V. I.

Lenin

A Letter to the Northern League [2]

COMMENTS on the PROGRAMME of the NORTHERN LEAGUE

Firstof all, it is necessary to note the principal defect of the
“programme” in respect of form , namely, that it lumps together the fundamental principles of scientific socialism with the
narrow, concrete tasks, not only of a particular moment, but even of a
particular locality. This defect becomes at once apparent even from a
glance at the contents of the fifteen paragraphs of the programme. Let us
do that.

§ 1—aimof the working-class movement in general.

§ 2—theprincipal condition for achieving this aim.

§ 3—immediatepolitical task of Russian Social-Democracy.

§ 4—attitudeof Russian Social-Democracy to the liberals, etc.

§ 5—ditto.

§ 6—theconcepts of “class” and “party” (a particular difference of opinion with the “economists”).

§ 7—practicaltasks of agitation.

§ 8—significanceof propaganda.

§ 9—demonstrationsand manifestations.

§ 10—May Day celebrations.

§ 11—leafletsand demonstrations on
February 19. [3]

§ 12—economicstruggle and social reforms.

§ 13—thenecessity of an offensive as well as of a defensive
struggle of the working class.

§ 14—active,not merely passive, role in strikes.

§ 15—strikesas the best means of struggle.

Itwill easily be seen that these paragraphs, which deal with such varied
matters, should have been divided up into separate sections (otherwise it may give rise to considerable
misunderstandings among people unable to distinguish between fundamental
principles and the practical tasks of the moment). It is not only inept
but even utterly incorrect and ambiguous to place side by side a statement
of the ultimate aim of socialism and a discussion with the “economists,”
or a definition of the importance of strikes. What the Northern League
should have done was first to make a clear statement of principle with
regard to its convictions in, general, then to define the political tasks
of the Party as the Northern League understands them, and, thirdly, to
separate from these strictly programmatic theses the resolutions ,
of the organisation (the Northern League) on the problems of the practical
movement (§§ 7-11 and 13- 15). A separate point should have been
made of

§ 6,

which defines the attitude of the Northern League to the differences of
opinion among Russian Social-Democrats, while

§ 12

should have been included in the statement of principle (since the
relation of the current struggle for petty improvements and reforms to the
struggle for the ultimate aim is a general and not a specifically Russian
question).

Afterthis general remark, I shall now proceed to analyse the individual
paragraphs:

§ 1outlines the general aims of Social-Democracy as a whole. These
aims are stated extremely briefly and disjointedly. True, the programme of
a local organisation ought not to go into details, which are
indispensable for the programme of a party. Fully realising this
and considering that it was a very useful and important decision on the
part of the Northern League not to keep silent about the fundamental
principles of Social-Democracy even in a programme of a local
organisation, I would in that case deem it necessary only to add a
statement outlining the fundamental principles in greater detail. In other
words, it should have been indicated, for instance, that the Northern
League bases itself on international scientific socialism (the
international character of the movement is not indicated anywhere in the
programme), and subscribes to the theory of “revolutionary Marxism.”
In addition to this general statement of its principles, it would
be possible to add a proposition like § 1, but by itself it (§
1) is not sufficient.

Asan organisation affiliated to the Russian Social-Democratic Labour
Party, the Northern League should have declared its solidarity with the
“Manifesto” ’of this Party; moreover, it would have been also
useful to point to the solidarity of the Northern League at least with the
draft programme of the Russian Social-Democrats prepared in the eighties
by the Emancipation of Labour group. Such a statement, while leaving open
the question of the modifications this draft requires, would more
accurately define the Northern League’s stand in matters of
principle. Here is the alternative: either you must yourselves
draw up a complete account of all the fundamental principles of
Social-Democracy (i.e., draw up the theoretical section of the
Social-Democratic programme yourselves), or you must declare
quite definitely that the Northern League subscribes to more or
less well-known and established principles. The third way, the one chosen
by the programme—to indicate the ultimate aim in an utterly
disjointed manner—will not do.

§ 2begins with an extremely inaccurate, ambiguous, and dangerous
statement: “considering socialism to be the class interest of the
proletariat.” These words identify, as it were, socialism with the
“class interest of the proletariat.” And this identification is
absolutely incorrect . Precisely at the present time, when an
exceedingly narrow conception of the “class interests of
the proletariat” has become extremely widespread, it is quite
impermissible to present a formulation which, if it can be somehow
acceptable, will be accepted only if the expression “class
interest” is understood in an extremely broad sence. “Class interest” impels the proletarians to unite, to
fight against the capitalists, to think about the prerequisites of their
emancipation. “Class interest” makes them receptive to socialism. But socialism, as the ideology of the class struggle of the
proletariat, is subject to the general conditions governing the inception,
development, and consolidation of an ideology; in other words, it is
founded on the sum total of human knowledge, presupposes a high level of
scientific development, demands scientific work,.. etc., etc. Socialism is
introduced by the ideologists into the proletarian class
struggle, which develops spontaneously on the basis of capitalist
relationships. The formulation of § 2, however, throws an altogether false light on the real relation of
socialism to the class struggle. Moreover, § 2 does not speak of the
class struggle. That is its second defect.

§ 3defines absolutism inadequately (for example, it does not point
to its connection with remnants of the serf-owning system), in places
bombastically (“boundless”) and vaguely (“ignoring” the
individual). Further, the conquest of political liberty (it
should have been noted that the Northern League sets this task to the
whole Party ) is essential, not only for the full development of the workers’ class struggle; in one way or another it
should have been pointed out that it is also essential in the interests of
all social development.

“Theautocracy represents the interests of the ruling classes
exclusively.” This is inaccurate, or wrong. The autocracy satisfies
certain interests of the ruling classes, maintaining itself
partly by the inertness of the mass of the peasantry and the small
producers in general, partly by balancing between conflicting interests,
and constituting, to a certain extent, an independent organised political
force. The wording of § 3 is especially impermissible in view of the
fact that the absurd identification of the Russian autocracy with the rule
of the bourgeoisie is extremely widespread in our country.

“Incompatiblewith the principle of democracy.” What is the point of
this when nothing has as yet been said about democracy? And does not the
demand for the overthrow of the autocracy and the winning of political
liberty express precisely the “principle” of democracy? This
phrase will not do. Instead it should have been pointed out more precisely
how consistent and determined we are (in comparison with the
bourgeois democrats) in our understanding of the “principle of
democracy”—for example, by describing in one way or another the idea
and content of a “democratic constitution” or proclaiming our demand for a democratic republic as a matter of
“principle.”

§ 4is especially unsatisfactory. Instead of speaking about the
“full” utilisation of “broad” liberty (as a matter of fact, this is just vague phrase-mongering, which could very well be
replaced, and should be, by definite reference to a democratic republic
and a democratic constitution, for “full” utilisation means consistent democracy)—
instead of this, it was imperative to state that it is not only the working class that is interested in political
liberty. Silence on this score is tantamount to opening the door wide to
the worst forms of “economism,” and to forgetting our general
democratic tasks.

Itis absolutely wrong to say that the realisation (??
attainment, conquest) of political liberty is “just as”
necessary to the proletariat as higher wages and a shorter working
day. This is just what it is not , for this is a necessity of a different and farmorecomplex order than the necessity for wage increases, etc. The difference between
the two “necessities” may also be clearly seen from the fact,
for instance, that the autocracy is prepared to grant ( and actually does occasionally grant ) improved conditions to individual sections
or groups of the working class if only these sections will make
their peace with absolutism. The sentence under analysis is absolutely
impermissible, reflecting as it does an incredible vulgarisation of
“economic” materialism, and debasement of Social-Democratic
understanding to the level of sheer trade-unionism.

Further.“In view of this”... should be deleted in view of what has been stated above . . . “in the impending
struggle” (i.e., evidently the struggle against tsarism?)
.. ."the Social-Democrats should come forward with a definite class
programme and demands....” The class nature of our political programme and political demands is expressed
precisely in the fact that they stand for complete and consistent
democracy. If, however, one speaks about our entire programme in general,
and not only about political demands, then its class nature should follow
of itself from the very content of our programme. There is no point in
speaking of a “definite” class programme; you yourselves must define , expound, express and formulate this class
programme explicitly and with precision.

“...Withoutsubordination to the liberal programme.... This is simply
ludicrous. We come forward as the fore most democratic party, and suddenly
make the reservation that we do “not subordinate”!! Like children
who have just been freed from “subordination”!

Our“insubordination” to the liberals should be expressed, not
in phrases about insubordination, but in the whole nature of our programme
( and, of course, of our activity). It is precisely that
conception of political tasks which identifies (or at least equates) the
necessity for liberty with the necessity for wage increases, that expresses subordination of Social-Democracy to the liberals .

Theend of § 4 will not do either; it is criticised in all that has
been said above.

§ 5reduces our general attitude towards all democracy in general to
mere collaboration with other parties in practical matters. That is too
narrow. If such parties exist, they should have been named concretely (not
in the programme, but in a special resolution of the congress), and the
attitude towards the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Svoboda
group,etc., should have been explicitly defined. If, however, it is a
question, not of definite parties, but of the attitude towards other
revolutionary ( and opposition ) trends in general, then the
wording should have been expanded, in one way or another repeating the
thesis of the Communist Manifesto about our support of every
revolutionary movement against the existing system. [4]

§ 6is out of place in the programme. It should have been transferred
to a separate resolution and should have stated openly that it
deals with the differences of opinion (or two trends) within the Russian
Social-Democratic movement. This is more than “numerous
misunderstandings.” The formulation of the differences of opinion is too
narrow, for they are far from being limited to the confusion of
class with party. There should have been a corresponding statement coming
out resolutely and definitely against the “critics of Marxism,”
“economism,” and limitation of our political tasks.

Asto the second part of § 6, since it is elucidated in other paragraphs (7, 14, and others), a criticism of it is given in the
comments on these paragraphs.

§ 7,like all that follows (with the exception of § 12), should
go into a separate resolution, but should not be a direct part of the
programme .

§ 7formulates the “task” of the League’s activity in a limited way. We must not only “develop the class-consciousness of
the proletariat”, but also organise the latter into a political party—and then direct its struggle (both
economic and political).

Thestatement that the proletariat finds itself in “definite,
concrete conditions” is superfluous. It should either be omitted or
these conditions should be defined (but this should be done
elsewhere in the programme).

Itis wrong to say that agitation is the “only” means of
achieving our tasks. It is far from being the only means.

Itis inadequate to define agitation as “influence over broad
sections of the workers.” The nature of this influence should be
indicated. It is necessary to speak about political agitation
more directly, resolutely, definitely and in greater detail: otherwise, by
keeping silent about political agitation as such and devoting two whole
para graphs (14 and 15) to economic agitation, the programme strays
(unintentionally) into “economism.” Special emphasis should have
been placed on the necessity for agitation about all manifestations of political and economic, social and national oppression,
irrespective of the class or section of the population affected by that oppression—the necessity (for Social-Democrats) to be in
the forefront in all clashes with the government, and so on—and only
then should the means of agitation (oral agitation, newspapers, leaflets,
manifestations, etc., etc.) have been indicated.

§ 8begins with superfluous repetition.

“Recognisespropaganda only to the extent,” etc. This is
incorrect. Propaganda does not only have this significance; it is not only
a means of “training agitators,” but also a means of spreading
class-consciousness in general. The programme goes to the other
extreme. If it was necessary to come out against propaganda which some
people divorce too much from the tasks of agitation, it would have been
better to say: “in propaganda it is particularly necessary
not to lose sight of the task of training agitators,” or some thing to
that effect. But all propaganda should not be reduced to the
training of “experienced and capable agitators,” and the
“training of only individual class-conscious workers” should
not be simply “rejected.” We consider this inadequate, but we do not
“reject” it. And the latter part of § 8 (from: “our attitude being one of rejection”) should therefore be deleted altogether.

§ 9.I fully agree with this paragraph in essence. Perhaps “in
connection with the most varied events in public life and
government measures...” should have been added.

Insteadof “the best means,” it would be more accurate to say:
“one of the best means.”

Onlythe end of this paragraph is unsatisfactory. Demonstrations and
manifestations unite, and should unite, not only the workers
(moreover, to say “unites” through manifestations is insufficient, since we also want to unite organisationally, directly and
for all time, and not only for one particular occasion). "...Thereby developing in them....” This is
either inaccurate—class-consciousness cannot be developed by
manifestations alone—or superfluous (it has already been
said that it is one of the best means).

Itwould be useful to add something about the need to organise
manifestations, about their preparation, conduct, etc.

Ingeneral, the absence in the programme of any reference to the necessity
of devoting great attention to the matter of revolutionary organisation , in particular to setting up an all-Russian, militant
organisation, is a great deficiency. Once reference is made to
agitation, propaganda, strikes, and the like, it is quite inexcusable to
say nothing about revolutionary organisation .

§ 10.It should have been added that in our country May Day must also
become a demonstration against the autocracy , a demand for
political liberty. Pointing to the international significance of the
holiday is not enough. It must also be linked up with the struggle for the
most vital national political demands.

§ 11.A very good idea, but expressed too restrictedly. Perhaps the
words “among other things” should have been inserted, since
demonstrations should be organised on the anniversary of the Commune as
well, and on many other occasions; or “in particular” should
have been inserted or else the impression may be created that
demonstrations on other occasions are not necessary.

Further.It is wrong to appeal on February 19 (in leaflets) only
to the workers. Apart from the fact that in general we always appeal to
the entire people and even to the whole world in our demonstrations and in
the leaflets issued in connection with them, on February 19 in particular appeals should be
addressed also to the peasantry . And if we are to appeal to the
peasantry, that means we must draw up a Social-Democratic policy on the
agrarian question. The programme does not touch on this question, and we
quite understand that a local organisation may perhaps lack the time or
the forces to deal with this. Nevertheless, it should certainly have at
least been mentioned, in one way or another, in connection with one
attempt or another to tackle it in Social-Democratic literature and in the
practical activities of our movement. [1]

Theend of § 11 will not do (“only class force”—which class? The working class alone?). Should have been
deleted.

§ 12.We neither can nor will help “in every way” to improve
the conditions of the workers under the present circumstances. For instance, we
cannot help in the

Zubatov [5] fashion, and even if Zubatov corruption is involved we shall not do
that. We fight only for such improvement of the workers’ conditions as
will raise their capacity to wage the class struggle, i.e., when
the improvement of conditions is not bound up with corruption of
political consciousness, with police tutelage, with being tied down to a
given locality, with subjugation to a “benefactor,” with a lowering
of human dignity. etc., etc. Precisely in Russia, where the autocracy is
so much inclined (and is becoming more and more inclined) to
buy itself off from revolution with various hand-outs and sham
reforms, it is our duty to draw a clear line of demarcation between
ourselves and all sorts of “reformers.” We also fight for reforms,
but by no means “in every way”; we fight for reforms only in Social-Democratic fashion, only in a revolutionary way.

§ 13is omitted by decision of the congress. And it should have been
omitted.

§ 14formulates the content and the tasks of economic agitation in
too narrow a way. The latter is not confined to strikes alone. We need
“better conditions,” not only for the cultural development of the
proletariat, but particularly for its revolutionary development. The
“active

role” of Social-Democrats in strikes does not end with encouraging
the struggle for improvements in economic conditions. Strikes
(like economic agitation in general) should always be used to
encourage the revolutionary struggle for freedom and for
socialism as well. Strikes should be used for political agitation
also.

§ 15is also most unsatisfactory. Strikes are not the “best” means of struggle, but only one of the means,
and not always necessarily one of the best means. We must recognise the
importance of strikes, make use of them and lead them at all
times—but it would be all the more dangerous to exaggerate their
importance, the more this has been done by the “economists.”

Whatis said further about strikes is redundant: it has already been
stated in § 14. A reference to leadership of the economic struggle in
general would have been sufficient. This leadership may sometimes consist
in deterring from strike action. The programme expresses itself in too
absolute a fashion, and for this very reason too restrictedly. The
programme should have spoken about the task in general, that of leading
the economic struggle of the proletariat, of making it more organised and
conscious, of organising workers’ trade unions and endeavouring to develop
them into all-Russian organisations, of utilising every strike, every
manifestation of economic oppression, etc., for the most widespread
socialist and revolutionary propaganda and agitation.

Theend of § 15 limits the tasks of this agitation, making
the use of political agitation depend, as it were, on action by the
police, etc. Actually, however, we must try to use political agitation
(and this is quite possible if the leaders are at all capable)
before action by these “archangels,” and irrespective of that action. It should have been formulated more
generally: “to take advantage of all and every opportunity for
political agitation,” etc.

Theend of § 15 is also incorrect. It is the less fitting for us to
speak of “general strikes,” the less opportunity we in Russia have
of preparing them. And, in general, there is no reason for
speaking specially about “general” strikes in programmes (remember the absurd “general strike” in the
pamphlet, Who Will Carry Out the Political Revolution? [6]
After all, such misunderstandings are also possible). To declare that strikes are “the best means of developing
class-consciousness” is also absolutely incorrect.

Asa whole, a serious revision of the programme would be highly
desirable. In general it would also be desirable for the Northern League
to take an active part both in the unification of revolutionary
Social-Democracy in a party and in the preparation of the Party
programme. For their part, the editors of Zarya and
Iskra hope soon to acquaint the Northern League with their draft
(most of which is already completed), and trust that the Northern League
will co-operate in amending and circulating this draft and in preparing it
for adoption by the entire Party.