V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v47; en:CW/CW34;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

NATIONS FROM LENIN
13. X. 05.

Dear Friend, The resolution of the Odessa Committee on the trade-union struggle (“decisions” No. 6 or 5, it is not clear; in letter No. 24. Marked September 1905) seems to me to be highly erroneous. In my opinion, the zeal in combating the Mensheviks, of course, naturally explains it, but we should not go to the other extreme. And the resolution does go to the other extreme. I will therefore permit myself to criticise the resolution of the Odessa Committee, asking the comrades to discuss my remarks, which are by no means prompted by a desire to find fault.

The resolution has three (unnumbered) parts in the preamble and five (numbered) parts in the operative section proper. The first part (the opening point of the preamble) is quite good: to assume “leadership of all manifestations of the class struggle of the proletariat” and “never to forget the task” of directing the trade-union struggle. Splendid. Next, the second point: the task of preparing an armed uprising is said to be “the immediate task” and (point 3 or the end of the preamble) “consequently the task of directing the trade-union struggle of the proletariat inevitably recedes into the background”. This, in my opinion, is theoretically incorrect and tactically wrong.

The juxtaposition of the two tasks as if they were of equal importance, as if they lay on the same plane: “the tasks of preparing an armed uprising” and “the tasks of directing the trade-union struggle” is theoretically incorrect. One task, it is said, is in the foreground, the other in the background. To say this is to compare and contrast things of a different order. An armed uprising is a method of political struggle at a given moment. The trade-union struggle is one of the constant, always necessary under capitalism, at all times obligatory manifestations of the entire working-class movement. Engels, in a passage I quoted in *What Is To Be Done?* 95, distinguishes three main forms of the proletarian struggle: economic, political and theoretical—that is, trade-union, political and theoretical (scientific, ideological, philosophical). How can one place side by side one of these main forms of struggle (the trade-union) with a method of another main form of struggle at a given moment? The whole of the trade-union struggle, as a “task”, placed side by side with the present and by no means the sole method of political struggle? This is a downright incongruity, something like adding tenths to hundredths without reducing them to a common denominator. In my opinion, both these (second and third) points of the preamble should be eliminated. Alongside the “task of directing the trade-union struggle” one can place only the task of directing the political struggle as a whole, the task of conducting the ideological struggle as a whole, and by no means these or those particular, given, contemporary tasks of the political or ideological struggle.

Both these points should be replaced by an indication of the necessity of not forgetting for a single moment the political struggle, the enlightenment of the working class in the full scope of the ideas of Social-Democracy, the necessity of striving for a close and indissoluble connection between all manifestations of the working-class movement for the purpose of creating an integral, truly Social-Democratic movement. This indication could be the second point of the preamble.

The third could be a statement of the necessity of warning against the narrow understanding and narrow presentation of the trade-union struggle, which are being zealously spread by the bourgeoisie. I am, of course, not proposing a draft resolution, nor am I touching upon the question whether it is worth while speaking about this separately; I am merely analysing for the time being what expression of your idea would be theoretically correct.

Tactically, the resolution in its present form presents the tasks of the armed uprising very unsuccessfully. The armed uprising is the highest method of political struggle. For its success from the point of view of the proletariat, i.e., for the success of a proletarian uprising led by Social-Democracy, and not of any other uprising, a broad development of all aspects of the working-class movement is necessary. Hence the idea of counterposing the task of the uprising to the task of directing the trade-union struggle is extremely wrong. This belittles and narrows down the task of the uprising. Instead of the summing up and crowning of the entire working-class movement as a whole, we get a kind of singling out of the task of the uprising. It is as if two things were being confused: a resolution on the trade-union struggle in general (the resolution of the Odessa Committee was written on this subject) and a resolution on the distribution of forces in the present work of the Odessa Committee (your resolution tends in this direction, and that is a very, very different matter).

I pass to the numbered points of the operative part in the narrow sense.

Ad I. “To expose the illusions”, “which are associated with the trade unions”... that is still tolerable, although it would be better to drop it. In the first place, this belongs to the preamble, which should indicate the indissoluble connection of all aspects of the movement. In the second place, it does not say what illusions. If it is to be inserted at all, one should add: bourgeois illusions about the possibility of satisfying the economic and other needs of the working class in capitalist society.
...“strongly emphasising their (the unions’?) narrowness compared with the ultimate aims of the working-class movement”. It turns out that *all* trade unions are “narrow”. But what about Social-Democratic trade unions connected with the political organisation of the proletariat? The crux of the matter is not that the trade unions are “narrow”, but that this one (and to that extent narrow, because it is only one) aspect should be connected with the others. Consequently, either delete this, or again speak of the necessity of creating and strengthening the connection of one aspect with all the others, of imbuing the trade unions with Social-Democratic content, with Social-Democratic propaganda, of drawing them into all Social-Democratic work, etc.

Ad II. Good.

Ad III. It is wrong, for the reasons indicated, to counterpose to the task of the trade unions the “most urgent and primary task” of the armed uprising. There is no need to speak of the armed uprising in a resolution on the trade-union struggle, for it is a means of that “overthrow of the tsarist autocracy” referred to in point II. The trade unions could broaden the base from which we shall draw strength for the uprising, so that, I repeat, it is wrong to counterpose one to the other.

Ad IV. “To wage a vigorous ideological struggle against the so-called minority”, which is reverting to “economism” “on questions of the trade unions”. Is this not too general for a resolution of the Odessa Committee? Does it not smack of exaggeration? After all, not a single resolution of all the Mensheviks on the “trade unions” has been criticised in the press. It was only pointed out that the liberals praise them for the tendency to fuss over this question with more than reasonable zeal. But from this the [conclusion] is only that we must be zealous “with reason”, but we too must certainly be zealous. In my opinion, either delete this point altogether, confining oneself to an indication of the need to warn against narrowness and to combat the tendencies of the bourgeoisie and the liberals to distort the tasks of the trade unions;—or formulate it specially in connection with some particular Menshevik resolution (I do not know of any such resolutions at the present time; unless some Akimov-type ones have appeared in your parts in the South).

Ad V. That’s the thing. I would replace the words “and, if possible, direction” by “and direction”. We all do things “if possible”. The insertion of these words here and only here will give rise to the wrong interpretation that we strive less for direction, etc.

In my opinion, generally speaking, we must beware of exaggerating the struggle against the Mensheviks on this question. Now, probably, trade unions will soon begin to spring up. We must not stand aloof, and above all we must not give grounds for thinking that we should stand aloof, but must strive to participate, to exert influence, etc. After all, there is a special stratum of workers—older, family men—who will contribute extremely little to the political struggle now, but very much to the trade-union struggle. This stratum must be utilised, merely guiding its steps in this field. It is important for Russian Social-Democracy to strike the right note on the trade unions at the very outset, to create at once a tradition of Social-Democratic initiative in this field, of Social-Democratic participation, of Social-Democratic direction.

Of course, in practice there may not be enough forces, but that is quite another question, and besides, if we know how to utilise all the diverse forces, there will always be enough for the trade unions as well. After all, forces were found to write a resolution on the trade unions, i.e., to give ideological direction, and that is the crux of the matter!

I shake your hand and ask you to drop me a line about the receipt of this letter and your thoughts on it.

Yours, N. Lenin