represents a tragedy, the copy of it is only a farce. The attempt to seize power, after the ground for the attempt had been prepared by the preaching of Tkachev and carried out by means of the "terrifying" terror which did really terrify was majestic, but the "excitative" terror of a little Tkachev is simply ridiculous and is particularly ridiculous when it is supplemented by the idea of an organisation of average workers.
"If Iskra would only emerge from its sphere of literariness," wrote Nadezhdin, "it would realise that these [the working man's letter to Iskra No. 7, etc.] are symptoms of the fact that soon, very soon the 'attack' will commence, and to talk now [sic!] about organisations linked up with an All-Russian newspaper is simply to give utterance to armchair thoughts and to do armchair work." What unimaginable confusion this is: on the one hand excitative terror and an "organisation of average workers" accompanied by the opinion that it is "much easier" to gather around something "more concrete" like a local newspaper,—and on the other hand, to talk "now" about an All-Russian organisation means to give utterance to armchair thoughts, or, to speak more frankly and simply, "Now" is already too late! But what about "the extensive organisation of local newspapers,"—is it not too late for that my dear L. Nadezhdin? And compare this with Iskra's point-of-view and tactics: excitative terror—is nonsense; to talk about an organisation of average workers and about the extensive organisation of local newspapers means to open the door wide for Economism. We must speak about a single All-Russian organisation of revolutionists and it will never be too late to talk about that until the real, and not the paper attack, commences.
Yes, as far as our situation in regard to organisation is concerned, it is far from brilliant, continues Nadezhin. Yes, Iskra is absolutely right when it says that the mass of our military forces consist of volunteers and insurgents. … You do very well in thus soberly presenting the state of our forces. But why in doing so do you forget that the crowd is not ours and, consequently, it will not ask us when to commence military operations, it will simply go and "rebel." … When the crowd itself breaks out with its elemental destructive force it may overwhelm and crush the "regular troops" to which all may have rallied but which had not managed in time to establish itself as an extremely systematic organisation. [Our italics.]
Astonishing logic! Precisely because the "crowd is not ours," it is stupid and reprehensible to call for an "attack" this very minute, because an attack must be made by permanent troops and not
160
