Vladimir Illyich Lenin:
What is to be Done, 1902
In this text, Lenin makes his argument for a coherent, strictly
controlled party of dedicated revolutionaries as a basic necessity for a
revolution. Some have seen an analogy with the Jesuit Order in his
proposals for an elite corps to lead the masses. One may see in Lenin's
proposals a deep insight into the necessary requisites for a revolution,
or a deep contempt for the working classes.
The history of all countries shows that the working class,
exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union
consciousness, i.e, it may itself realise the necessity for
combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving
to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The
theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical
and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated
representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals. According
to their social status, the founders of modern scientific socialism,
Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia.
Similarly, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social Democracy [Note:
By "social democracy" Lenin means revolutionary political
Marxism, not the later concept of "moderate" socialism]
arose quite independently of the spontaneous growth of the labour
movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the
development of ideas among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia.
At the time of which we are speaking, i.e., the middle of the
nineties, this doctrine not only represented the completely formulated
programme of the Emancipation of Labour group, but had already won the
adherence of the majority of the revolutionary youth in Russia.
***
It is only natural that a Social Democrat, who conceives the
political struggle as being identical with the "economic struggle
against the employers and the government," should conceive of an
"organisation of revolutionaries" as being more or less
identical with an "organisation of workers." And this, in
fact, is what actually happens; so that when we talk about organisation,
we literally talk in different tongues. I recall a conversation I once
had with a fairly consistent Economist, with whom I had not been
previously acquainted. We were discussing the pamphlet Who Will Make
the Political Revolution? and we were very soon agreed that the
principal defect in that brochure was that it ignored the question of
organisation. We were beginning to think that we were in complete
agreement with each other-but as the conversation proceeded, it became
clear that we were talking of different things. My interlocutor accused
the author of the brochure just mentioned of ignoring strike funds,
mutual aid societies, etc.; whereas I had in mind an organisation of
revolutionaries as an essential factor in "making" the
political revolution. After that became clear, I hardly remember a
single question of importance upon which I was in agreement with that
Economist!
What was the source of our disagreement? The fact that on questions
of organisation and politics the Economists are forever lapsing from
Social Democracy into trade unionism. The political struggle carried on
by the Social Democrats is far more extensive and complex than the
economic struggle the workers carry on against the employers and the
government. Similarly (and indeed for that reason), the organisation of
a revolutionary SocialDemocratic Party must inevitably differ from
the organisations of the workers designed for the latter struggle. A
workers' organisation must in the first place be a trade organisation;
secondly, it must be as wide as possible; and thirdly, it must be as
public as conditions will allow (here, and further on, of course, I
have only autocratic Russia in mind). On the other hand, the
organisations of revolutionaries must consist first and foremost of
people whose profession is that of a revolutionary (that is why I
speak of organisations of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary
Social Democrats). In view of this common feature of the members of such
an organisation, all distinctions as between workers and
intellectuals, and certainly distinctions of trade and profession,
must be obliterated. Such an organisation must of necessity be not
too extensive and as secret as possible.
***
I assert:
- that no movement can be durable without a stable organisation
of leaders to maintain continuity;
- that the more widely the masses are spontaneously drawn into the
struggle and form the basis of the movement and participate in it,
the more necessary is it to have such an organisation, and the more
stable must it be (for it is much easier for demogogues to
sidetrack the more backward sections of the masses);
- that the organisation must consist chiefly of persons engaged in
revolutionary activities as a profession;
- that in a country with an autocratic government, the more we restrict
the membership of this organisation to persons who are engaged
in revolutionary activities as a profession and who have been
professionally trained in the art of combating the political police,
the more difficult will it be to catch the organisation, and
- the wider will be the circle of men and women of the
working class or of other classes of society able to join the
movement and perform active work in it....
The active and widespread participation of the masses will not
suffer; on the contrary, it will benefit by the fact that a
"dozen" experienced revolutionaries, no less professionally
trained than the police, will centralise all the secret side of the
work-prepare leaflets, work out approximate plans and appoint bodies of
leaders for each urban district, for each factory district and to each
educational institution, etc. (I know that exception will be taken to my
"undemocratic" views, but I shall reply to this altogether
unintelligent objection later on.) The centralisation of the more
secret functions in an organisation of revolutionaries will not
diminish, but rather increase the extent and the quality of the activity
of a large number of other organisations intended for wide membership
and which, therefore, can be as loose and as public as possible, for
example, trade unions, workers' circles for self-education and the
reading of illegal literature, and socialist and also democratic circles
for all other sections of the population. etc, etc We must have as
large a number as possible of such organisations having the widest
possible variety of functions, but it is absurd and dangerous to confuse
those with organisations of revolutionaries, to erase the line of
demarcation between them, to dim still more the masses already
incredibly hazy appreciation of the fact that in order to
"serve" the mass movement we must have people who will devote
themselves exclusively to Social Democratic activities, and that such
people must train themselves patiently and steadfastly to be
professional revolutionaries.
Aye, this appreciation has become incredibly dim. The most grievous
sin we have committed in regard to organisation is that by our
primitiveness we have lowered the prestige of revolutionaries in Russia.
A man who is weak and vacillating on theoretical questions, who has
a narrow outlook who makes excuses for his own slackness on the ground
that the masses are awakening spontaneously; who resembles a trade union
secretary more than a people's tribune, who is unable to conceive of a
broad and bold plan, who is incapable of inspiring even his opponents
with respect for himself, and who is inexperienced and clumsy in his own
professional art-the art of combating the political police-such a man is
not a revolutionary but a wretched amateur!
Let no active worker take offense at these frank remarks, for as far
as insufficient training is concerned, I apply them first and foremost
to myself. I used to work in a circle that set itself great and allembracing
tasks; and every member of that circle suffered to the point of torture
from the realisation that we were proving ourselves to be amateurs at a
moment in history when we might have been able to say, paraphrasing a
wellknown epigram: "Give us an organisation of
revolutionaries, and we shall overturn the whole of Russia!"
From, V.I. Lenin: "What is to Be Done?", Lenin:
Collected Works Vol V, pp. 375-76, 451-53, 464-67
|