V. I.

Lenin

Proposed by the Editors

The material published in this issue shows the tremendous
scope of the work being done by the St. Petersburg Committee of our
Party. To Russia, and indeed to the entire International, this is indeed a
model of Social-Democratic work during a reactionary war and in most
difficult conditions. The workers of St. Petersburg and Russia will bend
every effort to give support to that work and will continue it along the
same road ever more energetically and extensively.

Complying with advice from comrades in Russia, we have drawn up several
theses on current problems of Social-Democratic work:

(1) The slogan of a “constituent assembly” is wrong as an
independent slogan, because the question now is: who will convene it? The
liberals accepted that slogan in 1905 because it could have been interpreted
as meaning that a “constituent assembly” would be convened by the
tsar and would be in agreement with him. The most correct slogans are the
“three pillars” (a democratic republic, confiscation of the
landed estates and an eight-hour working day), with the addition (cf. No. 9)
of a call for the workers’ international solidarity in the struggle
for socialism and the revolutionary overthrow of the belligerent
governments, and against the war.

(2) We are opposed to participation in the war industries
committees, [1] which help prosecute the imperialist and reactionary war. We are in favour of
utilising the election campaign; for instance, we are for participation in
the first stage of the elections for the sole purpose of agitation
and organisation. There can be no talk of boycotting the Duma. Participation
in the second ballot is essential. While we have no Duma deputies
from our Party, we must utilise everything that happens in the Duma so as to
advance the aims of revolutionary Social-Democracy.

(3) We consider that the consolidation and extension of Social-Democratic
work among the proletariat and its extension to the rural proletariat, the
rural poor and the army are the immediate and pressing tasks. It is
revolutionary Social-Democracy’s most pressing task to develop the
incipient strike movement, and to conduct it under the slogan of the
“three pillars”. The demand for the immediate cessation of the
war should be given due attention. Among other demands, the workers must not
lose sight of the demand for the immediate reinstatement of the
workers’ deputies, members of the R.S.D.L. Duma group.

(4) Soviets of Workers’ Deputies and similar institutions must be
regarded as organs of insurrection, of revolutionary rule. It is only in
connection with the development of a mass political strike and with an
insurrection, and in the measure of the latter’s preparedness,
development and success that such institutions can be of lasting value.

(5) Only a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and
the peasantry can form the social content of the impending revolution in
Russia. The revolution cannot be victorious in Russia unless it overthrows
the monarchy and the feudal-minded landowners, and these cannot be
overthrown unless the proletariat is supported by the peasantry. The step
forward made in the differentiation of the rural population into wealthy
“homestead farmers” and rural proletarians has not done away with
the oppression of the rural areas by the Markovs and
Co. [2] We have urged and still urge the absolute need, in all and any circumstances, for a
separate organisation for rural proletarians.

(6) The task confronting the proletariat of Russia is the consummation of
the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia in order to kindle
the socialist revolution in Europe. The latter task now stands very close to
the former, yet it remains a special and second task, for it is a question of the different classes which are collaborating with the
proletariat of Russia. In the former task, it is the petty-bourgeois
peasantry of Russia who are collaborating; in the latter, it is the
proletariat of other countries.

(7) As hitherto, we consider it admissible for Social-Democrats to join a
provisional revolutionary government together with the democratic petty
bourgeoisie, but not with the revolutionary chauvinists.

(8) By revolutionary chauvinists we mean those who want a victory over
tsarism so as to achieve victory over Germany, plunder other countries,
consolidate Great-Russian rule over the other peoples of Russia,
etc. Revolutionary chauvinism is based on the class position of the petty
bourgeoisie. The latter always vacillates between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat. At present it is vacillating between chauvinism (which prevents
it from being consistently revolutionary, even in the meaning of a
democratic revolution), and proletarian internationalism. At the moment the
Trudoviks, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Nasha Zarya ,
Chkheidze’s Duma group, the Organising Committee, Mr. Plekhanov and
the like are political spokesmen for this petty bourgeoisie in Russia.

(9) If the revolutionary chauvinists won in Russia, we would be
opposed to a defence of their “fatherland” in the present war. Our slogan is:
against the chauvinists, even if they are revolutionary and
republican against them, and for an alliance of the international proletariat for the socialist
revolution.

(10) To the question of whether it is possible for the proletariat to
assume the leadership in the bourgeois Russian revolution, our answer is:
yes, it is possible, if the petty bourgeoisie swings to the left at
the decisive moment; it is being pushed to the left, not only by our
propaganda, but by a number of objective factors, economic, financial (the
burden of war), military, political, and others.

(11) To the question of what the party of the proletariat would do if the
revolution placed power in its hands in the present war, our answer is as
follows: we would propose peace to all the belligerents on the
condition that freedom is given to the colonies and all peoples
that are dependent, oppressed and deprived of rights. Under the present
governments, neither Germany, nor Britain and France would accept this
condition. In that case, we would have to prepare for and wage a
revolutionary war, i.e., not only resolutely carry out the whole of our
minimum programme, [3] but work systematically to bring about an
uprising among all peoples now oppressed by the Great Russians, all colonies
and dependent countries in Asia (India, China, Persia, etc.), and also, and
first and foremost, we would raise up the socialist proletariat of Europe
for an insurrection against their governments and despite the
social-chauvinists. There is no doubt that a victory of the proletariat in
Russia would create extraordinarily favourable conditions for the
development of the revolution in both Asia and Europe. Even 1905
proved that. The international solidarity of the revolutionary proletariat
is a fact , despite the scum of opportunism and social-chauvinism.

We now present these theses for discussion among the comrades, and shall
develop our views in the next issues of the Central Organ.

---
Notes:
[1]
War industries committees were established in Russia in 1915 by the
imperialist bourgeoisie. In an attempt to bring the workers under their
influence and inculcate defencist sentiments, the bourgeoisie decided to
organise “workers’ groups”in these committees. It was to
the bourgeoisie’s advantage to have workers’ representatives in
these groups, who would call upon the workers to raise labour productivity
in the war industries. The Mensheviks took an active part in this
pseudo-patriotic measure initiated by the bourgeoisie. The Bolsheviks’
boycott of the committees was supported by the majority of workers. At a
worker delegates’ meeting in Petrograd on September 27 (October 10),
1915, the Bolshevik resolution calling for a boycott and for a revolutionary
way out of the war obtained 95 votes to the Mensheviks’ 81. Only at a
second meeting, held without the pro-Bolshevik delegates, were the
Mensheviks, led by Gvozdev and an agent provocateur Abrosimov, able
to elect a “workers’ group”of ten.

As a result of Bolshevik propaganda, elections to the “workers’ groups”were held in only 70 areas out of a total
of 239, and workers representatives were actually elected only in 36
areas.

[2]
Markov , N. E. —a reactionary politician of tsarist
Russia, big landowner and Deputy from Kursk Gubernia to the Third and Fourth
Dumas.

[3]
The programme of the R.S.D.L.P. adopted at the Second Congress of the Party in
1903 consisted of two parts: a minimum programme calling for the overthrow
of tsarism, for a democratic republic, the eight-hour day and other demands
attainable under capitalism and a maximum programme, formulating the
ultimate goal of the working class, viz., socialist revolution, dictatorship
of the proletariat, the building of a socialist society.