We shall not, of course, enter in detail into the various objections raised by B. Krichevsky and Martynov against Zarya and Iskra. What interests us here solely, is the theoretical position taken up by Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10. For example, we shall not examine the literary curiosity, that Rabocheye Dyelo saw a "diametrical" contradiction between the postulate:
Social-Democracy does not tie its hands, it does not ;restrict its activities to some preconceived plan or method of political struggle: It recognises all methods of struggle, as long as they correspond to the forces at the disposal of the party … under the given conditions, etc. [Iskra, No. 1].[1]
and the postulate:
Without a strong organisation, tested in the political struggle carried on under all circumstances and in all periods, there can be no talk of a systematic plan of activity, enlightened by firm principles and unswervingly carried out, which alone is worthy of being called tactics [Iskra, No. 4].[2]
To confuse the recognition, in principle, of all means of struggle, of all plans and methods, provided they are expedient—with the necessity at a given political moment, to be guided by a strictly adhered to plan in talking of tactics, is tantamount to confusing the
- ↑ See conclusion of article, "The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement," The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 57.—Ed.
- ↑ See beginning of article "Where to Begin," The Iskra Period, Book I, p. 109.—Ed.
"Political demands, which in their character are common to the whole of Russia should, however, at first [this was written in August, 1900!] correspond to the experience gained by the given stratum [sic!] of workers in the economic struggle. Only [!] on the basis of this experience can and should the political agitation be taken up," etc. [p. 11]. On page 4, the author, protesting against what he regards as the absolutely unfounded charge of Economist heresy, pathetically exclaims: "What Social-Democrat does not now that according to the theories of Marx and Engels, the class interest is the decisive factor in history, and, consequently, that the proletarian struggle for the defence of its economic interests must be of first-rate importance in its class development and struggle for emancipation?" (our italics). The word "consequently" is absolutely out of place. The fact that economic interests are a decisive factor does not in the least imply that the economic (i. e., trade union) struggle must be the main factor, for the essential and "decisive" interest of classes can be satisfied only by radical political changes. In particular the fundamental economic interests of the proletariat can be satisfied only by a political revolution, that will substitute the dictatorship of the proletariat for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. B. Krichevsky repeats the arguments of the "V. V.'s of Russian Social-Democracy" (i.e., politics follows economics, etc.), and the Bernsteinists of German Social-Democracy (for example, by arguments like these, Woltmann tried to prove that the workers must first of all acquire "economic power" before they can think about politica1 revolution).
47
