B. Can a Newspaper Be a Collective Organiser?

The main points in the article “Where to Begin” deal precisely with this question, and reply to it positively. As far as we know, the only attempt to examine this question and to reply to it in the negative, was made by L. Nadezhdin, whose argument we reproduce in full:

. .. The manner in which the question of the necessity for an All-Russian newspaper is presented in Iskra, No. 4, pleases us very much, but we cannot agree that such a presentation is suitable in an article bearing the title, “Where to Begin.” Undoubtedly this is an extremely important matter, but neither a newspaper, nor a whole series of popular leaflets, nor a whole mountain of manifestoes, can serve as the basis for a militant organisation in revolutionary times. We must set to work to build up strong political organisations in the localities. We lack such organisations; we have been carrying on our work mainly among intelligent workers, while the masses have been engaged almost exclusively in the economic struggle. If we do not build up strong political organisations locally, what will be the use of even an excellently organised all-Russian newspaper? It will be a burning bush, burning without being consumed and consuming nothing! Iskra thinks that as a matter of fact people will gather around it, and they will organise. But they will find it more interesting to gather and organise around something more concrete! This something more concrete may be the extensive publication of local newspapers, the immediate setting to work to rally the forces of labour for demonstrations, constant work by local organisations among the unemployed (regularly distribute pamphlets and leaflets among them, convene meetings for them, call upon them to resist the government, etc.). We must organise live political work in the localities, and when the time comes to amalgamate on this real basis—it will not be an artificial, a paper amalgamation—it will not be by means of newspapers that such an amalgamation of local work into an All-Russian cause will be achieved! [The Eve of the Revolution, p. 54.]

We have emphasised the passages in this eloquent tirade which most strikingly illustrate the author’s incorrect judgement of our plan, and the incorrectness of the point of view generally that he opposes to that of Iskra. Unless we set up strong political organisations in the localities—even an excellently organised All-Russian newspaper will be of no avail. Absolutely true. But the whole point is that there is no other way of training strong political organisations except through the medium of an All-Russian newspaper. The author missed the most important statement J skra made before it proceeded to explain its “plan”: That it was necessary “to call for the establishment of a revolutionary organisation, capable of combining all the forces, and of leading the movement not only in name but in deed, i. e., that will be ready at any moment to support every protest and every outbreak, and to utilise these for the purpose of increasing and strengthening the militant forces required for decisive battle.” After the February and March events, every one will agree with this in principle, continues Iskra, but we do not need a solution of this problem in principle but a practical solution of it; we must immediately bring forward a definite plan of construction in order that every one may set to work to build from every side. And now we are again being dragged away from a practical solution towards something that is correct in principle, indisputable and great, but absolutely inadequate and absolutely incomprehensible to the broad masses of workers, namely, to “build up strong political organisations!” This is not the point that is now being discussed, most worthy author! The point is, How to train and what training it should be?

It is not true to say that “we have been carrying on our work mainly among intelligent workers, while the masses have been engaged almost exclusively in the economic struggle.” Presented in such a form, this postulate goes wrong on the point which Svoboda always goes wrong on, and which is radically wrong, and that is, it sets up the intelligent workers in contrast to the “masses.” Even the intelligent workers have been “engaged almost exclusively in the economic struggle” during the past few years. Moreover, the masses will never learn to conduct the political struggle until we help to train leaders for this struggle, both from among the intelligent workers and from among the intellectuals; and such leaders can be trained solely by systematic and every-day appreciation of all aspects of our political life, of all attempts at protest and struggle on the part of various classes and on various pretexts. Therefore, to talk about “training political organisations” and at the same time to contrast a “paper organisation” of a political newspaper to “live political work in the localities” is simply ridiculous! Why, Iskra has adapted its “plan” for a newspaper to the “plan” for creating a “militant preparedness” to support the unemployed movement, peasant revolts, discontent among the Zemstvoists, “popular indignation against the reckless tsarist Bashi-Buzuks,” etc. Every one who is at all acquainted with the movement knows perfectly well that the majority of local organisations never dream of these things, that many of the prospects of “live political work” have never been realised by a single organisation, that the attempt to call attention to the growth of discontent and protest among the Zemstvo intelligentsia rouses feelings of consternation and amazement in Nadezhdin (“Good Lord, is this newspaper intended for the Zemstvoists?”— The Eve of the Revolution, p. 129), among the Economists (Letter to Iskra No. 12) and among many of the practical workers. Under these circumstances, it is possible to “begin” only by stirring up people to think about all these things, to stir them up to summarise and generalise all the flashes of discontent and active struggle. “Live political work” can be commenced in our time, when Social. Democratic tasks are being degraded, exclusively with live political education, which is impossible unless we have a frequently issued and properly distributed All-Russian newspaper.

Those who regard Iskra’s “plan” as a manifestation of literariness have totally failed to understand the substance of the plan, and imagine that what is suggested as the most suitable means for the present time is the ultimate goal. These people have not taken the trouble to study the two comparisons that were drawn to illustrate the plan proposed. IJskra wrote: The publication of an All. Russian political newspaper must be the main line that must guide us in our work of unswervingly developing, deepening, and expanding this organisation (i. e., a revolutionary organisation always prepared to support every protest and every outbreak). Pray tell me: When a bricklayer lays bricks in various parts of an enormous structure, the like of which has never been seen before, is it a “paper” line that he uses to help him to find the correct place to place each brick, to indicate to him the ultimate goal of the work as a whole, to enable him to use not only every brick but even every piece of brick, which, joining with the bricks placed before and after it, forms a complete and all-embracing line? And are we not now passing through a period in our party life, when we have bricks and bricklayers, but we lack the guiding line, visible to all, by which to guide our movements? Let them shout that in stretching out the line, we desire to command. Had we desired to command, gentlemen, we would have written on the title page, not “Jskra, No. 1,” but “Rabochaya Gazeta, No. 3,” as we were invited to do by a number of comrades, and as we had a perfect right to do after the events related above took place. But we did not do that. We wished to have our hands free to conduct an irreconcilable struggle against all pseudo-Social-Democrats; we wanted our line of policy, if properly laid, to be respected because it was correct, and not because it was carried out by an official organ.

“The question of combining local activity in central organs runs in a vicious circle,” L. Nadezhdin tells us pedantically, “for this requires homogeneous elements, and this homogeneity can be created only by something that combines; but this combining element may be the product of strong local organisations which at the present time are not distinguished for their homogeneity.” This truism is as hoary and indisputable as the one that: We must build up strong political organisations. And is equally barren. Every question “runs in a vicious circle” because the whole of political life is an endless chain consisting of an infinite number of links. The whole art of politics lies in finding the link that can be least torn out of our hands, the one that is most important at the given moment, the one that guarantees the command of the whole chain, and having found it, to cling to that link as tightly as possible.* If we possessed a staff of experienced bricklayers who had learned to work so well together that they could dispense with a guiding line and could place their bricks exactly where they are required without one (and speaking abstractly, this is by no means impossible), then perhaps we might seize upon some other link. But the unfortunate thing is that we have no experienced bricklayers trained to teamwork, that bricks are often laid where they are not needed at all, that they are not laid according to the general line, and are so scattered about that the enemy can shatter the structure as if it were made not of bricks but of sand. Here is the other comparison:

A newspaper is not merely a collective propagandist and collective agitator, it is also a collective organiser. In that respect it can be compared to the scaffolding erected around a building in construction; it marks the contours of the structure, and facilitates communication between the builders, permitting them to distribute the work, and to view the common results achieved by their organised labour.** Does this sound anything like the attempt of an armchair author to exaggerate his réle? The scaffolding put up around a building is not required at all for habitation, it is made of the cheapest material, it is only put up temporarily and when finished with, as soon as the shell of the structure is completed, is destroyed. As for the building up of revolutionary organisations, experience shows that sometimes they may be built without scaffolding,—take the seventies for example. But at the present time we cannot imagine that the building we require can be put up without scaffolding.

* Comrade Krichevsky and Comrade Martynov! I call your attention to this outrageous manifestation of “autocracy” “uncontrolled authority,” “supreme regulating,” etc. Just think of it: a desire to possess the whole chain!! Send in a complaint at once. Here you have a subject for two leading articles for No. 12 of Rabocheye Dyelo!

** Martynov, quoting the first sentence in this passage in Rabocheye Dyelo [No. 10, p. 62] left out the second sentence, as if desiring to emphasise by that either his unwillingness to discuss the essentials of the question, or his incapability of understanding it.

Nadezhdin disagrees with this, and says: “Jskra thinks that people will gather around it and will organise, but they will find it more interesting to organise around something more concrete!” So! so! “They will find it more interesting to gather around something more concrete. . . .” There is a Russian proverb which says: “Don’t spit into the well, you may want to drink out of it.” But there are people who do not object to drinking from a well which has been spat into. What despicable things our magnificent, legal “critics of Marxism” and illegal admirers of Rabochaya Mysl have said in the name of this—something more concrete! See how restricted our movement is by our own narrowness, lack of initiative, and hesitation and yet this is justified by the traditional argument about “finding it more interesting to gather around something more concrete!” And Nadezhdin, who regards himself as being particularly sensitive to “life,’ who so severely condemns “armchair” authors, who (with pretensions to being witty) charges Iskra with a weakness for seeing Economism everywhere, and who imagines that he stands far above this discrimination between the “orthodox” and the “critics,’—fails to see that with this sort of argument he is playing into the hands of the very narrowness with which he is so indignant and that he is drinking from a well that has actually been spat into! The sincerest indignation against narrowness, the most passionate desire to raise those who worship this narrowness from their knees, is insufficient if the indignant one is swept along without sail or rudder as “spontaneously” as the revolutionists of the seventies, if he clutches at such things as “excitative terror,” “agrarian terror,” “sounding-the-tocsin,” etc. Glance at this something “more concrete” around which he thinks it is “much easier” to rally and organise: 1. Local newspapers; 2. Preparations for demonstrations; 3. Work among the unemployed. It will be seen at the very first glance that all these have been seized upon at random in order to be able to say something, for however we may regard them, it would be absurd to see in them anything especially adapted for the purpose of “rallying and organising.” This very Nadezhdin a few pages further on says: “It is time we simply stated the fact that extremely petty work is being carried on in the localities, the committees are not doing a tenth of what they could do... the combining centres that we have at the present time are a pure fiction, they represent a sort of revolutionary bureaucracy, the members of which mutually appoint each other to the posts of generals; and so it will continue until strong local organisations grow up.” These remarks while exaggerating the position somewhat, express many a bitter truth, but cannot Nadezhdin see the connection between the petty work carried on in the localities and the narrow outlook of the party workers, the narrow scope of their activities, which is inevitable in view of the lack of training of the party workers isolated in their local organisations? Has he, like the author of the article on organisation published in Svoboda, forgotten how the adoption of a broad local press (in 1898) was accompanied by a very strong intensification of Economism and “primitive methods”? Even if a broad local press could be established at all satisfactorily (and we have shown above that it is impossible save in very exceptional cases) —even then the local organs could not “rally and organise” all the revolutionary forces for a general attack upon the autocracy and for the leadership of a united struggle. Do not forget that we are here discussing only the “rallying,” the organising significance of a newspaper, and we could put to Nadezhdin, who defends diffusiveness, the very question that he himself has already put ironically: “Has some one left us a legacy of 200,000 revolutionary organisers?” Furthermore, “preparations for demonstrations” cannot be set up in contrast to Iskra’s plan for the one reason alone that this plan includes the organisation of the widest possible demonstrations as one of its aims; the point under discussion is the selection of the practical means. On this point also Nadezhdin has got confused and has lost sight of the fact that only already “rallied and organised” forces can “prepare for” demonstrations (which hitherto, in the overwhelming majority of cases, have taken place quite spontaneously ) and we lack precisely the ability to rally and organise. “Work among the unemployed.” Again the same confusion, for this too represents one of the military operations of mobilised forces and not a plan to mobilise the forces. The extent to which Nadezhdin underestimates the harm caused by our diffusion, by our lack of “200,000 men,” can be seen from the following: Many (including Nadezhdin) have reproached Iskra with the paucity of the news it gives about unemployment and with the casual nature of the correspondence it publishes about the most common affairs of rural life.

The reproach is justified, but Iskra is “guilty without sin.” We strive to “draw a line” even through the countryside, but there are almost no bricklayers there, and we are obliged to encourage every one to send us information concerning even the most common facts in the hope that this will increase the number of our contributors in this field and will train us all at least to select the really most outstanding facts. But the material upon which we can train is so scanty that unless we collect it from all parts of Russia we will have very little to train upon at all. No doubt, one who possesses at least as much capacity as an agitator and as much knowledge of the life of the vagrant as apparently Nadezhdin has, could render priceless service to the movement by carrying on agitation among the unemployed—but such a one would be simply burying his talents if he failed to inform all Russian comrades of every step he took in his work, in order that others, who, in the mass, as yet lack the ability to undertake new kinds of work, may learn from his example.

Absolutely everybody now talks about the importance of unity, about the necessity for “rallying and organising,” but the majority of us lack a definite idea of where to begin and how to bring about this unification. Every one will probably agree that if we “unite” say, the district circles in a given city, it will be necessary to have for this purpose common. institutions, t. e., not merely a common title of “League” but genuinely common work, exchange of material, experience, and forces, distribution of functions, not only in the given districts but in a whole city, according to special tasks. Every one will agree that a big secret apparatus will not pay its way (if one may employ a commercial expression) “with the resources” (in material and man power, of course) of a single district and that a single district will not provide sufficient scope for a specialist to develop his talents. But the same thing applies to the unification of a number of cities, because even such a field, like a single locality, will prove, and has already proved in the history of our Social-Democratic movement, to be too restricted: we have already dealt with this in detail above, in connection with political agitation and organisational work. We must first and foremost widen the field, establish real contacts between the cities, on the basis of regular, common work; for diffusion restricts the activities of our people who are “stuck in a hole” (to use the expression employed by a correspondent to Iskra), not knowing what is happening in the world; they have no one to learn from, do not know how to obtain or to satisfy their desire to engage in broad activities. And I continue to insist that we can start establishing real contacts only with the aid of a common newspaper, as a single, regular, All-Russian enterprise, which will summarise the results of all the diverse forms of activity and thereby stimulate our people to march forward untiringly along all the innumerable paths which lead to the revolution in the same way as all roads lead to Rome. If we do not want unity in name only, we must arrange for every local circle immediately to assign, say a fourth of its forces to active work for the common cause, and the newspaper will immediately convey to them * the general design, dimensions and character of this cause, will indicate to them precisely the most serious defects of All-Russian activity, where agitation is lacking and where contacts are weak, and point out which small wheel in the great general mechanism could be repaired or replaced by a better one. A circle that has not commenced to work yet, which is only just seeking work, could then start, not like a craftsman in a small separate workshop unaware of the development that has taken place in “industry,” or of the general state of the given industry and the methods of production prevailing in it, but as a participant in an extensive enterprise that reflects the whole general revolutionary attack upon the autocracy. And the more perfect the finish of each little wheel will be, the larger the number of detail workers working for the common cause, the closer will our network become and the less consternation will inevitable police raids call forth in the common ranks.

The mere function of distributing a newspaper will help to establish real contacts (that is, if it were a newspaper worthy of the name, i. e., if it is issued regularly, not once a month like a big magazine, but four times a month). At the present time, communication between cities on revolutionary business is an extreme rarity, and at all events an exception rather than the rule. If we had a newspaper, however, such communication would become the rule and would secure, not only the distribution of the newspaper, of course, but also (and what is more important) an interchange of experience, of material, of forces and of resources. The scope of organisational work would immediately become ever so much wider and the success of a single locality would serve as a standing encouragement to further perfection and a desire to utilise the experience gained by comrades working in other parts of the country. Local work would become far richer and more varied than it is now: political and economic exposures gathered from all over Russia would provide mental food to the workers of all trades and in all stages of development, would provide material and occasion for talks and readings on the most diverse subjects, which indeed will be suggested by hints in the legal press, by conversations among the public and by shamefaced government communications. Every outbreak, every demonstration, would be weighed and discussed from all its aspects all over Russia; it would stimulate a desire not to lag behind the rest, a desire to excel,—(we Socialists do not by any means reject all rivalry or all “competition!”)—and consciously to prepare for that which at first appeared to spring up spontaneously, a desire to take advantage of the favourable conditions in a given district or at a given moment for modifying the plan of attack, etc. At the same time, this revival of local work would render superfluous that convulsive exertion of effort on the part of all local workers, working as if in the “throes of death” and the blunt invitation to join put to every one willing to perform some service, as is often done to-day when organising every single demonstration or publishing every single number of a local newspaper. In the first place the police would find it much more difhcult to dig down to the “roots” because they would not know in what district to seek for them. Secondly, regular common work would train our people to regulate the force of a given attack in accordance with the strength of the forces of the given local detachment of the army (at the present time no one ever thinks of doing that because in nine cases out of ten these attacks occur spontaneously), and would facilitate the “transport” from one place to another, not only of literature, but also of revolutionary forces.

* A reservation: that is, if a given circle sympathises with the policy of that newspaper and considers it useful to become a collaborator, meaning by that, not merely a literary collaborator but a revolutionary collaborator generally. Note for Rabocheye Dyelo: among the revolutionists who attach value to the cause and not to playing at democracy, who do not separate “sympathy” from active and lively participation, this reservation is taken for granted.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, these forces ai the present time shed their blood in the cause of restricted local work, but under the circumstances we are discussing, occasions would constantly arise for transferring a capable agitator or organiser from one end of the country to the other. Beginning with short journeys on party business at the party’s expense, our people would become accustomed to live at the expense of the party, would become professional revolutionists and would train themselves to become real political leaders.

And if indeed we succeeded in reaching a point when all, or at least a considerable majority of the local committees, local groups and circles actively took up work for the common cause we could, in the not distant future, establish a daily newspaper that would be regularly distributed in tens of thousands of copies over the whole of Russia. This newspaper would become a part of an enormous pair of smith’s bellows that would blow every spark of class struggle and popular indignation into a general conflagration. Around what is in itself very innocent and very small, but in the full sense of the word a regular and common cause, an army of tried warriors would systematically gather and receive their training. On the ladders and scaffolding of this general organisational structure there would soon ascend Social-Democratic Zhelyabovs from among our revolutionists and Russian Bebels from among our workers who would take their places at the head of the mobilised army and rouse the whole people to settle accounts with the shame and the curse of Russia. That is what we ought to be dreaming about!

“We ought to dream!” I wrote these words and then got scared. It seemed to me that I was sitting at a “unity congress” and that opposite me were the editors and contributors of Rabocheye Dyelo. Comrade Martynov rises and turning to me says threateningly: “Permit me to enquire, has an autonomous editorial board the right to dream without first obtaining permission of the party committee?” He is followed by Comrade Krichevsky who (philosophically deepening the words of Comrade Martynov who had long ago deepened the words of Comrade Plekhanov) continues in the same strain even more threateningly: “I go further. I ask, has a Marxist any right at all to dream, knowing that according to Marx, man always sets himself achievable tasks and that tactics is a process of growth of tasks, which grow together with the party?”

The very thought of these menacing questions sends a cold shiver down my back and makes me wish for nothing except a place to conceal myself in. I will try to conceal myself behind the back of Pisarev.

“There are differences and differences,” wrote Pisarey concerning the ques, tion of the difference between dreams and reality. “My dream may run ahead of the natural progress of events or may fly off at a tangent in a direction to which no natural progress of events will ever proceed. In the first case the dream will not cause any harm; it may even support and strengthen the efforts of toiling humanity. There is nothing in such dreams that would distort or paralyse labour power. On the contrary, if man were completely deprived of the ability to dream in this way, if he could never run ahead and mentally conceive in an entire and completed picture the results of the work he is only just commencing, then I cannot imagine what stimulus there would be to induce man to undertake and complete extensive and fatiguing work in the sphere of art, science and practical work. .. . Divergence between dreams and reality causes no harm if only the person dreaming believes seriously in his dream, if he attentively observes life, compares his observations with the airy castles he builds and if, generally speaking, he works conscientiously for the achievement of his fantasies. If there is some connection between dreams and life then all is well.

Now of this kind of dreaming there is unfortunately too little in our movement. And those most responsible for this are the ones who boast of their sober views, their “closeness” to the “concrete,” i. e., the representatives of legal criticism and of illegal “khvostism.”