Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

III.

The Vulgar Bourgeois Representation of Dictatorship and Marx’s View of It

Mehring [4] tells us in his notes to Marx’s articles from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung of 1848 that he published, that one of
the reproaches levelled at this newspaper by bourgeois publications was that it had allegedly demanded “the immediate
introduction of a dictatorship as the sole means of achieving
democracy” (Marx, Nachlass , Volume III, p. 53). From the vulgar bourgeois standpoint the terms dictatorship and
democracy are mutually exclusive. Failing to understand the
theory of class struggle, and accustomed to seeing in the
political arena the petty squabbling of the various bourgeois
circles and coteries, the bourgeois conceives dictatorship to
mean the annulment of all the liberties and guarantees of
democracy, tyranny of every kind, and every sort of abuse of
power in the personal interests of a dictator. In essence, it is
precisely this vulgar bourgeois view that is manifested in the
writings of our Martynov, who winds up his “new campaign” in the
new Iskra by attributing the partiality of the
Vperyod and the Proletary for the slogan of dictatorship to Lenin’s “passionate desire to try his luck”
( Iskra , No. 103, p. 3, col. 2). In order to explain to
Martynov the meaning of the term class dictatorship as distinct
from personal dictatorship, and the tasks of a democratic
dictatorship as distinct from those of a socialist dictatorship,
it would not be amiss to dwell on the views of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung .

“Every provisional organisation of the state after a revolution,” wrote the Neue Rheinische Zeitung on

September 14, 1848 , “requires a dictatorship, and an energetic
dictatorship at that. From the very beginning we have reproached
Camphausen” (the head of the Ministry after March 8, 1848) “for
not acting dictatorially, for not having immediately smashed up
and eliminated the remnants of the old institutions. And while
Herr Camphausen was lulling himself with constitutional
illusions, the defeated party (i.e., the party of reaction)
strengthened its positions in the bureaucracy, and in the army,
and here and there even began to venture upon open struggle.” [5]

These words, Mehring justly remarks, sum up in a few propositions all that was propounded in detail in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung in long articles on the Camphausen
Ministry. What do these words of Marx tell us? That a provisional revolutionary government must act dictatorially (a
proposition which the Iskra was totally unable to grasp
since it was fighting shy of the slogan: dictatorship) and that
the task of such a dictatorship is to destroy the remnants of
the old institutions (which is precisely what was clearly stated
in the resolution of the Third Congress of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party about the struggle against
counterrevolution, and what was omitted in the resolution of the
Conference, as we showed above). Thirdly, and lastly, it follows
from these words that Marx castigated the bourgeois democrats for entertaining “constitutional illusions” in a period of
revolution and open civil war. The meaning of these words
becomes particularly obvious from the article in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung of

June 6, l848 .

“A Constituent National Assembly,” wrote Marx, “must first of
all be an active, revolutionary-active assembly. The Frankfurt
Assembly, however, is busying itself with school exercises in
parliamentarism while allowing the government to act. Let us
assume that this learned assembly succeeds after mature
consideration in working out the best possible agenda and the
best possible constitution. But what is the use of the best
possible agenda and of the best possible constitution, if the
German governments have in the meantime placed the bayonet on
the

agenda?” [6]

That is the meaning of the slogan: dictatorship. We can judge
from this what Marx’s attitude would have been towards resolutions which call a “decision to organise a constituent
assembly” a decisive victory, or which invite us to “remain the
party of extreme revolutionary opposition”!

Major questions in the life of nations are settled only by
force. The reactionary classes themselves are usually the first
to resort to violence, to civil war; they are the first to
“place the bayonet on the agenda,” as the Russian autocracy has
been doing systematically and undeviatingly everywhere ever
since January 9. And since such a situation has arisen, since
the bayonet has really become the main point on the political
agenda, since insurrection has proved to be imperative and
urgent—constitutional illusions and school exercises in
parliamentarism become only a screen for the bourgeois betrayal
of the revolution, a screen to conceal the fact that the
bourgeoisie is “recoiling” from the revolution. It is therefore
the slogan of dictatorship that the genuinely revolutionary
class must advance.

On the question of the tasks of this dictatorship Marx wrote,
already in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung [of June 6, l848 ] :

“The National Assembly should have acted dictatorially against
the reactionary attempts of the obsolete governments; the force
of public opinion in its favour would then have been so strong
as to shatter all bayonets.... But this Assembly bores the
German people instead of carrying the people with it or being
carried away by it

[them].” [7]

In Marx’s opinion, the

National Assembly should have “eliminated from the regime
actually existing in Germany everything that contradicted the
principle of the sovereignty of the people,” then it should have
“consolidated the revolutionary ground on which it stands in
order to make the sovereignty of the people, won by the
revolution, secure against all attacks.” [8]

Thus, the tasks which Marx set before a revolutionary government
or dictatorship in 1848 amounted in substance primarily to a
democratic revolution: defence against counterrevolution and the actual elimination of everything that
contradicted the sovereignty of the people. This is nothing else
than a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship.

To proceed: which classes, in Marx’s opinion, could and should
have achieved this task (actually to exercise to the full the
principle of the sovereignty of the people and to beat off the
attacks of the counterrevolution)? Marx speaks of the “people.”
But we know that he always ruthlessly combated the petty-bourgeois illusions about the unity of the “people” and
about the absence of a class struggle within the people. In
using the word “people,” Marx did not thereby gloss over class
distinctions, but combined definite elements that were capable
of carrying the revolution to completion.

After the victory of the Berlin proletariat on March 18, wrote
the Neue Rheinische Zeitung [of June 14, 1848 ] , the results of the revolution proved to be twofold: “On the one
hand the arming of the people, the right of association, the
sovereignty of the people actually attained; on the other hand,
the preservation of the monarchy and the Camphausen-Hansemann
Ministry, i.e., the government of representatives of the big
bourgeoisie. Thus, the revolution had two series of results,
which had inevitably to diverge. The people had achieved
victory, it had won liberties of a decisive democratic nature,
but the direct power passed not into its hands, but into those
of the big bourgeoisie. In a word, the revolution was not
completed. The people allowed the big bourgeois to form a
ministry, and the big bourgeois immediately displayed their
strivings by offering an alliance to the old Prussian nobility
and bureaucracy. Arnim, Canitz and Schwerin joined the Ministry.

“ The upper bourgeoisie, ever anti-revolutionary, concluded a defensive end offensive alliance with the reaction out of fear of the people, that is to say, the workers and the democratic bourgeoisie .”

(Our italics.) [9]

Thus, not only a “decision to organise a constituent assembly,”
but even its actual convocation is insufficient for a decisive
victory of the revolution! Even after a partial victory in an
armed struggle (the victory of the Berlin workers over the
troops on March 18, 1848) an “incomplete” revolution, a
revolution “that has not been carried to completion,” is
possible. On what, then, does its completion depend? It depends
on whose hands the immediate rule passes into, whether into the
hands of the Petrunkeviches and Rodichevs, that is to say, the
Camphausens and the Hansemanns, or into the hands of the
people , i.e., the workers and the democratic bourgeoisie. In the first case the bourgeoisie will possess
power, and the proletariat “freedom of criticism.” freedom to
“remain the party of extreme revolutionary opposition.” Immediately after the victory, the
bourgeoisie will conclude an alliance with the reaction (this
would inevitably happen in Russia too, if, for example, the
St. Petersburg workers gained only a partial victory in street
fighting with the troops and left it to Messrs. Petrunkeviches
and Co. to form a government). In the second case, a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship, i.e., the complete
victory of the revolution, would be possible.

It now remains to define more precisely what Marx really meant
by “democratic bourgeoisie” ( demokratische Bürgerschaft ), which together with the workers he
called the people, in contradistinction to the big bourgeoisie.

A clear answer to this question is supplied by the following
passage from an article in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung of

July 30, 1848 :

“... The German revolution of 1848 is only a parody of the French revolution of 1789.

“On August 4, 1789, three weeks after the storming of the
Bastille, the French people in a single day prevailed over all
the feudal burdens.

“On July 11, 1848, four months after the March barricades, the
feudal burdens prevailed over the German people. Teste Gierke
cum

Hansemanno. [1] “The French bourgeoisie of 1789 did not for a moment leave its
allies, the peasants, in the lurch. It knew that the foundation
of its rule was the destruction of feudalism in the countryside,
the creation of a free landowning ( grundbesitzenden )
peasant class.

“The German bourgeoisie of 1848 is without the least compunction
betraying the peasants, who are its most natural allies, the
flesh of its flesh, and without whom it is powerless against the
nobility.

“The continuance of feudal rights, their sanction under the
guise of (illusory) redemption—such is the result of the
German revolution of 1848. The mountain brought forth a mouse.” [10]

This is a very instructive passage: it gives us four important
propositions:

1) The incompleted German
revolution differs from the completed French revolution in that
the German bourgeoisie betrayed not only democracy in general,
but also the peasantry in particular.

2) The foundation for the full consummation of a democratic
revolution is the creation of a free class of peasants.

3) The creation of such a class means the
abolition of feudal burdens, the destruction of feudalism, but
does not yet mean a socialist revolution.

4) The peasants are the “most natural” allies of the
bourgeoisie, that is to say, of the democratic bourgeoisie,
which without them is “powerless” against the reaction.

Making proper allowances for concrete national peculiarities and
substituting serfdom for feudalism, all these propositions can
be fully applied to Russia in 1905. There is no doubt that by
learning from the experience of Germany, as elucidated by Marx,
we cannot arrive at any other slogan for a decisive victory of
the revolution than: a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of
the proletariat and the peasantry. There is no doubt that the
chief components of the “people,” whom Marx in 1848 contrasted
with the resisting reactionaries and the treacherous bourgeoisie, are the proletariat and the peasantry. There is no
doubt that in Russia too the liberal bourgeoisie and the
gentlemen of the Osvobozhdeniye League are betraying and will
continue to betray the peasantry, i.e., will confine themselves
to a pseudo reform and taking the side of the landlords in the
decisive battle between them and the peasantry. Only the
proletariat is capable of supporting the peasantry to the end in
this struggle. There is no doubt, finally, that in Russia also
the success of the peasant struggle, i.e., the transfer of the
whole of the land to the peasantry, will signify a complete
democratic revolution and constitute the social support of the
revolution carried to its completion, but it will by no means be
a socialist revolution, or “socialisation” that the ideologists
of the petty bourgeoisie, the Socialist-Revolutionaries talk
about. The success of the peasant insurrection, the victory of
the democratic revolution will merely clear the way for a
genuine and decisive struggle for Socialism on the basis of a
democratic republic. In this struggle the peasantry as a
landowning class will play the same treacherous, vacillating
part as is now being played by the bourgeoisie in the struggle
for democracy. To forget this is to forget Socialism, to deceive
oneself and others as to the real interests and tasks of the
proletariat.

In order to leave no gaps in the presentation of the views held
by Marx in 1848, it is necessary to note one essential difference between German Social-Democracy of that time (or the
Communist Party of the Proletariat, to use the language of that
period) and present-day Russian Social Democracy. Here is what
Mehring says:

“The Neue Rheinische Zeitung appeared in the political arena as the ’organ of democracy.’ There is no mistaking the
thread that ran through all its articles. But in the direct
sense, it championed the interests of the bourgeois revolution against absolutism and feudalism more than the interests of the
proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Very little is to be found
in its columns about the separate working-class movement during
the years of the revolution, although one should not forget that
along with it there appeared twice a week, under the editorship
of Moll and Schapper, a special organ of the Cologne Workers’

League. [11] [ Zeitung des Arbeiter-Vereins zu Köln ]

At any rate, the present day reader will be struck by the little attention the
Neue Rheinische Zeitung paid to the German working-class movement of its day, although its most capable
mind, Stephan Born, was a pupil of Marx and Engels in Paris and
Brussels and in 1848 was the Berlin correspondent for their
newspaper. Born relates in his Memoirs that Marx and
Engels never expressed a single word in disapproval of his
agitation among the workers; nevertheless, it appears probable
from subsequent declarations of Engels’ that they were dissatisfied, at least with the methods of this agitation. Their
dissatisfaction was justified inasmuch as Born was obliged to
make many concessions to the as yet totally undeveloped class
consciousness of the proletariat in the greater part of Germany,
concessions which do not stand the test of criticism from the
viewpoint of the Communist Manifesto . Their dissatisfaction was unjustified inasmuch as Born managed
nonetheless to maintain the agitation conducted by him on a
relatively high plane. . . . Without doubt, Marx and Engels were
historically and politically right in thinking that the primary
interest of the working class was to push the bourgeois
revolution forward as far as possible. . . . Nevertheless, a
remarkable proof of how the elementary instinct of the working-class movement is able to correct the conceptions of the
greatest minds is provided by the fact that in April 1849 they
declared in favour of a specific workers’ organisation and
decided to participate in the workers’ congress, which was being
prepared especially by the East Elbe (Eastern Prussia)
proletariat.”

Thus, it was only in April 1849, after the revolutionary
newspaper had been appearing for almost a year (the Neue Rheinische Zeitung began publication on June 1, 1848) that
Marx and Engels declared in favour of a special workers’
organisation! Until then they were merely running an “organ of
democracy” unconnected by any organisational ties with an independent workers’ party. This fact, monstrous and improbable
as it may appear from our present-day standpoint, clearly shows
us what an enormous difference there is between the German
Social-Democratic Party of those days and the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party of today. This fact shows how
much less the proletarian features of the movement, the
proletarian current within it, were in evidence in the German
democratic revolution (because of the backwardness of Germany in
1848 both economically and politically—its disunity as a
state). This should not be forgotten in judging Marx’s repeated
declarations during this period and somewhat later about the
need for organising an independent proletarian party. Marx
arrived at this practical conclusion only as a result of the
experience of the democratic revolution, almost a year later—so philistine, so petty-bourgeois was the whole
atmosphere in Germany at that time. To us this conclusion is an
old and solid acquisition of half a century’s experience of
international Social-Democracy—an acquisition with which we
began to organise the Russian Social-Democratic Labour
Party. In our case there can be no question, for instance, of
revolutionary proletarian newspapers being outside the
Social-Democratic Party of the proletariat, or of their
appearing even for a moment simply as “organs of democracy.”

But the contrast which had hardly begun to reveal itself between
Marx and Stephan Born exists in our case in a form which is more
developed by reason of the more powerful manifestation of the
proletarian current in the democratic stream of our revolution. Speaking of the probable dissatisfaction of Marx and
Engels with the agitation conducted by Stephan Born, Mehring
expresses himself too mildly and too evasively. Here is what
Engels wrote of Born in 1885 (in his preface to the
Enthüllungen über den Kommunistenprocess zu Köln . Zürich, 1885 [2]

):

The members of the

Communist League [12] everywhere stood at the head of the extreme
democratic movement, proving thereby that the League was an
excellent school of revolutionary action.

“. . . the compositor
Stephan Born, who had worked in Brussels and Paris as an active
member of the League, founded a Workers’ Brotherhood” (“Arbeiterverbruderung”) “in Berlin which became fairly
widespread and existed until 1850. Born, a very talented young
man, who, however, was a bit too much in a hurry to become a big
political figure, ‘fraternised’ with the most miscellaneous
ragtag and bobtail” (Kreti und Plethi) “in order to get a crowd
together, and was not at all the man who could bring unity into
the conflicting tendencies, light into the chaos. Consequently,
in the official publications of the association the views
represented in the Communist Manifesto were mingled hodgepodge with guild recollections and guild aspirations,
fragments of Louis Blanc and Proudhon, protectionism, etc.; in
short, they wanted to please everybody [ allen alles sein ].” “ In particular, strikes, trade unions and producers’ co-operatives were set going and it was forgotten that above all it was a question of first conquering, by means of political victories, the field in which alone such
things could be realised on a lasting basis.” (Our italics.)
“When, afterwards. the victories of the reaction made the
leaders of the Brotherhood realise the necessity of taking a
direct part in the revolutionary struggle, they were naturally
left in the lurch by the confused mass which they had grouped
around themselves. Born took part in the Dresden uprising in
May, 1849 and had a lucky escape. But, in contrast to the great
political movement of the proletariat, the Workers’ Brotherhood
proved to be a pure Sonderbund [separate league], which
to a large extent existed only on paper and played such a
subordinate role that the reaction did not find it necessary to
suppress it until 1850, and its surviving branches until several
years later. Born, whose real name was

Buttermilch [3] has not become a big political figure but a petty Swiss
professor, who no longer translates Marx into guild language but
the meek Renan into his own fulsome

German.” [13]

That is how Engels judged the two tactics of Social Democracy in
the democratic revolution!

Our new-Iskraists are also pushing towards “Economism,” and with
such unreasonable zeal as to earn the praises of the monarchist
bourgeoisie for their “seeing the light.” They too collect
around themselves a motley crowd, flattering the “Economists,”
demagogically attracting the undeveloped masses by the slogans
of “initiative,” “democracy,” “autonomy,” etc., etc. Their labour unions, too, exist only on the pages of the

Khlestakov -type [14] new Iskra . Their slogans and resolutions betray a
similar failure to understand the tasks of the “great political
movement of the proletariat.”

---
Notes:
[1]
“Witnesses: Herr Gierke and Herr Hansemann.” Hansemann was a minister
who represented the party of the big bourgeoisie (Russian
counterpart: Trubetskoy or Rodichev, and the like); Gierke was
Minister of Agriculture in the Hansemann Cabinet, who drew up a
plan, a “bold” plan for “abolishing feudal burdens,” professedly
“without compensation,” but in fact for abolishing only the minor
and unimportant burdens while preserving or granting compensation
for the more essential ones. Herr Gierke was something like the
Russian Messrs. Kablukov, Manuilov. Hertzenstein and similar
bourgeois liberal friends of the muzhik who desire the “extension
of peasant landownership” but do not wish to offend the landlords.
— Lenin

[2] Revelations About the Cologne Communist Trial, Zürich, 1885.–Ed.
— Lenin

[3]
In translating Engels I made a mistake in the first edition by taking
the word Buttermilch to be not a proper noun but a common
noun. This mistake naturally afforded great delight to the
Mensheviks. Koltsov wrote that I had “rendered Engels more
profound” (reprinted in Two Years , a collection of articles) and Plekhanov even now recalls this mistake in the
Tovarishch [15] —in short, it afforded an excellent pretext to slur over the question of the two tendencies in the working-class movement of 1848 in
Germany, the Born tendency (akin to our Economists) and the Marxist
tendency. To take advantage of the mistake of an opponent, even if it
was only on the question of Born’s name, is more than natural. But to
use a correction to a translation to slur over the question of the
two tactics is to dodge the real issue. [Author’s note to the 1907 edition.—Ed.)] — Lenin

| | Comrade Martynov Again Renders the Question
“More Profound” | | | | |