V. I.

Lenin

Where to Begin? [2]

In recent years the question of “what is to be done” has confronted Russian Social-Democrats with particular insistence. It is not a question of what path
we must choose (as was the case in the late eighties and early
nineties), but of what practical steps we must take upon the
known path and how they shall be taken. It is a question of a
system and plan of practical work. And it must be admitted that
we have not yet solved this question of the character and the
methods of struggle, fundamental for a party of practical
activity, that it still gives rise to serious differences of
opinion which reveal a deplorable ideological instability and
vacillation. On the one hand, the “ Economist ” trend, far from being dead, is endeavouring to clip and narrow
the work of political organisation and agitation. On the other,
unprincipled eclecticism is again rearing its head, aping every
new “trend”, and is incapable of distinguishing immediate demands from the main tasks and permanent needs of the
movement as a whole. This trend, as we know, has ensconced
itself in

Rabocheye Dyelo . [3]

This journal’s latest statement of “programme”, a bombastic article under the bombastic
title “A Historic Turn” (“ Listok ”

Rabochevo Dyela , No. 6 [4] ), bears out with special emphasis the characterisation we have
given. Only yesterday there was a flirtation with “Economism”, a fury over the resolute condemnation
of

Rabochaya Mysl , [5] and
Plekhanov’s presentation of the question of the struggle against autocracy
was being toned down. But today
Liebknecht’s words are being quoted: “If the circumstances change
within twenty-four hours, then tactics must be changed within
twenty-four hours.” There is talk of a “strong fighting organisation for direct attack, for storming, the
autocracy; of “broad revolutionary political agitation among the masses” (how energetic we are now—both
revolutionary and political!); of “ceaseless calls for street protests”; of “street demonstrations of a
pronounced [ sic! ] political character”; and so on, and so forth.

We might perhaps declare ourselves happy at Rabocheye Dyelo ’s quick grasp of the programme we put
forward in the first issue of

Iskra , [6] calling for the formation of a strong well-organised party, whose
aim is not only to win isolated concessions but to storm the
fortress of the autocracy itself; but the lack of any set point
of view in these individuals can only dampen our happiness.

Rabocheye Dyelo , of course, mentions
Liebknecht’s name in vain. The tactics of agitation in relation to some special question, or the tactics with regard to
some detail of party organisation may be changed in twenty-four
hours; but only people devoid of all principle are capable of
changing, in twenty-four hours, or, for that matter, in
twenty-four months, their view on the necessity—in general, constantly, and absolutely—of an organisation of
struggle and of political agitation among the masses. It is
ridiculous to plead different circumstances and a change of
periods: the building of a fighting organisation and the conduct
of political agitation are essential under any “drab, peaceful” circumstances, in any period, no matter how
marked by a “declining revolutionary spirit”; moreover, it is precisely in such periods and under such
circumstances that work of this kind is particularly necessary,
since it is too late to form the organisation in times of
explosion and outbursts; the party must be in a state of
readiness to launch activity at a moment’s notice. “Change the tactics within twenty-four
hours”! But in order to change tactics it is first necessary to have tactics; without a strong organisation skilled
in waging political struggle under all circumstances and at all
times, there can be no question of that systematic plan of
action, illumined by firm principles and steadfastly carried
out, which alone is worthy of the name of tactics. Let us,
indeed, consider the matter; we are now being told that the
“historic moment” has presented our Party with a “completely new” question—the question of
terror. Yesterday the “completely new” question was political organisation and agitation; today it is terror. Is it
not strange to hear people who have so grossly forgotten their
principles holding forth on a radical change in tactics?

Fortunately, Rabocheye Dyelo is in error. The question of terror is not a new question at all; it
will suffice to recall briefly the established views of Russian
Social-Democracy on the subject.

In principle we have never rejected, and cannot reject,
terror. Terror is one of the forms of military action that may
be perfectly suitable and even essential at a definite juncture
in the battle, given a definite state of the troops and the
existence of definite conditions. But the important point is
that terror, at the present time, is by no means suggested as an
operation for the army in the field, an operation closely
connected with and integrated into the entire system of
struggle, but as an independent form of occasional attack
unrelated to any army. Without a central body and with the
weakness of local revolutionary organisations, this, in fact, is
all that terror can be. We, therefore, declare emphatically that
under the present conditions such a means of struggle is
inopportune and unsuitable; that it diverts the most active
fighters from their real task, the task which is most important
from the standpoint of the interests of the movement as a whole;
and that it disorganises the forces, not of the government, but
of the revolution. We need but recall the recent events. With
our own eyes we saw that the mass of workers and “common
people” of the towns pressed forward in struggle, while
the revolutionaries lacked a staff of leaders and organisers. Under such conditions, is there not the danger that,
as the most energetic revolutionaries go over to terror, the
fighting contingents, in whom alone it is possible to place
serious reliance, will be weakened? Is there not the danger of
rupturing the contact between the revolutionary organisations
and the disunited masses of the discontented, the protesting,
and the disposed to struggle, who are weak precisely because
they are disunited? Yet it is this contact that is the sole
guarantee of our success. Far be it from us to deny the
significance of heroic individual blows, but it is our duty to
sound a vigorous warning against becoming infatuated with
terror, against taking it to be the chief and basic means of
struggle, as so many people strongly incline to do at present. Terror can never be a regular military operation; at
best it can only serve as one of the methods employed in a
decisive assault. But can we issue the call for such a decisive assault at the present moment?
Rabocheye Dyelo apparently thinks we can. At any rate, it exclaims: “Form assault
columns!” But this, again, is more zeal than reason. The
main body of our military forces consists of volunteers and
insurgents. We possess only a few small units of regular troops,
and these are not even mobilised; they are not connected with
one another, nor have they been trained to form columns of any
sort, let alone assault columns. In view of all this, it must be
clear to anyone who is capable of appreciating the general
conditions of our struggle and who is mindful of them at every
“turn” in the historical course of events that at the present moment our slogan cannot be “To the
assault”, but has to be, “Lay siege to the enemy fortress”. In other words, the immediate task of our Party
is not to summon all available forces for the attack right now,
but to call for the formation of a revolutionary organisation
capable of uniting all forces and guiding the movement in actual
practice and not in name alone, that is, an organisation ready
at any time to support every protest and every outbreak and use
it to build up and consolidate the fighting forces suitable for
the decisive struggle.

The lesson of the

February and March events [7] has been so impressive that no disagreement in principle with
this conclusion is now likely to be encountered. What we need at
the present moment, however, is not a solution of the problem in
principle but a practical solution. We should not only be clear
on the nature of the organisation that is needed and its precise
purpose, but we must elaborate a definite plan for an organisation, so that its
formation may be undertaken from all aspects. In view of the
pressing importance of the question, we, on our part, take the
liberty of submitting to the comrades a skeleton plan to be
developed in greater detail in a pamphlet now in preparation for print . [8]

In our opinion, the starting-point of our activities, the first
step towards creating the desired organisation, or, let us say,
the main thread which, if followed, would enable us steadily to
develop, deepen, and extend that organisation, should be the
founding of an All-Russian political newspaper. A newspaper is
what we most of all need; without it we cannot conduct that
systematic, all-round propaganda and agitation, consistent in
principle, which is the chief and permanent task of
Social-Democracy in general and, in particular, the pressing
task of the moment, when interest in politics and in questions
of socialism has been aroused among the broadest strata of the
population. Never has the need been felt so acutely as today for
reinforcing dispersed agitation in the form of individual
action, local leaflets, pamphlets, etc., by means of generalised
and systematic agitation that can only be conducted with the aid
of the periodical press. It may be said without exaggeration
that the frequency and regularity with which a newspaper is
printed (and distributed) can serve as a precise criterion of
how well this cardinal and most essential sector of our militant
activities is built up. Furthermore, our newspaper must be
All-Russian. If we fail, and as long as we fail, to combine our
efforts to influence the people and the government by means of
the printed word, it will be utopian to think of combining other
means, more complex, more difficult, but also more decisive, for
exerting influence. Our movement suffers in the first place,
ideologically, as well as in practical and organisational
respects, from its state of fragmentation, from the almost
complete immersion of the overwhelming majority of
Social-Democrats in local work, which narrows their outlook, the
scope of their activities, and their skill in the maintenance of
secrecy and their preparedness. It is precisely in this state of
fragmentation that one must look for the deepest roots of the
instability and the waverings noted above. The first step towards eliminating this
short-coming, towards transforming divers local movements into a
single, All-Russian movement, must be the founding of an
All-Russian newspaper. Lastly, what we need is definitely a
political newspaper. Without a political organ, a political movement deserving that name is inconceivable
in the Europe of today. Without such a newspaper we cannot
possibly fulfill our task—that of concentrating all the
elements of political discontent and protest, of vitalising
thereby the revolutionary movement of the proletariat. We have
taken the first step, we have aroused in the working class a
passion for “economic”, factory exposures; we must now take the next step, that of arousing in every section of the
population that is at all politically conscious a passion for
political exposure. We must not be discouraged by the fact that the voice of political exposure is
today so feeble, timid, and infrequent. This is not because of a
wholesale submission to police despotism, but because those who
are able and ready to make exposures have no tribune from which
to speak, no eager and encouraging audience, they do not see
anywhere among the people that force to which it would be worth
while directing their complaint against the “omnipotent” Russian Government. But today all this
is rapidly changing. There is such a force—it is the revolutionary proletariat, which has demonstrated its readiness,
not only to listen to and support the summons to political
struggle, but boldly to engage in battle. We are now in a
position to provide a tribune for the nationwide exposure of the
tsarist government, and it is our duty to do this. That tribune
must be a Social-Democratic newspaper. The Russian working
class, as distinct from the other classes and strata of Russian
society, displays a constant interest in political knowledge and
manifests a constant and extensive demand (not only in periods
of intensive unrest) for illegal literature. When such a mass
demand is evident, when the training of experienced revolutionary leaders has already begun, and when the
concentration of the working class makes it virtual master in
the working-class districts of the big cities and in the factory
settlements and communities, it is quite feasible for the
proletariat to found a political newspaper. Through the
proletariat the newspaper will reach the urban petty bourgeoisie, the rural handicraftsmen, and the peasants, thereby
becoming a real people’s political newspaper.

The role of a newspaper, however, is not limited solely to the
dissemination of ideas, to political education, and to the
enlistment of political allies. A newspaper is not only a
collective propagandist and a collective agitator, it is also a
collective organiser. In this last respect it may be likened to
the scaffolding round a building under construction, which marks
the contours of the structure and facilitates communication
between the builders, enabling them to distribute the work and
to view the common results achieved by their organised labour. With the aid of the newspaper, and through it, a
permanent organisation will naturally take shape that will
engage, not only in local activities, but in regular general
work, and will train its members to follow political events
carefully, appraise their significance and their effect on the
various strata of the population, and develop effective means
for the revolutionary party to influence these events. The mere
technical task of regularly supplying the newspaper with copy
and of promoting regular distribution will necessitate a network
of local agents of the united party, who will maintain constant
contact with one another, know the general state of affairs, get
accustomed to performing regularly their detailed functions in
the All-Russian work, and test their strength in the organisation of various revolutionary actions. This network of agents [1] will form the skeleton of precisely the kind of organisation we
need—one that is sufficiently large to embrace the whole
country; sufficiently broad and many-sided to effect a strict
and detailed division of labour; sufficiently well tempered to
be able to conduct steadily its own work under any circumstances, at all “sudden turns”, and
in face of all contingencies; sufficiently flexible to be able,
on the one hand, to avoid an open battle against an overwhelming
enemy, when the enemy has concentrated all his forces at one
spot, and yet, on the other, to take advantage of his unwieldiness and to attack him when and where he least expects
it. Today we are faced with the relatively easy task of
supporting student demonstrations in the streets of big cities;
tomorrow we may, perhaps, have the more difficult task of
supporting, for example, the unemployed movement in some
particular area, and the day after to be at our posts in order
to play a revolutionary part in a peasant uprising. Today we
must take advantage of the tense political situation arising out
of the government’s campaign against the Zemstvo; tomorrow
we may have to support popular indignation against some tsarist
bashi-bazouk on the rampage and help, by means of boycott,
indictment, demonstrations, etc., to make things so hot for him
as to force him into open retreat. Such a degree of combat
readiness can be developed only through the constant activity of
regular troops. If we join forces to produce a common newspaper,
this work will train and bring into the foreground, not only the
most skillful propagandists, but the most capable organisers, the
most talented political party leaders capable, at the right
moment, of releasing the slogan for the decisive struggle and of
taking the lead in that struggle.

In conclusion, a few words to avoid possible misunderstanding. We have spoken continuously of systematic,
planned preparation, yet it is by no means our intention to
imply that the autocracy can be overthrown only by a regular
siege or by organised assault. Such a view would be absurd and
doctrinaire. On the contrary, it is quite possible, and
historically much more probable, that the autocracy will
collapse under the impact of one of the spontaneous outbursts or
unforeseen political complications which constantly threaten it
from all sides. But no political party that wishes to avoid
adventurous gambles can base its activities on the anticipation
of such outbursts and complications. We must go our own way, and
we must steadfastly carry on our regular work, and the less our
reliance on the unexpected, the less the chance of our being
caught unawares by any “historic turns”.

---
Notes:
[1]
It will be understood, of course, that these agents could
work successfully only in the closest contact with the local
committees (groups, study circles) of our Party. In general,
the entire plan we project can, of course, be implemented
only with the most active support of the committees which
have on repeated occasions attempted to unite the Party and
which, we are sure, will achieve this unification—if not today, then tomorrow, if not in one way, then in
another.
— Lenin

[2]
“Where To Begin” was published in Iskra and reissued by local Social-Democratic organisations as a separate pamphlet. The Siberian Social-Democratic League printed 5,000 copies of the pamphlet and distributed it throughout Siberia. The pamphlet was also distributed in Samara, Tambov, Nizhni-Novgorod, and
other Russian cities.

[3]
Rabocheye Dyelo ( The Workers’ Cause )—a journal with “Economist” views, organ of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats
Abroad. It appeared irregularly and was published in Geneva from April 1899 to
February 1902 under the editorship of B. N. Krichevsky,
A. S. Martynov, and V. P. Ivanshin. Altogether 12 numbers appeared in nine
issues.

Lenin criticised the views of the Rabocheye Dyelo group in
his What Is To Be Done? (see present volume, pp. 347-529).

[4]
“ Listok ” Rabochevo Dyela ( Rabocheye Dyelo Supplement)—of which eight numbers were issued in Geneva, at
irregular intervals, between June 1900 and July 1901.

[5]
Rabochaya Mysl ( Workers’ Thought )—an “Economist” newspaper, organ of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, published
from October 1897 to December 1902. Altogether 16 issues appeared: numbers 3 to
11 and number 16 were published in Berlin, the remaining numbers in
St. Petersburg. It was edited by
K. M. Takhtarev and others.

Lenin characterised the paper’s views as a Russian variety of international
opportunism arid criticised them in a number of his articles published in
Iskra and in other works including
What Is To Be Done?

[6]
The reference is to the article “The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement”,
which was published as the leading article in Iskra , No. 1, December
1900 (see present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 366-71).

Iskra ( The Spark )—the first All-Russian illegal
Marxist news paper, founded by Lenin in 1900. The foundation of a militant organ of
revolutionary Marxism was the main task confronting Russian Social-Democrats at
the time.

Since the publication of a revolutionary newspaper in Russia
was impossible, owing to police persecution, Lenin, while still
in exile in Siberia, worked out all the details of a plan to publish the paper abroad. When his term of exile ended in January 1900, be
immediately began to put his plan into effect. In February, he conducted
negotiations with Vera Zasulich, who had come illegally to St. Petersburg
from abroad, on the participation of the Emancipation of Labour group in
the publication of an All-Russian Marxist newspaper. The so-called Pskov
Conference was held in April, with V. I. Lenin, L. Martov
(Y. 0. Tsederbaum), A. N. Potresov, S. I. Radchenko, and the “legal
Marxists” (P. B. Struve and M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky)
participating. The conference heard and discussed Lenin’s draft editorial
declaration on the programme and the aims of the All-Russian newspaper
( Iskra ) and the scientific and political magazine ( Zarya). Lenin visited a number of Russian
cities—St. Petersburg, Riga, Pskov, Nizhni Novgorod, Ufa, and
Samara—establishing contact with Social- Democratic groups and
individual Social-Democrats and obtaining their support for Iskra.
In August, when Lenin arrived in Switzerland, he and Potresov held a
conference with the Emancipation of Labour group on the programme and the
aims of the newspaper and the magazine, on possible contributors, on the
composition of Editorial Board, and on the problem of residence. For an
account of the founding of Iskra see the article “How the
’Spark’ was Nearly Extinguished” (see present edition, Vol. 4,
pp. 333-49).

The first issue of Lenin’s Iskra was published in Leipzig in December
1900; the ensuing issues were published in Munich; from July 1902 it was
published in London; and from the spring of 1903 in Geneva.

The Editorial Board consisted of V. I. Lenin, G. V. Plekhanov, L. Martov,
P. B. Axelrod, A. N. Potresov, and V. I. Zasulich. The first secretary of the
Editorial Board was I. G. Smidovich-Leman. From the spring of 1901 the post was
taken over by N. K. Krupskaya, who was also in charge of all correspondence
between Iskra and Russian Social-Democratic organisations. Lenin was
actually Editor-in-Chief and the leading figure in Iskra. He published
his articles on all important questions of Party organisation and the class
struggle of the proletariat in Russia and dealt with the most important events
in world affairs.

Iskra became, as Lenin had planned, a rallying centre for the Party
forces, a centre for the training of leading Party workers. In a number of
Russian cities (St. Petersburg, Moscow, Samara, and others) groups and
committees of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party
(P 1 .S.D.L.P.) were organised along Lenin’s Iskra line. Iskra organisations sprang up and worked under the direct
leadership of Lenin’s disciples and comrades-in-arms: =

N. E. Bauman, I. V. Babusbkin, S. I. Gusev, M. I. Kalinin, G. M. Krzhizhanovsky,
and others. The newspaper played a decisive role in the struggle for the Marxist
Party, in the defeat of the “Economists”, and in the unification of
the dispersed Social-Democratic study circles.

On the initiative and with the direct participation of Lenin, the Editorial
Board drew up a draft programme of the Party (published in Iskra , No. 21) and prepared the Second Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P., which was held in July and August 1903. By the time the Congress was
convened the majority of the local Social-Democratic organisations in Russia had
joined forces with Iskra , approved its programme, organisational plan,
and tactical line, and accepted it as their leading organ. By a special
resolution, which rioted the exceptional role played by Iskra in the
struggle to build the Party, the Congress adopted the news paper as the central
organ of the R.S.D.L.P. and approved an editorial board consisting of Lenin,
Plekhanov, and Martov. Despite the decision of the Congress, Martov refused to
participate, and Nos. 46 to 51 were edited by Lenin and Plekhanov. Later Plekhanov went over to the Menshevik position and demanded that, all the old
Menshevik editors, notwithstanding their rejection by the Congress, be placed on
the Editorial Board. Lenin could not agree to this, and on October 19 (November
1, new style), 1903, he left the Iskra Editorial Board to strengthen
his position in the Central Committee and from there to conduct a struggle
against the Menshevik opportunists. Issue No. 52 of Iskra was edited by
Plekhanov alone. On November 13 (26), 1903, Plekhanov, on his own initiative and
in violation of the will of the Congress, co-opted all the old Menshevik editors
on to the Editorial Board. Beginning with issue No. 52, the Mensheviks turned
Iskra into their own, opportunist, organ.

[7]
This passage refers to the mass revolutionary actions of students and
workers— political demonstrations, meetings, strikes—that took place
in February and March 1901, in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev, Kharkov, Kazan,
Yaroslavl, Warsaw, Belostok, Tomsk, Odessa, and other cities in Russia.

The student movement of 1900-01, which began with academic demands, acquired
the character of revolutionary action against the reactionary policy of the
autocracy; it was supported by the advanced workers and it met with a response
among all strata of Russian society. The direct cause of the demonstrations and
strikes in February and March 1901, was the drafting of 183 Kiev University
students into the army as a punitive act for their participation in a students’
meeting (see present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 414-19). The government launched a
furious attack on participants in the revolutionary actions; the police and the
Cossacks dispersed demonstrations and assaulted the participants; hundreds of
students were arrested and expelled from colleges and universities. On March 4
(17), 1901, the demonstration in the square in front of the Kazan Cathedral, in
St. Petersburg, was dispersed with particular brutality. The February-March
events were evidence of the revolutionary upsurge in Russia; the participation
of workers in the movement under political slogans was of tremendous
importance.

[8]
The reference is to Lenin’s work What Is To Be Done? Burning Questions of Our Movement (see present volume, pp. 347-529). p. 20