The Crisis of Menshevism
V.I. Lenin

Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/crimensh/index.htm

V. I. Lenin

## The Crisis of Menshevism

The advocacy of a non-party labour congress and blocs with the Cadets is
undoubtedly a sign of something in the nature of a crisis in the tactics of the
Mensheviks. Being opposed on principle to all their tactics in general, we, of
course, could not ourselves decide whether this crisis had ripened sufficiently
to break out on the surface, so to speak. Comrade Y. Larin has come to our
assistance in his latest and most instructive pamphlet: A Broad Labour Party
and a Labour Congress (Moscow, 1906, book depot of Novy
Mir Publishers).

Comrade Y. Larin often speaks in the name of the majority of the Mensheviks. He
styles himself—and with full right—a responsible representative of
Menshevism. He has worked both in the South and in the most
“Menshevik” district of St. Petersburg, Vyborg District. He was a
delegate to the Unity Congress. He was a regular contributor to Golos
Truda and Otkliki Sovremennosti . All these facts are extremely
important in forming an opinion of the pamphlet, the value of which lies in the
author’s veracity, but not in his logic; in the information he supplies, but not
in his arguments.

### I

A Marxist must base his arguments on tactics on an analysis of the objective
course of the revolution. The Bolsheviks, as we know, made an attempt to do so
in the resolution on the present situation which they submitted to the
Unity Congress. [1] The Mensheviks withdrew their own resolution on this subject. Comrade
Larin evidently feels that such questions must not be shelved and he makes an attempt to trace the course of
our bourgeois revolution.

He divides it into two periods. The first, covering the whole of 1905, is the
period of the open mass movement. The second, starting with 1906, is the period
of agonisingly slow preparation for the “actual triumph of the cause of
liberty”, “the realisation of the aspirations of the people”. In this period of preparation the countryside is the decisive
factor; because its aid was not forthcoming the “disunited cities were
crushed”. We are experiencing “an internal, outwardly passive-seeming, growth of the revolution”.

“What is called the agrarian movement—the constant ferment which does
not develop into widespread attempts at an active offensive, the minor struggles
with the local authorities and landlords, the suspension of tax payments,
punitive expeditions—all this constitutes the course most advantageous to
the peasantry, not from the point of view of economising forces, perhaps, which
is doubtful, but from the point of view of results. Without completely
exhausting the rural population, bringing it, on the whole, more alleviation
than defeats, it is seriously sapping the foundations of the old regime and
creating conditions that must inevitably compel it to capitulate, or fall, at
the first serious test, when the time comes.” And the author points out that in
two or three years’ time there will be a change in the personnel of the police
force and the army, which will be replenished with recruits from the
discontented rural population; “our sons will be among the
soldiers”, as a peasant told the author.

Comrade Larin draws two conclusions.

(1) In our country “unrest in the countryside cannot subside. The Austrian 1848 cannot be repeated here.”

(2) “The Russian revolution is not taking the course of an armed uprising of the
people in the real sense of the term, like the American or Polish revolutions.”

Let us consider these conclusions. The author’s grounds for the first are too
sketchy and his formulation of it too inexact. But in substance, he is not far
from the truth. The outcome of our revolution will actually depend most of all
on the steadfastness in struggle of the millions of peasants.

Our big bourgeoisie is far more afraid of revolution than of reaction. The
proletariat, by itself, is not strong enough to win. The urban poor do not
represent any independent interests, they are not an independent force compared
with the proletariat and peasantry. The rural population has the decisive role,
not in the sense of leading the struggle (this is out of the question), but in
the sense of being able to ensure victory.

If Comrade Larin had properly thought out his conclusion and had linked it up
with the whole course of development of Social-Democratic ideas on our
bourgeois revolution, he would have found himself confronted with an old
proposition of the Bolshevism that he hates so much: the victorious outcome of the
bourgeois revolution in Russia is possible only in the form of a
revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. In
effect, Larin has arrived at the same point of view. The only thing that
prevents him from admitting it openly is that Menshevik quality which he himself
castigates, namely: hesitant and timid thinking. One need only compare Larin’s
arguments on this subject with those of the Central Committee’s Sotsial-Demokrat to be convinced that Larin has come close to the
Bolsheviks on this question. Sotsial-Demokrat went to the length of
saying that the Cadets are the urban, non-Estate, progressive bourgeoisie, while
the Trudoviks are the rural, Estate, non-progressive bourgeoisie! Sotsial-Demokrat failed to notice the landlords and
counter-revolutionary bourgeois among the Cadets, failed to notice the
non-Estate, urban democrats (the lower strata of the urban poor) among the
Trudoviks!

To proceed. Larin says that unrest in the countryside can not subside. Has he
proved it? No. He has entirely left out of account the role of the peasant
bourgeoisie, which is being systematically bribed by the government. He has
given little thought also to the fact that the “alleviations”
obtained by the peasantry (lower rents, “curtailment” of the rights
and powers of the landlords and the police, etc.) are intensifying the
break-up of the rural population into the counter-revolutionary rich and a mass
of poor. Such sweeping generalisations must not be made with such scanty
evidence. The sound trite.

But can the proposition that “unrest in the countryside cannot
subside” be proved? Yes and no.

Yes—in the sense that one can make a thorough analysis of probable developments.

No—in the sense that one cannot be absolutely certain of these developments in the present
bourgeois revolution. One cannot weigh with apothecary’s scales the
equilibrium between the new forces of counter-revolution and revolution
which are growing and becoming interwoven in the countryside. Experience alone will completely reveal
this. Revolution, in the narrow sense of the term, is an acute struggle, and
only in the course of the struggle and in its outcome is the real strength
of all the interests, aspirations and potentialities displayed and fully
recognised.

The task of the advanced class in the revolution is to ascertain correctly the trend of the struggle, to make the most of all opportunities, all chances of victory. This class must be the first to take
the direct revolutionary path and the last to abandon it for more
“prosaic”, more “circuitous” paths. Comrade Larin has failed to understand this truth, although he argues at great length and (as we
shall see below) not at all cleverly about spontaneous outbursts and planned
action.

Let us pass to his second conclusion—concerning an armed uprising. Here
Larin is even more guilty of timid thinking. His thoughts slavishly follow the
old models: the North American and Polish uprisings. Apart from these, he
refuses to recognise any uprising “in the real sense of the term”. He
even says that our revolution is not proceeding on the lines of a
“formal” (!) and “regular” (!!) armed uprising.

How curious: a Menshevik who won his spurs in a fight against formalism is now
talking about a formal armed uprising! If your thoughts are so crushed by the
formal and the regular, you have only yourself to blame, Comrade Larin. The
Bolsheviks have always taken a different view of the matter. Long before the
uprising, at the Third Congress, i.e., in the spring of 1905, they emphasised in
a special resolution the connection between the mass strike and an
uprising . [2] The Mensheviks prefer to ignore this. It is in vain. The
resolution of the Third Congress is actual proof that we foresaw as closely as was possible the specific features of the
people’s struggle at the end of 1905. And we did not by any means conceive the
uprising as being of “the type” of North America or Poland, where a
mass strike would have been out of the question.

Then,after December, we pointed out (in our draft resolution for the
Unity Congress [3] )

the change in the relation of the strike to the uprising, the role
of the peasantry and the army, the inadequacy of local outbreaks in the armed
forces and the necessity of reaching an agreement with the
revolutionary-democratic elements among the troops.

And events proved once again, in the course of the Duma period, the
inevitability of an uprising in the Russian struggle for emancipation.

Larin’s arguments about a formal uprising display an ignorance of the history
of the present revolution, or a disregard for this history and its specific
forms of insurrection, that is most unbecoming for a Social-Democrat. Larin’s
thesis: “The Russian revolution is not taking the course of an
uprising” shows contempt for the facts, for both periods of civil
liberties in Russia (the October and the Duma periods) were in fact marked by a
“course” of uprisings , not of the American or Polish type, of
course, but one characteristic of twentieth-century Russia. By arguing “in
general” about historical examples of uprisings in countries where rural
or urban elements predominated, about America and Poland, and refusing to make
the least attempt to study or even note the specific features of the uprising in
Russia, Larin repeats the cardinal error of the “hesitant and timid”
thinking of the Mensheviks.

Look deeper into his structure of “passive” revolution. Undoubtedly,
there may be long periods of preparation for a new upsurge, a new onslaught, or
new forms of struggle. But don’t be doctrinaire, gentlemen; consider what this
“constant ferment” in the countryside means in addition to the “minor struggles”, the “punitive expeditions” and
the change in the personnel of the police force and troops! Why, you
do not understand what you yourselves are saying. The situation you describe is
nothing more nor less than protract ed guerrilla warfare , interspersed
with a series of outbursts of revolt in the army of increasing
magnitude and unity, You keep on using angry and abusive language about the “guerrilla
fighters”, “anarchists”, “anarcho-Blanquist-Bolsheviks”, and
so forth, yet you yourselves depict the revolution as the Bolsheviks
do! Change in the personnel of the army, its remanning with
“recruits from the discontented rural population”. What does
this mean? Can this “discontent” of the rural population
clothed a sailors’ jackets and soldiers’ uniforms fail to come to the
surface? Can it fail to manifest itself when there is “constant
ferment” in the soldiers’ native villages, when “minor struggles” on one side and “punitive expeditions” on the
other are raging in the country? And can we, in this period of
Black-Hundred pogroms, government violence and police outrages, conceive
of any other manifestation of this discontent among the soldiers
than military revolts?

While repeating Cadet phrases (“our revolution is not taking the course of
an uprising”; this phrase was put into circulation by the Cadets at the end of 1905; see Milyukov’s Narodnaya Svoboda [4] ), you at the same time show that a new uprising is inevitable; “the regime
will collapse at the first serious test”. Do you think that a serious test
of the regime is possible in a broad, heterogeneous, complex, popular movement
without a preliminary series of less important, partial tests; that a general
strike is possible without a series of local strikes; that a general uprising
is possible with out a series of sporadic, minor, non-general uprisings?

If recruits from the discontented rural population are increasing in the armed
forces, and if the revolution as a whole is advancing, then insurrection is
inevitable in the form of extremely bitter struggle against the
Black-Hundred troops (for the Black Hundreds are also organising and training
themselves, do not forget this! Do not forget that there are social elements
which foster Black-Hundred mentality!), a struggle both of the people and of a
section of the armed forces. So it is necessary to get ready, to prepare the
masses and to prepare ourselves, for a more systematic, united and aggressive
uprising—that is the conclusion that follows from Larin’s premises, from
his Cadet fairy-tale about passive (??) revolution. Larin admits that
the Mensheviks “put the blame for their own melancholy and despondency on
the course of the Russian revolution” (p. 58). Exactly!

Passivity is the quality of the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, not of the
revolution. Those are passive who admit that the army is being filled with
recruits from the discontent ed rural population, that constant ferment and
minor struggles are inevitable, and yet, with the complacency of Ivan
Fyodorovich Shponka, [5] console the workers’ party with
the statement: “the Russian revolution is not taking the course of an
uprising”.

But what about the “minor struggles”? You, my dear Larin, think that they
are the “course most advantageous to the peasantry from the point of view
of results”? You maintain this opinion in spite of the punitive expeditions,
and even include the latter in the most advantageous course? But have you given
even the slightest thought to what distinguishes this minor struggle from
guerrilla warfare? Nothing, esteemed Comrade Larin.

In your preoccupation with the ill-chosen examples of America and Poland you
have overlooked the specific forms of struggle engendered by the Russian
uprising, which is more protracted, more stubborn and has longer intervals
between big battles than uprisings of the old type.

Comrade Larin has become completely confused, and his conclusions are all at
sixes and sevens. If there are grounds for revolution in the countryside, if the
revolution is expanding and drawing in new forces, if the army is being filled
with discontented peasants, and if continual ferment and minor struggles persist
in the countryside, then the Bolsheviks are right in their fight against
shelving the question of an uprising. We do not advocate an uprising at all
times and under all circumstances. But we do demand that the thoughts of a
Social-Democrat should not be hesitant and timid, If you admit that the conditions for an uprising exist, then recognise the uprising itself
and the special tasks that confront the Party in connection with it.

To call minor struggles “the most advantageous course” ,
i. e., the most advantageous form of the struggle of the people in a specific
period of our revolution, and at the same time to refuse to admit that the Party
of the advanced class is confronted by active tasks which arise out of
this “most advantageous course”, reveals either inability to think
or dishonest thinking.

## Notes

[1] Draft resolution of the Bolsheviks for the Unity Congress
“The Present Stage of the Democratic Revolution” (see present
edition, Vol. 10, pp. 150-54).

[2] See present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 373-74.

[3] This refers to the draft resolution for the Unity Congress
on an armed uprising (see present edition, Vol. 10, pp. 151-53).

[4] Narodnaya Svoboda ( People’s Freedom )—a
newspaper, organ of the Cadet Party, published in St. Petersburg in December
1905.

[5] Ivan Fyodorovich Shponka —hero of Gogol’s
story Ivan Fyodorovich Shponka and his Aunt , whom the author depicts
as a narrow-minded, complacent person interested in nothing.

backward |  | forward >

V. I. Lenin

## The Crisis of Menshevism

### II

A “theory of passivity” is the term that might he applied to Larin’s
arguments about a “passive” revolution that is preparing the
“collapse of the old regime at,the first serious test”. And this
“theory of passivity”, a natural product of timid thinking, has left
its mark on the whole pamphlet of our penitent Menshevik. He asks: Why,
considering its enormous ideological influence, is our Party so weak
organisationally? It is not, he replies, because our Party is a party of
intellectuals. This old, “bureaucratic” (Larin’s expression)
explanation of the Mensheviks is quite worthless. Because, objectively, in the
present period there has been no need for a different kind of party, and the
objective conditions for a different kind of party have not existed. Because for
a “policy of spontaneous outbursts”, such as the policy of the
proletariat was at the beginning of the revolution, no party was needed. All
that was needed was a “technical apparatus to serve the spontaneous
movement” and “spontaneous moods”, to conduct propaganda and
agitational work in the intervals between revolutionary outbursts. This was not
a party in the European sense, hut “a narrow—120,000 out of nine
million—association of young working-class conspirators”; few
married men; the majority of the workers who are ready for public activities are
outside the Party.

Now the period of spontaneous outbursts is passing away. Calculation is taking
the place of mere temperament. In place of the “policy of spontaneous
outbursts”, a “policy of planned action” is arising. Now we
need “a party of the European type”, a “party of objectively
planned, political action”. In place of an “apparatus—party” we need a “van guard-party”, “that would be the rallying point for all those suitable for active
political life that the working class can produce from its ranks”. This is
the transition to a “European party based on calculated action”. The
“sound realism of European Social-Democracy” is taking the place of
“official Menshevism with its half-hearted and hesitating measures, its
despondency and failure to understand its own position”. “Its voice
has been making itself quite audible for some time now through Plekhanov and
Axelrod—strictly speaking the only Europeans in our ’barbarian’
environment....” And, of course, the substitution of Europeanism for barbarism promises success in place
of failure. “Wherever spontaneity prevails, mistakes in judgement and
failures in practice are inevitable.” “Where there is spontaneity, there
is utopianism; where there is utopianism, there is failure.”

In these arguments of Larin’s we see again the glaring discrepancy between the
tiny kernel of a correct, although not new, idea, and the enormous husk of sheer
reactionary incomprehension. A spoonful of honey in a barrel of tar.

It is an unquestionable and indisputable fact that as capitalism develops, as
experience of bourgeois revolution or revolutions, and also of abortive
socialist revolutions, accumulates, the working class of all countries grows,
develops, learns, becomes trained and organised. In other words: it advances from
spontaneity to planned action, from being guided merely by mood to guidance by
the objective position of all classes, from outbursts to sustained
struggle. All this is true. It is as old as the hills, and is as applicable to
Russia of the twentieth century as to England of the seventeenth century, to
France of the thirties of the nineteenth century, and to Germany at the close of
the nineteenth century.

But the trouble with Larin is that he is quite incapable of digesting the
materials which our revolution provides the Social-Democrat. Like a child with a
new toy, he is entirely taken up with contrasting the outbursts of Russian
barbarism with European planned activity. Uttering a truism that applies to all
periods in general, he does not understand that his naive application of this
truism to a period of direct revolutionary struggle becomes with him a renegade attitude towards the revolution. This would be tragicomical,
if it were not that Larin’s sincerity left no shadow of doubt that he is unconsciously echoing the renegades of the revolution.

Spontaneous outbursts of barbarians, planned activity of the Europeans.... This
is a purely Cadet formula and a Cadet idea, the idea of the traitors to the
Russian revolution, who go into raptures over “constitutionalism”
like Muromtsev, who declared: “The Duma is part of the government”,
or the lackey Rodichev, who exclaimed: “It is presumption to hold the
monarch responsible for the pogrom.” The Cadets have created a whole literature
written by renegades (the Izgoyevs, Struves, Prokopoviches, Portugalovs, et tutti quanti ) who
have reviled the folly of spontaneity , i.e., revolution. The
liberal bourgeois, like the famous animal in the fable, is simply unable to
lift his eyes and understand that it is only due to the
“outbursts” of the people that we still possess even a shadow of
liberty.

And Larin, naively uncritical, trails behind the liberals. Larin does not
understand that there are two sides to the question he raises: (1) the contrast
between a spontaneous struggle and a planned struggle of the same dimensions and
forms, (2) the contrast between a revolutionary (in the narrow sense) period and
a counter-revolutionary or “only constitutional” period. Larin’s
logic is atrocious. He contrasts a spontaneous political strike not to a planned
political strike, but to planned participation in, let us say, the Bulygin
Duma. He contrasts a spontaneous uprising not to a planned uprising, but to
planned trade union activity. Consequently, his Marxist analysis is converted
into a flat and philistine apotheosis of counter-revolution.

European Social-Democracy is the “party of objectively planned political
activity”, prattles Larin ecstatically. Oh, child! He does not notice that
he is going into raptures over the particularly limited field of “activity” to which the Europeans were compelled to confine
themselves in a period when there was no directly revolutionary struggle. He
does not notice that he is going into raptures over the planned nature of a
struggle waged within legal limits and decrying the spontaneity of a
struggle for the power and authority which determine the limits of what
is “legal”. He compares the spontaneous uprising of the Russians in
December 1905, not with the “planned” uprisings of the Germans in
1849 and of the French in 1871, but with the planned growth of the German trade
unions. He compares the spontaneous and unsuccessful general strike of the
Russians in December 1905, not with the “planned” and unsuccessful general strike of the Belgians in 19O2, [1] but with the
planned speeches of Bebel or Vandervelde in the Reichstag.

That is why Larin fails to understand the historic progress of the mass struggle
of the proletariat signalised by the strike in October 1905 and the uprising in
December 1905. Whereas the retrogression of the Russian revolution
( temporary , on his own admission) expressed in the necessity of preparatory activity within the limits of the law (trade unions, elections, etc.) he
elevates into progress from spontaneous to planned activity, from moods
to calculation, etc.

That is why, in place of the moral drawn by a revolutionary Marxist (that
instead of a spontaneous political strike we must have a planned political
strike, instead of a spontaneous uprising we must have a planned uprising), we
find the moral drawn by a renegade-Cadet (instead of the “folly of
spontaneity”—strikes and uprisings—we must have systematic
submission to the Stolypin laws and a planned deal with the Black-Hundred
monarchy).

No, Comrade Larin, if you had mastered the spirit of Marxism, and not merely
its language, you would know the difference between revolutionary dialectical
materialism and the opportunism of “objective” historians. Recall,
for instance, what Marx said about Proudhon. A Marxist does not renounce the
struggle within the limits of the law, peaceful parliamentarism and
“planned” compliance with the limits of historical activity set by
the Bismarcks and the Bennigsens, the Stolypins and the Milyukovs. But a
Marxist, while utilising every field , even a reactionary one, for the
fight for the revolution, does not stoop to glorifying reaction, does not forget
to fight for the best possible field of activity. Therefore, the
Marxist is the first to foresee the approach of a revolutionary period,
and already begins to rouse the people and to sound the tocsin while the
philistines are still wrapt in the slavish slumber of loyal subjects. The Marxist is
therefore the first to take the path of direct revolutionary struggle,
marching straight to battle and exposing the illusions of conciliation
cherished by all kinds of social and political vacillators. Therefore, the
Marxist is the last to leave the path of directly revolutionary
struggle, he leaves it only when all possibilities have been exhausted, when
there is not a shadow of hope for a shorter way, when the basis for an
appeal to prepare for mass strikes, an uprising, etc., is obviously
disappearing. Therefore, a Marxist treats with contempt the innumerable
renegades of the revolution who shout to him: We are more
“progressive” than you, we were the first to renounce the
revolution! We were the first to “submit” to the monarchist
constitution!

One of two things, Comrade Larin. Do you believe that there is already no basis
for an uprising or for revolution in the narrow sense of the word? If you
do, say so openly and prove it in the Marxist way, by an economic
analysis, by an appraisal of the political strivings of the various
classes, by an analysis of the significance of the different ideological
trends. You have proved it? In that case, we declare that all talk about
an uprising is mere phrase-mongering. In that case we shall say: what we had was not a great revolution, but a great bark without a
bite. Workers! the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie (including the
peasants) have betrayed and forsaken you. But, on the basis they have created in spite of our efforts, we shall work persistently,
patiently, and consistently for a socialist revolution, which will
not be so half-hearted and wretched, so rich in words and poor in deeds as
the bourgeois revolution!

Or do you really believe what you say, Comrade Larin? Do you believe that the
tide of revolution is rising, that the minor struggles and the sullen discontent
will in a matter of two or three years create a new discontented army and a new
“serious test”; that “unrest in the countryside cannot subside”? If so, then you must admit that the “out bursts” express
the strength of the people’s anger, and not the strength of backward
barbarism—that it is our duty to transform a spontaneous uprising into a
planned uprising, and to work persistently and stubbornly for many months,
perhaps years, to bring this about, and not to renounce an uprising, as all the
Judases are doing.

Your present position, however, Comrade Larin, is precisely one of
“melancholy and despondency”, of “hesitant and timid thinking”, of putting the blame for your own passivity on our revolution.

This, and this alone, is implied by your jubilant declaration that the boycott
was a mistake. It is a short-sighted and vulgar jubilation. If it is
“progressive” to renounce the boycott, then the most progressive
people of all are the Right-wing Cadets of Russkiye Vedomosti , who
fought against the boycott of the Bulygin Duma and called on the students
“to go on with their studies and not meddle with rebellion”. We do
not envy this renegade progressiveness. We think that to say that it was a
“mistake” to boycott the Witte Duma (which three or four months before its convocation nobody believed would be
convened) and to be silent about the mistake of those who called for
participation in the Bulygin Duma, means substituting for the materialism of a
revolutionary fighter the “objectivism” of a professor who is
cringing to reaction. We think that the position of those who were the last to enter the Duma, to take the roundabout way, after trying really everything on the direct path of struggle, is better than that of those
who were the first to call for entering the Bulygin Duma on the eve of the
popular uprising which swept it away.

This Cadet phrase about the boycott having been a mistake is particularly
unpardonable in Larin’s case since he truthfully relates that the
Mensheviks “ invented all kinds of shrewd and cunning tricks, ranging
from the elective principle and the Zemstvo campaign to uniting the Party by
participating in the elections with the object of boycotting the
Duma ” (57). The Mensheviks called upon the workers to elect members
to the Duma, although they themselves did not believe that it was right to go
into the Duma. Were not the tactics of those more correct, who, not believing
this, boycotted the Duma; who declared that to call the Duma a
“power” (as the Mensheviks called it in their resolution at the
Unity Congress, before Muromtsev did so) meant deceiving the people; who entered
the Duma only after the bourgeoisie had deserted the direct path of boycott and
compelled us to take a circuitous route, though not for the same purpose, and
not in the same way, as the Cadets?

## Notes

[1] The Belgian general strike was declared in
April 1902 in support of the demand for universal suffrage raised in the
Belgian Parliament by representatives of the Labour, Liberal and
Democratic Parties. More than 300,000 workers took part in the strike;
demonstrations by workers occurred throughout the country. But after Parliament
had rejected the electoral reform bill and troops bad fired on
demonstrators, the opportunist Labour Party leadership (Vaudervelde and
others) capitulated and, under pressure from their “allies” in
the liberal-bourgeois camp, called off the general strike. The defeat of the
Belgian working class in April 1902 was a lesson to the international labour
movement. “The socialist proletariat,” wrote Iskra in No. 21
of June 1, 1902, “will see the practical results that follow from
opportunist tactics which sacrifice revolutionary principles in the hope of
quick successes. The proletariat will have yet another proof that it will
not he able to achieve its aim by any of the methods of political pressure
used against t.he enemy unless it is prepared to carry these methods to
their logical conclusion.”

backward |  | forward >

V. I. Lenin

## The Crisis of Menshevism

### III

The contrast which Larin draws between an apparatus-party and a vanguard-party,
or, in other words, between a party of fighters against the police and a party
of class-conscious political fighters, seems profound and permeated with the
“pure proletarian” spirit. In actual fact, however, it is the very
same intellectualist opportunism as the analogous contrast drawn in 1899-1901 by
the supporters of Rabochaya Mysl and the Akimovites. [4]

On the one hand, when there are objective conditions for a direct revolutionary
onslaught by the masses, the Party’s supreme political task is “to serve the spontaneous
movement”. To contrast such revolutionary work with “politics” is to reduce politics to chicanery. It means
exalting political action in the Duma above the political action of the
masses in October and December; in other words, it means abandoning the
proletarian revolutionary standpoint for that of intellectualist opportunism.

Every form of struggle requires a corresponding technique and a corresponding
apparatus. When objective conditions make the parliamentary struggle the
principal form of struggle, the features of the apparatus for parliamentary
struggle inevitably become more marked in the Party. When, on the other hand,
objective conditions give rise to a struggle of the masses in the form of mass
political strikes and uprisings, the party of the proletariat must have an “apparatus” to “serve” these forms of
struggle, and, of course, this must be a special “apparatus”, not
resembling the parliamentary one. An organised party of the proletariat which
admitted that the conditions existed for popular uprisings and yet failed to set
up the necessary apparatus would be a party of intellectualist chatterboxes;
the workers would abandon it and go over to anarchism, bourgeois revolutionism,
etc.

On the other hand, the composition of the politically guiding vanguard of every
class, the proletariat included, also depends both on the position of this class
and on the principal form of its struggle. Larin complains, for example, that
young workers predominate in our Party, that we have few married workers, and
that they leave the Party. This complaint of a Russian opportunist reminds me of
a passage in one of Engels’s works (I think it is in The Housing Question , Zur Wohnungsfrage ). Retorting to some fatuous bourgeois professor, a
German Cadet, Engels wrote: is it not natural that youth should predominate in
our Party, the revolutionary party? We are the party of the future, and the
future belongs to the youth. We are a party of innovators, and it is always the
youth that most eagerly follows the innovators. We are a party that is waging a
self-sacrificing struggle against the old rottenness, and youth is always the
first to undertake a self-sacrificing struggle.

No, let us leave it to the Cadets to collect the “tired” old men of
thirty, revolutionaries who have “grown wise”, and renegades from Social-Democracy. We shall, always be a party of the youth of the
advanced class!

Larin himself blurts out a frank admission why he regrets the loss of the
married men who are tired of the struggle. If we were to collect a good number
of these tired men into the Party, that would make it “somewhat sluggish,
putting a brake on political adventures” (p. 18).

Now, that’s better,, good Larin! Why dissemble and deceive yourself. What you
want is not a vanguard-party, but a rearguard-party , so that it will be
rather more sluggish. You should have said so frankly.

“... Putting a brake on political adventures....” Revolutions have been
defeated in Europe too; there were the June days of 1848 and the May days of
1871; but there has never been a Social-Democrat or a Communist who thought it
proper to declare the action of the masses in a revolution to be an
“adventure”. This became possible when among revolutionary Marxists
there were enrolled (not for long, we hope) spineless, craven Russian
philistines, called the “intelligentsia”, if you please, who have no
confidence in themselves and become despondent at every turn of events towards
reaction.

“... Putting a brake on adventures!” If that is so, then the first adventurer is Larin himself; for he calls “minor
struggles” the course most advantageous to the revolution; he is
trying to make the masses believe that the tide of revolution is
rising , that in two or three years the army will be filled with
discontented peasants, and that the “old regime will collapse” at
“the first serious test”!

But Larin is an adventurer in another, much worse and pettier sense. He
advocates a labour congress and a “non party party” (his
expression!). Instead of the Social-Democratic Party he wants an
“All-Russian Labour Party”— “labour”, because it must include the petty-bourgeois revolutionaries, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the
Polish Socialist Party, the Byelorussian Hromada, [5] etc.

Larin is an admirer of Axelrod. But he has done him a disservice. He has so
exalted Axelrod’s “youthful energy”, his “true party courage” in fighting for a labour congress, he has embraced him so
fervently, that ... he has smothered him in his embraces! Axelrod’s nebulous
“idea” of a labour congress has been killed by a naive and truthful, practical party worker who has
gone and blurted out everything that should have been concealed for
successful advocacy of a labour congress. A labour congress means
“taking down the signboard” (p. 20 in Larin’s pamphlet, for
whom Social-Democracy is a mere signboard); it means merging with the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and the trade unions.

Quite right, Comrade Larin! Thank you at least for speaking the truth! The
labour congress really does mean all that. It would lead to that even against
the wish of its conveners. And it is just for that reason that a labour
congress now would be a petty opportunist adventure. Petty—for there is no
broad idea underlying it, nothing but the weariness of intellectuals who are
tired of the persistent struggle for Marxism. Opportunist—for the same
reason, and also because thousands of petty bourgeois of far from settled
opinions would be admitted into the labour party. An adventure—for under
present conditions such an attempt will bring about, not peace
or constructive work, or collaboration between the Socialist-Revolutionaries
and Social-Democrats— to whom Larin kindly assigns the role of
“propagandist societies within a broad party” (p. 40)—but only
endless aggravation of strife, dissension, splits, ideological confusion, and
actual disorganisation.

It is one thing to predict that the Socialist-Revolutionary “Centre” must come over to the Social-Democrats when the Popular Socialists and
Maximalists drop out [1] ; it is a different thing to climb after an apple which is
only in process of ripening, but is not yet ripe. You will either break your
neck, my dear sir, or upset your stomach with sour fruit.

Larin bases his arguments on “Belgium”, as did, in 1899, R. M. (the
editor of Rabochaya Mysl ) and Mr. Prokopovich (when he was going
through the “spontaneous outbursts” of a Social-Democrat and had not
yet “grown wise” sufficiently to become a “systematically
acting” Cadet). Larin’s booklet has a neat appendix in the shape of a neat
translation of the Rules of the Belgian Labour Party! But our good Larin forgot to “translate” to Russia the industrial conditions and
history of Belgium. After a series of bourgeois revolutions, after decades of struggle against Proudhon’s petty-bourgeois
quasi-socialism, and with the enormous development of industrial
capitalism, possibly the highest in the world, the labour congress and the
labour party in Belgium marked a transition from non-proletarian socialism to
proletarian socialism. In Russia, at the height of a bourgeois revolution,
which is inevitably breeding petty-bourgeois ideas and petty-bourgeois
ideologists, and with growing “Trudovik” trends among closely
related sections of the peasantry and the proletariat, with a Social-Democratic Labour Party that has a history of nearly one decade,
a labour congress is a badly conceived invention, and fusion with the
Socialist-Revolutionaries (who knows, there may be 30,000 of them, or perhaps
60,000, says Larin artlessly) is an intellectual’s whimsy.

Yes, history can be ironic! For years the Mensheviks have been trumpeting about
the close connection between the Bolsheviks and the
Socialist-Revolutionaries. And now the Bolsheviks reject a labour congress precisely because it would obscure the difference in the points of view
of the proletarians and the small proprietors (see the resolution of the
St. Petersburg Committee [6] in Proletary , No. 3). And
the Mensheviks stand for merging with the
Socialist-Revolutionaries in connection with the advocacy of a labour
congress. This is unique!

“I do not want to dissolve the party in the class,” pleads Larin. “I
only want to unite the vanguard, 900,000 out of nine million” (pp. 17 and
49).

Let us take the official factory returns for 1903. The total number of factory
workers was 1,640,406. Of these, 797,997 were in factories employing over 500
workers each, and 1,261,363 in factories employing over 100 workers each. The
number of workers in the largest factories (800,000) is only a little smaller
than the figure Larin gives for the workers’ party united with the
Socialist-Revolutionaries!

Thus, although we already have from 150,000 to 170,000 members in our
Social-Democratic Party, and notwithstanding the 800,000 workers employed in
large factories, the workers of big mining enterprises (not included in this
total) and the multitude of purely proletarian elements employed in trade,
agriculture, transport, etc., Larin has no hope that we in Russia can soon
win for Social-Democracy 900,000 proletarians as Party members??
Monstrous, but true.

But Larin’s lack of faith is only another example of the intellectual’s timid
thinking.

We are quite sure that this object can be attained. As a counterblast to the
adventure of a “labour congress” and a “non-party party”
we put forward the slogan: for a fivefold and tenfold increase of our Social-Democratic Party , only let it consist mainly and almost exclusively of purely proletarian elements, and let it be achieved
solely under the banner of revolutionary

Marxism. [2]

Now, after a year of the great revolution, when all sorts of parties are growing
by leaps and bounds, the proletariat is becoming an independent party more
rapidly than ever. The Duma elections will assist this process (if we do not
enter into opportunist blocs with the Cadets, of course). The treachery of the
bourgeoisie in general, and of the petty bourgeoisie in particular (the Popular Socialists ), will strengthen the revolutionary
Social-Democratic Party.

We shall reach Larin’s “ideal” (900,000 Party members), and even
exceed it, by hard work on the present lines, and not by adventures. It is
certainly necessary now to enlarge the Party with the aid of proletarian elements. It is abnormal that we should have only 6,000
Party members in St. Petersburg (in St. Petersburg Gubernia there are 81,000
workers in factories employing 500 workers and over; in all, 150,000 workers);
that in the Central Industrial Region we should have only 20,000 Party members
(377,000 workers in factories employing 500 and over; in all, 562,000 workers). We must learn to recruit [3] five times and ten times as many workers for
the Party in such centres. In this respect Larin is certainly quite right. But
we must not fall a prey to intellectualist cowardice or intellectualist
hysteria. We shall achieve our aim by following our own Social-Democratic path, without plunging into adventures.

## Notes

[1] See pp. 199-200 of this volume.— Ed .

[2] It would be unwise to take the trade unions into the Party, as Larin
proposes. This would only restrict the working-class movement and narrow
its base. We shall always be able to unite a far greater number of workers
for the struggle against the employers than for support of
Social-Democratic policy. Therefore (in spite of Larin’s wrong assertion that the Bolsheviks have declared against non-party trade
unions), we stand for non-party trade unions, as the author of the
“Jacobin” (Jacobin—in the opinion of the opportunists) pamphlet What Is To Be Done ? advocated as far back as 1902. (See
present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 347-529.— Ed ).— Lenin

[3] We say “learn to recruit”, for the number of Social-Democratic
workers in such centres is undoubtedly many times the number of Party
members. We suffer from routine, we must fight against it. We must learn to
form, where necessary, lose Organisationen —looser, broader and
more accessible proletarian organisations. Our slogan is: for
a larger Social-Democratic Labour Party, against a non-party labour
congress and a non-party party!— Lenin

[4] Rabochaya Mysl —an Economist group which
published the newspaper Rabochaya Mysl ( Workers’
Thought ). It appeared from October 1897 to December 1902, edited by K. M. Takhtarev and others.

The group advocated frankly opportunist views. It opposed the political struggle
of the working class and restricted the tasks of the working-class movement to
“the interests of the moment”, to demands for individual partial
reforms, chiefly of an economic nature. Glorifying “spontaneity” in
the working-class movement, it opposed the creation of an independent
proletarian party and belittled the importance of revolutionary theory and
class-consciousness, maintaining that socialist ideology could grow out of the
spontaneous movement.

The views of the Rabochaya Mysl group, as a Russian variety of
international opportunism, were criticised by Lenin in the article “A
Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy”, in the book What Is To
Be Done ? (see present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 255-85 and Vol. 5, pp. 347-465),
and also in his Iskra articles.

Akimovites —supporters of one of the representatives of
“Economism”, the extreme opportunist V. P. Akimov (Makhnovets).

[5] The Byelorussian Socialist Hromada —a title
assumed by a petty-bourgeois, nationalist organisation of the Narodnik type
which arose in 1902.

[6] Lenin is referring to the resolution on a labour congress
adopted at a meeting of workers from various districts of St. Petersburg in the
beginning of September 1906. The meeting was convened by the St. Petersburg
Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.

backward |  | forward >

V. I. Lenin

## The Crisis of Menshevism

### IV

The only “gratifying feature” in Comrade Larin’s pamphlet is his
fervent protest against blocs with the Cadets. In another article in this issue
the reader will find detailed quotations on this subject, with a description of
all the vacillations of Menshevism on this important question.

What interests us here, however, is the general description of Menshevism
given by such an “authoritative” witness as the Menshevik Larin. It
is in reference to blocs with the Cadets that he protests against
“ vulgarised, bureaucratic, Menshevism ”.
“Bureaucratic Menshevism”, he writes, is capable of desiring a
“suicidal alliance with the opponents of Social-Democracy in the
bourgeois camp”. We do not know whether Larin will be able to show more
determination than Martov in defending his views against Plekhanov. However,
Larin rebels against “formal” and “bureaucratic”
Menshevism on other matters besides blocs with the Cadets. For example, he says
of Menshevism, that “everything obsolescent acquires a bureaucratic
stamp”!! (p. 65). Menshevism is becoming outlived, making way for
“European realism”. “Hence the eternal melancholy, half-heartedness and hesitancy of Menshevism” (p. 62). Concerning the
talk about a labour congress he writes: “All this talk bears the impress
of a certain reticence, timid thinking, perhaps mere hesitation to utter aloud
the thoughts that have matured within” (p. 6), etc.

We already know the underlying basis of this crisis of Menshevism, why it has
degenerated into bureaucratism [1] :

it is the petty-bourgeois intellectual’s lack of confidence in the possibility of further revolutionary struggle,
his fear to admit that the revolution is over, that the reaction has won a
decisive victory. “Menshevism was only an instinctive, semi-spontaneous yearning for a party,” says Larin. We say:

Menshevism is the spontaneous yearning of the intellectual for a truncated
constitution and peaceful legality. Menshevism is an allegedly objective
apologia for reaction, emanating from the revolutionary camp.

From the very beginning, as early as in the Geneva newspaper Vperyod [8] (January-March 1905) and in the pamphlet Two

Tactics [2] (July 1905), the Bolsheviks presented the question in
a totally different way. Being perfectly clear about the contradictory nature of
the interests and tasks of the various classes in the bourgeois revolution,
they stated openly at the time: It is quite possible that the Russian revolution
will end in an abortive constitution. As the supporters and ideologists of the
revolutionary proletariat, we shall do our duty to the last—we shall keep
to our revolutionary slogans despite the treachery and baseness of the liberals,
despite the vacillation, timidity and hesitancy displayed by the petty
bourgeois—we shall make the utmost use of all revolutionary
possibilities—we shall take pride in the fact that we were the first to take the path of an uprising and will be the last to abandon it, if this path in fact becomes impossible. At the
present moment we are far from admitting that all the revolutionary
possibilities and prospects have been exhausted. We openly and straightforwardly
advocate an uprising, and stubborn, persistent and long preparation for it.

And when we realise that the revolution is over, we shall say so openly and
straightforwardly. We shall then, in full view of the whole people, delete from
our platform all our direct revolutionary slogans (such as the constituent
assembly). We shall not deceive ourselves and others by Jesuitical sophistries (such
as Plekhanov’s “a Duma with full power for the

Cadets ). [3] We shall not justify reaction and call reactionary constitutionalism a basis for
sound realism. We shall say and prove to the proletariat that the treachery of
the bourgeoisie and the vacillation of the small proprietors have killed the
bourgeois revolution, and that the proletariat itself will now prepare for and
carry out a new, socialist revolution. And therefore, the revolution having
subsided, i.e., the bourgeoisie having utterly betrayed it, we shall under no
circumstances agree to any blocs—not only with the opportunist, but even
with the revolutionary bourgeoisie—for the decline of the revolution would
convert bourgeois revolutionism into empty phrase-mongering.

That is why we are not in the least perturbed by the angry words which Larin
hurls at us in such abundance, when he shouts that Bolshevism is approaching a
crisis, that it is played out, that we have always trailed behind the
Mensheviks, etc. All these pinpricks only evoke a condescending smile.

Individuals have left and will leave the Bolsheviks, but there cannot be any
crisis in our trend. The fact is that right from the very beginning we
declared (see One Step Forward, Two Steps

Back [4] ):

we are not creating a special “Bolshevik” trend, always and everywhere we merely uphold
the point of view of revolutionary Social-Democracy . And right up to
the social revolution there will inevitably always be an opportunist wing and a revolutionary wing of Social-Democracy.

A cursory glance at the history of “Bolshevism” is sufficient to
convince anyone of that.

1903-04. The Mensheviks advocate democracy in organisation. The Bolsheviks call
this intellectualist phrase mongering, as long as the Party does not come out
openly. In the Geneva pamphlet (1905), the Menshevik who signed himself “A Worker” [9] admits that in fact there was no
democracy among the Mensheviks. The Menshevik Larin admits that their
“talk about the elective principle” was “sheer invention”, an attempt to “deceive history”, and that, in
fact, in the Menshevik “St. Petersburg group there was no elective
principle even as late as the autumn of 1905” (p. 62). And immediately after the
October Revolution the Bolsheviks were the first to announce, in Novaya Zhizn , [10] the actual introduction of
democracy in the

Party. [5]

End of 1904. The Zemstvo campaign. The Mensheviks trail behind the liberals. The
Bolsheviks (in spite of the frequently circulated fable to the contrary) do not
reject good demonstrations” before the Zemstvo councillors, but they
reject the “poor arguments of the intellectuals, [6] who said that there
were two contending forces in the arena (the tsar and the liberals),
and that demonstrations before the Zemstvo councillors were a higher type of
demonstration. Now the Menshevik Larin admits that the Zemstvo campaign was
“sheer invention” (p. 62), that it was a “shrewd and cunning
trick” (p. 57).

Beginning of 1905. The Bolsheviks openly and straight forwardly raise the
question of an uprising and of preparing for it. In a resolution adopted at the
Third Congress they predict the combination of the strike with an
uprising . The Mensheviks are evasive and try to wriggle out of the tasks of
an uprising; they talk about arming the masses with the fervid desire to arm
themselves.

August-September 1905. The Mensheviks (Parvus in the new Iskra ) call
for participation in the Bulygin Duma. The Bolsheviks call for an active boycott
of this Duma, for direct advocacy of an uprising.

October-December 1905. The popular struggle in the form of strikes and
insurrection sweeps away the Bulygin Duma. The Menshevik Larin admits in a
written declaration at the Unity Congress that when the tide of the revolution
was at its height the Mensheviks acted like Bolsheviks. In the rudimentary
bodies of the provisional government we, the Social-Democrats, sat side by side
with the revolutionary bourgeoisie.

Beginning of 1906. The Mensheviks are despondent. They have no faith in the Duma
and no faith in the revolution. They appeal for participation in the Duma
elections in order to boycott the Duma ( Larin , p. 57). The Bolsheviks
do their duty as revolutionaries, do their utmost to achieve the boycott of the
Second Duma, in which nobody in revolutionary circles had any
confidence.

May-June 1906. The Duma campaign. The boycott has failed owing to the treachery
of the bourgeoisie. The Bolsheviks conduct their revolutionary work on new,
though worse ground. During the Duma period the whole people see still more
clearly the difference between our tactics, the tactics of the revolutionary
Social-Democrats, and opportunism:

criticism of the Cadets in the Duma, the struggle to free the Trudoviks from
Cadet influence, criticism of parliamentary illusions, advocacy of a
revolutionary rapprochement among the Left groups in the Duma.

July 1906. The dissolution of the Duma. The Mensheviks lose their heads, declare
for an immediate demonstration strike and partial actions. The Bolsheviks
protest. Larin, referring to this, says nothing about the protest of the
three members of the Central Committee which was published for Party members
only . What Larin says about this incident is not true. The Bolsheviks point
out the futility of a demonstration, and advocate an uprising at a later date . [7] The Mensheviks, in conjunction with the revolutionary bourgeoisie,
sign appeals for an uprising.

End of 1906. The Bolsheviks realise that the treachery of the bourgeoisie makes
it necessary to take a circuitous path and go into the Duma. Down with all
blocs! Above all, down with blocs with the Cadets! The Mensheviks are in
favour of blocs.

No, Comrade Larin, we have no need to be ashamed of this course of the struggle between the revolutionary and
the opportunist wing of Russian Social-Democracy!

## Notes

[1] Another instance of the irony of history!  Ever since 1903 the
Mensheviks have been shouting about the “formalism” and “bureaucratism”
of the Bolsheviks. Since then they have always been in possession of the
“bureaucratic” and “formal” prerogatives of the Party as a whole. And
now a Menshevik confirms that Menshevism has degenerated into bureaucratism . The Bolsheviks could not have wished for a better
rehabilitation of themselves. Larin is not looking for the bureaucratism of
Menshevism where in fact it is rooted. The source of this bureaucratism is
that opportunism which under the guise of “Europeanism” is being
instilled into the Mensheviks by Axelrod and Plekhanov. There is no trace
of “Europeanism” in the reflected ideology and habits of the Swiss petty
bourgeois. Petty-bourgeois Switzerland is the servants’ ball of the real
Europe, the Europe of revolutionary traditions and in tense class struggle
of the broad masses. Bureaucratism was fully revealed in Plekhanov’s
presentation of the question of a labour congress (a labour congress versus
a Party congress), against which Larin is so fervently and sincerely
protesting.— Lenin

[2] See present edition, Vol. 9, pp. 15-140.— Ed .

[3] See p. 333 of this volume— Ed .

[4] See present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 203-425.— Ed .

[5] See present edition, Vol. 10, pp. 29-39— Ed .

[6] The Geneva Vperyod , No. 1, (January 1905), contained a
feuilleton which criticised the “plan of a Zemstvo campaign”; it was
entitled “Good Demonstrations of Proletarians and Poor Arguments of
Certain Intellectuals”. (See present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 29-34.— Ed .)— Lenin

[7] See pp. 128-30 of this volume— Ed .

[8] Vperyod ( Forward )—an illegal Bolshevik newspaper published
in Geneva from December 22, 1904 (January 4, 1905) to May 5 (18), 1903. Eighteen
numbers appeared. The newspaper’s organiser, editor and guiding spirit was
V. I. Lenin. Other members of the editorial board were V. V. Vorovsky,
M. S. Olminsky, and A. V. Lunacharsky.

The outstanding part played by Vperyod in combating Menshevism,
re-establishing the Party principles, and formulating and elucidating the issues
posed by the rising revolution was acknowledged in a special resolution of the
Third Party Congress, which recorded a vote of thanks to the editorial
board.

[9] Lenin is referring to the pamphlet Workers and Intellectuals in Our
Organisations , which appeared under the pseudonym “Rabochy”
(“Worker”) in Geneva in 1904 with a preface by P. B. Axelrod. The author of
the pamphlet opposed Lenin’s organisational plan for building the Party but was
compelled to admit that the “democratism” of the Mensheviks
amounted actually to a struggle for leading positions in the Party. A detailed
characterisation of the pamphlet was given by Lenin in his article “Fine
Words Butter No Parsnips”. “The pamphlet shows admirably how the
knights of the ’fine phrase’ are exposed by their own followers,” wrote
Lenin. (See present edition, Vol. 8, p. 58.)

[10] Novaya Zhizn ( New Life )—the first legal
Bolshevik newspaper, published in St. Petersburg as a daily from October 27
(November 9) to December 3 (16), 1905. On his return to St. Petersburg from
emigration in early November Lenin took over the editorship. Novaya Zhizn was actually the Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P. Closely associated with the
paper were V. V. Vorovsky, M. S. Olminsky, A. V. Lunacharsky and others. Maxim
Gorky contributed many articles and gave the paper considerable financial
assistance.

Lenin’s first article “The Reorganisation of the Party” appeared in Novaya Zhizn , No. 9, November 10 (23), 1905. Then, over a dozen other
articles of V. I. Lenin’s were printed. The newspaper attained a daily
circulation of about 80,000. It suffered continual persecution; 15 issues out of
27 were confiscated and destroyed. After No. 27 of December 2 (15), Novaya
Zhizn was closed down by the government. The last issue, No. 28, appeared
illegally.