---
title: C. Organisation of Workers, and Organisation of Revolutionists
url: https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/20-c-organisation-of-workers-and-organisation-of-re/
description: C. Organisation of Workers, and Organisation of Revolutionists, 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/)

# C. Organisation of Workers, and Organisation of Revolutionists

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/)

[← B. Primitive Methods and Economism](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/19-b-primitive-methods-and-economism/) [D. The Scope of Organisational Work →](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/21-d-the-scope-of-organisational-work/)

It is only natural that a Social-Democrat who conceives the political struggle as being identical with the “economic struggle against the employers and the government,” should conceive “organisation of revolutionists”’ as being more or less identical with “organisation of workers.” And this, in fact, is what actually happens; so that when we talk about organisation, we literally talk in different tongues. I recall a conversation I once had with a fairly consistent Economist, with whom I had not been previously acquainted. We were discussing the brochure Who Will Make the Political Revolution? and we were very soon agreed that the principal defect in that brochure was that it ignored the question of organisation. We were beginning to think that we were in complete agreement with each other—but as the conversation proceeded, it became clear that we were talking of different things. My interlocutor accused the author of the brochure just mentioned of ignoring strike funds, mutual-aid societies, etc.; whereas I had in mind an organisation of revolutionists, as an essential factor in “making” the political revolution. After that became clear, I hardly remember a single question of importance upon which I was in agreement with that Economist!

What was the source of our disagreement? It is the fact that on questions of organisation and politics the Economists are forever lapsing from Social-Democracy into trade unionism. The political struggle carried on by the Social-Democrats is far more extensive and complex than the economic struggle the workers carry on against the employers and the government. Similarly (and indeed for that reason), the organisation of revolutionary Social-Democrats must inevitably differ from the organisations of the workers designed for the latter struggle. The workers’ organisations must in the first place be trade organisations; secondly, they must be as wide as possible; and thirdly, they must be as public as conditions will allow (here, of course, I have only autocratic Russia in mind). On the other hand, the organisations of revolutionists must be comprised first and foremost of people whose profession is that of revolutionists (that is why I speak of organisations of revolutionists, meaning revolutionary Social-Democrats). As this is the common feature of the members of such an organisation, all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, and certainly distinctions of trade and profession, must be dropped. Such an organisation must of necessity be not too extensive and as secret as possible. Let us examine this three-fold distinction.

In countries where political liberty exists the distinction between a labour union and a political organisation is clear, as is the distinction between trade unions and Social-Democracy. The relation of the latter to the former will naturally vary in each country according to historical, legal and other conditions—it may be more or less close or more or less complex (in our opinion it should be as close and simple as possible) ; but trade-union organisations are certainly not in the least identical with the Social-Democratic party organisations in those countries. In Russia, however, the yoke of autocracy appears at first glance to obliterate all distinctions between a Social-Democratic organisation and trade unions, because oll trade unions and all circles are prohibited, and because the principal manifestation and weapon of the workers’ economic struggle—the strike—is regarded as a crime (and sometimes even as a political crime!). Conditions in our country, therefore, strongly “impel” the workers who are conducting the economic struggle to concern themselves with political questions. They also “impel” the Social- Democrats to confuse trade unionism with Social-Democracy (and our Krichevskys, Martynovs and their like, while speaking enthusiastically of the first kind of “impelling,” fail to observe the “impelling” of the second kind). Indeed, picture to yourselves the people who are immersed ninety-nine per cent in “the economic struggle against the employers and the government.” Some of them never, during the whole course of their activity (four to six months), thought of the necessity for a more complex organisation of revolutionists; others, perhaps, come across the fairly widely distributed revisionist literature, from which they convince themselves of the profound importance of “the drab daily struggle.” Still others will be carried away, perhaps, by the seductive idea of showing the world a new example of “close and organic contact with the proletarian struggle’”-—contact between the trade-union and Social-Democratic movements. Such people would perhaps argue that the later a country enters into the arena of capitalism, the more the Socialists in that country may take part in and support the trade-union movement, and the less reason is there for non-Social- Democratic trade unions. So far, the argument is absolutely correct: unfortunately, however, some go beyond that and hint at the complete fusion of Social-Democracy with trade unionism. We shall soon see, from the example of the statutes of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle, what a harmful effect this has upon our plans of organisation.

The workers’ organisations for carrying on the economic struggle should be trade-union organisations; every Social-Democratic worker should, as far as possible, support and actively work inside these organisations. That is true. But it would be far from being to our interest to demand that only Social-Democrats be eligible for membership in the trade unions. The only effect of this, if it were attempted, would be to restrict our influence over the masses. Let every worker who understands the necessity for organisation, in order to carry on the struggle against the employers and the government, join the trade unions. The very objects of the trade unions would be unattainable unless they united all who have attained at least this elementary level of understanding, and unless they were extremely wide organisations. The wider these organisations are, the wider our influence over them will be. They will then be influenced not only by the “spontaneous” development of the economic struggle, but also by the direct and conscious action of the Socialists on their comrades in the unions. But a wide organisation cannot be a strictly secret organisation (since the latter demands far greater training than is required for the economic struggle). How is the contradiction between the necessity for a large membership and the necessity for strictly secret methods to be reconciled? How are we to make the trade unions as public as possible? Generally speaking, there are perhaps only two ways to this end: Either the trade unions become legalised (which in some countries precedes the legalisation of the Socialist and political unions), or the organisation is kept a secret one, but so “free” and “loose” that the need for secret methods become almost negligible as far as the mass of the members are concerned.

The legalisation of the non-Socialist and non-political labour unions in Russia has already begun, and there is no doubt that every advance our rapidly growing Social-Democratic working-class movement makes will increase and encourage the attempts at legalisation. These attempts proceed for the most part from supporters of the existing order, but they will proceed also from the workers themselves and from the liberal intellectuals. The banner of legality has already been unfurled by the Vassilyevs and the Zubatovs. Support has been promised by the Ozerovs and the Wormses; and followers of the new tendency are to be found even among the workers. Henceforth, we must reckon with this tendency. How are we to reckon with it? About this there can be no two opinions among Social-Democrats. We must constantly expose any part played in this movement by the Zubatovs and the Vassilyevs, the gendarmes and the priests, and explain to the workers what their intentions are. We must also expose the conciliatory, “harmonious” undertones that will be heard in the speeches delivered by liberal politicians at the legal meetings of the workers, irrespective of whether they proceed from an earnest conviction as to the desirability of the peaceful co-operation of the classes, whether they proceed from a desire to curry favour with the employers, or are simply the result of not being able to do otherwise. We must also warn the workers against the traps often set by the police, who at such open meetings and permitted societies spy out the “hotheads,” and who, through the medium of the legal organisations, endeavour to plant their agent-provocateurs in the illegal organisations.

But while doing all this, we must not forget that in the long run, the legalisation of the working class movement will be to our advantage, and not to the Zubatovs. On the contrary, our campaign of exposure will help to separate the tares from the wheat. What the tares are, we have already indicated. By the wheat we mean, attracting the attention of increasing numbers of the more backward sections of the workers to social and political questions, and to freeing ourselves, the revolutionists, from functions which are essentially legal (the distribution of legal books, mutual aid, etc.), the development of which will inevitably provide us with an increasing quantity of material for agitation. Looked at from this point of view, we may say, and we should say to the Zubatovs and the Ozerovs, “Keep at it, gentlemen, do your best!” We shall expose your efforts to place a trap in the path of the workers (either by way of direct provocation, or by the “honest” corruption of the workers with the aid of Struveism), but we shall be grateful for every real step forward even if it is timid and vacillating; we shall say: Please continue! A real step forward can only result in a real, if small, extension of the workers’ field of action. And every such extension must be to our advantage and help to hasten the advent of legal societies, not of the kind in which agents-provocateurs hunt for Socialists, but of the kind in which Socialists will hunt for adherents. In a word, our task is to fight down the tares. It is not our business to grow wheat in flower-pots. By pulling up the tares, we clear the soil for the wheat. And while the old-fashioned folk are tending their flower-pot crops, we must prepare reapers, not only to cut down the tares of to-day, but also to reap the wheat of to-morrow.* Legalisation, therefore, will not solve the problem of creating a trade-union organisation that will be as public and as extensive as possible (but we would be extremely glad if the Zubatovs and the Ozerovs provided even a partial opportunity for such a solution— to which end we must fight them as strenuously as possible! ). There only remains the path of secret trade-union organisation; and we must offer every possible assistance to the workers, who (as we definitely know) have already adopted this path. Trade-union organisations may not only be of tremendous value in developing and consolidating the economic struggle, but may also become a very useful auxiliary to the political, agitational and revolutionary organisations.

In order to achieve this purpose, and in order to guide the nascent trade-union movement in the direction the Social-Democrats desire, we must first fully understand the foolishness of the plan of organisation with which the St. Petersburg Economists have been occupying themselves for nearly five years. That plan is described in the Rules of a Workers’ Fund, of July, 1897 [Listok Rabotnika, Nos. 9 and 10, p. 46, in Rabochaya Mysl, No. 1], and also in the Rules for a Trade Union Workers’ Organisation, of October, 1900 [special leaflet printed in St. Petersburg and quoted in [skra, No. 1]. The fundamental error contained in both these sets of rules is that they give a detailed formulation of a wide workers’ organisation and confuse the latter with the organisation of revolutionists. Let us take the last-mentioned set of rules, since it is drawn up in ereater detail. The body of it consists of fifty-two paragraphs. Twenty-three paragraphs deal with structure, the method of conducting business, and the competence of the “workers circles,” which are to be organised in every factory (“not more than ten persons”) and which elect “central (factory) groups.” “The central group,” says paragraph 2, “observes all that goes on in its factory or workshop and keeps a record of events. . . .” “The central group presents to the contributors a monthly report on the state of the funds” (Par. 17), etc. Ten paragraphs are devoted to the “district organisation” and nineteen to the highly complex connection between the Committee of the Workers’ Organisation and the Committee of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle (elected by each district and by the “executive groups’—‘“groups of propagandists for maintaining contact with the provinces and with exiles abroad, and for managing stores, publications and funds’).

> * Iskra’s campaign against the tares evoked the following angry outbreak on the part of Rabocheye Dyelo: “For Iskra, the signs of the times lie not in the great events of the spring, but in the miserable attempts of the agents of Zubatov to ‘legalise’ the working-class movement. It fails to see that these facts tell against it and prove that the working-class movement is assuming menacing proportions in the eyes of the government.” [Two Congresses, p. 27.1 For this we have to blame the “dogmatism” of the orthodox Marxists who ignore the imperative demands of life. They obstinately refuse to see the yard-high wheat and are fighting down the inch-high tares! Does this not reveal a “distorted sense of perspective in regard to the Russian workingclass movement”? [zbid, p. 27.]

Social-Democracy = “executive groups” connected with the economic struggle of the workers! It would be difficult to find a more striking illustration than this of how far the Economists’ ideas deviate from Social-Democracy on the question of trade unionism, and how foreign to them is the idea that a Social-Democrat must concern himself first and foremost with an organisation of revolutionists, capable of guiding the whole proletarian struggle for emancipation. To talk of “the political emancipation of the working class” and the struggle against “tsarist despotism,” and at the same time to write statutes like these, indicates a complete failure to understand what the real political tasks of the Social-Democrats are. Not one of the fifty or so paragraphs reveals the slightest glimmer of understanding that it is necessary to conduct the widest possible political agitation among the masses, an agitation that deals with every phase of Russian absolutism, and with every aspect of the various social classes in Russia. Rules like these are of no use even for the achievement of trade union aims, quite apart from political aims, for that requires organisation according to trade, and yet the rules do not contain a single reference to this.

But most characteristic of all, perhaps, is the amazing top-heaviness of the whole “system,” which attempts to unite every factory with the “committee” by a long string of uniform and ludicrously petty rules and a three-stage system of election. Hemmed in by the narrow outlook of Economism, the mind is lost in details which positively reek of red tape and bureaucracy. In practice, of course, three-fourths of the clauses are impossible of application; moreover, a “conspiratorial” organisation of this kind, with its central group in each factory, will render the work of the gendarmes extraordinarily easy. Our Polish comrades have already passed through a similar phase in their own movement, when everybody was extremely enthusiastic about the extensive organisation of workers’ funds; but these ideas were very quickly abandoned when it was found that the funds only provided rich harvests for the gendarmes. If we are out for wide workers’ organisations, and not for wide arrests, if it is not our purpose to provide satisfaction to the gendarmes, these organisations must remain absolutely loose and not bound by any strict rules. . . . But will they be able to function? Well, let us see what the functions are: “. .. To observe all that goes on in the factory and keep a record of events” (Par. 2 of the Rules). Must that really be formulated in a set of rules? Could not the purpose be better served by correspondence conducted in the illegal papers and without setting up special groups? “. .. To lead the struggles of the workers for the improvement of their workshop conditions” (Par. 3 of the Rules). This, too, need not be strictly formulated. Any agitator with any intelligence at all can gather what the demands of the workers are in the course of ordinary conversation and transmit them to a narrow—not a wide—organisation of revolutionists to be embodied in a leaflet; “. .. To organise a fund . . . to which contributions of two kopecks per ruble * should be made (Par. 9) . . . to present monthly reports to the contributors on the state of the funds (Par. 17) ... to expel members who fail to pay their contributions - (Par. 10), and so forth. Why, this isa very paradise for the police; for nothing would be easier than for them to penetrate into the ponderous secrecy of a “central factory fund,” confiscate the money and arrest the best members. Would it not be simpler to issue onekopeck or two-kopeck coupons bearing the official stamp of a well-known (very exclusive and secret) organisation, or to make collections without coupons of any kind and to print reports in a certain agreed code in the legal paper? The object would thereby be attained, but it would be a hundred times more difficult for the gendarmes to pick up clues.

> * Of wages earned.—Ed.

I could go on analysing the rules, but I think that what has been said will suffice. A small, compact core, consisting of reliable, experienced and hardened workers, with responsible agents in the principal districts and connected by all the rules of strict secrecy with the organisations of revolutionists, can, with the wide support of the masses and without an elaborate set of rules, perform all the functions of a trade-union organisation, and perform them, moreover, in the manner Social-Democrats desire. Only in this way can we secure the consolidation and development of a Social-Democratic trade-union movement, in spite of the gendarmes.

It may be objected that an organisation which is so loose that it is not even formulated, and which even has no enrolled and registered members, cannot be called an organisation at all. That may very well be. I am not out for names. But this “organisation without members” can do everything that is required, and will, from the very outset, guarantee the closest contact between our future trade unionists and Socialism. Only an incorrigible utopian would want a wide organisation of workers, with elections, reports, universal suffrage, etc., under autocracy.

The moral to be drawn from this is a simple one. If we begin with the solid foundation of a strong organisation of revolutionists, we can guarantee the stability of the movement as a whole, and carry out the aims of both Social-Democracy and of trade unionism. If, however, we begin with a wide workers’ organisation, supposed to be most “accessible” to the masses, when as a matter of fact it will be most accessible to the gendarmes, and will make the revolutionists most accessible to the police, we shall neither achieve the aims of Social-Democracy nor of trade unionism; we shall not escape from our primitiveness, and because we constantly remain scattered and dispersed, we shall make only the trade unions of the Zubatow and Ozerov type most accessible to the masses.

What should be the functions of the organisation of revolutionssts? We shall deal with this in detail. But first let us examine a very typical argument advanced by the terrorist, who (sad fate!) in this matter also is in the same boat as the Economist. Svoboda— a journal published especially for working men—in its first number, contains an article entitled “Organisation,” the author of which tries to defend his friends the Economist workers of Ivanovo-Voznesensk. He writes:

It is a bad thing when the crowd is mute and unenlightened, and when the movement does not proceed from the rank and file. For instance, the students of a university town leave for their homes during the summer and other vacations and immediately the movement comes to a standstill. Can such a workers’ movement which has to be pushed on from outside be a real force? Of course not! It has not yet learned to walk, it is still in leading strings. So it is everywhere. The students go off, and everything comes to a standstill. As soon as the cream is skimmed—the milk turns sour. If the “committee” is arrested, everything comes to a standstill until a new one can be formed. And, one never knows what sort of a committee will be set up next —it may be nothing like the former one. The first preached one thing, the second may preach the very opposite. The continuity between yesterday and to-morrow is broken, the experience of the past does not enlighten the future. And all this is because no deep roots have been struck, roots in the crowd; because, instead of having a hundred fools at work, we have ten wise men. Ten wise men can be caught up at a snap; but when the organisation embraces the crowd, everything will proceed from the crowd, and nobody, however zealous, can stop the cause [p. 63].

The facts are described correctly. The above quotation presents a fairly good picture of our primitive methods. But the conclusions drawn from it are worthy of the Rabochaya Mysl, both for their stupidity and their political tactlessness. They represent the height of stupidity, because the author confused the philosophical and social-historical question of the “depth” of the “roots” of the movement with the technical and organisational question of the best method of fighting the gendarmes. They represent the height of political tactlessness, because the author, instead of appealing from the bad leaders to the good leaders, appeals from the leaders in general to the “crowd.” This is as much an attempt to drag the movement back organisationally, as the idea of substituting political agitation by excitative terrorism is an attempt to drag it back politically.

Indeed, I am experiencing a veritable embarras de richesses, and hardly know where to begin to disentangle the confusion Svoboda has introduced in this subject. For the sake of clarity, we shall begin by quoting an example. Take the Germans. It will not be denied, I hope, that the German organisations embrace the crowd, that in Germany everything proceeds from the crowd, that the working-class movement there has learned to walk. Yet, observe how ‘this vast crowd of millions values its “dozen” tried political leaders, how firmly it clings to them! Members of the hostile parties in parliament often tease the Socialists by exclaiming: “Fine democrats you are indeed! Your movement is a working-class movement only in name; as a matter of fact it is the same clique of leaders that is always in evidence; Bebel and Liebknecht, year in and year out, and that goes on for decades. Your deputies are supposed to be elected from among the workers, but they are more permanent than the officials appointed by the Emperor!” But the Germans only smile with contempt at these demagogic attempts to set the “crowd” against the “leaders,” to arouse turbid and vain instincts in the former, and to rob the movement of its solidity and stability by undermining the confidence of the masses in their “dozen of wise men.” The political ideas of the Germans have already developed sufficiently, and they have acquired enough political experience to enable them to understand that without the “dozen” of tried and talented leaders (and talented men are not born by hundreds), professionally trained, schooled by long experience and working in perfect harmony, no class in modern society is capable of conducting a determined struggle. Numerous demagogues in Germany have flattered the “hundred fools,” exalted them above the “dozen of wise men,” extolled the “mighty fists” of the masses, and (like Most and Hasselmann) have spurred them on to reckless “revolutionary” action and sown distrust towards the tried and trusted leaders. It was only by stubbornly and bitterly combating every symptom of demagogy within the Socialist movement that German Socialism managed to grow and become as strong as it is. Our wiseacres, however, at the very moment when Russian Social- Democracy is passing through a crisis entirely due to our lack of a sufficient number of trained, developed and experienced leaders to guide the spontaneous ferment of the masses, cry out with the profundity of fools, “it is a bad business when the movement does not proceed from the rank and file.”

“A committee of students is no good, it is not stable.” Quite true. But the conclusion that should be drawn from this is that we must have a committee of professional revolutionists and it does not matter whether a student or a worker is capable of qualifying himself as a professional revolutionist. The conclusion you draw, however, is that the working-class movement must not be pushed on from outside! In your political innocence you fail to observe that you are playing into the hands of our Economists and furthering our primitiveness. I would like to ask, what is meant by the students “pushing on” the workers? AII it means is that the students bring to the worker the fragments of political knowledge they possess, the crumbs of Socialist ideas they have managed to acquire (for the principal intellectual diet of the present-day student, legal Marxism, can furnish only the A. B. C., only the crumbs of knowledge). Such “pushing on from outside” can never be too excessive; on the contrary, so far there has been too little, all too little of it in our movement; we have been stewing in our own juice far too long; we have bowed far too slavishly before the spontaneous “economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government.” We professional revolutionists must continue, and will continue, this kind of “pushing,” and a hundred times more forcibly than we have done hitherto. The very fact that you select so despicable a phrase as “pushing on from outside”—a phrase which cannot but rouse in the workers (at least in the workers who are as ignorant as you are yourselves) a sense of distrust towards all who bring them political knowledge and revolutionary experience from outside, and rouse in them an instinctive hostility to such people—proves that you are demagogues—and a demagogue is the worst enemy of the working class.

Oh! Don’t start howling about my “uncomradely methods” of controversy. I have not the least intention of casting aspersions upon the purity of your intentions. As I have already said, one may be a demagogue out of sheer political innocence. But I have shown that you have descended to demagogy, and I shall never tire of repeating that demagogues are the worst enemies of the working class. They are the worst enemies of the working class because they arouse bad instincts in the crowd, because the ignorant worker is unable to recognise his enemies in men who represent themselves, and sometimes sincerely represent themselves, to be his friends. They are the worst enemies of the working class, because in this period of doubt and hesitation, when our movement is only just beginning to take shape, nothing is easier than to employ demagogic methods to side-track the crowd, which can realise its mistake only by bitter experience. That is why Russian Social-Democrats at the present time must declare determined opposition to Svoboda and the Rabocheye Dyelo which have sunk to the level of demagogy. We shall return to this subject again.* “A dozen wise men can be more easily caught than a hundred fools!” This wonderful truth (which the hundred fools will ap. plaud) appears obvious only because in the very midst of the argument you have skipped from one question to another. You began by talking, and continued to talk, of catching a “committee,” of catching an “organisation,” and now you skip to the question of getting hold of the “roots” of the movement in the “depths.” The fact is, of course, that our movement cannot be caught precisely because it has hundreds and hundreds of thousands of roots deep down among the masses, but that is not the point we are discussing. As far as “roots in the depths” are concerned, we cannot be “caught” even now, in spite of all our primitiveness; but, we all complain, and cannot but complain, of the ease with which the organisations can be caught, with the result that it is impossible to maintain continuity in the movement. If you agree to discuss the question of catching the organisations, and to stick to that question, then I assert that it is far more difficult to catch ten wise men than it is to catch a hundred fools. And this premise I shall defend no matter how much you instigate the crowd against me for my “anti-democratic” views, etc. As I have already said, by “wise men,” in connection with organisation, I mean professional revolutionists, irrespective of whether they are students or working men. I assert: 1. That no movement can be durable without a stable organisation of leaders to maintain continuity; 2. that the more widely the masses are drawn into the struggle and form the basis of the movement, the more necessary is it to have such an organisation and the more stable must it be (for it is much easier then for demagogues to side-track the more backward sections of the masses); 3. that the organisation must consist chiefly of persons engaged in revolution as a profession; 4, that in a country with a despotic government, the more we restrict the membership of this organisation to persons who are engaged in revolution as a profession and who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police, the more difficult will it be to catch the organisation; and 5. the wider will be the circle of men and women of the working class or of other classes of society able to join the movement and perform active work in it.

> * For the moment we shall observe merely that our remarks on “pushing on from outside” and the other views on organisation expressed by Svobodo apply equally to all the Economists including the adherents of Rabocheye Dyelo, for they have either themselves preached and defended such views on organisation, or have allowed themselves to be led astray by them.

J invite our Economists, terrorists and “Economists-terrorists” * to confute these premises. At the moment, I shall deal only with the last two points. The question as to whether it is easier to catch “a dozen wise men” or “a hundred fools,” in the last analysis, amounts to the question we have considered above, namely, whether it is possible to have a mass organisation when the maintenance of strict secrecy is essential. We can never give a mass organisation that degree of secrecy which is essential for the persistent and continuous struggle against the government. But to concentrate all secret functions in the hands of as small a number of professional revolutionists as possible, does not mean that the latter will “do the thinking for all” and that the crowd will not take an active part in the movement. On the contrary, the crowd will advance from its ranks increasing numbers of professional revolutionists, for it will know that it is not enough for a few students and workingmen waging economic war to gather together and form a “committee,” but that professional revolutionists must be trained for years; the crowd will “think” not of primitive ways but of training professional revolutionists. The centralisation of the secret functions of the organisation does not mean the concentration of all the functions of the movement. The active participation of the greatest masses in the dissemination of illegal literature will not diminish because a dozen professional revolutionists concentrate in their hands the secret part of the work; on the contrary, it will increase tenfold. Only in this way will the reading of illegal literature, the contribution to illegal literature, and to some extent even the distribution of illegal literature almost cease to be secret work, for the police will soon come to realise the folly and futility of setting the whole judicial and administrative machine into motion to intercept every copy of a publication that is being broadcast in thousands. This applies not only to the press, but to every function of the movement, even to demonstrations. The active and widespread participation of the masses will not suffer; on the contrary, it will benefit by the fact that a “dozen” experienced revolutionists, no less professionally trained than the police, will concentrate all the secret side of the work in their hands—prepare leaflets, work eut approximate plans and appoint bodies of leaders for each town district, for each factory district, and for each educational institution (I know that exception will be taken to my “undemocratic” views, but I shall reply to this altogether unintelligent objection later on). The centralisation of the more secret functions in an erganisation of revolutionists will not diminish, but rather increase the extent and the quality of the activity of a large number of other organisations intended for wide membership and which, therefore, can be as loose and as public as possible, for example, trade unions, workers’ circles for self-education, and the reading of illegal literature, and Socialist, and also democratic, circles for all other sections of the population, etc., etc. We must have as large a number as possible of such organisations having the widest possible variety of functions, but it is absurd and dangerous to confuse these with organisations of revolutionists, to erase the line of demarcation between them, to dim still more the already incredibly hazy appreciation by the masses that to “serve” the mass movement we must have people who will devote themselves exclusively to Social-Democratic activities, and that such people must train themselves patiently and steadfastly to be professional revolutionists.

> * This latter term is perhaps more applicable to Svoboda than the former, for in an article entitled “The Regeneration of Revolutionism” it defends terrorism, while in the article at present under review it defends Economism. One might say of Svoboda that—“It would if it could, but it can’t.” Its wishes and intentions are excellent—but the result is utter confusion; and this is chiefly due to the fact that while Svoboda advocates continuity of organisation, it refuses to recognise the continuity of revolutionary thought and of Social-Democratic theory. It wants to revive the professional revolutionist (“The Regeneration of Revolutionism”), and to that end proposes, firstly, excitative terrorism, and secondly, “The organisation of the average worker,” because he will be less likely to be “pushed on from outside.” In other words, it proposes to pull the house down to use the timbers for warming it.

Aye, this consciousness has hecome incredibly dim. The most grievous sin we have committed in regard to organisation is that by our primitiveness we have lowered the prestige of revolutionists in Russia. A man who is weak and vacillating on theoretical questions, who has a narrow outlook, who makes excuses for his own slackness on the ground that the masses are awakening spontaneously, who resembles a trade-union secretary more than a people’s tribune, who is unable to conceive a broad and bold plan, who is incapable of inspiring even his enemies with respect for himself, and who is inexperienced and clumsy in his own professional art— the art of combating the political police—such a man is not a revolutionist but a hopeless amateur!

Let no active worker take offence at these frank remarks, for as far as insufficient training is concerned, I apply them first and foremost to myself. I used to work in a circle that set itself a great and all-embracing task: and every member of that circle suffered to the point of torture from the realisation that we were proving ourselves to be amateurs at a moment in history when we might have been able to say—paraphrasing a well-known episram: “Give us an organisation of revolutionists, and we shall overturn the whole of Russia!” And the more I recall the burning sense of shame I then experienced, the more bitter are my feelings towards those pseudo-Social-Democrats whose teachings bring disgrace on the calling of a revolutionist, who fail to understand that eur task is not to degrade the revolutionist to the level of an amateur, but to exalt the amateur to the level of a revolutionist.

[← B. Primitive Methods and Economism](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/19-b-primitive-methods-and-economism/) [D. The Scope of Organisational Work →](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/21-d-the-scope-of-organisational-work/)

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/).