---
title: C. What Type of Organisation Do We Require?
url: https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/27-c-what-type-of-organisation-do-we-require/
description: C. What Type of Organisation Do We Require?, 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. What Type of Organisation Do We Require?

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. 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/) [Conclusion →](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/28-conclusion/)

From what has been said the reader will understand that our “tactics plan” consists in rejecting an immediate call for the attack, in demanding “a regular siege of the enemy fortress,” or in other words, in demanding that all efforts be directed towards rallying, organising and mobilising permanent troops. When we ridiculed Rabocheye Dyelo for its leap from Economism to shouting for an attack (in Listok Rabochevo Dyela, No. 6, April, 1901) it of course hurled accusations against us of being “doctrinaire,” of failing to understand our revolutionary duty, of calling for caution, etc. Of course we were not surprised to hear these accusations coming from those who totally lack balance and who evade all arguments by references to a profound “tactics-process,” any more than we were surprised by the fact that these accusations were repeated by Nadezhdin who has a supreme contempt for durable programmes and tactical bases.

It is said that history never repeats itself. But Nadezhdin is exerting every effort to cause it to repeat itself and zealously imitates Tkachev in strongly condemning “revolutionary culturism,” in shouting about “sounding the tocsin” about a special “eve of the revolution point-of-view,” etc. Apparently, he has forgotten the well-known epigram which says: If an original historical event represents a tragedy, the copy of it is only a farce. The attempt to seize power, after the ground for the attempt had been prepared by the preaching of Tkachev and carried out by means of the “terrifying” terror which did really terrify was majestic, but the “excitative” terror of a little Tkachev is simply ridiculous and is particularly ridiculous when it is supplemented by the idea of an organisation of average workers.

“If Iskra would only emerge from its sphere of literariness,” wrote Nadezhdin, “it would realise that these [the working man’s letter to Iskra No. 7, etc.] are symptoms of the fact that soon, very soon the ‘attack’ will commence, and to talk now [sic!] about organisations linked up with an All-Russian newspaper is simply to give utterance to armchair thoughts and to do armchair work.” What unimaginable confusion this is: on the one hand excitative terror and an “organisation of average workers” accompanied by the opinion that it is “much easier” to gather around something “more concrete” like a local newspaper,—-and on the other hand, to talk “now” about an All-Russian organisation means to give utterance to armchair thoughts, or, to speak more frankly and simply, “Now” is already too late! But what about “the extensive organisation of local newspapers,’—is it not too late for that my dear L. Nadezhdin? And compare this with Iskra’s point-of-view and tactics: excitative terror—is nonsense; to talk about an organisation of average workers and about the extensive organisation of local newspapers means to open the door wide for Economism. We must speak about a single All-Russian organisation of revolutionists and it will never be too late to talk about that until the real, and not the paper attack, commences.

Yes, as far as our situation in regard to organisation is concerned, it is far from brilliant, continues Nadezhin. Yes, Iskra is absolutely right when it says that the mass of our military forces consist of volunteers and insurgents. ... You do very well in thus soberly presenting the state of our forces. But why in doing so do you forget that the crowd is not ours and, consequently, it will not ask us when to commence military operations, it will simply go and “rebel.” . . . When the crowd itself breaks out with its elemental destructive force it may overwhelm and crush the “regular troops” to which all may have rallied but which had not managed in time to establish itself as an extremely systematic organisation. [Our italics.]

Astonishing logic! Precisely because the “crowd is not ours,” it is stupid and reprehensible to call for an “attack” this very minute, because an attack must be made by permanent troops and not by a spontaneous outburst of the crowd. It is precisely because the crowd may overwhelm and crush permanent troops that we must without fail “manage” to keep up with the spontaneous rise of the masses in our work of “establishing an extremely systematic organisation” among the permanent troops, for the more we “manage” to establish such an organisation the more probable will it be that the permanent troops will not be overwhelmed by the crowd, but will take their place at the head of the crowd. Nadezhdin drops into confusion because he imagines that these systematically organised troops are engaged in something that isolates them from the crowd, when as a matter of fact they are engaged exclusively in all-sided and all-embracing political agitation, i. e., precisely in work that brings them into closer proximity and merges the elemental destructive force of the crowd with the conscious destructive force of the organisation of revolutionists. You gentlemen merely wish to throw the blame for your sins on the shoulders of others. For it is precisely the Svoboda group that includes terror in its programme and by that calls for an organisation of terrorists, and such an organisation would really prevent our troops from coming into proximity with the crowd which, unfortunately, is still not ours, and which unfortunately, does not yet ask us, or rarely asks us when and how to commence military operations.

“We will overlook the revolution itself,” continues Nadezhdin in his effort to scare Iskra, “in the same way as we overlooked recent events which hurled themselves upon us like a bolt from the blue.” This sentence together with the one quoted above clearly demonstrates the absurdity of the “eve of the revolution point-of-view” invented by Svoboda.* To speak frankly, this special point-of-view” amounts to this that it is too late “now” to discuss and prepare. If that is the case, oh most worthy opponent of “literariness,” what was the use of writing a pamphlet of 132 pages on “Questions of Theory and Tactics’? ** Don’t you think that it would have been more becoming for the “eve of the revolution point-of-view” to have issued 132,000 leaflets containing the brief appeal: “Kill them!” ?

> * “The Eve of the Revolution,” p. 62.

> **In his Review of Questions of Theory, L. Nadezhdin made almost no contribution whatever to the discussion of questions of theory apart perhaps from the following passage which appears to be a very peculiar one from the “eve of the revolution point-of-view”: “Bernsteinism, on the whole, is losing its acuteness for us at the present moment, as also is the question as to whether Mr. Adamovich has proved that Mr. Struve has already deserved dismissal or on the contrary whether Mr. Struve will refute Mr. Adamovich and will refuse to resign—it really makes no difference, because the hour of the revolution has struck” [p. 110]. One can hardly imagine a more striking illustration of L. Nadezhdin’s infinite disregard for theory. We have proclaimed “the eve of the revolution’”—therefore “it really makes no difference” whether the orthodox Marxists will succeed in driving the critics from their positions or not!! And our wiseacre fails to see that it is precisely in the time of revolution that we stand in need of the results of our theoretical combats with the critics in order to be able resolutely to combat their practical positions!

Those who place national political agitation as the cornerstone of their programme, their tactics and their organisational work as Iskra does, stand the least risk of overlooking the revolution. The people who were engaged over the whole of Russia in weaving a network of organisations to be linked up with an All-Russian newspaper not only did not overlook the spring events, but on the contrary, they enabled us to foretell them. Nor did they overlook the demonstrations that were described in Iskra, Nos. 13 and 14: on the contrary, they took part in those demonstrations, clearly appreciating their duty to come to the aid of the spontaneously rising crowd and while rendering aid, at the same time, through the medium of the newspaper, to make closer acquaintance with these demonstrations and to place their experience at the disposal of all Russian comrades. And if they live they will not overlook the revolution which first and foremost will demand of us experience in agitation, ability to support (in a Social-Democratic manner) every protest and ability to direct the spontaneous movements, and to guard them from the mistakes of friends and the traps of enemies!

This brings us to the final argument that compels us to insist particularly upon a plan of organisation that shall be centred around an All-Russian newspaper to be brought about by means of joint work for the establishment of a common newspaper. Only such an organisation will secure flexibility necessary for the Social- Democratic militant organisation, i. e., an ability to adapt itself immediately to the most diverse and rapidly changing conditions of struggle, an ability to “renounce an open fight against overwhelming and concentrated forces, and yet capable of taking advantage of the awkwardness and immobility of the enemy and attack at a time and place where he least expects attack.” * It would be a grievous error indeed to build up the party organisation in the expectation only of outbreaks and street fighting, or only upon the “forward march of the drab, every-day struggle.” We must always carry on our every-day work and always be prepared for everything, because very frequently, it is almost impossible to foresee beforehand when periods of outbreaks will give way to periods of calm. And even in those cases when it is possible te do so, it will not be possible to utilise this foresight for the purpose of reconstructing our organisation, because in an autocratic country these changes from turmoil to calm take place with astonishing rapidity and are sometimes due merely to a single night raid by the tsarist janizaries. And the revolution itself must not by any means be regarded as a single act (as Nadezhdin apparently imagines) but as a series of more or less powerful outbreaks rapidly alternating with more or less intense calm. For that reason, the principal content of the activity of our party organisation, the “trick” of this activity should be, to carry on work that is possible and necessary both in the period of the most powerful outbreaks as well as in periods of complete calm, that is to say: work of political agitation linked up over the whole of Russia, that will enlighten all aspects of life and will be carried on among the broadest possible strata of the masses. But this work cannot possibly be carried on in contemporary Russia without an All-Russian newspaper, issued very frequently. An organisation that is built up around this newspaper, an organisation of collaborators of this paper (collaborators in the broad sense of the word, i. e., all those working for it) will be ready for everything, from protecting the honour, the prestige, and continuity of the party in periods of acute revolutionary “depression” to preparing for, commencing and carrying out the national armed insurrection.

> * Iskra, No. 4, “Where to Begin.” “Revolutionary culturists who do not accept the eve of the revolution point-of-view, are not in the least disturbed by the prospect of working for a long period of time,” writes Nadezhdin [p. 62]. On this we shall observe: unless we are able to devise political tactics and an organisational plan based precisely upon calculations for work over a long period of time and at the same time, in the very process of this work, put our party into readiness to spring to its post and fulfil its duty at the very first, even unexpected, call, as soon as the progress of events becomes accelerated, we will prove to be but miserable political adventurers. Only Nadezhdin, who only yesterday began to describe himself as a Social-Democrat, can forget that the aim of Social-Democracy is radically to transform the conditions of life of the whole of humanity and that for that reason it is not permissible for Social-Democrats to be “disturbed” by the question of the duration of the work.

Indeed, picture to yourselves a very ordinary occurrence with us, —the complete discovery and arrest of our organisation in one or several localities. In view of the fact that all the local organisations lack a single, common regular task, such raids frequently result in the interruption of our work for many months. If, however, all the local organisations had one common task, then, in the event of a serious raid, two or three energetic persons could in the course of a few weeks establish new youth circles, which, as is well known, spring up very quickly even now, and link them up with the centre, and when this common task, which has been interrupted by the raid, is apparent to all, the new circles could spring up and link themselves up with it even more rapidly.

On the other hand, picture to yourselves a popular uprising. Probably every one will now agree that we must think of this uprising and prepare for it. But how to prepare for it? Surely the Central Committee cannot appoint agents to go to all the districts for the purpose of preparing for the uprising! Even if we had a Central Committee it could achieve nothing by making such appointments considering the conditions prevailing in contemporary Russia. On the contrary, a network of agents * that would automatically be created in the course of establishing and distributing a common newspaper would not have to “sit around and wait” for the call to rebellion, but would carry on the regular work that would guarantee the highest probability of success in the event of a rebellion. Such work would strengthen our contacts with the broadest strata of the masses of the workers and with all those strata who are discontented with the autocracy and who are so important to have in the event of an uprising. It is precisely such work that would help to cultivate the ability properly to estimate the general political situation and consequently, the ability to select the proper moment for the uprising. It is precisely such work that would train all local organisations to respond simultaneously to the same political questions, incidents and events that excite the whole of Russia, to react to these “events” in the most vigorous, uniform and expedient manner possible; for is not rebellion in essence the most vigorous, most uniform and most expedient “reaction” of the whole people to the conduct of the government? And finally, such work would train all revolutionary organisations all over Russia to maintain the most continuous and at the same time the most secret contact with each other, which will create real Party unity,—for without such contacts it will be impossible collectively to discuss the plan of rebellion and to take the necessary preparatory measures on the eve of it, which must be kept in the strictest secrecy.

> * Alas, alas! Again I have Ist slip that awful word “agents” which jars so awfully on the democratic ear, of Martynov! I wonder why this word did not offend the sensibilities of the heroes of the seventies and yet offends the amateurs of the nineties? I like the word, bcause it clearly and distinctly indicates the common cause to which all the agents bend their thoughts and actions and if I had to replace this word by another, the only word I would select would be the word “collaborator” if it did not suggest literariness and diffusiveness. The thing we need is a militant organism of agents. The numerous (particularly abroad) Martynovs whose favourite pastime is “playing at generals” may instead of saying “passport agent” prefer to say, “Chief of the Special Department for Supplying Revolutionists with Passports,” etc.

In a word, the “plan for an All-Russian political newspaper” does not represent the fruits of the work of armchair workers, infected with dogmatism and literariness (as it seemed to those who failed to study it properly), on the contrary it is a practical plan to commence immediately to prepare on all sides for the uprising, while at the same time never for a moment forgetting the ordinary, every-day work.

[← 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/) [Conclusion →](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/lenin-what-is-to-be-done-1902/28-conclusion/)

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/).