What Is To Be Done?

BURNING QUESTIONS of our MOVEMENT

II

The Spontaneity of the Masses and the
Consciousness of the Social-Democrats

We have said that our movement, much more extensive and deep
than the movement of the seventies, must be inspired with the
same devoted determination and energy that inspired the movement
at that time. Indeed, no one, we think, has until now doubted
that the strength of the present-day movement lies in the
awakening of the masses (principally, the industrial proletariat) and that its weakness lies in the lack of
consciousness and initiative among the revolutionary leaders.

However, of late a staggering discovery has been made, which
threatens to disestablish all hitherto prevailing views on this
question. This discovery was made by Rabocheye Dyelo , which in its polemic with Iskra and Zarya did
not confine itself to making objections on separate points, but
tried to ascribe “general disagreements” to a more profound
cause — to the “different appraisals of the relative importance of the spontaneous and consciously ‘methodical’
element”.

Rabocheye Dyelo formulated its indictment as a “ belittling of the significance of the objective or the spontaneous element of development ”. [1]
To this we say: Had the polemics with Iskra and Zarya resulted in
nothing more than causing Rabocheye Dyelo to hit upon these “general disagreements”, that alone would give us
considerable satisfaction, so significant is this thesis and so
clear is the light it sheds on the quintessence of the present-day theoretical and political differences that exist
among Russian Social-Democrats.

For this reason the question of the relation between consciousness and spontaneity is of such enormous general
interest, and for this reason the question must be dealt with in
great detail.

A. The Beginning of the Spontaneous Upsurge

In the previous chapter we pointed out how universally absorbed the educated youth of Russia was in the theories
of Marxism in the middle of the nineties. In the same period the
strikes that followed the famous St. Petersburg industrial war
of 1896 assumed a similar general character. Their spread over
the whole of Russia clearly showed the depth of the newly
awakening popular movement, and if we are to speak of the
“spontaneous element” then, of course, it is this strike
movement which, first and foremost, must be regarded as
spontaneous. But there is spontaneity and spontaneity. Strikes
occurred in Russia in the seventies and sixties (and even in the
first half of the nineteenth century), and they were accompanied
by the “spontaneous” destruction of machinery, etc. Compared
with these “revolts”, the strikes of the nineties might even be
described as “conscious”, to such an extent do they mark the
progress which the working-class movement made in that period. This shows that the “spontaneous element”, in essence,
represents nothing more nor less than. consciousness in an
embryonic form . Even the primitive revolts expressed the awakening of consciousness to a certain extent. The workers
were losing their age-long faith in the permanence of the system
which oppressed them and began... I shall not say to understand,
but to sense the necessity for collective resistance, definitely
abandoning their slavish submission to the authorities. But this
was, nevertheless, more in the nature of outbursts of desperation and vengeance than of struggle . The strikes
of the nineties revealed far greater flashes of consciousness;
definite demands were advanced, the strike was carefully timed,
known cases and instances in other places were discussed,
etc. The revolts were simply the resistance of the oppressed,
whereas the systematic strikes represented the class struggle in
embryo, but only in embryo. Taken by themselves, these strikes
were simply trade union struggles, not yet Social Democratic
struggles. They marked the awakening antagonisms between workers
and employers; but the workers, were not, and could not be,
conscious of the irreconcilable antagonism of their interests to
the whole of the modern political and social system, i.e.,
theirs was not yet Social-Democratic consciousness. In this
sense, the strikes of the nineties, despite the enormous
progress they represented as compared with the “revolts”,
remained a purely spontaneous movement.

We have said that there could not have been
Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have
to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries
shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is
able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the
conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the
employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary
labour legislation, etc. [2] The theory of socialism, however,
grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories
elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied
classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders
of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves
belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way,
in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose
altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the
working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable
outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary
socialist intelligentsia. In the period under discussion, the
middle nineties, this doctrine not only represented the
completely formulated programme of the Emancipation of Labour
group, but had already won over to its side the majority of the
revolutionary youth in Russia.

Hence, we had both the spontaneous awakening of the working
masses, their awakening to conscious life and conscious
struggle, and a revolutionary youth, armed with
Social-Democratic theory and straining towards the workers. In
this connection it is particularly important to state the
oft-forgotten (and comparatively little-known) fact that,
although the early Social-Democrats of that period zealously carried on economic agitation (being guided
in this activity by the truly useful indications contained in
the pamphlet On Agitation , [27] then still in manuscript),
they did not regard this as their sole task. On the contrary,
from the very beginning they set for Russian
Social-Democracy the most far-reaching historical tasks, in
general, and the task of overthrowing the autocracy, in
particular. Thus, towards the end of 1895, the St. Petersburg
group of Social-Democrats, which founded the League of Struggle
for the Emancipation of the Working Class, prepared the first
issue of a newspaper called Rabocheye Dyelo . This issue
was ready to go to press when it was seized by the gendarmes, on
the night of December 8, 1895, in a raid on the house of one of
the members of the group, Anatoly Alexeyevich Vaneyey, [3] so that
the first edition of Rabocheye Dyelo was not destined to see the light of day. The leading article in this issue
(which perhaps thirty years hence some Russkaya Starina [28] will unearth
in the archives of the Department of Police)
outlined the historical tasks of the working class in Russia and
placed the achievement of political liberty at their head. The
issue also contained an article entitled “What Are Our Ministers
Thinking About?” [4] which dealt with the crushing of the elementary education committees by the police. In addition,
there was some correspondence from St. Petersburg, and from
other parts of Russia (e.g., a letter on the massacre of the
workers in Yaroslavl Gubernia). This, “first effort”, if we are
not mistaken, of the Russian Social-Democrats of the nineties
was not a purely local, or less still, “Economic”, newspaper,
but one that aimed to unite the strike movement with the
revolutionary movement against the autocracy, and to win over to
the side of Social-Democracy all who were oppressed by the
policy of reactionary obscurantism. No one in the slightest
degree acquainted with the state of the movement at that period
could doubt that such a paper would have met with warm response
among the workers of the capital and the revolutionary intelligentsia and would have had a wide circulation. The
failure of the enterprise merely showed that the
Social-Democrats of that period were unable to meet the
immediate requirements of the time owing to their lack of
revolutionary experience and practical training. This must be
said, too, with regard to the S. Peterburgsky Rabochy Listok [29] and
particularly with regard to Rabochaya Gazeta and the Manifesto of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour
Party, founded in the spring of 1898. Of course, we would not
dream of blaming the Social Democrats of that time for this
unpreparedness. But in order to profit from the experience of
that movement, and to draw practical lessons from it, we must
thoroughly understand the causes and significance of this or
that shortcoming. It is therefore highly important to establish
the fact that a part (perhaps even a majority) of the
Social-Democrats, active in the period of 1895-98, justly
considered it possible even then, at the very beginning of the
“spontaneous” movement, to come forward with a most extensive
programme and a militant tactical line. [5] Lack of training of
the majority of the revolutionaries, an entirely natural
phenomenon, could not have roused any particular fears. Once the
tasks were correctly defined, once the energy existed for
repeated attempts to fulfil them, temporary failures represented
only part misfortune. Revolutionary experience and organisational skill are things that can be acquired, provided
the desire is there to acquire them, provided the shortcomings
are recognised, which in revolutionary activity is more than
half-way towards their removal.

But what was only part misfortune became full misfortune when
this consciousness began to grow dim (it was very much alive
among the members of the groups mentioned), when there appeared
people—and even Social -Democratic organs—that were prepared to regard shortcomings as virtues, that even tried to
invent a theoretical basis for their slavish cringing before spontaneity . It is time to draw conclusions
from this trend, the content of which is incorrectly and too
narrowly characterised as Economism.

B. Bowing to Spontaneity. Rabochaya Mysl

Before dealing with the literary manifestation of this subservience to spontaneity, we should like to note the
following characteristic fact (communicated to us from the
above-mentioned source), which throws light on the conditions in
which the two future conflicting trends in Russian
Social-Democracy arose and grew among the comrades working in
St. Petersburg. In the beginning of 1897, just prior to their
banishment, A. A. Vaneyev and several of his comrades attended a
private meeting [30] at which “old” and “young” members of the League
of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class gathered. The conversation centred chiefly about the question of
organisation, particularly about the “rules for the workers’
mutual benefit fund”, which, in their final form, were published in “Listok” Rabotnika , [31] No. 9-10, p. 46. Sharp
differences immediately showed themselves between the “old”
members (“Decembrists”, as the St. Petersburg Social Democrats
jestingly called them) and several the “young” members (who
subsequently took an active part in the work of Rabochaya Mysl ), with a heated discussion ensuing. The “young”
members defended the main principles of the rules in the form in
which they were published. The “old” members contended that the
prime necessity was not this, but the consolidation of the
League of Struggle into an organisation of revolutionaries to
which all the various workers’ mutual benefit funds, students’
propaganda circles, etc., should be subordinated. It goes
without saying that the disputing sides far from realised at the
time that these disagreements were the beginning of a cleavage;
on the contrary, they regarded them as something isolated and
casual. But this fact shows that in Russia, too, Economism did
not arise and spread without a struggle against the “old”
Social-Democrats (which the Economists of today are apt to
forget). And if, in the main, this struggle has not left
“documentary” traces behind it, it is solely because the membership of the circles then functioning underwent such
constant change that no continuity was established and,
consequently, differences in point of view were not recorded in
any documents.

The founding of Rabochaya Mysl brought Economism to the
light of day, but not at one stroke. We must picture to
ourselves concretely the conditions for activity and the
short-lived character of the majority of the Russian study
circles (a thing that is possible only for those who have
themselves experienced it) in order to understand how much there
was of the fortuitous in the successes and failures of the new
trend in various towns, and the length of time during which
neither the advocates nor the opponents of the “new” could make
up their minds — and literally had no opportunity of so doing
— as to whether this really expressed a distinct trend or
merely the lack of training of certain individuals. For example,
the first mimeographed copies of Rabochaya Mysl never reached the great majority of Social-Democrats, and if we are
able to refer to the leading article in the first number, it is
only because it was reproduced in an article by

V. I. [32]
( “Listok” Rabotnika , No. 9-10, p. 47, et seq.), who, of course, did not fail to extol with more zeal than reason
the new paper, which was so different from the papers and
projects for papers mentioned above. [6] It is well worth
dwelling on this leading article because it brings out in bold
relief the entire spirit of Rabochaya Mysl and
Economism generally.

After stating that the arm of the “blue-coats” [7] could never halt
the progress of the working-class movement, the leading article
goes on to say: “. . . The virility of the working-class
movement is due to the fact that the workers themselves are at
last taking their fate into their own hands, and out of the
hands of the leaders”; this fundamental thesis is then developed
in greater detail. Actually, the leaders (i.e., the
Social-Democrats, the organisers of the League of Struggle)
were, one might say, torn out of the hands of the workers [8] by the
police; yet it is made to appear that the workers were fighting
against the leaders and liberated themselves from their yoke!
Instead of sounding the call to go forward towards the consolidation of the revolutionary organisation and the
expansion of political activity, the call was issued for a
retreat to the purely trade union struggle. It was announced that “the economic basis of the movement is eclipsed
by the effort never to forget the political ideal”, and that the
watchword for the working-class movement was “Struggle for
economic conditions” (!) or, better still, “The workers for the
workers”. It was declared that strike funds “are more valuable
to the movement than a hundred other Organisations” (compare
this statement made in October 1897, with the polemic between
the “Decembrists” and the young members in the beginning of
1897), etc. Catchwords like “We must concentrate, not on the
’cream’ of the workers, but on the ’average’, mass worker”;
“Politics always obediently follows economics”, [9] etc., etc., became
the fashion, exercising an irresistible influence upon the
masses of the youth who were attracted to the movement but who,
in the majority of cases, were acquainted only with such
fragments of Marxism as were expounded in legally appearing
publications.

Political consciousness was completely overwhelmed by spontaneity — the spontaneity of the “Social-Democrats” who
repeated Mr. V. V.’s “ideas”, the spontaneity of those workers
who were carried away by the arguments that a kopek added to a
ruble was worth more than any socialism or politics, and that
they must “fight, knowing that they are fighting, not for the
sake of some future generation, but for themselves and their
children” (leader in Rabochaya Mysl , No. 1). Phrases like these have always been a favourite weapon of the
West-European bourgeois, who, in their hatred for socialism,
strove (like the German “ Sozial-Politiker ” Hirsch) to
transplant English trade-unionism to their native soil and to
preach to the workers that by engaging in the purely trade union
struggle [10] they would be fighting for themselves and for their
children, and not for some future generations with some future
socialism. And now the “V. V.s of Russian Social-Democracy” have
set about repeating these bourgeois phrases. It is important at
this point to note three circumstances that will be useful to
our further analysis of contemporary differences. [11]
[11] We emphasise the word contemporary for the benefit of those who may pharisaically shrug their shoulders and say: It is easy enough to attack Rabochaya Mysl now, but is not all this ancient history? Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur (change the name and the tale is about you— Ed .) is our answer to such contemporary Pharisees, whose complete subjection to the ideas of Rabochaya Mysl will be proved further on. — Lenin

In the first place, the overwhelming of political consciousness
by spontaneity, to which we referred above, also took place
spontaneously . This may sound like a pun, but, alas, it
is the bitter truth. It did not take place as a result of an
open struggle between two diametrically opposed points of view,
in which one triumphed over the other; it occurred because of
the fact that an increasing number of “old” revolutionaries were
“torn away” by the gendarmes and increasing numbers of “young”
“V. V.s of Russian Social Democracy” appeared on the scene. Everyone, who has, I shall not say participated in, but
at least breathed the atmosphere of, the present-day
Russian movement, knows perfectly well that this is precisely
the case. And if, nevertheless, we insist strongly that the
reader be fully clear on this generally known fact, if we cite,
for explicitness, as it were, the facts of the first edition of
Rabocheye Dyelo and of the polemic between the “old” and the “young” at the beginning of 1897, we do this because the
people who vaunt their “democracy” speculate on the ignorance of
these facts on the part of the broad public (or of the very
young generation). We shall return to this point further on.

Secondly, in the very first literary expression of Economism we
observe the exceedingly curious phenomenon — highly characteristic for an understanding of all the differences
prevailing among presentday Social Democrats — that the
adherents of the “labour movement pure and simple”, worshippers
of the closest “organic” contacts ( Rabocheye Dyelo ’s term) with the proletarian struggle, opponents of any non-worker
intelligentsia (even a socialist intelligentsia), are compelled,
in order to defend their positions, to resort to the arguments
of the bourgeois “pure trade-unionists”. This shows that from the very outset Rabochaya Mysl began —
unconsciously — to implement the programme of the
Credo . This shows (something Rabocheye Dyelo cannot grasp) that all worship of the spontaneity of
the working class movement, all belittling of the role of “the
conscious element”, of the role of Social-Democracy, means, quite independently of whether he who belittles that role desires it or not, a strengthening of the influence of bourgeois ideology upon the workers. All those who talk about
“overrating the importance of ideology”, [12] about exaggerating
the role of the conscious element, [13] etc., imagine that
the labour movement pure and simple can elaborate, and will
elaborate, an independent ideology for itself, if only the
workers “wrest their fate from the hands of the leaders”. But
this is a profound mistake. To supplement what has been said
above, we shall quote the following profoundly true and
important words of Karl. Kautsky on the new draft programme of
the Austrian Social-Democratic Party: [14] “Many of our revisionist critics believe that Marx asserted that
economic development and the class struggle create, not only the
conditions for socialist production, but also, and directly, the
consciousness [K. K.’s italics] of its necessity. And these critics assert that England, the country most highly
developed capitalistically, is more remote than any other from
this consciousness Judging by the draft, one might assume that
this allegedly orthodox Marxist view, which is thus refuted, was
shared by the committee that drafted the Austrian programme. In
the draft programme it is stated: ‘The more capitalist development increases the numbers of the proletariat, the more
the proletariat is compelled and becomes fit to fight against
capitalism. The proletariat becomes conscious of the possibility
and of the necessity for socialism.’ In this connection socialist
consciousness appears to be a necessary and direct result of the
proletarian class struggle. But this is absolutely untrue. Of
course, socialism, as a doctrine, has its roots in modern
economic relationships just as the class struggle of the
proletariat has, and, like the latter, emerges from the struggle
against the capitalist-created poverty and misery of the
masses. But socialism and the class struggle arise side by side
and not one out of the other; each arises under different
conditions. Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the
basis of profound scientific knowledge. Indeed, modern economic
science is as much a condition for socialist production as, say,
modern technology, and the proletariat can create neither the
one nor the other, no matter how much it may desire to do so;
both arise out of the modern social process. The vehicle of
science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia [K. K.’s italics]: it was in the minds of
individual members of this stratum that modern socialism
originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more
intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn,
introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done. Thus, socialist consciousness
is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from
without [ von Aussen Hineingetragenes ] and not something
that arose within it spontaneously
[ urwüchsig ]. Accordingly, the old Hainfeld programme quite rightly stated that the task of Social-Democracy
is to imbue the proletariat (literally: saturate the proletariat) with the consciousness of its position and
the consciousness of its task. There would be no need for this
if consciousness arose of itself from the class struggle. The
new draft copied this proposition from the old programme, and
attached it to the proposition mentioned above. But this
completely broke the line of thought...”

Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated
by the working masses themselves in the process of their
movement, [15]
[15] This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings; in other words, they take part only when they are able, and to the extent that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and develop that knowledge. But in order that working men may succeed in this more often , every effort must be made to raise the level of the consciousness of the workers in general; it is necessary that the workers do not confine themselves to the artificially restricted limits of “ literature for workers ” but that they learn to an increasing degree to master general literature . It would be even truer to say “are not confined”, instead of “do not confine themselves”, because the workers themselves wish to read and do read all that is written for the intelligentsia, and only a few (bad) intellectuals believe that it is enough “for workers” to be told a few things about factory conditions and to have repeated to them over and over again what has long been known. — Lenin the only choice is — either
bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for
mankind has not created a “third” ideology, and, moreover, in a
society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non-class
or an above-class ideology). Hence, to belittle the socialist
ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology. There is
much talk of spontaneity. But the spontaneous development of the working-class movement leads to its
subordination to bourgeois ideology, to its development along the lines of the Credo programme; for the spontaneous
working-class movement is trade-unionism, is
Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei , and trade unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers by the
bourgeoisie. Hence, our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is
to combat spontaneity, to divert the working-class movement from this spontaneous, trade-unionist striving to come under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the
wing of revolutionary Social Democracy. The sentence employed by
the authors of the Economist letter published in Iskra ,
No. 12, that the efforts of the most inspired ideologists fail
to divert the working-class movement from the path that is
determined by the interaction of the material elements and the
material environment is therefore tantamount to renouncing socialism . If these authors were capable of fearlessly,
consistently, and thoroughly considering what they say, as
everyone who enters the arena of literary and public activity
should be, there would be nothing left for them but to “fold
their useless arms over their empty breasts” and surrender the
field of action to the Struves and Prokopoviches, who are
dragging the working-class movement “along the line of least
resistance”, i.e., along the line of bourgeois trade-unionism,
or to the Zubatovs, who are dragging it along the line of
clerical and gendarme “ideology”.

Let us recall the example of Germany. What was the historic
service Lassalle rendered to the German working-class movement?
It was that he diverted that movement from the path of progressionist trade-unionism and co-operativism towards which
it had been spontaneously moving ( with the benign assistance of Schulze-Delitzsch and his like ). To fulfil such a task
it was necessary to do something quite different from talking of
underrating the spontaneous element, of tactics-as-process, of
the interaction between elements and environment, etc. A fierce struggle against spontaneity was necessary, and only
after such a struggle, extending over many years, was it
possible, for instance, to convert the working population of
Berlin from a bulwark of the progressionist party into one of
the finest strongholds of Social-Democracy. This struggle is by
no means over even today (as might seem to those who learn the
history of the German movement from Prokopovich, and its
philosophy from Struve). Even now the German working class is,
so to speak, split up among a number of ideologies. A section of
the workers is organised in Catholic and monarchist trade
unions; another section is organised in the
Hirsch-Duncker [33] unions, founded by the bourgeois worshippers of English
trade-unionism; the third is organised in Social-Democratic
trade unions. The last-named group is immeasurably more numerous
than the rest, but the Social-Democratic ideology was able to
achieve this superiority, and will be able to maintain it, only
in an unswerving struggle against all other ideologies.

But why, the reader will ask, does the spontaneous movement, the
movement along the line of least resistance, lead to the
domination of bourgeois ideology? For the simple reason that
bourgeois ideology is far older in origin than socialist
ideology, that it is more fully developed, and that it has at
its disposal immeasurably more means of dissemination. [16]
[16] It is often said that the working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism. This is perfectly true in the sense that socialist theory reveals the causes of the misery of the working class more profoundly and more correctly than any other theory, and for that reason the workers are able to assimilate it so easily, provided , however, this theory does not itself yield to spontaneity, provided it subordinates spontaneity to itself. Usually this is taken for granted, but it is precisely this which Rabocheye Dyelo forgets or distorts. The working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism; nevertheless, most widespread (and continuously and diversely revived) bourgeois ideology spontaneously imposes itself upon the working class to a still greater degree. — Lenin

And the younger the socialist movement in any given country, the more vigorously it must
struggle against all attempts to entrench non-socialist
ideology, and the more resolutely the workers must be warned
against the bad counsellors who shout against “overrating the
conscious element”, etc. The authors of the Economist letter, in
unison with Rabocheye Dyelo , inveigh against the intolerance that is characteristic of the infancy of the
movement. To this we reply: Yes, our movement is indeed in its
infancy, and in order that it may grow up faster, it must become
imbued with intolerance against those who retard its growth by
their subservience to spontaneity. Nothing is so ridiculous and
harmful as pretending that we are “old hands” who have long
ago experienced all the decisive stages of the struggle.

Thirdly, the first issue of Rabochaya Mysl shows that the term
“Economism” (which, of course, we do not propose to abandon,
since, in one way or another, this designation has already
established itself) does not adequately convey the real
character of the new trend. Rabochaya Mysl does not altogether repudiate the political struggle; the rules for a
workers’ mutual benefit fund published in its first issue
contain

a reference to combating the government. Rabochaya Mysl believes, however, that “politics always obediently
follows economics” ( Rabocheye Dyelo varies this thesis
when it asserts in its programme that “in Russia more than in
any other country, the economic struggle is inseparable
from the political struggle”). If by politics is meant Social-Democratic politics, then the theses of Rabochaya
Mysl and Rabocheye Dyelo are utterly incorrect. The economic struggle of the workers is very often connected
(although not inseparably) with bourgeois politics, clerical
politics, etc., as we have seen. Rabocheye Dyelo ’s theses are correct, if by politics is meant trade union
politics, viz., the common striving of all workers to secure
from the government measures for alleviating the distress to
which their condition gives rise, but which do not abolish that
condition, i.e., which do not remove the subjection of labour to
capital. That striving indeed is common to the English trade-unionists, who are hostile to socialism, to the Catholic
workers, to the “Zubatov” workers, etc. There is politics and
politics. Thus, we see that Rabochaya Mysl does not so much deny the political struggle, as it bows to its
spontaneity , to its unconsciousness. While fully recognising the political struggle (better: the political
desires and demands of the workers), which arises spontaneously
from the working-class movement itself, it absolutely refuses
independently to work out a specifically
Social-Democratic politics corresponding to the general
tasks of socialism and to present-day conditions in
Russia. Further on we shall show that Rabocheye Dyelo commits the same error.

C. The Self-Emancipation
Group [34] and
Rabocheye Dyelo

We have dealt at such length with the little-known and now
almost forgotten leading article in the first issue of Rabochaya
Mysl because it was the first and most striking expression of
that general stream of thought which afterwards emerged into the
light of day in innumerable streamlets. V. I. was perfectly
right when, in praising the first issue and the leading article
of Rabochaya Mysl , he said that the article had been written in a “sharp and fervent” manner ( “Listok” Rabotnika , No. 9-10, p. 49). Every man with convictions who thinks he has something new to say writes “fervently” and in
such a way as to make his views stand out in bold relief. Only
those who are accustomed to sitting between two stools lack
“fervour”; only such people are able to praise the fervour of
Rabochaya Mysl one day and attack the “fervent polemics” of its opponents the next.

We shall not dwell on the “Separate Supplement” to Rabochaya Mysl (below we shall have occasion, on various
points, to refer to this work, which expresses the ideas of the
Economists more consistently than any other) but shall briefly
mention the “Appeal of the Self-Emancipation of the Workers
Group” (March 1899, reprinted in the London
Nakanune , [35]
No. 7, July 1899). The authors of the “Appeal” rightly say that
“the workers of Russia are only just awakening, are just beginning to look about them, and are instinctively clutching at the first available means of struggle” . Yet
they draw from this the same false conclusion as that drawn by
Rabochaya Mysl , forgetting that the instinctive is the
unconscious (the spontaneous) to the aid of which socialists
must come; that the “first available means of struggle” will
always be, in modern society, the trade union means of struggle,
and the “first available” ideology the bourgeois (trade union)
ideology. Similarly, these authors do not “repudiate” politics,
they merely (merely!) echo Mr. V. V. that politics is the
superstructure, and therefore, “political agitation must be the
superstructure to the agitation carried on in favour of the
economic struggle; it must arise on the basis of this struggle
and follow in its wake”.

As for Rabocheye Dyelo , it began its activity with the
“defence” of the Economists. It stated a downright untruth in its opening issue (No. 1, pp. 141-42) in
claiming that it “does not know to which young comrades Axelrod
referred” when he warned the Economists in his well-known
pamphlet. [17] In the polemic that flared up with Axelrod and Plekhanov over this untruth,
Rabocheye Dyelo had to admit that “in form of perplexity,
it sought to defend all the younger Social-Democrats abroad from
this unjust accusation” (the charge of narrowness levelled by
Axelrod at the Economists). In reality this accusation was completely justified, and Rabocheye Dyelo knew
perfectly well that, among others, it applied also to V. I., a
member of its Editorial Board. Let me note in passing that in
this polemic Axelrod was entirely right and Rabocheye Dyelo entirely wrong in their respective interpretations of
my pamphlet The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats . [18] The pamphlet
was written in 1897, before the appearance of Rabochaya Mysl ,
when I thought, rightly, that the original tendency of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle, which I characterised
above, was dominant. And this tendency was dominant at least
until the middle of 1898. Consequently, Rabocheye Dyelo
had no right whatever, in its attempt to deny the existence and
danger of Economism, to refer to a pamphlet that expressed views
forced out by Economist views in St. Petersburg in
1897-98. [19]

But Rabocheye Dyelo not only “defended” the Economists,
it itself constantly fell into their fundamental errors. The
source of this confusion is to be found in the ambiguity of the
interpretation given to the following thesis of the
Rabocheye Dyelo programme: “We consider that the most important phenomenon of Russian life, the one that will mainly
determine the tasks [our italics] and the character of the publication activity of the Union, is the mass working-class movement [ Rabocheye Dyelo ’s italics]
which has arisen in recent years.” That the mass movement is a
most important phenomenon is a fact not to be disputed. But the
crux of the matter is, how is one to understand the statement
that the mass working class movement will “determine the tasks”?

It may be interpreted in one of two ways. Either it means bowing to the
spontaneity of this movement, i.e., reducing the role of Social-Democracy
to mere subservience to the working-class movement as such (the
interpretation of Rabochaya Mysl , the Self-Emancipation Group,
and other Economists), or it means that the mass movement places before us
new theoretical, political, and organisational tasks, far more complicated
than those that might have satisfied us in the period before the rise of
the mass movement. Rabocheye Dyelo inclined and still inclines
towards the first interpretation, for it has said nothing definite about
any new tasks, but has argued constantly as though the “mass movement”
relieves us of the necessity of clearly understanding and
fulfilling the tasks it sets before us. We need only point out that
Rabocheye Dyelo considered that it was impossible to set the
overthrow of the autocracy as the first task of the mass
working-class movement, and that it degraded this task (in the name of the
mass movement) to that of a struggle for immediate political demands
(Reply, p. 25).

We shall pass over the article by B. Krichevsky, editor of
Rabocheye Dyelo , entitled “The Economic and the
Political Struggle in the Russian Movement”, published in No. 7
of that paper, in which these very mistakes [20] are repeated, and proceed directly to Rabocheye Dyelo , No. 10. We shall
not, of course, enter in detail into the various objections
raised by Krichevsky and Martynov against Zarya and
Iskra . We are here interested solely in the basis of principles on which Rabocheye Dyelo , in its tenth
issue, took its stand. Thus, we shall not examine the strange
fact that Rabocheye Dyelo saw a “diametrical contradiction” between the proposition:

“Social-Democracy does not, tie its hands, it does not restrict
its activities to some one preconceived plan or method of
political struggle; it recognises all means of struggle as long
as they correspond to the forces at-the disposal of the Party,”
etc. ( Iskra , No. 1) [21] .

and the proposition:

“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” ( Iskra , No. 4). [22]

To confound recognition, in principle , of all means of
struggle, of all plans and methods, provided they are expedient,
with the demand at a given political moment to be guided by a strictly observed plan is tantamount, if we are to
talk of tactics, to confounding the recognition by medical
science of various methods of treating diseases with the
necessity for adopting a certain definite method of treatment
for a given disease. The point is, however, that Rabocheye Dyelo , itself the victim of a disease which we have called
bowing to spontaneity, refuses to recognise any “method of
treatment” for that disease. Hence, it has made the remarkable
discovery that “tactics-as-plan contradicts the fundamental
spirit of Marxism” (No. 10, p. 18), that tactics are “ a process of growth of Party tasks, which grow together with the Party ” (p. 11, Rabocheye Dyelo ’s italics). This
remark

has every chance of becoming a celebrated maxim, a permanent monument to the Rabocheye Dyelo “trend”. To
the question, whither? the leading organ replies: Movement is a
process of changing the distance between the starting-point and
subsequent points of the movement. This matchless example of
profundity is not merely a curiosity (were it that, it would not
be worth dealing with at length), but the programme of a whole trend , the very programme which R. M. (in the
“ Separate Supplement ” to Rabochaya Mysl )
expressed in the words: That struggle is desirable which is
possible, and the struggle which is possible is that which is
going on at the given moment. This is precisely the trend of
unbounded opportunism, which passively adapts itself to
spontaneity.

“Tactics-as-plan contradicts the essence of Marxism!” But this
is a slander of Marxism; it means turning Marxism into the
caricature held up by the Narodniks in their struggle against
us. It means belittling the initiative and energy of class-conscious fighters, whereas Marxism, on the contrary,
gives a gigantic impetus to the initiative and energy of the
Social-Democrat, opens up for him the widest perspectives, and
(if one may so express it) places at his disposal the mighty
force of many millions of workers “spontaneously” rising for the
struggle. The entire history of international Social-Democracy
teems with plans advanced now by one, now by another political
leader, some confirming the far-sightedness and the correct
political and organisational views of their authors and others
revealing their short-sightedness and their political errors. At
the time when Germany was at one of the crucial turning-points
in its history — the formation of the Empire, the opening of
the Reichstag, and the granting of universal suffrage —
Liebknecht had one plan for Social-Democratic politics and work
in general, and Schweitzer had another. When the anti-socialist
law came down on the heads of the German socialists, Most and
Hasselmann had one plan — they were prepared then and there to
call for violence and terror; Hochbert, Schramm, and (partly)
Bernstein had another — they began to preach to the
Social-Democrats that they themselves had provoked the enactment
of the law by being unreasonably bitter and revolutionary, and
must now earn forgiveness by their exemplary conduct. There was yet a third plan, proposed by those who prepared and carried out
the publication of an illegal organ. It is easy, of course, with
hindsight, many years after the struggle over the selection of
the path to be followed, and after history has pronounced its
verdict as to the expediency of the path selected, to utter
profound maxims about the growth of Party tasks, which grow
together with the Party. But at a time of confusion, [23] when
the Russian “Critics” and Economists are degrading
Social-Democracy to the level of trade-unionism, and when the
terrorists are strongly advocating the adoption of “tactics-as-plan” that repeats the old mistakes, at such a time,
to confine oneself to profundities of this kind, means simply to
issue to oneself a “certificate of poverty”. At a time when many
Russian Social-Democrats suffer from a lack of initiative and
energy, from an inadequate “scope of political propaganda,
agitation, and organisation,” [24] from a lack of “plans” for a
broader organisation of revolutionary work, at such a time, to
declare that “tactics-as-plan” contradicts the essence of
Marxism means not only to vulgarise Marxism in the realm of
theory, but to drag the Party backward in practice.

Rabocheye Dyelo goes on to sermonise:

“The task of the revolutionary Social-Democrat is only to
accelerate objective development by his conscious work, not to
obviate it or substitute his own subjective plans for this
development. Iskra knows all this in theory; but the enormous importance which Marxism justly attaches to conscious
revolutionary work causes it in practice, owing to its doctrinaire view of tactics, to belittle the significance of the objective or the spontaneous element of development”
(p. 18).

Another example of the extraordinary theoretical confusion
worthy of Mr. V. V. and his fraternity. We would ask our
philosopher: how may a designer of subjective plans “belittle”
objective development? Obviously by losing sight of the fact
that this objective development creates or strengthens, destroys or weakens certain classes, strata, or groups, certain nations
or groups of nations, etc., and in this way serves to determine
a given international political alignment of forces, or the
position adopted by revolutionary parties, etc. If the designer
of plans did that, his guilt would not be that he belittled the
spontaneous element, but, on the contrary, that he belittled the
conscious element, for he would then show that he lacked the “consciousness” properly to understand objective
development. Hence, the very talk of “estimating the relative significance” ( Rabocheye Dyelo ’s
italics) of spontaneity and consciousness itself reveals a
complete lack of “consciousness”. If certain “spontaneous
elements of development” can be grasped at all by human
understanding, then an incorrect estimation of them will be
tantamount to “belittling the conscious element”. But if they
cannot be grasped, then we do not know them, and therefore
cannot speak of them. What then is Krichevsky discussing? If he
thinks that Iskra ’s “subjective plans” are erroneous (as he in fact declares them to be), he should have shown what
objective facts they ignore, and only then charged
Iskra with lacking political consciousness for ignoring them, with “belittling the conscious element”, to use
his own words. If, however, displeased with subjective plans, he
can bring forward no argument other than that of “belittling the
spontaneous element” (!), he merely shows: (1) that, theoretically, he understands Marxism a la Kareyev and
Mikhailovsky, who have been sufficiently ridiculed by
Beltov; [36] and (2) that, practically, he is quite satisfied with the
“spontaneous elements of development” that have drawn our legal
Marxists towards Bernsteinism and our Social-Democrats towards
Economism, and that he is “full of wrath” against those who have
determined at all costs to divert Russian
Social-Democracy from the path of “spontaneous” development.

Further, there follow things that are positively droll. “Just as
human beings will reproduce in the old-fashioned way despite all
the discoveries of natural science, so the birth of a new social
order will come about, in the future too, mainly as a result of elemental outbursts, despite all the discoveries of
social science and the increase in the number of conscious
fighters” (p. 19). Just as our grandfathers in their old-fashioned wisdom used to say, Anyone can
bring children into the world, so today the “modern socialists” ( a la Nartsis
Tuporylov) [37] say in their wisdom, Anyone can participate in the spontaneous birth of
a new social order. We too hold that anyone can. All that is
required for participation of that kind is to yield to
Economism when Economism reigns and to terrorism when terrorism
arises. Thus, in the spring of this year, when it was so
important to utter a note of warning against infatuation with
terrorism, Rabocheye Dyelo stood in amazement, confronted by a problem that was “new” to it. And now, six
months after, when the problem has become less topical, it
presents us at one and the same time with the declaration: “We
think that it is not and should not be the task of
Social-Democracy to counteract the rise of terroristic sentiments” ( Rabocheye Dyelo , No. 10, p. 23), and with
the Conference resolution: “The Conference regards systematic
and aggressive terror as being inopportune” ( Two Conferences , p. 18). How beautifully clear and coherent
this is! Not to counteract, but to declare inopportune, and to
declare it in such a way that unsystematic and defensive terror
does not come within the scope of the “resolution”. It must be
admitted that such a resolution is extremely safe and is fully
insured against error, just as a man who talks, but says
nothing, insures himself against error. All that is needed to
frame such a resolution is an ability to keep at the tail end of the movement. When Iskra ridiculed
Rabocheye Dyelo for declaring the question of terror to
be new, [25] the latter angrily accused
Iskra of “having the incredible effrontery to impose upon the Party organisation solutions of tactical questions
proposed by a group of emigrant writers more than fifteen years
ago” (p. 24). Effrontery. indeed, and what an overestimation of
the conscious element — first to resolve questions theoretically beforehand, and then to try to convince the
organisation, the Party, and the masses of the correctness of
this solution! [26] How much better it would be to repeat the elements and, without “imposing”
anything upon anybody, swing with every “turn” — whether in the direction of
Economism or in the direction of terrorism. Rabocheye Dyelo even generalises this great precept of worldly wisdom
and accuses Iskra and Zarya of “setting up their programme against the movement, like a spirit hovering
over the formless chaos” (p. 29). But what else is the function
of Social-Democracy if not to be a “spirit” that not only hovers
over the spontaneous movement, but also raises this movement to the level of “its programme”? Surely, it is
not its function to drag at the tail of the movement. At best, this would be of no service to the movement;
at worst, it would be exceedingly harmful. Rabocheye Dyelo , however, not only follows this “tactics-as-process”,
but elevates it to a principle, so that it would be more correct
to describe its tendency not as opportunism, but as tail-ism (from the word tail ). And it must be
admitted that those who are determined always to follow behind
the movement and be its tail are absolutely and forever
guaranteed against “belittling the spontaneous element of
development”.

* * *
And so, we have become convinced that the fundamental error
committed by the “new trend” in Russian Social-Democracy is its
bowing to spontaneity and its failure to understand that the
spontaneity of the masses demands a high degree of consciousness
from us Social-Democrats. The greater the spontaneous upsurge of
the masses and the more widespread the movement, the more rapid,
incomparably so, the demand for greater consciousness in the
theoretical, political and organisational work of
Social-Democracy.

The spontaneous upsurge of the masses in Russia proceeded (and
continues) with such rapidity that the young Social Democrats
proved unprepared to meet these gigantic tasks. This unpreparedness is our common misfortune, the misfortune of
all Russian Social-Democrats. The upsurge of the masses
proceeded and spread with uninterrupted continuity; it not only
continued in the places where it began, but spread to new
localities and to new strata of the population (under the
influence of the working class movement, there was a renewed
ferment among the student youth, among the intellectuals
generally, and even among the peasantry). Revolutionaries, however, lagged behind this upsurge, both in their
“theories” and in their activity; they failed to establish a
constant and continuous organisation capable of leading
the whole movement.

In Chapter I, we established that Rabocheye Dyelo belittled our theoretical tasks and that it “spontaneously”
repeated the fashionable catchword “freedom of criticism”; those
who repeated this catchword lacked the “consciousness” to
understand that the positions of the opportunist “Critics” and
those of the revolutionaries in Germany and in Russia are
diametrically opposed.

In the following chapters, we shall show how this bowing to
spontaneity found expression in the sphere of the political
tasks and in the organisational work of Social-Democracy.

---
Notes:
[1]
Rabocheye Dyelo , No. 10, September 1901, pp. 17-18. Rabocheye Dyelo ’s italics.— Lenin

[2]
Trade-unionism does not exclude “politics” altogether, as some
imagine. Trade unions have always conducted some political (but
not Social-Democratic) agitation and struggle. We shall deal
with the difference between trade union politics and
Social-Democratic politics in the next chapter.— Lenin

[3]
A. A. Vaneyev died in Eastern Siberia in 1899 from consumption,
which he contracted during solitary confinement in prison prior
to his banishment. That is why we considered it possible to
publish the above information, the authenticity of which we
guarantee, for it comes from persons who were closely and
directly acquainted with A. A. Vaneyev.— Lenin

[4]
See present edition, Vol. 2, pp. 87-92.— Ed .

[5] “In
adopting a hostile attitude towards the activities of the
Social-Democrats of the late nineties, Iskra ignores the absence at that time of conditions for any work other than
the struggle for petty demands,” declare the Economists in their
“Letter to Russian Social-Democratic Organs” ( Iskra
No. 12). The facts given above show that the assertion about
“absence of conditions” is diametrically opposed to the truth. Not only at the end, but even in the mid-nineties,
all the conditions existed for other work, besides the struggle
for petty demands — all the conditions except adequate training
of leaders. Instead of frankly admitting that we, the ideologists, the leaders, lacked sufficient training — the
Economists seek to shift the blame entirely upon the “absence of
conditions”, upon the effect of material environment that
determines the road from which no ideologist will be able to
divert the movement. What is this but slavish cringing before
spontaneity, what but the infatuation of the “ideologists” with
their own shortcomings?— Lenin

[6]
It should be stated in passing that the praise of Rabochaya Mysl in November 1898, when Economism had become fully
defined, especially abroad, emanated from the selfsame V. I, who
very soon after became one of the editors of Rabocheye Dyelo . And yet Rabocheye Dyelo denied that there
were two trends in Russian Social-Democracy, and continues to
deny It to this day!— Lenin

[7]
The tsarist gendarmes wore blue uniforms.— Tr .

[8]
That this simile is a correct one is shown by the following
characteristic fact. When, after the arrest of the “Decembrists”, the news spread among the workers of the
Schlüsselburg Highway that the discovery and arrest were
facilitated by an agent provocateur , N. N. Mikhailov, a
dentist, who had been in contact with a group associated with
the “Decembrists”, the workers were so enraged that they decided
to kill him.— Lenin

[9]
These quotations are taken from the same leading article in the first
number of Rabochaya Mysl . One can judge from this the degree of theoretical training possessed by these “V. V.s of
Russian Social-Democracy”, [38] who kept repeating the crude
vulgarisation of “economic materialism” at a time when the
Marxists were carrying on a literary war against the real
Mr. V. V., who had long ago been dubbed “a past master of
reactionary deeds” for holding similar views on the relations
between politics and economics!— Lenin

[10]
The Germans even have a special expression, Nur-Gewerkschaftler , which means an advocate of the
“pure trade union” struggle.— Lenin

[11] Note:
This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[12]
Letter of the Economists, in Iskra , No. 12.— Lenin

[13]
Rabocheye Dyelo , No. 10.— Lenin

[14]

Neue Zeit , 1901-02, XX, I, No. 3, p. 79. The committee’s draft to which Kautsky refers was adopted by the
Vienna Congress (at the end of last year) in a slightly amended
form.— Lenin

[15]
Note: This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[16]
Note: This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[17]
Present Tasks and Tactics of the Russian Social-Democracy , Geneva, 1898. Two letters to
Rabochaya Gazeta , written in 1897.— Lenin

[18]
See present edition, Vol. 2, pp. 323—51.— Ed .

[19]
In defending its first untruth (“we do not know to which young
comrades Axelrod referred”), Rabocheye Dyelo added a second, when it wrote in its Reply : “Since the review
of The Tasks was published, tendencies have arisen, or become more or less clearly defined, among certain Russian
Social-Democrats, towards economic one-sidedness, which
represent a step backwards from the state of our movement as
described in The Tasks ” (p. 9). This, in the
Reply , published in 1900 . But the first issue of Rabocheye Dyelo (containing the review) appeared in
April 1899 . Did Economism really arise only in 1899?
No. The year 1899 saw the first protest of the Russian Social-Democrats against Economism (the protest against the
Credo ). Economism arose in 1897, as Rabocheye Dyelo very well knows, for already in November 1898 , V. I. was praising Rabochaya Mysl (see “Listok” Rabotnika , No. 9-10).— Lenin

[20]
The “stages theory”, or the theory of “timid zigzags”, in the
political struggle is expressed, for example, in this article,
in the following way: “Political demands, which in their
character are common to the whole of Russia, should, however, at
first (this was written in August 1900!) correspond to the
experience gained by the given stratum ( sic !) of workers in the economic struggle. Only [!] on the basis of this
experience can and should political agitation be taken up,”
etc. (p. 11). On page 4, the author, protesting against what he
regards as the absolutely unfounded charge of Economist heresy,
pathetically exclaims: “What Social-Democrat does not know that
according to the theories of Marx and Engels the economic
interests of certain classes play a decisive role in history,
and, consequently , that particularly the proletariat’s
struggle for its economic interests must be of paramount
importance in its class development and struggle for emancipation?” (Our italics.) The word “consequently” is
completely irrelevant. The fact that economic interests play a
decisive role does not in the least imply that the economic (i.e., trade union) struggle is of prime importance;
for the most essential, the “decisive” interests of classes can
be satisfied only by radical political changes in general. In particular the fundamental economic interests of
the proletariat can be satisfied only by a political revolution
that will replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by the
dictatorship of the proletariat. Krichevsky repeats the
arguments of the “V. V.’s of Russian Social-Democracy” (viz.,
that politics follows economics, etc.) and of the Bernsteinians
of German Social-Democracy (e.g., by similar arguments Woltmann
sought to prove that the workers must first of all acquire
“economic power” before they can think about political revolution).— Lenin

[21]
See present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 370—71.— Ed .

[22]
See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 18.— Ed .

[23]
“ Ein Jahr der Verwirrung ” (“A Year of Confusion”) is the title Mehring gave to the chapter of his History of German Social-Democracy in which he describes the hesitancy
and lack of determination displayed at first by the socialists in selecting
the “tactics-as-plan” for the new situation.— Lenin

[24]