V. I.

Lenin

The Fifth Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party

April 30-May 19 (May 13-June 1), 1907

1

Speech During the Discussion on the Congress Agenda

May 2 (15)

Fromthe discussion on this question it has become quite clear that major
differences of opinion on tactics divide the various trends within the
Social-Democratic Party. Who would have thought that, under such circumstances,
the proposal would be made to remove all questions of principle from the
Congress agenda? And what sophistic arguments were indulged in here in defence
of removing these questions of principle—allegedly for the sake of being
practical and business-like!

Letme remind you that the R.S.D.L.P. was long ago confronted with the question
of the tasks of the proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic revolution. This
question was discussed as far back as the beginning of 1905, before the
revolution, both at the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., that is, of its
Bolshevik section, and at the Geneva Conference of the Mensheviks, which was
held simultaneously. At the time, the Mensheviks themselves placed questions
involving general principles on the agenda of their congress.

Atthe time, they themselves discussed the principles underlying the tactics of
the proletariat in the bourgeois revolution, and adopted studied decisions on
this score. The fact that it is now proposed to throw out such questions is the
result of a sense of despondency, and we must fight against this frame of mind,
not succumb to it!

Mentionwas made of the experience of the West-European Social-Democratic
parties and their business-like congresses, but I must tell you that at their
congresses the Germans frequently discussed questions that were more abstract and more theoretical than
those dealing with an appraisal of the revolution taking place in our
country, and the tasks of the proletariat in this revolution. We must not
take from the experience of other parties things that bring us down to the
level of some period of everyday routine. We must take that which brings
us up to the level of general questions, of the tasks of the entire
revolutionary struggle of the entire proletariat. We must learn from the
best examples, and not from the worst.

Weare told—“Serious tactical questions cannot be decided by the majority
vote of a dozen”. What is this but sophistry? What is this but a helpless
shift from adherence to principle to lack of principle?

Asolution of the problem is never achieved through voting. For several years
now we have been deciding questions of the Marxist appraisal of our
revolution. For several years now we have been putting our theoretical views and
general tactical decisions to the acid test of experience of our revolution. And
we are now being told that it is not yet time to sum up this Party
activity! It is not right, they say, to decide on the fundamental principles
underlying our tactics; instead it is necessary to follow in the wake of
events, making decisions from occasion to occasion....

Justrecall the Stockholm Congress. At that congress the Mensheviks, who had
gained the upper hand, withdrew their own resolution appraising the given
period, withdrew their own resolution on the attitude towards the bourgeois
parties. What was the outcome? It led to the Central Committee having no
grounds of principle for the solution of problems confronting it; it led to the
Central Committee being at a loss for a whole year, with no policy whatever. One
day it was in favour of a constituent assembly, the next day it hurriedly
advocated a Duma ministry, and the following day “the Duma as an organ of
power for the convocation of a constituent assembly”; now it was a Duma
with full legislative authority, then blocs with the Cadets.... Is this what
you call a consistent proletarian policy? ( Applause from the Centre and from the Bolshevik benches .)

Weare told: “For the sake of peace in the Party, for the sake of
practical work let us avoid general questions”.

This is sophistry. Such questions must not be evaded; such evasion will not
result in peace, but only in blinder and hence more irate and less fruitful
Party strife.

Suchquestions cannot be evaded. They force their way into everything. Recall
Plekhanov’s words at the opening of the congress: ... Since our revolution
was bourgeois, he reasoned, we had to make particular haste to attract allies
from among the bourgeoisie. I maintain that the principles underlying this line
of reasoning are erroneous. I maintain that unless you analyse these principles
you are condemning the Party to endless practical mistakes.

Inthis same speech Plekhanov stated that opportunism was feeble in the Russian
Social-Democratic Party. This may be so if one considers the works of Plekhanov
himself feeble! ( Applause from the Bolshevik benches .) But I am of the
opinion that opportunism manifests itself in our Party in the very fact that, at
the first really general Party congress, the desire is expressed that general
questions concerning the principles underlying our tactics in the bourgeois
revolution should be removed from the agenda. We must not remove theoretical
questions from the agenda, but raise all the practical work of our Party, to the
level of theoretical clarification of the tasks of a workers’
party. ( Applause from the Bolsheviks .)

---
Notes: