Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

I.

What Do The Bourgeois Liberal Realists Praise The
Social-Democratic “Realists” For?

The articles entitled “The Split in Russian Social-Democracy”
and “The Triumph of Common Sense” ( Osvobozhdeniye , No. 72) set forth the opinion on Social-Democracy held by the
representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie, an opinion which is
of remarkable value for class-conscious proletarians. We cannot
too strongly recommend every Social-Democrat to read these
articles in full and to ponder over every sentence in them. We
shall reproduce first of all the most important propositions
contained in both these articles.

“It is fairly difficult,” writes the Osvobozbdeniye , “for an outside observer to grasp the real political meaning of
the disagreements that have split the Social-Democratic Party
into two factions. A definition of the ‘Majority’ faction as the
more radical and unswerving, as distinct from the ‘Minority’
which allows of certain compromises in the interests of the
cause would not be quite exact, and in any case would not
provide an exhaustive characterisation. At any rate the
traditional dogmas of Marxian orthodoxy are observed by the
Minority faction with even greater zeal perhaps than by the
Lenin faction. The following characterisation would appear to us
to be more accurate. The fundamental political temper of the
’Majority’ is abstract revolutionism, rebellion for the sake of
rebellion, an eagerness to stir up insurrection among the
popular masses by any and every means and to seize power
immediately in their name; to a certain extent this brings the
’Leninists’ close to the Socialist-Revolutionaries and overshadows in their minds the idea of the class struggle with
the idea of a Russian revolution involving the whole people;
while abjuring in practice much of the narrow-mindedness of the
Social-Democratic doctrine, the ’Leninists’ are, on the other
hand, thoroughly imbued with the narrow-mindedness of revolutionism, renounce all practical work except the
preparation of an immediate insurrection, ignore on principle
all forms of legal and semi-legal agitation and every species of
practically useful compromise with other oppositional trends. The Minority, on the contrary, while steadfastly
adhering to the doctrine of Marxism, at the same time preserves
the realistic elements of the Marxian world outlook. The
fundamental idea of this faction is to oppose the interests of
the ’proletariat’ to the interests of the bourgeoisie. But, on
the other hand, the struggle of the proletariat is conceived—of course within certain bounds dictated by the
immutable dogmas of Social-Democracy—in realistically sober
fashion, with a clear realisation of all the concrete conditions
and aims of this struggle. Neither of the two factions pursues
its basic point of view quite consistently, for in their
ideological and political activity they are bound by the strict
formulae of the Social Democratic catechism, which keep the
’Leninists’ from becoming unswerving rebels, after the fashion
of some, at least, of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and the
’ Iskra -ists’ from becoming the practical leaders of the
real political movement of the working class.”

And, after quoting the contents of the most important resolutions, the Osvobozbdeniye writer goes on to
illustrate his general “thoughts,” with several concrete remarks
about them. In comparison with the Third Congress, he says, “the
Minority Conference takes a totally different attitude towards
armed insurrection.” “In connection with the attitude towards
armed insurrection,” there is a difference in the respective
resolutions on a provisional government. “A similar difference
is revealed in relation to the workers’ trade unions. The
’Leninists’ do not say a single word in their resolution about
this most important starting point in the political education
and organisation of the working class. The Minority, on the
other hand, drew up a very weighty resolution.” With regard to
the liberals, both factions, he says, are unanimous, but the
Third Congress “repeats almost word for word Plekhanov’s
resolution on the attitude towards the liberals adopted at the
Second Congress and rejects Starover’s resolution adopted by the
same Congress, which was more favourably inclined towards the
liberals.” Although the Congress and the Conference resolutions
on the peasant movement coincide on the whole, "the ‘Majority’
lays more emphasis on the idea of the revolutionary confiscation
of the landlords’ estates and other land, while the ‘Minority’
wants to make the demand for democratic state and administrative
reforms the basis of its agitation.”

Finally, the Osvobozhdeniye cites from the
Iskra , No. 100, a Menshevik resolution, the main clause
of which reads as follows: “In view of the fact that at the
present time underground work alone does not secure adequate
participation of the masses in Party life and in some degree
leads to the masses as such being contrasted to the Party as an
illegal organisation, the latter must assume leadership of the
trade union struggle of the workers on a legal basis, strictly
linking up this struggle with the Social-Democratic tasks.”
Commenting on this resolution the Osvobozhdeniye exclaims: “We heartily welcome this resolution as a triumph of
common sense, as evidence that a definite section of the
Social-Democratic Party is beginning to see the light with
regard to tactics.”

The reader now has before him all the essential opinions of the
Osvobozhdeniye . It would, of course, be the greatest mistake to regard these opinions as correct in the sense that
they correspond to objective truth. Every Social-Democrat will
easily detect mistakes in them at every step. It would be
naïve to forget that these opinions are thoroughly permeated with the interests and the points of view of the
liberal bourgeoisie, and that accordingly they are utterly
biased and tendentious. They reflect the views of the
Social-Democrats in the same way as objects are reflected in a
concave or convex mirror. But it would be an even greater
mistake to forget that in the final analysis these bourgeois-distorted opinions reflect the real interests of the
bourgeoisie, which, as a class, undoubtedly understands
correctly which trends in Social-Democracy are advantageous,
close, akin and agreeable, and which trends are harmful,
distant, alien and antipathetic to it. A bourgeois philosopher
or a bourgeois publicist can never understand Social-Democracy
properly, neither Menshevik nor Bolshevik Social-Democracy. But
if he is at all a sensible publicist, his class instinct will
not deceive him, and he will always grasp the significance for
the bourgeoisie of one or another trend in the Social-Democratic
movement, on the whole correctly, although he may present it in
a distorted way. That is why the class instinct of our enemy,
his class opinion, is always deserving of the most serious
attention of every class-conscious proletarian.

What, then, does the class instinct of the Russian bourgeoisie,
as expressed by the Osvobozhdentsi , tell us?

It quite definitely expresses its satisfaction with the trend
represented by the new Iskra , praises it for its realism, sober-mindedness, the triumph of common sense, the
seriousness of its resolutions, its beginning to see the light
on questions of tactics, its practicalness, etc.—and it
expresses dissatisfaction with the trend of the Third Congress,
censures it for its narrow-mindedness, revolutionism, its rebel
spirit, its repudiation of practically useful compromises, etc. The
class instinct of the bourgeoisie suggests to it exactly what
has been repeatedly proved with the help of most precise facts
in our literature, namely, that the new-Iskraists are the
opportunist and their opponents the revolutionary wing of the
present-day Russian Social-Democratic movement. The liberals
cannot but sympathise with the trend of the former, and cannot
but censure the trend of the latter. The liberals, being the
ideologists of the bourgeoisie, perfectly well understand the
advantages to the bourgeoisie of “practicalness, sober-mindedness and seriousness” on the part of the working
class, i.e., of actually restricting its field of activity
within the boundaries of capitalism, reforms, the trade union
struggle, etc. Dangerous and terrible to the bourgeoisie is the
“revolutionary narrow-mindedness” of the proletariat and its
endeavour in order to promote its own class aims to win the
leadership in a popular Russian revolution.

That this is the real meaning of the word “realism” as employed
by the Osvobozhdeniye is evident among other things from the way it was used previously by the
Osvobozhdeniye and Mr. Struve. The Iskra itself could not but admit that this was the meaning of
the Osvobozhdeniye ’s “realism.” Take, for instance, the
article entitled “It Is High Time!” in the supplement to the
Iskra , No. 73-74. The author of this article (a consistent exponent of the views of the “Marsh” at the Second
Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party) frankly
expressed the opinion that “at the Congress Akimov played the
part of the ghost of opportunism rather than of its real
representative.” And the editors of the Iskra were forthwith obliged to correct
the author of the article “It Is High Time!” by stating in a note:

“We cannot agree with this opinion. Comrade Akimov’s views on
the programme bear the clear imprint of opportunism, which fact
is admitted even by the Osvobozhdeniye critic, who—in one of its recent issues—stated that Comrade
Akimov is an adherent of the ’realist’— read:
revisionist—tendency.”

Thus the Iskra itself is perfectly aware that the
Osvobozhdeniye ’s “realism” is simply opportunism and nothing else. If in attacking “liberal realism” ( Iskra ,
No. 102) the Iskra now says nothing about how it was praised by the liberals for its realism, the
explanation of this circumstance is that such praise is harder
to swallow than any censure. Such praise (which the
Osvobozhdeniye uttered not by mere chance and not for the first time) actually proves the affinity between liberal
realism and those tendencies of Social-Democratic “realism”
(read: opportunism) that run through every resolution of the
new-Iskraists as a result of the mistaken character of their
whole tactical line.

Indeed, the Russian bourgeoisie has already fully revealed its
inconsistency and egoism in the “popular” revolution—has
revealed it in Mr. Struve’s arguments, by the whole tone and
content of the numerous liberal newspapers, and by the nature of
the political utterances of the bulk of the Zemstvo-ists, the
bulk of the intellectuals and in general of all the adherents of
Messrs. Trubetskoy, Petrunkevich, Rodichev and Co. of course,
the bourgeoisie does not always clearly understand, but in
general and on the whole, its class instinct enables it to grasp
perfectly well that, on the one hand, the proletariat and the
“people” are useful for its revolution as cannon fodder, as a
battering-ram against the autocracy, but that, on the other
hand, the proletariat and the revolutionary peasantry will be terribly dangerous to it
if they win a “decisive victory over tsarism” and carry the
democratic revolution to completion. That is why the bourgeoisie
strains every effort to induce the proletariat to be content
with a “modest” role in the revolution, to be more sober-minded,
practical and realistic, to be guided in its activities by the
principle, “lest the bourgeoisie recoil.”

The bourgeois intellectuals know full well that they will not be
able to get rid of the working-class movement. That is why they
do not come out against the working-class movement, they do not
come out against the class struggle of the proletariat—no,
they even pay lip service to the right to strike, to a genteel
class struggle, understanding the working-class movement and the
class struggle in the Brentano or Hirsch-Duncker sense. In other
words they are fully prepared to “yield” to the workers the
right to strike and to organise in trade unions (which in fact
has already been almost won by the workers themselves), provided
the workers renounce their “rebelliousness,” their “narrow-minded revolutionism,” their hostility to
“practically-useful compromises,” their claims and aspirations
to put on the “popular Russian revolution,” the imprint of
their class struggle, the imprint of proletarian consistency, proletarian determination and “plebeian
Jacobinism.” That is why the bourgeois intellectuals all over
Russia exert every effort, resort to thousands of ways and means—books, [1] lectures, speeches, talks, etc.,
etc.—to imbue the workers with the ideas of (bourgeois)
sober-mindedness, (liberal) practicalness, (opportunist)
realism, (Brentano) class struggle, ( Hirsch-Duncker )
trade

unions, [2] etc. The latter two slogans are particularly
convenient for the bourgeois of the “constitutional-democratic”
party, or the party of “liberation,” since outwardly they
coincide with the Marxian slogans, since with a few small
omissions and some slight distortions they can easily be
confused with and sometimes even passed off as Social-Democratic
slogans. For instance, the legal liberal newspaper
Rassvyet (which we will try some day to discuss in greater detail with the readers of the Proletary )
frequently says such “bold” things about the class struggle,
about the possible deception of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, about the working-class movement, about the
initiative of the proletariat, etc., etc., that the inattentive
reader or an unenlightened worker might easily be led to believe
that its “social-democratism” is genuine. Actually, however, it
is a bourgeois imitation of social-democratism, an opportunist
distortion and perversion of the concept class struggle.

At the bottom of the whole of this gigantic (in breadth of
influence on the masses) bourgeois subterfuge lies the tendency
to reduce the working-class movement mainly to a trade union
movement, to keep it as far away as possible from an independent
(i.e., revolutionary and directed towards a democratic dictatorship) policy, to “overshadow in the minds of the workers
the idea of a Russian revolution involving the whole people with
the idea of the class struggle.”

As the reader will perceive, we have turned the
Osvobozhdeniye formulation upside down. This is an excellent formulation that excellently expresses the two views
of the role of the proletariat in a democratic revolution: the
bourgeois view and the Social-Democratic view. The bourgeoisie
wants to confine the proletariat to the trade union movement and
thereby to “overshadow in its mind the idea of a Russian
revolution involving the whole people with the idea of the
( Brentano ) class struggle”—which is wholly in the spirit of the Bernsteinian authors of the Credo , who
overshadowed in the minds of the workers the idea of political
struggle with the idea of a “purely working-class” movement. Social-Democracy, however, wants, on the contrary, to
develop the class struggle of the proletariat to the point where
the latter will take the leading part in the popular Russian
revolution, i.e., will lead this revolution to a the democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.

The revolution in our country is one that involves the whole
people, says the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. Therefore, you,
as a separate class, must confine yourselves to your class
struggle, must in the name of “common sense” devote your
attention mainly to the trade unions, and their legalisation,
must consider these trade unions as “the most important starting
point in your political education and organisation,” must in a
revolutionary situation draw up for the most part “serious”
resolutions like the new Iskra resolution, must pay careful heed to resolutions that are “more favourably inclined
towards the liberals,” must show preference for leaders who
display a tendency to become “practical leaders of the real
political movement of the working class,” must “preserve the
realistic elements of the Marxian world outlook” (if you have
unfortunately already become infected with the “strict formulae”
of this “unscientific” catechism).

The revolution in our country is one involving the whole people,
Social-Democracy says to the proletariat. Therefore, you, as the
most progressive and the only thoroughly revolutionary class,
must strive not only to take the most active part, but also the
leading, part in it. Therefore, you must not confine yourselves
to narrowly conceived limits of the class struggle, meaning
mainly the trade union movement, but, on the contrary, you must
strive to widen the limits and the content of your class
struggle to include not only all the aims of the present, democratic, Russian revolution of the whole of the
people, but the aims of the subsequent socialist revolution as
well. Therefore, while not ignoring the trade union movement,
while not refusing to take advantage of even the slightest legal
possibilities, you must, in a revolutionary period, put in the
forefront the tasks of armed insurrection and the formation of a
revolutionary army and a revolutionary government as being the
only way to the complete victory of the people over tsarism, to
the winning of a democratic republic and real political
liberty.

It would be superfluous to speak about the half-hearted and
inconsistent stand, which, naturally, is so pleasing to the
bourgeoisie, that the new Iskra resolutions took on this question because of their mistaken “line.”

---
Notes:
[1]
Cf. Prokopovich, The Labour Question in Russia — Lenin

[2]
PLACEHOLDER

| | Once Again Osvobozhdeniye Trend, Once
Again New Iskra trend | | | Comrade Martynov Again Renders the Question
“More Profound” | |