V. I.

Lenin

“ Iskra has shown that a constituent assembly can be formed by way
of spontaneous generation, without the aid of any government whatever, and
consequently without the aid of a provisional government as well. Henceforth
this terrible problem may be regarded as settled, and all disputes in
connection with it must cease.”

Thusruns the Bund statement made in No. 247 of Posledniye Izvestia ,
dated September 1 (August 19). Unless this is irony, no better
“development” of Iskra’s views could be imagined. In any
case, the theory of “spontaneous generation” has been established,
the “terrible problem” has been settled, and disputes “must
cease”. What a blessing! We shall now live without disputes about this
terrible question, cherishing this new, recently discovered, and simple theory
of “spontaneous generation”, a theory as clear as the eyes of a
child. True, this theory of spontaneous generation was not generated
spontaneously, but appeared to the common view as the fruit of cohabitation
between the Bund and the new Iskra—but after all what is
important is not the origin, but the value of a theory!

Howslow-witted were those unfortunate Russian Social- Democrats who discussed
this “terrible question” both at the Third Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P. and at the Conference of new-Iskrists: some of these discussed at
length the question of a provisional government for the purpose of
generating, but not spontaneously, a constituent assembly. Others (the
Conference resolution) thought it possible that “the revolution’s decisive
victory over tsarism may be marked” also by the “decision of some
representative institution to call, under the direct revolutionary pressure of the people, a constituent assembly”. No one, however, not even the
new Iskra’s Editorial Board, who attended the Conference in full
together with Plekhanov, could ever have thought up what " ’Iskra’ has now shown” , and what the Bund has now summarised, confirmed, and
christened with a magnificent name. Like all great discoveries, the theory of the spontaneous generation of a constituent assembly immediately sheds
light on what was utter confusion. Now everything has become clear. There is no
need to think of a revolutionary provisional government (remember
Iskra’s famous dictum: let not the combination of the words “long
live” and “government” defile your lips); there is no need to
make the members of the State Duma give a “revolutionary pledge” to
“transform the State Duma into a revolutionary assembly”
(Cherevanin, in Iskra , No. 108). A constituent assembly can be generated spontaneously!! It will be immaculately brought
forth-by the people themselves, who will not defile them selves with
any “intermediary” by way of a government, even a provisional, even a revolutionary one. This will be birth
“without original sin”, by the pure method of general elections with no “Jacobin” struggle for power, with no
defilement of the holy cause through betrayal by bourgeois
representative assemblies, and even without any coarse midwives, who
hitherto in this profane, sinful, and unclean world had punctually
appeared on the scene every time the old society was pregnant with a
new one.

Hailspontaneous generation! Let all the revolutionary peoples of all Russia now
appreciate its “possibility”—and consequently its necessity to them as the most rational, easy, and simple road to freedom! Let a monument
be speedily erected in honour of the Bund and the new Iskra ,
the spontaneous progenitors of the theory of spontaneous generation!

Buthowever much we may be blinded by the glaring light of this new scientific
discovery, we must touch up on certain base features in this sublime
creation. Just as the moon is very badly made in Hamburg, [3] so too new theories
are fabricated none too carefully at the editorial office of Posledniye Izvestia . The recipe is a simple one, long a favourite with people who
could never be accused of harbouring a single original thought—take
contrasting views, mix them, and divide into two parts! From Proletary we take the criticism
of popular elections under the autocracy, from
Iskra —condemnation of the “terrible problem”; from
Proletary— the active boycott, from Iskra—the uselessness of insurrection as a slogan... “like a bee that gathers a fee
from each flowering tree”. And the good Bundists are smugly preening them
selves, rejoicing at the termination of disputes on the terrible problem, and
admiring themselves: how superior they are to the narrow and biased views of
both contending parties!

Itdoesn’t work out, comrades of the Bund. You have shown no other “way of
spontaneous generation” than that of the new Iskra. And as
regards the latter, you yourselves have had to admit that “under the
autocracy and against the will of the government, which holds the entire
machinery of state in its hands”, elections of popular representatives
can only be farcical elections. Do not abandon us half-way, 0 creators
of the new theory; tell us in what “way” other than the new
Iskra’s you “visualise” “spontaneous generation”?

Inopposition to Iskra, Proletary wrote that the only people who will
be able to conduct elections under the autocracy are the
Osvobozhdeniye League, who will willingly call them popular elections. [1]

The Bund replies: “This argument does not hold water, since
it is beyond doubt that the autocracy will allow no one—not even the
Osvobozhdeniye League—to conduct elections except within limits
established by law.” We may respectfully remark: the Zemstvos, municipal
councillors, and members of “unions” have held, and are holding,
elections. That is a fact. Their numerous bureaux provide proof of it.

The Bund writes: “We should not start agitation against the Duma and for
an insurrection in general [!] since insurrection, as merely a means of
effecting a political revolution, cannot in this case land not “in
general”?] serve as a slogan for agitation. We can and must reply to the Duma by
extending and intensifying political ’agitation for a constituent assembly to be
elected on the basis of universal, etc., suffrage.” To this we answer: in the
first place, had the Bundists done a little thinking, or even simply consulted our Party programme, they would have seen that a constituent assembly, too, is
only a “means”. It is illogical to declare one “means” suitable as a slogan, and another unsuitable “in general”. Secondly,
we have already for a long time past repeatedly explained in detail that a
slogan calling for a constituent assembly alone is inadequate, since it has
become an Osvobozhdeniye slogan, the slogan of the bourgeois
“compromisers” (see Proletary , Nos. 3 and

4 [2]

).

It is quite natural for the liberal monarchist bourgeoisie to gloss over the
question of the method of convening a constituent assembly. For
representatives of the revolutionary proletariat it is totally
impermissible. The theory of spontaneous generation fully befits the former, but
as regards the latter, it can only disgrace them in the eyes of class-conscious
workers.

The Bund’s final argument: “An armed uprising is imperative, and we must
keep on preparing for it all the time. However, we are as yet unable to launch
an uprising, there fore [!!i there is no point in linking it up with the Duma.”
To this we reply:

1) to acknowledge that insurrection and preparations
for it are imperative and at the same time to turn up one’s nose contemptuously
at the question of “combat squads” ("taken from the
Vperyod arsenal”, as the Bund writes) means to defeat one’s own
purpose and reveal a lack of thought in one’s writings.

2) A provisional revolutionary government is an organ of
insurrection. This principle, which is clearly expressed in a
resolution of the Third Congress, was accepted in essence by the
new-Iskra Conference too, although, in our opinion, it was
less aptly put (a provisional revolutionary government “emerging
from a victorious popular insurrection”: both logic and
historical experience show that it is possible to have provisional
revolutionary governments as organs of insurrection which are far from
victorious, or which are not completely victorious; moreover, a
provisional revolutionary government does not only “emerge” from an uprising, but also directs it). The
Bundists do not attempt to dispute this proposition, and indeed it cannot be disputed. To recognise that an uprising and preparations
for it are imperative, and at the same time to demand the cessation of
disputes about the “terrible problem” of a provisional government means to write without thinking. 3) The phrase about the
formation of a constituent assembly “without the aid of any government
whatever, and consequently, without the aid of a provisional government as
well” is an anarchist one. It is wholly on a level with the
famous Iskra phrase about “defiling” the lips by combining the words “long live” with
“government”. It shows a failure to understand the significance
of a revolutionary government as one of the greatest and finest
“means” of effecting a political revolution. The paltry
“liberalism” flaunted here by the Bund in emulation of Iskra (that is to say, we can manage without any
government, even a provisional one!) is sheer anarchist
liberalism. The formation of a constituent assembly without the aid of an uprising is an idea worthy
only of bourgeois philistines, as even the comrades of the Bund
realise. Moreover, an uprising without the aid of a provisional
revolutionary government can be neither an uprising of the whole people nor a
victorious uprising. Again and again we must state with regret that the
Bundists’ conclusions do not hang together. 4) If it is necessary to prepare for
an uprising, such preparation must of necessity include the dissemination and
explanation of slogans calling for an armed uprising of the people, the
formation of a revolutionary army, and the establishment of a provisional
revolutionary government. We must ourselves study new methods of struggle,
their conditions, their forms, their dangers, their practical realisation, etc.,
and enlighten the masses on these matters. 5) The proposition: “we are as
yet unable to launch an uprising” is wrong. The Potemkin events
have proved rather that we are unable to prevent premature outbreaks of the uprising that is being prepared. The Potemkin sailors were less
prepared than those on other ships, and the sweep of the uprising was less than
it might have been. What is the conclusion to be drawn from this? First, that
the task of preparing an uprising should include that of preventing premature
outbreaks of an uprising that is being or has almost been prepared. Secondly,
that the uprising now developing spontaneously is outstripping the purposeful and planned
work we are doing to prepare it. We are unable now to restrain the
insurrectionary outbreaks which occur here and there sporadically,
disconnectedly, and spontaneously. So much the more are we in duty bound to
speed up dissemination and explanation of all the political tasks and
political requisites of a successful uprising. All the more ill-advised,
therefore, are suggestions that an end be put to the disputes about the
“terrible problem” of a provisional government. 6) Is the idea that
“there is no point in linking up insurrection with the Duma”
correct? No, it is wrong. To determine beforehand just when .the uprising should
take place is absurd, especially for us who are living abroad. In this sense
there can be no question of any “linking up”, as has been repeatedly
pointed out by Proletary. But agitation in favour of insurrection and advocacy of the latter must of necessity be “linked up”
with all the important political events which are stirring the people. Our
entire dispute now centres on the slogan of agitation which should be made the
hub of our “Duma” agitation campaign. Is the Duma an event of that
kind? Undoubtedly, it is. Will the workers and peasants ask us:

What would be the best reply to the Duma? Undoubtedly, they will, and are even
doing so already. How are we to reply to these questions? Not by referring to
spontaneous generation (which can only be treated as a joke), but by
explaining the conditions, forms, prerequisites, tasks, and organs of
an insurrection . The more we achieve by such explanations, the more
likely will it be that the inevitable insurrectionary outbreaks will be able to
develop more smoothly and rapidly into a successful and victorious uprising.

---
Notes:
[1]
See p. 198 of this volume.— Ed .

[2]
“Revolutionary Struggle and Liberal Brokerage”, “The Democratic
Tasks of the Revolutionary Proletariat”. See present edition, Vol. 8.,
pp. 492-93, 511-18.— Ed .

[3]
An expression from Gogol’s Diary of a Madman .