Category | Template | Form |
---|---|---|
Text | Text | Text |
Author | Author | Author |
Collection | Collection | Collection |
Keywords | Keywords | Keywords |
Subpage | Subpage | Subpage |
Template | Form |
---|---|
BrowseTexts | BrowseTexts |
BrowseAuthors | BrowseAuthors |
BrowseLetters | BrowseLetters |
Template:GalleryAuthorsPreviewSmall
Special pages :
The Latest in Iskra Tactics, or Mock Elections as a New Incentive to an Uprising
We have spoken many times already about the inefficacy of the Iskra tactics in the âDumaâ campaign. The two main lines of this tacticsâthe urge to support the Osvobozhdeniye League which wants to enter the Duma on the strength of certain revolutionary pledges and the release of a slogan calling for ârevolutionary self-government of citizensâ and for popular elections to a constituent assembly under the autocracyâare both unsound. In the resolution of the Mensheviksâ âSouthern Constituent [?] Conferenceâ we at last have an attempt to formulate the Iskra tactics accurately and officially. At this Conference the best of the new-Iskra forces in Russia were represented. The resolution is an attempt at a business-like exposition of purely practical advice addressed to the proletariat. That is why a careful analysis of this resolution is so essential, both for the purpose of evolving a definite line of practical activity and for an appraisal of Iskraâs tactical stand as a whole.
We quote the full text of the resolution:
Resolution on the State Duma Adopted by the Constituent Conference of the Southern Organisations
Whereas,
we see the only way out of the present difficult conditions, compatible with the interests of the whole people, in the convocation of a constituent assembly elected on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, direct elections and a secret ballot, for the purpose of abolishing the autocratic regime, and establishing a democratic republic necessary in the first place to the proletariat in its struggle against all the foundations of the bourgeois system and for the achievement of socialism; and whereas,
1) the system of elections to the State Duma does not enable the whole people to participate in them, the proletariat being excluded from the elections by reason of the high property qualification fixed for urban dwellers, while the peasantryâa mere section of it at thatâ will vote on the basis of a four-stage system, which provides the authorities with every opportunity for exerting pressure on them; and whereas,
2) the whole of Russia is still deprived of all essential civil liberties, in the absence of which there can be no election campaign and, consequently, no elections conducted with any degree of fairness, and whereas, on the contrary, at the present time the authoritiesâ arbitrary procedure is everywhere becoming worse than ever before, and vast areas are one after the other placed under martial law; and, finally, whereas,
3) a system of representation which is even more of a travesty is being worked out for all the marginal regions; â
the Conference urges all organisations to build up a most energetic campaign of agitation to expose the entire travesty of representation by which the autocratic government proposes to deceive the people, and declares deliberate traitors to the people all those who are prepared to content themselves with the State Duma, and who will not at this decisive moment set themselves the task of supporting by their actions and tactics the revolutionary peopleâs demand for the convocation of a constituent assembly elected on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, direct elections and a secret ballot.
To achieve the speediest possible realisation of the said demand, the Southern Conference recommends the following tactics to the Party organisations:
1) The launching of an energetic agitation campaign among the industrial proletariat and the peasant masses for the creation of comprehensive democratic organisations and their amalgamation in an all-Russia organisation with the purpose of waging an energetic struggle against the State Duma and for the establishment of a popular constituent assembly with the immediate introduction of freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, and the right to strike. The establishment of this all-Russia peopleâs organisation should proceed through the formation of agitation committees elected by the workers at their respective factories, and the amalgamation agitation committees; through the creation of similar agitation committees among the peasantry; through the establishment of closer ties between the urban and rural committees; through the setting up of gubernia committees and the establishment of contact between them.
2) If this organisation proves sufficiently strong, and the working massesâ temper appropriate, the inauguration of the election campaign should be used to organise nation-wide popular elections to a constituent assembly, bearing in mind the prospect that the organised movement of the people, aimed at getting these elections held, may naturally lead to the whole people rising against tsarism, since inevitable resistance by the latter and the clash with it on the occasion of the elections will provide the rising with new incentives, while the peopleâs preliminary organisation will give the rising universality and unity.
3) In addition, the Conference proposes that efforts be made to secure freedom of election meetings and recommends energetic intervention in the election campaign, intervention by the people in electorsâ meetings, and public discussion of the tasks confronting representatives elected to the State Duma, these discussions to be conducted by electors at mass meetings. At the same time, the Social-Democratic Party must induce those sections of the population with the right to vote in the State Duma elections, to take to the road of revolution. This may find expression either in their joining an uprising led by the democratic organisations of the people, or, in the absence of such, in their striving to transform the incipient State Duma into a revolutionary assembly that will convoke a popular constituent assembly, or facilitate its convocation by the democratic organisations of the people.
4) Preparations should be made for exerting pressure on the State Duma along the same lines, should the mass movement fail to have brought about the overthrow of the autocracy and the establishment of a constituent assembly by the time the Duma is finally convened. Preparations should be made for an ultimatum to the State Duma demanding the convocation of a constituent assembly and the immediate introduction of freedom of speech, assembly, the press and association, and the arming of the people. Preparations should be made to back up this ultimatum with a political strike and other mass action by the people.
5) All this tactics shall be approved at general mass meetings, organised prior to and during the election campaign among the proletariat and the peasantry.
We shall not dwell on the shortcomings in the redaction of the resolution which is far too wordy. Let us deal with its fundamental mistakes.
1. The preamble speaks of the only way out of the present situation. In this connection the entire stress is placed on the idea of a constituent assembly, and not a word is said as to who is to call it, so that the âway outâ should be not merely on paper, but in actual fact. Silence on this score amounts to Social-Democrats yielding to the Osvobozhdeniye gentry. As we have repeatedly pointed out, it is the interests of the monarchist-liberal bourgeoisie that oblige the Osvobozhdeniye gentry to limit themselves to the convocation of a popular constituent assembly, and pass over in silence the question of who is to call it. This, as we have repeatedly pointed out, is the very question that the developing revolution has brought into the forefront, and herein at present lies the fundamental difference between the bourgeoisieâs opportunist (âcompromiseâ) tactics and the proletariatâs revolutionary tactics. By their resolution the new-Iskra supporters have furnished documentary proof of their incurable blindness in fundamental questions of tactics, and of their relapsing into Osvobozhdeniye slogans.
In the succeeding sections the resolution still more confuses the question of the convocation of a popular constituent assembly. Propaganda which proclaims confidence in the State Duma on this score is downright reactionary, while to say that a constituent assembly should be convened by a âdemocratic organisation of the peopleâ is much like proposing to call a constituent assembly through a committee of friends of the people living on the planet Mars. At their all-Russia Conference the new-Iskrists committed an unpardonable error in placing the convocation of a popular constituent assembly by a revolutionary government on a par with its convocation by a representative institution. The new-Iskrists have now gone even farther in reverse: they have not even mentioned a revolutionary provisional government. Why? On what grounds? In what respect have their views changed? All this remains a mystery. Instead of developing tactical directives, the Mensheviksâ conferences merely provide exhibitions of plunges and vacillations now to the right, now to the left.
2. To call âdeliberate traitors to the people all those who are prepared to content themselves with the State Dumaâ, etc., is just such a plunge ostensibly to the left, but one that is not towards a genuinely revolutionary path, but rather towards revolutionary phrase-mongering. In the first place, what is the point of the stinging adjective âdeliberateâ (traitor)? Was Johann Jacoby, who entered the State Duma or the United Landtag in 1847 as a bourgeois liberal, and went over to the Social-Democrats after the war of 1870- 71, a deliberate traitor to the people? Will any peasant who goes into the Duma and is âpreparedâ to content himself with very, very little be a deliberate traitor? Secondly, is it reasonable to establish as criteria of treachery things like: "whoever is prepared to content himselfâ, âwhoever does not set himself the taskâ, etc.? Row does one reveal one s âbeing preparedâ and âsetting oneself the taskââin word, or in deed? If in word, then it is necessary to obtain from those C.D.s ("Constitutional-Democratsâ, as the Osvobozhdeniye gentry now call themselves) who are entering the State Duma, a written promise or revolutionary pledge (Parvus, Cherevanin, Martov). In that case the resolution should express this idea clearly instead of being so vague about it. On the other hand, if being âpreparedâ is proved in deed, then why does the resolution not state openly and straightforwardly what âactionsâ It considers proof of this preparedness? The reason is because the resolution reflects the fundamental error of the new Iskra, which is unable to distinguish between revolutionary democracy and liberal-monarchist democracy. Thirdly, is it rational for a militant party to talk in general about persons (âall whoâ) instead of speaking concretely about trends or parties? At present it is of particular importance for us to expose to the proletariat that trendâthe Party of Constitutional-Democratsâwhose âactionsâ have already shown us what demands it supports, and how it does so. Addressing the workers in the name of Social-Democratic organisations, speaking to them about entrants into the Duma, and about Duma electors, etc., while keeping silent about the Constitutional-Democratic Party (i.e., the Osvobozhdeniye people) means either shilly-shallying and scheming (coming to terms on the sly with the Osvobozhdeniye people to support them on conditions stipulated by Parvus or Cherevanin), or unwittingly spreading corruption among the workers and giving up the struggle against the Constitutional-Democrats.
Besides the historical facts regarding the activity of Osvobozhdeniye, its adherents, the Zemstvo members, and all other Constitutional-Democrats, we have no important data for gauging the âpreparednessâ of democrats from among the bourgeoisie to fight together with the people. The new-Iskrists ignore these facts and dismiss the matter with meaningless phrases. Yet Plekhanov is still trying to convince us that the organisational vagueness in Iskraâs views is not supplemented by vagueness in tactics!
The Iskra supporters have in fact not only shut their eyes to the Constitutional-Democratsâ âpreparednessâ to commit treachery, proved by their obvious and universally noted turn to the right during the period between the July and September Zemstvo congresses, but have even assisted these Constitutional-Democrats by fighting, against the boycott! The Iskrists are threatening hypothetical Osvobozhdeniye adherents ("all those who are preparedâ, etc.) with âfrightfully terrifyingâ words, but by their tactics they are assisting the genuine Osvobozhdeniye adherents. This is wholly in the spirit of Rodichev, one of the Constitutional- Democratic leaders, who thunders: âWe will not accept liberty from hands steeped in the blood of the people !" (this statement of Rodichevâs, uttered at a private meeting and directed against William Stead, is now making the rounds of the entire foreign press)âand in the same breath demands that those very hands convoke a popular constituent assembly.
3. The next fundamental error in the resolution is the slogan for âthe creation of comprehensive democratic organisations and their amalgamation in an all-Russia organisationâ. The frivolity of the Social-Democrats who advance such a slogan is simply staggering. What does creating comprehensive democratic organisations mean? It can mean one of two things: either the socialistsâ organisation (the RSDLP) being submerged in the democratsâ organisation (and the new-Iskrists cannot do that deliberately, for it would be sheer betrayal of the proletariat)âor a temporary alliance between the Social-Democrats and certain sections of the bourgeois democrats. If the new-Iskrists want to advocate such an alliance, why do they not say so frankly and openly? Why do they hide behind the word âcreationâ? Why do they not specify the exact trends and groups in the bourgeois-democratic camp, with which they are urging the Social-Democrats to unite? Is this not a fresh example of impermissible vagueness of tactics, which in practice inevitably transforms the working class into an appendage to the bourgeois democracy?
The resolutionâs only definition of the nature of these comprehensive democratic organisationsâ consists of a statement of the two aims set them: 1) a struggle against the State Duma, and 2) a struggle for a popular constituent assembly. The latter aim, as lamely formulated by Iskra, i.e., without any indication of who is to convene the popular constituent assembly, has been fully endorsed by the Constitutional-Democrats. Does this mean that the Iskrists advocate an alliance between the Social-Democrats and the Constitutional-Democrats, but are ashamed to say so openly? The former aim is formulated with an obscurity we are accustomed to seeing only in Russian laws, which are deliberately designed to deceive the people. What is meant by a struggle against the State Duma? If we take the expression literallyâassuming the authors of the resolution want to express themselves unequivocallyâit means a boycott of the Duma, for to fight against an institution that does not yet exist means opposing its establishment. But we know that the Iskrists are opposed to the boycott, we see from the resolution itself that further on they no longer talk of a struggle against the State Duma, but of exerting pressure on the State Duma, of a striving to transform it into a revolutionary assembly, etc. This means that the words âstruggle against the State Dumaâ should not be taken literally, or in their narrow sense. But in that case, how should they be taken? Perhaps, as understood by Mr. M. Kovalevsky, who reads papers criticising the State Duma? What constitutes a struggle against the State Duma? That remains a mystery. Our muddle-heads have said nothing precise on this score. Aware of the class-conscious workersâ mood, which is definitely opposed to the tactic of agreements with the Constitutional-Democrats, the tactic of supporting the Duma on certain conditions, our new-Iskrists have cravenly taken a middle course: on the one hand, they repeat the slogan âStruggle against the State Dumaâ which is popular among the proletariat and, on the other hand, they are depriving this slogan of any exact meaning, are throwing dust into the eyes of the people, are interpreting the struggle against the Duma in the sense of exerting pressure on the Duma, etc. And this wretched muddle is being advanced by the most influential of the new-Iskra organisations at a time the Osvobozhdeniye gentry are loudly protesting for the world to hear that they are entering the State Duma only in order to carry on a struggle and exclusively for the struggle, that they are âpreparedâ to make a complete break with the government!
We ask the readers: has more disgraceful vacillation in tactics ever been seen anywhere in the Social-Democratic movement? Is it possible to imagine anything more ruinous to Social-Democracy than this advocacy of âcreating comprehensive democratic organisationsâ together with the Osvobozhdeniye people (for the Constitutional-Democrats are in agreement with the aims of such organisations as set forth by Iskra), but without mentioning these people by name??
And Plekhanov, who has degraded himself in the eyes of all Russian revolutionary Social-Democrats by defending Iskraâs âorganisational vaguenessâ for almost two years, will now try to assure us that this new-Iskra tactic is good!...
4. Further. It is most unwise to call an alliance of comprehensive (and amorphous) democratic organisations âan all-Russia peopleâs organisationâ or âa democratic organisation of the peopleâ. First of all, this is incorrect theoretically. As we know, the Economists erred by confusing party with class. Reviving old mistakes the Iskrists are now confusing the sum of democratic parties or organisations with an organisation of the people. That is empty, false, and harmful phrase-mongering. It is empty because it has no specific meaning whatever, owing to the absence of any reference to definite democratic parties or trends. It is false because in a capitalist society even the proletariat, the most advanced class, is not in a position to create a party embracing the entire classâand as for the whole people creating such a party, that is entirely out of the question. It is harmful be cause it clutters up the mind with bombastic words and does nothing to further the real work of explaining the actual significance of actual democratic parties, their class basis, the degree of their closeness to the proletariat, etc. The present, the period of a democratic revolution, bourgeois in its social and economic content, is a time when bourgeois democrats, all Constitutional-Democrats, etc., right down to the Socialist-Revolutionaries, are revealing a particular inclination to advocate âcomprehensive democratic organisationsâ and in general to encourage, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, non-partisanship, i.e., an absence of any strict division between the democrats. Class-conscious representatives of the proletariat must fight this tendency resolutely and ruthlessly, for it is profoundly bourgeois in essence. We must bring exact party distinctions into the fore ground, expose all confusion, show up the falsity of phrases about allegedly united, broad, solid democratism, phrases our liberal newspapers are teeming with. In proposing an alliance with certain sections of the democrats for the achievement of definite tasks, we should single out only revolutionary democratsâparticularly at a time like this; we should indicate what most clearly distinguishes those âpreparedâ to fight (right now, in the ranks of the revolutionary army) from those who are âpreparedâ to bargain with the autocracy.
To bring home their mistake to the Iskrists, let us take a very simple example. Our programme speaks of peasant committees. The resolution of the Third Congress of the RSDLP defines their role more precisely by calling them revolutionary peasant committees (in this respect the new Iskra Conference agreed, in essence, with the Third Congress). We have set them the task of bringing about democratic reforms in general and agrarian reforms in particular, going as far as the confiscation of the landed estates by revolutionary action. The Iskra resolution now recommends a new kind of âagitation committees among the peasantryâ. Such advice is worthy not of socialist workers but of liberal bourgeois. Had they been formed, such âpeasant committees of agitationâ would play right into the hands of the Osvobozhdeniye gentry, for their revolutionary character would be supplanted by liberalism. We have already pointed out that the content of the agitation of these committees, as defined by Iskra (the struggle âagainstâ the State Duma and for a popular constituent assembly), does not exceed the limits set by the Osvobozhdeniye programme. Is it now clear to the new-Iskrists that by supplementing the slogan of revolutionary peasant committees with one calling for âpeasant committees of agitationâ it is transforming Social-Democratic slogans into Osvobozhdeniye slogans?
5. Finally, we reach the main task of this âall-Russia peopleâs organisationââthe organisation of nation-wide popular elections to a constituent assembly. Nation-wide popular elections with the autocracy left intact! And âclashesâ with the autocracy provide ânew incentives for an uprisingâ.... Mock elections as a new incentive for an uprising is what this amounts to!
The slogan calling for ârevolutionary self-governmentâ, and the theory of the âspontaneous generationâ of a constituent assembly could not but lead to this absurdity, which is destined to become classical. To speak of nation wide popular elections under the rule of the Trepovs, i.e., before the victory of the uprising, before the actual overthrow of the tsarist government, is the height of Manilovism, and can serve only to spread incredible political corruption among the workers. Only people attuned to phrase mongering by the new Iskra can accept such slogans, which crumble to dust at the merest contact with sober criticism. One has only to reflect a little on precisely what is meant by nation-wide popular elections, if the term be taken seriously; one has only to remember that they imply freedom of agitation, keeping the entire population informed, and recognition b.y the entire population of the centre or local centres that will register the entire population, and canvass literally everyone, with no exceptionsâone has only to give such things a little thought to realise that the ânation wide popular electionsâ proposed by Iskra would amount to a nation-wide joke or a nation-wide swindle. Not a single deputy who could claim to have been âelected by the entire peopleâ, i.e., who has had 50,000 to 100,000 votes freely and consciously cast for himânot one such deputy can be elected anywhere in Russia âin the inauguration of the election campaignâ.
The Iskra resolution advises the proletariat to stage a farce, and no reservations or excuses can change the farcical import of this resolution. We are told that elections can be carried out only âif this organisation proves sufficiently strongâ, only when âpreliminary organisation will give the rising universality and unityâ. Our answer to this is that strength is revealed in action, not in word. Prior to the victory of an uprising it is ridiculous to talk of a force that will be able, without evoking laughter, even to proclaim ânation-wide popular electionsâ, let alone conduct them. No organisation, no matter how universal or united, can ensure the victory of an uprising unless 1) this organisation consists of people who are really capable of insurrection (and we have seen that the resolution advocates merely âcomprehensiveâ, organisations, i.e., actually organisations of the Osvobozhdeniye type which would undoubtedly betray an uprising once it had started); and unless 2) there exist forces for the victory of the uprising (and to achieve victory, the material force of a revolutionary army is needed, besides the moral force of public opinion, the peopleâs welfare, etc.). To put the main stress on this moral force and on high-sounding phrases about âthe whole peopleâ, while maintaining silence, in a call to arms, about the actual material force, is to reduce the revolutionary slogans of the proletariat to bourgeois-democratic phrase-mongering.
Mock elections do not constitute a ânatural transition to an uprisingâ, but rather an artificial transition invented by a handful of intellectuals. The fabrication of such artificial transitions is absolutely similar to Nadezhdinâs old occupationâthe concoction of âexcitativeâ terrorist acts. In the same way, the new-Iskrists want to âexciteâ the people to insurrection artificiallyâan idea that is basically false. We cannot create an organisation that will really em brace the whole people; any elections we would take it into our heads to appoint under the autocracy would inevitably be a farce, and to utilise such a fabricated pretext for an uprising is just like decreeing an uprising at a moment when the people are not genuinely roused. Only people who have no faith in the proletariatâs revolutionary activity, only intellectuals who are fond of using fancy words, could start inventing ânew incentives for an uprisingâ, in September 1905. One might think that we in Russia lack genuine incentives for an uprising and need farcical ones, that there are so few cases of genuine unrest among the masses that such a sentiment has to be staged or faked! Mock elections will never rouse the masses. However, a strike, a demonstration, mutiny in the armed forces, a serious studentsâ outbreak, famine, mobilisation, or a conflict in the State Duma, etc., etc., etc., can really rouse the masses, constantly, at any hour. Not only is it the crassest stupidity to think of concocting ânew incentives for an uprisingâ, but the very thought of indicating in advance that this and no other will be the real incentive for the masses would be foolish. People who have the slightest degree of self-respect, who are in the least earnest in what they say, would never allow themselves to concoct ânew incentives for an uprisingâ.
What is lacking is not ânew incentivesâ, my most esteemed Manliovs, but a military force, the military force of the revolutionary people (and not the people in general), consisting of 1) the armed proletariat and peasantry, 2) organised advance detachments of representatives of these classes, and 3) sections of the army that are prepared to come over to the side of the people. It is all this taken together that constitutes a revolutionary army. To talk of an uprising, of its force, of a natural transition to it, and to say nothing of a revolutionary army is folly and muddle headednessâand the greater the degree of the counter revolutionary armyâs mobilisation, the more that is so. To invent ânew incentives for an uprisingâ at a time of uprisings in the Caucasus and on the Black Sea, in Poland and Riga means deliberately withdrawing into oneâs shell and isolating oneself from the movement. We are witnesses of the greatest unrest among the workers and peasants, of a series of insurrectionary outbreaks which have been steadily and with enormous speed spreading and becoming more forceful and more stubborn ever since January 9. No one can guarantee that these outbreaks will not repeat themselves tomorrow in any big city, or any military camp, or any village. On the contrary, everything goes to show that such outbreaks are probable, imminent, and inevitable. Their success depends, first of all, on the success of revolutionary agitation and organisationârevolutionary and not the âcomprehensively democraticâ agitation and organisation that Iskra prattles of, since among democrats there are many non-revolutionaries. In the second place, success depends on the might and preparedness of the revolutionary army. The first condition has long been acknowledged by all, and is being applied throughout Russia by all revolutionaries, at literally all meetings of study circles, group gatherings, impromptu and mass meetings. The second condition is as yet very little recognised. By reason of its class stand, the liberal bourgeoisie does not care to recognise it, and cannot afford to do so. As for the revolutionaries, only those who are hopelessly plodding along in the wake of the monarchist bourgeoisie are silent about it.
"Insurrectionâ is an important word. A call to insurrection is an extremely serious call. The more complex the social system, the better the organisation of state power, and the more perfected the military machine, the more impermissible is it to launch such a slogan without due thought. And we have stated repeatedly that the revolutionary Social-Democrats have long been preparing to launch it, but have launched it as a direct call only when there could be no doubt whatever of the gravity, widespread and deep roots of the revolutionary movement, no doubt of matters having literally come to a head. Important words must be used with circumspection. Enormous difficulties have to be faced in translating them into important deeds. It is precisely for that reason that it would be unpardonable to dismiss these difficulties with a mere phrase, to use Manilovist inventions to brush aside serious tasks or to put on oneâs eyes the blinkers of sweet dreams of so-called ânatural transitionsâ to these difficult tasks.
A revolutionary army are also important words. The creation of a revolutionary army is an arduous, complex, and lengthy process. But when we see that it has already begun and is proceeding on all sidesâthough desultorily and by fits and startsâwhen we know that a genuine victory of the revolution is impossible without such an army, we must issue a definite and direct slogan, advocate it, make it the touchstone of the current political tasks. It would be a mistake to think that the revolutionary classes are invariably strong enough to effect a revolution whenever such a revolution has fully matured by virtue of the conditions of social and economic development. No, human society is not constituted so rationally or so âconvenientlyâ for progressive elements. A revolution may be ripe, and yet the forces of its creators may prove insufficient to carry it out, in which case society decays, and this process of decay sometimes drags on for very many years. There is no doubt that Russia is ripe for a democratic revolution, but it still remains to be seen whether the revolutionary classes have sufficient strength at present to carry it out. This will be settled by the struggle, whose crucial moment is approaching at tremendous speedâif the numerous direct and indirect indications do not deceive us. The moral preponderance is indubitableâthe moral force is already overwhelmingly great; without it, of course, there could be no question of any revolution whatever. It is a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. Only the outcome of the struggle will show whether it will be translated into a material force sufficient to smash the very serious (we shall not close our eyes to this) resistance of the autocracy. The slogan of insurrection is a slogan for deciding the issue by material force, which in present-day European civilisation can only be military force. This slogan should not be put forward until the general prerequisites for revolution have matured, until the masses have definitely shown that they have been roused and are ready to act, until the external circumstances have led to an open crisis. But once such a slogan has been issued, it would be an arrant disgrace to retreat from it, back to moral force again, to one of the conditions that prepare the ground for an uprising, to a âpossible transitionâ, etc., etc. No, once the die is cast, all subterfuges must be done with; it must be explained directly and openly to the masses what the practical conditions for a successful revolution are at the present time.
We have by no means exhausted the list of mistakes in the Iskra resolution, whichâto people who think and who do not confine themselves to âclutching at opportunities â will long remain a sad memento of a vulgarisation of Social-Democracyâs tasks. It seems to us more important to investigate the underlying source of the errors rather than to enumerate all, including even the comparatively petty manifestations of the basic fallacy. We shall therefore only note, in passing, the absurdity and reactionary nature of the idea of presenting âultimatumsâ (a military term, which in the absence of a trained military force, sounds like vulgar bragging) to the Duma, of the endeavour to transform this Duma into a revolutionary assembly,[1] and will pass on to the general meaning of the slogan: ârevolutionary self-government of the peopleâ.
This slogan or rather its conversion into the focal slogan is at the root of all Iskraâs shilly-shallying. Iskra has attempted to defend it by referring to âdialecticsââthe very same Plekhanov dialectics, by virtue of which Iskraâs âorganisational vaguenessâ was first defended by Plekhanov, and then exposed by him!
Revolutionary self-government of the people, we have said, is not a prologue to an uprising, nor is it a ânatural transition to itâ, it is its epilogue. There can be no serious talk of genuine and complete self-government unless the uprising is victorious. And we have added that the very idea of placing the main emphasis on state administration rather than on state organisation is reactionary, that to identify revolutionary self-government with a revolutionary army is the height of absurdity, that a victorious revolutionary army necessarily presupposes a revolutionary self-government, whereas a revolutionary self-government does not necessarily include a revolutionary army.
Iskra tried to defend the confusion in its deliberately chosen slogans by referring to the âdialecticsâ of the unconscious and spontaneous process. Life, it says, knows of no sharply defined boundaries. Labour exchanges exist even now (Sotsial-Demokrat,[2] No. 12)âhere you have the elements of self-government. In a dialectical process of development, the prologue and the epilogue often inter twine, it says.
The latter consideration is quite true. Yes, the process of actual development is always tangled, with bits of the epilogue emerging before the true prologue. But does this mean that it is permissible for a leader of a class-conscious party to jumble the tasks of the struggle, to confuse the prologue with the epilogue? Can the dialectics of a jumbled and spontaneous process justify confusion in the logic of conscious Social-Democrats? Does not this imply substitution of dialectics d la Plekhanov for Marxist dialectics?
To make our idea clearer, let us take an example. Let us assume that we are discussing not a democratic but a socialist revolution. The crisis is maturing, the epoch of the dictatorship of the proletariat is approaching. At this point the opportunists make the establishment of consumersâ societies their central slogan, while the revolutionaries advance a slogan calling for the conquest of political power by the proletariat. The opportunists argue that consumersâ societies constitute a real force for the proletariat, the conquest of a real economic position, and a genuine bit of socialism; you revolutionaries do not understand dialectical development, the evolution of capitalism into socialism, the penetration of nuclei of socialism into the very heart of capitalism, the purging of capitalism by giving it a new socialist content.
Yes, the revolutionaries answer, we agree that in a way consumersâ societies do constitute a bit of socialism. In the first place, socialist society is one big consumersâ society with production for consumption organised according to plan. In the second place, socialism cannot be achieved without a powerful, many-sided working-class movement, and consumersâ societies will inevitably be one of these many sides. But that is not the point at all. While power remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie, consumersâ societies will remain a paltry fragment, ensuring no serious changes what ever, introducing no decisive alterations whatever, and some times even diverting attention from a serious struggle for revolution. No one disputes the fact that the habits acquired by the workers in consumersâ societies are very useful. But only transfer of power to the proletariat can give full scope to these habits. Then the system of consumersâ societies will have surplus value at its disposal; at present the scope of this useful institution is bound to be paltry by reason of the paltry wages. Then it will become a consumersâ union of really free workers; at present it is a union of wage-slaves, oppressed and stifled by capitalism. Thus the consumersâ societies are a fragment of socialism. The dialectical process of development really does intrude elements of the new society, elements both material and spiritual, even under capitalism. But socialists should be able to distinguish the part from the whole; they should demand the whole in their slogan, and not a part; they must contrapose to bits of patch work, which often divert fighters from the truly revolutionary path, the basic requisites for a real revolution.
What is Iskraâs opinion, who is right in this dispute?
It is the same with the slogan calling for ârevolutionary self-governmentâ in the period of a democratic revolution. We are not against revolutionary self-government, we long ago gave it a certain modest place in our minimum programme (see the paragraph on extensive local self-government). We agree that it is a fragment of a democratic revolution, as has already been stated in No. 15 of Proletary[3] with reference to the Smolensk Municipal Council. A democratic revolution would be impossible without a powerful and many-sided democratic movement, and the movement for self- government is one of those many sides. However, the democratic revolution would likewise be impossible without, for example, revolutionary schools, which are as much an indubitable sign of tsarismâs actual disintegration as are labour exchanges, which exist despite the police ban, as the unrest among the clergy, as local self-government instituted in violation of the law, etc. Comrades of the Iskra, consider what conclusion should be drawn from all this! Is it that all these elements of disintegration should be summed up in an integral slogan of insurrection? Or that the slogan of insurrection should be mutilated by tying it down to one of the elements, namely, self-government?
"The organisation of revolutionary self-government, or, what amounts to the same, the organisation of popular forces for an uprising,â wrote the audacious Iskra (No. 109, page 2, line 1). That is just like saying that organising revolutionary schools means organising forces for an uprising, that organising unrest among the clergy means organising forces for an uprising, or that organising consumersâ societies means organising forces for a socialist revolution. No, you are poor dialecticians, comrades of the Iskra. You are unable to reason dialectically, although you are very well able to twist and squirm, like Plekhanov, when it comes to the question of the organisational and tactical vagueness of your views. You have overlooked the fact that, given victory of the uprising, all these fragments of revolution will inevitably merge in an integral .and complete âepilogueâ to the uprising, whereas if the uprising is not victorious these fragments will remain fragments, paltry, changing nothing, and satisfying only the philistines.
The moral is: 1) Both on the eve of a socialist revolution and on the eve of a democratic revolution, opportunists in the Social-Democratic movement have a bad habit of working themselves up over a single petty fragment of a big process, exalting this fragment to the status of the whole, and subordinating the whole to this fragment, thereby mutilating the whole, and thereby themselves becoming toadies to the inconsistent and cowardly reformists. 2) The dialectics of the spontaneous process, which is always and necessarily confused, does not justify confusion in logical conclusions and political slogans which are quite often (but not necessarily) confused.
P. S. This article was already in the page proofs when we received the resolutions of the Southern Constituent Conference, published abroad by Iskra. The text of the resolution on the State Duma differs somewhat from the one published in Russia, which we have reproduced above. But these differences are not essential, and do not affect our criticism in any way.
- â If we prove strong in the impending decisive conflict with tsarism, the State Duma will inevitably turn to the left (at least its liberal section will do soâwe are not speaking about its reactionary section), but to attempt to influence the State Duma seriously without destroying the rule of the tsar would be just as stupid as for Japan to present âultimatumsâ to China or to attach much weight to Chinese assistance without destroying the military might of Russia. After March 18, 1848, the Prussian State Duma (the United Landtag) immediately affixed its signature to a paper providing for the convocation of a constituent assembly, but until that all âultimatumsâ of the revolutionaries, all their âendeavoursâ to influence the State Duma, all their threats, were hollow phrases to the Petrunkeviches, Rodichevs, Milyukovs, and their like, who sat in that State Duma.âLenin
- â Sotsial-Demokrat (The Social-Democrat)âa Menshevik news paper published in Geneva from October 1904 till October 1905.
- â See pp. 221-22 of this volume.âEd.