This is a very important work by Lenin, and one that is difficult to understand, for a number of reasons. Therefore, an explanation is required. We can start with the scientific terms, followed by their popular meanings.
Social Democrat- A Marxist, as a true Marxist is constantly fighting for Democracy as well as Socialism. In later years, they changed their name, first to Bolsheviks and later to Communists
Scientific Socialist- Someone who is a true follower of Marx and Lenin, thus calling for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Utopian Socialist- Someone who thinks that Socialism is merely a good idea
Revisionist- Someone who claims to be a Marxist, while maintaining that those revolutionary theories have to be revised
Social Chauvinist- Someone who is a Socialist in words, but a chauvinist in deeds
Leftist- A person with ”Left Wing” political views, those which favour the working people
Right Wing- A person who favours the monopoly capitalist class, the billionaires
Ubiquitous- Found everywhere
Omniscient- Knowing everything
Anti- Semetic- means being hostile or prejudiced against Jewish people
Hamas- A militant political group dedicated to establishing an independent state in Palestine.
Autocracy- A system of government by one person with absolute power. This is to say that Russia was an autocracy, because Czar Nicholas, as Emperor, had absolute power.
Czar- Means ”Emperor”
Opportunist- Means ”devoid of principle”, ”unprincipled”
Pedagogic- means ”related to teaching”
Masses- Means ”members of the public”, or ”common people”, or ”working people”, or ”little guy”. Many people may find the word ”masses” to be mildly offensive, so I try to avoid that term
Bourgeois- Means ”Capitalist”
Bourgeoisie- Means ”Monopoly Capitalist”, a ”Billionaire”
Petty bourgeois- Means ”middle class”, or ”small time capitalist”
”Imperialist”- is a monopoly capitalist, a billionaire
Proletariat- Means ”Worker”, someone who has only their labour power to sell, sells themselves by the hour
Peasant- Means ”Farmer”
Heterogenous- Means ”Diverse”
Genocide – means the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group, with the aim of destroying that nation or group
Zionist – Someone who belongs to, or supports a political movement, that has as its original aim, the creation of a country for Jewish people, and that now supports the state of Israel
Topical- means ”current”, or ”up to date”, or ”recent”, or ”contemporary”
Inter alia- means ”among other things”
Former- means the ”first”
Latter- means the ”second”
Famine – the most severe kind of hunger crisis
Intelligentsia- means an intellectual, or highly educated group of people
Reactionary- someone who is opposed to any political or social liberalization or reform
Progressive- Happening or developing gradually or in stages
Soverign- a state that has the highest authority over a territory
Misogny- Prejudice against women
Faculty- the term for academic staff at an institution of education, such as teachers and professors
Demagogue- a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people, rather than by using rational argument
Gendarme- means ”police officer”
Agent provocateur- means a police informer, someone who has been paid to infiltrate an organization, and encourage the members to commit a crime
Corpus delicti- means the ”body of the crime”
Narcissist- a self loving person, who feels unique
Vademecum- a hand book, constantly kept close
i.e.- An abbreviation which means ”that is”
En passant- A French expression, means ”in passing”
Profession de foi- A French expression, means ”Profession of faith”
Embarassment de richness- A French expression, means a super fluidity of something, more than one needs or wants
There are also some Russian names, with their English translation
Soviet- Means ”Council”
”Rabocheye Dyelo”- means ”Workers Cause”
‘’Iskra’’ means ”Spark”, and it was the name of the newspaper that was edited by Lenin
‘’Zarya’’ means ”Sunrise” or ”Dawn”
‘’Rabocheya Mysl’’ means ”Workers Thoughts”
Narodniks- A Russian movement of the 1860’s and 1870’s of the Russian intelligentsia, against the rule of the Czar
‘’Narodnaya Volya’’ means ”Peoples Freedom”, and was the news paper of a terrorist organization. They thought they could inspire people with acts of terror.
In the following article, in certain cases, I have chosen to place popular words in brackets next to the scientific terms.
As previously mentioned, in 1898, Lenin and several other middle class intellectuals formed the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, the RSDLP. The members of that Party referred to themselves as Social Democrats, as those who fight for Socialism, also fight for Democracy. At a later date, the true Marxists were referred to as Bolsheviks, and still later, they become known as Communists.
At first, it was a truly Scientific Socialist Party, as it was based upon the revolutionary theories of Marx and Engels. The Party platform made that perfectly clear. Yet it soon became apparent that there were a considerable number of people, members of that Party, who were of the opinion that the Party should become a ”Party of democratic social reform”.
The differences were deep and irreconcilable, so that the Party soon split into two factions, a majority, or bolsh, and a minority, or mensh. This gave rise to the terms Bolshevik and Mensheviks. As Lenin was a member of the majority faction, that faction became known, quite reasonably, as the Bolsheviks.
As a result of this split, there emerged two Parties, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, both of whom claimed to be Marxists. Of course, this led to considerable confusion among the common people, the workers and peasants (farmers) of Russia.
Among those whom Lenin referred to as ‘’opportunists’’, or ”unprincipled”, are Bernstein and Millerand. Bernstein was a leading theoretician of the German Social Democratic Party. He rejected the Marxist concepts of class struggle and inevitable world revolution. He called for class collaboration, and was a Marxist ‘’revisionist’’, one who thought that the revolutionary theories of Marx should be revised. Lenin considered him to be one of the worst enemies of the working class.
Millerand was a French socialist leader and ‘’disciple’’ of Bernstein, so to speak, He took the revisionist theories of Bernstein to heart, so that while claiming to be a Marxist, he became a cabinet member of the liberal, bourgeois, capitalist government of France.
At that time, Russia was an autocracy, ruled by a Czar (Emperor), Nicholas II. He had almost unlimited power, and used that power extensively. The common people had almost no rights, not even a Constituent Assembly. The press was completely muzzled. All newspapers and magazines reported only that which was approved by the censors. All literature which was thought to be ‘’Leftist’’, was banned.
In response to this, the Bolsheviks were able to print leaflets, and distributed them, at great personal risk. Those who were caught performing such ‘’acts of subversion’’, risked being arrested, and subsequently, possibly even shot.
The Bolsheviks also published a newspaper abroad, and smuggled it into the country. This newspaper was titled ‘’Iskra’’, meaning ‘’Spark’’. Lenin was in exile at this time, but frequently wrote for this paper. Yet the Mensheviks also wrote for a newspaper abroad, and smuggled that too, into the country. That was titled ‘’Rabocheye Dyelo’’, meaning ‘’Workers Cause’’. Hence the confusion.
For that reason, Lenin wrote What Is To Be Done? It was an attempt to straighten out the confusion. Now to the matter:
What Is To Be Done?
1. Dogmatism and Freedom of Criticism
A. What Is ‘’Freedom of Criticism’’?
In this first section, Lenin points out that, in the late nineteenth century, bourgeois literature was filled with criticism of the revolutionary theories of Marx. This was referred to as a ”new” tendency, one which adopted a ”critical” attitude towards ”obsolete doctrinaire” Marxism. As Lenin summed up this revisionist tendency:
”Social Democracy must change from a party of the social revolution, into a democratic party of social reforms….The possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of proving that it is necessary and inevitable from the point of view of the materialist conception of history was denied, as also were the facts of growing impoverishment and proletarianization and the intensification of capitalist contradictions. The very conception, ”ultimate aim”, was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was absolutely rejected. It was denied that there is any difference in principle between liberalism and socialism. The theory of the class struggle was rejected on the grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society, governed according to the will of the majority, etc.” (italics by Lenin)
This revision of the revolutionary theories of Marx, was first taught in the Russian Universities. For that reason, the members of the ‘’younger generation of the educated classes’’, those who were able to attend University, were ‘’systematically trained on this criticism’’. Certain members of that same ‘’younger generation’’ then proceeded to join the Social Democratic Party, and brought these revisionist theories with them. They were determined that ‘’Social Democracy’’ (Marxism) should change from a ”Party of Social Revolution”, into a ”liberal Party of social reform”.
With that in mind, the very idea of Scientific Socialism was denied. They denied that there is any difference between liberalism and socialism. The theory of the class struggle was rejected, on the grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society. They absolutely rejected the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Lenin makes the point that the ‘’socialist consciousness of the working class’’, is the only basis that can guarantee our victory! That is the very consciousness that the self proclaimed Marxists, in fact revisionists, are determined to corrupt. Lenin refers to these people as ‘’opportunists’’. (devoid of principle)
For many years, Lenin fought against these people, those who were determined to revise the revolutionary theories of Marx and Engels. He was quite successful in this, so that at the time of the Great Russian Proletarian Socialist Revolution, of 1917, working people, around the world, embraced Soviet (Council) Power, and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Such is no longer the case! That just means that we have our work cut out for us.
Just as the distortion of the revolutionary theories of Marx were taught in Russia, in the late nineteenth century, so too those same distortions, of those same theories, are also taught in this, the twenty first century. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that now, the distortions of the revolutionary theories of both Marx and Lenin are being taught in University. Not a vast improvement!
In Russia, at that time, it was the ”younger generation of the educated classes”, who were exposed to these theories, and subsequently brought those revisionist theories into the class struggle. So too, in modern times, it is also mainly the ”younger generation of the propertied classes” who are able to go to University, and are exposed to those revisionist theories. Further, certain of those young members have brought those revisionist theories into the class struggle.
There is an important difference in modern day North America, in that we have no true Communist Party, one which calls for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Yet in much the same way, as in Czarist Russia, certain young members of the ”educated classes” of North America, are also determined to lead the current revolutionary mass movement, onto a harmless path of ”social reform”.
Those same young intellectuals, who are aware of the existence of classes, aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, aware that the state apparatus has to be smashed and replaced with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, should be focused on creating a true Communist Party. (formerly referred to as a Social Democratic Party) They are not, or at least not yet!
As I write this, the mass movement of the working class is now strong, and growing in intensity. The students, of both Universities and high schools, are protesting in support of the people of Palestine. There are even reports of ”faculty members” (teachers and professors), joining in those protests.
This is most significant, as the student protest movement of the ‘sixties, never reached the members of the faculty, at least not in any great numbers. The fact that the movement has spread to far and so fast, is an indication of the strength and breadth of the movement.
The focus of the protest is on the ”Israeli- Hamas War”, also known as the ”Gaza War”. For that reason, the mass movement is being referred to as the ”Anti – Gaza War” movement. It is also being referred to as a ”Pro – Palestinian Movement”.
Among the list of demands of the students, is that the Universities divest in any companies that do business with Israel. The students are accusing Israel of engaging in an act of genocide, in their war with Hamas, in Gaza.
Of course, there are also ”counter protests”, by students who are carrying the flag of Israel, in support of that country. The implication is that those who are supporting the people of Palestine are ”Anti- Semitic” (prejudiced against Jewish people). Such is hardly the case! The war in Gaza is a war between Hamas, and the Zionist state of Israel.
It is also a fact that there is a considerable number of Jewish students, among others, who are also protesting, against the war in Gaza. To be Jewish, is not necessarily to be Zionist!
Incidentally, the press is reporting that possibly thirty five thousand people have already been killed in Gaza, mainly women and children. The survivors are now facing famine, according to the United Nations. There are allegations that Israel is committing an act of genocide. There is a good reason for those protests!
This is not to say that Hamas is a humanitarian organization. It is not! In fact, the leaders of both Hamas and Israel could soon be facing charges of war crimes, or crimes against humanity, by the International Criminal Court, the ICC. That remains to be seen.
Of course, among the protesters, there are a great many signs and posters. It is encouraging that one sign called for ”Revolution”, while another sign called for ”Class Warfare”. It remains to be seen whether this mass movement will continue to remain spontaneous, or whether it will focus on class struggle, leading to revolution, the overthrow of the billionaires, and the subsequent Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
It is significant that the American Universities are leading this protest movement, which has spread to numerous campuses, in various countries of the world. Bravo, American students!
It is only reasonable to expect those same students, as well as others, to look into Leftist political Parties. As I have documented, in previous articles, the fact that all such political parties, at least here in North America, which claim to be Marxist, are nothing but revisionists, social chauvinists, there is no need to repeat it here.
It is also a fact that there are a number of groups which claim to be Socialist, but not Marxist. Such people are referred to as Utopian Socialists. They are the natural and desirable allies of those who are true Marxists, Communists.
The fact is that previously, certain members of the ”educated classes”, have succeeded in -temporarily- corrupting the consciousness of the working class, the proletariat. As a result of this, the common people are now largely unaware of the true Marxism, Scientific Socialism. This includes the theory of the class conflict, the necessity of revolution, and the subsequent Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Now we can expect many of the students, those who are taking part in this protest movement, to face the fact that they have been lied to, all their lives. As the police tear down their tents, assault them with clubs and arrest them, this point is being driven home. They will learn the same lesson that was learned by the members of the Occupy Movement.
Very quickly, they will learn that there is no truly revolutionary, Marxist organization, in the country. Such a Communist Party has to be created, one which calls for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Equally without doubt, certain members of the most advanced students will take part in the creation of that Communist Party.
That is a fact, just as it is a fact that the modern day working class, the proletariat, is now quite cultured. Almost all have access to various digital devices, and know how to use those devices!
Now it is up to true Marxists, those who are determined to establish Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, to get together and form a true Communist Party. That includes the students, who are just now becoming politically active. This involves getting in touch with the most advanced workers, as well as other members of the middle class, those whom are involved in their own movements. Their level of consciousness too, must be raised to the level of Marxists. It will likely not take a great deal of persuasion, to convince them that the billionaires are not about to submit to ‘’majority rule’’. To even suggest that, as part of majority rule, the billionaires should pay their ‘’fair share of taxes’’, starting with a tax rate of ninety percent of income, is something to which they would never agree. The billionaires are in charge, do not pay any taxes, and fully intend to remain in charge!
Now to return to, What Is To Be Done?
In the final paragraph, Lenin makes reference to the unprincipled, the opportunists, being ‘’in the swamp’’. They have chosen the ‘’path of conciliation’’. They do not want to antagonize the ruling class of billionaires! They are also anxious to drag others, Marxists, down to their level, into that same swamp!
For the benefit of those who are considering the principled method of fighting for Scientific Socialism, allow me to point out the warning of Lenin: ‘’We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult trail, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and are under their almost constant fire. We have combined voluntarily, precisely for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not to retreat into the adjacent swamp’’.
Fair warning! Those who choose to adhere to principle, to fight for scientific socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, will find themselves under extreme pressure, and not merely from the monopoly capitalists. All too many people on the ”Left”, including those who claim to be Marxists, are focused on ”class collaboration”, rather than class struggle. They would have us believe that the billionaires are about to ”turn over a new leaf”, to become ”sweetly reasonable”, to submit to ”majority rule”. Not likely!
Lenin refers to these people, the unprincipled, as being ”in the swamp”. Yet it seems to bother them when people of principle do the proper thing, that of preparing the working class for revolution, and the subsequent Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Why else would they encourage us to stoop to their level, to join them in the swamp?
B. The New Advocates of ‘’Freedom of Criticism’’
Under the reign of Czar Nicholas II, in Russia, no dissent was allowed. Anyone who challenged the authority of the Czar (Emperor) was promptly thrown into prison. The best these unfortunates could hope for, was to be allowed to leave the country. Many Marxists did just that, and some of them created the League of Russian Social Democrats Abroad. Their newspaper was Rabocheye Dyelo (Workers Cause), and they demanded ‘’freedom of criticism’’. They maintained that this was the only way to unite the Russian Marxists, referred to as Social Democrats, who were living abroad.
This demand may appear to be quite reasonable and harmless. Such is hardly the case! In fact, their idea of ”criticism” was nothing less than the revision of the revolutionary theories of Marx!
They were the followers of Bernstein, those who wanted to convert the Marxist Social Democratic Party, into a liberal party of social reform. Their newspaper, Rabocheya Mysl, (Workers Thoughts), maintained that the Bernsteinists ‘’stand on the basis of the class struggle for the political and economic emancipation of the proletariat’’. Yet as Lenin pointed out, that is merely the opinion of the representatives of the Bernsteinists! Yet their actions were far different! They really wanted to work with the capitalists! Class collaboration!
Lenin then gives several examples of the manner in which opportunists (unprincipled) operate, in different countries.
C. Criticism In Russia
In this section, Lenin refers to a time in Russia, which is very similar to our current situation. On the one hand, there was a spontaneous labour movement, along with a ‘’change in progressive public opinion towards Marxism’’. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that in North America, the public opinion has changed towards socialism.
In both cases, that which Lenin refers to as ‘’heterogenous (diverse) elements’’, came together for the purpose of fighting the common enemy, that of ‘’obsolete social and political views’’. A great many of those people he referred to as ‘’bourgeois democrats’’.
As regards North America, many of those who are demanding change, refer to themselves as Democratic Socialists, or Social Democrats, or just plain Socialists. Just as in Russia, at the beginning of the twentieth century, a great many of them are of a middle class (petty bourgeois) background, have been to university, and have been exposed to the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin.
More accurately, they have been exposed to the distortions of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. They tend to bring these distortions into the working class revolutionary movement. This has created a considerable amount of confusion.
It is up to true Marxists, to straighten out this confusion. We have to explain to the working people, that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the ”touchstone” of a true Marxist. Those who claim to be Marxists, while denying the necessity of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, are in the service of the capitalists. Such people are referred to as ”revisionists”, as they want to revise the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin.
These revisionists, social chauvinists one and all, completely deny the necessity of revolution, of smashing the existing state apparatus, and establishing Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Such people are completely devoid of principle.
At the same time, we must draw a clear distinction between the Marxist revisionists, and the ”Utopian Socialists”, those who consider themselves to be Socialists, but not Marxists. These ”Utopian Socialists” are in a completely different category. They are not the enemy! On the contrary, they are the natural and desirable allies of the Marxists.
That being said, it is also a fact that it is sometimes necessary to enter into temporary alliances with unreliable people. No political party can exist without such alliances.
Bear in mind that ‘’an essential condition for such an alliance must be complete liberty for Marxists to reveal to the working class that its interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the bourgeoisie (billionaires)’’, according to Lenin.
Which brings us to the title of the section, Criticism In Russia. This apparently harmless slogan, is a reference to revising the revolutionary theories of Marx. In particular, the revisionists teach that there is no need of a social revolution, no need to smash the existing state apparatus, and certainly no need for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They want to restrict the labour movement and the class struggle to narrow trade unionism, and to a struggle for paltry reforms. Lenin refers to these demands as ‘’Economism’’.
He went on to point out the fact that Economists demand ‘’freedom of criticism’’, but are afraid of criticism! In fact, they disapprove of all theoretical controversies, factional disagreements, of broad political questions, and of organizing. That is precisely the problem we are facing today, and we must oppose it.
The level of awareness of the common people, the members of the public, must be raised. The most advanced members of the working class, must have their consciousness raised to the level of true Marxists, Communists. They must be made aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. These advanced workers will in turn, lead the less advanced workers. In this way, the working class, will prepare for Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
D. Engels On the Importance of the Theoretical Struggle
Here too, a little explanation is required. As previously mentioned, the word ”eclecticism” is a reference to the practice of deriving ideas from a diverse range of sources. As well, the Russian Emancipation of Labour Group was the first Russian Marxist revolutionary organization, formed in 1883. The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, the Party of Lenin, was formed several years later, in 1898. By 1902, the Party was still in the process of formation, and being attacked by those who were concerned with ”ossification of the Party”. This particular section was written with that in mind.
Lenin first makes the point, that the slogan ”freedom of criticism”, which sounds so harmless, ”implies not the substitution of one theory for another, but freedom from any complete and thought out theory; it implies eclecticism and absence of principle”.
As for those who may think that there is no harm in ”picking and choosing”, acquiring different ideas from different sources, otherwise known as eclecticism, Lenin is of a different opinion. He pointed out that Marx ”sharply condemned the eclecticism in the formulation of principles….do not haggle over principles, do not make ‘concessions’ in theory”.
Lenin began the following paragraph with a strongly worded statement:
”Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism is combined with absorption in the narrowest forms of practical activity. The importance of theory for Russian Social Democracy is still greater for three reasons, which are often forgotten:
”First, our Party is only in the process of formation, its features are but just becoming outlined, and it has not yet completely settled its accounts with other tendencies in revolutionary thought which threaten to divert the movement from the proper path…Under such circumstances, what at first sight appears to be an ‘unimportant’ mistake may give rise to most deplorable consequences, and only the short sighted would consider factional disputes and strict distinction of shades to be inopportune and superfluous. The fate of Russian SocIal Democracy for many, many years to come may be determined by the strengthening of one or the other ‘shade’.
”The second reason is that the Social Democratic movement is essentially an international movement. This does not merely mean that we must combat national chauvinism. It also means that a movement that is starting in a young country can be successful only on the condition that it assimilates the experience of other countries. In order to assimilate this experience, it is not sufficient merely to be acquainted with it, or simply to transcribe the latest resolutions. A critical attitude is required towards this experience, and ability to subject it to independent tests. Only those who realize how much the modern labour movement has grown in strength will understand what a reserve of theoretical forces and political (as well as revolutionary) experience is required to fulfill this task.
”The third reason is that the national tasks of Russian Social Democracy are such as have never confronted any other socialist party in the world. Further on we shall deal with the political and organizational duties which the task of emancipating the whole people from the yoke of autocracy imposes upon us. At the moment, we merely wish to state that the role of vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by an advanced theory”. (italics by Lenin)
This was followed by examples, from Russian history, of revolutionary movements which were not guided by a proper revolutionary theory.
Without doubt, the situation which Lenin described, in 1902 Russia, almost exactly matches the current situation in North America, and very likely, in various other parts of the world. The difference is that in 1902 Russia, the working people had to first overthrow the autocracy, in the form of a Czar, or Emperor, Nicholas II. As well, the people of Russian had a true Communist Party, led by Lenin.
Lenin then proceeded to stress the importance of theory in the revolutionary movement: ”Engels recognizes not two forms of the great struggle Social Democracy is conducting (political and economic), as is the fashion among us, but three, adding to the first two the theoretical struggle”. (italics by Lenin)
Lenin then referred to an article written by Engels, in 1874. As he considered this article to be of such vital importance, he quoted it at some considerable length. As Engels pointed out, the German workers had ”two important advantages over those of the rest of Europe”. The first advantage was that they ”belong to the most theoretical people of Europe”. The second advantage was that they ”were almost the last to appear in the labour movement”. For that reason, the German workers were able to profit from the experience of previous working class movements, avoiding their mistakes.
Engels then explained that, as a result of these advantages, the German workers were able to make great strides, so to speak:
”It must be said to the credit of the German workers that they exploited the advantages of their situation with rare understanding. For the first time in the history of the labour movement, the three sides of the struggle, the theoretical, the political and the practical economic (resistance to the capitalists), are being conducted in harmony, coordination and in a planned way. It is precisely in this, as it were, concentric attack, that the strength and invincibility of the German movement lies…
”the German workers for the moment form the vanguard of the proletarian struggle. How long events will allow them to occupy this post of honour cannot be foreseen. But as long as they occupy it, let us hope that they will discharge their duties in the proper manner. To this end, it will be necessary to redouble our energies in every sphere of struggle and agitation. It is the specific duty of the leaders to gain an ever clearer insight into all theoretical questions, to free themselves more and more from the influence of traditional phrases inherited from the old conception of the world, and constantly keep in mind that socialism, having become a science, must be pursued as a science, i.e. (that is), it must be studied. The task will be to spread with increased enthusiasm, among the masses of the workers, the ever clearer insight thus acquired, to knit together ever more firmly the organization both of the Party and of the trade unions.
”If the German workers proceed in this way, they will not march exactly at the head of the movement- it is not in the interests of the movement that the workers of any one country should march at its head- but they will occupy an honourable place in the battle line, and they will stand armed for battle when either unexpected grave trials or momentous events demand heightened courage, heightened determination and power to act”.
Engels was correct, in that the German workers were soon forced to face ”grave trials”, in the form of the Anti Socialist Law. Yet as Lenin stated, they were ”fully armed”, and were ”able to emerge victoriously”.
It is not too surprising that Lenin expected the first successful socialist revolution, to take place in Germany. The German workers were so well advanced, and led by such a fine Social Democratic (Marxist) Party! He had no way of anticipating that, under extreme pressure, the majority of German Marxist leaders would collapse, turn their coats, and call for ”defence of the fatherland”.
In my opinion, this is perhaps the most important section of the whole book. Lenin makes it clear that we have to learn from the experience of previous revolutionary movements. We must avoid their mistakes. This includes the mistakes made by the Marxist leaders of the Soviet Union, as well as the mistakes made by the Marxist leaders of China. In both cases, capitalism has been restored in those previously socialist countries. As I have covered this in a previous article, there is no need to repeat it here.
II
The Spontaneity of the Masses and the Class Consciousness of Social Democracy
At the time Lenin was writing this, in 1902, the common people of Russia, the workers and peasants, those whom he referred to as the ‘’masses’’, were in the midst of a strong revolutionary uprising. The problem, as Lenin saw it, was that of the ‘’lack of consciousness and initiative among the revolutionary leaders’’. Does that sound familiar? It should. It describes precisely the current situation, at least here in North America, and very likely, in other parts of the world.
Lenin was determined to raise the level of awareness of the common people, the workers and farmers, referred to as peasants. Yet there was strong opposition to this, from other middle class intellectuals, even within the Party. These Marxist revisionists thought that the spontaneous uprising was all important, while the level of awareness of those taking part in the uprising was of no significance.
The revisionists, especially the Mensheviks, were quite vocal in their beliefs, and expressed this in their newspaper, Rabocheye Dyelo, (Workers Cause). By contrast, the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, had their own newspaper, Iskra, (Spark).
This disagreement involved ‘’’belittling the importance of the objective, or spontaneous, element of development’’. (italics by Lenin) He then proceeded to state that the relation between ‘’consciousness and spontaneity is of enormous general interest’’.
A. The Beginning of the Spontaneous Revival
In this section, Lenin uses the example of Russian workers going on strike, to point out that the ‘’spontaneous element’’, represents class consciousness in an ‘’embryonic form’’. As he stated, ‘’there could not yet be Social Democratic consciousness among the workers. This consciousness could only be brought to them from without’’. (italics by Lenin, Social Democratic means Marxist, now referred to as Communist)
In the case of North America, the Occupy Movement of recent years can be thought of as being similar to the early workers strikes in Russia. During the Occupy Movement, those taking part in the protests were not class conscious. Yet there was a vague awareness of ‘’us versus them’’, in that the protesters referred to themselves as the ‘’ninety nine percent’’. They referred to the ruling class of monopoly capitalists, the billionaires, the bourgeoisie, as the ‘’one percent’’. This is an example of ‘’class consciousness in embryonic form’’.
Lenin then proceeded to point out that such class consciousness must be brought to the workers, but can come only from an outside source. The experience of all countries shows that the working class, by itself, is able to develop only ‘’trade union consciousness’’. The condition of life, of the working class, do not allow it to go beyond these narrow limits.
On the other hand, the theory of Scientific Socialism came from two middle class intellectuals, Marx and Engels. It was Lenin, another middle class intellectual, who built upon the work of those two pioneers. Now it is up to us to follow in their footsteps.
As best I can gather, almost all of the existing modern day political parties, which claim to be Marxist, deny the necessity of revolution, and of Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is to say that such Parties are ‘’revisionists’’, or ‘’social chauvinists’’. For that reason, they can not, and will not, bring ‘’class consciousness’’ to the working class. Yet the working class must become class conscious, aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. But how?
That ‘’outside source’’ is available on the internet! The revolutionary works of Marx and Lenin can quite easily be downloaded! At least, the Essential Works of Lenin are readily available. They are also available in paperback form, and can be easily ordered.
The vast majority of working people, in North America, are now quite well cultured! Most of them have access to ‘’digital devices’’, of various sorts, and know how to use them! Or at least, they have children who can assist them.
In the absence of a true Communist Party, one which calls for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the members of the working class must, and will, educate themselves. They will become ‘’class conscious’’, aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, by themselves, if need be! It is to be hoped that the students who are currently in revolutionary motion will assist in this noble endeavor!
They, the most advanced members of the working class, as well as students, will soon be raised to the level of Marxist intellectuals, true Communists! The most advanced workers will, in turn, lead the less advanced! The same is true of the students!
It is to be hoped that this article, which I am writing, can help them to better understand those Revolutionary Works.
At the time Lenin wrote What Is To Be Done?, as now, there were a great many self proclaimed Marxists who called for ‘’bowing down’’ to the spontaneous element. Lenin condemned this, in no uncertain terms.
B. Bowing To Spontaneity
Rabocheya Mysl (Workers Thought)
In this section, Lenin documents the fact that, right from the very beginning, there was a big division, within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. In fact, there was a bitter struggle between those who are referred to as ‘’Economists’’, and the true Marxists.
As Lenin stated, ‘’All subservience to the spontaneity of the labour movement, all belittling of the role of the ‘conscious element’, of the role of Social Democracy, (Marxism), means, whether one likes it or not, the growth of influence of bourgeois ideology among the workers’’. All those who talk about ‘exaggerating the importance of ideology’, about exaggerating the role of the conscious element, etc., imagine that the pure and simple labour movement can work out an independent ideology for itself, if only the workers ‘take their fate out of the hands of the leaders’. But this is a profound mistake….Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology being developed by the masses of workers in the process of their development, the only choice is: either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for humanity has not created a ‘third’ ideology, and moreover, in a society torn by class antagonisms, there can never be a non class or above class ideology). Hence, to belittle socialist ideology in any way, to deviate from it in the slightest degree means strengthening bourgeois ideology. There is a lot of talk about spontaneity, but the spontaneous development of the labour movement leads to its becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology, leads to its developing according to the program of the Credo, for the spontaneous labour movement is pure and simple trade unionism….and trade unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers to the bourgeoisie. Hence our task, the task of Social Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the labour movement from its spontaneous, trade unionist striving to go under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social Democracy.’’ (italics by Lenin)
Lenin considered this to be of the utmost importance. He went on to explain the reason that the spontaneous movement, the ”movement along the line of least resistance”, necessarily leads to the domination of bourgeois ideology: ”For the simple reason that bourgeois ideology is far older in origin than Social Democratic ideology; because it is more fully developed, and because it possesses immeasurably more opportunities for being distributed’’. (italics by Lenin)
Strangely enough, Lenin made an important point in a footnote, no less. As he stated, ”The working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism, but the more widespread (and continuously revived in the most diverse forms) bourgeois ideology spontaneously imposes itself upon the working class still more”.
Now it is up to those who are protesting, to become familiar with the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. Instead of focusing on paltry reforms, focus on revolution. We will know that we are being successful, when the banners and posters read:
Dictatorship of the Proletariat!
Scientific Socialism!
Workers of the World, Unite!
C. The Self Emancipation Group and ‘’Rabocheye Dyelo’’ (Workers Cause)
This section is a response to a group of Russian intellectuals, who were living abroad, and created a ‘’Russian Self EmancipatIon Group’’. This Group then published a Manifesto, titled quite reasonably, the ”Manifesto of the Self Emancipation of the Workers Group”. In that Manifesto, they quite correctly pointed out that ‘’the workers of Russia are only just awakening, are only just looking around, and instinctively clutch at the first means of struggle that come to their hands’’. Yet from this correct observation, they came to the incorrect conclusion that this wlll ‘’determine the tasks’’ of the Marxists, in the sense that the Marxists must be subservient to that labour movement.
Precisely the opposite is the case! According to Lenin, it is up to Marxists, Communists, to raise the level of awareness of the working people! They must be made aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, of the necessity of revolution, of smashing the existing state apparatus, and establishing Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
It is the role, the duty, of Marxists, to raise the level of awareness of the working people! It is our duty to divert the movement from the path of ‘’spontaneous development’’! To focus on the immediate goals of the movement is referred to as ‘’dragging at its tail’’! There is no point in telling common people, that which they already know!
Here too, we have another example of a very important statement, placed in a footnote. As Lenin stated, ”The fact that economic interests are a decisive factor does not in the least imply that the economic (i.e. trade union) struggle must be the main factor, for the essential and ‘decisive’ interests of classes can be satisfied only by radical political changes in general. In particular, the fundamental economic interests of the proletariat can be satisfied only by a political revolution that will substitute the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.” (italics by Lenin)
There is one very interesting paragraph, in which Lenin compared the function of Social Democracy to that of a ”spirit”, one that is ”hovering over” the spontaneous movement, but also ”raising the movement to the level of its program”. (italics by Lenin)
He then proceeded to say the following: ”It must be admitted that those who have determined always to follow behind the movement like a tail are absolutely and forever ensured against ‘belittling the spontaneous element of development”’.
Lenin summed this up in the following statement: ‘’The greater the spontaneous uprising of the masses, the more widespread the movement becomes, so much the more rapidly grows the demand for greater consciousness in the theoretical, political and organizational work of Social Democracy’’.
As regards out current situation, the revolutionary movement is very broad and deep, not only here in North America, but also in other parts of the world. Further, those who claim to be Marxists are not performing their duty. So now it is up to working people and students, those who are protesting, to raise their own level of consciousness. A careful reading of What Is To Be Done?, will go a long way towards that goal. It is to be hoped that this article may be of some service.
III
Trade Union Politics and Social Democratic Politics
In this section, Lenin documents the differences between Marxists, whom he refers to as Social Democrats, now referred to as Communists, and the Economists, concerning the ‘’political struggle’’. The Economists do not altogether repudiate ”politics”, but they are constantly deviating from the SocIal Democratic conception of politics to the trade unionist conception.
A. Political Agitation and Its Restriction By the Economists
Lenin first documents the fact that the mass movement of the Russian workers, gave rise to the creation of ‘’literature’’, in the form of leaflets, mainly exposing factory conditions. As a result of this, even the most ‘’backward’’- less advanced- workers embraced this literature. Even they were roused from their usual state of apathy, anxious to ‘’go into print’’. They wanted people to know about the working conditions within ‘’their own’’ factory!
As a ‘’bonus’’, the mere appearance of these leaflets ‘’made them effective’’! In many cases, the mere appearance of such a leaflet proved to be sufficient to secure the satisfaction of all or part of the demands. Such is the power of the printed word!
It is important to remember that this work, in and of itself, is merely ‘’trade union’’ work, or ‘’Economist work’’, not Marxist, Communist, work. As Lenin stated, Social Democrats, Communists, ‘’lead the struggle of the working class not only for better terms for the sale of labour power, but also for the abolition of the social system that compels the propertyless to sell themselves to the rich. Social Democracy represents the working class, not in relation to a given group of employers, but in its relation to all classes in modern society, to the state as an organized political force. Hence, it not only follows that Social Democracy must not confine itself entirely to the economic struggle; they must not even allow the organization of economic exposures to become the predominant part of their activities. We must actively take up the political education of the working class and the development of its political consciousness.”
Naturally, this begs the question, of the precise meaning of ”political education”. It is something more than explaining to the working class, that which they already know! True, it must be explained to them that they are politically oppressed, and that their interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of their employers. More than that, ”Advantage must be taken of every concrete example of this oppression for the purpose of agitation (in the same way that we began to use concrete examples of economic oppression for the purposes of agitation). And inasmuch as political oppression affects all sorts of classes in society, inasmuch as it manifests itself in various spheres of life and activity…is it not evident that we shall not be fulfilling our task of developing the political consciousness of the workers if we do not undertake the organization of the political exposure of (capitalism) in all its aspects? (italics by Lenin, I merely replaced the word autocracy with capitalism)
He then proceeded to document the manner in which various groups, while claiming to be Marxist, were focused only on the economic struggle, which is Economism.
In summary, Lenin made it quite clear that ‘’Revolutionary Social Democracy always included, and now includes, the fight for reforms in its activities….it considers it to be its duty to present this demand to the government, not on the basis of the economic struggle alone, but on the basis of all manifestations of public and political life. In a word, it subordinates the struggle for reforms to the revolutionary struggle for liberty and for socialism, as the part is subordinate to the whole.’’ (italics by Lenin)
B. A Tale of How Martynov Rendered Plekhanov More Profound
We should start by mentioning the fact that, at one time, Plekhanov was a fine Marxist theoretician. It was only in later years, that he ‘’turned his coat’’, becoming a traitor to the working class, and ended up defending the capitalists, the bourgeoisie.
That being said, at the time Lenin was writing this article, Plekhanov was still a Marxist. He drew the following distinction between propagandists and agitators: ‘’A propagandist presents many ideas to one or a few persons; an agitator presents one or a few ideas, but he presents them to a mass of people’’.
As Lenin pointed out, a propagandist must present many ideas, which will be understood as a whole, by only a relatively few people. On the other hand, an agitator will present a single idea to countless people. For that reason, the propagandist operates chiefly by the printed word, while the agitator operates mainly with the living word.
But then Martynov came up with a ‘’third sphere’’, a ‘’more profound’’ terminology. According to him, agitation is a matter of ‘’calling the masses to certain concrete actions that would facilitate the direct revolutionary intervention of the proletariat in social life’’.
As Lenin stated, the ‘’call…quite naturally and inevitable supplements the theoretical tract, propagandist pamphlet and agitational speech’’. It follows that those who ‘’carry the petition lists around are agitators’’. Pure nonsense!
Apparently Martynov created this confusion in order to criticize Lenin and his newspaper, Iskra.
It is my personal experience that certain well meaning people, in an effort to create something new and theoretical, end up making great fools of themselves.
C. Political Exposures and ‘’Training In Revolutionary Activity’’
In this section, Lenin points out the error, which is characteristic of so many Economists, of focusing on the economic struggle, as a means of ”raising the activity of the masses of workers”.
As he phrased it: ”it is possible to ‘raise the activity of the masses of the workers’ only provided this activity is not restricted entirely to ‘political agitation on an economic basis’. And one of the fundamental conditions for the necessary expansion of political agitation is the organization of all sided political exposure. In no other way can the masses be trained in political consciousness and revolutionary activity except by means of such exposures. Hence, to conduct such activity is one of the most important functions of international Social Democracy as a whole, for even the existence of political liberty does not remove the necessity for such exposures; it merely changes the sphere against which they are directed.…Working class consciousness cannot be genuinely political consciousness unless the workers are trained to respond to all cases of tyranny, oppression, violence and abuse, no matter what class is affected. Moreover, that response must be a Social Democratic response, and not one from any other point of view. The consciousness of the masses of the workers cannot be genuine class consciousness, unless the workers learn to observe from concrete, and above all from topical, political facts and events, every other social class and all the manifestations of the intellectual, ethical and political life of these classes. …Those who concentrate the attention, observation and consciousness of the working class exclusively, or even mainly, upon itself alone are not Social Democrats…These universal political exposures are an essential and fundamental condition for training the masses in revolutionary activity….Our business as Social Democratic publicists is to deepen, to expand and intensify political exposures and political agitation”.
This was followed by an imaginary response from working people, those who were ”sick and tired” of hearing the same old ”sermon”, from the same old Economists:
”The ‘economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government’, about which you make as much fuss as if you had made a new discovery, is being carried on in all parts of Russia, even the most remote, by the workers themselves who have heard about strikes, but who have heard almost nothing about socialism. The ‘activity’ you want to stimulate among us workers, by advancing concrete demands promising palpable results, we are already displaying and in our every day, petty trade union work we put forward concrete demands, very often without any assistance whatever from the intellectuals. But such activity is not enough for us; we are not children to be fed on the sops of ‘economic’ politics alone; we want to know everything that everybody else knows, we want to learn the details of all aspects of political life, and to take part actively in every political event. In order that we may do this, the intellectuals must talk to us less of what we already know, and tell us more about what we do not know and what we can never learn from our factory and ‘economic’ experience, that is, you must give us political knowledge. You intellectuals can acquire this knowledge and it is your duty to bring us this knowledge in a hundred and a thousand times greater measure than you have done up to now; you must bring us this knowledge, not only in the form of arguments, pamphlets and articles which sometimes- excuse our frankness!- are very dull, but in the form of live exposures of what our government and our governing classes are doing at this very moment in all spheres of life. Fulfill this duty with greater zeal, and talk less about ‘increasing the activity of the masses of the workers’! We are far more active than you think, and we are quite able to support, by open street fighting, demands that do not promise any ‘palpable results’ whatever! You cannot ‘increase’ our activity, because you yourselves are not sufficiently active. Be less subservient to spontaneity, and think more about increasing your own activity, gentlemen! (italics by Lenin)
As regards our current situation, there are various political parties and organizations, all of whom ‘’worship spontaneity’’. They too, take great delight in telling working people, that which they already know! They write volumes concerning the fact that workers are over worked and under paid! As if they do not know!
The working class has to be made aware of the existence of classes! Of class conflict! Of the necessity of revolution! Of the necessity of smashing the existing state apparatus! Of the necessity of crushing the billionaires, after the revolution! Of the necessity of setting up a new state apparatus, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat! That is what they need!
There are a great many socialist political parties and groups in North America, most of which make no claim to be Marxist. We refer to these as ‘’utopian socialists’’. Almost all of the members, of such groups and parties, are of a middle class background. For that reason, they have been to university, and there exposed to the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. Bear in mind that the universities teach only the revision of those revolutionary theories. Strangely enough, countless middle class people believe that nonsense. For that reason, they tend to believe that socialism may be a ‘’good idea’’, but just does not work.
Then too, there are the self proclaimed socialists, who claim to be Marxists. Some of them maintain that Marxism must be ‘’revised’’, so that the revolutionary theories must be discarded. Others may not openly call for revision, but refuse to mention any revolutionary theories. Both are dead set opposed to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
As true Communists, we can work with the utopian socialists, as they are merely misled. We cannot work with the Marxist revisionists, as they are completely devoid of principle.
That in no way changes the fact that the working class must become ‘’class conscious’’, aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. At least, the most advanced workers must become raised to the level of true Communists, those who call for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. But how?
The answer is with the internet. As most working people are now cultured, owners of digital devices, they can now download Marxist works, or order them online. The Essential Works of Lenin are readily available, and it is hoped that this article will assist in understanding those writings.
D. What Is There In Common Between Economism and Terrorism?
In this section, Lenin makes reference to Svoboda Revolutionary Group, in that Svoboda means Freedom. It was a terrorist organization.
Lenin gets right to the heart of the matter, when he states that ”Economists and the modern terrorists spring from a common root, namely, subservience to spontaneity…At first sight, our assertion may appear paradoxical, for the difference between these two appears to be so enormous: one stresses the ‘drab every day struggle’, and the other calls for the most self sacrificing struggle of individuals. But this is not a paradox. The Economists and terrorists merely bow to different poles of spontaneity: the Economists bow to the spontaneity of the ‘pure and simple’ labour movement, while the terrorists bow to the spontaneity of the passionate indignation of the intellectuals, who are either incapable of linking up the revolutionary struggle with the labour movement, or lack the opportunity to do so….Let the workers carry on their ‘economic struggle against the employers and the government’…and let the intellectuals conduct the political struggle by their own efforts- with the aid of terror, of course! This is an absolutely logical and inevitable conclusion which must be insisted upon- even though those who are beginning to carry out this program did not themselves realize that it is inevitable. Political activity has its logic quite apart from the consciousness of those who, with the best intentions, call either for terror or for giving the economic struggle itself a political character. The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. (italics by Lenin)
Lenin then proceeds to list the two arguments put forward in defence of terrorism. First, so many terrorists admit that it has ”no deterrent value”, but that it does have ”excitative significance”. As Lenin said, ”To admit now that the government cannot be ‘terrified’, and therefore disrupted, by terror, is tantamount to condemning terror as a system of struggle….Secondly, it is still more characteristic as an example of the failure to understand our immediate task of ‘training the masses in revolutionary activity’. Svoboda advocates terror as a means of ‘exciting’ the labour movement, and of giving it a ‘strong impetus’. …Are there not enough outrages committed in Russian life that a special ‘stimulant’ has to be invented?”
That which was true in Russia, in 1902, is just as true in twenty first century North America!
He goes on to say that our most ”pressing duty” now is to organize ”all sided political exposure”. ..as ”no other work can serve as a substitute for this work, either at the present time or at any other time”. (italics by Lenin)
E. The Working Class As Champion of Democracy
In order to prepare the working class for revolution and the subsequent Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it is necessary to develop the political consciousness of the working class. This is to say that we have to raise the level of awareness, of at least the most advanced workers, to that of true Marxists, Communists. We cannot accomplish this by focusing on the purely economic aspects, as that is too narrow.
Lenin makes the point that political consciousness can be brought to the workers, but only from outside the economic struggle. He is referring to the relationships between all the various classes, and strata within those classes, as they pertain to the various levels of government.
At the time this was written, a true Russian Communist Party existed, which was referred to as the Social Democratic Party. That same Party was blessed with a great many members, and they were at first working only with the workers who were engaged in industry. Quite reasonably, these workers were referred to as the ”industrial proletariat”. Yet as ever more young intellectuals joined the Party, they ended up with a ‘’surplus’’, so to speak.
As the situation had changed, Lenin decided that it was necessary to change tactics, with the changing times. For that reason, he thought it best to send ‘’agitators’’ into all social strata. Bear in mind that, at that time in Russia, there were far more classes than we have now, in North America.
Lenin: ”We must ‘go among all classes of the people’ as theoreticians, as propagandists, as agitators and as organizers. No one doubts that the theoretical work of Social Democrats should be directed towards studying all the features of the social and political position of the classes. But extremely little is done in this direction as compared with the work that is done in studying the features of factory life….The principle thing, of course, is propaganda and agitation among all strata of the people. …We must also find ways and means of calling meetings of representatives of all classes of the population that desire to listen to a democrat; for he who forgets that ‘the Communists support every revolutionary movement’, that we are obliged for that reason to expound and emphasize general democratic tasks before the whole people, without for a moment concealing our socialist convictions, is not a Social Democrat. He who forgets his obligation to be in advance of everybody in bringing up, sharpening and solving every general democratic problem is not a Social Democratic…We must take upon ourselves the task of organizing a universal political struggle under the leadership of our Party in such a manner as to obtain all the support possible of all opposition strata for the struggle and for our Party. We must train our Social Democratic practical workers to become political leaders, able to guide all the manifestations of this universal struggle, able at the right time to ‘dictate a positive program of action’ for the discontented students, for the discontented religious sects, for the offended elementary school teachers, etc”. (italics by Lenin)
By contrast, we have no true Communist Party -as yet!-, one which calls for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. A surplus of young, university educated members of the ”upper classes”, is one problem we do not have. What we do have, is a highly cultured working class.
More accurately, we have a great many common people, who work for a living, and are highly cultured. For the most part, but by no means all, they work for wages, as hourly employees. Some of these people are family farmers. Others are ‘’owner-operators’’, those who own a machine and run it themselves. Still others are small business owners.
While it is true that many of these working people are technically classified as ‘’petty bourgeois’’, or middle class, I still refer to them as ”working people”, or ”common people”. After all, the family farmer frequently also works at an hourly job. That person is both a worker, a proletarian, and a farmer. Part time farmer, part time worker. Then too, the owner-operators frequently have to declare bankruptcy, and subsequently also work for wages. The distinction between working class and lower middle class becomes blurred.
All of these working people are quite cultured. Almost all have digital devices, and know how to use them. What is more, it is safe to say that many of them are taking a leading role in the upcoming revolution.
In particular, the truckers protest is being carried out, very likely by working people who own their own trucks. They are being joined by family farmers, in their tractors. Both independent truckers and family farmers are being squeezed by the monopoly corporations. It is essential that they become aware that they are fighting a class war, and not just a fight for paltry reforms.
We can only hope that they too, read the Essential Works of Lenin.
While it is true that the lack of a proper Communist Party is a ”grave misfortune”, it is also true that a powerful revolutionary motion may motivate a number of middle class people, those who are aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, to form such a Party. Of course, advanced workers can assist in this worthy cause. More on that objective, later on in this book.
Lenin went on to state that ‘’only a Party that will organize real, public exposures can become the vanguard of the revolutionary forces in our time.’’ He went on to state that ‘’sober politicians and cool businessmen’’, are well aware of how dangerous it is to ‘’complain’’ about even a minor government official. Yet those same people will ‘’come to us’’ with their complaints, if we in fact ‘’represent a political force…The ideal audience for these political exposures is the working class, which is first and foremost in need of universal and live political knowledge, which is most capable of converting this knowledge into active struggle, even if it does not promise ‘palpable results’. The only platform from which public exposures can be made is an all Russian newspaper”. (italics by Lenin)
That was very true, at the time Lenin wrote this article. Since that time, advances in technology have given birth to the internet, as well as various web sites. We can use these to our advantage. It is very likely much faster, easier and cheaper, to post on the internet, rather than publishing a newspaper. The importance of these exposures cannot be under estimated. As Lenin stated:
”Political exposures are as much a declaration of war against the government as economic exposures are a declaration of war against the employers. And the wider and more powerful this campaign of exposure is, the more numerous and determined the social class, which has declared war in order to commence the war, will be, the greater will be the moral significance of this declaration of war. Hence, political exposures in themselves serve as a powerful instrument for disintegrating the system we oppose, the means for diverting from the enemy his casual or temporary allies, the means of spreading enmity and distrust among those who permanently share power with the autocracy.
”Only a Party that will organize real, public exposures can become the vanguard of the revolutionary forces in our time. The word ‘public’ has a very profound meaning. The over whelming majority of the non working class exposures (and in order to become the vanguard, we must attract other classes) are sober politicians and cool businessmen. They know perfectly well how dangerous it is to ‘complain’ even against a minor official, let alone against the ‘omnipotent’ Russian government. And they will come to us with their complaints only when they see that these complaints really have effect, and when they see that we represent a political force. In order to become this political force in the eyes of outsiders, much persistent and stubborn work is required to raise our own consciousness, initiative and energy. For this, it is not sufficient to stick the label ‘vanguard’ on rearguard theory and practice….But in what way will the class character of our movement be expressed?…We Social Democrats will organize these public exposures; in that all the questions that are brought up by the agitation will be explained in the spirit of Social Democracy, without any concessions to deliberate or unconscious distortions of Marxism; in the fact that the Party will carry on this universal political agitation, uniting into one inseperable whole the pressure upon the government in the name of the people, the revolutionary training of the proletariat- while preserving its political independence- the guidance of the economic struggle of the working class, the utilization of all its spontaneous conflicts with its exploiters, which rouse and bring into our camp increasing numbers of the proletariat.” (italics by Lenin)
Even though we do not, as yet, have a true Communist Party, we are quite capable of coming together, as an organization of working people, and setting up a proper web site, on the internet. On this web site, we can expose the lies and deception of the ruling class of billionaires. All articles will be written in the spirit of Scientific Socialism, true Communism, without any concessions to any distortions of Marxism.
Under those circumstances, it is entirely possible that a great many well educated intellectuals may join us. The same it true of the students. That is precisely what we need.
F. Again ‘’Slanderers’’, Again ‘’Mystifiers’’
This section was written in response to the newspaper, Rabocheye Dyelo, (Workers Cause). They accused Iskra, the newspaper of Lenin, of slandering them!
The ‘’bone of contention’’, so to speak, was that of the necessity of raising the level of awareness of the working class, to the level of ‘’conscious people’’. This is to say that at least the most advanced workers, had to become true Marxists, Communists, aware of the necessity of revolution, in order to give birth to Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This requires something more than focusing merely on the economic struggles, of the working people.
As Lenin responded, ”with only a little reflection, it would have understood why all subservience to the spontaneity of the mass movement and any degrading of Social Democratic politics to trade union politics means precisely preparing the ground for converting the labour movement into an instrument of bourgeois democracy. The spontaneous labour movement by itself is able to create (and inevitably will create) only trade unionism, and working class trade union politics are precisely working class bourgeois politics. The fact that the working class participate in the political struggle and even in political revolution does not in itself make its politics Social Democratic politics”. (italics by Lenin)
Lenin made the point that there is a big difference between trade union politics, and Communist politics. Trade union politics is precisely working class bourgeois politics. The fact that the working class participates in the political revolution, does not, in itself, make its politics Communist politics.
This is followed by a reference to a mass movement, within Russia, the previous spring. Lenin admits that the Social Democratic Party did not respond properly, and that there was a reason for this: ”The masses of workers proved to be more active than we; we lacked adequately trained revolutionary leaders and organizers, aware of the mood prevailing among all the opposition strata and able to march at the head of the movement, convert the spontaneous demonstration into a political demonstration, broaden its political character, etc. Under such circumstances, our backwardness will inevitable be utilized by the more mobile and more energetic non Social Democratic revolutionaries, and the workers, no matter how strenuously and self sacrificingly they may fight the police and troops, no matter how revolutionary they may act, will prove to be merely a force supporting these revolutionaries, the rearguard of bourgeois democracy, and not the Social Democratic vanguard”.
Clearly, without that class consciousness, any working class involvement in the revolution, will result only in supporting the ‘’rearguard of bourgeois democracy’’.
Lenin then proceeded to give the example of the German Social Democratic Party, at that time, a true Communist Party. It set the standard for being at the head of any and all mass movements.
It is entirely possible that those who claim to be Marxists, but in fact are social chauvinists, may become leaders of the revolution, manage to overthrow the existing government, take over the existing state apparatus, and set themselves up as the new rulers. With the help of the working people! That is very likely the goal of so many social chauvinists!
IV
The Primitiveness of the Economists and the Organization of Revolutionaries
In this section, Lenin makes the argument that a national centralized organization is needed. It must consist of professional revolutionaries, led by the real political leaders of all the people. Such an organization is not about to take shape spontaneously! It has to be created by conscious people, those who are devoted to revolution! As Lenin stated:
”The ‘economic struggle against the employers and the government’ does not in the least require- and therefore such a struggle can never give rise to- an all Russian centralized organization that will combine, in a general attack, all the numerous manifestations of political opposition, protest and indignation, an organizarion that will consist of professional revolutionaries, and be led by the real political leaders of the whole of the people. And this can be easily understood. The character of the organization of every institution is naturally and inevitably determined by the character of the activity that institution conducts….But it is precisely at the present time, when the wave of spontaneous indignation is, as it were, washing over us, leaders and organizers of the movement, that a most irreconcilable struggle must be waged against all defence of sluggishness, against any legitimization of restrictions in this matter, and it is particularly necessary to rouse in all those participating in the practical work, in all who are just thinking of taking it up, discontent with the primitive methods that prevail among us, and an unshakeable determination to get rid of them”. (italics by Lenin)
The creation of a web site, by those who are devoted to Scientific Socialism, would go a long way towards the creation of such a centralized organization.
- What Are Primitive Methods?
In this section, Lenin documents the manner in which the university students, those who were absorbed in Marxism, first became active. As he stated:
”They marched off to war, like peasants from the plough, snatching up a club. A students circle, having no contact the old members of the movement, no contacts with circles in other districts, or even in other parts of the same city, (or with other schools), without the various sections of the revolutionary work being in any way organized, having no systematic plan of activity covering any length of time, established contacts with the workers and sets to work. The circle gradually expands its propaganda and agitation; by its activities it wins the sympathies of a rather large circle of workers and of a certain section of the educated classes, which provide it with money and from which the ‘committee’ recruits new groups of young people….And usually the first action ends in immediate and wholesale arrests”.
This detailed, accurate description, by Lenin, of the earliest work of young Russian Marxists, he refers to as ”primitive methods”. As he pointed out, ”the lack of training in and narrow outlook on theoretical, political and organizational questions were all the inevitable result of the conditions described above…these primitive methods at last began to be recognized as a disease by all thinking Social Democrats”.
From this, it is clear that leaders are required, to order to coordinate the activities of the various groups, to provide direction, to focus their goals. They need to get organized.
In modern times, the situation is quite similar. The difference is that those who have gone to university, appear to believe the lies and distortions, concerning the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. That in no way changes the fact that the various movements, by different sections of the population, have to be brought together. It is not enough to fight for paltry reforms. Nothing of substance will change, until the ruling class of capitalists are overthrown. This is to say that we need an organization of Marxist, professional revolutionaries. We need a true Communist Party.
B. Primitive Methods and Economism
Lenin begins this section with a question which naturally arises, as a result of the previous sections: ”Have these primitive methods, which are a complaint of growth affecting the whole of the movement, any connection with Economism, which is only one of the tendencies in Russian Social Democracy?” (italics by Lenin)
Lenin was certainly of the opinion that such was the case! As he stated, ”The lack of practical training, the lack of ability to carry on organizational work is certainly common to us all, including those who have stood unswervingly by the point of view of revolutionary Marxism from the very outset. And, of course, no one can blame the practical workers for their lack of practical training. (italics by Lenin)
As this was clearly a very serious problem, he had a very serious solution: ”Our primary and most imperative practical task, namely, to establish an organization of revolutionaries capable of maintaining the energy, the stability and continuity of the political struggle.…The principle cause of the present crisis in Russian Social Democracy is that the leaders …lag behind the the spontaneous rising of the masses….The most serious sin we commit is that we degrade our political and organizational tasks to the level of the every day economic struggle”. (italics by Lenin)
Lenin also had a few harsh words for the Economists, middle class intellectuals, one and all, those who had a rather low opinion of the working class: ”If you are not amateurs enamoured of your primitive methods, what are you then? You boast that you are practical, but you fail to see what every Russian practical worker knows, namely, the miracles that the energy, not only of circles, but even of individual persons is able to perform in the revolutionary cause. Or do you think that our movements cannot produce heroes like that were produced by the movement in the seventies? If so, why do you think so? Because we lack training? But we are training ourselves, will train ourselves, and we will be trained!…Average people of the masses, are capable of displaying enormous energy and self sacrifice in strikes and in street battles with the police and troops, and are capable (in fact, are alone capable) of determining the whole outcome of our movement- but the struggle against the political police requires special properties; it requires professional revolutionaries.” (italics by Lenin)
Now we are facing a very similar situation, in that our modern day Economists, including those who consider themselves to be Marxists, are making every effort to limit the working class movement, to the goal of paltry reforms. True, we lack training, but we are training ourselves! Some workers are studying the revolutionary works of Marx and Lenin in private, while others are coming together in groups, and discussing this. There is no law that says that a university degree is required to be a Communist revolutionary!
As regards the struggle with the political police, that requires an organization of professional revolutionaries. Such a struggle is clearly beyond the ability of the vast majority of common people. As Lenin stated: ”The fact that the masses are spontaneously entering the movement does not make the organization of this struggle less necessary. On the contrary, it makes it more necessary; for we Socialists would be failing in our duty to the masses if we did not prevent the police from making a secret of (and if we did not ourselves sometimes secretly prepare) every strike and every demonstration. And we shall succeed in doing this, precisely because the spontaneously awakening masses will also advance from their own ranks increasing numbers of ‘professional revolutionaries’ that is, if we are not so foolish as to advise the workers to keep on marking time.” (italics by Lenin)
C. Organization of Workers and Organization of Revolutionaries
At the very start of this section, Lenin makes clear that an organization of revolutionaries, is far different from an organization of workers. Yet he also makes clear that a typical Economist is of a different opinion. Lenin:
”It is only natural that a Social Democrat, who conceives the political struggle as being identical with the ‘economic struggle against the employers and the government’, should conceive of an ‘organization of revolutionaries’ as being more or less identical with an ‘organization of workers”’.
In fact, there is a big difference between the two, of necessity. The typical Economist is completely incapable of understanding this. As Lenin stated, ”On questions of organization and politics the Economists are forever lapsing from Social Democracy into trade unionism. The political struggle carried on by the Social Democrats is far more extensive and complex than the economic struggle the workers carry on against the employers and the government. Similarly (and indeed for that reason), the organization of a revolutionary Social Democratic Party must inevitably differ from the organizaton of the workers designed for the latter struggle. A workers organization must in the first place be a trade organization; secondly, it must be as wide as possible; and thirdly, it must be as public as conditions will allow….On the other hand, the organization of revolutionaries must consist first and foremost of people whose profession is that of a revolutionary (that is why I speak of organizations of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary Social Democrats). In view of this coming feature of the members of such an organization, all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, and certainly distinctions of trade and profession, must be obliterated. Such an organization must of necessity be not too extensive and as secret as possible”. (italics by Lenin)
Of course, whenever possible, the relations between the two must be very close and simple. Whenever possible, every Social Democratic worker should work inside these trade union organizations. That is a fact. It is also a fact that, as Lenin stated, ”Every worker who understands the need for organization, in order to carry on the struggle against the employers and the government, join the trade unions. The very objects of the trade unions would be unattainable unless they were extremely wide organizations. The wider these organizations are, the wider our influence over them will be, and this influence will be exercised not only through the ‘spontaneous’ development of the economic struggle, but also by the direct and conscious effect the Socialist members of the union have on their comrades.” (italics by Lenin)
At the time Lenin was writing this, Russia was under the rule of the Czar, so that all organizations were banned, both trade unions and Socialists. For that reason, he gave some advice on that subject. As that is no longer an issue, I have chosen not to go into that.
There follows an instructive section, in which Lenin makes reference to ”tares” versus the ”wheat”. By the tares, or ”weeds”, he is referring to the ”agents provocateurs”, the ”rats” hired by the government, in order to infiltrate and cause trouble, within the labour movement. On the other hand, he also refers to the ”wheat”, and explains this: ”By the wheat, we mean attracting the attention of still larger and more backward sections of the workers to social and political questions …our task is to fight down the tares. It is not our business to grow wheat in flower pots. By pulling up the tares, we clear the soil for the wheat….Trade union organizations may not only be of tremendous value in developing and consolidating the economic struggle, but may also become a very important auxillary to political agitation and revolutionary organization.”
That is far different from a true Communist Party, which was then referred to as a ”Social Democratic Party”, which is ”capable of guiding the whole proletarian struggle for emancipation. ..it is necessary to conduct the widest possible political agitation among the masses…If we begin with the solid foundation of a strong organization of revolutionaries, we can guarantee the stability of the movement as a whole and carry out the aims of both Social Democracy and of trade unionism”. (italics by Lenin)
Lenin then proceeds to issue a warning against demagogues, as he considers them to be the ”worst enemies of the working class”. These are the political leaders who appeal to the prejudices of the less advanced members of the working class. These workers may be encouraged to distrust those with university degrees, as well as anyone who is considered to be an intellectual. Bear in mind that Marx and Engels were well educated, middle class intellectuals!
As he said, such people ”arouse the bad instincts in the crowd, because the ignorant worker is unable to recognize his enemies in men who represent themselves, and sometimes sincerely represent themselves, as his friends. They are the worst enemies of the working class, because in this period of dispersion and vacillation, when our movement is just beginning to take shape, nothing is easier than to employ demagogic methods to side track the crowd, which can realize its mistake only by bitter experience”.
It is of the utmost importance for the working people, to have proper leaders. Such people are not ”naturally born”. He goes on to state that ”If we begin with the solid foundation of a strong organization of revolutionaries, we can guarantee the stability of the movement as a whole and carry out the aims of both Social Democracy and of trade unionism.” These leaders must be ”professionally trained, schooled by long experience and working in perfect harmony,” as per Lenin.
The demagogues respond to this by attempting to set the workers against their leaders, to undermine the confidence of the common people in their true leaders. They seem to be well aware that, in the absence of such leaders, no class in modern society is capable of conducting a determined struggle. It matters not in the slightest, if those professional revolutionaries are middle class intellectuals, or self educated working people.
As a means of stressing the importance of professional revolutionaries, Lenin made the following statement: ”I assert:
”1) that no movement can be durable without a stable organization of leaders to maintain continuity
”2) that the more widely the masses are spontaneously drawn into into the struggle and form the basis of the movement and participate in it, the more necessary is it to have such an organization, and the more stable must it be (for it is much easier for demagogues to side track the more backward sections of the masses)
”3) that the organization must consist chiefly of persons engaging in revolutionary activities as a profession.
”4) that in a country with an autocratic government, the more we restrict the membership of this organization to persons who are engaged in revolutionary activities as a profession and who have been professionally trained in the art of combatting the political police, the more difficult will it be to catch the organization, and
”5) the wider will be the circle of men and women of the working class or of other classes of society able to join the movement and perform active work in it” (italics by Lenin)
Granted, most countries of the world, but by no means all, now allow certain democratic rights, such as a right to organize in trade unions. Lenin then proceeded to explain that ”to concentrate all secret functions in the hands of as small a number of professional revolutionaries as possible does not mean the latter will ‘do the thinking for all’, and that the crowd will not take an active part in the movement. On the contrary, the crowd will advance from its ranks increasing numbers of professional revolutionaries, for it will know that it is not enough for a few students and workingmen, waging economic war, to gather together and form a ‘committee’, but that it takes years to train professional revolutionaries; the crowd will ‘think’ not of primitive ways, but of training professional revolutionaries. The centralization of the secret functions of the organization does not mean the centralization of all of the functions of the movement….The active and widespread participation of the masses will not suffer; on the contrary, it will benefit by the fact that a ‘dozen’ experienced revolutionaries, no less professionally trained than the police, will centralize all the secret side of the work….The centralization of the more secret functions in an organization of revolutionaries will not diminish, but rather increase the extent and the quality of the activity of a large number of other organizations intended for wide membership and which, therefore, can be as loose and public as possible, such as trade unions, workers’ circles for self education and the reading of illegal literature, and socialist and also democratic circles for all other sections of the population, etc. We must have as large a number as possible of such organizations having the widest possible variety of functions, but it is absurd and dangerous to confuse these with organizations of revolutionaries, to erase the lines of demarcation between them, to dim still more the masses’ already incredibly hazy appreciation of the fact that in order to ‘serve’ the mass movement, we must have people who will devote themselves exclusively to Social Democratic activities, and that such people must train themselves patiently and steadfastly to be professional revolutionaries…our task is not to degrade the revolutionaries to the level of an amateur, but to exalt the amateur to the level of a revolutionary”. (italics by Lenin)
That was a summary of the tasks of the Russian Social Democratic (Communist) Party, in 1902. Our tasks are similar, in that we do not- as yet!- have a true Communist Party. I will devote a later article to that rather serious shortcoming. For the moment, the major differences are that we have the internet, as well as a working class that is cultured. For that reason, there is no need to print leaflets. As well, the workers, or at least the most advanced workers, can educate themselves, preferably with the help of the students, and raise their level of revolutionary awareness to that of true Marxists. This can be accomplished by carefully reading the key works of Marx and Lenin.
The same is true of the students. As they are also now in motion, at least in opposition to the war in Gaza, they too can self educate. As previously mentioned, at the same time, they can assist the workers in understanding the key works of Marx and Lenin.
It should be easier for the students, as the distortions of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, are taught in University. It matters not in the slightest if the professional revolutionaries emerge from the working classes, or from the students. We must not allow any prejudice against intellectual revolutionaries, from any class whatsoever.
D. The Scope of Organizational Work
In reading this section, it is best to bear in mind that at the time it was written, in 1902, Russia was an autocracy, ruled by a Czar (Emperor). Also, a Communist Party existed, referred to as the Social Democratic Party. Naturally, all true Marxists, Communists, were referred to as Social Democrats. As that is the manner in which they referred to themselves, that is the terminology I have used in this article.
It is also a fact that the problem which Lenin addressed, in this section, is not exactly a problem that we currently have, but is one that we will soon have to face. First, we will have to form a true Communist Party, train a number of professional revolutionaries, from among workers, students and intellectuals, and then put them to work. As we now have the internet, as well as a cultured working class, such a task is quite manageable.
Lenin begins this section with an open and honest admission that there is a ”lack of revolutionary forces fit for action”, across all of Russia. Yet he also made it clear that the Economists are mistaken, when they say that ”society advances few persons from its ranks fit for ‘work’. It advances very many, but we are unable to make use of them all. The critical, transitional state if our movement in this connection may be formulated as follows: there are no people- yet there are enormous numbers of people. There are enormous numbers of people, because the working class and the most diverse strata of society, year after year, advance from their ranks an increasing number of discontented people who desire to protest, who are ready to render all the assistance they can in the fight against absolutism, the intolerableness of which is not yet recognized by all, but is nevertheless more and more acutely sensed by increasing masses of the people.
”At the same time, we have no people, because we have no leaders, no political leaders, we have no talented organizers, capable of organizing extensive and at the same time uniform and harmonious work that would give employment to all forces, even the most inconsiderable. …The scope of revolutionary work is too narrow compared with the breadth of the spontaneous basis of the movement. It is too hemmed in by the wretched ‘economic struggle against the employers and the government’ theory. And yet, at the present time, not only Social Democratic political agitators, but also Social Democratic organizers must ‘go among all classes of the population”’….it is necessary to have a strong organization of tried revolutionaries. The more secret such an organization would be, the stronger and more wide spread would be the confidence of the masses in the Party, and as we know, in time of war, it is not only of great importance to imbue one’s own army with confidence in it’s own strength, it is important also to convince the enemy and all neutral elements of this strength; friendly neutrality may sometimes decide the issue. If such an organization existed on a firm theoretical basis, and possessed a Social Democratic journal, we would have no reason to fear that the movement would be diverted from its path by the numerous ‘outside’ elements that are attracted to it. ..In a word, specialization necessarily presupposes centralization, and in its turn imperatively calls for it”. (italics by Lenin)
Lenin next faced the problem of the most advanced, intellectual Russian worker, who was forced to work eleven hours a day in the factories. As he stated: ”Not only are revolutionaries lagging behind the spontaneous awakening of the masses generally, but even working class revolutionaries are lagging behind the spontaneous awakening of the working class masses….This fact proves that our very first and most imperative duty is to help to train working class revolutionaries, who will be on the same level in regard to Party activity as intellectual revolutionaries (we emphasize the words ‘in regard to Party activity’, because although it is necessary, it is not so easy and not so imperative to bring the workers up to the level of intellectuals, in other respects). Therefore, attention must be devoted principally to the task of raising the worker to the level of revolutionaries, and not to degrading ourselves to the level of the ‘labour masses’, as the Economists wish to do, or necessarily to the level of the average worker…I am far from denying the necessity for popular literature for the workers, and especially popular (but of course not vulgar) literature for the especially backward workers….We can and must educate workers (and university and high school students) so as to enable them to understand us when we speak to them about these questions….In order to become fully prepared for his task, the working class revolutionary must also become a professional revolutionary….our duty to assist every capable worker to become a professional agitator, organizer, propagandist, literature distributor, etc. …try to place every capable workingman in such conditions as will enable him to develop and apply his abilities to the utmost…As the spontaneous rise of the working class masses becomes wider and deeper, they not only promote from their ranks an increasing number of talented agitators, but also of talented organizers, propagandists and ‘practical workers’ in the best sense of the term…no political police in the world will be able to contend against them, for these detachments of men, absolutely devoted and loyal to the revolution, will themselves enjoy the absolute confidence and devotion of the broad masses of the workers. The sin we commit is that do not sufficiently ‘stimulate’ the workers to take this path, ‘common’ to them and to the ‘intellectuals’, of professional revolutionary training, and that we too frequently drag them back by our silly speeches about what ‘can be understood’ by the masses of workers, by the ‘average workers’, etc.
”In this, as in other cases, the narrowness of our field of organizational work is directly due….to the fact that we restrict our theories and our political tasks to a narrow field. Subservience to spontaneity seems to inspire a fear of taking even one step away from what ‘can be understood’ by the masses, a fear of rising too high above mere subservience to the immediate requirements of the masses. Have no fear, gentlemen! Remember that we stand so low on the plane of organization, that the very idea that we could rise too high is absurd!” (italics by Lenin)
E. ”Conspirative” Organization and ”Democracy”
In this Section, Lenin responds to criticisms that the organization, which the Social Democrats had established, smacked of ”Narodovolism”, and further, was not democratic. This calls for a little historical background.
As all Russians were well aware, in the 1870’s, many members of the Russian intelligentsia were involved in a movement against the autocracy, which is to say the Czar. As Lenin pointed out, it is to their credit that they tried to recruit, to their organization, all the discontented, in their attempt to destroy the autocracy. On the other hand, they relied on a theory which was not revolutionary, certainly not Marxist. Either they did not know how, or perhaps they were unable, to link up their movement with the class struggle, that was taking place.
The point that Lenin was trying to make, is that ”the spontaneous struggle of the proletariat will not become a genuine ‘class struggle’ until it is led by a strong organization of revolutionaries”.
Lenin then went on to state: ”We have always protested, and will of course continue to protest against restricting the political struggle to conspiracies. But this does not of course mean that we deny the need for a strong revolutionary organization….an organization so strong as to be able to ‘resort to rebellion’ and to ‘every other form of attack’, in order to ‘deliver a smashing blow against absolutism…Secrecy is such a necessary condition for such an organization that all the other conditions …must all be subordinated to it.” (italics by Lenin)
We can only stress the fact, that this was written at the time when Russia was an autocracy. The people had absolutely no rights, so secrecy was a necessity. On the other hand, under the rule of monopoly capitalism, which is imperialism, within certain countries, the situation is quite similar. The people may have democratic rights, but only ”on paper”.
Lenin then responded to the criticism that ”such a powerful and strictly secret organization…. an organization which of necessity must be a centralized organization, may too easily throw itself into a premature attack…To this we reply, speaking abstractly, it cannot be denied, of course, that a militant organization may thoughtlessly commence a battle, which may end in defeat, which might have been avoided under other circumstances. But we cannot confine ourselves to abstract reasoning on such a question, because every battle bears within itself the abstract possibility of defeat, and there is no other way of reducing this possibility than by organized preparation for battle….a strong revolutionary organization is absolutely necessary precisely for the purpose of giving firmness to the movement and of safeguarding it against the possibility of its making premature attacks...Only a centralized, militant organization that consistently carries out a Social Democratic policy, that satisfies, so to speak, all revolutionary instincts and strivings, can safeguard the movement against making thoughtless attacks and prepare it for attacks that hold out the promise of success”.
This was followed by his response, to the criticism, that such an organization violated the ”broad democratic principles”. Of course, the implication is that of ”full publicity”, and ”elections to all functions”. Without doubt, that publicity extends beyond the membership of the organization. Under the autocracy, which then existed in Russia, that publicity extended to the government agents, those who were devoted to crushing that organization! For that reason, public elections were out of the question! The organization had to remain secret!
Then Lenin considered the ”principle of election”. That is completely out of the question, because ”no revolutionary organization has ever practiced broad democracy, nor could it, however much it desired to do so. It is a harmful toy, because any attempt to practice the ‘broad democratic principle’, will simply facilitate the work of the police in making big raids, it will perpetuate the prevailing primitiveness, divert the thoughts of the practical workers from the serious and imperative task of training themselves to becoming professional revolutionaries, to that of drawing up detailed ‘paper’ rules for election systems”. (italics by Lenin)
So much for democracy, within an organization which must remain secretive! The two are incompatible.
Lenin then proceeded to drive home this point: ”The only serious organizational principle the active workers of our movement can accept is strict secrecy, strict selection of members and training of professional revolutionaries. If we possessed these qualities, something even more than ‘democracy’ would be guaranteed to us, namely complete, comradely, mutual confidence among revolutionaries…they have a lively sense of their responsibility, because they know from experience that an organization of real revolutionaries will stop at nothing to rid itself of an undesirable member.” (italics by Lenin)
This is followed by an instructive example of British trade unions, which first thought that all members should manage the unions. All official duties were performed by all members in turn. It was only after a number of cases of bankruptcy, that the workers were able to realize that there are times when experts are necessary. A painful lesson!
F. Local and All-Russian Work
This Section was written, in response to the fear that a centralized organization would work to the detriment of the local organizations. To this, Lenin responded that a central organization could only be of benefit to the local groups. In fact, local workers were too absorbed in local work. To focus more on national work, would serve to strengthen the ties to local groups. Instead of having a great many local newspapers, each group could contribute to a national newspaper. If nothing else, it is far more efficient.
Lenin went on to elaborate: ”A well organized secret apparatus requires professionally well trained revolutionaries and proper division of labour, but neither of these requirements can be met by separate local organizations, no matter how strong they may be at any given moment. Not only are the general interests of our movement as a whole (training of the workers in consistent socialist and political principles) better served by non local newspapers, but so also are even specifically local interests.”
For our purposes, there is no need to worry about publishing newspapers, either local or national, as the internet provides us with the opportunity to post articles on web sites. As most workers, or at least the most advanced, now have digital devices, capable of downloading any articles we wish to publish, it is safe to say that newspapers have gone the way of the rotary telephone.
Yet Lenin makes another point, which is very important. In order to publish, whether a newspaper or a web site, ”it is necessary to have a staff of expert writers, expert correspondents, an army of Social Democratic reporters that has established contacts far and wide, able to penetrate into all sorts of ‘state secrets’…find its way ‘behind the scenes’, an army of men and women whose ‘official duty’ it must be to be uniquitous and omniscient. And we, the party that fights against all economic, political, social and national oppression, can and must, collect, train, mobilize and set into motion such an army of omniscient people”. (italics by Lenin)
This is followed with some practical advice, concerning leaflets for purely trade union work. This was relevant, at the time it was written. As well, he suggested having a section of the Social Democratic newspaper devoted to the trade union struggle.
Conclusion
In this, Lenin summarizes the three distinct periods, in Russian Social Democracy. The first period, that of 1884 to 1894, was that of the ”rise and consolidation of the theory and program of Social Democracy”. It existed ”without a labour movement”.
The second period covered the years 1894 to 1898. Social Democracy appeared as a ”social movement, as the rising of the masses of the people, as a political party…The movement made enormous strides…The struggle compelled them to educate themselves, to read the illegal literature of all the tendencies….The formation of the Party in the spring of 1898 was the most striking and at the same time the last act of the Social Democrats in this period.” (italics by Lenin)
This gave rise to the ”third period”, in which ”The proletarian struggle spread to new strata of the workers over the whole of Russia and at the same time indirectly stimulated the revival of the democratic spirit among the students and among other strata of the population. The consciousness of the leaders, however, yielded to the breadth and power of the spontaneous rising…Scientific Socialism ceased to be an integral revolutionary theory and became a hodge podge idea ‘freely’ diluted…the slogan ‘class struggle’ did not impel them forward to wider and more strenuous activity but served as a soothing syrup…the idea of a party did not serve as a call for the creation of a militant organization of revolutionaries, but was used to justify some sort of a ‘revolutionary bureaucracy’ and infantile playing at ‘democratic’ reforms”.
That covers the three rather lengthy periods, within Russia, concerning the development of Communism. That in no way implies that the development of Communism, in our time, must also be a rather long, drawn out process. On the contrary, we can learn from the experience of previous revolutionaries. The existence of a cultured proletariat, as well as the internet, make that simpler.
Lenin had a few final words to say: ”When this third period will come to an end, and the fourth begin, we do not know….But we firmly believe that the fourth period will see the consolidation of militant Marxism, that Russian Social Democracy will emerge from the crisis in the full strength of manhood, that the place of the rearguard of opportunists will be taken by a genuine vanguard of the most revolutionary class”.
The final paragraph is of particular importance for us, now that the revolutionary motion is raging, not just in North America, but also around the world.
”In the sense of calling for such a ‘new guard’ and summing up, as it were, all that had been expounded above, my reply to the question: ‘What is to be done?’, can be put briefly: Liquidate the Third Period.”
Gerald McIsaac Science Project 