V. I.

Lenin

A New Revolutionary Workers’ Association

Wehave received the following leaflets of the Central Committee of the Russian
Liberation Union (R.L.U.), printed and distributed in Russia:

(1) an unaddressed appeal setting forth the aims and the nature of the R.L.U.; (2) an appeal to the
workers concerning the establishment of the R.L.U. Workers’ Union, and (3) the Rules of this Workers’ Union. From these documents it is
evident that “the R.L.U. is not a party with a definite and
specific programme, but rather an association of all who desire the
transfer of power from the autocracy to the people by means of the
armed uprising and through the convocation of a Constituent
Assembly” based on universal suffrage with all its democratic
aspects. “The urgent necessity,” we read in the first appeal,
“of achieving the universal immediate objective, i.e., a
Constituent Assembly, has given rise to the R.L.U., which has made it
its aim to unite all who strive for the political freedom of Russia
and to take practical steps to achieve the revolution. With the
achievement of this objective the R.L.U. will discontinue its
activities and entrust the protection of the people’s representatives
and of public safety to a civil militia to be organised for the
purpose.”

The Rules of the Workers’ Union consist of 43 clauses, and their aim is set
forth as follows:

“(1) to organise combat groups for the armed uprising; (2) to raise the necessary funds for arms and for literature of a strictly
proletarian nature.” The organisation of the Workers’ Union consists
of four-stage bodies:

(1) groups of workers (mainly from one and the same workshop); (2)
factory councils; (3) district meetings; and (4) committees of the Workers’
Union. All higher bodies consist of elected representatives of the lower
bodies, with two exceptions: first, each committee of the Workers’ Union contains a member of
the C.C. of the Russian Liberation Union; second, it is not specified
whether this C.C. is elected or whether it is subject to any control. All
that is said on the relations between the Workers’ Union and the
R.L.U. is: “Through us (the C.C. of the R.L.U.) the Workers’ Union
will be connected with all the other workers’ and non-working-class
associations.” Not a word is mentioned about the organisation of the
R.L.U. itself and the relation of its C.C. to the R.L.U. as a whole. In
its appeal to the workers the C.C. of the R.L.U. sets forth its immediate
task as follows:

“We shall work out a detailed plan of the uprising, tell you how to form
combat squads, teach you how to arm, and supply fire-arms. Lastly, we shall
unite the activities of all people scattered in all towns and places, who want
to free Russia from the yoke of the autocracy, and, when that unity has been
achieved, we will give the signal for the general uprising.” Finally, we would
point out that the Rules of the Workers’ Union (§4) say: “The appeal
to form the Workers’ Union will be distributed at all the factories of
St. Petersburg and its environs.”

Fromall this it is apparent that we have to do here with an attempt at an
“independent” non-party organisation of the armed popular uprising
in general and the uprising of the St. Petersburg workers in particular. We
shall not dwell here on the question to what extent this attempt is serious;
that can be judged conclusively only from its results and tentatively from
private and secret information about the R.L.U., but we have no such
information. We wish to touch therefore on the significance of this attempt in
terms of principle and the tactical and organisational tasks which it poses for
Social-Democracy.

Withoutdoubt, we are dealing here with weighty evidence pointing to the fact
that the question of the armed popular uprising is now looming large. It is a
question which practical workers as well as theoreticians have now raised. It is
posed, not as a conclusion drawn from a definite programme (as it was, for
instance, in Social-Democratic literature abroad in

1902), [1] but as a vital issue of the practical movement today. It is not a question now of discussing the
problem, or even of preparing for the uprising in general, but of actually
carrying out the uprising. Manifestly, the whole course of events brings to the fore the question of the uprising; the whole struggle for freedom has
made necessary such a decisive outcome. From this it is clear, by the way, how
deeply mistaken those Social-Democrats are who seek to prevent the Party from
putting this task on the order of the day.

Furthermore,the attempt we have considered proves that the
revolutionary-democratic movement in Russia has made a great stride
forward. A long time back, in issue No. 7 of

Vperyod , [2] we pointed out the emergence of this new group among the forces, parties, and organisations
hostile to the autocracy. We pointed out that the very nature of the revolution
taking place in Russia, namely, the bourgeois-democratic revolution, inevitably
increased and multiplied, and would continue to increase and multiply, the most
diverse militant elements who expressed the interests of the most diverse
sections of the people, who were prepared for decisive struggle and were
passionately devoted to the cause of freedom and prepared to sacrifice their
all for that cause, but who did not and could not grasp either the historic
significance or the class content of the revolution that was taking place. The
rapid growth of these social elements is highly characteristic of an epoch in
which the whole people is oppressed by the autocracy and in which the direct
political struggle has not yet succeeded in clearly demarcating the classes and
creating clearly defined parties understandable to the broad masses. All these
undissociated and undefined elements form the cadres of the revolutionary
democrats. Their militant significance for the democratic revolution is very
great. Their non-party, indefinite position is, on the one hand, symptomatic of
the fact that the intermediate sections of the population are rising to
desperate struggle and revolt—the sections that have least of all merged
with either of the two hostile classes in capitalist society, the sections of
the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie, etc. On the other hand, the fact that
these non-party revolutionaries have set out upon the revolutionary path is a pledge that the utterly backward
sections of the people, those farthest re moved from class definiteness,
will now be more easily, quickly, and broadly aroused and drawn into the
struggle. Formerly only the intelligentsia in Russia was
revolutionary. Later the urban proletariat turned revolutionary. Today a
considerable number of other social elements, deeply rooted in the
people” and closely linked with the masses, are turning
revolutionary against the autocracy. The active participation of these
elements is essential to the cause of the popular uprising. Their
militant significance, we repeat, is very great. But their political
significance for the proletarian movement may sometimes be small,
if not actually negative. These elements are simply revolutionary
and simply democratic because association with the one definite
class which has cut loose from the ruling bourgeoisie, viz., the proletariat, is alien to
them. By fighting for freedom with out close connection with the proletarian
struggle for socialism, they play a role that objectively amounts to
promoting the interests of the bourgeoisie. They who serve the cause of
freedom in general without serving the specific cause of proletarian
utilisation of this freedom, the cause of turning the freedom to account in
the proletarian struggle for socialism, are, in the final analysis, plainly
and simply, fighters for the interests of the bourgeoisie. We do not in the
least belittle the heroism of these people. We certainly do not belittle
their tremendous role in the struggle for freedom. But we do not cease to
maintain with the utmost emphasis that their activity does not yet in the
least guarantee that the fruits of victory, the fruits of freedom, will be
utilised in the interest of the proletariat, of socialism. They who stand
outside the parties thereby serve the interests of the ruling party, albeit
unwittingly and against their will. They who struggle for freedom outside
the parties thereby serve the interests of the force that will inevitably
rule when freedom is won, viz., the interests of the bourgeoisie. For this
reason we called the non-party organisation of the uprising
“independent” in inverted commas. Actually, non-partyism, with
its appearance of independence, implies utter lack of independence and utter
dependence on the ruling party. Actually, the just plain revolutionaries,
the just plain democrats are no more than the vanguard of the bourgeois-democratic
movement, and sometimes merely its auxiliary force, even its cannon-fodder.

Wepass now from these general theses to a more detailed examination of the
documents in hand. “Let us abandon for a time party disputes and
differences on points of principle,” exclaims the C.C. of the R.L.U. in its
first call, “let us rally into a mighty whole, into the Russian
Liberation Union, and give our strength, our funds, and our knowledge
to the people in its great struggle with the common enemy, the autocracy. Until the
Constituent Assembly is held, we must all go along together. Only the
Constituent Assembly can bring political freedom, without which a proper
struggle of the parties is inconceivable.” Any worker who is at all
class-conscious knows full well that the people struggling against the autocracy
consists of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie is very keen on
freedom, it is making a great stir about it, writing in the press and addressing
meetings against the autocracy. Yet is there a person so naive who does not
understand that the bourgeoisie will never give up private ownership of the land
and of capital, but, on the contrary, will fight to the last ditch to retain it
against the encroachment of the workers? For the worker to abandon differences
on questions of principle with the bourgeoisie, alongside which he is fighting
the autocracy, is tantamount to abandoning socialism , to abandoning the
idea of socialism, and the preparatory work for socialism. For the worker, in
short, it means abandoning the idea of his economic emancipation, the
emancipation of the working people from poverty and oppression. All over the
world the bourgeoisie struggled for freedom, which it won largely with the hands
of the workers, only thereafter to launch a furious struggle against
socialism. Therefore, the appeal to sink differences is a bourgeois
appeal. Under the guise of non partyism the C.C. of the R.L.U. is feeding the
workers with bourgeois phrases, instilling into them bourgeois ideas,
demoralising their socialist consciousness with bourgeois exhalations. Only the
enemies of socialism, the liberal bourgeois, the Osvobozhdeniye
gentry, can be consciously in sympathy with the idea of the workers and the
bourgeois sinking their differences for a time, and only revolutionary democrats like the Socialists-Revolutionaries, who care little about socialism, can
unconsciously be in sympathy with it The workers should fight for freedom,
without even for a minute abandoning the idea of socialism,
without ceasing to work for its realisation, to prepare the forces and the
organisation for the achievement of socialism.

TheC.C. of the R.L.U. says: “As far as our attitude to wards the existing
parties and organisations is concerned, we, the Central Committee of the R.L.U.,
declare that we foresee no possibility of the appearance of fundamental
differences with the Social-Democratic parties, since the principle of the
Union does not contradict their programmes” ....

These words show the extent to which the C.C. of the R.L.U. misunderstands
socialism. The C.C. does not even foresee the possibility of the appearance of
differences with Social-Democracy, whereas we have shown that a fundamental
difference exists! The C.C. sees no contradiction between the principle of the
Union and the programme of Social-Democracy, whereas we have shown that this
contradiction is as profound as the contradiction between the proletariat and
the bourgeoisie. Our radical disagreement with the R.L.U. arises precisely from
the fact that it passes socialism over in silence. Any political trend that
passes socialism over in silence is radically opposed to the
Social-Democratic programme.

Thequoted passage shows that the R.L.U. is in sympathy with
Social-Democracy. Knowing nothing about the R.L.U. beyond the leaflet it has
issued, we are not yet in a position to judge the sincerity of that sympathy. At
any rate, mere Platonic sympathy cannot satisfy us, mere Platonic love is not
enough. We want more than sympathy, we want to be understood and we want our
programme to be shared by those who would not like their ideas to contradict
this programme. The Russian Liberation Union speaks of its task of “widely
distributing among the workers literature advocating a strictly proletarian ideology” (our italics). These are very good words, but
words are not enough. And if these fine words contradict the deeds, no amount of
sincerity will save their authors in actual deeds from becoming carriers of
bourgeois ideas into the working class. Let us consider the matter: what does
this “strictly proletarian ideology” actually mean? Who is going to
judge whether it is strictly proletarian? Can the problem conceivably be solved by
“abandoning for a time party disputes and differences on points of
principle”? Would it not then first be necessary to “abandon for a
time” the distribution of literature among the workers?

TheC.C. of the R.L.U. once more launches the slogan of the “independent
activity” of the workers. Our Party has often witnessed attempts to call
into life a special trend in Social-Democracy under the banner of this notorious
slogan. Thus it was with the “Economists” in the past, thus it is
now with the Mensheviks or the new-Iskrists. Ever and always it turned out that
this slogan (whether those who released it were conscious of it or not) only
suited the purpose of elements who least appreciated the consistency
of principle and the idea-content of the movement. We need only see
the new use to which this old slogan has been put: we see before our eyes a fusion of the appeal to
“independent activity” in assessing a “strictly proletarian
ideology” with the “independently active” repetition of
anti-proletarian, bourgeois phrases, with the advocacy of the bourgeois idea of
non-partyism. We would answer the C.C. of the R.L.U.:

there is only one strictly proletarian ideology, and that is Marxism. A
strictly proletarian programme and strictly proletarian tactics are the
programme and the tactics of international revolutionary Social-Democracy. This
is borne out, among other things, by proletarian experience, by the experience
of the proletarian movement throughout the world, from Germany to America, from
England to Italy. It is over half a century since this movement first emerged
upon the broad political scene in 1848; the parties of the proletariat formed
and grew into vast armies; they experienced a number of revolutions, underwent
all kinds of trials, passed through deviations to both the Right and the Left,
and waged a struggle with opportunism and with anarchism. This entire gigantic
experience serves to confirm the Marxist ideology and the Social-Democratic
programme. It is a pledge that even those workers who are now following
the lead of the R.L.U. will, in the mass, inevitably and unavoidably come to

Social-Democracy!

Toquote further from the Appeal: “Being largely a practical
organisation, the R.L.U. is at one in its activity also with the Party of the Socialists-Revolutionaries, inasmuch as we are
united with it by a common method—armed struggle against the
autocracy, and a common aim—the con vocation of a Constituent
Assembly on democratic lines....”

After what has been said we are not surprised, of course, at this rapprochement
of the revolutionary democrats with the Socialists-Revolutionaries. While
stressing the practical nature of its organisation in the cited passage of the
Appeal and limiting its solidarity with the Socialists-Revolutionaries
(“inasmuch as”) to common grounds of method and immediate aim, the
R.L.U. obviously abstains for the present from determining the relationship
between the “principles” of the Socialists-Revolutionaries and those
of a “strictly proletarian ideology”. Such an abstention would be a
very bad recommendation for a Social-Democrat, but a very good one for a
revolutionary democrat. Unfortunately, however, the ensuing sentence in the
Appeal shows what a non-party” stand may lead to.... “We have
nothing against even the Osvobozhdeniye League,” says the C.C. of the
R.L.U., “notwithstanding the radical difference in our political
convictions, provided, of course, that it brings itself to realise the
inevitability of the armed uprising if a Constituent Assembly is to be
convened.”

Inthe first place, we would remark in this connection that if the
R.L.U. differs radically only with the political views of the
Osvobozhdeniye League, we can infer that it does not differ with its
economic programme, in which case it explicitly renounces socialism and fully
subscribes to the views of the revolutionary bourgeois democrats! This
deduction, of course, is at variance with the R.L.U.’s sympathies for a
“strictly proletarian ideology”, but the essence of a “non-party” stand consists precisely in the fact that it engenders
endless and hopeless contradictions.

Secondly,what exactly is the radical difference between the political views of
the R.L.U. and the Osvobozhdeniye League? The R.L.U. has just rapped
its own knuckles; it has spoken of “going along together to a Constituent
Assembly” and “abandoning for a time party disputes and differences
on points of principle"(obviously, until the Constituent Assembly is convened),
and now, before the Constituent Assembly, it precipitates a dispute and
expresses its disagreement with the Osvobozhdeniye League, which adopted in its
programme the convocation of a popular Constituent Assembly on democratic lines!
How does it happen that the R.L.U., while expressing a desire to
“propagandise its political convictions”, manages to say nothing on
the content of those convictions? Is the R.L.U. a republican organisation, as
distinct from the Osvobozhdeniye League, which is monarchist? Do the
political convictions of the R.L.U. include, say, the abolition of the standing
army and its replacement by the arming of the people? the demand for the
complete disestablishment of the Church? the complete abolition of indirect
taxes, etc.? In its desire to simplify and ease things by abandoning party
disputes and fundamental differences, the R.L.U. has actually complicated and
made things more difficult by the utter vagueness of its position.

Thirdly,how are we to know whether the Osvobozhdeniye League will
fulfil the condition which the R.L.U. has set it, whether it will “bring
itself to realise the inevitability of the armed uprising”? Are we to wait for
its official announcement on that score? But the Osvobozhdeniye League
refuses to say anything about the methods by which its programme is to be
carried out. It gives its members full scope both in the choice of those methods
and in the matter of modifying the programme itself. It considers itself to be
a part of the “Constitutional-Democratic” (read constitutional-monarchist) party, whose other part forms the Zemstvo
grouping which refuses to commit itself to any programme or to any tactics whatever. This being
the case, what does the condition set to the Osvobozhdeniye League by
the R.L.U. amount to? Further, who does not know that the
Osvobozhdeniye adherents do not commit themselves to any definite
programme or tactical line, in order to be completely free in certain cases to
declare themselves (especially unofficially) both for terrorism and for the up
rising? Hence, we arrive at the indubitable conclusion that influential members
and even influential groups of the League will experience no difficulty in
joining, should they wish to do so, the R.L.U. and in occupying key positions
therein. Given the R.L.U.’s non-party position, quite a number of circumstances
beyond its control (large financial resources, social connections, etc.) will
favour such an outcome. This outcome would mean the conversion of the armed fighting squads of
the people into an instrument of the liberal bourgeoisie, the subjection
of the workers’ up rising to its interests. It would mean the political
exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie in the
Russian democratic revolution. In the event of such an outcome
the bourgeoisie would furnish the money to arm the proletariat, taking care to divert the
proletariat from socialism by preaching common-party interests, to weaken
its ties with Social-Democracy, and thus to render its own chances most
favour able for using the workers as its tool and for depriving them of
the possibilities to advance their own, “party”, proletarian
interests in the revolution.

*     * *
Thetactical tasks, which the appearance of this new union sets before the
Social-Democrats, follow naturally from what has been said above. Whether this
particular union, the R.L.U., especially its C.C., subject to no
control and answerable to no one, merits confidence, we cannot say. We
shall not dwell on the
C.C. of the R.L.U., but on the R.L.U. Workers’ Union, and not so much on this
particular workers’ union as on workers’ unions of this type in general. Similar
unions”, organisations, groups, and circles in varying forms, under
varying names, and of varying sizes, are today springing up all over Russia. The
whole policy of the autocracy, which compels the people to resort to arms and
prepare for the uprising, inevitably stimulates the organisation of such
groups. The motley, often accidental, nature of their social composition, with
its indeterminate class character, in con junction with an extremely limited
scope of effective Social-Democratic work, inevitably lends these groups the
character of common-party revolutionary-democratic groups. The practical
attitude of the Social-Democrats towards them is one of our Party’s most
pressing problems.

Wemust, in the first place, decidedly use all means to make the
Social-Democratic standpoint clear to the members of these groups, especially to
the workers, without vagueness or reservation in the slightest, that the
proletariat must organise definitely on a party basis and definitely in the

Social-Democratic Party, if it does not wish to be politically exploited by the
bourgeoisie. It would he sheer pedantry for us simply to dismiss these groups,
or to “over look” their formation and their tremendous importance
for the struggle for freedom. It would be unpardonable doctrinairism for the
Social-Democrats to adopt a snobbish or contemptuous attitude towards the
“common-party” workers belonging to such groups. We should like in
particular to warn all members of the Party against such mistakes, which are
possible as a result of the revival of Economism of rueful memory and a narrow,
tail-ist interpretation of our tasks in the ranks of Social-Democracy. Every
effort should be made to effect a mutual exchange of assistance between these
groups and the organisations of our Party for the purpose of arming the
greatest possible number of workers. There should be an extremely discreet,
tactful, and comradely attitude towards the workers, who are ready to die for
freedom, who are organising and arming for the fight, who are in complete
sympathy with the proletarian struggle, and who are yet divided from us by the
lack of a Social-Democratic world outlook, by anti-Marxist prejudices, and by
survivals of superannuated revolutionary views. Nothing is easier than the
method of immediately breaking with such otherwise-minded workers or of simply
keeping aloof from them; nor is there anything more stupid than such a
method. We should remember that Social-Democracy’s strength lies in the unity of
the broad masses of the proletariat, and that such unity, owing to the
splitting, disuniting, and dulling conditions of capitalism, is not achieved
with immediacy, but only at the cost of persistent effort and tremendous
patience. We should remember the experiences of our European comrades, who
consider it their duty to show an attitude of comradely concern even towards the
workers who are members of the Catholic unions and try not to antagonise them
by treating their religious and political prejudices with contempt, but
persistently, tactfully, and patiently make use of every act of the political
and economic struggle in order to enlighten them and bring them closer to the
class conscious proletariat on the ground of common struggle. How much more
careful should our attitude be towards the worker-revolutionaries, who are
prepared to fight for freedom but are still strangers to Social-Democracy! We repeat:
no concealment of Social-Democratic views, but no slighting of the revolutionary
groups that do not share these views. So long as these groups have not
officially joined any non Social-Democratic party, we are entitled, nay,
obligated to regard them as associated with the R.S.D.L.P. Thus, too,
we should regard the Workers’ Union of the Russian Liberation Union. We should
make every effort to introduce the members of this union to socialist literature
and conduct propaganda of our views by word of mouth at all meetings of all the
branches of this union. Even in the free countries of Europe the idea that all
proletarians can be made class-conscious Social-Democrats under capitalism is
considered utopian. But neither in Europe nor in Russia is the idea of the
Social-Democrats’ leading influence upon the mass of the proletariat considered
utopian. The thing is to learn how to exercise this influence, to remember that
our best ally in educating the unenlightened workers will be our enemies, the
government and the bourgeoisie; then we shall be sure that, at the decisive
moment, the whole working-class mass will respond to the call of
Social-Democracy!

---
Notes:
[1]
See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 515.— Ed.

[2]
See pp. 164-65 of this volume.— Ed .