Vladimir Lenin 
Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution 



Preface 



 
In a revolutionary period it is very difficult to keep abreast of events, which 
provide an astonishing amount of new material for an evaluation of the tactical 
slogans of revolutionary parties. The present pamphlet was written before the 
Odessa events.1) We have already pointed out in the Proletary (No. 9 - 
"Revolution Teaches") that these events have forced even those Social-Democrats 
who created the "uprising-as-a-process" theory and who rejected propaganda for a 
provisional revolutionary government actually to pass over, or begin to pass 
over, to the side of their opponents. Revolution undoubtedly teaches with a 
rapidity and thoroughness which appear incredible in peaceful periods of 
political development. And, what is particularly important, it teaches not only 
the leaders, but the masses as well. 
There is not the slightest doubt that the revolution will teach 
social-democratism to the masses of the workers in Russia. The revolution will 
confirm the program and tactics of Social-Democracy in actual practice, by 
demonstrating the true nature of the various classes of society, by 
demonstrating the bourgeois character of our democracy and the real aspirations 
of the peasantry, who, while being revolutionary in the bourgeois-democratic 
sense, harbour not the idea of "socialisation," but of a new class struggle 
between the peasant bourgeoisie and the rural proletariat. The old illusions of 
the old Narodism, which are so clearly visible, for instance, in the draft 
programme of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party on the question of the 
development of capitalism in Russia, the question of the democratic character of 
our "society" and the question of the significance of a complete victory of a 
peasant uprising-all these illusions will be mercilessly and completely blown to 
the winds by the revolution. For the first time it will give the various classes 
their real political baptism. These classes will emerge from the revolution with 
a definite political physiognomy, for they will have revealed themselves, not 
only in the programs and tactical slogans of their ideologists, but also in the 
open political action of the masses. 
Undoubtedly, the revolution will teach us, and will teach the masses of the 
people. But the question that now confronts a militant political party is: shall 
we be able to teach the revolution anything? shall we be able to make use of the 
correctness of our Social-Democratic doctrine, of our bond with the only 
thoroughly revolutionary class, the proletariat, to put a proletarian imprint on 
the revolution, to carry the revolution to a real and decisive victory, not in 
word but indeed, and to paralyse the instability, half-heartedness and treachery 
of the democratic bourgeoisie? 
It is to this end that we must direct all our efforts, and the achievement of it 
will depend, on the one hand, on the accuracy of our appraisal of the political 
situation, on the correctness of our tactical slogans, and, on the other hand, 
on whether these slogans will be backed by the real fighting strength of the 
masses of the workers. All the usual, regular, current work of all the 
organisations and groups of our Party, the work of propaganda, agitation and 
organisation, is directed towards strengthening and expanding the ties with the 
masses. This work is always necessary; but in a revolutionary period less than 
in any other can it be considered sufficient. At such a time the working class 
feels an instinctive urge for open revolutionary action, and we must learn to 
set the aims of this action correctly, and then make these aims as widely known 
and understood as possible. It must not be forgotten that the current pessimism 
about our ties with the masses very often serves as a screen for bourgeois ideas 
regarding the role of the proletariat in the revolution. Undoubtedly, we still 
have a great deal to do to educate and organise the working class; but the whole 
question now is: where should the main political emphasis in this work of 
education and of organisation be placed? On the trade unions and legally 
existing societies, or on armed insurrection, on the work of creating a 
revolutionary army and a revolutionary government? Both serve to educate and 
organise the working class. Both are, of course, necessary. But the whole 
question now, in the present revolution, amounts to this: what is to be 
emphasised in the work of educating and organising the working class, the former 
or the latter? 
The outcome of the revolution depends on whether the working class will play the 
part of a subsidiary to the bourgeoisie, a subsidiary that is powerful in the 
force of its onslaught against the autocracy but impotent politically, or 
whether it will play the part of leader of the people's revolution. The more 
intelligent representatives of the bourgeoisie are perfectly aware of this. That 
is precisely why the Osvobozhdeniye praises Akimovism, Economism in 
Social-Democracy, the trend, which is now placing the trade unions and the 
legally existing societies in the forefront. That is precisely why Mr. Struve 
welcomes (in the Osvobozhdeniye, No. 72) the Akimovist trends in the principles 
of the new Iskra. That is why he comes down so heavily on the detested 
revolutionary narrowness of the decisions of the Third Congress of the Russian 
Social-Democratic Labour Party. 
It is exceptionally important at the present time for Social-Democracy to have 
correct tactical slogans for leading the masses. There is nothing more dangerous 
in a revolutionary period than belittling the importance of tactical slogans 
that are sound in principle. For example, the [Menshevik] Iskra in No. 104, 
actually passes over to the side of its opponents in the Social-Democratic 
movement, and yet, at the same time, disparages the importance of slogans and 
tactical decisions that are in front of the times and indicate the path along 
which the movement is proceeding, with a number of failures, errors, etc. On the 
contrary, the working out of correct tactical decisions is of immense importance 
for a party which, in the spirit of the sound principles of Marxism, desires to 
lead the proletariat and not merely to drag at the tail of events. In the 
resolutions of the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party 
and of the Conference of the section which has seceded from the Party2), we have 
the most precise, most carefully thought-out, and most complete expression of 
tactical views-views not casually expressed by individual writers, but accepted 
by the responsible representatives of the Social-Democratic proletariat. Our 
Party is in advance of all the others, for it has a precise program, accepted by 
all. It must also set the other parties an example of strict adherence to its 
tactical resolutions, in contradistinction to the opportunism of the democratic 
bourgeoisie of the Osvobozhdeniye and the revolutionary phrase-mongering of the 
Socialist-Revolutionaries, who only during the revolution suddenly thought of 
coming for ward with a "draft" of a program and of investigating for the first 
time whether it is a bourgeois revolution that is going on in front of their 
eyes. 
That is why we think it a most urgent task of the revolutionary Social-Democrats 
to study carefully the tactical resolutions of the Third Congress of the Russian 
Social-Democratic Labour Party and of the Conference, to define what deviations 
there are in them from the principles of Marxism, and to get a clear 
understanding of the concrete tasks of the Social-Democratic proletariat in a 
democratic revolution. It is to this task that the present pamphlet is devoted. 
The testing of our tactics from the standpoint of the principles of Marxism and 
of the lessons of the revolution is also necessary for those who really desire 
to pave the way for unity of tactics as a basis for the future complete unity of 
the whole Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, and not to confine themselves 
solely to verbal admonitions. 
July 1905
N. Lenin 
 
Next: An Urgent Political Question 
 



Footnotes 
1) The reference is to the mutiny on the armoured crusiers Potemkin.[Author's 
note to the 1907 edition.] 
2) The Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (held in 
London in May 1905) was attended only by Bolsheviks, while in the "Conference" 
(held in Geneva at the same time) only Mensheviks participated. In the present 
pamphlet the latter are frequently referred to as "new Iskra-ists" because while 
continuing to publish the Iskra they declared, through their then adherent, 
Trotsky, that there was a gulf between the old and the new Iskra. [Author's note 
to the 1907 edition.] 







Introduction to the Online Version 



 
Notes on the History of Publication 
Two Tactics of Social-Democry in the Democratic Revolution was written by Lenin 
in Geneva, in June-July 1905. The book was published in late July 1905, by the 
Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. It was twice republished in Russia in the 
same year, once by the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P., and the second time 
by the Moscow Committee of the Party, this time in 10,000 copies. 
The book was illegally distributed throughout the country-particularly in St. 
Petersburg, Moscow, Kazan, Tiflis and Baku. On February 19, 1907 it was banned 
by the St. Petersburg Press Department, and on December 22 of the same year the 
St. Petersburg Court issued an injunction for its destruction. 
In 1907 Lenin had Two Tactics published in the miscellany Twelve Years, 
supplementing the book with new notes. The material prepared by Lenin for this 
book, his plans, prcis, and other notes, were published in Lenin Miscellany V, 
pp. 315-20, and XVI, pp. 151-56. 
 





An Urgent Political Question 



 
At the present revolutionary juncture the question of the convocation of a 
popular constituent assembly is on the order of the day. Opinions are divided on 
the point as to how this question should be solved. Three political trends are 
to be observed. The tsarist government admits the necessity of convening 
representatives of the people, but it does not want under any circumstances to 
permit their assembly to be a popular and a constituent assembly. It seems 
willing to agree, if we are to believe the newspaper reports on the work of the 
Bulygin Commission, to an advisory assembly, to be elected without freedom to 
conduct agitation, and on the basis of restricted qualifications or a restricted 
class system. The revolutionary proletariat, inasmuch as it is led by the 
Social-Democratic Party, demands complete transfer of power to a constituent 
assembly, and for this purpose strives to obtain not only universal suffrage and 
complete freedom to conduct agitation, but also the immediate overthrow of the 
tsarist government and its replacement by a provisional revolutionary 
government. Finally, the liberal bourgeoisie, expressing its wishes through the 
leaders of the so-called "Constitutional-Democratic Party" does not demand the 
overthrow of the tsarist government, does not advance the slogan of a 
provisional government and does not insist on real guarantees that the elections 
will be absolutely free and fair and that the assembly of representatives will 
be a genuinely popular and a genuinely constituent assembly. As a matter of 
fact, the liberal bourgeoisie, the only serious social support of the 
Osvobozhdeniye trend, is striving to effect as peaceful a deal as possible 
between the tsar and the revolutionary people, a deal, moreover, that would give 
a maximum of power to itself, the bourgeoisie, and a minimum to the 
revolutionary people-the proletariat and the peasantry. 
Such is the political situation at the present time. Such are the three main 
political trends, corresponding to the three main social forces in contemporary 
Russia. We have already shown on more than one occasion (in the Proletary, Nos. 
3, 4, 5) how the Osvobozhdentsi use pseudo-democratic phrases to cover up their 
half-hearted, or, to put it more bluntly and plainly, their treacherous, 
perfidious policy towards the revolution. Let us now see how the 
Social-Democrats appraise the tasks of the moment. Excellent material for this 
purpose is provided by the two resolutions that were passed quite recently by 
the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party and by the 
"Conference" of the section which has seceded from the Party. The question as to 
which of these resolutions more correctly appraises the political situation and 
more correctly defines the tactics of the revolutionary proletariat is of 
enormous importance, and every Social-Democrat who is anxious to fulfil his 
duties as a propagandist, agitator and organiser intelligently, must study this 
question with the closest attention, leaving all irrelevant considerations 
entirely aside. 
By the Party's tactics we mean the Party's political conduct, or the character, 
the direction and methods of its political activity. Tactical resolutions are 
adopted by Party congresses in order precisely to define the political conduct 
of the Party as a whole with regard to new tasks, or in view of a new political 
situation. Such a new situation has been created by the revolution that has 
started in Russia, i.e., the complete, resolute and open rupture between the 
overwhelming majority of the people and the tsarist government. The new question 
concerns the practical methods to be adopted in convening a genuinely popular 
and genuinely constituent assembly (the theoretical question concerning such an 
assembly was officially settled by Social-Democracy long ago, before all other 
parties, in its Party program). Since the people have broken with the 
government, and the masses realise the necessity of setting up a new order, the 
party which set itself the object of overthrowing the government must 
necessarily consider what government to put up in place of the old, deposed 
government. A new question concerning a provisional revolutionary government 
arises. In order to give a complete answer to this question the Party of the 
class-conscious proletariat must make clear: 
1) the significance of a provisional revolutionary government in the revolution 
that is now going on and in the entire struggle of the proletariat in general; 
2) its attitude towards a provisional revolutionary government; 
3) the precise conditions of Social-Democratic participation in this government; 

4) the conditions under which pressure is to be brought to bear on this 
government from below, i.e., in the event of there being no Social-Democrats in 
it. Only after all these questions are made clear, will the political conduct of 
the Party in this sphere be principled, clear and firm. 
Let us now consider how the resolution of the Third Congress of the Russian 
Social-Democratic Labour Party answers these questions. The following is the 
full text of the resolution: 
"Resolution on a Provisional Revolutionary Government 
"Whereas: 
"1) both the direct interests of the proletariat and the interests of its 
struggle for the final aims of socialism require the fullest possible measure of 
political liberty and, consequently, the replacement of the autocratic form of 
government by a democratic republic; 
"2) the establishment of a democratic republic in Russia is possible only as a 
result of a victorious popular insurrection whose organ will be a provisional 
revolutionary government, which alone will be capable of ensuring complete 
freedom of agitation during the election campaign and of convening a constituent 
assembly that will really express the will of the people, an assembly elected on 
the basis of universal and equal suffrage, direct elections and secret ballot; 
"3) under the present social and economic order this democratic revolution in 
Russia will not weaken, but strengthen the rule of the bourgeoisie, which at a 
certain moment will inevitably try, stopping at nothing, to take away from the 
Russian proletariat as many of the gains of the revolutionary period as 
possible: 
"The Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party resolves that: 

"a) that it is necessary to disseminate among the working class a concrete idea 
of the most probable course of the revolution and of the necessity, at a certain 
moment in the revolution, for the appearance of a provisional revolutionary 
government, from which the proletariat will demand the realisation of all the 
immediate political and economic demands contained in our program (the minimum 
program); 
"b) that subject to the relation of forces, and other factors which cannot be 
exactly determined beforehand, representatives of our Party may participate in 
the provisional revolutionary government for the purpose of relentless struggle 
against all counterrevolutionary attempts and of the defence of the independent 
interests of the working class; 
"c) that an indispensable condition for such participation is that the Party 
should exercise strict control over its representatives and that the 
independence of the Social-Democratic Party, which is striving for a complete 
socialist revolution and, consequently, is irreconcilably hostile to all 
bourgeois parties, should be strictly maintained; 
"d) that irrespective whether the participation of Social-Democrats in the 
provisional revolutionary government prove possible or not, we must propagate 
among the broadest masses of the proletariat the necessity for permanent 
pressure to be brought to bear upon the provisional government by the armed 
proletariat, led by the Social-Democratic Party, for the purpose of defending, 
consolidating and extending the gains of the revolution." 
 
Next: What can we Learn from the Resolution of the Third Congress... 
 






What Can We Learn From the Resolution
of the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.
on a Provisional Revolutionary Government? 



 
As is evident from the title, the resolution of the Third Congress of the 
Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, is devoted wholly and exclusively to the 
question of a provisional revolutionary government. Hence, the participation of 
Social-Democrats in a provisional revolutionary government is included in it as 
part of that question. On the other hand, it deals only with a provisional 
revolutionary government and with nothing else; consequently, it completely 
leaves out, for example, the question of the "conquest of power" in general, 
etc. Was the Congress right in eliminating this and similar questions? 
Undoubtedly it was right, because the political situation in Russia does not at 
all give rise to such questions as immediate issues. On the contrary, the whole 
of the issue that has been raised by the people at the present time is the 
overthrow of the autocracy and the convocation of a constituent assembly. Party 
congresses should take up and decide not issues which this or that writer 
happened to mention, but those that are of vital political importance by reason 
of the prevailing conditions and the objective course of social development. 
Of what importance is a provisional revolutionary government in the present 
revolution, and in the general struggle of the proletariat? The resolution of 
the Congress explains this by pointing at the very outset to the need for the 
"fullest possible measure of political liberty," both from the standpoint of the 
immediate interests of the proletariat and from the standpoint of the "final 
aims of Socialism." And complete political liberty requires that the tsarist 
autocracy be replaced by a democratic republic, as our Party program has already 
recognised. The stress laid in the Congress resolution on the slogan of a 
democratic republic is necessary both as a matter of logic and in point of 
principle, for it is precisely complete freedom that the proletariat, as the 
foremost champion of democracy, is striving to attain. Moreover, it is all the 
more advisable to stress this at the present time because right now the 
monarchists, namely, the so-called constitutional-"democratic" party, or party 
of "liberation," in our country, are flying the flag of "democracy." In order to 
establish a republic it is absolutely necessary to have an assembly of people's 
representatives; and it must be a popular (elected on the basis of universal and 
equal suffrage, direct elections and secret ballot), and a constituent assembly. 
This exactly what is recognised in the Congress resolution, further on. But the 
resolution does not stop there. In order to establish the new order "that will 
really express the will of the people" it is not enough to call a representative 
assembly a constituent assembly. This assembly must have the authority and power 
to "constitute." Taking this into consideration, the resolution of the Congress 
does not confine itself to the formal slogan of a "constituent assembly," but 
adds the material conditions which alone will enable that assembly really to 
carry out its tasks. Such specification of the conditions that will enable an 
assembly which is constituent in name to become constituent in fact is 
imperatively necessary, for, as we have pointed out more than once, the liberal 
bourgeoisie, as represented by the Constitutional-Monarchist Party, is 
deliberately distorting the slogan of a popular constituent assembly and 
reducing it to a hollow phrase. 
The Congress resolution states that a provisional revolutionary government on 
its own - one, moreover, that will be the organ of a victorious popular 
insurrection - can secure full freedom of agitation in the election campaign and 
convene an assembly that will really express the will of the people. Is this 
postulate correct? Whoever took it into his head to dispute it would have to 
assert that it is possible for the tsarist government not to side with the 
reaction, that it is capable of being neutral during the elections, that it will 
see to it that the will of the people is really expressed. Such assertions are 
so absurd that no one would venture to defend them openly; but they are being 
surreptitiously smuggled in under liberal colours, by our liberationists. 
Somebody must convene the constituent assembly, somebody must guarantee the 
freedom and fairness of the elections; somebody must invest such an assembly 
with full power and authority. Only a revolutionary government, which is the 
organ of the insurrection, can desire this in all sincerity and be capable of 
doing all that is required to achieve this. The tsarist government will 
inevitably counteract this. A liberal government, which will come to terms with 
the tsar, and which does not rely in full on the popular uprising, cannot 
sincerely desire this, and could not accomplish it even if it most sincerely 
desired to. Therefore, the resolution of the Congress gives the only correct and 
entirely consistent democratic slogan. 
But an appraisal of a provisional revolutionary government's significance would 
be incomplete and wrong if the class nature of the democratic revolution were 
lost sight of. The resolution therefore adds that the revolution will strengthen 
the rule of the bourgeoisie. This is inevitable under the present, i.e., 
capitalist, social and economic system. And the strengthening of the 
bourgeoisie's rule over the proletariat which has secured some measure of 
political liberty must inevitably lead to a desperate struggle between them for 
power, must lead to desperate attempts on the part of the bourgeoisie "to take 
away from the proletariat the gains of the revolutionary period." Therefore the 
proletariat, which is fighting for democracy in front of all and at the head of 
all, must not for a single moment forget about the new antagonisms that are 
inherent in bourgeois democracy and about the new struggle. 
Thus, the section of the resolution which we have just reviewed fully appraises 
the significance of a provisional revolutionary government in its relation to 
the struggle for freedom and for a republic, in its relation to a constituent 
assembly and in its relation to the democratic revolution, which clears the 
ground for a new class struggle. 
The next question is that of the proletariat's attitude in general towards a 
provisional revolutionary government. The Congress resolution answers this first 
of all by directly advising the Party to spread among the working class the 
conviction that a provisional revolutionary government is necessary. The working 
class must be made aware of this necessity. Whereas the "democratic" bourgeoisie 
leaves the question of overthrowing the tsarist government in the shade, we must 
push it to the fore and insist on the need for a provisional revolutionary 
government. More than that, we must outline for such a government a program of 
action that will conform with the objective conditions of the historic period 
through which we are now passing and with the aims of proletarian democracy. 
This program is the entire minimum program of our Party, the program of the 
immediate political and economic reforms which, on the one hand, can be fully 
realised on the basis of the existing social and economic relationships and, on 
the other hand, are requisite for the next step forward, for the achievement of 
Socialism. 
Thus, the resolution fully clearly defines the nature and aims of a provisional 
revolutionary government. In its origin and fundamental nature such a government 
must be the organ of the popular insurrection. Its formal purpose must be to 
serve as the instrument for convening a popular constituent assembly. The 
content of its activities must be to put into effect the minimum program of 
proletarian democracy, the only program capable of safeguarding the interests of 
the people which has risen against the autocracy. 
It might be argued that being only provisional, a provisional government cannot 
carry out a constructive program which has not yet received the approval of the 
entire people. Such an argument would merely be the sophistry of reactionaries 
and "absolutists." To abstain from carrying out a constructive program means 
tolerating the existence of the feudal regime of the putrid autocracy. Such a 
regime could be tolerated only by a government of traitors to the cause of the 
revolution, but not by a government which is the organ of a popular 
insurrection. It would be mockery for anyone to propose that we should refrain 
from exercising freedom of assembly pending the confirmation of such freedom by 
a constituent assembly, on the plea that the constituent assembly might not 
confirm freedom of assembly! It is equal mockery to object to the immediate 
execution of the minimum program by a provisional revolutionary government. 
Finally, we will note that the resolution, by making implementation of the 
minimum program provisional revolutionary government's task eliminates the 
absurd, semi-anarchist ideas about giving immediate effect to the maximum 
program, and the conquest of power for a socialist revolution. The degree of 
economic development of Russia (an objective condition) and the degree of class 
consciousness and organisation of the broad masses of the proletariat (a 
subjective condition inseparably connected with the objective condition) make 
the immediate complete emancipation of the working class impossible. Only the 
most ignorant people can ignore the bourgeois nature of the democratic 
revolution which is now taking place; only the most naive optimists can forget 
how little as yet the masses of the workers are informed about the aims of 
Socialism and about the methods of achieving it. And we are all convinced that 
the emancipation of the workers can be effected only by the workers themselves; 
a socialist revolution is out of the question unless the masses become class 
conscious and organised, trained and educated in open class struggle against the 
entire bourgeoisie. In answer to the anarchist objections that we are putting 
off the socialist revolution, we say: we are not putting it off, but we are 
taking the first step towards it in the only possible way, along the only 
correct road, namely, the road of a democratic republic. Whoever wants to reach 
Socialism by a different road, other than that of political democracy, will 
inevitably arrive at conclusions that are absurd and reactionary both in the 
economic and the political sense. If any workers ask us at the given moment why 
we should not go ahead and carry out our maximum program, we shall answer by 
pointing out how far the masses of the democratically-minded people still are 
from Socialism, how undeveloped class antagonisms still are, how unorganised the 
proletarians still are. Organise hundreds of thousands of workers all over 
Russia; enlist the sympathy of millions for our program! Try to do this without 
confining yourselves to high-sounding but hollow anarchist phrases-and you will 
see at once that in order to achieve this organisation, in order to spread this 
socialist enlightenment, we must achieve the fullest possible measure of 
democratic reforms. 
Let us continue. Once we are clear about the importance of a provisional 
revolutionary government and the attitude of the proletariat toward it, the 
following question arises: is it permissible for us to participate in it (action 
from above) and, if so, under what conditions? What should be our action from 
below? The resolution supplies precise answers to both these questions. It 
emphatically declares that it is permissible in principle for Social-Democrats 
to participate in a provisional revolutionary government (during the period of a 
democratic revolution, the period of struggle for a republic). By this 
declaration we once and for all dissociate ourselves both from the anarchists, 
who answer this question in the negative on principle, and from the khvostists 
among the Social-Democrats (like Martynov and the new Iskra-ists) who have tried 
to frighten us with the prospect of a situation wherein it might prove necessary 
for us to participate in such a government. By this declaration the Third 
Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party rejected, once and for 
all, the idea expressed by the new Iskra that the participation of 
Social-Democrats in a provisional revolutionary government would be a variety of 
Millerandism, that it is impermissible in principle, as sanctifying the 
bourgeois order, etc. 
It stands to reason, however, that the question of permissibility in principle 
does not solve the question of practical expediency. Under what conditions is 
this new form of struggle-the struggle "from above" recognised by the Party 
Congress-expedient? It goes without saying that at the present time it is 
impossible to speak of concrete conditions, such as relation of forces, etc., 
and the resolution, naturally, refrains from defining these conditions in 
advance. No intelligent person would venture at the present time to prophesy 
anything on this subject. What we can and must do is determine the nature and 
aim of our participation. This is precisely what is done in the resolution, 
which points out two objectives of our participation: 1) a relentless struggle 
against counterrevolutionary attempts, and 2) the defence of the independent 
interests of the working class. At a time when the liberal bourgeoisie is 
beginning to talk assiduously about the psychology of reaction (see Mr. Struve's 
most instructive "Open Letter" in the Osvobozhdeniye, No. 71) in an attempt to 
frighten the revolutionary people and induce it to show compliance towards the 
autocracy-at such a time it is particularly appropriate for the party of the 
proletariat to call attention to the task of waging a real war against 
counterrevolution. In the final analysis, force alone settles the great problems 
of political liberty and the class struggle, and it is our business to prepare 
and organise this force and to employ it actively, not only for defence, but 
also for attack. The long reign of political reaction in Europe, which has 
lasted almost uninterruptedly since the days of the Paris Commune, has too 
greatly accustomed us to the idea that action can proceed only "from below," has 
too greatly inured us to seeing only defensive struggles. We have now, 
undoubtedly, entered a new era: a period of political upheavals and revolutions 
has begun. In a period such as Russia is passing through at the present time, it 
is impermissible to confine ourselves to old, stereotyped formulae. We must 
propagate the idea of action from above, we must prepare for the most energetic, 
offensive action, and must study the conditions for and forms of such actions. 
The Congress resolution puts two of these conditions into the forefront: one 
refers to the formal aspect of Social-Democratic participation in a provisional 
revolutionary government (strict control by the Party over its representatives), 
the other to the very nature of such participation (never for an instant to lose 
sight of the aim of effecting a complete socialist revolution). 
Having thus explained from all aspects the Party's policy with regard to action 
"from above"-this new, hitherto almost unprecedented method of struggle-the 
resolution also provides for the eventuality that we shall not be able to act 
from above. We must exercise pressure on the provisional revolutionary 
government from below in any case. In order to be able to exercise this pressure 
from below, the proletariat must be armed-for in a revolutionary situation 
matters develop with exceptional rapidity to the stage of open civil war-and 
must be led by the Social-Democratic Party. The object of its armed pressure is 
that of "defending, consolidating and extending the gains of the revolution," 
i.e., those gains which from the standpoint of the interests of the proletariat 
must consist in the fulfilment of the whole of our minimum program. 
With this we conclude our brief analysis of the resolution of the Third Congress 
on a provisional revolutionary government. As the reader can see, the resolution 
explains the importance of this new question, the attitude of the Party of the 
proletariat toward it, and the policy the Party must pursue both inside a 
provisional revolutionary government and outside of it. 
Let us now consider the corresponding resolution of the "Conference." 
 
Next: What is meant by "the Revolution"s Decisive Victory over Tsarism?" 
 







What Is A "Decisive Victory of the Revolution Over Tsarism"? 



 
The resolution of the "Conference" is devoted to the question: "The conquest of 
power and participation in a provisional government." 1) As we have already 
pointed out, the very manner in which the question is presented betrays 
confusion. On the one hand, the question is presented in a narrow way: it deals 
only with our participation in a provisional government and not with the Party's 
tasks in regard to a provisional revolutionary government in general. On the 
other hand, two totally different questions are confused, viz., the question of 
our participation at one of the stages of the democratic revolution, and the 
question of the socialist revolution. Indeed, the "conquest of power" by 
Social-Democracy is a socialist revolution, nor can it be anything else if we 
use these words in their direct and usually accepted sense. If, however, we are 
to understand these words to mean the conquest of power for a democratic 
revolution and not for a socialist revolution, then what is the point in talking 
not only about participation in a provisional revolutionary government but also 
about the "conquest of power" in general? Obviously our "Conferencers" were not 
very clear themselves as to what they should talk about: the democratic or the 
socialist revolution. Those who have followed the literature on this question 
know that it was Comrade Martynov, in his notorious Two Dictatorships; the 
new-Iskrists are reluctant to recall the manner in which this question was 
presented (even before January 9) [the date of Bloody Sunday] in that model of 
tail-ender writing. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that it exerted an 
ideological influence on the Conference. 
But let us leave the title of the resolution. Its contents reveal mistakes 
incomparably more profound and serious. Here is the first part: 
"A decisive victory of the revolution over tsarism may be marked either by the 
establishment of a provisional government, which will emerge from a victorious 
popular insurrection, or by the revolutionary initiative of a representative 
institution of one kind or another, which, under direct revolutionary pressure 
of the people, decides to set up a popular constituent assembly." 
Thus, we are told that a decisive victory of the revolution over tsarism may be 
marked either by a victorious insurrection, or . . . by a decision of a 
representative institution to set up a constituent assembly! What does this 
mean? How are we to understand it? A decisive victory may be marked by a 
"decision" to set up a constituent assembly?? And such a "victory" is put side 
by side with the establishment of a provisional government which will "emerge 
from a victorious popular insurrection"!! The Conference failed to note that a 
victorious popular insurrection and the establishment of a provisional 
government would signify the victory of the revolution in actual fact, whereas a 
"decision" to set up a constituent assembly would signify a victory of the 
revolution in words only. 
The Conference of the Mensheviks, or new-Iskra, fell into the very same error 
that the liberals, the Osvobozhdeniye are constantly committing. The 
Osvobozhdeniye group prattle about a "constituent" assembly and bashfully shut 
their eyes to the fact that power and authority remain in the hands of the tsar, 
forgetting that in order to "constitute" one must possess the power to do so. 
The Conference also forgot that it is a far cry from a "decision" adopted by 
representatives-no matter who they are-to the fulfilment of that decision. The 
Conference further forgot that so long as power remained in the hands of the 
tsar, all decisions passed by any representatives whatsoever would remain empty 
and miserable prattle, as was the case with the "decisions" of the Frankfurt 
Parliament, famous in the history of the German Revolution of 1848. In his Neue 
Rheinische Zeitung, Marx, the representative of the revolutionary proletariat, 
castigated the Frankfurt liberal Osvobozhdentsi with merciless sarcasm precisely 
because they uttered fine words, adopted all sorts of democratic "decisions," 
"constituted" all kinds of liberties, while actually they left power in the 
hands of the king and failed to organise an armed struggle against the military 
forces at the disposal of the king. And while the Frankfurt Osvobozbdentsi were 
prattling-the king bided his time, consolidated his military forces, and the 
counterrevolution, relying on real force, utterly routed the democrats with all 
their fine "decisions." 
The Conference put on a par with a decisive victory the very thing that lacks 
the essential condition of victory. How was it possible for Social-Democrats who 
recognise the republican program of our Party to commit such an error? In order 
to understand this strange phenomenon we must turn to the resolution of the 
Third Congress on the section which has seceded from the Party. 2) This 
resolution refers to the fact that various trends "akin to Economism" have 
survived in our Party. Our "Conferencers" (it is not for nothing that they are 
under the ideological guidance of Martynov) talk of the revolution in exactly 
the same way as the Economists talked of the political struggle or the eight 
hour day. The Economists immediately gave currency to the "theory of stages": 
1) the struggle for rights,
2) political agitation,
3) political struggle;
or,
1) a ten-hour day,
2) a nine-hour day,
3) an eight-hour day.
The results of this "tactics-as-a-process" are sufficiently well known to all. 
Now we are invited nicely to divide the revolution too in advance into the 
following stages:
1) the tsar convenes a representative body; 
2) this representative body "decides" under pressure of the "people" to set up a 
constituent assembly; 
3) . . . the Mensheviks have not yet agreed among themselves as to the third 
stage; they have forgotten that the revolutionary pressure of the people will 
meet with the counterrevolutionary pressure of tsarism and that, therefore, 
either the "decision" will remain unfulfilled or the issue will be decided after 
all by the victory or the defeat of the popular insurrection. The resolution of 
the Conference is an exact reproduction of the following reasoning of the 
Economists: a decisive victory of the workers may be marked either by the 
realisation of the eight-hour day in a revolutionary way, or by the grant of a 
ten-hour day and a "decision" to go over to a nine-hour day. . . . the 
duplication is perfect. 
The objection may be made to us that the authors of the resolution did not mean 
to place on a par the victory of an insurrection with the "decision" of a 
representative institution convened by the tsar, that they only wanted to 
provide for the Party's tactics in either case. To this our answer would be: 
1) The text of the resolution plainly and unambiguously describes the decision 
of a representative institution as "a decisive victory of the revolution over 
tsarism." Perhaps that is the result of careless wording, perhaps it could be 
corrected after consulting the minutes, but, so long as it is not corrected, the 
present wording can have only one meaning, and this meaning is entirely in 
keeping with the Osvobozhdeniye line of reasoning. 
2) The Osvobozbdeniye line of reasoning, into which the authors of the 
resolution have drifted, stands out in incomparably greater relief in other 
literary productions of the new Iskra-ists. For instance, the organ of the 
Tiflis Committee, (in the Georgian language; praised by the Iskra in No. 100), 
in the article "The Zemsky Sobor [National Assmebly] and Our Tactics," 
Sotsial-Demokrat, organ of the Tfilis Committee (published in the Georgian 
language; praised by Iskra in No. 100) goes so far as to say that the "Tactics" 
"which make the Zemsky Sobor the centre of our activities" (about the 
convocation of which, we may add, nothing definite is known as yet!) "are more 
advantageous for us" than the "tactics" of armed insurrection and the 
establishment of a provisional revolutionary government. We shall refer to this 
article again further on. 
3) No objection can be made to a preliminary discussion of what tactics the 
Party should adopt in the event of the victory of the revolution as well as in 
the event of its defeat, in the event of a successful insurrection as well as in 
the event of the insurrection failing to develop into a serious force. It is 
possible that the tsarist government will succeed in convening a representative 
assembly for the purpose of coming to terms with the liberal bourgeoisie; 
providing for that eventuality, the resolution of the Third Congress speaks 
plainly about "hypocritical policy," "pseudo democracy," "a travesty of popular 
representation, something like the so-called Zemsky Sobor." 3) 
But the whole point is that this is not said in the resolution on a provisional 
revolutionary government, for it has nothing to do with a provisional 
revolutionary government. This eventuality defers the problem of the 
insurrection and of the establishment of a provisional revolutionary government; 
it alters this problem, etc. The point in question now is not that all kinds of 
combinations are possible, that both victory and defeat are possible, that there 
may be direct or circuitous paths; the point is that it is impermissible for a 
Social-Democrat to cause confusion in the minds of the workers concerning the 
genuinely revolutionary path, that it is impermissible, to describe in the 
Osvobozhdeniye manner, as a decisive victory that which lacks the main requisite 
for victory. It is possible that even the eight-hour day we will get not at one 
stroke, but only by a long and roundabout way; but what would you say of a man 
who calls such impotence, such weakness as renders the proletariat incapable of 
counteracting procrastination, delays, haggling, treachery and reaction, a 
victory for the workers? It is possible that the Russian revolution will end in 
an "abortive constitution," as was once stated in the Vperyod, 4) but can this 
justify a Social-Democrat, who on the eve of a decisive struggle would call this 
abortion a "decisive victory over tsarism"? It is possible that, at the worst, 
not only will we not win a republic, but that even the constitution we will get 
will be an illusory one, a constitution " la Shipov, [A] but would it be 
pardonable for a Social-Democrat to obscure our slogan of a republic? 
Of course the new-Iskraists have not as yet gone so far as to obscure it. But 
the degree to which the revolutionary spirit has fled from them, the degree to 
which lifeless pedantry has blinded them to the militant tasks of the moment is 
most vividly shown by the fact that in their resolution they, of all things, 
forgot to say a word about the republic. It is incredible, but it is a fact. All 
the slogans of Social-Democracy were endorsed, repeated, explained and presented 
in detail in the various resolutions of the Conference-even the election of shop 
stewards and deputies by the workers was not forgotten, but in a resolution on a 
provisional revolutionary government they simply did not find occasion to 
mention the republic. To talk of the "victory" of the people's insurrection, of 
the establishment of a provisional government, and not to indicate what relation 
these "steps" and acts have to the winning of a republic-means writing a 
resolution not for the guidance of the proletarian struggle, but for the purpose 
of hobbling along at the tail end of the proletarian movement. 
To sum up: the first part of the resolution 
1) gave no explanation whatever of the significance of a provisional 
revolutionary government from the standpoint of the struggle for a republic and 
of securing a genuinely popular and genuinely constituent assembly;
2) confused the democratic consciousness of the proletariat by placing on a par 
with a decisive victory of the revolution over tsarism a state of affairs in 
which precisely the main requisite for a real victory is lacking. 
 
Next: The Abolition of the Monarchy. The Republic 
 



Notes 
1) The full text of this resolution can be reconstructed by the reader from the 
quotations given on pp. 400, 403, 407, 431, and 433 of the pamphlet. (Author's 
note to the 1907 edition) 
2) We cite this resolution in full. 
"The Congress places on record that since the time of the Party's fight against 
Economism, certain trends have survived in the R.S.D.L.P. which, in various 
degrees and respects, are akin to Economism and which betray a common tendency 
to belittle the importance of the elements of consciousness in the proletarian 
struggle, and to subordinate it to the element of spontaneity. On questions of 
organisation, the representatives of these trends put forward, in theory, the 
organisation-as-a-process principle, which is out of harmony with methodical 
Party work, while in practice they systematically deviate from Party discipline 
in very many cases, and in other cases preach to the least enlightened section 
of the Party the idea of a wide application of the elective principle, without 
taking into consideration the objective conditions of Russian life, and so 
strive to undermine the only basis for Party ties that is possible at the 
present time. In tactical questions they betray a striving to narrow the scope 
of Party work, declaring their opposition to the Party pursuing completely 
independent tactics in relation to the liberal-bourgeois parties, denying that 
it is possible and desirable for our Party to assume the role of organiser in 
the people's insurrection and opposing the participation of the Party in a 
provisional democratic revolutionary government under any conditions whatsoever. 

"The Congress instructs all Party members everywhere to conduct an energetic 
ideological struggle against such partial deviations from the principles of 
revolutionary Social-Democracy; at the same time, however, it is of the opinion 
that persons who share such views to any degree may belong to Party 
organisations on the indispensable condition that they recognise the Party 
congresses and the Party Rules and wholly submit to Party discipline." (Author's 
note to the 1907 edition.) 
3) The following is the text of this resolution on the attitude towards the 
tactics of the government on the eve of the revolution: 
"Whereas for purposes of self-preservation the government during the present 
revolutionary period, while intensifying the usual measures of repression 
directed mainly against the class-conscious elements of the proletariat, at the 
same time 
1) tries by means of concessions and promises of reform to corrupt the working 
class politically and thereby to divert it from the revolutionary struggle;
2) with the same object clothes its hypocritical policy of concessions in 
pseudodemocratic forms, beginning with an invitation to the workers to elect 
their representatives to commissions and conferences and ending with the 
establishment of a travesty of popular representation, something like the 
so-called Zemsky Sobor;
3) organises the so-called Black Hundreds and incites against the revolution all 
those elements of the people in general who are reactionary, ignorant or blinded 
by racial or religious hatred: 
"The Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. resolves to call on all Party 
organisations: 
"a) while exposing the reactionary purpose of the government's con cessions, to 
emphasise in their propaganda and agitation the fact that, on the one hand, 
these concessions were granted under compulsion, and, on the other, that it is 
absolutely impossible for the autocracy to grant reforms satisfactory to the 
proletariat; 
"b) taking advantage of the election campaign, to explain to the workers the 
real significance of the government's measures and to show that it is necessary 
for the proletariat to convene by revolutionary means a constituent assembly on 
the basis of universal and equal suffrage, direct elections and secret ballot; 
"c) to organise the proletariat for the immediate realisation, in a 
revolutionary way, of the eight-hour working day and of the other immediate 
demands of the working class; 
"d) to organise armed resistance to the actions of the Black Hundreds, and 
generally, of all reactionary elements led by the government." [Author's note to 
the 1907 edition.] 
4) The newspaper Vperyod, published in Geneva, began to appear in January 1905 
as the organ of the Bolshevik section of the Party. From January to May, 
eighteen issues appeared. After May, by virtue of the decision of the Third 
Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, the Proletary was issued 
in place of the Vperyod as the central organ of the R.S.D.L.P. (This Congress 
took place in London May, the Mensheviks did not appear; they organised their 
own "Conference" in Geneva.) [Author's note to the 1907 edition.] 
[A] A constitution  La Shipov - Lenin's name for the draft of state structure 
drawn up by D. Shipov, a moderate liberal leader of the Zemstvos' Right wing. In 
an attempt to curb the sweep of the revolution and also to obtain certain 
concessions from the tsarist government in favour of the Zemstvos, Shipov 
proposed the creation of an advisory representative body under the tsar. By a 
deal of this kind the moderate liberals wanted to preserve the monarchy, while 
winning certain political rights for themselves. 








The Abolition of the Monarchist System
and the Republic 



 
Let us go over to the next section of the resolution: 
"....in either case such a victory will inaugurate a new phase in the 
revolutionary epoch. 
"The final abolition of the whole regime of the monarchy and the social estates 
in the process of mutual struggle between the elements of politically 
emancipated bourgeois society for the satisfaction of their social interests and 
for the direct acquisition of power-such is the task in this new phase which the 
objective conditions of social development spontaneously evoke. 
"Therefore, a provisional government that would under take to carry out the 
tasks of this revolution, bourgeois in its historical nature, would, in 
regulating the mutual struggle between antagonistic classes of a nation in the 
process of emancipation, not only have to advance revolutionary development, but 
also to combat factors in that development threatening the foundations of the 
capitalist system." 
Let us examine this section which forms an independent part of the resolution. 
The basic idea in the arguments quoted above coincides with the one set forth in 
the third clause of the Congress resolution. However, collation of these parts 
of the two resolutions will at once reveal the following radical difference 
between them. The Congress resolution, which briefly describes the social and 
economic basis of the revolution, concentrates attention entirely on the 
clear-cut struggle of classes for definite gains, and places in the fore front 
the militant tasks of the proletariat. The resolution of the Conference, which 
carries a long, nebulous, and confused description of the socio-economic basis 
of the revolution, speaks very vaguely about a struggle for definite gains. and 
leaves the militant tasks of the proletariat completely in the background. The 
resolution of the Conference speaks of the old order in the process of mutual 
struggle among the various elements of society. The Congress resolution says 
that we, the party of the proletariat, must effect this abolition; that only 
establishment of a democratic republic signifies genuine abolition of the old 
order; that we must win that republic; that we shall fight for it and for 
complete liberty, not only against the autocracy, but also against the 
bourgeoisie, when it attempts (and it will surely do so) to wrest our gains from 
us. The Congress resolution calls on a definite class to wage a struggle for a 
precisely defined immediate aim. The Conference resolution discourses on the 
mutual struggle of various forces. One resolution expresses the psychology of 
active struggle, the other that of the passive onlooker; one resounds with the 
call for live action, the other is steeped in lifeless pedantry. Both 
resolutions state that the present revolution is only our first step, which will 
be followed by a second; but from this, one resolution draws the conclusion that 
we must take this first step all the sooner, get it over all the sooner, win a 
republic, mercilessly crush the counter-revolution, and prepare the ground for 
the second step. The other resolution, however, oozes, so to speak, with verbose 
descriptions of the first step and (excuse the crude expression) simply 
masticates it. The Congress resolution takes the old, yet eternally new, ideas 
of Marxism (the bourgeois nature of a democratic revolution) as a preface or 
first premise, whence it draws conclusions as to the progressive tasks of the 
progressive class, which is fighting both for the democratic and for the 
socialist revolution. The Conference resolution does not go beyond the preface, 
chewing it over and over again, and trying to be clever about it. 
This is the very distinction which has long divided the Russian Marxists into 
two wings: the moralising and the militant wings of the old days of "legal 
Marxism", and the economic and political wings of the period of the nascent mass 
movement. From the correct Marxist premise concerning the deep economic roots of 
the class struggle in general and of the political struggle in particular, the 
Economists have drawn the singular conclusion that we must turn our backs on the 
political struggle and retard its development, narrow its scope, and reduce its 
aims. The political wing, on the contrary, has drawn a different conclusion from 
these same premises, namely, that the deeper the roots of our present struggle, 
the more widely, the more boldly, the more resolutely, and with greater 
initiative must we wage this struggle. We have the very same controversy before 
us now, only under different circumstances and in a different form. From the 
premises that a democratic revolution is far from being a socialist revolution, 
that the poor and needy are by no means the only ones to be "interested" in it, 
that it is deeply rooted in the inescapable needs and requirements of the whole 
of bourgeois society-from these premises we draw the conclusion that the 
advanced class must formulate its democratic aims all the more boldly, express 
them all the more sharply and completely, put forward the immediate slogan of a 
republic, and popularise the idea of the need to establish a provisional 
revolutionary government and to crush the counter revolution ruthlessly. Our 
opponents, the new-Iskra group however, deduce from these very same premises 
that the democratic conclusions should not be expressed fully, that the republic 
may be omitted from the practical slogans, that we can refrain from popularising 
the idea of the need for a provisional revolutionary government, that a mere 
decision to convene a constituent assembly can be termed a decisive victory, 
that there is no need to advance the task of combating counter-revolution as our 
active aim, so that it may be submerged in a nebulous (and, as we shall 
presently see, wrongly formulated) reference to a "process of mutual struggle". 
This is not the language of political leaders, but of archive fogeys. 
The more closely one examines the various formulations in the resolution of the 
new-Iskra group, the clearer its aforementioned basic features become. We are 
told, for in stance, of a "process of mutual struggle between the elements of 
politically emancipated bourgeois society". Bearing in mind the subject this 
resolution deals with (a provisional revolutionary government) one asks in 
astonishment, "If you are referring to the process of mutual struggle, how can 
you keep silent about the elements which are politically enslaving bourgeois 
society? Do the 'conferees' really imagine that, since they have assumed the 
revolution will be victorious, these elements have already disappeared?" Such an 
idea would be absurd in general and an expression of the greatest political 
navet and political short-sightedness in particular. After the revolution's 
victory over counter revolution the latter will not disappear; on the contrary, 
it will inevitably start a new and even more desperate struggle. Since the 
purpose of our resolution is to analyse the tasks that will confront us when the 
revolution is victorious, it is our duty to devote tremendous attention to the 
tasks of repelling counter-revolutionary attacks (as is done in the Congress 
resolution), and not to submerge these immediate, urgent, and vital political 
tasks of a militant party in general discussions on what will happen after the 
present revolutionary period, or what will happen when a "politically 
emancipated society" already exists. Just as the Economists would, by repeating 
the truism that politics are subordinated to economics, cover up their 
incapacity to understand urgent political tasks, so the newIskra-ists, by 
repeating the general truism that struggles will take place in a politically 
emancipated society, cover up their failure to understand the urgent 
revolutionary tasks of the political emancipation of this society. 
Take the expression "the final abolition of the whole regime of social estates 
and the monarchy." In plain language, the final abolition of the monarchist 
system means the establishment of a democratic republic. But our good Martynov 
and his admirers think that this expression is far too simple and clear. They 
insist on rendering it "more profound" and saying it more "cleverly." As a 
result, we get, on the one hand, ridiculous and vain efforts to appear profound; 
on the other hand, we get a description instead of a slogan, a sort of 
melancholy looking backward instead of a stirring appeal to march forward. We 
get the impression, not of living people eager to fight for a republic here and 
now, but of fossilised mummies who sub specie aeternitatis [Latin: from the 
viepoint of eternity] consider the question from the standpoint of 
plusquamperfectum. 
Let us proceed further: ". . . the provisional government . . . would undertake 
to carry out the tasks of this . . . bourgeois revolution." . . . Here we see at 
once the result of the fact that our "Conferencers" have overlooked a concrete 
question which confronts the political leaders of the proletariat. The concrete 
question of a provisional revolutionary government was obscured from their field 
of vision by the question of the future series of governments which will carry 
out the aims of the bourgeois revolution in general. If you want to consider the 
question "historically," the example of any European country will show you that 
it was a series of governments, not by any means "provisional," that carried out 
the historical aims of the bourgeois revolution, that even the governments which 
defeated the revolution were nonetheless forced to carry out the historical aims 
of that defeated revolution. But what is called a "provisional revolutionary 
government" is something altogether different from what you are referring to: 
that is the name given to the government of a revolutionary epoch, which 
directly replaces the overthrown government and rests on the insurrection of the 
people, and not on some kind of representative institutions coming from the 
people. A provisional revolutionary government is the organ of struggle for the 
immediate victory of the revolution, for immediately repelling 
counterrevolutionary attempts, and not by any means an organ for carrying out 
the historical aims of the bourgeois revolution in general. Gentlemen, let us 
leave it to the future historians of a future Russkaya Starina to determine 
exactly what aims of the bourgeois revolution we, or this or that government, 
shall have achieved-there will be time enough to do that thirty years from now; 
at present we must put forward slogans and give practical directives for the 
struggle for a republic and for the proletariat's most active participation in 
this struggle. 
For the reasons stated, the final propositions in the forgoing section of the 
resolution which we have quoted above are also unsatisfactory. The expression 
that the provisional government would have to "regulate" the mutual struggle 
among the antagonistic classes is exceedingly inapt, or at any rate awkwardly 
put; Marxists should not use such liberal, Osvobozhdeniye formulations, which 
lead one to believe that it is possible to have governments which serve not as 
organs of the class struggle but as its "regulators". . . . The government would 
"not only have to push revolutionary development further forward but also fight 
against those of its factors which threaten the foundations of the capitalist 
system." But it is the proletariat, the very same in whose name the resolution 
is speaking, that constitutes this "factor"! Instead of indicating just how the 
proletariat should "push revolutionary development further forward" at the 
present time (push it further than the constitutionalist bourgeois would care to 
go), instead of advice to prepare definite ways and means of combating the 
bourgeoisie when the latter turns against the conquests of the revolution, we 
are offered a general description of a process, which does not say a word about 
the concrete aims of our activity. The new Iskra-ist method of expressing its 
views reminds one of Marx's opinion (in his famous "theses" on Feuerbach) of the 
old materialism, which was alien to the ideas of dialectics. The philosophers 
have only interpreted the world, in various ways, said Marx, the point, however, 
is to change it. Similarly, the new-Iskraists can give a tolerable description 
and explanation of the process of struggle which is taking place before their 
eyes, but they are altogether incapable of giving a correct slogan for this 
struggle. Good marchers but bad leaders, they belittle the materialist 
conception of history by ignoring the active, leading and guiding part in 
history which can and must be played by parties that understand the material 
prerequisites of a revolution and that have placed themselves at the head of the 
progressive classes. 
 






How Should "The Revolution Be Pushed Forward"? 



 
Let us quote the next section of the resolution: 
"Under such conditions, Social-Democracy must strive to maintain during the 
whole course of the revolution, a position which will best of all secure for it 
the possibility of pushing the revolution forward, which will not tie the hands 
of Social-Democracy in its struggle against the inconsistent and self-seeking 
policy of the bourgeois parties and which will preserve it from being merged in 
bourgeois democracy. 
"Therefore, Social-Democracy must not set itself the aim of seizing or sharing 
power in the provisional government, but must remain the party of extreme 
revolutionary opposition." 
The advice to occupy a position which best ensures the possibility of advancing 
the revolution pleases us very much indeed. We would only desire that this piece 
of good advice should be accompanied by a direct indication as to how 
Social-Democracy should further advance the revolution right now, in the present 
political situation, in a period of rumours, conjectures, and talk and schemes 
about the convocation of the people's representatives. Can the revolution now be 
further advanced by those who fail to understand the danger of the 
Osvobozhdeniye theory of "compromise' between the people and the tsar, by those 
who call a mere 'decision" to convene a constituent assembly a victory, who do 
not set themselves the task of carrying on active propaganda of the idea of the 
need for a provisional revolutionary government, or who leave the slogan of a 
democratic republic in the background? Such people actually pull the revolution 
back, because, as far as practical politics are concerned, they have stopped at 
the level of the Osvobozhdeniye stand. What is the use of their recognising a 
programme which demands that the autocracy be replaced by a republic, if in a 
resolution on tactics that defines the Party's present and immediate tasks in 
the period of revolution they omit the slogan of a struggle for a republic? It 
is the Osvobozhdeniye position, the position of the constitutionalist 
bourgeoisie, that is now actually characterised by the fact that a decision to 
convene a popular constituent assembly is considered a decisive victory, while a 
prudent silence is maintained on the subject of a provisional revolutionary 
government and a republic! To advance the revolution, to take it beyond the 
limits to which the monarchist bourgeoisie advances it, it is necessary actively 
to produce, emphasise, and bring into the forefront slogans that will preclude 
the "inconsistency" of bourgeois democracy. At present there are only two such 
slogans: 1) a provisional revolutionary government, and 2) a republic, because 
the slogan of a popular constituent assembly has been accepted by the monarchist 
bourgeoisie (see the programme of the Osvobozhdeniye League) and accepted for 
the very purpose of devitalising the revolution, preventing its complete 
victory, and enabling the big bourgeoisie to strike a huckster's bargain with 
tsarism. And now we see that of the two slogans, which alone are capable of 
advancing the revolution, the Conference completely forgot the slogan of a 
republic, and plainly put the slogan of a provisional revolutionary government 
on a par with the Osvobozhdeniye slogan of a popular constituent assembly, 
calling both the one and the other "a decisive victory of the revolution"!! 
Indeed, such is the undoubted fact, which, we are sure, will serve as a landmark 
for the future historian of Russian Social-Democracy. The Conference of 
Social-Democrats held in May 1905 passed a resolution which contains fine words 
about the necessity of advancing the democratic revolution, but in fact pulls it 
back and goes no farther than the democratic slogans of the monarchist 
bourgeoisie. 
The new-Iskra group likes to accuse us of ignoring the danger of the proletariat 
becoming dissolved in bourgeois democracy. We should like to see the person who 
would undertake to prove this charge on the basis of the text of the resolutions 
passed by the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Our 
reply to our opponents is-a Social-Democratic Party which operates in a 
bourgeois society cannot take part in politics without marching, in certain 
cases, side by side with bourgeois democracy. The difference between us in this 
respect is that we march side by side with the revolutionary and republican 
bourgeoisie, without merging with it, whereas you march side by side with the 
liberal and the monarchist bourgeoisie, without merging with it either. That is 
how matters stand.
The tactical slogans you have formulated in the name of the Conference coincide 
with the slogans of the "ConstitutionalDemocratic" Party, i.e., the party of the 
monarchist bourgeoisie; moreover, you have not even noticed or realised this 
coincidence, thus actually following in the wake of the Osvobozhdeniye 
fraternity. 
The tactical slogans we have formulated in the name of the Third Congress of the 
Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party coincide with the slogans of the 
democratic-revolutionary and republican bourgeoisie. In Russia this bourgeoisie 
and petty bourgeoisie have not yet formed themselves into a big people's 
party.1) But only one who is utterly ignorant of what is now taking place in 
Russia can doubt that elements of such a party exist. We intend to guide (if the 
great Russian revolution makes progress) not only the proletariat, organised by 
the Social-Democratic Party, but also this petty bourgeoisie, which is capable 
of marching side by side with us. 
Through its resolution the Conference unconsciously descends to the level of the 
liberal and monarchist bourgeoisie. The Party Congress in its resolution 
consciously raises to its own level those elements of the revolutionary 
democracy that are capable of waging a struggle and not of acting as brokers. 
Such elements are mostly to be found among the peasants. In classifying the big 
social groups according to their political tendencies we can, without danger of 
serious error, identify revolutionary and republican democracy with the mass of 
the peasants-of course, in the same sense and with the same reservations and 
implied conditions as we can identify the working class with Social-Democracy. 
In other words, we can also formulate our conclusions in the following terms: in 
a revolutionary period the Conference in its national-wide 2) political slogans 
unconsciously descends to the level of the mass of the landlords. The Party 
Congress in its national political slogans raises the peasant masses to the 
revolutionary level. We challenge anyone who because of this conclusion may 
accuse us of evincing a penchant for paradoxes, to refute the proposition that 
if we are not strong enough to bring the revolution to a successful conclusion, 
if the revolution terminates in a "decisive victory" in the Osvobozhdentsi 
sense, i.e., exclusively in the form of a representative assembly convened by 
the tsar, which could be called a constituent assembly only in derision-then 
this will be a revolution in which the landlord and big bourgeois element will 
preponderate. On the other hand, if we are destined to live through a really 
great revolution, if history prevents a "miscarriage" this time, if we are 
strong enough to carry the revolution to a successful conclusion, to a decisive 
victory, not in the Osvobozhdeniye or the new Iskra sense of the word, then it 
will be a revolution in which the peasant and proletarian element will 
preponderate. 
Some people may, perhaps, interpret our admission that such a preponderance is 
possible as a renunciation of the view that the impending revolution will be 
bourgeois in character. This is very likely, considering how this concept is 
misused in the Iskra. For this reason it will not be at all superfluous to dwell 
on this question. 
 
Next: When is the Proletariat threatened...against the incosistent Bourgeoisie? 
 



Footnotes 
1) The Socialist-Revolutionaries are a terrorist group of intellectuals rather 
than the embryo of such a party, although the objective significance of this 
group's activities can be reduced to this very task of achieving the aims of the 
revolutionary and republican bourgeosie. 
2) We are not referring here to the special peasant slogans which were dealt 
with in separate resolutions. 






From what Direction is the Proletariat Threatened
with the Danger of Having its Hands Tied
in the Struggle Against the Inconsistent Bourgeoisie? 



 
Marxists are absolutely convinced of the bourgeois character of the Russian 
revolution. What does this mean? It means that the democratic reforms in the 
political system and the social and economic reforms, which have become a 
necessity for Russia, do not in themselves imply the undermining of capitalism, 
the undermining of bourgeois rule; on the contrary, they will, for the first 
time, really clear the ground for a wide and rapid, European, and not Asiatic, 
development of capitalism; they will, for the first time, make it possible for 
the bourgeoisie to rule as a class. The Socialist-Revolutionaries cannot grasp 
this idea, for they are ignorant of the rudiments of the laws of development of 
commodity and capitalist production; they fail to see that even the complete 
success of a peasant insurrection, even the redistribution of the whole of the 
land for the benefit of the peasants and in accordance with their desires 
("Black Redistribution" or something of that kind), will not destroy capitalism 
at all, but will, on the contrary, give an impetus to its development and hasten 
the class disintegration of the peasantry itself. The failure to grasp this 
truth makes the Socialist-Revolutionaries unconscious ideologists of the petty 
bourgeoisie. Insistence on this truth is of enormous importance for 
Social-Democracy, not only from the theoretical standpoint but also from the 
standpoint of practical politics, for from it follows that the complete class 
independence of the party of the proletariat in the present "general democratic" 
movement is obligatory. 
But it does not at all follow from this that a democratic revolution (bourgeois 
in its social and economic substance) is not of enormous interest for the 
proletariat. It does not at all follow from this that the democratic revolution 
cannot take place in a form advantageous mainly to the big capitalist, the 
financial magnate and the "enlightened" landlord, as well as in a form 
advantageous to the peasant and to the worker. 
The new-Iskraists thoroughly misunderstand the meaning and significance of the 
category: bourgeois revolution. Through their arguments there constantly runs 
the idea that a bourgeois revolution is a revolution which can be advantageous 
only to the bourgeoisie. And yet nothing is more erroneous than such an idea. A 
bourgeois revolution is a revolution which does not go beyond the limits of the 
bourgeois, i.e., capitalist, social and economic system. A bourgeois revolution 
expresses the need for the development of capitalism, and far from destroying 
the foundations of capitalism, it does the opposite, it broadens and deepens 
them. This revolution therefore expresses the interests not only of the working 
class, but of the entire bourgeoisie as well. Since the rule of the bourgeoisie 
over the working class is inevitable under capitalism, it is quite correct to 
say that a bourgeois revolution expresses the interests not so much of the 
proletariat as of the bourgeoisie. But it is entirely absurd to think that a 
bourgeois revolution does not express the interests of the proletariat at all. 
This absurd idea boils down either to the hoary Narodnik theory that a bourgeois 
revolution runs counter to the interests of the proletariat, and that therefore 
we do not need bourgeois political liberty; or to anarchism, which rejects all 
participation of the proletariat in bourgeois politics, in a bourgeois 
revolution and in bourgeois parliamentarism. From the standpoint of theory, this 
idea disregards the elementary propositions of Marxism concerning the 
inevitability of capitalist development where commodity production exists. 
Marxism teaches that a society which is based on commodity production, and which 
has commercial intercourse with civilised capitalist nations, at a certain stage 
of its development, itself, inevitably takes the road of capitalism. Marxism has 
irrevocably broken with the ravings of the Narodniks and the anarchists to the 
effect that Russia, for instance, can avoid capitalist development, jump out of 
capitalism, or skip over it and proceed along some path other than the path of 
the class struggle on the basis and within the framework of this same 
capitalism. All these principles of Marxism have been proved and explained over 
and over again in minute detail in general and with regard to Russia in 
particular. And from these principles it follows that the idea of seeking 
salvation for the working class in anything save the further development of 
capitalism is reactionary. In countries like Russia, the working class suffers 
not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient development of capitalism. 
The working class is therefore decidedly interested in the broadest, freest and 
most rapid development of capitalism. The removal of all the remnants of the old 
order which are hampering the broad, free and rapid development of capitalism is 
of decided advantage to the working class. The bourgeois revolution is precisely 
a revolution that most resolutely sweeps away the survivals of the past, the 
remnants of serfdom (which include not only autocracy but monarchy as well) and 
most fully guarantees the broadest, freest and most rapid development of 
capitalism. 
That is why a bourgeois revolution is in the highest degree advantageous to the 
proletariat. A bourgeois revolution is absolutely necessary in the interests of 
the proletariat. The more complete and determined, the more consistent the 
bourgeois revolution, the more assured will be the proletarian struggle against 
the bourgeoisie for Socialism. Only those who are ignorant of the rudiments of 
scientific Socialism can regard this conclusion as new or strange, paradoxical. 
And from this conclusion, among other things, follows the thesis that, in a 
certain sense, a bourgeois revolution is more advantageous to the proletariat 
than to the bourgeoisie. This thesis is unquestionably correct in the following 
sense: it is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie to rely on certain remnants of 
the past as against the proletariat, for instance, on the monarchy, the standing 
army, etc. It is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie if the bourgeois revolution 
does not too resolutely sweep away all the remnants of the past, but leaves some 
of them, i.e., if this revolution is not fully consistent, if it is not complete 
and if it is not determined and relentless. Social-Democrats often express this 
idea somewhat differently by stating that the bourgeoisie betrays its own self, 
that the bourgeoisie betrays the cause of liberty, that the bourgeoisie is 
incapable of being consistently democratic. It is of greater advantage to the 
bourgeoisie if the necessary changes in the direction of bourgeois democracy 
take place more slowly, more gradually, more cautiously, less resolutely, by 
means of reforms and not by means of revolution; if these changes spare the 
"venerable" institutions of serfdom (such as the monarchy) as much as possible; 
if these changes develop as little as possible the independent revolutionary 
activity, initiative and energy of the common people, i.e., the peasantry and 
especially the workers, for otherwise it will be easier for the workers, as the 
French say, "to hitch the rifle from one shoulder to the other," i.e., to turn 
against the bourgeoisie the guns which the bourgeois revolution will place in 
their hands, the liberty which the revolution will bring, the democratic 
institutions which will spring up on the ground that is cleared of serfdom. 
On the other hand, it is more advantageous for the working class if the 
necessary changes in the direction of bourgeois democracy take place by way of 
revolution and not by way of reform; for the way of reform is the way of delay, 
of procrastination, of the painfully slow decomposition of the putrid parts of 
the national organism. It is the proletariat and the peasantry that suffer first 
of all and most of all from their putrefaction. The revolutionary way is the way 
of quick amputation, which is the least painful to the proletariat, the way of 
the direct removal of the decomposing parts, the way of fewest concessions to 
and least consideration for the monarchy and the disgusting, vile, rotten and 
contaminating institutions which go with it. 
So it is not only because of the censorship, not only "for fear of the Jews," 
that our bourgeois-liberal press deplores the possibility of a revolutionary 
way, is afraid of revolution, tries to frighten the tsar with the bogey of 
revolution, is anxious to avoid revolution, grovels and toadies for the sake of 
miserable reforms as a basis for a reformist way. This standpoint is shared not 
only by the Russkiye Vedomosti, Syn Otechestva, Nasha Zhizn and Nashi Dni, but 
also by the illegal, uncensored Osvobozhdeniye. The very position the 
bourgeoisie occupies as a class in capitalist society inevitably causes it to be 
inconsistent in a democratic revolution. The very position the proletariat 
occupies as a class compels it to be consistently democratic. The bourgeoisie 
looks backward, fearing democratic progress, which threatens to strengthen the 
proletariat. The proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains, but with the 
aid of democracy it has the whole world to gain. That is why the more consistent 
the bourgeois revolution is in its democratic changes, the less will it limit 
itself to what is of advantage exclusively to the bourgeoisie. The more 
consistent the bourgeois revolution, the more does it guarantee the proletariat 
and the peasantry the benefits accruing from the democratic revolution. 
Marxism teaches the proletarian not to keep aloof from the bourgeois revolution, 
not to be indifferent to it, not to allow the leadership of the revolution to be 
assumed by the bourgeoisie but, on the contrary, to take a most energetic part 
in it, to fight most resolutely for consistent proletarian democracy, for 
carrying the revolution to its conclusion. We cannot jump out of the 
bourgeois-democratic boundaries of the Russian revolution, but we can vastly 
extend these boundaries, and within these boundaries we can and must fight for 
the interests of the proletariat, for its immediate needs and for the conditions 
that will make it possible to prepare its forces for the future complete 
victory. There is bourgeois democracy and bourgeois democracy. The Zemstvo 
monarchist who favours an upper chamber, and who "asks" for universal suffrage 
while secretly, on the sly, striking a bargain with tsarism for a curtailed 
constitution, is also a bourgeois-democrat. And the peasant who is fighting, 
arms in hand, against the landlords and the government officials and with a 
"nave republicanism" proposes "to send the tsar packing" 1) is also a 
bourgeois-democrat. There are bourgeois-democratic regimes like the one in 
Germany and also in England, like the one in Austria and also like those in 
America or Switzerland. He would be a fine Marxist indeed, who in a period of 
democratic revolution failed to see the difference between the degrees of 
democracy, the difference of its various forms and confined himself to "clever" 
remarks to the effect that, after all, this is "a bourgeois revolution," the 
fruits of a "bourgeois revolution." 
Our new-Iskraists are just such clever fellows flaunting their shortsightedness. 
They confine themselves to disquisitions on the bourgeois character of the 
revolution just when and where it is necessary to be able to draw a distinction 
between republican-revolutionary and monarchist-liberal bourgeois democracy, to 
say nothing of the distinction between inconsistent bourgeois democratism and 
consistent proletarian democratism. They are satisfied-as if they had really 
become Iike the "man in the muffler"[A] -to converse dolefully about a "process 
of mutual struggle of antagonistic classes," when the question is one of giving 
democratic leadership in the present revolution, of emphasising progressive 
democratic slogans as distinguished from the treacherous slogans of Mr. Struve 
and Co., of bluntly and straight forwardly stating the immediate aims of the 
really revolutionary struggle of the proletariat and the peasantry, as 
distinguished from the liberal haggling of the landlords and factory owners. 
Such now is the gist of the matter, which you, gentlemen, have missed: will our 
revolution result in a real, immense victory, or merely in a wretched deal, will 
it go so far as the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and 
the peasantry, or will it "peter out" in a liberal constitution  la Shipov? 
At first sight it may appear that in raising this question we are deviating 
entirely from our subject. But this may appear to be so only at first sight. As 
a matter of fact, it is precisely this question that lies at the root of the 
difference in principle which has already become clearly marked between the 
Social-Democratic tactics of the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic 
Labour Party and the tactics initiated by the Conference of the new Iskra 
supporters. The latter have already taken not two but three steps back, 
resurrecting the mistakes of Economism in solving problems that are incomparably 
more complex, more important and more vital to the workers' party, viz., 
questions of its tactics in time of revolution. That is why we must analyse the 
question we have raised with all due attention. 
The above-quoted section of the new-Iskraists resolution which we have quoted 
above points to the danger of Social-Democracy tying its hands in the struggle 
against the inconsistent policy of the bourgeoisie, of its becoming dissolved in 
bourgeois democracy. The idea of this danger runs like a thread through all the 
literature typical of the new Iskra, it is the real pivot of the principle 
involved in our Party split (ever since the elements of squabbling in this split 
were wholly eclipsed by the elements of a turn towards Economism). And without 
any equivocation we admit that this danger really exists, that just at the 
present time, at the height of the Russian revolution, this danger has become 
particularly grave. The pressing and extremely responsible duty that devolves on 
all of us theoreticians or-as I should prefer to say of myself- publicists of 
Social-Democracy, is to find out from what direction this danger actually 
threatens. For the source of our disagreement is not a dispute as to whether 
such a danger exists, but the dispute as to whether it is caused by the 
so-called khvostism of the "Minority" or the so-called revolutionism of the 
"Majority." 
To remove all misinterpretations and misunderstandings, let us first of all note 
that the danger to which we are referring lies not in the subjective, but in the 
objective aspect of the matter, not in the formal position which 
Social-Democracy will take in the struggle, but in the material outcome of the 
entire present revolutionary struggle. The question is not whether this or that 
Social-Democratic group will want to dissolve in bourgeois democracy or whether 
they are conscious of the fact that they are merging. Nobody suggests that. We 
do not suspect any Social-Democrat of harbouring such a desire, and this is not 
at all a question of desires. Nor is it a question of whether this or that 
Social-Democratic group will formally retain its separate identity, 
individuality and independence of bourgeois democracy throughout the course of 
the revolution. They may not only proclaim such "independence" but even retain 
it formally, and yet it may turn out that their hands will nonetheless be tied 
in the struggle against the inconsistency of the bourgeoisie. The final 
political result of the revolution may prove to be that, in spite of the formal 
"independence" of Social-Democracy, in spite of its complete organisational 
individuality as a separate party, it will in fact not be independent, it will 
not be able to put the imprint of its proletarian independence on the course of 
events, will prove so weak that, on the whole and in the last analysis, its 
"dissolving" in the bourgeois democracy will nonetheless be a historical fact. 
That is what constitutes the real danger. Now let us see from what direction the 
danger threatens: from the fact that Social-Democracy as represented by the new 
Iskra is deviating to the Right-as we believe; or from the fact that 
Social-Democracy as represented by the "Majority," the Vperyod, etc., is 
deviating to the Left-as the new-Iskraists believe. 
The answer to this question, as we have pointed out, depends on the objective 
combination of the actions of the various social forces. The character of these 
forces has been defined theoretically by the Marxian analysis of Russian life; 
at the present time it is being defined in practice by the open action of groups 
and classes in the course of the revolution. Thus, the entire theoretical 
analysis made by the Marxists long before the period we are now passing through, 
as well as all the practical observations of the development of revolutionary 
events, show that from the standpoint of objective conditions there are two 
possible courses and outcomes of the revolution in Russia. A change in the 
economic and political system in Russia along bourgeois-democratic lines is 
inevitable and unavoidable. No power on earth can prevent such a change. But the 
combined actions of the existing forces which are effecting that change may 
result in one of two things, may bring about one of two forms of that change. 
Either 1) the result will be a "decisive victory of the revolution over 
tsarism," or 2) the forces will be inadequate for a decisive victory and the 
matter will end in a deal between tsarism and the most "inconsistent" and most 
"self-seeking" elements of the bourgeoisie. By and large all the infinite 
variety of detail and combinations, which no one is able to foresee, lead to one 
or the other. 
Let us now consider these two outcomes, first, from the standpoint of their 
social significance and, secondly, from the standpoint of the position of 
Social-Democracy (its "dissolving" or "having its hands tied") in one or the 
other case. 
What is a "decisive victory of the revolution over tsarism"? We have already 
seen that in using this expression the new-Iskraists fail to grasp even its 
immediate political significance. Still less do they seem to understand the 
class essence of this concept. Surely, we Marxists must not under any 
circumstances allow ourselves to be deluded by words such as "revolution" or 
"the great Russian revolution," as do many revolutionary democrats (of the Gapon 
type). We must be perfectly clear in our minds as to what real social forces are 
opposed to "tsarism" (which is a real force, perfectly intelligible to all) and 
are capable of gaining a "decisive victory" over it. Such a force cannot be the 
big bourgeoisie, the landlords, the factory owners, "society" which follows the 
lead of the Osvobozhdentsi. We see that these do not even want a decisive 
victory. We know that owing to their class position they are incapable of waging 
a decisive struggle against tsarism; they are too heavily fettered by private 
property, capital and land to enter into a decisive struggle. They need tsarism 
with its bureaucratic, police and military forces for use against the 
proletariat and the peasantry too much to be able to strive for its destruction. 
No, the only force capable of gaining "a decisive victory over tsarism," is the 
people, i.e., the proletariat and the peasantry, if we take the main, big forces 
and distribute the rural and urban petty bourgeoisie (also part of "the people") 
between the two. "A decisive victory of the revolution over tsarism" is the 
revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. Our 
new-Iskraists cannot escape from this conclusion, which Vperyod pointed out long 
ago. No one else is capable of gaining a decisive victory over tsarism. 
And such a victory will be precisely a dictatorship, i.e., it must inevitably 
rely on military force, on the arming of the masses, on an insurrection, and not 
on institutions of one kind or another, established in a "lawful" or "peaceful" 
way. It can be only a dictatorship, for the realisation of the changes which are 
urgently and absolutely indispensable for the proletariat and the peasantry will 
call forth the desperate resistance of the landlords, of the big bourgeoisie and 
of tsarism. Without a dictatorship it is impossible to break down that 
resistance and to repel the counterrevolutionary attempts. But of course it will 
be a democratic, not a socialist dictatorship. It will not be able (without a 
series of intermediary stages of revolutionary development) to affect the 
foundations of capitalism. At best it may bring about a radical redistribution 
of landed property in favour of the peasantry, establish consistent and full 
democracy including the formation of a republic, eradicate all the oppressive 
features of Asiatic bondage, not only in village but also in factory life, lay 
the foundation for a thorough improvement in the position of the workers and for 
a rise in their standard of living, and-last but not least-carry the 
revolutionary conflagration into Europe. Such a victory will by no means as yet 
transform our bourgeois revolution into a socialist revolution; the democratic 
revolution will not directly overstep the bounds of bourgeois social and 
economic relationships; nevertheless, the significance of such a victory for the 
future development of Russia and of the whole world will be immense. Nothing 
will raise the revolutionary energy of the world proletariat so much, nothing 
will shorten the path leading to its complete victory to such an extent, as this 
decisive victory of the revolution that has now started in Russia. 
How far such a victory is probable, is another question. We are not in the least 
inclined to be unreasonably optimistic on that score, we do not for a moment 
forget the immense difficulties of this task, but since we are out to fight we 
must desire victory and be able to point out the right road to it. Tendencies 
capable of leading to such a victory undoubtedly exist. True, our, 
Social-Democratic, influence on the masses of the proletariat is as yet very, 
very inadequate; the revolutionary influence on the mass of the peasantry is 
altogether insignificant; the proletariat, and especially the peasantry, are 
still frightfully scattered, backward and ignorant. But revolution unites 
quickly and enlightens quickly. Every step in its development rouses the masses 
and attracts them with irresistible force to the side of the revolutionary 
program, as the only program that fully and consistently expresses their real 
and vital interests. 
According to a law of mechanics, every action produces an equal reaction. In 
history also the destructive force of a revolution is to a considerable degree 
dependent on how strong and protracted the suppression of the striving for 
liberty had been, and how profound the contradiction between the antediluvian 
"superstructure" and the living forces of the present epoch. The international 
political situation, too, is in many respects shaping itself in a way most 
advantageous for the Russian revolution. The insurrection of the workers and 
peasants has already commenced; it is sporadic, spontaneous, weak, but it 
unquestionably and undoubtedly proves the existence of forces capable of waging 
a decisive struggle and marching towards a decisive victory. 
If these forces prove inadequate, tsarism will have time to conclude the deal 
which is already being prepared on two sides, by Messrs. the Bulygins on the one 
side, and Messrs. the Struves, on the other. Then the whole thing will end in a 
curtailed constitution, or, if the worst comes to the worst, even in a travesty 
of a constitution. This will also be a "bourgeois revolution," but it will be a 
miscarriage, a premature birth, a mongrel. Social-Democracy entertains no 
illusions on that score, it knows the treacherous nature of the bourgeoisie, it 
will not lose heart or abandon its persistent, patient, sustained work of giving 
the proletariat class training even in the most drab, humdrum days of 
bourgeois-constitutional, "Shipov" bliss. Such an outcome would be more or less 
similar to the outcome of almost all the democratic revolutions in Europe during 
the nineteenth century, and our Party development would then proceed along the 
difficult, hard, long, but familiar and beaten track. 
The question now arises: in which of these two possible outcomes will 
Social-Democracy find its hands actually tied in the fight against the 
inconsistent and self-seeking bourgeoisie, find itself actually "dissolved," or 
almost so, in bourgeois democracy? 
It is sufficient to put this question clearly to have not a moment's difficulty 
in answering it. 
If the bourgeoisie succeeds in frustrating the Russian revolution by coming to 
terms with tsarism, Social-Democracy will find its hands actually tied in the 
fight against the inconsistent bourgeoisie; Social-Democracy will find itself 
dissolved "in bourgeois democracy" in the sense that the proletariat will not 
succeed in putting its clear imprint on the revolution, will not succeed in 
settling accounts with tsarism in the proletarian or, as Marx once said, "in the 
plebeian" way. 
If the revolution gains a decisive victory-then we shall settle accounts with 
tsarism in the Jacobin, or, if you like, in the plebeian way. "The whole French 
terrorism," wrote Marx in 1848 in the famous Neue Rheinische Zeitung, "was 
nothing but a plebeian manner of settling accounts with the enemies of the 
bourgeoisie, with absolutism, feudalism and philistinism" (see Marx, Nachlass, 
Mehring's edition, Volume III, p. 211).[B] Have those people who, in a period of 
a democratic revolution, try to frighten the Social-Democratic workers in Russia 
with the bogey of "Jacobinism" ever stopped to think of the significance of 
these words of Marx? 
The Girondists of contemporary Russian Social-Democracy, the new Iskra-ists, do 
not merge with the Osvobozhdentsi, but in point of fact they, by reason of the 
nature of their slogans, follow at the tail of the latter. And the 
Osvobozhdentsi, i.e., the representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie, wish to 
settle accounts with the autocracy gently, in a reformist way, in a yielding 
manner, so as not to offend the aristocracy, the nobles, the Court-cautiously, 
without breaking anything-kindly and politely, as befits gentlemen in white 
gloves (like the ones Mr. Petrunkevich borrowed from a bashi-bazouk to wear at 
the reception of "representatives of the people"[?] held by Nicholas the Bloody 
[C]. See Proletary, No. 5). 
The Jacobins of contemporary Social-Democracy-the Bolsheviks, the Vperyodovtsi, 
Syezdovtsi, Proletartsi [D], or whatever we may call them-wish by their slogans 
to raise the revolutionary and republican petty bourgeoisie, and especially the 
peasantry, to the level of the consistent democratism of the proletariat, which 
fully retains its individuality as a class. They want the people, i.e., the 
proletariat and the peasantry, to settle accounts with the monarchy and the 
aristocracy in the "plebeian way," ruthlessly destroying the enemies of liberty, 
crushing their resistance by force, making no concessions whatever to the 
accursed heritage of serfdom, of Asiatic barbarism and human degradation. 
This, of course, does not mean that we necessarily propose to imitate the 
Jacobins of 1793, to adopt their views, program, slogans and methods of action. 
Nothing of the kind. Our program is not an old one, it is a new one-the minimum 
program of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. We have a new slogan: the 
revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. We 
shall also have, if we live to see a real victory of the revolution, new methods 
of action, in harmony with the nature and aims of the working-class party that 
is striving for a complete socialist revolution. By our comparison we merely 
want to explain that the representatives of the progressive class of the 
twentieth century, of the proletariat, i.e., the Social-Democrats, are divided 
into two wings (the opportunist and the revolutionary) similar to those into 
which the representatives of the progressive class of the eighteenth century, 
the bourgeoisie, were divided, i.e., the Girondists and the Jacobins. 
Only in the event of a complete victory of the democratic revolution will the 
proletariat have its hands free in the struggle against the inconsistent 
bourgeoisie, only in that event will it not become "dissolved" in bourgeois 
democracy, but will leave its proletarian or rather proletarian-peasant imprint 
on the whole revolution. 
In a word, in order to avoid finding itself with its hands tied in the struggle 
against the inconsistent bourgeois democrats, the proletariat must be 
sufficiently class conscious and strong to rouse the peasantry to revolutionary 
consciousness, to direct its attack, and thereby to pursue the line of 
consistent proletarian democratism independently. 
This is how matters stand with regard to the question, so ineptly dealth with by 
the new Iskragroup, of the danger of our hands being tied in the struggle 
against the inconsistent bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie will always be 
inconsistent. There is nothing more nave and futile than attempts to set forth 
conditions and points, 2) which if satisfied, would enable us to consider that 
the bourgeois democrat is a sincere friend of the people. Only the proletariat 
can be a consistent fighter for democracy. It may become a victorious fighter 
for democracy only if the peasant masses join its revolutionary struggle. If the 
proletariat is not strong enough for this, the bourgeoisie will be at the head 
of the democratic revolution and will impart to it an inconsistent and 
self-seeking nature. Nothing short of a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of 
the proletariat and the peasantry can prevent this. 
Thus, we arrive at the indubitable conclusion that it is precisely the new Iskra 
tactics, by its objective significance, that are playing into the hands of the 
bourgeois democrats. Preaching organisational diffusion that goes to the length 
of plebiscites, the principle of compromise and the divorcement of Party 
literature from the Party, belittling the aims of armed insurrection, confusing 
the popular political slogans of the revolutionary proletariat with those of the 
monarchist bourgeoisie, distorting the requisites for a "decisive victory of the 
revolution over tsarism"-all this taken together constitutes that very policy of 
khvostism in a revolutionary period which perplexes the proletariat, 
disorganises it, confuses its understanding and belittles the tactics of 
Social-Democracy, instead of pointing out the only way to victory and of 
rallying all the revolutionary and republican elements of the people to the 
proletariat's slogan. 
To bear out this conclusion, reached by us through analysis of the resolution, 
let us approach this same question from other angles. Let us see, first, how in 
the Georgian Sotsial-Demoktat a nave and outspoken Menshevik illustrates the 
new-Iskra. Secondly, let us see who is actually making use of the new Iskra 
slogans in the present political situation. 
 
Next: The Tactics of "Eliminating the Conservatives from the Government" 
 



Footnotes 
1) See the Osvobozbdeniye, No. 71, page 337, footnote 2. 
2) As was attempted by Starover in his resolution, annulled by the Third 
Congress,[E] and as is attempted by the Conference in an equally bad resolution. 

[A] The chief character in Chekhov's story of the same name, a man typifying the 
narrow-minded philistine who abhors all innovations or initiative. 
[B] Lenin is referring to the book Aus demm literarische,. Nachlass von Karl 
Marx, Friedrich Engels und Ferdinand Lassalle. Heraus gegeben von Franz Mshring, 
Bd. III, Stuttgart 1902, S. 211. 
[C] A reference to the audience granted to the Zemstvo deputation by Nicholas II 
on June 6, 1905. The deputation handed in a petition with the request to convene 
representatives of the people in order to establish a "renewed constitution". 
The petition contained neither the demand for universal, direct and equal 
suffrage by secret ballot, nor the deamnd for guaranteed free elections. 
[D] (e.g. supporters of the Vperyod, the "Congress" group, or supporters of 
Proletary) - all names given to the Bolsheviks, derived from their publication 
of the two papers mentioned, and "Syezdovtsi" because they convened the Third 
Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. 
[E] Lenin references the resolution tabled by Starover (pseudonym of the 
Menshevik A. N. Potresov) on the attitude towards the liberals, which was 
adopted at the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., and was criticised by Lenin in 
the article "Working-Class and Bourgeois Democracy". 







The Tactics of "Eliminating The Conservatives from the Government" 



 
The article in the organ of the Tiflis Menshevik "Committee" (Sotsial-Demokrat, 
No. 1) to which we have just referred is entitled "The Zemsky Sobor and Our 
Tactics." Its author has not yet entirely forgotten our program; he advances the 
slogan of a republic, but this is how he discusses tactics: 
"It is possible to point to two ways of achieving this goal" (a republic): 
"either completely ignore the Zemsky Sobor that is being convened by the 
government and defeat the government by force of arms, form a revolutionary 
government and convene a constituent assembly, or declare the Zemsky Sobor the 
centre of our actions, influencing its composition and activity by force of arms 
and either forcibly compelling it to declare itself a constituent assembly or 
convening a constituent assembly through it. These two tactics differ very 
sharply from one another. Let us see which of them is more advantageous to us." 
This is how the Russian new-Iskraists set forth the ideas that were subsequently 
incorporated in the resolution we have analysed. Note that this was written 
before the battle of Tsushima, when the Bulygin "scheme" had not yet seen the 
light of the day. Even the liberals were losing patience and expressing their 
lack of confidence in the pages of the legal press; but a new Iskra-ist 
Social-Democrat proved more credulous than the liberals. He declares that the 
Zemsky Sobor "is being convened" and trusts the tsar so much that he proposes to 
make this as yet non-existent Zemsky Sobor (or, possibly, "State Duma" or 
"Advisory Legislative Assembly"?) the centre of our actions. Being more 
outspoken and straightforward than the authors of the resolution adopted at the 
Conference, our Tiflisian does not put the two "tactics" (which he expounds with 
inimitable navet) on a par but declares that the second is more 
"advantageous." Just listen: 
"The first tactics. As you know, the coming revolution is a bourgeois 
revolution, i.e., its purpose is to effect such changes in the present system as 
are of interest not only to the proletariat but to the whole of bourgeois 
society. All classes are opposed to the government, even the capitalists 
themselves. The militant proletariat and the militant bourgeoisie are in a 
certain sense marching together and jointly attacking the autocracy from 
different sides. The government is completely isolated and lacks public 
sympathy. For this reason it is very easy to destroy it. The Russian proletariat 
as a whole is not yet sufficiently class conscious and organised to be able to 
carry out the revolution by itself. And even if it were able to do so, it would 
carry through a proletarian (socialist) revolution and not a bourgeois 
revolution. Hence, it is in our interest that the government remain without 
allies, that it be unable to disunite the opposition, unable to ally the 
bourgeoisie to itself and leave the proletariat isolated. . . ." 
So, it is in the interests of the proletariat that the tsarist government shall 
not be able to disunite the bourgeoisie and the proletariat! Is it not by 
mistake that this Georgian organ is called Sotsial-Demokrat instead of 
Osvobozhdeniye? And note its peerless philosophy of democratic revolution! Is it 
not obvious that this poor Tiflisian is hopelessly confused by the pedantic 
khvostist interpretation of the concept "bourgeois revolution"? He discusses the 
question of the possible isolation of the proletariat in a democratic revolution 
and forgets . . . forgets about a trifle . . . about the peasantry! of the 
possible allies of the proletariat he knows and favours the landowning 
Zemstvo-ists and is not aware of the peasants. And this in the Caucasus! Well, 
were we not right when we said that by its method of reasoning the new Iskra was 
sinking to the level of the monarchist bourgeoisie instead of raising the 
revolutionary peasantry to the position of our ally? 
". . . Otherwise the defeat of the proletariat and the victory of the government 
is inevitable. This is just what the autocracy is striving for. In its Zemsky 
Sobor it will undoubtedly attract to its side the representatives of the 
nobility, of the Zemstvos, the cities, the universities and similar bourgeois 
institutions. It will try to appease them with petty concessions and thereby 
reconcile them to itself. Strengthened in this way, it will direct all its blows 
against the working people who will have been isolated. It is our duty to 
prevent such an unfortunate outcome. But can this be done of the first method? 
Let us assume that we paid no attention whatever to the Zemsky Sobor, but 
started to prepare for insurrection ourselves, and one fine day came out in the 
streets armed and ready for battle. The result would be that we would be 
confronted not with one but with two enemies: the government and the Zemsky 
Sobor. While we were preparing, they would manage to come to terms, enter into 
an agreement with one another, draw up a constitution advantageous to themselves 
and divide power between them. These tactics are of direct advantage to the 
government, and we must reject them in the most energetic fashion. . . ." 
Now this is frank! We must resolutely reject the "tactics" of preparing an 
insurrection because "meanwhile" the government would come to terms with the 
bourgeoisie! Can one find in the old literature of the most rabid "Economism" 
anything that would even approximate such a disgrace to revolutionary 
Social-Democracy? That insurrections and outbreaks of workers and peasants are 
occurring, first in one place and then in another, is a fact. The Zemsky Sobor, 
however, is a Bulygin promise. And the Sotsial-Demokrat of the city of Tiflis 
decides: to reject the tactics of preparing an insurrection and to wait for a 
"centre of influence"-the Zemsky Sobor. . . . 
". . . The second tactics, on the contrary, consist in placing the Zemsky Sobor 
under our surveillance, in not giving it the opportunity to act according to its 
own will and enter into an agreement with the government.1) 
"We support the Zemsky Sobor to the extent that it fights the autocracy, and we 
fight it in those cases when it becomes reconciled with the autocracy. By 
energetic interference and force we shall cause a split among the deputies 2), 
rally the radicals to our side, eliminate the conservatives from the government 
and thus put the whole Zemsky Sobor on the path of revolution. Thanks to such 
tactics the government will always remain isolated, the opposition strong and 
the establishment of a democratic system will thereby be facilitated." 
Well, well! Let anyone now say that we exaggerate the new Iskra-ists' turn to 
the most vulgar semblance of Economism. This is positively like the famous 
powder for exterminating flies: you catch the fly, sprinkle it with the powder 
and the fly will die. Split the deputies of the Zemsky Sobor by force, 
"eliminate the conservatives from the government"-and the whole Zemsky Sobor 
will take the path of revolution. . . . No "Jacobin" armed insurrection of any 
sort, but just like that, in genteel, almost parliamentary fashion, 
"influencing" the members of the Zemsky Sobor. 
Poor Russia! It has been said that she always wears the old-fashioned bonnets 
that Europe discards. We have no parliament as yet, even Bulygin has not yet 
promised one, but we have any amount of parliamentary cretinism. 
". . . How should this interference be effected? First of all, we shall demand 
that the Zemsky Sobor be convened on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, 
direct elections and secret ballot. Simultaneously with the announcement 3) of 
this method of election, complete freedom to carry on the election campaign, 
i.e., freedom of assembly, of speech and of the press, the inviolability of the 
electors and the candidates and the release of all political prisoners must be 
made law.4) The elections themselves must be fixed as late as possible so that 
we have sufficient time to inform and prepare the people. And since the drafting 
of the regulations governing the convocation of the Sobor has been entrusted to 
a commission headed by Bulygin, Minister of the Interior, we should also exert 
pressure on this commission and on its members.5) If the Bulygin Commission 
refuses to satisfy our demands 6) and grants suffrage only to property owners, 
then we must interfere in these elections and, by revolutionary means, force the 
voters to elect progressive candidates and in the Zemsky Sobor demand a 
constituent assembly. Finally, we must, by all possible measures: 
demonstrations, strikes and insurrection if need be, compel the Zemsky Sobor to 
convene a constituent assembly or declare itself to be such. The armed 
proletariat must constitute itself the defender of the constituent assembly, and 
both together 7) will march forward to a democratic republic. 
"Such are the Social-Democratic tactics, and they alone will secure us victory." 

Let not the reader imagine that this incredible nonsense is simply a maiden 
attempt at writing on the part of some new Iskra adherent with no authority or 
influence. No, this is what is stated in the organ of an entire committee of new 
Iskra-ists, the Tiflis Committee. More than that. This nonsense has been openly 
endorsed by the "Iskra" in No. 100 of which we read the following about that 
issue of the Sotsial-Demokrat : 
"The first issue is edited in a lively and talented manner. The experienced hand 
of a capable editor and writer is perceptible. . . . It may be said with all 
confidence that the newspaper will brilliantly carry out the task it has set 
itself." 
Yes! If that task is clearly to show all and sundry the utter ideological decay 
of new Iskra, then it has indeed been carried out "brilliantly." No one could 
have expressed the new Iskra degradation to liberal bourgeois opportunism in a 
more "lively, talented and capable" manner. 
 
Next: The "Osvobozhdeniye" and New-"Iskra" Trends 
 



Footnotes 
1) By what means can the Zemstvoists be deprived of their own will? Perhaps by 
the use of a special sort of litmus paper? 
2) Heavens! This is certainly rendering tactics "profound"! There are no forces 
available to fight in the streets, but it is possible "to split the deputies" 
"by force." Listen, comrade from Tiflis, one may prevaricate, but one should 
know the limit. . . . 
3) In Iskra? 
4) By Nicholas? 
5) So this is what is meant by the tactic of "eliminating the conservatives from 
the government"! 
6) But surely such a thing cannot happen if we follow this correct and profound 
tactic! 
7) Both the armed proletariat and the conservatives "elinated from the 
government"? 







Osvobozhdeniyeism and New Iskra Trends 



 
Let us now proceed to another striking confirmation of the political meaning of 
new-Iskra trend. 
In a splendid, remarkable and most instructive article, entitled "How to Find 
Oneself" (Osvobozhdeniye, No. 71), Mr. Struve wages war against the 
"programmatic revolutionism" of our extreme parties. Mr. Struve is particularly 
displeased with me personally.1) Mr. Struve could not please me more: I could 
not wish for a better ally in the fight against the renascent Economism of the 
new-Iskraists and the utter lack of principle displayed by the 
"Socialist-Revolutionaries." On some other occasion we shall relate how Mr. 
Struve and the Osvobozhdeniye proved in practice how utterly reactionary are the 
"amendments" to Marxism made in the draft program of the 
Socialist-Revolutionaries. We have already repeatedly 2) spoken about how Mr. 
Struve rendered me honest, faithful and real service every time he approved of 
the new-Iskraists in principle and we shall say so once more now. 
Mr. Struve's article contains a number of very interesting statements, which we 
can note here only in passing. He intends "to create Russian democracy by 
relying on class collaboration and not on class struggle," in which case "the 
socially privileged intelligentsia" (something in the nature of the "cultured 
nobility" to which Mr. Struve makes obeisance with the grace of a truly 
high-society . . . lackey) will bring the weight of its "social position" (the 
weight of its moneybags) to this "non-class" party. Mr. Struve expresses the 
desire to show the youth the worthlessness "of the hackneyed radical opinion 
that the bourgeoisie has become frightened and has sold out the proletariat and 
the cause of liberty." (We welcome this desire with all our heart. Nothing will 
confirm the correctness of this Marxian "hackneyed" opinion better than a war 
waged against it by Mr. Struve. Please, Mr. Struve, don't pigeonhole this 
splendid plan of yours!) 
For the purposes of our subject it is important to note the practical slogans 
against which this politically sensitive representative of the Russian 
bourgeoisie, who is so responsive to the slightest change in the weather, is 
fighting at the present time. First, he is fighting against the slogan of 
republicanism. Mr. Struve is firmly convinced that this slogan is 
"incomprehensible and foreign to the masses of the people" (he forgets to add: 
comprehensible, but not of advantage to the bourgeoisie!). We should like to see 
what reply Mr. Struve would get from the workers in our study circles and at our 
mass meetings! Or are the workers not the people? And the peasants? They are 
given to what Mr. Struve calls "nave republicanism" ("to kick out the 
tsar")-but the liberal bourgeoisie believes that nave republicanism will be 
replaced not by enlightened republicanism but by enlightened monarchism! a 
dpend, Mr. Struve; it will depend on circumstances. Neither tsarism nor the 
bourgeoisie can help opposing a radical improvement in the condition of the 
peasantry at the expense of the landed estates, whereas the working class cannot 
help assisting the peasantry in this respect. 
Secondly, Mr. Struve assures us that "in a civil war the attacking party always 
proves to be in the wrong." This idea verges closely on the above-mentioned 
trends of the new Iskra ideas. We will not say, of course, that in civil war it 
is always advantageous to attack; no, sometimes defensive tactics are obligatory 
for a time. But to apply a proposition like the one Mr. Struve has made to 
Russia in 1905 means precisely displaying a little of the "hackneyed radical 
opinion" ("the bourgeoisie takes fright and betrays the cause of liberty"). 
Whoever now refuses to attack the autocracy and reaction, whoever is not making 
preparations for such an attack, whoever is not advocating it, takes the name of 
adherent of the revolution in vain. 
Mr. Struve condemns the slogans: "secrecy" and "rioting" (a riot being "an 
insurrection in miniature"). Mr. Struve spurns both the one and the other-and he 
does so from the standpoint of "approaching the masses." We should like to ask 
Mr. Struve whether he can point to any passage in, for instance, What Is To Be 
Done?-the work of an extreme revolutionary from his standpoint-which advocates 
rioting. As regards "secrecy" is there really much difference between, for 
example, us and Mr. Struve? Are we not both working on "illegal" newspapers 
which are being smuggled into Russia "secretly" and which serve the "secret" 
groups of either the Osvobozhdeniye League or the R.S.D.L.P.? Our workers' mass 
meetings are often held "secretly" -that sin does exist. But what about the 
meetings of the gentlemen of the Osvobozhdeniye League? Is there any reason why 
you should brag, Mr. Struve, and look down upon the despised partisans of 
despised secrecy? 
True, the supplying of arms to the workers demands strict secrecy. On this point 
Mr. Struve is rather more outspoken. Just listen: "As regards armed 
insurrection, or a revolution in the technical sense, only mass propaganda in 
favour of a democratic program can create the social-psychological conditions 
for a general armed insurrection. Thus, even from the point of view that an 
armed insurrection is the inevitable consummation of the present struggle for 
emancipation-a view I do not share-the permeation of the masses with ideas of 
democratic reform is a most fundamental and most necessary task." 
Mr. Struve tries to evade the issue. He speaks of the inevitability of an 
insurrection instead of speaking about its necessity for the victory of the 
revolution. The insurrection-unprepared, spontaneous, sporadic-has already 
begun. No one can positively vouch that it will develop into an entire and 
integral popular armed insurrection, for that depends on the state of the 
revolutionary forces (which can be fully gauged only in the course of the 
struggle itself), on the behaviour of the government and the bourgeoisie, and on 
a number of other circumstances which it is impossible to estimate exactly. 
There is no point in speaking about inevitability, in the sense of absolute 
certainty with regard to some definite event, as Mr. Struve does. What you must 
discuss, if you want to be a partisan of the revolution is whether insurrection 
is necessary for the victory of the revolution, whether it is necessary to 
proclaim it vigorously, to advocate and make immediate and energetic 
preparations for it. Mr. Struve cannot fail to understand this difference: he 
does not, for instance, obscure the question of the necessity of universal 
suffrage-which is indisputable for a democrat-by raising the question of whether 
its attainment is inevitable in the course of the present revolution-which is 
debatable and of no urgency for people engaged in political activity. By evading 
the issue of the necessity of an insurrection, Mr. Struve expresses the inner 
most essence of the political position of the liberal bourgeoisie. In the first 
place, the bourgeoisie would prefer to come to terms with the autocracy rather 
than crush it; secondly, the bourgeoisie in any case thrusts the armed struggle 
upon the shoulders of the workers. This is the real meaning of Mr. Struve's 
evasiveness. That is why he backs out of the question of the necessity of an 
insurrection towards the question of the "social-psychological conditions" for 
it, of preliminary "propaganda." Just as the bourgeois windbags in the Frankfurt 
Parliament of 1848 engaged in drawing up resolutions, declarations and 
decisions, in "mass propaganda" and in preparing the "social-psychological 
conditions" at a time when it was a matter of repelling the armed force of the 
government, when the movement "led to the necessity" for an armed struggle, when 
verbal persuasion alone (which is a hundredfold necessary during the preparatory 
period) became banal, bourgeois inactivity and cowardice-so also Mr. Struve 
evades the question of insurrection, screening himself behind phrases. Mr. 
Struve vividly shows us what many Social-Democrats stubbornly fail to see, 
namely, that a revolutionary period differs from ordinary, everyday preparatory 
periods in history in that the temper, excitement and convictions of the masses 
must and do reveal themselves in action. 
Vulgar revolutionism fails to see that the word is also a deed; this proposition 
is indisputable when applied to history generally, or to those periods of 
history when no open political mass actions take place, and when they can not be 
replaced or artificially evoked by putsches of any sort. Khvostist 
revolutionaries fail to understand that-when a revolutionary period has started, 
when the old "superstructure" has cracked from top to bottom, when open 
political action on the part of the classes and masses who are creating a new 
superstructure for themselves has become a fact, when civil war has begun-then, 
to confine oneself to "words" as of old, and fail to advance the direct slogan 
to pass to "deeds," still to try avoid deeds by pleading the need for 
"psychological conditions" and "propaganda" in general, is apathy, lifelessness, 
pedantry, or else betrayal of the revolution and treachery to it. The Frankfurt 
windbags of the democratic bourgeoisie are a memorable historical example of 
just such treachery, or of just such pedantic stupidity. 
Would you like an explanation of this difference between vulgar revolutionism 
and the khvostism of revolutionaries by an example taken from the history of the 
Social Democratic movement in Russia? We shall give you such an explanation. 
Call to mind the years 1901 and 1902, which are so recent but which already seem 
ancient history to us today. Demonstrations had begun. The protagonists of 
vulgar revolutionism raised a cry about "storming" (Rabocheye Dyelo) 
"bloodthirsty leaflets" were issued (of Berlin origin, if my memory does not 
fail me), attacks were made on the "literature writing" and armchair nature of 
the idea of conducting agitation on a national scale through a newspaper 
(Nadezhdin).[B] On the other hand, the khvostism of revolutionaries was revealed 
in preaching that "the economic struggle is the best means of political 
agitation." What was the attitude of the revolutionary Social-Democrats? They 
attacked both these trends. They condemned flash in-the-pan methods and the 
cries about storming, for it was or should have been obvious to all that open 
mass action was a matter of the days to come. They condemned khvostism and 
bluntly issued the slogan even of a popular armed insurrection, not in the sense 
of a direct appeal (Mr. Struve would not discover any appeals to "riots" in our 
utterances of that period), but in the sense of a necessary deduction, in the 
sense of "propaganda" (about which Mr. Struve has bethought himself only now-our 
honourable Mr. Struve is always several years behind the times), in the sense of 
preparing those very "social-psychological conditions" about which the 
representatives of the bewildered, huckstering bourgeoisie are now holding forth 
"sadly and inappropriately." At that time propaganda and agitation, agitation 
and propaganda, were really pushed to the fore by the objective state of 
affairs. At that time the work of publishing an all-Russian political newspaper, 
the weekly issuance of which was regarded as an ideal, could be proposed (and 
was proposed in What Is To Be Done?) as the touchstone of the work of preparing 
for an insurrection. At that time the slogans advocating mass agitation instead 
of direct armed action, preparation of the social-psychological conditions for 
insurrection instead of flash-in-the-pan methods, were the only correct slogans 
for the revolutionary Social-Democratic movement. At the present time the 
slogans have been superseded by events, the movement has left them behind, they 
have become tatters, rags fit only to cloth the hypocrisy of the Osvobozhdeniye 
and of the new Iskra tailism! 
Or perhaps I am mistaken? Perhaps the revolution has not yet begun? Perhaps the 
time for open political action of classes has not yet arrived? Perhaps there is 
still no civil war, and the criticism of weapons should not as yet be the 
necessary and obligatory successor, heir, trustee and wielder of the weapon of 
criticism? 
Look around, poke your head out of your study and look into the street for an 
answer. Has not the government itself started civil war by shooting down hosts 
of peaceful and unarmed citizens everywhere? Are not the armed Black Hundreds 
acting as "arguments" of the autocracy? Has not the bourgeoisie-even the 
bourgeoisie-recognised the need for a citizens' militia? Does not Mr. Struve 
himself, the ideally moderate and punctilious Mr. Struve, say (alas, he says so 
only to evade the issue!) that "the open nature of revolutionary action" (that's 
the sort of fellows we are today!) "is now one of the most important conditions 
for exerting an educational influence upon the masses of the people"? 
Those who have eyes to see can have no doubt as to how the question of armed 
insurrection must be presented by the partisans of revolution at the present 
time. Just take a look at the three ways in which this question has been 
presented in the organs of the free press which are at all capable of 
influencing the masses. 
Presentation one. The resolution of the Third Congress of the Russian 
Social-Democratic Labour Party.3) It is publicly acknowledged and declared that 
the general democratic revolutionary movement has already brought about the 
necessity of an armed insurrection. The organisation of the proletariat for an 
insurrection has been placed on the order of the day as one of the essential, 
principal and indispensable tasks of the Party. Instructions are issued to adopt 
the most energetic measures to arm the proletariat and to ensure the possibility 
of directly leading the insurrection. 
The second presentation. An article in the Osvobozhdeniye, containing a 
statement of principles, by the "leader of the Russian constitutionalists" (as 
Mr. Struve was recently described by such an influential organ of the European 
bourgeoisie as the Frankfurter Zeitung), or the leader of the Russian 
progressive bourgeoisie. He does not share the opinion that an insurrection is 
inevitable. Secret activity and riots are the specific methods of irrational 
revolutionism. Republicanism is a method of stunning. The question of armed 
insurrection is really a mere technical question, whereas "the fundamental and 
most necessary task" is to carry on mass propaganda and to prepare the 
social-psychological conditions. 
The third presentation. The resolution of the new Iskra-ist Conference. Our task 
is to prepare an insurrection. A planned insurrection is out of the question. 
Favourable conditions for an insurrection are created by the disorganisation of 
the government, by our agitation, and by our organisation. Only then "can 
technical military preparations acquire more or less serious significance." 
And is that all? Yes, that is all. The new Iskra-ist leaders of the proletariat 
still do not know whether insurrection has become a necessity. It is still not 
clear to them whether the task of organising the proletariat for direct battle 
has become an urgent one. It is not necessary to urge the adoption of the most 
energetic measures; it is far more important (in 1905, and not in 1902) to 
explain in general outlines under what conditions these measures "may" acquire 
"more or less serious" significance. . . . 
Do you see now, comrades of the new Iskra, where your turn to Martynovism has 
led you? Do you realise that your political philosophy has proved to be a rehash 
of the Osvobozhdeniye philosophy?-that (against your will and with out your 
being aware of it) you are following at the tail of the monarchist bourgeoisie? 
Is it clear to you now that, while repeating what you have learned by rote and 
attaining perfection in sophistry, you have lost sight of the fact that-in the 
memorable words of Peter Struve's memorable article-"the open nature of 
revolutionary action is now one of the most important conditions for exerting an 
educational influence upon the masses of the people"? 
 
Next: What is Meant by Being a Party of Extreme Opposition in Time of 
Revolution? 
 



Footnotes 
1) 
"In comparison with the revolutionism of Messrs. Lenin and associates, the 
revolutionism of the West-European Social-Democracy of Bebel, and even of 
Kautsky, is opportunism; but the foundations of even this already toned down 
revolutionism have been undermined and washed away by history." 
A most irate thrust. Only Mr. Struve is mistaken in thinking that it is possible 
to pile everything on to me, as if I were dead. It is sufficient for me to issue 
a challenge to Mr. Struve, which he will never be able to accept. When and where 
did I call the "revolutionism of Bebel and Kautsky" opportunism? When and where 
did I ever claim to have created any sort of special trend in International 
Social-Democracy not identical with the trend of Bebel and Kautsky? When and 
where have there been brought to light differences between me, on the one hand, 
and Bebel and Kautsky, on the other-differences even slightly approximating in 
seriousness the differences between Bebel and Kautsky, for instance, on the 
agrarian question in Breslau?[A] Let Mr Struve try to answer these three 
questions. 
To our readers we say: The liberal bourgeoisie everyrwhere and always has 
recourse to the method of assuring its adherents in a given country that the 
Social-Demrcrats of that country are the most unreasonable, whereas their 
comrades in a neighbouring country are "good boys." The German bourgeoisie has 
held up those "good boys" of French Socialists as models for the Bebels and the 
Kautskys hundreds of times. The French bourgeoisie quite recently pointed to the 
"good boy" Bebel as a model for the French Socialists. It is an old trick Mr. 
Struve! You will find only children and ignoramuses swallowing that bait. The 
complete unanimity of international revolutionary Social-Democracy on all major 
questions of program and tactics is a most incontrovertible fact. 
2) Let us remind the reader that the article "What Should Not Be Done?" (Iskra, 
No. 52) was hailed with noise and clamour by the Osvobozhdeniye as a "noteworthy 
turn" towards concessions to the opportunists. The trends of the principles 
behind the new Iskra ideas were especially lauded by the Osvobozbdeniye in an 
item on the split among the Russian Social-Democrats. Commenting on Trotsky's 
pamphlet, "Our Political Tasks," the Osvobozhdeniye printed out the similarity 
between the ideas of this author and what was once written and said by the 
Rabocheye Dyelo-ists Krichevsky, Martynov, Akimov (see the leaflet entitled "An 
Obliging Liberal" published by the Vperyod). The Osvobozhdeniye welcomed 
Martynov's pamphlet on the two dictatorships (see the item in the Vperyod, No. 
9). Finally Starover's belated complaints about the old slogan of the old Iskra, 
"first draw a line of demarcation and then unite," met with special sympathy on 
the part of the Osvobozbdeniye. 
3) The following is the text in full: 
"Whereas 
"1. the proletariat, being, by virtue of its very position, the most advanced 
and the only consistently revolutionary class, is for that very reason called 
upon to play the leading part in the general democratic revolutionary movement 
in Russia; 
"2. this movement has already brought about the necessity of an armed 
insurrection; 
"3. the proletariat will inevitably take a most energetic part in this 
insurrection, this participation determining the fate of the revolution in 
Russia; 
"4. the proletariat can play the leading part in this revolution only if it is 
welded into a united and independent political force under the banner of the 
Social-Democratic Labour Party, which is to guide its struggle not only 
ideologically but practically as well; 
"5. it is only by fulfilling this part that the proletariat can be assured of 
the most favourable conditions for the struggle for Socialism against the 
propertied classes of a bourgeois-democratic Russia; 
"Therefore the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. recognises that the task of 
organising the proletariat for direct struggle against the autocracy through 
armed insurrection is one of the most important and pressing tasks of the Party 
in the present revolutionary period. 
"The Congress therefore resolves to instruct all the Party organisations: 
"a) to explain to the proletariat by means of propaganda and agitation not only 
the political importance, but also the practical organisational aspect of the 
impending armed insurrection; 
"b) in this propaganda and agitation to explain the part played by mass 
political strikes, which may be of great importance at the beginning and in the 
very process of the insurrection; 
"c) to adopt the most energetic measures to arm the proletariat and also to draw 
up a plan for the armed insurrection and for direct leadership of the latter, 
establishing for this purpose, to the extent that it is necessary, special 
groups of Party functionaries."
[Author's note to the 1907 edition.] 



 
[A] Differences of opinion were revealed during the discussion of the draft 
agrarian programme at the Breslau Congress of the German Social-Democratic 
Party, 1895. 
[B] The reference is to Nadezhdin's press attack on the plan of the Leninist 
Iskra (Nadezhdin was the pseudonym of Y. 0. Zelensky). Lenin criticised this 
attack as far back as 1902, in his What Is To Be Done?. 








What Does Being A Party of Extreme Opposition In Time of Revolution Mean ? 



 
Let us return to the resolution on a provisional government. We have shown that 
the tactics of the new-Iskraists do not push the revolution forward-which they 
may have wanted to make possible by their resolution-but back. We have shown 
that it is precisely these tactics that tie the hands of Social-Democracy in the 
struggle against the inconsistent bourgeoisie and do not safeguard it against 
being dissolved in bourgeois democracy. Naturally, the false premises of the 
resolution lead to the false conclusion that:
"Therefore, Social-Democracy must not set itself the aim of seizing or sharing 
power in the provisional government, but must remain the party of extreme 
revolutionary opposition."
Consider the first half of this conclusion, which is part of a statement of 
aims. Do the new-Iskraists declare the aim of Social-Democratic activity to be a 
decisive victory of the revolution over tsarism? They do. They are unable 
correctly to formulate the requisites for a decisive victory and stray into the 
Osvobozhdeniye formulation, but they do set themselves the aforementioned aim. 
Further: do they connect a provisional government with insurrection? Yes, they 
do so plainly, by stating that a provisional government "will emerge from a 
victorious popular insurrection." Finally, do they set themselves the aim of 
leading the insurrection? Yes, they do. Like Mr. Struve, they do not admit that 
an insurrection is an urgent necessity, but at the same time, unlike Mr. Struve, 
they say that "Social-Democracy strives to subject it" (the insurrection) "to 
its influence and leadership and to use it in the interests of the working 
class." 
How nicely this hangs together, does it not? We set ourselves the aim of 
subjecting the insurrection of both the proletarian and non-proletarian masses 
to our influence and our leadership, and of using it in our interests. Hence, we 
set ourselves the aim of leading, in the insurrection, both the proletariat and 
the revolutionary bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie ("the non-proletarian 
groups"), i.e., of "sharing" the leadership of the insurrection between the 
Social-Democracy and the revolutionary bourgeoisie. We set ourselves the aim of 
securing victory for the insurrection, which is to lead to the establishment of 
a provisional government ("which will emerge from a victorious popular 
insurrection"). Therefore. . . therefore we must not set ourselves the aim of 
seizing power or of sharing it in a provisional revolutionary government!! 
Our friends cannot dovetail their arguments. They vacillate between the 
standpoint of Mr. Struve, who is evading the issue of an insurrection, and the 
standpoint of revolutionary Social-Democracy, which calls upon us to undertake 
this urgent task. They vacillate between anarchism, which on principle condemns 
all participation in a provisional revolutionary government as treachery to the 
proletariat, and Marxism, which demands such participation on condition that the 
Social-Democratic Party exercises the leading influence in the insurrection. 1) 
They have no independent position whatever: neither that of Mr. Struve, who 
wants to come to terms with tsarism and is therefore compelled to resort to 
evasions and subterfuges on the question of insurrection, nor that of the 
anarchists, who condemn all action "from above" and all participation in a 
bourgeois revolution. The new-Iskraists confuse a deal with tsarism with a 
victory over tsarism. They want to take part in a bourgeois revolution. They 
have gone somewhat beyond Martynov's Two Dictatorships. They even consent to 
lead the insurrection of the people-in order to renounce that leadership 
immediately after victory is won (or, perhaps, immediately before the victory?), 
i.e., in order not to avail themselves of the fruits of victory but to turn all 
these fruits over entirely to the bourgeoisie. This is what they call "using the 
insurrection in the interests of the working class. . . ." 
There is no need to dwell on this muddle any longer. It will be more useful to 
examine how this muddle originated in the formulation which reads: "to remain 
the party of extreme revolutionary opposition." 
This is one of the familiar propositions of international revolutionary 
Social-Democracy. It is a perfectly correct proposition. It has become a 
commonplace for all opponents of revisionism or opportunism in parliamentary 
countries. It has become generally accepted as the legitimate and necessary 
rebuff to "parliamentary cretinism," Millerandism, Bernsteinism and the Italian 
reformism of the Turati brand. Our good new-Iskraists have learned this 
excellent proposition by heart and are zealously applying it . . . quite 
inappropriately. Categories of the parliamentary struggle are introduced into 
resolutions written for conditions in which no parliament exists. The concept 
"opposition," which has become the reflection and the expression of a political 
situation in which no one seriously speaks of an insurrection, is senselessly 
applied to a situation in which insurrection has begun and in which all the 
supporters of the revolution are thinking and talking about leadership in it. 
The desire to "stick to" old methods, i.e., action only "from below," is 
expressed with pomp and clamour precisely at a time when the revolution has 
confronted us with the necessity, in the event of the insurrection being 
victorious, of acting from above. 
No, our new-Iskraists are decidedly out of luck! Even when they formulate a 
correct Social-Democratic proposition they don't know how to apply it correctly. 
They failed to take into consideration that in a period in which a revolution 
has begun, when there is no parliament, when there is civil war, when 
insurrectionary outbreaks occur, the concepts and terms of parliamentary 
struggle are changed and transformed into their opposites. They failed to take 
into consideration the fact that, under the circumstances referred to amendments 
are moved by means of street demonstrations, interpolations are introduced by 
means of offensive action by armed citizens, opposition to the government is 
effected by forcibly overthrowing the government. 
Like the well-known hero of our folklore, who repeated good advice just when it 
was inappropriate, our admirers of Martynov repeat the lessons of peaceful 
parliamentarism just at a time when, as they themselves state, actual 
hostilities have commenced. There is nothing more ridiculous than this pompous 
emphasis of the slogan "extreme opposition" in a resolution which begins by 
referring to a "decisive victory of the revolution" and to a "popular 
insurrection"! Try to visualise, gentlemen, what it means to be the "extreme 
opposition" in a period of insurrection. Does it mean exposing the government or 
deposing it? Does it mean voting against the government or defeating its armed 
forces in open battle? Does it mean refusing the government replenishments for 
its exchequer or the revolutionary seizure of this exchequer in order to use it 
for the requirements of the uprising, to arm the workers and peasants and to 
convoke a constituent assembly? Are you not beginning to understand, gentlemen, 
that the term "extreme opposition" expresses only negative actions-to expose, to 
vote against, to refuse? Why is this so? Because this term applies only to the 
parliamentary struggle and, moreover, to a period when no one makes "decisive 
victory" the immediate object of the struggle. Are you not beginning to 
understand that things undergo a cardinal change in this respect from the moment 
the politically oppressed people launch a determined attack along the whole 
front in desperate struggle for victory? 
The workers ask us: Is it necessary energetically to take up the urgent business 
of insurrection? What is to be done to make the incipient insurrection 
victorious? What use should be made of the victory? What program can and should 
then be applied? The new Iskra-ists, who are making Marxism more profound, 
answer: We must remain the party of extreme revolutionary opposition. . . . 
Well, were we not right in calling these knights past masters in philistinism? 
 
Next: "Revolutionary Communes" and the Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of 
the Proletariat and the Peasantry 
 



Footnotes 
1) See Proletary, No. 3, "On the Provisional Revolutionary Government," article 
two. 







"Revolutionary Communes" and the
Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry 



 
The Conference of the new-Iskraists did not keep to the anarchist position into 
which the new Iskra had talked itself (only "from below," not "from below and 
from above"). The absurdity of admitting the possibility of an insurrection and 
not admitting the possibility of victory and participation in a provisional 
revolutionary government was too glaring. The resolution therefore introduced 
certain reservations and restrictions into the solution of the question proposed 
by Martynov and Martov. Let us consider these reservations as stated in the 
following section of the resolution: 
"These tactics" ("to remain the party of extreme revolutionary opposition") "do 
not, of course, in any way exclude the expediency of a partial and episodic 
seizure of power and the establishment of revolutionary communes in one or 
another city, in one or another district, exclusively for the purpose of helping 
to spread the insurrection and of disrupting the government." 
That being the case, it means that in principle they admit the possibility of 
action not only from below, but also from above. It means that the proposition 
laid down in L. Martov's well-known article in the Iskra (No. 93) is discarded 
and that the tactics of Vperyod, i.e., not only "from below,' but also "from 
above," are acknowledged as correct. 
Further, the seizure of power (even if partial, episodic, etc.) obviously 
presupposes the participation not only of Social-Democrats and not only of the 
proletariat. This follows from the fact that it is not only the proletariat that 
is interested and takes an active part in a democratic revolution. This follows 
from the fact that the insurrection is a "popular" one, as is stated in the 
beginning of the resolution we are discussing, that "non-proletarian groups" 
(the words used in the Conference resolution on the uprising), i.e., the 
bourgeoisie, also take part in it. Hence, the principle that any participation 
of Socialists in a provisional revolutionary government jointly with the petty 
bourgeoisie is treachery to the working class was thrown overboard by the 
Conference, which is what the Vperyod [Lenin's articles "Social-Democracy and 
the Provisional Revolutionary Government", and "The Revolutionary-Democratic 
Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry" ] sought to achieve. 
"Treachery" does not cease to be treachery because the action which constitutes 
it is partial, episodic, local, etc. Hence, the parallel drawn between the 
participation in a provisional revolutionary government and vulgar Jaursism was 
thrown overboard by the Conference, which is what the Vperyod sought to achieve. 
A government does not cease to be a government because its power does not extend 
to many cities but is confined to a single city, does not extend to many 
districts but is confined to a single district; nor because of the name that is 
given to it. Thus, the formulation of the principles of this question which the 
new Iskra tried to give was discarded by the Conference. 
Let us see whether the restrictions imposed by the Conference on the formation 
of revolutionary governments and participation in them, which is now admitted in 
principle, are reasonable. What difference there is between the concept 
"episodic" and the concept "provisional" [A] we do not know. We are afraid that 
this "new" and foreign word is merely a screen for lack of clear thinking. It 
seems "more profound," but actually it is only more obscure and confused. What 
is the difference between the "expediency" of a partial "seizure of power" in a 
city or district, and participation in a provisional revolutionary government of 
the entire state? Do not "cities" include a city like St. Petersburg, where the 
events of January 9 took place? Do not districts include the Caucasus, which is 
bigger than many a state? Will not the problems (which at one time vexed the new 
Iskra) of what to do with the prisons, the police, public funds, etc., confront 
us the moment we "seize power" in a single city, let alone in a district? No one 
will deny, of course, that if we lack sufficient forces, if the insurrection is 
not wholly successful, or if the victory is indecisive, it is possible that 
provisional revolutionary governments will be set up in separate localities, in 
individual cities and the like. But what is the point of such an assumption, 
gentlemen? Do not you yourselves speak in the beginning of the resolution about 
a "decisive victory of the revolution," about a "victorious popular 
insurrection"?? Since when have the Social-Democrats taken over the job of the 
anarchists: to divide the attention and the aims of the proletariat, to direct 
its attention to the "partial" instead of the general, the single, the integral 
and complete? While presupposing the "seizure of power" in a city, you 
yourselves speak of "spreading the insurrection"-to another city, may we venture 
to think? to all cities, may we dare to hope? Your conclusions, gentlemen, are 
as unsound and haphazard, as contradictory and confused as your premises. The 
Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. gave an exhaustive and clear answer to the 
question of a provisional revolutionary government in general. And this answer 
covers all cases of local provisional governments as well. The answer given by 
the Conference however, by artificially and arbitrarily singling out a part of 
the question, merely evades (but unsuccessfully) the issue as a whole, and 
creates confusion. 
What does the term "revolutionary communes" mean? Does it differ from the term 
"provisional revolutionary government," and, if so, in what respect? The 
Conference gentlemen themselves do not know. Confusion of revolutionary thought 
leads them, as very often happens, to revolutionary phrase-mongering. Yes, the 
use of the words "revolutionary commune" in a resolution passed by 
representatives of Social-Democracy is revolutionary phrase-mongering and 
nothing else. Marx more than once condemned such phrase-mongering, when 
"fascinating" terms of the bygone past were used to hide the tasks of the 
future. In such cases a fascinating term that has played its part in history 
becomes futile and pernicious trumpery, a child's rattle. We must give the 
workers and the whole people a clear and unambiguous explanation as to why we 
want a provisional revolutionary government to be set up, and exactly what 
changes we shall accomplish, if we exercise decisive influence on the 
government, on the very morrow of the victory of the popular insurrection which 
has already commenced. These are the questions that confront political leaders. 
The Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. gave perfectly clear answers to these 
questions and drew up a complete program of these changes-the minimum program of 
our Party. The word "commune," however, is not an answer at all; it only serves 
to confuse people by the distant echo of a sonorous phrase, or empty rhetoric. 
The more we cherish the memory of the Paris Commune of 1871, for instance, the 
less permissible is it to refer to it offhand, without analysing its mistakes 
and the special conditions attending it. To do so would be to follow the absurd 
example of the Blanquists-whom Engels ridiculed-who (in 1874, in their 
"Manifesto") paid homage to every act of the Commune.[B] What reply will a 
"Conference" give to a worker who asks him about this "revolutionary commune" 
that is mentioned in the resolution? He will only be able to tell him that this 
is the name, known in history, of a workers' government that was unable to, and 
could not at that time, distinguish between the elements of a democratic 
revolution and those of a socialist revolution, that confused the tasks of 
fighting for a republic with the tasks of fighting for Socialism, that was 
unable to carry out the task of launching an energetic military offensive 
against Versailles, that made a mistake in not seizing the Bank of France, etc. 
In short, whether in your answer you refer to the Paris Commune or to some other 
commune, your answer will be: it was a government such as ours should not be. A 
fine answer, indeed! Does it not testify to pedantic moralising and impotence on 
the part of a revolutionary who says nothing about the practical program of the 
Party and in appropriately begins to give lessons in history in a resolution? 
Does this not reveal the very mistake which they unsuccessfully accuse us of 
having committed, i.e., of confusing a democratic revolution with a socialist 
revolution, between which none of the "communes" was able to distinguish? 
Extending the insurrection and the disorganising the government are presented as 
the "exclusive" aim of the provisional government. (so in appropriately termed a 
"commune"). Taken in its literal sense, the word "exclusively" eliminates all 
other aims; it is an echo of the absurd theory of "only from below." Such 
elimination of other aims is another instance of short-sightedness and lack of 
reflection. A "revolutionary commune," i.e., a revolutionary government, even if 
only in a single city, will inevitably have to administer (even if 
provisionally, "partly, episodically") all the affairs of state, and it is the 
height of folly to hide one's head under one's wing and refuse to see this. This 
government will have to enact an eight-hour working day, establish workers' 
inspection of factories, institute free universal education, introduce the 
election of judges, set up peasant committees, etc.; in a word, it will 
certainly have to carry out a number of reforms. To designate these reforms as 
"helping to spread the insurrection" would be playing with words and 
deliberately causing greater confusion in a matter which requires absolute 
clarity. 



The concluding part of the new Iskra-ists' resolution does not provide any new 
material for a criticism of the trends of principles of "Economism" which has 
revived in our Party, but it illustrates from a somewhat different angle, what 
has been said above. 
Here is that part: 
"Only in one event should Social-Democracy, on its own initiative, direct its 
efforts towards seizing power and holding it as long as possible-namely, in the 
event of the revolution spreading to the advanced countries of Western Europe, 
where conditions for the achievement of Socialism have already reached a 
certain"(?) "degree of maturity. In that event the limited historical scope of 
the Russian revolution can be considerably widened and the possibility of 
entering the path of socialist reforms will arise. 
"By framing its tactics in accordance with the view that, during the whole 
period of the revolution, the Social-Democratic Party will retain the position 
of extreme revolutionary opposition to all the governments that may succeed one 
another in the course of the revolution, Social-Democracy will best be able to 
prepare itself to utilise governmental power if it falls" (??) "into its hands." 

The basic idea here is the one that the Vperyod has repeatedly formulated, 
stating that we must not be afraid (as is Martynov) of a complete victory for 
Social-Democracy in a democratic revolution, i.e., of a revolutionary-democratic 
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, for such a victory will 
enable us to rouse Europe, and the socialist proletariat of Europe, after 
throwing off the yoke of the bourgeoisie, will in its turn help us to accomplish 
the socialist revolution. But see how this idea is worsened in the new 
Iskra-ists' rendering of it. We shall not dwell on details-on the absurd 
assumption that power could "fall" into the hands of a class-conscious party 
which considers seizure of power harmful tactics; on the fact that in Europe the 
conditions for Socialism have reached not a certain degree of maturity, but are 
already mature; on the fact that our Party program does not speak of socialist 
changes at all, but only of a socialist revolution. Let us take the principal 
and basic difference between the idea presented by the Vperyod and that 
presented in the resolution. The Vperyod set the revolutionary proletariat of 
Russia an active aim: to win the battle for democracy and to use this victory 
for carrying the revolution into Europe. The resolution fails to grasp this 
connection between our "decisive victory" (not in the new Iskra sense) and the 
revolution in Europe, and therefore it speaks not about the tasks of the 
proletariat, not about the prospects of its victory, but about one of the 
possibilities in general: "in the event of the revolution spreading. . . ." The 
Vperyod pointedly and definitely indicated-and this was incorporated in the 
resolution of the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour 
Party-how "governmental power" can and must "be utilised" in the interests of 
the proletariat, bearing in mind what can be achieved immediately, at the given 
stage of social development, and what must first be achieved as a democratic 
prerequisite of the struggle for Socialism. Here, also, the resolution 
hopelessly drags at the tail when it states: "will be able to prepare itself to 
utilise," but fails to say how it will be able, how it will prepare itself, and 
to utilise for what? We have no doubt, for instance, that the new-Iskraists may 
be "able to prepare themselves to utilise" the leading position in the Party; 
but the point is that the way they have utilised, their preparation up till now, 
do not hold out much hope of possibility being transformed into reality. . . . 
The Vperyod quite definitely stated wherein lies the real "possibility of 
holding power"-namely, in the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the 
proletariat and the peasantry, in their joint mass strength, which is capable of 
outweighing all the forces of counterrevolution, in the inevitable concurrence 
of their interests in democratic changes. Here, too, the resolution of the 
Conference gives us nothing positive, it merely evades the question. Surely, the 
possibility of holding power in Russia must be determined by the composition of 
the social forces in Russia itself, by the circumstances of the democratic 
revolution which is now taking place in our country. A victory of the 
proletariat in Europe (it is still somewhat of a far cry between carrying the 
revolution into Europe and the victory of the proletariat) will give rise to a 
desperate counterrevolutionary struggle on the part of the Russian 
bourgeoisie-yet the resolution of the new-Iskraists does not say a word about 
this counterrevolutionary force, the importance of which has been appraised in 
the resolution of the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. If in our fight for a 
republic and democracy we could not rely upon the peasantry as well as on the 
proletariat, the prospect of our "holding power" would be hopeless. But if it is 
not hopeless, if a "decisive victory of the revolution over tsarism" opens up 
such a possibility, then we must point to it, we must actively call for its 
transformation into reality and issue practical slogans not only for the 
contingency of the revolution being carried into Europe, but also for the 
purpose of carrying it there. The reference made by the khvostist 
Social-Democrats to the "limited historical scope of the Russian revolution" 
merely serves to cover up their limited understanding of the aims of this 
democratic revolution and of the leading role of the proletariat in this 
revolution! 
One of the objections raised to the slogan of "the revolutionary-democratic 
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" is that dictatorship 
presupposes a "single will" (Iskra, No. 95), and that there can be no single 
will of the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie. This objection is unsound, 
for it is based on an abstract, "metaphysical" interpretation of the term 
"single will." There can be a single will in one respect and not a single will 
in another. The absence of unity on questions of Socialism and in the struggle 
for Socialism does not preclude singleness of will on questions of democracy and 
in the struggle for a republic. To forget this would be tantamount to forgetting 
the logical and historical difference between a democratic and a socialist 
revolution. To forget this would be tantamount to forgetting the character of 
the democratic revolution as a revolution of the whole people: if it is "of the 
whole people" it means that there is "singleness of will" precisely in so far as 
this revolution satisfies the common needs and requirements of the whole people. 
Beyond the bounds of democracy there can be no question of the proletariat and 
the peasant bourgeoisie having a single will. Class struggle between them is 
inevitable; but it is in a democratic republic that this struggle will be the 
most thoroughgoing and widespread struggle of the people for Socialism. Like 
everything else in the world, the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the 
proletariat and the peasantry has a past and a future. Its past is autocracy, 
serfdom, monarchy and privilege. In the struggle against this past, in the 
struggle against counterrevolution, a "single will" of the proletariat and the 
peasantry is possible, for here there is unity of interests. 
Its future is the struggle against private property the struggle of the wage 
worker against the employer the struggle for Socialism. Here singleness of will 
is impossible. 1) Here our path lies not from autocracy to a republic but from a 
petty-bourgeois democratic republic to Socialism. 
Of course, in actual historical circumstances, the elements of the past become 
interwoven with those of the future, the two paths cross. Wage labour, with its 
struggle against private property, exists under the autocracy as well; it is 
generated even under serfdom. But this does not in the least prevent us from 
drawing a logical and historical dividing line between the major stages of 
development. We all draw a distinction between bourgeois revolution and 
socialist revolution, we all absolutely insist on the necessity of drawing a 
most strict line between them; but can it be denied that individual, particular 
elements of the two revolutions become interwoven in history? Have there not 
been a number of socialist movements and attempts at establishing Socialism in 
the period of democratic revolutions in Europe? And will not the future 
socialist revolution in Europe still have to do a very great deal that has been 
left undone in the field of democracy? 
A Social-Democrat must never for a moment forget that the proletariat will 
inevitably have to wage the class struggle for Socialism even against the most 
democratic and republican bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. This is beyond 
doubt. Hence the absolute necessity of a separate, independent, strictly class 
party of Social-Democracy. Hence the temporary nature of our tactics of 
"striking jointly" with the bourgeoisie and the duty of keeping a strict watch 
"over our ally, as over an enemy," etc. All this is also beyond the slightest 
doubt. But it would be ridiculous and reactionary to deduce from this that we 
must forget, ignore or neglect these tasks which, although transient and 
temporary, are vital at the present time. The fight against the autocracy is a 
temporary and transient task of the Socialists, but to ignore or neglect this 
task in any way would be tantamount to betraying Socialism and rendering a 
service to reaction. The revolutionary-Democratic dictatorship of the 
proletariat and the peasantry is unquestionably only a transient, temporary aim 
of the Socialists, but to ignore this aim in the period of a democratic 
revolution would be downright reactionary. 
Concrete political aims must be set in concrete circumstances. All things are 
relative, all things flow and all things change. The program of the German 
Social-Democratic Party does not contain the demand for a republic. The 
situation in Germany is such that this question can in practice hardly be 
separated from the question of Socialism (although even as regards Germany, 
Engels, in his comments on the draft of the Erfurt Program in 1891, warned 
against belittling the importance of a republic and of the struggle for a 
republic!). In the Russian Social-Democratic Party the question of eliminating 
the demand for a republic from its program and agitation has never even arisen, 
for in our country there can be no talk of an indissoluble connection between 
the question of a republic and the question of Socialism. It was quite natural 
for a German Social-Democrat of 1898 not to put the special question of a 
republic in the forefront, and this evokes neither surprise nor condemnation. 
But a German Social-Democrat who in 1848 would have left the question of a 
republic in the shade would have been a downright traitor to the revolution. 
There is no such thing as abstract truth. Truth is always concrete. 
The time will come when the struggle against the Russian autocracy will end and 
the period of democratic revolution will be over in Russia; then it will be 
ridiculous to talk about "singleness of will" of the proletariat and the 
peasantry, about a democratic dictatorship, etc. When that time comes we shall 
attend directly to the question of the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat 
and deal with it at greater length. But at present the party of the advanced 
class cannot but strive most energetically for a decisive victory of the 
democratic revolution over tsarism. And a decisive victory means nothing else 
than the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the 
peasantry. 
1) We would remind the reader that in the polemics between the Iskra and the 
Vperyod, the former referred among other things to Engels' letter to Turati, in 
which Engels warned the (future) leader of the Italian reformists not to confuse 
the democratic with the socialist revolution. The impending revolution in 
Italy-wrote Engels about the political situation in Italy in 1894-will be a 
petty-bourgeois, democratic and not a socialist revolution. The Iskra reproached 
the Vperyod with having departed from the principle laid down by Engels. This 
reproach was unjustified, because the Vperyod (No. 14)[in "Social-Democracy and 
the Provisional Revolutionary Government"] fully acknowledged, on the whole, the 
correctness of Marx's theory of the difference between the three main forces in 
the revolutions of the nineteenth century. According to this theory, the 
following forces take a stand against the old order, against the autocracy, 
feudalism, serfdom:
1) the liberal big bourgeoisie,
2) the radical petty bourgeoisie,
3) the proletariat.
The first fights for nothing more than a constitutional monarchy; the second, 
for a democratic republic; the third, for a socialist revolution. To confuse the 
petty-bourgeois struggle for a complete democratic revolution with the 
proletarian struggle for a socialist revolution spells political bankruptcy for 
a Socialist. Marx's warning to this effect is quite justified. But it is 
precisely for this very reason that the slogan "revolutionary communes" is 
erroneous, because the very mistake committed by the communes that have existed 
in history is that they confused the democratic revolution with the socialist 
revolution. On the other hand, our slogan-a revolutionary-democratic 
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry-fully safeguards us against 
this mistake. While recognising the uncontestably bourgeois nature of the 
revolution, which is incapable of directly overstepping the bounds a mere 
democratic revolution, our slogan pushes forward this particular revolution and 
strives to mould it into forms most advantageous to the proletariat; 
consequently, it strives to make the very most of the democratic revolution in 
order to attain the greatest success in the further struggle of the proletariat 
for Socialism. 
 
Next: A Cursory Comparison Between Several of the Resolutions... 
 



Footnotes 
1) The development of capitalism, more widespread and rapid in conditions of 
liberty, will inevitably soon put an end to singleness of will; the earlier 
counter-revolution and reaction are crushed. 
[A] The first word was in scholarly use at the term, while the second was, and 
still is, colloquial Russian.-Tr. 
[B] Lenin is refering to the programme published in 1874 by the London Blanquist 
group of former members of the Paris Commune (see F. Engels, 
'Flchtlingslitcratur. II. Programm der blanqui stischen Kommunefluichtlinge", 
Internationajes aus dem Voiksstaot, Berlin 1957, S. 47-56). 







A Cursory Comparison Between Several of the Resolutions of the Third Congress of 
the R.S.D.L.P. and Those of the "Conference" 



 
The question of the provisional revolutionary government is the pivot of the 
tactical questions of the Social-Democratic movement at the present time. It is 
neither possible nor necessary to dwell in as great detail on the other 
resolutions of the Conference. We shall confine ourselves merely to indicating 
briefly a few points which confirm the difference in principle, analysed above, 
between the tactical trends of the resolutions of the Third Congress of the 
R.S.D.L.P. and those of the Conference resolutions. 
Take the question of the attitude towards the tactics of the government on the 
eve of the revolution. Once again you will find a comprehensive answer to this 
question in one of the resolutions of the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. This 
resolution takes into consideration all the multifarious conditions and tasks of 
the particular moment: the exposure of the hypocrisy of the government's 
concessions, the utilisation of "travesties of popular representation," the 
achievement by revolutionary means of the urgent demands of the working class 
(the principal one being the eight-hour working day), and, finally, resistance 
to the Black Hundreds. In the Conference resolutions this question is scattered 
over several sections: "resistance to the dark forces of reaction" is mentioned 
only in the preamble of the resolution on the attitude to other parties. 
Participation in elections to representative bodies is considered separately 
from the question of "compromises" between tsarism and the bourgeoisie. Instead 
of calling for the achievement of an eight-hour working day by revolutionary 
means, a special resolution, with the high-sounding title "On the Economic 
Struggle," merely repeats (after high-flown and very stupid phrases about "the 
central place occupied by the labour question in the public life of Russia") the 
old slogan of agitation for "the legislative institution of an eight-hour 
working day." The inadequacy and the belatedness of this slogan at the present 
time are too obvious to require proof. 
The question of open political action. The Third Congress takes into 
consideration the impending radical change in our activity. Secret activity and 
the development of the secret apparatus must on no account be abandoned: this 
would be playing into the hands of the police and be of the utmost advantage to 
the government. But at the same time we cannot start too soon thinking about 
open action as well. Expedient forms of such action and, consequently, special 
apparatus-less secret-must be prepared immediately for this purpose. The legal 
and semi-legal societies must be made use of with a view to transforming them, 
as far as possible, into bases of the future open Social-Democratic Labour Party 
in Russia. 
Here too the Conference divides up the question, and fails to issue any integral 
slogans. There bobs up as a separate point the ridiculous instruction to the 
Organisation Commission to see to the "placing" of its legally functioning 
publicists. There is the wholly absurd decision "to subordinate to its influence 
the democratic newspapers that set themselves the aim of rendering assistance to 
the working-class movement." This is the professed aim of all our legal liberal 
newspapers, nearly all of which are of the Osvobozhdeniye trend. Why should not 
the editors of the Iskra make a start themselves in carrying out their advice 
and give us an example of how to subject the Osvobozhdeniye to Social-Democratic 
influence? . . . Instead of the slogan of utilising the legally existing unions 
for the purpose of establishing bases for the Party, we are given, first, 
particular advice about the "trade" unions only (that all Party members must 
join them) and, secondly, advice to guide "the revolutionary organisations of 
the workers" = "organisations not officially constituted" = "revolutionary 
workers' clubs." How these "clubs" come to be classed as unofficially 
constituted organisations, what these "clubs" really are-goodness only knows. 
Instead of definite and clear instructions from a supreme Party body, we have 
some jottings of ideas and the rough drafts of publicists. We get no complete 
picture of the beginning of the Party's transition to an entirely new basis in 
all its work. 
The "peasant question" was presented by the Party Congress and by the Conference 
in entirely different ways. The Congress drew up a resolution on the "attitude 
to the peasant movement," the Conference on "work among the peasants." In the 
one case prime importance is attached to the task of guiding the widespread 
revolutionary-democratic movement in the general national interests of the fight 
against tsarism. In the other instance, the question is reduced to mere "work" 
among a particular section of society. In the one case, a central practical 
slogan for our agitation is advanced, calling for the immediate organisation of 
revolutionary peasant committees in order to carry out all the democratic 
changes. In the other, a "demand for the organisation of committees" is to be 
presented to a constituent assembly. Why must we wait for this constituent 
assembly? Will it really be constituent? Will it be stable without the 
preliminary and simultaneous establishment of revolutionary peasant committees? 
All these questions are ignored by the Conference. All its decisions reflect the 
general idea which we have traced-namely, that in the bourgeois revolution we 
must do only our special work, without setting ourselves the aim of leading the 
entire democratic movement and of doing this independently. Just as the 
Economists constantly harped on the idea that the Social-Democrats should 
concern themselves with the economic struggle, leaving it to the liberals to 
take care of the political struggle, so the new-Iskraists keep harping in all 
their discussions on the idea that we should creep into a modest corner out of 
the way of the bourgeois revolution, leaving it to the bourgeoisie to do the 
active work of carrying out the revolution. 
Finally, we cannot but note also the resolution on the attitude toward other 
parties. The resolution of the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. speaks of 
exposing all the limitations and inadequacies of the bourgeois movement for 
emancipation, without entertaining the nave idea of enumerating every possible 
instance of such limitation from congress to congress or of drawing a line of 
distinction between bad bourgeois and good bourgeois. The Conference, repeating 
the mistake made by Starover, persistently searched for such a line, developed 
the famous "litmus paper" theory. Starover started from a very good idea: to put 
the strictest possible terms to the bourgeoisie. Only he forgot that any attempt 
to separate in advance the bourgeois democrats who are worthy of approval, 
agreements, etc., from those who are unworthy leads to a "formula" which is 
immediately thrown overboard by the development of events and which introduces 
confusion into the proletarian class consciousness. The emphasis is shifted from 
real unity in the struggle to declarations, promises, slogans. Starover was of 
the opinion that "universal and equal suffrage, direct elections and secret 
ballot" was such a radical slogan. But before two years elapsed the "litmus 
paper" proved its worthlessness, the slogan of universal suffrage was taken over 
by the Osvobozbdentsi, who not only came no closer to Social-Democracy as a 
result of this, but, on the contrary, tried by means of this very slogan to 
mislead the workers and divert them from Socialism. 
Now the new-Iskraists are setting "terms" that are even "stricter," they are 
"demanding" from the enemies of tsarism "energetic and unequivocal" (!?) 
"support of every determined action of the organised proletariat,' etc., up to 
and including "active participation in the self-armament of the people." The 
line has been drawn much further-but nonetheless this line is again already 
obsolete, it revealed its worthlessness at once. Why, for instance, is there no 
slogan of a republic? How is it that the Social-Democrats-in the interest of 
"relentless revolutionary war against all the foundations of the system of 
social estates and the monarchy"-"demand" from the bourgeois democrats anything 
you like except a fight for a republic? 
That this question is not mere captiousness, that the mistake of the 
new-Iskraists is of most vital political significance is proved by the "Russian 
Liberation League" (see Proletary, No. 4). 1) These "enemies of tsarism" will 
fully meet all the "requirements" of the new Iskra supporters. And yet we have 
shown that the spirit of Osvobozhdeniye reigns in the program (or lack of 
program) of this "Russian Liberation League" and that the Osvobozhdentsi can 
easily take it in tow. The Conference, however, declares in the concluding 
section of the resolution that "Social-Democracy will continue to oppose the 
hypocritical friends of the people, all those political parties which, though 
they display a liberal and democratic banner, refuse to render genuine support 
to the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat." The "Russian Liberation 
League" not only does not refuse this support but offers it most insistently. Is 
that a guarantee that the leaders of this League are not "hypocritical friends 
of the people," even though they are Osvobozhdentsi? 
You see: by inventing "terms" in advance and presenting "demands" which are 
ludicrous by reason of their grim impotence, the new-Iskraists immediately put 
themselves in a ridiculous position. Their terms and demands immediately prove 
inadequate when it comes to gauging living realities. Their chase after formulae 
is hopeless, for no formula can embrace all the various manifestations of 
hypocrisy, inconsistency and limitations of the bourgeois democrats. It is not a 
matter of "litmus paper," of forms, or written and printed demands, nor is it a 
matter of drawing, in advance, a line of distinction between hypocritical and 
sincere "friends of the people"; it is a matter of real unity in the struggle, 
of unabating criticism by Social-Democrats of every "uncertain" step taken by 
bourgeois democracy. What is needed for a "genuine consolidation of all the 
social forces interested in democratic change" is not the "points" over which 
the Conference laboured so assiduously and so vainly, but the ability to put 
forward genuinely revolutionary slogans. For this slogans are needed that will 
raise the revolutionary and republican bourgeoisie to the level of the 
proletariat and not reduce the aims of the proletariat to the level of the 
monarchist bourgeoisie. For this the most energetic participation in the 
insurrection and not sophist evasions of the urgent task of armed insurrection 
is needed. 
 
Next: Will the Sweep of the Democratic Revolution be Diminished if the 
Bourgeoisie Recoils from it? 
 



Footnotes 
1) Proletary, No. 4, which appeared on June 4, 1905, contained a lengthy article 
entitled "A New Revolutionary Labour League" . The article gives the contents of 
the appeals issued by this league which assumed the name of "Russian Liberation 
League" and which set itself the aim of convening a constituent assembly with 
the aid of an armed insurrection. Further, the article defines the attitude of 
the Social-Democrats to such non-Party leagues. How far this league really 
existed, and what its fate was in the revolution is absolutely unknown to us. 
[Author's note to the 1907 edition.] 






Will the Sweep of the Democratic Revolution be Diminished if the Bourgeoisie 
Recoils from it? 



 
The foregoing lines were already written when we received a copy of the 
resolutions adopted by the Caucasian Conference of the new Iskra supporters, 
published by the Iskra. Better material than this pour la bonne bouche (for 
dessert) we could not even have invented. 
The editors of the Iskra quite justly remark: "On the fundamental question of 
tactics, the Caucasian Conference also arrived at a decision analogous" (in 
truth!) "to the one adopted by the All-Russian Conference" (i.e., of the new 
Iskra-ists). "The question of the attitude of Social-Democracy towards a 
provisional revolutionary government has been settled by the Caucasian comrades 
in the spirit of most outspoken opposition to the new method advocated by the 
Vpeyod group and by the delegates of the so-called Congress who joined it." "It 
must be admitted that the formulation of the tactics of the proletarian party in 
a bourgeois revolution as given by the Conference is very apt." 
What is true is true. No one could have given a more "apt" formulation of the 
fundamental error of the new Iskra-ists. We shall quote this formulation in 
full, indicating in parentheses first the blossoms and then the fruit presented 
at the end. 
Here is the resolution of the Caucasian Conference of new-Iskraists on a 
provisional revolutionary government: 
"Whereas we consider it to be our task to take advantage of the revolutionary 
situation to render more profound" (of course! They should have added: " la 
Martynov!") "the Social-Democratic consciousness of the proletariat" (only to 
render the consciousness more profound, and not to win a republic? What a 
"profound" conception of revolution 1) "and in order to secure for the Party 
fullest freedom to criticise the nascent bourgeois-state system" (it is not our 
business to secure a republic! Our business is only to secure freedom of 
criticism. Anarchist ideas give rise to anarchist language: "bourgeois-state" 
system!), "the Conference declares against the formation of a Social-Democratic 
provisional government and joining such a government" (recall the resolution 
passed by the Bakunists ten months before the Spanish revolution and referred to 
by Engels: see the Proletary, No. 3),[A] "and considers it to be the most 
expedient course to exercise pressure from without" (from below and not from 
above) "upon the bourgeois provisional government in order to secure a feasible 
measure" (?!) "of democratisation of the state system. The Conference believes 
that the formation of a provisional government by Social-Democrats, or their 
joining such a government, would lead, on the one hand, to the masses of the 
proletariat becoming disappointed in the Social-Democratic Party and abandoning 
it because the Social-Democrats, in spite of the fact that they had seized 
power, would not be able to satisfy the pressing needs of the working class, 
including the establishment of Socialism" (a republic is not a pressing need! 
The authors, in their innocence, do not notice that they are speaking a purely 
anarchist language, as if they were repudiating participation in bourgeois 
revolutions!), "and, on the other hand, would cause the bourgeois classes to 
recoil from the revolution and diminish its sweep." 
That is the crux of the matter. That is where anarchist ideas become interwoven 
(as is constantly the case among the West-European Bernsteinians also) with the 
purest opportunism. Just think of it: not to join a provisional government 
because this will cause the bourgeoisie to recoil from the revolution and thus 
diminish the sweep of the revolution! Here, indeed, we have the new Iskra 
philosophy in its complete, pure and consistent form: the revolution is a 
bourgeois revolution, therefore we must bow down to bourgeois philistinism and 
make way for it. If we are guided, even in part, even for a moment, by the 
consideration that our participation may cause the bourgeoisie to recoil, we 
thereby simply yield leadership in the revolution entirely to the bourgeois 
classes. We thereby place the proletariat entirely under the tutelage of the 
bourgeoisie (while retaining complete "freedom of criticism"!!), compelling the 
proletariat to be meek and mild so as not to cause the bourgeoisie to recoil. We 
emasculate the most vital needs of the proletariat, namely, its political 
needs-which the Economists and their epigones have never properly understood-so 
as not to cause the bourgeoisie to recoil. We completely abandon the field of 
revolutionary struggle for the achievement of democracy to the extent required 
by the proletariat for the field of bargaining with the bourgeoisie, betraying 
our principles, betraying the revolution to purchase the bourgeoisie's voluntary 
consent ("that it might not recoil"). 
In two brief lines, the Caucasian new-Iskraists managed to express the 
quintessence of the tactics of betrayal of the revolution and of converting the 
proletariat into a wretched appendage of the bourgeois classes. The tendency, 
which we traced above to the mistakes of the new Iskra-ists, now stands out 
before us as a clear and definite principle, viz., to drag at the tail of the 
monarchist bourgeoisie. Since the establishment of a republic would cause (and 
is already causing: Mr. Struve, for example) the bourgeoisie to recoil, 
therefore, down with the fight for a republic. Since every resolute and 
consistent democratic demand of the proletariat always and everywhere in the 
world causes the bourgeoisie to recoil, therefore, hide in your lairs, comrades 
and fellow workers, act only from without, do not dream of using the instruments 
and weapons of the "bourgeois-state" system in the interests of the revolution, 
and reserve for yourselves "freedom to criticize"! 
The fundamental fallacy of their very conception of the term "bourgeois 
revolution" has come to the surface. The Martynov or new Iskra "conception" of 
this term leads straight to a betrayal of the cause of the proletariat to the 
bourgeoisie. 
Those who have forgotten the old Economism, those who do not study it or 
remember it, will find it difficult to under stand the present echo of 
Economism. Recall the Bernsteinian Credo. From "purely proletarian" views and 
programs, people arrived at the conclusion: we, the Social-Democrats, must 
concern ourselves with economics, with the real cause of labour, with freedom to 
criticise all political chicanery, with rendering Social-Democratic work really 
more profound. Politics are for the liberals. God save us from dropping into 
"revolutionism": that will cause the bourgeoisie to recoil. Those who read the 
whole Credo over again or the Supplement to No. 9 of the Rabochaya Mysl 
(September 1899) will be able to follow this entire line of reasoning. 
Today we have the same thing, only on a large scale, applied to an appraisal of 
the whole of the "great" Russian revolution-alas, already vulgarised and reduced 
to a travesty in advance by the theoreticians of orthodox philistinism! We, the 
Social-Democrats, must concern ourselves with freedom of criticism, with 
rendering class consciousness more profound, with action from without. They, the 
bourgeois classes, must have freedom to act, a free field for revolutionary 
(read: liberal) leadership, freedom to put through "reforms" from above. 
These vulgarizers of Marxism have never pondered over what Marx said about the 
need of substituting the criticism of weapons for the weapon of criticism.[B] 
Taking the name of Marx in vain, they, in actual fact, draw up resolutions on 
tactics wholly in the spirit of the Frankfurt bourgeois windbags, who freely 
criticised absolutism and rendered democratic consciousness more profound, but 
failed to understand that the time of revolution is the time of action, of 
action both from above and from below. Having converted Marxism into pedantry, 
they have made the ideology of the advanced, most determined and energetic 
revolutionary class the ideology of its most undeveloped strata, which shrink 
from the difficult revolutionary-democratic tasks and leave it to Messrs. the 
Struves to take care of these democratic tasks. 
If the bourgeois classes recoil from the revolution because the Social-Democrats 
join the revolutionary government, they will thereby "diminish the sweep" of the 
revolution. 
Listen to this, Russian workers: The sweep of the revolution will be mightier if 
it is carried out by Messrs. the Struves, who are not frightened away by the 
Social-Democrats and who want, not victory over tsarism, but to come to terms 
with it. The sweep of the revolution will be mightier if, of the two possible 
outcomes which we have outlined above, the first eventuates, i.e., if the 
monarchist bourgeoisie comes to terms with the autocracy concerning a 
"constitution"  la Shipov! 
Social-Democrats who write such disgraceful things in resolutions intended for 
the guidance of the whole Party, or who approve of such "apt" resolutions, are 
so blinded by their pedantry, which has utterly eroded the living spirit out of 
Marxism, that they do not see how these resolutions convert all their other fine 
words into mere phrase-mongering. Take any of their articles in the Iskra, or 
take even the notorious pamphlet written by our celebrated Martynov-you will 
read there about a popular insurrection, about carrying the revolution to 
completion, about striving to rely upon the common people in the fight against 
the inconsistent bourgeoisie. But then all these excellent things become 
miserable phrase-mongering immediately you accept or approve of the idea that 
"the sweep of the revolution" will be "diminished" as a consequence of the 
alienation of the bourgeoisie. One of two things, gentlemen: either we, together 
with the people, must strive to carry out the revolution and win a complete 
victory over tsarism in spite of the inconsistent, self-seeking and cowardly 
bourgeoisie, or we do not accept this "in spite of," we fear lest the 
bourgeoisie "recoil" from the revolution, in which case we betray the 
proletariat and the people to the bourgeoisie-to the inconsistent, self-seeking 
and cowardly bourgeoisie. 
Don't try to misinterpret what I have said. Don't start howling that you are 
being accused of deliberate treachery. No, you have always been crawling and 
have at last crawled into the mire as unconsciously as the Economists of old, 
drawn inexorably and irrevocably down the inclined plane of making Marxism "more 
profound" to anti-revolutionary, soulless and lifeless "philosophising." 
Have you ever considered, gentlemen, what real social forces determine "the 
sweep of the revolution"? Let us leave aside the forces of foreign politics, of 
international combinations, which have turned out very favourably for us at the 
present time, but which we all leave out of our discussion, and rightly so, 
inasmuch as we are concerned with the question of the internal forces of Russia. 
Look at these internal social forces. Aligned against the revolution are the 
autocracy, the imperial court, the police, the bureaucracy, the army and the 
handful of high nobility. The deeper the indignation of the people grows, the 
less reliable become the troops, and the more the bureaucracy wavers. Moreover, 
the bourgeoisie, on the whole, is now in favour of the revolution, is zealously 
making speeches about liberty, holding forth more and more frequently in the 
name of the people, and even in the name of the revolution. 1) But we Marxists 
all know from theory and from daily and hourly observation of our liberals, 
Zemstvo people and Orvobozhdentsi, that the bourgeoisie is inconsistent, 
self-seeking and cowardly in its support of the revolution. The bourgeoisie, in 
the mass, will inevitably turn towards counterrevolution, towards the autocracy, 
against the revolution and against the people, immediately its narrow, selfish 
interests are met, immediately it "recoils" from consistent democracy (and it is 
already recoiling from it!). There remains the "people," that is, the 
proletariat and the peasantry: the proletariat alone can be relied on to march 
to the end, for it is going far beyond the democratic revolution. That is why 
the proletariat fights in the front ranks for a republic and contemptuously 
rejects silly and unworthy advice to take care not to frighten away the 
bourgeoisie. The peasantry includes a great number of semi-proletarian as well 
as petty-bourgeois elements. This causes it also to be unstable and compels the 
proletariat to unite in a strictly class party. But the instability of the 
peasantry differs radically from the instability of the bourgeoisie, for at the 
present time the peasantry is interested not so much in the absolute 
preservation of private property as in the confiscation of the landed estates, 
one of the principal forms of private property. While this does not make the 
peasantry become socialist or cease to be petty-bourgeois, it is capable of 
becoming a wholehearted and most radical adherent of the democratic revolution. 
The peasantry will inevitably become such if only the progress of revolutionary 
events, which is enlightening it, is not checked too soon by the treachery of 
the bourgeoisie and the defeat of the proletariat. Subject to this condition, 
the peasantry will inevitably become a bulwark of the revolution and the 
republic, for only a completely victorious revolution can give the peasantry 
everything in the sphere of agrarian reforms-everything that the peasants 
desire, of which they dream, and of which they truly stand in need (not for the 
abolition of capitalism as the "Socialist-Revolutionaries" imagine, but) in 
order to emerge from the mire of semi-serfdom, from the gloom of oppression and 
servitude, in order to improve their living conditions as much as it is possible 
to improve them under the system of commodity production. 
Moreover, the peasantry is attached to the revolution not only by the prospect 
of radical agrarian reform but by its general and permanent interests. Even in 
fighting the proletariat the peasantry stands in need of democracy, for only a 
democratic system is capable of giving exact expression to its interests and of 
ensuring its predominance as the mass, as the majority. The more enlightened the 
peasantry becomes (and since the war with Japan it is becoming enlightened much 
more rapidly than those who are accustomed to measure enlightenment by the 
school standard suspect), the more consistently and determinedly will it favour 
a thoroughgoing democratic revolution; for, unlike the bourgeoisie, it has 
nothing to fear from the supremacy of the people, but, on the contrary, stands 
to gain by it. A democratic republic will become the ideal of the peasantry as 
soon as it begins to free itself from its nave monarchism, because the 
enlightened monarchism of the bourgeois stock-jobbers (with an upper chamber, 
etc.) implies for the peasantry the same disfranchisement and the same 
down-troddenness and ignorance as it suffers from today, only slightly glossed 
over with the varnish of European constitutionalism. 
That is why the bourgeoisie as a class naturally and inevitably strives to come 
under the wing of the liberal-monarchist party, while the peasantry, in the 
mass, strives to come under the leadership of the revolutionary and republican 
party. That is why the bourgeoisie is incapable of carrying the democratic 
revolution to its consummation, while the peasantry is capable of doing so, and 
we must exert all our efforts to help it to do so. 
It may be objected: but this requires no proof, this is all ABC; all 
Social-Democrats understand this perfectly well. But that is not so. It is not 
understood by those who can talk about "the sweep" of the revolution being 
"diminished" because the bourgeoisie will fall away from it. Such people repeat 
the words of our agrarian program that they have learned by rote without 
understanding their meaning, for otherwise they would not be frightened by the 
concept of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the 
peasantry, which inevitably follows from the entire Marxian world outlook and 
from our program; otherwise they would not restrict the sweep of the great 
Russian revolution to the limits to which the bourgeoisie is prepared to go. 
Such people defeat their abstract Marxian revolutionary phrases by their 
concrete anti-Marxian and anti-revolutionary resolutions. 
Those who really understand the role of the peasantry in a victorious Russian 
revolution would not dream of saying that the sweep of the revolution would be 
diminished if the bourgeoisie recoiled from it. For, as a matter of fact, the 
Russian revolution will begin to assume its real sweep, will really assume the 
widest revolutionary sweep possible in the epoch of bourgeois-democratic 
revolution, only when the bourgeoisie recoils from it and when the masses of the 
peasantry come out as active revolutionaries side by side with the proletariat. 
In order that it may be consistently carried to its conclusion, our democratic 
revolution must rely on such forces as are capable of paralysing the inevitable 
inconsistency of the bourgeoisie (i.e., capable precisely of "causing it to 
recoil from the revolution," which the Caucasian adherents of Iskra fear so much 
because of their lack of judgement). 
The proletariat must carry to completion the democratic revolution, by allying 
to itself the mass of the peasantry in order to crush by force the resistance of 
the autocracy and to paralyse the instability of the bourgeoisie. The 
proletariat must accomplish the socialist revolution, by allying to itself the 
mass of the semi-proletarian elements of the population in order to crush by 
force the resistance of the bourgeoisie and to paralyse the instability of the 
peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie. Such are the tasks of the proletariat which 
the new-Iskraists present so narrowly in all their arguments and resolutions 
about the sweep of the revolution. 
One circumstance, however, must not be forgotten, although it is frequently lost 
sight of in discussions about the "sweep" of the revolution. It must not be 
forgotten that the point at issue is not the difficulties this problem presents, 
but the road along which we must seek and attain its solution. The point is not 
whether it is easy or difficult to make the sweep of the revolution mighty and 
invincible, but how we must act in order to make this sweep more powerful. It is 
precisely on the fundamental nature of our activity, on the direction it should 
take, that our views differ. We emphasise this because careless and unscrupulous 
people too frequently confuse two different questions, namely, the question of 
the direction in which the road leads, i.e., the selection of one of two 
different roads, and the question of how easily the goal can be reached, or of 
how near the goal is on the given road. 
We have not dealt with this last question at all in the foregoing because it has 
not evoked any disagreement or divergency in the Party. But it goes without 
saying that the question itself is extremely important and deserves the most 
serious attention of all Social-Democrats. It would be a piece of unpardonable 
optimism to forget the difficulties which accompany the task of drawing into the 
movement the masses not only of the working class, but also of the peasantry. 
These difficulties have more than once been the rock against which the efforts 
to carry a democratic revolution to completion have been wrecked; and it was the 
inconsistent and self-seeking bourgeoisie which triumphed most of all, because 
it "made capital" in the shape of monarchist protection against the people, and 
at the same time "preserved the virginity" of liberalism . . . or of the 
Osvobozhdeniye trend. But difficult does not mean impossible. The important 
thing is to be convinced that the path chosen is the correct one, and this 
conviction will multiply a hundred-fold the revolutionary energy and 
revolutionary enthusiasm which can perform miracles. 
The depth of the rift among present-day Social-Democrats on the question of the 
path to be chosen can be seen at once by comparing the Caucasian resolution of 
the new-Iskraists with the resolution of the Third Congress of the Russian 
Social-Democratic Labour Party. The Congress resolution says: the bourgeoisie is 
inconsistent, it will certainly try to deprive us of the gains of the 
revolution. Therefore, make more energetic preparations for the fight, comrades 
and fellow workers! Arm yourselves, win the peasantry to your side! We shall not 
surrender our revolutionary gains to the self-seeking bourgeoisie without a 
fight. The resolution of the Caucasian new-Iskraists says: the bourgeoisie is 
inconsistent, it may recoil from the revolution. Therefore, comrades and fellow 
workers, please do not think of joining a provisional government, for, if you 
do, the bourgeoisie will certainly recoil, and the sweep of the revolution will 
thereby be diminished! 
One side says: advance the revolution forward, to its consummation, in spite of 
the resistance or the passivity of the inconsistent bourgeoisie. The other side 
says: do not think of carrying the revolution to completion independently, for 
if you do, the inconsistent bourgeoisie will recoil from it. 
Are these not two diametrically opposite paths? Is it not obvious that one set 
of tactics absolutely excludes the other? That the first tactics are the only 
correct tactics of revolutionary Social-Democracy, while the second are in fact 
purely Osvobozhdeniye tactics? 
 
Next: Conclusion. Dare We Win? 
 



Footnotes 
1) Of interest in this connection is Mr. Struve s open letter to Jaurs recently 
published by the latter in L'Humanit and by Mr. Struve in the Osvobozhdeniye, 
No. 72. 
[A] 36. Lenin has in view the article 'On the Provisional Revolutionary 
Government" (see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 461-81), and also the article by 
F. Engels, Die Bakunisten an der A rheit. Denksch,.ift ~ber den A~4stand in 
Spanien imm Sommmer 1873, in which he criticises the Bakuninist resolution Lenin 
is referring to (see Der Volksstaat, Nos. 105, 106, 107, 1873). 
[B] 39. The reference is to Marx's words in his Zur Kritik der lie gelsehien 
Rechtsphilosophie, MEGA, 1. Abt., Bd. 1, S. 614. 







Conclusion. Dare We Win? 



 
People who are superficially acquainted with the state of affairs in Russian 
Social-Democracy, or who judge as mere onlookers  without knowing the whole 
history of our internal Party struggle since the days of Economism, very often 
also dismiss the disagreements on tactics which have now become crystallised, 
especially after the Third Congress, with the simple argument that there are two 
natural, inevitable and quite reconcilable trends in every Social-Democratic 
movement. One side, they say, lays special emphasis on the ordinary, current, 
everyday work, on the necessity of developing propaganda and agitation, of 
preparing forces, deepening the movement, etc., while the other side lays 
emphasis on the militant, general political, revolutionary tasks of the 
movement, points to the necessity of armed insurrection, advances the slogans: 
for a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship, for a provisional revolutionary 
government. Neither one side nor the other should exaggerate, they say; extremes 
are bad, both here and there (and, generally speaking, everywhere in the world), 
etc., etc. 
The cheap truisms of worldly (and "political" in quotation marks) wisdom, which 
such arguments undoubtedly contain, too often cover up a failure to understand 
the urgent and acute needs of the Party. Take the differences on tactics that 
now exist among the Russian Social-Democrats. of course, the special emphasis 
laid on the everyday, routine aspect of the work, such as we observe in the new 
Iskra-ist arguments about tactics, could not in itself present any danger and 
could not give rise to any divergence of opinion regarding tactical slogans. But 
the moment you compare the resolutions of the Third Congress of the Russian 
Social-Democratic Labour Party with the resolutions of the Conference this 
divergence becomes strikingly obvious. 
What, then, is the trouble? The trouble is that, in the first place, it is not 
enough to point abstractly to the two currents in the movement and to the 
harmfulness of extremes. One must know concretely what the given movement is 
suffering from at the given time, what constitutes the real political danger to 
the Party at the present time. Secondly, one must know what real political 
forces are profiting by this or that tactical slogan-or perhaps by the absence 
of this or that slogan. To listen to the new Iskra-ists, one would arrive at the 
conclusion that the Social-Democratic Party is threatened with the danger of 
throwing overboard propaganda and agitation, the economic struggle and criticism 
of bourgeois democracy, of becoming inordinately absorbed in military 
preparations, armed attacks, the seizure of power, etc. Actually, however, real 
danger is threatening the Party from an entirely different quarter. Anyone who 
is at all closely familiar with the state of the movement, anyone who follows it 
carefully and thoughtfully, cannot fail to see the ridiculous side of the new 
Iskra's fears. The entire work of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party has 
already been fully moulded into firm, immutable forms which absolutely guarantee 
that our main attention will be fixed on propaganda and agitation, impromptu and 
mass meetings, on the distribution of leaflets and pamphlets, assisting in the 
economic struggle and championing the slogans of that struggle. There is not a 
single Party committee, not a single district committee, not a single central 
delegates' meeting or a single factory group where ninety-nine per cent of all 
the attention, energy and time are not always and constantly devoted to these 
functions, which have become firmly established ever since the middle of the 
'nineties. Only those who are entirely unfamiliar with the movement are ignorant 
of this. Only very nave or ill-informed people can be taken in by the new 
Iskra-ists' repetition of stated truths when it is done with an air of great 
importance. 
The fact is that not only is no excessive zeal displayed among us with regard to 
the tasks of insurrection, to the general political slogans and to the matter of 
leading the entire popular revolution, but, on the contrary, it is backwardness 
in this very respect that stands out most strikingly, constitutes our weakest 
spot and a real danger to the movement, which may degenerate, and in some places 
is degenerating, from one that is revolutionary in deeds into one that is 
revolutionary in words. Among the many, many hundreds of organisations, groups 
and circles that are conducting the work of the Party you will not find a single 
one which has not from its very inception conducted the kind of everyday work 
about which the wiseacres of the new Iskra now talk with the air of people who 
have discovered new truths. On the other hand, you will find only an 
insignificant percentage of groups and circles that have understood the tasks an 
armed insurrection entails, which have begun to carry them out, and have 
realised the necessity of leading the entire popular revolution against tsarism, 
the necessity of advancing for that purpose certain definite progressive slogans 
and no other. 
We are incredibly behind in our progressive and genuinely revolutionary tasks, 
in very many instances we have not even become conscious of them; here and there 
we have failed to notice the strengthening of revolutionary bourgeois democracy 
owing to our backwardness in this respect. But the writers in the new Iskra, 
turning their backs on the course of events and on the requirements of the 
times, keep repeating insistently: Don't forget the old! Don't let yourselves be 
carried away by the new! This is the principal and unvarying leitmotif of all 
the important resolutions of the Conference; whereas in the Congress resolutions 
you just as unvaryingly read: while confirming the old (and without stopping to 
chew it over and over, for the very reason that it is old and has already been 
settled and recorded in literature, in resolutions and by experience), we put 
forward a new task, draw attention to it, issue a new slogan, and demand that 
the genuinely revolutionary Social-Democrats immediately set to work to put it 
into effect. 
That is how matters really stand with regard to the question of the two trends 
in Social-Democratic tactics. The revolutionary period has called forth new 
tasks, which only the totally blind can fail to see. And some Social-Democrats 
unhesitatingly recognise these tasks and place them on the order of the day, 
declaring: the armed insurrection brooks no delay, prepare yourselves for it 
immediately and energetically, remember that it is indispensable for a decisive 
victory, issue the slogans of a republic, of a provisional government, of a 
revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. 
Others, however, draw back, mark time, write prefaces instead of giving slogans; 
instead of pointing to the new while confirming the old, they chew this old 
tediously and at great length, inventing pretexts to avoid the new, unable to 
determine the conditions for a decisive victory or to issue the slogans which 
alone are in line with the striving to attain complete victory. 
The political result of this khvostism stares us in the face. The fable about a 
rapprochement between the "majority" of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour 
Party and the revolutionary bourgeois democracy remains a fable which has not 
been confirmed by a single political fact, by a single important resolution of 
the "Bolsheviks" or a single act of the Third Congress of the Russian 
Social-Democratic Labour Party. On the other hand, the opportunist, monarchist 
bourgeoisie, as represented by the Osvobozhdeniye, has long been welcoming the 
trends of the "principles" of new Iskra-ism and now it is actually running its 
mill with their grist, is adopting their catchwords and "ideas" directed against 
"secrecy" and "riots," against exaggerating the "technical" side of the 
revolution, against openly proclaiming the slogan of armed insurrection, against 
the "revolutionism" of extreme demands, etc., etc. The resolution of a whole 
conference of "Menshevik" Social-Democrats in the Caucasus, and the endorsement 
of that resolution by the editors of the new Iskra, sums it all up politically 
in an unmistakable way: lest the bourgeoisie recoil if the proletariat takes 
part in a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship! This puts it in a nutshell. 
This gives the finishing touch to the transformation of the proletariat into an 
appendage of the monarchist bourgeoisie. The political meaning of the khvostism 
of the new Iskra is thereby proved in fact, not by a casual declaration of some 
individual, but by a resolution especially endorsed by a whole trend. 
Anyone who ponders over these facts will understand the real significance of the 
stock reference to the two sides and the two trends in the Social-Democratic 
movement. For a study of these trends on a large scale, take Bernsteinism. The 
Bernsteinians have been dinning into our ears in exactly the same way that it is 
they who understand the true needs of the proletariat, the tasks connected with 
the growth of its forces, with rendering the entire activity more profound, with 
preparing the elements of a new society, with propaganda and agitation! 
Bernstein says: we demand a frank recognition of what is, thus sanctifying a 
"movement" without "final aims," sanctifying defensive tactics only, preaching 
the tactics of fear "lest the bourgeoisie recoil." The Bernsteinians also raised 
an outcry against the "Jacobinism" of the revolutionary Social-Democrats, 
against the "publicists" who fail to understand the "initiative of the workers," 
etc., etc. In reality, as everyone knows, the revolutionary Social-Democrats 
have never even thought of abandoning the everyday, petty work, the mustering of 
forces, etc., etc. All they demanded was a clear understanding of the final aim, 
a clear presentation of the revolutionary tasks; they wanted to raise the 
semi-proletarian and semi-petty-bourgeois strata to the revolutionary level of 
the proletariat, not to reduce this level to that of opportunist considerations 
such as "lest the bourgeoisie recoil." Perhaps the most vivid expression of this 
rift between the intellectual opportunist wing and the proletarian revolutionary 
wing of the Party was the question: durfen wir siegen? "Dare we win?" Is it 
permissible for us to win? Would it not be dangerous for us to win? Ought we to 
win? This question, which seems so strange at first sight, was raised, however, 
and had to be raised, because the opportunists were afraid of victory, were 
frightening the proletariat away from it, were predicting that trouble would 
come of it, were ridiculing the slogans that straightforwardly called for it. 
The same fundamental division into an intellectual-opportunist and 
proletarian-revolutionary trend exists also among us, with the very material 
difference, however, that here we are faced with the question of a democratic 
revolution, and not of a socialist revolution. The question "dare we win?" which 
seems so absurd at first sight, has been raised among us also. It was raised by 
Martynov in his Two Dictatorships, in which he prophesied dire misfortune if we 
prepare well for and carry out an insurrection quite successfully. The question 
has been raised in all the new Iskra literature dealing with a provisional 
revolutionary government, and all the time persistent though futile efforts have 
been made to liken Millerand's participation in a bourgeois-opportunist 
government to Varlin's participation in a petty-bourgeois revolutionary 
government. It is embodied in a resolution: "lest the bourgeoisie recoil." And 
although Kautsky, for instance, now tries to wax ironical and says that our 
dispute about a provisional revolutionary government is like dividing the skin 
of a bear before the bear has been killed, this irony only proves that even 
clever and revolutionary Social-Democrats are liable to put their foot in it 
when they talk about something they know of only by hearsay. German 
Social-Democracy is not yet so near to killing its bear (carrying out a 
socialist revolution), but the dispute as to whether we "dare" kill the bear was 
of enormous importance from the point of view of principles and of practical 
politics. Russian Social-Democrats are not yet so near to being strong enough to 
"kill their bear" (to carry out a democratic revolution), but the question as to 
whether we "dare" kill it is of extreme importance for the whole future of 
Russia and for the future of Russian Social-Democracy. An army cannot be 
energetically and successfully mustered and led unless we are sure that we 
"dare" win. 
Take our old Economists. They too howled that their opponents were conspirators, 
Jacobins (see the Rabocheye Dyelyo, especially No. 10, and Martynov's speech in 
the debate on the program at the Second Congress), that by plunging into 
politics they were divorcing themselves from the masses, that they were losing 
sight of the fundamentals of the working-class movement, ignoring the initiative 
of the workers, etc., etc. In reality these supporters of the "initiative of the 
workers" were opportunist intellectuals who tried to foist on the workers their 
own narrow and philistine conception of the tasks of the proletariat. In reality 
the opponents of Economism, as everyone can see from the old Iskra, did not 
neglect or push into the background any of the aspects of Social-Democratic 
work, nor did they in the least forget the economic struggle; but they were able 
at the same time to present the urgent and immediate political tasks in their 
full scope and they opposed the transformation of the workers' party into an 
"economic" appendage of the liberal bourgeoisie. 
The Economists had learned by rote that politics are based on economics and 
"understood" this to mean that the political struggle should be reduced to the 
level of the economic struggle. The new-Iskraists have learned by rote that the 
economic basis of the democratic revolution is the bourgeois revolution, and 
"understood" this to mean that the democratic aims of the proletariat should be 
degraded to the level of bourgeois moderation, to the limits beyond which "the 
bourgeoisie will recoil." On the pretext of rendering their work more profound, 
on the pretext of rousing the initiative of the workers and pursuing a purely 
class policy, the Economists were actually delivering the working class into the 
hands of the liberal-bourgeois politicians, i.e., were leading the Party along a 
path which objectively meant exactly that. On the same pretexts, the 
new-Iskraists are actually betraying the interests of the proletariat in the 
democratic revolution to the bourgeoisie, i.e., are leading the Party along a 
path which objectively means exactly that. The Economists thought that 
leadership in the political struggle was no concern of the Social-Democrats but 
properly the business of the liberals. The new-Iskraists think that the active 
conduct of the democratic revolution is no concern of the Social-Democrats but 
properly the business of the democratic bourgeoisie, for, they argue, if the 
proletariat takes the leading and pre-eminent part it will "diminish the sweep" 
of the revolution. 
In short, the new-Iskraists are the epigones of Economism, not only in their 
origin at the Second Party Congress, but also in the manner in which they now 
present the tactical tasks of the proletariat in the democratic revolution. 
They, too, constitute an intellectual-opportunist wing of the Party. In the 
sphere of organisation they made their debut with the anarchist individualism of 
intellectuals and finished with "disorganisation-as-a-process," fixing in the 
"Rules" [The "Rules of Organsation" adopted at the Geneva Menshevik Conference 
in 1905] adopted by the Conference the separation of the Party's publishing 
activities from the Party organisation, an indirect and practically four-stage 
system of elections, a system of Bonapartist plebiscites instead of democratic 
representation, and finally the principle of "agreements" between the part and 
the whole. In Party tactics they continued to slide down the same inclined 
plane. In the "plan of the Zemstvo campaign" they declared that speeches to 
Zemstvo-ists were "the highest type of demonstration," finding only two active 
forces on the political scene (on the eve of January 9!)-the government and the 
democratic bourgeoisie. They made the pressing problem of arming "more profound" 
by substituting for the direct and practical slogan of an appeal to arm, the 
slogan: arm the people with a burning desire to arm themselves. The tasks 
connected with an armed insurrection, with the establishment of a provisional 
government and with a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship have now been 
distorted and blunted by them in their official resolutions. "Lest the 
bourgeoisie recoil"-this final chord of their last resolution throws a glaring 
light on the question of where their path is leading the Party. 
The democratic revolution in Russia is a bourgeois revolution by reason of its 
social and economic content. But a mere repetition of this correct Marxian 
proposition is not enough. It must be properly understood and properly applied 
in political slogans. In general, all political liberties that are founded on 
present-day, i.e., capitalist, relations of production are bourgeois liberties. 
The demand for liberty expresses primarily the interests of the bourgeoisie. Its 
representatives were the first to raise this demand. Its supporters have 
everywhere used the liberty they acquired like masters, reducing it to moderate 
and meticulous bourgeois doses, combining it with the most subtle methods of 
suppressing the revolutionary proletariat in peaceful times and with brutally 
cruel methods in stormy times. 
But only the rebel Narodniks, the anarchists and the "Economists" could deduce 
from this that the struggle for liberty should be rejected or disparaged. These 
intellectual-philistine doctrines could be foisted on the proletariat only for a 
time and against its will. The proletariat always realised instinctively that it 
needed political liberty, needed it more than anyone else, despite the fact that 
its immediate effect would be to strengthen and to organise the bourgeoisie. The 
proletariat expects to find its salvation not by avoiding the class struggle but 
by developing it, by widening it, increasing its consciousness, its organisation 
and determination. Whoever degrades the tasks of the political struggle 
transforms the Social-Democrat from a tribune of the people into a trade union 
secretary. Whoever degrades the proletarian tasks in a democratic bourgeois 
revolution transforms the Social-Democrat from a leader of the people's 
revolution into a leader of a free labour union. 
Yes, the people's revolution. Social-Democracy has fought, and is quite rightly 
fighting against the bourgeois-democratic abuse of the word "people." It demands 
that this word shall not be used to cover up failure to understand the class 
antagonisms within the people. It insists categorically on the need for complete 
class independence for the party of the proletariat. But it divides the "people" 
into "classes," not in order that the advanced class may become shut up within 
itself, confine itself to narrow aims and emasculate its activity for fear that 
the economic rulers of the world will recoil, but in order that the advanced 
class, which does not suffer from the halfheartedness, vacillation and 
indecision of the intermediate classes, may with all the greater energy and 
enthusiasm fight for the cause of the whole of the people, at the head of the 
whole of the people. 
That is what the present-day new-Iskraists so often fail to understand and why 
they substitute for active political slogans in the democratic revolution a mere 
pedantic repetition of the word "class," parsed in all genders and cases! 
The democratic revolution is a bourgeois revolution. The slogan of a Black 
Redistribution, or "land and liberty"-this most widespread slogan of the peasant 
masses, down trodden and ignorant, yet passionately yearning for light and 
happiness-is a bourgeois slogan. But we Marxists should know that there is not, 
nor can there be, any other path to real freedom for the proletariat and the 
peasantry, than the path of bourgeois freedom and bourgeois progress. We must 
not forget that there is not, nor can there be, at the present time, any other 
means of bringing Socialism nearer, than complete political liberty, than a 
democratic republic, than the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the 
proletariat and the peasantry. As the representatives of the advanced and only 
revolutionary class, revolutionary without reservations, doubts or looking back, 
we must present to the whole of the people, as widely, as boldly and with the 
utmost initiative possible, the tasks of the democratic revolution. To degrade 
these tasks in theory means making a travesty of Marxism, distorting it in 
philistine fashion, while in practical politics it means delivering the cause of 
the revolution into the hands of the bourgeoisie, which will inevitably recoil 
from the task of consistently carrying out the revolution. The difficulties that 
lie on the road to the complete victory of the revolution are very great. No one 
will be able to blame the representatives of the proletariat if, having done 
everything in their power, their efforts are defeated by the resistance of the 
reaction, the treachery of the bourgeoisie and the ignorance of the masses. But 
everybody and the class-conscious proletariat above all, will condemn 
Social-Democracy if it curtails the revolutionary energy of the democratic 
revolution and dampens revolutionary ardour because it is afraid to win, because 
it is actuated by the consideration: lest the bourgeoisie recoil. 
Revolutions are the locomotives of history, said Marx.[In The Class Struggles in 
France] Revolutions are the festivals of the oppressed and the exploited. At no 
other time are the masses of the people in a position to come forward so 
actively as creators of a new social order as at a time of revolution. At such 
times the people are capable of performing miracles, if judged by the narrow, 
philistine scale of gradual progress. But the leaders of the revolutionary 
parties must also make their aims more comprehensive and bold at such a time, so 
that their slogans shall always be in advance of the revolutionary initiative of 
the masses, serve as a beacon, reveal to them our democratic and socialist ideal 
in all its magnitude and splendour and show them the shortest and most direct 
route to complete, absolute and decisive victory. Let us leave to the 
opportunists of the Osvobozhdeniye bourgeoisie the task of inventing roundabout, 
circuitous paths of compromise out of fear of the revolution and of the direct 
path. If we are compelled by force to drag ourselves along such paths, we shall 
be able to fulfil our duty in petty, everyday work also. But let ruthless 
struggle first decide the choice of the path. We shall be traitors to and 
betrayers of the revolution if we do not use this festive energy of the masses 
and their revolutionary ardour to wage a ruthless and self-sacrificing struggle 
for the direct and decisive path. Let the bourgeois opportunists contemplate the 
future reaction with craven fear. The workers will not be frightened either by 
the thought that the reaction promises to be terrible or by the thought that the 
bourgeoisie proposes to recoil. The workers are not looking forward to striking 
bargains, are not asking for sops; they are striving to crush the reactionary 
forces without mercy, i.e., to set up the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship 
of the proletariat and the peasantry. 
Of course, greater dangers threaten the ship of our Party in stormy times than 
in periods of the smooth "sailing" of liberal progress, which means the 
painfully slow sweating of the working class by its exploiters. of course, the 
tasks of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship are a thousand times more 
difficult and more complicated than the tasks of an "extreme opposition" or of 
the exclusively parliamentary struggle. But whoever can deliberately prefer 
smooth sailing and the path of safe "opposition" in the present revolutionary 
situation had better abandon Social-Democratic work for a while, had better wait 
until the revolution is over, until the festive days have passed, when humdrum 
everyday life starts again and his narrow routine standards no longer strike 
such an abominably discordant note, or constitute such an ugly distortion of the 
tasks of the advanced class. 
At the head of the whole of the people, and particularly of the peasantry-for 
complete freedom, for a consistent democratic revolution, for a republic! At the 
head of all the toilers and the exploited-for Socialism! Such must in practice 
be the policy of the revolutionary proletariat, such is the class slogan which 
must permeate and determine the solution of every tactical problem, every 
practical step of the workers' party during the revolution. 
 






Epilogue 
Once Again Osvobozhdeniye Trend,
Once Again New Iskra trend 



 
Numbers 71-72 of the Osvobozhdeniye and Nos. 102-103 of the Iskra provide a 
wealth of additional material on the question to which we have devoted Chapter 8 
of our pamphlet. Since it is quite impossible to make use of the whole of this 
rich material here, we shall confine ourselves to the most important points 
only: firstly, to the kind of "realism" in Social-Democracy that Osvobozhdeniye 
praises and why the latter must praise it; secondly, to the relationship between 
the concepts revolution and dictatorship. 



 1: What Do The Bourgeois Liberal Realists Praise The Social-Democratic 
"Realists" For? 
 2: Comrade Martynov Again Renders the Question "More Profound" 
 3: The Vulgar Bourgeois Representation of Dictatorship and Marx's View of It 
 



- Epilogue - 



What Do The Bourgeois Liberal Realists Praise The Social-Democratic "Realists" 
For? 
 
The articles entitled "The Split in Russian Social-Democracy" and "The Triumph 
of Common Sense" (Osvobozhdeniye, No. 72) set forth the opinion on 
Social-Democracy held by the representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie, an 
opinion which is of remarkable value for class-conscious proletarians. We cannot 
too strongly recommend every Social-Democrat to read these articles in full and 
to ponder over every sentence in them. We shall reproduce first of all the most 
important propositions contained in both these articles. 
"It is fairly difficult," writes the Osvobozbdeniye, "for an outside observer to 
grasp the real political meaning of the disagreements that have split the 
Social-Democratic Party into two factions. A definition of the 'Majority' 
faction as the more radical and unswerving, as distinct from the 'Minority' 
which allows of certain compromises in the interests of the cause would not be 
quite exact, and in any case would not provide an exhaustive characterisation. 
At any rate the traditional dogmas of Marxian orthodoxy are observed by the 
Minority faction with even greater zeal perhaps than by the Lenin faction. The 
following characterisation would appear to us to be more accurate. The 
fundamental political temper of the 'Majority' is abstract revolutionism, 
rebellion for the sake of rebellion, an eagerness to stir up insurrection among 
the popular masses by any and every means and to seize power immediately in 
their name; to a certain extent this brings the 'Leninists' close to the 
Socialist-Revolutionaries and overshadows in their minds the idea of the class 
struggle with the idea of a Russian revolution involving the whole people; while 
abjuring in practice much of the narrow-mindedness of the Social-Democratic 
doctrine, the 'Leninists' are, on the other hand, thoroughly imbued with the 
narrow-mindedness of revolutionism, renounce all practical work except the 
preparation of an immediate insurrection, ignore on principle all forms of legal 
and semi-legal agitation and every species of practically useful compromise with 
other oppositional trends. The Minority, on the contrary, while steadfastly 
adhering to the doctrine of Marxism, at the same time preserves the realistic 
elements of the Marxian world outlook. The fundamental idea of this faction is 
to oppose the interests of the 'proletariat' to the interests of the 
bourgeoisie. But, on the other hand, the struggle of the proletariat is 
conceived-of course within certain bounds dictated by the immutable dogmas of 
Social-Democracy-in realistically sober fashion, with a clear realisation of all 
the concrete conditions and aims of this struggle. Neither of the two factions 
pursues its basic point of view quite consistently, for in their ideological and 
political activity they are bound by the strict formulae of the Social 
Democratic catechism, which keep the 'Leninists' from becoming unswerving 
rebels, after the fashion of some, at least, of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, 
and the 'Iskra-ists' from becoming the practical leaders of the real political 
movement of the working class." 
And, after quoting the contents of the most important resolutions, the 
Osvobozbdeniye writer goes on to illustrate his general "thoughts," with several 
concrete remarks about them. In comparison with the Third Congress, he says, 
"the Minority Conference takes a totally different attitude towards armed 
insurrection." "In connection with the attitude towards armed insurrection," 
there is a difference in the respective resolutions on a provisional government. 
"A similar difference is revealed in relation to the workers' trade unions. The 
'Leninists' do not say a single word in their resolution about this most 
important starting point in the political education and organisation of the 
working class. The Minority, on the other hand, drew up a very weighty 
resolution." With regard to the liberals, both factions, he says, are unanimous, 
but the Third Congress "repeats almost word for word Plekhanov's resolution on 
the attitude towards the liberals adopted at the Second Congress and rejects 
Starover's resolution adopted by the same Congress, which was more favourably 
inclined towards the liberals." Although the Congress and the Conference 
resolutions on the peasant movement coincide on the whole, "the 'Majority lays 
more emphasis on the idea of the revolutionary confiscation of the landlords' 
estates and other land, while the 'Minority' wants to make the demand for 
democratic state and administrative reforms the basis of its agitation." 
Finally, the Osvobozhdeniye cites from the Iskra, No. 100, a Menshevik 
resolution, the main clause of which reads as follows: "In view of the fact that 
at the present time underground work alone does not secure adequate 
participation of the masses in Party life and in some degree leads to the masses 
as such being contrasted to the Party as an illegal organisation, the latter 
must assume leadership of the trade union struggle of the workers on a legal 
basis, strictly linking up this struggle with the Social-Democratic tasks." 
Commenting on this resolution the Osvobozhdeniye exclaims: "We heartily welcome 
this resolution as a triumph of common sense, as evidence that a definite 
section of the Social-Democratic Party is beginning to see the light with regard 
to tactics." 
The reader now has before him all the essential opinions of the Osvobozhdeniye. 
It would, of course, be the greatest mistake to regard these opinions as correct 
in the sense that they correspond to objective truth. Every Social-Democrat will 
easily detect mistakes in them at every step. It would be nave to forget that 
these opinions are thoroughly permeated with the interests and the points of 
view of the liberal bourgeoisie, and that accordingly they are utterly biased 
and tendentious. They reflect the views of the Social-Democrats in the same way 
as objects are reflected in a concave or convex mirror. But it would be an even 
greater mistake to forget that in the final analysis these bourgeois-distorted 
opinions reflect the real interests of the bourgeoisie, which, as a class, 
undoubtedly understands correctly which trends in Social-Democracy are 
advantageous, close, akin and agreeable, and which trends are harmful, distant, 
alien and antipathetic to it. A bourgeois philosopher or a bourgeois publicist 
can never understand Social-Democracy properly, neither Menshevik nor Bolshevik 
Social-Democracy. But if he is at all a sensible publicist, his class instinct 
will not deceive him, and he will always grasp the significance for the 
bourgeoisie of one or another trend in the Social-Democratic movement, on the 
whole correctly, although he may present it in a distorted way. That is why the 
class instinct of our enemy, his class opinion, is always deserving of the most 
serious attention of every class-conscious proletarian. 
What, then, does the class instinct of the Russian bourgeoisie, as expressed by 
the Osvobozhdentsi, tell us? 
It quite definitely expresses its satisfaction with the trend represented by the 
new Iskra, praises it for its realism, sober-mindedness, the triumph of common 
sense, the seriousness of its resolutions, its beginning to see the light on 
questions of tactics, its practicalness, etc.-and it expresses dissatisfaction 
with the trend of the Third Congress, censures it for its narrow-mindedness, 
revolutionism, its rebel spirit, its repudiation of practically useful 
compromises, etc. The class instinct of the bourgeoisie suggests to it exactly 
what has been repeatedly proved with the help of most precise facts in our 
literature, namely, that the new-Iskraists are the opportunist and their 
opponents the revolutionary wing of the present-day Russian Social-Democratic 
movement. The liberals cannot but sympathise with the trend of the former, and 
cannot but censure the trend of the latter. The liberals, being the ideologists 
of the bourgeoisie, perfectly well understand the advantages to the bourgeoisie 
of "practicalness, sober-mindedness and seriousness" on the part of the working 
class, i.e., of actually restricting its field of activity within the boundaries 
of capitalism, reforms, the trade union struggle, etc. Dangerous and terrible to 
the bourgeoisie is the "revolutionary narrow-mindedness" of the proletariat and 
its endeavour in order to promote its own class aims to win the leadership in a 
popular Russian revolution. 
That this is the real meaning of the word "realism" as employed by the 
Osvobozhdeniye is evident among other things from the way it was used previously 
by the Osvobozhdeniye and Mr. Struve. The Iskra itself could not but admit that 
this was the meaning of the Osvobozhdeniye's "realism." Take, for instance, the 
article entitled "It Is High Time!" in the supplement to the Iskra, No. 73-74. 
The author of this article (a consistent exponent of the views of the "Marsh" at 
the Second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party) frankly 
expressed the opinion that "at the Congress Akimov played the part of the ghost 
of opportunism rather than of its real representative." And the editors of the 
Iskra were forthwith obliged to correct the author of the article "It Is High 
Time!" by stating in a note: 
"We cannot agree with this opinion. Comrade Akimov's views on the prograrn bear 
the clear imprint of opportunism, which fact is admitted even by the 
Osvobozhdeniye critic, who-in one of its recent issues-stated that Comrade 
Akimov is an adherent of the 'realist'- read: revisionist-tendency." 
Thus the Iskra itself is perfectly aware that the Osvobozhdeniye's "realism" is 
simply opportunism and nothing else. If in attacking "liberal realism" (Iskra, 
No. 102) the Iskra now says nothing about how it was praised by the liberals for 
its realism, the explanation of this circumstance is that such praise is harder 
to swallow than any censure. Such praise (which the Osvobozhdeniye uttered not 
by mere chance and not for the first time) actually proves the affinity between 
liberal realism and those tendencies of Social-Democratic "realism" (read: 
opportunism) that run through every resolution of the new-Iskraists as a result 
of the mistaken character of their whole tactical line. 
Indeed, the Russian bourgeoisie has already fully revealed its inconsistency and 
egoism in the "popular" revolution-has revealed it in Mr. Struve's arguments, by 
the whole tone and content of the numerous liberal newspapers, and by the nature 
of the political utterances of the bulk of the Zemstvo-ists, the bulk of the 
intellectuals and in general of all the adherents of Messrs. Trubetskoy, 
Petrunkevich, Rodichev and Co. of course, the bourgeoisie does not always 
clearly understand, but in general and on the whole, its class instinct enables 
it to grasp perfectly well that, on the one hand, the proletariat and the 
"people" are useful for its revolution as cannon fodder, as a battering-ram 
against the autocracy, but that, on the other hand, the proletariat and the 
revolutionary peasantry will be terribly dangerous to it if they win a "decisive 
victory over tsarism" and carry the democratic revolution to completion. That is 
why the bourgeoisie strains every effort to induce the proletariat to be content 
with a "modest" role in the revolution, to be more sober-minded, practical and 
realistic, to be guided in its activities by the principle, "lest the 
bourgeoisie recoil." 
The bourgeois intellectuals know full well that they will not be able to get rid 
of the working-class movement. That is why they do not come out against the 
working-class movement, they do not come out against the class struggle of the 
proletariat-no, they even pay lip service to the right to strike, to a genteel 
class struggle, understanding the working-class movement and the class struggle 
in the Brentano or Hirsch-Duncker sense. In other words they are fully prepared 
to "yield" to the workers the right to strike and to organise in trade unions 
(which in fact has already been almost won by the workers themselves), provided 
the workers renounce their "rebelliousness," their "narrow-minded 
revolutionism," their hostility to "practically-useful compromises," their 
claims and aspirations to put on the "popular Russian revolution," the imprint 
of their class struggle, the imprint of proletarian consistency, proletarian 
determination and "plebeian Jacobinism." That is why the bourgeois intellectuals 
all over Russia exert every effort, resort to thousands of ways and 
means-books,1) lectures, speeches, talks, etc., etc.-to imbue the workers with 
the ideas of (bourgeois) sober-mindedness, (liberal) practicalness, 
(opportunist) realism, (Brentano) class struggle, (Hirsch-Duncker) trade unions, 
etc. The latter two slogans are particularly convenient for the bourgeois of the 
"constitutional-democratic" party, or the party of "liberation," since outwardly 
they coincide with the Marxian slogans, since with a few small omissions and 
some slight distortions they can easily be confused with and sometimes even 
passed off as Social-Democratic slogans. For instance, the legal liberal 
newspaper Rassvyet (which we will try some day to discuss in greater detail with 
the readers of the Proletary) frequently says such "bold" things about the class 
struggle, about the possible deception of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, 
about the working-class movement, about the initiative of the proletariat, etc., 
etc., that the inattentive reader or an unenlightened worker might easily be led 
to believe that its "social-democratism" is genuine. Actually, however, it is a 
bourgeois imitation of social-democratism, an opportunist distortion and 
perversion of the concept class struggle. 
At the bottom of the whole of this gigantic (in breadth of influence on the 
masses) bourgeois subterfuge lies the tendency to reduce the working-class 
movement mainly to a trade union movement, to keep it as far away as possible 
from an independent (i.e., revolutionary and directed towards a democratic 
dictatorship) policy, to "overshadow in the minds of the workers the idea of a 
Russian revolution involving the whole people with the idea of the class 
struggle." 
As the reader will perceive, we have turned the Osvobozhdeniye formulation 
upside down. This is an excellent formulation that excellently expresses the two 
views of the role of the proletariat in a democratic revolution: the bourgeois 
view and the Social-Democratic view. The bourgeoisie wants to confine the 
proletariat to the trade union movement and thereby to "overshadow in its mind 
the idea of a Russian revolution involving the whole people with the idea of the 
(Brentano) class struggle"-which is wholly in the spirit of the Bernsteinian 
authors of the Credo, who overshadowed in the minds of the workers the idea of 
political struggle with the idea of a "purely working-class" movement. 
Social-Democracy, however, wants, on the contrary, to develop the class struggle 
of the proletariat to the point where the latter will take the leading part in 
the popular Russian revolution, i.e., will lead this revolution to a the 
democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. 
The revolution in our country is one that involves the whole people, says the 
bourgeoisie to the proletariat. Therefore, you, as a separate class, must 
confine yourselves to your class struggle, must in the name of "common sense" 
devote your attention mainly to the trade unions, and their legalisation, must 
consider these trade unions as "the most important starting point in your 
political education and organisation," must in a revolutionary situation draw up 
for the most part "serious" resolutions like the new Iskra resolution, must pay 
careful heed to resolutions that are "more favourably inclined towards the 
liberals," must show preference for leaders who display a tendency to become 
"practical leaders of the real political movement of the working class," must 
"preserve the realistic elements of the Marxian world outlook" (if you have 
unfortunately already become infected with the "strict formulae" of this 
"unscientific" catechism). 
The revolution in our country is one involving the whole people, 
Social-Democracy says to the proletariat. Therefore, you, as the most 
progressive and the only thoroughly revolutionary class, must strive not only to 
take the most active part, but also the leading, part in it. Therefore, you must 
not confine yourselves to narrowly conceived limits of the class struggle, 
meaning mainly the trade union movement, but, on the contrary, you must strive 
to widen the limits and the content of your class struggle to include not only 
all the aims of the present, democratic, Russian revolution of the whole of the 
people, but the aims of the subsequent socialist revolution as well. Therefore, 
while not ignoring the trade union movement, while not refusing to take 
advantage of even the slightest legal possibilities, you must, in a 
revolutionary period, put in the forefront the tasks of armed insurrection and 
the formation of a revolutionary army and a revolutionary government as being 
the only way to the complete victory of the people over tsarism, to the winning 
of a democratic republic and real political liberty. 
It would be superfluous to speak about the half-hearted and inconsistent stand, 
which, naturally, is so pleasing to the bourgeoisie, that the new Iskra 
resolutions took on this question because of their mistaken "line." 




Footnotes 
1) Cf. Prokopovich, The Labour Question in Russia 









Comrade Martynov Again Renders the Question "More Profound" 
 
Let us pass on to Martynov's articles in Nos. 102 and 103 of the Iskra. We 
shall, of course, make no reply to Martynov's attempts to prove the 
incorrectness of our and the correctness of his interpretation of a number of 
citations from Engels and Marx. These attempts are so trivial, Martynov's 
subterfuges so obvious and the question so clear that it would be of no interest 
to dwell on this point again. Every thinking reader will be able easily to see 
through the simple wiles employed by Martynov in his retreat all along the line, 
particularly when the complete translations of Engels' pamphlet The Bakunists at 
Work and Marx's Address of the Central Council to the Communist League of March 
l850,[A] on which a group of collaborators of the Proletary are now working, are 
published. A single quotation from Martynov's article will suffice to make his 
retreat clear to the reader. 
"The Iskra admits," says Martynov in No. 103, "that the establishment of a 
provisional government is one of the possible and expedient ways of furthering 
the revolution, and denies the expediency of the participation of 
Social-Democrats in a bourgeois provisional government, precisely in the 
interests of a complete seizure, in the future, of the state machine for a 
socialist revolution." In other words, the Iskra now admits the absurdity of all 
its fears concerning the responsibility of a revolutionary government for the 
exchequer and the banks, concerning the danger and impossibility of taking over 
the "prisons," etc. But the Iskra is only muddling things as of old, confusing 
the democratic with the socialist dictatorship. This muddle is unavoidable, it 
is a means to cover up the retreat. 
But among the muddleheads of the new Iskra Martynov stands out as a muddleheaded 
of the first order, as a muddlehead of talent, if we may so express it. 
Confusing the question by his laborious efforts to render it "more profound," he 
almost invariably "arrives at" new formulations which show up splendidly the 
entire falsity of the stand he has taken. You will remember how in the days of 
Economism he rendered Plekhanov "more profound" and created the formulation: 
"economic struggle against the employers and the government." It would be 
difficult to find in all the literature of the Economists a more apt expression 
of the entire falsity of this trend. It is the same today. Martynov zealously 
serves the new Iskra and almost every time he opens his mouth he furnishes us 
with new and excellent material for an evaluation of the new Iskra's false 
position. In No. 102 he says that Lenin "has imperceptibly substituted the 
concept dictatorship for that of revolution" (p. 3, col. 2). 
As a matter of fact all the accusations levelled at us by the new-Iskraists can 
be reduced to this one. And how grateful we are to Martynov for this accusation! 
What an invaluable service he renders us in the struggle against the new Iskra 
ideas by formulating his accusation in this way! We must positively beg the 
editors of the Iskra to let Martynov loose against us more often for the purpose 
of rendering the attacks on the Proletary "more profound" and for a "truly 
principled" formulation of these attacks. For the more Martynov strains to argue 
on the plane of principles the worse his arguments appear, and the more clearly 
he reveals the gaps in the new Iskra ideas, the more successfully he performs on 
himself and on his friends the useful pedagogical operation: reductio ad 
absurdum (reducing the principles of the new Iskra to absurdity). 
The Vperyod and the Proletary "substitute" the term dictatorship for that of 
revolution. The Iskra does not want such a "substitution." Just so, most 
esteemed Comrade Martynov! You have unwittingly stated a great truth. With this 
new formulation you have confirmed our contention that the Iskra is dragging at 
the tail of the revolution, is straying into an Osvobozhdeniye formulation of 
its tasks, whereas the Vperyod and the Proletary are issuing slogans that lead 
the democratic revolution forward. 
You don't understand this, Comrade Martynov? In view of the importance of the 
question we shall try to give you a detailed explanation. The bourgeois 
character of the democratic revolution expresses itself, among other things, in 
the fact that a number of classes, groups and sections of society which take 
their stand entirely on the recognition of private property and commodity 
production and are incapable of going beyond these bounds, are led by force of 
circumstances to recognise the uselessness of the autocracy and of the whole 
feudal order in general, and join in the demand for liberty. The bourgeois 
character of this liberty, which is demanded by "society" and advocated in a 
flood of words (and words only!) by the landowners and the capitalists, is 
manifesting itself more and more clearly. At the same time the radical 
difference between the struggle of the workers and the struggle of the 
bourgeoisie for liberty, between proletarian and liberal democratism, also 
becomes more obvious. The working class and its class-conscious representatives 
are marching forward and pushing this struggle forward, not only without fearing 
to carry it to completion, but striving to go far beyond the uttermost limits of 
the democratic revolution. The bourgeoisie is inconsistent and self-seeking, and 
accepts the slogans of liberty only in part and hypocritically. All attempts to 
draw a particular line or to draw up particular "points" (like the points in 
Starover's or the Conferencers' resolution) beyond which begins this hypocrisy 
of the bourgeois friends of liberty, or, if you like, this betrayal of liberty 
by its bourgeois friends, are inevitably doomed to failure; for the bourgeoisie, 
caught between two fires (the autocracy and the proletariat), is capable of 
changing its position and slogans by a thousand ways and means, of adapting 
itself by moving an inch to the Left or an inch to the Right, constantly 
bargaining and dickering. The task of proletarian democratism is not to invent 
such lifeless "points," but unceasingly to criticise the developing political 
situation, to expose the ever new and unforeseeable inconsistencies and 
betrayals on the part of the bourgeoisie. 
Recall the history of Mr. Struve's political pronouncements in the illegal 
press, the history of Social-Democracy's war with him, and you will see clearly 
how these tasks were carried out by Social-Democracy, the champion of 
proletarian democratism. Mr. Struve began with a purely Shipov slogan: "Rights 
and an Authoritative Zemstvo" (see my article in the Zarya, "The Persecutors of 
the Zemstvo and the Hannibals of Liberalism". Social-Democracy exposed him and 
pushed him in the direction of a definitely constitutionalist program. When this 
"pushing" took effect, thanks to the particularly rapid progress of 
revolutionary events, the struggle shifted to the next question of democracy: 
not only a constitution in general, but one providing for universal and equal 
suffrage, direct elections and secret ballot. When we "captured" this new 
position from the "enemy" (the adoption of universal suffrage by the 
Osvobozhdeniye League) we began to press further; we showed up the hypocrisy and 
falsity of a two-chamber system, and the fact that universal suffrage had not 
been fully recognised by the Osvobozhdentsi; we pointed to their monarchism and 
showed up the huckstering nature of their democratism, or, in other words, the 
bartering away of the interests of the great Russian revolution by these 
Osvobozhderiye heroes of the moneybags. 
Finally, the savage obstinacy of the autocracy, the enormous progress of the 
civil war and the hopelessness of the position into which the monarchists have 
led Russia have begun to penetrate even the thickest skulls. The revolution has 
become a fact. It is no longer necessary to be a revolutionary to acknowledge 
the revolution. The autocratic government has actually been and is 
disintegrating in the sight of all. As has justly been remarked in the legal 
press by a certain liberal (Mr. Gredeskul), actual insubordination to this 
government has set in. Despite all its apparent strength the autocracy has 
proved impotent; the events attending the developing revolution have simply 
begun to brush aside this parasitic organism which is rotting alive. Compelled 
to base their activity (or, to put it more correctly, their political 
wire-pulling) on relationships as they are actually taking shape, the liberal 
bourgeois have begun to see the necessity of recognising the revolution. They do 
so not because they are revolutionaries, but despite the fact that they are not 
revolutionaries. They do so of necessity and against their will, angrily glaring 
at the successes of the revolution, they blame the autocracy for the revolution 
because it does not want to strike a bargain, but wants a life-and-death 
struggle. Born hucksters, they hate struggle and revolution, but circumstances 
force them to tread the ground of revolution, for there is no other ground under 
their feet. 
We are witnessing a highly instructive and highly comical spectacle. The 
bourgeois liberal prostitutes are trying to drape themselves in the toga of 
revolution. The Osvobozhdentsi-risum teneatis, amici![Restrain your laughter, 
friends!]-the Osvobozhdentsi are beginning to speak in the name of the 
revolution! The Osvobozhdentsi are beginning to assure us that they "do not fear 
revolution" (Mr. Struve in the Osvobozhdeniye, No. 72)!!! The Osvobozhdentsi are 
voicing their claims "to be at the head of the revolution"!!! 
This is an exceptionally significant phenomenon that characterises not only the 
progress of bourgeois liberalism, but even more so the progress of the real 
successes of the revolutionary movement, which has compelled recognition. Even 
the bourgeoisie is beginning to feel that it is more to its advantage to take 
its stand on the side of the revolution-so shaky is the autocracy. On the other 
hand, this phenomenon, which testifies to the fact that the entire movement has 
risen to a new and higher plane, also sets us new and higher tasks. The 
recognition of the revolution by the bourgeoisie cannot be sincere, irrespective 
of the personal integrity of this or that bourgeois ideologist. The bourgeoisie 
cannot help introducing selfishness and inconsistency, the bargaining spirit and 
petty reactionary tricks even into this higher stage of the movement. We must 
now formulate the immediate concrete tasks of the revolution differently, in the 
name of our program and in amplification of our program. What was adequate 
yesterday is inadequate today. Yesterday, perhaps, the demand for the 
recognition of the revolution was adequate as an advanced democratic slogan. 
Today this is not enough. The revolution has forced even Mr. Struve to recognise 
it. The advanced class must now define exactly the very content of the urgent 
and pressing tasks of this revolution. While recognising the revolution, Messrs. 
the Struves again and again expose their asses' ears and strike up the old song 
about the possibility of a peaceful outcome, about Nicholas calling on the 
Osvobozhdentsi to take power, etc., etc. The Osvobozhdentsi recognise the 
revolution in order the more safely for themselves to conjure it away, to betray 
it. It is our duty at the present time to show the proletariat and the whole 
people the inadequacy of the slogan: "Revolution"; we must show how necessary it 
is to have a dear and unambiguous, consistent and determined definition of the 
very content of the revolution. And this definition is provided by the one 
slogan that is capable of correctly expressing a "decisive victory" of the 
revolution, the slogan: for the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the 
proletariat and the peasantry. 
The misuse of terms is a most common practice in politics. The term "Socialist," 
for example, has often been appropriated by the supporters of English bourgeois 
liberalism ("We are all Socialists now," said Harcourt), by the supporters of 
Bismarck, and by the friends of Pope Leo XIII. The term "revolution" also fully 
lends itself to misuse and at a certain stage in the development of the movement 
such misuse is inevitable. When Mr. Struve began to speak in the name of 
revolution I involuntarily remembered Thiers. A few days before the February 
revolution, this monstrous gnome, this most consummate expression of the 
political corruption of the bourgeoisie, scented the approach of a popular 
storm, and so he announced from the parliamentary tribune: that he was of the 
party of revolution! (See Marx's The Civil War in France.) The political 
significance of Osvobozhdeniye's turn to the party of revolution is quite 
identical with that of Thiers. The fact that the Russian Thiers are talking 
about their belonging to the party of revolution shows that the slogan 
revolution has become inadequate, meaningless and defines no tasks: for the 
revolution has become a fact, and the most diverse elements are flocking to its 
side. 
Indeed, what is revolution from the Marxist point of view? The violent break-up 
of the obsolete political superstructure, the contradiction between which and 
the new relations of production caused its collapse at a certain moment. The 
contradiction between the autocracy and the entire structure of capitalist 
Russia, all the requirements of her bourgeois-democratic development, has now 
caused its collapse, all the more severe owing to the lengthy period in which 
this contradiction was artificially sustained. The superstructure is cracking at 
every joint, it is yielding to pressure, it is growing weaker. The people, 
through the representatives of the most diverse classes and groups, must now, by 
its own efforts, build a new superstructure for itself. At a certain stage of 
development the uselessness of the old superstructure becomes obvious to all. 
The revolution is recognised by all. The task now is to define which classes 
must build the new superstructure, and how they are to build it. If this is not 
defined, the slogan revolution is empty and meaningless at the present time; for 
the feebleness of the autocracy makes "revolutionaries" even of the Grand Dukes 
and of the Moskovskiye Vyedomosti! If this is not defined there can be no talk 
about the advanced democratic tasks of the advanced class. This definition is 
given in the slogan: the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the 
peasantry. This slogan defines the classes upon which the new "builders" of the 
new superstructure can and must rely, the character of the new superstructure (a 
"democratic" as distinct from a socialist dictatorship), and how it is to be 
built (dictatorship, i.e., the violent suppression of violent resistance, arming 
the revolutionary classes of the people). Whoever now refuses to recognise this 
slogan of revolutionary-democratic dictatorship, the slogan of a revolutionary 
army, of a revolutionary government, of revolutionary peasant committees, either 
hopelessly fails to understand the tasks of the revolution, is unable to define 
the new and higher tasks that are called forth by the present situation, or is 
deceiving the people, betraying the revolution, misusing the slogan 
"revolution." 
The former case applies to Comrade Martynov and his friends. The latter applies 
to Mr. Struve and the whole of the "constitutional-democratic" Zemstvo party. 
Comrade Martynov was so shrewd and smart that he hurled the charge of 
"substituting" the term dictatorship for that of revolution just at the time 
when the development of the revolution called for a definition of its tasks by 
the slogan dictatorship! Actually, Comrade Martynov again had the misfortune to 
remain at the tail end, to get stranded at the penultimate stage, to find 
himself on the level, of Osvobozhdeniye-ism, for it is precisely to the 
political stand of Osvobozhdeniye, i.e., to the interests of the liberal 
monarchist bourgeoisie, that recognition of "revolution" (in words) and refusal 
to recognise the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry 
(i.e., revolution in deeds) now corresponds. The liberal bourgeoisie, through 
the mouth of Mr. Struve, is now expressing itself in favour of revolution. The 
class-conscious proletariat, through the mouths of the revolutionary 
Social-Democrats, is demanding the dictatorship of the proletariat and the 
peasantry. And here the wiseacre of the new Iskra intervenes in the controversy 
and yells: don't dare "substitute" the term dictatorship for that of revolution! 
Well, is it not true that the false stand taken by the new-Iskraists dooms them 
to be constantly dragging along at the tail of Osvobozhdeniye-ism? 
We have shown that the Osvobozhdentsi are ascending (not without encouraging 
prods by the Social-Democrats) step by step in the matter of recognising 
democracy. At first the issue in the dispute between us was: the Shipov system 
(rights and an authoritative Zemstvo) or constitutionalism? Then it was: limited 
suffrage or universal suffrage? Later: recognition of the revolution or a 
stock-jobber's bargain with the autocracy? Finally, now it is: recognition of 
the revolution without the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry or 
recognition of the demand for a dictatorship of these classes in the democratic 
revolution? It is possible and probable that Messrs. the Osvobozhdentsi (whether 
the present ones or their successors in the Left wing of the bourgeois democrats 
makes no difference) will ascend another step, i.e., recognise in time (perhaps 
by the time Comrade Martynov goes up one more step) the slogan of dictatorship 
also. This will inevitably be so if the Russian revolution continues to forge 
ahead successfully and achieves a decisive victory. What will be the position of 
Social-Democracy then? The complete victory of the present revolution will mark 
the end of the democratic revolution and the beginning of a determined struggle 
for a socialist revolution. The satisfaction of the demands of the present-day 
peasantry, the utter rout of reaction, and the winning of a democratic republic 
will mark the complete end of the revolutionism of the bourgeoisie and even of 
the petty bourgeoisie-will mark the beginning of the real struggle of the 
proletariat for Socialism. The more complete the democratic revolution, the 
sooner, the more widespread, the purer and the more determined will be the 
development of this new struggle. The slogan of a "democratic" dictatorship 
expresses the historically limited nature of the present revolution and the 
necessity of a new struggle on the basis of the new order for the complete 
emancipation of the working class from all oppression and all exploitation. In 
other words: when the democratic bourgeoisie or petty bourgeoisie ascends 
another step, when not only the revolution but the complete victory of the 
revolution becomes an accomplished fact, we shall "substitute" (perhaps amid the 
horrified cries of new, future, Martynovs) for the slogan of the democratic 
dictatorship, the slogan of a socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., 
of a complete socialist revolution. 
 
Next: The Vulgar Bourgeois Representation of Dictatorship and Marx's View of It 
 



Footnotes 
[A] Engels's article, "The Bakunists at Work. Review of the Uprising in Spain in 
the Summer of 1873" was translated into Russian under Lenin's editorship and in 
1905 was published in Geneva by the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. in the 
form of a pamphlet. A second edition came out in 1906 in St. Petersburg. 
Written by Marx and Engels in March 1850, the Address to the Central Committee 
to the Communist League was published in Russian in 1906 as a supplement to the 
pamphlet The Cologne Communist Trial, brought out by the Molot Publishers in St. 
Petersburg. 






The Vulgar Bourgeois Representation of Dictatorship and Marx's View of It 
 
Mehring tells us in his notes to Marx's articles from the Neue Rheinische 
Zeitung of 1848 that he published, that one of the reproaches levelled at this 
newspaper by bourgeois publications was that it had allegedly demanded "the 
immediate introduction of a dictatorship as the sole means of achieving 
democracy" (Marx, Nachlass, Volume III, p. 53). From the vulgar bourgeois 
standpoint the terms dictatorship and democracy are mutually exclusive. Failing 
to understand the theory of class struggle, and accustomed to seeing in the 
political arena the petty squabbling of the various bourgeois circles and 
coteries, the bourgeois conceives dictatorship to mean the annulment of all the 
liberties and guarantees of democracy, tyranny of every kind, and every sort of 
abuse of power in the personal interests of a dictator. In essence, it is 
precisely this vulgar bourgeois view that is manifested in the writings of our 
Martynov, who winds up his "new campaign" in the new Iskra by attributing the 
partiality of the Vperyod and the Proletary for the slogan of dictatorship to 
Lenin's "passionate desire to try his luck" (Iskra, No. 103, p. 3, col. 2). In 
order to explain to Martynov the meaning of the term class dictatorship as 
distinct from personal dictatorship, and the tasks of a democratic dictatorship 
as distinct from those of a socialist dictatorship, it would not be amiss to 
dwell on the views of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. 
"Every provisional organisation of the state after a revolution," wrote the Neue 
Rheinische Zeitung on September 14, 1848, "requires a dictatorship, and an 
energetic dictatorship at that. From the very beginning we have reproached 
Camphausen" (the head of the Ministry after March 8, 1848) "for not acting 
dictatorially, for not having immediately smashed up and eliminated the remnants 
of the old institutions. And while Herr Camphausen was lulling himself with 
constitutional illusions, the defeated party (i.e., the party of reaction) 
strengthened its positions in the bureaucracy, and in the army, and here and 
there even began to venture upon open struggle." 
These words, Mehring justly remarks, sum up in a few propositions all that was 
propounded in detail in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung in long articles on the 
Camphausen Ministry. What do these words of Marx tell us? That a provisional 
revolutionary government must act dictatorially (a proposition which the Iskra 
was totally unable to grasp since it was fighting shy of the slogan: 
dictatorship) and that the task of such a dictatorship is to destroy the 
remnants of the old institutions (which is precisely what was clearly stated in 
the resolution of the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour 
Party about the struggle against counterrevolution, and what was omitted in the 
resolution of the Conference, as we showed above). Thirdly, and lastly, it 
follows from these words that Marx castigated the bourgeois democrats for 
entertaining "constitutional illusions" in a period of revolution and open civil 
war. The meaning of these words becomes particularly obvious from the article in 
the Neue Rheinische Zeitung of June 6, l848. 
"A Constituent National Assembly," wrote Marx, "must first of all be an active, 
revolutionary-active assembly. The Frankfurt Assembly, however, is busying 
itself with school exercises in parliamentarism while allowing the government to 
act. Let us assume that this learned assembly succeeds after mature 
consideration in working out the best possible agenda and the best possible 
constitution. But what is the use of the best possible agenda and of the best 
possible constitution, if the German governments have in the meantime placed the 
bayonet on the agenda?" 
That is the meaning of the slogan: dictatorship. We can judge from this what 
Marx's attitude would have been towards resolutions which call a "decision to 
organise a constituent assembly" a decisive victory, or which invite us to 
"remain the party of extreme revolutionary opposition"! 
Major questions in the life of nations are settled only by force. The 
reactionary classes themselves are usually the first to resort to violence, to 
civil war; they are the first to "place the bayonet on the agenda," as the 
Russian autocracy has been doing systematically and undeviatingly everywhere 
ever since January 9. And since such a situation has arisen, since the bayonet 
has really become the main point on the political agenda, since insurrection has 
proved to be imperative and urgent-constitutional illusions and school exercises 
in parliamentarism become only a screen for the bourgeois betrayal of the 
revolution, a screen to conceal the fact that the bourgeoisie is "recoiling" 
from the revolution. It is therefore the slogan of dictatorship that the 
genuinely revolutionary class must advance. 
On the question of the tasks of this dictatorship Marx wrote, already in the 
Neue Rheinische Zeitung [of June 6, l848]: "The National Assembly should have 
acted dictatorially against the reactionary attempts of the obsolete 
governments; the force of public opinion in its favour would then have been so 
strong as to shatter all bayonets. . . . But this Assembly bores the German 
people instead of carrying the people with it or being carried away by it." In 
Marx's opinion, the National Assembly should have "eliminated from the regime 
actually existing in Germany everything that contradicted the principle of the 
sovereignty of the people," then it should have "consolidated the revolutionary 
ground on which it stands in order to make the sovereignty of the people, won by 
the revolution, secure against all attacks." 
Thus, the tasks which Marx set before a revolutionary government or dictatorship 
in 1848 amounted in substance primarily to a democratic revolution: defence 
against counterrevolution and the actual elimination of everything that 
contradicted the sovereignty of the people. This is nothing else than a 
revolutionary-democratic dictatorship. 
To proceed: which classes, in Marx's opinion, could and should have achieved 
this task (actually to exercise to the full the principle of the sovereignty of 
the people and to beat off the attacks of the counterrevolution)? Marx speaks of 
the "people." But we know that he always ruthlessly combated the petty-bourgeois 
illusions about the unity of the "people" and about the absence of a class 
struggle within the people. In using the word "people," Marx did not thereby 
gloss over class distinctions, but combined definite elements that were capable 
of carrying the revolution to completion. 
After the victory of the Berlin proletariat on March 18, wrote the Neue 
Rheinische Zeitung[of June 14, 1848] , the results of the revolution proved to 
be twofold: "On the one hand the arming of the people, the right of association, 
the sovereignty of the people actually attained; on the other hand, the 
preservation of the monarchy and the Camphausen-Hansemann Ministry, i.e., the 
government of representatives of the big bourgeoisie. Thus, the revolution had 
two series of results, which had inevitably to diverge. The people had achieved 
victory, it had won liberties of a decisive democratic nature, but the direct 
power passed not into its hands, but into those of the big bourgeoisie. In a 
word, the revolution was not completed. The people allowed the big bourgeois to 
form a ministry, and the big bourgeois immediately displayed their strivings by 
offering an alliance to the old Prussian nobility and bureaucracy. Arnim, Canitz 
and Schwerin joined the Ministry. 
"The upper bourgeoisie, ever antirevolutionary, concluded a defensive end 
offensive alliance with the reaction out of fear of the people, that is to say, 
the workers and the democratic bourgeoisie." (Our italics.) 
Thus, not only a "decision to organise a constituent assembly," but even its 
actual convocation is insufficient for a decisive victory of the revolution! 
Even after a partial victory in an armed struggle (the victory of the Berlin 
workers over the troops on March 18, 1848) an "incomplete" revolution, a 
revolution "that has not been carried to completion," is possible. On what, 
then, does its completion depend? It depends on whose hands the immediate rule 
passes into, whether into the hands of the Petrunkeviches and Rodichevs, that is 
to say, the Camphausens and the Hansemanns, or into the hands of the people, 
i.e., the workers and the democratic bourgeoisie. In the first case the 
bourgeoisie will possess power, and the proletariat "freedom of criticism." 
freedom to "remain the party of extreme revolutionary opposition." Immediately 
after the victory, the bourgeoisie will conclude an alliance with the reaction 
(this would inevitably happen in Russia too, if, for example, the St. Petersburg 
workers gained only a partial victory in street fighting with the troops and 
left it to Messrs. Petrunkeviches and Co. to form a government). In the second 
case, a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship, i.e., the complete victory of the 
revolution, would be possible. 
It now remains to define more precisely what Marx really meant by "democratic 
bourgeoisie" (demokratische Brgerschaft), which together with the workers he 
called the people, in contradistinction to the big bourgeoisie. 
A clear answer to this question is supplied by the following passage from an 
article in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung of July 29, 1848: ". . . The German 
revolution of 1848 is only a parody of the French revolution of 1789. 
"On August 4, 1789, three weeks after the storming of the Bastille, the French 
people in a single day prevailed over all the feudal burdens. 
"On July 11, 1848, four months after the March barricades, the feudal burdens 
prevailed over the German people. Teste Gierke cum Hansemanno. 1) 
"The French bourgeoisie of 1789 did not for a moment leave its allies, the 
peasants, in the lurch. It knew that the foundation of its rule was the 
destruction of feudalism in the countryside, the creation of a free landowning 
(grundbesitzenden) peasant class. 
"The German bourgeoisie of 1848 is without the least compunction betraying the 
peasants, who are its most natural allies, the flesh of its flesh, and without 
whom it is powerless against the nobility. 
"The continuance of feudal rights, their sanction under the guise of (illusory) 
redemption-such is the result of the German revolution of 1848. The mountain 
brought forth a mouse." 
This is a very instructive passage: it gives us four important propositions:
1) The incompleted German revolution differs from the completed French 
revolution in that the German bourgeoisie betrayed not only democracy in 
general, but also the peasantry in particular. 
2) The foundation for the full consummation of a democratic revolution is the 
creation of a free class of peasants. 
3) The creation of such a class means the abolition of feudal burdens, the 
destruction of feudalism, but does not yet mean a socialist revolution.
4) The peasants are the "most natural" allies of the bourgeoisie, that is to 
say, of the democratic bourgeoisie, which without them is "powerless" against 
the reaction. 
Making proper allowances for concrete national peculiarities and substituting 
serfdom for feudalism, all these propositions can be fully applied to Russia in 
1905. There is no doubt that by learning from the experience of Germany, as 
elucidated by Marx, we cannot arrive at any other slogan for a decisive victory 
of the revolution than: a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the 
proletariat and the peasantry. There is no doubt that the chief components of 
the "people," whom Marx in 1848 contrasted with the resisting reactionaries and 
the treacherous bourgeoisie, are the proletariat and the peasantry. There is no 
doubt that in Russia too the liberal bourgeoisie and the gentlemen of the 
Osvobozhdeniye League are betraying and will continue to betray the peasantry, 
i.e., will confine themselves to a pseudo reform and taking the side of the 
landlords in the decisive battle between them and the peasantry. Only the 
proletariat is capable of supporting the peasantry to the end in this struggle. 
There is no doubt, finally, that in Russia also the success of the peasant 
struggle, i.e., the transfer of the whole of the land to the peasantry, will 
signify a complete democratic revolution and constitute the social support of 
the revolution carried to its completion, but it will by no means be a socialist 
revolution, or "socialisation" that the ideologists of the petty bourgeoisie, 
the Socialist-Revolutionaries talk about. The success of the peasant 
insurrection, the victory of the democratic revolution will merely clear the way 
for a genuine and decisive struggle for Socialism on the basis of a democratic 
republic. In this struggle the peasantry as a landowning class will play the 
same treacherous, vacillating part as is now being played by the bourgeoisie in 
the struggle for democracy. To forget this is to forget Socialism, to deceive 
oneself and others as to the real interests and tasks of the proletariat. 
In order to leave no gaps in the presentation of the views held by Marx in 1848, 
it is necessary to note one essential difference between German Social-Democracy 
of that time (or the Communist Party of the Proletariat, to use the language of 
that period) and present-day Russian Social Democracy. Here is what Mehring 
says: 
"The Neue Rheinische Zeitung appeared in the political arena as the 'organ of 
democracy.' There is no mistaking the thread that ran through all its articles. 
But in the direct sense, it championed the interests of the bourgeois revolution 
against absolutism and feudalism more than the interests of the proletariat 
against the bourgeoisie. Very little is to be found in its columns about the 
separate working-class movement during the years of the revolution, although one 
should not forget that along with it there appeared twice a week, under the 
editorship of Moll and Schapper, a special organ of the Cologne Workers' 
League.[Zeitung des Arbeiter-Vereins zu Klnn] At any rate, the present day 
reader will be struck by the little attention the Neue Rheinische Zeitung paid 
to the German working-class movement of its day, although its most capable mind, 
Stephan Born, was a pupil of Marx and Engels in Paris and Brussels and in 1848 
was the Berlin correspondent for their newspaper. Born relates in his Memoirs 
that Marx and Engels never expressed a single word in disapproval of his 
agitation among the workers; nevertheless, it appears probable from subsequent 
declarations of Engels' that they were dissatisfied, at least with the methods 
of this agitation. Their dissatisfaction was justified inasmuch as Born was 
obliged to make many concessions to the as yet totally undeveloped class 
consciousness of the proletariat in the greater part of Germany, concessions 
which do not stand the test of criticism from the viewpoint of the Commumist 
Manifesto. Their dissatisfaction was unjustified inasmuch as Born managed 
nonetheless to maintain the agitation conducted by him on a relatively high 
plane. . . . Without doubt, Marx and Engels were historically and politically 
right in thinking that the primary interest of the working class was to push the 
bourgeois revolution forward as far as possible. . . . Nevertheless, a 
remarkable proof of how the elementary instinct of the working-class movement is 
able to correct the conceptions of the greatest minds is provided by the fact 
that in April 1849 they declared in favour of a specific workers' organisation 
and decided to participate in the workers' congress, which was being prepared 
especially by the East Elbe (Eastern Prussia) proletariat." 
Thus, it was only in April 1849, after the revolutionary newspaper had been 
appearing for almost a year (the Neue Rheinische Zeitung began publication on 
June 1, 1848) that Marx and Engels declared in favour of a special workers' 
organisation! Until then they were merely running an "organ of democracy" 
unconnected by any organisational ties with an independent workers' party. This 
fact, monstrous and improbable as it may appear from our present-day standpoint, 
clearly shows us what an enormous difference there is between the German 
Social-Democratic Party of those days and the Russian Social-Democratic Labour 
Party of today. This fact shows how much less the proletarian features of the 
movement, the proletarian current within it, were in evidence in the German 
democratic revolution (because of the backwardness of Germany in 1848 both 
economically and politically-its disunity as a state). This should not be 
forgotten in judging Marx's repeated declarations during this period and 
somewhat later about the need for organising an independent proletarian party. 
Marx arrived at this practical conclusion only as a result of the experience of 
the democratic revolution, almost a year later-so philistine, so petty-bourgeois 
was the whole atmosphere in Germany at that time. To us this conclusion is an 
old and solid acquisition of half a century's experience of international 
Social-Democracy-an acquisition with which we began to organise the Russian 
Social-Democratic Labour Party. In our case there can be no question, for 
instance, of revolutionary proletarian newspapers being outside the 
Social-Democratic Party of the proletariat, or of their appearing even for a 
moment simply as "organs of democracy." 
But the contrast which had hardly begun to reveal itself between Marx and 
Stephan Born exists in our case in a form which is more developed by reason of 
the more powerful manifestation of the proletarian current in the democratic 
stream of our revolution. Speaking of the probable dissatisfaction of Marx and 
Engels with the agitation conducted by Stephan Born, Mehring expresses himself 
too mildly and too evasively. Here is what Engels wrote of Born in 1885 (in his 
preface to the Enthllungen ber den Kommunistenprocess zu Kln. Zrich, 
1885[Revelations About the Cologne Communist Trial, Zrich, 1885.]) : 
The members of the Communist League everywhere stood at the head of the extreme 
democratic movement, proving thereby that the League was an excellent school of 
revolutionary action. ". . . the compositor Stephan Born, who had worked in 
Brussels and Paris as an active member of the League, founded a Workers' 
Brotherhood'' ("Arbeiterverbruderung") "in Berlin which became fairly widespread 
and existed until 1850. Born, a very talented young man, who, however, was a bit 
too much in a hurry to become a big political figure, 'fraternised' with the 
most miscellaneous ragtag and bobtail" (Kreti und Plethi) "in order to get a 
crowd together, and was not at all the man who could bring unity into the 
conflicting tendencies, light into the chaos. Consequently, in the official 
publications of the association the views represented in the Communist Manifesto 
were mingled hodgepodge with guild recollections and guild aspirations, 
fragments of Louis Blanc and Proudhon, protectionism, etc.; in short, they 
wanted to please everybody [allen alles sein]." "In particular, strikes, trade 
unions and producers' co-operatives were set going and it was forgotten that 
above all it was a question of first conquering, by means of political 
victories, the field in which alone such things could be realised on a lasting 
basis." (Our italics.) "When, afterwards. the victories of the reaction made the 
leaders of the Brotherhood realise the necessity of taking a direct part in the 
revolutionary struggle, they were naturally left in the lurch by the confused 
mass which they had grouped around themselves. Born took part in the Dresden 
uprising in May, 1849 and had a lucky escape. But, in contrast to the great 
political movement of the proletariat, the Workers' Brotherhood proved to be a 
pure Sonderbund [separate league], which to a large extent existed only on paper 
and played such a subordinate role that the reaction did not find it necessary 
to suppress it until 1850, and its surviving branches until several years later. 
Born, whose real name was Buttermilch 2) (Buttermilk), "has not become a big 
political figure but a petty Swiss professor, who no longer translates Marx into 
guild language but the meek Renan into his own fulsome German." 
That is how Engels judged the two tactics of Social Democracy in the democratic 
revolution! 
Our new-Iskraists are also pushing towards "Economism," and with such 
unreasonable zeal as to earn the praises of the monarchist bourgeoisie for their 
"seeing the light." They too collect around themselves a motley crowd, 
flattering the "Economists," demagogically attracting the undeveloped masses by 
the slogans of "initiative," "democracy," "autonomy," etc., etc. Their labour 
unions, too, exist only on the pages of the Khlestakov new Iskra. Their slogans 
and resolutions betray a similar failure to understand the tasks of the "great 
political movement of the proletariat." 
 



Footnotes 
1) "Witnesses: Herr Gierke and Herr Hansemann." Hansemann was a minister who 
represented the party of the big bourgeoisie (Russian counterpart: Trubetskoy or 
Rodichev, and the like); Gierke was Minister of Agriculture in the Hansemann 
Cabinet, who drew up a plan, a "bold" plan for "abolishing feudal burdens," 
professedly "without compensation," but in fact for abolishing only the minor 
and unimportant burdens while preserving or granting compensation for the more 
essential ones. Herr Gierke was something like the Russian Messrs. Kablukov, 
Manuilov. Hertzenstein and similar bourgeois liberal friends of the muzhik who 
desire the "extension of peasant landownership" but do not wish to offend the 
landlords. 
2) In translating Engels I made a mistake in the first edition by taking the 
word Buttermilch to be not a proper noun but a common noun. This mistake 
naturally afforded great delight to the Mensheviks. Koltsov wrote that I had 
"rendered Engels more profound" (reprinted in Two Years, a collection of 
articles) and Plekhanov even now recalls this mistake in the Tovarishch -in 
short, it afforded an excellent pretext to slur over the question of the two 
tendencies in the working-class movement of 1848 in Germany, the Born tendency 
(akin to our Economists) and the Marxist tendency. To take advantage of the 
mistake of an opponent, even if it was only on the question of Born's name, is 
more than natural. But to use a correction to a translation to slur over the 
question of the two tactics is to dodge the real issue. [Author's note to the 
1907 edition.-Ed.)] 






