E. “Conspirative” Organisation and “Democracy”

There are many people among us who are so sensitive to the “voice of life” that they fear that voice more than anything in the world, and accuse those, who adhere to the views here expounded, of Narodovolism,* of failing to understand “democracy,” etc. We must deal with these accusations, which, of course, have been echoed by Rabocheye Dyelo.

The writer of these lines knows very well that the St. Petersburg Economists accused the Rabochaya Gazeta of being Narodovolist (which is quite understandable when one compares it with Rabochaya Mysl). We were not in the least surprised, therefore, when, soon after the appearance of Iskra, a comrade informed us that the Social-Democrats in the town of X describe Jskra as a Narodovolist journal. We, of course, were flattered by this accusation, because the Economists would charge every real Social-Democrat with being a Narodovolist. These accusations are called forth by a two-fold misunderstanding. Firstly, the history of the revolutionary move ment is so little understood among us that the very idea of a militant centralised organisation which declares a determined war upon tsarism is described as Narodovolist. But the magnificent organisation that the revolutionists had in the seventies and which should serve us all as a model, was not formed by the Narodovolists, but by the adherents of Zemlya i Volya, who split up into Chernoperedeltsi [Black Redistributionists—i.e., of the land—Fd.] and Narodovolists. Consequently, to regard a militant revolutionary organisation as something specifically Narodovolist is absurd both historically and logically, because no revolutionary tendency, if it seriously thinks of fighting, can dispense with such an organisation. But the mistake the Narodovolists committed was not that they strove to recruit to their organisation all the discontented, and to hurl this organisation into the battle against the autocracy; on the contrary, that was their great historical merit. Their mistake was that they relied on a theory which in substance was not a revolutionary theory at all, and they either did not know how, or circumstances did not permit them, to link up their movement inseparably with the class struggle that went on within developing capitalist society. And only a gross failure to understand Marxism (or an “understanding” of it in the spirit of Struveism) could give rise to the opinion that the rise of a mass, spontaneous labour movement relieves us of the duty of creating as good an organisation of revolutionists as Zemlya i Volya had in its time, and even a better one. On the contrary, this movement imposes this duty upon us, because the spontaneous struggle of the proletariat will not become a genuine “class struggle” until it is led by a strong organisation of revolutionists.

* Adherents of Narodnaya Volya, the People’s Will Party.—Ed.

Secondly, many, including apparently B. Krichevsky [Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, p. 18] misunderstand the polemics that Social- Democrats have always waged against the “conspiratorial” view on the political struggle. We have always protested, and will, of course, continue to protest against restricting the political struggle to conspiracies.* But this does not of course mean that we deny the necessity of a strong revolutionary organisation. And in the pamphlet mentioned in the footnote below, after the polemics against reducing the political struggle to a conspiracy, a description is given (as a Social-Democratic ideal) of an organisation so strong as to be able to resort to “rebellion” and to “every other form of attack,” ** in order to “deliver a smashing blow against absolutism.” The form a strong revolutionary organisation like that may take in an autocratic country may be described as a “conspirative” organisation, because the French word “conspiration” means in Russian “conspiracy,” and we must have the utmost conspiracy for an organisation like that.* Secrecy is such a necessary condition for such an organisation that all the other conditions (number and selection of members, functions, etc.) must all be subordinated to it. It would be extremely naive indeed, therefore, to fear the accusation that we Social-Democrats desire to create a conspirative organisation. Such an accusation would be as flattering to every opponent of Economism as the accusation of being followers of Narodovolism would be.

* Cf. The Tasks of Russian Social-Democrats, p. 21. Polemics against P. L. Lavrov. [See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 11.—Ed.]

** Tasks of Russian Social-Democrats, p. 23. [V. 1. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. I.—Ed.] But we shall give another illustration of the fact that Rabocheye Dyelo either does not understand what it is talking about, or changes its views “with every change in the wind.” In No. 1 of Rabocheye Dyelo, we find the following passage in italics: “The views expressed in this pamphlet coincide entirely with the editorial programme of Rabocheye Dyelo [p. 142}. Is that so, indeed? Does the view that the mass movement must not be set the primary task of overthrowing the autocracy coincide with the views expressed in the pamphlet, The Tasks of Russian Social-Democrats? Do the theories about “the economic struggle against the employers and the government,” and the theory of stages, coincide with the views expressed in that pamphlet? We leave it to the reader to judge as to whether an organ which understands the meaning of “coincidence” in this peculiar manner can have firm principles.

Against us it is argued: Such a powerful and strictly secret organisation, which concentrates in its hands all the threads of secret activities, an organisation which of necessity must be a centralised organisation, may too easily throw itself into a premature attack, may thoughtlessly intensify the movement before political discontent, the ferment and anger of the working class, etc., are sufficiently ripe for it. To this we reply: Speaking abstractly, it cannot be denied, of course, that a militant organisation may thoughtlessly commence a battle, which may end in defeat, which might have been avoided under other circumstances. But we cannot confine ourselves to abstract reasoning on such a question, because every battle bears within itself the abstract possibility of defeat, and there is no other way of reducing this possibility to a minimum than by organised preparation for battle. If, however, we base our argument on the concrete conditions prevailing in Russia at the present time, we must come to the positive conclusion that a strong revolutionary organisation is absolutely necessary precisely for the purpose of giving firmness to the movement, and of safeguarding it against the possibility of its making premature attacks. It is precisely at the present time, when no such organisation exists yet, and when the revolutionary movement is rapidly and spontaneously growing, that we already observe two opposite extremes (which, as is to be expected, “meet”’) 7. e., absolutely unsound Economism and the preaching of moderation, and equally unsound “excitative terror,” which strives artificially to “call forth symptoms of its end in a movement that is developing and becoming strong, but which is as yet nearer to its beginning than to its end” [V. Zasulich, in Zarya, Nos. 2-3, p. 353]. And the example of Rabocheye Dyelo shows that there are already Social-Democrats who give way to both these extremes. This is not surprising because, apart from other reasons, the “economic struggle against the employers and the government” can never satisfy revolutionists, and because opposite extremes will always arise here and there. Only a centralised, militant organisation, that consistently carries out a Social- Democratic policy, that satisfies, so to speak, all revolutionary instincts and strivings, can safeguard the movement against making thoughtless attacks and prepare it for attacks that hold out the promise of success.

* The Russian word for “conspiracy” is zagovor, which means “conspiracy” or “plot.” But the word conspiratsiya, “conspiracy,” in Russian revolutionary literature usually means “secrecy.” Hence, a conspirative organisation would be a secret organisation, but would not necessarily engage in plots. Except in the above case, when it was important to bring out the play of words, the word “conspiratsiya’ has been rendered throughout the text as “secrecy,” and the word “conspirative” was used only where the word zagovor has beer. used in the text, as in the sub-title of this section Ed.

It is further argued against us that the views on organisation here expounded contradict the “principles of democracy.” Now while the first mentioned accusation was of purely Russian origin, this one is of purely foreign origin. And only an organisation abroad (the League of Russian Social-Democrats) would be capable of giving its editorial board instructions like the following:

Principles of Organisation. In order to secure the successful development and unification of Social-Democracy, broad democratic principles of party organisation must be emphasised, developed and fought for; and this is particularly necessary in view of the anti-democratic tendencies that have become revealed in the ranks of our party. [Two Congresses, p. 18.]

We shall see how Rabocheye Dyelo fights against Iskra’s “anti-democratic tendencies” in the next chapter. Here we shall examine more closely the “principle” that the Economists advance. Every one will probably agree that “broad principles of democracy” presupposes the two following conditions: first, full publicity and second, election to all functions. It would be absurd to speak about democracy without publicity, that is a publicity that extends beyond the circle of the membership of the organisation. We call the German Socialist Party a democratic organisation because all it does is done publicly; even its party congresses are held in public. But no one would call an organisation that is hidden from every one but its members by a veil of secrecy, a democratic organisation. What is the use of advancing “broad principles of democracy” when the fundamental condition for this principle cannot be fulfilled by a secret organisation. “Broad principles” turns out to be a resonant, but hollow phrase. More than that, this phrase proves that the urgent tasks in regard to organisation are totally misunderstood. Every one knows how great is the lack of secrecy among the “broad” masses of revolutionists. We have heard the bitter complaints of B-v on this score, and his absolutely just demand for a “strict selection of members” [Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 6, p. 42]. And yet people who boast about their “sensitiveness to life” come forward in a situation like this and urge that strict secrecy and a strict (and therefore more restricted) selection of members is unnecessary, and that what is necessary are—‘“broad principles of democracy”! This is what we call being absolutely wide of the mark.

Nor is the situation with regard to the second attribute of democracy, namely, the principle of election, any better. In politically free countries, this condition is taken for granted. “Membership of the party is open to those who accept the principles of the party programme, and render all the support they can to the party”— says paragraph 1 of the rules of the German Social-Democratic Party. And as the political arena is as open to the public view as is the stage in a theatre, this acceptance or non-acceptance, support or opposition is announced to all in the press and at public meetings. Every one knows that a certain political worker commenced in a certain way, passed through a certain evolution, behaved in difficult periods in a certain way; every one knows all his qualities, and consequently, knowing all the facts of the case, every party member can decide for himself whether or not to elect this person for a certain party office. The general control (in the literal sense of the term) that the party exercises over every act this person commits on the political field brings into being an automatically operating mechanism which brings about what in biology is called “survival of the fittest.” “Natural selection,” full publicity, the principle of election and general control provide the guarantee that, in the last analysis, every political worker will be “in his proper place,” will do the work for which he is best fitted, will feel the effects of his mistakes on himself, and prove before all the world his ability to recognise mistakes and to avoid them.

Try to put this picture in the frame of our autocracy! Is it possible in Russia for all those “who accept the principles of the party programme and render it all the support they can,” to control every action of the revolutionist working in secret? Is it possible for all the revolutionists to elect one of their number to any particular office when, in the very interests of the work, he must conceal his identity from nine out of ten of these “all”? Ponder a little over the real meaning of the high-sounding phrases that Rabocheye Dyelo gives utterance to, and you will realise that “broad democracy” in party organisation, amidst the gloom of autocracy and the domination of the gendarmes, is nothing more than a useless and harmful toy. It is a useless toy, because as a matter of fact, no revolutionary organisation has ever practiced broad democracy, nor could it, however much it desired to do so. It is a harmful toy, because any attempt to practice the “broad principles of democracy” will simply facilitate the work of the police in making big raids, it will perpetuate the prevailing primitiveness, divert the thoughts of the practical workers from the serious and imperative task of training themselves to become professional revolutionists to that of drawing up detailed “paper” rules for election systems. Only abroad, where very often people who have no opportunity of doing real live work gather together, can the “game of democracy” be played here and there, especially in small groups.

In order to show how ugly Rabocheye Dyelo’s favourite trick is of advancing the plausible “principle” of democracy in revolutionary affairs, we shall again call a witness. This witness, E. Serebryakov, the editor of the London magazine, Nakanunye [On the Eve] has a tenderness for Rabocheye Dyelo, and is filled with hatred against Plekhanov and the Plekhanovists. In articles that it published on the split in the League of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, Nakanunye definitely took the side of Rabocheye Dyelo, and poured a stream of atrocious abuse upon Plekhanov. But this only makes this witness all the more valuable for us on this question. In No. 7 of Nakanunye [July, 1899], in an article, entitled, “The Manifesto of the Self-Emancipation of the Workers’ Group,” E. Serebryakov argues that it was “indecent” to talk about such things as “selfdeception, priority, and so-called Areopagus in the serious revolutionary movement,” and inter alia wrote:

Myshkin, Rogachev, Zhelyabov, Mikhailov, Perovskaya, Figner, and others never regarded themselves as leaders, and no one ever elected or appointed them as such, although as a matter of fact, they were leaders because both in the propaganda period, as well as in the period of the fight against the government, they took the brunt of the work upon themselves, they went into the most dangerous places and their activities were the most fruitful. Priority came to them not because they wished it, but because the comrades surrounding them had confidence in their wisdom, their energy and loyalty. To be afraid of some kind of Areopagus [if it is not feared, then why write about it?] that would arbitrarily govern the movement is far too naive. Who would obey it? We ask the reader in what way does “Azeopagus” differ from “anti-democratic tendencies”? And is it not evident that Rabocheye Dyelo’s “plausible” organisational principles are equally naive and indecent; naive, because no one would obey “Areopagus,” or people with “anti-democratic tendencies,” if “the comrades surrounding them had no confidence in their wisdom, energy and loyalty”; indecent, because it is a demagogic sally calculated to play on the conceit of some, on the ignorance of the actual state of our movement on the part of others, and the lack of training and ignorance of the history of the revolutionary movement of still others. The only serious organisational principle the active workers of our movement can accept is: Strict secrecy, strict selection of members, and the training of professional revolutionists. If we possessed these qualities, “democracy” and something even more would be guaranteed to us, namely: Complete, comradely, mutual confidence among revolutionists. And this something more is absolutely essential for us because, in Russia, it is useless to think that democratic control can serve as a substitute for it. It would be a great mistake to believe that because it is impossible to establish real “democratic” control, the members of the revolutionary organisation will remain altogether uncontrolled. They have not the time to think about the toy forms of democracy (democracy within a close and compact body enjoying the complete mutual confidence of the comrades), but they have a lively sense of their responsibility, because they know from experience that an organisation of real revolutionists will stop at nothing to rid itself of an undesirable member. Moreover, there is a very well-developed public opinion in Russian (and international) revolutionary circles which has a long history behind it, and which sternly and ruthlessly punishes every departure from the duties of comradeship (and does not “democracy,” real and not toy democracy, represent a part of the conception of comradeship?). Take all this into consideration and you will realise that all the talk and resolutions that come from abroad about “anti-democratic tendencies” has a nasty odour of the playing at generals that goes on there.

It must be observed also that the other source of this talk, % e@5 naiveté, is also fostered by a confusion of ideas concerning the meaning of democracy. In Mr. and Mrs. Webb’s book on trade unionism,~ there is an interesting section on “‘Primitive Democracy.” In this section, the authors relate how, in the first period of existence of their unions, the British workers thought that in the interests of democracy all the members must take part in the work of managing the unions; not only were all questions decided by the votes of all the members, but all the official duties were fulfilled by all the members in turn. A long period of historical experience was required to teach these workers how aburd such a conception of democracy was and to make them understand the necessity for representative institutions on the one hand, and of full-time professional officials on the other. Only after a number of cases of financial bankruptcy of trade unions occurred did the workers. realise that rates of benefit cannot be decided merely by a democratic vote, but must be based on the advice of insurance experts. Let us take also Kautsky’s book, Der Parlamentarismus, die Volksgesetzgebung und die Sozialdemokratie. There you will find that the conclusion drawn by the Marxian theoretician coincides with the lessons learned from many years of experience by the workers who organised “spontaneously.” Kautsky strongly protests against Rittinghausen’s primitive conception of democracy; he ridicules those who in the name of democracy demand even that “popular newspapers shall be directly edited by the people”; he shows the necessity for professional journalists, parliamentarians, etc., and for the Social-Democratic leadership of the proletarian class struggle; he attacks the “Socialism of Anarchists and _litterateurs,” who in their “striving after effect” proclaim the principle that laws should be passed directly by the whole people, completely failing to understand that in modern society this principle can have only a relative application.

Those who have carried on practical work in our movement know how widespread is the “primitive” conception of democracy among the masses of the students and workers. It is not surprising that this conception permeates rules of organisation and literature. The Economists of the Bernstein persuasion included in their rules the following: “§ 10. All affairs affecting the interests of the whole of the union organisation shall be decided by a majority vote of all its members.” The Economists of the terrorist persuasion repeat after them: “The decisions of the committee must be circulated among all the circles and become effective only after this has been done” [Svoboda, No. 1, p. 67]. Observe that this proposal for a widely applied referendum is advanced in addition to the demand that the whole of the organisation be organised on an elective basis! We would not, of course, on this account condemn practical workers who have had too few opportunities for studying the theory and practice of real democratic organisation. But when Rabocheye Dyelo, which claims to play a leading réle, confines itself, under such conditions, to resolutions about broad democratic principles, how else can it be described than as a “striving after effect”?

* The History of Trade Unionism.