Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

II.

Comrade Martynov Again Renders the Question “More Profound”

Let us pass on to Martynov’s articles in Nos. 102 and 103 of the
Iskra . We shall, of course, make no reply to Martynov’s
attempts to prove the incorrectness of our and the correctness
of his interpretation of a number of citations from Engels and
Marx. These attempts are so trivial, Martynov’s subterfuges so
obvious and the question so clear that it would be of no
interest to dwell on this point again. Every thinking reader
will be able easily to see through the simple wiles employed by
Martynov in his retreat all along the line, particularly when
the complete translations of Engels’ pamphlet The Bakunists at Work and Marx’s Address of the Central Council to the Communist League of March

1850, [4] on which a group of collaborators of the Proletary are now working, are
published. A single quotation from Martynov’s article will
suffice to make his retreat clear to the reader.

“The Iskra admits,” says Martynov in No. 103, “that the
establishment of a provisional government is one of the possible
and expedient ways of furthering the revolution, and denies the
expediency of the participation of Social-Democrats in a
bourgeois provisional government, precisely in the interests of a complete seizure, in the future, of the state machine for a socialist revolution.” In other
words, the Iskra now admits the absurdity of all its fears concerning the responsibility of a revolutionary
government for the exchequer and the banks, concerning the
danger and impossibility of taking over the “prisons,” etc. But
the Iskra is only muddling things as of old, confusing the democratic with the socialist dictatorship. This muddle is
unavoidable, it is a means to cover up the retreat.

But among the muddleheads of the new Iskra Martynov stands out as a muddleheaded of the first order, as a muddlehead
of talent, if we may so express it. Confusing the question by
his laborious efforts to render it “more profound,” he almost
invariably “arrives at” new formulations which show up splendidly the entire falsity of the stand he has taken. You
will remember how in the days of Economism he rendered Plekhanov
“more profound” and created the formulation: “economic struggle
against the employers and the government.” It would be difficult
to find in all the literature of the Economists a more apt
expression of the entire falsity of this trend. It is the same
today. Martynov zealously serves the new Iskra and almost every time he opens his mouth he furnishes us with new
and excellent material for an evaluation of the new
Iskra ’s false position. In No. 102 he says that Lenin “has imperceptibly substituted the concept dictatorship for that
of revolution” (p. 3, col. 2).

As a matter of fact all the accusations levelled at us by the
new-Iskraists can be reduced to this one. And how grateful we
are to Martynov for this accusation! What an invaluable service
he renders us in the struggle against the new Iskra ideas by formulating his accusation in this way! We must
positively beg the editors of the Iskra to let Martynov
loose against us more often for the purpose of rendering the
attacks on the Proletary “more profound” and for a “truly principled” formulation of these attacks. For the more
Martynov strains to argue on the plane of principles the worse
his arguments appear, and the more clearly he reveals the gaps
in the new Iskra ideas, the more successfully he performs on himself and on his friends the useful pedagogical
operation: reductio ad absurdum (reducing the principles of the new Iskra to absurdity).

The Vperyod and the Proletary “substitute” the term dictatorship for that of revolution. The Iskra
does not want such a “substitution.” Just so, most esteemed
Comrade Martynov! You have unwittingly stated a great truth. With this new formulation you have confirmed our
contention that the Iskra is dragging at the tail of the revolution, is straying into an Osvobozhdeniye
formulation of its tasks, whereas the Vperyod and the
Proletary are issuing slogans that lead the democratic revolution forward.

You don’t understand this, Comrade Martynov? In view of the
importance of the question we shall try to give you a detailed
explanation.

The bourgeois character of the democratic revolution expresses itself, among other things, in the fact
that a number of classes, groups and sections of society which
take their stand entirely on the recognition of private property
and commodity production and are incapable of going beyond these
bounds, are led by force of circumstances to recognise the
uselessness of the autocracy and of the whole feudal order in
general, and join in the demand for liberty. The bourgeois
character of this liberty, which is demanded by “society” and advocated in a flood of words (and words only!) by
the landowners and the capitalists, is manifesting itself more
and more clearly. At the same time the radical difference
between the struggle of the workers and the struggle of the
bourgeoisie for liberty, between proletarian and liberal
democratism, also becomes more obvious. The working class and
its class-conscious representatives are marching forward and
pushing this struggle forward, not only without fearing to carry
it to completion, but striving to go far beyond the uttermost
limits of the democratic revolution. The bourgeoisie is
inconsistent and self-seeking, and accepts the slogans of
liberty only in part and hypocritically. All attempts to draw a
particular line or to draw up particular “points” (like the
points in Starover’s or the Conferencers’ resolution) beyond
which begins this hypocrisy of the bourgeois friends of liberty,
or, if you like, this betrayal of liberty by its bourgeois
friends, are inevitably doomed to failure; for the bourgeoisie,
caught between two fires (the autocracy and the proletariat), is
capable of changing its position and slogans by a thousand ways
and means, of adapting itself by moving an inch to the Left or
an inch to the Right, constantly bargaining and dickering. The
task of proletarian democratism is not to invent such lifeless “points,” but unceasingly to
criticise the developing political situation, to expose the ever
new and unforeseeable inconsistencies and betrayals on the part
of the bourgeoisie.

Recall the history of Mr. Struve’s political pronouncements in
the illegal press, the history of Social-Democracy’s war with
him, and you will see clearly how these tasks were carried out
by Social-Democracy, the champion of proletarian democratism. Mr. Struve began with a purely Shipov slogan:
“Rights and an Authoritative Zemstvo” (see my article in the
Zarya , “The Persecutors of the Zemstvo and the
Hannibals of

Liberalism” [1] ).

Social-Democracy exposed him and pushed him in the direction of a definitely constitutionalist
program. When this “pushing” took effect, thanks to the
particularly rapid progress of revolutionary events, the
struggle shifted to the next question of democracy: not only a
constitution in general, but one providing for universal and
equal suffrage, direct elections and secret ballot. When we
“captured” this new position from the “enemy” (the adoption of
universal suffrage by the Osvobozhdeniye League) we began to
press further; we showed up the hypocrisy and falsity of a
two-chamber system, and the fact that universal suffrage had not
been fully recognised by the Osvobozhdentsi ; we pointed
to their monarchism and showed up the huckstering nature of their democratism, or, in other words, the
bartering away of the interests of the great Russian revolution by these Osvobozhderiye heroes of the
moneybags.

Finally, the savage obstinacy of the autocracy, the enormous
progress of the civil war and the hopelessness of the position
into which the monarchists have led Russia have begun to
penetrate even the thickest skulls. The revolution has become a
fact . It is no longer necessary to be a revolutionary to acknowledge the revolution. The autocratic government has
actually been and is disintegrating in the sight of all. As has
justly been remarked in the legal press by a certain liberal
(Mr. Gredeskul), actual insubordination to this government has
set in. Despite all its apparent strength the autocracy has
proved impotent; the events attending the developing revolution
have simply begun to brush aside this parasitic organism which
is rotting alive. Compelled to base their activity (or, to put
it more correctly, their political wire-pulling) on relationships as they are actually taking shape, the liberal
bourgeois have begun to see the necessity of recognising the revolution . They do so not because they are
revolutionaries, but despite the fact that they are not
revolutionaries. They do so of necessity and against their will,
angrily glaring at the successes of the revolution, they blame
the autocracy for the revolution because it does not want to
strike a bargain, but wants a life-and-death struggle. Born
hucksters, they hate struggle and revolution, but circumstances
force them to tread the ground of revolution, for there is no
other ground under their feet.

We are witnessing a highly instructive and highly comical
spectacle. The bourgeois liberal prostitutes are trying to drape
themselves in the toga of revolution. The
Osvobozhdentsi — risum teneatis, amici ! [2] —the
Osvobozhdentsi are beginning to speak in the name of the revolution! The Osvobozhdentsi are beginning to
assure us that they “do not fear revolution” (Mr. Struve in the
Osvobozhdeniye , No. 72)!!! The Osvobozhdentsi are voicing their claims “to be at the head of the
revolution”!!!

This is an exceptionally significant phenomenon that characterises not only the progress of bourgeois liberalism, but
even more so the progress of the real successes of the revolutionary movement, which has compelled
recognition. Even the bourgeoisie is beginning to feel that it
is more to its advantage to take its stand on the side of the
revolution—so shaky is the autocracy. On the other hand,
this phenomenon, which testifies to the fact that the entire
movement has risen to a new and higher plane, also sets us new
and higher tasks. The recognition of the revolution by the
bourgeoisie cannot be sincere, irrespective of the personal
integrity of this or that bourgeois ideologist. The bourgeoisie
cannot help introducing selfishness and inconsistency, the
bargaining spirit and petty reactionary tricks even into this
higher

stage of the movement. We must now formulate the immediate concrete tasks of the revolution
differently , in the name of our program and in amplification of our program. What was adequate yesterday is
inadequate today . Yesterday, perhaps, the demand for the recognition of the revolution was adequate as an advanced
democratic slogan. Today this is not enough. The revolution has
forced even Mr. Struve to recognise it. The advanced class must
now define exactly the very content of the urgent and pressing tasks of this revolution. While recognising the
revolution, Messrs. the Struves again and again expose their
asses’ ears and strike up the old song about the possibility of
a peaceful outcome, about Nicholas calling on the
Osvobozhdentsi to take power, etc., etc. The
Osvobozhdentsi recognise the revolution in order the more safely for themselves to conjure it away, to betray it. It
is our duty at the present time to show the proletariat and the
whole people the inadequacy of the slogan: “Revolution”; we must
show how necessary it is to have a dear and unambiguous,
consistent and determined definition of the very content of the revolution. And this definition is provided
by the one slogan that is capable of correctly expressing a
“decisive victory” of the revolution, the slogan: for the
revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. [5]

The misuse of terms is a most common practice in politics. The
term “Socialist,” for example, has often been appropriated by
the supporters of English bourgeois liberalism (“We are all
Socialists now,” [3] said Harcourt), by the supporters of Bismarck,
and by the friends of Pope Leo XIII. The term “revolution” also
fully lends itself to misuse and at a certain stage in the
development of the movement such misuse is inevitable. When
Mr. Struve began to speak in the name of revolution I involuntarily remembered Thiers. A few days before the February
revolution, this monstrous gnome, this most consummate expression of the political corruption of the bourgeoisie,
scented the approach of a popular storm, and so he announced
from the parliamentary tribune: that he was of the party of revolution ! (See Marx’s

The Class Struggles in France , [6]

1848-50.)

The political significance of Osvobozhdeniye ’s turn to
the

party of revolution is quite identical with that of Thiers. The fact that the
Russian Thiers are talking about their belonging to the party of
revolution shows that the slogan revolution has become inadequate, meaningless and defines no tasks: for the revolution
has become a fact, and the most diverse elements are flocking to
its side.

Indeed, what is revolution from the Marxist point of view? The
violent break-up of the obsolete political superstructure, the
contradiction between which and the new relations of production
caused its collapse at a certain moment. The contradiction
between the autocracy and the entire structure of capitalist
Russia, all the requirements of her bourgeois-democratic
development, has now caused its collapse, all the more severe
owing to the lengthy period in which this contradiction was
artificially sustained. The superstructure is cracking at every
joint, it is yielding to pressure, it is growing weaker. The
people, through the representatives of the most diverse classes
and groups, must now, by its own efforts, build a new superstructure for itself. At a certain stage of development the
uselessness of the old superstructure becomes obvious to
all. The revolution is recognised by all. The task now is to
define which classes must build the new superstructure,
and how they are to build it. If this is not defined, the slogan revolution is empty and meaningless at the present
time; for the feebleness of the autocracy makes “revolutionaries” even of the Grand Dukes and of the

Moskovskiye Vyedomosti ! [7]

If this is not defined there can be no talk about the advanced democratic tasks of the advanced class. This
definition is given in the slogan: the democratic dictatorship
of the proletariat and the peasantry. This slogan defines the
classes upon which the new “builders” of the new superstructure
can and must rely, the character of the new superstructure (a
“democratic” as distinct from a socialist dictatorship), and how
it is to be built (dictatorship, i.e., the violent suppression
of violent resistance, arming the revolutionary classes of the
people). Whoever now refuses to recognise this slogan of
revolutionary-democratic dictatorship, the slogan of a revolutionary army, of a revolutionary government, of
revolutionary peasant committees, either hopelessly fails to
understand the tasks of the revolution, is unable to define the
new and higher tasks that are called forth by the present
situation, or is deceiving the people, betraying the revolution,
misusing the slogan “revolution.”

The former case applies to Comrade Martynov and his friends. The
latter applies to Mr. Struve and the whole of the “constitutional-democratic” Zemstvo party.

Comrade Martynov was so shrewd and smart that he hurled the
charge of “substituting” the term dictatorship for that of
revolution just at the time when the development of the
revolution called for a definition of its tasks by the slogan
dictatorship! Actually, Comrade Martynov again had the misfortune to remain at the tail end, to get stranded at the
penultimate stage, to find himself on the level , of Osvobozhdeniye -ism, for it is precisely to the political
stand of Osvobozhdeniye , i.e., to the interests of the
liberal monarchist bourgeoisie, that recognition of “revolution”
(in words) and refusal to recognise the democratic dictatorship
of the proletariat and the peasantry (i.e., revolution in deeds)
now corresponds. The liberal bourgeoisie, through the mouth of
Mr. Struve, is now expressing itself in favour of revolution. The class-conscious proletariat, through the mouths
of the revolutionary Social-Democrats, is demanding the
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. And here the
wiseacre of the new Iskra intervenes in the controversy
and yells: don’t dare “substitute” the term dictatorship for
that of revolution! Well, is it not true that the false stand
taken by the new-Iskraists dooms them to be constantly dragging
along at the tail of Osvobozhdeniye -ism?

We have shown that the Osvobozhdentsi are ascending (not without encouraging prods by the Social-Democrats) step by
step in the matter of recognising democracy. At first the issue
in the dispute between us was: the Shipov system (rights and an
authoritative Zemstvo) or constitutionalism? Then it was:
limited suffrage or universal suffrage? Later: recognition of
the revolution or a stock-jobber’s bargain with the autocracy?
Finally, now it is: recognition of the revolution without the
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry or recognition
of the demand for a dictatorship of these classes in the
democratic revolution? It is possible and probable that
Messrs. the Osvobozhdentsi (whether the present ones or
their successors in the Left wing of the bourgeois democrats
makes no difference) will ascend another step, i.e., recognise in time (perhaps by the time Comrade
Martynov goes up one more step) the slogan of dictatorship
also. This will inevitably be so if the Russian revolution
continues to forge ahead successfully and achieves a decisive
victory. What will be the position of Social-Democracy then? The
complete victory of the present revolution will mark the end of
the democratic revolution and the beginning of a determined
struggle for a socialist revolution. The satisfaction of the
demands of the present-day peasantry, the utter rout of
reaction, and the winning of a democratic republic will mark the
complete end of the revolutionism of the bourgeoisie and even of
the petty bourgeoisie—will mark the beginning of the real
struggle of the proletariat for Socialism. The more complete the
democratic revolution, the sooner, the more widespread, the
purer and the more determined will be the development of this
new struggle. The slogan of a “democratic” dictatorship
expresses the historically limited nature of the present
revolution and the necessity of a new struggle on the basis of
the new order for the complete emancipation of the working class
from all oppression and all exploitation. In other words: when
the democratic bourgeoisie or petty bourgeoisie ascends another
step, when not only the revolution but the complete victory of
the revolution becomes an accomplished fact, we shall “substitute” (perhaps amid the horrified cries of new, future,
Martynovs) for the slogan of the democratic dictatorship, the
slogan of a socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., of
a complete socialist revolution.

---
Notes:
[1]

First published in 1901. See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 31-80.–Ed. — Lenin

[2]
Restrain your laughter, friends! — Lenin

[3]
These words are in English in the original.–Ed.— Lenin

[4]
Engels’s article, “The Bakunists at Work. Review of the Uprising
in Spain in the Summer of 1873” was translated into Russian
under Lenin’s editorship and in 1905 was published in Geneva by
the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. in the form of a
pamphlet. A second edition came out in 1906 in St. Petersburg.

Written by Marx and Engels in March 1850, the Address to the Central Committee to the Communist League was
published in Russian in 1906 as a supplement to the pamphlet
The Cologne Communist Trial , brought out by the Molot
Publishers in St. Petersburg.

[5]
PLACEHOLDER

[6]
PLACEHOLDER

[7]
PLACEHOLDER

| | What Do The Bourgeois Liberal Realists
Praise The Social-Democratic “Realists” For? | | | The Vulgar Bourgeois Representation of
Dictatorship and Marx’s View of It | |