V. I.

Lenin

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

APRIL 24–29, 1917

3

Speech Winding Up The Debate on the Report on the Current Situation

April 24 (May 7)

C omrade Kamenev was quick to seize on the talk of adventurism. I shall have to
dwell on this. Comrade Kamenev is convinced and asserts that in
opposing the slogan “Down with the Provisional Government”, we
showed vacillation. I agree with him; there certainly has been
vacillation away from revolutionary policy, and this vacillation
must be avoided. I think that our differences with Comrade
Kamenev are not very great, because by agreeing with us he has
changed his position. In what did our adventurism consist? It
was the attempt to resort to forcible measures. We did not know
to what extent the masses had swung to our side during that
anxious moment. If it had been a strong swing things would have
been different. We advanced the slogan for peaceful demonstrations, but several comrades from the Petrograd
Committee issued a different slogan. We cancelled it, but were
too late to prevent the masses from following the slogan of the
Petrograd Committee. We say that the slogan “Down with the
Provisional Government” is an adventurist slogan, that the
government cannot be overthrown now. That is why we have
advanced the slogan for peaceful demonstrations. All we wanted
was a peaceful reconnoitring of the enemy’s forces; we did not
want to give battle. But the Petrograd Committee turned a trifle
more to the left, which in this case is certainly a very grave
crime. Our organisational apparatus proved weak—our decisions are not being carried out by everyone. Together with
the correct slogan “Long Live the Soviets of Workers’ and

Soldiers’ Deputies!” stood the incorrect slogan “Down with the
Provisional Government”. At the time of action, to go a “trifle
more to the left” was wrong. We regard this as a very serious
crime, as disorganisation. Had we deliberately allowed such an
act, we would not have remained in the Central Committee for one
moment. It happened because of the weakness of our organisational apparatus. Yes, there were shortcomings in our
organisation. We have raised the question of improving our
organisation.

The Mensheviks and Co. are working the word “adventurism” as hard as they
can. But it is they, of all people, who had neither an organisation nor a policy. We have both an organisation and a
policy.

At that moment the bourgeoisie mobilised all its forces; the
centre hid itself, and we organised a peaceful demonstration. We
were the only ones who had a political line. Did we make
mistakes? We did. Only he who does nothing never errs. Perfect
organisation is a difficult thing.

Now about control.

We are at one with Comrade Kamenev, except on the question of
control. He views control as a political act. Subjectively,
however, he understands this word better than Chkheidze and
others. We will not accept control. People tell us that we have
isolated ourselves, that, by uttering a lot of terrible words
about communism, we have frightened the bourgeoisie into
fits.... Maybe! But it was not this that isolated us. It was the
question of the loan that caused our isolation. It was on this
question that we found ourselves in the minority. Yes, we are in
the minority. Well, what of it? To be a socialist while
chauvinism is the craze means to be in the minority. To be in
the majority means to be a chauvinist. at the moment the
peasant, together with Milyukov, is hitting socialism by means
of the loan. The peasant follows Milyukov and Guchkov. This is a
fact. The bourgeois-democratic dictatorship of the peasantry is
an old formula.

If we want to draw the peasantry into the revolution we must
keep the proletariat apart from it in a separate proletarian
party, because the peasantry is chauvinistic. To attract the
peasant now means to surrender to the mercies of Milyukov.

The Provisional Government must be overthrown, but not now, and
not in the usual way. We agree with Comrade Kamenev. But we must
explain. It is this word that Comrade Kamenev has been harping
on. Nevertheless, this is the only thing we can do.

Comrade Rykov says that socialism must come from other countries with a more
developed industry. But that is not so. Nobody can say who will
begin it and who will end it. That is not Marxism; it is a
parody of Marxism.

Marx said that France would begin it and Germany would finish
it. But the Russian proletariat has achieved more than anybody
else.

If we had said, “No tsar, but a dictatorship of the proletariat”, well, this would have meant skipping over the
petty bourgeoisie. But what we are saying is—help the revolution through the Soviets .
We must not lapse into reformism .
We are fighting to win, not to lose. At the worst we count on
partial success. Even if we suffer defeat we shall achieve
partial success. We shall get reforms. Reforms are an auxiliary
instrument of the class struggle.

Further, Comrade Rykov says that there is no period of transition from capitalism to socialism. That is not so. It is a
break with Marxism.

The line we have marked out is correct, and in future we shall
make every effort to achieve an organisation in which there will
be no Petrograd Committee-men to disobey the Central
Committee. We are growing, and that is as it should be with a
real party.

| First published in 1921 in N. Lenin (V. Ulyanov), Works , Volume. XIV, Part 2 | Published according to the typewritten copy of the Minutes |

---
Notes: