V. I.

Lenin

Controversial Issues

AN OPEN PARTY AND THE MARXISTS

VI

We must now consider the toning down of Marxist slogans by the
liquidators. For this purpose it would be best to take the decisions of
their August Conference, but for obvious reasons these decisions can be
analysed only in the press published abroad. Here we are obliged to quote
Luch , Issue No. 108 (194), which, in the article by
L. S. [1] gave a remarkably precise exposition of the whole essence, the
whole spirit of liquidationism.

Mr. L. S. writes as follows:

“ Deputy Muranov so far recognises only three partial demands, which, as is known, were the three pillars of the election
platform of the Leninists: the complete democratisation of the state
system, an eight-hour day and the transfer of the land to the
peasants. Pravda , too, continues to maintain this point of
view. Yet we, as well as the whole of European Social-Democracy
[read—“we, and also Milyukov, who assures us that, thank God, we have a
constitution”], see in partial demands a method of agitation which may be
crowned with success only if it takes into account the everyday struggle of the working masses. We think that only things that, on the one hand, are of
fundamental importance to the further development of the working-class
movement, and on the other hand, may acquire urgency for the masses, should
be advanced as the partial demand upon which the Social-Democrats should
concentrate their attention at the present moment. Of the three demands
advanced by Pravda , only one—the eight-hour day—plays and can
play a part in the everyday struggle of the workers. The other two demands
may at the present moment serve as subjects for propaganda, but not for
agitation. Concerning the difference between propaganda and agitation, see
the brilliant pages of G. V. Plekhanov’s pamphlet The Struggle Against Famine . [L. S. is knocking at the wrong door; it is “painful” for
him to recall Plekhanov’s controversy in 18994902 with the Economists whom
he is copying!] “ Apart from the eight-hour day, the demand for the right
of association, the right to form any kind of organisation, with the
corresponding freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, both the oral and
the printed word, is a partial demand advanced both by the requirements of
the working-class movement and by the entire course of Prussian life.”

Here you have the tactics of the liquidators. What L. S. describes by
the words “complete democratisation, etc.”, and what he calls the
“transfer of the land to the peasants” are not , you see, of
“urgency for the masses”, they are not “advanced by the
requirements of the working-class movement” and “the entire course of
Russian life”! How old these arguments are and how familiar they are to
those who remember the history of Russian Marxist practice, its
many years of struggle against the Economists, who renounced the tasks of
democracy! With what talent Luch copies the views of Prokopovich
and Kuskova, who in those days tried to entice the workers on to
the liberal path!

But let us examine the Luch arguments more closely. From the
standpoint of common sense they are sheer madness. Can anyone in his right
mind really affirm that the above-mentioned “peasant” demand (i.e., one
designed to benefit the peasants) is not “urgent for the
masses”, is not “advanced both by the requirements of the
working-class movement and by the entire course of Russian life?” This is
not only an untruth, it is an obvious absurdity. The entire history of
nineteenth-century Russia, the entire “course of Russian life”
produced that question, made it urgent, even most urgent;
this has been reflected in the whole of the legislation of
Russia. How could Luch arrive at such a monstrous untruth?

It had to arrive at it, because Luch is in bondage to liberal policy, and the liberals are true to themselves when they
reject (or, like Luch , put aside) the peasant demand. The liberal
bourgeoisie does so, because its class position forces it to
humour the landowners and to oppose the people’s movement.

Luch brings to the workers the ideas of the liberal land
owners and is guilty of treachery to the democratic peasantry.

Further. Can it be that only the right of association is of
“urgency”? What about inviolability of person? or the abolition of
despotism and tyranny, or universal, etc., suffrage, or a single chamber,
etc.? Every literate worker, everyone who remembers the recent past, knows
perfectly well that all this is urgent. In thousands of articles and
speeches all the liberals acknowledge that all this is urgent. Why then did
Luch declare urgent only one of these liberties , albeit
one of the most important, while the fundamental conditions of political
liberty, of democracy and of a constitutional system were struck out, put
aside, relegated to the archives of “propaganda”, and excluded from
agitation?

The reason, and the only reason is, that Luch does not accept
what is unacceptable to the liberals .

From the standpoint of urgency for the masses, the requirements of the
working-class movement and the course of Russian life, there is no
difference between the three demands of Muranov and of Pravda (or,
to put it briefly, the demands of consistent Marxists). Working-class,
peasant and general political demands are all of equal urgency for
the masses, are equally brought to the forefront both by the
requirements of the working-class movement and by “the entire course of
Russian life”. All three demands are also alike because they are the
partial demands dear to our worshipper of moderation and precision; they
are “partial” compared with the final aims, but they are of a very high
level compared, for example, with “Europe” in general.

Why then does Luch accept the eight-hour day and reject the
rest? Why did it decide on behalf of the workers that the
eight-hour day does “play a part” in their everyday struggle, whereas the
general political and peasant demands do not play such a part? The
facts show, on the one hand, that the workers in their daily struggle
advance both the general political and the peasant demands—and, on the
other hand, that they often fight for more moderate reductions of the working
day.

What is the trouble, then?

The trouble lies in the reformism of Luch , which, as usual,
attributes its own liberal narrow-mindedness to the masses to the
“course of history”, etc.

Reformism, in general, means that people confine them selves to
agitating for changes which do not require the removal of the main
foundations of the old ruling class, changes that are compatible
with the preservation of these foundations. The eight-hour day is
compatible with the preservation of the power of capital. The Russian
liberals, in order to attract the workers, are themselves prepared to
endorse this demand (“as far as possible”). Those demands for which
Luch does not want to “agitate” are incompatible with the preservation of the foundations of the pre-capitalist period, the
period of serfdom.

Luch eliminates from agitation precisely what is not acceptable to the liberals, who do not want to abolish the power of the
landlords, but want only to share their power and privileges. Luch
eliminates precisely what is incompatible with the point of view of
reformism.

That’s where the trouble lies!

Neither Muranov, nor Pravda , nor any Marxist rejects partial
demands. That is nonsense. Take insurance, for example. We reject the
deception of the people by idle talk about partial demands, by
reformism . We reject liberal reformism in present-day
Russia as being utopian, self-seeking and false, as based on constitutional
illusions and full of the spirit of servility to the landlords. That is the
point which Luch tries to confuse and hide by phrases about
“partial demands” in general, although it admits itself that neither
Muranov nor Pravda rejects certain “partial demands”.

Luch tones down the Marxist slogans, tries to fit them to the
narrow, reformist, liberal yardstick, and thus spreads bourgeois ideas
among the workers.

The struggle the Marxists are waging against the liquidators is nothing
but an expression of the struggle the advanced workers are waging against
the liberal bourgeoisie for influence over the masses of the people, for
their political enlightenment and education.