This was a long time ago, a very long time ago, more than a year ago. In the Russian party, according to the testimony of the well-known German social-democrat Parvus, there arose "principled disagreements." The first political task of the proletariat's party became the struggle against the extremes of centralism, against the idea of "commanding" workers from some Geneva, against the exaggeration of the idea of organizing agitators, organizing leaders. Such was the deep, firm, and unshakeable conviction of the Menshevik Parvus, set forth by him in his weekly German journal "Aus der Weltpolitik" ("From the Sphere of World Politics") of November 30, 1903.

Good old Parvus was told then (see Lenin's letter to the editors of *Iskra*, December 1903[67]) that he had become the victim of gossip, that behind the "principled disagreements" he had discerned there lay petty squabbling, and that the incipient ideological shift of the new *Iskra* was a shift toward opportunism. Parvus fell silent, but his "thoughts" about the exaggeration of the significance of organizing leaders were chewed over in a hundred ways by the new-Iskrites.

Fourteen months passed. The disorganization of party work by the Mensheviks and the opportunistic character of their preaching became fully apparent. January 9, 1905 revealed the entire gigantic reservoir of revolutionary energy of the proletariat and the entire insufficiency of the organization of the social-democrats. Parvus came to his senses. In No. 85 of *Iskra*, he came forward with an article signifying, in essence, a complete reversal from the new ideas of the opportunistic new *Iskra* to the ideas of the revolutionary old *Iskra*. "There was a hero," Parvus exclaims with regard to Gapon, "but there was no political leadership, there was no program of action, there was no organization"… "The tragic consequences of the absence of organization became apparent"… "The masses became scattered, everything went helter-skelter, there was no binding center, there was no guiding program of action"… "The movement collapsed owing to the absence of a binding and guiding organization." And Parvus gives a slogan which we have already recalled in No. 6 of *Forward* – "organize the revolution"[68]. Parvus became convinced, under the influence of the lessons of the revolution, that "we cannot under present political conditions organize these hundreds of thousands" (the reference is to the mass ready for uprising). "But we can," he justly repeats the long-standing thought of the book *What Is To Be Done?* – "we can create an organization which would be a binding ferment, and at the moment of revolution unite these hundreds of thousands around itself." "Worker circles must be organized with clearly defined tasks: to prepare the masses for uprising, to gather them around themselves during the uprising, to raise the uprising according to the given slogan."

At last! we exclaimed with relief, encountering these old, true thoughts buried under the rubbish of the new *Iskra*. At last the revolutionary instinct of a worker of the proletarian party has triumphed, at least temporarily, over bureaucratic opportunism. At last we hear the voice of a social-democrat who does not grovel before the rear of the revolution but fearlessly points to the task of supporting the avant-garde of the revolution.

And how! And how they should "share" those thoughts which "strike in the face" their entire year-and-a-half of opportunistic chatter!

"Organize the revolution!" But we have a clever comrade Martynov, who knows that revolution is caused by a revolution in social relations, that revolution cannot be appointed. Martynov will explain to Parvus his error and will show that even if Parvus had in mind the organization of the avant-garde of the revolution, this is a "narrow" and pernicious "Jacobin" idea. And further. Our clever Martynov leads on a string Trepichkin-Martov{98}, who is capable of deepening his teacher even further, who will perhaps be able to replace the slogan "organize the revolution" with the slogan "unleash the revolution" (see No. 85, italics by the author).

Yes, reader, precisely such a slogan is given to us in the leading article of *Iskra*. Evidently, in these times it is sufficient to "unleash" one's tongue for free chattering-process or for the process of chattering, in order to write guiding articles. The opportunist always needs such slogans in which, upon closer examination, there turns out to be nothing but a sonorous phrase, nothing but some kind of decadent verbal contortion.

Organize and organize, repeats Parvus, as if he had suddenly become a Bolshevik. He does not understand, the poor fellow, that organization is a process (*Iskra* No. 85, – and also all previous issues of the new *Iskra* and especially the luxurious feuilletons of the luxurious Rosa). He does not know, the poor thing, that according to the entire spirit of dialectical materialism not only organization, but also tactics is a process. And he, like some "conspirator," fusses about with organization-as-plan. And he, like some "utopian," imagines that one can simply, at some second or third congress, God forbid, take and organize.

Parvus acknowledges that it is now impossible to organize hundreds of thousands and puts forward as the primary task the need to "create an organization which would be a binding ferment." How can our new-Iskrites help writhing when such things are written on the pages of their organ? Why, organization as a binding ferment is precisely the organization of professional revolutionaries, at the mere mention of which our new-Iskrites fall into a swoon.

How grateful we are to *Iskra* for its leading article alongside Parvus's article. How sharply the vapid, muddled, tail-chasing phraseology stands out alongside the clear, distinct, direct, and bold revolutionary slogans of the old *Iskra*! Is this not an empty, bombastic phrase – that "the politics of confidence is stepping down from the stage, never to befuddle Russia or Europe again"? In reality, any issue of a European bourgeois newspaper shows that this befuddlement continues and is making progress. "Moderate Russian liberalism is stricken to death." This is childish political naïveté, when the "politic" desire of liberalism to hide is taken for its death. In reality, liberalism is alive, lives, and is reviving. It stands precisely now on the eve of power. It is precisely for this reason that it has hidden itself, the better and more safely to stretch out its hand toward power at the appropriate moment. It is precisely for this reason that it is flirting for all it is worth with the working class. One must be short-sighted to the last degree to take this flirtation (dangerous a hundredfold, precisely in the moment being lived through) at face value, to boastfully declare: "the proletariat – liberator of the homeland, the proletariat – the avant-garde of the whole nation – has been recognized in its heroic role by the public opinion of the advanced elements of the liberal-democratic bourgeoisie in these days." Understand at last, gentlemen new-Iskrites, that liberal bourgeois recognize the proletariat as a hero precisely because, in striking a blow at tsarism, this proletariat is still not sufficiently strong, still not sufficiently social-democratic to win for itself the freedom it desires. Understand that we should not boast about the present liberal courtesies, but should warn the proletariat and show it the real nature of these courtesies. You do not see this real nature? Then look at the declarations of factory owners, merchants, stock exchange speculators about the necessity of a constitution! Is it not true that these declarations speak plainly about the death of moderate liberalism? Liberal windbags babble about the heroism of proletarians, while factory owners weightily and impressively demand a limited constitution – that is how the matter stands, my dear "guides"![69]

But most remarkable of all are *Iskra*'s arguments on the question of arming. "Work on arming the proletariat, on the systematic preparation of the organization, which would guarantee the universality and simultaneity of the people's attack on the government," is declared a "technical"(!?) task. And we, of course, stand above such contemptible technique and look into the depths of things. "However important they are (these "technical" tasks), the center of gravity of our work in preparing the masses for uprising does not lie in them"… "All the efforts of underground organizations will be of no significance if they do not succeed in arming the people with one irreplaceable weapon – the burning need to attack the autocracy and arm themselves for this. This is where we should direct our efforts – to propaganda among the masses of self-arming for the purposes of uprising" (the last two passages are emphasized by the author).

Yes, yes, this is indeed a profound approach to the question, not like that of the narrow Parvus, who has almost reached "Jacobinism." The center of gravity lies not in the work of arming and not in the systematic preparation of the organization, but in arming the people with a burning need to arm themselves and, moreover, to arm themselves. What a burning sense of shame for social-democracy one experiences at the sight of this philistine vulgarity, trying to drag our movement backward! Arming the people with a burning need to arm themselves is the constant and general, always and everywhere applicable task of social-democracy – a task equally applicable to Japan, England, Germany, and Italy. Everywhere, where there are oppressed classes struggling against exploitation, the preaching of the socialist from the very beginning and first of all arms them with a burning need to arm themselves, and this "need" is already present when the workers' movement begins. Social-democracy has only to make this burning need conscious, to make those who experience it take into account the necessity of organization and systematic action, the entire political situation. Look, if you please, Mr. Editor of *Iskra*, at any German workers' meeting, see what hatred burns in their faces toward, say, the police, what incensed sarcasm pours forth, how fists clench. What force restrains this burning need for immediate reckoning with the bourgeoisie and their lackeys who mock the people? The force of organization and discipline, the force of consciousness – the consciousness that individual murders are absurd, that the hour of serious, popular, revolutionary struggle has not yet come, that there is no appropriate political situation for this. This is why the socialist does not say and will never say to the people: arm yourselves; but always and necessarily (otherwise he is not a socialist but an empty-mouthed chatterer) arms them with a burning need to arm themselves and attack the enemy. It is precisely in these conditions of everyday work that the conditions differ now in Russia. It is precisely for this reason that revolutionary social-democrats, who up to now have never said: to arms! but always armed workers with a burning need to arm themselves, all revolutionary social-democrats now, following the revolutionary-initiative workers, have given the slogan: to arms! And so, at a moment when this slogan has finally been given, *Iskra* pronounces: the center of gravity lies not in arming but in the burning need for self-arming. Is this not deadly intelligentsia reasoning, is this not hopeless Trepichkinism? Are not these people dragging the party away from the urgent tasks of the revolutionary avant-garde back to contemplation of the "rear" of the proletariat? And it is not the individual qualities of this or that Trepichkin that accounts for this incredible vulgarization of our tasks, but their entire position, formulated so incomparably in the winged phrases about "organization-as-process" or "tactics-as-process." This very position inevitably and necessarily condemns a man to fear every definite slogan, to shun every "plan," to retreat from bold revolutionary initiative, to reason and regurgitate the old cud – afraid to forge ahead at a time when we, as social-democrats, have fallen plainly behind the revolutionary activity of the proletariat. Truly: the dead have seized the living; dead bureaucratic theories have hopelessly mortified the new *Iskra* as well.

Look at *Iskra*'s arguments "about the politically guiding role of social-democracy as the avant-garde of the class liberating the nation." "This role," they instruct us, "cannot be achieved or firmly secured for us by the fact that we succeed in taking entirely into our hands the technical organization and conduct of the uprising." Just think: the role of avant-garde cannot be achieved if we succeed in taking entirely into our hands the conduct of the uprising! And these people still speak of an avant-garde! They fear that history will impose upon them a guiding role in the democratic revolution; they think with fear about how it might befall them to "conduct an uprising." They imagine – they just have not yet dared to say it outright on the pages of *Iskra* – that a social-democratic organization should not "conduct an uprising," should not strive to take entirely into its hands the revolutionary transition to a democratic republic. They see monstrous Jacobinism in this, these incurable Girondins of socialism. They do not understand that the more assiduously we strive to take entirely into our hands the conduct of the uprising, the larger a portion of this business we will take into our hands, and that the larger this portion, the less will be the influence of anti-proletarian or non-proletarian democracy. They insist on being in the rear, they have even invented for themselves a special philosophy that one must be in the rear – Martynov has already begun to expound it and tomorrow, probably, will reach the point on the pages of *Iskra*.

Try to analyze their argument step by step:

"The conscious proletariat, relying on the logic of the spontaneous process of historical development, uses for its purposes all the elements of organization, all the elements of ferment that the moment of the eve of revolution creates…"

Excellent! But to use all elements means to take entirely upon oneself the guidance of them. *Iskra* defeats itself and, sensing this, hastens to add:

"…not in the least disturbed by the fact that all these elements deprive it of a share of the technical guidance of the revolution itself and thus, willingly or unwillingly, will help transfer our demands to the most backward strata of the popular mass."

Do you understand anything, reader? To use all elements, not being disturbed by the fact that they deprive us of a share of the guidance!?? For God's sake, gentlemen: if we really use all elements, if our demands really are accepted by those we use, then they do not deprive us of guidance – they accept our guidance. But if these elements really do deprive us of guidance (and of course not only "technical" guidance, for the separation of the "technical" side of the revolution from the political is the greatest nonsense), then, it means, we are not using them – they are using us.

"We will be glad if, following the priest who popularized in the masses our demand for the separation of the state and church, following the monarchist workers' society that organized a popular march on the Winter Palace, the Russian revolution is enriched by a general who first leads the popular masses in the final battle against the tsar's troops, or by a bureaucrat who first proclaims the official overthrow of tsarist power."

Yes, we too will be glad of this, but we would wish that the feeling of joy about possible pleasant outcomes not obscure our logic. What does it mean: the Russian revolution is enriched by a priest or a general? It means that the priest or general will become supporters or leaders of the revolution. These "newcomers" may be fully conscious supporters of the revolution or not fully. In the latter case (the most probable with regard to newcomers), we must not rejoice but grieve over their lack of consciousness and with all our strength correct and supplement it. Until we have done this, until the masses follow a not fully conscious leader, we must say that it is not social-democracy using all elements but all elements using it. A supporter of the revolution, yesterday a priest or general or bureaucrat, may be full of bourgeois-democratic prejudices, and insofar as workers follow him, bourgeois democracy "uses" the workers. Is this clear to you, gentlemen new-Iskrites? If it is clear, then why do you fear that fully conscious (that is, social-democratic) supporters of the revolution should take upon themselves the guidance? Why do you fear that a social-democratic officer (I take a deliberately analogous example to your own) and a member of a social-democratic organization on the initiative and instruction of this organization should take upon himself, "take entirely into his own hands" the functions and tasks of your supposed general?

Let us return to Parvus. He ends his fine article with fine advice to "throw overboard" the disorganizers. The elimination of disorganizers, as is evident from the reports we have placed in the section "From the Party"{99}, is the most passionate and most decisive slogan of the majority of Russian social-democrats. Precisely so, comrade Parvus: "throw overboard" in the most ruthless manner and begin this throwing overboard with those heroes of social-democratic journalism who have sanctified and do sanctify the disorganization with "theories" of organization-as-process, organization-as-tendency. One must not merely speak of this but do it. One must immediately convene a congress of all party workers wishing to organize the party. One must not limit oneself to persuasion and admonishment but must place before all who waver, all who are shaky, uncertain, and doubtful a direct and unshakeable ultimatum: choose! Beginning with the first issue of our newspaper we have placed this ultimatum in the name of the *Forward* editorial board, in the name of all that mass of Russian party workers driven to unprecedented fury by the disorganizers. Hurry and throw them overboard, comrades, and get down to energetic organizational work! Better a hundred revolutionary social-democrats who have adopted organization-as-plan than a thousand intelligentsia Trepichkins babbling about organization-as-process!

Written between February 1 and 8 (14 and 21), 1905

Published February 21 (8), 1905 in the newspaper *Forward* No. 7

Printed according to the text of the newspaper