V. I.

Lenin

“Wemust choose”—this is the argument the opportunists have always
used to justify themselves, and they are using it now. Big things cannot be
achieved at one stroke. We must fight for small but achievable things. How do we
know whether they are achievable? They are achievable if the majority of the
political parties, or of the most “influential” politicians, agree
with them. The larger the number of politicians who agree with some tiny
improvement, the easier it is to achieve it. We must not be utopians and strive
after big things. We must be practical politicians; we must join in the demand
for small things, and these small things will facilitate the fight for
the big ones. We regard the small things as the surest stage in the
struggle for big things.

Thatis how all the opportunists, all the reformists, argue; unlike the
revolutionaries. That is how the Right-wing Social-Democrats argue about a Duma
Cabinet. The demand for a constituent assembly is a big demand. It can not be
achieved immediately. By no means everyone is consciously in favour of this demand. [1]

But the whole State Duma, that is to say, the vast majority of
politicians—that is to say “the whole people”—is in favour of a Duma Cabinet. We must choose—between the existing
evil and a very small rectification of it, because the largest number
of those who are in general dissatisfied with the existing evil are in favour
of this “very small” rectification. And by achieving the small
thing, we shall facilitate our struggle for the big one.

Werepeat: this is the fundamental, the typical argument of all opportunists
all over the world. To what conclusion does this argument inevitably lead? To the conclusion that we need no
revolutionary programme, no revolutionary party, and no revolutionary
tactics. What we need are reforms , nothing more. We do not need a
revolutionary Social-Democratic Party. What we need is a party of
democratic and socialist reforms. Indeed, is it not clear that there will
always be people who admit that the existing state of affairs is
unsatisfactory? Of course, always. Is it not also clear that the
largest number of discontented people will always be in
favour of the smallest rectification of this unsatisfactory
situation? Of course, always. Consequently, it is our duty, the duty of
advanced and “class-conscious” people, always to support the smallest demands for the rectification of an
evil. This is the surest and most practical policy to pursue; and all talk
about “fundamental” demands, and so forth, is merely the talk of
“utopians”, merely “revolutionary phrase-mongering”. We must choose —and we must always
choose between the existing evil and the most moderate of the schemes in
vogue for its rectification.

Thatis exactly how the German opportunist Social-Democrats argued. They said,
in effect! There is a social-liberal trend which demands the repeal of the
anti-socialist laws, a reduction of the working day, insurance against illness,
and so on. A fairly large section of the bourgeoisie supports these demands. Do
not repel it by tactless conduct, offer it a friendly hand, support it, and then
you will be practical politicians, you will achieve small, but real benefits for
the working class, and the only thing that will suffer from your tactics will be
the empty words about “revolution”. You cannot make a revolution
now, in any case. One must choose between reaction and reform, between
the Bismarck policy and the “social empire” policy.

The French ministerial socialists argued exactly like the
Bernsteinians. [2]

They said in effect: We must choose between reaction and the bourgeois
radicals, who promise a number of practical reforms. We must support these
radicals, support their Cabinets; phrases about social revolution are merely
the chatter of “Blanquists”, “anarchists”, “utopians”, and so forth.

Whatis the main flaw in all these opportunist arguments? It is that in fact they substitute the bourgeois theory of “united”, “social” progress for the socialist theory
of the class struggle as the only real driving force of history.
According to the theory of socialism, i.e., of Marxism (non Marxist socialism is
not worth serious discussion nowadays), the real driving force of history is the
revolutionary class struggle; reforms are a subsidiary product of this struggle,
subsidiary because they express unsuccessful attempts to weaken, to blunt this
struggle, etc. According to the theory of bourgeois philosophers, the driving
force of progress is the unity of all elements in society who realise the
“imperfections” of certain of its institutions. The first theory is
materialist; the second is idealist. The first is revolutionary; the second is
reformist. The first serves as the basis for the tactics of the proletariat in
modern capitalist countries. The second serves as the basis of the tactics of
the bourgeoisie.

Alogical deduction from the second theory is the tactics of ordinary bourgeois
progressives: always and everywhere support “what is better”; choose
between reaction and the extreme Right of the forces that are opposed to
reaction. A logical deduction from the first theory is that the advanced class
must pursue independent revolutionary tactics. We shall never reduce our tasks
to that of supporting the slogans of the reformist bourgeoisie that are most in
vogue. We pursue an independent policy and put forward only such
reforms as are undoubtedly favourable to the interests of the
revolutionary struggle, that undoubtedly enhance the independence,
class-consciousness and fighting efficiency of the proletariat. Only by such
tactics can reforms from above, which are always half-hearted, always
hypocritical, and always conceal some bourgeois or police snare, be made
innocuous .

Morethan that. Only by such tactics can real progress be achieved in the matter
of important reforms. This may sound paradoxical, but its truth is confirmed by
the whole history of the international Social-Democratic movement. Reformist
tactics are the least likely to secure real reforms. The most effective
way to secure real reforms is to pursue the tactics of the revolutionary class
struggle. Actually , reforms are won as a result of the revolutionary
class struggle, as a result of its independence, mass force and steadfastness.

Reforms are always false, ambiguous and permeated with the spirit
of Zubatovism; [3] they are real only in pro portion to the
intensity of the class struggle. By merging our slogans with those of the
reformist bourgeoisie we weak en the cause of revolution and, consequently, the cause of reform as well , because we thereby
diminish the independence, fortitude and strength of the revolutionary
classes.

Somereaders may ask: Why repeat these elementary principles of international
revolutionary Social-Democracy? Our answer is: Because Golos Truda and
many Menshevik comrades tend to forget them.

ADuma, or Cadet, Cabinet is just such a false, ambiguous and Zubatov
reform. To forget the real significance of such a reform, as an attempt on the
part of the Cadets to strike a bargain with the autocracy, means substituting
the liberal-bourgeois philosophy of progress for Marxism. By supporting
such a reform, by including it among our slogans, we dim the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat and
weaken its independence and fighting capacity. By up holding our old
revolutionary slogans in their entirety , we strengthen the
actual struggle, and thereby increase the probability of reforms and the
possibility of turning them to the advantage of the revolution, and not
of reaction. All that is false and hypocritical in these reforms we leave to the
Cadets; all that is of positive value in them we utilise
ourselves. Only by such tactics shall we be able to take advantage of the
attempts of the Trepovs and Nabokovs to trip each other up so as to throw both
these worthy acrobats into the pit. Only if we pursue such tactics will history
say about us what Bismarck said about the German Social-Democrats:

“If there were no Social-Democrats there would have been no social
reform.” Had there not been a revolutionary proletariat there would
have been no October 17. Had there been no December, [4] attempts to prevent the
convocation of the Duma would not have been defeated. We shall have another
December, which will determine the future progress of the revolution....

Postscript. This article had already been written when we read the
leading article in Golos Truda , No. 6. Our comrades are mending their
ways. They now propose that be fore accepting their portfolios, the
Duma Cabinet should demand and secure the abolition of martial law in all parts of the country, the
abolition of secret police, a general amnesty, and the restoration of all
liberties. Very good, comrades. Ask the Central Committee to insert these terms
in its resolution on the Duma Cabinet. In fact, do it yourselves, and then it
will read: before supporting a Duma, or Cadet, Cabinet, we must demand
and secure that the Duma, or Cadets, take the path of revolution. Before supporting the Cadets we must demand and secure that
the Cadets cease to be Cadets.

---
Notes:
[1]
Only the minority in the Duma supports this demand.— Lenin

[2]
Bernsteinians — representatives of an anti-Marxist, opportunist trend in international Social-Democracy. The trend
arose at the close of the nineteenth century in Germany and was named after
Eduard Bernstein, the most open exponent of revisionism.

[3]
Zubatovism — the policy of “police socialism” named after Zubatov, colonel of gendarmerie and chief of the
Moscow Secret Police. In 1901-03 on his initiative legal workers’ organisations wer set up intended to divert the workers from the political struggle against
the autocracy. Zubatov’s activity had the support of B. K. Plehve, Minister of
the Interior. The Zubatovists attempted to direct the working-class movement
towards the achievement of purely economic aims and make the workers believe
that the government was ready to satisfy their demands. The first Zubatov
organisation was set up in Moscow in May 1901 under the title “Society for
Mutual Aid of Workers in the Engineering Industry”. Others were
established in Minsk, Odessa, Wilno, Kiev and other towns.

Thereactionary character of Zubatovism was unmasked by the revolutionary
Social-Democrats, who made use of legal workers’ organisations to draw wide
sections of the working class into the struggle against the autocracy. Owing to
the rise of the revolutionary movement in 1903 the tsarist government was
compelled to put an end to the Zubatov organisations.

[4]
For further details see pp. 171-78 of this volume.