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 ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go to the beginning of the document
Go to previous page
Go to next page
Go to the end of document
