V. I.

Lenin

Revolutsionnaya Rossiya , No. 58, says: “May the spirit of
fighting unity now at long last pervade the ranks of the revolutionary socialist
groups, which are torn by fratricidal animosity, and may it revive the
consciousness of socialist solidarity which has been so criminally
sapped.... Let us spare the revolutionary forces as much as we can and increase
their effectiveness by means of a concerted attack!”

We have often had occasion to protest against the tyranny of the phrase among
the Socialists-Revolutionaries, and we must do so again. Why these frightful
words,

gentle men, about “fratricidal animosity” and so forth? Are
they worthy of a revolutionary? Now of all times, when the real fight is on,
when blood is flowing—the blood of which Revolutsionnaya Rossiya
speaks in such flamboyant terms, these grotesque exaggerations about
“fratricidal animosity” ring falser than ever. Spare the forces, say
you? But surely this is done by a united, welded organisation which
is at one on questions of principle, and not by lumping together heterogeneous
elements. Strength is not spared but wasted by such barren attempts at
lumping. To achieve a “fighting unity” in deed and not merely in
word, we must know clearly, definitely, and from experience exactly
wherein and to what extent we can be united. Without this, all
talk of fighting unity will be mere words, words, words; this knowledge, incidentally, comes from the very controversy, struggle, and animosity of
which you speak in such “frightful” terms. Would it really be better
if we hushed up the differences that divide vast sections of Russian public
opinion and Russian socialist thought? Was it only the “cult of discord” that provoked the bitter struggle between Narodism, that nebulous ideology of the democratic bourgeoisie woven of socialistic
dreams, and Marxism, the ideology of the proletariat? Nonsense, gentlemen; you
only make your selves ridiculous by saying such things, by continuing to regard
as an “insult” the Marxist view that Narodism and your “social-revolutionism” are essentially bourgeois-democratic. We
shall inevitably argue, differ, and quarrel also in the future revolutionary
committees in Russia, but surely we must learn from history. We must not have
unexpected, unintelligible, and muddled disputes at a time when action is
called for; we must be prepared to argue on fundamental issues, to know the
points of departure of each trend, to anticipate possible unity or possible
antagonism. The history of revolutionary epochs provides many, all too many,
instances of tremendous harm caused by hasty and half-baked experiments in
“fighting unity” that sought to lump together the most heterogeneous
elements in the committees of the revolutionary people, but managed thereby to
achieve mutual friction and bitter disappointment .

We want to profit by this lesson of history. Marxism, which to you seems a
narrow dogma, is to us the quintessence of this historical lesson and
guidance. We see in the independent , uncompromisingly Marxist party of
the revolutionary proletariat the sole pledge of socialism’s victory and the
road to victory that is most free from vacillations. We shall never, therefore,
not even at the most revolutionary moments, forego the complete independence of
the Social-Democratic Party or the complete intransigence of our ideology.

You believe this rules out fighting unity? You are mistaken. You can
see from the resolution of our Second Congress that we do not renounce
agreements for the struggle and in the struggle. In Vperyod , No. 4, we
stressed the fact that the beginning of the revolution in Russia undoubtedly
brings closer the moment when such agreements can be practically implemented. [1]

A joint struggle of the revolutionary Social-Democrats and the revolutionary
elements of the democratic movement is inevitable and indispensable in the era
of the fall of the autocracy. We think that we should serve the cause of future militant agreements better if, instead of indulging in
bitter recriminations, we sanely and coolly weighed the conditions under
which they would become possible and the likely limits of their
“jurisdiction”, if one may use the term. We began this work in
Vperyod , No. 3, in which we undertook a study of the progress of
the Socialist-Revolutionary Party from Narodism to

Marxism. [2] “The masses took to arms themselves,” Revolutsionnaya Rossiya
wrote in connection with the Ninth of January. “Sooner or later, without
doubt, the question of arming the masses will be decided.” “That is when
the fusion between terrorism and the mass movement, to which we are striving by
word and deed in accordance with the entire spirit of our Party tactics, will be
manifested and realised in the most striking manner.” (We would remark
parenthetically that we would gladly put a question mark after the word
“deed”; but let us proceed with the quotation.) “Not so long
ago, before our own eyes, these two factors of the movement were separate, and
this separateness deprived them of their full force.”

What is true is true! Exactly! Intelligentsia terrorism and the mass movement of
the working class were separate, and this separateness deprived them of their full force. That is precisely what the revolutionary Social-Democrats
have been saying all along. For this very reason they have always been opposed
to terrorism and to all the vacillations towards terrorism which members of the
intellectualist wing of our Party have often displayed. [3]

For this reason precisely the old Iskra took a position against terrorism when it wrote
in issue No. 48: “The terrorist struggle of the old type was the
riskiest form of revolutionary struggle, and those who en gaged in it had the
reputation of being resolute, self-sacrificing people.... Now, however, when
demonstrations develop into acts of open resistance to the government, ... the
old terrorism ceases to be an exceptionally daring method of
struggle.... Heroism has now come out into the open; the true heroes of our time are now the revolutionaries who lead the popular masses,
which are rising against their oppressors.... The terrorism of the great French
Revolution ... began on July 14, 1789, with the storming of the Bastille. Its
strength was the strength of the revolutionary movement of the
people.... That terrorism was due, not to disappointment in the
strength of the mass movement, but, on the contrary, to ’unshakable faith in its
strength.... The history of that terrorism is exceedingly instructive
for the Russian revolutionary.” [4]

Yes, a thousand times yes! The history of that terrorism is
instructive in the extreme. Instructive, too, are the quoted passages from
Iskra , which refer to an epoch of eighteen months ago. These quotations
show us, in their full stature, the ideas which even the Socialists-Revolutionaries, under the influence of the revolutionary lessons, would like to arrive
at. They remind us of the importance of faith in the mass movement;
they remind us of revolutionary tenacity, which comes only from high principles
and which alone can safeguard us against the “disappointments”
induced by a prolonged apparent standstill of the movement. Now, after
the Ninth of January, there can be no question, on the face of it, of any
“disappointments” in the mass movement. But only on the face of
it. We should distinguish between the momentary “attraction” evoked
by a striking display of mass heroism and the steadfast, reasoned convictions
that link inseparably the entire activity of the Party with the movement of the
masses, owing to the paramount importance which is attached to the principle of
the class struggle. We should bear in mind that the revolutionary movement,
however high its level since the Ninth of January, still has many stages to pass
through before our socialist and democratic parties will be reconstructed on a
new basis in a free Russia. And through all these stages, through all the
vicissitudes of the struggle, we must maintain the ties between
Social-Democracy and the class struggle of the proletariat unbroken, and we must see to it that they are continuously strengthened
and made more secure.

It seems to us, therefore, a gross exaggeration for Revolutsionnaya Rossiya to assert that “the pioneers of the armed struggle were
swallowed up in the ranks of the roused masses....” This is the desirable future
rather than the reality of the moment. The assassination of Sergei in
Moscow on February 17 (4), [5] which has been reported by telegraph this very day, is
obviously an act of terrorism of the old type. The pioneers of the armed
struggle have not yet been swallowed up in the ranks of the roused
masses. Pioneers with bombs evidently lay in wait for Sergei in Moscow while the
masses (in St. Petersburg), without pioneers, without arms, without
revolutionary officers, and without a revolutionary staff “flung
themselves in implacable fury upon bristling bayonets”, as this same
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya expresses it. The separateness of which we
spoke above still exists , and the individual intellectualist terror
shows all the more strikingly its inadequacy in face of the growing realisation
that “the masses have risen to the stature of individual heroes, that
mass heroism has been awakened in them” ( Revolutsionnaya Rossiya ,
No. 58). The pioneers should submerge among the masses in actual fact ,
that is, exert their selfless energies in real inseparable connection with the
insurgent masses, and proceed with them in the literal, not figurative,
symbolical, sense of the word. That this is essential can hardly be open to
doubt now. That it is possible has been proved by the Ninth of January and by
the deep unrest which is still smouldering among the working-class masses. The
fact that this is a new, higher, and more difficult task in comparison with the
preceding ones cannot and should not stop us from meeting it at once
in a practical way.

Fighting unity between the Social-Democratic Party and the
revolutionary-democratic party—the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, might
be one way of facilitating the solution of this problem. Such unity will be all
the more practicable, the sooner the pioneers of the armed struggle are
“swallowed up” in the ranks of the insurgent masses, the more firmly
the Socialists-Revolutionaries follow the path which they themselves have
charted in the words, “May these beginnings of fusion between revolutionary terrorism and the mass movement
grow and strengthen, may the masses act as quickly as possible, armed cap-à-pie
with terrorist methods of struggle!” With a view to bringing about speedily
such a fighting unity, we take pleasure in publishing the following letter which
we have received from Georgi
Gapon:

“An Open Letter to the Socialist Parties of Russia.

“The bloody January days in St. Petersburg and the rest of Russia have
brought the oppressed working class face to face with the autocratic regime,
headed by the blood-thirsty tsar. The great Russian revolution has begun. All to
whom the people’s freedom is really dear must either win or die. Realising the
importance of the present historic moment, considering the present state of
affairs, and being above all a revolutionary and a man of action, I call upon
all the socialist parties of Russia to enter immediately into an agreement among
themselves and to proceed to the armed uprising against tsarism. All the forces
of every party should be mobilised. All should have a single technical plan of
action. Bombs and dynamite, individual and mass terror—every thing that
can help the popular uprising. The immediate aim is the over throw of the
autocracy, a provisional revolutionary government which will at once amnesty all
fighters for political and religious liberties, at once arm the people, and at
once convoke a Constituent Assembly on the basis of universal, equal, and direct
suffrage by secret ballot. To the task, comrades! Onward to the fight! Let us
repeat the slogan of the St. Petersburg workers on the Ninth of
January—Freedom or Death! Delay and disorder now are a crime against the
people, whose interests you are defending. Having given all of myself to the
service of the people, from whom I myself am sprung (the son of a peasant), and
having thrown in my lot irrevocably with the struggle against the oppressors and
exploiters of the working class, I shall naturally be heart and soul with those
who will undertake the real business of actually liberating the proletariat and
all the toiling masses from the capitalist yoke and political slavery.

“Georgi Gapon.”

On our part, we consider it necessary to state our view of this letter as
clearly and as definitely as possible. We consider that the
“agreement” it proposes is possible, useful, And essential. We
welcome the fact that Gapon speaks explicitly of an “agreement”,
since only through the preservation of complete independence by each separate
party on points of principle and organisation can the efforts at a fighting
unity of these parties rest on hope. We must be very careful, in making these
endeavours, not to spoil things by vainly trying to lump together heterogeneous
elements.

We shall inevitably have to getrennt marschieren (march separately),
but we can vereint schlagen (strike together) more than once and
particularly now. It would be desirable, from our point of view, to have
this agreement embrace the revolutionary as well as the socialist
parties, for there is nothing socialistic in the immediate aim of the
struggle, and we must not confound or allow anyone ever to confound the
immediate democratic aims with our ultimate aims of socialist revolution. It
would be desirable, and from our point of view essential , for the
agreement that, instead of a general call for “individual and
mass terror”, it should be stated openly and definitely that this
joint action pursues the aim of a direct and actual fusion between
terrorism and the uprising of the masses. True, by adding the words
“everything that can help the popular uprising”, Gapon clearly
indicates his desire to make even individual terror subservient to this
aim; but this desire, which suggests the idea that we noted in
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya , No. 58, should be expressed more
definitely and embodied in absolutely unequivocal practical decisions. We
should like, finally, to point out, regardless of the realisability of the
proposed agreement, that Gapon’s extra-party stand seems to us to be another
negative factor. Obviously, with so rapid a conversion from faith in the
tsar and petitioning of the tsar to revolutionary aims, Gapon was not able
to evolve for himself immediately a clear revolutionary outlook. This is
inevitable, and the faster and broader the revolution develops, the more
often will this kind of thing occur. Nevertheless, complete clarity and
definiteness in the relations between parties, trends, and shades are
absolutely necessary if a temporary agreement among them is to be in any
way successful. Clarity and definiteness will be needed at every practical
step; they will be the pre-condition for definiteness and the absence of
vacillation in the real, practical work. The beginning of the
revolution in Russia will probably lead to the emergence upon the political
arena of many people and perhaps trends representing the view that the
slogan “revolution” is, for “men of action”, a quite adequate definition of their aims and their methods of operation. Nothing
could be more fallacious than this opinion. The extra-party position, which
seems higher, or more convenient, or more “diplomatic”, is in actual fact
more vague , more obscure, and inevitably fraught with inconsistencies
and vacillations in practical activity. In the interests of the revolution our
ideal should by no means be that all parties, all trends and shades of opinion
fuse in a revolutionary chaos. On the contrary, the growth and spread of the
revolutionary movement, its constantly deeper penetration among the various
classes and strata of the people, will inevitably give rise (all to the good) to
constantly newer trends and shades. Only full clarity and definiteness in their
mutual relations and in their attitude towards the position of the revolutionary
proletariat can guarantee maximum success for the revolutionary movement. Only
full clarity in mutual relations can guarantee the success of an agreement to
achieve a common immediate aim.

This immediate aim is outlined quite correctly, in our opinion, in
Gapon’s letter, namely: (1) the overthrow of the autocracy; (2) a
provisional revolutionary government; (3) the immediate amnesty to all fighters
for political and religious liberties, including, of course, the right to
strike, etc.; (4) the immediate arming of the people; and (5) the immediate
convocation of an All-Russian Constituent Assembly on the basis of universal,
equal, and direct suffrage by secret ballot. The immediate translation into life
by the revolutionary government of complete equality for all citizens and
complete political freedom during elections is, of course, taken for granted by
Gapon; but this might have been stated explicitly. It would be advisable also to
include in the general policy of the provisional government the establishment
everywhere of revolutionary peasant committees for the purpose of supporting
the democratic revolution and putting into effect its various measures. The
success of the revolution depends largely on the revolutionary activity of the
peasantry itself, and the various socialist and revolutionary-democratic parties
would probably agree on a slogan such as we have suggested.

It is to be hoped that Gapon, whose evolution from views shared by a politically
unconscious people to revolutionary views proceeds from such profound personal
experiences, will achieve the clear revolutionary outlook that is essential for
a man of politics. It is to be hoped that his appeal for a militant agreement for the uprising will meet with success, and
that the revolutionary proletariat, side by side with the revolutionary
democrats, will strike at the autocracy and overthrow it all the more
quickly and surely, and with the least sacrifices.

---
Notes:
[1]
See pp. 99-100 of this volume— Ed .

[2]
See pp. 83-89 of this volume.— Ed .

[3]
Krichevsky in Rabocheye Dyelo , No. 10. Martov and Zasulich
concerning the shot fired by Lekert. The new-Iskrists generally in a
leaflet in connection with the assassination of

Plehve. [6] — Lenin

[4]
This article in Iskra , written by Plekhanov, dates back to the
time when Iskra (Nos. 46-51) was edited by Plekhanov and
Lenin. Plekhanov had at that time not begun to contemplate the new line of
notorious compliance to opportunism.— Lenin

[6]
On May 5 (18), 1902, the worker Hirsh Lekert made an attempt
on the life of the Governor of Wilno, von Wal. Martov and Zasulich hailed this
act of individual terror.

The leaflet on the assassination of Plehve mentioned by Lenin refers to leaflet
No. 16 “To the Working People”, signed by the Editorial Board of
the Menshevik Iskra , which openly defended the
Socialist-Revolutionary tactics of individual terror.

[5]
The reference is to the assassination of Grand Duke Sergei,
Governor-General of Moscow, by the Socialist-Revolutionary terrorists.