# What Is To Be Done? (Lenin, 1935)/Chapter 3

III
TRADE-UNION POLITICS AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC POLITICS
We shall start off again from the praises that have been sung for Rabocheye Dyelo. Martynov gave his article in No. 10 of Rabocheye Dyelo, on his differences with Iskra, the title: "Exposure Literature and the Proletarian Struggle." He formulated the substance of these differences as follows:
We cannot confine ow-selves entirely to exposing the state of affairs that stand in its [the labour party's] path of development. We must also respond to the immediate and current interests of the proletariat [p. 63].
" … Iskra … is in fact the organ of revolutionary opposition that exposes the state of affairs in our country, particularly the political state of affairs. … We, however, work and shall continue to work for the cause of labour in close organic contact with the proletarian struggle" [ibid.]. One cannot help being grateful to Martynov for this formula. It is of exceptional general interest because substantially it embraces not only our disagreements with Rabocheye Dyelo, but the general disagreement between ourselves and the Economists concerning the political struggle. We have shown already that the Economists do not altogether repudiate "politics," but that they are constantly deviating from the Democratic conception of politics to the trade-unionist conception. Martynov deviates in exactly the same way, and we agree, therefore, to take him as an example of an Economist wandering into error on this question. As we shall endeavour to prove, neither the authors of the Special Supplement of Rabochaya Mysl, nor the authors of the manifesto issued by the Emancipation group, nor the authors of the Economist Letter published in Iskra, No. 12, will have any right to complain against this choice.
A. Political Agitation and Its Restriction by the Economists
Every one knows that the spread and consolidation of the economic struggle of the Russian workers proceeded simultaneously ​with the creation of a "literature" exposing economic conditions, i. e., factory and industrial conditions. These "leaflets" were devoted mainly to the exposure of factory conditions, and very soon a passion for exposures was roused among the workers. As soon as the workers realised that the Social-Democratic circles desired to and could supply them with a new kind of leaflet that told the whole truth about their poverty-stricken lives, about their excessive toil and their lack of rights, correspondence began to pour in from the factories and workshops. This "exposure literature" created a sensation not only in the particular factory dealt with and the conditions of which were exposed in a given leaflet, but in all the factories to which news had spread about the facts exposed. And as the poverty and want among the workers in the various enterprises and in the various trades are pretty much the same, the "Truth about the life of the workers" roused the admiration of all. Even among the most backward workers, a veritable passion was roused to "go into print"—a noble passion to adopt this rudimentary form of war against the whole of the modern social system which is based upon robbery and oppression. And in the overwhelming majority of cases these "leaflets" were in truth a declaration of war, because the exposures had a terrifically rousing effect upon the workers; it stimulated them to put forward demands for the removal of the most glaring evils, and roused in them a readiness to support these demands with strikes. Finally, the employers themselves were compelled to recognise the significance of these leaflets as a declaration of war, so much so that in a large number of cases they did not even wait for the outbreak of hostilities. As is always the case, the mere publication of these exposures made them effective, and they acquired the significance of a strong moral force. On more than one occasion, the mere appearance of a leaflet proved sufficient to compel an employer to concede all or part of the demands put forward. In a word, economic (factory) exposures have been an important lever in the economic struggle and they will continue to be so as long capitalism, which creates the need for the workers to defend themselves, exists. Even in the more progressive countries of Europe to-day, the exposure of the evils in some backward ​trade, or in some forgotten branch of domestic industry, serves as a starting point for the awakening of class-consciousness, for the beginning of a trade-union struggle, and for the spread of Socialism.
Recently, the overwhelming majority of Russian Social-Democrats were almost wholly engaged in this work of exposing factory conditions. It is sufficient to refer to the columns of Rabochaya Mysl to judge to what an extent they were engaged in it. So much so indeed, that they lost sight of the fact that this, taken by itself, was not substantially Social-Democratic work, but merely trade-union work. As a matter of fact, these exposures merely dealt with the relations between the workers in a given trade, with their immediate employers, and all that it achieved was that the vendors of labour power learned to sell their "commodity" on better terms, and to fight the purchasers of labour power over a purely commercial deal. These exposures might have served (if properly utilised by revolutionaries) as a beginning and a constituent part of Social-Democratic activity, but they might also (and with subservience to spontaneity inevitably had to) have led to a "pure and simple" trade-union struggle and to a non-Social-Democratic labour movement. Social-Democrats lead the struggle of the working class not only for better terms for the sale of labour power, but also for the abolition of the social system which compels the propertyless class to sell itself to the rich. Social-Democracy represents the working class, not in its relation to a given group of employers, but in its relation to all classes in modern society, to the state as an organised political force. Hence, it not only follows that Social-Democrats must not ​confine themselves entirely to the economic struggle; they must not even allow the organisation of economic exposures to become the predominant part of their activities. We must actively take up the political education of the working class, and the development of its political consciousness. Now, after Zarya and Iskra have made the first attack upon Economism "all are agreed" with this (although some agreed only nominally, as we shall soon prove).
The question now arises: What does political education mean? Is it sufficient to confine oneself to the propaganda of working-class hostility to autocracy? Of course not. It is not enough to explain to the workers that they are politically oppressed (any more than it was to explain to them that their interests were antagonistic to the interests of the employers). Advantage must be taken of every concrete example of this oppression for the purpose of agitation (in the same way as we began to use concrete examples of economic oppression for the purpose of agitation). And inasmuch as political oppression affects all sorts of classes in society, inasmuch as it manifests itself in various spheres of life and activity, in industrial life, civic life, in personal and family life, in religious life, scientific life, etc., etc., is it not evident that we shall not be fulfilling our task of developing the political consciousness of the Workers if we do not undertake the organisation of the political exposure of autocracy in all its aspects? In order to agitate over concrete examples of oppression, these examples must he exposed (in the same way as it was necessary to expose factory evils in order to carry on economic agitation).
One would think that this was clear enough. It turns out, however, that "all" are agreed that it is necessary to develop political consciousness in all its aspects, only in words. It turns out that Rabocheye Dyelo, for example, has not only failed to take up the task of organising (or to make a start in organising) in all-sided political exposure, but is even trying to drag Iskra, which has undertaken this task, away from it. Listen to this: "The political struggle of the working class is merely [it is precisely not "merely"] a more developed, a wider and more effective form of economic struggle. [Programme of Rabocheye Dyelo published in No. 1, p. 3.] "The Social-Democrats are now confronted with the task of, as far as possible, giving the economic struggle itself a political character." [Martynov, Rabacheye Dyelo, No. 10, p. 42]. "The economic struggle is the most widely applicable method of drawing the masses into ​active political struggle" (resolution passed by the congress of the League and "amendments" thereto). [Two Congresses, pp. 11 and 17]. As the reader will observe, all these postulates permeate Rabocheye Dyelo, from its very first number to the recently issued Instructions by the Editorial Committee, and all of them evidently express a single view regarding political agitation and the political struggle. Examine this view from the standpoint of the opinion prevailing among all Economists, that political agitation must follow economic agitation. Is it true that in general, the economic struggle "is the most widely applicable method" of drawing the masses into the political struggle? It is absolutely untrue. All and sundry manifestations of police tyranny and autocratic outrage, in addition to the evils connected with the economic struggle, are equally "widely applicable" as a means of "drawing in" the masses. The tyranny of the Zemstvo chiefs, the flogging of the peasantry, the corruption of the officials, the conduct of the police towards the "common people" in the cities, the fight against the famine-stricken and the suppression of the popular striving towards enlightenment and knowledge, the extortion of taxes, the persecution of the religious sects, the severe discipline in the army, the militarist conduct towards the students and the liberal intelligentsia—all these and a thousand other similar manifestations of tyranny, though not directly connected with the "economic" struggle, do they, in general, represent a less "widely applicable" method and subject for political agitation and for drawing the masses into the political struggle? The very opposite is the case. Of all the innumerable cases in which the workers suffer (either personally or those closely associated with them) from tyranny, violence, and lack of rights, undoubtedly only a relatively few represent cases of police tyranny in the economic struggle as such. Why then should we beforehand restrict the scope of political agitation by declaring only one of ​methods to be "the most widely applicable," when Social-Democrats have other, generally speaking, not less "widely applicable" means?
Long, long ago (a year ago! …) Rabocheye Dyelo wrote:
The masses begin to understand immediate political demands after one, or at all events, after several strikes; immediately the government sets the police and gendarmerie against them [No. 7, p. 15, August, 1900].
This opportunist theory of stages has now been rejected by the League, which makes a concession to us by declaring: "There is no need whatever to conduct political agitation right from the beginning, exclusively on an economic basis." [Two Congresses, p. 11.] This very repudiation of part of its former errors by the League will enable the future historian of Russian Social-Democracy to discern the depths to which our Economists have degraded Socialism better than any number of lengthy arguments! But the League must he very naïve indeed to imagine that the abandonment of one form of restricting politics will induce us to agree to another form of restriction! Would it not be more logical to say that the economic struggle should be conducted on the widest possible basis, that it should he utilised for political agitation, hut that "there is no need whatever" to regard the economic struggle as the most widely applicable means of drawing the masses into active political struggle?
The League attaches significance to the fact that it substituted the phrase "most widely applicable method" by the phrase "a better method," contained in one of the resolutions of the Fourth Congress of the Jewish Labour League (Bund). We confess that we find it difficult to say which of these resolutions is the better one. In our opinion both are bad. Both the League and the Bund fall into error (partly perhaps unconsciously, owing to the influence of tradition) concerning the economic, trade-unionist interpretation of politics. The fact that this error is expressed either by the word "better" or by the words "most widely applicable" makes no material difference whatever. If the League had said that "political agitation an economic basis" is the most widely applied (and not "applicable") method it would have been right in regard to a certain period in the development of our Social-Democratic movement. It Would have been right in regard to the Economists and to many (if not the majority) of the practical Economists of 1898–1901 who have applied the method of political agitation (to the extent that they applied it at all) almost exclusively on an economic basis. Political agitation on such lines was recognised, and as we have seen, ​even recommended by Rabochaya Mysl, and by the Self-Emancipation group! Rabocheye Dyelo should have strongly condemned the fact that useful economic agitation was accompanied by the harmful restriction of the political struggle, but instead of that, it declares the method most widely applied (by the Economists) to be the most widely applicable! It is not surprising, therefore, that when we describe these people as Economists, they can do nothing else but pour abuse upon us, and call us "mystifiers," "disrupters," "Papal Nuncios," and "slanderers," go complaining to the world that we have mortally offended them and declare almost on oath that "not a single Social-Democratic organisation is now tinged with Economism. Oh, these evil, slanderous politicians! They must have deliberately invented this Economism, out of sheer hatred of mankind, in order mortally to offend other people!
What do the words "to give the economic struggle itself a political character," which Martynov uses in presenting the tasks of Social-Democracy, mean concretely? The economic struggle is the collective struggle of the workers against their employers for better terms in the sale of their labour power, for better conditions of life and labour. This struggle is necessarily a struggle according to trade, because conditions of labour differ very much in different trades, and, consequently, the fight to improve these conditions can only be conducted in respect of each trade (trade unions in the Western countries, temporary trade associations and leaflets in Russia, etc.). To give "the economic struggle itself a political character" means, therefore, to strive to secure satisfaction for these trade demands, the improvement of conditions of labour in each separate trade by means of "legislative and administrative measures" (as Martynov expresses it on the next page of his article, p. 43). This is exactly what the trade unions do and always have done. Read the works of the thoroughly scientific (and "thoroughly" opportunist) Mr. and Mrs. Webb and you will find that the British trade unions long ago recognised, and have long carried out the task of "giving the economic struggle itself a political character"; they have long been fighting for the right to strike, for the removal of all juridical hindrances to the co-operative and trade-union movement, for laws protecting women and children, for the ​improvement of conditions of labour by means of sanitary and factory legislation, etc.
Thus, the pompous phrase: "To give the economic struggle itself a political character," which sounds so "terrifically" profound and revolutionary, serves as a screen to conceal what is in fact the traditional striving to degrade Social-Democratic politics to the level of trade-union politics! On the pretext of rectifying Iskra's one-sidedness, which, it is alleged, places "the revolutionising of dogma higher than the revolutionising of life," we are presented with the struggle for economic reform as if it were something entirely new. As a matter of fact, the phrase "to give the economic struggle itself a political character" means nothing more than the struggle for economic reforms. And Martynov himself might have come to this simple conclusion had he only pondered over the significance of his own words. "Our party," he says, turning his heaviest guns against Iskra, "could and should have presented concrete demands to the government for legislative and administrative measures against economic exploitation, for the relief of unemployment, for the relief of the famine-stricken, etc." [Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, pp. 42, 43.] Concrete demands for measures—does not this mean demands for social reforms? And again we ask the impartial reader, do we slander the Rabocheye Dyeloists (may I be forgiven for this clumsy expression!) when we declare them to be concealed Bernsteinists, for advancing their thesis about the necessity for fighting for economic reforms as a reason for their disagreement with Iskra?
Revolutionary Social-Democracy always included, and now includes, the fight for reforms in its activities. But it utilises "economic" agitation for the purpose of presenting to the government, not only demands for all sorts of measures, but also {and primarily) the demand that it cease to be an autocratic government. Moreover, it considers it to be its duty to present this demand to the government, not on the basis of the economic struggle alone, but on the basis of all manifestations of public and political life. In a word, it subordinates the struggle for reforms to the revolutionary stuggle for liberty and for Socialism, in the same way as the part ​is subordinate to the whole. Martynov, however, resuscitates the theory of stages in a new form, and strives to prescribe an exclusively economic, so to speak, path of development for the political struggle. By coming out at this moment, when the revolutionary movement is on the up-grade, with an alleged special "task" of fighting for reforms, he is dragging the party backwards, and is playing into the hands of both "economic" and liberal opportunism.
Shamefacedly hiding the struggle for reforms behind the pompous thesis "to give the economic struggle itself a political character," Martynov advanced, as if it were a special point, exclusively economic (in fact, exclusively factory) reforms. Why he did that, we do not know. Perhaps it was due to carelessness? But if he indeed had only "factory" reforms in mind, then the whole of his thesis, which we have just quoted, loses all sense. Perhaps he did it because he thought it possible and probable that the government would agree to make "concessions" only in the economic sphere? If that is what he thought, then it is a strange error. Concessions are also possible, and are made in the sphere of legislation concerning flogging, passports, land-compensation payments, religious sects, the censorship, etc., etc. "Economic" concessions (or pseudo-concessions) are, of course, the cheapest and most advantageous concessions to make from the government's point-of-view, because by these means it hopes to win the confidence of the masses of the workers. Precisely for this very reason, Social-Democrats must under no circumstances create grounds for the belief (or the misunderstanding) that we attach greater value to economic reforms than to political reforms, or that we regard them as being particularly important, etc. "Such demands," writes Martynov, concerning the concrete demands for legislative and administrative measures referred to above, "would not be merely a hollow sound because, promising certain palpable results, they might be actively supported by the masses of the workers. …" We are not Economists, oh, no! We only cringe as slavishly before the "palpableness" of concrete results as do the Bernsteins, the Prokopoviches, the Struves, the R. M.'s, and tutti quanti! We only wish to make it understood (with Narcissus Tuporylov) that all that which "does not promise palpable results" is merely a "hollow sound." We are only trying to argue as if the ​masses of the workers are incapable (and, of course, have not proved their capabilities, notwithstanding those who ascribe their own philistinism to them) of actively supporting every protest against the autocracy even if it promises absolutely no palpable results whatever!
Take for example the very "measures" for the relief of unemployment and the famine that Martynov himself advances. While Rabocheye Dyelo was engaged, judging by what it has promised, in drawing up a programme of "concrete [in the form of Acts of Legislation?] demands for legislative and administrative measures," "promising palpable results," Iskra, which "constantly places the revolutionising of dogma higher than the revolutionising of life," tried to explain the inseparable connection that exists between unemployment and the capitalist system as a whole; uttered the warning that "famine is coming"; exposed the police "fight against the famine-stricken" and the outrageous "provisional penal regulations"; and Zarya published a special edition in the form of an agitation pamphlet, entitled, Review of Internal Affairs, a part of its text which was devoted to the famine. But good God! How "one-sided" these incorrigibly narrow and orthodox doctrinaires were in this; how deaf to the calls of "life itself"! Not one of these articles contained—oh horror!—a single, can you imagine it?—a single "concrete demand," "promising palpable results"! Poor doctrinaires! They sought to he sent to Krichevsky and Martynov to be taught that tactics are a process of growth, etc., and that the economic struggle itself should be given a political character!
In addition to its immediately revolutionary significance, the workers' economic struggle against the employers and the government ["economic struggle against the government"!!] has also this significance that it constantly brings the workers face to face with their own lack of political rights [Martynov, p. 44].
We quote this passage not in order to repeat what has been said already a hundred and a thousand times before, but in order to thank Martynov for this excellent new formula: "The workers' economic struggle against the employers and the government." What a pearl! With what inimitable talent and skill in eliminating partial disagreements and shades of differences among Economists, does this clear and concise postulate express the quintessence of Economism: From calling to the workers to join "in the political struggle which they carry on in the general Interest, for the purpose ​of improving the conditions of all the workers," continuing through the theory of stages, to the resolution of the congress on "most widely applicable," etc., "economic struggle against the government" is precisely trade-union politics, which is far, far away from being Social-Democratic politics.
B. A Tale of How Martynov Rendered Plekhanov More Profound
"What a large number of Social-Democratic Lomonosovs appeared among us lately!" observed a comrade to me one day, having in mind the astonishing propensity of many of those who are inclined toward Economism to "seek for themselves" the great (for example, like the one that the economic struggle stimulates the workers to ponder over their lack of rights), and in doing so ignore, with the supreme contempt of born geniuses, all that which has already been produced by previous development of revolutionary thought and of the revolutionary movement. Precisely such a genius is Lomonosov-Martynov. Glance at his article, "Immediate Questions," and observe how he "in his way" approaches that which has been said long ago by Axelrod (and whom our Lomonosov silently ignores); how, for example, he is beginning to understand that we must not ignore the opposition of the various strata of the bourgeoisie [Rabocheye Dyelo No. 9, pp. 61–62–71]; compare this with Rabocheye Dyelo's Reply to Axelrod, pp. 22–23–24], etc. But alas, he is only "approaching" and is only "beginning," no more than that, for so little has he understood Axelrod's ideas, the he talks about "the economic struggle against the employers and the government." For three years (1898–1901) Rabocheye Dyelo has tried hard to understand Axelrod, but has failed to do so yet. Perhaps this is because Social-Democracy, "like humanity," always sets itself only tasks that can be achieved.
But the Lomonosovs are distinguished not only by the fact of their ignorance of many things (that would not he so bad!) but also by the fact that they are not conscious of their ignorance. Now this is a real misfortune, and this misfortune stimulates the to attempt to render Plekhanov "more profound."
​Lomonosov-Martynov writes:
Much water has flowed beneath the bridges since Plekhanov wrote this book. [Socialist Tasks in the Fight against the Famine in Russia]. The Social-Democrats who for a decade led the economic struggle of the working class … have failed as yet to lay down a broad theoretical basis for party tactics. This question has now come to the fore, and if we would wish to lay down such a theoretical basis we would certainly have to considerably deepen the principles of tactics that Plekhanov at one time developed. … We would now have to define the difference between propaganda and agitation differently from the way in which Plekhanov defined it. [Martynov had just previously quoted the words of Plekhanov: "A propagandist presents many ideas to one or a few persons; an agitator presents only one or a few ideas, but he presents them to a mass of people."] By propaganda we would understand the revolutionary elucidation of the whole of the present system or partial manifestations of it, irrespective of whether it is done in a form capable of being understood by individuals or by the broad masses. By agitation, in the strict sense of the word [sic!] we would understand: Calling the masses to certain concrete actions that would facilitate the direct revolutionary intervention of the proletariat in social life.
We congratulate Russian, and international Social-Democracy on Martynov's more strict and more profound terminology. Up till now we thought (with Plekhanov, and with all the leaders of the international labour movement), that a propagandist, dealing with say the question of unemployment, must explain the capitalistic nature of crises, the reasons why crises are inevitable in modern society, must describe how present society must inevitably become transformed into Socialist society, etc. In a word, he must present "many ideas," so many indeed that they will he understood as a whole only by a (comparatively) few persons. An agitator, however, speaking on the same subject will take as an illustration a fact that is most widely known and outstanding among his audience—say the death from starvation of the family of an unemployed worker, the growing impoverishment, etc.—and utilising this illustration, will direct all his efforts to present a single idea to the "masses," i. e., the idea of the senseless contradiction between the increase of wealth and increase of poverty; he will strive to rouse discontent and indignation among the masses against this crying injustice, and leave a more complete explanation of this contradiction the propagandist. Consequently, the propagandist operates chiefly by means of the printed word; the agitator operates with the living word. The qualities that are required of an agitator are not the same as the qualities that are required of a propagandist. Kautsky and Lafargue, for example, we call propagandists; Bebel ​and Guesde we call agitators. To point to a third sphere, or third function, of practical activity, and to include in this third function "calling the masses to certain concrete actions," is sheer nonsense, because the "call," as a single act, either naturally and inevitably supplements the theoretical tract, propagandist pamphlet and agitational speech, or represents a purely executive function. Take, for example, the struggle now being carried on by the German Social-Democrats against the grain duties. The theoreticians write researches in tariff policy and "call" say, for a fight for commercial treaties and for free trade. The propagandist does the same thing in the periodical press, and the agitator does it in public speeches. At the present time, the "concrete action" of the masses takes the form of signing petitions to the Reichstag against the raising of the grain duties. The call for this action comes directly from the theoreticians, the propagandists and the agitators, and indirectly, from those workers who carry the petition lists to the factories and to private houses to get signatures. According to the "Martynov terminology," Kautsky and Bebel are both propagandists, while those who carry the petition lists around are agitators; is that not so?
The German example recalled to my mind the German word Verballhornung, which literally translated means "to Ballhorn." Johann Ballhorn, a Leipzig publisher of the sixteenth century, published a child's reader in which, as was the custom, he introduced a drawing of a cock; but this drawing, instead of portraying an ordinary cock with spurs, portrayed it without spurs and with a couple of eggs lying near it. On the cover of this reader he printed the legend "Revised edition by Johann Ballhorn." Since that time the Germans describe any "Revision" that is really a worsening, as "Ballhorning." And watching Martynov's attempts to render Plekhanov "more profound" involuntarily recalls Ballhorn to one's mind. …
Why did our Lomonosov "invent" this confusion? In order to illustrate how Iskra "devotes attention only to one side of the case, just as Plekhanov did a decade and a half ago" [p. 39]. "According to Iskra, propagandist tasks force agitational tasks into the background, at least for the present" [p. 52]. If we translate this last postulate from the language of Martynov into ordinary human language (because humanity has not yet managed to learn the newly invented terminology), we shall get the following: "According to Iskra, the tasks of political propaganda and political agitation force ​into the background the task of 'presenting to the government concrete demands for legislative and administrative measures' that promise certain palpable results" (or demands for social reforms, that is if we are permitted just once again to employ the old terminology of old humanity, which has not yet grown to Martynov's level). We suggest that the reader compare this thesis with the following tirade:
What astonishes us in these programmes [the programmes advanced by revolutionary Social-Democrats], is the constant stress that is laid upon the benefits of labour activity in parliament (non-existent in Russia) and the manner in which (thanks to their revolutionary Nihilism) the importance of workers participating in the Government Advisory Committees on Factory Affairs (which do exist in Russia) … or at least the importance of workers participating in municipal bodies, is completely ignored. …
The author of this tirade expresses more straightforwardly, more clearly and frankly, the very idea which, although Lomonosov-Martynov discovered it himself, actually originated in the mind of R. M. in the Special Supplement of Rabochaya Mysl [p. 15].
C. Political Exposures and "Training in Revolutionary Activity"
In advancing against Iskra his "theory" of "raising the activity of the masses of the workers," Martynov, as a matter of fact, displayed a striving to diminish this activity, because he declared the very economic struggle before which all Economists grovel to be the preferable, the most important and "the most widely applicable means of rousing this activity, and the widest field for it." This error is such a characteristic one, precisely because it is not peculiar to Martynov alone. As a matter of fact, it is possible to "raise the activity of the masses of the workers" only provided this activity is not restricted entirely to "political agitation on an economic basis." And one of the fundamental conditions for the necessary expansion of political agitation is the organisation of all-sided political exposure. In no other way can the masses he trained in political consciousness and revolutionary activity except by means of such exposures. Hence, to conduct such activity is one of the most important functions of international Social-Democracy as a whole, for even in countries where political liberty exists, there is still a field for work of exposure, although in such countries the work ​is conducted in a different sphere. For example, the German party is strengthening its position and spreading its influence, thanks particularly to the untiring energy with which it is conducting a campaign of political exposure. Working-class consciousness cannot be genuinely political consciousness unless the workers are trained to respond to all cases of tyranny, oppression, violence and abuse, no matter what class is affected. Moreover, that response must be a Social-Democratic response, and not one from any other point-of-view. The consciousness of the masses of the workers cannot be genuine class consciousness, unless the workers learn to observe from concrete, and above all from topical, political facts and events, every other social class and all the manifestations of the intellectual, ethical and political life of these classes; unless they learn to apply practically the materialist analysis and the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata and groups of the population. Those who concentrate the attention, observation and the consciousness of the working class exclusively, or even mainly, upon itself alone, are not Social-Democrats; because, for its self-realisation the working class in not only have a theoretical … rather it would be more true to say: Not so much theoretical as a practical understanding acquired through experience of political life of the relationships between all classes of modern society. That is why the idea preached by our Economists, that the economic struggle is the most widely applicable means of drawing the masses into the political movement is extremely harmful and extremely reactionary in practice. In order to become a Social-Democrat, a working man must have a clear picture in his mind of the economic nature and the social and political features of the landlord, of the priest, of the high state official and of the peasant, of the student and of the tramp; he must know their strong and weak sides; he must understand all the catchwords and sophisms by which each class and each stratum camouflages its egotistical strivings and its real "nature"; he must understand what interests certain institutions and certain laws reflect and how they are reflected. The working man cannot obtain this "clear picture" from books. He can obtain it only from living examples and from exposures, following hot after their occurrence, of what goes on around us at a given moment, of what is being discussed, in whispers perhaps, by each one in his own way, of the meaning of such and such events, of such and such statistics, in such and such ​court sentences, etc., etc., etc. These universal political exposures are an essential and fundamental condition for training the masses in revolutionary activity.
Why is it that the Russian workers as yet display so little revolutionary activity in connection with the brutal way in which the police maltreat the people, in connection with the persecution of the religious sects, with the flogging of the peasantry, with the outrageous censorship, with the torture of soldiers, with the persecution of the :most innocent cultural enterprises, etc.? Is it because the "economic struggle" does not "stimulate" them to this, because such political activity does not "promise palpable results," because it produces little that is "positive"? To advance this argument, we repeat, is merely to shift the blame to the shoulders of others, to blame the masses of the workers for our own philistinism (also Bernsteinism). We must blame ourselves, our remoteness from the mass movement; we must blame ourselves for being unable as yet to organise a sufficiently wide, striking and rapid exposure of these despicable outrages. When we do that (and we must and can do it), the most backward worker will understand, or will feel, that the students and religious sects, the muzhiks and the authors are being abused and outraged by the very same dark forces that are oppressing and crushing him at every step of his life, and, feeling that, he himself will be filled with an irresistible desire to respond to these things and then he will organise cat-calls against the censors one day, another day he will demonstrate outside the house of the provincial governor who has brutally suppressed peasant uprising, another day he will teach a lesson to the gendarmes in surplices who are doing the work of the Holy Inquisition, etc. As yet we have done very little, almost nothing, to hurl universal and fresh exposures among the masses of the workers. Many of us as yet do not appreciate the bounden duty that rests upon us, but spontaneously follow in the wake of the "drab every-day struggle," in the narrow confines of factory life. Under such circumstances to say that Iskra displays a tendency to belittle the significance of the forward march of the drab every-day struggle in comparison with the propaganda of brilliant and complete ideas Martynov, p. 61]—means to drag the party backwards, to defend and glorify our unpreparedness and backwardness.
As for calling the masses to action; that will come of itself immediately that energetic political agitation, live and striking ​exposures are set going. To catch some criminal red-handed and immediately to brand him publicly will have far more effect than any number of "appeals to action"; the effect very often will be such, that it will be impossible to tell who exactly it was that "appealed" to the crowd, and who exactly suggested this or that plan of demonstration, etc. Calls for action, not in the general, but in the concrete, sense of the term, can he made only at the place of action; only those who themselves go into action now can make appeals for action. And our business as Social-Democratic publicists is to deepen, expand and intensify political exposures and political agitation. A word in passing about "calls to action." The only paper that prior to the spring events, called upon the workers actively to intervene in a matter that certainly did not promise any palpable results for the workers, i. e., the drafting of the students into the army, was Iskra. Immediately after the publication of the order of January 11 "Drafting the 183 Students into the Army," Iskra published an article about it (in its February issue, No. 2), and before any demonstration was started openly called upon "the workers to go to the aid of the students," called upon the "people" boldly to take up the government's open challenge. We ask: How is the remarkable fact to be explained that although he talks so much about "calling for action," and even suggests "calling for action" as a special form of activity, Martynov said not a word about this call? After this, is not Martynov's allegation, that Iskra was one-sided because it did not sufficiently "call for" the struggle for demands "promising palpable results," sheer philistinism?
Our Economists, including Rabocheye Dyelo, were successful because they disguised themselves as uneducated workers. But the working-class Social-Democrat, the working-class revolutionist (and their number is growing) will indignantly reject all this talk about fighting for demands "promising palpable results," etc., because he will understand that this is only a variation of the old song about adding a kopeck to the ruble. These working-class revolutionaries will say to their counsellors of the Rabochaya Mysl and Rabocheye Dyelo: You are wasting your time, gentlemen; you are interfering with excessive zeal in a job that we can manage ourselves, and you are neglecting your own duties. It is silly of you to say that the ​Social-Democrats's task is to give the economic struggle itself a political character, for that is only the beginning, it is not the main task that Social-Democrats must fulfil. All over the world, including Russia, the police themselves often give the economic struggle a political character, and the workers are beginning to understand whom the government supports.
The "economic struggle between the workers and the employers and the government," about which you make as much fuss as if you had made a new discovery, is being carried on in all parts of Russia, even the most remote, by the workers themselves who have heard about strikes, but who have heard almost nothing about Socialism. The "activity" you want to stimulate among us workers by advancing concrete demands promising palpable results, we are already displaying and in our every-day, petty trade-union work, we put forward concrete demands, very often without any assistance from the intellectuals whatever. But such activity is not enough for us; we are not children to be fed on the sops of "economic" politics alone; we want to know everything that everybody else knows, we want to learn the details of all aspects of political life and to take part actively in every political event. In order that we may do this, the intellectuals must talk to us less on what we already know, and tell us more about what we do not know and what we ​can never learn from our factory and "economic" experience, that is, you must give us political knowledge. You intellectuals can acquire this knowledge, and it is your duty to bring us that knowledge in a hundred and a thousand times greater measure than have done up till now; and you must bring us this knowledge, not only in the form of arguments, pamphlets and articles which sometimes—excuse my frankness!—are very dull, but in the form of live exposures of what our government and our governing classes are doing at this very moment in all spheres of life. Fulfil this duty with greater zeal, and talk less about "increasing the activity of the masses of the workers"! We are far more active than you think, and we are quite able to support by open street fighting demands that do not even promise any "palpable results" whatever! You cannot "increase" our activity, because you yourselves are not sufficiently active. Be less subservient to spontaneity, and think more about increasing your own activity, gentlemen!
D. What is There in Common Between Economism and Terrorism?
In the last footnote we quoted the opinion of an Economist and of a non-Social-Democratic terrorist who, by chance, proved to be in agreement with him. Speaking generally, however, between the two there is not an accidental, but a necessary mutual connection, ​about which we shall have to speak farther on in connection with the question of training the masses in revolutionary activity. The Economists and the modern terrorists spring from. a common root, namely, subservience to spontaneity, which we dealt with in a previous chapter as a general phenomenon, and which we shall now examine in relation to its effect upon political activity and the political struggle·. At first sight, our assertion may appear paradoxical, for the difference between these two appears to be so enormous: One stresses the "drab every-day struggle" and the other calls for the most self-sacrificing struggle of individuals. But this is not a paradox. The Economists and terrorists mere;y bow to different poles of spontaneity: The Economists bow to the spontaneity of the "pure and simple" labour movement while the terrorists bow to the spontaneity of the passionate indignation of the intellectuals, who are either incapable of linking up the revolutionary struggle with the labour movement, or lack the opportunity to do so. It is very difficult indeed for those who have lost their belief, or who have never believed, that this was possible, to find some other outlet for their indignation and revolutionary energy than terror. Thus, both the forms of subservience to spontaneity we have mentioned are nothing more nor less than a beginning in the carrying out of the notorious Credo programme. Let the workers carry on their "economic struggle against the employers and the government" (we apologise to the author of Credo for expressing his views in Martynov's words! But we think we have the right to do so because even the Credo says that in the economic struggle the Workers "come up against the political régime"), and let the intellectuals conduct the political struggle by their own efforts—with the aid of terror, of course! This is an absolutely logical and inevitable conclusion which must be insisted upon—even though those who are beginning to carry out this programme did not themselves realise that it is inevitable. Political activity has its logic quite apart from the consciousness of those who, with the best intentions, call either for terror, or for giving the economic struggle itself a political character. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and, in this case, good intentions cannot save one from being spontaneously drawn "along the line of least resistance," along the line of the purely bourgeois Credo programme. Surely it is not an accident that many Russian liberals—avowed liberals and liberals ​who wear the mask of Marxism—wholeheartedly sympathise with terror, and strive to foster the spirit of terrorism that is running so high at the present time.
The formation of the Svoboda Revolutionary Socialist group—which was formed with the object of giving all possible assistance to the labour movement, but which included in its programme terror, and emancipation, so to speak, from Social-Democracy—this fact once again confirmed the remarkable penetration of P. B. Axelrod who literally foretold these results of Social-Democratic wavering as far back as the end of 1897 [Modern Tasks and Modern Tactics], when he outlined his remarkable "two prospects." All the subsequent disputes and disagreements among Russian Social-Democrats are contained, like a plant in the seed, in these prospects.
From this point of view it will he clear that Rabocheye Dyelo, being unable to withstand the spontaneity of Economism, has been unable also to withstand the spontaneity of terrorism. It would be interesting to note here the specific arguments that Svoboda advanced in defence of terrorism. It "completely denies" the deterrent rôle of terrorism [The Regeneration of Revolutionism, p. 64], but instead stresses its "excitative significance." This is characteristic, firstly, as representing one of the stages of the break-up and decay of the traditional (pre-Social-Democratic) cycle of ideas which insisted upon terrorism. To admit now that the government cannot be "terrified," and therefore disrupted, by terror, is tantamount to condemning terror as a system of struggle, as a sphere of activity sanctioned by the programme. Secondly, it is still more characteristic as an example of the failure to understand our immediate task of "training ​the masses in revolutionary activity." Svoboda advocates terror as a means of "exciting" the labour movement, and of giving it a "strong impetus." It is difficult to imagine an argument that disproves itself more than this one does! Are there not enough outrages committed in Russian life that a special "stimulant" has to be invented? On the other hand, is it not obvious that those who are not, and cannot be, roused to excitement even by Russian tyranny will stand by "twiddling their thumbs" even while a handful of terrorists are engaged in single combat with the government? The fact is, however, that the masses of the workers are roused to a high pitch of excitement by the outrages committed in Russian life, but we are unable to collect, if one may put it that way, and concentrate all these drops and streamlets of popular excitement that are called forth by the conditions of Russian life to a far larger extent than we imagine, but which it is precisely necessary to combine into a single gigantic flood. And this we must do. That this task can he accomplished is irrefutably proved by the enormous growth of the labour movement, and the greed with which the workers devour political literature, to which we have already referred above. Calls for terror, and calls to give the economic struggle itself a political character are merely two different forms of evading the most pressing duty that now rests upon Russian revolutionaries, namely, to organise an all-sided political agitation. Svoboda desires to substitute terror for agitation, although it openly admits that "as soon as intensified and strenuous agitation is commenced among the masses its excitative function will he finished." [The Regeneration of Revolutionism, p. 68.] This proves precisely that both the terrorists and the Economists underestimate the revolutionary activity of the masses, in spite of the striking evidence of the events that took place in the spring, and whereas one goes out in search of artificial "stimulants" the other talks about "concrete demands." But both fail to devote sufficient attention to the development of their own activity in political agitation and organisation of political exposures. And no other work can serve as a substitute for this work, either at the present time, or at any other time.
E. The Working Class as Champion of Democracy
We have seen that the organisation of wide political agitation, and consequently, of all-sided political exposures are an absolutely necessary and paramount task of activity, that is, if that activity is ​to be truly Social-Democratic. We arrived at this conclusion solely on the grounds of the pressing needs of the working class for political knowledge and political training. But this ground by itself is too narrow for the presentation of the question, for it ignores the general democratic tasks of Social-Democracy as a whole, and of modern, Russian Social-Democracy in particular. In order to explain the situation more concretely we shall approach the subject from an aspect that is "nearer" to the Economist, namely, from the practical aspect. "Every one agrees" that it is necessary to develop the political consciousness of the working class. But the question arises, How is that to be done? What must be done to bring this about? The economic struggle merely brings the workers "up against" questions concerning the attitude of the government towards the working class. Consequently, however much we may try to "give to the economic struggle itself a political character" we shall never be able to develop the political consciousness of the workers (to the degree of Social-Democratic consciousness) by confining ourselves to the economic struggle, for the limits of this task are too narrow. The Martynov formula has some value for us, not because it illustrates Martynov's abilities to confuse things, but because it strikingly expresses the fundamental error that all the Economists commit, namely, their conviction that it is possible to develop the class political consciousness of the workers from within, that is to say, exclusively, or at least mainly, by means of the economic struggle. Such a view is radical! y wrong. Piqued by our opposition to them, the Economists refuse to ponder deeply over the origins of these disagreements, with the result that we absolutely fail to understand each other. It is as if we spoke in different tongues.
The workers can acquire class political consciousness only from without, that is, only outside of the economic struggle, outside of the sphere of relations between workers and employers. The sphere from which alone it is possible to obtain this knowledge is the sphere of relationships between all classes and the state and the government—the sphere of the inter-relations between all classes. For that reason, the reply to the question: What must be done in order that the workers may acquire political knowledge? cannot be merely the one which, in the majority of cases, the practical workers, especially those who are inclined towards Economism, usually content themselves with, i. e., "go among the workers." To bring ​political knowledge to the workers the Social-Democrats must go among all classes of the population, must despatch units of their army in all directions.
We deliberately select this awkward formula, we deliberately express ourselves in a simple, forcible way, not because we desire to indulge in paradoxes, but in order to "stimulate" the Economists to take up their tasks which they unpardonably ignore, to make them understand the difference between trade-union and Social-Democratic politics, which they refuse to understand. Therefore, we beg the reader not to get excited, but to hear us patiently to the end.
Take the type of Social-Democratic circle that has been most widespread during the past few years, and examine its work. It has "contact with the workers," it issues leaflets—in which abuses in the factories, the government's partiality towards the capitalists, and the tyranny of the police are strongly condemned—and rests content with this. At meetings of workers, there are either no discussions or they do not extend beyond such subjects. Lectures and discussions on the history of the revolutionary movement, on questions of the home and foreign policy of our government, on questions of the economic evolution of Russia and of Europe, and the position of the various classes in modern society, etc., are extremely rare. Of systematically acquiring and extending contact with other classes of society, no one even dreams. The ideal leader, as the majority of the members of such circles picture him, is something more in the nature of a trade-union secretary than a Socialist political leader. Any trade-union secretary, an English one, for instance, helps the workers to conduct the economic struggle, helps to expose factory abuses, explains the injustice of the laws and of measures which hamper the freedom of strikes and the freedom to picket, to warn all and sundry that a strike is proceeding at a certain factory, explains the partiality of arbitration courts which are in the hands of the bourgeois classes, etc., etc. In a word, every trade-union secretary conducts and helps to conduct "the economic struggle against the employers and the government." It cannot be too strongly insisted that this is not enough to constitute Social-Democracy. The Social-Democrat's ideal should not be a trade-union secretary but a tribune of the people, able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it takes place, no matter what stratum or class of the people it affects; he must be able to group all these manifestations into a single picture of ​police violence and capitalist exploitation; he must be able to take advantage of every petty event in order to explain his Socialistic convictions and his Social-Democratic demands to all, in order to explain to all and every one the world historical significance of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat.
Compare, for example, a leader like Robert Knight (the celebrated secretary and -leader of the Boiler Makers Society, one of the most powerful trade unions in England) with Wilhelm Liebknecht, and then take the contrasts that Martynov draws in his controversy with Iskra. You will see—I am running through Martynov's article—that Robert Knight engaged more in "calling the masses to certain concrete actions" [p. 39] while Liebknecht engaged more in "the revolutionary explanation of the whole of modern society, or various manifestations of it" [pp. 38-39]; that Robert Knight "formulated the immediate demands of the proletariat and pointed to the manner in which they can be achieved" [p. 41], whereas Wilhelm. Liebknecht, while doing this "simultaneously guided the activities of various opposition strata," "dictated to them a positive programme of action" [p. 41]; that it was precisely Robert Knight who strove "as far as possible to give to the economic struggle itself a political character" [p. 42] and was excellently able submit to the government concrete demands promising certain palpable results" [p. 43], while Liebknecht engaged more in "one-sided exposures" [p. 40]; that Robert Knight attached more significance to the "forward march of the drab, every-day struggle" [p. 61], while Liebknecht engaged more in the "propaganda of brilliant and finished ideas" [p. 61]; that Liebknecht converted the paper he was directing into "an organ of revolutionary opposition exposing the present system and particularly the political conditions which came into conflict with the interests of the most varied strata of the population" [p. 63], whereas Robert Knight "worked for the cause of labour in close organic contact with the proletarian struggle" [p. 63]—if by "close and organic contact" is meant the subservience to spontaneity which we studied above from the example of Krichevsky and Martynov—and "restricted the sphere of his influence," convinced, of course, as is Martynov, that "by that he intensified that influence" [p. 63]. In a word, you will see ​that de facto, Martynov reduces Social-Democracy to the level of trade unionism, and he does this, of course, not because he does not desire the good of Social-Democracy, but simply because he was a little too much in a hurry to make Plekhanov more profound, instead of taking the trouble to understand him.
Let us return, however, to the elucidation of our thesis. We said that a Social-Democrat, if he really believes it is necessary to develop the political consciousness of the proletariat, must "go among all classes of the people." This gives rise to the questions: How is this to be done? Have we enough forces to do this? Is there a base for such work among all the other classes? Will this not mean a retreat, or lead to a retreat from the class point-of-view? We shall deal with these questions.
We must "go among all classes of the people" as theoreticians, as propagandists, as agitators, and as organisers. No one doubts that the theoretical work of Social-Democrats should be directed towards studying all the features of the social and political position of the various classes. But extremely little is done in this direction compared with the work that is done in studying the features of factory life. In the committees and circles, you will meet men who are immersed say in the study of some special branch of the metal industry, but you will hardly ever find members of organisations (obliged, as often happens, for some reason or other to give up practical work) especially engaged in the collection of material concerning some pressing question of social and political life which could serve as a means for conducting Social-Democratic work among other strata of the population. In speaking of the lack of training of the majority of present-day leaders of the labour movement, we cannot refrain from mentioning the point about training in this connection also, for it is also bound up with the "economic" conception of "close organic contact with the proletarian struggle." The Principal thing, of course, is propaganda and agitation among all strata of the people. The Western-European Social-Democrats find their work in this field facilitated by the calling of public meetings, to which all are free to go, and by the parliament, in which they speak to the representatives of all classes. We have neither a parliament, nor the freedom to call meetings, nevertheless we are able to arrange meetings of workers who desire to listen to a Social-Democrat. We must also find ways and means of calling meetings of representatives of all and every other class of the ​population that desire to listen to a Democrat; for he who forgets that "the Communists support every revolutionary movement," that we are obliged for that reason to emphasize general democratic tasks before the whole people, without for a moment concealing our Socialistic convictions, is not a Social-Democrat. He who forgets his obligation to be in advance of everybody in bringing up, sharpening and solving every general democratic question, is not a Social-Democrat.
"But everybody agrees with this!"—the impatient reader will exclaim—and the new instructions given by the last congress of the League to the Editorial Board of Rabocheye Dyelo says: "All events of social and political life that affect the proletariat either directly as a special class or as the vanguard of all the revolutionary forces in the struggle for freedom should serve as subjects for political propaganda and agitation." [Two Congresses, p. 17, our italics.]
Yes, these are very true and very good words and we would he satisfied if Rabocheye Dyelo understood them, and if it refrained from saying in the next breath things that are the very opposite to them. Surely, it is not sufficient to call ourselves the "vanguard," it is necessary to act like one; we must act in such a way that all the other units of the army shall see us, and be obliged to admit that we are the vanguard. And we ask the reader: Are the representatives of the other "units" such fools as to take merely our word for it when we say that we are the "vanguard"?
Just picture to yourselves the following: A Social-Democrat comes into the "unit" of Russian educated radicals, or liberal constitutionalists, and declares to them: We are the vanguard; "at the present time we are confronted by the problem of—how to give as far as possible to the economic struggle itself a political character." The radical, or constitutionalist, if he is at all intelligent (and there are many intelligent men among Russian radicals and constitutionalists), would only laugh at such a speech, and would say (to himself, of course, for in the majority of cases they are experienced diplomats):
Well, your "vanguard" must be composed of simpletons! It does not even understand that it is our task, the task of the progressive representatives of bourgeois democracy to give to the economic struggle of the workers a political character. Why, we too, like all the West-European bourgeoisie, are striving to draw the workers into politics, but only into trade-union politics and not into Social-Democratic politics. Trade-union politics are precisely bourgeois politics of the working class and the "vanguard's" formulation of its tasks is the formula for trade-union politics. Let them call ​themselves "Social-Democrats if they like, I am not a child to get excited over a label. But see that they do not fall under tthe influence of those pernicious orthodox doctrinaires, let them allow "freedom of criticism" to those who unconsciously are driving Social-Democracy into trade-unionist channels.
And the light chuckle of our constitutionalist will turn into Homeric laughter when he learns that the Social-Democrats who talk about Social-Democracy being the vanguard at the present time, when spontaneity completely dominates our movement, fears nothing so much as "belittling the spontaneous elements," as "belittling the significance of the forward march of the drab, every-day struggle, as compared with the propaganda of brilliant and finished ideas," etc., etc.! A "vanguard," which fears that consciousness will outstrip spontaneity, which fears to put forward a bold "plan" that would compel universal recognition even among those who think differently from us—Are they not confusing the word "vanguard" with the word "rearguard"?
Ponder over the following piece of Martynov reasoning. On page 42 he says that Iskra's tactics of exposing abuses are one-sided, that "however much we may spread distrust and hatred towards the government, we shall not achieve our aim until we have succeeded in developing sufficiently active social energy for its overthrow." This, it may be said in parenthesis, is the concern we have already met with for increasing the activity of the masses, while at the same time striving to restrict its activity. This is not the point we are now discussing, however. Martynov, therefore, speaks of revolutionary energy ("for its overthrow"). But what conclusion does he arrive at? As in ordinary times, various social strata inevitably march separate!y, therefore,
In view of that, it is clear that we Social-Democrats cannot simultaneously guide the activities of various opposition strata, cannot dictate to them a positive programme of action, we cannot point out to them in what manner they can fight for their daily interests. … The liberal strata will themselves take care of the active struggle for their immediate interests and this struggle will bring them up against our political régime.
Thus, having commenced by speaking about revolutionary energy—of the active struggle for the overthrow of the autocracy, Martynov immediately turned towards trade-union energy and active struggle for immediate interests! It goes without saying that we cannot guide the struggle of the students, liberals, etc., for their "immediate interests," but this is not the point we were arguing ​about, most worthy Economists! The point we were discussing is the possible and necessary participation of various social strata in the overthrow of the autocracy; not only are we able, but it is our duty to guide these "activities, of the various opposition strata" if we desire to be a "vanguard." Not only will the students and our liberals, etc., take care of the struggle that will bring them against our political régime; the police and the officials of the autocratic government will see to this more than any one. But, if "we" desire to be advanced democrats, we must make it our business to stimulate in the minds of those who are dissatisfied only with university or only with Zemstvo, etc., conditions the idea that the whole political system is worthless. We must take upon ourselves the task of organising a universal political struggle under the leadership of our party in such a manner as to obtain the support of all opposition strata for the struggle and for our party. We must train our Social-Democratic practical workers to become political leaders, able to guide all the manifestations of this universal struggle, able at the right time to "dictate a positive programme of action" for the discontented students, for the discontented Zemstvo, for the discontented religious sects, for the offended elementary school teachers, etc., etc. For that reason, Martynov's assertion "with regard to these, we can come forward merely in the negative rôle of exposers of abuses … we can only dissipate the hopes they have in various government commissions"—is absolutely wrong (our italics). By saying this Martynov shows that he absolutely fails to understand the rôle the revolutionary "vanguard" must really play. If the reader bears this in mind, the real sense of the following concluding remarks by Martynov will be clear to him:
Iskra is the organ of the revolutionary opposition which exposes the abuses of our system—particularly political abuses, in so far as they affect the interests of the most diverse classes of the population. We, however, are working and will continue to work for the cause of labour in close organic contact with the proletarian struggle. By restricting the sphere of our influence, we at the same time intensify that influence.
The true sense of this conclusion is as follows: Iskra desires to elevate working-class trade-union politics (to which, owing to misunderstanding, lack of training. or by conviction our practical workers frequently confine themselves) to Social-Democratic politics, whereas Rabocheye Dyelo desires to degrade Social-Democratic politics to trade-union politics. And while doing this, they assure the ​world that these two positions are "quite compatible in the common cause." O! sancta simplicitas!
To proceed. Have we sufficient forces to he able to direct our propaganda and agitation among all classes of the population? Of course we have. Our Economists are frequently inclined to deny this. They lose sight of the gigantic progress our movement has made from (approximately) 1894 to 1901. Like real Khvostists, they frequently live in the distant past, in the period of the beginning of the movement. At that time, indeed, we had astonishingly few forces, and it was perfectly natural and legitimate then to resolve to go exclusively among the workers, and severely condemn any deviation from this. The whole task then was to consolidate our position in the working class. At the present time, however, gigantic forces have been attracted to the movement; the best representatives of the young generation of the educated classes are coming over to us; everywhere, and in all provinces, there are people who have taken part in the movement in the past, who desire to do so now, who are striving towards Social-Democracy, but who are obliged to sit idle because we cannot employ them (in 1894 you could count the Social-Democrats on your fingers). One of the principal political and organisational shortcomings of our movement is that we are unable to utilise all these forces, and give them appropriate work (we shall deal with this in detail in the next chapter). The overwhelming majority of these forces entirely lack the opportunity for "going to the workers," so there are no grounds for fearing that we shall deflect forces from our main cause. And in order to be able to provide the workers with real, universal, and live political knowledge, we must have "our own men," Social-Democrats, everywhere, among all social strata, and in all positions from which we can learn the inner springs of our state mechanism. Such men are required for propaganda and agitation, but in a still larger measure for organisation.
Is there scope for activity among all classes of the population? Those who fail to see this also lag intellectually behind the spontaneous awakening of the masses. The labour movement has aroused and is continuing to arouse discontent in some, hopes for support for the opposition in others, and the consciousness of the intolerableness and inevitable downfall of autocracy in still others. Would be "politicians" and Social-Democrats only in name (as very often happens), if we failed to realise that our task is to ​utilise every manifestation of discontent, and to collect and utilise every grain of even rudimentary protest. This is quite apart from the fact that many millions of the peasantry, handicraftsmen, petty artisans, etc., always listen eagerly to the preachings of any Social-Democrat who is at all intelligent. Is there a single class of the population in which no individuals, groups or circles are to be found who are discontented with the state of tyranny, and therefore accessible to the propaganda of Social-Democrats as the spokesmen of the most pressing general democratic needs? To those who desire to have a clear idea of what the political agitation of a Social-Democrat among all classes and strata of the population should be like, we would point to political exposures in the broad sense of the word as the principal (but of course not the sole) form of agitation.
We must "arouse in every section of the population that is at all enlightened a passion for political exposure," I wrote in my article "Where to Begin" (Iskra, No. 4, May, 1901), with which I shall deal in greater detail later.
"We must not allow ourselves to be discouraged by the fact that the voice of political exposure is still feeble, rare and timid. This is not because of a general submission to political despotism, but because those who are able and ready to expose have no tribune from which to speak, because there is no audience to listen eagerly to and approve of what the orators say, and because the latter can nowhere perceive among the people forces to whom it would be worth while directing their complaint against the 'omnipotent' Russian government. … We are now in a position to set up a tribune for the national exposure of the tsarist government, and it is our duty to do so. That tribune must be a Social-Democratic paper. …"
The ideal audience for these political exposures is the working class, which is first and foremost in need of universal and live political knowledge, which is most capable of converting this knowledge into active struggle, even if it did not promise "palpable results." The only platform from which public exposures can be made is an All-Russian newspaper. "Unless we have a political organ, a movement deserving the name of political is inconceivable in modern Europe." In this connection Russia must undoubtedly be included in modern Europe. The press has long ago become a power in our country, otherwise the government would not spend tens of thousands of rubles to bribe it, and to subsidise the Katkovs, and Meshcherskys. And it is no novelty in autocratic Russia for the underground press to break through the wall of censorship and ​compel the legal and conservative press to speak openly of it. This was the case in the seventies and even in the fifties. How much broader and deeper are now the strata of the people willing to read the illegal underground press, and to learn from it "how to live and how to die," to use the expression of the worker who sent a letter to Iskra [No. 7]. Political exposures are as much a declaration of war against the government as economic exposures are a declaration of war against the employers. And the wider and more powerful this campaign of exposure will be, the more numerous and determined the social class which has declared war in order to commence the war will be, the greater will be the moral significance of this declaration of war. Hence, political exposures in themselves serve as a powerful instrument for disintegrating the system we oppose, the means for diverting from the enemy his casual or temporary allies, the means for spreading enmity and distrust among those who permanently share power with the autocracy.
Only a party that will organise real all-national exposures can become the vanguard of the revolutionary forces in our time. The word "all-national" has a very profound meaning. The overwhelming majority of the non-working class exposers (and in order to become the vanguard, we must attract other classes) are sober politicians and cool business men. They know perfectly well how dangerous it is to "complain" even against a minor official, let alone against the "omnipotent" Russian government. And they will come to us with their complaints only when they see that these complaints really have effect, and when they see that we represent a political force. In order to become this political force in the eyes of outsiders, much persistent and stubborn work is required to increase our own consciousness, initiative and energy. For this, it is not sufficient to stick the label "vanguard" on "rearguard" theory and practice.
But if we have to undertake the organisation of the real all-national exposure of the government, then in what way will the class character of our movement be expressed?—the over-zealous advocates of "close organic contact with the proletarian struggle" will ask us. The reply is: In that we Social-Democrats will organise these public exposures; in that all the questions that are brought up by the agitation will be explained in the spirit of Social-Democracy, without any deliberate or unconscious distortions of Marxism; in the fac that the party will carry on this universal political agitation, ​uniting into one inseparable whole the pressure upon the government in the name of the whole people, the revolutionary training the proletariat—while preserving its political independence—the guidance of the economic struggle of the working class, the utilisation of all its spontaneous conflicts with its exploiters, which rouse and bring into our camp increasing numbers of the proletariat!
But one of the characteristic features of Economism is its failure to understand this connection. More than that it fails to understand the identity between the most pressing needs of the proletariat (an all-sided political education through the medium of political agitation and political exposures), and the need for a general democratic movement. This lack of understanding is not only expressed in "Martynovist" phrases, but also in the alleged class point-of-view which is identical in thought with these phrases. The following, for example, is how the authors of the Econ-Letter in No. 12 of Iskra expressed themselves.
This fundamental drawback [overestimating ideology] is the cause of Iskra's inconsistency in regard to the question of the relations between Social-Democrats and various social classes and tendencies. By a process of theoretical reasoning [and not by "the growth of party tasks which grow together with the party"], Iskra arrived at the conclusion that it was necessary immediately to take up the struggle against absolutism, but in all probability sensing the difficulty of this task for the workers in the present state of affairs [not only sensing, but knowing perfectly well that this problem will seem less difficult to the workers than to those Economist intellectuals who are concerned about little children, for the workers are prepared to fight even for demands which, to use the language of the never-to-be-forgotten Martynov, do not "promise palpable results"] and lacking the patience to wait until the working class has accumulated sufficient forces for this struggle, Iskra begins to seek for allies in the ranks of the liberals and intellectuals.
Yes, yes, we have indeed lost all "patience" to "wait" for the blessed time that has long been promised us by the "conciliators," when the Economists will stop throwing the blame for their own backwardness upon the workers, and stop justifying their own lack of energy by the alleged lack of energy of the workers. We ask our Economists: What does "the workers accumulating forces for the ​struggle" mean? Is it not evident that it means the political training of the workers by revealing to them all the aspects of our despicable autocracy? And is it not clear that precisely for this work we need "allies in the ranks of the liberals and intelligentsia," who are prepared to join us in the exposure of the political attack on the Zemstvo, on the teachers, on the statisticians, on the students, etc.? Is this "cunning mechanism" so difficult to understand after all? Did not P. B. Axelrod repeat to you over and over again since 1897: "The problem of the Russian Social-Democrats acquiring direct and indirect allies from among the non-proletarian classes will be solved principally by the character of the propagandist activities conducted among the proletariat itself?" And Martynov and the other Economists continue to image that the workers must at first accumulate forces (for trade-union politics) in the economic struggle with the employers and the government, and then "go over [we suppose from trade-union "training for activity"] to Social-Democratic activity."
… In its quest, continue the Economists, Iskra "not infrequently departs from the class point-of-view, obscures class antagonisms and puts into the forefront the general discontent prevailing against the government, notwithstanding the fact that the causes and the degree of his discontent vary very considerably among the 'allies.' Such, for example, is Iskra's attitude towards the Zemstvo. …"
Iskra, it is alleged, promises those who are discontented with the government's doles to the nobility the aid of the working class, but does not say a word about the class differences among these strata of the people. If the reader will turn to the series of articles "The autocracy and the Zemstvo" [Nos. 2 and 4 of Iskra] to which, in all probability, the author of the letter refers, he will find that these articles deal with the attitude of the government towards the "mild agitation of the feudal-bureaucratic Zemstvo," and towards the "independent activity of even the propertied classes." In these articles it is stated that the workers cannot look on indifferently while government is carrying on a fight against the Zemstvo, and the are called upon to give up making soft speeches, but to speak firmly and resolutely when revolutionary Social-Democracy confronts the government in all its strength. What there is in this that ​the authors of the letter do not agree with is not clear. Do they think that the workers will "not understand" the phrases "propertied classes" and "feudal-bureaucratic Zemstvo"? Do they think that stimulating the Zemstvo to abandon soft speeches and to speak firmly and resolutely is "over-estimating ideology"? Do they imagine that the workers can accumulate "forces" for the fight against absolutism if they know nothing about the attitude of absolutism towards Zemstvo? All this remains unknown. One thing alone is clear and that is that the authors of the letter have a very vague idea of what the political tasks of Social-Democracy are. This is revealed still more clearly by their remark: "Such also is Iskra's attitude towards the student movements" (i. e., also "obscures class antagonism"). Instead of calling upon the workers to declare by means of public demonstrations that the real centre of unbridled violence and outrage is not the students hut the Russian government [Iskra, No. 2], we ought, no doubt, to have inserted arguments in the spirit of Rabochaya Mysl. And such ideas were expressed by Social-Democrats in the autumn of 1901, after the events of February and March, on the eve of a fresh student up-grade movement, which revealed that even in this sphere the "spontaneous" protest against autocracy is "outstripping" the conscious Social-Democratic leadership of the movement. The spontaneous striving of the workers to defend the students, who were being beaten up by the police and the Cossacks, is outstripping the conscious activity of the Social-Democratic organisations!
"And yet in other articles," continue the authors of the letter, "Iskra 'condemns' all 'compromises,' and 'defends,' for examples, the intolerant conduct of the Guesdists." We would advise those who so conceitedly and frivolously declare—usually in connection with the disagreements existing among the contemporary Social-Democrats—that the disagreements are not essential and would not justify a split, to ponder very deeply over these words. Is it possible for those who say that we have done astonishingly little to explain the hostility of the autocracy towards the various classes, and to inform the workers of the opposition of the various strata of the population towards autocracy, to work successfully in one organisation with those who say that such work is "compromise"—evidently compromise with the theory of the "economic struggle against the employers and the government"?
​We urged the necessity of introducing the class struggle in the rural districts on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the emancipation of the peasantry (No. 3, and of the irreconcilability between the local government bodies and the autocracy in connection with Witte's secret memorandum (No. 4). We attacked the feudal landlords and the government which served the latter on the occasion of the passing of the law (No. 8), and welcomed the secret Zemstvo congress that was held. We urged the Zemstvo to stop making degrading petitions [No. 8], and to come out in the open to fight. We encouraged the students, who began to understand the necessity for the political struggle and began to take up that struggle [No. 3], and at the same time, we lashed out at the "barbarous lack of understanding" revealed by the adherents of the "purely student" movement, who called upon the students to abstain from taking part in the street demonstrations (No. 3, in connection with the manifesto issued by the Executive Committee of the Moscow students on February 25). We exposed the "senseless dreams" and the "lying hypocrisy" of the cunning liberals of Rossiya [No. 5] and at the same time we commented on the savage acts of the government's torture chambers where "peaceful writers, aged professors, and scientists and the liberal Zemstvo were cruelly dealt with" [No. 5, "The Police Raid on Literature"]. We exposed the real significance of the programme of the "concern of the government for the welfare of the workers," and welcomed the "valuable admission" that "it is better by granting reforms from above to forestall the demand for such reforms from below, than to wait for those demands to be put forward" [No.6]. We encouraged the protests of the statisticians [No. 7], and censured the strikebreaking statisticians [No. 9]. He who sees in these tactics the obscuring of the class consciousness of the proletariat and compromise with liberalism shows that he absolutely fails to understand the true significance of the programme of the Credo and de facto is carrying out that programme, however much he may deny this! Because, by that he is dragging Social-Democracy towards the "economic struggle against the employers and the government" but shies at liberalism, ​abandons the task of actively intervening in every "liberal" question and defining his own Social-Democratic attitude towards such questions.
F. Again "Slanders," Again "Mystifiers"
As the reader will remember, these polite expressions were uttered by Rabocheye Dyelo which in this way answers our charge that it "indirectly prepared the ground for converting the labour movement into an instrument of bourgeois democracy." In its simplicity of heart Rabocheye Dyelo decided that this accusation was nothing more than a polemical sally, as if to say, these malicious doctrinaires can only think of saying unpleasant things about us; now what can be more unpleasant than being an instrument of bourgeois democracy? And so they print in heavy type a "refutation": "Nothing but downright slander" [Two Congresses, p. 30], "mystification" [p. 31] "masquerade" [p. 33]. Like Jupiter, Rabocheye Dyelo (although it has little resemblance to Jupiter) is angry because it is wrong, and proves by its hasty abuse that it is incapable of understanding its opponents' mode of reasoning. And yet with only a little reflection, it would have understood why a subservience to the spontaneity of the mass movement and any degrading of Social-Democratic politics to trade-union politics mean precisely to prepare the ground for converting the labour movement into an instrument of bourgeois democracy. The spontaneous labour movement is able by itself to create (and inevitably will create) only trade unionisrn, and working-class trade-union politics are precisely working-class bourgeois politics. The fact that the working class participates in the political struggle and even in political revolution does not in itself make its politics Social-Democratic politics. Will Rabocheye Dyelo deny that? Will it at last openly and without equivocation explain its position on the urgent questions of the international and of the Russian Social-Democratic movement? Oh no, it never thinks of doing anything of the kind, because it holds fast to the trick, which might be described as telling it in "negatives": "It's not me; it's my horse; I'm not the driver." We are not Economists; Rabochaya Mysl does not stand for Economism; there is no Economism at all ​in Russia. This is a remarkably adroit and "political" trick, which suffers from this little defect, however, that the bodies that practice it are usually dubbed with the nickname: "Anything you wish, sir."
Rabocheye Dyelo imagines that bourgeois democracy in Russia is merely a "phantom" [Two Congresses, p. 32]. Happy people! Like the ostrich, they bury their heads in the sand, and imagine that everything around has disappeared. A number of liberal publicists who month after month proclaimed to the world their triumph over the collapse and even disappearance of Marxism; a number of liberal newspapers (St. Peterburgskiye Vyedomosti, Russkiye Vyedomosti and many others) which encourage the liberals who bring to the workers the Brentano conception of the class struggle and the trade-union conception of politics—the galaxy of critics of Marxism, whose real tendencies were so very well disclosed by the Credo and whose literary products alone circulate freely in Russia—the animation among revolutionary non-Social-Democratic tendencies, particularly after the February and March events—all these, of course, are mere phantoms! Of course, it has nothing at all to do with bourgeois democracy!
Rabocheye Dyelo and the authors of the Economic Letter published in Iskra No. 12, should "ponder over the question as to why the events in the spring excited such animation among the revolutionary non-Social-Democratic tendencies instead of increasing the authority and the prestige of Social-Democracy. The reason was that we failed to cope with our tasks. The masses of the workers proved to be more active than we, we lacked adequately trained revolutionary leaders and organisers aware of the mood prevailing among all the oppositional strata and able to march at the head of the movement, convert the spontaneous demonstration into a political demonstration, broaden its political character, etc. Under such circumstances, our backwardness will inevitably be taken advantage of by the more mobile and more energetic non-Social-​Democratic revolutionists, and the workers, no matter how strenuously and self-sacrificingly they may fight the police and the troops, no matter how revolutionary they may act, will prove to be merely the rearguard of bourgeois democracy, and not the vanguard of Social~Democracy. Take, for example, the German Social-Democrats, whose weak sides alone our Economists desire to emulate. Why is it that not a single political event takes place in Germany without adding to the authority and prestige of Social-Democracy? Because Social-Democracy is always found to be in advance of others in their revolutionary estimation of any event and in their championship of every protest against tyranny. It does not soothe itself by arguments about the economic struggle bringing the workers up against their own lack of rights, and about concrete conditions fatalistically impelling the labour movement on the path revolution. It intervenes in every sphere and in every question of social and political life. In the matter of Wilhelm's refusal to endorse a bourgeois progressive as city mayor (our Economists have not yet managed to convince the Germans that this in fact a compromise with liberalism!); in the question of the law against the publication of "immoral" publications and pictures; in the question of the government's influencing the election of the professors, etc., etc., everywhere Social-Democracy is found to be ahead of all others, rousing political discontent among all classes, rousing the sluggards, pushing on the laggards and providing a wealth of material for the development of the political consciousness of political activity of the proletariat. The result of all this is that even the avowed enemies of Socialism are filled with respect for this advanced political fighter and sometimes an important document from bourgeois and even from bureaucratic and Court circles makes its way by some miraculous means into the editorial office of Vorwaerts.
This, then, is the explanation of the seeming "contradiction" that passes the understanding of Rabocheye Dyelo to such an that it raises its arms and cries: "Masquerade"! Is it not a shocking thing: We, Rabocheye Dyelo, place the mass labour movement as the cornerstone (and printed in heavy type!); we warn all and sundry against belittling the significance of the spontaneous movement; we desire to give the economic struggle itself, itself, itself, a political character; we desire to maintain close and organic contact with the proletarian struggle! And yet we are told that we are ​preparing the ground for converting the labour movement into an instrument of bourgeois democracy! And who says this? People who "compromise" with liberalism, intervene in every "liberal" question (what a gross misunderstanding of the "organic contacts with the proletarian struggle"!) , who devote so much attention to the students and even (Oh horror!) to the Zemstvoists! People who wish to devote a greater (compared with the Economists) percentage of their efforts to activity among non-proletarian classes of the population! Is not this a "masquerade"?
Poor Rabocheye Dyelo! Will it ever find the solution of this complicated puzzle?
* ↑ In order to avoid misunderstanding we would state, that throughout this pamphlet, by economic struggle, we mean (in accordance with the meaning of the term as it has become accepted amongst us the "practical economic struggle" which Engels, in the passage we quoted above, described as "resistance to capitalism," and which in free countries is known as the trade-union struggle.
* ↑ In the present chapter, we deal only with the political struggle; i. e., whether it is to be understood in its broader or narrower sense. Therefore. we refer only in passing, merely to point out a curiosity, to the accusation that Rabocheye Dyelo hurls against Iskra of being "too restrained" in regard to the economic struggle [Two Congresses, p. 27, rehashed by Martynov in his pamphlet: Social-Democracy and the Working Class]. If those who make this accusation counted up in terms of hundredweights or reams, as they are so fond of doing, what has been said about the economic struggle in the in the industrial column of Iskra in one year's issue, and compared this with the in industrial columns of Rabocheye Dyelo and Rabochaya Mysl taken together, they would see that they lag very much behind even in this respect. Apparently, the consciousness of this simple truth compels them to resort to arguments which clearly reveal their confusion. "Iskra," they write, "willy-nilly [!] is compelled [!] to take note of the imperative demands of life and to at least [!!] correspondence about the labour movement" [Two Congresses, p. 27]. Now this is really a crushing argument!
* ↑ We say "in general," advisedly, because Rabocheye Dyelo speaks general principles and of the general tasks of the whole party. Undoubtedly, cases occur in practice, when politics must follow economics, but only Economists can say a thing like that in a resolution that was intended apply to the whole of Russia. Cases do occur when it is possible "right from the beginning," to carry on political agitation "exclusively on an economic basis"; and yet Rabocheye Dyelo went so far as to say that "there no need for this whatever" [Two Congresses, p. 11]. In the next chapter, we shall show that the tactics of the "politicians" and revolutionaries not only do not ignore the trade-union tasks of Social-Democracy, but that, on the contrary, they alone can secure the consistent fulfilment of these tasks.
* ↑ These are exactly the expressions used in Two Congresses, pp. 28, 30, 31, and 32.
* ↑ Two Congresses, p. 32.
* ↑ Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, p. 60. This is the Martynov variation of the application to the present chaotic state of our movement of the thesis: "A step forward of the real movement is more important than a dozen programmes," to which we have already referred above. As a matter of fact, this merely a translation into Russian of the notorious Bernsteinist phrase: "The movement is everything, the ultimate aim is nothing."
* ↑ P. 43. "Of course, when we advise the workers to present certain economic demands to the government, we do so because in the economic sphere, the autocratic government is compelled to agree to make certain concessions."
* ↑ Rabochaya Mysl, Special Supplement, p. 14.
* ↑ Kholmogory Lomonosov (1711–1765), the inventive genius and the recognised father of Russian science.—Ed.
* ↑ This refers to the big street demonstrations which commenced in the spring of 1901.
* ↑ See The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 70.—Ed.
* ↑ The demand "to give the economic struggle itself a political character" most strikingly expresses subservience to spontaneity in the sphere of political activity. Very often the economic struggle spontaneously assumes a political character, that is to say without the injection of the "revolutionary bacilli of be Intelligentsia," without the intervention of the class-conscious Social-Democrats. For example, the economic struggle of the British workers assumed a political character without the intervention of the Socialists. The tasks of the Social-Democrats, however, are not exhausted by political agitation on the economic field; their task is to convert trade-union politics into the Social-Democratic political struggle, to utilise the flashes of political consciousness which gleam in the minds of the workers during their economic struggles for the purpose of raising them to the level of Social-Democratic political consciousness. The Martynovs, however, instead of raising and stimulating the spontaneously awakening political consciousness of the workers, bow down before spontaneity and repeat over and over again, until one is sick and tired of hearing it, that the economic struggle "stimulates" in the workers' minds thoughts about their own lack of political rights. It is unfortunate, gentlemen, that the spontaneously awakening trade-union political consciousness does not "stimulate" in your minds thoughts about your Social-Democratic tasks!
* ↑ To prove that this imaginary speech of a worker to an Economist is based on fact, we shall call two witnesses who undoubtedly have direct knowledge of the labour movement, and who can he at least suspected of being partial towards us "doctrinaires," for one witness is an Economist (who regards even Rabocheye Dyelo as a political organ!) , and the other is a terrorist. The first witness is the author of a remarkably truthful and lively article entitled "The St. Petersburg Labour Movement and the Practical Tasks of Social-Democracy," published in Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 6. He divided the workers into the following categories: 1. Conscious revolutionaries; 2. Intermediate stratum; and 3. The Masses. Now the intermediate stratum he says "is often more interested in questions of political life than in its own immediate economic interests, the connection between which and the general social conditions it has long understood. …" Rabochaya Mysl "is sharply criticised. It keeps on repeating the same thing over and over again, thing we have long known, read long ago." "Nothing in the political review again!" [pp. 30–31]. But even the third stratum—the younger and more sensitive section of the workers, less corrupted by the vodka shop and the church, that has hardly ever had the opportunity of reading political literature, in a rambling way discuss political events and ponder deeply over the fragmentary news they get about the student riots, etc. The second witness, the terrorist, writes as follows: "… They read over once or twice the petty details of factory life in other towns, not their own, and then they read no more. … 'Awfully dull,' they say. … To say nothing in a workers' paper about the government … signifies that the workers are regarded as being little children. … The workers are not babies." [Svoboda, published by the Revolutionary Socialist group, pp. 67–70.]
* ↑ Martynov "conceives of another, more realistic [?] dilemma" [Social-Democracy and the Working Class, p. 19]: "Either Social-Democracy undertakes the direct leadership of the economic struggle of the proletariat and by that [!] transforms it into a revolutionary class struggle …" "and by that," i. e., apparently the direct leadership of the economic struggle. Can Martynov quote an example where the leadership of the industrial struggle alone has succeeded in transforming the trade-union movement into a revolutionary class movement? Cannot he understand that in order to "transform" we must undertake the "direct leadership" of all-sided political agitation? "… Or the other prospect: Social-Democracy refrains from taking the leadership of the economic struggle of the workers and so …. clips its own wings. … In Rabocheye Dyelo's opinion, which we quoted above, Iskra "refrains." We have seen, however, that the latter does far more to lead the economic struggle than Rabocheye Dyelo, but it does not confine itself to this, and doe not curtail its political tasks for the sake of it.
* ↑ For example, during the Franco-Prussian War, Liebknecht dictated a programme of action for the whole of democracy—and this was done to an even greater extent by Marx and Engels in 1848.
* ↑ See The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 113.—Ed.
* ↑ Lack of space has prevented us from replying in full to this letter extremely characteristic of the Economists. We were very glad this letter appeared, for the charges brought against Iskra, that it did not maintain a consistent, class point-of-view, have reached us long ago from various sources, and we waited for an appropriate opportunity, or for a formulated expression of this fashionable charge, in order to reply to it. And it is our habit to reply to attacks, not by defence, but by counter-attacks.
* ↑ Among these articles there was one (Iskra, No. 3) especially dealing with the class antagonisms in rural districts. [See The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 101.—Ed.]
* ↑ See The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 70.—Ed.
* ↑ See The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 101.—Ed.
* ↑ See Ibid., p. 176.—Ed.
* ↑ See Ibid., p. 164.—Ed.
* ↑ See The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 164.—Ed.
* ↑ A popular version of the excuses offered by a gipsy caught with a stolen horse.—Ed.
* ↑ Suggesting that they are subservient.—Ed.
* ↑ This is a reference to the "concrete Russian conditions which fatalistically impel the labour movement on the revolutionary path." But these people refuse to understand that the revolutionary path of the labour movement might not be a Social-Democratic path! When absolutism reigned in Western Europe, the entire Western European bourgeoisie "impelled" and deliberately impelled the workers on the path of revolution. We, Social-Democrats, however, cannot be satisfied with that. And if we, by any means whatever, degrade Social-Democratic politics to the level of spontaneous trade-union politics, we, by that, play into the hands of bourgeois democracy.