V. I.
Lenin

Letters on Tactics [9]

FOREWORD

On April 4, 1917, I had occasion to make a report on the
subject indicated in the title, first, at a meeting of Bolsheviks
in Petrograd. These were delegates to the All-Russia Conference of
Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, who had to leave for their homes and therefore could not allow me to postpone
it. After the meeting, the chairman, Comrade G. Zinoviev, asked me
on behalf of the whole assembly to repeat my report immediately at
a joint meeting of Bolshevik and Menshevik delegates, who wished
to discuss the question of unifying the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party .

Difficult though it was for me immediately to repeat my
report, I felt that I had no right to refuse once this was
demanded of me by my comrades-in-ideas as well as by the
Mensheviks, who, because of their impending departure, really
could not grant me a delay.

In making my report, I read the theses which were published in
No. 26 of Pravda, on
April 7, 1917 . [1]

Both the theses and my report gave rise to differences of
opinion among the Bolsheviks themselves and the editors of
Pravda. After a number of consultations, we unanimously
concluded that it would be advisable openly to discuss our differences, and thus provide material for the All-Russia
Conference of our Party (the Russian Social-Democratic

Labour
Party, united under the Central Committee) which is to meet in
Petrograd on April 20, 1917.

Complying with this decision concerning a discussion, I am
publishing the following letters in which I do not claim
to have made an exhaustive study of the question, but wish merely to outline the principal arguments, which are
especially essential for the practical tasks of the working-class movement.

First Letter
Assesment of the Present Situation

Marxism requires of us a strictly exact and objectively
verifiable analysis of the relations of classes and of the
concrete features peculiar to each historical situation. We
Bolsheviks have always tried to meet this requirement, which is
absolutely essential for giving a scientific foundation to
policy.

“Our theory is not a dogma, but a guide to action,” [10] Marx
and Engels always said, rightly ridiculing the mere memorising and
repetition of “formulas”, that at best are capable only of marking
out general tasks, which are necessarily modifiable by the concrete economic and political conditions of each
particular period of the historical process.

What, then, are the clearly established objective facts which the party of the revolutionary
proletariat must now be guided by in defining the tasks and forms
of its activity?

Both in my first Letter From Afar (“The First Stage of the First Revolution”) published in Pravda Nos. 14 and
15, March 21 and 22, 1917 , and in my theses, I define “the specific feature of the present situation in Russia” as a
period of transition from the first stage of the revolution to the second. I therefore considered the basic slogan,
the “task of the day” at this moment to be: “Workers, you
have performed miracles of proletarian heroism, the heroism of the
people, in the civil war against tsarism. You must perform
miracles of organisation, organisation of the proletariat and of
the whole people, to prepare the way for your victory in the
second stage of the revolution” (Pravda
No. 15). [2]

What, then, is the first stage?

It is the passing of state power to the bourgeoisie.

Before the February-March revolution of 1917, state power in Russia was in the hands of one old class, namely,
the feudal landed nobility, headed by Nicholas Romanov.

After the revolution, the power is in the hands of a different class, a new class, namely, the
bourgeoisie.

The passing of state power from one class to another is the first, the principal, the basic sign of a
revolution, both in the strictly scientific and in the practical political meaning of that term.

To this extent, the bourgeois, or the bourgeois-democratic,
revolution in Russia is completed.

But at this point we hear a clamour of protest from people who
readily call themselves “old Bolsheviks”. Didn’t we always
maintain, they say, that the bourgeois-democratic revolution is
completed only by the “revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the
proletariat and the peasantry”? Is the agrarian revolution, which
is also a bourgeois-democratic revolution, completed? Is it not a
fact, on the contrary, that it has not even started?

My answer is: The Bolshevik slogans and ideas on the whole have been confirmed by history; but concretely
things have worked out diflerently; they are more original, more peculiar, more variated than anyone could have
expected.

To ignore or overlook this fact would mean taking after those
“old Bolsheviks” who more than once already have played so
regrettable a role in the history of our Party by reiterating
formulas senselessly learned by rote instead of studying the specific features of the new and living
reality.

’The revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry” has already become a
reality [3] in the Russian revolution, for this “formula”
envisages only a relation of classes , and not a concrete political institution implementing this
relation, this co-operation. “The Soviet of Workers’ and
Soldiers’ Deputies”—there you have the “revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the
peasantry” already accomplished in reality.

This formula is already antiquated. Events have moved it from
tile realm of formulas into the realm of reality, clothed it with
flesh and bone, concretised it and thereby modified it.

A new and different task now faces us: to effect a split
within this dictatorship between the proletarian elements
(the anti-defencist, internationalist, “Communist” elements, who
stand for a transition to the commune) and the small-proprietor or petty-bourgeois elements ( Chkheidze ,
Tsereteli, Steklov, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the other
revolutionary defencists, who are opposed to moving towards the
commune and are in favour of “supporting” the bourgeoisie and the
bourgeois government). [4]

The person who now speaks only of a “revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry” is
behind the times, consequently, he has in effect gone over to the petty bourgeoisie against the proletarian class
struggle; that person should be consigned to the archive of
“Bolshevik” pre-revolutionary antiques (it may be called the
archive of “old Bolsheviks”).

The revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat
and the peasantry has already been realised, but in a highly
original manner, and with a number of extremely important
modifications. I shall deal with them separately in one of my next
letters. For the present, it is essential to grasp the incontestable truth that a Marxist must take cognisance of real
life, of the true facts of reality, and not cling to a theory of yesterday, which, like all theories, at best only
outlines the main and the general, only comes near to embracing life in all its complexity.

“Theory, my friend, is grey, but green is the eternal tree of
life.” [11]

To deal with the question of “completion” of the bourgeois
revolution in the old way is to sacrifice living Marxism
to the dead letter.

According to the old way of thinking, the rule of the bourgeoisie could and should be followed by the rule of
the proletariat and the peasantry, by their dictatorship.

In real life, however, things have already turned out differently; there has been an extremely original, novel
and unprecedented interlacing of the one with the other.
We have side by side, existing together, simultaneously,
both the rule of the bourgeoisie (the government of Lvov
and Guchkov) and a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the
proletariat and the peasantry, which is voluntarily ceding power to the bourgeoisie, voluntarily making itself an
appendage of the bourgeoisie.

For it must not be forgotten that actually, in Petrograd, the
power is in the hands of the workers and soldiers; the new
government is not using and cannot use violence against
them, because there is no police, no army standing apart from the people, no officialdom
standing all-powerful above tbe people. This is a fact,
the kind of fact that is characteristic of a state of the Paris
Commune type. This fact does not fit into the old schemes. One
must know how to adapt schemes to facts, instead of reiterating
the now meaningless words about a “dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry” in general.

To throw more light on this question let us approach it from
another angle.

A Marxist must not abandon the ground of careful analysis of
class relations. The bourgeoisie is in power. But is not the mass
of the peasants also a bourgeoisie, only of a different
social stratum, of a different kind, of a different character?
Whence does it follow that this stratum cannot come to power, thus “completing” the bourgeois-democratic
revolution? Why should this be impossible?

This is how the old Bolsheviks often argue.

My reply is that it is quite possible. But, in assessing a
given situation, a Marxist must proceed not from what is
possible, but from what is real.

And the reality reveals the fact that freely elected soldiers’ and peasants’ deputies are freely joining
the second, parallel government, and are freely supplementing,
developing and completing it. And, just as freely, they are
surrendering power to the bourgeoisie—a fact which does not in the least contravene the theory of Marxism, for
we have always known and repeatedly pointed out that the
bourgeoisie maintains itself in power not only by force
but,also by virtue of the lack of class-consciousness and
organisation, the routinism and downtrodden state of the
masses.

In view of this present-day reality, it is simply ridiculous
to turn one’s back on the fact and talk about “possibilities”.

Possibly the peasantry may seize all the land and all the
power. Far from forgetting this possibility, far from confining
myself to the present, I definitely and clearly formulate the
agrarian programme, taking into account the new phenomenon, i.e., the deeper cleavage between the agricultural
labourers and the poor peasants on the one hand, and the peasant
proprietors on the other.

But there is also another possibility; it is possible that the
peasants will take the advice of the petty-bourgeois party of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries, which has yielded to the influence of
the bourgeoisie, has adopted a defencist stand, and which advises
waiting for the Constituent Assembly, although not even the date
of its convocation has yet been fixed. [5]

It is possible that the peasants will maintain and prolong their deal with the bourgeoisie, a deal which they have
now concluded through the Soviets of Workers’ and
Soldiers’ Deputies not only in form, but in fact.

Many things are possible. It would be a great mistake to
forget the agrarian movement and the agrarian programme. But it
would be no less a mistake to forget the reality, which
reveals the fact that an agreement, or—to use a more exact, less legal, but more class-economic term— class collaboration exists between the bourgeoisie and
the peasantry.

When this fact ceases to be a fact, when the peasantry separates from the bourgeoisie, seizes the land and power despite
the bourgeoisie, that will be a new stage in the bourgeois-democratic revolution; and that matter will be dealt
with separately.

A Marxist who, in view of the possibility of such a future
stage, were to forget his duties in the present, when the
peasantry is in agreement with the bourgeoisie, would turn petty bourgeois. For he would in practice be preaching to the
proletariat confidence in the petty bourgeoisie (“this petty bourgeoisie, this peasantry, must separate from the
bourgeoisie while the bourgeois-democratic revolution is still
on”). Because of the “possibility” of so pleasing and sweet a
future, in which the peasantry would not be the tail of
the bourgeoisie, in which the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the
Chkheidzes, Tseretelis, and Steklovs would not be an appendage of the bourgeois government—because of the
“possibility” of so pleasing a future, he would be forgetting
the unpleasant present, in which the peasantry still forms the tail of the bourgeoisie, and in which the Socialist-
Revolutionaries and Social-Democrats have not yet given up their
role as an appendage of the bourgeois government, as “His Majesty”
Lvov’s
Opposition. [12]

This hypothetical person would resemble a sweetish Louis
Blanc, or a sugary Kautskyite, but certainly not a revolutionary
Marxist.

But are we not in danger of falling into subjectivism, of
wanting to arrive at the socialist revolution by “skipping” the
bourgeois-democratic revolution—which is not yet completed
and has not yet exhausted the peasant movement?

I might be incurring this danger if I said: “No Tsar, but a
workers ’ government.” [13] But I did not say that, I said something else. I said that there
can be no government (barring a bourgeois government) in
Russia other than that of the Soviets of Workers’, Agricultural Labourers’, Soldiers’, and
Peasants’ Deputies.I said that power in Russia now can pass
from Guchkov and Lvov only to these Soviets. And in these
Soviets, as it happens, it is the peasants, the soldiers, i.e.,
petty bourgeoisie, who preponderate, to use a scientific, Marxist
term, a class characterisation, and not a common, man-in-the-street, professional characterisation.

In my theses, I absolutely ensured myself against skipping over the peasant movement, which has not outlived itself, or the
petty-bourgeois movement in general, against any playing
at “seizure of power” by a workers’ government, against any
kind of Blanquist adventurism; for I pointedly referred to the
experience of the Paris Commune. And this experience, as we know,
and as Marx proved at length in 1871 and Engels in
1891, [14] absolutely excludes Blanquism, absolutely ensures the direct,
immediate and unquestionable rule of the majority and the
activity of the masses only to the extent that the majority itself
acts consciously.

In the theses, I very definitely reduced the question to one
of a struggle for influence within the Soviets of
Workers’, Agricultural Labourers’, Peasants’, and Soldiers’ Deputies.To leave no shadow of doubt on this
score, I twice emphasised in the theses the need for patient and persistent “explanatory” work “adapted to the
practical needs of the masses ”.

Ignorant persons or renegades from Marxism, like
Mr. Plekhanov, may shout about anarchism, Blanquism, and so
forth. But those who want to think and learn cannot fail to
understand that Blanquism means the seizure of power by a
minority, whereas the Soviets are admittedly the direct
and immediate organisation of the majority of the people. Work confined to a struggle for influence within
these Soviets cannot, simply cannot, stray into the swamp
of Blanquism. Nor can it stray into the swamp of anarchism, for
anarchism denies the need for a state and state power in the period of transition from the rule of
the bourgeoisie to the rule of the proletariat, whereas I, with a
precision that precludes any possibility of misinterpretation,
advocate the need for a state in this period, although,
in accordance with Marx and the lessons of the Paris Commune, I
advocate not the usual parliamentary bourgeois state, but a state
without a standing army, without a police opposed to the people, without an officialdom placed
above the people.

When Mr. Plekhanov, in his newspaper Yedinstvo, shouts with all his might that this is anarchism, he is merely
giving further proof of his break with Marxism. Challenged by me
in
Pravda (No. 26)
to tell us what Marx and
Engels taught on the subject in 1871, 1872 and
1875, [6]
Mr. Plekhanov canonly preserve silence on the question at issue and shout out
abuse after the manner of the enraged bourgeoisie.

Mr. Plekhanov, the ex-Marxist, has absolutely failed to understand the Marxist doctrine of the state. Incidentally,the
germs of this lack of understanding are also to he found in his
German pamphlet on anarchism. [15]

*     * *
Now let us see how Comrade Y. Kamenev, in Pravda No. 27,
formulates his “disagreements” with my theses and with the views
expressed above. This will help us to grasp them more clearly.

“As for Comrade Lenin’s general scheme,” writes Comrade Kamenev, “it appears to us
unacceptable, inasmuch as it proceeds from the assumption that the
bourgeois-democratic revolution is completed, and builds
on the immediate transformation of this revolution into a
socialist revolution.’

There are two big mistakes here.

First. The question of “completion” of the bourgeois-democratic revolution is stated wrongly. The
question is put in an abstract, simple, so to speak one-colour,
way, which does not correspond to the objective reality. To put the question this way, to ask
now “whether the bourgeois-democratic revolution is completed” and say no more, is to prevent oneself from
seeing the exceedingly complex reality, which, is at least
two-coloured. This is in theory. In practice, it means surrendering helplessly to petty-bourgeois revolutionism.

Indeed, reality shows us both the passing of power into the hands of the bourgeoisie (a “completed”
bourgeois-democratic revolution of the usual type) and, side by
side with the real government, the existence of a parallel
government which represents the “revolutionary-democratic
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry”. This “second
government” has itself ceded the power to the bourgeoisie, has chained itself to the bourgeois
government.

Is this reality covered by Comrade Kamenev’s old-Bolshevik formula, which says that “the bourgeois-democratic
revolution is not completed”?

It is not. The formula is obsolete. It is no good at all. It
is dead. And it is no use trying to revive it.

Second. A practical question. Who knows whether it is still
possible at present for a special “revolutionary-democratic
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry”, detached from the bourgeois government, to emerge in
Russia? Marxist tactics cannot be based on the unknown.

But if this is still possible, then there is one, and only one, way towards it, namely, an immediate, resolute, and
irrevocable separation of the proletarian Communist elements from
the petty-bourgeois elements.

Why?

Because the entire petty bourgeoisie has, not by chance but of
necessity, turned towards chauvinism (=defencism), towards
“support” of the bourgeoisie, towards dependence on it, towards
the fear of having to do without it, etc., etc.

How can the petty bourgeoisie be “pushed” into power, if even
now it can take the power, but does not want to?

This can be done only by separating the proletarian, the
Communist, party, by waging a proletarian class struggle free from the timidity of those petty bourgeois. Only the
consolidation of the proletarians who are free from the influence
of the petty bourgeoisie in deed and not only in word can make the
ground so hot under the feet of the petty bourgeoisie that it will
be obliged under certain circumstances to take the power;
it is even within the bounds of possibility that Guchkov and
Milyukov—again under certain circumstances—will be forgiving full and sole power to Chkheidze, Tsereteli, the S.R.s,
and Steklov, since, after all, these are “ defencists ”.

To separate the proletarian elements of the Soviets (i.e., the
proletarian, Communist, party) from the petty-bourgeois elements
right now, immediately and irrevocably, is to give correct
expression to the interests of the movement in either of
two possible events: in the event that Russia will yet experience
a special “dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry”
independent of the bourgeoisie, and in the event that the petty
bourgeoisie will not be able to tear itself away from the
bourgeoisie and will oscillate eternally (that is, until socialism
is established) between us and it.

To be guided in one’s activities merely by the simple formula, “the bourgeois-democratic revolution is not completed”,
is like taking it upon oneself to guarantee that the petty
bourgeoisie is definitely capable of being independent of the
bourgeoisie. To do so is to throw oneself at the given moment on
the mercy of the petty bourgeoisie.

Incidentally, in connection with the “formula” of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, it is worth
mentioning that, in Two Tactics (July 1905), I made a point of emphasising (Twelve Years,
p. 435 [16] ) this:

“Like everything else in the world, the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the
peasantry has a past and a future. Its past is autocracy, serfdom,
monarchy, and privilege.... Its future is the struggle against
private property, the struggle of the wage-worker against the
employer, the struggle for socialism....” [7]

Comrade Kamenev’s mistake is that even in 1917 he sees only the past of the revolutionary-democratic
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. As a matter of
fact its future has already begun, for the interests and
policies of the wage-worker and the petty proprietor have
actually diverged already, even in such an important question as that of “defencism”, that of the attitude towards the
imperialist war.

This brings me to the second mistake in Comrade
Kamenev’s argument quoted above. He criticises me, saying
that my scheme “builds” on “the immediate transformation of this
{bourgeois-democratic} revolution into a socialist revolution”.

This is incorrect. I not only do not “build” on the “immediate
transformation” of our revolution into a socialist one,
but I actually warn against it, when in Thesis No. 8 , I state:

“It is not our immediate task to
’introduce’ socialism...”. [8]

Is it not clear that no person who builds on the immediate
transformation of our revolution into a socialist revolution could
be opposed to the immediate task of introducing socialism?

Moreover, even a “commune state” (i.e., a state organised
along the lines of the Paris Commune) cannot be introduced in Russia “immediately”, because to do that it would be
necessary for the majority of the deputies in all (or in
most) Soviets to clearly recognise all the erroneousness and harm
of the tactics and policy pursued by the S.R.s, Chkheidze,
Tsereteli, Steklov, etc. As for me, I declared unmistakably that
in this respect I “build” only on “patient” explaining (does one
have to be patient to bring about a change which can be effected
“immediately”?).

Comrade Kamenev has somewhat overreached himself in his
eagerness, and has repeated the bourgeois prejudice about the
Paris Commune having wanted to introduce socialism “immediately”. This is not so. The Commune, unfortunately, was too
slow in introducing socialism. The real essence of the Commune is
not where the bourgeois usually looks for it, but in the creation
of a state of a special type. Such a state has already arisen in Russia, it is the Soviets of
Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies!

Comrade Kamenev has not pondered on the fact, the significance, of the existing Soviets, their identity, in
point of type and socio-political character, with the commune
state, and instead of studying the fact, he began to talk
about something I was supposed to be “building” on for the
“immediate” future. The result is, unfortunately, a repetition of
the method used by many bourgeois: from the question as to
what are the Soviets, whether they are of a higher type than a parliamentary republic, whether they
are more useful for the people, more democratic, more convenient for the struggle, for combating, for instance, the
grain shortage, etc.—from this real, urgent, vital issue,
attention is diverted to the empty, would-be scientific, but
actually hollow, professorially dead question of “building on an
immediate transformation”.

An idle question falsely presented. I “build” only on this, exclusively on this—that
the workers, soldiers and peasants will deal better than the
officials, better than the police, with the difficult practical, problems of producing more grain, distributing
it better and keeping the soldiers better supplied, etc.,
etc.

I am deeply convinced that the Soviets will make the independent activity of the masses a reality more quickly
and effectively than will a parliamentary republic (I shall
compare the two types of states in greater detail in another
letter). They will more effectively, more practically and more
correctly decide what steps can be taken towards socialism and how these steps should be taken. Control over abank,
the merging of all banks into one, is not yet socialism,
but it is a step towards socialism. Today such steps are
being

taken in Germany by the Junkers and the bourgeoisie against
the people. Tomorrow the Soviet will be able to take these steps
more effectively for the benefit of the people if the whole state
power is in its hands.

What compels such steps?

Famine. Economic disorganisation. Imminent collapse. The
horrors of war. The horrors of the wounds inflicted on mankind by
the war.

Comrade Kamenev concludes his article with the remark that “in
a broad discussion he hopes to carry his point of view, which is
the only possible one for revolutionary Social-Democracy if it
wishes to and should remain to the very end the party of the
revolutionary masses of the proletariat and not turn into a group
of Communist propagandists”.

It seems to me that these words betray a completely erroneous
estimate of the situation. Comrade Kamenev contraposes to a
“party of the masses” a “group of propagandists”. But the
“masses” have now succumbed to the craze of “revolutionary”
defencism. Is it not more becoming for internationalists at this
moment to show that they can resist “mass” intoxication rather
than to “wish to remain” with the masses, i.e., to succumb to
the general epidemic? Have we not seen how in all the belligerent countries of Europe the chauvinists tried to justify
themselves on the grounds that they wished to “remain with the
masses”? Must we not be able to remain for a time in the
minority against the “mass” intoxication? Is It not the work of
the propagandists at the present moment that forms the key point
for disentangling the proletarian line from the defencist and petty-bourgeois “mass” intoxication? It was this
fusion of the masses, proletarian and non-proletarian, regardless of class differences within the masses, that formed
one of the conditions for the defencist epidemic. To speak
contemptuously of a “group of propagandists” advocating a
proletarian line does not seem to be very becoming.

---
Notes:
[1]
I reprint these theses together with the brief comment from the same
issue of Pravda as an appendix to this letter. — Lenin

[2]

— Ed .

[3]
In a certain form and to a certain extent. — Lenin

[4]


These people and the SR party believed in supporting bourgeois governments as the sucessor to
tsarism. Following the establishment of bourgeois government, they
believed they would then organise the workers to form a Socialist
government. They were in support of the Russian Provisional
government of 1917, and after the Bolshevik revolution restarted
their terrorist tactics, now against the Bolshevik government,
with the hope of brining back a bourgeois government to rule
Russia, in order so that they could replace it in due time with a
“true” workers’ government.
— Ed .

[5]
Lest my words be misinterpreted, I shall say at once that I am positively in favour of the
Soviets of Agricultural Labourers and Peasants immediately taking over all the land; but they
should themselves observe the strictest order and discipline, not permit the slightest dam age to machines,
structures, or livestock, and in no case disorganise agriculture
and grain production, but rather develop them, for the soldiers need twice as much bread, and the people must
not be allowed to starve. — Lenin

[6]

— Ed .

[7]

— Ed .

[8]

— Ed .

[9]


[10]
[2] Quoted from Engels’s letter to F. A. Serge
dated November 29, 1886.

[11]
Lenin here quotes the words of Mephistopheles from Goethe’s tragedy Faust . Erster
Teil, Studierzimmer.

[12]
The expression “His Majesty’s Opposition” belongs to
P. N. Milyukov, the leader of the Cadet Party . In a speech made at a luncheon given by the Lord Mayor
of London on June 19 (July 2), 1909, Milyukov said: “So long as
there is a legislative chamber in Russia which controls the
budget, the Russian Opposition will remain the Opposition of His
Majesty, not to His Majesty” (Flerh No. 167, June 21 [July 4]. 1909).

[13]
“ No Tsar, but a workers’ government” was a an anti-Bolshevik
slogan put forward in 1905 by Parvus and Trotsky. This slogan of a revolution without the peasantry, which became one of the basic
postulates of counter-revolutionary Trotskyism, was sharply criticised
by Lenin.

[14]


[15]


[16]