V. I.

Lenin

First Bystander . I am following, as closely as I can, the
struggle among the workers over “the six and the seven”. [1] I try to follow both newspapers. I compare, as far as
possible, the repercussions in the bourgeois and Black-Hundred
newspapers.... And d’you know what I think? It seems to me that the
struggle is taking grave forms, that it is degenerating into squabbles and
bickerings, and that the result will, in any case, be tremendous
demoralisation.

Second Bystander . I don’t understand you. Whoever heard of a
struggle anywhere that did not become grave if it was over
something really serious? It is because the struggle is over a serious
problem that it cannot stop at “a slight quarrel”. Those who are used to
denying, and who continue to deny, the principles of party organisation
will not surrender without the most desperate resistance. Desperate
resistance always and everywhere engenders “grave forms of struggle”,
engenders attempts to shift the dispute from the sphere of
principles to that of squabbles. What if it does? Because of that do you
want us to reject the struggle for the fundamental principles of party
organisation?

First Bystander . You are wandering away a bit from the
question I raised and are in too much of a hurry to “go over to the
offensive”. Every workers’ group on both sides is in a hurry to “dash
off” a resolution, and there is something almost like competition
developing between them to see who can outdo the other in the use of strong
language. So much vituperation makes the working-class press repulsive to
large numbers of working people who are seeking the light of socialism and
who, perhaps, throw down the newspaper with a feeling of confusion, or even
a feeling of shame for socialism.... They may even be disappointed in socialism for a long time. A
slanging match creates a sort of “ un -natural selection” that
brings the “list-fight specialists” to the fore.... Prowess in abusing
one’s opponent is encouraged on both sides. Is this the sort of
education the socialist party should give the proletariat? Does this not
turn out to be approval of, or at least connivance at, opportunism, since
opportunism is the sacrifice of the basic interests of the
working-class movement to momentary success. The basic interests of the
working-class movement are being sacrificed to momentary success by both
sides.... Instead of experiencing the joy of socialist work, of being
inspired by it and showing a serious attitude towards it, the socialists
themselves are driving the masses away from socialism. Willy-nilly, those
bitter words come to mind—the proletariat will achieve socialism
despite the socialists.

Second Bystander . We are both outsiders, that is, neither of
us is a direct participant in the struggle. But bystanders who are trying
to understand what is happening before their eyes may react to the struggle
in two ways. Looking on from the outside, one may see only what one might
call the outward aspect of the struggle; speaking figuratively, one may see
only clenched fists, distorted faces and ugly scenes; one may condemn it
all, one may weep and wail on account of it. But one can also, looking on
from the outside, understand the meaning of the struggle that is
going on, which is slightly, if you will excuse my saying so, more
interesting and historically more significant than the scenes and pictures
of the so-called excesses or extremes of the struggle. There can be no
struggle without enthusiasm and no enthusiasm without extremes; and as far
as I’m concerned I hate most of all people who focus their attention on
“extremes” in the struggle of classes, parties and factions. I always get
the impulse—pardon me again—to shout at those people: “I don’t care if
you drink, as long as you understand what you are doing.” [2]

And this is about something big, historically big. A working-class
party is being built up. Workers’ independence, the influence of the
workers on their own parliamentary group, decisions by the workers
themselves on questions of their own party—such is the great historical
significance of what is going on; the mere wish is becoming fact before our very
eyes. You are afraid of “extremes” and you regret them, but I watch in
admiration a struggle that is actually making the working class of Russia
more mature and adult, and I am mad about one thing only—that I am a
bystander, that I cannot plunge into the midst of that struggle....

First Bystander . And into the midst of the “extremes”, eh?
And if the “extremes” lead to the fabrication of resolutions will you
also proclaim “hatred” for the people who draw attention to it, who are
indignant about it and who demand that such things should be stopped at all
costs?

Second Bystander . Don’t try to frighten me, please! You won’t
frighten me, anyway! You really are getting like those people who are ready
to condemn publicity because of some false information that has been
published. I remember once in
Pravda [3] a report of the political dishonesty of a certain
Social-Democrat was published; some time afterwards the report was
refuted. I can well imagine what that Social-Democrat’s feelings must have
been in the period between publication and refutal! But publicity is a
sword that itself heals the wounds it makes. There will be fabrication of
resolutions, you say? The falsifiers will be exposed and thrown out, that’s
all. Serious battles are not staged without a field hospital somewhere
nearby. But to allow yourself to be scared, or your nerves shattered by
“field hospital” scenes is something unpardonable. If you’re scared of
wolves, keep out of the forest.

As to opportunism, that is, ignoring the basic aims of socialism,
you’re putting the blame on the wrong side. According to you, those basic
aims are some “angelic ideal” that has nothing to do with the “sinful”
struggle for the cause of the day, for the urgent matters of the moment. To
look on matters that way is simply to turn socialism into a sweet phrase,
into saccharine sentimentalising. Every struggle for every matter of the
moment must be intimately connected with basic aims. It is only
this understanding of the historical meaning of the struggle that makes it
possible, by deepening and sharpening it, to get rid of that negative side,
that “prowess”, that “fist-fighting” which is inevitable wherever there
is a crowd making a noise, shouting and shoving, but which disappears of
itself.

You speak of a socialist party educating the proletariat. In the
present struggle the very question at issue is that of defending
the basic principles of party life. The question of what
policy it wants conducted in the Duma, what attitude it
has to an open party or an underground one, and whether it considers the
Duma group to be above the party or vice versa, is confronting
every workers’ study circle starkly, in a form that demands an immediate
and direct answer. This, indeed, is the ABC of party existence, it is a
question of whether the party is to be or not to be.

Socialism is not a ready-made system that will be mankind’s
benefactor. Socialism is the class struggle of the present-day proletariat
as it advances from one objective today to another objective tomorrow
for the sake of its basic objective, to which it is coming nearer every day. In this country called Russia, socialism is today
passing through the stage in which the politically conscious workers are
themselves completing the organisation of a working-class party despite the
attempts of the liberal intelligentsia and the “Duma Social-Democratic
intelligentsia” to prevent that work of organisation.

The liquidators are out to prevent the workers from building
up their own working-class party—that is the meaning and significance of
the struggle between “the six and the seven”. They cannot, however,
prevent it. The struggle is a hard one, but the workers’ success is
assured. Let the weak and the frightened waver on account of the
“extremes” of the struggle—tomorrow they will see for themselves that
not a step further could have been taken without going through this
struggle.