F. Again “Slanderers,” Again “Mystifiers”

As the reader will remember, these polite expressions were uttered by Rabocheye Dyelo * which in this way answers our charge that it “indirectly prepared the ground for converting the labour movement into an instrument of bourgeois democracy.” In its simplicity of heart Rabocheye Dyelo decided that this accusation was nothing more than a polemical sally, as if to say, these malicious doctrinaires can only think of saying unpleasant things about us; now what can be more unpleasant than being an instrument of bourgeois democracy? And so they print in heavy type a “refutation”: “Nothing but downright slander” [Two Congresses, p. 30], “mystification” [p. 31] “masquerade” [p. 33]. Like Jupiter, Rabocheye Dyelo (although it has little resemblance to Jupiter) is angry because it is wrong, and proves by its hasty abuse that it is incapable ef understanding its opponents’ mode of reasoning. And yet, with only a little reflection, it would have understood why subservience to the spontaneity of the mass movement and any deerading of Social-Democratic politics to trade-union politics mean precisely to prepare the ground for converting the labour movement into an instrument of bourgeois democracy. The spontaneous labour movement is able by itself to create (and inevitably will create) only trade unionism, and working-class trade-union politics are precisely working-class bourgeois politics. The. fact that the working class participates in the political struggle and even in political revolution does not in itself make its politics Social- Democratic politics. Will Rabocheye Dyelo deny that? Will it at last openly and without equivocation explain its position on the urgent questions of the international and of the Russian Social- Democratic movement? Oh no, it never thinks of doing anything of the kind, because it holds fast to the trick, which might be described as telling it in “negatives”: “It’s not me; it’s not my »** We are not Economists; Rabochaya horse; I’m not the driver. Mysl does not stand for Economism; there is no Economism at all in Russia. This is a remarkably adroit and “political” trick, which suffers from this little defect, however, that the bodies that practice it are usually dubbed with the nickname: “Anything you wish, sir.” * Rabocheye Dyelo imagines that bourgeois democracy in Russia is merely a “phantom” [Two Congresses, p. 32].** Happy people! Like the ostrich, they bury their heads in the sand, and imagine that everything around has disappeared. A number of liberal publicists who month after month proclaimed to the world their triumph over the collapse and even disappearance of Marxism; a number of liberal newspapers (St. Peterburgskiye Vyedomosti, Russkiye Vyedomosti and many others) which encourage the liberals who bring to the workers the Brentano conception of the class struggle and the trade-union conception of politics—the galaxy of critics of Marxism, whose real tendencies were so very well disclosed by the Credo and whose literary products alone circulate freely in Russia—the animation among revolutionary non-Social- Democratic tendencies, particularly after the February and March events—all these, of course, are mere phantoms! Of course, it has nothing at all to do with bourgeois democracy!

* See The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 164.—Ed.

** A popular version of the excuses offered by a gipsy caught with a stolen horse.—Ed.

Rabocheye Dyelo and the authors of the Economic Letter published in Iskra No. 12, should “ponder over the question as to why the events in the spring excited such animation among the revolutionary non-Social-Democratic tendencies instead of increasing the authority and the prestige of Social-Democracy. The reason was that we failed to cope with our tasks. The masses of the workers proved to be more active than we, we lacked adequately trained revolutionary leaders and organisers aware of the mood prevailing among all the oppositional strata and able to march at the head of the movement, convert the spontaneous demonstration into a political demonstration, broaden its political character, etc. Under such circumstances, our backwardness will inevitably be taken advantage of by the more mobile and more energetic non-Social- Democratic revolutionists, and the workers, no matter how strenuously and self-sacrificingly they may fight the police and the troops, no matter how revolutionary they may act, will prove to be merely the rearguard of bourgeois democracy, and not the vanguard of Social-Democracy. Take, for example, the German Social-Democrats, whose weak sides alone our Economists desire to emulate. Why is it that not a single political event takes place in Germany without adding to the authority and prestige of Social-Democracy? Because Social-Democracy is always found to be in advance of all others in their revolutionary estimation of any event and in their championship of every protest against tyranny. It does not soothe itself by arguments about the economic struggle bringing the workers up against their own lack of rights, and about concrete conditions fatalistically impelling the labour movement on the path of revolution. It intervenes in every sphere and in every question of social and political life. In the matter of Wilhelm’s refusal to endorse a bourgeois progressive as city mayor (our Economists have not yet managed to convince the Germans that this in fact is a compromise with liberalism!) ; in the question of the law against the publication of “immoral” publications and pictures; in the question of the government’s influencing the election of the professors, etc., etc., everywhere Social-Democracy is found to be ahead of all others, rousing political discontent among all classes, rousing the sluggards, pushing on the laggards and providing a wealth of material for the development of the political consciousness and political activity of the proletariat. The result of all this is that even the avowed enemies of Socialism are filled with respect for this advanced political fighter and sometimes an important document from bourgeois and even from bureaucratic and Court circles makes its way by some miraculous means into the editorial office of Vorwaerts.

* Suggesting that they are subservient.—Ed.

** This is a reference to the “concrete Russian conditions which fatalistically impel the labour movement on the revolutionary path.” But these people refuse to understand that the revolutionary path of the labour movement might not be a Social-Democratic path! When absolutism reigned in Western Europe, the entire Western European bourgeoisie “impelled” and deliberately impelled the workers on the path of revolution. We, Social-Democrats, however, cannot be satisfied with that. And if we, by any means whatever, degrade Social-Democratic politics to the level of spontaneous trade-union politics, we, by that, play into the hands of bourgeois democracy.

This, then, is the explanation of the seeming “contradiction” that passes the understanding of Rabocheye Dyelo to such an extent that it raises its arms and cries: “Masquerade”! Is it not a shocking thing: We, Rabocheye Dyelo, place the mass labour movement as the cornerstone (and printed in heavy type!) ; we warn all and sundry against belittling the significance of the spontaneous movement; we desire to give the economic struggle itself, itself, itself, a political character; we desire to maintain close and organic contact with the proletarian struggle! And yet we are told that we are preparing the ground for converting the labour movement into an instrument of bourgeois democracy! And who says this? People who “compromise” with liberalism, intervene in every “liberal” question (what a gross misunderstanding of the “organic contacts with the proletarian struggle”!), who devote so much attention to the students and even (Oh horror!) to the Zemstvoists! People who wish to devote a greater (compared with the Economists) percentage of their efforts to activity among non-proletarian classes of the population! Is not this a “masquerade”?

Poor Rabocheye Dyelo! Will it ever find the solution of this complicated puzzle?