V. I.

Lenin

Larin and Khrustalev [2]

Thefirst issue of the Menshevik newspaper Narodnaya Gazeta (April 10)
contained an article by Comrade G. Khrustalev on the labour congress; it was an
aggressive, extremely interesting, and excellent article (from the Bolshevik
point of view). We say it was excellent because in his writings the Menshevik
Khrustalev is as helpful—if not more helpful— to us as the
Menshevik Larin. We are equally grateful to both of them, and shall therefore
analyse their ideas by comparing them with each other.

Youwill recall what Y. Larin was advocating in his pamphlet A Broad Labour Party and a Labour Congress . A broad labour party, as conceived by Larin,
should em brace something like 900,000 of the 9,000,000-strong Russian
proletariat. The “signboard” has to come down—the party must
not be Social-Democratic. The Social-Democrats and the Socialist-Revolutionaries
must merge. The new party must be, in point of fact, a “non-partisan
party” (Larin’s own words). The Social-Democrats and
Socialist-Revolutionaries must play the role of “propaganda bodies within
a broad party”.

Larin’splan, as anybody can see, is perfectly clear-cut, and his idea for
a labour congress is distinguished by the absence of anything left unsaid or of
the vagueness that Axelrod’s plan abounds in. For this clarity of thought
we Bolsheviks have given praise to the guileless Comrade Larin, and compared it
to the vagueness of “hidebound Menshevism” (Larin’s words). At
t.he same time we say that Lana’s plan is an opportunist adventure,
because merging with the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and a “non-partisan
party” cannot lead to anything but confusion in the minds of the workers and difficulties for the Social-Democratic organisation.

Nowlet the reader weigh Comrade Khrustalev’s plan attentively. He says
straight out: “The party should not itself undertake the work of calling
the congress.” “Initiative in convening it should come from the
trade unions and special committees formed to convene the congress.”

Howshould these committees be formed?

Comrade Khrustalev does not give a direct answer to this question. The following
passage, however, contains an answer that is clear enough, even if indirect.

“Whatcomposition of the congress is anticipated? Will any
qualifications be established?” he asks, and gives this
answer. “Since we are trying to broaden the organisation, we are by
that token against any restrictions. At the congress there will be a place
for every elected representative of the workers. Trade unions, consumers
associations, workers’ funds, workers’ mutual benefit societies, factory
committees, committees set up specifically for the organisation of the
congress, deputies elected from factories where there are no factory
committees—all these should be represented at the all-Russian labour
congress. Such will be its composition.”

Thatis perfectly clear. “Against any restrictions”—let anybody come
who is in any way elected by workers. The author does not tell us where to draw a line between “workers” and all sorts of office employees
(commercial, postal, telegraph, railway, etc., employees), and peasants
belonging to our Social-Democratic organisations and to “consumers’
societies”. From his point of view, this is, probably, a mere technical
detail; “against any restrictions”! so why restrict the petty-bourgeois
element?

Butlet us continue. Comrade Khrustalev has given us a clear definition of the
composition of the congress. He has also made himself clear on the purposes of
the congress. “In all cases,” he writes, “the labour congress
committees and the local Social-Democratic organisations will exist side by
side.”

“...Thefirst organisational unit is the factory committee. In their
activities, the factory committees, elective and accountable to their
electors, embrace broad strata of the proletariat through their participation
in all aspects of factory life, from the settlement of conflicts
between labour and capital, the planned leadership of economic strikes,
finding work, etc., up to and including the organisation of funds, clubs,
lectures, and libraries.

“Thefactory committees of one town or one Industrial centre constitute the
labour congress committee. Its purpose includes the leadership, extension
and deepening of the trade union and co-operative movement, the
organisation of aid for the unemployed, bringing pressure to bear on the
municipal authorities to organise public works, agitation against rising
food prices, relations with the Duma commission on aid for the unemployed,
discussion, on the spot, of all parliamentary bills affecting the interests of the working class [author’s italics]; in the event
of a reform of local self-government— the conduct of an election
campaign, etc.

“Thelabour congress is only the guiding and directing body of the whole
movement. Such is approximately the general plan. Events will, of course, lead
to the introduction of amendments.”

Thatis perfectly clear. Non-party factory committees. Non-party labour congress
committees. A non-party labour congress. “Through these committees and
with them as a medium,” says Comrade Khrustalev, “the party will
obtain a powerful means of influencing the entire working class.”

Inwhat way does this differ from Larin’s plan, may we ask? It is exactly the same plan expressed in slightly different words. In practice
it is exactly the same reduction of Social-Democracy to “a propaganda body
within a broad party”, because Comrade Khrustalev’s “plan” has, in point of fact, left no other role to
Social-Democracy. In exactly the same way as Larin, he leaves the political
activity of the working class to a “non-partisan labour party”,
since “the discussion of all bills”, “the conduct of an election campaign, etc.”, all come under the heading of political activity
of the working class.

Larinis only more truthful and frank than Khrustalev, but actually they both
propose and pursue the aim of “destroying the Social-Democratic Labour
Party and setting up in its place a non-party political organisation of the
proletariat”. This is precisely what is said in the first point of that
Bolshevik resolution on non-party labour organisations that aroused Comrade
Khrustalev’s ire and led him to call us prosecuting counsel, etc.

Comrade Khrustalev is also angry because he feels it necessary to evade the
question bluntly presented in our resolution: who should lead the struggle of
the proletariat, the Social-Democratic party or a “ non-party political organisation of the proletariat”? Who
should be the “guiding and directing body” in bringing pressure to
bear on the municipal authorities, in relations with the Duma commission (Comrade Khrustalev said
nothing about the Social-Democratic group in the Duma ! Was that
accidental or was it a “providential slip of the tongue” on the part
of a man who has a vague feeling that the non-party “labour congress
committees” would enter into relations with the Social-Democrats,
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Trudoviks indiscriminately?), in discussing
bills, in conducting an election campaign, etc .?

Therewas nothing left for Comrade Khrustalev to do but display his anger when
this question was put to him, since it would have been awkward for him to admit
that the proletariat’s political activities should be guided by non-party
“committees”. “Who of the Social-Democrats,” he asks wrathfully, “has conducted, or is now conducting, agitation for the
convening of an anti-party congress? The opponents will be unable to give a
single name.” Do not get so angry, Comrade Khrustalev, we have indicated a number of names in the first point of our resolution and we
could now add to them the name of Comrade G. Khrustalev . Actually
Comrade Khrustalev, like Larin, is agitating for a broad Trudovik party . [1]

We say a Trudovik party, not a workers’ party, because (1) neither Larin nor Khrustalev excludes Trudovik, i.e., petty-bourgeois,
democracy from the composition of non-party political organisation (delegates
to the labour congress, for example, from “consumers’ associations”;
or the motto “against all restrictions”) and (2) the non-partisanship of a workers’ political organisation would inevitably
mean the merging of the Social-Democratic and Trudovik points of view.

Comrade Khrustalev writes: “The organisations built up by Zubatov and

Gapon [3] rapidly got rid of their police flavour and conducted a purely
class policy.” They got rid of that because of the politically
conscious participation of the organised Social-Democratic party
that would never agree to handing over the political leadership of
proletarians to non-party organisations. It would seem that

Comrade Khrustalev draws a distinction between “purely class”
politics and Social-Democratic politics. We should very much like
him to explain this idea candidly .

“Therewill be a labour congress,” Comrade Khrustalev enjoins us,
“and the Social-Democrats will participate in it.” Of course we
shall, if there is a congress. We participated in the Zubatov and Gapon workers’
movements in order to fight for Social-Democracy. We shall participate in the
Trudovik labour congress in order to fight for Social-Democracy against the
Trudoviks and Trudovik non-party ideas. This argument is not to the
advantage of the old Gapon trend, or of the new non-party spirit.

Comrade Khrustalev appeals to “Bolshevik workers”, and in so doing
tries to set them at loggerheads with the Bolsheviks, who have been agitating
against the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies. We do not intend to make any answer to
that sally. We refer to Trotsky, who is “non-group”. Let Comrade
Khrustalev read his book In Defence of the Party ; let him open it at
the article entitled, § 2, “Mr. Prokopovich’s Malignant
Impartiality”, page 82. When Comrade Khrustalev has read that
article he will be ashamed of having hidden factional sallies behind a
non-factional labour congress.

Intwo words we shall show politically conscious workers that the leading role
of non-party committees in the politics of the proletariat
(the election campaign, etc.) is a purely intellectualist whimsicality that
would lead to excessive squabbling and bickering and, after the
squabbling and bickering, “back to Social-Democracy”.

Inconclusion let us again thank Comrade Khrustalev for the clarity and
completeness of his propaganda for the labour congress. Larin and Khrustalev are
the Bolsheviks’ best allies against Axelrod.

---
Notes:
[1]
This expression is used by Comrade G. Lindov who gave reasons for and
proved its accuracy in his article “Labour Congress”, published in the
collection Questions of Tactics .— Lenin

[2]
The article “ Larin and Khrustalev ” was first published in the newspaper Trud ( Labour ).

Trud —a Bolshevik weekly literary and political newspaper. Only one
issue appeared on April 15 (28), 1907. The following day the publication of the
paper was forbidden by the St. Petersburg
City Governor.

[3]
Zubatov —see Note 30.

Gapon —apriest of the Orthodox Church and agent of the tsarist
secret police who founded the Assembly of Russian Factory Workers, an
organisation of the Zubatov type. On January 9, 1905, Gapon, taking advantage of
the growing unrest, provoked the workers into demonstrating before the Winter
Palace in St. Petersburg for the purpose of banding a petition to the tsar. By
order of Nicholas II, troops shot down the unarmed people. This act destroyed
the naïve faith of workers throughout the country in the tsar and served as
the starting-point of the first Russian revolution. The political consciousness
of the proletariat was aroused and a wave of protest strikes swept all
Russia.