B. Primitive Methods and Economism

We must now deal with the question that undoubtedly must have arisen in the mind of every reader. Have these primitive methods, which are a complaint of growth that affect the whole of the movement, any connection with Economism, which is only one of the tendencies in Russian Social-Democracy? We think that they have. The lack of practical training, the lack of ability to carry on organisational work is certainly common to us all, including those who have stood unswervingly by the point-of-view of revolutionary Marxism right from the very outset. And, of course, no one can blame the practical workers for their lack of practical training. But, the term “primitive methods” embraces something more than mere lack of training: It embraces the restrictedness of revolutionary work generally, the failure to understand that a good organisation of revolutionists cannot be built up on the basis of such restricted work, and lastly—and most important—it embraces the attempts to justify this restrictedness and to elevate it to a special “theory,” i. e., subservience to spontaneity in this matter also. As soon as such attempts were observed, it became certain that primitive methods are connected with Economism and that we shall never eliminate this restrictedness of our organisational activity until we eliminate Economism generally (i. e., the narrow conception of Marxian theory, of the réle of Social-Democracy, and of its political tasks). And these attempts were revealed in a two-fold direction. Some began to say: The labour masses have not yet themselves brought up the broad and militant tasks that the revolutionists desire to “impose” upon them; they must continue for the time being te fight for immediate political demands, to conduct “the economic struggle against the employers and the government” * (this mass struggle “easily understood” by these masses naturally corresponds to an organisation “easily accessible” to the most untrained youth). Others, far removed from “gradualness,” began to say: We can and must “bring about a political revolution,” but there is no reason whatever for building a strong organisation of revolutionists that would train revolutionists for the stalwart and stubborn struggle, in order to bring this revolution about. All we need do is to snatch up the “easily understood” wooden club, the acquaintance with which we have already made. Speaking, without metaphor, it means—we must organise a general strike,** or we must stimulate the “spiritless” progress of the labour movement by means of “excitative terror.” *** Both these tendencies, the opportunist and the “revolutionary,” bow to the prevailing primitiveness; neither believe that it can be climinated, neither understand our primary and most imperative practical task, namely, to establish an organisation of revolutionists capable of maintaining the energy, the stability and continuity of the political struggle.

We have just quoted the words of B-v: “The growth of the labour movement is outstripping the growth and development of the revolutionary organisations.” This “valuable remark of a close observer” (Rabocheye Dyelo’s comment on B-v’s article) has a two-fold value for us. It proves that we were right in our opinion that the principal cause of the present crisis in Russian Social-Democracy is that the leaders (“ideologists,” revolutionists, Social-Democrats) lag behind the spontaneous rising of the masses. It shows that all the arguments advanced by the authors of the Economic Letter in Iskra, No. 12, by B. Krichevsky, and by Martynov, about the dangers of belittling the significance of the spontaneous elements, about the drab every-day struggles, about the tactics-process, etc., are nothing more than a glorification and defence of primitive methods. These people, who cannot pronounce the word “theoretician” without a contemptuous grimace, who describe their genuflections to common lack of training and ignorance as “sensitiveness to life,” reveal in practice a failure to understand our most imperative practical task. To laggards they shout: Keep in step! don’t run ahead! To people suffering from a lack of energy and initiative in organisational work, from lack of “plans” for wide and bold organisational work, they shout about the “tactics-process”! The most serious sin we commit is that we degrade our political and our organisational tasks to the level of immediate, “palpable,” “concrete” interests of the every-day economic struggle; and yet they keep singing to us the old song: Give the economic struggle itself a political character. We say again: This kind of thing displays as much “sensitiveness to life” as was displayed by the hero in the popular fable who shouted to a passing funeral procession: May you never get to your destination.* Recall the matchless, truly “Narcissus”-like superciliousness with which these wiseacres lectured Plekhanov about the “workers’ circles generally” [sic!] being “incapable of fulfilling political tasks in the real and practical sense of the word, i. e., the sense of expedient and successful practical struggle for political demands.” [Rabocheye Dyelo’s Reply, p. 24.] There are circles and circles, gentlemen! Circles of “kustars,” ** of course, are incapable of fulfilling political tasks and never will be, until they realise the primitiveness of their methods and abandon it. If besides this, these amateurs are enamoured of their primitive methods, and insist on writing the word “practical” in italics, and imagine that practicality demands that their tasks be degraded to the level of understanding of the most backward strata of the masses, then they are hopeless, of course, and certainly cannot fulfil general political tasks. But circles of heroes, like those formed by Alexeyev and Myshkin, Khalturin and Zhelyabov, are able to fulfil political tasks in the genuine and most practical sense of the term, because their passionate preaching meets with response among the spontaneously awakened masses, because their seething energy rouses a corresponding and sustained energy among the revolutionary class. Plekhanov was a thousand times right not only when he pointed to this revolutionary class, not only when he proved that its spontaneous awakening was inevitable, but also when he set the “workers’ circles” a great and lofty political task. But you refer to the mass movement that has sprung up since that time in order to degrade this task, in order to curtail the energy and scope of activity of the “workers’ circles.” If you are not amateurs enamoured of your primitive methods, what are you then? You clutch at your practicality, but you fail to see what every Russian practical worker knows, namely, the miracles that the energy, not only of circles, but even of individual persons is able to perform in the revolutionary cause. Or do you think that our movements cannot produce heroes like those that were produced by the movement in the seventies? If so, why do you think so? Because we lack training? But we are training ourselves, will train ourselves and we will be trained! Unfortunately it is true that scum has formed on the surface of the stagnant water of the “economic struggle against the employers and the government”; there are people among us who kneel in prayer to spontaneity, gazing with awe upon the “posteriors” of the Russian proletariat (as Plekhanov expresses it). But we will remove this scum. The time has come when Russian revolutionists, led by a genuine revolutionary theory, relying upon the genuinely revolutionary and spontaneously awakening class, can at last—at last!—rise to their full height and exert their giant strength to the utmost. All that is required in order that this may be so is that the masses of our practical workers and the still larger masses of those who dream of doing practical work even while still at school shall meet with scorn and ridicule any suggestion that may be made to degrade our political tasks, and to restrict the scope of our organisational work. And we will achieve that, don’t you worry, gentlemen!

* Rabochaya Mysl and Rabocheye Dyelo, especially the Reply to Plekhanov.

** See Who Will Bring About the Political Revolution? A symposium published in Russia entitled, The Proletarian Struggle. Re-issued by the Kiev Committee.

*** Regeneration of Revolutionism and Svoboda.

* This refers to a popular fable about “Ivan the Fool.”—Ed.

** Kustars—handicraftsmen employing primitive methods in their work.—Ed.

In the article, “Where to Begin,” that I wrote in opposition to Rabocheye Dyelo, I said: “Tactics in relation to some special question, or in relation to some detail of party organisation may be changed in twenty-four hours; but views as to whether a militant organisation, and political agitation among the masses, is necessary at all times or not cannot be changed in twenty-four hours, or even in twenty-four months for that matter.” * To this Rabocheye Dyelo replied: “This is the only charge Iskra has levelled against us that claims to be based on facts, and even that is totally without foundation. Readers of Rabocheye Dyelo know very well that right from the outset we not only called for political agitation, without waiting for the appearance of Iskra* .. .” [and while doing so, you said that it was “impossible to impose on the mass labour movement, or on the workers’ circles, the primary political task of overthrowing absolutism,” that the only task they could carry out was to struggle for immediate political demands, and that “immediate political demands are understood by the masses after a strike, or at all events, after a few strikes”] “. . . but in the publications that we procured from abroad for the comrades working in Russia, provided the only Social-Democratic political and agitational material . . .” [and this only Social-Democratic material, the only political agitation that was carried on by you at all widely, was based exclusively on the economic struggle, and you even went so far as to claim that this restricted agitation was “the most widely applicable.” And you fail to observe, gentlemen, that your own arguments—that this was the only material provided—proves the necessity for [skra’s appearance, and proves how necessary it is for Iskra to oppose Rabocheye Dyelo]. “. . . On the other hand, our publishing activity really prepared the ground for the tactical unity [Unity in the conviction that tactics are a of the party... .” process of growth of party tasks that grow together with the party?

* See “Where to Begin,” The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 110.—Ed.

A precious unity indeed!] “. . . and by that rendered possible the creation of a ‘militant organisation’ for which the League did all that an organisation abroad could do.” [Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, p. 15.] A vain attempt at evasion! I would never dream of denying that you did all you possibly could. I have asserted and assert now, that the limits of what is “possible” for you to do are restricted by the narrowness of your outlook. It is ridiculous to talk about a “militant organisation” fighting for “immediate political demands,” or conducting “ihe economic struggle against the employers and the government.”

But if the reader wishes to see the pearls of Economist primitive methods, he must, of course, turn from the eclectic and vacillating Rabocheye Dyelo to the consistent and determined Rabochaya Mysl. In its Special Supplement, p. 13, R. M. wrote:

Now two words about the so-called revolutionary intelligentsia proper. It is true that on more than one occasion it proved that it was quite prepared to “enter into determined battle with tsarism!” The unfortunate thing, however, is, that, ruthlessly persecuted by the political police, our revolutionary intelligentsia imagined that the battle with this political police was a political struggle with the autocracy. That is why, to this day, it cannot understand “where the forces for the fight against the autocracy are to be obtained.”

* The interjections in brackets are Lenin’s running comment on Rabocheye Dyelo’s reply to Iskra.—Ed.

What matchless and magnificent contempt for the struggle with the police the worshippers (in the worst sense of the word) of the spontaneous movement display, do they not? They are prepared to justify our inability to organise secretly by the argument that with the spontaneous growth of the mass movement, it is not at all important for us to fight against the political police!! Not many are prepared to subscribe to this monstrous conclusion; our defects in revolutionary organisation has become too urgent a matter to permit them to do that. Martynov, for example, would also refuse to subscribe to this, but in his case it is only because he is unable, or lacks the courage, to think out his ideas to their logical conclusion. Indeed, does the “task” of prompting the masses to put forward concrete demands promising palpable results call for special efforts to create a stable, centralised, militant, organisation of revolutionists? Cannot such a “task” be carried out even by masses who do not “fight at all against the political police”? Moreover, can this task be fulfilled unless, in addition to the few leaders, it is undertaken by the workers (the overwhelming majority), who in fact are incapable of “fighting against the political police”? Such workers, average people of the masses, are capable of displaying enormous energy and self-sacrifice in strikes and in street battles, with the police and troops, and are capable (in fact, are alone capable) of determining the whole outcome of our movement—but the struggle against the political police requires special qualities; it can be conducted only by professional revolutionists. And we must not only see to it that the masses “advance” concrete demands, but also that the masses of the workers “advance” an increasing number of such professional revolutionists from their own ranks. Thus we have reached the question of the relation between an organisation of professional revolutionists and the pure and simple labour movement. Although this question has found little reflection in literature, it has greatly engaged us “politicians,” in conversations and controversies with those comrades who gravitate more or less towards Economism. It is a question that deserves special treatment. But before taking it up we shall deal with one other quotation in order to illustrate the position we hold in regard to the connection between primitiveness and Economism.

In his Reply, N. N. wrote: “The Emancipation of Labour group demands direct struggle against the government without first considering where the material forces for this struggle are to be obtained, and without indicating ‘the path of the struggle.” Emphasising the last words, the author adds the following footnote to the word “path”: “This cannot be explained by the conspiratorial aims pursued, because the programme does not refer to secret plotting but to a mass movement. The masses cannot proceed by secret paths. Can we conceive of a secret strike? Can we conceive of secret demonstrations and petitions?” [Vademecum, p. 59.] Thus, the author approaches quite close to the question of the “material forces” (organisers of strikes and demonstrations) and to the “paths” of the struggle, but nevertheless, is still in a state of consternation, because he “worships” the mass movement, 1. e., he regards it as something that relieves us of the necessity for carrying on revolutionary activity and not as something that should embolden us and stimulate our revolutionary activity. Secret strikes are impossible —for those who take a direct and immediate part in them, but a strike may remain (and in the majority of cases does remain) a “secret” to the masses of the Russian workers, because the government takes care to cut all communication between strikers, takes care to prevent all news of strikes from spreading. Now here indeed is a special “struggle against the political police” required, a struggle that can never be conducted by such large masses as usually take part in strikes. Such a struggle must be organised, according to “all the rules of the art,” by people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity. The fact that the masses are spontaneously entering the movement does not make the organisation of this struggle less necessary. On the contrary, it makes it more necessary; for we Socialists would be failing in our duty to the masses if we did not prevent the police from making a secret of (and if we did not ourselves sometimes secretly prepare) every strike and every demonstration. And we will succeed in doing this, precisely because the spontaneously awakening masses will also advance from their own ranks increasing numbers of “professional revolutionists” (that is, if we are not so foolish as to advise the workers to keep on marking time).