V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:LS/v16;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

V. THE WORKING CLASS AND BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY

6
1595

The question of the attitude of Social-Democracy, or working-class democracy, to bourgeois democracy is an old and at the same time an ever new question. It is old, because it was raised from the very moment Social-Democracy arose. Its theoretical foundations were elucidated as far back as the earliest works of Marxist literature, in the *Communist Manifesto* [first and foremost] and in *Capital*. It is ever new, because every step in the development of every capitalist country produces a special, original combination of different shades of bourgeois democracy and different trends in the socialist movement. [Old principles are elucidated and developed as they are applied to ever new political combinations. General theoretical questions give way to questions of the correct application to reality of the propositions established by scientific socialism.]

In our country, too, this old question has become particularly new at the present time. To make the present formulation clearer, we shall begin with a brief historical reference. The old Russian revolutionary Narodism stood on a utopian, semi-anarchist standpoint. It regarded the peasant-commune member as a ready-made socialist. In the liberalism of educated Russian society it clearly saw the aspirations of the Russian bourgeoisie. The struggle for political freedom was [therefore] [unconditionally] rejected as a struggle for institutions advantageous to the bourgeoisie. The Narodnaya Volya members made a step forward [in the practical sense] by turning to political struggle, but they failed to link it up with socialism. The socialist formulation of the question was even obscured when the waning faith in the socialist character of our commune began to be refurbished with theories in the spirit of Mr. V. V. about the non-class, non-bourgeois character of the Russian democratic intelligentsia. This laid the foundation for the process whereby Narodism, which had formerly unconditionally rejected bourgeois liberalism, gradually began to merge with the latter into a single liberal-Narodist trend.* The bourgeois-democratic essence of the Russian intelligentsia movement, from the most moderate, “cultural” trend to the most extreme, revolutionary-terrorist trend, began to become more and more apparent simultaneously with the rise and development of proletarian ideology (Social-Democracy) and the mass working-class movement. But the growth of the latter was accompanied [as is well known] by a split among Marxist writers and among Social-Democratic [practicians]. A revolutionary and an opportunist wing of Social-Democracy clearly emerged, the former expressing the proletarian, the latter the intelligentsia tendencies of our movement. Legal Marxism soon proved in practice to be “a reflection of Marxism in bourgeois literature” [as Tulin described Struve’s *Critical Remarks* as far back as 1894] and, via Bernsteinian opportunism, went straight to liberalism. The Economists in Social-Democracy, on the one hand, were carried away by the semi-anarchist conception of a purely working-class movement, considered that support of the bourgeois opposition by socialists was a betrayal of the class standpoint, and declared that bourgeois democracy in Russia was a phantom.** On the other hand, the Economists of another shade, carried away by the same purely working-class movement, accused the revolutionary Social-Democrats of ignoring the social struggle against the autocracy which our liberals, Zemstvo people, and “culturalists” were waging.*

The old *Iskra* [which was the first to have to apply the principles of revolutionary Social-Democracy to the constant appraisal of current political tasks in the epoch of the mass working-class movement, took up arms against all shades and trends of opportunism. It] pointed to the elements of bourgeois democracy in Russia even at a time when many did not see them [owing to the absence of *Osvobozhdeniye* and the lack of clarity in the position of the Socialist-Revolutionaries]. It demanded that the proletariat should support this democracy (see *Iskra*, No. 2, on support of the student movement; No. 8, on the illegal Zemstvo congress; No. 16, on the liberal marshals of the nobility; and No. 18, on the ferment in the Zemstvo,** and others). It [at the same time with unswerving consistency] constantly noted the class, bourgeois character of the liberal and radical movement, [its half-heartedness, indecision, narrowness, making it clear that only the proletariat could be a consistent and determined fighter for democracy to the end. The old *Iskra* [always recognised the necessity] always counterposed the more consistent democrat to the less consistent one and, recognising the necessity of their support by the proletariat,] said to the wavering *Osvobozhdeniye* people: “It is time to understand that simple truth that real (and not verbal) joint struggle against a common enemy is ensured not by political jobbery, not by what the late Stepnyak once called self-curtailment and self-concealment, not by the conventional falsehood of diplomatic mutual recognition, but by actual participation in the struggle, by actual unity of struggle. When the German Social-Democrats’ struggle against the military-police and feudal-clerical reaction actually became a common struggle with that of some real party resting on a definite class of the people (e.g., the liberal bourgeoisie), then joint action was established without any phrase-mongering about mutual recognition” (No. 26).

This formulation of the question by the old *Iskra* brings us directly to [the question] the present disputes about the attitude of Social-Democrats to the liberals. As is known, these disputes began at the Second Congress, which passed two resolutions, corresponding to the point of view of the majority (Plekhanov’s resolution) and the minority (Starover’s resolution). The first resolution precisely indicates the class character of liberalism as a movement of the bourgeoisie, and brings to the fore the task of making clear to the proletariat the anti-revolutionary and anti-proletarian character of the main liberal trend (*Osvobozhdeniye*). [Clearly indicating] Recognising the necessity for the proletariat to support bourgeois democracy, this resolution [does not hanker after an “agreement”, and does not invent “conditions” for an agreement,] does not fall into political mutual recognition, but, in the spirit of the old *Iskra*, reduces the matter to joint action in the struggle: “in so far as the bourgeoisie is revolutionary or only oppositional in its struggle against tsarism”, the Social-Democrats “must support” it [irrespective of invented conditions (for we need support in order to strike a blow at our enemy), irrespective of the degree of inconsistency and inadequacy of bourgeois democracy (for it is always inconsistent, but we support it only in so far as it fights our enemy)].

On the contrary, Starover’s resolution gives no class analysis of liberalism and democratism. It is full of good intentions, [inventing] it invents conditions for an agreement that are as high and good as possible, but, unfortunately, fictitious [and] verbal. [The proletarian standpoint brings to the fore actual joint struggle. The intelligentsia standpoint (even of one who adheres to Social-Democracy) brings to the fore verbal conditions for agreements: the liberals or democrats must declare this, must not advance such and such demands, must make this their slogan. As if the history of bourgeois democracy everywhere and always did not warn the workers against believing in declarations, demands and slogans! As if history did not show us hundreds of examples when bourgeois democrats came out with slogans not only of complete freedom, but also of equality, with slogans of socialism, [not only] without ceasing to be bourgeois democrats, [but on the contrary] thereby introducing even more “obscuration” of the proletariat’s consciousness! The intelligentsia wing of Social-Democracy wants to fight against this obscuration by presenting conditions to bourgeois democrats about non-obscuration. The proletarian wing fights by analysing the class content of democratism. The intelligentsia wing hankers after verbal conditions for agreements. The proletarian wing demands actual joint struggle. The intelligentsia wing invents a yardstick for a good, kind bourgeoisie deserving an agreement with it. The proletarian wing expects no kindness from the bourgeoisie, but supports every bourgeoisie, even the worst, in so far as it actually fights against tsarism. The intelligentsia wing slides to the standpoint of huckstering: if you side with the Social-Democrats and not with the Socialist-Revolutionaries, then we agree to enter into an agreement against the common enemy, otherwise not. The proletarian wing stands on the standpoint of expediency [of its, the proletariat’s, military campaign against tsarism]: we support you [not depending on whose side you take, the Social-Democrats’ or the Socialist-Revolutionaries’, but] exclusively depending on whether we can more adroitly strike at least [the slightest] some blow at our enemy.

All the defects of [the intelligentsia-benevolent and intelligentsia-vapid] Starover’s resolution became glaringly apparent at [its first attempt at contact with] its first contact with reality. Such a contact was the famous plan of the new *Iskra* editorial board, the plan for “a higher type of mobilisation”, in connection with the theoretical arguments in No. 77 (leading article: “Democracy at the Crossroads”) and No. 78 (Starover’s feuilleton). The plan has already been dealt with in Lenin’s pamphlet, and we shall have to dwell here on the arguments.*

The basic idea [or, rather, the basic lack of thought] of the said arguments of the new *Iskra*** is the distinction between the Zemstvo people and bourgeois democracy. This distinction runs like a red thread through both articles, and the attentive reader sees that [instead of the term bourgeois democracy and alongside it, the following terms are used as equivalent: democracy, radical intelligentsia (sic!), nascent democracy, intelligent democracy. This distinction is [directly] elevated by the new *Iskra*, with its characteristic modesty, into a great discovery, [unknown to the old *Iskra*,] into an original conception “which poor Lenin was unable to grasp”. This distinction is directly linked with that new method of struggle of which we have heard so much both from Trotsky and directly from the *Iskra* editorial board [(see its letter with the plan and No. 79 on proletarian demonstrations)], namely: Zemstvo liberalism, they say, “is fit only to be scourged with scorpions”, while intelligent democracy is fit for agreements with us. Democracy must act independently as an independent force. “Russian liberalism, deprived of its historically necessary part, its moving nerve (listen!, its bourgeois-democratic half, is fit only to be scourged with scorpions.” In Lenin’s conception “there was no room in Russian liberalism for such social elements on which Social-Democracy could ever (!) exert its influence as the vanguard of democracy”.

Such is the new theory. Like all the new theories of the present *Iskra*, it is sheer confusion. In the first place, the claim to priority in the discovery of intelligent democracy is unfounded [and ridiculous]. In the second place, the distinction between Zemstvo liberalism and bourgeois democracy is incorrect. In the third place, the opinion that the intelligentsia can become an independent force is untenable. In the fourth place, the assertion that Zemstvo liberalism (without its “bourgeois-democratic” half) is fit only for scourging [etc.] is unjust. Let us examine all these points.

[In “Lenin’s conception” there is no room for anyone except the marshals of the nobility** and the Zemstvo people who stand for a property qualification constitution. Lenin allegedly ignored “the consolidation of Zemstvo-liberal circles and bourgeois democracy”, the birth of intelligent democracy and the “third element”.]

We open *Zarya*, No. 2-3. We take the very same Home Affairs Survey which is quoted in [the same] Starover’s feuilleton [and about which he justly remarks that it was written by Lenin. On page 384]. We read the heading of the third section: “The Third Element”. We turn over the pages of this section and read about “the growth in the number and influence of Zemstvo employees—doctors, technicians, etc.”, we read about “the unruly economic development which creates a demand for intellectuals, whose number is constantly increasing”, we read] about the inevitability of conflicts between these intellectuals and the bureaucracy and the Zemstvo board bigwigs, about the “almost epidemic character of these conflicts in recent times”, about “the irreconcilability of the autocracy with the interests of the intelligentsia in general”, we read a direct appeal to these elements to rally “under the banner” of Social-Democracy....

Is it not good? The newly-discovered intelligent democracy and the necessity of appealing to it to rally under the banner of Social-Democracy were “discovered” [by this same] harmful [Lenin three years] ago!

[True!] Of course, at that time the distinction] the counterposing of the Zemstvo people and bourgeois democracy had not yet been discovered. [And it is a good thing it was not discovered, for it is nonsense. Whether you take the class foundations of Russian bourgeois democracy, or the ideological trends of Russian democratic thought, you will equally see the absurdity of this distinction. The Zemstvo people and the marshals of the nobility are one of the parts of our bourgeois democracy, and] But this counterposing [of the new *Iskra*] is just as clever as if we were to say: [the island of Kiu-Siu] Moscow Gubernia and the territory of the [Japanese] Russian Empire. The Zemstvo people of the property qualification and the marshals of the nobility are democrats in so far as they [rebel] come out against the autocracy and serfdom [and they undoubtedly rebel against it]. Their democratism is limited, narrow and inconsistent, just as all and every bourgeois democratism is limited, narrow and inconsistent in varying degrees. The leading article in *Iskra*, No. 77, analyses our liberalism, dividing it into groups: (1) the serf-owning landlords, (2) the liberal landlords, (3) the liberal intelligentsia standing for a property qualification constitution, and (4) the extreme Left—the democratic intelligentsia. This analysis is incomplete and confused, because the divisions of the intelligentsia are mixed up with the division of the different classes and groups whose interests the intelligentsia expresses. Besides the interests of the broad stratum of landlords, Russian bourgeois democratism reflects [now] the interests of the mass of merchants and industrialists, [especially] chiefly the middle and petty bourgeoisie, and also (which is particularly important) the mass of big and small proprietors among the peasantry. Ignoring this [especially] broadest stratum of Russian bourgeois democracy [is a particularly unpardonable]¹ is the first gap in *Iskra*’s analysis. [This stratum most frequently expresses its aspirations now not directly, but through the democratic intelligentsia (and this happens for quite understandable reasons), but the sharper the Russian political crisis becomes, the nearer will be the time when this stratum will speak directly for itself. We shall then see in practice its division into revolutionary democracy and reactionary democracy, a division which we can now infallibly predict on the basis of a scientific analysis of its interests and its Narodnik ideology. In any case, even to this extreme Left of our bourgeois democracy Social-Democracy can promise only conditional support, only in so far as this democracy actually fights against the autocracy. Bourgeois democracy in Russia, as everywhere, is divided into a mass of strata, groups, classes. All these groups are united by the fact that they stand on the basis of bourgeois society, and are mainly big and small proprietors. All of them, in their broad mass, with individual exceptions, are hostile to the autocracy and the survivals of serfdom, although the degree of this hostility is far from being the same, [depending on the differences in their permanent class position and the temporary political conjuncture. All these strata of bourgeois democracy, from the most moderate Zemstvo liberals to the sharply revolutionary petty-bourgeois democracy, must be supported by the proletariat, but not unconditionally, only in proportion to their opposition and revolutionary spirit, not in words but in deeds.

Now take the Russian democratic intelligentsia. This is a stratum that is particularly mobile and particularly suited to give a generalised and idealised expression to the interests of bourgeois democracy. The biggest mistake in *Iskra*’s analysis is ignoring the fact that this] The second gap is the forgetting of the fact that the Russian democratic intelligentsia, not accidentally but necessarily, splits, according to its political position, into three channels: the *Osvobozhdeniye* channel, the Socialist-Revolutionary channel, and the Social-Democratic channel. All these trends have a long history behind them, and each expresses (with as much definiteness as is possible in an autocratic state) [the principle] the point of view of the moderate and revolutionary ideologists of bourgeois democracy and the point of view of the proletariat. Nothing is more curious than [this] the innocent wish of the new *Iskra*: “democracy must act as an independent force”, while immediately afterwards democracy is identified with the radical intelligentsia! The new *Iskra* has forgotten that the radical intelligentsia, or intelligent democracy, which has become an “independent force”, is precisely our “Socialist-Revolutionary Party”! [There could not be and there is not any other “extreme Left” for our democratic intelligentsia.] [The predominantly intelligentsia composition of the “party”; the absence of connection with a definite class; hostility to a consistent and thorough theory of the class struggle; preference for intelligentsia methods of revolutionary struggle such as terrorism; vague revolutionary-democratic and revolutionary-socialist theories; the vitality of the old ideological traditions of the Russian intelligentsia, i.e., Narodism; susceptibility to every fashionable word of the European radical intelligentsia such as revisionism—all these characteristic features of our Socialist-Revolutionaries make their party the [adequate] (most perfect, most “pure”) expression of the “independent force” of our radical and revolutionary intelligentsia.] [But it goes without saying that one can speak of an independent force of such an intelligentsia only in an ironic or only in a bomb-throwing sense of the word.] To stand on the basis of bourgeois democracy and to move to the Left of *Osvobozhdeniye* means to move towards the Socialist-Revolutionaries and nowhere else.

Finally, the last new discovery of the new *Iskra* is even less tenable, namely, that liberalism without its bourgeois-democratic half is fit only to be scourged with scorpions, that “the idea of hegemony would be more wisely thrown overboard” if there is no one to turn to except the Zemstvo people. Every liberalism [(always being a part of bourgeois democracy)] is fit for Social-Democracy to support it [...] * precisely in so far as it actually comes out as a fighter against the autocracy. It is precisely this support by the only consistent democrat to the end, i.e., the proletariat, of all inconsistent (i.e., bourgeois) democrats that gives effect to the idea of hegemony. Only a petty-bourgeois, huckstering understanding of hegemony sees its essence in an agreement, in mutual recognition, in verbal conditions. From the proletarian standpoint, hegemony [is in fact exercised by him] in a war belongs to the one who fights most energetically, who uses every opportunity [(even a bourgeois-democratic, even a liberal opportunity)] to strike a blow at the enemy, [who fights most energetically,] whose words do not diverge from deeds, who is therefore the ideological leader of democracy, criticising every half-heartedness.** The new *Iskra* is profoundly mistaken in thinking that half-heartedness is a moral, and not a politico-economic, property of bourgeois democracy, in thinking that it is possible and necessary to find such a yardstick of half-heartedness up to which liberalism deserves only scorpions, and beyond which it deserves an agreement. This precisely means determining in advance the measure of permissible baseness. Indeed, ponder over the following words: to make it a condition for an agreement with opposition groups that they recognise universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage means “to present them with the irresistible reagent of our demand, the litmus paper of democratism, and to place on the scales of their political calculation the whole value of proletarian co-operation” (No. 78). How beautifully this is written! and how one wants to say to the author of these [lines] beautiful words, Starover: my friend, Arkady Nikolayevich, do not speak beautifully! [One must think a little to see the incorrectness of these beautiful words. The same] Mr. Struve with one stroke of the pen repelled Starover’s irresistible reagent when he wrote universal suffrage in the programme of the *Union of Liberation*. And the same Struve has already proved to us in practice more than once that all these programmes are for the liberals a mere scrap of paper, not litmus paper, but ordinary paper, the value of which is equal to the value of waste paper, because [that] for a bourgeois democrat it costs nothing to write one thing today and another tomorrow. Even many bourgeois intellectuals who go over to Social-Democracy are distinguished by this property. The whole history of European and Russian liberalism shows hundreds of examples of divergence between word and deed, and that is precisely why Starover’s striving to invent irresistible paper reagents [and to influence the political calculation of the bourgeoisie by promising proletarian co-operation, whereas in reality this co-operation depends not on the programme, slogans and demands of the bourgeoisie, but on the degree of its actual entry into the struggle] is naive.*

The standpoint of a commercial deal, of an agreement, inevitably leads Starover * to the great idea that to support the bourgeoisie, which does not agree to universal suffrage, in its struggle against tsarism means “to reduce the idea of universal suffrage to naught” (No. 78)!

Perhaps Starover will write us another beautiful ** feuilleton, proving that by supporting the monarchists in their struggle against the autocracy we reduce the “idea” of a republic to naught? The trouble is that Starover’s thought helplessly revolves within the framework of conditions, slogans, demands, declarations, and loses sight of the only real criterion: the degree of actual participation in the struggle. In practice this inevitably leads to a varnishing of the radical intelligentsia, with whom an “agreement” is declared possible. The intelligentsia, in mockery of Marxism, is declared to be the “moving nerve” (and not the phrase-mongering servant?) of liberalism. The French and Italian radicals are awarded the title of people to whom anti-democratic or anti-proletarian demands are alien, although everyone knows that these radicals have betrayed their programmes countless * times and have obscured the consciousness of the proletariat, although in the same issue (No. 78) of *Iskra*, on the next (7th) page, you can read how the monarchists and republicans in Italy proved to be “at one in the struggle against socialism”. The resolution of the Saratov intellectuals (of the Sanitary Society) on the necessity of the participation of representatives of the whole people in legislation is declared to be “the real voice (!!) of democracy” (No. 77).

The practical plan for the participation of proletarians in the Zemstvo campaign is accompanied by the advice “to enter into some agreement with the representatives of the Left wing of the opposition bourgeoisie” (the famous agreement about not creating panic). In reply to Lenin’s question as to what had become of the notorious conditions of Starover’s agreement, the new *Iskra* editorial board answered:**

“These conditions must always be kept in mind by members of the Party, and the latter, knowing on what conditions the Party alone agrees formally to enter into political agreements with a democratic party, are morally bound, even in the case of the private agreements referred to in the letter, strictly to distinguish between reliable representatives of the bourgeois opposition—real democrats, and liberal windbags.”***

Step by step. Alongside the Party agreement (the only permissible one, according to Starover’s resolution) there appeared, [when necessary,] private agreements in individual towns. Alongside formal agreements there appeared moral ones. Verbal recognition of the “conditions” and of their “moral” binding force proved to confer the title of “reliable” and “real democrat”, although every child understands that dozens and hundreds of Zemstvo orators will make any verbal declarations, will even give their word of honour as radicals that they are socialists,* if only to reassure the Social-Democrats [about their reliability].
No, the proletariat will not go in for this game of slogans, declarations and agreements. [The proletariat will measure the degree of reliability of bourgeois democrats not by their words but exclusively by their deeds.] The proletariat will never forget that bourgeois democrats [will never be] cannot be reliable democrats [in the full sense of the word]. The proletariat will support [nevertheless] bourgeois democracy not on the basis of deals with it about not creating panic, not on the basis of faith in its reliability, but will support it then and in so far as it actually fights against the autocracy. [The proletariat (supports bourgeois democracy] marches side by side with bourgeois democracy in its struggle, never forgetting the unreliability of this democracy, [supports it because it is advantageous, it] marches side by side with it and further than it because]. Such support is necessary in the interests of achieving the independent social-revolutionary aims of the proletariat.