C. Criticism in Russia

The peculiar position of Russia in regard to the point we are examining is that right from the very beginning of the spontaneous labour movement on the one hand, and the change of progressive public opinion towards Marxism on the other, a combination was observed of obviously heterogeneous elements under a common flag for the purpose of fighting the common enemy (obsolete social and political views). We refer to the heyday of “legal Marxism.” Speaking generally, this was an extremely curious phenomenon, that no one in the eighties, or the beginning of the nineties, would have believed possible. Suddenly, in a country ruled by an autocracy, in which the press is completely shackled, and in a period of intense political reaction in which even the tiniest outgrowth of political discontent and protest was suppressed, a censored literature springs up, advocating the theory of revolutionary Marxism, in a language extremely obscure, but understood by those “interested.” The government had accustomed itself to regard only the theory of (revolutionary) Populism as dangerous without observing its internal evolution as is usually the case, and rejoicing at the criticism, levelled against it no matter from what side it came. Quite a considerable time elapsed (according to our Russian calculations) before the government realised what had happened and the unwieldly army of censors and gendarmes discovered the new enemy and flung itself upon him. Meanwhile, Marxian books were published one after another, Marxian journals and newspapers were published, nearly every one became a Marxist, Marxism was flattered, the Marxists were courted and the book publishers rejoiced at the extraordinary ready sale of Marxian literature. It is quite reasonable to suppose that among the Marxian novices who were carried away by this stream, there was more than one “author who got a swelled heads...”

We can now speak calmly of this period as of an event of the past. It is no secret that the brief appearance of Marxism on the surface of our literature was called forth by the alliance between people of extreme and of extremely moderate views. In point of fact, the latter were bourgeois democrats; and this was the conclusion (so strikingly confirmed by their subsequent “critical” development), that intruded itself on the minds of certain persons even when the “alliance” was still intact.* That being the case, does not the responsibility for the subsequent “confusion” rest mainly upon the revolutionary Social-Democrats who entered into alliance with these future “critics”? This question, together with a reply in the affirmative, is sometimes heard from people with excessively rigid views. But these people are absolutely wrong. Only those who have no reliance in themselves can fear to enter into temporary alliances with unreliable people. Besides, not a single political party could exist without entering into such alliances, The combination with the legal Marxists was in its way the first really political alliance contracted by Russian Social-Democrats. Thanks to this alliance an astonishingly rapid victory was obtained over Populism, and Marxian ideas (even though in a vulgarised form) became very widespread. Moreover, the alliance was not concluded altogether without “conditions.” The proof: The burning by the censor, in 1895, of the Marxian symposium, Materials on the Problem of the Economic Development of Russia. Tf the literary agreement with the legal Marxists can be compared with a political alliance, then that book can be compared with a political treaty.

The rupture, of course, did not occur because the “allies” proved to be bourgeois democrats. On the contrary, the representatives of the latter tendency were the natural and desirable allies of the Social-Democrats in so far as their democratic tasks that were brought to the front by the prevailing situation in Russia were concerned. But an essential condition for such an alliance must be complete liberty for Socialists to reveal to the working class that its interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the bourgeoisie. However, the Bernsteinist and “critical” tendency to which the majority of the legal Marxists turned, deprived the Socialists of this liberty and corrupted Socialist consciousness by vulgarising Marxism, by preaching the toning down of social antagonisms, by declaring the idea of the social revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat to be absurd, by restricting the labour movement and the class struggle to narrow trade unionism and to a “practical” struggle for petty, gradual reforms. This was tantamount to the bourgeois democrat’s denial of Socialism’s right to independence, and consequently, of its right to existence: in practice it meant a striving to convert the nascent labour movement into a tail of the liberals.

* Reference is made here to an article by E. Tulin [Lenin] written against Struve, bearing the title “Marxism, as Reflected in Bourgeois Literature.” [See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. I.—Ed.]

Naturally, under such circumstances a rupture was necessary. But the “peculiar” feature of Russia manifested itself in that this rupture simply meant the closing to the Social-Democrats of access to the most popular and widespread “legal” literature. The “ex- Marxists” who took up the flag of “criticism,” and who obtained almost a monopoly in the “sale” of Marxism, entrenched themselves in this literature. Catchwords like: “Against orthodoxy” and “Long live freedom of criticism” (now repeated by Rabocheye Dyelo) immediately became the fashion, and the fact that neither the censor nor the gendarmes could resist this fashion is apparent from the publication of three Russian editions of Bernstein’s celebrated book (celebrated in the Herostratus sense) and from the fact that the books by Bernstein, Prokopovich and others were recommended by Zubatov [Iskra, No. 10]. And this tendency did not confine itself to the sphere of literature. The turn towards criticism was accompanied by the turn towards Economism that was taken by Social-Democratic practical workers.

The manner in which the contacts and mutual dependence between legal criticism and illegal Economism arose and grew, is an interesting subject in itself, and may very well be treated in a special article. It is sufficient to note here that these contacts undoubtedly existed. The notoriety deservedly acquired by the Credo was due precisely to the frankness with which it formulated these contacts and laid down the fundamental political tendencies of Economism, viz.: Let the workers carry on the economic struggle (it would be more correct to say the trade union struggle, because the latter embraces also specifically labour politics), and let the Marxist intelligentsia merge with the liberals for the political “struggle.”

Thus, it turned out that trade union work “among the people” meant fulfilling the first part of this task, and legal criticism meant fulfilling the second part. This statement proved to be such an excellent weapon against Economism that, had there been no Credo, it would have been worth inventing.

The Credo was not invented, but it was published without the consent and perhaps even against the will of its authors. At all events the present writer, who was partly responsible for dragging this “programme” into the light of day,* has heard complaints and reproaches to the effect that copies of the résumé of their views which were dubbed the Credo were distributed and even published in the press together with the protest! We refer to this episode because it reveals a very peculiar state of mind among our Economists, viz.: a fear of publicity. This feature is common among the Economists, and not among the authors of the Credo alone. It was revealed by that most outspoken and honest advocate of Economism, Rabochaya Mysl, and by Rabocheye Dyelo (which was indignant over the publication of Economist documents in the Vademecum), as well as by the Kiev Committee, which two years ago refused to permit the publication of its profession de foi ** together with a protest that had been written against it,*** and by many other individual representatives of Economism.

This fear of criticism displayed by the advocates of freedom of criticism cannot be attributed solely to craftiness (although no doubt craftiness has something to do with: It would be unwise to expose the young and as yet puny movement to the enemies’ attack!) No, the majority of the Economists quite sincerely disapprove (and by the very nature of Economism they must disapprove) of all theoretical controversies, factional disagreements, of broad political questions, of schemes for organising revolutionaries, etc. “Leave all this sort of thing to the exiles abroad!” said a fairly consistent Economist to me one day, and thereby he expressed a very widespread (purely trade unionist) view: Our business, he said, is the labour movement, the labour organisations, here, in our localities; all the rest are merely the inventions of doctrinaires, an “exaggeration of the importance of ideology,” as the authors of the letter, published in IJskra, No. 12, expressed it in unison with Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10.

* Reference is made here to the Protest Signed by the Seventeen against the Credo. The present writer took part in drawing up this protest (the end of 1899). The protest and the Credo were published abroad in the spring of 1900. [See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. II.—E£d.] It is now known from the article written by Madame Kuskova, I think in Byloye [Past] that she was the author of the Credo, and that Mr. Prokopovich was very prominent among the Economists abroad at that time.

** Profession of faith—Ed.

*** As far as we know the composition of the Kiev Committee has been changed since then.

The question now arises: Seeing what the peculiar features of Russian “criticism” and Russian Bernsteinism were, what should those who desired, in deeds and not merely in words, to oppose opportunism have done? First of all, they should have made efforts to resume the theoretical work that was only just commenced in the period of legal Marxism, and that has now again fallen on the shoulders of the illegal workers. Unless such work is undertaken the successful growth of the movement is impossible. Secondly, they should have actively combated legal “criticism” that was corrupting people’s minds. Thirdly, they should have actively counteracted the confusion and vacillation prevailing in practical work, and should have exposed and repudiated every conscious or unconscious attempt to degrade our programme and tactics.

That Rabocheye Dyelo did none of these things is a well-known fact, and further on, we shall deal with this well-known fact from various aspects. At the moment, however, we desire merely to show what a glaring contradiction there is between the demand for “freedom of criticism” and the peculiar features of our native criticism and Russian Economism. Indeed, glance at the text of the resolution by which the League of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad endorsed the point-of-view of Rabocheye Dyelo.

In the interests of the further ideological development of Social-Democracy, we recognise the freedom to criticise Social-Democratic theory in party literature to be absolutely necessary in so far as this critcism does not run counter to the class and revolutionary character of this theory [Two Congresses, p. 10].

And what is the argument behind this resolution? The resolution “in its first part. coincides with the resolution of the Luebeck Party Congress on Bernstein. . . .” In the simplicity of their souls the Leaguers failed to observe the testimonium paupertatis (certificate of mental poverty) they give themselves by this piece of imitativeness! . .. “But . . . in its second part, it restricts freedom of criticism much more than did the Luebeck Party Congress.”

So the League’s resolution was directed against the Russian Bernsteinism? If it was not, then the reference to Luebeck is utterly absurd! But it is not true to say that it “restricts freedom of criticism.” In passing their Hanover resolution, the Germans, point by point, rejected precisely the amendments proposed by Bernstein, while in their Luebeck resolution they cautioned Bernstein personally, and named him in the resolution. Our “free” imitators, however, do not make a single reference to a single manifestation of Russian “criticism” and Russian Economism, and in view of this omission, the bare reference to the class and revolutionary character of the theory, leaves exceedingly wide scope for misinterpretation, particularly when the League refuses to identify “so-called Economism” with opportunism [Two Congresses, p. 8]. But all this en passant. The important thing to note is that the opportunist attitude towards revolutionary Social-Democrats in Russia is the very opposite to that in Germany. In Germany, as we know, revolutionary Social-Democrats are in favour of preserving what is: They stand in favour of the old programme and tactics which are universally known, and after many decades of experience have become clear in all their details. The “critics” desire to introduce changes, and as these critics represent an insignificant minority, and as they are very shy and halting in their revisionist efforts, one can understand the motives of the majority in confining themselves to the dry rejection of “innovations.” In Russia, howover, it is the critics and Economists who are in favour of preserving what is: The “critics” wish us to continue to regard them as Marxists, and to guarantee them the “freedom of criticism” which they enjoyed to the full (for as a matter of fact they never recognised any kind of party ties * and, moreover, we never had a generally recognised party organ which could “restrict” freedom of criticism even by friendly advice) ; the Economists want the revolutionaries to recognise “complete equality in the movement” [Rabocheye Dyelo No. 10, p. 25], i. e., to recognise the “legitimacy” of what exists; they do not want the “ideologists” to try to “divert” the movement from the path that “is determined by the interaction of material elements and material environment” [Letter published in Iskra, No. 12]; they want recognition “for the only struggle that the workers can conduct ’ which in their opinion is the struggle under present conditions,’ “which they are actually conducting at the present time” [Special Supplement to Rabochaya Mysl, p. 14]. We Revolutionary Social- Democrats, on the contrary, are dissatisfied with this submission to elemental forces, i. e., bowing to what is “at the present time”; we demand that the tactics that have prevailed in recent years be changed; we declare that “before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all firmly and definitely draw the lines of demarcation between the various groups.” (See announcement of the publication of Iskra.)* In a word, the Germans stand for what is and reject the changes; we demand changes, and reject subservience to, and conciliation with, what is.

* The absence of recognised party ties and party traditions by itself marks such a cardinal difference between Russia and Germany that it should have warned all sensible Socialists from being blindly imitative. But here is an example of the lengths to which “freedom of criticism” goes in Russia. Mr. Bulgakov, the Russian critic, utters the following reprimand to the Austrian critic, Hertz: “Notwithstanding the independence of his conclusions, Hertz, on this point [on co-operative societies] apparently remains tied by the opinions of his party, and although he disagrees with it in details, he dare not reject common principles” [Capitalism and Agriculture, Vol. Il, p. 287]. The subject of a politically enslaved state, in which nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand of the population are corrupted to the marrow of their bones by political subservience and completely lack the conception of party honour and party ties, superciliously reprimands a citizen of a constitutional state for being excessively “tied by the opinion of his party”! Our illegal organisations have nothing else to do, of course, but draw up resolutions about freedom of criticism... . :

This “little” difference our “free” copyists of German resolutions failed to notice!