Vladimir Lenin: What Is to Be Done?

Document Text

II: The Spontaneity of the Masses and the Consciousness of Social Democracy

… The [main] strength of the current movement [for worker liberation] is the awakening of the masses (primarily the industrial proletariat), while its [main] weakness is the insufficiency of consciousness and initiative among revolutionary leaders.… The relationship between consciousness and spontaneity is of enormous general interest and must be treated in detail.…

The Beginning of the Spontaneous Upsurge

We noted in the previous chapter the [great] general interest shown by educated Russian youth in the theory of Marxism during the mid-1890s. At around the same time, the labor strikes that followed the famous Saint Petersburg industrial war of 1896 showed a similar general character. Their spread across all of Russia clearly testifies to the depth of the newly awakened popular movement, and if we are speaking of a “spontaneous element,” then, of course, it is precisely this strike movement that must be recognized above all as spontaneous. But there are different levels of spontaneity. There were strikes in Russia during the seventies and sixties … accompanied by the “spontaneous” destruction of machinery and so on. Compared with these “riots” the strikes of the nineties could even be called “conscious”—so significant was the progress the workers’ movement had made during that time. This shows that the “spontaneous element” is, in essence, nothing other than consciousness in embryonic form. Even primitive riots represent a certain degree of awakening of consciousness: the workers were beginning to lose their age-old faith in the permanence of the system of their oppression, and [they] began … I shan’t say to understand, but to feel the need for collective resistance, and decisively broke from slavish submission toward the bosses. But this was still more a case of despair and revenge than of [genuine class] struggle. The strikes of the 1890s show us much more significant flashes of consciousness: specific demands were voiced; advance thought was given to picking the best moment [to act]; there was discussion of well-known events and examples from other places. If the riots [of the 1860s–1870s] were simply uprisings of oppressed people, then the systematic strikes [of the 1890s] represented class struggle in embryo, but only in embryo. In and of themselves these strikes were [only] trade unionist struggles, and not yet social democratic struggles; they marked the awakening of antagonism between the workers and owners, but the workers did not have—indeed they could not have—[true] consciousness of the irreconcilable opposition of their interests to the current political and social structure; in other words, [they did not have] social democratic consciousness. In this sense, the strikes of the 1890s, regardless of the great progress made in comparison with the “riots” [of the 1860s–1870s], remained purely an expression of spontaneity.

We have said there could not have been social democratic consciousness among the workers. It could be brought [to them] only from outside. The history of all countries demonstrates that exclusively by its own efforts the working class is capable only of working out trade union consciousness—that is, the conviction that it is necessary to combine into unions [in order to] carry on a struggle with the owners, win from the authorities passage of this or that vital law, and so on. The teachings of socialism grew out of philosophical, historical, and economic theories worked out by educated representatives of the propertied classes, [that is, by] intellectuals. The founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged—by their social status—to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In just the same way, here in Russia the theoretical teachings of social democracy also arose as a natural and inevitable result of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia—that is, completely independently of the spontaneous growth of the workers’ movement.

Bowing Down to Spontaneity: Rabochaia mysl’

… There can be no talk of an independent ideology worked out by the working masses themselves within the process of their own movement. There are only two choices: bourgeois ideology or socialist ideology. There is no middle path (for humankind has not worked out any ‘third’ ideology; moreover, in a society torn by class conflict there cannot be any kind of ideology that is non-class or above-class). Thus, any belittlement of socialist ideology, any deviation from it at all strengthens bourgeois ideology. People talk about spontaneity. But the spontaneous development of the workers’ movement leads precisely toward its subordination to bourgeois ideology … for the spontaneous workers’ movement is trade unionism … and trade unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers to the bourgeoisie. Therefore, our task, the task of social democracy, is to battle spontaneity, to divert the workers’ movement away from these spontaneous trade unionist strivings that lead it under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to [instead] attract [the workers’ movement] under the wing of revolutionary social democracy.…

But why—the reader asks—does the spontaneous movement, a movement along the line of least resistance, lead in fact to domination by bourgeois ideology? For the simple reason that bourgeois ideology … is much older than socialist ideology, because [therefore] it has been worked out from all angles, because it has at its disposal immeasurably greater resources for its dissemination. The younger the socialist movement is in any given country, the more energetically must the struggle be waged against all attempts to strengthen non-socialist ideology, the more necessary does it become to warn the workers against the bad counsel of those whose cry out against “the exaggerations of the conscious element.”

III: Trade Unionist and Social Democratic Politics

… We have already demonstrated how the “economists,” while they do not completely reject “politics,” instead simply and consistently stray away from a social democratic conception of politics into a trade-unionist one.…

Political Agitation and Its Narrowing by the Economists

… Social democracy leads the working class struggle not just for improvement of the conditions under which [the workers] sell their labor, but also for the destruction of the social conditions that force the have-nots to sell themselves to the rich. Social democracy conceives of the working class not just in terms of its relationship to a given group of entrepreneurs, but in its relationship to all classes of modern society and to the government—and as an organized political force. Thus, social democrats must not limit themselves only to the economic struggle; and they must not allow themselves to be dragged into an almost exclusive focus on exposing economic [exploitation of the workers]. We must actively take up the political education of the working class and the development of its political awareness.…

The question arises, what should the political education [of the masses] consist of? Is it enough to limit ourselves to propagandizing the idea of the hostility of the working class to the autocracy? Of course not. It is not sufficient merely to explain the political oppression of the workers (just as it is not sufficient merely to explain to the workers the irreconcilable nature of their interests and those of the owners). It is necessary [also] to carry out agitation in connection with every concrete example of [the workers’] oppression (just as we have begun to do with regard to concrete examples of economic oppression). Since this oppression [political rather than economic] falls upon the greatest diversity of social classes, and since it is apparent in the most varied areas of life and activity—professional, civic, private, family, religious, scientific, and so on—is it not evident that we shall not be carrying out our mission to develop the political consciousness of the workers if we do not take upon ourselves the organization of [efforts to] expose all aspects of the political [oppressiveness] of the autocracy? After all, in order to carry out agitation in response to concrete examples of oppression, it is necessary to [clearly] expose these examples (just as it was necessary to expose factory abuses in order to carry on economic agitation)….

The Working Class as the Vanguard Fighter for Democracy

… Class political consciousness may be brought to the workers only from outside—that is, from outside the economic struggle, outside the sphere of relations between workers and owners. The only place from which this knowledge can come is from the sphere of relations of all classes and [social] layers to the state and government, [from] the nexus of interrelations among all classes. Therefore, when one is asked what is to be done in order to bring political knowledge to the workers, the answer cannot be … [simply] “Go among the workers.” To bring political knowledge to the workers the social democrats must go among all classes of the population, must send detachments … to all sides.…

IV: The Amateurishness of the Economists and the Organization of Revolutionaries

Organization of Workers and Organization of Revolutionaries

A social democrat who understands the political struggle as simply an “economic struggle with the owners and the government” will, naturally enough, conceive of the “organization of revolutionaries” as—more or less—an “organization of workers.” And this is what actually happens, so that when speaking about [questions of] organization we are literally speaking different languages. In fact, I can recall a conversation with a reasonably consistent Economist whom I had not known previously. We were talking about a pamphlet entitled “Who Will Carry Out the Political Revolution? [Kto sovershit politicheskuiu revoliutsiiu?].” We quickly agreed that the pamphlet’s main deficiency was that it ignored the question of organization. It seemed that we were firmly of one mind, but as the conversation progressed it became clear that we were talking about different things entirely. [The Economist started] accusing me of ignoring strike funds, mutual aid societies, and the like, but I had in mind the organization of revolutionaries—[which is] absolutely necessary for “accomplishing” the political revolution. And as soon as our differences became apparent I don’t think there was a single thing at all about which I was in agreement with this “economist.”

What was the source of our disagreement? It was precisely this: regardless of whether we are talking about organizational issues or political ones, the “economists” are always slipping away from social democracy and into trade unionism. The political struggle of social democracy is much broader and more complex than the economic struggle that pits the workers against their bosses and the authorities. In just the same way (indeed, because of this), the organization of the revolutionary Social Democratic Party must also be of a different sort than the organization of workers. First of all, the workers must be organized by trade; second, their organizations must be as broad as possible; third, they must be as un-conspiratorial as possible (I am speaking here and elsewhere, of course, only about autocratic Russia). In contrast, the organization of revolutionaries must encompass first and foremost people who are revolutionary activists by trade (which is why I speak of an organization of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary social democrats). Given that all members of the organization will share this general characteristic, we must completely erase all distinction among them as to which is a worker and which an intellectual, not to mention distinctions of trade among them. This organization definitely must not be very broad, and it must be as secret as possible.…

In countries with political freedom, the distinction between a trade organization and a political one is perfectly clear, as is the distinction between trade unionism and social democracy. Of course, the relationship of the latter to the former will inevitably take different forms in different countries, depending on [relevant] historical, legal, and other conditions. They might be more or less close or complex.… But in free countries there is never any conversation about them being basically the same thing. However, in Russia the oppressiveness of the autocracy immediately wipes out all distinctions between social democratic organization and labor unions, because any and all labor unions and any and all [organized] circles are forbidden, for the primary manifestation and weapon of the workers’ economic struggle—the strike—is a criminal (and sometimes even a political) act! Thus, our circumstances, on the one hand, very much “push” those workers leading the economic struggle into political issues while, on the other hand, they “push” social democrats to mix trade unionism with social democratism….

The moral to be drawn here is simple: if we start by firmly establishing a strong organization of revolutionaries, then we can guarantee the stability of the movement overall and bring to fruition the goals both of social democracy and of the trade union movement. But if we start with a broader worker movement, one that is supposedly more “accessible” to the masses (but, in fact, just more accessible to the gendarmes, thereby making revolutionaries more accessible to the police), then we shall realize neither of these goals … and, because of the fragmented nature [of our movement] we will only be giving the masses over to trade unions of the Zubatov and Ozerov type.…

… I affirm: 1) That no revolutionary organization can be durable without a stable organization of leaders to preserve continuity; 2) That the greater the number of the masses who are attracted in spontaneous fashion to the struggle—who form the basis of the movement and who participate in it—then the more urgent does the need become for such an organization and the more solid must such an organization be (for it also becomes easier for the demagogues to attract the undeveloped stratum of the masses); 3) That such an organization must consist chiefly of persons engaged in revolutionary activity as their profession; 4) That in an autocratic country, the more we narrow the membership of such an organization to the participation only of persons for whom revolutionary activity is their profession and who have received professional training in the art of struggle against the political police, then the harder will it be [for the authorities] “to fish out” such an organization; and 5) The broader will the roster become of persons both from the working class and other social classes who are participating in the movement and actively working for it.

… If we rely on a broad organization we shall never be able to achieve the necessary level of conspiratorial work; and without this one cannot even talk about waging a solid and continuous struggle against the government. But the concentration of all conspiratorial functions in the hands of the smallest possible number of professional revolutionaries does not at all mean that these few will “think for everyone,” or that the crowd will not take part in the movement. Quite the opposite, the crowd will itself produce these professional revolutionaries—and in ever-increasing numbers—because the crowd will realize that it is not sufficient to simply have a few students or working men—veterans of the economic struggle—come together in a “committee”; [they will understand instead] that it takes years to turn oneself into a professional revolutionary; and so the crowd will start to think not only of amateurish methods, but of this kind of training instead. The centralization of the conspiratorial functions of the organization does not at all mean the centralization of all functions of the movement. The active participation by the very widest number of the masses in illegal literature will not diminish, but will increase tenfold because a dozen or so professional revolutionaries will centralize the conspiratorial functions of this enterprise. Only in this way shall we get to a point where the reading of illegal literature, contributing to it, and even distributing it will all cease to be conspiratorial work, for the police will soon realize the absurdity and the impossibility of pursuing through legal and administrative channels every publication of which there will be thousands of copies. And this concerns not only the press, but every function of the movement, even demonstrations.… The centralization of the conspiratorial functions of the organization of revolutionaries will not weaken but will enrich the breadth and content of the activity of a whole mass of other organizations that are geared toward the general public and are therefore much less formalized and less conspiratorial: including workers’ trade unions, workers’ circles for self-education and the reading of illegal literature, socialist circles, and also democratic circles in all other strata of the population, and so on. These kinds of circles, unions, and organizations are necessary everywhere and in the absolute greatest numbers, with the greatest diversity of functions; but it would be absurd and dangerous to mingle them with the organizations of revolutionaries, to destroy the barrier between them, to extinguish in the [minds of] the masses their already incredibly faint awareness that in order to “serve” the mass movement we need people who specially and wholly devote themselves to social democratic activity—and that to make a professional revolutionary of oneself takes patience and persistence.

Yes, this awareness is indeed incredibly faint. Our primary sin in terms of organization is that with our amateurishness we have denigrated the prestige of the revolutionary in [Russia]. Limp and shaky on questions of theory; with a narrow viewpoint; reliant on the spontaneity of the masses to justify his own apathy; more resembling a trade-union secretary than a tribune of the people; incapable of putting forward a broad and bold plan, one that would earn the respect even of our opponents; inexperienced and clumsy in practicing his trade—the struggle with the political police: Excuse me! Such a person is not a revolutionary, but just some kind of miserable amateur.

Nobody [within our movement] should take offense at my sharp comments, for when I speak of a lack of preparedness, I speak most of all about myself. I worked in a circle that undertook very broad, all-encompassing tasks—and all us, the members of this circle, suffered to the point of illness because we knew we were showing ourselves to be amateurs at that very historical moment when it could have been said—to adapt a well-known saying: give us an organization of revolutionaries and we will turn Russia upside down! And the more I have since thought about the burning shame I felt at that time, the angrier I have become with these pseudo social democrats who by their teachings bring disgrace to the rank of the revolutionary, who do not understand that our task is not to help lower the revolutionary to the rank of an amateur but to elevate the amateurs to [the rank of] revolutionaries.…

“Conspiratorial” Organization and “Democratism”

… The objection will be raised that such a powerful and strictly secret organization, one that concentrates in its hands all the threads of conspiratorial activity, one that is highly centralized … may too easily throw itself into a premature attack, may carelessly push the movement [to act] before [the necessary wider levels of] political discontent [have been reached], before the ferment and anger of the working class [has matured]. We reply: abstractly speaking, it cannot be denied, of course, that a militant organization could throw itself into an ill-conceived battle that could end in a defeat—one that might have been avoided in different circumstances. But we cannot limit ourselves to abstract reasoning when looking at this issue. It is possible, speaking abstractly, for any battle at all to end in defeat, and there is no way to reduce this possibility except through organized preparation for battle. If we [avoid abstractions and] deal instead with the concrete realities of the current Russian situation, then one has to come to the more optimistic conclusion that a solid revolutionary organization is absolutely indispensable [both] for giving stability to the movement and to prevent it from carrying out ill-conceived attacks. Precisely now, when there is no such organization, and when the revolutionary movement is growing rapidly and spontaneously we already see two opposite extremes (which, not surprisingly, “meet”). [These are] the completely ill-founded “economism” with its doctrine of moderation; and the equally ill-founded “excitative terror,” which strives “to create artificially the symptoms of the end-stages of a [revolution] that is currently developing and becoming stronger, [but which is still] nearer its beginnings than its end” ([Vera Zasulich] in “Zaria&rdquo).… Already there exist social democrats who fail to resist these extremes. This is hardly surprising, because—among other reasons—the “economic struggle against the owners and the government” will never be enough for a revolutionary, and opposite extremes will always appear here and there. Only a centralized and militant organization—one that persistently follows social democratic policies and satisfies, so to speak, all revolutionary instincts and strivings—is capable of protecting the movement from wrong-headed attacks and also of preparing an attack that promises success.

We face yet another criticism—that our views on organization contradict “the democratic principle.” … Let us look more closely at this “principle,” put forward by the “economists.” Everyone will agree, no doubt, that “the principle of broad democracy” requires the two following conditions: first, complete openness, and, second, that all [offices and] functions be decided by election. Without openness it would be silly to talk about democracy at all, and we mean openness that is not limited just to the members of the organization. We call the organization of the German Social Democratic Party democratic because everything in it is done openly, even the sessions of the Party Congress. But no one will call an organization democratic when it is [necessarily] sealed off from all non-members by a cloak of secrecy. So let us ask—what sense is there in promoting the “principle of broad democracy” when the basic condition underlying this principle [that of openness] is impossible for a secret organization to fulfill? The “principle of broad [democracy]” thus turns out to be simply a resonant but empty phrase.…

Things are no better when we look at the second condition of democratism—elections. In countries with political freedom this condition makes perfect sense. ”Everyone who accepts the principles of the Party program and supports the Party as best he can is considered a member“ says the first paragraph of the organizational by-laws of the German Social Democratic Party. And since the whole political arena is open for all to see—just like the stage before a theater audience—so can everyone see how someone accepts, rejects, supports, or opposes [a given position]. All such things are well-known to all and sundry simply by reading the papers or by [attending] popular assemblies. Everyone knows that a given political figure started out from such-and-such a position, went through whatever changes, responded in this way or that to a difficult situation, and distinguishes himself by this or that set of qualities. And so it is only natural that all members of the Party may make an informed choice and elect or not elect a particular person to a particular post. [Similarly, the fact that] anyone … can oversee every step taken by a Party member … creates a self-mechanism akin to that which in biology is called “survival of the fittest.” The “natural selection” provided by complete openness, the electoral process, and general public oversight guarantees that every activist finds his appropriate place in the end, gets the most suitable role based on his strengths and abilities, suffers all the consequences of his own mistakes, and demonstrates publicly his ability to realize these mistakes and to correct them in the future.

Now try putting this picture into the frame of our [Russian] autocracy! Is it conceivable that [here] everyone “who accepts the principles of the Party program and supports the Party as best he can” could remain informed about every step taken by a revolutionary conspirator? That they could all elect this or that revolutionary—when the revolutionary is obliged in the interests of work to hide his very identity from 90 percent of the people? Think for just a moment … and you will see that “broad democratism” of Party organization in the darkness of the autocracy, under the “[artificial] selection” of the gendarmes is nothing other than an empty and dangerous toy. I say “empty” because, in fact, no revolutionary organization of any sort has ever put this broad democratism into practice [under the conditions of autocracy] and never could, no matter how much it wished to. I say “dangerous” because any attempt to put “broad democratism” into practice would only help the police to expose [us]; would prolong indefinitely the current amateurishness [of the movement]; would distract … [revolutionary activists] from the serious, urgent work involved in transforming themselves into professional revolutionaries and [would burden them instead] with the “paperwork” involved in setting up elections. This “game of democratism” can develop only abroad—among people who are unable to find themselves real and vital work, in [their] various little groups.

… The single serious organizational principle for activists in our movement must be the strictest [level of] conspiracy, the strictest selection of members, [and] the preparation of professional revolutionaries. Once these qualities are achieved then we are assured of something greater than “democratism”—namely: complete comradely confidence among revolutionaries. And this is even more absolutely necessary among us [than in other countries] for in Russia there can be no question at all of replacing this [loyalty] with any general public oversight. But it would be a great mistake to assume that the impossibility of actual “democratic” oversight thereby renders the members of revolutionary organization beyond any accountability at all .… [On the contrary, these revolutionaries will] feel their responsibility vividly, knowing by their own experience that an organization of genuine revolutionaries will stop at nothing to rid itself of a substandard member. Moreover, there is a well-developed and time-honored system of thinking among Russian (and international) revolutionary circles that mercilessly punishes any and all slacking-off from the responsibilities of comradeship (indeed, “democratism”—real, not toy democratism—is a constituent part of this larger system of comradeship). Take all of this under consideration, and you will understand that all these conversations and resolutions about our [supposed] “anti-democratic tendencies” reek with the musty odor of outsiders playing at being generals.

Local and All-Russian Work

… There is one more question that is frequently raised and deserves examining in detail. This concerns the relationship between local and all-Russian work. Some have voiced a worry that the formation of a centralized organization might shift the center of gravity towards all-Russian work in general, and away from local control; [and they worry] that this may threaten, in turn, to undermine the [the movement’s] connection with the mass of workers and generally weaken the solidity of local agitation. We answer that our movement has suffered in recent years precisely because of the fact that local activists are totally swamped by local work and that it is therefore necessary to shift the center of gravity towards all-Russian work. Such a shift will not weaken but will strengthen our ties with [the working mass] as well as the stability of local agitation.

---

Source: Marxists Internet Archive.