B. Bowing to Spontaneity. Rabochaya Mysl

Before dealing with the literary manifestation of this subservience, we would like to mention the following characteristic fact (communicated to us from the above-mentioned source), which throws some light on circumstances of the rise and growth of two diverging Russian Social-Democratic tendencies among the comrades working in St. Petersburg. In the beginning of 1897, just prior to their banishment, A. A. Vaneyev and several of his comrades attended a private meeting at which the “old” and “young” members of the League of the Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class were gathered. The conversation centred chiefly around the question of organisation, and particularly around the “rules for a workers’ benefit club,” which, in their final form, were published in Listok Rabotnika—[Workers’ Leaflet] Nos. 9-10, p. 46. Sharp differences were immediately revealed between the “old” members (the “Decembrists,” as the St. Petersburg Social-Democrats jestingly called them) and several of the “young” members (who subsequently took an active part in the work of Rabochaya Mysl), the divergences were very great and a very heated discussion ensued. The “young” members defended the main principles of the rules in the form in which they were published. The “old” members said that this was not what was wanted: That first of all it was necessary to consolidate the League of the Struggle into an organisation of revolutionaries which should have control of all the various workers’ benefit clubs, students’ propaganda circles, etc. It goes without saying that the controversialists had no suspicion at that time that these disagreements were the beginning of a wide divergence; on the contrary they regarded them as being of an isolated and casual nature. But this fact shows that Economism did not arise and spread in Russia without a fight on the part of the “old” Social- Democrats (the Economists of to-day are apt to forget this). And if this struggle has not left “documentary” traces behind it, it is solely because the membership of the circles working at that time underwent such constant change that no continuity was established and, consequently, differences were not recorded in any documents.

* Iskra, which adopts a hostile attitude towards the activities of the Social- Democrats of the end of the nineties, ignores the fact that at that time the conditions were unfavourable for any other kind of work except fighting for petty demands, declare the Economists in their Letter to Russian Social- Democratic Organs [Jskra, No. 12]. The facts quoted above show that the statement about “unfavourable conditions” is diametrically opposite to the truth. Not only at the end, but even in the middle of the nineties, all the conditions existed for other work, besides fighting for petty demands, all the conditions—except the sufficient training of the leaders. Instead of frankly admitting our, the ideologists’, the leaders’, lack of sufficient training—the Economists try to throw the blame entirely upon “the absence of conditions,” upon the influence of material environment which determined the road from which it was impossible to divert the movement by any kind of ideology. What is this but slavish cringing before spontaneity, but the fact that the “ideologists” are enamoured of their own shortcomings?

The appearance of Rabochaya Mysl brought Economism to the light of day, but not all at once. We must picture to ourselves concretely the conditions of the work and the short-livedness of the majority of the Russian circles (and only those who have experienced this can have any exact idea of it), in order to understand how much there was accidental in the successes and failures of the new tendency in various towns, and why for a long time neither the advocates nor the opponents of this “new” tendency could make up their minds, indeed they had no opportunity to do so—as to whether this was really a new tendency or whether it was merely an expression of the lack of training of certain individuals. For example, the first mimeographed copies of Rabochaya Mysl never reached the great majority of Social-Democrats, and we are able to refer to the leading article in the first number only because it was reproduced in an article by V. I. [Listok Rabotnika, Nos. 9-10, p. 47ff.], who, of course, did not fail zealously, but unreasonably to extol the new paper, which was so different from the papers and the schemes for papers mentioned above.* And this leading article deserves to be dealt with in detail because it so strongly expresses the spirit of Rabochaya Mysl and Economism generally.

After referring to the fact that the arm of the “blue-coats” could never stop the progress of the labour movement, the leading article goes on to say: “. .. The virility of the labour movement is due to the fact that the workers themselves are at last taking their fate in their own hands, and out of the hands of the leaders,” and this fundamental thesis is then developed in greater detail. As a matter of fact the leaders (i. e., the Social-Democrats, the organisers of the League of the Struggle) were, one might say, torn out of the hands of the workers by the police; ** yet it is made to appear that the workers were fighting -against the leaders and eventually liberated themselves from their yoke! Instead of calling upon the workers to go forward towards the consolidation of the revolutionary organisation, and to the expansion of political activity, they began to call for a regress to the purely trade-union struggle. They announced that “the economic basis of the movement is eclipsed by the effort never to forget the political idea,” and that the watchword for the movement was “Fight for an economic position” (!) or to go even one better, “The workers for the workers.” It was declared that strike funds “are more valuable for the movement than 100 other organisations.” (Compare this statement made in 1897 with the controversy between the “Decembrists” and the young members in the beginning of 1897.) Catch-words like: “We must concentrate, not on the ‘cream’ of the workers, but on the ‘average’ worker—the mass worker’; “Politics always obediently follows eco- ” * etc., etc., became the fashion, and exercised irresistible nomics, influence upon the masses of the youth who were attracted to the movement, but who, in the majority of cases, were acquainted only with legally expounded fragments of Marxism.

*TIt should be stated in passing that the praise of Rabochaya Mysl in November, 1898, when Economism had become fully defined, especially abroad, emanated from that same V. I., who, very soon after, became one of the editors of Rabocheye Dyelo. And yet Rabocheye Dyelo denied that there were two tendencies in Russian Social-Democracy, and continues to deny it to this day.

** That this simile is a correct one is shown by the following characteristic fact. When after the arrest of the “Decembrists,” the news was spread among the workers on the Schlusselburg Road that the discovery and arrest was facilitated by an agent provocateur, N. M. Mikhailov, a dental surgeon, who had been in contact with a group associated with the “Decembrists,” they were so enraged that they decided to kill him.

Consciousness was completely overwhelmed by spontaneity—the spontaneity of the “Social-Democrats” who repeated V. V.’s “ideas,” the spontaneity of those workers who were carried away by the arguments that a kopeck added to a rouble was worth more than Socialism and politics, and that they must “fight, knowing that they are fighting not for some future generations, but for themselves and their children.” [Leading article in Rabochaya Mysl, No. 1.] Phrases like these have always been the favourite weapons of the Western European bourgeoisie, who, while hating Socialism, strove (like the German “Sozial-Politiker” Hirsch) to transplant English trade unionism to their own soil, and to preach to the workers that the purely trade-union struggle is the struggle for their own and their children’s welfare, and not a struggle for some kind of Socialism that will be realised only in the very remote future.** And now the “V. V.’s of Russian Social-Democracy” repeat these bourgeois phrases. It is important at this point to note three circumstances, which will be useful to us in our further analysis of contemporary differences.* ** First of all, the overwhelming of consciousness by spontaneity to which we referred above, also took place spontaneously. This may sound like a pun, but alas, it is the bitter truth. It did not take place as a result of an open struggle between two diametrically opposed points-of-view, in which one gained the victory over the other; it occurred because an increasing number of “old” revolutionaries were “torn away” by the gendarmes, and because increasing numbers of “young” members and “V. V.’s of Russian Social-Democracy” came upon the scene. Every one, who I shall not say has participated in the contemporary Russian movement, but who has at least breathed its atmosphere, knows perfectly well that this was so. And the reason why we, nevertheless, strongly urge the reader to ponder well this universally known fact, and why we quote the facts, as an illustration, so to speak, about the Rabocheye Dyelo as it first appeared, and about the controversy between the “old” and the “young” at the beginning of 1897, is that certain persons are speculating on the public’s (or the very youthful youth’s) ignorance of these facts, and are boasting of their “democracy.” We shall return to this point farther on.

* These quotations are taken from the leading article, in the first number of Rabochaya Mysl already referred to. One can judge from this, the degree of theoretical training possessed by these “V. V.’s of Russian Social- Democracy,” who kept repeating the crude vulgarisms of “economic materialism” at a time when the Marxists were carrying on a literary war against the real V. V. who had long ago been dubbed “a past master of reactionary deeds” for holding similar views on the relation between politics and economics!

** The Germans even have a special expression: Nur Gewerkschaftler, which means an advocate of the “pure and simple” trade-union struggle,

*** We emphasise the word contemporary for the benefit of those who may pharisaically shrug their shoulders and say: It is easy enough to attack Rabochaya Mysl now, but is not all this ancient history? Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur [Change the name and the tale refers to you.—Ed.], we reply to such contemporary pharisees whose complete mental subjection to Rabochaya Msyl will be proved farther on.

Secondly, in the very first literary manifestation of Economism, we observe the extremely curious and highly characteristic phenomenon—from the point-of-view of the differences prevailing among contemporary Social-Democrats—tat the adherents of the “pure and simple” labour movement, the worshippers of the closest “organic” (the term used by Rabocheye Dyelo) contacts with the proletarian struggle, the opponents of the non-labour intelligentsia (notwithstanding that it is a Socialist intelligentsia) are compelled, in order to defend their positions, to resort to the arguments of the bourgeois “pure and simple” trade unionists. This shows that right from the outset, Rabochaya Mys! began unconsciously to carry out the programme of the Credo. This shows (what the Rabocheye Dyelo cannot understand) that subservience to the spontaneity of the labour movement, the belittling of the réle of “the conscious element,” of the réle of Social-Democracy, means, whether one likes it or not, growth of influence of bourgeois ideology among the workers. All those who talk about “exaggerating the importance of ideology,” * about exaggerating the rdle of the conscious elements,** etc., imagine that the pure and simple labour movement can work out an independent ideology for itself, if only the workers “take their fate out of the hands of the leaders.” But in this they are profoundly mistaken. To supplement what has been said above, we shall quote the following profoundly true and important utterances by Karl Kautsky on the new programme of the Austrian Social-Democratic Party: * Many of our revisionist critics believe that Marx asserted that economic development and the class struggle create, not only the conditions for Socialist production, but also, and directly, the consciousness (K. K.’s italics) of its necessity. And these critics advance the argument that the most highly capitalistically developed country, England, is more remote than any other from this consciousness. Judging from the draft, one must come to the conclusion that the committee which drafted the Austrian Programme shared this alleged orthodox-Marxian view which is thus refuted. In the draft programme it is stated: “The more capitalist development increases the numbers of the proletariat, the more the proletariat is compelled, and obtains the opportunity to fight against capitalism.” The proletariat becomes “conscious” of the possibility and necessity for Socialism. In this connection Socialist consciousness is represented as a necessary and direct result of the proletarian class struggle. But this is absolutely untrue. Of course, Socialism, as a theory, has its roots in a modern economic relationship in the same way as the class struggle of the proletariat has, and in the same way as the latter emerges from the struggle against the capitalist-created poverty and misery of the masses. But Socialism and the class struggle arise side by side and not one out of the other; each arises out of different premises. Modern Socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge. Indeed, modern economic science is as much a condition for Socialist production, as, say, modern technology, and the proletariat can create neither the one nor the other, no matter how much it may desire to do so; both arise out of the modern social process. The vehicles of science are not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia (K. K.’s italics): It was out of the heads of members of this stratum that modern Socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done. Thus, Socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without (von Aussen Hineingetragenes), and not something that arose within it spontaneously (urwiichsig). Accordingly, the old Hainfeld programme quite rightly stated that the task of Social-Democracy is to imbue the proletariat with the consciousness of its position and the consciousness of its tasks. There would be no need for this if consciousness emerged from the class struggle. The new draft copied this postulate from the old programme, and attached it to the postulate mentioned above. But this completely broke the line of thought... .

* Letter by the Economists, in Iskra, No. 12.

** Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10.

Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology being developed by the masses of the workers in the process of their movement * then the only choice is: Either bourgeois, or Socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for humanity has not created a “third” ideology, and, moreover, in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non-class or above-class ideology). Hence, to belittle Socialist ideology in any way, to deviate from it in the slightest degree means strengthening bourgeois ideology. There is a lot of talk about spontaneity, but the spontaneous development of the labour movement leads to its becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology, it means developing according to the programme of the Credo, for the spontaneous labour movement is pure and simple trade unionism, is Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei, and trade unionism means the ideological subordination of the workers to the bourgeoisie. Hence, our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the labour movement, with its spontaneous trade-unionist striving, from under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social-Democracy. The phrases employed by the authors of the “Economic” letter in Iskra, No. 12, about the efforts of the most inspired ideologists not being able to divert the labour movement from the path that is determined by the interaction of the material elements and the material environment are tantamount to the abandonment of Socialism, and if only the authors of this letter fearlessly thought out what they say to its logical conclusion, as every one who enters into the arena of literary and public activity should do, they would have nothing else to do but “fold their useless arms over their empty breasts” and . . . leave the field of action to the Struves and Prokopoviches who are dragging the labour movement “along the line of least resistance,” i.e., along the line of bourgeois trade unionism, or to the Zubatovs who are dragging it along the line of clerical and gendarme “ideology.”

* Neue Zeit, 1901-1902, XX, I, No. 3, p. 79. The committee’s draft to which Kautsky refers was passed by the Vienna Congress at the end of last year in a slightly amended form.

* This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. But they take part not as workers, but as Socialist theoreticians, like Proudhon and Weitling; in other words, they take part only to the extent that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and advance that knowledge. And in order that working men may be able to do this more often, efforts must be made to raise the level of the consciousness of the workers generally; care must be taken that the workers do not confine themselves to the artificially restricted limits of literature for workers but that they study general literature to an increasing degree. It would even be more true to say “were not confined,” instead of “not confine themselves,” because the workers themselves wish to read and do read all that is written for the intelligentsia and it is only a few (bad) intellectuals who believe that it is sufficient “for the workers” to tell them a few things about factory conditions, and to repeat over and over again what has long been known.

Tecall the example of Germany. What was the historical service Lassalle rendered to the German labour movement? It was that he diverted that movement from the path of progressive trade unionism and co-operation, along which it was travelling spontaneously (with the benign assistance of Schulze-Delitzsch and those like him). To fulfil a task like that, it is necessary to do something altogether different from indulging in talk about belittling the spontaneous element, about the tactics-process and about the interaction between elements and environment, etc. A desperate struggle against spontaneity had to be carried on, and only after such a struggle, extending over many years, was it possible to convert the working population of Berlin from a bulwark of the Progressive Party into one of the finest strongholds of Social-Democracy. This fight is not finished even now (as those who study the history of the German movement from Prokopovich, and its philosophy from Struve believe). Even now the German working class is, so to speak, broken up into a number of ideologies. A section of the workers is organised in Catholic and Monarchist labour unions; another section is organised in the Hirsch-Duncker unions, founded by the bourgeois worshippers of English trade unionism, while a third section is organised in Social-Democratic trade unions. The latter is immeasurably more numerous than the rest, but Social-Democracy was able to achieve this superiority and will be able to maintain it, only by unswervingly fighting against all other ideologies.

But why, the reader will ask, does the spontaneous movement, the movement along the line of least resistance, lead to the domination of bourgeois ideology? For the simple reason that bourgeois ideology is far older in origin than Social-Democratic ideology; because it is more fully developed and because it possesses immeasurably more opportunities for becoming widespread.* And the younger the Socialist movement is in any given country, the more vigorously must it fight against all attempts to entrench non- Socialist ideology, and the more strongly must it warn the workers against those bad counsellors who shout against “exaggerating the conscious. elements,” etc. The authors of the Economic Letter, in unison with Rabocheye Dyelo, declaim against the intolerance that is characteristic of the infancy of the movement. To this we reply: Yes, our movement is indeed in its infancy, and in order that it may grow up the quicker, it must become infected with intolerance against all those who retard its growth by subservience to spontaneity. Nothing is so ridiculous and harmful as pretending that we are “old hands” who have long ago experienced all the decisive episodes of the struggle!

*It is often said: The working class spontaneously gravitates towards Socialism. This is perfectly true in the sense that Socialist theory defines the causes of the poverty of the working class more profoundly and more correctly than any other theory, and for that reason the workers are. able to appreciate it so easily, provided, however, that this theory does not step aside for spontaneity and provided it subordinates spontaneity to itself. Usually this is taken for granted, but Rabocheye Dyelo forgets or distorts this obvious thing. The working class spontaneously gravitates towards Socialism, nevertheless, the more widespread (and continuously revived in the most diverse forms) bourgeois ideology imposes itself spontaneously upon the working class more than any other.

Thirdly, the first number of Rabochaya Mysl shows that the term “Economism” (which, of course, we do not propose to abandon because it has more or less established itself) does not adequately convey the real character of the new tendency. Rabochaya Mysl does not altogether repudiate the political struggle: The Benefit Society constitution, published in Rabochaya Mysl, No. 1, contains a reference to fighting against the government. Rabochaya Mysl believes, however, that “politics always obediently follow economics” (and Rabocheye Dyelo gives a variation of this thesis when, in its programme, it asserts that “in Russia more than in any other country, the economic struggle is inseparable from the political struggle”). If by politics is meant Social-Democratic politics, then the postulates advanced by Rabochaya Mysl and Rabocheye Dyelo are wrong. The economic struggle of the workers is very often connected with (although not inseparable from) bourgeois politics, clerical politics, etc., as we have already seen. If by politics is meant trade-union politics, 7. e., the common striving of all workers to secure from the government measures for the alleviation of their distress, measures characteristic of their position, but which do not altogether change that position, i. e., which do not remove the subjection of labour to capital, then Rabocheye Dyelo’s postulate is correct. That striving indeed is common to the British trade unionists, who are hostile to Socialism, to the Catholic workers, to the “Zubatov” workers, etc. There are politics and politics. We see, therefore, that Rabochaya Mysl does not so much deny the political struggle as bow tu its spontaneity, to its lack of purpose. While recognising the political struggle (it would be more correct to say: the political desires and demands of the workers), which arises spontaneously from the labour movement itself, it absolutely refuses independently to work out a specifically Social-Democratic policy corresponding to the general tasks of Socialism and to contemporary conditions in Russia. Farther on we shall show that Rabocheye Dyelo commits the same error.