V. I.

Lenin

The Latest in Iskra Tactics, or Mock Elections as a New Incentive to an Uprising

Wehave spoken many times already about the inefficacy of the
Iskra tactics in the “Duma” campaign. The two main lines of
this tactics—the urge to support the Osvobozhdeniye League which
wants to enter the Duma on the strength of certain revolutionary pledges and the
release of a slogan calling for “revolutionary self-government of
citizens” and for popular elections to a constituent assembly under the
autocracy—are both unsound. In the resolution of the Mensheviks’
“Southern Constituent [?] Conference” we at last have an attempt to formulate the Iskra tactics accurately and
officially. At this Conference the best of the new- Iskra forces in
Russia were represented. The resolution is an attempt at a business-like
exposition of purely practical advice addressed to the proletariat. That is why
a careful analysis of this resolution is so essential, both for the purpose of
evolving a definite line of practical activity and for an appraisal of
Iskra’s tactical stand as a whole.

Wequote the full text of the resolution:

Resolutionon the State Duma
Adopted by the Constituent Conference of the Southern Organisations

Whereas, wesee the only way out of the present difficult conditions, compatible with
the interests of the whole people, in the convocation of a constituent assembly
elected on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, direct elections and a
secret ballot, for the purpose of abolishing the autocratic regime, and
establishing a democratic republic necessary in the first place to the
proletariat in its struggle against all the foundations of the bourgeois system
and for the achievement of socialism; and whereas, 1)the system of elections to the State Duma does not enable the whole
people to participate in them, the proletariat being excluded from the elections
by reason of the high property qualification fixed for urban dwellers, while the
peasantry—a mere section of it at that— will vote on the basis of a
four-stage system, which provides the authorities with every opportunity for
exerting pressure on them; and whereas, 2)the whole of Russia is still deprived of all essential civil liberties, in
the absence of which there can be no election campaign and, consequently, no
elections conducted with any degree of fairness, and whereas, on the
contrary, at the present time the authorities’ arbitrary procedure is
everywhere becoming worse than ever before, and vast areas are one after the
other placed under martial law; and, finally, whereas, 3)a system of representation which is even more of a travesty is
being worked out for all the marginal regions; — the Conference urges all organisations to build up a most
energetic campaign of agitation to expose the entire travesty of representation
by which the autocratic government proposes to deceive the people, and declares
deliberate traitors to the people all those who are prepared to content
themselves with the State Duma, and who will not at this decisive moment set
themselves the task of supporting by their actions and tactics the revolutionary
people’s demand for the convocation of a constituent assembly elected on the
basis of universal and equal suffrage, direct elections and a secret ballot.

Toachieve the speediest possible realisation of the said demand, the Southern
Conference recommends the following tactics to the Party organisations:

1)The launching of an energetic agitation campaign among the industrial
proletariat and the peasant masses for the creation of comprehensive democratic
organisations and their amalgamation in an all-Russia organisation with the
purpose of waging an energetic struggle against the State Duma and for the
establishment of a popular constituent assembly with the immediate introduction
of freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, and the right
to strike. The establishment of this all-Russia people’s organisation should
proceed through the formation of agitation committees elected by the workers at their respective factories, and the amalgamation agitation committees;
through the creation of similar agitation committees among the peasantry;
through the establishment of closer ties between the urban and rural committees;
through the setting up of gubernia committees and the establishment of contact
between them.

2)If this organisation proves sufficiently strong, and the working masses’
temper appropriate, the inauguration of the election campaign should be used
to organise nation-wide popular elections to a constituent assembly, bearing
in mind the prospect that the organised movement of the people, aimed at
getting these elections held, may naturally lead to the whole people rising
against tsarism, since inevitable resistance by the latter and the clash with
it on the occasion of the elections will provide the rising with new incentives, while the people’s
preliminary organisation will give the rising universality and unity.

3)In addition, the Conference proposes that efforts be made to secure freedom
of election meetings and recommends energetic intervention in the election
campaign, intervention by the people in electors’ meetings, and public
discussion of the tasks confronting representatives elected to the State
Duma, these discussions to be conducted by electors at mass meetings. At the
same time, the Social-Democratic Party must induce those sections of the
population with the right to vote in the State Duma elections, to take to the
road of revolution. This may find expression either in their joining an
uprising led by the democratic organisations of the people, or, in the
absence of such, in their striving to transform the incipient State Duma into
a revolutionary assembly that will convoke a popular constituent assembly, or
facilitate its convocation by the democratic organisations of the people.

4)Preparations should be made for exerting pressure on the State Duma along the
same lines, should the mass movement fail to have brought about the overthrow
of the autocracy and the establishment of a constituent assembly by the time
the Duma is finally convened. Preparations should be made for an ultimatum to
the State Duma demanding the convocation of a constituent assembly and the
immediate introduction of freedom of speech, assembly, the press and
association, and the arming of the people. Preparations should be made to
back up this ultimatum with a political strike and other mass action by the
people.

5)All this tactics shall be approved at general mass meetings, organised prior
to and during the election campaign among the proletariat
and the peasantry.

Weshall not dwell on the shortcomings in the redaction of the resolution which
is far too wordy. Let us deal with its fundamental mistakes.

1.The preamble speaks of the only way out of the present situation. In this
connection the entire stress is placed on the idea of a constituent
assembly, and not a word is said as to who is to call it, so that the
“way out” should be not merely on paper, but in actual fact. Silence on this score amounts to Social-Democrats yielding to the
Osvobozhdeniye gentry. As we have repeatedly pointed out, it
is the interests of the monarchist-liberal bourgeoisie that oblige the
Osvobozhdeniye gentry to limit themselves to the convocation of a
popular constituent assembly, and pass over in silence the question of
who is to call it. This, as we have repeatedly pointed out, is the very question
that the developing revolution has brought into the forefront, and herein at present lies the fundamental difference between the bourgeoisie’s opportunist
(“compromise”) tactics and the proletariat’s revolutionary tactics. By
their resolution the new-Iskra supporters have furnished documentary
proof of their incurable blindness in fundamental questions of tactics, and of
their relapsing into Osvobozhdeniye slogans.

Inthe succeeding sections the resolution still more confuses the question of
the convocation of a popular constituent assembly. Propaganda which proclaims
confidence in the State Duma on this score is downright reactionary, while to
say that a constituent assembly should be convened by a “democratic
organisation of the people” is much like proposing to call a constituent
assembly through a committee of friends of the people living on the planet
Mars. At their all-Russia Conference the new-Iskrists committed an unpardonable
error in placing the convocation of a popular constituent assembly by a
revolutionary government on a par with its convocation by a
representative institution. The new-Iskrists have now gone even farther in
reverse:

they have not even mentioned a revolutionary provisional government. Why? On
what grounds? In what respect have their views changed? All this remains a
mystery. Instead of developing tactical directives, the Mensheviks’ conferences
merely provide exhibitions of plunges and vacillations now to the right, now to
the left.

2.To call “deliberate traitors to the people all those who are prepared
to content themselves with the State Duma”, etc., is just such a plunge
ostensibly to the left, but one that is not towards a genuinely revolutionary
path, but rather towards revolutionary phrase-mongering. In the first place,
what is the point of the stinging adjective “deliberate”
(traitor)? Was Johann Jacoby, who entered the State Duma or the United
Landtag in 1847 as a bourgeois liberal, and went over to the Social-Democrats
after the war of 1870- 71, a deliberate traitor to the people? Will any
peasant who goes into the Duma and is “prepared” to content
himself with very, very little be a deliberate traitor? Secondly, is it
reasonable to establish as criteria of treachery things like:

"whoever is prepared to content himself”, “whoever does not set himself the task”, etc.? Row does one reveal one s
“being prepared” and “setting oneself the task”—in word, or in deed? If in word, then it is necessary to obtain from those C.D.s
("Constitutional-Democrats”, as the Osvobozhdeniye gentry now call themselves) who are entering the State Duma, a written
promise or revolutionary pledge (Parvus, Cherevanin, Martov). In that case
the resolution should express this idea clearly instead of being so vague
about it. On the other hand, if being “prepared” is proved in
deed, then why does the resolution not state openly and straightforwardly
what “actions” It considers proof of this preparedness?
The reason is because the resolution reflects the fundamental error of the
new Iskra , which is unable to distinguish between revolutionary
democracy and liberal-monarchist democracy. Thirdly, is it rational for a
militant party to talk in general about persons (“all who”) instead of
speaking concretely about trends or parties? At present it is of particular
importance for us to expose to the proletariat that trend—the Party of
Constitutional-Democrats—whose “actions” have already shown us what demands it supports, and how it does so. Addressing the
workers in the name of Social-Democratic organisations, speaking to them
about entrants into the Duma, and about Duma electors, etc., while keeping
silent about the Constitutional-Democratic Party (i.e., the
Osvobozhdeniye people) means either shilly-shallying and scheming
(coming to terms on the sly with the Osvobozhdeniye people to
support them on conditions stipulated by Parvus or Cherevanin), or
unwittingly spreading corruption among the workers and giving up the
struggle against the Constitutional-Democrats.

Besidesthe historical facts regarding the activity of Osvobozhdeniye ,
its adherents, the Zemstvo members, and all other Constitutional-Democrats, we
have no important data for gauging the “preparedness” of democrats
from among the bourgeoisie to fight together with the people. The new-Iskrists
ignore these facts and dismiss the matter with meaningless phrases. Yet
Plekhanov is still trying to convince us that the organisational vagueness in
Iskra’s views is not supplemented by vagueness in tactics!

The Iskra supporters have in fact not only shut their eyes to the
Constitutional-Democrats’ “preparedness” to commit treachery, proved
by their obvious and universally noted turn to the right during the period
between the July and September Zemstvo congresses, but have even assisted these
Constitutional-Democrats by fighting, against the boycott! The Iskrists are
threatening hypothetical Osvobozhdeniye adherents ("all those who
are prepared”, etc.) with “frightfully terrifying” words, but
by their tactics they are assisting the genuine Osvobozhdeniye
adherents. This is wholly in the spirit of Rodichev, one of the Constitutional-
Democratic leaders, who thunders: “We will not accept liberty from hands
steeped in the blood of the people !" (this statement of Rodichev’s,
uttered at a private meeting and directed against William Stead, is now making
the rounds of the entire foreign press)—and in the same breath demands
that those very hands convoke a popular constituent assembly.

3.The next fundamental error in the resolution is the slogan for “the
creation of comprehensive democratic organisations and their amalgamation in
an all-Russia organisation”. The frivolity of the Social-Democrats who
advance such a slogan is simply staggering. What does creating comprehensive
democratic organisations mean? It can mean one of two things: either the
socialists’ organisation (the R.S.D.L.P.) being submerged in the democrats’
organisation (and the new-Iskrists cannot do that deliberately, for it would
be sheer betrayal of the proletariat)—or a temporary alliance between
the Social-Democrats and certain sections of the bourgeois democrats. If the
new-Iskrists want to advocate such an alliance, why do they not say so
frankly and openly? Why do they hide behind the word “creation”? Why do
they not specify the exact trends and groups in the bourgeois-democratic
camp, with which they are urging the Social-Democrats to unite? Is this not a
fresh example of impermissible vagueness of tactics , which in
practice inevitably transforms the working class into an appendage to the
bourgeois democracy?

Theresolution’s only definition of the nature of these comprehensive democratic
organisations” consists of a statement of the two aims set them: 1) a
struggle against the State Duma, and 2) a struggle for a popular constituent
assembly. The latter aim, as lamely formulated by Iskra , i.e., without
any indication of who is to convene the popular constituent assembly, has been
fully endorsed by the

Constitutional-Democrats. Does this mean that the Iskrists advocate an alliance
between the Social-Democrats and the Constitutional-Democrats, but are
ashamed to say so openly? The former aim is formulated with an obscurity
we are accustomed to seeing only in Russian laws, which are deliberately
designed to deceive the people. What is meant by a struggle against the
State Duma? If we take the expression literally—assuming the authors
of the resolution want to express themselves unequivocally—it means
a boycott of the Duma , for to fight against an institution that
does not yet exist means opposing its establishment. But we know that the
Iskrists are opposed to the boycott, we see from the resolution itself that
further on they no longer talk of a struggle against the State
Duma, but of exerting pressure on the State Duma, of a striving to
transform it into a revolutionary assembly, etc. This means that the words
“struggle against the State Duma” should not be taken literally,
or in their narrow sense. But in that case, how should they be taken?
Perhaps, as understood by Mr. M. Kovalevsky, who reads papers criticising
the State Duma? What constitutes a struggle against the State
Duma? That remains a mystery. Our muddle-heads have said nothing precise on
this score. Aware of the class-conscious workers’ mood, which is definitely
opposed to the tactic of agreements with the Constitutional-Democrats, the
tactic of supporting the Duma on certain conditions, our new-Iskrists have
cravenly taken a middle course: on the one hand, they repeat the slogan
“Struggle against the State Duma” which is popular among the
proletariat and, on the other hand, they are depriving this slogan of any
exact meaning, are throwing dust into the eyes of the people, are
interpreting the struggle against the Duma in the sense of exerting pressure
on the Duma, etc. And this wretched muddle is being advanced by the most
influential of the new-Iskra organisations at a time the
Osvobozhdeniye gentry are loudly protesting for the world to hear
that they are entering the State Duma only in order to carry on a struggle
and exclusively for the struggle, that they are “prepared” to
make a complete break with the government!

Weask the readers: has more disgraceful vacillation in tactics ever been seen
anywhere in the Social-Democratic movement? Is it possible to imagine anything
more ruinous to Social-Democracy than this advocacy of “creating comprehensive
democratic organisations” together with the Osvobozhdeniye people
(for the Constitutional-Democrats are in agreement with the aims of such
organisations as set forth by Iskra ), but without mentioning these
people by name??

And Plekhanov, who has degraded himself in the eyes of all Russian revolutionary
Social-Democrats by defending Iskra’s “organisational vagueness” for almost two years, will now try to assure us that
this new- Iskra tactic is good!...

4.Further. It is most unwise to call an alliance of comprehensive (and
amorphous) democratic organisations “an all-Russia people’s
organisation” or “a democratic organisation of the people”. First of all, this is incorrect theoretically. As we know, the
Economists erred by confusing party with class. Reviving old mistakes the
Iskrists are now confusing the sum of democratic parties or organisations
with an organisation of the people. That is empty, false, and harmful
phrase-mongering. It is empty because it has no specific meaning whatever,
owing to the absence of any reference to definite democratic parties or
trends. It is false because in a capitalist society even the proletariat, the
most advanced class, is not in a position to create a party embracing the
entire class—and as for the whole people creating such a party, that is
entirely out of the question. It is harmful be cause it clutters up the mind
with bombastic words and does nothing to further the real work of explaining
the actual significance of actual democratic parties, their class basis, the
degree of their closeness to the proletariat, etc. The present, the period of
a democratic revolution, bourgeois in its social and economic content, is a
time when bourgeois democrats, all Constitutional-Democrats, etc., right down
to the Socialist-Revolutionaries, are revealing a particular inclination to
advocate “comprehensive democratic organisations” and in general
to encourage, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, non-partisanship,
i.e., an absence of any strict division between the democrats. Class-conscious representatives of the proletariat must fight this
tendency resolutely and ruthlessly, for it is profoundly bourgeois in
essence. We must bring exact party distinctions into the fore ground, expose
all confusion, show up the falsity of phrases about allegedly united, broad,
solid democratism, phrases our liberal newspapers are teeming with. In proposing an alliance with certain
sections of the democrats for the achievement of definite tasks, we should
single out only revolutionary democrats—particularly at
a time like this; we should indicate what most clearly distinguishes those
“prepared” to fight (right now, in the ranks of the revolutionary army) from those who are “prepared” to bargain
with the autocracy.

Tobring home their mistake to the Iskrists, let us take a very simple
example. Our programme speaks of peasant committees. The resolution of the Third
Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. defines their role more precisely by calling them
revolutionary peasant committees (in this respect the new Iskra
Conference agreed, in essence, with the Third Congress). We have set them the
task of bringing about democratic reforms in general and agrarian reforms in
particular, going as far as the confiscation of the landed estates by
revolutionary action. The Iskra resolution now recommends a
new kind of “agitation committees among the peasantry”. Such advice
is worthy not of socialist workers but of liberal bourgeois. Had they been
formed, such “peasant committees of agitation” would play right into
the hands of the Osvobozhdeniye gentry, for their revolutionary
character would be supplanted by liberalism. We have already pointed out that
the content of the agitation of these committees, as defined by Iskra
(the struggle “against” the State Duma and for a popular constituent
assembly), does not exceed the limits set by the Osvobozhdeniye
programme. Is it now clear to the new-Iskrists that by supplementing the slogan
of revolutionary peasant committees with one calling for
“peasant committees of agitation” it is transforming Social-Democratic slogans into
Osvobozhdeniye slogans?

5.Finally, we reach the main task of this “all-Russia people’s
organisation”—the organisation of nation-wide popular elections to a
constituent assembly. Nation-wide popular elections with the autocracy left
intact! And “clashes” with the autocracy provide “new incentives for an uprising”.... Mock elections as a new incentive for
an uprising is what this amounts to!

Theslogan calling for “revolutionary self-government”, and the
theory of the “spontaneous generation” of a constituent assembly could not but lead to this absurdity, which is destined to
become classical. To speak of nation wide popular elections under the rule of
the Trepovs, i.e., before the victory of the uprising, before the actual
overthrow of the tsarist government, is the height of Manilovism, and can serve
only to spread incredible political corruption among the workers. Only people
attuned to phrase mongering by the new Iskra can accept such slogans,
which crumble to dust at the merest contact with sober criticism. One has only
to reflect a little on precisely what is meant by nation-wide popular
elections, if the term be taken seriously; one has only to remember that they
imply freedom of agitation, keeping the entire population informed, and
recognition b.y the entire population of the centre or local centres that will
register the entire population, and canvass literally everyone, with no
exceptions—one has only to give such things a little thought to realise
that the “nation wide popular elections” proposed by Iskra
would amount to a nation-wide joke or a nation-wide swindle. Not a
single deputy who could claim to have been “elected by the entire
people”, i.e., who has had 50,000 to 100,000 votes freely and consciously
cast for him—not one such deputy can be elected anywhere in Russia
“in the inauguration of the election campaign”.

The Iskra resolution advises the proletariat to stage a
farce , and no reservations or excuses can change the farcical import of
this resolution. We are told that elections can be carried out only “if
this organisation proves sufficiently strong”, only when
“preliminary organisation will give the rising universality and
unity”. Our answer to this is that strength is revealed in action, not in
word. Prior to the victory of an uprising it is ridiculous to talk of a force
that will be able, without evoking laughter, even to proclaim “nation-wide
popular elections”, let alone conduct them. No organisation, no matter how
universal or united, can ensure the victory of an uprising unless

1) this organisation consists of people who are really capable of
insurrection (and we have seen that the resolution advocates merely
“comprehensive”, organisations, i.e., actually organisations of the Osvobozhdeniye type which would
undoubtedly betray an uprising once it had started); and unless

2) there exist forces for the victory of the uprising (and to achieve victory, the material force of a
revolutionary army is needed, besides the moral force of public opinion,
the people’s welfare, etc.). To put the main stress on this moral force
and on high-sounding phrases about “the whole people”, while
maintaining silence , in a call to arms, about the actual material
force, is to reduce the revolutionary slogans of the proletariat to
bourgeois-democratic phrase-mongering.

Mockelections do not constitute a “natural transition to an
uprising”, but rather an artificial transition invented by a
handful of intellectuals. The fabrication of such artificial transitions is
absolutely similar to Nadezhdin’s old occupation—the concoction of
“excitative” terrorist acts. In the same way, the new-Iskrists want
to “excite” the people to insurrection artificially—an idea
that is basically false. We cannot create an organisation that will really em
brace the whole people; any elections we would take it into our heads to appoint
under the autocracy would inevitably be a farce, and to utilise such a
fabricated pretext for an uprising is just like decreeing an uprising
at a moment when the people are not genuinely roused. Only people who
have no faith in the proletariat’s revolutionary activity, only intellectuals
who are fond of using fancy words, could start inventing “new incentives
for an uprising”, in September 1905. One might think that we in Russia
lack genuine incentives for an uprising and need farcical ones, that
there are so few cases of genuine unrest among the masses that such a
sentiment has to be staged or faked! Mock elections will never rouse the
masses. However, a strike, a demonstration, mutiny in the armed forces, a
serious students’ outbreak, famine, mobilisation, or a conflict in the State
Duma, etc., etc., etc., can really rouse the masses, constantly, at any
hour. Not only is it the crassest stupidity to think of concocting “new
incentives for an uprising”, but the very thought of indicating in advance
that this and no other will be the real incentive for the masses would be
foolish. People who have the slightest degree of self-respect, who are in the
least earnest in what they say, would never allow themselves to concoct
“new incentives for an uprising”.

Whatis lacking is not “new incentives”, my most esteemed Manliovs,
but a military force, the military force of the revolutionary people (and not the people in general), consisting of 1) the
armed proletariat and peasantry, 2) organised advance detachments of
representatives of these classes, and 3) sections of the army that are prepared
to come over to the side of the people. It is all this taken together that
constitutes a revolutionary army. To talk of an uprising, of its force,
of a natural transition to it, and to say nothing of a revolutionary army is
folly and muddle headedness—and the greater the degree of the counter
revolutionary army’s mobilisation, the more that is so. To invent “new
incentives for an uprising” at a time of uprisings in the Caucasus and on
the Black Sea, in Poland and Riga means deliberately withdrawing into one’s
shell and isolating oneself from the movement. We are witnesses of the greatest
unrest among the workers and peasants, of a series of insurrectionary outbreaks
which have been steadily and with enormous speed spreading and becoming more
forceful and more stubborn ever since January 9. No one can guarantee that
these outbreaks will not repeat themselves tomorrow in any big city, or any
military camp, or any village. On the contrary, everything goes to show that
such outbreaks are probable, imminent, and inevitable. Their success depends,
first of all, on the success of revolutionary agitation and
organisation—revolutionary and not the “comprehensively
democratic” agitation and organisation that Iskra prattles of,
since among democrats there are many non-revolutionaries. In the second place,
success depends on the might and preparedness of the revolutionary army. The
first condition has long been acknowledged by all, and is being applied
throughout Russia by all revolutionaries, at literally all meetings of study
circles, group gatherings, impromptu and mass meetings. The second condition is
as yet very little recognised. By reason of its class stand, the liberal
bourgeoisie does not care to recognise it, and cannot afford to do so. As for
the revolutionaries, only those who are hopelessly plodding along in the wake of
the monarchist bourgeoisie are silent about it.

"Insurrection”is an important word. A call to insurrection is an
extremely serious call. The more complex the social system, the better the
organisation of state power, and the more perfected the military machine, the
more

impermissible is it to launch such a slogan without due thought. And we have
stated repeatedly that the revolutionary Social-Democrats have long been
preparing to launch it, but have launched it as a direct call only when
there could be no doubt whatever of the gravity, widespread and deep roots
of the revolutionary movement, no doubt of matters having literally come
to a head. Important words must be used with circumspection. Enormous
difficulties have to be faced in translating them into important deeds. It
is precisely for that reason that it would be unpardonable to dismiss
these difficulties with a mere phrase, to use Manilovist inventions to
brush aside serious tasks or to put on one’s eyes the blinkers of
sweet dreams of so-called “natural transitions” to these
difficult tasks.

Arevolutionary army are also important words. The creation of a revolutionary
army is an arduous, complex, and lengthy process. But when we see that it has
already begun and is proceeding on all sides—though desultorily and by
fits and starts—when we know that a genuine victory of the revolution is
impossible without such an army, we must issue a definite and direct
slogan, advocate it, make it the touchstone of the current political tasks. It
would be a mistake to think that the revolutionary classes are invariably strong
enough to effect a revolution whenever such a revolution has fully matured by
virtue of the conditions of social and economic development. No, human society
is not constituted so rationally or so “conveniently” for
progressive elements. A revolution may be ripe, and yet the forces of its
creators may prove insufficient to carry it out, in which case society decays,
and this process of decay sometimes drags on for very many years. There is no
doubt that Russia is ripe for a democratic revolution, but it still remains to
be seen whether the revolutionary classes have sufficient strength at present
to carry it out. This will be settled by the struggle, whose crucial moment is
approaching at tremendous speed—if the numerous direct and indirect
indications do not deceive us. The moral preponderance is indubitable—the
moral force is already overwhelmingly great; without it, of course, there could
be no question of any revolution whatever. It is a necessary condition, but it
is not sufficient . Only the outcome of the struggle will show whether it will be translated into a material force
sufficient to smash the very serious (we shall not close our eyes to this)
resistance of the autocracy. The slogan of insurrection is a slogan for deciding
the issue by material force, which in present-day European civilisation can only
be military force. This slogan should not be put forward until the general
prerequisites for revolution have matured, until the masses have definitely
shown that they have been roused and are ready to act, until the external
circumstances have led to an open crisis. But once such a slogan has been
issued, it would be an arrant disgrace to retreat from it, back to moral force
again, to one of the conditions that prepare the ground for an uprising, to a
“possible transition”, etc., etc. No, once the die is cast, all
subterfuges must be done with; it must be explained directly and openly to the
masses what the practical conditions for a successful revolution are at the
present time.

Wehave by no means exhausted the list of mistakes in the Iskra
resolution, which—to people who think and who do not confine themselves to
“clutching at opportunities — will long remain a sad memento of a
vulgarisation of Social-Democracy’s tasks. It seems to us more important to
investigate the underlying source of the errors rather than to enumerate all,
including even the comparatively petty manifestations of the basic fallacy. We
shall therefore only note, in passing, the absurdity and reactionary nature of
the idea of presenting “ultimatums” (a military term, which in the
absence of a trained military force, sounds like vulgar bragging) to the Duma , of the endeavour to transform this Duma into a
revolutionary assembly, [1] and will pass on to the general meaning of the slogan: “revolutionary
self-government of the people”.

Thisslogan or rather its conversion into the focal slogan is at the root of all
Iskra’s shilly-shallying. Iskra has attempted to defend it by
referring to “dialectics”—the very same Plekhanov dialectics, by
virtue of which Iskra ’s “organisational vagueness” was
first defended by Plekhanov, and then exposed by him!

Revolutionaryself-government of the people, we have said, is not a prologue to
an uprising, nor is it a “natural transition to it”, it is its
epilogue. There can be no serious talk of genuine and complete self-government
unless the uprising is victorious. And we have added that the very idea of
placing the main emphasis on state administration rather than on state
organisation is reactionary, that to identify revolutionary self-government with
a revolutionary army is the height of absurdity, that a victorious
revolutionary army necessarily presupposes a revolutionary self-government,
whereas a revolutionary self-government does not necessarily include a
revolutionary army.

Iskra tried to defend the confusion in its deliberately chosen slogans
by referring to the “dialectics” of the unconscious and spontaneous
process. Life, it says, knows of no sharply defined boundaries. Labour exchanges
exist even now ( Sotsial-Demokrat , [3]

No. 12)—here you have the elements of self-government. In a dialectical process of development,
the prologue and the epilogue often inter twine, it says.

Thelatter consideration is quite true. Yes, the process of actual development
is always tangled, with bits of the epilogue emerging before the true
prologue. But does this mean that it is permissible for a leader of a
class-conscious party to jumble the tasks of the struggle, to confuse
the prologue with the epilogue? Can the dialectics of a jumbled and spontaneous
process justify confusion in the logic of conscious Social-Democrats? Does not
this imply substitution of dialectics d la Plekhanov for Marxist
dialectics?

Tomake our idea clearer, let us take an example. Let us assume that we are
discussing not a democratic but a socialist revolution. The crisis is maturing,
the epoch of the dictatorship of the proletariat is approaching. At this point
the opportunists make the establishment of consumers’ societies their central
slogan, while the revolutionaries advance a slogan calling for the conquest of
political power by the proletariat. The opportunists argue that consumers’
societies constitute a real force for the proletariat, the conquest of a real
economic position, and a genuine bit of socialism; you revolutionaries do not
understand dialectical development, the evolution of capitalism into socialism,
the penetration of nuclei of socialism into the very heart of capitalism, the
purging of capitalism by giving it a new socialist content.

Yes,the revolutionaries answer, we agree that in a way consumers’ societies do
constitute a bit of socialism. In the first place, socialist society is one big
consumers’ society with production for consumption organised according to
plan. In the second place, socialism cannot be achieved without a powerful,
many-sided working-class movement, and consumers’ societies will inevitably be
one of these many sides. But that is not the point at all. While power remains
in the hands of the bourgeoisie, consumers’ societies will remain a paltry
fragment, ensuring no serious changes what ever, introducing no decisive
alterations whatever, and some times even diverting attention from a serious
struggle for revolution. No one disputes the fact that the habits acquired by
the workers in consumers’ societies are very useful. But only transfer of power
to the proletariat can give full scope to these habits. Then the system of
consumers’ societies will have surplus value at its disposal; at present the
scope of this useful institution is bound to be paltry by reason of the paltry
wages. Then it will become a consumers’ union of really free workers; at present
it is a union of wage-slaves, oppressed and stifled by capitalism. Thus the
consumers’ societies are a fragment of socialism. The dialectical process of
development really does intrude elements of the new society, elements both
material and spiritual, even under capitalism. But socialists should be able to
distinguish the part from the whole; they should demand the whole in
their

slogan, and not a part; they must contrapose to bits of patch work, which often
divert fighters from the truly revolutionary path, the basic requisites
for a real revolution.

Whatis Iskra’s opinion, who is right in this dispute?

Itis the same with the slogan calling for “revolutionary
self-government” in the period of a democratic revolution. We are not
against revolutionary self-government, we long ago gave it a certain modest
place in our minimum programme (see the paragraph on extensive local
self-government). We agree that it is a fragment of a democratic revolution, as
has already been stated in No. 15 of

Proletary [2] with reference to the
Smolensk Municipal Council. A democratic revolution would be impossible without
a powerful and many-sided democratic movement, and the movement for selfgovernment is one of those many sides. However, the democratic revolution would
likewise be impossible without, for example, revolutionary schools, which are as
much an indubitable sign of tsarism’s actual disintegration as are labour
exchanges, which exist despite the police ban, as the unrest among the clergy,
as local self-government instituted in violation of the law, etc. Comrades of
the Iskra , consider what conclusion should be drawn from all this! Is
it that all these elements of disintegration should be summed up in an integral
slogan of insurrection? Or that the slogan of insurrection should be mutilated
by tying it down to one of the elements, namely, self-government?

"Theorganisation of revolutionary self-government, or, what amounts to the
same, the organisation of popular forces for an uprising,” wrote the audacious
Iskra (No. 109, page 2, line 1). That is just like saying that
organising revolutionary schools means organising forces for an uprising, that
organising unrest among the clergy means organising forces for an uprising, or
that organising consumers’ societies means organising forces for a socialist
revolution. No, you are poor dialecticians, comrades of the Iskra . You
are unable to reason dialectically, although you are very well able to twist and
squirm, like Plekhanov, when it comes to the question of the organisational and
tactical vagueness of your views. You have overlooked the fact that, given victory of the uprising, all these fragments of revolution will inevitably
merge in an integral .and complete “epilogue” to the uprising,
whereas if the uprising is not victorious these fragments will remain fragments,
paltry, changing nothing, and satisfying only the philistines.

Themoral is:

1) Both on the eve of a socialist revolution and on the
eve of a democratic revolution, opportunists in the Social-Democratic movement
have a bad habit of working themselves up over a single petty fragment of a big
process, exalting this fragment to the status of the whole, and subordinating
the whole to this fragment, thereby mutilating the whole, and thereby
themselves becoming toadies to the inconsistent and cowardly
reformists.

2) The
dialectics of the spontaneous process, which is always and necessarily confused,
does not justify confusion in logical conclusions and political slogans which
are quite often (but not necessarily) confused.

P.S. This article was already in the page proofs when we received the
resolutions of the Southern Constituent Conference, published abroad by
Iskra . The text of the resolution on the State Duma differs somewhat
from the one published in Russia, which we have reproduced above. But these
differences are not essential, and do not affect our criticism in any way.

---
Notes:
[1]
If we prove strong in the impending decisive conflict with tsarism, the
State Duma will inevitably turn to the left (at least its liberal section
will do so—we are not speaking about its reactionary section), but to
attempt to influence the State Duma seriously without destroying
the rule of the tsar would be just as stupid as for Japan to present
“ultimatums” to China or to attach much weight to Chinese assistance
without destroying the military might of Russia. After March 18,
1848, the Prussian State Duma (the United Landtag) immediately affixed its
signature to a paper providing for the convocation of a constituent
assembly, but until that all “ultimatums” of the revolutionaries, all their “endeavours” to influence the State
Duma, all their threats, were hollow phrases to the Petrunkeviches,
Rodichevs, Milyukovs, and their like, who sat in that State Duma.— Lenin

[2]
See pp. 221-22 of this volume.— Ed .

[3]
Sotsial-Demokrat ( The Social-Democrat )—a
Menshevik news paper published in Geneva from October 1904 till October 1905.