V. I. Lenin, excerpts from What is to be Done?, 1902
Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers
only from without, that is, only from outside the
economic struggle, from outside the sphere of relations between
workers and employers. The sphere from which alone it is
possible to obtain this knowledge is the sphere of relationships
of all classes and strata to the state and the
government, the sphere of the interrelations between all
classes. For that reason, the reply to the question as to
what must be done to bring political knowledge to the workers
cannot be merely the answer with which, in the majority of
cases, the practical workers, especially those inclined towards
Economism, mostly content themselves, namely: “To go among the
workers.” To bring political knowledge to the workers
the Social Democrats must go among all classes of the
population; they must dispatch units of their army in
all directions.
***
We must “go among all classes of the population” as
theoreticians, as proagandists, as agitators, and as
organisers. Noone doubts that the theoretical work of
Social-Democrats should aim at studying all the specific
features of the social and political condition of the various
classes. But extremely little is done in this direction as
compared with the work that is done in studying the specific
features of factory life. In the committees and study circles,
one can meet people who are immersed in the study even of some
special branch of the metal industry; but one can hardly ever
find members of organisations (obliged, as often happens, for
some reason or other to give up practical work) who are
especially engaged in gathering material on some pressing
question of social and political life in our country which could
serve as a means for conducting Social-Democratic work among
other strata of the population. In dwelling upon the fact that
the majority of the present-day leaders of the working-class
movement lack training, we cannot refrain from mentioning
training in this respect also, for it too is bound up with the
Economist conception of “close organic connection with the
proletarian struggle”. The principal thing, of course, is
propaganda and agitation among all strata of
the people. The work of the West European Social-Democrat is in
this respect facilitated by the public meetings and rallies
which all are free to attend, and by the fact that in
parliament he addresses the representatives of all
classes. We have neither a parliament nor freedom of
assembly; nevertheless, we are able to arrange meetings of
workers who desire to listen to a Social-Democrat. We
must also find ways and means of calling meetings of
representatives of all social classes that desire to listen to
a democrat; for he is no Social-Democrat who forgets in
practice that “the Communists support every revolutionary
movement”, that we are obliged for that reason to expound and
emphasise general democratic tasks before the whole
people, without for a moment concealing our socialist
convictions. He is no Social-Democrat who forgets in practice
his obligation to be ahead of all in raising,
accentuating, and solving every general democratic
question.
***
Is there a basis for activity among all classes of the
population? Whoever doubts this lags in his consciousness behind
the spontaneous awakening of the masses. The working-class
movement has aroused and is continuing to arouse discontent in
some, hopes of support for the opposition in others, and in
still others the realisation that the autocracy is unbearable
and must inevitably fall. We would be “politicians” and
Social-Democrats in name only (as all too often happens in
reality), if we failed to realise that our task is to utilise
every manifestation of discontent, and to gather and turn to the
best account every protest, however small. This is quite apart
from the fact that the millions of the labouring peasantry,
handicraftsmen, petty artisans, etc., would always listen
eagerly to the speech of any Social-Democrat who is at all
qualified. Indeed, is there a single social class in which there
are no individuals, groups, or circles that are discontented
with the lack of rights and with tyranny and, therefore,
accessible to the propaganda of Social-Democrats as the
spokesmen of the most pressing general democratic needs? To
those who desire to have a clear idea of what the political
agitation of a Social-Democrat among all classes and
strata of the population should be like, we would point to
political exposures in the broad sense of the word as
the principal (but, of course, not the sole) form of this
agitation.
***
In our time only a party that will organise really
nation-wide exposures can become the vanguard of the
revolutionary forces. The word “nation-wide” has a very profound
meaning. The overwhelming majority of the non-working- class
exposers (be it remembered that in order to become the vanguard,
we must attract other classes) are sober politicians and
level-headed men of affairs. They know perfectly well how
dangerous it is to “complain” even against a minor official, let
alone against the “omnipotent” Russian Government. And they will
come to us with their complaints only when they see
that these complaints can really have effect, and that
we
represent a political force. In order to become such a
force in the eyes of outsiders, much persistent and stubborn
work is required to raise our own consciousness,
initiative, and energy.. To accomplish this it is not enough to
attach a “vanguard” label to rearguard theory and practice.
***
But the conclusion to be drawn from this is that we must
have a committee of professional revolutionaries, and
it is immaterial whether a student or a worker is capable of
becoming a professional revolutionary. The conclusion you draw,
how. ever, is that the working-class movement must not be pushed
on from outside! In your political innocence you fail to notice
that you are playing into the hands of our Economists and
fostering our amateurism. Wherein, may I ask, did our students
“push on” our workers? In the sense that the student
brought to the worker the fragments of political knowledge he
himself possesses, the crumbs of socialist ideas he has managed
to acquire (for the principal intellectual diet of the
present-day student, legal Marxism, could furnish only the
rudiments, only scraps of knowledge). There has never been too
much of such “pushing on from outside”; on the
contrary, there has so far been all too little of it in our
movement, for we have been stewing too assiduously in our own
juice; we have bowed far too slavishly to the elementary
“economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the
government”. We professional revolutionaries must and will make
it our business to engage in this kind of “pushing on”
a hundred times more forcibly than we have done hitherto. But
the very fact that you select so hideous a phrase as “pushing on
from outside” – a phrase which cannot but rouse in the workers
(at least in the workers who are as unenlightened as you
yourselves) a sense of distrust towards all who bring
them political knowledge and revolutionary experience from
outside, which cannot but rouse in them an instinctive desire to
resist all such people – proves you to be demagogues,
and demagogues are the worst enemies of the working
class.
***
The objection may be raised that such a powerful and strictly
secret organisation, which concentrates in its hands all the
threads of secret activities, an organisation which of necessity
is centralised, may too easily rush into a premature attack, may
thoughtlessly intensify the movement before the growth of
political discontent, the intensity of the ferment and anger of
the working class, etc., have made such an attack possible and
necessary. Our reply to this is: Speaking abstractly, it cannot
be denied, of course, that a militant organisation may
thoughtlessly engage in battle, which may end in a
defeat entirely avoidable under other conditions. But we cannot
confine ourselves to abstract reasoning on such a question,
because every battle bears within itself the abstract
possibility of defeat, and there is no way of reducing
this possibility except by organised preparation for
battle. If, however, we proceed from the concrete conditions at
present obtaining in Russia, we must come to the positive
conclusion that a strong revolutionary organisation is
absolutely necessary precisely for the purpose of giving
stability to the movement and of safeguarding it
against the possibility of making thoughtless attacks.