V. I. Lenin

Outline of Theses for an Article “How They Defend Themselves” {4}

How They Defend Themselves

)

Two replies to Lenin’s pamphlet on The Zemstvo Campaign and
“ Iskra ”’ s Plan {1}

–the

Editorial Board’s and
Plekhanov’s. This and is also curious (Plekhanov is nominally on
the Board), but the distinction between their replies is extremely
interesting.

Plekhanovdefends an incorrect stand very cleverly and cautiously. The Editorial
Board, not cleverly.

Plekhanovsays nothing at all about either 1) Starover’s
resolution and its connection with the Iskra plan, or 2) the
“higher type of mobilisation”. Ergo, what Plekhanov passes over in
silence is the essence of Iskra’s mistake (Starover’s resolution is the beginning of the mistake, its

Printed from the original starting-point. The final point—the consideration of the “higher” type).

The Editorial Board emphasises the connection of its stand with
Starover’s resolution, and comes out for the idea of the “higher
type”.

Boththe Editorial Board and Plekhanov make a very weak stand for
the talk on panic (clearly retreating and backtracking).

Plekhanovkeeps harping on the contradiction between the old and the new
=

Lenin {5} in an effort to prove that the Iskra Editorial
Board was acting according to the old Lenin.

Plekhanovtries to create the impression that Lenin is now opposed
to demonstrations before the Zemstvo men and is against dictating to them a
“positive programme of action”. This is an absurdity and a distortion.

Whatwere my theses against Iskra?

| 1) | The talk of panic is vulgar and irrelevant. |
| --- | --- |
| {{

Reply? Plekhanov on the Tambovites The Editorial (ha-ha!) {6} ” on the anarchists (where?) Editorial Board’s “obstruction”

}} | The Editorial Board is almost being robbed: “superfluous”. |
| 2) | “Agreements” with the liberals must be determined by
the actual common struggle and not by “promises”. Nil —Plekhanov. |
| 3) | Starover’s terms rejected. (The Editorial Board makes a very weak case,
with a virtual admission.) |
| 4) | “New type.” Editorial
Board–schwach. {2} Plekhanov— nil .

On the question of uprising see Iskra No. 62 .
Leading. {3} “Purely utopian views” on preparations for an uprising. “Are beginning to manifest themselves”.... |

---
Notes:
{1}
See present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 497–518.— Ed .

{2}
Bad.— Ed .

{3}
This word is in English in the original.— Ed .

{4}
This was written some time in January 1905 as a proposed reply to
Plekhanov’s article “On Our Tactics Towards the Struggle of the Liberal
Bourgeoisie Against Tsarism”, which criticised Lenin’s pamphlet The Zemstvo Campaign and Iskra’s Plan . Lenin’s article did not appear in
the press, and does not seem to have been written.

p. 134

{5}
In his article “On Our Tactics Towards the Struggle of the Liberal
Bourgeoisie Against Tsarism”, Plekhanov alleged there was a contradiction
between Lenin’s old ( What Is To Be Done? ) and his new ( The Zemstvo Campaign and Iskra’s Plan ) attitude to the Zemstvo liberal
movement.

p. 135

{6}
A reference to the acts of the Chairman of the Zemstvo Assembly in
Tambov Gubernia, who on December 14 and 15, 1904, requested police
protection for his Assembly against the “public”. Plekhanov’s “On Our
Tactics Towards the Struggle of the Liberal Bourgeoisie Against Tsarism”
says: “By the way, about the panic. The recent Tambov events may perhaps
put some of the opponents of absolutism in mind of the idea that Moskovskiye Vedomosti was quite right in threatening the liberals with a popular
uprising against constitutionalism” (G. V. Plekhanov, Works , Vol. XIII, p. 178).

p. 135