In the present, second, part of the explanatory memorandum, we intend to focus on the question of the type of Social-Democratic bill on the 8-hour working day for the III Duma and on the motives explaining the basic features of the given bill.

The initial draft, which existed in the Duma Social-Democratic faction and was delivered to our subcommission, could have been taken as a basis, but required a number of revisions.

The fundamental purpose of bills submitted by Social-Democrats to the III Duma should consist in propaganda and agitation for the Social-Democratic program and tactics. Any hopes for "reformism" on the part of the III Duma would be not only ridiculous, but would also threaten a complete distortion of the character of Social-Democratic revolutionary tactics, their transformation into the tactics of opportunistic, liberal social-reformism. It goes without saying that such a distortion of Social-Democratic Duma tactics would directly and decisively contradict the binding decisions of our party, namely: the resolutions of the London Congress of the RSDLP and the resolutions of all-Russian party conferences of November 1907 and December 1908 confirmed by the Central Committee.

In order that the bills submitted by the Social-Democratic Duma faction satisfy their purpose, the following conditions are necessary:

(1) the bills must set forth in the clearest and most distinct form the individual demands of Social-Democracy, included in our party's minimum program, or necessarily flowing from that program; (2) the bills must not in any case be encumbered with an abundance of juridical subtleties; they must give the principal foundations of the proposed laws, and not detailed texts of laws with all their particulars; (3) the bills must not excessively isolate various areas of social reform and democratic transformations, as might seem necessary from a narrow juridical, administrative, or "purely parliamentary" point of view; on the contrary, pursuing the aims of Social-Democratic propaganda and agitation, the bills must give the working class a more definite understanding of the necessary connection between factory (and social in general) reforms and democratic political transformations, without which all manner of "reforms" of Stolypin's autocracy are inevitably condemned to "Zubatov-style" distortion and complete reduction to dead letter. It goes without saying that this indication of the connection between economic reforms and politics should be achieved not by including in all bills the demands of consistent democracy as a whole, but by putting forward, corresponding to each individual reform, democratic and specifically proletarian-democratic institutions, the impossibility of realizing which without radical political transformations should be emphasized in the explanatory memorandum to the bill; (4) in view of the extreme difficulty under present conditions of legal S.-D. propaganda and agitation among the masses, the bills should be drawn up so that both an individual bill and an individual explanatory memorandum to it could achieve their aim when reaching the masses (whether through reprinting in non-Social-Democratic newspapers, or through distribution of separate sheets with the text of the bill, etc.), that is, could be read by street workers, undeveloped workers, with benefit for the development of their class consciousness; for these purposes the bills must be permeated in their entire structure with the spirit of proletarian distrust of entrepreneurs and of the state as an organ serving entrepreneurs: in other words, the spirit of class struggle must permeate the entire structure of the bill, must flow from the sum of its individual provisions; and finally, (5) the bills, under present Russian conditions, that is, in the absence of S.-D. press and S.-D. assemblies, must provide a sufficiently concrete picture of the transformation demanded by Social-Democrats, not limiting itself to a simple proclamation of principle; the street worker, the grey worker must be interested by the S.-D. bill, captivated by the concrete picture of transformation, so that afterwards he might proceed from this separate picture to the entire worldview of Social-Democracy as a whole.

Proceeding from these fundamental premises, one must recognize the type of bill chosen by the author of the initial draft on the 8-hour working day to be more suited to Russian conditions than, for example, those bills on the reduction of the working day which were submitted by French and German Socialists to their parliaments. For example, the bill on the 8-hour working day submitted by Jules Guesde to the French Chamber of Deputies on May 22, 1894, contains two articles: the first – prohibits work of more than 8 hours per day and 6 days per week; the second – permits work in several shifts with the condition that the number of working hours per week does not exceed 48[24]. The German Social-Democratic bill of 1890 contains 14 lines, proposing a 10-hour working day immediately, a 9-hour day from January 1, 1894, and an 8-hour day from January 1, 1898. In the 1900–1902 session, German Social-Democrats submitted an even briefer proposal for the immediate limitation of the working day to 10 hours per day, and subsequently, within a term subject to special determination, to 8 hours per day[25].

Of course, such bills in any case are tenfold more rational from a Social-Democratic point of view than attempts to "adapt" to what would be feasible for reactionary or bourgeois governments. But if in France and in Germany, with freedom of press and assembly, it is sufficient to make a bill a mere proclamation of principle, then here in Russia, at the present time, it is necessary to add to the bill itself concrete agitational material.

Therefore, the type adopted by the author of the initial draft we consider more expedient, but into this draft we must introduce a series of corrections, for the author in several cases makes an extremely important, in our view, and extremely dangerous mistake, namely: reduces the demands of our minimum program without any necessity (for example, by establishing a weekly rest of 36 hours instead of 42, or by remaining silent about the necessity of the consent of workers' organizations for permitting night work). In some cases the author seems to attempt to adapt to the "feasibility" of his bill, allowing, for example, the minister to permit petitions for exemptions (with the matter being referred to legislative institutions) and never mentioning the role of professional workers' organizations in the implementation of the 8-hour working day law.

The bill proposed by our subcommission introduces into the initial draft a series of corrections in the indicated direction. In particular, let us focus on the justification of the following changes to the initial draft.

On the question of which enterprises the bill applies to, one must broaden the scope of its application by including all branches of industry, trade, transport, and all manner of institutions (including state ones: post office, etc.), and home work. In the explanatory memorandum submitted to the Duma, S.-D. must particularly emphasize the necessity of such broadening and the elimination of all boundaries and divisions (on this question) between factory, trade, service, transport, and other proletariat.

A question may arise concerning agriculture, in view of our minimum program's demand for an 8-hour working day "for all hired workers." But we think that for Russian S.-D. to take the initiative on the 8-hour working day in agriculture at the present time is scarcely appropriate. It would be better to stipulate in the explanatory memorandum that the party reserves for itself the right to submit further bills regarding agriculture, and regarding domestic servants, etc.

Furthermore. In all cases where the bill speaks of the permissibility of exemptions from the law, we have inserted the requirement of the consent of the professional workers' union for each exemption. This is necessary in order to clearly show workers the impossibility of achieving a real reduction in the working day without the self-activity of workers' organizations.

Subsequently, one should focus on the question of the gradualness of introducing the 8-hour working day. The author of the initial draft does not mention this with a single word, limiting himself to a simple demand for the 8-hour working day, similar to Guesde's draft. On the contrary, our draft follows the example of Parvus[26] and the draft of the German Social-Democratic faction in the Reichstag, establishing the gradualness of introducing the 8-hour working day (immediate, that is, three months after the law comes into force, a 10-hour day and reduction by one hour per year). Of course, the difference between one draft and the other is not so very essential. But given the maximal technical backwardness of Russian industry, the extremely weak organization of the Russian proletariat, the enormous mass of the working population (handicraftsmen, etc.) who have not yet participated in any major campaign for the reduction of the working day – given all these conditions, it will be more expedient to answer at once, in the very bill itself, the inevitable objection that an abrupt transition is impossible, that workers' wages with such a transition will fall, etc.[27] The establishment of gradualness in introducing the 8-hour working day (the Germans stretched out the introduction over 8 years; Parvus – over 4 years; we propose 2 years) gives an immediate answer to this objection: work beyond 10 hours per day is unconditionally irrational economically and impermissible from hygienic and cultural considerations. An annual term for the reduction of the working day by one hour is entirely sufficient for technically backward enterprises to catch up and transform themselves, for workers to transition to the new order without any noticeable difference in labor productivity.

The gradualness of introducing the 8-hour working day should be established not in order to "adapt" the draft to the measure of capitalists or government (this cannot be a question, and if such thoughts were to arise, we would of course prefer to remove any mention of gradualness), but in order to clearly demonstrate to all and each the technical and cultural and economic feasibility of the Social-Democratic program even in one of the most backward countries.

A serious objection to the gradualness of introducing the 8-hour working day in a Russian S.-D. bill would be that in this way one would, as it were, disavow, even if only indirectly, the revolutionary Soviets of Workers' Deputies in 1905, which carried out the immediate implementation of the 8-hour working day. We consider this objection serious, for the slightest disavowal of the Soviets of Workers' Deputies in this respect would be outright renegadism or, in any case, support of renegades and counter-revolutionary liberals, who have distinguished themselves by such disavowal.

We therefore think that, in any case, regardless of whether gradualness will be included in the bill of the S.-D. Duma faction or not – in any case, it is absolutely necessary that both in the explanatory memorandum submitted to the Duma and in the Duma speech of the S.-D. representative a completely definite thought be expressed, absolutely excluding the slightest disavowal, absolutely including our recognition of the actions of the Soviets of Workers' Deputies as principally correct, fully legitimate and necessary.

"Social-Democracy," so, approximately, a declaration of Social-Democratic representatives or their explanatory memorandum should read, "in no case renounces the immediate introduction of the 8-hour working day; on the contrary, under certain historical conditions, when the struggle sharpens, when the energy and initiative of the mass movement are high, when the collision between old and new society takes sharp forms, when for the success of the working class's struggle, for example, against medievalism, it is necessary to stop at nothing – in a word, under conditions similar to those which existed in November 1905, Social-Democracy considers the immediate introduction of the 8-hour working day not only legitimate, but necessary. By introducing into its bill at the present time the gradualness of introducing the 8-hour working day, Social-Democracy wishes only to show thereby the full possibility of implementing in practice the program demands of the RSDLP even under the worst historical conditions, even at the slowest pace of economic, social and cultural development."

We repeat: such a declaration on the part of S.-D. in the Duma and in their explanatory memorandum to the bill on the 8-hour working day we consider absolutely and, in any case, necessary, while the question of whether to include in the bill itself the gradualness of establishing the 8-hour working day is comparatively less important. — The remaining changes we have introduced into the initial bill concern particular details and do not require special commentary.

Written in autumn 1909.

First published in 1924 in the journal "Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya" No. 4.

Printed from the manuscript.

Announcement of a lecture by V. I. Lenin "The Ideology of Counter-Revolutionary Liberalism." November 13 (26), 1909. (Reduced)