 Postscript Part 1 of Two Tactics of Social Democracy by Lennon Recorded for LibreVox.org by Christian Paco at communistrevolution.org Postscript Once again, Asvabjinnia trend Once again, New Iskra trend. Numbers 71-72 of the Asvabjinnia and Numbers 102-103 of the Iskra provide a wealth of additional material on the question to which we have devoted chapter 8 of our pamphlet. Since it is quite impossible to make use of the whole of this rich material here, we shall confine ourselves to the most important points only. Firstly, to the kind of realism in social democracy that Asvabjinnia praises and why the latter must praise it. Secondly, to the relationship between the concepts revolution and dictatorship. Part 1 What do the bourgeois liberal realists praise the social democratic realists for? The article is entitled The Split in Russian Social Democracy and The Triumph of Common Sense, Asvabjinnia number 72, set forth the opinion on social democracy held by the representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie. An opinion which is of remarkable value for class conscious proletarians. We cannot too strongly recommend every social democrat to read these articles in full and to ponder over every sentence in them. We shall reproduce first of all the most important propositions contained in both these articles. It is fairly difficult, writes the Asvabjinnia, for an outside observer to grasp the real political meaning of the disagreements that have split the social democratic party into two factions. A definition of the majority faction as the more radical and unswerving as distinct from the minority which allows of certain compromises in the interest of the cause would not be quite exact and in any case would not provide an exhaustive characterization. At any rate, the traditional dogmas of Marxian orthodoxy are observed by the minority faction with even greater zeal perhaps than by the Lenin faction. The following characterization would appear to us to be more accurate. The fundamental political temper of the majority is abstract revolutionism. Rebellion for the sake of rebellion, an eagerness to stir up insurrection among the popular masses by any and every means and to seize power immediately in their name. To a certain extent, this brings the Leninists close to the socialist revolutionaries and overshadows in their minds the idea of the class struggle with the idea of a Russian revolution involving the whole people. While abjuring in practice much of the narrow mindedness of the social democratic doctrine, the Leninists are, on the other hand, thoroughly imbued with the narrow mindedness of revolutionism. Renounce all practical work except the preparation of an immediate insurrection. Ignore on principle all forms of legal and semi-legal agitation and every species of practically useful compromise with other oppositional trends. The minority, on the contrary, while steadfastly adhering to the doctrine of Marxism, at the same time preserves the realistic elements of the Marxian world outlook. The fundamental idea of this faction is to oppose the interests of the proletariat to the interests of the bourgeoisie. But, on the other hand, the struggle of the proletariat is conceived, of course within certain bounds dictated by the immutable dogmas of social democracy, in realistically sober fashion with a clear realization of all the concrete conditions and aims of this struggle. Neither of the two factions pursues its basic point of view quite consistently, for in their ideological and political activity they are bound by the strict formulae of the social democratic catechism which keep the Leninists from becoming unswerving rebels after the fashion of some, at least, of the socialist revolutionaries and the ischriests from becoming the practical leaders of the real political movement of the working class. And, after quoting the contents of the most important resolutions, the Oswabgenia writer goes on to illustrate his general thoughts, with several concrete remarks about them. In comparison with the Third Congress, he says, the Minority Conference takes a totally different attitude towards armed insurrection. In connection with the attitude towards armed insurrection, there is a difference in the respective resolutions on a provisional government. A similar difference is revealed in relation to the workers trade unions. The Leninists do not say a single word in their resolution about this most important starting point in the political education and organization of the working class. The minority, on the other hand, drew up a very weighty resolution. With regard to the liberals, both factions, he says, are unanimous. But the Third Congress repeats almost word for word Konov's resolution on the attitude towards the liberals adopted at the Second Congress and rejects Starova's resolution adopted by the same Congress, which was more favorably inclined towards the liberals. Although the Congress and the conference resolutions on the peasant movement coincide on the whole, the majority lays more emphasis on the idea of the revolutionary confiscation of landlords' estates and other land, while the minority wants to make the demand for democratic state and administrative reforms the basis of its agitation. Finally, the Azvabjinnah cites from the Iskra, number 100, a Menshevik resolution, the main clause of which reads as follows. In view of the fact that at the present time underground work alone does not secure adequate participation of the masses in party life, and in some degree leads to the masses as such, being contrasted to the party as an illegal organization, the latter must assume leadership of the trade union struggle of the workers on a legal basis, while strictly linking up this struggle with the social democratic tasks. Commenting on this resolution, the Azvabjinnah exclaims, we heartily welcome this resolution as a triumph of common sense, as evidence that a definite section of the Social Democratic Party is beginning to see the light with regard to tactics. The reader now has before him all the essential opinions of the Azvabjinnah. It would of course be the greatest mistake to regard these opinions as correct in the sense that they correspond to objective truth. Every Social Democrat will easily detect mistakes in them at every step. It would be naive to forget that these opinions are thoroughly permeated with the interests and the points of view of the liberal bourgeoisie, and that accordingly they are utterly biased and tendentious. They reflect the views of the Social Democrats in the same way as objects are reflected in a concave or convex mirror. But it would be an even greater mistake to forget that in the final analysis these bourgeois distorted opinions reflect the real interests of the bourgeoisie, which as a class undoubtedly understands correctly which trends in Social Democracy are advantageous, close, akin and agreeable, and which trends are harmful, distant, alien, and antipathetic to it. A bourgeois philosopher or a bourgeois publicist can never understand Social Democracy properly. Neither Menshevik nor Bolshevik Social Democracy. But if he is at all a sensible publicist, his class instinct will not deceive him, and he will always grasp the significance for the bourgeoisie of one or another trend in the Social Democratic movement, on the whole correctly, although he may present it in a distorted way. That is why the class instinct of our enemy, his class opinion, is always deserving of the most serious attention of every class-conscious proletarian. What then does the class instinct of the Russian bourgeoisie, as expressed by the asphabiansy, tell us? It quite definitely expresses its satisfaction with the trend represented by the new escra, praises it for its realism, sober-mindedness, the triumph of common sense, the seriousness of its resolutions, its beginning to see the light on questions of tactics, its practicalness, etc. And it expresses dissatisfaction with the trend of the Third Congress, centers it for its narrow-mindedness, revolutionism, its rebel spirit, its repudiation of practically useful compromises, etc. The class instinct of the bourgeoisie suggests to it exactly what has been repeatedly proved with the help of the most precise facts in our literature, namely that the new escraists are the opportunists and their opponents the revolutionary wing of the present-day Russian Social Democratic movement. The liberals cannot but sympathize with the trend of the former and cannot but censure the trend of the latter. The liberals, being the ideologists of the bourgeoisie, perfectly well understand the advantages to the bourgeoisie of practicalness, sober-mindedness, and seriousness on the part of the working class, i.e., of actually restricting its field of activity within the boundaries of capitalism, reforms, the trade union struggle, etc. Dangerous and terrible to the bourgeoisie is the revolutionary narrow-mindedness of the proletariat and its endeavor in order to promote its own class aims to win the leadership in a popular Russian revolution. That this is the real meaning of the word realism as employed by the Asvabdgenia is evident among other things by the way it was used previously by the Asvabdgenia and Mr. Stroove. The escra itself could not but admit that this was the meaning of the Asvabdgenia's realism. Take, for instance, the article entitled It is High Time in the Supplement to the Escra No. 73-74. The author of this article, a consistent exponent of the views of Marsh at the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, frankly expressed the opinion that at the Congress, Akimov played the part of the ghost of opportunism rather than of its real representative. And the editors of the Escra were forthwith obliged to correct the author of the article It is High Time by stating in a note, quote, we cannot agree with this opinion. Comrade Akimov's views on the program bear the clear imprint of opportunism, which fact is admitted even by the Asvabdgenia critic who, in one of its recent issues, stated that Comrade Akimov is an adherent of the realist, read revisionist tendency. Thus the Escra itself is perfectly aware that the Asvabdgenia's realism is simply opportunism and nothing else. If in attacking liberal realism, Escra No. 102, the Escra now says nothing about how it was praised by the liberals for its realism, the explanation of this circumstance is that such praise, which the Asvabdgenia uttered not by mere chance and not for the first time, actually proves the affinity between liberal realism and those tendencies of social democratic realism, read opportunism, that run through every resolution of the new Escraists as the result of the mistaken character of their whole tactical line. Indeed, the Russian bourgeoisie has already fully revealed its inconsistency and egoism in the popular revolution, has revealed it in Mr. Struve's arguments by the whole tone and content of the numerous liberal newspapers and by the nature of the political utterances of the bulk of the Zemps' foists, the bulk of the intellectuals, and in general of all the adherents of Mr. Trubotovsky, Petrunkovich, Radicev, and company. Of course, the bourgeoisie does not always clearly understand, but in general and on the whole, its class instinct enables it to grasp perfectly well that, on the one hand, the proletariat and the people are useful for its revolution as cannon fodder, as a battering ram against the autocracy, but that, on the other hand, the proletariat and the revolutionary peasantry will be terribly dangerous to it if they win a decisive victory over czarism and carry the democratic revolution to completion. That is why the bourgeoisie strains every effort to induce the proletariat to be content with a modest role in the revolution, to be more sober-minded, practical, and realistic, to be guided in its activities by the principle lest the bourgeoisie recoil. The bourgeois intellectuals know full well that they will not be able to get rid of the working-class movement. That is why they do not come out against the working-class movement. They do not come out against the class struggle of the proletariat. No, they even pay lip service to the right to strike, to a gentile class struggle, understanding the working-class movement and the class struggle in the Brentano or Hirsch-Dunker sense. In other words, they are fully prepared to yield to the workers the right to strike and organize in trade unions, which in fact has already almost been won by the workers themselves. Provided the workers renounce their rebelliousness, their narrow-minded revolutionism, their hostility to practically useful compromises, their claims and aspirations to put on the popular Russian revolution, the imprint of their class struggle, the imprint of proletarian consistency, proletarian determination, and plebeian Jacobinism. That is why the bourgeois intellectuals all over Russia exert every effort, resort to thousands of ways and means, books, lectures, speeches, talks, etc., to imbue the workers with the ideas of bourgeois sober-mindedness, liberal practicalness, opportunist realism, Brentano class struggle, Hirsch-Dunker trade unions, etc. The latter two slogans are particularly convenient for the bourgeois of the Constitutional Democratic Party or the party of liberation. Since outwardly they coincide with the Marxian slogans, since with a few small omissions and slight distortions they can easily be confused with and sometimes even passed off as social-democratic slogans. For instance, the legal liberal newspaper Razvjet, which we will try someday to discuss in greater detail with the readers of the proletari, frequently say such bold things about the class struggle, about the possible deception of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, about the working class movement, about the initiative of the proletariat, etc., etc., that the inattentive reader or an unenlightened worker might easily be led to believe that its social-democratism is genuine. Actually, however, it is a bourgeois imitation of social-democratism an opportunist distortion and perversion of the concept class struggle. At the bottom of the hole of this gigantic in breadth of influence on the masses bourgeois subterfuge lies the tendency to reduce the working class movement mainly to a trade union movement to keep it as far away as possible from an independent, i.e. revolutionary and directed towards a democratic dictatorship policy to, quote, overshadow in the minds of the workers the idea of a Russian revolution involving the whole people with the idea of the class struggle. As the reader will perceive, we have turned the Asvabjinnah formulation upside down. This is an excellent formulation that excellently expresses the two views and the role of the proletariat in a democratic revolution the bourgeois view and the social-democratic view. The bourgeoisie wants to confine the proletariat to the trade union movement and thereby to overshadow in its mind the idea of a Russian revolution involving the whole people with the idea of the Brentano class struggle which is wholly in the spirit of the Bernsteinian authors of the Credo who overshadowed in the minds of the workers the idea of the political struggle with the idea of a purely working class movement. Social democracy, however, wants, on the contrary, to develop the class struggle of the proletariat to the point where the latter will take the leading part in the popular Russian revolution. i.e. will lead this revolution to a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. The revolution in our country is one that involves the whole people, says the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. Therefore you, as a separate class, must confine yourselves to your class struggle. Must, in the name of common sense, devote your attention mainly to the trade unions and their legalization. Must consider these trade unions as the most important starting point in your political education and organization. Must, in a revolutionary situation, draw up for the most part serious resolutions like the new Iskra resolution. Must pay careful heed to resolutions that are more favorably inclined towards the liberals. Must show preference for leaders who display a tendency to become practical leaders of the real political movement of the working class. Must preserve the realistic elements of the Marxian world outlook. If you have, unfortunately, already become infected with the strict formulae of this unscientific catechism. The revolution in our country is one involving the whole people, as social democracy says to the proletariat. Therefore you, as the most progressive and the only thoroughly revolutionary class, must strive not only to take the most active part, but also the leading part in it. Therefore you must not confine yourselves to narrowly conceived limits of the class struggle, meaning mainly the trade union movement. But, on the contrary, you must strive to widen the limits and the content of your class struggle to include not only all the aims of the present democratic Russian revolution of the whole of the people, but the aims of the subsequent socialist revolution as well. Therefore, while not ignoring the trade union movement, while not refusing to take advantage of even the slightest legal possibilities, you must, in a revolutionary period, put in the forefront the tasks of armed insurrection and the formation of a revolutionary army and a revolutionary government as being the only way to the complete victory of the people over czarism, to the winning of a democratic republic and real political liberty. It would be superfluous to speak about the half-hearted and inconsistent stand which, naturally, is so pleasing to the bourgeoisie that the new escra resolutions took on this question because of their mistaken line. End of Postscript Part 1. This recording is in the public domain. Postscript Part 2 of Two Tactics of Social Democracy by Lennon. Recorded for LibriVox.org by Christian Paco at CommunistRevolution.org Postscript Part 2 Comrade Martinov again renders the question more profound. Let us pass on to Martinov's articles in Numbers 102 and 103 of the escra. We shall, of course, make no reply to Martinov's attempts to prove the incorrectness of our and the correctness of his interpretation of a number of citations from Engels and Marx. These attempts are so trivial, Martinov's subterfuges so obvious and the question so clear that it would be of no interest to dwell on this point again. Every thinking reader will be able to easily see through the simple wiles employed by Martinov in his retreat all along the line, particularly when the complete translations of Engels pamphlet The Bakuninists at Work and Marx's Address of the Central Council to the Communist League of March 1850 on which a group of collaborators of the proletarii are now working, are published. A single quotation from Martinov's article will suffice to make his retreat clear to the reader. The escra admits, says Martinov in Numbers 103, that the establishment of a provisional government is one of the possible and expedient ways of furthering the revolution denies the expediency of the participation of social democrats in a bourgeois provisional government precisely in the interest of a complete seizure in the future of the state machine for a socialist revolution. In other words, the escra now admits the absurdity of all its fears concerning the responsibility of a revolutionary government for the ex-trekker and the banks. Concerning the danger and impossibility of taking over the prisons, etc. But the escra is only muddling things as of old confusing the democratic with the socialist dictatorship. This muddle is unavoidable. It is a means to cover up the retreat. But among the muddleheads of the new escra Martinov stands out as a muddleheaded of the first order as a muddlehead of talent, if we may so express it. Confusing the question of his laborious efforts to render it more profound, he almost invariably arrives at new formulations which show us splendidly the entire falsity of the stand he has taken. You will remember how in the days of economism he rendered Plakhanov more profound and created the formulation economic struggle against the employers and the government. It would be difficult to find in all the literature of the economists a more apt expression of the entire falsity of this trend. It is the same today. Martinov zealously serves the new escra and almost every time he opens his mouth he furnishes us with new and excellent material for an evaluation of the new escra's false position. In number 102 he says that Lenin has imperceptibly substituted the concept dictatorship for that of revolution. As a matter of fact all the accusations leveled at us by the new escraists can be reduced to this one. And how grateful we are to Martinov for this accusation. What an invaluable service he renders us in the struggle against the new escra ideas by formulating his accusation in this way. We must positively beg the editors of the escra to let Martinov loose against us more often for the purpose of rendering the attacks on the proletary more profound and for a truly principled formulation of these attacks. Martinov strains to argue on the plane of principles the worse his arguments appear and the more clearly he reveals the gaps in the new escra ideas. The more successfully he performs on himself and on his friends the useful pedagogical operation reductio ad absurdum. The period and proletary substitute the term dictatorship for that of revolution. The escra does not want such a substitution. Just so most esteemed comrade Martinov you have unwittingly stated a great truth. With this new formulation you have confirmed our contention that the escra is dragging at the tail of the revolution is straying into an asphabgenia formulation of its task whereby the period and proletary are issuing slogans that lead the democratic revolution forward. You don't understand this comrade Martinov? In view of the importance of the question we shall try to give you a detailed explanation. The bourgeois character of the democratic revolution expresses itself, among other things, in the fact that a number of classes, groups and sections of society which take their stand entirely on the recognition of private property and commodity production are incapable of going beyond these bounds are led by force of circumstances to recognize the uselessness of the autocracy and of the whole feudal order in general and join in the demand for liberty. The bourgeois character of this liberty which is demanded by society and advocated in a flood of words and words only by the land owners and the capitalists is manifesting itself more and more clearly. At the same time the radical difference between the struggle of the workers and the struggle of the bourgeoisie for liberty between proletarian and liberal democratism also becomes more obvious. The working class and its class conscious representatives are marching forward and pushing this struggle forward not only without fearing to carry it to completion but striving to go far beyond the uttermost limits of the democratic revolution. The bourgeoisie is inconsistent and self-seeking and accepts the slogans of liberty only in part and hypocritically. All attempts to draw a particular line or to draw up particular points like the points in Starovers or the Conferencer's Resolution beyond which begins this hypocrisy of the bourgeois friends of liberty or if you like this betrayal of liberty by its bourgeois friends are inevitably doomed to failure. For the bourgeoisie caught between two fires the autocracy and the proletariat is capable of changing its position and slogans by a thousand ways and means of adapting itself by moving an inch to the left or an inch to the right constantly bartering and dickering. The task of proletarian democratism is not to invent such lifeless points but unceasingly to criticize the developing political situation to expose the ever-new and unforeseeable inconsistencies and betrayals on the part of the bourgeoisie. Recall the history of Mr. Stroves' political pronouncements in the illegal press the history of social democracies war with him and you will see clearly how these tasks are carried out by social democracy the champion of proletarian democratism. Mr. Stroves began with a purely Shipov slogan writes and an authoritative Zempsvoh see my article in the Zarya the persecutors of the Zempsvoh and the Hannibals of liberalism Social democracy exposed him and pushed him in the direction of the constitutionalist program. When this pushing took effect thanks to the particularly rapid progress of revolutionary events the struggle shifted to the next question of democracy not only a constitution in general but one providing for universal and equal suffrage direct elections and secret ballot we captured this new position from the enemy the adoption of universal suffrage by the Azvabgenia League we began to press further we showed up the hypocrisy and falsity of a two-chamber system and the fact that universal suffrage had not been fully recognized by the Azvabgenzi we pointed to their monarchism and showed up the huckstering nature of their democratism or in other words the bartering away of the interests of the great Russian Revolution by these Azvabgenia heroes of the money bags finally the savage obstinacy of the autocracy the enormous progress of the civil war and the hopelessness of the position into which the monarchists have led Russia began to penetrate even the thickest skulls the revolution has become a fact it is no longer necessary to be a revolutionary to acknowledge the revolution the autocratic government has actually been and is disintegrating in the sight of all as has been justly remarked in the legal press by a certain liberal, Mr. Gretta School actual insubordination to this government has set in despite all its apparent strength the autocracy has proved impotent the events attending the developing revolution have simply begun to brush aside this parasitic organism which is rotting alive compelled to base their activity or to put it more correctly their political wire pulling on relationships as they are actually taking place the liberal bourgeois have begun to see the necessity of recognizing the revolution they do so not because they are revolutionaries but despite the fact that they are not revolutionaries they do so of necessity and against their will angrily glaring at the successes of the revolution they blame the autocracy for the revolution because it does not want to strike a bargain but wants a life and death struggle born hucksters they hate struggle and revolution but circumstances force them to tread the ground of revolution for there is no other ground under their feet we are witnessing a highly instructive and highly comical spectacle the bourgeois liberal prostitutes are trying to drape themselves in the toga of revolution the asvabjensi ristum tenatis amiki restrain your laughter friends the asvabjensi are beginning to speak in the name of the revolution the asvabjensi are beginning to assure us that they do not fear revolution Mr. Struve in the asvabjenia number 72 the asvabjensi are voicing their claims to be the head of the revolution this is an exceptionally significant phenomenon that characterizes not only the progress of bourgeois liberalism but even more so the progress of the real successes of the revolutionary movement which has compelled recognition even the bourgeoisie is beginning to feel that it is more to its advantage to take its side on the side of the revolution so shaky is the autocracy on the other hand this phenomenon which testifies to the fact that the entire movement has risen to a new and higher plane also sets us new and higher tasks the recognition of the revolution by the bourgeoisie cannot be sincere irrespective of the personal integrity of this or that bourgeois ideologist the bourgeoisie cannot help introducing selfishness and inconsistency the bargaining spirit and petty reactionary tricks even into this higher stage of the movement we must now formulate the immediate concrete tasks of the revolution differently in the name of our program and in amplification of our program what was adequate yesterday is inadequate today yesterday perhaps the demand for the recognition of the revolution was adequate as an advanced democratic slogan today this is not enough the revolution has forced even mr. struve to recognize it the advanced class must now define exactly the very content of the urgent and pressing tasks of the revolution while recognizing the revolution mr. is the struve again and again expose their asses ears and strike up the old song about the possibility of a peaceful outcome about nicholas calling on the asphab genzi to take power etc etc the asphab genzi recognized the revolution in order to more safely for themselves to conjure it away to betray it it is our duty at the present time to show the proletariat and the whole people the inadequacy of the slogan revolution we must show how it is necessary to have a clear and unambiguous consistent and determined definition of the very content of the revolution and this definition is provided by the one slogan that is capable of correctly expressing a decisive victory of the revolution the slogan for the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry the misuse of terms is a most common practice in politics the term socialist for example has often been appropriated by the supporters of English bourgeois liberalism we are all socialist now says harcourt by the supporters of bismarck and by the friends of pope leo the 13th the term revolution also fully lends itself to misuse and at a certain stage in the development of the movement such misuse is inevitable when mr. struve began to speak in the name of revolution i involuntarily remembered tears a few days before the february revolution this monstrous gnome this most consummate expression of the political corruption of the bourgeoisie scented the approach of a popular storm and so he announced from the parliamentary tribune that he was of the party of the revolution c. marx's the civil war in france the political significance of as vabgenia's turn to the party of revolution is quite identical with that of tears the fact that the russian tears are talking about their belonging to the party of revolution shows that the slogan revolution has become inadequate meaningless and defines no tasks for the revolution has become a fact and the most diverse elements are flocking to its side indeed what is revolution from the marxist point of view the violent break-up of the obsolete political superstructure the contradiction between which and the new relations of production caused its collapse at a certain moment the contradiction between the autocracy and the entire structure of capitalist Russia all the requirements of her bourgeois democratic development has now caused its collapse all the more severe owing to the lengthy period in which this contradiction was artificially sustained the superstructure is cracking at every joint it is yielding to pressure it is growing weaker the people through the representatives of the most diverse classes and groups must now by its own efforts build a new superstructure for itself at a certain stage of development the uselessness of the old superstructure becomes obvious to all the revolution is recognized by all the task now is to define which classes must build the new superstructure and how they are to build it if this is not defined the slogan revolution is empty and meaningless at the present time for the feebleness of the autocracy makes revolutionaries even of the grand dukes and of the moskovsie viedemosti if this is not defined there can be no talk about the advanced democratic tasks of the advanced class this definition is given in the slogan the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry this slogan defines the classes upon which the new builders of the new superstructure can and must rely the character of the new superstructure a democratic as distinct from a socialist dictatorship and how it is to be built dictatorship i.e. the violent suppression of violent resistance arming the revolutionary classes of the people whoever now refuses to recognize this slogan of revolutionary democratic dictatorship the slogan of a revolutionary army of a revolutionary government of revolutionary peasant committees either hopelessly fails to understand the tasks of the revolution is unable to define the new and higher tasks that are called forth by the present situation or is deceiving the people betraying the revolution misusing the slogan revolution the former case applies to comrade martinov and his friends the latter applies to mr. struve and the whole of the constitutional democratic zemsvo party comrade martinov was so shrewd and smart that he hurled the charge of substituting the term dictatorship for that of revolution just at the time when the development of the revolution called for a definition of its tasks by the slogan dictatorship actually comrade martinov again had the misfortune to remain at the tail end to get stranded at the penultimate stage to find himself on the level of asphabgenia ism for it is precisely to the political stand of asphabgenia i.e. to the interests of the liberal monarchist bourgeoisie that recognition of revolution in words and refusal to recognize the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry i.e. revolution in deeds now corresponds the liberal bourgeoisie through the mouth of mr. struve is now expressing itself in favor of revolution the class conscious proletariat through the mouths of the revolutionary social democrats is demanding the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry and here the wise cracker of the new escra intervenes in the controversy and yells don't dare substitute the term dictatorship for that of revolution well is it not true that the false stand taken by the new escraists dooms them to be constantly dragging along at the tail of asphabgenia ism we have shown that the asphabgenzi are ascending not without encouraging prods by the social democrats step-by-step in the matter of recognizing democracy at first the issue in the dispute between us was the ship-off system rights and an authoritative zempsvoh or constitutionalism then it was limited suffrage or universal suffrage later recognition of the revolution or a stock jobbers bargain with the autocracy finally now it is recognition of the revolution without the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry or recognition of the demand for a dictatorship of these classes in the democratic revolution it is possible and probable that mr. is the asphabgenzi whether the present ones or their successors in the left wing of the bourgeois democrats makes no difference will ascend another step i.e. recognize in time perhaps by the time comrade martinov goes up one more step the slogan of dictatorship also this will inevitably be so if the russian revolution continues to forge ahead successfully and achieves a decisive victory what will be the position of social democracy then the complete victory of the present revolution will mark the end of the democratic revolution and the beginning of a determined struggle for a socialist revolution the satisfaction of the demands of the present day peasantry the utter route of reaction and the winning of a democratic republic will mark the complete end of the revolutionism of the bourgeoisie and even of the petty bourgeoisie will mark the beginning of the real struggle of the proletariat for socialism the more complete the democratic revolution the sooner the more widespread the purer and more determined will be the development of this new struggle the slogan of a democratic dictatorship expresses the historically limited nature of the present revolution and the necessity of a new struggle on the basis of the new order for the complete emancipation of the working class from all oppression and all exploitation in other words when the democratic bourgeoisie or petty bourgeoisie ascends another step when not only the revolution but the complete victory of the revolution becomes an accomplished fact we shall substitute perhaps amid the horrified cries of new future marchinoves for the slogan of the democratic dictatorship the slogan of a socialist dictatorship of the proletariat i.e. of a complete socialist revolution End of Postscript Part 2 This recording is in the public domain Postscript Part 3 of Two Tactics of Social Democracy by Lennon Recorded for LibriVox.org by Christian Paco at communistrevolution.org Postscript Part 3 The vulgar bourgeois representation of dictatorship and Marx's view of it Merring tells us in his notes to Marx's articles from the new Rheinische Zeitung of 1848 that he published that one of the reproaches leveled at this newspaper by bourgeois publications was that it had allegedly demanded the immediate introduction of a dictatorship as the sole means of achieving democracy Marx, Nachlas, Volume 3, page 53 From the vulgar bourgeois standpoint the terms dictatorship and democracy are mutually exclusive Failing to understand the theory of class struggle and accustomed to seeing in the political arena the petty squabbling of the various bourgeois circles and coderies the bourgeois conceives dictatorship to mean the annulment of all the liberties and guarantees of democracy tyranny of every kind and every sort of abuse of power in the personal interests of a dictator In essence, it is precisely this bourgeois view that is manifested in the writings of our Martinov who winds up his new campaign in the new Iskra by attributing the partiality of the period and the proletary for the slogan of dictatorship to Lenin's passionate desire to try his luck Iskra, Number 103, Page 3, Column 2 In order to explain to Martinov the meaning of the term class dictatorship as distinct from personal dictatorship and the tasks of a democratic dictatorship as distinct from those of a socialist dictatorship it would not be a miss to dwell on the views of the New Reynish Zeitung Every provisional organization of the state after a revolution wrote the New Reynish Zeitung on September 14th, 1848 requires a dictatorship and an energetic dictatorship at that From the very beginning we have reproached Kamphausen the head of the ministry after March 8th, 1848 for not acting dictatorially for not having immediately smashed up and eliminated the remnants of the old institutions and while Herr Kamphausen was lulling himself with constitutional illusions the defeated party, i.e. the party of reaction strengthened its positions in the bureaucracy and in the army and here and there even began to venture upon open class struggle These words, marrying justly remarks sum up in a few propositions all that was propounded in detail in the New Reynish Zeitung in long articles on the Kamphausen ministry What do these words of Marx tell us? that a provisional revolutionary government must act dictatorially a proposition which the Iskra was totally unable to grasp since it was fighting shy of the slogan dictatorship and that the task of such a dictatorship is to destroy the remnants of the old institutions which is precisely what was clearly stated in the resolution of the third congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party about the struggle against counter-revolution and what was omitted in the resolution of the conference as we showed above Thirdly and lastly it follows from these words that Marx castigated the bourgeois democrats for entertaining constitutional illusions in a period of revolution and open civil war The meaning of these words becomes particularly obvious from the article in the New Reynish Zeitung of June 6th, 1848 A constituent national assembly wrote Marx must first of all be an active revolutionary active assembly The Frankfurt Assembly however is busying itself with school exercises in parliamentarism while allowing the government to act Let us assume that this learned assembly succeeds after mature consideration in working out the best possible agenda and the best possible constitution But what is the use of the best possible agenda and of the best possible constitution if the German governments have in the meantime placed the bayonet agenda That is the meaning of the slogan Dictatorship We can judge from this what Marx's attitude would have been towards resolutions which call a decision to organize a constituent assembly a decisive victory or which invite us to remain the party of extreme revolutionary opposition Major questions in the life of nations are filled only by force The reactionary classes themselves are usually the first to resort to violence to civil war They're the first to place the bayonet on the agenda as the Russian autocracy has been doing systematically and undeviatingly everywhere ever since January 9th And since such a situation has arisen since the bayonet has really become the main point on the political agenda since insurrection has proved to be imperative and urgent constitutional illusions and school exercises in parliamentarism become only a screen for the bourgeois betrayal of the revolution a screen to conceal the fact that the bourgeoisie is recoiling from the revolution It is therefore the slogan of dictatorship that the genuinely revolutionary class must advance On the question of the tasks of this dictatorship Marx wrote already in the new Reynish Zeitung of June 6th, 1848 The national assembly should have acted dictatorially against the reactionary attempts of the obsolete governments The force of public opinion in its favor would then have been so strong as to shatter all bayonets But this assembly bores the German people instead of carrying the people with it or being carried away by it In Marx's opinion, the national assembly should have, quote, eliminated from the regime actually existing in Germany something that contradicted the principle of the sovereignty of the people Then it should have consolidated the revolutionary ground on which it stands in order to make the sovereignty of the people won by the revolution secure against all attacks Thus the tasks which Marx set before a revolutionary government or dictatorship in 1848 amounted in substance primarily to a democratic revolution Defense against counter-revolution and the actual elimination of everything that contradicted the sovereignty of the people This is nothing else than a revolutionary democratic dictatorship To proceed, which classes in Marx's opinion could and should have achieved this task actually to exercise to the full the principle of the sovereignty of the people and to beat off the attacks of the counter-revolution Marx speaks of the people But we know that he always ruthlessly combated the petty bourgeois illusions about the unity of the people and the absence of a class struggle within the people In using the word people Marx did not thereby gloss over class distinctions but combined definite elements that were capable of carrying the revolution to completion After the victory of the Berlin proletariat on March 18th wrote the new Rheinische Zeitung of June 14th, 1848 the results of the revolution proved to be twofold Quote On the one hand, the arming of the people the right of association the sovereignty of the people actually attained On the other hand the preservation of the monarchy and the Kamphausen-Hansemann ministry i.e. the government of representatives of the big bourgeoisie Thus, the revolution had two series of results which had inevitably to diverge The people had achieved victory it had won liberties of a decisive democratic nature but the direct power passed not into its hands but into those of the big bourgeoisie In a word, the revolution was not completed The people allowed the big bourgeoisie to form a ministry The big bourgeoisie immediately displayed their strivings by offering an alliance to the old Prussian nobility and bureaucracy Arnim, Kanitz and Schwerin joined the ministry The upper bourgeoisie ever anti-revolutionary concluded a defensive and offensive alliance with the reaction out of fear of the people That is to say, the workers and the democratic bourgeoisie Thus, not only a decision to organize a constituent assembly but even its actual convocation is insufficient for a decisive victory of the revolution Even after a partial victory in an armed struggle the victory of the Berlin workers over the troops on March 18, 1848 an incomplete revolution a revolution that has not been carried to completion is possible On what then does its completion depend? It depends on whose hands the immediate rule passes into whether into the hands of the Petrunkovitches and Radyshevs that is to say, the Kampausens and the Hansamans or into the hands of the people i.e. the workers and the democratic bourgeoisie In the first case the bourgeoisie will possess power and proletariat freedom of criticism freedom to remain the party of extreme revolutionary opposition Immediately after the victory the bourgeoisie will conclude an alliance with the reaction This would inevitably happen in Russia too if, for example, the St. Petersburg workers gained only a partial victory in street fighting with the troops and left it to Messiers Petrunkovitches and company to form a government In the second case a revolutionary democratic dictatorship i.e. the complete victory of the revolution would be possible It now remains to define more precisely what Marx really meant by democratic bourgeoisie Demokratische Burgerschaft which together with the workers called the people in contra-distinction to the big bourgeoisie A clear answer to this question is supplied by the following passage from an article in the New Rheinische Zeitung of July 29, 1848 The German Revolution of 1848 is only a parody of the French Revolution of 1789 On August 4, 1789 three weeks after the storming of the Bastille the French people in a single day prevailed over all the feudal burdens On July 11, 1848 four months after the March barricades the feudal burdens prevailed over the German people The French bourgeoisie of 1789 did not for a moment leave its allies the peasants in the lurch It knew that the foundation of its rule was the destruction of feudalism in the countryside the creation of a free land-owning Grunz bezitzenden peasant class The German bourgeoisie of 1848 is without the least compunction betraying the peasants who are its most natural allies the flesh of its flesh and without whom it is powerless against the nobility The continuance of feudal rights their sanction under the guise of illusory redemption Such is the result of the German Revolution of 1848 The mountain brought forth a mouse This is a very instructive passage It gives us four important propositions 1. The incompleted German Revolution differs from the completed French Revolution in that the German bourgeoisie betrayed not only democracy in general but also the peasantry in particular 2. The foundation for the full consummation of a democratic revolution is the creation of a free class of peasants 3. The creation of such a class means the abolition of feudal burdens the destruction of feudalism but does not yet mean a socialist revolution 4. The peasants are the most natural allies of the bourgeoisie that is to say of the democratic bourgeoisie without them it is powerless against the reaction making proper allowances for concrete national peculiarities and substituting serfdom for feudalism All these propositions can be fully applied to Russia in 1905 There is no doubt that by learning from the experience of Germany as elucidated by Marx we cannot arrive at any other slogan for a decisive victory of the revolution than a revolutionary democratic dictatorship or a dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry There is no doubt that the chief components of the people whom Marx in 1848 contrasted with the resisting reactionaries and the treacherous bourgeoisie are the proletariat and the peasantry There is no doubt that in Russia too the liberal bourgeoisie and the gentlemen of the Azvabgenia League will continue to betray the peasantry i.e. will confine themselves to a pseudo reform and taking the side of the landlords in the decisive battle between them and the peasantry Only the proletariat is capable of supporting the peasantry to the end in this struggle There is no doubt finally that in Russia also the success of the peasant struggle i.e. the transfer of the whole of the land to the peasantry will signify a complete democratic revolution and constitute the social support of the revolution carried to its completion But it will by no means be a socialist revolution or socialization that the ideologists of the petty bourgeoisie the socialist revolutionaries talk about The success of the peasant insurrection the victory of the democratic revolution will merely clear the way for a genuine and decisive struggle for socialism on the basis of a democratic republic In this struggle the peasantry as a land-owning class will play the same treacherous, vacillating part as is now being played by the bourgeoisie in the struggle for democracy To forget this is to forget socialism To deceive oneself and others as to the real interests and tasks of the proletariat In order to leave no gaps in the presentation of the views held by Marx in 1848 it is necessary to note one essential difference between German social democracy of that time or the communist party of the proletariat to use the language of that period and present day Russian social democracy Here is what Mering says quote The new Rheinische Zeitung appeared in the political arena as the organ of democracy There is no mistaking the thread that ran through all its articles But in the direct sense it championed the interests of the bourgeois revolution against absolutism and feudalism more than the interests of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie Very little is to be found in its columns about the separate working class movement during the years of the revolution Although one should not forget that along with it there appeared twice a week under the editorship of Maul and Schaper a special organ of the Cologne Workers League At any rate the present day reader will be struck by the little attention the new Rheinische Zeitung paid to the German working class movement of its day Although its most capable mind Stefan Born was a pupil of Marx and Engels in Paris and Brussels and in 1848 was the Berlin correspondent for their newspaper Born relates in his memoirs that Marx and Engels never expressed a single word in disapproval of his agitation among the workers Nevertheless, it appears probable from subsequent declarations of Engels that they were dissatisfied at least with the methods of this agitation Their dissatisfaction was justified in as much as Born was obliged to make many concessions to the as yet totally undeveloped class consciousness of the proletariat in the greater part of Germany concessions which do not stand the test of criticism from the viewpoint of the communist manifesto Their dissatisfaction was unjustified in as much as Born managed nonetheless to maintain the agitation conducted by him on a relatively high plane Without doubt, Marx and Engels were historically and politically right in thinking that the primary interest of the working class was to push the bourgeois revolution forward as far as possible Nevertheless, a remarkable proof of how the elementary instinct of the working class movement is able to correct the conceptions of the greatest minds is provided by the fact that in April 1849 they declared in favor of a specific workers organization and decided to participate in the workers congress which was being prepared especially by the East Elba Eastern Prussia proletariat Thus, it was only in April 1849 after the revolutionary newspaper had been appearing for almost a year the new Rheinische Zeitung began publication on June 1st, 1848 that Marx and Engels declared in favor of a special workers organization Until then, they were merely running an organ of democracy unconnected by any organizational ties with an independent workers party This fact, monstrous and improbable as it may appear from our present day standpoint clearly shows us what an enormous difference there is between the German Social Democratic Party of those days and the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party of today This fact shows how much less the proletarian features of the movement the proletarian current within it were in evidence in the German Democratic Revolution because of the backwardness of Germany in 1848 both economically and politically its disunity as a state This should not be forgotten in judging Marx's repeated declarations during this period and somewhat later about the need for organizing an independent proletarian party Marx arrived at this practical conclusion only as a result of the experience of the Democratic Revolution almost a year later So Philistine, so petty bourgeois was the whole atmosphere in Germany at that time To us, this conclusion is an old and solid acquisition of half a century's experience of international social democracy an acquisition which we began to organize the Social Democratic Labour Party In our case, there can be no question for instance, of revolutionary proletarian newspapers being outside the Social Democratic Party of the proletariat or of their appearing even for a moment simply as organs of democracy But the contrast which had hardly begun to reveal itself between Marx and Stefan Born exists in our case in a form which is more developed by reason of the more powerful manifestation of the proletarian current in the Democratic stream of our revolution Speaking of the probable dissatisfaction of Marx and Engels with the agitation conducted by Stefan Born Mering expresses himself too mildly and too evasively Here's what Engels wrote of Born in 1885 In his preface to the Revelations about the Cologne Communist Trial Zurich, 1885 The members of the Communist League everywhere stood at the head of the extreme Democratic movement proving thereby that the League was an excellent school of revolutionary action Quote The compositor Stefan Born who had worked in Brussels and Paris as an active member of the League founded a worker's brotherhood Arbiter Verbruderon in Berlin which became fairly widespread and existed until 1850 Born a very talented young man who, however, was a bit too much in a hurry to become a big political figure fraternized with the most miscellaneous ragtag and bobtail in order to get a crowd together and was not at all the man who could bring into unity the conflicting tendencies light into the chaos Consequently, in the official publications of the Association the views represented in the Communist Manifesto were mingled hodgepodge with guild recollections and guild aspirations fragments of Louis Blanc and Proudhon protectionism, etc. In short, they wanted to please everybody In particular, strikes, trade unions and producers cooperatives were set going and it was forgotten that above all it was a question of first conquering by means of political victories the field in which alone such things could be realized on a lasting basis when, afterwards, the victories of the reaction made the leaders of the brotherhood realize the necessity of taking a direct part in the revolutionary struggle they were naturally left in the lurch by the confused mass which they had grouped around themselves Bourne took part in the Dresden uprising in May 1849 and had a lucky escape but, in contrast to the great political movement of the proletariat the worker's brotherhood proved to be a pure Sonderbund separate league which, to a large extent, existed only on paper and played such a subordinate role that the reaction did not find it necessary to suppress it until 1850 and it's surviving branches until several years later Bourne, whose real name was Boutermürg has not become a big political figure but a petty Swiss professor who no longer translates Marx into guild language but the mique renan of his own fulsome German that is how Engels judged the two tactics of social democracy in the democratic revolution our new escroists are also pushing towards economism and with such unreasonable zeal as to earn the praises of the monarchist bourgeoisie for their seeing the light they, too, collect around themselves in a motley crowd flattering the economists demagogically attracting the undeveloped masses by the slogans of initiative democracy autonomy, etc, etc their labor unions, too, exist only on the pages of the Klastakov new escra their slogans and resolutions betray a similar failure to understand the tasks of the great political movement of the proletariat End Postscript Part 3 End of Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin This recording is in the public domain