V. I.

Lenin

Preface to the Russian Translation of K. Kautsky’s Pamphlet: The Driving Forces and Prospects of the Russian Revolution

Theprogressive workers of Russia have long known K. Kautsky as their
writer, who is not only able to substantiate and expound the theoretical teaching
of revolutionary Marxism, but also to apply it intelligently, with a thorough
analysis of the facts, to the complex mid knotty problems of the Russian
revolution. And now, when the attention of the Social-Democrats is sometimes
almost entirely taken up with the pointless prattle of the liberal
Petrushkas [1] and of their conscious and unconscious echoers, when for many people petty
“parliamentary” technicalities overshadow the fundamental questions
of the proletarian class struggle, and when despondency often gets the better
even of decent people and impairs their intellectual and political
faculties—now it is trebly important for all Social-Democrats in Russia to
pay close attention to Kautsky’s opinion on the fundamental problems of the
Russian revolution. And not so much to heed Kautsky’s opinion as to reflect on
the way he presents the question—for Kautsky is not so light-minded as to
hold forth on specific questions of Russian tactics with which he is but
slightly familiar; and not so ignorant of Russian affairs as to dismiss them
with commonplace remarks or uncritical repetition of the latest fashionable
pronouncements.

Kautskyanswers the questions which Plekhanov addressed to a number of foreign
socialists. And in answering these questions—or rather, in selecting from
these badly formulated questions the points that can be usefully
discussed among socialists in all countries—Kautsky begins with a modest
reservation. “In regard to the Russian comrades, on matters that
concern Russia, I feel that I am in the position of a pupil .” This is
not the mock modesty of a Social-Democratic “general” who begins with the mincing manners of a petty
bourgeois and ends with the haughtiness of a Bourbon. Not at all. Kautsky,
in fact , confined himself to answering only those questions by
analysing which he could help thinking Social-Democrats in Russia to
work out for themselves the problems connected with the concrete tasks and
slogans of the day. Kautsky refused to be a general who issues commands:
“Right turn!” or “Left turn!” He preferred to adopt the position of
a comrade standing at a distance, but a thoughtful comrade, indicating where we
ourselves should seek for a solution of our problems.

Plekhanovasked Kautsky:

1) What is the “general character” of the
Russian revolution: bourgeois or socialist?

2) What should be the attitude of the Social-Democrats to wards the bourgeois
democrats?

3) Whether the Social-Democratic Party should support the
opposition parties in the Duma elections.

Atfirst sight these questions would seem to have been chosen with great
“finesse”, but as the saying goes: “If a thing is too fine, it
breaks.” In fact, any more or less competent and observant person will at once
see the fine ... subterfuge in these questions. A subterfuge,
firstly, because they are fine specimens of the metaphysics against which
Plekhanov is fond of declaiming so pompously, although he is unable to keep it
out of his own arguments on concrete historical questions. Secondly, because the person
questioned is art fully driven into a small and exceedingly narrow
enclosure. Only those who are entirely, one may even say virginally, innocent in
questions of politics can fail to notice that Plekhanov deliberately starts out
remote from the subject and gently but firmly pushes the person he is
questioning into the position of justifying ... blocs with the Cadets!

Todrive a simple-minded interlocutor into justifying blocs with a certain
party, without naming that party; to talk of a revolutionary movement and not
distinguish the revolutionary from the oppositional bourgeois democracy; to hint
that the bourgeoisie is “fighting” in its own way , i.e.,
different from the proletariat’s way, and not say plainly and clearly what the
difference really is; to try to catch the interlocutor like a young jackdaw with
the bait of the Amsterdam Resolution so as to conceal from the
foreigner the real points at issue among the Russian Social-Democrats; to deduce concrete
rules concerning definite tactics in a definite case, in regard to the
attitude to be adopted towards the various parties of the bourgeois
democrats, from a general phrase about the “general character” of the revolution, instead of deducing this “general
character of the Russian revolution” from a precise analysis of the
concrete data on the interests and position of the different classes in the
Russian revolution—is not all this a subterfuge? Is it not open
mockery of Marx’s dialectical materialism?

Either“yea, yea—nay, nay, and whatsoever is more than these comes
from the evil one.” Either a bourgeois revolution or a socialist revolution; the
rest can be “deduced” from the main “solution” by means
of simple syllogisms.

Itis Kautsky’s great merit that in answering such questions he at once grasps
the point and goes to the root of the mistake contained in the very way they
were formulated. Kautsky virtually answers Plekhanov’s questions by rejecting Plekhanov’s formulation of them! Kautsky answers Plekhanov by
correcting Plekhanov’s formulation of the question. And the more
gently and carefully he corrects the initiator of the questionnaire the more
deadly is his criticism of his formulation of the question. Kautsky writes:
“We should do well to realise that we are moving towards totally new
situations and problems, for which none of the old patterns are suitable.”

Thisexactly hits the mark in relation to Plekhanov’s question: Is our
revolution bourgeois or socialist in its general character? This is the old
pattern, says Kautsky. The question cannot be put in that way, it is not the
Marxist way. The revolution in Russia is not a bourgeois revolution, for the
bourgeoisie is not one of the driving forces of the present revolutionary
movement in Russia. And the revolution in Russia is not a socialist revolution,
for it cannot possibly result in the sole rule or dictatorship
of the proletariat. The Social-Democrats can achieve victory in the Russian
revolution and must strive to do so. But victory in the present
revolution cannot be the victory of the proletariat alone, without the aid of
other classes. Which class then, owing to the objective conditions of the
present revolution, is the ally of the proletariat? The peasantry :
“stable, common interests during the whole period of the revolutionary struggle exists only
between the proletariat and the peasantry.”

Thesepropositions of Kautsky’s are a brilliant confirmation of the tactics of
the revolutionary wing of the Russian Social-Democratic Party, i.e., the tactics
of the Bolsheviks. And this confirmation is the more valuable because Kautsky,
putting aside the concrete and practical questions, concentrated all his
attention on a systematic exposition of the general principles of
socialist tactics in our revolution. He shows that Plekhanov’s threadbare method
of argument:

“the revolution is a bourgeois revolution, therefore we must support the
bourgeoisie”, has nothing in common with Marxism. He thus recognises the
main error of our Social-Democratic opportunism, i.e., Menshevism, which the
Bolsheviks have been combating ever since the beginning of 1905.

Further, Kautsky’s analysis, which proceeds not from general phrases but from an
analysis of the position and interests of definite classes, confirms the
conclusion which the yes-men of the Cadets in our ranks considered
“tactless”, namely: that the bourgeoisie in Russia fears revolution
more than reaction; that it hates absolutism because it engenders revolution;
that it wants political freedom in order to stop the revolution. Compare this
with the naive faith in the Cadets professed by our Plekhanov, who, in his
questions, has imperceptibly identified the struggle of the opposition against
the old order with the struggle against the government’s attempts to crush the
revolutionary movement! Unlike the Mensheviks with their stereotyped views,
Kautsky reveals the revolutionary and non-revolutionary elements of
“bourgeois democracy”, reveals the bankruptcy of liberalism, and
shows that as the peasants become more independent and more politically conscious, the
liberals will inevitably and rapidly turn to the right. A bourgeois revolution,
brought about by the proletariat and the peasantry in spite of the instability
of the bourgeoisie—this fundamental principle of Bolshevik tactics is
wholly confirmed by Kautsky.

Kautskyshows that in the course of the revolution it is quite possible that
victory will fall to the lot of the Social-Democratic Party, and that that
Party must inspire its adherents with confidence in victory. Kautsky’s
conclusions completely confound the Menshevik fear of a Social-Democratic victory in the present revolution. Plekhanov’s ridiculous efforts to
“fit” the tasks of our revolution “into the Amsterdam
Resolution” seem particularly comical when compared with Kautsky’s
cleat and lucid proposition: “It is impossible to fight successfully
if one renounces victory beforehand.”

Thefundamental difference between Kautsky’s methods and those of
Plekhanov, the leader of our present opportunists, is even more striking when
the former states: to imagine that “all the classes and parties which are
striving for political freedom have simply to work together in order to achieve
it," means “ seeing only the political surface of events”.
This sounds as though Kautsky were directly referring to that small band of
Social-Democrats who have deserted to the liberals: Portugalov, Prokopovich,
Kuskova, Bogucharsky, Izgoyev, Struve and others, who are committing the very
error Kautsky points to (and are dragging Plekhanov with them in the
process). The fact that Kautsky is unacquainted with the writings of these
gentry only enhances the significance of his theoretical conclusion.

Needlessto say, Kautsky fully agrees with the fundamental thesis of
all Russian Social-Democrats, that the peasant movement is
non-socialist ; that socialism cannot arise from small peasant
production, etc. It would be very edifying for the Socialist-Revolutionaries,
who are fond of asserting that they “also agree with Marx”, to
ponder over these words of Kautsky’s.

Inconclusion just a few words about “authorities”. Marxists cannot
adopt the usual standpoint of the intellectual radical, with his
pseudo-revolutionary abstraction: “no authorities”.

No. The working class, which all over the world is waging a hard and persistent
struggle for complete emancipation, needs authorities, but, of course, only in
the way that young workers need the experience of veteran fighters
against oppression and exploitation, of those who have organised many strikes,
have taken part in a number of revolutions, who are wise in revolutionary
traditions, and have a broad political outlook. The proletarians of every
country need the authority of the world-wide struggle of the proletariat. We
need the authority of the theoreticians of international Social-Democracy to enable us properly to understand the programme and tactics of our
Party. But, of course, this authority has nothing in common with the official
authorities in bourgeois science and police politics. It is the authority of
the experience gained in the more diversified struggle waged in the ranks of the
same world socialist army. And important though this authority is in widening
the horizon of the fighters, it would be impermissible in the workers’ party to
claim that the practical and concrete questions of its immediate policy can be
solved by those standing a long way off. The collective spirit of the
progressive class-conscious workers immediately engaged in the struggle in each
country will always remain the highest authority on all such questions.

Suchis our view on the authoritativeness of the opinions held by Kautsky and by
Plekhanov. The theoretical works of the latter—mainly his criticism of the
Narodniks and the opportunists—remain a lasting asset for Social-Democracy
all over Russia, and no “factionalism” will blind any man who
possesses the least bit of “physical brain power” to such an extent
as to make him forget or deny the importance of this asset. But as a political
leader of the Russian Social-Democrats in the Russian bourgeois revolution, as
a tactician, Plekhanov has proved to be beneath criticism. In this sphere he
has displayed an opportunism a hundred times more harmful to the Russian
Social-Democratic workers than Bernstein’s opportunism is to the German
workers. And this Cadet-like policy advocated by Plekhanov, who has returned to
the fold of Prokopovich & Co. whom he, in 1899-1900, expelled from the
Social-Democratic Party, we must most ruthlessly combat.

Thatthis tactical opportunism of Plekhanov’s is an utter negation of the
fundamentals of the Marxist method is best shown by Kautsky’s line of argument traced in the essay here presented to the reader.

---
Notes:
[1]
Petrushka —a character in Gogol’s Dead Souls , a serf valet who read books by spelling out each word without
delving into their meaning. He was solely interested in the mechanical process
of reading.