What to do with the burning issues of our movement. Lenin. What to do? D) what is common between economism and terrorism

Stuttgart, Verlag J.H.W. Dietz, 1902. VII, 144 pp. In publisher's covers. The price is indicated on the front cover: 1 ruble; 2 marks or 2.5 francs! 24x15 cm. Painted in the autumn of 1901 - in February 1902. PMM 392

LENIN, Vladimir Ilyich (Ulyanov). Shto Delatch? Nabolevchye Voprosy Nashevo Dvishenija. Stuttgart: J.H.W. Dietz, 1902.

Care: $13,750. Auction Christie "s. Important Scientific Books: The Richard Green Library. June 17, 2008. New York, Rockefeller Plaza. Lot 223.

Bibliographic sources:

1. GBL Book Treasures. Issue 4. Works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism. Russian revolutionary press of the 19th - early 20th centuries. Catalog. Moscow, 1980. No. 48

2. PMM, Munchen, 1983, No. 392

The book went out of print in early March 1902 in Stuttgart. In this work, Lenin substantiated and developed in a new historical situation the Marxist idea of ​​the party as the leading and organizing force of the labor movement, developed the foundations of the doctrine of a new type of party, organizational forms, ways and methods of its creation, revealed the greatest significance of Marxist theory - the theory of scientific socialism for the labor movement. And as a conclusion, the concept of the future "Bolshevism" was finally formed.

“Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement,” Lenin wrote, “... Only a party led by advanced theory can fulfill the role of an advanced fighter.”

In short, for the first time the idea of ​​creating a Bolshevik party, a party of a new type, was substantiated and developed! And this had very tragic consequences for a huge country called the Russian Empire. The book has been translated into many languages. The epigraph is placed on the title page and front cover of the book:

"... The party struggle gives the party strength and vitality, the greatest proof of the weakness of the party is its vagueness and the blunting of sharply defined boundaries, the party is strengthened by purifying itself..."

We read from Leonid Tereshchenkov:

Book "What to do?" was conceived by Lenin in 1901 as a topical propaganda pamphlet. It was to reveal a number of topics already outlined in the leading articles of the Iskra newspaper (primarily in the article "Where to start?"). Lenin is looking for answers to three key questions: about the nature and content of the political agitation of the Social Democrats, about the organizational tasks of Russian Social Democracy, and about the plan for building an all-Russian Social Democratic organization. Lenin's polemical work was written after the failure of an attempt to unite Russian social democratic organizations abroad (June 1901). Lenin comes to understand the need to consider an important problem. How to unite the social movement and the labor movement? The intellectuals with their struggle for general democratic values ​​and freedoms, and the workers with their narrow class economic struggle. Is it possible to politicize such a multidirectional protest? And how to ensure that the united protest is led by the revolutionary social democracy?

For a long time it was believed that the main content of this Leninist work was to prove the thesis about the need to introduce class consciousness into the working masses by representatives of the professional organization of revolutionaries. In our opinion, today it is especially important that Lenin's thought reflects the essence of the relationship between the mass spontaneous movement and politics. Lenin says that any generalization of particular demands necessarily leads to the politicization of the protest. For example, a single strike is most often a non-political action. But informing the public about strikes in an uncensored newspaper, and even more so attempts to create tactics for holding a strike, a theory of a strike, is already pure politics. The same can be said about the social movement. The struggle of a specific zemstvo, students of one of the universities, sectarians of one skete is not yet politics, but an attempt to understand their role and place in the country and society as a whole, to gain experience is politics. And for the consistent implementation of such a policy, a centralized all-Russian organization is needed.

There is another important issue related to this position. Is the work of generalizing the protest and putting a theoretical basis under it scientific? Lenin's answer is obvious - of course, yes. The process of politicization of protest is always of necessity based on a rational methodology. The denunciation of individual disorders, both factory and public life, the generalization of the experience of opposing various authorities, as in the well-known Marxist metaphor, dispels the fog over social relations. It becomes possible to see the true structure of society, and not various discourses about it. It is the conclusion about the inseparable connection between the social sciences and politics (and even about science and politics as two sides of one approach to empirical material) that seems to us especially relevant today. On the occasion of the anniversary of the new social movement in today's Russia, several research groups presented their results of the "study of protest". However, I would like to ask: how meaningful is this kind of ascertaining scientific work? If the authors do not offer their own vision of the protest movement, but leave “ordinary people on the street”, informants “to say everything for themselves”, won’t it turn out that they managed to collect only a scattering of more or less interesting replicas in terms of publicism? This is just a statement of fact that still needs to be considered. The fundamental refusal to define any desired vector for the development of the protest movement and consider following it, except for the most general declarations of sympathy and activist involvement, leads to informants speaking for scientists. As a result, the main questions of the "December movement" remain unanswered, and yet its future depends on the answer to these questions. How is the concept of politics changing in our time? Politics as the creation of a common cause out of small deeds is being replaced by the politics of leaders and crowds. This gives rise to constant fears that "the protest will be stolen from us." Politics is beginning to be perceived by informants as a "dirty business" that "decent people who have taken to the square" are not involved in. The absence of a leading center and common demands is fraught with the extinction of the movement. Every time a protest situation arises, you will have to gain experience from the beginning.

This, in our opinion, is the relevance of Lenin's work "What is to be done?" 110 years after its first publication. The spontaneity of any movement, even a mass movement, whether labor or general democratic, will come to a rapid end, because the participants, behind their private momentary interests, will not be able to discern the interests of the general. To prevent this, according to Lenin, a centralized political organization should. Political not in the sense that it declares a “clear position” and adopts a resolution on every minor issue, but in that it acts as a think tank, studies the protest movement and, on this basis, offers it a clear methodology and general theory. Preserves the tradition of the protest movement and, building up the cultural layer, prepares the intellectual hegemony in society. For progressive changes in society to become real, politicians must be scientists, and scientists must be politicians.

In vain in the years of chaos
Look for a good end.
One to punish and repent.
Others - to end with Golgotha.

Like you, I am part of the great
time shifts,
And I will accept your judgment
No anger or reproach.

You probably won't flinch
Sweeping a man.
Well, martyrs of dogma,
You, too, are victims of the century.

Boris Pasternak

Boris Leonidovich perfectly answered Vladimir Ilyich to his book What Is to Be Done?, calling them martyrs of dogma. It turns out - nothing had to be done ... The title of the book repeats the title of the novel "What is to be done?" Nikolai Chernyshevsky, who, according to Lenin, converted hundreds of people into revolutionaries and changed himself. Some authors believe that in this book Lenin deviates from the ideas of Marx in essential points. Lenin put forward the theory that the ordinary working class is not in a position to lead a revolution with social democratic goals, but pursues only the goal of "bread and butter." He justified this by the fact that the proletariat does not have a class consciousness. ("Political class consciousness can only be given to the worker from outside"). He developed the concept of the Communist Party as the vanguard of the working class, which should carry out the socialist revolution, introduce and maintain the dictatorship of the proletariat in its interests, and teach the masses about communism. His ideas were sharply criticized by his opponents, as this form of organization would quickly lead to the dictatorship of a small group of revolutionaries. This principle was the basis of Stalinism, and back in the 1970s and 80s. in the Soviet Union, those critics who questioned Lenin's dogma of "bringing socialist consciousness into the working class" were persecuted and accused of forming "counter-revolutionary platforms". In 1898, Lenin, Plekhanov and other Marxists organized the Russian Social Democratic Party (RSDLP) to coordinate revolutionary activity. In 1901-1902, the populists created a rival party of socialist revolutionaries (SRs). Both parties became part of the International Federation, known as the Socialist, or Second International. Lenin intended to launch a polemic against the Socialist-Revolutionaries, but soon he had serious disagreements with members of the RSDLP. On the pages of the newspaper "Iskra" Lenin, Plekhanov and Julius Martov criticized the so-called economists, who argued that only the economic demands of the workers were worthy of attention, while the political struggle was not their business. Lenin and other "Iskra" advocated the creation of a centralized party, which was supposed to mobilize the proletariat for a more active economic and political struggle against all forms of oppression and the overthrow of tsarism. Lenin popularized this kind of ideas in What Is To Be Done? (1902). When the term of exile ended, Ulyanov, despite the fact that he was forbidden to stay in St. Petersburg, went there with Martov. The arrest followed immediately. However, he was released after a few weeks. At the very least, the history of Russian social democracy would have taken a different path if Lenin had been exiled again at that moment. On July 29, 1900, he crossed the Austrian border and headed for Switzerland. The red wheel of history was rapidly gaining momentum...

English: Wikipedia is making the site more secure. You are using an old web browser that will not be able to connect to Wikipedia in the future. Please update your device or contact your IT administrator.

中文: 维基 百科 正在 使 网站 更加 安全 您 正在 使用 旧 的 ， 这 在 将来 无法 连接 维基百科。 更新 您 的 设备 或 您 的 的 管理员。 提供 更 长 ， 具 技术性 的 更新 仅 英语 英语 英语 英语 英语 英语 英语 英语 英语 HI ）。

Espanol: Wikipedia está haciendo el sitio más seguro. Usted está utilizando un navegador web viejo que no será capaz de conectarse a Wikipedia en el futuro. Actualice su dispositivo o contacte a su administrador informático. Más abajo hay una actualizacion más larga y más técnica en inglés.

ﺎﻠﻋﺮﺒﻳﺓ: ويكيبيديا تسعى لتأمين الموقع أكثر من ذي قبل. أنت تستخدم متصفح وب قديم لن يتمكن من الاتصال بموقع ويكيبيديا في المستقبل. يرجى تحديث جهازك أو الاتصال بغداري تقنية المعلومات الخاص بك. يوجد تحديث فني أطول ومغرق في التقنية باللغة الإنجليزية تاليا.

Francais: Wikipedia va bientôt augmenter la securité de son site. Vous utilisez actuellement un navigateur web ancien, qui ne pourra plus se connecter à Wikipédia lorsque ce sera fait. Merci de mettre à jour votre appareil ou de contacter votre administrateur informatique à cette fin. Des informations supplementaires plus techniques et en anglais sont disponibles ci-dessous.

日本語: ウィキペディア で は サイト の セキュリティ を て い ます。 ご 利用 の は バージョン が 古く 、 今後 、 ウィキペディア 接続 でき なく なる 可能 性 が ます デバイス を する 、 、 管理 管理 者 ご ください。 技術 面 の 更新 更新 更新 更新 更新 更新 更新 更新 更新 詳しい 詳しい 詳しい 詳しい HIP 情報は以下に英語で提供しています。

German: Wikipedia erhöht die Sicherheit der Webseite. Du benutzt einen alten Webbrowser, der in Zukunft nicht mehr auf Wikipedia zugreifen können wird. Bitte aktualisiere dein Gerät oder sprich deinen IT-Administrator an. Ausführlichere (und technisch detailliertere) Hinweise findest Du unten in englischer Sprache.

Italiano: Wikipedia sta rendendo il sito più sicuro. Stai usando un browser web che non sarà in grado di connettersi a Wikipedia in futuro. Per favore, aggiorna il tuo dispositivo o contatta il tuo amministratore informatico. Più in basso è disponibile un aggiornamento più dettagliato e tecnico in inglese.

Magyar: Biztonságosabb lesz a Wikipedia. A böngésző, amit használsz, nem lesz képes kapcsolódni a jövőben. Használj modernebb szoftvert vagy jelezd a problemát a rendszergazdádnak. Alább olvashatod a reszletesebb magyarázatot (angolul).

Sweden: Wikipedia gör sidan mer säker. Du använder en äldre webbläsare som inte kommer att kunna läsa Wikipedia i framtiden. Uppdatera din enhet eller kontakta din IT-administratör. Det finns en längre och mer teknisk förklaring på engelska längre ned.

हिन्दी: विकिपीडिया साइट को और अधिक सुरक्षित बना रहा है। आप एक पुराने वेब ब्राउज़र का उपयोग कर रहे हैं जो भविष्य में विकिपीडिया से कनेक्ट नहीं हो पाएगा। कृपया अपना डिवाइस अपडेट करें या अपने आईटी व्यवस्थापक से संपर्क करें। नीचे अंग्रेजी में एक लंबा और अधिक तकनीकी अद्यतन है।

We are removing support for insecure TLS protocol versions, specifically TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1, which your browser software relies on to connect to our sites. This is usually caused by outdated browsers, or older Android smartphones. Or it could be interference from corporate or personal "Web Security" software, which actually downgrades connection security.

You must upgrade your web browser or otherwise fix this issue to access our sites. This message will remain until Jan 1, 2020. After that date, your browser will not be able to establish a connection to our servers.

Since meeting with Plekhanov Lenin Obviously, the thought haunted that Plekhanov had one undoubted advantage over him - Lenin did not have even one volume of theoretical works, while Plekhanov could oppose him, perhaps, with a whole bookshelf of his works. And so, all through the autumn and winter of 1901/1902, Lenin worked on a book, the title for which he borrowed from Chernyshevsky, whose famous novel was called " What to do?". In this book, Lenin outlined his revolutionary principles, the very ones that would become his practice in some sixteen years.

In the revolutionary philosophy "What to do?" there is almost nothing from Marx - after all, it is entirely based on the views of Nechaev and Pisarev. Marx is mentioned in passing, and his thesis that "the emancipation of the working class is the work of the working class itself" is omitted altogether. On the other hand, a new idea appears about creating a small, highly organized and trained handful of revolutionary intelligentsia, which serves as the vanguard of the revolution. This idea is introduced into the minds of readers with ardor and insistence; there can be no other opinions, they are declared opportunism. “Only by its own efforts,” writes Lenin, “the working class is only able to develop a trade union consciousness.” That is, workers can fight against the owners, seeking better working conditions, go on strike, express dissatisfaction, and this limits their activity. But in order to realize the dictatorship of the proletariat, an advanced link of professional revolutionaries is necessary, which is capable of leading the proletariat. Around this link, the best, conscious forces of the workers are being formed, just as ardently devoted to the revolution.

In "What to do?" - the whole of Lenin with the whole arsenal of his propaganda tools. He violently attacks, blasphemes, prophesies, pushes, convinces, calls out. He alone found the key to all the doors at once, and woe to those who dare to disagree with him! “Freedom is a great word,” he declares with gloomy sarcasm, “but under the banner of freedom of industry the most predatory wars were waged, under the banner of freedom of labor they robbed the working people.” Freedom of criticism, as a relic of the Russian past, is declared by him to be a fiction, since now the scientific laws of the development of society have been discovered, and it is useless to argue with them, they are beyond criticism. The entire first chapter is devoted to the overthrow of freedom as such. Speaking of revolutionaries, he describes their heroic, thorny path to victory, which only they, and only they, know. “We walk in a tight group along a steep and difficult path, holding hands tightly. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we almost always have to go under their fire. We united, according to a freely accepted decision, precisely in order to fight the enemies and not stumble into the neighboring swamp, the inhabitants of which from the very beginning reproached us for the fact that we stood out in a special group and chose the path of struggle, and not the path of reconciliation. And so some of us begin to shout: let's go into this swamp! - and when they begin to shame them, they object: what backward people you are! and how shameless you are to deny us the freedom to call you to a better road! – Oh, yes, gentlemen, you are free not only to call, but also to go wherever you like, even into the swamp; we even find that your real place is precisely in the swamp, and we are ready to render you all possible assistance in your resettlement there. But then just leave our hands, don’t grab hold of us and don’t soil the great word freedom, because we, too, are “free” to go where we want, free to fight not only against the swamp, but also against those who turn towards the swamp!”

“History has placed before us [Russian revolutionaries] an immediate task, which is the most revolutionary of all the immediate tasks of the proletariat of any other country. The accomplishment of this task, the destruction of the most powerful bulwark of not only European but also (we may now say) Asiatic reaction, would make the Russian proletariat the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat. And we have the right to expect that we will achieve this honorary title, already deserved by our predecessors, the revolutionaries of the 70s, if we manage to inspire our movement, which is a thousand times wider and deeper, with the same selfless determination and energy.

There is not a single line in Marx's writings to support this prophecy. It is interesting that Lenin does not seek confirmation of his words from Marx. Instead, he turns his thoughts to the revolutionary battles of the 70s in Russia, the participants of which were students who were part of small groups of conspirators obsessed with the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bfighting the autocracy and who considered terror the only sure weapon to achieve this goal. As Lenin, page after page, develops the theory of revolution, it becomes more and more obvious to us that he is simply retelling the famous Russian conspirator Nechaev. He repeats Nechaev's idea of ​​creating an elite detachment of terrorists operating under conditions of the strictest secrecy; their goal is to “penetrate everywhere, into all upper and middle strata, into a merchant’s shop, into a church, into a manor’s house, into the bureaucratic, military world, into literature, into the Third Department, and even into the Winter Palace.” This powerful secret organization must be centralized; it must concentrate in its hands all the threads that bind the revolutionary cells and direct their activities until, finally, at the appropriate moment, it gives the signal for an uprising, for the overthrow of the autocracy.

A revolutionary elite is needed. There is no democracy of revolutionaries. No one will ask the "middle peasants", they have no right to vote. Decisions must be made by one person, the leader, or a very limited group of professional revolutionaries.

Lenin does not deny that the revolutionary movement is assuming a conspiratorial character. He pours streams of contempt on the heads of the so-called "cabinet" theoreticians of the revolution, who pin their hopes on "spontaneous" revolutions, which are a natural manifestation of the discontent of the masses. In his view, the revolution must be clearly planned and calculated by a cold, sober mind; revolution can be manipulated; it must be led by arch-revolutionaries who have at their disposal a whole staff of subordinates and specially trained people, as well as selected combat brigades who master the art of maneuver, surprise attack and (if necessary) retreat.

And as Lenin develops the theme of the revolutionary elite, we, the current readers of his work, seem to begin to hear the echoes of fascist marches, as if the fruits of Nechaev's ideas have sprouted on German soil, becoming the ideological weapon of the stormtroopers. By the way, Lenin pays tribute to the iron submission to the will of the leader in the ranks of the German Social Democrats. On many pages of his book, he praises the new invention of the German mind, the essence of which he describes in the following words: “... Without a “ten” talented (and talents are not born in hundreds), tested, professionally trained and a long school of trained leaders, who perfectly mellowed with each other , it is impossible in modern society to endure the struggle of any one class. German organization plus Russian enthusiasm, the German love of order and obedience, and the Russian unbridled will - that is what is required, according to Lenin, to bring about a revolution.

Nechaev was also convinced of the need to create a revolutionary elite, but what he did not have was admiration for the German mind. " Revolutionary catechism"- the document is exclusively Russian in spirit, as well as the methods of underground struggle prescribed in it, namely: blackmail, threats, intimidation, raids on the very rear of the enemy, bombs, mines - a secret war waged by ghosts, invisible people. The elite of the most selective revolutionaries is likened to romantic heroes, a kind of noble knight-princes who rebelled against the despot tsar. They are doomed, they are waiting for execution. Lenin goes further.

This does not mean that he is moving away from the views of Nechaev, not at all. The militant Nechaev note constantly sounds and reminds of itself. For example, speaking about young people from the intelligentsia, Lenin recommends using them in the revolution in the following way: “If we already had a real party, a really militant organization of revolutionaries, we would not put an edge on all such “accomplices”, would not be in a hurry to always and unconditionally involve them to the very core of "illegalism", but, on the contrary, they would especially take care of them, and even specially train people for such functions, remembering that many students could be more useful to the party as "accomplices" - officials than as " short-term "revolutionaries".

Isn't this the voice of Nechaev himself? The student imitates his teacher so skillfully that one gets the impression that these words somewhere, in some context, have already been uttered by Nechaev. Lenin treated Nechaev's friend with the same enthusiasm. Tkachev, who preached frightening terror, who proposed to act by intimidation, instilling extreme horror in the autocracy, so that it itself could not stand it and expired. Terror, brought to horror, terror, terror and again terror, which no power on earth can resist ... Lenin spoke approvingly of such tactics, considering terror a powerful weapon in the revolutionary struggle. In his opinion, Tkachev's idea of ​​a frightening and truly frightening terror was "majestic." And what should be done if the "people's strata", the "crowd" resort to terror? Lenin's feeling of his revolutionary superiority over the "crowd" is nowhere so felt as in those places where we are talking about the common people, the "people's strata" who have neither courage nor professional qualities, by which fighters initiated into revolutionary science are distinguished by hard work won the right to be called the elite of the revolutionary movement.

Actually, the whole book "What to do?" develops mainly one and the same theme - the theme of the revolutionary elite. Lenin, like a prophet, proclaims that “the dates are drawing near,” and if so, then selected students and followers, devoted comrades-in-arms, real professionals, should gather around him. It is known that the idea of ​​creating a tightly knit group of arch-revolutionaries originally belonged to Nechaev, Lenin only developed it. But, speaking of professional underground workers, he also relies on his own experience of participating in “ Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class”, where he dealt with amateur revolutionaries like himself. In one of the autobiographical passages, he described his then feelings as a beginner in the following way: “I worked in a circle that set itself very broad, comprehensive tasks - and all of us, members of this circle, had to painfully, painfully suffer from the consciousness that we we turn out to be handicraftsmen at such a historical moment when, modifying a well-known saying, one could say: give us an organization of revolutionaries and we will turn Russia over! And the more often since then I have had to recall that burning feeling of shame that I then experienced, the more bitterness accumulated in me against those pseudo-Social Democrats who, with their preaching, “disgrace the revolutionary rank,” who do not understand that our task is not to defend the downgrading of a revolutionary to a handicraftsman, but to elevate handicraftsmen to revolutionaries.

The “chosen ones”, “leaders”, had to correspond to a certain professional level and, in relations with comrades, observe the corresponding code of rules. This so-called "ten" was to be especially revered among the rank and file members of the party, and such a concept as the "broad democratic principle" was declared an empty and harmful toy, unacceptable for the party organization. The time has come to take the revolution seriously, and this is the business of grown men, Lenin said. About his predecessors, he writes: “Their mistake was that they relied on a theory that was essentially not a revolutionary theory at all, and did not know how or could not inseparably link their movement with the class struggle within the developing capitalist society.” Lenin creates a new theory. Its nail is the postulate: the place of the autocracy must be taken by the proletariat. He does not take the trouble to deepen this idea, for him it is a decided fact, starting from which he embarks with all the ardor in discussions on his favorite topic - about the revolutionary elite as the vanguard of the proletariat. He will live in this delusion for the rest of his life. If initially in his theory he did not recognize freedom of criticism, rejected the democratic principle as unsuitable, and the idea of ​​indomitable, fierce terror seemed to him "majestic", then nothing but an authoritarian regime could eventually be born. Then, in 1901, these were still abstract ideas, but they were destined to be realized in practice sixteen years later.

In "What to do?" Lenin gives his own definitions to many social concepts, endowing them with a completely different meaning than those accepted in social science. He grossly distorts the meaning of words. Thus, for example, the Leninist concept of democracy is completely at odds with the way it was interpreted by Cleisthenes, the first to write laws for this form of government in ancient Athens; or as Aristotle defined it. Lenin gives his own definition: democracy is "the abolition of the oppression of one class by another." His definition of “freedom” sounds just as unexpected and stunning. According to Lenin, freedom is ultimately "bourgeois tyranny". These formulations should be remembered, since he constantly in his writings, on the one hand, repeats about his love for democracy, and on the other hand, in fact, rejects freedom.

In announcing that the proletariat of Russia was to play the most important, leading role in the world working-class movement, Lenin was well aware of the illusory nature of such a statement. He knew that at that period, that is, in 1901, the Russian proletariat was still very far from the politically developed working class of Germany, England or America, and therefore its leading role in the world revolution looked very doubtful in the long run, even almost unbelievable. But recognizing that this was just his dream, perhaps even unrealizable, he referred to the following words of Pisarev: “My dream can overtake the natural course of events, or it can grab completely to the side, where no natural course of events can ever come. In the first case, the dream does no harm; it can even support and enhance the energy of the working man... There is nothing in such dreams that would pervert or paralyze the labor force. Even quite the opposite. If a person were completely deprived of the ability to dream in this way, if he could not occasionally run ahead and contemplate with his imagination in a whole and complete picture that very creation that is just beginning to take shape under his hands, then I absolutely cannot imagine what a motive force would compel a person to undertake and complete extensive and tedious works in the field of art, science and practical life ... The discord between dream and reality does not do any harm, if only the dreaming person seriously believes in his dream, carefully peering into life, compares his observation with his castles in the air and generally conscientiously working on the realization of his fantasy. When there is some contact between the dream and the life, then all is well.” Lenin adds the following commentary to Pisarev's words: “Unfortunately, there are too few dreams of this kind in our movement. And those who boast of their sobriety, their "closeness" to the "concrete" are to blame for this most of all.

Until the end of his life, Lenin will remain a hostage to the ideas formulated by him in the book What Is To Be Done? She was destined to play a significant role in the history of the Russian revolution. The style of this book is Lenin incarnate, with his bold ideas and long-winded accusatory tirades against those who did not share his views; he hits them with sarcasm, page after page. Everything that Lenin composes later will become rehashings of the same endless theme.

Lenin wrote "What is to be done?" almost six months. In March 1902, this work was printed in the printing house of the city of Stuttgart, - a small volume in a chocolate-colored cover.

Foreword

( VII ) In the sixth volume of the Complete Works of V.I. Lenin includes the book “What to do? Urgent Questions of Our Movement” (autumn 1901 – February 1902) and works written in January – August 1902.

In Russia at that time there was a further deepening and aggravation of the revolutionary crisis; the revolutionary movement against the autocratic-landowner system assumed an increasingly mass character. Demonstrations and strikes of workers in St. Petersburg, Yekaterinoslav, Rostov-on-Don, Batum in February - March 1902, May Day demonstrations in Saratov, Vilna, Baku, Nizhny Novgorod and other cities were clear evidence of the growing activity and political maturity of the working class - the vanguard of the nationwide struggle against tsarist autocracy. The peasants of Kharkov, Poltava, Saratov provinces rose up in revolt against the landowners; "Agrarian riots" also covered many other areas, the performances of the peasants of Guria (Kutais province) were distinguished by special persistence and organization. "The peasants decided - and they decided quite rightly - that it is better to die in the struggle against the oppressors than to die without a struggle of starvation" (V.I. Lenin. Works, 4th ed., volume 6, p. 385).

In this situation, the struggle of Lenin's Iskra against (VIII) "economism", which was the main brake on the workers' and social democratic movement in Russia, for the ideological and organizational rallying of the revolutionary Marxist elements of Russian social democracy, for the creation of a party of a new type , irreconcilable to opportunism, free from circleism and factionalism, the party is the political leader of the working class, the organizer and leader of the revolutionary struggle against autocracy and capitalism.

An outstanding role in the struggle for the Marxist Labor Party was played by V.I. Lenin "What to do?". In it, Lenin substantiated and developed, in relation to the new historical situation, the ideas of K. Marx and F. Engels about the party as a revolutionary, leading and organizing force of the labor movement, developed the foundations of the doctrine of a new type of party, the party of the proletarian revolution. In this remarkable work of revolutionary Marxism, the Russian Social Democrats found answers to questions that worried them: about the relationship between the conscious and spontaneous elements of the labor movement, about the party as the political leader of the proletariat, about the role of Russian Social Democracy in the impending bourgeois-democratic revolution, about organizational forms, ways and methods of creating a militant revolutionary proletarian party.

Book "What to do?" completed the ideological defeat of "economism", which Lenin considered as a kind of international opportunism (Bernsteinianism) on Russian soil. Lenin exposed the roots of opportunism in the ranks of the Social Democracy: the influence of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the working class, admiration for the spontaneity of the labor movement, belittling the role of socialist consciousness in the labor movement. He wrote that the opportunist trend in international social democracy that took shape at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries and which came out with an attempt to revise Marxism under the flag of "freedom of criticism" borrowed its "theories" entirely from bourgeois literature, that the notorious "freedom of criticism" - it (IX) is nothing but "the freedom to transform the Social Democracy into a democratic reform party, the freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into socialism" (this volume, p. 9).

Lenin showed that between the socialist ideology of the proletariat and the bourgeois ideology there is a continuous and irreconcilable struggle: “... The question is the only way: bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle... Therefore any belittling of socialist ideology, any suspension from it means thereby the strengthening of bourgeois ideology” (pp. 39-40). Socialist consciousness, he explained, does not arise from a spontaneous working-class movement, it is introduced into the working-class movement by a revolutionary Marxist party. And the most important task of the proletarian party is the struggle for the purity of the socialist ideology, against bourgeois influence on the working class, against the opportunists - the conductors and bearers of bourgeois ideology in the labor movement.

Lenin revealed the greatest significance of the theory of scientific socialism for the labor movement, for all the activities of the revolutionary Marxist party of the working class: "... The role of an advanced fighter can only be performed by a party led by an advanced theory"(page 25). Lenin pointed out that the significance of progressive theory was especially great for Russian Social Democracy, in view of the historical features of its development and the revolutionary tasks that confronted it.

In the book What Is to Be Done?, as in other Leninist works of the Iskra period, serious attention is paid to substantiating the tactics of the proletariat of Russia and its party. The working class, Lenin wrote, must and can lead the nationwide democratic movement against the autocratic landlord system, become the vanguard of all revolutionary and opposition forces in Russian society. Therefore, the organization of a comprehensive political denunciation of the autocracy was the most important task of the Russian Social Democracy, one of the indispensable conditions for the political education of the proletariat. This was one of the "hot (X) issues" of the social democratic movement in Russia. The Economists, while preaching profoundly erroneous and harmful views on the class struggle of the proletariat, limited it to the area of ​​economic, professional struggle. Such a policy, the policy of trade unionism, inevitably led the working-class movement into submission to bourgeois ideology and bourgeois politics. In contrast to this opportunist line, Lenin put forward and substantiated the most important position of Marxism-Leninism about the paramount importance of political struggle in the development of society, in the proletarian struggle for socialism: “... The most essential, “decisive” interests of classes can be satisfied only indigenous political transformations in general; in particular, the basic economic interest of the proletariat can only be satisfied through a political revolution that replaces the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with the dictatorship of the proletariat” (p. 46).

Great harm was done to the Social Democratic movement in Russia by the "economists"' admiration for spontaneity in the field of the organizational tasks of the proletariat, their "handicraft" in questions of party building. Lenin saw the source of the primitiveness of the "economists" in the reduction of the tasks of social democracy to the level of trade unionism, in the confusion of two types of organization of the working class: trade unions for organizing the economic struggle of the workers and the political party as the highest form of class organization of the working class. Lenin considered the first and most important task of the Russian Social Democrats to be the creation of an all-Russian centralized organization of revolutionaries, i.e. a political party inextricably linked with the masses, capable of leading the revolutionary struggle of the working class. How to start creating this kind of organization, what path to choose, Lenin showed in the article “Where to start?”, Published in Iskra No. 4 in May 1901 (see Works, 5th ed., Volume 5, p. 1 - 13), and substantiated in detail in the book "What to do?". (xi)

The wide dissemination of Lenin's book in Russia contributed to the victory of the Leninist-Iskra trend in the RSDLP. Book "What to do?" played a major role in rallying party cadres on the basis of Marxism, in preparing for the Second Party Congress and in founding a revolutionary Marxist party in Russia. In this work, V.I. Lenin dealt a strong blow to the revisionists in the Western European Social Democratic parties in the person of Bernstein and his supporters, exposed their opportunism and betrayal of the interests of the working class.

Of exceptional importance for the ideological rallying of the Russian revolutionary Social Democrats was the draft program of the RSDLP, worked out in the first half of 1902 by the editors of Iskra and Zarya and adopted at the Second Congress of the RSDLP (July-August 1902). The Materials for the Development of the Program of the RSDLP published in this volume clearly characterize the role of V.I. Lenin in the preparation of the Iskra draft of the party program, in the principled struggle that accompanied the discussion of various drafts in the Iskra editorial board. Thanks to Lenin, the draft program clearly formulated the most important position of Marxism about the dictatorship of the proletariat; Lenin later wrote that the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat was included in the program of the RSDLP "precisely in connection with the struggle against Bernstein, against opportunism" (Works, 4th ed., vol. 31, p. 314). In disputes with Plekhanov, who showed hesitation on a number of fundamental propositions of Marxism that were attacked by the Bernsteinians, Lenin defended the inclusion in the draft program of the thesis that small-scale production was being ousted by large-scale production as a natural process in capitalist society; at his insistence, the draft program clearly indicated the leading role of the party as a conscious spokesman for the class movement of the proletariat and clearly expressed the idea of ​​the hegemony of the working class.

III

TRADE UNIONIST AND SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC POLITICS

Let's start again with the praise of “Rab. Cause." "Revealing Literature and the Proletarian Struggle" was the title of Martynov's article in No. 10 of Rabochey Dyelo on the disagreements with Iskra. “We cannot confine ourselves to a single denunciation of the conditions that stand in the way of its (the workers' party) development. We must also respond to the immediate and current interests of the proletariat” (p. 63) - this is how he formulated the essence of these disagreements. “...“Iskra” ... is, in fact, an organ of the revolutionary opposition, denouncing our system, and primarily the political system ... We are working and will continue to work for the workers’ cause in close organic connection with the proletarian struggle” (ibid.). One cannot but be grateful to Martynov for this formulation. It acquires an outstanding general interest, because it covers, in essence, not only our disagreements with “R. deed,” but also all the disagreements in general between us and the “economists” on the question of the political struggle. We have already shown that the "Economists" do not unconditionally reject "politics", but only continually stray from the Social-Democratic to the trade unionist conception of politics. Martynov goes astray in exactly the same way, and we therefore agree to take him for ~ sample economic misconceptions on this issue. For such a choice - we will try to show this - neither the authors of the “Separate Appendix to the “Rab. Thoughts,” nor the authors of the proclamation of the Self-Liberation Group, nor the authors of the “economic” letter in No. 12 of Iskra.

a) POLITICAL CAMPAIGN AND ITS NARROWING BY ECONOMISTS

Everyone knows that the wide dissemination and consolidation of the economic struggle of the Russian workers went hand in hand with the creation of a "literature" of economic (factory and professional) denunciations. The main content of the "leaflets" were denunciations of factory practices, and among the workers a real passion for denunciations soon flared up. As soon as the workers saw that the Social-Democratic circles were willing and able to supply them with a new kind of leaflet telling the whole truth about their miserable life, their exorbitant hard work and their lack of rights, they began, one might say, to bombard them with correspondence from factories and factories. This "accusatory literature" produced an enormous sensation not only in the factory whose orders this leaflet scourged, but also in all factories where anything was heard about the exposed facts. And since the needs and misfortunes of workers in different institutions and different professions have much in common, the “truth about working life” delighted everyone. Among the most backward workers a real passion for "printing" has developed - a noble passion for this rudimentary form of warfare with the entire modern social order built on plunder and oppression. And in the vast majority of cases the leaflets were really a declaration of war, because the exposure had a terribly exciting effect, aroused on the part of the workers a general demand to eliminate the most flagrant outrages and a readiness to support these demands with strikes. In the end, the manufacturers themselves had to recognize the significance of these leaflets as a declaration of war to such an extent that very often they did not want to wait for the war itself. Reproofs, as always, became strong by the mere fact of their appearance, acquired the meaning of powerful moral pressure. It happened more than once that one appearance of a leaf was enough to satisfy all or part of the requirements. In a word, economic (factory) denunciations were and still are an important lever of the economic struggle. And this significance will remain with them as long as capitalism exists, which gives rise to the necessary self-defense of the workers. In the most advanced European countries, one can even now observe how the denunciation of the outrages of some backwater "trade" or some forgotten branch of domestic work serves as the starting point for the awakening of class consciousness, for the beginning of the professional struggle and the spread of socialism. The overwhelming majority of Russian Social-Democrats of recent times have been almost entirely absorbed in this work of organizing factory denunciations. Suffice it to recall “Rab. Thought” to see to what extent this absorption reached, how it was forgotten that by her own this, in essence, is not yet Social-Democratic, but only trade-unionist activity. The denunciations captured, in essence, only the relations of workers this profession to their owners and achieved only that the sellers of labor power learned to sell this “commodity” more profitably and fight the buyer on the basis of a purely commercial transaction. These denunciations could become (provided that they were used in a certain way by the organization of revolutionaries) the beginning and integral part of Social Democratic activity, but they could also (and, provided they bowed to spontaneity, should) lead to “only professional” struggle and to non-Social Democratic Social Democracy leads the struggle of the working class not only for v favorable conditions for the sale of labor power, but also for the destruction of the social system that forces the poor to sell themselves to the rich. Social Democracy represents the working class not in its relation to this particular group of entrepreneurs, but in its relation to all classes of modern society, to the state as an organized political force. It is clear from this that the Social-Democrats not only cannot confine themselves to the economic struggle, but also cannot allow the organization of economic denunciations to be their predominant activity. We must actively take up the political education of the working class, the development of its political consciousness. With this now, after the first onslaught on "Economism" by Zarya and Iskra, "everyone agrees" (although some only in words, as we shall see in a moment). same should be political education? Is it possible to confine oneself to propagating the idea of ​​the hostility of the working class to the autocracy? Of course not. Not enough explain political oppression of the workers (as it was not enough explain them the opposite of their interests to the interests of the owners). It is necessary to agitate about each specific manifestation of this oppression (as we began to agitate about specific manifestations of economic oppression). And since this is oppression falls on the most diverse classes of society, since it manifests itself in the most diverse areas of life and activity, both professional, and general civil, and personal, and family, and religious, and scientific, and so on. etc., is it not obvious that we will not fulfill our task develop the political consciousness of the workers if we do not let's take over organization comprehensive political denunciation autocracy? After all, in order to agitate about concrete manifestations of oppression, it is necessary to denounce these manifestations (as it was necessary to denounce factory abuses in order to conduct economic agitation)? It would seem that this is clear? But it is here that it turns out that with the necessity comprehensively“everyone” agrees to develop political consciousness only in words. This is where it turns out that “Rab. Cause”, for example, not only did not take upon itself the task of organizing (or laying the foundation for organizing) all-round political denunciations, but became drag back and Iskra, which took on this task. Listen: “The political struggle of the working class is only” (precisely not only) “the most developed, broadest and real form of economic struggle” (the program of Rabochaya Dyelo, R. D. No. 1, p. 3). “Now the Social-Democrats face the task of giving the economic struggle itself as much as possible a political character” (Martynov, No. 10, p. 42). “The economic struggle is the most widely applicable means for drawing the masses into an active political struggle” (Resolution of the Congress of the Union and “Amendments”: “Two Congresses”, pp. 11 and 17). All these provisions permeate “Rab. The Deed,” as the reader sees it, from its very beginning to the last “editorial instructions,” and all of them obviously express one view of political agitation and struggle. Take a closer look at this view from the point of view of the opinion prevailing among all “economists” that political agitation should to follow for economic. Is it true that the economic struggle is in general "the most widely applicable means" for drawing the masses into the political struggle? Completely wrong. No less “widely applicable” means of such “involvement” are all and sundry manifestations of police oppression and autocratic excesses, and by no means only such manifestations as are connected with the economic struggle. Zemstvo bosses and corporal punishment of peasants, bribery of officials and police treatment of the city "common people", the fight against the starving and the persecution of the people's desire for light and knowledge, the extortion of taxes and the persecution of sectarians, the drill of soldiers and the soldier's treatment of students and the liberal intelligentsia - why is everything these and thousands of other similar manifestations of oppression, not directly connected with the "economic" struggle, are in general less“widely applicable” means and reasons for political agitation, for drawing the masses into the political struggle? Quite the opposite: in the total sum of those life cases when a worker suffers (for himself or for people close to him) from lack of rights, arbitrariness and violence, only a small minority, undoubtedly, are cases of police oppression precisely in the professional struggle. Why in advance narrow scope of political agitation, declaring "the most widely applicable" only one of the means, along with which for the Social-Democrat must be other, generally speaking, no less "widely applicable"? In times long, long past (a year ago! ..) Delo” wrote: “The immediate political demands become available to the masses after one or, at the most, several strikes”, “as soon as the government has set the police and gendarmerie in motion” (No. 7, p. 15, August 1900). This opportunistic theory of stages has now been rejected by the Union, which makes a concession to us, declaring: “There is no need from the very beginning to conduct political agitation solely on economic grounds” (“Two Congresses”, p. 11). The future historian of Russian Social-Democracy will see better from this denial by the Soyuz of some of its old delusions than from any lengthy reasoning to what a humiliation our “Economists” reduced socialism! But what naivete was it on the part of the Union to imagine that, at the cost of this rejection of one form of narrowing of policy, we might be induced to agree to another form of narrowing! Would it not be more logical to say here that the economic struggle should be carried on as widely as possible, that it should always be used for political agitation, but “there is no need” to consider the economic struggle most widely applicable means for drawing the masses into an active political struggle? The Union attaches importance to the fact that it replaced the expression "the best means" with the expression "the most widely applicable means" in the corresponding resolution of the 4th Congress of the Jewish Workers' Union (Bund) in 8 . We really would find it difficult to say which of these resolutions is better: in our opinion, both are worse. Here both the Union and the Bund stray (partly, perhaps even unconsciously, under the influence of tradition) towards an economic, trade unionist interpretation of politics. The matter does not, in essence, change at all whether this is done by the word: "best" or by the word: "most widely applicable." If the Union were to say that "political agitation on an economic basis" is the most widely used (and not "applicable") means, then it would be right in relation to a certain period in the development of our Social-Democratic movement. He would be right about "Economists" in relation to many practitioners (if not most of them) of 1898-1901, for these “economists” practitioners, indeed, political agitation applied(because they used it at all!) almost exclusively on economic grounds. Such political agitation was recognized and even recommended, as we have seen, and Rab. Thought” and “Self-Liberation Group”! "Slave. case” should have strongly condemn that the useful work of economic agitation was accompanied by a harmful narrowing of the political struggle, and instead changeable (“economists”) the most widely used tool applicable/ It is not surprising that when we call these people "economists", they have no choice but to scold us to the fullest and "hoaxers", and "disorganizers", and "papal nuncios", and "slanderers", how to cry in front of everyone and every one that they have been mortally offended, how to declare almost with oaths: "No Social-Democratic organization is at present guilty of 'economism'." Oh, these slanderers, evil politicians! Didn’t they deliberately invent all “Economism” in order to inflict on people, because of their misanthropy alone, bloody grievances? ? The economic struggle is a collective struggle between workers and employers for favorable conditions. labor sales, to improve the working and living conditions of workers. This struggle is necessarily a professional struggle, because working conditions are extremely varied in different professions, and, consequently, the struggle for improvement these conditions cannot but be carried out by profession (trade unions in the West, professional temporary associations and leaflets in Russia, etc.). To give “the economic struggle itself a political character” means, consequently, to achieve the same professional demands, the same professional improvement in working conditions through “legislative and administrative measures” (as Martynov puts it on the next page 43 of his article). This is precisely what all the trade unions of the workers are doing and have always done. Take a look at the work of the well-founded scholars (and "well-founded" opportunists) of the Webbs, and you will see that the British workers' unions have long since recognized and are carrying out the task of "giving the economic struggle itself a political character", have long been fighting for freedom to strike, for the elimination of all kinds of legal obstacles to the cooperative and professional movement, for the issuance of laws in defense of women and children, for the improvement of working conditions through sanitary and factory legislation, etc. Thus, behind the magnificent phrase: “to give most economic struggle of a political nature”, which sounds “terribly” profound and revolutionary, hides, in essence, the traditional desire belittle social-democratic politics to trade-unionist politics! Under the guise of correcting the one-sidedness of the Iskra, which puts - you see - "the revolutionization of dogma above the revolutionization of life", we are presented as something new struggle for economic reform. In fact, there is absolutely nothing else but the struggle for economic reforms contained in the phrase: "to give the economic struggle itself a political character." And Martynov himself could have come up with this simple conclusion, if he had carefully delved into the meaning of his own words. “Our party,” he says, bringing forward its heaviest weapon against Iskra, “could and should put concrete demands on the government for legislative and administrative measures against economic exploitation, against unemployment, against famine, etc.” (pp. 42-43 in No. 10 of R.D.). Specific demands of measures - isn't this a demand for social reforms? And we ask again impartial readers whether we are slandering the Rabocheedelentsy (forgive me this clumsy current word!), Calling them covert Bernsteinians when they put forward as their own disagreement with Iskra, the thesis about the necessity of fighting for economic reforms? But it uses "economic" agitation to present to the government not only demands for all sorts of measures, but also (and above all) demands to cease being an autocratic government. In addition, she considers it her duty to present this demand to the Government Not only on the basis of the economic struggle, but also on the basis of all manifestations of social and political life in general. In a word, it subordinates the struggle for reforms, as part of the whole, to the revolutionary struggle for freedom and for socialism. Martynov, on the other hand, resurrects the theory of stages in a different form, trying to prescribe without fail an economic, so to speak, path for the development of the political struggle. Coming out at a moment of revolutionary upsurge with the supposedly special “task” of fighting for reforms, he thereby drags the party back and plays into the hands of both “economic” and liberal opportunism. Further. Shamefully hiding the struggle for reforms under a pompous thesis: “to give the economic struggle itself a political character”, Martynov presented as something special only economic(and even only factory ones) reforms. Why he did this, we do not know. Perhaps through an oversight? But if he had in mind not only the "factory" reforms, then his entire thesis, which we have just quoted, would lose all meaning. Perhaps because he considers possible and probable "concessions" on the part of the government only in the economic sphere? If so, then this is a strange delusion: concessions are possible and are also possible in the field of legislation on the rod, on passports, on ransom payments, on sectarianism, on censorship, and so on. and so on. “Economic” concessions (or false concessions) are, of course, the cheapest and most profitable for the government, because it hopes to inspire confidence in itself among the working masses. But it is precisely for this reason that we Social-Democrats do not must in no way and absolutely nothing to give place to the opinion (or misunderstanding) that economic reforms are dearer to us, that we consider them especially important, etc. - would not be an empty phrase, because, promising certain tangible results, they could be actively supported by the working masses”... We are not “economists”, oh no! We only grovel just as slavishly before the “tangibility” of concrete results, as do the Bernsteins, Prokopovichi, Struve, R. M. and tutti quanti! We only make it clear (together with Nartsis Tuporylov) that everything that does not “promise tangible results” is “an empty phrase”! We only express ourselves as if the working masses are incapable (and have not already shown, despite those who blame their philistinism, their ability) to actively support any protest against autocracy, even absolutely no tangible results promising her! Take, for example, the same examples cited by Martynov himself about "measures" against unemployment and hunger. While “Working. Delo” is engaged, judging by its promise, in the development and development of “concrete (in the form of bills?) requirements for legislative and administrative measures”, “promising tangible results”, - at this time “Iskra”, “invariably putting the revolutionization of dogma above the revolutionization of life” , tried to explain the inextricable link between unemployment and the entire capitalist system, warned that “famine was coming”, denounced the police “fight against the starving” and the outrageous “temporary hard labor rules”, at that time Zarya published a separate print, as an agitational pamphlet, part dedicated to hunger "Internal Review". But, my God, how “one-sided” were the incorrigibly narrow orthodoxies, deaf to the dictates of “life itself” dogmatists! Not one of their articles was - oh horror! - for one, well, you can imagine: absolutely not a single "concrete demand" "promising tangible results"! Poor dogmatists! To give them to science by Krichevsky and Martynov in order to convince them that tactics are a process of growth, growing, etc., and that most give a political character to the economic struggle! “The economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government (“economic the struggle against the government”!!), besides its immediate revolutionary significance, has also the other significance that it constantly pushes the workers to the question of their political lack of rights” (Martynov, p. 44). We wrote out this quotation not to repeat for the hundredth or thousandth time what has already been said above, but in order to thank Martynov in particular for this new and excellent formulation: "The economic struggle of the workers against the employers and against the government." How lovely! With what inimitable talent, with what skillful elimination of all particular disagreements and differences in shades between "economists" is expressed here in a short and clear position the whole point"Economism", beginning with the call on the workers to "a political struggle which they are waging in the interests of the common people, having in mind the improvement of the condition of all the workers," continuing with the theory of stages, and ending with the resolution of the congress on "the broadest applicability," and so on. The “economic struggle against the government” is precisely trade unionist politics, from which Social-Democratic politics is still very, very far away.

b) THE STORY ABOUT HOW MARTYNOV DEEPENED PLEKHANOV

c) POLITICAL RESPONSES And “EDUCATION OF REVOLUTIONARY ACTIVITY”

In putting forward his “theory” of “increasing the activity of the working masses” against Iskra, Martynov actually revealed a desire belittle this activity, because he declared the preferred, especially important, "most widely applicable" means of awakening and the field of this activity the same economic struggle, before which all "economists" grovelled. That is why this delusion is characteristic, because it is by no means peculiar to Martynov alone. In fact, “increasing the activity of the working masses” can be achieved only provided that we we will not be limited"political agitation on economic grounds." And one of the main conditions for the necessary expansion of political agitation is the organization comprehensive political denunciations. Otherwise, how on these denunciations can not educate the political consciousness and revolutionary activity of the masses. Therefore, activity of this kind constitutes one of the most important functions of all international Social-Democracy, for even political freedom does not in the least eliminate, but only slightly shifts the sphere of direction of these denunciations. For example, the German party especially strengthens its position and expands its influence precisely because of the unflagging energy of its political denunciation campaign. The consciousness of the working class cannot be a true political consciousness if the workers are not trained to respond to all and all kinds cases of arbitrariness and oppression, violence and abuse, to which classes neither were these cases; - and, moreover, to respond precisely from the Social-Democratic point of view, and not from any other point of view. The consciousness of the working masses cannot be a true class consciousness if the workers do not learn to observe concrete and, moreover, topical (topical) political facts and events. each from other social classes all manifestations of the mental, moral and political life of these classes; - will not learn to put into practice materialistic analysis and materialistic evaluation all aspects of activity and life all classes, strata and groups of the population. Anyone who pays attention, observation and consciousness of the working class exclusively, or even predominantly to it, is not a Social Democrat, for the self-knowledge of the working class is inextricably linked with the complete distinctness of not only theoretical ... or rather, even to say: not so much theoretical as on experience of political life developed ideas about the relationship all classes of modern society. That is why the preaching of our “economists” is so profoundly harmful and so profoundly reactionary in its practical significance, that the economic struggle is the most widely applicable means of drawing the masses into the political movement. In order to become a Social-Democrat, the worker must clearly understand the economic nature and socio-political image of the landlord and the priest, the dignitary and the peasant, the student and the tramp, know their strengths and weaknesses, be able to understand those current phrases and all kinds of sophisms with which covers each class and each stratum has its own egoistic inclinations and its own real “inside”, to be able to understand which institutions and laws reflect and how exactly they reflect certain interests. And this “clear idea” cannot be gleaned from any book: it can only be given by vivid pictures and, in hot pursuit, made up denunciations of what is happening at the moment around us, of which everyone and everyone is talking about in their own way, or at least whispered, that expressed in such and such events, in such and such figures, in such and such judicial verdicts, and so on, and so on, and so on. These comprehensive political denunciations are necessary and basic a condition for cultivating the revolutionary activity of the masses. Why does the Russian worker still show little revolutionary activity over the brutal treatment of the people by the police, over the persecution of sectarians, the beating of peasants, over the outrages of censorship, the torture of soldiers, the persecution of the most innocent cultural undertakings, etc.? Is it not because the “economic struggle” does not “push” him into this, because this “promises” little “tangible results” for him, gives him little “positive”? No, there is such an opinion, we repeat, nothing but an attempt to shift from a sick head to a healthy one, to dump one's own philistinism (Bernsteinism, too) onto the working masses. We must blame ourselves, our backwardness from the movement of the masses, that we have not yet been able to organize sufficiently broad, clear, and swift denunciations of all these infamies. If we do this (and we must do it and we can do it) - and the grayest worker will understand or feel that the student and the sectarian, the muzhik and the writer, are cursing and outrageous with that same dark force that oppresses and crushes him at every step of his life, and, having felt this, he will want, irresistibly want to respond himself, he will be able then - today to arrange a cat's a concert to the censors, tomorrow to demonstrate in front of the house of the governor who had pacified the peasant rebellion, the day after tomorrow to give a lesson to those gendarmes in the cassock who are doing the work of the Holy Inquisition, etc. We have still done very little, almost nothing to ensure that throw comprehensive and fresh denunciations to the working masses. Many of us are not yet aware of this responsibilities, but they spontaneously drag themselves behind the “gray ongoing struggle” within the narrow confines of factory life. In this state of affairs, to say: “Iskra has a tendency to belittle the importance of the progressive course of the gray current struggle in comparison with the propaganda of brilliant and complete ideas” (Martynov, p. 61) means dragging the party back, means defending and glorifying our unpreparedness, backwardness. As for calling the masses to action, this will come out of itself, as soon as there is energetic political agitation, lively and vivid denunciations. To catch someone at the scene of a crime and brand them in front of everyone and everywhere at once - this works in itself better than any “call”, it often works in such a way that later it will not be possible to determine who actually “called” the crowd and who actually put forward that or some other plan of demonstration, etc. It is possible to call - not in general, but in the specific sense of the word - only at the scene of action, only the one who himself is going now can call. And our business, the business of Social-Democratic publicists, is to deepen, broaden and intensify political denunciations and political agitation. Speaking of “calls”. The only organ which the before spring events urged workers to actively intervene in such, not promising absolutely no tangible results to the worker, the question is how to return students to soldiers, - was the Iskra. Immediately after the publication of the order on January 11 on the “transfer of 183 students into soldiers,” Iskra published an article about this (No. 2, February) and, before any start of demonstrations, directly called"worker to go to the aid of the student", called "the people" to openly answer the government to its audacious challenge. We ask everyone and everyone: how and with what to explain the outstanding circumstance that, speaking so much about “calls”, singling out “calls” even as a special type of activity, Martynov did not mention a word about this call? And isn’t it philistinism after this that Martynov’s announcement of Iskra one-sided because it does not “call” enough to fight for demands that “promise tangible results”? Our “economists,” including Rabocheye Dyelo, were successful by imitating undeveloped workers. But the Social-Democratic worker, the revolutionary worker (and the number of such workers is constantly growing) will indignantly reject all these arguments about the struggle for demands “promising tangible results”, etc., for he will understand that these are only versions of the old song about a penny per ruble. Such a worker will tell his advisers from R. Thoughts” and from “Rab. Affairs”: in vain you fuss, gentlemen, interfering too zealously in the business with which we ourselves manage, and shirking from the performance of your real duties. It is not at all clever when you say that the task of the Social-Democrats is to give the economic struggle itself a political character; this is only the beginning, and this is not the main task of the Social Democrats, for throughout the world, including in Russia the police themselves often begin to attach economic struggle is political in nature, the workers themselves learn to understand who the government stands for. After all, that “economic struggle of the workers against the bosses and the government”, with which you are rushing about, as if with the America you discovered, is being waged in the mass of Russian backwoods by the workers themselves, who have heard of strikes, but have hardly heard anything about socialism. After all, that “activity” of us workers, which you all want to support by putting forward concrete demands promising tangible results, is already in us, and we ourselves, in our everyday, professional, petty work, put forward these concrete demands often without any help from intellectuals. But we don't have enough such activity; we are not children to be fed with the gruel of one "economic" policy; we want to know everything that others know, we want to get to know everyone aspects of political life and actively participate in any and every political event. For this it is necessary that the intellectuals repeat less what we ourselves know, and give us more of what we do not yet know, what we ourselves can never learn from our factory and “economic” experience, namely: political knowledge. This knowledge can be acquired by you, intellectuals, and you obliged deliver it to us a hundred and a thousand times more than you have done so far, and, moreover, deliver it not only in the form of arguments, pamphlets and articles (which are often - pardon the frankness! - boring), but certainly in the form of live denunciation what exactly our government and our commanding classes are doing at this time in all spheres of life. Fulfill this duty of yours more diligently, and talk less about "increasing the activity of the working masses." We have much more activity than you think, and we are able to support even demands with an open, street struggle that do not promise any “tangible results”! And it’s not for you to “increase” our activity, because You just don't have enough activity. Bow less to spontaneity and think more about promotion with howl activities gentlemen!

d) WHAT DOES ECONOMISM AND TERRORISM HAVE IN COMMON?

Above, in a footnote, we compared an “economist” and a non-Social-Democrat-terrorist who happened to be in solidarity. But, generally speaking, between the two there is not an accidental, but a necessary internal connection, about which we shall have to speak below and which must be touched upon precisely on the question of instilling revolutionary activity. "Economists" and modern terrorists have one common root: this is exactly what admiration for spontaneity, oh which we spoke of in the previous chapter as a general phenomenon, and which we now consider in its influence on the field of political activity and political struggle. At first glance, our statement may seem like a paradox: to such an extent, apparently, is the difference between people who emphasize the “gray current struggle” and people who call for the most selfless struggle of individuals. But this is not a paradox. "Economists" and terrorists bow before different poles of the spontaneous current: "Economists" - before the spontaneity of the "purely working-class movement", terrorists - before the spontaneity of the most ardent indignation of intellectuals who are unable or unable to link revolutionary work into one whole with the working-class movement. Whoever has lost faith or never believed in this possibility, it is really difficult for him to find another way out for his indignant! feeling and one's own revolutionary energy, except for terror." start of implementation of the famous Credo program: the workers are waging their own “economic struggle against the employers and the government” (may the author of Credo forgive us for expressing his thought in Martynian words! We find that we have the right to do this, for the Credo also says about how the workers in the economic struggle "run into the political regime") - and the intellectuals wage their own political struggle, naturally, with the help of terror! It's perfectly logical and inevitable conclusion, on which it is impossible not to insist, at least those who starts this program, themselves and did not realize its inevitability. Political activity has its own logic, independent of the consciousness of those who, in the best of intentions, call either for terror or for the political character of the economic struggle itself. Hell is paved with good intentions, and in this case, good intentions still do not save from elemental attraction along the “line of least resistance”, along the line purely bourgeois programs "Credo". It is no coincidence, after all, that many Russian liberals - both open liberals and those wearing a Marxist mask - sympathize with terror with all their hearts and are trying to support the upsurge of terrorist sentiment at the moment. task is precisely to provide all-round assistance to the working-class movement, but with the inclusion of into the program terror and emancipated, so to speak, from the Social Democracy - this fact gave more and more confirmation of the remarkable perspicacity of P. B. Axelrod, who literally predicted these results of social democratic vacillation back at the end of 1897(“On the Question of Modern Tasks and Tactics”) and sketched out his famous “two perspectives”. All subsequent disputes and disagreements between the Russian Social-Democrats are, like a plant in a seed, in these two perspectives. From this point of view, it also becomes clear that “Rab. Cause, which could not resist the spontaneity of Economism, could not resist the spontaneity of terrorism either. It is very interesting to note here that special argument in defense of terror, which was put forward by Svoboda. She “completely denies” the intimidating role of terror (The Revival of Revolutionism, p. 64), but on the other hand puts forward its “excitative (exciting) meaning.” This is characteristic, firstly, as one of the stages of the decay and decline of that traditional (pre-Social-Democratic) circle of ideas that forced us to hold on to terror. means, in essence, to completely condemn terror as a system of struggle, as a sphere of activity sanctified by the program. Secondly, this is even more characteristic, as an example of a lack of understanding of our urgent tasks in the matter of "educating the revolutionary activity of the masses." Svoboda propagandizes terror as a means of "stirring up" the working-class movement, of giving it a "strong impetus." It is difficult to imagine an argument that would more clearly refute itself! Really, one asks, in Russian life there are still few such outrages that it is necessary to invent special “exciting” means? And, on the other hand, if someone is not excited and is not excited even by Russian arbitrariness, then is it not obvious that he will also look at the single combat of the government with a handful of terrorists “picking his nose”? The fact of the matter is that the working masses are very excited by the vileness of Russian life, but we do not know how to collect, so to speak, and concentrate all those drops and trickles of popular excitement that seep out of Russian life in an immeasurably greater amount than we all imagine. imagine and think, but which must be precisely combined into one giant stream. That this is a feasible task is irrefutably proved by the enormous growth of the working-class movement and the greed of the workers for political literature, already noted above. Calls for terror, as well as calls for giving the economic struggle itself a political character, are different forms. shirking from the most urgent duty of Russian revolutionaries: to organize the conduct of all-round political agitation. "Freedom" wants replace agitation by terror, frankly admitting that “once intensified, energetic agitation among the masses begins, its excitative (exciting) role is played” (p. 68 of “Revival by Revolution.”). This just shows that both terrorists and “economists” underestimate the revolutionary activity of the masses, in spite of the clear evidence of the events of the spring, some rushing to look for artificial "activators", while others speak of "concrete demands". Both of them pay insufficient attention to the development its own activity in the matter of political agitation and organization of political denunciations. BUT replace this work is impossible by anything else "neither now, nor at any other time.

e) THE WORKING CLASS AS THE LEADING FIGHTER FOR DEMOCRACY

We have seen that the conduct of the most extensive political agitation, and consequently the organization of all-round political denunciations, is absolutely necessary and most urgently a necessary task of activity if it is truly Social-Democratic activity. But we have drawn this conclusion from only from the most urgent need of the working class for political knowledge and political education. However, only such a formulation of the question would be too narrow, it would ignore the general democratic tasks of every Social Democracy in general and contemporary Russian Social Democracy in particular. In order to explain this proposition as concretely as possible, let us try to approach the matter from the “closest” point of view for an “economist,” namely, from the practical side. “Everyone agrees” that it is necessary to develop the political consciousness of the working class. The question is how to do it and what is needed in order to do it? The economic struggle "leads" the workers only to questions about the attitude of the government towards the working class, and therefore, no matter how hard we work over the task of “giving the economic struggle itself a political character”, we we will never be able to to develop the political consciousness of the workers (to the level of social-democratic political consciousness) within the framework of this task, for these very limits are narrow. Martynov's formula is valuable to us not at all because it illustrates Martynov's ability to confuse, but because it vividly expresses the basic mistake of all "economists", namely the conviction that it is possible to develop the class political consciousness of the workers. from inside, so to speak, their economic struggle, i.e., based only (or at least mainly) on this struggle, based only (or at least mainly) on this struggle. Such a view is fundamentally erroneous, and precisely because the "economists", angry with us for the polemic against them, do not want to think carefully about the source of disagreements, and it turns out that we literally do not understand each other, we speak different languages. Class political consciousness can be brought to the worker only from the outside that is, from outside the economic struggle, from outside the sphere of relations between workers and employers. The area from which this knowledge can only be drawn is the area of ​​relations all classes and strata to the state and government, the area of ​​the relationship between everyone classes. Therefore, to the question: what should be done to bring political knowledge to the workers? it is impossible to give only one answer, which in most cases is satisfied with the practitioners, not to mention the practitioners who are inclined towards "economism", namely the answer: "go to the workers." To bring workers political knowledge, social democrats must go to all classes of the population, should send out in all directions detachments of our army. We purposely choose such an angular formulation, purposely express ourselves in a simplistic and sharp way - not at all out of a desire to speak paradoxes, but in order to properly “push” the “economists” to those tasks that they inexcusably neglect, to the difference between trade unionist and social democratic politics, which they do not want to understand. And so we ask the reader not to get excited, but to listen attentively to the end. Take the type of social-democratic circle that has been most widespread in recent years and examine its work. He has "connections with the workers" and satisfies himself by issuing leaflets denouncing factory abuses, government bias towards capitalists, and police brutality; at meetings with workers, the conversation usually does not, or almost does not, go beyond the bounds of the same topics; abstracts and talks on the history of the revolutionary movement, on questions of the domestic and foreign policy of our government, on questions of the economic evolution of Russia and Europe and the situation in modern society of certain classes, etc., are the greatest rarity, on the systematic acquisition and expansion of ties in other classes of society, no one even thinks. In fact, in most cases, the ideal of the leader is portrayed for the members of such a circle as something much more like a secretary of a trade union than a socialist political leader. For the secretary of any, for example, English trade union always helps the workers to wage an economic struggle, organizes factory denunciations, explains the injustice of laws and measures that restrict the freedom of strikes, the freedom to set up guard posts (to warn everyone that there is a strike at a given factory), explains the partiality of an arbitrator belonging to the bourgeois classes of the people, etc., etc. In a word, every secretary of the trade union wages and helps to wage the "economic struggle against the employers and the government." And we cannot insist enough that it's not yet social democracy, that the ideal of a social democrat should not be a secretary of the trade union, but people's tribune, who knows how to respond to any and all manifestations of arbitrariness and oppression, wherever they occur, no matter what stratum or class they concern, who knows how to generalize all these manifestations into one picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation, who knows how to use every little thing to set forth in front of everyone their socialist convictions and their democratic demands in order to explain everyone and to each the world-historical significance of the liberation struggle of the proletariat. Compare, for example, such figures as Robert Knight (the well-known secretary and leader of the Boiler Society, one of the most powerful English trade unions) and Wilhelm Liebknecht - and try to apply to them those oppositions in which Martynov puts his disagreements with Iskra. You will see - I start leafing through Martynov's article - that R. Knight much more "called on the masses to certain specific actions" (39), and W. Liebknecht was more engaged in "revolutionary coverage of the entire present system or its partial manifestations" (38-39 ); that R. Knight “formulated the immediate demands of the proletariat and indicated the means for their implementation” (41), and W. Liebknecht, doing this, did not refuse to “simultaneously direct the vigorous activity of various opposition strata”, “dictate for them a positive program of action ” (41); that R. Knight tried precisely “to give the economic struggle itself, as far as possible, a political character” (42) and was perfectly able to “put concrete demands on the government promising certain tangible results” (43), while W. Liebknecht was much more engaged in “one-sided” “denunciations ” (40); that R. Knight attached more importance to the “progressive course of the current gray struggle” (61), and W. Liebknecht to “the propaganda of brilliant and complete ideas” (61); that W. Liebknecht created from the newspaper he led precisely “an organ of the revolutionary opposition, denouncing our order, and mainly the political order, since they clash with the interests of the most diverse sections of the population” (63), while R. Knight “worked for the working cause in close organic connection with the proletarian struggle" (63) - if we understand "close and organic connection" in the sense of that worship of spontaneity, which we studied above using the examples of Krichevsky and Martynov - and "narrowed the sphere of his influence", confident, of course, like Martynov , in that he “thus complicates the very impact” (63). In a word, you will see that de facto Martynov reduces Social Democracy to trade unionism, although he does this, of course, by no means because he does not wish the Social Democracy well, but simply because he hastened a little to deepen Plekhanov instead of in order to take the trouble to understand Plekhanov. But let us return to our presentation. We said that a Social-Democrat, if he stands for the necessity of the all-round development of the political consciousness of the proletariat, not only in words, must "go to all classes of the population." The questions are: how to do it? do we have the strength to do so? is there a basis for such work in all other classes? would this mean a retreat or lead to a retreat from the class point of view? Let's dwell on these questions. We must “go to all classes of the population” both as theoreticians, and as propagandists, and as agitators, and as organizers. That the theoretical work of the Social-Democrats should be directed to the study of all the peculiarities of the social and political position of individual classes, no one doubts this. But very, very little is being done in this respect, disproportionately little compared to the work aimed at studying the peculiarities of factory life. In committees and circles you will meet people who go deep even into a special acquaintance with some kind of iron-making production - but you will hardly find examples of members of organizations (forced, as is often the case, to move away from practical work for one reason or another) specially engaged in the collection of materials on some topical issue of our social and political life, which may give rise to Social-Democratic work in other sections of the population. Speaking of the lack of preparedness of the majority of contemporary leaders of the working-class movement, one cannot fail to mention preparation in this regard, for this is also connected with the “economic” understanding of “close organic connection with the proletarian struggle.” But most importantly, of course, propaganda and agitation in all strata of the people. This task is made easier for the Western European Social-Democrat by the people's assemblies and gatherings, to which any willing, - facilitates Parliament, in which he speaks before the deputies from all classes. We have neither a parliament nor freedom to assemble, but we know how to organize meetings with workers who want to listen social democrat. We must also be able to arrange meetings with representatives of all and every class of the population that they only want to listen to. democrat. For he is not a Social-Democrat who in practice forgets that “Communists support every revolutionary movement”, which we are therefore obliged to before all the people express and emphasize general democratic goals without concealing for a moment his socialist convictions. He is not a Social Democrat who actually forgets his duty to be ahead of all in setting, exacerbating and resolving any general democratic issue. “Everyone agrees with that!” - an impatient reader interrupts us - and a new instruction for the editors of “Rab. Affairs”, adopted at the last Union Congress, says directly: “The reasons for political propaganda and agitation should be all the phenomena and events of social and political life that affect the proletariat either directly as a special class, or as the vanguard of all revolutionary forces in the struggle for freedom”(“Two Congresses”, p. 17, italics ours). Yes, these are very true and very good words, and we would be quite pleased if “R. A business" understoodthem, if it did not say, along with these words, what goes against them. After all, it is not enough to call oneself a "vanguard", an advanced detachment - one must also act in such a way that all the rest of the detachments saw and were forced to admit that we were going ahead. And we ask the reader: are the representatives of the other “detachments” really such fools as to believe us at the loro about the “avant-garde”? Imagine just such a picture. A Social Democrat appears in the “detachment” of Russian educated radicals or liberal constitutionalists and says: we are the vanguard; “Now we are faced with the task of how to give, as far as possible, the economic struggle itself a political character.” Any smart radical or constitutionalist (and there are many smart people among Russian radicals and constitutionalists) will only chuckle when he hears such a speech and say (to himself, of course, because in most cases he is an experienced diplomat): “well, this one is simple-minded” avant-garde! He does not even understand that this is our task, the task of the advanced representatives of bourgeois democracy, to give most The economic struggle of the workers is political in nature. After all, we, like all Western European bourgeois, want to draw the workers into politics, but only precisely into trade unionist, and not into social-democratic politics. The trade unionist policy of the working class is precisely bourgeois politics working class. And the formulation of its task by this "vanguard" is precisely the formulation of the trade unionist policy! Therefore, let them even call themselves, as much as they like, Social Democrats. I'm not a child, in fact, so that I get excited because of labels! Only let them not succumb to these pernicious orthodox dogmatists, let them leave “freedom of criticism” to those who unconsciously drag Social-Democracy into the trade unionist channel!” And the slight grin of our constitutionalist will turn into Homeric laughter when he learns that the Social-Democrats who speak of the vanguard of Social Democracy at the present time of the almost complete domination of spontaneity in our movement are afraid of nothing more than “downplaying the elemental element”, they are afraid of “diminishing the importance of the progressive the course of the current gray struggle compared with the propaganda of brilliant and complete ideas” and so on. and so on! The “vanguard” detachment, which is afraid that consciousness will overtake spontaneity, which is afraid to put forward a bold “plan” that will force general recognition even among those who think differently! Why don't they confuse the word avant-garde with the word rear-guard? Really, think about the following reasoning of Martynov. He says on page 40 that Iskra's accusatory tactics are one-sided, that "no matter how much we sow distrust and hatred towards the government, we will not achieve our goal until we manage to develop sufficient active social energy to overthrow it." This, to put it in parentheses, is the concern we already know about increasing the activity of the masses while striving to belittle their own activity. But that's not the point now. Martynov speaks here, therefore, of revolutionary energy (“to overthrow”). And what conclusion does he come to? Since in ordinary times different social strata inevitably go astray, “in view of this, it is clear that we Social-Democrats cannot simultaneously lead the active work of various opposition strata, we cannot dictate a positive program of action for them, we cannot indicate to them what one must fight for one's own interests by means day by day... The liberal strata will themselves take care of that active struggle for their immediate interests, which will bring them face to face with our political regime” (41). Thus, having begun to talk about revolutionary energy, about an active struggle to overthrow the autocracy, Martynov immediately strayed into professional energy, into an active struggle for immediate interests! It goes without saying that we cannot lead the struggle of students, liberals, and so on. for their "immediate interests," but that was not the point, most venerable "economist"! It was about the possible and necessary participation of various social strata in the overthrow of the autocracy, and this“active activity of various opposition strata” we not only Can, but we must certainly lead if we want to be “avant-garde”. That our students, our liberals, etc., “come face to face with our political regime” will be taken care of not only by themselves, but first of all and most of all by the police themselves and the officials of the autocratic government themselves. But "we", if we want to be progressive democrats, must take care that push people who are actually dissatisfied only with university or zemstvo, etc., orders, to the thought of the worthlessness of the entire political order. We must take upon themselves the task of organizing such an all-round political struggle under the leadership of our party, so that all possible assistance to this struggle and this party could be rendered and really began to be rendered by all and sundry opposition strata. We Social-Democratic practitioners must be trained into such political leaders who would be able to direct all manifestations of this all-round struggle, who would be able at the right moment to “dictate a positive program of action” to agitated students, and dissatisfied Zemstvo residents, and indignant sectarians, and offended teachers of the people, and so on. ., etc. That's why completely wrong Martynov’s statement that “in relation to them we can act only in negative the role of an accuser of orders ... We can only dispel their hopes for various government commissions” (our italics). By saying this, Martynov thereby shows that he understands absolutely nothing on the question of the actual role of the revolutionary "vanguard". And if the reader takes this into account, he will understand true meaning following Martynov's concluding words: “Iskra is an organ of the revolutionary opposition that denounces our system, and primarily the political system, insofar as it clashes with the interests of the most diverse sections of the population. But we are working and will continue to work for the workers' cause in close organic connection with the proletarian struggle. Narrowing the sphere of our influence, we thereby complicate the very influence” (63). The true meaning of this conclusion is this: Iskra wants lift up the trade unionist policy of the working class (which, due to misunderstanding, unpreparedness or conviction, is so often practiced in our country) to social-democratic policy. A "Rab. Case” wants belittle social-democratic politics to trade unionist. And at the same time, it assures everyone and everyone that these are “quite compatible positions in the common cause” (63). Oh, sancta simplicitas! Let's go further. Do we have the strength to direct our propaganda and agitation to all population classes? Of course yes. Our “economists,” who are often inclined to deny this, lose sight of the gigantic step forward that our movement took from 1894 (approximately) to 1901. True “tailers,” they often live in the notions of a long-gone period of the beginning of the movement. Then we really had amazingly few strengths, then it was natural and legitimate to go completely into work among the workers and sternly condemn all deviations from it, then the whole task was to establish ourselves in the working class. Now a gigantic mass of forces has been drawn into the movement, all the best representatives of the young generation of the educated classes are coming to us, people who have already taken part or wish to take part in the movement, people who gravitate towards Social one could count the Russian Social Democrats on one hand). One of the main political and organizational shortcomings of our movement is that we we can't to occupy all these forces, to give all suitable work (we will say more about this in the next chapter). The vast majority of these forces are completely deprived of the possibility of "going to the workers," so that the danger of diverting forces from our main business is out of the question. And in order to provide the workers with real, all-round and living political knowledge, “our own people”, Social Democrats, are needed everywhere and everywhere, in all social strata, in all positions that make it possible to know the inner springs of our state mechanism. And such people are needed not only in propaganda and agitation, but even more so in organizational terms. Is there a basis for activity in all classes of the population? Whoever does not see this, he again lags behind in his consciousness from the spontaneous upsurge of the masses. The working-class movement has caused and continues to cause discontent in some, hopes for the support of the opposition in others, the realization of the impossibility of autocracy and the inevitability of its collapse in still others. We would be only in words “politicians” and Social-Democrats (as is very, very often the case in reality) if we were not conscious of our task of exploiting every and every manifestation of discontent, of collecting and processing all the grains of even the germinal protest. Let alone the fact that the entire multimillion-strong mass of the working peasantry, handicraftsmen, small artisans, and so on. I would always eagerly listen to the sermon of a somewhat skilful Social-Democrat. But is it possible to point to at least one class of the population in which there would not be people, groups and circles dissatisfied with lack of rights and arbitrariness, and therefore accessible to the preaching of a Social Democrat as a spokesman for the most pressing general democratic needs? And who wants to imagine concretely this political agitation of a Social-Democrat in all classes and strata of the population, we will point to political denunciations in the broad sense of the word, as the main (but, of course, not the only) means of this agitation. “We must,” I wrote in the article "FROM what to start? (“Iskra” No. 4, May 1901), which we will have to discuss in detail below, is to awaken in all the more or less conscious sections of the people the passion political rebuke. Don't be embarrassed that politically accusatory voices are so weak, rare and timid at the present time. The reason for this is by no means an endemic reconciliation with police brutality. The reason is that people who are able and ready to rebuke do not have a rostrum from which they could speak - there is no audience passionately listening and encouraging speakers - that they do not see anywhere in the people such a force that would be worth the trouble to appeal to. with a complaint against the “almighty” Russian government... We are now in a position and we must create a platform for the nation-wide denunciation of the tsarist government; - such a tribune should be a social-democratic newspaper.” Precisely such an ideal audience for political denunciations is the working class, which needs comprehensive and living political knowledge first of all and most of all; who is most capable of translating this knowledge into an active struggle, even if it does not promise any “tangible results”. And a podium for popular only an all-Russian newspaper can be denounced. “Without a political body, a movement worthy of the name political is unthinkable in modern Europe,” and in this respect Russia undoubtedly also belongs to modern Europe. The press has long ago become a force in our country - otherwise the government would not have spent tens of thousands of rubles to bribe it and to subsidize various Katkovs and Meshcherskys. And it is not news in autocratic Russia that the illegal press broke through censorship locks and forced openly talk about themselves legal and conservative bodies. So it was in the 70s and even in the 50s. And how many times wider and deeper now are those sections of the people who are ready to read the illegal press and learn from it “how to live and how to die,” to use the expression of a worker who wrote a letter to Iskra (No. 7). Political denunciations are just such a declaration of war. the government as economic denunciations - they declare war on the manufacturer. And this declaration of war has the greater moral significance, the wider and stronger this accusatory campaign, the more numerous and decisive that public Class, which the declares war to start a war. Political denunciations are therefore in themselves one of the most powerful means of decomposition hostile system, means of distracting his casual or temporary allies from the enemy, means of sowing enmity and distrust among the permanent participants in autocratic power. Only a party that will organize really national rebuke. And this word: “nationwide” has a very large content. The vast majority of accusers from the non-working class (and to become the vanguard, it is necessary to attract other classes) are sober politicians and cold-blooded business people. They know perfectly well how unsafe it is to “complain” even against a lowly official, let alone against the “almighty” Russian government. And they will turn to us with a complaint only when they see that this complaint is really capable of having an effect, which we are political force. To become such in the eyes of outsiders, you need to work hard and hard on promotion our consciousness, initiative and energy; for this it is not enough to attach the label "vanguard" to the theory and practice of the rearguard. But if we must take it upon ourselves to organize a truly universal denunciation of the government, then what will be the class character of our movement expressed? - asks and asks us already zealous fan of "close organic connection with the proletarian struggle." - Yes, that's precisely in the fact that we, the Social Democrats, are organizing these nationwide denunciations; - that the coverage of all questions raised by the agitation will be given in an unswervingly Social-Democratic spirit, without any indulgence to deliberate and unintentional distortions of Marxism; - in the fact that this all-round political agitation will be carried out by the party, which combines into one inseparable whole the onslaught on the government on behalf of the entire people, and the revolutionary education of the proletariat, along with the protection of its political independence, and the leadership of the economic struggle of the working class, the utilization of those spontaneous clashes it with its exploiters, who are rousing and drawing more and more layers of the proletariat into our camp! political denunciations) and the needs of the general democratic movement. Misunderstanding is expressed not only in "Martynian" phrases, but also in references identical in meaning to these phrases to an alleged class point of view. Here, for example, is how the authors of the “economic” letter in Iskra No. 12 express it: . Having solved by means of theoretical calculations...” (and not by means of “the growth of Party tasks growing together with the Party...”) “the problem of an immediate transition to the struggle against absolutism, and probably feeling all the difficulty of this task for the workers in the present state of affairs ”... (and not only feeling, but knowing full well that this task seems less difficult for the workers than for the “economic” intellectuals who care about small children, for the workers are ready to fight even for demands that do not promise, in the language of the unforgettable Martynov, any “ tangible results”)... “but not having the patience to wait for their further accumulation of forces for this struggle, Iskra begins to look for allies in the ranks of the liberals and the intelligentsia. ..”. Yes, yes, we have indeed already lost all “patience” to “wait” for that blessed time promised to us by all sorts of “conciliators” a long time ago, when our “economists” will stop blaming my backwardness on the workers, to justify the lack of their energy by the lack of strength among the workers. We ask our "economists": what should be the "accumulation of labor forces for this struggle"? Is it not obvious that in the political education of the workers, in exposing them to all aspects of our vile autocracy? And isn't it clear that just right for this job do we really need “allies in the ranks of the liberals and the intelligentsia” who are ready to share with us denunciations of a political campaign against the Zemstvo, teachers, statisticians, students, etc.? Is it really so difficult to understand this amazingly “cunning mechanics” already? Hasn't P. B. Axelrod been repeating to you since 1897: “The task of acquiring adherents and direct or indirect allies among the non-proletarian classes by the Russian Social-Democrats is decided first and foremost by the nature of propaganda activity among the proletariat itself”? But the Martynovs and other "economists" still continue to imagine that the workers first should “by economic struggle with the owners and with the government” accumulate strength for themselves (for the trade union policy), and after already to “pass over”—must be, from trade unionist “education of activity” to Social-Democratic activity! “... In its search,” the “economists” continue, “Iskra often departs from the class point of view, obscuring class contradictions and bringing to the fore the general discontent with the government, although the causes and degree of this discontent among the “allies” are very different. Such, for example, is the relationship of Iskra to the zemstvos.... Iskra supposedly "promises assistance to the working class to the nobles dissatisfied with government handouts, without saying a word about the class strife of these sections of the population." If the reader turns to the articles "Autocracy and Zemstvo" (Nos. 2 and 4 of Iskra), about which, probably, say the authors of the letter, he will see that these articles are devoted to the relationship governments to the “soft agitation of the estate-bureaucratic zemstvos”, to the “self-activity even of the propertied classes”. The article says that the worker must not look with indifference at the struggle of the government against the zemstvos, and the zemstvos are invited to make soft speeches and say a firm and harsh word when the revolutionary Social-Democracy rises to its full height before the government. What do the writers disagree with here? - unknown. Do they think that the worker "will not understand" the words "possessing classes" and "estate-bureaucratic zemstvos"? - what nudge Zemstvo to the transition from soft to harsh words is a "reassessment of ideology"? Do they imagine that the workers can "accumulate within themselves the strength" to fight against absolutism if they do not know about the attitude of absolutism? and to zemstvo? All this again remains unknown. Only one thing is clear: that the authors have a very vague idea of ​​the political tasks of the Social Democracy. This is even clearer from their phrase: “The same” (i.e., also “obscuring class antagonisms”) “iskra’s attitude towards the student movement.” Instead of calling on the workers to declare in a public demonstration that the real center of violence, outrage and unbridledness is not the students, but the Russian government (Iskra, No. 2) - we should probably place an argument in the spirit of “R. Thoughts"! And similar thoughts are expressed by the Social-Democrats in the autumn of 1901, after the events of February and March, on the eve of a new upsurge in overtakes conscious leadership of the movement by the Social Democracy. The spontaneous desire of the workers to intercede for the students beaten by the police and the Cossacks overtakes the conscious activity of the Social Democratic organization! . We advise people who usually declare so self-confidently and so frivolously about disagreements among contemporary Social-Democrats that these disagreements are insignificant and do not justify a split, to think carefully about these words. Is it possible to work successfully in one organization of people who say that in the matter of clarifying the hostility of the autocracy to the most diverse classes, in the matter of acquainting the workers with the opposition to the autocracy of the most diverse strata, we have done amazingly little - and people who see a "compromise" in this matter, obviously a compromise with the theory of “economic struggle with the owners and with the government”? We spoke about the need to introduce class struggle into the countryside over the fortieth anniversary of the liberation of the peasants (No. 3) and about the intransigence of self-government and autocracy over Witte’s secret note (No. 4); we attacked the serfdom of the landowners and the government serving them in connection with the new law (No. 8) and welcomed the illegal zemstvo congress, encouraging the zemstvos to go over to the struggle from humiliated petitions (No. 8); - we encouraged students who began to understand the need for political struggle and moved on to it (No. 3), and at the same time castigated the “wild misunderstanding” revealed by supporters of the “student only” movement, inviting students not to participate in street demonstrations (No. 3, regarding appeal of the Executive Committee of the Moscow students of February 25); - we exposed the “meaningless dreams” and “false hypocrisy” of the liberal crafty newspaper “Russia” (No. 5) and at the same time noted the fury of the government dungeon, which “performed reprisals against peaceful writers, over old professors and scientists, over well-known liberal Zemstvo residents ” (No. 5: “Police Raid on Literature”); we exposed the real significance of the program of "state guardianship of the improvement of the life of the workers" and welcomed the "valuable recognition" that "it is better to prevent demands from below by reforms from below than to wait for the latter" (No. 6); - we encouraged Protestant statisticians (No. 7) and condemned strikebreaker statisticians (No. 9). Who sees in this tactic the obscuring of the class consciousness of the proletariat and compromise with liberalism, - he thus discovers that he does not understand at all the true meaning of the program "Credo" and de facto runs this program no matter how much he disowns her! Because he thereby drags the Social-Democrats into an “economic struggle against the owners and against the government” and succumbs to liberalism abandoning the task of actively intervening in each“liberal” question and define own, social-democratic attitude to this issue.

f) AGAIN "Slanderers", AGAIN "MYSTIFIERS"

These kind words belong, as the reader remembers, “Rab. Cause”, which thus answers our accusation of him “indirectly preparing the ground for the transformation of the working-class movement into an instrument of bourgeois democracy”. In the simplicity of the soul “Rab. The case decided that this accusation was nothing but a polemical trick: they decided, they say, these evil dogmatists to tell us all sorts of unpleasant things: well, what could be more unpleasant than being an instrument of bourgeois democracy? And now “refutation” is printed in bold type: “unadorned slander” (“Two Congresses”, p. 30), “mystification” (31), “masquerade” (33). Like Jupiter, R. Delo (although it bears little resemblance to Jupiter) gets angry precisely because it is not right, proving by its hasty curses its inability to ponder over the train of thought of its opponents. But it would take a little thought to understand why any admiration for the spontaneity of the mass movement, any the downgrading of Social-Democratic politics to trade-unionist politics is precisely the preparation of the ground for the transformation of the working-class movement into an instrument of bourgeois democracy. The spontaneous labor movement in itself is capable of creating (and inevitably creates) only trade unionism, and the trade unionist policy of the working class is precisely the bourgeois policy of the working class. The participation of the working class in the political struggle and even in the political revolution does not in the least make its policy a Social-Democratic policy. Would it not take it into his head to deny this “R. A business"? Will it finally take it into its head to present before everyone, directly and without evasions, its understanding of the sore questions of international and Russian Social-Democracy? - Oh no, it never thinks of anything like that, for it firmly adheres to that method, which can be called the method of “showing off in neti”. I am not me, the horse is not mine, I am not a driver. We are not “economists”, “Rab. Thought” is not “economism”, in Russia there is no “economism” at all. This is a remarkably dexterous and “political” device, which has only that small inconvenience that it is customary to call the organs that practice it the nickname: “what do you want?”. “Slave. It seems to the cause that, in general, bourgeois democracy in Russia is a “phantom” (“Two Congresses”, p. 32) Happy people! Like an ostrich, they hide their heads under their wings and imagine that everything around them disappears from this. A number of liberal publicists who monthly inform everyone about their triumph over the disintegration and even disappearance of Marxism; a number of liberal newspapers (SPB. Vedomosti, Russkiye Vedomosti, and many others) encouraging those liberals who bring to the workers the Brentanian understanding of the class struggle and the trade unionist understanding of politics; - a pleiad of critics of Marxism, whose true tendencies have been so well revealed by Credo and whose literary goods alone roam Russia duty-free; - revival of revolutionary not social democratic tendencies, especially after the February and March events; - all this must be a phantom! All this has absolutely nothing to do with bourgeois democracy! “Slave. Delo,” as well as the authors of the “economic” letter in Iskra No. 12, should “think about why these spring events caused such a revival of revolutionary non-Social-Democratic tendencies, instead of causing an increase in the authority and prestige of the Social Democracy "? - Because we were not up to the task, the activity of the working masses turned out to be higher than our activity, we did not have enough trained revolutionary leaders and organizers who would perfectly know the mood in all opposition layers and were able to stand at the head of the movement, turn a spontaneous demonstration into a political one, to expand its political character, etc. Under such conditions, our backwardness will inevitably be taken advantage of by the more mobile, more energetic revolutionaries, not Social Democrats, and the workers, no matter how selflessly and vigorously they fight the police and the army, no matter how no matter how revolutionary they come out, they will turn out to be only a force supporting these revolutionaries, they will turn out to be the rearguard of bourgeois democracy, and not the Social-Democratic vanguard. Take German Social-Democracy, from which our "Economists" only want to adopt its weak sides. From what none does a political event in Germany not take place without affecting the greater and greater strengthening of the authority and prestige of the Social Democracy? Because the Social Democracy is always ahead of everyone else in the most revolutionary assessment of this event, in defending every protest against arbitrariness. It does not lull itself into thinking that the economic struggle will prompt the workers to the question of their lack of rights and that concrete conditions are fatally pushing the working-class movement onto the revolutionary path. It intervenes in all areas and all questions of social and political life, and in the question of Wilhelm not approving the mayor of the bourgeois progressives (the Germans have not yet been enlightened by our “economists” that this is, in essence, a compromise with liberalism!), and to the question of passing a law against "immoral" writings and images, and to the question of government influence on the choice of professors, and so on. Everywhere they find themselves ahead of everyone else, arousing political discontent in all classes, pushing aside the sleepy ones, pulling up the backward ones, and providing all-round material for the development of the political consciousness and political activity of the proletariat. And as a result, it turns out that even conscious enemies of socialism are imbued with respect for the advanced political fighter, and often an important document not only from the bourgeois, but even from the bureaucratic and court spheres somehow miraculously ends up in the editorial office of Vorwarts "a". That's where lies the key to that seeming "contradiction" which surpasses the measure of understanding of "Rab. Dyelo" to such an extent that it only raises its hands to the mountain and shouts: "Masquerade!" at the forefront of mass labor movement (and we print it in bold type!), we warn everyone and everyone against underestimating the importance of the elemental element, we want to give ourselves, most, most economic struggle is political in nature, we want to remain in close and organic connection with the proletarian struggle! And we are told that we are paving the way for the transformation of the working-class movement into an instrument of bourgeois democracy. And who says it? People who enter into a “compromise” with liberalism, interfering in every “liberal” question (what a misunderstanding of the “organic connection with the proletarian struggle”!), Paying so much attention to students and even (horror!) to the Zemstvo people! People who, in general, want to devote a larger percentage of their forces (compared to the "economists") to activities among the non-proletarian classes of the population! Is this not a “masquerade”? Poor “Slave. A business"! Will it ever come up with a clue to this cunning mechanics?