 Chapter 10 of Two Tactics of Social Democracy by Lennon. Read for LibriVox.org by ChristianPicco at CommunistRevolution.org. Chapter 10. Revolutionary communes and the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. The conference of the new Ischraists did not keep to the anarchist position into which the new Ischra had talked itself. Only from below, not from below and from above. The absurdity of admitting the possibility of an insurrection and not admitting the possibility of victory and participation in a provisional revolutionary government was too glaring. The resolution therefore introduced certain reservations and restrictions into the solution of the question proposed by Martinov and Martov. Let us consider these reservations as stated in the following section of the resolution. These tactics to remain the party of extreme revolutionary opposition do not, of course, in any way exclude the expediency of a partial and episodic seizure of power and the establishment of revolutionary communes in one or another district exclusively for the purpose of helping to spread the insurrection and of disrupting the government. That being the case, it means that in principle they admit the possibility of action not only from below but also from above. It means that the proposition laid down in L. Martov's well-known article in the Ischra No. 93 is discarded and that the tactics of period, i.e. not only from below but also from above, are acknowledged as correct. Further, the seizure of power, even if partial, episodic, etc., obviously presupposes the participation not only of social democrats and not only of the proletariat. This follows from the fact that it is not only the proletariat that is interested and takes an active part in the democratic revolution. This follows from the fact that the insurrection is a popular one, as is stated in the beginning of the resolution we are discussing. That non-proletarian groups, the words used in the conference resolution on the uprising, i.e. the bourgeoisie, also take part in it. Hence the principle that any participation of socialists in a provisional revolutionary government jointly with the petty bourgeoisie is treachery to the working class was thrown overboard by the conference, which is what the period sought to achieve. Treachery does not cease to be treachery because the action which constitutes it is partial, episodic, local, etc. Hence the parallel drawn between the participation in a provisional revolutionary government and vulgar jauréism was thrown overboard by the conference, which is what the period sought to achieve. A government does not cease to be a government because its power does not extend to many cities but is confined to a single city. It does not extend to many districts but is confined to a single district, nor because of the name that is given to it. Thus the formulation of the principles of this question, which the new escra tried to give, was discarded by the conference. Let us see whether the restrictions imposed by the conference on the formation of revolutionary governments and participation in them, which is now admitted in principle, are reasonable. What difference there is between the concept episodic and the concept provisional we do not know? We are afraid that this new and foreign word is merely a screen for lack of clear thinking. It seems more profound, but actually it is only more obscure and confused. What is the difference between the expediency of a partial seizure of power in a city or district and participation in a provisional revolutionary government of the entire state? Do not cities include a city like St. Petersburg, where the events of January 9th took place? Do not districts include the Caucasus, which is bigger than many a state? Will not the problems, which at one time vexed the new escra, of what to do with the prisons, the police, public funds, etc., confront us the moment we seize power in a single city, let alone in a district? No one will deny, of course, that if we lack sufficient forces, if the insurrection is not wholly successful, or if the victory is indecisive, it is possible that provisional revolutionary governments will be set up in separate localities in individual cities and the like. But what is the point of such an assumption, gentlemen? Do not you deceive yourselves? Do not you yourselves speak in the beginning of the resolution about a decisive victory of the revolution, about a victorious popular insurrection? Since when have the social democrats taken over the job of the anarchists, to divide the attention and the aims of the proletariat, to direct its attention to the partial instead of the general, the single, the integral, and complete? While presupposing the seizure of power in a city, you yourselves speak of spreading the insurrection? To another city, may we venture to think? To all cities, may we dare to hope? Your conclusions, gentlemen, are as unsound and haphazard as contradictory and confused as your premises. The Third Congress of the RSDLP gave an exhaustive and clear answer to the question of a provisional revolutionary government in general. And this answer covers all cases of local provisional governments as well. The answer given by the conference, however, by artificially and arbitrarily singling out a part of the question merely evades, but unsuccessfully, the issue as a whole and creates confusion. What does the term revolutionary communes mean? Does it differ from the term provisional revolutionary government? And if so, in what respect? The conference, gentlemen, themselves do not know. Confusion of revolutionary thought leads them, as very often happens, to revolutionary phrase-mongering. Yes, the use of the words revolutionary commune in a resolution passed by representatives of social democracy is revolutionary phrase-mongering and nothing else. Marks more than once condemned such phrase-mongering when fascinating terms of the bygone past were used to hide the tasks of the future. In such cases, a fascinating term that has played its part in history becomes futile and pernicious trumpery, a child's rattle. We must give the workers and the whole people a clear and unambiguous explanation as to why we want a provisional revolutionary government to be set up, and exactly what changes we shall accomplish if we exercise decisive influence on the government, on the very morrow of the victory of the popular insurrection which has already commenced. These are the questions that confront political leaders. The Third Congress of the RSDLP gave perfectly clear answers to these questions and drew up a complete program of these changes. The minimum program of our party. The word commune, however, is not an answer at all. It only serves to confuse people by the distant echo of a sonorous phrase or empty rhetoric. The more we cherish the memory of the Paris Commune of 1871, for instance, the less permissible is it to refer to it offhand without analyzing its mistakes and the special conditions attending to it. To do so would be to follow the absurd example of the Blanqueists whom Engels ridiculed, who in 1874 in their manifesto paid homage to every act of the Commune. What reply will a Conferencer give to a worker who asks him about this revolutionary Commune that is mentioned in the resolution? He will only be able to tell him that this is the name known in history of a worker's government that was unable to, and could not at that time distinguish between the elements of a democratic revolution and those of a socialist revolution that confused the tasks of fighting for a republic with the tasks of fighting for socialism that was unable to carry out the task of launching an energetic military offensive against Versailles that made a mistake in not seizing the Bank of France, etc. In short, whether in your answer you refer to the Paris Commune or to some other Commune, your answer will be it was a government such as ours should not be. A fine answer indeed. Does it not testify to pedantic moralizing and impotence on the part of a revolutionary who says nothing about the practical program of the party and inappropriately begins to give lessons in history in a resolution? Does this not reveal the very mistake which they unsuccessfully accuse us of having committed? I.e. of confusing a democratic revolution with a socialist revolution between which none of the communes differentiated? The aim of a provisional government, so inappropriately termed Commune, is declared to be exclusively to spread the insurrection and to disrupt the government. Taken in its literal sense, the word exclusively eliminates all other aims. It is an echo of the absurd theory of only from below. Such elimination of other aims is another instance of short-sightedness and lack of reflection. A revolutionary Commune, i.e. a revolutionary government, even if only in a single city, will inevitably have to administer, even if provisionally, partly episodically, all the affairs of state. And it is the height of folly to hide one's head under one's wing and refuse to see this. This government will have to enact an eight-hour working day, establish workers' inspection of factories, institute free universal education, introduce the election of judges, set up peasant committees, etc. In a word, it will certainly have to carry out a number of reforms. To designate these reforms as helping to spread the insurrection would be playing with words and deliberately causing greater confusion in a matter which requires absolute clarity. The concluding part of the new Ischraist's resolution does not provide any new material for a criticism of the trends of principles of economism which has revived in our party. But it illustrates what has been said above from a somewhat different angle. Here is that part. Quote, Only in one event should social democracy, on its own initiative, direct its efforts toward seizing power and holding it as long as possible. Namely, in the event of the revolution spreading to the advanced countries of western Europe, where conditions for the achievement of socialism have already reached a certain degree of maturity. In that event, the limited historical scope of the Russian revolution can be considerably widened and the possibility of entering the path of socialist reforms will arise. By framing its tactics in accordance with the view that, during the whole period of the revolution, the Social Democratic Party will retain the position of extreme revolutionary opposition to all the governments that may succeed one another in the course of the revolution. Social democracy will best be able to prepare itself to utilize governmental power if it falls into its hands. The basic idea here is the one that the period has repeatedly formulated, stating that we must not be afraid, as is Martinov, of a complete victory for social democracy in a democratic revolution, i.e. of a revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. For such a victory will enable us to rouse Europe and the socialist proletariat of Europe after throwing off the yoke of the bourgeoisie. Will, in its turn, help us to accomplish the socialist revolution? But see how this idea is worsened in the new East-Christ's rendering of it. We shall not dwell on details, on the absurd assumption that power could fall into the hands of a class-conscious party which considers seizure of power harmful tactics. On the fact that in Europe the conditions for socialism have reached not a degree of maturity, but are already mature. On the fact that our party program does not speak of socialist changes at all, but only of a socialist revolution. Let us take the principle and basic difference between the idea presented by the fperiod and that presented in the resolution. The fperiod set the revolutionary proletariat of Russia an active aim, to win the battle for democracy and to use this victory for carrying the revolution into Europe. The resolution fails to grasp this connection between our decisive victory, not in the new Iskra sense, and the revolution in Europe. And therefore it speaks not about the tasks of the proletariat, not about the prospects of its victory, but about one of the possibilities in general, in the event of the revolution spreading. The fperiod pointedly and definitely indicated, and this was incorporated in the resolution of the Third Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, how governmental power can and must be utilized in the interests of the proletariat, bearing in mind what can be achieved immediately at the given stage of social development and what must first be achieved as a democratic prerequisite of the struggle for socialism. Here also the resolution hopelessly drags at the tail when it states, will be able to prepare itself to utilize, but fails to say how it will be able, how it will prepare itself, and to utilize for what. We have no doubt for instance that the new Iskraists may be able to prepare themselves to utilize the leading position in the party. But the point is that the way they have utilized their preparation up till now do not hold out much hope of possibility being transformed into reality. The fperiod quite definitely stated wherein lies the real possibility of holding power, namely in the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, in their joint mass strength, which is capable of outweighing all the forces of counter-revolution in the inevitable concurrence of their interests in democratic changes. Here too the resolution of the conference gives us nothing positive, it merely evades the question. Surely the possibility of holding power in Russia must be determined by the composition of the social forces in Russia itself, by the circumstances of the democratic revolution which is now taking place in our country. A victory of the proletariat in Europe, it is still somewhat of a far cry between carrying the revolution into Europe and the victory of the proletariat will give rise to a desperate counter-revolutionary struggle on the part of the Russian bourgeoisie. Yet the resolution of the new Iskraists does not say a word about this counter-revolutionary force, the importance of which has been appraised in the resolution of the Third Congress of the RS DLP. If in our fight for a republic and democracy we could not rely upon the peasantry as well as on the proletariat, the prospect of our holding power would be hopeless. But if it is not hopeless, if a decisive victory of the revolution over Tsarism opens up such a possibility, then we must point to it. We must actively call for its transformation into reality and issue practical slogans, not only for the contingency of the revolution being carried into Europe, but also for the purpose of carrying it there. The reference made by the Qvostist Social Democrats to the limited historical scope of the Russian revolution merely serves to cover up their limited understanding of the aims of this democratic revolution and of the leading role of the proletariat in this revolution. One of the objections raised to the slogan of the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry is that dictatorship presupposes a single will, Iskra number 95, and that there can be no single will of the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie. This objection is unsound, for it is based on an abstract metaphysical interpretation of the term single will. There can be a single will in one respect and not a single will in another. The absence of unity on questions of socialism and in the struggle for socialism does not preclude singleness of will on questions of democracy and in the struggle for a republic. To forget this would be tantamount to forgetting the logical and historical difference between a democratic and a socialist revolution. To forget this would be tantamount to forgetting the character of the democratic revolution as a revolution of the whole people. If it is of the whole people, it means that there is singleness of will precisely insofar as this revolution satisfies the common needs and requirements of the whole people. Beyond the bounds of democracy, there can be no question of the proletariat and the peasant bourgeoisie having a single will. Class struggle between them is inevitable, but it is in a democratic republic that this struggle will be the most thorough going and widespread struggle of the people for socialism. Like everything else in the world, the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry has a past and a future. Its past is autocracy, serfdom, monarchy, and privilege. In the struggle against this past, in the struggle against counter-revolution, a single will of the proletariat and the peasantry is possible. For here there is unity of interests. Its future is the struggle against private property, the struggle of the wage worker against the employer, the struggle for socialism. Here singleness of will is impossible. Note, the development of capitalism, which is more widespread and rapid where there is freedom, will inevitably put a speedy end to singleness of will. The sooner counter-revolution and reaction are crushed, the sooner will the singleness of will come to an end. Here our path lies not from autocracy to a republic, but from a petty bourgeois democratic republic to socialism. Of course, in actual historical circumstances, the elements of the past become interwoven with those of the future. The two paths cross. Wage labor, with its struggle against private property, exists under the autocracy as well. It is generated even under serfdom. But this does not in the least prevent us from drawing a logical and historical dividing line between the major stages of development. We all draw a distinction between bourgeois revolution and socialist revolution. We all absolutely insist on the necessity of drawing a most strict line between them. But can it be denied that individual particular elements of the two revolutions become interwoven in history? Have there not been a number of socialist movements and attempts at establishing socialism in the period of democratic revolutions in Europe? And will not the future socialist revolution in Europe still have to do a very great deal that has been left undone in the field of democracy? A social democrat must never for a moment forget that the proletariat will inevitably have to wage the class struggle for socialism even against the most democratic and republican bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. This is beyond doubt. Hence the absolute necessity of a separate, independent, strictly class party of social democracy. Hence the temporary nature of our tactics of striking jointly with the bourgeoisie and the duty of keeping a strict watch over our ally as over an enemy, etc. All this is also beyond the slightest doubt. But it would be ridiculous and reactionary to deduce from this that we must forget, ignore, or neglect these tasks which, although transient and temporary, are vital at the present time. The fight against the autocracy is a temporary and transient task of the socialists but to ignore or neglect this task in any way would be tantamount to betraying socialism and rendering a service to reaction. The revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry is unquestionably only a transient, temporary aim of the socialists. But to ignore this aim in the period of a democratic revolution would be downright reactionary. Concrete political aims must be set in concrete circumstances. All things are relative. All things flow and all things change. The program of the German Social Democratic Party does not contain the demand for a republic. The situation in Germany is such that this question can in practice hardly be separated from the question of socialism. Although, even as regards Germany, Engels in his comments on the draft of the Erfurt program in 1891 warned against belittling the importance of a republic and of the struggle for a republic. In the Russian Social Democratic Party, the question of eliminating the demand for a republic from its program and agitation has never even arisen. For in our country there can be no talk of an indissoluble connection between the question of a republic and the question of socialism. It was quite natural for a German Social Democrat of 1898 not to put the special question of a republic in the forefront. And this evokes neither surprise nor condemnation. But a German Social Democrat who in 1848 would have left the question of a republic in the shade would have been a downright traitor to the revolution. There is no such thing as abstract truth. Truth is always concrete. The time will come when the struggle against the Russian autocracy will end and the period of democratic revolution will be over in Russia. Then it will be ridiculous to talk about singleness of will of the proletariat and the peasantry, about a democratic dictatorship, etc. When that time comes we shall attend directly to the question of the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat and deal with it at a greater length. But at present the party of the advanced class cannot but strive most energetically for a decisive victory of the democratic revolution over czarism. And a decisive victory means nothing else than the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. Note. We would remind the reader that in the polemics between the Iskra and the period, the former referred, among other things, to Engels' letter to Turati, in which Engels warned the future leader of the Italian reformists not to confuse the democratic with the socialist revolution. The impending revolution in Italy, wrote Engels about the political situation in Italy in 1894, will be a petty bourgeois democratic and not a socialist revolution. The Iskra reproached the period with having departed from the principle laid down by Engels. This reproach was unjustified because the period number 14 fully acknowledged on the whole the correctness of Marx's theory of the difference between the three main forces in the revolutions of the 19th century. According to this theory, the following forces take a stand against the old order. Against the autocracy, feudalism, serfdom. 1. The liberal big bourgeoisie. 2. The radical petty bourgeoisie. 3. The proletariat. The first fights for nothing more than a constitutional monarchy. The second for a democratic republic. The third for a socialist revolution. To confuse the petty bourgeois struggle for a complete democratic revolution with the proletarian struggle for a socialist revolution spells political bankruptcy for a socialist. Marx's warning to this effect is quite justified. But it is precisely for this very reason that the slogan revolutionary communes is erroneous. Because the very mistake committed by the communes that have existed in history is that they confused the democratic revolution with the socialist revolution. On the other hand, our slogan, a revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry fully safeguards us against this mistake. While recognizing the incontestably bourgeois nature of the revolution which is incapable of directly overstepping the bounds of a mere democratic revolution our slogan pushes forward this particular revolution and strives to mold it into forms most advantageous to the proletariat. Consequently it strives to make the very most of the democratic revolution in order to attain the greatest success in the further struggle of the proletariat for socialism. End of chapter 10. This recording is in the public domain. Chapter 11 of Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution by Lennon. Recorded for LibriVox.org by Christian Pico at communistrevolution.org Chapter 11. A cursory comparison between several of the resolutions of the Third Congress of the RSDLP and those of the conference. The question of the provisional revolutionary government is the pivot of the tactical question of the social democratic movement at the present time. It is neither possible nor necessary to dwell in as great detail as on the other resolutions of the conference. We shall confine ourselves merely to indicating briefly a few points which confirm the difference in principle analyzed above in the tactical trends of the resolutions of the Third Congress of the RSDLP and those of the conference resolutions. Take the question of the attitude towards the tactics of the government on the eve of the revolution. Once again you will find a comprehensive answer to this question in one of the resolutions of the Third Congress of the RSDLP. This resolution takes into consideration all the multifarious conditions and tasks of the particular moment, the exposure of the hypocrisy of the government's concessions, the utilization of travesties of popular representation, the achievement by revolutionary means of the urgent demands of the working class, the principle one being the eight hour working day, and finally resistance to the black hundreds. In the conference resolutions this question is scattered over several sections quote resistance to the dark forces of reaction is mentioned only in the preamble of the resolution on the attitude to other parties. Participation in elections to representative bodies is considered separately from the question of compromises between czarism and the bourgeoisie. Instead of calling for the achievement of an eight hour working day by revolutionary means a special resolution with the high sounding title on the economic struggle merely repeats after high flown and very stupid phrases about quote the central place occupied by the labor question in the public life of Russia. The old slogan of agitation for quote the legislative institution of an eight hour working day. The inadequacy and belatedness of this slogan at the present time are too obvious to require proof. The question of open political action. The third congress takes into consideration the impending radical change in our activity. Secret activity and the development of the secret apparatus must on no account be abandoned. This would be playing into the hands of the police and be of the utmost advantage to the government. But at the same time we cannot start too soon thinking about open action as well. Expedient forms of such action and consequently special apparatus less secret must be prepared immediately for this purpose. The legal and semi-legal societies must be made use of with a view to transforming them as far as possible into bases of the future open social democratic labor party in Russia. Here too the conference divides up the question and fails to issue any integral slogans. There bobs up as a separate point the ridiculous instruction to the organization commission to see to the placing of its legally functioning publicists. There is the wholly absurd decision, quote, to subordinate to its influence the democratic newspapers that set themselves the aim of rendering assistance to the working class movement. This is the professed aim of all our legal liberal newspapers especially all of which are of the Azvabgenia trend. Why should not the editors of the Iskra make a start themselves in carrying out their advice and give us an example of how to subject the Azvabgenia to social democratic influence? Instead of the slogan of utilizing the legally existing unions for the purpose of establishing bases for the party, there is even first particular advice about the trade unions only that all party members must join them. And secondly advice to guide, quote, the revolutionary organization of the workers equals, quote, organizations not officially constituted equals, quote, revolutionary workers clubs. How these clubs come to be classed as unofficially constituted organizations. What these clubs really are, goodness only knows. Instead of definite and clear instructions from a supreme party body we have some jottings of ideas and the rough drafts of publicists. We get no complete picture of the beginning of the party's transition to an entirely new basis in all its work. The peasant question was presented by the party congress and by the conference in entirely different ways. The congress drew up a resolution on the, quote, attitude to the peasant movement. The conference on, quote, work among the peasants. In the one case, prime importance is attached to the task of guiding the widespread revolutionary democratic movement in the general national interests of the fight against czarism. In the other instance the question is reduced to mere work among a particular section of society. In the one case a central practical slogan for our agitation is advanced calling for the immediate organization of revolutionary peasant committees in order to carry out all democratic changes. In other words, a, quote, demand for the organization of committees is to be presented to a constituent assembly. Why must we wait for this constituent assembly? Will it really be constituent? Will it be stable without the preliminary and simultaneous establishment of revolutionary peasant committees? All these questions are ignored by the conference. All its decisions reflect the general idea which we have traced. Namely that in bourgeois revolution we must do only our special work without setting ourselves the aim of leading the entire democratic movement and of doing this independently. Just as the economists constantly harped on the idea that the social democrats should concern themselves with the economic struggle leaving it to the liberals to take care of the political struggle so the new escrites keep harping in all their discussions on the idea that we should creep into a modest corner out of the way of the bourgeois revolution leaving it to the bourgeoisie to do the active work of carrying out the revolution. Finally, we cannot but note also the resolution on the attitude towards other parties. The resolution of the third congress of the RSDLP speaks of exposing all the limitations and inadequacies of the bourgeois movement for emancipation without entertaining the naive idea of enumerating every possible instance of such limitation from congress to congress or of drawing a line of distinction between bad bourgeois and good bourgeois. The conference repeating the mistake made by Starover persistently searched for such a line developed the famous quote litmus paper theory. Starover started from a very good idea to put the strictest possible terms to the bourgeoisie only he forgot that any attempt to separate in advance the bourgeois democrats who are worthy of approval agreements etc. from those who are unworthy leads to a formula which is immediately thrown overboard by the development of events and which introduces confusion into the proletarian class consciousness. The emphasis is shifted from real unity in the struggle to declarations, promises, slogans. Starover was of the opinion that quote universal and equal suffrage, direct elections, and secret ballot was such a radical slogan. But before two years elapsed the litmus paper proved its worthlessness. The slogan of universal suffrage was taken over by the asvabjensi who not only came no closer to social democracy as a result of this but on the contrary tried by means of this very slogan to mislead the workers and divert them from socialism. Now the new ischrists are setting terms that are even stricter. They are demanding from the enemies of czarism energetic and unequivocal support of every determined action of the organized proletariat etc. Up to and including quote active participation in the self-armament of the people. This line has been drawn much further but nonetheless this line is again already obsolete. It revealed its worthlessness at once. Why for instance is there no slogan of a republic? How is it that the social democrats in the interest of quote relentless revolutionary war against all the foundations of the system of social estates and the monarchy demand from the bourgeois democrats anything you like except a fight for a republic? That this question is not mere capsiousness that the mistake of the new ischrists is of most vital political significance is proved by the Russian Liberation League. See proletary number four. Note proletary number four which appeared on June 4th 1905 contained a lengthy article entitled a new revolutionary labor league. See Lenin collected works Russian edition volume 8 pages 465 to 76. The article gives the contents of the appeals issued by this league which assumed the name of Russian Liberation League and which set itself the aim of convening the assembly with the aid of an armed insurrection. Further the article defines the attitude of the social democrats to such non-party leagues. How far this league really existed and what its fate was in the revolution is absolutely unknown to us. End note. These quote enemies of czarism will fully meet all the requirements yet we have shown that the spirit of the asphabgenia reigns in the program or lack of program of this Russian Liberation League and that the asphabgency can easily take it in tow. The conference however declares in the concluding section of the resolution that quote social democracy will continue to oppose the hypocritical friends of the people all those political parties which though they display a liberal and democratic banner refuse to render genuine support to the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. End quote. The Russian Liberation League not only does not refuse this support but offers it most insistently is that a guarantee that the leaders of this league are not quote hypocritical friends of the people even though they are asphabgency. You see by inventing terms in advance and presenting demands which are ludicrous by reason of their grim impotence the new escraists immediately put themselves in a ridiculous position. Their terms and demands immediately prove inadequate when it comes to gauging living realities. Their chase after formulae is hopeless for no formula can embrace all the various manifestations of hypocrisy inconsistency and limitations of the bourgeois democrats. It is not a matter of litmus paper of forms or written and printed demands nor is it a matter of drawing in advance a line of distinction between hypocritical and sincere friends of the people. It is a matter of real unity in the struggle of unabating criticism by social democrats of every uncertain step taken by bourgeois democracy. What is needed for a genuine consolidation of all the social forces interested in democratic change is not the points over which the conference labored so assiduously and so vainly but the ability to put forward genuinely revolutionary slogans. For this slogans are needed that will raise the revolutionary and republican bourgeoisie to the level of the proletariat and not reduce the aims of the proletariat to the level of the monarchist bourgeoisie. For this the most energetic participation in the insurrection and not softest evasions of the urgent task of armed insurrection is needed. Will the sweep of the democratic revolution be diminished if the bourgeoisie recoils from it? The foregoing lines were already written when we received a copy of the resolutions adopted by the Caucasian conference of the new Iskraists published by the Iskra. Better material than this Polabon Busch for dessert could not even have been invented. The editors of the Iskra quite justly remark On the fundamental question of tactics the Caucasian conference also arrived at a decision analogous in truth to the one adopted by the all Russian conference i.e. of the new Iskraists. The question of the attitude of social democracy towards a provisional revolutionary government has been settled by the Caucasian comrades in the spirit of most outspoken opposition to the new method advocated by the Period group and by the delicates of the so-called Congress who called it. It must be admitted that the formulation of the tactics of the proletarian party in a bourgeois revolution as given by the conference is very apt. What is true is true. No one could have given a more apt formulation of the fundamental error of the new Iskraists. We shall quote this formulation in full indicating in parentheses first the blossoms and then the fruit presented at the end. Here is the resolution of the Caucasian conference of the new Iskraists on a provisional revolutionary government. Quote whereas we consider it to be our task to take advantage of the revolutionary situation to render more profound of course they should have added a la Martinoff the social democratic consciousness of the proletariat only to render the consciousness more profound and not to win a republic what a profound conception of revolution and in order to secure for the party freedom to criticize the nascent bourgeois state system is it not our business to secure a republic our business is only to secure freedom of criticism anarchist ideas give rise to anarchist language bourgeois state system the conference declares against the formulation of a social democratic provisional government and joining such a government recall the resolution passed by the Bakuninists ten months before the Spanish Revolution and referred to by Engels see the proletariat number three and considers it to be the most expedient course to exercise pressure from without from below and not from above upon the bourgeois provisional government in order to secure a feasible measure of democratization of the state system the conference believes that the formation of a provisional government by social democrats or their joining such a government would lead on the one hand to the masses of the proletariat becoming disappointed in the social democratic party and abandoning it because the social democrats in spite of the fact that they had seized power would not be able to satisfy the pressing needs of the working class including the establishment of socialism a republic is not a pressing need the authors in their innocence do not notice that they are speaking a purely anarchist language as if they were repudiating participation in bourgeois revolutions and on the other hand will cause the bourgeois classes to recoil from the revolution and thus diminish it's sweep that is where the trouble lies that is where anarchist ideas become interwoven as is constantly the case among West European Bernsteinians also with the purest opportunism just think of it not to join a provisional government because this will cause the bourgeoisie to recoil from the revolution and thus diminish the sweep of the revolution here indeed we have the new escra philosophy in it's complete, pure and consistent form the revolution is a bourgeois revolution therefore we must bow down to bourgeois Philistinism and make way for it if we are guided even in part by the consideration that our participation may cause the bourgeoisie to recoil we thereby simply yield leadership in the revolution entirely to the bourgeois classes we thereby place the proletariat entirely under the tutelage of the bourgeoisie while retaining complete freedom of criticism compelling the proletariat to be meek and mild and not to cause the bourgeoisie to recoil we emasculate the most vital needs of the proletariat namely its political needs which the economists and their epigenes have never properly understood so as not to cause the bourgeoisie to recoil we completely abandon the field of revolutionary struggle for the achievement of democracy to the extent required by the proletariat to the extent of bargaining with the bourgeoisie betraying our principles betraying the revolution to purchase the bourgeoisie's voluntary consent that it might not recoil in two brief lines the Caucasian new Iskraists managed to express the quintessence of the tactics of betrayal of the revolution and of converting the proletariat into a wretched appendage of the bourgeois classes the tendency which we traced above to the mistakes of the new Iskraists now stands out before us as a clear and definite principle vis-a-vis to drag at the tail of the monarchist bourgeoisie since the establishment of a republic would cause and is already causing Mr. Struve, for example the bourgeoisie to recoil therefore down with the fight for a republic since every resolute and consistent democratic demand of the proletariat always and everywhere in the world causes the bourgeoisie to recoil therefore hide in your layers comrades and fellow workers act only from without do not dream of using the instruments and weapons of the bourgeois state system in the interests of the revolution and reserve for yourselves the freedom to criticize here the fundamental fallacy of their very conception of the term bourgeois revolution has come to the surface the Martinov or new Iskra conception of this term leads straight to a betrayal of the cause of the proletariat to the bourgeoisie those who have forgotten the old economism those who do not study it or remember it will find it difficult to understand the present echo of economism recall the Bernsteinian credo from purely proletarian views and programs people arrived at the conclusion we the social democrats must concern ourselves with economics with the real cause of labor with freedom to criticize all political chicanery with rendering social democratic work really more profound politics are for the liberals God save us from dropping into revolutionism this will cause the bourgeoisie to recoil those who read the whole credo over again or the supplement to number nine of the Robocaya Musel September 1899 will be able to follow this entire line of reasoning today we have the same thing only on a larger scale applied to an appraisal of the whole of the great Russian revolution alas already vulgarized and reduced to a travesty in advance by the theoreticians of orthodox Philistineism we the social democrats must concern ourselves with freedom of criticism without rendering class consciousness more profound with action from without they the bourgeois classes must have freedom to act a free field for revolutionary read liberal leadership freedom to put through reforms from above these vulgarizers of Marxism have never pondered over what Marx said about the need of substituting the criticism of weapons for the weapon of criticism taking the name of Marx in vain they in actual fact draw up resolutions on tactics wholly in the spirit of the frankfort bourgeois windbags who freely criticized absolutism and rendered democratic consciousness more profound but failed to understand that the time of revolution is the time of action of action both from above and from below having converted Marxism into pedantry they have made the ideology of the advanced most determined and energetic revolutionary class the ideology of its most underdeveloped strata which shrink from the difficult revolutionary democratic tasks and leave it to misuse the stroves to take care of these democratic tasks if the bourgeois classes recoil from the revolution because the social democrats join the revolutionary government they will thereby quote diminish the sweep of the revolution listen to this Russian workers the sweep of the revolution will be mightier if it is carried out by messieurs the stroves who are not frightened away by the social democrats and who want not victory over czarism but to come to terms with it the sweep of the revolution will be mightier if of the two possible outcomes which we have outlined above the first eventuates i.e. if the monarchist bourgeoisie comes to terms with the autocracy concerning a constitution a la ship of social democrats who write such disgraceful things in resolutions intended for the guidance of the whole party or who approve of such apt resolutions are so blinded by their pedantry which has utterly eroded the living spirit out of Marxism that they do not see how these resolutions convert all their other fine words into mere phrase-mongering take any of their articles in the Iskra or take even the notorious pamphlet written by our celebrated Martinov you'll read there about a popular insurrection about carrying the revolution to completion about striving to rely upon the common people in the fight against the inconsistent bourgeoisie but then all these excellent things become miserable phrase-mongering immediately after you accept or approve of the idea that the sweep of the revolution will be diminished as a consequence of the alienation of the bourgeoisie one of two things gentlemen either we together with the people must strive to carry out the revolution and win a complete victory over czarism in spite of the inconsistent self-seeking and cowardly bourgeoisie or we do not accept this in spite of we fear less the bourgeoisie than the people from the revolution in which case we betray the proletariat and the people to the bourgeoisie to the inconsistent self-seeking and cowardly bourgeoisie don't try to misinterpret what I have said don't start howling that you are being accused of deliberate treachery no, you have always been crawling and have at last crawled into the mire drawn inexorably and irrevocably down the inclined plane of making Marxism more profound to anti-revolutionary, soulless and lifeless philosophizing have you ever considered gentlemen what real social forces determine the sweep of the revolution let us leave aside the forces of foreign politics of international combinations that turned out very favorably for us at the present time but which we all leave out of our discussion and rightly so in as much as we are concerned with the question of the internal forces of Russia look at these internal forces aligned against the revolution are the autocracy the imperial court the police, the bureaucracy and the handful of high nobility the deeper the indignation of the people grows the less reliable become the troops and the more the bureaucracy wavers moreover the bourgeoisie on the whole is now in favor of the revolution is zealously making speeches about liberty holding forth more and more frequently in the name of the people and even in the name of the revolution note of interest in this connection is Mr. Stroove's open letter to Jaray recently published by the latter in L'Humanité and by Mr. Stroove in the Azvabgenia number 72 end note but we Marxists all know from theory and from daily and hourly observation of our liberals Zemtzwohists and Azvabgenzi that the bourgeoisie is inconsistent self-seeking and cowardly in its support of the revolution the bourgeoisie in the mass will inevitably turn towards counter-revolution towards the autocracy against the revolution and against the people immediately its narrow selfish interests are met immediately it recoils from consistent democracy and it is already recoiling from it there remains the people that is the proletariat and the peasantry the proletariat alone can be relied on to march to the end for it is going far beyond the democratic revolution that is why the proletariat fights in the front ranks for a republic and contemptuously rejects silly and unworthy advice to take care not to frighten away the bourgeoisie the peasantry includes a great number of semi-proletarian as well as petty bourgeois elements this causes it also to be unstable and compels the proletariat to unite in a strictly class party but the instability of the peasantry differs radically from the instability of the bourgeoisie for at the present time the peasantry is interested not so much in the absolute preservation of private property as in the confiscation of the landed estates one of the principal forms of private property while this does not make the peasantry become socialist or cease to be petty bourgeois it is capable of becoming a wholehearted and most radical adherent of the democratic revolution the peasantry will inevitably become such if only the progress of revolutionary events which is enlightening it is not checked too soon by the treachery of the bourgeoisie and the defeat of the proletariat subject to this condition the peasantry will inevitably become a bulwark of the revolution and the republic for only a completely victorious revolution can give the peasantry everything in the sphere of agrarian reforms everything that the peasants desire of which they dream and of which they truly stand in need not for the abolition of capitalism as the socialist revolutionaries imagine in order to emerge from the mire of semi-surfdom from the gloom of oppression and servitude in order to improve their living conditions as much as it is possible to improve them under the system of commodity production moreover the peasantry is attached to the revolution not only by the prospect of radical agrarian reform but by its general and permanent interests even in fighting the proletariat the peasantry stands in need of democracy for only a democratic system is capable of giving exact expression to its interests and of ensuring its predominance as the mass as the majority the more enlightened the peasantry becomes and since the war with japan it is becoming enlightened much more rapidly than those who are accustomed to measure enlightenment as a school standard suspect the more consistently and determinately will it favor a throw-going democratic revolution for unlike the bourgeoisie it has nothing to fear from the supremacy of the people but on the contrary stands to gain by it a democratic republic will become the ideal of the peasantry as soon as it begins to free itself from its naive monarchism because the enlightened monarchism of the bourgeois stock-jobbers with an upper chamber, etc. implies for the peasantry the same disenfranchisement and the same downtroddenness and ignorance as it suffers from today only slightly glossed over with the varnish of european constitutionalism that is why the bourgeoisie as a class naturally and inevitably strives to come under the wing of the liberal monarchist party while the peasantry in the mass strives to come under the leadership of the revolutionary and republican party that is why the bourgeoisie is incapable of carrying the democratic revolution to its consummation while the peasantry is capable of doing so and we must exert all our efforts to help it to do so it may be objected but this requires no proof this is all ABC all social democrats understand this perfectly well but this is not so it is not understood by those who can talk about the sweep of the revolution being diminished because the bourgeoisie will fall away from it such people repeat the words of our agrarian program that they have learned by rote without understanding their meaning for otherwise they would not be frightened by the concept of the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry which inevitably follows from the entire marxian world outlook and from our program otherwise they would not restrict the sweep of the great russian revolution to the limits to which the bourgeoisie is prepared to go such people defeat their abstract marxian revolutionary phrases by their concrete anti marxian and anti revolutionary resolutions those who really understand the role of the peasantry in a victorious russian revolution will not dream of saying that the sweep of the revolution will be diminished if the bourgeoisie recoiled from it for as a matter of fact the russian revolution will begin to assume its real sweep will really assume the widest revolutionary sweep possible in the epic of bourgeois democratic revolution only when the bourgeoisie recoils from it and when the masses of the peasantry come out as active revolutionaries side by side with the proletariat in order that it may be consistently carried to its conclusion our democratic revolution must rely on such forces as are capable of paralyzing the inevitable inconsistency of the bourgeoisie i.e. capable precisely of causing it to recoil from the revolution which the caucasian adherence of escra fear so much because of their lack of judgment the proletariat must carry to completion the democratic revolution by allying to itself the mass of the peasantry in order to crush by force the resistance of the autocracy and to paralyze the instability of the bourgeoisie the proletariat must accomplish the socialist revolution by allying to itself the mass of the semi-proletarian elements of the population in order to crush by force the resistance of the bourgeoisie and to paralyze the instability of the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie such are the tasks of the proletariat which the new escraists present so narrowly in all their arguments and resolutions about the sweep of the revolution however must not be forgotten although it is frequently lost sight of in discussions about the sweep of the revolution it must not be forgotten that the point at issue is not the difficulties this problem presents but the road along which we must seek and attain its solution the point is not whether it is easy or difficult to make the sweep of the revolution mighty and invincible but how we must act in order to make this sweep more powerful it is precisely on the fundamental nature of our activity on the direction it should take that our views differ we emphasize this because careless and unscrupulous people too frequently confuse two different questions namely the question of the direction in which the road leads i.e. the selection of one or two different roads and the question of how easily the goal can be reached or of how near the goal is on the given road we have not dealt with this last question at all in the foregoing because it has not evoked any disagreement or divergency in the party but it goes without saying that the question itself is extremely important and deserves the most serious attention of all social democrats it would be a piece of unpardonable optimism to forget the difficulties which accompany the task of drawing into the movement the masses not only of the working class but also of the peasantry these difficulties have more than once been the rock against which the efforts to carry out a democratic revolution to completion have been wrecked and it was the inconsistent and self-seeking bourgeoisie which triumphed most of all because it made capital in the shape of monarchist protection against the people and at the same time preserved the virginity of liberalism or of the as-vab-genia trend but difficult does not mean impossible the important thing is to be convinced that the path chosen is the correct one and this conviction will multiply a hundredfold the revolutionary energy and revolutionary enthusiasm which can perform miracles how deep is the disagreement among present-day social democrats on the question of the path to be chosen can be seen at once by comparing the Caucasian resolution of the new ischriests with the resolution of the third congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party the congress resolution says the bourgeoisie is inconsistent it will certainly try to deprive us of the gains of the revolution therefore make more energetic preparations for the fight comrades and fellow workers arm yourselves win the peasantry to your side we shall not surrender our revolutionary gains to the self-seeking bourgeoisie without a fight the resolution of the Caucasian new ischriests says the bourgeoisie is inconsistent it may recoil from the revolution therefore comrades and fellow workers please do not think of joining a provisional government for if you do the bourgeoisie will certainly recoil and the sweep of the revolution will thereby be diminished one side says push the revolution forward to its consummation in spite of the resistance or the passivity of the inconsistent bourgeoisie the other side says do not think of carrying the revolution to completion independently for if you do the inconsistent bourgeoisie will recoil from it not to diametrically opposite paths is it not obvious that one set of tactics absolutely excludes the other that the first tactics are the only correct tactics of revolutionary social democracy while the second are in fact purely as vubgenia tactics end of chapter 12 this recording is in the public domain chapter 13 of two tactics of social democracy by Lenin recorded for LibriVox.org by Christian Paco at communistrevolution.org chapter 13 conclusion dare we win people who are superficially acquainted with the state of affairs in Russian social democracy or who judge as mere onlookers without knowing the whole history of our internal party struggle since the days of economism very often also dismiss the disagreements on tactics which have now become crystallized especially after the third congress with the simple argument that there are two natural inevitable and quite reconcilable trends in every social democratic movement one side they say lays special emphasis on the ordinary current everyday work on the necessity of developing propaganda and agitation of preparing forces deepening the movement etc while the other side lays emphasis on the militant general political revolutionary tasks of the movement points to the necessity of armed insurrection advances the slogans for a revolutionary democratic dictatorship for a provisional revolutionary government neither one side nor the other should exaggerate they say extremes are bad both here and there and generally speaking everywhere in the world etc etc the cheap truisms of worldly and political in quotation marks wisdom which such arguments undoubtedly contain too often cover up a failure to understand the urgent and acute needs of the party take the differences on tactics that now exist among the Russian social democrats the special emphasis laid on the everyday routine aspect of the work such as we observe in the new ischrist arguments about tactics could not in itself present any danger and could not give rise to any divergence of opinion regarding tactical slogans but the moment you compare the resolutions of the third congress of the Russian social democratic labor party of the conference this divergence becomes strikingly obvious what then is the trouble the trouble is that in the first place it is not enough to point abstractly to the two currents in the movement and to the harmfulness of extremes one must know concretely what the given movement is suffering from at the given time what constitutes the real political danger to the party at the present time secondly one must know what real political forces are profiting by this or that tactical slogan or perhaps by the absence of this or that slogan to listen to the new ischrist one would arrive at the conclusion that the social democratic party is threatened with the danger of throwing overboard propaganda and agitation the economic struggle and criticism of bourgeois democracy of becoming inordinately absorbed in military preparations armed attacks the seizure of power etc actually however real danger is threatening the party from an entirely different quarter anyone who is at all closely familiar with the state of the movement anyone who follows it carefully and thoughtfully cannot fail to see the ridiculous side of the new iskra's fears the entire work of the russian social democratic labor party has already been fully molded into firm immutable forms which absolutely guarantee that our main attention will be fixed on propaganda and agitation impromptu and mass meetings on the distribution of leaflets and pamphlets assisting in the economic struggle and championing the slogans of that struggle there is not a single party committee not a single district committee not a single central delegates meeting or a single factory group where 99% of all the attention, energy and time are not always and constantly devoted to these functions which have become firmly established ever since the middle of the 90s only those who are entirely unfamiliar with the movement are ignorant of this only very naive or ill-informed people can be taken in by the new iscraists repetition of stale truths when it is done with an air of great importance the fact is that not only is no excessive zeal displayed among us with regard to the tasks of insurrection to the general political slogans and to the matter of leading the entire popular revolution but on the contrary it is backwardness in this very respect that stands out most strikingly constitutes our weakest spot and a real danger to the movement which may degenerate and in some places is degenerating from one that is revolutionary in deeds into one that is revolutionary in words among the many many hundreds of organizations, groups and circles that are conducting the work of the party you will not find a single one which has not from its very inception conducted the kind of everyday work about which the wise crackers of the new iscra now talk with the air of people who have discovered new truths on the other hand you will find only an insignificant percentage of groups and circles that have understood the tasks and armed insurrection entails which have begun to carry them out and have realized the necessity of leading the entire popular revolution against czarism the necessity of advancing for that purpose certain definite progressive slogans and no other we are incredibly behind in our progressive and genuinely revolutionary tasks in very many instances we have not even become conscious of them here and there we have failed to notice the strengthening of revolutionary bourgeois democracy owing to our backwardness in this respect but the writers in the new iscra turning their backs on the course of events of the times keep repeating insistently don't forget the old don't let yourselves be carried away by the new this is the principal and unvarying like motif of all the important resolutions of the conference whereas in the congress resolutions you just as unvaryingly read while confirming the old and without stopping to chew it over and over for the very reason that it is old and has already been settled and recorded in literature in resolutions and by experience we put forward a new task draw attention to it issue a new slogan and demand that the genuinely revolutionary social democrats immediately set to work to put it into effect that is how matters really stand with regard to the question what are the two trends in social democratic tactics the revolutionary period has called forth new tasks which only the totally blind can fail to see and some social democrats unhesitatingly recognize these tasks and place them on the order of the day declaring the armed insurrection brooks no delay prepare yourselves for it immediately remember that it is indispensable for a decisive victory issue the slogans of a republic of a provisional revolutionary government of a revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry others however draw back mark time write prefaces instead of giving slogans instead of pointing to the new old they chew this old tediously and at great length inventing pretexts to avoid the new unable to determine the conditions for a decisive victory or to issue the slogans which alone are in line with the striving to attain complete victory the political result of this quostism stares us in the face rapprochement between the majority of the russian social democratic labour party and the revolutionary bourgeois democracy remains a fable which has not been confirmed by a single political fact by a single important resolution of the or a single act of the third congress of the russian social democratic labour party on the other hand the opportunist monarchist bourgeoisie as represented by the asphab genia has long been welcoming the trends of the principles of new ischraism and now it is actually running its mill with their grist is adopting their catchwords and ideas directed against secrecy and riots against exaggerating the technical side of the revolution against openly proclaiming the slogan of armed insurrection against the revolutionism of extreme demands et cetera et cetera the resolution of a whole conference of menschewick social democrats in the Caucasus and the endorsement of that resolution by the editors of the new ischra sums it all up politically in an unmistakable way lest the bourgeoisie recoil if the proletariat takes part in a revolutionary democratic dictatorship this puts it in a nutshell this gives the finishing touch to the transformation of the proletariat into an appendage of the monarchist bourgeoisie the political meeting of the kvostism of the new ischra is thereby proved in fact as a visual declaration of some individual but by a resolution especially endorsed by a whole trend anyone who ponders over these facts will understand the real significance of the stock reference to the two sides and the two trends in the social democratic movement for a study of these trends on a large scale take Bernsteinism the two sides have been dinning into our ears in exactly the same way that it is they who understand the true needs of the proletariat the tasks connected with the growth of its forces with rendering the entire activity more profound with preparing the elements of a new society with propaganda and agitation Bernstein says we demand a frank recognition of what is thus sanctifying a movement without final aims sanctifying defensive tactics only preaching the tactics of fear lest the bourgeoisie recoil the Bernsteinians also raised an outcry against the Jacobinism of the revolutionary social democrats against the publicists who fail to understand the initiative of the workers etc etc in reality as everyone knows the revolutionary social democrats have never even thought of abandoning the everyday petty work the mustering of forces etc etc all they demanded was a clear understanding of the final aim a clear presentation of the revolutionary tasks they wanted to raise the semi proletarian and semi petty bourgeois strata to the revolutionary level of the proletariat not to reduce this level to that of opportunist considerations such as lest the bourgeoisie recoil perhaps the most vivid expression of this rift between the intellectual opportunist wing and the proletarian revolutionary wing of the party was the question dare we win is it permissible for us to win would it not be dangerous for us to win ought we to win this question which seems so strange at first sight was raised however and had to be raised because the opportunists were afraid of victory were frightening the proletariat away from it were predicting that trouble would come of it were ridiculing the slogans that straightforwardly called for it the same fundamental division into an intellectual opportunist and proletarian revolutionary trend exists also among us with the very material difference however that here we are faced with the question of a democratic revolution and not a socialist revolution the question dare we win which seems so absurd at first sight has been raised among us also it was raised by martinoff in his two dictatorships in which he prophesied dire misfortune if we prepare well for and carry out an insurrection quite successfully the question has been raised in all the new iskra literature dealing with a provisional revolutionary government and all the time persistent though futile efforts have been made to liken millerans participation in a bourgeois opportunist government to warlands participation in a petty bourgeois revolutionary government it is embodied in a resolution lest the bourgeoisie recoil and although koutski for instance now tries to wax ironical and says that our dispute about a provisional revolutionary government is like dividing the skin of a bear before the bear has been killed this irony only proves that even clever and revolutionary social democrats are liable to put their foot in it when they talk about something they know of only by hearsay the social democracy is not yet so near to killing its bear carrying out a socialist revolution but the dispute as to whether we dare kill the bear was of enormous importance from the point of view of principles and practical politics Russian social democrats are not yet so near to being strong enough to kill their bear to carry out a democratic revolution but the question as to whether we dare kill it is of extreme importance for the whole future of Russia and for the future of Russian social democracy an army cannot be energetically and successfully mustered and led unless we are sure that we dare win take our old economists they too howled that their opponents were conspirators, jackabins see the Robocaya Dielo especially number 10 and Martino's speech in the debate on the program at the 2nd congress that by plunging into politics they were divorcing themselves from the masses that they were losing sight of the fundamentals of the working class movement ignoring the initiative of the workers etc etc in reality these supporters of the initiative of the workers were opportunist intellectuals who tried to foist on the workers their own narrow and philistine conception of the tasks of the proletariat in reality the opponents of economism as everyone can see from the old iskrav did not neglect or push into the background any of the aspects of social democratic work nor did they in the least forget the economic struggle but they were able at the same time to present the urgent and immediate political tasks in their full scope and they opposed the transformation of the workers party into an economic appendage of the liberal bourgeoisie the economists had learned by rote that politics are based on economics and understood this to mean that the political struggle should be reduced to the level of the economic struggle the new iskraists have learned by rote that the economic basis of the democratic revolution is the bourgeois revolution and understood this to mean that the democratic aims of the proletariat should be degraded to the level of bourgeois moderation to the limits beyond which the bourgeoisie will recoil on the pretext of rendering their work more profound on the pretext of rousing the initiative of the workers and pursuing a purely class policy the economists were actually delivering the working class into the hands of the liberal bourgeois politicians i.e. were leading the party along a path which objectively meant exactly that on the same pretexts the new iskraists are actually betraying the interests of the proletariat in the democratic revolution to the bourgeoisie i.e. are leading the party along a path which objectively means exactly that the economists thought that leadership in the political struggle was no concern of the social democrats but properly the business of the liberals the new iskraists think that the active conduct of the democratic revolution is no concern of the social democrats but properly the business of the democratic bourgeoisie for they argue if the proletariat takes the leading and preeminent part it will diminish the sweep of the revolution in short the proletariat iskraists are the epigenes of economism not only in their origin at the second party congress but also in the manner in which they now present the tactical tasks of the proletariat in the democratic revolution they too constitute an intellectual opportunist wing of the party in the sphere of organization they made their debut with the anarchist individualism of intellectuals and finished with disorganization as a process fixing in the rules adopted by the conference the separation of the party's publishing activities from the party organization an indirect and practically four stage system of elections a system of bonapartist plebiscites instead of democratic representation and finally the principle of agreements between the part and the whole in party tactics they continued to slide down the same inclined plane in the plan of the zempsvow campaign they declared that speeches to zempsvowists were the highest type of demonstration finding only two active forces on the political scene on the eve of January 9th the government and the democratic bourgeoisie they made the pressing problem of arming more profound by substituting for the direct and practical slogan of an appeal to arm the slogan arm the people with a burning desire to arm themselves the tasks connected with an armed insurrection with the establishment of a provisional government and with a revolutionary democratic dictatorship have now been distorted and blunted by them in their official resolutions lest the bourgeoisie recoil this final chord of their last resolution throws a glaring light on the question of where their path is leading the party the democratic revolution in Russia is a bourgeois revolution by reason of its social and economic content but a mere repetition of this correct Marxian proposition is not enough it must be properly understood and properly applied in political slogans in general all political liberties that are founded on present day i.e. capitalist relations of production are bourgeois liberties the demand for liberty expresses primarily the interests of the bourgeoisie its representatives were the first to raise this demand its supporters have everywhere used the liberty they acquired like masters reducing it to moderate and meticulous bourgeois doses combining it with the most subtle methods of suppressing the revolutionary proletariat in peaceful times and with brutally cruel methods in stormy times but only the rebel narodniks the anarchists and the economists could deduce from this that the struggle for liberty should be rejected or disparaged these intellectual Philistine doctrines could be foisted on the proletariat only for a time and against its will the proletariat always realized instinctively that it needed political liberty needed it more than anyone else despite the fact that its immediate effect would be to strengthen and to organize the bourgeoisie the proletariat expects to find its salvation not by avoiding the class struggle but by developing it by widening it increasing its consciousness its organization and determination whoever degrades the tasks of the political struggle transforms the social democrat from a tribune of the people into a trade union secretary whoever degrades the proletarian tasks in a democratic bourgeois revolution transforms the social democrat from a leader of the people's revolution into a leader of a free labor union yes, the people's revolution social democracy has fought and is quite rightly fighting against the bourgeois democratic abuse of the word people it demands that this word shall not be used to cover up failure to understand the class antagonisms within the people it insists categorically on the need for complete class independence for the party of the proletariat but it divides the people into classes not in order that the advanced class may become shut up within itself confine itself to narrow aims and emasculate its activity for fear that the economic rulers of the world will recoil but in order that the advanced class which does not suffer from the half-heartedness vacillation and indecision of the intermediate classes may with all the greater energy and enthusiasm fight for the cause of the whole of the people at the head of the whole of the people that is what the present day new ischriests so often fail to understand and why they substitute for active political slogans in the democratic revolution the repetition of the word class parsed in all genders and cases the democratic revolution is a bourgeois revolution the slogan of a black redistribution or land and liberty this most widespread slogan of the peasant masses downtrodden and ignorant yet passionately yearning for light and happiness is a bourgeois slogan but we Marxists should know that there is not nor can there be any other path to real freedom for the proletariat and the peasantry than the path of bourgeois freedom and bourgeois progress we must not forget that there is not nor can there be at the present time any other means of bringing socialism nearer than complete political liberty than a democratic republic than the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry as the representatives of the advanced and only revolutionary class revolutionary without reservations doubts or looking back we must present to the whole of the people as widely as boldly the tasks of the democratic revolution to degrade these tasks in theory means making a travesty of Marxism distorting it in Philistine fashion while in practical politics it means delivering the cause of the revolution into the hands of the bourgeoisie which will inevitably recoil from the task of consistently carrying out the revolution the difficulties that lie on the road to the complete victory of the revolution are very great no one will be able to blame the representatives of the proletariat if, having done everything in their power their efforts are defeated by the resistance of the reaction the treachery of the bourgeoisie and the ignorance of the masses but everybody and the class conscious proletariat all will condemn social democracy if it curtailes the revolutionary energy of the democratic revolution and dampens revolutionary ardor because it is afraid to win because it is actuated by the consideration lest the bourgeoisie recoil revolutions are the locomotives of history said Marx revolutions are the festivals of the oppressed at no other time are the masses of the people in a position to come forward so actively as creators of a new social order as at a time of revolution at such times the people are capable of performing miracles if judged by the narrow Philistine scale of gradual progress but the leaders of the revolutionary parties must also make their aims more comprehensive and bold at such a time so that their slogans shall always be in advance of the revolutionary initiative of the masses serve as a beacon reveal to them our democratic and socialist ideal in all its magnitude and splendor and show them the shortest and most direct route to complete absolute and decisive victory let us leave to the opportunists of the asphabgenia bourgeoisie the task of inventing roundabout circuitous paths of compromise out of fear of the revolution and of the direct path if we are compelled by force to drag ourselves along such paths we shall be able to fulfill our duty in petty everyday work also but let ruthless struggle first decide the choice of the path we shall be traitors too and be traitors of the revolution if we do not use this festive energy of the masses and their revolutionary ardor to wage a ruthless and self-sacrificing struggle for the direct and decisive path let the bourgeois opportunists contemplate the future reaction with craven fear the workers will not be frightened either by the thought that the reaction promises to be terrible or by the thought that the bourgeoisie proposes to recoil the workers are not looking forward to striking bargains are not asking for sops they are striving to crush the reactionary forces without mercy i.e. to set up the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry of course greater dangers threaten the ship of our party in stormy times than in periods of the smooth sailing of liberal progress which means the painfully slow sweating of the working class by its exploiters of course the tasks of the revolutionary democratic dictatorship are a thousand times more difficult and more complicated than the tasks of an extreme opposition or of the exclusively parliamentary struggle but whoever can deliberately prefer smooth sailing and the path of safe opposition in the present revolutionary situation had better abandon social democratic work for a while had better wait until the revolution is over until the festive days have passed when humdrum everyday life starts again and his narrow routine standards no longer strike such an abominably discordant note or constitute such an ugly distortion of the tasks of the advanced class at the head of the whole of the people and particularly of the peasantry the complete freedom for a consistent democratic revolution for a republic at the head of all the toilers and the exploited for socialism such must in practice be the policy of the revolutionary proletariat such as the class slogan which must permeate and determine the solution of every tactical problem every practical step of the workers party End of Chapter 13 This recording is in the public domain