19. I turn now to the final matter—the name of our party. We must call ourselves the Communist Party—as Marx and Engels called themselves.

We must reiterate that we are Marxists and take as our foundation the *Communist Manifesto*, which has been distorted and betrayed by social-democracy on two principal points: 1) workers have no fatherland: "defense of the fatherland" in an imperialist war is a betrayal of socialism; 2) the Marxist teaching on the state has been distorted by the Second International.

The name "social-democracy" is scientifically incorrect, as Marx demonstrated repeatedly, notably in his *Critique of the Gotha Programme* of 1875, and as Engels reiterated more popularly in 1894{107}. From capitalism, humanity can transition directly only to socialism, that is, to common ownership of the means of production and distribution of products according to each person's labor. Our party looks further: socialism must inevitably gradually evolve into communism, on whose banner stands: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Such is my first argument.

The second: the second part of our party's name (social-democracy) is also scientifically incorrect. Democracy is a form of state. Yet we Marxists are opponents of every state.

The leaders of the Second (1889–1914) International—Mr. Plekhanov, Kautsky, and their ilk—have vulgarized and distorted Marxism.

Marxism differs from anarchism in that it recognizes the necessity of the state for the transition to socialism—but (and herein lies the difference from Kautsky and Co.) not the sort of state that is the ordinary parliamentary bourgeois democratic republic, but such as the Paris Commune of 1871, such as the Soviets of Workers' Deputies of 1905 and 1917.

My third argument: life has created, revolution has already created in fact among us, though in a weak, embryonic form, precisely this new "state," which is not a state in the proper sense of the word.

This is already a matter of the practice of the masses, not merely of the theory of leaders.

A state in the proper sense is the command over the masses by detachments of armed men separated from the people.

Our nascent new state is also a state, for we require detachments of armed men, we require the strictest order, we require the merciless suppression by violence of all attempts at counter-revolution, whether tsarist or Guchkov-bourgeois.

But our nascent new state is not already a state in the proper sense of the word, for in many places in Russia these detachments of armed men are the masses themselves, the entire people, and not someone placed above them, separated from them, privileged, and practically immovable.

We must not look backward, but forward—not to that democracy of the ordinary bourgeois type, which consolidated the rule of the bourgeoisie by means of the old monarchical organs of administration, police, army, and bureaucracy.

We must look forward to the nascent new democracy, which is already ceasing to be democracy, for democracy is the rule of the people, and the armed people themselves cannot rule over themselves.

The word democracy is not only scientifically incorrect when applied to the Communist party. It is now, after March 1917, a blindfold placed over the eyes of the revolutionary people, hindering it from freely, boldly, and on its own initiative constructing the new: Soviets of Workers', Peasants', and all manner of other Deputies, as the sole power in the "state," as the harbinger of the "withering away" of every state.

My fourth argument: we must reckon with the objective worldwide situation of socialism.

It is not such as it was in 1871–1914, when Marx and Engels consciously tolerated the incorrect, opportunist term "social-democracy." For at that time, after the defeat of the Paris Commune, history set the task of the day: slow organizational and educational work. There was no other way. The anarchists were not only theoretically (and remain) profoundly mistaken, economically and politically as well. The anarchists incorrectly assessed the moment, failing to grasp the worldwide situation: the working class of England, corrupted by imperialist profits; the Commune in Paris, defeated; only just victorious (in 1871) the bourgeois-national movement in Germany; Russia, sleeping in centuries of semi-serfdom.

Marx and Engels correctly assessed the moment, understood the international situation, understood the tasks of the slow approach to the beginning of social revolution.

Let us too grasp the tasks and peculiarities of the new epoch. Let us not imitate those wretched pseudo-Marxists of whom Marx spoke: "I sowed dragons, and the harvest reaped me fleas"{108}.

The objective necessity of capitalism, grown into imperialism, engendered the imperialist war. War has brought all humanity to the brink of the abyss, to the destruction of all culture, barbarization, and the death of millions more, countless millions.

There is no way out except through the revolution of the proletariat.

And at such a moment, when this revolution is beginning, when it is taking its first timid, unsteady, unconscious, all-too-trusting steps toward the bourgeoisie—at such a moment the majority (it is true, it is a fact) of "social-democratic" leaders, "social-democratic" parliamentarians, "social-democratic" newspapers—and these are precisely the organs of influence upon the masses—the majority of them have betrayed socialism, have sold out socialism, have gone over to the side of "their own" national bourgeoisie.

The masses are bewildered, thrown into confusion, deceived by these leaders.

And shall we encourage this deception, ease it, by clinging to that old and obsolete name, which is as rotten as the Second International has rotted!

Let "many" workers understand social-democracy in good faith. It is time to learn the distinction between the subjective and the objective.

Subjectively, these worker social-democrats are the truest leaders of the proletarian masses.

But the objective, worldwide situation is such that the old name of our party facilitates the deception of the masses, impedes forward movement, for at every step, in every newspaper, in every parliamentary faction, the mass sees leaders—that is, people whose words are heard more loudly, whose deeds are seen from farther away—and all of them are "also social-democrats," all of them are "for unity" with the traitors to socialism, the social-chauvinists, all of them are presenting for payment the old promissory notes issued by "social-democracy"…

And what are the arguments against? "…They will confuse us with anarcho-communists…"

Why do we not fear confusion with the social-nationalists and social-liberals, with the radical-socialists, the most advanced and most cunning bourgeois party in the deception of the masses in the French republic? "…The masses are accustomed, the workers have 'grown fond of' their social-democratic party…"

Here is the only argument, but it is an argument that casts aside both the science of Marxism, and the tasks of tomorrow in the revolution, and the objective situation of worldwide socialism, and the disgraceful collapse of the Second International, and the corruption of practical work by swarms of "also social-democrats" surrounding the proletariat.

This is the argument of routine, the argument of torpor, the argument of inertia.

But we want to rebuild the world. We want to end the worldwide imperialist war, in which hundreds of millions of people are drawn, in which the interests of hundreds and hundreds of billions of capital are entangled, a war that cannot be ended in truly democratic peace without the greatest proletarian revolution in the history of mankind.

And we are afraid of ourselves. We cling to the "accustomed," "dear," filthy shirt…

It is time to cast off the filthy shirt, time to put on clean linen.

Petrograd, April 10, 1917.