Page:Lenin - What Is To Be Done - tr. Joe Fineberg (1929).pdf/66

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

of improving the conditions of all the workers,"[1] continuing through the theory of stages, to the resolution of the congress on "most widely applicable," etc., "economic struggle against the government" is precisely trade-union politics, which is far, far away from being Social-Democratic politics.

B. A Tale of How Martynov Rendered Plekhanov More Profound

"What a large number of Social-Democratic Lomonosovs[2] appeared among us lately!" observed a comrade to me one day, having in mind the astonishing propensity of many of those who are inclined toward Economism to "seek for themselves" the great (for example, like the one that the economic struggle stimulates the workers to ponder over their lack of rights), and in doing so ignore, with the supreme contempt of born geniuses, all that which has already been produced by previous development of revolutionary thought and of the revolutionary movement. Precisely such a genius is Lomonosov-Martynov. Glance at his article, "Immediate Questions," and observe how he "in his way" approaches that which has been said long ago by Axelrod (and whom our Lomonosov silently ignores); how, for example, he is beginning to understand that we must not ignore the opposition of the various strata of the bourgeoisie [Rabocheye Dyelo No. 9, pp. 61–62–71]; compare this with Rabocheye Dyelo's Reply to Axelrod, pp. 22–23–24], etc. But alas, he is only "approaching" and is only "beginning," no more than that, for so little has he understood Axelrod's ideas, the he talks about "the economic struggle against the employers and the government." For three years (1898–1901) Rabocheye Dyelo has tried hard to understand Axelrod, but has failed to do so yet. Perhaps this is because Social-Democracy, "like humanity," always sets itself only tasks that can be achieved.

But the Lomonosovs are distinguished not only by the fact of their ignorance of many things (that would not he so bad!) but also by the fact that they are not conscious of their ignorance. Now this is a real misfortune, and this misfortune stimulates the to attempt to render Plekhanov "more profound."

  1. Rabochaya Mysl, Special Supplement, p. 14.
  2. Kholmogory Lomonosov (1711–1765), the inventive genius and the recognised father of Russian science.—Ed.

64