it is extremely important to establish the fact that part (perhaps even a majority) of the Social-Democrats operating in the period of 1895–1898, quite justly considered it possible even then, at the very beginning of the "spontaneous movement," to come forward with the most extensive programme and fighting tactics.[1]
The lack of training of the majority of the revolutionists being quite a natural phenomenon, could not have aroused any particular fears. Since the tasks were properly defined, since the energy existed for repeated attempts to fulfil these tasks, the temporary failures were not such a great misfortune. Revolutionary experience and organisational skill are things that can be acquired provided the desire is there to acquire these qualities, provided the shortcomings are recognised—which in revolutionary activity is more than half-way towards removing them!
It was a great misfortune, however, when this consciousness began to grow dim (it was very lively among the workers of the group mentioned), when people appeared—and even Social-Democratic organs—who were prepared to regard shortcomings as virtues, who and even to put a theoretical basis to slavish cringing before spontaneity. It is time to summarise this tendency, the substance of which is incorrectly and too narrowly described as Economism.
B. Bowing to Spontaneity
Rabochaya Mysl
Before dealing with the literary manifestation of this subservience, I would like to mention the following characteristic fact (communicated to us from the above-mentioned source), which throws
- ↑ Iskra, which adopts a hostile attitude towards the activities of the Social-Democrats of the end of the nineties, ignores the fact that at that time the conditions were unfavourable for any other kind of work except fighting for petty demands, declare the Economists in their Letter to Russian Social-Democratic Organs [Iskra, No. 12]. The facts quoted above show that the element about "unfavourable conditions" is diametrically opposite to the truth. Not only at the end, but even in the middle of the nineties all the conditions existed for other work, besides fighting for petty demands, all the conditions—except the sufficient training of the leaders. Instead of frankly admitting our, the ideologists', the leaders', lack of sufficient training-the economists try to throw the blame entirely upon "the absence of conditions," upon the influence of material environment which determined the road from that it was impossible to divert the movement by any kind of ideology. That is this hut slavish cringing before spontaneity but the fact that the "ideologists" are enamoured of their own shortcomings?
35
