Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

8.

Osvobozhdeniyeism and New Iskra
Trends

Let us now proceed to another striking confirmation of the
political meaning of new- Iskra trend.

In a splendid, remarkable and most instructive article, entitled
“How to Find Oneself” ( Osvobozhdeniye , No. 71), Mr. Struve wages war against the “programmatic revolutionism” of
our extreme parties. Mr. Struve is particularly displeased with
me

personally. [1]

Mr. Struve could not please me more: I could not wish for a better ally in the fight against the
renascent Economism of the new-Iskraists and the utter lack of
principle displayed by the “Socialist-Revolutionaries.” On some
other occasion we shall relate how Mr. Struve and the
Osvobozhdeniye proved in practice how utterly reactionary are the “amendments” to Marxism made in the draft
program of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. We have already repeatedly [2] spoken about how Mr. Struve rendered me
honest, faithful and real service every time he approved of the new-Iskraists in principle and we
shall say so once more now.

Mr. Struve’s article contains a number of very interesting
statements, which we can note here only in passing. He intends
“to create Russian democracy by relying on class collaboration
and not on class struggle,” in which case “the socially
privileged intelligentsia” (something in the nature of the
“cultured nobility” to which Mr. Struve makes obeisance with the
grace of a truly high-society . . . lackey) will bring the
weight of its “social position” (the weight of its moneybags) to
this “non-class” party. Mr. Struve expresses the desire to show
the youth the worthlessness “of the hackneyed radical opinion
that the bourgeoisie has become frightened and has sold out the
proletariat and the cause of liberty.” (We welcome this desire
with all our heart. Nothing will confirm the correctness of this
Marxian “hackneyed” opinion better than a war waged against it
by Mr. Struve. Please, Mr. Struve, don’t pigeonhole this
splendid plan of yours!)

For the purposes of our subject it is important to note the
practical slogans against which this politically sensitive representative of the Russian bourgeoisie, who is so
responsive to the slightest change in the weather, is fighting
at the present time. First, he is fighting against the slogan of
republicanism. Mr. Struve is firmly convinced that this slogan
is “incomprehensible and foreign to the masses of the people”
(he forgets to add: comprehensible, but not of advantage to the
bourgeoisie!). We should like to see what reply Mr. Struve would
get from the workers in our study circles and at our mass
meetings! Or are the workers not the people? And the peasants?
They are given to what Mr. Struve calls “naïve republicanism” (“to kick out the tsar”)—but the liberal
bourgeoisie believes that naïve republicanism will be replaced not by enlightened republicanism but by enlightened
monarchism! Ça dépend , Mr. Struve; it will depend on circumstances. Neither tsarism nor the bourgeoisie can
help opposing a radical improvement in the condition of the
peasantry at the expense of the landed estates, whereas the
working class cannot help assisting the peasantry in this
respect.

Secondly, Mr. Struve assures us that “in a civil war the
attacking party always proves to be in the wrong.” This idea
verges closely on the above-mentioned trends of the new
Iskra ideas. We will not say, of course, that in civil war it is always advantageous to attack; no, sometimes
defensive tactics are obligatory for a time . But to apply a proposition like the one Mr. Struve has made to Russia
in 1905 means precisely displaying a little of the “hackneyed
radical opinion” (“the bourgeoisie takes fright and betrays the
cause of liberty”). Whoever now refuses to attack the autocracy
and reaction, whoever is not making preparations for such an
attack, whoever is not advocating it, takes the name of adherent
of the revolution in vain.

Mr. Struve condemns the slogans: “secrecy” and “rioting” (a riot
being “an insurrection in miniature”). Mr. Struve spurns both
the one and the other—and he does so from the standpoint of
“approaching the masses.” We should like to ask Mr. Struve
whether he can point to any passage in, for instance, What Is To Be Done? —the work of an extreme revolutionary from his
standpoint—which advocates rioting. As regards “secrecy” is
there really much difference between, for example, us and
Mr. Struve? Are we not both working on “illegal” newspapers
which are being smuggled into Russia “secretly” and which serve
the “secret” groups of either the Osvobozhdeniye League or the
R.S.D.L.P.? Our workers’ mass meetings are often held “secretly”
—that sin does exist. But what about the meetings of the
gentlemen of the Osvobozhdeniye League? Is there any reason why
you should brag, Mr. Struve, and look down upon the despised
partisans of despised secrecy?

True, the supplying of arms to the workers demands strict
secrecy. On this point Mr. Struve is rather more outspoken. Just
listen: “As regards armed insurrection, or a revolution in the
technical sense, only mass propaganda in favour of a democratic
program can create the social-psychological conditions for a
general armed insurrection. Thus, even from the point of view
that an armed insurrection is the inevitable consummation of the present struggle for emancipation—a
view I do not share—the permeation of the masses with ideas
of democratic reform is a most fundamental and most necessary
task.”

Mr. Struve tries to evade the issue. He speaks of the inevitability of an insurrection instead of speaking about its
necessity for the victory of the revolution. The insurrection—unprepared, spontaneous, sporadic—has
already begun. No one can positively vouch that it will develop
into an entire and integral popular armed insurrection, for that
depends on the state of the revolutionary forces (which can be
fully gauged only in the course of the struggle itself), on the
behaviour of the government and the bourgeoisie, and on a number
of other circumstances which it is impossible to estimate
exactly. There is no point in speaking about inevitability, in
the sense of absolute certainty with regard to some definite
event, as Mr. Struve does. What you must discuss, if you want to
be a partisan of the revolution is whether insurrection is
necessary for the victory of the revolution, whether it
is necessary to proclaim it vigorously, to advocate and make
immediate and energetic preparations for it. Mr. Struve cannot
fail to understand this difference: he does not, for instance,
obscure the question of the necessity of universal suffrage—which is indisputable for a democrat—by
raising the question of whether its attainment is inevitable in
the course of the present revolution—which is debatable and
of no urgency for people engaged in political activity. By
evading the issue of the necessity of an insurrection, Mr. Struve expresses the inner most essence of the political
position of the liberal bourgeoisie. In the first place, the
bourgeoisie would prefer to come to terms with the autocracy
rather than crush it; secondly, the bourgeoisie in any case
thrusts the armed struggle upon the shoulders of the workers. This is the real meaning of Mr. Struve’s
evasiveness. That is why he backs out of the question of the necessity of an insurrection towards the question of the
“social-psychological conditions” for it, of preliminary
“propaganda.” Just as the bourgeois windbags in the Frankfurt
Parliament of 1848 engaged in drawing up resolutions, declarations and decisions, in “mass propaganda” and in
preparing the “social-psychological conditions” at a time when
it was a matter of repelling the armed force of the government,
when the movement “led to the necessity” for an armed struggle,
when verbal persuasion alone (which is a hundredfold necessary
during the preparatory period) became banal, bourgeois inactivity and cowardice—so also

Mr. Struve evades the question of insurrection, screening himself behind
phrases . Mr. Struve vividly shows us what many
Social-Democrats stubbornly fail to see, namely, that a
revolutionary period differs from ordinary, everyday preparatory
periods in history in that the temper, excitement and convictions of the masses must and do reveal themselves in
action .

Vulgar revolutionism fails to see that the word is also a deed;
this proposition is indisputable when applied to history
generally , or to those periods of history when no open
political mass actions take place, and when they can not be
replaced or artificially evoked by putsches of any sort. Khvostist revolutionaries fail to understand
that—when a revolutionary period has started, when the old
“superstructure” has cracked from top to bottom, when open
political action on the part of the classes and masses who are
creating a new superstructure for themselves has become a fact,
when civil war has begun—then, to confine oneself to “words” as of old , and fail to advance the direct slogan to pass to “deeds,” still to try avoid deeds by
pleading the need for “psychological conditions” and “propaganda” in general, is apathy, lifelessness, pedantry, or
else betrayal of the revolution and treachery to it. The
Frankfurt windbags of the democratic bourgeoisie are a memorable
historical example of just such treachery, or of just such
pedantic stupidity.

Would you like an explanation of this difference between vulgar
revolutionism and the khvostism of revolutionaries by an example taken from the history of the Social Democratic
movement in Russia? We shall give you such an explanation. Call
to mind the years 1901 and 1902, which are so recent but which
already seem ancient history to us today. Demonstrations had
begun. The protagonists of vulgar revolutionism raised a cry
about “storming” ( Rabocheye Dyelo [4] )

“bloodthirsty leaflets” were issued (of Berlin origin, if my memory does not fail me), attacks were made on the
“literature writing” and armchair nature of the idea of
conducting agitation on a national scale through a newspaper (Nadezhdin). [5]

On the other hand, the khvostism of revolutionaries was revealed in preaching
that “the economic struggle is the best means of political agitation.” What was the attitude of the revolutionary
Social-Democrats?

They attacked both these trends. They condemned flash in-the-pan methods and the cries about storming,
for it was or should have been obvious to all that open mass
action was a matter of the days to come. They condemned
khvostism and bluntly issued the slogan even of a popular armed insurrection, not in the sense of a direct
appeal (Mr. Struve would not discover any appeals to “riots” in
our utterances of that period), but in the sense of a necessary deduction, in the sense of “propaganda”
(about which Mr. Struve has bethought himself only now—our
honourable Mr. Struve is always several years behind the times),
in the sense of preparing those very “social-psychological
conditions” about which the representatives of the bewildered,
huckstering bourgeoisie are now holding forth “sadly and
inappropriately.” At that time propaganda and agitation, agitation and propaganda, were really pushed to the
fore by the objective state of affairs. At that time the work of publishing an all-Russian political newspaper, the
weekly issuance of which was regarded as an ideal, could be
proposed (and was proposed in What Is To Be Done? ) as the touchstone of the work of preparing for an
insurrection. At that time the slogans advocating mass agitation instead of direct armed action, preparation
of the social-psychological conditions for insurrection
instead of flash-in-the-pan methods, were the only correct slogans for the revolutionary Social-Democratic
movement. At the present time the slogans have been superseded by events, the movement has left them behind, they
have become tatters, rags fit only to cloth the hypocrisy of the
Osvobozhdeniye and of the new Iskra tailism!

Or perhaps I am mistaken? Perhaps the revolution has not yet
begun? Perhaps the time for open political action of classes has
not yet arrived? Perhaps there is still no civil war, and the
criticism of weapons should not as yet be the necessary
and obligatory successor, heir, trustee and wielder of the
weapon of criticism?

Look around, poke your head out of your study and look into the
street for an answer. Has not the government itself started
civil war by shooting down hosts of peaceful and unarmed
citizens everywhere? Are not the armed Black Hundreds acting as
“arguments” of the autocracy? Has not the bourgeoisie—even
the bourgeoisie—recognised the need for a citizens’ militia? Does not Mr. Struve himself, the ideally moderate and
punctilious Mr. Struve, say (alas, he says so only to evade the
issue!) that “the open nature of revolutionary action” (that’s
the sort of fellows we are today!) “is now one of the most
important conditions for exerting an educational influence upon
the masses of the people”?

Those who have eyes to see can have no doubt as to how the
question of armed insurrection must be presented by the
partisans of revolution at the present time. Just take a look at
the three ways in which this question has been presented in the organs of the free press which are at all
capable of influencing the masses .

Presentation one. The resolution of the Third Congress of the
Russian Social-Democratic Labour

Party. [3]

It is publicly acknowledged and declared that the general democratic revolutionary movement
has already brought about the necessity of an armed insurrection. The organisation of the proletariat for an
insurrection has been placed on the order of the day as one of
the essential, principal and indispensable tasks of the
Party. Instructions are issued to adopt the most energetic measures to arm the proletariat and to ensure the
possibility of directly leading the insurrection.

The second presentation. An article in the
Osvobozhdeniye , containing a statement of principles, by the “leader of the Russian constitutionalists” (as Mr. Struve
was recently described by such an influential organ of the
European bourgeoisie as the

Frankfurter Zeitung [6] ), or the leader of the Russian progressive bourgeoisie. He does
not share the opinion that an insurrection is inevitable. Secret
activity and riots are the specific methods of irrational
revolutionism. Republicanism is a method of stunning. The
question of armed insurrection is really a mere technical
question, whereas “the fundamental and most necessary task” is
to carry on mass propaganda and to prepare the social-psychological conditions.

The third presentation. The resolution of the new
Iskra -ist Conference. Our task is to prepare an insurrection. A planned insurrection is out of the
question. Favourable conditions for an insurrection are created
by the disorganisation of the government, by our agitation, and
by our organisation. Only then “can technical military preparations acquire more or less serious significance.”

And is that all? Yes, that is all. The new Iskra -ist leaders of the proletariat still do not know whether
insurrection has become a necessity. It is still not clear to
them whether the task of organising the proletariat for direct
battle has become an urgent one. It is not necessary to urge the
adoption of the most energetic measures; it is far more important (in 1905, and not in 1902) to explain in general
outlines under what conditions these measures “may” acquire
“more or less serious” significance....

Do you see now, comrades of the new Iskra , where your turn to Martynovism has led you? Do you realise that your
political philosophy has proved to be a rehash of the
Osvobozhdeniye philosophy?—that (against your will and with out your being aware of it) you are following at the
tail of the monarchist bourgeoisie? Is it clear to you now that,
while repeating what you have learned by rote and attaining
perfection in sophistry, you have lost sight of the fact
that—in the memorable words of Peter Struve’s memorable
article—“the open nature of revolutionary action is now one of the most important conditions for exerting an
educational influence upon the masses of the people”?

---
Notes:
[1]
“In comparison with the revolutionism of Messrs. Lenin and associates,
the revolutionism of the West-European Social-Democracy of Bebel,
and even of Kautsky, is opportunism; but the foundations of even
this already toned down revolutionism have been undermined and
washed away by history.”

A most irate thrust. Only Mr. Struve is mistaken in thinking
that it is possible to pile everything on to me, as if I were
dead. It is sufficient for me to issue a challenge to
Mr. Struve, which he will never be able to accept. When and
where did I call the “revolutionism of Bebel and Kautsky”
opportunism? When and where did I ever claim to have created any
sort of special trend in International Social-Democracy not identical with the trend of Bebel and Kautsky? When and
where have there been brought to light differences between me,
on the one hand, and Bebel and Kautsky, on the other—differences even slightly approximating in
seriousness the differences between Bebel and Kautsky, for
instance, on the agrarian question in

Breslau? [7]

Let Mr Struve try to answer these three questions.— Lenin

To our readers we say: The liberal bourgeoisie everywhere and always has recourse to the method of assuring
its adherents in a given country that the Social-Democrats of that
country are the most unreasonable, whereas their comrades in a
neighbouring country are “good boys.” The German bourgeoisie has held
up those “good boys” of French Socialists as models for the Bebels
and the Kautskys hundreds of times . The French bourgeoisie
quite recently pointed to the “good boy” Bebel as a model for the
French Socialists. It is an old trick Mr. Struve! You will find only
children and ignoramuses swallowing that bait. The complete unanimity
of international revolutionary Social-Democracy on all major
questions of program and tactics is a most incontrovertible fact.— Lenin

[2]
Let us remind the reader that the article “What Should Not Be Done?”
( Iskra , No. 52) was hailed with noise and clamour by the
Osvobozhdeniye as a “noteworthy turn” towards concessions to
the opportunists. The trends of the principles behind the new
Iskra ideas were especially lauded by the
Osvobozbdeniye in an item on the split among the Russian
Social-Democrats. Commenting on Trotsky’s pamphlet, “Our Political
Tasks,” the Osvobozhdeniye printed out the similarity between
the ideas of this author and what was once written and said by the
Rabocheye Dyelo -ists Krichevsky, Martynov, Akimov (see the
leaflet entitled “An Obliging Liberal” published by the
Vperyod ). The Osvobozhdeniye welcomed Martynov’s pamphlet on the two dictatorships (see the item in the
Vperyod , No. 9). Finally Starover’s belated complaints about
the old slogan of the old Iskra , “first draw a line of
demarcation and then unite,” met with special sympathy on the part of
the Osvobozbdeniye .— Lenin

[3]
The following is the text in full:

“ Whereas “1. the proletariat, being, by virtue of its very position, the
most advanced and the only consistently revolutionary class, is
for that very reason called upon to play the leading part in the
general democratic revolutionary movement in Russia; “2. this movement has already brought about the necessity of an
armed insurrection; “3. the proletariat will inevitably take a most energetic part
in this insurrection, this participation determining the fate of
the revolution in Russia; “4. the proletariat can play the leading part in this revolution
only if it is welded into a united and independent political
force under the banner of the Social-Democratic Labour Party,
which is to guide its struggle not only ideologically but
practically as well; “5. it is only by fulfilling this part that the proletariat can
be assured of the most favourable conditions for the struggle
for Socialism against the propertied classes of a bourgeois-democratic Russia; “Therefore the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. recognises that
the task of organising the proletariat for direct struggle
against the autocracy through armed insurrection is one of the
most important and pressing tasks of the Party in the present
revolutionary period.

“The Congress therefore resolves to instruct all the Party
organisations:

“a) to explain to the proletariat by means of propaganda and
agitation not only the political importance, but also the
practical organisational aspect of the impending armed insurrection; “b) in this propaganda and agitation to explain the part played
by mass political strikes, which may be of great importance at
the beginning and in the very process of the insurrection; “c) to adopt the most energetic measures to arm
the proletariat and also to draw up a plan for the armed insurrection
and for direct leadership of the latter, establishing for this
purpose, to the extent that it is necessary, special groups of Party
functionaries.”

[Author’s note to the 1907 edition.–Ed.] — Lenin

[7]
Differences of opinion were revealed during the discussion of
the draft agrarian programme at the Breslau Congress of the
German Social-Democratic Party, 1895.

[4]
PLACEHOLDER

[5]
The reference is to Nadezhdin’s press attack on the plan of the
Leninist Iskra (Nadezhdin was the pseudonym of
Y. 0. Zelensky). Lenin criticised this attack as far back as
1902, in his What Is To Be Done? .

[6]
PLACEHOLDER

| | The Tactics of “Eliminating The
Conservatives from the Government” | | | What Does Being A Party of Extreme Opposition
In Time of Revolution Mean? | |