V. I.

Lenin

The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)

APRIL 24–29, 1917

21

Speech in Favour of the Resolution on the Current Situation
April 29 (May 12)

In the resolution on the current situation it would be wrong to
speak only of Russian conditions. The war has bound us together
so inseparably that it would be a great mistake on our part to
ignore the sum total of international relations.

The main question dealt with in the resolution is this: what
tasks will confront the Russian proletariat in the event of the
world movement raising the issue of a social revolution?

“ The objective conditions for a socialist revolution, which
undoubtedly existed even before the war in the more developed
and advanced countries, have been ripening with tremendous
rapidity as a result of the war. Small and middle enterprises
are being squeezed out and ruined at a faster rate than
ever. The concentration and internationalisation of capital are
making gigantic strides; monopoly capitalism is developing into
state monopoly capitalism. In a number of countries regulation
of production and distribution by society is being introduced by
force of circumstances. Some countries are introducing universal
labour conscription.”

Before the war we had the monopoly of trusts and syndicates;
since the war we have had a state monopoly. Universal labour
conscription is something new, something that constitutes part
of a socialist whole—this is often over looked by those who
fear to examine the concrete situation.

The first part of the resolution concentrates on an analysis of
the conditions of capitalist economy throughout the world. It is
noteworthy that twenty-seven years ago Engels pointed out that
to describe capitalism as something that “is distinguished by
its planlessness” and to overlook the role played by the trusts
was unsatisfactory. Engels remarked that “when we come to the
trust, then planlessness disappears”, though there is capitalism. This remark is all the more pertinent today, when we
have a military state, when we have state monopoly capitalism. Planning does not make the worker less of a slave,
but it enables the capitalist to make his profits “according to
plan”. Capitalism is now evolving directly into its higher,
regulated, form.

The second part of the resolution needs no explanations.

The third part requires more detailed comment. ( Reads the resolution. )

“ Operating as it does in one of the most backward countries of
Europe amidst a vast population of small peasants, the proletariat of Russia cannot aim at immediately putting into
effect socialist changes.

“ But it would be a grave error, and in effect even a complete
desertion to the bourgeoisie, to infer from this that the
working class must support the bourgeoisie, or that it must keep
its activities within limits acceptable to the petty bourgeoisie, or that the proletariat must renounce its leading
role in the matter of explaining to the people the urgency of
taking a number of practical steps towards socialism for which
the time is now ripe.”

From the first premise it is customary to make the conclusion
that “Russia is a backward country, a peasant, petty-bourgeois
country, therefore there can be no question of a social
revolution”. People forget, however, that the war has placed us
in extraordinary circumstances, and that side by side with the
petty bourgeoisie we have Big Capital. But what are the Soviets
of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies to do when they assume power?
Should they go over to the bourgeoisie? Our answer is—the
working class will continue its class struggle.

What is possible and what is necessary under the power of the
Soviets?

First of all, the nationalisation of the land. Nationalisation of
the land is a bourgeois measure, it does not exclude capitalism,
nor does capitalism exclude it, but the blow it will deal to
private property will be a heavy one. Further ( reads on ):

“ the establishment of state control over all banks, and their
amalgamation into a single central bank; also control over the
insurance agencies and big capitalist syndicates (for example,
the Sugar Syndicate, the Coal Syndicate, the Metal Syndicate,
etc.), and the gradual introduction of a more just progressive
tax on incomes and properties. Economically, these measures are
timely; technically, they can be carried out immediately;
politically they are likely to receive the support of the overwhelming majority of the peasants, who have everything
to gain by these reforms.”

This point evoked discussion. I already had occasion to speak of
this in Pravda in connection with Plekhanov’s articles. “When they talk about socialism being impossible,” I
wrote, “they try to speak of the latter in a way most advantageous to themselves, they represent it vaguely,
indefinitely, as some sort of a jump.” Kautsky himself wrote:
“No socialist speaks of the abolition of private property in the
case of the peasants.” But does that mean that existing
large-scale capital must make it unnecessary for the Soviets of
Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies to control production, to
control the sugar and other syndicates? This measure is not
socialism—it is a transitional measure, but the carrying
out of such measures together with the existence of the Soviets
will bring about a situation in which Russia will have one foot
in socialism—we say one foot because the peasant majority
controls the other part of the country’s economy. It cannot be
denied that economically we are ripe for a change. To effect
that change politically, we must have a majority, and the
majority are peasants who are naturally interested in such
changes. Whether they will prove sufficiently organised is
another matter; we cannot speak for them.

An old and often repeated objection to socialism is that
socialism means “barracks for the masses” and “mass bureaucracy”. We must now put the issue of socialism
differently; we must raise it from the level of the abstract to
the level of the concrete, namely, the nationalisation of the
land, control over the syndicates, etc. ( reads the resolution ).

“ All these and other similar measures can and should be not only
discussed and prepared for enforcement on a national scale in
the event of all power passing to the proletarians and semi-proletarians, but also implemented by the local
revolutionary organs of power of the whole people when the
opportunity arises.

“ Great care and discretion should be exercised in carrying out
the above measures; a solid majority of the population must be
won over and this majority must be clearly convinced of the
country’s practical preparedness for any particular measure. This is the direction in which the class-conscious
vanguard of the workers must focus its attention and efforts,
because it is the bounden duty of these workers to help the
peasants find a way out of the present debacle.”

These last words are the crux of the whole resolution; we put
the issue of socialism not as a jump, but as a practical way out
of the present debacle.

“ This is a bourgeois revolution, it is therefore useless to
speak of socialism,” say our opponents. But we say just the
opposite: “Since the bourgeoisie cannot find a way out of the
present situation, the revolution is bound to go on.” We must
not confine ourselves to democratic phrases; we must make the
situation clear to the masses, and indicate a number of
practical measures to them, namely, they must take over the
syndicates—control them through the Soviets, etc. When all
such measures are carried out, Russia will be standing with one
foot in socialism. Our economic programme must show a way out of
the debacle—this is what should guide our actions.

| First published in 1925 in the book The Petrograd City and the All-Russia Conferences of the R.S.D.L.P.(B ), April 1917 | Published according to the manuscript copy of the Minutes |