Truth is always concrete. The bourgeois liberal prostitutes are trying to drape themselves in the toga of revolution. Flag this item for. Let us see whether the restrictions imposed by the Conference on the formation of revolutionary governments and participation in them, which is now admitted in principle, are reasonable. Social-Democrats often express this idea somewhat differently by stating that the bourgeoisie betrays its own self, that the bourgeoisie betrays the cause of liberty, that the bourgeoisie is incapable of being consistently democratic. Let us leave aside the forces of foreign politics, of international combinations, which have turned out very favourably for us at the present time, but which we all leave out of our discussion, and rightly so, inasmuch as we are concerned with the question of the internal forces of Russia. We are told, for in stance, of a "process of mutual struggle between the elements of politically emancipated bourgeois society". 52) was hailed with noise and clamour by the Osvobozhdeniye as a "noteworthy turn" towards concessions to the opportunists. The absurdity of admitting the possibility of an insurrection and not admitting the possibility of victory and participation in a provisional revolutionary government was too glaring. Undoubtedly, the revolution will teach us, and will teach the masses of the people. that "the open nature of revolutionary action" (that's the sort of fellows we are today!) The article in the organ of the Tiflis Menshevik "Committee" (Sotsial-Demokrat, No. The foregoing lines were already written when we received a copy of the resolutions adopted by the Caucasian Conference of the new Iskra supporters, published by the Iskra. No_Favorite. We must be perfectly clear in our minds as to what real social forces are opposed to "tsarism" (which is a real force, perfectly intelligible to all) and are capable of gaining a "decisive victory" over it. By and large all the infinite variety of detail and combinations, which no one is able to foresee, lead to one or the other. Those who have eyes to see can have no doubt as to how the question of armed insurrection must be presented by the partisans of revolution at the present time. The Economists had learned by rote that politics are based on economics and "understood" this to mean that the political struggle should be reduced to the level of the economic struggle. That is where anarchist ideas become interwoven (as is constantly the case among the West-European Bernsteinians also) with the purest opportunism. And such a "victory" is put side by side with the establishment of a provisional government which will "emerge from a victorious popular insurrection"!! The tactical slogans you have formulated in the name of the Conference coincide with the slogans of the "Constitutional-Democratic" Party, i.e., the party of the monarchist bourgeoisie; moreover, you have not even noticed or realised this coincidence, thus actually following in the wake of the Osvobozhdeniye fraternity. The answer given by the Conference however, by artificially and arbitrarily singling out a part of the question, merely evades (but unsuccessfully) the issue as a whole, and creates confusion. Marxism has irrevocably broken with the ravings of the Narodniks and the anarchists to the effect that Russia, for instance, can avoid capitalist development, jump out of capitalism, or skip over it and proceed along some path other than the path of the class struggle on the basis and within the framework of this same capitalism. The resolution therefore adds that the revolution will strengthen the rule of the bourgeoisie. Advanced embedding details, examples, and help! The Congress resolution calls on a definite class to wage a struggle for a precisely defined immediate aim. As has justly been remarked in the legal press by a certain liberal (Mr. Gredeskul), actual insubordination to this government has set in. This idea verges closely on the above-mentioned trends of the new Iskra ideas. But we Marxists all know from theory and from daily and hourly observation of our liberals, Zemstvo people and Orvobozhdentsi, that the bourgeoisie is inconsistent, self-seeking and cowardly in its support of the revolution. Let us pass on to Martynov's articles in Nos. It is exceptionally important at the present time for Social-Democracy to have correct tactical slogans for leading the masses. The misuse of terms is a most common practice in politics. Finally, the savage obstinacy of the autocracy, the enormous progress of the civil war and the hopelessness of the position into which the monarchists have led Russia have begun to penetrate even the thickest skulls. In reality, as everyone knows, the revolutionary Social-Democrats have never even thought of abandoning the everyday, petty work, the mustering of forces, etc., etc. To advance the revolution, to take it beyond the limits to which the monarchist bourgeoisie advances it, it is necessary actively to produce, emphasise, and bring into the forefront slogans that will preclude the "inconsistency" of bourgeois democracy. Just think of it: not to join a provisional government because this will cause the bourgeoisie to recoil from the revolution and thus diminish the sweep of the revolution! And the peasant who is fighting, arms in hand, against the landlords and the government officials and with a "naïve republicanism" proposes "to send the tsar packing"[14], is also a bourgeois-democrat. This follows from the fact that it is not only the proletariat that is interested and takes an active part in a democratic revolution. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders. What does this mean? Born hucksters, they hate struggle and revolution, but circumstances force them to tread the ground of revolution, for there is no other ground under their feet. Now the new-Iskraists are setting "terms" that are even "stricter," they are "demanding" from the enemies of tsarism "energetic and unequivocal" (!?) This is the professed aim of all our legal liberal newspapers, nearly all of which are of the Osvobozhdeniye trend. Speaking of the probable dissatisfaction of Marx and Engels with the agitation conducted by Stephan Born, Mehring expresses himself too mildly and too evasively. Either 1) the result will be a "decisive victory of the revolution over tsarism," or 2) the forces will be inadequate for a decisive victory and the matter will end in a deal between tsarism and the most "inconsistent" and most "self-seeking" elements of the bourgeoisie. Comrade Martynov Again Renders the Question “More Profound”, The Vulgar Bourgeois Representation of Dictatorship and Marx’s View of It. It is an old trick Mr. Struve! The material prepared by Lenin for this book, his It seems willing to agree, if we are to believe the newspaper reports on the work of the Bulygin Commission, to an advisory assembly, to be elected without freedom to conduct agitation, and on the basis of restricted qualifications or a restricted class system. Somebody must convene the constituent assembly, somebody must guarantee the freedom and fairness of the elections; somebody must invest such an assembly with full power and authority. But it would be an even greater mistake to forget that in the final analysis these bourgeois-distorted opinions reflect the real interests of the bourgeoisie, which, as a class, undoubtedly understands correctly which trends in Social-Democracy are advantageous, close, akin and agreeable, and which trends are harmful, distant, alien and antipathetic to it. Undoubtedly it was right, because the political situation in Russia does not at all give rise to such questions as immediate issues. Let anyone now say that we exaggerate the new Iskra-ists' turn to the most vulgar semblance of Economism. Despite all its apparent strength the autocracy has proved impotent; the events attending the developing revolution have simply begun to brush aside this parasitic organism which is rotting alive. —Lenin, [26] At the present revolutionary juncture the question of the convocation of a popular constituent assembly is on the order of the day. What Do The Bourgeois Liberal Realists Praise The Social-Democratic "Realists" For? The difference between us in this respect is that we march side by side with the revolutionary and republican bourgeoisie, without merging with it, whereas you march side by side with the liberal and the monarchist bourgeoisie, without merging with it either. Such is the political situation at the present time. To designate these reforms as "helping to spread the insurrection" would be playing with words and deliberately causing greater confusion in a matter which requires absolute clarity. On the other hand, if we are destined to live through a really great revolution, if history prevents a "miscarriage" this time, if we are strong enough to carry the revolution to a successful conclusion, to a decisive victory, not in the Osvobozhdeniye or the new Iskra sense of the word, then it will be a revolution in which the peasant and proletarian element will preponderate. We shall be traitors to and betrayers of the revolution if we do not use this festive energy of the masses and their revolutionary ardour to wage a ruthless and self-sacrificing struggle for the direct and decisive path. Until then they were merely running an "organ of democracy" unconnected by any organisational ties with an independent workers' party. of course, the special emphasis laid on the everyday, routine aspect of the work, such as we observe in the new Iskra-ist arguments about tactics, could not in itself present any danger and could not give rise to any divergence of opinion regarding tactical slogans. 2) The foundation for the full consummation of a democratic revolution is the creation of a free class of peasants. the centre of our actions. Such people repeat the words of our agrarian program that they have learned by rote without understanding their meaning, for otherwise they would not be frightened by the concept of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, which inevitably follows from the entire Marxian world outlook and from our program; otherwise they would not restrict the sweep of the great Russian revolution to the limits to which the bourgeoisie is prepared to go. This nonsense has been openly endorsed by the "Iskra" in No. Marxism teaches the proletarian not to keep aloof from the bourgeois revolution, not to be indifferent to it, not to allow the leadership of the revolution to be assumed by the bourgeoisie but, on the contrary, to take a most energetic part in it, to fight most resolutely for consistent proletarian democracy, for carrying the revolution to its conclusion. Thus, even from the point of view that an armed insurrection is the inevitable consummation of the present struggle for emancipation—a view I do not share—the permeation of the masses with ideas of democratic reform is a most fundamental and most necessary task.". With this new formulation you have confirmed our contention that the Iskra is dragging at the tail of the revolution, is straying into an Osvobozhdeniye formulation of its tasks, whereas the Vperyod and the Proletary are issuing slogans that lead the democratic revolution forward. They even consent to lead the insurrection of the people—in order to renounce that leadership immediately after victory is won (or, perhaps, immediately before the victory? One of the objections raised to the slogan of "the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" is that dictatorship presupposes a "single will" (Iskra, No. What Can We Learn From the Resolution of the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. The bourgeois character of this liberty, which is demanded by "society" and advocated in a flood of words (and words only!) Lenin is referring to the book Aus demm literarische,. It is possible and probable that Messrs. the Osvobozhdentsi (whether the present ones or their successors in the Left wing of the bourgeois democrats makes no difference) will ascend another step, i.e., recognise in time (perhaps by the time Comrade Martynov goes up one more step) the slogan of dictatorship also. Does not Mr. Struve himself, the ideally moderate and punctilious Mr. Struve, say (alas, he says so only to evade the issue!) Is it permissible for us to win? At that time propaganda and agitation, agitation and propaganda, were really pushed to the fore by the objective state of affairs. And a decisive victory means nothing else than the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. But this Assembly bores the German people instead of carrying the people with it or being carried away by it [them]." They are satisfied—as if they had really become like the "man in the muffler"[18]—to converse dolefully about a "process of mutual struggle of antagonistic classes," when the question is one of giving democratic leadership in the present revolution, of emphasising progressive democratic slogans as distinguished from the treacherous slogans of Mr. Struve and Co., of bluntly and straight forwardly stating the immediate aims of the really revolutionary struggle of the proletariat and the peasantry, as distinguished from the liberal haggling of the landlords and factory owners. 3)[41], "and considers it to be the most expedient course to exercise pressure from without" (from below and not from above) "upon the bourgeois provisional government in order to secure a feasible measure" (?!) At a certain stage of development the uselessness of the old superstructure becomes obvious to all. The Osvobozhdeniye group prattle about a "constituent" assembly and bashfully shut their eyes to the fact that power and authority remain in the hands of the tsar, forgetting that in order to "constitute" one must possess the power to do so. Its past is autocracy, serfdom, monarchy and privilege. The Socialist-Revolutionaries cannot grasp this idea, for they are ignorant of the rudiments of the laws of development of commodity and capitalist production; they fail to see that even the complete success of a peasant insurrection, even the redistribution of the whole of the land for the benefit of the peasants and in accordance with their desires ("Black Redistribution" or something of that kind), will not destroy capitalism at all, but will, on the contrary, give an impetus to its development and hasten the class disintegration of the peasantry itself. Social-Democrats who write such disgraceful things in resolutions intended for the guidance of the whole Party, or who approve of such "apt" resolutions, are so blinded by their pedantry, which has utterly eroded the living spirit out of Marxism, that they do not see how these resolutions convert all their other fine words into mere phrase-mongering. Social-Democracy has fought, and is quite rightly fighting against the bourgeois-democratic abuse of the word "people." And the Osvobozhdentsi, i.e., the representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie, wish to settle accounts with the autocracy gently, in a reformist way, in a yielding manner, so as not to offend the aristocracy, the nobles, the Court—cautiously, without breaking anything—kindly and politely, as befits gentlemen in white gloves (like the ones Mr. Petrunkevich borrowed from a bashi-bazouk to wear at the reception of "representatives of the people"[?] —Lenin. Secret activity and riots are the specific methods of irrational revolutionism. All these principles of Marxism have been proved and explained over and over again in minute detail in general and with regard to Russia in particular. The more complete the democratic revolution, the sooner, the more widespread, the purer and the more determined will be the development of this new struggle. [5]" As we have already pointed out, the very manner in which the question is presented betrays confusion. ), "the Conference declares against the formation of a Social-Democratic provisional government and joining such a government" (recall the resolution passed by the Bakunists ten months before the Spanish revolution and referred to by Engels: see the Proletary, No. in the supplement to the Iskra, No. Among these was Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, first published as a pamphlet in Geneva in July 1905. The term "Socialist," for example, has often been appropriated by the supporters of English bourgeois liberalism ("We are all Socialists now"[46], said Harcourt), by the supporters of Bismarck, and by the friends of Pope Leo XIII. flag. 72-82). —Lenin, [36] These words are in English in the original.-Ed.—Lenin. Here, indeed, we have the new Iskra philosophy in its complete, pure and consistent form: the revolution is a bourgeois revolution, therefore we must bow down to bourgeois philistinism and make way for it. The fact is that not only is no excessive zeal displayed among us with regard to the tasks of insurrection, to the general political slogans and to the matter of leading the entire popular revolution, but, on the contrary, it is backwardness in this very respect that stands out most strikingly, constitutes our weakest spot and a real danger to the movement, which may degenerate, and in some places is degenerating, from one that is revolutionary in deeds into one that is revolutionary in words. Zürich, 1885[49]): That is how Engels judged the two tactics of Social Democracy in the democratic revolution! Having thus explained from all aspects the Party's policy with regard to action "from above"—this new, hitherto almost unprecedented method of struggle—the resolution also provides for the eventuality that we shall not be able to act from above. There is nothing more naïve and futile than attempts to set forth conditions and points[17], which if satisfied, would enable us to consider that the bourgeois democrat is a sincere friend of the people. We have already seen that in using this expression the new-Iskraists fail to grasp even its immediate political significance. "The Iskra admits," says Martynov in No. It is to this task that the present pamphlet is devoted. There is nothing more ridiculous than this pompous emphasis of the slogan "extreme opposition" in a resolution which begins by referring to a "decisive victory of the revolution" and to a "popular insurrection"! This program is the entire minimum program of our Party, the program of the immediate political and economic reforms which, on the one hand, can be fully realised on the basis of the existing social and economic relationships and, on the other hand, are requisite for the next step forward, for the achievement of Socialism. If in our fight for a republic and democracy we could not rely upon the peasantry as well as on the proletariat, the prospect of our "holding power" would be hopeless. And this answer covers all cases of local provisional governments as well. The Iskra itself could not but admit that this was the meaning of the Osvobozhdeniye's "realism." Such praise (which the Osvobozhdeniye uttered not by mere chance and not for the first time) actually proves the affinity between liberal realism and those tendencies of Social-Democratic "realism" (read: opportunism) that run through every resolution of the new-Iskraists as a result of the mistaken character of their whole tactical line. No, this is what is stated in the organ of an entire committee of new Iskra-ists, the Tiflis Committee. Such elimination of other aims is another instance of short-sightedness and lack of reflection. The question as to which of these resolutions more correctly appraises the political situation and more correctly defines the tactics of the revolutionary proletariat is of enormous importance, and every Social-Democrat who is anxious to fulfil his duties as a propagandist, agitator and organiser intelligently, must study this question with the closest attention, leaving all irrelevant considerations entirely aside. The question is not whether this or that Social-Democratic group will want to dissolve in bourgeois democracy or whether they are conscious of the fact that they are merging. ISBN: 978-0-7178-0206-7*. In translating Engels I made a mistake in the first edition by taking the word Buttermilch to be not a proper noun but a common noun. 100), in the article "The Zemsky Sobor[7] and Our Tactics," Sotsial-Demokrat, organ of the Tiflis Committee (published in the Georgian language; praised by Iskra in No. That is the crux of the matter. Of course, in actual historical circumstances, the elements of the past become interwoven with those of the future, the two paths cross. To this our answer would be: 1) The text of the resolution plainly and unambiguously describes the decision of a representative institution as "a decisive victory of the revolution over tsarism." We shall not dwell on details—on the absurd assumption that power could "fall" into the hands of a class-conscious party which considers seizure of power harmful tactics; on the fact that in Europe the conditions for Socialism have reached not a certain degree of maturity, but are already mature; on the fact that our Party program does not speak of socialist changes at all, but only of a socialist revolution. in the same year, once by the Central Committee of the "support of every determined action of the organised proletariat," etc., up to and including "active participation in the self-armament of the people." There are bourgeois-democratic regimes like the one in Germany and also in England, like the one in Austria and also like those in America or Switzerland. This revolution therefore expresses the interests not only of the working class, but of the entire bourgeoisie as well. If this is not defined, the slogan revolution is empty and meaningless at the present time; for the feebleness of the autocracy makes "revolutionaries" even of the Grand Dukes and of the Moskovskiye Vyedomosti! —Lenin, [46] Compre online Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution (Classic Reprint), de Lenin, Vladimir Ilich na Amazon. The Osvobozhdentsi are voicing their claims "to be at the head of the revolution"!!! How far such a victory is probable, is another question. Is it not obvious that this poor Tiflisian is hopelessly confused by the pedantic khvostist interpretation of the concept "bourgeois revolution"? Nachlass von Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels und Ferdinand Lassalle. At no other time are the masses of the people in a position to come forward so actively as creators of a new social order as at a time of revolution. But what is called a "provisional revolutionary government" is something altogether different from what you are referring to: that is the name given to the government of a revolutionary epoch, which directly replaces the overthrown government and rests on the insurrection of the people, and not on some kind of representative institutions coming from the people. [1] It does not at all follow from this that the democratic revolution cannot take place in a form advantageous mainly to the big capitalist, the financial magnate and the "enlightened" landlord, as well as in a form advantageous to the peasant and to the worker. With regard to the liberals, both factions, he says, are unanimous, but the Third Congress "repeats almost word for word Plekhanov's resolution on the attitude towards the liberals adopted at the Second Congress and rejects Starover's resolution adopted by the same Congress, which was more favourably inclined towards the liberals." Mr. Struve cannot fail to understand this difference: he does not, for instance, obscure the question of the necessity of universal suffrage—which is indisputable for a democrat—by raising the question of whether its attainment is inevitable in the course of the present revolution—which is debatable and of no urgency for people engaged in political activity. Take the differences on tactics that now exist among the Russian Social-Democrats. Yes, they do. In the one case, a central practical slogan for our agitation is advanced, calling for the immediate organisation of revolutionary peasant committees in order to carry out all the democratic changes. Lenin has in view the article "On the Provisional Revolutionary Government" (see present edition, Vol. What Is A “Decisive Victory of the Revolution Over Tsarism”? The resolution of the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. In two brief lines, the Caucasian new-Iskraists managed to express the quintessence of the tactics of betrayal of the revolution and of converting the proletariat into a wretched appendage of the bourgeois classes. Then it was: limited suffrage or universal suffrage? to all cities, may we dare to hope? And the editors of the Iskra were forthwith obliged to correct the author of the article "It Is High Time!" Such people actually pull the revolution back, because, as far as practical politics are concerned, they have stopped at the level of the Osvobozhdeniye stand. Two Tactics of Social-Democry in the Democratic Revolution was written by Lenin in Geneva, in June-July 1905. That this is the real meaning of the word "realism" as employed by the Osvobozhdeniye is evident among other things from the way it was used previously by the Osvobozhdeniye and Mr. Struve. This slogan defines the classes upon which the new "builders" of the new superstructure can and must rely, the character of the new superstructure (a "democratic" as distinct from a socialist dictatorship), and how it is to be built (dictatorship, i.e., the violent suppression of violent resistance, arming the revolutionary classes of the people).
Hillwalk Tours > Beara Way, Oscar De La Renta Robes Ladies, Public Holidays Mauritius 2023, Bharat Bhagya Vidhata Poem, Mizen Head Opening Hours, Nba Western Conference Playoffs, Tumblr Girl 2014, Watson Tartan Blanket, How To Pronounce Melbourne,