What Is To Be Done?

BURNING QUESTIONS of our MOVEMENT

III

Trade-Unionist Politics And Social-Democratic
Politics

We shall again begin by praising Rabocheye Dyelo .
“Literature of Exposure and the Proletarian Struggle” is the
title Martynov gave the article on his differences with
Iskra published in Rabocheye Dyelo , No. 10. He formulated the substance of the differences as follows: “We
cannot confine ourselves solely to exposing the system that
stands in its (the working-class party’s) path of development. We must also react to the immediate and current
interests of the proletariat.... Iskra . . . is in fact
an organ of revolutionary opposition that exposes the state of
affairs in our country, particularly the political state of
affairs.... We, however, work and shall continue to work for the
cause of the working class in close organic contact with the
proletarian struggle” (p. 63). One cannot help being grateful to
Martynov for this formula. It is of outstanding general
interest, because substantially it embraces not only our
disagreements with Rabocheye Dyelo , but the general disagreement between ourselves and the Economists on the
political struggle. We have shown that the Economists do not
altogether repudiate “politics”, but that they are constantly
straying from the Social-Democratic to the trade-unionist
conception of politics. Martynov strays in precisely this way, and we shall therefore take his views as a model of
Economist error on this question. As we shall endeavour to
prove, neither the authors of the “ Separate Supplement ”
to Rabochaya Mysl nor the authors of the manifesto issued by the Self-Emancipation Group, nor the authors of the
Economist letter published in Iskra , No. 12, will have
any right to complain against this choice.

A. Political Agitation And Its Restriction
By the Economists

Everyone knows that the economic [1]
[1] To avoid misunderstanding, we must point out that here, and throughout this pamphlet, by economic struggle, we imply (in keeping with the accepted usage among us) the “practical economic struggle”, which Engels, in the passage quoted above, described as “resistance to the capitalists”, and which in free countries is known as the organised-labour syndical, or trade union struggle.— Lenin struggle of the Russian workers
underwent widespread development and consolidation simultaneously with the production of “literature” exposing
economic (factory and occupational) conditions. The “leaflets”
were devoted mainly to the exposure of the factory system, and
very soon a veritable passion for exposures was roused among the
workers. As soon as the workers realised that the
Social-Democratic study circles desired to, and could, supply
them with a new kind of leaflet that told the whole truth about
their miserable existence, about their unbearably hard toil, and
their lack of rights, they began to send in, actually flood us
with, correspondence from the factories and workshops. This
“exposure literature” created a tremendous sensation, not only
in the particular factory exposed in the given leaflet, but in
all the factories to which news of the, revealed facts spread. And since the poverty and want among the workers in the
various enterprises and in the various trades are much the same,
the “truth about the life of the workers” stirred everyone. Even
among the most backward workers, a veritable passion arose to
“get into print” — a noble passion for this rudimentary form of
war against the whole of the present social system which is
based upon robbery and oppression. And in the overwhelming
majority of cases these “leaflets” were in truth a declaration of war, because the exposures served greatly to agitate the
workers; they evoked among them common demands for the removal
of the most glaring outrages and roused in them a readiness to
support the demands with strikes. Finally, the employers
themselves were compelled to recognise the significance of these
leaflets as a declaration of war, so much so that in a large
number of cases they did not even wait for the outbreak of
hostilities. As is always the case, the mere publication of
these exposures made them effective, and they acquired the
significance of a strong moral influence. On more than one
occasion, the mere appearance of a leaflet proved sufficient to
secure the satisfaction of all or part of the demands put
forward. In a word, economic (factory) exposures were and remain
an important lever in the economic struggle. And they will
continue to retain this significance as long as there is
capitalism, which makes it necessary for the workers to defend
themselves. Even in the most advanced countries of Europe it can
still be seen that the exposure of abuses in some backward
trade, or in some forgotten branch of domestic industry, serves
as a starting-point for the awakening of class-consciousness,
for the beginning of a trade union struggle, and for the spread
of socialism. [2]

The overwhelming majority of Russian Social-Democrats have of
late been almost entirely absorbed by this work of organising
the exposure of factory conditions. Suffice it to recall
Rabochaya Mysl to see the extent to which they have been
absorbed by it — so much so, indeed, that they have lost sight of the fact that this, taken by itself , is in essence
still not Social-Democratic work, but merely trade union
work. As a matter of fact, the exposures merely dealt with the
relations between the workers in a given trade and their employers, and all they achieved was that the sellers of
labour power learned to sell their “commodity” on better terms
and to fight the purchasers over a purely commercial deal. These
exposures could have served (if properly utilised by an
organisation of revolutionaries) as a beginning and a component
part of Social-Democratic activity; but they could also have led
(and, given a worshipful attitude towards spontaneity, were
bound to lead) to a “purely trade union” struggle and to a
non-Social-Democratic working-class movement. Social-Democracy
leads the struggle of the working class, not only for better
terms for the sale of labour-power, but for the abolition of the
social system that compels the propertyless to sell themselves
to the rich. Social-Democracy represents the working class, not
in its relation to a given group of employers alone, but in its
relation to all classes of modern society and to the state as an
organised political force. Hence, it follows that not only must
Social-Democrats not confine themselves exclusively to the
economic struggle, but that they must not allow the organisation
of economic exposures to become the predominant part of their
activities. We must take up actively the political education of
the working class and the development of its political consciousness. Now that Zarya and
Iskra have made the first attack upon Economism, “all are agreed” on this (although some agree only in words, as we
shall soon see).

The question arises, what should political education consist in?
Can it be confined to the propaganda of working-class hostility
to the autocracy? Of course not. It is not enough to explain to the workers that they are politically oppressed
(any more than it is to explain to them that their interests are antagonistic to the interests of the
employers). Agitation must be conducted with regard to every
concrete example of this oppression (as we have begun to carry on agitation round concrete examples of economic
oppression). Inasmuch as this oppression affects the most
diverse classes of society, inasmuch as it manifests itself in
the most varied spheres of life and activity — vocational,
civic, personal, family, religious, scientific, etc., etc. — is
it not evident that we shall not be fulfilling our task
of developing the political consciousness of the workers if we
do not undertake the organisation of the political exposure of the autocracy in all its aspects? In order to
carry on agitation round concrete instances of oppression, these
instances must be exposed (as it is necessary to expose factory
abuses in order to carry on economic agitation).

One might think this to be clear enough. It turns out, however,
that it is only in words that “all” are agreed on the need to
develop political consciousness, in all its aspects . It
turns out that Rabocheye Dyelo , for example, far from tackling the task of organising (or making a start in
organising) comprehensive political exposure, is even trying
to drag Iskra , which has undertaken this task, away from it . Listen to the following: “The political struggle
of the working class is merely [it is certainly not ‘merely’]
the most developed, wide, and effective form of economic
struggle” (programme of Rabocheye Dyelo , published in issue No. 1, p. 3). “The Social-Democrats are now confronted
with the task of lending the economic struggle itself, as far as
possible, a political character” (Martynov, Rabocheye Dyelo , No. 10, p. 42). “The economic struggle is the most
widely applicable means of drawing the masses into active
political struggle” (resolution adopted by the Conference of the
Union Abroad and “amendments” thereto, Two Conferences ,
pp. 11 and 17). As the reader will observe, all these theses
permeate Rabocheye Dyelo from its very first number to the latest “Instructions to the Editors”, and all of them
evidently express a single view regarding political agitation
and struggle. Let us examine this view from the standpoint of
the opinion prevailing among all Economists, that political
agitation must follow economic agitation. Is it true that, in general, [3] the
economic struggle “is the most widely applicable means” of drawing the masses into the
political struggle? It is entirely untrue. Any and every manifestation of police tyranny and autocratic
outrage, not only in connection with the economic struggle, is
not one whit less “widely applicable” as a means of “drawing in” the masses. The rural superintendents and the
flogging of peasants, the corruption of the officials and the police
treatment of the “common people” in the cities, the fight against the famine-stricken and the
suppression of the popular striving towards enlightenment and
knowledge, the extortion of taxes and the persecution of the
religious sects, the humiliating treatment of soldiers and the
barrack methods in the treatment of the students and liberal
intellectuals — do all these and a thousand other similar
manifestations of tyranny, though not directly connected with
the “economic” struggle, represent, in general, less “widely applicable” means and occasions for political
agitation and for drawing the masses into the political
struggle? The very opposite is true. Of the sum total of cases
in which the workers suffer (either on their own account or on
account of those closely connected with them) from tyranny,
violence, and the lack of rights, undoubtedly only a small
minority represent cases of police tyranny in the trade union
struggle as such. Why then should we, beforehand, restrict
the scope of political agitation by declaring only one of the means to be “the most widely applicable”, when
Social-Democrats must have, in addition, other, generally
speaking, no less “widely applicable” means?

In the dim and distant past (a full year ago! Rabocheye Dyelo wrote: “The masses begin to understand immediate
political demands after one strike, or at all events, after
several”, “as soon as the government sets the police and
gendarmerie against them” [ August (No. 7) 1900,
p. 15]. This opportunist theory of stages has now been rejected
by the Union Abroad, which makes a concession to us by declaring: “There is no need whatever to conduct political agitation right from the beginning, exclusively on an economic
basis” ( Two Conferences , p. 11). The Union’s repudiation of part of its former errors will show the future
historian of Russian Social-Democracy better than any number of
lengthy arguments the depths to which our Economists have
degraded socialism! But the Union Abroad must be very naive
indeed to imagine that the abandonment of one form of restricting politics will induce us to agree to another
form. Would it not be more logical to say, in this case too,
that the economic struggle should be conducted on the widest
possible basis, that it should always be utilised for political
agitation, but that “there is no need whatever” to regard the
economic struggle as the most widely applicable means of drawing the masses into active political struggle?

The Union Abroad attaches significance to the fact that it has
substituted the phrase “most widely applicable means” for the
phrase “the best means” contained in one of the resolutions of
the Fourth Congress of the Jewish Workers’ Union (Bund). We
confess that we find it difficult to say which of these
resolutions is the better one. In our opinion they are both worse . Both the Union Abroad and the Bund fall into the
error (partly, perhaps unconsciously, under the influence of
tradition) of giving an Economist, trade-unionist interpretation
to politics. Whether this is done by employing the word “best”
or the words “most widely applicable” makes no essential
difference whatever. Had the Union Abroad said that “political
agitation on an economic basis” is the most widely applied (not
“applicable”) means, it would have been right in regard to a
certain period in the development of our Social-Democratic
movement. It would have been right in regard to the
Economists and to many (if not the majority) of the practical workers of 1898-1901; for these practical Economists
applied political agitation (to the extent that they applied it at all) almost exclusively on an economic basis . Political agitation on such lines was recognised
and, as we have seen, even recommended by Rabochaya Mysl and the
Self-Emancipation Group. Rabocheye Dyelo should have strongly condemned the fact that the useful work of
economic agitation was accompanied by the harmful restriction of
the political struggle; instead, it declares the means most
widely applied (by the Economists) to be the most widely applicable ! It is not surprising that when we
call these people Economists, they can do nothing but pour every
manner of abuse upon us; call us “mystifiers”, “disrupters”, “papal nuncios”, and “slanderers” [4] go complaining to the whole world
that we have mortally offended them; and declare almost on oath
that “not a single Social-Democratic organisation is now tinged
with Economism”. [5] Oh, those evil, slanderous politicians! They must have deliberately invented this
Economism, out of sheer hatred of mankind, in order mortally to
offend other people.

What concrete, real meaning attaches to Martynov’s words when he
sets before Social-Democracy the task of “lending the economic
struggle itself a political character”? The economic struggle is
the collective struggle of the workers against their employers
for better terms in the sale of their labour-power , for
better living and working conditions. This struggle is necessarily a trade union struggle, because working conditions
differ greatly in different trades, and, consequently, the
struggle to improve them can only be conducted on the basis of trade organisations (in the Western countries, through
trade unions; in Russia, through temporary trade associations
and through leaflets, etc.). Lending “the economic struggle
itself a political character” means, therefore, striving to
secure satisfaction of these trade demands, the improvement of working conditions in each separate
trade by means of “legislative and administrative measures” (as
Martynov puts it on the ensuing page of his article,
p. 43). This is precisely what all workers’ trade unions do and
always have done. Read the works of the soundly scientific (and
“soundly” opportunist) Mr. and Mrs. Webb and you will see that
the British trade unions long ago recognised, and have long been
carrying out, the task of “lending the economic struggle itself
a political character”; they have long been fighting for the
right to strike, for the removal of all legal hindrances to the
co-operative and trade union movements, for laws to protect
women and children, for the improvement of labour conditions by
means of health and factory legislation, etc.

Thus, the pompous phrase about “lending the economic struggle
itself a political character”, which sounds so “terrifically” profound and revolutionary, serves as a screen to
conceal what is in fact the traditional striving to degrade Social-Democratic politics to the level of trade
union politics. Under the guise of rectifying the onesidedness
of Iskra , which, it is alleged, places “the revolutionising of dogma higher than the revolutionising of
life”, [6] we are presented with the struggle for economic reforms
as if it were something entirely new. In point of fact, the
phrase “lending the economic struggle itself a political
character” means nothing more than the struggle for economic
reforms. Martynov himself might have come to this simple
conclusion, had he pondered over the significance of his own
words. “Our Party,” he says, training his heaviest guns on
Iskra , “could and should have presented concrete demands to the government for legislative and administrative
measures against economic exploitation, unemployment, famine,
etc.” ( Rabocheye Dyelo , No. 10, pp. 42-43). Concrete demands for measures — does not this mean demands for social
reforms? Again we ask the impartial reader: Are we slandering
the Rabocheye Dyelo -ites (may I be forgiven for this awkward, currently used designation!) by calling them concealed
Bernsteinians when, as their point of disagreement with Iskra , they advance their thesis on the necessity of
struggling for economic reforms?

Revolutionary Social-Democracy has always included the struggle
for reforms as part of its activities. But it utilises “economic” agitation for the purpose of presenting to the
government, not only demands for all sorts of measures, but also
(and primarily) the demand that it cease to be an autocratic
government. Moreover, it considers it its duty to present this
demand to the government on the basis, not of the economic
struggle alone , but of all manifestations in general of
public and political life. In a word, it subordinates the struggle for reforms, as the part to the whole, to the
revolutionary struggle for freedom and for socialism. Martynov,
however, resuscitates the theory of stages in a new form and
strives to prescribe, as it were, an exclusively economic path
of development for the political struggle. By advancing at this
moment, when the revolutionary movement is on the upgrade, an
alleged special “task” of struggling for reforms, he is dragging
the Party backwards and is playing into the hands of both
“Economist” and liberal opportunism.

To proceed. Shamefacedly hiding the struggle for reforms behind
the pompous thesis of “lending the economic struggle itself a
political character”, Martynov advanced, as if it were a special
point, exclusively economic (indeed, exclusively factory) reforms . As to the reason for his doing that,
we do not know it. Carelessness, perhaps? Yet if he had in mind
something else besides “factory” reforms, then the whole of his
thesis, which we have cited, loses all sense. Perhaps he did it
because he considers it possible and probable that the government will make “concessions” only in the economic
sphere? [7] If so, then it is a strange delusion. Concessions are also possible and
are made in the sphere of legislation concerning flogging,
passports, land redemption payments, religious sects, the
censorship, etc., etc. “Economic” concessions (or pseudo-concessions) are, of course, the cheapest and most
advantageous from the government’s point of view, because by
these means it hopes to win the confidence of the working
masses. For this very reason, we Social-Democrats must not under any circumstances or in any way whatever create
grounds for the belief (or the misunderstanding) that we attach
greater value to economic reforms, or that we regard them as
being particularly important, etc. “Such demands,” writes
Martynov, speaking of the concrete demands for legislative and
administrative measures referred to above, “would not be merely
a hollow sound, because, promising certain palpable results,
they might be actively supported by the working masses....” We
are not Economists, oh no! We only cringe as slavishly before
the “palpableness” of concrete results as do the Bernsteins, the
Prokopoviches, the Struves, the R.M.s, and tutti quanti! We only wish to make it understood (together with
Nartsis Tuporylov) that all which “does not promise palpable
results” is merely a “hollow sound”! We are only trying to argue
as if the working masses were incapable (and had not already
proved their capabilities, notwithstanding those who ascribe
their own philistinism to them) of actively supporting every
protest against the autocracy, even if it promises absolutely no palpable results whatever!

Let us take, for example, the very “measures” for the relief of
unemployment and the famine that Martynov himself advances. Rabocheye Dyelo is engaged, judging by what
it has promised, in drawing up and elaborating a programme of
“concrete [in the form of bills?] demands for legislative and
administrative measures”, “promising palpable results”, while
Iskra , which “constantly places the revolutionising of
dogma higher than the revolutionising of life”, has tried to
explain the inseparable connection between unemployment and the
whole capitalist system, has given warning that “famine is
coming”, has exposed the police “fight against the famine-stricken”, and the outrageous “provisional penal
servitude regulations”; and Zarya has published a special reprint, in the form of an agitational pamphlet, of a
section of its “Review of Home Affairs”, dealing with the
famine. [8] But good God! How “onesided” were these incorrigibly narrow and
orthodox doctrinaires, how deaf to the calls of “life itself”!
Their articles contained — oh horror! — not a single , can you imagine it? not a single “concrete demand” “promising
palpable results”! Poor doctrinaires! They ought to be sent to
Krichevsky and Martynov to be taught that tactics are a process
of growth, of that which grows, etc., and that the economic
struggle itself should be given a political character!

“In addition to its immediate revolutionary significance, the
economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the
government [“ economic struggle against the government”!] has also this significance: it constantly brings
home

to the workers the fact that they have no political rights”
(Martynov, p. 44). We quote this passage, not in order to repeat
for the hundredth and thousandth time what has been said above,
but in order to express particular thanks to Martynov for this
excellent new formula: “the economic struggle of the workers
against the employers and the government”. What a gem! With what
inimitable skill and mastery in eliminating all partial
disagreements and shades of differences among Economists this
clear and concise proposition expresses the quintessence
of Economism, from summoning the workers “to the political
struggle, which they carry on in the general interest, for the
improvement of the conditions of all the workers”, [9] continuing through
the theory of stages, and ending in the resolution of the
Conference on the “most widely applicable”, etc. “Economic
struggle against the government” is precisely trade-unionist
politics, which is still very far from being Social-Democratic
politics.

B. How Martynov Rendered Plekhanov More Profound “What a large number of Social-Democratic Lomonosovs have
appeared among us lately!” observed a comrade one day, having in
mind the astonishing propensity of many who are inclined toward
Economism to, arrive, “necessarily, by their own under standing”, at great truths (e.g., that the economic struggle
stimulates the workers to ponder over their lack of rights) and
in doing so to ignore, with the supreme contempt of born
geniuses, all that has been produced by the antecedent development of revolutionary thought and of the revolutionary
movement. Lomonosov-Martynov is precisely such a born genius. We
need but glance at his article “Urgent Questions” to see how by
“his own understanding” he arrives at what was long ago
said by Axelrod (of whom our Lomonosov, naturally, says not a
word); how, for instance, he is beginning to understand
that we cannot ignore the opposition of such or such strata of
the bourgeoisie ( Rabocheye Dyelo , No. 9, pp. 61, 62, 71; compare this with Rabocheye Dyelo’s Reply to Axelrod,
pp. 22, 23-24), etc. But alas, he is only “arriving” and is only
“beginning”, not more than that, for so little has he understood
Axelrod’s ideas, that hetalks about “the economic struggle
against the employers and the government”. For three years
(1898-1901) Rabocheye Dyelo has tried hard to understand Axelrod, but has so far not understood him! Can one
of the reasons be that Social-Democracy, “like mankind”, always
sets itself only tasks that can be achieved?

But the Lomonosovs are distinguished not only by their ignorance
of many things (that would be but half misfortune!), but also by
their unawareness of their own ignorance. Now this is a real
misfortune; and it is this misfortune that prompts them without
further ado to attempt to render Plekhanov “more profound”.

“Much water,” Lomonosov-Martynov says, “has flowed under the bridge since Plekhanov wrote his book ( Tasks of the Socialists in the Fight Against the Famine in Russia ). The
Social-Democrats who for a decade led the economic struggle of
the working class ... have failed as yet to lay down a broad
theoretical basis for Party tactics. This question has now come
to a head, and if we should wish to lay down such a theoretical
basis, we should certainly have to deepen considerably the
principles of tactics developed at one time by Plekhanov.... Our
present definition of the distinction between propaganda and
agitation would have to be different from Plekhanov’s (Martynov
has just quoted PIekhanov’s words: “A propagandist presents many
ideas to one or a few persons; an agitator presents only one or
a few ideas, but he presents them to a mass of people.”) By
propaganda we would understand the revolutionary explanation of
the present social system, entire or in its partial manifestations, whether that be done in a form intelligible to
individuals or to broad masses. By agitation, in the strict
sense of the word ( sic !), we would understand the call
upon the masses to undertake definite, concrete actions and the
promotion of the direct revolutionary intervention of the
proletariat in social life.”

We congratulate Russian-and international-Social-Democracy on
having found, thanks to Martynov, a new terminology, more strict
and more profound. Hitherto we thought (with Plekhanov, and with
all the leaders of the international working class movement)
that the propagandist, dealing with, say, the question of
unemployment, must explain the capitalistic nature of crises,
the cause of their inevitability in modern society, the
necessity for the transformation of this society into a
socialist society, etc. In a word, he must present “many ideas”,
so many, indeed, that they will be understood as an integral whole only by a (comparatively) few persons. The agitator,
however, speaking on the same subject, will take as an illustration a fact that is most glaring and most widely known
to his audience, say, the death of an unemployed worker’s family
from starvation, the growing impoverishment, etc., and,
utilising this fact, known to all, will direct his efforts to
presenting a single idea to the “masses”, e.g., the senselessness of the contradiction between the increase of
wealth and the increase of poverty; he will strive to rouse discontent and indignation among the masses against
this crying injustice, leaving a more complete explanation of
this contradiction to the propagandist. Consequently, the
propagandist operates chiefly by means of the printed word; the agitator by means of the spoken word.
The propagandist requires qualities different from those of the agitator. Kautsky and Lafargue, for example, we
term propagandists; Bebel and Guesde we term agitators. To
single out a third sphere, or third function, of practical
activity, and to include in this function “the call upon the
masses to undertake definite concrete actions”, is sheer
nonsense, because the “call”, as a single act, either naturally
and inevitably supplements the theoretical treatise, propagandist pamphlet, and agitational speech, or represents a
purely executive function. Let us take, for example, the
struggle the German Social-Democrats are now waging against the
corn duties. The theoreticians write research works on tariff
policy, with the “call”, say, to struggle for commercial
treaties and for Free Trade. The propagandist does the same
thing in the periodical press, and the agitator in public
speeches. At the present time, the “concrete action” of the
masses takes the form of signing petitions to the Reichstag
against raising the corn duties. The call for this action comes
indirectly from the theoreticians, the propagandists, and the
agitators, and, directly, from the workers who take the petition
lists to the factories and to private homes for the gathering of
signatures. According to the “Martynov terminology”, Kautsky and
Bebel are both propagandists, while those who solicit the
signatures are agitators. Isn’t it clear?

The German example recalled to my mind the German word which,
literally translated, means “Ballhorning”. Johann Ballhorn, a

Leipzig publisher of the sixteenth century, published a child’s
reader in which, as was the custom, he introduced a drawing of a
cock, but a cock without spurs and with a couple of eggs lying
near it. On the cover he printed the legend, “ Revised edition by Johann Ballhorn”. Ever since then, the Germans
describe any “revision” that is really a worsening as “ballhorning”. And one cannot help recalling Ballhorn upon
seeing how the Martynovs try to render Plekhanov “more profound”.

Why did our Lomonosov “invent” this confusion? In order to
illustrate how Iskra “devotes attention only to one side of the case, just as Pleklianov did a decade and a half
ago” (39). “With Iskra , propagandist tasks force agitational tasks into the background, at least for the present”
(52). If we translate this last proposition from the language of
Martynov into ordinary human language (because mankind has not
yet managed to learn the newly-invented terminology), we shall
get the following: with Iskra , the tasks of political propaganda and political agitation force into the background the
task of “presenting to the government concrete demands for
legislative and administrative measures” that “promise certain
palpable results” (or demands for social reforms, that is, if we
are permitted once again to employ the old terminology of the
old mankind not yet grown to Martynov’s level). We suggest that
the reader compare this thesis with the following tirade:

“What also astonishes us in these programmes [the programmes
advanced by revolutionary Social-Democrats] is their constant
stress upon the benefits of workers’ activity in parliament
(non-existent in Russia), though they completely ignore (thanks
to their revolutionary nihilism) the importance of workers’
participation in the legislative manufacturers’ assemblies on
factory affairs [which do exist in Russia] ... or at least the
importance of workers’ participation in municipal bodies....”

The author of this tirade expresses in a somewhat more forthright and clearer manner the very idea which
Lomonosov-Martynov discovered by his own understanding. The
author is R. M., in the “ Separate Supplement” to Rabochaya Mysl (p. 15).

C. Political Exposures And “Training
In Revolutionary Activity”

In advancing against Iskra his theory of “raising the activity of the working masses”, Martynov actually betrayed an
urge to belittle that activity, for he declared the very economic struggle before which all economists grovel to be
the preferable, particularly important, and “most widely
applicable” means of rousing this activity and its broadest
field. This error is characteristic, precisely in that it is by
no means peculiar to Martynov. In reality, it is possible to
“raise the activity of the working masses” only when this activity is not restricted to “political agitation
on an economic basis”. A basic condition for the necessary
expansion of political agitation is the organisation of
comprehensive political exposure. In no way except by means of such exposures can the masses be
trained in political consciousness and revolutionary activity. Hence, activity of this kind is one of the most
important functions of international Social-Democracy as a
whole, for even political freedom does not in any way eliminate
exposures; it merely shifts somewhat their sphere of direction. Thus, the German party is especially strengthening
its positions and spreading its influence, thanks particularly
to the untiring energy with which it is conducting its campaign
of political exposure. Working-class consciousness cannot be
genuine political consciousness unless the workers are trained
to respond to all cases of tyranny, oppression, violence, and abuse, no matter what class is affected
— unless they are trained, moreover, to respond from a
Social-Democratic point of view and no other. The consciousness
of the working masses cannot be genuine class-consciousness,
unless the workers learn, from concrete, and above all from
topical, political facts and events to observe every other social class in all the manifestations of
its intellectual, ethical, and political life; unless they learn
to apply in practice the materialist analysis and the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and
activity of all classes, strata, and groups of the population. Those who concentrate the attention, observation,
and consciousness of the working class exclusively, or even
mainly, upon itself alone are not Social-Democrats; for the
self-knowledge of the working class is indissolubly bound up,
not solely with a fully clear theoretical understanding — or rather, not so much with the theoretical, as with the practical,
understanding — of the relationships between all the various classes of modern society, acquired through the
experience of political life. For this reason the conception of
the economic struggle as the most widely applicable means of
drawing the masses into the political movement, which our
Economists preach, is so extremely harmful and reactionary in
its practical significance. In order to become a
Social-Democrat, the worker must have a clear picture in his
mind of the economic nature and the social and political
features of the landlord and the priest, the high state official
and the peasant, the student and the vagabond; he must know
their strong and weak points; he must grasp the meaning of all
the catchwords and sophisms by which each class and each stratum
camouflages its selfish strivings and its real “inner workings”; he must understand what interests are reflected by
certain institutions and certain laws and how they are reflected. But this “clear picture” cannot be obtained from any
book. It can be obtained only from living examples and from
exposures that follow close upon what is going on about us at a
given moment; upon what is being discussed, in whispers perhaps,
by each one in his own way; upon what finds expression in such
and such events, in such and such statistics, in such and such
court sentences, etc., etc. These comprehensive political
exposures are an essential and fundamental condition for training the masses in revolutionary activity.

Why do the Russian workers still manifest little revolutionary
activity in response to the brutal treatment of the people by
the police, the persecution of religious sects, the flogging of
peasants, the outrageous censorship, the torture of soldiers,
the persecution of the most innocent cultural undertakings, etc.? Is it
because the “economic struggle” does not “stimulate” them to this, because such activity does not “promise palpable
results”, because it produces little that is “positive”? To
adopt such an opinion, we repeat, is merely to direct the charge
where it does not belong, to blame the working masses for one’s
own philistinism (or Bernsteinism). We must blame ourselves, our
lagging behind the mass movement, for still being unable to
organise sufficiently wide, striking, and rapid exposures of all
the shameful outrages. When we do that (and we must and can do
it), the most backward worker will understand, or will feel , that the students and religious sects, the peasants
and the authors are being abused and outraged by those same dark
forces that are oppressing and crushing him at every step of his
life. Feeling that, he himself will be filled with an irresistible desire to react, and he will know how to hoot the
censors one day, on another day to demonstrate outside the house
of a governor who has brutally suppressed a peasant uprising, on
still another day to teach a lesson to the gendarmes in
surplices who are doing the work of the Holy Inquisition,
etc. As yet we have done very little, almost nothing, to bring before the working masses prompt exposures on all
possible issues. Many of us as yet do not recognise this as our
bounden duty but trail spontaneously in the wake of the
“drab everyday struggle”, in the narrow confines of factory
life. Under such circumstances to say that “ Iskra displays a tendency to minimise the significance of the forward
march of the drab everyday struggle in comparison with the
propaganda of brilliant and complete ideas” (Martynov, op. cit.,
p. 61), means to drag the Party back, to defend and glorify our
unpreparedness and backwardness.

As for calling the masses to action, that will come of itself as
soon as energetic political agitation, live and striking
exposures come into play. To catch some criminal red-handed and
immediately to brand him publicly in all places is of itself far
more effective than any number of “calls”; the effect very often
is such as will make it impossible to tell exactly who it was
that “called” upon the masses and who suggested this or that
plan of demonstration, etc. Calls for action, not in the
general, but in the concrete, sense of the term can be made only
at the place of action; only those who themselves go into
action, and do so immediately, can sound such calls. Our
business as Social-Democratic publicists is to deepen, expand,
and intensify political exposures and political agitation.

A word in passing about “calls to action”. The only newspaper which prior to the spring events
called upon the workers to intervene actively in a matter that certainly did not promise any palpable results whatever for the workers, i.e., the drafting of the
students into the army, was Iskra . Immediately after the publication of the order of January 11, on “drafting the 183
students into the army”, Iskra published an article on the matter (in its February issue, No. 2), [10] and, before
any demonstration was begun, forthwith called upon “the workers to go to the aid of the students”, called upon the
“people” openly to take up the government’s arrogant challenge. We ask: how is the remarkable fact to be explained
that although Martynov talks so much about “calls to action”,
and even suggests “calls to action” as a special form of
activity, he said not a word about this call? After this, was it not sheer philistinism on Martynov’s part to allege
that Iskra was one-sided because it did not issue sufficient “calls” to struggle for demands “promising
palpable results”?

Our Economists, including Rabocheye Dyelo , were successful because they adapted themselves to the backward
workers. But the Social-Democratic worker, the revolutionary
worker (and the number of such workers is growing) will
indignantly reject all this talk about struggle for demands
“promising palpable results”, etc., because he will understand
that this is only a variation of the old song about adding a
kopek to the ruble. Such a worker will say to his counsellors
from Rabochaya Mysl and Rabocheye Dyelo : you are busying yourselves in vain, gentlemen, and shirking your
proper duties, by meddling with such excessive zeal in a job
that we can very well manage ourselves. There is nothing clever
in your assertion that the Social-Democrats’ task is to lend the
economic struggle itself a political character; that is only the
beginning, it is not the main task of the Social-Democrats. For
all over the world, including Russia, the police themselves often take the initiative in lending the economic struggle
a political character, and the workers themselves learn to
understand whom the government supports. [11]
[11] The demand “to lend the economic struggle itself a political character” most strikingly expresses subservience to spontaneity in the sphere of political activity. Very often the economic struggle spontaneously assumes a political character, that is to say, without the intervention of the “revolutionary bacilli — the intelligentsia”, without the intervention of the class-conscious Social-Democrats. The economic struggle of the English workers, for instance, also assumed a political character without any intervention on the part of the socialists. The task of the Social-Democrats, however, is not exhausted by political agitation on an economic basis; their task is to convert trade-unionist politics into Social-Democratic political struggle, to utilise the sparks of political consciousness which the economic struggle generates among the workers, for the purpose of raising the workers to the level of Social-Democratic political consciousness. The Martynovs, however, instead of raising and stimulating the spontaneously awakening political consciousness of the workers, bow to spontaneity and repeat over and over ad nauseam , that the economic struggle “Impels” the workers to realise their own lack of political rights. It is unfortunate, gentlemen, that the spontaneously awakening trade-unionist political consciousness does not “ impel ” you to an understanding of your Social-Democratic tasks.— Lenin

The “economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government”, about which you make as much fuss as if you had
discovered a new America, is being waged in all parts of Russia,
even the most remote, by the workers themselves who have heard
about strikes, but who have heard almost nothing about socialism. The “activity” you want to stimulate among us
workers, by advancing concrete demands that promise palpable
results, we are already displaying and in our everyday, limited
trade union work we put forward these concrete demands, very
often without any assistance whatever from the intellectuals. But such activity is not enough for us;
we are not children to be fed on the thin gruel of “economic”
politics alone; we want to know everything that others know, we
want to learn the details of all aspects of political life and to take part actively in every single
political event. In order that we may do this, the intellectuals
must talk to us less of what we already know. [12] and tell us more
about what we do not yet know and what we can never learn from our factory and “economic” experience, namely, political
knowledge. You intellectuals can acquire this knowledge, and it
is your duty to bring it to us in a hundred- and a thousand-fold greater measure than you have done up to now; and
you must bring it to us, not only in the form of discussions,
pamphlets, and articles (which very often — pardon our frankness — are rather dull), but precisely in the form of
vivid exposures of what our government and our governing classes are doing at this very moment in all spheres
of life. Devote more zeal to carrying out this duty and talk
less about “ raising the activity of the working masses ”. We are far more active than you think, and we are
quite able to support, by open street fighting, even demands
that do not promise any “palpable results” whatever. It is not
for you to “raise” our activity, because activity is precisely the thing you yourselves lack. Bow less in
subservience to spontaneity, and think more about raising your
own activity, gentlemen!

D. What Is There In Common Between Economism
and Terrorism?

In the last footnote we cited the opinion of an Economist and of
a non-Social -Democratic terrorist, who showed themselves to be
accidentally in agreement. Speaking generally, however, there is
not an accidental, but a necessary, inherent connection between
the two, of which we shall have need to speak later, and which
must be mentioned here in connection with the question of education for revolutionary activity. The Economists and the
root, namely, subservience to spontaneity , with which we dealt in the preceding chapter as a general phenomenon and
which we shall now examine in relation to its effect upon
political activity and the political struggle. At first sight,
our assertion may appear paradoxical, so great is the difference
between those who stress the “drab everyday struggle” and those
who call for the most self sacrificing struggle of individuals. But this is no paradox. The Economists and the
terrorists merely bow to different poles of spontaneity; the
Economists bow to the spontaneity of “the labour movement pure
and simple”, while the terrorists bow to the spontaneity of the
passionate indignation of intellectuals, who lack the ability or
opportunity to connect the revolutionary struggle and the
working-class movement into an integral whole. It is difficult
indeed for those who have lost their belief, or who have never
believed, that this is possible, to find some outlet for their
indignation and revolutionary energy other than terror. Thus,
both forms of subservience to spontaneity we have mentioned are
nothing but the beginning of the implementation of the notorious Credo programme: Let the workers wage their
“economic struggle against the employers and the government” (we
apologise to the author of the Credo for expressing her
views in Martynov’s words. We think we have a right to do so
since the Credo , too, says that in the economic struggle the workers "come up against the political regime and
let the intellectuals conduct the political struggle by their
own efforts — with the aid of terror, of course! This is an
absolutely logical and inevitable conclusion which must
be insisted on — even though those who are beginning to carry out this programme do not themselves realise
that it is inevitable. Political activity has its logic quite
apart from the consciousness of those who, with the best
intentions, call either for terror or for lending the economic
struggle itself a political character. The road to hell is paved
with good intentions, and, in this case, good intentions cannot
save one from being spontaneously drawn “along the line of least
resistance”, along the line of the purely bourgeois Credo programme. Surely it is no accident either that many

Russian liberals — avowed liberals and liberals that wear the
mask of Marxism — whole-heartedly sympathise with terror and
try to foster the terrorist moods that have surged up in the
present time.

The formation of the Revolutionary-Socialist Svoboda
Group which set itself the aim of helping the working-class
movement in every possible way, but which included in its
programme terror, and emancipation, so to speak, from
Social-Democracy — once again confirmed the remarkable perspicacity of P. B. Axelrod, who literally foretold
these results of Social-Democratic waverings as far back as the end of 1897 (Present Tasks and Tactics) , when he
outlined his famous “two perspectives”. All the subsequent
disputes and disagreements among Russian Social-Democrats are
contained, like a plant in the seed, in these two perspectives. [13]

From this point of view it also becomes clear why Rabocheye Dyelo , unable to withstand the spontaneity of Economism,
has likewise been unable to withstand the spontaneity of
terrorism. It is highly interesting to note here the specific
arguments that Svoboda has advanced in defence of terrorism. It “completely denies” the deterrent role of
terrorism ( The Regeneration of Revolutionism , p. 64),
but instead stresses its “excitative significance”. This is
characteristic, first, as representing one of the stages of the
breakup and decline of the traditional (pre-Social-Democratic)
cycle of ideas which insisted upon terrorism. The admission that the government cannot now be “terrified” and hence disrupted, by
terror, is tantamount to a complete condemnation of terror as a
system of struggle, as a sphere of activity sanctioned by the
programme. Secondly, it is still more characteristic as an
example of the failure to understand our immediate tasks in
regard to “education for revolutionary activity”. Svoboda
advocates terror as a means of “exciting” the working-class
movement and of giving it a “strong impetus”. It is difficult to
imagine an argument that more thoroughly disproves itself. Are
there not enough outrages committed in Russian life without
special “excitants” having to be invented? On the other hand, is
it not obvious that those who are not, and cannot be, roused to
excitement even by Russian tyranny will stand by “twiddling
their thumbs” and watch a handful of terrorists engaged in
single combat with the government? The fact is that the working
masses are roused to a high pitch of excitement by the social
evils in Russian life, but we are unable to gather, if one may
so put it, and concentrate all these drops and streamlets of
popular resentment that are brought forth to a far larger extent
than we imagine by the conditions of Russian life, and that must
be combined into a single gigantic torrent. That this can be
accomplished is irrefutably proved by the enormous growth of the
working-class movement and the eagerness, noted above, with
which the workers clamour for political literature. On the other
hand, calls for terror and calls to lend the economic struggle
itself a political character are merely two different forms of
evading the most pressing duty now resting upon Russian
revolutionaries, namely, the organisation of comprehensive
political agitation. Svoboda desires to substitute terror for agitation, openly admitting that “as soon as
intensified and strenuous agitation is begun among the masses
the excitative function of terror will be ended” ( The Regeneration of Revolutionism , p. 68). This proves
precisely that both the terrorists and the Economists underestimate the revolutionary activity of the masses,
despite the striking evidence of the events that took place in
the spring, [14] and whereas the one group goes out in search of artificial “excitants”, the other talks about
“concrete demands”. But both fail to devote sufficient attention
to the development of their own activity in political agitation and in the organisation of political exposures. And no
other work can serve as a substitute for this task either at the present time or at any other.

E. The Working Class As Vanguard Fighter
For Democracy

We have seen that the conduct of the broadest political
agitation and, consequently, of all-sided political exposures is
an absolutely necessary and a paramount task of our activity, if this activity is to be truly
Social-Democratic. However, we arrived at this conclusion solely
on the grounds of the pressing needs of the working class for
political knowledge and political training. But such a presentation of the question is too narrow, for it ignores the
general democratic tasks of Social-Democracy, in particular of
present-day Russian Social-Democracy. In order to explain the
point more concretely we shall approach the subject from an
aspect that is “nearest” to the Economist, namely, from the
practical aspect. “Everyone agrees” that it is necessary to
develop the political consciousness of the working class. The
question is, how that is to be done and what is required to do it. The economic struggle merely “impels” the
workers to realise the government’s attitude towards the working
class. Consequently, however much we may try to “lend the economic, struggle itself a political character”, we shall never be able to develop the political consciousness
of the workers (to the level of Social-Democratic political
consciousness) by keeping within the framework of the economic
struggle, for that framework is too narrow. The
Martynov formula has some value for us, not because it illustrates Martynov’s aptitude for confusing things, but
because it pointedly expresses the basic error that all the
Economists commit, namely, their conviction that it is possible
to develop the class political consciousness of the workers
from within , so to speak, from their economic struggle,
i.e., by making this struggle the exclusive (or, at least, the main) starting-point, by making it the exclusive (or, at least,
the main) basis. Such a view is radically wrong. Piqued by our
polemics against them, the Economists refuse to ponder deeply
over the origins of these disagreements, with the result that we
simply cannot understand one another. It is as if we spoke in
different tongues.

Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers
only from without , that is, only from outside the economic struggle, from outside the sphere of relations between
workers and employers. The sphere from which alone it is
possible to obtain this knowledge is the sphere of relationships
of all classes and strata to the state and the government, the sphere of the interrelations between all
classes. For that reason, the reply to the question as to
what must be done to bring political knowledge to the workers
cannot be merely the answer with which, in the majority of
cases, the practical workers, especially those inclined towards
Economism, mostly content themselves, namely: “To go among the
workers.” To bring political knowledge to the workers the Social Democrats must go among all classes of the population ; they must dispatch units of their army in all directions .

We deliberately select this blunt formula, we deliberately
express ourselves in this sharply simplified manner, not because
we desire to indulge in paradoxes, but in order to “impel” the
Economists to a realisation of their tasks which they unpardonably ignore, to suggest to them strongly the difference
between trade-unionist and Social-Democratic politics, which
they refuse to understand. We therefore beg the reader not to
get wrought up, but to hear us patiently to the end.

Let us take the type of Social-Democratic study circle that has
become most widespread in the past few years and examine its
work. It has “contacts with the workers” and rests content with
this, issuing leaflets in which abuses in the factories, the
government’s partiality towards the capitalists, and the tyranny
of the police are strongly condemned. At workers’ meetings the
discussions never, or rarely ever, go beyond the limits of these
subjects. Extremely rare are the lectures and discussions held
on the history of the revolutionary movement, on questions of
the government’s home and foreign policy, on questions of the
economic evolution of Russia and of Europe, on the position of the various classes in modern society, etc. As to systematically
acquiring and extending contact with other classes of society,
no one even dreams of that. In fact, the ideal leader, as the
majority of the members of such circles picture him, is
something far more in the nature of a trade union secretary than
a socialist political leader. For the secretary of any, say
English, trade union always helps the workers to carry on the
economic struggle, he helps them to expose factory abuses,
explains the injustice of the laws and of measures that hamper
the freedom to strike and to picket (i. e., to warn all and
sundry that a strike is proceeding at a certain factory),
explains the partiality of arbitration court judges who belong
to the bourgeois classes, etc., etc. In a word, every trade
union secretary conducts and helps to conduct “the economic
struggle against the employers and the government”. It cannot be
too strongly maintained that this is still not
Social-Democracy, that the Social-Democrat’s ideal should not be
the trade union secretary, but the tribune of the people , who is able to react to every manifestation of
tyranny and oppression, no matter where it appears, no matter
what stratum or class of the people it affects; who is able to
generalise all these manifestations and produce a single picture
of police violence and capitalist exploitation; who is able to
take advantage of every event, however small, in order to set
forth before all his socialist convictions and his democratic demands, in order to clarify for all and
everyone the world-historic significance of the struggle for the
emancipation of the proletariat. Compare, for example, a leader
like Robert Knight (the well-known secretary and leader of the
Boiler-Makers’ Society, one of the most powerful trade unions in
England), with Wilhelm Liebknecht, and try to apply to them the
contrasts that Martynov draws in his controversy with
Iskra . You will see — I am running through Martynov’s article — that Robert Knight engaged more in “calling the
masses to certain concrete actions” (Martynov, op. cit., p. 39),
while Willielin Liebknecht engaged more in “the revolutionary
elucidation of the whole of the present system or partial
manifestations of it” (38-39); that Robert Knight “formulated
the immediate demands of the proletariat and indicated the means by which they can be achieved” (41), whereas Wilhelm Liebknecht,
while doing this, did not hold back from “simultaneously guiding
the activities of various opposition strata”, “dictating a
positive programme of action for them” [15] (41); that Robert
Knight strove “as far as possible to lend the economic struggle
itself a political character” (42) and was excellently able “to
submit to the government concrete demands promising certain
palpable results” (43), whereas Liebknecht engaged to a much
greater degree in “one-sided” “exposures” (40); that Robert
Knight attached more significance to the “forward march of the
drab everyday struggle” (61), whereas Liebknecht attached more
significance to the “propaganda of brilliant and completed
ideas” (61); that Liebknecht converted the paper he was
directing into “an organ of revolutionary opposition that
exposed the state of affairs in our country, particularly the
political state of affairs, insofar as it affected the interests
of the most varied strata of the population” (63), whereas
Robert Knight “worked for the cause of the working class in
close organic connection with the proletarian struggle” (63) —
if by “close and organic connection” is meant the subservience
to spontaneity which we examined above, by taking the examples
of Krichevsky and Martynov — and “restricted the sphere of his
influence”, convinced, of course, as is Martynov, that “by doing
so he deepened that influence” (63). In a word, you will see
that de facto Martynov reduces Social-Democracy to the level of trade-unionism, though he does so, of course, not
because he does not desire the good of Social-Democracy, but
simply because he is a little too much in a hurry to render
Plekhanov more profound, instead of taking the trouble to
understand him.

Let us return, however, to our theses. We said that a Social
Democrat, if he really believes it necessary to develop
comprehensively the political consciousness of the proletariat,
must “go among all classes of the population”. This gives rise
to the questions: how is this to be done? have we enough forces
to do this? is there a basis for such work among all the other
classes? will this not mean a retreat, or lead to a retreat, from the class point of view? Let us deal with these questions.

We must “go among all classes of the population” as theoreticians, as proagandists, as agitators, and as
organisers. Noone doubts that the theoretical work of
Social-Democrats should aim at studying all the specific
features of the social and political condition of the various
classes. But extremely little is done in this direction as
compared with the work that is done in studying the specific
features of factory life. In the committees and study circles,
one can meet people who are immersed in the study even of some
special branch of the metal industry; but one can hardly ever
find members of organisations (obliged, as often happens, for
some reason or other to give up practical work) who are
especially engaged in gathering material on some pressing
question of social and political life in our country which could
serve as a means for conducting Social-Democratic work among
other strata of the population. In dwelling upon the fact that
the majority of the present-day leaders of the working-class
movement lack training, we cannot refrain from mentioning
training in this respect also, for it too is bound up with the
Economist conception of “close organic connection with the
proletarian struggle”. The principal thing, of course, is
propaganda and agitation among all strata of the people. The work of the West European Social-Democrat is in
this respect facilitated by the public meetings and rallies
which all are free to attend, and by the fact that in parliament he addresses the representatives of all
classes. We have neither a parliament nor freedom of assembly; nevertheless, we are able to arrange meetings of
workers who desire to listen to a Social-Democrat . We must also find ways and means of calling meetings of
representatives of all social classes that desire to listen to
a democrat ; for he is no Social-Democrat who forgets in
practice that “the Communists support every revolutionary
movement”, that we are obliged for that reason to expound and
emphasise general democratic tasks before the whole people , without for a moment concealing our socialist
convictions. He is no Social-Democrat who forgets in practice
his obligation to be ahead of all in raising, accentuating, and solving every general democratic
question.

“But everyone agrees with this!” the impatient reader will
exclaim, and the new instructions adopted by the last conference
of the Union Abroad for the Editorial Board of Rabocheye Dyelo definitely say: “All events of social and political
life that affect the proletariat either directly as a special
class or as the vanguard of all the revolutionary forces in the struggle for freedom should serve as subjects for
political propaganda and agitation” ( Two Conferences ,
p. 17, our italics). Yes, these are very true and very good
words, and we would be fully satisfied if Rabocheye Dyelo understood them and if it refrained from saying in the next breath things that contradict them . For it is
not enough to call ourselves the “vanguard”, the advanced
contingent; we must act in such a way that all the other
contingents recognise and are obliged to admit that we are
marching in the vanguard. And we ask the reader: Are the
representatives of the other “contingents” such fools as to take
our word for it when we say that we are the “vanguard”? just
picture to yourselves the following: a Social-Democrat comes to
the “contingent” of Russian educated radicals, or liberal
constitutionalists, and says, We are the vanguard; “the task
confronting us now is, as far as possible, to lend the economic
struggle itself a political character”. The radical, or
constitutionalist, if he is at all intelligent (and there are
many intelligent men among Russian radicals and constitutionalists), would only smile at such a speech and would
say (to himself, of course, for in the majority of cases he is
an experienced diplomat): “Your ’vanguard’ must be made up of
simpletons. They do not even understand that it is our task, the
task of the progressive representatives of bourgeois democracy
to lend the workers’ economic struggle itself a political character. Why, we too, like the West-European
bourgeois, want to draw the workers into politics, but only into trade-unionist, not into Social-Democratic politics.
Trade-unionist politics of the working class is precisely
bourgeois politics of the working class, and this
‘vanguard’s’ formulation of its task is the formulation of
trade-unionist politics! Let them call themselves
Social-Democrats to their heart’s content, I am not a child to
get excited over a label. But they must not fall under the
influence of those pernicious orthodox doctrinaires, let them
allow ’freedom of criticism’ to those who unconsciously are driving Social-Democracy into trade-unionist channels.”

And the faint smile of our constitutionalist will turn into
Homeric laughter when he learns that the Social-Democrats who
talk of Social-Democracy as the vanguard, today, when spontaneity almost completely dominates our movement, fear
nothing so much as “belittling the spontaneous element”, as
“underestimating the significance of the forward movement of the
drab everyday struggle, as compared with the propaganda of
brilliant and completed ideas”, etc., etc.! A “vanguard” which
fears that consciousness will outstrip spontaneity, which fears
to put forward a bold “plan” that would compel general recognition even among those who differ with us. Are they not
confusing “vanguard” with “rearguard”?

Indeed, let us examine the following piece of reasoning by
Martynov. On page 40 he says that Iskra is one-sided in
its tactics of exposing abuses, that “however much we may spread
distrust and hatred of the government, we shall not achieve our
aim until we have succeeded in developing sufficient active
social energy for its overthrow”. This, it may be said parenthetically, is the familiar solicitude for the activation
of the masses, with a simultaneous striving to restrict one’s
own activity. But that is not the main point at the moment. Martynov speaks here, accordingly, of revolutionary
energy (“for overthrowing”). And what conclusion does he
arrive at? Since in ordinary times various social strata
inevitably march separately, “it is therefore, clear that we
Social-Democrats cannot simultaneously guide the activities of
various opposition strata, we cannot dictate to them a positive
programme of action, we cannot point out to them in what manner
they should wage a day-to-day struggle for their interests.... The liberal strata will themselves take care of
the active struggle for their immediate interests, the struggle
that will bring them face to face with our political regime”
(p. 41). Thus, having begun with talk about revolutionary
energy, about the active struggle for the overthrow of the
autocracy, Martynov immediately turns toward trade union energy
and active struggle for immediate interests! It goes without
saying that we cannot guide the struggle of the students,
liberals, etc., for their “immediate interests”; but this was
not the point at issue, most worthy Economist! The point we were
discussing was the possible and necessary participation of
various social strata in the overthrow of the autocracy; and not
only are we able , but it is our bounden duty, to guide
these “activities of the various opposition strata”, if
we desire to be the “vanguard”. Not only will our students and
liberals, etc., themselves take care of “the struggle that
brings them face to face with our political regime”; the police
and the officials of the autocratic government will see to this
first and foremost. But if “we” desire to be front-rank
democrats, we must make it our concern to direct the thoughts of those who are dissatisfied only with conditions at
the university, or in the Zemstvo, etc., to the idea that the
entire political system is worthless. We must take upon
ourselves the task of organising an all-round political struggle
under the leadership of our Party in such a manner as to make it
possible for all oppositional strata to render their fullest
support to the struggle and to our Party. We must train
our Social-Democratic practical workers to become political
leaders, able to guide all the manifestations of this all-round
struggle, able at the right time to “dictate a positive
programme of action” for the aroused students, the discontented
Zemstvo people, the incensed religious sects, the offended
elementary schoolteachers, etc., etc. For that reason, Martynov’s assertion that “with regard to these, we can function
merely in the negative role of exposers of abuses... we
can only dissipate their hopes in various government commissions” is completely false (our italics). By
saying this, Martynov shows that he absolutely fails to understand the role that the revolutionary “vanguard” must
really play. If the reader bears this in mind, he will be clear
as to the real meaning of Martynov’s concluding remarks: “ Iskra is the organ of the revolutionary
opposition which exposes the state of affairs in our country,
particularly the political state of affairs, insofar as it
affects the interests of the most varied strata of the population. We, however, work and will continue to work for the
cause of the working class in close organic contact with the
proletarian struggle. By restricting the sphere of our active
influence we deepen that influence” (63). The true sense of this
conclusion is as follows: Iskra desires to elevate the trade-unionist politics of the working class (to which, through misconception, through lack of training, or
through conviction, our practical workers frequently confine
themselves) to the level of Social-Democratic politics. Rabocheye Dyelo , however, desires to degrade Social-Democratic politics to trade-unionist
politics. Moreover, it assures the world that the two positions
are “entirely compatible within the common cause” (63).
0, sancta simplicitas!

To proceed. Have we sufficient forces to direct our propaganda
and agitation among all social classes? Most certainly. Our Economists, who are frequently inclined to deny
this, lose sight of the gigantic progress our movement has made
from (approximately) 1894 to 1901. Like real “tail-enders” they
often go on living in the bygone stages of the movement’s
inception. In the earlier period , indeed, we had astonishingly
few forces, and it was perfectly natural and legitimate then to
devote ourselves exclusively to activities among the workers and
to condemn severely any deviation from this course. The entire
task then was to consolidate our position in the working
class. At the present time, however, gigantic forces have been
attracted to the movement. The best representatives of the
younger generation of the educated classes are coming over to
us. Everywhere in the provinces there are people, resident there
by dint of circumstance, who have taken part in the movement in
the past or who desire to do so now and who, are gravitating
towards Social-Democracy (whereas in 1894 one could count the
Social-Democrats on the fingers of one’s hand). A basic
political and organisational shortcoming of our movement is our
inability to utilise all these forces and give them appropriate work (we shall deal with this more fully in the next
chapter). The overwhelming majority of these forces entirely
lack the opportunity of “going among the workers”, so that there
are no grounds for fearing that we shall divert forces from our
main work. In order to be able to provide the workers with real,
comprehensive, and live political knowledge, we must have “our
own people”, Social-Democrats, everywhere, among all social
strata, and in all positions from which we can learn the inner
springs of our state mechanism. Such people are required, not
only for propaganda and agitation, but in a still larger measure
for organisation.

Is there a basis for activity among all classes of the population? Whoever doubts this lags in his consciousness behind
the spontaneous awakening of the masses. The working-class
movement has aroused and is continuing to arouse discontent in
some, hopes of support for the opposition in others, and in
still others the realisation that the autocracy is unbearable
and must inevitably fall. We would be “politicians” and
Social-Democrats in name only (as all too often happens in
reality), if we failed to realise that our task is to utilise
every manifestation of discontent, and to gather and turn to the
best account every protest, however small. This is quite apart
from the fact that the millions of the labouring peasantry,
handicraftsmen, petty artisans, etc., would always listen
eagerly to the speech of any Social-Democrat who is at all
qualified. Indeed, is there a single social class in which there
are no individuals, groups, or circles that are discontented
with the lack of rights and with tyranny and, therefore,
accessible to the propaganda of Social-Democrats as the
spokesmen of the most pressing general democratic needs? To
those who desire to have a clear idea of what the political
agitation of a Social-Democrat among all classes and strata of the population should be like, we would point to
political exposures in the broad sense of the word as the principal (but, of course, not the sole) form of this
agitation.

“We must arouse in every section of the population that is at
all politically conscious a passion for political exposure,” I wrote in my article “Where To Begin”
[ Iskra , May (No. 4), 1901], with which I shall deal in
greater detail later. “We must not be discouraged by the fact
that the voice of political exposure is today so feeble, timid,
and infrequent. This is not because of a wholesale submission to
police despotism, but because those who are able and ready to
make exposures have no tribune from which to speak, no eager and
encouraging audience, they do not see anywhere among the people
that force to which it would be worth while directing their
complaint against the ’omnipotent’ Russian Government.... We are
now in a position to provide a tribune for the nation-wide
exposure of the tsarist government, and it is our duty to do
this. That tribune must be a Social-Democratic newspaper.” [16]

The ideal audience for political exposure is the working class,
which is first and foremost in need of all-round and live political knowledge, and is most capable of converting this
knowledge into active struggle, even when that struggle does not
promise “palpable results”. A tribune for nation-wide exposures can be only an all-Russia newspaper. “Without a
political organ, a political movement deserving that name is
inconceivable in the Europe of today”; in this respect Russia
must undoubtedly be included in present-day Europe. The press
long ago became a power in our country, otherwise the government
would not spend tens of thousands of rubles to bribe it and to
subsidise the Katkovs and Meshcherskys. And it is no novelty in
autocratic Russia for the underground press to break through the
wall of censorship and compel the legal and conservative press to speak openly of it. This was the case in
the seventies and even in the fifties. How much broader and
deeper are now the sections of the people willing to read the
illegal underground press, and to learn from it “how to live and
how to die”, to use the expression of a worker who sent a
letter to Iskra (No. 7). [25]
Political exposures are as much a declaration of war against the government as
economic exposures are a declaration of war against the factory
owners. The moral significance of this declaration of war will
be all the greater, the wider and more powerful the campaign of
exposure will be and the more numerous and determined the social
class that has declared war in order to begin the war . Hence, political exposures in themselves serve as a
powerful instrument for disintegrating the system we oppose, as a means for diverting from the enemy his casual or
temporary allies, as a means for spreading hostility and
distrust among the permanent partners of the autocracy.

In our time only a party that will organise really nation-wide exposures can become the vanguard of the
revolutionary forces. The word “nation-wide” has a very profound
meaning. The overwhelming majority of the non-working- class
exposers (be it remembered that in order to become the vanguard,
we must attract other classes) are sober politicians and
level-headed men of affairs. They know perfectly well how
dangerous it is to “complain” even against a minor official, let
alone against the “omnipotent” Russian Government. And they will
come to us with their complaints only when they see that these complaints can really have effect, and that we represent a political force . In order to become such a
force in the eyes of outsiders, much persistent and stubborn
work is required to raise our own consciousness, initiative, and energy.. To accomplish this it is not enough to
attach a “vanguard” label to rearguard theory and practice.

But if we have to undertake the organisation of a really
nationwide exposure of the government, in what way will then the
class character of our movement be expressed? — the overzealous
advocate of “close organic contact with the proletarian
struggle” will ask us, as indeed he does. The reply is manifold:
we Social-Democrats will organise these nation-wide exposures;
all questions raised by the agitation will he explained in a
consistently Social-Democratic spirit, without any concessions
to deliberate or undeliberate distortions of Marxism; the
all-round political agitation will be conducted by a party which
unites into one inseparable whole the assault on the government
in the name of the entire people, the revolutionary training of
the proletariat, and the safeguarding of its political independence, the guidance of the economic struggle of the
working class, and the utilisation of all its spontaneous
conflicts with its exploiters which rouse and bring into our
camp increasing numbers of the proletariat.

But a most characteristic feature of Economism is its failure to
understand this connection, more, this identity of the most
pressing need of the proletariat (a comprehensive political
education through the medium of political agitation and
political exposures) with the need of the general democratic
movement. This lack of understanding is expressed, not only in
“Martynovite” phrases, but in the references to a supposedly
class point of view identical in meaning with these phrases. Thus, the authors of the Economist letter in
Iskra , No. 12, state: [17]
[17] Lack of space has prevented us from replying in detail, in Iskra , to this letter, which is highly characteristic of the Economists. We were very glad at its appearance, for the allegations that Iskra did not maintain a consistent class point of view had reached us long before that from various sources, and we were waiting for an appropriate occasion, or for a formulated expression of this fashionable charge, to give our reply. Moreover, it is our habit to reply to attacks, not by defence, but by counter-attack.— Lenin “This basic drawback of

Iskra (overestimation of ideology) 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 (not by “the growth of
Party tasks, which grow together with the Party”), 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 (not only senses, but knows full well that this
task appears less difficult to the workers than to the Economist
intellectuals with their nursemaid concern, for the workers are
prepared to fight even for demands which, to use the language of
the never-to-be-forgotten Martynov, do not “promise palpable
results”) 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”. . . .

Yes, we have indeed lost all “patience” “waiting” for the
blessed time, long promised us by diverse “conciliators”, when
the Economists will have stopped charging the workers with their
own backwardness and justifying their own lack of energy with
allegations that the workers lack strength. We ask our
Economists: What do they mean by “the gathering of workingclass
strength for the struggle”? Is it not evident that this means
the political training of the workers, so that all the aspects
of our vile autocracy are revealed to them? And is it not clear
that precisely for this work we need “allies in the ranks of the liberals and intellectuals”, who are prepared to
join us in the exposure of the political attack on the Zemstvos,
on the teachers, on the statisticians, on the students, etc.? Is
this surprisingly “intricate mechanism” really so difficult to
understand? Has not P. B. Axelrod constantly repeated since 1897
that “the task before the Russian Social-Democrats of acquiring
adherents and direct and indirect allies among the non-proletarian classes will be solved principally and primarily
by the character of the propagandist activities conducted among
the proletariat itself”? But the Martynovs and the other
Economists continue to imagine that “by economic struggle
against the employers and the government” the workers must
first gather strength (for trade-unionist politics) and
then

“go over” — we presume from trade-unionist “training for activity” to Social-Democratic activity!

“...In this quest,” continue the Economists, “ Iskra 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 . . .” Iskra , it is alleged,
“promises the nobles that are dissatisfied with the government’s
sops the assistance of the working class, but it does not say a
word about the class antagonism that exists between these social
strata.” If the reader will turn to the article “The Autocracy
and the Zemstvo” ( Iskra , Nos. 2 and 4), to which, in all probability , the authors of the letter refer, he
will find that they [18] deal with the attitude of the government towards the “mild agitation of the
bureaucratic Zemstvo, which is based on the social-estates”, and
towards the “independent activity of even the propertied
classes”. The article states that the workers cannot look on
indifferently while the government is waging a struggle against
the Zemstvo, and the Zemstvos are called upon to stop making
mild speeches and to speak firmly and resolutely when revolutionary Social-Democracy confronts the government in all
its strength. What the authors of the letter do not agree with
here is not clear. Do they think that the workers will “not
understand” the phrases “propertied classes” and “bureaucratic Zemstvo based on the social-estates”? Do they
think that urging the Zemstvo to abandon mild speeches and to
speak firmly is “overestimating ideology”? Do they imagine the
workers can “gather strength” for the struggle against the
autocracy if they know nothing about the attitude of the
autocracy towards the Zemstvo as well? All this too remains unknown. One thing alone is clear and that is that the
authors of the letter have a very vague idea of what the
political tasks of Social-Democracy are. This is revealed still
more clearly by their remark: “Such, too, is Iskra ’s attitude towards the student movement” (i.e., it also “obscures
the class antagonisms”).

Instead of calling on the workers to declare by means of public demonstrations that the real
breeding-place of unbridled violence, disorder, and outrage is
not the university youth but the Russian Government ( Iskra , No. 2 [19] )
we ought probably to have inserted arguments in the spirit of Rabochaya Mysl ! Such ideas
were expressed by Social-Democrats in the autumn of 1901, after
the events of February and March, on the eve of a fresh upsurge
of the student movement, which reveals that even in this sphere
the “spontaneous” protest against the autocracy is outstripping the conscious Social-Democratic leadership
of the movement. The spontaneous striving of the workers to
defend the students who are being assaulted by the police and
the Cossacks surpasses the conscious activity of the
Social-Democratic organisation!

“And yet in other articles,” continue the authors of the letter,
“ Iskra sharply condemns all compromise and defends, for
instance, the intolerant conduct of the Guesdists.” We would
advise those who are wont so conceitedly and frivolously to
declare that the present disagreements among the
Social-Democrats are unessential and do not justify a split, to
ponder these words. Is it possible for people to work together
in the same organisation, when some among them contend that we
have done extremely little to explain the hostility of the
autocracy to the various classes and to inform the workers of
the opposition displayed by the various social strata to the
autocracy, while others among them see in this clarification a
“compromise” — evidently a compromise with the theory of
“economic struggle against the employers and the government”?

We urged the necessity of carrying the class struggle into the
rural districts in connection with the fortieth anniversary of
the emancipation of the peasantry (issue No. 3 [20] and spoke of the
irreconcilability of the local government bodies and the
autocracy in relation to Witte’s secret Memorandum (No. 4). In
connection with the new law we attacked the feudal landlords and
the government which serves them (No. 8 [21] )
and we welcomed the illegal Zemstvo congress. We urged the Zemstvo to pass over from abject petitions
(No. 8 [22] )
to struggle. We encouraged the students, who had begun to understand the need for the political
struggle, and to undertake this struggle (No. 3), while, at the
same time, we lashed out at the “outrageous incomprehension”
revealed by the adherents of the “purely student” movement, who
called upon the students to abstain from participating in the
street demonstrations (No. 3, in connection with the manifesto
issued by the Executive Committee of the Moscow students on
February 25). We exposed the “senseless dreams” and the “lying
hypocrisy” of the cunning liberals of
Rossiya [26] (No. 5), while pointing to the violent fury with which the
government-gaoler persecuted “peaceful writers, aged professors,
scientists, and well-known liberal Zemstvo members” (No. 5,
“Police Raid on Literature”). We exposed the real significance
of the programme of “state protection for the welfare of the
workers” and welcomed the “valuable admission” that “it is
better, by granting reforms from above, to forestall the demand
for such reforms from below than to wait for those demands to be
put forward” (No. 6 [23] ).
We encouraged the protesting statisticians (No. 7) and censured the strike-breaking
statisticians (No. 9). He who sees in these tactics an obscuring
of the class-consciousness of the proletariat and a compromise with liberalism reveals his utter failure to
understand the true significance of the programme of the
Credo and carries out that programme de facto , however much he may repudiate it. For by such an approach he drags Social-Democracy towards the “economic
struggle against the employers and the government” and yields to liberalism , abandons the task of actively
intervening in every “liberal” issue and of determining his own , Social-Democratic, attitude towards this question.

F. Once More “Slanderers”, Once More
“Mystifiers”

These polite expressions, as the reader will recall, belong to
Rabocheye Dyelo , which in this way answers our charge that it “is indirectly preparing the ground for converting the working-class movement into an instrument of bourgeois
democracy”. In its simplicity of heart Rabocheye Dyelo decided that this accusation was nothing more than a polemical
sally: these malicious doctrinaires are bent on saying all sorts
of unpleasant things about us, and, what can be more unpleasant
than being an instrument of bourgeois democracy? And so they
print in bold type a “refutation”: “Nothing but downright
slander”, “mystification”, “mummery” ( Two Conferences , pp. 30, 31, 33). Like Jove, Rabocheye Dyelo
(although bearing little resemblance to that deity) is wrathful because it
is wrong, and proves by its hasty abuse that it is incapable of
understanding its opponents’ mode of reasoning. And yet, with
only a little reflection it would have understood why any
subservience to the spontaneity of the mass movement and
any degrading of Social-Democratic politics to the level of trade-unionist politics mean preparing the ground for
converting the working-class movement into an instrument of
bourgeois democracy. The spontaneous working-class movement is
by itself able to create (and inevitably does create) only
trade-unionism, and working-class trade-unionist politics is
precisely working-class bourgeois politics. The fact that the
working class participates in the political struggle, and even
in the political revolution, does not in itself make its
politics Social-Democratic politics. Will Rabocheye Dyelo make bold to deny this? Will it, at long last,
publicly, plainly, and without equivocation explain how it
understands the urgent questions of international and of Russian
Social-Democracy? Hardly. It will never do anything of the kind,
because it holds fast to the trick, which might be described as
the “not here” method — “It’s not me, it’s not my horse, I’m
not the driver. We are not Economists; Rabochaya Mysl does not stand for E’conomism; there is no Economism at all in
Russia.” This is a remarkably adroit and “political” trick,
which suffers from the slight defect, however, that the
publications practising it are usually nicknamed, “At your
service, sir”.

Rabocheye Dyelo imagines that bourgeois democracy in
Russia is, in general, merely a “phantom” ( Two Conferences , p. 32). [24]
[24] There follows a reference to the “concrete Russian conditions which fatalistically impel the working-class movement on to the revolutionary path”. But these people refuse to understand that the revolutionary path of the working-class movement might not be a Social-Democratic path. When absolutism reigned, the entire West-European bourgeoisie “impelled”, deliberately impelled, the workers on to the path of revolution. We Social-Democrats, however, cannot be satisfied with that. And if we, by any means whatever, degrade Social-Democratic politics to the level of spontaneous trade-unionist politics, we thereby play into the hands of bourgeois democracy.— Lenin

Happy people! Ostrich-like, they bury their heads in the sand and imagine that everything around
has disappeared. Liberal publicists who month after month
proclaim to the world their triumph over the collapse and even
the disappearance of Marxism; liberal newspapers ( S. Peterburgskiye Vedomosti , [27] Russkiye Vedomosti ,
and many others) which encourage the liberals who bring to the
workers the Brentano [28] conception of the class struggle and the trade-unionist conception of politics; the
galaxy of critics of Marxism, whose real tendencies were so very well
disclosed by the Credo and whose literary products alone circulate
in Russia without let or hindrance; the revival of revolutionary
non -Social-Democratic tendencies, particularly after the February and March events — all these, apparently, are just
phantoms! All these have nothing at all to do with bourgeois
democracy!

Rabocheye Dyelo and the authors of the Economist letter
published in Iskra , No. 12, should “ponder over the reason why the events of the spring brought about such a revival
of revolutionary non-Social-Democratic tendencies instead of
increasing the authority and the prestige of Social-Democracy”.

The reason lies in the fact that we failed to cope with our
tasks. The masses of the workers proved to be more active than
we. We lacked adequately trained revolutionary leaders and
organisers possessed of a thorough knowledge of the mood
prevailing among all the opposition strata and able to head the
movement, to turn a spontaneous demonstration into a political
one, broaden its political character, etc. Under such circumstances, our backwardness will inevitably be utilised by the
more mobile and more energetic non-Social-Democratic revolutionaries, and the workers, however energetically and
self-sacrificingly they may fight the police and the troops,
however revolutionary their actions may be, will prove to be
merely a force supporting those revolutionaries, the rearguard of
bourgeois democracy, and not the Social-Democratic vanguard. Let
us take, for example, the German Social-Democrats, whose weak
aspects alone our Economists desire to emulate. Why is there
not a single political event in Germany that does not add
to the authority and prestige of Social-Democracy? Because
Social-Democracy is always found to be in advance of all others in
furnishing the most revolutionary appraisal of every given event
and in championing every protest against tyranny. It does not lull
itself with arguments that the economic struggle brings the
workers to realise that they have no political rights and that the
concrete conditions unavoidably impel the working-class movement
on to the path of revolution. It intervenes in every sphere and in
every question of social and political life; in the matter of
Wilhelm’s refusal to endorse a bourgeois progressist as city mayor
(our Economists have not yet managed to educate. the Germans to
the understanding that such an act is, in fact, a compromise with
liberalism!); in the matter of the law against “obscene”
publications and pictures; in the matter of governmental influence
on the election of professors, etc., etc. Everywhere the
Social-Democrats are found in the forefront, rousing political
discontent among all classes, rousing the sluggards, stimulating
the laggards, and providing a wealth of material for the
development of the political consciousness and the political
activity of the proletariat. As a result, even the avowed enemies
of socialism are filled with respect for this advanced political
fighter, and not infrequently an important document from
bourgeois, and even from bureaucratic and Court circles, makes its
way by some miraculous means into the editorial office of
Vorwarts.

This, then, is the resolution of the seeming “contradiction”
that surpasses Rabocheye Dyelo ’s powers of understanding
to such an extent that it can only throw up its hands and cry,
“Mummery!” Indeed, just think of it: We, Rabocheye Dyelo ,
regard the mass working-class movement as the corner-stone (and say so in bold type!); we warn all and
sundry against belittling the significance of the element of
spontaneity; we desire to lend the economic struggle itself —
itself — a political character; we desire to maintain close and organic contact with the proletarian struggle. And yet
we are told that we are preparing the ground for the conversion of
the working-class movement into an instrument of bourgeois
democracy! And who are they that presume to say this? People who
“compromise” with liberalism by intervening in every “liberal”
issue (what a gross misunderstanding of “organic contact with the
proletarian struggle”!), by devoting so much attention to the
students and even (oh horror!) to the Zemstvos! People who in
general wish to devote a greater percentage (compared with the
Economists) of their efforts to activity among non-proletarian
classes of the population! What is this but “mummery”?

Poor Rabocheye Dyelo! Will it ever find the solution to this perplexing puzzle?

---
Notes:
[1] Note: This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[2] In the
present chapter we deal only with the political struggle, in its
broader or narrower meaning. Therefore, we note only in passing,
merely as a curiosity, Rabocheye Dyelo ’s charge that
Iskra is “too restrained” in regard to the economic struggle ( Two Conferences , p. 27, rehashed by Martynov
in his pamphlet, Social-Democracy and the Working Class ). If the accusers computed by the hundredweights or
reams (as they are so fond of doing) any given year’s discussion
of the economic struggle in the industrial section of
Iskra , in comparison with the corresponding sections of
Rabocheye Dyelo and Rabochaya Mysl combined, they would easily see that the latter lag behind even in this
respect. Apparently, the realisation of this simple truth
compels them to resort to arguments that clearly reveal their
confusion. “ Iskra ,” they write, “willy-nilly [!] is compelled [!] to reckon with the imperative demands of life and
to publish at least [!!] correspondence about the working-class
movement” ( Two Conferences , p. 27). Now this is really
a crushing argument!— Lenin

[3]
We say “in general”, because Rabocheye Dyelo speaks of general principles and of the general tasks of the Party as a
whole. Undoubtedly, cases occur in practice when politics really
must follow economics, but only Economists can speak of
this in a resolution intended to apply to the whole of
Russia. Cases do occur when it is possible “right from the beginning” to carry on political agitation “exclusively on
an economic basis”; yet Rabocheye Dyelo came in the end to the conclusion that “there is no need for this whatever”
( Two Conferences , p. 11). In the following chapter, we
shall show that the tactics of the “politicians” and revolutionaries not only do not ignore the trade union tasks of
Social-Democracy, but that, on the contrary, they alone can secure their consistent fulfilment.— Lenin

[4]
These are the precise expressions used in Two Conferences ,
pp. 31, 32, 28 and 80.— Lenin

[5]
Two Conferences , p. 32.— Lenin

[6]
Rabocheye Dyelo , No. 10, p. 60. This is the Martynov variation of the application, which we have characterised above,
of the thesis “every step of real movement is more important
than a dozen programmes” to the present chaotic state of our
movement. In fact, this is merely a translation into Russian of
the notorious Bernsteinian sentence: “The movement is everything, the final aim is nothing.”— Lenin

[7]
P. 43. “Of course, when we advise the workers to present certain
economic demands to the government, we do so because in the
economic sphere the autocratic government is, of necessity, prepared to make certain concessions!”— Lenin

[8]
See Collected Works , Vol 5, pp. 253—74.— Ed .

[9] Rabochaya Mysl, “Separate Supplement” , p. 14.— Lenin

[10] See Collected Works , Vol. 4, pp. 414-19— Ed.

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

[12] To
prove that this imaginary speech of a worker to an Economist is
based on fact, we shall refer to two witnesses who undoubtedly
have direct knowledge of the working-class movement and who are
least of all inclined to be partial towards us “doctrinaires”;
for one witness is an Economist (who regards even Rabocheye Dyelo as a political organ!), and the other is a
terrorist. The first witness is the author of a remarkably
truthful and vivid article entitled “The St. Petersburg
Working-Class Movement and the Practical Tasks of
Social-Democracy”, published in Rabocheye Dyelo
No. 6. He divides the workers into the following categories: (1)
class-conscious revolutionaries; (2) intermediate stratum; (3)
the remaining masses. The intermediate stratum, he says, “is
often more interested in questions of political life than in its
own immediate economic interests, the connection between which and the general social conditions it has long understood” ...
Rabochaya Mysl “is sharply criticised”: “It keeps on repeating the same thing over and over again, things we have
long known, read long ago.” “Again nothing in the political
review!” (pp. 30-31). But even the third stratum, “the younger
and more sensitive section of the workers, less corrupted by the
tavern and the church, who hardly ever have the opportunity of
getting hold of political literature, discuss political events
in a rambling way and ponder over the fragmentary news they get
about student riots”, etc. The terrorist writes as follows: They
read over once or twice the petty details of factory life in
other towns, not their own, and then they read no more ... dull,
they find it.... To say nothing in a workers’ paper about the
government ... is to regard the workers as being little
children.... The workers are not little children" ( Svoboda , published by the Revolutionary-Socialist
Group,. pp. 69-70).— Lenin

[13]
Martynov “conceives of another, more realistic [?] dilemma”
( Social-Democracy and the Working Class, p. 19):
“Either Social-Democracy takes over the direct leadership of the
economic struggle of the proletariat and by that [!] transforms
it into a revolutionary class struggle....” “By that”, i.e.,
apparently by the direct leadership of the economic struggle. Can Martynov cite an instance in which leading the
trade-union struggle alone has succeeded in transforming a
trade-unionist movement into a revolutionary class movement? Can
he not understand that in order to bring about this “transformation” we must actively take up the “direct
leadership” of all-sided political agitation?... “Or the other
perspective: Social-Democracy refrains from assuming the
leadership of the economic struggle of the workers and so
... clips its own wings ... ” In Rabocheye Dyelo ’s opinion, quoted above, it is Iskra that “refrains”. We
have seen, however, that the latter does far more than Rabocheye Dyelo to lead the economic struggle, but that,
moreover, it does not confine itself thereto and does not narrow down its political tasks for its sake.— Lenin

[14] The
big street demonstrations which began in the spring of 1901. (Author’s
note to the 1907 edition.— Ed .)— Lenin

[15] For
example, during the Franco-Prussian War, Liebknecht dictated a
programme of action for the whole of democracy; to an even greater extent Marx and Engels did this in 1848.— Lenin

[16] See
Collected Works , Vol. 5, pp. 21-22 —Ed .

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

[18] In
the interval between these articles there was one ( Iskra , No. 3), which dealt especially with class
antagonisms in the countryside. (See Collected Works , Vol. 4, pp. 420-28 —Ed .)— Lenin

[19] See