Painful questions of our movement, V.I.

Available in formats: EPUB | PDF | FB2

Pages: 246

The year of publishing: 2017

Tongue: Russian

The readers are invited to the classic work of the founder of the Soviet state V.I. Lenin, written in 1901-1902. and played an outstanding role in the struggle for the revolutionary Marxist party of the working class of Russia, in the victory of the Leninist-Iskra trend in the committees and organizations of the RSDLP, and then, in 1903, at its II Congress. In it, Lenin substantiated and developed, in relation to the new historical situation, the ideas of K. Marx and F. Engels about the party as the leading and organizing force of the workers' movement, developed the foundations of the doctrine of a party of a new type. In this remarkable work of revolutionary Marxism, Russian Social Democrats found answers to the questions that worried them: about the relationship between the conscious and spontaneous elements of the labor movement, about the party as the political leader of the proletariat, about the role of Russian Social Democracy in the maturing bourgeois democratic revolution, about organizational forms, ways and methods of creating a militant revolutionary proletarian party. Recommended for historians, social scientists, political scientists, philosophers, as well as a wide range of interested readers.

Reviews

Taras, Volgograd, 05.11.2017
I came to this resource by accident. I was amazed at the speed and functionality. A convenient search procedure allows you to quickly access the information you need for work or leisure. Despite the mass of such services on the network, it is very difficult to find one that will appeal to the user. In this case, all my requirements are met.

Tatiana, Krasnoyarsk, 18.10.2017
Often, when searching for books, I came across a huge number of links and confirmations, which completely confused me when downloading the necessary information. It's easier to confirm your reality once with an SMS message, which allows you to immediately save to yourself electronic materials... A very convenient and functional repository of useful literature. Recommend.

Customers who viewed this page were also interested in:

Frequently asked Questions

1. Which book format to choose: PDF, EPUB or FB2?
It all depends on your personal preference. Today, each of these types of books can be opened both on a computer and on a smartphone or tablet. All books downloaded from our site will open and look the same in any of these formats. If you don't know what to choose, then choose PDF for reading on a computer, and EPUB for a smartphone.

3. In which program to open the PDF file?
You can use the free Acrobat Reader program to open a PDF file. It is available for download at adobe.com

Foreword

(VII) In the sixth volume of the Complete Works of V.I. Lenin's book “What to do? Painful Issues of Our Movement ”(autumn 1901 - February 1902) and works written in January - August 1902.

In Russia at this time there was a further deepening and aggravation of the revolutionary crisis; the revolutionary movement against the autocratic-landlord system became more and more widespread. Demonstrations and strikes of workers in St. Petersburg, Yekaterinoslav, Rostov-on-Don, Batum in February - March 1902, May Day demonstrations in Saratov, Vilno, Baku, Nizhny Novgorod and other cities were vivid evidence of the growing activity and political maturity of the working class - the vanguard of the nationwide struggle against the tsarist autocracy. The peasants of the Kharkov, Poltava, Saratov provinces rose up in an uprising against the landowners; Many other areas were also engulfed in "agrarian unrest"; the performances of the peasants of Guria (Kutaisi province) were distinguished by special persistence and organization. “The peasants decided - and they decided quite correctly - that it is better to die in the struggle against the oppressors than to die without a fight by starvation” (VI Lenin. Works, 4th ed., Volume 6, p. 385).

In this situation, the struggle of Lenin's Iskra against (VIII) "Economism", which was the main brake on the workers' and social democratic movement in Russia, for the ideological and organizational unity of the revolutionary Marxist elements of Russian Social Democracy, for the creation of a party of a new type , irreconcilable to opportunism, free from circles and factionalism, the party - the political leader of the working class, organizer and leader of the revolutionary struggle against autocracy and capitalism.

An outstanding role in the struggle for the Marxist workers' party was played by the book by V.I. Lenin "What is to be done?" In it, Lenin substantiated and developed, in relation to the new historical situation, the ideas of K. Marx and F. Engels about the party as a revolutionary, guiding and organizing force of the workers' movement, developed the foundations of the doctrine of a new type of party, the party of the proletarian revolution. In this remarkable work of revolutionary Marxism, Russian Social-Democrats found answers to the questions that worried them: about the relationship between the conscious and spontaneous elements of the labor movement, about the party as the political leader of the proletariat, about the role of Russian Social-Democracy in the maturing bourgeois-democratic revolution, about organizational forms, ways and methods of creating a militant revolutionary proletarian party.

The book "What is to be done?" completed the ideological defeat of "Economism", which Lenin regarded as a kind of international opportunism (Bernsteinism) on Russian soil. Lenin revealed the roots of opportunism in the ranks of social democracy: the influence of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the working class, admiration for the spontaneity of the labor movement, belittling the role of socialist consciousness in the labor movement. He wrote that the opportunist trend in international social democracy, which took shape in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and attempted to revise Marxism under the banner of "freedom of criticism," entirely borrowed its "theories" from bourgeois literature, that the notorious "freedom of criticism" this (IX) is nothing more than “the freedom to transform the Social Democracy into a democratic reform party, the freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into socialism” (this volume, p. 9).

Lenin showed that there is a continuous and irreconcilable struggle between the socialist ideology of the proletariat and the bourgeois ideology: “... The question is the only way: bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle way ... Therefore any belittling socialist ideology, any suspension from it means thereby strengthening the bourgeois ideology ”(pp. 39 - 40). Socialist consciousness, he explained, does not arise from a spontaneous labor movement, it is introduced into the labor movement by the revolutionary Marxist party. And the most important task of the proletarian party is to fight for the purity of socialist ideology, against bourgeois influence on the working class, against opportunists - the guides and bearers of bourgeois ideology in the labor movement.

Lenin revealed the greatest significance of the theory of scientific socialism for the labor movement, for the entire activity of the revolutionary Marxist party of the working class: "... The role of a progressive fighter can only be played by a party guided by an advanced theory." (p. 25). Lenin pointed out that the importance of advanced theory is especially great for Russian social democracy, due to the historical characteristics of its development and the revolutionary tasks that faced it.

In What Is To Be Done ?, as in other Leninist works of the Iskra period, serious attention is paid to substantiating the tactics of the proletariat of Russia and its party. The working class, Lenin wrote, must and can lead the nationwide democratic movement against the autocratic-landlord system, become the vanguard of all revolutionary and opposition forces in Russian society. Therefore, the organization of a comprehensive political exposure of the autocracy was the most important task of the Russian social democracy, one of the indispensable conditions for the political education of the proletariat. This was one of the "painful (X) questions" of the social democratic movement in Russia. The Economists, preaching deeply erroneous and harmful views on the class struggle of the proletariat, limited it to the area of \u200b\u200beconomic, professional, struggle. This policy, the policy of trade unionism, inevitably led the labor movement to submission to bourgeois ideology and bourgeois politics. In opposition to this opportunist line, Lenin advanced and substantiated the most important thesis of Marxism-Leninism on the paramount importance of the political struggle in the development of society, in the proletarian struggle for socialism: “... The most essential,“ decisive ”interests of classes can be satisfied only indigenous political transformations in general; in particular, the basic economic interest of the proletariat can only be satisfied through a political revolution replacing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with the dictatorship of the proletariat ”(p. 46).

Great harm to the social democratic movement in Russia was caused by the admiration of the "economists" before the spontaneity in the field of the organizational tasks of the proletariat, their "handicraft" in questions of party building. Lenin saw the source of the handicraft of the "economists" in the belittling of the tasks of social democracy to the level of trade unionism, in the mixing of two types of organization of the working class: trade unions for organizing the economic struggle of workers and the political party as the highest form of class organization of the working class. Lenin considered the first and most important task of the Russian Social Democrats to create an all-Russian centralized organization of revolutionaries, i.e. a political party inextricably linked with the masses, capable of leading the revolutionary struggle of the working class. How to start creating this kind of organization, which path to choose, Lenin showed even in his article "Where to start?", Published in May 1901 in Iskra, No. 4 (see Works, 5th ed., Volume 5, p. 1 - 13), and substantiated in detail in the book What is to be done? (XI)

Foreword

(VII) In the sixth volume of the Complete Works of V.I. Lenin's book "What is to be done?" Painful Issues of Our Movement ”(autumn 1901 - February 1902) and works written in January - August 1902.

In Russia at this time there was a further deepening and aggravation of the revolutionary crisis; the revolutionary movement against the autocratic-landlord system became more and more widespread. Demonstrations and strikes of workers in St. Petersburg, Yekaterinoslav, Rostov-on-Don, Batum in February - March 1902, May Day demonstrations in Saratov, Vilno, Baku, Nizhny Novgorod and other cities were vivid evidence of the growing activity and political maturity of the working class - the vanguard of the nationwide struggle against the tsarist autocracy. The peasants of the Kharkov, Poltava, Saratov provinces rose up in an uprising against the landowners; Many other areas were also engulfed in "agrarian unrest"; the performances of the peasants of Guria (Kutaisi province) were distinguished by special persistence and organization. “The peasants decided - and they decided quite correctly - that it is better to die in the struggle against the oppressors than to die without a fight by starvation” (VI Lenin. Works, 4th ed., Volume 6, p. 385).

In this situation, the struggle of Lenin's Iskra against (VIII) "Economism", which was the main brake on the workers' and social democratic movement in Russia, for the ideological and organizational unity of the revolutionary Marxist elements of Russian Social Democracy, for the creation of a party of a new type , irreconcilable to opportunism, free from circles and factionalism, the party - the political leader of the working class, organizer and leader of the revolutionary struggle against autocracy and capitalism.

An outstanding role in the struggle for the Marxist workers' party was played by the book by V.I. Lenin "What is to be done?" In it, Lenin substantiated and developed, in relation to the new historical situation, the ideas of K. Marx and F. Engels about the party as a revolutionary, guiding and organizing force of the workers' movement, developed the foundations of the doctrine of a new type of party, the party of the proletarian revolution. In this remarkable work of revolutionary Marxism, Russian Social-Democrats found answers to the questions that worried them: about the relationship between the conscious and spontaneous elements of the labor movement, about the party as the political leader of the proletariat, about the role of Russian Social-Democracy in the maturing bourgeois-democratic revolution, about organizational forms, ways and methods of creating a militant revolutionary proletarian party.

The book "What is to be done?" completed the ideological defeat of "Economism", which Lenin regarded as a kind of international opportunism (Bernsteinism) on Russian soil. Lenin revealed the roots of opportunism in the ranks of social democracy: the influence of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the working class, admiration for the spontaneity of the labor movement, belittling the role of socialist consciousness in the labor movement. He wrote that the opportunist trend in international social democracy, which took shape in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and attempted to revise Marxism under the banner of "freedom of criticism," entirely borrowed its "theories" from bourgeois literature, that the notorious "freedom of criticism" this (IX) is nothing more than “the freedom to transform the Social Democracy into a democratic reform party, the freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into socialism” (this volume, p. 9).

Lenin showed that there is a continuous and irreconcilable struggle between the socialist ideology of the proletariat and the bourgeois ideology: “... The question is the only way:bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle way ... Therefore anybelittling socialist ideology, any suspensionfrom it means thereby strengthening bourgeois ideology ”(pp. 39-40). Socialist consciousness, he explained, does not arise from a spontaneous labor movement, it is introduced into the labor movement by the revolutionary Marxist party. And the most important task of the proletarian party is to fight for the purity of socialist ideology, against bourgeois influence on the working class, against opportunists - the guides and bearers of bourgeois ideology in the labor movement.

Lenin revealed the greatest significance of the theory of scientific socialism for the labor movement, for the entire activity of the revolutionary Marxist party of the working class: "... The role of a progressive fighter can only be played by a party guided by an advanced theory."(p. 25). Lenin pointed out that the importance of advanced theory is especially great for Russian Social-Democracy, due to the historical characteristics of its development and the revolutionary tasks that faced it.

In What Is To Be Done ?, as in other Leninist works of the Iskra period, serious attention is paid to substantiating the tactics of the proletariat of Russia and its party. The working class, Lenin wrote, must and can lead the nationwide democratic movement against the autocratic-landlord system, become the vanguard of all revolutionary and opposition forces in Russian society. Therefore, the organization of a comprehensive political exposure of the autocracy was the most important task of the Russian social democracy, one of the indispensable conditions for the political education of the proletariat. This was one of the "painful (X) questions" of the social democratic movement in Russia. The "Economists", preaching deeply erroneous and harmful views on the class struggle of the proletariat, limited it to the area of \u200b\u200beconomic, professional, struggle. This policy, the policy of trade unionism, inevitably led the workers' movement to submission to bourgeois ideology and bourgeois politics. In opposition to this opportunist line, Lenin put forward and substantiated the most important thesis of Marxism-Leninism on the paramount importance of the political struggle in the development of society, in the proletarian struggle for socialism: “... The most essential,“ decisive ”interests of classes can be satisfied onlyindigenous politicaltransformations in general; in particular, the basic economic interest of the proletariat can only be satisfied through a political revolution replacing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with the dictatorship of the proletariat ”(p. 46).

Great harm to the social democratic movement in Russia was caused by the admiration of the "economists" before the spontaneity in the field of the organizational tasks of the proletariat, their "handicraft" in questions of party building. Lenin saw the source of the handicraft of the "economists" in the belittling of the tasks of social democracy to the level of trade unionism, in the mixing of two types of organization of the working class: trade unions for organizing the economic struggle of workers and the political party as the highest form of class organization of the working class. Lenin considered the first and most important task of the Russian Social Democrats to create an all-Russian centralized organization of revolutionaries, i.e. a political party inextricably linked with the masses, capable of leading the revolutionary struggle of the working class. How to start creating this kind of organization, which path to choose, Lenin showed even in his article "Where to start?", Published in May 1901 in Iskra, No. 4 (see Works, 5th ed., Volume 5, p. 1 - 13), and substantiated in detail in the book What is to be done? (Xi)

The wide circulation of Lenin's book in Russia contributed to the victory of the Leninist-Iskra trend in the RSDLP. The book "What is to be done?" played a large role in rallying party cadres on the basis of Marxism, in preparing for the Second Party Congress and in creating a revolutionary Marxist party in Russia. In this work, V.I. Lenin dealt a strong blow to the revisionists in the Western European Social Democratic parties, represented by Bernstein and his supporters, and exposed their opportunism and betrayal of the interests of the working class.

The draft program of the RSDLP, worked out in the first half of 1902 by the editors of Iskra and Zarya and adopted at the Second Congress of the RSDLP (July-August 1902), was extremely important for the ideological rallying of the Russian revolutionary Social-Democrats. Published in this volume, "Materials for the development of the RSDLP program" vividly characterize the role of V.I. Lenin in the preparation of the Iskra draft of the Party program, in the principled struggle that accompanied the discussion of various projects in the editorial board of Iskra. Thanks to Lenin, the draft program clearly formulated the most important thesis of Marxism on the dictatorship of the proletariat; Lenin later wrote that the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat was included in the RSDLP program "precisely in connection with the struggle against Bernstein, against opportunism" (Sochineniya, 4th ed., vol. 31, p. 314). In disputes with Plekhanov, who showed hesitation on a number of fundamental theses of Marxism that were attacked by the Bernsteinians, Lenin defended the inclusion in the draft program of the thesis about the displacement of small production by large production as a natural process of capitalist society; at his insistence, the draft program clearly indicated the leading role of the party as a conscious expression of the class movement of the proletariat and clearly expressed the idea of \u200b\u200bthe hegemony of the working class.

From the moment you met Plekhanov LeninObviously, the thought was haunted by the thought that Plekhanov had one undoubted advantage over him - Lenin did not have enough theoretical works even for one volume, while Plekhanov could oppose him, perhaps, with a whole bookshelf of his works. And so throughout the autumn and winter of 1901/1902, Lenin was working on a book, the title for which he borrowed from Chernyshevsky, whose famous novel was called “ What to do?". In this book, Lenin outlined his revolutionary principles, the very ones that will become his practice in some sixteen years.

In the revolutionary philosophy "What is to be done?" there is almost nothing from Marx, since it is wholly and completely based on the views of Nechaev and Pisareva... Marx is mentioned in passing, and his thesis that "the emancipation of the working class is the work of the working class itself" is omitted altogether. But a new idea appears about creating a small, highly organized and trained handful of revolutionary intelligentsia, which serves as the vanguard of the revolution. This idea is implanted in the minds of the readers ardently and persistently; there can be no other opinions, they are declared opportunism. "Exclusively by its own efforts," writes Lenin, "the working class is only able to develop a trade unionist consciousness." That is, workers can fight against the employers, seeking to improve working conditions, go on strike, express dissatisfaction, and this limits their activity. But in order to realize the dictatorship of the proletariat, an advanced link of professional revolutionaries is needed, which is capable of leading the proletariat. Around this link, the best, conscious forces of the workers, who are also ardently devoted to the revolution, are being formed.

In the work "What is to be done?" - all of Lenin with all his arsenal of propaganda tools. He violently attacks, blasphemes, prophesies, interprets, convinces, appeals. He alone found the key to all the doors at once, and woe to those who dare to disagree with him! "Freedom is a great word," he declares with dark sarcasm, "but the most robber wars were fought under the banner of freedom of industry, and the workers were robbed under the banner of freedom of labor." Freedom of criticism, as a relic of the Russian past, is declared by him a fiction, since now the scientific laws of the development of society are discovered, and it is useless to argue with them, they are beyond criticism. The entire first chapter is devoted to the overthrow of freedom as such. Speaking about revolutionaries, he describes their heroic, thorny path to victory, which was given only to them, and only to them. “We are walking in a small group along a steep and difficult path, holding hands tightly. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we almost always have to go under their fire. We are connected, by freely the decision, precisely in order to fight the enemies and not stumble into the neighboring swamp, the inhabitants of which from the very beginning reproached us for the fact that we separated into a special group and chose the path of struggle, and not the path of reconciliation. And now some of us start screaming: let's go into this swamp! - and when they start to be ashamed, they object: what a backward people you are! and how not ashamed of you to deny our freedom to call you on better way! - Oh yes, gentlemen, you are free not only to call, but also to go wherever you please, at least into the swamp; we even find that your real place is in the swamp, and we are ready to provide you with all possible assistance for your relocation there. But only then leave our hands, do not grab onto us and do not stain the great word freedom, because we are also “free” to go where we want, free to fight not only with the swamp, but also with those who turn to the swamp! "

“History has set before us [the Russian revolutionaries] an immediate task, which is the most revolutionary of all the immediate tasks of the proletariat in any other country. The fulfillment of this task, the destruction of the most powerful bulwark of not only European, but also (we can say now) and Asian reaction would make the Russian proletariat the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat. And we have the right to expect that we will achieve this honorary title, already deserved by our predecessors, the revolutionaries of the 70s, if we are able to inspire our a thousand times wider and deeper movement with the same selfless determination and energy. "

There is not a single line in the writings of Marx to support this prophecy. It is interesting that Lenin did not seek confirmation of his words from Marx. Instead, he turns his mind to the revolutionary battles of the 70s in Russia, which were attended by students who were part of small groups of conspirators obsessed with the idea of \u200b\u200bcombating autocracy and who believed that terror was the only sure weapon to achieve this goal. As Lenin, page after page, develops the theory of revolution, it seems more and more obvious to us that he is simply retelling the famous Russian conspirator Nechaev. He repeats Nechayev's idea of \u200b\u200bcreating an elite detachment of terrorists operating in the strictest secrecy; their goal is "to penetrate everywhere, into all upper and middle strata, into a merchant's shop, into a church, into a manor house, into the bureaucratic and military world, into literature, into the Third Section, and even into the Winter Palace." This powerful clandestine organization must be centralized; it must concentrate in its hands all the threads that bind the revolutionary cells and direct their activities until, at the right time, it gives the signal for an uprising, for the overthrow of the autocracy.

A revolutionary elite is needed. Democracy of revolutionaries does not exist. Nobody will ask the "middle people", they have no voting rights. Decisions must be made by one person, the leader, or a very limited group of professional revolutionaries.

Lenin does not deny that the revolutionary movement is assuming a conspiratorial character. He casts down streams of contempt on the heads of the so-called "armchair" theoreticians of the revolution, who pin their hopes on "spontaneous" revolutions, which are a natural manifestation of popular discontent. In his view, the revolution must be clearly planned and calculated with a cold, sober mind; the revolution can be manipulated; it should be led by the arch-revolutionaries, who have at their disposal a whole staff of subordinates and specially trained people, as well as selected combat brigades who master the art of maneuver, surprise strike and (if necessary) retreat.

And as Lenin develops the theme of the revolutionary elite, we, the current readers of his work, seem to begin to hear the echoes of fascist marches, as if the fruits of Nechaev's ideas had sprouted on German soil, becoming the ideological weapon of storm troopers. By the way, Lenin pays tribute to the iron obedience to the will of the leader in the ranks of the German Social Democrats. On many pages of his book, he praises the new invention of the German mind, the essence of which he describes in the following words: “... Without a“ dozen ”talented (and talents are not born in hundreds), tested, professionally trained and a long school of trained leaders, who perfectly sang with each other , impossible in modern society enduring struggle of no class. " German organization plus Russian enthusiasm, German love for order and obedience and Russian unbridled will - that is what is required, according to Lenin, to make a revolution.

Nechaev was also convinced of the need to create a revolutionary elite, but what was not in him was admiration for the German mind. " Revolutionary catechism"- the document is exclusively Russian in spirit, as well as the methods of underground struggle prescribed in it, namely: blackmail, threats, intimidation, raids into the very rear of the enemy, bombs, mines, - a secret war waged by ghosts, invisible people. The elite of the most selective revolutionaries are likened to romantic heroes, a kind of noble knights-princes who rebelled against the tsar-despot. They are doomed, they will be executed. Lenin goes further.

This does not mean that he departs from the views of Nechaev, not at all. The warlike nechaevsky note constantly sounds and reminds of itself. For example, speaking about young people from the intelligentsia, Lenin recommends using them in the revolution as follows: “If we already had a real party, a truly militant organization of revolutionaries, we would not put all such“ accomplices ”on the edge, we would not be in a hurry to always and unconditionally involve them to the very core of the "illegal", but, on the contrary, they would especially take care of them, and even specially prepare people for such functions, remembering that many students could bring more benefits to the party as "accomplices" - officials than as " short-term "revolutionaries".

Isn't that the voice of Nechaev himself? The student so skillfully imitates his teacher that it seems that these words, somewhere, in some context, have already been uttered by Nechaev. Lenin was just as enthusiastic about Nechaev's friend, Tkachev, who preached terrible terror, who proposed to act by intimidation, instilling extreme horror into the autocracy, so that it itself would not withstand and expire. Terror brought to the point of horror, terror, terror and again terror, which no power on earth can resist ... Lenin spoke approvingly of such tactics, considering terror as a powerful weapon in the revolutionary struggle. In his opinion, Tkachev's thought of a terrifying and truly terrifying terror was "majestic." But what if the "popular strata", the "crowd" resort to terror? Lenin's feeling of his revolutionary superiority over the "crowd" is nowhere felt so much as in those places where it is a question of the common people, "popular strata" who have neither the courage nor the professional qualities that distinguish the fighters dedicated to revolutionary science, by their hard work won the right to be called the elite of the revolutionary movement.

Actually, the whole book "What is to be done?" predominantly develops one and the same theme - the theme of the revolutionary elite. Lenin, as a prophet, announces that "the time is near," and if so, then select disciples and followers, devoted comrades-in-arms, real professionals should gather around him. It is known that the idea of \u200b\u200bcreating a tightly-knit handful of arch-revolutionaries originally belonged to Nechaev; Lenin only developed it. But, speaking about professional underground workers, he also relies on his own experience of participation in “ Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class", Where he dealt with the same revolutionary amateurs as himself. In one of the passages of an autobiographical character, he described his then feelings of a beginner in the following way: “I worked in a circle that set myself very broad, all-encompassing tasks, and all of us, members of this circle, had to suffer painfully, painfully, from the consciousness that we we find ourselves handicraftsmen at such a historical moment when it would be possible, by modifying a well-known saying, to say: give us an organization of revolutionaries, and we will turn Russia over! And the more often since then I have had to remember that burning feeling of shame that I then experienced, the more bitterness I accumulated against those pseudo-social democrats who, with their sermon, "dishonor the revolutionary San", who do not understand that our task is not to defend the belittling of a revolutionary to a handicraftsman, but to raise an artisan to a revolution. "

The “elected”, “leaders”, had to correspond to a certain professional level and in relations with their comrades, observe the corresponding code of rules. This so-called "ten" was to be especially revered among the rank-and-file members of the party, and such a concept as "broad democratic principle" was declared an empty and harmful toy, unacceptable for the party organization. The time has come to tackle the revolution in earnest, and this is the business of grown men, Lenin believes. About his predecessors, he writes: "Their mistake was that they relied on a theory that in essence was not at all a revolutionary theory, and did not know how or could not inextricably link their movement with the class struggle within the developing capitalist society." Lenin creates a new theory. Its nail is the postulate: the place of autocracy must be taken by the proletariat. He does not take the trouble to deepen this thought, for him it is a decided fact, starting from which he, with all his fervor, embarks on discussions on his favorite topic - about the revolutionary elite as the vanguard of the proletariat. In this delusion he will live his whole life. If initially in his theory he did not recognize freedom of criticism, rejected the democratic principle as unsuitable, and the idea of \u200b\u200bindomitable, fierce terror seemed to him “majestic”, then nothing but an authoritarian regime could eventually be born. Then, in 1901, these were still abstract ideas, but they were destined to come true in practice sixteen years later.

In the work "What is to be done?" Lenin gives his own definitions to many social concepts, endowing them with a completely different meaning that is accepted in social science. He grossly distorts the meaning of words. For example, Lenin's concept of democracy is completely at odds with how Cleisthenes interpreted it, the first to write laws for this form of government in Ancient Athens; or as Aristotle defined it. Lenin gives his own definition: democracy is "the abolition of the oppression of one class by another." His definition of “freedom” sounds just as unexpected and overwhelming. According to Lenin, freedom is ultimately "bourgeois tyranny." These formulations should be remembered, since he constantly in his writings, on the one hand, repeats about his love for democracy, and on the other hand, he actually rejects freedom.

In announcing that the proletariat of Russia was to play the most important, leading role in the world labor movement, Lenin was well aware of the illusory and unfounded nature of such a statement. He knew that at that period, that is, in 1901, the Russian proletariat was still very far from the politically developed working class of Germany, England or America, and therefore its leading role in the world revolution looked very dubious in the future, even almost incredible. But admitting that this was just his dream, perhaps even unrealizable, he referred to the following words of Pisarev: “My dream can overtake the natural course of events, or it can be completely missed to the side, where no natural course of events can ever come. In the first case, the dream does no harm; it can even support and enhance the energy of the working person ... There is nothing in such dreams that would pervert or paralyze the workforce. Even quite the opposite. If a person were completely deprived of the ability to dream in this way, if he could not occasionally run ahead and contemplate with his imagination in a whole and complete picture the very creation that is just beginning to take shape under his hands, then I resolutely cannot imagine what kind of a motivating cause would compel a person to undertake and complete extensive and tedious work in the field of art, science and practical life ... The discord between dream and reality does not do any harm, if only the dreaming person seriously believes in his dream, carefully peering into life, compares his observing with their castles in the air and generally conscientiously working on the realization of their imaginations. When there is some kind of contact between dream and life, then everything is all right. " Lenin adds the following commentary to Pisarev's words: “Such and such dreams, unfortunately, are too few in our movement. And those who are most to blame for this are those who boast of their sobriety, their "closeness" to the "concrete."

Until the end of his life, Lenin will remain a hostage of the ideas he formulated in his book What Is To Be Done? She was destined to play a significant role in the history of the Russian revolution. The style of this book is Lenin embodied, with his bold ideas and wordy accusatory tirades against those who did not share his views; he smacks them with sarcasm, page after page. Everything that Lenin composes later will become rehash of the same endless theme.

Lenin wrote "What is to be done?" almost half a year. In March 1902, this work was printed in the printing house of the city of Stuttgart, - a small volume in a chocolate-colored cover.

Stuttgart, Verlag J.H.W. Dietz, 1902. VII, 144 pp. In publishing covers. The front cover shows the price: 1 ruble; 2 marks or 2.5 francs! 24x15 cm. Written in autumn 1901 - in February 1902. PMM 392

LENIN, Vladimir Ilyich (Ulyanov). Shto Delatch? Nabolevchye Voprosy Nashevo Dvishenija. Stuttgart: J.H.W. Dietz, 1902.

Grooming: $ 13,750. Christie "s. Important Scientific Books: The Richard Green Library. June 17, 2008. New York, Rockefeller Plaza. Lot 223.

Bibliographic sources:

1. Book treasures of GBL. Issue 4. Works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism. Russian revolutionary press of the 19th - early 20th centuries. Catalog. Moscow, 1980. No. 48

2. PMM, Munchen, 1983, no. 392

The book came out of print in early March 1902 in Stuttgart. In this work, Lenin substantiated and developed in a new historical situation the Marxist idea of \u200b\u200bthe party as the leading and organizing force of the labor movement, developed the foundations of the doctrine of a new type of party, organizational forms, ways and methods of its creation, revealed the greatest significance of Marxist theory - the theory of scientific socialism - for the workers' movement. And as a conclusion, the concept of the future "Bolshevism" was finally formed.

"Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement," wrote Lenin. "... The role of a vanguard fighter can only be played by a party guided by an advanced theory."

In short, for the first time the idea of \u200b\u200bcreating a Bolshevik party, a party of a new type, was substantiated and developed! And this had very tragic consequences for a huge country called the Russian Empire. The book has been translated into many languages. The epigraph is placed on the title page and front cover of the book:

"... The party struggle gives the party strength and vitality, the greatest proof of the party's weakness is its vagueness and the blunting of sharply defined borders, the party is strengthened by the fact that it purifies itself ..."

In Leonid Tereshchenkov we read:

The book "What is to be done?" conceived by Lenin in 1901 as a topical propaganda brochure. It was to cover a number of topics already outlined in the leading articles of the Iskra newspaper (first of all, in the article “Where to start?”). Lenin seeks answers to three key questions: about the nature and content of the political agitation of the Social Democrats, about the organizational tasks of Russian Social Democracy, and about the plan for building an all-Russian Social Democratic organization. Lenin's polemical work was written after the failure of an attempt to unite Russian Social Democratic organizations abroad (June 1901). Lenin comes to understand the need to consider an important problem. How to unite the social movement and the labor movement? Intellectuals with their struggle for general democratic values \u200b\u200band freedoms and workers with their narrow-class economic struggle. Is it possible to politicize such a multidirectional protest? And how to ensure that the united protest is led by the revolutionary Social Democracy?

For a long time it was believed that the main content of this Leninist work is the proof of the thesis about the need to bring class consciousness to the working masses by representatives of the professional organization of revolutionaries. In our opinion, today it is especially important that Lenin's thought reflects the essence of the relationship between the mass spontaneous movement and politics. Lenin says that any generalization of particular demands already of necessity leads to the politicization of the protest. For example, a separate strike is most often a non-political act. But informing the public about strikes in an uncensored newspaper, and even more so attempts to create tactics for conducting a strike, a strike theory, is already pure politics. The same can be said about the social movement. The struggle of a particular zemstvo, the students of one of the universities, the sectarians of one skete is not yet politics, but an attempt to understand their role and place in the country and society as a whole, to gain experience - politics. And for the consistent implementation of such a policy, a centralized all-Russian organization is needed.

Another important issue is related to the same provision. Is the work on generalization of the protest and summing up the theoretical basis of the scientific one? Lenin's answer is obvious - of course, yes. The process of politicizing a protest is always based on rational methodology. Exposing individual disorder, both factory and social life, generalizing the experience of opposing various authorities, as in the well-known Marxist metaphor, dispels the fog over social relations. There is an opportunity to see the true structure of society, and not various discourses about it. It is the conclusion that social sciences and politics are inextricably linked (and even about science and politics as two sides of the same approach to empirical material) that seems to us especially relevant today. On the anniversary of a new social movement in Russia today, several research groups presented their results of a "study of protest." However, I would like to ask: how meaningful is this kind of ascertaining scientific work? If the authors do not offer their own vision of the protest movement, but leave it to “ordinary people on the street”, informants “to say everything for themselves,” will it not turn out that they managed to collect only a scattering of more or less interesting remarks from a journalistic point of view? This is just some kind of statement of fact, which requires further understanding. A fundamental refusal to define any desired vector for the development of the protest movement and to consider the possibility of following it, in addition to the most general declarations of sympathy and activist involvement, leads to the fact that informants speak for scientists. As a result, the main questions of the "December movement" remain unanswered, and yet its future depends on the answers to these questions. How is the substitution of the concept of politics taking place in our time? Politics as the creation of a common cause from small deeds is replaced by the politics of leaders and the crowd. This gives rise to constant fears that "our protest will be stolen." Politics begins to be perceived by informants as a "dirty business", which "decent people who have come out to the square" are not engaged in. The absence of a leading center and general requirements is fraught with the extinction of the movement. Each time a protest situation arises, you will have to gain experience first.

This is, in our opinion, the relevance of Lenin's work "What is to be done?" 110 years after its first publication. The spontaneity of any movement, even a mass movement, worker or general democratic, will come to a rapid end, since the participants, behind their private momentary interests, will not be able to discern the interests of the general. To prevent this and should, in Lenin's opinion, a centralized political organization. Political not in the sense that it declares a "clear position" and adopts a resolution on every insignificant issue, but in that it acts as a think tank, studies the protest movement and on this basis offers it a clear methodology and general theory. Keeps the tradition of the protest movement and, by increasing the cultural layer, prepares the intellectual hegemony in society. For progressive changes in society to become real, politicians must be scientists, and scientists must be politicians.

In vain in the years of chaos
Seek the end of the good.
One to punish and repent.
Others - to end with Golgotha.

Like you, I am part of the great
Moving dates,
And I will accept your verdict
Without anger and reproach.

You probably won't flinch
Sweeping away the man.
Well, martyrs of dogma,
You too are the victims of the century.

Boris Pasternak

Boris Leonidovich perfectly responded to Vladimir Ilyich to his book What Is to Be Done ?, calling them martyrs of dogma. It turns out that nothing had to be done ... The title of the book repeats the title of the novel "What is to be done?" Nikolai Chernyshevsky, who, according to Lenin, transformed hundreds of people into revolutionaries and changed him. Some authors believe that in this book Lenin departs from the ideas of Marx in essential points. Lenin put forward the theory that the ordinary working class is not able to lead a revolution with social democratic goals, but pursues only the goal of "bread and butter". He justified this by the fact that the proletariat has no class consciousness. ("Political class consciousness can be given to the worker only from the outside"). He developed the concept communist party as the vanguard of the working class, which must carry out the socialist revolution, introduce and support the dictatorship of the proletariat in its interests, and teach the masses about communism. His ideas were heavily criticized by his opponents, as this form of organization would quickly lead to the dictatorship of a small group of revolutionaries. This principle was taken as the basis of Stalinism, and back in the 1970s and 80s. in the Soviet Union they persecuted and accused of forming "counter-revolutionary platforms" those critics who questioned the Leninist dogma of "bringing socialist consciousness into the working class." In 1898, Lenin, Plekhanov, and other Marxists organized the Russian Social Democratic Party (RSDLP) to coordinate revolutionary activities. In 1901-1902, the Narodniks created a rival party of Socialist-Revolutionaries (SRs). Both parties became part of the International Federation known as the Socialist, or Second International. Lenin intended to launch polemics against the Socialist-Revolutionaries, but soon he had serious disagreements with the members of the RSDLP. On the pages of the Iskra newspaper Lenin, Plekhanov and Yuliy Martov criticized the so-called economists, who argued that only the economic demands of the workers were worthy of attention, while the political struggle was not their business. Lenin and other "Iskra-ists" advocated the creation of a centralized party, which was supposed to mobilize the proletariat for a more active economic and political struggle against all forms of oppression and the overthrow of tsarism. Lenin popularized this kind of idea in What Is To Be Done? (1902). When the term of exile ended, Ulyanov, despite the fact that his stay in Petersburg was forbidden to him, went there together with Martov. The arrest followed immediately. However, after a few weeks he was released. At the very least, the history of Russian social democracy would have taken a different path if Lenin had been exiled again at that moment. On July 29, 1900, he crossed the Austrian border and headed for Switzerland. The red wheel of history was rapidly gaining its pace ...