Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

9.

What Does Being A Party of Extreme Opposition In Time of
Revolution Mean?

Let us return to the resolution on a provisional government. We
have shown that the tactics of the new-Iskraists do not push the
revolution forward—which they may have wanted to make possible by their resolution—but back. We have shown that
it is precisely these tactics that tie the hands of
Social-Democracy in the struggle against the inconsistent
bourgeoisie and do not safeguard it against being dissolved in
bourgeois democracy. Naturally, the false premises of the
resolution lead to the false conclusion that:

“Therefore, Social-Democracy must not set itself the aim of seizing or sharing power in the provisional
government, but must remain the party of extreme revolutionary
opposition.” Consider the first half of this conclusion,
which is part of a statement of aims. Do the new-Iskraists
declare the aim of Social-Democratic activity to be a decisive
victory of the revolution over tsarism? They do. They are unable
correctly to formulate the requisites for a decisive victory and
stray into the Osvobozhdeniye formulation, but they do set themselves the aforementioned aim. Further: do they connect
a provisional government with insurrection? Yes, they do so
plainly, by stating that a provisional government “will emerge
from a victorious popular insurrection.” Finally, do they set
themselves the aim of leading the insurrection? Yes, they
do. Like Mr. Struve, they do not admit that an insurrection is
an urgent necessity, but at the same time, unlike Mr. Struve,
they say that “Social-Democracy strives to subject it” (the insurrection) “to its influence and leadership and
to use it in the interests of the working class.”

How nicely this hangs together, does it not? We set ourselves
the aim of subjecting the insurrection of both the proletarian and non-proletarian masses to our influence
and our leadership, and of using it in our interests. Hence, we
set ourselves the aim of leading, in the insurrection, both the
proletariat and the revolutionary bourgeoisie and petty
bourgeoisie (“the non-proletarian groups”), i.e., of “ sharing ” the leadership of the insurrection between
the Social-Democracy and the revolutionary bourgeoisie. We set
ourselves the aim of securing victory for the insurrection,
which is to lead to the establishment of a provisional government (“which will emerge from a victorious popular
insurrection”). Therefore . . . therefore we must not set ourselves the aim of seizing power or of sharing it in a
provisional revolutionary government!!

Our friends cannot dovetail their arguments. They vacillate
between the standpoint of Mr. Struve, who is evading the issue
of an insurrection, and the standpoint of revolutionary
Social-Democracy, which calls upon us to undertake this urgent
task. They vacillate between anarchism, which on principle
condemns all participation in a provisional revolutionary
government as treachery to the proletariat, and Marxism, which
demands such participation on condition that the
Social-Democratic Party exercises the leading influence in the insurrection. [1]

They have no independent position whatever: neither that of Mr. Struve, who wants to come to terms
with tsarism and is therefore compelled to resort to evasions
and subterfuges on the question of insurrection, nor that of the
anarchists, who condemn all action “from above” and all
participation in a bourgeois revolution. The new-Iskraists
confuse a deal with tsarism with a victory over tsarism. They
want to take part in a bourgeois revolution. They have gone
somewhat beyond Martynov’s Two Dictatorships . They even
consent to lead the insurrection of the people—in order to
renounce that leadership immediately after victory is won (or,
perhaps, immediately before the victory?), i.e., in order not to avail themselves of the fruits of victory but to
turn all these fruits over entirely to the bourgeoisie . This is what they call “using the insurrection
in the interests of the working class....”

There is no need to dwell on this muddle any longer. It will be
more useful to examine how this muddle originated in the formulation which reads: “to remain the party of extreme
revolutionary opposition.”

This is one of the familiar propositions of international
revolutionary Social-Democracy. It is a perfectly correct
proposition. It has become a commonplace for all opponents of
revisionism or opportunism in parliamentary countries. It has
become generally accepted as the legitimate and necessary rebuff
to “parliamentary cretinism,” Millerandism, Bernsteinism , [2] and the Italian reformism of the Turati brand. Our good
new-Iskraists have learned this excellent proposition by heart
and are zealously applying it . . . quite inappropriately . Categories of the parliamentary struggle
are introduced into resolutions written for conditions in which
no parliament exists. The concept “opposition,” which has become
the reflection and the expression of a political situation in
which no one seriously speaks of an insurrection, is senselessly
applied to a situation in which insurrection has begun and in which all the supporters of the revolution are thinking
and talking about leadership in it. The desire to “ stick to ” old methods, i.e., action only “from below,” is
expressed with pomp and clamour precisely at a time when the revolution has confronted us with the necessity, in the
event of the insurrection being victorious, of acting from
above.

No, our new-Iskraists are decidedly out of luck! Even when they
formulate a correct Social-Democratic proposition they don’t
know how to apply it correctly. They failed to take into
consideration that in a period in which a revolution has begun,
when there is no parliament, when there is civil war, when
insurrectionary outbreaks occur, the concepts and terms of
parliamentary struggle are changed and transformed into their
opposites. They failed to take into consideration the fact that,
under the circumstances referred to amendments are moved by
means of street demonstrations, interpolations are introduced by
means of offensive action by armed citizens, opposition to the
government is effected by forcibly overthrowing the government.

Like the well-known hero of our folklore, who repeated good
advice just when it was inappropriate, our admirers of Martynov
repeat the lessons of peaceful parliamentarism just at a time
when, as they themselves state, actual hostilities have
commenced.

There is nothing more ridiculous than this pompous emphasis of the slogan “extreme opposition” in a resolution
which begins by referring to a “decisive victory of the
revolution” and to a “popular insurrection”! Try to visualise,
gentlemen, what it means to be the “extreme opposition” in a
period of insurrection. Does it mean exposing the government or
deposing it? Does it mean voting against the government or
defeating its armed forces in open battle? Does it mean refusing
the government replenishments for its exchequer or the revolutionary seizure of this exchequer in order to use it for
the requirements of the uprising, to arm the workers and
peasants and to convoke a constituent assembly? Are you not
beginning to understand, gentlemen, that the term “extreme
opposition” expresses only negative actions—to expose, to
vote against, to refuse? Why is this so? Because this term
applies only to the parliamentary struggle and, moreover, to a
period when no one makes “decisive victory” the immediate object
of the struggle. Are you not beginning to understand that things
undergo a cardinal change in this respect from the moment the
politically oppressed people launch a determined attack along
the whole front in desperate struggle for victory?

The workers ask us: Is it necessary energetically to take up the
urgent business of insurrection? What is to be done to make the
incipient insurrection victorious? What use should be made of
the victory? What program can and should then be applied? The
new Iskra -ists, who are making Marxism more profound, answer: We must remain the party of extreme revolutionary
opposition. . . . Well, were we not right in calling these
knights past masters in philistinism?

---
Notes:
[1]
See Proletary , No. 3, “On the Provisional Revolutionary
Government,” article two.

— Lenin

[2]
PLACEHOLDER

| | Osvobozhdeniyeism and New Iskra Trends | | | “Revolutionary Communes” and
the Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry | |