10 - Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Amidst the turmoil of the failed 1905 revolution in Russia, Lenin provides a critical analysis of the Bolshevik political program and tactics, contrasting them with the erratic and subservient factions within the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party. Join us as we explore this insightful examination of revolutionary strategy and political clarity. (Summary by Christian Pecaut) This edition was edited by George Hanna.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Chapter nine of Two Tactics of Social Democracy by Lenin
read for LibriVox dot Org by Christian Picot at Communist
Revolution dot Org. Chapter nine, What does being a party

(00:27):
of extreme opposition in time of revolution mean? Let us
return to the resolution on a provisional government. We have
shown that the tactics of the New Eschrists do not
push the revolution forward, which they may have wanted to

(00:47):
make possible by their resolution. But back we have shown
that it is precisely these tactics that tie the hands
of social democracy in the struggle against the income consistent bourgeoisie,
and do not safeguard it against being dissolved in bourgeois democracy. Naturally,

(01:09):
the false premises of a resolution lead to the false
conclusion that quote Therefore, social democracy must not set itself
the aim of seizing or sharing power in the provisional government,
but must remain the party of extreme revolutionary opposition. Consider

(01:29):
the first half of this conclusion, which is a part
of a statement of aims. Do the New Escriists declare
the aim of social democratic activity to be a decisive
victory of the revolution over Czarism? They do. They are
unable correctly to formulate the requisites for a decisive victory

(01:51):
and stray into the Aswabjenia formulation. But they do set
themselves the aforementioned aim. Further, do they connect a provisional
government with insurrection, Yes, they do so plainly by stating
that a provisional government quote will emerge from a victorious

(02:13):
popular insurrection. Finally, do they set themselves the aim of
leading the insurrection, Yes they do. Like mister Struve, they
do not admit that an insurrection is an urgent necessity.
But at the same time, unlike mister Struve, they say
that quote, social democracy strives to subject it the insurrection,

(02:39):
to its influence and leadership, and to use it in
the interests of the working class. How nicely this hangs together,
does it not? We set ourselves the aim of subjecting
the insurrection of both the proletarian and non proletarian masses
to our influence and our leadership, and of using it

(03:01):
in our interests. Hence, we set ourselves the aim of
leading in the insurrection both the proletariat and the revolutionary
bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie the non proletarian groups, i e.
Of sharing the leadership of the insurrection between the social

(03:21):
democracy and the revolutionary bourgeoisie. We set ourselves the aim
of securing victory for the insurrection, which is to lead
to the establishment of a provisional government which will emerge
from a victorious popular insurrection. Therefore, we must not set

(03:41):
ourselves the aim of seizing power or of sharing it
in a provisional revolutionary government. Our friends cannot dovetail their arguments.
They vacillate between the standpoint of mister Struve, who is
evading the issue of an insurrection, and the standpoint of
revolutionary social democracy, which calls upon us to undertake this

(04:04):
urgent task. They vacillate between anarchism, which on principle condemns
all participation in a provisional revolutionary government as treachery to
the proletariat, and Marxism, which demands such participation on condition
that the Social Democratic Party exercises the leading influence in

(04:27):
the insurrection. They have no independent position whatever, neither that
of mister Struve, who wants to come to terms with
Czarism and is therefore compelled to resort to evasions and
subterfuges on the question of insurrection, nor that of the
anarchists who condemn all action from above and all participation

(04:52):
in a bourgeois revolution. The new es Christs confuse a
deal with Czarism with a victory over Czarism. They want
to take part in a bourgeois revolution. They have gone
somewhat beyond Martinov's two dictatorships. They even consent to lead

(05:14):
the insurrection of the people in order to renounce that
leadership immediately after victory is won, or perhaps immediately before
the victory, i e. In order not to avail themselves
of the fruits of victory, but to turn all these
fruits over entirely to the bourgeoisie. This is what they

(05:38):
call using the insurrection in the interests of the working class.
There is no need to dwell on this muddle any longer.
It will be more useful to examine how this muddle originated.
In the formulation which reads to remain the party of
extreme revolutionary opposition. This is one of the familiar propositions

(06:03):
of international revolutionary social democracy. It is a perfectly correct proposition.
It has become a commonplace for all opponents of revisionism
or opportunism. In parliamentary countries. It has become generally accepted
as the legitimate and necessary rebuff to parliamentary cretanism, Milirandism,

(06:27):
Bernsteinism and the Italian reformism of the Tiraate brand. Our
good new Esqrists have learned this excellent proposition by heart
and are zealously applying it quite inappropriately. Categories of the
parliamentary struggle are introduced into resolutions written for conditions in

(06:51):
which no parliament exists. The concept opposition, which has become
the reflection and the expression of a political situation in
which no one seriously speaks of an insurrection, is senselessly
applied to a situation in which insurrection has begun and

(07:12):
in which all the supporters of the revolution are thinking
and talking about leadership in it. The desire to stick
to bold methods, i e. Action only from below is
expressed with pomp and clamor precisely at a time when
the revolution has confronted us with the necessity, in the

(07:35):
event of the insurrection being victorious of acting from above. No,
our new Escribs are decidedly out of luck. Even when
they formulate a correct social democratic proposition, they don't know
how to apply it correctly. They failed to take into

(07:57):
consideration that in a period in which a revolution has begun,
when there is no parliament, when there is civil war,
when insurrectionary outbreaks occur, the concepts and terms of parliamentary
struggle are changed and transformed into their opposites. They failed

(08:18):
to take into consideration the fact that, under the circumstances
referred to, amendments are moved by means of street demonstrations.
Interpolations are introduced by means of offensive action by armed citizens.
Opposition to the government is affected by forcibly overthrowing the government.

(08:41):
Like the well known hero of our folklore, who repeated
good advice just when it was inappropriate, our admirers of
Martinov repeat the lessons of peaceful parliamentarism just at a
time when, as they themselves state, actual hostilities have commenced.
There is nothing more ridiculous than this pompous emphasis of

(09:04):
the slogan extreme opposition in a resolution which begins by
referring to a decisive victory of the revolution and to
popular insurrection. Try to visualize, gentlemen, what it means to
be the extreme opposition in a period of insurrection. Does

(09:25):
it mean exposing the government or deposing it? Does it
mean voting against the government or defeating its armed forces
in open battle. Does it mean refusing the government replenishments
for its exchequer or the revolutionary seizure of this exchecker

(09:46):
in order to use it for the requirements of the uprising,
to arm the workers and peasants, and to convoke a
constituent assembly. Are you not beginning to understand, gentlemen, that
the term extream opposition expresses only negative actions to expose,
to vote against, to refuse. Why is this so? Because

(10:12):
this term applies only to the parliamentary struggle, and moreover,
to a period when no one makes decisive victory the
immediate object of that struggle. Are you not beginning to
understand that things undergo a cardinal change in this respect?
From the moment the politically oppressed people launch a determined

(10:34):
attack along the whole front in desperate struggle for victory,
the workers ask us, is it necessary energetically to take
up the urgent business of insurrection? What is to be
done to make the incipient insurrection victorious? What use should

(10:55):
be made of the victory? What program can and should
then be applied? The new est Christs, who are making
Marxism more profound answer we must remain the party of
extreme revolutionary opposition. Well, were we not right in calling

(11:16):
these nights past masters in philistinism? End of chapter nine.
This recording is in the public domain.