V. I.

Lenin

January19, 1905

Dear Friends, Ihave received your inquiry concerning the tactics to be pursued in court
(in Absolute’s [2] letter and the note “report ed verbatim” through an unknown person). Absolute writes of two points of
view. The note speaks of three groups; perhaps it has in mind three shades of
opinion, which I shall attempt to reconstruct as follows: (1) To refuse to
recognise the court and to boycott it outright. (2) To refuse to recognise the
court and not to participate in the court proceedings; to employ a lawyer only
with the understanding that he speak exclusively about the court’s lack of
jurisdiction from the point of view of abstract law; in the concluding speech
for the defence to make a profession de foi [1] and to demand a trial by
jury. (3) The same applies to the defendant’s last statement. To use the trial
as a means of agitation and, for this purpose, to take part in the court
proceedings with the aid of legal counsel; to show up the unlawfulness of the
trial and even to call witnesses (to prove alibis, etc.).

Thereis this further question: should you say only that you are a
Social-Democrat

·by

conviction, or should you admit that you are a member of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party?

Youwrite that a pamphlet is needed on this question. I do not think it is
advisable to issue a pamphlet straight away without any experience to go by. Perhaps we shall mention it somehow in the
newspaper when the opportunity occurs. Perhaps one of the people in prison will
write a short article for the paper (from 5,000 to 8,000 letters)? I think this
would be the best way to start the discussion.

Ipersonally have not yet formed a definite opinion and should prefer, before
committing myself, to talk it over in detail with comrades who are in prison or
have stood trial. To get such a talk started I shall state my own ideas on the
subject. Much depends, I think, on the kind of trial it will be, viz.,
whether or not there will be a possibility to utilise it for purposes of
agitation. In the first instance, policy No. 1 will not do; in the second, it is
appropriate, but only after an open, definite, and energetic protest and
statement.

How ever, if there is a chance of taking advantage of the trial for
agitational purposes, policy No. 3 is desirable. A speech with a profession de foi is generally most desirable, and, I think, very useful, and it could
in most cases have an agitational effect. Particularly when the government has
begun to utilise the courts, the Social-Democrats should speak out about the
Social-Democratic programme and tactics. Some hold that it is not advisable to
declare oneself a member of the Party, particularly of any definite
organisation; that one should rather declare oneself a Social-Democrat by
conviction and limit the statement to that. I think that one’s affiliations
should be omitted entirely from the speech, i.e., that one should say: For
obvious reasons I shall not speak about my affiliations, but I am a
Social-Democrat and I shall speak of our

Party. Such a formulation has two advantages: it states directly and specifically that one is not to speak
of one’s affiliations (viz., whether one belongs to an organisation, and if so,
to which, etc.), while at the same time one speaks of our Party. This
is necessary in order that Social-Democratic speeches in court may become Party
speeches and statements, in order that the Party may benefit by this
propaganda. In other words, I waive my formal affiliations; I pass them over in
silence, I do not speak formally in the name of any organisation whatever, but
as a Social-Democrat I speak to the court of our Party and ask it to
accept my statements as an endeavour to expound precisely the Social-Democratic
views that have been set forth in all our Social-Democratic literature, in such-and-such pamphlets, leaflets, and newspapers.

Asto lawyers. Lawyers should be kept well in hand and made to toe the line, for
there is no telling what dirty tricks this intellectualist scum will be up
to. They should be warned in advance: Look here, you confounded rascal, if you
permit yourself the slightest impropriety or political opportunism (if
you speak of socialism as something immature or wrong-headed, or as an
infatuation, or if you say that the Social-Democrats reject the use of force , speak of their teachings and their movement as peaceful, etc., or
anything of the sort), then I, the defendant, will pull you up publicly, right
then and there, call you a scoundrel, declare that I reject such a defence,
etc. And these threats must be carried out. Only clever lawyers should be
engaged; we do not need others. They should be told beforehand: Confine
yourselves to criticising and “laying traps” for witnesses and the
public prosecutor on the facts of the case, and to nailing trumped-up charges;
confine yourselves exclusively to discrediting the
Shemyakin-trial [3] features of the proceedings. Even a smart liberal lawyer is extremely prone to mention
or hint at the peaceful nature of the Social-Democratic movement, at
the recognition of its cultural influence even by people like Adolf Wagner,
etc. All such attempts should be nipped in the bud. The lawyers, as Bebel, I
believe, said, are the most reactionary of people. The cobbler should stick to
his last. Be a lawyer only, ridicule the witnesses for the State and the Public
Prosecutor; at most, draw a comparison between such a trial and a trial by jury
in a free country; but leave the defendant’s convictions alone, do not even dare
to mention what you think of his convictions and actions. For you, a measly liberal, have so little understanding of these convictions that even in praising
them you will not be able to avoid saying something banal. Of course, all this
need not be explained to the lawyer d la Sobakevich [4] ; it can be done
mildly, tactfully, discreetly. Still, it is better to be wary of lawyers and
not to trust them, especially if they say that they are Social-Democrats and Party members (as defined by our Clause 1!).

Thequestion of taking part in the court proceedings, it seems to me, depends on
the question of the lawyer. Retaining counsel means participating in the court
proceedings.

And why not participate in order to show up witnesses and agitate against
the court? Of course, one must be very careful not to slip into a tone of
unbecoming self-vindication— that goes without saying. It is best to
declare immediately, before the taking of testimony, in answering the
presiding judge’s first questions: I am a Social-Democrat, and in my speech to
the court I shall explain what that means. In each case, the question whether or
not to take part in the court proceedings depends entirely upon the
circumstances. Let us assume that you have been proved guilty, that the witnesses are telling the truth, that the entire accusation rests on unassailable
documentary evidence. In that case it may be of no use to take part in the court
proceedings, and all attention should be centred on the declaration of
principles. If, however, the facts are dubious, if the police witnesses are
confused and lie, then it is hardly worth while to miss an opportunity of making
propaganda by exposing the case as a frame-up. Much depends also on the
defendants; if they are very tired, ill, or worn-out, and if there is no one
among them with experience in “pleading” and word-tilting, then, perhaps, it would be more expedient to refuse to participate in the court
proceedings, to make a statement to that effect, and to concentrate on the
declaration of principles, which it is desirable to prepare in advance. At any
rate, the speech on the principles, the programme, and the tactics of the Social-Democratic Party, on the working-class movement, on the socialist aims, and
on uprising is the most important thing.

Inconclusion, I repeat once more: These are my first reflections, which should
not be regarded in the least as an attempt to solve the problem. We must wait
until experience gives us certain hints. And while accumulating this
experience the comrades, in the majority of cases, will have to be
guided by a consideration of the concrete circumstances and by their revolutionary instinct .

Myvery best regards to Kurz, Ruben, Bauman, and all the other friends. Cheer
up! Things are going well with us now. We are through with the trouble-makers at
last. We have done with the tactics of retreat. We are attacking now. The committees in Russia are also beginning to break with the
disorganisers. We have founded a newspaper of our own. We have our own
practical centre (the Bureau). Two is sues of the paper have appeared and
shortly (January 23, 1905 , new style) the third will be coming
out. We hope to publish it as a weekly. Best of health and good cheer! We
shall meet again, I am sure, and carry on the fight under better conditions
than amid the squabbling and wrangling we have here, after the manner of the League congresses.

---
Notes:
[1]
Declaration of faith, a programme, the exposition of a world
outlook. — Ed .

[2]
Absolute—the Bolshevik Y. D. Stasova.

[3]
Shemyakin trial—an unjust trial, from the title of an old Russian story about the Judge Shemyak.

[4]
Sobakevich—a character in Gogol’s Dead Souls typifying a bullying, tight-fisted landlord.