V. I.

Lenin

I

The revolutionary movement in Russia, which is rapidly spreading to ever new
sections of the population, is giving rise to a number of non-party
organisations. The longer the urge for association has been suppressed and
persecuted, the more forcibly it asserts itself. All sorts of organisations,
frequently loose in form, and most original in character, are constantly springing
up. They have no hard and fast boundaries, as have organisations in
Europe. Trade unions assume a political character. The political struggle blends
with the economic struggle—as, for instance, in the form of strikes—
and this gives rise to temporary, or more or less permanent, organisations of a
blended type.

What is the significance of this phenomenon, and what should be the attitude of Social-Democrats towards it?

Strict adherence to the party principle is the corollary and the result of a
highly developed class struggle. And, vice versa, the interests of the open and
widespread class struggle demand the development of the strict party
principle. That is why the party of the class-conscious proletariat, the
Social-Democratic Party, has always quite rightly combated the non-party idea,
and has worked steadily to establish a closely-knit, socialist workers’ party
consistent in its principles. The more thoroughly the development of capitalism
splits up the entire people into classes, accentuating the contradictions among
them, the greater is the success of this work among the masses.

It is quite natural that the present revolution in Russia
should have given rise, and should continue to give rise, to
so many non-party organisations. This is a democratic revolution, i.e., one which is bourgeois as regards its social and economic
content. This revolution is overthrowing the autocratic semi-feudal
system, extricating the bourgeois system from it, and thereby putting
into effect the demands of all the classes of bourgeois society— in
this sense being a revolution of the whole people. This, of course, does
not mean that our revolution is not a class revolution; certainly not. But
it is directed against classes and castes which have be come or are
becoming obsolete from the point of view of bourgeois society, which are
alien to that society and hinder its development. And since the entire
economic life of the country has already become bourgeois in all its main
features, since the overwhelming majority of the population is in fact
already living in bourgeois conditions of existence, the
anti-revolutionary elements are naturally extremely few in number,
constituting truly a mere “handful” as compared with the
“people”. Hence the class nature of the bourgeois revolu tion
inevitably reveals itself in the “popular”, at first glance
non-class, nature of the struggle of all classes of a bourgeois society
against autocracy and feudalism.

The epoch of the bourgeois revolution in Russia, no less than in other
countries, is distinguished by a relatively un developed state of the class
contradictions peculiar to capitalist society. True, in Russia capitalism is
more highly developed at the present time than it was in Germany in 1848, to
say nothing of France in 1789; but there is no doubt about the fact that in
Russia purely capitalist antagonisms are very very much overshadowed by the
antagonisms between “cul ture” and Asiatic barbarism, Europeanism
and Tartarism, capitalism and feudalism; in other words, the demands that are
being put first today are those the satisfaction of which will develop
capitalism, cleanse it of the slag of feudalism and improve the conditions of
life and struggle both for the pro letariat and for the bourgeoisie.

Indeed, if we examine the demands, instructions and doléances , which
are now being drawn up in infinite numbers in every factory, office, regiment,
police unit, parish, educational institution, etc., etc., all over Russia, we
shall easily see that the overwhelming majority of them contain purely
“cultural” demands, if we may call them so. What I mean is that
actually they are not specifically class demands, but demands for elementary rights, demands which will not destroy capitalism
but, on the contrary, bring it within the framework of Europeanism, and free it
of barbarism, savagery; corruption and other “Russian” survivals of
serf dom. In essence, even the proletarian demands are limited, in most cases,
to reforms of the sort that are fully realisable within the framework of
capitalism. What the Russian proletariat is demanding now and immediately is
not some thing that will undermine capitalism, but something that will cleanse
it, something that will accelerate and intensify its development.

Naturally, as a result of the special position which the proletariat occupies in
capitalist society, the striving of the workers towards socialism, and their
alliance with the Socialist Party assert themselves with elemental force at the
very earliest stages of the movement. But purely socialist demands are still a
matter of the future: the immediate demands of the day are the democratic
demands of the workers in the political sphere, and economic demands within the
framework of capitalism in the economic sphere. Even the proletariat is making
the revolution, as it were, within the limits of the minimum programme and not
of the maximum programme. As for the peasantry, the vast and numerically
overwhelming mass of the population, this goes without saying. Its
“maximum programme”, its ultimate aims, do not go beyond the bounds
of capitalism, which would grow more extensively and luxuriantly if all the land
were transferred to the whole of the peasantry and the whole of the
people. Today the peas ant revolution is a bourgeois revolution—however
much these words may jar on the sentimental ears of the sentimen tal knights of
our petty-bourgeois socialism.

The character of the revolution now in progress, as out lined above, quite
naturally gives rise to non-party organisations. The whole movement, therefore,
on the surface in evitably acquires a non-party stamp, a non-party
appearance—but only on the surface, of course. The urge for a
“human”, civilised life, the urge to organise in defence of human dignity, for one’s
rights as man and citizen, takes hold of everyone, unites all classes, vastly
outgrows all party bounds and shakes up people who as yet are very very far from
being able to rise to party allegiance. The vital need of immediate, elementary, essential rights and reforms puts off, as it were, all thought and
consideration of anything further. Preoccupation with the struggle in
progress, a preoccupation that is quite necessary and legitimate, for
without it success in the struggle would be impossible, causes people to
idealise these immediate, elementary aims, to depict them in rosy colours
and sometimes even to clothe them in fantastic garb. Simple democracy,
ordinary bourgeois democracy, is taken as socialism and
“registered” as such. Everything seems to be “non—party”; everything seems to fuse into a single
movement for “liberation” (actually, a movement liberating the
whole of bourgeois society); everything acquires a faint, a very faint
tint of “socialism”, owing above all to the leading part
played by the socialist proletariat in the democratic struggle.

In these circumstances, the idea of non-partisanship can not but gain certain
temporary successes. The slogan of non partisanship cannot but become a
fashionable slogan, for fa shion drags helplessly at the tail of life, and it is
the non-party organisation that appears to be the most “common”
phenomenon on the surface of political life: non-party demo cratism, non-p arty
strike-ism, non-party revolutionism.

The question now arises: what should be the attitude of the adherents
and representatives of the various classes to wards this fact of non-party
organisation, towards this idea of non-partisanship? “Should”, that
is, not in the subjective sense, but objectively, i.e., not in the sense of what
view to take of it, but in the sense of what attitude is inevitably taking shape
under the influence of the respective interests and viewpoints of the various
classes.

II

As we have already shown, the non-party principle is the product—or, if
you will, the expression—of the bourgeois character of our revolution. The
bourgeoisie cannot help inclining towards the non-party principle, for the
absence of parties among those who are fighting for the liberation of bourg eois
society implies that no fresh struggle will arise against this bourgeois society
itself. Those who carry on a “non— party” struggle for liberty
are not aware of the bourgeois nature of liberty, or they sanctify the bourgeois
system, or else they put oil the struggle against it, its “perfecting”, to the
Greek calends. And, conversely, those who consciously or unconsciously stand for
the bourgeois system cannot help feeling attracted by the idea of
non-partisanship.

In a society based upon class divisions, the struggle between the hostile
classes is bound, at a certain stage of its development, to become a political
struggle. The most pur poseful, most comprehensive and specific expression of
the political struggle of classes is the struggle of parties. The non-party
principle means indifference to the struggle of parties. But this indifference
is not equivalent to neutrality, to abstention from the struggle, for in the
class struggle there can be no neutrals; in capitalist society, it is impossible
to “abstain” from taking part in the exchange of commodities or
labour-power. And exchange inevitably gives rise to economic and then to
political struggle. Hence, in practice, indifference to the struggle does not at
all mean standing aloof from the struggle, abstaining from it, or being
neutral. Indifference is tacit support of the strong, of those who rule. In
Russia, those who were indifferent towards the autocracy prior to its fall
during the October revolution tacitly sup ported the autocracy. In present-day
Europe, those who are indifferent towards the rule of the bourgeoisie tacitly
support the bourgeoisie. Those who are indifferent towards the idea that the
struggle for liberty is of a bourgeois nature tacitly support the domination of
the bourgeoisie in this struggle, in the free Russia now in the
making. Political unconcern is political satiety. A well-fed man is
“unconcerned with”, “indifferent to”, a crust of bread;
a hungry man, however, will always take a “partisan” stand on the
question of a crust of bread. A person’s “unconcern and
indifference” with regard to a crust of bread does not mean that he does
not need bread, but that he is always sure of his bread, that be is never in
want of bread and that he has firmly attached himself to the “party”
of the well-fed. The non-party principle in bourgeois society is merely a
hypocritical, disguised, passive expression of adherence to the party of the
well-fed, of the rulers, of the exploiters.

The non-party idea is a bourgeois idea. The party idea is a socialist idea. This
thesis, in general and as a whole, is applicable to all bourgeois society. One
must, of course, be able to adapt this general truth to particular questions and particular
cases; but to forget this truth at a time when the whole of bourgeois
society is rising in revolt against feudalism and autocracy means in
practice completely to renounce socialist criticism of bourgeois society.

The Russian revolution, despite the fact that it is still in the early stages of
its development, has already provided no little material to confirm the general
considerations here outlined. Only the Social-Democratic Party, the party of the
class-conscious proletariat, has always insisted, and insists now, upon strict
adherence to the party principle. Our liberals, who voice the views of the
bourgeoisie, cannot bear the socialist party principle and will not hear of
class struggle. One need but recall the recent speeches of Mr. Rodichev, who
for the hundredth time repeated what has been said over and over again
by Osvobozhdeniye [1] abroad, as well as by the innumerable vassal organs of
Russian liberalism. Finally, the ideology of the intermediate class, the petty
bourgeoisie, has found a clear expression in the views of the Russian
“radicals” of various shades, from Nasha Zhizn and the “radical-democrats” [2] to the “Social ist-Revol
utionaries”. The latter have demonstrated their confusion of socialism
with democracy most clearly over the agrarian question, particularly by their
slogan of “socialisation” (of the land without socialising
capital). It is likewise well known that being tolerant towards bourgeois
radicalism, they are intolerant towards the Social-Democratic Party principle.

An analysis of just how the interests of the various classes are reflected in
the programme and tactics of the Russian liberals and radicals of all shades is
beyond our subject. We have touched upon this interesting question only in
passing, and must now proceed to draw the practical political conclusions with
regard to the attitude of our Party towards non-party organisations.

Is it permissible for socialists to participate in non-party organisations? If
so, on what conditions? What tactics should be pursued in these organisations?

The answer to the first question cannot be an uncondition al and categorical
“no”. It would be wrong to say that in no case and under no
circumstances should Social-Democrats participate in non-party (i.e., more or
less consciously or unconsciously bourgeois) organisations. In the period of the democratic
revolution, a refusal to participate in non-party organisations would in
certain circumstances amount to a refusal to participate in the democratic
revolution. But undoubtedly socialists should confine these “certain
circumstances” to narrow limits, and should permit of such participation
only on strictly defined, restrictive condi tions. For while non-party
organisations, as we have already said, arise as a result of the relatively
undeveloped state of the class struggle, strict adherence to the party prin
ciple, on the other hand, is one of the factors that make the class struggle
conscious, clear, definite, and principled.

To preserve the ideological and political independence of the party of the
proletartat is the constant, immutable and absolute duty of socialists. Whoever
fails to fulfil this duty ceases to be a socialist in fact , however
sincere his “socialist” (in words) convictions may be. Socialists
may participate in non-party organisations only by way of exception; and the
very purpose, nature, conditions, etc., of this participation must be wholly
subordinated to the fun damental task of preparing and organising the socialist
proletariat for conscious leadership of the socialist revolution.

Circumstances may compel us to participate in non-party organisations,
especially in the period of a democratic revolution, specifically a democratic
revolution in which the proletariat plays an outstanding part. Such participa
tion may prove essential, for example, for the purpose of preaching socialism to
vaguely democratic audiences, or in the interests of a joint struggle of
socialists and revolu tionary democrats against the counter-revolution. In the
first case, such participation will be a means of securing the acceptance of our
ideas; in the second case, it will represent a fighting agreement for the
achievement of definite revolutionary aims. In both cases, participation can
only be temporary. In both cases, it is permissible only if the independence of
the workers’ party is fully safeguarded and if the party as a whole controls and
guides its members and groups “delegated” to non-party unions or
councils; When the activities of our Party were conducted secretly, the exercise of such
control and guidance presented extremely great, and sometimes almost insuperable difficulties. But now that the
activities of our Party are becoming more and more open, this control and
this guidance can and should be exercised on the largest scale, not only
by the higher bodies of the Party, but also by the rank and file, by all
the organised workers belonging to our Party. Reports on the activities of
Social-Democrats in non-party unions and councils, lectures on the
conditions and aims of such activities, resolutions of party organisations
of all types about these activities, should become a regular practice in a
workers’ party. Only by such real participation of the Party as a
whole, by participation in the direction of such activities, can we
contrast in practice truly socialist work with general democratic work.

What tactics should we pursue in the non-party unions? First of all, we should
use every opportunity to establish independent contacts and to propagate the
whole of our socialist programme. Secondly, we should define the immediate
political tasks of the day in terms of the fullest and most resolute
accomplishment of the democratic revolution; we should put forward the political
watchwords of the democratic revolution and advance a “programme”
of those reforms which should be carried out by militant revolutionary
democrats as distinct from haggling, liberal democrats.

Only if matters are arranged in this way will it be permissible and useful for
members of our Party to participate in the non-party revolutionary
organisations which are being set up one day by the workers, the next day by the
peasants, the day after by the soldiers, etc. Only in that event shall we be in
a position to fulfil the twofold task of a workers’ party in a bourgeois
revolution, namely, to carry the democratic revolution to completion and to
extend and strengthen the forces of the socialist proletariat, which needs freedom
in order to carry on a ruthless struggle for the overthrow of the rule of
capital.

---
Notes:
[1]
Osvobozhdeniye (Emancipation )—a fortnightly bourgeois-liberal
magazine published abroad from 1902 to 1905, and edited by
P. B. Struve. In January 1904 it became the organ of the liberal-monarchist
League of Emancipation. Subsequently the Osvobozhdeniye group formed
the nucleus of the Cadet Party.

[2]
Radical-Democrats —members of a petty-bourgeois organisation that
arose in November 1905. Their position was intermediate between those of the
Cadets and the Mensheviks. They started a newspaper of their
own— Radikal—but were able to bring out only one issue. They demanded a democratic republic, even though they were willing to
settle for a constitutional monarchy, provided the government was accountable to
parliament. Concerning the agrarian question they favoured the expropriation of
state, crown, monastery and church lands without compensation, and the
expropriation of private holdings for a minimum compensation. Their organisation
disintegrated early In 1908, its one-time members joining the semi-Cadet papers
Bez Zaglavia (Without Title ) and
Tovarishch (Comrade).