# Social-Democracy and the Provisional Revolutionary Government{1}

Printed on April 5 and 12 (March 23 and 30), 1905, in the newspaper *Vperyod*, Nos. 13 and 14

Printed according to the newspaper text, verified against the manuscript

I

Only five years ago, the slogan "down with the autocracy!" seemed to many representatives of Social-Democracy premature and incomprehensible to the working masses. These representatives were rightly classified as opportunists. It was explained to them, and has been explained, that they lag behind the movement, that they do not understand the tasks of the party as the advanced detachment of the class, as its leader and organizer, as the representative of the movement as a whole, of its fundamental and principal goals. These goals may temporarily be obscured by everyday, routine work, but they must never lose their significance as a guiding star for the struggling proletariat.

And now the time has come when the revolutionary flame has engulfed the entire country, when even the most incredulous have come to believe in the inevitability of the overthrow of the autocracy in the near future. Yet Social-Democracy, as if by some irony of history, once again has to deal with similar reactionary, opportunist attempts to drag the movement backward, to belittle its tasks, to obscure its slogans. Polemics with the representatives of such attempts become the order of the day and acquire (contrary to the opinion of many, many who dislike polemics within the party) enormous practical significance. For the closer we approach the direct realization of our immediate political tasks, the greater the need to understand these tasks with complete clarity, and the more harmful any ambiguities, half-statements, or half-thoughts on this question become.

And there is no small amount of half-thought among the Social-Democrats of the new-Iskra or (which is almost the same thing) the Rabocheye-Dyelo camp{2}. Down with the autocracy! – with this everyone agrees, not only all Social-Democrats but all democrats, even all liberals, if one is to believe their current declarations. But what does this mean? How exactly is this overthrow of the present government to occur? Who is to convene that constituent assembly which the Osvobozhdeniye people (see No. 67 of *Osvobozhdeniye*{3}) are now ready to put forward as their slogan – with the recognition of universal, etc., suffrage? What exactly must constitute the real guarantee of free elections, expressing the interests of the entire people, to such an assembly?

Whoever does not give himself a clear and precise answer to these questions does not understand the slogan: down with the autocracy! And these questions inevitably lead us to the question of a provisional revolutionary government; it is not difficult to understand that under the autocracy, truly free, nationwide elections to a constituent assembly, with full guarantees of truly universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage, are not only improbable but outright impossible. And if we are not idly putting forward the practical demand for the immediate overthrow of the autocratic government, then we must clarify for ourselves what kind of government we intend to replace the overthrown government with, or, to put it another way: how do we view the relation of Social-Democracy to a provisional revolutionary government?

On this question, the opportunists of contemporary Social-Democracy, i.e., the new-Iskrists, are just as zealously dragging the party backward as the Rabocheye-Dyelo people were five years ago on the question of political struggle in general. Their reactionary views on this point are most fully developed in Martynov's pamphlet *Two Dictatorships*, which *Iskra*{4} (No. 84) endorsed and recommended in a special notice, and to which we have repeatedly drawn the attention of our readers.

At the very beginning of his pamphlet, Martynov frightens us with such a terrifying prospect: if a strong organization of revolutionary Social-Democracy could "appoint and carry out a nationwide armed uprising" against the autocracy, as Lenin dreamed, then "is it not obvious that the nationwide will would immediately after the revolution appoint precisely this party as the provisional government? Is it not obvious that the people would entrust the immediate fate of the revolution precisely to this party, and not to any other?"

This is incredible, but it is a fact. The future historian of Russian Social-Democracy will have to note with astonishment that at the very beginning of the Russian revolution, the Girondists of Social-Democracy frightened the revolutionary proletariat with such a prospect! The entire content of Martynov's pamphlet (and of a whole series of articles and individual passages in the articles of the new *Iskra*) boils down to painting the "horrors" of this prospect. The ideological leader of the new-Iskrists imagines here a "seizure of power," conjures up the bogey of "Jacobinism," Bakuninism, Tkachevism{5}, and other dreadful isms with which various revolutionary nannies so readily frighten political infants[1]. And, of course, this is not without "quotations" from Marx and Engels. Poor Marx and Engels, how their works have been abused with quotations! Do you remember: the truth that "every class struggle is a political struggle"{6} was cited to justify the narrowness and backwardness of our political tasks and methods of political agitation and struggle? Now Engels is brought forward as a false witness in favor of tailism. He wrote in *The Peasant War in Germany*: "The worst thing that can befall the leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government at a time when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class he represents and for the implementation of measures ensuring that domination"{7}. It suffices to read attentively this beginning of the long quotation cited by Martynov to see how our tailist distorts the author's thought. Engels speaks of power that ensures the domination of a class. Is that not clear? In relation to the proletariat, this means, consequently, power that ensures the domination of the proletariat, i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat for carrying out the socialist revolution. Martynov does not understand this, confusing a provisional revolutionary government in the epoch of the overthrow of the autocracy with the ensured domination of the proletariat in the epoch of the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, confusing the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry with the socialist dictatorship of the working class. Meanwhile, from the continuation of Engels' quotation, his thought becomes even clearer. The leader of an extreme party, he says, will have to "defend the interests of an alien class and fob off his own class with phrases, promises, and assurances that the interests of another class are its own. Whoever once falls into this false position is irretrievably lost"{8}.

The underlined passages clearly show that Engels warns precisely against that false position which results from the leader's failure to understand the real interests of "his own" class and the real class content of the revolution. For clarity, let us try to chew this over for our profound Martynov with a simple example. When the Narodnaya Volya people, thinking they represented the interests of "labor," assured themselves and others that 90 percent of the peasants in the future Russian constituent assembly would be socialists, they fell into a false position, inevitably leading to their irretrievable political ruin, for these "promises and assurances" did not correspond to objective reality. In fact, they would have carried out the interests of bourgeois democracy, "the interests of another class." Are you beginning to understand something, most esteemed Martynov? When the Socialist-Revolutionaries{9} depict the agrarian transformations inevitably facing Russia as "socialization," as the "transfer of land to the people," as the beginning of "equalitarian land tenure," they place themselves in a false position, inevitably leading to their irretrievable political ruin, for in fact the very transformations they strive for will ensure the domination of another class, the peasant bourgeoisie, so that their phrases, promises, and assurances will be refuted by reality all the more quickly the faster the development of the revolution proceeds. Do you still not understand what the matter is, most esteemed Martynov? Do you still not understand that the essence of Engels' thought consists in pointing out the ruinousness of failing to understand the real historical tasks of the revolution, that Engels' words are applicable, consequently, to the Narodnaya Volya people and the "Socialist-Revolutionaries"?

II

Engels points to the danger of the leaders of the proletariat failing to understand the non-proletarian character of the revolution, while clever Martynov deduces from this the danger of the leaders of the proletariat, who have fenced themselves off from revolutionary democracy by their program, tactics (i.e., all their propaganda and agitation), and organization, playing a leading role in the creation of a democratic republic. Engels sees the danger in the leader confusing the pseudo-socialist and real-democratic content of the revolution, while clever Martynov deduces from this the danger of the proletariat, together with the peasantry, consciously taking upon itself the dictatorship in implementing a democratic republic, as the last form of bourgeois domination and as the best form for the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Engels sees the danger in a false, lying position, when one says one thing and does another, when one promises the domination of one class but in fact ensures the domination of another class; Engels sees in this falsity the inevitability of irretrievable political ruin, while clever Martynov deduces from this the danger of ruin because the bourgeois supporters of democracy will not allow the proletariat and peasantry to ensure a truly democratic republic. Clever Martynov is utterly incapable of understanding that such ruin, the ruin of the leader of the proletariat, the ruin of thousands of proletarians in the struggle for a truly democratic republic, while being physical ruin, is not only not political ruin but, on the contrary, is the greatest political conquest of the proletariat, the greatest realization by it of its hegemony in the struggle for freedom. Engels speaks of the political ruin of one who unconsciously strays from his own class path onto an alien class path, while clever Martynov, reverently quoting Engels, speaks of the ruin of one who goes further and further along the correct class path.

The difference between the viewpoints of revolutionary Social-Democracy and tailism emerges here with all clarity. Martynov and the new *Iskra* recoil from the task, incumbent upon the proletariat together with the peasantry, of the most radical democratic revolution, recoil from Social-Democratic leadership of this revolution, thus handing over, albeit unconsciously, the interests of the proletariat into the hands of bourgeois democracy. From Marx's just thought that we must prepare not a governmental but an opposition party of the future, Martynov draws the conclusion that we must stage a tailist opposition to the present revolution. This is what his political wisdom boils down to. Here is his reasoning, over which we would very much recommend the reader to ponder:

"The proletariat cannot obtain either all or part of political power in the state until it carries out the socialist revolution. This is that indisputable proposition which separates us from opportunist Jaurèsism..." (Martynov, p. 58) – and which, we add on our own, indisputably proves the inability of esteemed Martynov to understand what is what. To confuse the participation of the proletariat in power that resists the socialist revolution with the participation of the proletariat in a democratic revolution means hopelessly failing to understand what is at issue. It is the same as confusing Millerand's participation in the ministry of the murderer Galliffet with Varlin's participation in the Commune, which defended and upheld the republic.

But listen further, to see how our author gets tangled up: "... But if this is so, then it is obvious that the impending revolution cannot realize any political forms against the will of the entire (Martynov's italics) bourgeoisie, for it will be the master of tomorrow..." First, why is it spoken here only of political forms, whereas in the preceding sentence the talk was of the power of the proletariat in general, right up to the socialist revolution? Why does the author not speak of the realization of economic forms? Because he has imperceptibly for himself already jumped from the socialist revolution to the democratic one. If this is so (this, secondly), then the author is completely mistaken in speaking tout court (simply and plainly) of the "will of the entire bourgeoisie," because the epoch of the democratic revolution is distinguished precisely by the difference in the will of different strata of the bourgeoisie, which is only just freeing itself from absolutism. To speak of the democratic revolution and to limit oneself to a simple and bare counterposition of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is pure incongruity[2], for this revolution marks precisely that period in the development of society when the mass of it stands, properly speaking, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, constituting the vast petty-bourgeois, peasant stratum. This gigantic stratum, precisely because the democratic revolution is not yet accomplished, has far more common interests with the proletariat in the matter of realizing political forms than does the "bourgeoisie" in the present and narrow sense of the word. Failure to understand this simple thing is one of the main sources of Martynov's confusion.

Further: "... If this is so, then by simply intimidating the majority of bourgeois elements, the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat can lead only to one thing – to the restoration of absolutism in its original form – and the proletariat, of course, will not stop before this possible outcome; it will not renounce the intimidation of the bourgeoisie, at worst, if matters are decisively tending toward reviving and strengthening the decaying autocratic power by means of a sham constitutional concession. But, entering the struggle, the proletariat, it goes without saying, does not have this worst outcome in view."

Do you understand anything, reader? The proletariat will not stop before intimidation leading to the restoration of absolutism, in the event that a sham constitutional concession threatens! This is just as if I were to say: I am threatened with an Egyptian plague in the form of a one-day conversation with one Martynov; therefore, at worst, I resort to intimidation, which can lead only to a two-day conversation with Martynov and Martov. Why, this is simply gibberish, most esteemed!

The thought that hovered before Martynov when he wrote the nonsense we have reproduced is the following: if, in the epoch of the democratic revolution, the proletariat begins to intimidate the bourgeoisie with the socialist revolution, this will lead only to reaction, which weakens democratic gains as well. That is all. There can be, understandably, no talk either of the restoration of absolutism in its original form or of the readiness of the proletariat, at worst, to resort to the worst stupidity. The whole matter again boils down to that distinction between the democratic and socialist revolutions which Martynov forgets, to the existence of that gigantic peasant and petty-bourgeois population which is capable of supporting the democratic revolution but is not capable at the given moment of supporting the socialist one.

Let us listen to our clever Martynov further: "... It is obvious that the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie on the eve of the bourgeois revolution must differ in certain respects from this same struggle in its concluding stage, on the eve of the socialist revolution..." Yes, this is obvious, and if Martynov had thought about what exactly this difference consists in, he would hardly have written the preceding gibberish, or indeed his entire pamphlet.

"... The struggle for influence over the course and outcome of the bourgeois revolution can express itself only in the fact that the proletariat will exert revolutionary pressure on the will of the liberal and radical bourgeoisie, that the more democratic 'lower strata' of society will compel its 'upper strata' to agree to carry the bourgeois revolution to its logical conclusion. It will express itself in the fact that the proletariat will, in each case, present the bourgeoisie with a dilemma: either back into the grip of absolutism, in which it is suffocating, or forward with the people."

This tirade is the central point of Martynov's pamphlet. Here is all its salt, all its basic "ideas." And what do these clever ideas turn out to be? Look: what are these "lower strata" of society, this "people," which our sage has finally remembered? It is precisely that multi-million-strong petty-bourgeois urban and peasant stratum which is fully capable of acting as a revolutionary democrat. And what is this pressure of the proletariat plus the peasantry on the upper strata of society, what is this movement of the proletariat together with the people forward, in defiance of the upper strata of society? This is precisely that revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry against which our tailist is crusading! He is only afraid to think it through to the end, afraid to call things by their real name. He therefore speaks words whose meaning he does not understand, he timidly repeats, with ridiculous and foolish contortions[3], slogans whose real meaning eludes him. Only with a tailist is such a curiosity possible, therefore, in the most "interesting" part of his concluding deductions: revolutionary pressure of both the proletariat and the "people" on the upper strata of society, but without the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry – only Martynov could arrive at this! Martynov wants the proletariat to threaten the upper strata of society, that it will go forward with the people, but that at the same time the proletariat should firmly resolve, with its new-Iskrist leaders, not to go forward along the democratic path, for this is the path of revolutionary-democratic dictatorship. Martynov wants the proletariat to exert pressure on the will of the upper strata by displaying its own lack of will. Martynov wants the proletariat to impel the upper strata to "agree" to carry the bourgeois revolution to its logical democratic-republican conclusion, impelling them by expressing its own fear of taking upon itself, together with the people, this carrying of the revolution to its conclusion, of taking power and the democratic dictatorship. Martynov wants the proletariat to be the vanguard in the democratic revolution, and therefore clever Martynov frightens the proletariat with the prospect of participation in a provisional revolutionary government in the event of a successful uprising!

One cannot go further in reactionary tailism. We must bow down to the ground before Martynov, as before a holy man, for having carried through to the end the tailist tendencies of the new *Iskra* and expressed them in relief and systematically on the most topical and fundamental political question[4].

III

What is the source of Martynov's confusion? In the confusion of the democratic and socialist revolutions, in the forgetting of the role of the intermediate popular stratum standing between the "bourgeoisie" and the "proletariat" (the petty-bourgeois mass of the urban and rural poor, the "semi-proletarians," semi-proprietors), in the failure to understand the true meaning of our minimum program. Martynov has heard that it is unbecoming for a socialist to participate in a bourgeois ministry (when the proletariat is struggling for the socialist revolution) and hastened to "understand" this to mean that one should not participate together with the revolutionary bourgeois democracy in a revolutionary-democratic revolution and in that dictatorship which is necessary for the full realization of such a revolution. Martynov has read our minimum program but did not notice that the strict separation in it of transformations realizable on the basis of bourgeois society, as distinct from socialist transformations, has not only a bookish significance but the most vital, practical one[5]; he did not notice that in a revolutionary period it is subject to immediate verification and application in practice. Martynov did not reflect that the rejection of the idea of a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship in the epoch of the fall of the autocracy is tantamount to the rejection of the realization of our minimum program. Indeed, just recall all the economic and political transformations set forth in this program: the demands for a republic, arming of the people, separation of church from state, full democratic freedoms, decisive economic reforms. Is it not clear that the implementation of these transformations on the basis of the bourgeois order is unthinkable without the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the lower classes? Is it not clear that what is at issue here is precisely not the proletariat alone, as distinct from the "bourgeoisie"[6], but the "lower classes," which are the active movers of every democratic revolution? These classes are the proletariat plus tens of millions of the urban and rural poor, living under conditions of petty-bourgeois existence. The belonging to the bourgeoisie of very many representatives of this mass is indisputable. But it is even more indisputable that it is in the interests of this mass to achieve the full realization of democracy, and that the more enlightened this mass becomes, the more inevitable its struggle for this full realization. A Social-Democrat will never forget, of course, the dual politico-economic nature of the petty-bourgeois urban and rural mass; he will never forget the necessity of a separate and independent class organization of the proletariat struggling for socialism. But he will also not forget that this mass has "besides a past, a future; besides prejudices, reason"{10}, which pushes it forward, toward a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship; he will not forget that enlightenment is given not by books alone, and not even so much by books as by the very course of the revolution, which opens eyes and provides a political school. Under such conditions, a theory that rejects the idea of a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship cannot be called anything other than a philosophical justification of political backwardness[7].

A revolutionary Social-Democrat will contemptuously cast aside such a theory. On the eve of the revolution, he will not only point to the "worst outcome" of it[8]. No, he will also point to the possibility of a better outcome. He will dream – he is obliged to dream, if he is not a hopeless philistine – that after the gigantic experience of Europe, after the unprecedented sweep of energy of the working class in Russia, we will succeed in kindling, as never before, the lamp of revolutionary light before the dark and downtrodden mass; we will succeed – thanks to the fact that we stand on the shoulders of a whole series of revolutionary generations of Europe – in realizing with unprecedented completeness all democratic transformations, our entire minimum program; we will succeed in ensuring that the Russian revolution is not a movement of a few months but a movement of many years, that it leads not only to minor concessions on the part of the powers that be but to the complete overthrow of these powers. And if this succeeds – then... then the revolutionary conflagration will ignite Europe; the European worker, languishing under bourgeois reaction, will rise in his turn and show us "how it is done"; then the revolutionary upsurge of Europe will have a reverse effect on Russia and will turn an epoch of several revolutionary years into an epoch of several revolutionary decades; then... but we will still have occasion to speak more than once about what we will do "then," to speak not from the accursed Geneva distance but before meetings of thousands of workers in the streets of Moscow and Petersburg, before free gatherings of Russian "muzhiks."

IV

To the philistines of the new *Iskra* and its "master of thought," our good bookworm Martynov, such dreams are, of course, alien and strange. They fear the full realization of our minimum program through the revolutionary dictatorship of the simple and common people. They fear for their own consciousness, fear losing the pointer from a crammed (but not thought-through) book, fear proving unable to distinguish the correct and bold steps of democratic transformations from the adventurist leaps of non-class, Narodnik socialism or anarchism. Their philistine soul rightly whispers to them that with a rapid forward movement it is harder to distinguish the correct path and to quickly resolve complex and new questions than with the routine of everyday, petty work; therefore they instinctively whisper: keep away from me, keep away from me! let the cup of revolutionary-democratic dictatorship pass me by! lest I perish! gentlemen! you had better "with slow step, timid zigzag"!..

It is not surprising that Parvus, who so magnanimously supported the new-Iskrists while the matter was primarily about co-opting the oldest and most meritorious, found it heavy in the end in such a swampy society. It is not surprising that he began to experience in it ever more frequently taedium vitae, a nausea of life. And he finally rebelled. He did not limit himself to defending the slogan "organize the revolution," which mortally frightened the new *Iskra*; he did not limit himself to appeals which *Iskra* printed as separate leaflets, hiding even, on account of "Jacobin" horrors, the mention of the Social-Democratic workers' party[9]. No. Freeing himself from the nightmare of the most wise Axelrodian (or Luxemburgian?) theory of organization-as-process, Parvus managed, at last, to go forward, instead of crawling backward like a crab. He did not want to perform "Sisyphus' labor"