autocracy; on the contrary, that was their great historical merit Their mistake was that they relied on a theory which in substance was not a revolutionary theory at all, and they either did not know how, or circumstances did not permit them, to link up their movement inseparably with the class struggle that went on within developing capitalist society. And only a gross failure to understand Marxism (or an "understanding" of it in the spirit of Struveism) could give rise to the opinion that the rise of a mass, spontaneous labour movement relieves us of the duty of creating as good an organisation of revolutionists as Zemlya i Volya had in its time, and even a better one. On the contrary, this movement imposes this duty upon us, because the spontaneous struggle of the proletariat will not become a genuine "class struggle" until it is led by a strong organisation of revolutionists.
Secondly, many, including apparently B. Krichevsky [Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, p. 18] misunderstand the polemics that Social-Democrats have always waged against the "conspiratorial" view on the political struggle. We have always protested, and will, course, continue to protest against restricting the political struggle, to conspiracies.[1] But this does not of course mean that we deny the necessity of a strong revolutionary organisation. And in the pamphlet mentioned in the footnote below, after the polemics against reducing the political struggle to a conspiracy, a description is given (as a Social-Democratic ideal) of an organisation so strong as to be able to resort to "rebellion" and to "every other form of attack,"[2] in order to "deliver a smashing blow against absolutism." The form a strong revolutionary organisation like that may take in an autocratic country may he described as a "conspirative" organ-
- ↑ Cf. The Tasks of Russian Social-Democrats, p. 21. Polemics against Lavrov. [See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. II.—Ed.]
- ↑ Tasks of Russian Social-Democrats, p. 23. [V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. II.—Ed.] But we shall give another illustration of the fact that Rabocheye Dyelo either does not understand what it is talking about, or changes in views "with every change in the wind." In No. 1 of Rabocheye Dyelo, we find the following passage in italics: "The views expressed in this pamphlet coincide entirely with the editorial programme of Rabocheye Dyelo [p. 142]. Is that so, indeed? Does the view that the mass movement must not be set the primary task of overthrowing the autocracy coincide with the views expressed in the pamphlet, The Tasks of Russian Social-Democrats? Do the theories about "the economic struggle against the employers and the government," and the theory of stages, coincide with the views expressed in the pamphlet? We leave it to the reader to judge as to whether an organ which understands the meaning of "coincidence" in this peculiar manner can have firm principles.
126
