that it is inopportune at this time to announce the party's renewal and to elect a new Central Committee, but we consider it completely erroneous the opinion about "the directly-economic character of the movement," about the fact that the Russian proletariat is not yet "prepared for political agitation." It would likewise be erroneous to wait for "local groups to grow stronger, to increase numerically, to consolidate and broaden ties with the workers' milieu" — such consolidation often leads to immediate collapse.

No, we must immediately set about the work of unification, of creating a common Russian organ, which must attempt to prepare the party's renewal, serving as an organ for all of Russia, gathering correspondence and materials from circles in all localities, providing space for the discussion of disputed questions, broadening the bounds of our propaganda and agitation, devoting special attention to organizational, tactical, and technical questions of how to conduct affairs, satisfying all the demands of the most developed workers and constantly raising the lower strata of the proletariat (attracted through workers' correspondence, etc.) to ever more conscious participation in the socialist movement and political struggle.

Only by this path, in our conviction, can the actual conditions for unification and restoration of the party be prepared, and only direct and open polemic against narrow "economism" and the ever more widespread Bernsteinian ideas can ensure the proper development of the Russian workers' movement and Russian social democracy.

## Appendix.

## PROFESSION DE FOI OF THE KIEV COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.-D.R.P.

Recognizing the immediate common task of the workers' movement in Russia to be the struggle for the political rights of the proletariat, the Kiev Committee does not, however, consider it possible at the present moment to appeal to the masses of workers with a call to political action, in other words, to conduct political agitation, since the Russian worker in the mass has not yet matured for political struggle. Therefore, agitational influence on the mass in the present time can be expressed only: 1) in furthering the economic struggle of the proletariat, which is why the committee uses every instance of collision between workers and employers, every more or less significant fact of abuse by employers — to appeal to the workers with a proclamation or leaflets, elucidating to the workers their position, calling them to protest, taking a guiding role in strikes, formulating their demands, indicating the best paths for their achievement, developing thereby in the workers' masses self-consciousness, and 2) in the political education of the masses on the basis of everyday economic struggle. Using every manifestation of the workers' economic struggle, the Committee, insofar as there is occasion for this in each particular case, sets as its task to illuminate politically the position of the working class, gradually conducting into the masses ideas of political freedom, awakening consciousness of the necessity of struggling for political rights. Striving to be the most complete possible representative of the interests and needs of the proletariat, the Committee considers necessary a deeper and more comprehensive acquaintance with the position of the working class than has been the case up to now, and therefore sets as its immediate next task the investigation of the condition of workers in local factories and plants through questionnaires and other means.

In the matter of the political education of the workers' masses, the committee attributes great significance to the publication of a local workers' newspaper, striving to make it accessible to the broadest possible strata of workers and to attract them to participation in it through the sending of correspondence both from local workers and from other cities in the adjacent district, accustoming thereby workers to view the newspaper as their own.

Assigning primary importance in its activity to economic agitation and the political education of the broad mass of workers, the Committee does not consider it possible to refuse participation in circle study with workers, viewing them as a means of creating a certain contingent of conscious workers-agitators, broadening its ties with the workers' milieu, and as a path for the dissemination of literature.

The Committee, not considering it possible to call upon the broad masses of Kiev workers for political action at the present moment, recognizes it desirable to organize partial demonstrations with purely agitational purpose (and not with the aim of influencing the government) on occasions accessible to the understanding of broad masses.

## Combat Economic Organizations.

On the question of combat economic organizations, the Committee distinguishes the situation of factory workers from that of artisans. The Committee considers professional organizations under the existing political conditions altogether impossible among factory workers, since in order to have any significance and success, they must encompass a considerable number of workers, and this is possible only through the public actions of the leaders of these organizations, through accountability, regular meetings, and in general through frequent intercourse between members of the organization, in short, through such conditions as do not exist in Russia. But to organize conspiratorial funds, attributing educational significance to them, the Committee considers undesirable. It also recognizes as possible and desirable the organization of professional strike funds among artisans. The small number of persons occupied in one craft, on the one hand, and the close personal acquaintance of most artisans with each other, on the other hand, ensure the regularity of contributions to the fund and make possible the existence and often successful activity of artisan strike funds even under the existing external conditions.

## Legal Workers' Associations.

Not making it its task to conduct systematic propaganda in the workers' milieu of the necessity of forming mutual-aid societies, consumers' cooperatives, etc., the Committee nevertheless does not consider it possible to remain indifferent to such legal organizations for the following reasons: 1) Such associations arise independently of our wishes or lack thereof — a fact which cannot be ignored. Besides, the government itself to a certain degree goes along with this movement, perhaps intending thereby to rob revolutionary groups of support and to direct the workers' movement into peaceful channels. 2) Every workers' association has educational significance, accustoming workers to self-activity. In view of all this, the Committee considers necessary, first, to render assistance to the emergence of such associations through advice, suggestions, the drafting of statutes, under the necessary condition of complete independence of such organizations from the participation and pressure of employers and administration; second, to strive to influence them, attempting to create a guiding role in them for conscious workers.

## Unification.

The Committee in principle considers it extremely desirable to have the unification of local groups into a single social-democratic party with a definite program, proper congresses, an executive body, and a party newspaper, believing that police conditions, while greatly hindering such unification, do not make it, however, impossible. Nevertheless, the Committee considers party unification inopportune and unachievable at the present moment for the following reasons: a party organization created at such a moment when the workers' movement, as a mass movement, still bears a directly-economic character, in its striving to act in a planned and unified manner while at the same time adhering to firm ground of actual needs and requirements of the proletariat, will encounter an obstacle difficult to overcome in the diversity of conditions of economic life of workers in different industrial districts, regions, and cities.

Only when the Russian proletariat, at least in the main industrial centers, is sufficiently prepared for political agitation, only then will the ground be created for actual unification, for an actual party organization, since political disfranchisement weighs equally upon all workers, and therefore political demands will be common to all workers of Russia. Apart from this general reason, one must take into account that arrests of the last two years have broken the forces of the acting local groups and weakened ties with the workers, torn from the workers' milieu the best and most conscious representatives; some time is necessary for local groups to grow stronger, to increase numerically, to consolidate and broaden ties with the workers' milieu. Refusing at the present moment the attempt to renew party organizations, the Committee nonetheless retains for itself its present name, in view of the fact that it has become familiar both to the workers and to the local intelligentsia, and in view of the fact that in the eyes of the workers, at least the conscious ones, and of the intelligentsia, it gives definite character to the activity of the local group and ideologically unites the workers' movement of all Russia. Besides, the Committee is convinced that the moment will come when the function of the party will acquire real content. Considering the formation of an actual party to be a task of the future, the Committee at the present moment considers it extremely necessary, so to speak, the mechanical unification between the acting groups, which can be expressed in more regular, systematic relations, in the exchange of literature and local publications, in common undertakings (such as, for example, May Day leaflets) and, finally, in the creation, through joint efforts, of an independent group not bound to any particular location, which could take upon itself the organization of the transport of literature, the supplying of it to the acting groups of the party.