V. I.

Lenin

A LINE OF ARGUMENT USED BY SOCIALISTS WHO HAVE GONE OVER TO THE BOURGEOISIE

Mr. Plekhanov gives an excellent illustration of this. In his
First of May letter to the Association of Socialist Students
published in today’s Rech , Dyelo Naroda , and
Yedinstvo , he writes:

“ It {the International Socialist Congress of 1889} understood
that the social, or more exactly—the socialist, revolution
presupposes prolonged educational and organisational work within
the working class. This has now been forgotten here by people
who call on the Russian working masses to seize political power,
an act which would make sense only if the objective conditions
necessary for a social revolution prevailed. These conditions do
not exist yet....

And so on in the same strain, ending with an appeal for
“whole-hearted support” of the Provisional Government .

This argument of Mr. Plekhanov is the typical argument of a
small group of “have-beens”, who call themselves
Social-Democrats. And because it is typical it is worth dealing
with at length.

First of all, is it reasonable and honest to quote the First
Congress of the Second International, and not the last one?

The First Congress of the Second International (1889–1914) took
place in 1889, the last, in Basle, in 1912. The Basle Manifesto,
which was adopted unanimously, speaks precisely, definitely, directly, and clearly (so that not even the
Plekhanovs can twist the sense of It) of a proletarian revolution, and one, moreover, which is considered in
connection with the very war which subsequently broke out (in 1914 ).

It is not difficult to understand why those socialists who have
gone over to the bourgeoisie are prone to “forget” the Basle
Manifesto as a whole, or this most important part of it.

Secondly, the seizure of political power by “the Russian working
masses”, writes our author, “would make sense only if the
objective conditions necessary for a social revolution prevailed”.

This is a muddle, not a thought.

Assuming even that the word “social” here is a misprint
for “socialist”, this is not the only muddle. ’What classes do
the Russian working masses consist of? Everybody knows that they
consist of workers and peasants. Which of these classes is in
the majority? The peasants. Who are these peasants as far as
their class position is concerned? Petty proprietors. The
question arises: if the petty proprietors constitute the
majority of the population and if the objective conditions for
socialism are lacking, then how can the majority of the
population declare in favour of socialism? Who can say anything or who says anything about establishing socialism
against the will of the majority?

Mr. Plekhanov has got mixed up in the most ludicrous fashion at
the very outset.

To find himself in a ridiculous position is not the worst
punishment a man can suffer, who, following the example of the
capitalist press, creates an “enemy” of his own imagination
instead of quoting the exact words of this or that political
opponent.

Further. In whose hands should “political power” be, even from the point of view of a vulgar bourgeois
democrat from Rech? In the hands of the majority of the
population. Do the “Russian working masses” [i.e. the proletariat and peasantry] , so
inaptly referred to by the muddled social-chauvinist, constitute
the majority of the population in Russia? Undoubtedly they
do—the overwhelming majority!

How then, without betraying democracy—even democracy as
understood by Milyukov—can one be opposed to the “seizure
of political power” by the “Russian working masses”?

The deeper you go into the wood, the thicker the trees. Each
step in our analysis opens up new abysses of confusion in
Mr. Plekhanov’s ideas.

The social-chauvinist is against political power passing to the
majority of the population in Russia!

Mr. Plekhanov doesn’t know what he is talking about. He has also
confused—though Marx as far back as 1875 made a point of
warning against such confusion—the “working masses” with
the mass of proletarians and semi-proletarians. [1]
We shall explain the difference to the ex-Marxist, Mr. Plekhanov.

Can the majority of the peasants in Russia demand and carry out
the nationalisation of the land? Certainly it can. Would this be
a socialist revolution? It would not. It would still be
a bourgeois revolution, for the nationalisation of the land is a
measure that is not incompatible with the existence of capitalism. It is, however, a blow to private ownership
of the most important means of production. Such a blow would
strengthen the proletarians and semi-proletarians far more than was the case during the revolutions of the
seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Further. Can the majority of the peasants in Russia declare for
the merging of all the banks into one, for having a branch of a
single nation-wide state bank in each village?

It can, because the convenience and advantage for the people of
such a measure are unquestionable. Even the “defencists” could be for such a measure, as it would heighten
Russia’s capacity for “defence” enormously.

Is it economically possible to immediately effect such a merger
of all the banks? Without a doubt, it is quite possible.

Would this be a socialist measure? No, this would not yet be socialism.

Further. Can the majority of the peasants in Russia declare in
favour of the Sugar Manufacturers’ Syndicate passing into the
hands of the government, to be controlled by the workers and
peasants, and the price of sugar being lowered?

It certainly can, for that would benefit the majority of the
people.

Is that possible economically? It is quite possible, since the
Sugar Syndicate has not only developed economically into a
single industrial organism on a national scale, but had already been subject to “state” control under Tsarism (i.e., control by government officials serving the capitalists).

Would the taking over of the syndicate by the democratic-bourgeois, peasant, state be a socialist measure?

No, that would not yet be socialism. Mr. Plekhanov could have
easily convinced himself of that if he had recalled the commonly
known axioms of Marxism.

The question is: Would such measures as the merging of the banks
and turning over the Sugar Manufacturers’ Syndicate to a
democratic peasant government enhance or diminish the role, importance, and influence of the proletarians and
semi-proletarians among the general mass of the population?

They would undoubtedly enhance them, for those measures do not grow out of a system of petty production; they were
made possible by those “objective conditions” which were
still lacking in 1889, but which already exist now.

Such measures would inevitably enhance the role, importance, and
influence upon the population of the workers, especially the
city workers, who are the vanguard of the proletarians and
semi-proletarians of town and country.

After these measures will have been put into effect, further progress towards socialism in Russia would
become fully possible, and given the aid of the more advanced
and experienced workers of Western Europe, who have broken with
their West-European Plekhanovs, Russia’s real transition to socialism would be inevitable, and the
success of such a transition would be assured.

This is the line of argument which every Marxist and socialist
who has not gone over to the side of “his own” national
bourgeoisie should use.