who wear the mask of Marxism—wholeheartedly sympathise with terror, and strive to foster the spirit of terrorism that is running so high at the present time.
The formation of the Svoboda Revolutionary Socialist group—which was formed with the object of giving all possible assistance to the labour movement, but which included in its programme terror, and emancipation, so to speak, from Social-Democracy—this fact once again confirmed the remarkable penetration of P. B. Axelrod who literally foretold these results of Social-Democratic wavering as far back as the end of 1897 [Modern Tasks and Modern Tactics], when he outlined his remarkable "two prospects." All the subsequent disputes and disagreements among Russian Social-Democrats are contained, like a plant in the seed, in these prospects.[1]
From this point of view it will he clear that Rabocheye Dyelo, being unable to withstand the spontaneity of Economism, has been unable also to withstand the spontaneity of terrorism. It would be interesting to note here the specific arguments that Svoboda advanced in defence of terrorism. It "completely denies" the deterrent rôle of terrorism [The Regeneration of Revolutionism, p. 64], but instead stresses its "excitative significance." This is characteristic, firstly, as representing one of the stages of the break-up and decay of the traditional (pre-Social-Democratic) cycle of ideas which insisted upon terrorism. To admit now that the government cannot be "terrified," and therefore disrupted, by terror, is tantamount to condemning terror as a system of struggle, as a sphere of activity sanctioned by the programme. Secondly, it is still more characteristic as an example of the failure to understand our immediate task of "training
- ↑ Martynov "conceives of another, more realistic [?] dilemma" [Social-Democracy and the Working Class, p. 19]: "Either Social-Democracy undertakes the direct leadership of the economic struggle of the proletariat and by that [!] transforms it into a revolutionary class struggle …" "and by that," i. e., apparently the direct leadership of the economic struggle. Can Martynov quote an example where the leadership of the industrial struggle alone has succeeded in transforming the trade-union movement into a revolutionary class movement? Cannot he understand that in order to "transform" we must undertake the "direct leadership" of all-sided political agitation? "… Or the other prospect: Social-Democracy refrains from taking the leadership of the economic struggle of the workers and so …. clips its own wings. … In Rabocheye Dyelo's opinion, which we quoted above, Iskra "refrains." We have seen, however, that the latter does far more to lead the economic struggle than Rabocheye Dyelo, but it does not confine itself to this, and doe not curtail its political tasks for the sake of it.
74
