In recent times, deviations have been observed among Russian social-democrats from those fundamental principles of Russian social-democracy which were proclaimed both by its founders and leading fighters — the members of the "Emancipation of Labour" group{39} — and by the social-democratic publications of Russian workers' organizations of the 1890s. The "credo" presented below[117], which is supposed to express the fundamental views of certain (so-called "young") Russian social-democrats, represents an attempt at a systematic and definite exposition of "new views." — Here is this "credo" in its entirety.

The existence of the guild and manufactures period in the West left a sharp imprint on all subsequent history, especially on the history of social-democracy. The necessity for the bourgeoisie to conquer free forms, the striving to free itself from the production-restricting guild regulations, made the bourgeoisie a revolutionary element; it begins everywhere in the West with liberté, fraternité, égalité (freedom, brotherhood, and equality), with the conquest of free political forms. But by this conquest, according to Bismarck's expression, it issued a promissory note on the future to its antithesis — the working class. Almost everywhere in the West the working class, as a class, did not conquer democratic institutions — it used them. One may object that it participated in revolutions. Historical information refutes this opinion, since it was precisely in 1848, when constitutions were consolidated in the West, that the working class represented a craft-urban element, petty-bourgeois democracy; the factory proletariat scarcely existed, while the proletariat of large-scale production (weavers of Germany — Hauptmann, weavers of Lyon) represented a wild mass, capable only of riots, but in no way of putting forward any political demands. One can directly say that the constitutions of 1848 were conquered by the bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoisie, artisans. On the other hand, the working class (artisans and manufacture workers, printers, weavers, watchmakers, etc.) had since the Middle Ages been accustomed to participation in organizations, in mutual aid funds, religious societies, etc. This organizational spirit still lives to this day among trained workers of the West and sharply distinguishes them from the factory proletariat, which is poorly and slowly amenable to organization and capable only of the so-called lose Organisation (temporary organizations), rather than of permanent organizations with statutes and regulations. These same manufacture-trained workers formed the nucleus of social-democratic parties. Thus there arose the following picture: comparative ease and full possibility of political struggle, on the one hand; on the other — the possibility of planned organization of this struggle with the help of workers educated by the manufactures period. On this soil there grew up in the West theoretical and practical Marxism. Its point of departure was parliamentary political struggle with a prospect (only in appearance similar to Blanquism, in origin of a completely different character), a prospect of seizing power, on the one hand, and Zusammenbruch (catastrophe) — on the other. Marxism appeared as the theoretical expression of the dominant practice: political struggle, predominating over economic. Both in Belgium and France, and especially in Germany, workers organized political struggle with incredible ease and economic struggle with terrible difficulty, with enormous friction. And even now economic organizations, in comparison with political ones (I do not speak of England), suffer from extraordinary weakness and instability and everywhere laissent à désirer quelque chose (leave something to be desired). As long as the energy in political struggle was not wholly exhausted — Zusammenbruch appeared as a necessary organizing Schlagwort (slogan), which was destined to play an enormous historical role. The fundamental law which one can derive from studying the workers' movement — the line of least resistance. In the West such a line was political activity, and Marxism, in the form in which it was formulated in the "Communist Manifesto," appeared as the most apt form in which the movement should develop. But when all energy in political activity was exhausted, when the political movement reached such intensity that to conduct it further was difficult and almost impossible (the slow growth of votes of late, public apathy at meetings, the dreary tone of literature), on the other hand, the impotence of parliamentary activity and the appearance on the arena of the black masses, unorganized and almost unamenable to organization factory proletariat, created in the West what now bears the name of Bernsteinism, the crisis of Marxism. A more logical course of things than the period of development of the workers' movement from the "Communist Manifesto" to Bernsteinism is difficult to imagine, and careful study of this entire process can, with the precision of an astronomer, determine the outcome of this "crisis." The question here is, of course, not about the defeat or victory of Bernsteinism — that is of little interest; the question is about a radical change in practical activity, which has long been gradually taking place within the bowels of the party.

This change will occur not only in the direction of more energetic conduct of economic struggle, consolidation of economic organizations, but also, and this is the most essential, in the direction of changing the party's relation to the remaining oppositional parties. Intolerant Marxism, negating Marxism, primitive Marxism (using too schematic a conception of class divisions of society) will yield place to democratic Marxism, and the public position of the party within contemporary society should sharply change. The party will recognize society; its narrowly corporative, in most cases sectarian tasks will expand to tasks of public significance, and its striving to seize power will transform into a striving to change, to reform contemporary society in a democratic direction, adapted to the present state of affairs, with the aim of the most successful, most complete protection of the rights (of all kinds) of the toiling classes. The content of the concept "politics" will expand to truly public significance, and the practical demands of the moment will gain more weight, can count on greater attention than has been the case hitherto.

It is not difficult from this brief description of the course of development of the workers' movement in the West to draw a conclusion for Russia. The line of least resistance for us will never be directed toward political activity. The impossible political oppression will force much talk about it and precisely on this question to concentrate attention, but will never force practical action. If in the West weak forces of workers, being drawn into political activity, were strengthened by it and were formed by it, for us — these weak forces, on the contrary, stand before a wall of political oppression and not only do not have practical paths for struggle against it, and consequently for their own development, but are even systematically stifled by it and cannot even put forth weak shoots. If one adds to this that our working class did not inherit that organizational spirit which distinguished the fighters of the West, then the picture becomes disheartening and capable of casting down into despondency even the most optimistic Marxist, believing that a superfluous factory chimney, by the mere fact of its existence, carries great prosperity. Difficult, infinitely difficult, is economic struggle, but it is possible, it is finally practiced by the masses themselves. Becoming accustomed to organization in this struggle and constantly encountering the political regime in it, the Russian worker will finally create what can be called a form of workers' movement, will create that or those organizations which are most suited to the conditions of Russian reality. At present one can say with confidence that the Russian workers' movement is still in an amoeba-like state and has created no form. Strike movements, existing in any form of organization, cannot yet be called the crystallized form of Russian movement, while illegal organizations do not even deserve attention from the purely quantitative point of view (I do not speak of their usefulness under present conditions).

Such is the situation. If one adds to this famines and the process of rural ruin, which encourage Streikbrecher'ство[118], and consequently even greater difficulty in raising the workers' masses to a more tolerable cultural level, then… what is a Russian Marxist to do?! Talk of an independent workers' political party is nothing other than a product of transferring alien tasks, alien results to our soil. The Russian Marxist — for now a sad spectacle. His practical tasks in the present are paltry, his theoretical knowledge, insofar as he uses it not as an instrument of investigation but as a schema of activity, has no value for fulfilling even these paltry practical tasks. Moreover, these schemas, borrowed from others, in the sense of practice are harmful. Forgetting that in the West the working class appeared already on cleared political ground for activity, our Marxists, more than is necessary, regard with contempt the radical or liberal-oppositional activity of all other non-working strata of society. The slightest attempts to concentrate attention on public manifestations of liberal-political character call forth protest from orthodox Marxists, who forget that a whole series of historical conditions prevents us from being Marxists of the West and demands of us a different Marxism, fitting and necessary under Russian conditions. The absence in each Russian citizen of political feeling and intuition cannot, obviously, be atoned for by talk of politics or appeals to a non-existent force. This political intuition can be given only by education, i.e., by participation in that life (however un-Marxist it may be) which Russian reality offers. Insofar as "negation" was fitting (temporarily) in the West, so much is it harmful for us, because negation issuing from something organized and possessing actual force — is one thing, while negation issuing from an amorphous mass of scattered individuals — is another.

For the Russian Marxist there is one outcome: participation, i.e., assistance to the economic struggle of the proletariat and participation in liberal-oppositional activity. As a "negator," the Russian Marxist came very early, and this negation weakened in him that portion of energy which should be directed toward political radicalism. As long as all this is not dangerous, but if the class schema prevents the active participation of Russian intellectuals in life and pushes them too far from oppositional circles, — this will be a substantial loss for all who are forced to struggle for legal forms not hand in hand with the working class, which has not yet put forward political tasks. The political innocence of the Russian Marxist-intellectual, hidden behind head-level reasoning on political themes, can play a nasty trick on him.

We do not know whether many Russian social-democrats will be found who share these views. But it is undoubted that such ideas in general have supporters, and therefore we consider ourselves obliged to categorically protest against such views and warn all comrades against the threatening perversion of Russian social-democracy from the path already mapped out by it, namely: the formation of an independent political workers' party, inseparable from the class struggle of the proletariat and setting as its immediate task the conquest of political freedom.

The "credo" cited above represents, firstly, a "brief description of the course of development of the workers' movement in the West" and, secondly, "conclusions for Russia."

Above all, the conceptions of the authors of the "credo" about the past of the West European workers' movement are completely false. It is false that the working class in the West did not participate in the struggle for political freedom and in political revolutions. The history of Chartism, the revolution of 1848 in France, Germany, and Austria prove the opposite. It is completely false that "Marxism appeared as the theoretical expression of the dominant practice: political struggle, predominating over economic." On the contrary, "Marxism" appeared when apolitical socialism was dominant (Owenism, "Fourierism," "true socialism," etc.), and the "Communist Manifesto" at once came out against apolitical socialism. Even when Marxism appeared in full armor of theory ("Capital") and organized the famous International Working-Men's Association{40}, political struggle was far from being the dominant practice (narrow trade-unionism in England, anarchism and Proudhonism in the Romance countries). In Germany, the great historical merit of Lassalle consisted in his having transformed the working class from the tail of liberal bourgeoisie into an independent political party. Marxism bound together into one indissoluble whole the economic and political struggle of the working class, and the authors' of the "credo" striving to separate these forms of struggle belongs to the most unsuccessful and lamentable deviations from Marxism.

Furthermore, the conceptions of the authors of the "credo" about the present state of the West European workers' movement and that theory of Marxism under whose banner this movement marches are also completely false. To speak of a "crisis of Marxism" means to repeat the senseless phrases of bourgeois scribblers who strive to inflate every dispute among socialists and transform it into a schism of socialist parties. The notorious "Bernsteinism"{41} — in the sense in which it is usually understood by the broad public in general and by the authors of the "credo" in particular — signifies an attempt to narrow the theory of Marxism, an attempt to transform the revolutionary workers' party into a reformist one, and this attempt, as was to be expected, met with decisive condemnation from the majority of German social-democrats. Opportunistic currents have repeatedly manifested themselves in German social-democracy and each time have been rejected by the party, which faithfully preserves the traditions of revolutionary international social-democracy. We are confident that any attempts to transfer opportunistic views into Russia will meet with equally decisive resistance from the vast majority of Russian social-democrats.

Similarly, there can be no talk whatsoever of any "radical change in the practical activity" of West European workers' parties, contrary to the authors of the "credo": the enormous importance of the economic struggle of the proletariat and the necessity of such struggle were recognized by Marxism from the very beginning, and already in the 1840s Marx and Engels polemicized against utopian socialists who denied the importance of such struggle{42}.

When, some 20 years later, the International Working-Men's Association was formed, the question of the importance of workers' professional unions and economic struggle was raised at the very first congress in Geneva in 1866. The resolution of this congress precisely indicated the significance of economic struggle, cautioning socialists and workers, on the one hand, against exaggerating its significance (which was evident among English workers at that time), on the other hand, against insufficient appreciation of its significance (which was evident among French and Germans, especially among Lassalleans). The resolution recognized workers' professional unions not only as a lawful but as a necessary phenomenon under the existence of capitalism; recognized them as extremely important for organizing the working class in its daily struggle against capital and for the abolition of wage-labor. The resolution recognized that workers' professional unions should not direct exclusive attention to "immediate struggle against capital," should not shy away from the general political and social movement of the working class; their goals should not be "narrow," but should strive toward the universal liberation of the oppressed millions of the toiling people. Since that time, among workers' parties of different countries, the question has repeatedly arisen and will, of course, repeatedly arise, as to whether at a given moment one should not direct somewhat more or somewhat less attention to the economic or political struggle of the proletariat; but the general or principled question stands now as it was posed by Marxism. The conviction that the unified class struggle of the proletariat necessarily must unite political and economic struggle has passed into the flesh and blood of international social-democracy. Historical experience furthermore irrefutably testifies that the absence of political freedom or restriction of the political rights of the proletariat always leads to the necessity of placing political struggle in the forefront. Still less can there be any talk of any substantial change in the relation of the workers' party to the remaining oppositional parties. And in this respect Marxism indicated the correct position, equally distant both from exaggeration of the significance of politics and from conspiracy-mongering (Blanquism, etc.), and from neglect of politics or its narrowing to opportunistic, reformist social tinkering (anarchism, utopian and petty-bourgeois socialism, state socialism, professorial socialism, etc.). The proletariat must strive to establish independent political workers' parties, the main goal of which must be the seizure of political power by the proletariat for the organization of socialist society. The proletariat must by no means regard other classes and parties as "one reactionary mass"{43}: on the contrary, it must participate in all political and public life, support progressive classes and parties against reactionary ones, support every revolutionary movement against the existing order, be the defender of every oppressed nationality or race, every persecuted creed, disfranchised sex, etc. The reasonings on this theme of the authors of the "credo" only testify to a striving to obscure the class character of the struggle of the proletariat, to weaken this struggle by some senseless "recognition of society," to narrow revolutionary Marxism to a dozen-a-penny reformist current. We are convinced that the vast majority of Russian social-democrats will absolutely reject such a distortion of the fundamental principles of social-democracy. The false premises regarding the West European workers' movement lead the authors of the "credo" to still more false "conclusions for Russia."

The assertion that the Russian working class "has not yet put forward political tasks" only testifies to unfamiliarity with the Russian revolutionary movement. As early as the "Northern Russian Workers' Union"{44}, founded in 1878, and the "Southern Russian Workers' Union"{45}, founded in 1875, put forward in their program the demand for political freedom. After the reaction of the 1880s, the working class repeatedly put forward the same demand in the 1890s. The assertion that "talk of an independent workers' political party is nothing other than a product of transferring alien tasks, alien results to our soil" only testifies to a complete lack of understanding of the historical role of the Russian working class and the most pressing tasks of Russian social-democracy. The program of the authors of the "credo" apparently tends toward the fact that the working class, going "along the line of least resistance," would limit itself to economic struggle, while "liberal-oppositional elements" would struggle, with the "participation" of Marxists, for "legal forms." The implementation of such a program would be equivalent to the political suicide of Russian social-democracy, equivalent to an enormous retardation and debasement of the Russian workers' movement and Russian revolutionary movement (these last two concepts coincide for us). The very possibility of the appearance of such a program shows how well-founded were the fears of one of the leading fighters of Russian social-democracy, P. B. Akselrod, when he wrote, at the end of 1897, of the possibility of such a perspective:

"The workers' movement does not emerge from the narrow channel of purely economic conflicts between workers and employers and in itself, as a whole, is devoid of political character; in the struggle for political freedom, the advanced strata of the proletariat follow revolutionary circles and factions from the so-called intelligentsia" (Akselrod. "On the Question of the Present Tasks and Tactics of Russian Social-Democrats." Geneva. 1898, p. 19).

Russian social-democrats must declare decisive war against the entire circle of ideas which found expression in the "credo," since these ideas directly lead to the realization of such a perspective. Russian social-democrats must exert all efforts so that the other perspective described by P. B. Akselrod in the following words is realized:

"Another perspective: social-democracy organizes the Russian proletariat into an independent political party fighting for freedom partly together and in alliance with bourgeois revolutionary factions (insofar as[119] such are available), and partly by directly attracting into its ranks or drawing after itself the most people-loving and revolutionary elements from the intelligentsia" (ibid., p. 20).

At the very time when P. B. Akselrod wrote these lines, declarations of social-democrats in Russia showed clearly that the vast majority of them stood on the same point of view. True, one newspaper of Petersburg workers, "The Workers' Thought"{46}, seemed to incline toward the ideas of the authors of the "credo," expressing, unfortunately, in its leading programmatic article (No. 1, October 1897) the completely erroneous and anti-social-democratic thought that "the economic basis of the movement" may be "obscured by the striving constantly not to forget the political ideal." But at the same time another newspaper of Petersburg workers, "The St. Petersburg Workers' Sheet"{47} (No. 2, September 1897), decidedly spoke out in favor of the fact that "to overthrow the autocracy… can only a firmly organized numerous workers' party" and that, having "organized themselves into a strong party," workers "will free themselves and all Russia from all political and economic oppression." A third newspaper, "The Workers' Gazette"{48}, in a leading article No. 2 (November 1897) wrote: "Struggle against the autocratic government for political freedom is the immediate task of the Russian workers' movement." – "The Russian workers' movement will increase its forces tenfold if it appears as a single, well-organized whole with a common name and well-organized organization…" "Separate workers' circles must transform into one common party." "The Russian workers' party will be a party of social-democracy." – That the vast majority of Russian social-democrats fully shared precisely these convictions of "The Workers' Gazette" is evident from the fact that the congress of Russian social-democrats which took place in the spring of 1898{49} formed the "Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party," published its manifesto, and recognized "The Workers' Gazette" as the official organ of the party. Thus, the authors of the "credo" take a colossal step backward from that stage of development which Russian social-democracy has already attained and which it sealed in the "Manifesto of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party." If the desperate persecution by the Russian government has led to the fact that at present the party's activity is temporarily weakened and its official organ has ceased publication, then for all Russian social-democrats the task consists in exerting all efforts toward the final consolidation of the party, toward the working out of the party's program, toward the resumption of its official organ. In view of the wavering of thought about which the possibility of the appearance of programs such as the "credo" discussed above testifies, we consider it especially necessary to emphasize the following fundamental principles, set forth in the "Manifesto" and of enormous importance for Russian social-democracy. First, Russian social-democracy "wishes to be and to remain a class movement of organized workers' masses." From this follows that the motto of social-democracy should be assistance to workers not only in economic but also in political struggle; agitation not only on the grounds of immediate economic needs but also on the grounds of all manifestations of political oppression; propaganda not only of the ideas of scientific socialism, but also propaganda of democratic ideas. The banner of the class movement of workers can only be the theory of revolutionary Marxism, and Russian social-democracy must take care of its further development and embodiment in practice, while protecting it at the same time from those distortions and vulgarizations to which "fashionable theories" are so often subjected (and the successes of revolutionary social-democracy in Russia have already made Marxism a "fashionable" theory). Concentrating at present all its forces on activity among factory and mine workers, social-democracy must not forget that into the ranks of the workers' masses it is organizing there must come, with the expansion of the movement, home workers, artisans, rural workers, and millions of ruined and starving peasantry.

Second: "On its own strong shoulders the Russian working class must and will bear the cause of the conquest of political freedom." Setting the overthrow of absolutism as its immediate task, social-democracy must come forward as the vanguard fighter for democracy and by virtue of this alone must render every support to all democratic elements of the Russian population, drawing them to itself as allies. Only an independent workers' party can be a firm bulwark in the struggle against the autocracy, and only in alliance with such a party, in support of it, can all other fighters for political freedom actively manifest themselves.

Finally, third: "As a movement and direction socialist, the Russian Social-Democratic Party continues the cause and traditions of the entire preceding revolutionary movement in Russia; setting as the chief of its immediate tasks the conquest of political freedom as a whole, social-democracy moves toward a goal clearly mapped out by the glorious figures of the old 'People's Will'{50}." The traditions of the entire preceding revolutionary movement in Russia demand that social-democracy concentrate at present all its forces on the organization of the party, the strengthening of discipline within it, and the development of conspiratorial technique. If the figures of the old 'People's Will' were able to play an enormous role in Russian history despite the narrowness of the social strata that supported these few heroes, despite the fact that the banner of the movement was served by no revolutionary theory whatever, then social-democracy, relying on the class struggle of the proletariat, will be able to become invincible. "The Russian proletariat will cast off the yoke of the autocracy, so that with all the greater energy it may continue the struggle against capitalism and the bourgeoisie until the complete victory of socialism."

We invite all groups of social-democrats and all workers' circles in Russia to discuss the "credo" cited above and our resolution and to express definitively their attitude toward the question raised, so as to eliminate all disagreements and accelerate the cause of organization and consolidation of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party.

The resolutions of groups and circles could be communicated to the foreign "Union of Russian Social-Democrats"{51}, which on the basis of point 10 of the decision of the congress of Russian social-democrats of 1898 is a part of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party and its foreign representative[120].