D. The Scope of Organisational Work

We have already heard from B-v about “the lack of revolutionary forces fit for action which is felt not only in St. Petersburg, but over the whole of Russia.” No one, we suppose, will dispute this fact. But the question is, how is it to be explained? B-v writes:

We shall not enter in detail into the historical causes of this phenomenen; we shall state merely that a society demoralised by prolonged political reaction and split by past and present economic changes, advances from its own ranks an extremely small number of persons fit for revolutionary work; that the working class does of course advance from its own ranks revolutionary workers who to some extent pass into the ranks of the illegal organisations, but the number of such revolutionists are inadequate to meet the requirements of the times. This is more particularly the case because the workers engaged for eleven and a half hours a day in the factory may perhaps be able to fulfil mainly the functions of an agitator; but propaganda and organisation, delivery and reproduction of illegal literature, issuing leaflets, etc., are duties which must necessarily fall mainly upon the shoulders of an extremely small intelligent force. [Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 6, pp. 38-39.]

There are many points in the above upon which we disagree with B-v, particularly with those points we have emphasised, and which most strikingly reveal that, although suffering (as every practical worker who thinks over the position would be) from our primitive methods, B-v cannot, because he is so ground down by Economism, find the way out of this intolerable situation. It is not true to say that society advances from its ranks few persons fit for “work.” It advances very many but we are unable to make use of them all. The critical, transitional state of our movement in this connection may be formulated as follows: There are no people—yet there are enormous numbers of people. There are enormous numbers of people, because the working class and the most diverse strata of society, year after year, advance from their ranks an increasing number of discontented people who desire to protest, who are ready to render effective aid in the fight against absolutism, the intolerableness of which is not yet recognised by all, but is nevertheless more and more acutely sensed by increasing masses of the people. At the same time we have no people, because we have no political leaders, we have no talented organisers capable of organising extensive and at the same time uniform and harmonious work that would give employment to all forces, even the most inconsiderable. “The growth and development of revolutionary organisations” not only lag behind the growth of the labour movement, which even B-v admits, but also behind the general democratic movement among all strata of the people (in passing, probably B-v would now admit this supplement to his conclusion). The scope of revolutionary work is too narrow compared with the breadth of the spontaneous basis of the movement. It is too hemmed in by the wretched theory about the “economic struggle against the employers and the government.” And yet, at the present time, not only Social-Democratic political agitators, but also Social-Democratic organisers must “go among all classes of the population.” * There is hardly a single practical worker, we think, who would have any doubt about the ability of Social-Democrats to distribute the thousand-and-one minute functions of their organisational work among the various representatives of the most varied classes. Lack of specialisation is one of our most serious technical defects, about which B-y justly and bitterly complains. The smaller each separate “operation” in our common cause will be, the more people we shall find capable of carrying out such operations (who, in the majority of cases, are not capable of becoming professional revolutionists) , the more difficult will it be for the police to “catch” all these “detail workers,” and the more difficult will it be for them to frame up, out of an arrest for some petty affair, a “case” that would justify the government’s expenditure on the “secret service.” As for the number ready to help us, we have already in the previous chapter referred to the gigantic change that has taken place in this respect in the last five years or so. On the other hand, in order to unite all these tiny fractions into one whole, in order to avoid breaking the movement up into fragments, in breaking up functions, and in order to imbue those who carry out these minute functions with the conviction of the necessity for and importance of their work, without which they will never do the work,* it is necessary to have an organisation of tried revolutionists, If we had such an organisation, the more secret it would be, the stronger and more widespread would be the confidence of the masses in the party, and, as we know, in time of war, it is not only of great importance to imbue one’s own adherents with confidence in the strength of one’s army, but also the enemy and all neutral elements; friendly neutrality may sometimes decide the outcome of the battle. If such an organisation existed on a firm theoretical basis, and possessed a Social- Democratic journal, we would have no reason to fear that the movement will be diverted from its path by the numerous “outside” elements that will be attracted to it. (On the contrary, it is precisely at the present time, when primitive methods prevail among us, that many Social-Democrats are observed to gravitate towards the Credo, imagining that they alone are Social-Democrats.) In a word, specialisation necessarily presupposes centralisation, and in its turn imperatively calls for it.

*For example, in military circles an undoubted revival of the democratic spirit has recently been observed, partly as a consequence of the frequent street fights that now take place against “enemies” like workers and students. And as soon as our available forces permit, we must without fail devote serious attention to propaganda and agitation among soldiers and officers, and to creating “military organisations” afhliated to our party.

But B-v himself, who has so excellently described the necessity for specialisation, underestimates its importance, in our opinion, in the second part of the argument that we have quoted. The number ef working-class revolutionists is inadequate, he says. This is absolutely true, and once again we emphasise that the “valuable eommunication of a close observer” fully confirms our view of the causes of the present crisis in Social-Democracy, and, consequently, confirms our view of the means for removing these causes. Not only revolutionists, in general, but even working-class revolutionists lag behind the spontaneous awakening of the working masses. And this fact most strikingly confirms, even from the “practical” point-of-view, not only the absurdity but even the political reactionariness of the “pedagogics” to which we are so often treated when discussing our duties to the workers. This fact proves that our very first and most imperative duty is to help to train workingclass revolutionists who will be on the same level in regard to party activity as intellectual revolutionists (we emphasise the words “in regard to party activity,” because although it is necessary, it is not so easy and not so imperative to bring the workers up to the level ef intellectuals in other respects). Therefore, attention must be devoted principally to the task of raising the workers to the level ef revolutionists, but without, in doing so, necessarily degrading ourselves to the level of the “labouring masses,” as the Economists wish to do, or necessarily to the level of the average worker, as Svoboda desires to do (and by this, raises itself to the second grade of Economists “pedagogics”). I am far from denying the necessity for popular literature for the workers, and especially popular (but, of course, not vulgar) literature for the especially backward workers. But what annoys me is that pedagogics are confused with questions ef politics and organisation. You, gentlemen, who talk so much about the “average worker,” as a matter of fact, rather insult the workers by your desire to talk down to them, to stoop to them when discussing labour politics or labour organisation. Talk about serious things in a serious manner; leave pedagogics to the pedagogues, and not to politicians and to organisers! Are there not advanced people, “average people,” and “masses,” among the intelligentsia? Does not every one recognise that popular literature is required for the intelligentsia and is not such literature written? Just imagine some one, in an article on organising college or high-school students, repeating over and over again, as if he had made a new discovery, that first of all we must have an organisation of “average students.” The author of such an article would rightly be laughed at. He will be told: Give us an organisation idea, if you have one, and we ourselves will settle the question as to which of us are “average,” as to who is higher and who is lower. But if you have no organisational ideas of your own, then all your chatter about “masses” and “average” is just simply boring. Try to understand that these questions about “politics” and “organisation” are so serious in themselves that they cannot be dealt with in any other but a serious way: We can and must educate workers (and university and high-school students) so as to enable them to understand us when we speak to them about these questions; and when you come to talk about these questions to us give us real replies to them, do not fall back on the “average,” or on the “masses”; don’t evade them by quoting adages or mere phrases.* In order to be fully prepared for his task, the working-class revolutionist must also become a professional revolutionist. Hence B-v is wrong when he says that as the worker is engaged for 1114 hours a day in the factory, therefore the brunt of all the other revolutionary functions (apart from agitation) “must necessarily fall mainly upon the shoulders of an extremely small intellectual force.” It need not “necessarily” be so. It is so because we are backward, because we do not recognise our duty to assist every capable worker to become a professional agitator, organiser, propagandist, literature distributor, etc., etc. In this respect, we waste our strength in a positively shameful manner; we lack the ability to husband that which requires to be so carefully tended in order that it may grow. Look at the Germans: they have a hundred times more forces than we have. But they understand perfectly well that the “average” does not too frequently promote really capable agitators, etc., from its ranks. Hence, immediately they get a capable workingman, they try to place him in such conditions as will enable him to develop and apply his abilities to the utmost: he is made a professional agitator, he is encouraged to widen the field of his activity, to spread it from one factory to the whole of his trade, from one locality to the whole country. He acquires experience and dexterity in his profession, his outlook becomes wider, his knowledge increases, he observes the prominent political leaders from other localities and other parties, he strives to rise to their level and combine within himself the knowledge of working-class environment and freshness of Socialist convictions with professional skill, without which the proletariat cannot carry on a stubborn struggle with the excellently trained enemy. Only in this way can men of the stamp of Bebel and Auer be promoted from the ranks of the working class. But what takes place very largely automatically in a politically free country, must in Russia be done deliberately and systematically by our organisations. A workingman who is at all talented and “promising,” must not be left to work eleven hours a day in a factory. We must arrange that he be maintained by the party, that he may in due time go underground, that he change the place of his activity, otherwise he will not enlarge his experience, he will not widen his outlook, and will not be able to stay in the fight against the gendarmes for several years. As the spontaneous rise of the labouring masses becomes wider and deeper, it not only promotes from its ranks an increasing number of talented agitators, but also of talented organisers, propagandists, and “practical workers” in the best sense of the term (of whom there are so few among our intelligentsia). In the majority of cases, the latter are somewhat careless and sluggish in their habits (so characteristic of Russians). When we shall have detachments of specially trained working-class revolutionists who have gone through long years of preparation (and, of course, revolutionists “of all arms”) no political police in the world will be able to contend against them, for these detachments will consist of men absolutely devoted and loyal to the revolution, and will themselves enjoy the absolute confidence and devotion of the broad masses of the workers. The sin we commit is that we do not sufficiently “stimulate” the workers to take this path, “common” to them and to the “intellectuals,” of professional revolutionary training, and that we too frequently drag them back by our silly speeches about what “can be understood” by the masses of the workers, by the “average workers,” etc.

*I recall the story a comrade related to me of a factory inspector, who, desiring to help, and in fact did help, Social-Democracy, bitterly complained that he did not know whether the “information” he sent reached the proper revolutionary quarter; he did not know how much his help was really required, and what possibilities there were for utilising his small services. Every practical worker, of course, knows of more than one case similar te this, of our primitiveness depriving us of allies. And these services, each “small” in itself, but incalculable taken together, could be rendered to us by office employees and officials, not only in factories, but in the postal service, on the railways, in the Customs, among the nobility, among the clergy, and every other walk of life, including even the police service and the Court! Had we a real party, a real militant organisation of revolutionists, we would not put the question bluntly to every one of these “abettors,” we would not hasten in every single case to bring them right into the very heart of our “illegality,” but, on the contrary, we would husband them very carefully and would train people especially for such functions, bearing in mind that many students could be of much greater service to the party as “abettors” —officials—than as “short-term” revolutionists. But, I repeat, only an organisation that is already firmly established and has no lack of active forces would have the right to apply such tactics.

* Svoboda No. 1, p. 66, articles on “Organisation”: “The heavy tread of the army of labour will re-inforce all the demands that will be advanced by Russian Labour”—Labour with a capital L, of course. And this very author exclaims: “I am not in the least hostile towards the intelligentsia, but” [This is the very word but that Shchedrin translated as meaning: The ears never grow higher than the forehead!] “but I get frightfully annoyed when a man comes to me and eloquently appeals to be accepted for his [his?] beauty and virtues” [p. 62]. Yes. This “always frightfully annoys” me too.

In this, as in other cases, the narrowness of our field of organisational work is without a doubt inherently due (although the overwhelming majority of the Economists and the novices in practical work refuse to recognise it) to the fact that we restrict our theories and our political tasks to a narrow field. Subservience to spontaneity seems to inspire a fear to take even one step away from what “can be understood” by the masses, a fear to rise too high above mere subservience to the immediate requirements of the masses. Have no fear, gentlemen! Remember that we stand so low on the plane of organisation, that the very idea that we could rise too high is absurd!