13. Conclusion. Dare We Win?

People who are superficially acquainted with the state of affairs in Russian Social-Democracy, or who judge it from outside, without knowing the history of our whole internal party struggle since the days of “Economism”, very often dismiss even the tactical disagreements that have now taken shape, especially after the Third Congress, with a simple reference to two natural, inevitable and quite reconcilable tendencies in every Social-Democratic movement. On the one hand, they say, there is a heavy emphasis on ordinary, current, everyday work, on the necessity of developing propaganda and agitation, preparing forces, deepening the movement, and so on. On the other hand, there is an emphasis on the militant, general political and revolutionary tasks of the movement, an insistence on the necessity of armed uprising, the putting forward of the slogans of a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship and a provisional revolutionary government. Neither side should be exaggerated; extremes are bad both here and there (as everywhere in the world), etc., etc.

The cheap truths of worldly (and “political” in inverted commas) wisdom that such arguments undoubtedly contain all too often cover up, however, a failure to understand the urgent and pressing needs of the party. Take the present tactical disagreements among Russian Social-Democrats. Of course, the heavy emphasis on the everyday, routine side of the work that we see in the new-Iskrist arguments about tactics could not in itself present any danger or give rise to any divergence in tactical slogans. But it is enough to compare the resolutions of the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party with the resolutions of the Conference for this divergence to leap to the eye.

What is the matter, then? First, that a general, abstract reference to two currents in the movement and to the harmfulness of extremes is not enough. One must know concretely what the given movement is suffering from at the given moment, and what the real political danger to the party consists of now. Secondly, one must know to what real political forces this or that tactical slogan (or perhaps this or that absence of slogans) brings grist to the mill. Listen to the new-Iskrists, and you will come to the conclusion that the Social-Democratic Party is threatened with the danger of throwing propaganda and agitation, the economic struggle and the criticism of bourgeois democracy overboard, of becoming excessively absorbed in military preparation, armed attacks, the seizure of power, and so on. In fact the real danger threatens the party from quite a different side. Whoever is at all closely acquainted with the state of the movement, whoever follows it attentively and thoughtfully, cannot fail to see the ridiculous side of the new-Iskrists’ fears. The whole work of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party has already taken firm, unchanging shape, which absolutely ensures that the centre of gravity lies in propaganda and agitation, in flying meetings and mass meetings, in the distribution of leaflets and pamphlets, in assisting the economic struggle and taking up its slogans. There is not a single party committee, not a single district committee, not a single central meeting, not a single factory group in which ninety-nine hundredths of the attention, forces and time are not always and constantly devoted to all these functions, which have been firmly established since the second half of the nineties. Only people wholly unacquainted with the movement do not know this. Only very naive or ill-informed people can take at face value the new-Iskrist repetition of stale truths when it is done with a particularly important air.

The fact is that, far from being excessively absorbed in the tasks of the uprising, in general political slogans, in the business of leading the whole people’s revolution, we are, on the contrary, glaringly backward precisely in this respect; this is our sorest spot, it is a real danger to a movement that may degenerate, and in places is degenerating, from being revolutionary in deed into being revolutionary in word. Among the many, many hundreds of organisations, groups and circles that carry on the work of the party, you will not find one that has not, from the very moment it arose, carried on the everyday work of which the sages of the new Iskra tell us with the air of people who have discovered new truths. And, on the contrary, you will find an insignificant percentage of groups and circles that have grasped the tasks of armed uprising, have set about carrying them out, and have realised the necessity of leading the whole people’s revolution against tsarism, the necessity of putting forward for this purpose these and no other advanced slogans.

We are incredibly behind the advanced and genuinely revolutionary tasks; in a great many cases we have not yet grasped them; here and there we have let the revolutionary bourgeois democracy grow stronger at the expense of our backwardness in this respect. And the writers of the new Iskra, turning their backs on the course of events and the demands of the times, stubbornly repeat: do not forget the old! do not be carried away by the new! That is the basic, unchanging motif of all the essential resolutions of the Conference, whereas in the resolutions of the Congress you just as unchangingly read: while confirming the old (and not stopping to chew it over, precisely because it is old, already settled and consolidated in literature, resolutions and experience), we put forward a new task, draw attention to it, advance a new slogan, and demand of genuinely revolutionary Social-Democrats immediate work to put it into practice.

That is how the question of the two trends in the tactics of Social-Democracy really stands. The revolutionary epoch has brought forward new tasks, which only the totally blind fail to see. And some Social-Democrats resolutely recognise these tasks and put them on the order of the day: armed uprising is urgent, prepare for it immediately and energetically, remember that it is necessary for a decisive victory, put forward the slogans of a republic, a provisional government, a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. Others, however, back away, mark time, give prefaces instead of slogans; instead of pointing out the new alongside confirming the old, they chew over the old at length and tediously, inventing excuses to avoid the new, unable to define the conditions of a decisive victory, unable to put forward the only slogans that correspond to the aim of achieving complete victory.

The political result of this tailism is plain for us to see. The fable of a rapprochement of the “majority” of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party with revolutionary bourgeois democracy remains a fable, not confirmed by a single political fact, by a single influential resolution of the “Bolsheviks”, by a single act of the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Meanwhile the opportunist, monarchist bourgeoisie, in the person of Osvobozhdenie, has long welcomed the tendencies “in principle” of new-Iskrism, and now it is directly turning its mill with their water, taking up all their catchwords and “little ideas” against “conspiracy” and “riot”, against exaggerating the “technical” side of the revolution, against openly putting forward the slogan of armed uprising, against the “revolutionism” of extreme demands, etc., etc. The resolution of a whole conference of Social-Democratic “Mensheviks” in the Caucasus, and the approval of this resolution by the editors of the new Iskra, sum up the political result of all this unambiguously: so that the bourgeoisie does not recoil if the proletariat takes part in a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship! That says everything. That finally consolidates the conversion of the proletariat into a hanger-on of the monarchist bourgeoisie. That proves in practice, not by the chance statement of one person but by a resolution specially approved by a whole trend, the political significance of new-Iskrist tailism.

Whoever thinks over these facts will understand the real significance of the current references to two sides and two tendencies of the Social-Democratic movement. Take Bernsteinism to study these tendencies on a large scale. The Bernsteinians, too, repeated and repeat word for word that it is precisely they who understand the true needs of the proletariat, the tasks of the growth of its strength, of deepening all the work, of preparing the elements of a new society, of propaganda and agitation. We demand an open recognition of what is! says Bernstein, thereby sanctifying “movement” without a “final aim”, sanctifying a merely defensive tactic, preaching the tactic of fear “lest the bourgeoisie recoil”. And the Bernsteinians, too, shouted about the “Jacobinism” of the revolutionary Social-Democrats, about “literary men” who do not understand “the workers’ own initiative”, etc., etc. In fact, as everyone knows, the revolutionary Social-Democrats never thought of abandoning everyday, petty work, the preparation of forces, etc., etc. They only demanded a clear awareness of the final aim and a clear statement of the revolutionary tasks; they wanted to raise the semi-proletarian and semi-petty-bourgeois strata to the revolutionary level of the proletariat, not to lower the latter to opportunist considerations “lest the bourgeoisie recoil”. Perhaps the most vivid expression of this rift between the intellectual-opportunist and the proletarian-revolutionary wing of the party was the question: Dürfen wir siegen? “Dare we win?” Is it permissible for us to win? Is it not dangerous for us to win? Ought we to win? This question, strange as it seems at first sight, was nevertheless raised, and had to be raised, because the opportunists were afraid of victory, frightened the proletariat away from it, prophesied misfortunes from it, and ridiculed the slogans that called directly for it.

We have the same basic division into an intellectual-opportunist and a proletarian-revolutionary tendency, with the one very important difference that the question concerns not a socialist but a democratic revolution. With us, too, the question that seems absurd at first sight has been raised: “Dare we win?” It has been raised by Martynov in his Two Dictatorships, which prophesied misfortunes if we prepared the uprising very well and carried it out quite successfully. It has been raised by the whole literature of the new-Iskrists on the question of the provisional revolutionary government, in which they zealously but unsuccessfully tried all the time to confuse Millerand’s participation in a bourgeois-opportunist government with Varlin’s participation in a petty-bourgeois revolutionary government. It has been consolidated by the resolution “lest the bourgeoisie recoil”. And although Kautsky, for example, now tries to be ironical and says that our disputes about a provisional revolutionary government are like dividing the skin of a bear that has not yet been killed, this irony only shows how even clever and revolutionary Social-Democrats put their foot in it when they talk about something they know only by hearsay. German Social-Democracy is not yet so very near to killing its bear (carrying out the socialist revolution), but the dispute about whether we “dare” kill it was of enormous importance in principle and in practical politics. Russian Social-Democrats are not yet so very near to being strong enough to “kill their bear” (carry out the democratic revolution), but the question whether we “dare” kill it is of extremely serious importance for the whole future of Russia and for the future of Russian Social-Democracy. There can be no question of energetically and successfully mustering an army and leading it without confidence that we “dare” win.

Take our old “Economists”. They too shouted that their opponents were conspirators, Jacobins (see Rabocheye Dyelo, especially No. 10, and Martynov’s speech in the debate on the programme at the Second Congress), that they were cutting themselves off from the masses by throwing themselves into politics, that they were forgetting the foundations of the labour movement, ignoring the workers’ own initiative, and so on and so forth. In fact these supporters of “the workers’ own initiative” were opportunist intellectuals who imposed on the workers their own narrow and philistine understanding of the tasks of the proletariat. In fact the opponents of “Economism”, as anyone can see from the old Iskra, did not abandon or push into the background a single aspect of Social-Democratic work, did not in the least forget the economic struggle, while at the same time being able to set out in full breadth the urgent and immediate political tasks, and resisting the conversion of the workers’ party into an “economic” appendage of the liberal bourgeoisie.

The Economists had learned by rote that politics is based on economics, and “understood” this to mean that the political struggle must be lowered to the level of the economic struggle. The new-Iskrists have learned by rote that the economic basis of the democratic revolution is the bourgeois revolution, and “understood” this to mean that the democratic tasks of the proletariat must be lowered to the level of bourgeois moderation, to the limit beyond which “the bourgeoisie will recoil”. The “Economists”, on the pretext of deepening the work, on the pretext of the workers’ own initiative and a purely class policy, in fact handed the working class over to the liberal-bourgeois politicians, that is, they led the party along a road whose objective significance was exactly that. The new-Iskrists, on the very same pretexts, in fact betray the interests of the proletariat in the democratic revolution to the bourgeoisie, that is, they lead the party along a road whose objective significance is exactly that. It seemed to the “Economists” that leadership in the political struggle was not the business of the Social-Democrats but properly the business of the liberals. It seems to the new-Iskrists that the active carrying through of the democratic revolution is not the business of the Social-Democrats but properly the business of the democratic bourgeoisie, for the leadership and the leading participation of the proletariat would “weaken the sweep” of the revolution.

In a word, the new-Iskrists are epigones of “Economism” not only by their origin at the Second Congress of the party but also by the way they now set the tactical tasks of the proletariat in the democratic revolution. They too are the intellectual-opportunist wing of the party. In organisation it made its debut with the anarchist individualism of intellectuals and ended with “disorganisation as a process”, consolidating in the “rules” adopted by the Conference the separation of the literary men from the party organisation, indirect, almost four-stage elections, a system of Bonapartist plebiscites instead of democratic representation, and finally the principle of “agreement” between the part and the whole. In the party’s tactics they slid down the same inclined plane. In the “plan of the Zemstvo campaign” they declared appearances before the Zemstvo men to be “the highest type of demonstration”, finding only two active forces on the political scene (on the eve of the Ninth of January!): the government and the bourgeois democrats. They “deepened” the urgent task of arming by replacing the direct practical slogan with a call to arm the people with a burning need to arm themselves. The tasks of armed uprising, of the provisional government and of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship have now been distorted and blunted by them in their official resolutions. “Lest the bourgeoisie recoil”: this final chord of their latest resolution throws a full light on the question of where their road is leading the party.

The democratic revolution in Russia is, by its social and economic essence, a bourgeois revolution. It is not enough simply to repeat this correct Marxist proposition. One must know how to understand it and how to apply it to political slogans. All political freedom in general, on the basis of present-day, that is, capitalist, relations of production, is bourgeois freedom. The demand for freedom expresses first of all the interests of the bourgeoisie. Its representatives were the first to put forward this demand. Its supporters everywhere used the freedom they had obtained as masters, reducing it to a moderate and tidy bourgeois measure, combining it with the most refined suppression of the revolutionary proletariat in peaceful times and the most brutal in times of storm.

But only the rebel Narodniks, the anarchists and the “Economists” could deduce from this a rejection or a belittling of the struggle for freedom. These intellectual-philistine doctrines could be imposed on the proletariat only for a time, only against its resistance. The proletariat grasped by instinct that it needs political freedom, needs it more than anyone else, even though this freedom will directly strengthen and organise the bourgeoisie. The proletariat expects its salvation not from avoiding the class struggle but from developing it, from increasing its breadth, consciousness, organisation and determination. Whoever belittles the tasks of the political struggle turns the Social-Democrat from a tribune of the people into a trade-union secretary. Whoever belittles the proletarian tasks in the democratic bourgeois revolution turns the Social-Democrat from a leader of the people’s revolution into the leader of a free labour union.

Yes, of the people’s revolution. Social-Democracy has fought, and fights with every right, against the bourgeois-democratic abuse of the word “people”. It demands that this word should not be used to cover up a failure to understand the class antagonisms within the people. It insists unconditionally on the necessity of the complete class independence of the party of the proletariat. But it divides the “people” into “classes” not so that the advanced class should shut itself up in itself, confine itself to a narrow measure and emasculate its activity with considerations lest the economic masters of the world recoil, but so that the advanced class, not suffering from the half-heartedness, instability and indecision of the intermediate classes, should fight with all the greater energy and all the greater enthusiasm for the cause of the whole people, at the head of the whole people.

That is what the present-day new-Iskrists so often fail to understand, replacing the putting forward of active political slogans in the democratic revolution with a hair-splitting repetition of the word “class” in all genders and cases!

The democratic revolution is bourgeois. The slogan of a black repartition, or of “Land and Liberty”, the most widespread slogan of the peasant mass, downtrodden and ignorant but passionately seeking light and happiness, is bourgeois. But we Marxists must know that there is not and cannot be any other road to real freedom for the proletariat and the peasantry than the road of bourgeois freedom and bourgeois progress. We must not forget that there is not and cannot be at the present time any other means of bringing socialism nearer than complete political freedom, than a democratic republic, than the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. As representatives of the advanced class, the only class that is revolutionary without reservations, without doubts, without looking back, we must put the tasks of the democratic revolution before the whole people as broadly, as boldly and with as much initiative as possible. To belittle these tasks is in theory a caricature of Marxism and a philistine distortion of it, and in practical politics it means handing over the cause of the revolution to the bourgeoisie, which will inevitably recoil from carrying the revolution through consistently. The difficulties that stand in the way of the complete victory of the revolution are very great. No one will be able to blame the representatives of the proletariat if they do everything in their power and all their efforts are shattered against the resistance of reaction, the treachery of the bourgeoisie and the ignorance of the masses. But everyone, and above all the class-conscious proletariat, will condemn Social-Democracy if it curtails the revolutionary energy of the democratic revolution and curtails revolutionary enthusiasm through fear of winning, through considerations lest the bourgeoisie recoil. Revolutions are the locomotives of history, said Marx. Revolutions are festivals of the oppressed and the exploited. At no other time are the masses of the people capable of coming forward as such active creators of a new social order as at a time of revolution. At such times the people are capable of working miracles, judged by the narrow, philistine yardstick of gradualist progress. But the leaders of the revolutionary parties, too, must set their tasks more broadly and boldly at such a time, so that their slogans always go ahead of the revolutionary initiative of the masses, serving as a beacon for them, showing our democratic and socialist ideal in all its grandeur and all its splendour, showing the nearest and most direct road to complete, unconditional and decisive victory. Let us leave it to the opportunists of the Osvobozhdenie bourgeoisie to invent, out of fear of the revolution and fear of the direct road, roundabout, circuitous roads of compromise. If we are forced by violence to drag ourselves along such roads, we shall be able to do our duty in petty everyday work too. But let a ruthless struggle first decide the question of the choice of road. We shall be traitors to and betrayers of the revolution if we do not use this festive energy of the masses and their revolutionary enthusiasm for a ruthless and self-sacrificing struggle for the direct and decisive road. Let the opportunists of the bourgeoisie think in a cowardly way of the reaction to come. The workers will not be frightened either by the thought that the reaction intends to be terrible or by the thought that the bourgeoisie intends to recoil. The workers do not expect deals, they do not ask for sops; they strive to crush the forces of reaction ruthlessly, that is, for the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.

Of course, in stormy times greater dangers threaten our party ship than in the calm “sailing” of liberal progress, which means the painfully slow squeezing of the juice out of the working class by its exploiters. Of course, the tasks of a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship are a thousand times more difficult and complex than the tasks of an “extreme opposition” and of the parliamentary struggle alone. But whoever, at the present revolutionary moment, is consciously capable of preferring peaceful sailing and the path of safe “opposition” had better withdraw from Social-Democratic work for a time, let him wait for the end of the revolution, when the festival is over and the workdays begin again, when his workaday narrow yardstick will not be such a disgusting dissonance, such an ugly distortion of the tasks of the advanced class.

At the head of the whole people, and particularly of the peasantry, for complete freedom, for a consistent democratic revolution, for a republic! At the head of all the toilers and the exploited, for socialism! Such in practice must be the policy of the revolutionary proletariat; such is the class slogan that must permeate and determine the solution of every tactical question and every practical step of the workers’ party during the revolution.