---
title: A. Political Agitation and Its Restriction by the Economists
url: https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/11-a-political-agitation-and-its-restriction-by-the/
description: A. Political Agitation and Its Restriction by the Economists, 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/)

# A. Political Agitation and Its Restriction by the Economists

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/)

[← Opening](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/10-opening/) [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/)

Every one knows that the spread and consolidation of the economic * struggle of the Russian workers proceeded simultaneously with the creation of a “literature” exposing economic conditions, i. e., factory and industrial conditions. These “leaflets” were deyoted mainly to the exposure of factory conditions, and very soon a passion for exposures was roused among the workers. As soon as the workers realised that the Social-Democratic circles desired to and could supply them with a new kind of leaflet that told the whole truth about their poverty-stricken lives, about their excessive toil and their lack of rights, correspondence began to pour in from the factories and workshops. This “exposure literature” created a sensation not only in the particular factory dealt with and the conditions of which were exposed in a given leaflet, but in all the factories to which news had spread about the facts exposed. And as the poverty and want among the workers in the various enterprises and in the various trades are pretty much the same, the “Truth about the life of the workers” roused the admiration of all. Even among the most backward workers, a veritable passion was roused to “go into print”—a noble passion to adopt this rudimentary form of war against the whole of the modern social system which is based upon robbery and oppression. And in the overwhelming majority of cases these “leaflets” were in truth a declaration of war, because the exposures had a terrifically rousing effect upon the workers; it stimulated them to put forward demands for the removal of the most glaring evils, and roused in them a readiness to support these demands with strikes. Finally, the employers themselves were compelled to recognise the significance of these leaflets as a declaration of war, so much so that in a large number of cases they did not even wait for the outbreak of hostilities. As is always the case, the mere publication of these exposures made them effective, and they acquired the significance of a strong moral force. On more than one occasion, the mere appearance of a leaflet proved sufficient to compel an employer to concede all or part of the demands put forward. In a word, economic (factory) exposures have been an important lever in the economic struggle and they will continue to be so as long as capitalism, which creates the need for the workers to defend themselves, exists. Even in the more progressive countries of Europe to-day, the exposure of the evils in some backward trade, or in some forgotten branch of domestic industry, serves as a starting point for the awakening of class-consciousness, for the beginning of a trade-union struggle, and for the spread of Socialism.* Recently, the overwhelming majority of Russian Social-Democrats were almost wholly engaged in this work of exposing factory conditions. It is sufficient to refer to the columns of Rabochaya Mysl to judge to what an extent they were engaged in it. So much so indeed, that they lost sight of the fact that this, taken by itself, was not substantially Social-Democratic work, but merely trade-union work. As a matter of fact, these exposures merely dealt with the relations between the workers in a given trade, with their immediate employers, and all that it achieved was that the vendors of labour power learned to sell their “commodity” on better terms, and to fight the purchasers of labour power over a purely commercial deal. These exposures might have served (if properly utilised by revolutionaries) as a beginning and a constituent part of Social-Democratic activity, but they might also (and with subservience to spontaneity inevitably had to) -have led to a “pure and simple” trade-union struggle and to a non-Social-Democratic labour movement. Social- Democrats lead the struggle of the working class not only for better terms for the sale of labour power, but also for the abolition of the social system which compels the propertyless class to sell itself to the rich. Social-Democracy represents the working class, not in its relation to a given group of employers, but in its relation to all classes in modern society, to the state as an organised political force. Hence, it not only follows that Social-Democrats must not confine themselves entirely to the economic struggle; they must not even allow the organisation of economic exposures to become the predominant part of their activities. We must actively take up the political education of the working class, and the development of its political consciousness. Now, after Zarya and Iskra have made the first attack upon Economism “all are agreed” with this (although some agreed only nominally, as we shall soon prove).

> *In order to avoid misunderstanding we would state, that here, and throughout this pamphlet, by economic struggle, we mean (in accordance with the meaning of the term as it has become accepted amongst us) the “practical economic struggle” which Engels, in the passage we quoted above, described as “resistance to capitalism,” and which in free countries is known as the trade-union struggle.

> *In the present chapter, we deal only with the political struggle; i. e., whether it is to be understood in its broader or narrower sense. Therefore, we refer only in passing, merely to point out a curiosity, to the accusation that Rabocheye Dyelo hurls against Iskra of being “too restrained” in regard to the economic struggle [Two Congresses, p. 27, rehashed by Martynov in his pamphlet: Social-Democracy and the Working Class]. If those who make this accusation counted up in terms of hundredweights or reams, as they are so fond of doing, what has been said about the economic struggle in the industrial column of Jskra in one year’s issue, and compared this with the industrial columns of Rabocheye Dyelo and Rabochaya Mysl taken together, they would see that they lag very much behind even in this respect. Apparently, the consciousness of this simple truth compels them to resort to arguments which clearly reveal their confusion. “Jskra,” they write, “willy-nilly [!] is compelled [!] to take note of.the imperative demands of life and to publish at least [!!] correspondence about the labour movement” [Two Congresses, p. 27]. Now this is really a crushing argument!

The question now arises: What does political education mean? Is it sufficient to confine oneself to the propaganda of working-class hostility to autocracy? Of course not. It is not enough to explain to the workers that they are politically oppressed (any more than it was to explain to them that their interests were antagonistic to the interests of the employers). Advantage must be taken of every concrete example of this oppression for the purpose of agitation (in the same way as we began to use concrete examples of economic oppression for the purpose of agitation). And inasmuch as political oppression affects all sorts of classes in society, inasmuch as it manifests itself in various spheres of life and activity, in industrial life, civic life, in personal and family life, in religious life, scientific life, etc., etc., is it not evident that we shall not be fulfilling our task of developing the political consciousness of the workers if we do not undertake the organisation of the political exposure of autocracy in all its aspects? In order to agitate over concrete examples of oppression, these examples must be exposed (in the same way as it was necessary to expose factory evils in order to carry on economic agitation).

One would think that this was clear enough. It turns out, however, that “all” are agreed that it is necessary to develop political ~ consciousness in all its aspects, only in words. It turns out that Rabocheye Dyelo, for example, has not only failed to take up the task of organising (or to make a start in organising) in all-sided political exposure, but is even trying to drag Iskra, which has undertaken this task, away from it. Listen to this: “The political struggle of the working class is merely [it is precisely not “merely”] a more developed, a wider and more effective form of economic struggle.” [Programme of Rabocheye Dyelo published in No. 1, p. 3.] “The Social-Democrats are now confronted with the task of, as far as possible, giving the economic struggle itself a political character” [Martynov, Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, p. 42]. “The economic struggle is the most widely applicable method of drawing the masses into active political struggle” (resolution passed by the congress of the League and “amendments” thereto). [Two Congresses, pp. 11 and 17]. As the reader will observe, all these postulates permeate Rabocheye Dyelo, from its very first number to the recently issued Instructions by the Editorial Committee, and all of them evidently express a single view regarding political agitation and the political struggle. Examine this view from the standpoint of the opinion prevailing among all Economists, that political agitation must follow economic agitation. Is it true that in general,* the economic struggle “is the most widely applicable method” of drawing the masses into the political struggle? It is absolutely untrue. All and sundry manifestations of police tyranny and autocratic outrage, in addition to the evils connected with the economic struggle, are equally “widely applicable” as a means of “drawing in” the masses. The tyranny of the Zemstvo chiefs, the flogging of the peasantry, the corruption of the officials, the conduct of the police towards the “common people” in the cities, the fight against the famine-stricken and the suppression of the popular striving towards enlightenment and knowledge, the extortion of taxes, the persecution of the religious sects, the severe discipline in the army, the militarist eonduct towards the students and the liberal intelligentsia—all these and a thousand other similar manifestations of tyranny, though not directly connected with the “economic” struggle, do they, in general, represent a less “widely applicable” method and subject for political agitation and for drawing the masses into the political struggle? The very opposite is the case. Of all the innumerable eases in which the workers suffer (either personally or those closely associated with them) from tyranny, violence, and lack of rights, undoubtedly only a relatively few represent cases of police tyranny in the economic struggle as such. Why then should we beforehand restrict the scope of political agitation by declaring only one of the methods to be “the most widely applicable,” when Social-Democrats have other, generally speaking, not less “widely applicable” means?

> *We say “in general,” advisedly, because Rabocheye Dyelo speaks of general principles and of the general tasks of the whole party. Undoubtedly, eases occur in practice, when politics must follow economics, but only Economists can say a thing like that in a resolution that was intended to apply to the whole of Russia. Cases do occur when it is possible “right from the beginning,” to carry on political agitation “exclusively on an economic basis”; and yet Rabocheye Dyelo went so far as to say that “there was no need for this whatever” [Two Congresses, p. 11]. In the next chapter, we shall show that the tactics of the “politicians” and revolutionaries not only do not ignore the trade-union tasks of Social-Democracy, but that, on the contrary, they alone can secure the consistent fulfilment of these tasks.

Long, long ago (a year ago! . . .) Rabocheye Dyelo wrote:

The masses begin to understand immediate political demands after one, er at all events, after several strikes; immediately the government sets the police and gendarmerie against them [No. 7, p. 15, August, 1900].

This opportunist theory of stages has now been rejected by the League, which makes a concession to us by declaring: “There is no need whatever to conduct political agitation right from the beginning, exclusively on an economic basis.” [Two Congresses, p. 113] This very repudiation of part of its former errors by the League will enable the future historian of Russian Social-Democracy to discern the depths to which our Economists have degraded Socialism better than any number of lengthy arguments! But the League must be very naive indeed to imagine that the abandonment of one form of restricting politics will induce us to agree to another form of restriction! Would it not be more logical to say that the economic struggle should be conducted on the widest possible basis, that it should be utilised for political agitation, but that “there is no need whatever” to regard the economic struggle as the most widely applicable means of drawing the masses into active political struggle?

The League attaches significance to the fact that it substituted the phrase “most widely applicable method” by the phrase “a better method,” contained in one of the resolutions of the Fourth Congress of the Jewish Labour League (Bund). We confess that we find it difficult to say which of these resolutions is the better one. In our opinion both are bad. Both the League and the Bund fall into error (partly perhaps unconsciously, owing to the influence of tradition) concerning the economic, trade-unionist interpretation of politics, The fact that this error is expressed either by the word “better” or by the words “most widely applicable” makes no material difference whatever. If the League had said that “political agitation on an economic basis” is the most widely applied (and not “applicable”) method it would have been right in regard to a certain period in the development of our Social-Democratic movement. It would have been right in regard to the Economists and to many (if not the majority) of the practical Economists of 1898-1901 who have applied the method of political agitation (to the extent that they applied it at all) almost exclusively on an economic basis.

Political agitation on such lines was recognised, and as we have seen, even recommended by Rabochaya Mysl, and by the Self-Emancipation group! Rabocheye Dyelo should have strongly condemned the fact that useful economic agitation was accompanied by the harmful restriction of the political struggle, but instead of that, it declares the method most widely applied (by the Economists) to be the most widely. applicable! It is not surprising, therefore, that when we describe these people as Economists, they can do nothing else but pour abuse upon us, and call us “mystifiers,” “disrupters,” “Papal Nuncios,” and “slanderers,” * go complaining to the world that we have mortally offended them and declare almost on oath that “not a single Social-Democratic organisation is now tinged with Economism.** Qh, these evil, slanderous politicians! They must have deliberately invented this Economism, out of sheer hatred of mankind, in order mortally to offend other people!

What do the words “to give the economic struggle itself a political character,” which Martynov uses in presenting the tasks of Social- Democracy, mean concretely? The economic struggle is the collective struggle of the workers against their employers for better terms in the sale of their labour power, for better conditions of life and labour. This struggle is necessarily a struggle according to trade, because conditions of labour differ very much in different trades, and, consequently, the fight to improve these conditions can only be conducted in respect of each trade (trade unions in the Western countries, temporary trade associations and leaflets in Russia, etc.). To give “the economic struggle itself a political character” means, therefore, to strive to secure satisfaction for these trade demands, the improvement of conditions of labour in each separate trade by means of “legislative and administrative measures” (as Martynov expresses it on the next page of his article, p. 43). This is exactly what the trade unions do and always have done. Read the works of the thoroughly scientific (and “thoroughly” opportunist) Mr. and Mrs. Webb and you will find that the British trade unions long ago recognised, and have long carried out the task of “giving the economic struggle itself a political character”; they have long been fighting for the right to strike, for the removal of all juridical hindrances to the co-operative and trade-union movement, for laws protecting women and children, for the improvement of conditions of labour by means of sanitary and factory legislation, etc. Thus, the pompous phrase: “To give the economic struggle itself which sounds so “terrifically” profound and a political character,” revolutionary, serves as a screen to conceal what is in fact the traditional striving to degrade Social-Democratic politics to the level of trade-union politics! On the pretext of rectifying Iskra’s one-sidedness, which, it is alleged, places “the revolutionising of dogma higher than the revolutionising of life,” * we are presented with the struggle for economic reform as if it were something entirely new. As a matter of fact, the phrase “to give the economic struggle itself a political character” means nothing more than the struggle for economic reforms. And Martynov himself might have come to this simple conclusion had he only pondered over the significance of his own words. “Our party,” he says, turning his heaviest guns against Iskra, “could and should have presented concrete demands to the government for legislative and administrative measures against economic exploitation, for the relief of unemployment, for the relief of the famine-stricken, etc.” [Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, pp. 42, 43.] Concrete demands for measures—does not this mean demands for social reforms? And again we ask the impartial reader, do we slander the Rabocheye Dyeloists (may I be forgiven for this clumsy expression!) when we declare them to be concealed Bernsteinists, for advancing their thesis about the necessity for fighting for economic reforms as a reason for their disagreement with Iskra? Revolutionary Social-Democracy always included, and now in. cludes, the fight for reforms in its activities. But it utilises “eco: nomic” agitation for the purpose of presenting to the government, not only demands for all sorts of measures, but also (and primarily| the demand that it cease to be an autocratic government. More. over, it considers it to be its duty to present this demand to the government, not on the basis of the economic struggle alone, but on the basis of all manifestations of public and political life. In a word, it subordinates the struggle for reforms to the revolutionary struggle for liberty and for Socialism, in the same way as the part is subordinate to the whole. Martynov, however, resuscitates the theory of stages in a new form, and strives to prescribe an exclusively economic, so to speak, path of development for the political struggle. By coming out at this moment, when the revolutionary movement is on the up-grade, with an alleged special “task” of fighting for reforms, he is dragging the party backwards, and is playing into the hands of both “economic” and liberal opportunism.

> * These are exactly the expressions used in Two Congresses, pp. 28, 30, 31, and 32.

> ** Two Congresses, p. 32.

> * Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, p. 60. This is the Martynov variation of the application to the present chaotic state of our movement of the thesis: “A step forward of the real movement is more important than a dozen programmes,” to which we have already referred above. As a matter of fact, this is merely a translation into Russian of the notorious Bernsteinist phrase: “The movement is everything, the ultimate aim is nothing.”

Shamefacedly hiding the struggle for reforms behind the pompous thesis “to give the economic struggle itself a political character,” Martynov advanced, as if it were a special point, exclusively economic (in fact, exclusively factory) reforms. Why he did that, we do not know. Perhaps it was due to carelessness? But if he indeed had only “factory” reforms in mind, then the whole of his thesis, which we have just quoted, loses all sense. Perhaps he did it because he thought it possible and probable that the government would agree to make “concessions” only in the economic sphere? * If that is what he thought, then it is a strange error. Concessions are also possible, and are made in the sphere of legislation concerning flogging, passports, land-compensation payments, religious sects, the censorship, etc., etc. “Economic” concessions (or pseudo-concessions) are, of course, the cheapest and most advantageous concessions to make from the government’s point-of-view, because by these means it hopes to win the confidence of the masses of the workers. Precisely for this very reason, Social-Democrats must under no circumstances create grounds for the belief (or the misunderstanding) that we attach greater value to economic reforms than to political reforms, or that we regard them as being particularly important, etc. “Such demands,” writes Martynov, concerning the concrete demands for legislative and administrative measures referred to above, “would not be merely a hollow sound because, promising certain palpable results, they might be actively supported by the masses of the workers... .” We are not Economists, oh, no! We only cringe as slavishly before the “palpableness” of concrete results as do the Bernsteins, the Prokopoviches, the Struves, the R. M.’s, and tutti quanti! We only wish to make it understood (with Narcissus Tuporylov) that all that which “does not promise palpable results” is merely a “hollow sound.” We are only trying to argue as if the masses of the workers are incapable (and, of course, have not proved their capabilities, notwithstanding those who ascribe their own philistinism to them) of actively supporting every protest against the autocracy even if it promises absolutely no palpable results whatever!

> *P. 43. “Of course, when we advise the workers to present certain economic demands to the government, we do so because in the economic sphere, the autocratic government is compelled to agree to make certain concessions.”

Take for example the very “measures” for the relief of unemployment and the famine that Martynov himself advances. While Rabocheye Dyelo was engaged, judging by what it has promised, in drawing up a programme of “concrete [in the form of Acts of Legislation? ] demands for legislative and administrative measures,” “promising palpable results,” Iskra, which “constantly places the revolutionising of dogma higher than the revolutionising of life,” tried to explain the inseparable connection that exists between unemployment and the capitalist system as a whole; uttered the warning that “famine is coming”; exposed the police “fight against the famine-stricken” and the outrageous “provisional penal regulations”; and Zarya published a special edition in the form of an agitation pamphlet, entitled, Review of Internal Affairs, a part of its text which was devoted to the famine. But good God! How “one-sided” these incorrigibly narrow and orthodox doctrinaires were in this; how deaf to the calls of “life itself”! Not one of these articles contained—oh horror!—a single, can you imagine it?— a single “concrete demand,” “promising palpable results”! Poor doctrinaires! They sought to be sent to Krichevsky and Martynov to be taught that tactics are a process of growth, etc., and that the economic struggle itself should be given a political character!

In addition to its immediately revolutionary significance, the workers’ economic struggle against the employers and the government [“economic struggle against the government”! !] has also this significance that it constantly brings the workers face to face with their own lack of political rights [Martynov, p. 44].

We quote this passage not in order to repeat what has been said already a hundred and a thousand times before, but in order to thank Martynov for this excellent new formula: “The workers’ economic struggle against the employers and the government.” What a pearl! With what inimitable talent and skill in eliminating partial disagreements and shades of differences among Economists, does this clear and concise postulate express the quintessence of Economism: From calling to the workers to join “in the political struggle which they carry on in the general interest, for the purpose of improving the conditions of all the workers,” through the theory of stages, to the resolution of the congress on the “most widely applicable,” etc., “economic struggle against the government” is precisely trade-union politics, which is far, far away from being Social-Democratic politics.

[← Opening](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/10-opening/) [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/)

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/).