V. I. Lenin

## A Letter to the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)

One of the most vicious and probably most widespread distortions
of Marxism resorted to by the dominant "socialist" parties is
the opportunist lie that preparation for insurrection, and
generally the treatment of insurrection as an art, is " Blanquism ".

Bernstein , the leader of opportunism, has already earned himself
unfortunate fame by accusing Marxism of Blanquism, and when our
present-day opportunists cry Blanquism they do not improve on or
"enrich" the meagre "ideas" of Bernstein one little bit.

Marxists are accused of Blanquism for treating insurrection as
an art! Can there be a more flagrant perversion of the truth,
when not a single Marxist will deny that it was Marx who
expressed himself on this score in the most definite, precise
and categorical manner, referring to insurrection specifically
as an art, saying that it must be treated as an art, that you must win the first success and then proceed from
success to success, never ceasing the offensive against
the enemy, taking advantage of his confusion, etc., etc.?

To be successful, insurrection must rely not upon conspiracy and
not upon a party, but upon the advanced class. That is the first
point. Insurrection must rely upon a revolutionary upsurge of the people. That is the second point. Insurrection must
rely upon that turning-point in the history of the growing
revolution when the activity of the advanced ranks of the people
is at its height, and when the vacillations in the ranks of the
enemy and in the ranks of the weak, half-hearted and irresolute friends of the revolution are strongest. That is
the third point. And these three conditions for raising the
question of insurrection distinguish Marxism from Blanquism.

Once these conditions exist, however, to refuse to treat
insurrection as an art is a betrayal of Marxism and a betrayal
of the revolution.

To show that it is precisely the present moment that the Party
must recognise as the one in which the entire course of
events has objectively placed insurrection on the order
of the day and that insurrection must be treated as an art, it
will perhaps be best to use the method of comparison, and to
draw a parallel between July 3-4 and the September days.

On July 3-4 it could have been argued, without violating the
truth, that the correct thing to do was to take power, for our
enemies would in any case have accused us of insurrection and
ruthlessly treated us as rebels. However, to have decided on
this account in favour of taking power at that time would have
been wrong, because the objective conditions for the victory of
the insurrection did not exist.

(1) We still lacked the support of the class which is the
vanguard of the revolution.

We still did not have a majority among the workers and soldiers
of Petrograd and Moscow. Now we have a majority in both
Soviets. It was created solely by the history of July and August, by the experience of the "ruthless treatment" meted
out to the Bolsheviks, and by the experience of the Kornilov
revolt.

(2) There was no country-wide revolutionary upsurge at that
time. There is now, after the Kornilov revolt; the situation in
the provinces and assumption of power by the Soviets in many
localities prove this.

(3) At that time there was no vacillation on any serious political scale among our enemies and among the
irresolute petty bourgeoisie. Now the vacillation is enormous. Our main enemy, Allied and world imperialism (for
world imperialism is headed by the "Allies"), has begun to waver between a war to a victorious finish and a separate
peace directed against Russia. Our petty-bourgeois democrats,
having clearly lost their majority among the people, have begun
to vacillate enormously, and have rejected a bloc, i.e., a
coalition, with the
Cadets.

(4) Therefore, an insurrection on July 3-4 would have been a
mistake; we could not have retained power either physically or
politically. We could not have retained it physically even
though Petrograd was at times in our hands, because at that time
our workers and soldiers would not have fought and died
for Petrograd. There was not at the time that "savageness", or
fierce hatred both of the Kerenskys and of the
Tseretelis and Chernovs. Our people had still not been tempered
by the experience of the persecution of the Bolsheviks in which
the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks participated.

We could not have retained power politically on July 3-4
because, before the Kornilov revolt, the army and the provinces could and would have marched against Petrograd.

Now the picture is entirely different.

We have the following of the majority of a class, the vanguard
of the revolution, the vanguard of the people, which is capable
of carrying the masses with it.

We have the following of the majority of the people, because Chernov's resignation, while by no means the only
symptom, is the most striking and obvious symptom that the
peasants will not receive land from the
Socialist-Revolutionaries' bloc (or from the
Socialist-Revolutionaries themselves). And that is the chief
reason for the popular character of the revolution.

We are in the advantageous position of a party that knows for
certain which way to go at a time when imperialism, as a whale and the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary bloc as
a whole are vacillating in an incredible fashion.

Our victory is assured, for the people are close to desperation, and we are showing the entire people a sure way
out; we demonstrated to the entire people during the "Kornilov
days" the value of our leadership, and then proposed to the
politicians of the bloc a compromise, which they rejected, although there is no let-up in their
vacillations.

It would be a great mistake to think that our offer of a
compromise had not yet been rejected, and that the Democratic
Conference may still accept it. The compromise was proposed by a party to parties; it could not have been
proposed in any other way. It was rejected by parties. The
Democratic Conference is a conference, and nothing more.

One thing must not be forgotten, namely, that the majority of
the revolutionary people, the poor, embittered peasants, are not
represented in it. It is a conference of a minority of the people—this obvious truth must not be forgotten. It
would be a big mistake, sheer parliamentary cretinism on our
part, if we were to regard the Democratic Conference as a
parliament; for even if it were to proclaim itself a permanent
and sovereign parliament of the revolution, it would nevertheless decide nothing. The power of decision lies
outside it in the working-class quarters of Petrograd and Moscow.

All the objective conditions exist for a successful insurrection. We have the exceptional advantage of a situation
in which only our victory in the insurrection can put an end to
that most painful thing on earth, vacillation, which has worn
the people out; in which only our victory in the insurrection
will give the peasants land immediately; a situation in which
only our victory in the insurrection can foil the game of a separate peace directed against the revolution —foil
it by publicly proposing a fuller, juster and earlier peace, a
peace that will benefit the revolution.

Finally, our Party alone can, by a victorious insurrection, save
Petrograd; for if our proposal for peace is rejected, if we do
not secure even an armistice, then we shall become "defencists",
we shall place ourselves at the head of the war parties, we shall be the war party par excellence,
and we shall conduct the war in a truly revolutionary manner. We
shall take away all the bread and boots from the capitalists. We
shall leave them only crusts and dress them in bast shoes. We
shall send all the bread and footwear to the front.

And then we shall save Petrograd.

The resources, both material and spiritual, for a truly
revolutionary war in Russia are still immense; the chances are a
hundred to one that the Germans will grant us at least an
armistice. And to secure an armistice now would in itself mean
to win the whole world.

* * *

Having recognised the absolute necessity for an insurrection of
the workers of Petrograd and Moscow in order to save the
revolution and to save Russia from a "separate" partition by the
imperialists of both groups, we must first adapt our political
tactics at the Conference to the conditions of the growing
insurrection; secondly, we must show that it is not only in
words that we accept Marx's idea that insurrection must be
treated as an art.

At the Conference we must immediately cement the Bolshevik
group, without striving after numbers, and without fearing to
leave the waverers in the waverers' camp. They are more useful
to the cause of the revolution there than in the camp of the resolute and devoted fighters.

We must draw up a brief declaration from the Bolsheviks,
emphasising in no uncertain manner the irrelevance of long
speeches and of "speeches" in general, the necessity for
immediate action to save the revolution, the absolute necessity
for a complete break with the bourgeoisie, for the removal of
the present government, in its entirety, for a complete rupture
with the Anglo-French imperialists, who are preparing a
"separate" partition of Russia, and for the immediate transfer
of all power to revolutionary democrats, headed by the revolutionary proletariat.

Our declaration must give the briefest and most trenchant
formulation of this conclusion in connection with the programme
proposals of peace for the peoples, land for the peasants,
confiscation of scandalous profits, and a check on the scandalous sabotage of production by the capitalists.

The briefer and more trenchant the declaration, the better. Only
two other highly important points must be clearly indicated in
it, namely, that the people are worn out by the vacillations,
that they are fed up with the irresolution of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks; and that we are
definitely breaking with these parties because they have betrayed the revolution.

And another thing. By immediately proposing a peace without
annexations, by immediately breaking with the Allied imperialists and with all imperialists, either we shall at once
obtain an armistice, or the entire revolutionary proletariat
will rally to the defence of the country, and a really just,
really revolutionary war will then be waged by revolutionary
democrats under the leadership of the proletariat.

Having read this declaration, and having appealed for decisions and not talk, for action and not
resolution-writing, we must dispatch our entire group to the factories and the barracks. Their place is
there, the pulse of life is there, there's the source of
salvation for our revolution, and there is he motive force of
the Democratic Conference.

There, in ardent and impassioned speeches, we must explain our
programme and put the alternative: either the Conference adopts
it in its entirety, or else insurrection. There is no middle course. Delay is impossible. The revolution is lying.

By putting the question in this way, by concentrating our entire
group in the factories and barracks, we shall be able to determine the right moment to start the insurrection.

In order to treat insurrection in a Marxist way, i.e., as an
art, we must at the same time, without losing a single moment,
organise a headquarters of the insurgent detachments, distribute our forces, move the reliable regiments to the most
important points, surround the Alexandriusky Theatre, occupy the
Peter and Paul Fortress,1' arrest the General Staff and the
government, and move against the officer cadets and the Savage
Division12 those detachments which would rather die than allow
the enemy to approach the strategic points of the city. We must
mobilise the armed workers and call them to fight the last
desperate fight, occupy the telegraph and the telephone exchange
at once, move our insurrection headquarters to the central
telephone exchange and connect it by telephone with all the
factories, all the regiments, all the points of armed fighting,
etc.

Of course, this is all by way of example, only to illustrate the
fact that at the present moment it is impossible to remain loyal
to Marxism, to remain loyal to the revolution unless insurrection is treated as an art.

N.	Lenin