C. The Self-Emancipation Group and Rabocheye Dyelo

We have dealt at such length with the little-known and now almost forgotten leading article in the first number of Rabochaya Mysl because it was the first and most striking expression of that general stream of thought which afterwards found the light of day in innumerable streamlets. V. I. was absolutely right when, in praising the first number and the leading article of Rabochaya Mysl, he said that it was written in a “sharp and provocative” style [Listok Rabotnika, Nos. 9-10, p. 49]. Every man with convictions, who thinks he has something new to say, writes “provocatively” and expresses his views strongly. Only those who are accustomed to sit between two stools lack “provocativeness”; only such people are able to praise the provocativeness of Rabochaya Mysl one day, and attack the “provocative polemics” of its opponents the next.

We shall not dwell on the Special Supplement to Rabochaya Mysl (below we shall have occasion on a number of points to refer to this work, which expresses the ideas of the Economists more consistently than any other) but shall briefly mention the Manifesto of the Self-Emancipation of the Workers’ Group [March, 1899, reprinted in the London Nakanunye [On the Eve], No. 7, June, 1899]. The authors of this manifesto quite rightly say that “the workers of Russia are only just awakening, are only just looking around, and instinctively clutch at the first means of struggle that come to their hands.” But from this correct observation, they draw the same incorrect conclusion that is drawn by Rabochaya Mysl, f orgetting that instinct is that unconsciousness (spontaneity) to whose aid the Socialists must come; that the “first means of struggle that come to their hands” will always be in modern society, the trade union means of struggle, and the “first ideology that comes to hand” will be bourgeois (trade union) ideology. Similarly, these authors do not “repudiate” politics, they merely say (merely!), repeating what was said by V. V., that politics are the superstructure, and therefore, “political agitation must be the superstructure to the agitation carried on in favour of the economic struggle; it must arise on the basis of this struggle and give precedence to it.”

As for Rabocheye Dyelo, it commenced its activity by “a defence” of the Economists. It uttered a downright untruth in its very first number [No. 1, pp. 141-142] when it stated that it “did not know which young comrades Axelrod referred to” in his well-known pamphlet, in which he uttered a warning against the Economists.* In the controversy that flared up with Axelrod and Plekhanov over this falsehood, Rabocheye Dyelo was compelled to admit that “by expressing ignorance, it desired to defend all the younger Social- Democrats abroad from this unjust accusation” (Axelrod accused the Economists of having a restricted outlook). As a matter of fact this accusation was absolutely just, and Rabocheye Dyelo knows perfectly well that, among others, it applied to V. I., a member of its editorial staff. We shall observe in passing that in this controversy Axelrod was absolutely right, and Rabocheye Dyelo was absolutely wrong, in their respective interpretations of my pamphlet: The Tasks of Russian Social-Democrats.** That pamphlet was written in 1897, before the appearance of Rabochaya Mysl when I thought, and rightly thought, that the original tendency of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle, which I described above, was the predominant one. At all events, that tendency was the predominant one until the middle of 1898. Consequently, in its attempt to refute the existence and dangers of Economism, Rabocheye Dyelo had no right whatever to refer to a pamphlet which expressed views that were squeezed out by Economist views in St.

Petersburg in 1897-1898.*** But Rabocheye Dyelo not only “defended” the Economists—it itself constantly fell into fundamental Economist errors. The cause of these errors is to be found in the ambiguity of the interpretation given to the following thesis in Rabocheye Dyelo’s programme: “We consider that the most important phenomenon of Russian life, the one that will mostly determine the tasks [our italics] and the character of the literary activity of the league, is the mass labour movement [Rabocheye Dyelo’s italics] that has arisen in recent years.” That the mass movement is a most important phenomenon is a fact about which there can be no dispute. But the crux of the question is, What is the meaning of the phrase: The labour movement will “determine the tasks”? It may be interpreted in one of two ways. LEither it means subservience to the spontaneity of this movement, i. e., reducing the réle of Social-Democracy to mere subservience to the labour movement as such (the interpretation given to it by Rabochaya Mysl, the Self-Emancipation group and other Economists) ; er it may mean that the mass movement sets before us new, theoretical, political and organisational tasks, far more complicated than those that might have satisfied us in the period before the rise of the mass movement. Rabocheye Dyelo inclined and still inclines towards the first interpretation, for it said nothing definitely about new tasks, but argued all the time as if the “mass movement” relieved us of the necessity of clearly appreciating and fulfilling the tasks it sets before us. We need only point out that Rabocheye Dyelo considered that we could not possibly accept the overthrow of the autocracy as the first task of the mass labour movement, and that it degraded this task (ostensibly in the interests of the mass movement) to the struggle for immediate political demands. [Reply, p. 25.]

*The Contemporary Tasks and Tactics of the Russian Social-Democrats, Geneva, 1898. Two letters written to Rabochaya Gazeta in 1897.

** See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. Il.—Ed.

*** In its attempt to justify the first untruth it uttered (“we do not know which young comrades Axelrod referred to”) Rabocheye Dyelo uttered a second, when, in its Reply it wrote: “Since the review of The Tasks was published, a tendency has arisen, or has become more or less defined among certain Russian Social-Democrats, towards economic one-sidedness, which represents a step backwards from the state of our movement as described in The Tasks” [p. 9]. This is what the Reply says, published in 1900. But the first number of Rabocheye Dyelo (containing the review) appeared in April, 1899. Did Economism arise only in 1899? No. The protest of the Russian Social-Democrats against Economism (the protest against the Credo) appeared in 1899. Economism arose in 1897, as Rabocheye Dyelo very well knows, for already in November, 1898, V. I. praised Rabochaya Mysl, in Listok Rabotnika, Nos. 9-10.

We shall pass over the article by B. Krichevsky, the editor of Rabocheye Dyelo, entitled “The Economic and Political Struggle in the Russian Movement,” published in No. 7, of that paper, in which these very mistakes are repeated * and take up Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10.

*The “stages theory,” or the theory of “timid zigzags” in the political struggle, is expressed in this article approximately in the following way: Social-Democracy does not tie its hands, it does not restrict its activities to some preconceived plan or method of political struggle: It recognises all methods of struggle, as long as they correspond to the forces at the disposal of the party . . . under the given conditions, etc. [Iskra, No. 1].* and the postulate: Without a strong organisation, tested in the political struggle carried on under all circumstances and in all periods, there can be no talk of a systematic plan of activity, enlightened by firm principles and unswervingly carried out, which alone is worthy of being called tactics [Jskra, No. 4].** To confuse the recognition, in principle, of all means of struggle, of all plans and methods, provided they are expedient—with the necessity at a given political moment, to be guided by a strictly adhered to plan in talking of tactics, is tantamount to confusing the “Political demands, which in their character are common to the whole of Russia should, however, at first [this was written in August, 1900!] correspond to the experience gained by the given stratum [sic!] of workers in the economic struggle. Only [!] on the basis of this experience can and should the political agitation be taken up,” etc. [p. 11]. On page 4, the author, protesting against what he regards as the absolutely unfounded charge of Economist heresy, pathetically exclaims: “What Social-Democrat does not know that according to the theories of Marx and Engels, the class interest is the decisive factor in history, and, consequently, that the proletarian struggle for the defence of its economic interests must be of first-rate importance in its class development and struggle for emancipation?” (our italics). The word “consequently” is absolutely out of place. The fact that economic interests are a decisive factor does not in the least imply that the economic (i. e., trade union) struggle must be the main factor, for the essential and “decisive” interest of classes can be satisfied only by radical political changes. In particular the fundamental economic interests of the proletariat can be satisfied only by a political revolution, that will substitute the dictatorship of the proletariat for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. B. Krichevsky repeats the arguments of the “V. V.’s of Russian Social-Democracy” (i. e., politics follows economics, etc.), and the Bernsteinists of German Social-Democracy (for example, by arguments like these, Woltmann tried to prove that the workers must first of all acquire “economic power” before they can think about political revolution).

We shall not, of course, enter in detail into the various objections raised by B. Krichevsky and Martynov against Zarya and Iskra. What interests us here solely, is the theoretical position taken up by Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10. For example, we shall not examine the literary curiosity, that Rabocheye Dyelo saw a “diametrical” contradiction between the postulate: recognition by medical science of all kinds of treatment of diseases with the necessity for adopting a certain definite method of treatment for a given disease. The point is, however, that Rabocheye Dyelo, while suffering from a disease which we have called subservience to spontaneity, refuses to recognise any “method of treatment” for that disease. Hence, it made the remarkable discovery that “a plan of tactics contradicts the fundamental spirit of Marxism” [No. 10, p. 18], that tactics are “a process of growth of party tasks, which grow with the party” [(p. 11), Rabocheye Dyelo’s italics]. The latter remark has every chance of becoming a celebrated maxim, a permanent monument to the tendency of Rabocheye Dyelo. To the question: Whither? a leading organ replies: Motion is a process of alteration in the distance between starting point and destination. This matchless example of profundity is not merely a literary curiosity (if it were, it would not be worth dealing with at length), but the programme of the whole tendency, i. e., the programme which R. M. (in the Special Supplement to Rabochaya Mysl) expressed in the words: “That struggle is desirable which is possible, and the struggle which is possible is the one that is going on now.” It is the tendency of unbounded opportunism, which passively adapts itself to spontaneity.

* See conclusion of article, “The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement,” The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 57.—Ed.

** See beginning of article “Where to Begin,” The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 109.—Ed.

““A plan of tactics contradicts the fundamental spirit of Marxism!” But this is a libel on Marxism; it is like the caricature of it that was presented to us by the Narodniks in their fight against us. It means putting restraint on the initiative and energy of class-conscious fighters, whereas Marxism, on the contrary, gives a gigantic impetus to the initiative and energy of Social-Democrats, opens up for them the widest perspectives and, if one may so express it, places at their disposal the mighty force of millions and millions of workers “spontaneously” rising for the struggle. The whole history of international Social-Democracy seethes with plans advanced first by one and then by another political leader; some confirming the far-sightedness and correct political and organisational insight of their authors and others revealing their short-sightedness and lack of political judgment. At the time when Germany was passing one of the most important turning points in its history—the time of the establishment of the Empire, the opening of the Reichstag, and the granting of universal suffrage, Liebknecht had one plan for Social-Democratic policy and work, and Schweitzer had another.

When the anti-Socialist laws came down on the heads of the German Socialists, Most and Hasselmann, had one plan, that is, to call for violence and terror; Hochberg, Schramm and (partly) Bernstein had another, which they began to preach to the Social-Democrats, somewhat as follows: They themselves provoked the passing of the anti-Socialist laws by being unreasonably bitter and revolutionary, and must now show that they deserve pardon by exemplary conduct. There was yet a third plan proposed by those who paved the way for and carried out the publication of an illegal organ. It is easy, of course, in retrospect, many years after the fight over the selection of the path to be followed has finished, and after history has pronounced its verdict as to the expediency of the path selected, to utter profound maxims about the growth of party tasks that grow with the party. But at a time of confusion,* when the Russian “critics” and Economists degrade Social-Democracy to the level of trade unionism, and when the terrorists are strongly advocating the adoption of a “plan of tactics” that repeats the old mistakes, at such a time, to confine oneself to such profundities, means simply to issue to oneself a “certificate of mental poverty.” At a time when many Russian Social-Democrats suffer from lack of initiative and energy, from a lack of “breadth of political propaganda, agitation and organisation,** a lack of plans for a broader organisation of revolutionary work, at such a time to say: “A plan of tactics contradicts the fundamental spirit of Marxism,” not only means theoretically to vulgarise Marxism, but also practically to drag the party backward. Rabocheye Dyelo goes on sermonising:

The revolutionary Social-Democrat is only confronted by the task of accelerating objective development by his conscious work; it is not his task to obviate it or substitute his own subjective plans for this development. Iskra knows all this in theory. But the enormous importance which Marxism quite justly attaches to conscious revolutionary work causes it in practice, owing to its doctrinaire view of tactics, to belittle the significance of the objective or the spontaneous elements of development [p. 18].

Another example of the extraordinary theoretical confusion worthy of V. V. and that fraternity. We would ask our philosopher:

* Fin Jahr Der Verwirrung ‘A Year of Confusion) is the title Mehring gave to the chapter of his History of German Social-Democracy in which he describes the hesitancy and lack of determination displayed at first by the Socialists in selecting the “plan of tactics” for the new situation.

** See leading article in Iskra, No. 1, “The Urgent Tasks of our Movement,” The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 53.—Ed.

How may a deviser of subjective plans “belittle” objective development? Obviously by losing sight of the fact that this objective development creates or strengthens, destroys or weakens certain classes, strata, groups, nations, groups of nations, etc., and in this way creates a definite international, political grouping of forces, the position of revolutionary parties, etc. If the deviser of plans did that, his mistake would not be that he belittled the spontaneous element, but that he belittled the conscious element, for he would then show that he lacked the “consciousness” that would enable him properly to understand objective development. Hence, the very talk about “estimating the relative significance” (Rabocheye Dyelo’s italics) of spontaneity and consciousness sufficiently reveals a complete lack of “consciousness.” If certain “spontaneous elements of development” can be grasped at all by human understanding, then an incorrect estimation of them would be tantamount to “belittling the conscious element.” But if they cannot be grasped, then we cannot be aware of them, and therefore cannot speak of them. What is B. Krichevsky arguing about then? If he thinks that Iskra’s “subjective plans” are erroneous (as he in fact declares them to be), then he ought to show what objective facts are ignored in these plans, and then charge Iskra with a lack of consciousness for ignoring them, with, to use his own words, “belittling the conscious element.” If, however, while being displeased with subjective plans he can bring forward no other argument except that of “belittling the spontaneous element” (!!) he merely shows: 1, That he theoretically understands Marxism a la Kareyevs and the Mikhailovskys, who have been sufficiently ridiculed by Beltov, and 2. That practically, he is quite pleased with the “spontaneous elements of development” that have drawn our legal Marxists towards Bernsteinism and our Social-Democrats towards Economism, and that he is full of wrath against those who have determined at all costs to divert Russian Social-Democracy from the path of spontaneous development.

And then follow things that are positively funny. “In the same way as men and women will multiply in the old-fashioned way, notwithstanding all the discoveries of natural science, so the birth of a new social order will come about in the future mainly as a result of elemental outbursts, notwithstanding all the discoveries of social science and the increase in the number of conscious fighters.”

[p. 19.] Our grandfathers, in their old-fashioned wisdom used to say: “Any fool can bring forth children,” and to-day the “modern Socialists” (a4 la Narcissus Tuporylov) in their wisdom say: “Any fool can help the spontaneous birth of a new social order.” We too are of that opinion. All that is required for help of that kind is to surrender to Economism when Economism reigns and to terrorism when terrorism arises. For example, in the spring of this year, when it was so important to utter a note of warning against terrorism, Rabocheye Dyelo stood in amazement confronted by a problem that was “new” to it and now, six months after, when the problem has become less topical, it, at one and the same time, presents us with the declaration: “We think that it is not and cannot be the task of Social-Democracy to counteract the rise of terroristic temper” [Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, p. 23], and the congress resolution: “The congress regards systematic and aggressive terror as being inopportune” [Two Congresses, p. 18]. How beautifully clear and connected this is! Not to counteract, but to declare inopportune, and to declare it in such a way that the “resolution” shall not apply to unsystematic and defencive terror. It must be admitted that a resolution like that is extremely safe and completely insured against error, just as a man who talks, but says nothing, is insured against error! And all that is required to be able to draft a resolution like that is: Ability to keep at the tail end of the movement. When Iskra ridiculed Rabocheye Dyelo for declaring the question of terror to be a new one,” the latter angrily accused Iskra of “having the incredible effrontery to impose upon the party organisations decisions on tactical questions arrived at by a group of emigrant writers more than sixteen years ago” [p. 24]. Effrontery indeed, and an exaggeration of the conscious elements to find the theoretical solutions to problems, and then to try to prove to the organisation, to the party and to the masses that this solution is correct! ** How much better it is to repeat something that has been learned by rote, and, without “imposing” anything upon anybody, swing with every “turn” in the direction of Economism or in the direction of terrorism. Rabocheye Dyelo even goes so far as to generalise this gospel of worldly wisdom and accuses Iskra and Zarya with “setting up its programme against the movement, like a spirit hovering over the formless chaos” (p. 29). But what else is the function of Social-Democracy if not to be a “spirit,” not only hovering over the spontaneous movement but also raising the movement to the level of “its programme”? Surely, it is not its function to drag at the tail of the movement: At best, this would be of no service to the movement; at the worst, it would be very, very harmful. Rabocheye Dyelo, however, not only follows this “tactics-process,” but elevates it to a principle, so that it would be more correct to describe its tendency not as opportunism, but khvostism (from the word khvost).* And it must be admitted, that those who have determined always to follow behind the movement like a tail, are absolutely and forever ensured against “belittling the spontaneous element of development.”

* See beginning of article “Where to Begin,” The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 109.—Ed.

** Nor must it be forgotten that in solving “theoretically” the problem of terror, the Emancipation of Labour group generalised the experience of the preceding revolutionary movement.

And so, we have become convinced that the fundamental error committed by the “new tendency” in Russian Social-Democracy lies in its subservience to spontaneity, and its failure to understand that the spontaneity of the masses demands a mass of consciousness from us Social-Democrats. The more spontaneously the masses rise, the more widespread the movement becomes, so much the more rapidly grows the demand for greater consciousness in the theoretical, political and organisational work of Social-Democracy.

The spontaneous rise of the masses in Russia proceeded (and continues) with such rapidity that the young untrained Social- Democrats proved unfitted for the gigantic tasks that confronted them. This lack of training is our common misfortune, the misfortune of all Russian Social-Democrats. The rise of the masses proceeded and spread uninterruptedly and continuously; it not only continued in the places it commenced in, but it spread to new localities and to new strata of the population (influenced by the labour movement, the ferment among the students and the intellectuals generally, and even among the peasantry revived). Revolutionaries, however, lagged behind this rise of the masses in both their “theories” and in their practical activity; they failed to establish an uninterrupted organisation having continuity with the past, and capable of leading the whole movement.

In Chapter I, we proved that Rabocheye Dyelo degraded our theoretical tasks and that it “spontaneously” repeated the fashionable catchword “freedom of criticism”: that those who repeated this catchword lacked the “consciousness” to understand that the position of the opportunist “critics” and the revolutionaries, both in Germany and in Russia, are diametrically opposed to each other.

* Khvost is the Russian word for tail.—Ed.

In the following chapters, we shall show how this subservience to spontaneity found expression in the sphere of the political tasks and the organisational work of Social-Democracy.