 Chapter 6 of Two Tactics of Social Democracy by Lennon. Read for LibriVox.org by ChristianPicot at communistrevolution.org. Chapter 6. From what direction is the proletariat threatened with the danger of having its hands tied in the struggle against the inconsistent bourgeoisie? Marxists are absolutely convinced of the bourgeois character of the Russian Revolution. What does this mean? It means the democratic reforms in the political system and the social and economic reforms, which have become a necessity for Russia, do not in themselves imply the undermining of capitalism, the undermining of bourgeois rule. On the contrary, they will, for the first time, really clear the ground for a wide and rapid, European and not Asiatic development of capitalism. They will, for the first time, make it possible for the bourgeoisie to rule as a class. The socialist revolutionaries cannot grasp this idea, for they are ignorant of the rudiments of the laws of development of commodity and capitalist production. They fail to see that even the complete success of a peasant insurrection, even the redistribution of the whole of the land for the benefit of the peasants and in accordance with their desires, black redistribution or something of that kind, will not destroy capitalism at all, but will, on the contrary, give an impetus to its development and hasten the class disintegration of the peasantry itself. The failure to grasp this truth makes the socialist revolutionaries unconscious ideologists of the petty bourgeoisie. Insistence on this truth is of enormous importance for social democracy, not only from the theoretical standpoint, but also from the standpoint of practical politics, for whom it follows that the complete class independence of the party of the proletariat in the present general democratic movement is obligatory. But it does not at all follow from this that a democratic revolution, bourgeois in its social and economic substance, is not of enormous interest for the proletariat. It does not at all follow from this that the democratic revolution cannot take place in a form advantageous mainly to the big capitalist, the financial magnate and the enlightened landlord, as well as in a form advantageous to the peasant and the worker. The new ischriests thoroughly misunderstand the meaning and significance of the category bourgeois revolution. Through their arguments, there consistently runs the idea that a bourgeois revolution is a revolution which can be advantageous only to the bourgeoisie, and yet nothing is more erroneous than such an idea. A bourgeois revolution is a revolution which does not go beyond the limits of the bourgeois, i.e. capitalist, social and economic system. A bourgeois revolution expresses the need for the development of capitalism, and far from destroying the foundations of capitalism, it does the opposite. It broadens and deepens them. This revolution therefore expresses the interests not only of the working class, but of the entire bourgeoisie as well. Since the rule of the bourgeoisie over the working class is inevitable under capitalism, it is quite correct to say that a bourgeois revolution expresses the interests not so much of the proletariat as of the bourgeoisie. But it is entirely absurd to think that a bourgeois revolution does not express the interests of the proletariat at all. This absurd idea boils down either to the Hori Narodnik theory that a bourgeois revolution runs counter to the interests of the proletariat, and that therefore we do not need bourgeois political liberty. Or to anarchism, which rejects all participation of the proletariat in bourgeois politics, in a bourgeois revolution, and in bourgeois parliamentarianism. From the standpoint of theory, this idea disregards the elementary propositions of Marxism concerning the inevitability of capitalist development where commodity production exists. Marxism teaches that a society which is based on commodity production and which has commercial intercourse with civilized capitalist nations at a certain stage of its development itself inevitably takes the road of capitalism. Marxism has irrevocably broken with the ravings of the Narodniks and the anarchists to the effect that Russia, for instance, can avoid capitalist development, jump out of capitalism, or skip over it and proceed along some path other than the path of the class struggle on the basis and within the framework of this same capitalism. All these principles of Marxism have been proved and explained over and over again in minute detail in general and with regard to Russia in particular. And from these principles it follows that the idea of seeking salvation for the working class in anything save the further development of capitalism is reactionary. In countries like Russia, the working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from insufficient development of capitalism. The working class is therefore decidedly interested in the broadest, freest, and most rapid development of capitalism. The removal of all the remnants of the old order which are hampering the broad, free, and rapid development of capitalism is of decided advantage to the working class. The bourgeois revolution is precisely a revolution that most resolutely sweeps away the survivals of the past, the remnants of serfdom, which include not only autocracy but monarchy as well, and most fully guarantees the broadest, freest, and most rapid development of capitalism. That is why a bourgeois revolution is, in the highest degree, advantageous to the proletariat. A bourgeois revolution is absolutely necessary in the interests of the proletariat. The more complete and determined, the more consistent the bourgeois revolution, the more assured will be the proletarian struggle against the bourgeoisie for socialism. Only those who are ignorant of the rudiments of scientific socialism can regard this conclusion as new or strange, paradoxical. And from this conclusion, among other things, follows the thesis that, in a certain sense, a bourgeois revolution is more advantageous to the proletariat than to the bourgeoisie. This thesis is unquestionably correct in the following sense. It is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie to rely on certain remnants of the past as against the proletariat, for instance, on the monarchy, the standing army, etc. It is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie if the bourgeois revolution does not too resolutely sweep away all the remnants of the past, but leaves some of them. I.e., if this revolution is not fully consistent, if it is not complete, and if it is not determined and relentless. Social democrats often express this idea somewhat differently by stating that the bourgeoisie betrays its own self, that the bourgeoisie betrays the cause of liberty, that the bourgeoisie is incapable of being consistently democratic. It is of greater advantage to the bourgeoisie if the necessary changes in the direction of bourgeois democracy take place more slowly, more gradually, more cautiously, less resolutely, by means of reforms and not by means of revolution. If these changes spare the venerable institutions of serfdom, such as the monarchy, as much as possible, if these changes develop as little as possible the independent revolutionary activity, initiative, and energy of the common people, I.e., the peasantry, and especially the workers, for otherwise it will be easier for the workers, as the French say, to hitch the rifle from one shoulder to the other. I.e., to turn against the bourgeoisie the guns which the bourgeois revolution will place in their hands, the liberty which the revolution will bring, the democratic institutions which will spring up on the ground that is cleared of serfdom. On the other hand, it is more advantageous for the working class if the necessary changes in the direction of bourgeois democracy take place by way of revolution and not by way of reform. For the way of reform is the way of delay, of procrastination, of the painfully slow decomposition of the putrid parts of the national organism. It is the proletariat and the peasantry that suffer first of all, and most of all, from their putrefaction. The revolutionary way is the way of quick amputation, which is the least painful to the proletariat. The way of the direct removal of the decomposing parts, the way of fewest concessions to and at least consideration for the monarchy, and the disgusting, vile, rotten and contaminating institutions which go with it. So it is not only because of the censorship, not only for the fear of the Jews that our bourgeois liberal press deplores the possibility of a revolutionary way, is afraid of revolution, tries to frighten the czar with the bogey of revolution, is anxious to avoid revolution, grovels and toadies for the sake of miserable reforms as a basis for a reformist way. This standpoint is shared not only by the Ruskia Viedmosti, Sin Otecestva, Nasha Zhizhin and Nashi Dni, but also by the illegal uncensored Azvabzhenia. The very position the bourgeoisie occupies as a class in capitalist society inevitably causes it to be inconsistent in a democratic revolution. The very position the proletariat occupies as a class compels it to be consistently democratic. The bourgeoisie looks backward, fearing democratic progress which threatens to strengthen the proletariat. The proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains, but with the aid of democracy it has the whole world to gain. This is why the more consistent the bourgeois revolution is in its democratic changes, the less it will limit itself to what is of advantage exclusively to the bourgeoisie. The more consistent the bourgeois revolution, the more does it guarantee the proletariat and the peasantry the benefits accruing from the democratic revolution. Marxism teaches the proletariat not to keep aloof from the bourgeois revolution, not to be indifferent to it, not to allow the leadership of the revolution to be assumed by the bourgeoisie, but on the contrary to take a most energetic part in it, to fight most resolutely for consistent proletarian democracy, for carrying the revolution to its conclusion. We cannot jump out of the bourgeois democratic boundaries of the Russian revolution, but we can vastly extend these boundaries, and within these boundaries we can and must fight for the interests of the proletariat, for its immediate needs and for the conditions that will make it possible to prepare its forces for the future complete victory. There is bourgeois democracy and bourgeois democracy. The monarchist Zemtzvoist, who favors an upper chamber and who asks for universal suffrage while secretly on the sly striking a bargain with czarism for a curtailed constitution, is also a bourgeois democrat. And the peasant who is fighting arms in hand against the landlords and the government officials, and with a naive republicanism, proposes to kick out the czar, is also a bourgeois democrat. There are bourgeois democratic regimes like the one in Germany and also in England, like the one in Austria and also like those in America or Switzerland. He would be a fine Marxist indeed, who in a period of democratic revolution failed to see the difference between the degrees of democracy, the difference of its various forms, and confined himself to clever remarks to the effect that, after all, this is a bourgeois revolution, the fruits of a bourgeois revolution. Our new escraists are just such clever fellows flaunting their short-sightedness. They confine themselves to disquisitions on the bourgeois character of the revolution, just when and where it is necessary to be able to draw a distinction between republican revolutionary and monarchist liberal bourgeois democracy. To say nothing of the distinction between inconsistent bourgeois democratism and consistent proletarian democratism. They are satisfied, as if they had really become like the man in the muffler, to converse dolefully about a process of mutual struggle of antagonistic classes. When the question is one of giving democratic leadership in the present revolution. Of emphasizing progressive democratic slogans as distinguished from the treacherous slogans of Mr. Stroove and Company. Of bluntly and straightforwardly stating the immediate aims of the really revolutionary struggle of the proletariat and the peasantry. As distinguished from the liberal haggling of the landlords and factory owners. Such is now the substance of the question which you gentlemen have missed. Will our revolution result in a real immense victory or merely in a wretched deal? Will it go so far as the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry? Or will it peter out in a liberal constitution a la ship of? At first sight it may appear that in raising this question we are deviating entirely from our subject. But this may appear to be so only at first sight. As a matter of fact it is precisely this question that lies at the root of the difference in principle. Which has already become clearly marked between the social democratic tactics of the third congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. And the tactics initiated by the conference of the new East Skrysts. The latter have already taken not two but three steps back. Resurrecting the mistakes of economism in solving problems that are incomparably more complex, more important and more vital to the workers party. I.e. questions of its tactics in time of revolution. That is why we must analyze the question we have raised with all due attention. The section of the new East Skryst resolution which we have quoted above points to the danger of social democracy tying its hands in the struggle against the inconsistent policy of the bourgeoisie. Of its becoming dissolved in bourgeois democracy. The idea of this danger runs like a thread through all the literature typical of the new East Skryst. It is the real pivot of the principle involved in our party split. Ever since the elements of squabbling in this split were wholly eclipsed by the elements of a turn towards economism. And without any equivocation we admit that this danger really exists. That just at the present time at the height of the Russian revolution this danger has become particularly grave. The pressing and extremely responsible duty that devolves on all of us theoreticians. Or as I should prefer to say of myself, publicists of social democracy is to find out from what direction this danger actually threatens. For the source of our disagreement is not a dispute as to whether such a danger exists. But the dispute as to whether it is caused by the so-called gostism of the minority. Or the so-called revolutionism of the majority. To obviate all misinterpretations and misunderstandings let us first of all note that the danger to which we are referring lies not in the subjective. But in the objective aspect of the matter. Not in the formal position which social democracy will take in the struggle. But in the material outcome of the entire present revolutionary struggle. The question is not whether this or that social democratic group will want to dissolve in bourgeois democracy. Or whether they are conscious of the fact that they are merging. Nobody suggests that. We do not suspect any social democrat of harboring such a desire. And this is not at all a question of desires. Nor is it a question of whether this or that social democratic group will formally retain its separate identity. Individuality and independence of bourgeois democracy throughout the course of the revolution. They may not only proclaim such independence but even retain it formally. And yet it may turn out that their hands will nonetheless be tied in the struggle against the inconsistency of the bourgeoisie. The final political result of the revolution may prove to be that in spite of the formal independence of social democracy. In spite of its complete organizational individuality as a separate party. It will in fact not be independent. It will not be able to put the imprint of its proletarian independence on the course of events. Will prove so weak that on the whole and in the last analysis it's dissolving in the bourgeois democracy will nonetheless be a historical fact. That is what constitutes the real danger. Now let us see from what direction the danger threatens. From the fact that social democracy as represented by the new escra is deviating to the right as we believe. Or from the fact that social democracy as represented by the majority the period etc. Is deviating to the left as the new escraists believe. The answer to this question as we have pointed out depends on the objective combination of the actions of the various social forces. The character of these forces has been defined theoretically by the Marxian analysis of Russian life. At the present time it is being defined in practice by the open action of groups and classes in the course of the revolution. Thus the entire theoretical analysis made by the Marxists long before the period we are now passing through. As well as all the practical observations of the development of revolutionary events show that from the standpoint of objective conditions there are two possible courses and outcomes of the revolution in Russia. A change in the economic and political system in Russia along bourgeois democratic lines is inevitable and unavoidable. No power on earth can prevent such a change, but the combined actions of the existing forces which are affecting that change may result in one or two things. May bring about one or two forms of that change. Either one, the result will be a decisive victory of the revolution over czarism, or two, the forces will be inadequate for a decisive victory and the matter will end in a deal between czarism and the most inconsistent and most self-seeking elements of the bourgeoisie. All the infinite variety of detail and combinations which no one is able to foresee reduce themselves in general and on the whole to either the one or the other of these two outcomes. Let us now consider these two outcomes. First from the standpoint of their social significance and secondly from the standpoint of the position of social democracy. It's dissolving or having its hands tied in one or the other case. What is a decisive victory of the revolution over czarism? We have already seen that in using this expression the new ischriests fail to grasp even its immediate political significance. Still less do they seem to understand the class essence of this concept. Surely we Marxists must not under any circumstance allow ourselves to be deluded by words such as revolution or the great Russian revolution. As do many revolutionary democrats of the Gapon type. We must be perfectly clear in our minds as to what real social forces are opposed to czarism, which is a real force perfectly intelligible to all, and are capable of gaining a decisive victory over it. Such a force cannot be the big bourgeoisie, the landlords, the factory owners, society which follows the lead of the Ajvab Jency. We see that these do not even want a decisive victory. We know that owing to their class position they are incapable of waging a decisive struggle against czarism. They are too heavily fettered by private property, capital, and land to enter into a decisive struggle. They need czarism with its bureaucratic police and military forces for use against the proletariat and the peasantry too much to be able to strive for its destruction. No, the only force capable of gaining a decisive victory over czarism is the people, i.e. the proletariat and the peasantry, if we take the main big forces and distribute the rural and urban petty bourgeoisie also part of the people between the two. A decisive victory of the revolution over czarism is the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. Our new escraists cannot escape from this conclusion, which Period pointed out long ago. No one else is capable of gaining a decisive victory over czarism, and such a victory will be precisely a dictatorship, i.e. it must inevitably rely on military force, on the arming of the masses, on an insurrection, and not on institutions of one kind or another established in a lawful or peaceful way. It can only be a dictatorship for the realization of the changes which are urgently and absolutely indispensable for the proletariat and the peasantry will call forth the desperate resistance of the landlords of the big bourgeoisie and of czarism. Without a dictatorship, it is impossible to break down that resistance and to repel the counter-revolutionary attempts. But of course it will be a democratic, not a socialist dictatorship. It will not be able, without a series of intermediary stages of revolutionary development, to affect the foundations of capitalism. As best it may bring about a radical distribution of landed property in favor of the peasantry, establish consistent and full democracy, including the formation of a republic, eradicate all the oppressive features of asiatic bondage, not only in village, but also in factory life, lay the foundation for a thorough improvement in the position of the workers and for a rise in their standard of living, and, last but not least, carry the revolutionary conflagration into Europe. Such a victory will by no means as yet transform our bourgeois revolution into a socialist revolution. The democratic revolution will not directly overstep the bounds of bourgeois social and economic relationships. Nevertheless, the significance of such a victory for the future development of Russia and of the whole world will be immense. Nothing will raise the revolutionary energy of the world proletariat so much. Nothing will shorten the path leading to its complete victory to such an extent as this decisive victory of the revolution that has now started in Russia. How far such a victory is probable is another question. We are not in the least inclined to be unreasonably optimistic on that score. We do not for a moment forget the immense difficulties of this task, but since we are out to fight, we must desire victory and be able to point out the right road to it. Tendencies capable of leading to such a victory undoubtedly exist. True, our social democratic influence on the masses of the proletariat is, as yet, very, very inadequate. The revolutionary influence on the mass of the peasantry is altogether insignificant. The proletariat and especially the peasantry are still frightfully scattered, backward and ignorant, but revolution unites quickly and enlightens quickly. Every step in its development rouses the masses and attracts them with irresistible force to the side of the revolutionary program, as the only program that fully and consistently expresses their real and vital interests. According to a law of mechanics, every action produces an equal reaction. In history also, the destructive force of a revolution is, to a considerable degree, dependent on how strong and protracted the suppression of the striving for liberty had been, and how profound the contradiction between the anti-Diluvian superstructure and the living forces of the present epic. The international political situation too, in many respects, shaping itself in a way most advantageous for the Russian Revolution. The insurrection of the workers and peasants has already commenced. It is sporadic, spontaneous, weak, but it unquestionably and undoubtedly proves the existence of forces capable of waging a decisive struggle and marching towards a decisive victory. If these forces prove inadequate, czarism will have time to conclude the deal which is already being prepared on two sides. By misuse the bullygans on the one side and misuse the stroves on the other. Then the whole thing will end in a curtailed constitution, or if the worst comes to the worst, even in a travesty of a constitution. This will also be a bourgeois revolution, but it will be a miscarriage, a premature birth, a mongrel. Social democracy entertains no illusions on that score. It knows the treacherous nature of the bourgeoisie. It will not lose heart or abandon its persistent, patient, sustained work of giving the proletariat class training, even in the most drab, humdrum days of bourgeois constitutional ship of bliss. Such an outcome would be more or less similar to the outcome of almost all the democratic revolutions in Europe during the 19th century. And our party development would then proceed along the difficult, hard, long, but familiar and beaten track. The question now arises, in which of these two possible outcomes will social democracy find its hands actually tied in the fight against the inconsistent and self-seeking bourgeoisie? Find itself actually dissolved, or almost so, in bourgeois democracy? It is sufficient to put this question clearly to have not a moment's difficulty in answering it. If the bourgeoisie succeeds in frustrating the Russian Revolution by coming to terms with czarism, social democracy will find its hands actually tied in the fight against the inconsistent bourgeoisie. Social democracy will find itself dissolved in bourgeois democracy, in the sense that the proletariat will not succeed in putting its clear imprint on the revolution, will not succeed in settling accounts with czarism in the proletarian or, as Marx once said, in the plebeian way. If the revolution gains a decisive victory, then we shall settle accounts with czarism in the Jacobin or, if you like, in the plebeian way. The whole French terrorism, wrote Marx in 1848 in the famous New Reignische Zeitung, was nothing but a plebeian manner of settling accounts with the enemies of the bourgeoisie, with absolutism, feudalism, and Philistineism. Have those people, who, in a period of democratic revolution, try to frighten the social democratic workers in Russia with the bogey of Jacobinism, ever stop to think of the significance of these words of Marx? The girondists of contemporary Russian social democracy, the new iskraists, do not merge with the asvabzhenzi, but in point of fact they, by reason of the nature of their slogans, follow at the tail of the ladder. And the asvabzhenzi, i.e. the representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie, wish to settle accounts with the autocracy gently, in a reformist way, in a yielding manner, so as not to offend the aristocracy, the nobles, the court, cautiously, without breaking anything. Kindly and politely, as befits gentlemen in white gloves, like the ones Mr. Petrunkovich borrowed from a bashi bazook to wear at the reception of representatives of the people, held by Nicholas the Bloody. See proletary number five. The Jacobins of contemporary social democracy, the bolsheviks, the periodovci, siezdovci, proletarci, or whatever we may call them, wish by their slogans to raise the revolutionary and republican petty bourgeoisie, and especially the peasantry, to the level of the consistent democratism of the proletariat, which fully retains its individuality as a class. They want the people, i.e. the proletariat and the peasantry, to settle accounts with the monarchy and the aristocracy in the plebian way. Ruthlessly destroying the enemies of liberty, crushing their resistance by force, making no concessions whatever to the accursed heritage of serfdom, of asiatic barbarism, and human degradation. This, of course, does not mean that we necessarily propose to imitate the Jacobins of 1793, to adopt their views, program, slogans, and methods of action. Nothing of the kind. Our program is not an old one, it is a new one, the minimum program of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. We have a new slogan, the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. We shall also have, if we live to see a real victory of the revolution, new methods of action, in harmony with the nature and aims of the working class party that is striving for a complete socialist revolution. By our comparison, we merely want to explain that the representatives of the progressive class of the 20th century, of the proletariat, i.e. the social democrats, are divided into two wings. The opportunist and the revolutionary, similar to those into which the representatives of the progressive class of the 18th century, the bourgeoisie, were divided. i.e. the gerondists and the Jacobins. Only in the event of a complete victory of the democratic revolution, will the proletariat have its hands free in the struggle against the inconsistent bourgeoisie. Only in the event that it will not become dissolved in bourgeois democracy, but will leave its proletarian or rather proletarian peasant imprint on the whole revolution. In a word, in order that it may not find itself with its hands tied in the struggle against the inconsistent bourgeois democrats, the proletariat must be sufficiently class conscious and strong to rouse the peasantry to revolutionary consciousness, to direct its attack, and thereby to pursue the line of consistent proletarian democratism independently. This is how matters stand with regard to the question unsatisfactorily answered by the new escroists of the danger of our hands being tied in the struggle against the inconsistent bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie will always be inconsistent. There is nothing more naive and futile than attempts to set forth conditions and points which, if satisfied, would enable us to consider that the bourgeois democrat is a sincere friend of the people. Only the proletariat can be a consistent fighter for democracy. It may become a victorious fighter for democracy, only if the peasant masses join its revolutionary struggle. If the proletariat is not strong enough for this, the bourgeoisie will be at the head of the democratic revolution and will impart to it an inconsistent and self-seeking nature. Nothing short of a revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry can prevent this. Thus, we arrive at the undoubted conclusion that it is precisely the new escroist's tactics by reason of their objective significance that are playing into the hands of the bourgeois democrats. Preaching organizational diffusion that goes to the length of plebiscites, the principle of compromise and the divorcement of party literature from the party, belittling the aims of armed insurrection, confusing the popular political slogans of the revolutionary proletariat with those of the monarchist bourgeoisie, distorting the requisites for a decisive victory of the revolution over czarism. All this taken together constitutes that very policy of quostism in a revolutionary period which perplexes the proletariat, disorganizes it, confuses its understanding, and belittles the tactics of social democracy. Instead of pointing out the only way to victory and of rallying all the revolutionary and republican elements of the people to the slogan of the proletariat. In order to confirm this conclusion at which we have arrived on the basis of an analysis of the resolution, let us approach this same question from other angles. Let us see first how a simple and outspoken Menshevik illustrates the new escra tactics in the Georgian social democrat. And secondly, let us see who is actually making use of the new escra slogans in the present political situation. End of chapter 6. This recording is in the public domain. Chapter 7 of Two Tactics of Social Democracy by Lennon Read for LibriVox.org by Christian Picot at communistrevolution.org Chapter 7. The tactics of eliminating the conservatives from the government. The article in the organ of the Tiflis-Menshevik committee, social democrat number one, to which we have just referred, is entitled, The Zemski Sabor and Our Tactics. Its author has not yet entirely forgotten our program. He advances the slogan of a republic, but this is how he discusses tactics. Quote, it is possible to point to two ways of achieving this goal, a republic. Either completely ignore the Zemski Sabor that is being convened by the government and defeat the government by force of arms, form a revolutionary government and convene a constituent assembly, or declare the Zemski Sabor the center of our actions, influencing its composition and activity by force of arms, and either forcibly compelling it to declare itself a constituent assembly or convening a constituent assembly through it. These two tactics differ very sharply from one another. Let us see which of them is more advantageous to us. This is how the new Russian Iskris set forth the ideas that were subsequently incorporated in the resolution we have analyzed. Note that this was written before the battle of Tsushima, when the Bulyugin scheme had not yet seen the light of the day. Even the Liberals were losing patience and expressing their lack of confidence in the pages of the legal press, but a new Iskraist social democrat proved more credulous than the Liberals. He declares that the Zemski Sabor is being convened and trusts the Tsar so much that he proposes to make this as yet non-existent Zemski Sabor, or possibly State Duma, or advisory legislative assembly, the center of our actions. Being more outspoken and straightforward than the authors of the resolution adopted at the conference, Artiflisian does not put the two tactics which he expounds with inimitable naivete on a par, but declares that the second is more advantageous. Just listen. The first tactics. As you know, the coming revolution is a bourgeois revolution, i.e. its purpose is to affect such changes in the present system as are of interest not only to the proletariat, but to the whole of bourgeois society. All classes are opposed to the government, even the capitalists themselves. The militant proletariat and the militant bourgeoisie are in a certain sense marching together and jointly attacking the autocracy from different sides. The government is completely isolated and lacks public sympathy. For this reason, it is very easy to destroy it. The Russian proletariat as a whole is not yet sufficiently class-conscious and organized to be able to carry out the revolution by itself. And even if it were able to do so, it would carry through a proletarian socialist revolution and not a bourgeois revolution. Hence it is in our interest that the government remain without allies, that it be unable to disunite the opposition, unable to ally the bourgeoisie to itself, and leave the proletariat isolated. So it is in the interest of the proletariat that the czarist government should not be able to disunite the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Is it not by mistake that this Georgian organ is called social democrat instead of asphabgenia, and note its peerless philosophy of democratic revolution? Is it not obvious that this poor tiflition is hopelessly confused by the pedantic, costist interpretation of the concept bourgeois revolution? He discusses the question of the possible isolation of the proletariat in a democratic revolution, and forgets, forgets about a trifle, about the peasantry. Of the possible allies of the proletariat, he knows and favors the land-owning zempsvohists, and is not aware of the peasants, and this is in the Caucasus. Well, were we not right when we said that by its method of reasoning, the new Iskra was sinking to the level of the monarchist bourgeoisie, instead of raising the revolutionary peasantry to its position of our ally? Otherwise, the defeat of the proletariat and the victory of the government is inevitable. This is just what the autocracy is striving for. In its zempsky sabore, it will undoubtedly attract to its side the representatives of the nobility of the zempsvohs, the cities, the universities, and similar bourgeois institutions. It will try to appease them with petty concessions, and thereby reconcile them to itself. Strengthened in this way, it will direct all its blows against the working people who will have been isolated. It is our duty to prevent such an unfortunate outcome. But can this be done by the first method? Let us assume that we paid no attention whatever to the zempsky sabore, but started to prepare for insurrection ourselves, and one fine day came out in the streets armed and ready for battle. The result would be that we would be confronted not with one, but with two enemies, the government and the zempsky sabore. While we were preparing, they would manage to come to terms, either into an agreement with one another, draw up a constitution advantageous to themselves, and divide power between them. These tactics are of direct advantage to the government, and we must reject them in the most energetic fashion. Now this is frank. We must resolutely reject the tactics of preparing an insurrection, because while we were preparing, the government would come to terms with the bourgeoisie. Can one find in the old literature of the most rabid economism anything that would even approximate such a disgrace to revolutionary social democracy? That insurrections and outbreaks of workers and peasants are occurring first in one place and then in another is a fact. The zempsky sabore, however, is a bulliegen promise, and the social democrat of the city of Tiflis decides to reject the tactics of preparing an insurrection and to wait for a center of influence, the zempsky sabore. Quote. The second tactics, on the contrary, consist in placing the zempsky sabore under our surveillance, in not giving it the opportunity to act, according to its own will, and enter into an agreement with the government. Note, by what means can the zempsois be deprived of their own will, perhaps by the use of a special sort of litmus paper? We support the zempsky sabore to the extent that it fights the autocracy, and we fight it in those cases where it becomes reconciled with the autocracy. By energetic interference and force, we shall cause a split among the deputies. Heavens, this is certainly rendering tactics profound. There are no forces available to fight in the streets, but it is possible to split the deputies by force. Listen, comrade from Tiflis, one may prevericate, but one should know the limit. Continue, quote. Rally the radicals to our side, eliminate the conservatives from the government, and thus put the whole zempsky sabore on the path of revolution. Thanks to such tactics, the government will always remain isolated, the opposition strong, and the establishment of a democratic system will thereby be facilitated. Well, well. Let anyone now say that we exaggerate the new escraist's turn to the most vulgar semblance of economism. This is positively like the famous powder for exterminating flies. You catch the fly, sprinkle it with the powder, and the fly will die. Split the deputies of the zempsky sabore by force, eliminate the conservatives from the government, and the whole zempsky sabore will take the path of revolution. No Jacobin armed insurrection of any sort, but just like that, in genteel, almost parliamentary fashion, influencing the members of the zempsky sabore. Poor Russia. It has been said that she always wears the old-fashioned bonnets that Europe discards. We have no parliament as yet. Even Bull Yegan has not yet promised one, but we have any amount of parliamentary cretinism. Quote. How should this interference be affected? First of all, we shall demand that the zempsky sabore be convened on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, direct elections, and secret ballot. Simultaneously with the announcement, in escra, of this method of election, complete freedom to carry on the election campaign, i.e. freedom of assembly, of speech and of the press, the inviolability of the electors and the candidates, and the release of all political prisoners must be made law. By Nicholas? The elections themselves must be fixed as late as possible so that we have sufficient time to inform and prepare the people. And since the drafting of the regulations governing the convocation of the sabore has been entrusted to a commission headed by Bull Yegan, minister of the interior, we should also exert pressure on this commission and on its members. So this is what is meant by the tactics of eliminating the conservatives from the government. If the Bull Yegan commission refuses to satisfy our demands, but surely such a thing cannot happen if we follow these correct and profound tactics, and grant suffrage only to property owners, then we must interfere in these elections and, by revolutionary means, force the voters to elect progressive candidates and in the zempsky sabore demand a constituent assembly. Finally, we must, by all possible measures, demonstrations, strikes, and insurrection if need be, compel the zempsky sabore to convene a constituent assembly or declare itself to be such. The armed proletariat must constitute itself the defender of the constituent assembly and both together, both the armed proletariat and the conservatives eliminated from the government, will march forward to a democratic republic. Such are the social democratic tactics and they alone will secure us victory. Let not the reader imagine that this incredible nonsense is simply a maiden attempt at writing on the part of some new Iskra adherent with no authority or influence. No, this is what is stated in the organ of an entire committee of new Iskraists, the Tiflis Committee. More than that, this nonsense has been openly endorsed by the Iskra in number 100, of which we read the following about that issue of the social democrat. Quote, Yes, if that task is clearly to show all in sundry the utter ideological decay of new Iskraism, then it has indeed been carried out brilliantly. No one could have expressed the new Iskraist's degradation to liberal bourgeois opportunism in a more lively, talented, and capable manner. End of Chapter 7. This recording is in the public domain. Chapter 8 of Two Tactics of Social Democracy by Lenin. Read for LibriVox.org by ChristianPicco at CommunistRevolution.org. Chapter 8 Asphabgenism and New Iskraism. Let us now proceed to another striking confirmation of the political meaning of New Iskraism. In a splendid, remarkable, and most instructive article entitled How to Find One's Self, Asphabgenia No. 71, Mr. Struve wages war against the programmatic revolutionism of our extreme parties. Mr. Struve is particularly displeased with me personally. Quote, A most irate thrust. Only Mr. Struve is mistaken in thinking that it is possible to pile everything on to me as if I were dead. It is sufficient for me to issue a challenge to Mr. Struve, which he will never be able to accept. When and where did I call the revolutionism of Babel and Kautzky opportunism? When and where did I ever claim to have created any sort of special trend in international social democracy, not identical with the trend of Babel and Kautzky? When and where have there been brought to light differences between me on the one hand and Babel and Kautzky on the other? Differences even slightly approximating in seriousness the differences between Babel and Kautzky, for instance, on the agrarian question in Breslau. Let Mr. Struve try to answer these three questions. And to our readers we say, The liberal bourgeoisie everywhere and always has recourse to the method of assuring its adherence in a given country that the social democrats of that country are the most unreasonable, whereas their comrades in a neighboring country are good boys. The German bourgeoisie has held up those good boys of French socialists as models for the Bebels and the Kautzky's hundreds of times. The French bourgeoisie quite recently pointed to the good boy Bebel as a model for the French socialists. It is an old trick Mr. Struve, you will find only children and ignoramuses swallowing that bait. The complete unanimity of international revolutionary social democracy on all major questions of program and tactics is a most incontrovertible fact. As for myself, Mr. Struve could not please me more. I could not wish for a better ally in the fight against the renaissance economism of the new escraists and the utter lack of principle displayed by the socialist revolutionaries. On some other occasions, we shall relate how Mr. Struve and the Oswebgenia proved in practice how utterly reactionary are the amendments to Marxism made in the draft program of the socialist revolutionaries. We have already repeatedly spoken about how Mr. Struve rendered me honest, faithful, and real service every time he approved of the new escraists in principle, and we shall say so once more now. Note. Let us remind the reader that the article What Should Not Be Done, Escra No. 52, was hailed with noise and clamor by the Oswebgenia as a noteworthy turn towards concessions to the opportunists. The trends of the principles behind the new escra ideas were especially lauded by the Oswebgenia in an item on the split among the Russian social democrats. Commenting on Trotsky's pamphlet, Our Political Tasks, the Oswebgenia pointed out the similarity between the ideas of this author and what was once written and said by the Rabotshaya Dialoists, Kritshevsky, Martinov, Akimov, see the leaflet entitled An Obliging Liberal published by the period. The Oswebgenia welcomed Martinov's pamphlet on the two dictatorships, see the item in the period No. 9. Finally, Starovers belated complaints about the old slogan of the old escra, first draw a line of demarcation and then unite, met with special sympathy on the part of the Oswebgenia. Mr. Struve's article contains a number of very interesting statements which we can note here only in passing. He intends, quote, to create Russian democracy by relying on class collaboration and not on class struggle, in which case the socially privileged intelligentsia, something in the nature of the cultured nobility to which Mr. Struve makes obeisance with the grace of a truly high society lackey, will bring the weight of its social position, the weight of its money bags, to this non-class party. Mr. Struve expresses the desire to show the youth the worthlessness of the, quote, hackneyed radical opinion that the bourgeoisie has become frightened and has sold out the proletariat and the cause of liberty. We welcome this desire with all our heart. Nothing will confirm the correctness of this Marxian hackneyed opinion better than a war waged against it by Mr. Struve. Please, Mr. Struve, don't pigeonhole this splendid plan of yours. For the purposes of our subject, it is important to note the practical slogans against which this politically sensitive representative of the Russian bourgeoisie, who is so responsive to the slightest change in the weather, is fighting at the present time. First, he is fighting against the slogan of republicanism. Mr. Struve is firmly convinced that this slogan is, quote, incomprehensible and foreign to the masses of the people. He forgets to add, comprehensible, but not of advantage to the bourgeoisie. We should like to see what reply Mr. Struve would get from the workers in our study circles and at our mass meetings. Or are the workers not the people? And the peasants, they are given to what Mr. Struve calls naive republicanism, to kick out the czar. But the liberal bourgeoisie believes that naive republicanism will be replaced not by enlightened republicanism, but by enlightened monarchism. Saude Pawn, Mr. Struve, it will depend on circumstances. Neither czarism nor the bourgeoisie can help opposing a radical improvement in the condition of the peasantry at the expense of the landed estates. Whereas the working class cannot help assisting the peasantry in this respect. Secondly, Mr. Struve assures us that, quote, in a civil war, the attacking party always proves to be in the wrong. This idea verges closely on the above mentioned trends of the new escra ideas. We will not say, of course, that in civil war it is always advantageous to attack. No, sometimes defensive tactics are obligatory for a time. But to apply a proposition like the one Mr. Struve has made to Russia in 1905 means precisely displaying a little of the hack-need radical opinion. Quote, the bourgeoisie takes fright and betrays the cause of liberty. Whoever now refuses to attack the autocracy and reaction, whoever is not making preparations for such an attack, whoever is not advocating it, takes the name of adherent of the revolution in vain. Mr. Struve condemns the slogans secrecy and rioting, a riot being, quote, an insurrection in miniature. Mr. Struve spurns both the one and the other, and he does so from the standpoint of approaching the masses. We should like to ask Mr. Struve whether he can point to any passage in, for instance, what is to be done, the work of an extreme revolutionary from his standpoint, which advocates rioting. As regards secrecy, is there really much difference between, for example, us and Mr. Struve? Are we not both working on illegal newspapers, which are being smuggled into Russia secretly, and which serve the secret groups of either the Uzvabzhenia League or the RSDLP? Our workers mass meetings are often held secretly. That sin does exist. But what about the meetings of the gentlemen of the Uzvabzhenia League? Is there any reason why you should brag, Mr. Struve, and look down upon the despised partisans of despised secrecy? True, the supplying of arms to the workers demands strict secrecy. On this point, Mr. Struve is rather more outspoken. Just listen. Quote, as regards armed insurrection, or revolution in the technical sense, only mass propaganda in favor of a democratic program can create the social psychological conditions for a general armed insurrection. Thus, even from the point of view that an armed insurrection is the inevitable consummation of the present struggle for emancipation, a view I do not share, the permeation of the masses with ideas of democratic reform is a most fundamental and most necessary task. Mr. Struve tries to evade the issue. He speaks of the inevitability of an insurrection instead of speaking about its necessity for the victory of the revolution. The insurrection, unprepared, spontaneous, sporadic, has already begun. No one can positively vouch that it will develop into an entire and integral popular armed insurrection. For that depends on the state of the revolutionary forces, which can be fully gauged only in the course of the struggle itself, on the behavior of the government and the bourgeoisie, and on a number of other circumstances which it is impossible to estimate exactly. There is no point in speaking about inevitability in the sense of absolute certainty with regard to some definite event, as Mr. Struve does. What you must discuss if you want to be a partisan of the revolution is whether insurrection is necessary for the victory of the revolution, whether it is necessary to proclaim it vigorously, to advocate and make immediate and energetic preparations for it. Mr. Struve cannot fail to understand this difference. He does not, for instance, obscure the question of the necessity of universal suffrage, which is indisputable for a democrat, by raising the question of whether its attainment is inevitable in the course of the present revolution, which is debatable and of no urgency for people engaged in political activity. By evading the issue of the necessity of an insurrection, Mr. Struve expresses the innermost essence of the political position of the liberal bourgeoisie. In the first place, the bourgeoisie would prefer to come to terms with the autocracy rather than crush it. Secondly, the bourgeoisie in any case thrusts the armed struggle upon the shoulders of the workers. This is the real meaning of Mr. Struve's evasiveness. That is why he backs out of the question of the necessity of an insurrection, towards the question of the social psychological conditions for it, of preliminary propaganda. Just as the bourgeois windbags in the Frankfurt parliament of 1848 engaged in drawing up resolutions, declarations and decisions in mass propaganda, and in preparing the social psychological conditions at a time when it was a matter of repelling the armed force of the government, when the movement led to the necessity for an armed struggle, when verbal persuasion alone, which is a hundredfold necessary during the preparatory period, became banal, bourgeois inactivity and cowardice. So also Mr. Struve evades the question of insurrection, screening himself behind phrases. Mr. Struve vividly shows us what many social democrats stubbornly fail to see, namely that a revolutionary period differs from ordinary, everyday preparatory periods in history, in that the temper, excitement and convictions of the masses must and do reveal themselves in action. Vulgar revolutionism fails to see that the word is also a deed. This proposition is indisputable when applied to history generally, or to those periods of history when no open political mass actions take place, and when they cannot be replaced or artificially evoked by pushes of any sort. Costist revolutionaries fail to understand that when a revolutionary period has started, when the old superstructure has cracked from top to bottom, when open political action on the part of the classes and masses who are creating a new superstructure for themselves has become a fact, when civil war has begun, then to confine oneself to words as of old, and to fail to advance the direct slogan to pass to deeds. Still to try to avoid deeds by pleading the need for psychological conditions and propaganda in general is apathy, lifelessness, pedantry or else betrayal of the revolution and treachery to it. The Frankfurt windbags of the democratic bourgeoisie are a memorable historical example of just such treachery or of just such pedantic stupidity. Would you like an explanation of this difference between vulgar revolutionism and the kvostism of revolutionaries by an example taken from the history of the social democratic movement in Russia? We shall give you such an explanation. Call to mind the years 1901 and 1902, which are so recent but which already seem ancient history to us today. Demonstrations had begun. The protagonists of vulgar revolutionism raised a cry about storming. Rabocce a diello. Bloodthirsty leaflets were issued of Berlin origin, if my memory does not fail me. Attacks were made on the literature writing and armchair nature of the idea of conducting agitation on a national scale through a newspaper, Nadezhdin. On the other hand, the kvostism of revolutionaries was revealed in preaching that quote, the economic struggle is the best means of political agitation. What was the attitude of the revolutionary social democrats? They attacked both of these trends. They condemned flash in the pan methods and the cries about storming. For it was or should have been obvious to all that open mass action was a matter of the days to come. They condemned kvostism and bluntly issued the slogan, even of a popular armed insurrection. Not in the sense of a direct appeal. Mr. Struve would not discover any appeals to riots in our utterances of that period. But in the sense of a necessary deduction. In the sense of propaganda, about which Mr. Struve has be thought himself only now, our honorable Mr. Struve is always several years behind the times. In the sense of preparing those very social psychological conditions, about which the representatives of the bewildered, huckstering bourgeoisie are now holding forth sadly and inappropriately. At that time propaganda and agitation, agitation and propaganda were really pushed to the fore by the objective state of affairs. At that time the work of publishing an all Russian political newspaper, the weekly issuance of which was regarded as an ideal could be proposed and was proposed in what is to be done as the touchstone of the work of preparing for an insurrection. At that time the slogans advocating mass agitation instead of direct armed action, preparation of the social psychological conditions for insurrection instead of flash in the pan methods were the only correct slogans for the revolutionary social democratic movement. At the present time the slogans have been superseded by events, the movement has gone beyond them, they have become cast-offs, rags fit only to clothe the hypocrisy of the Asvabdhenya and the Khvostism of the new Iskra. Or perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps the revolution has not yet begun, perhaps the time for open political action of classes has not yet arrived, perhaps there is still no civil war and the criticism of weapons should not as yet be the necessary and obligatory successor, heir, trustee, and wielder of the weapon of criticism. Look around, poke your head out of your study and look into the street for an answer. Has not the government itself started civil war by shooting down hosts of peaceful and unarmed citizens everywhere? Are not the armed black hundreds acting as arguments of the autocracy? Has not the bourgeoisie, even the bourgeoisie, recognized the need for a citizen's militia? Does not Mr. Struve himself, the ideally moderate and punctilious Mr. Struve, say, alas, he says so only to evade the issue that, quote, the open nature of revolutionary action, that's the sort of fellows we are today, is now one of the most important conditions for exerting an educational influence upon the masses of the people. Those who have eyes to see can have no doubt as to the question of armed insurrection must be presented by the partisans of revolution at the present time. Just take a look at the three ways in which this question has been presented in the organs of the free press, which are at all capable of influencing the masses. The first presentation. The resolution of the Third Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. The following is the text in full. Whereas, one, the proletariat being by virtue of its very position the most advanced and the only consistently revolutionary class is for that very reason called upon to play the leading part in the general democratic revolutionary movement in Russia. Two, this movement has already brought about the necessity of an armed insurrection. Three, the proletariat will inevitably take a most energetic part in this insurrection, this participation determining the fate of the revolution in Russia. Four, the proletariat can play the leading part in this revolution only if it is welded into a united and independent political force under the banner of the Social Democratic Labor Party, which is to guide its struggle not only ideologically, but practically as well. Five, it is only by fulfilling this part that the proletariat can be assured of the most favorable conditions for the struggle for socialism against the property classes of a bourgeois democratic Russia. The Third Congress of the RSDLP recognizes that the task of organizing the proletariat to instruct struggle against the autocracy through armed insurrection is one of the most important and pressing tasks of the party in the present revolutionary period. The Congress therefore resolves to instruct all the party organizations, A, to explain to the proletariat by means of propaganda and agitation, not only the political importance, but also the practical organizational aspect of the impending armed insurrection. B, in this propaganda and agitation to explain the part played by mass political strikes, which may be of great importance at the beginning and in the very process of the insurrection. C, to adopt the most energetic measures to arm the proletariat and also to draw up a plan for the armed insurrection and for direct leadership of the latter, establishing for this purpose to the extent that it is necessary special groups of party functionaries. It is publicly acknowledged and declared that the general democratic revolutionary movement has already led to the necessity of an armed insurrection. The organization of the proletariat for an insurrection has been placed on the order of the day as one of the essential, principal, and indispensable tasks of the party. Instructions are issued to adopt the most energetic measures to arm the proletariat and to ensure the possibility of directly leading the insurrection. The second presentation. An article in the OZVBGNIA containing a statement of principles by the, quote, leader of the Russian constitutionalists as Mr. Struve was recently described by such an influential organ as the European bourgeoisie as the Frankfurter Zeitung or the leader of the Russian progressive bourgeoisie. He does not share the opinion that an insurrection is inevitable. Secret activity and riots are the specific methods of irrational revolutionism. Republicanism is a method of stunning. The question of armed insurrection is really a mere technical question whereas, quote, the fundamental and most necessary task is to carry on mass propaganda and to prepare the social psychological conditions. The third presentation. The resolution of the new Eschreist conference. Our task is to prepare an insurrection. A planned insurrection is out of the question. Favorable conditions for an insurrection are created by the disorganization of the government by our agitation and by our organization. Only then, quote, can technical military preparations acquire more or less serious significance. And is that all? Yes, that is all. The new Eschreist leaders of the proletariat still do not know whether insurrection has become a necessity. It is still not clear to them whether the task of organizing the proletariat for direct battle has become an urgent one. It is not necessary to urge the adoption of the most energetic measures. It is far more important in 1905 and not in 1902 to explain in general outlines under what conditions these measures, quote, may acquire, quote, more or less serious significance. Do you see now, comrades of the new Eschreist, where your turn to Martinovism has led you? Do you realize that your political philosophy has proved to be a rehash of the Osvabgenia philosophy? That, against your will and without your being aware of it, you are following at the tail of the monarchist bourgeoisie? Is it clear to you now that, while repeating what you have learned by rote and attaining perfection in sophistry, you have lost sight of the fact that, in the memorable words of Peter Struve's memorable article, the open nature of revolutionary action is now one of the most important conditions for exerting an educational influence upon the masses of the people? End of chapter 8. This recording is in the public domain. What does being a party of extreme opposition in time of revolution mean? Let us return to the resolution on a provisional government. We have shown that the tactics of the new Eschreists do not push the revolution forward, which they may have wanted to make possible by their resolution, but back. We have shown that it is precisely these tactics that tie the hands of social democracy in the struggle against the inconsistent bourgeoisie and do not safeguard it against being dissolved in bourgeois democracy. Naturally, the false premises of a resolution lead to the false conclusion that, quote, therefore social democracy must not set itself the aim of seizing or sharing power in the provisional government, but must remain the party of extreme revolutionary opposition. Consider the first half of this conclusion, which is a part of a statement of aims. Do the new Eschreists declare the aim of social democratic activity to be a decisive victory of the revolution over czarism? They do. They are unable correctly to formulate the requisites for a decisive victory and stray from its formulation, but they do set themselves the aforementioned aim. Further, do they connect a provisional government with insurrection? Yes, they do so plainly, by stating that a provisional government, quote, will emerge from a victorious popular insurrection. Finally, do they set themselves the aim of leading the insurrection? Yes, they do. They do not admit that an insurrection is an urgent necessity, but at the same time, unlike Mr. Struve, they say that, quote, social democracy strives to subject it the insurrection to its influence and leadership and to use it in the interests of the working class. How nicely this hangs together, does it not? We set ourselves the aim of subjecting the insurrection of both the proletarian and non-proletarian masses to our influence and our leadership, and of using it in our interests. Hence, we set ourselves the aim of leading in the insurrection both the proletariat and the revolutionary bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, the non-proletarian groups, i.e. of sharing the leadership of the insurrection between the social democracy and the revolutionary bourgeoisie. We set ourselves the aim of securing victory for the insurrection, which is to lead to the establishment of a provisional government, quote, which will emerge from a victorious popular insurrection. Therefore, we must not set ourselves the aim of seizing power or of sharing it in a provisional revolutionary government. Our friends cannot dovetail their arguments. They vacillate between the standpoint of Mr. Struve, who is evading the issue of an insurrection and the standpoint of revolutionary social democracy, which calls upon us to undertake this urgent task. They vacillate between anarchism, which on principle condemns all participation in a provisional revolutionary government as treachery to the proletariat and Marxism, which demands such participation on condition that the Social Democratic Party exercises the leading influence in the insurrection. They have no independent position, whatever. Neither that of Mr. Struve, who wants to come to terms with czarism and is therefore compelled to resort to evasions and subterfuges on the question of insurrection, nor that of the anarchists who condemn all action from above and all participation in a bourgeois revolution. The New East Christs confuse a deal with czarism with a victory over czarism. They want to take part in a bourgeois revolution. They have gone somewhat beyond Martinov's two dictatorships. They even consent to lead the insurrection of the people in order to renounce that leadership immediately after victory is won, or perhaps immediately before the victory, i.e. in order not to avail themselves of the fruits of victory, but to turn all these fruits over entirely to the bourgeoisie. This is what they call using the insurrection in the interests of the working class. There is no need to dwell on this muddle any longer. It will be more useful to examine how this muddle originated in the formulation which reads, to remain the party of extreme revolutionary opposition. This is one of the familiar propositions of international revolutionary social democracy. It is a perfectly correct proposition. It has become a commonplace for all opponents of revisionism or opportunism in parliamentary countries. It has become generally accepted as the legitimate and necessary rebuff to parliamentary Cretanism, Milorandism, Bernsteinism, and the Italian reformism of the Trati brand. Our good new Eschreists have learned this excellent proposition by heart and are zealous in their work. Quite inappropriately. Categories of the parliamentary struggle are introduced into resolutions written for conditions in which no parliament exists. The concept opposition, which has become the reflection and the expression of a political situation in which no one seriously speaks of an insurrection, is senselessly applied to a situation in which insurrection has begun and in which all the supporters of the revolution are thinking and talking about leadership in it. The desire to stick to old methods, i.e. action only from below, is expressed with pomp and clamour precisely at a time when the revolution has confronted us with the necessity in the event of the insurrection being victorious of acting from above. No, our new Eschreists are decidedly out of luck. Even when they formulate a correct social-democratic proposition, they don't know how to apply it correctly. They failed to take into consideration that in a period in which a revolution has begun when there is no parliament, when there is civil war, when insurrectionary outbreaks occur, the concepts and terms of parliamentary struggle are changed and transformed into their opposites. They failed to take into consideration the fact that under the circumstances referred to, amendments are moved by means of street demonstrations, interpolations are introduced by means of offensive action by armed citizens, opposition to the government is affected by forcibly overthrowing the government. Like the well-known hero of our folklore, who repeated good advice just when it was inappropriate, our admirers of Martinov repeat the lessons of peaceful parliamentarism just at a time when, as they themselves state actual hostilities have commenced. There is nothing more ridiculous than this pompous emphasis of the slogan extreme opposition in a resolution which begins by referring to a decisive victory of the revolution and to popular insurrection. Try to visualize gentlemen what it means to be the extreme opposition Does it mean exposing the government or deposing it? Does it mean voting against the government or defeating its armed forces in open battle? Does it mean refusing the government replenishments for its ex-checker or the revolutionary seizure of this ex-checker in order to use it for the requirements of the uprising to arm the workers peasants and to convoke a constituent assembly? Are you not beginning to understand gentlemen that the term extreme opposition expresses only negative actions? To expose? To vote against? To refuse? Why is this so? Because this term applies only to the parliamentary struggle and, moreover, to a period when no one makes decisive victory against the immediate object of that struggle. Are you not beginning to understand that things undergo a cardinal change in this respect from the moment the politically oppressed people launch a determined attack along the whole front in desperate struggle for victory? The workers ask us is it necessary energetically to take up the urgent business of insurrection? What should be done to make the incipient insurrection victorious? What use should be made of the victory? What program can and should then be applied? The new East-Christ's who are making Marxism more profound answer, we must remain the party of extreme revolutionary opposition. Well, were we not right in calling these nights past masters in Philistineism? End of chapter 9 This recording is in the public domain.