V. I.

Lenin

Organisation of the Masses and Choice of the Moment for Struggle [2]

In this issue we publish an article by Comrade Khrustalev on the question of
whether it is now opportune to form Soviets of Workers’ Deputies. Needless to
say, the author’s name is a guarantee of his intimate knowledge of the
subject. All St. Petersburg workers are aware of this. They are also aware that at
this particular moment the proletariat in the capital is very keenly interested
in the question whether a Soviet of Workers’ Deputies should be formed.

Under these circumstances, Comrade Khrustalev’s polemic against the decision of
the St. Petersburg Committee of our Party assumes immense importance.

We cannot agree with Comrade Khrustalev. He is quite wrong in defending the idea
of Soviets of Workers’ Deputies in general, and their historical role at the end
of 1905, against the St. Petersburg Committee, as it were. He is wrong in
refusing to place December to the Soviet’s account. We would do so without
hesitation; but we, of course, would place it on the “asset” and not
on the “liability” side. In our opinion, the greatest merit of the
Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, and the one that is still far from being fully
appreciated, is the militant role they played.

But the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies was a special type of fighting
organisation; and platitudes about the utility of organisation will not help in
the least to throw light on the question of the utility of forming this
special type of organisation at the present moment.

“The
Soviet was the revolutionary parliament of the revolutionary proletariat,”
writes Comrade Khrustalev. Quite right. It is this role, which is by no means
confined to the technique of fighting, that is characteristic of the Soviet. Its functions as the organiser of trade
unions, as the initiator of inquiries, as a Conciliation Board, and so forth,
were quite subsidiary and secondary. One can easily conceive of these functions
being fulfilled without a Soviet. But one can hardly conceive of a general
strike without a mass, non-party, strike committee. The Soviet was called into
being by the requirements of the direct mass struggle, and as an organ
of that struggle. That is a fact. It is this fact alone that explains the
special type of role and the actual significance of the Soviet. And it
is to this fact that the word “militant” in the resolution of the
St. Petersburg Committee refers.

No one would dream of setting up a Soviet of Workers’ Deputies to institute
inquiries, to form trade unions, and so forth. Forming Soviets means forming organs of the direct mass struggle of the proletariat . These
cannot-be formed at any time; whereas trade unions and political parties are
always and absolutely necessary. They can and should be formed under
all circumstances. It is a profound mistake, therefore, to answer the
St. Petersburg Committee by referring to the importance of organisation in
general. For the same reason it is also a mistake to refer to the fact that all
Social-Democrats support the idea of forming peasant land committees. These
committees are being proposed in connection with the country-wide
discussion of the agrarian reform, in connection with the agrarian
movement that is already growing.

But these committees also may lead to “premature” action!—says Comrade Khrustalev ironically. The whole point, however, is
that at the present time there is an important difference between peasant
actions and workers’ actions. A broad peasant action cannot be
“premature” at the present time; but a broad workers’ action may be
very much so. The reason for this is clear. In political development the
working class is ahead of the peasantry; and the peasantry has not yet caught up with the working class in preparedness for nation-wide
revolutionary action. It has been catching up with the working class since
December, and to a large extent as a result of December (no matter what timid
pedants may say who are prone to underestimate the importance of December, or
even to repudiate

December), It will catch up with the working class still faster with the aid of
local land committees. It is certainly useful to urge on the rearguard that
did not succeed in coming to the assistance of the vanguard in the previous
battle; and there is nothing risky in that. But it is very risky to urge on
the vanguard which did not get the assistance of the rearguard in the
previous battle; and we must think very carefully before doing so.

Now it is this peculiar political situation that, in our opinion, Comrade
Khrustalev has not taken into account. He is a thousand times right in his
appraisal of the merits and importance of Soviets in general. But he is wrong in
his estimate of the present situation and of the relation between peasant
actions and workers’ actions. He has apparently forgotten another proposal made
by the St. Petersburg Committee in another resolution, viz., to support the idea
of forming an Executive Committee representing the Left groups in the Duma for
the purpose of co-ordinating the activities of the free organisations of the people. [1]

Such a committee could determine more accurately the degree of
readiness and determination of the peasantry as a whole, and consequently put
the question of forming Soviets of Workers’ Deputies on a practical basis. In
other words: the St. Petersburg Committee is now aiming at something more: not
only to form militant organisations of the proletariat, but also to
co-ordinate them with the militant organisations of the peasantry,
etc. The St. Petersburg Committee is postponing the formation of
Soviets of Workers’ Deputies at the present time, not because it fails to
appreciate their enormous importance, but because it is making allowance for
another, new condition for success that is now coming very much to the
fore, namely, joint action of the revolutionary peasants and workers. Thus, the
St. Petersburg Committee is not committing itself, and is not determining the
tactics of the future beforehand. The St. Petersburg Committee is at this moment advising the vanguard: Do not go into battle, but first of all send
a delegation to the rearguard; tomorrow the rearguard will have drawn up
closer, and the assault on the enemy will be more vigorous; tomorrow we shall be in a position to
issue a more timely slogan for action.

To conclude. Speaking generally, Comrade Khrustalev has advanced very convincing
arguments in favour of forming Soviets. He has appraised their general
importance excellently. His main purpose was to combat those who be little the
role of the Soviets, and the importance of revolutionary actions in general. In
this Comrade Khrustalev was quite right. There are not a few
“belittlers” of this sort, and they are not only to be found among
the Cadets. But Comrade Khrustalev, lacking permanent and close contacts with
the proletariat—owing to the efforts of the hangmen and
pogrom-mongers—has not fully appreciated the present situation
and the present “disposition” of the revolutionary forces. Today , the vanguard must concentrate attention not on immediate
action, but on consolidating and extending the closest contacts with the
rearguard and with all the other units.

---
Notes:
[1]
See present edition, Vol. 10, p. 515— Ed .

[2]
In June 1906 the Socialist-Revolutionaries began a campaign for reviving the
St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers’ Deputies. The Mensheviks supported this idea,
the Bolsheviks opposed it. On June 21 (July 4), 1906, the St. Petersburg
Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. adopted a resolution which, after pointing out the
militant significance of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, noted that its
re-establishment was untimely and exposed the provocative nature of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries’ agitation. This resolution (published in
Ekho , No. 5, July 27, 1906) was widely discussed at meetings and was
approved by the overwhelming majority of the workers. The Menshevik G. S. Khrustalev-Nosar, who bad been president
of the St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers’ Deputies in October-November 1905,
opposed the resolution of the St. Petersburg Committee and defended the S.-R.’s
campaign.