# What Is To Be Done? (Lenin, 1935)/Chapter 2

II
THE SPONTANEITY OF THE MASSES AND THE CLASS-CONSCIOUSNESS OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY
We have said that our movement, much wider and deeper than the movement of the seventies, must be inspired with the same devoted determination and energy that inspired the movement at that time. Indeed, no one, we think, has up till now doubted that the strength of the modern movement lies in the awakening of the masses (principally, the industrial proletariat), and that its weakness lies in the lack of consciousness and initiative among the revolutionary leaders.
However, a most astonishing discovery has been made recently, which threatens to overthrow all the views that have hitherto prevailed on this question. This discovery was made by Rabocheye Dyelo, which, in its controversy with Iskra and Zarya, did not confine itself to making objections on separate points, but tried to ascribe "general disagreements" to a more profound cause—to the disagreement concerning the estimation of the relative importance of the spontaneous and consciously 'methodical' element." Rabocheye Dyelo's indictment reads: "Belittling the importance of the subjective, or spontaneous, element of development." To this we say: If the controversy with Iskra and Zarya resulted in absolutely nothing more than causing Rabocheye Dyelo to think over these general disagreements," that single result would give us considerable satisfaction, so important is this thesis, and so clearly does it illuminate the quintessence of the present-day theoretical and political differences that exist among Russian Social-Democrats.
That is why the question of the relation between consciousness and spontaneity is of such enormous general interest, and that is why the question must be dealt with in great detail.
A. The Beginning of the Spontaneous Movement
In the previous chapter we pointed out how universally absorbed the educated youth of Russia were in the theories of Marxism in ​the middle of the nineties. The strikes that followed the famed St. Petersburg industrial war of 1896 also assumed a similar wholesale character. The fact that these strikes spread over the whole of Russia showed how deep the reviving popular movement was and if we must speak of the "spontaneous element" then, of course we must admit that this strike movement certainly bore a spontaneous character. But there is a difference between spontaneity and spontaneity. Strikes occurred in Russia in the seventies, and the sixties (and also in the first half of the nineteenth century) and these strikes were accompanied by the "spontaneous" destruction of machinery, etc. Compared with these "revolts" the strikes of the nineties might even be described as "conscious," to such an extent do they mark the progress which the labour movement made since that period. This shows that the "spontaneous element" in essence, represents nothing more nor less than consciousness in an embryonic form. Even the primitive rebellions expressed awakening of consciousness to a certain extent: The workers abandoned their age-long faith in the permanence of the system which oppressed them. They began … I shall not say to understand but to sense the necessity for collective resistance, and emphatically abandoned their slavish submission to their superiors. But all was more in the nature of outbursts of desperation and vengeance than struggle. The strikes of the nineties revealed far greater fla of consciousness: Definite demands were put forward, the time of strike was carefully chosen, known cases and examples in other places were discussed, etc. While the revolts were simply uprisings of the oppressed, the systematic strikes represented the class struggle in embryo, but only in embryo. Taken by themselves, these were simply trade union struggles, but not yet Social-Democratic struggles. They testified to the awakening antagonisms between workers and employers, but the workers were not and could not be conscious of the irreconcilable antagonism of their interests the whole of the modern political and social system, i. e., it was not yet Social-Democratic consciousness. In this sense, the strikes of the nineties, in spite of the enormous progress they represented as compared with the "revolts," represented a purely spontaneous movement.
We said that there could not yet be Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. This consciousness could only be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that ​working class, exclusively by Its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i. e., it may itself realise the necessity for combining in unions, to fight against the employers and to strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.
The theory of Socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals. The founders of modern scientific Socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. Similarly, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose quite independently of the spontaneous growth of the labour movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of ideas among the revolutionary Socialist intelligentsia. At the time of which we are speaking, i. e., the middle of the nineties, this doctrine not only represented the completely formulated programme of the Emancipation of Labour group but had already won the adhesion of the majority of the revolutionary youth in Russia.
Hence, simultaneously we had both the spontaneous awakening of the masses of the workers—the awakening to conscious life and struggle, and the striving of the revolutionary youth, armed with the Social-Democratic theories, to reach the workers. In this connection it is particularly important to state the oft-forgotten {and comparatively little-known) fact that the early Social-Democrats of that period, zealously carried on economic agitation (being guided in this by the really useful instructions contained in the pamphlet Agitation that was still in manuscript) but they did not regard this as their sole task. On the contrary, right from the very beginning they brought up the general historical tasks of Russian Social-Democracy, and particularly the task of overthrowing the autocracy. For example, the St. Petersburg group of Social-Democrats, which was formed by the League of the Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class towards the end of 1895, got out the first number of the journal known as Rabocheye Dyelo. This number was completely ready for the press when it was seized by the gendarmes who, on the night of December 8, 1895, raided ​the house of one of the m.ernbers of the group, Anatole Alekseyevich Vaneyev, and so the original Rabocheye Dyelo was not fated to see the light. The leading article in this number (which perhaps in thirty years' time some Russkaya Starina [Russian Antiquary] will discover in the archives of the Department of Police) described the historic tasks of the working class in Russia, of which the achievement of political liberty is regarded as the most important. This number also contained an article entitled, "What Are Our Cabinet Ministers Thinking Of?" which dealt with the wrecking of the premises of the elementary education committees by the police. In addition, there was some correspondence, from St. Petersburg, as well as from other parts of Russia (for example, a letter on the shooting down of the workers in the Yaroslav province). This, if we are not mistaken, · "first attempt" of the Russian Social-Democrats of the nineties was not a narrow, local, and certainly not an "economic" newspaper, hut one that aimed to the strike movement with the revolutionary movement against autocracy, and to win all the victims of oppression and politics and reactionary obscurantism. over to the side of Social-Democracy. No one in the slightest degree acquainted with the state the movement at that period could doubt that such a paper would have been fully approved of by the workers of the capital and the revolutionary intelligentsia and would have had a wide circulation. The failure of the enterprise merely showed that the Socialocrats of that time were unable to meet the immediate requirements of the time owing to their lack of revolutionary experience and practical training. The same thing must be said with regard to the St. Petersburg Rabochy Listok [Workers' Leaflet] and particularly with regard to the Rabochaya Gazeta and Manifesto established in the spring of 1898 by the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Of course, we would not dream of blaming the Social-Democrats of that time for this unpreparedness. But in order to obtain the benefit of the experience of that movement, and to learn practical lessons from it, we must thoroughly understand causes and significance of this or that shortcoming. For that reason ​it is extremely important to establish the fact that part (perhaps even a majority) of the Social-Democrats operating in the period of 1895–1898, quite justly considered it possible even then, at the very beginning of the "spontaneous movement," to come forward with the most extensive programme and fighting tactics.
The lack of training of the majority of the revolutionists being quite a natural phenomenon, could not have aroused any particular fears. Since the tasks were properly defined, since the energy existed for repeated attempts to fulfil these tasks, the temporary failures were not such a great misfortune. Revolutionary experience and organisational skill are things that can be acquired provided the desire is there to acquire these qualities, provided the shortcomings are recognised—which in revolutionary activity is more than half-way towards removing them!
It was a great misfortune, however, when this consciousness began to grow dim (it was very lively among the workers of the group mentioned), when people appeared—and even Social-Democratic organs—who were prepared to regard shortcomings as virtues, who and even to put a theoretical basis to slavish cringing before spontaneity. It is time to summarise this tendency, the substance of which is incorrectly and too narrowly described as Economism.
B. Bowing to Spontaneity Rabochaya Mysl
Before dealing with the literary manifestation of this subservience, I would like to mention the following characteristic fact (communicated to us from the above-mentioned source), which throws ​some light on circumstances of the rise and growth of two diverging Russian Social-Democratic tendencies among the comrades working in St. Petersburg. In the beginning of 1897, just prior to their banishment, A. A. Vaneyev and several of his comrades attended a private meeting at which the "old" and "young" members of the League of the Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class were gathered. The conversation centred chiefly around the question of organisation, and particularly around the "rules for a workers' benefit club," which, in their final form, were published in Listok Rabotnika—[Workers' Leaflet] Nos. 9–10, p. 46. Sharp differences were immediately revealed between the "old" members (the "Decembrists," as the St. Petersburg Social-Democrats jestingly called them) and several of the "young" members (who subsequently took an active part in the work of Rabochaya Mysl), the divergences were very great and a very heated discussion ensued. The "young" members defended the main principles of the rules in the form in which they were published. The "old" members said that this was not what was wanted: That first of all it was necessary to consolidate the League of the Struggle into an organisation of revolutionaries which should have control of all the various workers benefit clubs, students' propaganda circles, etc. It goes without saying that the controversialists had no suspicion at that time that these disagreements were the beginning of a wide divergence; on the contrary they regarded them as being of an isolated and nature. But this fact shows that Economism did not arise and spread in Russia without a fight on the part of the "old" Social-Democrats (the Economists of to-day are apt to forget this). And if this struggle has not left "documentary" traces behind it, it is solely because the membership of the circles working at that time underwent such constant change that no continuity was established and, consequently, differences were not recorded in any documents.
The appearance of Rabochaya Mysl brought Economism to the light of day, but not all at once. We must picture to ourselves concretely the conditions of the work and the short-livedness of the majority of the Russian circles (and only those who have experienced this can have any exact idea of it) , in order to understand how much there was accidental in the successes and fail of the new tendency in various towns, and why for a long neither the advocates nor the opponents of this "new" tendency could make up their minds, indeed they had no opportunity to ​so—as to whether this was really a new tendency or whether it was merely an expression of the lack of training of certain individuals. For example, the first mimeographed copies of Rabochaya Mysl never reached the great majority of Social-Democrats, and we are able to refer to the leading article in the first number only because it was reproduced in an article by V. I. [Listok Rabotnika, Nos. 9–10, p. 47ff.], who, of course, did not fail zealously, hut unreasonably to extol the new paper, which was so different from the papers and the schemes for papers mentioned above. And this leading article deserves to be dealt with in detail because it so strongly expresses the spirit of Rabochaya Mysl and Economism generally.
After referring to the fact that the arm of the "blue-coats" could never stop the progress of the labour movement, the leading article goes on to say: "… The virility of the labour :movement is due to the fact that the workers themselves are at last taking their fate in their own hands, and out of the hands of the leaders," and this fundamental thesis is then developed in greater detail. As a matter of fact the leaders (i. e., the Social-Democrats, the organisers of the League of the Struggle) were, one might say, torn out of the hands of the workers by the police; yet it is made to appear that the workers were fighting against the leaders and eventually liberated themselves from their yoke! Instead of calling upon the workers to go forward towards the consolidation of the revolutionary organisation, and to the expansion of political activity, they began to call for a regress to the purely trade-union struggle. They announced that "the economic basis of the movement is eclipsed by the effort never to forget the political idea," and that the watchword for the movement was "Fight for an economic position" (!) or to go even one better, "The workers for the workers." It was ​declared that strike funds "are more valuable for the movement than 100 other organisations." (Compare this statement made in 1897 with the controversy between the "Decembrists" and the young members in the beginning of 1897.) Catch-words like: "We must concentrate, not on the 'cream' of the workers, but on the 'average' worker—the mass worker"; "Politics always obediently follows economics," etc., etc., becausee the fashion, and exercised irresistible influence upon the masses of the youth who were attracted to the movement, but who, in the majority of cases, were acquainted only with legally expounded fragments of Marxism.
Consciousness was completely overwhelmed by spontaneity—the spontaneity of the "Social-Democrats" who repeated V. V.'s "ideas," the spontaneity of those workers who were carried away by the arguments that a kopeck added to a rouble was worth more than Socialism and politics, and that they must "fight, knowing that they are fighting not for so:me future generations, but for themselves and their children." [Leading article in Rabochaya Mysl, No. 1.] Phrases like these have always been the favourite weapons of the Western European bourgeoisie, who, while hating Socialism, strove (like the German "Sozial-Politiker" Hirsch) to transplant English trade unionism. to their own soil, and to preach to the workers that the purely trade-union struggle is the struggle for their own their children's welfare, and not a struggle for some kind of Socialism that will be realised only in the very remote future. And now the "V. V.'s of Russian Social-Democracy" repeat these bourgeois phrases. It is important at this point to note three circumstances, which will be useful to us in our further analysis of temporary differences.
​First of all, the overwhelming of consciousness by spontaneity to which we referred above, also took place spontaneously. This may sound like a pun, but alas, it is the bitter truth. It did not take place as a result of an open struggle between two diametrically opposed points-of-view, in which one gained the victory over the other; it occurred because an increasing number of "old" revolutionaries were "torn away" by the gendarmes, and because increasing numbers of "young" members and "V. V.'s of Russian Social-Democracy" came upon the scene. Every one, who I shall not say has participated in the contemporary Russian movement, but who has at least breathed its atmosphere, knows perfectly well that this was so. And the reason why we, nevertheless, strongly urge the reader to ponder well this universally known fact, and why we quote the facts, as an illustration, so to speak, about the Rabocheye Dyelo as it first appeared, and about the controversy between the "old" and the "young" at the beginning of 1897, is that certain persons are speculating on the public's (or the very youthful youth's) ignorance of these facts, and are boasting of their "democracy." We shall return to this point farther on.
Secondly, in the very first literary manifestation of Economism, we observe the extremely curious and highly characteristic phenomenon—from the point-of-view of the differences prevailing among contemporary Social-Democrats—that the adherents of the "pure and simple" labour movement, the worshippers of the closest "organic" (the term used by Rabocheye Dyelo) contacts with the proletarian struggle, the opponents of the non-labour intelligentsia (notwithstanding that it is a Socialist intelligentsia) are compelled, in order to defend their positions, to resort to the arguments of the bourgeois "pure and simple" trade unionists. This shows that right from the outset, Rabochaya Mysl began unconsciously to carry out the programme of the Credo. This shows (what the Rabocheye Dyelo cannot understand) that subservience to the spontaneity of the labour movement, the belittling of the rôle of "the conscious element," of the rôle of Social-Democracy, means, whether one likes it or not, growth of influence of bourgeois ideology among the workers. All those who talk about "exaggerating the importance of ideology," about exaggerating the rôle of the conscious elements, etc., imagine that the pure and simple 1abour movement ​can work out an independent ideology for itself, if only the workers "take their fate out of the hands of the leaders." But in this they are profoundly mistaken. To supplement what has been said above, we shall quote the following profoundly true and important utterances by Karl Kautsky on the new programme of the Austrian Social-Democratic Party:
Many of our revisionist critics believe that Marx asserted that economic development and the class struggle create, not only the conditions for Socialist production, but also, and directly, the consciousness (K. K.'s italics) of its necessity. And these critics advance the argument that the most highly capitalistically developed country, England, is more remote than any other from this consciousness. Judging from the draft, one must come to the conclusion that the committee which drafted the Austrian Programme shared this alleged orthodox-Marxian view which is thus refuted. In the draft programme it is stated: "The more capitalist development increases the numbers of the proletariat, the more the proletariat is compelled, and obtains the opportunity to fight against capitalism." The proletariat becomes "conscious" of the possibility and necessity for Socialism. In this connection Socialist consciousness is represented as a necessary and direct result of the proletarian class struggle. But this is absolutely untrue. Of course, Socialism, as a theory, has its roots in a modern economic relationship in the same way as the class struggle of the proletariat has, and in the same way as the latter emerges from the struggle against the capitalist-created poverty and misery of the masses. But Socialism and the class struggle arise side by side and not one out of the other; each arises out of different premises. Modern Socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge. Indeed, modern economic science is as much a condition for Socialist production, as, say, modern technology, and the proletariat can create neither the one nor the other, no matter how much it may desire to do so; both arise out of the modern social process. The vehicles of science are not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia (K. K.'s italics): It was out of the heads of members of this stratum that modern Socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done. Thus, Socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without (von Aussen Hineingetragenes), and not something that arose within it spontaneously (urwüchsig). Accordingly, the old Hainfeld progamme quite rightly stated that the task of Social-Democracy is to imbue the proletariat with the consciousness of its position and the consciousness of its tasks. There would be no need for this if consciousness emerged from the class struggle. The new draft copied this postulate from the old programme, and attached it to the postulate mentioned above. But this completely broke the line of thought. …
Since there can he no talk of an independent ideology being developed by the masses of the workers in the process of their ​movement then the only choice is: Either bourgeois, or Socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for humanity has not created a "third" ideology, and, moreover, in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non-class or above-class ideology). Hence, to belittle Socialist ideology in any way, to deviate from it in the slightest degree means strengthening bourgeois ideology. There is a lot of talk about spontaneity, hut the spontaneous development of the labour movement leads to its becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology, it means developing according to the programme of the Credo, for the spontaneous labour movement is pure and simple trade unionism, is Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei, and trade unionism means the ideological subordination of the workers to the bourgeoisie. Hence, our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the labour movement, with its spontaneous trade-unionist striving, from under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social-Democracy. The phrases employed by the authors of the "Economic" letter in Iskra, No. 12, about the efforts of the most inspired ideologists not being able to divert the labour movement from the path that is determined by the interaction of the material elements and the material environment are tantamount to the abandonment of Socialism, and if only the authors of this letter fearlessly thought out what they say to its logical conclusion, as every one who enters into the arena of literary and public activity should do, they would have nothing else to do but "fold their useless arms over their empty breasts" and … leave the field of action to the Struves and Prokopoviches who are dragging the labour movement "along the line of least resistance," i. e., along the line of bourgeois trade ​unionism, or to the Zubatovs who are dragging it along the line of clerical and gendarme "ideology."
Recall the example of Germany. What was the historical service Lassalle rendered to the German labour movement? It was that he diverted that movement from the path of progressive trade unionism and co-operation, along which it was travelling spontaneously (with the benign assistance of Schulze-Delitzsch and those like him). To fulfil a task like that, it is necessary to do something altogether different from indulging in talk about belittling the spontaneous element, about the tactics-process and about the interaction between elements and environment, etc. A desperate struggle against spontaneity had to be carried on, and only after such a struggle, extending over many years, was it possible to convert the working population of Berlin from a bulwark of the Progressive Party into one of the finest strongholds of Social-Democracy. This fight is not finished even now (as those who study the history of the German movement from Prokopovich, and its philosophy from Struve believe). Even now the German working class is, so to speak, broken up into a number of ideologies. A section of the workers organised in Catholic and Monarchist labour unions; another section is organised in the Hirsch-Duncker unions, founded by bourgeois worshippers of English trade unionism, while a section is organised in Social-Democratic trade unions. The latter is immeasurably more numerous than the rest, but Social-Democracy was able to achieve this superiority and will be able to maintain it, only by unswervingly fighting against all other ideologies.
But why, the reader will ask, does the spontaneous movement, the movement along the line of least resistance, lead to the domination of bourgeois ideology? For the simple reason that ideology is far older in origin than Social-Democratic ideology; because it is more fully developed and because it possesses immeasurably more opportunities for becoming widespread. And ​the younger the Socialist movement is in any given country, the more vigorously must it fight against all attempts to entrench non-Socialist ideology, and the more strongly must it warn the workers against those bad counsellors who shout against "exaggerating the conscious elements," etc. The authors of the Economic Letter, in unison with Rabocheye Dyelo, declaim against the intolerance that is characteristic of the infancy of the movement. To this we reply: Yes, our movement is indeed in its infancy, and in order that it may grow up the quicker, it must become infected with intolerance against all those who retard its growth by subservience to spontaneity. Nothing is so ridiculous and harmful as pretending that we are "old hands" who have long ago experienced all the decisive episodes of the struggle!
Thirdly, the first number of Rabochaya Mysl shows that the term "Economism" (which, of course, we do not propose to abandon because it has more or less established itself) does not adequately convey the real character of the new tendency. Rabochaya Mysl does not altogether repudiate the political struggle: The Benefit Society constitution, published in Rabochaya Mysl, No. 1, contains a reference to fighting against the government. Rabochaya Mysl believes, however, that "politics always obediently follow economics" (and Rabocheye Dyelo gives a variation of this thesis when, in its programme, it asserts that "in Russia more than in any other country, the economic struggle is inseparable from the political struggle"). If by politics is meant Social-Democratic politics, then the postulates advanced by Rabochaya Mysl and Rabocheye Dyelo are wrong. The economic struggle of the workers is very often connected with (although not inseparable from) bourgeois politics, clerical politics, etc., as we have already seen. If by politics is meant trade-union politics, i.e., the common striving of all workers to secure from the government measures for the alleviation of their distress, measures characteristic of their position, but which do not altogether change that position, i. e., which do not remove the subjection of labour to capital, then Rabocheye Dyelo's postulate is correct. That striving indeed is common to the British trade unionists, who are hostile to Socialism, to the Catholic workers, to the "Zubatov" workers, etc. There are politics and politics. We see, therefore, that Rabochaya Mysl does not so much deny the political ​struggle as bow to its spontaneity, to its lack of purpose. While recognising the political struggle (it would be more correct to say: the political desires and demands of the workers), which arises spontaneously from the labour movement itself, it absolutely refuses independently to work out a specifically Social-Democratic policy corresponding to the general tasks of Socialism and to contemporary conditions in Russia. Farther on we shall show that Rabocheye Dyelo commits the same error.
C. The Self-Emancipation Group and Rabocheye Dyelo
We have dealt at such length with the little-known and now almost forgotten leading article in the first number of Rabochaya Mysl because it was the first and most striking expression of that general stream of thought which afterwards found the light of day in innumerable streamlets. V. I. was absolutely right when, in praising the first number and the leading article of Rabochaya Mysl, he said that it was written in a "sharp and provocative" style [Listok Rabotnika, Nos. 9–10, p. 49]. Every man with convictions, who thinks he has something new to say, writes "provocatively" and expresses his views strongly. Only those who are accustomed to sit between two stools lack "provocativeness"; only such people are able to praise the provocativeness of Rabochaya Mysl one day, and attack the "provocative polemics" of its opponents the next.
We shall not dwell on the Special Supplement to Rabochaya Mysl (below we shall have occasion on a number of points to refer to this work, which expresses the ideas of the Economists more consistently than any other) but shall briefly mention the Manifesto of Self-Emancipation of the Workers' Group [March, 1899, reprinted in the London Nakanunye [On the Eve], No. 7, June, 1899]. The authors of this manifesto quite rightly say that "the workers of Russia are only just awakening, are only just looking around, and instinctively clutch at the first means of struggle that come to hands." But from this correct observation, they draw the same incorrect conclusion that is drawn by Rabochaya Mysl, forgetting that instinct is that unconsciousness (spontaneity) to whose aid the Socialists must come; that the "first means of struggle that come to their hands" will always be in modern society, the trade union means of struggle, and the "first ideology that comes to hand" will be bourgeois (trade union) ideology. Similarly, these authors do ​not "repudiate" politics, they merely say (merely!), repeating what was said by V. V., that politics are the superstructure, and therefore, "political agitation must be the superstructure to the agitation carried on in favour of the economic struggle; it must arise on the basis of this struggle and give precedence to it."
As for Rabocheye Dyelo, it commenced its activity by "a defence" of the Economists. It uttered a downright untruth in its very first number [No. 1, pp. 141–142] when it stated that it "did not know which young comrades Axelrod referred to" in his well-known pamphlet, in which he uttered a warning against the Economists. In the controversy that flared up with Axelrod and Plekhanov over this falsehood, Rabocheye Dyelo was compelled to admit that "by expressing ignorance, it desired to defend all the younger Social-Democrats abroad from this unjust accusation" (Axelrod accused the Economists of having a restricted outlook). As a matter of fact this accusation was absolutely just, and Rabocheye Dyelo knows perfectly well that, among others, it applied to V. I., a member of its editorial staff. We shall observe in passing that in this controversy Axelrod was absolutely right, and Rabocheye Dyelo was absolutely wrong, in their respective interpretations of my pamphlet: The Tasks of Russian Social-Democrats. That pamphlet was written in 1897, before the appearance of Rabochaya Mysl when I thought, and rightly thought, that the original tendency of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle, which I described above, was the predominant one. At all events, that tendency was the predominant one until the middle of 1898. Consequently, in its attempt to refute the existence and dangers of Economism, Rabocheye Dyelo had no right whatever to refer to a pamphlet which expressed views that were squeezed out by Economist views in St. Petersburg in 1897–1898.
​But Rabocheye Dyelo not only "defended" the Economists—it itself constantly fell into fundamental Economist errors. The cause of these errors is to be found in the ambiguity of the interpretation given to the following thesis in Rabocheye Dyelo's programme: "We consider that the most important phenomenon of Russian life, the one that will mostly determine the tasks [our italics] and the character of the literary activity of the league, is the mass labour movement [Rabocheye Dyelo's italics] that has arisen in recent years." That the mass movement is a most important phenomenon is a fact about which there can be no dispute. But the crux of the question is, What is the meaning of the phrase: The labour movement will "determine the tasks"? It may be interpreted in one of two ways. Either it means subservience to the spontaneity of this movement, i. e., reducing the rôle of Social-Democracy to mere subservience to the labour movement as such (the interpretation given to it by Rabochaya Mysl, the Self-Emancipation group and other Economists); or it may mean that the mass movement sets before us new, theoretical, political and organisational tasks, far more complicated than those that might have satisfied us in the period before the rise of the mass movement. Rabocheye Dyelo inclined and still inclines towards the first interpretation, for it said nothing definitely about new tasks, but argued all the time as if the "mass movement" relieved us of the necessity of clearly appreciating and fulfilling the tasks it sets before us. We need only point out that Rabocheye Dyelo considered that we could not possibly accept the overthrow of the autocracy as the first task of the mass labour movement, and that it degraded this task (ostensibly in the interests of the mass movement) to the struggle for immediate political demands. [Reply, p. 25.]
We shall pass over the article by B. Krichevsky, the editor of Rabocheye Dyelo, entitled "The Economic and Political Struggle in the Russian Movement," published in No. 7, of that paper, in which these very mistakes are repeated and take up Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10.
​We shall not, of course, enter in detail into the various objections raised by B. Krichevsky and Martynov against Zarya and Iskra. What interests us here solely, is the theoretical position taken up by Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10. For example, we shall not examine the literary curiosity, that Rabocheye Dyelo saw a "diametrical" contradiction between the postulate:
Social-Democracy does not tie its hands, it does not ;restrict its activities to some preconceived plan or method of political struggle: It recognises all methods of struggle, as long as they correspond to the forces at the disposal of the party … under the given conditions, etc. [Iskra, No. 1].
and the postulate:
Without a strong organisation, tested in the political struggle carried on under all circumstances and in all periods, there can be no talk of a systematic plan of activity, enlightened by firm principles and unswervingly carried out, which alone is worthy of being called tactics [Iskra, No. 4].
To confuse the recognition, in principle, of all means of struggle, of all plans and methods, provided they are expedient—with the necessity at a given political moment, to be guided by a strictly adhered to plan in talking of tactics, is tantamount to confusing the ​recognition by medical science of all kinds of treatment of diseases with the necessity for adopting a certain definite method of treatment for a given disease. The point is, however, that Rabocheye Dyelo, while suffering from a disease which we have called subservience to spontaneity, refuses to recognise any "method of treatment" for that disease. Hence, it made the remarkable discovery that "a plan of tactics contradicts the fundamental spirit of Marxism" [No. 10, p. 18], that tactics are "a process of growth of party tasks, which grow with the party" [( p. 11), Rabocheye Dyelo's italics]. The latter remark has every chance of becoming a celebrated maxim, a permanent monument to the tendency of Rabocheye Dyelo. To the question: Whither? a leading organ replies: Motion is a process of alteration in the distance between starting point and destination. This matchless example of profundity is not merely a literary curiosity (if it were, it would not be worth dealing with at length), but the programme of the whole tendency, i. e., the programme which R. M. (in the Special Supplement to Rabochaya Mysl) expressed in the words: "That struggle is desirable which is possible, and the struggle which is possible is the one that is going on now." It is the tendency of unbounded opportunism, which passively adapts itself to spontaneity.
"A plan of tactics contradicts the fundamental spirit of Marxism!" But this is a libel on Marxism; it is like the caricature of it that was presented to us by the Narodniks in their fight against us. It means putting restraint on the initiative and energy of class-conscions fighters, whereas Marxism, on the contrary, gives a gigantic impetus to the initiative and energy of Social-Democrats, opens up for them the widest perspectives and, if one may so express it, places at their disposal the mighty force of millions and millions workers "spontaneously" rising for the struggle. The whole history of international Social-Democracy seethes with plans advanced first by one and then by another political leader; some confirming the far-sightedness and correct political and organisational insight of their authors and others revealing their short-sightedness lack of political judgment. At the time when Germany was passing one of the most important turning points in its history—the time of the establishment of the Empire, the opening of the Reichstag, the granting of universal suffrage, Liebknecht had one plan for Social-Democratic policy and work, and Schweitzer had another. ​When the anti-Socialist laws came down on the heads of the German Socialists, Most and Hasselmann, had one plan, that is, to call for violence and terror; Höchberg, Schramm and (partly) Bernstein had another, which they began to preach to the Social-Democrats, somewhat as follows: They themselves provoked the passing of the anti-Socialist laws by being unreasonably bitter and revolutionary, and must now show that they deserve pardon by exemplary conduct. There was yet a third plan proposed by those who paved the way for and carried out the publication of an illegal organ. It is easy, of course, in retrospect, many years after the fight over the selection of the path to be followed has finished, and after history has pronounced its verdict as to the expediency of the path selected, to utter profound maxims about the growth of party tasks that grow with the party. But at a time of confusion, when the Russian "critics" and Economists degrade Social-Democracy to the level of trade unionism, and when the terrorists are strongly advocating the adoption of a "plan of tactics" that repeats the old mistakes, at such a time, to confine oneself to such profundities, means simply to issue to oneself a "certificate of mental poverty." At a time when many Russian Social-Democrats suffer from lack of initiative and energy, from a lack of "breadth of political propaganda, agitation and organisation, a lack of plans for a broader organisation of revolutionary work, at such a time to say: "A plan of tactics contradicts the fundamental spirit of Marxism," not only means theoretically to vulgarise Marxism, but also practically to drag the party backward. Rabocheye Dyelo goes on sermonising:
The revolutionary Social-Democrat is only confronted by the task of accelerating objective development by his conscious work; it is not his task to obviate it or substitute his own subjective plans for this development. Iskra knows all this in theory. But the enormous importance which Marxism quite justly attaches to conscious revolutionary work causes it in practice, owing to its doctrinaire view of tactics, to belittle the significance of the objective or the spontaneous elements of development [p. 18].
Another example of the extraordinary theoretical confusion Worthy of V. V. and that fraternity. We would ask our philosopher: ​How may a deviser of subjective plans "belittle" objective development? Obviously by losing sight of the fact that this objective development creates or strengthens, destroys or weakens certain classes, strata, groups, nations, groups of nations, etc., and in this way creates a definite international, political grouping of forces, the position of revolutionary parties, etc. If the deviser of plans did that, his mistake would not be that he belittled the spontaneous element, but that he belittled the conscious element, for he would then show that he lacked the "consciousness" that would enable him properly to understand objective development. Hence, the very talk about "estimating the relative significance" (Rabocheye Dyelo's italics) of spontaneity and consciousness sufficiently reveals a complete lack of "consciousness." If certain "spontaneous elements of development" can be grasped at all by human understanding, then an incorrect estimation of them would be tantamount to "belittling the conscious element." But if they cannot be grasped, then we cannot be aware of them, and therefore cannot speak of them. What is B. Krichevsky arguing about then? If he thinks that Iskra's "subjective plans" are erroneous (as he in fact declares them to be), then he ought to show what objective facts are ignored in these plans, and then charge Iskra with a lack of consciousness for ignoring them, with, to use his own words, "belittling the conscious element." If, however, while being displeased with subjective plans he can bring forward no other argument except that of "belittling the spontaneous element" (!!) he merely shows: 1. That he theoretically understands Marxism à la Kareyevs and the Mikhailovskys, who have been sufficiently ridiculed by Beltov, and 2. That practically, he is quite pleased with the "spontaneous elements of development" that have drawn our legal Marxists towards Bernsteinism and our Social-Democrats towards Economism, and that he is full of wrath against those who have determined at all costs to divert Russian Social-Democracy from the path of spontaneous development.
And then follow things that are positively funny. "In the same way as men and women will multiply in the old-fashioned way, notwithstanding all the discoveries of natural science, so the birth of a new social order will come about in the future mainly as a result of elemental outbursts, notwithstanding all the discoveries of social science and the increase in the number of conscious fighters." [p. 19.] Our grandfathers, in their old-fashioned wisdom used to ​say: "Any fool can bring forth children," and to-day the "modern Socialists" (à la Narcissus Tuporylov) in their wisdom say: "Any fool can help the spontaneous birth of a new social order." We too are of that opinion. All that is required for help of that kind is to surrender to Economism when Economism reigns and to terrorism when terrorism arises. For example, in the spring of this year, when it was so important to utter a note of warning against terrorism, Rabocheye Dyelo stood in amazement confronted by a problem that was "new" to it and now, six months after, when the problem has become less topical, it, at one and the same time, presents us with the declaration: "We think that it is not and cannot be the task of Social-Democracy to counteract the rise of terroristic temper" [Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, p. 23], and the congress resolution: "The congress regards systematic and aggressive terror as being inopportune" [Two Congresses, p. 18]. How beautifully clear and connected this is! Not to counteract, but to declare inopportune, and to declare it in such a way that the "resolution" shall not apply to unsystematic and defencive terror. It must be admitted that a resolution like that is extremely safe and completely insured against error, just as a man who talks, but says nothing, is insured against error! And all that is required to be able to draft a resolution like that is: Ability to keep at the tail end of the movement. When Iskra ridiculed Rabocheye Dyelo for declaring the question of terror to he a new one, the latter angrily accused Iskra of "having the incredible effrontery to impose upon the party organisations decisions on tactical questions arrived at by a group of emigrant writers more than sixteen years ago" [p. 24]. Effrontery indeed, and an exaggeration of the conscious elements to find the theoretical solutions to problems, and then to try to prove to the organisation, to the party and to the masses that this solution is correct! How much better it is to repeat something that has been learned by rote, and, without "imposing" anything upon anybody, swing with every "turn" in the direction of Economism or in the direction of terrorism. Rabocheye Dyelo even goes so far as to generalise this gospel of worldly wisdom and accuses ​Iskra and Zarya with "setting up its programme against the movement, like a spirit hovering over the formless chaos" (p. 29). But what else is the function of Social-Democracy if not to be a "spirit," not only hovering over the spontaneous movement but also raising the movement to the level of "its programme"? Surely, it is not its function to drag at the tail of the movement: At best, this would be of no service to the movement; at the worst, it would be very, very harmful. Rabocheye Dyelo, however, not only follows this "tactics-process," but elevates it to a principle, so that it would be more correct to describe its tendency not as opportunism, but khvostism (from the word khvost). And it must be admitted, that those who have determined always to follow behind the movement like a tail, are absolutely and forever ensured against "belittling the spontaneous element of development."
And so, we have become convinced that the fundamental error committed by the "new tendency" in Russian Social-Democracy lies in its subservience to spontaneity, and its failure to understand that the spontaneity of the masses demands a mass of consciousness from us Social-Democrats. The more spontaneously the masses rise, the more widespread the movement becomes, so much the more rapidly grows the demand for greater consciousness in the theoretical political and organisational work of Social-Democracy.
The spontaneous rise of the masses in Russia proceeded (and continues) with such rapidity that the young untrained Social-Democrats proved unfitted for the gigantic tasks that confronted them. This lack of training is our common misfortune, the misfortune of all Russian Social-Democrats. The rise of the masses proceeded and spread uninterruptedly and continuously; it not only continued in the places it commenced in, hut it spread to new localities and to new strata of the population (influenced by the labour movement, the ferment among the students and the intellectuals generally, and even among the peasantry revived). Revolutionaries, however, lagged behind this rise of the masses in both their "theories" and in their practical activity; they failed to establish an uninterrupted organisation having continuity with the past, and capable of leading the whole movement.
In Chapter I, we proved that Rabocheye Dyelo degraded theoretical tasks and that it "spontaneously" repeated the ​fashionable catchword "freedom of criticism": that those who repeated this catchword lacked the "consciousness" to understand that the position of the opportunist "critics" and the revolutionaries, both in Germany and in Russia, are diametrically opposed to each other.
In the following chapters, we shall show how this subservience to spontaneity found expression in the sphere of the political tasks and the organisational work of Social-Democracy.
* ↑ Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, 1901, pp. 17–18 [R. D.'s italics].
* ↑ Trade Unionism does not exclude "politics" altogether as some imagine. Trade unions have always conducted political agitation and struggle (but not Social-Democratic ones). We shall deal with the difference between trade union politics and Social-Democratic politics in the next chapter.
* ↑ A. A. Vaneyev died in eastern Siberia in 1899, from consumption, which he contracted as a result of his solitary confinement in prison prior to his banishment. That is why we are able to publish the above information, the authenticity of which we guarantee, for it comes from persons who were closely and directly acquainted with A. A. Vaneyev.
* ↑ Iskra, which adopts a hostile attitude towards the activities of the Social-Democrats of the end of the nineties, ignores the fact that at that time the conditions were unfavourable for any other kind of work except fighting for petty demands, declare the Economists in their Letter to Russian Social-Democratic Organs [Iskra, No. 12]. The facts quoted above show that the element about "unfavourable conditions" is diametrically opposite to the truth. Not only at the end, but even in the middle of the nineties all the conditions existed for other work, besides fighting for petty demands, all the conditions—except the sufficient training of the leaders. Instead of frankly admitting our, the ideologists', the leaders', lack of sufficient training-the economists try to throw the blame entirely upon "the absence of conditions," upon the influence of material environment which determined the road from that it was impossible to divert the movement by any kind of ideology. That is this hut slavish cringing before spontaneity but the fact that the "ideologists" are enamoured of their own shortcomings?
* ↑ It should be stated in passing that the praise of Rabochaya Mysl in November, 1898, when Economism had become fully defined, especially abroad, emanated from that same V. I., who, very soon after, became one of the editors of Rabocheye Dyelo. And yet Rabocheye Dyelo denied that there were two tendencies in Russian Social-Democracy, and continues to deny it to this day.
* ↑ That this simile is a correct one is shown by the following characteristic fact. When after the arrest of the "Decembrists," the news was spread among the workers on the Schlusselburg Road that the discovery and arrest was facilitated by an agent provocateur, N. M. Mikhailov, a dental surgeon, who had been in contact with a group associated with the "Decembrists," they were so enraged that they decided to kill him.
* ↑ These quotations are taken from the leading article, in the first number of Rabochaya Mysl already referred to. One can judge from this, the degree of theoretical training possessed by these 'V. V.'s of Russian Social-Democracy," who kept repeating the crude vulgarisms of "economic materialism" at a time when the Marxists were carrying on a literary war against the real V. V. who had long ago been dubbed "a past master of reactionary deeds" for holding similar views on the relation between politics and economics!
* ↑ The Germans even have a special expression: Nur Gewerkschaftler, which means an advocate of the "pure and simple" trade-union struggle.
* ↑ We emphasise the word contemporary for the benefit of those who may pharisaically shrug their shoulders and say: It is easy enough to attack Rabochaya Mysl now, but is not all this ancient history? Mutato nomine te fabula narratur [Change the name and the tale refers to you.—Ed.], we reply to such contemporary pharisees whose complete mental subjection to Rabochaya Msyl will be proved farther on.
* ↑ Letter by the Economists, in Iskra, No. 12.
* ↑ Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10.
* ↑ Neue Zeit, 1901–1902, XX, I, No. 3, p. 79. The committee's draft to which Kautsky refers was passed by the Vienna Congress at the end of last year in a slightly amended form.
* ↑ This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. But they take part not as workers, but as Socialist theoreticians, like Proudhon and Weitling; in other words, they take part only to the extent that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and advance that knowledge. And in order that working men may be able to do this more often, efforts must he made to raise the level of the consciousness of the workers generally; care must he taken that the workers do not confine themselves to the artificially restricted limits of literature for workers but that they study general literature to an increasing degree. It would even be more true to say "were not confined," instead of "not confine themselves," because the workers themselves wish to read and do read all that is written for the intelligentsia and it is only a few (bad) intellectuals who believe that it is sufficient "for the workers" to tell them a few things about factory conditions, and to repeat over and over again what has long been known.
* ↑ It is often said: The working class spontaneously gravitates towards Socialism. This is perfectly true in the sense that Socialist theory defines the causes of the poverty of the working class more profoundly and more correctly than any other theory, and for that reason the workers are able to appreciate it so easily, provided, however, that this theory does not step aside for spontaneity and provided it subordinates spontaneity to itself. Usually this is taken for granted, but Rabocheye Dyelo forgets or distorts this obvious thing. The working class spontaneously gravitates towards Socialism, nevertheless, the more widespread (and continuously revived in the most diverse forms) bourgeois ideology imposes itself spontaneously upon the working class more than any other.
* ↑ The Contemporary Tasks and Tactics of the Russian Social-Democrats, Geneva, 1898. Two letters written to Rabochaya Gazeta in 1897.
* ↑ See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. II.—Ed.
* ↑ In its attempt to justify the first untruth it uttered ("we do not know which young comrades Axelrod referred to") Rabocheye Dyelo uttered a second, when, in its Reply it wrote: "Since the review of The Tasks was published, tendency has arisen, or has become more or less defined among certain Russian Social-Democrats, towards economic one-sidedness, which represents a step backwards from the state of our movement as described in The Tasks" [p. 9]. This is what the Reply says, published in 1900. But the first number of Rabocheye Dyelo (containing the review) appeared in April, 1899. Did Economism arise only in 1899? No. The protest of the Russian Social-Democrats against Economism (the protest against the Credo) appeared in 1899. Economism arose in 1897, as Rabocheye Dyelo very well knows, for already in November, 1898, V. I. praised Rabochaya Mysl, in Listok Rabotnika, Nos. 9–10.
* ↑ The "stages theory," or the theory of "timid zigzags" in the political struggle, is expressed in this article approximately in the following way: "Political demands, which in their character are common to the whole of Russia should, however, at first [this was written in August, 1900!] correspond to the experience gained by the given stratum [sic!] of workers in the economic struggle. Only [!] on the basis of this experience can and should the political agitation be taken up," etc. [p. 11]. On page 4, the author, protesting against what he regards as the absolutely unfounded charge of Economist heresy, pathetically exclaims: "What Social-Democrat does not now that according to the theories of Marx and Engels, the class interest is the decisive factor in history, and, consequently, that the proletarian struggle for the defence of its economic interests must be of first-rate importance in its class development and struggle for emancipation?" (our italics). The word "consequently" is absolutely out of place. The fact that economic interests are a decisive factor does not in the least imply that the economic (i. e., trade union) struggle must be the main factor, for the essential and "decisive" interest of classes can be satisfied only by radical political changes. In particular the fundamental economic interests of the proletariat can be satisfied only by a political revolution, that will substitute the dictatorship of the proletariat for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. B. Krichevsky repeats the arguments of the "V. V.'s of Russian Social-Democracy" (i.e., politics follows economics, etc.), and the Bernsteinists of German Social-Democracy (for example, by arguments like these, Woltmann tried to prove that the workers must first of all acquire "economic power" before they can think about politica1 revolution).
* ↑ See conclusion of article, "The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement," The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 57.—Ed.
* ↑ See beginning of article "Where to Begin," The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 109.—Ed.
* ↑ Ein Jahr Der Verwirrung (A Year of Confusion) is the title Mehring gave to the chapter of his History of German Social-Democracy in which he describes the hesitancy and lack of determination displayed at first by the Socialists in selecting the "plan of tactics" for the new situation.
* ↑ See leading article in Iskra, No. 1, "The Urgent Tasks of our Movement," The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 53.—Ed.
* ↑ See beginning of article "Where to Begin," The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 109.—Ed.
* ↑ Nor must it be forgotten that in solving "theoretically" the problem of terror, the Emancipation of Labour group generalised the experience of the preceding revolutionary movement.
* ↑ Khvost is the Russian word for tail.—Ed.