Vladimir Lenin 
Seventh All-Russian Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (B.) 
April 24 - 29, 1917 



Delivered: April 24 - 29, 1917 
First Published: (noted at end of each document) 
Transcription/Markup: Brian Basgen and David Walters 
Online Version: Lenin Internet Archive (marxists.org) 1999 
[Description of the Congress]



Contents: 
Note: The number next to each article denotes the order they were spoken. The 
articles have been arranged here by subject. 
1. Speech Delivered at the Opening of the Conference (April 24) 
 
2. Report on the Current Situation (April 24) 
3. Speech Winding Up The Debate on the Report on the Current Situation (April 
24) 
21. Speech In Favour of the Resolution on the Current Situation (April 29) 
22. Resolution on the Current Situation 
 
4. Speech on the Proposal To Call An International Socialist Conference (April 
25) 
5. Resolution On Borgbjerg's Proposal 
 
6. Speech on the Attitude Towards The Soviets (April 25 - Brief Press Report) 
7. Draft Theses to the Resolution on the Soviets 
17. Resolution on the Soviets of Workers and Soldiers' Deputies 
 
8. Speech in Favour of the Resolution on the War (April 27) 
9. Resolution on the War 
 
10. Resolution on the Attitude Towards the Provisional Government 
11. Report on the Question of Revising the Party Programme (April 28) 
12. Resolution on the Question of Revising the Party Programme (April 28) 
 
13. Report on the Agrarian Question (April 28) 
14. Rejoinder to N. S. Angarsky During the Debate on the Agrarian Question 
(April 28) 
15. Resolution on the Agrarian Question (April 29) 
16. Resolution on Uniting the Internationalists Against the Petty-Bourgeois 
Defencist Bloc 
18. Speech on the National Question (April 29) 
19. Resolution on the National Question 
20. Speech on the Situation Within The International and the Tasks of the 
R.S.D.L.P.(B.) (April 29) 
23. Concluding Speech at the Close of the Conference (April 29) 








Speech Delivered at the Opening of the Conference
(April 24) 



 
Comrades, we are assembled here as the first conference of the proletarian 
party, in conditions of the Russian revolution and a developing world revolution 
as well. The time is approaching when the assertion of the founders of 
scientific socialism, and the unanimous forecast of the socialists who gathered 
at the Basle Congress, that world war would inevitably lead to revolution, is 
being everywhere proved correct. 
In the nineteenth century Marx and Engels, following the proletarian movements 
in various countries and analysing the possible prospects for a social 
revolution, repeatedly stated that the roles would, in general, be distributed 
among these countries in proportion to, and in accordance with, their 
historically conditioned national features. They expressed their idea briefly 
as: The French worker will begin, the German will finish it. 
The great honour of beginning the revolution has fallen to the Russian 
proletariat. But the Russian proletariat must not forget that its movement and 
revolution are only part of a world revolutionary proletarian movement, which in 
Germany, for example, is gaining momentum with every passing day. Only from this 
angle can we define our tasks. 
I declare the All-Russia Conference open. Please nominate your candidates for 
election to the Presiding Committee. 
 



[A brief report published May 12 (April 29), 1917 in Sotsial-Demokrat No. 43 
First published in full in 1921 in N. Lenin (V. Ulyanov), Works, Volume XIV, 
Part 2 
Published according to the typewritten copy of the Minutes] 







Report on the Current Situation
(April 24) 



 
Comrades, in evaluating the current situation I have to deal with an exceedingly 
broad subject, which, to my mind, falls into three parts. First, the estimate of 
the political situation proper here in Russia, our attitude towards the 
government and the dual power that has come into existence; second, our attitude 
towards the war; third, the international background to the working-class 
movement, a situation which has brought the workers of the world face to face 
with a socialist revolution. 
I think, I shall have to deal only in brief with some of the points. 
Furthermore, I am going to submit to you a draft resolution on all these 
questions with this reservation, however, that, owing to the extreme lack of 
facilities and to the political crisis that has been created here in Petrograd, 
we were unable to have discussions of the resolution, or to communicate it in 
good time to the local comrades. I repeat, then, that these are only preliminary 
drafts, designed to make work easier in the committee and concentrate it on a 
few of the most essential questions. 
I begin with the first question. If I am not mistaken, the Moscow Conference 
adopted the same resolution as the Petrograd City Conference. [Interruption: 
"With amendments."] I have not seen the amendments, and I cannot pass an 
opinion. But since the Petrograd resolution was published in Pravda, I shall 
take it for granted, if no one objects, that it is known to everybody here. I 
submit this as a draft resolution to the present All-Russia Conference. 
Most of the parties in the petty-bourgeois bloc controlling the Petrograd Soviet 
represent our policy, in contrast to their own, as a rash policy. What 
distinguishes our policy is our demand above all for a precise class analysis of 
current events. The chief sin of the petty-bourgeois bloc is that it resorts to 
empty phrases to conceal from the people the truth about the government's class 
character. 
If the Moscow comrades have any amendments, they may present them now. 
(Reads the resolution of the Petrograd City Conference on the attitude towards 
the Provisional Government.) 
"Considering: 
"(1) that the Provisional Government, by its class character, is the organ of 
the landowner and bourgeois domination; 
"(2) that the Provisional Government and the classes it represents are bound 
with indissoluble economic and political ties to Russian and Anglo-French 
imperialism; 
"(3) that the Provisional Government is carrying out its proclaimed programme 
only partially, and only under pressure of the revolutionary proletariat and, to 
some extent, of the petty bourgeoisie; 
"(4) that the forces of bourgeois and landowner counter revolution, now being 
organised, have already, under cover of the Provisional Government and with the 
latter's obvious connivance, launched an attack on revolutionary democracy; 
"(5) that the Provisional Government is avoiding fixing the date for the 
elections to the Constituent Assembly, preventing the arming of the people as a 
whole, opposing the transfer of all the land to the people, foisting upon it the 
landowners' way of settling the agrarian question, obstructing the introduction 
of an eight-hour workday, condoning counter-revolutionary propaganda in the army 
(by Guchkov and Co.), rallying the high-ranking officers against the soldiers, 
etc...." 
I have read the first part of the resolution giving a class definition of the 
Provisional Government. There are scarcely any essential differences between 
this resolution and that of the Moscow comrades, as far as it is possible to 
judge from the latter's text alone. But the general definition of the government 
as counter-revolutionary is, in my opinion, incorrect. If we speak in general 
terms, we must specify which revolution we mean. As far as the bourgeois 
revolution is concerned, this cannot be said, because that revolution is already 
completed. As far as the proletarian and peasant revolution is concerned, such a 
statement is premature, for we cannot be sure that the peasants will necessarily 
go farther than the bourgeoisie. To express our confidence in the peasants, 
particularly now that they have turned to imperialism and defencism, i. e., to 
supporting the war, is, in my opinion, unsound. at the present moment the 
peasants have entered into a number of agreements with the Cadets. That is why I 
regard this clause in the Moscow resolution as politically incorrect. We want 
the peasants to go farther than the bourgeoisie, we want them to take the land 
from the landowners, but so far we can say nothing definite about their future 
conduct. 
We studiously avoid the words "revolutionary democracy". We may use them when 
there is a question of an attack by the government, but at the present moment 
they are highly deceptive, for it is very difficult to distinguish the classes 
which have mingled in this chaos. Our task is to free those who are trailing 
behind. The Soviets are important to us not as a form; to us it is important 
what classes they represent. We must, therefore, do a great deal of work to 
develop the class-consciousness of the proletariat.... 
(Resumes reading the resolution.) 
"(6) that this government, at the same time, is relying at present on the 
confidence of, and, to a certain extent, on an actual agreement with, the 
Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, which now unites an obvious 
majority of workers and soldiers, i. e., peasants; 
"(7) that every step of the Provisional Government, in both its domestic and 
foreign policies, is bound to open the eyes, not only of the proletarians in 
town and country and the semi-proletarians, but also of the broad sections of 
the petty bourgeoisie, to the real nature of this government, 
"the Conference resolves that: 
"(1) in order to ensure all the state power passing into the hands of the 
Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies or other bodies directly expressing 
the will of the people, prolonged work is necessary to develop proletarian 
class-consciousness and to unite the urban and rural proletarians against the 
vacillations of the petty bourgeoisie, for only work of this nature can 
guarantee real advance on the part of the whole revolutionary people; 
"(2) this calls for many-sided activity within the Soviets of Workers' and 
Soldiers' Deputies, for work aimed at in creasing the number of these Soviets, 
consolidating their power, and welding together our Party's proletarian 
internationalist groups in the Soviets; 
"(3) we must organise our Social-Democratic forces more effectively, so as to be 
able to direct the new wave of the revolutionary movement under the banner of 
revolutionary Social-Democracy." 
This is the sum and substance of our policy. The whole petty bourgeoisie is now 
wavering and trying to conceal this wavering behind the empty phrase about 
revolutionary democracy. We must contrapoise these waverings with a proletarian 
line. The counter-revolutionaries wish to frustrate it by premature action. Our 
task is to increase the number of Soviets, to reinforce them and to consolidate 
the unity of our Party. 
The Moscow comrades have added to Point 3 the demand for control. This control 
is represented by Chkheidze, Steklov, Tsereteli, and other leaders of the 
petty-bourgeois bloc. Control without power is an empty phrase. How can I 
control Britain? To control her, you would have to seize her fleet. I can 
understand the uneducated mass of workers and soldiers navely and unconsciously 
believing in control. You only have to think about the fundamental aspects of 
control, however, to realise that such a belief is a departure from the basic 
principles of the class struggle. What is control? If I write a paper, or a 
resolution, they will write a counter-resolution. To control, you must have 
power. If the broad mass of the petty-bourgeois bloc do not understand this, we 
must have the patience to explain it to them, but under no circumstances must we 
tell them a lie. If, however, I obscure this fundamental condition by speaking 
of control, then I am guilty of telling a lie and am playing into the hands of 
the capitalists and the imperialists. "You're welcome to your control, but we'll 
have the guns. Enjoy your control," they say. They know that at the moment the 
people cannot be denied their demand. Control without power is an empty 
petty-bourgeois phrase that hampers the progress of the Russian revolution. That 
is why I object to the Moscow comrades' third point. 
As for this peculiar interlocking of two powers, in which the Provisional 
Government, lacking power, guns, soldiers, and the armed mass of people, leans 
on the Soviets that are relying so far on promises and are carrying out a policy 
of upholding those promises, if you want to play this game, you are doomed to 
failure. Our task is to keep out of this game. We shall carry on our work of 
explaining to the proletariat the unsoundness of this policy, and events, at 
every turn, will prove the correctness of our position. So far we are in the 
minority; the masses still do not believe us. We can wait; they will side with 
us when the government shows its face. The government's vacillations may repel 
them and they will swing over to our side; and then, taking into consideration 
the balance of forces, we shall say: Our time has come. 
I now pass on to the question of the war. This question actually united us when 
we came out against the loan, the attitude towards which showed immediately and 
clearly the alignment of political forces. As Rech has stated, everybody, except 
Yedinstvo, is wavering; the entire petty bourgeoisie is for the loan-with 
reservations. The capitalists make a wry face and pocket the resolution with a 
smile, saying: "You may do the talking, but we shall do the acting." All those 
now voting for the loan are known as social-chauvinists the world over. 
I shall now proceed to read the resolution on the war. It is in three parts: 
(1) a characterisation of the war from the point of view of its class 
significance;
(2) the revolutionary defencism of the masses, something that cannot be found in 
any other country;
(3) how to end the war. 
Many of us, myself included, have had occasion to address the people, 
particularly the soldiers, and it seems to me that when everything is explained 
to them from the class point of view, there is one thing in our stand on which 
they are most unclear, namely, in what way we intend to end the war, in what way 
we think it possible to stop it. The masses are in a maze of misunderstanding, 
there is complete ignorance about our stand; that is why we must express 
ourselves most clearly on this. 
(Reads the draft resolution on the war.) 
"The present war is, on the part of both groups of the belligerent powers, an 
imperialist war, i. e., one waged by the capitalists for world domination, for 
division of the capitalists' spoils, for profitable markets for finance and 
banking capital, and for the subjugation of the weaker nationalities. 
"The transfer of state power in Russia from Nicholas II to the government of 
Guchkov, Lvov, and others, to the government of the landowners and capitalists, 
did not and could not alter the class character and meaning of the war as far as 
Russia is concerned. 
"The fact that the new government is carrying on the same imperialist war, i. 
e., an aggressive war of conquest, became glaringly apparent when the government 
not only failed to publish the secret treaties between ex-Tsar Nicholas II and 
the capitalist governments of Britain, France, etc., but even formally confirmed 
these treaties. This was done without consulting the will of the people and with 
the express purpose of deceiving them, for it is well known that the secret 
treaties concluded by the ex-tsar are outrageously predatory treaties that give 
the Russian capitalists a free hand to rob China, Persia, Turkey, Austria, etc. 
"For this reason no proletarian party that does not wish to break completely 
with internationalism, i. e., with the fraternal solidarity of the workers of 
all countries in their struggle against the yoke of Capital, can support the 
present war, or the present government, or its loans, no matter in what glowing 
terms these loans may be described. 
"Nor can any trust be placed in the present government's promise to renounce 
annexations, i. e., the conquest of foreign countries or the forcible retention 
of any nationality within the confines of Russia. For, in the first place, the 
capitalists, bound together by the thousand threads of Russian and Anglo-French 
banking capital, and intent on protecting the interests of capital, cannot 
renounce annexations in this war without at the same time ceasing to be 
capitalists, without renouncing the profits from the thousands of millions 
invested in loans, concessions, war industries, etc. And secondly, the 
new-government, after renouncing annexations to mislead the people, declared 
through Milyukov (Moscow, April 9, 1917) that it had no intention of renouncing 
them. Finally, as revealed by Dyelo Naroda, a newspaper in which Minister 
Kerensky co-operates, Milyukov has not even sent his statement on the 
renunciation of annexations to other countries. 
"Therefore, in warning the people against the capitalists' empty promises, the 
Conference declares that it is necessary to make a clear distinction between a 
renunciation of annexations in word and a renunciation of annexations in deed, 
i. e., the immediate publication of all the secret predatory treaties, of all 
acts of foreign policy, and the taking of immediate steps to fully liberate all 
peoples who are being oppressed, kept bound to Russia by force or kept in a 
state of subjection by the capitalist class, which is continuing the policy of 
ex-Tsar Nicholas II, a policy that is a disgrace to our nation." 
The second half of this part of the resolution deals with the promises made by 
the government. For a Marxist, perhaps, this part is superfluous; for the 
people, however, it is important. That is why we must add the reasons why we do 
not believe those promises, why we must not trust the government. The present 
government's promises to abandon its imperialist policy are not to be trusted. 
Our policy in this respect should not be in saying that we demand that the 
government publish the treaties. This would be a vain hope. To demand this of a 
capitalist government would be like demanding an exposure of commercial 
swindling. When we say that it is necessary to renounce annexations and 
indemnities, we should indicate how this can be done; and if we are asked who 
can do it, our answer will be that this step is by its very nature a 
revolutionary one, a step which only the revolutionary proletariat can make. 
Otherwise these promises will remain empty pledges and wishes used by the 
capitalists to keep the people in leading-strings. 
(Continues reading the draft resolution.) 
"The 'revolutionary defencism', which in Russia has now permeated almost all the 
Narodnik parties (the Popular Socialists, Trudoviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries), 
the opportunist party of the Menshevik Social-Democrats (the Organising 
Committee, Chkheidze, Tsereteli, etc.), and the majority of the non-party 
revolutionaries, reflects, in point of class significance, the interests and 
point of view of the petty bourgeoisie, the small proprietors, and the 
well-to-do peasants, who, like the capitalists, profit by oppressing weak 
peoples. on the other hand, it is a result of the deception of the masses by the 
capitalists, who instead of publishing the secret treaties confine themselves to 
promises and glib talk. 
"It must be admitted that the great mass of 'revolutionary defencists' are 
honest, i. e., they are really opposed to annexations, to conquests, to 
oppressing weak peoples; they are really working for a democratic, non-coercive 
peace among all the belligerents. This must be admitted for the reason that the 
class position of the urban and rural proletarians and semi-proletarians (i. e., 
of the people who earn their living, wholly or partly, by selling their 
labour-power to the capitalists) makes these classes uninterested in capitalist 
profits. 
"Therefore, while recognising that any concessions to 'revolutionary defencism' 
are absolutely impermissible and virtually signify a complete break with 
internationalism and socialism, the Conference declares that our Party will 
preach abstention from violence as long as the Russian capitalists and their 
Provisional Government confine themselves to threats of violence against the 
people (for example, Guchkov's unhappily notorious decree threatening the 
soldiers with punishment for arbitrary displacement of superiors), as long as 
the capitalists have not started using violence against the Soviets of Workers', 
Soldiers', Peasants', Agricultural Labourers', and other Deputies, which 
organise themselves freely, and freely elect and dismiss all public officers. 
Our Party will fight against the profound and fatal error of 'revolutionary 
defencism' solely by means of comradely persuasion, bringing home the truth that 
the attitude of unreasoning trust of the broad masses in the government of the 
capitalists, who are the worst enemies of peace and socialism, is, in 
present-day Russia, the chief obstacle to a speedy termination of the war." 
Some of the petty bourgeoisie have an interest in this policy of the 
capitalists-of that there can be no doubt. That is why it would be wrong for the 
proletarian party at present to place any hopes in the community of interests of 
the proletariat and the peasantry. We are fighting to win the peasants over to 
our side, but they are, to a certain extent, consciously on the side of the 
capitalists. 
There is not the slightest doubt that, as a class, the proletariat and 
semi-proletariat are not interested in the war. They are influenced by tradition 
and deception. They still lack political experience. Therefore, our task is one 
of patient explanation. We make no concessions to them on matters of principle; 
yet we cannot look upon them as social-chauvinists. This section of the 
population has never been socialist, nor has it the slightest idea about 
socialism, it is only just awakening to political life. Nevertheless, its 
class-consciousness is growing and broadening with extraordinary rapidity. We 
must be able to bring our views home to it, and this is now the most difficult 
task of all, particularly for a party that only yesterday worked underground. 
Some may ask: Have we not gone back on our own principles? We were advocating 
the conversion of the imperialist war into a civil war, and now we are 
contradicting ourselves. But the first civil war in Russia has come to an end; 
we are now advancing towards the second war-the war between imperialism and the 
armed people. In this transitional period, as long as the armed force is in the 
hands of the soldiers, as long as Milyukov and Guchkov have not yet resorted to 
violence, this civil war, so far as we are concerned, turns into peaceful, 
prolonged, and patient class propaganda. To speak of civil war before people 
have come to realise the need for it is undoubtedly to lapse into Blanquism. We 
are for civil war, but only for civil war waged by a politically conscious 
class. He can be overthrown who is known to the people as an oppressor. There 
are no oppressors in Russia at present; it is the soldiers and not the 
capitalists who now have the guns and rifles; the capitalists are getting what 
they want now not by force but by deception, and to shout about violence now is 
senseless. One must be able to uphold the Marxist point of view, which says that 
this conversion of imperialist war into a civil war should be based on 
objective, and not subjective, conditions. For the time being we withdraw that 
slogan, but only for the time being. It is the soldiers and the workers who 
possess the arms now, not the capitalists. So long as the government has not 
started war, our propaganda remains peaceful. 
The government would like to see us make the first imprudent move towards 
revolutionary action, as this would be to its advantage. It is exasperated 
because our Party has put forward the slogan of peaceful demonstrations. We must 
not cede one iota of our principles to the petty bourgeoisie, which is now 
marking time. The proletarian party would be making a dangerous mistake if it 
based its tactics on subjective desires where organisation is required. We 
cannot say that the majority is with us; what we need in the present situation 
is caution, caution, caution. To base proletarian tactics on subjective desires 
means to condemn it to failure. 
The third point deals with the question of how to end the war. The Marxist point 
of view is well known, but the difficulty is how to bring it home to the masses 
in the clearest form possible. We are not pacifists, and we cannot repudiate a 
revolutionary war. In what way does a revolutionary war differ from a capitalist 
war? The difference is, above all, a class difference: which class is interested 
in the war? What policy does the interested class pursue in that war? ...In 
addressing the people we must give concrete answers to their questions. And so 
the first question is how to distinguish a revolutionary war from a capitalist 
war. The ordinary man in the street does not grasp the distinction, he does not 
understand that it is a matter of class distinction. We must not confine 
ourselves to theory alone, we must demonstrate in practice that we shall wage a 
really revolutionary war only when the proletariat is in power. I think that by 
presenting the question this way we are giving the clearest possible answer to 
the question as to what this war is about and who is waging it. 
Pravda has published the draft of an appeal to the soldiers of all the 
belligerent countries. We have received information that fraternisation is 
taking place at the front, but this fraternisation is as yet politically 
semi-conscious. What it lacks is a clear political idea. The soldiers have come 
to feel instinctively that action must come from below. 
The class instinct of these revolutionary-minded people has suggested this path 
to them as being the only correct path. For a revolution, however, this is 
insufficient. We want to give a clear-cut political answer. In order to put an 
end to this war, state power must pass to the revolutionary class. I suggest 
that an appeal to the soldiers of all the belligerent countries be drawn up in 
the name of the Conference and published in all the appropriate languages. If, 
instead of all these hard-worked phrases about peace conferences, half of whose 
members are secret or open agents of the imperialist governments, we send out 
this appeal, we shall achieve our purpose a thousand times quicker than we would 
by all those peace conferences. We refuse to have any dealings with the German 
Plekhanovs. When we were passing through Germany, those gentlemen, the 
social-chauvinists, the German Plekhanovs, tried to get into our carriage, but 
we told them that we would not allow a single one of them in and that if any of 
them did get in they would not get out again without our having a big row. Had a 
man like Karl Liebknecht been permitted to come to see us, we would certainly 
have talked matters over with him. When we issue our appeal to the working 
people of all countries, giving an answer to the question of how to end the war, 
and when the soldiers read our answer showing a political way out of the war, 
then fraternisation will make tremendous strides. This must be done in order to 
raise fraternisation from the level of an instinctive revulsion against war to a 
clear political understanding of how to get out of it. 
I now pass on to the third question, namely, the analysis of the current 
situation with reference to the position of the international working-class 
movement and that of international capitalism. From the point of view of 
Marxism, in discussing imperialism it is absurd to restrict oneself to 
conditions in one country alone, since all capitalist countries are closely 
bound together. Now, in time of war, this bond has grown immeasurably stronger. 
All humanity is thrown into a tangled bloody heap from which no nation can 
extricate itself on its own. Though there are more and less advanced countries, 
this war has bound them all together by so many threads that escape from this 
tangle for any single country acting on its own is inconceivable.
We are all agreed that power must be wielded by the Soviets of Workers' and 
Soldiers' Deputies. But what can and should they do if power passes to them, i. 
e., if power is in the hands of the proletarians and semi-proletarians? This is 
an involved and difficult situation. Speaking of the transfer of power, there is 
a danger-one that played a big part in previous revolutions, too-namely, the 
danger that the revolutionary class will not know what to do with state power 
when it has won it. The history of revolutions gives us examples of revolutions 
that failed for this very reason. The Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' 
Deputies, which cover the whole of Russia with their network, now stand at the 
centre of the revolution; it seems to me, however, that we have not sufficiently 
studied or understood them. Should they take over the power, it will no longer 
be a state in the ordinary sense of the word. The world has seen no such state 
power functioning for any considerable length of time, but the whole world's 
labour movement has been approaching it. This would be a state of the Paris 
Commune type. Such power is a dictatorship, i. e., it rests not on law, not on 
the formal will of the majority, but on direct, open force. Force is the 
instrument of power. How, then, will the Soviets apply this power? Will they 
return to the old way of governing by means of the police? Will they govern by 
means of the old organs of power? In my opinion they cannot do this. At any 
rate, they will be faced with the immediate task of creating a state that is not 
bourgeois. Among Bolsheviks, I have compared this state to the Paris Commune in 
the sense that the latter destroyed the old administrative organs and replaced 
them by absolutely new ones that were the direct organs of the workers. I am 
accused of having now used a word which the capitalists fear most of all, as 
they have begun to interpret it as a desire for the immediate introduction of 
socialism. I have used it, however, only in the sense of replacing the old 
organs by new, proletarian ones. Marx saw in this the greatest advance of the 
entire world proletarian movement.[See Marx's letter to Dr. Kugelmann, April 17, 
1871] The question of the social tasks of the proletariat is of the greatest 
practical significance to us, first, because we are now tied up with all the 
other countries, and are unable to disentangle ourselves-the proletariat will 
either break free as a whole or it will be crushed secondly, the existence of 
Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies is a fact. No one doubts that they 
cover the whole of Russia, that they are a state power and that there can be no 
other power. If that is so, we should form a clear idea as to what use they can 
make of that power. Some people say that it is the same type of power as in 
France or America, but they have nothing of the kind there; such a direct power 
does not exist there. 
The resolution on the current situation is in three parts. The first defines the 
objective situation created by the imperialist war, the position in which world 
capitalism finds itself; the second deals with the state of the international 
proletarian movement; the third deals with the tasks of the Russian working 
class when power passes into its hands. In the first part I formulate the 
conclusion that during the war capitalism has developed even more than before 
the war. It has already taken over entire fields of production. Twenty seven 
years ago, in 1891, when the Germans adopted their Erfurt Programme, Engels said 
that one could not continue to define capitalism as a system of production 
lacking planning. This is now out of date; once there are trusts there can no 
longer be lack of planning. Capitalism has made gigantic strides, particularly 
in the twentieth century, and the war has done more than was done for 
twenty-five years. State control of industry has made progress in Britain as 
well as in Germany. Monopoly, in general, has evolved into state monopoly. The 
objective state of affairs has shown that the war has stepped up capitalist 
development, which has moved forward from capitalism to imperialism, from 
monopoly to state control. All this has brought the socialist revolution nearer 
and has created the objective conditions for it. Thus the socialist revolution 
has been brought closer as a result of the war. 
Before the war Britain enjoyed a greater degree of freedom than any other 
country in the world, a point which politicians of the Cadet type have always 
stressed. There was freedom there because there was no revolutionary movement 
there. The war wrought an instant change. In a country where for decades no 
attempt was ever made to encroach upon the freedom of the socialist press, a 
typically tsarist censorship was immediately established, and all the prisons 
were filled with socialists. For centuries the capitalists there had learned to 
rule the people without the use of force, and if they have resorted to force, it 
means that they feel that the revolutionary movement is growing, that they 
cannot act otherwise. When we said that Liebknecht represented the masses, 
although he was one against a hundred German Plekhanovs, we were told that that 
was a utopian idea, an illusion. Yet, anyone who has, if only once, attended 
workers' meetings abroad knows that the sympathy of the masses for Liebknecht is 
an undeniable fact. His bitterest opponents had to manoeuvre when facing the 
public, and if they did not pretend to be his supporters, neither did they dare 
to come out against him. Now things have gone still farther. We now have mass 
strikes, we have fraternisation at the front. To attempt prophecy in this 
respect would be a great mistake, but we cannot get away from the fact that 
sympathy for the International is growing, that revolutionary unrest is 
beginning in the German army. This is a fact which shows that the revolution in 
Germany is mounting. 
What, then, are the tasks of the revolutionary proletariat? The main flaw, the 
main error, in all the socialists' arguments is that this question is put in too 
general a form, as the question of the transition to socialism. What we should 
talk about, however, are concrete steps and measures. Some of them are ripe, and 
some are not. We are now at a transition stage. Clearly, we have brought to the 
fore new forms, unlike those in bourgeois states. The Soviets of Workers' and 
Soldiers' Deputies are a form of state which does not exist and never did exist 
in any country. This form represents the first steps towards socialism and is 
inevitable at the beginning of a socialist society. This is a fact of decisive 
importance. The Russian revolution has created the Soviets. No bourgeois country 
in the world has or can have such state institutions. No socialist revolution 
can be operative with any other state power than this. The Soviets must take 
power not for the purpose of building an ordinary bourgeois republic, nor for 
the purpose of making a direct transition to socialism. This cannot be. What, 
then, is the purpose? The Soviets must take power in order to make the first 
concrete steps towards this transition, steps that can and should be made . In 
this respect fear is the worst enemy. The masses must be urged to take these 
steps immediately, otherwise the power of the Soviets will have no meaning and 
will give the people nothing. 
I shall now attempt to answer the question as to what concrete measures we can 
suggest to the people without running counter to our Marxist convictions. 
Why do we want the power to pass to the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' 
Deputies? 
The first measure the Soviets must carry out is the nationalisation of the land. 
All the peoples are talking about nationalisation. Some say it is a most utopian 
measure; nevertheless, everybody comes to accept it, because landownership in 
Russia is so complicated that the only way out is to remove all boundary lines 
dividing the land and make it the property of the state. Private ownership of 
land must be abolished. That is the task confronting us, because the majority of 
the people are in favour of it. To accomplish it we need the Soviets. This 
measure cannot be carried out with the help of the old government officials. 
The second measure. We cannot be for "introducing" socialism-this would be the 
height of absurdity. We must preach socialism. The majority of the population in 
Russia are peasants, small farmers who can have no idea of socialism. But what 
objections can they have to a bank being set up in each village to enable them 
to improve their farming? They can say nothing against it. We must put over 
these practical measures to the peasants in our propaganda, and make the 
peasants realise that they are necessary. 
Quite another thing is the Sugar Syndicate. This is a clear fact. Here our 
proposal must be direct and practical: these already fully developed syndicates 
must be taken over by the state. If the Soviets intend to assume power, it is 
only for such ends. There is no other reason why they should do so. The 
alternative is: either the Soviets develop further, or they die an ignominious 
death as in the case of the Paris Commune. If it is a bourgeois republic that is 
needed, this can very well be left to the Cadets. 
I shall conclude by referring to a speech which impressed me most. I heard a 
coal miner deliver a remarkable speech. Without using a single bookish word, he 
told us how they had made the revolution. Those miners were not concerned with 
the question as to whether or not they should have a president. They seized the 
mine, and the important question to them was how to keep the cables intact so 
that production might not be interrupted. Then came the question of bread, which 
was scarce, and the miners also agreed on the method of obtaining it. Now that 
is a real programme of the revolution, not derived from books. That is what I 
call really winning power locally. 
Nowhere is the bourgeoisie so well established as in Petrograd. Here the 
capitalists have the power in their hands. But throughout the country, the 
peasants, without pursuing any socialist tasks, are carrying out purely 
practical measures. I think that only this programme of the revolutionary 
movement indicates the true path of the revolution. We are for these measures 
being started on with the greatest caution and circumspection. But it is only 
these measures that must be carried out; we should go ahead in this direction 
only. There is no other way out. Unless this is done the Soviets will be broken 
up and will die an ignominious death. But if the revolutionary proletariat 
should actually win power, it will only be for the sake of going forward. And to 
go forward means to take definite steps to get us out of the war-words alone 
won't do it. The complete success of these steps is only possible by world 
revolution, if the revolution kills the war, if the workers of the whole world 
support the revolution. Taking power is, therefore, the only practical measure 
and the only way out. 
 



A brief report published
May 8 (April 25), 1917 in Pravda No. 40 
First published in full in 1921 in N. Lenin (V. Ulyanov), Works,
Volume XIV, Part 2 
Published according to the typewritten copy of the Minutes 








Speech Winding Up The Debate on the Report on the Current Situation
(April 24) 



 
Comrade Kamenev was quick to seize on the talk of adventurism. I shall have to 
dwell on this. Comrade Kamenev is convinced and asserts that in opposing the 
slogan "Down with the Provisional Government", we showed vacillation. I agree 
with him; there certainly has been vacillation away from revolutionary policy, 
and this vacillation must be avoided. I think that our differences with Comrade 
Kamenev are not very great, because by agreeing with us he has changed his 
position. In what did our adventurism consist? It was the attempt to resort to 
forcible measures. We did not know to what extent the masses had swung to our 
side during that anxious moment. If it had been a strong swing things would have 
been different. We advanced the slogan for peaceful demonstrations, but several 
comrades from the Petrograd Committee issued a different slogan. We cancelled 
it, but were too late to prevent the masses from following the slogan of the 
Petrograd Committee. We say that the slogan "Down with the Provisional 
Government" is an adventurist slogan, that the government cannot be overthrown 
now. That is why we have advanced the slogan for peaceful demonstrations. All we 
wanted was a peaceful reconnoitring of the enemy's forces; we did not want to 
give battle. But the Petrograd Committee turned a trifle more to the left, which 
in this case is certainly a very grave crime. Our organisational apparatus 
proved weak-our decisions are not being carried out by everyone. Together with 
the correct slogan "Long Live the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies!" 
stood the incorrect slogan "Down with the Provisional Government". At the time 
of action, to go a "trifle more to the left" was wrong. We regard this as a very 
serious crime, as disorganisation. Had we deliberately allowed such an act, we 
would not have remained in the Central Committee for one moment. It happened 
because of the weakness of our organisational apparatus. Yes, there were 
shortcomings in our organisation. We have raised the question of improving our 
organisation. 
The Mensheviks and Co. are working the word "adventurism" as hard as they can. 
But it is they, of all people, who had neither an organisation nor a policy. We 
have both an organisation and a policy. 
At that moment the bourgeoisie mobilised all its forces; the centre hid itself, 
and we organised a peaceful demonstration. We were the only ones who had a 
political line. Did we make mistakes? We did. Only he who does nothing never 
errs. Perfect organisation is a difficult thing. 
Now about control. 
We are at one with Comrade Kamenev, except on the question of control. He views 
control as a political act. Subjectively, however, he understands this word 
better than Chkheidze and others. We will not accept control. People tell us 
that we have isolated ourselves, that, by uttering a lot of terrible words about 
communism, we have frightened the bourgeoisie into fits....Maybe! But it was not 
this that isolated us. It was the question of the loan that caused our 
isolation. It was on this question that we found ourselves in the minority. Yes, 
we are in the minority. Well, what of it? To be a socialist while chauvinism is 
the craze means to be in the minority. To be in the majority means to be a 
chauvinist. at the moment the peasant, together with Milyukov, is hitting 
socialism by means of the loan. The peasant follows Milyukov and Guchkov. This 
is a fact. The bourgeois-democratic dictatorship of the peasantry is an old 
formula. 
If we want to draw the peasantry into the revolution we must keep the 
proletariat apart from it in a separate proletarian party, because the peasantry 
is chauvinistic. To attract the peasant now means to surrender to the mercies of 
Milyukov. 
The Provisional Government must be overthrown, but not now, and not in the usual 
way. We agree with Comrade Kamenev. But we must explain. It is this word that 
Comrade Kamenev has been harping on. Nevertheless, this is the only thing we can 
do. 
Comrade Rykov says that socialism must come from other countries with a more 
developed industry. But that is not so. Nobody can say who will begin it and who 
will end it. That is not Marxism; it is a parody of Marxism. 
Marx said that France would begin it and Germany would finish it. But the 
Russian proletariat has achieved more than anybody else. 
If we had said, "No tsar, but a dictatorship of the proletariat", well, this 
would have meant skipping over the petty bourgeoisie. But what we are saying 
is-help the revolution through the Soviets. We must not lapse into reformism. We 
are fighting to win, not to lose. At the worst we count on partial success. Even 
if we suffer defeat we shall achieve partial success. We shall get reforms. 
Reforms are an auxiliary instrument of the class struggle. 
Further, Comrade Rykov says that there is no period of transition from 
capitalism to socialism. That is not so. It is a break with Marxism. 
The line we have marked out is correct, and in future we shall make every effort 
to achieve an organisation in which there will be no Petrograd Committee-men to 
disobey the Central Committee. We are growing, and that is as it should be with 
a real party. 

 



First published in 1921 in N. Lenin (V. Ulyanov),Works, Volume. XIV, Part 2

Published according to the typewritten copy of the Minutes 








Speech in Favour of the Resolution on the Current Situation
(April 29) 



 
In the resolution on the current situation it would be wrong to speak only of 
Russian conditions. The war has bound us together so inseparably that it would 
be a great mistake on our part to ignore the sum total of international 
relations. 
The main question dealt with in the resolution is this: what tasks will confront 
the Russian proletariat in the event of the world movement raising the issue of 
a social revolution? 
"The objective conditions for a socialist revolution, which undoubtedly existed 
even before the war in the more developed and advanced countries, have been 
ripening with tremendous rapidity as a result of the war. Small and middle 
enterprises are being squeezed out and ruined at a faster rate than ever. The 
concentration and internationalisation of capital are making gigantic strides; 
monopoly capitalism is developing into state monopoly capitalism. In a number of 
countries regulation of production and distribution by society is being 
introduced by force of circumstances. Some countries are introducing universal 
labour conscription." 
Before the war we had the monopoly of trusts and syndicates; since the war we 
have had a state monopoly. Universal labour conscription is something new, 
something that constitutes part of a socialist whole-this is often over looked 
by those who fear to examine the concrete situation. 
The first part of the resolution concentrates on an analysis of the conditions 
of capitalist economy throughout the world. It is noteworthy that twenty-seven 
years ago Engels pointed out that to describe capitalism as something that "is 
distinguished by its planlessness" and to overlook the role played by the trusts 
was unsatisfactory. Engels remarked that "when we come to the trust, then 
planlessness disappears", though there is capitalism. This remark is all the 
more pertinent today, when we have a military state, when we have state monopoly 
capitalism. Planning does not make the worker less of a slave, but it enables 
the capitalist to make his profits "according to plan". Capitalism is now 
evolving directly into its higher, regulated, form. 
The second part of the resolution needs no explanations. 
The third part requires more detailed comment. (Reads the resolution.) 
"Operating as it does in one of the most backward countries of Europe amidst a 
vast population of small peasants, the proletariat of Russia cannot aim at 
immediately putting into effect socialist changes. 
"But it would be a grave error, and in effect even a complete desertion to the 
bourgeoisie, to infer from this that the working class must support the 
bourgeoisie, or that it must keep its activities within limits acceptable to the 
petty bourgeoisie, or that the proletariat must renounce its leading role in the 
matter of explaining to the people the urgency of taking a number of practical 
steps towards socialism for which the time is now ripe." 
From the first premise it is customary to make the conclusion that "Russia is a 
backward country, a peasant, petty-bourgeois country, therefore there can be no 
question of a social revolution". People forget, however, that the war has 
placed us in extraordinary circumstances, and that side by side with the petty 
bourgeoisie we have Big Capital. But what are the Soviets of Workers' and 
Soldiers' Deputies to do when they assume power? Should they go over to the 
bourgeoisie? Our answer is-the working class will continue its class struggle. 
What is possible and what is necessary under the power of the Soviets? 
First of all, the nationalisation of the land. Nationalisation of the land is a 
bourgeois measure, it does not exclude capitalism, nor does capitalism exclude 
it, but the blow it will deal to private property will be a heavy one. Further 
(reads on): 
"the establishment of state control over all banks, and their amalgamation into 
a single central bank; also control over the insurance agencies and big 
capitalist syndicates (for example, the Sugar Syndicate, the Coal Syndicate, the 
Metal Syndicate, etc.), and the gradual introduction of a more just progressive 
tax on incomes and properties. Economically, these measures are timely; 
technically, they can be carried out immediately; politically they are likely to 
receive the support of the overwhelming majority of the peasants, who have 
everything to gain by these reforms." 
This point evoked discussion. I already had occasion to speak of this in Pravda 
in connection with Plekhanov's articles. "When they talk about socialism being 
impossible," I wrote, "they try to speak of the latter in a way most 
advantageous to themselves, they represent it vaguely, indefinitely, as some 
sort of a jump." Kautsky himself wrote: "No socialist speaks of the abolition of 
private property in the case of the peasants." But does that mean that existing 
large-scale capital must make it unnecessary for the Soviets of Workers' and 
Soldiers' Deputies to control production, to control the sugar and other 
syndicates? This measure is not socialism-it is a transitional measure, but the 
carrying out of such measures together with the existence of the Soviets will 
bring about a situation in which Russia will have one foot in socialism-we say 
one foot because the peasant majority controls the other part of the country's 
economy. It cannot be denied that economically we are ripe for a change. To 
effect that change politically, we must have a majority, and the majority are 
peasants who are naturally interested in such changes. Whether they will prove 
sufficiently organised is another matter; we cannot speak for them. 
An old and often repeated objection to socialism is that socialism means 
"barracks for the masses" and "mass bureaucracy". We must now put the issue of 
socialism differently; we must raise it from the level of the abstract to the 
level of the concrete, namely, the nationalisation of the land, control over the 
syndicates, etc. (reads the resolution). 
"All these and other similar measures can and should be not only discussed and 
prepared for enforcement on a national scale in the event of all power passing 
to the proletarians and semi-proletarians, but also implemented by the local 
revolutionary organs of power of the whole people when the opportunity arises. 
"Great care and discretion should be exercised in carrying out the above 
measures; a solid majority of the population must be won over and this majority 
must be clearly convinced of the country's practical preparedness for any 
particular measure. This is the direction in which the class-conscious vanguard 
of the workers must focus its attention and efforts, because it is the bounden 
duty of these workers to help the peasants find a way out of the present 
debacle." 
These last words are the crux of the whole resolution; we put the issue of 
socialism not as a jump, but as a practical way out of the present debacle. 
"This is a bourgeois revolution, it is therefore useless to speak of socialism," 
say our opponents. But we say just the opposite: "Since the bourgeoisie cannot 
find a way out of the present situation, the revolution is bound to go on." We 
must not confine ourselves to democratic phrases; we must make the situation 
clear to the masses, and indicate a number of practical measures to them, 
namely, they must take over the syndicates-control them through the Soviets, 
etc. When all such measures are carried out, Russia will be standing with one 
foot in socialism. Our economic programme must show a way out of the 
debacle-this is what should guide our actions. 
 



First published in 1925 in the book The Petrograd City and the All-Russia 
Conferences of the R.S.D.L.P.(B), April 1917 
Published according to the manuscript copy of the Minutes 







Resolution on the Current Situation 



 
The world war, brought about by the struggle of world trusts and banking capital 
for domination over the world market, has already led to the mass destruction of 
material values, to exhaustion of productive forces, and to such a growth in the 
war industry that it is impossible to produce even the absolutely necessary 
minimum of consumer goods and means of production. 
The present war, therefore, has brought humanity to an impasse and placed it on 
the brink of ruin. 
The objective conditions for a socialist revolution, which undoubtedly existed 
even before the war in the more developed and advanced countries, have been 
ripening with tremendous rapidity as a result of the war. Small and middle 
enterprises are being squeezed out and ruined at a faster rate than ever. The 
concentration and internationalisation of capital are making gigantic strides; 
monopoly capitalism is developing into state monopoly capitalism. In a number of 
countries regulation of production and distribution by society is being 
introduced by force of circumstances. Some countries are introducing universal 
labour conscription. 
Under private ownership of the means of production, all these steps towards 
greater monopolisation and control of production by the state are inevitably 
accompanied by intensified exploitation of the working people, by an increase in 
oppression; it becomes more difficult to resist the exploiters, and reaction and 
military despotism grow. at the same time these steps inevitably lead to a 
tremendous growth in the profits of the big capitalists at the expense of all 
other sections of the population. The working people for decades to come are 
forced to pay tribute to the capitalists in the form of interest payments on war 
loans running into thousands of millions. But with private ownership of the 
means of production abolished and state power passing completely to the 
proletariat, these very conditions are a pledge of success for society's 
transformation that will do away with the exploitation of man by man and ensure 
the well-being of everyone. 
 



 
On the other hand, the course of events is clearly confirming the forecast of 
the socialists of the whole world who, precisely in connection with the 
imperialist war, then impending and now raging unanimously declared in the 1912 
Basle Manifesto that a proletarian revolution was inevitable. 
The Russian revolution is only the first stage of the first of the proletarian 
revolutions which are the inevitable result of war. 
In all countries a spirit of rebellion against the capitalist class is growing 
among the masses, and the proletariat is becoming aware that only the transfer 
of power to the proletariat and the abolition of private ownership of the means 
of production can save humanity from ruin. 
In all countries, especially in the most advanced, Britain and Germany, hundreds 
of socialists who have not gone over to the side of "their own" national 
bourgeoisie have been thrown into prison by the capitalist governments. By this 
action the latter have clearly demonstrated their fear of the mounting 
proletarian revolution. In Germany the impending revolution is apparent both in 
the mass strikes, which have assumed particularly large proportions in recent 
weeks, and in the growth of fraternisation between the German and Russian 
soldiers at the front. 
Fraternal trust and unity are gradually being restored among the workers of 
different countries, the very workers who are now killing each other in the 
interests of the capitalists. This, in turn, will create conditions for united 
revolutionary action by the workers of different countries. Only such action can 
guarantee the most systematic development and the most likely success of the 
world socialist revolution. 
Operating as it does in one of the most backward countries of Europe amidst a 
vast population of small peasants, the proletariat of Russia cannot aim at 
immediately putting into effect socialist changes. 
But it would be a grave error, and in effect even a complete desertion to the 
bourgeoisie, to infer from this that the working class must support the 
bourgeoisie, or that it must keep its activities within limits acceptable to the 
petty bourgeoisie, or that the proletariat must renounce its leading role in the 
matter of explaining to the people the urgency of taking a number of practical 
steps towards socialism for which the time is now ripe. 
These steps are: first, nationalisation of the land. This measure, which does 
not directly go beyond the framework of the bourgeois system, would, at the same 
time, be a heavy blow at private ownership of the means of production, and as 
such would strengthen the influence of the socialist proletariat over the 
semi-proletariat in the countryside. 
The next steps are the establishment of state control over all banks, and their 
amalgamation into a single central bank; also control over the insurance 
agencies and big capitalist syndicates (for example, the Sugar Syndicate, the 
Coal Syndicate, the Metal Syndicate, etc.), and the gradual introduction of a 
more just progressive tax on incomes and properties. Economically, these 
measures are timely; technically, they can be carried out immediately; 
politically they are likely to receive the support of the overwhelming majority 
of the peasants, who have everything to gain by these reforms. 
The Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', Peasants', and other Deputies, which now 
cover Russia with a dense and growing network, could also introduce, parallel 
with the above measures, universal labour conscription, for on the one hand the 
character of the Soviets guarantees that all these new reforms will be 
introduced only when an overwhelming majority of the people has clearly and 
firmly realised the practical need for them; on the other hand their character 
guarantees that the reforms will not be sponsored by the police and officials, 
but will be carried out by way of voluntary participation of the organised and 
armed masses of the proletariat and peasantry in the management of their own 
affairs. 
All these and other similar measures can and should be not only discussed and 
prepared for enforcement on a national scale in the event of all power passing 
to the proletarians and semi-proletarians, but also implemented by the local 
revolutionary organs of power of the whole people when the opportunity arises. 
Great care and discretion should be exercised in carrying out the above 
measures; a solid majority of the population must be won over and this majority 
must be clearly convinced of the country's practical preparedness for any 
particular measure. This is the direction in which the class-conscious vanguard 
of the workers must focus its attention and efforts, because it is the bounden 
duty of these workers to help the peasants find a way out of the present 
debacle. 
 



Supplement to Soldatskaya Pravda No. 13, May 16 (3), 1917;
Published according to the Supplement text verified with the typewritten copy of 
the Minutes corrected by Lenin 





