W O R K E R S O F A L L C O U N T R I E S , U N I T E!

L E N I NCOLLECTED WORKS

19

A

THE RUSSIAN EDITION WAS PRINTEDIN ACCORDANCE WITH A DECISION

OF THE NINTH CONGRESS OF THE R.C.P.(B.)AND THE SECOND CONGRESS OF SOVIETS

OF THE U.S.S.R.

CTTT C p K KCC

B. n. l d H n H E

a u m p m o e

M

V. I. L E N I NcOLLEcTED WORKS

V O L U M E

1March December 1(1/

PROGRESS PUBLISHERSM O S C O W

TRANSLATED FROM THE RUSSIAN BY THE LATE G E O R G E H A N N AEDITED BY R O B E R T D A G L I S H

First printing 1963Second printing 1968Third printing 1973Fourth printing 1977

Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

l 10102014

.

014(01)77

From Marx to Mao

ML

Digital Reprints2011

www.marx2mao.com

7C O N T E N T S

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE THREE SOURCES AND THREE COMPONENT PARTS OFMARXISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BIG ACHIEVEMENT OF THE CHINESE REPUBLIC . . . . . . . .

OLD PROBLEMS AND THE SENILE DECAY OF LIBERALISM . . .

THE OIL HUNGER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE CADET ASSEMBLY BILL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE BALKAN WAR AND BOURGEOIS CHAUVINISM . . . . . . .

CONVERSATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Newspaper Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EDUCATED DEPUTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WHO STANDS TO GAIN? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IN BRITAIN (The Sad Results of Opportunism) . . . . . . .

CIVILISED EUROPEANS AND SAVAGE ASIANS . . . . . . . . .

MERCHANT ACCOUNTANCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A GREAT TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . .

A FEW WORDS ON RESULTS AND FACTS . . . . . . . . . .

Page

1 7

23242527

29

3 1

33

37

39

43

47

52

53

55

57

59

6 1

63

CONTEMPORARY RUSSIA AND THE WORKING-CLASS MOVEMENT.

CONTENTS8

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESETTLEMENT SCHEME . . . . . . .

VEKHI CONTRIBUTORS AND NATIONALISM (Bibliographical Note) .

THE LIBERALS AND FREEDOM FOR THE UNIONS . . . . . . .

FOR THE ATTENTION OF LUCH AND PRAVDA READERS . . . .

TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE DEATH OF JOSEPHDIETZGEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE BOURGEOISIE AND PEACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE AWAKENING OF ASIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SEPARATISTS IN RUSSIA AND SEPARATISTS IN AUSTRIA . . . .

THE RESETTLEMENT SCHEME AGAIN . . . . . . . . . . . .THE WORKING CLASS AND THE NATIONAL QUESTION . . . . .BRITISH SOCIALIST PARTY CONFERENCE . . . . . . . . . .

ENING? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BACKWARD EUROPE AND ADVANCED ASIA . . . . . . . . .

A DISCREDITABLE ROLE! (Once More for the Attention of Luchand Pravda Readers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE LAND QUESTION SETTLEDLANDOWNER FASHION . . . . .ARMAMENTS AND CAPITALISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . .HELPLESSNESS AND CONFUSION (Note) . . . . . . . . . . .DRAFT PLATFORM FOR THE FOURTH CONGRESS OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS OF THE LATVIAN AREA . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appraisal of the Political Situation and the GeneralTactical Tasks of the Social-Democrats . . . . . . . .

The Question of the Unity of the R.S.D.L.P. . . . . . .Attitude to the Liquidators . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Question of Support for the Liquidators Confer-

ence and Organising Committee by the Central Com-mittee of the Social Democratic Party of the LatvianArea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The National Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIBERAL AND MARXIST CONCEPTIONS OF THE CLASS STRUG-GLE. Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66

72

74

76

79

83

85

87

89

9 1

93

96

99

101

103

106

108

110

110112113

114115

119

IS THE CONDITION OF THE PEASANTS IMPROVING OR WORS-

9CONTENTS

FACTORY OWNERS ON WORKERS STRIKES . . . . . . . . . .

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AN INCORRECT APPRAISAL (LUCH ON MAKLAKOV) . . . . . .FRANK SPEECHES BY A LIBERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE QUESTION OF MINISTRY OF EDUCATION POLICY(Supplement to the Discussion on Public Education) . . . .CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES. AN OPEN PARTY AND THE MARXISTS

I. The Decision of 1908 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II. The Decision of 1910 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. The Attitude of the Liquidators to the Decisionsof 1908 and 1910 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. The Class Significance of Liquidationism . . . . . .V. The Slogan of Struggle for an Open Party . . . .

VI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LETTER TO M. S. OLMINSKY (VITIMSKY) . . . . . . . . . . .THE QUESTION OF MR. BOGDANOV AND THE VPERYOD GROUP(For the Editors of Pravda) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .HAS PRAVDA GIVEN PROOF OF BUNDIST SEPARATISM? . . . .LIBERALS AS DEFENDERS OF THE FOURTH DUMA . . . . . . .THE QUESTION OF THE (GENERAL) AGRARIAN POLICY OF THEPRESENT GOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CAPITALISM AND TAXATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ECONOMIC STRIKES IN 1912 AND IN 1905 . . . . . . . . . .THE GROWTH OF CAPITALIST WEALTH . . . . . . . . . . .THE PEASANTRY AND THE WORKING CLASS . . . . . . . . .CHILD LABOUR IN PEASANT FARMING . . . . . . . . . . .THE RESULTS OF STRIKES IN 1912 AS COMPARED WITH THOSEOF THE PAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IN AUSTRALIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MAY DAY ACTION BY THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT . . .NOTES OF A PUBLICIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

125

125127129

132

135

137

147

149153

156159163166

170

173

175

1 7 7

180

197

201

203

206

209

213

216

218

228

CONTENTS10

FROM MARX

TO MAO

NOT FOR

COMMERCIAL

DISTRIBUTION

APROPOS OF ONE UNTRUTH (Letter to the Editors) . . . . . .

THE WORKING CLASS AND NEOMALTHUSIANISM . . . . . . .

LIBERAL APPEALS TO SUPPORT THE FOURTH DUMA . . . . .

BOURGEOIS FINANCIAL MAGNATES AND POLITICIANS . . . . .

THESES ON THE NATIONAL QUESTION . . . . . . . . . . .

INSTRUCTIVE SPEECHES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PICTURES FROM LIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE ADJOURNED DUMA AND THE EMBARRASSED LIBERALS . .

FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS AGAINST PROSTITUTION . .

WORD AND DEED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CADETS ON THE QUESTION OF THE UKRAINE . . . . . . . .

FRESH DATA ON GERMAN POLITICAL PARTIES . . . . . . . .

EXPOSURE OF THE BRITISH OPPORTUNISTS . . . . . . . . .

THE IDEAS OF AN ADVANCED CAPITALIST . . . . . . . . . .

WHAT CAN BE DONE FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION . . . . . . . .

PETTY PRODUCTION IN AGRICULTURE . . . . . . . . . . .

A FASHIONABLE BRANCH OF INDUSTRY . . . . . . . . . .

DEAD LIQUIDATIONISM AND THE LIVING RECH . . . . . . . .

MOBILISATION OF ALLOTMENT LANDS . . . . . . . . . . .

HOW CAN PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION IN RUSSIA BE INCREASED?

AUGUST BEBEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE SEPARATION OF LIBERALISM FROM DEMOCRACY . . . . .

A FINE BUSINESS! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE NATIONALISATION OF JEWISH SCHOOLS. . . . . . . . .

233

235

238

241

243

252

256

258

260

262

266

268

272

275

277

280

283

285

288

292

295

302

305

307

11CONTENTS

IRON ON PEASANT FARMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

METALWORKERS STRIKE IN 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE RUSSIAN BOURGEOISIE AND RUSSIAN REFORMISM . . . .

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL ESTATES AND CLASSES IN THE LIBERA-TION MOVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CLASS WAR IN DUBLIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NEW LAND REFORM MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE MERCHANT SALAZKIN AND THE WRITER F. D. . . . . . .

THE STRUGGLE FOR MARXISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A WEEK AFTER THE DUBLIN MASSACRE . . . . . . . . . .

QUESTIONS OF PRINCIPLE IN POLITICS. The Liberal Bourgeoisieand Reformism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS ON THE LANGUAGE QUESTION . . .

THE LANGUAGE FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BOURGEOIS GENTLEMEN ON FAMILY FARMING . . . . . . .

HARRY QUELCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MARXISM AND REFORMISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

309

3 1 1

3 1 1313314315316318319320322323

325

328

332

337

340

343

348

350

354

358

358359361362

364

369

372

CONTENTS12

THE LAND QUESTION AND THE RURAL POOR . . . . . . . .

HOW DOES BISHOP NIKON DEFEND THE UKRAINIANS? . . . .

NOTES OF A PUBLICIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I. Non-Party Intellectuals Against Marxism . . . . .II. Liberal Blindness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. A Necessary Explanation . . . . . . . . . . . .

CIVILISED BARBARISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE BLACK HUNDREDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND RUSSIAN REFORMS . . . . . . .

HOW VERA ZASULICH DEMOLISHES LIQUIDATIONISM . . . . .

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RESOLUTIONS OF THE SUMMER, 1913, JOINT CONFERENCE OFTHE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. AND PARTYOFFICIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE TASKS OF AGITATION IN THE PRESENT SITUATION

RESOLUTION ON THE ORGANISATIONAL QUESTION ANDON THE PARTY CONGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE STRIKE MOVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE PARTY PRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC ACTIVITIES IN THE DUMA . . . . . .

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC GROUP IN THE DUMA . . . . .

WORK IN LEGAL ASSOCIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . .

RESOLUTION ON THE NATIONAL QUESTION . . . . . . .

THE NARODNIKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THERES A TRUDOVIK FOR YOU! . . . . . . . . . . . . .

376

379

382

382383385

388

390

392

394

394399402405407410

417

419

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

429

432

13CONTENTS

BEWILDERED NON-PARTY PEOPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE LIBERALS AND THE LAND PROBLEM IN BRITAIN . . . . .

A WEAK DEFENCE OF A WEAK CASE . . . . . . . . . . . .

DECLARATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE DUMA SEVEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE LIBERAL BOURGEOISIE AND THE LIQUIDATORS . . . . . .

CAPITALISM AND WORKERS IMMIGRATION . . . . . . . . .

MATERIAL ON THE CONFLICT WITHIN THE SOCIAL-DEMO-CRATIC DUMA GROUP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Whose Will? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .What Is the Will of the Majority of the Class-Con-

scious Workers of Russia? . . . . . . . . . . . .What Did the Elections to the Second, Third and Fourth

Dumas Reveal Concerning the Will of the Proleta-riat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Who Are the Deputies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .What Is the Will of the Workers as Shown by Work-

ers Newspapers in Russia? . . . . . . . . . . .What Is the Will of the Workers as Shown by Collec-

tions for Workers Newspapers? . . . . . . . . .What Is the Will of the Workers as Shown by the St.

Petersburg Trade Unions? . . . . . . . . . . . .Ideological Unity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Liquidators and the Bourgeoisie . . . . . . . .Decision of the United Marxists . . . . . . . . . .Our Work Within the Duma Group . . . . . . . . .What Do the Six Demand? . . . . . . . . . . . .Unity Inside and Outside the Duma . . . . . . . . .

A CADET PROPERTY-OWNER ARGUES ACCORDING TO MARX

THE WORKING-CLASS MASSES AND THE WORKING-CLASSINTELLIGENTSIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE SPLIT IN THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC DUMA . . . .

THE LEFT NARODNIKS ON THE CONTROVERSIES AMONG THEMARXISTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE AGRARIAN QUESTION AND THE PRESENT SITUATION INRUSSIA (Notes of a Publicist) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

436

439

443

446

449

451

454

458458

459

460461

463

464

465467468469471473473

475

477

480

485

487

CONTENTS14

TWO METHODS OF CONTROVERSY AND STRUGGLE . . . . . .

WOULD-BE UNITERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A LETTER TO S. G. SHAHUMYAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CULTURAL-NATIONAL AUTONOMY . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COTERIES ABROAD AND RUSSIAN LIQUIDATORS . . . . . . . .

THE CADET MAKLAKOV AND THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT PETROV-SKY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ZABERN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE QUESTION OF BUREAU DECISIONS . . . . . . . . . . .

WORKING-CLASS UNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A STUBBORN DEFENCE OF A BAD CASE . . . . . . . . . . .

THE CADETS AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETER-MINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A GOOD RESOLUTION AND A BAD SPEECH . . . . . . . . . .

THE NATIONALITY OF PUPILS IN RUSSIAN SCHOOLS . . . . . .

STRIKES IN RUSSIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

KAUTSKYS UNPARDONABLE ERROR . . . . . . . . . . . .

ONCE MORE ON THE SEGREGATION OF THE SCHOOLS ACCORD-ING TO NATIONALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MR. GORSKY AND A CERTAIN LATIN PROVERB . . . . . . . .

THE MARX-ENGELS CORRESPONDENCE . . . . . . . . . . .

I. General Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Life and Work of V. I. Lenin. Outstanding Dates . . . .

492

495

499

503

508

5 1 1

513

516

519

522

525

528

531

534

546

548

551

552

554

559

589

THE NATIONAL PROGRAMME OF THE R.S.D.L.P. . . . . . . . 539

15CONTENTS

I L L U S T R A T I O N S

Title page of the magazine Prosveshcheniye No. 3, March 1913;this issue contained Lenins article The Three Sources andThree Component Parts of Marxism . . . . . . . . . .

First page of the manuscript of Lenins Conversation. March-April 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

First page of the manuscript of Lenins The Question of the(General) Agrarian Policy of the Present Government. 1913

First page of the newspaper Rabochaya Pravda No. 3, July 16,1913, which contained Lenins articles Word and Deed,Cadets on the Question of the Ukraine, Fresh Data onGerman Political Parties and Exposure of the British Op-portunists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

First page of the manuscript of Lenins The Marx-EngelsCorrespondence. End of 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 21

p. 41

p. 181

p. 263

pp. 552-53

17

PREFACE

Volume Nineteen contains the works of Lenin writtenbetween March and December 1913, in the period of the newupsurge of the revolutionary movement in Russia. Thegreater part of the volume consists of articles publishedin the Bolshevik legal pressin the newspapers Pravda andNash Put and the magazine Prosveshcheniye.

In the articles The Three Sources and Three ComponentParts of Marxism, Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Deathof Joseph Dietzgen, Liberal and Marxist Conceptions ofthe Class Struggle and The Marx-Engels Correspondence,Lenin expounded and developed some basic problems ofMarxist theory.

The articles The National Programme of the R.S.D.L.P.,The Working Class and the National Question and otherselaborate and substantiate the Bolshevik programme onthe national question.

An important place in the volume is occupied by articlesagainst the Menshevik liquidators, Trotskyists, Bundists1and Socialist-Revolutionaries,2 all of which deal with ques-tions of the struggle to consolidate the Bolshevik Partyand the unity of the working class; among them are Con-troversial Issues, Working-Class Unity, Has PravdaGiven Proof of Bundist Separatism?, Theres a Trudovikfor You and the resolutions of the Summer Joint Confer-ence of the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. andParty officials held at Poronin.

In May Day Action by the Revolutionary Proletariat,The Results of Strikes in 1912 as Compared with Those ofthe Past, The Role of Social Estates and Classes in theLiberation Movement, Liberals as Defenders of the Fourth

PREFACE18

Duma, Lenin dealt with the political crisis that wasmaturing in Russia on a nation-wide scale, showed theleading role of the proletariat in the growing revolutionarymovement and exposed the counter-revolutionary liberalbourgeoisie.

The articles Is the Condition of the Peasants Improvingor Worsening?, The Land Question and the Rural Poorand The Agrarian Question and the Present Situation inRussia expose the impoverishment and ruin of the greaterpart of the peasantry as a result of Stolypins agrarian policyand confront the Bolshevik Party and the working classwith the task of drawing the peasantry into an active strug-gle against the autocracy.

The volume includes documents that characterise Leninsleadership of the Bolshevik group in the Fourth State Du-mathe draft speeches The Question of Ministry of Edu-cation Policy, The Question of the (General) AgrarianPolicy of the Present Government, the articles The DumaSeven, Material on the Conflict within the Social-Democratic Duma Group, and others.

There is also a group of articlesCivilised Barbarism,A Great Technical Achievement, Armaments and Capi-talism, Who Stands to Gain?, The Awakening of Asia,Exposure of the British Opportunistsdevoted to worldeconomics and politics. Lenin cited facts in these articlesshowing the decay of capitalism, the growth of armaments,the preparations for a world war and the awakening of thecolonial peoples and criticised the growing opportunism inthe international working-class movement.

Nine of the documents published in this volume appearedfor the first time in the fourth Russian edition of the CollectedWorks. In his report on Contemporary Russia and theWorking-Class Movement and in the articles Conversa-tion, For the Attention of Luch and Pravda Readers,A Discreditable Role, The Working-Class Masses andthe Working-Class Intelligentsia and The Question ofBureau Decisions, Lenin exposed the liquidators, whostrove to destroy the illegal Social-Democratic Party, asout-and-out traitors to the working class. The article TheSplit in the Russian Social-Democratic Duma Group waswritten by Lenin for the international socialist press in

19PREFACE

reply to the slander about the Bolshevik Party that wasbeing spread by the liquidators and Trotskyists. In thearticles The Oil Hunger and An Incorrect Appraisal (Luchon Maklakov) Lenin revealed the counter-revolutionary roleof the Russian bourgeoisie and showed that they, in alliancewith the feudal landowners were hampering Russias eco-nomic development.

Title page of the magazine Prosveshcheniye No. 3, March 1913; thisissue contained Lenins article The Three Sources and

Three Component Parts of MarxismReduced

Title page of the magazine Prosveshcheniye No. 3, March 1913; thisissue contained Lenins article The Three Sources and

Three Component Parts of MarxismReduced

23

THE THREE SOURCES AND THREE COMPONENTPARTS OF MARXISM3

Throughout the civilised world the teachings of Marx evokethe utmost hostility and hatred of all bourgeois science(both official and liberal), which regards Marxism as a kindof pernicious sect. And no other attitude is to be expected,for there can be no impartial social science in a societybased on class struggle. In one way or another, all officialand liberal science defends wage-slavery, whereas Marxismhas declared relentless war on that slavery. To expect scienceto be impartial in a wage-slave society is as foolishly naveas to expect impartiality from manufacturers on the ques-tion of whether workers wages ought not to be increased bydecreasing the profits of capital.

But this is not all. The history of philosophy and thehistory of social science show with perfect clarity that thereis nothing resembling sectarianism in Marxism, in thesense of its being a hidebound, petrified doctrine, a doctrinewhich arose away from the high road of the development ofworld civilisation. On the contrary, the genius of Marxconsists precisely in his having furnished answers to ques-tions already raised by the foremost minds of mankind.His doctrine emerged as the direct and immediate continua-tion of the teachings of the greatest representatives of phi-losophy, political economy and socialism.

The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true.It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides menwith an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any formof superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression.It is the legitimate successor to the best that man pro-duced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German

V. I. LENIN24

philosophy, English political economy and French social-ism.

It is these three sources of Marxism, which are also itscomponent parts, that we shall outline in brief.

I

The philosophy of Marxism is materialism. Throughoutthe modern history of Europe, and especially at the end ofthe eighteenth century in France, where a resolute strugglewas conducted against every kind of medieval rubbish,against serfdom in institutions and ideas, materialism hasproved to be the only philosophy that is consistent, trueto all the teachings of natural science and hostile to super-stition, cant and so forth. The enemies of democracy have,therefore, always exerted all their efforts to refute, under-mine and defame materialism, and have advocated variousforms of philosophical idealism, which always, in one wayor another, amounts to the defence or support of religion.

Marx and Engels defended philosophical materialism inthe most determined manner and repeatedly explained howprofoundly erroneous is every deviation from this basis.Their views are most clearly and fully expounded in theworks of Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and Anti-Dhring, which,like the Communist Manifesto, are handbooks for everyclass-conscious worker.

But Marx did not stop at eighteenth-century materialism:he developed philosophy to a higher level. He enriched itwith the achievements of German classical philosophy, espe-cially of Hegels system, which in its turn had led to thematerialism of Feuerbach. The main achievement was dia-lectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest,deepest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of therelativity of the human knowledge that provides us with areflection of eternally developing matter. The latest dis-coveries of natural scienceradium, electrons, the trans-mutation of elementshave been a remarkable confirmationof Marxs dialectical materialism despite the teachingsof the bourgeois philosophers with their new reversionsto old and decadent idealism.

25THREE SOURCES AND THREE COMPONENT PARTS OF MARXISM

Marx deepened and developed philosophical materialismto the full, and extended the cognition of nature to includerecognition of human society. His historical materialismwas a great achievement in scientific thinking. The chaosand arbitrariness that had previously reigned in views onhistory and politics were replaced by a strikingly integraland harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in con-sequence of the growth of productive forces, out of onesystem of social life another and higher system developshow capitalism, for instance, grows out of feudalism.

Just as mans knowledge reflects nature (i.e., developingmatter), which exists independently of him, so mans socialknowledge (i.e., his various views and doctrinesphilosoph-ical, religious, political and so forth) reflects the economicsystem of society. Political institutions are a superstructureon the economic foundation. We see, for example, that thevarious political forms of the modern European states serveto strengthen the domination of the bourgeoisie over the pro-letariat.

Marxs philosophy is a consummate philosophical mate-rialism which has provided mankind, and especially theworking class, with powerful instruments of knowledge.

II

Having recognised that the economic system is the foun-dation on which the political superstructure is erected,Marx devoted his greatest attention to the study of thiseconomic system. Marxs principal work, Capital, is de-voted to a study of the economic system of modern, i.e.,capitalist, society.

Classical political economy, before Marx, evolved inEngland, the most developed of the capitalist countries.Adam Smith and David Ricardo, by their investigations ofthe economic system, laid the foundations of the labourtheory of value. Marx continued their work; he provideda proof of the theory and developed it consistently. He showedthat the value of every commodity is determined by thequantity of socially necessary labour time spent on itsproduction.

V. I. LENIN26

Where the bourgeois economists saw a relation betweenthings (the exchange of one commodity for another) Marxrevealed a relation between people. The exchange of com-modities expresses the connection between individual pro-ducers through the market. Money signifies that the con-nection is becoming closer and closer, inseparably unitingthe entire economic life of the individual producers intoone whole. Capital signifies a further development of thisconnection: mans labour-power becomes a commodity. Thewage-worker sells his labour-power to the owner of land,factories and instruments of labour. The worker spendsone part of the day covering the cost of maintaining himselfand his family (wages), while the other part of the day heworks without remuneration, creating for the capitalistsurplus-value, the source of profit, the source of the wealthof the capitalist class.

The doctrine of surplus-value is the corner-stone of Marxseconomic theory.

Capital, created by the labour of the worker, crushesthe worker, ruining small proprietors and creating an armyof unemployed. In industry, the victory of large-scaleproduction is immediately apparent, but the same phenom-enon is also to be observed in agriculture, where the su-periority of large-scale capitalist agriculture is enhanced,the use of machinery increases and the peasant economy,trapped by money-capital, declines and falls into ruinunder the burden of its backward technique. The declineof small-scale production assumes different forms in agri-culture, but the decline itself is an indisputable fact.

By destroying small-scale production, capital leads toan increase in productivity of labour and to the creationof a monopoly position for the associations of big capitalists.Production itself becomes more and more socialhundredsof thousands and millions of workers become bound togetherin a regular economic organismbut the product of thiscollective labour is appropriated by a handful of capitalists.Anarchy of production, crises, the furious chase after mar-kets and the insecurity of existence of the mass of the popu-lation are intensified.

By increasing the dependence of the workers on capital,the capitalist system creates the great power of united labour.

27THREE SOURCES AND THREE COMPONENT PARTS OF MARXISM

Marx traced the development of capitalism from embryon-ic commodity economy, from simple exchange, to its high-est forms, to large-scale production.

And the experience of all capitalist countries, old andnew, year by year demonstrates clearly the truth of thisMarxian doctrine to increasing numbers of workers.

Capitalism has triumphed all over the world, but thistriumph is only the prelude to the triumph of labour overcapital.

III

When feudalism was overthrown and free capitalistsociety appeared in the world, it at once became apparentthat this freedom meant a new system of oppression and ex-ploitation of the working people. Various socialist doctrinesimmediately emerged as a reflection of and protest againstthis oppression. Early socialism, however, was utopiansocialism. It criticised capitalist society, it condemned anddamned it, it dreamed of its destruction, it had visionsof a better order and endeavoured to convince the rich of theimmorality of exploitation.

But utopian socialism could not indicate the real solution.It could not explain the real nature of wage-slavery undercapitalism, it could not reveal the laws of capitalist develop-ment, or show what social force is capable of becoming thecreator of a new society.

Meanwhile, the stormy revolutions which everywhere inEurope, and especially in France, accompanied the fall offeudalism, of serfdom, more and more clearly revealed thestruggle of classes as the basis and the driving force of alldevelopment.

Not a single victory of political freedom over the feudalclass was won except against desperate resistance. Not asingle capitalist country evolved on a more or less free anddemocratic basis except by a life-and-death struggle betweenthe various classes of capitalist society.

The genius of Marx lies in his having been the first todeduce from this the lesson world history teaches and toapply that lesson consistently. The deduction he made isthe doctrine of the class struggle.

V. I. LENIN28

People always have been the foolish victims of deceptionand self-deception in politics, and they always will be untilthey have learnt to seek out the interests of some class orother behind all moral, religious, political and social phra-ses, declarations and promises. Champions of reforms andimprovements will always be fooled by the defenders of theold order until they realise that every old institution, how-ever barbarous and rotten it may appear to be, is kept goingby the forces of certain ruling classes. And there is onlyone way of smashing the resistance of those classes, and thatis to find, in the very society which surrounds us, the forceswhich canand, owing to their social position, mustcon-stitute the power capable of sweeping away the old and creat-ing the new, and to enlighten and organise those forces forthe struggle.

Marxs philosophical materialism alone has shown theproletariat the way out of the spiritual slavery in whichall oppressed classes have hitherto languished. Marxseconomic theory alone has explained the true position ofthe proletariat in the general system of capitalism.

Independent organisations of the proletariat are multi-plying all over the world, from America to Japan and fromSweden to South Africa. The proletariat is becoming enlight-ened and educated by waging its class struggle; it is riddingitself of the prejudices of bourgeois society; it is rallyingits ranks ever more closely and is learning to gauge the meas-ure of its successes; it is steeling its forces and is growingirresistibly.

Prosveshcheniye No. 3 , Published according toMarch, 1 9 1 3 the Prosveshcheniye textSigned: V. I.

29

BIG ACHIEVEMENT OF THE CHINESE REPUBLIC

We know that the great Chinese Republic, established atthe cost of such sacrifice by progressive democrats amongthe Asian masses, recently encountered very grave financialdifficulties. The six Great Powers, which are consideredcivilised nations, but which in reality follow the mostreactionary policies, formed a financial consortium whichsuspended the granting of a loan to China.

The point is that the Chinese revolution did not evokeamong the European bourgeoisie any enthusiasm for freedomand democracyonly the proletariat can entertain thatfeeling, which is alien to the knights of profit; it gave riseto the urge to plunder China, partition her and take awaysome of her territories. This consortium of the six Powers(Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Japan and the UnitedStates) was trying to make China bankrupt in order toweaken and undermine the republic.

The collapse of this reactionary consortium is a big suc-cess for the young republic, which enjoys the sympathy ofthe working masses the world over. The President of theUnited States has announced that his government will nolonger support the consortium and will officially recognisethe Republic of China in the near future. The Americanbanks have now left the consortium, and America will giveChina much-needed financial support, opening the Chinesemarket to American capital and thereby facilitating theintroduction of reforms in China.

Influenced by America, Japan has also changed her policytowards China. At first, Japan would not even allow SunYat-sen to enter the country. Now the visit has taken place,and all Japanese democrats enthusiastically welcome an

V. I. LENIN30

alliance with republican China; the conclusion of thatalliance is now on the order of the day. The Japanese bour-geoisie, like the American, has come to realise that it standsto profit more from a policy of peace with China than froma policy of plundering and partitioning the Chinese Repub-lic.

The collapse of the robber consortium is, of course, a de-feat of no mean importance for Russias reactionary foreignpolicy.

Pravda No. 6 8 , March 2 2 , 1 9 1 3 Published according toSigned: W. the Pravda text

31

OLD PROBLEMSAND THE SENILE DECAY OF LIBERALISM

Deputy Shingaryov, one of the most prominent Cadets,4recently delivered a lecture in St. Petersburg on The NewDuma and Old Problems, a lively, interesting and topicalsubject.

As is the custom, our Cadet trounced the Octobrists.5The Octobrists, he exclaimed, hesitate to associate them-selves with the Right wing and dare not associate withthe Left (Rech6 No. 70). Our bold (bold, that is, beforea democratic audience) Cadet apparently regards the Prog-ressists as belonging to the Left. But Mr. Shingaryov re-mained silent on the fact that three quarters of these closestfriends and political comrades-in-arms of the Cadets arethemselves Octobrists.

He wants democrats to regard the Cadets as Lefts not-withstanding the permanent and very close bloc that actuallyexists between the Cadets and the Progressists, who standhalf way between the Cadets and the Octobrists! In otherwordsthe Cadets are angling for the democrats althoughthey are themselves actually held in captivity by the Prog-ressists, who are notoriously anti-democratic.

The torpor reminds one of the state of passengers in a train thathas been held up at a wayside station, said Mr. Shingaryov, speak-ing of the Fourth Duma. To shake off their torpor and get thetrain going the passengers would have to clear the way themselves.But to get the heavy legislative machine going, the strength of thepassengers alone is not enough. There are three padlocks on our re-formsthe law of June 3, the upper chamber and the fact that theexecutive authorities are not responsible. How these three padlockswill be opened, whether in peace and quietness or in some other way,history will show. Our contemporaries cannot remain absolute non-participants; they must all pull together (Rech No. 70).

V. I. LENIN32

References to history are convenient! Mr. Shingaryovand the Cadets refer to history in the same way as thosepeople about whom Marx said that they defend the whipbecause it is a historical whip.7

History will, of course, show how the padlocks will beopened; that is an incontestable and fruitless truism. Itis an excuse deriving from senile decay. A politician mustbe able to say which class owns the padlocks and whichclasses must open them and by what means.

History will show exactly what it showed seven anda half years agothe fruitlessness of liberal reformism andliberal dreams of living in peace with the class that owns thepadlocks.

Pravda No. 7 1 , March 2 6 , 1 9 1 3 Published according toSigned: M. the Pravda text

33

THE OIL HUNGER8

The question of the oil hunger, the inordinate increasein the price of oil and the criminal conspiracy of the oilmagnates for the purpose of fleecing the consumer, has arousedquite legitimate interest and quite understandable in-dignation in the Duma, and to a still greater degree out-side the Duma.

The duel between the Minister of Commerce and Industry,who in a faintly disguised form defended the oil kings of thesyndicate, and Mr. Markov the Second, who furiously andardently expressed the hurt feelings of the noble feudallandownersthis duel (at the State Duma sitting on March22) deserves the particular attention of the working classand all democrats. The duel throws a bright light on therelations as a whole that exist between the two rulingclasses of Russia, the two so-called higher (but actuallyvery low, despicable, plundering) classes, the class of feudallandowners and the class of financial tycoons.

It would seem at first glance that the question of theoil syndicate is an isolated one. But that is not so. Actu-ally it is only a manifestation of the general and fundamen-tal question of the government of Russia (or rather the plun-der of Russia) by the two commanding classes. The speech byMarkov the Second was a magnificent reply to the defenderof the oil kings given from the standpoint of a diehard9who was cheated when the prey was divided. No wonder Mr.Markov the Second could not behold himself, could notlook at himself (and his landowning friends) in the mirrorat the time of his speech. I shall try to do Mr. Markov theSecond a serviceI will place a mirror in front of him.I will draw him a portrait of himself. I will show that the

V. I. LENIN34

quarrel between Markov the Second and Khvostov, on theone hand and the oil kings, the tycoons of the kerosene syn-dicate, the millionaires of Baku, on the other, is a domesticquarrel, a quarrel between two plunderers of the peoplesproperty. The falling-out of lovers is the renewing of love.The Minister and Messrs. Nobel & Co., on the one hand,and Messrs. Khvostov, Markov and their friends in the Sen-ate,10 the Council of State, etc., on the other, are lovers.But the tens of millions of workers and ruined peasantsof Russia get a rough deal from this sweet and loving lot!

What lies at the bottom of the oil question?First of all it is the shameless inflation of oil prices by the

oil kings accompanied by the artificial curtailment of oil-well and refinery productivity by these knights of capital-ist profit.

The chief figures illustrating these points have been quotedin the Duma, but I must repeat them in brief to makemy further exposition quite clear. The price of oil was sixkopeks a pood* in 1902. By 1904 it had risen to fourteenkopeks. Then the price race became all the merrier and,after the Revolution of 1905, the price of a pood of oil roseto twenty-one kopeks in 1908-09 and to thirty-eight kopeksin 1912.

Thus the price has increased more than sixfold in tenyears! In the same period the extraction of oil has decreasedfrom 600-700 million poods in 1900-02 to 500-585 millionpoods in 1908-12.

These figures are worth remembering. They deserve somethought. A reduction of output in a decade of tremendousupward leaps in world production, accompanied by a morethan sixfold price increase.

The Minister of Commerce and Industry put forward un-believably weak arguments in defence of these merchantsand industrialists who are acting in collusion.

There is an increased demand for fuel, he said. Thereis an increased demand for oil from the automobile and air-craft industry. And he comforted us and the Russian peopleby saying that it is a world-wide phenomenon.

* Pood=36.11 lbs.Ed.

35THE OIL HUNGER

What about America? we ask. This is a question thatarises naturally because everybody knows that America isRussias only serious competitor in oil production. In 1900Russia and America together produced over nine-tenths ofthe worlds oil and in 1910 they produced over eight-tenths.

If it is a matter of a world-wide phenomenon, Mr.Minister, the same must also be true of America? In order tocreate an impression on inattentive listeners, the Minister,when defending the conspiring oil plunderers, quoted figuresfor America . . . but only for two years! During the two pastyears the price of oil in America, and in Rumania, too,has doubled.

Very good, Mr. Minister! Why not make your comparisoncomplete? If you want to draw comparisons do so properly.Dont play with figures. You must take the figures for Amer-ica for the same period as that for which the figures for Rus-sia have been given. Surely it must be obvious that this isthe most fundamental, the most elementary condition, thevery ABC of every conscientious application of statistics!

In Russia in ten years prices have increased more thansixfold as compared with the lowest price, that of 1902,quoted by the Minister himself. And in America? Nothinglike such a rise in prices has occurred. Between 1900 and1910 the price in America was reduced. During recent yearsit has remained firm.

What, then, is the result? The price has been doubledin America and increased sixfold in Russia. In 1900 theoutput of oil in America was less than in Russia and in1910 it was three times greater than in Russia!

This is something the Minister, in his clumsy defenceof the oil millionaires conspiracy, did not want to say.The fact is there, however. Whatever figures you take, therecan be no doubt that the rise in prices in America for the pastten years has been incomparably smaller than in Russia,while the output has increased tremendously at a time ofdisgraceful stagnation or even a step backward in Russia.

We see immediately how little truth and how much un-truth there is in our Ministers reference to the world-widephenomenon of price increase. Yes, there are higher priceseverywhere. Yes, there are the causes, common to all capi-talism, that give rise to it.

V. I. LENIN36

The situation is intolerable in Russia, however, becausein our country it is on oil that the price increase is immeas-urably greater, and because in the oil industry we havestagnation instead of increased output. The situation isabsolutely intolerable in Russia because we see, instead ofa broad, free and rapid development of capitalism, stag-nation and decay. High prices are therefore a hundred timesmore malignant in Russia.

Russia has a population of 170,000,000 and America90,000,000, i.e., a little more than half. America nowextracts three times more oil than we do and eighteen timesmore coal. Judging by the wages of the workers, living stand-ards in America are four times higher than in Russia.

Is it not clear that the Ministers statement to the effectthat the evil is a world-wide phenomenon contains a glaringuntruth? The evil bears four times, if not ten times, moreheavily on Russia.

Written not earlier thanMarch 2 6 (April 8 ), 1 9 1 3

First published in Pravda No. 2 1 , Published according toJanuary 2 1 , 1 9 4 0 the manuscript

37

THE CADET ASSEMBLY BILL

Among the bills on civil liberties submitted to the Dumaby the Cadets there is one on assembly.

The Cadets consider themselves a democratic party. Theymust realise that an assembly bill submitted to the FourthDuma has a purely propaganda value, i.e., that the pur-pose of its submission to the house is the propaganda,dissemination and explanation of the principles of freedomof assembly.

It is from this point of view that the Cadet bill mustbe appraisedwill it help explain to the population ofRussia the significance of freedom of assembly, the impor-tance of that freedom and the conditions under which it canbe achieved?

It will not. The bill has been drawn up by liberal civilservants, not by democrats. It contains a mass of absurd,bureaucratic rules, but not what is needed from the stand-point of democracy.

Meetings are forbidden on railway lines ( 3) or withina distance of one verst* of the building where the StateDuma is in session, etc. ( 4); a preliminary announcementis required in towns but not in villages ( 6 and 7), and soonwhat is all this? What is the need for all this miserable,ridiculous, pitiful bureaucratic nonsense?

It has all been copied from European counter-revolutionarylaws, every bit of it reeks of periods when democracy wasunder suspicion or suppressed, and it is all hopelessly outof date. It is in the towns, for example, that public meetingsare announced in the newspapersso why this idiotic fuss

* Verst=0.66 miles.Ed.

V. I. LENIN38

about announcements? For the sole reason that the Cadetswant to show the powers that be that they, the Cadets, havea statesmanly point of view, that they are people of lawand order (i.e., enemies of democracy), and that they arealso able to appreciate civil service pettifoggery.

There is nothing important or serious in the bill as far aspresent-day democracy is concerned. What the masses needare premises in which to hold meetings. We need a lawto the effect that, on the demand of, say, a definite smallnumber of citizens, all public buildings, schools, etc., mustbe made available to the people for meetings, free and un-hindered, in the evenings and, in general, in non-workinghours. This is done in France, and there can be no otherobstacles to this democratic custom than the barbarity ofthe Purishkeviches.

The fact of the matter is that the whole spirit of the Cadethill on civil liberties, its whole content, is not democraticbut liberal bureaucratic.

Pravda No. 7 2 , March 2 7 , 1 9 1 3 Published according tothe Pravda text

39

THE BALKAN WAR AND BOURGEOIS CHAUVINISM

The Balkan War is coming to an end. The capture ofAdrianople is a conclusive victory for the Bulgarians, andthe problems centre of gravity has shifted from the theatreof operations to that of the squabbles and intrigues of theso-called Great Powers.

The Balkan War is one link in the chain of world eventsmarking the collapse of the medieval state of affairs inAsia and East Europe. To form united national states inthe Balkans, shake off the oppression of the local feudalrules and completely liberate the Balkan peasants of allnationalities from the yoke of the landownerssuch was thehistoric task confronting the Balkan peoples.

The Balkan peoples could have carried out this taskten times more easily than they are doing now and with ahundred times fewer sacrifices by forming a FederativeBalkan Republic. National oppression, national bickeringand incitement on the ground of religious differences wouldhave been impossible under complete and consistent democ-racy. The Balkan peoples would have been assured of trulyrapid, extensive and free development.

What was the real historical reason for settling urgentBalkan problems by means of a war, a war guided by bour-geois and dynastic interests? The chief cause was the weak-ness of the proletariat in the Balkans, and also the reaction-ary influence and pressure of the powerful European bour-geoisie. They are afraid of real freedom both in their owncountries and in the Balkans; their only aim is profit atother peoples expense; they stir up chauvinism and nationalenmity to facilitate their policy of plunder and to impedethe free development of the oppressed classes of the Balkans.

V. I. LENIN40

Russian chauvinism over the Balkan events is no lessdisgusting than that of Europe. And the concealed, prettifiedchauvinism of the Cadets, coloured with liberal phrases,is more disgusting and more harmful than the crude chau-vinism of the Black-Hundred newspapers. Those newspapersopenly attack Austriain that most backward of Europeancountries the peoples (say we in parenthesis) are ensuredfar greater liberty than in Russia. The Cadet Rech, however,said on the occasion of the capture of Adrianople: The newcircumstances give Russian diplomacy every opportunityof showing greater firmness....

Fine democrats, who pretend not to understand thatthe only firmness that can be spoken of here is firmnessin the pursuit of chauvinist aims! No wonder Milyukov andYefremov, Guchkov, Bennigsen, Krupensky and Balashovgot on well together at a dinner given by Rodzyanko onMarch 14. Nationalists, Octobrists, Cadetsthese are butdifferent shades of the disgusting bourgeois nationalism andchauvinism that are irrevocably hostile to liberty.

Pravda No. 7 4 , March 2 8 , 1 9 1 3 Published according toSigned: V. I. the Pravda text

First page of the manuscript of Lenins Conversations.March-April 1913

Reduced

First page of the manuscript of Lenins Conversations.March-April 1913

Reduced

43

CONVERSATION

First Bystander. I am following, as closely as I can, thestruggle among the workers over the six and the seven.11I try to follow both newspapers. I compare, as far as pos-sible, the repercussions in the bourgeois and Black-Hundrednewspapers.... And dyou know what I think? It seems tome that the struggle is taking grave forms, that it is degen-erating into squabbles and bickerings, and that the resultwill, in any case, be tremendous demoralisation.

Second Bystander. I dont understand you. Whoeverheard of a struggle anywhere that did not become grave ifit was over something really serious? It is because the strug-gle is over a serious problem that it cannot stop at a slightquarrel. Those who are used to denying, and who continueto deny, the principles of party organisation will not sur-render without the most desperate resistance. Desperateresistance always and everywhere engenders grave formsof struggle, engenders attempts to shift the dispute fromthe sphere of principles to that of squabbles. What if itdoes? Because of that do you want us to reject the strugglefor the fundamental principles of party organisation?

First Bystander. You are wandering away a bit from thequestion I raised and are in too much of a hurry to go overto the offensive. Every workers group on both sides is in ahurry to dash off a resolution, and there is something al-most like competition developing between them to see whocan outdo the other in the use of strong language. So muchvituperation makes the working-class press repulsive tolarge numbers of working people who are seeking the lightof socialism and who, perhaps, throw down the newspaperwith a feeling of confusion, or even a feeling of shame for

V. I. LENIN44

socialism. . . . They may even be disappointed in socialismfor a long time. A slanging match creates a sort of un-natural selection that brings the fist-fight specialiststo the fore. . . . Prowess in abusing ones opponent is en-couraged on both sides. Is this the sort of education the so-cialist party should give the proletariat? Does this notturn out to be approval of, or at least connivance at, opportu-nism, since opportunism is the sacrifice of the basic interestsof the working-class movement to momentary success. Thebasic interests of the working-class movement are beingsacrificed to momentary success by both sides. . . . Insteadof experiencing the joy of socialist work, of being inspiredby it and showing a serious attitude towards it, the social-ists themselves are driving the masses away from socialism.Willy-nilly, those bitter words come to mindthe prole-tariat will achieve socialism despite the socialists.

Second Bystander. We are both outsiders, that is, neitherof us is a direct participant in the struggle. But bystanderswho are trying to understand what is happening beforetheir eyes may react to the struggle in two ways. Lookingon from the outside, one may see only what one might callthe outward aspect of the struggle; speaking figuratively,one may see only clenched fists, distorted faces and uglyscenes; one may condemn it all, one may weep and wail onaccount of it. But one can also, looking on from the outside,understand the meaning of the struggle that is going on,which is slightly, if you will excuse my saying so, moreinteresting and historically more significant than the scenesand pictures of the so-called excesses or extremes of thestruggle. There can be no struggle without enthusiasm andno enthusiasm without extremes; and as far as Im concernedI hate most of all people who focus their attention onextremes in the struggle of classes, parties and factions.I always get the impulsepardon me againto shout atthose people: I dont care if you drink, as long as youunderstand what you are doing.12

And this is about something big, historically big. A work-ing-class party is being built up. Workers independence, theinfluence of the workers on their own parliamentary group,decisions by the workers themselves on questions of theirown partysuch is the great historical significance of what

45CONVERSATION

is going on; the mere wish is becoming fact before our veryeyes. You are afraid of extremes and you regret them, butI watch in admiration a struggle that is actually makingthe working class of Russia more mature and adult, and I ammad about one thing onlythat I am a bystander, that Icannot plunge into the midst of that struggle....

First Bystander. And into the midst of the extremes,eh? And if the extremes lead to the fabrication of resolu-tions will you also proclaim hatred for the people whodraw attention to it, who are indignant about it and who de-mand that such things should be stopped at all costs?

Second Bystander. Dont try to frighten me, please! Youwont frighten me, anyway! You really are getting like thosepeople who are ready to condemn publicity because of somefalse information that has been published. I remember oncein Pravda13 a report of the political dishonesty of a certainSocial-Democrat was published; some time afterwards thereport was refuted. I can well imagine what that Social-Democrats feelings must have been in the period betweenpublication and refutal! But publicity is a sword thatitself heals the wounds it makes. There will be fabricationof resolutions, you say? The falsifiers will be exposed andthrown out, thats all. Serious battles are not staged withouta field hospital somewhere nearby. But to allow yourselfto be scared, or your nerves shattered by field hospitalscenes is something unpardonable. If youre scared ofwolves, keep out of the forest.

As to opportunism, that is, ignoring the basic aims ofsocialism, youre putting the blame on the wrong side.According to you, those basic aims are some angelic idealthat has nothing to do with the sinful struggle for thecause of the day, for the urgent matters of the moment. Tolook on matters that way is simply to turn socialism intoa sweet phrase, into saccharine sentimentalising. Everystruggle for every matter of the moment must be inti-mately connected with basic aims. It is only this understand-ing of the historical meaning of the struggle that makes itpossible, by deepening and sharpening it, to get rid of thatnegative side, that prowess, that fist-fighting which isinevitable wherever there is a crowd making a noise, shout-ing and shoving, but which disappears of itself.

V. I. LENIN46

You speak of a socialist party educating the proletariat.In the present struggle the very question at issue is that ofdefending the basic principles of party life. The question ofwhat policy it wants conducted in the Duma, what attitudeit has to an open party or an underground one, and whetherit considers the Duma group to be above the party or viceversa, is confronting every workers study circle starkly,in a form that demands an immediate and direct answer.This, indeed, is the ABC of party existence, it is a questionof whether the party is to be or not to be.

Socialism is not a ready-made system that will be man-kinds benefactor. Socialism is the class struggle of the pres-ent-day proletariat as it advances from one objective todayto another objective tomorrow for the sake of its basic ob-jective, to which it is coming nearer every day. In thiscountry called Russia, socialism is today passing throughthe stage in which the politically conscious workers arethemselves completing the organisation of a working-classparty despite the attempts of the liberal intelligentsiaand the Duma Social-Democratic intelligentsia to pre-vent that work of organisation.

The liquidators are out to prevent the workers from build-ing up their own working-class partythat is the meaningand significance of the struggle between the six and theseven. They cannot, however, prevent it. The struggle is ahard one, but the workers success is assured. Let the weakand the frightened waver on account of the extremes ofthe struggletomorrow they will see for themselves thatnot a step further could have been taken without goingthrough this struggle.

Written in March-April 1 9 1 3First published May 5 , 1 9 3 2 Published according to

in Pravda No. 1 2 3 the manuscriptSigned: Kv

47

CONTEMPORARY RUSSIAAND THE WORKING-CLASS MOVEMENT 14

A NEWSPAPER REPORT

A few days ago in Cracow a report was delivered by Com-rade Lenin, one of the most outstanding leaders of the Rus-sian Social-Democrats. Here follows a brief outline of thereport; for the information of our Galician readers we mustadd that Lenin is the leader of the so-called Bolsheviktrend, that is, the more radical, implacable trend in theRussian Social-Democratic Party.

While describing the working-class movement in Russia,the speaker noted its great importance to the Western coun-tries as well, since there was no doubt that in the periodof socialist revolutions events there would resemble thosethat had taken place in Russia. As an example, the speakermentioned the sudden transition from relative calm to theemergence of mass movements. In 1895 the number ofstrikers in Russia had been only 40,000 whereas in 1905there had been 400,000 striking workers in January alone;in the course of the whole year the figure had increased tothree million.

The present political situation in Russia had come aboutas a result of revolutionary experience, as a result of theclass battles that had taken place at that time. A certainJapanese had called the Russian revolution an impotentrevolution under an incompetent government. The govern-ment, however, had made full use of the experience of therevolution. It would suffice to mention the attitude of thegovernment to the peasantry. At first, when the law govern-ing the elections to the First Duma had been drawn up, thegovernment had placed great hopes in the peasantry as aquiet, patriarchal element. But when it turned out that the

V. I. LENIN48

Russian peasant, fighting for land, is by nature, not a so-cialist indeed, as some Narodnik utopians had thought, but, atany rate, a democrat, the government made a volte-faceand changed the election law.15

The present Duma, he said, was no plaything, but anactual organ of power of the reactionary strata, the tsaristbureaucracy allied to the feudal landowners and the topbourgeoisie.

What had been the role of the Russian liberals? In theFirst and Second Dumas the liberals had tried to pacifythe peasants, to divert them from the revolutionary to theso-called constitutional path. It was obvious, however, thatthe purchase of part of the landed estates, proposed by theCadets, was only a fresh attempt to plunder and deceive theRussian peasant. This attempt had failed mainly owing tothe tactics of the Social-Democrats in the Duma, who hadbeen persistently urging the peasants leftward.

The October strike had been a turning-point in Russianliberalism. Before the revolution the liberals had said thatthe revolution must become the ruling power (Struve),but they later changed their tone, allegedly in fear of theexcesses of the revolution although they knew perfectlywell that the only excesses were those of the government.The Octobrists departed from liberalism and went overdirectly to the side of the government, serving the govern-ment as its lackeys. It was at that time that Guchkov,leader of the Octobrists, had written to Prince Trubetskoithat further revolutionary explosions menaced the verywell-being of the bourgeoisie.

Such was the class basis of contemporary counter-revolu-tion. Acts of lawlessness were committed quite openly andthe class character of the government had been exposed. Thegovernment handed out praise and medals for lawless actsagainst revolutionary elements. The speaker gave an exam-ple: during the recent search of Deputy Petrovskys apart-ment the police, in violation of the law, had locked him in aroom, and when a question was asked about it in the Duma,the Minister said that they should be grateful to the policefor such zeal.

Stolypin had learned from the experience of class battlesduring the revolution and had launched his notorious agrar-

49CONTEMPORARY RUSSIA AND WORKING-CLASS MOVEMENT

FROM MARX

TO MAO

NOT FOR

COMMERCIAL

DISTRIBUTION

ian policy of stratifying the peasants into affluent pettybourgeois and semi-proletarian elements. This new policywas a mockery of the old patriarchal slogans of Katkovand Pobedonostsev.16 The government, however, could nothave acted otherwise.

The government, therefore, relied on the landowners andthe terrified bourgeoisie in introducing the present counter-revolutionary system. It was true that the united no-bility17 had tried to get the Duma disbanded as far back as1906, but the government had then waited before makingthe coup, expecting results from its agrarian policy in respectof the peasants and changes in the psychology of a bourgeoi-sie terrified by the revolution.

This counter-revolutionary system had now played itselfout, had exhausted its social forces. Circumstances hadarisen that made any social reforms in contemporary Russiaimpossible. The Duma was concerned with trivialities; ifit did adopt any decision, the Council of State and the Courtannulled it or changed it beyond all recognition. Therewere no possibilities of effecting reforms in contemporaryRussia. This made clear the demagogy of Cadet tactics insubmitting to the Duma various bills of principle for allkinds of liberties; they introduced them because they knewthat the Duma could under no circumstances adopt them.We have a constitution, thank God! Milyukov had ex-claimed There could not be any reforms under the exist-ing social system although Russias internal situation waspitiful and her backwardness, even as compared with Asia,was obvious. Even the Octobrist press had said it is im-possible to go on living like this any longer.

All this made clear the tasks of a proletariat faced withanother revolution. The mood was rising. In 1910 the num-ber of strikers, according to official statistics, had been only40,000, but in 1912 it had been 680,000, of which 500,000had taken part in political strikes.

This made clear the tactics of the Russian Social-Demo-crats. They would have to strengthen their organisation,their press, etc.; that was the ABC of socialist tactics longsince elaborated in the West, especially by the GermanSocial-Democrats. The primary task of the R.S.D.L.P.,however, was to train the masses for democratic revolution.

V. I. LENIN50

This task was no longer on the order of the day in the West;theirs was an altogether different task, that of mobilisation,of mustering the masses and training and organising themfor the abolition of the capitalist system.

If attention were concentrated on the question of the ap-proaching revolution in Russia and on the tasks of the Social-Democrats in that revolution, the essence of the disputewith those known as liquidators among the Russian So-cial-Democrats would be understood. Liquidationism wasnot the invention of a section of the Russian Social-Demo-crats; the first liquidators were the Narodniks, who in1906 published their slogans in the magazine Russkoye Bo-gatstvo18down with the underground movement, downwith the republic! The liquidators wanted to abolish theillegal party and organise an open party. That was ridicu-lous, especially if we bear in mind that even the Progressists(a mixture of Octobrists and Cadets) dared not ask to be le-galised. Under such circumstances the liquidators sloganswere downright treachery. It stood to reason that an illegalparty should take advantage of all legal opportunitiesthepress, the Duma, even the insurance law19but only forthe purpose of extending agitation and organisation; thesubstance of the agitation must remain revolutionary. Theremust be a struggle against the illusion that there was a con-stitution in Russia, and reformist slogans should be counter-posed by the slogan of revolution, of a republic!

Such was the content of Comrade Lenins report. Oneof those present asked him about his attitude to the nationalquestion; the speaker said that the Russian Social-Demo-cratic Party recognised in full the right of every nation toself-determination, to decide its own fate, even to secedefrom Russia. The Russian revolution and the cause of de-mocracy were not in any way connected (as was the case inGermany) with the cause of unification, centralisation. Thedemocratisation of Russia depended not on the nationalbut on the agrarian question.

At the same time Comrade Lenin stressed the necessityfor full unity throughout the revolutionary army of theproletariat of different nationalities in the struggle for thefull democratisation of the country. Only on that basiscould the national question be solved, as in America, Bel-

51CONTEMPORARY RUSSIA AND WORKING-CLASS MOVEMENT

gium and Switzerland. The speaker dealt polemically withRenners theses on the national question and came outsharply against the slogan of cultural-national autonomy.There were people in Russia who maintained that Russiasfurther development would follow the Austrian path, a paththat was slow and rotten. But, said the speaker, we mustbeware of any national struggle within Social-Democracybecause it would militate against the great task of revolu-tionary struggle; in that respect the national struggle inAustria should be a warning to us.20 The Caucasian Social-Democrats should be a model for Russia; they conductedpropaganda simultaneously in the Georgian, ArmenianTatar and Russian languages.21

Published April 2 2 , 1 9 1 3 Published according toin the newspaper Naprzd No. 9 2 the Naprzd text

First published in Russianin the fourth Russian edition

of V. I. Lenins Collected Works

52

EDUCATED DEPUTIES

At the evening sitting on April 2, the Octobrist L. G. Lyutssaid, when objecting to the working-class deputies demandfor a discussion of the question asked about the Lenaevents22:

Two days from now will be the anniversary of the events on theLena. Apparently the Social-Democrats are trying to budirovat thefeelings of the workers in order to encourage excesses....

The French word bouder, rendered in Russian by budiro-vat means to sulk, to pout. Mr. Lyuts, apparently, derivesbudirovat from budorazhit (excite) or, perhaps, vozbudit (in-cite). How the bourgeois deputies and the bourgeois presslaughed when a peasant in the First Duma used the foreignword prerogatives in the sense of barriers (rogatki inRuss.Ed .)! The mistake was all the more pardonable sincevarious prerogatives enjoyed by the ruling classes areactually barriers in Russian life. Mr. Lyuts educationalattainments, however, did not vozbudirovat the laughterof his educated friends or their press.

Pravda No. 8 3 , April 1 0 , 1 9 1 3 Published according toSigned: B. the Pravda text

53

WHO STANDS TO GAIN?

There is a Latin tag cui prodest? meaning who standsto gain? When it is not immediately apparent which politi-cal or social groups, forces or alignments advocate certainproposals, measures, etc., one should always ask: Whostands to gain?

It is not important who directly advocates a particularpolicy, since under the present noble system of capitalismany money-bag can always hire, buy or enlist any numberof lawyers, writers and even parliamentary deputies, profes-sors, parsons and the like to defend any views. We live inan age of commerce, when the bourgeoisie have no scruplesabout trading in honour or conscience. There are also sim-pletons who out of stupidity or by force of habit defendviews prevalent in certain bourgeois circles.

Yes, indeed! In politics it is not so important who directlyadvocates particular views. What is important is who standsto gain from these views, proposals, measures.

For instance, Europe, the states that call themselvescivilised, are now engaged in a mad armaments hurdle-race.In thousands of ways, in thousands of newspapers, fromthousands of pulpits, they shout and clamour about patriot-ism, culture, native land, peace, and progressand all inorder to justify new expenditures of tens and hundreds ofmillions of rubles for all manner of weapons of destructionfor guns, dreadnoughts, etc.

Ladies and gentlemen, one feels like saying about allthese phrases mouthed by patriots, so-called. Put no faithin phrase-mongering, it is better to see who stands to gain!

A short while ago the renowned British firm Armstrong,Whitworth & Co. published its annual balance-sheet. The

V. I. LENIN54

firm is engaged mainly in the manufacture of armaments ofvarious kinds. A profit was shown of 877,000, about 8 mil-lion rubles, and a dividend of 12.5 per cent was declared!About 900,000 rubles were set aside as reserve capital, andso on and so forth.

Thats where the millions and milliards squeezed outof the workers and peasants for armaments go. Dividendsof 12.5 per cent mean that capital is doubled in 8 years. Andthis is in addition to all kinds of fees to directors, etc. Arm-strong in Britain, Krupp in Germany, Creusot in France,Cockerill in Belgiumhow many of them are there in allthe civilised countries? And the countless host of contrac-tors?

These are the ones who stand to gain from the whippingup of chauvinism, from the chatter about patriotism(cannon patriotism), about the defence of culture (withweapons destructive of culture) and so forth!

Pravda No. 8 4 , April 1 1 , 1 9 1 3 Published according toSigned: V. the Pravda text

55

IN BRITAIN

(THE SAD RESULTS OF OPPORTUNISM)

The British Labour Party, which must be distinguishedfrom the two socialist parties in Britain, the British Social-ist Party and the Independent Labour Party, is the workersorganisation that is most opportunist and soaked in thespirit of liberal-labour policy.

In Britain there is full political liberty and the socialistparties exist quite openly. But the Labour Party is the par-liamentary representative of workers organisations, ofwhich some are non-political, and others liberal, a regularmixture of the kind our liquidators want, those who hurl somuch abuse at the underground.

The opportunism of the British Labour Party is to beexplained by the specific historical conditions of the latterhalf of the nineteenth century in Britain, when the aristoc-racy of labour shared to some extent in the particularlyhigh profits of British capital. Now these conditions are be-coming a thing of the past. Even the Independent LabourParty, i.e., the socialist opportunists in Britain, realisesthat the Labour Party has landed in a morass.

In the last issue of The Labour Leader, the organ of theIndependent Labour Party, we and the following edifyingcommunication. Naval estimates are being discussed in theBritish Parliament. The socialists introduce a motion toreduce them. The bourgeoisie, of course, quash it by votingfor the government.

And the Labour M.P.s?Fifteen vote for the reduction, i.e., against the govern-

ment; 21 are absent; 4 vote for the government, i.e., againstthe reduction!

V. I. LENIN56

Two of the four try to justify their action on the groundsthat the workers in their constituencies earn their living inthe armament industries.

There you have a striking example of how opportunismleads to the betrayal of socialism, the betrayal of the workerscause. As we have already indicated, condemnation of thistreachery is spreading ever wider among British socialists.From the example of other peoples mistakes, the Russianworkers, too, should learn to understand how fatal areopportunism and liberal-labour policy.

Pravda No. 8 5 , April 1 2 , 1 9 1 3 Published according toSigned: W. the Pravda text

57

CIVILISED EUROPEANS AND SAVAGE ASIANS

The well-known English Social-Democrat, Rothstein, re-lates in the German labour press an instructive and typicalincident that occurred in British India. This incident re-veals better than all arguments why the revolution is grow-ing apace in that country with its more than 300 millioninhabitants.

Arnold, a British journalist, who brings out a newspaperin Rangoon, a large town (with over 200,000 inhabitants)in one of the Indian provinces, published an article en-titled: A Mockery of British Justice. It exposed a localBritish judge named Andrew. For publishing this articleArnold was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment,but he appealed and, having connections in London, wasable to get the case before the highest court in Britain. TheGovernment of India hastily reduced the sentence to fourmonths and Arnold was released.

What was all the fuss about?A British colonel named McCormick had a mistress whose

servant was a little eleven-year-old Indian girl, named Aina.This gallant representative of a civilised nation had en-ticed Aina to his room, raped her and locked her up in hishouse.

It so happened that Ainas father was dying and he sentfor his daughter. It was then that the village where he livedlearned the whole story. The population seethed with indig-nation. The police were compelled to order McCormicksarrest.

But Judge Andrew released him on bail, and later acquit-ted him, following a disgraceful travesty of justice. Thegallant colonel declared, as gentlemen of noble extraction

V. I. LENIN58

usually do under such circumstances, that Aina was a pros-titute, in proof of which he brought five witnesses. Eightwitnesses, however, brought by Ainas mother were not evenexamined by Judge Andrew.

When the journalist Arnold was tried for libel, the Presi-dent of the Court, Sir (His Worship) Charles Fox, refusedto allow him to call witnesses in his defence.

It must be clear to everyone that thousands and millionsof such cases occur in India. Only absolutely exceptionalcircumstances enabled the libeller Arnold (the son of aninfluential London journalist) to get out of prison and securepublicity for the case.

Do not forget that the British Liberals put their bestpeople at the head of the Indian administration. Not longago the Viceroy of India, the chief of the McCormicks,Andrews and Foxes, was John Morley, the well-known radicalauthor, a luminary of European learning, a most honour-able man in the eyes of all European and Russian liberals.

The European spirit has already awakened in Asia, thepeoples of Asia have become democratic-minded.

Pravda No. 8 7 , April 1 4 , 1 9 1 3 Published according toSigned: W. the Pravda text

59

MERCHANT ACCOUNTANCY

The biggest millionaires, the tycoons of our big industry,belong to a council of congresses of industrial and commer-cial representatives. This council of congresses issues itsown periodical, Promyshlennost i Torgovlya.23 The interestsof our Kit Kityches24 are defended by this journal in itsponderous, elaborate and mostly semi-literate articles.

They show particular discontent at the injustice of Zem-stvo representation and Zemstvo taxation. Believe it or not,the feudal landowner is unfair to poor Kit Kitych! Hereis an instructive table showing the composition of theelected membership at uyezd Zemstvo assemblies25 (Promy-shlennost i Torgovlya, 1913, No. 3):

Numberof Percentages

membersFrom the First Electoral Assembly (land-

ed nobility) . . . . . . . . . . 5,508 53.4From the Second Electoral Assembly

(commercial and industrial enter-prises, etc. ) . . . . . . . . . . 1,294 12.6

Jointly from the First and Second As-semblies . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 2.8

From village communes . . . . . . . 3,216 31.2In 34 gubernias with

Zemstvos . . . . . . 10,308 100.0

There is indeed a crying injustice in the matter of repre-sentation in the Zemstvos. The conclusion to be drawn isobvious and incontestablethe Zemstvos in Russia havebeen put entirely into the hands of the feudal landowners.

These interesting figures must give any educated personcause to ponder over the conditions that give rise to suchunequal representation.

V. I. LENIN60

It would, of course, be ridiculous to expect the Kit Ki-tyches and their hack writers to be capable of pondering overgeneral political questions or to be interested in politicalknowledge. The only thing that interests Kit Kitych is thathe pays a lot and a member of the nobility pays little.The writer hired by Kit Kitych quotes the total amountsof Zemstvo impositions (as fixed by the official scale)First Electoral Assembly (24.5 million rubles in 34 gu-bernias with Zemstvos), Second Electoral Assembly (49 mil-lion rubles) and village communes (45.5 million rubles).He divides these impositions by the number of membersand in this way determines the cost of one seat! Thus itturns out that a seat for a nobleman costs 4,500 rubles, fora merchant 38,000 rubles and for a peasant 14,000 rubles.

That is how the hired advocates of the merchant class ar-gueelection rights are calmly examined as though theywere an article of commerce. As though those who pay theimpositions fixed by the Zemstvo thereby purchase theright to representation.

Of course, there actually is glaring inequality in Zemstvoimpositions. The full burden of that inequality, however,is not borne by the industrialists, but by the peasants andworkers. If the peasantry pay 45.5 million rubles that theysqueeze out of their poor, exhausted, over-cultivated landwhile the landowners pay 24.5 million rubles, that can meannothing but the extortion of millions of rubles tribute fromthe muzhiks in the form of Zemstvo impositions inaddition to all their other burdens.

This the Kit Kityches do not see. What they are afteris that privileges, instead of going to the nobility alone,should be shared on an equal footing with the merchants.

Pravda No. 9 0 , April 2 0 , 1 9 1 3 Published according toSigned: V. F. the Pravda text

61

A GREAT TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENT

The world-famous British chemist, William Ramsay, hasdiscovered a method of obtaining gas directly from a coalseam. Ramsay is already negotiating with a colliery owneron the practical application of this method.

A great modern technical problem is thus approachingsolution. The revolution that will be effected by this solu-tion will be a tremendous one.

At the present time, to utilise the energy contained in it,coal is transported all over the country and burned in nu-merous factories and homes.

Ramsays discovery means a gigantic technical revolutionin this, perhaps the most important, branch of productionin capitalist countries.

Ramsay has discovered a method of transforming coalinto gas right where the coal lies, without hauling it to thesurface. A similar but much simpler method is sometimesused in the mining of salt: it is not brought to the surfacedirectly, but is dissolved in water, the solution beingpumped to the top.

Ramsays method is to transform, as it were, the coalmines into enormous distilling apparatuses for the produc-tion of gas. Gas is used to drive gas engines which can ex-tract twice as much energy from coal as steam-engines can.Gas engines, in their turn, transform the energy into elec-tricity, which modern technology can already transmit overenormous distances.

Such a technical revolution would reduce the cost ofelectricity to one-fifth or even one-tenth of its present price.An enormous amount of human labour now spent in extract-ing and distributing coal would be saved. It would be

V. I. LENIN62

possible to use even the poorest seams, now not being work-ed. The cost of lighting and heating houses would begreatly reduced.

This discovery will bring about an enormous revolutionin industry.

But the consequences this revolution will have for sociallife as a whole under the present capitalist system will bequite different from those the discovery would yield undersocialism.

Under capitalism the release of the labour of millionsof miners engaged in extracting coal will inevitably causemass unemployment, an enormous increase in poverty, anda worsening of the workers conditions. And the profits ofthis great invention will be pocketed by the Morgans,Rockefellers, Ryabushinskys, Morozovs, and their suites oflawyers, directors, professors, and other flunkeys of capital.

Under socialism the application of Ramsays method,which will release the labour of millions of miners, etc.,will make it possible immediately to shorten the working dayfor all from 8 hours to, say, 7 hours and even less. The elec-trification of all factories and railways will make workingconditions more hygienic, will free millions of workers fromsmoke, dust and dirt, and accelerate the transformation ofdirty, repulsive workshops into clean, bright laboratoriesworthy of human beings. The electric lighting and heatingof every home will relieve millions of domestic slaves ofthe need to spend three-fourths of their lives in smellykitchens.

Capitalist technology is increasingly, day by day, out-growing the social conditions which condemn the workingpeople to wage-slavery.

Pravda No. 9 1 , April 2 1 , 1 9 1 3 Published according toSigned: I. the Pravda text

63

A FEW WORDS ON RESULTS AND FACTS

The Pravda anniversary must turn the thoughts of everypolitically conscious worker (and, we would add, everypolitically conscious democrat) to the results achieved bythe newspaper of consistent democrats and Marxists.

The question of results, of course, is connected with thequestion of whether the advanced workers of Russia are,in their mass, on the side of Pravda. As far as bourgeoissubscribers are concerned a newspaper is important if itsells, it does not matter to them where it is sold or whetherit serves to rally a certain class and which class; a newspaperis important to the Marxist and consistent democrat as anorgan for the enlightenment and consolidation of truly ad-vanced classes.

We are not indifferent to the question of where and howour newspaper is sold. It is most important for us to knowwhether it really does serve to enlighten and consolidatethe advanced class of Russia, i.e., the working class.

To gain this knowledge one must look for facts that canprovide an answer to the question.

By facts, different people understand different things.Bourgeois journalists do not hesitate to lie by omitting tocite a single precise and clear fact that can be verified.

Liberal working-class politicians, the liquidators, imitatethe bourgeois journalists. One of them, and a leading oneat that, F. D.26 himself, wrote in Luch27 No. 57 (143):

It is a fact that cannot be denied and one that we feel [whatfeeling people they are!] with pride in our day-to-day work, thatour newspaper [Luch] is truly the organ of a good nine-tenths ofthe advanced, politically conscious workers of Russia.

It is worth while having a good laugh at this Khlestakovor Nozdryov,28 and Pravda has already had its laugh. Mere

V. I. LENIN64

ridicule, however, is not enough. Workers must learn tograsp facts and verify them for themselves so that the Nozd-ryovs will not be able to deceive them or their less develop-ed workmates.

How are facts to be sought and verified? Best of all byfinding out how Pravda and Luch circulate among workers(and not among the liberal intelligentsia, who are liquida-tors almost to a man). But no such facts are available.

Let us look for some others.Let us take the figures for the workers groups that support

Pravda and Luch by voluntary contributions. These figures,published in the two papers, are facts. Anybody can verifythem, anybody can, by studying them, expose the Nozd-ryovs, of whom there are many in the world of journalism.

Pravda has once already published these facts for a halfyear (see No. 80 for 1912*)for the first six months of 1912and nobody can refute them. We now give them for thewhole of 1912 and the beginning of 1913.

Number of collections fornewspapers by workers

groupsYear Moscow

Pravda Luch workersnewspapers29

1912 1st quarter . . . . . 108 7 2nd . . . . . 396 8 3rd . . . . . 81 9 4th . . . . . 35 65 5

1913 1st . . . . . 309 139 129 10 days of April . . . 93 28 43

Totals . . . . . . . 1,022 256 177

Any reader can check these figur