Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

4.

The Abolition of the Monarchist System and the
Republic

Let us go over to the next section of the resolution:

“...in either case such a victory will inaugurate a new phase
in the revolutionary epoch.

“The final abolition of the whole regime of the monarchy and the
social estates in the process of mutual struggle between the
elements of politically emancipated bourgeois society for the
satisfaction of their social interests and for the direct
acquisition of power—such is the task in this new phase
which the objective conditions of social development spontaneously evoke.

“Therefore, a provisional government that would under take to
carry out the tasks of this revolution, bourgeois in its
historical nature, would, in regulating the mutual struggle
between antagonistic classes of a nation in the process of
emancipation, not only have to advance revolutionary development, but also to combat factors in that development
threatening the foundations of the capitalist system.”

Let us examine this section which forms an independent part of
the resolution. The basic idea in the arguments quoted above
coincides with the one set forth in the third clause of the
Congress resolution. However, collation of these parts of the
two resolutions will at once reveal the following radical
difference between them. The Congress resolution, which briefly
describes the social and economic basis of the revolution,
concentrates attention entirely on the clear-cut struggle of
classes for definite gains, and places in the fore front the
militant tasks of the proletariat. The resolution of the
Conference, which carries a long, nebulous, and confused
description of the socio-economic basis of the revolution,
speaks very vaguely about a struggle for definite gains. and
leaves the militant tasks of the proletariat completely in the
background. The resolution of the Conference speaks of the old
order in the process of mutual struggle among the various
elements of society. The Congress resolution says that we, the
party of the proletariat, must effect this abolition; that only
establishment of a democratic republic signifies genuine
abolition of the old order; that we must win that republic; that
we shall fight for it and for complete liberty, not only against
the autocracy, but also against the bourgeoisie, when it
attempts (and it will surely do so) to wrest our gains from
us. The Congress resolution calls on a definite class to wage a
struggle for a precisely defined immediate aim. The Conference
resolution discourses on the mutual struggle of various
forces. One resolution expresses the psychology of active
struggle, the other that of the passive onlooker; one resounds
with the call for live action, the other is steeped in lifeless
pedantry. Both resolutions state that the present revolution is
only our first step, which will be followed by a second; but
from this, one resolution draws the conclusion that we must take
this

first step all the sooner, get it over all the sooner, win
a republic, mercilessly crush the counter-revolution, and
prepare the ground for the second step. The other resolution,
however, oozes, so to speak, with verbose descriptions of the
first step and (excuse the crude expression) simply masticates
it. The Congress resolution takes the old, yet eternally new,
ideas of Marxism (the bourgeois nature of a democratic revolution) as a preface or first premise, whence it draws
conclusions as to the progressive tasks of the progressive
class, which is fighting both for the democratic and for the
socialist revolution. The Conference resolution does not go
beyond the preface, chewing it over and over again, and trying
to be clever about it.

This is the very distinction which has long divided the Russian
Marxists into two wings: the moralising and the militant wings
of the old days of “legal Marxism”, and the economic and
political wings of the period of the nascent mass movement. From
the correct Marxist premise concerning the deep economic roots
of the class struggle in general and of the political struggle
in particular, the Economists have drawn the singular conclusion
that we must turn our backs on the political struggle and retard
its development, narrow its scope, and reduce its aims. The
political wing, on the contrary, has drawn a different conclusion from these same premises, namely, that the deeper the
roots of our present struggle, the more widely, the more boldly,
the more resolutely, and with greater initiative must we wage
this struggle. We have the very same controversy before us now,
only under different circumstances and in a different form. From
the premises that a democratic revolution is far from being a
socialist revolution, that the poor and needy are by no means
the only ones to be “interested” in it, that it is deeply rooted
in the inescapable needs and requirements of the whole of bourgeois society—from these premises we draw the
conclusion that the advanced class must formulate its democratic
aims all the more boldly, express them all the more sharply and
completely, put forward the immediate slogan of a republic, and
popularise the idea of the need to establish a provisional
revolutionary government and to crush the counter revolution
ruthlessly. Our opponents, the new-Iskra group, however, deduce from these very same premises that the democratic
conclusions should not be expressed fully, that the republic may
be omitted from the practical slogans, that we can refrain from
popularising the idea of the need for a provisional revolutionary government, that a mere decision to convene a
constituent assembly can be termed a decisive victory, that there is no need to advance the task of
combating counter-revolution as our active aim, so that it may
be submerged in a nebulous (and, as we shall presently see,
wrongly formulated) reference to a “process of mutual struggle”. This is not the language of political leaders, but of
archive fogeys.

The more closely one examines the various formulations in the
resolution of the new-Iskra group, the clearer its aforementioned basic features become. We are told, for in
stance, of a “process of mutual struggle between the elements of
politically emancipated bourgeois society”. Bearing in mind the
subject this resolution deals with (a provisional revolutionary
government) one asks in astonishment, “If you are referring to
the process of mutual struggle, how can you keep silent about
the elements which are politically enslaving bourgeois society? Do the ’conferees’ really imagine that, since they have
assumed the revolution will be victorious, these elements have
already disappeared?” Such an idea would be absurd in general
and an expression of the greatest political naíveté and political short-sightedness in particular. After the
revolution’s victory over counter revolution the latter will not
disappear; on the contrary, it will inevitably start a new and
even more desperate struggle. Since the purpose of our resolution is to analyse the tasks that will confront us when
the revolution is victorious, it is our duty to devote tremendous attention to the tasks of repelling
counter-revolutionary attacks (as is done in the Congress
resolution), and not to submerge these immediate, urgent, and
vital political tasks of a militant party in general discussions
on what will happen after the present revolutionary period, or what will happen when a “politically emancipated society” already exists. Just as the Economists would, by
repeating the truism that politics are subordinated to economics, cover up their incapacity to understand urgent
political tasks, so the new Iskra -ists, by repeating the
general truism that struggles will take place in a politically
emancipated society, cover up their failure to understand the urgent revolutionary tasks of the political
emancipation of this society.

Take the expression “the final abolition of the whole regime of
social estates and the monarchy.” In plain language, the final
abolition of the monarchist system means the establishment of a
democratic republic. But our good Martynov and his admirers
think that this expression is far too simple and clear. They
insist on rendering it “more profound” and saying it more
“cleverly.” As a result, we get, on the one hand, ridiculous and
vain efforts to appear profound; on the other hand, we get a
description instead of a slogan, a sort of melancholy looking
backward instead of a stirring appeal to march forward. We get
the impression, not of living people eager to fight for a
republic here and now, but of fossilised mummies who, sub specie aeternitatis , [1] consider the question from the standpoint of
plusquamperfectum viewpoint.

Let us proceed further: “... the provisional government
... would undertake to carry out the tasks of this
... bourgeois revolution.” ... Here we see at once the result of the fact that our “Conferencers” have overlooked a
concrete question which confronts the political leaders of the
proletariat. The concrete question of a provisional revolutionary government was obscured from their field of vision
by the question of the future series of governments which will
carry out the aims of the bourgeois revolution in general. If
you want to consider the question “historically,” the example of
any European country will show you that it was a series of
governments, not by any means “provisional,” that carried out
the historical aims of the bourgeois revolution, that even the
governments which defeated the revolution were nonetheless
forced to carry out the historical aims of that defeated
revolution. But what is called a “provisional revolutionary
government” is something altogether different from what you are
referring to: that is the name given to the government of a
revolutionary epoch, which directly replaces the overthrown
government and rests on the insurrection of the people, and not on some kind of representative institutions coming from the
people. A provisional revolutionary government is the organ of
struggle for the immediate victory of the revolution, for
immediately repelling counter-revolutionary attempts, and not by
any means an organ for carrying out the historical aims of the
bourgeois revolution in general. Gentlemen, let us leave it to
the future historians of a future Russkaya Starina [2] to determine exactly what aims of the bourgeois
revolution we, or this or that government, shall have achieved—there will be time enough to do that thirty years
from now; at present we must put forward slogans and give
practical directives for the struggle for a republic and for the
proletariat’s most active participation in this struggle.

For the reasons stated, the final propositions in the forgoing
section of the resolution which we have quoted above are also
unsatisfactory. The expression that the provisional government
would have to “regulate” the mutual struggle among the antagonistic classes is exceedingly inapt, or at any rate
awkwardly put; Marxists should not use such liberal, Osvobozhdeniye formulations, which lead one to believe
that it is possible to have governments which serve not as
organs of the class struggle but as its “regulators”. . . . The
government would “not only have to push revolutionary development further forward but also fight against those of its
factors which threaten the foundations of the capitalist
system.” But it is the proletariat, the very same in whose name
the resolution is speaking, that constitutes this “factor”!
Instead of indicating just how the proletariat should “push
revolutionary development further forward” at the present time
(push it further than the constitutionalist bourgeois would care
to go), instead of advice to prepare definite ways and means of
combating the bourgeoisie when the latter turns against the
conquests of the revolution, we are offered a general description of a process, which does not say a word about the
concrete aims of our activity. The new
Iskra -ist method of expressing its views reminds one of
Marx’s opinion (in his famous “theses” on Feuerbach ) of the old materialism, which was alien to the
ideas of dialectics. The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways, said Marx, the
point, however, is to change it. [3]

Similarly, the new-Iskraists can give a tolerable description and explanation
of the process of struggle which is taking place before their
eyes, but they are altogether incapable of giving a correct
slogan for this struggle. Good marchers but bad leaders, they
belittle the materialist conception of history by ignoring the
active, leading and guiding part in history which can and must
be played by parties that understand the material prerequisites
of a revolution and that have placed themselves at the head of
the progressive classes.

---
Notes:
[1]
From the viewpoint of eternity (Latin).— Ed .

[2]
PLACEHOLDER

[3]
PLACEHOLDER

| | What Is A “Decisive Victory of the
Revolution Over Tsarism”? | | | How Should “The Revolution Be Pushed
Forward”? | |