What is to be Done

137 Pages·1969·0.43 MB·english

by  V. I. Lenin

What is to be Done?
Vladimir Lenin 1902
Contents
NotesontheText i
Preface ii
1 DOGMATISMAND“FREEDOMOFCRITICISM 1
1.1 WHATDOES”FREEDOMOFCRITICISM“MEAN? . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 THENEWADVOCATESOF“FREEDOMOFCRITICISM” . . . . . . . 3
1.3 CRITICISMINRUSSIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 ENGELSONTHEIMPORTANCEOFTHETHEORETICALSTRUGGLE 11
2 THE SPONTANEITY OF THE MASSES AND THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF
THESOCIAL-DEMOCRATS 16
2.1 THEBEGINNINGOFTHESPONTANEOUSUPSURGE . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2 BOWINGTOSPONTANEITY.RABOCHAYAMYSL . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3 THESELF-EMANCIPATIONGROUPANDRABOCHEYEDYELO . . . . 25
3 TRADE-UNIONISTPOLITICSANDSOCIAL-DEMOCRATICPOLITICS 32
3.1 POLITICALAGITATIONANDITSRESTRICTIONBYTHEECONOMISTS 33
3.2 HOWMARTYNOVRENDEREDPLEKHANOVMOREPROFOUND . . 39
3.3 POLITICAL EXPOSURES AND “TRAINING IN REVOLUTIONARY
ACTIVITY” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.4 WHATISTHEREINCOMMONBETWEENECONOMISMANDTER-
RORISM? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2
3 CONTENTS
3.5 THEWORKINGCLASSASVANGUARDFIGHTERFORDEMOCRACY 47
3.6 ONCEMORE“SLANDERERS”,ONCEMORE“MYSTIFIERS” . . . . . 58
4 THE PRIMITIVENESS OF THE ECONOMISTS AND THE ORGANIZA-
TIONOFTHEREVOLUTIONARIES 62
4.1 WHATISPRIMITIVENESS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.2 PRIMITIVENESSANDECONOMISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.3 ORGANISATION OF WORKERS AND ORGANISATION OF REVO-
LUTIONARIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.4 THESCOPEOFORGANISATIONALWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.5 “CONSPIRATORIAL”ORGANISATIONAND“DEMOCRATISM” . . . 85
4.6 LOCALANDALL-RUSSIAWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5 THE“PLAN”FORANALL-RUSSIAPOLITICALNEWSPAPER 98
5.1 WHOWASOFFENDEDBYTHEARTICLE“WHERETOBEGIN” . . . 99
5.2 CANANEWSPAPERBEACOLLECTIVEORGANISER? . . . . . . . . 102
5.3 WHATTYPEOFORGANISATIONDOWEREQUIRE? . . . . . . . . . 110
Endnotes 115
4 CONTENTS
Notes on the Text
What is to be Done?
Vladimir Lenin
Firstpublished: 1902
Transcriptionby: TimDelaney
Thisprintableeditionproducedby: ChrisRussellfortheMarxistsInternetArchive
Please note: The text may make reference to page numbers within this document. These
page numbers were maintained during the transcription process to remain faithful to the
originaleditionandnotthisversionand,therefore,arelikelytobeinaccurate. Thisstatement
applies only to the text itself and not any indices or tables of contents which have been
reproducedforthisedition.
Lenin’s key work on Party objectives and organization. Lenin argues that while capitalism
predisposes the workers to the acceptance of socialism it does not spontaneously make
them conscious Socialists. The proletariat of its own can achieve only ”trade-union con-
sciousness.” Accordingly, it was necessary to institute a ”party of a new type” capable of
imbuing the working-class with revolutionary consciousness. This is the origin of Lenin’s
famous theory of the Party as ”vanguard of the proletariat”. He conceived of the vanguard
as a highly centralized body organized around a core of experienced professional revolu-
tionaries. Only such a party could succeed in the conditions of illegality prevailing in tsarist
Russiaatthetime. ThebookalsocontainsanattackonRevisionism.
i
Preface
According to the author’s original plan, the present pamphlet was to have been devoted to
adetaileddevelopmentoftheideasexpressedinthearticle“WhereToBegin”,(Iskra,No.
4, May 1901).1 We must first apologise to the reader for the delay in fulfilling the promise
made in that article (and repeated in response to many private inquiries and letters). One
ofthereasonsforthisdelaywastheattempt,undertakeninJuneofthepastyear(1901),to
unite all the Social-Democratic organisations abroad. It was natural to wait for the results
ofthisattempt,for,hadtheeffortprovedsuccessful,itwouldperhapshavebeennecessary
toexpoundIskra’sconceptionsoforganisationfromasomewhatdifferentapproach;inany
case, such a success promised to putan end very quickly to the existence of thetwo trends
intheRussianSocial-Democraticmovement. Asthereaderknows,theattemptfailed,and,
as we propose to show, was bound to fail after the new swing, of Rabocheye Dyelo, in
its issue No. 10, towards Economism. It was found to be absolutely essential to begin a
determined struggle against this trend, diffuse and ill-defined, but for that reason the more
persistent,themorecapableofreassertingitselfindiverseforms. Accordingly,theoriginal
planofthepamphletwasalteredandconsiderablyenlarged.
Its main theme was to have been the three questions raised in the article “Where To
Begin”–thecharacterandmaincontentofourpoliticalagitation;ourorganisationaltasks;
and the plan for building, simultaneously and from various sides, a militant, all-Russia
organisation. Thesequestionshavelongengagedthemindoftheauthor,whotriedtoraise
theminRabochayaGazetaduringoneoftheunsuccessfulattemptstorevivethatpaper(see
ChapterV).Buttheoriginalplantoconfinethepamphlettoananalysisofonlythesethree
questionsandtosetforthourviewsasfaraspossibleinapositiveform,without,oralmost
without, entering into polemics, proved wholly impracticable, for two reasons. On the one
hand,Economismprovedtobemuchmoretenaciousthanwehadsupposed(weemploythe
termEconomisminthebroadsense,asexplainedinIskra,No. 12(December1901),inthe
articleentitled“ATalkWithDefendersofEconomism”,whichwasasynopsis,sotospeak,
of the present pamphlet2). It became clear beyond doubt that the differences regarding the
solution of the three questions mentioned were explainable to a far greater degree by the
ii
iii Preface
basic antithesis between the two trends in the Russian Social-Democratic movement than
by differences over details. On the other hand, the perplexity of the Economists over the
practical application of our views in Iskra clearly revealed that we often speak literally in
differenttonguesandthereforecannotarriveatanunderstandingwithoutbeginningabovo,
and that an attempt must be made, in the simplest possible style, illustrated by numerous
and concrete examples, systematically to “clarify” all our basic points of difference with
all the Economists. I resolved to make such an attempt at “clarification”, fully realising
that it would greatly increase the size of the pamphlet and delay its publication; I saw no
other way of meeting my pledge I had made in the article “Where To Begin”. Thus, to
the apologies for the delay, I must add others for the serious literary shortcomings of the
pamphlet. I had to work in great haste, with frequent interruptions by a variety of other
tasks.
The examination of the above three questions still constitutes the main theme of this
pamphlet, but I found it necessary to begin with two questions of a more general nature –
why such an “innocent” and “natural” slogan as “freedom of criticism” should be for us a
veritable war-cry, and why we cannot come to an understanding even on the fundamental
question of the role of Social-Democrats in relation to the spontaneous mass movement.
Further, the exposition of our views on the character and substance of political agitation
developedintoanexplanationofthedifferencebetweentrade-unionistpoliticsandSocial-
Democratic politics, while the exposition of our views on organisational tasks developed
into an explanation of the difference between the amateurish methods which satisfy the
Economists, and the organisation of revolutionaries which we hold to be indispensable.
Further, I advance the “plan” for an all-Russia political newspaper with all the more insis-
tencebecausetheobjectionsraisedagainstitareuntenable,andbecausenorealanswerhas
been given to the question I raised in the article “’Where To Begin” as to how we can set
to work from all sides simultaneously to create the organisation we need. Finally, in the
concludingpart,Ihopetoshowthatwedidallwecouldtopreventadecisivebreakwiththe
Economists, a break which nevertheless proved inevitable; that Rabocheye Dyelo acquired
aspecialsignificance,a“historical”significance,ifyouwill,becauseitexpressedfullyand
strikingly, not consistent Economism, but the confusion and vacillation which constitute
the distinguishing feature of an entire period in the history of Russian Social-Democracy;
and that therefore the polemic with Rabocheye Dyelo, which may upon first view seem
excessivelydetailed,alsoacquiressignificance,forwecanmakenoprogressuntilwehave
completelyputanendtothisperiod.
N.Lenin
February1902
iv Preface
CHAPTER 1
DOGMATISM AND “FREEDOM OF
CRITICISM
1.1. WHAT DOES ”FREEDOM OF CRITICISM“ MEAN?
”Freedomofcriticism“isundoubtedlythemostfashionablesloganatthepresenttime,and
the one most frequently employed in the controversies between socialists and democrats
in all countries. At first sight, nothing would appear to be more strange than the solemn
appealstofreedomofcriticismmadebyoneofthepartiestothedispute. Havevoicesbeen
raised in the advanced parties against the constitutional law of the majority of European
countries which guarantees freedom to science and scientific investigation? ”Something
must be wrong here,“ will be the comment of the onlooker who has heard this fashionable
slogan repeated at every turn but has not yet penetrated the essence of the disagreement
among the disputants; evidently this slogan is one of the conventional phrases which, like
nicknames,becomelegitimisedbyuse,andbecomealmostgenericterms.”
Infact,itisnosecretforanyonethattwotrendshavetakenforminpresent-dayinternational3
Social-Democracy. The conflict between these trends now flares up in a bright flame and
nowdiesdownandsmouldersundertheashesofimposing“truceresolutions”. Theessence
of the “new” trend, which adopts a “critical” attitude towards “obsolete dogmatic” Marx-
ism,hasbeenclearlyenoughpresentedbyBernsteinanddemonstratedbyMillerand.
Social-Democracymustchangefromapartyofsocialrevolutionintoademocraticparty
of social reforms. Bernstein has surrounded this political demand with a whole battery of
well-attuned “new” arguments and reasonings. Denied was the possibility of putting so-
cialism on a scientific basis and of demonstrating its necessity and inevitability from the
point of view of the materialist conception of history. Denied was the fact of growing
1
2 DOGMATISMAND“FREEDOMOFCRITICISM
impoverishment, the process of proletarisation, and the intensification of capitalist contra-
dictions; the very concept, “ultimate aim”, was declared to be unsound, and the idea of
the dictatorship of the proletariat was completely rejected. Denied was the antithesis in
principlebetweenliberalismandsocialism. Deniedwasthetheoryoftheclassstruggle,on
the alleged grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society governed
accordingtothewillofthemajority,etc.
Thus,thedemandforadecisiveturnfromrevolutionarySocial-Democracytobourgeois
social-reformism was accompanied by a no less decisive turn towards bourgeois criticism
of all the fundamental ideas of Marxism. In view of the fact that this criticism of Marx-
ismhaslongbeendirectedfromthepoliticalplatform,fromuniversitychairs,innumerous
pamphlets and in a series of learned treatises, in view of the fact that the entire younger
generation of the educated classes has been systematically reared for decades on this crit-
icism, it is not surprising that the “new critical” trend in Social-Democracy should spring
up,allcomplete,likeMinervafromtheheadofJove. Thecontentofthisnewtrenddidnot
havetogrowandtakeshape,itwastransferredbodilyfrombourgeoistosocialistliterature.
Toproceed. IfBernstein’stheoreticalcriticismandpoliticalyearningswerestillunclear
to anyone, the French took the trouble strikingly to demonstrate the “new method”. In this
instance, too, France has justified its old reputation of being “the land where, more than
anywhere else, the historical class struggles were each time fought out to a decision...”
(Engels, Introduction to Marx’s Der 18 Brumaire). The French socialists have begun, not
to theorise, but to act. The democratically more highly developed political conditions in
France have permitted them to put “Bernsteinism into practice” immediately, with all its
consequences. MillerandhasfurnishedanexcellentexampleofpracticalBernsteinism;not
withoutreasondidBernsteinandVollmarrushsozealouslytodefendandlaudhim. Indeed,
if Social-Democracy, in essence, is merely a party of reform and must be bold enough to
admit this openly, then not only has a socialist the right to join a bourgeois cabinet, but he
mustalwaysstrivetodoso. Ifdemocracy,inessence,meanstheabolitionofclassdomina-
tion,thenwhyshouldnotasocialistministercharmthewholebourgeoisworldbyorations
on class collaboration? Why should he not remain in the cabinet even after the shooting-
down of workers by gendarmes has exposed, for the hundredth and thousandth time, the
real nature of the democratic collaboration of classes? Why should he not personally take
part in greeting the tsar, for whom the French socialists now have no other name than hero
of the gallows, knout, and exile (knouteur, pendeur et deportateur)? And the reward for
this utter humiliation and self-degradation of socialism in the face of the whole world, for
the corruption of the socialist consciousness of the working masses – the only basis that
can guarantee our victory – the reward for this is pompous projects for miserable reforms,
somiserableinfactthatmuchmorehasbeenobtainedfrombourgeoisgovernments!