---
title: B. The New Advocates of “Freedom of Criticism”
url: https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/03-b-the-new-advocates-of-freedom-of-criticism/
description: B. The New Advocates of “Freedom of Criticism”, from What Is To Be Done? Burning Questions of Our Movement by V. I. Lenin.
section: FRAME
---

![Illustration: a pre-1914 imperial intelligence-dossier collage of colonial telegraph logs, sepia field photography and empire maps.](https://propagandaarchive.org/static/generated/detail/hero-pre1914.jpg)

[Library](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/) · Book · [What Is To Be Done? Burning Questions of Our Movement](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/)

# B. The New Advocates of “Freedom of Criticism”

This text

- **Work:** [What Is To Be Done? Burning Questions of Our Movement](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/)
- **Author:** V. I. Lenin
- **Published:** 1902

Full details

- **Rights:** The translation (J. Fineberg, ed. A. Trachtenberg) was first published in the United States in 1929, in Collected Works of V. I. Lenin, vol. IV, book II (International Publishers, notice "Copyright, 1929"; registered as A 19207, entered 31 December 1929 in the Catalog of Copyright Entries for 1930). A work published in the United States in 1929 entered the public domain there on 1 January 2025. This printing repeats that 1929 translation and its editor's notes; a comparison of the two scans found the same wording. Lenin died in 1924, so the Russian original is also public domain. The editor's foreword printed in this volume is signed "December, 1931", is not covered by the 1929 notice and is not included. The library is served from the United States; readers elsewhere should check their own law (the translator died in 1957).

Chapters

1. [Preface](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/01-preface/)
2. I. Dogmatism and “Freedom of Criticism”
3. [A. What Is “Freedom of Criticism”?](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/02-a-what-is-freedom-of-criticism/)
4. [B. The New Advocates of “Freedom of Criticism”](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/03-b-the-new-advocates-of-freedom-of-criticism/)
5. [C. Criticism in Russia](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/04-c-criticism-in-russia/)
6. [D. Engels on the Importance of the Theoretical Struggle](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/05-d-engels-on-the-importance-of-the-theoretical-st/)
7. II. The Spontaneity of the Masses and the Class-Consciousness of Social-Democracy
8. [Opening](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/06-opening/)
9. [A. The Beginning of the Spontaneous Movement](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/07-a-the-beginning-of-the-spontaneous-movement/)
10. [B. Bowing to Spontaneity. Rabochaya Mysl](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/08-b-bowing-to-spontaneity-rabochaya-mysl/)
11. [C. The Self-Emancipation Group and Rabocheye Dyelo](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/09-c-the-self-emancipation-group-and-rabocheye-dyel/)
12. III. Trade-Union Politics and Social-Democratic Politics
13. [Opening](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/10-opening/)
14. [A. Political Agitation and Its Restriction by the Economists](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/11-a-political-agitation-and-its-restriction-by-the/)
15. [B. A Tale of How Martynov Rendered Plekhanov More Profound](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/12-b-a-tale-of-how-martynov-rendered-plekhanov-more/)
16. [C. Political Exposures and “Training in Revolutionary Activity”](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/13-c-political-exposures-and-training-in-revolution/)
17. [D. What Is There in Common between Economism and Terrorism?](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/14-d-what-is-there-in-common-between-economism-and/)
18. [E. The Working Class as Champion of Democracy](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/15-e-the-working-class-as-champion-of-democracy/)
19. [F. Again “Slanderers,” Again “Mystifiers”](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/16-f-again-slanderers-again-mystifiers/)
20. IV. The Primitiveness of the Economists and the Organisation of Revolutionists
21. [Opening](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/17-opening/)
22. [A. What Are Primitive Methods?](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/18-a-what-are-primitive-methods/)
23. [B. Primitive Methods and Economism](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/19-b-primitive-methods-and-economism/)
24. [C. Organisation of Workers, and Organisation of Revolutionists](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/20-c-organisation-of-workers-and-organisation-of-re/)
25. [D. The Scope of Organisational Work](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/21-d-the-scope-of-organisational-work/)
26. [E. “Conspirative” Organisation and “Democracy”](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/22-e-conspirative-organisation-and-democracy/)
27. [F. Local and All-Russian Work](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/23-f-local-and-all-russian-work/)
28. V. The “Plan” for an All-Russian Political Newspaper
29. [Opening](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/24-opening/)
30. [A. Who Was Offended by the Article “Where to Begin”?](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/25-a-who-was-offended-by-the-article-where-to-begin/)
31. [B. Can a Newspaper Be a Collective Organiser?](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/26-b-can-a-newspaper-be-a-collective-organiser/)
32. [C. What Type of Organisation Do We Require?](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/27-c-what-type-of-organisation-do-we-require/)
33. [Conclusion](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/28-conclusion/)
34. [Appendix: The Attempt to Unite Iskra with Rabocheye Dyelo](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/29-appendix-the-attempt-to-unite-iskra-with-raboche/)
35. [Correction to “What Is To Be Done?”](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/30-correction-to-what-is-to-be-done/)

[← A. What Is “Freedom of Criticism”?](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/02-a-what-is-freedom-of-criticism/) [C. Criticism in Russia →](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/04-c-criticism-in-russia/)

Now, this slogan (“Freedom of Criticism”) is solemnly advanced in No. 10 of Rabocheye Dyelo, the organ of the League of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, not as a theoretical postulate, but as a political demand, as a reply to the question: “Is it possible to unite the Social-Democratic organisations operating abroad?” —“In order that unity may be durable, there must be freedom of criticism’’ [p. 36].

From this statement two very definite conclusions must be drawn: 1. That Rabocheye Dyelo has taken the opportunist tendency in international Social-Democracy under its wing; and 2. That Rabocheye Dyelo demands freedom for opportunism in Russian Social- Democracy. We shall examine these conclusions.

Rabocheye Dyelo is “particularly” displeased with Iskra’s and Zarya’s “inclination to predict a rupture between the Mountain and the Gironde in international Social-Democracy.” * Generally speaking [writes Krichevsky, editor of Rabocheye Dyelo] this talk about the Mountain and the Gironde that is heard in the ranks of Social- Democracy, represents a shallow historical analogy, which looks strange when it comes from the pen of a Marxist. The Mountain and the Gironde did not represent two different temperaments, or intellectual tendencies, as idealist historians may think, but two different classes, or strata—the middle bourgeoisie on the one hand, and the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat on t.1e other. In the modern Socialist movement, however, there is no conflict of class interests; the Socialist movement in its entirety, all of its diverse forms [B. K.’s italics] including the most pronounced Bernsteinists stand on the basis of the class interests of the proletariat, and of the proletarian class struggle for political and economic emancipation [pp. 32-33].

> * The allusion here is to Krylov’s fable about the full and empty barrels rolling down the street, the second with much more noise than the first, —Ed,

A bold assertion! B. Krichevsky, have you heard the fact long ago noted, that it is precisely the extensive participation of the “academic” stratum in the Socialist movement in recent years that has secured the rapid spread of Bernsteinism? And what is most important—on what does our author base his opinion that even “the most pronounced Bernsteinists” stand on the basis of the class struggle for the political and economic emancipation of the proletariat? No one knows. This determined defence of the most pronounced Bernsteinists is not supported by any kind of argument whatever. Apparently, the author believes that if he repeats what the pronounced Bernsteinists say about themselves, his assertion requires no proof. But can anything more “shallow” be imagined than an opinion of a whole tendency that is based on nothing more than what the representatives of that tendency say about themselves? Can anything more shallow be imagined than the subsequent “homily” about the two different, and even diametrically opposite, types, or paths, of party development? [Rabocheye Dyelo, pp. 33-35.] The German Social-Democrats, you see, recognise complete freedom of criticism, but the French do not, and it is precisely the latter that present an example of the “harmfulness of intolerance.” fo which we reply that the very example B. Krichevsky quotes, iilustrates how even those who regard history, literally from the Ilovaisky * point-of-view sometimes describe themselves as Marxists. Of course, there is no need whatever, in explaining the unity of the German Socialist Party and the dismembered state of the French Socialist Party, to search for the special features in the history of the respective countries, to compare the conditions of military semi-absolutism in the one country with republican parliamentarism in the other, or to analyse the effects of the Paris Commune and the effects of the anti-Socialist laws in Germany; to compare the economic life and economic development of the two countries, or recall that “the unexampled growth of German Social-Democracy” was accomplished by a strenuous struggle unexampled in the history of Socialism, not only against the theoreticians (Muehlberger, Duehring),** the Socialists of the Chair, but also against mistaken tactics (Lassalle), etc., etc. All that is superfluous! The French quarrel among themselves because they are intolerant; the Germans are united because they are good fellows.

> * A comparison between the two tendencies in the revolutionary proletariat (the revolutionary and the opportunist), and the two tendencies among the revolutionary bourgeoisie in the eighteenth century (the Jacobin Mountain and the Gironde) was made in a leading article in Iskra, No. 2, February, 1901, written by Plekhanov. The Cadets, the Bezzaglavtsi and the Mensheviks to this day love to refer to the Jacobinism in Russian Social-Democracy but they prefer to remain silent about or . .. to forget the circumstances in which Plekhanov ased this term for the first time against the Right Wing of Social-Democracy. [Lenin’s note to 1908 edition.—Ed.]

And observe, this piece of matchless profundity is intended to “refute” the fact which is a complete answer to the defence of Bernsteinism. The question as to whether the Bernsteinists stand on the basis of the class struggle of the proletariat can be completely and irrevocably answered only by historical experience. Consequently, the example of France is the most important one in this respect, because France is the only country in which the Bernsteinists attempted to stand independently on their own feet with the warm approval of their German colleagues (and partly also of the Russian opportunists). [Cf. Rabocheye Dyelo, Nos. 2-3, pp. 83- 84]. The reference to the “intolerance” of the French, apart from its “historical” significance (in the Nozdrev sense),* turns out to be merely an attempt to obscure a very unpleasant fact with angry invectives.

> * Tlovaisky—the writer of official school text books on history noted for his reactionary treatment of Russian history.—Ed.

> ** At the time Engels hurled his attack against Duehring, many representatives of German Social-Democracy inclined towards the latter’s views, and accusations of acerbity, intolerance, uncomradely polemics, etc., were publicly hurled at Engels at the party congress, At the congress of 1877, Johann Most, supported by his comrades, moved a resolution to prohibit the publication of Engels’ articles in the Vorwaerts because “they did not represent the interests of the overwhelming majority of the readers,” and Vahlteich declared that the publication of these articles had caused great damage te the party, that Duehring had also rendered services to Social-Democracy: “We must utilise the services of all those who offer them in the interest of the party; let the professors engage in polemics if they care to do so, but the Vorwaerts is not the place to conduct them in” [Vorwaerts, No. 65, June 6, 1877]. Here we have another example of the defence of “freedom of criticism,” and it would do our legal critics and illegal opportunists who love so much to quote examples from the Germans, a deal of good to ponder over it!

But we are not even prepared to make a present of the Germans to B. Krichevsky and to the other numerous champions of “freedom of criticism.” The “most pronounced Bernsteinists” are still tolerated in the ranks of the German Party only because they submit to the Hanover resolution which emphatically rejected Bernstein’s “amendments,” and to the Luebeck resolution, which, notwithstanding the diplomatic terms in which it is couched, contains a direct warning to Bernstein. It is a debatable point from the standpoint of the interests of the German party, as to whether diplomacy was appropriate in this case and whether, in this case, a bad peace is better than a good quarrel.** Opinions may differ in regard to the expediency or not of the methods employed to reject Bernsteinism, but the fact remains that the German party did reject Bernsteinism on two occasions. Therefore, to think that the German example endorses the thesis: “The most pronounced Bernsteinists stand for the proletarian class struggle, for its economic and political emancipation,” means to fail absolutely to understand what is going on before one’s eyes.*** More than that. As we have already observed, Rabocheye Dyelo comes before Russian Social-Democracy, demands “freedom of criticism,” and defends Bernsteinism. Apparently, it came to the conclusion that we were unfair to our “critics” and Bernsteinists. To whom were we unfair, when and how? About this not a word. Rabocheye Dyelo does not name a single Russian critic or Bernsteinist! All that is left for us to do is to make one of two possible suppositions: First, that the unfairly treated party is none other than Rabocheye Dyelo itself (and that appears to be confirmed by the fact that in the two articles in No. 10 reference is made only to the insults hurled at the Rabocheye Dyelo by Zarya and Iskra). If that is the case, how is the strange fact to be explained that Rabocheye Dyelo, which always vehemently dissociates itself from Bernsteinism, could not defend itself, without putting in a word on behalf of the “most pronounced Bernsteinists” and of freedom of criticism? The second supposition is, that a third party has been treated unfairly. If the second supposition is correct, why should not this party be named?

> * A character in Gogol’s novel Dead Souls. An unusual liar, rogue, and intriguer, he was frequently beaten for cheating, but he never took matters to heart; to blackmail even a friend was an ordinary thing for him and he “bore no grudge against that person.”—Ed.

> ** This is a Russian proverb.—Ed.

> *** Tt must be observed that Rabocheye Dyelo always confines itself to a bare statement of facts concerning Bernsteinism, and “refrains” from expressing its own opinion on it. See, for example, the reports of the Stuttgart Congress in Nos. 2-3 [p. 66], in which all the disagreements are reduced to disagreements over “tactics,” and the bare statement is made that the overwhelming majority remain true to the previous revolutionary tactics. Or take Nos. 4-5 [p. 25 f.], in which we have a bare paraphrasing of the speeches delivered at the Hanover Congress, and a reprint of the resolution moved by Bebel. An explanation and criticism of Bernstein is again put off (as was the case in Nos. 2-3) to be dealt with in a “special article.” Curiously enough, in Nos. 4-5 [p. 33], we read the following: “. . . the views expounded by Bebel have the support of the enormous majority of the congress,” and a few lines lower: “. .. David defended Bernstein’s views. . .. First of all, he tried to show that . . . Bernstein and his friends, after all is said and done [sic!], stand for class struggle. . . .” This was written in December, 1899, and in September, 1901, Rabocheye Dyelo, having perhaps lost faith in the correctness of Bebel’s views, repeats David’s views as its own!

We see, therefore, that Rabocheye Dyelo is continuing to play the game of hide and seek that it has played (as we shall prove below) ever since it commenced publication. And note the first practical application of this much-extolled “freedom of criticism.” As a matter of fact, not only has it now been reduced to abstention from all criticism, but also to abstention from expressing independent views altogether. The very Rabocheye Dyelo, which avoids mentioning Russian Bernsteinism as if it were a shameful disease (to use Starover’s apt expression) proposes, for the treatment of this disease, to copy word for word the latest German prescription for the treatment of the German variety of the disease! Instead of freedom of criticism—slavish (worse: monkey-like) imitation! The very same social and political content of modern international opportunism reveals itself in a variety of ways according to its national characteristics. In one country the opportunists long ago came out under a separate flag, while in others, they ignore theory, and conduct a Radical-Socialist policy of practical politics. In a third country, several members of the revolutionary party have deserted to the camp of opportunism and strive to achieve their aims not by an open struggle for principles and for new tactics, but by gradual, unobserved, and, if one may so express it, unpunishable corruption of their party. In a fourth country again, similar deserters employ the same methods in the twilight of their political slavishness, and with an extremely original combination of “legal” with “illegal” activity, etc., etc. To talk about freedom of criticism and Bernsteinism as a condition for uniting the Russian Social-Democrats, and not to explain how Russian Bernsteinism has manifested itself, and what fruits it has borne, means to talk for the purpose of saying nothing.

We shall try, if only in a few words, to say what Rabocheye Dyelo did not want to say (or perhaps did not even understand).

[← A. What Is “Freedom of Criticism”?](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/02-a-what-is-freedom-of-criticism/) [C. Criticism in Russia →](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/04-c-criticism-in-russia/)

What Is To Be Done? Burning Questions of Our Movement, V. I. Lenin. The translation (J. Fineberg, ed. A. Trachtenberg) was first published in the United States in 1929, in Collected Works of V. I. Lenin, vol. IV, book II (International Publishers, notice "Copyright, 1929"; registered as A 19207, entered 31 December 1929 in the Catalog of Copyright Entries for 1930). A work published in the United States in 1929 entered the public domain there on 1 January 2025. This printing repeats that 1929 translation and its editor's notes; a comparison of the two scans found the same wording. Lenin died in 1924, so the Russian original is also public domain. The editor's foreword printed in this volume is signed "December, 1931", is not covered by the 1929 notice and is not included. The library is served from the United States; readers elsewhere should check their own law (the translator died in 1957). [Provenance and rights](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/).