Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

Contents

1. Preface 9 min 9

   Written before the Potemkin mutiny of June 1905, the pamphlet asks not only what the revolution will teach the workers but whether Social-Democrats can teach the revolution something: put a proletarian stamp on it and carry it to a decisive victory despite the wavering of the liberal bourgeoisie. That depends on correct tactical slogans, so Lenin proposes to compare the resolutions of the Bolshevik Third Congress and the Menshevik Conference of spring 1905.

2. 1 An Urgent Political Question 8 min 9

   Three trends face the question of a constituent assembly: the tsarist government, which offers at most a consultative body; the liberal bourgeoisie, which seeks a deal with the tsar; and the revolutionary proletariat, which demands the overthrow of tsarism and a provisional revolutionary government. Lenin defines tactics, lists the four questions a party must answer about such a government, and quotes in full the Third Congress resolution on it.

3. 2 What Does the Resolution of the Third Congress of the RSDLP on a Provisional Revolutionary Government Give Us? 17 min 9

   Lenin explains the Third Congress resolution: a provisional revolutionary government, born of a victorious uprising, alone can convene a real constituent assembly, win a republic and carry out the minimum programme; the revolution will strengthen the bourgeoisie, so the proletariat must prepare for new struggles. Socialism cannot be introduced at once in Russia. Social-Democrats may in principle join such a government, under strict party control, and must in any case press on it from below with an armed proletariat.

4. 3 What Is a “Decisive Victory of the Revolution over Tsarism”? 13 min 12

   The Menshevik resolution confuses the democratic and socialist revolutions and treats as a “decisive victory” either an uprising or a representative body’s decision to call a constituent assembly. Lenin calls the second a victory in words only, like the decisions of the Frankfurt Parliament of 1848, traces the error to the “Economists’” theory of stages, and notes that the resolution forgets to mention the republic at all.

5. 4 The Abolition of the Monarchical System and the Republic 14 min 6

   The Conference speaks vaguely of the “abolition of the regime of estates and monarchy” through a mutual struggle of classes, where the congress calls the proletariat to fight for a democratic republic and against the counter-revolution. Lenin compares the Mensheviks to the old “Economists”, mocks their historical detachment, objects to a government that “regulates” the class struggle, and cites Marx’s eleventh thesis on Feuerbach.

6. 5 How Should “the Revolution Be Pushed Forward”? 8 min 8

   To push the revolution forward, Social-Democrats need slogans the liberals cannot accept: a provisional revolutionary government and a republic. The Conference’s slogans coincide with those of the monarchist bourgeoisie, while the congress allies the workers with the revolutionary peasantry. A revolution carried through to the end would be one in which the peasant and proletarian element predominates, which raises the question of what “bourgeois revolution” means.

7. 6 Where Does the Danger Come From That the Proletariat Will Find Its Hands Tied in the Struggle against the Inconsistent Bourgeoisie? 35 min 28

   The Russian revolution is bourgeois, but that does not make it the bourgeoisie’s revolution: the proletariat has the greatest interest in carrying it through most completely, while the bourgeoisie wants it cut short. There are two possible outcomes: a decisive victory, which can only be the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, or a deal between tsarism and the liberals. Only the first saves Social-Democracy from “tied hands”; the new-Iskrists’ tailism leads to the second.

8. 7 The Tactic of “Removing the Conservatives from the Government” 11 min 15

   Lenin quotes an article from the Tiflis Menshevik paper that proposes, instead of preparing an uprising, to make the expected Zemsky Sobor the centre of action, “removing the conservatives from the government” by pressure. He mocks it as parliamentary cretinism without a parliament, notes that it forgets the peasantry entirely, and points out that the new Iskra praised the paper as brilliantly edited.

9. 8 Osvobozhdenie-ism and New-Iskrism 18 min 16

   Struve’s article “How to Find Oneself” shows the liberal bourgeoisie’s position: class co-operation, distrust of republicanism, the claim that in civil war the attacker is in the wrong, and talk of the “inevitability” of an uprising instead of its necessity. Lenin compares the new-Iskrists’ resolution on the uprising with Struve’s and with the Third Congress’s, and concludes that their philosophy has become a rehash of Osvobozhdenie’s.

10. 9 What Does It Mean to Be a Party of Extreme Opposition in Time of Revolution? 9 min 9

    The Conference resolution aims at leading a victorious uprising but refuses to share power in the government it would produce, choosing to remain the “party of extreme revolutionary opposition”. Lenin argues that this parliamentary formula, correct against Millerandism, makes no sense in a revolution, where opposition means overthrowing the government, seizing its treasury and arming the people.

11. 10 “Revolutionary Communes” and the Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry 26 min 17

    Lenin examines the Menshevik Conference’s concession that “revolutionary communes” and partial seizures of power may be expedient. This, he says, admits action “from above” in principle, while the vague, borrowed word “commune” gives no programme; the Paris Commune is a model of what to avoid. He defends the slogan of a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry: their “unity of will” is possible against autocracy, though not on socialism, and a decisive victory could spread revolution to Europe. A note distinguishes democratic from socialist revolution.

12. 11 A Cursory Comparison of Some Resolutions of the Third Congress of the RSDLP and of the “Conference” 12 min 10

    A brief comparison of the other resolutions of the Bolshevik Third Congress and the Menshevik Conference: on the government’s concessions and the eight-hour day, on preparing for open activity, on the peasantry (revolutionary peasant committees now, against waiting for a constituent assembly) and on other parties. Lenin mocks the Mensheviks’ “litmus-paper” conditions for supporting liberals, which the “Russian Liberation Union” would satisfy, and calls instead for real unity in struggle with constant criticism.

13. 12 Will the Sweep of the Democratic Revolution Be Weakened if the Bourgeoisie Recoils from It? 24 min 14

    The Caucasian Mensheviks’ resolution refuses to enter a provisional government lest the bourgeoisie “recoil” and the revolution’s sweep be weakened. Lenin calls this the essence of tailism, a revived “Economism” that hands the revolution to the liberals. The real sweep, he argues, will begin only when the bourgeoisie recoils and the peasantry, interested in the landlords’ land, joins the proletariat: first a democratic revolution with the peasantry, then a socialist one with the semi-proletarians.

14. 13 Conclusion. Dare We Win? 27 min 14

    Lenin rejects the view that Bolsheviks and Mensheviks represent two reconcilable tendencies. The party already does the everyday work; its real danger is backwardness in preparing the uprising. The Mensheviks, like the German revisionists and the old Economists, fear victory (“Dare we win?”). The democratic revolution is bourgeois, but the proletariat must lead it boldly, with the peasantry, for a republic, and then lead all the exploited towards socialism. Revolutions are “festivals of the oppressed”.

15. Epilogue: Once Again Osvobozhdenie-ism, Once Again New-Iskrism 1 h 6 min 46

    Lenin answers new articles in Osvobozhdenie and Iskra. The liberals’ praise of the Mensheviks’ “realism” and their censure of Bolshevik “rebelliousness” show, by the bourgeoisie’s class instinct, which wing is opportunist: the bourgeoisie wants the workers confined to trade unionism, Social-Democracy wants them to lead the revolution. Against Martynov’s charge of “substituting” dictatorship for revolution, Lenin argues that once even liberals recognise the revolution its content must be defined: a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. Marx in 1848, and Engels on Stephan Born, are cited in support.