Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

7.

The Tactics of “Eliminating The Conservatives from the Government”

The article in the organ of the Tiflis Menshevik “Committee”
( Sotsial-Demokrat , No. 1) to which we have just referred is entitled “The Zemsky Sobor and Our Tactics.” Its
author has not yet entirely forgotten our program; he advances
the slogan of a republic, but this is how he discusses tactics:

“It is possible to point to two ways of achieving this goal” (a
republic): “either completely ignore the Zemsky Sobor that is
being convened by the government and defeat the government by
force of arms, form a revolutionary government and convene a
constituent assembly, or declare the Zemsky Sobor the centre of
our actions, influencing its composition and activity by force
of arms and either forcibly compelling it to declare itself a
constituent assembly or convening a constituent assembly through
it. These two tactics differ very sharply from one another. Let
us see which of them is more advantageous to us.”

This is how the Russian new-Iskraists set forth the ideas that
were subsequently incorporated in the resolution we have
analysed. Note that this was written before the battle of Tsushima , [8] when the Bulygin “scheme” had not yet seen the
light of the day. Even the liberals were losing patience and
expressing their lack of confidence in the pages of the legal
press; but a new Iskra -ist Social-Democrat proved more
credulous than the liberals. He declares that the Zemsky Sobor
“is being convened” and trusts the tsar so much that he proposes
to make this as yet non-existent Zemsky Sobor (or, possibly,
“State Duma” or “Advisory Legislative Assembly”?) the centre of
our actions. Being more outspoken and straightforward than the
authors of the resolution adopted at the Conference, our
Tiflisian does not put the two “tactics” (which he expounds with
inimitable naïveté) on a par but declares that the second is more “advantageous.” Just listen:

“The first tactics. As you know, the coming revolution is a
bourgeois revolution, i.e., its purpose is to effect such
changes in the present system as are of interest not only to the
proletariat but to the whole of bourgeois society. All classes
are opposed to the government, even the capitalists themselves. The militant proletariat and the militant
bourgeoisie are in a certain sense marching together and jointly
attacking the autocracy from different sides. The government is
completely isolated and lacks public sympathy. For this reason
it is very easy to destroy it. The Russian proletariat as a
whole is not yet sufficiently class conscious and organised to
be able to carry out the revolution by itself. And even if it
were able to do so, it would carry through a proletarian
(socialist) revolution and not a bourgeois revolution. Hence, it
is in our interest that the government remain without allies,
that it be unable to disunite the opposition, unable to ally the
bourgeoisie to itself and leave the proletariat isolated....”

So, it is in the interests of the proletariat that the tsarist
government shall not be able to disunite the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat! Is it not by mistake that this Georgian organ is
called Sotsial-Demokrat instead of
Osvobozhdeniye ? And note its peerless philosophy of democratic revolution! Is it not obvious that this poor
Tiflisian is hopelessly confused by the pedantic khvostist interpretation of the concept “bourgeois
revolution”? He discusses the question of the possible isolation
of the proletariat in a democratic revolution and forgets ... forgets about a trifle ... about the
peasantry! of the possible allies of the proletariat he knows
and favours the landowning Zemstvo-ists and is not aware of the
peasants. And this in the Caucasus! Well, were we not right when
we said that by its method of reasoning the new Iskra was sinking to the level of the monarchist bourgeoisie instead
of raising the revolutionary peasantry to the position of our
ally?

“... Otherwise the defeat of the proletariat and the victory
of the government is inevitable. This is just what the autocracy
is striving for. In its Zemsky Sobor it will undoubtedly attract
to its side the representatives of the nobility, of the
Zemstvos, the cities, the universities and similar bourgeois
institutions. It will try to appease them with petty concessions
and thereby reconcile them to itself. Strengthened in this way,
it will direct all its blows against the working people who will
have been isolated. It is our duty to prevent such an unfortunate outcome. But can this be done of the first method?
Let us assume that we paid no attention whatever to the Zemsky
Sobor, but started to prepare for insurrection ourselves, and
one fine day came out in the streets armed and ready for
battle. The result would be that we would be confronted not with
one but with two enemies: the government and the Zemsky
Sobor. While we were preparing, they would manage to come to
terms, enter into an agreement with one another, draw up a
constitution advantageous to themselves and divide power between
them. These tactics are of direct advantage to the government,
and we must reject them in the most energetic fashion....”

Now this is frank! We must resolutely reject the “tactics” of
preparing an insurrection because “meanwhile” the government
would come to terms with the bourgeoisie! Can one find in the
old literature of the most rabid “Economism” anything that would
even approximate such a disgrace to revolutionary
Social-Democracy? That insurrections and outbreaks of workers
and peasants are occurring, first in one place and then in
another, is a fact. The Zemsky Sobor, however, is a Bulygin
promise. And the Sotsial-Demokrat of the city of Tiflis
decides: to reject the tactics of preparing an insurrection and
to wait for a “centre of influence”—the Zemsky
Sobor....

“... The second tactics, on the contrary, consist in placing
the Zemsky Sobor under our surveillance, in not giving it the
opportunity to act according to its own will and enter into an
agreement with the government. [1] “We support the Zemsky Sobor to the extent that it fights the
autocracy, and we fight it in those cases when it becomes
reconciled with the autocracy. By energetic interference and
force we shall cause a split among the deputies [2]

,

rally the radicals to our side, eliminate the conservatives from the
government and thus put the whole Zemsky Sobor on the path of
revolution. Thanks to such tactics the government will always
remain isolated, the opposition strong and the establishment of
a democratic system will thereby be facilitated.”

Well, well! Let anyone now say that we exaggerate the new
Iskra -ists’ turn to the most vulgar semblance of
Economism. This is positively like the famous powder for
exterminating flies: you catch the fly, sprinkle it with the
powder and the fly will die. Split the deputies of the Zemsky
Sobor by force , “eliminate the conservatives from the government”—and the whole Zemsky Sobor will take
the path of revolution . . . . No “Jacobin” armed insurrection of any sort, but just like that, in genteel, almost
parliamentary fashion, “influencing” the members of the Zemsky Sobor .

Poor Russia! It has been said that she always wears the
old-fashioned bonnets that Europe discards. We have no parliament as yet, even Bulygin has not yet promised one, but we
have any amount of parliamentary cretinism . [9] “. . . How should this interference be effected? First of all,
we shall demand that the Zemsky Sobor be convened on the basis
of universal and equal suffrage, direct elections and secret
ballot. Simultaneously with the announcement [3] of this method of election, complete freedom to carry on the
election campaign, i.e., freedom of assembly, of speech and of
the press, the inviolability of the electors and the candidates
and the release of all political prisoners must be made law. [4]

The elections themselves must be fixed as late as possible so
that we have sufficient time to inform and prepare the people. And since the drafting of the regulations governing the
convocation of the Sobor has been entrusted to a commission
headed by Bulygin, Minister of the Interior, we should also
exert pressure on this commission and on its members. [5]

If the Bulygin Commission refuses to satisfy our demands [6] and grants suffrage only to property
owners, then we must interfere in these elections and, by
revolutionary means, force the voters to elect progressive
candidates and in the Zemsky Sobor demand a constituent
assembly. Finally, we must, by all possible measures:
demonstrations, strikes and insurrection if need be, compel the
Zemsky Sobor to convene a constituent assembly or declare itself
to be such. The armed proletariat must constitute itself the
defender of the constituent assembly, and both together [7] will march forward to a democratic republic.

“Such are the Social-Democratic tactics, and they alone will
secure us victory.”

Let not the reader imagine that this incredible nonsense is
simply a maiden attempt at writing on the part of some new
Iskra adherent with no authority or influence. No, this
is what is stated in the organ of an entire committee of new Iskra -ists, the Tiflis Committee. More than
that. This nonsense has been openly endorsed by the “ Iskra ” in No. 100 of which we read the following about
that issue of the Sotsial-Demokrat :

“ The first issue is edited in a lively and talented manner. The experienced hand of a capable editor and writer is perceptible. . . . It may be said with all confidence that the newspaper will brilliantly carry out the task it has set itself .”

Yes! If that task is clearly to show all and sundry the utter
ideological decay of new Iskra , then it has indeed been
carried out “brilliantly.” No one could have expressed the new
Iskra degradation to liberal bourgeois opportunism in a
more “lively, talented and capable” manner.

---
Notes:
[1]
By what means can the Zemstvoists be deprived of their own will?
Perhaps by the use of a special sort of litmus paper? — Lenin

[2]
Heavens! This is certainly rendering tactics “profound”! There are no
forces available to fight in the streets, but it is possible “to split
the deputies” “by force.” Listen, comrade from Tiflis, one may
prevaricate, but one should know the limit.... — Lenin

[3]
In Iskra? — Lenin

[4]
By Nicholas? — Lenin

[5]
So this is what is meant by the tactic of “eliminating the
conservatives from the government”! — Lenin

[6]
But surely such a thing cannot happen if we follow this correct and
profound tactic! — Lenin

[7]
Both the armed proletariat and the conservatives “eliminated from the
government”? — Lenin

[8]
PLACEHOLDER

[9]
PLACEHOLDER

| | From what Direction is the Proletariat
Threatened with the Danger of Having its Hands Tied in the Struggle Against the
Inconsistent Bourgeoisie? | | | Osvobozhdeniyeism and New Iskra Trends | |