“WhatIstoBeDone?”byV.I.Lenin.Copyright1929,1943byInternationalPublishersCompany,Inc.

“TheStateandRevolution”byV.I.Lenin.Copyright1932and1943byInternationalPublishersCompany,Inc.

“Imperialism,theHighestStageofCapitalism”byV.I.Lenin.Copyright1939byInternationalPublishersCompany,Inc.

AlloftheaboveareusedbypermissionofInternationalPublishersCompany,Inc.

Copyright©1966byBantamBooks,Inc.

Allrightsreserved.

ThisDoveredition,firstpublishedin1987,isanunabridgedandunalteredrepublicationoftheworkfirstpublishedbyBantamBooks,Inc.,NewYork,in1966underthetitleEssentialWorksofLenin.

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData

Lenin,VladimirIl’ich,1870-1924.

EssentialworksofLenin.

TranslationfromRussian.

Reprint.Originallypublished:NewYork:Bantambooks,c1966.Originallypublishedinseries:Bantammatrixeditions.

Contents:Whatistobedone?—Thestateandrevolution—Imperialism,thehigheststageofcapitalism.

1.Socialism—SovietUnion.2.Rossiĭskaiasotsial-demokraticheskaiarabochaiapartiia.3.State,The.4.Revolutions.5.Capitalism.6.Imperialism.I.Christman,HenryM.II.Title.

DK254.L3A254198733586-30943

9780486119816

ManufacturedintheUnitedStatesbyCourierCorporation25333310www.doverpublications.com

Tableof Contents

TitlePageCopyrightPageINTRODUCTIONTHEDEVELOPMENTOFCAPITALISMINRUSSIACONCLUSIONSTOCHAPTERICONCLUSIONSTOCHAPTERIIEXCERPTFROMCHAPTERIVEXCERPTFROMCHAPTERVIIEXCERPTFROMCHAPTERVIII

WHATISTOBEDONE?I-DOGMATISMAND“FREEDOMOFCRITICISM”II-THESPONTANEITYOFTHEMASSESANDTHECLASSCONSCIOUSNESSOFSOCIAL-DEMOCRACYIII-TRADEUNIONPOLITICSANDSOCIAL-DEMOCRATICPOLITICSIV-THEPRIMITIVENESSOFTHEECONOMISTSANDTHEORGANIZATIONOFREVOLUTIONARIES

IMPERIALISM,THEHIGHESTSTAGEOFCAPITALISMCHAPTERI-CONCENTRATIONOFPRODUCTIONANDMONOPOLIESCHAPTERII-THEBANKSANDTHEIRNEWROLECHAPTERIII-FINANCECAPITALANDFINANCIALOLIGARCHYCHAPTERIV-THEEXPORTOFCAPITALCHAPTERV-THEDIVISIONOFTHEWORLDAMONGCAPITALISTCOMBINESCHAPTERVI-THEDIVISIONOFTHEWORLDAMONGTHEGREATPOWERSCHAPTERVII-IMPERIALISMASASPECIALSTAGEOFCAPITALISM

CHAPTERVIII-THEPARASITISMANDDECAYOFCAPITALISMCHAPTERIX-THECRITIQUEOFIMPERIALISMCHAPTERX-THEPLACEOFIMPERIALISMINHISTORY

THESTATEANDREVOLUTIONCHAPTERI-CLASSSOCIETYANDTHESTATECHAPTERII-THESTATEANDREVOLUTION.THEEXPERIENCEOF1848-51CHAPTERIII-THESTATEANDREVOLUTION.EXPERIENCEOFTHEPARISCOMMUNEOF1871.MARX’SANALYSISCHAPTERIV-CONTINUATION.SUPPLEMENTARYEXPLANATIONSBYENGELSCHAPTERV-THEECONOMICBASISOFTHEWITHERINGAWAYOFTHESTATECHAPTERVI-THEVULGARIZATIONOFMARXISMBYTHEOPPORTUNISTS

SUGGESTIONSFORFURTHERREADINGBIOGRAPHICALINDEXGLOSSARYOFRUSSIANTERMS

INTRODUCTION

ThefoundationofmoderncommunismrestsfirmlyuponthephilosophicalsystemdevelopedbyLenin—histheoriesofhistory,politics,andeconomics;histacticsforsecuringandretainingpower;andhisvisionofanewsocialandeconomicsystem.Lenin’splaceincommunisthistoryisunchallengedeitherbycommunism’sproponentsoropponents.CommunisttheoreticiansofeveryfactioncarefullybuttressalltheirargumentsandprogramswithappropriatecitationsfromLenin;heis,indeed,thefirstandlastwordineveryconsiderationofcommunistphilosophy.

Therefore,Lenin’sliteraryworksassumespecialimportance.Hespeakswithremarkabledirectnessandforcefulness.Nooneneeddoubtthesourceofcommunistgoalsandtactics;theyareexplainedandconstantlyreiteratedbyLeninhimselfthroughouthiswritings.Thereisanobviousneedtomakethesewritingsmorereadilyavailabletothegeneralstudentofcommunismanditsroleinworldaffairs.

Now,atlast,thispresentvolumemeetstheneedforanobjectiveintroductiontoLenin’sthinking,aspresentedbyhisownwritings.Obviously,hisextensivewritingscannotbefullyincludedinaone-volume,introductoryanthology;hiscompleteworkscompriseseveraldozenvolumes.However,thisbookdoesfeaturewhataregenerallyconsideredhisfourmostsignificantworks:TheDevelopmentofCapitalisminRussia,hisfirstmajorstudy,whichisrepresentedherebykeysections;WhatIstoBeDone?,longregardedasthekeymanualofcommunistaction,whichispresentedherecomplete,exceptforonehighlyspecializedanddatedsection;Imperialism,theHighestStageofCapitalism,inwhichLeninseekstochartthefutureofcapitalism,presentedherecomplete;andTheStateandRevolution,whichsummarizesLenin’sconceptsofthegoalsandfutureofcommunism,regardedashismostimportantwork,alsopresentedherecomplete.Thesefourworks,takentogether,offerabalancedcrosssectionofLenin’sviews.Together,theydealwithboththeoryandaction—Lenin’sanalysisofproblemsandtheprogramheproposestosolvethem.

VladimirIlyichUlyanov,laterknownasV.I.Lenin,wasbornApril10,1870intheVolgatownofSimbirsk(nowUlyanovsk),thethirdchildofIlyaNikolaievichUlyanovandMariaAlexandrovnaBlankUlyanov.TheelderUlyanovwasadedicatededucatorandthedirectoroftheschoolsystemoftheprovinceofSimbirsk.Underhisdevotedleadership,almost500newschoolswerebuilt,andschoolattendanceintheprovincedoubled—amongapopulation80percentilliterate.Hewasreferredtosuspiciouslyas“theLiberal”byhismerchantneighbors.MariaAlexandrovnaBlankUlyanovwasacultivatedwomanofVolgaGermanancestry,thedaughterofaphysician.ALutheran,shewasofficiallyclassifiedadissenterfromthestateRussianOrthodoxreligion.

Therefore,theUlyanovhouseholdwasinstrikingcontrasttothetypicalRussianfamilyofthetime,anddistinctlydifferentevenfromtheaverageprofessional,middle-classRussianfamily.VladimirIlyichandhistwobrothers,Alexander(1866—1887)andDmitri(1874—1943),andthreesisters,Anna(1864—1935),Olga(1871—1891),andMaria(1878—1937),wererearedinanatmosphereofidealismandcosmopolitanculture.EdmundWilson,thenotedAmericanliterarycritic,hassaidthatinordertounderstandthisremarkablefamily,oneshouldthinknotintraditionalRussianorevenEuropeanterms,butturninsteadtotheNewEnglandtraditionof“plain-livingandhigh-thinking.”Indeed,theinterioroftheUlyanovhome,whichhasbeenrestored,issaidtobearanunusualresemblancetoacultured,NewEnglandhomeofthemid-1880s.

Thisidyllicfamilylifewasnottolast,however.In1886,IlyaNikolaievichUlyanov,only45yearsoldbutexhaustedfromyearsofdedicatedservice,diedsuddenly.Thenextyear,AlexanderUlyanov,theeldestofthechildrenandabrilliantstudentattheUniversityofSt.Petersburg,wasinvolvedinaplottoassassinateTsarAlexanderIII.HeandAnna,whohappenedtobevisitinghim,werearrested.Alexanderreadilyadmittedhisroleintheplotandattemptedtoprotectothersbyclaimingfullresponsibility.Heandfourotherswerehanged,andAnnawasbanishedtoKokuchkino,asmalltownnearKazan,about150milesfromtheUlyanovfamilyhomeatSimbirsk.Theentirefamilywassuspectedbytheauthorities;nonetheless,VladimirwasadmittedtotheUniversityofKazan.Quicklybecominginvolvedinantigovernmentstudentactivities,hewassoonexpelledand,likeAnna,banishedtoKokuchkino.

Thereupon,therestoftheUlyanovfamily,MariaAlexandrovnaandthesmallerchildren,joinedVladimirandAnnaatKokuchkino.

Intheautumnof1888,clemencymeasuresreleasedVladimirandAnnafrombanishment,andtheUlyanovfamilymovedtoKazan.However,VladimirwasnotreadmittedtotheUniversityofKazanandcouldonlycontinuehisstudiesalone.MariaAlexandrovnaacquiredafarminSamara,wherethefamilyspentthewinters,returningtoKazanfortherestofeachyear.Vladimiradjustedtothisroutine;heutilizedthelibrariesandsecuredbannedMarxistworkswhileinKazananddidfieldresearchonthestateofthepeasantswhileinSamara.HepursuedadualgoalofpreparinghimselfforuniversitydegreeexaminationsanddeepeninghisknowledgeofMarxism.MakingextensiveuseofhisfluencyinGerman,acquiredathome,hestudiedMarxintheoriginalandtranslatedtheCommunistManifestointoRussian.Andhecontinuedhiseffortstore-enterauniversity.Theauthoritiesrefusedtoadmithimasaresident-studentatanyuniversity,buttheyeventuallypermittedhimtotakethefinallawschoolexaminationsattheUniversityofSt.Petersburg,withtheconditionthathewouldpreparehimselfbyindependentstudy.Hetooktheexaminationsatthe1891sessionandgraduatedfirstintheclass.

ItwasatthispointthattheUlyanovfamilywasbrokenup.Olga,studyinginSt.Petersburg,wasfatallystrickenbytyphoidfever.Subsequently,MariaAlexandrovnamovedtoMoscow,whereheryoungestson,Dmitri,enteredtheuniversity.

VladimirsettledinSt.Petersburgandregisteredforthebar.There,heredoubledhiseffortsinatwo-frontstrugglenotonlyagainsttheTsaristgovernment,butalsoagainsttheNarodniki,knownas“FriendsofthePeople”and“Populists,”whosepoliticalarmwastheSocialRevolutionaryParty.TheNarodnikihaddominatedtheanti-TsaristoppositionfordecadesandwerebitterlyhostiletothenewMarxistmovement.

TheNarodnikiwereexclusivelypeasant-oriented.First,theythoughtinpopulistterms,andtheoverwhelmingmajorityoftheRussianpopulationconsistedofpeasants.Second,theywereultranationalisticandanti-Western,basingtheirmovementonRussiancultureandtradition;theyglorifiedtheroleofprimitivecommunismamongthepeasantsofmedievalRussiaandassertedthatRussiawasauniquecaseinwhichWesternconceptsofrevolutionarychangehadnoplace.Third,theywereantimodern;theyopposedindustrializationandinnovationandsoughtinsteadtoimplementaromantic,“backtonature,”agrarianutopia.Theyreliedheavilyonsporadic,

individualisticterrorisminwhichNarodnikiintellectualswouldsacrificethemselvesinassassinationattemptsunrelatedtoanyover-all,revolutionaryplan.TherewasastronglymysticalstrainintheNarodnikioutlookwhichinvolvedsymbolicself-sacrificeoflifeonbehalfofatraditional“MotherRussia.”

VladimirIlyichUlyanov,ontheotherhand,wasalreadydedicatedtothetransformationofRussiaintoamodern,international,industrialized,urban-oriented,Marxistsociety,whichhebelievedcouldbeachievedonlybyacarefullyorganizedrevolutionexecutedbyprofessionalrevolutionariesutilizingthemostmoderntechniques.HethrewhimselfintothedualstruggleagainstboththeTsaristsandtheNarodniki—andwenowseeclearlythematureLenin—withthecombinationofdedicationandskillthatwastomarkhissubsequentcareer.AlthoughhedidnotyetusethenameLenin,itisappropriatetorefertohimbythatnamefromthispointon.

UndertheleadershipofLenin,ascoreofscatteredgroupswereunitedintoaneworganization,theLeagueofStrugglefortheEmancipationoftheWorkingClass.ButtheTsaristpolicemovedrapidly,andinDecember1895,LeninandotherRussianMarxistleaderswerearrestedandimprisoned.Leninremainedinprisonuntilearly1897,whenhewasbanishedtoSiberiaforthreeyears.Whileinprison,heutilizedhistimewritinghisfirstmajorwork,TheDevelopmentofCapitalisminRussia,whichhecompletedinSiberianexile.In1898,hewasjoinedbyNadezhdaKonstantinovnaKrupskaya,arevolutionaryassociateofthepreviousseveralyears,nowalsobanishedtoSiberia;theyweremarriedJuly10,1898.

Meanwhile,inMarch1898,thenewRussianSocialDemocraticLabor(RSDLP)PartyhelditsfirstcongressinMinskandopenlyproclaimeditsprogram.Eventhoughthepartywasalmostimmediatelyrepressed,RussianMarxismhadenteredanewera.

InJanuary1900,havingservedthreeyearsofSiberianbanishment,LeninreturnedtoEuropeanRussiaandsoonthereafterwentintoself-imposedexileinWesternEurope,wherehewastospendthenextfiveyears.Krupskayajoinedhimwhenherbanishmentended.TheLeninssettledfirstinMunich,thenLondon,andfinallyinSwitzerland.InassociationwithRussianMarxistsabroad,thenledbyGeorgiyValentinovichPlekhanov,sometimesreferredtoas“thefatherofRussianMarxism,”theLeninsdevotedthemselvestorevolutionaryactivity.LenineditedanewRussian,revolutionaryperiodical,Iskra,andKrupskayaundertookthecorrespondenceandotherdetailsinvolved

insmugglingthepaperintoRussia.Iskrawasintendedtobejustwhatitsname,“TheSpark,”implied;LeninwasstrivingtoeventuallyigniteaMarxistrevolutioninRussia.Itwasalsoduringthisperiodthathecompletedandpublishedanothermajorwork,WhatIstoBeDone?Inthisbook,hecarefullyoutlineshisconceptofpoliticalaction.LenincompletelyrejectstheWesternroleofademocraticpoliticalpartyworkingwithintheframeworkofparliamentarydemocracy;instead,hecallsforamonolithicorganizationofdedicatedprofessionalrevolutionariesdevotedtothesinglegoalofthedictatorshipoftheproletariat.

Leninwasapproachinghissecondmajorideologicalconfrontation.Inpreviousyears,hehadfoughtnotonlyTsarists,butalsotheNarodniki.Hewasnowabouttoopenlyattackanotherenemy:hisopponentswithintheRSDLP.

InJulyandAugustof1903,theRSDLPhelditsSecondCongress,thistimeabroad.FirstmeetinginBrussels,theconventionwasdispersedbytheBelgianpoliceandsubsequentlyreassembledinLondon.Asthecongressprogressed,itwassoonobviousthattheRSDLPwas,inpractice,anumbrellaformanyconflictingviewpoints.The“Economists”emphasizedimprovementoflivingandworkingconditionsandstressedtradeunionismratherthanpoliticalchange.TheJewishBunddesiredtoremainaseparate,autonomousorganizationwithintheparty.Finally,thosewhodesiredasocialistsocietywerenotonlysplitoverhowtoachieveit,butwerealsodividedonthequestionofthenatureofsocialism—whetherdemocraticorLeninist.

DemocraticsocialismalreadywasmakingamajorimpactinWesternEurope.InBritain,theFabians,ledbySidneyandBeatriceWebb,GeorgeBernardShaw,andotherintellectuals,wereadvocatingtheidealsandprogramsthatledtothedevelopmentofthemodernBritishtradeunionmovementandtheLabourParty.InGermany,EduardBernsteinpropoundedhistheoryofevolutionarysocialism.InFrance,intheScandinaviancountriesandelsewhereinWesternEurope,intheUnitedStates,andthroughouttheEnglish-speakingworld,therewasstrongsympathyfordemocraticsocialism.DemocraticsocialistsexistedinRussia,too.Theirgoalwasademocraticsocietywithpersonallibertyandamixedeconomyofpublicandprivateownership.Leninscornedsuchviewsasbourgeois;tohim,socialismmeantadictatorshipoftheproletariatexercisingabsolutecontroloverallpoliticalandeconomicmatters.Todemocraticsocialists,establishmentoftheirconceptofsocialismwastheultimategoal.ToLenin,ontheotherhand,establishmentofhisconceptofsocialism—adictatorshipoftheproletariat—wasbutastep

towardtheultimategoal:communism.

ApoliticaldevelopmentoutsidetheRSDLPincreasedthedivisionwithinthePartyitself—theemergenceoftheConstitutionalDemocraticParty,agroupofWestern-orientedliberalswhosoughttoestablishWesternparliamentarydemocracyandWesternsocialpatternsinRussia.TheseConstitutionalDemocrats,referredtoas“Cadets,”wereregardedwithfavorbymanydemocraticsocialistswithintheRSDLP.Thelatterwishedtoco-operatewiththeConstitutionalDemocratsinjoint,democratic,politicalstrategyandactiontoachievemutualgoals.Lenin,onthecontrary,scornedtheConstitutionalDemocrats,denouncingthemasbourgeoisliberalswhomerelywishedtopreservethecapitalistsystem.Moreover,Lenin,whorejectedWesternparliamentarianism,believedthatitwasuselesstoattempttoaccomplishanyfundamentalreformthroughparliamentarydemocracy;hewasconvincedthatrealchangecouldbebroughtaboutonlybyandthroughthedictatorshipoftheproletariat.Consequently,theemergenceoftheConstitutionalDemocratsasasignificantpoliticalfactordividedstillfurtherthetwofactionswithintheRSDLP.

Openconflictbetweenthesetwocontradictoryviewpointswasinevitable;itcameaboutintheSecondCongressoftheRSDLP.Whilethecongresswasinsession,boththe“Economists”andtheJewishBundistswithdrewfromtheRSDLP,leavingthedemocraticsocialistsastheonlyrealoppositiontotheLeninists.Thelineswereclearlydrawn;thechoicewasnowreducedtotwoalternativeprograms,democraticsocialismorLeninism.Leninwasabletogatheramajorityoftheremainingdelegates;hence,hisgroupbecameknownas“Bolsheviks”(fromtheRussianbolshe,“more”),whilethedemocraticsocialistminoritybecameknownas“Mensheviks”(fromtheRussianmenshe,“less”).Lenin,whowellunderstoodthevalueofwords,wasthereforeabletocharacterizehismovementbytheterm“majority,”withalltheconsequentpsychologicaladvantages,wheninfacthisforcesactuallywereaminorityintheover-allparty.The“Mensheviks”soongainedthepartyleadership,andthetwogroupscontinuedtostruggleuntiltheLeninistswithdrewfromtheRSDLPseveralyearslater.The“Bolsheviks”thenreconstitutedthemselvesastheCommunistParty,andwerehenceforthknownasCommunists,whilethe“Mensheviks,”assumingfullcontroloftheRSDLP,wereknownhenceforthasSocialDemocrats.

Meanwhile,conditionsinsideRussiahadbeenworsening.TheTsaristgovernmentthoughtthattheRusso-JapaneseWarof1904-1905woulddistract

therestivepopulation,butthehumiliatingdefeatsufferedbyRussiaonlybroadenedandintensifiedresentmentagainstthegovernment.TheRussianmassesstillhadfaithintheTsar,however;theybelievedhecouldandwouldintervenepersonallyontheirbehalf.OnJanuary9,1905,FatherGapon,apriestoftheofficialRussianOrthodoxChurch,ledaprocessionofSt.PetersburgworkerstopetitiontheTsarforimprovementofworkingconditions.Thedemonstratorswerepeaceful;theycarriedreligiousiconsandportraitsoftheTsarandsangreligioushymnsandtheTsaristnationalanthem.Nevertheless,astheyapproachedtheWinterPalace,soldiersandCossacksopenedfire,andthehelplessdemonstratorsweremassacred.

This“BloodySunday”slaughterhadagreateffectthroughoutRussia.InJune1905,thefamousPotemkinnavalrevolttookplace;theTsarnolongerdareddependonhisarmyandnavy.ByOctober,therewasaneffectivegeneralstrike,andinmid-OctobertheTsarfeltcompelledtograntcertaincivillibertiesandtoestablishaDuma(parliament).Thenewlibertywasshort-lived,however.TheTsarwithdrewmajorconcessions;theMoscowworkersrespondedwithanuprisinginDecemberandwerecrushed.Bymid-1906,theTsardissolvedtheFirstDuma;in1907,henotonlydissolvedtheSecondDuma,butalsoarrestedanddeportedsomeofitsmembers.Lenin,whohadreturnedtoRussiainNovember1905,washuntedbytheTsaristpolice,andinDecember1907,almostlosthislifefleeingacrosstheicefromtheFinnishmainlandtoaFinnishisland,whereashipcarriedhimbackintoexile.

Lenin’ssecondexilewasspentlargelyinParisandSwitzerland.ItwastotakeRussiaafulldecadetorecoverfromthe1905-1907repression.Leninbidedhistime;heandKrupskayacontinuedtodevotethemselvestothecauseofaRussian,Marxistrevolution.In1916,Lenincompletedanothermajorwork,Imperialism,TheHighestStageofCapitalism.Inthisbook,helookedbeyondthetraditionalconceptofimperialismasthebuildingofempiresbysubjugationofterritoriesandthesubsequentexploitationofthesecoloniesforrawmaterialandascaptivemarkets.Heconsideredthistypeofimperialismmerelyatransitionalstagetoanewvarietyofimperialisminwhichadvanced,wealthynationswoulddominateunderdeveloped,poornationsbythesimpledeviceofexportingcapital.Thus,thecapitalistsoftheadvancedWesternnationswouldneitherneedtoextractrawmaterialsfromtheunderdevelopednations,norcompelthemtopurchasefinishedmanufacturedgoods;theycouldmerelysitbackandcollectcontinuousincomefromtheircapital,whiletheexploitedworkersoftheunderdevelopednationsperformedallthework.Leninconsideredthisthefinal,“parasitic”stageofcapitalism.

ItwasduringthissecondexilethatLeninalsowrotewhatisgenerallyregardedashismostsignificantwork,TheStateandRevolution.Inthisbook,LeninreaffirmshistotalrejectionofalltheinstitutionsofWesterndemocracy.HeemphasizesthataLeninistshouldparticipateinWesternparliamentarianismforonepurposealone:tobringaboutitsultimatedestruction.HereiteratesthatthedictatorshipoftheproletariatistheonlytrueLeninistmethodforeliminatingcapitalism.However,hegoeswellbeyondthesepointstointroduceawhollynewaspectofLeninistphilosophy;hepresentsanunprecedentedexaminationofwhatheassertswillinevitablyfollowthedictatorshipoftheproletariat,the“witheringaway”ofthestate.Lenin,thehard-headed,ultrapracticalrevolutionarytactician,suddenlyprojectsautopianvision.Hepredictsthatoncethedictatorshipoftheproletariatisestablishedandcapitalismdestroyed,peoplewillbetransformed.Nolongerwilltheythinkinaselfish,capitalisticcontext,butinanew,brotherlycommunistone,liberatedfromtherestraintsofcapitalism.Asaresult,theywillbehaveinanatural,ethicalmanner;police,courts,laws,allwillbecomeunnecessary.Theentireapparatusofgovernmentwillceasetoexist,thestateitselfwilldisappear,andonlyindividuallyself-governingpeoplewillremain,eachservingthecommongoodtotheextentofhisability,andeachreceivingaccordingtohisneeds,inaperfectcommunistsociety.

Bythistime,Leninhadreachedathirdideologicalconfrontation,onewhichprovokedhimtothetypeofwrathhehadearlierdirectedfirstagainsttheNarodnikiandthenagainsttheMensheviks.KarlKautsky,literaryexecutoroftheworksofMarxandEngelsanddistinguishedtheoreticianoftheGermanSocialDemocraticParty,withwhomLeninpreviouslyhadagreedonvariouskeyMarxistpoints,nowboldlyattackedLeninandhisplansforRussianrevolutionasnon-Marxistandanti-Marxist.KautskyemphasizedMarx’sviewthatarevolution,tobetrulyMarxist,musttakeplaceinanindustrializedsocietywithalarge,informedurbanproletariat;and,Kautskyadded,Marxalsobelievedthat,becausetheurbanproletariatwouldbeanoverwhelmingmajorityofthepopulation,thetrulyMarxistrevolutionwouldbedemocratic.Specifically,KautskystronglyrejectedLenin’stheoryofthedictatorshipoftheproletariatandreassertedhisowninterpretationofthedemocratic,antitotalitarianconceptsofMarxism.Lenin,deeplystungbythechargeofnon-MarxismfromaMarxisttheoreticianofKautsky’sstature,reactedwithviolentdenunciationintendedtodestroyKautsky’sreputationandalienatehisfollowers.

FromneutralSwitzerland,LeninfollowedtheeffectofWorldWarIon

Russia.Russianmilitarydefeatsdemoralizedthearmedforcesandthegeneralpopulation.Economicconditionsworsened.DuringJanuaryandFebruaryof1917,somethree-quartersoftheSt.Petersburgworkerswereonstrike,paralyzingRussia’sindustrialcenter.OnFebruary27,thesituationexplodedintofullrevolution.KeymilitarygarrisonsinSt.Petersburg,orderedbytheTsartocrushtherebels,joinedtheminstead.ByMarch3,thecircumstancescompelledNicholasIItoabdicate;themonarchywasabolishedandsucceededbyaprovisionalgovernmentofConstitutionalDemocratsandSocialDemocrats.

Leninvigorouslyopposedtheentirewarasmerelyanimperialiststrugglebetweencompetinggroupsofcapitalists.TheGermangovernment,persuadedthatLeninwouldwithdrawRussiafromthewarshouldhecometopower,providedhimwithaspecialrailroadcar,towhichtheygrantedextraterritoriality;occupantsofthecarwererelievedofpassportandcustomrequirements.Inthisfashion,LeninandseveralassociatesreturnedfromSwissexileandarrivedatSt.Petersburg’sFinlandStationonApril3,1917.

Therestiswell-knownhistory—howtheliberalFebruaryRevolutionof1917wassucceededbythecommunistOctoberRevolutionthesameyear,LeninthusbringingabouttheoverthrowoftheliberalprovisionalgovernmentledbyAlexanderKerensky.Leninismthenmovedfromtheoryandrevolutionarytacticsintoanewstage:nationalgovernmentinamajorstate.ThegoalofRussianliberalsanddemocraticsocialists,aWestern-typedemocracycombiningeconomicandsocialjusticewithpersonalfreedom,wasprecludedbytheLeninistdictatorshipoftheproletariat.Leninhimselflivedsevenmoreyears,untilhisdeathonJanuary21,1924.

ThereisevidencethatLenin,inhislastyears,wasdeeplydisillusionedbytheturnofeventsintheSovietUnion.Lenin,afterall,didnotadvocateauthoritarianismsimplyforitsownsake.Hedidnotseektomerelyreplaceoneautocraticsystemwithanother,butconsideredthedictatorshipoftheproletariatonlyatemporaryinstitution,anecessary,transitionalstageprecedinggenuinecommunism.Ofcourse,inthealmosthalf-centurysinceLenin’sdeath,communismhasnotmovedbeyondthestageofthedictatorshipoftheproletariat;thestatehasnotyetbegunto“witheraway”inanycommunistcountry.Nonetheless,Leninremainstheunchallengedfatherofcommunism,andallcommunistleaders,theoreticians,andparties—howevertheymaydifferamongthemselves—universallyrelyonLenin’swritingsasthegospelfortheireveryviewandaction.

Inhistoricalperspective,Leninemergesasoneoftheworld’smostremarkablemen.Notonlydidhedevelopadetailedphilosophyofsocietyandeconomics,buthealsoledarevolutionthatbroughthisviewstopowerinamajornation,andthenpresidedoveragovernmentthatsoughttoachievehissweeping,unprecedentedgoals.Sincehisdeath,histhinkinghascontinuedtoprofoundlyinfluencethecourseofworldhistory.Regardlessofone’spersonaloutlook,nomoderneducationcanbecompletewithoutsomefamiliaritywithaphilosophyofsuchcontemporarysignificance.

Lenin’sfootnoteshavebeencarefullyretainedinthisedition.However,mostpagereferenceshavebeendeleted.Otheralterations(e.g.Americanizationofspellingandpunctuationchanges)havebeenquiteminor.

HENRYM.CHRISTMAN

THEDEVELOPMENTOFCAPITALISMINRUSSIA

InDecember1895,Leninandanumberofhisassociateswerearrestedandimprisoned.Leninspentmorethanayearinprison,duringwhichhebeganhisfirstmajorstudy,TheDevelopmentofCapitalisminRussia.Releasedfromprison,LeninwassentintoexileinSiberia,wherehecompletedthebook.ItwaspublishedlegallyinSt.Petersburgin1899underthepseudonym“V.Ilin.”LeninwasstillinSiberianexilewhenthebookappeared;hewasnotpermittedtoreturntoEuropeanRussiauntilthefollowingyear.

Thesubtitleofthisworkis“TheProcessofFormationoftheHomeMarketforLarge-ScaleIndustry.”Leninhimselfdefinedthescopeofthebookasfollows:“First,asthetitlealreadyshows,wetakethequestionofthedevelopmentofcapitalisminRussiaexclusivelyfromthepointofviewofthehomemarketandleaveasidethequestionoftheforeignmarketanddataconcerningforeigntrade.Secondly,welimitourselvesonlytothepost-Reformperiod.Thirdly,wetakeprincipallyandalmostexclusivelydataonthehome,purelyRussiangubernias.Fourthly,welimitourselvesexclusivelytotheeconomicaspectoftheprocess.”

Lenin’simmediateideologicalgoalinwritingTheDevelopmentofCapitalisminRussiawastocombattheeconomictheoriesoftheNarodnikimovement,thehistoryandsignificanceofwhichisdiscussedintheIntroductiontothepresentvolume.

PublicationofTheDevelopmentofCapitalisminRussiabroughtintoprintvariouskeyLeninistconcepts.First,LeninarguedthatMarxisttheoryappliedimmediatelyanddirectlytothedistinctiveconditionsandproblemsofRussia,thuschallengingtheNarodnikicharacterizationofRussiaasauniquecase.Second,LeninattackedthehistoricNarodnikiorientationtowardthepeasantry,stressinginsteadthesignificanceoftheindustrialproletariatasarevolutionarybase.Third,LeninassailedtheNarodnikitheoryofarevolutionarytransformationofRussiadirectlyfromanalmostfeudalsocietyintoasocialist

one;Leninassertedthatcapitalismwasanecessaryandevendesirabletransitionalstagebetweenfeudalismandsocialism.

ThelengthofTheDevelopmentofCapitalisminRussiaprecludesaone-volumecollection.Presentedhere,therefore,arethekeyexcerptsinwhichLeninhimselfsumsuphisconclusions.

CONCLUSIONSTOCHAPTERI

Wewillnowsumupthetheoreticalpostulates...whicharedirectlyrelatedtothequestionofthehomemarket.

1.Thefundamentalprocessoftheformationofahomemarket(i.e.,thedevelopmentofcommodityproductionandcapitalism)issocialdivisionoflabor.Thismeansthat,oneafteranother,variousformsofworkinguprawmaterials(andvariousoperationsinthisprocess)becomeseparatedfromagricultureandbecomeindependentbranchesofindustrywhichexchangetheirproducts(nowbecomecommodities)fortheproductsofagriculture.Thus,agricultureitselfbecomesanindustry(i.e.,productionofcommodities)andthesameprocessofspecializationtakesplaceinit.

2.Thedirectdeductionfromtheprecedingpostulateisthelawofall-developingcommodityeconomy,andparticularlycapitalisteconomy,thattheindustrial(i.e.,non-agricultural)populationgrowsfasterthantheagriculturalpopulation,thatanincreasingpartofthepopulationiswithdrawnfromagricultureanddrawnintothemanufacturingindustries.

3.Thedivorcementofthedirectproducerfromthemeansofproduction,i.e.,hisexpropriation,whichmarksthetransitionfromsimplecommodityproductiontocapitalistproduction(andwhichisthenecessaryconditionforthistransition),createsthehomemarket.Thisprocessofcreatingthehomemarketproceedsintwodirections:ontheonehand,themeansofproductionfromwhichthesmallproduceris“liberated”areconvertedintocapitalinthehandsofthenewowner,servetoproducecommoditiesand,consequently,arethemselvestransformedintocommodities.Thus,eventhesimplereproductionofthesemeansofproductionnowrequiresthattheyshallbepurchased(formerly,inthemajorityofcases,thesemeansofproductionwerereproducedinthenaturalformandsometimestheyweremadeathome),i.e.,createsamarketformeansofproduction,andlater,theproductsproducedwiththeaidofthesemeansofproductionarealsotransformedintocommodities.Ontheotherhand,themeansofexistenceofthissmallproducerbecomeamaterialelementofvariablecapital,i.e.,thesumofmoneywhichthe

employer(whetherheisalandlord,acontractor,alumbermerchant,factoryowner,etc.,doesnotmatter),spendsonhiringworkers.Thus,thesemeansofexistencearenowalsotransformedintocommodities,i.e.,createahomemarketforarticlesofconsumption.

4.Therealizationoftheproductincapitalistsociety(and,consequently,therealizationofsurplusvalue)cannotbeexplainedunlessweunderstandthat:1)thevalueofthesocialproduct,likethatoftheindividualproduct,isdividedintothreepartsandnotintotwo(constantcapital+variablecapital+surplusvalue,andnotonlyintovariablecapital+surplusvalue,asAdamSmithandthewholeofsubsequentpoliticaleconomypriortoMarxtaught)and2)thatinitsnaturalformitshouldbedividedintotwomainsubdivisions:meansofproduction(consumedproductively)andarticlesofconsumption(forpersonalconsumption).HavinglaiddownthesemaintheoreticalpostulatesMarxfullyexplainedtheprocessofrealizingtheproductingeneralandsurplusvalueinparticularincapitalistproduction,andrevealedthatitwasutterlywrongtodragtheforeignmarketintothequestionofrealization.

5.Marx’stheoryofrealizationalsoshedlightonthequestionofnationalconsumptionandincome.

Fromwhathasbeensaidabove,itautomaticallyfollowsthatthequestionofthehomemarketasaseparate,independentquestion,independentofthequestionofthedegreeofdevelopmentofcapitalism,doesnotexistatall.ThatispreciselywhytheMarxiantheorynowhereandneverraisesthisquestionseparately.Thehomemarketappearswhencommodityproductionappears:itiscreatedbythedevelopmentofcommodityproduction;andthedegreetowhichsocialdivisionoflaborhastakenplacedeterminestheheightofitsdevelopment;itspreadswiththetransferenceofcommodityproductionfromtheproducttolaborpower,andonlytotheextentthatthelatteristransformedintoacommoditydoescapitalismembracethewholeindustryofthecountry,developingmainlyinregardtomeansofproductionwhich,incapitalistsociety,occupyanincreasinglyimportantplace.The“homemarket”forcapitalismiscreatedbydevelopingcapitalismitself,whichincreasesthesocialdivisionoflaborandwhichdividesthedirectproducersintocapitalistsandworkers.Thedegreeofthedevelopmentofthehomemarketisthedegreeofdevelopmentofcapitalisminthecountry.Todiscussthequestionofthelimitsofthehomemarketseparatelyfromthedegreeofdevelopmentofcapitalism(astheNarodnikeconomistsdo)iswrong.

ThatiswhythequestionastohowthehomemarketforRussiancapitalism

isbeingformedreducesitselftothefollowingquestions:inwhatmannerandinwhatdirectionarethevariousaspectsofRussiannationaleconomydeveloping?Whataretheinterconnectionsandinterdependencebetweenthesevariousaspects?

Thenextchapterswillbedevotedtotheexaminationofthedatawhichcontainthereplytothesequestions.

CONCLUSIONSTOCHAPTERII

Wewillsumupthemainpostulateswhichfollowfromthedataexaminedabove:

1.Thesocial-economicenvironmentinwhichthecontemporaryRussianpeasantryfindthemselvesisthatofcommodityproduction.Eveninthecentralagriculturalzone(whichisthemostbackwardinthisrespectascomparedwiththeextremesoutheasternregionsorwiththeindustrialgubemias1),thepeasantiscompletelysubordinatedtothemarketonwhichhedependsasaconsumerandasaproducer,quiteapartfromhisbeingataxpayer.

2.Thesystemofsocial-economicrelationshipsexistingamongthepeasantry(agriculturalandvillagecommune)revealsallthecontradictionswhichareafeatureofallcommodityproductionandallcapitalism:competition,thestruggleforeconomicindependence,competitionforland(purchasedorhired),theconcentrationofproductioninthehandsofaminority,thedrivingofthemajorityintotheranksoftheproletariat,theexploitationofthelatterbytheminoritybymeansofmerchantcapitalandthehireofagriculturallabor-ers.Thereisnotasingleeconomicphenomenonamongthepeasantrythatdoesnotbearthiscontradictoryform,whichisspecificallypeculiartothecapitalistsystem,i.e.,whichdoesnotexpressthestruggleandantagonismofinterests,whichisnotanadvantageforsomeandalossforothers.Suchisthepurchaseandtherentingofland;sucharethediametricallyoppositetypesof“trade,”andsuchisthetechnicalprogressofeconomy.

WeattachcardinalimportancetothisconclusionnotonlyonthequestionofcapitalisminRussia,butalsoonthequestionofthesignificanceoftheNarodnikdoctrineingeneral.Theseverycontradictionsirrefutablydemonstratetousthatthesystemofeconomicrelationshipsinthe“communal”vilagesdoesnotrepresentaspecialsystem(“people’sproduction,”etc.),buttheordinarypetty-bourgeoissystem.InspiteofthetheoriesthathavebeenprevalentinRussiaduringthepasthalfcentury,theRussiancommunepeasantryarenottheantagonistsofcapitalism,onthecontrary,theyarethe

deepestandmostdurablefoundationofit.Thedeepest—because,preciselyhere,remotefromall“artificial”influences,andinspiteofinstitutionswhichrestrictthedevelopmentofcapitalism,weseetheconstantformationoftheelementsofcapitalismwithinthevery“commune”itself.Themostdurable—becauseitisinagricultureingeneral,andamongthepeasantryinparticular,thatancienttraditions,thetraditionsofpatriarchalsociety,arestrongest,andasaconsequencethetransformingeffectsofcapitalism(thedevelopmentofproductiveforces,thechangeinsocialrelationships,etc.)manifestthemselvesmostslowlyandgradually.2

3.Thesumtotalofalltheeconomiccontradictionsamongthepeasantrycompriseswhatwecallthedisintegrationofthepeasantry.Thepeasantsthemselvesveryaptlyandstrikinglycharacterizethisprocessbytheterm“unpeasantize.”3Thisprocesssignifiesthecompletedestructionoftheold,patriarchalpeasantryandthecreationofnewtypesofruralpopulation.

Beforeweproceedtodescribethesetypeswewillstatethefollowing.Referencestothisprocesshavebeenmadeinourliteraturelongagoandveryoften.Forexample,Mr.Vasilchi-kov,whostudiedtheworksoftheValuevCommission,establishedtheformationofa“ruralproletariat”inRussiaandthe“disintegrationofthepeasantestate.”(LandownershipandAgriculture,firstedition,Vol.I,chap.IX.)ThisfactwasmentionedbyV.Orlov(StatisticalAbstractfortheMoscowGubernia,Vol.IV,partI)andbymanyothers.Butallthesereferencesremainedfragmentary.Noattemptwasevermadetostudythisphenomenonsystematically,andthatiswhy,notwithstandingthewealthofdataprovidedbytheZemstvostatisticalhouseholdcensus,wehavenottothepresentdaysufficientinformationaboutthisphenomenon.Thisisduealsotothefactthatthemajorityofthewriterswhowriteonthisquestionregardthedisintegrationofthepeasantrysimplyastheriseofpropertyinequality,simplyas“differentiation,”touseafavoritetermemployedbytheNarodnikiingeneralandbyMr.Karyshevinparticular.(Cf.hisbook,Rent,andhisarticlesinRusskoyeBogatsvo.)Undoubtedly,theriseofpropertyinequalityisthestartingpointofthewholeprocess,buttheprocessisnotconfinedto“differentiation.”Theoldpeasantryarenotonlyundergoingaprocessof“differentiation,”theyarebeingcompletelydestroyed,theyareceasingtoexist,theyarebeingsqueezedoutbyabsolutelynewtypesofruralpopulation—typeswhichserveasthebasisofasocietyinwhichcommodityproductionandcapitalistproductionpredominate.Thesetypesaretheruralbourgeoisie(mainlypettybourgeoisie)andtheruralproletariat,aclassofcommodityproducersinagricultureandaclassofagriculturalwageworkers.

Itistoahighdegreeinstructivethatthepurelytheoreticalanalysisoftheprocessoftheformationofagriculturalcapitalismpointstothedisintegrationofthesmallproducersasanimportantfactorinthisprocess.WehaveinmindoneofthemostinterestingchaptersinVol.IIIofCapital,namelychapterXLVII,TheGenesisofCapitalistGroundRent.AsthestartingpointofthisgenesisMarxtakeslaborrent(Ar-beitsrente),

“whichmeansthatthedirectproducercultivatesduringapartoftheweek,withinstrumentsoflabor(plough,cattle,etc.),actuallyorlegallybelongingtohim,thesoilownedbyhiminfact,andworksduringtheremainingdaysupontheestateofthefeudallord,withoutanycompensationfromthefeudallore....”(DasKapital,III,2.)

Thenextformofrentisrentinkind(Productenrente),whenthedirectproducerproducesthewholeproductonlandwhichhehimselfexploitsandgivesthelandownerthewholeofthesurplusproductinkind.Theproducerherebecomesmoreindependentandobtainsthepossibilityofacquiringbyhislaboracertainquantityofproductsoverandabovehisindispensablerequirements.

“Thisform(ofrent)willalsogiverisetogreaterdifferencesintheeconomicsituationoftheindividualdirectproducers.Atleastthepossibilityforsuchadifferentiationexists,andsodoesthepossibilitythatthedirectproducermayhaveacquiredthemeanstoexploitotherlaborersforhimself....”

Andso,evenwhennaturalself-sufficingsocietystillprevails,withtheveryfirststepinthedirectiontowardsgreaterindependenceforthedependentpeasant,thegermsofthisdisintegrationappear.Butthesegermscandeveloponlyunderthenextformofrent,undermoneyrent,whichisamerechangeofformofrentinkind.Undermoneyrent,thedirectproducernolongerturnsovertheproduct,butitsprice,tothelandlord.4 Thebasisofthisformofrentremainsthesameasthatofrentinkind,thedirectproducerisstillthetraditionalpossessoroftheland,“although(thebasisof)moneyrentlikewise

approachesitsdissolution.”Moneyrent“requiresaconsiderabledevelopmentofcommerce,ofcityindustries,oftheproductionofcommoditiesingeneralandalsothecirculationofmoney.”Thetraditional,customaryrelationbetweenthedependentpeasantandthelandlordistransformedintoapurelymoneyrelationship,basedonacontract.This,ontheonehand,leadstotheexpropriationoftheoldpeasantand,ontheotherhand,itleadstothepeasantbuyinghislandandhisliberty.

“Thetransformationofrentinkindintomoneyrentisnotonlynecessarilyaccompanied,butevenanticipatedbytheformationofaclassofpropertylessdaylaborers,whohirethemselvesoutforwages.Duringtheperiodoftheirrise,whenthisnewclassappearsbutsporadically,thecustomnecessarilydevelopsamongthebettersituatedtributaryfarmers(Rentepflichtigen)ofexploitingagriculturallaborersfortheirownaccount....Inthiswaytheygraduallyacquiretheabilitytoaccumulateacertainamountofwealthandtotransformthemselvesevenintofuturecapitalists.Theoldself-employingpossessorsofthelandthusgiveriseamongthemselvestoanurseryforcapitalisttenants,whosedevelopmentisconditioneduponthegeneraldevelopmentofcapitalistproductionoutsideoftheruraldistricts.”(DasKapital,III,2.)

4.Thedisintegrationofthepeasantry,which,attheexpenseofthemiddle“peasantry,”developstheextremegroups,createstwonewtypesofruralpopulation.Thecommonfeatureofbothtypes—isthecommodity,moneycharacterofeconomy.Thefirstnewtypeis—theruralbourgeoisie,orwealthypeasantry.Theseincludetheindependentfarmerswhocarryoncommercialfarminginallitsvariedforms(wewilldescribethemaingroupsinchap.IV),thencometheownersofcommercialandindustrialenterprises,etc.Thecombinationofcommercialfarmingandcommercialandindustrialenterpriseisoneoftheformsof“combiningagriculturewithtrade”thatisspecificallypeculiartothistypeofpeasantry.Fromamongthesewealthypeasantstherearisesthefarmerclass,fortherentingoflandforthesaleofgrain(intheagriculturalbelt)playsanenormouspartintheireconomy,veryoftenamoreimportantpartthantheirallotment.Inthemajorityofcasesthesizeofthefarmamongthesepeasantsislargerthantheyareabletocultivatewiththeaidofthemembersoftheirfamiliesalone,andthatiswhytheformationofacontingent

ofagriculturallaborers,andstillmore,ofdaylaborers,isthenecessaryconditionfortheexistenceofthewealthypeasant.5Thesparecashwhichthesepeasantsobtainintheformofnetincomeisusedeitherforcommercialpurposesorforusury,whichissoexcessivelydevelopedinourruraldistricts,or,infavorablecircumstances,isinvestedinthepurchaseofland,improvementsonthefarm,etc.Inaword—thesearesmallagrarians.Numerically,thepeasantbourgeoisierepresentasmallminorityofthepeasantry,probablynotmorethanone-fifthofthetotalnumberofhouseholds(which,approximately,isequaltothree-tenthsofthepopulation),althoughtheproportionfluctuatesconsiderablyaccordingtodistrict.Butinregardtoitsimportanceinpeasanteconomyasawhole,inregardtotheshareithasofthetotalmeansofproductionownedbythepeasantryandtoitsshareofthetotalproduceproducedbythepeasantry—thepeasantbourgeoisieisundoubtedlythepredominantgroup.Itisthemasterofthecountrysideatthepresenttime.

5.Theothernewtypeistheruralproletariat,theclassofwagelaborerspossessingallotments.Thiscomprisesthepoorpeasant,includingthecompletelylandlesspeasant;butthetypicalrepresentativeoftheRussianruralproletariatistheagriculturallaborer,thedaylaborer,theunskilledlaborer,thebuildingworker,orworkerinothertrades,possessinganallotment.Theinsignificantdimensionsofthefarmonasmallpatchofland,and,moreover,afarminastateofruin(thisisparticularlyevidencedbythelettingofland),theinabilitytoexistwithoutsellinglaborpower(the“trades”ofthepoorpeasant),anextremelylowstandardofliving,probablylowerthanthatofthelaborerwithoutanallotment—thesearethedistinguishingfeaturesofthistype.6Notlessthanone-halfofthetotalpeasanthouseholds(whichisapproximatelyfour-tenthsofthepopulation)maybeincludedinthecategoryofrepresentativesoftheruralproletariat,i.e.,allthehorselessandalargepartoftheone-horsepeasants(this,ofcourse,isamass,approximatecalculation,whichinvariousdistrictswouldbeconsiderablymodifiedinaccordancewithlocalconditions).Thegroundswhichcompelonetobelievethatsuchalargeproportionofthepeasantrybelongtotheruralproletariathavebeengivenabove.7Itshouldbeaddedthatinourliteraturethepostulateofthetheorythatcapitalismrequiresafree,landlessworker,isoftenunderstoodintoostereotypedamanner.Thispostulateisquitecorrectasindicatingthemaintrend,butcapitalismpenetratesintoagricultureparticularlyslowlyandinextremelyvariedforms.Veryoften,therurallaborerisallottedlandintheinterestsoftheruralemployers,andforthatreasonthetypeofrurallaborerwithanallotmentisacommontypeinallcapitalistcountries.Thetypeassumes

differentformsindifferentcountries:theEnglishcotter(cottager)differsfromtheparcellandpeasantinFranceorintheRhineProvinces,andthelatterdiffersagainfromtheKnechtinPrussia.Eachofthesebearstracesofthespecialagrariansystem,ofthespecialhistoryofagrarianrelationsinthosecountries—butthis,however,doesnotpreventtheeconomistfromgeneralizingthemunderthesingletypeofagriculturalproletarian.Thelegaltitletohisplotoflanddoesnotaffectthedefinitionatall.Whetherthelandbelongstohimashisownproperty(asinthecaseoftheparcellandpeasant),orwhetherthelandlordorRittergutsbesitzerallowshimtheuseoftheland,or,finally,whetherheownsitasamemberofthevillagecommune,asinRussia—makesnodifferencetothecaseatall.8Inincludingthepoorpeasantinthecategoryofruralproletariatwearenotsuggestinganythingnew.Thistermhasalreadybeenemployedbymanywriters,andonlytheNarodnikeconomistspersistinspeakingaboutthepeasantryingeneralasiftheyweresomethinganti-capitalist,andclosetheireyestothefactthatthemassof“thepeasantry”hasalreadyoccupiedadefiniteplaceinthegeneralsystemofcapitalistproduction,namely,theplaceofagriculturalandindustrialwagelaborers.InRussia,peopleliketosingthepraisesofouragrariansystemforhavingpreservedthevillagecommuneandthepeasantry,etc.,andcontrastthistotheBalticsystemwithitscapitalistsystemofagriculture.Itwillbeofinterest,therefore,toseewhattypesoftheagriculturalpopulationintheBalticguberniasareincludedintheclassofagriculturallaborersanddaylaborers.PeasantsintheBalticguberniasaredividedinto:peasantswithalargeamountofland(25to50dessiatinsinaseparatelot),poorpeasants(3to10dessiatins—poorpeasants’lots)andlandlesspeasants.AsS.Korolenkoquitejustlyremarks,thepoorpeasant“mostcloselyresemblesthegeneraltypeofRussianpeasantofthecentralgubernias”(FreeHiredLabor);heisconstantlycompelledtodividehistimebetweenseekingforworkonthesideandcultivatinghisownplotofland.Butwhatinterestsusmostistheeconomicpositionoftheagriculturallaborer.Thefactisthatthelandlordsthemselvesfinditprofitabletoallotthemlandinpartpaymentfortheirwork.HerearesomeexamplesofthelandholdingsoftheBalticlaborers:1)twodessiatinsofland(wehaveconvertedlofstelleintodessiatins:1lofstelle=one-thirdofadessiatin);thehusbandworks275days,andthewife,50daysperyearatawageof25kopeksperday;2)twoandtwo-thirdsdessiatins;“theagriculturallaborerownsonehorse,threecows,threesheepandtwopigs,”thelaborerworksalternateweeksandthewifeworks50daysintheyear;3)sixdessiatinsofland(BaussUyezd,CourlandGubernia);“theagriculturallaborerownsonehorse,threecows,threesheepandseveralpigs,”heworksthreedaysinthe

weekandthewifeworks35daysintheyear;4)intheHazenpotUyezd,CourlandGubernia—eightdessiatinsofland,“inallcasestheagriculturallaborergetshisflourmilledfreeandfreemedicalaidandmedicine,andtheirchildrenattendschool,”etc.Wedrawthereader ’sattentiontothesizeofthelandandfarmsownedbytheseagriculturallaborers,i.e.,totheveryconditionswhich,intheopinionoftheNarodniki,distinguishourpeasantsfromtheEuropeanagrariansystemwhichcorrespondstocapitalistproduction.Wewillcombinealltheexamplesgiveninthepublicationwehavequoted:10agriculturallaborersown3.5dessiatinsofland,thatis,ontheaverage,3.15dessiatinsperlaborer.Thetermagriculturallaborerhereincludespeasantswhoworkthelesserpartoftheyearforthelandlord(thehusbandworkshalftheyearandthewife35to50days),itincludesalsotheone-horsepeasantswhoowntwoandeventhreecows.Wearecompelledtoask,therefore:whereisthisnotoriousdifferencebetweenthe“villagecommune”peasantandtheBalticlaborer?IntheBaltic,thingsarecalledbytheirpropernames,butinRussiatheone-horseagriculturallaboreriscombinedwiththewealthypeasant,an“average”isstruckandsentimentaltalkisindulgedinaboutthe“communespirit,”“laborprinciples,”“people’sindustry”and“combiningagriculturewithindustry....”

6.Theintermediarylinkbetweenthesepost-Reformtypesofthe“peasantry”isthemiddlepeasantry.Theirdistinguishingfeatureisthatcommodityfarmingisleastdevelopedamongthem.Onlyingoodyearsandunderparticularlyfavorableconditionsistheindependenthusbandryofthistypeofpeasantsufficienttomaintainhimandforthatreasonhispositionisaveryunstableone.Inthemajorityofcasesthemiddlepeasantcannotmakeendsmeetwithoutresortingtoloanstoberepaidbylabor,etc.,withoutseeking“subsidiary”earningsontheside,whichpartlyalsoconsistofsellinglaborpower,etc.Eachtimethereisafailureoftheharvest,massesofthemiddlepeasantsarethrownintotheranksoftheproletariat.Initssocialrelationships,thisgrouposcillatesbetweenthehighergroup,towardswhichitgravitatesandintowhichonlyafortunateminoritysucceedsinentering,andthelowergroups,intowhichthewholeprocessofevolutionisforcingit.Wehaveseenthatthepeasantbourgeoisienotonlysqueezesoutthelowergroup,butalsothemiddlegroupofthepeasantry.Thus,aprocesswhichisaspecificfeatureofcapitalisteconomyisgoingon—theprocessof“unpeasantizing”;theintermediarymembersaredyingout,whiletheextremesaregrowing.

7.Thedisintegrationofthepeasantrycreatesthehomemarketforcapitalism.Inthelowergroup,theformationofthemarkettakesplaceinregardtoarticles

ofconsumption(thepersonalconsumptionmarket).Theruralproletarianconsumeslessincomparisonwiththemiddlepeasant—and,moreover,consumesgoodsofaninferiorquality(potatoesinsteadofbread,etc.),buthebuysmore.Theriseanddevelopmentofaruralbourgeoisiecreatesamarketinatwofoldmanner:first,andprincipally,inregardtomeansofproduction(theproductiveconsumptionmarket),forthewell-to-dopeasanttriestoconvertintocapitalthemeansofproductionhe“collects”fromthe“impoverished”landlordsaswellasfromtheruinedpeasant.Secondly,themarketforarticlesofconsumptioniscreatedbythefactthattherequirementsofthewealthypeasantshavegrown.9

8.Noprecisestatisticaldatatoshowwhetherthedisintegrationofthepeasantryisprogressing,andwithwhatrapid-ity,areavailablewhichcouldbejuxtaposedtothecombinedtables(sees.ItoVI).Thatisnotsurprising,foruptillnow(aswehavealreadyremarked),noattempthasbeenmadetostudysystematicallyatleastthestatisticsonthedisintegrationofthepeasantryandtoindicatetheformsinwhichthisprocessistakingplace.10Butallthegeneraldataontheeconomicsofourruraldistrictsindicateanuninterruptedandrapidincreaseofdisintegration:ontheonehand,the“peasants”abandonandlettheirland,thenumberofhorselesspeasantsisgrowing,the“peasant”isfleeingtothetowns,etc.;ontheotherhand,the“progressivetrendinpeasanteconomy”ismakingheadway,the“peasant”isbuyingland,improvinghisfarm,introducingmetalploughs,isdevelopingthesowingofgrass,dairyfarming,etc.Wenowknowwhich“peasants”aretakingpartinoneorotherofthesediametricallyopposedsidesofthisprocess.

Furthermore,thedevelopmentofthemigratorymovementgivesanenormousimpetustothedisintegrationofthepeasantry,andparticularlyoftheagriculturalpeasantry.Itiswellknownthatitismainlythepeasantsfromtheagriculturalguberniaswhoaremigrating(migrationfromtheindustrialguberniasisquiteinsignificant),andpreciselyfromthedenselypopulatedcentralguberniaswherelaborrent(otrabotki)(whichretardsthedisintegrationofthepeasantry)ismostdeveloped.Thatisthefirstpoint.Thesecondpointisthatitismainlythepeasantsinmediumcircumstanceswhoareleavingthedistrictsfromwhichthepeasantsaremigratingandthatitistheextremegroupsthatareremainingathome.Thus,migrationisacceleratingthedisintegrationofthepeasantryinthedistrictsfromwhichthepeasantsaremigratingandcarriesthegermsofdisintegrationtothedistrictstowhichtheyaremigrating(inthefirstperiodoftheirnewlife,thesettlersinSiberiaworkasagriculturallaborers).11Thisconnectionbetweenmigrationand

disintegrationisfullyprovedbyI.Hurwitzinhisexcellentpieceofresearch,ThePeasantMigrationtoSiberia,1889.WestronglyrecommendthisbooktothereaderwhichourNarodnikipresshasstrenuouslytriedtohushup.

9.Asisknown,merchantandusurer ’scapitalplaysagreatpartinourcountryside.Wethinkitsuperfluoustoquotenumerousfactsandsourcestoprovethisphenomenon:thefactsarewellknownandarenotdirectlyrelatedtoourtheme.Weareonlyinterestedinthequestions:inwhatrelationdoesmerchantandusurer ’scapitalinourcountrysidestandtothedisintegrationofthepeasantry?Isthereanyconnectionbetweentherelationsamongthevariousgroupsofpeasantsdescribedabove,andtherelationsbetweenthepeasantcreditorsandthepeasantdebtors?Isusuryafactoryanddrivingforceinthedisintegration,ordoesitretardit?

Wewillfirstofallpointouthowtheorypresentsthisquestion.InhisanalysisofcapitalistproductiontheauthorofCapitalgaveaveryimportantplace,asisknown,tomerchantandusurer ’scapital.ThemainpostulatesinMarx’sviewsonthisquestionareasfollows:1)Merchantandusurer ’scapital,ontheonehand,andindustrialcapital(i.e.,capitalinvestedinproduction,irrespectiveofwhetherinagricultureorinindustry),ontheother,representonetypeofeconomicphenomenonwhichiscoveredbytheformula:thepurchaseofcommoditiesforthepurposeofsellingataprofit.(DasKapi-tal,I.)2)Merchantandusurer ’scapitalalwayshistoricallyprecedetheformationofindustrialcapitalandarelogicallythenecessarypremiseofitsformation(DasKapital,III,I);butinthemselves,neithermerchantcapitalnorusurer ’scapitalrepresentasufficientpremisefortheriseofindustrialcapital(i.e.,capitalistproduction);theydonotalwaysdisintegratetheoldmodeofproductionandputinitsplacethecapitalistmodeofproduction;theformationofthelatter“dependsentirelyuponthestageofhistoricaldevelopmentandthecircumstancessurroundingit.”(Ibid.,partII.)“Towhatextentit”(commercialandmerchantcapital)“bringsaboutadissolutionoftheoldmodeofproductiondependsonitssolidityandinternalarticulation.Andtowhatthisprocessofdissolutionwilllead,inotherwords,whatnewmodeofproductionwilltaketheplaceoftheold,doesnotdependoncommerce,butonthecharacteroftheoldmodeofproductionitself.”(Ibid.,III.)3)Theindependentdevelopmentofmerchantcapitalstandsinaninverseratiotothegeneraleconomicdevelopmentofsociety(Ibid.),themoremerchantandusurer ’scapitalisdevelopedthelessisindustrialcapital(=capitalistproduction)developedandviceversa.

Consequently,inregardtoRussia,wehavetoask:aremerchantandusurer ’scapitalbeinglinkedupwithindustrialcapital?Aremerchantandusurer ’scapital,indisintegratingtheoldmodeofproduction,leadingtoitsbeingsubstitutedbythecapitalistmodeofproductionorbysomeothersystem?Thesearequestionsoffact,questionswhichmustbeansweredinregardtoallaspectsofthenationaleconomyofRussia.Inregardtopeasantfarmingthedataexaminedabovecontainsthereplytothisquestion,andthereplyisintheaffirmative.TheusualNarodnikopinion,accordingtowhichthe“kulak”andthe“prosperousmuzhik”arenottwoformsofthesameeconomicphenomenon,butoppositetypesofphenomenahavingnoconnectionwitheachother,istotallyunfounded.ItisoneoftheNarodnikprejudiceswhichnoonehastakenthetroubletoprovebyanexactanalysisofpreciseeconomicdata.Thedataprovethecontrary.Nomatterwhetherthepeasanthireslaborersforthepurposeofenlarginghisfarm,orwhetherhetradesinland(recallthedataquotedaboveontheextentofrentedlandamongtherich),orinprovisions,orwhetherhetradesinhemp,orhay,orcattle,etc.,ormoney(usury),herepresentsasingleeconomictype;inthemain,hisoperationsreducethemselvestooneandthesamesetofeconomicrelations.Furthermore—thatintheRussiancommunalvillagetheroleofcapitalisnotconfinedtobondageandusury,andthatcapitalisextendingalsointoproduction,isapparentfromthefactthatthewealthypeasantinvestshismoneynotonlyincommercialestablishmentsandenterprises(cf.above),butalsoinimprovementsonhisfarm,inthepurchaseandrentingofland,inimprovedimplements,inhiringlaborers,etc.Ifcapitalinourcountrysidewereincapableofcreatinganythingbutbondageandusury,itcouldnotbeargued,onthebasisofthedataonproduction,thatthepeasantrywasdisintegrating,thataruralbourgeoisieandaruralproletariatwerebeingformed;inthatcase,thewholeofthepeasantrywouldrepresentafairlyeventypeoffarmer,oppressedbypoverty,amongwhommightbediscernedonlyusurerswhoaredistinguishedexclusivelybytheamountofmoneytheyownandnotbythedimensionsandmethodoforganizationofagriculturalproduction.Finally,theabove-quoteddatalogicallyleadtotheimportantpostulatethattheindependentdevelopmentofmerchantandusurer ’scapitalinourcountrysideretardsthedisintegrationofthepeasantry.Themorecommercedevelopsandbringsthecountryclosertothetowns,squeezesouttheprimitivevillagefairsandunderminesthemonopolyofthevillageshopkeeper,themoreproperEuropeanformsofcreditdevelopandsqueezeoutthevillageusurer—thewideranddeeperwillthedisintegrationofthepeasantryproceed.Thecapitalofthewealthypeasantswhichissqueezedoutofpettytradeandusurywillflowtoawiderextentinto

production,intowhichitisalreadybeginningtoflow.

10.Anotherimportantphenomenonintheeconomyofourcountrysidewhichretardsthedisintegrationofthepeasantryisthesurvivalofbarshchina,i.e.,otrabotki.Otrabotkiisbasedonpaymentofwagesinkind,hence,onweaklydevelopedcommodityproduction.Otrabotkipresupposesandrequirespreciselyamiddlepeasantwhowouldnotbeentirelyindependent(otherwisehewouldnotagreetothebondageoflaborrent),butwhowouldnotbeaproletarian(becausetoworkforlaborrentitisnecessarytopossessimplements,onemustbetosomeextentatleastamasterof“goodstanding”).

Whenwesaidabovethatthepeasantbourgeoisiewerethemastersofthecountrysideatthepresenttime,weabstractedthosefactorswhichretardeddisintegration:bondage,usury,laborrent,etc.Asamatteroffact,oftentherealmastersofthecountrysidetodayarenottherepresentativesofthepeasantbourgeoisie,butthevillageusurersandneighboringlandowners.Itisquitelegitimate,however,toabstractthesefactorsinthisway,because,otherwise,itwouldbeimpossibletostudytheinternalstructureoftheeconomicrelationshipsamongthepeasantry.ItisinterestingtonotethattheNarodnikialsoemploythismethod,onlytheystophalf-way,theydonotfollowuptheirreasoningtoitslogicalconclusion.Speakingoftheburdenoftaxation,etc.,inhisDestinyofCapitalism,Mr.V.V.observesthatbecauseofthesereasons“theconditionsofnatural”(sic!)“existencenolongerexist”inthevillagecommune,inthe“mir.”Excellent!Butthewholequestionisprecisely:whatarethe“naturalconditions”thatdonotyetexistinourvillages?Inordertobeabletoreplytothisquestionitisnecessarytostudytheeconomicrelationshipsprevailinginthevillagecommune,toraisetheveil,ifonemaysoexpressit,thatconcealsthesurvivalsofpre-Reformantiquitywhichobscurethe“naturalconditions”oflifeinourvillages.HadMr.V.V.donethishewouldhaveseenthatthissystemofrealrelationshipsrevealsthecompletedisintegrationofthepeasantry,thatthemorecompletelybondage,usury,laborrent(otrabotki),etc.,areremoved,themoreprofoundwillbetheprocessofdisintegrationamongthepeasantry.12Aboveweshowed,onthebasisoftheZemstvostatistics,thatthisdisintegrationisalreadyafact,thatthepeasantryhavesplitupintooppositegroups.

EXCERPTFROMCHAPTERIV

IX.CONCLUSIONSCONCERNINGTHESIGNIFICANCEOFCAPITALISMINRUSSIANAGRICULTURE

InchaptersII-IVthequestionofcapitalisminRussianagriculturewasexaminedfromtwoangles.Firstweexaminedthegivensystemofsocial-economicrelationshipsinpeasantandlandlordeconomy,thesystemwhichdevelopedinthepost-Reformepoch.Wefoundthatthepeasantrywasveryrapidlybeingsplitupintoanumericallysmallbuteconomicallypowerfulruralbourgeoisie,ontheonehand,andintoaruralproletariatontheother.Inseparablyconnectedwiththisprocessof“unpeasantizing”isthetransitionofthelandlordsfromthelaborrentsystemofeconomytothecapitalistsystem.Thenweexaminedthisveryprocessfromanotherangle:wetookasourstartingpointthemannerinwhichagricultureisbeingtransformedintocommodityproduction,andexaminedthesocialandeconomicrelationshipswhicharecharacteristicofeverymainformofcommercialagriculture.Wefoundthatthroughallthevarietyofagriculturalconditionsthesameprocessesrunlikeathreadinbothpeasantandlandlordeconomy.

Wewillnowexaminetheconclusionsthatfollowfromallthedatagivenabove.

1.Themainfeatureofthepost-Reformevolutionofagricultureisthatitismoreandmoreassumingacommercial,entrepreneurcharacter.Inregardtoprivatelandlordfarming,thisfactissoobviousthatitdoesnotrequireanyspecialexplanation.Inregardtopeasantfarming,however,thisfactisnotsoeasilyestablished,firstly,becausetheemploymentofwagelaborisnotanabsolutelyessentialsymptomofthesmallruralbourgeoisie.Aswehavealreadyobservedabove,allsmallcommodityproducerswhocovertheirexpenditurebytheirindependenthusbandrycomeunderthiscategory,providedthegeneralsystemofeconomyisbasedonthecapitalistcontradictionsthatwereexaminedinchapterII.Secondly,thesmall,rural

bourgeois(inRussia,asinothercapitalistcountries)combines—byanumberoftransitionalstages—withthe“peasant”whoownsatinyplotofland,andwiththeruralproletarianwhoownsasmallallotment.Thiscircumstanceisoneofthereasonswhythetheorieswhichdrawnodistinctionsbetweentheruralbourgeoisieandtheruralproletariatamongthe“peasantry”aresotenacious.13

2.Owingtoitsverynature,thetransformationofagricultureintocommodityproductiontakesplaceinaspecialmannerwhichdiffersfromthatprocessinindustry.Manufacturingindustryissplitupintoanumberofquiteindependentbrancheswhichareengagedexclusivelyinthemanufactureofasingleproductorpartofaproduct.Theagriculturalindustry,however,isnotsplitupintoquiteseparatebranches,butmerelyspecializesinonemarketproductinonecase,oranothermarketproductinanothercase,andalltheothersidesofagricultureareadaptedtotheprincipal(i.e.,market)product.Forthatreason,theformsofcommercialagriculturearedistinguishedfortheirgreatvariety,whichassumedifferentformsnotonlyindifferentdistricts,butalsoindifferentfarms.Thatiswhy,inexaminingthequestionofthegrowthofcommercialagriculture,wemustnotonanyaccountrestrictourselvestogeneraldatacoveringagricultureasawhole.14

3.Thegrowthofcommercialagriculturecreatesahomemarketforcapitalism.Firstly,specializationinagriculturegivesrisetoexchangebetweenthevariousagriculturaldistricts,betweenthevarioustypesofagriculturaleconomiesandbetweenthevariouskindsofagriculturalproduce.Secondly,themoreagricultureisdrawnintothesphereofcommoditycirculationthemorerapidisthegrowthofthedemandoftheruralpopulationfortheproductsofthemanufacturingindustrieswhichmeettherequirementsofpersonaluse;thirdly,themorerapidisthegrowthinthedemandformeansofproduction,forneitherthesmallnorthebigruralentrepreneurcancarryonthenew,commercialagriculturewiththeaidofancient“peasant”implements,buildings,etc.,etc.Fourthlyandfinally,thedemandiscreatedforlaborpower,becausetheriseofapettyruralbourgeoisie,andthetransitionofthelandlordstothecapitalistmodeofproductionpresupposestheriseofacontingentofagriculturallaborersanddaylaborers.Thefactthatthepost-Reformepochischaracterizedbytheexpansionofthehomemarketforcapitalism(thedevelopmentofcapitalistagriculture,thedevelopmentoffactoryindustrygenerally,thedevelopmentoftheagriculturalmachineindustryinparticular,thedevelopmentofso-calledpeasant“agricultural”trades,i.e.,workingforhire,etc.)canonlybeexplainedbythegrowthofcommercialfarming.

4.Capitalismtoanenormousdegreeexpandsandintensifiesamongtheagriculturalpopulationtheantagonismswithoutwhichthatmodeofproductioncannotexistatall.Notwithstandingthis,however,agriculturalcapitalisminRussia,initshistoricalsignificance,isapowerfulprogressivefactor.Firstly,capitalismhastransformedthelandowning“lordofthemanor”aswellasthepatriarchalpeasantintothesametypeoftraderasareallmastersinmodernsociety.Beforecapitalismcameonthescene,agricultureinRussiawasagentleman’soccupation,anaristocratichobbyforsome—andaburdensomedutyforothers;hence,itcouldnotbeconductedinanyotherwayexceptbymethodsofancientroutine;anditnecessarilydeterminedthatcompleteisolationofagriculturefromallthatwentonintheworldoutsideoftheconfinesofthevillage.Thelaborrentsystem—thatlivingsurvivalofantiquityinmoderneconomy—strikinglyconfirmsthecorrectnessofthischaracterization.Capitalismforthefirsttimebrokedowntheestatesysteminlandtenureandconvertedthelandintoacommodity.Thefarmer ’sproductwasputonsaleandbegantobesubjectedtosocialaccounting—firstonthelocal,thenonthenational,andfinallyontheinternationalmarket,andinthiswaytheformerisolationoftheuncouthhusbandmanfromtherestoftheworldwasbrokendowncompletely.Willynilly,thefarmerwascompelledbythethreatofruintoreckonwiththewholecomplexofsocialrelationshipsinhisowncountryandinothercountriesconnectedwiththeworldmarket.Eventhelaborrentsystem,whichformerlyguaranteedOblomovanassuredincomewithouthistakinganyrisk,withoutanyexpenditureofcapital,withoutanyexchangesintheancientroutineofproduction,provedincapableofsavinghimfromthecompetitionoftheAmericanfarmer.Thatiswhywecansayinregardtopost-ReformRussiawhatwassaidhalfacenturyagoinregardtoWesternEurope,namely,thatagriculturalcapitalismwas“thedrivingforcewhichdraggedtheidyllintohistoricalmotion.”15

Secondly,agriculturalcapitalismforthefirsttimeputanendtotheage-longstagnationinouragriculture,gaveatremendousimpetustothetransformationofitstechniqueandtothedevelopmentoftheproductiveforcesofsociallabor.Afewdecadesofcapitalist“change”havedonemorethanwholecenturiesofprecedinghistory.Monotonous,routine,natural,self-sufficingeconomyhasgivenwaytodiversifiedformsofcommercialagriculture:primitiveagriculturalimplementshavebeguntogivewaytoperfectedimplementsandmachines;theimmobilityofancientsystemsofhusbandrywasunderminedbynewmethodsofagriculture.Theprocessofallthesechangesisinseparablylinkedupwiththeabove-mentionedphenomenonofspecializationin

agriculture.Byitsverynature,capitalisminagriculture(asinindustry)cannotdevelopevenly:itpushestothefrontinoneplace(inonecountry,inonedistrict,onacertainfarm)onesideofagriculture,inanotherplaceitpushestothefrontanother,etc.Inonecaseitchangesthetechniqueofcertainagriculturaloperations,inothercasesitchangesotheroperations,andbreaksthemawayfrompatriarchalpeasanteconomyandfromthepatriarchallaborrentsystem.Inviewofthefactthatthewholeofthisprocesstakesplaceundertheguidanceofthecapriciousdemandsofthemarketwhicharenotalwaysknowntotheproducer,capitalistagriculture,ineachseparatecase(notinfrequentlyineachseparatedistrict,sometimesevenineachseparatecountry),becomesmoreandmoreone-sidedcomparedwithpreviousagriculture;but,takenasawhole,itbecomesimmeasurablymoremany-sidedandrationalthanpatriarchalagriculture.Theriseofspecialformsofcommercialagriculturemakescapitalistcrisespossibleandinevitableinagricultureintheeventofcapitalistover-production,butthesecrises(likecapitalistcrisesingeneral)giveastillmorepowerfulimpetustothedevelopmentofworldproductionandtothesocializationoflabor.16

Thirdly,capitalismforthefirsttimecreatedlarge-scaleagriculturalproductioninRussiabasedontheemploymentofmachineryandthewideco-operationofworkers.Beforecapitalism,theproductionofagriculturalproducewascarriedoninaninvariable,miserable,pettyform,whenthepeasantworkedforhimselfaswellaswhenheworkedforthelandlord—andthe“commune”characterofagriculturewastotallyunabletoputanendtothisenormousfragmentationofproduction.Inseparablyconnectedwiththefragmentationofproductionwastheisolationoftheproducersthemselves.17Tiedtotheirallotment,totheirtiny“commune,”theyweresharplyisolatedevenfromthepeasantsintheneighboringvillagecommunebythevariouscategoriestowhichtheyrespectivelybelonged(formerowners,formerstate,etc.),bythedifferentsizesoftheirlandholdings—differencesintheconditionsunderwhichtheywereemancipated(andtheseconditionsweresometimesdeterminedbytheindividualcharacterofthelandlordsandtheircaprices).Capitalismforthefirsttimebrokedownthesepurelymediaevalobstacles—anddidaverygoodthingindoingso.Already,thedifferencesbetweenthevariouscategoriesofpeasants,thedifferenceintheircategoriesaccordingtothesizeoftheirallotmentholdings,areprovingtobeincomparablylessimportantthantheeconomicdifferencewithineachcategoryandwithineachvillagecommune.Capitalismdestroyslocalisolationandinsularity,andinplaceofthepettymediaevaldivisionamongthefarmersitintroducesdivision

onalargescale,embracingthewholenation,dividingthemintoclasseswhichoccupydifferentpositionsinthegeneralsystemofcapitalisteconomy.18Formerly,theveryconditionsofproductiondeterminedthefactthatthemassesoftillersofthesoilweretieddowntotheirplaceofresidence,buttheriseofvariousformsandvariousdistrictsofcommercialandcapitalistagriculturecouldnotbutgiverisetothemigrationofenormousmassesofthepopulationoverthewholecountry:andwithoutthemobilityofthepopulation(ashasalreadybeenobservedabove)thedevelopmentofitsintelligenceandinitiativeisimpossible.

Fourthlyandfinally,agriculturalcapitalisminRussiaforthefirsttimeuprootedthelaborrentsystemandthepersonaldependenceofthefarmer.ThelaborrentsystemhadundividedswayinouragriculturefromthetimeofRusskayaPravdarightdowntothecontemporarysystemofotrabotki,underwhichthepeasanttillsthelandlord’sfieldswithhisownimplements;aninevitableaccompanimentofthissystemwasthewretchednessandignoranceofthetillerofthesoilwhoisdegraded,ifnotbytheserf,thenatalleventsbythe“semi-free”characterofhislabor;withoutacertainlackofcivilrightsonthepartofthetillerofthesoil(forexample,belongingtothelowerestate,corporalpunishment,assignmentforpublicwork,beingtiedtohisallotment,etc.),theotrabotochnisystemwouldhavebeenimpossible.Hence,bysubstitutingfreelyhiredlaborfortheotrabotochnisystem,agriculturalcapitalisminRussiahasrenderedagreathistoricalservice.19SummingupwhathasbeensaidaboveabouttheprogressivehistoricalroleofRussianagriculturalcapitalism,itmaybesaidthatitissocializingagriculturalproduction.Indeed,thefactthatagriculturehasbeentransformedfromaprivilegedoccupationofthehigherestatesandaburdenforthelowerestateintoanordinarycommercialandindustrialoccupation,thefactthattheproductofthelaborofthetillerofthesoilhasbecomesubjecttosocialaccountingonthemarket,thefactthatmonotonous,routineagricultureisbeingconvertedintotechnicallytransformedcommercialagriculturewithavarietyofforms,thefactthatlocalisolationandtheseparationamongsmalltillersofthesoilisbeingbrokendown,thefactthatthevariousformsofbondageandpersonaldependencearebeingsqueezedoutbyimpersonaltransactionsinthepurchaseandsaleoflaborpower—allthesearelinksinthesingleprocess,whichissocializingagriculturallaborandaremoreandmoreintensifyingthecontradictionsbetweentheanarchyofmarketfluctuations,betweentheindividualcharacteroftheseparateagriculturalenterprisesandthecollectivecharacteroflarge-scalecapitalistagriculture.

Thus(werepeatoncemore),inemphasizingtheprogressivehistoricalroleofcapitalisminRussianagriculture,wedonotforamomentforgetthehistoricaltransitionalcharacterofthisregime,ortheprofoundsocialcontradictionswhicharepeculiartoit.Onthecontrary,weshowedabovethatitispreciselytheNarodniki,whoareonlycapableofdeploringthe“changes”broughtaboutbycapitalism,whoverysuperficiallyappraisethesecontradictionsandglossoverthedisintegrationofthepeasantry,ignorethecapitalistcharacteroftheemploymentofmachineryinouragricultureandthuscoverupbyphraseslike“agriculturaltrades”or“earnings,”theriseofaclassofwagelaborers.

EXCERPTFROMCHAPTERVII

XI.THECOMPLETESEPARATIONOFINDUSTRYFROMAGRICULTURELarge-scalemachineindustryalonebringsaboutthecompleteseparationof

industryfromagriculture.Russianstatisticsfullyconfirmthispostulate,whichwaslaiddownbytheauthorofCapitalforothercountries,20butwhichisusuallyignoredbytheNarodnikeconomists.Mr.N—on,inseasonandoutofseason,talksinhisOutlinesabout“theseparationofindustryfromagriculture,”buthedoesnottakethetroubletoexaminetheprecisedatainordertodeterminehowthisprocessistakingplaceandtonotethevariousformsitassumes.Mr.V.V.mentionsthecontactsourindustrialworkerhaswiththeland(inmanufacture,ourauthordoesnotthinkitnecessarytodistinguishbetweenthevariousstagesofcapitalism,althoughhepretendstoadheretothetheoryoftheauthorofCapital!)anddeclaimsagainstthe“shameful”(sic!)“dependence”“ofour”(hisitalics)“capitalistindustry”upontheworker-farmer,etc.(TheDestinyofCapitalism.)ApparentlyMr.V.V.hasnotheard,orifhehasheardhehasforgotten,thatnotonly“our,”butevenwesterncapitalismcouldnotbreaktheworkers’connectionwiththelanduntilitreachedthestageoflarge-scalemachineindustry.And,finally,Mr.Kablukovonlyveryrecentlypresentedstudentswiththefollowingastonishingdistortionofthefacts:“WhereasintheWest,workinthefactoryrepresentsthesolemeansoflivelihoodfortheworker,here(inRussia),withrelativelyfewex-ceptions”(sic!!)“theworkerregardsworkinginthefactoryasanauxiliaryoccupation;heismostlydrawntotheland.”

ApracticalanalysisofthisquestionwillbefoundintheMoscowSanitaryStatistics,compiledbyMr.Dementyev,onthe“factoryworkers’connectionwithagriculture.”Systematicallycollectedstatisticscoveringabout20,000workershaveshownthatonly14.1percentofthefactoryworkersgooffforagriculturalwork.Butwhatisstillmoreimportantisthefact,socomprehensivelyrevealedintheabove-mentionedwork,thatitisprecisely

mechanizedproductionthatseparatestheworkersfromtheland.Ofanumberoffiguresquotedinproofofthis,weselectthefollowingmoststriking:

Oftheindustriesenumeratedintheauthor ’stable,wehavedividedeightofthemaccordingtothemethodofproductionemployed,eitherhandlaborormachineproduction.Inregardtotheninthbranch,cloth,wewillnotethatitsmanufactureiscarriedonpartlybyhandandpartlybymachinery.Thus,inthehandweavingfactoriesabout63percentoftheweaversleaveforfieldwork,butnotasingleweaverworkingonpowerloomsleaves,andoftheworkersemployedinthosedepartmentsofclothmillswhichusemechanicalpower,3.3percentleave.

“Thus,themostimportantreasonthatcausesthefactoryworkerstogiveupallconnectionswiththelandisthetransitionfromhandlabortomachineproduction.Notwithstandingthefactthatarelativelylargenumberoffactoriesarestillcarriedonwithhandlabor,thenumberofworkersemployedinthem,comparedwiththenumberemployedinfactorieswheremachineproductioniscarriedon,isquiteinsignificant,andthatiswhythepercentageofthosewholeaveforfieldworkisassmallas14.1ofthetotaladultworkersand15.4oftheadultworkersbelongingexclusivelytothepeasantestate.”21

WewouldrecallthefactthatthereturnsofthesanitaryinspectionoffactoriesintheMoscowGuberniagavethefollowingfigures:mechanical

power,22.6percentoftotalfactories(including18.4percentwithsteampower);intheseareconcentrated80.7percentofthetotalnumberofworkers.Handlaborfactories,69.2percent,whichemployonly16.2percentofthetotalnumberofworkers.In244factoriesusingmechanizedpower92,302workersareemployed(378workersperfactory)while747handlaborfactoriesemploy18,520workers(25workersperfactory).22WehaveshownabovehowconsiderableistheconcentrationofallRussianfactoryworkersinlargeenterprises,mostlypowerdriven,employingontheaverage488andmoreworkersperenterprise.Mr.Dementyevstudiedindetailtheinfluenceoftheplaceofbirth,thedifferencebetweenthosewhoarenativetothelocalityandthosewhohavecomefromotherdistricts,differenceinestate(citizenorpeasant),etc.,uponthedivorcementoftheworkersfromthelandandhefoundthatalltheseinfluencesareeclipsedbythemainfactor:thetransitionfromhardproductiontomachineproduction.23

“Whateverthecausesforthetransformationoftheformertillerofthesoilintoafactoryworkermaybe,thefactisthatthesespecialworkersexist.Theyaremerelyregisteredaspeasants,connectedwiththevillageonlybythefactthattheyhavetopaytaxesthere,whichtheypaywhentheyhavetorenewtheirpassports;for,asamatteroffact,theyhavenofarminthevillage,andinalargenumberofcasesnotevenahouse,whichusuallytheyhavesold.Eventheirrighttolandtheypreserveonlyjuridically,sotospeak,andtheindustrialdisordersof1885-86showed,inmanyfactories,thattheseworkersregardthemselvesasbeingtotallyalientothevillageinthesamewayasthepeasantsintheirturnregardthem,theoffspringoftheirownfellowvillagers,asforeignincomers.Thuswehavealreadyacrystallizedclassofworkerswhodonotowntheirownhomes,whoinfactownnoproperty,aclassboundbynotiesandlivingfromhandtomouth.Andthisclassdidnotcomeintobeingonlyyesterday.Italreadyhasitsfactorygenealogyandanotinconsiderablesectionhasitsthirdgeneration.”3

Finally,interestingmaterialontheseparationofthefactoryfromagricultureisgiveninthelatestfactorystatistics.TheCensusofFactoryand

Works(for1894-95)givesinformationonthenumberofdaysintheyearinwhicheachfactoryisinoperation.Mr.KasperovhastenedtousethisdatainsupportoftheNarodniktheoriesandcalculatedthat“ontheaverage,theRussianfactoryworks165daysintheyear,“that”inRussia,35percentofthefactoriesworklessthan200daysintheyear.“24Itgoeswithoutsayingthatinviewofthevaguenessoftheterm”factory,“thesefigures,takenwithoutdiscrimination,havehardlyanysignificance,sincetheydonotindicatehowmanydaysintheyearthevariouscategoriesofworkerswork.WehavecountedupthefiguresgivenintheCensusforthelargefactories(employing100andmoreworkers)whichaswehaveseenabove(sectionVII),employaboutthree-fourthsofthetotalnumberoffactoryworkers.Andwefoundthat,accordingtothevariouscategories,theaveragenumberofworkingdaysintheyearwasasfollows:A)242;B)235;C)273,25andtheaverageforalllargefactorieswas244.Ifwecalculatetheaveragenumberofworkingdaysperworker,wewillget253workingdaysperyear—theaveragenumberofworkingdaysperworkeremployedinlargefactories.OfthetwelvesectionsintowhichthevariousbranchesofindustryaredividedintheCensus,onlyinoneistheaveragenumberofworkingdays,inthelowercategories,lowerthan200,namelysectionXI(foodproducts):A)189;B)148;C)280.FactoriesincategoryAandBinthissectionemployatotalof110,588workers,whichequals16.2percentofthetotalnumberofworkersemployedinlargefactories(655,670).Wewouldpointoutthatthissectionincludesthemostvariedbranchesofindustry:beetsugar,tobacco;distilling,flourmilling,etc.Fortheremainingsections,theaveragenumberofworkdaysperfactoryisasfollows:A)259;B)271;C)272.Thus,thelargerthefactory,thelargeristhenumberofdaystheyareinoperationinthecourseoftheyear.ThetotalreturnsforalllargefactoriesinEuropeanRussia,therefore,confirmtheconclusionarrivedatbytheMoscowSanitarystatisticiansandprovethatthefactoryiscreatingaclassofpermanentfactoryworkers.

Thus,thedataontheRussianfactoryworkersfullyconfirmthetheoryenunciatedinCapitalthatitispreciselylarge-scalemachineindustrythatbringsaboutacompleteanddecisivechangeintheconditionsoflifeoftheindustrialpopulationandseparatesitcompletelyfromagricultureandfromthecentury-oldtraditionsofpatriarchallifeconnectedwiththelatter.But,indestroyingpatriarchalandpetty-bourgeoisrelationships,large-scalemachineindustrycreates,ontheotherhand,conditionswhichbringtogetherthewageworkersinagriculturewiththoseinindustry:first,it,ingeneral,carriesintotheruraldistrictsthecommercialandindustrialconditionsoflifewhichfirst

ariseinthenon-agriculturalcenters;second,itcreatesmobilityamongthepopulationandlargemarketsforhiringagriculturalaswellasindustriallaborers;third,byintroducingmachineryintoagriculture,large-scalemachineindustryintroducesintotheruraldistrictsskilledindustrialworkerswhoenjoyahigherstandardofliving.

XII.THREESTAGESINTHEDEVELOPMENTOFCAPITALISMINRUSSIANINDUSTRYWewillnowsumupthemainconclusionstowhichthedataonthe

developmentofcapitalisminourindustryleadus.26

Therearethreemainstagesinthisdevelopment:smallcommodityproduction(petty,mainlypeasanttrades);capitalistmanufacture;andthefactory(large-scalemachineindustry).Thefactsutterlyrefutetheopinionthatiswidespreadamongusthat“factory”and“kustar”industryareisolatedfromeachother.Onthecontrary,theirdivisionispurelyartificial.Theconnectionandcontinuitybetweenthesetwoformsofindustryaremostdirectandintimate.Thefactsveryclearlyprovethatthemaintrendofsmallcommodityproductionistowardsthedevelopmentofcapitalism,inparticulartowardstheriseofmanufacture,andbeforeourveryeyes,manufactureisveryrapidlygrowingintolarge-scalemachineindustry.Perhapsoneofthemoststrikingmanifestationsofthecloseandimmediateconnectionbetweentheconsecutiveformsofindustryisthefactthatanumberofbigandverybigmanufacturerswere,atonetime,thesmallestofsmalltradesmenandpassedthroughallthestagesfrom“people’sindustry”to“capitalism.”SawaMorozovwasfirstaserfpeasant(hepurchasedhisfreedomin1820),thenashepherd,carter,weaverinamill,thena“kustar”weaver,walkingtoMoscowtosellhisclothtomerchants;thenhebecametheownerofasmallestablishmentforgivingoutworktooutdoorworkers,andfinallyafactoryowner.Atthetimeofhisdeathin1862,heandhisnumeroussonsownedtwolargecottonmills.In1890,thefourfactorieswhichbelongedtohisdescendantsemployed39,000workersandproducedgoodstothevalueof35,000,000rubles.27InthesilkindustryintheVladimirGubernia,anumberofbigmanufacturerswereformerlyweaversinmills,or“kustar”weavers.28ThebiggestmanufacturersinIvanovo-Voznesensk(Kuvayevs,Fokins,Zubkovs,Kokushkins,Bobrovsandmanyothers)wereformerly“kustars.”29ThebrocadefactoriesintheMoscowGuberniaallgrewupfromsmall“kustar”workshops.30ThemanufacturerZavyalov,ofthePavlovskdistrict,in1864stillhad“avividrecollectionofthe

timewhenhewasasimpleworkeremployedbymastercraftsmanKhabarov.”31ThemanufacturerVaripayevwasasmall“kustar.”32Kondra-tovwasasmall“kustar”whowalkedtoPavlovocarryingabagwithgoodshehadmade.33ThemanufacturerAsmolovwasahorsedriveremployedbyitinerantdealers,laterbecameasmalltrader,theownerofasmalltobaccoworkshop,andsubsequentlyownedafactorywithaturnoverofmillions,34etc.Itwouldbeinterestingtoknowwhere,intheseandsimilarcases,theNarodnikeconomistswoulddefinethebeginningof“artificial”capitalismandtheendof“people’s”industry.

Thethreemainformsofindustryenumeratedabovearedistinguishedfromeachotherbythedifferenttechnicalmethodsemployed.Thecharacteristicfeatureofsmallcommodityproductionisitsveryprimitive,handtechniquethatremainedunchangedfromtimeimmemorial.Thecraftsmanremainsapeasantwhoadoptsthemethodshandeddownbytraditionofworkinguprawmaterial.Manufactureintroducesdivisionoflabor,whichfundamentallychangestheformoftechniqueandtransformsthepeasantintoa“detailworker.”Buthandlaborremains,and,onthisbasis,progressinmethodsofproductionisinevitablyveryslow.Divisionoflaborspringsupspontaneouslyandisadoptedbytraditionjustasinpeasantlabor.Large-scalemachineindustryaloneintroducesaradicalchange,throwshandlaboroverboard,transformsproductiononnew,rationalprinciplesandsystematicallyappliestheknowledgeofsciencetoindustry.Untilcapitalismorganizedlarge-scalemachineindustryinRussia,weobserved—andstillobserveinthoseindustriesinwhichithasnotyetorganizedlarge-scaleproduction—almostcompletestagnationintechnique;weseetheemploymentofthesamekindofhandloom,thesamekindofwatermillorwindmillthatwasemployedinproductionacenturyago.Ontheotherhand,inthoseindustrieswhichthefactoryhasconquered,weseeacompletetechnicalrevolutionandextremelyrapidprogressinthemethodsofmachineproduction.

Owingtothedifferenceinthetechnicalmethodsemployed,weseedifferentstagesofdevelopmentincapitalism.Thecharacteristicfeatureofsmallcommodityproductionandmanufactureistheprevalenceofsmallenterprisesfromamongwhichonlyafewlargeonesstandout.Large-scalemachineindustrycompletelysqueezesoutthesmallenterprises.Capitalistrelationshipsarisealsointhesmalltrades(intheformofsmallworkshopsemployingwageworkers,andmerchantcapitalists),buttheseareonlyslightlydevelopedandarenotmarkedbyasharplineofantagonismbetweenthegroupsofpersonstakingpartinproduction.Neitherbigcapitalistsnorbroadstrataof

proletarianshaveyetarisen.Inmanufactureweseetheriseofboththeoneandtheother.Thegulfthatdividestheownerofthemeansofproductionfromtheworkerhasalreadybecomefairlywide.“Wealthy”industrialcentersspringup,themassoftheinhabitantsofwhichrepresententirelypropertylessworkers.Asmallnumberofmerchants,whodoanenormousbusinessinthepurchaseofrawmaterialsandthesaleoffinishedgoods,andamassofdetailworkerslivingfromhandtomouth,suchisthegeneralpicturewhichmanufacturepresents.Butthemultitudeofsmallestablishments,thepreservationofcontactswiththeland,thepreservationoftraditioninproductionandinthewholesystemoflife,allthiscreatesamassofintermediaryelementsbetweentheextremesofmanufactureandretardsthedevelopmentoftheseextremes.Large-scalemachineindustrysweepsawayalltheseretardingfactors,theextremesofsocialantagonismreachtheirhighestdevelopment.Allthegloomysidesofcapitalism,asitwere,concentratetogether;themachine,asiswellknown,givesapowerfulimpetustotheunduelengtheningoftheworkingday;womenandchildrenaredrawnintoindustry;areservearmyofunemployedisformed(andmustbeformedtosuittheconditionsoffactoryproduction),etc.However,thesocializationoflabor,whichthefactorybringsabouttoanenormousdegree,andthechangeitbringsaboutinthesentimentsandunderstandingofthepeopleitemploys(particularlythedestructionofpatriarchalandpetty-bourgeoistraditions)givesrisetoareaction:unlikeprecedingstages,large-scalemachineproductionimperativelycallsfortheplannedregulationandpubliccontrolofproduction(amanifestationofthelattertendencyisfactorylegislation).35

Theverycharacterofthedevelopmentofproductionchangesatvariousstagesofcapitalism.Insmalltradesthisdevelopmentfollowsinthewakeofthedevelopmentofpeasanteconomy;themarketisextremelyrestricted,thedistancebetweentheproducerandtheconsumerissmall,theinsignificantdimensionsofproductioneasilyadaptthemselvestobarelyfluctuatinglocaldemands.Thatiswhythecharacteristicfeatureofindustryatthatstageisitsstability,butthatstabilityistantamounttostagnationintechniqueandthepreservationofpatriarchalsocialrelationshipsenmeshedinallsortsofsurvivalsofmediævaltraditions.Manufactureworksforawidemarket—sometimesforthewholenationand,inconformitywiththis,productionacquiresthecharacterofinstabilitythatispeculiartocapitalismandwhichreachesitsgreatestdimensionsunderfactoryproduction.Thedevelopmentoflarge-scalemachineproductioncannotproceedexceptinspurts;periodsofcrisisalternatewithperiodsofprosperity.Thissporadicgrowthofthefactory

acceleratestoanenormousdegreetheruinationofthesmallproducers;andtheworkersaredrawnintothefactoryinmassesatonemoment,inbusyseasons,andthrownoutatanother.Theformationofavastreservearmyofunemployed,whoarepreparedtotakeanykindofwork,becomesaconditionfortheexistenceanddevelopmentoflarge-scalemachineindustry.InchapterIIweshowedthestrataofthepeasantryfromwhichthisarmyisrecruitedandinsubsequentchaptersthemainoccupationsforwhichcapitalkeepsthisarmyinreservewereindicated.The“instability”oflarge-scalemachineindustryhasalwaysgivenrise,andnowgivesrise,toreactionarycomplaintsamongthosewhocontinuetolookatthingsthroughthespectaclesofthesmallproducerandwhoforgetthatitisthis“instability”alonethatputanendtothestagnationofthepastandstimulatedtherapidchangeinmethodsofproductionandinallsocialrelationships.

Oneofthemanifestationsofthischangeistheseparationofindustryfromagriculture,thereleaseofthesocialrelationshipsinindustryfromthetraditionsofserfdomandthepatriarchalsystemthathoveroveragriculture.Insmallcommodityproductionthetradesmanhasnotyetcompletelyemergedfromthepeasantshell;inthemajorityofcasesheremainsatillerofthesoil,andthisconnectionbetweensmallindustryandsmallagricultureissostrongthatweobserveaninterestinglawoftheparalleldisintegrationofthesmallproducerinindustryandinagriculture.Theriseofapettybourgeoisieandofwageworkersisproceedingsimultaneouslyinbothspheresofnationaleconomy,andbythatispreparing,atbothpolesofdisintegration,thedivorcementfromfarmingofthoseengagedinindustry.Undermanufacturethisdivorcementassumesconsiderabledimensions.Anumberofindustrialcentersarisewhichdonotengageinagriculture.Thechiefrepresentativeofindustryisnolongerthepeasant,butthemerchantmanufacturerontheonehandandthe“artisan”ontheother.Industryandtherelativedevelopmentofcommercialintercoursewiththerestoftheworldraisethestandardoflivingandthecultureofthepopulation;theworkerworkingforthemerchantmanufacturerbeginstolookdownuponthepeasantfarmer.Large-scalemachineindustrycompletesthischange,finallyseparatesindustryfromagriculture,creates,aswehaveseen,aspecialclassofthepopulationwhichistotallyalientotheoldtypeofpeasantryandwhichdiffersfromthelatterinitsmannerofliving,itsfamilyrelationships,initshigherstandardofmaterialandspiritualrequirements.36Insmallindustryandinmanufacturewealwaysseesurvivalsofpatriarchalrelationsandavarietyofformsofpersonaldependencewhich,inthegeneralconditionsofcapitalisteconomy,extremely

worsenthepositionofthetoilers,degradeandcorruptthem.Large-scalemachineindustry,byconcentratingtogethermassesofworkerswhofrequentlycomefromvariouspartsofthecountry,cannotpossiblytoleratesurvivalsofpatriarchalismandpersonaldependence,andismarkedbyits“contemptforthepast.”Anditispreciselythisrupturewithobsoletetraditionthatservedasoneoftheimportantcondi-tionswhichmadepossibleandcreatedthenecessityfortheregulationandthepubliccontrolofproduction.Particularly,inspeakingofthechangesthefactoryhasbroughtaboutintheconditionsoflifeofthepopulation,itisnecessarytoobservethatthedrawingofwomenandadolescentsintothefactory37is,inthemain,aprogressivephenomenon.Unquestionably,capitalismextremelyworsenstheconditionsofthesecategoriesofworkersanditbecomesparticularlynecessarytoregulateandshortentheirworkingday,toguaranteehygienicconditionsoflabor,etc.;buttostrivetocompletelyprohibitwomenandadolescentsfromgoingintoindustry,ortopreservethepatriarchalsystemwhichpreventedthemfromdoingso,wouldbereactionaryandutopian.Bydestroyingthepatriarchalisolationofthesecategoriesofthepopulationwhoformerlyneveremergedfromthenarrowcircleofdomestic,familyrelationships,bydrawingthemintodirectparticipationinsocialproduction,large-scalemachineindustrystimulatestheirdevelopmentandincreasestheirindependence,i.e.,createsconditionsoflifethatareincomparablysuperiortothepatriarchalimmobilityofpre-capitalistrelationships.38

Thecharacteristicfeatureofthefirsttwostagesofdevelopmentofindustryisthatthepopulationissettled.Thesmalltradesman,remainingapeasant,isboundtohisvillagebyhisfarm.Theworkerundermanufactureisusuallyrestrictedtothesmallindustrialdistrictwhichiscreatedbymanufacture.Thereisnothinginherentinthesystemofindustryinthefirstandsecondstagesofdevelopmentthatdisturbsthesettledcharacterandisolationoftheproducer.Intercoursebetweenthevariousindustrialdistrictsisrare.Thetransferofindustryfromoneplacetoanothertakesplaceonlyintheformofthemigrationofindividualsmallproducerswhoestablishsmalltradesintheoutlyingpartsofthestate.Large-scalemachineindustry,however,necessarilycreatesmobilityamongthepopulation;commercialintercoursebetweenvariousdistrictsgrowsenormously;railwaysgreatlyfacilitatetravel.Onthewhole,thedemandforlaborincreases,nowrisingintheperiodofboom,nowfallingintheperiodofcrisis,sothatitbecomesnecessaryfortheworkertogofromonefactorytoanotherandfromonepartofthecountrytoanother.Large-scalemachineindustrycreatesnewindustrialcenterswhich,with

unprecedentedrapidity,arisesometimesinunpopulatedplaces—whichwouldbeimpossiblewithoutthemassmigrationofworkers.Furtheronwewillshowthedimensionsandsignificanceoftheso-calledmigratorynon-agriculturaltrades.Atthemoment,wewilllimitourselvestoabriefpresentationofthedataoftheZemstvoSanitaryStatisticsoftheMoscowGubernia.Investigationamong103,175factoryworkersshowedthatonly53,238,or51.6percentwerebornintheparticularuyezdinwhichtheyworked.Hence,nearlyhalfthetotalnumberofworkersmigratedfromoneuyezdtoanother.ThenumberofworkerswhowerebornintheMoscowGuberniawas66,038,or64percentofthetotal.39Morethanonethirdofthetotalcameinfromothergubernias(chieflyfromguberniasinthecentralindustrialzoneadjacenttotheMoscowGubernia).Investigationofthevariousuyezdsshowedthatthemoreindustriallydevelopeduyezdshadasmallpercentofworkersnativetotheparticularuyezdworkingthere:forexampleintheuyezdsofMozhaiskandVolokolamsk,whicharenothighlydevelopedindustrially,from92to93percentofthefactoryworkersarenativesoftheplacetheyworkin.InthehighlyindustrialMoscow,KolomnaandBogorodskUyezdsthepercentofnativeworkersdropsto24,40and50.Theinvestigatorsdrawtheconclusionfromthisthat”theconsiderabledevelopmentoffactoryproductionintheuyezdencouragestheinfluxofelementsfromoutsidetheuyezd.“40Thesefactsshowalso(wewilladd)thatmobilityamongtheindustrialworkersbearsthesamefeaturesthatweobservedinthemobilityoftheagriculturalworkers,viz.,thattheindustrialworkers,also,notonlymigratefromthosedistrictswherethereisasurplusoflabor,butalsofromthosedistrictswherethereisashortageoflabor.Forexample,theBronnitsiUyezdattracts1,123workersfromotheruyezdsintheMoscowGuberniaandfromothergubernias,andatthesametime1,246workersleavethatuyezdtogotomoreindustriallydevelopeduyezds,i.e.,MoscowandBogorodsk.Hence,theworkersleave,notonlybecausetheycannotfind“localoccupations,”butalsobecausetheystrivetogotothoseplaceswhereconditionsarebetter.Elementaryasthisfactis,itisworthwhileremindingtheNarodnikeconomistsofitagain,fortheyidealizelocaloccupations,condemnmigratorytradesandignoretheprogressivesignificanceofthemobilityamongthepopulationwhichcapitalismcreates.

Thecharacteristicfeaturesdescribedabove,whichdistinguishlarge-scalemachineindustryfromprecedingformsofindustry,maybesummedupinthewords—socializationoflabor.Indeed,productionforanenormousnationalandinternationalmarket,thedevelopmentofclosecommercialcontactswithvariouspartsofthecountryandwithvariouscountriesinthepurchaseofraw

materialsandauxiliarymaterials,theenormoustechnicalprogress,theconcentrationofproductionandthepopulationbyenormousenterprises,thedestructionoftheoutworntraditionsofpatriarchallife,thecreationofmobilityamongthepopulationandtheraisingofthestandardofrequirementsandthedevelopmentoftheworker—alltheseareelementsofthecapitalistprocesswhichmoreandmoresocializetheproductionofthecountryandatthesametimesocializethosewhoparticipateinproduction.41

Inregardtothequestionoftherelationoflarge-scalemachineindustryinRussiatothehomemarketforcapitalism,thedatagivenaboveleadtothefollowingconclusion:TherapiddevelopmentoffactoryindustryinRussiacreatesanenormousandcontinuouslyincreasingmarketformeansofproduction(buildingmaterial,fuel,metals,etc.),itincreaseswithparticularrapiditytheproportionofthepopulationengagedinconducingarticlestobeusedinproductionandnotforpersonalconsumption.Butthemarketforarticlesforpersonalusealsogrowsrapidlyowingtothegrowthoflarge-scalemachineindustry,whichdrawsagrowingproportionofthepopulationawayfromagricultureintocommercialandindustrialoccupations.

EXCERPTFROMCHAPTERVIII

VI.THE“MISSION”OFCAPITALISMWemustnow,inconclusion,sumupthequestionwhichinliteraturehas

cometobeknownasthe“mission”ofcapitalism,i.e.,ofitshistoricalroleintheeconomicdevelopmentofRussia.Toadmitthatthisroleisaprogressiveoneisquitecompatible(aswehavetriedtoshowindetailateverystageinourexpositionofthefacts)withthefullestadmissionofthenegativeandgloomysidesofcapitalism,withthefullestadmissionoftheinevitable,profoundandall-sidedsocialantagonismswhichareafeatureofcapitalismandwhichrevealthehistoricallytransitionalcharacterofthiseconomicsystem.ItistheNarodnikiwhotrywithalltheirmighttomakeitappearthatifoneadmitsthatcapitalismishistoricallyprogressive,onetherebybecomesanapologistofcapitalism,anditispreciselytheNarodnikiwhounderestimate(andsometimesignore)themostprofoundcontradictionsofRussiancapitalism,glossoverthedisintegrationofthepeasantry,thecapitalistcharacteroftheevolutionofouragriculture,theriseofaclassofruralandindustrialwageworkerswithallotments,andglossoverthecompletepredominanceofthelowestandworstformsofcapitalisminthenotorious“kustar”industries.

Theprogressive,historicalroleofcapitalismmaybesummedupintwobriefpostulates:increaseintheproductiveforcesofsociallaborandthesocializationoflabor.Butboththesefactsmanifestthemselvesinverydiversifiedprocessesinvariousbranchesofnationaleconomy.

Thedevelopmentoftheproductiveforcesofsociallaborisobservedincompletereliefonlyintheepochoflarge-scalemachineindustry.Untilthathighstageofcapitalismwasreached,handicraftandprimitivetechniquewaspreservedanddevelopedquitespontaneouslyandataveryslowpace.Thepost-ReformepochdifferssharplyfrompreviousepochsinRussianhistoryinthisrespect.TheRussiaofthewoodenploughandtheflail,ofthewatermillandhandloom,rapidlybegantobetransformedintotheRussiaofthesteelploughandthethreshingmachine,ofsteamdrivenmillsandlooms.Thereis

notasinglebranchofnationaleconomythatissubordinatedtothecapitalistmodeofproductioninwhichasimilarlycompletetransformationoftechniquehasnotbeenobserved.Owingtotheverynatureofcapitalism,thisprocessoftransformationcannottakeplaceexceptthroughaseriesofunevennessesanddisproportionalities:periodsofprosperityalternatewithperiodsofcrisis,thedevelopmentofonebranchofindustryleadstothedeclineofanother,theprogressofagricultureaffectsonebranchinonedistrictandanotherbranchinanother,thegrowthoftradeandindustryisfasterthanthatofagriculture,etc.AnumberoferrorstheNarodnikicommitareduetotheirefforttoprovethatthisdisproportionate,sporadic,feverishdevelopmentisnotdevelopment.42

Anotherfeatureofthedevelopmentofthesocialproductiveforcesbycapitalismisthatthegrowthofmeansofproduction(productiveconsumption)ismuchfasterthanthegrowthofindividualconsumption:wehavepointedoutmorethanoncehowthismanifestsitselfinagricultureandinindustry.Thisfeatureistheresultoftheoperationofthegenerallawsoftherealizationoftheproductincapitalistsociety,andisincompleteharmonywiththeantagonisticnatureofthissystemofsociety.43

Thesocializationoflaborbycapitalismmanifestsitselfinthefollowingprocesses:Firstly,theverygrowthofcommodityproductiondestroysthefragmentalcharacterofsmalleconomicunitsthatisthefeatureofnaturalself-sufficingeconomyandunitesthesmalllocalmarketsintoanenormousnational(andthenintoaworld)market.Workingforoneselfistransformedintoworkingforthewholeofsociety,andthemorecapitalismisdevelopedthegreateristhecontradictionbetweenthecollectivecharacterofproductionandtheindividualistcharacteroftheappropriationoftheresultsofproduction.Secondly,inplaceoftheformerlyscatteredproduction,capitalismcreatesproduction,bothinagricultureandinindustry,thatisconcentratedtoadegreeneverwitnessedbefore.Thisisthemoststrikingandoutstandingmanifestationofthefeatureofcapitalismthatweareexamining,butitisnottheonlyone.Thirdly,capitalismsqueezesouttheformsofpersonaldependencethatwereaninseparablepartofprecedingsystemsofeconomy.InRussia,theprogressivecharacterofcapitalisminthisrespectisparticularlymarked,forinRussiathepersonaldependenceoftheproducerexisted(andpartlycontinuestoexisttothepresentday)notonlyinagriculturebutalsointhemanufacturingindustries(“factories”employingserflabor),intheminingindustry,inthefishingindustry,etc.44Comparedwiththelaborofadependentorbondedpeasant,thelaborofafreelaborerisaprogressivephenomenoninallbranchesofnationaleconomy.Fourthly,capitalismnecessarilycreatesmobilityamongthe

populationwhichwasnotrequiredinprevioussystemsofsocialeconomyandwasimpossibleonanylargescaleunderthosesystems.Fifthly,capitalismconstantlydiminishestheproportionofthepopulationengagedinagriculture(inwhichthemostbackwardformsofsocialandeconomicrelationshipsusuallypredominate),andincreasesthenumberoflargeindustrialcenters.Sixthly,capitalismincreasesamongthepopulationtheneedforunion,forassociation,andgivestheseassociationsaspecialcharactercomparedwithassociationsinprevioustimes.Whilebreakingdownthenarrow,localestateassociationsofmediaevalsocietyandcreatingfiercecompetition,capitalismatthesametimedividessocietyintolargegroupsofpersonswhooccupydifferentpositionsinproduction,andgivesatremendousimpetustotheorganizationofthepersonswithineachofthesegroups.Seventhly,allthechangesreferredto,whichcapitalismbringsaboutintheoldeconomicsystem,inevitablyleadalsotoachangeinthespiritualmake-upofthepopulation.Thesporadiccharacterofeconomicdevelopment,therapidchangeinthemethodsofproductionandtheenormousconcentrationofproduction,thedisappearanceofallformsofpersonaldependenceandpatriarchalrelations,themobilityofthepopulation,theinfluenceofthebigindustrialcenters,etc.—allthiscannotbutbringaboutaprofoundchangeintheverycharacteroftheproducers,andwehavealreadyhadoccasiontonotetheobservationsofRussianinvestigatorsonthisscore.

TurningnowtotheNarodnikeconomists,withwhoserepresentativeswehaveconstantlyhadtoenterintocontroversy,wemaysumupourdifferenceswiththeminthefollowingmanner:First,wecannotbutregardtheNarodniks’conceptionoftheprocessofdevelopmentofcapitalisminRussiaandtheirconceptionofthesystemofeconomicrelationshipsthatexistedinRussiabeforetheriseofcapitalismasbeingabsolutelywrong.Moreover,fromourpointofview,thefactthattheyignorethecapitalistcontradictionsinthepeasanteconomicsystem(bothinagricultureandinotherpeasantoccupations)isparticularlyimportant.Furthermore,thequestionastowhetherthedevelopmentofcapitalisminRussiaissloworrapiddependsentirelyuponwhatthisdevelopmentiscomparedwith.Ifwecomparethepre-capitalistepochinRussiawiththecapitalistepoch(andthisispreciselythecomparisonthatshouldbemadeifacorrectsolutiontotheproblemistobefound),thenwewillhavetoadmitthatthedevelopmentofsocialeconomyundercapitalismisextremelyrapid.If,however,wecomparethepresentrateofdevelopmentwiththeratethatwouldhavebeenpossibleatthemodernleveloftechniqueandculturegenerally,thenwewouldhavetoadmitthatthepresentrateof

developmentofcapitalisminRussiaisreallyslow.Norcoulditbeanythingelsebutslow,forthereisnotasinglecapitalistcountryintheworldinwhichancientinstitutions,whichareincompatiblewithcapitalism,whichretarditsdevelopment,whichimmeasurablyworsentheconditionsoftheproducerswho“sufferfromcapitalismaswellasfromtheinsufficientdevelopmentofcapitalism,”havesurvivedinsuchabundanceastheyhavesurvivedinRussia.Finally,perhapsoneofthegreatestcausesofdifferencebetweentheNarodnikiandourselvesisthedifferenceinourfundamentalviewsonsocialandeconomicprocesses.Instudyingthelatter,theNarodnikiusuallytrytodrawsomemoral;theydonotregardthevariousgroupsofpersonstakingpartinproductionasthecreatorsofcertainformsoflife;theydonottrytopicturetothemselvesthesumtotalofsocialandeconomicrelationshipsastheresultofthemutualrelationsbetweenthesegroups,whichhavedifferentinterestsanddifferenthistoricalroles....Ifthewriteroftheselineshassucceededinprovidingmaterialthatwillassistinclearingupthesequestions,hewillregardhislaborsasnothavingbeeninvain.

WHATISTOBEDONE?WhatIstoBeDone?,Lenin’smajorworkonBolshevikorganizationand

discipline,waspublishedinthespringof1902.Inthiswork,Lenindirectsspecialattentiontothreeissues,whichhedescribesas“Thecharacterandtheprincipalcontentofourpoliticalagitation,ourorganizationaltasks,andtheplanforsettingup,simultaneously,andfromallsides,amilitant,all-Russianorganization.”Yet,duetoacombinationofcircumstancesandpersonality,hewasunabletodiscussthesepointsintheabstract,butwasdrawnintothedebatethenwideningthedivisionbetweenthetwooutlooksinRussianMarxism,adivisionthatbecamefinalwiththeformalBolshevik-Mensheviksplit.

Lenin,writingwithinthecontextofRussianpolitics,facedtheimmediateproblemsinvolvedinbuildinganorganizationwithintheautocraticTsariststate.Moreover,hetookupanddiscussedatlength,inpolemicfashion,theinternalissuesthenconfrontingRussianMarxism,thusproducingaworkconsiderablylongerthanheoriginallyplanned.Andthewritingwasdoneundergreatpressure;Leninhimselfadmittedtheliteraryshortcomingsofthework.Becauseofthesefactors,theover-allsignificanceofthisworkmaynotbeimmediatelyapparenttothecasualreader.

InWhatIstoBeDone?,LeninclearlydefineshisconceptsofBolshevikorganization.Ashespecifies,thebasicBolshevikmovementisnotamovementofworkers,oramovementofintellectuals,oracombinationofthetwo;rather,itisanauthoritarianorganizationofdedicatedprofessionalrevolutionaries,individuallyrecruitedfromamongworkersandintellectuals.AccordingtoLenin,theonlyrealroleoftheBolshevikmovementistoplanfor,workfor,andexecuterevolution.Leninbelievedthatrevolutionmustbecarefullyandsystematicallyplannedandcarriedthrough;hescornedthosewhoanticipated“spontaneous”revolutionbythepeoplethemselves.Healsostronglyattackedthe“Economists,”whowereconcernedwitheffectingimmediateimprovementinlivingandworkingconditions.

WhatIstoBeDone?appearsherecomplete,exceptforthedeletionofthelastofitsfivesections,“The‘Plan’foranAll-RussianPoliticalNewspaper,”

whichisunusuallyspecializedanddetailed.

I

DOGMATISMAND“FREEDOMOFCRITICISM”

A.WHATIS“FREEDOMOFCRITICISM”?“Freedomofcriticism,”thisundoubtedlyisthemostfashionablesloganat

thepresenttime,andtheonemostfrequentlyemployedinthecontroversiesbetweentheSocialistsanddemocratsofallcountries.Atfirstsight,nothingwouldappeartobemorestrangethanthesolemnappealsbyoneofthepartiestothedisputeforfreedomofcriticism.CanitbethatsomeoftheadvancedpartieshaveraisedtheirvoicesagainsttheconstitutionallawofthemajorityofEuropeancountrieswhichguaranteesfreedomtoscienceandscientificinvestigation?“Somethingmustbewronghere,”anonlooker,whohasnotyetfullyappreciatedthenatureofthedisagreementsamongthecontroversialists,willsaywhenhehearsthisfashionablesloganrepeatedateverycross-road.“Evidentlythissloganisoneoftheconventionalphraseswhich,likeanickname,becomeslegitimatizedbyuse,andbecomesalmostacommonnoun,”hewillconclude.

Infact,itisnosecretthattwoseparatetendencieshavebeenformedininternationalSocial-Democracy.45Thefightbetweenthesetendenciesnowflaresupinabrightflame,andnowdiesdownandsmouldersundertheashesofimposing“resolutionsforanarmistice.”Whatthis“new”tendency,whichadoptsa“critical”attitudetowards“obsoletedoctrinaire”Marxism,representshasbeenstatedwithsufficientprecisionbyBernstein,46anddemonstratedbyMillerand.46

Social-Democracymustchangefromapartyofthesocialrevolutionintoademocraticpartyofsocialreforms.Bernsteinhassurroundedthispoliticaldemandwithawholebatteryofsymmetricallyarranged“new”argumentsandreasonings.Thepossibilityofputtingsocialismonascientificbasisandof

provingthatitisnecessaryandinevitablefromthepointofviewofthematerialistconceptionofhistorywasdenied,asalsowerethefactsofgrowingimpoverishmentandproletarianizationandtheintensificationofcapitalistcontradictions.Theveryconception,“ultimateaim,”wasdeclaredtobeunsound,andtheideaofthedictatorshipoftheproletariatwasabsolutelyrejected.Itwasdeniedthatthereisanydifferenceinprinciplebetweenliberalismandsocialism.Thetheoryoftheclassstrugglewasrejectedonthegroundsthatitcouldnotbeappliedtoastrictlydemocraticsociety,governedaccordingtothewillofthemajority,etc.

Thus,thedemandforadefinitechangefromrevolutionarySocial-Democracytobourgeoissocial-reformismwasaccompaniedbyanolessdefiniteturntowardsbourgeoiscriticismofallthefundamentalideasofMarxism.AsthiscriticismofMarxismhasbeengoingonforalongtimenow,fromthepoliticalplatform,fromuniversitychairs,innumerouspamphletsandinanumberofscientificworks,astheyoungergenerationoftheeducatedclasseshasbeensystematicallytrainedfordecadesonthiscriticism,itisnotsurprisingthatthe“new,critical”tendencyinSocial-Democracyshouldspringup,allcomplete,likeMinervafromtheheadofJupiter.Thecontentofthisnewtendencydidnothavetogrowanddevelop,itwastransferredbodilyfrombourgeoisliteraturetosocialistliterature.

Toproceed.IfBernstein’stheoreticalcriticismandpoliticalyearningsarestillobscuretoanyone,theFrenchhavetakenthetroubletodemonstratethe“newmethod.”Inthisinstance,also,Francehasjustifieditsoldreputationasthecountryinwhich“morethananywhereelse,thehistoricalclassstruggleswereeachtimefoughtouttoadecision...”(Engels,inhisintroductiontoMarx’sTheEighteenthBrumaire.)TheFrenchSocialistshavebegun,nottotheorize,buttoact.ThemoredevelopeddemocraticpoliticalconditionsinFrancehavepermittedthemtoputBernsteinismintopracticeimmediately,withallitsconsequences.MillerandhasprovidedanexcellentexampleofpracticalBernsteinism;notwithoutreasondidBernsteinandVollmarrushsozealouslytodefendandpraisehim!Indeed,ifSocial-Democracy,inessence,ismerelyareformistparty,andmustbeboldenoughtoadmitthisopenly,thennotonlyhasaSocialisttherighttojoinabourgeoiscabinet,itisevenhisdutyalwaystostrivetodoso.Ifdemocracy,inessence,meanstheabolitionofclassdomination,thenwhyshouldnotaSocialistministercharmthewholebourgeoisworldbyorationsonclassco-operation?Whyshouldhenotremaininthecabinetevenaftertheshootingdownofworkersbygendarmeshasexposed,forthehundredthandthousandthtime,therealnatureofthe

democraticco-operationofclasses?Whyshouldhenotpersonallytakepartinwelcomingthetsar,forwhomtheFrenchSocialistsnowhavenoothersobriquetthan“HerooftheKnout,GallowsandBanishment”(knouter,pendeuretdeportateur)?Andtherewardforthisutterhumiliationandself-degradationofsocialisminthefaceofthewholeworld,forthecorruptionofthesocialistconsciousnessoftheworkingclass—theonlybasisthatcanguaranteeourvictory—therewardforthisisimposingplansforniggardlyreforms,soniggardlyinfactthatmuchmorehasbeenobtainedfrombourgeoisgovernments!

Hewhodoesnotdeliberatelyclosehiseyescannotfailtoseethatthenew“critical”tendencyinsocialismisnothingmorenorlessthananewspeciesofopportunism.Andifwejudgepeoplenotbythebrilliantuniformstheydeckthemselvesin,notbytheimposingappellationstheygivethemselves,butbytheiractions,andbywhattheyactuallyadvocate,itwillbeclearthat“freedomofcriticism”meansfreedomforanopportunistictendencyinSocial-Democracy,thefreedomtoconvertSocial-Democracyintoademocraticreformistparty,thefreedomtointroducebourgeoisideasandbourgeoiselementsintosocialism.

“Freedom”isagrandword,butunderthebanneroffreetradethemostpredatorywarswereconducted;underthebanneroffreelabor,thetoilerswererobbed.Themodernuseoftheterm“freedomofcriticism”containsthesameinherentfalsehood.Thosewhoarereallyconvincedthattheyhaveadvancedsciencewoulddemand,notfreedomforthenewviewstocontinuesidebysidewiththeold,butthesubstitutionofthenewviewsfortheold.Thecry“Longlivefreedomofcriticism,”thatisheardtoday,toostronglycallstomindthefableoftheemptybarrel.

Wearemarchinginacompactgroupalongaprecipitousanddifficultpath,firmlyholdingeachotherbythehand.Wearesurroundedonallsidesbyenemies,andareundertheiralmostconstantfire.Wehavecombinedvoluntarily,preciselyforthepurposeoffightingtheenemy,andnottoretreatintotheadjacentmarsh,theinhabitantsofwhich,fromtheveryoutset,havereproacheduswithhavingseparatedourselvesintoanexclusivegroupandwithhavingchosenthepathofstruggleinsteadofthepathofconciliation.Andnowseveralamongusbegintocryout:letusgointothismarsh!Andwhenwebegintoshamethem,theyretort:howconservativeyouare!Areyounotashamedtodenyustherighttoinviteyoutotakeabetterroad!Ohyes,gentlemen!Youarefreenotonlytoinviteus,buttogoyourselveswherever

youwill,evenintothemarsh.Infact,wethinkthatthemarshisyourproperplace,andwearepreparedtorenderyoueveryassistancetogetthere.Onlyletgoofourhands,don’tclutchatusanddon’tbesmirchthegrandword“freedom”;forwetooare“free”togowhereweplease,freenotonlytofightagainstthemarsh,butalsoagainstthosewhoareturningtowardsthemarsh.

B.THENEWADVOCATESOF“FREEDOMOFCRITICISM”Now,thisslogan(“freedomofcriticism”)issolemnlyadvancedinNo.10of

RabocheyeDyelo,theorganoftheLeagueofRussianSocial-DemocratsAboard,notasatheoreticalpostulate,butasapoliticaldemand,asareplytothequestion:“isitpossibletounitetheSocial-Democraticorganizationsoperatingabroad?”—“inorderthatunitymaybedurable,theremustbefreedomofcriticism.”

Fromthisstatementtwoverydefiniteconclusionsmustbedrawn:1)thatRabocheyeDyelohastakentheopportunisttendencyininternationalSocial-Democracyunderitswing;and2)thatRabocheyeDyelodemandsfreedomforopportunisminRussianSocial-Democracy.Weshallexaminetheseconclusions.

RabocheyeDyelois“particularly”displeasedwithIskra’sandZarya’s“inclinationtopredictarupturebetweentheMountainandtheGirondeininternationalSocial-Democracy.”47

“Generallyspeaking,”writesKrichevsky,editorofRabocheyeDyelo,“thistalkabouttheMountainandtheGirondethatisheardintheranksofSocial-Democracyrepresentsashallowhistoricalanalogy,whichlooksstrangewhenitcomesfromthepenofaMarxist.TheMountainandtheGirondedidnotrepresenttwodifferenttemperaments,orintellectualtendencies,asideologisthistoriansmaythink,buttwodifferentclassesorstrata—themiddlebourgeoisieontheonehand,andthepettybourgeoisieandtheproletariatontheother.Inthemodernsocialistmovement,however,thereisnoconflictofclassinterests;thesocialistmovementinitsentirety,allofitsdiverseforms[B.K.’sitalics],includingthemostpronouncedBernsteinists,standonthebasisoftheclassinterestsoftheproletariatandoftheproletarianclass

struggle,foritspoliticalandeconomicemancipation.”

Aboldassertion!HasnotB.Krichevskyheardthefact,longagonoted,thatitispreciselytheextensiveparticipationofthe“academic”stratuminthesocialistmovementinrecentyearsthathassecuredtherapidspreadofBernsteinism?Andwhatismostimportant—onwhatdoesourauthorbasehisopinionthateven“themostpronouncedBernsteinists”standonthebasisoftheclassstruggleforthepoliticalandeconomicemancipationoftheproletariat?Nooneknows.ThisdetermineddefenseofthemostpronouncedBernsteinistsisnotsupportedbyanykindofargumentwhatever.Apparently,theauthorbelievesthatifherepeatswhatthepronouncedBernsteinistssayaboutthemselves,hisassertionrequiresnoproof.Butcananythingmore“shallow”beimaginedthananopinionofawholetendencythatisbasedonnothingmorethanwhattherepresentativesofthattendencysayaboutthemselves?Cananythingmoreshallowbeimaginedthanthesubsequent“homily”aboutthetwodifferentandevendiametricallyoppo-sitetypes,orpaths,ofPartydevelopment?(RabocheyeDyelo.)TheGermanSocial-Democrats,yousee,recognizecompletefreedomofcriticism,buttheFrenchdonot,anditispreciselythelatterthatpresentanexampleofthe“harmfulnessofintolerance.”

TowhichwereplythattheveryexampleB.KrichevskyquotesprovesthatthosewhoregardhistoryliterallyfromtheIlovayskypointofviewsometimesdescribethemselvesasMarxists.Thereisnoneedwhatever,inexplainingtheunityoftheGermanSocialistPartyandthedismemberedstateoftheFrenchSocialistParty,tosearchforthespecialfeaturesinthehistoryoftherespectivecountries,tocomparetheconditionsofmilitarysemi-absolutismintheonecountrywithrepublicanparliamentarismintheother,ortoanalyzetheeffectsoftheParisCommuneandtheeffectsoftheAnti-SocialistLaw48inGermany;tocomparetheeconomiclifeandeconomicdevelopmentofthetwocountries,orrecallthat“theunexampledgrowthofGermanSocial-Democracy”wasaccompaniedbyastrenuousstruggle,unexampledinthehistoryofsocialism,notonlyagainstmistakentheories(Mühlberger,Dühring,49theSocialistsoftheChair),butalsoagainstmistakentactics(Lassalle),etc.,etc.Allthatissuperfluous!TheFrenchquarrelamongthemselvesbecausetheyareintolerant;theGermansareunitedbecausetheyaregoodboys.

Andobserve,thispieceofmatchlessprofundityisintendedto“refute”thefactwhichisacompleteanswertothedefenseofBernsteinism.ThequestionastowhethertheBernsteinistsdostandonthebasisoftheclassstruggleofthe

proletariatcanbecompletelyandirrevocablyansweredonlybyhistoricalexperience.Consequently,theexampleofFranceisthemostimportantoneinthisrespect,becauseFranceistheonlycountryinwhichtheBernsteinistsattemptedtostandindependently,ontheirownfeet,withthewarmapprovaloftheirGermancolleagues(andpartlyalsooftheRussianopportunists).(Cf.RabocheyeDyelo,Nos.2-3.)Thereferencetothe“intolerance”oftheFrench,apartfromits“historical”significance(intheNozdrevsense),turnsouttobemerelyanattempttoobscureaveryunpleasantfactwithangryinvectives.

ButwearenotevenpreparedtomakeapresentoftheGermanstoB.Krichevskyandtothenumerousotherchampionsof“freedomofcriticism.”The“mostpronouncedBernsteinists”arestilltoleratedintheranksoftheGermanPartyonlybecausetheysubmittotheHanoverresolution,whichemphaticallyrejectedBernstein’s“amendments,”andtotheLübeckresolution,which,notwithstandingthediplomatictermsinwhichitiscouched,containsadirectwarningtoBernstein.Itisadebatablepoint,fromthestandpointoftheinterestsoftheGermanParty,whetherdiplomacywasappropriateandwhether,inthiscase,abadpeaceisbetterthanagoodquarrel;inshort,opinionsmaydifferinregardtotheexpediency,ornot,ofthemethodsemployedtorejectBernsteinism,butonecannotfailtoseethefactthattheGermanPartydidrejectBernsteinismontwooccasions.Therefore,tothinkthattheGermanexampleendorsesthethesis:“ThemostpronouncedBernsteinistsstandonthebasisoftheproletarianclassstruggle,foritseconomicandpoliticalemancipation,”meansfailingabsolutelytounderstandwhatisgoingonbeforeone’seyes.

Morethanthat.Aswehavealreadyobserved,RabocheyeDyelocomesbeforeRussianSocial-Democracy,demands“freedomofcriticism,”anddefendsBernsteinism.Apparentlyitcametotheconclusionthatwewereunfairtoour“critics”andBernsteinists.Towhomwereweunfair,whenandhow?Whatwastheunfairness?Aboutthisnotaword.RabocheyeDyelodoesnotnameasingleRussiancriticorBernsteinist!Allthatisleftforustodoistomakeoneoftwopossiblesuppositions:first,thattheunfairlytreatedpartyisnoneotherthanRabocheyeDyeloitself(andthatisconfirmedbythefactthat,inthetwoarticlesinNo.10,referenceismadeonlytotheinsultshurledatRabocheyeDyelobyZaryaandIskra).Ifthatisthecase,howisthestrangefacttobeexplainedthatRabocheyeDyelo,whichalwaysvehementlydissociatesitselffromBernsteinism,couldnotdefenditself,withoutputtinginawordonbehalfofthe“mostpronouncedBernsteinists”andoffreedomofcriticism?Thesecondsuppositionisthatthirdpersonshavebeentreatedunfairly.Ifthe

secondsuppositioniscorrect,thenwhyarethesepersonsnotnamed?

Wesee,therefore,thatRabocheyeDyeloiscontinuingtoplaythegameofhide-and-seekthatithasplayed(asweshallprovefurtheron)eversinceitcommencedpublication.Andnotethefirstpracticalapplicationofthisgreatlyextolled“freedomofcriticism.”Asamatteroffact,notonlyhasitnowbeenreducedtoabstentionfromallcriticism,butalsotoabstentionfromexpressingindependentviewsaltogether.TheveryRabocheyeDyelowhichavoidsmentioningRussianBernsteinismasifitwereasecretdisease(touseStarover ’saptexpression)proposes,forthetreatmentofthisdisease,tocopywordforwordthelatestGermanprescriptionforthetreatmentoftheGermanvarietyofthedisease!Insteadoffreedomofcriticism—slavish(worse:monkey-like)imitation!Theverysamesocialandpoliticalcontentofmoderninternationalopportunismrevealsitselfinavarietyofwaysaccordingtoitsnationalcharacteristics.Inonecountrytheopportunistslongagocameoutunderaseparateflag,whileinotherstheyignoredtheoryandinpracticeconductedaradical-socialistpolicy.Inathirdcountry,severalmembersoftherevolutionarypartyhavedesertedtothecampofopportunismandstrivetoachievetheiraimsnotbyanopenstruggleforprinciplesandfornewtactics,butbygradual,unobservedand,ifonemaysoexpressit,unpunishablecorruptionoftheirParty.Inafourthcountryagain,similardesertersemploythesamemethodsinthegloomofpoliticalslavery,andwithanextremelypeculiarcombinationof“legal”with“illegal”activity,etc.,etc.TotalkaboutfreedomofcriticismandBernsteinismasaconditionforunitingtheRussianSocial-Democrats,andnottoexplainhowRussianBernsteinismhasmanifesteditself,andwhatfruitsithasborne,meanstalkingforthepurposeofsayingnothing.

Weshalltry,ifonlyinafewwords,tosaywhatRabocheyeDyelodidnotwanttosay(orperhapsdidnotevenunderstand).

C.CRITICISMINRUSSIAThepeculiarpositionofRussiainregardtothepointweareexaminingis

thattheverybeginningofthespontaneouslabormovementontheonehand,andthechangeofprogressivepublicopiniontowardsMarxismontheother,wasmarkedbythecombinationofobviouslyheterogeneouselementsunderacommonflagforthepurposeoffightingthecommonenemy(obsoletesocialandpoliticalviews).Werefertotheheydayof“legalMarxism.”Speakinggenerally,thiswasanextremelycuriousphenomenonthatnooneinthe

‘eightiesorthebeginningofthe’ninetieswouldhavebelievedpossible.Inacountryruledbyanautocracy,inwhichthepressiscompletelyshackled,andinaperiodofintensepoliticalreactioninwhicheventhetiniestoutgrowthofpoliticaldiscontentandprotestwassuppressed,thetheoryofrevolutionaryMarxismsuddenlyforcesitswayintothecensoredliterature,writteninÆsopianlanguage,butunderstoodbythe“interested.”Thegovernmenthadaccustomeditselftoregardingonlythetheoryof(revolutionary)NarodnayaVolya-ismasdangerous,withoutobservingitsinternalevolution,asisusuallythecase,andrejoicingatthecriticismlevelledagainstitnomatterfromwhatsideitcame.Quiteaconsiderabletimeelapsed(accordingtoourRussiancalculations)beforethegovernmentrealizedwhathadhappenedandtheunwieldyarmyofcensorsandgendarmesdiscoveredthenewenemyandflungitselfuponhim.Meanwhile,Marxianbookswerepublishedoneafteranother,Marxianjournalsandnewspaperswerepublished,nearlyeveryonebecameaMarxist,Marxismwasflattered,theMarxistswerecourtedandthebookpublishersrejoicedattheextraordinary,readysaleofMarxianliterature.Itwasquitenatural,therefore,thatamongtheMarxiannoviceswhowerecaughtinthisatmosphere,thereshouldbemorethanone“authorwhogotaswelledhead....”

Wecannowspeakcalmlyofthisperiodasofaneventofthepast.ItisnosecretthatthebriefperiodinwhichMarxismblossomedonthesurfaceofourliteraturewascalledforthbythealliancebetweenpeopleofextremeandofextremelymoderateviews.Inpointoffact,thelatterwerebourgeoisdemocrats;andthiswastheconclusion(sostrikinglyconfirmedbytheirsubsequent“critical”development)thatintrudeditselfonthemindsofcertainpersonsevenwhenthe“alliance”wasstillintact.50

Thatbeingthecase,doesnottheresponsibilityforthesubsequent“confusion”restmainlyupontherevolutionarySocial-Democratswhoenteredintoalliancewiththesefuture“critics”?Thisquestion,togetherwithareplyintheaffirmative,issometimesheardfrompeoplewithexcessivelyrigidviews.Butthesepeopleareabsolutelywrong.Onlythosewhohavenoself-reliancecanfeartoenterintotemporaryalliancesevenwithunreliablepeople;notasinglepoliticalpartycouldexistwithoutenteringintosuchalliances.Thecombinationwiththe“legalMarxists”wasinitswaythefirstreallypoliticalalliancecontractedbyRussianSocial-Democrats.Thankstothisalliance,anastonishinglyrapidvictorywasobtainedoverNarodism,andMarxianideas(eventhoughinavulgarizedform)becameverywidespread.Moreover,thealliancewasnotconcludedaltogetherwithout“conditions.”Theproof:the

burningbythecensor,in1895,oftheMarxiansymposium,MaterialsontheProblemoftheEconomicDevelopmentofRussia.Iftheliteraryagreementwiththe“legalMarxists”canbecomparedwithapoliticalalliance,thenthatbookcanbecomparedwithapoliticaltreaty.

Therupture,ofcourse,didnotoccurbecausethe“allies”provedtobebourgeoisdemocrats.Onthecontrary,therepresentativesofthelattertendencywerethenaturalanddesirablealliesofSocial-DemocracyinsofarasitsdemocratictasksthatwerebroughttothefrontbytheprevailingsituationinRussiawereconcerned.ButanessentialconditionforsuchanalliancemustbecompletelibertyforSocialiststorevealtotheworkingclassthatitsinterestsarediametricallyopposedtotheinterestsofthebourgeoisie.However,theBernsteinianand“critical”tendency,towhichthemajorityofthe“legalMarxists”turned,deprivedtheSocialistsofthislibertyandcorruptedsocialistconsciousnessbyvulgarizingMarxism,bypreachingthetoningdownofsocialantagonisms,bydeclaringtheideaofthesocialrevolutionandthedictatorshipoftheproletariattobeabsurd,byrestrictingthelabormovementandtheclassstruggletonarrowtradeunionismandtoa“realistic”struggleforpetty,gradualreforms.Thiswastantamounttothebourgeoisdemocrat’sdenialofsocialism’srighttoindependenceand,consequently,ofitsrighttoexistence;inpracticeitmeantastrivingtoconvertthenascentlabormovementintoatailoftheliberals.

Naturally,undersuchcircumstancesarupturewasnecessary.Butthe“peculiar”featureofRussiamanifesteditselfinthatthisrupturesimplymeanttheeliminationoftheSocial-Democratsfromthemostaccessibleandwidespread“legal”literature.The“ex-Marxists”whotookuptheflagof“criticism,”andwhoobtainedalmostamonopolyofthe“criticism”ofMarxism,entrenchedthemselvesinthisliterature.Catchwordslike:“Againstorthodoxy”and“Longlivefreedomofcriticism”(nowrepeatedbyRabocheyeDyelo)immediatelybecamethefashion,andthefactthatneitherthecensornorthegendarmescouldresistthisfashionisapparentfromthepublicationofthreeRussianeditionsofBernstein’scelebratedbook(celebratedintheHerostratussense)andfromthefactthatthebooksbyBernstein,ProkopovichandotherswererecommendedbyZubatov.(Iskra,No.10.)UpontheSocial-Democratswasnowimposedataskthatwasdifficultinitself,andmadeincrediblymoredifficultbypurelyexternalobstacles,viz.,thetaskoffightingagainstthenewtendency.Andthistendencydidnotconfineitselftothesphereofliterature.TheturntowardscriticismwasaccompaniedbytheturntowardsEconomismthatwastakenbySocial-Democraticpracticalworkers.

Themannerinwhichthecontactsandmutualinter-dependenceoflegalcriticismandillegalEconomismaroseandgrewisaninterestingsubjectinitself,andmayverywellbetreatedinaspecialarticle.Itissufficienttonoteherethatthesecontactsundoubtedlyexisted.ThenotorietydeservedlyacquiredbytheCredowasduepreciselytothefranknesswithwhichitformulatedthesecontactsandlaiddownthefundamentalpoliticaltendenciesofEconomism,viz.,lettheworkerscarryontheeconomicstruggle(itwouldbemorecorrecttosaythetradeunionstruggle,becausethelatteralsoembracesspecificallylaborpolitics),andlettheMarxianintelligentsiamergewiththeliberalsforthepolitical“struggle.”Thusitturnedoutthattradeunionwork“amongthepeople”meantfulfillingthefirstpartofthistask,andlegalcriticismmeantfulfillingthesecondpart.ThisstatementprovedtobesuchanexcellentweaponagainstEconomismthat,hadtherebeennoCredo,itwouldhavebeenworthinventing.

TheCredowasnotinvented,butitwaspublishedwithouttheconsentandperhapsevenagainstthewillofitsauthors.Atalleventsthepresentwriter,whowaspartlyresponsiblefordraggingthisnew“program”intothelightofday,51hasheardcomplaintsandreproachestotheeffectthatcopiesoftherésuméoftheirviewswhichwasdubbedtheCredoweredistributedandevenpublishedinthepresstogetherwiththeprotest!WerefertothisepisodebecauseitrevealsaverypeculiarstateofmindamongourEconomists,viz.,afearofpublicity.ThisisafeatureofEconomismgenerally,andnotoftheauthorsoftheCredoalone.ItwasrevealedbythatmostoutspokenandhonestadvocateofEconomism,RabochayaMysl,andbyRabocheyeDyelo(whichwasindignantoverthepublicationofEconomistdocumentsintheVademecum),aswellasbytheKievCommittee,whichtwoyearsagorefusedtopermitthepublicationofitsprofessiondefoi,togetherwitharepudiationofit,andbymanyotherindividualrepresentativesofEconomism.

Thisfearofcriticismdisplayedbytheadvocatesoffreedomofcriticismcannotbeattributedsolelytocraftiness(althoughnodoubtcraftinesshassomethingtodowithit:itwouldbeunwisetoexposetheyoungandasyetpunymovementtotheenemies’attack!).No,themajorityoftheEconomistsquitesincerelydisapprove(andbytheverynatureofEconomismtheymustdisapprove)ofalltheoreticalcontroversies,factionaldisagreements,ofbroadpoliticalquestions,ofschemesfororganizingrevolutionaries,etc.“Leaveallthissortofthingtotheexilesabroad!”saidafairlyconsistentEconomisttomeoneday,andtherebyheexpressedaverywidespread(andpurelytradeunionist)view:ourbusiness,hesaid,isthelabormovement,thelabor

organizations,here,inourlocalities;alltherestaremerelytheinventionsofdoctrinaires,an“exaggerationoftheimportanceofideology,”astheauthorsoftheletter,publishedinIskra,No.12,expressedit,inunisonwithRabocheyeDyelo,No.10.

Thequestionnowarises:seeingwhatthepeculiarfeaturesofRussian“criticism”andRussianBernsteinismwere,whatshouldthosewhodesiredtoopposeopportunism,indeedsandnotmerelyinwords,havedone?Firstofall,theyshouldhavemadeeffortstoresumethetheoreticalworkthatwasonlyjustbegunintheperiodof“legalMarxism,”andthathasnowagainfallenontheshouldersoftheillegalworkers.Unlesssuchworkisundertakenthesuccessfulgrowthofthemovementisimpossible.Secondly,theyshouldhaveactivelycombatedlegal“criticism”thatwasgreatlycorruptingpeople’sminds.Thirdly,theyshouldhaveactivelycounteractedtheconfusionandvacillationprevailinginpracticalwork,andshouldhaveexposedandrepudiatedeveryconsciousorunconsciousattempttodegradeourprogramandtactics.

ThatRabocheyeDyelodidnoneofthesethingsisawell-knownfact,andfurtheronweshalldealwiththiswell-knownfactfromvariousaspects.Atthemoment,however,wedesiremerelytoshowwhataglaringcontradictionthereisbetweenthedemandfor“freedomofcriticism”andthepeculiarfeaturesofournativecriticismandRussianEconomism.Indeed,glanceatthetextoftheresolutionbywhichtheLeagueofRussianSocial-DemocratsAbroadendorsedthepointofviewofRabocheyeDyelo.

“IntheinterestsofthefurtherideologicaldevelopmentofSocial-Democracy,werecognizethefreedomtocriticizeSocial-DemocratictheoryinPartyliteraturetobeabsolutelynecessaryinsofarasthiscriticismdoesnotruncountertotheclassandrevolutionarycharacterofthistheory.”(TwoCongresses,p.10.)

Andwhatistheargumentbehindthisresolution?Theresolution“initsfirstpartcoincideswiththeresolutionoftheLübeckPartyCongressonBernstein....”Inthesimplicityoftheirsoulsthe“Leaguers”failedtoobservethetestimoniumpaupertatis(certificateofpoverty)theygivethemselvesbythispieceofimitativeness!...“But...initssecondpart,itrestrictsfreedomofcriticismmuchmorethandidtheLübeckPartyCongress.”

SotheLeague’sresolutionwasdirectedagainstRussianBernsteinism?Ifitwasnot,thenthereferencetoLübeckisutterlyabsurd!Butitisnottruetosaythatit“restrictsfreedomofcriticism.”InpassingtheirHanoverresolution,theGermans,pointbypoint,rejectedpreciselytheamendmentsproposedbyBernstein,whileintheirLübeckresolutiontheycautionedBernsteinpersonally,andnamedhimintheresolution.Our“free”imitators,however,donotmakeasinglereferencetoasinglemanifestationofRussian“criticism”andRussianEconomismand,inviewofthisomission,thebarereferencetotheclassandrevolutionarycharacterofthetheoryleavesexceedinglywidescopeformisinterpretation,particularlywhentheLeaguerefusestoidentify“so-calledEconomism”withopportunism.(TwoCongresses.)Butallthisenpassant.TheimportantthingtonoteisthattheopportunistattitudetowardsrevolutionarySocial-DemocratsinRussiaistheveryoppositeofthatinGermany.InGermany,asweknow,revolutionarySocial-Democratsareinfavorofpreservingwhatis:theystandinfavoroftheoldprogramandtacticswhichareuniversallyknown,andaftermanydecadesofexperiencehavebecomeclearinalltheirdetails.The“critics”desiretointroducechanges,andasthesecriticsrepresentaninsignificantminority,andastheyareveryshyandhaltingintheirrevisionistefforts,onecanunderstandthemotivesofthemajorityinconfiningthemselvestothedryrejectionof“innovations.”InRussia,however,itisthecriticsandEconomistswhoareinfavorofpreservingwhatis:the“critics”wishustocontinuetoregardthemasMarxists,andtoguaranteethemthe“freedomofcriticism”whichtheyenjoyedtothefull(for,asamatteroffact,theyneverrecognizedanykindofPartyties,52and,moreover,weneverhadagenerallyrecognizedPartyorganwhichcould“restrict”freedomofcriticismevenbygivingadvice);theEconomistswanttherevolutionariestorecognizethe“competencyofthepresentmovement”(RabocheyeDyelo,No.10),i.e.,torecognizethe“legitimacy”ofwhatexists;theydonotwantthe“ideologists”totryto“divert”themovementfromthepaththat“isdeterminedbytheinteractionofmaterialelementsandmaterialenvironment”(LetterpublishedinIskra,No.12);theywantrecognition“fortheonlystrugglethattheworkerscanconductunderpresentconditions,”whichintheiropinionisthestruggle“whichtheyareactuallyconductingatthepresenttime.”(SpecialSupplementtoRabochayaMysl.)WerevolutionarySocial-Democrats,onthecontrary,aredissatisfiedwiththisworshippingofspontaneity,i.e.,worshippingwhatis“atthepresenttime”;wedemandthatthetacticsthathaveprevailedinrecentyearsbechanged;wedeclarethat“beforewecanunite,andinorderthatwemayunite,wemustfirstofallfirmlyanddefinitelydrawthelinesofdemarcation.”(Seeannouncementofthe

publicationofIskra.)Inaword,theGermansstandforwhatisandrejectthechanges;wedemandchanges,andrejectsubserviencetoandconciliationwithwhatis.

This“little”differenceour“free”copyistsofGermanresolutionsfailedtonotice!

D.ENGELSONTHEIMPORTANCEOFTHETHEORETICALSTRUGGLE“Dogmatism,doctrinairism,”“ossificationoftheParty—theinevitable

retributionthatfollowstheviolentstrait-lacingofthought,”thesearetheenemiesagainstwhichtheknightlychampionsof“freedomofcriticism”riseinarmsinRabocheyeDyelo.Weareverygladthatthisquestionhasbeenbroughtupandwewouldproposeonlytoaddtoitanotherquestion:

Whoaretobethejudges?

Beforeuslietwopublishers’announcements.One,TheProgramofthePeriodicalOrganoftheLeagueofRussianSo-cial-Democrats—RabocheyeDyelo(ReprintfromNo.1ofRabocheyeDyelo),andtheother,TheAnnouncementoftheResumptionofPublicationbytheEmancipationofLaborGroup.Botharedated1899,whenthe“crisisofMarxism”hadlongsincebeendiscussed.Andwhatdowefind?Inthefirstproduction,wewouldseekinvainforanymanifestationordefiniteelucidationofthepositiontheneworganintendstooccupyonthisquestion.Oftheoreticalworkandtheurgenttasksthatnowconfrontit,notawordissaidinthisprogram,norinthesupplementstoitthatwerepassedbytheThirdCongressoftheLeaguein1901.(TwoCongresses.)Duringthewholeofthistime,theeditorialboardofRabocheyeDyeloignoredtheoreticalquestions,notwithstandingthefactthatthesequestionswereagitatingthemindsofSocial-Democratsinallcountries.

Theotherannouncement,onthecontrary,firstofallpointstothediminutionofinterestintheoryobservedinrecentyears,imperativelydemands“vigilantattentiontothetheoreticalaspectoftherevolutionarymovementoftheproletariat,”andcallsfor“ruthlesscriticismoftheBernsteinianandotheranti-revolutionarytendencies”inourmovement.TheissuesofZaryathathaveappearedshowhowthisprogramwascarriedout.

Thusweseethathigh-soundingphrasesagainsttheossificationofthought,etc.,concealcarelessnessandhelplessnessinthedevelopmentoftheoreticalideas.ThecaseoftheRussianSocial-Democratsstrikinglyillustratesthefact

observedinthewholeofEurope(andlongagonotedalsobytheGermanMarxists)thatthenotoriousfreedomofcriticismimplies,notthesubstitutionofonetheoryforanother,butfreedomfromanycompleteandthought-outtheory;itimplieseclecticismandabsenceofprinciple.ThosewhoareintheleastacquaintedwiththeactualstateofourmovementcannotbutseethatthespreadofMarxismwasaccompaniedbyacertainloweringoftheoreticalstandards.Quiteanumberofpeople,withverylittle,andeventotallylackingtheoreticaltraining,joinedthemovementforthesakeofitspracticalsignificanceanditspracticalsuccesses.Wecanjudge,therefore,howtactlessRabocheyeDyeloiswhen,withanairofinvincibility,itquotesthestatementofMarx:“Asinglestepoftherealmovementismoreimportantthanadozenprograms.”Torepeatthesewordsintheepochoftheoreticalchaosislikewishingmournersatafuneral“manyhappyreturnsoftheday.”Moreover,thesewordsofMarxaretakenfromhisletterontheGothaProgram,53inwhichhesharplycondemnstheeclecticismintheformulationofprinciples:Ifyoumustcombine,MarxwrotetothePartyleaders,thenenterintoagreementstosatisfythepracticalaimsofthemovement,butdonothaggleoverprinciples,donotmake“concessions”intheory.ThiswasMarx’sidea,andyettherearepeopleamonguswhostrive—inhisname!—tobelittlethesignificanceoftheory.

Withoutarevolutionarytheorytherecanbenorevolutionarymovement.Thiscannotbeinsistedupontoostronglyatatimewhenthefashionablepreachingofopportunismiscombinedwithabsorptioninthenarrowestformsofpracticalactivity.TheimportanceoftheoryforRussianSocial-Democratsisstillgreaterforthreereasons,whichareoftenforgotten:

ThefirstisthatourPartyisonlyintheprocessofformation,itsfeaturesarebutjustbecomingoutlined,andithasnotyetcompletelysettleditsaccountswithothertendenciesinrevolutionarythoughtwhichthreatentodivertthemovementfromtheproperpath.Indeed,inveryrecenttimeswehaveobserved(asAxelrodlongagowarnedtheEconomistswouldhappen)arevivalofnon-Social-Democraticrevolutionarytendencies.Undersuchcircumstances,whatatfirstsightappearstobean“unimportant”mistakemaygiverisetomostdeplorableconsequences,andonlytheshort-sightedwouldconsiderfactionaldisputesandstrictdistinctionofshadestobeinopportuneandsuperfluous.ThefateofRussianSocial-Democracyformany,manyyearstocomemaybedeterminedbythestrengtheningofoneortheother“shade.”

ThesecondreasonisthattheSocial-Democraticmovementisessentiallyan

internationalmovement.Thisdoesnotmerelymeanthatwemustcombatnationalchauvinism.Italsomeansthatamovementthatisstartinginayoungcountrycanbesuccessfulonlyontheconditionthatitassimilatestheexperienceofothercountries.Inordertoassimilatethisexperience,itisnotsufficientmerelytobeacquaintedwithit,orsimplytotranscribethelatestresolutions.Acriticalattitudeisrequiredtowardsthisexperience,andabilitytosubjectittoindependenttests.Onlythosewhorealizehowmuchthemodernlabormovementhasgrowninstrengthwillunderstandwhatareserveoftheoreticalforcesandpolitical(aswellasrevolutionary)experienceisrequiredtofulfilthistask.

ThethirdreasonisthatthenationaltasksofRussianSocial-Democracyaresuchashaveneverconfrontedanyothersocialistpartyintheworld.Furtheronweshalldealwiththepoliticalandorganizationaldutieswhichthetaskofemancipatingthewholepeoplefromtheyokeofautocracyimposesuponus.Atthemoment,wemerelywishtostatethattheroleofvanguardcanbefulfilledonlybyapartythatisguidedbyanadvancedtheory.Tounderstandwhatthismeansconcretely,letthereadercalltomindthepredecessorsofRussianSocial-DemocracylikeHerzen,Belinsky,Chernyshevskyandthebrilliantbandofrevolutionariesofthe’seventies;lethimponderovertheworldsignificancewhichRussianliteratureisnowacquiring;lethim...Oh!Butthatisenough!

LetusquotewhatEngelssaidin1874concerningthesignificanceoftheoryintheSocial-Democraticmovement.EngelsrecognizesnottwoformsofthegreatstruggleSocial-Democracyisconducting(politicalandeconomic),asisthefashionamongus,butthree,addingtothefirsttwothetheoreticalstruggle.HisrecommendationstotheGermanlabormovement,whichhadbecomepracticallyandpoliticallystrong,aresoinstructivefromthepointofviewofpresent-daycontroversiesthatwehopethereaderwillforgiveusforquotingalongpassagefromhisIntroductiontoThePeasantWarinGermany,whichlongagobecamealiteraryrarity.

“TheGermanworkershavetwoimportantadvantagesoverthoseoftherestofEurope.First,theybelongtothemosttheoreticalpeopleofEurope;theyhaveretainedthatsenseoftheorywhichtheso-called‘educated’peopleofGermanyhavetotallylost.WithoutGermanphilosophywhichprecededit,particularlythatofHegel,Germanscientificsocialism(theonly

scientificsocialismthathaseverexisted)wouldneverhavecomeintoexistence.Withoutasenseoftheoryamongtheworkers,thisscientificsocialismwouldneverhavebecomepartoftheirfleshandbloodasithas.Whatanimmeasurableadvantagethisismaybeseen,ontheonehand,fromtheindifferenceoftheEnglishlabormovementtowardsalltheory,whichisoneofthechiefreasonswhyitmovessoslowly,inspiteofthesplendidorganizationoftheindividualunions;ontheotherhand,fromthemischiefandconfusionwroughtbyProudhonism,initsoriginalformamongtheFrenchandBelgians,andinthefurthercaricaturedformatthehandsofBakunin,amongtheSpaniardsandItalians.

“Thesecondadvantageisthat,chronologicallyspeaking,theGermanswerealmostthelasttoappearinthelabormovement.JustasGermantheoreticalsocialismwillneverforgetthatitrestsontheshouldersofSaint-Simon,FourierandOwen,threemenwho,inspiteofalltheirfantasticnotionsandutopianism,havetheirplaceamongthemosteminentthinkersofalltime,andwhosegeniusanticipatedinnumerabletruthsthecorrectnessofwhichcannowbescientificallyproved,sothepracticalGermanlabormovementmustneverforgetthatithasdevelopedontheshouldersoftheEnglishandFrenchmovements,thatitwasablesimplytoutilizetheirdearly-boughtexperience,andcouldnowavoidtheirmistakeswhichintheirtimeweremostlyunavoidable.WithouttheEnglishtradeunionsandtheFrenchworkers’politicalstrugglewhichcamebefore,withoutthegiganticimpulsegivenespeciallybytheParisCommune,wherewouldwenowbe?

“ItmustbesaidtothecreditoftheGermanworkersthattheyexploitedtheadvantagesoftheirsituationwithrareunderstanding.Forthefirsttimeinthehistoryofthelabormovement,thethreesidesofthestruggle,thetheoretical,thepoliticalandthepracticaleconomic(resistancetothecapitalists),arebeingconductedinharmony,co-ordinationandinaplannedway.Itispreciselyinthis,asitwere,concentricattack,thatthestrengthandinvincibilityoftheGermanmovementlies.

“Itisduetothisadvantageoussituationontheonehand,totheinsularpeculiaritiesoftheEnglishandtotheforciblesuppression

oftheFrenchmovementsontheother,thattheGermanworkersforthemomentformthevanguardoftheproletarianstruggle.Howlongeventswillallowthemtooccupythispostofhonorcannotbeforeseen.Butaslongastheyoccupyit,letushopethattheywilldischargetheirdutiesinthepropermanner.Tothisenditwillbenecessarytoredoubleourenergiesineverysphereofstruggleandagitation.Itisthespecificdutyoftheleaderstogainanever-clearerinsightintoalltheoreticalquestions,tofreethemselvesmoreandmorefromtheinfluenceoftraditionalphrasesinheritedfromtheoldconceptionoftheworld,andconstantlytokeepinmindthatsocialism,havingbecomeascience,mustbepursuedasascience,i.e.,itmustbestudied.Thetaskwillbetospreadwithincreasedenthusiasm,amongthemassesoftheworkers,theever-clearerinsightthusacquired,toknittogetherevermorefirmlytheorganizationbothofthePartyandofthetradeunions....

“IftheGermanworkersproceedinthisway,theywillnotmarchexactlyattheheadofthemovement—itisnotintheinterestsofthemovementthattheworkersofanyonecountryshouldmarchatitshead—buttheywilloccupyanhonorableplaceinthebattleline,andtheywillstandarmedforbattlewheneitherunexpectedlygravetrialsormomentouseventsdemandheightenedcourage,heighteneddeterminationandpowertoact.”54

Engels’wordsprovedprophetic.Withinafewyears,theGermanworkersweresubjectedtoseveretrialsintheformoftheAnti-SocialistLaw;buttheywerefullyarmedtomeetthesituation,andsucceededinemergingfromitvictoriously.

TheRussianproletariatwillhavetoundergotrialsimmeasurablymoresevere;itwillhavetotakeupthefightagainstamonster,comparedwithwhichtheAnti-SocialistLawinaconstitutionalcountryisbutapigmy.Historyhasnowconfronteduswithanimmediatetaskwhichismorerevolutionarythanalltheimmediatetasksthatconfronttheproletariatofanyothercountry.Thefulfilmentofthistask,thedestructionofthemostpowerfulbulwarknotonlyofEuropeanbutalso(itmaynowbesaid)ofAsiaticreactionwouldplacetheRussianproletariatinthevanguardoftheinternationalrevolutionaryproletariat.Wearerightincountinguponacquiringthehonorabletitlealready

earnedbyourpredecessors,therevolutionariesofthe’seventies,ifwesucceedininspiringourmovement—whichisathousandtimeswideranddeeper—withthesamedevoteddeterminationandvigor.

II

THESPONTANEITYOFTHEMASSESANDTHECLASSCONSCIOUSNESSOFSOCIAL-DEMOCRACYWehavesaidthatourmovement,muchwideranddeeperthanthemovement

ofthe’seventies,mustbeinspiredwiththesamedevoteddeterminationandenergythatinspiredthemovementatthattime.Indeed,noone,wethink,hasuptonowdoubtedthatthestrengthofthemodernmovementliesintheawakeningofthemasses(principally,theindustrialprole-tariat),andthatitsweaknessliesinthelackofconsciousnessandinitiativeamongtherevolutionaryleaders.

However,amostastonishingdiscoveryhasbeenmaderecently,whichthreatenstooverthrowalltheviewsthathavehithertoprevailedonthisquestion.ThisdiscoverywasmadebyRabocheyeDyelo,whichinitscontroversywithIskraandZaryadidnotconfineitselftomakingobjectionsonseparatepoints,buttriedtoascribe“generaldisagreements”toamoreprofoundcause—tothe“disagreementconcerningtheestimationoftherelativeimportanceofthespontaneousandconsciously‘methodical’element.”RabocheyeDyelo’sindictmentreads:“belittlingtheimportanceoftheobjective,orspontaneous,elementofdevelopment.”55Tothiswesay:ifthecontroversywithIskraandZaryaresultedinabsolutelynothingmorethancausingRabocheyeDyelotohituponthese“generaldisagreements,”thatsingleresultwouldgiveusconsiderablesatisfaction,soimportantisthisthesisandsoclearlydoesitilluminatethequintessenceofthepresent-daytheoreticalandpoliticaldifferencesthatexistamongRussianSocial-Democrats.

Thatiswhythequestionoftherelationbetweenconsciousnessandspontaneityisofsuchenormousgeneralinterest,andthatiswhythisquestionmustbedealtwithingreatdetail.

A.THEBEGINNINGOFTHESPONTANEOUS

REVIVALInthepreviouschapterwepointedouthowuniversallyabsorbedthe

educatedyouthofRussiawasinthetheoriesofMarxisminthemiddleofthe‘nineties.ThestrikesthatfollowedthefamousSt.Petersburgindustrialwarof1896assumedasimilarwholesalecharacter.ThefactthatthesestrikesspreadoverthewholeofRussiaclearlyshowedhowdeeptherevivingpopularmovementwas,andifwemustspeakofthe“spontaneouselement”then,ofcourse,wemustadmitthatthisstrikemovementcertainlyboreaspontaneouscharacter.Butthereisadifferencebetweenspontaneityandspontaneity.StrikesoccurredinRussiainthe’seventiesandinthe‘sixties(andalsointhefirsthalfofthenineteenthcentury),andthesestrikeswereaccompaniedbythe“spontaneous”destructionofmachinery,etc.Comparedwiththese“riots”thestrikesofthe’ninetiesmightevenbedescribedas“conscious,”tosuchanextentdotheymarktheprogresswhichthelabormovementhadmadeforthatperiod.Thisshowsthatthe“spontaneouselement,”inessence,representsnothingmorenorlessthanconsciousnessinanembryonicform.Eventheprimitiveriotsexpressedtheawakeningofconsciousnesstoacertainextent:theworkersabandonedtheirage-longfaithinthepermanenceofthesystemwhichoppressedthem.Theybegan,Ishallnotsaytounderstand,buttosensethenecessityforcollectiveresistance,anddefinitelyabandonedtheirslavishsubmissiontotheirsuperiors.Butallthiswasmoreinthenatureofoutburstsofdesperationandvengeancethanofstruggle.Thestrikesofthe‘ninetiesrevealedfargreaterflashesofconsciousness:definitedemandswereputforward,thetimetostrikewascarefullychosen,knowncasesandexamplesinotherplaceswerediscussed,etc.Whiletheriotsweresimplyuprisingsoftheoppressed,thesystematicstrikesrepresentedtheclassstruggleinembryo,butonlyinembryo.Takenbythemselves,thesestrikesweresimplytradeunionstruggles,butnotyetSocial-Democraticstruggles.Theytestifiedtotheawakeningantagonismsbetweenworkersandemployers,buttheworkerswerenotandcouldnotbeconsciousoftheirreconcilableantagonismoftheirintereststothewholeofthemodernpoliticalandsocialsystem,i.e.,itwasnotyetSocial-Democraticconsciousness.Inthissense,thestrikesofthe’nineties,inspiteoftheenormousprogresstheyrepresentedascomparedwiththe“riots,”representedapurelyspontaneousmovement.

WesaidthattherecouldnotyetbeSocial-Democraticconsciousnessamongtheworkers.Thisconsciousnesscouldonlybebroughttothemfromwithout.Thehistoryofallcountriesshowsthattheworkingclass,exclusivelybyitsowneffort,isabletodeveloponlytradeunionconsciousness,i.e.,itmayitself

realizethenecessityforcombininginunions,forfightingagainsttheemployersandforstrivingtocompelthegovernmenttopassnecessarylaborlegislation,etc.56Thetheoryofsocialism,however,grewoutofthephilosophic,historicalandeconomictheoriesthatwereelaboratedbytheeducatedrepresentativesofthepropertiedclasses,theintellectuals.Accordingtotheirsocialstatus,thefoundersofmodernscientificsocialism,MarxandEngels,themselvesbelongedtothebourgeoisintelligentsia.Similarly,inRussia,thetheoreticaldoctrineofSocial-Democracyarosequiteindependentlyofthespontaneousgrowthofthelabormovement;itaroseasanaturalandinevitableoutcomeofthedevelopmentofideasamongtherevolutionarysocialistintelligentsia.Atthetimeofwhichwearespeaking,i.e.,themiddleofthe’nineties,thisdoctrinenotonlyrepresentedthecompletelyformulatedprogramoftheEmancipationofLaborgroup,buthadalreadywontheadherenceofthemajorityoftherevolutionaryyouthinRussia.

Hence,simultaneously,wehadthespontaneousawakeningofthemassesoftheworkers,theawakeningtoconsciouslifeandstruggle,aswellastherevolutionaryyouth,armedwiththeSocial-Democratictheories,strivingtoreachtheworkers.Inthisconnectionitisparticularlyimportanttostatetheoft-forgotten(andcomparativelylittle-known)factthattheearlySocial-Democratsofthatperiodzealoustycarriedoneconomicagitation(beingguidedinthisbythereallyusefulinstructionscontainedinthepamphletOnAgitationthatwasstillinmanuscript),buttheydidnotregardthisastheirsoletask.Onthecontrary,fromtheveryoutsettheybroughtforwardthewidesthistoricaltasksofRussianSocial-Democracy,andparticularlythetaskofoverthrowingtheautocracy.Forexample,theSt.PetersburggroupofSocial-Democrats,whichformedtheLeagueofStrugglefortheEmancipationoftheWorkingClass,towardstheendof1895,preparedthefirstnumberofthenewspapercalledRabocheyeDyelo.Thisnumberwascompletelyreadyforthepresswhenitwasseizedbythegendarmeswho,onthenightofDecember8,1895,raidedthehouseofoneofthemembersofthegroup,AnatoleAlekseyevichVaneyev,57andsotheoriginalRabocheyeDyelowasnotfatedtoseethelight.Theleadingarticleinthisnumber(whichperhapsinthirtyyears’timesomeRusskayaStarinawilldiscoverinthearchivesoftheDepartmentofPolice)describedthehistoricaltasksoftheworkingclassinRussia,ofwhichtheachievementofpoliticallibertyisregardedasthemostimportant.Thisnumberalsocontainedanarticleentitled“WhatAreOurCabinetMinistersThinkingOf?”whichdealtwiththebreakingupoftheelementaryeducationcommitteesbythepolice.Inaddition,therewassomecorrespondence,fromSt.Petersburg,aswellasfrom

otherpartsofRussia(forexample,aletterabouttheassaultontheworkersintheYaro-slavGubernia).This,ifwearenotmistaken,“firstattempt”oftheRussianSocial-Democratsofthe‘ninetieswasnotanarrow,local,andcertainlynotan“economic”newspaper,butonethatstrovetounitethestrikemovementwiththerevolutionarymovementagainsttheautocracy,andtowinallthevictimsofoppressionandpoliticalandreactionaryobscurantismovertothesideofSocial-Democracy.Nooneintheslightestdegreeacquaintedwiththestateofthemovementatthatperiodcoulddoubtthatsuchapaperwouldhavebeenfullyapprovedofbytheworkersofthecapitalandtherevolutionaryintelligentsiaandwouldhavehadawidecirculation.ThefailureoftheenterprisemerelyshowedthattheSocial-Democratsofthattimewereunabletomeettheimmediaterequirementsofthetimeowingtotheirlackofrevolutionaryexperienceandpracticaltraining.ThesamethingmustbesaidwithregardtotheSt.PetersburgRabochyListokandparticularlywithregardtoRabochayaGazetaandtheManifestooftheRussianSocial-DemocraticLaborPartywhichwasestablishedinthespringof1898.Ofcourse,wewouldnotdreamofblamingtheSocial-Democratsofthattimeforthisunpreparedness.Butinordertoobtainthebenefitoftheexperienceofthatmovement,andtolearnpracticallessonsfromit,wemustthoroughlyunderstandthecausesandsignificanceofthisorthatshortcoming.Forthatreasonitisextremelyimportanttoestablishthefactthatpart(perhapsevenamajority)oftheSocial-Democrats,operatingintheperiodof1895-98,quitejustlyconsidereditpossibleeventhen,attheverybeginningofthe“spontaneousmovement,”tocomeforwardwithamostextensiveprogramandfightingtactics.58Thelackoftrainingofthemajorityoftherevolutionaries,beingquiteanaturalphenomenon,couldnothavearousedanyparticularfears.Sincethetaskswereproperlydefined,sincetheenergyexistedforrepeatedattemptstofulfillthesetasks,thetemporaryfailureswerenotsuchagreatmisfortune.Revolutionaryexperienceandorganizationalskillarethingsthatcanbeacquiredprovidedthedesireistheretoacquirethesequalities,providedtheshortcomingsarerecognized—whichinrevolutionaryactivityismorethanhalfwaytowardsremovingthem!

Itwasagreatmisfortune,however,whenthisconsciousnessbegantogrowdim(itwasveryactiveamongtheworkersofthegroupmentioned),whenpeopleappeared—andevenSocial-Democraticorgans—whowerepreparedtoregardshortcomingsasvirtues,whoeventriedtoinventatheoreticalbasisforslavishcringingbeforespontaneity.Itistimetosummarizethistendency,thesubstanceofwhichisincorrectlyandtoonarrowlydescribedas“Economism.”

B.BOWINGTOSPONTANEITYRabochayaMysl

Beforedealingwiththeliterarymanifestationofthissubservience,weshouldliketomentionthefollowingcharacteristicfact(communicatedtousfromtheabove-mentionedsource),whichthrowssomelightonthecircumstancesinwhichthetwofutureconflictingtendenciesinRussianSocial-DemocracyaroseandgrewamongthecomradesworkinginSt.Petersburg.Inthebeginningof1897,priortotheirbanishment,A.A.Vaneyevandseveralofhiscomradesattendedaprivatemeetingatwhichthe“old”and“young”membersoftheLeagueofStrugglefortheEmancipationoftheWorkingClassweregathered.Theconversationcenteredchieflyaroundthequestionoforganization,andparticularlyaroundthe“rulesforaworkers’benefitfund,”which,intheirfinalform,werepublishedinListokRabotnika,No.9-10.Sharpdifferenceswereimmediatelyrevealedbetweenthe“old”members(the“Decembrists,”astheSt.PetersburgSocial-Democratsjestinglycalledthem)andseveralofthe“young”members(whosubsequentlytookanactivepartintheworkofRabochayaMysl),andaveryheateddiscussionensued.The“young”membersdefendedthemainprinciplesoftherulesintheforminwhichtheywerepublished.The“old”memberssaidthatthiswasnotwhatwaswanted,thatfirstofallitwasnecessarytoconsolidatetheLeagueofStruggleintoanorganizationofrevolutionarieswhichshouldhavecontrolofallthevariousworkers’benefitfunds,students’propagandacircles,etc.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthecontroversialistshadnosuspicionatthattimethatthesedisagreementswerethebeginningofadivergence;onthecontrarytheyregardedthemasbeingofanisolatedandcasualnature.Butthisfactshowsthat“Economism”didnotariseandspreadinRussiawithoutafightonthepartofthe“old”Social-Democrats(theEconomistsoftodayareapttoforgetthis).Andif,inthemain,thisstrugglehasnotleft“documentary”tracesbehindit,itissolelybecausethemembershipofthecirclesworkingatthattimeunderwentsuchconstantchangethatnocontinuitywasestablishedand,consequently,differenceswerenotrecordedinanydocuments.

TheappearanceofRabochayaMyslbroughtEconomismtothelightofday,butnotallatonce.Wemustpicturetoourselvesconcretelytheconditionsoftheworkandtheshort-livedcharacterofthemajorityoftheRussiancircles(andonlythosewhohaveexperiencedthiscanhaveanyexactideaofit),inordertounderstandhowmuchtherewasaccidentalinthesuccessesandfailuresofthenewtendencyinvarioustowns,andwhyforalongtimeneither

theadvocatesnortheopponentsofthis“new”tendencycouldmakeuptheirminds—indeedtheyhadnoopportunitytodoso—astowhetherthiswasreallyanewtendencyorwhetheritwasmerelyanexpressionofthelackoftrainingofcertainindividuals.Forexample,thefirstmimeographedcopiesofRabochayaMyslneverreachedthegreatmajorityofSocial-Democrats,andweareabletorefertotheleadingarticleinthefirstnumberonlybecauseitwasreproducedinanarticlebyV.I.(ListokRabotnika,No.9-10),who,ofcourse,didnotfailzealouslybutunreasonablytoextolthenewpaper,whichwassodifferentfromthepapersandtheschemesforpapersmentionedabove.59AndthisleadingarticledeservestobedealtwithindetailbecauseitsostronglyexpressesthespiritofRabochayaMyslandEconomismgenerally.

Afterreferringtothefactthatthearmofthe“blue-coats”couldneverstoptheprogressofthelabormovement,theleadingarticlegoesontosay:“...Thevirilityofthelabormovementisduetothefactthattheworkersthemselvesareatlasttakingtheirfateintotheirownhands,andoutofthehandsoftheleaders,”andthisfundamentalthesisisthendevelopedingreaterdetail.Asamatteroffacttheleaders(i.e.,theSocial-Democrats,theorganizersoftheLeagueofStruggle)were,onemightsay,tornoutofthehandsoftheworkersbythepolice60;yetitismadetoappearthattheworkerswerefightingagainsttheleaders,andeventuallyliberatedthemselvesfromtheiryoke!Insteadofcallingupontheworkerstogoforwardtowardstheconsolidationoftherevolutionaryorganizationandtotheexpansionofpoliticalactivity,theybegantocallforaretreattothepurelytradeunionstruggle.Theyannouncedthat“theeconomicbasisofthemovementiseclipsedbytheeffortnevertoforgetthepoliticalidea,”andthatthewatchwordforthemovementwas,“Fightforaneconomicposition”(!)orwhatisstillbetter,“Theworkersfortheworkers.”Itwasdeclaredthatstrikefunds“aremorevaluableforthemovementthanahundredotherorganizations.”(ComparethisstatementmadeinOctober1897withthecontroversybetweenthe“Decembrists”andtheyoungmembersinthebeginningof1897.)Catchwordslike:“Wemustconcentrate,notonthe‘cream’oftheworkers,butonthe‘average’worker—themassworker”;“Politicsalwaysobedientlyfolloweconomics,”61etc.,etc.,becamethefashion,andexercisedirresistibleinfluenceuponthemassesoftheyouthwhowereattractedtothemovement,butwho,inthemajorityofcases,wereacquaintedonlywithlegallyexpoundedfragmentsofMarxism.

Consciousnesswascompletelyoverwhelmedbyspontaneity—thespontaneityofthe“Social-Democrats”whorepeatedV.V.’s“ideas,”thespontaneityofthoseworkerswhowerecarriedawaybytheargumentsthata

kopekaddedtoarublewasworthmorethansocialismandpolitics,andthattheymust“fight,knowingthattheyarefightingnotforsomefuturegeneration,butforthemselvesandtheirchildren.”(LeadingarticleinRabochayaMysl,No.1.)PhraseslikethesehavealwaysbeenthefavoriteweaponsoftheWestEuropeanbourgeoisie,who,whilehatingsocialism,strove(liketheGerman“Sozial-Politiker”Hirsch)totransplantEnglishtradeunionismtotheirownsoilandtopreachtotheworkersthatthepurelytradeunionstruggleisthestruggleforthemselvesandfortheirchildren,andnotthestruggleforsomekindofsocialismforsomefuturegeneration.62Andnowthe“V.V.’sofRussianSocial-Democracy”repeatthesebourgeoisphrases.Itisimportantatthispointtonotethreecircumstances,whichwillbeusefultousinourfurtheranalysisofcontemporarydifferences.63

Firstofall,theoverwhelmingofconsciousnessbyspontaneity,towhichwereferredabove,alsotookplacespontaneously.Thismaysoundlikeapun,but,alas,itisthebittertruth.Itdidnottakeplaceasaresultofanopenstrugglebetweentwodiametricallyopposedpointsofview,inwhichonegainedthevictoryovertheother;itoccurredbecauseanincreasingnumberof“old”revolutionarieswere“tornaway”bythegendarmesandbecauseincreasingnumbersof“young”“V.V.’sofRussianSocial-Democracy”cameuponthescene.Everyone,whoIshallnotsayhasparticipatedinthecontemporaryRussianmovement,butwhohasatleastbreatheditsatmosphere,knowsperfectlywellthatthiswasso.Andthereasonwhywe,nevertheless,stronglyurgethereadertoponderoverthisuniversallyknownfact,andwhywequotethefacts,asanillustration,sotospeak,aboutRabocheyeDyeloasitfirstappeared,andaboutthecontroversybetweenthe“old”andthe“young”atthebeginningof1897—isthatcertainpersonsarespeculatingonthepublic’s(ortheveryyouthfulyouth’s)ignoranceofthesefacts,andareboastingoftheir“democracy.”Weshallreturntothispointfurtheron.

Secondly,intheveryfirstliterarymanifestationofEconomism,weobservetheextremelycuriousandhighlycharacteristicphenomenon—forunderstandingthedifferencesprevailingamongcontemporarySocial-Democrats—thattheadherentsofthe“pureandsimple”labormovement,theworshippersoftheclosest“organic”(thetermusedbyRabocheyeDyelo)contactswiththeproletarianstruggle,theopponentsofthenon-laborintelligentsia(notwithstandingthatitisasocialistintelligentsia)arecompelled,inordertodefendtheirpositions,toresorttotheargumentsofthebourgeois“pureandsimple”tradeunionists.Thisshowsthatfromtheveryoutset,RabochayaMyslbeganunconsciouslytocarryouttheprogramoftheCredo.

Thisshows(whattheRabocheyeDyelocannotunderstand)thatallsubserviencetothespontaneityofthelabormovement,allbelittlingoftheroleof”theconsciouselement,”oftheroleofSocial-Democracy,means,whetheronelikesitornot,thegrowthofinfluenceofbourgeoisideologyamongtheworkers.Allthosewhotalkabout”exaggeratingtheimportanceofideology,“64aboutexaggeratingtheroleoftheconsciouselements,65etc.,imaginethatthepureandsimplelabormovementcanworkoutanindependentideologyforitself,ifonlytheworkers”taketheirfateoutofthehandsoftheleaders.”Butthisisaprofoundmistake.Tosupplementwhathasbeensaidabove,weshallquotethefollowingprofoundlytrueandimportantutterancesbyKarlKautskyonthenewdraftprogramoftheAustrianSocial-DemocraticParty66:

“ManyofourrevisionistcriticsbelievethatMarxassertedthateconomicdevelopmentandtheclassstrugglecreatenotonlytheconditionsforsocialistproduction,butalso,anddirectly,theconsciousness[K.K.’sitalics]ofitsnecessity.Andthesecriticsadvancetheargumentthatthemosthighlycapitalisticallydevelopedcountry,England,ismoreremotethananyotherfromthisconsciousness.Judgingfromthedraft,onemightassumethatthecommitteewhichdraftedtheAustrianprogramsharedthisallegedorthodox-Marxianviewwhichisthusrefuted.Inthedraftprogramitisstated:‘Themorecapitalistdevelopmentincreasesthenumbersoftheproletariat,themoretheproletariatiscompelledandbecomesfittofightagainstcapitalism.Theproletariatbecomesconsciousofthepossibilityofandnecessityforsocialism,’etc.Inthisconnectionsocialistconsciousnessisrepresentedasanecessaryanddirectresultoftheproletarianclassstruggle.Butthisisabsolutelyuntrue.Ofcourse,socialism,asatheory,hasitsrootsinmoderneconomicrelationshipsjustastheclassstruggleoftheproletariathas,andjustasthelatteremergesfromthestruggleagainstthecapitalist-createdpovertyandmiseryofthemasses.Butsocialismandtheclassstrugglearisesidebysideandnotoneoutoftheother;eacharisesunderdifferentconditions.Modernsocialistconsciousnesscanariseonlyonthebasisofprofoundscientificknowledge.Indeed,moderneconomicscienceisasmuchaconditionforsocialistproductionas,say,moderntechnology,andtheproletariatcancreateneithertheone

northeother,nomatterhowmuchitmaydesiretodoso;bothariseoutofthemodernsocialprocess.Thevehiclesofsciencearenottheproletariat,butthebourgeoisintelligentsia[K.K.’sitalics]:itwasinthemindsofsomemembersofthisstratumthatmodernsocialismoriginated,anditwastheywhocommunicatedittothemoreintellectuallydevelopedproletarianswho,intheirturn,introduceditintotheproletarianclassstrugglewhereconditionsallowthattobedone.Thus,socialistconsciousnessissomethingintroducedintotheproletarianclassstrugglefromwithout(vonAussenHineinge-tragenes),andnotsomethingthatarosewithinitspontaneously(urwüchsig).Accordingly,theoldHainfeldprogramquiterightlystatedthatthetaskofSocial-Democracyistoimbuetheproletariatwiththeconsciousnessofitspositionandtheconsciousnessofitstasks.Therewouldbenoneedforthisifconsciousnessemergedofitselffromtheclassstruggle.Thenewdraftcopiedthispropositionfromtheoldprogram,andattachedittothepropositionmentionedabove.Butthiscompletelybrokethelineofthought....”

Sincetherecanbenotalkofanindependentideologybeingdevelopedbythemassesoftheworkersintheprocessoftheirmovement67theonlychoiceis:eitherbourgeoisorsocialistideology.Thereisnomiddlecourse(forhumanityhasnotcreateda“third”ideology,and,moreover,inasocietytornbyclassantagonismstherecanneverbeanon-classorabove-classideology).Hence,tobelittlesocialistideologyinanyway,todeviatefromitintheslightestdegreemeansstrengtheningbourgeoisideology.Thereisalotoftalkaboutspontaneity,butthespontaneousdevelopmentofthelabormovementleadstoitsbecomingsubordinatedtobourgeoisideology,leadstoitsdevelopingaccordingtotheprogramoftheCredo,forthespontaneouslabormovementispureandsimpletradeunionism,isNur-Gewerkschaftlerei,andtradeunionismmeanstheideologicalenslavementoftheworkerstothebourgeoisie.Hence,ourtask,thetaskofSocial-Democracy,istocombatspontaneity,todivertthelabormovementfromitsspontaneous,tradeunioniststrivingtogounderthewingofthebourgeoisie,andtobringitunderthewingofrevolutionarySocial-Democracy.Thephrasesemployedbytheauthorsofthe“economic”letterinIskra,No.12,abouttheeffortsofthemostinspiredideologistsnotbeingabletodivertthelabormovementfromthepaththatisdeterminedbytheinteractionofthematerialelementsandthematerial

environment,aretantamounttotheabandonmentofsocialism,andifonlytheauthorsofthisletterfearlesslythoughtoutwhattheysaytoitslogicalconclusion,aseveryonewhoentersthearenaofliteraryandpublicactivityshoulddo,theywouldhavenothingtodobut“foldtheiruselessarmsovertheiremptybreasts”and...leavethefieldofactiontotheStruvesandProkopovicheswhoaredraggingthelabormovement“alongthelineofleastresistance,”i.e.,alongthelineofbourgeoistradeunionism,ortotheZubatovswhoaredraggingitalongthelineofclericalandgendarme“ideology.”

RecalltheexampleofGermany.WhatwasthehistoricalserviceLassallerenderedtotheGermanlabormovement?Itwasthathedivertedthatmovementfromthepathoftradeunionismandco-operationpreachedbytheProgressivesalongwhichithadbeentravellingspontaneously(withthebenignassistanceofSchulze-Delitzscheandthoselikehim).Tofulfillatasklikethatitwasnecessarytodosomethingaltogetherdifferentfromindulgingintalkaboutbelittlingthespontaneouselement,aboutthetactics-processandabouttheinteractionbetweenelementsandenvironment,etc.Adesperatestruggleagainstspontaneityhadtobecarriedon,andonlyaftersuchastruggle,extendingovermanyyears,wasitpossibletoconverttheworkingpopulationofBerlinfromabulwarkoftheProgressivePartyintooneofthefineststrongholdsofSocial-Democracy.Thisfightisnotfinishedevennow(asthosewholearnthehistoryoftheGermanmovementfromProkopovich,anditsphilosophyfromStruve,believe).EvennowtheGermanworkingclassis,sotospeak,brokenupintoanumberofideologies.AsectionoftheworkersisorganizedinCatholicandmonarchistlaborunions;anothersectionisorganizedintheHirsch-Dunckerunions,foundedbythebourgeoisworshippersofEnglishtradeunionism,whileathirdsectionisorganizedinSocial-Democratictradeunions.Thelatterisimmeasurablymorenumerousthantherest,butSocial-Democracywasabletoachievethissuperiority,andwillbeabletomaintainit,onlybyunswervinglyfightingagainstallotherideologies.

Butwhy,thereaderwillask,doesthespontaneousmovement,themovementalongthelineofleastresistance,leadtothedominationofbourgeoisideology?ForthesimplereasonthatbourgeoisideologyisfarolderinoriginthanSocial-Democraticideology;becauseitismorefullydevelopedandbecauseitpossessesimmeasurablymoreopportunitiesforbeingdistributed.68Andtheyoungerthesocialistmovementisinanygivencountry,themorevigorouslymustitfightagainstallattemptstoentrenchnon-socialistideology,andthemorestronglymustitwarntheworkersagainstthosebadcounsellors

whoshoutagainst“exaggeratingtheconsciouselements,”etc.Theauthorsoftheeconomicletter,inunisonwithRabocheyeDyelo,declaimagainsttheintolerancethatischaracteristicoftheinfancyofthemovement.Tothiswereply:yes,ourmovementisindeedinitsinfancy,andinorderthatitmaygrowupthemorequickly,itmustbecomeinfectedwithintoleranceagainstallthosewhoretarditsgrowthbysubserviencetospontaneity.Nothingissoridiculousandharmfulaspretendingthatweare“oldhands”whohavelongagoexperiencedallthedecisiveepisodesofthestruggle!

Thirdly,thefirstnumberofRabochayaMyslshowsthattheterm“Economism”(which,ofcourse,wedonotproposetoabandonbecausethisnicknamehasmoreorlessestablisheditself)doesnotadequatelyconveytherealcharacterofthenewtendency.RabochayaMysldoesnotaltogetherrepudiatethepoliticalstruggle:therulesforaworkers’benefitfundpublishedinRabochayaMysl,No.1,containsareferencetofightingagainstthegovernment.RabochayaMyslbelieves,however,that“politicsalwaysobedientlyfolloweconomics”(andRabocheyeDyelogivesavariationofthisthesiswhen,initsprogram,itassertsthat“inRussiamorethaninanyothercountry,theeconomicstruggleisinseparablefromthepoliticalstruggle”).IfbypoliticsismeantSocial-Democraticpolitics,thenthepostulatesadvancedbyRabochayaMyslandRabocheyeDyeloareabsolutelywrong.Theeconomicstruggleoftheworkersisveryoftenconnected(althoughnotinseparably)withbourgeoispolitics,clericalpolitics,etc.,aswehavealreadyseen.Ifbypoliticsismeanttradeunionpolitics,i.e.,thecommonstrivingofallworkerstosecurefromthegovernmentmeasuresforthealleviationofthedistresscharacteristicoftheirposition,butwhichdonotabolishthatposition,i.e.,whichdonotremovethesubjectionoflabortocapital,thenRabocheyeDyelo’spostulateiscorrect.ThatstrivingindeediscommontotheBritishtradeunionists,whoarehostiletosocialism,totheCatholicworkers,tothe“Zubatov”workers,etc.Therearepoliticsandpolitics.Thus,weseethatRabochayaMysldoesnotsomuchdenythepoliticalstruggleasbowtoitsspontaneity,toitslackofconsciousness.Whilefullyrecognizingthepoliticalstruggle(itwouldbemorecorrecttosaythepoliticaldesiresanddemandsoftheworkers),whicharisesspontaneouslyfromthelabormovementitself,itabsolutelyrefusesindependentlytoworkoutaspecificallySocialDemocraticpolicycorrespondingtothegeneraltasksofsocialismandtocontemporaryconditionsinRussia.FurtheronweshallshowthatRabocheyeDyelocommitsthesameerror.

C.THESELF-EMANCIPATIONGROUPAND“RABOCHEYEDYELO”Wehavedealtatsuchlengthwiththelittle-knownandnowalmostforgotten

leadingarticleinthefirstnumberofRabochayaMyslbecauseitwasthefirstandmoststrikingexpressionofthatgeneralstreamofthoughtwhichafterwardsemergedintothelightofdayininnumerablestreamlets.V.I.wasabsolutelyrightwhen,inpraisingthefirstnumberandtheleadingarticleofRabochayaMysl,hesaidthatitwaswrittenina“sharpandprovocative”style.(ListokRabotnika,No.9-10.)Everymanwithconvictionswhothinkshehassomethingnewtosaywrites“provocatively”andexpresseshisviewsstrongly.Onlythosewhoareaccustomedtosittingbetweentwostoolslack“provocativeness”;onlysuchpeopleareabletopraisetheprovocativenessofRabochayaMysloneday,andattackthe“provocativepolemics”ofitsopponentsthenext.

WeshallnotdwellontheSpecialSupplementtoRabochayaMysl(furtheronweshallhaveoccasion,onanumberofpoints,torefertothiswork,whichexpressestheideasoftheEconomistsmoreconsistentlythananyother)butshallbrieflymentiontheManifestooftheSelf-EmancipationoftheWorkersGroup.(March1899,reprintedintheLondonNakanunye,No.7,June1899.)Theauthorsofthismanifestoquiterightlysaythat“theworkersofRussiaareonlyjustawakening,areonlyjustlookingaround,andinstinctivelyclutchatthefirstmeansofstrugglethatcometotheirhands.”Butfromthiscorrectobservation,theydrawthesameincorrectconclusionthatisdrawnbyRabochayaMysl,forgettingthatinstinctisthatunconsciousness(spontaneity)totheaidofwhichSocialistsmustcome;thatthe“firstmeansofstrugglethatcometotheirhands”willalwaysbe,inmodernsociety,thetradeunionmeansofstruggle,andthe“first”ideology“thatcomestohand”willbebourgeois(tradeunion)ideology.Similarly,theseauthorsdonot“repudiate”politics,theymerelysay(merely!),repeatingwhatwassaidbyV.V.,thatpoliticsisthesuperstructure,andtherefore,“politicalagitationmustbethesuperstructuretotheagitationcarriedoninfavoroftheeconomicstruggle;itmustariseonthebasisofthisstruggleandfollowbehindit.”

AsforRabocheyeDyelo,itcommenceditsactivityby“adefense”oftheEconomists.Itutteredadownrightfalsehoodinitsveryfirstnumber(No.1)whenitstatedthat“wedonotknowwhichyoungcomradesAxelrodreferredto”inhiswell-knownpamphlet,inwhichheutteredawarningtothe

Economists.69InthecontroversythatflaredupwithAxelrodandPlekhanovoverthisfalsehood,RabocheyeDyelowascompelledtoadmitthat“byexpressingignorance,itdesiredtodefendalltheyoungerSocial-Democratsabroadfromthisunjustaccusation”(AxelrodaccusedtheEconomistsofhavingalimitedoutlook).Asamatteroffactthisaccusationwasabsolutelyjust,andRabocheyeDyeloknowsperfectlywellthat,amongothers,itappliedtoV.I.,amemberofitseditorialstaff.WeshallobserveinpassingthatinthiscontroversyAxelrodwasabsolutelyrightandRabocheyeDyelowasabsolutelywrongintheirrespectiveinterpretationsofmypamphletTheTasksofRussianSocial-Democrats.Thatpamphletwaswrittenin1897,beforetheappearanceofRabochayaMyslwhenIthought,andrightlythought,thattheoriginaltendencyoftheSt.PetersburgLeagueofStruggle,whichIdescribeabove,wasthepredominantone.Atallevents,thattendencywasthepredominantoneuntilthemiddleof1898.Consequently,initsattempttorefutetheexistenceanddangersofEconomism,RabocheyeDyelohadnorightwhatevertorefertoapamphletwhichexpressedviewsthatweresqueezedoutbyEconomistviewsinSt.Petersburgin1897-98.

ButRabocheyeDyelonotonly“defended”theEconomists—ititselfconstantlyfellintofundamentalEconomisterrors.ThecauseoftheseerrorsistobefoundintheambiguityoftheinterpretationgiventothefollowingthesisinRabocheyeDyelo’sprogram:“WeconsiderthatthemostimportantphenomenonofRussialife,theonethatwillmostlydeterminethetasks[ouritalics]andthecharacteroftheliteraryactivityofthe‘League,’isthemasslabormovement[RabocheyeDyelo’sitalics]thathasariseninrecentyears.”Thatthemassmovementisamostimportantphenomenonisafactaboutwhichtherecanbenodispute.Butthecruxofthequestionis,whatisthemeaningofthephrase:thelabormovementwill“determinethetasks”?Itmaybeinterpretedinoneoftwoways.Eitheritmeanssubserviencetothespontaneityofthismovement,i.e.,reducingtheroleofSocial-Democracytomeresubserviencetothelabormovementassuch(theinterpretationgiventoitbyRabochayaMysl,theSelf-EmancipationgroupandotherEconomists);oritmaymeanthatthemassmovementputsbeforeusnew,theoretical,politicalandorganizationaltasks,farmorecomplicatedthanthosethatmighthavesatisfiedusintheperiodbeforetheriseofthemassmovement.RabocheyeDyeloinclinedandstillinclinestowardsthefirstinterpretation,foritsaidnothingdefinitelyaboutnewtasks,butarguedallthetimeasifthe“massmovement”relievedusofthenecessityofclearlyappreciatingandfulfillingthetasksitsetsbeforeus.WeneedonlypointoutthatRabocheyeDyeloconsideredthatitwas

impossibletoputtheoverthrowoftheautocracyasthefirsttaskofthemasslabormovement,andthatitdegradedthistask(ostensiblyintheinterestsofthemassmovement)tothestruggleforimmediatepoliticaldemands.(Reply.)

WeshallpassoverthearticlebyB.Krichevsky,theeditorofRabocheyeDyelo,entitled“TheEconomicandPoliticalStruggleintheRussianMovement,”publishedinNo.7ofthatpaper,inwhichtheseverymistakes70arerepeated,andtakeupRabocheyeDyelo,No.10.

Weshallnot,ofcourse,enterindetailintothevariousobjectionsraisedbyB.KrichevskyandMartynovagainstZaryaandIskra.WhatinterestsusheresolelyisthetheoreticalpositiontakenupbyRabocheyeDyelo,No.10.Forexample,weshallnotexaminetheliterarycuriosity—thatRabocheyeDyelosawa“diametrical”contradictionbetweentheproposition:

“Social-Democracydoesnottieitshands,itdoesnotrestrictitsactivitiestosomepreconceivedplanormethodofpoliticalstruggle;itrecognizesallmethodsofstruggle,aslongastheycorrespondtotheforcesatthedisposaloftheParty....”(Iskra,No.1-2.)

andtheproposition:

...“withoutastrongorganization,testedinthepoliticalstrugglecarriedonunderallcircumstancesandinallperiods,therecanbenotalkofasystematicplanofactivity,enlightenedbyfirmprinciplesandunswervinglycarriedout,whichaloneisworthyofbeingcalledtactics.”(Iskra,No.4.)

Toconfusetherecognition,inprinciple,ofallmeansofstruggle,ofallplansandmethods,aslongastheyareexpedient—withthenecessityatagivenpoliticalmomentforbeingguidedbyastrictlyadhered-toplan,ifwearetotalkoftactics,istantamounttoconfusingtherecognitionbymedicalscienceofallkindsoftreatmentofdiseaseswiththenecessityforadoptingacertaindefinitemethodoftreatmentforagivendisease.Thepointis,however,thatRabocheyeDyelo,whilesufferingfromadiseasewhichwehavecalled

subserviencetospontaneity,refusestorecognizeany“methodoftreatment”forthatdisease.Hence,itmadetheremarkablediscoverythat“atacticsplancontradictsthefundamentalspiritofMarxism”(No.10),thattacticsare“aprocessofgrowthofPartytasks,whichgrowwiththeParty.”(p.11,RabocheyeDyelo’sitalics.)Thelatterremarkhaseverychanceofbecomingacelebratedmaxim,apermanentmonumenttothetendencyofRabocheyeDyelo.Tothequestion:whither?aleadingorganreplies:themovementisaprocessofalterationinthedistancebetweenstartingpointanddestinationofthemovement.Thismatchlessexampleofprofundityisnotmerelyaliterarycuriosity(ifitwere,itwouldnotbeworthdealingwithatlength),buttheprogramofthewholetendency,i.e.,theprogramwhichR.M.(intheSpecialSupplementtoRabochayaMysl)expressedinthewords:“Thatstruggleisdesirablewhichispossible,andthestrugglewhichispossibleistheonethatisgoingonatthegivenmoment.”Itisthetendencyofunboundedopportunism,whichpassivelyadaptsitselftospontaneity.

“AtacticsplancontradictsthefundamentalspiritofMarxism”!ButthisisalibelonMarxism;itislikethecaricatureofitthatwaspresentedtousbytheNarodnikiintheirfightagainstus.Itmeansputtingrestraintontheinitiativeandenergyofclassconsciousfighters,whereasMarxism,onthecontrary,givesagiganticimpetustotheinitiativeandenergyofSocial-Democrats,opensupforthemthewidestperspectivesand,ifonemaysoexpressit,placesattheirdisposalthemightyforceofmillionsandmillionsofworkers“spontaneously”risingforthestruggle.ThewholehistoryofinternationalSocial-Democracyseetheswithplansadvancedfirstbyoneandthenbyanotherpoliticalleader;someconfirmingthefar-sightednessandcorrectpoliticalandorganizationalinsightoftheirauthorsandothersrevealingtheirshort-sightednessandlackofpoliticaljudgment.AtthetimewhenGermanywasatoneofthemostimportantturningpointsinitshistory,thetimeoftheestablishmentoftheEmpire,theopeningoftheReichstagandthegrantingofuniversalsuffrage,LiebknechthadoneplanforSocial-DemocraticpolicyandworkandSchweitzerhadanother.WhentheAnti-SocialistLawcamedownontheheadsoftheGermanSocialists,MostandHasselmannhadoneplan,thatis,tocallforviolenceandterror;Höchberg,Schrammand(partly)Bernsteinhadanother,whichtheybegantopreachtotheSocial-Democrats,somewhatasfollows:theythemselveshadprovokedthepassingoftheAnti-SocialistLawbybeingunreasonablybitterandrevolutionary,andmustnowshowthattheydeservepardonbyexemplaryconduct.Therewasyetathirdplanproposedbythosewhopavedthewayforandcarriedoutthepublicationofanillegal

organ.Itiseasy,ofcourse,inretrospect,manyyearsafterthefightovertheselectionofthepathtobefollowedhasended,andafterhistoryhaspronounceditsverdictastotheexpediencyofthepathselected,toutterprofoundmaximsaboutthegrowthofPartytasksthatgrowwiththeParty.Butatatimeofconfusion,71whentheRussian“critics”andEconomistsdegradeSocial-Democracytotheleveloftradeunionism,andwhentheterroristsarestronglyadvocatingtheadoptionofa“tacticsplan”thatrepeatstheoldmistakes,atsuchatime,toconfineoneselftosuchprofundities,meanssimplyissuingoneselfa“certificateofmentalpoverty.”AtatimewhenmanyRussianSocial-Democratssufferfromlackofinitiativeandenergy,fromlackof“scopeofpoliticalpropaganda,agitationandorganization,”alackof“plans”forabroaderorganizationofrevolutionarywork,atsuchatime,tosay:“atacticsplancontradictsthefundamentalspiritofMarxism,”notonlymeanstheoreticallyvulgarizingMarxism,butalsopracticallydraggingthePartybackward.RabocheyeDyelogoesonsermonizing:

“TherevolutionarySocial-Democratisonlyconfrontedbythetaskofacceleratingobjectivedevelopmentbyhisconsciouswork:itisnothistasktoobviateitorsubstitutehisownsubjectiveplansforthisdevelopment.Iskraknowsallthisintheory.ButtheenormousimportancewhichMarxismquitejustlyattachestoconsciousrevolutionaryworkcausesitinpractice,owingtoitsdoctrinaireviewoftactics,tobelittlethesignificanceoftheobjectiveorthespontaneouselementofdevelopment.”

AnotherexampleoftheextraordinarytheoreticalconfusionworthyofV.V.andthatfraternity.Wewouldaskourphilosopher:howmayadeviserofsubjectiveplans“belittle”objectivedevelopment?Obviouslybylosingsightofthefactthatthisobjectivedevelopmentcreatesorstrengthens,destroysorweakenscertainclasses,strata,groups,nations,groupsofnations,etc.,andinthiswaycreatesadefiniteinternationalpoliticalgroupingofforces,determiningthepositionofrevolutionaryparties,etc.Ifthedeviserofplansdidthat,hismistakewouldnotbethathebelittledthespontaneouselement,butthathebelittledtheconsciouselement,forhewouldthenshowthathelackedthe“consciousness”thatwouldenablehimproperlytounderstandobjectivedevelopment.Hence,theverytalkabout“estimatingtherelativesignificance”(RabocheyeDyelo’sitalics)ofspontaneityandconsciousnesssufficiently

revealsacompletelackof“consciousness.”Ifcertain“spontaneouselementsofdevelopment”canbegraspedatallbyhumanunderstanding,thenanincorrectestimationofthemwouldbetantamountto“belittlingtheconsciouselement.”Butiftheycannotbegrasped,thenwecannotbeawareofthem,andthereforecannotspeakofthem.WhatisB.Krichevskyarguingaboutthen?IfhethinksthatIskra’s“subjectiveplans”areerroneous(asheinfactdeclaresthemtobe),thenheoughttoshowwhatobjectivefactsareignoredintheseplans,andthenchargeIskrawithalackofconsciousnessforignoringthem,with,tousehisownwords,“belittlingtheconsciouselement.”If,however,whilebeingdispleasedwithsubjectiveplanshecanbringforwardnootherargumentthanthatof“belittlingthespontaneouselement”(!!)hemerelyshows:1)thathetheoreticallyunderstandsMarxismàlaKareyevsandMikhailovskys,whohavebeensufficientlyridiculedbyBeltov,and2)that,practically,heisquitepleasedwiththe“spontaneouselementsofdevelopment”thathavedrawnour“legalMarxists”towardsBernsteinismandourSocial-DemocratstowardsEconomism,andthatheisfullofwrathagainstthosewhohavedeterminedatallcoststodivertRussianSocial-Democracyfromthepathofspontaneousdevelopment.

RabocheyeDyeloaccusesIskraandZaryaof“settinguptheirprogramagainstthemovement,likeaspirithoveringovertheformlesschaos.”ButwhatelseisthefunctionofSocial-Democracyifnottobea“spirit,”notonlyhoveringoverthespontaneousmovement,butalsoraisingthemovementtothelevelof“itsprogram”?Surely,itisnotitsfunctiontodragatthetailofthemovement;atbest,thiswouldbeofnoservicetothemovement;attheworst,itwouldbevery,veryharmful.RabocheyeDyelo,however,notonlyfollowsthis“tactics-process,”butelevatesittoaprinciple,sothatitwouldbemorecorrecttodescribeitstendencynotasopportunism,butasKhvostism(fromthewordkhvost).Anditmustbeadmittedthatthosewhohavedeterminedalwaystofollowbehindthemovementlikeatailareabsolutelyandforeverensuredagainst“belittlingthespontaneouselementofdevelopment.”

Andso,wehavebecomeconvincedthatthefundamentalerrorcommittedbythe“newtendency”inRussianSocial-Democracyliesinitssubserviencetospontaneity,anditsfailuretounderstandthatthespontaneityofthemassesdemandsamassofconsciousnessfromusSocial-Democrats.Thegreaterthespontaneousuprisingofthemasses,themorewidespreadthemovement

becomes,somuchthemorerapidlygrowsthedemandforgreaterconsciousnessinthetheoretical,politicalandorganizationalworkofSocial-Democracy.

ThespontaneousriseofthemassesinRussiaproceeded(andcontinues)withsuchrapiditythattheyounguntrainedSocial-Democratsprovedunfittedforthegigantictasksthatconfrontedthem.Thislackoftrainingisourcommonmisfortune,themisfortuneofallRussianSocial-Democrats.Theriseofthemassesproceededandspreaduninterruptedlyandcontinuously;itnotonlycontinuedintheplacesitcommencedin,butitspreadtonewlocalitiesandtonewstrataofthepopulation(influencedbythelabormovement,thefermentamongthestudents,theintellectualsgenerallyandevenamongthepeasantryrevived).Revolutionaries,however,laggedbehindthisriseofthemassesbothintheir“theories”andintheirpracticalactivity;theyfailedtoestablishanuninterruptedorganizationhavingcontinuitywiththepast,andcapableofleadingthewholemovement.

InchapterI,weprovedthatRabocheyeDyelodegradedourtheoreticaltasksandthatit“spontaneously”repeatedthefashionablecatchword“freedomofcriticism”:thatthosewhorepeatedthiscatchwordlackedthe“consciousness”tounderstandthatthepositionsoftheopportunist“critics”andtherevolutionaries,bothinGermanyandinRussia,arediametricallyopposedtoeachother.

Inthefollowingchapters,weshallshowhowthissubserviencetospontaneityfoundexpressioninthesphereofthepoliticaltasksandtheorganizationalworkofSocial-Democracy.

III

TRADEUNIONPOLITICSANDSOCIAL-DEMOCRATICPOLITICSWeshallstartoffagainbypraisingRabocheyeDyelo.Martynovgavehis

articleinNo.10ofRabocheyeDyelo,onhisdifferenceswithIskra,thetitle“ExposureLiteratureandtheProletarianStruggle.”Heformulatedthesubstanceofthesedifferencesasfollows:

“Wecannotconfineourselvesentirelytoexposingthesystemthatstandsinits[thelaborparty’s]pathofdevelopment.Wemustalsorespondtotheimmediateandcurrentinterestsoftheproletariat.”“...Iskra...isinfacttheorganofrevolutionaryoppositionthatexposesthestateofaffairsinourcountry,particularlythepoliticalstateofaffairs....We,however,workandshallcontinuetoworkforthecauseoflaborincloseorganiccontactwiththeproletarianstruggle.”

OnecannothelpbeinggratefultoMartynovforthisformula.ItisofoutstandinggeneralinterestbecausesubstantiallyitembracesnotonlyourdisagreementswithRabocheyeDyelo,butthegeneraldisagreementbetweenourselvesandtheEconomistsconcerningthepoliticalstruggle.WehavealreadyshownthattheEconomistsdonotaltogetherrepudiate“politics,”butthattheyareconstantlydeviatingfromtheSocial-Democraticconceptionofpoliticstothetradeunionistconception.Martynovdeviatesinexactlythesameway,andweagree,therefore,totakehisviewsasanexampleofEconomisterroronthisquestion.Asweshallendeavortoprove,neithertheauthorsoftheSpecialSupplementtoRabochayaMysl,northeauthorsofthemanifestoissuedbytheSelf-Emancipationgroup,northeauthorsoftheeconomicletterpublishedinIskra,No.12,willhaveanyrighttocomplainagainstthischoice.

A.POLITICALAGITATIONANDITSRESTRICTIONBYTHEECONOMISTSEveryoneknowsthatthespreadandconsolidationoftheeconomic72

struggleoftheRussianworkersproceededsimultaneouslywiththecreationofa“literature”exposingeconomicconditions,i.e.,factoryandindustrialconditions.These“leaflets”weredevotedmainlytotheexposureoffactoryconditions,andverysoonapassionforexposureswasrousedamongtheworkers.AssoonastheworkersrealizedthattheSocial-Democraticcirclesdesiredtoandcouldsupplythemwithanewkindofleafletthattoldthewholetruthabouttheirpoverty-strickenlives,abouttheirexcessivetoilandtheirlackofrights,correspondencebegantopourinfromthefactoriesandworkshops.This“exposureliterature”createdahugesensationnotonlyintheparticularfactorydealtwith,theconditionsofwhichwereexposedinagivenleaflet,butinallthefactoriestowhichnewshadspreadaboutthefactsexposed.Andasthepovertyandwantamongtheworkersinthevariousenterprisesandinthevarioustradesareprettymuchthesame,the“truthaboutthelifeoftheworkers”rousedtheadmirationofall.Evenamongthemostbackwardworkers,averitablepassionwasrousedto“gointoprint”—anoblepassionforthisrudimentaryformofwaragainstthewholeofthemodernsocialsystemwhichisbaseduponrobberyandoppression.Andintheoverwhelmingmajorityofcasesthese“leaflets”wereintruthadeclarationofwar,becausetheexposureshadaterrificallyrousingeffectupontheworkers;itstimulatedthemtoputforwarddemandsfortheremovalofthemostglaringevilsandrousedinthemareadinesstosupportthesedemandswithstrikes.Finally,theemployersthemselveswerecompelledtorecognizethesignificanceoftheseleafletsasadeclarationofwar,somuchsothatinalargenumberofcasestheydidnotevenwaitfortheoutbreakofhostilities.Asisalwaysthecase,themerepublicationoftheseexposuresmadethemeffective,andtheyacquiredthesignificanceofastrongmoralforce.Onmorethanoneoccasion,themereappearanceofaleafletprovedsufficienttosecurethesatisfactionofallorpartofthedemandsputforward.Inaword,economic(factory)exposureshavebeenandareanimportantleverintheeconomicstruggleandtheywillcontinuetobesuchaslongascapitalism,whichcreatestheneedfortheworkerstodefendthemselves,exists.EveninthemoreadvancedcountriesofEuropetoday,theexposureoftheevilsinsomebackwardtrade,orinsomeforgottenbranchofdomesticindustry,servesasastartingpointfortheawakeningofclassconsciousness,forthebeginningofatradeunionstruggle,

andforthespreadofsocialism.73

Recently,theoverwhelmingmajorityofRussianSocial-Democratswerealmostwhollyengagedinthisworkoforganizingtheexposureoffactoryconditions.ItissufficienttorefertothecolumnsofRabochayaMysltojudgetowhatextenttheywereengagedinit.Somuchso,indeed,thattheylostsightofthefactthatthis,takenbyitself,isnotinessenceSocial-Democraticwork,butmerelytradeunionwork.Asamatteroffact,theseexposuresmerelydealtwiththerelationsbetweentheworkersinagiventradeandtheirimmediateemployers,andallthattheyachievedwasthatthevendorsoflaborpowerlearnedtoselltheir“commodity”onbettertermsandtofightthepurchasersoflaborpoweroverapurelycommercialdeal.Theseexposurescouldhaveserved(ifproperlyutilizedbyrevolutionaries)asabeginningandaconstituentpartofSocial-Democraticactivity,buttheycouldalsohaveled(andwithsubserviencetospontaneityinevitablyhadtolead)toa“pureandsimple”tradeunionstruggleandtoanon-Social-Democraticlabormovement.Social-Democratsleadthestruggleoftheworkingclassnotonlyforbettertermsforthesaleoflaborpower,butalsofortheabolitionofthesocialsystemwhichcompelsthepropertylesstosellthemselvestotherich.Social-Democracyrepresentstheworkingclass,notinrelationtoagivengroupofemployers,butinitsrelationtoallclassesinmodernsociety,tothestateasanorganizedpoliticalforce.Hence,itnotonlyfollowsthatSocial-Democratsmustnotconfinethemselvesentirelytotheeconomicstruggle;theymustnotevenallowtheorganizationofeconomicexposurestobecomethepredominantpartoftheiractivities.Wemustactivelytakeupthepoliticaleducationoftheworkingclassandthedevelopmentofitspoliticalconsciousness.Now,afterZaryaandIskrahavemadethefirstattackuponEconomism“allareagreed”onthis(althoughsomeagreedonlynominally,asweshallsoonprove).

Thequestionnowarises:whatdoespoliticaleducationmean?Isitsufficienttoconfineoneselftothepronagandaofworkingclasshostilitytoautocracy?Ofcoursenot.Itisnotenoughtoexplaintotheworkersthattheyarepoliticallyoppressed(nomorethanitwastoexplaintothemthattheirinterestswereantagonistictotheinterestsoftheemployers).Advantagemustbetakenofeveryconcreteexampleofthisoppressionforthepurposeofagitation(inthesamewaythatwebegantouseconcreteexamplesofeconomicoppressionforthepurposeofagitation).Andinasmuchaspoliticaloppressionaffectsallsortsofclassesinsociety,inasmuchasitmanifestsitselfinvariousspheresoflifeandactivity,inindustriallife,civiclife,inpersonalandfamilylife,inreligiouslife,scientificlife,etc.,etc.,isitnotevidentthatweshallnotbe

fulfillingourtaskofdevelopingthepoliticalconsciousnessoftheworkersifwedonotundertaketheorganizationofthepoliticalexposureofautocracyinallitsaspects?Inordertocarryonagitationaroundconcreteexamplesofoppression,theseexamplesmustbeexposed(justasitwasnecessarytoexposefactoryevilsinordertocarryoneconomicagitation).

Onewouldthinkthatthiswasclearenough.Itturnsout,however,that“all”areagreedthatitisnecessarytodeveloppoliticalconsciousness,inallitsaspects,onlyinwords.ItturnsoutthatRabocheyeDyelo,forexample,hasnotonlyfailedtotakeupthetaskoforganizing(ortomakeastartinorganizing)all-sidedpoliticalexposure,butiseventryingtodragIskra,whichhasundertakenthistask,awayfromit.Listentothis:“Thepoliticalstruggleoftheworkingclassismerely[itispreciselynot”merely“]amoredeveloped,awiderandmoreeffectiveformofeconomicstruggle.”(ProgramofRabocheyeDyelo,publishedinNo.1.)“TheSocial-Democratsarenowconfrontedwiththetaskof,asfaraspossible,givingtheeconomicstruggleitselfapoliticalcharacter.”(Martynov,RabocheyeDyelo,No.10.)“Theeconomicstruggleisthemostwidelyapplicablemethodofdrawingthemassesintoactivepoliticalstruggle.”(ResolutionpassedbytheCongressoftheLeagueand“amendments”thereto,TwoCongresses.)Asthereaderwillobserve,allthesepostulatespermeateRabocheyeDyelo,fromitsveryfirstnumbertotherecentlyissued“InstructionstotheEditors,”andallofthemevidentlyexpressasingleviewregardingpoliticalagitationandthepoliticalstruggle.ExaminethisviewfromthestandpointoftheopinionprevailingamongallEconomists,thatpoliticalagitationmustfolloweconomicagitation.Isittruethat,ingeneral,74 theeconomicstruggle“isthemostwidelyapplicablemethod”ofdrawingthemassesintothepoliticalstruggle?Itisabsolutelyuntrue.Allandsundrymanifestationsofpolicetyrannyandautocraticoutrage,inadditiontotheevilsconnectedwiththeeconomicstruggle,areequally“widelyapplicable”asameansof“drawingin”themasses.ThetyrannyoftheZemskyNachalniks,thefloggingofthepeasantry,thecorruptionoftheofficials,theconductofthepolicetowardsthe“commonpeople”inthecities,thefightagainstthefamine-strickenandthesuppressionofthepopularstrivingtowardsenlightenmentandknowledge,theextortionoftaxes,thepersecutionofthereligioussects,theharshdisciplineinthearmy,themilitaristconducttowardsthestudentsandtheliberalintelligentsia—alltheseandathousandothersimilarmanifestationsoftyranny,thoughnotdirectlyconnectedwiththe“economic”struggle,dothey,ingeneral,representaless“widelyapplicable”methodandsubjectforpoliticalagitationandfordrawingthemassesintothe

politicalstruggle?Theveryoppositeisthecase.Ofalltheinnumerablecasesinwhichtheworkerssuffer(eitherpersonallyorthosecloselyassociatedwiththem)fromtyranny,violenceandlackofrights,undoubtedlyonlyarelativelyfewrepresentcasesofpolicetyrannyintheeconomicstruggleassuch.Whythenshouldwe,beforehand,restrictthescopeofpoliticalagitationbydeclaringonlyoneofthemethodstobe“themostwidelyapplicable,”whenSocial-Democratshaveother,generallyspeaking,notless“widelyapplicable”means?

TheLeagueattachessignificancetothefactthatitreplacedthephrase“mostwidelyapplicablemethod”bythephrase“abettermethod,”containedinoneoftheresolutionsoftheFourthCongressoftheJewishLaborLeague(Bund).Weconfessthatwefinditdifficulttosaywhichoftheseresolutionsisthebetterone.Inouropinionbothare“worse.”BoththeLeagueandtheBundfallintotheerror(partly,perhaps,unconsciously,owingtotheinfluenceoftradition)ofgivinganeconomic,tradeunionistinterpretationtopolitics.Thefactthatthiserrorisexpressedeitherbytheword“better”orbythewords“mostwidelyapplicable”makesnomaterialdifferencewhatever.IftheLeaguehadsaidthat“politicalagitationonaneconomicbasis”isthemostwidelyapplied(andnot“applicable”)methoditwouldhavebeenrightinregardtoacertainperiodinthedevelopmentofourSocial-Democraticmovement.ItwouldhavebeenrightinregardtotheEconomistsandtomany(ifnotthemajority)ofthepracticalworkersof1898-1901whoappliedthemethodofpoliticalagitation(totheextentthattheyapplieditatall)almostexclusivelyonaneconomicbasis.Politicalagitationonsuchlineswasrecognizedand,aswehaveseen,evenrecommendedbyRabochayaMyslandbytheSelf-Emancipationgroup!RabocheyeDyeloshouldhavestronglycondemnedthefactthatusefuleconomicagitationwasaccompaniedbytheharmfulrestrictionofthepoliticalstruggle,butinsteadofthat,itdeclaresthemethodmostwidelyapplied(bytheEconomists)tobethemostwidelyapplicable!

WhatrealconcretemeaningdoesMartynovattachtothetaskof“givingtheeconomicstruggleitselfapoliticalcharacter,”whichhepresentstoSocial-Democracy?Theeconomicstruggleisthecollectivestruggleoftheworkersagainsttheiremployersforbettertermsinthesaleoftheirlaborpower,forbetterconditionsoflifeandlabor.Thisstruggleisnecessarilyastruggleaccordingtotrade,becauseconditionsoflabordifferverymuchindifferenttrades,and,consequently,thefighttoimprovetheseconditionscanonlybeconductedinrespectofeachtrade(tradeunionsinthewesterncountries,temporarytradeassociationsandleafletsinRussia,etc.).Giving“theeconomic

struggleitselfapoliticalcharacter”means,therefore,strivingtosecuresatisfactionforthesetradedemands,theimprovementofconditionsoflaborineachseparatetradebymeansof“legislativeandadministrativemeasures”(asMartynovexpressesitonthenextpageofhisarticle).Thisisexactlywhatthetradeunionsdoandalwayshavedone.Readtheworksofthethoroughlyscientific(and“thoroughly”opportunist)Mr.andMrs.WebbandyouwillfindthattheBritishtradeunionslongagorecognized,andhavelongcarriedout,thetaskof“givingtheeconomicstruggleitselfapoliticalcharacter”;theyhavelongbeenfightingfortherighttostrike,fortheremovalofalllegalhindrancestotheco-operativeandtradeunionmovement,forlawsprotectingwomenandchildren,fortheimprovementofconditionsoflaborbymeansofhealthandfactorylegislation,etc.

Thus,thepompousphrase“givingtheeconomicstruggleitselfapoliticalcharacter,”whichsoundsso“terrifically”profoundandrevolutionary,servesasascreentoconcealwhatisinfactthetraditionalstrivingtodegradeSocial-Democraticpoliticstotheleveloftradeunionpolitics!OnthepretextofrectifyingIskra’sone-sidedness,which,itisalleged,places“therevolutionizingofdogmahigherthantherevolutionizingoflife,”75wearepresentedwiththestruggleforeconomicreformasifitweresomethingentirelynew.Asamatteroffact,thephrase“givingtheeconomicstruggleitselfapoliticalcharacter”meansnothingmorethanthestruggleforeconomicreforms.AndMartynovhimselfmighthavecometothissimpleconclusionhadheonlyponderedoverthesignificanceofhisownwords.

“OurParty,”hesays,turninghisheaviestgunsagainstIskra,“couldandshouldhavepresentedconcretedemandstothegovernmentforlegislativeandadministrativemeasuresagainsteconomicexploitation,forthereliefofunemployment,forthereliefofthefaminestricken,etc.”(RabocheyeDyelo,No.10.)

Concretedemandsformeasures—doesnotthismeandemandsforsocialreforms?Andagainweasktheimpartialreader,doweslandertheRabocheyeDyelo-ists(mayIbeforgivenforthisclumsyexpression!),whenwedeclarethemtobeconcealedBernsteinistsforadvancingtheirthesisaboutthenecessityoffightingforeconomicreformsastheirpointofdisagreementwithIskra?

RevolutionarySocial-Democracyalwaysincluded,andnowincludes,thefightforreformsinitsactivities.Butitutilizes“economic”agitationforthepurposeofpresentingtothegovernment,notonlydemandsforallsortsofmeasures,butalso(andprimarily)thedemandthatitceasetobeanautocraticgovernment.Moreover,itconsidersittobeitsdutytopresentthisdemandtothegovernment,notonthebasisoftheeconomicstrugglealone,butonthebasisofallmanifestationsofpublicandpoliticallife.Inaword,itsubordinatesthestruggleforreformstotherevolutionarystruggleforlibertyandforsocialism,asthepartissubordinatetothewhole.Martynov,however,resuscitatesthetheoryofstagesinanewform,andstrivestoprescribeanexclusivelyeconomic,sotospeak,pathofdevelopmentforthepoliticalstruggle.Bycomingoutatthismoment,whentherevolutionarymovementisontheupgrade,withanallegedspecial“task”offightingforreforms,heisdraggingthePartybackwardsandisplayingintothehandsofboth“economic”andliberalopportunism.

Toproceed.Shamefacedlyhidingthestruggleforreformsbehindthepompousthesis“givingtheeconomicstruggleitselfapoliticalcharacter,”Martynovadvanced,asifitwereaspecialpoint,exclusivelyeconomic(infact,exclusivelyfactory)reforms.Whyhedidthat,wedonotknow.Perhapsitwasduetocarelessness?Butif,indeed,hehadsomethingelsebesides“factory”reformsinmind,thenthewholeofhisthesis,whichwehavejustquoted,losesallsense.Perhapshediditbecausehethoughtitpossibleandprobablethatthegovernmentwouldmake“concessions”onlyintheeconomicsphere?76Ifthatiswhathethought,thenitisastrangeerror.Concessionsarealsopossibleandaremadeinthesphereoflegislationconcerningflogging,passports,landcompensationpayments,religioussects,thecensorship,etc.,etc.“Economic”concessions(orpseudo-concessions)are,ofcourse,thecheapestandmostadvantageousconcessionstomakefromthegovernment’spointofview,becausebythesemeansithopestowintheconfidenceofthemassesoftheworkers.Forthisveryreason,weSocial-Democratsmustundernocircumstancescreategroundsforthebelief(orthemisunderstanding)thatweattachgreatervaluetoeconomicreforms,orthatweregardthemasbeingparticularlyimportant,etc.“Suchdemands,”writesMartynov,concerningtheconcretedemandsforlegislativeandadministrativemeasuresreferredtoabove,“wouldnotbemerelyahollowsound,because,promisingcertainpalpableresults,theymightbeactivelysupportedbythemassesoftheworkers....”WearenotEconomists,ohno!Weonlycringeasslavishlybeforethe“palpableness”ofconcreteresultsasdotheBernsteins,theProkopoviches,

theStruves,theR.M.’s,andtuttiquanti!Weonlywishtomakeitunderstood(withNarcissusTuporylov)thatallthatwhich“doesnotpromisepalpableresults”ismerelya“hollowsound.”Weareonlytryingtoargueasifthemassesoftheworkerswereincapable(andhadnotalreadyprovedtheircapabilities,notwithstandingthosewhoascribetheirownphilistinismtothem)ofactivelysupportingeveryprotestagainsttheautocracyevenifitpromisesabsolutelynopalpableresultswhatever!

“Inadditiontoitsimmediaterevolutionarysignificance,theeconomicstruggleoftheworkersagainsttheemployersandthegovernment[‘economicstruggleagainstthegovernment’!!]hasalsothissignificance:thatitconstantlybringstheworkersfacetofacewiththeirownlackofpoliticalrights.”(Martynov.)

Wequotethispassagenotinordertorepeatwhathasalreadybeensaidhundredsandthousandsoftimesbefore,butinordertothankMartynovforthisexcellentnewformula:“theworkers’economicstruggleagainsttheemployersandthegovernment.”Whatapearl!WithwhatinimitabletalentandskillineliminatingallpartialdisagreementsandshadesofdifferencesamongEconomistsdoesthisclearandconcisepostulateexpressthequintessenceofEconomism:fromcallingtotheworkerstojoin“inthepoliticalstrugglewhichtheycarryoninthegeneralinterest,forthepurposeofimprovingtheconditionsofalltheworkers,”77continuingthroughthetheoryofstages,totheresolutionoftheCongressonthe“mostwidelyapplicable,”etc.“Economicstruggleagainstthegovernment”ispreciselytradeunionpolitics,whichisvery,veryfarfrombeingSocial-Democraticpolitics.

B.ATALEOFHowMARTYNOVRENDEREDPLEKHANOVMOREPROFOUNDMartynovsays:

“MuchwaterhasflowedunderthebridgesincePlekhanovwrotethisbook.”(TasksoftheSocialistsintheFightAgainsttheFamineinRussia.)“TheSocial-Democratswhoforadecadeledtheeconomicstruggleoftheworkingclass...havefailedasyettolay

downabroadtheoreticalbasisforPartytactics.Thisquestionhasnowcometothefore,andifweshouldwishtolaydownsuchatheoreticalbasiswewouldcertainlyhaveconsiderablytodeepentheprinciplesoftacticsthatPlekhanovatonetimedeveloped....WewouldnowhavetodefinethedifferencesbetweenpropagandaandagitationdifferentlyfromthewayinwhichPlekhanovdefinedit.[MartynovhadjustpreviouslyquotedthewordsofPlekhanov:‘Apropagandistpresentsmanyideastooneorafewpersons;anagitatorpresentsonlyoneorafewideas,buthepresentsthemtoamassofpeople.’]Bypropagandawewouldunderstandtherevolutionaryelucidationofthewholeofthepresentsystemorpartialmanifestationsofit,irrespectiveofwhetheritisdoneinaformcapableofbeingunderstoodbyindividualsorbythebroadmasses.Byagitation,inthestrictsenseoftheword[sic!],wewouldunderstandcallingthemassestocertainconcreteactionsthatwouldfacilitatethedirectrevolutionaryinterventionoftheproletariatinsociallife.”

WecongratulateRussianandinternationalSocial-DemocracyonMartynov’snew,morestrictandmoreprofoundterminology.Uptonowwethought(withPlekhanov,andwithalltheleadersoftheinternationallabormovement)thatapropagandist,dealingwith,say,thequestionofunemployment,mustexplainthecapitalisticnatureofcrises,thereasonswhycrisesareinevitableinmodernsociety,mustdescribehowpresentsocietymustinevitablybecometransformedintosocialistsociety,etc.Inaword,hemustpresent“manyideas,”somanyindeedthattheywillbeunderstoodasawholeonlybya(comparatively)fewpersons.Anagitator,however,speakingonthesamesubjectwilltakeasanillustrationafactthatismostwidelyknownandoutstandingamonghisaudience,say,thedeathfromstarvationofthefamilyofanunemployedworker,thegrowingimpoverishment,etc.,andutilizingthisfact,whichisknowntoallandsundry,willdirectallhiseffortstopresentingasingleideatothe“masses,”i.e.,theideaofthesenselesscontradictionbetweentheincreaseofwealthandincreaseofpoverty;hewillstrivetorousediscontentandindignationamongthemassesagainstthiscryinginjustice,andleaveamorecompleteexplanationofthiscontradictiontothepropagandist.Consequently,thepropagandistoperateschieflybymeansoftheprintedword;theagitatoroperateswiththelivingword.Thequalitiesthatarerequiredofanagitatorarenotthesameasthequalitiesthatarerequiredofapropagandist.

KautskyandLafargue,forexample,wecallpropagandists;BebelandGuesdewecallagitators.Tosingleoutathirdsphere,orthirdfunction,ofpracticalactivity,andtoincludeinthisthirdfunction“callingthemassestocertainconcreteactions,”issheernonsense,becausethe“call,”asasingleact,eithernaturallyandinevitablysupplementsthetheoreticaltract,propagandistpamphletandagitationalspeech,orrepresentsapurelyexecutivefunction.Take,forexample,thestrugglenowbeingcarriedonbytheGermanSocial-Democratsagainstthegrainduties.Thetheoreticianswriteworksofresearchontariffpolicyand“call,”say,forafightforcommercialtreatiesandforfreetrade.Thepropagandistdoesthesamethingintheperiodicalpress,andtheagitatordoesitinpublicspeeches.Atthepresenttime,the“concreteaction”ofthemassestakestheformofsigningpetitionstotheReichstagagainsttheraisingofthegrainduties.Thecallforthisactioncomesdirectlyfromthetheoreticians,thepropagandistsandtheagitators,and,indirectly,fromthoseworkerswhocarrythepetitionliststothefactoriesandtoprivatehousestogetsignatures.Accordingtothe“Martynovterminology,”KautskyandBebelarebothpropagandists,whilethosewhocarrythepetitionlistsaroundareagitators;isthatnotso?

TheGermanexamplerecalledtomymindtheGermanwordVerballhornung,whichliterallytranslatedmeans“toBallhorn.”JohannBallhorn,aLeipzigpublisherofthesixteenthcentury,publishedachild’sreaderinwhich,aswasthecustom,heintroducedadrawingofacock;butthisdrawing,insteadofportrayinganordinarycockwithspurs,portrayeditwithoutspursandwithacoupleofeggslyingnearit.Onthecoverofthisreaderheprintedthelegend“RevisededitionbyJohannBallhorn.”SincethattimetheGermansdescribeany“revision”thatisreallyaworseningas“Ballhorning.”AndwatchingMartynov’sattemptstorenderPlekhanov“moreprofound”involuntarilyrecallsBallhorntoone’smind....

WhydidourMartynov“invent”thisconfusion?InordertoillustratehowIskra“devotesattentiononlytoonesideofthecase,justasPlekhanovdidadecadeandahalfago.”“AccordingtoIskra,propagandisttasksforceagitationaltasksintothebackground,atleastforthepresent.”IfwetranslatethislastpostulatefromthelanguageofMartynovintoordinaryhumanlanguage(becausehumanityhasnotyetmanagedtolearnthenewlyinventedterminology),weshallgetthefollowing:“AccordingtoIskra,thetasksofpoliticalpropagandaandpoliticalagitationforceintothebackgroundthetaskof‘presentingtothegovernmentconcretedemandsforlegislativeandadministrativemeasures’thatpromisecertainpalpableresults”(ordemands

forsocialreforms,thatis,ifwearepermittedjustonceagaintoemploytheoldterminologyofoldhumanity,whichhasnotyetgrowntoMartynov’slevel).Wesuggestthatthereadercomparethisthesiswiththefollowingtirade:

“Whatastonishesusintheseprograms[theprogramadvancedbyrevolutionarySocial-Democrats]istheconstantstressthatislaiduponthebenefitsoflaboractivityinparliament(non-existentinRussia)andthemannerinwhich(thankstotheirrevolutionarynihilism)theimportanceofworkersparticipatingintheGovernmentAdvisoryCommitteesonFactoryAffairs(whichdoexistinRussia)...oratleasttheimportanceofworkersparticipatinginmunicipalbodiesiscompletelyignored....”

Theauthorofthistiradeexpressesmorestraightforwardly,moreclearlyandfrankly,theveryideawhichMartynovdiscoveredhimself.ThisauthorisR.M.intheSpecialSupplementtoRabochayaMysl.

C.POLITICALEXPOSURESAND“TRAININGINREVOLUTIONARYACTIVITY”InadvancingagainstIskrahis“theory”of“raisingtheactivityofthemasses

oftheworkers,”Martynov,asamatteroffact,displayedastrivingtodiminishthisactivity,becausehedeclaredtheveryeconomicstrugglebeforewhichallEconomistsgroveltobethepreferable,themostimportantand“themostwidelyapplicable”meansofrousingthisactivity,andthewidestfieldforit.Thiserror.issuchacharacteristicone,preciselybecauseitisnotpeculiartoMartynovalone.Asamatteroffact,itispossibleto“raisetheactivityofthemassesoftheworkers”onlyprovidedthisactivityisnotrestrictedentirelyto“politicalagitationonaneconomicbasis.”Andoneofthefundamentalconditionsforthenecessaryexpansionofpoliticalagitationistheorganizationofall-sidedpoliticalexposure.Innootherwaycanthemassesbetrainedinpoliticalconsciousnessandrevolutionaryactivityexceptbymeansofsuchexposures.Hence,toconductsuchactivityisoneofthemostimportantfunctionsofinternationalSocial-Democracyasawhole,foreventheexistenceofpoliticallibertydoesnotremovethenecessityforsuchexposures;itmerelychangesthesphereagainstwhichtheyaredirected.Forexample,theGermanPartyisstrengtheningitspositionandspreadingitsinfluence,thanks

particularlytotheuntiringenergywithwhichitisconductingacampaignofpoliticalexposure.Workingclassconsciousnesscannotbegenuinelypoliticalconsciousnessunlesstheworkersaretrainedtorespondtoallcasesoftyranny,oppression,violenceandabuse,nomatterwhatclassisaffected.Moreover,thatresponsemustbeaSocial-Democraticresponse,andnotonefromanyotherpointofview.Theconsciousnessofthemassesoftheworkerscannotbegenuineclassconsciousness,unlesstheworkerslearntoobservefromconcrete,andaboveallfromtopical,politicalfactsandevents,everyothersocialclassandallthemanifestationsoftheintellectual,ethicalandpoliticallifeoftheseclasses;unlesstheylearntoapplypracticallythematerialistanalysisandthematerialistestimateofallaspectsofthelifeandactivityofallclasses,strataandgroupsofthepopulation.Thosewhoconcentratetheattention,observationandtheconsciousnessoftheworkingclassexclusively,orevenmainly,uponitselfalonearenotSocial-Democrats;because,foritsself-realizationtheworkingclassmustnotonlyhaveatheoretical...ratheritwouldbemoretruetosay...notsomuchatheoreticalasapracticalunderstanding,acquiredthroughexperienceofpoliticallife,oftherelationshipsbetweenallthevariousclassesofmodernsociety.ThatiswhytheideapreachedbyourEconomists,thattheeconomicstruggleisthemostwidelyapplicablemeansofdrawingthemassesintothepoliticalmovement,issoextremelyharmfulandextremelyreactionaryinpractice.InordertobecomeaSocial-Democrat,aworkingmanmusthaveaclearpictureinhismindoftheeconomicnatureandthesocialandpoliticalfeaturesofthelandlord,ofthepriest,ofthehighstateofficialandofthepeasant,ofthestudentandofthetramp;hemustknowtheirstrongandweaksides;hemustunderstandallthecatchwordsandsophismsbywhicheachclassandeachstratumcamouflagesitsselfishstrivingsanditsreal“nature”;hemustunderstandwhatinterestscertaininstitutionsandcertainlawsreflectandhowtheyreflectthem.This“clearpicture”cannotbeobtainedfrombooks.Itcanbeobtainedonlyfromlivingexamplesandfromexposures,followinghotaftertheiroccurrence,ofwhatgoesonaroundusatagivenmoment,ofwhatisbeingdiscussed,inwhispersperhaps,byeachoneinhisownway,ofthemeaningofsuchandsuchevents,ofsuchandsuchstatistics,ofsuchandsuchcourtsentences,etc.,etc.,etc.Theseuniversalpoliticalexposuresareanessentialandfundamentalconditionfortrainingthemassesinrevolutionaryactivity.

WhyisitthattheRussianworkersasyetdisplaysolittlerevolutionaryactivityinconnectionwiththebrutalwayinwhichthepolicemaltreatthe

people,inconnectionwiththepersecutionofthereligioussects,withthefloggingofthepeasantry,withtheoutrageouscensorship,withthetortureofsoldiers,withthepersecutionofthemostinnocentculturalenterprises,etc.?Isitbecausethe“economicstruggle”doesnot“stimulate”themtothis,becausesuchpoliticalactivitydoesnot“promisepalpableresults,”becauseitproduceslittlethatis“positive”?No.Toadvancethisargument,werepeat,ismerelytoshifttheblametotheshouldersofothers,toblamethemassesoftheworkersforourownphilistinism(alsoBernsteinism).Wemustblameourselves,ourremotenessfromthemassmovement;wemustblameourselvesforbeingunableasyettoorganizeasufficientlywide,strikingandrapidexposureofthesedespicableoutrages.Whenwedothat(andwemustandcandoit),themostbackwardworkerwillunderstand,orwillfeel,thatthestudentsandreligioussects,themuzhiksandtheauthorsarebeingabusedandoutragedbytheverysamedarkforcesthatareoppressingandcrushinghimateverystepofhislife,and,feelingthat,hehimselfwillbefilledwithanirresistibledesiretorespondtothesethingsandthenhewillorganizecat-callsagainstthecensorsoneday,anotherdayhewilldemonstrateoutsidethehouseoftheprovincialgovernorwhohasbrutallysuppressedapeasantuprising,anotherdayhewillteachalessontothegendarmesinsurpliceswhoaredoingtheworkoftheHolyInquisition,etc.Asyetwehavedoneverylittle,almostnothing,tohurluniversalandfreshexposuresamongthemassesoftheworkers.Manyofusasyetdonotappreciatetheboundendutythatrestsuponus,butspontaneouslyfollowinthewakeofthe“drabevery-daystruggle,”inthenarrowconfinesoffactorylife.Undersuchcircumstancestosaythat“Iskradisplaysatendencytobelittlethesignificanceoftheforwardmarchofthedrabevery-daystruggleincomparisonwiththepropagandaofbrilliantandcompleteideas”(Martynov)—meansdraggingthePartybackward,defendingandglorifyingourunpreparednessandbackwardness.

Asforcallingthemassestoaction,thatwillcomeofitselfimmediatelyonceenergeticpoliticalagitation,liveandstrikingexposuresaresetgoing.Tocatchsomecriminalred-handedandimmediatelytobrandhimpubliclywillhavefarmoreeffectthananynumberof“appeals”;theeffectveryoftenwillbesuchaswillmakeitimpossibletotellexactlywhoitwasthat“appealed”tothecrowd,andexactlywhosuggestedthisorthatplanofdemonstration,etc.Callsforaction,notinthegeneral,butintheconcretesenseoftheterm,canbemadeonlyattheplaceofaction;onlythosewhothemselvesgointoactionimmediatelycanmakeappealsforaction.AndourbusinessasSocial-Democraticpublicistsistodeepen,toexpandandintensifypoliticalexposures

andpoliticalagitation.

Awordinpassingabout“callstoaction.”Theonlypaperthatpriortothespringeventscalledupontheworkersactivelytointerveneinamatterthatcertainlydidnotpromiseanypalpableresultsfortheworkers,i.e.,thedraftingofthestudentsintothearmy,wasIskra.ImmediatelyafterthepublicationoftheorderofJanuary11,on“draftingthe183studentsintothearmy,”Iskrapublishedanarticleaboutit(initsFebruaryissue,No.2),andbeforeanydemonstrationwasstartedopenlycalledupon“theworkerstogototheaidofthestudents,”calleduponthe“people”boldlytotakeupthegovernment’sopenchallenge.Weask:howistheremarkablefacttobeexplainedthatalthoughhetalkssomuchabout“callstoaction,”andevensuggests“callstoaction”asaspecialformofactivity,Martynovsaidnotawordaboutthiscall?

OurEconomists,includingRabocheyeDyelo,weresuccessfulbecausetheypanderedtotheuneducatedworkers.ButtheworkingclassSocial-Democrat,theworkingclassrevolutionary(andthenumberofthattypeisgrowing)willindignantlyrejectallthistalkaboutfightingfordemands“promisingpalpableresults,”etc.,becausehewillunderstandthatthisisonlyavariationoftheoldsongaboutaddingakopektotheruble.SuchaworkingmanwillsaytohiscounsellorsofRabochayaMyslandRabocheyeDyelo:youarewastingyourtime,gentlemen;youareinterferingwithexcessivezealinajobthatwecanmanageourselves,andyouareneglectingyourownduties.ItissillyofyoutosaythattheSocial-Democrats’taskistogivetheeconomicstruggleitselfapoliticalcharacter,forthatisonlythebeginning,itisnotthemaintaskthatSocial-Democratsmustfulfil.Allovertheworld,includingRussia,thepolicethemselvesoftengivetheeconomicstruggleapoliticalcharacter,andtheworkersthemselvesarebeginningtounderstandwhomthegovernmentsupports.78The“economicstruggleoftheworkersagainsttheemployersandthegovernment,”aboutwhichyoumakeasmuchfussasifyouhadmadeanewdiscovery,isbeingcarriedoninallpartsofRussia,eventhemostremote,bytheworkersthemselveswhohaveheardaboutstrikes,butwhohaveheardalmostnothingaboutsocialism.The“activity”youwanttostimulateamongusworkers,byadvancingconcretedemandspromisingpalpableresults,wearealreadydisplayingandinourevery-day,pettytradeunionworkweputforwardconcretedemands,veryoftenwithoutanyassistancewhateverfromtheintellectuals.Butsuchactivityisnotenoughforus;wearenotchildrentobefedonthesopsof“economic”politicsalone;wewanttoknoweverythingthateverybodyelseknows,wewanttolearnthedetailsofallaspectsofpoliticallifeandtotakepartactivityineverypoliticalevent.Inorderthatwe

maydothis,theintellectualsmusttalktouslessofwhatwealreadyknow,andtellusmoreaboutwhatwedonotknowandwhatwecanneverlearnfromourfactoryand“economic”experience,thatis,youmustgiveuspoliticalknowledge.Youintellectualscanacquirethisknowledgeanditisyourdutytobringusthisknowledgeinahundredandathousandtimesgreatermeasurethanyouhavedoneuptonow;andyoumustbringusthisknowledge,notonlyintheformofarguments,pamphletsandarticleswhichsometimes—excuseourfrankness!—areverydull,butintheformofliveexposuresofwhatourgovernmentandourgoverningclassesaredoingatthisverymomentinallspheresoflife.Fulfilthisdutywithgreaterzeal,andtalklessabout“increasingtheactivityofthemassesoftheworkers”!Wearefarmoreactivethanyouthink,andwearequiteabletosupport,byopenstreetfighting,demandsthatdonotpromiseany“palpableresults”whatever!Youcannot“increase”ouractivity,becauseyouyourselvesarenotsufficientlyactive.Belesssubservienttospontaneity,andthinkmoreaboutincreasingyourownactivity,gentlemen!79

D.WHATIs THEREINCOMMONBETWEENECONOMISMANDTERRORISM?InthelastfootnotewequotedtheopinionofanEconomistandofanon-

Social-Democraticterroristwho,bychance,provedtobeinagreementwithhim.Speakinggenerally,however,betweenthetwothereisnotanaccidental,butanecessary,inherentconnection,aboutwhichweshallhavetospeakfurtheron,butwhichmustbedealtwithhereinconnectionwiththequestionoftrainingthemassesinrevolutionaryactivity.TheEconomistsandthemodernterroristsspringfromacommonroot,namely,subserviencetospontaneity,whichwedealtwithintheprecedingchapterasageneralphenomenon,andwhichweshallnowexamineinrelationtoitseffectuponpoliticalactivityandthepoliticalstruggle.Atfirstsight,ourassertionmayappearparadoxical,forthedifferencebetweenthesetwoappearstobesoenormous:onestressesthe“drabevery-daystruggle”andtheothercallsforthemostself-sacrificingstruggleofindividuals.Butthisisnotaparadox.TheEconomistsandterroristsmerelybowtodifferentpolesofspontaneity:theEconomistsbowtothespontaneityofthe“pureandsimple”labormovement,whiletheterroristsbowtothespontaneityofthepassionateindignationoftheintellectuals,whoareeitherincapableoflinkinguptherevolutionarystrugglewiththelabormovement,orlacktheopportunitytodoso.Itisverydifficultindeedforthosewhohavelosttheirbelief,orwhohaveneverbelievedthatthisispossible,to

findsomeotheroutletfortheirindignationandrevolutionaryenergythanterror.Thus,boththeformsofsubserviencetospontaneitywehavementionedarenothingmoreorlessthanabeginninginthecarryingoutofthenotoriousCredoprogram.Lettheworkerscarryontheir“economicstruggleagainsttheemployersandthegovernment”(weapologizetotheauthoroftheCredoforexpressinghisviewsinMartynov’swords!ButwethinkwehavetherighttodosobecauseeventheCredosaysthatintheeconomicstruggletheworkers“comeupagainstthepoliticalregime”),andlettheintellectualsconductthepoliticalstrugglebytheirownefforts—withtheaidofterror,ofcourse!Thisisanabsolutelylogicalandinevitableconclusionwhichmustbeinsistedupon—eventhoughthosewhoarebeginningtocarryoutthisprogramdidnotthemselvesrealizethatitisinevitable.Politicalactivityhasitslogicquiteapartfromtheconsciousnessofthosewho,withthebestintentions,calleitherforterrororforgivingtheeconomicstruggleitselfapoliticalcharacter.Theroadtohellispavedwithgoodintentions,and,inthiscase,goodintentionscannotsaveonefrombeingspontaneouslydrawn“alongthelineofleastresistance,”alongthelineofthepurelybourgeoisCredoprogram.SurelyitisnotanaccidentthatmanyRussianliberals—avowedliberalsandliberalswhowearthemaskofMarxism—wholeheartedlysympathizewithterrorandstrivetofosterthespiritofterrorismthatisrunningsohighatthepresenttime.

TheformationoftheSvobodaRevolutionarySocialistgroup—whichwasformedwiththeobjectofgivingallpossibleassistancetothelabormovement,butwhichincludedinitsprogramterror,andemancipation,sotospeak,fromSocial-Democracy—thisfactonceagainconfirmedtheremarkablepenetrationofP.B.AxelrodwholiterallyforetoldtheseresultsofSocial-Democraticwaveringasfarastheendof1897(ModernTasksandModernTactics),whenheoutlinedhisremarkable“twoprospects.”AllthesubsequentdisputesanddisagreementsamongRussianSocial-Democratsarecontained,likeaplantintheseed,inthesetwoprospects.80

FromthispointofviewitwillbeclearthatRabocheyeDyelo,beingunabletowithstandthespontaneityofEconomism,hasbeenunablealsotowithstandthespontaneityofterrorism.ItwouldbeinterestingtonoteherethespecificargumentsthatSvobodaadvancedindefenseofterrorism.It“completelydenies”thedeterrentroleofterrorism(TheRegenerationofRevolutionism),butinsteadstressesits“excitativesignificance.”Thisischaracteristic,first,asrepresentingoneofthestagesofthebreak-upanddecayofthetraditional(pre-Social-Democratic)cycleofideaswhichinsisteduponterrorism.Toadmitnowthatthegovernmentcannotbe“terrified,”andthereforedisrupted,by

terror,istantamounttocondemningterrorasasystemofstruggle,asasphereofactivitysanctionedbytheprogram.Secondly,itisstillmorecharacteristicasanexampleofthefailuretounderstandourimmediatetaskof“trainingthemassesinrevolutionaryactivity.”Svobodaadvocatesterrorasameansof“exciting”thelabormovement,andofgivingita“strongimpetus.”Itisdifficulttoimagineanargumentthatdisprovesitselfmorethanthisonedoes!AretherenotenoughoutragescommittedinRussianlifethataspecial“stimulant”hastobeinvented?Ontheotherhand,isitnotobviousthatthosewhoarenot,andcannotbe,rousedtoexcitementevenbyRussiantyrannywillstandby“twiddlingtheirthumbs”evenwhileahandfulofterroristsareengagedinsinglecombatwiththegovernment?Thefactis,however,thatthemassesoftheworkersarerousedtoahighpitchofexcitementbytheoutragescommittedinRussianlife,butweareunabletocollect,ifonemayputitthatway,andconcentrateallthesedropsandstreamletsofpopularexcitement,whicharecalledforthbytheconditionsofRussianlifetoafarlargerextentthanweimagine,butwhichitispreciselynecessarytocombineintoasinglegiganticflood.Thatthiscanbeaccomplishedisirrefutablyprovedbytheenormousgrowthofthelabormovement,andthegreedwithwhichtheworkersdevourpoliticalliterature,towhichwehavealreadyreferredabove.CallsforterrorandcallstogivetheeconomicstruggleitselfapoliticalcharacteraremerelytwodifferentformsofevadingthemostpressingdutythatnowrestsuponRussianrevolutionaries,namely,toorganizeall-sidedpoliticalagitation.Svobodadesirestosubstituteterrorforagitation,openlyadmittingthat“assoonasintensifiedandstrenuousagitationiscommencedamongthemassesitsexcitativefunctionwillbefinished.”(TheRegenerationofRevolutionism.)ThisprovespreciselythatboththeterroristsandtheEconomistsunderestimatetherevolutionaryactivityofthemasses,inspiteofthestrikingevidenceoftheeventsthattookplaceinthespring,81andwhereasonegoesoutinsearchofartificial“stimulants,”theothertalksabout“concretedemands.”Butbothfailtodevotesufficientattentiontothedevelopmentoftheirownactivityinpoliticalagitationandorganizationofpoliticalexposures.Andnootherworkcanserveasasubstituteforthisworkeitheratthepresenttimeoratanyothertime.

E.THEWORKINGCLASSASCHAMPIONOFDEMOCRACYWehaveseenthatthecarryingonofwidepoliticalagitation,and

consequentlytheorganizationofall-sidedpoliticalexposures,isanabsolutely

necessaryandparamounttaskofactivity,thatis,ifthatactivityistobetrulySocial-Democratic.Wearrivedatthisconclusionsolelyonthegroundsofthepressingneedsoftheworkingclassforpoliticalknowledgeandpoliticaltraining.Butthispresentationofthequestionistoonarrow,foritignoresthegeneraldemocratictasksofSocial-Democracyingeneral,andofmodernRussianSocial-Democracyinparticular.Inordertoexplainthesituationmoreconcretelyweshallapproachthesubjectfromanaspectthatis“nearer”totheEconomist,namely,fromthepracticalaspect.“Everyoneagrees”thatitisnecessarytodevelopthepoliticalconsciousnessoftheworkingclass.Butthequestionarises,howisthattobedone?Whatmustbedonetobringthisabout?Theeconomicstrugglemerelybringstheworkers“upagainst”questionsconcerningtheattitudeofthegovernmenttowardstheworkingclass.Consequently,howevermuchwemaytrytogivethe“economicstruggleitselfapoliticalcharacter”weshallneverbeabletodevelopthepoliticalconsciousnessoftheworkers(tothedegreeofSocial-Democraticconsciousness)byconfiningourselvestotheeconomicstruggle,forthelimitsofthistaskaretoonarrow.TheMartynovformulahassomevalueforus,notbecauseitillustratesMartynov’sabilitytoconfusethings,butbecauseitstrikinglyexpressesthefundamentalerrorthatalltheEconomistscommit,namely,theirconvictionthatitispossibletodeveloptheclasspoliticalconsciousnessoftheworkersfromwithintheeconomicstruggle,sotospeak,i.e.,makingtheeconomicstruggletheexclusive,or,atleast,themainstartingpoint,makingtheeconomicstruggletheexclusive,or,atleast,themainbasis.Suchaviewisradicallywrong.Piquedbyouroppositiontothem,theEconomistsrefusetoponderdeeplyovertheoriginsofthesedisagreements,withtheresultthatweabsolutelyfailtounderstandeachother.Itisasifwespokeindifferenttongues.

Classpoliticalconsciousnesscanbebroughttotheworkersonlyfromwithout,thatis,onlyoutsideoftheeconomicstruggle,outsideofthesphereofrelationsbetweenworkersandemployers.Thespherefromwhichaloneitispossibletoobtainthisknowledgeisthesphereofrelationshipsbetweenallthevariousclassesandstrataandthestateandthegovernment—thesphereoftheinterrelationsbetweenallthevariousclasses.Forthatreason,thereplytothequestion:whatmustbedoneinordertobringpoliticalknowledgetotheworkers?cannotbemerelytheonewhich,inthemajorityofcases,thepracticalworkers,especiallythosewhoareinclinedtowardsEconomism,usuallycontentthemselveswith,i.e.,“goamongtheworkers.”TobringpoliticalknowledgetotheworkerstheSocial-Democratsmustgoamongall

classesofthepopulation,mustdispatchunitsoftheirarmyinalldirections.

Wedeliberatelyselectthisawkwardformula,wedeliberatelyexpressourselvesinasimple,forcibleway,notbecausewedesiretoindulgeinparadoxes,butinorderto“stimulate”theEconomiststotakeuptheirtaskswhichtheyunpardonablyignore,tomakethemunderstandthedifferencebetweentradeunionandSocial-Democraticpolitics,whichtheyrefusetounderstand.Therefore,webegthereadernottogetexcited,buttolistenpatientlytotheend.

TakethetypeofSocial-Democraticcirclethathasbeenmostwidespreadduringthepastfewyears,andexamineitswork.Ithas“contactswiththeworkers,”itissuesleaflets—inwhichabusesinthefactories,thegovernment’spartialitytowardsthecapitalistsandthetyrannyofthepolicearestronglycondemned—anditrestscontentwiththis.Atmeetingsofworkersthediscussionsnever,orrarely,gobeyondthelimitsofthesesubjects.Lecturesanddiscussionsonthehistoryoftherevolutionarymovement,onquestionsofthehomeandforeignpolicyofourgovernment,onquestionsoftheeconomicevolutionofRussiaandofEurope,andthepositionofthevariousclassesinmodernsociety,etc.,areextremelyrare.Ofsystematicallyacquiringandextendingcontactwithotherclassesofsociety,nooneevendreams.Theidealleader,asthemajorityofthemembersofsuchcirclespicturehim,issomethinginthenatureofatradeunionsecretarythanaSocialistpoliticalleader.Anytradeunionsecretary,anEnglishoneforinstance,helpstheworkerstoconducttheeconomicstruggle,helpstoexposefactoryabuses,explainstheinjusticeofthelawsandofmeasureswhichhamperthefreedomtostrikeandthefreedomtopicket(i.e.,towarnallandsundrythatastrikeisproceedingatacertainfactory),explainsthepartialityofarbitrationcourtjudgeswhobelongtothebourgeoisclasses,etc.,etc.Inaword,everytradeunionsecretaryconductsandhelpstoconduct“theeconomicstruggleagainsttheemployersandthegovernment.”ItcannotbetoostronglyinsistedthatthisisnotenoughtoconstituteSocial-Democracy.TheSocial-Democrat’sidealshouldnotbeatradeunionsecretary,butatribuneofthepeople,abletoreacttoeverymanifestationoftyrannyandoppression,nomatterwhereittakesplace,nomatterwhatstratumorclassofthepeopleitaffects;hemustbeabletogroupallthesemanifestationsintoasinglepictureofpoliceviolenceandcapitalistexploitation;hemustbeabletotakeadvantageofeverypettyeventinordertoexplainhissocialisticconvictionsandhisSocial-Democraticdemandstoall,inordertoexplaintoallandeveryonetheworld-historicsignificanceofthestrugglefortheemancipationoftheproletariat.Compare,forexample,a

leaderlikeRobertKnight(thecelebratedsecretaryandleaderoftheBoiler-Makers’Society,oneofthemostpowerfultradeunionsinEngland)withWilhelmLiebknecht,andthentakethecontraststhatMartynovdrawsinhiscontroversywithIskra.Youwillsee—IamrunningthroughMartynov’sarticle—thatRobertKnightengagedmorein“callingthemassestocertainconcreteactions,”whileLiebknechtengagedmorein“therevolutionaryexplanationofthewholeofmodernsociety,orvariousmanifestationsofit”;thatRobertKnight“formulatedtheimmediatedemandsoftheproletariatandpointedtothemannerinwhichtheycanbeachieved,”whereasWilhelmLiebknecht,whiledoingthis,“simultaneouslyguidedtheactivitiesofvariousoppositionstrata,”“dictatedtothemapositiveprogramofaction”82;thatitwaspreciselyRobertKnightwhostrove“asfaraspossibletogivetheeconomicstruggleitselfapoliticalcharacter”andwasexcellentlyable“tosubmittothegovernmentconcretedemandspromisingcertainpalpableresults,”whileLiebknechtengagedmorein“one-sidedexposures”;thatRobertKnightattachedmoresignificancetothe“forwardmarchofthedrab,every-daystruggle,”whileLiebknechtattachedmoresignificancetothe“propagandaofbrilliantandfinishedideas”;thatLiebknechtconvertedthepaperhewasdirectinginto“anorganofrevolutionaryoppositionexposingthepresentsystemandparticularlythepoliticalconditionswhichcameintoconflictwiththeinterestsofthemostvariedstrataofthepopulation,”whereasRobertKnight“workedforthecauseoflaborincloseorganiccontactwiththeproletarianstruggle”—ifby“closeandorganiccontact”ismeantthesubserviencetospontaneitywhichwestudiedabovefromtheexampleofKrichevskyandMartynov—and“restrictedthesphereofhisinfluence,”convinced,ofcourse,asisMartynov,that“bythatheintensifiedthatinfluence.”Inaword,youwillseethatdefactoMartynovreducesSocial-Democracytotheleveloftradeunionism,andhedoesthis,ofcourse,notbecausehedoesnotdesirethegoodofSocial-Democracy,butsimplybecauseheisalittletoomuchinahurrytomakePlekhanovmoreprofound,insteadoftakingthetroubletounderstandhim.

Letusreturn,however,totheelucidationofourthesis.WesaidthataSocial-Democrat,ifhereallybelievesitisnecessarytodeveloptheall-sidedpoliticalconsciousnessoftheproletariat,must“goamongallclassesofthepeople.”Thisgivesrisetothequestions:Howisthistobedone?Haveweenoughforcestodothis?Isthereabaseforsuchworkamongalltheotherclasses?Willthisnotmeanaretreat,orleadtoaretreat,fromtheclasspointofview?Weshalldealwiththesequestions.

Wemust“goamongallclassesofthepeople”astheoreticians,aspropagandists,asagitatorsandasorganizers.NoonedoubtsthatthetheoreticalworkofSocial-Democratsshouldbedirectedtowardsstudyingallthefeaturesofthesocialandpoliticalpositionofthevariousclasses.Butextremelylittleisdoneinthisdirectionascomparedwiththeworkthatisdoneinstudyingthefeaturesoffactorylife.Inthecommitteesandcircles,youwillmeetmenwhoareimmersed,say,inthestudyofsomespecialbranchofthemetalindustry,butyouwillhardlyeverfindmembersoforganizations(obliged,asoftenhappens,forsomereasonorothertogiveuppracticalwork)especiallyengagedinthecollectionofmaterialconcerningsomepressingquestionofsocialandpoliticallifewhichcouldserveasameansforconductingSocial-Democraticworkamongotherstrataofthepopulation.Inspeakingofthelackoftrainingofthemajorityofpresent-dayleadersofthelabormovement,wecannotrefrainfrommentioningthepointabouttraininginthisconnectionalso,forittooisboundupwiththe“economic”conceptionof“closeorganiccontactwiththeproletarianstruggle.”Theprincipalthing,ofcourse,ispropagandaandagitationamongallstrataofthepeople.TheWestEuropeanSocial-Democratsfindtheirworkinthisfieldfacilitatedbythecallingofpublicmeetings,towhichallarefreetogo,andbytheparliament,inwhichtheyspeaktotherepresentativesofallclasses.Wehaveneitheraparliamentnorthefreedomtocallmeetings,neverthelessweareabletoarrangemeetingsofworkerswhodesiretolistentoaSocial-Democrat.Wemustalsofindwaysandmeansofcallingmeetingsofrepresentativesofallclassesofthepopulationthatdesiretolistentoademocrat,forhewhoforgetsthat“theCommunistssupporteveryrevolutionarymovement,”thatweareobligedforthatreasontoexpoundandemphasizegeneraldemocratictasksbeforethewholepeople,withoutforamomentconcealingoursocialisticconvictions,isnotaSocial-Democrat.Hewhoforgetshisobligationtobeinadvanceofeverybodyinbringingup,sharpeningandsolvingeverygeneraldemocraticproblemisnotaSocial-Democrat.

“Buteverybodyagreeswiththis!”—theimpatientreaderwillexclaim—andthenewinstructionsgivenbythelastCongressoftheLeaguetotheeditorialboardofRabocheyeDyelosay:“Alleventsofsocialandpoliticallifethataffecttheproletariateitherdirectlyasaspecialclassorasthevanguardofalltherevolutionaryforcesinthestruggleforfreedomshouldserveassubjectsforpoliticalpropagandaandagitation.”(TwoCongresses,ouritalics.)Yes,theseareverytrueandverygoodwordsandwewouldbesatisfiedifRabocheyeDyelounderstoodthemandifitrefrainedfromsayinginthenextbreaththings

thataretheveryoppositeofthem.

PonderoverthefollowingpieceofMartynovreasoning.Onpage40hesaysthatIskra’stacticsofexposingabusesareone-sided,that“howevermuchwemayspreaddistrustandhatredtowardsthegovernment,weshallnotachieveouraimuntilwehavesucceededindevelopingsufficientlyactivesocialenergyforitsoverthrow.”

This,itmaybesaidinparenthesis,istheconcern,withwhichwearealreadyfamiliar,forincreasingtheactivityofthemasses,whileatthesametimestrivingtorestrictone’sownactivity.Thisisnotthepointwearenowdiscussing,however.Martynov,therefore,speaksofrevolutionaryenergy(“foroverthrowing”).Butwhatconclusiondoeshearriveat?Asinordinarytimes,varioussocialstratainevitablymarchseparately.

“Inviewofthat,itisclearthatweSocial-Democratscannotsimultaneouslyguidetheactivitiesofvariousoppositionstrata,wecannotdictatetothemapositiveprogramofaction,wecannotpointouttotheminwhatmannertheycanfightfortheirdailyinterests....Theliberalstratawillthemselvestakecareoftheactivestrugglefortheirimmediateinterestsandthisstrugglewillbringthemupagainstourpoliticalregime.”

Thus,havingcommencedbyspeakingofrevolutionaryenergy,oftheactivestrugglefortheoverthrowoftheautocracy,Martynovimmediatelyturnedtowardstradeunionenergyandactivestruggleforimmediateinterests!Itgoeswithoutsayingthatwecannotguidethestruggleofthestudents,liberals,etc.,fortheir“immediateinterests,”butthisisnotthepointwearearguingabout,mostworthyEconomist!Thepointwearediscussingisthepossibleandnecessaryparticipationofvarioussocialstrataintheoverthrowoftheautocracy;notonlyareweable,butitisourduty,toguidethese“activitiesofthevariousoppositionstrata”ifwedesiretobethe“vanguard.”Notonlywillthestudentsandourliberals,etc.,themselvestakecareof“thestrugglethatwillbringthemupagainstourpoliticalregime”;thepoliceandtheofficialsoftheautocraticgovernmentwillseetothismorethananyoneelse.Butif“we”desiretobeadvanceddemocrats,wemustmakeitourbusinesstostimulateinthemindsofthosewhoaredissatisfiedonlywithuniversity,oronlywithZemstvo,etc.,conditionstheideathatthewholepoliticalsystemisworthless.

WemusttakeuponourselvesthetaskoforganizingauniversalpoliticalstruggleundertheleadershipofourPartyinsuchamannerastoobtainallthesupportpossibleofalloppositionstrataforthestruggleandforourParty.WemusttrainourSocial-Democraticpracticalworkerstobecomepoliticalleaders,abletoguideallthemanifestationsofthisuniversalstruggle,ableattherighttimeto“dictateapositiveprogramofaction”forthediscontentedstudents,forthediscontentedZemstvoCouncillors,forthediscontentedreligioussects,fortheoffendedelementaryschoolteachers,etc.,etc.Forthatreason,Martynov’sassertion—that“withregardtothese,wecancomeforwardmerelyinthenegativeroleofexposersofabuses...wecanonly[ouritalics]dissipatethehopestheyhaveinvariousgovernmentcommissions”—isabsolutelywrong.BysayingthisMartynovshowsthatheabsolutelyfailstounderstandtheroletherevolutionary“vanguard”mustreallyplay.Ifthereaderbearsthisinmind,therealsenseofthefollowingconcludingremarksbyMartynovwillbecleartohim:

“Iskraistheorganoftherevolutionaryoppositionwhichexposestheabusesofoursystem,particularlypoliticalabuses,insofarastheyaffecttheinterestsofthemostdiverseclassesofthepopulation.We,however,areworkingandwillcontinuetoworkforthecauseoflaborincloseorganiccontactwiththeproletarianstruggle.Byrestrictingthesphereofourinfluence,weintensifythatinfluence.”

Thetruesenseofthisconclusionisasfollows:Iskradesirestoelevateworkingclasstradeunionpolitics(towhich,owingtomisunderstanding,lackoftraining,orbyconviction,ourpracticalworkersfrequentlyconfinethemselves)toSocial-Democraticpolitics,whereasRabocheyeDyelodesirestodegradeSocial-Democraticpoliticstotradeunionpolitics.Andwhiledoingthis,theyassuretheworldthatthesetwopositionsare“quitecompatibleinthecommoncause.”O!Sanctasim-plicitas!

Toproceed.Havewesufficientforcestobeabletodirectourpropagandaandagitationamongallclassesofthepopulation?Ofcoursewehave.OurEconomistsarefrequentlyinclinedtodenythis.Theylosesightofthegiganticprogressourmovementhasmadefrom(approximately)1894to1901.Likereal“khvostists,”theyfrequentlyliveinthedistantpast,intheperiodofthe

beginningofthemovement.Atthattime,indeed,wehadastonishinglyfewforces,anditwasperfectlynaturalandlegitimatethentoresolvetogoexclusivelyamongtheworkers,andseverelycondemnanydeviationfromthis.Thewholetaskthenwastoconsolidateourpositionintheworkingclass.Atthepresenttime,however,giganticforceshavebeenattractedtothemovement;thebestrepresentativesoftheyounggenerationoftheeducatedclassesarecomingovertous;alloverthecountrytherearepeoplecompelledtoliveintheprovinces,whohavetakenpartinthemovementinthepastanddesiretodosonow,whoaregravitatingtowardsSocial-Democracy(in1894youcouldcounttheSocial-Democratsonyourfingers).Oneoftheprincipalpoliticalandorganizationalshortcomingsofourmovementisthatweareenabletoutilizealltheseforcesandgivethemappropriatework(weshalldealwiththisindetailinthenextchapter).Theoverwhelmingmajorityoftheseforcesentirelylacktheopportunityof“goingamongtheworkers,”sotherearenogroundsforfearingthatweshalldeflectforcesfromourmaincause.Andinordertobeabletoprovidetheworkerswithreal,universalandlivepoliticalknowledge,wemusthave“ourownmen,”Social-Democrats,everywhere,amongallsocialstrata,andinallpositionsfromwhichwecanlearntheinnerspringsofourstatemechanism.Suchmenarerequiredforpropagandaandagitation,butinastilllargermeasurefororganization.

Istherescopeforactivityamongallclassesofthepopulation?Thosewhofailtoseethisalsolagbehindthespontaneousawakeningofthemassesasfarasclassconsciousnessisconcerned.Thelabormovementhasarousedandiscontinuingtoarousediscontentinsome,hopesforsupportfortheoppositioninothers,andtheconsciousnessoftheintolerablenessandinevitabledownfallofautocracyinstillothers.Wewouldbe“politicians”andSocial-Democratsonlyinname(asveryoftenhappens),ifwefailedtorealizethatourtaskistoutilizeeverymanifestationofdiscontent,andtocollectandutilizeeverygrainofevenrudimentaryprotest.Thisisquiteapartfromthefactthatmanymillionsofthepeasantry,handicraftsmen,pettyartisans,etc.,alwayslisteneagerlytothepreachingsofanySocial-Democratwhoisatallintelligent.Isthereasingleclassofthepopulationinwhichnoindividuals,groupsorcirclesaretobefoundwhoarediscontentedwiththestateoftyrannyand,therefore,accessibletothepropagandaofSocial-Democratsasthespokesmenofthemostpressinggeneraldemocraticneeds?TothosewhodesiretohaveaclearideaofwhatthepoliticalagitationofaSocial-Democratamongallclassesandstrataofthepopulationshouldbelike,wewouldpointtopoliticalexposuresinthebroadsenseofthewordastheprincipal(butofcoursenotthesole)form

ofthisagitation.

Wemust“arouseineverysectionofthepopulationthatisatallenlightenedapassionforpoliticalexposure,”Iwroteinmyarticle“WheretoBegin?”(Iskra,No.4,May1901),withwhichIshalldealingreaterdetaillater.

“Wemustnotallowourselvestobediscouragedbythefactthatthevoiceofpoliticalexposureisstillfeeble,rareandtimid.Thisisnotbecauseofageneralsubmissiontopoliticaldespotism,butbecausethosewhoareableandreadytoexposehavenotribunefromwhichtospeak,becausethereisnoaudiencetolisteneagerlytoandapproveofwhattheoratorssay,andbecausethelatterdonotseeanywhereamongthepeopleforcestowhomitwouldbeworthwhiledirectingtheircomplaintagainstthe‘omnipotent’Russiangovernment....Wearenowinaposition,anditisourduty,tosetupatribuneforthenationalexposureofthetsaristgovernment.ThattribunemustbeaSocial-Democraticpaper.”

Theidealaudienceforthesepoliticalexposuresistheworkingclass,whichisfirstandforemostinneedofuniversalandlivepoliticalknowledge,whichismostcapableofconvertingthisknowledgeintoactivestruggle,evenifitdoesnotpromise“palpableresults.”Theonlyplatformfromwhichpublicexposurescanbemadeisanall-Russiannewspaper.“Withoutapoliticalorgan,apoliticalmovementdeservingthatnameisinconceivableinmodernEurope.”InthisconnectionRussiamustundoubtedlybeincludedinmodernEurope.Thepresshaslongagobecomeapowerinourcountry,otherwisethegovernmentwouldnotspendtensofthousandsofrublestobribeit,andtosubsidizetheKatkovsandMeshcherskys.AnditisnonoveltyinautocraticRussiafortheundergroundpresstobreakthroughthewallofcensorshipandcompelthelegalandconservativepresstospeakopenlyofit.Thiswasthecaseinthe‘seventiesandeveninthe’fifties.Howmuchbroaderanddeeperarenowthestrataofthepeoplewillingtoreadtheillegalundergroundpress,andtolearnfromit“howtoliveandhowtodie,”tousetheexpressionoftheworkerwhosentalettertoIskra.(No.7.)Politicalexposuresareasmuchadeclarationofwaragainstthegovernmentaseconomicexposuresareadeclarationofwaragainsttheemployers.Andthewiderandmorepowerfulthiscampaignofexposureis,themorenumerousanddeterminedthesocialclass,whichhas

declaredwarinordertocommencethewar,willbe,thegreaterwillbethemoralsignificanceofthisdeclarationofwar.Hence,politicalexposuresinthemselvesserveasapowerfulinstrumentfordisintegratingthesystemweoppose,themeansfordivertingfromtheenemyhiscasualortemporaryallies,themeansforspreadingenmityanddistrustamongthosewhopermanentlysharepowerwiththeautocracy.

Onlyapartythatwillorganizereal,publicexposurescanbecomethevanguardoftherevolutionaryforcesinourtime.Theword“public”hasaveryprofoundmeaning.Theoverwhelmingmajorityofthenon-workingclassexposures(andinordertobecomethevanguard,wemustattractotherclasses)aresoberpoliticiansandcoolbusinessmen.Theyknowperfectlywellhowdangerousitisto“complain”evenagainstaminorofficial,letaloneagainstthe“omnipotent”Russiangovernment.Andtheywillcometouswiththeircomplaintsonlywhentheyseethatthesecomplaintsreallyhaveeffect,andwhentheyseethatwerepresentapoliticalforce.Inordertobecomethispoliticalforceintheeyesofoutsiders,muchpersistentandstubbornworkisrequiredtoraiseourownconsciousness,initiativeandenergy.Forthis,itisnotsufficienttostickthelabel“vanguard”onrearguardtheoryandpractice.

Butifwehavetoundertaketheorganizationofthereal,publicexposureofthegovernment,inwhatwaywilltheclasscharacterofourmovementbeexpressed?—theover-zealousadvocatesof“closeorganiccontactwiththeproletarianstruggle”willaskus.Thereplyis:inthatweSocial-Democratswillorganizethesepublicexposures;inthatallthequestionsthatarebroughtupbytheagitationwillbeexplainedinthespiritofSocial-Democracy,withoutanyconcessionstodeliberateorunconsciousdistortionsofMarxism:inthefactthatthePartywillcarryonthisuniversalpoliticalagitation,unitingintooneinseparablewholethepressureuponthegovernmentinthenameofthewholepeople,therevolutionarytrainingoftheproletariat—whilepreservingitspoliticalindependence—theguidanceoftheeconomicstruggleoftheworkingclass,theutilizationofallitsspontaneousconflictswithitsexploiters,whichrouseandbringintoourcampincreasingnumbersoftheproletariat.

ButoneofthecharacteristicfeaturesofEconomismisitsfailuretounderstandthisconnection.Morethanthat—itfailstounderstandtheidentityofthemostpressingneedsoftheproletariat(anall-sidedpoliticaleducationthroughthemediumofpoliticalagitationandpoliticalexposures)withtheneedsofthegeneraldemocraticmovement.Thislackofunderstandingisnotonlyexpressedin“Martynovist”phrases,butalsointhereferencetotheclass

pointofviewwhichisidenticalinmeaningwiththesephrases.Thefollowing,forexample,ishowtheauthorsofthe“economic”letterinNo.12ofIskraexpressedthemselves.83

“Thisfundamentaldrawback[overestimatingideology]isthecauseofIskra’sinconsistencyinregardtothequestionoftherelationsbetweenSocial-Democratsandvarioussocialclassesandtendencies.Byaprocessoftheoreticalreasoning[andnotby‘thegrowthofPartytaskswhichgrowtogetherwiththeParty’],Iskraarrivedattheconclusionthatitwasnecessaryimmediatelytotakeupthestruggleagainstabsolutism,butinallprobabilitysensingthedifficultyofthistaskfortheworkersinthepresentstateofaffairs[notonlysensing,butknowingperfectlywellthatthisproblemwouldseemlessdifficulttotheworkersthantothoseEconomistintellectualswhoareconcernedaboutlittlechildren,fortheworkersarepreparedtofightevenfordemandswhich,tousethelanguageofthenever-to-be-forgottenMartynov,donot‘promisepalpableresults’]...andlackingthepatiencetowaituntiltheworkingclasshasaccumulatedforcesforthisstruggle,Iskrabeginstoseekforalliesintheranksoftheliberalsandintelligentsia.”

Yes,yes,wehaveindeedlostall“patience”to“wait”fortheblessedtimethathaslongbeenpromisedusbythe“conciliators,”whentheEconomistswillstopthrowingtheblamefortheirownbackwardnessupontheworkers,andstopjustifyingtheirownlackofenergybytheallegedlackofforcesamongtheworkers.WeaskourEconomists:whatdoes“theworkingclassaccumulatingforcesforthisstruggle”mean?Isitnotevidentthatitmeansthepoliticaltrainingoftheworkers,revealingtothemalltheaspectsofourdespicableautocracy?Andisitnotclearthatpreciselyforthisworkweneed“alliesintheranksoftheliberalsandintelligentsia,”whoarepreparedtojoinusintheexposureofthepoliticalattackontheZemstvo,ontheteachers,onthestatisticians,onthestudents,etc.?Isthis“cunningmechanism”sodifficulttounderstandafterall?HasnotP.B.Axelrodrepeatedtoyouoverandoveragainsince1897:“TheproblemoftheRussianSocial-Democratsacquiringdirectandindirectalliesamongthenon-proletarianclasseswillbesolvedprincipallybythecharacterofthepropagandistactivitiesconductedamongtheproletariat

itself”?AndMartynovandtheotherEconomistscontinuetoimaginethattheworkersmustfirstaccumulateforces(fortradeunionpolitics)“intheeconomicstruggleagainsttheemployersandthegovernment,”andthen“goover”(wesupposefromtradeunion“trainingforactivity”)toSocial-Democraticactivity.

“...Initsquest,”continuetheEconomists,“Iskranotinfrequentlydepartsfromtheclasspointofview,obscuresclassantagonismsandputsintotheforefrontthegeneralcharacteroftheprevailingdiscontentwiththegovernment,notwithstandingthefactthatthecausesandthedegreeofhisdiscontentvaryveryconsiderablyamongthe‘allies.’Such,forexample,isIskra’sattitudetowardstheZemstvo....”

Iskra,itisalleged,“promisesthenobility,whoarediscontentedwiththegovernment’sdoles,theaidoftheworkingclass,butdoesnotsayawordabouttheclassdifferencesamongthesestrataofthepeople.”Ifthereaderwillturntotheseriesofarticles“TheAutocracyandtheZemstvo”(Nos.2and4ofIskra),towhich,inallprobability,theauthoroftheletterrefers,hewillfindthatthesearticles84dealwiththeattitudeofthegovernmenttowardsthe“mildagitationofthefeudal-bureaucraticZemstvo,”andtowardsthe“independentactivityofeventhepropertiedclasses.”InthesearticlesitisstatedthattheworkerscannotlookonindifferentlywhilethegovernmentiscarryingonafightagainsttheZemstvo,andthelatterarecalledupontogiveupmakingsoftspeeches,andtospeakfirmlyandresolutelywhenrevolutionarySocial-Democracyconfrontsthegovernmentinallitsstrength.Whatthereisinthisthattheauthorsoftheletterdonotagreewithisnotclear.Dotheythinkthattheworkerswill“notunderstand”thephrases“propertiedclasses”and“feudal-bureaucraticZemstvo”?DotheythinkthatstimulatingtheZemstvotoabandonsoftspeechesandtospeakfirmlyandresolutelyis“overestimatingideology”?Dotheyimaginethattheworkerscanaccumulate“forces”forthefightagainstabsolutismiftheyknownothingabouttheattitudeofabsolutismtowardstheZemstvo?Allthisremainsunknown.OnethingaloneisclearandthatisthattheauthorsoftheletterhaveaveryvagueideaofwhatthepoliticaltasksofSocial-Democracyare.Thisisrevealedstillmoreclearlybytheirremark:“Suchalso[i.e.,also‘obscuresclassantagonism’]isIskra’sattitudetowardsthestudentmovement.”Insteadofcallingupontheworkerstodeclareby

meansofpublicdemonstrationsthattherealcenterofunbridledviolenceandoutrageisnotthestudentsbuttheRussiangovernment(Iskra,No.2),weshould,nodoubt,haveinsertedargumentsinthespiritofRabochayaMysl.AndsuchideaswereexpressedbySocial-Democratsintheautumnof1901,aftertheeventsofFebruaryandMarch,ontheeveofafreshrevivalofthestudentmovement,whichrevealedthateveninthisspherethe“spontaneous”protestagainsttheautocracyis“outstripping”theconsciousSocial-Democraticleadershipofthemovement.ThespontaneousstrivingoftheworkerstodefendthestudentswhowerebeatenupbythepoliceandtheCossacksisoutstrippingtheconsciousactivityoftheSocial-Democraticorganizations.

“Andyetinotherarticles,”continuetheauthorsoftheletter,“Iskracondemnsallcompromises,anddefends,forexample,theintolerantconductoftheGuesdists.”WewouldadvisethosewhousuallysoconceitedlyandfrivolouslydeclareinconnectionwiththedisagreementsexistingamongthecontemporarySocial-Democratsthatthedisagreementsareunimportantandwouldnotjustifyasplit,toponderverydeeplyoverthesewords.Isitpossibleforthosewhosaythatwehavedoneastonishinglylittletoexplainthehostilityoftheautocracytowardsthevariousclasses,andtoinformtheworkersoftheoppositionofthevariousstrataofthepopulationtowardsautocracy,toworksuccessfullyinthesameorganizationwiththosewhosaythatsuchworkis“compromise”—evidentlycompromisewiththetheoryofthe“economicstruggleagainsttheemployersandthegovernment”?

Weurgedthenecessityofintroducingtheclassstruggleintheruraldistrictsontheoccasionofthefortiethanniversaryoftheemancipationofthepeasantry(No.3)andspokeoftheirreconcilabilitybetweenthelocalgovernmentbodiesandtheautocracyinconnectionwithWitte’ssecretmemorandum.(No.4.)Weattackedthefeudallandlordsandthegovernmentwhichservedthelatterontheoccasionofthepassingofthenewlaw(No.8),andwelcomedtheillegalZemstvocongressthatwasheld.WeurgedtheZemstvotostopmakingdegradingpetitions(No.8),andtocomeoutandfight.Weencouragedthestudents,whohadbeguntounderstandtheneedforthepoliticalstruggleandtotakeupthatstruggle(No.3)and,atthesametime,welashedoutatthe“barbarouslackofunderstanding”revealedbytheadherentsofthe“purelystudent”movement,whocalleduponthestudentstoabstainfromtakingpartinthestreetdemonstrations(No.3,inconnectionwiththemanifestoissuedbytheexecutivecommitteeoftheMoscowstudentsonFebruary25).Weexposedthe“senselessdreams”andthe“lyinghypocrisy”ofthecunningliberalsofRossiya(No.5)andatthesametimewecommentedonthefurywithwhich

“peacefulwriters,agedprofessors,scientistsandwell-knownliberalZemstvo-istswerehandledinthegovernment’smentaldungeons.”(No.5,“APoliceRaidonLiterature.”)Weexposedtherealsignificanceoftheprogramof“stateconcernforthewelfareoftheworkers,”andwelcomedthe“valuableadmission”that“itisbetterbygrantingreformsfromabovetoforestallthedemandforsuchreformsfrombelow,thantowaitforthosedemandstobeputforward.”(No.6.)Weencouragedtheprotestsofthestatisticians(No.7),andcensuredthestrike-breakingstatisticians.(No.9.)HewhoseesinthesetacticstheobscuringoftheclassconsciousnessoftheproletariatandcompromisewithliberalismshowsthatheabsolutelyfailstounderstandthetruesignificanceoftheprogramoftheCredoandiscarryingoutthatprogramdefacto,howevermuchhemaydenythis!BecausebythathedragsSocial-Democracytowardsthe“economicstruggleagainsttheemployersandthegovernment”butyieldstoliberalism,abandonsthetaskofactivelyinterveninginevery“liberal”questionandofdefininghisownSocial-Democraticattitudetowardssuchquestions.

F.AGAIN“SLANDERERS.”AGAIN“MYSTIFIERS”ThesepoliteexpressionswereutteredbyRabocheyeDyelowhichinthisway

answersourchargethatit“indirectlypreparedthegroundforconvertingthelabormovementintoaninstrumentofbourgeoisdemocracy.”InitssimplicityofheartRabocheyeDyelodecidedthatthisaccusationwasnothingmorethanapolemicalsally,asiftosay,thesemaliciousdoctrinairescanonlythinkofsayingunpleasantthingsaboutus;nowwhatcanbemoreunpleasantthanbeinganinstrumentofbourgeoisdemocracy?Andsotheyprintinheavytypea“refutation”:“nothingbutdownrightslander”(TwoCongresses),“mystification,”“masquerade.”LikeJupiter,RabocheyeDyelo(althoughithaslittleresemblancetoJupiter)isangrybecauseitiswrong,andprovesbyitshastyabusethatitisincapableofunderstandingitsopponents’modeofreasoning.Andyet,withonlyalittlereflectionitwouldhaveunderstoodwhyallsubserviencetothespontaneityofthemassmovementandanydegradingofSocial-Democraticpoliticstotradeunionpoliticsmeanpreciselypreparingthegroundforconvertingthelabormovementintoaninstrumentofbourgeoisdemocracy.Thespontaneouslabormovementbyitselfisabletocreate(andinevitablywillcreate)onlytradeunionism,andworkingclasstradeunionpoliticsarepreciselyworkingclassbourgeoispolitics.ThefactthattheworkingclassparticipatesinthepoliticalstruggleandeveninpoliticalrevolutiondoesnotinitselfmakeitspoliticsSocial-Democraticpolitics.

RabocheyeDyeloimaginesthatbourgeoisdemocracyinRussiaismerelya“phantom.”85(TwoCongresses.)Happypeople!Liketheostrich,theyburytheirheadsinthesand,andimaginethateverythingaroundhasdisappeared.AnumberofliberalpublicistswhomonthaftermonthproclaimedtotheworldtheirtriumphoverthecollapseandevendisappearanceofMarxism;anumberofliberalnewspapers(S.PeterburgskiyeVyedomosti,RusskiyeVyedomostiandmanyothers)whichencouragedtheliberalswhobringtotheworkerstheBrentanoconceptionoftheclassstruggleandthetradeunionconceptionofpolitics;thegalaxyofcriticsofMarxism,whoserealtendenciesweresoverywelldisclosedbytheCredoandwhoseliteraryproductsalonecirculatefreelyinRussia;theanimationamongrevolutionarynon-Social-Democratictendencies,particularlyaftertheFebruaryandMarchevents—allthese,ofcourse,aremerephantoms!Allthese,ofcourse,havenothingatalltodowithbourgeoisdemocracy!

RabocheyeDyeloandtheauthorsoftheeconomicletterpublishedinIskra,No.12,should“ponderoverthereasonwhytheeventsinthespringexcitedsuchanimationamongtherevolutionarynon-Social-DemocratictendenciesinsteadofincreasingtheauthorityandtheprestigeofSocial-Democracy.”Thereasonwasthatwefailedtocopewithourtasks.Themassesoftheworkersprovedtobemoreactivethanwe;welackedadequatelytrainedrevolutionaryleadersandorganizersawareofthemoodprevailingamongalltheoppositionstrataandabletomarchattheheadofthemovement,convertthespontaneousdemonstrationsintoapoliticaldemonstration,broadenitspoliticalcharacter,etc.Undersuchcircumstances,ourbackwardnesswillinevitablybeutilizedbythemoremobileandmoreenergeticnon-Social-Democraticrevolutionaries,andtheworkers,nomatterhowstrenuouslyandself-sacrificinglytheymayfightthepoliceandthetroops,nomatterhowrevolutionarytheymayact,willprovetobemerelyaforcesupportingtheserevolutionaries,therearguardofbourgeoisdemocracy,andnottheSocial-Democraticvanguard.Take,forexample,theGermanSocial-Democrats,whoseweaksidesaloneourEconomistsdesiretoemulate.WhyisitthatnotasinglepoliticaleventtakesplaceinGermanywithoutaddingtotheauthorityandprestigeofSocial-Democracy?BecauseSocial-Democracyisalwaysfoundtobeinadvanceofallothersinitsrevolutionaryestimationofeveryeventandinitschampionshipofeveryprotestagainsttyranny.Itdoesnotsootheitselfbyargumentsabouttheeconomicstrugglebringingtheworkersupagainsttheirownlackofrights,andaboutconcreteconditionsfatalisticallyimpellingthelabormovementontothepathofrevolution.Itintervenesineverysphereand

ineveryquestionofsocialandpoliticallife:inthematterofWilhelm’srefusaltoendorseabourgeoisprogressiveascitymayor(ourEconomistshavenotyetmanagedtoconvincetheGermansthatthisinfactisacompromisewithliberalism!);inthequestionofthelawagainstthepublicationof“immoral”publicationsandpictures;inthequestionofthegovernmentinfluencingtheelectionofprofessors,etc.,etc.EverywhereSocial-Democracyisfoundtobeaheadofallothers,rousingpoliticaldiscontentamongallclasses,rousingthesluggards,pushingonthelaggardsandprovidingawealthofmaterialforthedevelopmentofthepoliticalconsciousnessandpoliticalactivityoftheproletariat.Theresultofallthisisthateventheavowedenemiesofsocialismarefilledwithrespectforthisadvancedpoliticalfighter,andsometimesanimportantdocumentfrombourgeoisandevenfrombureaucraticandCourtcirclesmakesitswaybysomemiraculousmeansintotheeditorialofficeofVorwärts.

IV

THEPRIMITIVENESSOFTHEECONOMISTSANDTHEORGANIZATIONOFREVOLUTIONARIESRabocheyeDyelo’sassertions—whichwehaveanalyzed—thattheeconomic

struggleisthemostwidelyapplicablemeansofpoliticalagitationandthatourtasknowistogivetheeconomicstruggleitselfapoliticalcharacter,etc.,notonlyexpressanarrowviewofourpoliticaltasks,butalsoofourorganizationaltasks.The“economicstruggleagainsttheemployersandthegovernment”doesnotintheleastrequire—andthereforesuchastrugglecannevergiveriseto—anall-Russiancentralizedorganizationthatwillcombine,inageneralattack,allthenumerousmanifestationsofpoliticalopposition,protestandindignation,anorganizationthatwillconsistofprofessionalrevolutionariesandbeledbytherealpoliticalleadersofthewholeofthepeople.Andthiscanbeeasilyunderstood.Thecharacteroftheorganizationofeveryinstitutionisnaturallyandinevitablydeterminedbythecharacteroftheactivitythatinstitutionconducts.Consequently,RabocheyeDyelo,bytheabove-analyzedassertions,notonlysanctifiesandlegitimatizesthenarrownessofpoliticalactivity,butalsothenarrownessoforganizationalwork.Andinthiscasealso,asalways,itisanorganwhoseconsciousnessyieldstospontaneity.Andyetsubserviencetospontaneouslyrisingformsoforganization,thelackofappreciationofthenarrownessandprimitivenessofourorganizationalwork,ofthedegreetowhichwestillworkby“kustarmethods”inthismostimportantsphere,thelackofsuchappreciation,Isay,isaveryseriouscomplaintfromwhichourmovementsuffers.Itisnotacomplaintthatcomeswithdecline,ofcourse,itisacomplaintthatcomeswithgrowth.Butitispreciselyatthepresenttime,whenthewaveofspontaneousindignationis,asitwere,washingoverus,leadersandorganizersofthemovement,thatamostirreconcilablestrugglemustbewagedagainstalldefenseofsluggishness,againstanylegitimizationofrestrictioninthismatter,anditisparticularlynecessarytorouseinallthoseparticipatinginthepracticalwork,inallwho

arejustthinkingoftakingitup,discontentwiththeprimitivemethodsthatprevailamongusandanunshakabledeterminationtogetridofthem.

A.WHATAREPRIMITIVEMETHODS?Weshalltrytoanswerthisquestionbydescribingtheactivityofatypical

Social-Democraticcircleoftheperiodof1894-1901.WehavealreadyreferredtothemannerinwhichthestudentsbecameabsorbedinMarxismatthatperiod.Ofcourse,thesestudentswerenotonly,orevennotsomuch,absorbedinMarxismasatheory,butasananswertothequestion:“whatistobedone?”;asacalltomarchagainsttheenemy.Andthesenewwarriorsmarchedtobattlewithastonishinglyprimitiveequipmentandtraining.Inavastnumberofcases,theyhadalmostnoequipmentandabsolutelynotraining.Theymarchedtowarlikepeasantsfromtheplough,snatchingupaclub.Astudents’circlehavingnocontactswiththeoldmembersofthemovement,nocontactswithcirclesinotherdistricts,oreveninotherpartsofthesamecity(orwithotherschools),withoutthevarioussectionsoftherevolutionaryworkbeinginanywayorganized,havingnosystematicplanofactivitycoveringanylengthoftime,establishescontactswiththeworkersandsetstowork.Thecirclegraduallyexpandsitspropagandaandagitation;byitsactivitiesitwinsthesympathiesofaratherlargecircleofworkersandofacertainsectionoftheeducatedclasses,whichprovidesitwithmoneyandfromwhichthe“committee”recruitsnewgroupsofyoungpeople.Thecharmwhichthecommittee(fortheLeagueofStruggle)exercisesontheyouthincreases,itssphereofactivitybecomeswideranditsactivitiesexpandquitespontaneously:theverypeoplewhoayearorafewmonthspreviouslyhadspokenatthegatheringsofthestudents’circleanddiscussedthequestion,“whither?”,whoestablishedandmaintainedcontactswiththeworkers,wroteandpublishedleaflets,nowestablishcontactswithothergroupsofrevolutionaries,procureliterature,settoworktoestablishalocalnewspaper,begintotalkaboutorganizingdemonstrationsand,finally,commenceopenhostilities(theseopenhostilitiesmay,accordingtocircumstances,taketheformofthepublicationoftheveryfirstagitationalleaflet,orthefirstnewspaper,oroftheorganizationofthefirstdemonstration).Andusuallythefirstactionendsinimmediateandwholesalearrests.Immediateandwholesale,preciselybecausetheseopenhostilitieswerenottheresultofasystematicandcarefullythought-outandgraduallypreparedplanforaprolongedandstubbornstruggle,butsimplytheresultofthespontaneousgrowthoftraditionalcirclework;because,naturally,thepolice,inalmosteverycase,knewtheprincipalleadersofthelocal

movement,fortheyhadalready“recommended”themselvestothepoliceintheirschooldays,andthelatteronlywaitedforaconvenientmomenttomaketheirraid.Theygavethecirclesufficienttimetodevelopitsworksothattheymightobtainapalpablecorpusdelicti,andalwaysallowedseveralofthepersonsknowntothemtoremainatlibertyinordertoactas“decoys”(which,Ibelieve,isthetechnicaltermusedbothbyourpeopleandbythegendarmes).Onecannothelpcomparingthiskindofwarfarewiththatconductedbyamobofpeasantsarmedwithclubsagainstmoderntroops.Onecanonlyexpressastonishmentatthevirilitydisplayedbythemovementwhichexpanded,grewandwonvictoriesinspiteofthetotallackoftrainingamongthefighters.Itistruethatfromthehistoricalpointofview,theprimitivenessofequipmentwasnotonlyinevitableatfirst,butevenlegitimateasoneoftheconditionsforthewiderecruitingoffighters,butassoonasseriousoperationscommenced(andtheycommencedinfactwiththestrikesinthesummerof1896),thedefectsinourfightingorganizationsmadethemselvesfelttoanincreasingdegree.Thrownintoconfusionatfirstandcommittinganumberofmistakes(forexample,itsappealtothepublicdescribingthemisdeedsoftheSocialists,orthedeportationoftheworkersfromthecapitaltotheprovincialindustrialcenters),thegovernmentverysoonadapteditselftothenewconditionsofthestruggleandmanagedtoplaceitsperfectlyequippeddetachmentsofagentsprovoca-teurs,spiesandgendarmesintherequiredplaces.Raidsbecamesofrequent,affectedsuchavastnumberofpeopleandclearedoutthelocalcirclessothoroughlythatthemassesoftheworkersliterallylostalltheirleaders,themovementassumedanincrediblysporadiccharacter,anditbecameutterlyimpossibletoestablishcontinuityandcoherenceinthework.Thefactthatthelocalactiveworkerswerehopelesslyscattered,thecasualmannerinwhichthemembershipofthecircleswasrecruited,thelackoftraininginandnarrowoutlookontheoretical,politicalandorganizationalquestionswerealltheinevitableresultoftheconditionsdescribedabove.Thingsreachedsuchapassthatinseveralplacestheworkers,becauseofourlackofstaminaandabilitytomaintainsecrecy,begantolosefaithintheintelligentsiaandtoavoidthem:theintellectuals,theysaid,aremuchtoocarelessandlaythemselvesopentopoliceraids!

AnyonewhohastheslightestknowledgeofthemovementknowsthattheseprimitivemethodsatlastbegantoberecognizedasadiseasebyallthinkingSocial-Democrats.Andinorderthatthereaderwhoisnotacquaintedwiththemovementmayhavenogroundsforthinkingthatweare“inventing”aspecialstageorspecialdiseaseofthemovement,weshallreferonceagaintothe

witnesswehavealreadyquoted.Nodoubtweshallbeexcusedforthelengthofthepassagequoted:

“Whilethegradualtransitiontowiderpracticalactivity,”writesB———vinRabocheyeDyelo,No.6,“atransitionwhichiscloselyconnectedwiththegeneraltransitionalperiodthroughwhichtheRussianlabormovementisnowpassing,isacharacteristicfeature...thereis,however,anotherandnotlessinterestingfeatureinthegeneralmechanismoftheRussianworkers’revolution.Werefertothegenerallackofrevolutionaryforcesfitforaction86whichisfeltnotonlyinSt.Petersburg,butthroughoutthewholeofRussia.Withthegeneralrevivalofthelabormovement,withthegeneraldevelopmentoftheworkingmasses,withthegrowingfrequencyofstrikes,andwiththemasslaborstrugglebecomingmoreandmoreopen,whichintensifiesgovernmentpersecution,arrests,deportationandexile,thislackofhighlyskilledrevolutionaryforcesisbecomingmoreandmoremarkedand,withoutadoubt,mustaffectthedepthandthegeneralcharacterofthemovement.Manystrikestakeplacewithouttherevolutionaryorganizationsexercisinganystronganddirectinfluenceuponthem....Ashortageofagitationalleafletsandillegalliteratureisfelt....Theworkers’circlesareleftwithoutagitators....Simultaneously,thereisaconstantshortageoffunds.Inaword,thegrowthofthelabormovementisoutstrippingthegrowthanddevelopmentoftherevolutionaryorganizations.Thenumericalstrengthoftheactiverevolutionariesistoosmalltoenablethemtoconcentrateintheirownhandsalltheinfluenceexerciseduponthewholemassoflabornowinastateofunrest,ortogivethisunrestevenashadowofsymmetryandorganization....Separatecircles,individualrevolutionaries,scattered,uncombined,donotrepresentaunited,stronganddisciplinedorganizationwiththeplanneddevelopmentofitsparts....”

Admittingthattheimmediateorganizationoffreshcirclestotaketheplaceofthosethathavebeenbrokenup“merelyprovesthevirilityofthemovement...butdoesnotprovetheexistenceofanadequatenumberofsufficientlyfitrevolutionaryworkers,”theauthorconcludes:

“ThelackofpracticaltrainingamongtheSt.Petersburgrevolutionariesisseenintheresultsoftheirwork.Therecenttrials,especiallythatoftheSelf-EmancipationgroupandtheLaborversusCapitalgroup,clearlyshowedthattheyoungagitator,unacquaintedwiththedetailsoftheconditionsoflaborand,consequently,unacquaintedwiththeconditionsunderwhichagitationmustbecarriedoninagivenfactory,ignorantoftheprinciplesofconspiracy,andunderstandingonlythegeneralprinciplesofSocial-Democracy[anditisquestionablewhetherheunderstandsthem]isabletocarryonhisworkforperhapsfour,fiveorsixmonths.Thencomearrests,whichfrequentlyleadtothebreak-upofthewholeorganization,oratallevents,ofpartofit.Thequestionarises,therefore,canthegroupconductsuccessfulandfruitfulactivityifitsexistenceismeasuredbymonths?Obviously,thedefectsoftheexistingorganizationscannotbewhollyascribedtothetransitionalperiod....Obviously,thenumericalandaboveallthequalitativestrengthoftheorganizationsoperatingisnotoflittleimportance,andthefirsttaskourSocial-Democratsmustundertakeiseffectivelytocombinetheorganizationsandmakeastrictselectionoftheirmembership.”

B.PRIMITIVEMETHODSANDECONOMISMWemustnowdealwiththequestionthathasundoubtedlyariseninthemind

ofeveryreader.Havetheseprimitivemethods,whichareacomplaintofgrowthaffectingthewholeofthemovement,anyconnectionwithEconomism,whichisonlyoneofthetendenciesinRussianSocial-Democracy?Wethinkthattheyhave.Thelackofpracticaltraining,thelackofabilitytocarryonorganizationalworkiscertainlycommontousall,includingthosewhohavestoodunswervinglybythepointofviewofrevolutionaryMarxismfromtheveryoutset.And,ofcourse,noonecanblamethepracticalworkersfortheirlackofpracticaltraining.Buttheterm“primitivemethods”embracessomethingmorethanmerelackoftraining:itmeanstherestrictednessofrevolutionaryworkgenerally,thefailuretounderstandthatagoodorganizationofrevolutionariescannotbebuiltuponthebasisofsuchrestrictedwork,andlastly—andmostimportant—itmeanstheattemptsto

justifythisrestrictednessandtoelevateittoaspecial“theory,”i.e.,subserviencetospontaneityinthismatteralso.Assoonassuchattemptswereobserved,itbecamecertainthatprimitivemethodsareconnectedwithEconomismandthatweshallnevereliminatethisrestrictednessofourorganizationalactivityuntilweeliminateEconomismgenerally(i.e.,thenarrowconceptionofMarxiantheory,oftheroleofSocial-Democracyandofitspoliticaltasks).Andtheseattemptswererevealedinatwofolddirection.Somebegantosay:thelabormassesthemselveshavenotyetbroughtforwardthebroadandmilitanttasksthattherevolutionariesdesireto“impose”uponthem;theymustcontinueforthetimebeingtofightforimmediatepoliticaldemands,toconduct“theeconomicstruggleagainsttheemployersandthegovernment”87(and,naturally,correspondingtothisstrugglewhichis“easilyunderstood”bythemassmovementtheremustbeanorganizationthatwillbe“easilyunderstood”bythemostuntrainedyouth).Others,farremovedfrom“gradualness,”begantosay:itispossibleandnecessaryto“bringaboutapoliticalrevolution,”butthisisnoreasonwhateverforbuildingastrongorganizationofrevolutionariestotraintheproletariatinthesteadfastandstubbornstruggle.Allweneeddoistosnatchupouroldfriend,the“handy”woodenclub.Speakingwithoutmetaphoritmeans—wemustorganizeageneralstrike,88orwemuststimulatethe“spiritless”progressofthelabormovementbymeansof“excitativeterror.”89Boththesetendencies,theopportunistandthe“revolutionary,”bowtotheprevailingprimitiveness;neitherbelievesthatitcanbeeliminated,neitherunderstandsourprimaryandmostimperativepracticaltask,namely,toestablishanorganizationofrevolutionariescapableofmaintainingtheenergy,thestabilityandcontinuityofthepoliticalstruggle.

WehavejustquotedthewordsofB——v:“Thegrowthofthelabormovementisoutstrippingthegrowthanddevelopmentoftherevolutionaryorganizations.”This“valuableremarkofacloseobserver”(RabocheyeDyelo’scommentonB——v’sarticle)hasatwofoldvalueforus.ItprovesthatwewererightinouropinionthattheprincipalcauseofthepresentcrisisinRussianSocial-Democracyisthattheleaders(“ideologists,”revolutionaries,Social-Democrats)lagbehindthespontaneousrisingofthemasses.ItshowsthatalltheargumentsadvancedbytheauthorsoftheEconomistletterinIskra,No.12,byB.KrichevskyandbyMartynov,aboutthedangersofbelittlingthesignificanceofthespontaneouselements,aboutthedrabevery-daystruggle,aboutthetactics-process,etc.,arenothingmorethanaglorificationanddefenseofprimitivemethods.Thesepeoplewhocannotpronouncetheword

“theoretician”withoutacontemptuousgrimace,whodescribetheirgenuflectionstocommonlackoftrainingandignoranceas“sensitivenesstolife,”revealinpracticeafailuretounderstandourmostimperativepracticaltask.Tolaggardstheyshout:Keepinstep!Don’trunahead!Topeoplesufferingfromalackofenergyandinitiativeinorganizationalwork,fromlackof“plans”forwideandboldorganizationalwork,theyshoutaboutthe“tactics-process”!Themostserioussinwecommitisthatwedegradeourpoliticalandorganizationaltaskstotheleveloftheimmediate,“palpable,”“concrete”interestsoftheevery-dayeconomicstruggle;andyettheykeepsingingtoustheoldsong:givetheeconomicstruggleitselfapoliticalcharacter.Wesayagain:thiskindofthingdisplaysasmuch“sensitivenesstolife”aswasdisplayedbytheherointhepopularfablewhoshoutedtoapassingfuneralprocession:manyhappyreturnsoftheday!

Recallthematchless,truly“Narcissus”-likesuperciliousnesswithwhichthesewiseacreslecturedPlekhanovaboutthe“workers’circlesgenerally”(sic!)being“incapableoffulfillingpoliticaltasksintherealandpracticalsenseoftheword,i.e.,inthesenseoftheexpedientandsuccessfulpracticalstruggleforpoliticaldemands.”(RabocheyeDyelo’sReply,p.24.)Therearecirclesandcircles,gentlemen!Circlesof“kustars,”ofcourse,arenotcapableoffulfillingpoliticaltasksandneverwillbe,untiltheyrealizetheprimitivenessoftheirmethodsandabandonit.If,besidesthis,theseamateursareenamoredoftheirprimitivemethods,andinsistonwritingtheword“practical”initalics,andimaginethatbeingpracticaldemandsthatone’stasksbedegradedtothelevelofunderstandingofthemostbackwardstrataofthemasses,thentheyarehopeless,ofcourse,andcertainlycannotfulfilgeneralapoliticaltasks.ButcirclesofheroeslikeAlexeyevandMyshkin,KhalturinandZhelyabovareabletofulfilpoliticaltasksinthegenuineandmostpracticalsenseofthetermbecausetheirpassionatepreachingmeetswithresponseamongthespontaneouslyawakenedmasses,becausetheirseethingenergyrousesacorrespondingandsustainedenergyamongtherevolutionaryclass.Plekhanovwasathousandtimesrightnotonlywhenhepointedtothisrevolutionaryclass,notonlywhenheprovedthatitsspontaneousawakeningwasinevitable,butalsowhenhesetthe“workers’circles”agreatandloftypoliticaltask.Butyourefertothemassmovementthathassprungupsincethattimeinordertodegradethistask,inordertocurtailtheenergyandscopeofactivityofthe“workers’circles.”Ifyouarenotamateursenamoredofyourprimitivemethods,whatareyouthen?Youboastthatyouarepractical,butyoufailtoseewhateveryRussianpracticalworkerknows,namely,themiracles

thattheenergy,notonlyofcircles,butevenofindividualpersonsisabletoperformintherevolutionarycause.Ordoyouthinkthatourmovementscannotproduceheroeslikethosethatwereproducedbythemovementinthe’seventies?Ifso,whydoyouthinkso?Becausewelacktraining?Butwearetrainingourselves,willtrainourselves,andwewillbetrained!Unfortunatelyitistruethatscumhasformedonthesurfaceofthestagnantwatersofthe“economicstruggleagainsttheemployersandthegovernment”;therearepeopleamonguswhokneelinprayertospontaneity,gazingwithaweuponthe“posteriors”oftheRussianproletariat(asPlekhanovexpressesit).Butwewillridourselvesofthisscum.ThetimehascomewhenRussianrevolutionaries,ledbyagenuinelyrevolutionarytheory,relyinguponthegenuinelyrevolutionaryandspontaneouslyawakeningclass,canatlast—atlast!—risetotheirfullheightandexerttheirgiantstrengthtotheutmost.Allthatisrequiredinorderthatthismaybesoisthatthemassesofourpracticalworkers,andthestilllargermassesofthosewhodreamofdoingpracticalworkevenwhilestillatschool,shallmeetwithscornandridiculeanysuggestionthatmaybemadetodegradeourpoliticaltasksandtorestrictthescopeofourorganizationalwork.Andweshallachievethat,don’tyouworry,gentlemen!...

Butifthereaderwishestoseethepearlsof“Economist”passionforprimitivemethods,hemust,ofcourse,turnfromtheeclecticandvacillatingRabocheyeDyelototheconsistentanddeterminedRabochayaMysl.InitsSpecialSupplement,R.M.wrote:

“Nowtwowordsabouttheso-calledrevolutionaryintelligentsiaproper.Itistruethatonmorethanoneoccasionitprovedthatitwasquitepreparedto‘enterintodeterminedbattlewithtsarism!’Theunfortunatething,however,isthat,ruthlesslypersecutedbythepoliticalpolice,ourrevolutionaryintelligentsiaimaginedthatthestrugglewiththispoliticalpolicewasthepoliticalstrugglewiththeautocracy.Thatiswhy,tothisday,itcannotunderstand‘wheretheforcesforthefightagainsttheautocracyaretobeobtained.’”

Whatmatchlessandmagnificentcontemptforthestrugglewiththepolicethisworshipper(intheworstsenseoftheword)ofthespontaneousmovementdisplays,doeshenot?Heispreparedtojustifyourinabilitytoorganizesecretlybytheargumentthatwiththespontaneousgrowthofthemass

movement,itisnotatallimportantforustofightagainstthepoliticalpolice!!Notmanywouldagreetosubscribetothismonstrousconclusion;ourdefectsinrevolutionaryorganizationhavebecometoourgentamattertopermitthemtodothat.AndifMartynovwouldrefusetosubscribetoit,itwouldonlybebecauseheisunable,orlacksthecourage,tothinkouthisideastotheirlogicalconclusion.Indeed,doesthe“task”ofpromptingthemassestoputforwardconcretedemandspromisingpalpableresultscallforspecialeffortstocreateastable,centralized,militantorganizationofrevolutionaries?Cannotsucha“task”becarriedoutevenbymasseswhodonot“strugglewiththepoliticalpolice”?Moreover,canthistaskbefulfilledunless,inadditiontothefewleaders,itisundertakenbytheworkers(theoverwhelmingmajority),whoinfactareincapableof“fightingagainstthepoliticalpolice”?Suchworkers,averagepeopleofthemasses,arecapableofdisplayingenormousenergyandself-sacrificeinstrikesandinstreetbattleswiththepoliceandtroops,andarecapable(infact,arealonecapable)ofdeterminingthewholeoutcomeofourmovement—butthestruggleagainstthepoliticalpolicerequiresspecialqualities;itrequiresprofessionalrevolutionaries.Andwemustnotonlyseetoitthatthemasses“advance”concretedemands,butalsothatthemassesoftheworkers“advance”anincreasingnumberofsuchprofessionalrevolutionariesfromtheirownranks.Thuswehavereachedthequestionoftherelationbetweenanorganizationofprofessionalrevolutionariesandthepureandsimplelabormovement.Althoughthisquestionhasfoundlittlereflectioninliterature,ithasgreatlyengagedus“politicians”inconversationsandcontroversieswiththosecomradeswhogravitatemoreorlesstowardsEconomism.Itisaquestionthatdeservesspecialtreatment.ButbeforetakingitupweshalldealwithoneotherquotationinordertoillustratethepositionweholdinregardtotheconnectionbetweenprimitivenessandEconomism.

InhisReply,N.N.wrote:“TheEmancipationofLaborgroupdemandsdirectstruggleagainstthegovernmentwithoutfirstconsideringwherethematerialforcesforthisstrugglearetobeobtained,andwithoutindicating‘thepathofthestruggle.’”Emphasizingthelastwords,theauthoraddsthefollowingfootnotetotheword“path”:“Thiscannotbeexplainedbytheconspiratorialaimspursued,becausetheprogramdoesnotrefertosecretplottingbuttoamassmovement.Themassescannotproceedbysecretpaths.Canweconceiveofasecretstrike?Canweconceiveofsecretdemonstrationsandpetitions?”(Vademecum.)Thus,theauthorapproachesquitecloselytothequestionofthe“materialforces”(organizersofstrikesanddemonstrations)andtothe“paths”ofthestruggle,but,nevertheless,isstillinastateofconsternation,becausehe

“worships”themassmovement,i.e.,heregardsitassomethingthatrelievesusofthenecessityofcarryingonrevolutionaryactivityandnotassomethingthatshouldemboldenusandstimulateourrevolutionaryactivity.Secretstrikesareimpossible—forthosewhotakeadirectandimmediatepartinthem,butastrikemayremain(andinthemajorityofcasesdoesremain)a“secret”tothemassesoftheRussianworkers,becausethegovernmenttakescaretocutallcommunicationbetweenstrikers,takescaretopreventallnewsofstrikesfromspreading.Nowhereindeedisaspecial“strugglewiththepoliticalpolice”required,astrugglethatcanneverbeconductedbysuchlargemassesasusuallytakepartinstrikes.Suchastrugglemustbeorganized,accordingto“alltherulesoftheart,”bypeoplewhoareprofessionallyengagedinrevolutionaryactivity.Thefactthatthemassesarespontaneouslyenteringthemovementdoesnotmaketheorganizationofthisstrugglelessnecessary.Onthecontrary,itmakesitmorenecessary;forweSocialistswouldbefailinginourdutytothemassesifwedidnotpreventthepolicefrommakingasecretof(andifwedidnotourselvessometimessecretlyprepare)everystrikeandeverydemonstration.Andweshallsucceedindoingthis,preciselybecausethespontaneouslyawakeningmasseswillalsoadvancefromtheirownranksincreasingnumbersof“professionalrevolutionaries”(thatis,ifwearenotsofoolishastoadvisetheworkerstokeeponmarkingtime).

C.ORGANIZATIONOFWORKERSANDORGANIZATIONOFREVOLUTIONARIESItisonlynaturalthataSocial-Democrat,whoconceivesthepolitical

struggleasbeingidenticalwiththe“economicstruggleagainsttheemployersandthegovernment,”shouldconceiveofan“organizationofrevolutionaries”asbeingmoreorlessidenticalwithan“organizationofworkers.”Andthis,infact,iswhatactuallyhappens;sothatwhenwetalkaboutorganization,weliterallytalkindifferenttongues.IrecallaconversationIoncehadwithafairlyconsistentEconomist,withwhomIhadnotbeenpreviouslyacquainted.WewerediscussingthepamphletWhoWillMakethePoliticalRevolution?andwewereverysoonagreedthattheprincipaldefectinthatbrochurewasthatitignoredthequestionoforganization.Wewerebeginningtothinkthatwewereincompleteagreementwitheachother—butastheconversationproceeded,itbecameclearthatweweretalkingofdifferentthings.Myinterlocutoraccusedtheauthorofthebrochurejustmentionedofignoringstrikefunds,mutualaidsocieties,etc.;whereasIhadinmindanorganizationofrevolutionariesasanessentialfactorin“making”thepoliticalrevolution.Afterthatbecameclear,I

hardlyrememberasinglequestionofimportanceuponwhichIwasinagreementwiththatEconomist!

Whatwasthesourceofourdisagreement?ThefactthatonquestionsoforganizationandpoliticstheEconomistsareforeverlapsingfromSocial-Democracyintotradeunionism.ThepoliticalstrugglecarriedonbytheSocial-Democratsisfarmoreextensiveandcomplexthantheeconomicstruggletheworkerscarryonagainsttheemployersandthegovernment.Similarly(andindeedforthatreason),theorganizationofarevolutionarySocial-DemocraticPartymustinevitablydifferfromtheorganizationsoftheworkersdesignedforthelatterstruggle.Aworkers’organizationmustinthefirstplacebeatradeorganization;secondly,itmustbeaswideaspossible;andthirdly,itmustbeaspublicasconditionswillallow(here,andfurtheron,ofcourse,IhaveonlyautocraticRussiainmind).Ontheotherhand,theorganizationsofrevolutionariesmustconsistfirstandforemostofpeoplewhoseprofessionisthatofarevolutionary(thatiswhyIspeakoforganizationsofrevolutionaries,meaningrevolutionarySocial-Democrats).Inviewofthiscomingfeatureofthemembersofsuchanorganization,alldistinctionsasbetweenworkersandintellectuals,andcertainlydistinctionsoftradeandprofession,mustbeobliterated.Suchanorganizationmustofnecessitybenottooextensiveandassecretaspossible.Letusexaminethisthreefolddistinction.

Incountrieswherepoliticallibertyexiststhedistinctionbetweenatradeunionandapoliticalorganizationisclear,asisthedistinctionbetweentradeunionsandSocial-Democracy.Therelationofthelattertotheformerwillnaturallyvaryineachcountryaccordingtohistorical,legalandotherconditions—itmaybemoreorlesscloseormoreorlesscomplex(inouropinionitshouldbeascloseandsimpleaspossible);buttradeunionorganizationsarecertainlynotintheleastidenticalwiththeSocial-DemocraticPartyorganizationinfreecountries.InRussia,however,theyokeofautocracyappearsatfirstglancetoobliteratealldistinctionsbetweenaSocial-Democraticorganizationandtradeunions,becauseallworkers’associationsandallcirclesareprohibited,andbecausetheprincipalmanifestationandweaponoftheworkers’economicstruggle—thestrike—isregardedasacriminaloffense(andsometimesevenasapoliticaloffense!).Conditionsinourcountry,therefore,strongly“impel”theworkerswhoareconductingtheeconomicstruggletoconcernthemselveswithpoliticalquestions.Theyalso“impel”theSocial-DemocratstoconfusetradeunionismwithSocial-Democracy(andourKrichevskys,Martynovsandtheirlike,whilespeaking

enthusiasticallyofthefirstkindof“impelling,”failtoobservethe“impelling”ofthesecondkind).Indeed,picturetoyourselvesthepeoplewhoareimmersedninety-ninepercentin“theeconomicstruggleagainsttheemployersandthegovernment.”Someofthemhavenever,duringthewholecourseoftheiractivity(fourtosixmonths),thoughtoftheneedforamorecomplexorganizationofrevolutionaries;others,perhaps,comeacrossthefairlywidelydistributedBernsteinianliterature,fromwhichtheybecomeconvincedoftheprofoundimportanceoftheforwardmarchof“thedrabevery-daystruggle.”Stillothersarecarriedaway,perhaps,bytheseductiveideaofshowingtheworldanewexampleof“closeandorganiccontactwiththeproletarianstruggle”—contactbetweenthetradeunionandSocial-Democraticmovements.Suchpeoplewouldperhapsarguethatthelateracountryentersintothearenaofcapitalismand,consequently,ofthelabormovement,themoretheSocialistsinthatcountrymaytakepartin,andsupport,thetradeunionmovement,andthelessreasonistherefornon-Social-Democratictradeunions.Sofar,theargumentisabsolutelycorrect;unfortunately,however,somegobeyondthatandhintatthecompletefusionofSocial-Democracywithtradeunionism.Weshallsoonsee,fromtheexampleoftherulesoftheSt.PetersburgLeagueofStruggle,whataharmfuleffectthesedreamshaveuponourplansoforganization.

Theworkers’organizationsforcarryingontheeconomicstruggleshouldbetradeunionorganizations;everySocial-Democraticworkershould,asfaraspossible,supportandactivelyworkinsidetheseorganizations.Thatistrue.ButitisnotintheleastinourinteresttodemandthatonlySocial-Democratsbeeligibleformembershipinthetradeunions,forthiswouldonlyrestrictourinfluenceoverthemasses.Leteveryworkerwhounderstandstheneedfororganizationinordertocarryonthestruggleagainsttheemployersandthegovernmentjointhetradeunions.Theveryobjectsofthetradeunionswouldbeunattainableunlesstheywereextremelywideorganizations.Thewidertheseorganizationsare,thewiderourinfluenceoverthemwillbe,andthisinfluencewillbeexercisednotonlythroughthe“spontaneous”developmentoftheeconomicstruggle,butalsobythedirectandconsciouseffecttheSocialistmembersoftheunionhaveontheircomrades.Butawideorganizationcannotapplythemethodsofstrictsecrecy(sincethelatterdemandsfargreatertrainingthanisrequiredfortheeconomicstruggle).Howisthecontradictionbetweentheneedforalargemembershipandtheneedforstrictlysecretmethodstobereconciled?Howarewetomakethetradeunionsaspublicaspossible?Generallyspeaking,thereareperhapsonlytwowaystothisend:

eitherthetradeunionsbecomelegalized(whichinsomecountriesprecedesthelegalizationofthesocialistandpoliticalunions),ortheorganizationiskeptasecretone,butso“free”andamorphous,loseastheGermanssay,thattheneedforsecretmethodsbecomesalmostnegligibleasfarasthebulkofthemembersisconcerned.

Thelegalizationofthenon-socialistandnon-politicallaborunionsinRussiahasalreadybegun,andthereisnodoubtthateveryadvanceourrapidlygrowingSocial-Democraticworkingclassmovementmakeswillincreaseandencouragetheattemptsatlegalization.Theseattemptsproceedforthemostpartfromsupportersoftheexistingorder,buttheywillproceedalsofromtheworkersthemselvesandfromtheliberalintellectuals.ThebanneroflegalityhasalreadybeenunfurledbytheVassilyevsandtheZubatovs.SupporthasbeenpromisedbytheOzerovsandtheWormses,andfollowersofthenewtendencyaretobefoundamongtheworkers.Henceforth,wemustreckonwiththistendency.Howarewetoreckonwithit?TherecanbenotwoopinionsaboutthisamongSocial-Democrats.WemustconstantlyexposeanypartplayedinthismovementbytheZubatovsandtheVassilyevs,thegendarmesandthepriests,andexplaintotheworkerswhattheirrealintentionsare.Wemustalsoexposetheconciliatory,“harmonious”undertonesthatwillbeheardinthespeechesdeliveredbyliberalpoliticiansatthelegalmeetingsoftheworkers,irrespectiveofwhethertheyproceedfromanearnestconvictionofthedesirabilityofpeacefulclasscollaboration,whethertheyproceedfromadesiretocurryfavorwiththeemployers,oraresimplytheresultofclumsiness.Wemustalsowarntheworkersagainstthetrapsoftensetbythepolice,whoatsuchopenmeetingsandpermittedsocietiesspyoutthe“hotheads”andwho,throughthemediumofthelegalorganizations,endeavortoplanttheiragentsprovocateursintheillegalorganizations.

Butwhiledoingallthis,wemustnotforgetthatinthelongrunthelegalizationoftheworkingclassmovementwillbetoouradvantage,andnottothatoftheZubatovs.Onthecontrary,ourcampaignofexposurewillhelptoseparatethetaresfromthewheat.Whatthetaresare,wehavealreadyindicated.Bythewheat,wemeanattractingtheattentionofstilllargerandmorebackwardsectionsoftheworkerstosocialandpoliticalquestions,andfreeingourselves,therevolutionaries,fromfunctionswhichareessentiallylegal(thedistributionoflegalbooks,mutualaid,etc.),thedevelopmentofwhichwillinevitablyprovideuswithanincreasingquantityofmaterialforagitation.Inthissense,wemaysay,andweshouldsay,totheZubatovsandtheOzerovs:keepatit,gentlemen,doyourbest!Whenyouplaceatrapinthepathofthe

workers(eitherbywayofdirectprovocation,orbythe“honest”corruptionoftheworkerswiththeaidof“Struve-ism”),weshallseetoitthatyouareexposed.Butwheneveryoutakearealstepforward,evenifitistimidandvacillating,weshallsay:pleasecontinue!Andtheonlystepthatcanbearealstepforwardisareal,ifsmall,extensionoftheworkers’fieldofaction.Everysuchextensionwillbetoouradvantageandwillhelptohastentheadventoflegalsocieties,notofthekindinwhichagentsprovocateurshuntforSocialists,butofthekindinwhichSocialistswillhuntforadherents.Inaword,ourtaskistofightdownthetares.Itisnotourbusinesstogrowwheatinflower-pots.Bypullingupthetares,weclearthesoilforthewheat.Andwhiletheold-fashionedfolkaretendingtheirflower-potcrops,wemustpreparereapers,notonlytocutdownthetaresoftoday,butalsotoreapthewheatoftomorrow.

Legislation,therefore,willnotsolvetheproblemofcreatingatradeunionorganizationthatwillbeaspublicandasextensiveaspossible(butwewouldbeextremelygladiftheZubatovsandtheOzerovsprovidedevenapartialopportunityforsuchasolution—towhichendwemustfightthemasstrenuouslyaspossible!).Thereonlyremainsthepathofsecrettradeunionorganization;andwemustofferallpossibleassistancetotheworkers,who(aswedefinitelyknow)havealreadyadoptedthispath.Tradeunionorganizationsmaynotonlybeoftremendousvalueindevelopingandconsolidatingtheeconomicstruggle,butmayalsobecomeaveryimportantauxiliarytopoliticalagitationandrevolutionaryorganization.Inordertoachievethispurpose,andinordertoguidethenascenttradeunionmovementinthedirectiontheSocial-Democratsdesire,wemustfirstfullyunderstandthefoolishnessoftheplanoforganizationwithwhichtheSt.PetersburgEconomistshavebeenoccupyingthemselvesfornearlyfiveyears.Thatplanisdescribedinthe“RulesforaWorkers’BenefitFund”ofJuly1897(ListokRabotnika,No.9-10,inRabochayaMysl,No.1),andalsointhe“RulesforaTradeUnionWorkers’Organization,”ofOctober1900.(SpecialleafletprintedinSt.PetersburgandquotedinIskra,No.1.)Thefundamentalerrorcontainedinboththesesetsofrulesisthattheygiveadetailedformulationofawideworkers’organizationandconfusethelatterwiththeorganizationofrevolutionaries.Letustakethelast-mentionedsetofrules,sinceitisdrawnupingreaterdetail.Thebodyofitconsistsoffifty-twoparagraphs.Twenty-threeparagraphsdealwithstructure,themethodofconductingbusinessandthecompetenceofthe“workers’circles,”whicharetobeorganizedineveryfactory(“notmorethantenpersons”)andwhichelect“central(factory)groups.”“Thecentralgroup,”saysparagraph2,“observesallthatgoesonin

itsfactoryorworkshopandkeepsarecordofevents.”“Thecentralgrouppresentstothecontributorsamonthlyreportonthestateofthefunds”(par.17),etc.Tenparagraphsaredevotedtothe“districtorganization,”andnineteentothehighlycomplexinterconnectionbetweentheCommitteeoftheWorkers’OrganizationandtheCommitteeoftheSt.PetersburgLeagueofStruggle(delegatesfromeachdistrictandfromthe“executivegroups”—“groupsofpropagandists,groupsformaintainingcontactwiththeprovincesandwiththeorganizationabroad,andformanagingstores,publicationsandfunds”).

Social-Democracy=“executivegroups”inrelationtotheeconomicstruggleoftheworkers!ItwouldbedifficulttofindamorestrikingillustrationthanthisofhowtheEconomists’ideasdeviatefromSocial-Democracytotradeunionism,andhowforeigntothemistheideathataSocial-Democratmustconcernhimselffirstandforemostwithanorganizationofrevolutionaries,capableofguidingthewholeproletarianstruggleforemancipation.Totalkof“thepoliticalemancipationoftheworkingclass”andthestruggleagainst“tsaristdespotism,”andatthesametimetodraftruleslikethese,indicatesacompletefailuretounderstandwhattherealpoliticaltasksofSocial-Democracyare.Notoneofthefiftyorsoparagraphsrevealstheslightestglimmerofunderstandingthatitisnecessarytoconductthewidestpossiblepoliticalagitationamongthemasses,anagitationthatdealswitheveryphaseofRussianabsolutismandwitheveryaspectofthevarioussocialclassesinRussia.Rulesliketheseareofnouseevenfortheachievementoftradeunionaims,letalonepoliticalaims,forthatrequiresorganizationaccordingtotrade,andyettherulesdonotcontainasinglereferencetothis.

Butmostcharacteristicofall,perhaps,istheamazingtop-heavinessofthewhole“system,”whichattemptstobindeveryfactorywiththe“committee”byapermanentstringofuniformandludicrouslypettyrulesandathree-stagesystemofelection.HemmedinbythenarrowoutlookofEconomism,themindislostindetailswhichpositivelyreekofredtapeandbureaucracy.Inpractice,ofcourse,three-fourthsoftheclausesareneverapplied;ontheotherhand,however,a“conspiratorial”organizationofthiskind,withitscentralgroupineachfactory,makesitveryeasyforthegendarmestocarryoutraidsonalargescale.OurPolishcomradeshavealreadypassedthroughasimilarphaseintheirownmovement,wheneverybodywasextremelyenthusiasticabouttheextensiveorganizationofworkers’funds;buttheseideaswereveryquicklyabandonedwhenitwasfoundthatsuchorganizationsonlyprovidedrichharvestsforthegendarmes.Ifweareoutforwideworkers’organizations,andnotforwidearrests,ifitisnotourpurposetoprovidesatisfactiontothe

gendarmes,theseorganizationsmustremainabsolutelyloose.Butwilltheybeabletofunction?Well,letusseewhatthefunctionsare:“...toobserveallthatgoesoninthefactoryandkeeparecordofevents.”(par.2oftheRules.)Doweneedaspecialgroupforthis?Couldnotthepurposebebetterservedbycorrespondenceconductedintheillegalpapersandwithoutsettingupspecialgroups?“...toleadthestrugglesoftheworkersfortheimprovementoftheirworkshopconditions.”(par.3oftheRules.)This,too,requiresnospecialgroup.Anyagitatorwithanyintelligenceatallcangatherwhatdemandstheworkerswanttoadvanceinthecourseofordinaryconversationandtransmitthemtoanarrow—notawide—organizationofrevolutionariestobeembodiedinaleaflet.“...toorganizeafund...towhichcontributionsoftwokopecsperrubleshouldbemade”(par.9)...topresentmonthlyreportstothecontributorsonthestateofthefunds(par.17)...toexpelmemberswhofailtopaytheircontributions(par.10),andsoforth.Why,thisisaveryparadiseforthepolice;fornothingwouldbeeasierthanforthemtopenetrateintotheponderoussecrecyofa“centralfactoryfund,”confiscatethemoneyandarrestthebestmembers.Woulditnotbesimplertoissueone-kopekortwo-kopekcouponsbearingtheofficialstampofawell-known(veryexclusiveandverysecret)organization,ortomakecollectionswithoutcouponsofanykindandtoprintreportsinacertainagreedcodeintheillegalpaper?Theobjectwouldtherebybeattained,butitwouldbeahundredtimesmoredifficultforthegendarmestopickupclues.

Icouldgoonanalyzingtherules,butIthinkthatwhathasbeensaidwillsuffice.Asmall,compactcore,consistingofreliable,experiencedandhardenedworkers,withresponsibleagentsintheprincipaldistrictsandconnectedbyalltherulesofstrictsecrecywiththeorganizationsofrevolutionaries,can,withthewidesupportofthemassesandwithoutanelaborateorganization,performallthefunctionsofatradeunionorganization,andperformthem,moreover,inthemannerSocial-Democratsdesire.OnlyinthiswaycanwesecuretheconsolidationanddevelopmentofaSocial-Democratictradeunionmovement,inspiteofthegendarmes.

Itmaybeobjectedthatanorganizationwhichissoloosethatitisnotevendefinitelyformed,andwhichevenhasnoenrolledandregisteredmembers,cannotbecalledanorganizationatall.Thatmayverywellbe.Iamnotoutfornames.Butthis“organizationwithoutmembers”candoeverythingthatisrequired,andwill,fromtheveryoutset,guaranteetheclosestcontactbetweenourfuturetradeunionsandsocialism.Onlyanincorrigibleutopianwouldwantawideorganizationofworkers,withelections,reports,universal

suffrage,etc.,undertheautocracy.

Themoraltobedrawnfromthisisasimpleone.Ifwebeginwiththesolidfoundationofastrongorganizationofrevolutionaries,wecanguaranteethestabilityofthemovementasawholeandcarryouttheaimsofbothSocial-Democracyandoftradeunionism.If,however,webeginwithawideworkers’organization,supposedtobemost“accessible”tothemasses,whenasamatteroffactitwillbemostaccessibletothegendarmesandwillmaketherevolutionariesmostaccessibletothepolice,weshallachievetheaimsneitherofSocial-Democracynoroftradeunionism;weshallnotescapefromourprimitiveness,andbecauseweconstantlyremainscatteredandbrokenup,weshallmakeonlythetradeunionsoftheZubatovandOzerovtypemostaccessibletothemasses.

What,properlyspeaking,shouldbethefunctionsoftheorganizationofrevolutionaries?Weshalldealwiththisindetail.Butfirstletusexamineaverytypicalargumentadvancedbytheterrorist,who(sadfate!)inthismatteralsoisanext-doorneighbortotheEconomist.Svoboda(No.1),ajournalpublishedforworkers,containsanarticleentitled“Organization,”theauthorofwhichtriestodefendhisfriends,theEconomistworkersofIvanovo-Voznesensk.Hewrites:

“Itisabadthingwhenthecrowdismuteandunenlightened,andwhenthemovementdoesnotproceedfromtherankandfile.Forinstance,thestudentsofauniversitytownleavefortheirhomesduringthesummerandothervacationsandimmediatelytheworkers’movementcomestoastandstill....Canaworkers’movementwhichhastobepushedonfromoutsidebearealforce?Ofcoursenot!Ithasnotyetlearnedtowalk,itisstillinleadingstrings.Soitiseverywhere.Thestudentsgooff,andeverythingcomestoastandstill.Assoonasthecreamisskimmed—themilkturnssour.Ifthe‘committee’isarrested,everythingcomestoastandstilluntilanewonecanbeformed.Andoneneverknowswhatsortofcommitteewillbesetupnext—itmaybenothingliketheformerone.Thefirstpreachedonething,thesecondmaypreachtheveryopposite.Thecontinuitybetweenyesterdayandtomorrowisbroken,theexperienceofthepastdoesnotenlightenthefuture.Andallthisisbecausenodeeprootshavebeenstruckinthecrowd;because,insteadofhavingahundredfoolsatwork,we

haveadozenwisemen.Adozenwisemencanbecaughtupatasnap;butwhentheorganizationembracesthecrowd,everythingwillproceedfromthecrowd,andnobody,howeverzealous,canstopthecause.”

Thefactsaredescribedcorrectly.Theabovequotationpresentsafairlygoodpictureofourprimitivemethods.ButtheconclusionsdrawnfromitareworthyofRabochayaMyslbothfortheirstupidityandtheirpoliticaltactlessness.Theyrepresenttheheightofstupidity,becausetheauthorconfusesthephilosophicalandsocial-historicalquestionofthe“depth”ofthe“roots”ofthemovementwiththetechnicalandorganizationalquestionofthebestmethodoffightingthegendarmes.Theyrepresenttheheightofpoliticaltactlessness,becausetheauthor,insteadofappealingfromthebadleaderstothegoodleaders,appealsfromtheleadersingeneraltothe“crowd.”Thisisasmuchanattempttodragthemovementbackorganizationallyastheideaofsubstitutingexcitativeterrorismforpoliticalagitationinanattempttodragitbackpolitically.Indeed,Iamexperiencingaveritableembarrasderichesses,andhardlyknowwheretobegintodisentangletheconfusionSvobodahasintroducedinthissubject.Forthesakeofclarity,Ishallbeginbyquotinganexample.TaketheGermans.Itwillnotbedenied,Ihope,thattheGermanorganizationsembracethecrowd,thatinGermanyeverythingproceedsfromthecrowd,thattheworkingclassmovementtherehaslearnedtowalk.Yetobservehowthisvastcrowdofmillionsvaluesits“dozen”triedpoliticalleaders,howfirmlyitclingstothem!MembersofthehostilepartiesinparliamentoftenteasetheSocialistsbyexclaiming:“Finedemocratsyouareindeed!Yourmovementisaworkingclassmovementonlyinname;asamatteroffact,itisthesamecliqueofleadersthatisalwaysinevidence,BebelandLiebknecht,yearinandyearout,andthatgoesonfordecades.YourdeputieswhoaresupposedtobeelectedfromamongtheworkersaremorepermanentthattheofficialsappointedbytheEmperorl”ButtheGermansonlysmilewithcontemptatthesedemagogicattemptstosetthe“crowd”againstthe“leaders,”toarousebadandambitiousinstinctsintheformer,andtorobthemovementofitssolidityandstabilitybyunderminingtheconfidenceofthemassesintheir“dozenwisemen.”ThepoliticalideasoftheGermanshavealreadydevelopedsufficientlyandtheyhaveacquiredenoughpoliticalexperiencetoenablethemtounderstandthatwithoutthe“dozen”triedandtalentedleaders(andtalentedmenarenotbornbythehundred),professionallytrained,schooledbylongexperienceandworkinginperfectharmony,noclass

inmodernsocietyiscapableofconductingadeterminedstruggle.TheGermanshavehaddemagoguesintheirrankswhohaveflatteredthe“hundredfools,”exaltedthemabovethe“dozenwisemen,”extolledthe“mightyfists”ofthemasses,and(likeMostandHasselmann)havespurredthemontoreckless“revolutionary”actionandsowndistrusttowardsthefirmandsteadfastleaders.ItwasonlybystubbornlyandbitterlycombatingeveryelementofdemagogywithinthesocialistmovementthatGermansocialismmanagedtogrowandbecomeasstrongasitis.Ourwiseacres,however,attheverymomentwhenRussianSocial-Democracyispassingthroughacrisisentirelyduetoourlackofsufficientnumbersoftrained,developedandexperiencedleaderstoguidethespontaneousfermentofthemasses,cryoutwiththeprofundityoffools,“itisabadthingwhenthemovementdoesnotproceedfromtherankandfile.

“Acommitteeofstudentsisnogood,itisnotstable.”Quitetrue.Buttheconclusionthatshouldbedrawnfromthisisthatwemusthaveacommitteeofprofessionalrevolutionariesanditdoesnotmatterwhetherastudentoraworkeriscapableofqualifyinghimselfasaprofessionalrevolutionary.Theconclusionyoudraw,however,isthattheworkingclassmovementmustnotbepushedonfromoutside!InyourpoliticalinnocenceyoufailtoobservethatyouareplayingintothehandsofourEconomistsandfosteringourprimitiveness.Iwouldliketoask,whatismeantbythestudents“pushingon”theworkers?Allitmeansisthatthestudentbroughttotheworkerthefragmentsofpoliticalknowledgehepossesses,thecrumbsofsocialistideashehasmanagedtoacquire(fortheprincipalintellectualdietofthepresent-daystudent,“legalMarxism,”canfurnishonlytheABC,onlythecrumbsofknowledge).Therehasneverbeentoomuchofsuch“pushingonfromoutside,”onthecontrary,sofartherehasbeentoolittleofitinourmovement;wehavebeenstewinginourownjuicefartoolong;wehavebowedfartooslavishlybeforethespontaneous“economicstruggleoftheworkersagainsttheemployersandthegovernment.”Weprofessionalrevolutionariesmustcontinue,andwillcontinue,thiskindof“pushing,”andahundredtimesmoreforciblythanwehavedonehitherto.Theveryfactthatyouselectsodespicableaphraseas“pushingonfromoutside”—aphrasewhichcannotbutrouseintheworkers(atleastintheworkerswhoareasignorantasyouyourselvesare)asenseofdistrusttowardsallwhobringthempoliticalknowledgeandrevolutionaryexperiencefromoutside,androuseinthemaninstinctivehostilitytosuchpeople—provesthatyouaredemagogues,andademagogueistheworstenemyoftheworkingclass.

Oh!Don’tstarthowlingaboutmy“uncomradelymethods”ofcontroversy.Ihavenottheleastintentionofcastingaspersionsuponthepurityofyourintentions.AsIhavealreadysaid,onemaybecomeademagogueoutofsheerpoliticalinnocence.ButIhaveshownthatyouhavedescendedtodemagogy,andIshallnevertireofrepeatingthatdemagoguesaretheworstenemiesoftheworkingclass,becausetheyarousebadinstinctsinthecrowd,becausetheignorantworkerisunabletorecognizehisenemiesinmenwhorepresentthemselves,andsometimessincerelyrepresentthemselves,tobehisfriends.Theyaretheworstenemiesoftheworkingclass,becauseinthisperiodofdispersionandvacillation,whenourmovementisjustbeginningtotakeshape,nothingiseasierthantoemploydemagogicmethodstoside-trackthecrowd,whichcanrealizeitsmistakeonlybybitterexperience.ThatiswhythesloganofthedayforRussianSocial-Democratsmustbe:determinedoppositiontoSvobodaandRabocheyeDyelo,bothofwhichhavesunktothelevelofdemagogy.Weshallreturntothissubjectagain.90

“Adozenwisemencanbemoreeasilycaughtthanahundredfools!”Thiswonderfultruth(whichthehundredfoolswillapplaud)appearsobviousonlybecauseintheverymidstoftheargumentyouhaveskippedfromonequestiontoanother.Youbeganbytalking,andcontinuedtotalk,ofcatchinga“committee,”ofcatchingan“organization,”andnowyouskiptothequestionofgettingholdofthe“roots”ofthemovementinthe“depths.”Thefactis,ofcourse,thatourmovementcannotbecaughtpreciselybecauseithashundredsandhundredsofthousandsofrootsdeepdownamongthemasses;butthatisnotthepointwearediscussing.Asfaras“deeproots”areconcerned,wecannotbe“caught”evennow,inspiteofallourprimitiveness;butweallcomplain,andcannotbutcomplain,thattheorganizationsarecaught,withtheresultthatitisimpossibletomaintaincontinuityinthemovement.Ifyouagreetodiscussthequestionofcatchingtheorganizationsandtosticktothatquestion,thenIassertthatitisfarmoredifficulttocatchadozenwisementhanitistocatchahundredfools.AndthispositionIshalldefendnomatterhowmuchyouinstigatethecrowdagainstmeformy“anti-democratic”views,etc.AsIhavealreadysaid,by“wisemen,”inconnectionwithorganization,Imeanprofessionalrevolutionaries,irrespectiveofwhethertheyaretrainedfromamongstudentsorworkingmen.Iassert:1)thatnomovementcanbedurablewithoutastableorganizationofleaderstomaintaincontinuity;2)thatthemorewidelythemassesarespontaneouslydrawnintothestruggleandformthebasisofthemovementandparticipateinit,themorenecessaryisittohavesuchanorganization,andthemorestablemustitbe(foritismucheasier

fordemagoguestoside-trackthemorebackwardsectionsofthemasses);3)thattheorganizationmustconsistchieflyofpersonsengagedinrevolutionaryactivitiesasaprofession;4)thatinacountrywithanautocraticgovernment,themorewerestrictthemembershipofthisorganizationtopersonswhoareengagedinrevolutionaryactivitiesasaprofessionandwhohavebeenprofessionallytrainedintheartofcombatingthepoliticalpolice,themoredifficultwillitbetocatchtheorganization,and5)thewiderwillbethecircleofmenandwomenoftheworkingclassorofotherclassesofsocietyabletojointhemovementandperformactiveworkinit.

IinviteourEconomists,terroristsand“Economists-terrorists”91toconfutethesepropositions.Atthemoment,Ishalldealonlywiththelasttwopoints.Thequestionastowhetheritiseasiertocatch“adozenwisemen”or“ahundredfools”reducesitselftothequestionwehaveconsideredabove,namely,whetheritispossibletohaveamassorganizationwhenthemaintenanceofstrictsecrecyisessential.Wecannevergiveamassorganizationthatdegreeofsecrecywhichisessentialforthepersistentandcontinuousstruggleagainstthegovernment.Buttoconcentrateallsecretfunctionsinthehandsofassmallanumberofprofessionalrevolutionariesaspossibledoesnotmeanthatthelatterwill“dothethinkingforall”andthatthecrowdwillnottakeanactivepartinthemovement.Onthecontrary,thecrowdwilladvancefromitsranksincreasingnumbersofprofessionalrevolutionaries,foritwillknowthatitisnotenoughforafewstudentsandworkingmen,wagingeconomicwar,togathertogetherandforma“committee,”butthatittakesyearstotrainprofessionalrevolutionaries;thecrowdwill“think”notofprimitivewaysbutoftrainingprofessionalrevolutionaries.Thecentralizationofthesecretfunctionsoftheorganizationdoesnotmeanthecentralizationofallthefunctionsofthemovement.Theactiveparticipationofthebroadmassesinthedisseminationofillegalliteraturewillnotdiminishbecauseadozenprofessionalrevolutionariescentralizethesecretpartofthework;onthecontrary,itwillincreasetenfold.Onlyinthiswaywillthereadingofillegalliterature,thecontributiontoillegalliteratureandtosomeextenteventhedistributionofillegalliteraturealmostceasetobesecretwork,forthepolicewillsooncometorealizethefollyandfutilityofsettingthewholejudicialandadministrativemachineintomotiontointercepteverycopyofapublicationthatisbeingbroadcastinthousands.Thisappliesnotonlytothepress,buttoeveryfunctionofthemovement,eventodemonstrations.Theactiveandwidespreadparticipationofthemasseswillnotsuffer;onthecontrary,itwillbenefitbythefactthata“dozen”experienced

revolutionaries,nolessprofessionallytrainedthanthepolice,willcentralizeallthesecretsideofthework—prepareleaflets,workoutapproximateplansandappointbodiesofleadersforeachurbandistrict,foreachfactorydistrictandforeacheducationalinstitution,etc.(Iknowthatexceptionwillbetakentomy“undemocratic”views,butIshallreplytothisaltogetherunintelligentobjectionlateron.)Thecentralizationofthemoresecretfunctionsinanorganizationofrevolutionarieswillnotdiminish,butratherincreasetheextentandthequalityoftheactivityofalargenumberofotherorganizationsintendedforwidemembershipandwhich,therefore,canbeaslooseandaspublicaspossible,forexample,tradeunions,workers’circlesforself-educationandthereadingofillegalliterature,andsocialistandalsodemocraticcirclesforallothersectionsofthepopulation,etc.,etc.Wemusthaveaslargeanumberaspossibleofsuchorganizationshavingthewidestpossiblevarietyoffunctions,butitisabsurdanddangeroustoconfusethesewithorganizationsofrevolutionaries,toerasethelineofdemarcationbetweenthem,todimstillmorethemasses’alreadyincrediblyhazyappreciationofthefactthatinorderto“serve”themassmovementwemusthavepeoplewhowilldevotethemselvesexclusivelytoSocial-Democraticactivities,andthatsuchpeoplemusttrainthemselvespatientlyandsteadfastlytobeprofessionalrevolutionaries.

Aye,thisappreciationhasbecomeincrediblydim.ThemostgrievoussinwehavecommittedinregardtoorganizationisthatbyourprimitivenesswehaveloweredtheprestigeofrevolutionariesinRussia.Amanwhoisweakandvacillatingontheoreticalquestions,whohasanarrowoutlook,whomakesexcusesforhisownslacknessonthegroundthatthemassesareawakeningspontaneously,whoresemblesatradeunionsecretarymorethanapeople’stribune,whoisunabletoconceiveofabroadandboldplan,whoisincapableofinspiringevenhisopponentswithrespectforhimself,andwhoisinexperiencedandclumsyinhisownprofessionalart—theartofcombatingthepoliticalpolice—suchamanisnotarevolutionarybutawretchedamateur!

Letnoactiveworkertakeoffenseatthesefrankremarks,forasfarasinsufficienttrainingisconcerned,Iapplythemfirstandforemosttomyself.Iusedtoworkinacirclethatsetitselfgreatandall-embracingtasks;andeverymemberofthatcirclesufferedtothepointoftorturefromtherealizationthatwewereprovingourselvestobeamateursatamomentinhistorywhenwemighthavebeenabletosay,paraphrasingawell-knownepigram:“Giveusanorganizationofrevolutionaries,andweshalloverturnthewholeofRussia!”AndthemoreIrecalltheburningsenseofshameIthenexperienced,themore

bitteraremyfeelingstowardsthosepseudo-Social-Democratswhoseteachingsbringdisgraceonthecallingofarevolutionary,whofailtounderstandthatourtaskisnottodegradetherevolutionariestothelevelofanamateur,buttoexalttheamateurtothelevelofarevolutionary.

D.THESCOPEOFORGANIZATIONALWORKWehavealreadyheardfromB———vabout“thelackofrevolutionary

forcesfitforactionwhichisfeltnotonlyinSt.Petersburg,butthroughoutthewholeofRussia.”Noone,wesuppose,willdisputethisfact.Butthequestionis,howisittobeexplained?B———vwrites:

“Weshallnotenterindetailintothehistoricalcausesofthisphenomenon;weshallstatemerelythatasociety,demoralizedbyprolongedpoliticalreactionandsplitbypastandpresenteconomicchanges,advancesfromitsownranksanextremelyshallnumberofpersonsfitforrevolutionaryworld;thattheworkingclassdoesadvancefromitsownranksrevolutionaryworkerswhotosomeextentreinforcetheranksoftheillegalorganizations,butthatthenumberofsuchrevolutionariesisinadequatetomeettherequirementsofthetimes.Thisismoreparticularlythecasebecausetheworkerengagedforelevenandahalfhoursadayinthefactoryismainlyabletofulfilthefunctionsofanagitator;butpropagandaandorganization,deliveryandreproductionofillegalliterature,issuingleaflets,etc.,aredutieswhichmustnecessarilyfallmainlyupontheshouldersofanextremelysmallintelligentforce.”(RabocheyeDyelo,No.6.)

TherearemanypointsintheaboveuponwhichwedisagreewithB——v,particularlywiththosepointswehaveemphasized,andwhichmoststrikinglyrevealthat,althoughwearyofourprimitivemethods(aseverypracticalworkerwhothinksoverthepositionwouldbe),B———vcannotfindthewayoutofthisintolerablesituation,becauseheissogrounddownbyEconomism.Itisnottruetosaythatsocietyadvancesfewpersonsfromitsranksfitfor“work.”Itadvancesverymany,butweareunabletomakeuseofthemall.Thecritical,transitionalstateofourmovementinthisconnectionmaybeformulatedasfollows:therearenopeople—yetthereareenormousnumbers

ofpeople.Thereareenormousnumbersofpeople,becausetheworkingclassandthemostdiversestrataofsociety,yearafteryear,advancefromtheirranksanincreasingnumberofdiscontentedpeoplewhodesiretoprotest,whoarereadytorenderalltheassistancetheycaninthefightagainstabsolutism,theintolerablenessofwhichisnotyetrecognizedbyall,butisneverthelessmoreandmoreacutelysensedbyincreasingmassesofthepeople.Atthesametimewehavenopeople,becausewehavenoleaders,nopoliticalleaders,wehavenotalentedorganizerscapableoforganizingextensiveandatthesametimeuniformandharmoniousworkthatwouldgiveemploymenttoallforces,eventhemostinconsiderable.“Thegrowthanddevelopmentofrevolutionaryorganizations”notonlylagbehindthegrowthofthelabormovement,whichevenB———vadmits,butalsobehindthegeneraldemocraticmovementamongallstrataofthepeople(inpassing,probablyB——vwouldnowadmitthissupplementtohisconclusion).Thescopeofrevolutionaryworkistoonarrowcomparedwiththebreadthofthespontaneousbasisofthemovement.Itistoohemmedinbythewretched“economicstruggleagainsttheemployersandthegovernment”theory.Andyet,atthepresenttime,notonlySocial-Democraticpoliticalagitators,butalsoSocial-Democraticorganizersmust“goamongallclassesofthepopulation.”92

ThereishardlyasinglepracticalworkerwhowouldhaveanydoubtabouttheabilityofSocial-Democratstodistributethethousandandoneminutefunctionsoftheirorganizationalworkamongthevariousrepresentativesofthemostvariedclasses.Lackofspecializationisoneofourmostserioustechnicaldefects,aboutwhichB———vjustlyandbitterlycomplains.Thesmallereachseparate“operation”inourcommoncausewillbe,themorepeopleweshallfindcapableofcarryingoutsuchoperations(people,who,inthemajorityofcases,arenotcapableofbecomingprofessionalrevolutionaries),themoredifficultwillitbeforthepoliceto“catch”allthese“detailworkers,”andthemoredifficultwillitbeforthemtoframeup,outofanarrestforsomepettyaffair,a“case”thatwouldjustifythegovernment’sexpenditureonthe“secretservice.”Asforthenumberreadytohelpus,wehavealreadyreferredinthepreviouschaptertothegiganticchangethathastakenplaceinthisrespectinthelastfiveyearsorso.Ontheotherhand,inordertouniteallthesetinyfractionsintoonewhole,inorder,inbreakingupfunctions,toavoidbreakingupthemovement,andinordertoimbuethosewhocarryouttheseminutefunctionswiththeconvictionthattheirworkisnecessaryandimportant,forwithoutthistheywillneverdothework,93itisnecessarytohaveastrongorganizationoftriedrevolutionaries.Themore

secretsuchanorganizationwouldbe,thestrongerandmorewidespreadwouldbetheconfidenceofthemassesintheParty,and,asweknow,intimeofwar,itisnotonlyofgreatimportancetoimbueone’sownarmywithconfidenceinitsownstrength,itisimportantalsotoconvincetheenemyandallneutralelementsofthisstrength;friendlyneutralitymaysometimesdecidetheissue.Ifsuchanorganizationexistedonafirmtheoreticalbasis,andpossessedaSocial-Democraticjournal,wewouldhavenoreasontofearthatthemovementwouldbedivertedfromitspathbythenumerous“outside”elementsthatareattractedtoit.(Onthecontrary,itispreciselyatthepresenttime,whenprimitivemethodsprevailamongus,thatmanySocial-DemocratsareobservedtogravitatetowardstheCredo,andonlyimaginethattheyareSocial-Democrats.)Inaword,specializationnecessarilypresupposescentralization,andinitsturnimperativelycallsforit.

ButB—vhimself,whohassoexcellentlydescribedthenecessityforspecialization,underestimatesitsimportance,inouropinion,inthesecondpartoftheargumentthatwehavequoted.Thenumberofworkingclassrevolutionariesisinadequate,hesays.Thisisabsolutelytrue,andonceagainweassertthatthe“valuablecommunicationofacloseobserver”fullyconfirmsourviewofthecausesofthepresentcrisisinSocial-Democracy,and,consequently,confirmsourviewofthemeansforremovingthesecauses.Notonlyarerevolutionarieslaggingbehindthespontaneousawakeningofthemassesgenerally,butevenworkingclassrevolutionariesarelaggingbehindthespontaneousawakeningoftheworkingclassmasses.Andthisfactmoststrikinglyconfirms,evenfromthe“practical”pointofview,notonlytheabsurditybuteventhepoliticalreactionariesofthe“pedagogics”towhichwearesooftentreatedwhendiscussingourdutiestotheworkers.ThisfactprovesthatourveryfirstandmostimperativedutyistohelptotrainworkingclassrevolutionarieswhowillbeonthesamelevelinregardtoPartyactivityasintellectualrevolutionaries(weemphasizethewords“inregardtoPartyactivity,”becausealthoughitisnecessary,itisnotsoeasyandnotsoimperativetobringtheworkersuptothelevelofintellectualsinotherrespects).Therefore,attentionmustbedevotedprincipallytothetaskofraisingtheworkerstothelevelofrevolutionaries,andnottodegradingourselvestothelevelofthe“labormasses”astheEconomistswishtodo,ornecessarilytotheleveloftheaverageworker,asSvobodadesirestodo(andbythisraisesitselftothesecondgradeofEconomist“pedagogics”).Iamfarfromdenyingthenecessityforpopularliteraturefortheworkers,andespeciallypopular(but,ofcourse,notvulgar)literaturefortheespecially

backwardworkers.Butwhatannoysmeisthatpedagogicsareconstantlyconfusedwithquestionsofpoliticsandorganization.You,gentlemen,whoaresomuchconcernedaboutthe“averageworker,”asamatteroffact,ratherinsulttheworkersbyyourdesiretotalkdowntothemwhendiscussinglaborpoliticsandlabororganization.Talkaboutseriousthingsinaseriousmanner;leavepedagogicstothepedagogues,andnottopoliticiansandtoorganizers!Aretherenotadvancedpeople,“averagepeople,”and“masses,”amongtheintelligentsia?Doesnoteveryonerecognizethatpopularliteratureisrequiredalsofortheintelligentsiaandisnotsuchliteraturewritten?Justimaginesomeone,inanarticleonorganizingcollegeorhigh-schoolstudents,repeatingoverandoveragain,asifhehadmadeanewdiscovery,thatfirstofallwemusthaveanorganizationof“averagestudents.”Theauthorofsuchanarticlewouldrightlybelaughedat.Hewouldbetold:giveusanorganizationalidea,ifyouhaveone,andweourselveswillsettlethequestionastowhichofusare“average,”astowhoishigherandwhoislower.Butifyouhavenoorganizationalideasofyourown,thenallyourchatterabout“masses”and“average”issimplyboring.Trytounderstandthatthesequestionsabout“politics”and“organization”aresoseriousinthemselvesthattheycannotbedealtwithinanyotherbutaseriousway.Wecanandmusteducateworkers(anduniversityandhigh-schoolstudents)soastoenablethemtounderstanduswhenwespeaktothemaboutthesequestions;andwhenyoudocometoustotalkaboutthesequestions,giveusrealrepliestothem,donotfallbackonthe“average,”oronthe“masses”;don’tevadethembyquotingadagesormerephrases.94

Inordertobefullypreparedforhistask,theworkingclassrevolutionarymustalsobecomeaprofessionalrevolutionary.HenceB——viswrongwhenhesaysthatastheworkerisengagedforelevenandahalfhoursadayinthefactory,therefore,thebruntofalltheotherrevolutionaryfunctions(apartfromagitation)“mustnecessarilyfallmainlyupontheshouldersofanextremelysmallintellectualforce.”Itneednot“necessarily”beso.Itissobecausewearebackward,becausewedonotrecognizeourdutytoassisteverycapableworkertobecomeaprofessionalagitator,organizer,propagandist,literaturedistributor,etc.,etc.Inthisrespect,wewasteourstrengthinapositivelyshamefulmanner;welacktheabilitytohusbandthatwhichshouldbetendedandrearedwithspe-cialcare.LookattheGermans:theyhaveahundredtimesmoreforcesthanwehave.Buttheyunderstandperfectlywellthatthe“average”doesnottoofrequentlypromotereallycapableagitators,etc.,fromitsranks.Hencetheyimmediatelytrytoplaceeverycapable

workingmaninsuchconditionsaswillenablehimtodevelopandapplyhisabilitiestotheutmost:heismadeaprofessionalagitator,heisencouragedtowidenthefieldofhisactivity,tospreaditfromonefactorytothewholeofhistrade,fromonelocalitytothewholecountry.Heacquiresexperienceanddexterityinhisprofession,hisoutlookbecomeswider,hisknowledgeincreases,heobservestheprominentpoliticalleadersfromotherlocalitiesandotherparties,hestrivestorisetotheirlevelandcombinewithinhimselftheknowledgeofworkingclassenvironmentandfreshnessofsocialistconvictionswithprofessionalskill,withoutwhichtheproletariatcannotcarryonastubbornstrugglewiththeexcellentlytrainedenemy.OnlyinthiswaycanmenofthestampofBebelandAuerbepromotedfromtheranksoftheworkingclass.ButwhattakesplaceverylargelyautomaticallyinapoliticallyfreecountrymustinRussiabedonedeliberatelyandsystematicallybyourorganizations.Aworkingmanagitatorwhoisatalltalentedand“promising”mustnotbelefttoworkelevenhoursadayinafactory.WemustarrangethathebemaintainedbytheParty,thathemayinduetimegounderground,thathechangetheplaceofhisactivity,otherwisehewillnotenlargehisexperience,hewillnotwidenhisoutlook,andwillnotbeabletostayinthefightagainstthegendarmesforatleastafewyears.Asthespontaneousriseoftheworkingclassmassesbecomeswideranddeeper,theynotonlypromotefromtheirranksanincreasingnumberoftalentedagitators,butalsooftalentedorganizers,propagandistsand“practicalworkers”inthebestsenseoftheterm(ofwhomtherearesofewamongourintelligentsiawho,inthemajorityofcases,aresomewhatcarelessandsluggishintheirhabits,socharacteristicofRussians).Whenwehavedetachmentsofspeciallytrainedworkingclassrevolutionarieswhohavegonethroughlongyearsofpreparation(and,ofcourse,revolutionaries“ofallarms”),nopoliticalpoliceintheworldwillbeabletocontendagainstthem,forthesedetachmentsofmenabsolutelydevotedandloyaltotherevolutionwillthemselvesenjoytheabsoluteconfidenceanddevotionofthebroadmassesoftheworkers.Thesinwecommitisthatwedonotsufficiently“stimulate”theworkerstotakethispath,“common”tothemandtothe“intellectuals,”ofprofessionalrevolutionarytraining,andthatwetoofrequentlydragthembackbyoursillyspeechesaboutwhat“canbeunderstood”bythemassesoftheworkers,bythe“averageworkers,”etc.

Inthis,asinothercases,thenarrownessofourfieldoforganizationalworkiswithoutadoubtdirectlydue(althoughtheoverwhelmingmajorityoftheEconomistsandthenovicesinpracticalworkdonotappreciateit)tothefactthatwerestrictourtheoriesandourpoliticaltaskstoanarrowfield.

Subserviencetospontaneityseemstoinspireafearoftakingevenonestepawayfromwhat“canbeunderstood”bythemasses,afearofrisingtoohighabovemeresubserviencetotheimmediaterequirementsofthemasses.Havenofear,gentlemen!Rememberthatwestandsolowontheplaneoforganizationthattheveryideathatwecouldrisetoohighisabsurd!

E.“CONSPIRATIVE”ORGANIZATIONAND“DEMOCRACY”Therearemanypeopleamonguswhoaresosensitivetothe“voiceoflife”

thattheyfearitmorethananythingintheworldandaccusethosewhoadheretotheviewshereexpoundedof“Narodovolism,”offailingtounderstand“democracy,”etc.Wemustdealwiththeseaccusations,which,ofcourse,havebeenechoedbyRabocheyeDyelo.

ThewriteroftheselinesknowsverywellthattheSt.PetersburgEconomistsaccusedRabochayaGazetaofbeingNarodovolist(whichisquiteunderstandablewhenonecomparesitwithRabochayaMysl).Wewerenotintheleastsurprised,therefore,when,soonaftertheappearanceofIskra,acomradeinformedusthattheSocial-DemocratsinthetownofXdescribeIskraasaNarodovolistjournal.We,ofcourse,wereflatteredbythisaccusation.WhatrealSocial-DemocrathasnotbeenaccusedbytheEconomistsofbeingaNarodovolist?

Theseaccusationsarecalledforthbyatwofoldmisunderstanding.First,thehistoryoftherevolutionarymovementissolittleknownamongusthattheveryideaofamilitantcentralizedorganizationwhichdeclaresadeterminedwarupontsarismisdescribedasNarodovolist.Butthemagnificentorganizationthattherevolutionarieshadinthe‘seventies,andwhichshouldserveusallasamodel,wasnotformedbytheNarodovolistsbutbytheadherentsofZemlyaiVolya,whosplitupintoChernoperedelistsandNarodovolists.Consequently,toregardamilitantrevolutionaryorganizationassomethingspecificallyNarodovolistisabsurdbothhistoricallyandlogically,becausenorevolutionarytendency,ifitseriouslythinksoffighting,candispensewithsuchanorganization.ButthemistaketheNarodovolistscommittedwasnotthattheystrovetorecruittotheirorganizationallthediscontented,andtohurlthisorganizationintothedecisivebattleagainsttheautocracy;onthecontrary,thatwastheirgreathistoricalmerit.Theirmistakewasthattheyreliedonatheorywhichinsubstancewasnotarevolutionarytheoryatall,andtheyeitherdidnotknowhow,orcircumstancesdidnotpermit

them,tolinkuptheirmovementinseparablywiththeclassstrugglethatwentonwithindevelopingcapitalistsociety.AndonlyagrossfailuretounderstandMarxism(oran“understanding”ofitinthespiritofStruve-ism)couldprompttheopinionthattheriseofamass,spontaneouslabormovementrelievesusofthedutyofcreatingasgoodanorganizationofrevolutionariesashadinitstime,andevenanincomparablybetterone.Onthecontrary,thismovementimposesthisdutyuponus,becausethespontaneousstruggleoftheproletariatwillnotbecomeagenuine“classstruggle”untilitisledbyastrongorganizationofrevolutionaries.

Secondly,many,includingapparentlyB.Krichevsky(RabocheyeDyelo,No.10),misunderstoodthepolemicsthatSocial-Democratshavealwayswagedagainstthe“conspirative”viewofthepoliticalstruggle.Wehavealwaysprotested,andwill,ofcourse,continuetoprotestagainstrestrictingthepoliticalstruggletoconspiracies.95Butthisdoesnot,ofcourse,meanthatwedenytheneedforastrongrevolutionaryorganization.Andinthepamphletmentionedintheprecedingfootnote,afterthepolemicsagainstreducingthepoliticalstruggletoaconspiracy,adescriptionisgiven(asaSocial-Democraticideal)ofanorganizationsostrongastobeableto“resorttorebellion”andto“everyotherformofattack,”inorderto“deliverasmashingblowagainstabsolutism.”96Accordingtoitsformastrongrevolutionaryorganizationofthatkindinanautocraticcountrymayalsobedescribedasa“conspirative”organization,becausetheFrenchword“conspira-tion”meansinRussian“conspiracy,”andwemusthavetheutmostconspiracyforanorganizationofthatkind.Secrecyissuchanecessaryconditionforsuchanorganizationthatalltheotherconditions(numberandselectionofmembers,functions,etc.)mustallbesubordinatedtoit.Itwouldbeextremelynaiveindeed,therefore,tofeartheaccusationthatweSocial-Democratsdesiretocreateaconspirativeorganization.SuchanaccusationwouldbeasflatteringtoeveryopponentofEconomismastheaccusationofbeingfollowersofNarodovolismwouldbe.

Againstusitwillbeargued:suchapowerfulandstrictlysecretorganization,whichconcentratesinitshandsallthethreadsofsecretactivities,anorganizationwhichofnecessitymustbeacentralizedorganization,maytooeasilythrowitselfintoaprematureattack,maythoughtlesslyintensifythemovementbeforepoliticaldiscontent,thefermentandangeroftheworkingclass,etc.,aresufficientlyripeforit.Tothiswereply:speakingabstractly,itcannotbedenied,ofcourse,thatamilitantorganizationmaythoughtlesslycommenceabattle,whichmayendindefeat,whichmighthavebeenavoided

underothercircumstances.Butwecannotconfineourselvestoabstractreasoningonsuchaquestion,becauseeverybattlebearswithinitselftheabstractpossibilityofdefeat,andthereisnootherwayofreducingthispossibilitythanbyorganizedpreparationforbattle.If,however,webaseourargumentontheconcreteconditionsprevailinginRussiaatthepresenttime,wemustcometothepositiveconclusionthatastrongrevolutionaryorganizationisabsolutelynecessarypreciselyforthepurposeofgivingfirmnesstothemovement,andofsafeguardingitagainstthepossibilityofitsmakingprematureattacks.Itispreciselyatthepresenttime,whennosuchorganizationexistsyet,andwhentherevolutionarymovementisrapidlyandspontaneouslygrowing,thatwealreadyobservetwooppositeextremes(which,asistobeexpected,“meet”),i.e.,absolutelyunsoundEconomismandthepreachingofmoderation,andequallyunsound“excitativeterror,”whichstrivesartificiallyto“callforthsymptomsofitsendinamovementwhichisdevelopingandbecomingstrong,butwhichisasyetnearertoitsbeginningthantoitsend.”(V.Zasulich,inZarya,No.2-3.)AndtheexampleofRabocheyeDyeloshowsthattherearealreadySocial-Democratswhogivewaytoboththeseextremes.Thisisnotsurprisingbecause,apartfromotherreasons,the“economicstruggleagainsttheemployersandthegovernment”canneversatisfyrevolutionaries,andbecauseoppositeextremeswillalwaysarisehereandthere.Onlyacentralized,militantorganizationthatconsistentlycarriesoutaSocial-Democraticpolicy,thatsatisfies,sotospeak,allrevolutionaryinstinctsandstrivings,cansafeguardthemovementagainstmakingthoughtlessattacksandprepareitforattacksthatholdoutthepromiseofsuccess.

Itwillbefurtherarguedagainstusthattheviewsonorganizationhereexpoundedcontradictthe“principlesofdemocracy.”Nowwhilethefirst-mentionedaccusationwasofpurelyRussianorigin,thisoneisofpurelyforeignorigin.Andonlyanorganizationabroad(theLeagueofRussianSocial-Democrats)wouldbecapableofgivingitseditorialboardinstructionslikethefollowing:

“PrinciplesofOrganization.InordertosecurethesuccessfuldevelopmentandunificationofSocial-Democracy,broaddemocraticprinciplesofPartyorganizationmustbeemphasized,developedandfoughtfor;andthisisparticularlynecessaryinviewoftheanti-democratictendenciesthathavebecomerevealedintheranksofourParty.”(TwoCongresses.)

WeshallseehowRabocheyeDyelofightsagainstIskra’s“anti-democratictendencies”inthenextchapter.Hereweshallexaminemorecloselythe“principle”thattheEconomistsadvance.Everyonewillprobablyagreethat“broaddemocraticprinciples”presupposethetwofollowingconditions:first,fullpublicity,andsecond,electiontoallfunctions.Itwouldbeabsurdtospeakaboutdemocracywithoutpublicity,thatis,apublicitythatextendsbeyondthecircleofthemembershipoftheorganization.WecalltheGermanSocialistPartyademocraticorganizationbecauseallitdoesisdonepublicly;evenitsPartycongressesareheldinpublic.Butnoonewouldcallanorganizationthatishiddenfromeveryonebutitsmembersbyaveilofsecrecy,ademocraticorganization.Whatistheuseofadvancing“broaddemocraticprinciples”whenthefundamentalconditionfortheseprinciplescannotbefulfilledbyasecretorganization?“Broadprinciples”turnsouttobearesonantbuthollowphrase.Morethatthat,thisphraseprovesthattheurgenttasksinregardtoorganizationaretotallymisunderstood.Everyoneknowshowgreatisthelackofsecrecyamongthe“broad”massesofrevolutionaries.WehaveheardthebittercomplaintsofB——vonthisscore,andhisabsolutelyjustdemandfora“strictselectionofmembers.”(RabocheyeDyelo,No.6.)Andpeoplewhoboastabouttheir“sensitivenesstolife”comeforwardinasituationlikethis,andurge,notstrictsecrecyandastrict(andthereforemorerestricted)selectionofmembersbut“broaddemocraticprinciples”!Thisiswhatwecallbeingabsolutelywideofthemark.

Noristhesituationwithregardtothesecondattributeofdemocracy,namely,theprincipleofelection,anybetter.Inpoliticallyfreecountries,thisconditionistakenforgranted.“MembershipofthePartyisopentothosewhoaccepttheprinciplesofthePartyprogram,andrenderallthesupporttheycantotheParty”—sayspoint1oftherulesoftheGermanSocial-DemocraticParty.Andasthepoliticalarenaisasopentothepublicviewasisthestageinatheatre,thisacceptanceornon-acceptance,supportoropposition,isknowntoallfromthepressandpublicmeetings.Everyoneknowsthatacertainpoliticalworkercommencedinacertainway,passedthroughacertainevolution,behavedindifficultperiodsinacertainwayandpossessescertainqualitiesand,consequently,knowingallthefactsofthecase,everyPartymembercandecideforhimselfwhetherornottoelectthispersonforacertainPartyoffice.Thegeneralcontrol(intheliteralsenseoftheterm)thatthePartyexercisesovereveryactthispersoncommitsinthepoliticalfieldbringsintoexistenceanautomaticallyoperatingmechanismwhichbringsaboutwhatinbiologyis

called“survivalofthefittest.”“Naturalselection”offullpublicity,theprincipleofelectionandgeneralcontrolprovidetheguaranteethat,inthelastanalysis,everypoliticalworkerwillbe“inhisproperplace,”willdotheworkforwhichheisbestfittedbyhisstrengthandabilities,willfeeltheeffectsofhismistakesonhimself,andprovebeforealltheworldhisabilitytorecognizemistakesandtoavoidthem.

Trytoputthispictureintheframeofourautocracy!IsitpossibleinRussiaforallthose“whoaccepttheprinciplesofthePartyprogramandrenderallthesupporttheycantotheParty”tocontroleveryactionoftherevolutionaryworkinginsecret?Isitpossibleforalltherevolutionariestoelectoneoftheirnumbertoanyparticularoffice,when,intheveryinterestsofthework,hemustconcealhisidentityfromnineoutoftenofthese“all”?Ponderalittleovertherealmeaningofthehigh-soundingphrasesthatRabocheyeDyelogivesutteranceto,andyouwillrealizethat“broaddemocracy”inPartyorganization,amidstthegloomofautocracyandthedominationofgendarmeselection,isnothingmorethanauselessandharmfultoy.Itisauselesstoybecause,asamatteroffact,norevolutionaryorganizationhaseverpracticedbroaddemocracy,norcouldit,howevermuchitdesiredtodoso.Itisaharmfultoybecauseanyattempttopracticethe“broaddemocraticprinciples”willsimplyfacilitatetheworkofthepoliceinmakingbigraids,itwillperpetuatetheprevailingprimitiveness,divertthethoughtsofthepracticalworkersfromtheseriousandimperativetaskoftrainingthemselvestobecomeprofessionalrevolutionariestothatofdrawingupdetailed“paper”rulesforelectionsystems.Onlyabroad,whereveryoftenpeoplewhohavenoopportunityofdoingrealliveworkgathertogether,canthe“gameofdemocracy”beplayedhereandthere,especiallyinsmallgroups.

InordertoshowhowimproperRabocheyeDyelo’sfavoritetrickisofadvancingtheimplausible“principle”ofdemocracyinrevolutionaryaffairs,weshallagaincallawitness.Thiswitness,E.Serebryakov,theeditoroftheLondonmagazine,Nakanunye,hasatenderfeelingforRabocheyeDyelo,andisfilledwithhatredagainstPlekhanovandthePlekhanovists.InarticlesthatitpublishedonthesplitintheLeagueofRussianSocial-DemocratsAbroad,NakanunyedefinitelytookthesideofRabocheyeDyeloandpouredastreamofdespicableabuseuponPlekhanov.Butthisonlymakesthiswitnessallthemorevaluableforusonthisquestion.InNo.7ofNakanunye(July1899),inanarticleentitled“TheManifestooftheSelf-EmancipationoftheWorkersGroup,”E.Serebryakovarguesthatitwas“indecent”totalkaboutsuchthingsas“self-deception,priorityandso-calledAreopagusinaseriousrevolutionary

movement,”andinteraliawrote:

“Myshkin,Rogachev,Zhelyabov,Mikhailov,Perovskaya,Fignerandothersneverregardedthemselvesasleaders,andnooneeverelectedorappointedthemassuch,althoughasamatteroffact,theywereleadersbecause,inthepropagandaperiod,aswellasintheperiodofthefightagainstthegovernment,theytookthebruntoftheworkuponthemselves,theywentintothemostdangerousplacesandtheiractivitieswerethemostfruitful.Leadershipcametothemnotbecausetheywishedit,butbecausethecomradessurroundingthemhadconfidenceintheirwisdom,theirenergyandloyalty.TobeafraidofsomekindofAreopagus[ifitisnotfeared,whywriteaboutit?]thatwouldarbitrarilygovernthemovementisfartoonaive.Whowouldobeyit?”

Weaskthereader,inwhatwaydoes“Areopagus”differfrom“anti-democratictendencies”?AndisitnotevidentthatRabocheyeDyelo’s“plausible”organizationalprincipleisequallynaiveandindecent;naive,becausenoonewouldobey“Areopagus,”orpeoplewith“anti-democratictendencies,”if“thecomradessurroundingthemhad”no“confidenceintheirwisdom,energyandloyalty”;indecent,becauseitisademagogicsallycalculatedtoplayontheconceitofsome,ontheignoranceoftheactualstateofourmovementonthepartofothers,andonthelackoftrainingandignoranceofthehistoryoftherevolutionarymovementofstillothers.Theonlyseriousorganizationalprincipletheactiveworkersofourmovementcanacceptisstrictsecrecy,strictselectionofmembersandthetrainingofprofessionalrevolutionaries.Ifwepossessedthesequalities,somethingevenmorethan“democracy”wouldbeguaranteedtous,namely,complete,comradely,mutualconfidenceamongrevolutionaries.AndthisisabsolutelyessentialforusbecauseinRussiaitisuselessthinkingthatdemocraticcontrolcanserveasasubstituteforit.Itwouldbeagreatmistaketobelievethatbecauseitisimpossibletoestablishreal“democratic”control,themembersoftherevolutionaryorganizationwillremainaltogetheruncontrolled.Theyhavenotthetimetothinkaboutthetoyformsofdemocracy(democracywithinacloseandcompactbodyofcomradesinwhichcomplete,mutualconfidenceprevails),buttheyhavealivelysenseoftheirresponsibility,becausetheyknowfromexperiencethatanorganizationofrealrevolutionarieswillstopat

nothingtoriditselfofanundesirablemember.Moreover,thereisafairlywell-developedpublicopinioninRussian(andinternational)revolutionarycircleswhichhasalonghistorybehindit,andwhichsternlyandruthlesslypunisheseverydeparturefromthedutiesofcomradeship(anddoesnot“democracy,”realandnottoydemocracy,formapartoftheconceptionofcomradeship?).Takeallthisintoconsiderationandyouwillrealizethatallthetalkandresolutionsabout“anti-democratictendencies”hasthefetidodorofthegameofgeneralsthatisplayedabroad.

Itmustbeobservedalsothattheothersourceofthistalk,i.e.,naivete,islikewisefosteredbytheconfusionofideasconcerningthemeaningofdemocracy.InMr.andMrs.Webb’sbookontradeunionism,thereisaninterestingchapterentitled“PrimitiveDemocracy.”Inthischapter,theauthorsrelatehow,inthefirstperiodofexistenceoftheirunions,theBritishworkersthoughtthatitwasanindispensablesignofdemocracyforallthememberstodoalltheworkofmanagingtheunions;notonlywereallquestionsdecidedbythevotesofallthemembers,butalltheofficialdutieswerefulfilledbyallthemembersinturn.Alongperiodofhistoricalexperiencewasrequiredtoteachtheseworkershowabsurdsuchaconceptionofdemocracywasandtomakethemunderstandthenecessityforrepresentativeinstitutionsontheonehand,andforfull-timeprofessionalofficialsontheother.Onlyafteranumberofcasesoffinancialbankruptcyoftradeunionsoccurreddidtheworkersrealizethatratesofcontributionsandbenefitscannotbedecidedmerelybyademocraticvote,butmustbebasedontheadviceofinsuranceexperts.LetustakealsoKautsky’sbookonparliamentarismandlegislationbythepeople.ThereyouwillfindthattheconclusionsdrawnbytheMarxiantheoreticiancoincidewiththelessonslearnedfrommanyyearsofexperiencebytheworkerswhoorganized“spontaneously.”KautskystronglyprotestsagainstRitting-hausen’sprimitiveconceptionofdemocracy;heridiculesthosewhointhenameofdemocracydemandthat“popularnewspapersshallbedirectlyeditedbythepeople”;heshowstheneedforprofessionaljournalists,parliamentarians,etc.,fortheSocial-Democraticleadershipoftheproletarianclassstruggle;heattacksthe“socialismofanarchistsandlitterateurs,”whointheir“strivingaftereffect”proclaimtheprinciplethatlawsshouldbepasseddirectlybythewholepeople,completelyfailingtounderstandthatinmodernsocietythisprinciplecanhaveonlyarelativeapplication.

Thosewhohavecarriedonpracticalworkinourmovementknowhowwidespreadisthe“primitive”conceptionofdemocracyamongthemassesofthestudentsandworkers.Itisnotsurprisingthatthisconceptionpermeates

rulesoforganizationandliterature.TheEconomistsoftheBernsteinpersuasionincludedintheirrulesthefollowing:“§10.Allaffairsaffectingtheinterestsofthewholeoftheunionorganizationshallbedecidedbyamajorityvoteofallitsmembers.”TheEconomistsoftheterroristpersuasionrepeatafterthem:“Thedecisionsofthecommitteemustbecirculatedamongallthecirclesandbecomeeffectiveonlyafterthishasbeendone.”(Svoboda,No.1.)Observethatthisproposalforawidelyappliedreferendumisadvancedinadditiontothedemandthatthewholeoftheorganizationbeorganizedonanelectivebasis!Wewouldnot,ofcourse,onthisaccountcondemnpracticalworkerswhohavehadtoofewopportunitiesforstudyingthetheoryandpracticeofrealdemocraticorganization,butwhenRabocheyeDyelo,whichclaimstoplayaleadingrole,confinesitself,undersuchconditions,toresolutionsaboutbroaddemocraticprinciples,howelsecanitbedescribedthanasamere“strivingaftereffect”?

F.LOCALANDALL-RUSSIANWORKAlthoughtheobjectionsraisedagainsttheplanforanorganizationoutlined

hereonthegroundsofitsundemocraticandconspirativecharacteraretotallyunsound,nevertheless,aquestionstillremainswhichisfrequentlyputandwhichdeservesdetailedexamination.Thisisthequestionabouttherelationsbetweenlocalworkandall-Russianwork.Fearsareexpressedthattheformationofacentralizedorganizationwouldshiftthecenterofgravityfromtheformertothelatter;thatthiswoulddamagethemovement,wouldweakenourcontactswiththemassesoftheworkers,andwouldweakenlocalagitationgenerally.Tothesefearswereplythatourmovementinthepastfewyearshassufferedpreciselyfromthefactthatthelocalworkershavebeentooabsorbedinlocalwork.Henceitisabsolutelynecessarytoshifttheweightoftheworksomewhatfromlocalworktonationalwork.Thiswouldnotweaken,onthecontrary,itwouldstrengthenourtiesandthecontinuityofourlocalagitation.Takethequestionofcentralandlocaljournals.Iwouldaskthereadernottoforgetthatwecitethepublicationofjournalsonlyasanexample,illustratinganimmeasurablybroader,morewidespreadandvariedrevolutionaryactivity.

Inthefirstperiodofthemassmovement(1896-98),anattemptismadebylocalPartyworkerstopublishanall-Russianjournal,RabochayaGazeta.Inthenextperiod(1898-1900),themovementmakesenormousstrides,buttheattentionoftheleadersiswhollyabsorbedbylocalpublications.Ifwecountupallthelocaljournalsthatwerepublished,weshallfindthatontheaverageonepaperpermonthwaspublished.97Doesthisnotillustrateourprimitiveways?

Doesthisnotclearlyshowthatourrevolutionaryorganizationlagsbehindthespontaneousgrowthofthemovement?Ifthesamenumberofissueshadbeenpublished,notbyscatteredlocalgroups,butbyasingleorganization,wewouldnotonlyhavesavedanenormousamountofeffort,butwewouldhavesecuredimmeasurablygreaterstabilityandcontinuityinourwork.Thissimplecalculationisveryfrequentlylostsightofbythosepracticalworkerswhoworkactively,almostexclusively,onlocalpublications(unfortunatelythisisthecaseevennowintheoverwhelmingmajorityofcases),aswellasbythepublicistswhodisplayanastonishingquixotismonthisquestion.Thepracticalworkersusuallyrestcontentwiththeargumentthat“itisdifficult”forlocalworkerstoengageintheorganizationofanall-Russiannewspaper,andthatlocalnewspapersarebetterthannonewspapersatall.98Thelatterargumentis,ofcourse,perfectlyjust,andweshallnotyieldtoanypracticalworkerinourrecognitionoftheenormousimportanceandusefulnessoflocalnewspapersingeneral.Butthisisnotthepoint.Thepointis,canweridourselvesofthestateofdiffusionandprimitivenessthatissostrikinglyexpressedinthethirtynumbersoflocalnewspaperspublishedthroughoutthewholeofRussiainthecourseoftwoandahalfyears?Donotrestrictyourselvestoindisputable,buttoogeneral,statementsabouttheusefulnessoflocalnewspapersgenerally;havethecouragealsoopenlytoadmitthedefectsthathavebeenrevealedbytheexperienceoftwoandahalfyears.Thisexperiencehasshownthatundertheconditionsinwhichwework,theselocalnewspapersprove,inthemajorityofcases,tobeunstableintheirprinciples,lackinginpoliticalsignificance,extremelycostlyinregardtoexpenditureofrevolutionaryforces,andtotallyunsatisfactoryfromatechnicalpointofview(Ihaveinmind,ofcourse,notthetechniqueofprintingthem,butthefrequencyandregularityofpublication).Thesedefectsarenotaccidental;theyaretheinevitableresultofthediffusionwhichontheonehandexplainsthepredominanceoflocalnewspapersintheperiodunderreview,andontheotherhandisfosteredbythispredominance.Aseparatelocalorganizationispositivelyunabletomaintainstabilityofprinciplesinitsnewspaperandraiseittothelevelofapoliticalorgan;itisunabletocollectandutilizesufficientmaterialdealingwiththewholeofourpoliticallife.Whileinpoliticallyfreecountriesitisoftenarguedindefenseofnumerouslocalnewspapersthatthecostofprintingbylocalworkersislowandthatthelocalpopulationcanbekeptmorefullyandquicklyinformed,experiencehasshownthatinRussiathisargumentcanbeusedagainstlocalnewspapers.InRussia,localnewspapersprovetobeexcessivelycostlyinregardtotheexpenditureofrevolutionaryforces,andappearveryrarely,fortheverysimplereasonthatnomatterhowsmallitssize,thepublicationofan

illegalnewspaperrequiresalargesecretapparatussuchasrequireslargefactoryproduction;forsuchanapparatuscannotbecreatedinasmall,handicraftworkshop.Veryfrequently,theprimitivenessofthesecretapparatus(everypracticalworkerknowsofnumerouscaseslikethis)enablesthepolicetotakeadvantageofthepublicationanddistributionofoneortwonumberstomakemassarrests,whichmakesuchacleansweepthatitisnecessaryafterwardstostartalloveragain.Awell-organizedsecretapparatusrequiresprofessionallywell-trainedrevolutionariesandproperdivisionoflabor,butneitheroftheserequirementscanbemetbyseparatelocalorganizations,nomatterhowstrongtheymaybeatanygivenmoment.Notonlyarethegeneralinterestsofourmovementasawhole(trainingoftheworkersinconsistentsocialistandpoliticalprinciples)betterservedbynon-localnewspapers,butsoalsoareevenspecificallylocalinterests.Thismayseemparadoxicalatfirstsight,butithasbeenproveduptothehiltbythetwoandahalfyearsofexperiencetowhichwehavealreadyreferred.Everyonewillagreethatifallthelocalforcesthatwereengagedinthepublicationofthesethirtyissuesofnewspapershadworkedonasinglenewspaper,theycouldeasilyhavepublishedsixtyifnotahundrednumbersand,consequently,wouldhavemorefullyexpressedallthespecificallylocalfeaturesofthemovement.True,itisnotaneasymattertoattainsuchahighdegreeoforganization,butwemustrealizetheneedforit.Everylocalcirclemustthinkaboutit,andworkactivelytoachieveit,withoutwaitingtobepushedonfromoutside;andwemuststopbeingtemptedbytheeasinessandcloserproximityofalocalnewspaperwhich,asourrevolutionaryexperiencehasshown,provestoalargeextenttobeillusory.

Anditisabadserviceindeedthosepublicistsrendertothepracticalworkwho,thinkingtheystandparticularlyclosetothepracticalworkers,failtoseethisillusoriness,andmakeshiftwiththeastonishinglycheapandastonishinglyhollowargument:wemusthavelocalnewspapers,wemusthavedistrictnewspapersandwemusthaveall-Russiannewspapers.Generallyspeaking,ofcourse,allthesearenecessary,butwhenyouundertaketosolveaconcreteorganizationalproblem,surelyyoumusttaketimeandcircumstanceintoconsideration.IsitnotquixoticonthepartofSvoboda(No.1),inaspecialarticle“dealingwiththequestionofanewspaper,”towrite:“Itseemstousthateverylocality,whereanynumberofworkersarecollected,shouldhaveitsownlabornewspaper;notanewspaperimportedfromsomewhereorother,butitsveryown.”Ifthepublicistwhowrotethatrefusestothinkaboutthesignificanceofhisownwords,thenatleastyou,reader,thinkaboutitforhim.

Howmanyscores,ifnothundreds,of“localitieswhereanynumberofworkersarecollected”arethereinRussia,andwoulditnotbesimplyperpetuatingourprimitivemethodsifindeedeverylocalorganizationsettoworktopublishitsownnewspaper?Howthisdiffusionwouldfacilitatethetaskofthegendarmesoffishingout—withoutanyconsiderableeffortatthat—thelocalPartyworkersattheverybeginningoftheiractivityandpreventingthemfromdevelopingintorealrevolutionaries!Areaderofanall-Russiannewspaper,continuestheauthor,wouldnotfinddescriptionsofthemalpracticesofthefactoryownersandthe“detailsoffactorylifeinothertownsoutsidehisdistrictatallinteresting.”But“aninhabitantofOrelwouldnotfinditdullreadingaboutOrelaffairs.Eachtimehepickeduphispaperhewouldlearnthatsomefactoryownerhadbeen‘caught’andanother‘exposed,’andhisspiritswouldbegintosoar.”Yes,yes,thespiritoftheOrelianwouldbegintosoar,butthethoughtsofourpublicistarealsobeginningtosoar—toohigh.Heshouldhaveaskedhimself:isitrighttoconcernoneselfentirelywithdefendingthestrivingafterpettyreforms?Wearesecondtononeinourappreciationoftheimportanceandnecessityoffactoryexposures,butitmustbeborneinmindthatwehavereachedastagewhenSt.PetersburgiansfinditdullreadingtheSt.PetersburgcorrespondenceoftheSt.PetersburgRabochayaMysl.Localfactoryexposureshavealwaysbeenandshouldalwayscontinuetobemadethroughthemediumofleaflets,butwemustraisethelevelofthenewspaper,andnotdegradeittothelevelofafactoryleaflet.Wedonotrequire“petty”exposuresforour“newspaper.”Werequireexposuresoftheimportant,typicalevilsoffactorylife,exposuresbasedonthemoststrikingfactsandcapableofinterestingallworkersandallleadersofthemovement,capableofreallyenrichingtheirknowledge,wideningtheiroutlook,andofrousingnewdistrictsandnewprofessionalstrataoftheworkers.

“Moreover,inalocalnewspaper,themalpracticesofthefactoryofficialsandotherauthoritiesmaybeseizeduponimmediately,andtheymaybecaughtred-handed.Inthecaseofageneralnewspaper,however,bythetimethenewsreachesthepaperandbythetimetheyarepublishedthefactswillhavebeenforgotteninthelocalitiesinwhichtheyoccurred.Thereader,whenhegetsthepaper,willsay:‘Godknowswhenthathappened!’”(Ibid.)Exactly!Godknowswhenithappened.AsweknowfromthesourceIhavealreadyquoted,duringtwoandahalfyears,thirtyissuesofnewspaperswerepublishedinsixcities.This,ontheaverage,isoneissuepercityperhalfyear.Andevenifourfrivolouspublicisttrebledhisestimateoftheproductivityoflocalwork(whichwouldbewronginthecaseofanaveragecity,becauseitisimpossibleto

increaseproductivitytoanyextentbyourprimitivemethods),wewouldstillgetonlyoneissueeverytwomonths,i.e.,nothingatalllike“catchingthemred-handed.”Itwouldbesufficient,however,tocombineascoreorsooflocalorganizations,andassignactivefunctionstotheirdelegatesinorganizingageneralnewspaper,toenableusto“catch”overthewholeofRussia,notpetty,butreallyoutstandingandtypicalevilsonceeveryfortnight.Noonewhohasanyknowledgeatallofthestateofaffairsinourorganizationscanhavetheslightestdoubtaboutthat.Itisquiteabsurdtotalkaboutanillegalnewspapercatchingtheenemyred-handed,thatis,ifwemeanitseriouslyandnotmerelyasametaphor.Thatcanonlybedonebyasurreptitiousleaflet,becauseanincidentlikethatcanonlybeofinterestforamatterofadayortwo(take,forexample,theusualbriefstrikes,beatingsinafactory,demonstrations,etc.).

“Theworkersnotonlyliveinfactories,theyalsoliveinthecities,”continuesourauthor,risingfromtheparticulartothegeneral,withastrictconsistencythatwouldhavedonehonortoBorisKrichevskyhimself;andhereferstomatterslikecitycouncils,cityhospitals,cityschools,anddemandsthatlabornewspapersshouldnotignoremunicipalaffairsingeneral.Thisdemandisanexcellentoneinitself,butitservesasaremarkableillustrationoftheemptyabstractionwhichtoofrequentlycharacterizesdiscussionsaboutlocalnewspapers.Firstofall,ifindeednewspapersappeared“ineverylocalitywhereanynumberofworkersarecollected”withsuchdetailedinformationonmunicipalaffairsasSvobodadesires,itwould,underourRussianconditions,inevitablydegenerateintoastrivingforpettyreforms,wouldleadtoaweakeningoftheconsciousnessoftheimportanceofanall-Russianrevolutionaryattackuponthetsaristautocracy,andwouldstrengthenthoseextremelyvirileshootsofthetendency—notuprootedbutrathertemporarilysuppressed—whichhasalreadybecomenotoriousasaresultofthefamousremarkaboutrevolutionarieswhotalkagreatdealaboutnon-existentparliamentsandtoolittleaboutexistingcitycouncils.Wesay“inevitably”deliberately,inordertoemphasizethatSvobodaobviouslydoesnotwantthisbutthecontrarytohappen.Butgoodintentionsarenotenough.Inorderthatmunicipalaffairsmaybedealtwithintheirproperperspective,inrelationtothewholeofourwork,thisperspectivemustfirstbeclearlyconceived;itmustbefirmlyestablished,notonlybyargument,butbynumerousexamples,inorderthatitmayacquirethefirmnessofatradition.Thisisfarfrombeingthecasewithusyet.Andyetthismustbedonefirst,beforewecaneventhinkandtalkaboutanextensivelocalpress.

Secondly,inordertobeabletowritewellandinterestinglyaboutmunicipal

affairs,onemustknowthesequestionsnotonlyfrombooks.AndtherearehardlyanySocial-DemocratsanywhereinRussiawhopossessthisknowledge.Inordertobeabletowriteinnewspapers(notinpopularpamphlets)aboutmunicipalandstateaffairs,onemusthavefreshandmultifariousmaterialcollectedandworkedupbyablejournalists.Andinordertobeabletocollectandworkupsuchmaterial,wemusthavesomethingmorethanthe“primitivedemocracy”ofaprimitivecircle,inwhicheverybodydoeseverythingandallentertainoneanotherbyplayingatreferendums.Forthisitisnecessarytohaveastaffofexpertwriters,expertcorrespondents,anarmyofSocial-Democraticreportersthathasestablishedcontactsfarandwide,abletopenetrateintoallsortsof“statesecrets”(aboutwhichtheRussiangovernmentofficialissopuffedup,butwhichhesoeasilyblabs),finditsway“behindthescenes,”anarmyofmenandwomenwhose“officialduty”itmustbetobeubiquitousandomniscient.Andwe,thepartythatfightsagainstalleconomic,political,socialandnationaloppression,canandmustfind,collect,train,mobilizeandsetintomotionsuchanarmyofomniscientpeople—butallthishasyettobedone!Notonlyhasnotasinglestepbeentakentowardsthisintheoverwhelmingmajorityoflocalities,butinmanycasesthenecessityfordoingitisnotevenrealized.SearchourSocial-Democraticpressforlivelyandinterestingarticles,correspondence,andexposuresofourdiplomatic,military,ecclesiastical,municipal,financial,etc.,etc.,affairsandmalpractices!Youwillfindalmostnothing,orverylittle,aboutthesethings.99Thatiswhy“Italwaysfrightfullyannoysmewhenamancomestomeanduttersbeautifulandcharmingwords”abouttheneedfornewspapersthatwillexposefactory,municipalandgovernmentevils“ineverylocalitywhereanynumberofworkersarecollected”!

Thepredominanceofthelocalpressoverthecentralpressmaybeeitherasymptomofpovertyorasymptomofluxury.Ofpoverty,whenthemovementhasnotyetdevelopedtheforcesforlarge-scaleproduction,andcontinuestoflounderinprimitivewaysandin“thepettydetailsoffactorylife.”Ofluxury,whenthemovementhasalreadyfullymasteredthetaskofall-sidedexposureandall-sidedagitationanditbecomesnecessarytopublishnumerouslocalnewspapersinadditiontothecentralorgan.Leteachonedecideforhimselfwhatthepredominanceoflocalnewspapersimpliesatthepresenttime.Ishalllimitmyselftoapreciseformulationofmyownconclusioninordertoavoidmisunderstanding.Hitherto,themajorityofourlocalorganizationshavebeenthinkingalmostexclusivelyoflocalnewspapers,andhavedevotedalmostalltheiractivitiestothese.Thisisunsound—theveryoppositeshouldbethecase.

Themajorityofthelocalorganizationsshouldthinkprincipallyofthepublicationofanall-Russiannewspaper,anddevotetheiractivitiesprincipallytoit.Untilthisisdone,weshallneverbeabletoestablishasinglenewspapercapable,toanydegree,ofservingthemovementwithall-sidedpressagitation.Whenitisdone,however,normalrelationsbetweenthenecessarycentralnewspapersandthenecessarylocalnewspaperswillbeestablishedautomatically.

Itwouldseematfirstsightthattheconclusiondrawnconcerningthenecessityfortransferringtheweightofeffortfromlocalworktoall-Russianworkdoesnotapplytothesphereofthespecificallyeconomicstruggle.Inthisstruggle,theimmediateenemyoftheworkersistheindividualemployerorgroupofemployers,whoarenotboundbyanyorganizationhavingeventheremotestresemblancetothepurelymilitant,strictlycentralizedorganizationoftheRussiangovernmentwhichisguidedeveninitsminutestdetailsbyasinglewill,andwhichisourimmediateenemyinthepoliticalstruggle.

Butthatisnotthecase.Aswehavealreadypointedoutmanytimes,theeconomicstruggleisatradestruggle,andforthatreasonitrequiresthattheworkersbeorganizedaccordingtotradeandnotonlyaccordingtotheirplaceofemployment.Andthisorganizationbytradebecomesallthemoreimperativelynecessary,themorerapidlyouremployersorganizeinallsortsofcompaniesandsyndicates.Ourstateofdiffusionandourprimitivenesshinderthisworkoforganization,andinorderthatthisworkmaybecarriedoutwemusthaveasingle,all-Russianorganizationofrevolutionariescapableofundertakingtheleadershipoftheall-Russiantradeunions.Wehavealreadydescribedabovethetypeoforganizationthatisdesiredforthispurpose,andnowweshalladdjustafewwordsaboutthisinconnectionwiththequestionofourpress.

HardlyanyonewilldoubtthenecessityforeverySocial-Democraticnewspaperhavingaspecialsectiondevotedtothetradeunion(economic)struggle.Butthegrowthofthetradeunionmovementcompelsustothinkalsoaboutthetradeunionpress.Itseemstous,however,thatwithrareexceptionsitisnotmuchusethinkingoftradeunionnewspapersinRussiaatthepresenttime;thatwouldbealuxury,andinmanyplaceswecannotevenobtainourdailybread.Theformoftradeunionpressthatwouldsuittheconditionsofour

illegalworkandisalreadycalledforatthepresenttimeisthetradeunionpamphlet.Inthesepamphlets,legal100andillegalmaterialshouldbecollectedandgroupedsystematically,onconditionsoflaborinagiventrade,onthevariousconditionsprevailinginthevariouspartsofRussia,ontheprincipaldemandsadvancedbytheworkersinagiventrade,onthedefectsofthelawsinrelationtothattrade,ontheoutstandingcasesofworkers’economicstruggleinthistrade,ontherudiments,thepresentstateandtherequirementsoftheirtradeunionorganizations,etc.Suchpamphletswould,inthefirstplace,relieveourSocial-Democraticpressofamassoftradedetailsthatinterestonlytheworkersemployedinthegiventrade;secondly,theywouldrecordtheresultsofourexperienceinthetradeunionstruggle,wouldpreservethematerialcollected—whichisnowliterallylostinamassofleafletsandfragmentarycorrespondence—andwouldgeneralizethismaterial.Thirdly,theycouldserveasmaterialfortheguidanceofagitators,becauseconditionsoflaborchangerelativelyslowlyandtheprincipaldemandsoftheworkersinagiventradehardlyeverchange(see,forexample,thedemandsadvancedbytheweaversintheMoscowdistrictin1885andintheSt.Petersburgdistrictin1896);acompilationofthesedemandsandneedsmightserveforyearsasanexcellenthandbookforagitatorsoneconomicquestionsinbackwardlocalitiesoramongbackwardstrataoftheworkers.Examplesofsuccessfulstrikes,informationaboutthehigherstandardofliving,aboutbetterconditionsoflaborinonedistrict,wouldencouragetheworkersinotherdistrictstotakeupthefightagainandagain.Fourthly,havingmadeastartingeneralizingthetradeunionstruggle,andhavinginthiswaystrengthenedthecontactsbetweentheRussiantradeunionmovementandsocialism,theSocial-DemocratswouldatthesametimeseetoitthatourtradeunionworkdidnottakeupeithertoosmallortoolargeapartofourgeneralSocial-Democraticwork.Alocalorganizationthatiscutofffromtheorganizationsinothertownsfindsitverydifficult,andsometimesalmostimpossible,tomaintainacorrectsenseofproportion(andtheexampleofRabochayaMyslshowswhatamonstrousexaggerationissometimesmadeinthedirectionoftradeunionism).Butanall-Russianorganizationofrevolutionaries,thatstandsundeviatinglyonthebasisofMarxism,thatleadsthewholeofthepoliticalstruggleandpossessesastaffofprofessionalagitators,willneverfinditdifficulttodeterminetheproperproportion.

CONCLUSIONThehistoryofRussianSocial-Democracycanbedividedintothreedistinct

periods:

Thefirstperiodcoversabouttenyears,approximatelytheyears1884to1894.ThiswastheperiodoftheriseandconsolidationofthetheoryandprogramofSocial-Democracy.ThenumberofadherentsofthenewtendencyinRussiacouldbecountedinunits.Social-Democracyexistedwithoutalabormovement;itwas,asitwere,initsperiodofgestation.

Thesecondperiodcoversthreeorfouryears—1894-98.InthisperiodSocial-Democracyappearedintheworldasasocialmovement,astherisingofthemassesofthepeople,asapoliticalparty.Thisistheperiodofitschildhoodandadolescence.ThefightagainstNarodismandgoingamongtheworkersinfectedtheintelligentsiawholesalelikeanepidemic,andtheworkerswereequallyinfectedbystrikes.Themovementmadeenormousstrides.Themajorityoftheleaderswereveryyoungpeoplewhohadbynomeansreachedthe“ageofthirty-five”whichtoN.Mikhailovskyappearstobeasortofnaturalborderline.Owingtotheiryouth,theyprovedtobeuntrainedforpracticalworkandtheyleftthescenewithastonishingrapidity.Butinthemajorityofcasesthescopeoftheirworkwasextremelywide.ManyofthembegantheirrevolutionarythinkingasNarodovolists.Nearlyallofthemintheirearlyyouthenthusiasticallyworshippedtheterroristheroes.ItwasagreatwrenchtoabandonthecaptivatingimpressionsoftheseheroictraditionsanditwasaccompaniedbythebreakingoffofpersonalrelationshipswithpeoplewhoweredeterminedtoremainloyaltoNarodnayaVolyaandforwhomtheyoungSocial-Democratshadprofoundrespect.Thestrugglecompelledthemtoeducatethemselves,toreadtheillegalliteratureofalltendenciesandtostudycloselythequestionsoflegalNarodism.Trainedinthisstruggle,Social-Democratswentintothelabormovementwithout“foramoment”forgettingthetheoriesofMarxismwhichilluminedtheirpathorthetaskofoverthrowingtheautocracy.TheformationofthePartyinthespringof1898wasthemoststrikingandatthesametimethelastactoftheSocial-Democratsinthisperiod.

Thethirdperiod,aswehaveseen,beganin1897anddefinitelyreplacedthesecondperiodin1898(1898—?).Thiswastheperiodofdispersion,dissolutionandvacillation.Intheperiodofadolescencetheyouth’svoicebreaks.Andso,inthisperiod,thevoiceofRussianSocial-Democracybegantobreak,begantostrikeafalsenote—ontheonehand,intheproductionsofMessrs.StruveandProkopovich,BulgakovandBerdyaev,ontheotherhand,intheproductionsofV.I———nandR.M.,B.KrichevskyandMartynov.Butitwasonlytheleaderswhowanderedaboutseparatelyandwentback;the

movementitselfcontinuedtogrow,anditadvancedwithenormousstrides.TheproletarianstrugglespreadtonewstrataoftheworkersoverthewholeofRussiaandatthesametimeindirectlystimulatedtherevivalofthedemocraticspiritamongthestudentsandamongotherstrataofthepopulation.Theconsciousnessoftheleaders,however,yieldedtothebreadthandpowerofthespontaneousrising;amongSocial-Democrats,adifferentstreakpredominated—astreakofPartyworkerswhohadbeentrainedalmostexclusivelyon“legalMarxian”literature,andthemorethespontaneityofthemassescalledforconsciousness,themoretheinadequacyofthisliteraturewasfelt.Theleadersnotonlylaggedbehindinregardtotheory(“freedomofcriticism”)andpractice(“primitiveness”),buteventriedtojustifytheirbackwardnessbyallsortsofhigh-flownarguments.Social-DemocracywasdegradedtotheleveloftradeunionisminlegalliteraturebytheBrentanoistsandinillegalliteraturebythekhvostists.TheprogramoftheCredobegantobeputintooperation,especiallywhenthe“primitiveness”oftheSocial-Democratscausedarevivalofnon-Social-Democraticrevolutionarytendencies.

AndifthereaderreproachesmeforhavingdealtinexcessivedetailwithacertainRabocheyeDyelo,Ishallsaytohiminreply:RabocheyeDyeloacquired“historical”significancebecauseitmoststrikinglyreflectedthe“spirit”ofthisthirdperiod.101ItwasnottheconsistentR.M.buttheweathercockKrichevskysandMartynovswhocouldproperlyexpresstheconfusionandvacillation,andthereadinesstomakeconcessionsto“criticism,”to“Economism”andtoterrorism.Itisnottheloftycontemptforpracticalworkdisplayedbytheworshippersofthe“absolute”thatischaracteristicofthisperiod,butthecombinationofpettifoggingpracticeandutterdisregardfortheory.Itwasnotsomuchthedownrightrejectionof“grandphrases”thattheheroesofthisperiodengagedinasinthevulgarizationofthesephrases:scientificsocialismceasedtobeanintegralrevolutionarytheoryandbecameahodge-podgeidea“freely”dilutedwiththecontentsofeverynewGermantextbookthatappeared;theslogan“classstruggle”didnotimpelthemforwardtowiderandmorestrenuousactivitybutservedasasoothingsyrup,becausethe“economicstruggleisinseparablylinkedupwiththepoliticalstruggle”;theideaofapartydidnotserveasacallforthecreationofamilitantorganizationofrevolutionaries,butwasusedtojustifysomesortofa“revolutionarybureaucracy”andinfantileplayingat“democratic”forms.

Whenthisthirdperiodwillcometoanendandthefourthbeginwedonotknow(atalleventsitisalreadyheraldedbymanysigns).Wearepassingfromthesphereofhistorytothesphereofthepresentandpartlytothesphereofthe

future.ButwefirmlybelievethatthefourthperiodwillseetheconsolidationofmilitantMarxism,thatRussianSocial-Democracywillemergefromthecrisisinthefullstrengthofmanhood,thattheplaceoftherearguardofopportunistswillbetakenbyagenuinevanguardofthemostrevolutionaryclass.

Inthesenseofcallingforsucha“newguard”andsummingup,asitwere,allthathasbeenexpoundedabove,myreplytothequestion:“Whatistobedone?”canbeputbriefly:LiquidatetheThirdPeriod.

IMPERIALISM,THEHIGHESTSTAGEOFCAPITALISM

LeninwroteImperialism,theHighestStageofCapitalismearlyin1916,whileinexileinSwitzerland.AlthoughthemanuscriptwasattheprinterbyOctober1916,thebookitselfdidnotappearinSt.PetersburguntilSeptember1917,apparentlyasaresultofthegeneralconfusionanddisorganizationinRussiaduringthisperiod.

Thebookwaswrittenforopen,legalpublicationinRussia;LeninhadTsaristcensorshipinmindanddevisedmeanstocircumventit.Employingwhathecharacterizedas“Aesopianlanguage,”heusednon-RussianexamplestoillustratepointsaboutRussia.AsLenincommentedlater,“Itispainful,inthesedaysofliberty,toreadthesesqueezed-inpassagesofthepamphlet,crushed,astheyseem,inanironvise,distortedonaccountofthecensor.”Hewentontoexplain:“ThecarefulreaderwilleasilysubstituteRussiaforJapan,andFinland,Poland,Courland,theUkraine,Khiva,Bokhara,Estoniaandotherregionspeopledbynon-GreatRussiansforKorea.”

ToLenin,imperialismisthedominanceoffinancecapital.Specifically,hedoesnotdefineimperialismasitisgenerallydefined,namely,thebuildingofempiresbysubjugationofterritoriesandtheexploitationofthesecolonialterritoriesfornewmaterialsandasmarkets.Indeed,asearlyastheWorldWarIperiod,Leninbelievedthisformofimperialismwasoutmoded.Instead,heconcernedhimselfwithwhatheassertedwastheinevitablenextstageofimperialism,wherethe“have”nationscouldandwoulddominatethe“havenot”nationssimplybytheexportofcapitalitself.Bythismeans,therichnationswouldnotneedtoexploitthepoornationstosecurerawmaterialsfortheirownindustries,norwouldtheyneedtoutilizethepoornationsascaptivemarkets;theycouldmerelycollectthecontinuingincomefromtheircapital,whilealltheactualworkwasperformedinthe“havenot”debtornations.

Itisobviouswhatthiswouldcauseinthewealthynationsthemselves;thefinancierswoulddiverttheircapitaltotheforeignlocaleswhereitwould

producethehighestreturnsandrefrainfromaidingindustryintheirowncountries,resultinginindustrialstagnationinthewealthynations.This,inturn,wouldintensifythedivisionbetweentheproductive,workingclassesandthenonproductive,investingclasseswithinthewealthynations.

This,Leninpredicts,isthefinal,stagnant,“parasitic,”revolutionarystageofcapitalism.Toemphasizehiscase,LenindeliberatelydoesnotdrawuponMarxorMarxisteconomistsforsubstantiation,butinsteadchoosestoutilizenon-Marxistsourcesforstatisticsandquotations.

OfparticularinteresttothecontemporaryAmericanreaderisLenin’sattentiontothehistoryofAmericanindustryandfinance,hisreferencestothebusinesstechniquesofthe“robberbarons”ofthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies,hisanalysisoftheconflictbetweenlargeandsmallcapital,andhisstrikingpredictionsconcerningthedevelopmentandroleofthemoderncorporation.

Imperialism,theHighestStageofCapitalismappearsherecomplete.

CHAPTERI

CONCENTRATIONOFPRODUCTIONANDMONOPOLIESTheenormousgrowthofindustryandtheremarkablyrapidprocessof

concentrationofproductioninever-largerenterprisesrepresentoneofthemostcharacteristicfeaturesofcapitalism.Moderncensusesofproductiongivecompleteandexactinformationonthisprocess.

InGermany,forexample,forevery1,000industrialenterprises,largeenterprises,i.e.,thoseemployingmorethan50workers,numberedthreein1882;sixin1895;ninein1907;andoutofevery100workersemployed,thisgroupofenterprises,onthedatesmentioned,employed22,30and37respectively.Concentrationofproduction,however,ismuchmoreintensethantheconcentrationofworkers,sincelaborinthelargeenterprisesismuchmoreproductive.Thisisshownbythefiguresavailableonsteamandelectricmotors.IfwetakewhatinGermanyiscalledindustryinthebroadsenseoftheterm,thatis,includingcommerce,transport,etc.,wegetthefollowingpicture:Large-scaleenterprises:30,588outofatotalof3,265,623,thatistosay,0.9percent.Theselarge-scaleenterprisesemploy5,700,000workersoutofatotalof14,400,000,thatis,39.4percent;theyuse6,600,000steamhorsepoweroutofatotalof8,800,000,thatis,75.3percent,and1,200,000kilowattsofelectricityoutofatotalof1,500,000,thatis,77.2percent.

Lessthanone-hundredthofthetotalenterprisesutilizemorethanthree-fourthsofthesteamandelectricpower!Twomillionninehundredandseventythousandsmallenterprises(employinguptofiveworkers),representing91percentofthetotal,utilizeonly7percentofthesteamandelectricpower.Tensofthousandsoflarge-scaleenterprisesareeverything;millionsofsmallonesarenothing.

In1907,therewereinGermany586establishmentsemployingonethousandandmoreworkers.Theyemployednearlyone-tenth(1,380,000)ofthetotalnumberofworkersemployedinindustryandutilizedalmostone-third(32per

cent)ofthetotalsteamandelectricpoweremployed.Asweshallsee,moneycapitalandthebanksmadethissuperiorityofahandfulofthelargestenterprisesstillmoreoverwhelming,inthemostliteralsenseoftheword,sincemillionsofsmall,medium,andevensomebig“masters”areinfactincompletesubjectiontosomehundredsofmillionairefinanciers.

Inanotheradvancedcountryofmoderncapitalism,theUnitedStates,thegrowthoftheconcentrationofproductionisstillgreater.Herestatisticssingleoutindustryinthenarrowsenseoftheword,andgroupenterprisesaccordingtothevalueoftheirannualoutput.In1904intheUnitedStates,large-scaleenterpriseswithanannualoutputofonemilliondollarsandovernumbered1,900(outof216,180,thatis,0.9percent).Theseemployed1,400,000workers(outof5,500,000,i.e.,25.6percent)andtheircombinedannualoutputwasvaluedat$5,600,000,000(outof$14,800,000,000,i.e.,38percent).Fiveyearslater,in1909,thecorrespondingfigureswere:Large-scaleenterprises:3,060(outof268,491,i.e.,1.1percent);employing:2,000,000workers(outof6,600,000,i.e.,30.5percent);producing:$9,000,000,000(outof$20,700,000,000,i.e.,43.8percent).

Almosthalfthetotalproductionofalltheenterprisesofthecountrywascarriedonbyahundredthpartofthoseenterprises!These3,000giantenterprisesembrace268branchesofindustry.Fromthisitcanbeseenthat,atacertainstageofitsdevelopment,concentrationitself,asitwere,leadsrighttomonopoly;forascoreorsoofgiantenterprisescaneasilyarriveatanagreement,whileontheotherhandthedifficultyofcompetitionandthetendencytowardsmonopolyarisefromtheverydimensionsoftheenterprises.Thistransformationofcompetitionintomonopolyisoneofthemostimportant—ifnotthemostimportant—phenomenaofmoderncapitalisteconomy,andwemustdealwithitingreaterdetail.Butfirstwemustclearuponepossiblemisunderstanding.

Americanstatisticssay:3,000giantenterprisesin250branchesofindustry,asiftherewereonlyadozenlarge-scaleenterprisesforeachbranchofindustry.

Butthisisnotthecase.Notineverybranchofindustryaretherelarge-scaleenterprises;and,moreover,averyimportantfeatureofcapitalisminitshigheststageofdevelopmentistheso-calledcombine,thatistosay,thegroupinginasingleenterpriseofdifferentbranchesofindustry,whicheitherrepresenttheconsecutivestagesintheworkingupofrawmaterials(forexample,thesmeltingofironoreintopigiron,theconversionofpigironintosteel,and

then,perhaps,themanufactureofsteelgoods)—orareauxiliarytooneanother(forexample,theutilizationofwasteorofby-products,themanufactureofpackingmaterials,etc.).

“...Combination,”writesHilferding,“levelsoutthefluctuationsoftradeandthereforeassurestothecombinedenterprisesamorestablerateofprofit.Secondly,combinationhastheeffectofeliminatingtrading.Thirdly,ithastheeffectofrenderingpossibletechnicalimprovementsand,consequently,theacquisitionofsuper-profitsoverandabovethoseobtainedbythe‘pure,’i.e.,non-combined,enterprises.Fourthly,itstrengthensthepositionofthecombinedenterprisescomparedwiththatof‘pure’enterprises,itincreasestheircompetitivepowerinperiodsofseriousdepressionwhenthefallinpricesofrawmaterialsdoesnotkeeppacewiththefallinpricesofmanufacturedarticles.”

TheGermanbourgeoiseconomist,Heymann,whohaswrittenabookespeciallyon“mixed,”thatis,combined,enterprisesintheGermanironindustry,says:“Non-combineenterprisesperish,crushedbythehighpriceofrawmaterialandthelowpriceofthefinishedproduct.”Thuswegetthefollowingpicture:

“Thereremain,ontheonehand,thegreatcoalcompanies,producingmillionsoftonsyearly,stronglyorganizedintheircoalsyndicate,andcloselyconnectedwiththemthebigsteelplantsandtheirsteelsyndicate;andthesegreatenterprises,producing400,000tonsofsteelperannum,withcorrespondinglyextensivecoal,oreandblastfurnaceoperations,aswellasthemanufacturingoffinishedgoods,employing10,000workersquarteredincompanyhouses,sometimesowningtheirownwharvesandrailways,aretodaythestandardtypeofGermanironandsteelplant.Andconcentrationcontinues.Individualenterprisesarebecominglargerandlarger.Aneverincreasingnumberofenterprisesinonegivenindustry,orinseveraldifferentindustries,jointogetheringiantcombines,backedupandcontrolledbyhalfadozenBerlinbanks.IntheGermanminingindustry,thetruthofthe

teachingsofKarlMarxontheconcentrationofcapitalisdefinitelyproved,atanyrateinacountrywhereitisprotectedbytariffsandfreightrates.TheGermanminingindustryisripeforexpropriation.”

Suchistheconclusionwhichaconscientiousbourgeoiseconomist,andsuchareexceptional,hadtoarriveat.ItmustbenotedthatheseemstoplaceGermanyinaspecialcategorybecauseherindustriesareprotectedbyhightariffs.Buttheconcentrationofindustryandtheformationofmonopolist,manufacturers’combines,cartels,syndicates,etc.,couldonlybeacceleratedbythesecircumstances.ItisextremelyimportanttonotethatinfreetradeEngland,concentrationalsoleadstomonopoly,althoughsomewhatlaterandperhapsinanotherform.ProfessorHermannLevy,inhisspecialinvestigationentitledMonopolies,CartelsandTrusts,basedondataonBritisheconomicdevelopment,writesasfollows:

“InGreatBritainitisthesizeoftheenterpriseanditscapacitywhichharboramonopolisttendency.This,foronething,isduetothefactthatthegreatinvestmentofcapitalperenterprise,oncetheconcentrationmovementhascommenced,givesrisetoincreasingdemandsfornewcapitalforthenewenterprisesandtherebyrenderstheirlaunchingmoredifficult.Moreover(andthisseemstoustobethemoreimportantpoint),everynewenterprisethatwantstokeeppacewiththegiganticenterprisesthathavearisenonthebasisoftheprocessofconcentrationproducessuchanenormousquantityofsurplusgoodsthatitcanonlydisposeofthemeitherbybeingabletosellthemprofitablyasaresultofanenormousincreaseindemandorbyimmediatelyforcingdownpricestoalevelthatwouldbeunprofitablebothforitselfandforthemonopolycombines.”

InEngland,unlikeothercountrieswheretheprotectivetariffsfacilitatetheformationofcartels,monopolistalliancesofentrepreneurs,cartelsandtrusts,ariseinthemajorityofcasesonlywhenthenumberofcompetingenterprisesisreducedtoa“coupleofdozenorso.”“Heretheinfluenceoftheconcentrationmovementontheformationoflargeindustrialmonopoliesina

wholesphereofindustrystandsoutwithcrystalclarity.”

Fiftyyearsago,whenMarxwaswritingCapital,freecompetitionappearedtomosteconomiststobea“naturallaw.”Theofficialscientiststried,byaconspiracyofsilence,tokilltheworksofMarx,whichbyatheoreticalandhistoricalanalysisofcapitalismshowedthatfreecompetitiongivesrisetotheconcentrationofproduction,which,inturn,atacertainstageofdevelopment,leadstomonopoly.Today,monopolyhasbecomeafact.Theeconomistsarewritingmountainsofbooksinwhichtheydescribethediversemanifestationsofmonopoly,andcontinuetodeclareinchorusthat“Marxismisrefuted.”Butfactsarestubbornthings,astheEnglishproverbsays,andtheyhavetobereckonedwith,whetherwelikeitornot.Thefactsshowthatdifferencesbetweencapitalistcountries,e.g.,inthematterofprotectionorfreetrade,onlygiverisetoinsignificantvariationsintheformofmonopoliesorinthemomentoftheirappearance,andthattheriseofmonopolies,astheresultoftheconcentrationofproduction,isageneralandfundamentallawofthepresentstageofdevelopmentofcapitalism.

ForEurope,thetimewhenthenewcapitalismwasdefinitelysubstitutedfortheoldcanbeestablishedfairlyprecisely:itwasthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury.Inoneofthelatestcompilationsonthehistoryofthe“formationofmonopolies,”weread:

“Afewisolatedexamplesofcapitalistmonopolycouldbecitedfromtheperiodpreceding1860;inthesecouldbediscernedtheembryooftheformsthatarecommontoday;butallundoubtedlyrepresentpre-history.Therealbeginningofmodernmonopolygoesback,attheearliest,tothe‘sixties.Thefirstimportantperiodofdevelopmentofmonopolycommencedwiththeinternationalindustrialdepressionofthe’seventiesandlasteduntilthebeginningofthe‘nineties....IfweexaminethequestiononaEuropeanscale,wewillfindthatthedevelopmentoffreecompetitionreacheditsapexinthe’sixtiesand’seventies.ThenitwasthatEnglandcompletedtheconstructionofitsoldstylecapitalistorganization.InGermany,thisorganizationhadenteredintoadecisivestrugglewithhandicraftanddomesticindustry,andhadbeguntocreateforitselfitsownformsofexistence....”

‘Thegreatrevolutionizationcommencedwiththecrashof1873,

orrather,thedepressionwhichfolloweditandwhich,withhardlydiscernibleinterruptionsintheearly’eightiesandtheunusuallyviolent,butshort-livedboomabout1889,markstwenty-twoyearsofEuropeaneconomichistory.Duringtheshortboomof1889-90,thesystemofcartelswaswidelyresortedtoinordertotakeadvantageofthefavorablebusinessconditions.Anill-consideredpolicydrovepricesstillhigherthanwouldhavebeenthecaseotherwiseandnearlyallthesecartelsperishedingloriouslyinthesmash.Anotherfive-yearperiodofbadtradeandlowpricesfollowed,butanewspiritreignedinindustry;thedepressionwasnolongerregardedassomethingtobetakenforgranted:itwasregardedasnothingmorethanapausebeforeanotherboom.

“Thecartelmovemententereditssecondepoch.Insteadofbeingatransitoryphenomenon,thecartelsbecameoneofthefoundationsofeconomiclife.Theyarewinningonefieldafteranother,primarily,therawmaterialsindustry.Atthebeginningofthe‘ninetiesthecartelsystemhadalreadyacquired—intheorganizationofthecokesyndicateonthemodelofwhichthecoalsyndicatewaslaterformed—acarteltechniquewhichcouldhardlybeimproved.Forthefirsttimethegreatboomatthecloseofthenineteenthcenturyandthecrisisof1900-03occurredentirely—intheminingandironindustriesatleast—undertheaegisofthecartels.Andwhileatthattimeitappearedtobesomethingnovel,nowthegeneralpublictakesitforgrantedthatlargespheresofeconomyhavebeen,asageneralrule,systematicallyremovedfromtherealmoffreecompetition.”

Thus,theprincipalstagesinthehistoryofmonopoliesarethefollowing:1)1860-70,thehigheststage,theapexofdevelopmentoffreecompetition;monopolyisinthebarelydiscernible,embryonicstage.2)Afterthecrisisof1873,awidezoneofdevelopmentofcartels;buttheyarestilltheexception.Theyarenotyetdurable.Theyarestillatransitoryphenomenon.3)Theboomattheendofthenineteenthcenturyandthecrisisof1900-03.Cartelsbecomeoneofthefoundationsofthewholeofeconomiclife.Capitalismhasbeentransformedintoimperialism.

Cartelscometoagreementontheconditionsofsale,termsofpayment,etc.Theydividethemarketsamongthemselves.Theyfixthequantityofgoodsto

beproduced.Theyfixprices.Theydividetheprofitsamongthevariousenterprises,etc.

ThenumberofcartelsinGermanywasestimatedatabout250in1896andat385in1905,withabout12,000firmsparticipating.Butitisgenerallyrecognizedthatthesefiguresareunderestimations.FromthestatisticsofGermanindustryfor1907wequotedabove,itisevidentthateven12,000largeenterprisesmustcertainlyutilizemorethanhalfthesteamandelectricpowerusedinthecountry.IntheUnitedStates,thenumberoftrustsin1900was185,andin1907,250.Americanstatisticsdivideallenterprisesintothreecategories,accordingtowhethertheybelongtoindividuals,toprivatefirmsortocorporations.Theselatterin1904comprised23.6percent,andin1909,25.9percent(i.e.,morethanone-fourthofthetotalindustrialenterprisesinthecountry).Theseemployedin1904,70.6percent,andin1909,75.6percent(i.e.,morethanthree-fourths)ofthetotalwageearners.Theiroutputamountedatthesetwodatesto$10,900,000,000andto$16,300,000,000respectively,i.e.,to73.7percentandto79percentofthetotal.

Notinfrequently,cartelsandtrustsconcentrateintheirhandssevenoreight-tenthsofthetotaloutputofagivenbranchofindustry.TheRhine-WestphalianCoalSyndicate,atitsfoundationin1893,controlled86.7percentofthetotalcoaloutputofthearea.In1910,itcontrolled95.4percent.Themonopolysocreatedensuresenormousprofits,andleadstotheformationoftechnicalproductiveunitsofformidablemagnitude.ThefamousStandardOilCompanyintheUnitedStateswasfoundedin1900:

“Ithasanauthorizedcapitalof$150,000,000.Itissued$100,000,000worthofcommonsharesand$106,000,000worthofpreferredshares.From1900to1907theyearnedthefollowingdividends:48,48,45,44,36,40,40,40percent,intherespectiveyears,i.e.,inall,$367,000,000.From1882to1907theStandardOilCompanymadeclearprofitstotheamountof$889,000,000ofwhich$606,000,000weredistributedindividends,andtherestwenttoreservecapital....In1907thevariousenterprisesoftheUnitedStatesSteelCorporationemployednolessthan210,180workersandotheremployees.ThelargestenterpriseintheGermanminingindustry,theGelsenkirchenMiningCompany(GelsenkirchnerBerg-werksgesellschaft),employed,in1908,46,048wageearners.”

In1902,theUnitedStatesSteelCorporationproduced9,000,000tonsofsteel.Itsoutputconstituted,in1901,66.3percent,andin1908,56.1percentofthetotaloutputofsteelintheUnitedStates.Itsshareoftheoutputofmineraloreincreasedfrom43.9percentto46.3percentofthetotaloutputinthesameperiod.

ThereportoftheAmericangovernmentcommissionontrustsstates:

“Theirsuperiorityovertheircompetitorsisduetothemagnitudeoftheirenterprisesandtheirexcellenttechnicalequipment.Sinceitsinception,thetobaccotrustdevotedallitseffortstothesubstitutionofmechanicalformanuallaboronanextensivescale.Withthisendinview,itboughtupallpatentsthathadanythingtodowiththemanufactureoftobaccoandspentenormoussumsforthispurpose.Manyofthesepatentsatfirstprovedtobeofnouse,andhadtobemodifiedbytheengineersemployedbythetrust.Attheendof1906,twosubsidiarycompanieswereformedsolelytoacquirepatents.Withthesameobjectinview,thetrustbuiltitsownfoundries,machineshopsandrepairshops.Oneoftheseestablishments,thatinBrooklyn,employsontheaverage300workers;thereexperimentsarecarriedoutoninventionsconcerningthemanufactureofcigarettes,cheroots,snuff,tinfoilforpacking,boxes,etc.Here,also,inventionsareperfected.

“Othertrustsemployso-calleddevelopingengineerswhosebusinessitistodevisenewmethodsofproduction,thinkoutnewproductionprocessesandtotesttechnicalimprovements.TheUnitedStatesSteelCorporationgrantsbigbonusestoitsworkersandengineersforallinventionssuitableforraisingtechnicalefficiency,forimprovingmachineryorforreducingcostsofproduction.”

InGermanlarge-scaleindustry,e.g.,inthechemicalindustry,whichhasdevelopedsoenormouslyduringtheselastfewdecades,thepromotionoftechnicalimprovementisorganizedinthesameway.In1908,theprocessof

concentrationhadalreadygivenrisetotwomaingroupswhich,intheirway,cameclosetobeingmonopolies.Firstthesegroupsrepresented“dualalliances”oftwopairsofbigfactories,eachhavingacapitaloffromtwentytotwenty-onemillionmarks:ontheonehand,theformerMeisterFactoryatHöchstandtheCas-selFactoryatFrankfurt-on-Main;andontheotherhand,theanilineandsodafactoryatLudwigshafenandtheformerBayerFactoryatElberfeld.In1905,oneofthesegroups,andin1908theothergroup,eachconcludedaseparateagreementwithyetanotherfactory.Theresultwastheformationoftwo“triplealliances,”eachwithacapitaloffromfortytofiftymillionmarks.Andthese“alliances”begantocome“close”tooneanother,toreach“anunderstanding”aboutprices,etc.102

Competitionbecomestransformedintomonopoly.Theresultisimmenseprogressinthesocializationofproduction.Inparticular,theprocessoftechnicalinventionandimprovementbecomessocialized.

Thisisnolongertheoldtypeoffreecompetitionbetweenmanufacturers,scatteredandoutoftouchwithoneanother,andproducingforanunknownmarket.Concentrationhasreachedthepointatwhichitispossibletomakeanapproximateestimateofallsourcesofrawmaterial(forexample,theironoredeposits)ofacountryandeven,asweshallsee,ofseveralcountries,orofthewholeworld.Notonlyaresuchestimatesmade,butthesesourcesarecapturedbygiganticmonopolistalliances.Anapproximateestimateofthecapacityofmarketsisalsomade,andthetrustsdividethemupamongthemselvesbyagreement.Skilledlaborpowerismonopolized,thebestengineersareengaged;themeansoftransportarecaptured:railwaysinAmerica,shippingcompaniesinEuropeandAmerica.Capitalisminitsimperialiststagearrivesatthethresholdofthemostcompletesocializationofproduction.Inspiteofthemselvesthecapitalistsaredragged,asitwere,intothenewsocialorder,whichmarksthetransitionfromcompletefreecompetitiontocompletesocialization.Productionbecomessocial,butappropriationremainsprivate.Thesocialmeansofproductionremaintheprivatepropertyofafew.Theframeworkofformallyrecognizedfreecompetitionremains,buttheyokeofafewmonopolistsontherestofthepopulationbecomesahundredtimesheavier,moreburdensomeandintolerable.

TheGermaneconomist,Kestner,haswrittenabookespeciallyonthesubjectof“thestrugglebetweenthecartelsandoutsiders,”i.e.,enterprisesoutsidethecartels.HeentitledhisworkCompulsoryOrganization,although,inordertopresentcapitalisminitstruelight,heshouldhavegivenitthetitle:

“CompulsorySubmissiontoMonopolistCombines.”Thisbookisedifyingifonlyforthelistitgivesofthemodernandcivilizedmethodsthatmonopolistcombinesresorttointheirstrivingtowards“organization.”

Theyareasfollows:1)Stoppingsuppliesofrawmaterials(“oneofthemostimportantmethodsofcompellingadherencetothecartel”);2)Stoppingthesupplyoflaborbymeansof“alliances”(i.e.,ofagreementsbetweenemployersandthetradeunionsbywhichthelatterpermittheirmemberstoworkonlyintrustifiedenterprises);3)Cuttingoffdeliveries;4)Closingoftradeoutlets;5)Agreementswiththebuyers,bywhichthelatterundertaketotradeonlywiththecartels;6)Thesystematicloweringofpricestoruin“outside”firms,i.e.,thosewhorefusetosubmittothetrust.Millionsarespentinordertosellgoodsforacertaintimebelowtheircostprice(thepriceofbenzinewasthusloweredfrom40to22marks,i.e.,reducedalmostbyhalf!);7)Stoppingcredits;8)Boycott.

Thisisnolongercompetitionbetweensmallandlarge-scaleindustry,orbetweentechnicallydevelopedandbackwardenterprises.Weseeherethemonopoliesthrottlingthosewhichdonotsubmittothem,totheiryoke,totheirdictation.Thefollowingisthewayinwhichthisprocessisreflectedinthemindofabourgeoiseconomist:

“Eveninthepurelyeconomicsphere,”writesKestner,“acertainchangeistakingplacefromcommercialactivityintheoldsenseofthewordtoorganizational-speculativeactivity.Thegreatestsuccessnolongergoestothemerchantwhosetechnicalandcommercialexperienceenableshimbestofalltoestimatetheneedsofthebuyer,and,sotosay,to‘discover ’latentdemand;itgoestothespeculativegenius”(?!)“whoknowshowtoestimateinadvance,orevenonlytosensetheorganizationaldevelopmentandthepossibilitiesofconnectionsbetweenindividualenterprisesandthebanks.”

Translatedintoordinaryhumanlanguagethismeansthatthedevelopmentofcapitalismhasarrivedatastagewhen,althoughcommodityproductionstill“reigns”andcontinuestoberegardedasthebasisofeconomiclife,ithasinrealitybeenunderminedandthebigprofitsgotothe“genius”offinancialmanipulation.Atthebasisoftheseswindlesandmanipulationsliessocialized

production;buttheimmenseprogressofhumanity,whichachievedthissocialization,entirelygoestobenefitthespeculators.Weshallseelaterhow“onthesegrounds”reactionary,petty-bourgeoiscriticsofcapitalistimperialismdreamoftakingastepbackward,ofareturnto“free,”“peaceful”and“honest”competition.

“Theprolongedraisingofpriceswhichresultsfromtheformationofcartels,”saysKestner,“hashithertobeenobservedonlyinrelationtothemostimportantmeansofproduction,suchascoal,ironandpotassium,andhasneverbeenobservedforanylengthoftimeinrelationtomanufacturedgoods.Similarly,theincreaseinprofitsresultingfromthathasbeenlimitedonlytotheindustrieswhichproducemeansofproduction.Tothisobservationwemustaddthattherawmaterialsindustrysecuresadvantagesfromthecartelformationnotonlyinregardtogrowthofincomeandprofitableness,tothedetrimentofthefinishedgoodsindustry,butalsoadominatingpositionoverthelatter,whichdidnotexistunderfreecompetition.”

Thewordswhichwehaveitalicizedrevealtheessenceofthecasewhichthebourgeoiseconomistsadmitsorarelyandsounwillingly,andwhichthemoderndefendersofopportunism,ledbyK.Kautsky,sozealouslytrytoevadeandbrushaside.Dominationandviolencethatisassociatedwithit—sucharetherelationshipsthataremosttypicalofthe“latestphaseofcapitalistdevelopment”;thisiswhatmustinevitablyresult,andhasresulted,fromtheformationofall-powerfuleconomicmonopolies.

Wewillgiveonemoreexampleofthemethodsemployedbymonopolies.Itisparticularlyeasyforcartelsandmonopoliestoarisewhenitispossibletocaptureallthesourcesofrawmaterials,oratleastthemostimportantofthem.Itwouldbewrong,however,toassumethatmonopoliesdonotariseinotherindustriesinwhichitisimpossibletocornerthesourcesofrawmaterials.Thecementindustry,forinstance,canfinditsrawmaterialeverywhere.YetinGermanyitisstronglytrustified.Thecementmanufacturershaveformedregionalsyndicates:SouthGerman,Rhine-Westphalian,etc.Thepricesfixedaremonopolyprices:230to280marksacarload(atacostpriceof180marks).Theenterprisespayadividendoffrom12percentto16percent—and

letusnotforgetthatthe“geniuses”ofmodernspeculationknowhowtopocketbigprofitsbesidesthosetheydrawbywayofdividends.Now,inordertopreventcompetitioninsuchaprofitableindustry,themonopolistsresorttosundrystratagems.Forexample,theyspreaddisquietingrumorsaboutthesituationoftheirindustry.Anonymouswarningsarepublishedinthenewspapers,likethefollowing:“Investors,don’tplaceyourcapitalinthecementindustry!”Theybuyup“outsiders”(thoseoutsidethetrusts)andpaythem“indemnities”of60,000,80,000andeven150,000marks.Monopolyhewsapathforitselfwithoutscrupleastothemeans,from“modestly”buyingoffcompetitorstotheAmericandeviceof“employing”dynamiteagainstthem.

Thestatementthatcartelscanabolishcrisesisafablespreadbybourgeoiseconomistswhoatallcostsdesiretoplacecapitalisminafavorablelight.Onthecontrary,whenmonopolyappearsincertainbranchesofindustry,itincreasesandintensifiestheanarchyinherentincapitalistproductionasawhole.Thedisparitybetweenthedevelopmentofagricultureandthatofindustrywhichischaracteristicofcapitalism,isincreased.Theprivilegedpositionofthemosthighlytrustifiedindustry,i.e.,so-calledheavyindustry,especiallycoalandiron,causes“astillgreaterlackofconcertedorganization”inotherbranchesofproduction—asJeidels,theauthorofoneofthebestworksontherelationshipoftheGermanbigbankstoindustry,putsit.

“Themoredevelopedaneconomicsystemis,”writesLiefmann,oneofthemostunblushingapologistsofcapitalism,“themoreitresortstoriskyenterprises,orenterprisesabroad,tothosewhichneedagreatdealoftimetodevelop,orfinallytothosewhichareonlyoflocalimportance.”

Theincreasedriskisconnectedinthelongrunwiththeprodigiousincreaseofcapital,whichoverflowsthebrim,asitwere,flowsabroad,etc.Atthesametimetheextremelyrapidrateoftechnicalprogressgivesrisemoreandmoretodisturbancesintheco-ordinationbetweenthevariousspheresofindustry,toanarchyandcrisis.Liefmannisobligedtoadmitthat:

“Inallprobabilitymankindwillseefurtherimportanttechnicalrevolutionsinthenearfuturewhichwillalsoaffecttheeconomic

system...forexample,electricityandaviation....Asageneralrule,insuchaperiodofradicaleconomicchange,speculationbecomesrife.”

Crisesofeverykind—economiccrisesmorefrequently,butnotonlythese—intheirturnincreaseveryconsiderablythetendencytowardsconcentrationandmonopoly.Inthisconnection,thefollowingreflectionsofJeidelsonthecrisisof1900,whichwas,aswehavealreadyseen,theturningpointinthehistoryofmodernmonopoly,areexceedinglyinstructive.

“Sidebysidewiththegiantplantsinthebasicindustries,thecrisisof1900foundmanyplantsorganizedonlinesthattodaywouldbeconsideredobsolete,the‘pure’[non-combined]plants,whichhadalsoarisenonthecrestoftheindustrialboom.Thefallinpricesandthefallingoffindemandputthese‘pure’enterprisesinaprecariousposition,butdidnotaffectsomeofthebigcombinedenterprisesatallandaffectedothersonlyforaveryshorttime.Asaconsequenceofthisthecrisisof1900resultedinafargreaterconcentrationofindustrythantheformercrises,likethatof1873.Thelattercrisisalsoproducedasortofselectionofthebestequippedenterprises,butowingtotheleveloftechnicaldevelopmentofthattime,thisselectioncouldnotplacethefirmswhichsuccessfullyemergedfromthecrisisinapositionofmonopoly.Suchadurablemonopolyexiststoahighdegreeinthegiganticenterprisesinthepresentironandsteelandelectricindustries,andtoalesserdegree,intheengineeringindustryandcertainmetal,transportandotherenterprisesinconsequenceoftheircomplicatedtechnique,theirextensiveorganizationandthemagnitudeoftheircapital.”

Monopoly!Thisisthelastwordinthe“latestphaseofcapitalistdevelopment.”Butweshallonlyhaveaveryinsufficient,incompleteandpoornotionoftherealpowerandsignificanceofmodernmonopoliesifwedonottakeintoconsiderationthepartplayedbythebanks.

CHAPTERII

THEBANKSANDTHEIRNEWROLETheprincipalandprimaryfunctionofbanksistoserveasanintermediary

inthemakingofpayments.Indoingsotheytransforminactivemoneycapitalintoactivecapital,thatis,intocapitalproducingaprofit;theycollectallkindsofmoneyrevenuesandplacethematthedisposalofthecapitalistclass.

Asbankingdevelopsandbecomesconcentratedinasmallnumberofestablishments,thebanksbecometransformed,andinsteadofbeingmodestintermediariestheybecomepowerfulmonopolieshavingattheircommandalmostthewholeofthemoneycapitalofallthecapitalistsandsmallbusinessmenandalsoalargepartofthemeansofproductionandofthesourcesofrawmaterialsofthegivencountryandofanumberofcountries.Thetransformationofnumerousintermediariesintoahandfulofmonopolistsrepresentsoneofthefundamentalprocessesinthetransformationofcapitalismintocapitalistimperialism.Forthisreasonwemustfirstofalldealwiththeconcentrationofbanking.

In1907-08,thecombineddepositsoftheGermanjointstockbanks,havingacapitalofmorethanamillionmarks,amountedto7,000,000,000marks,whilein1912-13,theyamountedto9,800,000,000marks.Thus,infiveyearstheirdepositsincreasedby40percent.Ofthe2,800,000,000increase,2,750,000,000wasdividedamong57banks,eachhavingacapitalofmorethan10,000,000marks.Thedistributionofthedepositsamongbigandsmallbankswasasfollows:

PERCENTAGEOFTOTALDEPOSITS

Thesmallbanksarebeingsqueezedoutbythebigbanks,ofwhichnineconcentrateintheirownhandsalmosthalfthetotaldeposits.Butwehaveleftoutofaccountmanyimportantdetails,forinstance,thetransformationofnumeroussmallbankspracticallyintobranchesofbigbanks,etc.Ofthisweshallspeaklateron.

Attheendof1913,Schulze-GävernitzestimatedthedepositsintheninebigBerlinbanksat5,100,000,000marks,outofatotalofabout10,000,000,000marks.Takingintoaccountnotonlythedeposits,butalsothecapitalofthesebanks,thisauthorwrote:

“Attheendof1909,theninebigBerlinbanks,togetherwiththeirτffiliatedinstitutions,controlled11,276,000,000marks,thatis,about83percentofthetotalGermanbankcapital.TheDeutscheBank,which,togetherwithitsaffiliatedbanks,controlsnearly3,000,000,000marks,represents,parallelwiththePrussianStateRailwayAdministration,thebiggestandalsothemostdecentralizedaccumulationofcapitalintheoldworld.”

Wehaveemphasizedthereferencetothe“affiliated”banksbecausethisisoneofthemostimportantfeaturesofmoderncapitalistconcentration.Large-scaleenterprises,especiallythebanks,notonlycompletelyabsorbsmallones,butalso“join”themtothemselves,subordinatethem,bringthemintotheir“own”groupor“concern”(tousethetechnicalterm)byhaving“holdings”intheircapital,bypurchasingorexchangingshares,bycontrollingthemthroughasystemofcredits,etc.,etc.ProfessorLiefmannhaswrittenavoluminousbookofabout500pagesdescribingmodern“holdingandfinancecompanies,”unfortunatelyadding“theoretical”reflectionsofaverypoorqualitytowhatisfrequentlypartlydigestedrawmaterial.Towhatresultsthis“holding”systemleadsinregardtoconcentrationisbestillustratedinthebookwrittenbythe

banker,Riesser,onthebigGermanbanks.Butbeforeexamininghisdata,wewillquoteanexampleofthe“holding”system.

TheDeutscheBankgroupisoneofthebiggest,ifnotthebiggest,bankinggroup.Inordertotracethemainthreadswhichconnectallthebanksinthisgroup,itisnecessarytodistinguishbetweenholdingsofthefirst,secondandthirddegree,orwhatamountstothesamething,betweendependence(ofthelesserestablishmentsontheDeutscheBank),inthefirst,secondandthirddegree.Wethenobtainthefollowingpicture:

THEDEUTSCHEBANKHASHOLDINGS:

IncludedintheeightbanksdependentontheDeutscheBankinthe“firstdegree,”“occasionally,”therearethreeforeignbanks:oneAustrian,theWienerBankverein,andtwoRussian,theSiberianCommercialBankandtheRussianBankforForeignTrade.Altogether,theDeutscheBankgroupcomprises,directlyandindirectly,partiallyandtotally,nolessthan87banks;andthecapital—itsownandotherswhichitcontrols—rangesbetweentwoandthreebillionmarks.

Itisobviousthatabankwhichstandsattheheadofsuchagroupandwhichentersintoagreementwithahalfdozenotherbanksonlyslightlysmallerthanitselfforthepurposeofconductingbigandprofitableoperationslikefloatingstateloansisnolongeramere“intermediary”butacombineofahandfulofmonopolists.

TherapiditywithwhichtheconcentrationofbankingproceededinGermanyattheendofthenineteenthandthebeginningofthetwentiethcenturiesisshownbythefollowingdatawhichwequoteinanabbreviatedformfromRiesser:

SixBIGBERLINBANKS

Weseetherapidextensionofaclosenetworkofcanalswhichcoverthewholecountry,centralizingallcapitalandallrevenues,transformingthousandsandthousandsofscatteredeconomicenterprisesintoasinglenational,capitalist,andthenintoaninternational,capitalist,economicunit.The“decentralization”thatSchulze-Gävernitz,asanexponentofmodernbourgeoispoliticaleconomy,speaksofinthepassagepreviouslyquotedreallymeansthesubordinationofanincreasingnumberofformerlyrelatively“independent,”orrather,strictlylocaleconomicunits,toasinglecenter.Inrealityitiscentralization,theincreaseintherole,theimportanceandthepowerofmonopolistgiants.

Intheoldcapitalistcountriesthis“bankingnetwork”isstillmoreclose.InGreatBritain(includingIreland),in1910,therewere7,15ibranchesofbanks.Fourbigbankshadmorethan400ofthesebrancheseach(from447to689);fourhadmorethan200brancheseach;andelevenmorethan100each.

InFrance,thethreemostimportantbanks(CreditLyonnais,theComptoirNationald’EscomptedeParisandtheSociétéGénérale)extendedtheiroperationsandtheirnetworkofbranchesinthefollowingmanner:

Inordertoshowthe“connections”ofabigmodernbank,Riessergivesthefollowingfiguresofthenumberoflettersdispatchedandreceivedbythe

Disconto-Gesellschaft,oneofthemostimportantbanksinGermanyandintheworld,thecapitalofwhichamountedto300,000,000marksin1914:

Year Let t ers recei ved Let t ers di spatched

1852 6,135 6,292

1870 85,800 87,513

1900 533,102 626,043

In1875,thebigParisbank,theCréditLyonnais,had28,535accounts.In1912ithad633,539.

Thesesimplefiguresshowperhapsbetterthanlongexplanationshowtheconcentrationofcapitalandthegrowthoftheirturnoverisradicallychangingthesignificanceofthebanks.Scatteredcapitalistsaretransformedintoasinglecollectivecapitalist.Whencarryingthecurrentaccountsofafewcapitalists,thebanks,asitwere,transactapurelytechnicalandexclusivelyauxiliaryoperation.When,however,theseoperationsgrowtoenormousdimensionswefindthatahandfulofmonopolistscontrolalltheoperations,bothcommercialandindustrial,ofcapitalistsociety.Theycan,bymeansoftheirbankingconnections,byrunningcurrentaccountsandtransactingotherfinancialoperations,firstascertainexactlythepositionofthevariouscapitalists,thencontrolthem,influencethembyrestrictingorenlarging,facilitatingorhinderingtheircredits,andfinallytheycanentirelydeterminetheirfate,determinetheirincome,deprivethemofcapital,or,ontheotherhand,permitthemtoincreasetheircapitalrapidlyandtoenormousproportions,etc.

Wehavejustmentionedthe300,000,000markscapitaloftheDisconto-GesellschaftofBerlin.TheincreaseofthecapitalofthisbanktothishighfigurewasoneoftheincidentsinthestruggleforhegemonybetweentwoofthebiggestBerlinbanks—theDeutscheBankandtheDisconto.

In1870,theDeutscheBank,anewenterprise,hadacapitalofonly15,000,000marks,whilethatoftheDiscontowasasmuchas30,000,000marks.in1908,thefirsthadacapitalof200,000,000,whilethesecondonlyhad170,000,000.In1914,theDeutscheBankincreaseditscapitalto250,000,000andtheDisconto,byabsorbingaveryimportantbank,the

Schaff-hausenschenBankverein,increaseditscapitalto300,000,000.And,ofcourse,whilethisstruggleforhegemonygoesonthetwobanksmoreandmorefrequentlyconclude“agreements”ofanincreasinglydurablecharacterwitheachother.Thisdevelopmentofbankingleadsspecialistsinthestudyofbankingquestions—whoregardeconomicquestionsfromastandpointwhichdoesnotintheleastexceedtheboundsofthemostmoderateandcautiousbourgeoisreformism—tothefollowingconclusions:

TheGermanreview,DieBank,commentingontheincreaseofthecapitaloftheDisconto-Gesellschaftto300,000,000marks,writes:

“Otherbankswillfollowitsexampleandintimethethreehundredmen,whotodaygovernGermaneconomically,willgraduallybereducedtofifty,twenty-fiveorstillfewer.Itcannotbeexpectedthatthisnewmovetowardsconcentrationwillbeconfinedtobanking.Thecloserelationsthatexistbetweencertainbanksnaturallyinvolvethebringingtogetherofthemanufacturingcombineswhichtheypatronize....Onefinemorningweshallwakeupinsurprisetoseenothingbuttrustsbeforeoureyes,andtofindourselvesfacedwiththenecessityofsubstitutingstatemonopoliesforprivatemonopolies.However,wehavenothingtoreproachourselveswith,exceptwithhavingallowedthingstofollowtheirowncourse,slightlyacceleratedbythemanipulationofstocks.”

Thisisaverygoodexampleoftheimpotenceofbourgeoisjournalismwhichdiffersfrombourgeoisscienceonlyinthatthelatterislesssincereandstrivestoobscureessentialthings,toconcealthewoodbytrees.Tobe“surprised”attheresultsofconcentration,to“reproach”thegovernmentofcapitalistGermany,orcapitalistsociety(“ourselves”),tofearthattheintroductionofstocksandsharesmight“hasten”concentration,astheGerman“cartelspecialist”TschierschkyfearstheAmericantrustsand“prefers”theGermancartelsonthegroundsthattheydonot,“likethetrusts,hastentechnicaleconomicprogresstoanexcessivedegree”—isnotthisimpotence?

Butfactsremainfacts.TherearenotrustsinGermany;thereare“only”cartels—butGermanyisgovernedbynotmorethanthreehundredmagnates,andthenumberoftheseisconstantlydiminishing.Atallevents,banksinallcapitalistcountries,nomatterwhatthelawinregardtothemmaybe,

acceleratetheprocessofconcentrationofcapitalandtheformationofmonopolies.

Thebankingsystem,MarxwroteahalfcenturyagoinCapital,“presentsindeedtheformofuniversalbookkeepingandofdistributionofmeansofproductiononasocialscale,butonlytheform.”

Thefigureswehavequotedonthedevelopmentofbankcapital,ontheincreaseinthenumberofbranchesandofficesofthebiggestbanks,theincreaseinthenumberoftheiraccounts,etc.,presentaconcretepictureofthis“universalbookkeeping”ofthewholecapitalistclass;andnotonlyofthecapitalists,forthebankscollect,eventhoughtemporarily,allkindsoffinancialrevenuesofsmallbusinessmen,officeclerks,andofasmallupperstratumoftheworkingclass.Itis“universaldistributionofmeansofproduction”that,fromtheformalpointofview,growsoutofthedevelopmentofmodernbanks,themostimportantofwhich,numberingfromthreetosixinFrance,andfromsixtoeightinGermany,controlbillionsandbillions.Inpointoffact,however,thedistributionofmeansofproductionisbynomeans“universal,”butprivate,i.e.,itconformstotheinterestsofbigcapital,andprimarilyofverybigmonopolycapital,whichoperatesinconditionsinwhichthemassesofthepopulationliveinwant,inwhichthewholedevelopmentofagriculturehopelesslylagsbehindthedevelopmentofindustry,andwithinindustryitself,the“heavyindustries”exacttributefromallotherbranchesofindustry.

Thesavingsbanksandpostofficesarebeginningtocompetewiththebanksinthematterofsocializingcapitalisteconomy;theyaremore“decentralized,”i.e.,theirinfluenceextendstoagreaternumberoflocalities,tomoreremoteplaces,towidersectionsofthepopulation.AnAmericancommissionhascollectedthefollowingdataonthecomparativegrowthofdepositsinbanksandsavingsbanks:

DEPOSITS(INBILLIONSOFMARKS)

Astheypayinterestattherateof4percentand4½percentondeposits,thesavingsbanksmustseek“profitable”investmentsfortheircapital,theymustdealinbills,mortgages,etc.Thus,theboundariesbetweenthebanksandthesavingsbanks“becomemoreandmoreobliterated.”TheChambersofCommerceatBochumandErfurt,forexample,demandthatsavingsbanksbeprohibitedfromengagingin“purely”bankingbusiness,suchasdiscountingbills.Theyalsodemandthelimitationofthe“banking”operationsofthepostoffice.Thebankingmagnatesseemtobeafraidthatstatemonopolywillstealuponthemfromanunexpectedquarter.Itgoeswithoutsaying,however,thatthisfearisnomorethantheexpression,asitwere,oftherivalrybetweentwodepartmentmanagersinthesameoffice;for,ontheonehand,thebillionsentrustedtothesavingsbanksareactuallycontrolledbytheseverysamebankmagnates,while,ontheotherhand,statemonopolyincapitalistsocietyisnothingmorethanameansofincreasingandguaranteeingtheincomeofmillionairesonthevergeofbankruptcyinonebranchofindustryoranother.

Thechangefromtheoldtypeofcapitalism,inwhichfreecompetitionpredominated,tothenewcapitalism,inwhichmonopolyreigns,isexpressed,amongotherthings,byadecreaseintheimportanceoftheStockExchange.TheGermanreview,DieBank,wrote:

“Foralongtimenow,theStockExchangehasceasedtobetheindispensableintermediaryofcirculationthatitwasformerlywhenthebankswerenotyetabletoplacewiththeirclientsthegreaterpartoftheirissues.”

“EverybankisaStockExchange—andthebiggerthebank,andthemoresuccessfultheconcentrationofbankingis,thetruerdoesthismodernproverbbecome.”

“Whileformerly,inthe‘seventies,theStockExchange,flushedwiththeexuberanceofyouth”(adelicateallusiontothecrashof1873,andtothestockflotationscandals),“openedtheeraoftheindustrializationofGermanybyutilizingthegamblingchancethatliesinstocks,nowadaysthebanksandindustryareableto‘doitalone.’ThedominationofourbigbanksovertheStockExchangeisnothingbuttheexpressionofthecompletelyorganizedGermanindustrialstate.Ifthedomainoftheautomaticallyfunctioningeconomiclawsisthusrestricted,andifthedomainconsciouslyregulatedby

thebanksisconsiderablyincreased,thenationaleconomicresponsibilityofaverysmallnumberofguidingheadsisinfinitelyincreased,”wroteProfessorSchulze-Gävernitz,anapologistofGermanimperialism,whoisregardedasanauthoritybytheimperialistsofallcountries,andwhotriestoglossovera“detail,”viz.,thatthe“consciousregulation”ofeconomiclifebythebanksisrobberyofthepublicbyahandfulof“completelyorganized”monopolists.Forthetaskofabourgeoisprofessorisnottolaybarethemechanismsofthefinancialsystem,ortodivulgeallthemachinationsofthefinancemonopolists,butrather,topresenttheminafavorablelight.

Inthesameway,Riesser,astillmoreauthoritativeeconomistandabankerhimself,makesshiftwithmeaninglessphrasesinordertoexplainawayundeniablefacts.Hesays:

“TheStockExchangeissteadilylosingthefeaturewhichisabsolutelyessentialforcommerceandindustryasawholeandforthecirculationofsecuritiesinparticular—thatofbeinganexactmeasuring-rodandanalmostautomaticregulatoroftheeconomicmovementswhichconvergeonit.”

Inotherwords,theoldcapitalism,thecapitalismoffreecompetition,anditsindispensableregulator,theStockExchange,arepassingaway.Anewcapitalismissucceedingit,whichbearsobviousfeaturesofsomethingtransitory,whichisamixtureoffreecompetitionandmonopoly.Thequestionnaturallyarises:towhatisthisnew,“transitory”capitalismleading?Butthebourgeoisscholarsareafraidtoraisethisquestion.

“Thirtyyearsago,employers,freelycompetingagainstoneanother,performednine-tenthsoftheeconomicworkwhichisoutsidethesphereofmanuallabor.Atthepresenttime,nine-tenthsofthiseconomic‘brainwork’isperformedbyofficials.Bankingisintheforefrontofthisevolution.”

ThisadmissionbySchulze-Gävernitzbringsusonceagaintothequestionofwhatthisnewcapitalism,capitalisminitsimperialiststage,isleadingto.

Amongthefewbankswhich,asaresultoftheprocessofconcentration,remainattheheadofallcapitalisteconomy,thereisnaturallytobeobservedanincreasinglymarkedtendencytowardsmonopolistagreements,towardsabanktrust.InAmerica,therearenotnine,buttwobigbanks,thoseofthebillionairesRockefellerandMorgan,whichcontrolacapitalofelevenbillionmarks.InGermany,theabsorptionoftheSchaffhausenschenBankvereinbytheDisconto-Gesellschaft,towhichwereferredabove,wascommentedoninthefollowingtermsbytheFrankfurterZeitung,oneoftheorgansoftheStockExchangeinterests:

“Theconcentrationmovementofthebanksisnarrowingthecircleofestablishmentsfromwhichitispossibletoobtainlargecredits,andconsequentlyisincreasingthedependenceoflarge-scaleindustryuponasmallnumberofbankinggroups.Inviewoftheinternallinksbetweenindustryandfinance,thefreedomofmovementofmanufacturingcompaniesinneedofbankcapitalisrestricted.Forthisreason,large-scaleindustryiswatchingthegrowingtrustificationofthebankswithmixedfeelings.Indeed,wehaverepeatedlyseenthebeginningsofcertainagreementsbetweentheindividualbigbankingconcerns,whichaimatlimitingcompetition.”

Again,thefinalwordinthedevelopmentofthebanksismonopoly.

Theclosetiesthatexistbetweenthebanksandindustryaretheverythingsthatbringoutmoststrikinglythenewroleofthebanks.Whenabankdiscountsabillforanindustrialfirm,opensacurrentaccountforit,etc.,theseoperations,takenseparately,donotintheleastdiminishtheindependenceoftheindustrialfirm,andthebankplaysnootherpartthanthatofamodestintermediary.Butwhensuchoperationsaremultipliedandbecomecontinuous,whenthebank“collects”initsownhandsenormousamountsofcapital,whentherunningofacurrentaccountforthefirminquestionenablesthebank—andthisiswhathappens—tobecomebetterinformedoftheeconomicpositionoftheclient,thentheresultisthatindustrialcapitalbecomesmorecompletelydependentonthebank.

Paralleltothisprocessthereisbeingdevelopedaveryclosepersonalunionbetweenthebanksandthebiggestindustrial’andcommercialenterprises,the

fusingofonewiththeotherthroughtheacquisitionofshares,throughtheappointmentofbankdirectorstotheboardsofindustrialandcommercialenterprisesandviceversa.

TheGermaneconomist,Jeidels,hascompiledverycompletedataonthisformofconcentrationofcapitalandofenterprises.SixofthebiggestBerlinbankswererepresentedbytheirdirectorsin344industrialcompanies,andbytheirboardmembersin407othercompanies.Altogether,theysupervisedatotalof751companies.In289ofthesecompaniestheyeitherhadtwooftheirrepresentativesoneachoftherespectiveSupervisoryBoards,orheldthepostsofpresidents.Theseindustrialandcommercialcompaniesareengagedinthemostvariedbranchesofindustry:ininsurance,transport,restaurants,theatres,artindustry,etc.

Ontheotherhand,therewereontheSupervisoryBoardsofthesixbanks(in1910)fifty-oneofthebiggestmanufacturers,amongwhomwerethedirectorsofKrupp,ofthepowerfulHamburg-AmerikaLine,etc.From1895to1910,eachofthesesixbanksparticipatedintheshareissuesofseveralhundredsofindustrialcompanies(thenumberrangingfrom281to419).

The“personalunion”betweenthebanksandindustryiscompletedbythe“personalunion”betweenbothandthestate.

“SeatsontheSupervisoryBoardarefreelyofferedtopersonsoftitle,alsotoex-civilservants,whoareabletodoagreatdealtofacilitate”(!!)“relationswiththeauthorities.”

Generallythereis“amemberofparliamentoraBerlincitycouncillor”ontheSupervisoryBoardofabigbank.Thebuilding,sotospeak,ofthegreatcapitalistmonopolies,is,therefore,goingfullsteamaheadbyall“natural”and“supernatural”ways.Asortofdivisionoflaboramongsomehundredsofkingsoffinancewhonowreignovermoderncapitalistsocietyisbeingsystematicallydeveloped.

“Accompanyingthiswideningofthesphereofactivityofcertainbigindustrialists”(sharinginthemanagementofbanks,etc.)“andtogetherwiththeallocationofprovincialmanagerstodefinite

industrialregions,thereisagrowthofspecializationamongthedirectorsofthegreatbanks.Generallyspeaking,thisspecializationisonlyconceivablewhenbankingiscarriedononalargescale,andparticularlywhenithaswidespreadconnectionswithindustry.Thisdivisionoflaborproceedsalongtwolines:ontheonehand,therelationswithindustryasawholeareentrustedtoonemanager,ashisspecialfunction;ontheother,eachdirectorassumesthesupervisionofseveralisolatedenterprisesorenterpriseswithalliedinterestsorinthesamebranchofindustry,sittingontheirBoardsofDirectors”(capitalismhasreachedthestageoforganizedcontrolofindividualenterprises).“OnespecializesinGermanindustry,sometimeseveninWestGermanindustry,alone”(theWestisthemostindustrializedpartofGermany).“Othersspecializeinrelationswithforeignstatesandforeignindustry,ininformationaboutpersonaldata,inStockExchangequestions,etc.Besides,eachbankdirectorisoftenassignedaspecialindustryorlocality,wherehehasasayontheBoardofDirectors;oneworksmainlyontheBoardofDirectorsofelectriccompanies,anotherinthechemical,brewingorsugarbeetindustry;athirdinseveralisolatedundertakings,andatthesametime,innon-industrial,eveninsurancecompanies....Itiscertainthat,astheextentanddiversificationofthebigbanks’operationsincrease,thedivisionoflaboramongtheirdirectorsalsospreads,withtheobjectandresultofliftingthemsomewhatoutofpurebankingandmakingthembetterexperts,betterjudgesofthegeneralproblemsofindustryandthespecialproblemsofeachbranchofindustry,thusmakingthemmorecapableofactionwithintherespectivebank’sindustrialsphereofinfluence.Thissystemissupplementedbythebanks’endeavorstohaveelectedtotheirownBoardofDirectors,ortothoseoftheirsubsidiarybanks,menwhoareexpertsinindustrialaffairs,suchasindustrialists,formerofficials,especiallythoseformerlyinrailwayserviceorinmining,etc.”

Wefindthesamesystem,withonlyslightdifference,inFrenchbanking.Forinstance,oneofthethreelargestFrenchbanks,theCreditLyonnais,hasorganizedafinancialresearchservice(ServicedesEtudesFinancières),whichpermanentlyemploysaboutfiftyengineers,statisticians,economists,lawyers,etc.,atacostofsixorsevenhundredthousandfrancsperannum.Theservice

isinturndividedintoeightsections,ofwhichonedealswithindustrialestablishments,anotherwithgeneralstatistics,athirdwithrailwayandsteamshipcompanies,afourthwithsecurities,afifthwithfinancialreports,etc.

Theresultistwofold:ontheonehand,afusion,or,asN.Bukharinaptlycallsit,themergingofbankandindustrialcapital;and,ontheotherhand,atransformationofthebanksintoinstitutionsofatruly“universalcharacter.”OnthisquestionweconsideritimportanttoquotetheexacttermsusedbyJeidels,whohasbeststudiedthesubject:

“Anexaminationofthesumtotalofindustrialrelationshipsrevealstheuniversalcharacterofthefinancialestablishmentsworkingonbehalfofindustry.Unlikeotherkindsofbanksandcontrarytotherequirementsoftenlaiddowninliterature—accordingtowhichbanksoughttospecializeinonekindofbusinessorinonebranchofindustryinordertomaintainafirmfooting—thebigbanksarestrivingtomaketheirindustrialconnectionsasvariedandfar-reachingaspossible,accordingtolocalityandbranchofbusiness,andarestrivingtodoawaywiththeinequalitiesinthelocalandbusinessdistributionresultingfromthedevelopmentofvariousenterprises....Onetendencyistomakethetieswithindustrygeneral;theothertendencyistomakethesetiesdurableandclose.Inthesixbigbanksboththesetendenciesarerealized,notinfull,buttoaconsiderableextentandtoanequaldegree.”

Quiteoftenindustrialandcommercialcirclescomplainofthe“terrorism”ofthebanks.Wearenotsurprised,forthebigbanks“command,”aswillbeseenfromthefollowingexample:onNovember19,1901,oneofthebigBerlin“D”banks(suchisthenamegiventothefourbiggestbankswhosenamesbeginwiththeletterD)wrotetotheBoardofDirectorsoftheGermanCentralNorthwestCementSyndicateinthefollowingterms:

“Welearn,fromthenoticeyoupublishedintheReichsanzeigerof18thinstant,thatthenextgeneralmeetingofyourcompany,fixedforthe30thofthismonth,maydecideonmeasureswhich

arelikelytoeffectchangesinyourundertakingswhichwecannotsanction.Wedeeplyregretthat,forthesereasons,weareobligedhenceforthtowithdrawthecreditwhichhasbeenhithertoallowedyou.Ifthesaidnextgeneralmeetingdoesnotdecideuponmeasureswecannotsanction,andifwereceivesuitableguaranteesonthismatterforthefuture,weshallbequitewillingtoopennegotiationswithyouontheopeningofanewcredit.”

Asamatteroffact,thisissmallcapital’soldcomplaintaboutbeingoppressedbybigcapital,butinthiscaseitwasawholesyndicatethatfellintothecategoryof“small”capitallTheoldstrugglebetweenbigandsmallcapitalisbeingresumedonanewandhigherstageofdevelopment.Itstandstoreasonthatundertakings,financedbybigbankshandlingbillions,canacceleratetechnicalprogressinawaythatcannotpossiblybecomparedwiththepast.Thebanks,forexample,setupspecialtechnicalresearchsocieties,andonly“friendly”industrialenterprisesbenefitfromtheirwork.TothiscategorybelongtheElectricRailwayResearchAssociationandtheCentralBureauofScientificandTechnicalResearch.

Thedirectorsofthebigbanksthemselvescannotfailtoseethatnewconditionsofeconomiclifearebeingcreated.Buttheyarepowerlessinthefaceofthesephenomena.

“Anyonewhohaswatched,inrecentyears,thechangesofincumbentsofdirectorshipsandseatsontheBoardsofDirectorsofthebigbankscannotfailtohavenoticedthatpowerisgraduallypassingintothehandsofmenwhoconsidertheactiveinterventionofthebigbanksinthegeneraldevelopmentofproductiontobeindispensableandofincreasingimportance.Itoftenhappensthat,betweenthesenewmenandtheoldbankdirectors,disagreementsofabusinessandpersonalnatureoftenoccuronthissubject.Thequestionthatisindisputeiswhetherornotthebanks,ascreditinstitutions,willsufferfromhisinterventioninindustry,whethertheyaresacrificingtriedprinciplesandanassuredprofittoengageinafieldofactivitywhichhasnothingincommonwiththeirroleasintermediariesinprovidingcreditandwhichisleadingthebanksintoafieldwheretheyaremorethaneverbeforeexposedto

theblindforcesoftradefluctuations.Thisistheopinionofmanyoftheolderbankdirectors,whilemostoftheyoungmenconsideractiveinterventioninindustrytobeanecessityasgreatasthatwhichgaverise,simultaneouslywithbigmodernindustry,tothebigbanksandmodernindustrialbanking.Thetwopartiestothisdiscussionareagreedonlyononepointandthatis,thatasyetthereareneitherfirmprinciplesnoraconcreteaiminthenewactivitiesofthebigbanks.”

Theoldformofcapitalismhashaditsday.Thenewformrepresentsatransitiontowardssomething.Itishopeless,ofcourse,toseekfor“firmprinciples”anda“concreteaim”forthepurposeof“reconciling”monopolywithfreecompetition.Theadmissionofthepracticalmenhasquiteadifferentringfromtheofficialpraisesofthecharmsof“organized”capitalismsungbyitsapologists,Schulze-Gävernitz,Liefmannandsimilar“theoreticians.”

Atpreciselywhatperiodwasthe“newactivity”ofthebigbanksfinallyestablished?Jeidelsgivesusafairlyexactanswertothisimportantquestion:

“Thetiesbetweentheindustrialenterprises,withtheirnewcontent,theirnewformsandtheirneworgans,namely,thebigbankswhichareorganizedonbothacentralizedandadecentralizedbasis,werescarcelyacharacteristiceconomicphenomenonbefore1890;inonesense,indeed,thisinitialdatemaybeadvancedtotheyear1897,whentheimportant‘mergers’tookplaceandwhen,forthefirsttime,thenewformofdecentralizedorganizationwasintroducedtosuittheindustrialpolicyofthebanks.Thisstartingpointcouldperhapsbeplacedatanevenlaterdate,foritwasonlythecrisis”(of1900)“thatenormouslyacceleratedandintensifiedtheprocessofconcentrationofindustryandbanking,consolidatedthatprocessandmorethanevertransformedtheconnectionwithindustryintothemonopolyofthebigbanks,andmadethisconnection,takenindividually,muchcloserandmoreactive.”

Thus,thebeginningofthetwentiethcenturymarkstheturningpointatwhichtheoldcapitalismgavewaytothenew,atwhichthedominationofcapitalin

generalmadewayforthedominationoffinancecapital.

CHAPTERIII

FINANCECAPITALANDFINANCIALOLIGARCHY“ANincreasingproportionofindustrialcapitaldoesnotbelongtotheindustrialistswhoemployit.Theyobtaintheuseofitonlythroughthemediumofthebanks,which,inrelationtothem,representtheownersofthecapital.Ontheotherhand,thebankisforcedtoputanincreasingshareofitsfundsintoindustry.Thus,toanincreasingdegreethebankerisbeingtransformedintoanindustrialcapitalist.Thisbankcapital,i.e.,capitalinmoneyformwhichisthusreallytransformedintoindustrialcapital,Icall‘financecapital.’...Sofinancecapitaliscapitalcontrolledbythebanksandemployedbytheindustrialists.”

Thisdefinitionisincompleteinsofarasitissilentononeextremelyimportantfact:theincreaseofconcentrationofproductionandofcapitaltosuchanextentthatitleads,andhasled,tomonopoly.Butthroughoutthewholeofhiswork,andparticularlyinthetwochapterswhichprecedetheonefromwhichthisdefinitionistaken,Hilferdingstressesthepartplayedbycapitalistmonopolies.

Theconcentrationofproduction;themonopolyarisingtherefrom;themergingorcoalescenceofbankingwithindustry:thisisthehistoryoffinancecapitalandwhatgivestheterm“financecapital”itscontent.

Wenowhavetodescribehow,undercommodityproductionandprivateproperty,the“domination”ofcapitalistmonopoliesinevitablybecomesthedominationofafinancialoligarchy.ItshouldbenotedthattherepresentativesofGermanbourgeoisscience—andnotonlyofGermanscience—likeRiesser,Schulze-Gävernitz,Liefmannandothers—areallapologistsforimperialismandforfinancecapital.Insteadofrevealingthe“mechanics”oftheformationofanoligarchy,itsmethods,itsrevenues“innocentandsinful,”itsconnections

withparliament,etc.,theyconceal,obscureandembellishthem.Theyevadethese“vexedquestions”byafewvagueandpompousphrases:appealstothe“senseofresponsibility”ofbankdirectors,praising“thesenseofduty”ofPrussianofficials;bygivingseriousstudytopettydetails,toridiculousbillsforthe“supervision”and“regulation”ofmonopolies;byplayingwiththeories,like,forexample,thefollowing“scientific”definition,arrivedatbyProfessorLiefmann.“Commerceisagainfuloccupationcarriedonbycollectinggoods,storingitandmakingitavailable.”(Theprofessor ’sitalics.)Fromthisitwouldfollowthatprimitiveman,whoknewnothingaboutexchange,wasatrader,andthatcommercewillexistundersocialism!

Butthemonstrousfactsconcerningthemonstrousruleofthefinancialoligarchyaresostrikingthatinallcapitalistcountries,inAmerica,FranceandGermany,awholeliteraturehassprungup,writtenfromthebourgeoispointofview,butwhich,nevertheless,givesafairlyaccuratepictureandcriticism—petty—bourgeois,naturally—ofthisoligarchy.

The“holdingsystem,”towhichwehavealreadybrieflyreferredabove,shouldbeplacedatthecorner-stone.TheGermaneconomist,Heymann,probablythefirsttocallattentiontothismatter,describesitinthisway:

“Theexecutivedirectorcontrolstheparentcompany;thelatterreignsoverthesubsidiarycompanieswhichsimilarlycontrolstillothersubsidiaries.”

Thus,itispossiblewithacomparativelysmallcapitaltodominateimmensespheresofproduction.Asamatteroffact,ifholding50percentofthecapitalisalwayssufficienttocontrolacompany,theexecutivedirectorneedsonlyonemilliontocontroleightmillionsinthesecondsubsidiaries.Andifthis“interlocking”isextended,itispossiblewithonemilliontocontrolsixteen,thirty-twoormoremillions.

Experienceshowsthatitissufficienttoown40percentofthesharesofacompanyinordertodirectitsaffairs,sinceacertainnumberofsmallshareholdersfinditimpossible,inpractice,toattendgeneralmeetings,etc.The“democratization”oftheownershipofshares,fromwhichthebourgeoissophistsandopportunists“would-be”Social-Democratsexpect(ordeclarethattheyexpect)the“democratization”ofcapital,thestrengtheningoftheroleof

small-scaleproduction,etc.,isinfactoneofthewaysofincreasingthepowerofthefinancialoligarchy.Forthisreason,amongothers,inthemoreadvanced,orintheolderandmore“experienced”capitalistcountries,thelawallowstheissueofsharesofverysmalldenomination.InGermany,itisillegaltoissuesharesoflessvaluethanonethousandmarks,andthemagnatesofGermanfinancelookwithanenviouseyeatEngland,whereitislegaltoissueonepoundshares.Siemens,oneofthebiggestindustrialistsand“financialkings”inGermany,toldtheReichstagonJune7,1900,that“theonepoundshareisthebasisofBritishimperialism.”Thismerchanthasamuchdeeperandmore“Marxian”understandingofimperialismthanacertaindisreputablewriter,generallyheldtobeoneofthefoundersofRussianMarxism,whobelievesthatimperialismisabadhabitofacertainnation....

Butthe“holdingsystem”notonlyservestoincreasethepowerofthemonopolistsenormously;italsoenablesthemtoresortwithimpunitytoallsortsofshadytrickstocheatthepublic,forthedirectorsoftheparentcompanyarenotlegallyresponsibleforthesubsidiarycompanies,whicharesupposedtobe“independent,”andthroughthemediumofwhichtheycandoanything.HereisanexampletakenfromtheGermanreview,DieBank,forMay1914:

“TheSpringSteelCorporationofKasselwasregardedsomeyearsagoasbeingoneofthemostprofitableenterprisesinGermany.Throughbadmanagementitsdividendsfellwithinthespaceofafewyearsfrom15percenttonil.Itappearsthattheboard,withoutconsultingtheshareholders,hadloanedsixmillionmarkstooneofthesubsidiarycompanies,theHassia,Ltd.,whichhadanominalcapitalofonlysomehundredsofthousandsofmarks.Thiscommitment,amountingtonearlytreblethecapitaloftheparentcompany,wasnevermentionedinitsbalancesheets.Thisomissionwasquitelegal,andcouldbekeptupfortwowholeyearsbecauseitdidnotviolateanyprovisionsofcompanylaw.ThechairmanoftheSupervisoryBoard,whoastheresponsibleheadsignedthefalsebalancesheets,wasandstillisthepresidentoftheKasselChamberofCommerce.TheshareholdersonlyheardoftheloantotheHassia,Ltd.,longafterwards,whenithadlongbeenprovedtohavebeenamistake”(thiswordthewritershouldhaveputinquotationmarks),“andwhen‘SpringSteel’shareshad

droppednearly100points,becausethoseintheknowhadgotridofthem....

“Thistypicalexampleofbalancesheetjugglery,quitecommoninjointstockcompanies,explainswhyboardsofdirectorsaremorewillingtoundertakeriskytransactionsthanindividualenterprises.Modernmethodsofdrawingupbalancesheetsnotonlymakeitpossibletoconcealdoubtfulundertakingsfromtheaverageshareholder,butalsoallowthepeoplemostconcernedtoescapetheconsequenceofunsuccessfulspeculationbysellingtheirsharesintimewhiletheprivatedealerriskshisownskin.

“ThebalancesheetsofmostjointstockcompaniesputusinmindofthepalimpsestsoftheMiddleAgesfromwhichthevisibleinscriptionhadfirsttobeerasedinordertodiscoverbeneathanotherinscriptiongivingtherealmeaningofthedocument.”(Palimpsestsareparchmentdocumentsonwhichtheoriginalinscriptionwasobliteratedandanotherinscriptionimposed.)

“Thesimplestand,therefore,mostcommonprocedureformakingbalancesheetsindecipherableistodivideasinglebusinessintoseveralpartsbysettingupsubsidiarycompanies—orbyannexingsuch.Theadvantagesofthissystemforvariousobjects—legalandillegal—aresoevidentthatitisquiteunusualtofindanimportantcompanyinwhichitisnotactuallyinuse.”

Asanexampleofanimportantmonopolistcompanywidelyemployingthissystem,theauthorquotesthefamousAllgemeineElektrizitätsGesellschaft,theA.E.G.,towhichweshallreferlateron.In1912,itwascalculatedthatthiscompanyheldsharesinfrom175to200othercompanies,controllingthemofcourse,andthushavingcontrolofatotalcapitalof1,500,000,000marks!

Allrulesofcontrol,thepublicationofbalancesheets,thedrawingupofbalancesheetsaccordingtoadefiniteform,thepublicauditingofaccounts,thethingsaboutwhichwell-intentionedprofessorsandofficials—thatis,thoseimbuedwiththegoodintentionofdefendingandembellishingcapitalism—dis—coursetothepublic,areofnoavail.Forprivatepropertyissacred,andnoonecanbeprohibitedfrombuying,selling,exchangingormortgagingshares,etc.

Theextenttowhichthis“holdingsystem”hasdevelopedinthebigRussian

banksmaybejudgedbythefiguresgivenbyE.Agahd,whowasforfifteenyearsanofficialoftheRusso-ChineseBankandwho,inMay1914,publishedabook,notaltogethercorrectlyentitledBigBanksandtheWorldMarket.

TheauthordividesthegreatRussianbanksintotwomaincategories:a)thosewhichoperateas“holdingbanks,”andb)“independent”banks(theindependenceofthelatterbeingarbitrarilytakentomeanbeingindependentofforeignbanks).Theauthorsub-dividesthefirstgroupintothreesub-groups:1)Germanholdingbanks;2)Britishand3)French,havinginviewthosehousesinwhosebusinessthebigbanksofthethreeEuropeancountriesmentionedholdstockandpredominate.Theauthordividesthecapitalofthebanksinto“productively”investedcapital(inindustrialandcommercialundertakings),and“speculatively”investedcapital(inStockExchangeandfinancialoperations),assumingfromhispetty-bourgeoisreformistpointofviewthatitispossible,undercapitalism,toseparatethefirstformofinvestmentfromthesecondandtoabolishthesecondform.

Herearethefigureshesupplies:

BANKASSETS(AccordingtoreportsforOctober-November1913,inmillionsofrubles)

Accordingtothesefigures,oftheapproximatelyfourbillionrublesmakingupthe“working”capitalofthebigbanks,morethanthree-fourths,morethanthreebillionbelongedtobankswhichinrealitywereonlysubsidiarycompaniesofforeignbanks,andchieflyoftheParisbanks(thefamoustrio:UnionParisien,ParisetPays-BasandSociétéGénérale),andoftheBerlinbanks(particularlytheDeutscheBankandtheDisconto-Gesellschaft).TwoofthemostimportantRussianbanks,theRussianBankforForeignTradeandtheSt.PetersburgInternationalCommercial,between1906and1912increasedtheircapitalfrom44,000,000to98,000,000rubles,andtheirreservefrom15,000,000to39,000,000,“employingthree-fourthGermancapital.”ThefirstbelongstotheDeutscheBankgroupandthesecondtotheDisconto-Gesellschaft.TheworthyAgahdisindignantatthefactthatthemajorityofthesharesareheldbyGermanbanks,andthat,therefore,theRussianshareholdersarepowerless.Naturally,thecountrywhichexportscapitalskimsthecream:forexample,theDeutscheBank,whileintroducingthesharesoftheSiberianCommercialBankontheBerlinmarket,kepttheminitsportfolioforawholeyear,andthensoldthemattherateof193for100,thatis,atnearlytwicetheirnominalvalue,“earning”aprofitofnearly6,000,000rubles,which

Hilferdingcalls“promoters’profits.”

OurauthorputsthetotalresourcesoftheprincipalSt.Petersburgbanksat8,235,000,000rublesandthe“holdings,”orrather,theextenttowhichforeignbanksdominatedthem,heestimatesasfollows:Frenchbanks,55percent;English,10percent;German,35percent.Theauthorcalculatesthatofthetotalof8,235,000,000rublesoffunctioningcapital,3,687,000,000rubles,orover40percent,falltotheshareofthesyndicates,ProdugolandProdameta—andthesyndicatesintheoil,metallurgicalandcementindustries.Thus,themergingofbankandindustrialcapitalhasalsomadegreatstridesinRussiaowingtotheformulationofcapitalistmonopolies.

Financecapital,concentratedinafewhandsandexercisingavirtualmonopoly,exactsenormousandever-increasingprofitsfromthefloatingofcompanies,issueofstock,stateloans,etc.,tightensthegripofthefinancialoligarchiesandleviestributeuponthewholeofsocietyforthebenefitofthemonopolists.Hereisanexample,takenfromamultitudeofothers,ofthemethodsemployedbyAmericantrusts,quotedbyHilferding:in1887,HavemeyerfoundedtheSugarTrustbyamalgamatingfifteensmallfirms,whosetotalcapitalamountedtonearly$6,500,000.Suitably“watered,”astheAmericanssay,thecapitalofthetrustwasincreasedto$50,-000,000.This“over-capitalization”anticipatedtheprofitsofthemonopoly,inthesamewayastheUnitedStatesSteelCorporationanticipateditsprofitsbybuyingupasmanyironfieldsaspossible.Infact,theSugarTrustmanagedtoimposemonopolypricesonthemarket,whichsecureditsuchprofitsthatitcouldpay10percentdividendoncapital“watered”sevenfold,orabout70percentonthecapitalactuallyinvestedatthetimeofthecreationofthetrust!In1909,thecapitaloftheSugarTrustwasincreasedto$90,000,000.Intwenty-twoyears,ithadincreaseditscapitalmorethantenfold.

InFrancetheroleofthe“financialoligarchy”(AgainsttheFinancialOligarchyinFrance,thetitleofthewell-knownbookbyLysis,thefiftheditionofwhichwaspublishedin1908)assumedaformthatwasonlyslightlydifferent.Fourofthemostpowerfulbanksenjoy,notarelative,butan“absolutemonopoly”intheissueofbonds.Inrealitythisisa“trustofthebigbanks.”Andtheirmonopolyensuresthemonopolistprofitsfrombondissues.AcountryborrowingfromFrancerarelygetsmorethan90percentofthetotaloftheloan,theremaining10percentgoestothebanksofothermiddlemen.TheprofitmadebythebanksoutoftheRusso-Chineseloansof400,000,000francsamountedto8percent;outoftheRussian(1904)loanof

800,000,000francstheprofitamountedto10percent;andoutoftheMoroccan(1904)loanof62,500,000francs,to18.75percent.Capitalism,whichbeganitsdevelopmentwithpettyusurycapital,endsitsdevelopmentwithgiganticusurycapital.“TheFrench,”saysLysis,“aretheusurersofEurope.”Alltheconditionsofeconomiclifearebeingprofoundlymodifiedbythistransformationofcapitalism.Withastationarypopulation,andstagnantindustry,commerceandshipping,the“country”cangrowrichbyusury.“Fiftypersons,representingacapitalof8,000,000francscancontrol2,000,000,000francsdepositedinfourbanks.”The“holdingsystem,”withwhichwearealreadyfamiliar,leadstothesameresult.Oneofthebiggestbanks,theSociétéGénérale,forinstance,issues64,000bondsforoneofitssubsidiarycompanies,theEgyptianSugarRefineries.Thebondsareissuedat150percent,thebankgaining50centimesonthefranc.Thedividendsofthenewcompanyarethenfoundtobefictitious.The“public”lostfrom90to100millionfrancs.OneofthedirectorsoftheSociétéGénéraleisamemberoftheBoardofDirectorsoftheEgyptianSugarRefineries.Henceitisnotsurprisingthattheauthorisdriventotheconclusionthat“theFrenchRepublicisafinancialmonarchy”;“itisthecompletedominationofthefinancialoligarchy;thelattercontrolsthepressandthegovernment.”

Theextraordinarilyhighrateofprofitobtainedfromtheissueofbonds,whichisoneoftheprincipalfunctionsoffinancecapital,playsalargepartinthedevelopmentandstabilizationofthefinancialoligarchy.

“Thereisnotinthewholecountryasinglebusinessthatbringsinprofitsevenapproximatelyequaltothoseobtainedfromtheissueofforeignloans,”saystheGermanmagazine,DieBank.

“Nobankingoperationbringsinprofitscomparablewiththoseobtainedfromtheflotationofloans.”

AccordingtotheGermanEconomist,theaverageannualprofitsmadeontheissueofindustrialsecuritieswereasfollows:

Inthetenyearsfrom1891to1900,morethanabillionmarkswere“earned”ontheissueofindustrialsecurities.

While,duringperiodsofindustrialboom,theprofitsoffinancecapitalaredisproportionatelylarge,duringperiodsofdepressionsmallandunsoundbusinessesgooutofexistenceandthebigbankstake“holdings”intheirshareswhichareboughtupfornexttonothing,orinprofitableschemesfortheir“reconstruction”and“reorganization.”Inthe“reconstruction”ofundertakingswhichhavebeenrunningataloss,thesharecapitaliswrittendown,thatis,profitsaredistributedonasmallercapitalandsubsequentlyarecalculatedonthissmallerbasis.Iftheincomehasfallentonil,newcapitaliscalledin,which,combinedwiththeoldandlessremunerativecapital,willbringinanadequatereturn.

“Incidentally,”addsHilferding,“thesereorganizationsandreconstructionshaveatwofoldsignificanceforthebanks:first,asprofitabletransactions;andsecondly,asopportunitiesforsecuringcontrolofthecompaniesindifficulties.”

Hereisaninstance.TheUnionMiningCompanyofDortmund,foundedin1872,withacapitalofabout40,000,000marks,sawthemarketpriceofsharesriseto170afterithadpaida12percentdividendinitsfirstyear.Financecapitalskimmedthecreamandearneda“trifle”ofsomethinglike28,000,000marks.TheprincipalsponsorofthiscompanywasthatverybigGermanDisconto-Gesellschaftwhichsosuccessfullyattainedacapitalof300,000,000marks.Later,thedividendsoftheUniondroppedtonil:theshareholdershadtoconsenttoa“writingdown”ofcapital,thatis,tolosingsomeofitinordernottoloseitall.Byaseriesof“reconstructions”morethan73,000,000markswerewrittenoffthebooksoftheUnioninthecourseofthirtyyears.

“Atthepresenttime,theoriginalshareholdersofthiscompanypossessonly5percentofthenominalvalueoftheirshares.”

Butthebankmadeaprofitoutofevery“reconstruction.”

Speculationinlandsituatedinthesuburbsofrapidlygrowingtownsisaparticularlyprofitableoperationforfinancecapital.Themonopolyofthebanksmergesherewiththemonopolyofgroundrentandwiththemonopolyofthemeansofcommunication,sincetheincreaseinvalueofthelandandthepossibilityofsellingitprofitablyinallotmentsismainlydependentongoodmeansofcommunicationwiththecenterofthetown;andthesemeansofcommunicationareinthehandsoflargecompaniesconnected,bymeansoftheholdingsystemandbythedistributionofpositionsonthedirectorates,withtheinterestedbanks.AsaresultwegetwhattheGermanwriter,L.Eschwege,acontributortoDieBank,whohasmadeaspecialstudyofrealestatebusinessandmortgages,callstheformationofa“bog.”Franticspeculationinlandinthesuburbsoflargetowns:collapseofbuildingenterprises(likethatoftheBerlinfirmofBoswauandKnauer,whichgrabbed100,000,000markswiththehelpofthe“soundandsolid”DeutscheBank—thelatteracting,ofcourse,discreetlybehindthescenesthroughtheholdingsystemandgettingoutofitbylosing“only”12,000,000marks),theruinofsmallmastersandofworkerswhogetnothingfromthefraudulentbuildingfirms,underhandagreementswiththe“honest”BerlinpoliceandtheBerlinadministrationforthepurposeofgettingcontroloftheissueofbuildingsites,tenders,buildinglicenses,etc.

“Americanethics,”sostronglybuthypocriticallycondemnedbyEuropeanprofessorsandwell-meaningbourgeois,have,intheageoffinancecapital,becometheethicsofliterallyeverylargecity,nomatterwhatcountryitisin.

Atthebeginningof1914,therewastalkinBerlinoftheproposedformationofatraffictrusttocombinethreeBerlintrafficundertakings,i.e.,toestablish“commoninterests”betweenthemetropolitanelectricrailway,thetramwaycompanyandtheomnibuscompany.

“Weknow,”wroteDieBank,“thatthisplanhasbeencontemplatedsinceitbecameknownthatthemajorityofthesharesinthebuscompanyhasbeenacquiredbytheothertwotrafficcompanies....Wemaybelievethosewhoarepursuingthisaimwhentheysaythatbyunitingthetransportservices,theywillunifytrafficandthussecureeconomiespartofwhichwillintimebenefitthepublic.Butthequestioniscomplicatedbythefactthatbehindthetraffictrustthatisbeingformedarethebanks,which,ifthey

desire,cansubordinatethemeansofcommunication,whichtheyhavemonopolized,totheinterestsoftheirrealestatebusiness.Tobeconvincedofthereasonablenessofsuchaconjecture,weneedonlyrecallthatattheveryformationoftheElevatedRailwayCompanythetrafficinterestsbecameinterlockedwiththerealestateinterestsofthebankwhichfinancedit,andthisinterlockingevencreatedtheprerequisitesfortheformationofthetrafficenterprise.Itseasternline,infact,wastorunthroughlandwhich,whenitbecamecertainthelinewastobelaiddown,thisbanksoldtotherealestatefirmatanenormousprofitforitselfandforseveralpartnersinthetransaction.”

Amonopoly,onceitisformedandcontrolsthousandsofmillions,inevitablypenetratesintoeverysphereofpubliclife,regardlessoftheformofgovernmentandallother“details.”IntheeconomicliteratureofGermanyoneusuallycomesacrosstheservilepraiseoftheintegrityofthePrussianbureaucracy,andallusionstotheFrenchPanamascandalandtopoliticalcorruptioninAmerica.ButthefactisthateventhebourgeoisliteraturedevotedtoGermanbankingmattersconstantlyhastogobeyondthefieldofpurelybankingoperationsandtospeak,forinstance,of“theattractionofthebanks”inreferencetotheincreasingfrequencywithwhichpublicofficialstakeemploymentwiththebanks.

“HowabouttheintegrityofastateofficialwhoinhisinmostheartisaspiringtoasoftjobintheBehrenstrasse?”(ThestreetinBerlininwhichtheheadofficeoftheDeutscheBankissituated.)

In1909,thepublisherofDieBank,AlfredLansburgh,wroteanarticleentitled“TheEconomicSignificanceofByzantinism,”inwhichheincidentallyreferredtoWilhelmII’stourofPalestine,andto“theimmediateresultofthisjourney,”theconstructionoftheBagdadrailway,thatfatal“greatproductofGermanenterprise,whichismoreresponsibleforthe‘encirclement’thanallourpoliticalblundersputtogether.”(ByencirclementismeantthepolicyofEdwardVIIofisolatingGermanybysurroundingherwithanimperialistanti-Germanalliance.)In1912,anothercontributortothismagazine,Eschwege,towhomwehavealreadyreferred,wroteanarticleentitled“Plutocracyand

Bureaucracy,”inwhichheexposesthecaseofaGermanofficialnamedVolker,whowasazealousmemberoftheCartelCommitteeandwhosometimelaterobtainedalucrativepostinthebiggestcartel,i.e.,theSteelSyndicate.Similarcases,bynomeanscasual,forcedthisbourgeoisauthortoadmitthat“theeconomiclibertyguaranteedbytheGermanConstitutionisatpresent,inmanydepartmentsofeconomiclife,onlyameaninglessphrase”andthatundertheruleoftheplutocrats,“thewidestpoliticallibertycannotsaveusfrombeingconvertedintoanationofunfreepeople.”

AsforRussia,wewillcontentourselvesbyquotingoneexample.Someyearsago,allthenewspapersannouncedthatDavidov,thedirectoroftheCreditDepartmentoftheTreasury,hadresignedhisposttotakeemploymentwithacertainbigbankatasalarywhich,accordingtothecontract,wastoamounttooveronemillionrublesinthecourseofseveralyears.ThefunctionoftheCreditDepartmentisto“co-ordinatetheactivitiesofallthecreditinstitutionsofthecountry”;italsograntssubsidiestobanksinSt.PetersburgandMoscowamountingtobetween800and1,000millionrubles.

Generallyspeaking,undercapitalism,theownershipofcapitalisseparatefromtheapplicationofcapitaltoproduction;moneycapitalisseparatefromindustrialorproductivecapital;therentier,livingentirelyonincomeobtainedfrommoneycapital,isseparatedfromtheentrepreneurandfromallthosedirectlyconcernedinthemanagementofcapital.Imperialism,ortheruleoffinancecapital,isthathigheststageofcapitalisminwhichthisseparationreachesvastproportions.Thesupremacyoffinancecapitaloverallotherformsofcapitalmeanstheruleoftherentierandofthefinancialoligarchy;itmeansthecrystallizationofasmallnumberoffinancially“powerful”statesfromamongalltherest.Theextenttowhichthisprocessisgoingonmaybejudgedfromthestatisticsonemissions,i.e.,theissueofallkindsofsecurities.

IntheBulletinoftheInternationalStatisticalInstitute,A.Neymarckhaspublishedverycomprehensiveandcompletecomparativefigurescoveringtheissueofsecuritiesallovertheworld,whichhavebeenrepeatedlyquotedineconomicliterature.Thefollowingarethetotalshegivesforfourdecades:

TOTALISSUESINBILLIONSOFFRANCS

1871-1880 76.1

1881-1890 64.5

1891-1900 100.4

1901-1910 197.8

Inthe1870’s,thetotalamountofissuesforthewholeworldwashigh,owingparticularlytotheloansfloatedinconnectionwiththeFranco-PrussianWar,andthecompanypromotingboomwhichsetininGermanyafterthewar.Ingeneral,theincreaseisnotveryrapidforthethreelastdecadesofthenineteenthcentury,andonlyinthefirsttenyearsofthetwentiethcenturyisanenormousincreaseobservedofalmost100percent.Thusthebeginningofthetwentiethcenturymarkstheturningpoint,notonlyinregardtothegrowthofmonopolies(cartels,syndicates,trusts),ofwhichwehavealreadyspoken,butalsoinregardtothedevelopmentoffinancecapital.

Neymarckestimatesthetotalamountofissuedsecuritiescurrentintheworldin1910atabout815,000,000,000francs.Deductingfromthisamountswhichmighthavebeenduplicated,hereducesthetotalto575-600billion,whichisdistributedamongthevariouscountriesasfollows:(Wewilltake600,000,000,000.)

FINANCIALSECURITIESCURRENTIN1910(Inbillionsoffrancs)

GreatBritain 142

UnitedStates 132479

France 110

Germany 95

Russia 31

Austria-Hungary 24

Italy 14

Holland 12.5

Japan 12

Belgium 7.5

Spain 7.5

Switzerland 6.25

Denmark 3.75

Sweden,Norway,Rumania,etc. 2.5

Total 600.00

Itwillbeseenatoncefromthesefigureswhataprivilegedpositionisheldbyfouroftherichestcapitalistcountries,eachofwhichcontrolssecuritiestoamountsrangingapproximatelyfrom100to150billionfrancs.Twoofthesecountriesaretheoldestcapitalistcountries,and,asweshallsee,possessthemostcolonies:EnglandandFrance;theothertwoareinthefrontrankasregardsrapidityofdevelopmentandthedegreeofextensionofcapitalistmonopoliesinindustry:theUnitedStatesandGermany.Together,thesefourcountriesown479,000,000,000francs,thatis,nearly80percentoftheworld’sfinancecapital.Thus,inonewayoranother,thewholeworldismoreorlessthedebtortoandvassalofthesefourinternationalbankercountries,thefour“pillars”ofworldfinancecapital.

Itisparticularlyimportanttoexaminethepartwhichcapitalexportsplayincreatingtheinternationalnetworkofdependenceandtiesoffinancecapital.

CHAPTERIV

THEEXPORTOFCAPITALUndertheoldtypeofcapitalism,whenfreecompetitionprevailed,the

exportofgoodswasthemosttypicalfeature.Undermoderncapitalism,whenmonopoliesprevail,theexportofcapitalhasbecomethetypicalfeature.

Capitalismiscommodityproductionatthehigheststageofdevelopment,whenlaborpoweritselfbecomesacommodity.Thegrowthofinternalexchange,andparticularlyofinternationalexchange,isaspecialfeatureofcapitalism.Theunevenandspasmodiccharacterofthedevelopmentofindividualenterprises,ofindividualbranchesofindustryandindividualcountries,isinevitableunderthecapitalistsystem.Englandbecameacapitalistcountrybeforeanyother,andinthemiddleofthenineteenthcentury,havingadoptedfreetrade,claimedtobethe“workshopoftheworld,”thegreatpurveyorofmanufacturedgoodstoallothercountries,whichinexchangeweretokeephersuppliedwithrawmaterials.Inthelastquarterofthenineteenthcentury,thismonopolywasalreadyundermined.Othercountries,protectingthemselvesbytariffwalls,haddevelopedintoindependentcapitalistcountries.Onthethresholdofthetwentiethcentury,weseeanewtypeofmonopolycomingintoexistence.First,therearemonopolistcapitalistcombinesinalladvancedcapitalistcountries;secondly,afewrichcountries,inwhichtheaccumulationofcapitalreachesgiganticproportions,occupyamonopolistposition.Anenormous“superfluityofcapital”hasaccumulatedintheadvancedcountries.

Itgoeswithoutsayingthatifcapitalismcoulddevelopagriculture,whichtodaylagsfarbehindindustryeverywhere,ifitcouldraisethestandardoflivingofthemasses,whoareeverywherestillpoverty-strickenandunderfed,inspiteoftheamazingadvanceintechnicalknowledge,therecouldbenotalkofasuperfluityofcapital.This“argument”thepetty-bourgeoiscriticsofcapitalismadvanceoneveryoccasion.Butifcapitalismdidthesethingsitwouldnotbecapitalism;forunevendevelopmentandwretchedconditionsofthemassesarethefundamentalandinevitableconditionsandpremisesofthis

modeofproduction.Aslongascapitalismremainswhatitis,surpluscapitalwillneverbeutilizedforthepurposeofraisingthestandardoflivingofthemassesinagivencountry,forthiswouldmeanadeclineinprofitsforthecapitalists;itwillbeusedforthepurposeofincreasingthoseprofitsbyexportingcapitalabroadtothebackwardcountries.Inthesebackwardcountries,profitsusuallyarehigh,forcapitalisscarce,thepriceoflandisrelativelylow,wagesarelow,rawmaterialsarecheap.Thepossibilityofexportingcapitaliscreatedbytheentryofnumerousbackwardcountriesintointernationalcapitalistintercourse;mainrailwayshaveeitherbeenbuiltorarebeingbuiltthere;theelementaryconditionsforindustrialdevelopmenthavebeencreated,etc.Thenecessityofexportingcapitalarisesfromthefactthatinafewcountriescapitalismhasbecome“over-ripe”and(owingtothebackwardstateofagricultureandtheimpoverishedstateofthemasses)capitalcannotfind“profitable”investment.

Hereareapproximatefiguresshowingtheamountofcapitalinvestedabroadbythethreeprincipalcountries:

CAPITALINVESTEDABROAD(Inbillionsoffrancs)

Thistableshowsthattheexportofcapitalreachedformidabledimensionsonlyinthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury.Beforethewarthecapitalinvestedabroadbythethreeprincipalcountriesamountedtobetween175and200billionfrancs.Atthemodestrateof5percent,thissumbroughtinfrom8to10billionsayear.Thisprovidedasolidbasisforimperialistoppressionandtheexploitationofmostofthecountriesandnationsoftheworld;asolidbasisforthecapitalistparasitismofahandfulofwealthystates!

Howisthiscapitalinvestedabroaddistributedamongthevariouscountries?Wheredoesitgo?Onlyanapproximateanswercanbegiventothisquestion,butsufficienttothrowlightoncertaingeneralrelationsandtiesofmodernimperialism.

APPROXIMATEDISTRIBUTIONOFFOREIGNCAPITAL(ABOUT1910)(Inbillionsofmarks)

TheprincipalspheresofinvestmentofBritishcapitalaretheBritishcolonies,whichareverylargealsoinAmerica(forexample,Canada),aswellasinAsia,etc.Inthiscase,enormousexportsofcapitalareboundupwiththepossessionofenormouscolonies,oftheimportanceofwhichforimperialismweshallspeaklater.InregardtoFrance,thesituationisquitedifferent.FrenchcapitalexportsareinvestedmainlyinEurope,particularlyinRussia(atleasttenbillionfrancs).Thisismainlyloancapital,intheformofgovernmentloansandnotinvestmentsinindustrialundertakings.UnlikeBritishcolonialimperialism,Frenchimperialismmightbetermedusuryimperialism.InregardtoGermany,wehaveathirdtype;theGermancoloniesareinconsiderable,andGermancapitalinvestedabroadisdividedfairlyevenlybetweenEuropeandAmerica.

Theexportofcapitalgreatlyaffectsandacceleratesthedevelopmentofcapitalisminthosecountriestowhichitisexported.While,therefore,theexportofcapitalmaytendtoacertainextenttoarrestdevelopmentinthecountriesexportingcapital,itcanonlydosobyexpandinganddeepeningthefurtherdevelopmentofcapitalismthroughouttheworld.

Thecountrieswhichexportcapitalarenearlyalwaysabletoobtain“advantages,”thecharacterofwhichthrowslightonthepeculiaritiesoftheepochoffinancecapitalandmonopoly.Thefollowingpassage,forinstance,occurredintheBerlinreview,DieBank,forOctober1913:

“AcomedyworthyofthepenofAristophanesisbeingplayedjustnowontheinternationalmoneymarket.Numerousforeigncountries,fromSpaintotheBalkanstates,fromRussiatotheArgentine,BrazilandChina,areopenlyorsecretlyapproachingthebigmoneymarketsdemandingloans,someofwhicharevery

urgent.Themoneymarketisnotatthemomentverybrightandthepoliticaloutlookisnotyetpromising.Butnotasinglemoneymarketdarestorefusealoanforfearthatitsneighbormightgrantitandsosecuresomesmallreciprocalservice.Intheseinternationaltransactionsthecreditornearlyalwaysmanagestogetsomespecialadvantages:anadvantageofacommercial-politicalnature,acoalingstation,acontracttoconstructaharbor,afatconcession,oranorderforguns.”

Financecapitalhascreatedtheepochofmonopolies,andmonopoliesintroduceeverywheremonopolistmethods:theutilizationof“connections”forprofitabletransactionstakestheplaceofcompetitionontheopenmarket.Themostusualthingistostipulatethatpartoftheloanthatisgrantedshallbespentonpurchasesinthecountryofissue,particularlyonordersforwarmaterials,orforships,etc.Inthecourseofthelasttwodecades(1890-1910),Franceoftenresortedtothismethod.Theexportofcapitalabroadthusbecomesameansforencouragingtheexportofcommodities.Inthesecircumstancestransactionsbetweenparticularlybigfirmsassumeaform“borderingoncorruption,”asSchilder“delicately”putsit.KruppinGermany,SchneiderinFrance,ArmstronginEngland,areinstancesoffirmshavingcloseconnectionswithpowerfulbanksandgovernmentswhose“share”mustnotbeforgottenwhenarrangingaloan.

FrancegrantedloanstoRussiain1905andbythecommercialtreatyofSeptember16,1905,she“squeezed”concessionsoutofhertoruntill1917.ShedidthesamethingwhentheFranco-JapanesecommercialtreatywasconcludedonAugust19,1911.ThetariffwarbetweenAustriaandSerbia,whichlastedwithasevenmonths’interval,from1906to1911,waspartlycausedbycompetitionbetweenAustriaandFranceforsupplyingSerbiawithwarmaterial.InJanuary1912,PaulDeschanelstatedintheChamberofDeputiesthatfrom1908to1911FrenchfirmshadsuppliedwarmaterialtoSerbiatothevalueof45,000,000francs.

AreportfromtheAustro-HungarianConsulatSao-Paulo(Brazil)states:

“TheconstructionoftheBrazilianrailwaysisbeingcarriedoutchieflybyFrench,Belgian,BritishandGermancapital.Inthefinancialoperationsconnectedwiththeconstructionofthese

railwaysthecountriesinvolvedalsostipulateforordersforthenecessaryrailwaymaterial.”

Thus,financecapital,almostliterally,onemightsay,spreadsitsnetoverallcountriesoftheworld.Banksfoundedinthecolonies,ortheirbranches,playanimportantpartintheseoperations.Germanimperialistslookwithenvyonthe“old”colonizingnationswhichinthisrespectare“wellestablished.”In1904,GreatBritainhad50colonialbankswith2,279branches(in1910therewere72bankswith5,449branches);Francehad20with136branches;Holland,16with68branches,andGermanyhada“mere”13with70branches.

TheAmericancapitalists,intheirturn,arejealousoftheEnglishandGerman:“InSouthAmerica,”theycomplainedin1915,“fiveGermanbankshadfortybranchesandfiveEnglishbankshadseventy....Duringthelasttwenty-fiveyears,GreatBritainandGermanyhaveinvestedintheArgentine,BrazilandUruguayaboutfourbilliondollars,whichplacesundertheircontrol46percentofthetotaltradeofthesethreecountries.”

Thecapitalexportingcountrieshavedividedtheworldamongthemselvesinthefigurativesenseoftheterm.Butfinancecapitalhasalsoledtotheactualdivisionoftheworld.

CHAPTERV

THEDIVISIONOFTHEWORLDAMONGCAPITALISTCOMBINESMonopolistcapitalistcombines—cartels,syndicates,trusts—divideamong

themselves,firstofall,thewholeinternalmarketofacountry,andimposetheircontrol,moreorlesscompletely,upontheindustryofthatcountry.Butundercapitalismthehomemarketisinevitablyboundupwiththeforeignmarket.Capitalismlongagocreatedaworldmarket.Astheexportofcapitalincreased,andastheforeignandcolonialrelations,the“spheresofinfluence”ofthebigmonopolistcombines,expanded,thingstended“naturally”towardaninternationalagreementamongthesecombinesandtowardtheformationofinternationalcartels.

Thisisanewstageofworldconcentrationofcapitalandproduction,incomparablyhigherthantheprecedingstages.Letusseehowthissuper-monopolydevelops.

Theelectricalindustryisthemosttypicalofthemoderntechnicalachievementsofcapitalismoftheendofthenineteenthandbeginningofthetwentiethcenturies.Thisindustryhasdevelopedmostinthetwomostadvancedofthenewcapitalistcountries,theUnitedStatesandGermany.InGermany,thecrisisof1900gaveaparticularlystrongimpetustoitsconcentration.Duringthecrisis,thebanks,whichbythistimehadbecomefairlywellmergedwithindustry,greatlyacceleratedanddeepenedthecollapseofrelativelysmallfirmsandtheirabsorptionbythelargeones.

“Thebanks,”writesJeidels,“inrefusingahelpinghandtotheverycompanieswhichneedit,bringon,afterafrenziedboom,thehopelessfailureofthecompanieswhicharenotpermanentlycloselyattachedtothem.”

Asaresult,after1900,concentrationinGermanyproceededbyleapsandbounds.Upto1900therehadbeensevenoreight“groups”intheelectricalindustry.Eachwasformedofmanycompanies(altogetherthereweretwenty-eight)andeachwassupportedbyfromtwotoelevenbanks.Between1908and1912allthegroupswereunitedintotwo,orpossiblyone.Thediagrambelowshowstheprocess:

GROUPSINTHEGERMANELECTRICALINDUSTRY

ThefamousA.E.G.(GeneralElectricCompany),whichgrewupinthisway,controls175to200companies(throughshareholdings),andatotalcapitalofapproximately1,500,-000,000marks.Abroad,ithasthirty-fourdirectrepresentatives,ofwhichtwelvearejointstockcompanies,inmorethantencountries.Asearlyas1904,theamountofcapitalinvestedabroadbytheGermanelectricalindustrywasestimatedat233,000,000marks.Ofthissum,62,000,000wereinvestedinRussia.Needlesstosay,theA.E.G.isahugecombine.Itsmanufacturingcompaniesalonenumbernolessthansixteen,andtheirfactoriesmakethemostvariedarticles,fromcablesandinsulatorstomotorcarsandaeroplanes.

ButconcentrationinEuropewasapartoftheprocessofconcentrationinAmerica,whichdevelopedinthefollowingway:

Thus,two“GreatPowers”intheelectricalindustrywereformed.“Therearenootherelectric‘powers’intheworldcompletelyindependentofthem,”wroteHeiniginhisarticle“ThePathoftheElectricityTrust.”Anidea,althoughfarfromcomplete,oftheturnoverandthesizeoftheenterprisesofthetwo“trusts”canbeobtainedfromthefollowingfigures:

In1907,theGermanandAmericantrustsconcludedanagreementbywhichtheydividedtheworldbetweenthemselves.Competitionbetweenthemceased.TheAmericanGeneralElectricCompany“got”theUnitedStatesandCanada.TheA.E.G.“got”Germany,Austria,Russia,Holland,Denmark,Switzerland,TurkeyandtheBalkans.Specialagreements,naturallysecret,wereconcludedregardingthepenetrationof“subsidiary”companiesintonewbranchesofindustry,into“new”countriesformallynotyetallotted.Thetwotrustsweretoexchangeinventionsandexperiments.

Itiseasytounderstandhowdifficultcompetitionhasbecomeagainstthistrust,whichispracticallyworld-wide,whichcontrolsacapitalofseveralbillionmarks,andhasits“branches,”agencies,representatives,connections,etc.,ineverycorneroftheworld.Butthedivisionoftheworldbetweentwopowerfultrustsdoesnotremovethepossibilityofre-division,iftherelationofforceschangesasaresultofunevendevelopment,war,bankruptcy,etc.

Theoilindustryprovidesaninstructiveexampleofsuchare-division,orratherofastruggleforre-division.

“Theworldoilmarket,”wroteJeidelsin1905,“iseventodaydividedinthemainbetweentwogreatfinancialgroups—Rockefel—ler ’sStandardOilCo.,andthecontrollinginterestsoftheRussianoilfieldsinBaku,RothschildandNobel.Thetwogroupsareinclosealliance.Butforseveralyears,fiveenemieshavebeenthreateningtheirmonopoly”:1)TheexhaustionoftheAmericanwells;2)thecompetitionofthefirmofMantashevofBaku;3)theAustrianwells;4)theRumanianwells;5)thetransoceanicoil-fields,particularlyintheDutchcolonies(theextremelyrichfirms,SamuelandShell,alsoconnectedwithBritishcapital).ThethreelastgroupsareconnectedwiththegreatGermanbanks,principallytheDeutscheBank.ThesebanksindependentlyandsystematicallydevelopedtheoilindustryinRumania,inordertohaveafootholdoftheir“own.”In1907,185,000,000francsofforeigncapitalwereinvestedintheRumanianoilindustry,ofwhich74,000,000camefromGermany.

Astrugglebegan,which,ineconomicliterature,isfittinglycalled“thestruggleforthedivisionoftheworld.”Ononeside,theRockefellertrust,wishingtoconquereverything,formedasubsidiarycompanyrightinHolland,andboughtupoilwellsintheDutchIndies,inordertostrikeatitsprincipalenemy,theAnglo-DutchShelltrust.Ontheotherside,theDeutscheBankandtheotherGermanbanksaimedat“retaining”Rumania“forthemselves”andatunitingitwithRussiaagainstRockefeller.Thelattercontrolledfarmorecapitalandanexcellentsystemofoiltransportanddistribution.Thestrugglehadtoend,anddidendin1907,withthedefeatoftheDeutscheBank,whichwasforcedtochoosebetweentwoalternatives,eithertoliquidateitsoilbusinessandlosemillions,ortosubmit.Itchosetosubmit,andconcludedaverydisadvantageousagreementwiththeAmericantrust.TheDeutscheBankagreed“nottoattemptanythingwhichmightinjureAmericaninterests.”Provisionwasmade,however,fortheannulmentoftheagreementintheeventofGermanyestablishingastateoilmonopoly.

Thenthe“comedyofoil”began.OneoftheGermanfinancekings,von

Gwinner,adirectoroftheDeutscheBank,beganthroughhisprivatesecretary,Strauss,acampaignforastateoilmonopoly.ThegiganticmachineofthebigGermanbankandallits“connections”weresetinmotion.Thepressbubbledoverwith“patriotic”indignationagainstthe“yoke”oftheAmericantrust,and,onMarch15,1911,theReichstagbyanalmostunanimousvoteadoptedamotionaskingthegovernmenttointroduceabillfortheestablishmentofanoilmonopoly.Thegovernmentseizeduponthis“popular”ideaandthegameoftheDeutscheBank,whichhopedtodeceiveitsAmericanpartnerandimproveitsbusinessbyastatemonopoly,appearedtohavebeenwon.TheGermanoilmagnatessawvisionsofwonderfulprofits,whichwouldnotbelessthanthoseofthegreatRussiansugarrefiners....But,first,thegreatGermanbanksquarrelledamongthemselvesoverthedivisionofthespoils;theDisconto-GesellschaftexposedthecovetousaimsoftheDeutscheBank;secondly,thegovernmenttookfrightattheprospectofastrugglewithRockefeller;itwasdoubtfulwhetherGermanycouldbesureofobtainingoilfromothersources(theRumanianoutputwassmall).Thirdly,justatthattimethe1913creditsofabillionmarkswerevotedforGermany’swarpreparations.Theprojectoftheoilmonopolywaspostponed.TheRockefellertrustcameoutofthestruggle,forthetimebeing,victorious.

TheBerlinmagazine,DieBank,saidinthisconnectionthatGermanycouldonlyfighttheoiltrustbyestablishinganelectricitymonopolyandbyconvertingwaterpowerintocheapelectricity.

“But,”theauthoradded,“thepowermonopolywillcomewhentheproducersneedit,thatistosay,whenthenextgreatfailureintheelectricalindustryisimpendingandwhenthepowerfulexpensiveelectricstationswhicharenowbeingputupatgreatcosteverywherebyprivateelectricconcerns,whichobtainpartialmonopoliesfromtowns,fromthestate,etc.,cannolongerworkataprofit.Waterpowerwillthenhavetobeused.Butthiscannotbeconvertedintocheapelectricityatstateexpense;itwillhavetobehandedoverto‘aprivatemonopolycontrolledbythestate,’becauseoftheimmensecompensationanddamagesthatwouldhavetobepaidtoprivateindustry....Soitwaswiththenitratemonopoly;soitiswiththeoilmonopoly;soitiswiththepetroleummonopoly;soitwillbewiththeelectricpowermonopoly.Itistimeourstatesocialists,whoallowthemselvesto

beblindedbybeautifulprinciples,understoodonceandforallthatinGermanymonopolieshaveneverpursuedtheaim,norhavetheyhadtheresultofbenefitingtheconsumer,orofhandingovertothestatepartoftheentrepreneurs’profits;theyhaveservedonlytosanitate,attheexpenseofthestate,privateindustrieswhichwereonthevergeofbankruptcy.”

SucharethevaluableadmissionswhichtheGermanbourgeoiseconomistsareforcedtomake.Weseeplainlyherehowprivatemonopoliesandstatemonopoliesareboundtogetherintheageoffinancecapital;howbotharebutseparatelinksintheimperialiststrugglebetweenthebigmonopolistsforthedivisionoftheworld.

Inmercantileshipping,thetremendousdevelopmentofconcentrationhasendedalsointhedivisionoftheworld.InGermanytwopowerfulcompanieshaveraisedthemselvestofirstrank,theHamburg-AmerikaandtheNord-Deutscher-Lloyd,eachhavingacapitalof200,000,000marksinstocksandbonds,andpossessing185to189millionmarksworthofshippingtonnage.Ontheotherside,inAmerica,onJanuary1,1903,theMorgantrust,theInternationalMaritimeTradingCompany,wasformedwhichunitednineBritishandAmericansteamshipcompanies,andwhichcontrolledacapitalof120,000,000dollars(480,000,000marks).Asearlyas1903,theGermangiantsandtheAnglo-Americantrustconcludedanagreementanddividedtheworldinaccordancewiththedivisionofprofits.TheGermancompaniesundertooknottocompeteintheAnglo-Americantraffic.Theportswerecarefullyallottedtoeach;ajointcommitteeofcontrolwassetup.Thiscontractwasconcludedfortwentyyears,withaprudentprovisionforitsannulmentintheeventofwar.

ExtremelyinstructivealsoisthestoryofthecreationoftheInternationalRailCartel.ThefirstattemptoftheBritish,BelgianandGermanrailmanufacturerstocreatesuchacartelwasmadeasearlyas1884,atthetimeofasevereindustrialdepression.Themanufacturersagreednottocompetewithoneanotherfortheinternalmarketsofthecountriesinvolved,andtheydividedtheforeignmarketsinthefollowingquotas:GreatBritain—66percent;Germany—27percent;Belgium—17percent.IndiawasreservedentirelyforGreatBritain.JointwarwasdeclaredagainstaBritishfirmwhichremainedoutsidethecartel.Thecostofthiseconomicwarwasmetbyapercentagelevyonallsales.Butin1886thecartelcollapsedwhentwoBritishfirmsretired

fromit.Itischaracteristicthatagreementcouldnotbeachievedintheperiodofindustrialprosperitywhichfollowed.

Atthebeginningof1904,theGermanSteelSyndicatewasformed.InNovember1904,theInternationalRailCartelwasrevivedwiththefollowingquotasforforeigntrade:GreatBritain—53.5percent;Germany—28.83percent;Belgium—17.67percent.Francecameinlaterwith4.8percent,5.8percentand6.4percentinthefirst,secondandthirdyearsrespectively,inexcessofthe100percentlimit,i.e.,whenthetotalwas104.8percent,etc.In1905,theUnitedStatesSteelCorporationenteredthecartel;thenAustria;thenSpain.

“Atthepresenttime,”wroteVogelsteinin1910,“thepartitionoftheworldiscompleted,andthebigconsumers,primarilythestaterailways—sincetheworldhasbeenparcelledoutwithoutconsiderationfortheirinterests—cannowdwelllikethepoetinthepalaceofJupiter.”

WewillmentionalsotheInternationalZincSyndicate,establishedin1909,whichdividedoutputexactlyamongfivegroupsoffactories:German,Belgian,French,SpanishandBritish.ThenthereistheInternationalDynamiteTrust,ofwhichLiefmannsaysthatitis

“quiteamodernclosealliancebetweenallthemanufacturersofexplosiveswho,withtheEnglishandFrenchdynamitemanufacturerswhohaveorganizedinasimilarmanner,havedividedthewholeworldamongthemselves,sotospeak.”

Altogether,Liefmann,in1897,countedaboutfortyinternationalcartelsinwhichGermanyhadashare,whilein1910therewereaboutahundred.

Certainbourgeoiswriters(withwhomK.Kautsky,whohascompletelyabandonedtheMarxianpositionheheld,forexample,in1909,hasnowassociatedhimself)expresstheopinionthatinternationalcartelsarethemoststrikingexpressionsoftheinternationalizationofcapital,andthatthey,therefore,givethehopeofpeaceamongnationsundercapitalism.Theoretically,thisopinionisabsurd,whileinpracticeitisasophismanda

dishonestdefenseoftheworstopportunism.Internationalcartelsshowtowhatpointcapitalistmonopolieshavedeveloped,andtheyrevealtheobjectofthestrugglebetweenthevariouscapitalistgroups.Thislastcircumstanceisthemostimportant;italoneshowsusthehis-torico-economicsignificanceofevents;fortheformsofthestrugglemayanddovaryinaccordancewithvarying,relativelyparticularandtransitorycauses,buttheessenceofthestruggle,itsclasscontent,cannotchangewhileclassesexist.Itiseasytounderstand,forexample,thatitisintheinterestsoftheGermanbourgeoisie,whosetheoreticalargumentshavenowbeenadoptedbyKautsky(wewilldealwiththislater),toobscurethecontentofthecontemporaryeconomicstruggle(thedivisionoftheworld)andtoemphasizeoneoranotherformofthestruggle.Kautskymakesthesamemistake.Ofcourse,wehaveinmindnotonlytheGermanbourgeoisie,butthebourgeoisieallovertheworld.Thecapitalistsdividetheworld,notoutofmalice,butbecausethedegreeofconcentrationwhichhasbeenreachedforcesthemtoadoptthismethodinordertogetprofits.Andtheydivideitinproportiontocapital,inproportionto“strength,”becausetherecannotbeanyothersystemofdivisionunderthesystemofcommodityproductionandcapitalism.Butstrengthvarieswiththedegreeofeconomicandpoliticaldevelopment.Inordertounderstandwhattakesplace,itisnecessarytoknowwhatquestionsaresettledbythischangeofforces.Thequestionastowhetherthesechangesare“purely”economicornon-economic(e.g.,military)isasecondaryone,whichdoesnotintheleastaffectthefundamentalviewonthelatestepochofcapitalism.Tosubstituteforthequestionofthecontentofthestruggleandagreementsbetweencapitalistcombinesthequestionoftheformofthesestrugglesandagreements(todaypeaceful,tomorrowwar-like,thenextdaypeacefulagain)istodescendintosophistry.

Theepochofmoderncapitalismshowsusthatcertainrelationsareestablishedbetweencapitalistalliances,basedontheeconomicpartitionoftheworld;whileparalleltothisfactandinconnectionwithit,certainrelationsareestablishedbetweenpoliticalalliances,betweenstates,onthebasisoftheterritorialdivisionoftheworld,ofthestruggleforcolonies,ofthe“struggleforeconomicterritory.”

CHAPTERVI

THEDIVISIONOFTHEWORLDAMONGTHEGREATPOWERSInhisbook,TheTerritorialDevelopmentoftheEuropeanColonies,A.

Supan,thegeographer,brieflysumsupthisdevelopmentattheendofthenineteenthcentury,asfollows:

PERCENTAGEOFTERRITORIESBELONGINGTOTHEEUROPEANCOLONIALPOWERS(INCLUDINGUNITEDSTATES)

“Thecharacteristicfeatureofthisperiod,”heconcludes,“is,therefore,thedivisionofAfricaandPolynesia.”

Astherearenounoccupiedterritories—thatis,territoriesthatdonotbelongtoanystate—inAsiaandAmerica,Mr.Supan’sconclusionmustbecarriedfurtherandwemustsaythatthecharacteristicfeatureofthisperiodisthefinalpartitionoftheglobe—notinthesensethatanewpartitionisimpossible—onthecontrary,newpartitionsarepossibleandinevitable—butinthesensethatthecolonialpolicyofthecapitalistcountrieshascompletedtheseizureoftheunoccupiedterritoriesonourplanet.Forthefirsttimetheworldiscompletelysharedout,sothatinthefutureonlyre-divisionispossible;territoriescanonly

passfromone“owner”toanother,insteadofpassingasunownedterritorytoan“owner.”

Hence,wearepassingthroughapeculiarperiodofworldcolonialpolicy,whichiscloselyassociatedwiththe“latestphaseofcapitalistdevelopment,”withfinancecapital.Forthisreason,itisessentialtodealindetailwiththefacts,inordertoascertainexactlywhatdistinguishesthisperiodfromthoseprecedingit,andwhatthepresentsituationis.Inthefirstplace,twoquestionsoffactarisehere.Isanintensificationofcolonialpolicy,anintensificationofthestruggleforcolonies,observedinthisperiodoffinancecapital?Andhow,inthisrespect,istheworlddividedatthepresenttime?

TheAmericanwriter,Morris,inhisbookTheHistoryofColonization,hasmadeanattempttocompiledataonthecolonialpossessionsofGreatBritain,FranceandGermanyduringdifferentperiodsofthenineteenthcentury.Thefollowingisabriefsummaryoftheresultshehasobtained:

COLONIALPOSSESSIONS

ForGreatBritain,theperiodoftheenormousexpansionofcolonialconquestsisthatbetween1860and1880,anditwasalsoveryconsiderableinthelasttwentyyearsofthenineteenthcentury.ForFranceandGermanythisperiodfallspreciselyintheselasttwentyyears.Wesawabovethattheapexofpre-monopolycapitalistdevelopment,ofcapitalisminwhichfreecompetitionwaspredominant,wasreachedinthesixtiesandseventiesofthelastcentury.Wenowseethatitispreciselyfollowingthatperiodthatthe“boom”incolonialannexationsbegins,andthatthestruggleforaterritorialdivisionoftheworldbecomesextraordinarilykeen.Itisbeyonddoubt,therefore,thatthetransitionofcapitalismtomonopolycapitalism,tofinancecapitalism,isconnectedwiththeintensificationofthestruggleforthepartitionoftheworld.

Hobson,inhisworkonimperialism,markstheyears1884-1900astheperiodoftheintensificationofthecolonial“expansion”ofthechiefEuropean

states.Accordingtohisestimate,GreatBritainduringtheseyearsacquired3,700,000squaremilesofterritorywithapopulationof57,000,000inhabitants;Franceacquired3,600,000squaremileswithapopulationof36,500,000inhabitants;Germany,1,000,000squaremileswithapopulationof16,700,000inhabitants;Belgium,900,000squaremileswith30,000,000inhabitants;Portugal,800,000squaremileswith9,000,000inhabitants.Thequestforcoloniesbyallthecapitaliststatesattheendofthenineteenthcentury,andparticularlysincethe1880’s,isacommonlyknownfactinthehistoryofdiplomacyandofforeignaffairs.

WhenfreecompetitioninGreatBritainwasatitsheight,i.e.,between1840and1860,theleadingBritishbourgeoispoliticianswereopposedtocolonialpolicyandwereoftheopinionthattheliberationofthecoloniesandtheircompleteseparationfromGreatBritainwasinevitableanddesirable.M.Beer,inanarticle,“ModernBritishImperialism,”publishedin1898,showsthatin1852,Disraeli,astatesmangenerallyinclinedtowardsimperialism,declared:“Thecoloniesaremillstonesroundournecks.”ButattheendofthenineteenthcenturytheheroesofthehourwereCecilRhodesandJosephChamberlain,openadvocatesofimperialism,whoappliedtheimperialistpolicyinthemostcynicalmanner.

ItisnotwithoutinteresttoobservethatevenatthattimetheseleadingBritishbourgeoispoliticiansfullyappreciatedtheconnectionbetweenwhatmightbecalledthepurelyeconomicandthepolitico-socialrootsofmodernimperialism.Chamberlainadvocatedimperialismbycallingita“true,wiseandeconomicalpolicy,”andhepointedparticularlytotheGerman,AmericanandBelgiancompetitionwhichGreatBritainwasencounteringintheworldmarket.Salvationliesinmonopolies,saidthecapitalistsastheyformedcartels,syndicatesandtrusts.Salvationliesinmonopolies,echoedthepoliticalleadersofthebourgeoisie,hasteningtoappropriatethepartsoftheworldnotyetsharedout.Thejournalist,Stead,relatesthefollowingremarksutteredbyhisclosefriendCecilRhodesin1895regardinghisimperialistideas:

“IwasintheEastEndofLondonyesterdayandattendedameetingoftheunemployed.Ilistenedtothewildspeeches,whichwerejustacryfor‘bread,’‘bread,’‘bread,’andonmywayhomeIponderedoverthesceneandIbecamemorethaneverconvincedoftheimportanceofimperialism....Mycherishedideaisasolutionforthesocialproblem,i.e.,inordertosavethe40,000,000

inhabitantsoftheUnitedKingdomfromabloodycivilwar,wecolonialstatesmenmustacquirenewlandsforsettlingthesurpluspopulation,toprovidenewmarketsforthegoodsproducedinthefactoriesandmines.TheEmpire,asIhavealwayssaid,isabreadandbutterquestion.Ifyouwanttoavoidcivilwar,youmustbecomeimperialists.”

ThisiswhatCecilRhodes,millionaire,kingoffinance,themanwhowasmainlyresponsiblefortheBoerWar,saidin1895.Hisdefenseofimperialismisjustcrudeandcynical,butinsubstanceitdoesnotdifferfromthe“theory”advocatedbyMessrs.Maslov,Südekum,Potresov,David,thefounderofRussianMarxismandothers.CecilRhodeswasasomewhatmorehonestsocial-chauvinist.

Totabulateasexactlyaspossibletheterritorialdivisionoftheworld,andthechangeswhichhaveoccurredduringthelastdecades,wewilltakethedatafurnishedbySupanintheworkalreadyquotedonthecolonialpossessionsofallthepowersoftheworld.Supanexaminestheyears1876and1900;wewilltaketheyear1876—ayearaptlyselected,foritispreciselyatthattimethatthepre-monopoliststageofdevelopmentofWestEuropeancapitalismcanbesaidtohavebeencompleted,inthemain,andwewilltaketheyear1914,andinplaceofSupan’sfigureswewillquotethemorerecentstatisticsofHübner(GeographicalandStatisticalTables).Supangivesfiguresforcoloniesonly:wethinkituseful,inordertopresentacompletepictureofthedivisionoftheworld,toaddbrieffiguresonnon-colonialandsemi-colonialcountrieslikePersia,ChinaandTurkey.Persiaisalreadyalmostcompletelyacolony;ChinaandTurkeyareonthewaytobecomingcolonies.Wethusgetthefollowingsummary:

COLONIALPOSSESSIONSOFTHEGREATPOWERS(Inmillionsofsquarekilometersandinmillionsofinhabitants)

Weseefromthesefigureshow“complete”wasthepartitionoftheworldattheendofthenineteenthandbeginningofthetwentiethcenturies.After1876colonialpossessionsincreasedtoanenormousdegree,morethanoneandahalftimes,from40,000,000to65,000,000squarekilometersinareaforthesixbiggestpowers,anincreaseof25,000,000squarekilometers,thatis,oneandahalftimesgreaterthantheareaofthe“home”countries,whichhaveatotalof16,500,000squarekilometers.In1876threepowershadnocolonies,andafourth,France,hadscarcelyany.In1914thesefourpowershad14,100,000squarekilometersofcolonies,oranareaoneandahalftimesgreaterthanthatofEurope,withapopulationofnearly100,000,000.Theunevennessintherateofexpansionofcolonialpossessionsisverymarked.If,forinstance,wecompareFrance,GermanyandJapanwhichdonotdifferverymuchinareaandpopulation,wewillseethatthefirst(France)hasannexedalmostthreetimesasmuchcolonialterritoryastheothertwocombined.Butinregardtofinancecapital,also,France,atthebeginningoftheperiodweareconsidering,wasperhapsseveraltimesricherthanGermanyandJapanputtogether.Inadditiontoandonthebasisofpurelyeconomiccauses,geographicalconditionsandotherfactorsalsoaffectthedimensionsofcolonialpossessions.Howeverstrongtheprocessoflevellingtheworld,oflevellingeconomicandlivingconditionsindifferentcountriesmayhavebeeninthepastdecadesasaresultofthepressureoflarge-scaleindustry,exchangeandfinancecapital,greatdifferencesstillremain;andevenamongthesixpowerswesee,first,youngcapitalistpowers(America,Germany,Japan)whichprogressedveryrapidly;secondly,countrieswithanoldcapitalistdevelopment(FranceandGreatBritain),whichhavemademuchslowerprogressoflatethanthepreviouslymentionedcountries,andthirdly,acountry(Russia)whichiseconomicallymostbackward,inwhichmoderncapitalist

imperialismisenmeshed,sotospeak,inathickwebofpre-capitalistrelations.

Alongsidethecolonialpossessionsofthesegreatpowers,wehaveplacedthesmallcoloniesofthesmallstates,whichare,sotospeak,thenextpossibleandprobableobjectsofanewcolonial“share-out.”Mostoftheselittlestatesareabletoretaintheircoloniesonlybecauseoftheconflictinginterests,frictions,etc.,amongthebigpowers,whichpreventthemfromcomingtoanagreementinregardtothedivisionofthespoils.Thesemi-colonialstatesprovideanexampleofthetransitionalformswhicharetobefoundinallspheresofnatureandsociety.Financecapitalissuchagreat,itmaybesaid,suchadecisiveforceinalleconomicandinternationalrelationsthatitiscapableofsubordinatingtoitself,andactuallydoessubordinatetoitself,evenstatesenjoyingcompletepoliticalindependence.Weshallshortlyseeexamplesofthis.Naturally,financecapitalfindsitmost“convenient,”andisable,toextractthegreatestprofitfromasubordinationwhichinvolvesthelossofthepoliticalindependenceofthesubjectedcountriesandpeoples.Inthisconnection,thesemi-colonialcountriesprovideatypicalexampleofthe“middlestage.”Itisnaturalthatthestruggleforthesesemi-dependentcountriesshouldhavebecomeparticularlybitterduringtheperiodoffinancecapital,whentherestoftheworldhadalreadybeensharedout.

Colonialpolicyandimperialismexistedbeforethislateststageofcapitalism,andevenbeforecapitalism.Rome,foundedonslavery,pursuedacolonialpolicyandachievedimperialism.But“general”argumentsaboutimperialismwhichignore,orputintothebackground,thefundamentaldifferenceofsocial-economicsystems,inevitablydegenerateintoabsolutelyemptybanalities,orintograndiloquentcomparisonslike“GreaterRomeandGreaterBritain.”Eventhecolonialpolicyofcapitalisminitspreviousstagesisessentiallydifferentfromthecolonialpolicyoffinancecapital.

Theprincipalfeatureofmoderncapitalismisthedominationofmonopolistcombinesofthebigcapitalists.Thesemonopoliesaremostdurablewhenallthesourcesofrawmaterialsarecontrolledbytheonegroup.Andwehaveseenwithwhatzealtheinternationalcapitalistcombinesexerteveryefforttomakeitimpossiblefortheirrivalstocompetewiththem;forexample,bybuyingupminerallands,oilfields,etc.Colonialpossessionalonegivescompleteguaranteeofsuccesstothemonopoliesagainstalltherisksofthestrugglewithcompetitors,includingtheriskthatthelatterwilldefendthemselvesbymeansofalawestablishingastatemonopoly.Themorecapitalismdevelops,themoretheneedforrawmaterialsarises,themorebitter

competitionbecomes,andthemorefeverishlythehuntforrawmaterialsproceedsallovertheworld,themoredesperatebecomesthestrugglefortheacquisitionofcolonies.

Schilderwrites:

“Itmayevenbeasserted,althoughitmaysoundparadoxicaltosome,thatinthemoreorlessdiscerniblefuturethegrowthoftheurbanindustrialpopulationismorelikelytobehinderedbyashortageofrawmaterialsforindustrythanbyashortageoffood.”

Forexample,thereisagrowingshortageoftimber—thepriceofwhichissteadilyrising—ofleatherandrawmaterialsforthetextileindustry.

“AsinstancesoftheeffortsofindustrialassociationstoeffectabalancebetweenagricultureandindustryinworldindustrywemightmentiontheInternationalFederationofCottonSpinners’Associationsinthemostimportantindustrialcountries,foundedin1904,andtheEuropeanFederationofFlaxSpinners’Associations,foundedontheabovepatternin1910.”

Thebourgeoisreformists,andamongthemparticularlythepresent-dayadherentsofKautsky,ofcourse,trytobelittletheimportanceoffactsofthiskindbyarguingthatit“wouldbepossible”toobtainrawmaterialsintheopenmarketwithouta“costlyanddangerous”colonialpolicy;andthatit“wouldbepossible”togreatlyincreasethesupplyofrawmaterials“simply”byimprovingagriculture.Buttheseargumentsaresimplyanapologyforimperialism,anattempttoembellishit,becausetheyignoretheprincipalfeatureofmoderncapitalism:monopoly.Freemarketsarebecomingmoreandmoreathingofthepast;monopolistsyndicatesandtrustsarerestrictingthemmoreandmoreeveryday,and“simply”improvingagriculturereducesitselftoimprovingtheconditionsofthemasses,ofraisingwagesandreducingprofits.Where,exceptintheimaginationofthesentimentalreformists,arethereanytrustscapableofinterestingthemselvesintheconditionofthemassesinsteadoftheconqueringofcolonies?

Financecapitalisnotonlyinterestedinthealreadyknownsourcesofrawmaterials;itisalsointerestedinpossiblesourcesofrawmaterials,becausepresent-daytechnicaldevelopmentisextremelyrapid,andbecauselandwhichisuselesstodaymaybemadefertiletomorrowifnewmethodsareapplied(todevisethesenewmethodsabigbankcanequipawholeexpeditionofengineers,agriculturalexperts,etc.),andlargeamountsofcapitalareinvested.Thisalsoappliestoprospectingforminerals,tonewmethodsofworkingupandutilizingrawmaterials,etc.,etc.Hence,theinevitablestrivingoffinancecapitaltoextenditseconomicterritoryandevenitsterritoryingeneral.Inthesamewaythatthetrustscapitalizetheirpropertybyestimatingitattwoorthreetimesitsvalue,takingintoaccountits“possible”future(andnotpresent)returns,andthefurtherresultsofmonopoly,sofinancecapitalstrivestoseizethelargestpossibleamountoflandofallkindsandinanyplaceitcan,andbyanymeans,countingonthepossibilitiesoffindingrawmaterialsthere,andfearingtobeleftbehindintheinsensatestruggleforthelastavailablescrapsofunappropriatedterritory,orfortherepartitionofthatwhichhasbeenalreadyappropriated.

TheBritishcapitalistsareexertingeveryefforttodevelopcottongrownintheirownEgyptiancolony(in1904,outof2,300,000hectaresoflandundercultivation,600,000,ormorethanone-fourth,weredevotedtocottongrowing);theRussiansaredoingthesameintheircolony,Turkestan;andtheyaredoingsobecauseinthiswaytheywillbeinabetterpositiontodefeattheirforeigncompetitors,tomonopolizethesourcesofrawmaterialsandformamoreeconomicalandprofitabletextiletrustinwhichalltheprocessesofproductionwillbe“combined”andconcentratedinthehandsofasingleowner.

Thenecessityofexportingcapitalalsoservestostimulatethequestforcolonies,foritiseasierinthecolonialmarket(andsometimesitistheonlypossibleway),bymonopolistmethodstoeliminatecompetition,tomakesureoforders,tostrengthenthenecessary“connections,”etc.

Thenon-economicsuperstructurewhichgrowsuponthebasisoffinancecapital,itspoliticsanditsideology,stimulatesthestrivingforcolonialconquest.“Financecapitaldoesnotwantliberty,itwantsdomination,”asHilferdingverytrulysays.AndaFrenchbourgeoiswriter,developingandsupplementing,asitwere,theideasofCecilRhodes,whichwequotedabove,writesthatsocialcausesshouldbeaddedtotheeconomiccausesofmoderncolonialpolicy.

“Owingtothegrowingcomplexityanddifficultiesoflifewhichweigh,notonlyonthemassesoftheworkers,butalsoonthemiddleclasses,impatience,irritationandhatredareaccumulatinginallthecountriesoftheoldcivilizationandarebecomingamenacetopublicorder;employmentmustbefoundfortheenergywhichisbeinghurledoutofthedefiniteclasschannel:itmustbegivenanoutletabroadinordertoavertanexplosionathome.”

Sincewearespeakingofcolonialpolicyintheperiodofcapitalistimperialism,itmustbeobservedthatfinancecapitalanditscorrespondingforeignpolicy,whichreducesitselftothestruggleoftheGreatPowersfortheeconomicandpoliticaldivisionoftheworld,giverisetoanumberoftransitionalformsofnationaldependence.Thedivisionoftheworldintotwoprincipalgroups—ofcolony-owningcountriesontheonehandandcoloniesontheother—isnottheonlytypicalfeatureofthisperiod;thereisalsoavarietyofformsofdependence;countrieswhich,formally,arepoliticallyindependent,butwhichare,infact,enmeshedinthenetoffinancialanddiplomaticdependence.Wehavealreadyreferredtooneformofdependence—thesemi-colony.AnotherexampleisprovidedbyArgentina.

“SouthAmerica,andespeciallyArgentina,”writesSchulze-GavernitzinhisworkonBritishimperialism,“issodependentfinanciallyonLondonthatitoughttobedescribedasalmostaBritishcommercialcolony.”

BasinghimselfonthereportoftheAustro-HungarianconsulatBuenosAires,SchilderestimatestheamountofBritishcapitalinvestedinArgentinain1909at8,750,000,000francs.ItisnotdifficulttoimaginethesolidbondsthatarethuscreatedbetweenBritishfinancecapital(anditsfaithful“friend,”diplomacy)andtheArgentinebourgeoisie,theleadingbusinessmenandpoliticiansofthatcountry.

Asomewhatdifferentformoffinancialanddiplomaticdependence,accompaniedbypoliticalindependence,ispresentedbyPortugal.Portugalisanindependentsovereignstate.Inactualfact,however,formorethantwohundredyears,sincethewaroftheSpanishSuccession(1700-14),ithasbeenaBritishprotectorate.TheBritishhaveprotectedPortugalandhercoloniesinordertofortifytheirownpositionsinthefightagainsttheirrivals,SpainandFrance.Inreturn,theyhavereceivedcommercialadvantages,preferential

importsofgoods,and,aboveall,ofcapitalintoPortugalandthePortuguesecolonies,therighttousetheportsandislandsofPortugal,hertelegraphcables,etc.Relationsofthiskindhavealwaysexistedbetweenbigandsmallstates.Butduringtheperiodofcapitalistimperialismtheybecomeageneralsystem,theyformpartoftheprocessof“dividingtheworld”;theybecomealinkinthechainofoperationsofworldfinancecapital.

Inordertocompleteourexaminationofthequestionofthedivisionoftheworld,wemustmakethefollowingobservation.ThisquestionwasraisedquiteopenlyanddefinitelynotonlyinAmericanliteratureaftertheSpanish-AmericanWar,andinEnglishliteratureaftertheBoerWar,attheveryendofthenineteenthcenturyandthebeginningofthetwentieth;notonlyhasGermanliterature,whichalways“jealously”watches“Britishimperialism,”systematicallygivenitsappraisalofthisfact,butithasbeenraisedinFrenchbourgeoisliteratureintermsaswideandasclearasarepossiblefromthebourgeoispointofview.WewillquoteDriault,thehistorian,who,inhisbook,PoliticalandSocialProblemsattheEndoftheNineteenthCentury,inthechapter“TheGreatPowersandtheDivisionoftheWorld,”wrotethefollowing:

“Duringrecentyearsallthefreeterritoryoftheearth,withtheexceptionofChina,hasbeenoccupiedbythepowersofEuropeandNorthAmerica.Severalconflictsanddisplacementsofinfluencehavealreadyoccurredoverthismatter,whichforeshadowmoreterribleoutbreaksinthenearfuture.Foritisnecessarytomakehaste.Thenationswhichhavenotyetmadeprovisionforthemselvesruntheriskofneverreceivingtheirshareandneverparticipatinginthetremendousexploitationoftheglobewhichwillbeoneoftheessentialfeaturesofthenextcentury”(i.e.,thetwentieth).“ThatiswhyallEuropeandAmericahaslatelybeenafflictedwiththefeverofcolonialexpansion,of‘imperialism,’thatmostcharacteristicfeatureoftheendofthenineteenthcentury.”

Andtheauthoradded:

“Inthispartitionoftheworld,inthisfuriouspursuitofthetreasuresandofthebigmarketsoftheglobe,therelativepoweroftheempiresfoundedinthisnineteenthcenturyistotallyoutofproportiontotheplaceoccupiedinEuropebythenationswhichfoundedthem.ThedominantpowersinEurope,thosewhichdecidethedestiniesoftheContinent,arenotequallypreponderantinthewholeworld.And,ascolonialpower,thehopeofcontrollinghithertounknownwealth,willobviouslyreacttoinfluencetherelativestrengthoftheEuropeanpowers,thecolonialquestion—‘imperialism,’ifyouwill—whichhasalreadytransformedthepoliticalconditionsofEurope,willmodifythemmoreandmore.”

CHAPTERVII

IMPERIALISMASASPECIALSTAGEOFCAPITALISMWemustnowtrytosumupandputtogetherwhathasbeensaidaboveonthe

subjectofimperialism.Imperialismemergedasthedevelopmentanddirectcontinuationofthefundamentalattributesofcapitalismingeneral.Butcapitalismonlybecamecapitalistimperialismatadefiniteandveryhighstageofitsdevelopment,whencertainofitsfundamentalattributesbegantobetransformedintotheiropposites,whenthefeaturesoftheperiodoftransitionfromcapitalismtoahighersocialandeconomicsystembegantotakeshapeandrevealthemselvesallalongtheline.Thefundamentaleconomicfactorinthisprocessisthesubstitutionofcapitalistmonopoliesforcapitalistfreecompetition.Freecompetitionisthefundamentalattributeofcapitalismandofcommodityproductiongenerally.Monopolyisexactlytheoppositeoffreecompetition;butwehaveseenthelatterbeingtransformedintomonopolybeforeourveryeyes,creatinglarge-scaleindustryandeliminatingsmallindustry,replacinglarge-scaleindustrybystilllarger-scaleindustry,finallyleadingtosuchaconcentrationofproductionandcapitalthatmonopolyhasbeenandistheresult:cartels,syndicatesandtrusts,andmergingwiththem,thecapitalofadozenorsobanksmanipulatingthousandsofmillions.Atthesametimemonopoly,whichhasgrownoutoffreecompetition,doesnotabolishthelatter,butexistsalongsideitandhoversoverit,asitwere,and,asaresult,givesrisetoanumberofveryacuteantagonisms,frictionsandconflicts.Monopolyisthetransitionfromcapitalismtoahighersystem.

Ifitwerenecessarytogivethebriefestpossibledefinitionofimperialismweshouldhavetosaythatimperialismisthemonopolystageofcapitalism.Suchadefinitionwouldincludewhatismostimportant,for,ontheonehand,financecapitalisthebankcapitalofthefewbigmonopolistbanks,mergedwiththecapitalofthemonopolistcombinesofmanufacturers;and,ontheotherhand,thedivisionoftheworldisthetransitionfromacolonialpolicywhichhasextendedwithouthindrancetoterritoriesunoccupiedbyany

capitalistpower,toacolonialpolicyofthemonopolisticpossessionoftheterritoriesoftheworldwhichhavebeencompletelydividedup.

Butverybriefdefinitions,althoughconvenient,fortheysumupthemainpoints,areneverthelessinadequate,becauseveryimportantfeaturesofthephenomenonthathastobedefinedhavetobeespeciallydeduced.Andso,withoutforgettingtheconditionalandrelativevalueofalldefinitions,whichcanneverincludealltheconcatenationsofaphenomenoninitscompletedevelopment,wemustgiveadefinitionofimperialismthatwillembracethefollowingfiveessentialfeatures:1. Theconcentrationofproductionandcapitaldevelopedtosuchastagethat

itcreatesmonopolieswhichplayadecisiveroleineconomiclife.2. Themergingofbankcapitalwithindustrialcapital,andthecreation,on

thebasisof“financecapital,”ofafinancialoligarchy.3. Theexportofcapital,whichhasbecomeextremelyimportant,as

distinguishedfromtheexportofcommodities.4. Theformationofinternationalcapitalistmonopolieswhichsharethe

worldamongthemselves.5. Theterritorialdivisionofthewholeworldamongthegreatestcapitalist

powersiscompleted.

Imperialismiscapitalisminthatstageofdevelopmentinwhichthedominationofmonopoliesandfinancecapitalhasestablisheditself;inwhichtheexportofcapitalhasacquiredpronouncedimportance;inwhichthedivisionoftheworldamongtheinternationaltrustshasbegun;inwhichthepartitionofalltheterritoriesoftheglobeamongthegreatcapitalistpowershasbeencompleted.

Weshallseelaterthatimperialismcanandmustbedefineddifferentlyifconsiderationistobegiven,notonlytothebasic,purelyeconomicfactors—towhichtheabovedefinitionislimited—butalsotothehistoricalplaceofthisstageofcapitalisminrelationtocapitalismingeneral,ortotherelationsbetweenimperialismandthetwomaintendenciesintheworkingclassmovement.Thepointtobenotedjustnowisthatimperialism,asinterpretedabove,undoubtedlyrepresentsaspecialstageinthedevelopmentofcapitalism.Inordertoenablethereadertoobtainaswellgroundedanideaofimperialismaspossible,wedeliberatelyquotedlargelyfrombourgeoiseconomistswhoareobligedtoadmittheparticularlyindisputablefactsregardingmoderncapitalisteconomy.Withthesameobjectinview,wehaveproduceddetailedstatisticswhichrevealtheextenttowhichbankcapital,etc.,hasdeveloped,showinghow

thetransformationofquantityintoquality,ofdevelopedcapitalismintoimperialism,hasexpresseditself.Needlesstosay,alltheboundariesinnatureandinsocietyareconditionalandchangeable,and,consequently,itwouldbeabsurdtodiscusstheexactyearorthedecadeinwhichimperialism“definitely”becameestablished.

Inthismatterofdefiningimperialism,however,wehavetoenterintocontroversy,primarily,withKarlKautsky,theprincipalMarxiantheoreticianoftheepochoftheso-calledSecondInternational,thatis,ofthetwenty-fiveyearsbetween1889and1914.

Kautsky,in1915andeveninNovember1914,decisivelyattackedthefundamentalideasexpressedinourdefinitionofimperialism.Kautskysaidthatimperialismmustnotberegardedasa“phase”orstageofeconomy,butasapolicy;adefinitepolicy“preferred”byfinancecapital;thatimperialismcannotbe“identified”with“contemporarycapitalism”;thatifimperialismistobeunderstoodtomean“allthephenomenaofcontemporarycapitalism”—cartels,protection,thehegemonyofthefinanciersandcolonialpolicy——thenthequestionastowhetherimperialismisnecessaryforcapitalismbecomesreducedtothe“flattesttautology”;because,inthatcase,imperialismis“naturallyavitalnecessityforcapitalism,”andsoon.ThebestwaytopresentKautsky’sideasistoquotehisowndefinitionofimperialism,whichisdiametricallyopposedtothesubstanceoftheideaswhichwehavesetforth(fortheobjectionscomingfromthecampoftheGermanMarxists,whohavebeenadvocatingsuchideasformanyyearsalready,havelongbeenknowntoKautskyastheobjectionsofadefinitetrendinMarxism).

Kautsky’sdefinitionisasfollows:

“Imperialismisaproductofhighlydevelopedindustrialcapitalism.Itconsistsinthestrivingofeveryindustrialcapitalistnationtobringunderitscontrolandtoannexincreasinglybigagrarian”(Kautsky’sitalics)“regionsirrespectiveofwhatnationsinhabitthoseregions.”

Thisdefinitionisutterlyworthlessbecauseitone-sidedly,i.e.,arbitrarily,bringsoutthenationalquestionalone(althoughthisisextremelyimportantinitselfaswellasinitsrelationtoimperialism),itarbitrarilyandinaccurately

connectsimperialismonlywithindustrialcapitalinthecountrieswhichannexothernationsandinanequallyarbitraryandinaccuratemannerbringsouttheannexationofagrarianregions.

Imperialismisastrivingforannexations—thisiswhatthepoliticalpartofKautsky’sdefinitionamountsto.Itiscorrect,butveryincomplete,forpoliticallyimperialismisingeneralastrivingtowardsviolenceandreaction.Forthemoment,however,weareinterestedintheeconomicaspectofthequestion,whichKautskyhimselfintroducedinhisdefinition.TheinaccuracyofKautsky’sdefinitionisobvious.Thecharacteristicfeatureofimperialismisnotindustrialcapital,butfinancecapital.ItisnotanaccidentthatinFranceitwaspreciselytheextraordinarilyrapiddevelopmentoffinancecapitalandtheweakeningofindustrialcapitalthat,from1880onwards,gaverisetotheextremeextensionofannexationist(colonial)policy.Thecharacteristicfeatureofimperialismispreciselythatitstrivestoannexnotonlyagriculturalregions,butevenhighlyindustrializedregions(GermanappetiteforBelgium;FrenchappetiteforLorraine),because1)thefactthattheworldisalreadypartitionedobligesthosecontemplatinganewpartitiontostretchouttheirhandstoanykindofterritory,and2)becauseanessentialfeatureofimperialismistherivalrybetweenanumberofgreatpowersinthestrivingforhegemony,i.e.,fortheconquestofterritory,notsomuchdirectlyforthemselves,astoweakentheadversaryandunderminehishegemony.(BelgiumischieflynecessaryforGermanyasabaseforoperationsagainstEngland;EnglandneedsBagdadasabaseforoperationsagainstGermany,etc.)

Kautskyrefersespecially—andrepeatedly—toEnglishwriterswho,healleges,havegivenapurelypoliticalmeaningtotheword“imperialism”inthesensethatKautskyunderstandsit.WetakeuptheworkbytheEnglishmanHobson,Imperialism,whichappearedin1902,andthereinweread:

“Thenewimperialismdiffersfromtheolder,firstinsubstitutingfortheambitionofasinglegrowingempirethetheoryandthepracticeofcompetingempires,eachmotivatedbysimilarlustsofpoliticalaggrandisementandcommercialgain,secondly,inthedominanceoffinancial,orinvesting,overmercantileinterests.”

Wesee,therefore,thatKautskyisabsolutelywronginreferringtoEnglish

writersgenerally(unlesshemeantthevulgarBritishimperialistwriters,ortheavowedapologistsforimperialism).WeseethatKautsky,whileclaimingthathecontinuestodefendMarxism,asamatteroffacttakesastepbackwardcomparedwiththesocial-liberalHobson,whomorecorrectlytakesintoaccounttwo“historicallyconcrete”(Kautsky’sdefinitionisamockeryofhistoricalconcreteness)featuresofmodernimperialism:1)thecompetitionbetweenseveralimperialisms,and2)thepredominanceofthefinancieroverthemerchant.Ifitwerechieflyaquestionoftheannexationofagrariancountriesbyindustrialcountries,theroleofthemerchantwouldbepredominant.

ButKautsky’sdefinitionisnotonlywrongandun-Marxian.ItservesasabasisforawholesystemofviewswhichruncountertoMarxiantheoryandMarxianpracticeallalongtheline.Weshallrefertothisagainlater.TheargumentaboutwordswhichKautskyraises:whetherthelateststageofcapitalismshouldbecalled“imperialism”or“thestageoffinancecapital”isofnoimportance.Callitwhatyouwill,itmatterslittle.TheimportantfactisthatKautskydetachesthepoliticsofimperialismfromitseconomics,speaksofannexationsasbeingapolicy“preferred”byfinancecapital,andopposestoitanotherbourgeoispolicywhichheallegesispossibleonthisverybasisoffinancecapital.Accordingtohisargument,monopoliesineconomicsarecompatiblewithnon-monopolistic,non-violent,non-annexationistmethodsinpolitics.Accordingtohisargument,theterritorialdivisionoftheworld,whichwascompletedpreciselyduringtheperiodoffinancecapital,andwhichconstitutesthebasisofthepresentpeculiaritiesoftheformofrivalrybetweenthebiggestcapitaliststates,iscompatiblewithanon-imperialistpolicy.Theresultisaslurringoverandabluntingofthemostprofoundcontradictionsofthelateststageofcapitalism,insteadofanexposureoftheirdepth.TheresultisbourgeoisreformisminsteadofMarxism.

KautskyentersintocontroversywiththeGermanapologistofimperialismandannexations,Cuno,whoclumsilyandcynicallyarguesasfollows:imperialismismoderncapitalism,thedevelopmentofcapitalismisinevitableandprogressive;thereforeimperialismisprogressive;thereforeweshouldbowdownbeforeitandchantitspraises.ThisissomethinglikethecaricatureofRussianMarxismwhichtheNarodnikidrewin1894-95.Theyusedtoargueasfollows:iftheMarxistsbelievethatcapitalismisinevitableinRussia,thatitisprogressive,thentheyoughttoopenapublic-houseandbegintoimplantcapitalism!Kautsky’sreplytoCunoisasfollows:imperialismisnotmoderncapitalism.Itisonlyoneoftheformsofthepolicyofmoderncapitalism.This

policywecanandshouldfight;wecanandshouldfightagainstimperialism,annexations,etc.

Thereplyseemsquiteplausible,butineffectitisamoresubtleandmoredisguised(andthereforemoredangerous)formofpropagandaofconciliationwithimperialism,forunlessitstrikesattheeconomicbasisofthetrustsandbanks,the“struggle”againstthepolicyofthetrustsandbanksreducesitselftobourgeoisreformismandpacifism,toaninnocentandbenevolentexpressionofpioushopes.Kautsky’stheorymeansrefrainingfrommentioningexistingcontradictions,forgettingthemostimportantofthem,insteadofrevealingthemintheirfulldepth;itisatheorythathasnothingincommonwithMarxism.Naturally,sucha“theory”canonlyservethepurposeofadvocatingunitywiththeCunos.Kautskywritesthatfromthepurelyeconomicpointofviewitisnotimpossiblethatcapitalismwillyetgothroughanewphase,thatoftheextensionofthepolicyofthecartelstoforeignpolicy,thephaseofultra-imperialism,i.e.,ofasuper-imperialism,aunionofworldimperialismandnotstrugglesamongimperialisms;aphasewhenwarsshallceaseundercapitalism,aphaseof“thejointexploitationoftheworldbyinternationallyunitedfinancecapital.”

Weshallhavetodealwiththis“theoryofultra-imperialism”lateroninordertoshowhowdefinitelyandutterlyitdepartsfromMarxism.Inkeepingwiththeplanofthepresentwork,weshallexaminetheexacteconomicdataonthisquestion.Is“ultra-imperialism”possible“fromthepurelyeconomicpointofview”orisitultra-nonsense?

If,by“purelyeconomicpointofview”a“pure”abstractionismeant,thenallthatcanbesaidreducesitselftothefollowingproposition:evolutionisproceedingtowardsmonopoly;thereforethetrendistowardsasingleworldmonopoly,toauniversaltrust.Thisisindisputable,butitisalsoascompletelydevoidofmeaningasisthestatementthat“evolutionisproceeding”towardsthemanufactureoffood-stuffsinlaboratories.Inthissensethe“theory”ofultra-imperialismisnolessabsurdthana“theoryofultra-agriculture”wouldbe,ifoneweresuggested.

If,ontheotherhand,wearediscussingthe“purelyeconomic”conditionsoftheepochoffinancecapitalasahistoricallyconcreteepochinthetwentiethcentury,thebestreplythatonecanmaketolifelessabstractionsof“ultra-imperialism”(whichserveanexclusivelyreactionaryaim,viz.,thatofdivertingattentionfromthedepthofexistingantagonisms)istocontrastthemwiththeconcreteeconomicrealitiesofpresent-dayworldeconomy.Kautsky’s

meaninglesstalkaboutultra-imperialismencourages,amongotherthings,thatprofoundlymistakenideawhichonlybringsgristtothemilloftheapologistsofimperialism,viz.,thatthedominationoffinancecapitallessenstheunevennessandcontradictionsinherentinworldeconomy,whereasinrealityitincreasesthem.

RichardCalwer,inhislittlebook,AnIntroductiontoWorldEconomics,attemptedtocompilethemain,purelyeconomicdatarequiredtodepictinaconcretewaytheinternalrelationsofworldeconomyattheendofthenineteenthandbeginningofthetwentiethcenturies.Hedividestheworldintofive“maineconomicareas,”asfollows:1)CentralEurope(thewholeofEuropewiththeexceptionofRussiaandGreatBritain);2)GreatBritain;3)Russia;4)EasternAsia;5)America;heincludesthecoloniesinthe“areas”ofthestatetowhichtheybelongand“leavesout”afewcountriesnotdistributedaccordingtoareas,suchasPersia,AfghanistanandArabiainAsia;MoroccoandAbyssiniainAfrica,etc.

Hereisabriefsummaryoftheeconomicdatahequotesontheseregions:

Wenoticethreeareasofhighlydevelopedcapitalism,thatis,withahighdevelopmentofmeansoftransport,oftradeandofindustry.ThesearetheCentralEuropean,theBritishandtheAmericanareas.Amongthesearethreestateswhichdominatetheworld:Germany,GreatBritain,theUnitedStates.ImperialistrivalryandthestrugglebetweenthesecountrieshavebecomeverykeenbecauseGermanyhasonlyarestrictedareaandfewcolonies(thecreationof“centralEurope”isstillamatterforthefuture;itisbeingborninthemidstofdesperatestruggles).Forthemomentthedistinctivefeatureof

Europeispoliticaldisintegration.IntheBritishandAmericanareas,ontheotherhand,politicalconcentrationisveryhighlydeveloped,butthereisatremendousdisparitybetweentheimmensecoloniesoftheoneandtheinsignificantcoloniesoftheother.Inthecolonies,capitalismisonlybeginningtodevelop.ThestruggleforSouthAmericaisbecomingmoreandmoreacute.

Therearetwoareaswherecapitalismisnotstronglydeveloped:RussiaandEasternAsia.Intheformerthedensityofpopulationisverysmall,inthelatteritisveryhigh;intheformerpoliticalconcentrationisveryhigh;inthelatteritdoesnotexist.ThepartitionofChinaisonlybeginning,andthestrugglebetweenJapan,U.S.A.,etc.,inconnectiontherewithissteadilygaininginintensity.

Comparethisreality,thevastdiversityofeconomicandpoliticalconditions,theextremedisparityintherateofdevelopmentofthevariouscountries,andtheviolentstrugglesoftheimperialiststates,withKautsky’sstupidlittlefableabout“peaceful”ultra-imperialism.Isthisnotthereactionaryattemptofafrightenedphilistinetohidefromsternreality?DonottheinternationalcartelswhichKautskyimaginesaretheembryosof“ultra-imperialism”(withasmuchreasonasonewouldhavefordescribingthemanufactureoftabloidsinalaboratoryasultra-agricultureinembryo)presentanexampleofthedivisionandthere-divisionoftheworld,thetransitionfrompeacefuldivisiontoviolentdivisionandviceversa?IsnotAmericanandotherfinancecapital,whichdividethewholeworldpeacefully,withGermany’sparticipation,forexample,intheInternationalRailSyndicate,orintheInternationalMercantileShippingTrust,nowengagedinre-dividingtheworldonthebasisofanewrelationofforces,whichhasbeenchangedbymethodsbynomeanspeaceful?

Financecapitalandthetrustsareaggravatinginsteadofdiminishingthedifferencesintherateofdevelopmentofthevariouspartsofworldeconomy.Whentherelationofforcesisveryhighlydeveloped,butthereisatremendousdisparitycontradictionsbefound,exceptbyresortingtoviolence?

Railwaystatisticsprovideremarkablyexactdataonthedifferentratesofdevelopmentofcapitalismandfinancecapitalinworldeconomy.Inthelastdecadesofimperialistdevelopment,thetotallengthofrailways,expressedinthousandsofkilometers,haschangedasfollows:

Thus,thedevelopmentofrailwayshasbeenmorerapidinthecoloniesandintheindependentorsemi-independentstatesofAsiaandAmerica.Here,asweknow,thefinancecapitalofthefourorfivebiggestcapitaliststatesreignsundisputed.TwohundredthousandkilometersofnewrailwaysinthecoloniesandintheothercountriesofAsiaandAmericarepresentmorethan40,000,000,000marksincapital,newlyinvestedunderparticularlyadvantageousconditions,withspecialguaranteesofagoodreturnandwithprofitableordersforsteelworks,etc.,etc.

Capitalismisgrowingwiththegreatestrapidityinthecoloniesandintrans-oceaniccountries.Amongthelatter,newimperialistpowersareemerging(e.g.,Japan).Thestruggleofworldimperialismisbecomingaggravated.Thetributeleviedbyfinancecapitalonthemostprofitablecolonialandtrans-oceanicenterprisesisincreasing.Insharingoutthisbooty,anexceptionallylargepartgoestocountrieswhich,asfarasthedevelopmentofproductiveforcesisconcerned,donotalwaysstandatthetopofthelist.Inthecaseofthebiggestcountries,consideredwiththeircolonies,thetotallengthofrailwayswasasfollows(inthousandsofkilometers):

Thus,about80percentofthetotalexistingrailwaysareconcentratedinthehandsofthefivegreatpowers.Buttheconcentrationoftheownershipofthese

railways,thatoffinancecapital,ismuchgreaterstill:FrenchandEnglishmillionaires,forexample,ownanenormousamountofstocksandbondsinAmerican,Russianandotherrailways.

Thankstohercolonies,GreatBritainhasincreased“her”lengthofrailwaysby100,000kilometers,fourtimesasmuchasGermany.AndyetitiswellknownthatthedevelopmentofproductiveforcesinGermany,andespeciallythedevelopmentofthecoalandironindustries,hasbeenmuchmorerapidduringthisperiodthaninEngland—nottomentionFranceandRussia.In1892,Germanyproduced4,900,000tonsofpigiron,andGreatBritainproduced6,800,000tons;in1912,Germanproduced17,600,000tonsandGreatBritain,9,000,000tons.Germany,therefore,hadanoverwhelmingsuperiorityoverEnglandinthisrespect!

Weask,isthereundercapitalismanymeansofremedyingthedisparitybetweenthedevelopmentofproductiveforcesandtheaccumulationofcapitalontheoneside,andthedivisionofcoloniesand“spheresofinfluence”byfinancecapitalontheotherside—otherthanbyresortingtowar?

CHAPTERVIII

THEPARASITISMANDDECAYOFCAPITALISMWehavetoexamineyetanotherveryimportantaspectofimperialismto

which,usually,toolittleimportanceisattachedinmostoftheargumentsonthissubject.OneoftheshortcomingsoftheMarxist,Hilferding,isthathetakesastepbackwardcomparedwiththenon-Marxist,Hobson.Werefertoparasitism,whichisafeatureofimperialism.

Aswehaveseen,themostdeep-rootedeconomicfoundationofimperialismismonopoly.Thisiscapitalistmonopoly,i.e.,monopolywhichhasgrownoutofcapitalismandexistsinthegeneralcapitalistenvironmentofcommodityproductionandcompetition,andremainsinpermanentandinsolublecontradictiontothisgeneralenvironment.Nevertheless,likeallmonopoly,thiscapitalistmonopolyinevitablygivesrisetoatendencytostagnationanddecay.Asmonopolypricesbecomefixed,eventemporarily,thestimulustotechnicaland,consequently,toallprogress,disappearstoacertainextent,andtothatextent,also,theeconomicpossibilityarisesofdeliberatelyretardingtechnicalprogress.Forinstance,inAmerica,acertainMr.Owensinventedamachinewhichrevolutionizedthemanufactureofbottles.TheGermanbottlemanufacturingtrustpurchasedOwens’patent,butrefrainedfromutilizingit.Certainly,monopolycannot,undercapitalism,eliminatecompetitionintheworldmarketcompletelyandforalongperiodoftime(andthis,bytheby,isoneofthereasonswhythetheoryofultra-imperialismissoabsurd).Certainlythepossibilityofreducingcostofproductionandincreasingprofitsbyintroducingtechnicalimprovementsisaninfluenceinthedirectionofchange.Nevertheless,thetendencytostagnationanddecay,whichisthefeatureofmonopoly,continues,andincertainbranchesofindustry,incertaincountries,forcertainperiodsoftime,itbecomespredominant.

Themonopolyofownershipofveryextensive,richorwell-situatedcoloniesoperatesinthesamedirection.

Moreover,imperialismisanimmenseaccumulationofmoneycapitalinafewcountries,which,aswehaveseen,amountsto100to150billionfrancsinvarioussecurities.Hencetheextraordinarygrowthoftheclass,orratherofthecategory,ofbondholders(rentiers),peoplewholivebyclippingcoupons,whotakenopartwhateverinproduction,whoseprofessionisidleness.Theexportofcapital,oneoftheessentialeconomicbasesofimperialism,stillmorecompletelyisolatestherentiersfromproductionandsetsthesealofparasitismonthewholecountrythatlivesbytheexploitationofthelaborofseveraloverseascountriesandcolonies.

“In1893,”writesHobson,“theBritishcapitalinvestedabroadrepresentedabout15percentofthetotalwealthoftheUnitedKingdom.”

Letusrememberthatby1915thiscapitalhadincreasedabouttwoandahalftimes.

“Aggressiveimperialism,”saysHobsonfurtheron,“whichcoststhetaxpayersodear,whichisofsolittlevaluetothemanufacturerandtrader...isasourceofgreatgaintotheinvestor....TheannualincomeGreatBritainderivesfromcommissionsinherwholeforeignandcolonialtrade,importandexport,isestimatedbySirR.Giffenat£18,000,000for1899,takenat2.5percentuponaturnoverof£800,000,000.”

Greatasthissumis,itdoesnotexplaintheaggressiveimperialismofGreatBritain.Thisisexplainedbythe90to100millionpoundssterlingrevenuefrom“invested”capital,theincomeoftherentierclass.

Therevenueofthebondholdersisfivetimesgreaterthantherevenueobtainedfromtheforeigntradeofthegreatesttradingcountryintheworld.Thisistheessenceofimperialismandimperialistparasitism.

Forthatreasontheterm,“bondholderstate”(Rentner-staat),orusurerstate,ispassingintocurrentuseintheeconomicliteraturethatdealswithimperialism.Theworldhasbecomedividedintoahandfulofmoney-lending

statesontheoneside,andavastmajorityofdebtorstatesontheother.

“Thepremierplaceamongforeigninvestments,”saysSchulze-Gavernitz,“isheldbythoseplacedinpoliticallydependentorcloselyalliedcountries.GreatBritaingrantsloanstoEgypt,Japan,ChinaandSouthAmerica.Hernavyplaysthepartofbailiffincaseofnecessity.GreatBritain’spoliticalpowerprotectsherfromtheindignationofherdebtors.”

SartoriusvonWaltershauseninhiswork,TheEconomicSystemofForeignInvestments,citesHollandasthemodelbondholderstateandpointsoutthatGreatBritainandFrancehavetakenthesameroad.Schilderbelievesthatfiveindustrialnationshavebecome“pronouncedcreditornations”;GreatBritain,France,Germany,BelgiumandSwitzerland.Hollanddoesnotappearonthislistsimplybecauseitis“industriallylessdeveloped.”HeassertsthattheUnitedStatesiscreditoronlyoftheotherAmericancountries.

“GreatBritain,”saysSchulze-Gävernitz,“isgraduallybecomingtransformedfromanindustrialstateintoacreditorstate.Notwithstandingtheabsoluteincreaseinindustrialoutputandtheexportofmanufacturedgoods,therelativeimportanceofincomefrominterestanddividends,issues,commissionsandspeculationisontheincreaseforthewholeofthenationaleconomy.Inmyopinionitispreciselythisthatformstheeconomicbasisofimperialistascendancy.Thecreditorismorepermanentlyattachedtothedebtorthantheselleristothebuyer.”

InregardtoGermany,A.Lansburgh,theeditorofDieBank,in1911,inanarticleentitled“GermanyasaBondholderState,”wrotethefollowing:

“PeopleinGermanyarereadytosneerattheyearningobservedinFranceofpeopletobecomerentiers.ButtheyforgetthatasfarasthemiddleclassisconcernedthesituationinGermanyisbecomingmoreandmorelikethatinFrance.”

Therentierstateisastateofparasiticdecayingcapitalism,andthiscircumstancecannotfailtoinfluenceallthesocial-politicalconditionsofthecountriesaffectedgenerallyandthetwofundamentaltrendsintheworkingclassmovementparticularly.TodemonstratethisintheclearestpossiblemannerwewillquoteHobson,whowillberegardedasamore“reliable”witness,sincehecannotbesuspectedofleaningstowards“orthodoxMarxism”;moreover,heisanEnglishmanwhoisverywellacquaintedwiththesituationinthecountrywhichisrichestincolonies,infinancecapitalandinimperialistexperience.

WiththeBoerWarfreshinhismind,Hobsondescribestheconnectionbetweenimperialism,andtheinterestsofthe“financiers,”thegrowingprofitsfromwarcontracts,etc.,andwritesasfollows:

“Whilethedirectorsofthisdefinitelyparasiticpolicyarecapitalists,thesamemotivesappealtospecialclassesoftheworkers.Inmanytowns,mostimportanttradesaredependentupongovernmentemploymentorcontracts;theimperialismofthemetalandshipbuildingcentersisattributableinnosmalldegreetothisfact.”

Inthiswriter ’sopiniontherearetwocauseswhichweakenedtheolderempires:1)“economicparasitism,”and2)theformationofarmiescomposedofsubjectraces.

“Thereisfirstthehabitofeconomicparasitism,bywhichtherulingstatehasuseditsprovinces,coloniesanddependencies,inordertoenrichitsrulingclassandtobribeitslowerclassesintoacquiescence.”

Andwewouldaddthattheeconomicpossibilityofsuchcorruption,whateveritsformmaybe,requireshighmonopolistprofits.

Asforthesecondcause,Hobsonwrites:

“OneofthestrangestsymptomsoftheblindnessofimperialismistherecklessindifferencewithwhichGreatBritain,Franceandotherimperialistnationsareembarkingonthisperilousdependence.GreatBritainhasgonefarthest.MostofthefightingbywhichwehavewonourIndianEmpirehas

beendonebynatives;inIndia,asmorerecentlyinEgypt,greatstandingarmiesareplacedunderBritishcommanders;almostallthefightingassociatedwithourAfricandominions,exceptinthesouthernpart,hasbeendoneforusbynatives.”

HobsongivesthefollowingeconomicappraisaloftheprospectofthepartitionofChina:

“ThegreaterpartofWesternEuropemightthenassumetheappearanceandcharacteralreadyexhibitedbytractsofcountryintheSouthofEngland,intheRiviera,andinthetourist-riddenorresidentialpartsofItalyandSwitzerland,littleclustersofwealthyaristocratsdrawingdividendsandpensionsfromtheFarEast,withasomewhatlargergroupofprofessionalretainersandtradesmenandalargebodyofpersonalservantsandworkersinthetransporttradeandinthefinalstagesofproductionofthemoreperishablegoods;allthemainarterialindustrieswouldhavedisappeared,thestaplefoodsandmanufacturesflowinginastributefromAsiaandAfrica.

“WehaveforeshadowedthepossibilityofevenalargerallianceofWesternstates,aEuropeanfederationofgreatpowerswhich,sofarfromforwardingthecauseofworldcivilization,mightintroducethegiganticperilofaWesternparasitism,agroupofadvancedindustrialnations,whoseupperclassesdrawvasttributefromAsiaandAfrica,withwhichtheysupportgreattamemassesofretainers,nolongerengagedinthestapleindustriesofagricultureandmanufacture,butkeptintheperformanceofpersonalorminorindustrialservicesunderthecontrolofanewfinancialaristocracy.LetthosewhowouldscoutsuchatheoryasundeservingofconsiderationexaminetheeconomicandsocialconditionofdistrictsinSouthernEnglandtoday,whicharealreadyreducedtothiscondition,andreflectuponthevastextensionofsuchasystemwhichmightberenderedfeasiblebythesubjectionofChinatotheeconomiccontrolofsimilargroupsoffinanciers,investors,andpoliticalandbusinessofficials,drainingthegreatestpotentialreservoirofprofittheworldhaseverknown,inordertoconsumeitinEurope.Thesituationisfartoocomplex,theplayofworldforcesfartooincalculable,torenderthisoranyothersingle

interpretationofthefutureveryprobable;buttheinfluenceswhichgoverntheimperialismofWesternEuropetodayaremovinginthisdirectionand,unlesscounteractedordiverted,maketowardssomesuchconsummation.”

Hobsonisquiteright.Unlesstheforcesofimperialismarecounteractedtheywillleadtowhathehasdescribed.Hecorrectlyappraisesthesignificanceofa“UnitedStatesofEurope,”inthepresentconditionsofimperialism.Heshouldhaveadded,however,that,evenwithintheworkingclassmovement,theopportunists,whoareforthemomentpredominantinmostcountries,are“working”systematicallyandundeviatinglyinthisverydirection.Imperialism,whichmeansthepartitionoftheworld,andtheexploitationofothercountriesbesidesChina,whichmeanshighmonopolyprofitsforahandfulofveryrichcountries,createstheeconomicpossibilityofcorruptingtheupperstrataoftheproletariat,andtherebyfosters,givesformto,andstrengthensopportunism.However,wemustnotlosesightoftheforceswhichcounteractimperialismgenerally,andopportunismparticularly,which,naturally,thesocial-liberalHobsonisunabletoperceive.

TheGermanopportunist,GerhardHildebrand,whowasexpelledfromthePartyfordefendingimperialism,andwouldtodaymakeanexcellentleaderoftheso-called“Social-Democratic”PartyofGermany,servesasagoodsupplementtoHobsonbyhisadvocacyofa“UnitedStatesofWesternEurope”(withoutRussia)forthepurposeof“joint”actionagainst...theAfricanNegroes,againstthe“greatIslamicmovement,”forthe“upkeepofapowerfularmyandnavy,”againsta“Sino-Japanesecoalition,”etc.

Thedescriptionof“Britishimperialism”inSchulze-Gävernitz’sbookrevealsthesameparasiticaltraits.ThenationalincomeofGreatBritainapproximatelydoubledfrom1865to1898,whiletheincomefrom“overseas”increasedninefoldinthesameperiod.Whilethe“merit”ofimperialismisthatit“trainstheNegrotohabitsofindustry”(notwithoutcoercionofcourse...),the“danger”ofimperialismisthatEurope

“willshifttheburdenofphysicaltoil—firstagriculturalandmining,thenthemorearduoustoilinindustry—ontothecoloredraces,anditselfbecontentwiththeroleofrentier,andinthisway,perhaps,pavethewayfortheeconomic,andlaterthepoliticalemancipationofthecoloredraces.”

AnincreasingproportionoflandinGreatBritainisbeingtakenoutof

cultivationandusedforsport,forthediversionoftherich.

“Scotland,”saysSchulze-Gävernitz,“isthemostartistocraticplaygroundintheworld—itlivesonitspastandonMr.Carnegie.”

GreatBritainannuallyspends£14,000,000onhorseracingandfoxhunting.ThenumberofbondholdersinGreatBritainhasrisentoaboutonemillion.Thepercentageofproducersamongthetotalpopulationisbecomingsmaller.

And,inspeakingoftheBritishworkingclass,thebourgeoisstudentof“Britishimperialismatthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury”isobligedtodistinguishsystematicallybetweenthe“upperstratum”oftheworkersandthe“lowerstratumoftheproletariatproper.”Theupperstratumfurnishesthemainbodyofco-operators,oftradeunionists,ofmembersofsportingclubsandofnumerousreligioussects.Theelectoralsystem,whichinGreatBritainis“stillsufficientlyrestrictedtoexcludethelowerstratumoftheproletariatproper,”isadaptedtotheirlevel!InordertopresenttheconditionoftheBritishworkingclassinthebestpossiblelight,onlythisupperstratum—whichconstitutesonlyaminorityoftheproletariat—isgenerallyspokenof.Forinstance,theproblemofunemployment“ismainlyaLondonproblemandthatofthelowerproletarianstratum,whichisoflittlepoliticalmoment.”

Itwouldbebettertosay:whichisoflittlepoliticalmomentforthebourgeoispoliticiansandthe“socialist”opportunists.

Anotherspecialfeatureofimperialism,whichisconnectedwiththefactswearedescribing,isthedeclineinemigrationfromimperialistcountries,andtheincreaseinimmigrationtothosecountriesfromthebackwardcountrieswherelowwagesarepaid.AsHobsonobserves,emigrationfromGreatBritainhasbeendecliningsince1894.InthatyearthenumberofemigrantsfromGreatBritainwas242,000,whilein1900,thenumberwasonly169,000.Germanemigrationreachedthehighestpointbetween1880and1890,withatotalof1,453,-000emigrants.Inthecourseofthefollowingtwodecades,itfellto

544,000andevento341,000.Ontheotherhand,therewasanincreaseinthenumberofworkersenteringGermanyfromAustria,Italy,Russiaandothercountries.Accordingtothe1907census,therewere1,342,294foreignersinGermany,ofwhom440,800wereindustrialworkersand257,329wereagriculturalworkers.InFrance,theworkersemployedintheminingindustryare,“ingreatpart,”foreigners:Polish,ItalianandSpanish.IntheUnitedStates,immigrantsfromEasternandSouthernEuropeareengagedinthemostpoorlypaidoccupations,whileAmericanworkersprovidethehighestpercentageofoverseersorofthebetterpaidworkers.Imperialismhasthetendencyofcreatingprivilegedsectionsevenamongtheworkers,andofdetachingthemfromthemainproletarianmasses.

ItmustbeobservedthatinGreatBritainthetendencyofimperialismtodividetheworkersinthisway,toencourageopportunismamongthem,andcausetemporarydecayintheworkingclassmovement,revealeditselfmuchearlierthantheendofthenineteenthandthebeginningofthetwentiethcenturies;fortwoimportantfeaturesofimperialismwereobservedinGreatBritaininthemiddleofthenineteenthcentury,viz.,vastcolonialpossessionsandamonopolistpositioninworldmarkets.MarxandEngelssystematicallytracedthisrelationbetweenopportunisminthelabormovementandtheimperialisticfeaturesofBritishcapitalismforseveraldecades.Forexample,onOctober7,1858,EngelswrotetoMarx:

“TheEnglishproletariatisbecomingmoreandmorebourgeois,sothatthismostbourgeoisofallnationsisapparentlyaimingultimatelyatthepossessionofabourgeoisaristocracyandabourgeoisproletariataswellasabourgeoisie.Foranationwhichexploitsthewholeworldthisis,ofcourse,toacertainextentjustifiable.”

Almostaquarterofacenturylater,inaletterdatedAugust11,1881,Engelsspeaksof“...theworsttypeofBritishtradeunionswhichallowthemselvestobeledbymenwhohavebeenboughtbythecapitalists,oratleastareintheirpay.”InalettertoKautsky,datedSeptember12,1882,Engelswrote:

“YouaskmewhattheEnglishworkersthinkaboutcolonial

policy.Well,exactlythesameastheythinkaboutpoliticsingeneral:thesameaswhatthebourgeoisthink.Thereisnoworkers’partyhere,thereareonlyConservativesandLiberal-Radicals,andtheworkersgailysharethefeastofEngland’smonopolyoftheworldmarketandthecolonies.”(EngelsexpressedsimilarideasinthepressinhisprefacetothesecondeditionofTheConditionoftheWorkingClassinEngland,whichappearedin1892.)

Wethusseeclearlythecausesandeffects.Thecausesare:1)Exploitationofthewholeworldbythiscountry.2)Itsmonopolisticpositionintheworldmarket.3)Itscolonialmonopoly.Theeffectsare:1)AsectionoftheBritishproletariatbecomesbourgeois.2)Asectionoftheproletariatpermitsitselftobeledbypeoplewhoareboughtbythebourgeoisie,or,atleast,whoareintheirpay.

Theimperialismofthebeginningofthetwentiethcenturycompletedthepartitionoftheworldamongaveryfewstates,eachofwhichtodayexploits(i.e.,drawssuper-profitsfrom)apartoftheworldonlyalittlesmallerthanthatwhichEnglandexploitedin1858.Eachofthem,bymeansoftrusts,cartels,financecapital,anddebtorandcreditorrelations,occupiesamonopolypositionontheworldmarket.Eachofthemenjoystosomedegreeacolonialmonopoly.(Wehaveseenthatoutofthetotalof75,000,000sq.km.whichcomprisethewholecolonialworld,65,000,000sq.km.,or86percent,belongtosixgreatpowers;61,000,000sq.km.,or81percent,belongtothreepowers.)

Thedistinctivefeatureofthepresentsituationistheprevalenceofeconomicandpoliticalconditionswhichcouldnotbutincreasetheirreconcilabilitybetweenopportunismandthegeneralandvitalinterestsoftheworkingclassmovement.Embryonicimperialismhasgrownintoadominantsystem;capitalistmonopoliesoccupyfirstplaceineconomicsandpolitics;thedivisionoftheworldhasbeencompleted.Ontheotherhand,insteadofanundisputedmonopolybyGreatBritain,weseeafewimperialistpowersdisputingamongthemselvesfortherighttoshareinthismonopoly,andthisstruggleischaracteristicofthewholeperiodofthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury.Opportunism,therefore,cannotnowtriumphintheworkingclassmovementofanycountryfordecadesasitdidinEnglandinthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcentury.Butinanumberofcountriesithasgrownripe,over-ripe,

androtten,andhasbecomecompletelymergedwithbourgeoispolicyintheformof“social-chauvinism.”103

CHAPTERIX

THECRITIQUEOFIMPERIALISMBythecritiqueofimperialism,inthebroadsenseoftheterm,wemeanthe

attitudetowardsimperialistpolicyofthedifferentclassesofsocietyaspartoftheirgeneralideology.

Theenormousdimensionsoffinancecapitalconcentratedinafewhandsandcreatinganextremelyextensiveandclosenetworkoftiesandrelationshipswhichsubordinatenotonlythesmallandmedium,butalsoeventheverysmallcapitalistsandsmallmasters,ontheonehand,andtheintensestrugglewagedagainstothernationalstategroupsoffinanciersforthepartitionoftheworldandthepowertoruleoverothercountries,ontheotherhand,causethewholesaletransitionofthepossessingclassestothesideofimperialism.Thesignsofthetimesarea“general”enthusiasmregardingitsprospects,apassionatedefenseofimperialism,andeverypossibleembellishmentofitsrealnature.Theimperialistideologyalsopermeatestheworkingclass.ThereisnoChineseWallbetweenitandtheotherclasses.Theleadersoftheso-called“Social-Democratic”PartyofGermanyaretodayjustlycalledsocial-imperialists,thatis,socialistsinwordsandimperialistsindeeds;butasearlyas1902,Hobsonnotedtheexistenceof“Fabianimperialists”whobelongedtotheopportunistFabianSocietyinEngland.

Thebourgeoisscholarsandpublicistsusuallycomeoutindefenseofimperialisminasomewhatveiledformandobscureitscompletedominationanditsprofoundroots;theystrivetoconcentrateattentionondetailsandsecondarycharacteristicsanddotheirverybesttodistractattentionfromthemainissuebymeansofridiculousschemesfor“reform,”suchaspolicesupervisionofthetrustsandbanks,etc.Lessfrequently,cynicalandfrankimperialistsspeakoutandareboldenoughtoadmittheabsurdityoftheideaof“reforming”thefundamentalfeaturesofimperialism.

Wewillgiveanexample.TheGermanimperialistsattempt,inthemagazine,ArchivesofWorldEconomy,tofollowthemovementsfornational

emancipationinthecolonies,particularly,ofcourse,incoloniesotherthanthosebelongingtoGermany.TheynotethefermentandprotestmovementsinIndia,themovementinNatal(SouthAfrica),themovementsintheDutchEastIndies,etc.Oneofthem,commentingonanEnglishreportofthespeechesdeliveredataconferenceofsubjectpeoplesandraces,heldJune28-30,1910,atwhichrepresentativesofvariouspeoplessubjecttoforeigndominationinAfrica,AsiaandEuropewerepresent,writesasfollowsinappraisingthespeechesdeliveredatthisconference:

“Wearetoldthatwemustfightagainstimperialism;thatthedominantstatesmustrecognizetherightofsubjectpeoplestohomerule;thataninternationaltribunalshouldsupervisethefulfilmentoftreatiesconcludedbetweenthegreatpowersandweakpeoples.Onedoesnotgetanyfurtherthantheexpressionofthesepiouswishes.Weseenotraceofunderstandingofthefactthatimperialismisindissolublyboundupwithcapitalisminitspresentform”(!!)“andthereforealsonotraceoftherealizationthatanopenstruggleagainstimperialismwouldbehopeless,unless,perhaps,thefightisconfinedtoprotestsagainstcertainofitsespeciallyabhorrentexcesses.”

Sincethereformofthebasisofimperialismisadeception,apious“wish,”sincethebourgeoisrepresentativesofoppressednationsgono“further”forward,thebourgeoisrepresentativesoftheoppressingnationgo“further”backward,toservilitytowardsimperialism,concealedbythecloakof“science.”“Logic,”indeed!

Thequestionastowhetheritispossibletoreformthebasisofimperialism,whethertogoforwardtotheaggravationoftheantagonismswhichitengenders,orbackwards,towardsallayingtheseantagonisms,isafundamentalquestioninthecritiqueofimperialism.Asaconsequenceofthefactthatthepoliticalfeaturesofimperialismarereactionallalongtheline,andincreasednationaloppression,resultingfromtheoppressionofthefinancialoligarchyandtheeliminationoffreecompetition,ademocraticpetty-bourgeoisoppositionhasbeenrisingagainstimperialisminalmostallimperialistcountriessincethebeginningofthetwentiethcentury.AndthedesertionofKautskyandofthebroadinternationalKautskyantrendfromMarxismis

displayedintheveryfactthatKautskynotonlydidnottroubletooppose,notonlywasnotabletoopposethispetty-bourgeoisreformistopposition,whichisreallyreactionaryinitseconomicbasis,butinpracticeactuallybecamemergedwithit.

IntheUnitedStates,theimperialistwarwagedagainstSpainin1898stirreduptheoppositionofthe“anti-imperialists,”thelastoftheMohicansofbourgeoisdemocracy.Theydeclaredthiswartobe“criminal,”denouncedtheannexationofforeignterritoriesasbeingaviolationoftheconstitution,anddenouncedthe“Jingotreachery”bymeansofwhichAguinaldo,leaderofthenativeFilipinos,wasdeceived(theAmericanspromisedhimtheindependenceofhiscountry,butlatertheylandedtroopsandannexedit).TheyquotedthewordsofLincoln:

“Whenthewhitemangovernshimself,thatisself-government,butwhenhegovernshimselfandalsogovernsothers,itisnolongerself-government;itisdespotism.”

Butwhileallthiscriticismshrankfromrecognizingtheindissolublebondbetweenimperialismandthetrusts,and,therefore,betweenimperialismandtheveryfoundationsofcapitalism;whileitshrankfromjoiningupwiththeforcesengenderedbylarge-scalecapitalismanditsdevelopment——itremaineda“piouswish.”

Thisisalso,inthemain,theattitudeofHobsoninhiscriticismofimperialism.HobsonanticipatedKautskyinprotestingagainstthe“inevitabilityofimperialism,”andincallingfortheneedto“raisetheconsumingcapacityofthepeople”(undercapitalism!).Thepetty-bourgeoispointofviewinthecritiqueofimperialism,thedominationofthebanks,thefinancialoligarchy,etc.,isthatadoptedbytheauthorswehaveoftenquoted,suchasAgahd,A.Lansburgh,L.Eschwege;andamongFrenchwriters,VictorBérard,authorofasuperficialbookentitledEnglandandImperialismwhichappearedin1900.Alltheseauthors,whomakenoclaimtobeingMarxists,contrastimperialismwithfreecompetitionanddemocracy;theycondemntheBagdadrailway“scheme”asleadingtodisputesandwar,utter“piouswishes”forpeace,etc.Thisappliesalsotothecompilerofinternationalstockandshareissuestatistics,A.Neymarck,who,aftercalculatingthehundredsofbillionsoffrancsrepresenting“international”values,exclaimedin1912:“Isitpossibleto

believethatthepeacecanbedisturbed...that,inthefaceoftheseenormousfigures,anyonewouldriskstartingawar?”

Suchsimplicityofmindonthepartofthebourgeoiseconomistsisnotsurprising.Besides,itisintheirintereststopretendtobesonaiveandtotalk“seriously”aboutpeaceunderimperialism.ButwhatremainsofKautsky’sMarxism,when,in1914-15-16,hetakesupthesameattitudeasthebourgeoisreformistsandaffirmsthat“everybodyisagreed”(imperialists,pseudo-socialistsandsocial-pacifists)asregardspeace?Insteadofananalysisofimperialismandanexposureofthedepthsofitscontradictions,wehavenothingbutareformist“piouswish”towaiveitaside,toevadeit.

HereisanexampleofKautsky’seconomiccriticismofimperialism.HetakesthestatisticsofBritishimportandexporttradewithEgyptfor1872and1912.ThesestatisticsshowthatthisimportandexporttradehasdevelopedmoreslowlythanBritishforeigntradeasawhole.FromthisKautskyconcludes:

“WehavenoreasontosupposethatBritishtradewithEgyptwouldhavebeenlessdevelopedasaresultofthemereoperationofeconomicfactors,withoutmilitaryoccupation....Theurgeofthepresent-daystatestoexpandcanbebestsatisfied,notbytheviolentmethodsofimperialism,butbypeacefuldemocracy.”

Thisargument,whichisrepeatedineverykeybyKautsky’sarmor-bearer(andtheRussianprotectorofsocial-chauvinists),Mr.Spectator,formsthebasisofKautskyancriticismofimperialismandthatiswhywemustdealwithitingreaterdetail.WewillbeginwithaquotationfromHilferding,whoseconclusions,asKautskyonmanyoccasions,andnotablyinApril1915,declared,havebeen“unanimouslyadoptedbyallsocialisttheoreticians.”

“Itisnotthebusinessoftheproletariat,”wroteHilferding,“tocontrastthemoreprogressivecapitalistpolicytothatofthenowbygoneera,offreetradeandofhostilitytowardsthestate.Thereplyoftheproletariattotheeconomicpolicyoffinancecapital,toimperialism,cannotbefreetrade,butsocialism.Theaimofproletarianpolicycannotnowbetheidealofrestoringfree

competition—whichhasnowbecomeareactionaryideal—butthecompleteabolitionofcompetitionbytheabolitionofcapitalism.”

KautskydepartedfromMarxismbyadvocatingwhatis,intheperiodoffinancecapital,a“reactionaryideal,”“peacefuldemocracy,”“themereoperationofeconomicfactors,”etc.,forobjectively,thisidealdragsusbackfrommonopolycapitalismtothenon-monopoliststage,andisareformistswindle.

TradewithEgypt(orwithanyothercolonyorsemi-colony)wouldhavebeenbetter“developed”withoutmilitaryoccupation,withoutimperialism,andwithoutfinancecapital....Whatdoesthismean?Thatcapitalismwoulddevelopmorerapidlyiffreecompetitionwerenotrestrictedbymonopoliesingeneral,bythe“connections”ortheyoke(i.e.,themonopoly)offinancecapital,orbythemonopolistpossessionofcoloniesbycertaincountries?

Kautsky’sargumentcanhavenoothermeaning;andthis“meaning”ismeaningless.Butsuppose,forthesakeofargument,freecompetition,withoutanysortofmonopoly,woulddevelopcapitalismandtrademorerapidly.Isitnotafactthatthemorerapidlytradeandcapitalismdevelop,thegreateristheconcentrationofproductionandcapitalwhichgivesrisetomonopoly?Andmonopolieshavealreadycomeintobeing—preciselyoutoffreecompetition.Evenifmonopolieshavenowbeguntoretardprogress,itisnotanargumentinfavoroffreecompetition,whichhasbecomeimpossiblesinceitgaverisetomonopoly.

WhicheverwayoneturnsKautsky’sargument,onewillfindnothinginitexceptreactionandbourgeoisreformism.

Evenifwemodifythisargumentandsay,asSpectatorsays,thatthetradeoftheBritishcolonieswiththemothercountryisnowdevelopingmoreslowlythantheirtradewithothercountries,itdoesnotsaveKautsky;foritisalsomonopolyandimperialismthatisbeatingGreatBritain,onlyitisthemonopolyandimperialismofanothercountry(America,Germany).Itisknownthatthecartelshavegivenrisetoanewandpeculiarformofprotectivetariff:goodssuitableforexportareprotected(EngelsnotedthisinVol.IIIofCapital).Itisknown,too,thatthecartelsandfinancecapitalhaveasystempeculiartothemselves,thatofexportinggoodsat“dumpingprices,”or“dumping,”astheEnglishcallit:withinagivencountrythecartelsellsitsgoodsatahighpricefixedbymonopoly;abroaditsellsthematamuchlower

pricetoundercutthecompetitor,toenlargeitsownproductiontotheutmost,etc.IfGermantradewiththeBritishcoloniesisdevelopingmorerapidlythanthatofGreatBritainwiththesamecolonies,itonlyprovesthatGermanimperialismisyounger,strongerandbetterorganizedthanBritishimperialism,issuperiortoit.Butthisbynomeansprovesthe“superiority”offreetrade,foritisnotfreetradefightingagainstprotectionandcolonialdependence,buttworivalimperialisms,twomonopolies,twogroupsoffinancecapital.ThesuperiorityofGermanimperialismoverBritishimperialismisstrongerthanthewallofcolonialfrontiersorofprotectivetariffs.Tousethisasanargumentinfavoroffreetradeand“peacefuldemocracy”isbanality,istoforgettheessentialfeaturesandqualitiesofimperialism,tosubstitutepetty-bourgeoisreformismforMarxism.

Itisinterestingtonotethateventhebourgeoiseconomist,A.Lansburgh,whosecriticismofimperialismisaspetty-bourgeoisasKautsky’s,neverthelessgotclosertoamorescientificstudyofcommercialstatistics.Hedidnotcomparemerelyonecountrychosenatrandom,andacolony,withtheothercountries;heexaminedtheexporttradeofanimperialistcountry:1)withcountrieswhicharefinanciallydependentuponit,whichborrowmoneyfromit,and2)withcountrieswhicharefinanciallyindependent.Heobtainedthefollowingresults:

EXPORTTRADEOFGERMANY(millionsofmarks)

Lansburghdidnotaddupthecolumnsandtherefore,strangelyenough,failedtoobservethatifthefiguresproveanythingatall,theyprovethatheiswrong,fortheexportstocountriesfinanciallydependentonGermanyhavegrownmorerapidly,ifonlyslightly,thanthosetothecountrieswhicharefinanciallyindependent.(Weemphasizethe“if,”forLansburgh’sfiguresarefarfromcomplete.)

Ontherelationbetweenexporttradeandloans,Lansburghwrote:

“In1890-91,aRumanianloanwasfloatedthroughtheGermanbankswhichhadalreadyinpreviousyearsmadeadvancesonthisloan.TheloanwasusedchieflyforpurchasesbyRumaniaofrailwaymaterialinGermany.In1891GermanexportstoRumaniaamountedto55,000,000marks.Thefollowingyeartheyfellto39,400,000marks;thenwithfluctuations,to25,400,000in1900.Onlyinveryrecentyearshavetheyregainedthelevelof1891,thankstoafewnewloans.

“GermanexportstoPortugalrose,followingtheloansof1888-89to21,000,000(1890);thenfell,inthetwofollowingyears,to16,200,000and7,400,000;andonlyregainedtheirformerlevelin

1903.

“GermantradewiththeArgentineisstillmorestriking.Followingtheloansfloatedin1888and1890,GermanexportstotheArgentinereached,in1889,60,700,000marks.Twoyearslatertheyonlyreached18,600,000marks,thatistosay,lessthanone-thirdofthepreviousfigures.Itwasnotuntil1901thattheyregainedandsurpassedthelevelof1889,andthenonlyasaresultofnewloansfloatedbythestateandbymunicipalities,withadvancestobuildpowerstations,andwithothercreditoperations.

“AsforChile,exportstothatcountryroseto45,200,000marksin1892,aftertheloannegotiatedin1889.Thefollowingyeartheyfellto22,500,000marks.AnewChileanloanfloatedbytheGermanbanksin1906wasfollowedbyariseofexports,in1907,to84,700,000marks,onlytofallagainto52,400,000marksin1908.”

FromallthesefactsLansburghdrawstheamusingpetty-bourgeoismoralofhowunstableandirregularexporttradeiswhenitisboundupwithloans,howbaditistoinvestcapitalabroadinsteadof“naturally”and“harmoniously”developinghomeindustry,how“costly”isthebaksheeshthatKrupphastopayinfloatingforeignloans,etc.!Butthefactsareclear.Theincreaseinexportsiscloselyconnectedwiththeswindlingtricksoffinancecapital,whichisnotconcernedwithbourgeoismorality,butwithskinningtheoxtwice—first,itpocketstheprofitsfromtheloan;thenitpocketsotherprofitsfromthesameloanwhichtheborrowerusestomakepurchasesfromKrupp,ortopurchaserailwaymaterialfromtheSteelSyndicate,etc.

WerepeatthatwedonotbyanymeansconsiderLansburgh’sfigurestobeperfect.ButwehadtoquotethembecausetheyaremorescientificthanKautsky’sandSpectator ’sandbecauseLansburghshowedthecorrectwayofapproachingthequestion.Indiscussingthesignificanceoffinancecapitalinregardtoexports,etc.,onemustbeabletosingleouttheconnectionofexportsespeciallyandsolelywiththetricksofthefinanciers,especiallyandsolelywiththesaleofgoodsbycartels,etc.Simplytocomparecolonieswithnon-colonies,oneimperialismwithanotherimperialism,onesemi-colonyorcolony(Egypt)withallothercountries,istoevadeandtotonedowntheverygistofthequestion.

Kautsky’stheoreticalcritiqueofimperialismhasnothingincommonwithMarxismandservesnootherpurposethanasapreambletopropagandaforpeaceandunitywiththeopportunistsandthesocial-chauvinists,preciselyforthereasonthatitevadesandobscurestheveryprofoundandradicalcontradictionsofimperialism:thecontradictionsbetweenmonopolyandfreecompetitionthatexistssidebysidewithit,betweenthegigantic“operations”(andgiganticprofits)offinancecapitaland“honest”tradeonthefreemarket,thecontradictionsbetweencombinesandtrusts,ontheonehand,andnon-trustifiedindustry,ontheother,etc.

Thenotorioustheoryof“ultra-imperialism,”inventedbyKautsky,isequallyreactionary.Comparehisargumentsonthissubjectin1915,withHobson’sargumentsin1902.

Kautsky:

“...whetherthepresentimperialistpolicycannotbesupplantedbyanew,ultra-imperialistpolicy,whichwillintroducethejointexploitationoftheworldbyinternationallyunitedfinancecapitalinplaceofthemutualrivalriesofnationalfinancecapital.Suchanewphaseofcapitalismis,atanyrate,conceivable.Canitbeachieved?Sufficientpremisesarestilllackingtoenableustoanswerthisquestion.”

Hobson:

“Christendomthuslaidoutinafewgreatfederalempires,eachwitharetinueofuncivilizeddependencies,seemstomanythemostlegitimatedevelopmentofpresenttendenciesandonewhichwouldofferthebesthopeofpermanentpeaceonanassuredbasisofinter-imperialism.”

Kautskycalledultra-imperialismorsuper-imperialismwhatHobsonthirteenyearsearlierhaddescribedasinter-imperialism.Exceptforcoininganewandcleverword,byreplacingoneLatinprefixbyanother,theonlyprogressKautskyhasmadeinthesphereof“scientific”thoughtisthathehaslabelledas

MarxismthatwhichHobson,ineffect,describedasthecantofEnglishparsons.AftertheAnglo-BoerWaritwasquitenaturalthatthisworthycasteshouldexerteveryefforttoconsoletheBritishmiddleclassandtheworkerswhohadlostmanyoftheirrelativesonthebattle-fieldsofSouthAfricaandwhowereobligedtopayhightaxesinordertoguaranteestillhigherprofitsfortheBritishfinanciers.Andwhatbetterconsolationcouldtherebethanthetheorythatimperialismisnotsobad;thatitstandsclosetointer-(orultra-)imperialismwhileitpromisespermanentpeace?NomatterwhatthegoodintentionsoftheBritishparsons,orofsentimentalKautsky,mayhavebeen,theonlyobjective,i.e.,real,socialmeaningKautsky’s“theory”canhaveisthatitisamostreactionarymethodofconsolingthemasseswithhopesofpermanentpeacebeingpossibleundercapitalism,detractingtheirattentionfromthesharpantagonismsandacuteproblemsofthepresentera,anddirectingitalongillusoryperspectivesofanimaginary“ultra-imperialism”ofthefuture.Deceptionofthemasses—thereisnothingbutthisinKautsky’s“Marxian”theory.

Indeed,itisenoughtocomparewell-knownandindisputablefactstobecomeconvincedoftheutterfalsityoftheprospectswhichKautskytriestoconjureupbeforetheGermanworkers(andtheworkersofalllands).LetusconsiderIndia,Indo-ChinaandChina.Itisknownthatthesethreecolonialandsemi-colonialcountries,inhabitedbysixtosevenhundredmillionhumanbeings,aresubjectedtotheexploitationofthefinancecapitalofseveralimperialiststates:GreatBritain,France,Japan,theU.S.A.,etc.Wewillpresumethattheseimperialistcountriesformalliancesagainstoneanotherinordertoprotectandextendtheirpossessions,theirinterestsandtheirspheresofinfluenceintheseAsiaticstates;theseallianceswillbe“inter-imperialist,”or“ultra-imperialist”alliances.Wewillpresumethatalltheimperialistcountriesconcludeanallianceforthe“peaceful”sharingoutofthesepartsofAsia;thisalliancewouldbeanallianceof“internationallyunitedfinancecapital.”Asamatteroffact,alliancesofthiskindhavebeenmadeinthetwentiethcentury,notablywithregardtoChina.Weask,isit“conceivable,”assumingthatthecapitalistsystemremainsintact—andthisispreciselytheassumptionthatKautskydoesmake—thatsuchallianceswouldbemorethantemporary,thattheywouldeliminatefriction,conflictsandstruggleinallandeverypossibleform?

Thisquestiononlyrequiresstatingclearlyenoughtomakeitimpossibleforanybutanegativereplytobegiven;fortherecanbenootherconceivablebasisundercapitalismforthesharingoutofspheresofinfluence,ofinterests,

ofcolonies,etc.,thanacalculationofthestrengthoftheparticipantsintheshareout,theirgeneral,economic,financial,militarystrength,etc.Andthestrengthoftheseparticipantsintheshareoutdoesnotchangetoanequaldegree,forundercapitalismthedevelopmentofdifferentundertakings,trusts,branchesofindustryorcountriescannotbeeven.Halfacenturyago,Germanywasamiserableinsignificantcountry,asfarasitscapitaliststrengthwasconcerned,comparedwiththestrengthofEnglandatthattime.JapanwassimilarlyinsignificantcomparedwithRussia.Isit“conceivable”thatintenortwentyyears’timetherelativestrengthsoftheimperialistpowerswillhaveremainedunchanged?Absolutelyinconceivable.

Therefore,“inter-imperialist”or“ultra-imperialist”alliances,intherealitiesofthecapitalistsystem,andnotinthebanalphilistinephantasiesofEnglishparsonsoroftheGerman“Marxist,”Kautsky,nomatterwhatformtheymayassume,whetherofoneimperialistcoalitionagainstanother,orofageneralallianceembracingalltheimperialistpowers,areinevitablynothingmorethana“truce”inperiodsbetweenwars.Peacefulalliancespreparethegroundforwars,andintheirturngrowoutofwars;theoneistheconditionfortheother,givingrisetoalternatingformsofpeacefulandnon-peacefulstruggleoutofthesinglebasisofimperialistconnectionsandtherelationsbetweenworldeconomicsandworldpolitics.Butinordertopacifytheworkersandtoreconcilethemwiththesocial-chauvinistswhohavedesertedtothesideofthebourgeoisie,wiseKautskyseparatesonelinkofasinglechainfromtheother,separatesthepresentpeaceful(andultra-imperialist,nay,ultra-ultra-imperialist)allianceofallthepowersforthe“pacification”ofChina(rememberthesuppressionoftheBoxerRebellion)fromthenon-peacefulconflictoftomorrow,whichwillpreparethegroundforanother“peaceful”generalallianceforthepartition,say,ofTurkey,onthedayaftertomorrow,etc.,etc.Insteadofshowingthevitalconnectionbetweenperiodsofimperialistpeaceandperiodsofimperialistwar,Kautskyputsbeforetheworkersalifelessabstractionsolelyinordertoreconcilethemtotheirlifelessleaders.

AnAmericanwriter,DavidJayneHill,inhisHistoryofDiplomacyintheInternationalDevelopmentofEurope,pointsoutinhisprefacethefollowingperiodsofcontemporarydiplomatichistory:1)Therevolutionaryperiod;2)Theconstitutionalmovement;3)Thepresentperiodof“commercialimperialism.”AnotherwriterdividesthehistoryofGreatBritain’sforeignpolicysince1870intofourperiods:1)ThefirstAsiaticperiod:thatofthestruggleagainstRussia’sadvanceinCentralAsiatowardsIndia;2)TheAfricanperiod(approximately1885-1902):thatofthestruggleagainstFrance

forthepartitionofAfrica(theFashodaincidentof1898whichbroughtFrancewithinahair ’sbreadthofwarwithGreatBritain);3)ThesecondAsiaticperiod(alliancewithJapanagainstRussia),and4)TheEuropeanperiod,chieflyanti-German.“Thepoliticalskirmishesofoutpoststakeplaceonthefinancialfield,”wroteRiesser,thebanker,in1905,inshowinghowFrenchfinancecapitaloperatinginItalywaspreparingthewayforapoliticalalliancebetweenthecountries,andhowaconflictwasdevelopingbetweenGreatBritainandGermanyoverPersia,amongalltheEuropeancapitalistsoverChineseloans,etc.Behold,thelivingrealityofpeaceful“ultra-imperialist”alliancesintheirindissolubleconnectionwithordinaryimperialistconflicts!

ThetoningdownofthedeepestcontradictionsofimperialismbyKautsky,whichinevitablybecomesanembellishmentofimperialism,leavesitstracesinthiswriter ’scriticismofthepoliticalfeaturesofimperialism.Imperialismistheepochoffinancecapitalandofmonopolies,whichintroduceeverywherethestrivingfordomination,notforfreedom.Theresultisreactionallalongtheline,whateverthepoliticalsystem,andanextremeintensificationofexistingantagonismsinthisdomainalso.Particularlyacutebecomestheyokeofnationaloppressionandthestrivingforannexations,i.e.,theviolationofnationalindependence(forannexationisnothingelsethantheviolationoftherightofnationstoself-determination).Hilferdingjustlydrawsattentiontotherelationbetweenimperialismandthegrowthofnationaloppression.

“Inregardtothenewlyopenedupcountriesthemselves,”hewrites,“thecapitalismimportedintothemintensifiescontradictionsandconstantlyexcitesthegrowingresistanceagainsttheintrudersofthepeopleswhoareawakenedtonationalconsciousness.Thisresistancecaneasilybecometransformedintodangerousmeasuresdirectedagainstforeigncapital.Theoldsocialrelationsbecomecompletelyrevolutionized.Theage-longagrarianincrustationof‘nationswithoutahistory’isblastedaway,andtheyaredrawnintothecapitalistwhirlpool.CapitalismitselfgraduallyprocuresforthevanquishedthemeansandresourcesfortheiremancipationandtheysetouttoachievethesamegoalwhichonceseemedhighesttotheEuropeannations:thecreationofasinglenationalstateasameanstoeconomicandculturalfreedom.ThismovementfornationalindependencethreatensEuropeancapitalinitsvaluableandmostpromisingfieldsofexploitation

andEuropeancapitalcanmaintainitsdominationtoanincreasingextentonlybycontinuallyincreasingitsmeansofexercisingviolence.”

Tothismustbeaddedthatitisnotonlyinnewlyopenedupcountries,butalsointheold,thatimperialismisleadingtoannexation,toincreasednationaloppression,and,consequently,alsotoincreasedresistance.Whileopposingtheintensificationofpoliticalreactioncausedbyimperialism,Kautskyobscuresthequestion,whichhasbecomeveryserious,oftheimpossibilityofunitywiththeopportunistsintheepochofimperialism.Whileobjectingtoannexations,hepresentshisobjectionsinaformthatwillbemostacceptableandleastoffensivetotheopportunists.HeaddresseshimselftoaGermanaudience,yetheobscuresthemosttopicalandimportantpoint,forinstance,theannexationbyGermanyofAlsace-Lorraine.Inordertoappraisethis“mentalaberration”wewilltakethefollowingexample.LetussupposethataJapaneseiscondemningtheannexationofthePhilippineIslandsbytheAmericans.Willmanybelievethatheisdoingsobecausehehasahorrorofannexationsassuch,andnotbecausehehimselfhasadesiretoannexthePhilippines?Andshallwenotbeconstrainedtoadmitthatthe“fight”theJapaneseiswagingagainstannexationscanberegardedassincereandpoliticallyhonestonlyifhefightsagainsttheannexationofKoreabyJapan,andurgesfreedomforKoreatosecedefromJapan?

Kautsky’stheoreticalanalysisofimperialism,aswellashiseconomicandpoliticalcriticismofimperialism,ispermeatedthroughandthroughwithaspirit,absolutelyincompatiblewithMarxism,ofobscuringandglossingoverthemostprofoundcontradictionsofimperialism,andwithastrivingtopreservethecrumblingunitywithopportunismintheEuropeanlabormovementatallcosts.

CHAPTERX

THEPLACEOFIMPERIALISMINHISTORYWehaveseenthattheeconomicquintessenceofimperialismismonopoly

capitalism.Thisveryfactdeterminesitsplaceinhistory,formonopolythatgrewuponthebasisoffreecompetition,andoutoffreecompetition,isthetransitionfromthecapitalistsystemtoahighersocialeconomicorder.Wemusttakespecialnoteofthefourprincipalformsofmonopoly,orthefourprincipalmanifestationsofmonoplycapitalism,whicharecharacteristicoftheperiodunderreview.

1)Monopolyaroseoutoftheconcentrationofproductionataveryadvancedstageofdevelopment.Thisreferstothemonopolistcapitalistcombines:cartels,syndicatesandtrusts.Wehaveseentheimportantroletheseplayinmoderneconomiclife.Atthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,monopoliesacquiredcompletesupremacyintheadvancedcountries.Andalthoughthefirststepstowardstheformationofthecombineswerefirsttakenbycountriesenjoyingtheprotectionofhightariffs(Germany,America),England,withhersystemoffreetrade,wasnotfarbehindinrevealingthesamephenomenon,namely,thebirthofmonopolyoutoftheconcentrationofproduction.

2)Monopolieshaveacceleratedthecaptureofthemostimportantsourcesofrawmaterials,especiallyforthecoalandironindustry,whichisthebasicandmosthighlytrustifiedindustryincapitalistsociety.Themonopolyofthemostimportantsourcesofrawmaterialshasenormouslyincreasedthepowerofbigcapital,andhassharpenedtheantagonismbetweentrustifiedandnon-trustifiedindustry.

3)Monopolyhassprungfromthebanks.Thebankshavedevelopedfrommodestintermediaryenterprisesintothemonopolistsoffinancecapital.Somethreeorfiveofthebiggestbanksineachoftheforemostcapitalistcountrieshaveachievedthe“personalunion”ofindustrialandbankcapital,andhaveconcentratedintheirhandsthepowertodisposeofthousandsuponthousands

ofmillionswhichformthegreaterpartofthecapitalandrevenueofentirecountries.Afinancialoligarchy,whichthrowsaclosenetofrelationsofdependenceoveralltheeconomicandpoliticalinstitutionsofcontemporarybourgeoissocietywithoutexception—suchisthemoststrikingmanifestationofthismonopoly.

4)Monopolyhasgrownoutofcolonialpolicy.Tothenumerous“old”motivesofcolonialpolicy,financecapitalhasaddedthestruggleforthesourcesofrawmaterials,fortheexportofcapital,for“spheresofinfluence,”i.e.,forspheresofgoodbusiness,concessions,monopolistprofits,andsoon;infine,foreconomicterritoryingeneral.WhenthecoloniesoftheEuropeanpowersinAfricacomprisedonlyone-tenthofthatterritory(aswasthecasein1876),colonialpolicywasabletodevelopbymethodsotherthanthoseofmonopoly—bythe“freegrabbing”ofterritories,sotospeak.Butwhennine-tenthsofAfricahadbeenseized(approximatelyin1900),whenthewholeworldhadbeensharedout,therewasinevitablyusheredinaperiodofcolonialmonopolyand,consequently,aperiodofintensestruggleforthepartitionandtherepartitionoftheworld.

Theextenttowhichmonopolistcapitalhasintensifiedallthecontradictionsofcapitalismisgenerallyknown.Itissufficienttomentionthehighcostoflivingandthepowerofthetrusts.Thisintensificationofcontradictionsconstitutesthemostpowerfuldrivingforceofthetransitionalperiodofhistory,whichbeganatthetimeofthedefinitevictoryofworldfinancecapital.

Monopolies,oligarchy,thestrivingfordominationinsteadofthestrivingforliberty,theexploitationofanincreasingnumberofsmallorweaknationsbyanextremelysmallgroupoftherichestormostpowerfulnations—allthesehavegivenbirthtothosedistinctivefeaturesofimperialismwhichcompelustodefineitasparasiticordecayingcapitalism.Moreandmorethereemerges,asoneofthetendenciesofimperialism,thecreationofthe“bondholding”(rentier)state,theusurerstate,inwhichthebourgeoisielivesontheproceedsofcapitalexportsandby“clippingcoupons.”Itwouldbeamistaketobelievethatthistendencytodecayprecludesthepossibilityoftherapidgrowthofcapitalism.Itdoesnot.Intheepochofimperialism,certainbranchesofindustry,certainstrataofthebourgeoisieandcertaincountriesbetray,toagreaterorlessdegree,oneorotherofthesetendencies.Onthewholecapitalismisgrowingfarmorerapidlythanbefore,butitisnotonlythatthisgrowthisbecomingmoreandmoreuneven;thisunevennessmanifestsitselfalso,inparticular,inthedecayofthecountrieswhicharerichestincapital

(suchasEngland).

InregardtotherapidityofGermany’seconomicdevelopment,Riesser,theauthorofthebookonthegreatGermanbanks,states:

“Theprogressoftheprecedingperiod(1848-70),whichhadnotbeenexactlyslow,stoodinaboutthesameratiototherapiditywithwhichthewholeofGermany’snationaleconomyandwithitGermanbankingprogressedduringthisperiod(1870-1905),asthemailcoachoftheHolyRomanEmpireoftheGermannationstoodtothespeedofthepresent-dayautomobile...whichinwhizzingpast,itmustbesaid,oftenendangersnotonlyinnocentpedestriansinitspath,butalsotheoccupantsofthecar.”

Initsturn,thisfinancecapitalwhichhasgrownsorapidlyisnotunwilling(preciselybecauseithasgrownsoquickly)topassontoamore“tranquil”possessionofcolonieswhichhavetobecaptured—andnotonlybypeacefulmethods—fromrichernations.IntheUnitedStates,economicdevelopmentinthelastdecadeshasbeenevenmorerapidthaninGermany,andforthisveryreasontheparasiticcharacterofmodernAmericancapitalismhasstoodoutwithparticularprominence.Ontheotherhand,acomparisonof,say,therepublicanAmericanbourgeoisiewiththemonarchistJapaneseorGermanbourgeoisieshowsthatthemostpronouncedpoliticaldifferencesbecomeinsignificantduringtheimperialistperiod—notbecausetheyareunimportantingeneral,butbecausethroughoutitisacaseofabourgeoisiewithdefinitetraitsofparasitism.

Thereceiptofhighmonopoly.profitsbythecapitalistsinoneofthenumerousbranchesofindustry,inoneofnumerouscountries,etc.,makesiteconomicallypossibleforthemtocorruptindividualsectionsoftheworkingclassandsometimesafairlyconsiderableminority,andwinthemtothesideofthecapitalistsofagivenindustryornationagainstalltheothers.Theintensificationofantagonismsbetweenimperialistnationsforthepartitionoftheworldincreasesthisstriving.Andsothereiscreatedthatbondbetweenimperialismandopportunism,whichrevealeditselffirstandmostclearlyinEngland,owingtothefactthatcertainfeaturesofimperialistdevelopmentwereobservabletheremuchsoonerthaninothercountries.

Somewriters,L.Martov,forexample,trytoevadethefactthatthereisaconnectionbetweenimperialismandopportunisminthelabormovement—whichisparticularlystrikingatthepresenttime—byresortingtostereotyped,optimisticarguments(àlaKautskyandHuysmans)likethefollowing:thecauseoftheopponentsofcapitalismwouldbehopelessifitwerepreciselyprogressivecapitalismthatledtotheincreaseofopportunism,orifitwerepreciselythebestpaidworkerswhowereinclinedtowardsopportunism,etc.Wemusthavenoillusionregarding“optimism”ofthiskind.Itisoptimisminregardtoopportunism;itisoptimismwhichservestoconcealopportunism.Asamatteroffacttheextraordinaryrapidityandtheparticularlyrevoltingcharacterofthedevelopmentofopportunismisbynomeansaguaranteethatitsvictorywillbedurable;therapidgrowthofamalignantabscessonahealthybodyonlycausesittoburstquicklyandthustorelievethebodyofit.Themostdangerouspeopleofallinthisrespectarethosewhodonotwishtounderstandthatthefightagainstimperialismisashamandhumbugunlessitisinseparablyboundupwiththefightagainstopportunism.

Fromallthathasbeensaidinthisbookontheeconomicnatureofimperialism,itfollowsthatwemustdefineitascapitalismintransition,or,moreprecisely,asmoribundcapitalism.Itisveryinstructiveinthisrespecttonotethatthebourgeoiseconomists,indescribingmoderncapitalism,frequentlyemploytermslike“interlocking,”“absenceofisolation,”etc.;“inaccordancewiththeirfunctionsandcourseofdevelopment,”banksare“notpurelyprivatebusinessenterprises;theyaremoreandmoreoutgrowingthesphereofpurelyprivatebusinessregulations.”AndthisveryRiesser,whoutteredthewordsjustquoted,declareswithallseriousnessthatthe“prophecy”oftheMarxistsconcerning“socialization”hasnotbeenrealized!

Whatthendoesthisword“interlocking”express?Itmerelyexpressesthemoststrikingfeatureoftheprocessgoingonbeforeoureyes.Itshowsthattheobservercountstheseparatetreeswithoutseeingthewood.Itslavishlycopiesthesuperficial,thefortuitous,thechaotic.Itrevealstheobserverasoneoverwhelmedbythemassofrawmaterialandutterlyincapableofappreciatingitsmeaningandimportance.Ownershipofsharesandrelationsbetweenownersofprivateproperty“interlockinahaphazardway.”Buttheunderlyingfactorofthisinterlocking,itsverybase,isthechangingsocialrelationsofproduction.Whenabigenterpriseassumesgiganticproportions,and,onthebasisofexactcomputationofmassdata,organizesaccordingtoplanthesupplyofprimaryrawmaterialstotheextentoftwo-thirds,orthree-fourthsofallthatisnecessaryfortensofmillionsofpeople;whentheserawmaterials

aretransportedtothemostsuitableplaceofproduction,sometimeshundredsorthousandsofmilesaway,inasystematicandorganizedmanner;whenasinglecehterdirectsallthesuccessivestagesofworkrightuptothemanufactureofnumerousvarietiesoffinishedarticles;whentheseproductsaredistributedaccordingtoasingleplanamongtensofhundredsofmillionsofconsumers(asinthecaseofthedistributionofoilinAmericaandGermanybytheAmerican“StandardOil”)—thenitbecomesevidentthatwehavesocializationofproduction,andnotmere“interlocking”;thatprivateeconomicrelationsandprivatepropertyrelationsconstituteashellwhichisnolongersuitableforitscontents,ashellwhichmustofnecessitybegintodecayifitsdestructionbepostponedbyartificialmeans;ashellwhichmaycontinueinastateofdecayforafairlylongperiod(particularlyifthecureoftheopportunistabscessisprotracted),butwhichmustinevitablyberemoved.

TheenthusiasticadmirerofGermanimperialism,Schulze-Gavernitz,exclaims:

“OncethesuprememanagementoftheGermanbankshasbeenentrustedtothehandsofadozenpersons,theiractivityiseventodaymoresignificantforthepublicgoodthanthatofthemajorityoftheMinistersofState.”(The“interlocking”ofbankers,ministers,magnatesofindustryandbondholders,ishereconvenientlyforgotten.)“Ifweconceiveofthetendenciesofdevelopmentwhichwehavenotedasrealizedtotheutmost:themoneycapitalofthenationunitedinthebanks;thebanksthemselvescombinedincartels;theinvestmentcapitalofthenationcastintheshapeofsecurities,thenthebrilliantforecastofSaint-Simonwillbefulfilled.‘Thepresentanarchyofproductioncausedbythefactthateconomicrelationsaredevelopingwithoutuniformregulationmustmakewayfororganizationinproduction.Productionwillnolongerbeshapedbyisolatedmanufacturers,independentofeachotherandignorantofman’seconomicneeds,butbyasocialinstitution.Acentralbodyofmanagement,abletosurveythelargefieldsofsocialeconomyfromamoreelevatedpointofview,willregulateitforthebenefitofthewholeofsociety,willbeabletoputthemeansofproductionintosuitablehands,andaboveallwilltakecarethattherebeconstantharmonybetweenproductionandconsumption.Institutionsalreadyexist

whichhaveassumedaspartoftheirtaskacertainorganizationofeconomiclabor:thebanks.’ThefulfilmentoftheforecastsofSaint-Simonstillliesinthefuture,butweareonthewaytoitsfulfilment—Marxism,differentfromwhatMarximagined,butdifferentonlyinform.”

Acrushing“refutation”ofMarx,indeed!ItisaretreatfromMarx’sprecise,scientificanalysistoSaint-Simon’sguesswork,theguessworkofagenius,butguessworkallthesame.

THESTATEANDREVOLUTIONTheStateandRevolutionisgenerallyregardedasLenin’smajorwork.Most

ofthemanuscriptwaswrittenearlyin1917whileLeninwasinexileinSwitzerland.HeputitasidetoreturntoRussialaterthatsameyear.Thebookwasfinishedduringthehistoricsummerof1917andwaspublishedinAugust,onlyafewmonthsbeforetheBolshevikrevolution.

Thisstudy,inadditiontoitsideologicalsignificance,isperhapsthemostpolishedofLenin’sworks.Itisgenerallylesspolemicinstyle,morecarefullyorganized,andmorefreeofstatisticsanddateddetailsthanhisotherwritings.Forthesereasons,itismoredifficulttosummarizeinabriefnote;itrequiresanddeservesacarefulandthoroughreading.

TheimportanceofTheStateandRevolutionisprofound,forinthisworkLeninspecificallyoutlinestheincompatibilityofLeninismandWesterndemocracy.AccordingtoLenin,Leninistscannotparticipateindemocracyforanypurposeotherthantodestroyit.Parliamentarygovernmentmustbesweptaway.Thenon-Leniniststatemustbeshatteredandutterlydestroyed.

Togetherwiththisabsolute,unyieldingpolicy—whichtotallyrejectsnotonlycapitalism,butalsoallWesternpoliticalformsandinstitutions—Lenincombinesautopianvisionofsocietyundercommunism.WhentheLeninistrevolutioncomestopower,Leninpredictsthatthenewproletarianstatewillconsistentlywitheraway,leavingnostateatall.

CHAPTERI

CLASSSOCIETYANDTHESTATE

1.THESTATEASTHEPRODUCTOFTHEIRRECONCILABILITYOFCLASSANTAGONISMSWhatisnowhappeningtoMarx’sdoctrinehas,inthecourseofhistory,

oftenhappenedtothedoctrinesofotherrevolutionarythinkersandleadersofoppressedclassesstrugglingforemancipation.Duringthelifetimeofgreatrevolutionaries,theoppressingclassesrelentlesslypersecutethem,andtreattheirteachingswithmalicioushostility,themostfurioushatredandthemostunscrupulouscampaignofliesandslanders.Aftertheirdeath,attemptsaremadetoconvertthemintoharmlessicons,tocanonizethem,sotosay,andtosurroundtheirnameswithacertainhaloforthe“consolation”oftheoppressedclassesandwiththeobjectofdupingthem,whileatthesametimeemasculatingtherevolutionarydoctrineofitscontent,vulgarizingitandbluntingitsrevolutionaryedge.Atthepresenttime,thebourgeoisieandtheopportunistsinthelabormovementconcurinthis“revision”ofMarxism.Theyomit,obliterateanddistorttherevolutionarysideofitsdoctrine,itsrevolutionarysoul.Theypushtotheforegroundandextolwhatisorseemsacceptabletothebourgeoisie.Allthesocial-chauvinistsarenow“Marxists”(don’tlaugh!).Andmoreandmorefrequently,Germanbourgeoisprofessors,erstwhilespecialistsintheexterminationofMarxism,arespeakingofthe“national-German”Marx,who,theyaver,trainedthelaborunionswhicharesosplendidlyorganizedforthepurposeofconductingapredatorywar!

Insuchcircumstances,inviewoftheincrediblywidespreadnatureofthedistortionsofMarxism,ourfirsttaskistorestorethetruedoctrineofMarxonthestate.ForthispurposeitwillbenecessarytoquoteatlengthfromtheworksofMarxandEngels.Ofcourse,longquotationswillmakethetextcumbersomeandwillnothelptomakeitpopularreading,butwecannotpossiblyavoidthem.All,oratanyrate,allthemostessentialpassagesinthe

worksofMarxandEngelsonthesubjectofthestatemustnecessarilybegivenasfullyaspossible,inorderthatthereadermayformanindependentopiniononthetotalityofviewsofthefoundersofscientificsocialismandonthedevelopmentofthoseviews,andinorderthattheirdistortionbythenowprevailing“Kautskyism”maybedocumentarilyprovedandclearlydemonstrated.

LetusbeginwiththemostpopularofEngels’works,DerUrsprungderFamilie,desPrivateigentumsunddesStaates,thesixtheditionofwhichwaspublishedinStuttgartasfarbackas1894.WemusttranslatethequotationsfromtheGermanoriginals,astheRussiantranslations,althoughverynumerous,areforthemostparteitherincompleteorveryunsatisfactory.

Summinguphishistoricalanalysis,Engelssays:

“Thestateisthereforebynomeansapowerimposedonsocietyfromtheoutside;justaslittleisit‘therealityofthemoralidea,’‘theimageandrealityofreason,’asHegelasserts.Rather,itisaproductofsocietyatacertainstageofdevelopment;itistheadmissionthatthissocietyhasbecomeentangledinaninsolublecontradictionwithitself,thatitiscleftintoirreconcilableantagonisms,whichitispowerlesstodispel.Butinorderthattheseantagonisms,classeswithconflictingeconomicinterests,mightnotconsumethemselvesandsocietyinsterilestruggle,apowerapparentlystandingabovesocietybecamenecessaryforthepurposeofmoderatingtheconflictandkeepingitwithintheboundsof‘order ’;andthispower,arisingoutofsociety,butplacingitselfaboveit,andincreasinglyalienatingitselffromit,isthestate.”

ThisfullyexpressesthebasicideaofMarxismonthequestionofthehistoricalroleandmeaningofthestate.Thestateistheproductandthemanifestationoftheirreconcilabilityofclassantagonisms.Thestateariseswhen,whereandtotheextentthatclassantagonismscannotbeobjectivelyreconciled.And,conversely,theexistenceofthestateprovesthattheclassantagonismsareirreconcilable.

Itispreciselyonthismostimportantandfundamentalpointthatdistortions

ofMarxism,proceedingalongtwomainlines,begin.

Ontheonehand,thebourgeoisideologists,andparticularlythepetty-bourgeoisideologists,compelledbythepressureofindisputablehistoricalfactstoadmitthatthestateonlyexistswherethereareclassantagonismsandtheclassstruggle,“correct”Marxinawaythatmakesitappearthatthestateisanorganfortheconciliationofclasses.AccordingtoMarx,thestatecouldneitherarisenorcontinuetoexistifitwerepossibletoconciliateclasses.Accordingtothepetty-bourgeoisandphilistineprofessorsandpublicists—frequentlyonthestrengthofwell-meaningreferencestoMarx!—thestateconciliatesclasses.AccordingtoMarx,thestateisanorganofclassrule,anorganfortheoppressionofoneclassbyanother;itcreates“order,”whichlegalizesandperpetuatesthisoppressionbymoderatingthecollisionbetweentheclasses.Intheopinionofthepetty-bourgeoispoliticians,ordermeanstheconciliationofclasses,andnottheoppressionofoneclassbyanother;tomoderatecollisionsmeansconciliatingandnotdeprivingtheoppressedclassesofdefinitemeansandmethodsoffightingtooverthrowtheoppressors.

Forinstance,when,intheRevolutionof1917,thequestionoftherealmeaningandroleofthestatearoseinallitsmagnitudeasapracticalquestiondemandingimmediateactiononawidemassscale,alltheSocialist-RevolutionariesandMensheviksimmediatelyandcompletelysanktothepetty-bourgeoistheorythatthe“state”“conciliates”classes.Innumerableresolutionsandarticlesbypoliticiansofboththesepartiesarethoroughlysaturatedwiththispurelypetty-bourgeoisandphilistine“conciliation”theory.Petty-bourgeoisdemocracyisneverabletounderstandthatthestateistheorganoftheruleofadefiniteclasswhichcannotbereconciledwithitsantipode(theclassoppositetoit).TheirattitudetowardsthestateisoneofthemoststrikingproofsthatourSocialist-RevolutionariesandMensheviksarenotsocialistsatall(whichweBolshevikshavealwaysmaintained),butpetty-bourgeoisdemocratswithnear-Socialistphraseology.

Ontheotherhand,the“Kautskyan”distortionofMarxismisfarmoresubtle.“Theoretically,”itisnotdeniedthatthestateistheorganofclassrule,orthatclassantagonismsareirreconcilable.Butwhatislostsightoforglossedoveristhis:ifthestateistheproductofirreconcilableclassantagonisms,ifitisapowerstandingabovesocietyand“increasinglyalienatingitselffromit,”itisclearthattheliberationoftheoppressedclassisimpossible,notonlywithoutviolentrevolution,butalsowithoutthedestructionoftheapparatusofstatepowerwhichwascreatedbytherulingclassandwhichistheembodimentof

this“alienation.”Asweshallseelater,Marxverydefinitelydrewthistheoreticallyself-evidentconclusionfromaconcretehistoricalanalysisofthetasksoftherevolution.And—asweshallshowfullyinoursubsequentremarks—itispreciselythisconclusionwhichKautskyhas“forgotten”anddistorted.

2.SPECIALBODIESOFARMEDMEN,PRISONS,ETC.Engelscontinues:

“Asagainsttheancientgentileorganization,theprimarydistinguishingfeatureofthestateisthedivisionofthesubjectsofthestateaccordingtoterritory.”

Suchadivisionseems“natural”tous,butitcostaprolongedstruggleagainsttheoldformoftribalorgentilesociety.

“...Thesecondistheestablishmentofapublicpower,whichisnolongerdirectlyidenticalwiththepopulationorganizingitselfasanarmedpower.Thisspecialpublicpowerisnecessary,becauseaself-actingarmedorganizationofthepopulationhasbecomeimpossiblesincethecleavageintoclasses....Thispublicpowerexistsineverystate;itconsistsnotmerelyofarmedmen,butofmaterialappendages,prisonsandcoerciveinstitutionsofallkinds,ofwhichgentilesocietyknewnothing....”

Engelsfurtherelucidatestheconceptofthe“power”whichistermedthestate—apowerwhicharisesfromsociety,butwhichplacesitselfaboveitandbecomesmoreandmorealienatedfromit.Whatdoesthispowermainlyconsistof?Itconsistsofspecialbodiesofarmedmenwhichhaveprisons,etc.,attheirdisposal.

Wearejustifiedinspeakingofsoecialbodiesofarmedmen,becausethepublicpowerwhichisanattributeofeverystateisnot“directlyidentical”withthearmedpopulation,withits“self-actingarmedorganization.”

Likeallthegreatrevolutionarythinkers,Engelstriedtodrawtheattentionoftheclassconsciousworkerstotheveryfactwhichprevailingphilistinismregardsasleastworthyofattention,asthemostcommonandsanctified,notonlybylongstanding,butonemightsaybypetrifiedprejudices.Astandingarmyandpolicearethechiefinstrumentsofstatepower.Butcanitbeotherwise?

FromthepointofviewofthevastmajorityofEuropeansoftheendofthenineteenthcenturywhomEngelswasaddressing,andwhohavenotlivedthroughorcloselyobservedasinglegreatrevolution,itcannotbeotherwise.Theycompletelyfailtounderstandwhata“self-actingarmedorganizationofthepopulation”is.Tothequestion,whencearosetheneedforspecialbodiesofarmedmen,standingabovesocietyandbecomingalienatedfromit(policeandstandingarmy),theWestEuropeanandRussianphilistinesareinclinedtoanswerwithafewphrasesborrowedfromSpencerorMikhailovsky,byreferringtothecomplexityofsociallife,thedifferentiationoffunctions,andsoforth.

Suchareferenceseems“scientific”;iteffectivelydullsthesensesoftheaveragemanandobscuresthemostimportantandbasicfact,namely,thecleavageofsocietyandirreconcilablyantagonisticclasses.Hadthiscleavagenotexisted,the“self-actingarmedorganizationofthepopulation”mighthavedifferedfromtheprimitiveorganizationofatribeofmonkeysgraspingsticks,orofprimitiveman,orofmenunitedinatribalformofsociety,byitscomplexity,itshightechnique,andsoforth;butitwouldstillhavebeenpossible.

Itisimpossiblenow,becausecivilizedsocietyisdividedintoantagonisticand,indeed,irreconcilablyantagonisticclasses,the“self-acting”armingofwhichwouldleadtoanarmedstrugglebetweenthem.Astatearises,aspecialforceiscreatedintheformofspecialbodiesofarmedmen,andeveryrevolution,bydestroyingthestateapparatus,demonstratestoushowtherulingclassstrivestorestorethespecialbodiesofarmedmenwhichserveit,andhowtheoppressedclassstrivestocreateaneworganizationofthiskind,capableofservingnottheexploitersbuttheexploited.

Intheaboveargument,Engelsraisestheoreticallytheveryquestionwhicheverygreatrevolutionraisespractically,palpablyandonamassscaleofaction,namely,thequestionoftherelationbetweenspecialbodiesofarmedmenandthe“self-actingarmedorganizationofthepopulation.”WeshallseehowthisisconcretelyillustratedbytheexperienceoftheEuropeanand

Russianrevolutions.

ButletusreturntoEngels’exposition.

Hepointsoutthatsometimes,incertainpartsofNorthAmerica,forexample,thispublicpowerisweak(hehasinmindarareexceptionincapitalistsociety,andpartsofNorthAmericainitspre-imperialistdayswherethefreecolonistpredominated),butthatingeneralitgrowsstronger:

“It[thepublicpower]growsstronger,however,inproportionastheclassantagonismswithinthestatebecomemoreacute,andwiththegrowthinsizeandpopulationoftheadjacentstates.Wehaveonlytolookatourpresent-dayEurope,whereclassstruggleandrivalryinconquesthavescrewedupthepublicpowertosuchapitchthatitthreatenstodevourthewholeofsocietyandeventhestateitself.”

Thiswaswrittennolaterthanthebeginningoftheninetiesofthelastcentury,Engels’lastprefacebeingdatedJune16.1891.Theturntowardsimperialism—meaningbythatthecompletedominationofthetrusts,theomnipotenceofthebigbanks,acolonialpolicyonagrandscale,andsoforth—wasonlyjustbeginninginFrance,andwasevenweakerinNorthAmericaandinGermany.Sincethen“rivalryinconquest”hasmadegiganticstrides—especiallyas,bythebeginningoftheseconddecadeofthetwentiethcentury,thewholeworldhadbeenfinallydividedupamongthese“rivalsinconquest,”i.e.,amongthegreatpredatorypowers.Sincethen,militaryandnavalarmamentshavegrowntomonstrousproportions,andthepredatorywarof1914-17forthedominationoftheworldbyEnglandorGermany,forthedivisionofthespoils,hasbroughtthe“devouring”ofalltheforcesofsocietybytherapaciousstatepowertothevergeofcompletecatastrophe.

Asearlyas1891Engelswasabletopointto“rivalryinconquest”asoneofthemostimportantdistinguishingfeaturesoftheforeignpolicyoftheGreatPowers,butin1914-17,whenthisrivalry,manytimesintensified,hasgivenbirthtoanimperialistwar,therascallysocial-chauvinistscoveruptheirdefenseofthepredatoryinterestsof“their”bourgeoisiebyphrasesabout“defenseofthefatherland,”“defenseoftherepublicandtherevolution,”etc.!

3.THESTATEASANINSTRUMENTFORTHEEXPLOITATIONOFTHEOPPRESSEDCLASSForthemaintenanceofaspecialpublicpowerstandingabovesociety,taxes

andstateloansareneeded.

“...Possessingthepublicpowerandtherighttoexacttaxes,theofficialsnowexistasorgansofsocietystandingabovesociety.Thefree,voluntaryrespectwhichwasaccordedtotheorgansofthegentileorganizationdoesnotsatisfythem,eveniftheycouldhaveit.”

Speciallawsareenactedproclaimingthesanctityandimmunityoftheofficials.“Theshabbiestpoliceservant”hasmore“authority”thanalltherepresentativesofthetribeputtogether,buteventheheadofthemilitarypowerofacivilizedstatemaywellenvyatribalchiefthe“unfeignedandundisputedrespect”thelatterenjoys.

Herethequestionoftheprivilegedpositionoftheofficialsasorgansofstatepowerisstated.Themainpointindicatedis:whatputsthemabovesociety?WeshallseehowthistheoreticalproblemwassolvedinpracticebytheParisCommunein1871andhowitwasslurredoverinareactionarymannerbyKautskyin1912.

“Asthestatearoseoutoftheneedtoholdclassantagonismsincheck,butasit,atthesametime,aroseinthemidstoftheconflictoftheseclasses,itis,asarule,thestateofthemostpowerful,economicallydominantclass,whichthroughthemediumofthestatebecamealsothedominantclasspolitically,andthusacquirednewmeansofholdingdownandexploitingtheoppressedclass....”

Itwasnotonlytheancientandfeudalstatesthatwereorgansfortheexploitationoftheslavesandserfsbut

“...thecontemporaryrepresentativestateisaninstrumentofexploitationofwage-laborbycapital.Bywayofexception,however,periodsoccurwhenthewarringclassesaresonearlybalancedthatthestatepower,ostensiblyappearingasamediator,acquires,forthemoment,acertainindependenceinrelationtoboth....”

Such,forinstance,weretheabsolutemonarchiesoftheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies,theBonapartismoftheFirstandSecondEmpiresinFrance,andtheBismarckregimeinGermany.Such,weadd,isthepresentKerenskygovernmentinrepublicanRussiasinceitbegantopersecutetherevolutionaryproletariat,atamomentwhen,thankstotheleadershipofthepetty-bourgeoisdemocrats,theSovietshavealreadybecomeimpotentwhilethebourgeoisieisnotyetstrongenoughopenlytodispersethem.

Inademocraticrepublic,Engelscontinues,“wealthwieldsitspowerindirectly,butallthemoreeffectively,”first,bymeansofthe“directcorruptionoftheofficials”(America);second,bymeansof“thealliancebetweenthegovernmentandtheStockExchange”(FranceandAmerica).

Atthepresenttime,imperialismandthedominationofthebankshave“developed”boththesemethodsofdefendingandassertingtheomnipotenceofwealthindemocraticrepublicsofalldescriptionstoanunusuallyfineart.Forinstance,intheveryfirstmonthsoftheRussiandemocraticrepublic,onemightsayduringthehoneymoonoftheunionofthe“Socialist”S.R.’sandtheMenshevikswiththebourgeoisie,Mr.Palchinsky,inthecoalitiongovernment,obstructedeverymeasureintendedforthepurposeofrestrainingthecapitalistsandtheirmaraudingpractices,theirplunderingofthepublictreasurybymeansofwarcontracts.WhenMr.Palchinskyresigned(and,ofcourse,wasreplacedbyanexactlysimilarPalchinsky),thecapitalists“rewarded”himwitha“soft”jobandasalaryof120,000rublesperannum.Whatwouldyoucallthis—directorindirectcorruption?Analliancebetweenthegovernmentandthesyndicates,or“only”friendlyrelations?WhatroledotheChernovs,Tseretellis,AvksentyevsandSkobelevsplay?Aretheythe“direct”oronlytheindirectalliesofthemillionairetreasurylooters?

Theomnipotenceof“wealth”isthusmoresecureinademocraticrepublic,sinceitdoesnotdependonthefaultypoliticalshellofcapitalism.Ademocratic

republicisthebestpossiblepoliticalshellforcapitalism,and,therefore,oncecapitalhasgainedcontrolofthisverybestshell(throughthePalchinskys,Chernovs,TseretellisandCo.),itestablisheditspowersosecurely,sofirmly,thatnochange,eitherofpersons,ofinstitutions,orofpartiesinthebourgeois-democraticrepublic,canshakeit.

WemustalsonotethatEngelsverydefinitelycallsuniversalsuffrageaninstrumentofbourgeoisrule.Universalsuffrage,hesays,obviouslysummingupthelongexperienceofGermanSocial-Democracy,is

“...anindexofthematurityoftheworkingclass.Itcannotandneverwillbeanythingmoreinthemodernstate.”

Thepetty-bourgeoisdemocrats,suchasourSocialist-RevolutionariesandMensheviks,andalsotheirtwinbrothers,thesocial-chauvinistsandopportunistsofWesternEurope,allexpect“more”fromuniversalsuffrage.Theythemselvesshareandinstillintothemindsofthepeoplethewrongideathatuniversalsuffrage“inthemodernstate”isreallycapableofexpressingthewillofthemajorityofthetoilersandofensuringitsrealization.

Herewecanonlynotethiswrongidea,onlypointoutthatEngels’perfectlyclear,preciseandconcretestatementisdistortedateverystepinthepropagandaandagitationconductedbythe“official”(i.e.,opportunist)SocialistParties.Adetailedelucidationoftheutterfalsityofthisidea,whichEngelsbrushesaside,isgiveninourfurtheraccountoftheviewsofMarxandEngelsonthe“modern”state.

Engelsgivesageneralsummaryofhisviewsinthemostpopularofhisworksinthefollowingwords:

“Thestate,therefore,hasnotexistedfromalleternity.Therehavebeensocietieswhichmanagedwithoutit,whichhadnoconceptionofthestateandstatepower.Atacertainstageofeconomicdevelopment,whichwasnecessarilyboundupwiththecleavageofsocietyintoclasses,thestatebecameanecessityowingtothiscleavage.Wearenowrapidlyapproachingastageinthedevelopmentofproductionatwhichtheexistenceoftheseclasses

hasnotonlyceasedtobeanecessity,butisbecomingapositivehindrancetoproduction.Theywillfallasinevitablyastheyaroseatanearlierstage.Alongwiththem,thestatewillinevitablyfall.Thesocietythatorganizesproductionanewonthebasisofthefreeandequalassociationoftheproducerswillputthewholestatemachinewhereitwillthenbelong:inthemuseumofantiquities,sidebysidewiththespinningwheelandthebronzeaxe.”

Wedonotoftencomeacrossthispassageinthepropagandaandagitationliteratureofpresent-daySocial-Democracy.Butevenwhenwedocomeacrossit,itisgenerallyquotedinthesamemannerasonebowsbeforeanicon,i.e.,itisdonemerelytoshowofficialrespectforEngels,andnoattemptismadetogaugethebreadthanddepthoftherevolutionthatthisrelegatingof“thewholestatemachine...tothemuseumofantiquities”presupposes.InmostcaseswedonotevenfindanunderstandingofwhatEngelscallsthestatemachine.

4 .THE“WITHERINGAWAY”OFTHESTATEANDVIOLENTREVOLUTIONEngels’wordsregardingthe“witheringaway”ofthestatearesowidely

known,theyaresooftenquoted,andtheyrevealthesignificanceofthecustomarypaintingofMarxismtolooklikeopportunismsoclearlythatwemustdealwiththemindetail.Weshallquotethewholepassagefromwhichtheyaretaken.

“Theproletariatseizesthestatepowerandtransformsthemeansofproductioninthefirstinstanceintostateproperty.Butindoingthis,itputsanendtoitselfastheproletariat,itputsanendtoallclassdifferencesandclassantagonisms,itputsanendalsotothestateasthestate.Formersociety,movinginclassantagonisms,hadneedofthestate,thatis,anorganizationoftheexploitingclass,ateachperiodforthemaintenanceofitsexternalconditionsofproduction;thatis,therefore,fortheforcibleholdingdownoftheexploitedclassintheconditionsofoppression(slavery,villeinageorserfdom,wage-labor)determinedbytheexistingmodeofproduction.Thestatewastheofficialrepresentativeofsocietyasawhole,itsembodimentinavisiblecorporation;butitwasthisonly

insofarasitwasthestateofthatclasswhichitself,initsepoch,representedsocietyasawhole:inancienttimes,thestateoftheslave-owningcitizens;intheMiddleAges,ofthefeudalnobility;inourepoch,ofthebourgeoisie.Whenultimatelyitbecomesreallyrepresentativeofsocietyasawhole,itmakesitselfsuperfluous.Assoonasthereisnolongeranyclassofsocietytobeheldinsubjection;assoonas,alongwithclassdominationandthestruggleforindividualexistencebasedontheformeranarchyofproduction,thecollisionsandexcessesarisingfromthesehavealsobeenabolished,thereisnothingmoretoberepressed,whichwouldmakeaspecialrepressiveforce,astate,necessary.Thefirstactinwhichthestatereallycomesforwardastherepresentativeofsocietyasawhole—thetakingpossessionofthemeansofproductioninthenameofsociety—isatthesametimeitslastindependentactasastate.Theinterferenceofthestatepowerinsocialrelationsbecomessuperfluousinonesphereafteranother,andthenceasesofitself.Thegovernmentofpersonsisreplacedbytheadministrationofthingsandthedirectionoftheprocessofproduction.Thestateisnot‘abolished,’itwithersaway.Itisfromthisstandpointthatwemustappraisethephrase‘freepeople’sstate’—bothitsjustificationattimesforagitationalpurposes,anditsultimatescientificinadequacy—andalsothedemandoftheso-calledanarchiststhatthestateshouldbeabolishedovernight.”

ItmaybesaidwithoutfearoferrorthatofthisargumentofEngels,whichissosingularlyrichinideas,onlyonepointhasbecomeanintegralpartofsocialistthoughtamongmodernSocialistParties,namely,thataccordingtoMarxthestate“withersaway”—asdistinctfromtheanarchistdoctrineofthe“abolitionofthestate.”ToemasculateMarxisminsuchamanneristoreduceittoopportunism,forsuchan“interpretation”onlyleavesthehazyconceptionofaslow,even,gradualchange,ofabsenceofleapsandstorms,ofabsenceofrevolution.Thecurrent,widespread,mass,ifonemaysayso,conceptionofthe“witheringaway”ofthestateundoubtedlymeanstheslurringover,ifnottherepudiation,ofrevolution.

Suchan“interpretation”isthecrudestdistortionofMarxism,advantageousonlytothebourgeoisie;inpointoftheory,itisbasedonadisregardforthemostimportantcircumstancesandconsiderationspointedout,say,inthe

“summary”ofEngels’argumentwehavejustquotedinfull.

Inthefirstplace,Engelsattheveryoutsetofhisargumentsaysthat,inassumingstatepower,theproletariatbythat“putsanendtothestate...asthestate.”Itisnot“goodform”toponderoverwhatthismeans.Generally,itiseitherignoredaltogether,oritisconsideredtobeapieceof“Hegelianweakness”onEngels’part.Asamatteroffact,however,thesewordsbrieflyexpresstheexperienceofoneofthegreatproletarianrevolutions,theParisCommuneof1871,ofwhichweshallspeakingreaterdetailinitsproperplace.Asamatteroffact,Engelsspeakshereofthe“abolition”ofthebourgeoisstatebytheproletarianrevolution,whilethewordsaboutitswitheringawayrefertotheremnantsoftheproletarianstateafterthesocialistrevolution.AccordingtoEngelsthebourgeoisstatedoesnot“witheraway,”butis“putanendto”bytheproletariatinthecourseoftherevolution.Whatwithersawayaftertherevolutionistheproletarianstateorsemi-state.

Secondly,thestateisa“specialrepressiveforce.”Engelsgivesthissplendidandextremelyprofounddefinitionherewithcompletelucidity.Andfromitfollowsthatthe“specialrepressiveforce”forthesuppressionoftheproletariatbythebourgeoisie,forthesuppressionofthemillionsoftoilersbyahandfuloftherich,mustbesupersededbya“specialrepressiveforce”forthesuppressionofthebourgeoisiebytheproletariat(thedictatorshipoftheproletariat).Thisispreciselywhatismeantbyputtinganendto“thestateasthestate.”Thisispreciselythe“act”oftakingpossessionofthemeansofproductioninthenameofsociety.Anditisobviousthatsuchasubstitutionofone(proletarian)“specialrepressiveforce”foranother(bourgeois)“specialrepressiveforce”cannotpossiblytakeplaceintheformof“witheringaway.”

Thirdly,inregardtothestate“witheringaway,”andtheevenmoreexpressiveandcolorful“ceasingofitself,”Engelsrefersquiteclearlyanddefinitelytotheperiodafterthestatehas“takenpossessionofthemeansofproductioninthenameofsociety,”thatis,afterthesocialistrevolution.Weallknowthatthepoliticalformofthe“state”atthattimeisthemostcompletedemocracy.ButitneverenterstheheadofanyoftheopportunistswhoshamelesslydistortMarxismthatEngelsherespeaksofdemocracy“witheringaway,”or“ceasingofitself.”Thisseemsverystrangeatfirstsight;butitis“unintelligible”onlytothosewhohavenotponderedoverthefactthatdemocracyisalsoastateandthat,consequently,democracywillalsodisappearwhenthestatedisappears.Revolutionalonecan“putanend”tothebourgeoisstate.Thestateingeneral,i.e.,themostcompletedemocracy,canonly“wither

away.”

Fourthly,afterformulatinghisfamouspropositionthat“thestatewithersaway,”Engelsatonceexplainsconcretelythatthispropositionisdirectedequallyagainsttheopportunistsandtheanarchists.Indoingthis,however,Engelsputsintheforefronttheconclusiondeducedfromtheproposition,the“statewithersaway,”whichisdirectedagainsttheopportunists.

Onecanwagerthatoutofevery10,000personswhohavereadorheardaboutthe“witheringaway”ofthestate,9,990donotknow,ordonotremember,thatEngelsdidnotdirecttheconclusionshededucedfromthispropositionagainsttheanarchistsalone.Oftheremainingten,probablyninedonotknowthemeaningof“freepeople’sstate”orwhyanattackonthiswatchwordcontainsanattackontheopportunists.Thisishowhistoryiswritten!Thisishowagreatrevolutionarydoctrineisimperceptiblyfalsifiedandadaptedtoprevailingphilistinism!Theconclusiondrawnagainsttheanarchistshasbeenrepeatedthousandsoftimes,vulgarized,dinnedintopeople’sheadsinthecrudestfashionandhasacquiredthestrengthofaprejudice;whereastheconclusiondrawnagainsttheopportunistshasbeenhushedupand“forgotten”!

The“freepeople’sstate”wasaprogramdemandandapopularsloganoftheGermanSocial-Democratsinthe‘seventies.Theonlypoliticalcontentofthissloganisapompousphilistinedescriptionoftheconceptdemocracy.Insofarasithintedinalawfulmanneratademocraticrepublic,Engelswaspreparedto“justify”itsuse“foratime”fromanagitationalpointofview.Butitwasanopportunistslogan,foritnotonlyexpressedanembellishmentofbourgeoisdemocracy,butalsoalackofunderstandingofthesocialistcriticismofthestateingeneral.Weareinfavorofademocraticrepublicasthebestformofstatefortheproletariatundercapitalism;butwehavenorighttoforgetthatwage-slaveryisthelotofthepeopleeveninthemostdemocraticbourgeoisrepublic.Furthermore,everystateisa“specialrepressiveforce”forthesuppressionoftheoppressedclass.Consequently,nostateisa“free”ora“people’sstate.”MarxandEngelsexplainedthisrepeatedlytotheirpartycomradesinthe’seventies.

Fifthly,thisverysameworkofEngels,ofwhicheveryonerememberstheargumentaboutthe“witheringaway”ofthestate,alsocontainsadisquisitiononthesignificanceofviolentrevolution.Engels’historicalanalysisofitsrolebecomesaveritablepanegyriconviolentrevolution.This“nooneremembers”;itisnotgoodforminmodernSocialistPartiestotalkoreven

thinkabouttheimportanceofthisidea,anditplaysnopartwhateverintheirdailypropagandaandagitationamongthemasses.Andyet,itisinseparablyboundupwiththe“witheringaway”ofthestateintooneharmoniouswhole.

HereisEngels’argument:

“Thatforce,however,playsyetanotherrole[otherthanthatofadiabolicalpower]inhistory,arevolutionaryrole;that,inthewordsofMarx,itisthemidwifeofeveryoldsocietywhichispregnantwiththenew;thatitistheinstrumentbytheaidofwhichthesocialmovementforcesitswaythroughandshattersthedead,fossilized,politicalforms—ofthisthereisnotawordinHerrDühring.Itisonlywithsighsandgroansthatheadmitsthepossibilitythatforcewillperhapsbenecessaryfortheoverthrowoftheeconomicsystemofexploitation—unfortunately,becausealluseofforce,forsooth,demoralizesthepersonwhousesit.Andthisinspiteoftheimmensemoralandspiritualimpetuswhichhasresultedfromeveryvictoriousrevolution!AndthisinGermany,whereaviolentcollision—whichindeedmaybeforcedonthepeople—wouldatleasthavetheadvantageofwipingouttheservilitywhichhaspermeatedthenationalconsciousnessasaresultofthehumiliationoftheThirtyYears’War.Andthisparson’smodeofthought—lifeless,insipidandimpotent—claimstoimposeitselfonthemostrevolutionarypartywhichhistoryhasknown!”

Howcanthispanegyriconviolentrevolution,whichEngelsinsistentlybroughttotheattentionoftheGermanSocial-Democratsbetween1878and1894,i.e.,rightuptothetimeofhisdeath,becombinedwiththetheoryofthe“witheringaway”ofthestatetoformasingledoctrine?

Usuallythetwoviewsarecombinedbymeansofeclecticism,byanunprincipled,orsophistic,arbitraryselection(oraselectiontopleasethepowersthatbe)ofoneoranotherargument,andinninety-ninecasesoutofahundred(ifnotmoreoften),itistheideaofthe“witheringaway”thatisspeciallyemphasized.Eclecticismissubstitutedfordialectics—thisisthemostusual,themostwidespreadphenomenontobemetwithinpresent-dayofficialSocial-DemocraticliteratureonMarxism.Thissortofsubstitutionisnotnew,

ofcourse,itisobservedeveninthehistoryofclassicGreekphilosophy.InpaintingMarxismtolooklikeopportunism,thesubstitutionofeclecticismfordialecticsisthebestmethodofdeceivingthemasses;itgivesanillusorysatisfaction;itseemstotakeintoaccountallsidesoftheprocess,alltendenciesofdevelopment,alltheconflictinginfluences,andsoforth,whereasinrealityitpresentsnoconsistentandrevolutionaryconceptionoftheprocessofsocialdevelopmentatall.

Wehavealreadysaidabove,andshallshowmorefullylater,thatthedoctrineofMarxandEngelsconcerningtheinevitabilityofaviolentrevolutionreferstothebourgeoisstate.Thelattercannotbesupersededbytheproletarianstate(thedictatorshipoftheproletariat)intheprocessof“witheringaway”;asageneralrule,thiscanhappenonlybymeansofaviolentrevolution.ThepanegyricEngelssanginitshonor,andwhichfullycorrespondstoMarx’srepeateddeclarations(recalltheconcludingpassagesofThePovertyofPhilosophyandTheCommunistManifesto,withtheirproudandopendeclarationoftheinevitabilityofaviolentrevolution;recallMarx’sCritiqueoftheGothaProgram104of1875,inwhich,almostthirtyyearslater,hemercilesslycastigatestheopportunistcharacterofthatprogram)—thispanegyricisbynomeansamere“impulse,”ameredeclamationorapolemicalsally.ThenecessityofsystematicallyimbuingthemasseswiththisandpreciselythisviewofviolentrevolutionliesattherootofthewholeofMarx’sandEngels’doctrine.Thebetrayaloftheirdoctrinebythenowpredominantsocial-chauvinistandKautskyantrendsisbroughtoutinstrikingreliefbytheneglectofsuchpropagandaandagitationbyboththesetrends.

Thesubstitutionoftheproletarianstateforthebourgeoisstateisimpossiblewithoutaviolentrevolution.Theabolitionoftheproletarianstate,i.e.,ofthestateingeneral,isimpossibleexceptthroughtheprocessof“witheringaway.”

MarxandEngelsfullyandconcretelyenlargedontheseviewsinstudyingeachrevolutionarysituationseparately,inanalyzingthelessonsoftheexperienceofeachindividualrevolution.Weshallnowproceedtodiscussthis,undoubtedlythemostimportantpartoftheirdoctrine.

CHAPTERII

THESTATEANDREVOLUTION.THEEXPERIENCEOF1848-51

1.THEEVEOFTHEREVOLUTIONThefirstworksofmatureMarxism—ThePovertyofPhilosophyandThe

CommunistManifesto-appearedontheeveoftheRevolutionof1848.Forthisreason,inadditiontopresentingthegeneralprinciplesofMarxism,theyreflecttoacertaindegreetheconcreterevolutionarysituationofthetime.Hence,itwillbemoreexpedient,perhaps,toexaminewhattheauthorsoftheseworkssaidaboutthestateimmediatelybeforetheydrewconclusionsfromtheexperienceoftheyears1848-51.

InThePovertyofPhilosophyMarxwrote:

“Theworkingclassinthecourseofitsdevelopmentwillsubstitutefortheoldcivilsocietyanassociationwhichwillexcludeclassesandtheirantagonism,andtherewillbenomorepoliticalpowerproperlyso-called,sincepoliticalpowerispreciselytheofficialexpressionofantagonismincivilsociety.”

ItisinstructivetocomparethisgeneralstatementoftheideaofthestatedisappearingafterclasseshavebeenabolishedwiththestatementcontainedinTheCommunistManifesto,writtenbyMarxandEngelsafewmonthslater—tobeexact,inNovember1847:

“Indepictingthemostgeneralphasesofthedevelopmentoftheproletariat,wetracedthemoreorlessveiledcivilwar,raging

withinexistingsociety,uptothepointwherethatwarbreaksoutintoopenrevolution,andwheretheviolentoverthrowofthebourgeoisielaysthefoundationfortheswayoftheproletariat....

“...Wehaveseenabovethatthefirststepintherevolutionbytheworkingclassistoraisetheproletariattothepositionofrulingclass,towinthebattleofdemocracy.

“Theproletariatwilluseitspoliticalsupremacytowrest,bydegrees,allcapitalfromthebourgeoisie,tocentralizeallinstrumentsofproductioninthehandsofthestate,i.e.,oftheproletariatorganizedastherulingclass;andtoincreasethetotalofproductiveforcesasrapidlyaspossible.”

HerewehaveaformulationofoneofthemostremarkableandmostimportantideasofMarxismonthesubjectofthestate,namely,theideaofthe“dictatorshipoftheproletariat”(asMarxandEngelsbegantocallitaftertheParisCommune);andalsoaveryinterestingdefinitionofthestatewhichalsobelongstothecategoryofthe“forgottenwords”ofMarxism:“thestate,”i.e.,“theproletariatorganizedastherulingclass.”

ThisdefinitionofthestatehasneverbeenexplainedintheprevailingpropagandaandagitationliteratureoftheofficialSocial-DemocraticParties.Morethanthat,ithasbeenforgotten,foritisabsolutelyirreconcilablewithreformism,andisaslapinthefaceofthecommonopportunistprejudicesandphilistineillusionsaboutthe“peacefuldevelopmentofdemocracy.”

Theproletariatneedsthestate—thisisrepeatedbyalltheopportunists,social-chauvinistsandKautskyists,whoassureusthatthisiswhatMarxtaught.Butthey“forget”toaddthat,inthefirstplace,accordingtoMarx,theproletariatneedsonlyastatewhichiswitheringaway,i.e.,astatesoconstitutedthatitbeginstowitherawayimmediately,andcannotbutwitheraway.Secondly,thetoilersneeda“state,”i.e.,“theproletariatorganizedastherulingclass.”

Thestateisaspecialorganizationofforce;itistheorganizationofviolenceforthesuppressionofsomeclass.Whatclassmusttheproletariatsuppress?Naturally,onlytheexploitingclass,i.e.,thebourgeoisie.Thetoilersneedastateonlytoovercometheresistanceoftheexploiters,andonlytheproletariatcandirectthissuppression,carryitout;fortheproletariatistheonlyclassthatisconsistentlyrevolutionary,theonlyclassthatcanuniteallthetoilersandthe

exploitedinthestruggleagainstthebourgeoisie,incompletelydisplacingit.

Theexploitingclassesneedpoliticalruleinordertomaintainexploitation,i.e.,intheselfishinterestsofaninsignificantminorityandagainsttheinterestsofthevastmajorityofthepeople.Theexploitedclassesneedpoliticalruleinordercompletelytoabolishallexploitation,i.e.,intheinterestsofthevastmajorityofthepeople,andagainsttheinterestsoftheinsignificantminorityconsistingofthemodernslave-owners—thelandlordsandthecapitalists.

Thepetty-bourgeoisdemocrats,thoseallegedSocialistswhosubstituteddreamsofclassharmonyfortheclassstruggle,evenpicturedthesocialistreformationinadreamyfashion—notintheformoftheoverthrowoftheruleoftheexploitingclass,butintheformofthepeacefulsubmissionoftheminoritytothemajoritywhichhasbecomeconsciousofitsaims.Thispetty-bourgeoisutopia,whichisinseparablyboundupwiththeideaofthestatebeingaboveclasses,ledinpracticetothebetrayaloftheinterestsofthetoilingclasses,aswasshown,forexample,bythehistoryoftheFrenchrevolutionsof1848and1871,andbythe“Socialists”joiningbourgeoiscabinetsinEngland,France,Italyandothercountriesattheendofthenineteenthandthebeginningofthetwentiethcenturies.

Marxfoughtallhislifeagainstthispetty-bourgeoissocialism—nowresurrectedinRussiabytheSocialistRevolutionaryandMenshevikParties.Helogicallypursuedhisdoctrineoftheclassstruggletothedoctrineofpoliticalpower,thedoctrineofthestate.

Theoverthrowofbourgeoisrulecanbeaccomplishedonlybytheproletariat,astheparticularclasswhoseeconomicconditionsofexistencetrainitforthistaskandprovideitwiththeopportunityandthepowertoperformit.Whilethebourgeoisiebreaksupanddisintegratesthepeasantryandallthepetty-bourgeoisstrata,itweldstogether,unitesandorganizestheproletariat.Onlytheproletariat—byvirtueoftheeconomicroleitplaysinlarge-scaleproduction—iscapableofactingastheleaderofallthetoilingandexploitedmasses,whomthebourgeoisieexploits,oppressesandcrushesnotless,andoftenmore,thanitdoestheproletarians,butwhoareincapableofwaginganindependentstrugglefortheiremancipation.

Thedoctrineoftheclassstruggle,asappliedbyMarxtothequestionofthestateandofthesocialistrevolution,leadsinevitablytotherecognitionofthepoliticalruleoftheproletariat,ofitsdictatorship,i.e.,ofpowersharedwithnoneandrelyingdirectlyuponthearmedforceofthemasses.Theoverthrow

ofthebourgeoisiecanbeachievedonlybytheproletariatbecomingtransformedintotherulingclass,capableofcrushingtheinevitableanddesperateresistanceofthebourgeoisie,andoforganizingallthetoilingandexploitedmassesfortheneweconomicorder.

Theproletariatneedsstatepower,thecentralizedorganizationofforce,theorganizationofviolence,forthepurposeofcrushingtheresistanceoftheexploitersandforthepurposeofleadingthegreatmassofthepopulation—thepeasantry,thepettybourgeoisie,thesemi-proletarians—intheworkoforganizingsocialisteconomy.

Byeducatingtheworkers’party,Marxismeducatesthevanguardoftheproletariatwhichiscapableofassumingpowerandofleadingthewholepeopletosocialism,ofdirectingandorganizingtheneworder,ofbeingtheteacher,guideandleaderofallthetoilingandexploitedinthetaskofbuildinguptheirsociallifewithoutthebourgeoisieandagainstthebourgeoisie.Asagainstthis,thenowprevailingopportunismbreedsintheranksoftheworkers’partyrepresentativesofthebetterpaidworkers,wholosetouchwiththerankandfile,“getalong”fairlywellundercapitalism,andselltheirbirthrightforamessofpottage,i.e.,renouncetheirroleofrevolutionaryleadersofthepeopleagainstthebourgeoisie.

Marx’stheory:“Thestate,i.e.,theproletariatorganizedastherulingclass,”isinseparablyboundupwithallhetaughtontherevolutionaryroleoftheproletariatinhistory.Theculminationofthisroleistheproletariandictatorship,thepoliticalruleoftheproletariat.

Butiftheproletariatneedsastateasaspecialformoforganizationofviolenceagainstthebourgeoisie,thefollowingdeductionautomaticallyarises:isitconceivablethatsuchanorganizationcanbecreatedwithoutfirstabolishing,destroyingthestatemachinecreatedbythebourgeoisieforitself?TheCommunistManifestoleadsstraighttothisdeduction,anditisofthisdeductionthatMarxspeakswhensumminguptheexperienceoftheRevolutionof1848-51.

2.THEREVOLUTIONSUMMEDUPMarxsumsuptheRevolutionof1848-51,inconnectionwiththequestionof

thestateweareconcernedwith,inthefollowingpassageinTheEighteenthBrumaireofLouisBonaparte:

“...Buttherevolutionisthoroughgoing.Itisstillinprocessofpassingthroughpurgatory.Itdoesitsworkmethodically.ByDecember2,1851[thedayofLouisBonaparte’scoupd’état],ithadcompletedone-halfofitspreparatorywork;itisnowcompletingtheotherhalf.Firstitperfectedtheparliamentarypower,inordertobeabletooverthrowit.Nowthatithasattainedthis,itperfectstheexecutivepower,reducesittoitspurestexpression,isolatesit,setsitupagainstitselfasthesoletarget,inordertoconcentrateallitsforcesofdestructionagainstit[italicsours].Andwhenithasdonethissecondhalfofitspreliminarywork,Europewillleapfromherseatandexultantlyexclaim:wellgrubbed,oldmole!

“Thisexecutivepowerwithitsmonstrousbureaucraticandmilitaryorganization,withitsartificialstatemachineryembracingwidestrata,withahostofofficialsnumberinghalfamillion,besidesanarmyofanotherhalfmillion,thisappallingparasiticgrowth,whichenmeshesthebodyofFrenchsocietylikeanetandchokesallitspores,sprangupinthedaysoftheabsolutemonarchy,withthedecayofthefeudalsystem,whichithelpedtohasten.”ThefirstFrenchRevolutiondevelopedcentralization,“butatthesametime[itdeveloped]theextent,theattributesandtheagentsofgovernmentalauthority.Napoleonperfectedthisstatemachinery.”ThelegitimistmonarchyandtheJulymonarchy...“addednothingbutagreaterdivisionoflabor....”

“Theparliamentaryrepublicfinally,initsstruggleagainsttherevolution,founditselfcompelledtostrengthen,alongwiththerepressivemeasures,theresourcesandcentralizationofgovernmentalpower.Alltherevolutionsperfectedthismachine,insteadofsmashingitup[italicsours].Thepartiesthatcontendedinturnfordominationregardedthepossessionofthishugestateedificeastheprincipalspoilsofthevictor.”

InthisremarkablepassageMarxismtakesatremendousstepforwardcomparedwithTheCommunistManifesto.Inthelatter,thequestionofthestateisstilltreatedinanextremelyabstractmanner,inthemostgeneraltermsandexpressions.Intheabove-quotedpassage,thequestionistreatedinaconcretemanner,andtheconclusionismostprecise,definite,practicalandpalpable:all

therevolutionswhichhaveoccurreduptonowhavehelpedtoperfectthestatemachine,whereasitmustbesmashed,broken.

ThisconclusionisthechiefandfundamentalthesisintheMarxiandoctrineofthestate.AnditispreciselythisfundamentalthesiswhichhasbeennotonlycompletelyforgottenbythepredominantofficialSocial-DemocraticParties,butpositivelydistorted(asweshallseelater)bytheforemosttheoreticianoftheSecondInternational,K.Kautsky.

TheCommunistManifestogivesageneralsummaryofhistory,whichcompelsustoregardthestateastheorganofclassruleandleadsustotheinevitableconclusionthattheproletariatcannotoverthrowthebourgeoisiewithoutfirstcapturingpoliticalpower,withoutattainingpoliticalsupremacy,withouttransformingthestateintothe“proletariatorganizedastherulingclass”;itinevitablyleadstotheconclusionthatthisproletarianstatewillbegintowitherawayimmediatelyafteritsvictory,becausethestateisunnecessaryandcannotexistinasocietyinwhichtherearenoclassantagonisms.Thequestionastohow,fromthepointofviewofhistoricaldevelopment,thesubstitutionoftheproletarianstateforthebourgeoisstateistotakeplaceisnotraised.

Marxraisesthisquestionandanswersitin1852.Truetohisphilosophyofdialecticalmaterialism,Marxtakesashisbasistheexperienceofthegreatyearsofrevolution,1848to1851.Here,aseverywhere,histeachingisthesummaryofexperience,illuminatedbyaprofoundphilosophicalconceptionoftheworldandarichknowledgeofhistory.

Theproblemofthestateisputconcretely:howdidthebourgeoisstate,thestatemachinenecessaryfortheruleofthebourgeoisie,comeintobeinghistorically?Whatchangesdiditundergo,whatevolutiondiditundergointhecourseofthebourgeoisrevolutionsandinthefaceoftheindependentactionsoftheoppressedclasses?Whatarethetasksoftheproletariatinrelationtothisstatemachine?

Thecentralizedstatepowerthatispeculiartobourgeoissocietycameintobeingintheperiodofthefallofabsolutism.Twoinstitutionsaremostcharacteristicofthisstatemachine:bureaucracyandastandingarmy.Intheirworks,MarxandEngelsrepeatedlymentionthethousandthreadswhichconnecttheseinstitutionswiththebourgeoisie.Theexperienceofeveryworkerillustratesthisconnectioninanextremelystrikingandimpressivemanner.Fromitsownbitterexperience,theworkingclasslearnstorecognize

thisconnection;thatiswhyitlearnssoquicklyandwhyitsocompletelyassimilatesthedoctrinewhichrevealsthisinevitableconnection,adoctrinewhichthepetty-bourgeoisdemocratseitherignorantlyandlight-heartedlydeny,or,stillmorelight-heartedly,admit“ingeneral,”forgettingtodrawthecorrespondingpracticalconclusions.

Thebureaucracyandthestandingarmyarea“parasite”onthebodyofbourgeoissociety—aparasitecreatedbytheinherentantagonismswhichrendthatsociety,butaparasitewhich“chokesallitspores”oflife.TheKautskyanopportunismnowprevalentinofficialSocial-Democracyconsiderstheviewthatthestateisaparasiticgrowthtobethepeculiarandexclusiveattributeofanarchism.Naturally,thisdistortionofMarxismisextremelyusefultothosephilistineswhohavesoutterlydisgracedsocialismbyjustifyingandembellishingtheimperialistwarwiththeterm“nationaldefense”;butitisanabsolutedistortionnevertheless.

Thedevelopment,perfectionandstrengtheningofthebureaucraticandmilitaryapparatusproceededduringallthenumerousbourgeoisrevolutionswhichEuropehaswitnessedsincethefalloffeudalism.Itispreciselythepettybourgeoisiethatisattractedtothesideofthebigbourgeoisieandissubordinatedtoittoalargeextentbymeansofthisapparatus,whichprovidestheupperstrataofthepeasantry,smallartisansandtradesmenwithanumberofcomparativelycomfortable,quietandrespectablejobswhichraisetheirholdersabovethepeople.ConsiderwhathappenedinRussiaduringthesixmonthsfollowingMarch12,1917.ThegovernmentalpostswhichhithertohadbeengivenbypreferencetomembersoftheBlackHundredsnowbecamethespoilsoftheCadets,MensheviksandSocial-Revolutionaries.Nobodyreallythoughtofintroducinganyseriousreforms;everyeffortwasmadetoputthemoff“untiltheConstituentAssemblywasconvened”;andtoputofftheconvocationoftheConstituentAssemblyuntiltheendofthewar!Buttherewasnodelay,nowaitingfortheConstituentAssemblyinthematterofdividingthespoils,ofgettingthepostsofministers,vice-ministers,governors-general,etc.,etc.!Thegameofcombinationsthatwasplayedinformingthegovernmentwas,inessence,onlyanexpressionofthisdivisionandre-divisionofthe“spoils,”whichwasgoingonhighandlow,throughoutthecountry,ineverydepartmentofcentralandlocalgovernment.ThesixmonthsbetweenMarch12andSeptember1917,canbesummedup,objectivelysummedupbeyondalldispute,asfollows:reformsshelved,distributionofofficialpostsaccomplishedand“mistakes”inthedistributioncorrectedbyafewre-distributions.

Butthemorethebureaucraticapparatusis“re-distributed”amongthevariousbourgeoisandpetty-bourgeoisparties(amongtheCadets,Socialist-RevolutionariesandMensheviks,ifwetakethecaseofRussia),themoreclearlytheoppressedclasses,withtheproletariatattheirhead,becomeconsciousoftheirirreconcilablehostilitytothewholeofbourgeoissociety.Thatiswhyitisnecessaryforallbourgeoisparties,evenforthemostdemocraticand“revolutionary-democratic”parties,toincreasetheirrepressivemeasuresagainsttherevolutionaryproletariat,tostrengthentheapparatusofrepression,i.e.,thestatemachinethatwearediscussing.Thiscourseofeventscompelstherevolution“toconcentrateallitsforcesofdestruction”againstthestatepower,andtoregardtheproblem,notasoneofperfectingthestatemachine,butoneofsmashinganddestroyingit.

Itwasnotlogicalreasoning,buttheactualdevelopmentofevents,thelivingexperienceof1848-51,thatledtotheproblembeingpresentedinthisway.TheextenttowhichMarxheldstrictlytothesolidgroundofhistoricalexperiencecanbeseenfromthefactthat,in1852,hedidnotyetdealconcretelywiththequestionofwhatwastotaketheplaceofthestatemachinethatwastobedestroyed.Experiencehadnotyetprovidedmaterialforthesolutionofthisproblemwhichhistoryplacedontheorderofthedaylateron,in1871.In1852itwasonlypossibletoestablishwiththeaccuracyofscientificobservationthattheproletarianrevolutionhadapproachedthetaskof“concentratingallitsforcesofdestruction”againstthestate,of“breaking”thestatemachine.

Herethequestionmayarise:isitcorrecttogeneralizetheexperience,observationsandconclusionsofMarx,toapplythemtoafieldthatiswiderthanthehistoryofFranceduringthethreeyears1848-51?BeforeproceedingtoanswerthisquestionweshallrecallaremarkmadebyEngels,andthenweshallproceedtoexaminethefacts.InhisintroductiontothethirdeditionofTheEighteenthBrumaireEngelswrote:

“Franceistheland,where,morethananywhereelse,thehistoricalclassstruggleswereeachtimefoughtouttoadecision,andwhere,consequently,thechangingpoliticalformswithinwhichtheyoccurandinwhichtheirresultsaresummarizedhavelikewisebeenstampedwiththesharpestoutlines.ThecenteroffeudalismintheMiddleAges,themodelcountryofcentralizedmonarchyrestingonestatessincetheRenaissance,FrancehasdemolishedfeudalismintheGreatRevolutionandestablishedthe

unalloyedruleofthebourgeoisieinaclassicalpurityunequalledbyanyotherEuropeanland.Andthestruggleoftheupwardstrivingproletariatagainsttherulingbourgeoisiealsoappearedhereinanacuteformunknownelsewhere.”

Thelastsentenceisoutofdate,inasmuchasalullhasoccurredintherevolutionarystruggleoftheFrenchproletariatsince1871;although,longasthislullmaybe,itdoesnotprecludethepossibilitythat,inthecomingproletarianrevolution,Francemayonceagainrevealitselfastheclassiclandoftheclassstruggletoadecision.

Letus,however,castageneralglanceoverthehistoryoftheadvancedcountriesattheendofthenineteenthandbeginningofthetwentiethcenturies.Weshallseethatthesameprocesshasbeengoingonmoreslowly,inmorevariedforms,onamuchwiderfield:ontheonehand,thedevelopmentof“parliamentarypower”intherepublicancountries(France,America,Switzerland),aswellasinthemonarchies(England,Germanytoacertainextent,Italy,theScandinaviancountries,etc.);ontheotherhand,astruggleforpowerbetweenthevariousbourgeoisandpetty-bourgeoispartieswhichdistributeandre-distributethe“spoils”ofoffice,whilethefoundationsofbourgeoissocietyremainunchanged.Finally,theperfectionandconsolidationofthe“executivepower,”itsbureaucraticandmilitaryapparatus.

Thereisnottheslightestdoubtthatthesefeaturesarecommontothewholeofthemodernevolutionofallcapitaliststatesingeneral.Inthethreeyears1848-51Francedisplayed,inaswift,sharp,concentratedform,alltheprocessesofdevelopmentwhicharepeculiartothewholecapitalistworld.

Imperialism—theeraofbankcapital,theeraofgiganticcapitalistmonopolies,theeraofthetransformationofmonopolycapitalismintostate-monopolycapitalism—hasparticularlywitnessedanunprecedentedstrengtheningofthe“statemachine”andanunprecedentedgrowthofitsbureaucraticandmilitaryapparatus,inconnectionwiththeincreaseinrepressivemeasuresagainsttheproletariatinthemonarchialaswellasinthefreestrepublicancountries.

Worldhistoryisnowundoubtedlyleadingtothe“concentrationofalltheforces”oftheproletarianrevolutiononthe“destruction”ofthestatemachineonanincomparablylargerscalethanin1852.

Whattheproletariatwillputinitsplaceisindicatedbytheextremely

instructivematerialprovidedbytheParisCommune.

3.THEPRESENTATIONOFTHEQUESTIONBYMARXIN1852In1907,Mehring,inthemagazineNeueZeit(Vol.XXV,2,p.164),published

extractsfromaletterfromMarxtoWeydemeyerdatedMarch5,1852.Thisletter,amongotherthings,containsthefollowingremarkableobservation:

“Andnowastomyself,nocreditisduetomefordiscoveringtheexistenceofclassesinmodernsociety,noryetthestrugglebetweenthem.Longbeforeme,bourgeoishistorianshaddescribedthehistoricaldevelopmentofthisclassstruggle,andbourgeoiseconomiststheeconomicanatomyoftheclasses.WhatIdidthatwasnewwastoprove:1)thattheexistenceofclassesisonlyboundupwithparticularhistoricalphasesinthedevelopmentofproduction[historischeEntwicklungsphasenderProduktion];2)thattheclassstrugglenecessarilyleadstothedictatorshipoftheproletariat;3)thatthisdictatorshipitselfonlyconstitutesthetransitiontotheabolitionofallclassesandtoaclasslesssociety.”

InthesewordsMarxsucceededinexpressingwithstrikingclarity,first,thechiefandradicaldifferencebetweenhisdoctrineandthoseofthemostadvancedandmostprofoundthinkersofthebourgeoisie;and,second,theessenceofhisdoctrineofthestate.

ItisoftensaidandwrittenthatthecoreofMarx’stheoryistheclassstruggle;butitisnottrue.Andfromthiserror,veryoften,springstheopportunistdistortionofMarxism,itsfalsificationtomakeitacceptabletothebourgeoisie.ThetheoryoftheclassstrugglewasnotcreatedbyMarx,butbythebourgeoisiebeforeMarx,andgenerallyspeakingitisacceptabletothebourgeoisie.ThosewhorecognizeonlytheclassstrugglearenotyetMarxists;thosemaybefoundtohavegonenofurtherthantheboundariesofbourgeoisreasoningandbourgeoispolitics.TolimitMarxismtothetheoryoftheclassstrugglemeanscurtailingMarxism,distortingit,reducingittosomethingwhichisacceptabletothebourgeoisie.AMarxistisonewhoextendstheacceptanceoftheclassstruggletotheacceptanceofthedictatorshipoftheproletariat.ThisiswheretheprofounddifferenceliesbetweenaMarxistand

anordinarypetty(andevenbig)bourgeois.ThisisthetouchstoneonwhichtherealunderstandingandacceptanceofMarxismshouldbetested.AnditisnotsurprisingthatwhenthehistoryofEuropebroughttheworkingclassfacetofacewiththisquestioninapracticalway,notonlyalltheopportunistsandreformists,butalltheKautskyists(thosewhovacillatebetweenreformismandMarxism)provedtobemiserablephilistinesandpetty-bourgeoisdemocratswhorepudiatedthedictatorshipoftheproletariat.Kautsky’spamphlet,TheDictatorshipoftheProletariat,publishedinAugust1918,i.e.,longafterthefirsteditionofthepresentpamphlet,isanexampleofthepetty-bourgeoisdistortionofMarxismandbaserenunciationofitinpractice,whilehypocriticallyrecognizingitinwords(seemypamphlet,TheProletarianRevolutionandtheRenegadeKautsky,PetrogradandMoscow,1918).

Present-dayopportunisminthepersonofitsprincipalrepresentative,theex-Marxist,K.Kautsky,fitsincompletelywithMarx’scharacterizationofthebourgeoispositionasquotedabove,forthisopportunismlimitsthefieldofrecognitionoftheclassstruggletotherealmofbourgeoisrelationships.(Withinthisrealm,withinitsframework,notasingleeducatedliberalwillrefusetorecognizetheclassstruggle“inprinciple”!)Opportunismdoesnotcarrytherecognitionofclassstruggletothemainpoint,totheperiodoftransitionfromcapitalismtocommunism,totheperiodoftheoverthrowandcompleteabolitionofthebourgeoisie.Inreality,thisperiodinevitablybecomesaperiodofunusuallyviolentclassstrugglesintheirsharpestpossibleformsand,therefore,duringthisperiod,thestatemustinevitablybeastatethatisdemocraticinanewway(fortheproletariatandthepropertylessingeneral)anddictatorialinanewway(againstthebourgeoisie).

Toproceed.TheessenceofMarx’sdoctrineofthestateisassimilatedonlybythosewhounderstandthatthedictatorshipofasingleclassisnecessarynotonlyforclasssocietyingeneral,notonlyfortheproletariatwhichhasoverthrownthebourgeoisie,butfortheentirehistoricalperiodbetweencapitalismand“classlesssociety,”communism.Theformsofthebourgeoisstateareextremelyvaried,butinessencetheyareallthesame:inonewayoranother,inthelastanalysis,allthesestatesareinevitablythedictatorshipofthebourgevisie.Thetransitionfromcapitalismtocommunismwillcertainlycreateagreatvarietyandabundanceofpoliticalforms,butinessencetherewillinevitablybeonlyone:thedictatorshipoftheproletariat.

CHAPTERIII

THESTATEANDREVOLUTION.EXPERIENCEOFTHEPARISCOMMUNEOF1871.MARX’SANALYSIS

1.WHEREINLAYTHEHEROISMOFTHECOMMUNARDS’ATTEMPT?Itiswellknownthatintheautumnof1870,afewmonthsbeforethe

Commune,MarxwarnedtheParisworkersthatanattempttooverthrowthegovernmentwouldbedesperatefolly.Butwhen,inMarch1871,adecisivebattlewasforcedupontheworkersandtheyacceptedit,whentheuprisinghadbecomeafact,Marxgreetedtheproletarianrevolutionwiththegreatestenthusiasm,inspiteofunfavorableauguries.Marxdidnotassumetherigidattitudeofpedanticallycondemninga“premature”movementasdidtheill-famedRussianrenegadefromMarxism,Plekhanov,who,inNovember1905,wroteencouraginglyabouttheworkers’andpeasants’strugglebut,afterDecember1905,cried,liberalfashion:“Theyshouldnothavetakentoarms.”

Marx,however,wasnotonlyenthusiasticabouttheheroismoftheCommunardswho“stormedtheheavens,”asheexpressedit.Althoughitdidnotachieveitsaim,heregardedthemassrevolutionarymovementasahistoricexperimentofgiganticimportance,asanadvanceoftheworldproletarianrevolution,asapracticalstepthatwasmoreimportantthanhundredsofprogramsanddiscussions.Marxconceivedhistasktobetoanalyzethisexperiment,todrawlessonsintacticsfromit,tore-examinehistheoryinthenewlightitafforded.

Marxmadetheonly“correction”hethoughtitnecessarytomakeinTheCommunistManifestoonthebasisoftherevolutionaryexperienceoftheParisCommunards.

ThelastprefacetothenewGermaneditionofTheCommunistManifesto

signedbybothitsauthorsisdatedJune24,1872.Inthisprefacetheauthors,KarlMarxandFrederickEngels,saythattheprogramofTheCommunistManifesto“hasinsomedetailsbecomeantiquated”now,andtheygoontosay:

“OnethingespeciallywasprovedbytheCommune,viz.,that‘theworkingclasscannotsimplylayholdoftheready-madestatemachineryandwielditforitsownpurposes.’”

Theauthorstookthewordsinsinglequotationmarksintheabove-quotedpassagefromMarx’sbook,TheCivilWarinFrance.

Thus,MarxandEngelsregardedoneoftheprincipalandfundamentallessonsoftheParisCommuneasbeingofsuchenormousimportancethattheyintroduceditasavitalcorrectioninTheCommunistManifesto.

Itisextremelycharacteristicthatitispreciselythisvitalcorrectionthathasbeendistortedbytheopportunists,anditsmeaning,probably,isnotknowntonine-tenths,ifnotninety-nine-hundredths,ofthereadersofTheCommunistManifesto.Weshalldealwiththisdistortionmorefullyfurtheron,inachapterdevotedspeciallytodistortions.Hereitwillbesufficienttonotethatthecurrentvulgar“interpretation”ofMarx’sfamousutterancequotedaboveisthatMarxhereemphasizestheideaofgradualdevelopmentincontradistinctiontotheseizureofpower,andsoon.

Asamatteroffact,exactlytheoppositeisthecase.Marx’sideaisthattheworkingclassmustbreakup,smashthe“ready-madestatemachinery,”andnotconfineitselfmerelytolayingholdofit.

OnApril12,1871,i.e.,justatthetimeoftheCommune,MarxwrotetoKugelmann:

“IfyoulookatthelastchapterofmyEighteenthBrumaire,youwillfindthatIsaythatthenextattemptoftheFrenchRevolutionwillbenolonger,asbefore,totransferthebureaucratic-militarymachinefromonehandtoanother,buttosmashit[Marx’sitalics—theoriginaliszerbrechen];andthisisessentialforeveryrealpeople’srevolutionontheContinent.AndthisiswhatourheroicPartycomradesinParisareattempting.”105

Thewords,“tosmash”“thebureaucratic-militarystatemachine,”briefly

expresstheprincipallessonofMarxismonthetasksoftheproletariatinrelationtothestateduringarevolution.Anditispreciselythislessonthathasbeennotonlycompletelyforgotten,butpositivelydistorted,intheprevailingKautskyan“interpretation”ofMarxism.

AsforMarx’sreferencetoTheEighteenthBrumaire,wequotedthecorrespondingpassageinfullabove.

Itisinterestingtonotetwoparticularpointsintheabove-quotedpassageinMarx’sargument.First,heconfineshisconclusionstotheContinent.Thiswasnaturalin1871,whenEnglandwasstillthemodelofapurelycapitalistcountry,butwithoutmilitarismand,toaconsiderabledegree,withoutabureaucracy.Hence,MarxexcludedEngland,wherearevolution,evenapeople’srevolutioncouldbeconceivedof,andwasthenpossible,withouttheconditionoffirstdestroyingthe“ready-madestatemachinery.”

Today,in1917,intheepochofthefirstgreatimperialistwar,Marx’sexceptionisnolongervalid.BothEnglandandAmerica,thegreatestandlastrepresentativesofAnglo-Saxon“liberty,”inthesensethatmilitarismandbureaucracyareabsent,havetodayplungedheadlongintotheall-European,filthy,bloodymorassofbureaucratic-militaryinstitutionstowhicheverythingissubordinatedandwhichtrampleeverythingunderfoot.Today,bothinEnglandandAmerica,the“essential”thingfor“everyrealpeople’srevolution”isthesmashing,thedestructionofthe“ready-madestatemachinery”(broughtinthosecountries,between1914and1917,togeneral“European”imperialistperfection).

Secondly,particularattentionshouldbepaidtoMarx’sextremelyprofoundremarkthatthedestructionofthemilitaryandbureaucraticstatemachineis“essentialforeveryrealpeople’srevolution.”Thisideaofa“people’s”revolutionseemsstrangecomingfromMarx,andtheRussianPlekhanovistsandMensheviks,thosefollowersofStruvewhowishtoberegardedasMarxists,mightpossiblydeclaresuchanexpressiontobea“slipofthepen.”TheyhavereducedMarxismtosuchastateofwretched“liberal”distortionthatnothingexistsforthembeyondtheantithesisbetweenbourgeoisrevolutionandproletarianrevolution—andeventhisantithesistheyinterpretinanentirelylifelessway.

If,forexample,wetaketherevolutionsofthetwentiethcentury,weshall,ofcourse,havetoadmitthatthePortugueseandtheTurkishrevolutionsarebourgeoisrevolutions.Neither,however,isa“people‘s”revolution,inasmuch

asinneitherofthemdoesthemassofthepeople,theenormousmajority,comeoutactively,independently,withitsowneconomicandpoliticaldemands.Ontheotherhand,althoughtheRussianbourgeoisrevolutionof1905-07presentednosuch“brilliant”successesasattimesfelltothelotofthePortugueseandTurkishrevolutions,itwasundoubtedlya“realpeople’s”revolution,sincethemassofthepeople,themajority,the“lowestsocialranks,”crushedbyoppressionandexploitation,roseindependently,sincetheyputontheentirecourseoftherevolutiontheimpressoftheirdemands,oftheirattemptstobuildintheirownwayanewsocietyinplaceoftheoldsocietythatwasbeingdestroyed.

InEurope,in1871,therewasnotasinglecountryontheContinentinwhichtheproletariatconstitutedthemajorityofthepeople.A“people’s”revolution,thatsweptactuallythemajorityintoitsstream,couldbesuchonlyifitembracedtheproletariatandthepeasantry.Bothclassesthenconstitutedthe“people.”Bothclasseswereunitedbythefactthatthe“bureaucratic-militarystatemachine”oppressed,crushed,exploitedthem.Tosmashthismachine,tobreakitup—thisiswhatistrulyintheinterestsofthe“people,”ofthemajority,theworkersandmostofthepeasants,thisiswhatis“essential”forthefreealliancebetweenthepoorpeasantryandtheproletarians;withoutsuchanalliancedemocracyisunstableandthesocialistreformationisimpossible.

Asiswellknown,theParisCommunestroveforsuchanalliance,althoughitfailedtoachieveitowingtoanumberofcircumstances,internalandexternal.

Consequently,inspeakingofa“realpeople’srevolution,”Marx,withoutintheleastforgettingthepeculiarcharacteristicsofthepettybourgeoisie(hespokeagreatdealaboutthemandoften),verycarefullytookintoaccounttheclassrelationsthatactuallyexistedinthemajorityofcontinentalcountriesinEuropein1871.Ontheotherhand,heassertedthatthe“smashing”ofthestatemachinewasnecessaryintheinterestsoftheworkersandofthepeasants,thatitunitesthem,thatitplacesbeforethemthecommontaskofremovingthe“parasite”andofsubstitutingsomethingnewforit.

Whatexactly?

2.WHATIs TOSUPERSEDETHESMASHEDSTATEMACHINE?In1847,inTheCommunistManifesto,Marx’sanswertothisquestionwas

stillapurelyabstractone,or,tospeakmorecorrectly,itwasananswerthatindicatedtheproblem,butdidnotsolveit.TheanswergiveninTheCommunistManifestowasthat“theproletariatorganizedastherulingclass”“towinthebattleofdemocracy”wastobethesubstituteforthismachine.

Marxdidnotdropintoutopia;heexpectedtheexperienceofthemassmovementtoprovidethereplytothequestionoftheexactformstheorganizationoftheproletariatastherulingclasswillassumeandtheexactmannerinwhichthisorganizationwillbecombinedwiththemostcomplete,mostconsistentwinningof“thebattleofdemocracy.”

MarxsubjectedtheexperienceoftheCommune,meagerasitwas,tothemostcarefulanalysisinTheCivilWarinFrance.Letusquotethemostimportantpassagesofthiswork.

Theredevelopedinthenineteenthcentury,hesays,originatingfromthedaysoftheMiddleAges,“thecentralizedstatepower,withitsubiquitousorgansofstandingarmy,police,bureaucracy,clergyandjudicature.”Withthedevelopmentofclassantagonismsbetweencapitalandlabor“...thestatepowerassumedmoreandmorethecharacterofthenationalpowerofcapitaloverlabor,ofapublicforceorganizedforsocialenslavement,ofanengineofclassdespotism.Aftereveryrevolutionmarkingaprogressivephaseintheclassstruggle,thepurelyrepressivecharacterofthestatepowerstandsoutinbolderandbolderrelief.”AftertheRevolutionof1848-49,thestatepowerbecame“thenationalwarengineofcapitalagainstlabor.”TheSecondEmpireconsolidatedthis.

“ThedirectantithesistotheEmpirewastheCommune,”saysMarx.Itwasthe“positiveform”of“arepublicthatwasnotonlytosupersedethemonarchicalformofclassrule,butclassruleitself.”

Whatwasthis“positive”formoftheproletarian,thesocialistrepublic?Whatwasthestateitwasbeginningtocreate?

“ThefirstdecreeoftheCommune...wasthesuppressionofthestandingarmy,andthesubstitutionforitofthearmedpeople,”saysMarx.

ThisdemandnowfiguresintheprogramofeverypartycallingitselfSocialist.ButthevalueoftheirprogramisbestshownbythebehaviorofourSocialist-RevolutionariesandMensheviks,who,preciselyaftertherevolutionofMarch12,1917,refusedtocarryoutthisdemand!

“TheCommunewasformedofthemunicipalcouncillors,chosenbyuniversalsuffrageinthevariouswardsofthetown,responsibleandrevocableatshortterms.Themajorityofitsmemberswerenaturallyworkingmen,oracknowledgedrepresentativesoftheworkingclass....InsteadofcontinuingtobetheagentoftheCentralGovernment,thepolicewasatoncestrippedofitspoliticalattributes,andturnedintotheresponsibleandatalltimesrevocableagentoftheCommune.Soweretheofficialsofallotherbranchesoftheadministration.FromthemembersoftheCommunedownwards,thepublicservicehadtobedoneatworkmen’swages.Thevestedinterestsandtherepresentationallowancesofthehighdignitariesofstatedisappearedalongwiththehighdignitariesthemselves....

“Havingoncegotridofthestandingarmyandthepolice,thephysicalforceelementsoftheoldgovernment,theCommunewasanxioustobreakthespiritualforceofrepression,the‘parson-power.’...

“Thejudicialfunctionariesweretobedivestedof[their]shamindependence....Liketherestofthepublicservants,magistratesandjudgesweretobeelective,responsibleandrevocable.”

ThustheCommuneappearstohavesubstituted“only”fullerdemocracyforthesmashedstatemachine:abolitionofthestandingarmy;allofficialstobeelectedandsubjecttorecall.Butasamatteroffactthis“only”signifiestheveryimportantsubstitutionofonetypeofinstitutionforothersofafundamentallydifferentorder.Thisisacaseof“quantitybecomingtransformedintoquality”:democracy,introducedasfullyandconsistentlyasisgenerallyconceivable,istransformedfrombourgeoisdemocracyintoproletariandemocracy;fromthestate(i.e.,aspecialforceforthesuppressionofaparticularclass)intosomethingwhichisnolongerreallyastate.

Itisstillnecessarytosuppressthebourgeoisieandcrushitsresistance.ThiswasparticularlynecessaryfortheCommune;andoneofthereasonsforitsdefeatwasthatitdidnotdothiswithsufficientdetermination.Buttheorganofsuppressionisnowthemajorityofthepopulation,andnottheminority,aswasalwaysthecaseunderslavery,serfdomandwage-slavery.Andsincethemajorityofthepeopleitselfsuppressesitsoppressors,a“specialforce”forsuppressionisnolongernecessary.Inthissensethestatebeginstowitheraway.

Insteadofthespecialinstitutionsofaprivilegedminority(privilegedofficialdom,headsofthestandingarmy),themajorityitselfcandirectlyfulfilallthesefunctions,andthemorethefunctionsofstatepowerdevolveuponthepeoplegenerally,thelessneedistherefortheexistenceofthispower.

InthisconnectionthemeasuresadoptedbytheCommuneandemphasizedbyMarxareparticularlynoteworthy,viz.,theabolitionofallrepresentationallowances,andofallmonetaryprivilegesinthecaseofofficials,thereductionoftheremunerationofallservantsofthestatetothelevelof“workmen’swages.”Thisshowsmoreclearlythananythingelsetheturnfrombourgeoisdemocracytoproletariandemocracy,fromthedemocracyoftheoppressorstothedemocracyoftheoppressedclasses,fromthestateasa“specialforce”forthesuppressionofagivenclasstothesuppressionoftheoppressorsbythegeneralforceofthemajorityofthepeople—theworkersandthepeasants.Anditispreciselyonthismoststrikingpoint,perhapsthemostimportantasfarastheproblemofthestateisconcerned,thattheteachingsofMarxhavebeenmostcompletelyforgotten!Inpopularcommentaries,thenumberofwhichislegion,thisisnotmentioned.Itis“goodform”tokeepsilentaboutitasifitwereapieceofold-fashioned“naiveté,”justastheChristians,afterChristianityhadattainedthepositionofastatereligion,“forgot”the“naiveté”ofprimitiveChristianitywithitsdemocraticrevolutionaryspirit.

Thereductionoftheremunerationofthehigheststateofficialsseemstobe“simply”ademandofnaive,primitivedemocracy.Oneofthe“founders”ofmodernopportunism,theex-Social-Democrat,EduardBernstein,hasmorethanonceexercisedhistalentsinrepeatingthevulgarbourgeoisjeersat“primitive”democracy.Likeallopportunists,includingthepresentKautskyists,heutterlyfailstounderstandthat,firstofall,thetransitionfromcapitalismtosocialismisimpossiblewithoutsome“reversion”to“primitive”democracy(howelsecanthemajority,andeventhewholepopulation,proceedtodischargestatefunctions?);and,secondly,heforgetsthat“primitivedemocracy”basedoncapitalismandcapitalistcultureisnotthesameasprimitivedemocracyinprehistoricorpre-capitalisttimes.Capitalistculturehascreatedlarge-scaleproduction,factories,railways,thepostalservice,telephones,etc.,andonthisbasisthegreatmajorityoffunctionsoftheold“statepower”havebecomesosimplifiedandcanbereducedtosuchsimpleoperationsofregistration,filingandcheckingthattheycanbeeasilyperformedbyeveryliterateperson,anditwillbepossibletoperformthemfor“workmen’swages,”whichcircumstancescan(andmust)stripthosefunctions

ofeveryshadowofprivilege,ofeverysemblanceof“officialgrandeur.”

Allofficials,withoutexception,electedandsubjecttorecallatanytime,theirsalariesreducedtothelevelof“workmen’swages”—thesesimpleand“self-evident”democraticmeasures,whilecompletelyunitingtheinterestsoftheworkersandthemajorityofthepeasants,atthesametimeserveasthebridgebetweencapitalismandsocialism.Thesemeasuresconcernthepurelypoliticalreconstructionofsociety;but,ofcourse,theyacquiretheirfullmeaningandsignificanceonlyinconnectionwiththe“expropriationoftheexpropriators,”eitheraccomplishedorinpreparation,i.e.,withthetransformationofcapitalistprivateownershipofthemeansofproductionintosocialownership.Marxwrote:

“TheCommonsmadethatcatchwordofbourgeoisrevolutions,cheapgovernment,arealitybydestroyingthetwogreatestsourcesofexpenditure—thestandingarmyandstatefunctionarism.”

Fromthepeasantry,asfromothersectionsofthepettybourgeoisie,onlyaninsignificantfew“risetothetop,”“getonintheworld”inthebourgeoissense,i.e.,becomeeitherwell-to-dopeople,bourgeoisorofficialsinsecureandprivilegedpositions.Ineverycapitalistcountrywherethereisapeasantry(andthisisthecaseinmostcapitalistcountries),thevastmajorityofthepeasantsisoppressedbythegovernmentandlongsforitsoverthrow,longsfor“cheap”government.Thiscanbeachievedonlybytheproletariat;andbyachievingit,theproletariatatthesametimetakesastepforwardtowardsthesocialistreconstructionofthestate.

3.THEABOLITIONOFPARLIAMENTARISMMarxsaid:

“TheCommunewastobeaworking,notaparliamentarybody,executiveandlegislativeatthesametime....

“Insteadofdecidingonceinthreeorsixyearswhichmemberoftherulingclasswastomisrepresentthepeopleinparliament,universalsuffragewastoservethepeople,constitutedin

Communes,asindividualsuffrageserveseveryotheremployerinthesearchfortheworkmenandmanagersinhisbusiness.”

Thankstotheprevalenceofsocial-chauvinismandopportunism,thisremarkablecriticismofparliamentarismmadein1871alsobelongsnowtothe“forgottenwords”ofMarxism.TheCabinetMinistersandprofessionalparliamentarians,thetraitorstotheproletariatandthe“practical”Socialistsofourday,haveleftallcriticismofparliamentarismtotheanarchists,and,onthiswonderfullyintelligentground,theydenounceallcriticismofparliamentarismas“anarchism”!!Itisnotsurprisingthattheproletariatofthe“advanced”parliamentarycountries,disgustedwithsuch“Socialists”asMessrs.Scheidemann,David,Legien,Sembat,Renaudel,Henderson,Vandervelde,Stauning,Branting,BissolatiandCo.,106hasbeenmoreandmoreoftengivingitssympathiestoanarcho-syndicalism,inspiteofthefactthatthelatterisbutthetwinbrotherofopportunism.

ButforMarx,revolutionarydialecticswasnevertheemptyfashionablephrase,thetoyrattle,whichPlekhanov,Kautskyandtheothershavemadeofit.Marxknewhowtobreakwithanarchismruthlesslyforitsinabilitytomakeuseevenofthe“pig-sty”ofbourgeoisparliamentarism,especiallyatatimewhenthesituationwasobviouslynotrevolutionary;butatthesametimeheknewhowtosubjectparliamentarismtogenuinerevolutionary-proletariancriticism.

Todecideonceeveryfewyearswhichmemberoftherulingclassistomisrepresentthepeopleinparliamentistherealessenceofbourgeoisparliamentarism,notonlyinparliamentary-constitutionalmonarchies,butalsointhemostdemocraticrepublics.

Butsincewearediscussingthequestionofthestate,andifparliamentarismistoberegardedasoneoftheinstitutionsofthestatefromthepointofviewofthetasksoftheproletariatinthisfield,whatisthewayoutofparliamentarism?Howcanitbedispensedwith?

Againandagainwemustrepeat:thelessonsofMarx,basedonthestudyoftheCommune,havebeensocompletelyforgottenthatanycriticismofparliamentarism,otherthananarchistorreactionarycriticism,isquiteunintelligibletothepresent-day“Social-Democrat”(readpresent-daytraitortosocialism).

Thewayoutofparliamentarismisnot,ofcourse,theabolitionoftherepresentativeinstitutionsandtheelectoralprinciple,buttheconversionofthe

representativeinstitutionsfrommere“talkingshops”intoworkingbodies.

“TheCommunewastobeaworking,notaparliamentarybody,executiveandlegislativeatthesametime.”

“Aworking,notaparliamentarybody”—thishitsthenailontheheadinregardtothepresent-dayparliamentariansandtheparliamentary“lapdogs”ofSocial-Democracy!Takeanyparliamentarycountry,fromAmericatoSwitzerland,fromFrancetoEngland,Norwayandsoforth—inthesecountriestheactualworkofthe“state”isdonebehindthescenesandiscarriedonbythedepartments,thegovernmentofficesandtheGeneralStaffs.Parliamentitselfisgivenuptotalkforthespecialpurposeoffoolingthe“commonpeople.”ThisissotruethatevenintheRussianrepublic,abourgeois-democraticrepublic,allthesesinsofparliamentarismwereimmediatelyrevealed,evenbeforearealparliamentwascreated.Theheroesofrottenphilistinism,suchastheSkobelevsandtheTseretellis,theChernovsandAvksentyevs,havemanagedtopolluteeventheSovietswiththepollutionofdisgustingbourgeoisparliamentarismandtoconvertthemintomeretalkingshops.IntheSoviets,theRightHonorable“Socialist”Ministersarefoolingtheconfidingpeasantswithphrasemongeringandresolutions.Inthegovernmentitselfasortofpermanentquadrilleisgoingoninorderthat,ontheonehand,asmanySocialist-RevolutionariesandMensheviksaspossiblemaygetnearthe“pie,”thelucrativeandhonorableposts,andthat,ontheotherhand,the“attentionofthepeople”maybeengaged.Meanwhile,thereal“state”businessisbeingdoneinthegovernmentoffices,intheGeneralStaff.

DyeloNaroda,theorganoftheruling“Socialist-Revolutionary”Party,recentlyadmittedinaneditorialarticle—withthematchlesscandorofpeopleof“goodsociety,”inwhich“all”areengagedinpoliticalprostitution—thateveninthoseMinistriesofwhichthe“Socialists”(savethemark)areatthehead,thewholebureaucraticapparatushasinfactremainedasbefore,thatitisworkingintheoldway,“freely”sabotagingrevolutionarymeasures.Evenwithoutthisadmission,wouldnottheactualhistoryoftheparticipationoftheSocialist-RevolutionariesandMensheviksinthegovernmentprovethis?TheonlycharacteristicthinginthisisthatwhileintheMinisterialcompanyoftheCadets,Messrs.Chernov,Rusanov,ZenzinovandtheothereditorsofDyeloNarodahavesocompletelylostallshamethattheyunblushinglyproclaim,as

ifitwereamerebagatelle,thatin“their”Ministrieseverythinghasremainedasbefore!Revolutionary-democraticphrasestogulltheSimpleSimons;bureaucracyandredtapeforthe“benefit”ofthecapitalists—thisistheessenceofthe“honest”coalition.

TheCommunewastohavesubstitutedforthevenalandrottenparliamentarismofbourgeoissocietyinstitutionsinwhichfreedomofopinionanddiscussionwouldnothavedegeneratedintodeception,fortheparliamentarianswouldhavehadtoworkthemselves,wouldhavehadtoexecutetheirownlaws,theythemselveswouldhavehadtotesttheirresultsinreallife;theywouldhavebeendirectlyresponsibletotheirconstituents.Representativeinstitutionswouldhaveremained,buttherewastohavebeennoparliamentarismasaspecialsystem,asthedivisionoflaborbetweenthelegislativeandtheexecutive,asaprivilegedpositionfordeputies.Wecannotimaginedemocracy,notevenproletariandemocracy,withoutrepresentativeinstitutions,butwecanandmustthinkofdemocracywithoutparliamentarism,ifcriticismofbourgeoissocietyisnotmereemptywordsforus,ifthedesiretooverthrowtheruleofthebourgeoisieisourseriousandsinceredesire,andnotamere“election”cryforcatchingworkers’votes,asitiswiththeMensheviksandSocialist-Revolutionaries,theScheidemanns,theLegiens,theSembatsandtheVanderveldes.

Itisextremelyinstructivetonotethat,inspeakingofthefunctionsoftheofficialswhoarenecessaryfortheCommuneandforproletariandemocracy,Marxcomparesthemtotheworkersof“everyotheremployer,”thatis,oftheordinarycapitalistenterprise,withits“workmenandmanagers.”

ThereisnotraceofutopianisminMarx,inthesensethatheinventedorimagineda“newsociety.”No,hestudiedthebirthofthenewsocietyfromtheold,theformsoftransitionfromthelattertotheformerasanaturalhistoricalprocess.Heexaminedtheactualexperienceofthemassproletarianmovementandtriedtodrawpracticallessonsfromit.He“learned”fromtheCommune,likeallthegreatrevolutionarythinkerswhowerenotafraidtolearnfromtheexperienceofthegreatmovementsoftheoppressedclasses,andwhoneverpreachedpedantic“sermons”(suchasPlekhanov’s:“Theyshouldnothavetakentoarms”;orTseretelli’s:“Aclassmustlimititself”).

Therecanbenothoughtofdestroyingofficialdomimmediatelyeverywhere,completely.Thatisutopia.Buttosmashtheoldbureaucraticmachineatonceandtobeginimmediatelytoconstructanewonethatwillenableallofficialdomtobegraduallyabolishedisnotutopia,itisthe

experienceoftheCommune,itisthedirectandimmediatetaskoftherevolutionaryproletariat.

Socialismsimplifiesthefunctionsof“state”administration;itenablesthemethodsof“officialadministration”tobethrownasideandthewholebusinesstobereducedtoamatteroforganizingtheproletarians(astherulingclass),whichhires“workmenandmanagers”inthenameofthewholeofsociety.

Wearenotutopians,wedonotindulgein“dreams”ofdispensingatoncewithalladministration,withallsubordination;theseanarchistdreams,baseduponalackofunderstandingofthetasksoftheproletariandictatorship,aretotallyalientoMarxism,and,asamatteroffact,serveonlytopostponethesocialistrevolutionuntilhumannaturehaschanged.No,wewantthesocialistrevolutionwithhumannatureasitisnow,withhumannaturethatcannotdispensewithsubordination,controland“managers.”

Butthesubordinationmustbetothearmedvanguardofalltheexploited,ofallthetoilers,i.e.,totheproletariat.Measuresmustbetakenatonce,overnight,tosubstituteforthespecificmethodsof“officialadministration”bystateofficialsthesimplefunctionsof“workmenandmanagers,”functionswhicharealreadyfullywithinthecapacityoftheaveragecitydwellerandcanwellbeperformedfor“workmen’swages.”

Weourselves,theworkers,willorganizelarge-scaleproductiononthebasisofwhatcapitalismhasalreadycreated;weshallrelyonourownexperienceasworkers,weshallestablishstrict,irondisciplinesupportedbythestatepowerofthearmedworkers,weshallreducetheroleofthestateofficialstothatofsimplycarryingoutourinstructionsasresponsible,revocable,moderatelypaid“managers”(ofcourse,withtheaidoftechniciansofallsorts,typesanddegrees).Thisisourproletariantask,thisiswhatwecanandmuststartwithincarryingouttheproletarianrevolution.Suchabeginning,onthebasisoflarge-scaleproduction,willofitselfleadtothegradual“witheringaway”ofallbureaucracy,tothegradualcreationofanorder,orderwithoutquotationmarks,whichwillbedifferentfromwage-slavery,anorderinwhichthefunctionsofcontrolandaccounting—becomingmoreandmoresimple—willbeperformedbyeachinturn,willthenbecomeahabitandwillfinallydieoutasthespecialfunctionsofaspecialstratumofthepopulation.

AwittyGermanSocial-Democratoftheseventiesofthelastcenturycalledthepost-officeanexampleofthesocialistsystem.Thisisverytrue.Atpresentthepost-officeisabusinessorganizedonthelinesofastatecapitalist

monopoly.Imperialismisgraduallytransformingalltrustsintoorganizationsofasimilartype.Overthe“common”toilers,whoareoverworkedandstarved,therestandsthesamebourgeoisbureaucracy.Butthemechanismofsocialmanagementisherealreadytohand.Overthrowthecapitalists,crushtheresistanceoftheseexploiterswiththeironhandofthearmedworkers,smashthebureaucraticmachineofthemodernstate—andyouwillhaveamechanismofthehighesttechnicalequipment,freefromthe“parasite,”capableofbeingwieldedbytheunitedworkersthemselves,whowillhiretheirowntechnicians,managersandbookkeepers,andpaythemall,as,indeedevery“state”official,ordinaryworkmen’swages.Hereisaconcrete,practicabletask,immediatelypossibleoffulfilmentinrelationtoalltrusts,ataskthatfreesthetoilersfromexploitationandtakesintoaccountwhattheCommunehadalreadybeguntocarryout(particularlyinthefieldofstateconstruction).

Ourimmediateobjectistoorganizethewholeofnationaleconomyonthelinesofthepostalsystem,sothatthetechnicians,managers,bookkeepers,aswellasallofficials,shallreceivesalariesnohigherthan“workmen’swages,”allunderthecontrolandleadershipofthearmedproletariat.Itissuchastate,standingonsuchaneconomicbasis,thatweneed.Thisiswhatwillbringabouttheabolitionofparliamentarismandthepreservationofrepresentativeinstitutions.Thisiswhatwillridthelaboringclassesoftheprostitutionoftheseinstitutionsbythebourgeoisie.

4 .THEORGANIZATIONOFNATIONALUNITY“InaroughsketchofnationalorganizationwhichtheCommunehadnotime

todevelop,itstatesclearlythattheCommunewastobethepoliticalformofeventhesmallestcountryhamlet....”

Thecommunesweretoelectthe“NationalDelegation”inParis.

“Thefewbutimportantfunctionswhichstillwouldremainforacentralgovernmentwerenottobesuppressed,ashasbeenintentionallymisstated,butweretobedischargedbyCommunalandthereforestrictlyresponsibleagents.Theunityofthenationwasnottobebroken,but,onthecontrary,tobeorganizedbytheCommunalconstitutions,andtobecomearealitybythedestruction

ofthestatepowerwhichclaimedtobetheembodimentofthatunityindependentof,andsuperiorto,thenationitself,fromwhichitwasbutaparasiticexcrescence.Whilethemerelyrepressiveorgansoftheoldgovernmentalpowerweretobeamputated,itslegitimatefunctionsweretobewrestedfromanauthorityusurpingpre-eminenceoversocietyitself,andrestoredtotheresponsibleagentsofsociety.”

Towhatextenttheopportunistsofpresent-daySocial-Democracyhavefailedtounderstand—orperhapsitwouldbemoretruetosay,didnotwanttounderstand—theseobservationsofMarxisbestshownbythefamous(thefameofHerostratus)bookoftherenegadeBernstein,DieVoraussetz-ungendesSozialismusunddieAufgabenderSozialdemokratie.ItispreciselyinconnectionwiththeabovepassagefromMarxthatBernsteinwrotethatthisprogram

“...initspoliticalcontent,inallitsessentialfeatures,displaysthegreatestsimilaritytothefederalismofProudhon....InspiteofalltheotherpointsofdifferencebetweenMarxandthe‘petty-bourgeois’Proudhon[Bernsteinplacestheword’petty-bourgeois’inquotationmarksinordertomakeitsoundironical],onthesepointstheirwaysofthinkingresembleeachotherascloselyascouldbe.”

Ofcourse,Bernsteincontinues,theimportanceofthemunicipalitiesisgrowing,but

“...itseemsdoubtfultomewhetherthefirsttaskofdemocracywouldbesuchadissolution[Auflösung]ofthemodernstatesandsuchacompletetransformation[Umwandlung]oftheirorganizationasisdescribedbyMarxandProudhon(theformationofaNationalAssemblyfromdelegatesoftheprovincialordistrictassemblies,which,intheirturn,wouldconsistofdelegatesfromtheCommune),sothatthewholepreviousmodeofnationalrepresentationwouldvanishcompletely.”

ToconfuseMarx’sviewsonthe“destructionofthestatepower”—ofthe“parasiticexcrescence”—withProudhon’sfederalismispositivelymonstrous!Butitisnotanaccident,foritneveroccurstotheopportunistthatMarxdoesnotspeakhereaboutfederalismasopposedtocentralism,butaboutsmashingtheoldbourgeoisstatemachinewhichexistsinallbourgeoiscountries.

Theonlythingthatpenetratestheopportunist’smindiswhatheseesaroundhim,inasocietyofpetty-bourgeoisphilistinismand“reformist”stagnation,namely,only“municipalities”!Theopportunisthasevenforgottenhowtothinkabouttheproletarianrevolution.

Itisridiculous.ButitisremarkablethatnobodydisputedBernsteinonthispoint!Bernsteinhasbeenrefutedoftenenough,especiallybyPlekhanovinRussianliteratureandbyKautskyinEuropeanliterature,butneitherofthemsaidanythingaboutthisdistortionofMarxbyBernstein.

Theopportunisthasforgottentothinkinarevolutionarywayandtoponderoverrevolutiontosuchanextentthatheattributes“federalism”toMarxandconfuseshimwiththefounderofanarchism,Proudhon.AndKautskyandPlekhanov,thewould-beorthodoxMarxistsanddefendersofthedoctrineofrevolutionaryMarxism,aresilentonthispoint!HereinliesoneoftherootsoftheextremevulgarizationoftheviewsconcerningthedifferencebetweenMarxismandanarchismwhichischaracteristicoftheKautskyistsandopportunists,andwhichweshalldiscusslater.

Marx’sobservationsontheexperienceoftheCommunewhichwequotedabovedonotrevealatraceoffederalism.MarxagreedwithProudhonontheverypointthattheopportunistBernsteinfailedtosee.MarxdisagreedwithProudhonontheverypointonwhichBernsteinsaidtherewasagreement.

MarxagreedwithProudhononthenecessityof“smashing”thepresentstatemachine.NeithertheKautskyistsnortheopportunistswishtoseethissimilaritybetweenMarxismandanarchism(ProudhonandBakunin)becauseonthispointtheyhavedepartedfromMarxism.

MarxdifferedwithProudhonandwithBakuninpreciselyonthepointoffederalism(quiteapartfromthedictatorshipoftheproletariat).Thepetty-bourgeoisviewsofanarchismadvancefederalismasaprinciple.Marxwasacentralist.ThereisnodeparturefromcentralismintheobservationsofMarxquotedabove.Onlythosewhoareimbuedwiththepetty-bourgeois“superstitiousbelief”inthestatecanmistaketheabolitionofthebourgeois

statemachinefortheabolitionofcentralism!

Butwillitnotbecentralismwhentheproletariatandpoorestpeasantrytakepoliticalpowerintheirownhands,organizethemselvesfreelyincommunes,andunitetheactionofallthecommunesinstrikingatcapital,incrushingtheresistanceofthecapitalists,intransferringtheownershipoftherailways,factories,landandsoforth,totheentirenation,tothewholeofsociety?Willthatnotbethemostconsistentdemocraticcentralism?Andproletariancentralismatthat?

Bernsteinsimplycannotconceivethepossibilityofvoluntarycentralism,ofthevoluntaryamalgamationofthecommunesintoanation,thevoluntaryfusionoftheproletariancommunesintheprocessofdestroyingbourgeoisruleandthebourgeoisstatemachine.Likeallphilistines,Bernsteincanimaginecentralismonlyassomethingfromabove,tobeimposedandmaintainedsolelybymeansofbureaucracyandmilitarism.

Marx,asthoughforeseeingthepossibilityofthedistortionofhisideas,deliberatelyemphasizedthefactthatthechargethattheCommunedesiredtodestroytheunityofthenation,toabolishthecentralpower,wasanintentionalmisstatement.Marxdeliberatelyusedthewords:“Theunityofthenationwas...tobeorganized,”soastocontrastconscious,democraticproletariancentralismwithbourgeois,military,bureaucraticcentralism.

Butnooneissodeafashewhowillnothear.Andtheverythingtheopportunistsofpresent-daySocial-Democracydonotwanttohearaboutistheabolitionofstatepower,theexcisionoftheparasite.

5.THEABOLITIONOFTHEPARASITESTATEWehavealreadyquotedpartofMarx’sutterancesonthissubject,andwe

mustnowsupplementthem.Hewrote:

“Itisgenerallythefateofcompletelynewhistoricalcreationstobemistakenforthecounterpartofolderandevendefunctformsofsociallife,towhichtheymaybearacertainlikeness.Thus,thisnewCommune,whichbreaksthemodernstatepower,hasbeenmistakenforareproductionofthemediaevalCommunes...for...afederationofsmallstates,asdreamtofbyMontesquieuandtheGirondins...foranexaggeratedformoftheancientstruggleagainstover-centralization....TheCommunalconstitutionwouldhaverestoredtothesocialbodyalltheforceshithertoabsorbedbythestateparasitefeedinguponandcloggingthefreemovementofsociety.Bythisoneactitwouldhave

initiatedtheregenerationofFrance....TheCommunalconstitutionbroughttheruralproducersundertheintellectualleadofthecentraltownsoftheirdistricts,andtheresecuredtothem,intheworkingmen,thenaturaltrusteesoftheirinterests.TheveryexistenceoftheCommuneinvolved,asamatterofcourse,localmunicipalliberty,butnolongerasacheckuponthenowsupersededstatepower.”

“Breaksthemodernstatepower,”whichwasa“parasiticexcrescence”;the“respectiveorgans”ofwhichweretobe“amputated”;the“destruction”of“thenowsupersededstatepower”—thesearetheexpressionsusedbyMarxconcerningthestateinappraisingandanalyzingtheexperienceoftheCommune.

Allthiswaswrittenalittlelessthanhalfacenturyago;andnowonehastomakeexcavations,asitwere,tobringundistortedMarxismtotheknowledgeofthemasses.Theconclusionsdrawnfromtheobservationofthelastgreatrevolution,throughwhichMarxlived,wereforgottenjustatthemomentwhenthetimeforthenextgreatproletarianrevolutionshadarrived.

“ThemultiplicityofinterpretationstowhichtheCommunehasbeensubjectedandthemultiplicityofinterestswhichconstrueditintheirfavorshowthatitwasathoroughlyexpansivepoliticalform,whileallpreviousformsofgovernmenthadbeenemphaticallyrepressive.Itstruesecretwasthis.Itwasessentiallyaworkingclassgovernment,theproductofthestruggleoftheproducingagainsttheappropriatingclass,thepoliticalformatlastdiscoveredunderwhichtoworkouttheeconomicalemancipationoflabor.

“Exceptonthislastcondition,theCommunalconstitutionwouldhavebeenanimpossibilityandadelusion.”

Theutopiansbusiedthemselveswith“inventing”thepoliticalformsunderwhichthesocialisttransformationofsocietywastotakeplace.Theanarchistswaivedthequestionofpoliticalformsaltogether.Theopportunistsofpresent-daySocial-Democracyacceptedthebourgeoispoliticalformsofthe

parliamentarydemocraticstateastheunsurpassablelimit;theybatteredtheirforeheadsprayingbeforethisidolanddenouncedeveryattempttosmashtheseformsasanarchism.

MarxdeducedfromthewholehistoryofSocialismandofthepoliticalstrugglethatthestatewasboundtodisappear,andthatthetransitionalformofitsdisappearance(thetransitionfromstatetonostate)wouldbethe“proletariatorganizedastherulingclass.”ButMarxdidnotsetouttodiscoverthepoliticalformsofthisfuturestage.HelimitedhimselftoapreciseobservationofFrenchhistory,toanalyzingit,andtotheconclusiontowhichtheyear1851hadled,viz.,thatmattersweremovingtowardsthesmashingofthebourgeoisstatemachine.

Andwhenthemassrevolutionarymovementoftheproletariatburstforth,Marx,inspiteofthefailureofthatmovement,inspiteofitsshortlifeanditspatentweakness,begantostudythepoliticalformsthatithaddisclosed.

TheCommuneistheform“atlastdiscovered”bytheproletarianrevolution,underwhichtoworkouttheeconomicemancipationoflabor.

TheCommuneisthefirstattemptofaproletarianrevolutiontosmashthebourgeoisstatemachineanditconstitutesthepoliticalform,“atlastdiscovered,”whichcanandmustsupersedethesmashedmachine.

WeshallseebelowthattheRussianRevolutionsof1905and1917,indifferentcircumstancesandunderdifferentconditions,continuedtheworkoftheCommuneandcorroboratedMarx’sbrillianthistoricalanalysis.

CHAPTERIV

CONTINUATION.SUPPLEMENTARYEXPLANATIONSBYENGELSMarxgavethefundamentalsonthequestionofthesignificanceofthe

experienceoftheCommune.EngelsreturnedtothesamesubjectrepeatedlyandexplainedMarx’sanalysisandconclusions,sometimesilluminatingothersidesofthequestionwithsuchstrengthandvividnessthatitisnecessarytodealwithhisexplanationsseparately.

1.“THEHOUSINGQUESTION”Inhiswork,TheHousingQuestion(1872),Engelstookintoaccountthe

experienceoftheCommune,anddealtseveraltimeswiththetasksoftherevolutioninrelationtothestate.Itisinterestingtonotethatthetreatmentofthisconcretesubjectrevealed,ontheonehand,pointsofsimilaritybetweentheproletarianstateandthepresentstate—featureswhichgivegroundsforspeakingofthestateinbothcases—and,ontheotherhand,thefeatureswhichdifferentiatethem,orthefeaturesofthetransitiontotheabolitionofthestate.

“Howisthehousingquestiontobesolvedthen?Inpresent-daysociety,justasanyothersocialquestionissolved:bythegradualeconomicadjustmentofsupplyanddemand,asolutionwhicheverreproducesthequestionitselfanewandthereforeisnosolution.Howasocialrevolutionwouldsolvethisquestiondependsnotonlyonthecircumstanceswhichwouldexistineachcase,butisalsoconnectedwithmuchmorefar-reachingquestions,amongwhichoneofthemostfundamentalistheabolitionoftheantithesisbetweentownandcountry.Asitisnotourtasktocreateutopiansystemsforthearrangementofthesocietyofthefuture,itwouldbemorethanidletogointothequestionhere.Butonethingis

certain:therearealreadyinexistencesufficientbuildingsfordwellingsinthebigtownstoremedyimmediatelyanyreal‘housingshortage,’givenrationalutilizationofthem.Thiscannaturallyonlytakeplacebytheexpropriationofthepresentownersandbyquarteringintheirhousesthehomelessorthoseworkerswhoareexcessivelyovercrowdedintheiroldhouses.Immediatelytheproletariathasconqueredpoliticalpowersuchameasuredictatedinthepublicinterestwillbejustaseasytocarryoutasotherexpropriationsandbilletingsarebytheexistingstate.”

Thechangeintheformofthestatepowerisnotdiscussedhere,onlythecontentofitsactivityisdiscussed.Expropriationsandbilletingofhousestakeplacebyorderevenofthepresentstate.Fromtheformalpointofviewtheproletarianstatewillalso“order”theoccupationofhousesandexpropriationofbuildings.Butitisclearthattheoldexecutiveapparatus,thebureaucracy,whichisconnectedwiththebourgeoisie,wouldsimplybeunfittocarryouttheordersoftheproletarianstate.

“...Fortherestitmustbepointedoutthatthe‘actualseizure’ofallinstrumentsoflabor,theseizureofindustryasawholebytheworkingpeople,isthedirectcontraryoftheProudhonisttheoryof‘gradualredemption.’Underthelatter,theindividualworkerbecomestheownerofthedwelling,thepeasant-farm,theinstrumentsoflabor;undertheformer,the‘workingpeople’remainthecollectiveownersofthehouses,factoriesandinstrumentsoflabor,andwouldhardlypermitoftheiruse,atleastinatransitionalperiod,byindividualsandassociationswithoutcompensationforthecosts,justastheabolitionofpropertyinlandisnottheabolitionofgroundrent,butitstransfer,althoughinamodifiedform,tosociety.Theactualseizureofalltheinstrumentsoflaborbytheworkingpeoplethereforedoesnotatallexcludetheretentionoftherentrelations.”

Weshalldiscussthequestiontoucheduponinthispassage,namely,theeconomicreasonsforthewitheringawayofthestate,inthenextchapter.Engelsexpresseshimselfmostcautiously,sayingthattheproletarianstate

would“hardly”permit,“atleastinatransitionalperiod,”theuseofhouseswithoutcompensationforthecost.Thelettingofhousesthatbelongtothewholepeopletoseparatefamiliespresupposesthecollectionofrent,acertainamountofcontrol,andacertainstandardofallotmentofhouses.Allthiscallsforacertainformofstate,butitdoesnotcallforaspecialmilitaryandbureaucraticapparatus,withofficialsoccupyingespeciallyprivilegedpositions.Thetransitiontoastateofaffairswhenitwillbepossibletolethousesrent-freeisboundupwiththecomplete“witheringaway”ofthestate.

SpeakingoftheconversionoftheBlanquiststotheprinciplesofMarxismaftertheCommuneandasaresultofitsexperience,Engels,inpassing,formulatestheseprinciplesasfollows:

“...Necessityofpoliticalactionoftheproletariat,andofthedictatorshipoftheproletariatasthetransitionalstagetotheabolitionofclassesand,withthem,ofthestate....”

Addictstohair-splittingcriticism,andbourgeois“exterminatorsofMarxism,”willperhapsseeacontradictionbetweenthisrecognitionofthe“abolitionofthestate”andtherepudiationofthisformulaasananarchistoneinthepreviously-quotedpassagefromAnti-Dühring.ItwouldnotbesurprisingiftheopportunistsstampedEngels,too,asan“anarchist,”forthehabitofaccusingtheinternationalistsofanarchismisbecomingmoreandmorewidespreadamongthesocial-chauvinists.

Marxismalwaystaughtthatthestatewillbeabolishedwiththeabolitionofclasses.Thewell-knownpassageonthe“witheringawayofthestate”inAnti-Dühringdoesnotblametheanarchistssimplyforbeinginfavoroftheabolitionofthestate,butforpreachingthatthestatecanbeabolished“overnight.”

Inviewofthefactthatthenowprevailing“Social-Democratic”doctrinecompletelydistortstherelationofMarxismtoanarchismonthequestionoftheabolitionofthestate,itwillbeveryusefultorecallacertaincontroversyconductedbyMarxandEngelswiththeanarchists.

2.CONTROVERSYWITHTHEANARCHISTSThiscontroversytookplacein1873.MarxandEngelscontributedarticles

againsttheProudhonists,“autonomists”or“anti-authoritarians,”toanItalian

Socialistannual,anditwasnotuntil1913thatthesearticlesappearedinGermaninNeueZeit.Ridiculingtheanarchistsandtheirrepudiationofpolitics,Marxwrote:

“Ifthepoliticalstruggleoftheworkingclassassumesviolentforms,iftheworkerssetuptheirrevolutionarydictatorshipinplaceofthedictatorshipofthebourgeoisie,theycommittheterriblecrimeofviolatingprinciples,forinordertosatisfytheirwretched,vulgar,everydayneeds,inordertocrushtheresistanceofthebourgeoisie,insteadoflayingdowntheirarmsandabolishingthestate,theygivethestatearevolutionaryandtransitoryform....”107

Itwasexclusivelyagainstthiskindof“abolition”ofthestatethatMarxfoughtinrefutingtheanarchists!Hedidnotcombatthetheorythatthestatewoulddisappearwhenclassesdisappeared,orthatitwouldbeabolishedwhenclassesareabolished;heopposedthepropositionthattheworkersshouldrenouncetheuseofarms,theuseoforganizedforce,thatis,theuseofthestate,inorderto“crushtheresistanceofthebourgeoisie.”

Topreventthetruemeaningofhisstruggleagainsttheanarchistsfrombeingdistorted,Marxdeliberatelyemphasizedthe“revolutionaryandtransitoryform”ofthestatewhichtheproletariatneeds.Theproletariatneedsthestateonlytemporarily.Wedonotatalldisagreewiththeanarchistsonthequestionoftheabolitionofthestateasanaim.Wemaintainthat,toachievethisaim,wemusttemporarilymakeuseoftheinstruments,resourcesandmethodsofthestatepoweragainsttheexploiters,justasthedictatorshipoftheoppressedclassistemporarilynecessaryfortheabolitionofclasses.Marxchoosesthesharpestandclearestwayofstatinghispositionagainsttheanarchists:afteroverthrowingtheyokeofthecapitalists,shouldtheworkers“laydowntheirarms,”orusethemagainstthecapitalistsinordertocrushtheirresistance?Butwhatisthesystematicuseofarmsbyoneclassagainsttheother,ifnota“transitoryform”ofstate?

LeteverySocial-Democrataskhimself:isthatthewayhehasbeenputtingthequestionofthestateincontroversywiththeanarchists?IsthatthewaythevastmajorityoftheofficialSocialistPartiesoftheSecondInternationalhavebeenputtingit?

Engelsenlargesonthesameideasinevengreaterdetailandmoresimply.FirstofallheridiculesthemuddledideasoftheProudhonists,whocalledthemselves“anti-authoritarians,”i.e.,theyrepudiatedeverysortofauthority,everysortofsubordination,everysortofpower.Takeafactory,arailway,ashiponthehighseas,saidEngels—isitnotclearthatnotoneofthesecomplextechnicalunits,basedontheemploymentofmachineryandtheorderedco-operationofmanypeople,couldfunctionwithoutacertainamountofsubordinationand,consequently,withoutsomeauthorityorpower?

“WhenIputthesearguments,”writesEngels,“upagainstthemostrabidanti-authoritarians,theywereonlyabletogivemethefollowinganswer:‘Ah!thatistrue,buthereitisnotacaseofauthoritywhichweconferondelegates,butofacommission!’Thesegentlementhinkthattheyhavechangedthethingbychangingitsname....”

Havingthusshownthatauthorityandautonomyarerelativeterms,thatthesphereoftheirapplicationvarieswiththevariousphasesofsocialdevelopment,thatitisabsurdtotakethemasabsolutes,andaddingthatthesphereoftheapplicationofmachineryandlarge-scaleproductionisconstantlybecomingenlarged,Engelspassesfromthegeneraldiscussionofauthoritytothequestionofthestateandwrites:

“...Iftheautonomistswouldconfinethemselvestosayingthatthesocialorganizationofthefuturewillrestrictauthoritytothelimitsinwhichtherelationsofproductionmakeitinevitable,wecouldunderstandeachother,buttheyareblindtoallfactswhichmakethethingnecessary,andtheyhurlthemselvesagainsttheword.

“Whydon’ttheanti-authoritariansconfinethemselvestocryingoutagainstpoliticalauthority,againstthestate?Allsocialistsareagreedthatthestate,andwithitpoliticalauthority,willdisappearastheresultofthecomingsocialrevolution,i.e.,thatpublicfunctionswilllosetheirpoliticalcharacterandbetransformedintothesimpleadministrativefunctionsofwatchingoverrealsocialinterests.Buttheanti-authoritariansdemandthatthepoliticalstate

shouldbeabolishedatonce,evenbeforethesocialconditionswhichbroughtitintobeinghavebeenabolished.Theydemandthatthefirstactofthesocialrevolutionshallbetheabolitionofauthority.

“Havethesegentlemenneverseenarevolution?Arevolutionisundoubtedlythemostauthoritarianthingthereis.Itistheactwherebyonepartofthepopulationimposesitswillupontheotherpartbymeansofrifles,bayonetsandcannon,whichareauthoritarianmeansifevertherewereany.Andthevictoriousparty,ifitdoesnotwishtohavefoughtinvain,mustmaintainitsrulebymeansoftheterrorwhichitsarmsinspireinthereactionaries.WouldtheParisCommunehavelastedasingledayifithadnotmadeuseofthisauthorityofthearmedpopulationagainstthebourgeoisie?Shouldwenotonthecontraryreproachitfornothavingmademoreextensiveuseofthisauthority?Thereforeeitheroneoftwothingsispossible:eithertheanti-authoritariansdon’tknowwhattheyaresaying,andinthiscasetheysownothingbutconfusion,ortheydoknow,andinthiscasetheyarebetrayingthecauseoftheproletariat.Ineithercasetheyservethereaction.”

Thisargumenttouchesuponquestionswhichmustbeexaminedinconnectionwiththerelationbetweenpoliticsandeconomicsduringthe“witheringaway”ofthestate.(Thisisdealtwithinthenextchapter.)Thesequestionsare:thetransformationofpublicfunctionsfrompoliticalfunctionsintosimplefunctionsofadministration,andthe“politicalstate.”Thislastterm,particularlyliabletocausemisunderstanding,indicatestheprocessofthewitheringawayofthestate:atacertainstageofitswitheringawaythemoribundstatecanbecalledanon-politicalstate.

Again,themostremarkablethinginthispassagefromEngelsisthewayhestatesthecaseagainsttheanarchists.Social-Democrats,thewould-bedisciplesofEngels,havediscussedthisquestionwiththeanarchistsmillionsoftimessince1873,buttheyhavenotdiscusseditasMarxistscanandshould.Theanarchistideaoftheabolitionofthestateismuddledandnon-revolutionary—thatishowEngelsputit.Itispreciselytherevolution,initsriseanddevelopment,withitsspecifictasksinrelationtoviolence,authority,power,thestate,thattheanarchistsdonotwishtosee.

Theusualcriticismofanarchismbypresent-daySocial-Democratshasbeenreducedtothepurestphilistinebanality:“Werecognizethestate,whereastheanarchistsdonot!”Naturally,suchbanalitycannotbutrepelrevolutionaryworkerswhothinkatall.Engelssayssomethingdifferent.Heemphasizesthefactthatallsocialistsrecognizethedisappearanceofthestateasaresultofthesocialistrevolution.Hethendealswiththeconcretequestionoftherevolution—theveryquestionwhich,asarule,theSocial-Democrats,becauseoftheiropportunism,evade,andleave,sotospeak,exclusivelyfortheanarchists“toworkout.”Andinputtingthequestion,Engelstakesthebullbythehorns;heasks:shouldnottheCommunehavemademoreuseoftherevolutionarypowerofthestate,i.e.,ofthearmedproletariatorganizedastherulingclass?

PrevailingofficialSocial-Democracyusuallydismissedthequestionoftheconcretetasksoftheproletariatintherevolutioneitherwithaphilistinesneer,or,atbest,withtheevasivesophism,“waitandsee.”AndtheanarchistswerethusjustifiedinsayingaboutsuchSocial-Democracythatithadbetrayeditstaskofeducatingtheworkingclassfortherevolution.Engelsutilizestheexperienceofthelastproletarianrevolutionpreciselyforthepurposeofmakingaveryconcretestudyofwhattheproletariatshoulddoinrelationtothebanksandthestate,andhowitshoulddoit.

3.LETTERTOBEBELOneofthemostremarkable,ifnotthemostremarkableobservationonthe

stateintheworksofMarxandEngelsiscontainedinthefollowingpassageinEngels’lettertoBebeldatedMarch18-28,1875.Thisletter,wemayobserveinpassing,was,asfarasweknow,firstpublishedbyBebelinVolumeIIofhismemoirs(AusmeinemLeben),whichappearedin1911,i.e.,thirty-sixyearsafterithadbeenwrittenandmailed.

EngelswrotetoBebelcriticizingtheverydraftoftheGothaProgramwhichMarxalsocriticizedinhisfamouslettertoBracke.Referringparticularlytothequestionofthestate,Engelssaid:

“...Thefreepeople’sstateistransformedintothefreestate.Takeninitsgrammaticalsenseafreestateisonewherethestateisfreeinrelationtoitscitizensandisthereforeastatewithadespoticgovernment.Thewholetalkaboutthestateshouldbedropped,especiallysincetheCommune,whichwasnolongerastateinthe

propersenseoftheword.The‘people’sstate’hasbeenthrowninourfacesbytheanarchiststoolongalthoughMarx’sbookagainstProudhonandlaterTheCommunistManifestodirectlydeclarethatwiththeintroductionofthesocialistorderofsocietythestatewilldissolveofitself[sichauflöst]anddisappear.Asthereforethe‘state’isonlyatransitionalinstitutionwhichisusedinthestruggle,intherevolution,inordertoholddown[niederzuhalten]one’sadversariesbyforce,itispurenonsensetotalkofa‘freepeople’sstate’;solongastheproletariatstillusesthestate,itdoesnotuseitintheinterestsoffreedombutinordertoholddownitsadversaries,andassoonasitbecomespossibleofspeakoffreedom,thestate,assuch,ceasestoexist.Wewould,therefore,proposetoreplacetheword‘state’everywherebythewordGemeinwesen[community],agoodoldGermanword,whichcanverywellrepresenttheFrenchword‘commune.’”

ItmustbeborneinmindthatthisletterreferstothePartyprogramwhichMarxcriticizedinaletterdatedonlyafewweekslaterthantheabove(Marx’sletterisdatedMay5,1875),andthatatthetimeEngelswaslivingwithMarxinLondon.Consequently,whenhesays“we”inthelastsentence,Engelsundoubtedly,inhisownaswellasinMarx’sname,suggeststotheleaderoftheGermanworkers’partythattheword“state”bestruckoutoftheprogramandreplacedbytheword“community.”

Whatahowlabout“anarchism”wouldberaisedbytheleadersofpresent-day“Marxism,”whichhasbeenfakedfortheconvenienceoftheopportunists,ifsucharectificationoftheprogramweresuggestedtothem!

Letthemhowl.Thebourgeoisiewillpraisethemforit.

Butweshallgoonwithourwork.InrevisingtheprogramofourPartywemustunfailinglytaketheadviceofEngelsandMarxintoconsiderationinordertocomenearerthetruth,torestoreMarxismbypurgingitofdistortions,toguidethestruggleoftheworkingclassforitsemancipationmorecorrectly.CertainlynoBolshevikwillbefoundwhoopposestheadviceofEngelsandMarx.Theonlydifficultythatmay,perhaps,arisewillbeinregardtoterminology.InGermantherearetwowordsmeaning“community,”ofwhichEngelsusedtheonewhichdoesnotdenoteasinglecommunity,butthetotality,thesystemofcommunities.InRussianthereisnosuchword,andperhapswemayhavetodecidetousetheFrenchword“commune,”althoughthisalsohas

itsdrawbacks.

“TheCommune,whichwasnolongerastateinthepropersenseoftheword”—thisisEngels’mostimportanttheoreticalstatement.Afterwhathasbeensaidabove,thisstatementisperfectlyclear.TheCommuneceasedtobeastateinsofarasithadtorepress,notthemajorityofthepopulation,buttheminority(theexploiters);ithadsmashedthebourgeoisstatemachine;inplaceofaspecialrepressiveforce,thewholepopulationitselfcameonthescene.Allthisisadeparturefromthestateinthepropersenseoftheword.AndhadtheCommunelasted,alltracesofthestateinitwouldhave“witheredaway”ofthemselves;itwouldnothavebeennecessaryforitto“abolish”theinstitutionsofthestate;theywouldhaveceasedtofunctioninproportionastheyceasedtohaveanythingtodo.

“Thepeople’sstatehasbeenthrowninourfacesbytheanarchists.”Insayingthis,EngelshadBakuninandhisattacksontheGermanSocial-Democratsparticularlyinmind.Engelsadmittedthattheseattackswerejustifiedinsofarasthe“people’sstate”wasasmuchanabsurdityandasmuchadeparturefromsocialismasthe“freepeople’sstate.”EngelstriedtoputthestruggleoftheGermanSocial-Democratsagainsttheanarchistsonrightlines,tomakethisstrugglecorrectinprinciple,topurgeitofopportunistprejudicesconcerningthe“state.”Alas!Engels’letterwaspigeonholedforthirty-sixyears.Weshallseebelowthat,evenafterEngels’letterwaspublished,KautskyobstinatelyrepeatedwhatinessenceweretheverymistakesagainstwhichEngelshadutteredhiswarning.

BebelrepliedtoEngelsinaletter,datedSeptember21,1875,inwhichhewrote,interalia,thathe“fullyagrees”withEngels’criticismofthedraftprogram,andthathehadreproachedLiebknechtforhisreadinesstomakeconcessions(Bebel’sMemoirs,Vol.II).ButifwetakeBebel’spamphlet,UnsereZiele,wefindthereargumentsonthestatethatareabsolutelywrong.

“Thestatemustbetransformedfromonebasedonclassruleintoapeople’sstate.”

Thisisprintedintheninth(theninth!)editionofBebel’spamphlet!ItisnotsurprisingthatsuchpersistentlyrepeatedopportunistviewsonthestatewereabsorbedbyGermanSocial-Democracy,especiallyasEngels’revolutionary

interpretationsweresafelypigeonholed,andalltheconditionsofeverydaylifeweresuchasto“wean”thepeoplefromrevolutionforalongtime!

4 .CRITICISMOFTHEDRAFTOFTHEERFURTPROGRAMInexaminingtheMarxiandoctrineofthestate,thecriticismofthedraftof

theErfurtProgram108sentbyEngelstoKautskyonJune29,1891,acriticismpublishedonlytenyearslater,inNeueZeit,cannotbeignored;forthiscriticismismainlyconcernedwiththeopportunistviewsofSocial-Democracyonquestionsofstatestructure.

WeshallnoteinpassingthatEngelsalsomakesanexceedinglyvaluableobservationonquestionsofeconomics,whichshowshowattentivelyandthoughtfullyhewatchedthechangesinmoderncapitalism,andhowhewasabletoforeseetoacertainextentthetasksofourown,theimperialist,epoch.Hereisthepassage:referringtotheword“planlessness”(Planlosigkeit)usedinthedraftprogram,ascharacteristicofcapitalism,Engelswrites:

“Whenwepassfromjoint-stockcompaniestotrustswhichcontrolandmonopolizewholebranchesofindustry,itisnotonlyprivateproductionthatceases,butalsoplanlessness.”109

Herewehavewhatismostessentialinthetheoreticalappraisalofthelatestphaseofcapitalism,i.e.,imperialism,viz.,thatcapitalismbecomesmonopolycapitalism.Thelattermustbeemphasizedbecausetheerroneousbourgeoisreformistviewthatmonopolycapitalismorstatemonopolycapitalismisnolongercapitalism,butcanalreadybetermed“statesocialism,”orsomethingofthatsort,isverywidespread.Thetrusts,ofcourse,havenotcreated,donotcreatenow,andcannotcreatefullandcompleteplanning.Buttowhateverextenttheydoplan,towhateverextentthecapitalistmagnatescalculateinadvancethevolumeofproductiononanationalandevenonaninternationalscale,andtowhateverextenttheysystematicallyregulateit,westillremainundercapitalism---capitalisminitsnewstage,itistrue,butstill,undoubtedly,capitalism.The“proximity”ofsuchcapitalismtosocialismshouldservethegenuinerepresentativesoftheproletariatasproofoftheproximity,ease,feasibilityandurgencyofthesocialistrevolution,andnotasanargumentinfavoroftoleratingtherepudiationofsucharevolutionorinfavorofmaking

capitalismlookmoreattractive,anoccupationinwhichallthereformistsareengaged.

Butletusreturntothequestionofthestate.InthisletterEngelsmakesthreevaluablesuggestions:first,asregardstherepublic;second,asregardstheconnectionbetweenthenationalquestionandtheformofstate,and,third,asregardslocalself-government.

Asregardstherepublic,EngelsmadethisthecenterofgravityofhiscriticismofthedraftoftheErfurtProgram.AndwhenwerememberwhatimportancetheErfurtProgramhasacquiredinthewholeofinternationalSocial-Democracy,thatithasbecomethemodelforthewholeoftheSecondInternational,itmaybesaidwithoutexaggerationthatEngelstherebycriticizedtheopportunismofthewholeSecondInternational.Engelswrites:

“Thepoliticaldemandsofthedrafthaveonegreatfault.Whatactuallyoughttobesaidisnotthere....”(Engels’italics.)

And,lateron,hemakesitclearthattheGermanconstitutionisbutacopyoftheveryreactionaryconstitutionof1850;thattheReichstagisonly,asWilhelmLiebknechtputit,“thefig-leafofabsolutism”;andthattowish“totransformalltheinstrumentsoflaborintopublicproperty”onthebasisofaconstitutionwhichlegalizestheexistenceofpettystatesandthefederationofpettyGermanstatesisan“obviousabsurdity.”

“Totouchonthatisdangerous,however,”Engelsadds,knowingfullwellthatitisimpossible,forreasonsoflegality,toincludeintheprogramthedemandforarepublicinGermany.ButEngelsdoesnotrestcontentwiththisobviousargumentwhichsatisfied“everybody.”Hecontinues:

“Andyetsomehoworotherthethinghasgottobeattacked....HownecessarythisisisshownpreciselyatthepresenttimebytheinroadswhichopportunismismakinginagreatsectionoftheSocial-Democraticpress.FromfearofarevivaloftheAnti-SocialistLawandfromrecollectionofallmannerofprematureutteranceswhichwereletfallduringthereignofthatlawthepresentlegalpositionofthePartyinGermanyisnowallofa

suddentobetreatedassufficientforthecarryingoutofallthedemandsofthePartybypeacefulmeans.”

EngelsparticularlystressesthefundamentalfactthattheGermanSocial-DemocratswerepromptedbyfearofarevivaloftheAnti-SocialistLaw,andunhesitatinglycallsthisopportunism;hedeclaresthatpreciselybecausetherewasnorepublicandnofreedominGermany,thedreamsofa“peaceful”pathwereabsolutelyabsurd.Engelsissufficientlycarefulnottotiehishands.Headmitsthatinrepublicanorveryfreecountries“onecanconceive”(only“conceive”!)ofapeacefuldevelopmenttowardssocialism,butinGermany,herepeats,

“inGermany,wherethegovernmentisalmostalmightyandtheReichstagandallotherrepresentativebodieshavenorealpower,toproclaimsuchathinginGermany—andmoreoverwhenthereisnoneedtodoso—istoremovethefig-leaffromabsolutism,anduseittoscreenone’sownnakedness.”

ThegreatmajorityoftheofficialleadersoftheGermanSocial-DemocraticParty,whopigeonholedthisadvice,haveindeedprovedtobeascreenforabsolutism.

“Ultimatelysuchapolicycanonlyleadone’sownpartyastray.Generalabstractpoliticalquestionshavebeenputintotheforeground,concealingthustheimmediateconcretequestions,thequestionswhichatthefirstgreatevents,thefirstpoliticalcrisis,putthemselvesontheagenda.WhatcanresultfromthisexceptthatatthedecisivemomentthePartyissuddenlyleftwithoutguidance,thatunclarityanddisunityreignonthemostdecisivepointsbecausethesepointshaveneverbeendiscussed?...

“Thisforgetfulnessofthegreatmainstandpointinthemomentaryinterestsoftheday,thisstrugglingandstrivingforthesuccessofthemomentwithoutconsiderationforthelaterconsequences,thissacrificeofthefutureofthemovementforits

presentmaybe‘honestly’meant,butitisandremainsopportunism,and‘honest’opportunismisperhapsthemostdangerousofall....

“IfonethingiscertainitisthatourPartyandtheworkingclasscanonlycometopowerundertheformofthedemocraticrepublic.Thisiseventhespecificformforthedictatorshipoftheproletariat,astheGreatFrenchRevolutionhasalreadyshown....”

EngelsrepeatshereinaparticularlystrikingmannerthefundamentalideawhichrunslikearedthreadthroughallofMarx’sworks,namely,thatthedemocraticrepublicisthenearestapproachtothedictatorshipoftheproletariat.Forsucharepublic—withoutintheleastabolishingthedominationofcapital,and,therefore,theoppressionofthemassesandtheclassstruggle—inevitablyleadstosuchanextension,development,unfoldingandintensificationofthatstrugglethat,assoonasthepossibilityarisesofsatisfyingthefundamentalinterestsoftheoppressedmasses,thispossibilityisachievedinevitablyandsolelyinthedictatorshipoftheproletariat,intheleadershipofthosemassesbytheproletariat.These,too,are“forgottenwords”ofMarxismforthewholeoftheSecondInternational,andthisforgetfulnesswasdemonstratedwithparticularvividnessbythehistoryoftheMenshevikPartyinthefirsthalfyearoftheRussianRevolutionof1917.

Onthequestionofafederalrepublic,inconnectionwiththenationalcompositionofthepopulation,Engelswrote:

“Whatshouldtakeitsplace?”(ofpresent-dayGermanywithitsreactionarymonarchialconstitutionanditsequallyreactionarydivisionintopettystates,whichperpetuatesallthespecificfeaturesof“Prussianism”insteadofdissolvingtheminGermanyasawhole).“Inmyview,theproletariatcanonlyusetheformofoneandindivisiblerepublic.InthegiganticterritoryoftheUnitedStatesafederalrepublicisstill,onthewhole,anecessity,althoughintheEasternstatesitisalreadybecomingahindrance.ItwouldbeastepforwardinEngland,wherethetwoislandsarepeopledbyfournationsandinspiteofasingleParliamentthreedifferentsystemsoflegislationexistsidebysideeventoday.InlittleSwitzerland,ithaslongbeenahindrance,tolerableonlybecause

SwitzerlandiscontenttobeapurelypassivememberoftheEuropeanstatesystem.ForGermany,federationoftheSwisstypewouldbeanenormousstepbackward.Twopointsdistinguishafederalstatefromaunitarystate:first,thateachseparatefederatedstate,eachcanton,hasitsowncivilandcriminallegislativeandjudicialsystem,and,second,thatalongsideofapopularchamberthereisalsoafederalchamberinwhicheachcanton,largeorsmall,votesassuch.”

InGermanythefederalstateisthetransitionalstagetothecompleteunitarystate,andthe“revolutionfromabove”of1866and1870mustnotbereversedbutsupplementedbya“movementfrombelow.”

Engelsdidnotdisplayindifferencetothequestionoftheformsofstate;onthecontrary,hetriedtoanalyzethetransitionalformswiththeutmostcareinordertoestablish,inaccordancewiththeconcrete,historical,specificfeaturesofeachseparatecase,fromwhatandintowhatthegiventransitionalformisevolving.

Fromthepointofviewoftheproletariatandtheproletarianrevolution,Engels,likeMarx,insistedondemocraticcentralism,ononeindivisiblerepublic.Heregardedthefederalrepubliceitherasanexceptionandahindrancetodevelopment,orasatransitionalformfromamonarchytoacentralizedrepublic,asa“stepforward”undercertainspecialconditions.Andinthesespecialconditions,thenationalquestioncomestothefront.

Inspiteoftheirruthlesscriticismofthereactionarynatureofsmallstates,and,incertainconcretecases,thescreeningofthisbythenationalquestion,EngelsandMarxneverbetrayedatraceofadesiretoevadethenationalquestion—adesireofwhichtheDutchandPolishMarxistsareoftenguilty,asaresultoftheirveryjustifiableoppositiontothenarrowphilistinenationalismof“their”littlestates.

EveninregardtoEngland,wheregeographicalconditions,acommonlanguageandthehistoryofmanycenturieswouldseemtohave“putanend”tothenationalquestionintheseparatesmalldivisionsofEngland—eveninregardtothiscountry,Engelstookintoaccountthepatentfactthatthenationalquestionhadnotyetbeensettled,andrecognizedinconsequencethattheestablishmentofafederalrepublicwouldbea“stepforward.”Ofcourse,thereisnotatracehereofanattempttoabandonthecriticismofthedefectsofa

federalrepublicorthemostdeterminedpropagandaandstruggleforaunitedandcentralizeddemocraticrepublic.

ButEngelsdidnotinterpretdemocraticcentralisminthebureaucraticsenseinwhichthistermisusedbybourgeoisandpetty-bourgeoisideologists,includingtheanarchists.Hisinterpretationdidnotintheleastprecludewidelocalself-governmentaswouldcombinethevoluntarydefenseoftheunityofthestatebythe“communes”anddistrictswiththecompleteabolitionofallbureaucracyandall“ordering”fromabove.EnlargingontheprogramviewsofMarxismonthestate,Engelswrote:

“So,then,aunitaryrepublic—butnotinthesenseofthepresentFrenchRepublic,whichisnothingbuttheEmpireestablishedin1798minustheEmperor.From1792to1798eachDepartmentofFrance,eachcommune[Gemeinde],enjoyedcompleteself-governmentontheAmericanmodel,andthisiswhatwetoomusthave.Howself-governmentistobeorganizedandhowwecanmanagewithoutabureaucracyhasbeenshownbyAmericaandthefirstFrenchRepublic,andisbeingshowneventodaybyAustralia,CanadaandtheotherEnglishcolonies.Andaprovincialandlocalself-governmentofthistypeisfarfreerthanSwissfederalismunderwhich,itistrue,thecantonisveryindependentinrelationtotheBund(i.e.,thefederalstateasawhole),butisalsoindependentinrelationtothedistrictandthecommune.Thecantonalgovernmentsappointthedistrictgovernors[Bezirksstatthalter]andprefects—afeaturewhichisunknowninEnglish-speakingcountriesandwhichweshallhavetoabolishhereinthefuturealongwiththePrussianLandräteandRegierungsräte(commissaries,districtpolicechiefs,governors,andingeneralallofficialsappointedfromabove).

Accordingly,Engelsproposesthefollowingwordingfortheclauseintheprogramonself-government:

“Completeself-governmentfortheprovinces”(districtsandcommunities)“throughofficialselectedbyuniversalsuffrage.The

abolitionofalllocalandprovincialauthoritiesappointedbythestate.”

Ihavealreadyhadoccasiontopointout—inPravda(No.68,June10,1917),whichwassuppressedbythegovernmentofKerenskyandother“Socialist”Ministers—howinthisconnection(ofcourse,notonlyinthisconnectionbyanymeans)ourallegedSocialistrepresentativesofalleged-revolutionaryalleged-democracyhavedepartedfromdemocracyinthemostscandalousmanner.Naturally,peoplewhohaveboundthemselvesbya“coalition”withtheimperialistbourgeoisiehaveremaineddeaftothiscriticism.

ItisextremelyimportanttonotethatEngels,armedwithfacts,disprovesbyapreciseexampletheprejudicethatisverywidespread,particularlyamongpetty-bourgeoisdemocrats,thatafederalrepublicnecessarilymeansagreateramountoffreedomthanacentralizedrepublic.Thisisnottrue.ItisdisprovedbythefactscitedbyEngelsregardingthecentralizedFrenchRepublicof1792-98andthefederalSwissRepublic.Thereallydemocraticcentralizedrepublicgavemorefreedomthanthefederalrepublic.Inotherwords,thegreatestamountoflocal,provincialandotherfreedomknowninhistorywasgrantedbyacentralizedandnotbyafederalrepublic.

InsufficientattentionhasbeenandisbeingpaidtothisfactinourPartypropagandaandagitation,as,indeed,tothewholequestionoffederalandcentralizedrepublicsandlocalself-government.

5.THE1891INTRODUCTIONTOMARX’S“CIVILWARINFRANCE”InhisIntroductiontothethirdeditionofTheCivilWarinFrance(this

IntroductionisdatedMarch18,1891,andwasoriginallypublishedinNeueZeit),Engels,inadditiontomanyotherinterestingincidentalremarksonquestionsconnectedwiththeattitudetobetakentowardsthestate,givesaremarkablystrikingresumeofthelessonsoftheCommune.Thisresume,whichwasrenderedmoreprofoundbytheentireexperienceofthetwentyyearsthatseparatedtheauthorfromtheCommune,andwhichwasdirectedparticularlyagainstthe“superstitiousbeliefinthestate”sowidespreadinGermany,canjustlybecalledthelastwordofMarxismonthequestiondealtwithhere.

InFrance,Engelsobserves,theworkerswerearmedaftereveryrevolution;

“...thereforethedisarmingoftheworkerswasthefirstcommandmentforthebourgeoisatthehelmofthestate.Henceaftereveryrevolutionwonbytheworkers,anewstruggle,endingwiththedefeatoftheworkers.”

Thisresumeoftheexperienceofbourgeoisrevolutionsisasconciseasitisexpressive.Theessenceofthematter—also,bytheway,ofthequestionofthestate(hastheoppressedclassarms?)—ishereremarkablywelldefined.Itispreciselythisessentialthingwhichismostoftenignoredbyprofessors,whoareinfluencedbybourgeoisideology,aswellasbypetty-bourgeoisdemocrats.IntheRussianRevolutionof1917,thehonor(Cavaignachonor)ofblabbingthissecretofbourgeoisrevolutionsfelltotheMenshevik,“also-Marxist,”Tseretelli.Inhis“historic”speechofJune22,TseretelliblurtedoutthedecisionofthebourgeoisietodisarmthePetrogradworkers—referring,ofcourse,tothisdecisionashisown,andasavitalnecessityforthe“state”!

Tseretelli’shistoricspeechofJune22will,ofcourse,serveeveryhistorianoftheRevolutionof1917asoneofthemoststrikingillustrationsofhowtheSocialist-RevolutionaryandMenshevikbloc,ledbyMr.Tseretelli,desertedtothesideofthebourgeoisieagainsttherevolutionaryproletariat.

AnotherincidentalremarkofEngels’,alsoconnectedwiththequestionofthestate,dealswithreligion.ItiswellknownthatGermanSocial-Democracy,inproportionasitdecayedandbecamemoreandmoreopportunist,slippedmoreandmorefrequentlyintothephilistinemisinterpretationofthecelebratedformula:“Religionisa...privatematter.”Thatis,thisformulawastwistedtomeanthatthequestionofreligionwasaprivatematterevenforthepartyoftherevolutionaryproletariat!ItwasagainstthisutterbetrayaloftherevolutionaryprogramoftheproletariatthatEngelsprotested.In1891hesawonlytheveryfeeblebeginningsofopportunisminhisParty,and,therefore,heexpressedhimselfonthesubjectverycautiously:

“...Asalmostwithoutexceptionworkers,orrecognizedrepresentativesoftheworkers,satintheCommune,itsdecisionsboreadecidedlyproletariancharacter.Eithertheydecreedreformswhichtherepublicanbourgeoisiehadfailedtopasssolelyoutofcowardice,butwhichprovidedanecessarybasisforthefree

activityoftheworkingclass—suchastherealizationoftheprinciplethatinrelationtothestatereligionisapurelyprivatematter—ortheypromulgateddecreeswhichwereinthedirectinterestsoftheworkingclassandtosomeextentcutdeeplyintotheoldorderofsociety.”

Engelsdeliberatelyemphasizedthewords“inrelationtothestate,”asastraightthrustattheheartofGermanopportunism,whichhaddeclaredreligiontobeaprivatematterinrelationtotheParty,thusdegradingthepartyoftherevolutionaryproletariattothelevelofthemostvulgar“free-thinking”philistinism,whichispreparedtoallowanon-denominationalstatus,butwhichrenouncesthePartystruggleagainstthereligiousopiumwhichstupefiesthepeople.

ThefuturehistorianofGermanSocial-Democracy,ininvestigatingthebasiccausesofitsshamefulcollapsein1914,willfindnolackofinterestingmaterialonthisquestion,fromtheevasivedeclarationsinthearticlesoftheideologicalleaderoftheParty,Kautsky,whichopenedwidethedoortoopportunism,totheattitudeofthePartytowardstheLos-von-KircheBewegung(the“leavethechurch”movement)in1913.

Butletusseehow,twentyyearsaftertheCommune,Engelssummedupitslessonsforthefightingproletariat.

HerearethelessonstowhichEngelsattachedprimeimportance:

“...Itwaspreciselytheoppressingpoweroftheformercentralizedgovernment,army,politicalpoliceandbureaucracy,whichNapoleonhascreatedin1798andsincethenhadbeentakenoverbyeverynewgovernmentasawelcomeinstrumentandusedagainstitsopponents,itwaspreciselythispowerwhichwastofalleverywhere,justasithadalreadyfalleninParis.

“FromtheoutsettheCommunewascompelledtorecognizethattheworkingclass,oncecometopower,couldnotmanagewiththeoldstatemachine;thatinordernottoloseagainitsonlyjustconqueredsupremacy,thisworkingclassmust,ontheonehand,doawaywithalltheoldrepressivemachinerypreviouslyusedagainstititself,and,ontheother,safeguarditselfagainstitsowndeputies

andofficials,bydeclaringthemall,withoutexception,subjecttorecallatanymoment....”

Engelsemphasizesagainandagainthatthestateremainsastate,i.e.,itretainsitsfundamentalandcharacteristicfeatureoftransformingtheofficials,the“servantsofsociety,”itsorgans,intothemastersofsocietynotonlyunderamonarchy,butalsoinademocraticrepublic.

“Againstthistransformationofthestateandtheorgansofthestatefromservantsofsocietyintomastersofsociety—aninevitabletransformationinallpreviousstates—theCommunemadeuseoftwoinfallibleexpedients.Inthefirstplaceitfilledallposts—ad—ministrative,judicialandeducational—byelectiononthebasisofuniversalsuffrageofallconcerned,withtherightofthesameelectorstorecalltheirdelegateatanytime.And,inthesecondplace,allofficials,highorlow,werepaidonlythewagesreceivedbyotherworkers.ThehighestsalarypaidbytheCommunetoanyonewas6,000francs.110Inthisway,aneffectivebarriertoplace-huntingandcareerismwassetup,evenapartfromthebindingmandatestodelegatestorepresentativebodieswhichwerealsoaddedinprofusion....”

Engelshereapproachestheinterestingboundarylineatwhichconsistentdemocracyistransformedintosocialismandatwhichitdemandssocialism.For,inordertoabolishthestate,thefunctionsoftheCivilServicemustbeconvertedintothesimpleoperationsofcontrolandaccountingthatcanbeperformedbythevastmajorityofthepopulation,and,ultimately,byeverysingleindividual.Andinordertoabolishcareerismitmustbemadeimpossiblefor“honorable”thoughnotlucrativepostsinthepublicservicetobeusedasaspringboardtohighlylucrativepostsinbanksorjoint-stockcompanies,asconstantlyhappensinallthefreestcapitalistcountries.

ButEngelsdidnotmakethemistakesomeMarxistsmakeindealing,forexample,withtherightofnationstoself-determination,i.e.,arguethatthisisimpossibleundercapitalismandwillbeunnecessaryundersocialism.Suchaseeminglycleverbutreallyincorrectstatementmightbemadeinregardtoany

democraticinstitution,includingmoderatesalariesforofficials;becausefullyconsistentdemocracyisimpossibleundercapitalism,andundersocialismalldemocracywithersaway.

Itisasophismthatissimilartotheoldhumorousproblem:willamanbecomebaldifhelosesonemorehair?

Todevelopdemocracytoitslogicalconclusion,tofindtheformsforthisdevelopment,totestthembypractice,andsoforth—allthisisoneoftheconstituenttasksofthestruggleforthesocialrevolution.Takenseparately,nosortofdemocracywillbringsocialism.Butinactuallifedemocracywillneverbe“takenseparately”;itwillbe“takentogether”withotherthings,itwillexertitsinfluenceoneconomics,willstimulateitsreformation;andinitsturnitwillbeinfluencedbyeconomicdevelopment,andsoon.Sucharethedialecticsoflivinghistory.

Engelscontinues:

“Thisblowingup[Sprengung]oftheformerstatepoweranditsreplacementbyanewandreallydemocraticstateisdescribedindetailinthethirdsectionofTheCivilWar.Butitwasnecessarytodwellbrieflyhereoncemoreonsomeofitsfeatures,becauseinGermanyparticularlythesuperstitiousbeliefinthestatehasbeencarriedoverfromphilosophyintothegeneralconsciousnessofthebourgeoisieandevenofmanyworkers.Accordingtothephilosophicalnotion,thestateisthe‘realizationoftheidea,’ortheKingdomofGodonearth,translatedintophilosophicalterms,thesphereinwhicheternaltruthandjusticeisorshouldberealized.Andfromthisfollowsasuperstitiousreverenceforthestateandeverythingconnectedwithit,whichtakesrootthemorereadilyaspeoplefromtheirchildhoodareaccustomedtoimaginethattheaffairsandinterestscommontothewholeofsocietycouldnotbelookedafterotherwisethantheyhavebeenlookedafterinthepast,thatis,throughthestateanditswell-paidofficials.Andpeoplethinktheyhavetakenquiteanextraordinarilyboldstepforwardwhentheyhaveridthemselvesofbeliefinhereditarymonarchyandswearbythedemocraticrepublic.Inreality,however,thestateisnothingbutamachinefortheoppressionofoneclassbyanother,andindeedinthedemocraticrepublicnolessthaninthe

monarchy;andatbestanevilinheritedbytheproletariatafteritsvictoriousstruggleforclasssupremacy,whoseworstsidestheproletariat,justliketheCommune,cannotavoidhavingtolopoffattheearliestpossiblemoment,untilsuchtimeasanewgenerationrearedinnewandfreesocialconditionswillbeabletothrowtheentirelumberofthestateonthescrap-heap.”

EngelswarnedtheGermansnottoforgetthefundamentalsofsocialismonthequestionofthestateingeneralinconnectionwiththesubstitutionofarepublicforthemonarchy.HiswarningsnowreadlikealecturetoMessrs.TseretelliandChernov,whointheircoalitionpracticerevealedasuperstitiousbeliefinandasuperstitiousreverenceforthestate!

Twomorepoints.First:thefactthatEngelssaidthatinademocraticrepublic,“noless”thaninamonarchy,thestateremainsa“machinefortheoppressionofoneclassbyanother”doesnotsignifythattheformofoppressionisamatterofindifferencetotheproletariat,assomeanarchists“teach.”Awider,freerandmoreopenformoftheclassstruggleandofclassoppressiongreatlyassiststheproletariatinitsstrugglefortheabolitionofallclasses.

Second:whywillonlyanewgenerationbeabletothrowalltheuselesslumberofthestateonthescrap-heap?Thisquestionisboundupwiththequestionofovercomingdemocracy,withwhichweshalldealnow.

6.ENGELSONOVERCOMINGDEMOCRACYEngelshadoccasiontospeakonthissubjectinconnectionwiththequestion

oftheterm“Social-Democrat”beingscientificallywrong.

Inaprefacetoaneditionofhisarticlesofthe’seventiesonvarioussubjects,mainlyon“international”questions(In-ernationalesausdemVolksstaat),datedJanuary3,1894,i.e.,writtenayearandahalfbeforehisdeath,Engelswrotethatinallhisarticlesheusedtheword“Communist,”not“Social-Democrat,”becauseatthattimeitwastheProudhonistsinFranceandtheLassalleansinGermanywhocalledthemselvesSocial-Democrats.

“ForMarxandmeitwasthereforequiteimpossibletochoosesuchanelastictermtocharacterizeourspecialpointofview.

Todaythingsaredifferent,andtheword[‘Social-Democrat’]mayperhapspassmuster[magpassieren],howeverunsuitable[un-passend]itstillisforapartywhoseeconomicprogramisnotmerelysocialistingeneral,butdirectlyCommunist,andwhoseultimatepoliticalaimistoovercomethewholestateandthereforedemocracyaswell.Thenamesofgenuine[Engels’italics]politicalparties,however,areneverwhollyappropriate;thepartydevelopswhilethenamepersists.”

ThedialecticianEngelsremainstruetodialecticstotheendofhisdays.MarxandI,hesays,hadasplendid,scientificallyexactnamefortheparty,buttherewasnorealparty,i.e.,noproletarianmassparty.Now,attheendofthenineteenthcentury,thereisarealparty,butitsnameisscientificallyinexact.Nevermind,itwill“passmuster,”ifonlythepartydevelops,ifonlythescientificinexactnessofitsnameisnothiddenfromitanddoesnothinderitsdevelopmentintherightdirection!

PerhapssomehumoristwillbeginconsolingusBolsheviksinthemannerofEngels:wehaveagenuineparty,itisdevelopingsplendidly;evensuchameaninglessanduglytermas“Bolshevik”will“passmuster,”althoughitexpressesnothingbutthepurelyaccidentalfactthatattheBrussels-LondonCongressof1903wewereinthemajority....Perhaps,nowthatthepersecutionofourPartybyrepublicanand“revolutionary”petty-bourgeoisdemocracyinJulyandAugusthasmadethename“Bolshevik”suchauniversallyrespectedone;that,inaddition,thispersecutionsignalizesthegreathistoricalprogressourPartyhasmadeinitsactualdevelopment,evenIwouldhesitatetoinsistonthesuggestionImadeinApriltochangethenameofourParty.PerhapsIwouldproposea“compromise”toourcomrades,viz.,tocallourselvestheCommunistParty,buttoretaintheword“Bolsheviks”inbrackets....

ButthequestionofthenameofthePartyisincomparablylessimportantthanthequestionoftheattitudeoftherevolutionaryproletariattothestate.

Intheargumentsusuallyadvancedaboutthestate,themistakeisconstantlymadeagainstwhichEngelsutteredhiswarningandwhichwehaveinpassingindicatedabove,namely,itisconstantlyforgottenthattheabolitionofthestatemeansalsotheabolitionofdemocracy;thatthewitheringawayofthestatemeansthewitheringawayofdemocracy.

Atfirstsightthisassertionseemsexceedinglystrangeand

incomprehensible;indeed,someonemayevenbegintofearthatweareexpectingtheadventofanorderofsocietyinwhichtheprincipleofthesubordinationoftheminoritytothemajoritywillnotberespected—forisnotdemocracytherecognitionofthisprinciple?

No,democracyisnotidenticalwiththesubordinationoftheminoritytothemajority.Democracyisastatewhichrecognizesthesubordinationoftheminoritytothemajority,i.e.,anorganizationforthesystematicuseofviolencebyoneclassagainsttheother,byonesectionofthepopulationagainstanother.

Wesetourselvestheultimateaimofabolishingthestate,i.e.,allorganizedandsystematicviolence,alluseofviolenceagainstmaningeneral.Wedonotexpecttheadventofanorderofsocietyinwhichtheprincipleofthesubordinationoftheminoritytothemajoritywillnotbeobserved.Butinstrivingforsocialismweareconvincedthatitwilldevelopintocommunismand,hence,thattheneedforviolenceagainstpeopleingeneral,theneedforthesubjectionofonemantoanother,andofonesectionofthepopulationtoanother,willvanish,sincepeoplewillbecomeaccustomedtoobservingtheelementaryconditionsofsociallifewithoutforceandwithoutsubordination.

Inordertoemphasizethiselementofhabit,Engelsspeaksofanewgeneration,“rearedinnewandfreesocialconditions,”which“willbeabletothrowtheentirelumberofthestate”—ofeverykindofstate,includingeventhedemocratic-republicanstate—“onthescrap-heap.”

Inordertoexplainthisitisnecessarytoexaminethequestionoftheeconomicbasisofthewitheringawayofthestate.

CHAPTERV

THEECONOMICBASISOFTHEWITHERINGAWAYOFTHESTATEMarxexplainsthisquestionmostthoroughlyinhisCritiqueoftheGotha

Program(lettertoBracke,May5,1875,printedonlyin1891,inNeueZeit,Vol.IX,1,andinaspecialRussianedition).Thepolemicalpartofthisremarkablework,consistingofacriticismofLassalleanism,has,sotospeak,overshadoweditspositivepart,namely,theanalysisoftheconnectionbetweenthedevelopmentofcommunismandthewitheringawayofthestate.

1.MARX’SPRESENTATIONOFTHEQUESTIONFromasuperficialcomparisonofMarx’slettertoBracke(May5,1875)

withEngels’lettertoBebel(March28,1875),whichweexaminedabove,itmightappearthatMarxwasmuchmore“pro-state”thanEngels,andthatthedifferenceofopinionbetweenthetwowritersonthequestionofthestatewasveryconsiderable.

EngelssuggestedtoBebelthatallthechatteraboutthestatebedropped;thattheword“state”beeliminatedfromtheprogramandtheword“community”substitutedforit.EngelsevendeclaredthattheCommunewasreallynolongerastateinthepropersenseoftheword,whileMarxspokeofthe“futurestateincommunistsociety,”i.e.,apparentlyherecognizedtheneedforastateevenundercommunism.

Butsuchaviewwouldbefundamentallywrong.AcloserexaminationshowsthatMarx’sandEngels’viewsonthestateanditswitheringawaywerecompletelyidentical,andthatMarx’sexpressionquotedaboverefersmerelytothiswitheringawayofthestate.

Clearly,therecanbenoquestionofdefiningtheexactmomentofthefuturewitheringaway—themoresosinceitmustobviouslybearatherlengthyprocess.TheapparentdifferencebetweenMarxandEngelsisduetothe

differentsubjectstheydealtwith,thedifferentaimstheywerepursuing.EngelssetouttoshowBebelplainly,sharplyandinbroadoutlinetheabsurdityoftheprevailingprejudicesconcerningthestate,sharedtonosmalldegreebyLassalle.Marx,ontheotherhand,onlytoucheduponthisquestioninpassing,beinginterestedmainlyinanothersubject,viz.,thedevelopmentofcommunistsociety.

ThewholetheoryofMarxisanapplicationofthetheoryofdevelopment—initsmostconsistent,complete,thought-outandrepleteform—tomoderncapitalism.ItwasnaturalforMarxtoraisethequestionofapplyingthistheorybothtotheforthcomingcollapseofcapitalismandtothefuturedevelopmentoffuturecommunism.

Onthebasisofwhatdatacanthequestionofthefuturedevelopmentoffuturecommunismberaised?

Onthebasisofthefactthatithasitsoriginincapitalism,thatitdevelopshistoricallyfromcapitalism,thatitistheresultoftheactionofasocialforcetowhichcapitalismhasgivenbirth.ThereisnotraceofanattemptonMarx’sparttoconjureupautopia,tomakeidleguessesaboutwhatcannotbeknown.Marxtreatsthequestionofcommunisminthesamewayasanaturalistwouldtreatthequestionofthedevelopmentof,say,anewbiologicalspecies,ifheknewthatsuchandsuchwasitsorigin,andsuchandsuchthedirectioninwhichitwaschanging.

Marx,firstofall,brushesasidetheconfusiontheGothaProgrambringsintothequestionoftherelationbetweenstateandsociety.Hewrites:

“‘Present-daysociety’iscapitalistsociety,whichexistsinallcivilizedcountries,moreorlessfreefrommediaevaladmixture,moreorlessmodifiedbythespecialhistoricaldevelopmentofeachcountryandmoreorlessdeveloped.Ontheotherhandthe‘present-daystate’changeswithacountry’sfrontier.ItisdifferentinthePrusso-GermanEmpirefromwhatitisinSwitzerland,itisdifferentinEnglandfromwhatitisintheUnitedStates.“Thepresent-daystate’isthereforeafiction.

“Neverthelessthedifferentstatesofthedifferentcivilizedcountries,inspiteoftheirvarieddiversityofform,allhavethisincommonthattheyarebasedonmodernbourgeoissociety,only

onemoreorlesscapitalisticallydeveloped.Theyhavethereforealsocertainessentialfeaturesincommon.Inthissenseitispossibletospeakofthe‘present-daystate,’incontrasttothefuture,inwhichitspresentroot,bourgeoissociety,willhavediedaway.

“Thequestionthenarises:whattransformationwillthestateundergoincommunistsociety?Inotherwords,whatsocialfunctionswillremaininexistencetherethatareanalogoustothepresentfunctionsofthestate?Thisquestioncanonlybeansweredscientificallyandonedoesnotgetaflea-hopnearertotheproblembyathousand-foldcombinationofthewordpeoplewiththewordstate.”

Havingthusridiculedalltalkabouta“people’sstate,”Marxformulatesthequestionandwarnsus,asitwere,thattoarriveatascientificansweronemustrelyonlyonfirmlyestablishedscientificdata.

Thefirstfactthathasbeenestablishedwithcompleteexactitudebythewholetheoryofdevelopment,byscienceasawhole—afactwhichtheutopiansforget,andwhichisforgottenbypresent-dayopportunistswhoareafraidofthesocialistrevolution—isthat,historically,theremustundoubtedlybeaspecialstageorepochoftransitionfromcapitalismtocommunism.

2.THETRANSITIONFROMCAPITALISMTOCOMMUNISMMarxcontinues:

“Betweencapitalistandcommunistsocietyliestheperiodoftherevolutionarytransformationoftheoneintotheother.Therecorrespondstothisalsoapoliticaltransitionperiodinwhichthestatecanbenothingbuttherevolutionarydictatorshipoftheproletariat.”

Marxbasesthisconclusiononananalysisoftheroleplayedbytheproletariatinmoderncapitalistsociety,onthedataconcerningthedevelopmentofthissociety,andontheirreconcilabilityoftheantagonisticinterestsoftheproletariatandthebourgeoisie.

Earlierthequestionwasputinthisway:inordertoachieveitsemancipation,theproletariatmustoverthrowthebourgeoisie,conquerpoliticalpowerandestablishitsownrevolutionarydictatorship.

Nowthequestionisputsomewhatdifferently:thetransitionfromcapitalistsociety—whichisdevelopingtowardscommunism—toacommunistsocietyisimpossiblewithouta“politicaltransitionperiod,”andthestateinthisperiodcanonlybetherevolutionarydictatorshipoftheproletariat.

What,then,istherelationofthisdictatorshiptodemocracy?

WehaveseenthatTheCommunistManifestosimplyplacesthetwoideassidebyside:“toraisetheproletariattothepositionoftherulingclass”and“towinthebattleofdemocracy.”Onthebasisofallthathasbeensaidabove,itispossibletodeterminemorepreciselyhowdemocracychangesinthetransitionfromcapitalismtocommunism.

Incapitalistsociety,undertheconditionsmostfavorabletoitsdevelopment,wehavemoreorlesscompletedemocracyinthedemocraticrepublic.Butthisdemocracyisalwaysrestrictedbythenarrowframeworkofcapitalistexploitation,andconsequentlyalwaysremains,inreality,ademocracyfortheminority,onlyforthepossessingclasses,onlyfortherich.FreedomincapitalistsocietyalwaysremainsaboutthesameasitwasintheancientGreekrepublics:freedomfortheslave-owners.Owingtotheconditionsofcapitalistexploitationthemodernwage-slavesarealsosocrushedbywantandpovertythat“theycannotbebotheredwithdemocracy,”“theycannotbebotheredwithpolitics”;intheordinarypeacefulcourseofeventsthemajorityofthepopulationisdebarredfromparticipatinginsocialandpoliticallife.

ThecorrectnessofthisstatementisperhapsmostclearlyprovedbyGermany,preciselybecauseinthatcountryconstitutionallegalitylastedandremainedstableforaremarkablylongtime—fornearlyhalfacentury(1871-1914)—andbecauseduringthisperiodSocial-DemocracywasabletoachievefarmoreinGermanythaninothercountriesinthewayof“utilizinglegality,”andwasabletoorganizealargerproportionoftheworkingclassintoapoliticalpartythananywhereelseintheworld.

Whatisthislargestproportionofpoliticallyconsciousandactivewage-slavesthathassofarbeenobservedincapitalistsociety?OnemillionmembersoftheSocial-DemocraticParty—outoffifteenmillionwage-workers!Threemillionorganizedintradeunions—outoffifteenmillion!

Democracyforaninsignificantminority,democracyfortherich—thatisthe

democracyofcapitalistsociety.Ifwelookmorecloselyintothemechanismofcapitalistdemocracy,everywhere,inthe“petty”—so-calledpetty—detailsofthesuffrage(residentialqualification,exclusionofwomen,etc.),andinthetechniqueoftherepresentativeinstitutions,intheactualobstaclestotherightofassembly(publicbuildingsarenotfor“beggars”!),inthepurelycapitalistorganizationofthedailypress,etc.,etc.—onallsidesweseerestrictionafterrestrictionupondemocracy.Theserestrictions,exceptions,exclusions,obstaclesforthepoor,seemslight,especiallyintheeyesofonewhohasneverknownwanthimselfandhasneverbeeninclosecontactwiththeoppressedclassesintheirmasslife(andnine-tenths,ifnotninety-ninehundredths,ofthebourgeoispublicistsandpoliticiansareofthiscategory);butintheirsumtotaltheserestrictionsexcludeandsqueezeoutthepoorfrompolitics,fromtakinganactivepartindemocracy.

Marxgraspedthisessenceofcapitalistdemocracysplendidly,when,inanalyzingtheexperienceoftheCommune,hesaidthattheoppressedwereallowed,onceeveryfewyears,todecidewhichparticularrepresentativesoftheoppressingclassshouldmisrepresenttheminparliament!

Butfromthiscapitalistdemocracy—inevitablynarrow,tacitlyrepellingthepoor,andthereforehypocriticalandfalsetothecore—developmentdoesnotproceedsimply,smoothlyanddirectlyto“greaterandgreaterdemocracy,”astheliberalprofessorsandpetty-bourgeoisopportunistswouldhaveusbelieve.No,development—towardscommunism—proceedsthroughthedictatorshipoftheproletariat;itcannotdootherwise,fortheresistanceofthecapitalistexploiterscannotbebrokenbyanyoneelseorinanyotherway.

Butthedictatorshipoftheproletariat,i.e.,theorganizationofthevanguardoftheoppressedastherulingclassforthepurposeofcrushingtheoppressors,cannotresultmerelyinanexpansionofdemocracy.Simultaneouslywithanimmenseex-pensionofdemocracywhichforthefirsttimebecomesdemocracyforthepoor,democracyforthepeople,andnotdemocracyfortherich,thedictatorshipoftheproletariatimposesaseriesofrestrictionsonthefreedomoftheoppressors,theexploiters,thecapitalists.Wemustcrushtheminordertofreehumanityfromwage-slavery;theirresistancemustbebrokenbyforce;itisclearthatwherethereissuppressionthereisalsoviolence,thereisnofreedom,nodemocracy.

EngelsexpressedthissplendidlyinhislettertoBebelwhenhesaid,asthereaderwillremember,that

“solongastheproletariatstillusesthestateitdoesnotuseitintheinterestsoffreedombutinordertoholddownitsadversaries,andassoonasitbecomespossibletospeakoffreedomthestateassuchceasestoexist.”

Democracyforthevastmajorityofthepeople,andsuppressionbyforce,i.e.,exclusionfromdemocracy,oftheexploitersandoppressorsofthepeople—thisisthechangedemocracyundergoesduringthetransitionfromcapitalismtocommunism.

Onlyincommunistsociety,whentheresistanceofthecapitalistshasbeencompletelybroken,whenthecapitalistshavedisappeared,whentherearenoclasses(i.e.,whenthereisnodifferencebetweenthemembersofsocietyasregardstheirrelationtothesocialmeansofproduction),onlythendoes“thestate...ceasetoexist,”andit“becomespossibletospeakoffreedom.”Onlythenwillreallycompletedemocracy,democracywithoutanyexceptions,bepossibleandberealized.Andonlythenwilldemocracyitselfbegintowitherawayowingtothesimplefactthat,freedfromcapitalistslavery,fromtheuntoldhorrors,savagery,absurditiesandinfamiesofcapitalistexploitation,peoplewillgraduallybecomeaccustomedtoobservingtheelementaryrulesofsociallifethathavebeenknownforcenturiesandrepeatedforthousandsofyearsinallcopy-bookmaxims;theywillbecomeaccustomedtoobservingthemwithoutforce,withoutcompulsion,withoutsubordination,withoutthespecialapparatusforcompulsionwhichiscalledthestate.

Theexpression“thestatewithersaway”isverywellchosen,foritindicatesboththegradualandthespontaneousnatureoftheprocess.Onlyhabitcan,andundoubtedlywill,havesuchaneffect;forweseearoundusmillionsoftimeshowreadilypeoplebecomeaccustomedtoobservingthenecessaryrulesofsociallifeifthereisnoexploitation,ifthereisnothingthatcausesindignation,thatcallsforthprotestandrevoltandhastobesuppressed.

Thus,incapitalistsocietywehaveademocracythatiscurtailed,wretched,false;ademocracyonlyfortherich,fortheminority.Thedictatorshipoftheproletariat,theperiodoftransitiontocommunism,will,forthefirsttime,createdemocracyforthepeople,forthemajority,inadditiontothenecessarysuppressionoftheminority—theexploiters.Communismaloneiscapableofgivingreallycompletedemocracy,andthemorecompleteitisthemorequicklywillitbecomeunnecessaryandwitherawayofitself.

Inotherwords:undercapitalismwehaveastateinthepropersenseoftheword,thatis,aspecialmachineforthesuppressionofoneclassbyanother,andofthemajoritybytheminorityatthat.Naturally,thesuccessfuldischargeofsuchataskasthesystematicsuppressionoftheexploitedmajoritybytheexploitingminoritycallsforthegreatestferocityandsavageryintheworkofsuppression,itcallsforseasofbloodthroughwhichmankindhastowadeinslavery,serfdomandwage-labor.

Furthermore,duringthetransitionfromcapitalismtocommunism,suppressionisstillnecessary;butitisthesuppressionoftheexploitingminoritybytheexploitedmajority.Aspecialapparatus,aspecialmachineforsuppression,the“state,”isstillnecessary,butthisisnowatransitorystate;itisnolongerastateinthepropersense;forthesuppressionoftheminorityofexploitersbythemajorityofthewage-slavesofyesterdayiscomparativelysoeasy,simpleandnaturalataskthatitwillentailfarlessbloodshedthanthesuppressionoftherisingsofslaves,serfsorwage-laborers,anditwillcostmankindfarless.Thisiscompatiblewiththediffusionofdemocracyamongsuchanoverwhelmingmajorityofthepopulationthattheneedforaspecialmachineofsuppressionwillbegintodisappear.Theexploitersare,naturally,unabletosuppressthepeoplewithoutaverycomplexmachineforperformingthistask;butthepeoplecansuppresstheexploiterswithaverysimple“machine,”almostwithouta“machine,”withoutaspecialapparatus,bythesimpleorganizationofthearmedmasses(suchastheSovietsofWorkers’andSoldiers’Deputies,wemayremark,runningaheadalittle).

Finally,onlycommunismmakesthestateabsolutelyunnecessary,forthereisnoonetobesuppressed—“noone”inthesenseofaclass,inthesenseofasystematicstruggleagainstadefinitesectionofthepopulation.Wearenotutopians,andwedonotintheleastdenythepossibilityandinevitabilityofexcessesonthepartofindividualpersons,ortheneedtosuppresssuchexcesses.But,inthefirstplace,nospecialmachine,nospecialapparatusofrepressionisneededforthis:thiswillbedonebythearmedpeopleitself,assimplyandasreadilyasanycrowdofcivilizedpeople,eveninmodernsociety,partstwopeoplewhoarefighting,orinterferestopreventawomanfrombeingassaulted.And,secondly,weknowthatthefundamentalsocialcauseofexcesses,whichconsistinviolatingtherulesofsociallife,istheexploitationofthemasses,theirwantandtheirpoverty.Withtheremovalofthischiefcause,excesseswillinevitablybeginto“witheraway.”Wedonotknowhowquicklyandinwhatorder,butweknowthattheywillwitheraway.Withtheirwitheringaway,thestatewillalsowitheraway.

Withoutdroppingintoutopias,Marxdefinedmorefullywhatcanbedefinednowregardingthisfuture,namelythedifferencebetweenthelowerandhigherphases(degrees,stages)ofcommunistsociety.

3.THEFIRSTPHASEOFCOMMUNISTSOCIETYIntheCritiqueoftheGothaProgram,Marxgoesintosomedetailto

disproveLassalle’sideathatundersocialismtheworkerwillreceivethe“undiminished”or“wholeproceedsofhislabor.”Marxshowsthatfromthewholeofthesociallaborofsocietyitisnecessarytodeductareservefund,afundfortheexpansionofproduction,forthereplacementof“worn-out”machinery,andsoon;then,also,fromthemeansofconsumptionmustbedeductedafundfortheexpensesofmanagement,forschools,hospitals,homesfortheaged,andsoon.

InsteadofLassalle’shazy,obscure,generalphrase—“thewholeproceedsofhislabortotheworker”—Marxmakesasoberestimateofexactlyhowsocialistsocietywillhavetomanageitsaffairs.Marxproceedstomakeaconcreteanalysisoftheconditionsoflifeofasocietyinwhichthereisnocapitalism,andsays:

“Whatwehavetodealwithhere[inanalyzingtheprogramoftheParty]isacommunistsocietynotasithasdevelopedonitsownfoundations,butonthecontraryasitemergesfromcapitalistsociety;whichisthusineveryrespecteconomically,morallyandintellectuallystillstampedwiththebirthmarksoftheoldsocietyfromwhosewombitemerges.”

Anditisthecommunistsociety—asocietywhichhasjustcomeintotheworldoutofthewombofcapitalismandwhich,ineveryrespect,bearsthebirthmarksoftheoldsociety—thatMarxtermsthe“first,”orlower,phaseofcommunistsociety.

Themeansofproductionarenolongertheprivatepropertyofindividuals.Themeansofproductionbelongtothewholeofsociety.Everymemberofsociety,performingacertainpartofsocially-necessarylabor,receivesacertificatefromsocietytotheeffectthathehasdonesuchandsuchanamountofwork.Accordingtothiscertificate,hereceivesfromthepublicwarehouses,

wherearticlesofconsumptionarestored,acorrespondingquantityofproducts.Deductingthatproportionoflaborwhichgoestothepublicfund,everyworker,therefore,receivesfromsocietyasmuchashehasgivenit.

“Equalright,”seemstoreignsupreme.

ButwhenLassalle,havingsuchasocialorderinview(generallycalledsocialism,buttermedbyMarxthefirstphaseofcommunism),speaksofthisas“equitabledistribution,”andsaysthatthisis“theequalright”of“allmembersofsociety”to“equalproceedsoflabor,”heismistaken,andMarxexposeshiserror.

“Equalright,”saysMarx,weindeedhavehere;butitisstilla“bourgeoisright,”which,likeeveryright,presupposesinequality.Everyrightisanapplicationofthesamemeasuretodifferentpeoplewho,infact,arenotthesameandarenotequaltooneanother;thatiswhy“equalright”isreallyaviolationofequalityandaninjustice.Asamatteroffact,everymanhavingperformedasmuchsociallaborasanotherreceivesanequalshareofthesocialproduct(lesstheabove-mentioneddeductions).

Butpeoplearenotalike:oneisstrong,anotherisweak;oneismarried,anotherisnot;onehasmorechildren,anotherhasless,andsoon.AndtheconclusionMarxdrawsis:

“...withanequaloutputandhenceanequalshareinthesocialconsumptionfund,onewillinfactreceivemorethananother,onewillbericherthananotherandsoon.Toavoidallthesedefects,right,insteadofbeingequal,wouldhavetobeunequal.”

Hence,thefirstphaseofcommunismcannotproducejusticeandequality;differences,andunjustdifferences,inwealthwillstillexist,buttheexploitationofmanbymanwillhavebecomeimpossible,becauseitwillbeimpossibletoseizethemeansofproduction,thefactories,machines,land,etc.,asprivateproperty.InsmashingLassalle’spetty-bourgeois,confusedphrasesabout“equality”and“justice”ingeneral,Marxshowsthecourseofdevelopmentofcommunistsociety,which,atfirst,iscompelledtoabolishonlythe“injustice”ofthemeansofproductionhavingbeenseizedbyprivateindividualsandwhichcannotatonceabolishtheotherinjusticeofthedistributionofarticlesofconsumption“accordingtotheamountofworkperformed”(andnot

accordingtoneeds).

Thevulgareconomists,includingthebourgeoisprofessorsandalso“our”Tugan-Baranovsky,constantlyreproachtheSocialistswithforgettingtheinequalityofpeopleandwith“dreaming”ofabolishingthisinequality.Suchareproach,aswesee,onlyprovestheextremeignoranceofMessieursthebourgeoisideologists.

Marxnotonlyscrupulouslytakesintoaccounttheinevitableinequalityofmen;healsotakesintoaccountthefactthatthemereconversionofthemeansofproductionintothecommonpropertyofthewholeofsociety(generallycalled“socialism”)doesnotremovethedefectsofdistributionandtheinequalityof“bourgeoisright”whichcontinuetoprevailaslongastheproductsaredivided“accordingtotheamountofworkperformed.”Continuing,Marxsays:

“Butthesedefectsareinevitableinthefirstphaseofcommunistsocietyasitiswhenithasjustemergedafterprolongedbirthpangsfromcapitalistsociety.Rightcanneverbehigherthantheeconomicstructureofsocietyandtheculturaldevelopmenttherebydetermined.”

Andso,inthefirstphaseofcommunistsociety(generallycalledsocialism)“bourgeoisright”isnotabolishedinitsentirety,butonlyinpart,onlyinproportiontotheeconomictransformationsofarattained,i.e.,onlyinrespectofthemeansofproduction.“Bourgeoisright”recognizesthemastheprivatepropertyofseparateindividuals.Socialismconvertsthemintocommonproperty.Tothatextent,andtothatextentalone,“bourgeoisright”disappears.

However,itcontinuestoexistsofarasitsotherpartisconcerned;itremainsinthecapacityofregulator(determiningfactor)inthedistributionofproductsandallotmentoflaboramongthemembersofsociety.Thesocialistprinciple:“Hewhodoesnotwork,neithershallheeat,”isalreadyrealized;theothersocialistprinciple:“Anequalamountoflaborforanequalquantityofproducts,”isalsoalreadyrealized.Butthisisnotyetcommunism,anditdoesnotabolish“bourgeoisright,”whichgivestounequalindividuals,inreturnforanunequal(actuallyunequal)amountofwork,anequalquantityofproducts.

Thisisa“defect,”saysMarx,butitisunavoidableinthefirstphaseof

communism;forifwearenottofallintoutopianism,wecannotimaginethat,havingoverthrowncapitalism,peoplewillatoncelearntoworkforsocietywithoutanystandardofright;indeed,theabolitionofcapitalismdoesnotimmediatelycreatetheeconomicprerequisitesforsuchachange.

Andthereisasyetnootherstandardthanthatof“bourgeoisright.”Tothisextent,therefore,thereisstillneedforastate,which,whilesafeguardingthepublicownershipofthemeansofproduction,wouldsafeguardtheequalityoflaborandequalityinthedistributionofproducts.

Thestatewithersawayinsofarastherearenolongeranycapitalists,anyclasses,andconsequently,noclasscanbesuppressed.

Butthestatehasnotyetcompletelywitheredaway,sincetherestillremainstheprotectionof“bourgeoisright”whichsanctifiesactualinequality.Forthecompletewitheringawayofthestate,completecommunismisnecessary.

4 .THEHIGHERPHASEOFCOMMUNISTSOCIETYMarxcontinues:

“Inahigherphaseofcommunistsocietyaftertheenslavingsubordinationofindividualsunderdivisionoflabor,andtherewithalsotheantithesisbetweenmentalandphysicallabor,hasvanished;afterlaborhasbecomenotmerelyameanstolivebuthasbecomeitselftheprimarynecessityoflife;aftertheproductiveforceshavealsoincreasedwiththeall-rounddevelopmentoftheindividual,andallthespringsofco-operativewealthflowmoreabundantly—onlythencanthenarrowhorizonofbourgeoisrightbefullyleftbehindandsocietyinscribeonitsbanners:fromeachaccordingtohisability,toeachaccordingtohisneeds!”

OnlynowcanweappreciatetothefullthecorrectnessofEngels’remarksinwhichhemercilesslyridiculedtheabsurdityofcombiningthewords“freedom”and“state.”Whilethestateexiststhereisnofreedom.Whenfreedomexists,therewillbenostate.

Theeconomicbasisforthecompletewitheringawayofthestateisthehighstageofdevelopmentofcommunisminwhichtheantithesisbetweenmentalandphysicallabordisappears,thatistosay,whenoneoftheprincipalsources

ofmodernsocialinequality—asource,moreover,whichcannotberemovedimmediatelybythemereconversionofthemeansofproductionintopublicproperty,bythemereexpropriationofthecapitalists—disappears.

Thisexpropriationwillfacilitatetheenormousdevelopmentoftheproductiveforces.Andseeinghowcapitalismisalreadyretardingthisdevelopmenttoanincredibledegree,seeinghowmuchprogresscouldbeachievedevenonthebasisofthepresentlevelofmoderntechnique,wehavearighttosaywiththefullestconfidencethattheexpropriationofthecapitalistswillinevitablyresultintheenormousdevelopmentoftheproductiveforcesofhumansociety.Buthowrapidlythisdevelopmentwillproceed,howsoonitwillreachthepointofbreakingawayfromthedivisionoflabor,ofremovingtheantithesisbetweenmentalandphysicallabor,oftransformingworkintothe“primarynecessityoflife”—wedonotandcannotknow.

Thatiswhywehavearighttospeakonlyoftheinevitablewitheringawayofthestate;wemustemphasizetheprotractednatureofthisprocessanditsdependenceupontherapidityofdevelopmentofthehigherphaseofcommunism;andweleavethequestionoflengthoftime,ortheconcreteformsofthewitheringaway,quiteopen,becausenomaterialisavailabletoenableustoanswerthesequestions.

Thestatewillbeabletowitherawaycompletelywhensocietycanapplytherule:“Fromeachaccordingtohisability,toeachaccordingtohisneeds,”i.e.,whenpeoplehavebecomesoaccustomedtoobservingthefundamentalrulesofsociallifeandwhentheirlaborissoproductivethattheywillvoluntarilyworkaccordingtotheirability.“Thenarrowhorizonofbourgeoisright,”whichcompelsonetocalculatewiththeshrewdnessofaShylockwhetherhehasnotworkedhalfanhourmorethananother,whetherheisnotgettinglesspaythananother—thisnarrowhorizonwillthenbeleftbehind.Therewillthenbenoneedforsocietytomakeanexactcalculationofthequantityofproductstobedistributedtoeachofitsmembers;eachwilltakefreely“accordingtohisneeds.”

Fromthebourgeoispointofview,itiseasytodeclaresuchasocialordertobe“apureutopia,”andtosneerattheSocialistsforpromisingeveryonetherighttoreceivefromsociety,withoutanycontrolofthelaboroftheindividualcitizen,anyquantityoftruffles,automobiles,pianos,etc.Evennow,mostbourgeois“savants”makeshiftwithsuchsneers,therebydisplayingatoncetheirignoranceandtheirselfishdefenseofcapitalism.

Ignorance—forithasneverenteredtheheadofanySocialistto“promise”thatthehigherphaseofcommunismwillarrive;andthegreatSocialists,inforeseeingitsarrival,presupposedbothaproductivityoflaborunlikethepresentandapersonunlikethepresentmaninthestreetwho,liketheseminarystudentsinPomyalovsky’sstory,iscapableofdamagingthestoresofsocialwealth“justforfun,”andofdemandingtheimpossible.

Untilthe“higher”phaseofcommunismarrives,theSocialistsdemandthestrictestcontrol,bysocietyandbythestate,oftheamountoflaborandtheamountofconsumption;butthiscontrolmuststartwiththeexpropriationofthecapitalists,withtheestablishmentofworkers’controloverthecapitalists,andmustbecarriedout,notbyastateofbureaucrats,butbyastateofarmedworkers.

Theselfishdefenseofcapitalismbythebourgeoisideologists(andtheirhangers-on,likeMessrs.Tseretelli,ChernovandCo.)liesintheirsubstitutingcontroversiesanddiscussionsaboutthedistantfuturefortheessentialimperativequestionsofpresent-daypolicy,viz.,theexpropriationofthecapitalists,theconversionofallcitizensintoworkersandemployeesofonehuge“syndicate”—thewholestate—andthecompletesubordinationofthewholeoftheworkofthissyndicatetothereallydemocraticstateoftheSovietsofWorkers’andSoldiers’Deputies.

Inreality,whenalearnedprofessor,andfollowinghimsomephilistine,andfollowingthelatterMessrs.TseretelliandChernov,talkoftheunreasonableutopias,ofthedemagogicpromisesoftheBolsheviks,oftheimpossibilityof“introducing”socialism,itisthehigherstageorphaseofcommunismwhichtheyhaveinmind,andwhichnoonehaseverpromised,orhaseventhoughtof“introducing,”because,generallyspeaking,itcannotbe“introduced.”

AndthisbringsustothequestionofthescientificdifferencebetweensocialismandcommunismwhichEngelstouchedoninhisabove-quotedargumentabouttheincorrectnessofthename“Social-Democrat.”Thepoliticaldifferencebetweenthefirst,orlower,andthehigherphaseofcommunismwillintime,nodoubt,betremendous;butitwouldberidiculoustotakecognizanceofthisdifferencenow,undercapitalism;onlysomeisolatedanarchist,perhaps,couldinvestitwithprimaryimportance(iftherearestillanypeopleamongtheanarchistswhohavelearnednothingfromthe“Plekhanovist”conversionoftheKropotkins,theGraveses,theCornelisensandother“leadinglights”ofanarchismintosocial-chauvinistsor“anarcho-trenchists,”asGe,oneofthefewanarchistswhohasstillpreservedasenseofhonorandaconscience,has

expressedit).

Butthescientificdifferencebetweensocialismandcommunismisclear.WhatisgenerallycalledsocialismwastermedbyMarxthe“first”orlowerphaseofcommunistsociety.Insofarasthemeansofproductionbecomecommonproperty,theword“communism”isalsoapplicablehere,providingwedonotforgetthatitisnotcompletecommunism.ThegreatsignificanceofMarx’sexplanationsliesinthathere,too,heconsistentlyappliesmaterialistdialectics,thetheoryofdevelopment,andregardscommunismassomethingwhichdevelopsoutofcapitalism.Insteadofscholasticallyinvented,“concocted”definitionsandfruitlessdisputesaboutwords(whatissocialism?whatiscommunism?),Marxgivesananalysisofwhatmaybecalledstagesintheeconomicripenessofcommunism.

Initsfirstphase,orfirststage,communismcannotasyetbeeconomicallyripeandentirelyfreefromallthetraditionsandalltracesofcapitalism.Hencetheinterestingphenomenonthatcommunisminitsfirstphaseretains“thenarrowhorizonofbourgeoisright.”Ofcourse,bourgeoisrightinregardtodistributionofarticlesofconsumptioninevitablypresupposestheexistenceofthebourgeoisstate,forrightisnothingwithoutanapparatuscapableofenforcingtheobservanceofthestandardsofright.

Consequently,foracertaintimenotonlybourgeoisright,buteventhebourgeoisstateremainsundercommunism,withoutthebourgeoisie!

ThismaysoundlikeaparadoxorsimplyadialecticalpuzzlewhichMarxismisoftenaccusedofinventingbypeoplewhowouldnottaketheslightesttroubletostudyitsextraordinarilyprofoundcontent.

Asamatteroffact,however,theremnantsoftheoldsurvivinginthenewconfrontusinlifeateverystep,innatureaswellasinsociety.Marxdidnotsmuggleascrapof“bourgeois”rightintocommunismofhisownaccord;heindicatedwhatiseconomicallyandpoliticallyinevitableinthesocietywhichisemergingfromthewombofcapitalism.

Democracyisofgreatimportancefortheworkingclassinitsstruggleforfreedomagainstthecapitalists.Butdemocracyisbynomeansaboundarythatmustnotbeoverstepped;itisonlyoneofthestagesintheprocessofdevelopmentfromfeudalismtocapitalism,andfromcapitalismtocommunism.

Democracymeansequality.Thegreatsignificanceoftheproletariat’sstruggleforequalityandthesignificanceofequalityasasloganwillbeclear

ifwecorrectlyinterpretitasmeaningtheabolitionofclasses.Butdemocracymeansonlyformalequality.Assoonasequalityisobtainedforallmembersofsocietyinrelationtotheownershipofthemeansofproduction,thatis,equalityoflaborandequalityofwages,humanitywillinevitablybeconfrontedwiththequestionofgoingbeyondformalequalitytorealequality,i.e.,toapplyingtherule,“fromeachaccordingtohisability,toeachaccordingtohisneeds.”Bywhatstages,bywhatpracticalmeasureshumanitywillproceedtothishigheraim—wedonotandcannotknow.Butitisimportanttorealizehowinfinitelymendaciousistheordinarybourgeoisconceptionofsocialismassomethinglifeless,petrified,fixedonceforall,whereasinrealityonlyundersocialismwillarapid,genuine,reallymassmovement,embracingfirstthemajorityandthenthewholeofthepopulation,commenceinallspheresofsocialandindividuallife.

Democracyisaformofstate,oneofitsvarieties.Consequently,likeeverystate,it,ontheonehand,representstheorganized,systematicapplicationofforceagainstpersons;but,ontheotherhand,itsignifiestheformalrecognitionoftheequalityofallcitizens,theequalrightofalltodeterminethestructureandadministrationofthestate.This,inturn,isconnectedwiththefactthat,atacertainstageinthedevelopmentofdemocracy,itfirstralliestheproletariatasarevolutionaryclassagainstcapitalism,andgivesittheopportunitytocrush,tosmashtoatoms,towipeoffthefaceoftheearththebourgeois,eventherepublicanbourgeois,statemachine,thestandingarmy,thepoliceandbureaucracy;tosubstituteforallthisamoredemocratic,butstillastatemachineintheshapeofthearmedmassesofworkerswhobecometransformedintoauniversalpeople’smilitia.

Here“quantityistransformedintoquality”:suchadegreeofdemocracyisconnectedwithoversteppingtheboundariesofbourgeoissociety,withthebeginningofitssocialistreconstruction.If,indeed,alltakepartintheadministrationofthestate,capitalismcannotretainitshold.Thedevelopmentofcapitalism,inturn,itselfcreatestheprerequisitesthatenableindeed“all”totakepartintheadministrationofthestate.Someoftheseprerequisitesare:universalliteracy,alreadyachievedinmostoftheadvancedcapitalistcountries,thenthe“traininganddisciplining”ofmillionsofworkersbythehuge,complexandsocializedapparatusofthepost-office,therailways,thebigfactories,large-scalecommerce,banking,etc.,etc.

Withsucheconomicprerequisitesitisquitepossible,immediately,overnight,aftertheoverthrowofthecapitalistsandbureaucrats,tosupersede

theminthecontrolofproductionanddistribution,intheworkofkeepingaccountoflaboranditsproductsbythearmedworkers,bythewholeofthearmedpopulation.(Thequestionofcontrolandaccountingmustnotbeconfusedwiththequestionofthescientificallyeducatedstaffofengineers,agronomistsandsoon.Thesegentlemenareworkingtodayandobeythecapitalists;theywillworkevenbettertomorrowandobeythearmedworkers.)

Accountingandcontrol—thesearetheprincipalthingsthatarenecessaryforthe“settingup”andcorrectfunctioningofthefirstphaseofcommunistsociety.Allcitizensaretransformedintothesalariedemployeesofthestate,whichconsistsofthearmedworkers.Allcitizensbecomeemployeesandworkersofasinglenationalstate“syndicate.”Allthatisrequiredisthattheyshouldworkequally—dotheirpropershareofwork—andgetpaidequally.Theaccountingandcontrolnecessaryforthishavebeensoutterlysimplifiedbycapitalismthattheyhavebecometheextraordinarilysimpleoperationsofchecking,recordingandissuingreceipts,whichanyonewhocanreadandwriteandwhoknowsthefirstfourrulesofarithmeticcanperform.111

Whenthemajorityofthepeoplethemselvesbegineverywheretokeepsuchaccountsandmaintainsuchcontroloverthecapitalists(nowconvertedintoemployees)andovertheintellectualgentry,whopreservetheircapitalisthabits,thiscontrolwillreallybecomeuniversal,general,national;andtherewillbenowayofgettingawayfromit,therewillbe“nowheretogo.”

Thewholeofsocietywillhavebecomeasingleofficeandasinglefactorywithequalityofworkandequalityofpay.

Butthis“factory”discipline,whichtheproletariatwillextendtothewholeofsocietyafterthedefeatofthecapitalistsandtheoverthrowoftheexploiters,isbynomeansourideal,orourultimategoal.Itisbutanecessarystepforthepurposeofthoroughlypurgingsocietyofallthehideousnessandfoulnessofcapitalistexploitation,andforthepurposeofadvancingfurther.

Fromthemomentallmembersofsociety,orevenonlytheoverwhelmingmajority,havelearnedtoadministerthestatethemselves,havetakenthisbusinessintotheirownhands,have“setup”controlovertheinsignificantminorityofcapitalists,overthegentry,whowishtopreservetheircapitalisthabits,andovertheworkerswhohavebeencompletelydemoralizedbycapitalism—fromthismomenttheneedforgovernmentbeginstodisappear.Themorecompletedemocracybecomes,thenearerthemomentapproacheswhenitbecomesunnecessary.Themoredemocraticthe“state”ofthearmed

workers—whichis“nolongerastateinthepropersenseoftheword”—becomes,themorerapidlydoesthestatebegintowitheraway.

Forwhenallhavelearnedtheartofadministration,andwillindeedindependentlyadministersocialproduction,willindependentlykeepaccounts,controltheidlers,thegentlefolk,theswindlersandsimilar“guardiansofcapitalisttraditions,”theescapefromthisnationalaccountingandcontrolwillin-inevitablybecomesoincreasinglydifficult,sucharareexception,andwillprobablybeaccompaniedbysuchswiftandseverepunishment(forthearmedworkersarepracticalmenandnotsentimentalintellectuals,andtheywillscarcelyallowanyonetotriflewiththem),thatverysoonthenecessityofobservingthesimple,fundamentalrulesofhumanintercoursewillbecomeahabit.

Thedoorwillthenbewideopenforthetransitionfromthefirstphaseofcommunistsocietytoitshigherphase,andwithittothecompletewitheringawayofthestate.

CHAPTERVI

THEVULGARIZATIONOFMARXISMBYTHEOPPORTUNISTSThequestionoftherelationofthestatetothesocialrevolution,andofthe

socialrevolutiontothestate,likethequestionofrevolutiongenerally,troubledtheprominenttheoreticiansandpublicistsoftheSecondInternational(1889-1914)verylittle.Butthemostcharacteristicthingintheprocessofthegradualgrowthofopportunism,whichledtothecollapseoftheSecondInternationalin1914,isthefactthatevenwhenthesepeopleactuallywereconfrontedwiththisquestiontheytriedtoevadeitorelsefailedtonoticeit.

Ingeneral,itmaybesaidthatevasivenessonthequestionoftherelationoftheproletarianrevolutiontothestate—anevasivenesswhichwastotheadvantageofopportunismandfosteredit—resultedinthedistortionofMarxismandinitscompletevulgarization.

Tocharacterizethislamentableprocessbriefly,weshalltakethemostprominenttheoreticiansofMarxism:PlekhanovandKautsky.

1.PLEKHANOV’SCONTROVERSYWITHTHEANARCHISTSPlekhanovwroteaspecialpamphletonthequestionoftherelationof

anarchismtosocialism,entitledAnarchismandSocialism,publishedinGermanin1894.

Plekhanovmanagedsomehowtotreatthissubjectwhilecompletelyignoringthemostvital,topical,andpoliticallyessentialpointinthestruggleagainstanarchism,viz.,therelationoftherevolutiontothestate,andthequestionofthestateingeneral!Hispamphletisdividedintotwoparts:one,historicalandliterary,containingvaluablematerialonthehistoryoftheideasofStirner,Proudhonandothers;theotherisphilistine,andcontainsaclumsydissertationonthethemethatananarchistcannotbedistinguishedfroma

bandit.

AnamusingcombinationofsubjectsandmostcharacteristicofPlekhanov’swholeactivityontheeveoftherevolutionandduringtherevolutionaryperiodinRussia.Indeed,intheyears1905to1917,Plekhanovrevealedhimselfasasemi-doctrinaireandsemi-philistinewho,inpolitics,followedinthewakeofthebourgeoisie.

Wehaveseenhow,intheircontroversywiththeanarchists,MarxandEngelsverythoroughlyexplainedtheirviewsontherelationofrevolutiontothestate.In1891,inhisforewordtoMarx’sCritiqueoftheGothaProgram,Engelswrotethat“we”—thatis,EngelsandMarx—“wereatthattime,hardlytwoyearsaftertheHagueCongressofthe[First]International,engagedinthemostviolentstruggleagainstBakuninandhisanarchists.”

TheanarchistshadtriedtoclaimtheParisCommuneastheir“own,”sotosay,asacorroborationoftheirdoctrine;andtheybetrayedutterinabilitytounderstanditslessonsandMarx’sanalysisoftheselessons.Anarchismhasfailedtogiveanythingevenapproachingatruesolutionoftheconcretepoliticalproblems,viz.,musttheoldstatemachinebesmashed?andwhatshouldsupersedeit?

Buttospeakof“anarchismandsocialism”andevadethequestionofthestate,tofailtotakenoteofthewholedevelopmentofMarxismbeforeandaftertheCommune,inevitablymeansslippingintoopportunism.Fortheverythingopportunismneedsisthatthetwoquestionsjustmentionedshouldnotberaisedatall.Thisisalreadyavictoryforopportunism.

2.KAUTSKY’SCONTROVERSYWITHTHEOPPORTUNISTSUndoubtedlyanimmeasurablylargernumberofKautsky’sworkshavebeen

translatedintoRussianthanintoanyotherlanguage.ItisnotwithoutreasonthatGermanSocial-DemocratssometimessayinjestthatKautskyisreadmoreinRussiathaninGermany(wemaysay,parenthetically,thatthereisdeeperhistoricalsignificanceinthisjestthanthosewhofirstmadeitsuspected;fortheRussianworkers,bycreatingin1905anextraordinarilystrong,anunprecedenteddemandforthebestworksofthebestSocial-Democraticliteratureintheworld,andbyreceivingtranslationsandeditionsoftheseworksinquantitiesunheardofinothercountries,transplantedatanacceleratedtempo,sotospeak,theenormousexperienceofaneighboring,moreadvanced

countrytotheyoungsoilofourproletarianmovement).

BesideshispopularizationofMarxism,Kautskyisparticularlywellknowninourcountrybecauseofhiscontroversywiththeopportunists,headedbyBernstein.Butonefactisalmostunknown,onewhichcannotbeoverlookedifwearetosetourselvesthetaskofinvestigatinghowitwasthatKautskydriftedintotheunbelievablydisgracefulmorassofconfusionanddefenseofsocial-chauvinismduringthegreatcrisisof1914-15.Thisfactisthefollowing:shortlybeforehecameoutagainsttheprominentrepresentativesofopportunisminFrance(MillerandandJaurès)andinGermany(Bernstein),Kautskybetrayedveryconsiderablevacillation.TheMarxianjournal,Zarya,whichwaspublishedinStuttgartin1901-02,andadvocatedrevolutionaryproletarianviews,wasforcedtoenterintocontroversywithKautsky,tocharacterizeas“elastic”thehalf-hearted,evasiveandconciliatoryresolutionontheopportuniststhatheproposedattheInternationalSocialistCongressinParisin1900.Kautsky’sletterspublishedinGermanyrevealnolesshesitancyonhispartbeforehetookthefieldagainstBernstein.

Ofimmeasurablygreatersignificance,however,isthefactthat,inhiscontroversywiththeopportunists,inhisformulationofthequestionandhismethodoftreatingit,wecanobserve,nowthatweareinvestigatingthehistoryofhislatestbetrayalofMarxism,hissystematicgravitationtowardsopportunismpreciselyonthequestionofthestate.

LetustakeKautsky’sfirstimportantworkagainstopportunism,BernsteinunddassozialdemokratischeProgramm.KautskyrefutesBernsteinindetail,butthecharacteristicthingaboutitisthefollowing:

Bernstein,inhisfamous(thefameofHerostratus)Voraus-setzungendesSozialismus,accusesMarxismof“Blanquism”(anaccusationsincerepeatedthousandsoftimesbytheopportunistsandliberalbourgeoisinRussiaagainsttherepresentativesofrevolutionaryMarxism,theBolsheviks).InthisconnectionBernsteindwellsparticularlyonMarx’sCivilWarinFrance,andtries,quiteunsuccessfully,aswehaveseen,toidentifyMarx’sviewsonthelessonsoftheCommunewiththoseofProudhon.BernsteinpaysparticularattentiontoMarx’sconclusion,whichthelatteremphasizedinhisprefaceof1872toTheCommunistManifesto,viz.,that“theworkingclasscannotsimplylayholdof

theready-madestatemachinery,andwielditforitsownpurposes.”

Thisutterance“pleased”Bernsteinsomuchthatherepeateditnolessthanthreetimesinhisbook—interpretingitinthemostdistortedopportunistsense.

Aswehaveseen,Marxwantedtosaythattheworkingclassmustsmash,break,blowup(Sprengung—theexpressionusedbyEngels)thewholestatemachine.ButaccordingtoBernsteinitwouldappearasthoughMarxinthesewordswarnedtheworkingclassagainstexcessiverevolutionaryzealwhenseizingpower.

AcruderanduglierdistortionofMarx’sideacannotbeimagined.

How,then,didKautskyproceedinhisdetailedrefutationofBernsteinism?

HerefrainedfromprobingthedepthsofthedistortionofMarxismbyopportunismonthispoint.Hecitedtheabove-quotedpassagefromEngels’prefacetoMarx’sCivilWarandsaidthataccordingtoMarxtheworkingclasscannotsimplylayholdoftheready-madestatemachine,butgenerallyspeaking,itcanlayholdofit—andthatwasall.NotaworddoesKautskyutteraboutthefactthatBernsteinattributedtoMarxtheveryoppositeofMarx’srealviews,aboutthefactthatthetaskoftheproletarianrevolutionwhichMarxadvancedin1852wasto“smash”thestatemachine.

TheresultwasthatthemostessentialdifferencebetweenMarxismandopportunismonthetasksoftheproletarianrevolutionwasglossedover!

Writing“inopposition”toBernstein,Kautskysaid:

“Wecansafelyleavethesolutionoftheproblemoftheproletariandictatorshiptothefuture.”

ThisisnotanargumentagainstBernstein,butinessence,aconcessiontohim,asurrendertoopportunism;foratpresenttheopportunistsasknothingbetterthanto“safelyleavetothefuture”allfundamentalquestionsofthetasksoftheproletarianrevolution.

From1852to1891,forfortyyears,MarxandEngelstaughttheproletariatthatitmustsmashthestatemachine.In1899,Kautsky,confrontedonthispointwiththecompletebetrayalofMarxismbytheopportunists,fraudulently

substitutedforthequestionofwhetheritwasnecessarytosmashthismachinethequestionoftheconcreteformsinwhichitwastobesmashed,andthentriedtoescapebehindthescreenofthe“indisputable”(andbarren)philistinetruththatconcreteformscannotbeknowninadvance!!

AgulfseparatesMarxandKautskyintheirrespectiveattitudestowardsthetaskoftheproletarianpartyinpreparingtheworkingclassforrevolution.

Weshalltakethenext,moremature,workbyKautsky,whichalso,toalargeextent,waswrittentorefuteopportunisterrors.Thisishispamphlet,TheSocialRevolution.Inthispamphlettheauthorchoseashisspecialthemethequestionof“theproletarianrevolution”andthe“proletarianregime.”Inithegavemuchthatwasexceedinglyvaluable,butheevadedthequestionofthestate.Throughoutthepamphlettheauthorspeaksoftheconquestofpoliticalpower—andnothingelse;thatis,hechoosesaformulawhichmakesaconcessiontotheopportunists,foritadmitsthepossibilityofpowerbeingseizedwithoutdestroyingthestatemachine.TheverythingwhichMarx,in1872,declaredtobe“obsolete”intheprogramofTheCommunistManifestoisrevivedbyKautskyin1902!

Inthepamphletaspecialsectionisdevotedto“theformsandweaponsofthesocialrevolution.”HereKautskyspeaksofthepoliticalmassstrike,ofcivilwar,andof“instrumentsofforceatthedisposalofthemodernlargestate,suchasthebureaucracyandthearmy”;butnotaworddoeshesayaboutwhattheCommunehadalreadytaughttheworkers.Evidently,Engels’warning,particularlytotheGermanSocialists,against“superstitiousreverence”forthestatewasnotanidleone.

Kautskyexplainsthematterbystatingthatthevictoriousproletariat“willcarryoutthedemocraticprogram,”andthenheformulatestheclausesofthisprogram.ButnotaworddoesKautskyutteraboutthenewthingstheyear1871taughtusconcerningbourgeoisdemocracybeingsupersededbyproletariandemocracy.Kautskydisposesofthequestionby“ponderous”soundingbanalitiessuchas:

“Still,itgoeswithoutsayingthatweshallnotachievepowerunderpresentconditions.Revolutionitselfpresupposeslonganddeep-goingstruggles,whichwillchangeourpresentpoliticalandsocialstructure.”

Undoubtedlythis“goeswithoutsaying,”asmuchasthestatementthathorseseatoats,orthattheVolgaflowsintotheCaspianSea.Itisapitythatanemptyandbombasticphraseabout“deep-going”strugglesisusedasameansofevadingthequestionthatisurgentfortherevolutionaryproletariat,namely,whatexpressesthe“deep-going”natureofitsrevolutioninrelationtothestate,inrelationtodemocracy,asdistinctfromprevious,non-proletarianrevolutions.

Byevadingthisquestion,Kautskyreallymakesaconcessiontoopportunismonthisveryessentialpoint,althoughinwordshedeclaredterriblewaragainstitandemphasizestheimportanceofthe“ideaofrevolution”(howmuchisthis“idea”worthifoneisafraidtoteachtheworkerstheconcretelessonsofrevolution?),orsays,“revolutionaryidealismbeforeeverything,”ordeclaresthattheEnglishworkersarenow“littlemorethanpettybourgeois.”

Kautskywrites:

“Themostvariedformsofenterprises—bureaucratic[??],tradeunion,co-operative,private...canexistsidebysideinsocialistsociety.

“...Thereareenterpriseswhichcannotdowithoutabureaucratic[??]organization,forexampletherailways.Herethedemocraticorganizationmighttakethefollowingform:theworkerswillelectdelegateswhowillformasortofparliament,whichdrawsuptheworkingregulationsandsuperintendsthemanagementofthebureaucraticapparatus.Themanagementofotherenterprisesmaybetransferredtothetradeunions,andstillothersmaybecomeco-operativeenterprises.”

Thisreasoningiserroneous,andisastepbackwardcomparedwithwhatMarxandEngelsexplainedinthe‘seventies,usingthelessonsoftheCommuneasanexample.

Asfarastheallegedneedfora“bureaucratic”organizationisconcerned,thereisnodifferencewhateverbetweenrailwaysandanyotherenterpriseinlarge-scalemachineindustry,anyfactory,anylargestore,orlarge-scalecapitalistagriculturalenterprise.Thetechniqueofallsuchenterprisesrequirestheverystrictestdiscipline,thegreatestaccuracyonthepartofeveryonein

carryingouthisallottedtask,forotherwisethewholeenterprisewouldfailtowork,ormachineryorgoodswouldbedamaged.Inallsuchenterprisestheworkerswill,ofcourse,“electdelegateswhowillformasortofparliament.”

Butthewholepointisthatthis“sortofparliament”willnotbeaparliamentlikethebourgeois-parliamentaryinstitutions.Thewholepointisthatthis“sortofparliament”willnotmerely“drawuptheworkingregulations”and“superintendthemanagementofthebureaucraticapparatus,”asKautsky,whoseideasdonotgobeyondtheframeworkofbourgeoisparliamentarism,imagines.Insocialistsocietythe“sortofparliament”consistingofworkers’deputies,will,ofcourse,drawuptheworkingregulationsandsuperintendthemanagementofthe“apparatus”—butthisapparatuswillnotbe“bureaucratic.”Theworkers,havingconqueredpoliticalpower,willsmashtheoldbureaucraticapparatus,theywillshatterittoitsveryfoundations,theywillnotleaveasinglestoneofitstanding;andtheywillputinitsplaceanewoneconsistingofworkersandofficeemployees,againstwhosetransformationintobureaucratsmeasureswillatoncebetaken,asMarxandEngelspointedoutindetail:1)notonlyelection,butalsorecallatanytime;2)paymentnohigherthanthatofordinaryworkers;3)immediateintroductionofcontrolandsuperintendencebyall,sothatallshallbecome“bureaucrats”foratimeandsothat,therefore,noonecanbecomea“bureaucrat.”

KautskyhasnotreflectedatallonMarx’swords:

“TheCommunewastobeaworking,notaparliamentarybody,executiveandlegislativeatthesametime.”

Kautskyhasnotintheleastunderstoodthedifferencebetweenbourgeoisparliamentarism,whichcombinesdemocracy(notforthepeople)withbureaucracy(againstthepeople),andproletariandemocracy,whichwilltakeimmediatestepstocutbureaucracydowntotheroots,andwhichwillbeabletocarryoutthesemeasurestotheend,tothecompleteabolitionofbureaucracy,totheintroductionofcompletedemocracyforthepeople.

Kautskyherebetraystheold“superstitiousreverence”forthestate,and“superstitiousbelief”inbureaucracy.

WeshallnowpassontothelastandbestofKautsky’sworksagainsttheopportunists,hispamphlet,DerWegzurMacht(which,Ibelieve,hasnotbeen

translatedintoRussian,foritwaspublishedatthetimewhentheseverestreactionreignedhere,in1909).Thispamphletmarksaconsiderablestepforward,inasmuchasitdoesnotdealwiththerevolutionaryprogramingeneral,asinthepamphletof1899againstBernstein,norwiththetasksofthesocialrevolutionirrespectiveofthetimeofitsoccurrence,asinthepamphlet,TheSocialRevolution,1902;itdealswiththeconcreteconditionswhichcompelustorecognizethatthe“revolutionaryera”isapproaching.

Theauthordefinitelycallsattentiontotheintensificationofclassantagonismsingeneralandtoimperialism,whichplaysaparticularlyimportantpartinthisconnection.Afterthe“revolutionaryperiodof1789-1871”inWesternEurope,hesays,asimilarperiodbeganintheEastin1905.Aworldwarisapproachingwithmenacingrapidity.“It[theproletariat]cannolongertalkofprematurerevolution.”“Wehaveenteredarevolutionaryperiod.”The“revolutionaryeraisbeginning.”

Thesedeclarationsareperfectlyclear.Kautsky’spamphletmustserveasameasureofcomparisonbetweenwhatGermanSocial-Democracypromisedtobebeforetheimperialistwarandthedepthofdegradationtowhichitfell—Kautskyincluded—whenthewarbrokeout.

InthepamphletweareexaminingKautskywrote:

“Thepresentsituationbringsthedangerthatwe”(i.e.,GermanSocial-Democracy)“mayeasilyappeartobe‘moremoderate’thanweare.”

Actually,itturnedoutthattheGermanSocial-DemocraticPartywasmuchmoremoderateandopportunistthanitappearedtobe!

Themorecharacteristicisit,therefore,thatalthoughhedefinitelydeclaredthattherevolutionaryerahadalreadybegun,Kautsky,inthepamphletwhichhehimselfsaidwasdevotedpreciselytoananalysisofthe“politicalrevolution,”againcompletelyevadedthequestionofthestate.

Thesumtotalofalltheseevasionsofthequestion,omissionsandequivocations,inevitablyledtocompletesurrendertoopportunism,ofwhichweshallsoonhavetospeak.

GermanSocial-Democracy,inthepersonofKautsky,seemstohave

declared:Ikeeptorevolutionaryviews(1899);Irecognize,inparticular,theinevitabilityofthesocialrevolutionoftheproletariat(1902);Irecognizetheapproachofanewrevolutionaryera(1909);still,nowthatthequestionofthetasksoftheproletarianrevolutioninrelationtothestateisraised,IgobackwardcomparedwithwhatMarxsaidaslongagoas1852(1912).

ItwaspreciselyinthisdirectformthatthequestionwasputinKautsky’scontroversywithPannekoek.

3.KAUTSKY’SCONTROVERSYWITHPANNEKOEKInopposingKautsky,Pannekoekcameoutasoneoftherepresentativesof

the“Leftradical”movementwhichcountedinitsranksRosaLuxemburg,KarlRadekandothers.Advocatingrevolutionarytactics,theywereunitedintheconvictionthatKautskywasgoingovertothepositionofthe“center,”whichwaveredwithoutprinciplesbetweenMarxismandopportunism.Thecorrectnessofthisviewwasfullyconfirmedbythewar,whenthis“center”trend,orKautskyism,wronglycalledMarxian,revealeditselfinallitsrepulsivewretchedness.

Inanarticletouchingonthequestionofthestate,entitled“MassActionandRevolution”(NeueZeit,1912,Vol.XXX,2),PannekoekcharacterizedKautsky’spositionasanattitudeof“passiveradicalism,”as“atheoryofinactivewaiting.”“Kautskylosessightoftheprocessofrevolution,”saidPannekoek.

Inrepresentingtheprobleminthisway,Pannekoekapproachedthesubjectwhichinterestsus,namely,thetasksoftheproletarianrevolutioninrelationtothestate.Hewrote:

“Thestruggleoftheproletariatisnotmerelyastruggleagainstthebourgeoisiewithstatepowerastheobjective,butastruggleagainstthestatepower.Thecontentofthisrevolutionisthedestructionanddissolution[Auflösung]oftheinstrumentsofpowerofthestatewiththeaidoftheinstrumentsofpoweroftheproletariat.”“Thestrugglewillceaseonlywhentheorganizationofthestateisutterlydestroyed.Theorganizationofthemajoritywillthenhavedemonstrateditssuperioritybyhavingdestroyedtheorganizationoftherulingminority.”

TheformulationinwhichPannekoekpresentedhisideassuffersfromseriousdefects,butitsmeaningissufficientlyclear;anditisinterestingtonotehowKautskycombatedit.Hewrote:

“UptonowthedifferencebetweentheSocial-Democratsandtheanarchistshasbeenthattheformerwishedtoconquerstatepowerwhilethelatterwishedtodestroyit.Pannekoekwantstodoboth.”

AlthoughPannekoek’sexpositionlacksprecisionandconcreteness—nottospeakofotherdefectsinhisarticlewhichhavenobearingonthepresentsubject—KautskyseizedontheprincipleoftheissueindicatedbyPannekoek;andonthisfundamentalquestionofprincipleKautskyabandonedtheMarxianpositionentirely,completelysurrenderedtoopportunism.HisdefinitionofthedifferencebetweentheSocial-Democratsandtheanarchistsisabsolutelywrong,andheutterlyvulgarizedanddistortedMarxism.

ThedifferencebetweentheMarxistsandtheanarchistsisthis:1)theformer,whileaimingatthecompleteabolitionofthestate,recognizethatthisaimcanonlybeachievedafterclasseshavebeenabolishedbythesocialistrevolution,astheresultoftheestablishmentofsocialismwhichleadstothewitheringawayofthestate.Thelatterwanttoabolishthestatecompletelyovernight,failingtounderstandtheconditionsunderwhichthestatecanbeabolished;2)theformerrecognizethataftertheproletariathasconqueredpoliticalpoweritmustutterlydestroytheoldstatemachineandsubstituteforitanewoneconsistingoftheorganizationofarmedworkers,afterthetypeoftheCommune.Thelatter,whileadvocatingthedestructionofthestatemachine,haveabsolutelynoclearideaofwhattheproletariatwillputinitsplaceandhowitwilluseitsrevolutionarypower;theanarchistsevendenythattherevolutionaryproletariatshouldutilizeitsstatepower,itsrevolutionarydictatorship;3)theformerdemandthattheproletariatbepreparedforrevolutionbyutilizingthepresentstate;thelatterrejectthis.

InthiscontroversyitisPannekoekandnotKautskywhorepresentsMarxism,foritwasMarxwhotaughtthatitisnotenoughfortheproletariatsimplytoconquerstatepowerinthesensethattheoldstateapparatuspassesintonewhands,butthattheproletariatmustsmash,breakthisapparatusandsubstituteanewoneforit.

KautskyabandonsMarxismfortheopportunists,becausepreciselythisdestructionofthestatemachine,whichisutterlyunacceptabletotheopportunists,completelydisappearsfromhisargument,andheleavesa

loopholeforthemwhichenablesthemtointerpret“conquest”assimplywinningamajority.

TocoveruphisdistortionofMarxism,KautskybehaveslikeaSchoolman:hejuggleswith“quotations”fromMarx.In1850Marxwrotethat“adecisivecentralizationofpowerinthehandsofthestate”wasnecessary,andKautskytriumphantlyasks:doesPannekoekwanttodestroy“centralism”?

ThisissimplyatricksimilartoBernstein’sidentificationoftheviewsofMarxismandProudhonismonfederalismversuscentralism.

Kautsky’s“quotation”hasnothingtodowiththecase.Thenewstatemachinepermitsofcentralismasmuchastheold;iftheworkersvoluntarilyunitetheirarmedforces,thiswillbecentralism,butthiscentralismwillbebasedonthe“completedestruction”ofthecentralizedstateapparatus—thestandingarmy,thepoliceandthebureaucracy.Kautskyactsexactlylikeaswindlerwhenheignorestheperfectlywell-knownargumentsofMarxandEngelsontheCommuneandpullsoutaquotationwhichhasnothingtodowiththecase.

Hecontinues:

“Perhapshe[Pannekoek]wantstoabolishthestatefunctionsoftheofficials?ButwecannotdowithoutofficialsinthePartyandthetradeunions,muchlessinthestateadministration.Ourprogramdoesnotdemandtheabolitionofstateofficials,butthattheybeelectedbythepeople....

“Wearenotdiscussingheretheformtheadministrativeapparatusofthe‘futurestate’willassume,butwhetherourpoliticalstrugglewilldissolve[auflöst]thestatepowerbeforewehavecapturedit[Kautsky’sitalics].WhichMinistryanditsofficialscouldbeabolished?”

ThenfollowsanenumerationoftheMinistriesofEducation,Justice,FinanceandWar.

“No,notoneofthepresentMinistrieswillberemovedbyourpoliticalstruggleagainstthegovernment....Irepeatinorderto

avoidmisunderstanding:wearenotdiscussingheretheformthefuturestatewillassumeasaresultofthevictoryofSocial-Democracy,buttheeffectouroppositionwillhaveonthepresentstate.”

Thisisanobvioustrick:Pannekoekraisedthequestionofrevolution.Boththetitleofhisarticleandthepassagesquotedaboveclearlyindicatethis.Inskippingtothequestionof“opposition,”Kautskysubstitutestheopportunistpointofviewfortherevolutionarypointofview.Whathesaysis:atpresent,opposition;weshalldiscusstheothermatterafterwehavecapturedpower.Revolutionhasvanished!Thisisexactlywhattheopportunistswanted.

Oppositionandthepoliticalstruggleingeneralarebesidethepoint;weareconcernedwithrevolution.Revolutionmeansthattheproletariatwilldestroythe“administrativeapparatus”andthewholestatemachine,andsubstituteforitanewoneconsistingofthearmedworkers.Kautskyrevealsa“superstitiousreverence”forMinistries;butwhycantheynotbesuperseded,say,bycommissionsofspecialists,workingundersovereign,all-powerfulSovietsofWorkers’andSoldiers’Deputies?

Thepointisnotwhetherthe“Ministries”willremain,orwhether“commissionsofspecialists”orotherkindsofinstitutionswillbesetup;thisisquiteunimportant.Thepointiswhethertheoldstatemachine(connectedbythousandsofthreadswiththebourgeoisieandcompletelysaturatedwithroutineandinertia)shallremain,orbedestroyedandsupersededbyanewone.Revolutionmustnotmeanthatthenewclasswillcommand,governwiththeaidoftheoldstatemachine,butthatthisclasswillsmashthismachineandcommand,governwiththeaidofanewmachine.KautskyeitherslursoverorhasutterlyfailedtounderstandthisfundamentalideaofMarxism.

HisquestionaboutofficialsclearlyshowsthathedoesnotunderstandthelessonsoftheCommuneortheteachingsofMarx.

“WecannotdowithoutofficialsinthePartyandthetradeunions,....”

Wecannotdowithoutofficialsundercapitalism,undertheruleofthebourgeoisie.Theproletariatisoppressed,themassesofthetoilersareenslavedbycapitalism.Undercapitalismdemocracyisrestricted,cramped,curtailed,mutilatedbyalltheconditionsofwage-slavery,thepovertyandmiseryofthemasses.Thisiswhyandtheonlyreasonwhytheofficialsofourpoliticalandindustrialorganizationsarecorrupted—or,moreprecisely,tendtobe

corrupted—bytheconditionsofcapitalism,whytheybetrayatendencytobecometransformedintobureaucrats,i.e.,intoprivilegedpersonsdivorcedfromthemassesandsuperiortothemasses.

Thisistheessenceofbureaucracy,anduntilthecapitalistshavebeenexpropriatedandthebourgeoisieoverthrown,evenproletarianofficialswillinevitablybe“bureaucratized”tosomeextent.

AccordingtoKautsky,sinceweshallhaveelectedofficialsundersocialism,weshallstillhavebureaucrats;“bureaucracy”willremain!Thisisexactlywhereheiswrong.ItwaspreciselytheexampleoftheCommunethatMarxquotedtoshowthatundersocialismofficialswillceasetobe“bureaucrats,”“officials”;theywillceasetobesuchinproportionas,inadditiontotheelectionofofficials,theprincipleofrecallatanytimeisintroduced,andassalariesarereducedtothelevelofthewagesoftheaverageworker,andastheparliamentaryinstitutionsaresupersededby“workingbodies,executiveandlegislativeatthesametime.”

Inessence,thewholeofKautsky’sargumentagainstPannekoek,andparticularlyhissplendidpointthatwecannotdowithoutofficialseveninourPartyandtradeunionorganizations,ismerelyarepetitionofBernstein’s“arguments”againstMarxismingeneral.Inhisrenegadebook,DieVoraussetzungendesSozialismus,Bernsteincombats“primitive”democracy,combatswhathecalls“doctrinairedemocracy”:imperativemandates,unpaidofficials,impotentcentralrepresentativebodies,etc.Toprovethat“primitivedemocracy”isworthless,BernsteinreferstotheexperienceoftheBritishtradeunions,asinterpretedbytheWebbs.Seventyyearsofdevelopment“inabsolutefreedom,”hesays(p.137,Germanedition),convincedthetradeunionsthatprimitivedemocracywasuseless,andtheysubstitutedordinarydemocracy,i.e.,parliamentarismcombinedwithbureaucracy,forit.

Asamatteroffactthetradeunionsdidnotdevelop“inabsolutefreedom”butinabsolutecapitalistslavery,underwhichanumberofconcessionstotheprevailingevil,violence,falsehood,exclusionofthepoorfromtheaffairsofthe“higher”administration“cannotbeavoided.”Undersocialismmuchofthe“primitive”democracywillinevitablyberevived,since,forthefirsttimeinthehistoryofcivilizedsociety,themassofthepopulationwillrisetoindependentparticipation,notonlyinvotingandelections,butalsointheeverydayadministrationofaffairs.Undersocialism,allwilltakepartintheworkofgovernmentinturnandwillsoonbecomeaccustomedtonoonegoverning.

Marx’scritico-analyticalgeniusperceivedinthepracticalmeasuresoftheCommunetheturningpoint,whichtheopportunistsfearanddonotwanttorecognizebecauseoftheircowardice,becausetheyarereluctanttobreakirrevocablywiththebourgeoisie,andwhichtheanarchistsdonotwanttoperceive,eitherthroughhasteorthroughagenerallackofunderstandingoftheconditionsofgreatsocialchanges.“Wemustnoteventhinkofdestroyingtheoldstatemachine;howcanwedowithoutMinistriesandwithoutofficials?”arguestheopportunistwhoiscompletelysaturatedwithphilistinism,andwho,infact,notonlydoesnotbelieveinrevolution,inthecreativepowerofrevolution,butactuallylivesinmortaldreadofit(likeourMensheviksandSocialist-Revolutionaries).

“Wemustthinkonlyofdestroyingtheoldstatemachine;itisnousestudyingtheconcretelessonsofpreviousproletarianrevolutionsandanalyzingwhattoputintheplaceofwhathasbeendestroyedandhow”arguestheanarchist(thebestoftheanarchists,ofcourse,andnotthosewho,withMessrs.KropotkinandCo.,followinthewakeofthebourgeoisie);consequently,thetacticsoftheanarchistbecomethetacticsofdespairinsteadofaruthlesslyboldrevolutionaryefforttosolveconcreteproblemswhiletakingintoaccountthepracticalconditionsofthemassmovement.

Marxteachesustoavoidbothkindsoferror;heteachesustodisplayboundlessaudacityindestroyingthewholeoftheoldstatemachine,andatthesametimeheteachesustoputthequestionconcretely:theCommunewasable,withinafewweeks,tostartbuildinganew,proletarianstatemachinebyintroducingsuchandsuchmeasurestosecurewiderdemocracyandtouprootbureaucracy.LetuslearnrevolutionaryaudacityfromtheCommunards;letusseeintheirpracticalmeasurestheoutlineofthepractically-urgentandimmediately-possiblemeasures,andthen,pursuingthisroad,weshallachievethecompletedestructionofbureaucracy.

Thepossibilityofthisdestructionisguaranteedbythefactthatsocialismwillshortentheworkingday,willraisethemassestoanewlife,willcreateconditionsforthemajorityofthepopulationthatwillenableeverybody,withoutexception,toperform“statefunctions,”andthiswillleadtothecompletewitheringawayofthestateingeneral.

Kautskycontinues:

“Its[themassstrike’s]objectcannotbetodestroythestate

power;itsonlyobjectcanbetowringconcessionsfromthegovernmentonsomeparticularquestion,ortoreplaceahostilegovernmentwithonethatwouldbemoreyielding[entgegenkom-mende]totheproletariat....Butnever,underanyconditions,canit[theproletarianvictoryoverahostilegovernment]leadtothedestructionofthestatepower;itcanleadonlytoacertainshifting[Verschiebung]oftherelationofforceswithinthestatepower....Theaimofourpoliticalstruggleremains,ashitherto,theconquestofstatepowerbywinningamajorityinparliamentandbyconvertingparliamentintothemasterofthegovernment.”

Thisisnothingbutthepurestandmostvulgaropportunism:arepudiationofrevolutionindeeds,whileacceptingitinwords.Kautsky’simaginationgoesnofurtherthana“government...thatwouldbemoreyieldingtotheproletariat”;thisisastepbackwardtophilistinismcomparedwith1847,whenTheCommunistManifestoproclaimed“theorganizationoftheproletariatastherulingclass.”

Kautskywillhavetoachievehisbeloved“unity”withtheScheidemanns,PlekhanovsandVanderveldes,allofwhomwillagreetofightforagovernment“thatwouldbemoreyieldingtotheproletariat.”

Butweshallgoforwardtoasplitwiththesetraitorstosocialism,andweshallfightforthecompletedestructionoftheoldstatemachineinorderthatthearmedproletariatitselfshallbecomethegovernment.Thereisa“bigdifference”betweenthetwo.

KautskymayenjoythepleasantcompanyoftheLegiens,Davids,Plekhanovs,Potresovs,TseretellisandChernovs,whoarequitewillingtoworkforthe“shiftingoftherelationofforceswithinthestatepower,”for“winningamajorityinparliament,”andconvertingparliamentintothe“masterofthegovernment.”Averyworthyobject,whichiswhollyacceptabletotheopportunistsandwhichkeepseverythingwithintheframeworkofthebourgeoisparliamentaryrepublic.

Weshallgoforwardtoasplitwiththeopportunists;andthewholeoftheclassconsciousproletariatwillbewithus—notforthepurposeof“shifting...therelationofforces,”butforthepurposeofoverthrowingthebourgeoisie,destroyingbourgeoisparliamentarism,forademocraticrepublicafterthetypeoftheCommune,orarepublicofSovietsofWorkers’andSoldiers’Deputies,

fortherevolutionarydictatorshipoftheproletariat.

TotheRightofKautskyininternationalSocialismtherearetrendssuchastheSozialistischeMonatshefteinGermany(Legien,David,Kolbandmanyothers,includingtheScandinavians,StauningandBranting);thefollowersofJaurèsandVanderveldeinFranceandBelgium;Turati,TrevesandotherrepresentativesoftheRightwingoftheItalianParty;theFabiansand“Independents”(theIndependentLaborParty,which,infact,isalwaysdependentontheLiberals)inEngland;andthelike.Allthesegentry,whileplayingagreat,veryoftenapredominantroleinparliamentaryworkandinthePartypress,openlyrepudiatethedictatorshipoftheproletariatandpursueapolicyofunconcealedopportunism.Intheeyesofthesegentry,the“dictatorship”oftheproletariat“contradicts”democracy!!Thereisreallynoessentialdifferencebetweenthemandthepetty-bourgeoisdemocrats.

Takingthiscircumstanceintoconsideration,wearerightindrawingtheconclusionthattheSecondInternational,inthepersonsoftheoverwhelmingmajorityofitsofficialrepresentatives,hascompletelysunkintoopportunism.TheexperienceoftheCommunehasbeennotonlyforgotten,butdistorted.Insteadofinculcatingintheworkers’mindstheideathatthetimeisnearwhentheymustriseupandsmashtheoldstatemachineandsubstituteforitanewone,andinthiswaymaketheirpoliticalrulethefoundationforthesocialistreconstructionofsociety,theyhaveactuallytaughttheworkerstheveryoppositeandhavedepictedthe“conquestofpower”inawaythathasleftthousandsofloopholesforopportunism.

Thedistortionandhushingupofthequestionoftherelationoftheproletarianrevolutiontothestatecouldnotbutplayanimmenseroleatatimewhenthestates,withtheirmilitaryapparatusenlargedasaconsequenceofimperialistrivalry,becametransformedintomilitarymonsterswhichwereexterminatingmillionsofpeopleinordertodecidewhetherEnglandorGermany—thisorthatfinancecapital—wastoruletheworld.

SUGGESTIONSFORFURTHERREADING

ForthosewhowishtopursuethesubjectofLenin’sphilosophyofcommunismintheoryandaction,obviouslythestudyofLenin’sotherworkswillbevaluable.Forthosewhowishtofollowotherpathsofinquiry,thefollowingsuggestionsmaybeofuse.

ForabiographicalstudyofLenin:TheLifeofLenin,byLouisFischer.Or,forthosewhodesireabriefbiographicalintroduction,withmanyexcellentillustrations:Lenin,byNinaGourfinkel.

Foranover-allviewofRussianhistory:AHistoryofRussia,byBernardPares,generallyacceptedasthestandardone-volumesurvey.And,foramoreextensivestudyofSovietRussia,HistoryofSovietRussia,byEdwardHallettCarr.AnyreadinginRussianhistory,bytheway,wouldbegreatlyaidedbyhavingathandforreadyreferenceAConciseEncyclopaediaofRussia,byS.V.Utechin.

Foranengrossingstudyofcommunismwithinthecontextofmodernhistoryandculture:TotheFinlandStation,byEdmundWilson.And,foramoreextensivestudyofcommunismandsocialism:HistoryofSocialistThought,byG.D.H.Cole.AndforthebackgroundofcommunismintheUnitedStates:TheRootsofAmericanCommunism,byTheodoreDraper.

BIOGRAPHICALINDEX

AXELROD,PAVEL(1850-1928),anassociateofPlekhanovinthelatter ’stransitionfrompopulismtoMarxisminthe1880’s,aleadingmemberofPlekhanov’scircleofMarxistthinkers.andsubsequentlyaprominentMenshevikopponentofLenin.

BEBEL,AUGUST(1840-1913),aleaderoftheGermanSocialDemocraticPartyandamemberofitsparliamentarydelegationintheReichstag.

BELINSKY,VISSARION(1810-1848),earlyspokesmanofthenon-nobleradicalintellectualsinRussiaandoriginatorofasociologicalschoolofliterarycriticism.

BERNSTEIN,EDUARD(1850-1932),aleadingtheoreticianoftheGermanSocialDemocraticParty,rejectedMarxistconceptsofclassstruggleandinevitableworldrevolution,originated“revisionist”theoryofevolutionarysocialism.

BISSOLATI-BERGAMASCHI,LEONIDA(1857-1920),afoundingmemberoftheItalianSocialistPartyin1892,editorofthesocialistnewspaper,Avanti!,andfounderoftheReformistSocialistPartyin1912.

BRANTING,KARL(1860-1925),socialistjournalistandeditor,foundingleaderoftheSwedishSocialDemocraticPartyin1889,firstSocialDemocratelectedtotheRiksdagin1896,firstSocialDemocraticPremierofSweden,1920,andagainPremier1921-23and1924-25,awardedtheNobelPeacePrizein1921.

BUKHARIN,NIKOLAI(1888-1938),Bolshevikleader,headedthe“LeftCommunists”inoppositiontoLeninin1918,butmaintainedgoodpersonalrelationswithLenin,andwasco-authorwithhimoftheCommunistplatformadoptedin1919.FollowingLenin’sdeath,BukharinsupportedStalinagainstTrotsky,andbecameheadofthePolitburoin1925.Leaderofthe“RightOpposition”againstStalinin1928-29,hewasdismissedfromhismajorposts;subsequently,hebecameaprominentdefendantinashowtrialduringStalin’sGreatPurgeinMarch,1938,andwasexecuted.

CHERNYSHEVSKY,NIKOLAI(1828-1889),Russianliterarycriticandtheoreticianofrevolutionarypopulism,significantforerunnerofBolshevikthought.

DÜHRING,EUGEN(1833-1921),Germanphilosopherandeconomistwhoadvocatedtheretentionofcapitalisminareformedversionwithastronglabormovement.

FOURIER,CHARLES(1772-1837),Frenchsocialphilosopherandleadingutopiansocialist,originatedthedoctrineofasocialutopiaorganizedinphalanxes,theinspirationforBrookFarmandotherFourieristcommunitiesintheUnitedStates.

GUESDE,JULES(1845-1922),FrenchsocialistactiveintheParisCommuneof1871,andsubsequentlyaspokesmanforMarxismwithintheFrenchLeft.

HENDERSON,ARTHUR(1863-1935),severaltimeschairmanoftheBritishLabourParty,enteredHouseofCommonsin1903,memberofthecoalitiongovernmentduringWorldWarI,ForeignSecretaryinthesecondministryofRamsayMacDonald,1929-31,awardedtheNobelPeacePrizein1934.

HERZEN,ALEKSANDR(1812-1870),Russiansocialphilosopherandjournalist,livedabroadafter1847,foundedthefirstRussianémigrépress,attackedtsaristautocracyandadvocatedhumanitarian,democraticsocialism.

HOBSON,JOHNATKINSON(1858-1940),Britisheconomist,criticizedclassicaltheoriesofeconomicsandassertedthateconomictheoryshouldpromotesocialreform.

KAUTSKY,KARL(1854-1938),prominentsocialisttheoretician,literaryexecutorofMarxandEngels,leaderoftheGermanSocialDemocraticParty,founderoftheIndependentSocialDemocraticPartyinGermany,andleadingspokesmanoftheSecondInternational.HedevelopedanindependenttheoryofMarxismwhichrejectedbothLeninistBolshevismandBernsteinRevisionism.

KROPOTKIN,PRINCEPETER(1842-1921),geographerandrevolutionaryanarchist,aRussiannoblemanwhorenouncedhistitle,wasimprisonedinbothRussiaandFrance,livedinexileinBritain,returnedtoRussiafollowingtheBolshevikRevolution.HeconsistentlyadvocatedCommunistAnarchism,andopposedstatepowerinanyform.

LASSALLE,FERDINAND(1825-1864),Germansocialistleader,probablythemostfamousnineteenth-centuryGermansocialistnexttoMarxandEngels,laidthefoundationfortheGermanSocialDemocraticParty.Hedifferedwith

Marxontheroleofthestate,seeingthestateasaprospectiveinstrumentforsocialreform,andadvocatedastatesystemofworkers’cooperatives.

LIEBKNECHT,KARL(1871-1919),sonofafounderoftheGermanSocialDemocraticParty,WilhelmLiebknecht(1826-1900),theyoungerLiebknechtwas,likehisfather,aprominentSocialDemocraticmemberoftheReichstag.KarlLiebknechtrefusedtosupporttheGermangovernmentinWorldWarI,boltedtheGermanSocialDemocraticPartyandfoundedtheSpartacusParty,forerunneroftheGermanCommunistParty.TogetherwithRosaLuxemburg,heledtheunsuccessfulSpartacistrevoltof1919againstthemoderateSocialDemocraticgovernmentoftheWeimarRepublic;bothwerekilledintheuprising.

MARTOV,YULI(1873-1923),pseudonymofYuliTsederbaum,arevolutionarycolleagueofLeninwhobrokewithhimin1903andbecamealeadingMensheviktheoretician,leftRussiain1920andwentintoexile.

MIKHAILOVSKY,NIKOLAI(1842-1904),Russianliterarycritic,pioneeringsociologist,andleadingtheoreticianof“legalpopulism.”

MILLERAND,ALEXANDRE(1859-1943),Frenchsocialistleaderbestknownasthefirstsocialisttobecomeacabinetmemberinaliberal,non-socialist“bourgeois”government.

PLEKHANOV,GEORGIY(1857-1918),Russianintellectualoftenreferredtoas“thefatherofRussianMarxism,”hesupportedLeninuptoandthroughtheRussianSocialDemocraticcongressof1903,butsubsequentlyjoinedtheMensheviks.

PROUDHON,PIERREJOSEPH(1809-1865),Frenchsocialphilosopher,bestknownforhiswork,WhatIsProperty?,avigorouscriticismoftheabusesofprivateproperty.

RADEK,KARL(1885-?),Russiansocialistwho,likeLenin,refusedtosupportanygovernmentduringWorldWarI,joinedBolsheviksattimeofBolshevikRevolution,subsequentlyactiveinSovietaffairs,purgedbyStalin.

SAINT-SIMON,CLAUDEHENRIDEROUVROY,COMTEDE(1760-1825),Frenchsocialphilosopherandutopiansocialist.

SCHEIDEMANN,PHILIPP(1865-1939),Germansocialistjournalistandeditor,enteredReichstagin1903,becamesecretaryoftheGermanSocialDemocraticParty,enteredcoalitiongovernmentin1918,wasministerinandlaterheadofthe1919republicangovernmentfollowingabdicationofKaiser

Wilhelm,fledNazisanddiedinexileinDenmark.

STRUVE,PETER(1870-1944),Russianeconomistandsociologist,Marxisttheoreticianinthe1890’s,draftedthe1898manifestooftheRussianSocialDemocraticLaborParty,subsequentlyjoinedtheConstitutionalDemocraticParty,ofwhichhebecamealeadingtheoreticianandwhichherepresentedintheDuma.

TUGAN-BARANOVSKY,MIKHAIL(1865-1919),Russianeconomistandanotedtheoreticianof“legalMarxism”inthe1890’s.

VANDERVELDE,EMILE(1866-1938),Belgiansocialist,electedtoChamberofDeputiesin1894,PremieroftheWorldWarIcoalitiongovernmentandministerinsubsequentgovernments.

WEBB,SIDNEY(1859-1947)andBEATRICE(1858-1943),Britishhistoriansandsocialphilosophers,amongthefoundersandleadingspokesmenoftheFabianSociety,greatlyinfluencedtheformationanddirectionoftheBritishLabourParty.

WEYDEMEYER,JOSEPH(1818-1866),Germancommunist,personalfriendofMarx,andadvocateofradicalMarxism.

GLOSSARYOFRUSSIANTERMS

SignificantmovementsandpersonalitiesarediscussedatlengthintheIntroductionandinthenotesaccompanyingeachselection;however,thereaderalsoshouldbefamiliarwithafewRussiantermswhichappearinLenin’swritings.Thesefollowinalphabeticalorder,withabriefexplanationforeach.

barshchina—Thesystemofunpaidlaborduefromaserftohislandlordpriortotheemancipationoftheserfsin1861.

BlackHundreds—seeUnionoftheRussianPeople.

Chernoperedelists—“BlackRedistributionists,”advocatesoftheredistributionofland;themoreadvancedofthenineteenth-centuryRussianPopulists.

gubernia—Territorialadministrativeunit,roughlyequivalenttoprovince.

khvostism—InRussian,theword“khvost”istail;hence,literally,“tailism”;fromLenin’spointofview,thepracticeofalwaysbeingatthetail-endofthemovement,thelasttoagreetoprogramsandthelasttoactontheirbehalf.

kulak—InRussian,thewordisliterally“tightfist”;villageusurers,eithermerchantsorprosperouspeasants,whoexploitedthemassesofpeasants.

kustar—Villagehandicraftartisan.

mir—Villagecommune,aninstitutiondatingfrommedievalRussia,inwhichpeasantsexercisedself-government,collectingtheirowntaxesandregulatinguseofland.

muzhik—Average,typicalpoorpeasant.

Oblomov—Aliterarycharacterwhocametosymbolizetheindolentprerevolutionarylandlord.

otrabotki—seebarshchina.

Reform—Whencapitalized,thistermrefersspecificallytotheemancipationof

theserfsin1861.

UnionoftheRussianPeople—KnownastheBlackHundreds,thisorganizationwasfoundedinSt.Petersburgin1905andactedatthecommunitylevelthroughsome3,000localcommittees.Areactionary,ultranationalisticmovement,theBlackHundredsvigorouslyopposedeventhemostmoderatesocial,economicandpoliticalreforms,andactivelypersecutedRussianminoritygroups,particularlyJews,FinnsandPoles.

uyezd—Territorialadministrativeunit,roughlyequivalenttocounty.

ZemlyaiVolya—InRussian,“LandandFreedom”;nineteenth-centuryRussianPopulistmovement.

ZemskyNachalniks—Officials,usuallymembersofthenobility,whoexercisedlocaladministrativeandjudicialauthorityoverthepeasants.

zemstvo—Administrativeunitoflocalself-government,createdinthe1860’s.Thezemstvos,whichwereelectedlocally,hadconsiderableauthorityoversuchlocalmattersaseducationandpublichealth.Theywereacenterofactivityforliberalandradicalintellectualsworkingtoimprovesocialandeconomicconditions.

1 Thistermisdefinedintheglossaryattheendofthebook,alongwithmanyoftheotherless-familiartermsthatappearinthetext.—Ed.

2 Cf.DasKapital.Vol.I2.

3 AgriculturalReviewoftheNtzhnt-NovgorodGubernia,1892.

4 Astrictdistinctionmustbedrawnbetweenmoneyrentandcapitalistgroundrent;thelatterpresupposestheexistenceofcapitalistsandwageworkersinagriculture,theformer—dependentpeasants.Capitalistrentispartofthesurplusvaluewhichremainsafterentrepreneurprofitisdeducted,whereasmoneyrentisthepriceofthewholeofthesurplusproductpaidbythepeasanttothelandowner.AnexampleofmoneyrentinRussiaisthequit-rent(obrok)whichthepeasantpaystothelandlord.Undoubtedly,thetaxeswhichthepeasantsnowhavetopayrepresent,inpart,moneyrent.Sometimes,evenpeasantrentingoflandapproximatestomoneyrent,whenthehighrentthepeasanthastopayleaveshimnomorethanmeagerwages.

5 Wewillobserveherethattheemploymentofhiredlaborisnotanessentialfeatureoftheconcept,petty-bourgeois.Allindependentproductionforthemarket,ifthecontradictionsdescribedinpar.2existinthesocialsystemofeconomy,andespeciallyifthemassofproducersarebeingtransformedintowagelaborers,comeswithinthemeaningofthisconcept.

6 Inordertoprovethatitiscorrecttoincludethepoorpeasantinthecategoryofwagelaborerspossessinganallotment,itmustnotonlybeshownhowandwhichpeasantsselllaborpower,butalsohowandwhichemployersbuylaborpower.Thiswillbeshowninsubsequentchapters.

7 ProfessorConradisoftheopinionthatthecriterionforarealpeasantinGermanyisapairofworkinganimals(Gespannbauerngueter).(Cf.LandownershipandAgriculture,1896.)ForRussiathecriterionoughtrathertobeputhigher.Inordertodefinetheterm“peasant,”Conradtakesthepercentageofpersonsorhouseholdsengagedin“hiredlabor”or“auxiliaryoccupations”generally.(Ibid.)ProfessorStebut,who,itcannotbedenied,isanauthorityonquestionsoffact,in1882,wrote:“Afterthefallofserfdom,thepeasantwithhissmalleconomicunitengagedexclusivelyingrowinggrain,thatistosay,thepeasantmainlyintheCentralBlackEarthBeltofRussia,inthemajorityofcases,becameanartisan,agriculturallaborer,ordaylaborer,

forwhomagriculturebecameonlyasubsidiaryoccupation.”(EssaysonRussianAgriculture,ItsWeaknessandtheMeasurestoBeTakenforItsImprovement,1883.)Evidentlythetermartisanhereincludesthewagelaborerinindustry(building,etc.).Howeverincorrectlythismannerofemployingtermsmaybe,itisneverthelessverywidespreadinourliterature,eveninspecialeconomicliterature.

8 WewillquoteexamplesofthevariousformsofwagelaborinagriculturefromHandworterbuchderStaatswissenschaft[Statesman’sHandbook].“Thepeasant’sholding,”saysProfessorConrad,“mustbedistinguishedfromtheparcelland,fromthe‘poorpeasant’splot,’or‘vegetableplot,’theownerofwhichisobligedtoseekoccupationandearningsontheside.”“InFrance,accordingtothecensusof1881,18,249,209persons,i.e.,alittlelessthanone-half”(ofthepopulation)“obtainedtheirlivelihoodbyagriculture:aboutninemillionownedtheirland,fivemillionweretenantfarmersandsharecroppers,fourmillionweredaylaborersandownersofsmallplots,ortenantsobtainingtheirlivelihoodmainlybywagelabor....Itisassumedthatatleast75percentoftheagriculturallaborersinFranceownland.”InGermany,thecategoryofagriculturallaborersincludes:ownersofland:1)Kätner,HäuslerInstleute(cottars);2)contractlaylaborerswhoownlandandwhohirethemselvestofarmersforacertainpartoftheyear(somethinglikeour“three-daylaborers”).“ContractdaylaborersrepresentthebulkofagriculturallaborersinthosepartsofGermanywherelarge-scalefarmingpredominates”;3)agriculturallaborerswhotillrentedland.

9 Thefactthatthehomemarketisformedbythedisintegrationofthepeasantryisaloneabletoexplain,forexample,theenormousgrowthofthehomemarketforcottongoods,themanufactureofwhichhasincreasedsorapidlyinthepost-Reformperiod,simultaneouslywiththemassruinationofthepeasantry.Mr.N—on,whoillustratedhistheoryoftheformationofthehomemarketpreciselywiththisexampleofthetextileindustry,wastotallyunabletoexplain,however,howthiscontradictoryphenomenonarose.

10 TheonlyexceptiontothisistheexcellentworkbyI.Hurwitz,EconomicsoftheRussianVillage,NewYork,1902.OnecanonlyexpressastonishmentattheartwithwhichMr.HurwitzworkedupthematerialinthevolumesofZemstvostatistics,whichdonotgiveanycombinedtablesofthegroupsofthepeasantsaccordingtoeconomicstatus.

11 Restrictionofmigration,therefore,hasapowerfulretardingeffectuponthedisintegrationofthepeasantry.

12 Inpassing,wemustsaythatMr.V.V.’sDestinyofCapitalism,andparticularlychap.VIfromwhichtheabove-quotedpassageistaken,containssomeverygoodandveryjustpages,namely,thepagesinwhichtheauthordoesnotspeakaboutthe“destinyofcapitalism,”oraboutcapitalismatall,butaboutthemannerinwhichthetaxesarecollected.Itischaracteristic,however,thatMr.V.V.failstoseetheinseparableconnectionbetweenthisandthesurvivalsofthelaborrent(barshchina)system,whichhe(asweshallseefurtheron)iscapableofidealizing!

13 Incidentally,thefavoritepostulateoftheNarodnikeconomiststhat“Russianpeasanteconomyisinthemajorityofcasespurelynaturalself-sufficingeconomy,”isbasedontheignoringofthiscircumstance.(Cf.InfluenceofHarvestsonGrainPrices,I,p.52.)Allonehastodoistotake“average”figureswhichmergetheruralbourgeoisiewiththeruralproletariat—andthispostulatecanbetakenasproved!

14 Thisispreciselythekindofdatatheauthorsoftheworkreferredtointheprecedingfootnoteconfinethemselvestowhentheyspeakofthe“peasantry.”Theyassumethateverypeasantsowstheverygrainthatheconsumes,thathesowsallthekindsofgrainthatheconsumesandthathesowsthemexactlyintheproportionsthatheconsumesthem.Itdoesnotrequireverymuchefforttodrawthe“conclusion”fromsuch“assumptions”(whichcontradictthefactsandignorethemainfeatureofthepost-Reformepoch)thatnaturalself-sufficingeconomypredominates.InNarodnikliteratureonemayalsocomeacrossthefollowingingeniousmethodofargument:everyseparateformofcommercialfarmingisan“exception”toagricultureasawhole.Thereforeallcommercialfarminggenerallyshouldberegardedasanexception,thegeneralruleshouldbetakentobeself-sufficingeconomy!Incollegetextbooksonlogic,onewillfindmanysimilarexamplesofsuchreasoninginthepartdealingwithsophistry.

15 MiscredelaPhilosophic[PovertyofPhtlosophy](Paris,1896,p.223);theauthor[KarlMarx]contemptuouslydescribedthelongingsofthosewhodesiredareturntothegoodoldpatriarchallifeofsimplemorals,etc.,whocondemnedthe“subordinationofthelandtothesamelawsthatgovernedallotherindustries,”asreactionaryjeremiads.

WequiteunderstandthattotheNarodnikithewholeoftheargumentgiveninthetextmaynotonlyseemunconvincingbutmayevenappeartobeinexplicable.Butitwouldbetooungratefulatasktoanalyzesuchopinions,forexample,asthatthemobilizationofthelandis—an“abnormal”phenomenon(Mr.Chuprov,inthedebateongrainprices,stenographicreport),thattheinalienabilityofthepeasants’allotmentsisaninstitutionthatmaybeadvocated,thatthelaborrentsystemisbetter,oratalleventsisnotworsethanthecapitalistsystem,etc.Allthatwhichhasbeenexplainedaboverefutesthepolitical-economicargumentsbroughtforwardbytheNarodnikiindefenseoftheiropinion.

16 WestEuropeanromanticistsandRussianNarodnikilaystrongemphasisonthisprocess,ontheone-sidednessofcapitalistagriculture,ontheinstabilityandcrisescreatedbycapitalism—andonthesegroundsdenytheprogressivecharacterofcapitalistprogresscomparedwithpre-capitaliststagnation.

17 Hence,inspiteofthedifferenceintheformsoflandownership,thesamethingcanbeappliedtotheRussianpeasantaswassaidaboutthesmallFrenchpeasantbyMarx:“ThepeasantswhofarmtheirownsmallholdingsformthemajorityoftheFrenchpopulation.Throughoutthecountry,theyliveinalmostidenticalconditions,butenterverylittleintorelationshipsonewithanother.Theirmodeofproductionisolatesthem,insteadofbringingthemintomutualcontact.TheisolationisintensifiedbytheinadequacyofthemeansofcommunicationinFrance,andbythepovertyofthepeasants.Theirfarmsaresosmallthatthereispracticallynoscopeforadivisionoflabor,noopportunityforscientificagriculture.Amongthepeasantry,therefore,therecanbenomultiplicityofdevelopment,nodifferentiationoftalents,nowealthofsocialrelationships.Eachfamilyisalmostself-sufficient,producingonitsownplotoflandthegreaterpartofitsrequirements,andthusprovidingitselfwiththenecessariesoflifethroughaninterchangewithnatureratherthanbymeansofintercoursewithsociety.Hereisasmallplotofland,withapeasantfarmerandhisfamily;thereisanotherplotofland,anotherpeasantwithhiswifeandchildren.Ascoreortwooftheseatomsmakeupavillage,andafewscoreofvillagesmakeupadepartment.Inthisway,thegreatmassoftheFrenchnationisformedbythesimpleadditionoflikeentities,muchasasackofpotatoesconsistsofalotofpotatoeshuddledinasack.”(DerachtzenteBrumairedesLouisBonaparte,1885.)

18 Theneedforunionandamalgamationincapitalistsocietyhasnot

diminishedbut,onthecontrary,hasenormouslyincreased.Butitisabsolutelyabsurdtousetheoldmeasuretosatisfythisneedofthenewsociety.Thisnewsocietynowdemands,firstly,thattheunionshallnotbelocal,accordingtoestateandcategory;and,secondly,thatitsstartingpointshallbethedifferenceinpositionandinterestthathasbeencreatedbycapitalismandthedisintegrationofthepeasantry.

19 OfthenumeroussighsandregretsexpressedbyMr.N—onconcerningthechangesbeingbroughtaboutbycapitalisminRussia,onedeservesspecialattention:“...NeithertheconfusionthatreignedintheperiodoftheappanagedprincesnorthereignoftheTartarsaffectedtheformsofoureconomiclife”(Outltnes);capitalismalonehasdisplayed“contemptforitsownhistoricalpast.”Sacredtruth!Capitalismisprogressivepreciselybecauseithasdisplayed“contempt”forthe“ancient”forms,“sanctifiedbyage,”ofotrabotkiandbondagewhich,indeed,nopoliticalstorm—fromthe“confusionoftheappanagedprinces”tothe“Tartars”—couldoverthrow.

20 DasKapltral.

21 Ibid.,TheFactory.

22 Ibid.,Vol.IV,partI.

23 Mr.Zhbankov,inSanitaryInspectionofFactoriesandWorksInSmolenskGubernta(Smolensk,1894-96),estimatesthenumberofworkerswholeaveforfieldworkatonly10to15percentoftheYartsevTextileMillalone(Vol.II;in1893-94theYartsevTextileMillemployed3,106workersoutofatotalof8,810factoryworkersintheSmolenskGubernia).Thetemporaryworkersinthisfactoryrepresented28percentofthemales(inallfactories,29percent)and18.6percentofthefemales(inallfactories,21percent.Cf.Vol.II).Itshouldbenotedthatthetemporaryworkersinclude1)thosewhohavebeenemployedatthefactoryforlessthantwelvemonths;2)thosewholeaveforsummerworkinthefields;3)those“whoceasedworkatthefactoryforvariousreasonsforseveralyears.”(Vol.II.)3CompiledStatisticalInformation;TheFactory.

24 StatisticalSummaryoftheIndustrialDevelopmentofRussia.ApaperreadbyM.I.Tugan-Baranovsky,memberoftheImperialFreeEconomicSociety,andthedebateonthispaperatthesessionoftheThirdDepartment,St.

Petersburg,1898.

25 WewillremindthereaderthatcategoryAincludesfactoriesemployingfrom100to499workers;B,from500to999workersandC,1,000andmoreworkers.

26 Aswestatedinthepreface,welimitourselvestothepost-Reformepochanddonotdealwiththeformsofindustrywhichwerebasedonthelaborofserfs.

27 IndustryintheVladimirGubernta,VI.Index,1890.Shishmarev:ABriefReviewoftheIndustriesintheRegionofNizhni-NovgorodandShuisk-Ivan-ovskRailways,St.Petersburg,1892.

28 IndustryintheVladimirGubernia,III.

29 Shishmarev.

30 CompiledStatisticsofMoscowGubernia,Vol.VII,partIII,Moscow,1883.

31 Labzin.

32 Ibid.

33 Grigorlev.

34 HistoricalStatisticalReview,Vol.II.

35 Ontheconnectionbetweenfactorylegislationandtheconditionsandrelationshipstowhichlarge-scalemachineindustrygivesrise,seechapterII,part2ofMr.Tugan-Baranovsky’sbook,TheRussianFactory,andespeciallythearticleinNovoyeSlovo,July,1897.

36 Fortypesofthe“factory”worker,seeChapterVI,sectionII,5.SeealsoCompiledStatisticalInformationofMoscowGubernia,Vol.VII,partIII,Moscow,1883(thefactoryworker—moralist,“wiseone”),Nizhni-NovgorodZbornik,I;Vol.IV.IndustryinVladimirGubernia,III.NovoyeSlovo,Oct.,1897.Seealsoabove-mentionedworkbyMr.Zhbankovinwhicharedescribedtheworkerswhogotothetownstoseekcommercialandindustrialoccupations.

37 AccordingtoIndex,thefactoriesandworksinEuropeanRussiain1890employed875,764personsofwhom210,207(27percent)werewomen,17,793(2percent)wereboysand8,216(1percent)weregirls.

38 “Thepoorwomanweavergoestothefactorytogetherwithherfatherandhusbandandworkslikethemandindependentlyofthem.Shehelpstomaintainthefamilynolessthantheman.”“Inthefactorythewoman...isaproducer,completelyindependentofherhusband.”Thewomanfactoryworkerlearnstoreadandwritewithremarkablerapidity.(IndustryinVladimirGubernia,III.)ThefollowingconclusionarrivedatbyMr.Kharisomenovisperfectlyjust:industrydestroys“theeconomicdependenceofthewomanonthefamily..andonthehusband....”Atanother ’sfactory,thewomanisequaltotheman;thisisproletarianequality....Thecapitalizationofindustryisanimportantfactorinwoman’sstruggleforindependenceinthefamily.”“Industrycreatesanewpositionforthewomancompletelyindependentofthefamilyandofthehusband.”(YuridicheskiVestnik,1883,No.12.IntheCompiledStatisticalInformationonMoscowGubernia(Vol.VII,partII,Moscow,1882),theinvestigatorscomparedthepositionofwomenengagedinmakingstockingsbyhandwiththoseworkingbymachine.Thehandworkersearnedabout8kopeksperday,machineworkers,14to30kopeksperday.Theconditionsofthewomanworkerworkingbymachinearedescribedasfollows.”...Beforeusisafreeyoungwoman,notrestrictedbyanyobstacles,emancipatedfromthefamilyandfromallthatwhichrepresentstheconditionsoflifeofthepeasantwoman,ayoungwomanwhoatanymomentmaywanderfromplacetoplace,fromemployertoemployer,andmayatanymomentfindherselfwithoutemployment...withoutacrustofbread....”“Thehandknitterearnsaverymeagerwagewhichisnotsufficienttomaintainher;sheisabletomaintainherselfonlybecausesheisamemberofafamilythathasanallotmentandreceivessomeoftheproductofthatland;undermachineproductiontheworkingwoman,inadditiontovictualsandtea,earnsawagewhichenableshertoliveapartfromthefamilyandtodispensewiththeincomefromtheland....Moreover,thewagesofwomenworkersworkingatthemachine,underpresentconditions,ismoresecure.”

39 InthelessindustriallydevelopedSmolenskGubernia,aninvestigationamong5,000factoryworkersshowedthat80percentwerenatives.(Zhbankov,II.)

40 CompiledStat.Inf.onMoscowGub.,sanitarystatisticssection,Vol.IV,

part1(Moscow,1890).

41 Thedatagiveninthethreelastchaptersprove,inouropinion,thattheclassificationofthecapitalistformsandstagesofindustrygivenbyMarxismorecorrectandsoundthanthatclassificationwhichhasgainedcurrencyatthepresenttimeandwhichconfusesmanufacturewiththefactoryandregardsworkingforthemerchantasaspecialformofindustry.(HöldandBücher.)Toconfusemanufacturewiththefactoryimpliestakingthepurelysuperficialsymptomsasthebasisfortheclassificationandignoringtheessentialfeaturesoftechnique,economicsandsociallifewhichdistinguishmanufacturefromthemachineperiodofcapitalism.Undoubtedly,capitalistdomesticindustryplaysagreatroleinthemechanismofcapitalistindustry.Thereisnodoubtalsothatworkingforthemerchantisaspecialfeatureofpre-machinecapitalism,butitistobemetwith(andinbynomeanssmalldimensions)inthemostvariedstagesofthedevelopmentofcapitalism.Itwillbeimpossibletounderstandthesignificanceofworkingforthemerchant,unlessitisstudiedinconnectionwiththewholestructureofindustryinthegivenperiod,orinthegivenstageofthedevelopmentofcapitalism.Thepeasantwhoweavesbasketsfortheorderofthevillageshopkeeper,thePavlovwoodenhandlemakermakinghandlesinhisownhomefortheknivesmanufacturedbyZavyalov,theworkingwomanwhomakesclothes,shoes,glovesorboxesfortheorderofbigmanufacturersormerchants—allworkforthemerchant,butalltheseinstancesofcapitalistdomesticindustrybearadifferentcharacterandhavedifferentsignificance.WedonotintheleastdenythemeritsofBücher,forexample,whohasstudiedthepre-capitalistformsofindustry,butwethinkthathisclassificationofcapitalistformsofindustryiswrong.WecannotagreewiththeviewsexpressedbyMr.Struve(Cf.MirBozhi,1898,No.4)insofarasheadoptsBücher ’stheory(thepartreferredto)andappliesittoRussian“kustarindustry.”(Sincetheselineswerewritten,1899,Mr.Struvehasmanagedtocompletethecycleofhisscientificandpoliticaldevelopment.WaveringbetweenBiicherandMarx,betweenliberalandsocialisteconomics,hehasfinallybecomeapureliberalbourgeois.Thewriteroftheselinesisproudofthefactthatasfarashewasable,hehashelpedtopurgeSocial-Democracyofsuchelements.)[Footnotetosecondedition.]

42 “Letussee...whatthefurtherdevelopmentofcapitalismcanbringusevenifwecouldsinkEnglandtothebottomoftheseaandtakeherplace.”(Mr.N—on,Outlines.)ThetextileindustryinEnglandandAmerica,whichsuppliestwo-thirdsoftheworld’srequirements,employsonlyalittleover600,000

persons.“Sothatevenifwesucceededinwinningaconsiderablepartoftheworldmarket...capitalismwouldstillbeunabletoexploitthewholemassoflaborpowerwhichitisnowcontinuouslydeprivingofemployment.Whatare600,000EnglishandAmericanworkerscomparedwiththemillionsofpeasantswhoareidleformonths?”

“Historyhasexisteduptillnow,butitnolongerexists.”Uptillnoweverystepinthedevelopmentofcapitalisminthetextileindustryhasbeenaccompaniedbythedisintegrationofthepeasantry,bythegrowthofcommercialagricultureandagriculturalcapitalism,bytheattractionofthepopulationfromagricultureintoindustry,by“millionsofpeasants”turningtobuilding,lumberingandmanyotherkindsofnon-agriculturaloccupationsforhire,bythemigrationofmassesofpeopletotheoutlyingregionsandtheconversionoftheseregionsintoamarketforcapitalism.Butallthistookplaceuptillnow;nownothinglikeittakesplaceanymorel

43 Ignoringthesignificanceofmeansofproductionandthelackofananalyticalattitudetoward“statistics”causedMr.N—ontogiveutterancetothefollowingremarkswhichdonotbearcriticism:“...all(!)capitalistproductioninthesphereofthemanufacturingindustries,atbest,producenewvaluestoanamountnotexceeding400-500,000,000rubles.”(Outlines.)Mr.N—onbasesthiscalculationonthereturnsofthethreepercentandassessmenttaxwithoutstoppingtothinkwhethersuchreturnscancover“thewholeofcapitalistproductioninthesphereofthemanufacturingindustries.”Moreover,hetakesreturnswhich(onhisownadmission)donotcovertheminingindustry,andyetheincludesin“newvalues”onlysurplusvalueandvariablecapital.Ourtheoreticianforgotthat,inthosebranchesofindustrywhichproducegoodsforpersonalconsumption,constantcapitalalsorepresentsnewvaluesforsocietyandisexchangedforthevariablecapitalandsurplusvalueofthosebranchesofindustrywhichproducemeansofproduction(miningindustry,building,lumber,layingofrailways,etc.).HadnotMr.N—onconfusedthenumberof“factory”workerswiththetotalnumberofworkerscapitalisticallyemployedinthemanufacturingindustries,hewouldeasilyhaveobservedtheerrorofhiscalculations.

44 Forexample,inoneoftheprincipalcentresoftheRussianfishingindustry,theMurmanskcoast,the“ancient”and“time-honored”formofeconomicrelationshipswaswhatwasknownaspokrutwhichwasalreadyestablishedintheseventeenthcenturyandcontinuedalmostwithoutchangerightuptorecenttimes.“Therelationsbetweenthepokrutsandtheirmasters

arenotlimitedtothetimetheyareemployed:onthecontrary,theyaffectthewholelifeofthepokrutswhoareinaconstantstateofeconomicdependenceontheirmasters.”(CompiledMaterialonArtelsinRussia,Vol.II,St.Petersburg,1874.)Fortunately,inthisbranchofindustryalso,capitalismapparently“iscontemptuousofitsownhistoricalpast.”“Monopoly...isgivingwayto...thecapitalistorganizationoffishingwithfreelaborers.”(ProductiveForces,V.)

45 Incidentally,thisperhapsistheonlyoccasioninthehistoryofmodernsocialisminwhichcontroversiesbetweenvarioustendencieswithinthesocialistmovementhavegrownfromnationalintointernationalcontroversies;andthisisextremelyencouraging.Formerly,thedisputesbetweentheLasalleansandtheEisenachers,betweentheGuesdistsandthePossibilists,betweentheFabiansandtheSocial-Democrats,andbetweentheNarodovolistsandtheSocial-Democrats,remainedpurelynationaldisputes,reflectedpurelynationalfeaturesandproceeded,asitwere,ondifferentplanes.Atthepresenttime(thisisquiteevidentnow),theEnglishFabians,theFrenchMinisterialists,theGermanBernsteinistsandtheRussian“critics”—allbelongtothesamefamily,allextoleachother,learnfromeachother,andarerallyingtheirforcesagainst“doctrinaire”Marxism.Perhapsinthisfirstreallyinternationalbattlewithsocialistopportunism,internationalrevolutionarySocial-DemocracywillbecomesufficientlystrengthenedtoputanendtothepoliticalreactionthathaslongreignedinEurope.

46 Thesefiguresareidentifiedinthebiographicalindexofpropernamesatthebackofthebook.Manyofthemoreobscurenamesappearinginthetextmaybefoundinthisindex.—Ed.

47 Acomparisonbetweenthetwotendenciesamongtherevolutionaryproletariat(therevolutionaryandtheopportunist)andthetwotendenciesamongtherevolutionarybourgeoisieintheeighteenthcentury(theJacobin,knownastheMountain,andtheGirondists)wasmadeinaleadingarticleinNo.2ofIskra,February1901.ThisarticlewaswrittenbyPlekhanov.TheCadets,theBezzaglavtsiandtheMenshevikstothisdaylovetorefertotheJacobinisminRussianSocial-Democracybuttheyprefertoremainsilentaboutor...toforgetthecircumstancesthatPlekhanovusedthistermforthefirsttimeagainsttheRightwingofSocial-Democracy.

48 InresponsetothenewstrengthoftherecentlyunitedGermanSocial

DemocraticParty(seefootnoteontheGothaProgramof1875,page69),BismarckhadtheReichstagenactagroupoflawsaimedspecificallyattheGermanSocialDemocrats.Theselaws,enactedin1878,restrictedfreedomofpublicationandassemblyinGermany.—Ed.

49 AtthetimeEngelshurledhisattackagainstDühring,manyrepresentativesofGermanSocial-Democracy,inclinedtowardsthelatter ’sviews,andaccusationsofacerbity,intolerance,uncomradelypolemics,etc.,wereevenpubliclyhurledatEngelsatthePartycongress.AttheCongressof1877,Most,andhissupporters,movedaresolutiontoprohibitthepublicationofEngels’articlesinVorwdrtsbecause“theydonotinteresttheoverwhelmingmajorityofthereaders,”andVahlteichdeclaredthatthepublicationofthesearticleshadcausedgreatdamagetotheParty,thatDühringhadalsorenderedservicestoSocial-Democracy:“WemustutilizeeveryoneintheinterestoftheParty;lettheprofessorsengageinpolemicsiftheycaretodoso,butVorwärtsisnottheplaceinwhichtoconductthem.”(Vorwärts,No.65,June6,1877.)Herewehaveanotherexampleofthedefenseof“freedomofcriticism,”anditwoulddoourlegalcriticsandillegalopportunists,wholovesomuchtoquoteexamplesfromtheGermans,adealofgoodtoponderoverit!

50 ThisreferstoanarticlebyK.Tunlin[Lenin]writtenagainstStruve.Thearticlewascompiledfromanessayentitled“TheReflectionofMarxisminBourgeoisLiterature.”

51 ReferenceismadeheretotheProtestStgnedbytheSeventeenagainsttheCredo.Thepresentwritertookpartindrawingupthisprotest(theendof1899).TheprotestandtheCredowerepublishedabroadinthespringof1900.ItisnowknownfromthearticlewrittenbyMadameKuskova,IthinkinByloye,thatshewastheauthoroftheCredo,andthatMr.ProkopovichwasveryprominentamongtheEconomistsabroadatthattime.

52 TheabsenceofpublicPartytiesandPartytraditionsbyitselfmarkssuchacardinaldifferencebetweenRussiaandGermanythatitshouldhavewarnedallsensibleSocialistsagainstbeingblindlyimitative.Buthereisanexampleofthelengthstowhich“freedomofcriticism”goesinRussia.Mr.Bulgakov,theRussiancritic,uttersthefollowingreprimandtotheAustriancritic,Hertz:“Notwithstandingtheindependenceofhisconclusions,Hertz,onthispointapparentlyremainstiedbytheopinionsofhisparty,andalthoughhedisagreeswithitindetails,hedarenotrejectcommonprinciples.”(Capttalismand

Agriculture,Vol.II.)Thesubjectofapoliticallyenslavedstate,inwhichninehundredandninety-nineoutofathousandofthepopulationarecorruptedtothemarrowoftheirbonesbypoliticalsubservience,andcompletelylacktheconceptionofPartyhonorandPartyties,superciliouslyreprimandsacitizenofaconstitutionalstateforbeingexcessively“tiedbytheopinionofhisparty”!Ourillegalorganizationshavenothingelsetodo,ofcourse,butdrawupresolutionsaboutfreedomofcriticism....

53 In1875,thetwomajorsocialistfactionsinGermany,theLassalleansandtheMarxists,metinGotha,Germany,todraftaplatformforaunitedGermanSocialDemocraticParty.TheresultwastheGothaProgramof1875,amoderateplatformthatachievedpartyunitybutwasstronglyattackedbyMarxastoocompromising.—Ed.

54 Thirdedition,Leipzig,1875.

55 RabocheyeDyelo,No.10,1901.(R.D.’sitalics.)

56 Tradeunionismdoesnotexclude“politics”altogether,assomeimagine.Tradeunionshavealwaysconductedpolitical(butnotSocial-Democratic)agitationandstruggle.WeshalldealwiththedifferencebetweentradeunionpoliticsandSocial-Democraticpoliticsinthenextchapter.

57 A.A.VaneyevdiedinEasternSiberiain1899fromconsumption,whichhecontractedasaresultofhissolitaryconfinementinprison.Thatiswhyweareabletopublishtheaboveinformation,theauthenticityofwhichweguarantee,foritcomesfrompersonswhowerecloselyanddirectlyacquaintedwithA.A.Vaneyev.

58 “Iskra,whichadoptsahostileattitudetowardstheactivitiesoftheSocial-Democratsoftheendofthe’nineties,ignoresthefactthatatthattimetheconditionsforanyotherkindofworkexceptfightingforpettydemandswereabsent,”declaretheEconomistsintheirLettertoRussianSocial-DemocraticOrgans.(Iskra,No.12.)Thefactsquotedaboveshowthatthestatementabout“absentconditions”istheveryoppositeofthetruth.Notonlyattheend,buteveninthemiddleofthe‘nineties,alltheconditionsexistedforotherwork,besidesfightingforpettydemands,alltheconditions—exceptsufficienttrainingoftheleaders.Insteadoffranklyadmittingour,theideologists’,theleaders’,lackofsufficienttraining—theEconomiststrytothrowtheblame

entirelyuponthe“absentconditions,”upontheinfluenceofmaterialenvironmentwhichdeterminestheroadfromwhichitwillbeimpossibleforanyideologisttodivertthemovement.Whatisthisbutslavishcringingbeforespontaneity,thefactthatthe“ideologists”areenamoredoftheirownshortcomings.

59 ItshouldbestatedinpassingthatthepraiseofRabochayaMyslinNovember1898,whenEconomismhadbecomefullydefined,especiallyabroad,emanatedfromthatsameV.I.,whoverysoonafterbecameoneoftheeditorsofRabocheyeDyelo.AndyetRabocheyeDyelodeniedthatthereweretwotendenciesinRussianSocial-Democracy,andcontinuestodenyittothisday.

60 Thatthissimileisacorrectoneisshownbythefollowingcharacteristicfact.When,afterthearrestofthe“Decembrists,”thenewswasspreadamongtheworkersontheSchlusselburgRoadthatthediscoveryandarrestwerefacilitatedbyanagent-provocateur,N.M.Mikhailov,adentalsurgeon,whohadbeenincontactwithagroupassociatedwiththe“Decembrists,”theyweresoenragedthattheydecidedtokillhim.

61 ThesequotationsaretakenfromtheleadingarticleinthefirstnumberofRabochayaMyslalreadyreferredto.Onecanjudgefromthisthedegreeoftheoreticaltrainingpossessedbythese“V.V.’sofRussianSocial-Democracy,”whokeptrepeatingthecrudevulgarizationof“economicmaterialism”atatimewhentheMarxistswerecarryingonaliterarywaragainsttherealV.V.,whohadlongagobeendubbed“apastmasterofreactionarydeeds,”forholdingsimilarviewsontherelationbetweenpoliticsandeconomics!

62 TheGermansevenhaveaspecialexpression:NurGewerkschaftler,whichmeansanadvocateofthe“pureandsimple”tradeunionstruggle.

63 Weemphasizethewordcontemporaryforthebenefitofthosewhomaypharisaicallyshrugtheirshouldersandsay:itiseasyenoughtoattackRabochayaMyslnow,butisnotallthisancienthistory?MutatonominedetefabulanarraturwereplytosuchcontemporaryphariseeswhosecompletementalsubjectiontoRabochayaMyslwillbeprovedfurtheron.

64 LetteroftheEconomists,inIskra,No.12.

65 RabocheyeDyelo,No.10.

66 NeueZeit,1901-02,XX,I,No.3.Thecommittee’sdrafttowhichKautskyreferswaspassedbytheViennaCongressattheendoflastyearinaslightlyamendedform.

67 Thisdoesnotmean,ofcourse,thattheworkershavenopartincreatingsuchanideology.Buttheytakepartnotasworkers,butassocialisttheoreticians,likeProudhonandWeitling;inotherwords,theytakepartonlytotheextentthattheyareable,moreorless,toacquiretheknowledgeoftheirageandadvancethatknowledge.Andinorderthatworkingmenmaybeabletodothismoreoften,effortsmustbemadetoraisetheleveloftheconsciousnessoftheworkersgenerally;caremustbetakenthattheworkersdonotconfinethemselvestotheartificiallyrestrictedlimitsof“literatureforworkers”butthattheystudygeneralliteraturetoanincreasingdegree.Itwouldbeevenmoretruetosay“arenotconfined,”insteadof“donotconfinethemselves,”becausetheworkersthemselveswishtoreadanddoreadallthatiswrittenfortheintelligentsiaanditisonlyafew(bad)intellectualswhobelievethatitissufficient“fortheworkers,”totellthemafewthingsaboutfactoryconditions,andtorepeatoverandoveragainwhathaslongbeenknown.

68 Itisoftensaid:theworkingclassspontaneouslygravitatestowardssocialism.Thisisperfectlytrueinthesensethatsocialisttheorydefinesthecausesofthemiseryoftheworkingclassmoreprofoundlyandmorecorrectlythananyothertheory,andforthatreasontheworkersareabletoappreciateitsoeasily,provided,however,thatthistheorydoesnotstepasideforspontaneityandprovideditsubordinatesspontaneitytoitself.Usuallythisistakenforgranted,butRabocheyeDyeloforgetsordistortsthisobviousthing.Theworkingclassspontaneouslygravitatestowardssocialism,butthemorewidespread(andcontinuouslyrevivedinthemostdiverseforms)bourgeoisideologyspontaneouslyimposesitselfupontheworkingclassstillmore.

69 TheContemporaryTasksandTacticsoftheRussianSocial-Democrats,Geneva,1898.TwoletterswrittentoRabochayaGazetain1897.

70 The“stagestheory,”orthetheoryof“timidzigzags”inthepoliticalstruggle,isexpressedinthisarticleapproximatelyinthefollowingway:“Politicaldemands,whichintheircharacterarecommontothewholeofRussia,should,however,atfirst[thiswaswritteninAugust1900!]correspondtotheexperiencegainedbythegivenstratum[sic!]ofworkersintheeconomicstruggle.Only[!]onthebasisofthisexperiencecanandshould

politicalagitationbetakenup,”etc.Theauthor,protestingagainstwhatheregardsastheabsolutelyunfoundedchargeofEconomistheresy,patheticallyexclaims:“WhatSocial-DemocratdoesnotknowthataccordingtothetheoriesofMarxandEngelstheeconomicinterestsofvariousclassesarethedecisivefactorsinhistory,and,consequently,thattheproletariat’sstruggleforthedefenseofitseconomicinterestsmustbeoffirst-rateimportanceinitsclassdevelopmentandstruggleforemancipation?”(Ouritalics.)Theword“consequently”isabsolutelyoutofplace.Thefactthateconomicinterestsareadecisivefactordoesnotintheleastimplythattheeconomic(i.e.,tradeunion)strugglemustbethemainfactor,fortheessentialand“decisive”interestsofclassescanbesatisfiedonlybyradicalpoliticalchangesingeneral.Inparticularthefundamentaleconomicinterestsoftheproletariatcanbesatisfiedonlybyapoliticalrevolutionthatwillsubstitutethedictatorshipoftheproletariatforthedictatorshipofthebourgeoisie.B.Krichevskyrepeatstheargumentsofthe“V.V.’sofRussianSocial-Democracy”(i.e.,politicsfolloweconomics,etc.)andtheBernsteinistsofGermanSocial-Democracy(forexample,byargumentslikethese,Woltmanntriedtoprovethattheworkersmustfirstofallacquire“economicpower”beforetheycanthinkaboutpoliticalrevolution).

71 EinJahrderVerwirrung[AYearofConfusfon]isthetitleMehringgavetothechapterofhisHistoryofGermanSocial-DemocracyinwhichhedescribesthehesitancyandlackofdeterminationdisplayedatfirstbytheSocialistsinselectingthe“tacticsplan”forthenewsituation.

72 Inordertoavoidmisunderstandingwewouldstatethathereandthroughoutthispamphlet,byeconomicstruggle,wemean(inaccordancewiththemeaningofthetermasithasbecomeacceptedamongus)the“practicaleconomicstruggle”whichEngels,inthepassagequotedabove,describedas“resistancetocapitalism,”andwhichinfreecountriesisknownasthetradeunionstruggle.

73 Inthepresentchapter,wedealonlywiththepoliticalstruggle,whetheritistobeunderstoodinitsbroaderornarrowersense.Therefore,wereferonlyinpassing,merelytopointoutacuriosity,totheaccusationthatRabocheyeDyelohurlsagainstIskraofbeing“toorestrained”inregardtotheeconomicstruggle.(TwoCongresses,rehashedbyMartynovinhispamphletSocial-DemocracyandtheWorkingClass.)Ifthosewhomakethisaccusationcountedupintermsofhundredweightsorreams,astheyaresofondofdoing,whathas

beensaidabouttheeconomicstruggleintheindustrialcolumnofIskrainoneyear ’sissue,andcomparedthiswiththeindustrialcolumnsofRabocheyeDyeloandRabochayaMysltakentogether,theywouldseethattheylagverymuchbehindeveninthisrespect.Apparently,theconsciousnessofthissimpletruthcompelsthemtoresorttoargumentswhichclearlyrevealtheirconfusion.“Iskra,”theywrite,“willy-nilly[!]iscompelled[!]totakenoteoftheimperativedemandsoflifeandtopublishatleast[!!]correspondenceaboutthelabormovement.”(TwoCongresses.)Nowthisisreallyacrushingargument!

74 Wesay“ingeneral,”becauseRabocheyeDyelospeaksofgeneralprinciplesandofthegeneraltasksofthewholeParty.Undoubtedly,casesoccurinpractice,whenpoliticsmustfolloweconomics,butonlyEconomistscansayathinglikethatinaresolutionthatwasintendedtoapplytothewholeofRussia.Casesdooccurwhenitispossible“rightfromthebeginning”tocarryonpoliticalagitation“exclusivelyonaneconomicbasis”;andyetRabocheyeDyelowentsofarastosaythat“thereisnoneedforthiswhatever.”(TwoCongresses.)Inthenextchapter,weshallshowthatthetacticsofthe“politicians”andrevolutionariesnotonlydonotignorethetradeuniontasksofSocial-Democracy,butthat,onthecontrary,theyalonecansecuretheconsistentfulfilmentofthesetasks.

75 RabocheyeDyelo,No.10.ThisistheMartynovvariationoftheapplicationtothepresentchaoticstateofourmovementofthethesis:“Astepforwardoftherealmovementismoreimportantthanadozenprograms,”towhichwehavealreadyreferredabove.Asamatteroffact,thisismerelyatranslationintoRussianofthenotoriousBernsteinianphrase:“Themovementiseverything,theultimateaimisnothing.”

76 “Ofcourse,whenweadvisetheworkerstopresentcertaineconomicdemandstothegovernment,wedosobecauseintheeconomicsphere,theautocraticgovernmentiscompelledtoagreetomakecertainconcessions.”

77 RabochayaMysl,SpecialSupplement.

78 Thedemand“togivetheeconomicstruggleitselfapoliticalcharacter”moststrikinglyexpressessubserviencetospontaneityinthesphereofpoliticalactivity.Veryoftentheeconomicstrugglespontaneouslyassumesapoliticalcharacter,thatistosay,withouttheinjectionofthe“revolutionarybacillioftheintelligentsia,”withouttheinterventionoftheclassconsciousSocial-

Democrats.Forexample,theeconomicstruggleoftheBritishworkersassumedapoliticalcharacterwithouttheinterventionoftheSocialists.ThetasksoftheSocial-Democrats,however,arenotexhaustedbypoliticalagitationintheeconomicfield;theirtaskistoconverttradeunionpoliticsintotheSocial-Democraticpoliticalstruggle,toutilizetheflashesofpoliticalconsciousnesswhichgleaminthemindsoftheworkersduringtheireconomicstrugglesforthepurposeofraisingthemtothelevelofSocial-Democraticpoliticalconsciousness.TheMartynovs,however,insteadofraisingandstimulatingthespontaneouslyawakeningpoliticalconsciousnessoftheworkers,bowdownbeforespontaneityandrepeatoverandoveragain,untiloneissickandtiredofhearingit,thattheeconomicstruggle“stimulates”intheworkers’mindsthoughtsabouttheirownlackofpoliticalrights.Itisunfortunate,gentlemen,thatthespontaneouslyawakeningtradeunionpoliticalconsciousnessdoesnot“stimulate”inyourmindsthoughtsaboutyourSocial-Democratictasks!

79 ToprovethatthisimaginaryspeechofaworkertoanEconomistisbasedonfact,weshallcalltwowitnesseswhoundoubtedlyhavedirectknowledgeofthelabormovement,andwhocanbeleastsuspectedofbeingpartialtowardsus“doctrinaires,”foronewitnessisanEconomist(whoregardsevenRabocheyeDyeloasapoliticalorgan!),andtheotherisaterrorist.Thefirstwitnessistheauthorofaremarkablytruthfulandlivelyarticleentitled“TheSt.PetersburgLaborMovementandthePracticalTasksofSocial-Democracy,”publishedinRabocheyeDyelo,No.6.Hedividedtheworkersintothefollowingcategories:1.classconsciousrevolutionaries;2.intermediatestratum;3.themasses.Nowtheintermediatestratumhesays“isoftenmoreinterestedinquestionsofpoliticallifethaninitsownimmediateeconomicinterests,theconnectionbetweenwhichandthegeneralsocialconditionsithaslongunderstood..”RabochayaMysl“issharplycriticized”:“itkeepsonrepeatingthesamethingoverandoveragain,thingswehavelongknown,readlongago.”“Nothinginthepoliticalreviewagain!”Buteventhethirdstratum,“...theyoungerandmoresensitivesectionoftheworkers,lesscorruptedbythetavernandthechurch,whohavehardlyeverhadtheopportunityofreadingpoliticalliterature,discussespoliticaleventsinaramblingwayandpondersdeeplyoverthefragmentarynewsitgetsaboutthestudentriots,etc.”Thesecondwitness,theterrorist,writesasfollows:“...Theyreadoveronceortwicethepettydetailsoffactorylifeinothertowns,nottheirown,andthentheyreadnomore....‘Awfullydull,’theysay..Tosaynothinginaworkers’paperaboutthegovernment...signifiesthattheworkersareregardedasbeinglittlechildren...

Theworkersarenotbabies.”(Svoboda,publishedbytheRevolutionarySocialistgroup.)

80 Martynov“conceivesofanother,morerealistic[?]dilemma”(Social-DemocracyandtheWorkingClass):“EitherSocial-Democracyundertakesthedirectleadershipoftheeconomicstruggleoftheproletariatandbythat[!]transformsitintoarevolutionaryclassstruggle....”“bythat,”i.e.,apparentlythedirectleadershipoftheeconomicstruggle.CanMartynovquoteanexamplewheretheleadershipoftheindustrialstrugglealonehassucceededintransformingthetradeunionmovementintoarevolutionaryclassmovement?Cannotheunderstandthatinorderto“transform”wemustundertakethe“directleadership”ofall-sidedpoliticalagitation?“...Ortheotherprospect:Social-Democracyrefrainsfromtakingtheleadershipoftheeconomicstruggleoftheworkersandso...clipsitsownwings....”inRabocheyeDyelo’sopinion,whichwequotedabove,Iskra“refrains.”Wehaveseen,however,thatthelatterdoesfarmoretoleadtheeconomicstrugglethanRabocheyeDyelo,butitdoesnotconfineitselftothis,anddoesnotcurtailitspoliticaltasksforthesakeofit.

81 Thisreferstothebigstreetdemonstrationswhichcommencedinthespringof1901.

82 Forexample,duringtheFranco-PrussianWar,Liebknechtdictatedaprogramofactionforthewholeofdemocracy—andthiswasdonetoanevengreaterextentbyMarxandEngelsin1848.

83 Lackofspacehaspreventedusfromreplyinginfull,inIskra,tothisletter,whichisextremelycharacteristicoftheEconomists.Wewereverygladthisletterappeared,forthechargesbroughtagainstIskra,thatitdidnotmaintainaconsistent,classpointofview,havereacheduslongagofromvarioussources,andwehavebeenwaitingforanappropriateopportunity,orforaformulatedexpressionofthisfashionablecharge,toreplytoit.Anditisourhabittoreplytoattacks,notbydefense,butbycounter-attacks.

84 Andamongthesearticlestherewasone(Iskra,No.3)especiallydealingwiththeclassantagonismsinthecountryside.

85 Thenfollowsareferencetothe“concreteRussianconditionswhichfatalisticallyimpelthelabormovementontotherevolutionarypath.”Butthese

peoplerefusetounderstandthattherevolutionarypathofthelabormovementmightnotbeaSocial-Democraticpath!WhenabsolutismreignedinWesternEurope,theentireWestEuropeanbourgeoisie“impelled,”anddeliberatelyimpelled,theworkersontothepathofrevolution.WeSocial-Democrats,however,cannotbesatisfiedwiththat.Andifwe,byanymeanswhatever,degradeSocial-Democraticpoliticstothelevelofspontaneoustradeunionpolitics,we,bythat,playintothehandsofbourgeoisdemocracy.

86 Allitalicsours.

87 RabochayaMyslandRabocheyeDyelo,especiallytheReplytoPlekhanov.

88 See“WhoWillBringAboutthePoliticalRevolution?”inthesymposiumpublishedinRussia,entitledTheProletarianStruggle.Re-issuedbytheKievCommittee.

89 RegenerationofRevolutionismandSvoboda.

90 Forthemomentweshallobservemerelythatourremarkson“pushingonfromoutside”andtheotherviewsonorganizationexpressedbySvobodaapplyentirelytoalltheEconomists,includingtheadherentsofRabocheyeDyelo,foreithertheythemselveshavepreachedanddefendedsuchviewsonorganization,orhavethemselvesdriftedintothem.

91 ThislattertermisperhapsmoreapplicabletoSvobodathantheformer,forinanarticleentitled“TheRegenerationofRevolutionism”itdefendsterrorism,whileinthearticleatpresentunderreviewitdefendsEconomism.OnemightsayofSvobodathat“itwouldifitcould,butitcan’t.”Itswishesandintentionsareexcellent—buttheresultisutterconfusion:andthisischieflyduetothefactthatwhileSvobodaadvocatescontinuityoforganization,itrefusestorecognizethecontinuityofrevolutionarythoughtandofSocial-Democratictheory.Itwantstorevivetheprofessionalrevolutionary(“TheRegenerationofRevolutionism”),andtothatendproposes,first,excitativeterrorism,andsecondly,“theorganizationoftheaverageworker,”becausehewillbelesslikelytobe“pushedonfromoutside.”Inotherwords,itproposestopullthehousedowntousethetimberforwarmingit.

92 Forexample,inmilitarycirclesanundoubtedrevivalofthedemocraticspirithasrecentlybeenobserved,partlyasaconsequenceofthefrequentstreetfightsthatnowtakeplaceagainst“enemies”likeworkersandstudents.Andas

soonasouravailableforcespermit,wemustwithoutfaildevoteseriousattentiontopropagandaandagitationamongsoldiersandofficers,andtothecreationof“militaryorganizations”affiliatedtoourParty.

93 Irecallthestoryacomraderelatedtomeofafactoryinspector,who,desiringtohelp,andwhileinfacthelpingSocial-Democracy,bitterlycomplainedthathedidnotknowwhetherthe“information”hesentreachedtheproperrevolutionaryquarter;hedidnotknowhowmuchhishelpwasreallyrequired,andwhatpossibilitiestherewereforutilizinghissmallservices.Everypracticalworker,ofcourse,knowsofmorethanonecase,similartothis,ofourprimitivenessdeprivingusofallies.Andtheseservices,each“small”initself,butincalculablewhentakentogether,couldberenderedtousbyofficeemployeesandofficials,notonlyinfactories,butinthepostalservice,ontherailways,intheCustoms,amongthenobility,amongtheclergyandeveryotherwalkoflife,includingeventhepoliceserviceandtheCourt!Hadwearealparty,arealmilitantorganizationofrevolutionaries,wewouldnotputthequestionbluntlytoeveryoneofthese“abettors,”wewouldnothastenineverysinglecasetobringthemrightintotheveryheartofour“illegality,”but,onthecontrary,wewouldhusbandthemverycarefullyandwouldtrainpeopleespeciallyforsuchfunctions,bearinginmindthefactthatmanystudentscouldbeofmuchgreaterservicetothePartyas“abettors”—officials—thanas“short-term”revolutionaries.But,Irepeat,onlyanorganizationthatisalreadyestablishedandhasnolackofactiveforceswouldhavetherighttoapplysuchtactics.

94 Svoboda,No.1,inthearticle“Organization”:“TheheavytreadofthearmyoflaborwillreinforceallthedemandsthatwillbeadvancedbyRussianLabor”—LaborwithacapitalL,ofcourse.Andthisveryauthorexclaims:“Iamnotintheleasthostiletowardstheintelligentsia,but”(thisistheveryword,but,thatShchedrintranslatedasmeaning:theearsnevergrowhigherthantheforehead!)“butitalwaysfrightfullyannoysmewhenamancomestome,uttersbeautifulandcharmingwordsanddemandsthattheybeacceptedfortheir(his?)beautyandothervirtues.”Yes.This“alwaysfrightfullyannoys”metoo.

95 Cf.TheTasksofRussianSocial-Democrats.PolemicsagainstP.L.Lavrov.

96 Ibid.Apropos,weshallgiveanotherillustrationofthefactthatRabocheyeDyeloeitherdoesnotunderstandwhatitistalkingabout,orchangesitsviews

“witheverychangeinthewind.”InNo.1ofRabockeyeDyelo,wefindthefollowingpassageinitalics:“Thesumandsubstanceoftheviewsexpressedinthispamphletcoincideentirelywiththeeditorialprogramof‘RabocheyeDyelo.’”Isthatso,indeed?Doestheviewthatthemassmovementmustnotbesettheprimarytaskofoverthrowingtheautocracycoincidewiththeviewsexpressedinthepamphlet,TheTasksofRussianSocial-Democrats?Do“theeconomicstruggleagainsttheemployersandthegovernment”theoryandthestagestheorycoincidewiththeviewsexpressedinthatpamphlet?Weleaveittothereadertojudgewhetheranorganwhichunderstandsthemeaningof“coincidence”inthispeculiarmannercanhavefirmprinciples.

97 SeeReporttothePartsCongress.“Fromthattime[1897]tothespringof1900,thirtyissuesofvariouspaperswerepublishedinvariousplaces....Onanaverage,overonenumberpermonthwaspublished.”

98 Thisdifficultyismoreapparentthanreal.Asamatteroffact,thereisnotasinglelocalcirclethatlackstheopportunityoftakingupsomefunctionorotherinconnectionwithall-Russianwork.“Don’tsay:Ican’t;say:Iwon’t.”

99 ThatIswhyevenexamplesofexceptionallygoodlocalnewspapersfullyconfirmourpointofview.Forexample,YuzhnyRabochy[SouthernWorker]isanexcellentnewspaper,andisaltogetherfreefrominstabilityofprinciples.Butithasbeenunabletoprovidewhatitdesiredforthelocalmovement,owingtotheinfrequencyofitspublicationandtoextensivepoliceraids.WhatourPartymosturgentlyrequires,atthepresenttime,viz.,thepresentationofthefundamentalquestionsofthemovementandwidepoliticalagitation,thelocalnewspaperhasbeenunabletosatisfy.Andthematerialithaspublishedexceptionallywell,likethearticlesaboutthemineowners’congress,unemployment,etc.,wasnotstrictlylocalmaterial,itwasrequiredforthewholeofRussia,andnotfortheSouthalone.NoarticleslikethathaveappearedinanyofourSocialDemocraticnewspapers.

100 Legalmaterialisparticularlyimportantinthisconnection,butwehavelaggedbehindverymuchinourabilitysystematicallytocollectandutilizeit.Itwouldnotbeanexaggerationtosaythatlegalmaterialalonewouldbesufficientforatradeunionpamphlet,whereasillegalmaterialalonewouldnotbesufficient.InillegalmaterialcollectedfromworkersonquestionslikethosedealtwithinthepublicationsofRabochayaMysl,wewastealotoftheeffortsofrevolutionaries(whoseplaceinthisworkcouldveryeasilybetakenby

legalworkers),andyetweneverobtaingoodmaterialbecauseaworkerwhoknowsonlyasingledepartmentofalargefactory,whoknowstheeconomicresultsbutnotthegeneralconditionsandstandardsofhiswork,cannotacquiretheknowledgewhichispossessedbytheofficestaffofafactory,byinspectors,doctors,etc.,andwhichisscatteredinpettynewspapercorrespondence,andinspecial,industrial,medical,Zemstvoandotherpublications.

Iverydistinctlyremembermy“firstexperiment,”whichIwouldneverliketorepeat.Ispentmanyweeks“examining”aworkingmanwhocametovisitme,abouttheconditionsprevailingintheenormousfactoryatwhichhewasemployed.True,aftergreateffort,Imanagedtoobtainmaterialforadescription(ofjustonesinglefactory!),butattheendoftheinterviewtheworkingmanwouldwipethesweatfromhisbrow,andsaytomesmilingly:“Iwouldratherworkovertimethanreplytoyourquestions!”Themoreenergeticallywecarryonourrevolutionarystruggle,themore

thegovernmentwillbecompelledtolegalizeapartofthe“tradeunion”work,andbythatrelieveusofpartofourburden.

101 IcouldalsoreplywiththeGermanproverb:DenSackschlägtman,denEselmeintman(youbeatthesack,buttheblowsareintendedfortheass).ItwasnotRabocheyeDyeloalonethatwascarriedawaybythefashionof“criticism”butalsothemassesofpracticalworkersandtheoreticians;theybecameconfusedonthequestionofspontaneityandstrayedfromtheSocialDemocratictothetradeunionconceptionofourpoliticalandorganizationaltasks.

102 Thenewspapers(June1916)reporttheformationofanewgigantictrustwhichistocombinethechemicalindustryofGermany.

103 Russiansocial-chauvinismrepresentedbyMessrs.Potresov,Chkhenkeli,Maslov,etc.,initsobviousformaswellasinitstacitform,asrepresentedbyMessrs.Chkheidze,Skobelev,Axelrod,Martov,etc.,alsoemergedfromtheRussianvarietyofopportunism,namelyliquidationism.

104 SeefootnoteontheGothaProgramof1875,page69.—Ed.

105 NeueZelt,Vol.XX,1,1901-02.ThelettersofMarxtoKugelmannhavecomeoutinRussianinnolessthantwoeditions,oneofthemeditedandwithanintroductionbyme.

106 Inthisreference,LeningroupstogethermostofthenotedWesternEuropeandemocraticsocialistpoliticalleadersofthelatenineteenthandearly†wentiethcenturies.Itissignificanttonotethat,operatingwithintheWesternsystemofparliamentarydemocracythatLenindespised,manyofthesedemocraticsocialistsrosetocabinetrankintheirrespectivenations,andseveralofthemevenbecameheadsofgovernment.Forexample,KarlBrantingwasthefirstSocialDemocraticPrimeMinisterofSweden,andThorvaldStauningwasthefirstSocialDemocraticPrimeMinisterofDenmark;each,asheadofgovernment,leftalastingimprintonhisrespectivenation.—Ed.

107 NeueZeit,Vol.XXXII,1,1913-14.

108 TheErfurtProgramof1891replacedthemoremoderateGothaProgramof1875(seefootnote,page69)astheplatformoftheGermanSocialDemocraticParty.TheErfurtProgram,althoughMarxistintone,wascriticizednonethelessbyMarxistsaswellasnon-Marxistsocialists.—Ed.

109 NeueZeit,Vol.XX,1,1901-02.

110 Nominallyabout2,400rublesperannum;accordingtothepresentrateofexchangeabout6,000rubles.ThoseBolshevikswhoproposethatasalaryof9,000rublesbepaidtomembersofmunicipalcouncils,forinstance,insteadofproposingamaximumsalaryof6,000rublesforthewholecountry—quiteanadequatesum—arecommittinganunpardonableerror.

111 Whenmostofthefunctionsofthestatearereducedtothisaccountingandcontrolbytheworkersthemselves,itceasestobea“politicalstate,”the“publicfunctionswilllosetheirpoliticalcharacterandbetransformedinto...simpleadministrativefunctions”(cf.above,chapterIV,§2,Engels“ControversyWiththeAnarchists”).