Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

Preface

In a revolutionary period it is very difficult to keep abreast
of events, which provide an astonishing amount of new material
for an evaluation of the tactical slogans of revolutionary
parties. The present pamphlet was written before the Odessa
events. [1]

We have already pointed out in the Proletary [4] (No. 9—“Revolution

Teaches”) [2] that these events have forced even those
Social-Democrats who created the “uprising-as-a-process” theory
and who rejected propaganda for a provisional revolutionary
government actually to pass over, or begin to pass over, to the
side of their opponents. Revolution undoubtedly teaches with a
rapidity and thoroughness which appear incredible in peaceful
periods of political development. And, what is particularly
important, it teaches not only the leaders, but the masses as
well.

There is not the slightest doubt that the revolution will teach
social-democratism to the masses of the workers in Russia. The
revolution will confirm the program and tactics of
Social-Democracy in actual practice, by demonstrating the true
nature of the various classes of society, by demonstrating the
bourgeois character of our democracy and the real aspirations of
the peasantry, who, while being revolutionary in the bourgeois-democratic sense, harbour not the idea of
“socialisation,” but of a new class struggle between the peasant
bourgeoisie and the rural proletariat. The old illusions of the
old Narodism, which are so clearly visible, for instance, in the
draft

programme of the “Socialist-Revolutionary

Party” [5] on the question of the development of capitalism in Russia, the
question of the democratic character of our “society” and the
question of the significance of a complete victory of a peasant
uprising—all these illusions will be mercilessly and completely blown to the winds by the revolution. For the first
time it will give the various classes their real political
baptism. These classes will emerge from the revolution with a
definite political physiognomy, for they will have revealed
themselves, not only in the programs and tactical slogans of
their ideologists, but also in the open political action of the
masses.

Undoubtedly, the revolution will teach us, and will teach the
masses of the people. But the question that now confronts a
militant political party is: shall we be able to teach the
revolution anything? shall we be able to make use of the
correctness of our Social-Democratic doctrine, of our bond with
the only thoroughly revolutionary class, the proletariat, to put
a proletarian imprint on the revolution, to carry the revolution
to a real and decisive victory, not in word but indeed, and to
paralyse the instability, half-heartedness and treachery of the
democratic bourgeoisie?

It is to this end that we must direct all our efforts, and the
achievement of it will depend, on the one hand, on the accuracy
of our appraisal of the political situation, on the correctness
of our tactical slogans, and, on the other hand, on whether
these slogans will be backed by the real fighting strength of
the masses of the workers. All the usual, regular, current work
of all the organisations and groups of our Party, the work of
propaganda, agitation and organisation, is directed towards
strengthening and expanding the ties with the masses. This work
is always necessary; but in a revolutionary period less than in
any other can it be considered sufficient. At such a time the
working class feels an instinctive urge for open revolutionary
action, and we must learn to set the aims of this action
correctly, and then make these aims as widely known and
understood as possible. It must not be forgotten that the
current pessimism about our ties with the masses very often
serves as a screen for bourgeois ideas regarding the role of the
proletariat in the revolution. Undoubtedly, we still have a
great deal to do to educate and organise the working class; but
the whole question now is: where should the main political
emphasis in this work of education and of organisation be
placed? On the trade unions and legally existing societies, or
on armed insurrection, on the work of creating a revolutionary
army and a revolutionary government? Both serve to educate and
organise the working class. Both are, of course, necessary. But
the whole question now, in the present revolution, amounts to
this: what is to be emphasised in the work of educating and
organising the working class, the former or the latter?

The outcome of the revolution depends on whether the working
class will play the part of a subsidiary to the bourgeoisie, a
subsidiary that is powerful in the force of its onslaught
against the autocracy but impotent politically, or whether it
will play the part of leader of the people’s revolution. The
more intelligent representatives of the bourgeoisie are
perfectly aware of this. That is precisely why the

Osvobozhdeniye [6] praises

Akimovism , Economism in Social-Democracy, the trend, which is now
placing the trade unions and the legally existing societies in
the forefront. That is precisely why Mr. Struve welcomes (in the
Osvobozhdeniye , No. 72) the Akimovist trends in the principles of the new Iskra . That is why he comes down
so heavily on the detested revolutionary narrowness of the
decisions of the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic
Labour Party.

It is exceptionally important at the present time for
Social-Democracy to have correct tactical slogans for leading
the masses. There is nothing more dangerous in a revolutionary
period than belittling the importance of tactical slogans that
are sound in principle. For example, the

[Menshevik] Iskra [7] in No. 104, actually passes over to the side of its opponents in
the Social-Democratic movement, and yet, at the same time,
disparages the importance of slogans and tactical decisions that
are in front of the times and indicate the path along which the
movement is proceeding, with a number of failures, errors,
etc. On the contrary, the working out of correct tactical
decisions is of immense importance for a party which, in the
spirit of the sound principles of Marxism, desires to lead the
proletariat and not merely to drag at the tail of events. In the
resolutions of the Third Congress of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party and of the

Conference of the section which has seceded from the

Party, [3] we have the most precise, most carefully thought-out, and most complete expression of tactical
views—views not casually expressed by individual writers,
but accepted by the responsible representatives of the
Social-Democratic proletariat. Our Party is in advance of all
the others, for it has a precise program, accepted by all. It
must also set the other parties an example of strict adherence
to its tactical resolutions, in contradistinction to the
opportunism of the democratic bourgeoisie of the
Osvobozhdeniye and the revolutionary phrase-mongering of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, who only during the revolution
suddenly thought of coming for ward with a “draft” of a program
and of investigating for the first time whether it is a
bourgeois revolution that is going on in front of their eyes.

That is why we think it a most urgent task of the revolutionary
Social-Democrats to study carefully the tactical resolutions of
the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party
and of the Conference, to define what deviations there are in
them from the principles of Marxism, and to get a clear
understanding of the concrete tasks of the Social-Democratic
proletariat in a democratic revolution. It is to this task that
the present pamphlet is devoted. The testing of our tactics from
the standpoint of the principles of Marxism and of the lessons
of the revolution is also necessary for those who really desire
to pave the way for unity of tactics as a basis for the future
complete unity of the whole Russian Social-Democratic Labour
Party, and not to confine themselves solely to verbal admonitions.

N. Lenin

July 1905

---
Notes:
[1]
The reference is to the mutiny on the armoured cruiser Potemkin . [8] (Author’s note to the 1907 edition.– Ed .) — Lenin

[2]
See p. 148 of this volume.–Ed.— Lenin

[3]
The Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (held
in London in May 1905) was attended only by Bolsheviks, while in the
“Conference” (held in Geneva at the same time) only Mensheviks
participated. In the present pamphlet the latter are frequently referred to
as “new Iskra-ists ” because while continuing to publish the
Iskra they declared, through their then adherent, Trotsky, that
there was a gulf between the old and the new Iskra . (Author’s note to the 1907 edition.–Ed.)
— Lenin

[8]
PLACEHOLDER

[4]
PLACEHOLDER

[5]
PLACEHOLDER

[6]
PLACEHOLDER

[7]
PLACEHOLDER