V. I.

Lenin

Notes on Sotsial-Demokrat , No. 1 [3]

The article “Guerrilla Actions” in Sotsial-Demokrat , No. I
( publication of the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.), which has
just reached us, is the best possible confirmation of what we said in
Proletary , No. 5, [4] about the stereotyped and non-historical
character of the current philistine arguments on this subject. [1]

The author fulminates against banditry, anarchism, Blanquism,
Tkachevism, [5] highway robbery (“road robbers”, as the bad translation from the German reads) in exactly the same way as the
liberals. The liberals are true to themselves when they repudiate as
“anarchy” all armed struggle against the government. A
Social-Democrat who, in words, does not reject such struggle, but who in fact
does not examine the question from this point of view , has virtually
gone over to the standpoint of liberalism. The following is a characteristic
example. “Insofar as the revolutionary parties countenance anarchy, they
turn the embitterment of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois classes against
themselves and so play into the hands of reaction.” Thus, either countenance
anarchic armed struggle or repudiate armed struggle altogether! There
is no other way, according to the writer. He does not admit the possibility of organised, planned, ideological, politically educative
armed struggle. What a poor choice lie is faced with!

“Experience has already put an end to one of the forms of revolutionary
guerrilla action, viz., the expropriation of private and government property.”
But this is a sheer falsehood, comrade! It is impossible that you should be
unaware of Menshevik organisations which after the Unity

Congress have participated, directly or indirectly, in government
expropriations, in “ utilising ” plunder , etc. It is a
very bad thing when a Social-Democrat’s words do not accord with his
deeds. It leads to hypocrisy. It is due either to a bad conscience (an
explanation that we reject) or to an ill-considered, illogical theory.

Comrade Axelrod makes an angry reply in Sotsial-Demokrat to our note
in Proletary , No.

1. [2]

One and a half columns of small print are devoted to expressions of bewilderment, exclamations, assurances and reproaches
addressed to us be cause we described his agitation for a labour congress as
“concealed” from the Party. Axelrod is quite unable to understand
what this means. And at the same time, he says him self: “In the near
future I shall utilise it (the opportunity that I have) to bring the
question of a labour congress into the arena of political discussion” (our italics). Well, that should have been done long ago!
You should have begun by “bringing the question into the arena of
political discussion”, and not into that of circle whispering. Then your agitation would have been correct from a party point of
view, frank and worthy of the revolutionary class. Then the bourgeois press
would not have been able to cause confusion among Social-Democrats and lower
their prestige by publishing sensational reports of this circle whispering and
giving rise to thousands of misconceptions. It is highly regrettable that even
now, in his belated and extremely prolix “letter to the editors”,
Axelrod evades the essence of the question, saying not a word
about what congress he is proposing, and when, on what basis, who is to convene
it and what precisely is its purpose. Axelrod passes over all this with phrases
like the following: the work of preparing for the congress will have an
invigorating effect on Social-Democracy “to the extent that this work is
imbued with really Social-Democratic content, i. e., to the extent that circle
interests and factional considerations are replaced by socio-political problems
and tasks that are most immediately connected with the vital interests of the
working class”.

For pity’s sake, comrade! This is indeed sheer emptiness clothed in
high-sounding words. The preparation for the congress will invigorate
Social-Democracy to the extent that it will be really Social-Democratic!
How new and how wise! “Factional considerations” must be
replaced by socio political problems and tasks,—but it is just
different conceptions of these problems and tasks that have divided the
Party into factions! It is a real cock-and-bull story.

And at Axelrod’s side Plekhanov utters gross and banal insinuations about the
motives of the struggle for a Party congress and equally gross eulogies of
Axelrod’s “happy idea” of convening a labour congress “ as soon as possible ”. Yes, yes... What indeed could be a
happier idea than that real Social-Democratic work will invigorate
Social-Democracy?

In an editorial article of Sotsial-Demokrat we read:

“Now, as after the Second Congress, the two groups (Bolsheviks and
Mensheviks) are probably of equal strength numerically”, and a little
lower down we read for the second time:

“Now, as after the Second Congress, the two groups are equally influential
in the Party.” The writer’s idea is clear. In an editorial of the official
“publication of the Central Committee”, it acquires considerable
significance. The party of the working class ought to know precisely what its
“groups” consist of and how strong they are. What is the basis of
the opinion about their equality?

There are only two alternatives: either the writer has in mind only the Russian
section of the Party (plus the Caucasus) or he adds the Poles, Letts and the
Bund. On the first interpretation, the writer is admitting a vast increase in
the strength of the “Majority” at the expense of the “Minority” since the Fourth (Unity) Congress, for at this Congress
there were represented about 13,000 Bolsheviks and 18,000 Mensheviks. But this
interpretation is improbable for it is already more than a month since all the
national Social-Democratic parties were amalgamated with the R.S.D.L.P. Hence
it is necessary to adopt the second interpretation. In that case it becomes
obvious that the writer allocates the Poles and Letts to the Bolsheviks and the
Bund to the Mensheviks . According to the data of the last congresses
of the

national Social-Democratic parties, the Poles and Letts number about 40,000 and
the Bund has a membership of about 33,000; thus we actually obtain approximately
equal numbers for each group.

The question arises, however, whether it is correct to allocate the Bund to the
Mensheviks. Of course, if the Central Committee says so, we must believe
it. But it is essential to be clear about the significance of such an
alignment. In the sphere of tactics, it is not confirmed by the latest
resolutions of the Bund taken in their entirety. Consequently, the explanation must
be sought in the organisational position of the Bund. It is evident
that the Central Committee’s publication considers as a real fact the
circumstance that the Bund is not demanding an extraordinary congress. Who ever
really wants to change the Party’s policy as a whole, i.e., the policy of the
Central Committee, is bound to demand a congress; anyone who does not demand
this does not seriously want a change—such is the essence of this line of
thought.

This reasoning is irrefutable and we regard it as our duty to assist all the
organisations of our Party to obtain a clear idea of it and correctly appraise
it. As a matter of fact, in a democratic organisation neutrality is almost
impossible and abstention is often equivalent to action. The result of this
“action” is clearly evident. The Central Committee’s publication
propagates the most confused ideas about a “labour congress” and
definitely and consistently adopts a Menshevik position in regard to
tactics. The con sequences that this threatens for the whole Party in the event
of an election campaign or new calls for action have been sufficiently
demonstrated by the “slogans” of the Central Committee during the
Duma session and after its dissolution. By its present “abstention”, the Bund has actually made itself an accessory to the
Menshevik tactics and policy of the Central Committee.