Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

6.

From what Direction is the Proletariat Threatened with the Danger of Having its Hands Tied in the Struggle Against the
Inconsistent Bourgeoisie?

Marxists are absolutely convinced of the bourgeois character of
the Russian revolution. What does this mean? It means that the
democratic reforms in the political system and the social and
economic reforms, which have become a necessity for Russia, do
not in themselves imply the undermining of capitalism, the
undermining of bourgeois rule; on the contrary, they will, for
the first time, really clear the ground for a wide and rapid,
European, and not Asiatic, development of capitalism; they will,
for the first time, make it possible for the bourgeoisie to rule
as a class. The Socialist-Revolutionaries cannot grasp this
idea, for they are ignorant of the rudiments of the laws of
development of commodity and capitalist production; they fail to
see that even the complete success of a peasant insurrection,
even the redistribution of the whole of the land for the benefit
of the peasants and in accordance with their desires (“Black
Redistribution” or something of that kind), will not destroy
capitalism at all, but will, on the contrary, give an impetus to
its development and hasten the class disintegration of the
peasantry itself. The failure to grasp this truth makes the
Socialist-Revolutionaries unconscious ideologists of the petty
bourgeoisie. Insistence on this truth is of enormous importance
for Social-Democracy, not only from the theoretical standpoint
but also from the standpoint of practical politics, for from it
follows that the complete class independence of the party of the
proletariat in the present “general democratic” movement is
obligatory.

But it does not at all follow from this that a democratic revolution (bourgeois in its social and
economic substance) is not of enormous interest for the
proletariat. It does not at all follow from this that the
democratic revolution cannot take place in a form advantageous
mainly to the big capitalist, the financial magnate and the
“enlightened” landlord, as well as in a form advantageous to the
peasant and to the worker.

The new-Iskraists thoroughly misunderstand the meaning and
significance of the category: bourgeois revolution.

Through their arguments there constantly runs the idea that a bourgeois
revolution is a revolution which can be advantageous only to the
bourgeoisie. And yet nothing is more erroneous than such an
idea. A bourgeois revolution is a revolution which does not go beyond the limits of the bourgeois,
i.e., capitalist, social and economic system. A bourgeois
revolution expresses the need for the development of capitalism,
and far from destroying the foundations of capitalism, it does
the opposite, it broadens and deepens them. This revolution
therefore expresses the interests not only of the working class,
but of the entire bourgeoisie as well. Since the rule of the
bourgeoisie over the working class is inevitable under capitalism, it is quite correct to say that a bourgeois
revolution expresses the interests not so much of the proletariat as of the bourgeoisie. But it is entirely absurd to
think that a bourgeois revolution does not express the interests
of the proletariat at all. This absurd idea boils down either to
the hoary Narodnik theory that a bourgeois revolution runs
counter to the interests of the proletariat, and that therefore
we do not need bourgeois political liberty; or to anarchism,
which rejects all participation of the proletariat in bourgeois
politics, in a bourgeois revolution and in bourgeois parliamentarism. From the standpoint of theory, this idea
disregards the elementary propositions of Marxism concerning the
inevitability of capitalist development where commodity
production exists. Marxism teaches that a society which is based
on commodity production, and which has commercial intercourse
with civilised capitalist nations, at a certain stage of its
development, itself, inevitably takes the road of capitalism. Marxism has irrevocably broken with the ravings of
the Narodniks and the anarchists to the effect that Russia, for
instance, can avoid capitalist development, jump out of
capitalism, or skip over it and proceed along some path other
than the path of the class struggle on the basis and within the
framework of this same capitalism.

All these principles of
Marxism have been proved and explained over and over again in
minute detail in general and with regard to Russia in particular. And from these principles it follows that the idea
of seeking salvation for the working class in anything save the
further development of capitalism is reactionary . In countries like Russia, the working class suffers not so much
from capitalism as from the insufficient development of
capitalism. The working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient
development of capitalism.

The working class is therefore decidedly interested in the broadest, freest and most rapid
development of capitalism. The removal of all the remnants of
the old order which are hampering the broad, free and rapid
development of capitalism is of decided advantage to the working
class. The bourgeois revolution is precisely a revolution that
most resolutely sweeps away the survivals of the past, the
remnants of serfdom (which include not only autocracy but
monarchy as well) and most fully guarantees the broadest, freest
and most rapid development of capitalism.

That is why a bourgeois revolution is in the highest degree advantageous to the proletariat . A bourgeois
revolution is absolutely necessary in the interests of the proletariat. The more complete and determined, the more
consistent the bourgeois revolution, the more assured will be
the proletarian struggle against the bourgeoisie for
Socialism. Only those who are ignorant of the rudiments of
scientific Socialism can regard this conclusion as new or
strange, paradoxical. And from this conclusion, among other
things, follows the thesis that, in a certain sense , a
bourgeois revolution is more advantageous to the proletariat than to the bourgeoisie. This thesis is
unquestionably correct in the following sense: it is to the
advantage of the bourgeoisie to rely on certain remnants of the
past as against the proletariat, for instance, on the monarchy,
the standing army, etc. It is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie if the bourgeois revolution does not too resolutely
sweep away all the remnants of the past, but leaves some of
them, i.e., if this revolution is not fully consistent, if it is
not complete and if it is not determined and relentless. Social-Democrats often express this idea somewhat
differently by stating that the bourgeoisie betrays its own
self, that the bourgeoisie betrays the cause of liberty, that
the bourgeoisie is incapable of being consistently democratic. It is of greater advantage to the bourgeoisie if the
necessary changes in the direction of bourgeois democracy take
place more slowly, more gradually, more cautiously, less
resolutely, by means of reforms and not by means of revolution;
if these changes spare the “venerable” institutions of serfdom
(such as the monarchy) as much as possible; if these changes
develop as little as possible the independent revolutionary
activity, initiative and energy of the common people, i.e., the
peasantry and especially the workers, for otherwise it will be
easier for the workers, as the French say, “to hitch the rifle
from one shoulder to the other,” i.e., to turn against the
bourgeoisie the guns which the bourgeois revolution will place
in their hands, the liberty which the revolution will bring, the
democratic institutions which will spring up on the ground that
is cleared of serfdom.

On the other hand, it is more advantageous for the working class
if the necessary changes in the direction of bourgeois democracy
take place by way of revolution and not by way of reform; for
the way of reform is the way of delay, of procrastination, of
the painfully slow decomposition of the putrid parts of the
national organism. It is the proletariat and the peasantry that
suffer first of all and most of all from their putrefaction. The
revolutionary way is the way of quick amputation, which is the
least painful to the proletariat, the way of the direct removal
of the decomposing parts, the way of fewest concessions to and
least consideration for the monarchy and the disgusting, vile,
rotten and contaminating institutions which go with it.

So it is not only because of the censorship, not only “for fear
of the Jews,” that our bourgeois-liberal press deplores the
possibility of a revolutionary way, is afraid of revolution,
tries to frighten the tsar with the bogey of revolution, is
anxious to avoid revolution, grovels and toadies for the sake of
miserable reforms as a basis for a reformist way. This standpoint is shared not only by the Russkiye Vedomosti , [5]
Syn Otechestva , [6]
Nasha Zhizn [7] and Nashi Dni , [8] but also by the illegal, uncensored
Osvobozhdeniye . The very position the bourgeoisie occupies as a class in capitalist society inevitably causes it
to be inconsistent in a democratic revolution. The very position
the proletariat occupies as a class compels it to be consistently democratic. The bourgeoisie looks backward, fearing
democratic progress, which threatens to strengthen the proletariat. The proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains,
but with the aid of democracy it has the whole world to
gain. That is why the more consistent the bourgeois revolution
is in

achieving its democratic changes, the less will it limit itself to
what is of advantage exclusively to the bourgeoisie. The more
consistent the bourgeois revolution, the more does it guarantee
the proletariat and the peasantry the benefits accruing from the
democratic revolution.

Marxism teaches the proletarian not to keep aloof from the
bourgeois revolution, not to be indifferent to it, not to allow
the leadership of the revolution to be assumed by the bourgeoisie but, on the contrary, to take a most energetic
part in it, to fight most resolutely for consistent proletarian
democracy, for carrying the revolution to its conclusion. We
cannot jump out of the bourgeois-democratic boundaries of the
Russian revolution, but we can vastly extend these boundaries,
and within these boundaries we can and must fight for the
interests of the proletariat, for its immediate needs and for
the conditions that will make it possible to prepare its forces
for the future complete victory. There is bourgeois democracy
and bourgeois democracy. The Zemstvo monarchist who favours an upper chamber, and who “asks” for
universal suffrage while secretly, on the sly, striking a
bargain with tsarism for a curtailed constitution, is also a
bourgeois-democrat. And the peasant who is fighting, arms in
hand, against the landlords and the government officials and
with a “naïve republicanism” proposes “to send the tsar packing”, [1] is also a bourgeois-democrat. There are bourgeois-democratic
regimes like the one in Germany and also in England, like the
one in Austria and also like those in America or Switzerland. He
would be a fine Marxist indeed, who in a period of democratic
revolution failed to see the difference between the degrees of
democracy, the difference of its various forms and confined
himself to “clever” remarks to the effect that, after all, this
is “a bourgeois revolution,” the fruits of a “bourgeois
revolution.”

Our new-Iskraists are just such clever fellows flaunting their
shortsightedness. They confine themselves to disquisitions on
the bourgeois character of the revolution just when and where it
is necessary to be able to draw a distinction between republican-revolutionary and monarchist-liberal bourgeois democracy, to say nothing of the distinction between
inconsistent bourgeois democratism and consistent proletarian
democratism. They are satisfied—as if they had really become like the “man in the muffler” [9] —to converse dolefully about a “process of mutual struggle of
antagonistic classes,” when the question is one of giving democratic leadership in the present revolution, of emphasising
progressive democratic slogans as distinguished from the treacherous slogans of Mr. Struve and Co., of bluntly and
straight forwardly stating the immediate aims of the really
revolutionary struggle of the proletariat and the peasantry, as
distinguished from the liberal haggling of the landlords and
factory owners. Such now is the gist of the matter, which you,
gentlemen, have missed: will our revolution result in a real,
immense victory, or merely in a wretched deal, will it go so far
as the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat
and the peasantry, or will it “peter out” in a liberal constitution à la Shipov?

At first sight it may appear that in raising this question we
are deviating entirely from our subject. But this may appear to
be so only at first sight. As a matter of fact, it is precisely
this question that lies at the root of the difference in
principle which has already become clearly marked between the
Social-Democratic tactics of the Third Congress of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party and the tactics initiated by the
Conference of the new Iskra supporters. The latter have
already taken not two but three steps back, resurrecting the
mistakes of Economism in solving problems that are incomparably
more complex, more important and more vital to the workers’
party, viz., questions of its tactics in time of revolution. That is why we must analyse the question we have
raised with all due attention.

The above-quoted section of the new-Iskraists resolution which
we have quoted above points to the danger of Social-Democracy
tying its hands in the struggle against the inconsistent policy
of the bourgeoisie, of its becoming dissolved in bourgeois
democracy. The idea of this danger runs like a thread through
all the literature typical of the new Iskra , it is the
real pivot of the principle involved in our Party split (ever
since the elements of squabbling in this split were wholly
eclipsed by the elements of a turn towards

Economism). And without any equivocation we admit that this danger really
exists, that just at the present time, at the height of the
Russian revolution, this danger has become particularly
grave. The pressing and extremely responsible duty that devolves
on all of us theoreticians or—as I should prefer to say of
myself— publicists of Social-Democracy, is to find out from what direction this danger actually threatens. For
the source of our disagreement is not a dispute as to whether
such a danger exists, but the dispute as to whether it is caused
by the so-called khvostism of the “Minority” or the so-called revolutionism of the “Majority.”

To remove all misinterpretations and misunderstandings, let us
first of all note that the danger to which we are referring lies
not in the subjective, but in the objective aspect of the
matter, not in the formal position which Social-Democracy will
take in the struggle, but in the material outcome of the entire
present revolutionary struggle. The question is not whether this
or that Social-Democratic group will want to dissolve in
bourgeois democracy or whether they are conscious of the fact
that they are merging. Nobody suggests that. We do not suspect
any Social-Democrat of harbouring such a desire, and this is not
at all a question of desires. Nor is it a question of whether
this or that Social-Democratic group will formally retain its
separate identity, individuality and independence of bourgeois
democracy throughout the course of the revolution. They may not
only proclaim such “independence” but even retain it formally,
and yet it may turn out that their hands will nonetheless be tied in the struggle against the inconsistency of
the bourgeoisie. The final political result of the revolution
may prove to be that, in spite of the formal “independence” of
Social-Democracy, in spite of its complete organisational
individuality as a separate party, it will in fact not be
independent, it will not be able to put the imprint of its
proletarian independence on the course of events, will prove so
weak that, on the whole and in the last analysis, its “dissolving” in the bourgeois democracy will nonetheless be a
historical fact.

That is what constitutes the real danger. Now let us see from
what direction the danger threatens: from the fact that
Social-Democracy as represented by the new Iskra is deviating to the Right—as we believe; or from the fact that
Social-Democracy as represented by the “Majority,” the
Vperyod , etc., is deviating to the Left—as the new-Iskraists believe.

The answer to this question, as we have pointed out, depends on
the objective combination of the actions of the various social
forces. The character of these forces has been defined theoretically by the Marxian analysis of Russian life; at the
present time it is being defined in practice by the open action
of groups and classes in the course of the revolution. Thus, the
entire theoretical analysis made by the Marxists long before the
period we are now passing through, as well as all the practical
observations of the development of revolutionary events, show
that from the standpoint of objective conditions there are two
possible courses and outcomes of the revolution in Russia. A
change in the economic and political system in Russia along
bourgeois-democratic lines is inevitable and unavoidable. No
power on earth can prevent such a change. But the combined
actions of the existing forces which are effecting that change
may result in one of two things, may bring about one of two
forms of that change. Either 1) the result will be a “decisive
victory of the revolution over tsarism,” or 2) the forces will
be inadequate for a decisive victory and the matter will end in
a deal between tsarism and the most “inconsistent” and most
“self-seeking” elements of the bourgeoisie. By and large all the
infinite variety of detail and combinations, which no one is
able to foresee, lead to one or the other.

Let us now consider these two outcomes, first, from the
standpoint of their social significance and, secondly, from the
standpoint of the position of Social-Democracy (its “dissolving”
or “having its hands tied”) in one or the other case.

What is a “decisive victory of the revolution over tsarism”? We
have already seen that in using this expression the new-Iskraists fail to grasp even its immediate political
significance. Still less do they seem to understand the class
essence of this concept. Surely, we Marxists must not under any
circumstances allow ourselves to be deluded by words such as “revolution” or “the great Russian revolution,” as do
many revolutionary democrats (of the

Gapon

type). We must be perfectly clear in our minds as to what real
social forces are opposed to “tsarism” (which is a real force,
perfectly intelligible to all) and are capable of gaining a
“decisive victory” over it. Such a force cannot be the big
bourgeoisie, the landlords, the factory owners, “society” which
follows the lead of the Osvobozhdentsi . We see that these do not even want a decisive victory. We know that owing to
their class position they are incapable of waging a decisive
struggle against tsarism; they are too heavily fettered by
private property, capital and land to enter into a decisive
struggle. They need tsarism with its bureaucratic, police and
military forces for use against the proletariat and the
peasantry too much to be able to strive for its destruction. No,
the only force capable of gaining “a decisive victory over
tsarism,” is the people, i.e., the proletariat and the peasantry, if we take the main, big forces and distribute the
rural and urban petty bourgeoisie (also part of “the people”)
between the two. “A decisive victory of the revolution over
tsarism” is the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry . Our new-Iskraists cannot
escape from this conclusion, which Vperyod pointed out long ago. No one else is capable of gaining a decisive victory
over tsarism.

And such a victory will be precisely a dictatorship, i.e., it
must inevitably rely on military force, on the arming of the
masses, on an insurrection, and not on institutions of one kind
or another, established in a “lawful” or “peaceful” way. It can
be only a dictatorship, for the realisation of the changes which
are urgently and absolutely indispensable for the proletariat
and the peasantry will call forth the desperate resistance of
the landlords, of the big bourgeoisie and of tsarism. Without a
dictatorship it is impossible to break down that resistance and
to repel the counter-revolutionary attempts. But of course it
will be a democratic, not a socialist dictatorship. It will not
be able (without a series of intermediary stages of revolutionary development) to affect the foundations of
capitalism. At best it may bring about a radical redistribution
of landed property in favour of the peasantry, establish
consistent and full democracy including the formation of a
republic, eradicate all the oppressive features of Asiatic
bondage, not only in village but also in factory life, lay the foundation for a thorough improvement in the position of the
workers and for a rise in their standard of living, and—last but not least—carry the revolutionary
conflagration into Europe. Such a victory will by no means as
yet transform our bourgeois revolution into a socialist
revolution; the democratic revolution will not directly overstep
the bounds of bourgeois social and economic relationships;
nevertheless, the significance of such a victory for the future
development of Russia and of the whole world will be immense. Nothing will raise the revolutionary energy of the
world proletariat so much, nothing will shorten the path leading
to its complete victory to such an extent, as this decisive
victory of the revolution that has now started in Russia.

How far such a victory is probable, is another question. We are
not in the least inclined to be unreasonably optimistic on that
score, we do not for a moment forget the immense difficulties of
this task, but since we are out to fight we must desire victory
and be able to point out the right road to it. Tendencies
capable of leading to such a victory undoubtedly exist. True,
our, Social-Democratic, influence on the masses of the proletariat is as yet very, very inadequate; the revolutionary
influence on the mass of the peasantry is altogether insignificant; the proletariat, and especially the peasantry,
are still frightfully scattered, backward and ignorant. But
revolution unites quickly and enlightens quickly. Every step in
its development rouses the masses and attracts them with
irresistible force to the side of the revolutionary program, as the only program that fully and
consistently expresses their real and vital interests.

According to a law of mechanics, every action produces an equal
reaction. In history also the destructive force of a revolution
is to a considerable degree dependent on how strong and
protracted the suppression of the striving for liberty had been,
and how profound the contradiction between the antediluvian
“superstructure” and the living forces of the present epoch. The
international political situation, too, is in many respects
shaping itself in a way most advantageous for the Russian
revolution. The insurrection of the workers and peasants has
already commenced; it is sporadic, spontaneous, weak, but it unquestionably and undoubtedly proves the existence of forces
capable of waging a decisive struggle and marching towards a
decisive victory.

If these forces prove inadequate, tsarism will have time to
conclude the deal which is already being prepared on two sides,
by Messrs. the Bulygins on the one side, and Messrs. the
Struves, on the other. Then the whole thing will end in a
curtailed constitution, or, if the worst comes to the worst,
even in a travesty of a constitution. This will also be a
“bourgeois revolution,” but it will be a miscarriage, a
premature birth, a mongrel. Social-Democracy entertains no
illusions on that score, it knows the treacherous nature of the
bourgeoisie, it will not lose heart or abandon its persistent,
patient, sustained work of giving the proletariat class training
even in the most drab, humdrum days of bourgeois-constitutional,
“Shipov” bliss. Such an outcome would be more or less similar to
the outcome of almost all the democratic revolutions in Europe
during the nineteenth century, and our Party development would
then proceed along the difficult, hard, long, but familiar and
beaten track.

The question now arises: in which of these two possible outcomes
will Social-Democracy find its hands actually tied in the fight
against the inconsistent and self-seeking bourgeoisie, find
itself actually “dissolved,” or almost so, in bourgeois
democracy?

It is sufficient to put this question clearly to have not a
moment’s difficulty in answering it.

If the bourgeoisie succeeds in frustrating the Russian revolution by coming to terms with tsarism, Social-Democracy
will find its hands actually tied in the fight against the
inconsistent bourgeoisie; Social-Democracy will find itself
dissolved “in bourgeois democracy” in the sense that the
proletariat will not succeed in putting its clear imprint on the
revolution, will not succeed in settling accounts with tsarism
in the proletarian or, as Marx once said, “in the plebeian”
way.

If the revolution gains a decisive victory—then we shall
settle accounts with tsarism in the Jacobin, or, if you like, in
the plebeian way. “The whole French terrorism,” wrote Marx in
1848 in the famous Neue Rheinische Zeitung , “was nothing but a plebeian manner of settling accounts with the
enemies of the bourgeoisie, with absolutism, feudalism and philistinism” (see Marx, Nachlass , Mehring’s edition,
Volume III,

p. 211). [10]

Have those people who, in a period of a democratic revolution,
try to frighten the Social-Democratic workers in Russia with the
bogey of “Jacobinism” ever stopped to think of the significance
of these words of Marx?

The Girondists of contemporary Russian Social-Democracy, the new
Iskra -ists, do not merge with the
Osvobozhdentsi , but in point of fact they, by reason of
the nature of their slogans, follow at the tail of the latter. And the Osvobozhdentsi , i.e., the
representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie, wish to settle
accounts with the autocracy gently, in a reformist way, in a
yielding manner, so as not to offend the aristocracy, the
nobles, the Court—cautiously, without breaking anything—kindly and politely, as befits gentlemen in white
gloves (like the ones Mr. Petrunkevich borrowed from a bashi-bazouk
to wear at the reception of “representatives of the people”[?]
held by

Nicholas the Bloody [2]

.

See
Proletary , No. 5 [3]

).

The Jacobins of contemporary Social-Democracy—the
Bolsheviks, the Vperyodovtsi , Syezdovtsi , Proletartsi
(e.g. supporters of the Vperyod , the “Congress” group, or supporters of Proletary ) — all names given to the Bolsheviks, derived from their publication of the two papers mentioned, and “ Syezdovtsi ” because they convened the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.

or whatever we may call them—wish by their slogans to raise the revolutionary and republican petty
bourgeoisie, and especially the peasantry, to the level of the
consistent democratism of the proletariat, which fully retains
its individuality as a class. They want the people, i.e., the
proletariat and the peasantry, to settle accounts with the
monarchy and the aristocracy in the “plebeian way,” ruthlessly
destroying the enemies of liberty, crushing their resistance by
force, making no concessions whatever to the accursed heritage
of serfdom, of Asiatic barbarism and human degradation.

This, of course, does not mean that we necessarily propose to
imitate the Jacobins of 1793, to adopt their views, program,
slogans and methods of action. Nothing of the kind. Our program
is not an old one, it is a new one—the minimum program of
the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. We have a new
slogan: the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the
proletariat and the peasantry. We shall also have, if we live to
see a real victory of the revolution, new methods of action, in harmony with the nature and aims of
the working-class party that is striving for a complete
socialist revolution. By our comparison we merely want to
explain that the representatives of the progressive class of the
twentieth century, of the proletariat, i.e., the
Social-Democrats, are divided into two wings (the opportunist
and the revolutionary) similar to those into which the representatives of the progressive class of the eighteenth
century, the bourgeoisie, were divided, i.e., the Girondists and
the Jacobins.

Only in the event of a complete victory of the democratic
revolution will the proletariat have its hands free in the
struggle against the inconsistent bourgeoisie, only in that
event will it not become “dissolved” in bourgeois democracy, but
will leave its proletarian or rather proletarian-peasant imprint
on the whole revolution.

In a word, in order to avoid finding itself with its hands tied
in the struggle against the inconsistent bourgeois democrats,
the proletariat must be sufficiently class conscious and strong
to rouse the peasantry to revolutionary consciousness, to direct
its attack, and thereby to pursue the line of consistent
proletarian democratism independently.

This is how matters stand with regard to the question, so
ineptly dealt with by the new Iskra group, of the danger of our hands being tied in the struggle against the
inconsistent bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie will always be
inconsistent. There is nothing more naïve and futile than
attempts to set forth conditions and points [4]

,

which if satisfied, would enable us to consider that the bourgeois
democrat is a sincere friend of the people. Only the proletariat
can be a consistent fighter for democracy. It may become a
victorious fighter for democracy only if the peasant masses join
its revolutionary struggle. If the proletariat is not strong
enough for this, the bourgeoisie will be at the head of the
democratic revolution and will impart to it an inconsistent and
self-seeking nature. Nothing short of a revolutionary-democratic
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry can prevent
this.

Thus, we arrive at the indubitable conclusion that it is
precisely the new Iskra tactics, by its objective significance, that are playing into the hands of the bourgeois democrats . Preaching organisational diffusion
that goes to the length of plebiscites, the principle of
compromise and the divorcement of Party literature from the
Party, belittling the aims of armed insurrection, confusing the
popular political slogans of the revolutionary proletariat with
those of the monarchist bourgeoisie, distorting the requisites
for a “decisive victory of the revolution over tsarism”—all
this taken together constitutes that very policy of khvostism in a revolutionary period which perplexes the
proletariat, disorganises it, confuses its understanding and
belittles the tactics of Social-Democracy, instead of pointing
out the only way to victory and of rallying all the revolutionary and republican elements of the people to the
proletariat’s slogan.

*     * *
To bear out this conclusion, reached by us through analysis of
the resolution, let us approach this same question from other
angles. Let us see, first, how in the Georgian
Sotsial-Demokrat a naïve and outspoken Menshevik illustrates the new- Iskra . Secondly, let us see who is
actually making use of the new Iskra slogans in the present political situation.

---
Notes:
[1]
See the Osvobozbdeniye , No. 71, page 337, footnote 2. — Lenin

[2]

A reference to the audience granted to the Zemstvo deputation by
Nicholas II on June 6, 1905. The deputation handed in a petition
with the request to convene representatives of the people in
order to establish a “renewed constitution”. The petition
contained neither the demand for universal, direct and equal
suffrage by secret ballot, nor the demand for guaranteed free
elections.
— Lenin

[3]
“‘Revolutionaries’ in Kid Gloves”, 1905.

See present edition. Volume 8, pp. 526-30.— Ed .

[4]
As was attempted by Starover in his resolution, annulled by the Third

Congress, [11] and as is attempted by the Conference in an equally bad resolution.
— Lenin

[5]
PLACEHOLDER

[6]
PLACEHOLDER

[7]
PLACEHOLDER

[8]
PLACEHOLDER

[9]
The man in the muffler –the chief character in
Chekhov’s story of the same name, a man typifying the narrow-minded philistine who abhors all
innovations or initiative.

[10]
Lenin is referring to the book Aus demm literarische,. Nachlass von Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels und Ferdinand Lassalle. Heraus gegeben von Franz Mshring,
Bd. III, Stuttgart 1902, S. 211.

See K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works , Moscow 1958,
Vol. I, P. 67

[11]
The reference is to the resolution tabled by Starover (pseudonym of
the Menshevik

A. N. Potresov )

on the attitude towards the liberals, which was adopted at the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., and was
criticised by Lenin in the article “Working-Class and Bourgeois
Democracy” (see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 72-82).

| | How Should “The Revolution Be Pushed
Forward”? | | | The Tactics of “Eliminating The
Conservatives from the Government” | |