V. I.

Lenin

Below we publish in full, as received from one of our representatives, “A Letter to the Russian Social-Democratic Press .

“In response to the suggestion made by our comrades in exile that
we express our views on Iskra , we have resolved to state the
reasons for our disagreement with that organ.

“While recognising that the appearance of a special
Social-Democratic organ specially devoted to questions of the political
struggle is entirely opportune, we do not think that Iskra ,
which has under taken this task, has performed it satisfactorily. The
principal drawback of the paper, which runs like a scarlet thread
through its columns, and which is the cause of all its other defects,
large and small, is the exaggerated importance it attaches to the
influence which the ideologists of the movement exert upon its various
tendencies. At the same time, Iskra gives too little consideration to the material elements and the material environment of
the movement, whose interaction creates a definite type of labour
movement and determines its path, the path from which the ideologists,
despite all their efforts, are incapable of diverting it, even if they
are inspired by the finest theories and programmes.

“This defect becomes most marked when Iskra is compared with
Yuzhny Rabochy , [1] which, like Iskra , raises the banner of
political struggle but connects it with the preceding phase of the
South-Russian working-class movement. Such a presentation of the question
is alien to Iskra. It has set itself the task of fanning ’the
spark into a great conflagration’,[A play on the word Iskra ,
which means “ spark ”.—Tr.] but it forgets that necessary inflammable material and favourable
environmental conditions are required for such a task. In dissociating
itself completely from the ’Economists’, Iskra loses sight of the
fact that their activity prepared the ground for the workers’
participation in the February and March events, upon which Iskra
lays so much stress and, to all appearances, greatly exaggerates. While
criticising adversely the activity of the Social-Democrats of the late
nineties, Iskra ignores the fact that at that time the conditions
were

lacking for any work other than the struggle for minor demands, and
ignores also the enormous educational significance of that
struggle. Iskra is entirely wrong and unhistorical in its
appraisement of that period and of the direction of the activities of the
Russian Social Democrats at the time, in identifying their tactics with
those of

Zubatov, [2] in failing to differentiate between the ’struggle for minor demands’,
which widens and deepens the labour movement, and ’minor concessions’,
whose purpose was to paralyse every struggle and every movement.

“Thoroughly imbued with the sectarian intolerance so characteristic
of ideologists in the infantile period of social movements, Iskra
is ready to brand every disagreement with it, not only as a departure from
Social-Democratic principles, but as desertion to the camp of the
enemy. Of such a nature is its extremely indecent and most reprehensible
attack upon Rabochaya Mysl , contained in the article on Zubatov,
in which the latter’s success among a certain section of the working class
was attributed to that publication. Negatively disposed to the other
Social-Democratic organisations, which differ from it in their views on
the progress and the tasks of the Russian labour movement, Iskra ,
in the heat of controversy, at times forgets the truth and, picking on
isolated unfortunate expressions, attributes to its opponents views they
do not hold, emphasises points of disagreement that are frequently of
little material importance, and obstinately ignores the numerous points of
contact in views. We have in mind Iskra s attitude towards
Rabocheye Dyelo .

“ Iskra’s excessive predilection for controversy is due primarily
to its exaggerating the role of ’ideology’ (programmes, theories...) in
the movement, and is partly an echo of the internecine squabbles that have
flared up among Russian political exiles in Western Europe, of which they
have hastened to inform the world in a number of polemical pamphlets and
articles. In our opinion, these disagreements exercise almost no influence
upon the actual course of the Russian Social-Democratic movement, except
perhaps to damage it by bringing an undesirable schism into the midst of
the comrades working in Russia. For this reason, we cannot but express our
disapproval of Iskra’s fervent polemics, particularly when it
oversteps the bounds of decency.

“This basic drawback of Iskra is also the cause of its inconsistency on the question of the attitude of Social-Democracy to the
various social classes and tendencies. By theoretical reasoning,
Iskra solved the problem of the immediate transition to the
struggle against absolutism. In all probability it senses the difficulty
of such a task for the workers under the present state of affairs but
lacking the patience to wait until the workers will have gathered
sufficient forces for this struggle, Iskra begins to seek allies
in the ranks of the liberals and intellectuals. In this quest, it not
infrequently departs from the class point of view, obscures class
antagonisms, and puts into the forefront the common nature of the
discontent with the government, although the causes and the degree of the
discontent vary considerably among the ’allies Such, for example, is
Iskra’s attitude towards the Zemstvo. It tries to fan into flames
of political struggle the Zemstvo’s Frondian demonstrations, which are
frequently called forth by the fact that the government pays more attention to the protection of industry than to the agrarian
aspirations of the Zemstvo gentry,[Lenin’s reference is to the liberal landlords,
members of the Zemstvo Boards.— Tr .] and it promises the nobles that are dissatisfied with the governments sops
the assistance of the working class, but it does not say a word about the
class antagonism that exists between these social strata. It may be
conceded that it is admissible to say that the Zemstvo is being roused and
that it is an element fighting the government; but this must be stated so
clearly and distinctly that no doubt will be left as to the character of a
possible agreement with such elements. Iskra , however, approaches
the question of our attitude towards the Zemstvo in a way that to our mind
can only dim class-consciousness; for in this matter, like the advocates
of liberalism and of the various cultural endeavours Iskra goes
against the fundamental task of Social-Democratic literature, which is,
not to obscure class antagonism, but to criticise the bourgeois system and
explain the class interests that divide it. Such, too, is Iskra’s
attitude towards the student movement. And yet in other articles
Iskra sharply condemns all ’compromise’ and defends, for
instance, the intolerant conduct of the Guesdists.

“We shall refrain from dwelling upon Iskra’s minor defects
and blunders, but in conclusion we think it our duty to observe that we do
not in the least desire by our criticism to belittle the significance
which Iskra can acquire, nor do we close our eyes to its
merits. We welcome it as a political, Social-Democratic newspaper in
Russia. We regard one of its greatest merits to be its able explanation of
the question of terror to which it devoted a number of timely
articles. Finally, we can not refrain from noting the exemplary, literary
style in which Iskra is written, a thing so rare in illegal
publications, its regular appearance, and the abundance of fresh and
interesting material which it publishes.

“ A group of comrades ”

September 1901."

In the first place, we should like to say that we cordially welcome the
straightforwardness and frankness of the authors of this letter. It is
high time to stop playing at hide-and-seek, concealing one’s Economist
“credo” (as is done by a section of the Odessa
Committee from which the “politicians” broke away), or declaring, as if in mockery of the truth, that at the present time
“not a single Social-Democratic organisation is guilty of the sin of
Economism” ( Two Conferences , p. 32, published by
Rabocheye Dyelo). And now to the matter.

The authors of the letter fall into the very same fundamental error as
that made by Rabocheye Dyelo (see particularly issue
No. 10). They are muddled over the question of the relations between the “material” (spontaneous, as
Rabocheye Dyelo puts it) elements of the movement and the
ideological (conscious, operating “according to plan”). They fail to
understand that the “ideologist” is worthy of the name only
when he precedes the spontaneous movement, points out the road,
and is able ahead of all others to solve all the theoretical, political,
tactical, and organisational questions which the “material
elements” of the movement spontaneously encounter. In order truly to
give “consideration to the material elements of the movement”,
one must view them critically, one must be able to point out the dangers
and defects of spontaneity and to elevate it to the level of
consciousness, To say, however, that ideologists (i.e., politically
conscious leaders) cannot divert the movement from the path determined by
the interaction of environment and elements is to ignore the simple truth
that the conscious element participates in this interaction and
in the determination of the path. Catholic and monarchist labour unions in
Europe are also an inevitable result of the interaction of environment and
elements, but it was the consciousness of priests and Zubatovs and not
that of socialists that participated in this interaction. The theoretical
views of the authors of this letter (like those of Rabocheye Dyelo ) do not represent Marxism, but that parody of it which is
nursed by our “Critics” and Bernsteinians who are unable to
connect spontaneous evolution with conscious revolutionary activity.

In the prevailing circumstances of today this profound theoretical error
inevitably leads to a great tactical error, which has brought incalculable
damage to Russian Social- Democracy. It is a fact that the spontaneous
awakening of the masses of the workers and (due to their influence) of
other social strata has been taking place with astonishing rapidity during
the past few years. The “material elements” of the movement
have grown enormously even as compared with 1898, but the conscious leaders (the Social-Democrats) lag behind this growth. This
is the main cause of the crisis which Russian Social-Democracy is now
experiencing. The mass (spontaneous) movement lacks “ideologists” sufficiently trained theoretically to be proof
against all vacillations; it lacks leaders with such a broad political
outlook, such revolutionary energy, and such organisational talent as to create a
militant political party on the basis of the new movement.

All this in itself would, however, be but half the evil. Theoretical
knowledge, political experience, and organising ability are things that
can be acquired. If only the desire exists to study and acquire these
qualities. But since the end of 1897, particularly since the autumn of
1898, there have come forward in the Russian Social-Democratic movement
individuals and periodicals that not only close their eyes to this
drawback, but that have declared it to be a special virtue, that have
elevated the worship of, and servility towards, spontaneity to the dignity
of a theory and are preaching that Social-Democrats must not march ahead
of the movement, but should drag along at the tail-end. (These
periodicals include not only Rabochaya Mysl , but Rabocheye Dyelo , which began with the “stages theory” and ended
with the defence, as a matter of principle, of spontaneity, of the
“full rights of the movement of the moment”, of “tactics-as process”, etc.)

This was, indeed, a sad situation. It meant the emergence of a
separate trend , which is usually designated as Economism (in
the broad sense of the word), the principal feature of which is its
incomprehension, even defence, of lagging , i.e., as we have
explained, the lagging of the conscious leaders behind the spontaneous
awakening of the masses. The characteristic features of this trend
express themselves in the following: with respect to principles, in a
vulgarisation of Marxism and in helplessness in the face of modern
“criticism”, that up-to-date species of opportunism; with
respect to politics, in the striving to restrict political agitation and
political struggle or to reduce them to petty activities, in the failure
to understand that unless Social-Democrats take the leadership of the
general democratic movement in their own hands, they will never
be able to overthrow the autocracy; with respect to tactics, in utter
instability (last spring Rabocheye Dyelo stood in amazement
before the “new” question of terror, and only six months
later, after considerable wavering and, as always, dragging along at the
tail end of the movement, did it express itself against terror, in a
very ambiguous resolution); and with respect to organisation, in the failure to understand that the mass character of the
movement does not diminish, but increases, our obligation to establish a
strong and centralised organisation of revolutionaries capable of leading
the preparatory struggle, every unexpected outbreak, and, finally, the
decisive assault.

Against this trend we have conducted and will continue to conduct an
irreconcilable struggle. The authors of the letter apparently belong to
this trend. They tell us that the economic struggle prepared the ground
for the workers’ participation in the demonstrations. True enough; but we
appreciated sooner and more profoundly than all others the importance of
this preparation, when, as early as December 1900, in our first issue, we
opposed the stages theory,[See present edition, Vol. 4,
pp. 366-71.— Ed .] and when, in February, in our second issue, immediately after the drafting
of the students into the army, and prior to the demonstrations, we called
upon the workers to come to the aid of the students.[ Ibid. ,
pp. 414-19.— Ed .]

The February and March events did not “refute the fears and alarms
of Iskra” (as Martynov, who thereby displays his utter failure to understand the question, thinks—Rabocheye Dyelo ,
No. 10, p. 53), but wholly confirmed them, for the leaders lagged behind the spontaneous rise of the masses and proved to be unprepared
for the fulfilment of their duties as leaders. Even at the present time
the preparations are far from adequate, and for that reason all talk about
“exaggerating the role of ideology or the role of the conscious
element as compared with the spontaneous element, etc., continues to
exercise a most baneful influence upon our Party.

No less harmful is the influence exerted by the talk, allegedly in defence
of the class point of view, about the need to lay less stress on the
general character of discontent manifested by the various strata of the
population against the government. On the contrary, we are proud of the
fact that Iskra rouses political discontent among all strata of
the population, and the only thing we regret is that we are unable to do
this on a much wider scale. It is not true to say that in doing so, we
obscure the class point of view; the authors of the letter have not pointed to a single concrete instance in evidence of this, nor
can they do so. Social-Democracy, as the van guard in the struggle for
democracy, must (notwithstanding the opinion expressed in Rabocheye Dyelo , No. 10, p. 41) lead the activities of the various oppositional
strata, explain to them the general political significance of their
partial and professional conflicts with the government, rally them to the
support of the revolutionary party, and train from its own ranks leaders
capable of exercising political influence upon all oppositional
strata. Any renunciation of this function, however florid the phrases
about close, organic contact with the proletarian struggle, etc., with
which it may deck it self, is tantamount to a fresh “defence of
lagging”, the defence of lagging behind the nation-wide democratic
movement on the part of Social-Democrats; it is tantamount to a surrender
of the leadership to bourgeois democracy. Let the authors of the letter
ponder over the question as to why the events of last spring served so
strongly to stimulate non-Social-Democratic revolutionary tendencies,
instead of raising the authority and prestige of Social-Democracy.

Nor can we refrain from protesting against the astonishing
short-sightedness displayed by the authors of the letter in regard to the
controversies and internecine squabbles among the political exiles. They
repeat the stale nonsense about the “indecency” of devoting to
Rabochaya Mysl an article on Zubatov. Do they wish to deny that
the spreading of Economism facilitates the tasks of the Zubatovs? In
asserting this, however, we do not in the slightest “identify”
the tactics of the Economists with those of Zubatov. As for the
“political exiles” (if the authors of the letter were not so
unpardonably careless concerning the continuity of ideas in the Russian
Social-Democratic movement, they would have known that the warning about
Economism sound ed by the “political exiles”, to be precise,
by the Emancipation of Labour group, has been strikingly confirmed!), note
the manner in which Lassalle, who was active among the Rhine workers in
1852, judged the controversies of the exiles in London. Writing to Marx,
he said:

“...The publication of your work against the ’big men’, Kinkel, Ruge,
etc., should hardly meet with any difficulties on the part of the
police.... For, in my opinion, the government is not averse to the publication of such works, because it thinks
that ’the revolutionaries will cut one another’s throats’. Their
bureaucratic logic neither suspects nor fears the fact that it is
precisely internal Party struggles that lend a party strength and
vitality; that the greatest proof of a party’s weakness is its diffuseness
and the blurring of clear demarcations; and that a party becomes stronger
by purging itself” (letter from Lassalle to Marx, June 24, 1852).

Let the numerous complacent opponents of severity, irreconcilability, and
fervent polemics, etc., take note!

In conclusion, we shall observe that in these remarks we have been able to
deal only briefly with the questions in dispute. We intend to devote a
special pamphlet to the analysis of these questions, which we hope will
appear in the course of six weeks.

---
Notes:
[1]
Yuzhny Rabochy ( Southern Worker )—a
Social-Democratic newspaper published illegally by a group of the same
name from January 1900 to April 1903; altogether 12 issues appeared. The
newspaper circulated chiefly among Social-Democratic organisations in the
south of Russia.

Lenin said of the Yuzhny Rabochy group that it was one of those
organisations “which in words accepted Iskra as the guiding
organ but in deeds followed their own particular plans and were
distinguished for their instability on questions of principle”. The
group existed until the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. Subsequently the
majority of the leading members of the group became Mensheviks.

[2]
Zubatov —Colonel of the Gendarmes, tried to introduce “police socialism”. He set up fake workers’ organisations
under the protection of the gendarmerie and the police in an effort to
divert the workers from the revolutionary movement.