E. The Working Class as Champion of Democracy

We have seen that the organisation of wide political agitation, and consequently, of all-sided political exposures are an absolutely necessary and paramount task of activity, that is, if that activity is to be truly Social-Democratic. We arrived at this conclusion solely on the grounds of the pressing needs of the working class for political knowledge and political training. But this ground by itself is too narrow for the presentation of the question, for it ignores the general democratic tasks of Social-Democracy as a whole, and of modern, Russian Social-Democracy in particular. In order to explain the situation more concretely we shall approach the subject from an aspect that is “nearer” to the Economist, namely, from the practical aspect. “Every one agrees” that it is necessary to develop the political consciousness of the working class. But the question arises, How is that to be done? What must be done to bring this about? The economic struggle merely brings the workers “up against” questions concerning the attitude of the government towards the working class. Consequently, however much we may try to “give to the economic struggle itself a political character” we shall never be able to develop the political consciousness of the workers (to the degree of Social-Democratic consciousness) by confining ourselves to the economic struggle, for the limits of this task are too narrow. The Martynov formula has some value for us, not because it illustrates Martynov’s abilities to confuse things, but because it strikingly expresses the fundamental error that all the Economists commit, namely, their conviction that it is possible to develop the class political consciousness of the workers from within, that is to say, exclusively, or at least mainly, by means of the economic struggle. Such a view is radically wrong. Piqued by our opposition to them, the Economists refuse to ponder deeply over the origins of these disagreements, with the result that we absolutely fail to understand each other. It is as if we spoke in different tongues.

The workers can acquire class political consciousness only from without, that is, only outside of the economic struggle, outside of the sphere of relations between workers and employers. The sphere from which alone it is possible to obtain this knowledge is the sphere of relationships between all classes and the state and the government—the sphere of the inter-relations between all classes. For that reason, the reply to the question: What must be done in order that the workers may acquire political knowledge? cannot be merely the one which, in the majority of cases, the practical workers, especially those who are inclined towards Economism, usually content themselves with, 7. e., “go among the workers.” To bring political knowledge to the workers the Social-Democrats must go among all classes of the population, must despatch units of their army in all directions.

We deliberately select this awkward formula, we deliberately express ourselves in a simple, forcible way, not because we desire to indulge in paradoxes, but in order to “stimulate” the Economists to take up their tasks which they unpardonably ignore, to make them understand the difference between trade-union and Social- Democratic politics, which they refuse to understand. Therefore, we beg the reader not to get excited, but to hear us patiently to the end.

Take the type of Social-Democratic circle that has been most widespread during the past few years, and examine its work. It has “contact with the workers,” it issues leaflets—in which abuses in the factories, the government’s partiality towards the capitalists, and the tyranny of the police are strongly condemned—and rests content with this. At meetings of workers, there are either no discussions or they do not extend beyond such subjects. Lectures and discussions on the history of the revolutionary movement, on questions of the home and foreign policy of our government, on questions of the economic evolution of Russia and of Europe, and the position of the various classes in modern society, etc., are extremely rare. Of systematically acquiring and extending contact with other classes of society, no one even dreams. The ideal leader, as the majority of the members of such circles picture him, is something more in the nature of a trade-union secretary than a Socialist political leader. Any trade-union secretary, an English one, for instance, helps the workers to conduct the economic struggle, helps to expose factory abuses, explains the injustice of the laws and of measures which hamper the freedom of strikes and the freedom to picket, to warn all and sundry that a strike is proceeding at a certain factory, explains the partiality of arbitration courts which are in the hands of the bourgeois classes, etc., etc. In a word, every trade-union secretary conducts and helps to conduct “the economic struggle against the employers and the government.” It cannot be too strongly insisted that this is not enough to constitute Social-Democracy. The Social-Democrat’s ideal should not be a trade-union secretary, but a tribune of the people, able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it takes place, no matter what stratum or class of the people it affects; he must be able to group all these manifestations into a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; he must be able to take advantage of every petty event in order to explain his Socialistic convictions and his Social-Democratic demands to all, in order to explain to all and every one the world historical significance of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat.

Compare, for example, a leader like Robert Knight (the celebrated secretary and leader of the Boiler Makers Society, one of the most powerful trade unions in England) with Wilhelm Liebknecht, and then take the contrasts that Martynov draws in his controversy with Iskra. You will see—I am running through Martynov’s article—that Robert Knight engaged more in “calling the masses to certain concrete actions” [p. 39] while Liebknecht engaged more in “the revolutionary explanation of the whole of modern society, or various manifestations of it” [pp. 38-39]; that Robert Knight “formulated the immediate demands of the proletariat and pointed to the manner in which they can be achieved” [p. 41], whereas Wilhelm Liebknecht, while doing this “simultaneously guided the activities of various opposition strata,” “dictated to them a positive programme of action” [p. 41]; * that it was precisely Robert Knight who strove “as far as possible to give to the economic struggle itself a political character” [p. 42] and was excellently able “to submit to the government concrete demands promising certain palpable results” [p. 43], while Liebknecht engaged more in “one-sided exposures” [p. 40]; that Robert Knight attached more significance to the “forward march of the drab, every-day struggle” [p. 61], while Liebknecht engaged more in the “propaganda of brilliant and finished ideas” [p. 61]; that Liebknecht converted the paper he was directing into “an organ of revolutionary opposition exposing the present system and particularly the political conditions which came into conflict with the interests of the most varied strata of the population” [p. 63], whereas Robert Knight “worked for the cause of labour in close organic contact with the proletarian struggle” [p. 63]—if by “close and organic contact” is meant the subservience to spontaneity which we studied above from the example of Krichevsky and Martynov—and “restricted the sphere of his influence,” convinced, of course, as is Martynov, that “by that he intensified that influence” [p. 63]. In a word, you will see that de facto, Martynov reduces Social-Democracy to the level of trade unionism, and he does this, of course, not because he does not desire the good of Social-Democracy, but simply because he was a little too much in a hurry to make Plekhanov more profound, instead of taking the trouble to understand him.

* For example, during the Franco-Prussian War, Liebknecht dictated a programme of action for the whole of democracy—and this was done to an even greater extent by Marx and Engels in 1848.

Let us return, however, to the elucidation of our thesis. We said that a Social-Democrat, if he really believes it is necessary to develop the political consciousness of the proletariat, must “go among all classes of the people.” This gives rise to the questions: How is this to be done? Have we enough forces to do this? Is there a base for such work among all the other classes? Will this not mean a retreat, or lead to a retreat from the class point-of-view? We shall deal with these questions.

We must “go among all classes of the people” as theoreticians, as propagandists, as agitators, and as organisers. No one doubts that the theoretical work of Social-Democrats should be directed towards studying all the features of the social and political position of the various classes. But extremely little is done in this direction compared with the work that is done in studying the features of factory life. In the committees and circles, you will meet men who are immersed say in the study of some special branch of the metal industry, but you will hardly ever find members of organisations (obliged, as often happens, for some reason or other to give up practical work) especially engaged in the collection of material concerning some pressing question of social and political life which could serve as a means for conducting Social-Democratic work among other strata of the population. In speaking of the lack of training of the majority of present-day leaders of the labour movement, we cannot refrain from mentioning the point about training in this connection also, for it is also bound up with the “economic” conception of “close organic contact with the proletarian struggle.” The principal thing, of course, is propaganda and agitation among all strata of the people. The Western-European Social-Democrats find their work in this field facilitated by the calling of public meetings, to which all are free to go, and by the parliament, in which they speak to the representatives of all classes. We have neither a parliament, nor the freedom to call meetings, nevertheless we are able to arrange meetings of workers who desire to listen to a Social-Democrat. We must also find ways and means of calling meetings of representatives of all and every other class of the population that desire to listen to a Democrat; for he who forgets that “the Communists support every revolutionary movement,” that we are obliged for that reason to emphasize general democratic tasks before the whole people, without for a moment concealing our Socialistic convictions, is not a Social-Democrat. He who forgets his obligation to be in advance of everybody in bringing up, sharpening and solving every general democratic question, is not a Social-Democrat.

“But everybody agrees with this!”—the impatient reader will exclaim—and the new instructions given by the last congress of the League to the Editorial Board of Rabocheye Dyelo says: “All events of social and political life that affect the proletariat either directly as a special class or as the vanguard of all the revolutionary forces in the struggle for freedom should serve as subjects for political propaganda and agitation.” [Two Congresses, p. 17, our italics. ]

Yes, these are very true and very good words and we would be satisfied if Rabocheye Dyelo understood them, and if tt refrained from saying in the next breath things that are the very opposite to them. Surely, it is not sufficient to call ourselves the “vanguard,” it is necessary to act like one; we must act in such a way that all the other units of the army shall see us, and be obliged to admit that we are the vanguard. And we ask the reader: Are the representatives of the other “units” such fools as to take merely our word for it when we say that we are the “vanguard”?

Just picture to yourselves the following: A Social-Democrat comes into the “unit” of Russian educated radicals, or liberal constitutionalists, and declares to them: We are the vanguard; “at the present time we are confronted by the problem of—how to give as far as possible to the economic struggle itself a political character.” The radical, or constitutionalist, if he is at all intelligent (and there are many intelligent men among Russian radicals and constitutionalists) , would only laugh at such a speech, and would say (to himself, of course, for in the majority of cases they are experienced diplomats) :

Well, your “vanguard” must be composed of simpletons! It does not even understand that it is our task, the task of the progressive representatives of bourgeois democracy to give to the economic struggle of the workers a political character. Why, we too, like all the West-European bourgeoisie, are striving to draw the workers into politics, but only into trade-union politics and not into Social-Democratic politics. Trade-union politics are precisely bourgeois politics of the working class and the “vanguard’s” formulation of its tasks is the formula for trade-union politics. Let them call themselves “Social-Democrats if they like, I am not a child to get excited over a label. But see that they do not fall under tthe influence of those pernicious orthodox doctrinaires, let them allow “freedom of criticism” to those who unconsciously are driving Social-Democracy into trade-unionist channels.

And the light chuckle of our constitutionalist will turn into Homeric laughter when he learns that the Social-Democrats who talk about Social-Democracy being the vanguard at the present time, when spontaneity completely dominates our movement, fears nothing so much as “belittling the spontaneous elements,” as “belittling the significance of the forward march of the drab, every-day struggle, as compared with the propaganda of brilliant and finished ideas,” etc., etc.! A “vanguard,” which fears that consciousness will outstrip spontaneity, which fears to put forward a bold “plan” that would compel universal recognition even among those who think differently from us—Are they not confusing the word “vanguard” with the word “rearguard”?

Ponder over the following piece of Martynov reasoning. On page 42 he says that Iskra’s tactics of exposing abuses are one-sided, that “however much we may spread distrust and hatred towards the government, we shall not achieve our aim until we have succeeded in developing sufficiently active social energy for its overthrow.” This, it may be said in parenthesis, is the concern we have already met with for increasing the activity of the masses, while at the same time striving to restrict its activity. This is not the point we are now discussing, however. Martynov, therefore, speaks of revolutionary energy (“for its overthrow”). But what conclusion does he arrive at? As in ordinary times, various social strata inevitably march separately, therefore, In view of that, it is clear that we Social-Democrats cannot simultaneously guide the activities of various opposition strata, we cannot dictate to them a positive programme of action, we cannot point out to them in what manner they can fight for their daily interests. . - . The liberal strata will themselves take care of the active struggle for their immediate interests and this struggle will bring them up against our political régime.

Thus, having commenced by speaking about revolutionary energy _of the active struggle for the overthrow of the autocracy, Martynov immediately turned towards trade-union energy and active struggle for immediate interests! It goes without saying that we cannot guide the struggle of the students, liberals, etc., for their “+ mmediate interests,” but this is not the point we were arguing about, most worthy Economists! The point we were discussing is the possible and necessary participation of various social strata in the overthrow of the autocracy; not only are we able, but it is our duty to guide these “activities, of the various opposition strata” if we desire to be a “vanguard.” Not only will the students and our liberals, etc., take care of the struggle that will bring them up against our political régime; the police and the officials of the autocratic government will see to this more than any one. But, if “we” desire to be advanced democrats, we must make it our business to stimulate in the minds of those who are dissatisfied only with university or only with Zemstvo, etc., conditions the idea that the whole political system is worthless. We must take upon ourselves the task of organising a universal political struggle under the leadership of our party in such a manner as to obtain the support of all opposition strata for the struggle and for our party. We must train our Social-Democratic practical workers to become political leaders, able to guide all the manifestations of this universal struggle, able at the right time to “dictate a positive programme of action” for the discontented students, for the discontented Zemstvo, for the discontented religious sects, for the offended elementary school teachers, etc., etc. For that reason, Martynov’s assertion that “with regard to these, we can come forward merely in the negative réle of exposers of abuses . . . we can only dissipate the hopes they have in various government commissions’—is absolutely wrong (our italics). By saying this Martynov shows that he absolutely fails to understand the réle the revolutionary “vanguard” must really play. If the reader bears this in mind, the real sense of the following concluding remarks by Martynov will be clear to him:

Iskra is the organ of the revolutionary opposition which exposes the abuses of our system—particularly political abuses, in so far as they affect the interests of the most diverse classes of the population. We, however, are working and will continue to work for the cause of labour in close organie contact with the proletarian struggle. By restricting the sphere of our influence, we at the same time intensify that influence.

The true sense of this conclusion is as follows: Iskra desires to elevate working-class trade-union politics (to which, owing to misunderstanding, lack of training, or by conviction our practical workers frequently confine themselves) to Social-Democratic politics, whereas Rabocheye Dyelo desires to degrade Social-Democratic politics to trade-union politics. And while doing this, they assure the world that these two positions are “quite compatible in the common cause.” O! sancta simplicitas!

To proceed. Have we sufficient forces to be able to direct our propaganda and agitation among all classes of the population? Of course we have. Our Economists are frequently inclined to deny this. They lose sight of the gigantic progress our movement has made from (approximately) 1894 to 1901. Like real Khvostists, they frequently live in the distant past, in the period of the beginning of the movement. At that time, indeed, we had astonishingly few forces, and it was perfectly natural and legitimate then to resolve to go exclusively among the workers, and severely condemn any deviation from this. The whole task then was to consolidate our position in the working class. At the present time, however, gigantic forces have been attracted to the movement; the best representatives of the young generation of the educated classes are coming over to us; everywhere, and in all provinces, there are people who have taken part in the movement in the past, who desire to do so now, who are striving towards Social-Democracy, but who are obliged to sit idle because we cannot employ them (in 1894 you could count the Social-Democrats on your fingers). One of the principal political and organisational shortcomings of our movement is that we are unable to utilise all these forces, and give them appropriate work (we shall deal with this in detail in the next chapter). The overwhelming majority of these forces entirely lack the opportunity for “going to the workers,” so there are no grounds for fearing that we shall deflect forces from our main cause. And in order to be able to provide the workers with real, universal, and live political - knowledge, we must have “our own men,” Social-Democrats, every- _ where, among all social strata, and in all positions from which we can learn the inner springs of our state mechanism. Such men are required for propaganda and agitation, but in a still larger measure for organisation.

Is there scope for activity among all classes of the population? Those who fail to see this also lag intellectually behind the spontaneous awakening of the masses. The labour movement has aroused and is continuing to arouse discontent in some, hopes for support for the opposition in others, and the consciousness of the intolerableness and inevitable downfall of autocracy in still others. We would be “politicians” and Social-Democrats only in name (as very often happens), if we failed to realise that our task is to utilise every manifestation of discontent, and to collect and utilise every grain of even rudimentary protest. This is quite apart from the fact that many millions of the peasantry, handicraftsmen, petty artisans, etc., always listen eagerly to the preachings of any Social- Democrat who is at all intelligent. Is there a single class of the population in which no individuals, groups or circles are to be found who are discontented with the state of tyranny, and therefore accessible to the propaganda of Social-Democrats as the spokesmen of the most pressing general democratic needs? To those who desire to have a clear idea of what the political agitation of a Social- Democrat among all classes and strata of the population should be like, we would point to political exposures in the broad sense of the word as the principal (but of course not the sole) form of this agitation.

We must “arouse in every section of the population that is at all enlightened a passion for political exposure,” I wrote in my article “Where to Begin” (Iskra, No. 4, May, 1901), with which I shall deal in greater detail later.

“We must not allow ourselves to be discouraged by the fact that the voice of political exposure is still feeble, rare and timid. This is not because of a general submission to political despotism, but because those who are able and ready to expose have no tribune from which to speak, because there is no audience to listen eagerly to and approve of what the orators say, and because the latter can nowhere perceive among the people forces to whom it would be worth while directing their complaint against the ‘omnipotent’ Russian government. ... We are now in a position to set up a tribune for the national exposure of the tsarist government, and it is our duty to do so. That tribune must be a Social-Democratic paper. .. .” * The ideal audience for these political exposures is the working class, which is first and foremost in need of universal and live political knowledge, which is most capable of converting this knowledge into active struggle, even if it did not promise “palpable results.” The only platform from which public exposures can be made is an All-Russian newspaper. “Unless we have a political organ, a movement deserving the name of political is inconceivable in modern Europe.” In this connection Russia must undoubtedly be included in modern Europe. The press has long ago become a power in our country, otherwise the government would not spend tens of thousands of rubles to bribe it, and to subsidise the Katkovs, and Meshcherskys. And it is no novelty in autocratic Russia for the underground press to break through the wall of censorship and compel the legal and conservative press to speak openly of it. This was the case in the seventies and even in the fifties. How much broader and deeper are now the strata of the people willing to read the illegal underground press, and to learn from it “how to live and how to die,” to use the expression of the worker who sent a letter to Iskra [No. 7]. Political exposures are as much a declaration of war against the government as economic exposures are a declaration of war against the employers. And the wider and more powerful this campaign of exposure will be, the more numerous and determined the social class which has declared war in order to commence the war will be, the greater will be the moral significance of this declaration of war. Hence, political exposures in themselves serve as a powerful instrument for disintegrating the system we oppose, the means for diverting from the enemy his casual or temporary allies, the means for spreading enmity and distrust among those who permanently share power with the autocracy.

* See The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 113.—Ed.

Only a party that will organise real all-national exposures can become the vaneuard of the revolutionary forces in our time. The word “all-national” has a very profound meaning. The overwhelming majority of the non-working class exposers (and in order to become the vanguard, we must attract other classes) are sober politicians and cool business men. They know perfectly well how dangerous it is to “complain” even against a minor official, let alone against the “omnipotent” Russian government. And they will come to us with their complaints only when they see that these complaints really have effect, and when they see that we represent a political force. In order to become this political force in the eyes of outsiders, much persistent and stubborn work is required to increase our own consciousness, initiative and energy. For this, it is not sufficient to stick the label “vanguard” on “rearguard” theory and practice.

But if we have to undertake the organisation of the real all-national exposure of the government, then in what way will the class character of our movement be expressed?—the over-zealous advocates of “close organic contact with the proletarian struggle” will ask us. The reply is: In that we Social-Democrats will organise these public exposures; in that all the questions that are brought up by the agitation will be explained in the spirit of Social-Democracy, without any deliberate or unconscious distortions of Marxism; in the fact that the party will carry on this universal political agitation, uniting into one inseparable whole the pressure upon the government in the name of the whole people, the revolutionary training of the proletariat—while preserving its political independence—the guidance of the economic struggle of the working class, the utilisation of all its spontaneous conflicts with its exploiters, which rouse and bring into our camp increasing numbers of the proletariat!

But one of the characteristic features of Economism is its failure to understand this connection. More than that—it fails to understand the identity between the most pressing needs of the proletariat (an all-sided political education through the medium of political agitation and political exposures), and the need for a general democratic movement. This lack of understanding is not only expressed in “Martynovist” phrases, but also in the alleged class point-of-view which is identical in thought with these phrases. The following, for example, is how the authors of the Economic Letter in No. 12 of Iskra expressed themselves.* This fundamental drawback [overestimating ideology] is the cause of Iskra’s inconsistency in regard to the question of the relations between Social- Democrats and various social classes and tendencies. By a process of theoretical reasoning [and not by “the growth of party tasks which grow together with the party’], Iskra arrived at the conclusion that it was necessary immediately to take up the struggle against absolutism, but in all probability sensing the difficulty of this task for the workers in the present state of affairs [not only sensing, but knowing perfectly well that this problem will seem less dificult to the workers than to those Economist intellectuals who are concerned about little children, for the workers are prepared to fight even for demands which, to use the language of the never-to-be-forgotten Martynov, do not “promise palpable results”] and lacking the patience to wait until the working class has accumulated sufficient forces for this struggle, Iskra begins to seek for allies in the ranks of the liberals and intellectuals.

Yes, yes, we have indeed lost all “patience” to “wait” for the blessed time that has long been promised us by the “conciliators,” when the Economists will stop throwing the blame for their own backwardness upon the workers, and stop justifying their own lack of energy by the alleged lack of energy of the workers. We ask our Economists: What does “the workers accumulating forces for the struggle” mean? Is it not evident that it means the political training of the workers by revealing to them all the aspects of our despicable autocracy? And is it not clear that precisely for this work we need “allies in the ranks of the liberals and intelligentsia,” who are prepared to join us in the exposure of the political attack on the Zemstvo, on the teachers, on the statisticians, on the students, etc.? Is this “cunning mechanism” so difficult to understand after all? Did not P. B. Axelrod repeat to you over and over again since 1897: “The problem of the Russian Social-Democrats acquiring direct and indirect allies from among the non-proletarian classes will be solved principally by the character of the propagandist activities conducted among the proletariat itself?” And Martynov and the other Economists continue to image that the workers must at first accumulate forces (for trade-union politics) in the economic struggle with the employers and the government, and then “so over [we suppose from trade-union “training for activity”] to Social-Democratic activity.”

* Lack of space has prevented us from replying in full to this letter extremely characteristic of the Economists. We were very glad this letter appeared, for the charges brought against Iskra, that it did not maintain a consistent, class point-of-view, have reached us long ago from various sources, and we waited for an appropriate opportunity, or for a formulated expression of this fashionable charge, in order to reply to it. And it is our habit to reply to attacks, not by defence, but by counter-attacks,

. . . In its quest, continue the Economists, Jskra “not infrequently departs from the class point-of-view, obscures class antagonisms and puts into the forefront the general discontent prevailing against the government, notwithstanding the fact that the causes and the degree of his discontent vary very considerably among the ‘allies.’ Such, for example, is Iskra’s attitude towards the Zemstvo. . . .”

Iskra, it is alleged, promises those who are discontented with the government’s doles to the nobility the aid of the working class, but does not say a word about the class differences among these strata of the people. If the reader will turn to the series of articles “The Autocracy and the Zemstvo” [Nos. 2 and 4 of Iskra] to which, in all probability, the author of the letter refers, he will find that these articles * deal with the attitude of the government towards the “mild agitation of the feudal-bureaucratic Zemstvo,” and towards the “independent activity of even the propertied classes.” In these articles it is stated that the workers cannot look on indifferently while the government is carrying on a fight against the Zemstvo, and the latter are called upon to give up making soft speeches, but to speak firmly and resolutely when revolutionary Social-Democracy confronts the government in all its strength. What there is in this that the authors of the letter do not agree with is not clear. Do they think that the workers will “not understand” the phrases “propertied classes” and “feudal-bureaucratic Zemstvo”? Do they think that stimulating the Zemstvo to abandon soft speeches and to speak firmly and resolutely is “over-estimating ideology”? Do they imagine that the workers can accumulate “forces” for the fight against absolutism if they know nothing about the attitude of absolutism towards the Zemstvo? All this remains unknown. One thing alone is clear and that is that the authors of the letter have a very vague idea of what the political tasks of Social-Democracy are. This is revealed still more clearly by their remark: “Such also is Jskra’s attitude towards the student movements” (i. e., also “obscures class antagonism”). Instead of calling upon the workers to declare by means of public demonstrations that the real centre of unbridled violence and outrage is not the students but the Russian government [Iskra, No. 2],* we ought, no doubt, to have inserted arguments in the spirit of Rabochaya Mysl. And such ideas were expressed by Social- Democrats in the autumn of 1901, after the events of February and March, on the eve of a fresh student up-grade movement, which revealed that even in this sphere the “spontaneous” protest against autocracy is “outstripping” the conscious Social-Democratic leadership of the movement. The spontaneous striving of the workers to defend the students, who were being beaten up by the police and the Cossacks, is outstripping the conscious activity of the Social-Democratic organisations!

* Among these articles there was one (Iskra, No. 3) especially dealing with the class antagonisms in rural districts. [See The Iskra Period, Book I, plate 2

“And yet in other articles,” continue the authors of the letter, “Iskra ‘condemns’ all ‘compromises,’ and ‘defends,’ for example, the intolerant conduct of the Guesdists.” We would advise those who so conceitedly and frivolously declare—usually in connection with the disagreements existing among the contemporary Social- Democrats—that the disagreements are not essential and would not justify a split, to ponder very deeply over these words. Is it possible for those who say that we have done astonishingly little to explain the hostility of the autocracy towards the various classes, and to inform the workers of the opposition of the various strata of the population towards autocracy, to work successfully in one organisation with those who say that such work is “compromise’”—evidently compromise with the theory of the “economic struggle against the employers and the government”?

* See The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 70.—Ed.

We urged the necessity of introducing the class struggle in the rural districts on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the emancipation of the peasantry (No. 3,* and of the irreconcilability between the local government bodies and the autocracy in connection with Witte’s secret memorandum (No. 4). We attacked the feudal landlords and the government which served the latter on the occasion of the passing of the law (No. 8),** and welcomed the secret Zemstvo congress that was held. We urged the Zemstvo to stop making degrading petitions [No. 8], and to come out in the open to fight. We encouraged the students, who began to understand the necessity for the political struggle and began to take up that struggle {[No. 3], and at the same time, we lashed out at the “barbarous lack of understanding” revealed by the adherents of the “purely student” movement, who called upon the students to abstain from taking part in the street demonstrations (No. 3, in connection with the manifesto issued by the Executive Committee of the Moscow students on February 25). We exposed the “senseless dreams” and the “lying hypocrisy” of the cunning liberals of Rossiya [No. 5] and at the same time we commented on the savage acis of the government’s torture chambers where “peaceful writers, aged professors, and scientists and the liberal Zemstvo were cruelly dealt with” [No. 5, “The Police Raid on Literature”]. We exposed the real significance of the programme of the “concern of the government for the welfare of the workers,” and welcomed the “valuable admission” that “it is better by granting reforms from above to forestall the demand for such reforms from below, than to wait for those demands We encouraged the protests of the to be put forward” [No. 6].*** statisticians [No. 7], and censured the strikebreaking statisticians [No. 9]. He who sees in these tactics the obscuring of the class consciousness of the proletariat and compromise with liberalism shows that he absolutely fails to understand the true significance of the programme of the Credo and de facto is carrying out that programme, however much he may deny this! Because, by that he is dragging Social-Democracy towards the “economic struggle against the employers and the government” but shies at liberalism, abandons the task of actively intervening in every “liberal” question and defining his own Social-Democratic attitude towards such questions.

* See The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 101.—Ed.

** See Ibid., p. 176.—Ed.

*** See Ibid., p. 164.—Ed.