Lenin,+1902,+What+Is+To+Be+Done,+Compilation


 * Lenin, 1902, What Is To Be Done?, compilation. **
 * __This Compilation Contains__:**

· **Section on What Is To Be Done? from the collection “Twelve Years”, published by Lenin in 1907**

· **What Is To Be Done?, Chapter 4, B: Primitivism and Economism**

· **What Is To Be Done?, Chapter 4, C: Organisation of Workers and Organisation of Revolutionaries**

· **Contents (Chapter headings) of What Is To Be Done?** The next pamphlet, //**What Is To Be Done?**//, was published abroad early in 1902. It is a criticism of the Right wing, which was no longer a literary trend but existed within the Social-Democratic organisation. The first Social-Democratic congress was held in 1898. It founded the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, represented by the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, which incorporated the Emancipation of Labour group. The central Party bodies, however, were suppressed by the police and could not be re-established. There was, in fact, no united party: unity was still only an idea, a directive. The infatuation with the strike movement and economic struggles gave rise to a peculiar form of Social-Democratic opportunism, known as “Economism”. When the //Iskra// group began to function abroad //at the very end// of 1900, the split over this issue was already an accomplished fact. In the //spring// of 1900, Plekhanov resigned from the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad and set up an organisation of his own — //Sotsial-Demokrat.// Officially, //Iskra// began its work independently of the two groups, but for all practical purposes it sided with Plekhanov’s group against the Union. An attempt to merge the two (at the Congress of the Union and the //Sotsial-Demokrat// in Zurich, June 1901) failed. //What Is To Be Done?// gives a systematic account of the reasons for the divergence of views and of the nature of //Iskra// tactics and organisational activity. // What Is To Be Done? // is frequently mentioned by the Mensheviks, the present opponents of the Bolsheviks, as well as by writers belonging to the bourgeois-liberal camp (Cadets, Bezzaglaytsi in the newspaper //Tovarishch//, etc.). I have, therefore, decided to reprint the pamphlet here, slightly abridged, omitting only the details of organisational relations and minor polemical remarks. Concerning the essential content of this pamphlet it is necessary to draw the attention of the modern reader to the following. The basic mistake made by those who now criticise //What Is To Be Done?// is to treat the pamphlet apart from its connection with the concrete historical situation of a definite, and now long past, period in the development of our Party. This mistake was strikingly demonstrated, for instance, by Parvus (not to mention numerous Mensheviks), who, many years after the pamphlet appeared, wrote about its incorrect or exaggerated ideas on the subject of an organisation of professional revolutionaries. Today these statements look ridiculous, as if their authors want to dismiss a whole period in the development of our Party, to dismiss gains which, in their time, had to be fought for, but which have long ago been consolidated and have served their purpose. To maintain today that //Iskra// exaggerated (//in 1901 and 1902!//) the idea of an organisation of professional revolutionaries, is like reproaching the Japanese, after the Russo-Japanese War, for having exaggerated the strength of Russia’s armed forces, for having prior to the war exaggerated the need to prepare for fighting these forces. To win victory the Japanese had to marshal all their forces against the probable maximum of Russian forces. Unfortunately, many of those who judge our Party are outsiders, who do not know the subject, who do not realise that today the idea of an organisation of professional revolutionaries has //already// scored a complete victory. That victory would have been impossible if this idea had lot been pushed to //the forefront// at the time, if we had not “exaggerated” so as to drive it home to people who were trying to prevent it from being realised. // What Is To Be Done? // is a summary of //Iskra// tactics and //Iskra// organisational policy in 1901 and 1902. Precisely a “summary”, no more and no less. That will be clear to anyone who takes the trouble to go through the file of //Iskra// for 1901 and 1902. But to pass judgement on that summary without knowing //Iskra’s// struggle against the then dominant trend of Economism, without understanding that struggle, is sheer idle talk. //Iskra// fought for an organisation of professional revolutionaries. It fought with especial vigour in 1901 and 1902, vanquished Economism, the then dominant trend, and finally //created// this organisation in 1903. It preserved it in face of the subsequent split in the Iskra-ist ranks and all the convulsions of the period of storm and stress; it preserved it throughout the Russian revolution; it preserved it intact from 1901-02 to 1907. And now, when the fight for this organisation has long been won, when the seed has ripened, and the harvest gathered, people come along and tell us: “You exaggerated the idea of an organisation of professional revolutionaries!” Is this not ridiculous? Take the whole pre-revolutionary period and the first two and a half years of the revolution (1905-07). Compare our Social-Democratic Party during this whole period with the other parties in respect of unity, organisation, and continuity of policy. You will have to admit that in //this// respect our Party is //unquestionably// superior to all the others — the Cadets, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, etc. Before the revolution it drew up a programme which was formally accepted by all Social-Democrats, and when changes were made in it there was no split over the programme. From 1903 to 1907 (formally from 1905 to 1906), the Social-Democratic Party, despite the split in its ranks, gave the public the fullest information on the inner-party situation (minutes of the Second General Congress, the Third Bolshevik, and the Fourth General, or Stockholm, congresses). Despite the split, the Social-Democratic Party earlier than any of the other parties was able to take advantage of the temporary spell of freedom to build a legal organisation with an ideal democratic structure, an electoral system, and representation at congresses according to the number of organised members. You will not find this, even today, either in the Socialist-Revolutionary or the Cadet parties, though the latter is practically legal, is the best organised bourgeois party, and has incomparably greater funds, scope for using the press, and opportunities for legal activities than our Party. And take the elections to the Second Duma, in which all parties participated — did they not clearly show the superior organisational unity of our Party and Duma group? The question arises, who accomplished, who brought into being this superior unity, solidarity, and stability of our Party? It was accomplished by the organisation of professional revolutionaries, to the building of which //Iskra// made the greatest contribution. Anyone who knows our Party’s history well, anyone who has had a hand in building. the Party, has but to glance at the delegate list of any of the groups at, say, the London Congress, in order to be convinced of this and notice at once that it is a list of the old membership, the central core that had worked hardest of all to build up the Party and make it what it is. Basically, of course, their success was due to the fact that the working class, whose best representatives built the Social-Democratic Party, for objective economic reasons possesses a greater capacity for organisation than any other class in capitalist society. Without this condition an organisation of professional revolutionaries would be nothing more than a plaything, an adventure, a mere signboard. //What Is To Be Done?// repeatedly emphasises this, pointing out that the organisation it advocates has no meaning apart from its connection with the “genuine revolutionary class that is spontaneously rising to struggle.” But the objective maximum ability of the proletariat to unite in a class is realised through living people, and only through definite forms of organisation. In the historical conditions that prevailed in Russia in 1900-05, //no// organisation other than //Iskra could have// created the Social-Democratic Labour Party we now have. The professional revolutionary has played his part in the history of Russian proletarian socialism. No power on earth can now undo this work, which has outgrown the narrow framework of the “circles” of 1902-05. Nor can the significance of the gains already won be shaken by belated complaints that the militant tasks of the movement were exaggerated by those who at that time had to fight to ensure the correct way of accomplishing these tasks. I have just referred to the narrow framework of the circles of the old //Iskra// period (beginning with issue No. 51, at the close of 1903, //Iskra// turned to Menshevism, proclaiming that “a gulf separates the old and the new //Iskra//” — Trotsky’s words in a pamphlet approved by the Menshevik //Iskra// editors).This circle spirit has to be briefly explained to the present-day reader. The pamphlets //What Is To Be Done?// and //One Step Forward, Two Steps Back// published in this collection present to the reader a heated, at times bitter and destructive, controversy within the //circles// abroad. Undoubtedly, this struggle has many unattractive features. Undoubtedly, it is something that could only be possible in a young and immature workers’ movement in the country in question. Undoubtedly, the present leaders of the present workers’ movement in Russia will have to break with many of the circle traditions, forget and discard many of the trivial features of circle activity and circle squabbles, so as to concentrate on the tasks of Social-Democracy in the present period. Only the broadening of the Party by enlisting //proletarian// elements can, in conjunction with open mass activity, eradicate all the residue of the circle spirit which has been inherited from the past and is unsuited to our present tasks. And the transition to a democratically organised workers’ party, proclaimed by the Bolsheviks in //Novaya Zhizn// in November 1905, i.e., as soon as the conditions appeared for legal activity — this transition was virtually an irrevocable break with the old circle ways that had outlived their day. Yes, “that had had outlived their day”, for it is not enough to condemn the old circle spirit; its significance in the special circumstances of the past period must be understood. The circles were necessary in their day and played a positive role. In an autocratic state, especially in the situation created by the whole history of the //Russian// revolutionary movement, the socialist workers’ party //could not// develop except from these circles. And the circles, i.e., close-knit, exclusive groups uniting a very small number of people and nearly always based on personal friendship, were a necessary stage in the development of socialism and the workers’ movement in Russia. As the movement grew, it was confronted with the task of uniting these circles, forming strong links between them, And establishing continuity. This called for a firm base of operations “beyond the reach” of the autocracy — i.e., //abroad.// The circles abroad, therefore, came into being through necessity. There was no contact between them; they had no authority over them in the shape of the Party in Russia, and it was inevitable that they should differ in their understanding of the movement’s main tasks at the given stage, that is, an understanding of //how exactly// to set up a base of operations and in what way they could help to build the Party as a whole. A struggle between the circles was, therefore, inevitable. Today, in retrospect, we can clearly see which of the circles was really in a position to act as a base of operations. But at that time, when the various circles were just beginning their work, no one could say that and the controversy could be resolved only through struggle. Parvus, I remember, subsequently blamed the old //Iskra// for waging a destructive circle war and advocated after the event a conciliatory policy. That is an easy thing to say after the event, and to say it reveals a failure to understand the conditions then prevailing. For one thing, there was no criterion by which to judge the strength or //importance// of one or another circle. The importance of many of them, which are now forgotten, was exaggerated, but in their time they wanted through struggle to assert their right to existence. Secondly, the differences among the circles were over the //direction the// work was to take, work which at the time was new to them. I noted at the time (in //What Is To Be Done?//) that these seemingly minor differences were actually of immense importance, since at the beginning of this new work, at the beginning of the Social-Democratic movement, the definition of the general nature of the work and movement would very substantially affect propaganda, agitation, and organisation. All subsequent disputes between the Social-Democrats concerned the direction of the Party’s political activity on specific issues. But at that time the controversy was over the most general principles and the fundamental aims of all Social-Democratic policy generally. The circles played their part and are now, of course, obsolete. But they became obsolete only because the struggle that they waged posed the key problems of the Social-Democratic movement in the sharpest possible manner and solved them in an irreconcilable revolutionary spirit, thereby creating a firm basis for broad party activity. Of particular questions raised in the literary discussion over //What Is To Be Done?// I shall comment on only two. Writing in //Iskra// in 1904, soon after the appearance of //One Step Forward, Two Steps Back//, Plekhanov declared that he differed from me in principle on the question of spontaneity and political consciousness. I did not reply either to that declaration (except for a brief note in the Geneva newspaper //Vperyod//), or to the numerous repetitions of it in Menshevik literature. I did not reply because Plekhanov’s criticism was obviously mere cavilling, based on phrases torn out of context, on particular expressions which I had not quite adroitly or precisely formulated. Moreover, he ignored the general content and the whole spirit of my pamphlet //What Is To Be Done?// which appeared in March 1902. The draft Party programme (framed by Plekhanov and amended by the //Iskra// editors) appeared in June or July 1902. Its formulation of the relation between spontaneity and political consciousness was agreed upon by all the //Iskra// editors (my disputes with Plekhanov over the programme, which took place in the editorial board, were not on this point, but on the question of small production being ousted by large-scale production, concerning which I called for a more precise formula than Plekhanov’s, and on the difference in the standpoint of the proletariat or of the labouring classes generally; on this point I insisted on a narrower definition of the purely proletarian character of the Party). Consequently, there could be no question of any difference in principle between the draft Party programme and //What Is To Be Done?// on this issue. At the Second Congress (August 1903) Martynov, who was then an Economist, challenged our views on spontaneity and political consciousness as set forth in the programme. He was opposed by all the Iskra-ists, as I emphasise in //One Step Forward//. Hence it is clear that the controversy was essentially between the Iskra-ists and the Economists, who attacked //what was common// both to //What Is To Be Done?// and the programme drafts. Nor at the Second Congress did I have any intention of elevating my own formulations, as given in //What Is To Be Done?,// to “programmatic” level, constituting special principles. On the contrary, the expression I used — and it has since been frequently quoted — was that the Economists had gone to one extreme. //What Is To Be Done?,// I said, straightens out what had been twisted by the Economists (cf. minutes of the Second R.S.D.L.P. Congress in 1903, Geneva, 1904). I emphasised that just because we were so vigorously straightening out whatever had been twisted our line of action would always be the straightest. The meaning of these words is clear enough: //What Is To Be Done?// is a controversial correction of Economist distortions and it would be wrong to regard the pamphlet in any other light. It should be added that Plekhanov’s article against the pamphlet was not reprinted in the new //Iskra// collection (//Two Years//), and for that reason I do not here deal with Plekhanov’s arguments, but merely explain the issue involved to the present-day reader, who may come across references to it in very many Menshevik publications. My second comment concerns the question of economic struggle and the trade unions. My views on this subject have been frequently misrepresented in the literature, and I must, therefore, emphasise that many pages in //What Is To Be Done?// are devoted to explaining the immense importance of economic struggle and the trade unions. In particular, I advocated //neutrality// of the trade unions, and have //not altered// that view in the pamphlets or newspaper articles written since then, despite the numerous assertions by my opponents. Only the London R.S.D.L.P. Congress arid the Stuttgart International Socialist Congress led me to conclude that trade-union neutrality is not defensible as a //principle//. The only correct principle is the closest possible alignment of the unions with the Party. Our policy must be to bring the unions closer to the Party and link them with it. That policy should be pursued perseveringly and persistently in all our propaganda, agitation, and organising activity, without trying to obtain mere “recognition” of our views and without expelling from the trade unions those of a different opinion.  ** From V. I. Lenin: ** **What Is To Be Done?, Chapter 4 (1902)**
 * Preface to the Collection //Twelve Years////, by V I //Lenin, September 1907 **
 * What Is To Be Done? **


We must now deal with a question that has undoubtedly come to the mind of every reader. Can a connection be established between primitiveness as growing pains that affect the //whole// movement, and Economism, which is //one// of the currents in Russian Social-Democracy? We think that it can. Lack of practical training, of ability to carry on organisational work is certainly common //to us all,// including those who have from the very outset unswervingly stood for revolutionary Marxism. Of course, were it only lack of practical training, no one could blame the practical workers. But the term "primitiveness" embraces something more than lack of training; it denotes a narrow scope of revolutionary work generally, failure to understand that a good organisation of revolutionaries cannot be built on the basis of such narrow activity, and lastly -- and this is the main thing -- attempts to justify this narrowness and to elevate it to a special "theory", i.e., subservience to spontaneity on this question too. Once such attempts were revealed, it became clear that primitiveness is connected with Economism and that we shall never rid ourselves of this narrowness of our organisational activity until we rid ourselves of Economism generally (i.e., the narrow conception of Marxist theory, as well as of the role of Social-Democracy and of its political tasks). These attempts manifested themselves in a twofold direction. Some began to say that the working masses themselves have not yet advanced the broad and militant political tasks which the revolutionaries are attempting to "impose" on them; that they must continue to struggle for //immediate// political demands, to conduct "the economic struggle against the employers and the government" __[1] __  (and, naturally, corresponding to this struggle which is "accessible" to the mass movement there must be an organisation that will be "accessible" to the most untrained youth). Others, far removed from any theory of "gradualness", said that it is possible and necessary to "bring about a political revolution", but that this does not require building a strong organisation of revolutionaries to train the proletariat in steadfast and stubborn struggle. All we need do is to snatch up our old friend, the "accessible" cudgel. To drop metaphor, it means that we must organise a general strike,[|[2]] or that we must stimulate the "spiritless" progress of the working-class movement by means of "excitative terror". __[3] __  Both these trends, the opportunists and the "revolutionists", bow to the prevailing amateurism; neither believes that it can be eliminated, neither understands our primary and imperative practical task to establish //an organisation of revolutionaries// capable of lending energy, stability, and continuity to the political struggle.  We have quoted the words of B-v: "The growth of the working-class movement is outstripping the growth and development of the revolutionary organisations." This "valuable remark of a close observer" (//Rabocheye Dyelo//'s comment on B-v's article) has a twofold value for us. It shows that we were right in our opinion that the principal cause of the present crisis in Russian Social-Democracy is the //lag of the leaders// ("ideologists", revolutionaries, Social-Democrats) behind //the spontaneous upsurge of the masses//. It shows that all the arguments advanced by the authors of the Economist letter (in //Iskra//, No. 12), by Krichevsky and by Martynov, as to the danger of belittling the significance of the spontaneous element, of the drab everyday struggle, as to tactics-as-process, etc., are nothing more than a glorification and a defence of primitiveness. These people who cannot pronounce the word "theoretician" without a sneer, who describe their genuflections to common lack of training and backwardness as a "sense for the realities of life", reveal in practice a failure to understand our most imperative //practical// tasks. To laggards they shout: Keep in step! Don't run ahead! To people suffering from a lack of energy and initiative in organisational work, from a lack of "plans" for wide and bold activity, they prate about "tactics-as-process"! The worst sin we commit is that we //degrade// our political //and organisational// tasks to the level of the immediate, "palpable", "concrete" interests of the everyday economic struggle; yet they keep singing to us the same refrain: Lend the economic struggle itself a political character! We repeat: this kind of thing displays as much "sense for the realities of life" as was displayed by the hero in the popular fable who cried out to a passing funeral procession, "Many happy returns of the day!"  Recall the matchless, truly "Narcissus-like" superciliousness with which these wiseacres lectured Plekhanov on the "workers' //circles// generally" (sic!) being "unable to cope with political tasks in the real and //practical// sense of the word, i.e., in the sense of the expedient and successful //practical// struggle for political demands" (//Rabocheye Dyelo's Reply,// p. 24). There are circles and circles, gentlemen! Circles of "amateurs" are not, of course, capable of coping with political tasks so long as they have not become aware of their amateurism and do not abandon it. If, besides this, these amateurs are enamoured of their primitive methods, and insist on writing the word "practical" in italics, and imagine that being practical demands that one's tasks be reduced to the level of understanding of the most backward strata of the masses, then they are hopeless amateurs and, of course, certainly cannot //in general cope with any political tasks//. But a circle of leaders, of the type of Alexeyev and Myshkin, of Khalturin and Zhelyabov, is capable of coping with political tasks in the genuine and most practical sense of the term, for the reason and to the extent that their impassioned propaganda meets with response among the spontaneously awakening masses, and their sparkling energy is answered and supported by the energy of the revolutionary class. Plekhanov was profoundly right, not only in pointing to this revolutionary class and proving that its spontaneous awakening was inevitable, but in setting even the "workers' circles" a great and lofty political task. But you refer to the mass movement that has sprung up since that time in order to //degrade// this task, to //curtail// the energy and scope of activity of the "workers' circles". If you are not amateurs enamoured of your primitive methods, what are you then? You boast that you are practical, but you fail to see what every Russian practical worker knows, namely, the miracles that the energy, not only of a circle, but even of an individual person is able to perform in the revolutionary cause. Or do you think that our movement cannot produce leaders like those of the seventies? If so, why do you think so? Because we lack training? But we are training ourselves, we will go on training ourselves, and we will be trained! Unfortunately it is true that the surface of the stagnant waters of the "economic struggle against the employers and the government" is overgrown with fungus; people have appeared among us who kneel in prayer to spontaneity, gazing with awe (to take an expression from Plekhanov) upon the "posterior" of the Russian proletariat. But we will get rid of this fungus. The time has come when Russian revolutionaries, guided by a genuinely revolutionary theory, relying upon the genuinely revolutionary and spontaneously awakening class, can at last -- at long last! -- rise to full stature in all their giant strength. All that is required is for the masses of our practical workers, and the still larger masses of those who dreamed of practical work when they were still at school, to pour scorn and ridicule upon any suggestion that may be made to degrade our political tasks and to restrict the scope of our organisational work. And we will achieve that, rest assured, gentlemen!  In the article "Where To Begin", I wrote in opposition to //Rabocheye Dyelo//: "The tactics of agitation in relation to some special question, or the tactics with regard to some detail of party organisation may be changed in twenty-four hours; but only people devoid of all principle are capable of changing, in twenty-four hours, or, for that matter, in twenty-four months, their view on the necessity- -- in general, constantly, and absolutely -- of an organisation of struggle and of political agitation among the masses." __[4] __  To this //Rabocheye Dyelo// replied: "This, the only one of //Iskra//'s charges that makes a pretence of being based on facts, is totally without foundation. Readers of //Rabocheye Dyelo// know very well that from the outset we not only called for political agitation, without waiting for the appearance of //Iskra// ... [saying at the same time that not only the workers' study circles, "but also the mass working-class movement could not regard as its first political task the overthrow of absolutism", but only the struggle for immediate political demands, and that "the masses begin to understand immediate political demands after one, or at all events, after several strikes"],. . . but that with our publications which we furnished from abroad for the comrades working in Russia, we provided the //only// Social-Democratic political and agitational material ... [and in this sole material you not only based the widest political agitation exclusively on the economic struggle, but you even went to the extent of claiming that this restricted agitation was the "most widely applicable". And do you not observe, gentlemen, that your own argument -- that this was the //only// material provided -- proves the necessity for //Iskra//'s appearance, and its struggle against //Rabocheye Dyelo//?).... On the other hand, our publishing activity actually prepared the ground for the tactical unity of the Party... [unity in the conviction that tactics is a process of growth of Party tasks that grow together with the Party? A precious unity indeed!]... and by that rendered possible the creation of a 'militant organisation' for which the Union Abroad did all that an organisation abroad could do" (//Rabocheye Dyelo//, No. 10, p. 15). A vain attempt at evasion! I would never dream of denying that you did all you possibly could. I have asserted and assert now that the //limits// of what is "possible" for you to do are restricted by the narrowness of your outlook. It is ridiculous to talk of a "militant organisation" to fight for "immediate political demands", or to conduct the economic struggle against the employers and the government".  <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">But if the reader wishes to see the pearls of "Economist" infatuation with amateurism, he must, of course, turn from the eclectic and vacillating //Rabocheye Dyelo// to the consistent and determined //Rabochaya Mysl//. In its //Separate Supplement//, p. 13, R. M. wrote: "Now two words about the so-called revolutionary intelligentsia proper. True, on more than one occasion it has proved itself prepared 'to enter into determined battle with tsarism'. The unfortunate thing, however, is that our revolutionary intelligentsia, ruthlessly persecuted by the political police, imagined the struggle against the political police to be the political struggle against the autocracy. That is why, to this day, it cannot understand 'where the forces for the struggle against the autocracy are to be obtained'." <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Truly matchless is the lofty contempt for the struggle against the police displayed by this worshipper (in the worst sense of the word) of the //spontaneous// movement! He is prepared //to justify// our inability to organise secret activity by the argument that with the spontaneous mass movement it is not at all important for us to struggle against the political police! Very few people indeed would subscribe to this appalling conclusion; to such an extent have our deficiencies in revolutionary organisations become a matter of acute importance. But if Martynov, for example, refuses to subscribe to this, it will only be because he is unable, or lacks the courage, to think out his ideas to their logical conclusion. Indeed, does the "task" of advancing concrete demands by the masses, demands that promise palpable results, call for special efforts to create a stable, centralised, militant organisation of revolutionaries? Cannot such a "task" be carried out even by masses that do not "struggle against the political police" at all? Could this task, moreover, be fulfilled if, in addition to the few leaders, it were not undertaken by such workers (the overwhelming majority) as are quite //incapable// of "struggling against the political police"? Such workers, average people of the masses, are capable of displaying enormous energy and selfsacrifice in strikes and in street, battles with the police and the troops, and are capable (in fact, are alone capable) of //determining// the outcome of our entire movement -- but the struggle against the //political// police requires special qualities; it requires //professional// revolutionaries. And we must see to it, not only that the masses "advance" concrete demands, but that the masses of the workers "advance" an increasing number of such professional revolutionaries. Thus, we have reached the question of the relation between an organisation of professional revolutionaries and the labour movement pure and simple. Although this question has found little reflection in literature, it has greatly engaged us "politicians" in conversations and polemics with comrades who gravitate more or less towards Economism. It is a question meriting special treatment. But before taking it up, let us offer one further quotation by way of illustrating our thesis on the connection between primitiveness and Economism. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">In his //Reply//, Mr. N. N. wrote: "The Emancipation of Labour group demands direct struggle against the government without first considering where the material forces for this struggle are to be obtained, and without indicating the //path of the struggle//." Emphasising the last words, the author adds the following footnote to the word "Path": "This cannot be explained by purposes of secrecy, because the programme does not refer to a plot but to //a mass movement.// And the masses cannot proceed by secret paths. Can we conceive of a secret strike? Can we conceive of secret demonstrations and petitions?" (//Vademecum//, p. 59.) Thus, the author comes quite close to the question of the "material forces" (organisers of strikes and demonstrations) and to the "paths" of the struggle, but, nevertheless, is still in a state of consternation, because he "worships" the mass movement, i.e., he regards it as something that //relieves// us of the necessity of conducting revolutionary activity and not as something that should encourage us and //stimulate// our revolutionary activity. It is impossible for a strike to remain a secret to those participating in it and to those immediately associated with it, but it may (and in the majority of cases does) remain a "secret" to the masses of the Russian workers, because the government takes care to cut all communication with the strikers, to prevent all news of strikes from spreading. Here indeed is where a special "struggle against the political police" is required, a struggle that can never be conducted actively by such large masses as take part in strikes. This struggle must be organised, according to "all the rules of the art", by people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity. The fact that the masses are spontaneously being drawn into the movement does not make the organisation of this struggle //less necessary//. On the contrary, it makes it //more necessary;// for we socialists would be failing in our direct duty to the masses if we did not prevent the police from making a secret of every strike and every demonstration (and if we did not ourselves from time to time secretly prepare strikes and demonstrations). And we //will succeed in doing this//, because the spontaneously awakening masses will //also produce// increasing, numbers of "professional revolutionaries" //from their own ranks// (that is, if we do not take it into our heads to advise the workers to keep on marking time). <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">

<span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">
<span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">It is only natural to expect that for a Social-Democrat whose conception of the political struggle coincides with the conception of the "economic struggle against the employers and the government", the "organisation of revolutionaries" will more or less coincide with the "organisation of workers". This, in fact, is what actually happens; so that when we speak of organisation, we literally speak in different tongues. I vividly recall, for example, a conversation I once had with a fairly consistent Economist, with whom I had not been previously acquainted. We were discussing the pamphlet, //Who Will Bring About the Political Revolution?// and were soon of a mind that its principal defect was its ignoring of the question of organisation. We had begun to assume full agreement between us; but, as the conversation proceeded, it became evident that we were talking of different things. My interlocutor accused the author of ignoring strike funds, mutual benefit societies, etc., whereas I had in mind an organisation of revolutionaries as an essential factor in "bringing about" the political revolution. As soon as the disagreement became clear, there was hardly, as I remember, a single question of principle upon which I was in agreement with the Economist! <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">What was the source of our disagreement? It was the fact that on questions both of organisation and of politics the Economists are forever lapsing from Social-Democracy into trade-unionism. The political struggle of Social-Democracy is far more extensive and complex than the economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government. Similarly (indeed for that reason), the organisation of the revolutionary Social-Democratic Party must inevitably be of //a kind different// from the organisation of the workers designed for this struggle. The workers' organisation must in the first place be a trade union organisation; secondly, it must be as broad as possible; and thirdly, it must be as public as conditions will allow (here, and further on, of course, I refer only to absolutist Russia). On the other hand, the organisation of the revolutionaries must consist first and foremost of people who make revolutionary activity their profession (for which reason I speak of the organisation of //revolutionaries//, meaning revolutionary Social-Democrats). In view of this common characteristic of the members of such an organisation, //all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals//, not to speak of distinctions of trade and profession, in both categories, //must be effaced//. Such an organisation must perforce not be very extensive and must be as secret as possible. Let us examine this threefold distinction. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">In countries where political liberty exists the distinction between a trade union and a political organisation is clear enough, as is the distinction between trade unions and Social-Democracy. The relations between the latter and the former will naturally vary in each country according to historical, legal, and other conditions; they may be more or less close, complex, etc. (in our opinion they should be as close and as little complicated as possible); but there can be no question in free countries of the organisation of trade unions coinciding with the organisation of the Social-Democratic Party. In Russia, however, the yoke of the autocracy appears at first glance to obliterate all distinctions between the Social-Democratic organisation and the workers' associations, since //all// workers' associations and //all// study circles are prohibited, and since the principal manifestation and weapon of the workers' economic struggle -- the strike -- is regarded as a criminal (and sometimes even as a political!) offence. Conditions in our country, therefore, on the one hand, strongly "impel" the workers engaged in economic struggle to concern themselves with political questions, and, on the other, they "impel" Social-Democrats to confound trade-unionism with Social-Democracy (and our Krichevskys, Martynoys, and Co., while diligently discussing the first kind of "impulsion", fail to notice the second). Indeed, picture to yourselves people who are immersed ninety-nine per cent in "the economic struggle against the employers and the government". Some of them will never, during the //entire// course of their activity (from four to six months), be impelled to think of the need for a more complex organisation of revolutionaries. Others, perhaps, will come across the fairly widely distributed Bernsteinian literature, from which they will become convinced of the profound importance of the forward movement of "the drab everyday struggle". Still others will be carried away, perhaps, by the seductive idea of showing the world a new example of "close and organic contact with the proletarian struggle" -- contact between the trade union and the Social Democratic movements. Such people may argue that the later a country enters the arena of capitalism and, consequently, of the working-class movement, the more the socialists in that country may take part in, and support, the trade union movement, and the less the reason for the existence of non-Social-Democratic trade unions. So far the argument is fully correct; unfortunately, however, some go beyond that and dream of a complete fusion of Social-Democracy with trade-unionism. We shall soon see, from the example of the Rules of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle, what a harmful effect such dreams have upon our plans of organisation. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">The workers' organisations for the economic struggle should be trade union organisations. Every Social-Democratic worker should as far as possible assist and actively work in these organisations. But, while this is true, it is certainly not in our interest to demand that only Social-Democrats should be eligible for membership in the "trade" unions, since that would only narrow the scope of our influence upon the masses. Let every worker who understands the need to unite for the struggle against the employers and the government join the trade unions. The very aim of the trade unions would be impossible of achievement, if they did not unite all who have attained at least this elementary degree of understanding, if they were not very //broad// organisations. The broader these organisations, the broader will be our influence over them -- an influence due, not only to the "spontaneous" development of the economic struggle, but to the direct and conscious effort of the socialist trade union members to influence their comrades. But a broad organisation cannot apply methods of strict secrecy (since this demands far greater training than is required for the economic struggle). How is the contradiction between the need for a large membership and the need for strictly secret methods to be reconciled? How are we to make the trade unions as public as possible? Generally speaking, there can be only two ways to this end: either the trade unions become legalised (in some countries this preceded the legalisation of the socialist and political unions), or the organisation is kept secret, but so "free" and amorphous, //lose// [German "loose" //--Ed//] as the Germans say, that the need for secret methods becomes almost negligible as far as the bulk of the members is concerned. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">The legalisation of non-socialist and non-political labour unions in Russia has begun, and there is no doubt that every advance made by our rapidly growing Social-Democratic working-class movement will multiply and encourage attempts at legalisation -- attempts proceeding for the most part from supporters of the existing order, but partly also from the workers themselves and from liberal intellectuals. The banner of legality has already been hoisted by the Vasilyevs and the Zubatovs. Support has been promised and rendered by the Ozerovs and the Wormses, and followers of the new tendency are now to be found among the workers. Henceforth, we cannot but reckon with this tendency. How we are to reckon with it, on this there can be no two opinions among Social-Democrats. We must steadfastly expose any part played in this movement by the Zubatovs and the Vasilyeys, the gendarmes and the priests, and explain their real intentions to the workers. We must also expose all the conciliatory, "harmonious" notes that will be heard in the speeches of liberal politicians at legal meetings of the workers, irrespective of whether the speeches are motivated by an earnest conviction of the desirability of peaceful class collaboration, by a desire to curry favour with the powers that be, or whether they are simply the result of clumsiness. Lastly, we must warn the workers against the traps often set by the police, who at such open meetings and permitted societies spy out the "fiery ones" and try to make use of legal organisations to plant their //agents provocateurs// in the illegal organisations. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Doing all this does not at all mean forgetting that //in the long// run the legalisation of the working-class movement will be, to our advantage, and not to that of the Zubatovs. On the contrary, it is precisely our campaign of exposure that will help us to separate the tares from the wheat. What the tares are, we have already indicated. By the wheat we mean attracting the attention of ever larger numbers, including the most backward sections, of the workers to social and political questions, and freeing ourselves, the revolutionaries, from functions that are essentially legal (the distribution of legal books, mutual aid, etc.), the development of which will inevitably provide us with an increasing quantity of material for agitation. In this sense, we may, and should, say to the Zubatovs and the Ozerovs: Keep at it, gentlemen, do your best! Whenever you place a trap in the path of the workers (either by way of direct provocation, or by the "honest" demoralisation of the workers with the aid of "Struvism") we will see to it that you are exposed. But whenever you take a real step forward, though it be the most "timid zigzag", we will say: Please continue! And the only step that can be a real step forward is a real, if small, extension of the workers' field of action. Every such extension will be to our advantage and will help to hasten the advent of legal societies of the kind in which it will not be //agents provocateurs// who are detecting socialists, but socialists who are gaining adherents. in a word, our task is to fight the tares. It is not our business to grow wheat in flower-pots. By pulling up the tares, we clear the soil for the wheat. And while the Afanasy Ivanoviches and Pulkheria Ivanovnas are tending their flower-pot crops, we must prepare the reapers, not only to cut down the tares of today, but to reap the wheat of tomorrow. __<span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">[5] __ <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Thus, we cannot by means of legalisation //solve// the problem of creating a trade union organisation that will be as little secret and as extensive as possible (but we should be extremely glad if the Zubatovs and the Ozerovs disclosed to us even a partial opportunity for such a solution -- to this end, however, //we must// strenuously combat them). There remain secret trade union organisations, and we must give all possible assistance to the workers who (as we definitely know) are adopting this course. Trade union organisations, not only can be of tremendous value in developing and consolidating the economic struggle, but can also become a very important auxiliary to political agitation and revolutionary organisation. In order to achieve this purpose, and in order to guide the nascent trade union movement in the channels desired by Social-Democracy, we must first understand clearly the absurdity of the plan of organisation the St. Petersburg Economists have been nursing for nearly five years. That plan is set forth in the "Rules for a Workers' Mutual Benefit Fund" of July 1897 (//"Listok" Rabotnika//, No. 9-10, p. 46, taken from //Rabochaya Mysl//, No. 1), as well as in the "Rules for a Trade Union Workers' Organisation" of October 1900 (special leaflet printed in St. Petersburg and referred to in //Iskra//, No. 1). Both these sets of rules have one main shortcoming: they set up the broad workers' organisation in a rigidly specified structure and confound it with the organisation of revolutionaries. Let us take the last-mentioned set of rules, since it is drawn up in greater detail. The body consists of //fifty-two// paragraphs. Twenty-three deal with the structure, the method of functioning, and the competence of the "workers' circles", which are to be organised in every factory ("a maximum of ten persons") and which elect "central (factory) groups". "The central group," says paragraph 2, "observes all that goes on in its factory or workshop and keeps a record of events." "The central group presents to subscribers a monthly financial account" (par. 17), etc. Ten paragraphs are devoted to the "district organisation", and nineteen to the highly complex interconnection between the Committee of the Workers' Organisation and the Committee of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle (elected representatives of each district and of the "executive groups" -- "groups of propagandists, groups for maintaining contact with the provinces, and with the organisation abroad, groups for managing stores; publications, and funds"). <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Social-Democracy = "executive groups" in relation to the economic struggle of the workers! It would be difficult to show more glaringly how the Economists' ideas deviate from Social-Democracy to trade-unionism, and how alien to them is any idea that a Social-Democrat must concern himself first and foremost with an organisation of revolutionaries capable of guiding the //entire// proletarian struggle for emancipation. To talk of "the political emancipation of the working class" and of the struggle against "tsarist despotism", and at the same time to draft rules like these, means to have no idea whatsoever of the real political tasks of Social-Democracy. Not one of the fifty or so paragraphs reveals even a glimmer of understanding that it is necessary to conduct the widest possible political agitation among the masses, an agitation highlighting every aspect of Russian absolutism and the specific features of the various social classes in Russia. Rules like these are of no use even for the achievement of trade union, let alone political, aims, since trade unions are organised by //trades//, of which no mention is made. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">But most characteristic, perhaps, is the amazing top-heaviness of the whole "system", which attempts to bind each single factory and its "committee" by a permanent string of uniform and ludicrously petty rules and a three-stage system of election. Hemmed in by the narrow outlook of Economism, the mind is lost in details that positively reek of red tape and bureaucracy. In practice, of course, three-fourths of the clauses are never applied; on the other hand, a "secret" organisation of this kind, with its central group in each factory, makes it very easy for the gendarmes to carry out raids on a vast scale. The Polish cornrades have passed through a similar phase in their movement, with everybody enthusiastic about the extensive organisation of workers' benefit funds; but they very quickly abandoned this idea when they saw that such organisations only provided rich harvests for the gendarmes. If we have in mind broad workers' organisations, and not widespread arrests, if we do not want to provide satisfaction to the gendarmes, we must see to it that these organisations remain without any rigid formal structure. But will they be able to function in that case? <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Let us see what the functions are: ". . . To observe all that goes on in the factory and keep a record of events" (par. 2 of the Rules). Do we really require a formally established group for this purpose? Could not the purpose be better served by correspondence conducted in the illegal papers without the setting up of special groups? ". . . To lead the struggles of the workers for the improvement of their workshop conditions" (par. 3). This, too, requires no set organisational form. Any sensible agitator can in the course of ordinary conversation gather what the demands of the workers are and transmit them to a narrow -- not a broad -- organisation of revolutionaries for expression in a leaflet. " ... To organise a fund ... to which subscriptions of two kopeks per ruble [of wages earned] should be made" (par. 9) -- and then to present to subscribers a monthly financial account (par. 17), to expel members who fail to pay their contributions (par. 10), and so forth. Why, this is a very paradise for the police; for nothing would be easier for them than to penetrate into such a secrecy of a "central factory fund", confiscate the money, and arrest the best people. Would it not be simpler to issue one-kopek or two-kopek coupons bearing the official stamp of a well-known (very narrow and very secret) organisation, or to make collections without coupons of any kind and to print reports in a certain agreed code in an illegal paper? The object would thereby be attained, but it would be a hundred times more difficult for the gendarmes to pick up clues. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">I could go on analysing the Rules, but I think that what has been said will suffice. A small, compact core of the most reliable, experienced, and hardened workers, with responsible representatives in the principal districts and connected by all the rules of strict secrecy with the organisation of revolutionaries, can, with the widest support of the masses and without any formal organisation, perform //all// the functions of a trade union organisation, in a manner, moreover, desirable to Social-Democracy. Only in this way can we secure the //consolidation// and development of a //Social-Democratic// trade union movement, despite all the gendarmes. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">It may be objected that an organisation which is so //lose// that it is not even definitely formed, and which has not even an enrolled and registered membership, cannot be called an organisation at all. Perhaps so. Not the name is important. What is important is that this "organisation without members" shall do everything that is required, and from the very outset ensure a solid connection between our future trade unions and socialism. Only an incorrigible utopian would have a //broad// organisation of workers, with elections, reports, universal suffrage, etc., under the autocracy. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">The moral to be drawn from this is simple. If we begin with the solid foundation of a strong organisation of revolutionaries, we can ensure the stability of the movement as a whole and carry out the aims both of Social-Democracy and of trade unions proper. If, however, we begin with a broad workers' organisation, which is supposedly most "accessible" to the masses (but which is actually most accessible to the gendarmes and makes revolutionaries most accessible to the police), we shall achieve neither the one aim nor the other; we shall not eliminate our rule-of-thumb methods, and, because we remain scattered and our forces are constantly broken up by the police, we shall only make trade unions of the Zubatov and Ozerov type the more accessible to the masses. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">What, properly speaking, should be the functions of the organisation of revolutionaries? We shall deal with this question in detail. First, however, let us examine a very typical argument advanced by our terrorist, who (sad fate!) in this matter also is a next-door neighbour to the Economist. //Svoboda//, a journal published for workers, contains in its first issue an article entitled "Organisation", the author of which tries to defend his friends, the Economist workers of Ivanovo-Voznesensk. He writes: "It is bad when the masses are mute and unenlightened, when the movement does not come from the rank and file. For instance, the students of a university town leave for their homes during the summer and other holidays, and immediately the workers' movement comes to a standstill. Can a workers' movement which has to be pushed on from outside be a real force? No, indeed.... It has not yet learned to walk, it is still in leading-strings. So it is in all matters. The students go off, and everything comes to a standstill. The most capable are seized; the cream is skimmed and the milk turns sour. If the 'committee' is arrested, everything comes to a standstill until a new one can he formed. And one never knows what sort of committee will be set up next -- it may be nothing like the former. The first said one thing, the second may say the very opposite. Continuity between yesterday and tomorrow is broken, the experience of the past does not serve as a guide for the future. And all because no roots have been struck in depth, in the masses; the work is carried on not by a hundred fools, but by a dozen wise men. A dozen wise men can be wiped out at a snap, but when the organisation embraces masses, everything proceeds from them, and nobody, however he tries, can wreck the cause" (p. 63). <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">The facts are described correctly. The picture of our amateurism is well drawn. But the conclusions are worthy of //Rabochaya Mysl//, both as regards their stupidity and their lack of political tact. They represent the height of stupidity, because the author confuses the philosophical and social-historical question of the "depth" of the "roots" of the movement with the technical and organisational question of the best method in combating the gendarmes. They represent the height of political tactlessness, because, instead of appealing from bad leaders to good leaders, the author appeals from the leaders in general to the "masses". This is as much an attempt to drag us back organisationally as the idea of substituting excitative terrorism for political agitation drags us back politically. Indeed, I am experiencing a veritable //embarras de richesses//, and hardly know where to begin to disentangle the jumble offered up by //Svoboda//. For clarity, let me begin by citing an example. Take the Germans. It will not be denied, I hope, that theirs is a mass organisation, that in Germany everything proceeds from the masses, that the working-class movement there has learned to walk. Yet observe how these millions value their "dozen" tried political leaders, how firmly they cling to them. Members of the hostile parties in parliament have often taunted the socialists by exclaiming: "Fine democrats you are indeed! Yours is a working-class movement only in name; in actual fact the same clique of leaders is always in evidence, the same Bebel and the same Liebknecht, year in and year out, and that goes on for decades. Your supposedly elected workers' deputies are more permanent than the officials appointed by the Emperor!" But the Germans only smile with contempt at these demagogic attempts to set the "masses" against the "leaders", to arouse bad and ambitious instincts in the former, and to rob the movement of its solidity and stability by undermining the confidence of the masses in their "dozen wise men". Political thinking is sufficiently developed among the Germans, and they have accumulated sufficient political experience to understand that without the "dozen" tried and talented leaders (and talented men are not born by the hundreds), professionally trained, schooled by long experience, and working in perfect harmony, no class in modern society can wage a determined struggle. The Germans too have had demagogues in their ranks who have flattered the "hundred fools", exalted them above the "dozen wise men", extolled the "horny hand" of the masses, and (like Most and Hasselmann) have spurred them on to reckless "revolutionary" action and sown distrust towards the firm and steadfast leaders. It was only by stubbornly and relentlessly combating all demagogic elements within the socialist movement that German socialism has managed to grow and become as strong as it is. Our wiseacres, however, at a time when Russian Social-Democracy is passing through a crisis entirely due to the lack of sufficiently trained, developed, and experienced leaders to guide the spontaneously awakening masses, cry out ,with the profundity of fools: "It is a bad business when the movement does not proceed from the rank and file." <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">"A committee of students is of no use; it is not stable." Quite true. But the conclusion to be drawn from this is that we must have a committee of professional //revolutionaries//, and it is immaterial whether a student or a worker is capable of becoming a professional revolutionary. The conclusion you draw, how. ever, is that the working-class movement must not be pushed on from outside! In your political innocence you fail to notice that you are playing into the hands of our Economists and fostering our amateurism. Wherein, may I ask, did our students "push on" our workers? //In the sense// that the student brought to the worker the fragments of political knowledge he himself possesses, the crumbs of socialist ideas he has managed to acquire (for the principal intellectual diet of the present-day student, legal Marxism, could furnish only the rudiments, only scraps of knowledge). There has never been too much of // such // "pushing on from outside"; on the contrary, there has so far been all too little of it in our movement, for we have been stewing too assiduously in our own juice; we have bowed far too slavishly to the elementary "economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government". We professional revolutionaries must and will make it our business to engage in //this kind// of "pushing on" a hundred times more forcibly than we have done hitherto. But the very fact that you select so hideous a phrase as "pushing on from outside" -- a phrase which cannot but rouse in the workers (at least in the workers who are as unenlightened as you yourselves) a sense of distrust towards //all// who bring them political knowledge and revolutionary experience from outside, which cannot but rouse in them an instinctive desire to resist //all// such people -- proves you to be demagogues, and //demagogues// are the worst enemies of the working class. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">And, please -- don't hasten howling about my "uncomradely methods" of debating. I have not the least desire to doubt the purity of your intentions. As I have said, one may become a demagogue out of sheer political innocence. But I have shown that you have descended to demagogy, and I will never tire of repeating that demagogues are the worst enemies of the working class. The worst enemies, because they arouse base instincts in the masses, because the unenlightened worker is unable to recognise his enemies in men who represent themselves, and sometimes sincerely so, as his friends. The worst enemies, because in the period of disunity and vacillation, when our movement is just beginning to take shape, nothing is easier than to employ demagogic methods to mislead the masses, who can realise their error only later by bitter experience. That is why the slogan of the day for the Russian Social-Democrat must be -- resolute struggle against Svoboda and //Rabocheye Dyelo//, both of which have sunk to the level of demagogy. We shall deal with this further in greater detail. __<span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">[6] __ <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">"A dozen wise men can be more easily wiped out than a hundred fools." This wonderful truth (for which the hundred fools will always applaud you) appears obvious only because in the very midst of the argument you have skipped from one question to another. You began by talking and continued to talk of the unearthing of a "committee", of the unearthing of an "organisation", and now you skip to the question of unearthing the movement's "roots" in their "depths". The fact is, of course, that our movement cannot be unearthed, for the very reason that it has countless thousands of roots deep down among the masses; but that is not the point at issue. As far as "deep roots" are concerned, we cannot be "unearthed" even now, despite all our amateurism, and yet we all complain, and cannot but complain, that the "//organisations//" are being unearthed and as a result it is impossible to maintain continuity in the movement. But since you raise the question of //organisations// being unearthed and persist in your opinion, I assert that it is far more difficult to unearth a dozen wise men than a hundred fools. This position I will defend, no matter how much you instigate the masses against me for my "anti-democratic" views, etc. As I have stated repeatedly, by "wise men", in connection with organisation, I mean //professional revolutionaries//, irrespective of whether they have developed from among students or working men. I assert: (1) that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organisation of leaders maintaining continuity; (2) that the broader the popular mass drawn spontaneously into the struggle, which forms the basis of the movement and participates in it, the more urgent the need for such an organisation, and the more solid this organisation must be (for it is much easier for all sorts of demagogues to side-track the more backward sections of the masses); (3) that such an organisation must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activity; (4) that in an autocratic state, the more we //confine// the membership of such an organisation to people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity and who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police, the more difficult will it be to unearth the organisation; and (5) the //greater// will be the number of people from the working class and from the other social classes who will be able to join the movement and perform active work in it. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">I invite our Economists, terrorists, and "Economists-terrorists" __<span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">[7] __ <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> to confute these propositions. At the moment, I shall deal only with the last two points. The question as to whether it is easier to wipe out "a dozen wisemen" or "a hundred fools" reduces itself to the question, above considered, whether it is possible to have a mass //organisation// when the maintenance of strict secrecy is essential. We can never give a mass organisation that degree of secrecy without which there can be no question of persistent and continuous struggle against the government. To concentrate all secret functions in the hands of as small a number of professional revolutionaries as possible does not mean that the latter will "do the thinking for all" and that the rank and file will not take an active part in the //movement//. On the contrary, the membership will promote increasing numbers of the professional revolutionaries from its ranks; for it will know that it is not enough for a few students and for a few working men waging the economic struggle to gather in order to form a "committee", but that it takes years to train oneself to be a professional revolutionary; and the rank and file will "think", not only of amateurish methods, but of such training. Centralisation of the secret functions of the //organisation// by no means implies centralisation of all the functions of the //movement//. Active participation of the widest masses in the illegal press will not diminish because a "dozen" professional revolutionaries centralise the secret functions connected with this work; on the contrary, it will //increase// tenfold. In this way, and in this way alone, shall we ensure that reading the illegal press, writing for it, and to some extent even distributing it, will //almost cease to be secret work//, for the police will soon come to realise the folly and impossibility of judicial and administrative red-tape procedure over every copy of a publication that is being distributed in the thousands. This holds not only for the press, but for every function of the movement, even for demonstrations. The active and widespread participation of the masses will not suffer; on the contrary, it will benefit by the fact that a "dozen" experienced revolutionaries, trained professionally no less than the police, will centralise all the secret aspects of the work -- the drawing up of leaflets, the working out of approximate plans; and the appointing of bodies of leaders for each urban district, for each institution, etc. (I know that exception will be taken to my "undemocratic" views, but I shall reply below fully to this anything but intelligent objection.) Centralisation of the most secret functions in an organisation of revolutionaries will not diminish, but rather increase the extent and enhance the quality of the activity of a large number of other organisations that are intended for a broad public and are therefore as loose and as non-secret as possible, such as workers' trade unions; workers' self-education circles and circles for reading illegal literature; and socialist, as well as democratic, circles among //all// other sections of the population; etc., etc. We must have such circles, trade unions, and organisations everywhere in //as large a number as possible// and with the widest variety of functions; but it would be absurd and harmful //to confound// them with the organisation of //revolutionaries//, to efface the border-line between them, to make still more hazy the all too faint recognition of the fact that in order to "serve" the mass movement we must have people who will devote themselves exclusively to Social-Democratic activities, and that such people must //train// themselves patiently and steadfastly to be professional revolutionaries. <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Yes, this recognition is incredibly dim. Our worst sin with regard to organisation consists in the fact that by //our primitiveness we have lowered the prestige of revolutionaries in Russia//. A person who is flabby and shaky on questions of theory, who has a narrow outlook, who pleads the spontaneity of the masses as an excuse for his own sluggishness, who resembles a trade union secretary more than a spokesman of the people, who is unable to conceive of a broad and bold plan that would command the respect even of opponents, and who is inexperienced and clumsy in his own professional art -- the art of combating the political police -- such a man is not a revolutionary, but a wretched amateur! <span style="FONT-SIZE: 11.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> Let no active worker take offence at these frank remarks, for as far as insufficient training is concerned, I apply them first and foremost to myself. I used to work in a study circle that set itself very broad, all-embracing tasks; and all of us, members of that circle, suffered painfully and acutely from the realisation that we were acting as amateurs at a moment in history when we might have been able to say, varying a well-known statement: "Give us an organisation of revolutionaries, and we will overturn Russia !' The more I recall the burning sense of shame I then experienced, the bitterer become my feelings towards those pseudo-Social-Democrats whose preachings "bring disgrace on the calling of a revolutionary", who fail to understand that our task is not to champion the degrading of the revolutionary to the level of an amateur, but to //raise// the amateurs to the level of revolutionaries.  V. I. Lenin   **What Is To Be Done? (Contents Page)**   = =

//Burning Questions of our Movement//
Written: Between the autumn of 1901 and February 1902 Source: Lenin Selected Works, Volume 1, pp. 119 - 271 First Published: March, 1902 Online Version: Lenin Internet Archive (marxists.org) 1999 Transcription\Markup: Tim Delaney **Preface** **I. Dogmatism and "Freedom of Criticism"** **A. What Does "Freedom of Criticism" Mean? B. The New Advocates of "Freedom of Criticism" C. Criticism in Russia D. Engels on the Importance of the Theoretical Struggle** **II. The Spontaneity of the Masses and the Consciousness of the Social-Democrats** B. Bowing to Spontaneity. //__ Rabochaya Mysl __//** **III. Trade Unionist Politics and Social-Democractic Politics** **A. Political Agitation and its Restriction by the Economists B. How Martynov Rendered Plekhanov More Profound C. Political Exposures and "Training in Revolutionary Activity" D. What is There in Common Between Economism and Terrorism? E. The Working Class as Vanguard Fighter for Democracy F. Once More "Slanderers", Once More "Mystifiers"** **IV. The Primitiveness of the Economists and the Organization of the Revolutionaries** **A. What is Primitiveness? B. Primitiveness and Economism C. Organization of Workers and Organization of Revolutionaries D. The Scope of Organizational Work E. "Conspiratorial" Organization and "Democratism" F. Local and All-Russia Work** **V. The "Plan" for an All-Russia Political Newspaper** **A. Who was Offended by the Article "Where to Begin" B. Can a Newspaper be a Collective Organizer? C. What Type of Organization Do We Require?** **Conclusion** **Appendix. The Attempt to Unite //Iskra// with //Rabocheye Dyelo//** **Correction to //What Is To Be Done?//**
 * A. The Beginning of the Spontaneous Upsurge
 * C. The Self-Emancipation Group and** **//__ Rabocheye Dyelo __// **