Opinion | Lorenzo D’Ettore
“An inevitable and natural step, I have said—and I hasten to make the reservation: if only we do not permit ourselves to depart by a single step from the impending and pressing task of assisting these masses, who have already begun to rise, to act more boldly and concertedly; of giving them not a couple but dozens of open-air speakers and leaders; of creating a real, militant organisation capable of guiding the masses, and not a so-called ‘combat organisation’ that guides elusive individuals (if it does guide them at all). That this is a difficult task goes without saying, but we can quite justifiably adapt Marx’s words which have so frequently and so ineptly been quoted of late, and say: ‘Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen’ individual attempts and cases of resistance, more important than a hundred organisations and ‘parties’ belonging only to the intelligentsia.”
– V. I. Lenin. Iskra, No. 29
To best understand the historical context of Lenin’s statement in the above quotation it is essential to begin by examining the political landscape of Russia in the early 20th century. During this period, Russia was under the autocratic and repressive rule of the Tsar. The country was experiencing significant social and economic developments which produced seismic shifts in the composition and size of the growing working class, which came to unrest and discontent with the oppressive conditions rooted in the economy, the violence experienced by the workers who had taken to sparking earlier rebellions, and the lack of political representation by the autocratic lackeys. It was precisely this turmoil and decay of the autocracy which produced the fertile soil for revolutionary ideas, and especially Marxism.
Lenin’s reference to the “inevitable and natural step” is a demarcation between the growing momentum of the revolutionary movement among the Russian working class compared to the earlier attempts at resistance. The period of the 1900s saw a series of strikes and protests, notably the events in Rostov-on-Don, where a strike evolved into armed political action involving thousands of militant workers, concerted in their efforts to end the oppressive conditions of the day, in contrast sharply with the tactics of individual terrorism, adventurism, and the “propaganda of the deed” espoused by anarchists and factions of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. Lenin emphasized the importance of organizing and educating the masses to ensure that these spontaneous uprisings could be directed towards a coherent and advanced revolutionary goal.
Furthermore, the period also saw the emergence of political groups and ideologies vying for influence over the burgeoning workers’ movement. The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP), of which Lenin was himself a part, was one such group. The RSDLP, at the time, was working to unify the working class under a Marxist conception of organization and politics, advocating for a disciplined and centralized party structure that would be capable of leading the revolution that the workers were demanding. Lenin’s work with the newspaper Iskra was essential in this regard, as it was the organ of revolutionary thought and action in organizing the revolutionary socialist movement capable of advancing the workers across Russia.
Iskra played the central role in combating the “economist” trend within the Russian socialist movement, which was a significant ideological struggle at the time. The “economists” were a faction within Russian Social Democracy that emphasized economic struggles, such as wage increases and better working conditions, over the broader and more poignant political objectives of the revolutionary socialist movement. The “economists”, to the detriment of the workers, believed that the political struggles should be left to the liberal bourgeoisie, and that the working class should focus on economic issues through trade unions. This approach was criticized by Lenin for limiting the revolutionary potential of the working class by confining their struggles to only economic demands rather than challenging the political status quo and putting an end to bourgeois political power all together.
Lenin, combating the “economists”, argued that the workers needed political struggle, and that the unification of the working class under the revolutionary socialist banner would see incredible shifts not only in the fight for economic improvement, but also in the political struggle to overthrow the autocratic regime and the establishment of the socialist state. It was through Iskra which these views were disseminated to the workers, and it was the centralization of the guiding thought of Lenin which proved the efficacy of these challenges to organize. This was in stark contrast to the “economists” who favored decentralization, focusing on limited and fragmented local issues, patterned by inconsequential acts against the bourgeoisie, which saw the arrests of many great workers and capable leaders who were incapacitated by the regime which they sought to end.
The fight against “economism” is often confused for tactical and practical differences between sections of the movement, but the truth is greater. Lenin, combating the “economists,” also laid out the ideological direction of the revolutionary socialist movement in Russia. It was through these writings that the workers were able to first grasp the need for the revolutionary vanguard: the Party composed of professional revolutionaries who could guide the working class in both economic and political struggles. This approach was outlined in his masterpiece “What Is to Be Done?” where he argued that the trade unionists alone would not suffice to challenge the growing capitalist system. Instead, a revolutionary party, centralized and armed with revolutionary theory, was necessary to elevate the consciousness of the working class and lead them in the struggle for political power. Lenin’s ideas laid the groundwork for future developments in revolutionary theory, such as the theory of Militarization, further developed by Chairman Mao who expanded upon Lenin’s concepts to advance the revolutionary movement which would later be completed by Chairman Gonzalo.
The 1905 Russian Revolution demonstrated the limitations of trade unionism and “economism”. This revolution was sparked by events like the Bloody Sunday massacre, where protesters were shot by the Imperial Russian Army troops. Although the revolution did lead to some marginal concessions, such as the creation of the State Duma, it ultimately failed to bring about significant political change as the Duma was occupied by the forces of the bourgeoisie.
Lenin criticized the 1905 Revolution for its lack of a unified revolutionary party capable of effectively channeling the masses’ anger into a successful overthrow of the autocratic regime. He argued that the absence of such a party allowed the Tsarist regime to exploit divisions among revolutionary groups and maintain its grip on power. The Stolypin reaction, with its brutal suppression of dissent, underscored the need for a more organized and cohesive revolutionary movement, which Lenin proved essential for the eventual success of the 1917 Revolution.
The Stolypin reaction played a significant role in shaping the aftermath of the 1905 Russian Revolution and had a profound impact on the workers and revolutionary movements. Following the 1905 Revolution, Pyotr Stolypin, the Tsar’s chief minister, implemented a series of repressive measures aimed at quelling revolutionary fervor and consolidating Tsarist power. These measures included the use of military force to suppress militancy of the workers, the arrest and execution of leading revolutionaries, and the notable manipulation of the State Duma to ensure a majority of Tsar loyalists and anti-Communists.
Stolypin’s policies were characterized by harsh repression, including the infamous “Stolypin’s Neckties,” a euphemism for the hangman’s noose used to execute dissidents. This period saw a dramatic reduction in the membership of revolutionary groups, as many leaders were forced into exile or executed. Despite these efforts, revolutionary sentiments persisted underground, clandestine organizational forms were necessitated, and the oppressive environment only fueled further hatred and vitriol among the working class.
Likewise, in Germany, the trajectory of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) provides yet another example. Initially a revolutionary party, the SPD gradually abandoned its revolutionary fervor and adopted a conciliatory and reformist approach, focusing on parliamentary participation, electoral cretinism, and trade union activities. This shift was epitomized by figures like Eduard Bernstein, the first major revisionist theorist, arguing that socialism could be achieved through gradual change rather than direct revolution, although he lacked broad support within the SPD and his theory was formally rejected while being practiced in reality, reflecting the complex nature of the issue.
The Spartacist Uprising in Germany in 1919, led by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, furthers Lenin’s point about the importance of a strong, centralized revolutionary party. The uprising was an attempt by the revolutionary left to establish a socialist state in Germany. However, it lacked the organizational strength and support of a well-developed revolutionary party, leading to its failure. Although the Spartacists did accomplish forming the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in the midst of the uprising, Lenin noted that it was still underdeveloped at the time of Luxemburg and Liebknecht’s deaths. In his work “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder, Lenin criticized the German Communists for their lack of organization and discipline, stating that “the German revolutionary working-class movement is in its infancy as far as the practical application of the fundamentals of Bolshevik tactics is concerned.” He argued that the KPD’s immaturity and lack of a cohesive strategy contributed to the failure of the Spartacist Uprising. The party was unable to effectively lead and coordinate the mass of workers who had taken to the streets, resulting in a lack of direction and ultimately the collapse of the uprising in the face of government repression.
The SPD, which was in power at the time, opposed the uprising and collaborated with the Freikorps paramilitary units to brutally suppress it. The violent crackdown led to the deaths of Luxemburg, Liebknecht, and hundreds of workers, delivering a severe blow to the nascent Communist movement in Germany.
The murder of Liebknecht and Luxemburg was a significant setback for the revolutionary movement in Germany. It decapitated the leadership of the Communists and instilled fear among other potential and less-advanced revolutionaries. While the violent suppression and subsequent imprisonment of many revolutionaries initially hindered the momentum of the socialist movement, it did not completely stifle it. In the period immediately following, there were armed struggles and the establishment of soviets, although these were ultimately crushed. Despite these challenges, the Communist Party steadily grew between the deaths of its founders and 1933, eventually becoming a major contender against the SPD. However, the brutal tactics used by the SPD and the Freikorps left a lasting legacy of bitterness and division within the remains of the German left. By the early 1930s, it was primarily the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers’ Party, or the Nazi Party) and the KPD that were gaining majorities in the Reichstag, while the SPD was in decline.
Lenin’s critique of these tactics is further exemplified by criticisms of adventurism and individualist terrorism which was used by factions of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. These factions operated on the belief that individual acts of terrorism, such as assassinations of government officials, could on their own spark a greater and more broad revolutionary fervor. The assassination of Interior Minister Dmitry Sipyagin in 1902 by Stepan Balmashov is a notable example. While the Socialist-Revolutionaries were known for their advocacy of agrarian socialism and the necessity of connection to the peasantry, they operated to establish a decentralized form of self-governance which was based on communal land ownership, lacking revolutionary centralization.
A key component of the Socialist-Revolutionaries was the use of the “propaganda of the deed,” which involved acts of political violence and terrorism aimed at destabilizing the government and inspiring the masses to rise up in spontaneity. This approach was influenced by earlier anarchist movements, particularly the ideas of Carlo Pisacane and Mikhail Bakunin. These figures advocated for direct action as a means to demonstrate the vulnerability of the ruling class and galvanize popular support for the revolutionary cause. It’s worth noting that this approach was bitterly fought by Karl Marx during the First International, highlighting a significant ideological divide within the broader socialist movement.
Balmashov’s assassination of Sipyagin was a direct manifestation of the SRs’ strategy. Sipyagin was a prominent figure in the Tsarist government, known for his repressive policies against all forms of political dissidents and opposition groups. By targeting such a high-profile official, Balmashov and the SRs aimed to send a message to the government and the public. Primary accounts at the time revealed that Blamshov was motivated by a deep-seated belief in the necessity of individual direct action to achieve political change. In his trial, Balmashov reportedly expressed that his actions were justified, and while the death of Sipyagin was likely due, it was not the catalyst which Balmashov had hoped.
Lenin, instead, argued that such acts were ultimately counterproductive to the broader revolutionary movement. In his writings, Lenin emphasized that individual terrorism, while dramatic, failed to mobilize the masses or create sustainable political change. Instead, these acts often provoked harsh reprisals from the state, which could demoralize and disorganize the working class. The building of a mass movement capable of challenging the state through organized and concerted action required deeper strategy. Lenin argued that revolutionary change required the participation of the masses, not just the dramatic actions of a few individuals.
“In their defence of terrorism, which the experience of the Russian revolutionary movement has so clearly proved to be ineffective, the Socialist-Revolutionaries are talking themselves blue in the face in asseverating that they recognise terrorism only in conjunction with work among the masses, and that therefore the arguments used by the Russian Social-Democrats to refute the efficacy of this method of struggle (and which have indeed been refuted for a long time to come) do not apply to them. Here something very similar to their attitude towards ‘criticism’ is repeating itself. We are not opportunists, cry the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and at the same time they are shelving the dogma of proletarian socialism, for reason of sheer opportunist criticism and no other. We are not repeating the terrorists’ mistakes and are not diverting attention from work among the masses, the Socialist-Revolutionaries assure us, and at the same time enthusiastically recommend to the Party acts such as Balmashov’s assassination of Sipyagin, although everyone knows and sees perfectly well that this act was in no way connected with the masses and, moreover, could not have been by reason of the very way in which it was carried out—that the persons who committed this terrorist act neither counted on nor hoped for any definite action or support on the part of the masses. In their naïveté, the Socialist-Revolutionaries do not realise that their predilection for terrorism is causally most intimately linked with the fact that, from the very outset, they have always kept, and still keep, aloof from the working-class movement, without even attempting to become a party of the revolutionary class which is waging its class struggle. Over-ardent protestations very often lead one to doubt and suspect the worth of whatever it is that requires such strong seasoning. Do not these protestations weary them?—I often think of these words, when I read assurances by the Socialist-Revolutionaries: ‘by terrorism we are not relegating work among the masses into the background.’ After all, these assurances come from the very people who have already drifted away from the Social-Democratic labour movement, which really rouses the masses; they come from people who are continuing to drift away from this movement, clutching at fragments of any kind of theory.”
Photo: Bloody Sunday massacre carried out by Tsar Nicholas II in 1905, leading to the 1905 revolution.
