Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

10.

“Revolutionary Communes” and the
Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the
Peasantry

The Conference of the new-Iskraists did not keep to the
anarchist position into which the new Iskra had talked itself (only “from below,” not “from below and from above”). The
absurdity of admitting the possibility of an insurrection and
not admitting the possibility of victory and participation in a
provisional revolutionary government was too glaring. The
resolution therefore introduced certain reservations and restrictions into the solution of the question
proposed by Martynov and Martov. Let us consider these reservations as stated in the following section of the
resolution:

“These tactics” (“to remain the party of extreme revolutionary
opposition”) “do not, of course, in any way exclude the
expediency of a partial and episodic seizure of power and the
establishment of revolutionary communes in one or another city,
in one or another district, exclusively for the purpose of
helping to spread the insurrection and of disrupting the
government.”

That being the case, it means that in principle they admit the
possibility of action not only from below, but also from
above. It means that the proposition laid down in L. Martov’s
well-known article in the Iskra (No. 93) is discarded and that the tactics of Vperyod , i.e., not only “from
below,” but also “from above,” are acknowledged as correct.

Further, the seizure of power (even if partial, episodic, etc.)
obviously presupposes the participation not only of
Social-Democrats and not only of the proletariat. This follows
from the fact that it is not only the proletariat that is
interested and takes an active part in a democratic revolution. This follows from the fact that the insurrection is
a “popular” one, as is stated in the beginning of the resolution
we are discussing, that “non-proletarian groups” (the words used
in the Conference resolution on the uprising), i.e., the
bourgeoisie, also take part in it. Hence, the principle that any
participation of Socialists in a provisional revolutionary
government jointly with the petty bourgeoisie is treachery to
the working class was thrown overboard by the Conference , which is what the

Vperyod [Lenin’s articles “Social-Democracy and the Provisional Revolutionary Government”, and “The Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry” ] sought to achieve. “Treachery” does not
cease to be treachery because the action which constitutes it is
partial, episodic, local, etc. Hence, the parallel drawn between
the participation in a provisional revolutionary government and
vulgar Jaurèsism was thrown overboard by the
Conference, which is what the Vperyod sought to achieve. [4]

A government does not cease to be a government because its power does not extend to many cities but is confined to a
single city, does not extend to many districts but is confined
to a single district; nor because of the name that is given to
it. Thus, the formulation of the principles of this question which the new Iskra tried to give was discarded by the Conference .

Let us see whether the restrictions imposed by the Conference on
the formation of revolutionary governments and participation in
them, which is now admitted in principle, are reasonable. What
difference there is between the concept “episodic” and the
concept

“provisional” [1] we do not know.

We are afraid that this “new” and foreign word is merely a screen for lack of clear
thinking. It seems “more profound,” but actually it is only more obscure and confused. What is the difference between
the “expediency” of a partial “seizure of power” in a city or
district, and participation in a provisional revolutionary
government of the entire state? Do not “cities” include a city
like St. Petersburg, where the events of January 9 took place?
Do not districts include the Caucasus, which is bigger than many
a state? Will not the problems (which at one time vexed the new
Iskra ) of what to do with the prisons, the police, public funds, etc., confront us the moment we “seize power” in a
single city, let alone in a district? No one will deny, of
course, that if we lack sufficient forces, if the insurrection
is not wholly successful, or if the victory is indecisive, it is
possible that provisional revolutionary governments will be set
up in separate localities, in individual cities and the
like. But what is the point of such an assumption, gentlemen? Do
not you yourselves speak in the beginning of the resolution
about a “decisive victory of the revolution,” about a “victorious popular insurrection”?? Since when have the
Social-Democrats taken over the job of the anarchists: to divide
the attention and the aims of the proletariat, to direct its
attention to the “partial” instead of the general, the single,
the integral and complete? While presupposing the “seizure of
power” in a city, you yourselves speak of “spreading the
insurrection”—to another city, may we venture to think? to
all cities, may we dare to hope? Your conclusions, gentlemen,
are as unsound and haphazard, as contradictory and confused as
your premises. The Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. gave an
exhaustive and clear answer to the question of a provisional
revolutionary government in general. And this answer covers all
cases of local provisional governments as well. The answer given
by the Conference however, by artificially and arbitrarily
singling out a part of the question, merely evades (but unsuccessfully) the issue as a whole, and
creates confusion.

What does the term “revolutionary communes” mean? Does it differ
from the term “provisional revolutionary government,” and, if
so, in what respect? The Conference gentlemen themselves do not
know. Confusion of revolutionary thought leads them, as very
often happens, to revolutionary phrase-mongering . Yes,
the use of the words “revolutionary commune” in a resolution
passed by representatives of Social-Democracy is revolutionary
phrase-mongering and nothing else. Marx more than once condemned
such phrase-mongering, when “fascinating” terms of the bygone past were used to hide the tasks of the
future. In such cases a fascinating term that has played its
part in history becomes futile and pernicious trumpery, a
child’s rattle. We must give the workers and the whole people a
clear and unambiguous explanation as to why we want a provisional revolutionary government to be set up, and
exactly what changes we shall accomplish, if we exercise decisive influence on the government, on the very
morrow of the victory of the popular insurrection which has
already commenced. These are the questions that confront
political leaders.

The Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. gave perfectly clear
answers to these questions and drew up a complete program of
these changes—the minimum program of our Party. The word
“commune,” however, is not an answer at all; it only serves to
confuse people by the distant echo of a sonorous phrase, or
empty rhetoric. The more we cherish the memory of the Paris
Commune of 1871, for instance, the less permissible is it to
refer to it offhand, without analysing its mistakes and the
special conditions attending it. To do so would be to follow the
absurd example of the Blanquists—whom Engels ridiculed—who (in 1874, in their “Manifesto”) paid homage
to every act of the

Commune. [5]

What reply will a “Conference” give to a worker who asks him
about this “revolutionary commune” that is mentioned in
the resolution? He will only be able to tell him that this is
the name, known in history, of a workers’ government that was
unable to, and could not at that time, distinguish between the elements of a democratic revolution and
those of a socialist revolution, that confused the tasks of
fighting for a republic with the tasks of fighting for
Socialism, that was unable to carry out the task of launching an
energetic military offensive against Versailles, that made a
mistake in not seizing the Bank of France, etc. In short,
whether in your answer you refer to the Paris Commune or to some
other commune, your answer will be: it was a government such as ours should not be . A fine answer, indeed! Does it not
testify to pedantic moralising and impotence on the part of a
revolutionary who says nothing about the practical program of
the Party and in appropriately begins to give lessons in history
in a resolution? Does this not reveal the very mistake which
they unsuccessfully accuse us of having committed, i.e., of
confusing a democratic revolution with a socialist revolution,
between which none of the “communes” was able to distinguish?

Extending the insurrection and the disorganising the government
are presented as the “exclusive” aim of the provisional
government. (so in appropriately termed a “commune”). Taken in
its literal sense, the word “exclusively” eliminates all other
aims; it is an echo of the absurd theory of “only from below.”
Such elimination of other aims is another instance of short-sightedness and lack of reflection. A “revolutionary
commune,” i.e., a revolutionary government, even if only in a
single city, will inevitably have to administer (even if
provisionally, “partly, episodically”) all the affairs of state, and it is the height of folly to hide one’s head under
one’s wing and refuse to see this. This government will have to
enact an eight-hour working day, establish workers’ inspection
of factories, institute free universal education, introduce the
election of judges, set up peasant committees, etc.; in a word,
it will certainly have to carry out a number of reforms. To
designate these reforms as “helping to spread the insurrection”
would be playing with words and deliberately causing greater
confusion in a matter which requires absolute clarity.

*     * *
The concluding part of the new Iskra -ists’ resolution does not provide any new material for a criticism of the trends
of principles of “Economism” which has revived in our Party, but
it illustrates from a somewhat different angle, what has been
said above.

Here is that part:

“Only in one event should Social-Democracy, on its own initiative, direct its efforts towards seizing power and holding
it as long as possible—namely, in the event of the revolution spreading to the advanced countries of Western
Europe, where conditions for the achievement of Socialism have
already reached a certain”(?) “degree of maturity. In that event
the limited historical scope of the Russian revolution can be
considerably widened and the possibility of entering the path of
socialist reforms will arise.

“By framing its tactics in accordance with the view that, during
the whole period of the revolution, the Social-Democratic Party
will retain the position of extreme revolutionary opposition to
all the governments that may succeed one another in the course
of the revolution, Social-Democracy will best be able to prepare
itself to utilise governmental power if it falls” (??) “into its
hands.”

The basic idea here is the one that the Vperyod has repeatedly formulated, stating that we must not be afraid (as is
Martynov) of a complete victory for Social-Democracy in a
democratic revolution, i.e., of a revolutionary-democratic
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, for such a
victory will enable us to rouse Europe, and the socialist
proletariat of Europe, after throwing off the yoke of the
bourgeoisie, will in its turn help us to accomplish the
socialist revolution. But see how this idea is worsened in the
new Iskra -ists’ rendering of it. We shall not dwell on
details—on the absurd assumption that power could “fall”
into the hands of a class-conscious party which considers
seizure of power harmful tactics; on the fact that in Europe the
conditions for Socialism have reached not a certain degree of
maturity, but are already mature; on the fact that our Party
program does not speak of socialist changes at all, but only of
a socialist revolution. Let us take the principal and basic
difference between the idea presented by the Vperyod and that presented in the resolution. The Vperyod set
the revolutionary proletariat of Russia an active aim: to win
the battle for democracy and to use this victory for carrying
the revolution into Europe. The resolution fails to grasp this
connection between our “decisive victory” (not in the new
Iskra sense) and the revolution in Europe, and therefore it speaks not about the tasks of the proletariat, not
about the prospects of its victory, but about one of the possibilities in general: “in the event of the revolution
spreading....” The Vperyod pointedly and definitely indicated—and this was incorporated in the resolution of
the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour
Party—how “governmental power” can and must “be utilised”
in the interests of the proletariat, bearing in mind what can be
achieved immediately, at the given stage of social development,
and what must first be achieved as a democratic prerequisite of
the struggle for Socialism. Here, also, the resolution hopelessly drags at the tail when it states: “will be able to
prepare itself to utilise,” but fails to say how it will be able, how it will prepare itself, and to
utilise for what ? We have no doubt, for instance, that
the new-Iskraists may be “able to prepare themselves to utilise”
the leading position in the Party; but the point is that the way
they have utilised, their preparation up till now, do not hold
out much hope of possibility being transformed into reality. . . .

The Vperyod quite definitely stated wherein lies the real “possibility of holding power”—namely, in the
revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the
peasantry, in their joint mass strength, which is capable of
outweighing all the forces of counterrevolution, in the
inevitable concurrence of their interests in democratic
changes. Here, too, the resolution of the Conference gives us
nothing positive, it merely evades the question. Surely, the
possibility of holding power in Russia must be determined by the
composition of the social forces in Russia itself, by the
circumstances of the democratic revolution which is now taking
place in our country. A victory of the proletariat in Europe (it
is still somewhat of a far cry between carrying the revolution
into Europe and the victory of the proletariat) will give rise
to a desperate counter-revolutionary struggle on the part of the
Russian bourgeoisie—yet the resolution of the new-Iskraists
does not say a word about this counter-revolutionary force, the
importance of which has been appraised in the resolution of the
Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. If in our fight for a republic
and democracy we could not rely upon the peasantry as well as on
the

proletariat, the prospect of our “holding power” would be
hopeless. But if it is not hopeless, if a “decisive victory of
the revolution over tsarism” opens up such a possibility, then
we must point to it, we must actively call for its transformation into reality and issue practical slogans not only
for the contingency of the revolution being carried into Europe, but also for the purpose of carrying it
there. The reference made by the khvostist
Social-Democrats to the “limited historical scope of the Russian
revolution” merely serves to cover up their limited understanding of the aims of this democratic revolution and of
the leading role of the proletariat in this revolution!

One of the objections raised to the slogan of “the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the
peasantry” is that dictatorship presupposes a “single will”
( Iskra , No. 95), and that there can be no single will
of the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie. This objection is
unsound, for it is based on an abstract, “metaphysical”
interpretation of the term “single will.” There can be a single
will in one respect and not a single will in another. The
absence of unity on questions of Socialism and in the struggle
for Socialism does not preclude singleness of will on questions
of democracy and in the struggle for a republic. To forget this
would be tantamount to forgetting the logical and historical
difference between a democratic and a socialist revolution. To
forget this would be tantamount to forgetting the character of
the democratic revolution as a revolution of the whole people : if it is “of the whole people” it means that there
is “singleness of will” precisely in so far as this revolution
satisfies the common needs and requirements of the whole
people. Beyond the bounds of democracy there can be no question
of the proletariat and the peasant bourgeoisie having a single
will. Class struggle between them is inevitable; but it is in a
democratic republic that this struggle will be the most
thoroughgoing and widespread struggle of the people for Socialism . Like everything else in the world, the
revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the
peasantry has a past and a future. Its past is autocracy,
serfdom, monarchy and privilege. In the struggle against this
past, in the struggle against counterrevolution, a “single will”
of the proletariat and the peasantry is possible, for here there
is unity of interests.

Its future is the struggle against private property the struggle
of the wage worker against the employer the struggle for
Socialism. Here singleness of will is impossible. [2]

Here our path lies not from autocracy to a republic but from a
petty-bourgeois democratic republic to Socialism.

Of course, in actual historical circumstances, the elements of
the past become interwoven with those of the future, the two
paths cross. Wage labour, with its struggle against private
property, exists under the autocracy as well; it is generated
even under serfdom. But this does not in the least prevent us
from drawing a logical and historical dividing line between the
major stages of development. We all draw a distinction between
bourgeois revolution and socialist revolution, we all absolutely
insist on the necessity of drawing a most strict line between
them; but can it be denied that individual, particular elements
of the two revolutions become interwoven in history? Have there
not been a number of socialist movements and attempts at
establishing Socialism in the period of democratic revolutions
in Europe? And will not the future socialist revolution in
Europe still have to do a very great deal that has been left
undone in the field of democracy?

A Social-Democrat must never for a moment forget that the
proletariat will inevitably have to wage the class struggle for
Socialism even against the most democratic and republican
bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. This is beyond doubt. Hence
the absolute necessity of a separate, independent, strictly
class party of Social-Democracy. Hence the temporary nature of
our tactics of “striking jointly” with the bourgeoisie and the
duty of keeping a strict watch “over our ally, as over an
enemy,” etc. All this is also beyond the slightest doubt. But it
would be ridiculous and reactionary to deduce from this that we
must forget, ignore or neglect these tasks which, although
transient and temporary, are vital at the present time. The
fight against the autocracy is a temporary and transient task of
the Socialists, but to ignore or neglect this task in any way
would be tantamount to betraying Socialism and rendering a
service to reaction. The revolutionary-Democratic dictatorship
of the proletariat and the peasantry is unquestionably only a
transient, temporary aim of the Socialists, but to ignore this
aim in the period of a democratic revolution would be downright
reactionary.

Concrete political aims must be set in concrete circumstances. All things are relative, all things flow and all
things change. The program of the German Social-Democratic Party
does not contain the demand for a republic. The situation in
Germany is such that this question can in practice hardly be
separated from the question of Socialism (although even as
regards Germany, Engels, in his comments on the draft of the Erfurt Program in 1891 , warned against belittling the importance of
a republic and of the struggle for a republic!). [6]

In the Russian
Social-Democratic Party the question of eliminating the demand
for a republic from its program and agitation has never even
arisen, for in our country there can be no talk of an indissoluble connection between the question of a republic and
the question of Socialism. It was quite natural for a German
Social-Democrat of 1898 not to put the special question of a
republic in the forefront, and this evokes neither surprise nor
condemnation. But a German Social-Democrat who in 1848 would
have left the question of a republic in the shade would have
been a downright traitor to the revolution. There is no such
thing as abstract truth. Truth is always concrete.

The time will come when the struggle against the Russian
autocracy will end and the period of democratic revolution will
be over in Russia; then it will be ridiculous to talk about
“singleness of will” of the proletariat and the peasantry, about
a democratic dictatorship, etc. When that time comes we shall
attend directly to the question of the socialist dictatorship of
the proletariat and deal with it at greater length. But at
present the party of the advanced class cannot but strive most
energetically for a decisive victory of the democratic revolution over tsarism. And a decisive victory means nothing
else than the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the
proletariat and the peasantry.

Note [7]

1) We would remind the reader that in the polemics between the
Iskra and the Vperyod , the former referred among other things to Engels’ letter to Turati, in which
Engels warned the (future) leader of the Italian reformists
not to confuse the democratic with the socialist revolution. [8]

The impending revolution in Italy—wrote Engels about the
political situation in Italy in 1894—will be a petty-bourgeois, democratic and not a socialist
revolution. The Iskra reproached the
Vperyod with having departed from the principle laid down by Engels. This reproach was unjustified, because the
Vperyod

(No. 14) [3] fully acknowledged, on the whole, the correctness of Marx’s theory of the difference between the
three main forces in the revolutions of the nineteenth century. According to this theory, the following forces take
a stand against the old order, against the autocracy, feudalism, serfdom:

1) the liberal big
bourgeoisie,

2) the radical petty bourgeoisie,

3) the
proletariat.

The first fights for nothing more than a constitutional monarchy; the second, for
a democratic republic; the third, for a socialist revolution. To confuse the petty-bourgeois struggle for a
complete democratic revolution with the proletarian struggle
for a socialist revolution spells political bankruptcy for a
Socialist. Marx’s warning to this effect is quite justified. But it is precisely for this very reason that the
slogan “revolutionary communes” is erroneous, because the
very mistake committed by the communes that have existed in
history is that they confused the democratic revolution with
the socialist revolution. On the other hand, our slogan—a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the
proletariat and the peasantry—fully safeguards us against this mistake. While recognising the uncontestably
bourgeois nature of the revolution, which is incapable of
directly overstepping the bounds a mere democratic revolution, our slogan pushes forward this
particular revolution and strives to mould it into forms most
advantageous to the proletariat; consequently, it strives to
make the very most of the democratic revolution in order to
attain the greatest success in the further struggle of the
proletariat for Socialism.

---
Notes:
[1]
The first word was in scholarly use at the term, while the second was,
and still is, colloquial Russian.— Tr .

[2]
The development of capitalism, more widespread and rapid in conditions
of liberty, will inevitably soon put an end to singleness of will;
the earlier counter-revolution and reaction are crushed.— Lenin

[3]
“Social-Democracy and the Provisional Revolutionary Government”,
1905. See present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 275-92.– Ed .

[4]
PLACEHOLDER

[5]
Lenin is refering to the programme published in 1874 by the
London Blanquist group of former members of the Paris Commune (see F. Engels,
“Flüchtlingslitcratur. II. Programm der blanqui stischen
Kommunefluichtlinge”, Internationajes aus dem Voiksstaot, Berlin 1957, S. 47-56).

[6]
PLACEHOLDER

[7]
PLACEHOLDER

[8]
See K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow
1953 pp. 551-55

| | What Does Being A Party of Extreme Opposition
In Time of Revolution Mean? | | | A Cursory Comparison Between Several of
the Resolutions of the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. and Those of the
“Conference” | |