Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

11.

A Cursory Comparison Between Several of the
Resolutions of the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. and Those of the
“Conference”

The question of the provisional revolutionary government is the
pivot of the tactical questions of the Social-Democratic
movement at the present time. It is neither possible nor
necessary to dwell in as great detail on the other resolutions
of the Conference. We shall confine ourselves merely to
indicating briefly a few points which confirm the difference in
principle, analysed above, between the tactical trends of the
resolutions of the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. and those of
the Conference resolutions.

Take the question of the attitude towards the tactics of the
government on the eve of the revolution. Once again you will
find a comprehensive answer to this question in one of the
resolutions of the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. This
resolution takes into consideration all the multifarious
conditions and tasks of the particular moment: the exposure of
the hypocrisy of the government’s concessions, the utilisation
of “travesties of popular representation,” the achievement by
revolutionary means of the urgent demands of the working class
(the principal one being the eight-hour working day), and,
finally, resistance to the Black Hundreds. In the Conference
resolutions this question is scattered over several sections:
“resistance to the dark forces of reaction” is mentioned only in
the preamble of the resolution on the attitude to other
parties. Participation in elections to representative bodies is
considered separately from the question of “compromises” between
tsarism and the bourgeoisie. Instead of calling for the
achievement of an eight-hour working day by revolutionary means,
a special resolution, with the high-sounding title “On the
Economic Struggle,” merely repeats (after high-flown and very
stupid phrases about “the central place occupied by the labour
question in the public life of Russia”) the old slogan of
agitation for “the legislative institution of an eight-hour
working day.” The inadequacy and the belatedness of this slogan
at the present time are too obvious to require proof.

The question of open political action. The Third Congress takes
into consideration the impending radical change in our activity. Secret activity and the development of the secret
apparatus must on no account be abandoned: this would be playing
into the hands of the police and be of the utmost advantage to
the government. But at the same time we cannot start too soon
thinking about open action as well. Expedient forms of such
action and, consequently, special apparatus—less secret—must be prepared immediately for this
purpose. The legal and semi-legal societies must be made use of
with a view to transforming them, as far as possible, into bases
of the future open Social-Democratic Labour Party in Russia.

Here too the Conference divides up the question, and fails to
issue any integral slogans. There bobs up as a separate point
the ridiculous instruction to the Organisation Commission to see
to the “placing” of its legally functioning publicists. There is
the wholly absurd decision “to subordinate to its influence the
democratic newspapers that set themselves the aim of rendering
assistance to the working-class movement.” This is the professed
aim of all our legal liberal newspapers, nearly all of which are
of the Osvobozhdeniye trend. Why should not the editors
of the Iskra make a start themselves in carrying out their advice and give us an example of how to subject the
Osvobozhdeniye to Social-Democratic influence?

...

Instead of the slogan of utilising the legally existing
unions for the purpose of establishing bases for the Party, we
are given, first, particular advice about the “trade” unions
only (that all Party members must join them) and, secondly,
advice to guide “the revolutionary organisations of the workers” = “organisations not
officially constituted” = “revolutionary workers’ clubs.” How
these “clubs” come to be classed as unofficially constituted
organisations, what these “clubs” really are—goodness only
knows. Instead of definite and clear instructions from a supreme
Party body, we have some jottings of ideas and the rough drafts
of publicists. We get no complete picture of the beginning of
the Party’s transition to an entirely new basis in all its
work.

The “peasant question” was presented by the Party Congress and
by the Conference in entirely different ways. The Congress drew
up a resolution on the “attitude to the peasant movement,” the
Conference on “work among the peasants.” In the one case prime
importance is attached to the task of guiding the widespread
revolutionary-democratic movement in the general national
interests of the fight against tsarism. In the other instance,
the question is reduced to mere “work” among a particular
section of society. In the one case, a central practical slogan
for our agitation is advanced, calling for the immediate
organisation of revolutionary peasant committees in order to
carry out all the democratic changes. In the other, a “demand
for the organisation of committees” is to be presented to a
constituent assembly. Why must we wait for this constituent
assembly? Will it really be constituent? Will it be stable
without the preliminary and simultaneous establishment of
revolutionary peasant committees? All these questions are
ignored by the Conference. All its decisions reflect the general
idea which we have traced—namely, that in the bourgeois
revolution we must do only our special work, without setting
ourselves the aim of leading the entire democratic movement and
of doing this independently. Just as the Economists constantly harped on the idea that the
Social-Democrats should concern themselves with the economic
struggle, leaving it to the liberals to take care of the
political struggle, so the new-Iskraists keep harping in all
their discussions on the idea that we should creep into a modest
corner out of the way of the bourgeois revolution, leaving it to
the bourgeoisie to do the active work of carrying out the
revolution.

Finally, we cannot but note also the resolution on the attitude
toward other parties. The resolution of the Third Congress of
the R.S.D.L.P. speaks of exposing all the limitations and
inadequacies of the bourgeois movement for emancipation, without
entertaining the naïve idea of enumerating every possible
instance of such limitation from congress to congress or of
drawing a line of distinction between bad bourgeois and good
bourgeois. The Conference, repeating the mistake made by
Starover, persistently searched for such a line, developed the
famous “litmus paper” theory. Starover started from a very good
idea: to put the strictest possible terms to the bourgeoisie. Only he forgot that any attempt to separate in
advance the bourgeois democrats who are worthy of approval,
agreements, etc., from those who are unworthy leads to a
“formula” which is immediately thrown overboard by the development of events and which introduces confusion into the
proletarian class consciousness. The emphasis is shifted from
real unity in the struggle to declarations, promises, slogans. Starover was of the opinion that “universal and equal
suffrage, direct elections and secret ballot” was such a radical
slogan. But before two years elapsed the “litmus paper” proved
its worthlessness, the slogan of universal suffrage was taken
over by the Osvobozbdentsi , who not only came no closer
to Social-Democracy as a result of this, but, on the contrary,
tried by means of this very slogan to mislead the workers and
divert them from Socialism.

Now the new-Iskraists are setting “terms” that are even
“stricter,” they are “demanding” from the enemies of tsarism
“energetic and unequivocal” (!?) “support of every determined
action of the organised proletariat,” etc., up to and including
“active participation in the self-armament of the people.” The
line has been drawn much further—but nonetheless this line
is again already obsolete, it revealed its worthlessness at
once. Why, for instance, is there no slogan of a republic? How
is it that the Social-Democrats—in the interest of “relentless revolutionary war against all the foundations of the
system of social estates and the monarchy”—“demand” from
the bourgeois democrats anything you like except a fight for a
republic?

That this question is not mere captiousness, that the mistake of
the new-Iskraists is of most vital political significance is
proved by the “Russian Liberation League” (see
Proletary , No. 4). [1]

These “enemies of tsarism” will fully meet all the “requirements” of the new Iskra
supporters. And yet we have shown that the spirit of
Osvobozhdeniye reigns in the program (or lack of program) of this “Russian Liberation League” and that the
Osvobozhdentsi can easily take it in tow. The
Conference, however, declares in the concluding section of the
resolution that “Social-Democracy will continue to oppose the
hypocritical friends of the people , all those political
parties which, though they display a liberal and democratic
banner, refuse to render genuine support to the revolutionary
struggle of the proletariat.” The “Russian Liberation League”
not only does not refuse this support but offers it most
insistently. Is that a guarantee that the leaders of this League
are not “hypocritical friends of the people,” even though they
are Osvobozhdentsi ?

You see: by inventing “terms” in advance and presenting
“demands” which are ludicrous by reason of their grim impotence,
the new-Iskraists immediately put themselves in a ridiculous
position. Their terms and demands immediately prove inadequate
when it comes to gauging living realities. Their chase after
formulae is hopeless, for no formula can embrace all the various
manifestations of hypocrisy, inconsistency and limitations of
the bourgeois democrats. It is not a matter of “litmus paper,”
of forms, or written and printed demands, nor is it a matter of
drawing, in advance, a line of distinction between hypocritical
and sincere “friends of the people”; it is a matter of real
unity in the struggle, of unabating criticism by
Social-Democrats of every “uncertain” step taken by bourgeois
democracy. What is needed for a “genuine consolidation of all
the social forces interested in democratic change” is not the
“points” over which the Conference laboured so assiduously and
so vainly, but the ability to put forward genuinely revolutionary slogans. For this slogans are needed that will
raise the revolutionary and republican bourgeoisie to the level
of the proletariat and not reduce the aims of the proletariat to
the level of the monarchist bourgeoisie. For this the most
energetic participation in the insurrection and not sophist
evasions of the urgent task of armed insurrection is needed.

---
Notes:
[1]
Proletary , No. 4, which appeared on June 4, 1905, contained a
lengthy article entitled “A New Revolutionary Labour League”

.

The article gives the contents of the appeals issued by this league
which assumed the name of “Russian Liberation League” and which set
itself the aim of convening a constituent assembly with the aid of an
armed insurrection. Further, the article defines the attitude of the
Social-Democrats to such non-Party leagues. How far this league
really existed, and what its fate was in the revolution is absolutely
unknown to us. [Author’s note to the 1907 edition.– Ed .] — Lenin

| | “Revolutionary Communes” and
the Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry | | | Will the Sweep of the Democratic Revolution
be Diminished if the Bourgeoisie Recoils from it? | |