The Spontaneity of the Masses and the Consciousness of the Social-Democrats

Lenin

What Is To Be Done?

BURNING QUESTIONS of our MOVEMENT

We have said that our movement, much more extensive and deep than the movement of the seventies, must be inspired with the same devoted determination and energy that inspired the movement at that time. Indeed, no one, we think, has until now doubted that the strength of the present-day movement lies in the awakening of the masses (principally, the industrial proletariat) and that its weakness lies in the lack of consciousness and initiative among the revolutionary leaders.

However, of late a staggering discovery has been made, which threatens to disestablish all hitherto prevailing views on this question. This discovery was made by Rabocheye Dyelo, which in its polemic with Iskra and Zarya did not confine itself to making objections on separate points, but tried to ascribe “general disagreements” to a more profound cause — to the “different appraisals of the relative importance of the spontaneous and consciously ‘methodical’ element”. Rabocheye Dyelo formulated its indictment as a “belittling of the significance of the objective or the spontaneous element of development”. To this we say: Had the polemics with Iskra and Zarya resulted in nothing more than causing Rabocheye Dyelo to hit upon these “general disagreements”, that alone would give us considerable satisfaction, so significant is this thesis and so clear is the light it sheds on the quintessence of the present-day theoretical and political differences that exist among Russian Social-Democrats.

Continue to Read more »

The Need for an Agricultural Labourers’ Union

Pravda Nos. 90 and 91, July 7 (June 24) and July 8 (June 25), 1917

Lenin Collected Works, Volume 25, pages 123-127.

ARTICLE ONE

There is a highly important question which the All-Russia Trade. Union Conference now in session in Petrograd should consider. It is the question of founding an all-Russia union of agricultural labourers.

All classes in Russia are organising. Only the class which is the most exploited and the poorest of all, the most disunited and downtrodden—the class of Russia’s agricultural wage-labourers—-seems to have been forgotten. In some non– Russian border regions, such as the Latvian territory, there are organisations of agricultural wage-labourers. The rural proletariat in the vast majority of the Great-Russian and Ukrainian gubernias has no class organisations.

It is the indisputable and paramount duty of the vanguard of Russia’s proletariat, the industrial workers’ trade unions, to come to the aid of their brothers, the rural workers. The difficulties involved in organising the rural workers are clearly enormous, as is borne out by the experience of other capitalist countries.

Continue to Read more »

THE MUNICIPAL PLATFORM OF THE PROLETARIAN PARTY

Pravda No. 49, May 18 (5), 1917

Lenin Collected Works, Volume 24, pages 350-353.

Elections to the district councils being close at hand, the two petty-bourgeois democratic parties, the Narodniks and the Mensheviks, have come out with high-sounding platforms. These platforms are exactly the same as those of the European bourgeois parties who are engaged in angling for the gullible uneducated mass of voters from among the petty proprietors, etc., such as, for instance, the platform of the Radical and Radical-Socialist Party of France. The same specious phrases, the same lavish promises, the same vague formulations, the same silence on or forgetfulness of the main thing, namely, the actual conditions on which the practicability of these promises depends.

At present these conditions are: (1) the imperialist war; (2) the existence of a capitalist government; (3) the impossibility of seriously improving the condition of the workers and the whole mass of working people without revolutionary encroachment on the “sacred right, of capitalist private property”; (4) the impossibility of carrying out the reforms promised by those parties while the old organs and machinery of government remain intact, while there exists a police force which is bound to back the capitalists and put a thousand and one obstacles in the way of such reforms.

Continue to Read more »

Once Again About the Duma Cabinet

Ekho, No. 6, June 28, 1906.

Lenin Collected Works, Volume 11, pages 69-73.

“We must choose”—this is the argument the opportunists have always used to justify themselves, and they are using it now. Big things cannot be achieved at one stroke. We must fight for small but achievable things. How do we know whether they are achievable? They are achievable if the majority of the political parties, or of the most “influential” politicians, agree with them. The larger the number of politicians who agree with some tiny improvement, the easier it is to achieve it. We must not be utopians and strive after big things. We must be practical politicians; we must join in the demand for small things, and these small things will facilitate the fight for the big ones. We regard the small things as the surest stage in the struggle for big things.

That is how all the opportunists, all the reformists, argue; unlike the revolutionaries. That is how the Right-wing Social-Democrats argue about a Duma Cabinet. The demand for a constituent assembly is a big demand. It can not be achieved immediately. By no means everyone is consciously in favour of this demand.[1] But the whole State Duma, that is to say, the vast majority of politicians—that is to say “the whole people”—is in favour of a Duma Cabinet. We must choose—between the existing evil and a very small rectification of it, because the largest number of those who are in general dissatisfied with the existing evil are in favour of this “very small” rectification. And by achieving the small thing, we shall facilitate our struggle for the big one.

Continue to Read more »

Reformism in the Russian Social-Democratic Movement

Sotsial-Demokrat No. 23, September 14(1), 1911

Lenin Collected Works, Volume 17, pages 229-241. 

The tremendous progress made by capitalism in recent decades and the rapid growth of the working-class movement in all the civilised countries have brought about a big change in the attitude of the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. Instead of waging an open, principled and direct struggle against all the fundamental tenets of socialism in defence of the absolute inviolability of private property and freedom of competition, the bourgeoisie of Europe and America, as represented by their ideologists and political leaders, are coming out increasingly in defence of so-called social reforms as opposed to the idea of social revolution. Not liberalism versus socialism, but reformism versus socialist revolution—is the formula of the modern, “advanced”, educated bourgeoisie. And the higher the development of capitalism in a given country, the more unadulterated the rule of the bourgeoisie, and the greater the political liberty, the more extensive is the application of the “most up-to-date” bourgeois slogan: reform versus revolution, the partial patching up of the doomed regime with the object of dividing and weakening the working class, and of maintaining the rule of the bourgeoisie, versus the revolutionary over throw of that rule.

Continue to Read more »

The Vanguard Party of the Proletariat

Georg Lukacs 1924

We have seen that the proletariat’s historical task is both to emancipate itself from all ideological association with other classes and to establish its own class-consciousness on the basis of its unique class position and the consequent independence of its class interests. Only thus will it be capable of leading all the oppressed and exploited elements of bourgeois society in the common struggle against their economic and political oppressors. The objective basis of the leading role of the proletariat is its position within the capitalist process of production. However it would be a mechanistic application of Marxism, and therefore a totally unhistorical illusion, to conclude that a correct proletarian class-consciousness – adequate to the proletariat’s leading role – can gradually develop on its own, without both frictions and setbacks, as though the proletariat could gradually evolve ideologically into the revolutionary vocation appropriate to its class. The Impossibility of the economic evolution of capitalism into socialism was clearly proved by the Bernstein debates. Nevertheless, its ideological counterpart lived on un-contradicted in the minds of many honest European revolutionaries and was, moreover, not even recognized as either a problem or a danger. That is not to say that the best among them completely ignored its existence and importance, that they did not understand that the path to the ultimate victory of the proletariat is long and passes through many defeats, and that not only material setbacks but also ideological regressions are unavoidable on the way. They knew – to quote the words of Rosa Luxemburg – that the proletarian revolution which, because of its social pre-conditions, can no longer happen ‘too early’, must however necessarily happen ‘too early’ as far as the maintenance of power (of ideological power) is concerned. But if, despite this historical perspective of the proletariat’s path of liberation, it is still held that a spontaneous revolutionary self-education of the masses (through mass action and other experiences), supplemented by theoretically sound party agitation and propaganda, is enough to ensure the necessary development, then the idea of the ideological evolution of the proletariat into its revolutionary vocation cannot truly be said to have been overcome.

Continue to Read more »

The Platform of Revolutionary Social-Democracy - 1

Proletary, Nos. 14 and 15, March 4 and 25, 1907

Lenin Collected Works Volume 12, pages 208-218. 

I

The Party congress, as we know, is to be convened in a few weeks from now. We must most energetically set about preparations for the congress, get down to a discussion of the basic tactical problems on which the Party must take decisions at the congress.

The Central Committee of our Party has already out lined an agenda for the Congress, which has been announced in the press. The chief items on the agenda are: (1) The Immediate Political Tasks and (2) The State Duma. As far as the second item is concerned, its necessity is obvious and cannot give rise to objections. In our opinion, the first item is also essential, but should be worded somewhat differently, or, rather, should have its content somewhat changed.

For a general Party discussion on the tasks of the congress and the tactical problems it has to solve to begin immediately, a conference of representatives of the two metropolitan organisations of our Party and the editorial board of Proletary drew up, on the eve of the convocation of the Second Duma, the draft resolutions printed below. We intend to give an outline of how the conference under stood its tasks, why it gave first place to draft resolutions on certain questions, and what basic ideas were included in these resolutions.

Continue to Read more »

The Third Congress

Lenin

The Third Congress

Proletary, No. 1, May 27 (14), 19O5

Collected Works, Volume 8, pages 442-449. 

The long and stubborn struggle within the R.S.D.L.P. for the Congress is over at last. The Third Congress has been held. A detailed appraisal of all its work will be possible only after the proceedings of the Congress have been published. At present we propose, on the basis of the published “Report” and the impressions of the Congress delegates, to touch on the principal landmarks of Party development as reflected in the decisions of the Third Congress.

Three major questions confronted the Party of the class-conscious proletariat in Russia on the eve of the Third Congress. First, the question of the Party crisis. Second, the more important question of the form of organisation of the Party in general. Third, the main question, namely, our tactics in the present revolutionary situation. Let us see how these questions were dealt with, in the order of lesser to major.

Continue to Read more »

On the Provisional Revolutionary Government - Article 2

Proletary, Nos. 2 and 3. June 3 and 9 (May 21 and 27), 1905

Lenin Collected Works, , Volume 8, pages 461-481.

Back to Article 1

Only From Below, or From Above As Well As From Below?

In our previous article analysing Plekhanov’s reference to history we showed that he draws unwarranted general conclusions on points of principle from statements by Marx, which apply wholly and exclusively to the concrete situation in Germany in 1850. That concrete situation fully explains why Marx did not raise, and at that time could not have raised, the question of the Communist League’s participation in a provisional revolutionary government. We shall now proceed to examine the general, fundamental question of the admissibility of such participation.

In the first place, the question at issue must be accurately presented. In this respect, fortunately, we are able to use a formulation given by our opponents and thus avoid arguments on the essence of the dispute. Iskra, No. 93, says: “The best way towards achieving such organisation [the organisation of the proletariat into a party in opposition to the bourgeois-democratic state] is to develop the bourgeois revolution from below[Iskra’s italics] through the pressure of the proletariat on the democrats in power.” Iskra goes on to say that Vperyod “wants this pressure of the proletariat on the revolution to proceed not only ’from below’, not only from the street, but also from above, from the marble halls of the provisional government”.

Continue to Read more »

On the Provisional Revolutionary Government - Plekhanov’s Reference to History

Proletary, Nos. 2 and 3. June 3 and 9 (May 21 and 27), 1905

Lenin Collected Works, , Volume 8, pages 461-481.

Article One

Plekhanov’s Reference to History

The Third Congress of the Party. adopted a resolution on the question of the provisional revolutionary government. The resolution expresses the position we have taken in Vperyod. We now propose to examine in detail all objections to our position and to clarify from all points of consideration the true doctrinal significance and the practical implications of the Congress resolution. We shall begin with Plekhanov ’s attempt to deal with the question strictly as a point of principle. Plekhanov entitled his article “On the Question of the Seizure of Power”. He criticises the “tactics aimed [evidently by Vperyod] at the seizure of political power by the proletariat”. As everyone who knows Vperyod is perfectly well aware, it has never raised the question of the seizure of power nor ever aimed at any “tactics of seizure”. Plekhanov seeks to substitute a fictitious issue for the real issue. We have only to recollect the course of the controversy to see this.

Continue to Read more »

A Strong Revolutionary Government

V. I. Lenin

Pravda No. 50, May 19 (6), 1917. 

Collected Works, Volume 24, pages 360-361. 

We are for a strong revolutionary government. Whatever the capitalists and their flunkeys may shout about us to the contrary, their lies will remain lies.

The thing is not to let phrases obscure one’s consciousness, disorient one’s mind. When people speak about “revolution”, “the revolutionary people”, “revolutionary democracy”, and so on, nine times out of ten this is a lie or self-deception. The question is—what class is making this revolution? A revolution against whom?

Against tsarism? In that sense most of Russia’s landowners and capitalists today are revolutionaries. When the revolution is an accomplished fact, even reactionaries come into line with it. There is no deception of the masses at present more frequent, more detestable, and more harmful than that which lauds the revolution against tsarism.

Against the landowners? In this sense most of the peasants, even most of the well-to-do peasants, that is, probably nine-tenths of the population in Russia, are revolutionaries. Very likely, some of the capitalists, too, are prepared to become revolutionaries on the grounds that the landowners cannot be saved anyway, so let us better side with the revolution and try to make things safe for capitalism.

Continue to Read more »

The Workers’ Group in the State Duma

V. I. Lenin

Volna, No. 13, May 10, 1908. 

Collected Works, Volume 10, pages 402-405. 

In the State Duma there is a Workers’ Group of fifteen. How did these deputies get into the Duma? They were not nominated by workers’ organisations. The Party did not authorise them to represent its interests in the Duma. Not a single local organisation of the R.S.D.L.P. adopted a resolution (although it might have done) to nominate its members for the State Duma.

The worker deputies got into the Duma through non-party channels. Nearly all, or even all, got in by direct or indirect, tacit or avowed, agreements with the Cadets. Many of them got into the Duma in such a way that it is difficult to tell whether they were elected as Constitutional-Democrats or as Social-Democrats. This is a fact, and a fact of enormous political importance. To hush it up, as many Social-Democrats are doing today, is unpardonable and use less. Unpardonable, because it means keeping in the dark the electorate generally, and the workers’ party in particular. Useless, because the fact is bound to come out in the course of events.

In declaring that the formation of a Social-Democratic parliamentary group was desirable, the Unity Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. made a mistake by not taking this fact into account. As is evident from the resolution of the Left Social-Democrats that we published yesterday, this fact was pointed out at the Congress. But it must be stated in fairness that on the insistence of the Left wing, the Congress adopted a very important instruction to the Central Committee of the Party. The failure to print this resolution has left a very serious gap in the Central Committee’s publication, from which we reproduced the Congress resolutions. The resolution on the parliamentary group instructs the Central Committee to inform all Party organisations (I) whom, (2) when and (3) on what conditions the Central Committee recognises as the Party’s representative in the State Duma. Further, it instructs the Central Committee to give the Party periodical reports of the activities of the parliamentary group, and lastly, it imposes on those workers’ organisations to which the Social-Democratic members of the State Duma belong the duty of exercising special control over these members.

Continue to Read more »

The Platform of the Reformists and the Platform of the Revolutionary Social-Democrats

Lenin

The Platform of the Reformists and the Platform of the Revolutionary Social-Democrats

Sotsial-Demokrat No. 28–29, November 5 (18), 1912. 

Collected Works, Volume 18, pages 378-386.

The revolutionary upswing in Russia made itself clearly felt in the first half of 1912. The number of political strikers, as calculated by the factory owners, reached 515,000 for five months. A particularly important document, reprinted in full in No. 27 of the Central Organ, namely, the May Day appeal of the St. Petersburg workers, provides evidence as to the nature of the strikers’ slogans, their demands, the political content of their demonstrations, meetings, etc.

The slogans with which the St. Petersburg workers came forward in those memorable days were not reformist but revolutionary Social-Democratic slogans: a constituent assembly, an eight-hour working day, confiscation of the land ed estates, the overthrow of the tsarist government, and a democratic republic.

The revolts and attempted revolts of soldiers and sailors—in Turkestan, in the Baltic Fleet and on the Black Sea—supplied fresh objective evidence that after long years of rampant counter-revolution and of a lull in the working-class movement, a new revolutionary upswing had begun.

Continue to Read more »

Attitude Towards the State Duma

Lenin

Report on the Unity Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.

A Letter to the St. Petersburg Workers

Collected Works Volume 10, pages 317-382.

On the question of the Duma, the reporter from the faction that predominated at the Congress was Comrade Axel rod. He too, in a long speech, refrained from discussing the comparative merits of the two resolutions (the committee submitted two resolutions, because the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks could not reach agreement), from stating in precise terms the views of the Minority on this question, but gave a “general outline” of the meaning of parliamentarism. He went far afield, took a long excursion into history, and drew a picture of parliamentarism, of its significance, its role in the development of proletarian organisation, in agitation, in the awakening of the class-consciousness of the proletariat, and so forth. Casting innuendoes all the time at “anarchistic-conspiratorial” views, he soared entirely in the realm of abstractions, in the lofty sphere of platitudes and magnificent reflections on history which were applicable to all times, to all nations and to all periods in history in general: but which, owing to their abstract character, were useless for dealing with the concrete features of the concrete matter in hand. I remember the following particularly glaring example of the incredibly abstract, vapid and general way in which Axelrod presented his case. Twice in his speech (I made a note of this) he touched on the question of bargains, or agreements, between the Social-Democrats and the Cadets. Once he touched on it in passing, spoke of it in disparaging terms, and in a word or two expressed his opposition to all agreement. The second time he dealt with it at greater length and said that, speaking generally, agreements were permissible, except that they must not be hole-and-corner doings by committees, but public agreements visible and clear to all the workers, and must represent important political steps, or actions. Such agreements, he said, would enhance the significance of the proletariat as a political force, would-more clearly and distinctly reveal to it the machinery of politics and the different positions and different interests of the various classes. They would draw the proletariat into definite political relationships, teach it to see its enemies and ill-wishers, and so on and so forth. It was arguments of this kind that Comrade Axelrod’s very long “report” consisted of. One can not relate them—one can only give an idea of them by giving an example or two.

Continue to Read more »

Appraisal of the Revolutionary Situation and of the Class Tasks of the Proletariat

Lenin

Report on the Unity Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.

A Letter to the St. Petersburg Workers

Collected Works Volume 10, pages 317-382.

The question mentioned in the above heading was the second item on the agenda of the Congress. The reporters were Martynov and I. Strictly speaking, Comrade Martynov in his report did not defend the Menshevik draft resolution, printed in Partiiniye Izvestia, No. 2. He preferred to give a “general outline” of his views and a general criticism of what the Mensheviks call Bolshevik views.

He spoke of the Duma as a political centre, of the harmfulness of the idea of seizing power, and of the importance of the country’s constitutional development in a revolutionary period. He criticised the December uprising, called upon us openly to admit our defeat, and condemned our resolution for its “technical” presentation of the question of strike and insurrection. He said that “the Cadets, although they are anti-revolutionary, are erecting the scaffolding for the further development of the revolution”. (Then why do you not say so in your resolutions, we asked.) He said that “we are on the eve of a revolutionary explosion”. (Why isn’t that in your resolution, we asked again.) Incidentally, he said: “Objectively, the Cadets will play a more important role than the Socialist-Revolutionaries.” The idea of seizing power is akin to the ideas of Tkachov; the Duma must be put into the foreground as the first step in the country’s “constitutional development”, as the corner-stone of the edifice of “representative institutions”—such was the gist of Comrade Martynov’s report. Like all Mensheviks, he passively adjusted our tactics to the slightest turn in the course of events, subordinated them to fleeting interests, to momentary (or apparent) needs, and involuntarily belittled the main and fundamental tasks of the proletariat as the vanguard fighter in the bourgeois democratic revolution.

Continue to Read more »

The International Significance of Bolshevism

M. H. C.
Communist 1932

THE letter ·of comrade Stalin to the magazine Proletorskaya Revoluzia on some questions relating to the history of Bolshe­vism, not only exposes the falsifiers of history, the Slutskys, Volo­ sevitches, Mironovs, ete., but is of world historical significance. It emphasizes the necessity of Bolshevik vigilance on the theoretical front. It mobilizes the Communist International for a more de­termined fight against Trotskyism, against Luxemburgism, against right opportunism as well as against all renegades from Marxism­Leninism. The letter of comrade Stalin further exposes the rotten liberalism and mistakes on the part of some Bolshevik editors and historians, who discuss axioms of Bolshevism that are not debatable. The international character of comrade Stalin's letter makes it necessary for the C. P. U. S. A. to utilize it for the further Bolshe­vization of our Party. 

Is it accidental that the enemies of Bolshevism are trying to smuggle in an alien class ideology and utilize the theoretical front in the fight against the Party of Lenin against the Comintem and against the Soviet Union? Of course not. 

The Soviet Union is now entering the fourth year of the Five­ year Plan, and it is indisputable that the Five-Year Plan will be completed in four years. The foundation of Socialism is being completed. Today 62 per cent of all the individual peasant hold­ings are organized into collective farms. This is talcing place with a socialist , offensive on all fronts. But classes in the Soviet Union are not yet completely liquidated, the class struggle still con­tinues, although the question of "who whom" within the Soviet Union has already been decided in favor of Socialism. The dying capitalist elements, however, are still offering resistance. The class enemy finds new forms of expression and we see new manifesta­tions of opportunism.

Continue to Read more »

To: A. V. LUNACHARSKY

Lenin

Collected Works,  Volume 34, pages 352-354. 

October 14

Dear An. Vas.,

Your article deals with a subject that is extremely interesting and very timely. Recently, in a leading article, Leipziger Volkszeitung ridiculed the Zemstvo members for their September Congress, for “playing at a Constitution”, for already posing as parliamentarians, etc., etc. The mistake of Parvus and Martov needs analysing from this aspect. But your article gives no analysis. I believe the article should be revised along one of two lines: either the weight of emphasis should be shifted to our new-Iskrists, who are “playing at parliamentarism”, and you should demonstrate in detail the relative, temporary importance of parliamentarism, the futility of “parliamentary illusions” in an era of revolutionary struggle, etc., by explaining the whole thing from the beginning (for Russians this is very useful!) and introducing a bit of Hilferding, just by way of illustration; or else you should take Hilferding as a basis—the article will then need less revision—give it a different heading, but describe more clearly Hilferding’s method of presenting the question. Of course, you may find another plan of revision, but please set to work on it at once, without fail. You have time for it, since the article could not go into this issue (the Moscow events+ the old material have taken up all the space). So, the deadline is Tuesday, October 17. Please make it a comprehensive article and send it by October 17. It would be better to revise it along the first lines, it may then turn out to be an editorial!

Continue to Read more »

A New Upswing

Lenin

Volna, No. 10, May 6, 1906

Collected Works, Volume 10, pages 386-391.

The opening of the Duma sessions has coincided with the outbreak of Black-Hundred riots. The first steps on the path of “peaceful parliamentarism”, a path which caused the Cadets and all philistines in politics to go into raptures and tears of joy, have coincided with the most brutal, most direct and immediate manifestations of civil war. The introduction of the “constitutional” method of deciding affairs of state, the method of ballot-papers and the counting of votes, has coincided with outbreaks of the most primitive violence, with the settlement of affairs of state by exterminating dissidents, by annihilating political opponents (literally annihilating by fire and sword).[1]

Is this a chance coincidence? Of course not. And it would be inadequate as an explanation to say that the police is organising riots for provocative purposes, for the purpose of discrediting the Duma. Of course, there cannot be the shadow of a doubt that the police is directly involved. Of course, the police is organising, inciting and provoking. All this is true. In a war which the bureaucracy is waging, virtually for its very existence, its servants and supporters literally stick at nothing. But why do they have to resort to such methods of struggle, and on such a large scale, precisely at the present time? This question is worth considering, in order to avoid ascribing whole periods of revolutionary development to the exceptional viciousness, exceptional blood thirstiness and exceptional bestiality of the combatants.

Continue to Read more »

The Victory of the Cadets and the Tasks of the Workers’ Party

V. I. Lenin

Collected Works, Volume 10, pages 199-276. 

IV

The Role and Significance of a Cadet Duma

And so the State Duma will be a Cadet Duma, say the liberal newspapers. We have already said that this is quite probable. We can only add that even if, despite their present victories, the Cadets prove to be a minority in the Duma, it is not likely to affect very materially the course of the political crisis that is again maturing in Russia. The elements of this revolutionary crisis are too deep-rooted to be seriously affected by the composition of the Duma. The attitude of the broad masses of the people towards the government is quite clear. The attitude of the government towards the pressing needs of the whole of social development is more than clear. Naturally, in these circumstances, the revolution will advance. The predominance of the Black Hundreds in the First Duma can have only one probable delaying effect upon certain aspects of the political development of Russia: the collapse of the Cadet Party and of its prestige among the people will be delayed if the Cadets are now in the minority. At the present time it would be very convenient for them to be in a minority and to remain in opposition. The public would attribute the predominance of the Black Hundreds to the government’s repressive measures during the elections. The opposition speeches of the Cadets, who realise how “harmless” their opposition is, would be particularly fervid. Their prestige among the broad masses of the politically uneducated population might rise, in circumstances when their “words” sounded even louder than at present, while their “deeds” remained even more vague because of their being outvoted by the Octobrists. Even then, the growth of discontent with the government and preparations for a new revolutionary upsurge would continue; but the exposure of Cadet futility might be somewhat delayed.

Continue to Read more »

The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion

Lenin
Proletary, No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909. Published according to the text in Proletary.

Collected Works, Volume 15, pp. 402-413.

Deputy Surkov’s speech in the Duma during the debate on the Synod estimates, and the discussion that arose within our Duma group when it considered the draft of this speech (both printed in this issue) have raised a question which is of extreme importance and urgency at this particular moment. An interest in everything connected with religion is undoubtedly being shown today by wide circles of “society”, and has penetrated into the ranks of intellectuals standing close to the working-class movement, as well as into certain circles of the workers. It is the absolute duty of Social-Democrats to make a public statement of their attitude towards religion.

Social-Democracy bases its whole world-outlook on scientific socialism, i. e., Marxism. The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion. Let us recall that the whole of Engels’s Anti-Dühring, which Marx read in manuscript, is an indictment of the materialist and atheist Dühring for not being a consistent materialist and for leaving loopholes for religion and religious philosophy. Let us recall that in his essay on Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels reproaches Feuerbach for combating religion not in order to destroy it, but in order to renovate it, to invent a new, “exalted” religion, and so forth. Religion is the opium of the people—this dictum by Marx is the corner-stone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion. Marxism has always regarded all modern religions and churches, and each and every religious organisation, as instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working class.

Continue to Read more »