Outline of Theses for an Article “How They Defend Themselves”

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

This was written some time in January 1905 as a proposed reply to Plekhanov’s article “On Our Tactics Towards the Struggle of the Liberal Bourgeoisie Against Tsarism”, which criticised Lenin’s pamphlet The Zemstvo Campaign and Iskra’s Plan. Lenin’s article did not appear in the press, and does not seem to have been written. p. 134

How They Defend Themselves

1) Two replies to Lenin’s pamphlet on The Zemstvo Campaign and “Iskra”’s Plan –the Editorial Board’s and Plekhanov’s. This and is also curious (Plekhanov is nominally on the Board), but the distinction between their replies is extremely interesting.

Plekhanov defends an incorrect stand very cleverly and cautiously. The Editorial Board, not cleverly.

Plekhanov says nothing at all about either 1) Starover’s resolution and its connection with the Iskra plan, or 2) the “higher type of mobilisation”. Ergo, what Plekhanov passes over in silence is the e s s e n c e of Iskra’s mistake (Starover’s resolution is the beginning of the mistake, its Printed from the original starting-point. The final point—the consideration of the “higher” type).

The Editorial Board emphasises the connection of its stand with Starover’s resolution, and comes out for the idea of the “higher type”.

Both the Editorial Board and Plekhanov make a very weak stand for the talk on panic (clearly retreating and backtracking).

Plekhanov keeps harping on the contradiction between the old and the new = Lenin in an effort to prove that the Iskra Editorial Board was acting according to the old Lenin.

Plekhanov tries to create the impression that Lenin is now opposed to demonstrations before the Zemstvo men and is against dictating to them a “positive programme of action”. This is an absurdity and a distortion.

What were my theses against Iskra?

1)	The talk of panic is vulgar and irrelevant.
	{{ Reply? Plekhanov on the Tambovites The Editorial (ha-ha!)” on the anarchists (where?) Editorial Board’s “obstruction” }}	The Editorial Board is almost being robbed: “superfluous”.
2)	“Agreements” with the liberals must be determined by the actual common struggle and not by “promises”. N i l—Plekhanov.
3)	Starover’s terms rejected. (The Editorial Board makes a very weak case, with a virtual admission.)
4)	“New type.” Editorial Board–schwach. Plekhanov—n i l. On the question of uprising see Iskra No. 62. Leading.“Purely utopian views” on preparations for an uprising. “Are beginning to manifest themselves”....