V. I.

Lenin

In the Name of the Editorial Board

Inundertaking the publication of a political newspaper, Iskra ,
we consider it necessary to say a few words concerning the objects for
which we are striving and the understanding we have of our tasks.

Weare passing through an extremely important period in the history of the
Russian working-class movement and Russian Social-Democracy. The past few
years have been marked by an astonishingly rapid spread of
Social-Democratic ideas among our intelligentsia, and meeting this trend
in social ideas is an independent movement of the industrial proletariat,
which is beginning to unite and struggle against its oppressors, and to
strive eagerly towards socialism. Study circles of workers and
Social-Democratic intellectuals are springing up everywhere, local
agitation leaflets are being widely distributed, the demand for
Social-Democratic literature is increasing and is far outstripping the
supply, and intensified government persecution is powerless to restrain
the movement. The prisons and places of exile are filled to
overflowing. Hardly a month goes by without our hearing of socialists
“caught in dragnets” in all parts of Russia, of the capture of
underground couriers, of the confiscation of literature and
printing-presses. But the movement is growing, it is spreading to ever
wider regions, it is penetrating more and more deeply into the working
class and is attracting public attention to an ever-increasing degree. The
entire economic development of Russia and the history of social thought
and of the revolutionary movement in Russia serve as a guarantee that the Social-Democratic working-class movement will grow
and will, in the end, surmount all the obstacles that confront it.

Onthe other hand, the principal feature of our movement, which has become
particularly marked in recent times, is its state of disunity and its
amateur character, if one may so express it. Local study circles spring up
and function independently of one another and—what is particularly
important—of circles that have functioned and still function
in the same districts. Traditions are not established and
continuity is not maintained; local publications fully reflect this
disunity and the lack of contact with what Russian Social-Democracy has
already achieved.

Sucha state of disunity is not in keeping with the demands posed by the
movement in its present strength and breadth, and creates, in our opinion,
a critical moment in its development. The need for consolidation and for a
definite form and organisation is felt with irresistible force in the
movement itself; yet among Social-Democrats active in the practical field
this need for a transition to a higher form of the movement is not
everywhere realised. On the contrary, among wide circles an ideological
wavering is to be seen, an infatuation with the fashionable
“criticism of Marxism” and with “Bernsteinism,” the spread of the views of the so-called “economist” trend, and
what is inseparably connected with it—an effort to keep the movement
at its lower level, to push into the background the task of forming a
revolutionary party that heads the struggle of the entire people. It is a fact that such an ideological wavering is to be observed among
Russian Social-Democrats; that narrow practicalism, detached from the
theoretical clarification of the movement as a whole, threatens to divert
the movement to a false path. No one who has direct knowledge of the state
of affairs in the majority of our organisations has any doubt whatever on
that score. Moreover, literary productions exist which confirm this. It is
sufficient to mention the Credo , which has already called forth
legitimate protest; the Separate Supplement to “ Rabochaya Mysl ” (September 1899), which brought out
so markedly the trend that permeates the whole of Rabochaya Mysl; and, finally, the manifesto of the St. Petersburg
Self-Emancipation of the Working Class group, [1] also drawn up in the spirit of “economism.” And completely untrue are the assertions of Rabocheye Dyelo to the effect
that the Credo merely represents the opinions of individuals,
that the trend represented by Rabochaya Mysl expresses merely the
confusion of mind and the tactlessness of its editors, and not a special
tendency in the progress of the Russian working-class movement.

Simultaneouslywith this, the works of authors whom the reading public has
hitherto, with more or less reason, regarded as prominent representatives
of “legal” Marxism are increasingly revealing a change of
views in a direction approximating that of bourgeois apologetics. As a
result of all this, we have the confusion and anarchy which has enabled
the ex-Marxist, or, more precisely, the ex-socialist, Bernstein, in
recounting his successes, to declare, unchallenged, in the press that the
majority of Social-Democrats active in Russia are his followers.

Wedo not desire to exaggerate the gravity of the situation, but it would
be immeasurably more harmful to close our eyes to it. For this reason we
heartily welcome the decision of the Emancipation of Labour group to
resume its literary activity and begin a systematic struggle against the
attempts to distort and vulgarise Social-Democracy.

Thefollowing practical conclusion is to be drawn from the foregoing: we
Russian Social-Democrats must unite and direct all our efforts towards the
formation of a strong party which must struggle under the single banner of
revolutionary Social-Democracy. This is precisely the task laid down by
the congress in 1898 at which the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party
was formed, and which published its Manifesto .

Weregard ourselves as members of this. Party; we agree entirely with the
fundamental ideas contained in the Manifesto and attach extreme
importance to it as a public declaration of its aims. Consequently, we, as
members of the Party, present the question of our immediate and direct
tasks as follows: What plan of activity must we adopt to revive the Party
on the firmest possible basis?

Thereply usually made to this question is that it is necessary to elect
anew a central Party body and instruct it to resume the publication of the Party organ. But, in the period of confusion
through which we are now passing, such a simple method is hardly
expedient.

Toestablish and consolidate the Party means to establish and consolidate
unity among all Russian Social-Democrats, and, for the reasons indicated
above, such unity can not be decreed, it cannot be brought about by a
decision, say, of a meeting of representatives; it must be worked for. In
the first place, it is necessary to work for solid ideological unity which
should eliminate discordance and confusion that—let us be
frank!—reign among Russian Social-Democrats at the present
time. This ideological unity must be consolidated by a Party
programme. Secondly, we must work to achieve an organisation especially
for the purpose of establishing and maintaining contact among all the
centres of the movement, of supplying complete and timely information
about the movement, and of delivering our newspapers and periodicals
regularly to all parts of Russia. Only when such an organisation has been
founded, only when a Russian socialist post has been established, will the
Party possess a sound foundation and become a real fact, and, therefore,
a mighty political force. We intend to devote our efforts to the first
half of this task, i.e., to creating a common literature, consistent in
principle and capable of ideologically uniting revolutionary
Social-Democracy, since we regard this as the pressing demand of the
movement today and a necessary preliminary measure towards the resumption
of Party activity.

Aswe have said, the ideological unity of Russian Social-Democrats has
still to be created, and to this end it is, in our opinion, necessary to
have an open and all-embracing discussion of the fundamental questions of
principle and tactics raised by the present-day “economists,”
Bernsteinians, and “critics.” Before we can unite, and in order that
we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of
demarcation. Otherwise, our unity will be purely fictitious, it will
conceal the prevailing confusion and binder its radical elimination. It is
understandable, therefore, that we do not intend to make our publication a
mere storehouse of various views. On the contrary, we shall conduct
it in the spirit of a strictly defined tendency. This tendency can be expressed by the word Marxism, and there is hardly need to add that we
stand for the consistent development of the ideas of Marx and Engels and
emphatically reject the equivocating, vague, and opportunist
“corrections” for which Eduard Bernstein, P. Struve, and many
others have set the fashion. But although we shall discuss all questions
from our own definite point of view, we shall give space in our columns to
polemics between comrades. Open polemics, conducted in full view of all
Russian Social-Democrats and class-conscious workers, are necessary and
desirable in order to clarify the depth of existing differences, in order
to afford discussion of disputed questions from all angles, in order to
combat the extremes into which representatives, not only of various views,
but even of various localities, or various “specialities” of
the revolutionary movement, inevitably fall. Indeed, as noted above, we
regard one of the drawbacks of the present-day movement to be the absence
of open polemics between avowedly differing views, the effort to conceal
differences on fundamental questions.

Weshall not enumerate in detail all questions and points of
subject-matter included in the programme of our publication, for this
programme derives automatically from the general conception of what a
political newspaper, published under present conditions, should be.

Wewill exert our efforts to bring every Russian comrade to regard our
publication as his own, to which all groups would communicate every kind
of information concerning the movement, in which they would relate their
experiences, express their views, indicate their needs for political
literature, and voice their opinions concerning Social-Democratic
editions: in a word, they would thereby share whatever contribution they
make to the movement and whatever they draw from it. Only in this way will
it be possible to establish a genuinely all-Russian Social-Democratic
organ. Only such a publication will be capable of leading the movement on
to the high road of political struggle. “Extend the bounds and
broaden the content of our propagandist, agitational, and organisational
activity”—these words of P. B. Axelrod must serve as a slogan
defining the activities of Russian Social Democrats in the immediate
future, and we adopt this slogan in the programme of our publication.

Weappeal not only to socialists and class-conscious workers, we also call
upon all who are oppressed by the present political system; we place the
columns of our publications at their disposal in order that they may
expose all the abominations of the Russian autocracy.

Thosewho regard Social-Democracy as an organisation serving exclusively
the spontaneous struggle of the proletariat may be content with merely
local agitation and working-class literature “pure and simple.” We
do not understand Social-Democracy in this way; we regard it as a
revolutionary party, inseparably connected with the working-class movement
and directed against absolutism. Only when organised in such a party will
the proletariat—the most revolutionary class in Russia today—be in a position to fulfil the historical task that confronts
it—to unite under its banner all the democratic elements in the
country and to crown the tenacious struggle in which so many generations
have fallen with the final triumph over the hated regime.

*     * *
Thesize of the newspaper will range from one to two printed signatures.

Inview of the conditions under which the Russian under ground press has
to work, there will be no regular date of publication.

Wehave been promised contributions by a number of prominent
representatives of international Social-Democracy, the close co-operation
of the Emancipation of Labour group (G. V. Plekhanov, P. B. Axelrod, and
V. I. Zasulich), and the support of several organisations of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party, as well as of separate groups of Russian
Social-Democrats.

---
Notes:
[1]
The Self-Emancipation of the Working Class group was a small
circle of “economists” that came into being in St. Petersburg
in the autumn of 1898 and existed for a few months only. The group issued
a manifesto announcing its aims (printed in the magazine Nakanune
[ On the Eve ], published in London), its rules, and several
proclamations addressed to workers.

Lenincriticised the views of this group in Chapter 2 of his book,
What Is to Be Done? (see present edition, Vol. 5).