In this text, Lenin makes his argument for a coherent, strictly
controlled party of dedicated revolutionaries as a basic necessity
for a revolution. Some have seen an analogy with the Jesuit Order
in his proposals for an elite corps to lead the masses. One may
see in Lenin's proposals a deep insight into to necessary requisites
for a revolution, or a deep contempt for the working classes.
The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively
by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e, it may itself realise the necessity for combining
in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving
to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation,
etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic,
historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated
representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals.
According to their social status, the founders of modern scientific
socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois
intelligentsia. Similarly, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine
of Social Democracy [Note: By "social democracy"
Lenin means revolutionary political Marxism, not the later concept
of "moderate" socialism] arose quite independently
of the spontaneous growth of the labour movement; it arose as
a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of ideas among
the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia. At the time of which
we are speaking, i.e., the middle of the nineties, this
doctrine not only represented the completely formulated programme
of the Emancipation of Labour group, but had already won the adherence
of the majority of the revolutionary youth in Russia.
***
It is only natural that a Social Democrat, who conceives the political
struggle as being identical with the "economic struggle against
the employers and the government," should conceive of an
"organisation of revolutionaries" as being more or less
identical with an "organisation of workers." And this,
in fact, is what actually happens; so that when we talk about
organisation, we literally talk in different tongues. I recall
a conversation I once had with a fairly consistent Economist,
with whom I had not been previously acquainted. We were discussing
the pamphlet Who Will Make the Political Revolution? and
we were very soon agreed that the principal defect in that brochure
was that it ignored the question of organisation. We were beginning
to think that we were in complete agreement with each other-but
as the conversation proceeded, it became clear that we were talking
of different things. My interlocutor accused the author of the
brochure just mentioned of ignoring strike funds, mutual aid societies,
etc.; whereas I had in mind an organisation of revolutionaries
as an essential factor in "making" the political revolution.
After that became clear, I hardly remember a single question of
importance upon which I was in agreement with that Economist!
What was the source of our disagreement? The fact that on questions
of organisation and politics the Economists are forever lapsing
from Social Democracy into trade unionism. The political struggle
carried on by the Social Democrats is far more extensive and complex
than the economic struggle the workers carry on against the employers
and the government. Similarly (and indeed for that reason), the
organisation of a revolutionary SocialDemocratic Party must
inevitably differ from the organisations of the workers
designed for the latter struggle. A workers' organisation must
in the first place be a trade organisation; secondly, it must
be as wide as possible; and thirdly, it must be as public as conditions
will allow (here, and further on, of course, I have only autocratic
Russia in mind). On the other hand, the organisations of revolutionaries
must consist first and foremost of people whose profession is
that of a revolutionary (that is why I speak of organisations
of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary Social Democrats).
In view of this common feature of the members of such an organisation, all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, and
certainly distinctions of trade and profession, must be obliterated.
Such an organisation must of necessity be not too extensive and
as secret as possible.
***
I assert:
- that no movement can be durable without a stable organisation
of leaders to maintain continuity;
- that the more widely the masses are spontaneously drawn into
the struggle and form the basis of the movement and participate
in it, the more necessary is it to have such an organisation,
and the more stable must it be (for it is much easier for demogogues
to sidetrack the more backward sections of the masses);
- that the organisation must consist chiefly of persons engaged
in revolutionary activities as a profession;
- that in a country with an autocratic government, the more
we restrict the membership of this organisation to persons
who are engaged in revolutionary activities as a profession and
who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the
political police, the more difficult will it be to catch the organisation,
and
- the wider will be the circle of men and women of the
working class or of other classes of society able to join the
movement and perform active work in it....
The active and widespread participation of the masses will not
suffer; on the contrary, it will benefit by the fact that a "dozen"
experienced revolutionaries, no less professionally trained than
the police, will centralise all the secret side of the work-prepare
leaflets, work out approximate plans and appoint bodies of leaders
for each urban district, for each factory district and to each
educational institution, etc. (I know that exception will be taken
to my "undemocratic" views, but I shall reply to this
altogether unintelligent objection later on.) The centralisation
of the more secret functions in an organisation of revolutionaries
will not diminish, but rather increase the extent and the quality
of the activity of a large number of other organisations intended
for wide membership and which, therefore, can be as loose and
as public as possible, for example, trade unions, workers' circles
for self-education and the reading of illegal literature, and
socialist and also democratic circles for all other sections
of the population. etc, etc We must have as large a number
as possible of such organisations having the widest possible
variety of functions, but it is absurd and dangerous to confuse
those with organisations of revolutionaries, to erase the
line of demarcation between them, to dim still more the masses
already incredibly hazy appreciation of the fact that in order
to "serve" the mass movement we must have people who
will devote themselves exclusively to Social Democratic activities,
and that such people must train themselves patiently and
steadfastly to be professional revolutionaries.
Aye, this appreciation has become incredibly dim. The most grievous
sin we have committed in regard to organisation is that by
our primitiveness we have lowered the prestige o revolutionaries
in Russia. A man who is weak and vacillating on theoretical
questions, who has a narrow outlook who makes excuses for his
own slackness on the ground that the masses are awakening spontaneously;
who resembles a trade union secretary more than a people's tribune,
who is unable to conceive of a broad and bold plan, who is incapable
of inspiring even his opponents with respect for himself, and
who is inexperienced and clumsy in his own professional art-the
art of combating the political police-such a man is not a revolutionary
but a wretched amateur!
Let no active worker take offense at these frank remarks, for
as far as insufficient training is concerned, I apply them first
and foremost to myself. I used to work in a circle that set itself
great and allembracing tasks; and every member of that circle
suffered to the point of torture from the realisation that we
were proving ourselves to be amateurs at a moment in history when
we might have been able to say, paraphrasing a wellknown
epigram: "Give us an organisation of revolutionaries, and
we shall overturn the whole of Russia!"
Source:
From, V.I. Lenin: "What is to Be Done?", Lenin:
Collected Works Vol V, pp. 375-76, 451-53, 464-67
This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook.
The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted
texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World
history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the
document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying,
distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal
use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source.
No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.
(c)Paul Halsall Aug 1997
