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 !

From Marx to Mao 
ML 
© Digital Reprints 
2006 
PUBLISHER¹S NOTE 
This translation of J. V. Stalin¹s Works 
has been made from the text of the Russian 
edition prepared by the Marx-Engels-Lenin 
Institute of the Central Committee, C.P.S.U. 
Some of J. V. Stalin¹s works given in Volumes 
1 and 2 of the Russian edition of the 
Works are translations from the Georgian. 
This is indicated at the end of each of the 
works concerned.

RUSSIAN EDITION 
PUBLISHED BY DECISION 
OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE 
OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY 
OF THE SOVIET UNION 
(BOLSHEVIKS)

. p...ma puu .cex cm pa., coe.u...mec.! 
..CT.T.T ...KC.‹......C.‹...... .p. .K .K.(.) 
n.b. CTAlnH 
.....E... 

 
. . . . 
............... ............ ............ .......... 
. o c . . a € 1 9 4 6

FOREIGN LANGUAGES PUBLISHING HOUSE 
M o s c o w € 1 9 5 4 
E 
FROM MARX 
TO MAO 

 
NOT FOR 
COMMERCIAL 
DISTRIBUTION 
J. V. STALIN 
w o R k s 
VOLUME 
¡ 
!()!_!()& 




FROM MARX 
TO MAO 

 
NOT FOR 
COMMERCIAL 
DISTRIBUTION 
C O N T E N T S 
Page 
Preface to this Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI 
Preface to Volume One . . . . . . . . . . . . XV 
Author¹s Preface to Volume One . . . . . . . . . XVII 
1901-07 
FROM THE EDITORS . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 
THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND ITS 
IMMEDIATE TASKS . . . . . . . . . . . 9 
THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF THE NATIONAL 
QUESTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 
A LETTER FROM KUTAIS . . . . . . . . . . 55 
A LETTER FROM KUTAIS (From the Same Comrade) . . 59 
THE PROLETARIAN CLASS AND THE PROLETARIAN 
PARTY (Concerning Paragraph One of the Party Rules)63 
WORKERS OF THE CAUCASUS, IT IS TIME TO TAKE 
REVENGE! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 
LONG LIVE INTERNATIONAL FRATERNITY! . . . 82 
TO CITIZENS. LONG LIVE THE RED FLAG! . . . . 85

CONTENTS VIII 
BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE 
PARTY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 
ARMED INSURRECTION AND OUR TACTICS . . 133 
THE PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT 
AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY . . . . . . . . . 140 
A REPLY TO SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT . . . . . . . 16 2 
REACTION IS GROWING . . . . . . . . . . . 175 
THE BOURGEOISIE IS LAYING A TRAP . . . . . 181 
CITIZENS! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 
TO ALL THE WORKERS . . . . . . . . . . . 191 
TIFLIS, NOVEMBER 20, 1905 . . . . . . . . . 195 
TWO CLASHES (Concerning January 9). . . . . . . 198 
THE STATE DUMA AND THE TACTICS OF SOCIALDEMOCRACY 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 
THE AGRARIAN QUESTION . . . . . . . . . . 216 
CONCERNING THE AGRARIAN QUESTION . . . . 232 
CONCERNING THE REVISION OF THE AGRARIAN 
PROGRAMME (Speech Delivered at the Seventh Sitting 
of the Fourth Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., April 13 
(26), 1906) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 
ON THE PRESENT SITUATION (Speech Delivered at the 
Fifteenth Sitting of the Fourth Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., 
April 17 (30), 1906) . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 
MARX AND ENGELS ON INSURRECTION . . . . . 243 
INTERNATIONAL COUNTER-REVOLUTION . . . . 249 
THE PRESENT SITUATION AND THE UNITY CONGRESS 
OF THE WORKERS¹ PARTY . . . . . . . . 252 
THE CLASS STRUGGLE . . . . . . . . . . . 280

CONTENTS IX 
³FACTORY LEGISLATION² AND THE PROLETARIAN 
STRUGGLE (Concerning the Two Laws of November 15) 289 
ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM? . . . . . . . . . 297 
I The Dialectical Method . . . . . . . . . 300 
II The Materialist Theory . . . . . . . . . 313 
III Proletarian Socialism. . . . . . . . . . 331 
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 
A n a r c h i s m o r S o c i a l i s m? . . . . . . . . . ‹ 
Dialectical Materialism . . . . . . . . . . . ‹ 
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392 
Biographical Chronicle (1879-1906) . . . . . . . . 415


PREFACE 
The present collection of the works of J. V. Stalin 
is published by decision of the Central Committee of 
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks). 
Hitherto only part of Comrade Stalin¹s works has been 
published in separate collections. His articles and speeches 
of the period immediately before October 1917 were collected 
in the book On the Road to October, which appeared 
in two editions in 1925. In 1932 the collection The October 
Revolution was published, containing articles and 
speeches on the Great October Socialist Revolution. 
Works on the national question went into the collection 
Marxism and the National and Colonial Question, which 
has appeared in several editions. The articles and 
speeches of 1921-1927, dealing mainly with internal Party 
questions and the rout of the opposition groups that 
were hostile to the Party, constituted a separate collection 
entitled On the Opposition, which was published 
in 1928. In addition, there are other collections in which 
are compiled J. V. Stalin¹s articles and speeches on 
definite subjects, such as, for example, the collections: 
On Lenin, Articles and Speeches on the Ukraine, The 
Peasant Question, The Young Communist League, and 
others.

PREFACE TO THIS EDITION XII 
At different times several collections were published 
containing works by both V. I. Lenin and J. V. Stalin, 
such as, 1917‹Selected Writings and Speeches, The 
Defence of the Socialist Motherland, A Collection of Works 
for the Study of the History of the C.P.S.U.(B.). in three 
volumes, Lenin-Stalin‹selected works in one volume, 
On Party Affairs, On Socialist Emulation, On Labour, 
and others. 
The most widely distributed collection of the works 
of Comrade Stalin up to this point has been the book 
Problems of Leninism, which has gone through eleven 
editions. With every new edition the contents of this 
book underwent considerable change: nearly every edition 
included new works and, at the same time, in order 
to keep the book to its previous size, the author deleted 
certain works from it. Comrade Stalin¹s speeches, reports 
and Orders of the Day delivered during the Patriotic 
War the Soviet people waged against the German fascist 
invaders are collected in the book On the Great Patriotic 
War of the Soviet Union, which has gone through five 
editions. 
However, a large number of J. V. Stalin¹s works, written 
before and after the October Revolution, were not 
reprinted and, hitherto, not collected after their publication 
in newspapers and magazines. Moreover, there 
are articles and letters by Comrade Stalin which have 
not been published before. 
This is a first attempt to collect and publish in one 
edition nearly all the works of J. V. Stalin. 
Volume 1 contains the works of J. V. Stalin written 
from 1901 to April 1907. 
Volume 2 includes works written from 1907 to 1913.

PREFACE TO THIS EDITION XIII 
Volume 3 consists of works of the period of preparation 
for the Great October Socialist Revolution (March- 
October 1917). These are mainly articles that were published 
in Pravda. 
Volume 4 (November 1917-1920) includes works written 
in the first months of the existence of the Soviet 
government and in the period of foreign military intervention 
and civil war. 
The next three Volumes‹5, 6 and 7‹contain works 
of the period of the Soviet state¹s transition to the 
peaceful work of rehabilitating the national economy 
(1921-1925). Volume 5 contains works written from 1921 
up to the death of V. I. Lenin (January 1924). Volume 6 
includes works of 1924. Volume 7 contains works written 
in 1925. 
J. V. Stalin¹s works of the period of the struggle 
for the socialist industrialisation of the country 
(1926-1929) constitute Volumes 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. 
Volumes 8 and 9 contain articles, speeches, reports, 
etc., made during 1926; Volumes 10 and 11, those 
of 1927; and Volume 12, those of the period of 
1928-1929. 
Volume 13 contains works of the period 1930-1933, 
dealing mainly with questions concerning the collectivisation 
of agriculture and the further development of 
socialist industrialisation. 
Volume 14 contains works covering the period 1934- 
1940, dealing with the struggle to complete the building of 
socialism in the U.S.S.R., with the creation of the new 
Constitution of the Soviet Union, and with the struggle 
for peace in the situation prevailing at the opening of 
the Second World War.

PREFACE TO THIS EDITION XIV
Volume 15 consists of J. V. Stalin¹s work, History 
of the C.P.S.U.(B.), Short Course, which appeared in 
a separate edition in 1938. 
Volume 16 contains works of the period of the Soviet 
Union¹s Great Patriotic War, including J. V. Stalin¹s 
reports, speeches, and Orders of the Day on the anniversaries 
of the Great October Socialist Revolution, addresses 
to the people in connection with the rout and surrender 
of Germany and Japan, and other documents. 
All the works in the respective volumes are arranged 
in chronological order according to the time at which they 
were written or published. Each volume is furnished with 
a preface, brief explanatory notes, and a biographical 
chronicle. Dates until the adoption of the New Style 
calendar (up to February 14, 1918) are given in Old 
Style; those after that are given in New Style. 
The texts of Comrade Stalin¹s works are given in 
their original form except in a few instances where the 
author has introduced slight changes of a purely 
stylistic character. 
Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute 
of the C.P., C.P.S.U.(B.)

PREFACE TO VOLUME ONE 
Volume 1 includes the works of J. V. Stalin written 
from 1901 to April 1907, the period when he conducted 
his revolutionary activities mainly in Tiflis. 
In this period the Bolsheviks, under the leadership 
of V. I. Lenin, were laying the foundations of the Marxist- 
Leninist Party, of its ideology and principles of organisation. 
In this period Comrade Stalin, combating various 
anti-Marxist and opportunist trends, created Leninist- 
Iskra Bolshevik organisations in Transcaucasia and 
directed their activities. In his works he substantiated 
and vindicated the fundamental principles of the Marxist- 
Leninist doctrine. 
Only a small part of J. V. Stalin¹s works included 
in Volume 1 were published in Russian. Most of them 
were published in Georgian newspapers and pamphlets. 
The majority of these appear in Russian for the first 
time. 
The archives of the Caucasian Union Committee of 
the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, and some of 
the publications issued by the Transcaucasian Bolshevik

PREFACE TO VOLUME ONE XVI 
organisations, in which works of J. V. Stalin were published, 
have not been found to this day. In particular, 
the Programme of Studies for Marxist Workers¹ Circles 
(1898) and Credo (1904) are still missing. 
Volume 1 of the present edition does not contain 
all the works of J. V. Stalin written from 1901 to 
April 1907. 
Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute 
of the C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.)

AUTHOR¹S PREFACE TO VOLUME ONE 
The works comprising Volume 1 were written in the 
early period of the author¹s activities (1901-1907), when 
the elaboration of the ideology and policy of Leninism 
was not yet completed. This partly applies also to Volume 
2 of the Works. 
To understand and properly appraise these works, 
they must be regarded as the works of a young Marxist 
not yet moulded into a finished Marxist-Leninist. It 
is natural therefore that these works should bear traces 
of some of the propositions of the old Marxists which 
afterwards became obsolete and were subsequently discarded 
by our Party. I have in mind two questions: 
the question of the agrarian programme, and the question 
of the conditions for the victory of the socialist revolution. 
As is evident from Volume 1 (see articles ³The 
Agrarian Question²), at that time the author maintained 
that the landlords¹ lands should be distributed 
among the peasants as the peasants¹ private property. 
At the Party¹s Unity Congress, at which the agrarian 
question was discussed, the majority of the Bolshevik 
delegates engaged in practical Party work supported 
the distribution point of view, the majority of the

AUTHOR¹S PREFACE TO VOLUME ONE XVIII 
Mensheviks stood for municipalisation, Lenin and the rest 
of the Bolshevik delegates stood for the nationalisation 
of the land. In the course of the controversy around these 
three drafts, when it became evident that the prospect 
of the congress accepting the draft on nationalisation 
was hopeless, Lenin and the other nationalisers at the 
congress voted with the distributors. 
The distributors advanced three arguments against 
nationalisation: a) that the peasants would not accept 
the nationalisation of the landlords¹ lands, because they 
wanted to obtain those lands as their private property; 
b) that the peasants would resist nationalisation, because 
they would regard it as a measure to abolish the 
private ownership of the land which they already privately 
owned; c) that even if the peasants¹ objection to 
nationalisation could be overcome, we Marxists should 
not advocate nationalisation, because, after the victory 
of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, the state in 
Russia would not be a socialist, but a bourgeois state, 
and the possession by the bourgeois state of a large fund 
of nationalised land would inordinately strengthen the 
bourgeoisie to the detriment of the interests of the proletariat. 
In this the distributors proceeded from the premise 
that was accepted among Russian Marxists, including 
the Bolsheviks, that after the victory of the bourgeoisdemocratic 
revolution there would be a more or less 
long interruption in the revolution, that between the 
victorious bourgeois revolution and the future socialist 
revolution there would be an interval, during which 
capitalism would have the opportunity to develop more 
freely and powerfully and embrace agriculture too; that

AUTHOR¹S PREFACE TO VOLUME ONE XIX 
the class struggle would become more intense and more 
widespread, the proletariat¹s class would grow in numbers, 
the proletariat¹s class consciousness and organisation 
would rise to the proper level, and that only after 
all this could the period of the socialist revolution 
set in. 
It must be observed that the premise that a long 
interval would set in between the two revolutions was 
not opposed by anybody at the congress; both the advocates 
of nationalisation and distribution on the one 
hand, and the advocates of municipalisation on the other, 
were of the opinion that the agrarian programme of Russian 
Social-Democracy should facilitate the further and 
more powerful development of capitalism in Russia. 
Did we Bolshevik practical workers know that Lenin 
at that time held the view that the bourgeois revolution 
in Russia would grow into the socialist revolution, that 
he held the view of uninterrupted revolution? Yes, we 
did. We knew it from his pamphlet entitled Two Tactics 
(1905), and also from his celebrated article ³The Attitude 
of Social-Democracy Towards the Peasant Movement² 
of 1905, in which he stated that ³we stand for uninterrupted 
revolution² and that ³we shall not stop halfway.² 
But because of our inadequate theoretical training, 
and because of our neglect, characteristic of practical 
workers, of theoretical questions, we had not studied 
the question thoroughly enough and had failed to understand 
its great significance. As we know, for some 
reason Lenin did not at that time develop the arguments 
following from the theory of the growing over of the 
bourgeois revolution into the socialist revolution, nor did 
he use them at the congress in support of nationalisation.

AUTHOR¹S PREFACE TO VOLUME ONE XX 
Was it not because he believed that the question 
was not yet ripe, and because he did not expect the 
majority of the Bolshevik practical workers at the congress 
to be sufficiently equipped to understand and accept 
the theory that the bourgeois revolution must grow into 
the socialist revolution that he refrained from advancing 
these arguments? 
It was only some time later, when Lenin¹s theory 
that the bourgeois revolution in Russia must grow into 
the socialist revolution became the guiding line of the 
Bolshevik Party, that disagreements on the agrarian 
question vanished in the Party; for it became evident 
that in a country like Russia‹where the specific conditions 
of development had prepared the ground for the 
growth of the bourgeois revolution into the socialist 
revolution‹the Marxist party could have no other 
agrarian programme than that of land nationalisation. 
The second question concerns the problem of the 
victory of the socialist revolution. As is evident from 
Volume 1 (see articles Anarchism or Socialism?), at 
that time the author adhered to the thesis, current among 
Marxists, that one of the major conditions for the victory 
of the socialist revolution is that the proletariat must 
become the majority of the population, that, consequently, 
in those countries where the proletariat does 
not yet constitute the majority of the population owing 
to the inadequate development of capitalism, the victory 
of socialism is impossible. 
This thesis was taken as generally accepted among 
Russian Marxists, including the Bolsheviks, as well as 
among the Social-Democratic parties of other countries. 
The subsequent development of capitalism in Europe

AUTHOR¹S PREFACE TO VOLUME ONE XXI 
and America, however, the transition from pre-imperialist 
capitalism to imperialist capitalism and, finally, 
Lenin¹s discovery of the law of the uneven economic 
and political development of different countries, showed 
that this thesis no longer corresponded to the new conditions 
of development, that the victory of socialism 
was quite possible in individual countries where capitalism 
had not yet reached the highest point of development 
and the proletariat did not yet constitute the majority 
of the population, but where the capitalist front 
was sufficiently weak to be breached by the proletariat. 
Lenin¹s theory of the socialist revolution thus arose in 
1915-1916. As is well known, Lenin¹s theory of the socialist 
revolution proceeds from the thesis that the socialist 
revolution will be victorious not necessarily in those 
countries where capitalism is most developed, but primarily 
in those countries where the capitalist front is 
weak, where it is easier for the proletariat to breach 
that front, where capitalism has reached, say, only the 
medium stage of development. 
This is all the comment the author wishes to make 
on the works collected in Volume 1. 
J. Stalin 
January 1946


!()!_!()&


FROM THE EDITORS* 
Convinced that for intelligent Georgian readers the 
publication of a free periodical is an urgent question; 
convinced that this question must be settled today and 
that further delay can only damage the common cause; 
convinced that every intelligent reader will welcome such 
a publication and will render it every assistance, we, a 
group of Georgian revolutionary Social-Democrats, are 
meeting this want in the endeavour to satisfy the readers¹ 
wishes as far as it lies in our power. We are issuing the 
first number of the first Georgian free newspaper Brdzola.1 
To enable the reader to form a definite opinion about 
our publication and, in particular, about ourselves, we 
shall say a few words. 
The Social-Democratic movement has not left untouched 
a single corner of the country. It has not avoided 
that corner of Russia which we call the Caucasus, and 
with the Caucasus, it has not avoided our Georgia. The 
Social-Democratic movement in Georgia is a recent 
phenomenon, it is only a few years old; to be more precise, 
the foundations of that movement were laid only 
* Leading article in the illegal Social-Democratic newspaper 
Brdzola (The Struggle).

J. V. S T A L I N 2
in 1896. Here, as everywhere else, our activities at first 
did not extend beyond the bounds of secrecy. Agitation 
and wide propaganda in the form that we have been 
witnessing lately were impossible and, willy-nilly, all 
efforts were concentrated in a few circles. This period 
has now passed. Social-Democratic ideas have spread 
among the masses of the workers, and activities have 
also overflowed the narrow bounds of secrecy and have 
spread to a large section of the workers. The open struggle 
has started. This struggle has confronted the pioneer 
Party workers with many questions of a kind that have 
been in the background hitherto and have not urgently 
called for explanation. The first question that has arisen 
in all its magnitude is: what means have we at our command 
to enlarge the area of the struggle? In words, the 
answer to this question is very simple and easy; in practice 
it is quite different. 
It goes without saying that for the organised 
Social-Democratic movement the principal means is the 
extensive propaganda of and agitation for revolutionary 
ideas. But the conditions under which the revolutionary 
is obliged to operate are so contradictory, so difficult, 
and call for such heavy sacrifices, that often both 
propaganda and agitation become impossible in the 
form that the initial stage of the movement requires. 
Studying in circles with the a id of books and pamphlets 
becomes impossible, first, because of police persecution, 
and secondly, because of the very way this work is 
organised. Agitation wanes with the very first arrests. It 
becomes impossible to maintain contact with the workers 
and to visit them often; and yet the workers are expecting 
explanations of numerous questions of the day. A fierce

FROM THE EDITORS 3 
struggle is raging around them; all the forces of the 
government are mustered against them; but they have 
no means of critically analysing the present situation, 
they have no information about the actual state of 
affairs, and often a slight setback at some neighbouring 
factory is enough to cause revolutionary-minded 
workers to cool off, to lose confidence in the future, and 
the leader is obliged to start drawing them into the work 
anew. 
In most cases, agitation with the aid of pamphlets 
which provide answers only to certain definite questions 
has little effect. It becomes necessary to create a literature 
that provides answers to questions of the day. We 
shall not stop to prove this commonly-known truth. In 
the Georgian labour movement the time has already 
arrived when a periodical becomes one of the principal 
means of revolutionary activity. 
For the information of some of our uninitiated readers 
we deem it necessary to say a few words about the legally 
printed newspapers. We would deem it a great 
mistake if any worker regarded such a newspaper, irrespective 
of the conditions under which it was published 
or of the trend it pursued, as the mouthpiece of his, the 
worker¹s, interests. The government, which ³takes care² 
of the workers, is in a splendid position as far as such 
newspapers are concerned. A whole horde of officials, 
called censors, are attached to them, and it is their 
special function to watch them and to resort to red ink 
and scissors if even a single ray of truth breaks through. 
Circular after circular comes flying to the committee 
of censors ordering: ³Don¹t pass anything concerning 
the workers; don¹t publish anything about this or that

J. V. S T A L I N 4
event; don¹t permit the discussion of such and such a 
subject,² and so on and so forth. Under these conditions, 
it is, of course, impossible for a newspaper to be run 
properly; and in vain will the worker seek in its columns, 
even between the lines, for information on and a correct 
appraisal of matters that concern him. If anybody were 
to believe that a worker can gain any benefit from the 
rare lines that appear in this or that legally printed 
newspaper casually mentioning matters concerning him, 
and let through by the butchering censors only by mistake, 
we would have to say that he who placed his hopes 
on such fragments and attempted to build up a system 
of propaganda on such snippets would display lack of 
understanding. 
We repeat that we are saying this only for the information 
of a few uninitiated readers. 
And so, a Georgian free periodical is something the 
Social-Democratic movement needs very urgently. The 
only question now is how to run such a publication; 
by what should it be guided, and what should it give the 
Georgian Social-Democrats. 
From the point of view of the onlooker, the question 
of the existence of a Georgian newspaper in general, and 
the question of its content and trend in particular, 
may seem to settle themselves naturally and simply: 
the Georgian Social-Democratic movement is not a separate, 
exclusively Georgian, working-class movement with 
its own separate programme; i t goes hand in hand 
with the entire Russian movement and, consequently, 
accepts the authority of the Russian Social-Democratic 
Party‹hence it is clear that a Georgian Social-Democratic 
newspaper should be only a local organ that deals mainly

FROM THE EDITORS 5 
with local questions and reflects the local movement. 
But behind this reply lurks a difficulty which we 
cannot ignore and which we shall inevitably encounter. 
We refer to the language difficulty. While the Central 
Committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Party 
is able to explain all general questions with the aid 
of the all-Party newspaper and leave it to the regional 
committees to deal only with local questions, the Georgian 
newspaper finds itself in a difficulty as regards 
content. The Georgian newspaper must simultaneously 
play the part of an all-Party and of a regional, or local 
organ. As the majority of Georgian working-class readers 
cannot freely read the Russian newspaper, the editors 
of the Georgian newspaper have no right to pass over 
those questions which the all-Party Russian newspaper 
is discussing, and should discuss. Thus, the Georgian 
newspaper must inform its readers about all questions 
of principle concerning theory and tactics. At the same 
time it must lead the local movement and throw proper 
light on every event, without leaving a single fact unexplained, 
and providing answers to all questions that 
excite the local workers. The Georgian newspaper must 
link up and unite the Georgian and Russian militant 
workers The newspaper must inform its readers about 
everything that interests them at home, in Russia and 
abroad. 
Such, in general, is our view of what the Georgian 
newspaper should be. 
A few words about the content and trend of the 
newspaper. 
We must demand that as a Social-Democratic newspaper 
it should devote attention mainly to the militants

J. V. S T A L I N 6
workers. We think it superfluous to say that in Russia, 
and everywhere, the revolutionary proletariat alone is 
destined by history to liberate mankind and bring the 
world happiness. Clearly, only the working-class movement 
stands on solid ground, and it alone is free from 
all sorts of utopian fairy tales. Consequently, the newspaper, 
as the organ of the Social-Democrats, should lead 
the working-class movement, point the road for i t , 
and safeguard it from error. In short, the primary duty 
of the newspaper is to be as close to the masses of the 
workers as possible, to be able constantly to influence 
them and serve as their conscious and guiding centre. 
As, however, in the conditions prevailing in Russia 
today, it is possible that other elements of society besides 
the workers may come out as the champions of ³freedom,² 
and as this freedom is the immediate goal of the militant 
workers of Russia, it is the duty of the newspaper to 
afford space for every revolutionary movement, even one 
outside the labour movement. We say ³afford space² 
not only for casual information, or simply news. No! 
The newspaper must devote special attention to the 
revolutionary movement that goes on, or will arise, 
among other elements of society. It must explain every 
social phenomenon and thereby influence every one who 
is fighting for freedom. Hence, the newspaper must 
devote special attention to the political situation in 
Russia, weigh up all the consequences of this situation, 
and on the widest possible basis raise the question of the 
necessity of waging a political struggle. 
We are convinced that nobody will quote our words 
as proof that we advocate establishing connection and 
compromising with the bourgeoisie. The proper appraisal,

FROM THE EDITORS 7 
the exposure of the weaknesses and errors of the movement 
against the existing system, even if it proceeds among 
the bourgeoisie, cannot cast the stain of opportunism 
on the Social-Democrats. The only thing here is not to 
forget Social-Democratic principles and revolutionary 
methods of fighting. If we measure every movement 
with this yardstick, we shall keep free of all Bernsteinian 
delusions. 
Thus, the Georgian Social-Democratic newspaper must 
provide plain answers to all questions connected with the 
working-class movement, explain questions of principle, 
explain theoretically the role the working class plays 
in the struggle, and throw the light of scientific socialism 
upon every phenomenon the workers encounter. 
At the same time, the newspaper must serve as the 
representative of the Russian Social-Democratic Party 
and give its readers timely information about all the 
views on tactics held by Russian revolutionary Social- 
Democracy. It must inform its readers about how the 
workers in other countries live, what they are doing to 
improve their conditions, and how they are doing it, 
and issue a timely call to the Georgian workers to enter 
the battle-field. At the same time, the newspaper must 
not leave out of account, and without Social-Democratic 
criticism, a single social movement. 
Such is our view of what a Georgian newspaper 
should be. 
We cannot deceive either ourselves or our readers 
by promising to carry out these tasks in their entirety 
with the forces at present at our command. To run the 
newspaper as it really ought to be run we need the aid of 
our readers and sympathisers. The reader will note that

J. V. S T A L I N 8
the first number of Brdzola suffers from numerous defects, 
but defects which can be rectified, if only our readers 
give us their assistance. In particular, we emphasise 
the paucity of home news. Being at a distance from home 
we are unable to watch the revolutionary movement in 
Georgia and provide timely information and explanation 
concerning questions of that movement. Hence we must 
receive assistance from Georgia. Whoever wishes to assist 
us also with literary contributions will undoubtedly 
find means of establishing direct or indirect contact 
with the editors of Brdzola. 
We call upon all Georgian militant Social-Democrats 
to take a keen interest in the fate of Brdzola, to render 
every assistance in publishing and distributing it, and 
thereby convert the first free Georgian newspaper Brdzola 
into a weapon of the revolutionary struggle. 
Brdzola (The Struggle), No. 1, 
September 1901 
Unsigned 
Translated from the Georgian

THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC PARTY 
AND ITS IMMEDIATE TASKS 
I 
Human thought was obliged to undergo considerable 
trial, suffering and change before it reached scientifically 
elaborated and substantiated socialism. West-European 
Socialists were obliged for a long time to wander blindly 
in the wilderness of utopian (impossible, impracticable) 
socialism before they hewed a path for themselves, 
investigated and established the laws of social life, and 
hence, mankind¹s need for socialism. Since the beginning 
of the last century Europe has produced numerous brave, 
self-sacrificing and honest scientific workers who tried 
to explain and decide the question as to what can rid 
mankind of the ills which are becoming increasingly 
intense and acute with the development of trade and industry. 
Many storms, many torrents of blood swept over 
Western Europe in the struggle to end the oppression 
of the majority by the minority, but sorrow remained 
undispelled, wounds remained unhealed, and pain became 
more and more unendurable with every passing day. We 
must regard as one of the principal reasons for this the 
fact that utopian socialism did not investigate the laws 
of social life; it soared higher and higher above life,

J. V. S T A L I N 10 
whereas what was needed was firm contact with reality. 
The utopians set out to achieve socialism as an immediate 
object at a time when the ground for it was totally unprepared 
in real life‹and what was more deplorable 
because of its results‹the utopians expected that socialism 
would be brought into being by the powerful 
of this world who, they believed, could easily be convinced 
of the correctness of the socialist ideal (Robert 
Owen, Louis Blanc, Fourier and others). This outlook 
completely obscured from view the real labour movement 
and the masses of the workers, the only natural 
vehicle of the socialist ideal. The utopians could not 
understand this. They wanted to establish happiness 
on earth by legislation, by declarations, without the 
assistance of the people (the workers). They paid no 
particular attention to the labour movement and often 
even denied its importance. As a consequence, their 
theories remained mere theories which failed to affect 
the masses of the workers, among whom, quite independently 
of these theories, matured the great idea proclaimed 
in the middle of the last century by that genius, 
Karl Marx: ³The emancipation of the working class must 
be the act of the working class itself. . . . Workingmen 
of all countries, unite!² 
These words brought out the truth, now evident even 
to the ³blind,² that what was needed to bring about the 
socialist ideal was the independent action of the workers 
and their amalgamation into an organised force, irrespective 
of nationality and country. It was necessary to establish 
this truth‹and this was magnificently performed 
by Marx and his friend Engels‹in order to lay firm 
foundations for the mighty Social-Democratic Party,

THE R.S.D.L.P. AND ITS IMMEDIATE TASKS 11 
which today towers like inexorable fate over the European 
bourgeois system, threatening its destruction and the 
erection on its ruins of a socialist system. 
In Russia the evolution of the idea of socialism followed 
almost the same path as that in Western Europe. 
In Russia, too, Socialists were obliged for a long time to 
wander blindly before they reached Social-Democratic 
consciousness‹scientific socialism. Here, too, there 
were Socialists and there was a labour movement, but 
they marched independently of each other, going separate 
ways: the Socialists towards utopian dreams (Zemlya 
i Volya, Narodnaya Volya*), and the labour movement 
towards spontaneous revolts. Both operated in the same 
period -(seventies-eighties) ignorant of each other. The 
Socialists had no roots among the working population 
and, consequently, their activities were abstract, futile. 
The workers, on the other hand, lacked leaders, organisers, 
and, consequently, their movement took the form of disorderly 
revolts. This was the main reason why the heroic 
struggle that the Socialists waged for socialism remained 
fruitless, and why their legendary courage was shattered 
against the solid wall of autocracy. The Russian Socialists 
established contact with the masses of the workers 
only at the beginning of the nineties. They realised 
that salvation lay only in the working class, and that 
this class alone would bring about the socialist ideal. 
Russian Social-Democracy now concentrated all its efforts 
and attention upon the movement that was going 
on among the Russian workers at that time. Still 
* Zemlya i Volya‹Land and Freedom; Narodnaya Volya‹ 
People¹s Will.‹Tr.

J. V. S T A L I N 12 
inadequately class conscious, and ill-equipped for the 
struggle, the Russian workers tried gradually to extricate 
themselves from their hopeless position and to 
improve their lot somehow. There was no systematic 
organisational work in that movement at the time, of 
course; the movement was a spontaneous one. 
And so, Social-Democracy set to work upon this 
unconscious, spontaneous and unorganised movement. 
It tried to develop the class consciousness of the workers, 
tried to unite the isolated and sporadic struggles of individual 
groups of workers against individual masters, 
to combine them in a common class struggle, in order 
that it might become the struggle of the Russian working 
class against the oppressing class of Russia; and it 
tried to give this struggle an organised character. 
In the initial stages, Social-Democracy was unable 
to spread its activities among the masses of the workers 
and it, therefore, confined its activities to propaganda 
and agitation circles. The only form of activity i t 
engaged in at that time was to conduct study circles. 
The object of these circles was to create among the 
workers themselves a group that would subsequently 
be able to lead the movement. Therefore, these circles 
were made up of advanced workers‹only chosen workers 
could attend them. 
But soon the study-circle period passed away. 
Social-Democracy soon felt the necessity of leaving the 
narrow confines of the circles and of spreading its influence 
among the broad masses of the workers. This 
was facilitated by external conditions. At that time the 
spontaneous movement among the workers rose to an 
exceptional height. Who of you does not remember the

THE R.S.D.L.P. AND ITS IMMEDIATE TASKS 13 
year when nearly the whole of Tiflis was involved in 
this spontaneous movement? Unorganised strikes at the 
tobacco factories and in the railway workshops followed 
one after another. Here, it happened in 1897-98; in Russia 
it happened somewhat earlier. Timely assistance was 
needed, and Social-Democracy hastened to render that 
assistance. A struggle started for a shorter working day, 
for the abolition of fines, for higher wages, and so forth. 
Social-Democracy well knew that the development of 
the labour movement could not be restricted to these 
petty demands, that these demands were not the goal 
of the movement, but only a means of achieving the goal. 
Even if these demands were petty, even if the workers 
themselves in individual towns and districts were now 
fighting separately, that fight itself would teach the 
workers that complete victory would be achieved only 
when the entire working class launched an assault against 
its enemy as a united, strong and organised force. This 
fight would also show the workers that in addition to 
their immediate enemy, the capitalist, they have another, 
still more vigilant foe‹the organised force of the entire 
bourgeois class, the present capitalist state, with its 
armed forces, its courts, police, prisons and gendarmerie. 
If even in Western Europe the slightest attempt 
of the workers to improve their condition comes into 
collision with the bourgeois power, if in Western Europe, 
where human rights have already been won, the workers 
are obliged to wage a direct struggle against the authorities, 
how much more so must the workers in Russia, 
in their movement, inevitably come into collision with 
the autocratic power, which is the vigilant foe of every 
labour movement, not only because this power protects

J. V. S T A L I N 14 
the capitalists, but also because, as an autocratic power, 
it cannot resign itself to the independent action of social 
classes, particularly to the independent action of a class 
like the working class, which is more oppressed and 
downtrodden than other classes. That is how Russia 
Social-Democracy perceived the course of the movement, 
and it exerted all its efforts to spread these ideas among 
the workers. Herein lay its strength, and this explains its 
great and triumphant development from the very outset, 
as was proved by the great strike of the workers in the 
St. Petersburg weaving mills in 1896. 
But the first victories misled and turned the heads 
of certain weaklings. Just as the Utopian Socialists 
in their time had concentrated their attention exclusively 
on the ultimate goal and, dazzled by it, totally 
failed to see, or denied, the real labour movement that 
was developing under their very eyes, so certain Russian 
Social-Democrats, on the contrary, devoted all their 
attention exclusively to the spontaneous labour movement, 
to its everyday needs. At that time (five years 
ago), the class consciousness of the Russian workers 
was extremely low. The Russian workers were only just 
awakening from their age-long sleep, and their eyes, 
accustomed to darkness, failed, of course, to register 
all that was happening in a world that had become 
revealed to them for the first time. Their needs were not 
great, and so their demands were not great. The Russian 
workers still went no further than to demand slight 
increases in wages or a reduction of the working day. 
That it was necessary to change the existing system, 
that it was necessary to abolish private property, that 
it was necessary to organise a socialist system‹of all

THE R.S.D.L.P. AND ITS IMMEDIATE TASKS 15 
this the masses of the Russian workers had no inkling. 
They scarcely dared to think about abolishing the slavery 
in which the entire Russian people were submerged 
under the autocratic regime, to think about freedom for 
the people, to think about the people taking part in the 
government of the country. And so, while one section 
of Russian Social-Democracy deemed it its duty to carry 
its socialist ideas into the labour movement, the other 
part, absorbed in the economic struggle‹the struggle 
for partial improvements in the conditions of the workers 
(as for example, reduction of the working day and higher 
wages)‹was prone to forget entirely its great duty and 
its great ideals. 
Echoing their like-minded friends in Western Europe 
(called Bernsteinians), they said: ³For us the movement 
is everything‹the final aim is nothing.² They were not 
in the least interested in what the working class was 
fighting for so long as it fought. The so-called farthing 
policy developed. Things reached such a pass that, one 
fine day, the St. Petersburg newspaper Rabochaya Mysl 2 
announced. ³Our political programme is a ten-hour day 
and the restitution of the holidays that were abolished 
by the law of June 2² 3(!!!).* 
Instead of leading the spontaneous movement, instead 
of imbuing the masses with Social-Democratic 
ideals and guiding them towards the achievement of our 
final aim, this section of the Russian Social-Democrats 
* I t must be stated that lately the St. Petersburg League 
of Struggle, and the editorial board of its newspaper, renounced 
their previous, exclusively economic, trend, and are now trying 
to introduce the idea of the political struggle into their activities.

J. V. S T A L I N 16 
became a blind instrument of the movement; i t 
blindly followed in the wake of the inadequately educated 
section of the workers and limited itself to formulating 
those needs and requirements of which the masses of the 
workers were conscious at the time. In short, it stood and 
knocked at an open door, not daring to enter the house. 
It proved incapable of explaining to the masses of the 
workers either the final aim‹socialism, or even the 
immediate aim‹the overthrow of the autocracy; and 
what was still more deplorable, it regarded all this as 
useless and even harmful. It looked upon the Russian 
workers as children and was afraid of frightening them 
with such daring ideas. Nor is this all: in the opinion of 
a certain section of Social-Democracy, it was not necessary 
to wage a revolutionary struggle to bring about socialism; 
all that was needed, in their opinion, was the economic 
struggle‹strikes and trade unions, consumers¹ 
and producers¹ co-operative societies, and there you have 
socialism. It regarded as mistaken the doctrine of the 
old international Social-Democracy that a change in the 
existing system and the complete emancipation of the 
workers were impossible until political power had passed 
into the hands of the proletariat (the dictatorship of the 
proletariat). In its opinion there was nothing new in 
socialism and, strictly speaking, it did not differ from 
the existing capitalist system: it could easily fit into the 
existing system, every trade union and even every 
co-operative store or producers¹ co-operative society was 
already a ³bit of socialism,² they said. They imagined 
that by means of this absurd patching of old clothes 
they could make new garments for suffering mankind! 
But most deplorable of all, and in itself unintelligible

THE R.S.D.L.P. AND ITS IMMEDIATE TASKS 17 
to revolutionaries, is the fact that this section of the 
Russian Social-Democrats have expanded the doctrine 
of their West-European teachers (Bernstein and Co.) to 
such a degree that they brazenly state that political 
freedom (freedom to strike, freedom of association, freedom 
of speech, etc.) is compatible with tsarism and, therefore, 
a political struggle as such, the struggle to overthrow the 
autocracy, is quite superfluous because, if you please, 
the economic struggle alone is enough to achieve the aim, 
it is enough for strikes to occur more often‹despite 
government prohibition‹for the government to tire 
of punishing the strikers, and in this way freedom to 
strike and to hold meetings will come of its own accord. 
Thus, these alleged ³Social-Democrats² argued that 
the Russian workers should devote all their strength and 
energy entirely to the: economic struggle and should 
refrain from pursuing all sorts of ³lofty ideals.² In practice, 
their actions found expression in the view that it 
was their duty to conduct only local activities in this or 
that town. They displayed no interest in the organisation 
of a Social-Democratic workers¹ party in Russia; on the 
contrary, they regarded the organisation of a party as a 
ridiculous and amusing game which would hinder them 
in the execution of their direct ³duty²‹to wage the economic 
struggle. Strikes and more strikes, and the collection 
of kopeks-for strike funds‹such was the alpha 
and omega of their activities. 
You will no doubt think that since they have whittled 
down their tasks to such a degree, since they have 
renounced Social-Democratism, these worshippers of 
the spontaneous ³movement² would have done a great 
deal, at least for that movement. But here, too, we are

J. V. S T A L I N 18 
deceived. The history of the St. Petersburg movement 
convinces us of this. Its splendid development and bold 
progress in the early stages, in 1895-97, was succeeded 
by blind wandering and, finally, the movement came 
to a halt. This is not surprising: all the efforts of the 
³Economists² to build up a stable organisation for the 
economic struggle invariably came up against the solid 
wall of the government and were always shattered against 
it. The frightful regime of police persecution destroyed 
all possibility of any kind of industrial organisation. 
Nor did the strikes bear any fruit, because out of every 
hundred strikes, ninety-nine were strangled in the 
clutches of the police; workers were ruthlessly ejected from 
St. Petersburg and their revolutionary energy was pitilessly 
sapped by prison walls and Siberian frosts. We 
are profoundly convinced that this check (relative of 
course) to the movement was due not only to external 
conditions, the police regime; it was due no less to the check 
in the development of the very ideas, of the class consciousness 
of the workers, and, hence, to the waning of 
their revolutionary energy. 
Although the movement was developing, the workers 
could not widely understand the lofty aims and content 
of the struggle because the banner under which the 
Russian workers had to fight was still the old faded rag 
with its farthing motto of the economic struggle; consequently, 
the workers were bound to wage this struggle 
with reduced energy, reduced enthusiasm, reduced revolutionary 
striving, for great energy is engendered only 
for a great aim. 
But the danger that threatened this movement as a 
result of this would have been greater had not our con

THE R.S.D.L.P. AND ITS IMMEDIATE TASKS 19 
ditions of life, day by day and with increasing persistence, 
pushed the Russian workers towards the direct 
political struggle. Even a small simple strike brought 
the workers right up against the question of our lack of 
political rights, brought them into collision with the 
government and the armed forces, and glaringly revealed 
how inadequate the economic struggle was by itself. 
Consequently, despite the wishes of these ³Social-Democrats,² 
the struggle, day by day, increasingly assumed 
a distinctly political character. Every attempt of the 
awakened workers openly to express their discontent 
with the existing economic and political conditions under 
which the Russian workers are groaning today, every 
attempt to free themselves from this yoke, impelled the 
workers to resort to demonstrations of a kind in which 
the economic aspect of the struggle faded out more 
and more. The First of May celebrations in Russia laid 
the road to political struggle and to political demonstrations. 
And to the only weapon they possessed 
in their struggle in the past‹the strike‹the Russian 
workers added a new and powerful weapon‹the political 
demonstration, which was tried for the first 
time during the great Kharkov May Day rally in 1900. 
Thus, thanks to its internal development, the Russian 
labour movement proceeded from propaganda in study 
circles and the economic struggle by means of strikes 
to political struggle and agitation. 
This transition was markedly accelerated when the 
working class saw in the arena of the struggle elements 
from other social classes in Russia, marching with firm 
determination to win political freedom.

J. V. S T A L I N 20 
II 
The working class is not the only class that is groaning 
under the yoke of the tsarist regime. The heavy 
fist of the autocracy is also crushing other social classes. 
Groaning under the yoke are the Russian peasants, 
wasted from constant starvation, impoverished by the 
unbearable burden of taxation and thrown to the mercy 
of the grasping bourgeois traders and the ³noble² landlords. 
Groaning under the yoke are the little people in 
the towns, the minor employees in government and 
private offices, the minor officials‹in general, that 
numerous lower class of the urban population whose 
existence is as insecure as that of the working class, and 
which has every reason to be discontented with its social 
conditions. Groaning under the yoke is that section of 
the petty bourgeoisie and even of the middle bourgeoisie 
which cannot resign itself to the tsar ¹s knout and 
lash; this applies especially to the educated section of 
the bourgeoisie, the so-called representatives of the 
liberal professions (teachers, physicians, lawyers, university 
and high-school students). Groaning under the yoke 
are the oppressed nations and religious communities in 
Russia, including the Poles, who are being driven from 
their native land and whose most sacred sentiments are 
being outraged, and the Finns, whose rights and liberties, 
granted by history, the autocracy is arrogantly trampling 
underfoot. Groaning under the yoke are the eternally 
persecuted and humiliated Jews who lack even the 
miserably few rights enjoyed by other Russian subjects 
‹the right to live in any part of the country they choose, 
the right to attend school, the right to be employed

THE R.S.D.L.P. AND ITS IMMEDIATE TASKS 21 
in government service, and so forth. Groaning are the 
Georgians, Armenians, and other nations who are deprived 
of the right to have their own schools and be 
employed in government offices, and are compelled to 
submit to the shameful and oppressive policy of Russification 
so zealously pursued by the autocracy. Groaning 
are the many millions of Russian non-conformists 
who wish to believe and worship in accordance with 
the dictates of their conscience and not with the wishes 
of the orthodox priests. Groaning are . . . but it is 
impossible to enumerate all the oppressed, all who are 
persecuted by the Russian autocracy. They are so numerous 
that if they were all aware of this, and were aware 
who their common enemy is, the despotic regime in 
Russia would not exist another day. Unfortunately, 
the Russian peasantry is still downtrodden by agelong 
slavery, poverty and ignorance; it is only just 
awakening, it does not yet know who its enemy is. The 
oppressed nations in Russia cannot even dream of liberating 
themselves by their own efforts so long as they 
are opposed not only by the Russian government, but 
even by the Russian people, who have not yet realised 
that their common enemy is the autocracy. There remain 
the working class, the little people among the 
urban population, and the educated section of the bourgeoisie. 
But the bourgeoisie of all countries and nations is 
very skilful in reaping the fruits of another¹s victory, 
very skilful in getting others to pull its chestnuts out 
of the fire. It never wishes to jeopardise its own relatively 
privileged position in the struggle against the 
powerful foe, the struggle which, as yet, it is not so easy

J. V. S T A L I N 22 
to win. Although it is discontented, its conditions of 
life are tolerable and, therefore, it gladly yields to 
the working class, and to the common people in general, 
the right to offer their backs to the Cossacks¹ whips 
and the soldiers¹ bullets, to fight at the barricades, and 
so forth. It ³sympathises² with the struggle and at best 
expresses ³indignation² (under its breath) at the cruelty 
with which the brutal enemy is quelling the popular 
movement. It is afraid of revolutionary action 
and resorts to revolutionary measures itself only at 
the last moment of the struggle, when the enemy¹s 
impotence is evident. This is what the experience of 
history teaches us. . . . Only the working class, and 
the people generally, who in the struggle have nothing 
to lose but their chains, they, only they, constitute 
a genuine revolutionary force. And Russia¹s experience, 
although still meagre, confirms this ancient 
truth taught by the history of all revolutionary movements. 
Of the representatives of the privileged class only 
a section of the students have displayed determination to 
fight to the end for the satisfaction of their demands. But 
we must not forget that this section, too, of the students 
consists of sons of these same oppressed citizens, and that, 
until they have plunged into the sea of life and have occupied 
a definite social position, the students, being young 
intellectuals, are more inclined than any other category 
to strive for ideals which call them to fight for 
freedom. 
Be that as it may, at the present time the students 
are coming out in the ³social² movement almost as 
leaders, as the vanguard. The discontented sections of

THE R.S.D.L.P. AND ITS IMMEDIATE TASKS 23 
different social classes are now rallying around them. 
At first the students tried to fight with a weapon borrowed 
from the workers‹the strike. But when the government 
retaliated to their strikes by passing the brutal 
law (³Provisional Regulations²4) under which students 
who went on strike were drafted into the army, the students 
had only one weapon left‹to demand assistance 
from the Russian public and to pass from strikes to street 
demonstrations. And that is what the students did. 
They did not lay down their arms; on the contrary, they 
fought still more bravely and resolutely. Around them 
rallied the oppressed citizens, a helping hand was offered 
them by the working class, and the movement 
became powerful, a menace to the government. For two 
years already, the government of Russia has been wag 
ing a fierce but fruitless struggle against the rebellious 
citizens with the aid of its numerous troops, police 
and gendarmes. 
The events of the past few days prove that political 
demonstrations cannot be defeated. The events in the 
early days of December in Kharkov, Moscow, Nizhni- 
Novgorod, Riga and other places show that public discontent 
is now manifesting itself consciously, and that 
the discontented public is ready to pass from silent protest 
to revolutionary action. But the demands of the 
students for freedom of education, for non-interference 
in internal university life, are too narrow for :the 
broad social movement. To unite all the participants 
in this movement a banner is needed, a banner that will 
be understood and cherished by all and will combine 
all demands. Such a banner is one inscribed: Overthrow 
the autocracy. Only on the ruins of the autocracy

J. V. S T A L I N 24 
will it be possible to build a social system that will 
be based on government by the people and ensure 
freedom of education, freedom to strike, freedom of 
speech, freedom of religion, freedom for nationalities, 
etc., etc. Only such a system will provide the people 
with means to protect themselves against all oppressors, 
against the grasping merchants and capitalists, 
the clergy and the nobility; only such a system 
will open a free road to a better future, to the unhindered 
struggle for the establishment of the socialist 
system. 
The students cannot, of course, wage this stupendous 
struggle by their own efforts alone; their weak hands 
cannot hold this heavy banner. To hold this banner 
stronger hands are needed, and under present conditions 
this strength lies only in the united forces- of 
the working people. Hence, the working class must 
take the all-Russian banner out of the weak hands of 
the students and, inscribing on it the slogan: ³Down 
with the autocracy! Long live a democratic constitution!², 
lead the Russian people to freedom. We 
must be grateful to the students for the lesson they 
have taught us: they showed how enormously important 
political demonstrations are in the revolutionary 
struggle. 
Street demonstrations are interesting in that they 
quickly draw large masses of the people into the movement, 
acquaint them with our demands at once and create 
extensive favourable soil in which we can boldly sow 
the seeds of socialist ideas and of political freedom. 
Street demonstrations give rise to street agitation, to 
the influence of which the backward and timid section

THE R.S.D.L.P. AND ITS IMMEDIATE TASKS 29 
of society cannot help yielding.* A man has only to go out 
into the street during a demonstration to see courageous 
fighters, to understand what they are fighting for, to 
hear free voices calling upon everybody to join the 
struggle, and militant songs denouncing the existing 
system and exposing our social evils. That is why the 
government fears street demonstrations more than anything 
else. That is why it threatens with dire punishment 
not only the demonstrators, but also the ³curious 
onlookers.² In this curiosity of the people lurks the 
chief danger that threatens the government: the ³curious 
onlooker² of today will be a demonstrator tomorrow 
and rally new groups of ³curious onlookers² around himself. 
And today there are tens of thousands of such ³curious 
onlookers² in every large town. Russians no longer 
run into hiding, as they did before, on hearing of disorders 
taking place somewhere or other (³I¹d better get out 
of the way in case I get into trouble,² they used to say); 
today they flock to the scene of the disorders and evince 
³curiosity²: they are eager to know why these disorders 
are taking place, why so many people offer their backs 
to the lash of the Cossacks¹ whip. 
In these circumstances, the ³curious onlookers² 
cease to listen indifferently to the swish of whips 
and sabres. The ³curious onlookers² see that the demonstrators 
have assembled in the streets to express their 
wishes and demands, and that the government retaliates 
* Under the conditions a t present prevailing in Russia 
illegally printed books and agitation leaflets reach each inhabitant 
wi t h enormous difficulty. Although the effects of the 
distribution of such literature are considerable, in most cases 
it covers only a minority of the population.

J. V. S T A L I N 26 
by beatings and brutal suppression. The ³curious onlookers² 
no longer run away on hearing the swish of whips; 
on the contrary, they draw nearer, and the whips can 
no longer distinguish between the ³curious onlookers² 
and the ³rioters.² Now, conforming to ³complete 
democratic equality² the whips play on the backs 
of all, irrespective of sex, age and even class. Thereby, 
the whip lash is rendering us a great service, for 
it is hastening the revolutionisation of the ³curious 
onlookers.² It is being transformed from an instrument 
for taming into an instrument for rousing the people. 
Hence, even if street demonstrations do not produce 
direct results for us, even if the demonstrators are still 
too weak today to compel the government immediately 
to yield to the popular demands‹the sacrifices we make 
in street demonstrations today will be compensated a 
hundredfold. Every militant who falls in the struggle, or 
is torn out of our ranks, rouses hundreds of new fighters. 
For the time being we shall be beaten more than 
once in the street; the government will continue to emerge 
victorious from street fighting again and again; but 
these will be Pyrrhic victories. A few more victories 
like these‹and the defeat of absolutism is inevitable. 
The victories it achieves today are preparing its defeat. 
And we, firmly convinced that that day will come, that 
that day is not far distant, risk the lash in order to 
sow the seeds of political agitation and socialism. 
The government is no less convinced than we are 
that street agitation spells its death warrant, that within 
another two or three years the spectre of a people¹s revolution 
will loom before it. The other day the government 
announced through the mouth of the Governor of

THE R.S.D.L.P. AND ITS IMMEDIATE TASKS 27 
Yekaterinoslav Gubernia that it ³will not hesitate to 
resort to extreme measures to crush the slightest attempt 
at a street demonstration.² As you see, this statement 
smacks of bullets, and perhaps even of shells, but we 
think that bullets are no less potent than whips as a 
means of rousing discontent. We do not think that the 
government will be able even with the aid of such ³extreme 
measures² to restrain political agitation for long 
and hinder its development. We hope that revolutionary 
Social-Democracy will succeed in adjusting its agitation 
to the new conditions which the government will create 
by resorting to these ³extreme measures.² In any case, 
Social-Democracy must watch events vigilantly, it must 
quickly apply the lessons taught by these events, and 
skilfully adjust its activities to the changing conditions. 
But to be able to do this, Social-Democracy must 
have a strong and compact organisation, to be precise, 
a party organisation, that is united not only in name, 
but also in its fundamental principles and tactical views. 
Our task is to work to create this strong party that is 
armed with firm principles and impenetrable secrecy. 
The Social-Democratic Party must take advantage of 
the new street movement that has commenced, it must 
take the banner of Russian democracy into its own hands 
and lead it to the victory that all desire! 
Thus, there is opening up before us a period of primarily 
political struggle. Such a struggle is inevitable for us 
because, under present political conditions, the economic 
struggle (strikes) cannot produce substantial results. 
Even in free countries the strike is a two-edged sword: 
even there, although the workers possess the means

J. V. S T A L I N 28 
of fighting‹political freedom, strongly organised labour 
unions and large funds‹strikes often end in the defeat 
of the workers. In our country, however, where strikes 
are a crime punishable by arrest and are suppressed by 
armed force, where all labour unions are prohibited, 
strikes acquire the significance only of a protest. For the 
purpose of protest, however, demonstrations are far more 
powerful weapons. In strikes the forces of the workers 
are dispersed; the workers of only one factory, or of 
a few factories and, at best, of one trade, take part; the 
organisation of a general strike is a very difficult matter 
even in Western Europe, but in our country it is quite 
impossible. In street demonstrations, however, the workers 
unite their forces at once. 
All this shows what a narrow view is taken by those 
³Social-Democrats² who want to confine the labour 
movement to the economic struggle and industrial organisation, 
to leave the political struggle to the ³intelligentsia,² 
to the students, to society, and assign to the 
workers only the role of an auxiliary force. History 
teaches that under such circumstances the workers will 
merely pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the bourgeoisie. 
The bourgeoisie, as a rule, gladly utilise the muscular 
arms of the workers in the struggle against autocratic 
government, and when victory has been achieved 
they reap its fruits and leave the workers empty-handed; 
If this happens in our country, the workers will gain 
nothing from this struggle. As regards the students and 
other dissidents among the public‹they, after all, also 
belong to the bourgeoisie. It will be sufficient to give 
them a harmless, ³plucked constitution² that grants 
the people only the most insignificant rights, for all

THE R.S.D.L.P. AND ITS IMMEDIATE TASKS 29 
these dissidents to sing a different song: they will 
begin to extol the ³new² regime. The bourgeoisie live 
in constant dread of the ³red spectre² of communism, 
and in all revolutions they try to put a stop to things 
when they are only just beginning. After receiving a tiny 
concession in their favour they, terrified by the workers, 
stretch out a hand of conciliation to the government 
and shamelessly betray the cause of freedom.* 
The working class alone is a reliable bulwark of genuine 
democracy. It alone finds it impossible to compromise 
with the autocracy for the sake of a concession, and it 
will not allow itself to be lulled by sweet songs sung to 
the accompaniment of the constitutional lute. 
Hence the question as to whether the working class 
will succeed in taking the lead in the general democratic 
movement, or whether it will drag at the tail of the 
movement in the capacity of an auxiliary force of the 
³intelligentsia,² i.e., the bourgeoisie, is an extremely 
important one for the cause of democracy in Russia. In 
the former case, the overthrow of the autocracy will 
result in a broad democratic constitution, which will 
grant equal rights to the workers, to the downtrodden 
peasantry and to the capitalists. In the latter case, we 
shall have that ³plucked constitution,² which will be 
able, no less than absolutism, to trample upon the demands 
of the workers and will grant the people the mere 
shadow of freedom. 
* Here, of course, we do not mean that section of the intelligentsia 
which is already renouncing its class and is fighting in 
the ranks of the Social-Democrats. But such intellectuals are 
only exceptions, they are ³white ravens.²

J. V. S T A L I N 30 
But in order to be able to play this leading role, 
the working class must organise in an independent political 
party. If it does that, no betrayal or treachery on 
the part of its temporary ally‹³society²‹will have 
any terrors for it in the struggle against absolutism. The 
moment this ³society² betrays the cause of democracy, 
the working class itself will lead that cause forward by 
its own efforts‹the independent political party will 
give it the necessary strength to do so. 
Brdzola (The Struggle), No. 2-3, 
November-December 1901 
Unsigned 
Translated from the Georgian

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC VIEW 
ON THE NATIONAL QUESTION 
I 
Everything changes. . . . Social life changes, and 
with it the ³national question² changes, too. At different 
periods different classes enter the arena, and each class 
has its own view of the ³national question.² Consequently, 
in different periods the ³national question² serves different 
interests and assumes different shades, according to 
which class raises it, and when. 
For instance, we had the so-called ³national question² 
of the nobility, when‹after the ³annexation of Georgia 
to Russia²‹the Georgian nobility, realising how disadvantageous 
it was for them to lose the old privileges 
and power they had enjoyed under the Georgian kings, 
and regarding the status of ³mere subjects² as being 
derogatory to their dignity wanted the ³liberation of 
Georgia.² Their aim was to place the Georgian kings and 
the Georgian nobility at the head of ³Georgia,² and thus 
place the destiny of the Georgian people in their hands! 
That was feudal-monarchist ³nationalism.² This ³movement² 
left no visible trace in the life of the Georgians; 
not a single fact sheds glory on it, if we leave out of 
account isolated conspiracies hatched by Georgian nobles

J. V. S T A L I N 32 
against the Russian rulers in the Caucasus. A slight touch 
from the events of social life to this already feeble ³movement² 
was enough to cause it to collapse to its foundations. 
Indeed, the development of commodity production, 
the abolition of serfdom, the establishment of the Nobles¹ 
Bank, the intensification of class antagonisms in town 
and country, the growth of the poor peasants¹ movement, 
etc.‹all this dealt a mortal blow to the Georgian nobility 
and, with it, to ³feudal-monarchist nationalism.² 
The Georgian nobility split into two groups. One renounced 
all ³nationalism² and stretched forth its hand to 
the Russian autocracy with the object of obtaining soft 
jobs, cheap credit and agricultural implements, the 
government¹s protection against the rural ³rebels,² etc. 
The other, the weaker section of the Georgian nobility; 
struck up a friendship with the Georgian bishops and 
archimandrites, and thus found under the protecting wing 
of clericalism a sanctuary for the ³nationalism² which is 
being hounded by realities. This group is working zealously 
to restore ruined Georgian churches (that is the main 
item in its ³programme²!)‹³the monuments of departed 
glory²‹and is reverently waiting for a miracle that will 
enable it to achieve its feudal-monarchist ³aspirations.² 
Thus, in the last moments of its existence, feudal-
monarchist nationalism has assumed a clerical 
form. 
Meanwhile, our contemporary social life has brought 
the national question of the bourgeoisie to the fore. When 
the young Georgian bourgeoisie realised how difficult it 
was to contend with the free competition of ³foreign² 
capitalists, it began, through the mouths of the Georgian 
National-Democrats, to prattle about an independent

FROM MARX 
TO MAO 

 
NOT FOR 
COMMERCIAL 
DISTRIBUTION 
33 
Georgia. The Georgian bourgeoisie wanted to fence off 
the Georgian market with a tariff wall, to drive the 
³foreign² bourgeoisie from this market by force, artificially 
raise prices, and by means of ³patriotic² tricks 
of this sort to achieve success in the money-making 
arena. 
This was, and is, the aim of the nationalism of the 
Georgian bourgeoisie. Needless to say, to achieve this 
aim, strength was required‹but only the proletariat 
possessed this strength. Only the proletariat could infuse 
life into the emasculated ³patriotism² of the bourgeoisie. 
It was necessary to win over the proletariat‹ 
and so the ³National-Democrats² appeared on the scene. 
They spent a great deal of ammunition in the endeavour 
to refute scientific socialism, decried the Social-Democrats 
and advised the Georgian proletarians to desert 
them, lauded the Georgian proletariat and urged it to 
strengthen in one way or another the Georgian bourgeoisie 
³in the interests of the workers themselves.² They 
pleaded incessantly with the Georgian proletarians: 
Don¹t ruin ³Georgia² (or the Georgian bourgeoisie?), 
forget ³internal differences,² make friends with the 
Georgian bourgeoisie, etc. But all in vain! The honeyed 
words of the bourgeois publicists failed to lull the Georgian 
proletariat! The merciless attacks of the Georgian 
Marxists and, particularly, the powerful class actions 
which welded Russian, Armenian, Georgian and other 
proletarians into a single socialist force, dealt our bourgeois 
nationalists a crushing blow and drove them from 
the battle-field. 
Since our fugitive patriots were unable to assimilate 
socialist views, they were obliged, ³in order to 
THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF THE NATIONAL QUESTION

J. V. S T A L I N 34 
rehabilitate their tarnished names,² ³at least to 
change their colour,² at least to deck themselves in socialist 
garb. And indeed, an illegal . . . bourgeois-nationalist 
‹³socialist,² if you please‹organ suddenly appeared 
on the scene, Sakartvelo5! That was how they wanted to 
seduce the Georgian workers! But it was too late! The 
Georgian workers had learned to distinguish between 
black and white, they easily guessed that the bourgeois 
nationalists had ³changed only the colour² but not the 
substance of their views, that Sakartvelo was socialist 
only in name. They realised this and made a laughing-
stock of these ³saviours² of Georgia! The hopes of 
the Don Quixotes of Sakartvelo were dashed to the ground! 
On the other hand, our economic development is 
gradually building a bridge between the advanced circles 
of the Georgian bourgeoisie and ³Russia²; it is connecting 
these circles with ³Russia² both economically and 
politically, thereby cutting the ground from under the 
feet of already tottering bourgeois nationalism. This is 
another blow to bourgeois nationalism! 
A new class has entered the arena‹the proletariat‹ 
and, with it, a new ³national question,² has arisen‹³the 
national question² of the proletariat. And the ³national 
question² raised by the proletariat differs from the 
³national question² of the nobility and of the bourgeoisie 
to the same degree that the proletariat differs from 
the nobility and the bourgeoisie. 
Let us now discuss this ³nationalism.² 
What is the Social-Democratic view of the ³national 
question²? 
The proletariat of all Russia began to talk about the 
struggle long ago. As we know, the goal of every struggle

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF THE NATIONAL QUESTION 35 
is victory. But if the proletariat is to achieve victory, 
all the workers, irrespective of nationality, must be 
united. Clearly, the demolition of national barriers 
and close unity between the Russian, Georgian, Armenian, 
Polish, Jewish and other proletarians is a necessary 
condition for the victory of the proletariat of all 
Russia. 
That is in the interests of the proletariat of all Russia. 
But the Russian autocracy, the bitterest enemy of 
the proletariat of all Russia, is constantly counteracting 
the efforts to unite the proletarians. It brutally persecutes 
the national cultures, the languages, customs and 
institutions of the ³alien² nationalities in Russia. 
It deprives them of their essential civil rights, oppresses 
them in every way, hypocritically sows distrust and 
hostility among them and incites them to bloody 
collisions. This shows that its sole object is to sow discord 
among the nations that inhabit Russia, to intensify 
national strife among them, to reinforce national barriers 
in order more successfully to disunite the proletarians, 
more successfully to split the entire proletariat 
of Russia into small national groups and in this way 
bury the class consciousness of the workers, their class 
unity. 
That is in the interests of Russian reaction; such is 
the policy of the Russian autocracy. 
Obviously, sooner or later, the interests of the proletariat 
of all Russia inevitably had to come into collision 
with the tsarist autocracy¹s reactionary policy. 
That i s what actually happened and what brought 
up the ³national question² in the Social-Democratic 
movement.

J. V. S T A L I N 36 
How are the national barriers that have been raised 
between the nations to be demolished? How is national 
isolation to be eliminated in order to draw the proletarians 
of all Russia closer together and to unite them more 
closely? 
That is the substance of the ³national question² in 
the Social-Democratic movement. 
Divide up into separate national parties and establish 
a ³loose federation² of these parties‹answer the 
Federalist Social-Democrats. 
That is just what the Armenian Social-Democratic 
Labour Organisation6 is talking about all the time. 
As you see, we are advised not to unite into one all- 
Russian party with a single directing centre, but to divide 
up into several parties with several directing centres‹ 
all in order to strengthen class unity! We want to draw 
together the proletarians of the different nations. What 
should we do? Divide the proletarians from one another 
and you will achieve your aim! answer the Federalist 
Social-Democrats. We want to unite the proletarians 
in one party. What should we do? Split up the proletarians 
of all Russia into separate parties and you will 
achieve your aim! answer the Federalist Social-Democrats. 
We want to demolish national barriers. What 
measures shall we take? Reinforce the national barriers 
with organisational barriers and you will achieve your 
aim! they reply. And all this advice is offered to us, 
the proletarians of all Russia, who are fighting under 
the same political conditions, and against a common 
enemy! In short, we are told: Act so as to please your 
enemies and bury your common goal with your own 
hands!

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF THE NATIONAL QUESTION 37 
But let us agree with the Federalist Social-Democrats 
for a moment, let us follow them and see where 
they will lead us! It has been said: ³Pursue the liar to 
the threshold of the lie.² 
Let us assume that we have taken the advice of our 
Federalists and have formed separate national parties. 
What would be the results? 
This is not difficult to see. Hitherto, while we were 
Centralists, we concentrated our attention mainly on 
the common conditions of the proletarians, on the unity 
of their interests, and spoke of their ³national distinctions² 
only in so far as these did not contradict their 
common interests; hitherto, our major question was: in 
what way do the proletarians of the different nationalities 
of Russia resemble each other, what have they in 
common?‹for our object was to build a single centralised 
party of the workers of the whole of Russia on the 
basis of these common interests. Now that ³we² have 
become Federalists, our attention is engaged by a different 
major question, namely: in what way do the proletarians 
of the different nationalities of Russia differ 
from one another, what are the distinctions between 
them?‹for our object is to build separate national parties 
on the basis of ³national distinctions.² Thus, ³national 
distinctions,² which are of minor importance for 
the Centralist, become, for the Federalist, the foundation 
of national parties. 
If we follow this path further we shall, sooner or 
later, be obliged to conclude that the ³national² and, 
perhaps, some other ³distinctions² of, say, the Armenian 
proletarians are the same as those of the Armenian bourgeoisie; 
that the Armenian proletarian and the Armenian

J. V. S T A L I N 38 
bourgeois have the same customs and character; that they 
constitute one people, one indivisible ³nation.²* From 
this it is not a far cry to ³common ground for joint action,² 
on which the bourgeois and the proletarian must 
stand and join hands as members of the same ³nation.² 
The hypocritical policy of the autocratic tsar may appear 
as ³additional² proof in support of such friendship, 
* The Armenian Social-Democratic Labour Organisation 
has just taken this laudable step. In its ³Manifesto² it emphatically 
declares that ³the proletariat (Armenian) cannot be separated 
from society (Armenian): the united (Armenian) proletariat 
must be the most intelligent and the strongest organ of the Armenian 
people²; that ³the Armenian proletariat, united in a socialist 
party, must strive to mould Armenian social opinion, that 
the Armenian proletariat will be a true son of its tribe,² etc. (see 
Clause 3 of the ³Manifesto² of the Armenian Social-Democratic 
Labour Organisation). 
In the first place, it is difficult to see why ³the Armenian 
proletariat cannot be separated from Armenian society,² when 
actually this ³separation² is taking place at every step. Did not 
the united Armenian proletariat ³separate² from Armenian society 
when, in 1900 (in Tiflis), it declared war against the Armenian 
bourgeoisie and bourgeois-minded Armenians?! What i s the 
Armenian Social-Democratic Labour Organisation itself, if not 
a class organisation of Armenian proletarians who have ³separated² 
from the other classes in Armenian society? Or, perhaps 
the Armenian Social-Democratic Labour Organisation is an organisation 
that represents all classes!? And can the militant Armenian 
proletariat confine itself to ³moulding Armenian social 
opinion²? Is it not its duty to march forward, to declare war upon 
this ³social opinion,² which is bourgeois through and through, 
and to infuse a revolutionary spirit into it? The facts say that it 
is its duty to do so. That being the case, it is self-evident that 
the ³Manifesto² should have drawn its readers¹ attention not to 
³moulding social opinion,² but to the struggle against it, to the

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF THE NATIONAL QUESTION 39 
whereas talk about class antagonisms may appear as 
³misplaced doctrinairism.² And then somebody¹s poetic 
fingers will ³more boldly² touch the narrow-national 
strings that still exist in the hearts of the proletarians of 
the different nationalities in Russia and make them 
sound in the proper key. Credit (confidence) will be granted 
necessity of revolutionising it‹that would have been a more 
correct description of the duties of the ³socialist proletariat.² 
And, lastly, can the Armenian proletariat be ³a true son of its 
tribe,² i f one section of this tribe‹the Armenian bourgeoisie‹
sucks its blood like a vampire, and another section‹the 
Armenian clergy‹in addition to sucking the blood of the workers, 
is systematically engaged in corrupting their minds? All 
these questions are plain and inevitable, if we look at things from 
the standpoint of the class struggle. But the authors of the ³Manifesto² 
fail to see these questions, because they look at things 
from the Federalist-nationalistic standpoint they have borrowed 
from the Bund (the Jewish Workers¹ Union).7 In general, it seems 
as though the authors of the ³Manifesto² have set out to ape the 
Bund in all things. In their ³Manifesto² they also introduced 
Clause 2 of the resolution of the Fifth Congress of the Bund: ³The 
Bund¹s Position in the Party. ² They describe the Armenian 
Social-Democratic Labour Organisation as the sole champion of 
the interests of the Armenian proletariat (see Clause 3 of the abovementioned 
³Manifesto²). The authors of the ³Manifesto² have 
forgotten that for several years now the Caucasian Committees 
of our Party8 have been regarded as the representatives of the 
Armenian (and other) proletarians in the Caucasus, that they 
are developing class consciousness in them by means of oral and 
printed propaganda and agitation in the Armenian language, and 
are guiding them in their struggle, etc., whereas the Armenian 
Social-Democratic Labour Organisation came into being only 
the other day. They have forgotten all this and, no doubt, will 
forget many other things for the sake of faithfully copying the 
Bund¹s organisational and political views.

J. V. S T A L I N 40 
to chauvinistic humbug, friends will be taken for 
enemies, enemies for friends‹confusion will ensue, and 
the class consciousness of the proletariat of all Russia 
will wane. 
Thus, thanks to the Federalists, instead of breaking 
down the national barriers we shall reinforce them with 
organisational barriers; instead of stimulating the class 
consciousness of the proletariat we shall stultify it and 
subject it to a dangerous strain. And the autocratic 
tsar ³will rejoice in his heart,² for he would never 
have obtained such unpaid assistants as we would be 
for him. 
Is that, then, what we have been striving for? 
And, lastly, at a time when we need a single, flexible, 
centralised party, whose Central Committee should 
be able to rouse the workers of the whole of Russia at a 
moment¹s notice and lead them in a decisive onslaught 
upon the autocracy and the bourgeoisie, we are offered 
a monstrous ³federal league² broken up into separate 
parties! Instead of a sharp weapon, they hand us a rusty 
one and assure us: With this you will more speedily 
wipe out your mortal enemies! 
That is where the Federalist Social-Democrats are 
leading us! 
But since our aim is not to ³reinforce national barriers,² 
but to break them down; since we need not a 
rusty, but a sharp weapon to uproot existing injustice; 
since we want to give the enemy cause not for rejoicing 
but for lamentation, and want to make him bite the dust, 
it is obviously our duty to turn our backs on the Federalists 
and find a better means of solving the ³national 
question.²

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF THE NATIONAL QUESTION 41 
II 
So far we have discussed the way the ³national question² 
should not be solved. Let us now discuss the way 
this question should be-solved, i.e., the way it has been 
solved by the Social-Democratic Labour Party.* 
To begin with, we must bear in mind that the Social- 
Democratic Party which functions in Russia called itself 
Rossiiskaya (and not Russkaya).** Obviously, by this it 
wanted to convey to us that it will gather under its 
banner not only Russian proletarians, but the proletarians 
of all the nationalities in Russia, and, consequently, 
that it will do everything to break down the national 
barriers that have been raised to separate them. 
Further, our Party has dispelled the fog which enveloped 
the ³national question² and which lent it an air 
of mystery; it has divided this question into its separate 
elements, has lent each element the character of a 
class demand, and has expounded them in its programme 
in the form of separate clauses. Thereby it has clearly 
shown us that, taken by themselves, the so-called ³national 
interests² and ³national demands² are of no particular 
value; that these ³interests,² and ³demands² deserve our 
attention only in so far as they stimulate, or can stimulate, 
the proletariat¹s class consciousness, its class development. 
* It will not be amiss to point out that the following is a 
comment on the clauses of our Party programme which deal with 
the national question. 
** The adjective Rossiiskaya was applied to the whole land of 
Russia with all its different nationalities. Russkaya applies more 
specifically to the Russian people. In English both are rendered 
by the word Russian.‹Tr.

J. V. S T A L I N 42 
The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party has 
thereby clearly mapped the path it has chosen and the 
position it has taken in solving the ³national question.² 
What are the elements of the ³national question²? 
What do Messieurs the Federalist Social-Democrats 
demand? 
1) ³Civil equality for the nationalities in Russia?² 
You are disturbed by the civil inequality that prevails 
in Russia? You want to restore to the nationalities 
in Russia the civil rights taken away by the government 
and therefore you demand civil equality for 
these nationalities? But are we opposed to this demand. 
We are perfectly aware of the great importance of civil 
rights for the proletarians. Civil rights are a weapon in 
the struggle; to take away civil rights means taking 
away a weapon; and who does not know that unarmed 
proletarians cannot fight well? It is necessary for the 
proletariat of all Russia, however, that the proletarians 
of all the nationalities inhabiting Russia should fight 
well; for, the better these proletarians fight, the greater 
will be their class consciousness, and the greater their 
class consciousness, the closer will be, the class unity 
of the proletariat of all Russia. Yes, we know all this, 
and that is why we are fighting, and will go on fighting 
with, all our might, for the civil equality of the nationalities 
in Russia! Read Clause 7 of our Party programme, 
where the Party speaks of ³complete equality of rights 
for all citizens, irrespective of sex, religion, race or nationality,² 
and you will see that the Russian Social-Democratic 
Labour Party sets out to achieve these demands. 
What else do the Federalist Social-Democrats demand?

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF THE NATIONAL QUESTION 43 
2) ³Freedom of language for the nationalities in 
Russia?² 
You are disturbed by the fact that the proletarians 
of the ³alien² nationalities in Russia are practically 
forbidden to receive education in their own languages, or 
to speak their own languages in public, state and other 
institutions? Yes, it is something to be disturbed about! 
Language is an instrument of development and struggle. 
Different nations have different languages. The interests 
of the proletariat of all Russia demand that the proletarians 
of the different nationalities inhabiting Russia shall 
have full right to use the language in which it is easiest 
for them to receive education, in which they can best oppose 
their enemies at meetings or in public, state and 
other institutions. That language is the native language. 
They ask: Can we keep silent when the proletarians of 
the ³alien² nationalities are deprived of their native 
language? Well, and what does our Party programme say 
to the proletariat of all Russia on this point? Read Clause 8 
of our Party programme, in which our Party demands 
³the right of the population to receive education in their 
native languages, this right to be ensured by the establishment 
of schools for this purpose at the expense of the 
state and of local government bodies; the right of every 
citizen to speak at meetings in his native language; 
the introduction of the native language on a par with 
the official state language in all local public and state 
institutions²‹read all this, and you will see that the 
Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party sets out to 
achieve this demand as well. 
What else do the Federalist Social-Democrats demand?

J. V. S T A L I N 44 
3) ³Self-government for the nationalities in Russia?² 
By that you want to say that the same laws cannot be 
applied in the same way in the various localities of the 
Russian state which differ from one another in specific 
conditions of life and composition of the population? 
You want these localities to have the right to 
adapt the general laws of the state to their own specific 
conditions? If that is the case, if that is what you 
mean by your demand, you should formulate it properly; 
you should dispel the nationalistic fog and confusion 
and call a spade a spade. And if you follow this advice 
you will see for yourselves that we have no objection to 
such a demand. We have no doubt at all that the various 
localities of the Russian state which differ from one another 
in specific conditions of life and composition of the 
population, cannot all apply the state constitution in the 
same way, that such localities must be granted the right 
to put into effect the general state constitution in such a 
way as will benefit them most and contribute to the fuller 
development of the political forces of the people. This is in 
the class interests of the proletariat of all Russia. And 
if you re-read Clause 3 of our Party programme, in which 
our Party demands ³wide local self-government; regional 
self-government for those localities which are differentiated 
by their special conditions of life and the composition 
of their population,² you will see that the Russian 
Social-Democratic Labour Party first dispelled the 
nationalistic fog which enveloped this demand and then 
set out to achieve it. 
4) You point to the tsarist autocracy, which is brutally 
persecuting the ³national culture² of the ³alien² 
nationalities in Russia, which is violently interfering

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF THE NATIONAL QUESTION 45 
in their internal life and oppressing them in every way, 
which has barbarously destroyed (and goes on destroying) 
the cultural institutions of the Finns, has robbed Armenia 
of her national property, etc.? You demand guarantees 
against the robber violence of the autocracy? 
But are we blind to the violence which the tsarist autocracy 
is perpetrating? And have we not always fought 
against this violence?! Everyone today clearly sees how 
the present Russian government oppresses and strangles 
the ³alien² nationalities which inhabit Russia. It is 
also beyond all doubt that this policy of the government 
is day after day corrupting the class consciousness of the 
all-Russian proletariat and exposing it to a dangerous 
strain. Consequently, we shall always and everywhere 
fight the tsarist government¹s corrupting policy. Consequently, 
we shall always and everywhere defend against 
the autocracy¹s police violence not only the useful, but 
even the useless institutions of these nationalities; for 
the interests of the proletariat of all Russia suggest to 
us that only the nationalities themselves have the right 
to abolish or develop this or that aspect of their national 
culture. But read Clause 9 of our programme. Is not this 
the purport of Clause 9 of our Party programme, which, 
incidentally, has caused much argument among both our 
enemies and our friends? 
But here we are interrupted with the advice to stop 
talking about Clause 9. But why? we ask. ³Because,² 
we are told, this clause of our programme ³fundamentally 
contradicts² Clauses 3, 7 and 8 of the same programme; 
because, if the nationalities are granted the right to arrange 
all their national affairs according to their own 
will (see Clause 9), there should be no room in this

J. V. S T A L I N 46 
programme for Clauses 3, 7 and 8; and, vice versa, if these 
clauses are left in the programme, Clause 9 must certainly 
be deleted from the programme. Undoubtedly, Sakartvelo* 
means something of the same sort when it asks with its 
characteristic levity: ³Where is the logic in saying to 
a nation, ŒI grant you regional self-government,¹ and 
reminding it at the same time that it has the right to arrange 
all its national affairs as it sees fit?² (see Sakartvelo, 
No. 9). ³Obviously,² a logical contradiction has crept 
into the programme; ³obviously,² one or several clauses 
must be deleted from the programme if this contradiction 
is to be eliminated! Yes, this must ³certainly² be done, 
for, as you see, logic itself is protesting through the medium 
of the illogical Sakartvelo. 
This calls to mind an ancient parable. Once upon a 
time there lived a ³learned anatomist.² He possessed 
³everything² a ³real² anatomist requires: a degree, an 
operating room, instruments and inordinate pretensions. 
He lacked only one minor detail‹knowledge of anatomy. 
One day he was asked to explain the connection between 
the various parts of a skeleton that were lying scattered 
on his anatomical table. This gave our ³celebrated savant² 
an opportunity to show off his skill. With great 
pomp and solemnity he set to ³work.² Alas and alack, 
the ³savant² did not know even the ABC of anatomy 
and was entirely at a loss as to how the parts should 
be put together so as to produce a complete skeleton! 
* We are referring here to Sakartvelo for the sole purpose of 
better explaining the contents of Clause 9. The object of the present 
article is to criticise the Federalist Social-Democrats, and 
not the Sakartvelo-ists, who differ radically from the former (see 
Chapter I.

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF THE NATIONAL QUESTION 47 
The poor fellow busied himself for a long time, perspired 
copiously, but all in vain! Finally, when nothing had 
come of all his efforts and he had got everything mixed 
up, he seized several parts of the skeleton, flung them into 
a far corner of the room and vented his philosophic ire 
on certain ³evil-minded² persons, who, he alleged, had 
placed spurious parts of a skeleton on his table. Naturally, 
the spectators made fun of this ³learned anatomist.² 
A similar ³misadventure² has befallen Sakartvelo. 
It took it into its head to analyse our Party programme; 
but it turns out that Sakartvelo has no idea of what 
our programme is, nor of how it ought to be analysed; it 
has not grasped the connection that exists between the 
various clauses of this programme or the significance of 
each clause. So it ³philosophically² gives us the following 
advice: I cannot understand such and such clauses 
of your programme, therefore (?!) they must be deleted. 
But I do not want to make fun of Sakartvelo, which 
is a laughing-stock already; as the saying goes: don¹t 
hit a man when he is down! On the contrary, I am even 
prepared to help it and explain our programme to it, but 
on condition that 1) it confesses its ignorance, 2) listens 
to me with attention, and 3) keeps on good terms with 
logic.* 
The point is as follows. Clauses 3, 7 and 8 of our 
programme arose out of the idea of political centralism. 
* I deem it necessary to inform the readers that from its very 
first issues Sakartvelo declared war upon logic as fetters which 
must be combated. No attention need be paid to the fact that 
Sakartvelo often speaks in the name of logic; it does so only because 
of its characteristic levity and forgetfulness.

J. V. S T A L I N 48 
When inserting these clauses in its programme the Russian 
Social-Democratic Labour Party was guided by the 
consideration that what is called the ³final² solution of 
the ³national question,² i.e., the ³emancipation² of the 
³alien² nationalities in Russia, is, speaking generally, 
impossible so long as the bourgeoisie retains political 
power. There are two reasons for this: first, present-day 
economic development is gradually building a bridge 
between the ³alien nationalities² and ³Russia,² it is 
creating increasing intercourse between them, and thereby 
engendering friendly feeling among the leading 
circles of the bourgeoisie of these nationalities, thus 
removing the ground for their ³national-emancipation² 
aspirations; second, speaking generally, the proletariat 
will not support the so-called ³national-emancipation² 
movement, for up till now, every such movement has 
been conducted in the interests of the bourgeoisie, and 
has corrupted and crippled the class consciousness of 
the proletariat. These considerations gave rise to the idea 
of political centralism, on which Clauses 3, 7 and 8 of 
our Party programme are based. 
But this, as has been said above, is the general view. 
It does not, however, preclude the possibility that 
economic and political conditions may arise under which 
the advanced bourgeois circles among the ³alien² nationalities 
will want ³national emancipation.² 
It may also happen that such a movement will prove 
to be favourable for the development of the class consciousness 
of the proletariat. 
How should our Party act in such cases? 
It is precisely with such possible cases in view that 
Clause 9 was included in our programme; it is precisely in

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF THE NATIONAL QUESTION 49 
anticipation of such possible circumstances that the nationalities 
are accorded a right which will prompt them 
to strive to arrange their national affairs in accordance 
with their own wishes (for instance, to ³emancipate 
themselves² completely, to secede). 
Our Party, the party whose aim is to lead the militant 
proletariat of the whole of Russia, must be prepared 
for such contingencies in the life of the proletariat 
and, accordingly, had to insert such a clause in its 
programme. 
That is how every prudent, far-sighted party ought 
to act. 
I t seems, however, that this interpretation of 
Clause 9 fails to satisfy the ³savants² of Sakartvelo, and 
also some of the Federalist Social-Democrats. They demand 
a ³precise² and ³straightforward² answer to the 
question: is ³national independence² advantageous or disadvantageous 
to the proletariat?* 
This reminds me of the Russian metaphysicians of 
the fifties of the last century who pestered the dialecticians 
of those days with the question: is rain good or bad 
for the crops? and demanded a ³precise² answer. It was 
not difficult for the dialecticians to prove that this 
way of presenting the question was totally unscientific; 
that such questions must be answered differently at different 
times; that during a drought rain is beneficial, 
whereas in a rainy season more rain is useless and even 
harmful; and that, consequently, to demand a ³precise² 
answer to such a question is obviously stupid. 
* See the article by ³Old (i.e., old-fashioned!) Revolutionary² 
in Sakartvelo, No. 9.

J. V. S T A L I N 50 
But Sakartvelo has learned nothing from such examples. 
Bernstein¹s followers demanded of the Marxists an 
equally ³precise² answer to the question: are co-operatives 
(i.e., consumers¹ and producers¹ co-operative societies) 
useful or harmful to the proletariat? It was not 
difficult for the Marxists to prove that this way of presenting 
the question was pointless; they explained very 
simply that everything depends on time and place; that 
where the class consciousness of the proletariat has 
reached the proper level of development and the proletarians 
are united in a single, strong political party, cooperatives 
may be of great benefit to the proletariat, 
if the party itself undertakes to organise and direct 
them. On the other hand, where these conditions 
are lacking, the co-operatives are harmful to the proletariat, 
for they breed small-shopkeeper tendencies 
and craft insularity among the workers, and thereby 
corrupt their class consciousness. 
But the Sakartvelo-ists have learned nothing even 
from this example. They demand more insistently than 
ever: is national independence useful or harmful to the 
proletariat? Give us a precise answer! 
But we see that the circumstances which may give 
rise to and develop a ³national-emancipation² movement 
among the bourgeoisie of the ³alien² nationalities do 
not yet exist, nor, for that matter, are they really inevitable 
in the future‹we have only assumed them as a 
possibility. Furthermore, it is impossible to tell at present 
what the level of the class consciousness of the 
proletariat will be at that particular moment, and to 
what extent this movement will then be useful or harm

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF THE NATIONAL QUESTION 51 
ful to the proletariat! Hence, we may ask, on what basis 
can one build* a ³precise² answer to this question? 
From what premises can it be deduced? And is it not 
stupid to demand a ³precise² answer under such circumstances? 
Obviously, we must leave it to the ³alien² nationalities 
to decide that question themselves; our task is to 
win for them the right to do so. Let the nationalities 
themselves decide, when this question faces them, whether 
³national independence² is useful or harmful to 
them, and, if useful‹in what form to exercise it. They 
alone can decide this question! 
Thus, Clause 9 grants the ³alien² nationalities the 
right to arrange their national affairs in accordance 
with their own wishes. And that same clause imposes 
on us the duty to see to it that the wishes of these nationalities 
are really Social-Democratic, that these wishes 
spring from the class interests of the proletariat; and 
for this we must educate the proletarians of these nationalities 
in the Social-Democratic spirit, subject some 
of their reactionary ³national² habits, customs and 
institutions to stern Social-Democratic criticism‹which, 
however, will not prevent us from defending these habits, 
customs and institutions against police violence. 
Such is the underlying idea of Clause 9. 
It is easy to see what a profound logical connection 
there is between this clause of our programme and the 
principles of the proletarian class struggle. And since our 
* Messrs. the Sakartvelo-ists always build their demands on 
sand and cannot conceive of people who are capable of finding 
firmer ground for their demands!

J. V. S T A L I N 52 
entire programme is built on these principles, the logical 
connection between Clause 9 and all the other clauses 
of our Party programme is self-evident. 
It is precisely because dull-witted Sakartvelo cannot 
assimilate such simple ideas that it is styled a ³wise² 
organ of the press. 
What else remains of the ³national question²? 
5) ³Defence of the national spirit and its attributes?² 
But what is this ³national spirit and its attributes²? 
Science, through the medium of dialectical materialism, 
proved long ago that there is no such thing as a ³national 
spirit² and that there cannot be. Has anyone refuted 
this view of dialectical materialism? History tells 
us that no one has refuted it. Hence, we must agree with 
this view of science, and, together with science, reiterate 
that there is no such thing as a ³national spirit,² nor 
can there be. And since this is the case, since there is 
no such thing as a ³national spirit,² it is self-evident 
that defence of what does not exist is a logical absurdity, 
which must inevitably lead to corresponding historical 
(undesirable) consequences. It is becoming only 
for Sakartvelo‹³organ of the revolutionary party of 
Georgian Social-Federalists² (see Sakartvelo, No. 9)* to 
utter such ³philosophical² absurdities. 
* * 
* 
* What is this ³party,² which bears such a strange name? 
Sakartvelo informs us (see Supplement No. 1 to Sakartvelo, No. 10) 
that ³in the spring of this year Georgian revolutionaries: Georgian 
Anarchists, supporters of Sakartvelo, Georgian Social-Revolutionaries, 
gathered abroad and . . . united . . . in a Œparty¹ of Geor

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF THE NATIONAL QUESTION 53 
That is how matters stand with the national question. 
As is evident, our Party divided this question into 
several parts, distilled its vital juices from it, injected 
them into the veins of its programme, and thereby showed 
how the ³national question² should be solved in the 
gian Social-Federalists.². . . Yes, Anarchists, who despise all 
politics heart and soul, Social-Revolutionaries who worship politics, 
and the Sakartvelo-ists, who repudiate all terrorist and anarchist 
measures‹and it turns out that this motley and mutuallynegating 
crowd united to form . . . a ³party²! As ideal a patchwork 
as anyone could ever imagine! Here¹s a place where one 
won¹t find it dull! Those organisers who assert that people must 
have common principles in order to unite in a party are mistaken! 
Not common principles, but absence of principles is the basis on 
which a ³party² must be built, says this motley crowd. Down 
with ³theory² and principles‹they are only slaves¹ fetters! The 
sooner we free ourselves of them the better‹philosophises this 
motley crowd. And, indeed, the moment these people freed themselves 
of principles they forthwith, at one stroke, built . . . a 
house of cards‹I beg your pardon‹the ³party of Georgian Social- 
Federalists.² So i t turns out that ³seven men and a boy² can 
form a ³party² at any time, whenever they get together. Can 
one refrain from laughing when these ignoramuses, these ³officers² 
without an army, philosophise like this: the Russian Social- 
Democratic Labour Party ³is anti-socialist, reactionary,² etc.; 
the Russian Social-Democrats are ³chauvinists²; the Caucasian 
Union of our party ³slavishly² submits to the Central Committee of 
the Party,* etc. (see the resolutions of the First Conference of the 
Georgian Revolutionaries). Nothing better could be expected of 
the archeological fossils of the Bakunin era: the fruit is typical 
of the tree that bore it, goods are typical of the factory that produced 
them. 
* I must observe that some abnormal ³individuals² regard the co-ordinated 
action of the various sections of our Party as ³slavish submission.² 
It is all due to weak nerves, the physicians say.

J. V. S T A L I N 54 
Social-Democratic movement in such a way as to destroy 
national barriers to their foundations, while not departing 
from our principles for a moment. 
The question is: Where is the need for separate 
national parties? Or, where is the Social-Democratic 
³basis,² on which the organisational and political views 
of the Federalist Social-Democrats are supposed to be 
built? No such ³basis² is to be seen‹it does not exist. 
The Federalist Social-Democrats are floating in mid-air. 
They have two ways of getting out of this uncomfortable 
position. Either they must entirely abandon the 
standpoint of the revolutionary proletariat and accept 
the principle of reinforcing the national barriers (opportunism 
in the shape of federalism); or they must renounce 
all federalism in party organisation, boldly raise 
the banner of demolition of national barriers, and rally 
to the united camp of the Russian Social-Democratic 
Labour Party. 
Proletariatis Brdzola 
(The Proletarian Struggle), No. 7 
September 1, 1904 
Unsigned 
Translated from the Georgian

A LETTER FROM KUTAIS9 
What we need here now is Iskra10 (although it has 
no sparks, we need it: at all events it contains news, 
the devil take it, and we must thoroughly know the enemy), 
beginning with No. 63. We very much need Bonch- 
Bruyevich¹s11 publications: The Fight for the Congress, 
To the Party (isn¹t this the Declaration of the 22?12), Our 
Misunderstandings, on the quintessence of socialism and on 
strikes by Ryadovoi (if issued), Lenin¹s pamphlet against 
Rosa and Kautsky,13 Minutes of the Congress of the 
League,14 One Step Forward15 (this can be put aside if 
you can¹t send it now). We need everything new that¹s 
published, from simple declarations to large pamphlets, 
which in any way deals with the struggle now going on 
within the Party. 
I have read Galyorka¹s pamphlet Down With Bonapartism. 
It¹s not bad. It would have been better had he 
struck harder and deeper with his hammer. His jocular 
tone and pleas for mercy` rob his blows of strength and 
weight, and spoil the reader¹s impression. These defects 
are all the more glaring for the reason that the author evidently 
understands our position well, and explains and 
elaborates certain questions excellently. A man who 
takes up our position must speak with a firm and

J. V. S T A L I N 56 
determined voice. In this respect Lenin is a real mountain 
eagle. 
I have also read Plekhanov¹s articles in which he 
analyses What Is To Be Done?16 This man has either gone 
quite off his head, or else is moved by hatred and enmity. 
I think both causes operate. I think that Plekhanov has 
fallen behind the new problems. He imagines he has the 
old opponents before him, and he goes on repeating in 
the old way: ³social consciousness is determined by 
social being,² ³ideas do not drop from the skies.² As 
if Lenin said that Marx¹s socialism would have been 
possible under slavery and serfdom. Even schoolboys 
know now that ³ideas do not drop from the skies.² 
The point is, however, that we are now faced with quite 
a different issue. We assimilated this general formula 
long ago and the time has now come to analyse this general 
problem. What interests us now is how separate ideas 
are worked up into a system of ideas (the theory of socialism), 
how separate ideas, and hints of ideas, link up 
into one harmonious system‹the theory of socialism, 
and who works and links them up. Do the masses give 
their leaders a programme and the principles underlying 
the programme, or do the leaders give these to the masses? 
If the masses themselves and their spontaneous movement 
give us the theory of socialism, then there is no need 
to take the trouble to safeguard the masses from the pernicious 
influence of revisionism, terrorism, Zubatovism 
and anarchism: ³the spontaneous movement engenders 
socialism from itself.² If the spontaneous movement 
does not engender the theory of socialism from itself 
(don¹t forget that Lenin is discussing the theory of 
socialism), then the latter is engendered outside of the

A LETTER FROM KUTAIS 57 
spontaneous movement, from the observations and study 
of the spontaneous movement by men who are equipped 
with up-to-date knowledge. Hence, the theory of socialism 
is worked out ³quite independently of the growth 
of the spontaneous movement,² in spite of that movement 
in fact, and is then introduced into that movement 
from outside, correcting it in conformity with its content, 
i.e., in conformity with the objective requirements of 
the proletarian class struggle. 
The conclusion (practical deduction) to be drawn from 
this is as follows: we must raise the proletariat to a 
consciousness of its true class interests, to a consciousness 
of the socialist ideal, and not break this ideal up 
into small change, or adjust it to the spontaneous movement. 
Lenin has laid down the theoretical basis on which 
this practical deduction is built. It is enough to accept 
this theoretical premise and no opportunism will get 
anywhere near you. Herein lies the significance of Lenin¹s 
idea. I call it Lenin¹s, because nobody in Russian 
literature has expressed it with such clarity as Lenin. 
Plekhanov believes that he is still living in the nineties, 
and he goes on chewing what has already been 
chewed eighteen times over‹twice two make four. And 
he is not ashamed of having talked himself into 
repeating Martynov¹s ideas. . . . 
You are no doubt familiar with the Declaration of 
the 22. . . . There was a comrade here from your parts 
who took with him the resolutions of the Caucasian 
Committees in favour of calling a special congress of the 
Party. 
You are wrong in thinking that the situation is hopeless‹
only the Kutais Committee wavered, but I

J. V. S T A L I N 58 
succeeded in convincing them, and after that they began 
to swear by Bolshevism. It was not difficult to convince 
them: the two-faced policy of the Central Committee 
became obvious thanks to the Declaration, and after 
fresh news was received, there could be no further doubt 
about it. It (the C.C.) will break its neck, the local and 
Russian comrades will see to that. It has got everybody¹s 
back up. 
Written in September-October 1904 
Published for the first time 
Translated from the Georgian

A LETTER FROM KUTAIS 
(From the Same Comrade) 
I am late with this letter, don¹t be angry. I have been 
busy all the time. All that you sent I have received (Minutes 
of the League; Our Misunderstandings by Galyorka 
and Ryadovoi; Sotsial-Demokrat, No 1; Iskra, the last 
issues). I liked Ryadovoi¹s idea (³A Conclusion²). The 
article against Rosa Luxemburg is also good. These 
ladies and gentlemen‹Rosa, Kautsky, Plekhanov, Axelrod, 
Vera Zasulich and the others, being old acquaintances, 
have evidently worked out some kind of family 
tradition. They cannot ³betray² one another; they defend 
one another as the members of a clan in a patriarchal 
tribe used to defend one another without going into 
the guilt or innocence of the kinsman. It is this family 
feeling, this feeling of ³kinship² that has prevented 
Rosa from studying the crisis in the Party objectively 
(of course, there are other reasons, for example, inadequate 
knowledge of the facts, foreign spectacles, 
etc.). Incidentally, this explains certain unseemly actions 
on the part of Plekhanov, Kautsky and others. 
Everybody here likes Bonch¹s publications as masterly 
expositions of the Bolsheviks¹ position. Galyorka

J. V. S T A L I N 60 
would have done well if he had dealt with the substance 
of Plekhanov¹s articles (Iskra, Nos. 70, 71). The fundamental 
idea in Galyorka¹s articles is that Plekhanov 
once said one thing and is now saying another, that he 
is contradicting himself. How very important! As if 
this were new! This is not the first time he is contradicting 
himself. He may even be proud of it and regard 
himself as the living embodiment of the ³dialectical 
process.² It goes without saying that inconsistency is 
a blotch on the political physiognomy of a ³leader,² and 
it (the blotch) should undoubtedly be noted. But that 
is not what we are discussing (in Nos. 70, 71); we are 
discussing an important question of theory (the question 
of the relation between being and consciousness) 
and of tactics (the relation between the led and the leaders). 
In my opinion, Galyorka should have shown that Plekhanov¹s 
theoretical war against Lenin is quixotic to the 
utmost degree, tilting at windmills, for in his pamphlet 
Lenin, with the utmost consistency, adheres to K. Marx¹s 
proposition concerning the origin of consciousness. And 
Plekhanov¹s war on the question of tactics is a manifestation 
of utter confusion, characteristic of the ³individual² 
who is passing over to the camp of the opportunists. 
Had Plekhanov formulated the question clearly, 
for example, in the following shape: ³who formulates 
the programme, the leaders or the led?² or: ³who raises 
whom to an understanding of the programme, the leaders 
the led, or vice versa?² or: ³perhaps it is undesirable 
that the leaders should raise the masses to an understanding 
of the programme, tactics and principles of organisation?² 
The simplicity and tautology of these questions 
provide their own solution, and had Plekhanov put

A LETTER FROM KUTAIS 61 
them to himself as clearly as this, he, perhaps, would 
have been deterred from his intention and would 
not have come out against Lenin with such fireworks. 
But since Plekhanov did not do that, i.e., since 
he confused the issue with phrases about ³heroes 
and the mob,² he digressed in the direction of tactical 
opportunism. To confuse the issue is characteristic of 
opportunists. 
Had Galyorka dealt with the substance of these and 
similar questions he would have done much better, in my 
opinion. Perhaps you will say that this is Lenin¹s business; 
but I cannot agree with this, because the views of Lenin 
that are criticised are not Lenin¹s private property, and 
their misinterpretation is a matter that concerns other 
members of the Party no less than Lenin. Lenin, of 
course, could perform this task better than anybody 
else. . . . 
We already have resolutions in favour of Bonch¹s 
publications. Perhaps we shall have the money too. You 
have probably read the resolutions ³in favour of peace² 
in No. 74 of Iskra. The resolutions passed by the Imeretia- 
Mingrelia and Baku Committees were not mentioned, because 
they said nothing about ³confidence² in the C.C. 
The September resolutions, as I wrote you, insistently 
demanded the convocation of the congress. We shall 
see what happens, i.e., we shall see what the results of the 
meetings of the Party Council17 show. Have you received 
the six rubles? You will receive some more within the 
next few days. Don¹t forget to send with that fellow 
the pamphlet A Letter to a Comrade18‹many here have 
not yet read it. Send also the next number of the Sotsial- 
Demokrat.

J. V. S T A L I N 62 
Kostrov19 has sent us another letter in which he talks 
about the spiritual and the material (one would think 
he was talking about cotton material). That ass doesn¹t 
realise that his audience are not the readers of Kvali.20 
What does he care about organisational questions? 
A new issue (the 7th) of The Proletarian Struggle 
(Proletariatis Brdzola)21 has appeared. Incidentally, it 
contains an article of mine against organisational and 
political federalism.22 I¹ll send you a copy if I can. 
Written in October 1904 
Published for the first time 
Translated from the Georgian

THE PROLETARIAN CLASS 
AND THE PROLETARIAN PARTY 
(Concerning Paragraph One of the Party Rules) 
The time when people boldly proclaimed ³Russia, 
one and indivisible,² has gone. Today even a child knows 
that there is no such thing as Russia ³one and indivisible,² 
that Russia long ago split up into two opposite 
classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Today it 
is no secret to anyone that the struggle between these 
two classes has become the axis around which our contemporary 
life revolves. 
Nevertheless, until recently it was difficult to notice 
all this, the reason being that hitherto we saw only individual 
groups in the arena of the struggle, for it was 
only individual groups in individual towns and parts 
of the country that waged the struggle, while the proletariat 
and the bourgeoisie, as classes, were not easily 
discernible. But now towns and districts have united, 
various groups of the proletariat have joined hands, 
joint strikes and demonstrations have broken out‹and 
before us has unfolded the magnificent picture of the 
struggle between the two Russias‹bourgeois Russia 
and proletarian Russia. Two big armies have entered 
the arena‹the army of proletarians and the army of

J. V. S T A L I N 64 
the bourgeoisie‹and the struggle between these two 
armies embraces the whole of our social life. 
Since an army cannot operate without leaders, and 
since every army has a vanguard which marches at its 
head and lights up its path, i t is obvious that with 
these armies there had to appear corresponding groups 
of leaders, corresponding parties, as they are usually 
called. 
Thus, the picture presents the following scene: on 
one side there is the bourgeois army, headed by the liberal 
party; on the other, there is the proletarian army, 
headed by the Social-Democratic Party; each army, in 
its class struggle, is led by its own party.* 
We have mentioned all this in order to compare 
the proletarian party with the proletarian class and 
thus briefly to bring out the general features of the 
Party. 
The foregoing makes it sufficiently clear that the 
proletarian party, being a fighting group of leaders, must, 
firstly, be considerably smaller than the proletarian class 
with respect to membership; secondly, it must be superior 
to the proletarian class with respect to its understanding 
and i t s experience; and, thirdly, i t must be a 
united organisation. 
In our opinion, what has been said needs no proof, 
for it is self-evident that, so long as the capitalist system 
exists, with its inevitably attendant poverty and backwardness 
of the masses, the proletariat as a whole cannot 
rise to the desired level of class consciousness, and, 
* We do not mention the other parties in Russia, because 
there is no need to deal with them in examining the questions 
under discussion.

THE PROLETARIAN CLASS AND THE PROLETARIAN PARTY 65 
consequently, there must be a group of class-conscious 
leaders to enlighten the proletarian army in the spirit 
of socialism, to unite and lead it in its struggle. It is 
also clear that a party which has set out to lead the fighting 
proletariat must not be a chance conglomeration of 
individuals, but a united centralised organisation, so 
that its activities can be directed according to a single 
plan. 
Such, in brief, are the general features of our Party, 
Bearing all this in mind, let us pass to the main question: 
Whom can we call a Party member? Paragraph 
One of the Party Rules, which is the subject of the 
present article, deals with precisely this question. 
And so, let us examine this question. 
Whom, then, can we call a member of the Russian 
Social-Democratic Labour Party‹i.e., what are the 
duties of a Party member? 
Our Party is a Social-Democratic Party. This means 
that it has its own programme (the immediate and the 
ultimate aims of the movement), its own tactics (methods 
of struggle), and its own organisational principle (form of 
association). Unity of programmatic, tactical and organisational 
views is the basis on which our Party is built. 
Only the unity of these views can unite the Party members 
in one centralised party. If unity of views collapses, 
the Party collapses. Consequently, only one who fully 
accepts the Party¹s programme, tactics and organisational 
principle can be called a Party member. Only one who 
has adequately studied and has fully accepted our Party¹s 
programmatic, tactical and organisational views can be in 
the ranks of our Party and, thereby, in the ranks of 
the leaders of the proletarian army.

J. V. S T A L I N 66 
But is it enough for a Party member merely to accept 
the Party¹s programme, tactics and organisational views? 
Can a person like that be regarded as a true leader of the 
proletarian army? Of course not! In the first place, everybody 
knows that there are plenty of windbags in the 
world who would readily ³accept² the Party¹s programme, 
tactics and organisational views, but who are incapable 
of being anything else than windbags. It would be a 
desecration of the Party¹s Holy of Holies to call a windbag 
like that a Party member (i.e., a leader of the proletarian 
army)! Moreover, our Party is not a school of 
philosophy or a religious sect. Is not our Party a fighting 
party? Since it is, is it not self-evident that our Party 
will not be satisfied with a platonic acceptance of its 
programme, tactics and organisational views, that it will 
undoubtedly demand that its members should apply 
the views they have accepted? Hence, whoever wants 
to be a member of our Party cannot rest content with 
merely accepting our Party¹s programmatic, tactical and 
organisational views, but must set about applying these 
views, putting them into effect. 
But what does applying the Party¹s views mean for 
a Party member? When can he apply these views? Only 
when he is fighting, when he is marching with the whole 
Party at the head of the proletarian army. Can the 
struggle be waged by solitary, scattered individuals? 
Certainly not! On the contrary, people first unite, first 
they organise, and only then do they go into battle. If 
that is not done, all struggle is fruitless. Clearly, then, 
the Party members, too, will be able to fight and, consequently, 
apply the Party¹s views, only if they unite in 
a compact organisation. It is also clear that the more

THE PROLETARIAN CLASS AND THE PROLETARIAN PARTY 67 
compact the organisation in which the Party members 
unite, the better will they be able to fight, and, consequently, 
the more fully will they apply the Party¹s 
programme, tactics and organisational views. It is not for 
nothing that our Party is called an organisation of leaders 
and not a conglomeration of individuals. And, if our 
Party is an organisation of leaders, it is obvious that only 
those can be regarded as members of this Party, of this 
organisation, who work in this organisation and, therefore, 
deem it their duty to merge their wishes with 
the wishes of the Party and to act in unison with the 
Party. 
Hence, to be a Party member one must apply the 
Party¹s programme, tactics and organisational views; to 
apply the Party¹s views one must fight for them; and to 
fight for these views one must work in a Party organisation, 
work in unison with the Party. Clearly, to be a 
Party member one must belong to one of the Party organisations.* 
Only when we join one of the Party organisations 
and thus merge our personal interests with the 
Party¹s interests can we become Party members, and, 
consequently, real leaders of the proletarian army. 
If our Party is not a conglomeration of individual 
* Just as every complex organism is made up of an incalculable 
number of extremely simple organisms, so our Party, being a 
complex and general organisation, is made up of numerous district 
and local bodies called Party organisations, provided they have 
been endorsed by the Party congress or the Central Committee. 
As you see, not only committees are called Party organisations. 
To direct the activities of these organisations according to a single 
plan there is a Central Committee, through which these local 
Party organisations constitute one large centralised organisation.

J. V. S T A L I N 68 
windbags, but an organisation of leaders which, through 
its Central Committee, is worthily leading the proletarian 
army forward, then all that has been said above is 
self-evident. 
The following must also be noted. 
Up till now our Party has resembled a hospitable 
patriarchal family, ready to take in all who sympathise. 
But now that our Party has become a centralised organisation, 
it has thrown off its patriarchal aspect and 
has become in all respects like a fortress, the gates of 
which are opened only to those who are worthy. And 
that is of great importance to us. At a time when the 
autocracy is trying to corrupt the class consciousness 
of the proletariat with ³trade unionism,² nationalism, 
clericalism and the like, and when, on the other hand, 
the liberal intelligentsia is persistently striving to kill 
the political independence of the proletariat and to 
impose its tutelage upon it‹at such a time we must be 
extremely vigilant and never forget that our Party is 
a fortress, the gates of which are opened only to those 
who have been tested. 
We have ascertained two essential conditions of 
Party membership (acceptance of the programme and 
work in a Party organisation). If to these we add a 
third condition, namely, that a Party member must 
render the Party financial support, then we shall have 
all the conditions that give one right to the title of 
Party member. 
Hence, a member of the Russian Social-Democratic 
Labour Party is one who accepts the programme of this 
Party, renders the Party financial support, and works 
in one of the Party organisations.

THE PROLETARIAN CLASS AND THE PROLETARIAN PARTY 69 
That is how Paragraph One of the Party Rules, 
drafted by Comrade Lenin,* was formulated. 
The formula, as you see, springs entirely from the 
view that our Party is a centralised organisation and not 
a conglomeration of individuals. 
Therein lies the supreme merit of this formula. 
But it appears that some comrades reject Lenin¹s 
formula on the grounds that it is ³narrow² and ³inconvenient,² 
and propose their own formula, which, it must 
be supposed, is neither ³narrow² nor ³inconvenient.² 
We are referring to Martov¹s** formula, which we shall 
now analyse. 
Martov¹s formula is: ³A member of the R.S.D.L.P. 
is one who accepts its programme, supports the Party 
financially and renders it regular personal assistance 
under the direction of one of its organisations.² As you see, 
this formula omits the third essential condition of Party 
membership, namely, the duty of Party members to 
work in one of the Party organisations. It appears that 
Martov regards this definite and essential condition as 
superfluous, and in his formula he has substituted for 
it the nebulous and dubious ³personal assistance under 
the direction of one of the Party organisations.² It appears, 
then, that one can be a member of the Party without 
belonging to any Party organisation (a fine ³party,² 
to be sure!) and without feeling obliged to submit to 
the Party¹s will (fine ³Party discipline,² to be sure!). 
Well, and how can the Party ³regularly² direct persons 
* Lenin is the outstanding theoretician and practical leader 
of revolutionary Social-Democracy. 
** Martov is one of the editors of Iskra.

J. V. S T A L I N 70 
who do not belong to any Party organisation and, consequently, 
do not feel absolutely obliged to submit to 
Party discipline? 
That is the question that shatters Martov¹s formula 
of Paragraph One of the Party Rules, and it is answered in 
masterly fashion in Lenin¹s formula, inasmuch as the 
latter definitely stipulates that a third and indispensable 
condition of Party membership is that one must work 
in a Party organisation. 
All we have to do is to throw out of Martov¹s formula 
the nebulous and meaningless ³personal assistance under 
the direction of one of the Party organisations.² 
With this condition eliminated, there remain only two 
conditions in Martov¹s formula (acceptance of the programme 
and financial support), which, by themselves, are 
utterly worthless, since every windbag can ³accept² the 
Party programme and support the Party financially‹but 
that does not in the least entitle him to Party membership. 
A ³convenient² formula, we must say! 
We say that real Party members cannot possibly 
rest content with merely accepting the Party programme, 
but must without fail strive to apply the programme they 
have accepted. Martov answers: You are too strict, for 
it is not so very necessary for a Party member to apply 
the programme he has accepted, once he is willing to 
render the Party financial support, and so forth. It looks 
as though Martov is sorry for certain windbag ³Social- 
Democrats² and does not want to close the Party¹s doors 
to them. 
We say, further, that inasmuch as the application of 
the programme entails fighting, and that it is impossible

THE PROLETARIAN CLASS AND THE PROLETARIAN PARTY 71 
to fight without unity, it is the duty of every prospective 
Party member to join one of the Party organisations, 
merge his wishes with those of the Party and, in unison 
with the Party, lead the fighting proletarian army, i.e., 
he must organise in the well-formed detachments of a 
centralised party. To this Martov answers: It is not so 
very necessary for Party members to organise in wellformed 
detachments, to unite in organisations; fighting 
single-handed is good enough. 
What, then, is our Party? we ask. A chance conglomeration 
of individuals, or a united organisation of leaders? 
And if it is an organisation of leaders, can we 
regard as a member one who does not belong to it and, 
consequently, does not consider it his bounden duty to 
submit to i t s discipline? Martov answers that the 
Party is not an organisation, or, rather, that the Party 
is an unorganised organisation (fine ³centralism,² to 
be sure!)! 
Evidently, in Martov¹s opinion, our Party is not a 
centralised organisation, but a conglomeration of local 
organisations and individual ³Social-Democrats² who 
have accepted our Party programme, etc. But if our Party 
is not a centralised organisation it will not be a fortress, 
the gates of which can be opened only for those who have 
been tested. And, indeed, to Martov, as is evident from 
his formula, the Party is not a fortress but a banquet, 
which every sympathiser can freely attend. A little knowledge, 
an equal amount of sympathy, a little financial 
support and there you are‹you have full right to count 
as a Party member. Don¹t listen‹cries Martov to cheer 
up the frightened ³Party members²‹don¹t listen to 
those people who maintain that a Party member must

J. V. S T A L I N 
FROM MARX 
TO MAO 

 
NOT FOR 
COMMERCIAL 
DISTRIBUTION 
72 
belong to one of the Party organisations and thus subordinate 
his wishes to the wishes of the Party. In the 
first place, it is hard for a man to accept these conditions; 
it is no joke to subordinate one¹s wishes to those 
of the Party! And, secondly, as I have already pointed 
out in my explanation, the opinion of those people is 
mistaken. And so, gentlemen, you are welcome to . . . 
the banquet! 
It looks as though Martov is sorry for certain professors 
and high-school students who are loth to subordinate 
their wishes to the wishes of the Party, and so he is forcing 
a breach in our Party fortress through which these 
estimable gentlemen may smuggle into our Party. He 
is opening the door to opportunism, and this at a time 
when thousands of enemies are assailing the class consciousness 
of the proletariat! 
But that i s not a l l . The point i s that Martov¹s 
dubious formula makes it possible for opportunism to 
arise in our Party from another side. 
Martov¹s formula, as we know, refers only to the acceptance 
of the programme; about tactics and organisation 
it contains not a word; and yet, unity of organisational 
and tactical views is no less essential for Party unity than 
unity of programmatic views. We may be told that nothing 
is said about this even in Comrade Lenin¹s formula. 
True, but there is no need to say anything about it in Comrade 
Lenin¹s formula. Is it not self-evident that one who 
works in a Party organisation and, consequently, fights 
in unison with the Party and submits to Party discipline, 
cannot pursue tactics and organisational principles 
other than the Party¹s tactics and the Party¹s organisational 
principles? But what would you say of a ³Party

THE PROLETARIAN CLASS AND THE PROLETARIAN PARTY 73 
member² who has accepted the Party programme, but 
does not belong to any Party organisation? What guarantee 
is there that such a ³member¹s² tactics and organisational 
views will be those of the Party and not some 
other? That is what Martov¹s formula fails to explain! 
As a result of Martov¹s formula we would have a queer 
³party,² whose ³members² subscribe to the same programme 
(and that is questionable!), but differ in their tactical 
and organisational views! What ideal variety! In 
what way will our Party differ from a banquet? 
There is just one question we should like to ask: What 
are we to do with the ideological and practical centralism 
that was handed down to us by the Second Party Congress 
and which is radically contradicted by Martov¹s formula? 
Throw it overboard? If it comes to making a choice, it 
will undoubtedly be more correct to throw Martov¹s 
formula overboard. 
Such is the absurd formula Martov presents to us 
in opposition to Comrade Lenin¹s formula! 
We are of the opinion that the decision of the Second 
Party Congress, which adopted Martov¹s formula, was 
the result of thoughtlessness, and we hope that the Third 
Party Congress will not fail to rectify the blunder of the 
Second Congress and adopt Comrade Lenin¹s formula. 
We shall briefly recapitulate: The proletarian army 
entered the arena of the struggle. Since every army must 
have a vanguard, this army also had to have such a 
vanguard. Hence the appearance of a group of proletarian 
leaders‹the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. As 
the vanguard of a definite army, this Party must, firstly, 
be armed with its own programme, tactics and organisational 
principle; and, secondly, i t must be a united

J. V. S T A L I N 74 
organisation. To the question‹who can be called a member 
of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party?‹ 
this Party can have only one answer: one who accepts 
the Party programme, supports the Party financially and 
works in one of the Party organisations. 
It is this obvious truth that Comrade Lenin has 
expressed in his splendid formula. 
Proletariatis Brdzola 
(The Proletarian Struggle), No. 8, 
January 1, 1905 
Unsigned 
Translated from the Georgian

WORKERS OF THE CAUCASUS, 
IT IS TIME TO TAKE REVENGE! 
The tsar¹s battalions are dwindling, the tsar¹s navy 
is perishing, and now Port Arthur has shamefully surrendered‹
thus the senile decrepitude of the tsarist autocracy 
is once again revealed. . . . 
Inadequate food and the absence of any kind of sanitary 
measures whatsoever, are causing infectious diseases 
to spread among the troops. These unbearable conditions 
are still further aggravated by the absence of anything 
like decent housing and clothing. Worn and weary, the 
soldiers are dying like flies. And this is after tens of thousands 
have been killed by bullets! . . . All this is causing 
unrest and discontent among the troops. The soldiers 
are awakening from their torpor, they are beginning 
to feel that they are human, they no longer blindly obey 
the orders of their superiors, and often greet their upstart 
officers with whistling and threats. 
This is what an officer writes to us from the Far East: 
³I did a foolish thing! On the insistence of my superior 
I recently delivered a speech to the men. No sooner 
did I begin to talk about the necessity of standing fast 
for tsar and country than the air was filled with whistling, 
curses and threats. . . . I hastened to put the greatest 
possible distance between myself and the infuriated 
mob. . . .²

J. V. S T A L I N 76 
Such is the situation in the Far East! 
Add to this the unrest among the reservists in Russia, 
their revolutionary demonstrations in Odessa, Yekaterinoslav, 
Kursk, Penza and other cities, and the protests 
of the new recruits in Guria, Imeretia, Kartalinia and 
in south and north Russia, note that the demonstrators 
are undaunted either by prison or bullets (recently, 
in Penza, several reservists were shot for demonstrating), 
and you will easily understand what the Russian soldiers 
are thinking. . . . 
The tsarist autocracy is losing its main prop‹its 
³reliable troops²! 
On the other hand, the tsar¹s treasury is becoming 
more depleted every day. Defeat follows defeat. The 
tsarist government is gradually losing the confidence 
of foreign states. It is barely able to obtain the money 
it needs, and the time is not far distant when it will 
be deprived of all credit! ³Who will pay us when you 
are overthrown, and your fall is undoubtedly imminent,² 
such is the answer that is given to the utterly discredited 
tsarist government! And the people, the dispossessed, 
starving people, what can they give the tsarist government 
when they have nothing to eat themselves?! 
And so, the tsarist autocracy is losing its second 
main prop‹its rich treasury, and credit which keeps it 
filled! 
Meanwhile, the industrial crisis is becoming more 
acute every day; factories and mills are closing down and 
millions of workers are demanding bread and work. 
Hunger is afflicting the tormented poor of the countryside 
with renewed force. The waves of popular anger rise 
higher and higher and dash against the tsarist throne

WORKERS OF THE CAUCASUS, IT IS TIME TO TAKE REVENGE! 77 
with increasing force, shaking the decrepit tsarist 
autocracy to its foundations. . . . 
The besieged tsarist autocracy is casting its old skin 
like a snake, and while discontented Russia is preparing 
to launch a decisive assault, it is putting aside (pretending 
to put aside!) its whip and, disguising itself in sheep¹s 
clothing, is proclaiming a policy of conciliation! 
Do you hear, comrades? It is asking us to forget 
the swish of whips and the whizz of bullets, the hundreds 
of our hero-comrades who have been killed, their glorious 
shades which are hovering around us and whispering to 
us: ³Avenge us!² 
The autocracy is brazenly offering us its bloodstained 
hands and is counselling conciliation ! It has 
published some sort of an ³Imperial Ukase²23 in which 
it promises us some sort of ³freedom.². . . The old 
brigands! They think they can feed the millions of starving 
Russian proletarians with words! They hope with 
words to satisfy the many millions of impoverished and 
tormented peasants! With promises they would drown 
the weeping of bereaved families‹victims of the war! 
Miserable wretches! They are the drowning clutching at 
a straw! . . . 
Yes, comrades, the throne of the tsarist government 
is being shaken to its foundations! The government 
which is using the taxes it has squeezed out of us to pay 
our executioners‹ministers, governors, uyezd chiefs and 
prison chiefs, police officers, gendarmes and spies; the 
government which is compelling the soldiers torn from 
our midst‹our brothers and sons‹to shed our blood; 
the government which is doing all in its power to support 
the landlords and employers in their daily struggle

J. V. S T A L I N 78 
against us; the government which has bound us hand 
and foot and has reduced us to the position of rightless 
slaves; the government which has brutally trampled 
upon and mocked at our human dignity‹our Holy of 
Holies‹it is this government which is tottering and 
feeling the ground slipping from under its feet! 
It is time to take revenge! It is time to avenge our 
valiant comrades who were brutally murdered by the 
tsar ¹s bashi-bazouks in Yaroslavl, Dombrowa, Riga, 
St. Petersburg, Moscow, Batum, Tiflis, Zlatoust, Tikhoretskaya, 
Mikhailovo, Kishinev, Gomel, Yakutsk, Guria, 
Baku and other places! It is time to call the government 
to book for the tens of thousands of innocent and 
unfortunate men who have perished on the battle-field 
in the Far East. It is time to dry the tears of their wives 
and children! It is time to call the government to book 
for the suffering and humiliation, for the shameful chains 
in which it has kept us for so long! It is time to put 
an end to the tsarist government and to clear the road 
for ourselves to the socialist system! It is time to destroy 
the tsarist government! 
And we will destroy it. 
In vain are Messieurs the Liberals trying to save the 
tottering throne of the tsar! In vain are they stretching 
out a helping hand to the tsar! They are begging for 
charity from him and trying to win his favour for their 
³draft constitution²24 so as, by means of petty reforms, 
to lay a road for themselves to political domination, to 
transform the tsar into their instrument, to substitute 
the autocracy of the bourgeoisie for the autocracy of 
the tsar and then systematically to strangle the proletariat 
and the peasantry! But in vain! It is already too

WORKERS OF THE CAUCASUS, IT IS TIME TO TAKE REVENGE! 79 
late, Messieurs Liberals! Look around and see what the 
tsarist government has given you, examine its ³Imperial 
Ukase²: a tiny bit of ³freedom² for ³rural and urban 
institutions,² a tiny ³guarantee² against ³restriction of 
the rights of private persons,² a tiny bit of ³freedom² 
of the ³printed word² and a big warning about the ³unfailing 
preservation of the inviolability of the fundamental 
laws of the empire,² about ³taking effective measures 
to preserve the full force of the law, a most important 
pillar of the throne in the autocratic state²! . . . Well? 
You had barely time to digest the ridiculous ³order² 
of the ridiculous tsar when ³warnings² began to pour 
down upon the newspapers like hail, a series of gendarme 
and police raids commenced, and even peaceful 
banquets were prohibited! The tsarist government itself 
took care to prove that in its miserly promises it would 
go no further than mere words. 
On the other hand, the outraged masses of the people 
are preparing for revolution and not for conciliation with 
the tsar. They stubbornly adhere to the proverb: ³Only 
the grave can straighten the hunchback.² Yes, gentlemen, 
vain are your efforts! The Russian revolution is 
inevitable. It is as inevitable as the rising of the sun! 
Can you prevent the sun from rising? The main force in 
this revolution is the urban and-rural proletariat, its bannerbearer 
is the Social-Democratic Labour Party, and not 
you, Messieurs Liberals! Why do you forget this obvious 
³trifle²? 
The storm, the harbinger of the dawn, is already rising. 
Only yesterday, or the day before, the proletariat 
of the Caucasus, from Baku to Batum, unanimously 
expressed its contempt for the tsarist autocracy. There

J. V. S T A L I N 80 
can be no doubt that this glorious effort of the Caucasian 
proletarians will not fail to have its effect on the proletarians 
in other parts of Russia. Read also the innumerable 
resolutions passed by workers expressing profound contempt 
for the tsarist government, listen to the low but 
powerful murmuring in the countryside‹and you will 
convince yourselves that Russia is a loaded gun with 
the hammer cocked ready to go off at the slightest shock. 
Yes, comrades, the time is not far distant when the Russian 
revolution will hoist sail and ³sweep from the 
face of the earth² the vile throne of the despicable 
tsar! 
Our vital duty is to be ready for that moment. Let us 
prepare then, comrades! Let us sow the good seed among 
the broad masses of the proletariat. Let us stretch out 
our hands to one another and rally around the Party Committees! 
We must not forget for a moment that only the 
Party Committees can worthily lead us, only they will light 
up our road to the ³promised land² called the socialist 
world! The party which has opened our eyes and has 
pointed out our enemies to us, which has organised us in 
a formidable army and has led us to fight our foes, which 
has stood by us amidst joy and sorrow and has always 
marched ahead of us‹is the Russian Social-Democratic 
Labour Party! It, and it alone, will lead us in 
future! 
A Constituent Assembly elected on the basis of universal, 
equal, direct and secret suffrage‹this is what we must 
fight for now! 
Only such an Assembly will give us the democratic 
republic which we need so urgently in our struggle for 
socialism.

WORKERS OF THE CAUCASUS, IT IS TIME TO TAKE REVENGE! 81 
Forward then, comrades! When the tsarist autocracy 
is tottering, our duty is to prepare for the decisive 
assault! It is time to take revenge! 
Down With the Tsarist Autocracy! 
Long Live the Popular Constituent Assembly! 
Long Live the Democratic Republic! 
Long Live the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party! 
January 1905 
Reproduced from the manifesto printed 
on January 8, 1905 at the underground 
(Aviabar) printing plant of the Caucasian 
Union of the R.S.D.L.P. 
Signed: Union Committee

LONG LIVE 
INTERNATIONAL FRATERNITY! 
Citizens! The revolutionary proletarian movement 
is growing‹and national barriers are collapsing! The 
proletarians of the different nationalities in Russia 
are uniting in a single international army, the individual 
streams of the proletarian movement are merging in one 
general revolutionary flood. The waves of this flood 
are rising higher and higher and dashing against the tsarist 
throne with increasing force‹and the decrepit tsarist 
government is tottering. Neither prisons nor penal servitude, 
nor gallows‹nothing can stop the proletarian 
movement: it is continuously growing! 
And so, to bolster up its throne the tsarist government 
is inventing ³new² methods. It is sowing enmity among 
the nationalities of Russia, it is inciting them against 
one another; it is trying to break up the general proletarian 
movement into petty movements and to incite them 
against one another; it is organising pogroms against 
the Jews, Armenians, etc. And the purpose of all this 
is to separate the nationalities of Russia from one 
another by means of fratricidal war and, by enfeebling 
them, to vanquish them one by one without difficulty!

LONG LIVE INTERNATIONAL FRATERNITY 83 
Divide and rule‹such is the policy of the tsarist 
government. That is what it is doing in the cities of 
Russia (remember the pogroms in Gomel, Kishinev and 
other towns), and it is doing the same in the Caucasus. 
What infamy! It is buttressing its despicable throne with 
the blood and the corpses of citizens! The groans of 
the dying Armenians and Tatars in Baku; the tears 
of wives, mothers and children; the blood, the innocent 
blood of honest but unenlightened citizens; the frightened 
faces of fugitive, defenceless people fleeing from death; 
wrecked homes, looted shops and the frightful, unceasing 
whizz of bullets‹that is what the tsar‹the murderer 
of honest citizens‹is bolstering up his throne with. 
Yes, citizens! It is they, the agents of the tsarist government, 
who incited the politically unenlightened among 
the Tatars against the peaceful Armenians! It is they, the 
flunkeys of the tsarist government, who distributed arms 
and ammunition among them, disguised policemen and 
Cossacks in Tatar clothing and hurled them against the 
Armenians! For two months, they‹the servants of the 
tsar‹prepared this fratricidal war‹and at last they 
achieved their barbarous object. Curses and death on 
the head of the tsarist government! 
Now these miserable slaves of the miserable tsar are 
trying to foment a fratricidal war among us, here in 
Tiflis! They are demanding your blood, they want to 
divide and rule over you! But be vigilant, you Armenians, 
Tatars, Georgians and Russians! Stretch out your 
hands to one another, unite more closely, and to the attempts 
of the government to divide you answer unanimously: 
Down with the tsarist government! Long live 
the fraternity of the peoples!

J. V. S T A L I N 84 
Stretch out your hands to one another and, having 
united, rally around the proletariat, the real gravedigger 
of the tsarist government which is the sole culprit in 
the Baku massacres. 
Let your cry be: 
Down With National Strife! 
Down With the Tsarist Government! 
Long Live the Fraternity of the Peoples! 
Long Live the Democratic Republic! 
February 13 , 1905 
Reproduced from the manifesto printed 
at the printing plant of the Tiflis 
Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. 
Signed: Tiflis Committee

TO CITIZENS 
LONG LIVE THE RED FLAG! 
Great hopes and great disappointment! Instead of 
national enmity‹mutual love and confidence! Instead 
of a fratricidal pogrom‹a huge demonstration against 
tsarism, the culprit in the pogroms! The hopes of the 
tsarist government have collapsed: the attempt to incite 
the different nationalities in Tiflis against one another 
has failed! . . . 
The tsarist government has long been trying to incite 
the proletarians against one another, has long been 
trying to break up the general proletarian movement. 
That is why it organised the pogroms in Gomel, Kishinev 
and other places. It provoked a fratricidal war 
in Baku with the same object. At last, the gaze of the 
tsarist government rested on Tiflis. Here, in the middle 
of the Caucasus, it intended to enact a bloody tragedy 
and then to carry it to the provinces! No small matter: 
to incite the nationalities of the Caucasus against one 
another and to drown the Caucasian proletariat in its 
own blood! The tsarist government rubbed its hands with 
glee. It even distributed a leaflet calling for a massacre 
of Armenians! And it hoped for success. But suddenly,

J. V. S T A L I N 86 
on February 13, as if to spite the tsarist government, 
a crowd numbering many thousands of Armenians, 
Georgians, Tatars, and Russians assembles in the enclosure 
of the Vanque Cathedral and takes a vow of mutual 
support ³in the struggle against the devil who is sowing 
strife among us.² Complete unanimity. Speeches 
are delivered calling for ³unity.² The masses applaud 
the speakers. Our leaflets are distributed (3,000 copies). 
The masses eagerly take them. The temper of the 
masses rises. In defiance of the government they decide 
to assemble again next day in the enclosure of the same 
cathedral in order once again to ³vow to love one 
another.² 
February 14. The entire cathedral enclosure and the 
adjacent streets are packed with people. Our leaflets are 
distributed and read quite openly. The crowds split up 
into groups and discuss the contents of the leaflets. 
Speeches are delivered. The temper of the masses rises. 
They decide to march in demonstration past the Zion 
Cathedral and the Mosque, to ³vow to love one another,² 
to halt at the Persian Cemetery to take the vow once 
again and then disperse. The masses put their decision 
into execution. On the way, near the Mosque and in the 
Persian Cemetery, speeches are delivered and our leaflets 
are distributed (on this day 12,000 were distributed). The 
temper of the masses rises higher and higher. Pent-up 
revolutionary energy breaks through to the surface. The 
masses decide to march in demonstration through Palace 
Street and Golovinsky Prospect and only then to disperse. 
Our committee takes advantage of the situation 
and immediately organises a small leading core. This 
core, headed by an advanced worker, takes the central

TO CITIZENS, LONG LIVE THE RED FLAG! 87 
position‹and an improvised red flag flutters right in 
front of the Palace. The banner-bearer, carried shoulder 
high by demonstrators, delivers an emphatically political 
speech during which he first of all asks the comrades 
not to be dismayed by the absence of a Social-Democratic 
appeal on the flag. ³No, no,² answer the demonstrators, 
³it is inscribed in our hearts!² He then goes on to explain 
the significance of the Red Flag, criticises the preceding 
speakers from the Social-Democratic viewpoint, exposes 
the half-heartedness of their speeches, urges the necessity 
of abolishing tsarism and capitalism, and calls upon the 
demonstrators to fight under the Red Flag of Social- 
Democracy. ³Long live the Red Flag!² the masses shout 
in response. The demonstrators proceed towards the 
Vanque Cathedral. On the way they halt three times to 
listen to the banner-bearer. The latter again calls upon 
the demonstrators to fight against tsarism and urges 
them to take a vow to rise in revolt as unanimously as 
they are demonstrating now. ³We swear!² the masses 
shout in response. The demonstrators then reach the 
Vanque Cathedral and after a minor skirmish with Cossacks, 
disperse. 
Such was the ³demonstration of eight thousand Tiflis 
citizens.² 
That is how the citizens of Tiflis retaliated to the 
hypocritical policy of the tsarist government. That is 
how they took revenge on the despicable government 
for the blood of the citizens of Baku. Glory and honour 
to the citizens of Tiflis! 
In face of the thousands of Tiflis citizens who assembled 
under the Red Flag and several times pronounced 
sentence of death on the tsarist government, the

J. V. S T A L I N 88 
despicable flunkeys of the despicable government were 
compelled to retreat. They called off the pogrom. 
But does that mean, citizens, that the tsarist government 
will not try to organise pogroms in future? Far 
from i t ! As long as i t continues to exist, and the 
more the ground slips from under its feet, the more 
often will it resort to pogroms. The only way to 
eradicate pogroms is to abolish the tsarist autocracy. 
You cherish your own lives and the lives of your dear 
ones, do you not? You love your friends and kinsmen 
and you want to abolish pogroms, do you not? 
Know then, citizens, that pogroms and the bloodshed 
that accompanies them will be abolished only when 
tsarism is abolished! 
First of all you must strive to overthrow the tsarist 
autocracy! 
You want to abolish all national enmity, do you 
not? You are striving for the complete solidarity of 
peoples, are you not? Know then, citizens, that all 
national strife will be abolished only when inequality 
and capitalism are abolished! 
The ultimate aim of your striving must be‹the 
triumph of socialism! 
But who-will sweep the disgusting tsarist regime from 
the face of the earth, who will rid you of pogroms?‹The 
proletariat, led by Social-Democracy. 
And who will destroy the capitalist system, who will 
establish international solidarity on earth?‹The proletariat, 
led by Social-Democracy. 
The proletariat, and only the proletariat, will win 
freedom and peace for you.

TO CITIZENS, LONG LIVE THE RED FLAG! 89 
Therefore, unite around the proletariat and rally under 
the flag of Social-Democracy! 
Rally Under the Red-Flag, Citizens! 
Down With the Tsarist Autocracy! 
Long Live the Democratic Republic! 
Down With Capitalism! 
Long Live Socialism! 
Long Live the Red Flag! 
February 15, 1905 
Reproduced from the manifesto printed 
at the printing plant of the Tiflis 
Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. 
Signed: Tiflis Committee

BRIEFLY ABOUT DISAGREEMENTS 
IN THE PARTY25 
³Social-Democracy is a combination of 
the working-class movement with socialism.² 
Karl Kautsky 
Our ³Mensheviks² are really too tiresome! I am referring 
to the Tiflis ³Mensheviks.² They heard that 
there are disagreements in the Party and so they began 
harping: whether you like it or not we shall talk about 
disagreements, always and everywhere; whether you like 
it or not we shall abuse the ³Bolsheviks² right and left! 
And so they are hurling abuse for all they are worth, as 
if they are possessed. At all the crossroads, among themselves 
and among strangers, in short, wherever they 
happen to be, they howl one thing: beware of the ³majority,² 
they are strangers, infidels! Not content with the 
³habitual² field, they have carried the ³case² into the 
legally published literature, thereby proving to the world 
once again . . . how tiresome they are. 
What has the ³majority² done? Why is our ³minority² 
so ³wrathful²? 
Let us turn to history. 
The ³majority² and ³minority² first came into being 
at the Second Party Congress (1903). That was the congress 
at which our scattered forces were to have united

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 91 
in one powerful party. We Party workers placed great 
hopes in that congress. At last!‹we exclaimed joyfully‹
we, too, shall be united in one party, we, too, shall 
be able to work according to a single plan! . . . It goes 
without saying that we had been active before that, 
but our activities were scattered and unorganised. It 
goes without saying that we had made attempts to unite 
before that; it was for this purpose that we convened 
the First Party Congress (1898), and it even looked as 
i f we had ³united,² but this unity existed in name 
only: the Party still remained split up into separate 
groups; our forces still remained scattered and had yet 
to be united. And so the Second Party Congress was 
to have mustered our scattered forces and united 
them in one whole. We were to have formed a united 
party. 
Actually it turned out, however, that our hopes had 
been to some degree premature. The congress failed to 
give us a single and indivisible party; it merely laid the 
foundation for such a party. The congress did, however, 
clearly reveal to us that there are two trends within the 
Party: the Iskra trend (I mean the old Iskra),26 and the 
trend of its opponents. Accordingly, the congress split 
up into two sections: into a ³majority² and a ³minority.² 
The former joined the Iskra trend and rallied around that 
paper; the latter, being opponents of Iskra, took the 
opposite stand. 
Thus, Iskra became the banner of the Party ³majority,² 
and Iskra¹s stand became the stand of the ³majority.² 
What path did Iskra take? What did it advocate? 
To understand this one must know the conditions 
under which it entered the historical field.

J. V. S T A L I N 92 
Iskra started publication in December 1900. That was 
the time when a crisis began in Russian industry. The industrial 
boom, which was accompanied by a number of 
economic strikes (1896-98), gradually gave way to a crisis. 
The crisis grew more acute day by day and became an 
obstacle to economic strikes. In spite of that, the working-
class movement hewed a path for itself and made 
progress; the individual streams merged in a single flood; 
the movement acquired a class aspect and gradually 
took the path of the political struggle. The workingclass 
movement grew with astonishing rapidity. . . . But 
there was no sign of an advanced detachment, no Social- 
Democracy* which would have introduced socialist consciousness 
into the movement, would have combined it 
with socialism, and, thereby, would have lent the proletarian 
struggle a Social-Democratic character. 
What did the ³Social-Democrats² of that time (they 
were called ³Economists²) do? They burned incense to 
the spontaneous movement and light-heartedly reiterated: 
socialist consciousness is not so very necessary for the 
working-class movement, which can very well reach its 
goal without it; the main thing is the movement. The 
movement is everything‹consciousness is a mere trifle. 
A movement without socialism‹that was what they were 
striving for. 
In that case, what is the mission of Russian Social- 
Democracy? Its mission is to be an obedient tool of the 
spontaneous movement, they asserted. It is not our busi- 
* Social-Democracy is the advanced detachment of the proletariat. 
Every militant Social-Democrat, whether industrial worker 
or intellectual, belongs to this detachment.

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 93 
ness to introduce socialist consciousness into the workingclass 
movement, it is not our business to lead this movement‹
that would be fruitless coercion; our duty is 
merely to watch the movement and take careful note of 
what goes on in social life‹we must drag at the tail of 
the spontaneous movement.* In short, Social-Democracy 
was depicted as an unnecessary burden on the movement. 
Whoever refuses to recognise Social-Democracy must 
also refuse to recognise the Social-Democratic Party. 
That is precisely why the ³Economists² so persistently 
reiterated that a proletarian political party could not 
exist in Russia. Let the liberals engage in the political 
struggle, it is more fitting for them to do so, said the 
³Economists.² But what must we Social-Democrats do? 
We must continue to exist as separate circles, each 
operating isolatedly in its own corner. 
* Our Social-Democrat27 has developed a passion for ³criticism² 
(see No. 1, ³Majority or Minority?²) but I must observe 
that it does not correctly describe the ³Economists² and Rabocheye 
Delo-ists (they scarcely differ from each other). It is not that they 
³ignored political questions,² but that they dragged at the tail 
of the movement and repeated what the movement suggested to 
them. At one time only strikes took place, and so they preached 
the economic struggle. The period of demonstrations came (1901), 
blood was shed, disillusionment was rife, and the workers turned to 
terrorism in the belief that that would save them from the tyrants, 
and so the ³Economists-Rabocheye Delo-ists² also joined the 
general chorus and pompously declared: The time has come to 
resort to terrorism, to attack the prisons, liberate our comrades 
and so forth (see ³A Historic Turn,² Rabocheye Delo28). As you 
see, this does not at all mean that they ³ignored political questions.² 
The author has borrowed his ³criticism² from Martynov, but it 
would have been more useful had he familiarised himself with 
history.

J. V. S T A L I N 94 
Not a Party, but a circle! they said. 
Thus, on the one hand, the working-class movement 
grew and stood in need of a guiding advanced detachment; 
on the other hand, ³Social-Democracy,² represented 
by the ³Economists,² instead of taking the lead 
of the movement, abnegated itself and dragged at the 
tail of the movement. 
It was necessary to proclaim for all to hear the idea 
that a spontaneous working-class movement without socialism 
means groping in the dark, and, even if it ever 
does lead to the goal, who knows how long it will take, and 
at what cost in suffering; that, consequently, socialist 
consciousness is of enormous importance for the workingclass 
movement. 
It was also necessary to proclaim that it is the duty 
of the vehicle of this consciousness, Social-Democracy, 
to imbue the working-class movement with socialist 
consciousness; to be always at the head of the movement 
and not to be a mere observer of the spontaneous workingclass 
movement, not to drag at its tail. 
It was also necessary to express the idea that it is 
the direct duty of Russian Social-Democracy to muster 
the separate advanced detachments of the proletariat, 
to unite them in one party, and thereby to put an end 
to disunity in the Party once and for all. 
It was precisely these tasks that Iskra proceeded to 
formulate. 
This is what it said in its programmatic article (see 
Iskra, No. 1): ³Social-Democracy is a combination of the 
working-class movement with socialism,²29 i.e., the movement 
without socialism, or socialism standing aloof from 
the movement, is an undesirable state of affairs which

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 95 
Social-Democracy must combat. But as the ³Economists- 
Rabocheye Delo-ists² worshipped the spontaneous movement, 
and as they belittled the importance of socialism, 
Iskra stated: ³Isolated from Social-Democracy, the working-
class movement becomes petty and inevitably becomes 
bourgeois.² Consequently, it is the duty of Social- 
Democracy ³to point out to this movement its ultimate 
aim and its political tasks, and to guard its political and 
ideological independence.² 
What are the duties of Russian Social-Democracy? 
³From this,² continues Iskra, ³automatically emerges 
the task which it is the mission of Russian Social-Democracy 
to fulfil: to imbue the masses of the proletariat 
with the ideas of socialism and with political consciousness 
and to organise a revolutionary party that will be 
inseverably connected with the spontaneous workingclass 
movement,²‹i.e., it must always be at the head 
of the movement, and its paramount duty is to unite the 
Social-Democratic forces of the working-class movement 
in one party. 
That is how the editorial board of Iskra* formulated 
its programme. 
Did Iskra carry out this splendid programme? 
Everybody knows how devotedly it put these extremely 
important ideas into practice. That was clearly 
demonstrated to us by the Second Party Congress, at 
which the majority, numbering 35 votes, recognised 
Iskra as the central organ of the Party. 
Is it not ridiculous, after that, to hear certain pseudo- 
Marxists ³berate² the old Iskra? 
* The editorial board of Iskra then consisted of six members: 
Plekhanov, Axelrod, Zasulich, Martov, Starover30 and Lenin.

J. V. S T A L I N 96 
This is what the Menshevik Social-Democrat writes 
about Iskra: 
³It (Iskra) should have analysed the ideas of ŒEconomism,¹ 
rejected its fallacious views and accepted its 
correct ones, and directed it into a new channel. . . . 
But that did not happen. The fight against ŒEconomism¹ 
gave rise to another extreme: the economic struggle was 
belittled and treated with disdain; supreme importance 
was attached to the political struggle. Politics without 
economy (it ought to be: ³without economics²)‹ 
such is the new trend² (see Social-Democrat, No . 1, ³Majority 
or Minority?²). 
But when, where, in what country did all this 
happen, highly esteemed ³critic²? What did Plekhanov, 
Axelrod, Zasulich, Martov and Starover do? Why did 
they not turn Iskra to the ³true² path? Did they not 
constitute the majority on the editorial board? And 
where have you yourself been up to now, my dear sir? 
Why did you not warn the Second Party Congress? It 
would not then have recognised Iskra as the central 
organ. 
But let us leave the ³critic.² 
The point is that Iskra correctly emphasised the 
³urgent questions of the day²; it took the path I spoke 
about above and devotedly carried out its programme. 
Iskra s stand was still more distinctly and convincingly 
formulated by Lenin, in his splendid book What Is 
To Be Done? 
Let us deal with this book. 
The ³Economists² worshipped the spontaneous working-
class movement; but who does not know that the spontaneous 
movement is a movement without socialism, that it

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 97 
³is trade unionism,²* which refuses to see anything 
beyond the limits of capitalism. Who does not know 
that the working-class movement without socialism means 
marking time within the limits of capitalism, wandering 
around private property, and, even if this ever does 
lead to the social revolution, who knows how long it will 
take, and at what cost in suffering? Does it make no difference 
to the workers whether they enter the ³promised 
land² in the near future or after a long period of time; 
by an easy or by a difficult road? Clearly, whoever extols 
the spontaneous movement and worships it, whether 
he wishes to or not, digs a chasm between socialism and 
the working-class movement, belittles the importance 
of socialist ideology and expels it from life, and, whether 
he wishes to or not, subordinates the workers to bourgeois 
ideology; for he fails to understand that ³Social-Democracy 
is a combination of the working-class movement 
with socialism,²** that ³all worship of the spontaneity 
of the working-class movement, all belittling of the 
role of Œthe conscious element,¹ of the role of Social- 
Democracy, means, quite irrespective of whether the belittler 
wants to or not, strengthening the influence of bourgeois 
ideology over the workers.²*** 
To explain this in greater detail: In our times only 
two ideologies can exist: bourgeois and socialist. The 
difference between them is, among other things, that the 
former, i.e., bourgeois ideology, is much older, more 
* Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, p. 28. 
** Kautsky, The Erfurt Programme, published by the Central 
Committee, p. 94. 
*** Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, p. 26.

J. V. S T A L I N 98 
widespread and more deep-rooted in life than the latter; 
that one encounters bourgeois views everywhere, in one¹s 
own and in other circles, whereas socialist ideology is 
only taking its first steps, is only just hewing a road 
for itself. Needless to say, as regards the spread of ideas, 
bourgeois ideology, i.e., trade-unionist consciousness, 
spreads far more easily and embraces the spontaneous 
working-class movement far more widely than socialist 
ideology, which is only taking its first steps. That is 
all the more true for the reason that, even as it is, the 
spontaneous movement‹the movement without socialism 
‹³leads to its becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology.²* 
And subordination to bourgeois ideology means 
ousting socialist ideology, because one is the negation 
of the other. 
We shall be asked: But surely the working class 
gravitates towards socialism? Yes, it gravitates towards 
socialism. If it did not, the activities of Social-Democracy 
would be fruitless. But it is also true that this gravitation 
is counteracted and hindered by another‹gravitation 
towards bourgeois ideology. 
I have just said that our social life is impregnated 
with bourgeois ideas and, consequently; it is much easier 
to spread bourgeois ideology than socialist ideology. 
It must not be forgotten that meanwhile the bourgeois 
ideologists are not asleep; they, in their own way, disguise 
themselves as Socialists and are tireless in their 
efforts to subordinate the working class to bourgeois 
ideology. If, under these circumstances, the Social- 
Democrats, too, like the ³Economists,² go woolgathering 
* Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, p 28.

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 99 
and drag at the tail of the spontaneous movement (and 
the working-class movement is spontaneous when Social- 
Democracy behaves that way), then it is self-evident 
that the spontaneous working-class movement will proceed 
along that beaten path and submit to bourgeois 
ideology until, of course, long wanderings and sufferings 
compel it to break with bourgeois ideology and strive 
for the social revolution. 
It is this that is called gravitating towards bourgeois 
ideology . 
Here is what Lenin says: 
³The working class spontaneously gravitates towards 
socialism, but the more widespread (and continuously revived 
in the most diverse forms) bourgeois ideology nevertheless 
spontaneously imposes itself upon the working 
class still more.²* This is precisely why the spontaneous 
working-class movement, while it is spontaneous, 
while it is not yet combined with socialist consciousness‹
becomes subordinated to bourgeois ideology 
and gravitates towards such subordination.** If that 
were not the case, Social-Democratic criticism, Social- 
Democratic propaganda, would be superfluous, and it 
would be unnecessary to ³combine the working-class 
movement with socialism.² 
It is the duty of Social-Democracy to combat this 
gravitation towards bourgeois ideology and to stimulate 
the other gravitation‹gravitation towards socialism. 
Some day, of course, after long wanderings and sufferings, 
the spontaneous movement would come into its own, 
* Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, p. 29. 
** Ibid., p. 28.

J. V. S T A L I N 100 
would arrive at the gates of the social revolution, without 
the aid of Social-Democracy, because ³the working 
class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism.²* But 
what is to happen in the meantime, what shall we do in 
the meantime? Fold our arms across our chests as the 
³Economists² do and leave the field to the Struves and 
Zubatovs? Renounce Social-Democracy and thereby help 
bourgeois, trade-unionist ideology to predominate? Forget 
Marxism and not ³combine socialism with the working-
class movement²? 
No! Social-Democracy is the advanced detachment of 
the proletariat,** and its duty is always to be at the head 
of the proletariat; its duty is ³to divert the working-class 
movement from this spontaneous, trade-unionist tendency 
to come under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to 
bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social-Democracy.²*** 
The duty of Social-Democracy is to imbue the 
spontaneous working-class movement with socialist consciousness, 
to combine the working-class movement with 
socialism and thereby lend the proletarian struggle a 
Social-Democratic character. 
It is said that in some countries the working class 
itself worked out the socialist ideology (scientific socialism) 
and will itself work it out in other countries 
too, and that, therefore, it is unnecessary to introduce 
socialist consciousness into the working-class movement 
from without. But this is a profound mistake. To be 
able to work out the theory of scientific socialism one 
* Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, p. 29. 
** K. Marx, Manifesto, p. 15.31 
*** Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, p. 28.

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 101 
must stand at the head of science, one must be armed with 
scientific knowledge and be able deeply to investigate 
the laws of historical development. But the working 
class, while it remains a working class, is unable to stand 
in the van of science, to advance it and investigate scientifically 
the laws of history; it lacks both the time and 
the means for that. Scientific socialism ³can arise only 
on the basis of profound scientific knowledge. . .²‹ 
says K. Kautsky. ³. . . The vehicle of science is not the 
proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia (K. Kautsky¹s 
italics). It was in the minds of individual members 
of that stratum that modern socialism originated, and it 
was they who communicated it to the more intellectually 
developed proletarians. . . .²* 
Accordingly, Lenin says: All those who worship the 
spontaneous working-class movement and look on with 
folded arms, those who continuously belittle the importance 
of Social-Democracy and leave the field to the 
Struves and Zubatovs‹all imagine that this movement 
itself works out scientific socialism. ³But that is a profound 
mistake.²** Some people believe that the St. Petersburg 
workers who went on strike in the nineties possessed 
Social-Democratic consciousness, but that, too, is 
a mistake. There was no such consciousness among 
them and ³there could not be. It (Social-Democratic consciousness) 
could be brought to them only from without. 
The history of all countries shows that the working 
* Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, p. 27, where these lines are 
quoted from Kautsky¹s well-known article in Neue Zeit,32 1901-02, 
No. 3, p. 79. 
** Ibid., p. 26.

J. V. S T A L I N 102 
class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop 
only trade-unionist consciousness, i.e., the conviction 
that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers 
and strive to compel the government to pass 
necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, 
however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic 
theories that were elaborated by the educated 
representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals. 
According to their social status, the founders of modern 
scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged 
to the bourgeois intelligentsia.²* That does not 
mean, of course, continues Lenin, ³that the workers 
have no part in creating such an ideology. But they take 
part not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as 
Proudhons and Weitlings (both were working men); in 
other words, they take part only when, and to the extent 
that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge 
of their age and advance that knowledge.²** 
We can picture all this to ourselves approximately 
as follows. There is a capitalist system. There are workers 
and masters. Between them a struggle is raging. So far 
there are no signs whatever of scientific socialism. Scientific 
socialism was not even thought of anywhere when 
the workers were already waging their struggle. . . . 
Yes, the workers are fighting. But they are fighting separately 
against their masters; they come into collision 
with their local authorities; here they go out on strike, 
there they hold meetings and demonstrations; here they 
demand rights from the government, there they proclaim 
* Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, pp. 20-21. 
** Ibid., p. 27.

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 103 
a boycott; some talk about the political struggle, others 
about the economic struggle, and so forth. But that does 
not mean that the workers possess Social-Democratic 
consciousness; it does not mean that the aim of their 
movement is to overthrow the capitalist system, that 
they are as sure of the overthrow of capitalism and 
of the establishment of the socialist system as they are 
of the inevitable rising of the sun, that they regard their 
conquest of political power (the dictatorship of the 
proletariat) as an essential means for achieving the victory 
of socialism, etc. 
Meanwhile science develops. The working-class movement 
gradually attracts its attention. Most scientists 
arrive at the opinion that the working-class movement is 
a revolt of troublemakers whom it would be a good thing 
to bring to their senses with the aid of the whip. Others 
believe that it is the duty of the rich to throw some 
crumbs to the poor, i.e., that the working-class movement 
is a movement of paupers whose object is to obtain 
alms. And out of a thousand scientists perhaps only one 
may prove to be a man who approaches the working-class 
movement scientifically, scientifically investigates the 
whole of social life, watches the conflict of classes, listens 
closely to the murmuring of the working class and, finally, 
proves scientifically that the capitalist system is by no 
means eternal, that it is just as transient as feudalism 
was, and that it must inevitably be superseded by its 
negation, the socialist system, which can be established 
only by the proletariat by means of a social revolution. 
In short, scientific socialism is elaborated. 
It goes without saying that if there were no capitalism 
and the class struggle there would he no scientific

J. V. S T A L I N 104 
socialism. But it is also true that these few, for example 
Marx and Engels, would not have worked out 
scientific socialism had they not possessed scientific 
knowledge. 
What is scientific socialism without the workingclass 
movement?‹A compass which, if left unused, will 
only grow rusty and then will have to be thrown overboard. 
What is the working-class movement without socialism?‹
A ship without a compass which will reach the 
other shore in any case, but would reach it much sooner 
and with less danger if it had a compass. 
Combine the two and you will get a splendid vessel, 
which will speed straight towards the other shore and 
reach its haven unharmed. 
Combine the working-class movement with socialism 
and you will get a Social-Democratic movement which 
will speed straight towards the ³promised land.² 
And so, it is the duty of Social-Democracy (and not 
only of Social-Democratic intellectuals) to combine socialism 
with the working-class movement, to imbue the 
movement with socialist consciousness and thereby 
lend the spontaneous working-class movement a Social- 
Democratic character. 
That is what Lenin says. 
Some people assert that in the opinion of Lenin and 
the ³majority,² the working-class movement will perish, 
will fail to achieve the social revolution if it is not 
combined with socialist ideology. That is an invention, 
the invention of idle minds, which could have entered 
the heads only of pseudo-Marxists like An (see ³What 
Is a Party?², Mogzauri,33 No. 6).

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 105 
Lenin says definitely that ³The working class spontaneously 
gravitates towards socialism,²* and if he does 
not dwell on this at great length, it is only because he 
thinks it unnecessary to prove what has already been 
proved. Moreover, Lenin did not set out to investigate 
the spontaneous movement; he merely wanted to show 
those engaged in practical Party work what they ought to 
do consciously. 
Here is what Lenin says in another passage in his 
controversy with Martov: 
³ŒOur Party is the conscious exponent of an unconscious 
process.¹ Exactly. And for this very reason it is 
wrong to want Œevery striker¹ to have the right to call 
himself a Party member, for if Œevery strike¹ were not 
only a spontaneous expression of a powerful class instinct 
and of the class struggle, which is inevitably leading to 
the social revolution, but a conscious expression of that 
process . . . then our Party . . . would at once put an 
end to the entire bourgeois society.²** 
As you see, in Lenin¹s opinion, even the class struggle 
and the class conflicts which cannot be called Social- 
Democratic, nevertheless inevitably lead the working 
class to the social revolution. 
If you are interested to hear the opinion of other 
representatives of the ³majority,² here is what one of 
them, Comrade Gorin, said at the Second Party Congress: 
³What would the situation be if the proletariat were 
left to itself? It would be similar to what it was on the 
* Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, p. 29. 
** Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, p. 53.

J. V. S T A L I N 106 
eve of the bourgeois revolution. The bourgeois revolutionaries 
had no scientific ideology. The bourgeois system 
came into being nevertheless. Even without ideologists 
the proletariat would, of course, in the long 
run, work towards the social revolution, but it would 
do so instinctively. . . . Instinctively the proletariat 
would practise socialism, but it would lack socialist 
theory. Only, the process would be slow and more 
painful.²* 
Further explanation is superfluous. 
Thus, the spontaneous working-class movement, the 
working-class movement without socialism, inevitably becomes 
petty and assumes a trade-unionist character‹it 
submits to bourgeois ideology. Can we draw the conclusion 
from this that socialism is everything and the working-
class movement nothing? Of course not! Only idealists 
say that. Some day, in the far distant future, economic 
development will inevitably bring the working class 
to the social revolution, and, consequently, compel it 
to break off all connection with bourgeois ideology. 
The only point is that this path is a very long and 
painful one. 
On the other hand, socialism without the workingclass 
movement, no matter on what scientific basis it 
may have arisen, nevertheless remains an empty phrase 
and loses its significance. Can we draw the conclusion 
from this that the movement is everything and socialism‹ 
nothing? Of course not! Only pseudo-Marxists, who attach 
no importance to consciousness because it is engendered 
by social life itself, argue that way. Socialism can be 
* Minutes of the Second Party Congress, p. 129.

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 107 
combined with the working-class movement and thereby 
be transformed from an empty phrase into a sharp 
weapon. 
The conclusion? 
The conclusion is that the working-class movement 
must be combined with socialism; practical activities 
and theoretical thought must merge into one and thereby 
lend the spontaneous working-class movement a 
Social-Democratic character, for ³Social-Democracy is a 
combination of the working-class movement with socialism.²* 
Then, socialism, combined with the working-class 
movement, will, in the hands of the workers, be transformed 
from an empty phrase into a tremendous force. 
Then, the spontaneous movement, transformed into a 
Social-Democratic movement, will march rapidly along 
the true road to the socialist system. 
What, then, is the mission of Russian Social-Democracy? 
What must we do? 
Our duty, the duty of Social-Democracy, is to deflect 
the spontaneous working-class movement from the path of 
narrow trade unionism to the Social-Democratic path. Our 
duty is to introduce socialist consciousness** into this 
movement and unite the advanced forces of the working 
class in one centralised party. Our task is always to be at 
the head of the movement and combat tirelessly all 
those‹whether they be foes or ³friends²‹who hinder 
the accomplishment of this task. 
Such, in general, is the position of the ³majority.² 
* The Erfurt Programme, published by the Central Committee, 
p. 94- 
** which Marx and Engels elaborated.

J. V. S T A L I N 108 
Our ³minority² dislikes the position taken by the 
³majority²; it is ³un-Marxist,² it says; it ³fundamentally 
contradicts² Marxism! But is that so, most highly 
esteemed gentlemen? Where, when, on what planet? 
Read our articles, they say, and you will be convinced 
that we are right. Very well, let us read them. 
We have before us an article entitled ³What Is 
a Party?² (see Mogzauri, No. 6). Of what does the 
³critic² An accuse the Party ³majority²? ³It (the ³majority²) 
. . . proclaims itself the head of the Party . . . 
and demands submission from others . . . and to justify 
its conduct it often even invents new theories, such 
as, for example, that the working people cannot by 
their own efforts assimilate (my italics) Œlofty ideals,¹ 
etc.²* 
The question now is: Does the ³majority² advance, 
or has it ever advanced, such ³theories²? Never! 
Nowhere! On the contrary, Comrade Lenin, the ideological 
representative of the ³majority,² very definitely 
says that the working class very easily assimilates 
³lofty ideals,² that it very easily assimilates socialism. 
Listen: 
³It is often said: the working class spontaneously 
gravitates towards socialism. This is perfectly true 
in the sense that socialist theory defines the causes 
of the misery of the working class more profoundly 
and more correctly than any other theory, and for 
that reason the workers are able to assimilate it so 
easily.²** 
* Mogzauri, No. 6, p. 71. 
** Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, p. 29.

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 109 
As you see, in the opinion of the ³majority,² the 
workers easily assimilate the ³lofty ideals² which are 
called socialism. 
So what is An getting at? Where did he dig up his 
queer ³find²? The point is, reader, that ³critic² An had 
something entirely different in mind. He had in mind 
that passage in What Is To Be Done? where Lenin speaks 
of the elaboration of the theory of socialism, where he 
says that the working class cannot elaborate scientific 
socialism by its own efforts.* But how is that?‹you 
will ask. To elaborate the theory of socialism is one thing 
‹to assimilate it is another. Why did An forget those 
words of Lenin¹s in which he so clearly speaks of the 
assimilation of ³lofty ideals²? You are right, reader, but 
what can An do since he is so anxious to be a ³critic²? 
Just think what a heroic deed he is performing: he invents 
a ³theory² of his own, ascribes it to his opponent, and 
then bombards the fruit of his own imagination! That 
is criticism, if you like! At all events it is beyond doubt 
that An ³could not by his own efforts assimilate² Lenin¹s 
book What Is To Be Done? 
Let us now open the so-called Social-Democrat. What 
does the author of the article ³Majority or Minority?² 
(see Social-Democrat, No. 1) say? 
Plucking up courage, he vociferously attacks Lenin 
for expressin g the opinion that the ³natural (it ought to 
b e : 
³spontaneous²) development of the working-class movement 
leads not to socialism, but to bourgeois ideology.²** 
The author evidently fails to understand that the 
* Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, pp. 20-21. 
** Social-Democrat, No. 1, p. 14.

J. V. S T A L I N 110 
spontaneous working-class movement is a movement without 
socialism (let the author prove that this is not so), 
and that such a movement inevitably submits to bourgeois 
trade-unionist ideology, gravitates towards it; for in our 
times there can be only two ideologies, socialist and bourgeois, 
and where the former is absent the latter inevitably 
appears and occupies its place (prove the opposite!). 
Yes, this is exactly what Lenin says. But at the same time 
he does not forget about another gravitation that is 
characteristic of the working-class movement‹gravitation 
towards socialism, which is only temporarily eclipsed 
by the gravitation towards bourgeois ideology. Lenin 
says definitely that ³the working class spontaneously 
gravitates towards socialism,²* and he rightly observes 
that it is the duty of Social-Democracy to accelerate 
the victory of this gravitation by, among other things, 
combating the ³Economists.² Why, then, esteemed 
³critic,² did you not quote these words of Lenin in 
your article? Were they not uttered by the very same 
Lenin? Because it was not to your advantage. Isn¹t 
that so? 
³In Lenin¹s opinion . . . the worker, owing to his 
position (my italics), is a bourgeois rather than a Socialist 
. . . ²**‹continues the author. Well! I didn¹t expect 
anything so stupid even from such an author! Does 
Lenin talk about the worker¹s position? Does he say that 
owing to his position the worker is a bourgeois? Who 
but an idiot can say that owing to his position the worker 
is a bourgeois‹the worker who owns no means of produc- 
* Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, pp. 29. 
** Social-Democrat, No. 1, p. 14.

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 111 
tion and lives by selling his labour power? No! Lenin 
says something entirely different. The point is that owing 
to my position I can be a proletarian and not a bourgeois, 
but at the same time I can be unconscious of my position 
and, as a consequence, submit to bourgeois ideology. 
This is exactly how the matter stands in this case with 
the working class. And it means something entirely different. 
In general, the author is fond of hurling empty phrases 
about‹he shoots them off without thinking! Thus, 
for example, the author obstinately reiterates that 
³Leninism fundamentally contradicts Marxism²*; he 
reiterates this and fails to see where this ³idea² leads him. 
Let us believe for a moment his statement that Leninism 
does ³fundamentally contradict Marxism.² But what 
follows? What comes of this? The following. ³Leninism 
carried with it² Iskra (the old Iskra)‹this the author 
does not deny‹consequently Iskra, too, ³fundamentally 
contradicts Marxism.² The Second Party Congress‹the 
majority, numbering 35 votes‹recognised Iskra as the 
central organ of the Party and highly praised its services**; 
consequently, that congress, its programme and its tactics, 
also ³fundamentally contradict Marxism.² . . . Funny, 
isn¹t it, reader? 
The author, nevertheless, continues: ³In Lenin¹s opinion 
the spontaneous working-class movement is moving 
towards combination with the bourgeoisie. . . .² Yes, 
* Social-Democrat, No. 1, p. 15. 
** See Minutes of the Second Party Congress, p. 147. Ibid., 
Resolution, where Iskra is described as a true advocate of the principles 
of Social-Democratism.

J. V. S T A L I N 112 
indeed, the author is undoubtedly moving towards combination 
with idiocy, and it would be a good thing if he 
digressed from that path. 
But let us leave the ³critic.² Let us turn to Marxism. 
Our esteemed ³critic² obstinately reiterates that the 
stand taken by the ³majority² and by its representative, 
Lenin, fundamentally contradicts Marxism, because, 
he says, Kautsky, Marx and Engels say the opposite 
of what Lenin advocates! Is that the case? Let 
us see! 
³K. Kautsky,² the author informs us, ³writes in 
his Erfurt Programme: ŒThe interests of the proletariat 
and the bourgeoisie are so antagonistic that the strivings 
of these two classes cannot be combined for any more 
or less prolonged period. In every country where the 
capitalist mode of production prevails the participation 
of the working class in politics sooner or later 
leads to the working class separating from the bourgeois 
parties and forming an independent workers¹ 
party.¹² 
But what follows from this? Only that the interests 
of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are antagonistic, 
that ³sooner or later² the proletariat separates from 
the bourgeoisie to form an independent workers¹ party 
(remember: a workers¹ party, but not a Social-Democratic 
workers¹ party). The author assumes that here Kautsky 
disagrees with Lenin. But Lenin says that sooner or 
later the proletariat will not only separate from the 
bourgeoisie, but will bring about the social revolution, 
i.e., will overthrow the bourgeoisie.* The task 
* See Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, p. 53.

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 113 
of Social-Democracy‹he adds‹is to try to make 
this come about as quickly as possible, and to come 
about consciously. Yes, consciously and not spontaneously, 
for it is about this consciousness that Lenin 
writes. 
³. . . Where things have reached the stage of the 
formation of an independent workers¹ party,² continues 
the ³critic,² citing Kautsky¹s book, ³the party must 
sooner or later, of natural necessity, assimilate socialist 
tendencies if it was not inspired by them from the 
very outset; it must in the long run become a socialist 
workers¹ party, i.e., Social-Democracy.²* 
What does that mean? Only that the workers¹ party 
will assimilate socialist trends. But does Lenin deny 
this? Not in the least! Lenin plainly says that not only 
the workers¹ party, but the entire working class assimilates 
socialism.** What, then, is the nonsense we hear 
from Social-Democrat and its prevaricating hero? What 
is the use of all this balderdash? As the saying goes: 
He heard the sound of a bell, but where it came from 
he could not tell. That¹s exactly what happened to our 
muddle-headed author. 
As you see, Kautsky does not differ one iota from 
Lenin on that point. But all this reveals the author¹s 
thoughtlessness with exceptional clarity. 
Does Kautsky say anything in support of the stand 
taken by the ³majority²? Here is what he writes in one 
of his splendid articles, in which he analyses the draft 
programme of Austrian Social-Democracy: 
* Social-Democrat, No. 1, p. 15. 
** Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, p. 29.

J. V. S T A L I N 114 
³Many of our revisionist critics (the followers 
of Bernstein) believe that Marx asserted that economic 
development and the class struggle create not only 
the conditions for socialist production, but also, and 
directly, engender the consciousness (K. Kautsky¹s 
italics) of its necessity. And these critics at once object 
that Britain, the country most highly developed capitalistically, 
is more remote than any other from this 
consciousness. Judging from the (Austrian) draft, one 
might assume that this . . . view . . . was shared by 
the committee that drafted the Austrian programme. 
In the draft programme it is stated: ŒThe more capitalist 
development increases the numbers of the proletariat, 
the more the proletariat is compelled and becomes 
f i t to fight against capitalism. The proletariat becomes 
conscious¹ of the possibility of and of the necessity 
for socialism. In this connection socialist consciousness 
appears to be a necessary and direct 
result of the proletarian class struggle. But that is 
absolutely untrue. . . . Modern socialist consciousness 
can arise only on the basis of profound scientific 
knowledge. . . . The vehicle of science is not 
the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia 
(K. Kautsky¹s italics) . It was in the minds of individual 
members of that stratum that modern socialism originated, 
and it was they who communicated it (scientific 
socialism) to the more intellectually developed proletarians 
who, in their turn, introduce it into the 
proletarian class struggle. . . . Thus, socialist consciousness 
is something introduced into the proletarian 
class struggle from without and not something 
that arose within it spontaneously. Accordingly,

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 115 
the old Hainfeld programme34 quite rightly stated that 
the task of Social-Democracy is to imbue the proletariat 
with the consciousness of its position and 
the consciousness of its task . . .²* 
Do you not recall, reader, analogous thoughts expressed 
by Lenin on this question; do you not recall the 
well-known stand taken by the ³majority²? Why did the 
³Tiflis Committee² and its Social-Democrat conceal the 
truth? Why, in speaking of Kautsky, did our esteemed 
³critic² fail to quote these words of Kautsky¹s in his 
article? Whom are these most highly esteemed gentlemen 
trying to deceive? Why are they so ³contemptuous² 
towards their readers? Is it not because . . . they fear 
the truth, hide from the truth, and think that the truth 
also can be hidden? They behave like the bird which 
hides its head in the sand and imagines that nobody can 
see it! But they delude themselves as that bird does. 
If socialist consciousness has been worked out 
on a scientific basis, and i f this consciousness is 
introduced into the working-class movement from without 
by the efforts of Social-Democracy**‹it is clear 
that all this happens because the working class, so long 
as it remains a working class, cannot lead science and 
work out scientific socialism by its own efforts: it lacks 
both the time and the means for this. 
Here is what K. Kautsky says in his Erfurt Programme: 
* Neue Zeit, 1901-02, XX, No. 3, p. 79. Lenin quotes this passage 
from Kautsky¹s splendid article in What Is To Be Done?, p. 27. 
** And not only by Social-Democratic intellectuals.

J. V. S T A L I N 116 
³. . . The proletarian can at best assimilate part of 
the knowledge worked out by bourgeois learning and 
adapt it to his objects and needs, but so long as he remains 
a proletarian he lacks the leisure and means independently 
to carry science beyond the limits reached by 
bourgeois thinkers. Hence, spontaneous workers¹ socialism 
must bear all the essential marks of utopianism²* 
(utopianism is a false, unscientific theory). 
Utopian socialism of this kind often assumes an 
anarchistic character, continues Kautsky, but ³. . . As 
is well known, wherever the anarchist movement (meaning 
by that proletarian utopianism‹K. Kautsky) really 
permeated the masses and became a class movement 
it always, sooner or later, despite its seeming radicalism, 
ended by being transformed into a purely trade-unionist 
movement of the narrowest kind.²** 
In other words, if the working-class movement is not 
combined with scientific socialism it inevitably becomes 
petty, assumes a ³narrow trade-unionist² character and, 
consequently, submits to trade-unionist ideology. 
³But that means belittling the workers and extolling 
the intelligentsia!²‹howl our ³critic² and his 
Social-Democrat. . . . Poor ³critic²! Miserable Social- 
Democrat! They take the proletariat for a capricious 
young lady who must not be told the truth, who must 
always be paid compliments so that she will not run 
away! No, most highly esteemed gentlemen! We believe 
that the proletariat will display more staunchness than 
* The Erfurt Programme, published by the Central Committee, 
p. 93. 
** Ibid., p. 94.

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 117 
you think. We believe that it will not fear the truth! 
As for you. . . . What can one say to you? Even now 
you have shown that you fear the truth and, in your 
article, did not tell your readers what Kautsky¹s real 
views are. . . . 
Thus, scientific socialism without the working-class 
movement is an empty phrase that can always be easily 
thrown to the winds. 
On the other hand, the working-class movement 
without socialism is aimless trade-unionist wandering, 
which some time or other will, of course, lead to the 
social revolution, but at the cost of long pain and 
suffering. 
The conclusion? 
³The working-class movement must combine with 
socialism²: ³Social-Democracy is a combination of the 
working-class movement with socialism.²* 
That is what Kautsky, the Marxist theoretician, 
says. 
We have seen that Iskra (the old Iskra) and the ³majority² 
say the same. 
We have seen that Comrade Lenin takes the same 
stand. 
Thus, the ³majority² takes a firm Marxist stand. 
Clearly, ³contempt for the workers,² ³extolling 
the intelligentsia,² the ³un-Marxist stand of the majority,² 
and similar gems which the Menshevik ³critics² 
scatter so profusely, are nothing more than catchwords, 
figments of the imagination of the Tiflis ³Mensheviks.² 
* The Erfurt Programme, p. 94.

J. V. S T A L I N 118 
On the other hand, we shall see that actually it is 
the Tiflis ³minority,² the ³Tiflis Committee² and its 
Social-Democrat that ³fundamentally contradict Marxism.² 
But of this anon. Meanwhile, we draw attention 
to the following: 
In support of his utterances, the author of the 
article ³Majority or Minority?² quotes the words of 
Marx (?): ³The theoretician of any given class comes 
theoretically to the conclusion to which the class itself 
has already arrived practically.²* 
One of two things. Either the author does not know 
the Georgian language, or else there is a printer¹s error. 
No literate person would say ³to which it has already 
arrived.² It would be correct to say: ³at which it has 
already arrived,² or ³to which it is already coming.² If 
the author had in mind the latter (to which it is already 
coming), then I must observe that he is misquoting Marx; 
Marx did not say anything of the kind. If the author had 
the first formula in mind, then the sentence he quoted 
should have run as follows: ³The theoretician of any 
given class arrives theoretically at the conclusion at 
which the class itself has already arrived practically.² 
In other words, since Marx and Engels arrived theoretically 
at the conclusion that the collapse of capitalism 
and the building of socialism are inevitable‹it implies 
that the proletariat has already rejected capitalism practically, 
has already crushed capitalism and has built 
up the socialist way of life in its place! 
Poor Marx! Who knows how many more absurdities 
our pseudo-Marxists will ascribe to him? 
* Social-Democrat, No 1, p. 15.

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 119 
But did Marx really say that? Here is what he actually 
said: The theoreticians who represent the petty 
bourgeoisie ³are . . . driven, theoretically, to the same 
problems and solutions to which material interest and social 
position drive the latter practically. This is, in general, 
the relationship between the political and literary 
representatives of a class and the class they represent.²* 
As you see, Marx does not say ³already arrived to.² 
These ³philosophical² words were invented by our esteemed 
³critic.² 
Consequently Marx¹s own words possess an entirely 
different meaning. 
What idea does Marx propound in the above-quoted 
proposition? Only that the theoretician of a given class 
cannot create an ideal, the elements of which do not 
exist in life; that he can only indicate the elements of the 
future and on that basis theoretically create an ideal 
which the given class reaches practically. The difference 
is that the theoretician runs ahead of the class and indicates 
the embryo of the future before the class does. 
That is what is meant by ³arriving at something theoretically.² 
Here is what Marx and Engels say in their Manifesto: 
³The Communists (i.e., Social-Democrats), therefore, 
are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced 
and resolute section of the working-class parties of every 
country, that section which pushes forward all others; 
on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the 
* If The Eighteenth Brumaire35 is not available, see Minutes 
of the Second Party Congress, p. 111, where these words of 
Marx are quoted.

J. V. S T A L I N 120 
great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding 
the line of march, the conditions, and the 
ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.² 
Yes, the ideologists ³push forward,² they see much 
farther than the ³great mass of the proletariat,² and 
this is the whole point. The ideologists push forward, and 
it is precisely for this reason that the idea, socialist 
consciousness, is of such great importance for the 
movement. 
Is that why you attack the ³majority,² esteemed 
³critic²? If it is, then say good-bye to Marxism, and 
know that the ³majority² is proud of its Marxist stand. 
The situation of the ³majority² in this case in 
many ways recalls that of Engels in the nineties. 
The idea is the source of social life, asserted the 
idealists. In their opinion, social consciousness is the 
foundation upon which the life of society is built. That 
is why they were called idealists. 
It had to be proved that ideas do not drop from 
the skies, but are engendered by life itself. 
Marx and Engels entered the historical arena and 
magnificently accomplished this task. They proved that 
social life is the source of ideas and, therefore, that the 
life of society is the foundation on which social consciousness 
is built. Thereby, they dug the grave of 
idealism and cleared the road for materialism. 
Certain semi-Marxists interpreted this as meaning 
that consciousness, ideas, are of very little importance 
in life. 
The great importance of ideas had to be proved. 
And so Engels came forward and, in his letters 
(1891-94), emphasised that while it is true that ideas do

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 121 
not drop from the skies but are engendered by life itself, 
yet once born, ideas acquire great importance, for they 
unite men, organise them, and put their impress upon 
the social life which has engendered them‹ideas are of 
great importance in historical progress. 
³This is not Marxism but the betrayal of Marxism,² 
shouted Bernstein and his ilk. The Marxists only 
laughed. 
There were semi-Marxists in Russia‹the ³Economists.² 
They asserted that, since ideas are engendered 
by social life, socialist consciousness is of little importance 
for the working-class movement. 
It had to be proved that socialist consciousness 
is of great importance for the working-class movement, 
that without it the movement would be aimless tradeunionist 
wandering, and nobody could say when the 
proletariat would rid itself of it and reach the social 
revolution. 
And Iskra appeared and magnificently accomplished 
this task. The book What Is To Be Done? appeared, 
in which Lenin emphasised the great importance 
of socialist consciousness. The Party ³majority² was 
formed and firmly took this path. 
But here the little Bernsteins come out and begin 
to shout: This ³fundamentally contradicts Marxism²! 
But do you, little ³Economists,² know what Marxism 
is? 
Surprising!‹the reader will say. What¹s the matter?‹
he will ask. Why did Plekhanov write his article 
criticising Lenin (see the new Iskra, Nos. 70, 71)? What

J. V. S T A L I N 122 
is he censuring the ³majority² for? Are not the pseudo- 
Marxists of Tiflis and their Social-Democrat repeating 
the ideas expressed by Plekhanov? Yes, they are repeating 
them, but in such a clumsy way that it becomes 
disgusting. Yes, Plekhanov did criticise. But do you 
know what the point is? Plekhanov does not disagree 
with the ³majority² and with Lenin. And not only 
Plekhanov. Neither Martov, nor Zasulich, nor Axelrod 
disagree with them. Actually, on the question we have 
been discussing, the leaders of the ³minority² do not 
disagree with the old Iskra. And the old Iskra is the 
banner of the ³majority.² Don¹t be surprised! Here are 
the facts: 
We are familiar with the old Iskra¹s programmatic 
article (see above). We know that that article fully expresses 
the stand taken by the ³majority.² Whose article 
is it? The article of the editorial board of Iskra of that 
time. Who were the members of that editorial board? 
Lenin, Plekhanov, Axelrod, Martov, Zasulich and Starover. 
Of these only Lenin now belongs to the ³majority²; 
the other five are the leaders of the ³minority²; but the 
fact remains that they were the editors of Iskra¹s programmatic 
article, consequently, they ought not to repudiate 
their own words; presumably they believed what 
they wrote. 
But we shall leave Iskra if you like. 
Here is what Martov writes: 
³Thus, the idea of socialism first arose not among 
the masses of the workers, but in the studies of scholars 
from the ranks of the bourgeoisie.² 
* Martov, The Red Flag, p. 3.

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 123 
And here is what Vera Zasulich writes: 
³Even the idea of the class solidarity of the entire 
proletariat . . . is not so simple that it could arise independently 
in the mind of every worker. . . . And socialism 
. . . most certainly does not spring up in the minds 
of the workers Œautomatically.¹ . . . The ground for the 
theory of socialism was prepared by the entire development 
of both life and knowledge . . . and created by the 
mind of a genius who was armed with that knowledge. 
Similarly, the dissemination of the ideas of socialism 
among the workers was initiated, almost over the entire 
continent of Europe, by Socialists who had received 
their training in educational establishments for the 
upper classes.²* 
Let us now hear Plekhanov, who so pompously and 
solemnly criticises Lenin in the new Iskra (Nos. 70, 71). 
The scene is the Second Party Congress. Plekhanov is 
arguing against Martynov and defending Lenin. He censures 
Martynov, who had seized on a single sentence 
of Lenin¹s and had overlooked the book What Is To Be 
Done? as a whole, and goes on to say: 
³Comrade Martynov¹s trick reminds me of a censor 
who said: ŒPermit me to tear a sentence from the Lord¹s 
Prayer from its context and I will prove to you that its 
author deserves to be hanged.¹ But all the reproaches 
hurled at this unfortunate sentence (Lenin¹s) not only by 
Comrade Martynov but also by many, many others, are 
based on a misunderstanding. Comrade Martynov quotes 
the words of Engels: ŒModern socialism is the theoretical 
expression of the modern working-class movement.¹ 
* Zarya,36 No. 4, pp. 79-80.

J. V. S T A L I N 124 
Comrade Lenin also agrees with Engels. . . . But 
Engels¹s words are a general proposition. The question 
is, who first formulates this theoretical expression? 
Lenin did not write a treatise on the philosophy of history 
but a polemical article against the ŒEconomists,¹ 
who said: we must wait and see what the working class 
arrives at by its own efforts without the aid of the Œrevolutionary 
bacillus¹ (i.e., without Social-Democracy) . 
The latter was prohibited from telling the workers anything, 
precisely because it is a Œrevolutionary bacillus,¹ 
i.e., because it possesses theoretical consciousness. 
But if you eliminate the Œbacillus,¹ all that remains 
is the unconscious mass, into which consciousness must 
be introduced from outside. Had you wanted to be fair to 
Lenin, and had you carefully read his whole book, you 
would have seen that that is precisely what he says.²* 
That is what Plekhanov said at the Second Party 
Congress. 
And now, several months later, the same Plekhanov, 
instigated by the same Martov, Axelrod, Zasulich, 
Starover and others, speaks again, and seizing on 
the very same sentence of Lenin¹s that he defended at 
the congress, says: Lenin and the ³majority² are not 
Marxists. He knows that even if a sentence from the 
Lord¹s Prayer is torn from its context and interpreted 
separately, the author of the Prayer might find himself 
on the gallows for heresy. He knows that this 
would be unfair, that an unbiassed critic would not do 
such a thing; nevertheless, he tears this sentence from 
Lenin¹s book; nevertheless he acts unfairly, and publicly 
* Minutes of the Second Party Congress, p. 123.

FROM MARX 
TO MAO 

 
NOT FOR 
COMMERCIAL 
DISTRIBUTION 
125 
besmirches himself. And Martov, Zasulich, Axelrod and 
Starover pander to him and publish his article under 
their editorship in the new Iskra (Nos. 70, 71), and 
thereby disgrace themselves once again. 
Why did they exhibit such spinelessness? Why did 
these leaders of the ³minority² besmirch themselves? 
Why did they repudiate the programmatic article in 
Iskra to which they themselves had subscribed? Why did 
they repudiate their own words? Has such falsity ever 
before been heard of in the Social-Democratic Party? 
What happened during the few months that elapsed 
between the Second Congress and the appearance of 
Plekhanov¹s article? 
What happened was this: Of the six editors, the Second 
Congress elected only three to be editors of Iskra: 
Plekhanov, Lenin and Martov. As for Axelrod, Starover 
and Zasulich‹the congress appointed them to other 
posts. It goes without saying that the congress had a 
right to do this, and it was the duty of everyone to submit 
to it; the congress expresses the will of the Party, it is the 
supreme organ of the Party, and whoever acts contrary 
to its decisions tramples upon the will of the Party. 
But these obstinate editors did not submit to the will 
of the Party, to Party discipline (Party discipline is 
the same as the will of the Party). It would appear 
that Party discipline was invented only for simple Party 
workers like us! They were angry with the congress for 
not electing them as editors; they stepped to the side, 
took Martov with them, and formed an opposition. 
They proclaimed a boycott against the Party, refused 
to carry on any Party activities and began to threaten 
the Party. Elect us, they said, to the editorial board, to 
BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY

J. V. S T A L I N 126 
the Central Committee and to the Party Council, 
otherwise we shall cause a split. And a split ensued. Thus 
they trampled upon the will of the Party once again. 
Here are the demands of the striker-editors: 
³The old editorial board of Iskra to be restored (i.e., 
give us three seats on the editorial board). 
³A definite number of members of the opposition 
(i.e., of the ³minority²) to be installed in the Central 
Committee . 
³Two seats in the Party Council to be allocated to 
members of the opposition, etc. . . . 
³We present these terms as the only ones that will 
enable the Party to avoid a conflict which will threaten 
its very existence² (i.e., satisfy our demands, otherwise 
we shall cause a big split in the Party).* 
What did the Party say to them in reply? 
The Party¹s representative, the Central Committee, 
and other comrades said to them: We cannot go against 
the decisions of the Party congress; elections are a matter 
for the congress; nevertheless, we shall endeavour 
to restore peace and harmony, although, to tell the truth, 
it is disgraceful to fight for seats; you want to split the 
Party for the sake of seats, etc. 
The striker-editors took offence; they were embarrassed‹
indeed, it did look as though they had started 
the fight for the sake of seats; they pulled Plekhanov 
over to their side** and launched their heroic cause. 
* Commentary on the Minutes of the League, p. 26. 
** Perhaps the reader will ask how it was possible for Plekhanov 
to go over to the ³minority,² that same Plekhanov who had 
been an ardent supporter of the ³majority.² The fact is that disagreement 
arose between him and Lenin. When the ³minority²

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 127 
They were obliged to seek some ³stronger² ³disagreement² 
between the ³majority² and ³minority² in order to 
show that they were not fighting for the sake of seats. 
They searched and searched until they found a passage 
in Lenin¹s book which, if torn from the context and 
interpreted separately, could indeed be cavilled at. 
A happy idea‹thought the leaders of the ³minority²‹ 
Lenin is the leader of the ³majority,² let us discredit 
Lenin and thereby swing the Party to our side. And 
so Plekhanov began to trumpet to the world that ³Lenin 
and his followers are not Marxists.² True, only yesterday 
they defended the very idea in Lenin¹s book which they 
are attacking today, but that cannot be helped; an 
flew into a rage and proclaimed the boycott, Plekhanov took the 
stand that it was necessary to yield to them entirely. Lenin did 
not agree with him. Plekhanov gradually began to incline towards 
the ³minority.² Disagreements between the two grew until 
they reached such a pitch that one fine day Plekhanov became 
an opponent of Lenin and the ³majority.² Here is what Lenin 
writes about this: 
³. . . Several days later I, with a member of the Council, 
did indeed go and see Plekhanov and our conversation with 
Plekhanov took the following course: 
³ŒYou know,¹ said Plekhanov, Œsome wives (i.e., the ³minority²) 
are such shrews that you have to yield to them to avoid 
hysterics and a big public scandal.¹ 
³ŒPerhaps,¹ I answered, Œbut we must yield in such a way 
as to remain strong enough to prevent a still bigger ³scandal²¹² 
(see Commentary on the Minutes of the League, p. 37, where Lenin¹s 
letter is quoted).37 
Lenin and Plekhanov failed to reach agreement. From that 
moment Plekhanov began moving over to the ³minority.² 
We have learned from reliable sources that Plekhanov is 
now deserting the ³minority² and has already founded his own 
organ, Dnevnik Sotsial-Demokrata.38

J. V. S T A L I N 128 
opportunist is called an opportunist precisely because 
he has no respect for principle. 
That is why they besmirch themselves; that is the 
cause of their falsity. 
But that is not all. 
Some time passed. They saw that nobody was paying 
attention to their agitation against the ³majority² and 
Lenin, apart from a few naïve persons. They saw that their 
³affairs² were in a bad way and decided to change their 
colours again. On March 10, 1905, the same Plekhanov, 
and the same Martov and Axelrod, in the name of the 
Party Council, passed a resolution in which, among other 
things, they said: 
³Comrades! (addressing themselves to the ³majority²). 
. . . Both sides (i.e., the ³majority² and the ³minority²) 
have repeatedly expressed the conviction that 
the existing disagreements on tactics and organisation 
are not of such a character as to render impossible activities 
within a single Party organisation²*; therefore, 
they said, let us convene a comrades¹ court (consisting 
of Bebel and others) to settle our slight disagreement. 
In short, the disagreements in the Party are merely 
a squabble, which a comrades¹ court will investigate, 
but we are a united whole. 
But how can that be? We ³non-Marxists² are invited 
into the Party organisations, we are a united whole, and 
so on and so forth. . . . What does it mean? Why, you 
leaders of the ³minority² are betraying the Party! Can 
³non-Marxists² be put at the head of the Party? Is there 
room for ³non-Marxists² in the ranks of the Social- 
* Iskra, No. 91, p. 3.

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 129 
Democratic Party? Or, perhaps, you, too, have betrayed 
the cause of Marxism and have, therefore, changed front? 
But it would be naive to expect a reply. The point 
is that these wonderful leaders have several ³principles² 
in their pockets, and whenever they want a particular 
one they take it out. As the saying goes: They have a 
different opinion for every day in the week! . . . 
Such are the leaders of the so-called ³minority.² 
It is easy to picture to oneself what the tail of this 
leadership‹the so-called Tiflis ³minority²‹is like. . . . 
The trouble also is that at times the tail pays no heed 
to the head and refuses to obey. For example, while the 
leaders of the ³minority² consider that conciliation is 
possible and call for harmony among the Party workers, 
the Tiflis ³minority² and its Social-Democrat continue 
to rave and shout: between the ³majority² and ³minority² 
there is ³a life-and-death struggle²*; we must 
exterminate each other! They are all at sixes and sevens. 
The ³minority² complain that we call them opportunist 
(unprincipled). But what else can we call them 
if they repudiate their own words, if they swing from 
side to side, if they are eternally wavering and hesitating? 
Can a genuine Social-Democrat change his opinions 
every now and again? The ³minority² change 
theirs more often than one changes pocket handkerchiefs. 
Our pseudo-Marxists obstinately reiterate that the 
³minority² is truly proletarian in character. Is that so? 
Let us see. 
Kautsky says that ³it is easier for the proletarian 
to become imbued with Party principles, he inclines 
* See Social-Democrat, No. 1.

J. V. S T A L I N 130 
towards a principled policy that is independent of the 
mood of the moment and of personal or local interests.²* 
But what about the ³minority²? Is it inclined towards 
a policy that is independent of the mood of the 
moment, etc.? On the contrary: it is always hesitating, 
eternally wavering; it detests a firm principled policy, 
it prefers unprincipledness; it follows the mood of the 
moment. We are already familiar with the facts. 
Kautsky says that the proletarian likes Party discipline: 
³The proletarian is a nonentity so long as he remains 
an isolated individual. His strength, his progress, his 
hopes and expectations are entirely derived from organisation. 
. . . ² That is why he is not distracted by personal 
advantage or personal glory; he ³performs his duty 
in any post he is assigned to with a voluntary discipline 
which pervades all his feelings and thoughts.²** 
But what about the ³minority²? Is it, too, imbued 
with a sense of discipline? On the contrary, it despises 
Party discipline and ridicules it.*** The first to set an 
example in violating Party discipline were the leaders 
of the ³minority.² Recall Axelrod, Zasulich, Starover, 
Martov and others, who refused to submit to the decision 
of the Second Congress. 
³Quite different is the case of the intellectual,² 
continues Kautsky. He finds it extremely difficult to 
submit to Party discipline and does so by compulsion, 
not of his own free will. ³He recognises the need of 
* The Erfurt Programme, published by the Central Committee, 
p. 88. 
** See Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, p. 93, where 
these words of Kautsky¹s are quoted. 
*** See Minutes of the League.

BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY 131 
discipline only for the mass, not for the chosen few. 
And of course, he counts himself among these few. . . . 
An ideal example of an intellectual who had become 
thoroughly imbued with the sentiments of the proletariat, 
and who . . . worked in any post he was assigned 
to, subordinated himself whole-heartedly to our great 
cause, and despised the spineless whining . . . which the 
intellectual . . . is all too prone to indulge in when 
he happens to be in the minority‹an ideal example of 
such an intellectual . . . was Liebknecht. We may also 
mention Marx, who never forced himself to the forefront 
and whose Party discipline in the International, 
where he often found himself in the minority, was 
exemplary.²* 
But what about the ³minority²? Does it display anything 
of the ³sentiments of the proletariat²? Is its conduct 
anything like that of Liebknecht and Marx? On the contrary, 
we have seen that the leaders of the ³minority² 
have not subordinated their ³ego² to our sacred cause; 
we have seen that it was these leaders who indulged in 
³spineless whining when they found themselves in the 
minority² at the Second Congress; we have seen that 
it was they who, after the congress, wailed for ³front 
seats,² and that it was they who started a Party split 
for the sake of these seats. . . . 
Is this your ³proletarian character,² esteemed Mensheviks? 
Then why are the workers on our side in some towns? 
the Mensheviks ask us. 
* See Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, p. 93, where 
these lines of Kautsky¹s are quoted.

J. V. S T A L I N 132
Yes, it is true, in some towns the workers are on the 
side of the ³minority,² but that proves nothing. Workers 
even follow the revisionists (the opportunists in Germany) 
in some towns, but that does not prove that their stand 
is a proletarian one; it does not prove that they are not 
opportunists. One day a crow found a rose, but that 
did not prove that a crow is a nightingale. It is not for 
nothing that the saying goes: 
When a crow picks up a rose 
³I¹m a nightingale,² it crows. 
* * 
* 
It is now clear on what grounds the disagreements in 
the Party arose. As is evident, two trends have appeared 
in our Party: the trend of proletarian firmness, and 
the trend of intellectual wavering. And this intellectual 
wavering is expressed by the present ³minority.² The 
Tiflis ³Committee² and its Social-Democrat are the 
obedient slaves of this ³minority²! 
That is the whole point. 
True, our pseudo-Marxists often shout that they are 
opposed to the ³mentality of the intellectual,² and 
they accuse the ³majority² of ³intellectual wavering²; 
but this reminds us of the case of the thief who stole 
some money and began to shout: ³Stop thief!² 
Moreover, it is well known that the tongue ever 
turns to the aching tooth. 
Reproduced from the pamphlet 
published by the Caucasian Union 
Committee of the R.S.D.L.P., May 1905 
Translated from the Georgian

ARMED INSURRECTION AND OUR TACTICS 
The revolutionary movement ³has already brought 
about the necessity for an armed uprising²‹this 
idea, expressed by the Third Congress of our Party, 
finds increasing confirmation day after day. The flames 
of revolution are flaring up with ever-increasing intensity, 
now here and now there calling forth local uprisings. 
The three days¹ barricade and street fighting in 
Lodz, the strike of many tens of thousands of workers 
in Ivanovo-Voznesensk with the inevitable bloody collisions 
with the troops, the uprising in Odessa, the ³mutiny² 
in the Black Sea Fleet and in the Libau naval 
depot, and the ³week² in Tiflis‹are all harbingers of 
the approaching storm. It is approaching, approaching 
irresistibly, i t will break over Russia any day and, 
in a mighty, cleansing flood, sweep away all that is 
antiquated and rotten; it will wipe out the disgrace 
called the autocracy, under which the Russian people 
have suffered for ages. The last convulsive efforts of 
tsarism‹the intensification of repression of every kind, 
the proclamation of martial law over half the country and 
the multiplication of gallows, all accompanied by alluring 
speeches addressed to the liberals and by false 
promises of reform‹these things will not save-it from

J. V. S T A L I N 134 
the fate history has in store for it. The days of the autocracy 
are numbered; the storm is inevitable. A new 
social order is already being born, welcomed by the entire 
people, who are expecting renovation and regeneration 
from it. 
What new questions is this approaching storm raising 
before our Party? How must we adjust our organisation 
and tactics to the new requirements of life 
so that we may take a more active and organised part 
in the uprising, which is the only necessary beginning 
of the revolution? To guide the uprising, should we‹the 
advanced detachment of the class which is not only the 
vanguard, but also the main driving force of the revolution‹
set up special bodies, or is the existing Party 
machinery enough? 
These questions have been confronting the Party 
and demanding immediate solution for several months 
already. For those who worship ³spontaneity,² who degrade 
the Party¹s objects to the level of simply following 
in the wake of life, who drag at the tail and do not march 
at the head as the advanced class-conscious detachment 
should do, such questions do not exist. Insurrection 
is spontaneous, they say, it is impossible to organise and 
prepare it, every prearranged plan of action is a utopia 
(they are opposed to any sort of ³plan²‹why, that is 
³consciousness² and not a ³spontaneous phenomenon²!), 
a waste of effort‹social life follows its own, unknown 
paths and will shatter all our projects. Hence, they say, 
we must confine ourselves to conducting propaganda and 
agitation in favour of the idea of insurrection, the idea 
of the ³self-arming² of the masses; we must only exercise 
³political guidance²; as regards ³technical² guidance of

ARMED INSURRECTION AND OUR TACTICS 135 
the insurgent people, let anybody who likes undertake 
that. 
But we have always exercised such guidance up to 
now!‹the opponents of the ³khvostist policy² reply. 
Wide agitation and propaganda, political guidance of 
the proletariat, are absolutely essential. That goes without 
saying. But to confine ourselves to such general 
tasks means either evading an answer to the question 
which life bluntly puts to us, or revealing utter inability 
to adjust our tactics to the requirements of the rapidly 
growing revolutionary struggle. We must, of course, 
now intensify political agitation tenfold, we must try 
to establish our influence not only over the proletariat, 
but also over those numerous strata of the ³people² who 
are gradually joining the revolution; we must try to popularise 
among all classes of the population the idea that 
an uprising is necessary. But we cannot confine ourselves 
solely to this! To enable the proletariat to utilise 
the impending revolution for the purposes of its own 
class struggle, to enable it to establish a democratic 
system that will provide the greatest guarantees for the 
subsequent struggle for socialism‹it, the proletariat, 
around which the opposition is rallying, must not only 
be in the centre of the struggle, but become the leader 
and guide of the uprising. It is the technical guidance 
and organisational preparation of the all-Russian uprising 
that constitute the new tasks with which life 
has confronted the proletariat. And if our Party wishes 
to be the real political leader of the working class it 
cannot and must not repudiate these new tasks. 
And so, what must we do to achieve this object? What 
must our first steps be?

J. V. S T A L I N 136 
Many of our organisations have already answered 
this question in a practical way by directing part of 
their forces and resources to the purpose of arming the 
proletariat. Our struggle against the autocracy has entered 
the stage when the necessity of arming is universally 
admitted. But mere realisation of the necessity of 
arming is not enough‹the practical task must be bluntly 
and clearly put before the Party. Hence, our committees 
must at once, forthwith, proceed to arm the people locally, 
to set up special groups to arrange this matter, to organise 
district groups for the purpose of procuring arms, to 
organise workshops for the manufacture of different 
kinds of explosives, to draw up plans for seizing state 
and private stores of arms and arsenals. We must not 
only arm the people ³with a burning desire to arm themselves,² 
as the new Iskra advises us, but also ³take the most 
energetic measures to arm the proletariat² in actual fact, 
as the Third Party Congress made it incumbent upon us 
to do. It is easier on this issue than on any other to reach 
agreement with the section that has split off from the 
Party (if it is really in earnest about arming and is not 
merely talking about ³a burning desire to arm themselves²), 
as well as with the national Social-Democratic 
organisations, such as, for example, the Armenian Federalists 
and others who have set themselves the same 
object. Such an attempt has already been made in Baku, 
where after the February massacre our committee, the 
Balakhany-Bibi-Eibat group and the Gnchak Committee39 
set up among themselves an organising committee for 
procuring arms. It is absolutely essential that this difficult 
and responsible undertaking be organised by joint 
efforts, and we believe that factional interests should

ARMED INSURRECTION AND OUR TACTICS 137 
least of all hinder the amalgamation of all the Social- 
Democratic forces on this ground. 
In addition to increasing stocks of arms and organising 
their procurement and manufacture, it is necessary 
to devote most serious attention to the task of organising 
fighting squads of every kind for the purpose of 
utilising the arms that are being procured. Under no 
circumstances should actions such as distributing arms 
directly to the masses be resorted to. In view of the 
fact that our resources are limited and that it is extremely 
difficult to conceal weapons from the vigilant eyes 
of the police, we shall be unable to arm any considerable 
section of the population, and all our efforts will be 
wasted. It will be quite different when we set up a special 
fighting organisation. Our fighting squads will learn 
to handle their weapons, and during the uprising‹ 
irrespective of whether it breaks out spontaneously or 
is prepared beforehand‹they will come out as the chief 
and leading units around which the insurgent people 
will rally, and under whose leadership they will march 
into battle. Thanks to their experience and organisation, 
and also to the fact that they will be well armed, it will 
be possible to utilise all the forces of the insurgent people 
and thereby achieve the immediate object‹the arming 
of the entire people and the execution of the prearranged 
plan of action. They will quickly capture various stores 
of arms, government and public offices, the post office, 
the telephone exchange, and so forth, which will be necessary 
for the further development of the revolution. 
But these fighting squads will be needed not only 
when the revolutionary uprising has already spread 
over the whole town; their role will be no less important

J. V. S T A L I N 138 
on the eve of the uprising. During the past six months it 
has become convincingly clear to us that the autocracy, 
which has discredited itself in the eyes of all classes 
of the population, has concentrated a l l i t s energy 
on mobilising the dark forces of the country‹professional 
hooligans, or the ignorant and fanatical elements 
among the Tatars‹for the purpose of fighting the revolutionaries. 
Armed and protected by the police, they are 
terrorising the population and creating a tense atmosphere 
for the liberation movement. Our fighting organisations 
must always be ready to offer due resistance to all the 
attempts made by these dark forces, and must try to 
convert the anger and the resistance called forth by their 
actions into an anti-government movement. The armed 
fighting squads, ready to go out into the streets and take 
their place at the head of the masses of the people at 
any moment, can easily achieve the object set by the 
Third Congress‹³to organise armed resistance to the actions 
of the Black Hundreds, and generally, of all reactionary 
elements led by the government² (³Resolution 
on Attitude Towards the Government¹s Tactics on 
the Eve of the Revolution²‹see ³Announcement²).40 
One of the main tasks of our fighting squads, and of 
military-technical organisation in general, should be 
to draw up the plan of the uprising for their particular 
districts and co-ordinate it with the plan drawn up by 
the Party centre for the whole of Russia. Ascertain the 
enemy¹s weakest spots, choose the points from which 
the attack against him is to be launched, distribute 
all the forces over the district and thoroughly study the 
topography of the town‹all this must be done beforehand, 
so that we shall not be taken by surprise under

ARMED INSURRECTION AND OUR TACTICS 139 
any circumstances. It is totally inappropriate here to 
go into a detailed analysis of this aspect of our organisations¹ 
activity. Strict secrecy in drawing up the plan 
of action must be accompanied by the widest possible dissemination 
among the proletariat of military-technical 
knowledge which is absolutely necessary for conducting 
street fighting. For this purpose we must utilise the services 
of the military men in the organisation. For this 
purpose also we must utilise the services of a number 
of other comrades who will be extremely useful in this 
matter because of their natural talent and inclinations. 
Only such thorough preparation for insurrection can 
ensure for Social-Democracy the leading role in the forthcoming 
battles between the people and the autocracy. 
Only complete fighting preparedness will enable the 
proletariat to transform the isolated clashes with the 
police and the troops into a nation-wide uprising 
with the object of setting up a provisional revolutionary 
government in place of the tsarist government. 
The supporters of the ³khvostist policy² notwithstanding, 
the organised proletariat will exert all its 
efforts to concentrate both the technical and political 
leadership of the uprising in i t s own hands. This 
leadership is the essential condition which will enable 
us to utilise the impending revolution in the interests 
of our class struggle. 
Proletariatis Brdzola 
(The Proletarian Struggle), No. 10, 
July 15, 1905 
Unsigned 
Translated from the Georgian

THE PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY 
GOVERNMENT AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY41 
I 
The people¹s revolution is gaining impetus. The proletariat 
is arming and raising the banner of revolt. The 
peasantry are straightening their backs and rallying 
around the proletariat. The time is not far distant when 
the general uprising will break out, and the hated throne 
of the hated tsar will be ³swept from the face of the earth.² 
The tsarist government will be overthrown. On its ruins 
will be set up the government of the revolution‹the 
provisional revolutionary government, which will disarm 
the dark forces, arm the people and immediately proceed 
to convoke a Constituent Assembly. Thus, the rule of 
the tsar will give way to the rule of the people. That is the 
path which the people¹s revolution is now taking. 
What must the provisional government do? 
It must disarm the dark forces, curb the enemies of 
the revolution so that they shall not be able to restore 
the tsarist autocracy. It must arm the people and help 
to carry the revolution through to the end. It must introduce 
freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, and so 
forth. It must abolish indirect taxes and introduce a progressive 
profits tax and progressive death duties. It must

PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT AND S.-D 141 
organise peasant committees which will settle the land 
question in the countryside. It must also disestablish 
the church and secularise education. . . . 
In addition to these general demands, the provisional 
government must also satisfy the class demands of the 
workers: freedom to strike and freedom of association, 
the eight-hour day, state insurance for workers, 
hygienic conditions of labour, establishment of ³labour 
exchanges,² and so forth. 
In short, the provisional government must fully carry 
out our minimum programme* and immediately proceed 
to convene a popular Constituent Assembly which will 
give ³perpetual² legal force to the changes that will have 
taken place in social life. 
Who should constitute the provisional government? 
The revolution will be brought about by the people, 
and the people are the proletariat and the peasantry. 
Clearly, it is they who should undertake the task of 
carrying the revolution through to the end, of curbing the 
reaction, of arming the people, and so forth. To achieve 
all this the proletariat and the peasantry must have champions 
of their interests in the provisional government. 
The proletariat and the peasantry will dominate in the 
streets, they will shed their blood‹clearly therefore, 
they should dominate in the provisional government too. 
All this is true, we are told; but what is there in 
common between the proletariat and the peasantry? 
Common between them is their hatred of the survivals 
of serfdom, the life-and-death struggle they are 
* For the minimum programme see ³Announcement About 
the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.²

J. V. S T A L I N 142 
waging against the tsarist government, their desire for 
a democratic republic. 
This, however, cannot make us forget the truth that 
the differences between them are much greater. 
What are these differences? 
That the proletariat is the enemy of private property, 
it hates the bourgeois system, and it needs a democratic 
republic only in order to muster its forces for the purpose 
of overthrowing the bourgeois regime, whereas the 
peasantry are tied to private property, are bound to the 
bourgeois system, and need, a democratic republic in 
order to strengthen the foundations of the bourgeois 
regime. 
Needless to say the peasantry* will go against the 
proletariat only in so far as the proletariat will want 
to abolish private property. On the other hand, it is 
also clear that the peasantry will support the proletariat 
only in so far as the proletariat will want to overthrow 
the autocracy. The present revolution is a bourgeois 
revolution, i.e., i t does not affect private property, 
hence, at present the peasantry have no reason for turning 
their weapons against the proletariat. But the present 
revolution totally rejects tsarist rule, hence, it is in 
the peasants¹ interests resolutely to join the proletariat, 
the leading force of the revolution. Clearly, also, 
it is in the proletariat¹s interests to support the peasantry 
and jointly with them attack the common enemy‹the 
tsarist government. It is not for nothing that the great 
Engels says that before the victory of the democratic 
revolution the proletariat must attack the existing system 
* i.e., the petty bourgeoisie.

PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT AND S.-D 143 
side by side with the petty bourgeoisie.* And if our 
victory cannot be called a victory until the enemies 
of the revolution are completely curbed, if it is the duty 
of the provisional government to curb the enemy and 
arm the people, if the provisional government must 
undertake the task of consummating the victory‹then 
it is self-evident that, in addition to those who champion 
the interests of the petty bourgeoisie, the provisional 
government must include representatives of the proletariat 
to champion its interests. It would be sheer lunacy 
if the proletariat, acting as the leader of the revolution 
left it entirely to the petty bourgeoisie to carry the 
revolution to its end: this would be self-betrayal. It must 
not be forgotten, however, that the proletariat, as the 
enemy of private property, must have its own party, and 
must not turn aside from its path for a single moment. 
In other words, the proletariat and the peasantry 
must by their combined efforts put an end to the tsarist 
government; by their combined efforts they must curb the 
enemies of the revolution, and precisely for this reason 
not only the peasantry, but the proletariat also must 
have champions of its interests‹Social-Democrats‹in 
the provisional government. 
This is so clear and obvious that one would think 
it would be unnecessary to talk about it. 
But out steps the ³minority² and, having doubts 
about this, obstinately reiterates: it is unbecoming for 
Social-Democracy to be represented in the provisional 
government, it is contrary to principles. 
* See Iskra, No. 96. This passage is reproduced in Social- 
Democrat, No. 5. See ³Democracy and Social-Democracy.²

J. V. S T A L I N 144 
Let us examine this question. What are the arguments 
of the ³minority²? First of all, they refer to the 
Amsterdam Congress.42 This congress, in opposition to 
Jaurèsism, passed a resolution to the effect that Socialists 
must not seek representation in bourgeois governments; 
and as the provisional government will be a bourgeois 
government, it will be improper for us to be represented 
in it. That is how the ³minority² argues, failing 
to realise that if the decision of the congress is to be 
interpreted in this schoolboy fashion we should take no 
part in the revolution either. It works out like this: we are 
enemies of the bourgeoisie; the present revolution is 
a bourgeois revolution‹hence, we should take no part 
in this revolution! This is the path to which the logic 
of the ³minority² is pushing us. Social-Democracy says, 
however, that we proletarians should not only take part 
in the present revolution, but also be at the head of it, 
guide it, and carry it through to the end. But it will be 
impossible to carry the revolution through to the end 
unless we are represented in the provisional government. 
Obviously, the logic of the ³minority² has not a leg to 
stand on. One of two things: either we, copying the liberals, 
must reject the idea that the proletariat is the leader of the 
revolution‹and in that case the question of our going 
into the provisional government automatically falls away; 
or we must openly recognise this Social-Democratic idea 
and thereby recognise the necessity of our going into 
the provisional government. The ³minority,² however, 
do not wish to break with either side; they wish to be 
both liberal and Social-Democratic! How pitilessly they 
are outraging innocent logic. . . . 
The Amsterdam Congress, however, had in mind the

PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT AND S.-D 145 
permanent government of France and not a provisional 
revolutionary government. The government of France 
is a reactionary, conservative government; it protects 
the old and fights the new‹it goes without saying that 
no true Social-Democrat will join such a government; 
but a provisional government is revolutionary and progressive; 
it fights the old and clears the road for the 
new, it serves the interests of the revolution‹and it 
goes without saying that the true Social-Democrat will 
go into such a government and take an active part in 
consummating the cause of the revolution. As you see‹ 
these are different things. Consequently, it is useless for 
the ³minority² to clutch at the Amsterdam Congress: 
that will not save it. 
Evidently, the ³minority² realises this itself and, 
therefore, comes out with another argument: it appeals 
to the shades of Marx and Engels. Thus, for example, 
Social-Democrat obstinately reiterates that Marx and 
Engels ³emphatically repudiated² the idea of entering 
a provisional government. But where and when did they 
repudiate this? What does Marx say, for example? It 
appears that Marx says that ³. . . the democratic petty 
bourgeois . . . preach to the proletariat . . . the establishment 
of a large opposition party which will embrace all 
shades of opinion in the democratic party . . .² that 
³such a union would turn out solely to their (the petty 
bourgeois) advantage and altogether to the disadvantage 
of the proletariat,²* etc.43 In short, the proletariat must 
have a separate class party. But who is opposed to this, 
³learned critic²? Why are you tilling at windmills? 
* See Social-Democrat, No. 5.

J. V. S T A L I N 146 
Nevertheless, the ³critic² goes on quoting Marx. 
³In the case of a struggle against a common adversary 
no special union is required. As soon as such an adversary 
has to be fought directly, the interests of both parties, 
for the moment, coincide, and . . . this association, 
calculated to last only for the moment, will arise of 
itself. . . . During the struggle and after the struggle, 
the workers must, at every opportunity, put forward 
their own needs (it ought to be: demands) alongside 
of the needs (demands) of the bourgeois democrats. . . . 
In a word, from the first moment of victory, mistrust 
must be directed . . . against the workers¹ previous 
allies, against the party that wishes to exploit the common 
victory for itself alone.²* In other words, the proletariat 
must pursue its own road and support the petty 
bourgeoisie only in so far as this does not run counter 
to its own interests. But who is opposed to this, astonishing 
³critic²? And why did you have to refer to the 
words of Marx? Does Marx say anything about a provisional 
revolutionary government? Not a word! Does 
Marx say that entering a provisional government during 
the democratic revolution is opposed to our principles? 
Not a word! Why then does our author go into such 
childish raptures? Where did he dig up this ³contradiction 
in principle² between us and Marx? Poor ³critic²! 
He puffs and strains in the effort to find such a contradiction, 
but to his chagrin nothing comes of it. 
What does Engels say according to the Mensheviks? 
It appears that in a letter to Turati he says that the impending 
revolution in Italy will be a petty bourgeois 
and not a socialist revolution; that before its victory the 
* See Social-Democrat, No. 5.

PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT AND S.-D 147 
proletariat must come out against the existing regime 
jointly with the petty bourgeoisie, but must, without 
fail, have its own party; that it would be extremely 
dangerous for the Socialists to enter the new government 
after the victory of the revolution. If they did that they 
would repeat the blunder made by Louis Blanc and 
other French Socialists in 1848, etc.* In other words, 
in so far as the Italian revolution will be a democratic 
and not a socialist revolution it would be a great mistake 
to dream of the rule of the proletariat and remain in the 
government after the victory; only before the victory can 
the proletariat come out jointly with the petty bourgeoisie 
against the common enemy. But who is arguing against 
this? Who says that we must confuse the democratic 
revolution with the socialist revolution? What was the 
purpose of referring to Turati, a follower of Bernstein? 
Or why was it necessary to recall Louis Blanc? Louis 
Blanc was a petty-bourgeois ³Socialist²; we are discussing 
Social-Democrats. There was no Social-Democratic 
Party in Louis Blanc¹s time, but here we are discussing 
precisely such a party. The French Socialists had in 
view the conquest of political power; what interests 
us here is the question of entering a provisional government. 
. . . Did Engels say that entering a provisional 
government during a democratic revolution is opposed 
to our principles? He said nothing of the kind! Then 
what is all this talk about, Mr. Menshevik? How is it 
you fail to understand that to confuse questions is not 
* See Social-Democrat, No. 5. Social-Democrat gives these 
words in quotation marks. One would think that these words 
of Engels are quoted literally, but this i s not the case. The 
author merely gives in his own words the gist of Engels¹s letter.

J. V. S T A L I N 148 
to solve them? And why did you have to trouble the 
shades of Marx and Engels for nothing? 
Evidently, the ³minority² realises that the names 
of Marx and Engels will not save it, and so now it 
clutches at a third ³argument.² You want to put a double 
curb on the enemies of the revolution, the ³minority² 
tells us. You want the ³pressure of the proletariat upon 
the revolution to come not only from Œbelow,¹ not only 
from the streets, but also from above, from the chambers 
of the provisional government.²* But this is opposed to 
principle, the ³minority² tells us reproachfully. 
Thus, the ³minority² asserts that we must influence 
the course of the revolution ³only from below.² 
The ³majority,² however, is of the opinion that we 
must supplement action from ³below² with action from 
³above² in order that the pressure should come from 
all sides. 
Who, then, is opposing the principle of Social- 
Democracy, the ³majority² or the ³minority²? 
Let us turn to Engels. In the seventies an uprising 
broke out in Spain. The question of a provisional 
revolutionary government came up. At that time the 
Bakuninists (Anarchists) were active there. They repudiated 
all action from above, and this gave rise to a 
controversy between them and Engels. The Bakuninists 
preached the very thing that the ³minority² are saying 
today. ³The Bakuninists,² says Engels, ³for years 
had been propagating the idea that all revolutionary action 
from above downward was pernicious, and that 
everything must be organised and carried out from below 
* See Iskra, No. 93.

PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT AND S.-D 149 
upward.²* In their opinion, ³every organisation of a 
political, so-called provisional or revolutionary power, 
could only be a new fraud and would be as dangerous 
to the proletariat as all now existing governments.²** 
Engels ridicules this view and says that life has ruthlessly 
refuted this doctrine of the Bakuninists. The Bakuninists 
were obliged to yield to the demands of life and they . . . 
³wholly against their anarchist principles, had to form 
a revolutionary government.²*** Thus, they ³trampled 
upon the dogma which they had only just proclaimed: 
that the establishment of the revolutionary government 
was only a deception and a new betrayal of the working 
class.²**** 
This is what Engels says. 
It turns out, therefore, that the principle of the 
³minority²‹action only from ³below²‹is an anarchist 
principle, which does, indeed, fundamentally contradict 
Social-Democratic tactics. The view of the ³minority² 
that participation in a provisional government in any 
way would be fatal to the workers is an anarchist phrase, 
which Engels ridiculed in his day. It also turns out that 
life will refute the views of the ³minority² and will 
easily smash them as it did in the case of the Bakuninists. 
The ³minority,² however, persists in its obstinacy‹ 
we shall not go against our principles, it says. These 
people have a queer idea of what Social-Democratic principles 
are. Let us take, for example, their principles as 
regards the provisional revolutionary government and 
* See Proletary, No. 3, in which these words of Engels are 
quoted.44 
** Ibid. 
*** Ibid. 
**** Ibid.

J. V. S T A L I N 150 
the State Duma. The ³minority² is against entering 
a provisional government brought into being in the 
interests of the revolution‹this is opposed to principles, 
it says. But it is in favour of entering the State Duma, 
which was brought into being in the interests of the 
autocracy‹that, it appears, is not opposed to principles! 
The ³minority² is against entering a provisional government 
which the revolutionary people will set up, and to 
which the people will give legal sanction‹that is opposed 
to principles, it says. But it is in favour of entering 
the State Duma which is convoked by the autocratic 
tsar and to which the tsar gives legal sanction‹that, 
it appears, is not opposed to principles! The ³minority² 
is against entering a provisional] government whose mission 
it will be to bury the autocracy‹that is opposed 
to principles. But it is in favour of entering the State 
Duma, whose mission it is to bolster up the autocracy‹ 
that, it appears, is not opposed to principles. . . . What 
principles are you talking about, most esteemed gentlemen? 
The principles of the liberals or of the Social- 
Democrats? You would do very well if you gave a straight 
answer to this question. We have our doubts. 
But let us leave these questions. 
The point is that in its quest for principles the ³minority² 
has slipped onto the path of the Anarchists. 
That has now become clear. 
II 
Our Mensheviks did not like the resolutions that 
were adopted by the Third Party Congress. Their genuinely 
revolutionary meaning stirred up the Menshevik

PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT AND S.-D 151 
³marsh² and stimulated in it an appetite for ³criticism.² 
Evidently, it was the resolution on the provisional revolutionary 
government that mainly disturbed their opportunist 
minds, and they set out to ³destroy² it. But as 
they were unable to find anything in it to clutch at and 
criticise, they resorted to their customary and, it must 
be said, cheap weapon‹demagogy! This resolution was 
drawn up as a bait for the workers, to deceive and dazzle 
them‹write these ³critics.² And, evidently, they are 
very pleased with the fuss they are making. They imagine 
that they have struck their opponent dead, that they 
are victor-critics, and they exclaim: ³And they (the 
authors of the resolution) want to lead the proletariat!² 
You look at these ³critics² and before your eyes rises 
the hero in Gogol¹s story who, in a state of mental aberration, 
imagined that he was the King of Spain. Such is 
the fate of all megalomaniacs! 
Let us examine the actual ³criticism² which we find 
in Social-Democrat, No. 5. As you know already, our 
Mensheviks cannot think of the bloody spectre of a provisional 
revolutionary government without fear and 
trembling, and so they call upon their saints, the Martynovs 
and Akimovs, to rid them of this monster and to 
replace it by the Zemsky Sobor‹now by the State Duma. 
With this object they laud the ³Zemsky Sobor² to the 
skies and try to palm off this rotten offspring of rotten 
tsarism as good coin of the realm: ³We know that the 
Great French Revolution established a republic without 
having a provisional government,² they write. Is that 
all? Don¹t you know any more than that, ³esteemed 
gentlemen²? It is very little! You really ought to know 
a little more! You ought to know, for example, that the

J. V. S T A L I N 152 
Great French Revolution triumphed as a bourgeois revolutionary 
movement, whereas the Russian ³revolutionary 
movement will triumph as the movement of the workers 
or will not triumph at all,² as G. Plekhanov quite rightly 
says. In France, the bourgeoisie was at the head of the 
revolution; in Russia, it is the proletariat. There, the 
former guided the destiny of the revolution; here it is 
the latter. And is it not clear that with such a realignment 
of the leading revolutionary forces the results 
cannot be identical for the respective classes? If, in 
France, the bourgeoisie, being at the head of the revolution, 
reaped its fruits, must it also reap them in Russia, 
notwithstanding the fact that the proletariat stands at 
the head of the revolution? Yes, say our Mensheviks; 
what took place there, in France, must also take place 
here, in Russia. These gentlemen, like undertakers, take 
the measure of one long dead and apply it to the living. 
Moreover, in doing so they resorted to a rather big fraud: 
they cut off the head of the subject that interests us and 
shifted the point of the controversy to its tail. We, like 
all revolutionary Social-Democrats, are talking about 
establishing a democratic republic. They, however, hid 
the word ³democratic² and began to talk large about a 
³republic.² ³We know that the Great French Revolution 
established a republic,² they preach. Yes, it established 
a republic, but what kind of republic‹a truly democratic 
one? The kind that the Russian Social-Democratic Labour 
Party is demanding? Did that republic grant the people 
the right of universal suffrage? Were the elections at that 
time really direct? Was a progressive income tax introduced? 
Was anything said there about improving conditions 
of labour, shortening the working day, higher

PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT AND S.-D 153 
wages and so forth? . . . No. There was nothing of the 
kind there, nor could there have been, for at that time 
the workers lacked Social-Democratic education. That 
is why their interests were forgotten and ignored by the 
bourgeoisie in the French republic of that time. And is it 
before such a republic that you bow your ³highly respected² 
heads, gentlemen? Is this your ideal? You are 
welcome to it! But remember, esteemed gentlemen, that 
worshipping such a republic has nothing in common with 
Social-Democracy and its programme‹it is democratism 
of the worst sort. And you are smuggling all this in 
under the label of Social-Democracy. 
Furthermore, the Mensheviks ought to know that 
the Russian bourgeoisie with their Zemsky Sobor will 
not even grant us a republic such as was introduced in 
France‹it has no intention whatever of abolishing the 
monarchy. Knowing how ³insolent² the workers are 
where there is no monarchy, it is striving to keep this 
fortress intact and to convert it into its own weapon 
against its uncompromising foe‹the proletariat. This 
is its object in negotiating in the name of the ³people² 
with the butcher-tsar and advising him to convoke a 
Zemsky Sobor in the interests of the ³country² and the 
throne, and in order to avert ³anarchy.² Are you Mensheviks 
really unaware of all this? 
We need a republic not like the one introduced by 
the French bourgeoisie in the eighteenth century, but 
like the one the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party 
is demanding in the twentieth century. And such a republic 
can be created only by a victorious popular uprising, 
headed by the proletariat, and by the provisional 
revolutionary government which it sets up. Only

J. V. S T A L I N 154 
such a provisional government can provisionally carry 
out our minimum programme and submit changes of this 
nature for endorsement to the Constituent Assembly 
which it convokes. 
Our ³critics² do not believe that a Constituent Assembly 
convoked in conformity with our programme could 
express the will of the people (and how can they imagine 
this when they go no further than the Great French 
Revolution which occurred 115 or 116 years ago). ³Rich 
and influential persons,² continue the ³critics,² ³possess 
so many means of wangling the elections in their 
favour that all talk about the actual will of the people 
is absolutely beside the point. To prevent poor voters 
from becoming instruments for expressing the will of 
the rich a tremendous struggle must be waged and a long 
period of Party discipline² (which the Mensheviks do not 
recognise?) ³is needed.² ³All this has not been achieved 
even in Europe (?) in spite of its long period of political 
training. And yet our Bolsheviks think that this 
talisman lies in the hands of a provisional government!² 
This is khvostism indeed! Here you have a life-size 
picture of ³their late majesties² the ³tactics-process² 
and the ³organisation-process.² It is impossible to demand 
in Russia what has not yet been achieved in Europe, the 
³critics² tell us for our edification! But we know that 
our minimum programme has not been fully achieved in 
³Europe,² or even in America; consequently, in the 
opinion of the Mensheviks, whoever accepts it and fights 
for its achievement in Russia after the fall of the autocracy 
is an incorrigible dreamer, a miserable Don Quixote! 
In short, our minimum programme is false and utopian,

PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT AND S.-D 155 
and has nothing in common with real ³life²! Isn¹t that 
so, Messieurs ³Critics²? That is what it appears to be 
according to you. But in that case, show more courage 
and say so openly, without equivocation! We shall then 
know whom we are dealing with, and you will rid yourselves 
of the programme formalities which you so heartily 
detest! As it is, you talk so timidly and furtively about 
the programme being of little importance that many people, 
except, of course, the Bolsheviks, still think that you 
recognise the Russian Social-Democratic programme that 
was adopted at the Second Party Congress. What¹s the 
use of this hypocritical conduct? 
This brings us right down to the roots of our disagreements. 
You do not believe in our programme and you 
challenge its correctness; we, however, always take it 
is our starting point and co-ordinate all our activities 
with it! 
We believe that ³rich and influential persons² will 
not be able to bribe and fool all the people if there 
is freedom for election propaganda; for we shall counter 
their influence and their gold with the words of 
Social-Democratic truth (and we, unlike you, do not 
doubt this truth in the least) and thereby we shall reduce 
the effect of the fraudulent tricks of the bourgeoisie. 
You, however, do not believe this, and are, therefore, trying 
to pull the revolution in the direction of reformism. 
³In 1848,² continue the ³critics,² ³the provisional 
government in France (again France!) in which there 
were also workers, convoked a Constituent Assembly 
to which not a single representative of the Paris proletariat 
was elected.² This is another example of utter 
failure to understand Social-Democratic theory and of

J. V. S T A L I N 156 
the stereotyped conception of history! What is the use 
of flinging phrases about? Although there were workers 
in the provisional government in France, nothing came 
of it; therefore, Social-Democracy in Russia must refrain 
from entering a provisional government because here, 
too, nothing will come of it, argue the ³critics.² But is 
it a matter of workers entering the provisional government? 
Do we say that any kind of workers, no matter 
of what trend, should go into the provisional revolutionary 
government? No. So far we have not become your 
followers and do not supply every worker with a Social- 
Democratic certificate. It never entered our heads to 
call the workers who were in the French provisional 
government members of the Social-Democratic Party! 
What is the use of this misplaced analogy? What comparison 
can there be between the political consciousness 
of the French proletariat in 1848 and the political consciousness 
of the Russian proletariat at the present time? 
Did the French proletariat of that time come out even 
once in a political demonstration against the existing 
system? Did it ever celebrate the First of May under the 
slogan of fighting against the bourgeois system? Was 
it organised in a Social-Democratic Labour Party? Did it 
have the programme of Social-Democracy? We know that 
it did not. The French proletariat had not even an inkling 
of all this. The question is, therefore, could the French 
proletariat at that time reap the fruits of the revolution 
to the same extent that the Russian proletariat can, 
a proletariat that has long been organised in a Social- 
Democratic Party, has a very definite Social-Democratic 
programme, and is consciously laying the road towards 
its goal? Anyone who is in the least capable of under

PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT AND S.-D 157 
standing realities will answer this question in the negative. 
Only those who are capable of learning historical 
facts by rote, but are incapable of explaining their causes 
in conformity with place and time can identify these 
two different magnitudes. 
³We need,² the ³critics² preach to us again and 
again, ³violence on the part of the people, uninterrupted 
revolution, and we must not be satisfied with elections 
and then disperse to our homes.² Again slander! Who 
told you, esteemed gentlemen, that we shall be satisfied 
with elections and then disperse to our homes? Mention 
his name! 
Our ³critics² are also upset by our demand that the 
provisional revolutionary government should carry out 
our minimum programme, and they exclaim: ³This reveals 
complete ignorance of the subject; the point is that the 
political and economic demands in our programme can be 
achieved only by means of legislation, but a provisional 
government is not a legislative body.² Reading this 
prosecutor¹s speech against ³infringement of the law² 
one begins to wonder whether this article was not contributed 
to the Social-Democrat by some liberal bourgeois 
who stands in awe before the law.* How else can one 
explain the bourgeois sophistry it expresses to the effect 
* This idea seems to be all the more justified for the reason 
that of all the bourgeoisie of Tiflis, the Mensheviks, in No. 5 
of Social-Democrat, proclaimed only about a dozen merchants 
as traitors to the ³common cause.² Evidently, all the rest are 
their supporters and have a ³common cause² with the Mensheviks. 
It would not be surprising if one of these supporters of the 
³common cause² sent to the organ of his colleagues a ³critical² 
article against the uncompromising ³majority.²

J. V. S T A L I N 158 
that a provisional revolutionary government has no 
right to abolish old and introduce new laws? Does not 
this argument smack of vulgar liberalism? And is it 
not strange to hear it coming from the mouth of a revolutionary? 
It reminds us of the man who was condemned 
to be beheaded and who begged that care should be taken 
not to touch the pimple on his neck. However, everything 
can be forgiven the ³critics² who cannot distinguish 
between a provisional revolutionary government and 
an ordinary cabinet (and besides, they are not to blame, 
their teachers, the Martynovs and Akimovs, reduced 
them to this state). What is a cabinet? The result of the 
existence of a permanent government. What is a provisional 
revolutionary government? The result of the 
destruction of a permanent government. The former puts 
existing laws into operation with the aid of a standing 
army. The latter abolishes the existing laws and in place 
of them gives legal sanction to the will of the revolution 
with the assistance of the insurgent people. What is 
there in common between the two? 
Let us assume that the revolution has triumphed and 
that the victorious people have set up a provisional 
revolutionary government. The question arises: What is 
this government to do if it has no right to abolish and 
introduce laws? Wait for the Constituent Assembly? 
But the convocation of this Assembly also demands the 
introduction of new laws such as: universal, direct, 
etc., suffrage, freedom of speech, of the press, of 
assembly, and so forth. And all this is contained in our 
minimum programme. If the provisional revolutionary 
government is unable to put it into practice, what will 
it be guided by in convening the Constituent Assembly?

PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT AND S.-D 159 
Not by a programme drawn up by Bulygin45 and sanctioned 
by Nicholas II, surely? 
Let us assume also that, after suffering heavy losses 
owing to lack of arms, the victorious people calls upon 
the provisional revolutionary government to abolish 
the standing army and to arm the people in order to 
combat counter-revolution. At that moment the Mensheviks 
come out and say: it is not the function of this 
department (the provisional revolutionary government) 
but of another‹the Constituent Assembly‹to abolish 
the standing army and to arm the people. Appeal to that 
other department. Don¹t demand action that infringes 
the law, etc. Fine counsellors, indeed! 
Let us now see on what grounds the Mensheviks deprive 
the provisional revolutionary government of ³legal 
capacity.² Firstly, on the ground that it is not a legislative 
body, and secondly, that if it passes laws, the Constituent 
Assembly will have nothing to do. Such is the disgraceful 
result of the arguments of these political infants! 
It appears that they do not even know that, pending the 
setting up of a permanent government, the triumphant 
revolution, and the provisional revolutionary government 
which expresses its will, are the masters of the situation 
and, consequently, can abolish old and introduce new 
laws! If this were not the case, if the provisional revolutionary 
government lacked these powers, there would 
be no reason for its existence, and the insurgent people 
would not set up such a body. Strange that the Mensheviks 
have forgotten the ABC of revolution. 
The Mensheviks ask: What will the Constituent 
Assembly do if our minimum programme is carried out 
by the provisional revolutionary government? Are you

J. V. S T A L I N 160 
afraid that it will suffer from unemployment, esteemed 
gentlemen? Don¹t be afraid. It will have plenty of work 
to do. It will sanction the changes brought about by the 
provisional revolutionary government with the assistance 
of the insurgent people and will draft a constitution 
for the country, and our minimum programme will be 
only a part of it. That is what we shall demand from the 
Constituent Assembly! 
³They (the Bolsheviks) cannot conceive of a split 
between the petty bourgeoisie and the workers, a split 
that will also affect the elections, and, consequently, 
the provisional government will want to oppress the 
working-class voters for the benefit of its own class,² 
write the ³critics.² Who can understand this wisdom? 
What is the meaning of: ³the provisional government 
will want to oppress the working-class voters for the 
benefit of its own class²!!? What provisional government 
are they talking about? What windmills are these Don 
Quixotes tilting at? Has anybody said that if the petty 
bourgeoisie is in sole control of the provisional revolutionary 
government it will protect the interests of the 
workers? Why ascribe one¹s own nonsense to others? 
We say that under certain circumstances it is permissible 
for our Social-Democratic delegates to enter a provisional 
revolutionary government together with the representatives 
of the democracy. That being the case, if we 
are discussing a provisional revolutionary government 
which includes Social-Democrats, how is it possible to 
call it petty-bourgeois in composition? We base our arguments 
in favour of entering a provisional revolutionary 
government on the fact that, in the main, the carrying 
out of our minimum programme does not run counter to

PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT AND S.-D 161 
the interests of the democracy‹the peasantry and the 
urban petty bourgeoisie (whom you Mensheviks invite 
into your party)‹and, therefore, we deem it possible 
to carry it out in conjunction with the democracy. If, 
however, the democracy hinders the carrying out of 
some of its points, our delegates, backed by their voters, 
the proletariat, in the street, will try to carry this 
programme out by force, if that force is available (if it is 
not, we shall not enter the provisional government, in 
fact we shall not be elected). As you see, Social-Democracy 
must enter the provisional revolutionary government 
precisely in order to champion Social-Democratic 
views in it, i.e., to prevent the other classes from encroaching 
upon the interests of the proletariat. 
The representatives of the Russian Social-Democratic 
Labour Party in the provisional revolutionary government 
will proclaim war not upon the proletariat, as 
the Mensheviks imagine in their folly, but, jointly 
with the proletariat, upon the enemies of the proletariat. 
But what do you, Mensheviks, care about all this? What 
do you care about the revolution and its provisional 
government? Your place is in the ³St[ate Duma²]. . . .* 
Part I of this article was 
published in Proletariatis Brdzola 
(The Proletarian Struggle), No. 11, 
August 15, 1905 
Part II is published for the first time 
Unsigned 
Translated from the Georgian 
* Here the manuscript breaks off.‹Ed.

A REPLY TO SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT 46 
First of all I must apologise to the reader for being 
late with this reply. It could not be helped; circumstances 
obliged me to work in another field, and I was compelled 
to put off my answer for a time; you yourselves know that 
we cannot dispose of ourselves as we please. 
I must also say the following: many people think 
that the author of the pamphlet Briefly About the Disagreements 
in the Party was the Union Committee and not one 
individual. I must state that I am the author of that 
pamphlet. The Union Committee acted only as editor. 
And now to the point. 
My opponent accuses me of being ³unable to see the 
subject of the controversy,² of ³obscuring the issue,²* 
and he says that ³the controversy centres around organisational 
and not programmatic questions² (p. 2). 
Only a little observation is needed to reveal that the 
author¹s assertion is false. The fact is that my pamphlet 
was an answer to the first number of the Social-Democrat‹ 
the pamphlet had already been sent to the press when 
the second number of the Social-Democrat appeared. 
What does the author say in the first number? Only 
that the ³majority² has taken the stand of idealism, 
* See ³A Reply to the Union Committee,²47 p. 4.

A REPLY TO SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT 163 
and that this stand ³fundamentally contradicts² Marxism. 
Here there is not even a hint of organisational questions. 
What was I to say in reply? Only what I did say, namely: 
that the stand of the ³majority² is that of genuine 
Marxism, and if the ³minority² has failed to understand 
this, it shows that it has itself retreated from genuine 
Marxism. That is what anybody who understands anything 
about polemics would have answered. But the author 
persists in asking: Why don¹t you deal with organisational 
questions? I do not deal with those questions, my dear 
philosopher, because you yourself did not then say a 
word about them. One cannot answer questions that have 
not yet been raised. Clearly, ³obscuring the issue,² 
³hushing up the subject of the controversy,² and so 
forth, are the author¹s inventions. On the other hand, 
I have grounds for suspecting that the author himself 
is hushing up certain questions. He says that ³the controversy 
centres around organisational questions,² but there 
are also disagreements between us on tactical questions, 
which are far more important than disagreements on 
organisational questions. Our ³critic,² however, does 
not say a word about these disagreements in his pamphlet. 
Now this is exactly what is called ³obscuring the issue.² 
What do I say in my pamphlet? 
Modern social life is built on capitalist lines. There 
exist two large classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, 
and between them a life-and-death struggle is 
going on. The conditions of life of the bourgeoisie compel 
it to strengthen the capitalist system. But the conditions 
of life of the proletariat compel it to undermine the 
capitalist system, to destroy it. Corresponding to these 
two classes, two kinds of consciousness are worked out:

J. V. S T A L I N 164 
the bourgeois and the socialist. Socialist consciousness 
corresponds to the position of the proletariat. Hence, the 
proletariat accepts this consciousness, assimilates it, 
and fights the capitalist system with redoubled vigour. 
Needless to say, if there were no capitalism and no class 
struggle, there would be no socialist consciousness. But 
the question now is: who works out, who is able to work 
out this socialist consciousness (i.e., scientific socialism)? 
Kautsky says, and I repeat his idea, that the masses 
of proletarians, as long as they remain proletarians, 
have neither the time nor the opportunity to work out 
socialist consciousness. ³Modern socialist consciousness 
can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge,²* 
says Kautsky. The vehicles of science are the 
intellectuals, including, for example, Marx, Engels and 
others, who have both the time and opportunity to put 
themselves in the van of science and work out socialist 
consciousness. Clearly, socialist consciousness is worked 
out by a few Social-Democratic intellectuals who possess 
the time and opportunity to do so. 
But what importance can socialist consciousness have 
in itself if it is not disseminated among the proletariat? 
It can remain only an empty phrase! Things will take an 
altogether different turn when that consciousness is disseminated 
among the proletariat: the proletariat will 
become conscious of its position and will more rapidly 
move towards the socialist way of life. It is here that 
Social-Democracy (and not only Social-Democratic intellectuals) 
comes in and introduces socialist consciousness 
* See K. Kautsky¹s article quoted in What Is To Be Done?, 
p. 27.

A REPLY TO SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT 165 
into the working-class movement. This is what Kautsky 
has in mind when he says ³socialist consciousness is 
something introduced into the proletarian class struggle 
from without.²* 
Thus, socialist consciousness is worked out by a few 
Social-Democratic intellectuals. But this consciousness 
is introduced into the working-class movement by the 
entire Social-Democracy, which lends the spontaneous 
proletarian struggle a conscious character. 
That is what I discuss in my pamphlet. 
Such is the stand taken by Marxism and, with it, 
by the ³majority.² 
What does my opponent advance in opposition to 
this? 
Properly speaking, nothing of importance. He devotes 
himself more to hurling abuse than to elucidating the 
question. Evidently, he is very angry! He does not dare 
to raise questions openly, he gives no straight answer 
to them, but cravenly evades the issue, hypocritically 
obscures clearly formulated questions, and at the 
same time assures everybody: I have explained all the 
questions at one stroke. Thus, for example, the author 
does not even raise the question of the elaboration of socialist 
consciousness, and does not dare to say openly whose 
side he takes on this question: Kautsky¹s or the ³Economists¹.² 
True, in the first number of the Social-Democrat 
our ³critic² made rather bold statements; at that 
time he openly spoke in the language of the ³Economists.² 
But what can one do? Then he was in one mood, 
now he is in a ³different mood,² and instead of criticising, 
* Ibid.

J. V. S T A L I N 166 
he evades this issue, perhaps because he realises that 
he is wrong, but he does not dare openly to admit his 
mistake. In general, our author has found himself between 
two fires. He is at a loss as to which side to take. If he 
takes the side of the ³Economists² he must break with 
Kautsky and Marxism, which is not to his advantage; 
if, however, he breaks with ³Economism² and takes 
Kautsky¹s side, he must subscribe to what the ³majority² 
says -- but he lacks the courage to do this. And so 
he remains between two fires. What could our ³critic² do? 
He decided that the best thing is to say nothing, and, 
indeed, he cravenly evades the issue that was raised above. 
What does the author say about introducing consciousness? 
Here, too, he betrays the same vacillation and cowardice. 
He shuffles the question and declares with great 
aplomb: Kautsky does not say that ³intellectuals introduce 
socialism into the working class from without² 
(p. 7). 
Excellent, but neither do we Bolsheviks say that, 
Mr. ³Critic.² Why did you have to tilt at windmills? 
How is it you cannot understand that in our opinion, 
the opinion of the Bolsheviks, socialist consciousness 
is introduced into the working-class movement by Social- 
Democracy,* and not only by Social-Democratic intellectuals? 
Why do you think that the Social-Democratic 
Party consists exclusively of intellectuals? Do you not 
know that there are many more advanced workers than 
intellectuals in the ranks of Social-Democracy? Cannot 
* See Briefly About the Disagreements in the Party, p. 18. 
(See present volume, p. 104.‹Ed.)

A REPLY TO SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT 167 
Social-Democratic workers introduce socialist consciousness 
into the working-class movement? 
Evidently, the author himself realises that his ³proof² 
is unconvincing and so he passes on to other ³proof.² 
Our ³critic² continues as follows: ³Kautsky writes: 
ŒTogether with the proletariat there arises of natural 
necessity a socialist tendency among the proletarians 
themselves as well as among those who adopt the prole 
tarian standpoint; this explains the rise of socialist 
strivings.¹ Hence, it is obvious²‹comments our ³critic² 
‹³that socialism is not introduced among the proletariat 
from without, but, on the contrary, emanates from the 
proletariat and enters the heads of those who adopt the 
views of the proletariat² (³A Reply to the Union Committee,² 
p. 8). 
Thus writes our ³critic,² and he imagines that he has 
explained the matter! What do Kautsky¹s words mean? 
Only that socialist strivings automatically arise among 
the proletariat. And this is true, of course. But we are 
not discussing socialist strivings, but socialist consciousness! 
What is there in common between the two? Are 
strivings and consciousness the same thing? Cannot the 
author distinguish between ³socialist tendencies² and 
³socialist consciousness²? And is it not a sign of paucity 
of ideas when, from what Kautsky says, he deduces that 
³socialism is not introduced from without²? What is 
there in common between the ³rise of socialist tendencies² 
and the introducing of socialist consciousness? 
Did not this same Kautsky say that ³socialist consciousness 
is something introduced into the proletarian 
class struggle from without² (see What Is To Be 
Done?, p. 27)?

J. V. S T A L I N 168 
Evidently, the author realises that he is in a false 
position and in conclusion he is obliged to add: ³It does 
indeed follow from the quotation from Kautsky that 
socialist consciousness is introduced into the class struggle 
from without² (see ³A Reply to the Union Committee,² 
p. 7). Nevertheless, he does not dare openly and boldly 
to admit this scientific truth. Here, too, our Menshevik 
betrays the same vacillation and cowardice in the face 
of logic as he did before. 
Such is the ambiguous ³reply² Mr. ³Critic² gives to 
the two major questions. 
What can be said about the other, minor questions 
that automatically emerge from these big questions? 
It will be better if the reader himself compares my pamphlet 
with our author¹s pamphlet. But one other question 
must be dealt with. If we are to believe the author, our 
opinion is that ³the split took place because the congress 
. . . did not elect Axelrod, Zasulich and Starover 
as editors . . .² (³A Reply,² p. 13) and, consequently, 
that we ³deny the split, conceal how deeply it affects 
principle, and present the entire opposition as if it were 
a case of three Œrebellious¹ editors² (ibid., p. 16). 
Here the author is again confusing the issue. As a 
matter of fact two questions are raised here: the cause 
of the split, and the form in which the disagreements 
manifested themselves. 
To the first question I give the following straight 
answer: ³It is now clear on what grounds the disagreements 
in the Party arose. As is evident, two trends have 
appeared in our Party: the trend of proletarian firmness, 
and the trend of intellectual wavering. And this intellectual 
wavering is expressed by the present Œminority¹²

A REPLY TO SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT 169 
(see Briefly, p. 46).* As you see, here I attribute the 
disagreements to the existence of an intellectual and a 
proletarian trend in our Party and not to the conduct 
of Martov-Axelrod. The conduct of Martov and the others 
is merely an expression of intellectual wavering. But 
evidently, our Menshevik failed to understand this passage 
in my pamphlet. 
As regards the second question, I did, indeed, say, 
and always shall say, that the leaders of the ³minority² 
shed tears over ³front seats² and lent the struggle within 
the Party precisely such a form. Our author refuses to 
admit this. It is, nevertheless, a fact that the leaders 
of the ³minority² proclaimed a boycott of the Party, 
openly demanded seats on the Central Committee, on 
the Central Organ and on the Party Council and, in addition, 
declared: ³We present these terms as the only ones 
that will enable the Party to avoid a conflict which will 
threaten its very existence² (see Commentary, p. 26). What 
does this mean if not that the leaders of the ³minority² 
inscribed on their banner, not an ideological struggle, 
but ³a struggle for seats²? It is common knowledge 
that nobody prevented them from conducting a struggle 
around ideas and principles. Did not the Bolsheviks 
say to them: Establish your own organ and defend your 
views, the Party can provide you with such an organ (see 
Commentary)? Why did they not agree to this if they were 
really interested in principles and not in ³front seats²? 
We call all this the political spinelessness of the 
Menshevik leaders. Do not be offended, gentlemen, when 
we call a spade a spade. 
* See present volume, p. 132.‹Ed.

J. V. S T A L I N 170 
Formerly, the leaders of the ³minority² did not disagree 
with Marxism and Lenin on the point that socialist 
consciousness is introduced into the working-class 
movement from without (see the programmatic article in 
Iskra, No. 1). But later they began to waver and launched 
a struggle against Lenin, burning what they had worshipped 
the day before. I called that swinging from one 
side to another. Do not be offended at this either, 
Messieurs Mensheviks. 
Yesterday you worshipped the centres and hurled 
thunderbolts at us because, as you said, we expressed 
lack of confidence in the Central Committee. But today 
you are undermining not only the centres, but centralism 
(see ³The First All-Russian Conference²). I call this lack 
of principle, and I hope you will not be angry with me 
for this either, Messieurs Mensheviks. 
If we combine such features as political spinelessness, 
fighting for seats, vacillation, lack of principle 
and others of the same kind, we shall get a certain general 
feature known as intellectual wavering, and it is primarily 
intellectuals who suffer from this. Clearly, intellectual 
wavering is the ground (the basis) on which 
³fighting for seats,² ³lack of principle,² and so forth, 
arise. The vacillation of the intellectuals, however, 
springs from their social position. That is how we explain 
the Party split. Do you understand at last, dear author, 
what difference there is between the cause of the split 
and the forms it assumes? I have my doubts. 
Such is the absurd and ambiguous stand taken by the 
Social-Democrat and its queer ³critic.² On the other 
hand, this ³critic² displays great daring in another 
field. In his pamphlet of eight pages, he manages to

A REPLY TO SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT 171 
tell eight lies about the Bolsheviks, and such lies that 
they make you laugh. You do not believe it? Here 
are the facts. 
First lie. In the author¹s opinion, ³Lenin wants to 
restrict the Party, to convert it into a narrow organisation 
of professionals² (p. 2). But Lenin says: ³It 
should not be thought that Party organisations must 
consist solely of professional revolutionaries. We need 
the most diversified organisations of every type, rank 
and shade, from extremely narrow and secret organisations 
to very broad and free ones² (Minutes, p. 240). 
Second lie. According to the author, Lenin wants to 
³bring into the Party only committee members² (p. 2). 
But Lenin says: ³All groups, circles, sub-committees, etc., 
must enjoy the status of committee institutions, or of 
branches of committees. Some of them will openly express 
a wish to join the Russian Social-Democratic 
Labour Party and, provided that this is endorsed by the 
committee, will join it² (see ³A Letter to a Comrade,² 
p. 17).*48 
Third lie. In the author¹s opinion, ³Lenin is demanding 
the establishment of the domination of intellectuals 
in the Party² (p. 5). But Lenin says: ³The committees 
should contain . . . as far as possible, all the principal 
leaders of the working-class movement from among 
the workers themselves² (see ³A Letter to a Comrade,² 
pp. 7-8), i.e., the voices of the advanced workers must 
predominate not only in all other organisations, but also 
in the committees. 
* As you see, in Lenin¹s opinion, organisations may be accepted 
into the Party not only by the Central Committee, but also 
by local committees.

J. V. S T A L I N 172 
Fourth lie. The author says that the passage quoted 
on page 12 of my pamphlet: ³the working class spontaneously 
gravitates towards socialism,² etc.‹is ³entirely 
a fabrication² (p. 6). As a matter of fact, I simply took 
and translated this passage from What Is To Be Done? 
This is what we read in that book, on page 29: ³The 
working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism, 
but the more widespread (and continuously revived 
in the most diverse forms) bourgeois ideology nevertheless 
spontaneously imposes itself upon the working class 
still more.² This is the passage that is translated on 
page 12 of my pamphlet. This is what our ³critic² called 
a fabrication! I do not know whether to ascribe this to 
the author¹s absent-mindedness or chicanery. 
Fifth lie. In the author¹s opinion, ³Lenin does not 
say anywhere that the workers strive towards socialism 
of Œnatural necessity¹² (p. 7). But Lenin says that the 
³working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism² 
(What Is To Be Done?, p. 29). 
Sixth lie. The author ascribes to me the idea that ³socialism 
is introduced into the working class from without 
by the intelligentsia² (p. 7), whereas I say that Social- 
Democracy (and not only Social-Democratic intellectuals) 
introduces socialist consciousness into the movement 
(p. 18). 
Seventh lie. In the author¹s opinion, Lenin says that 
socialist ideology arose ³quite independently of the 
working-class movement² (p. 9). But such an idea certainly 
never entered Lenin¹s head. He says that socialist 
ideology arose ³quite independently of the spontaneous 
growth of the working-class movement² (What Is To 
Be Done?, p. 21).

A REPLY TO SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT 173 
Eighth l i e . The author says that my statement: 
³Plekhanov is quitting the Œminority,¹ is tittle-tattle.² 
As a matter of fact, what I said has been confirmed. 
Plekhanov has already quit the ³minority.² . . .* 
I shall not deal with the petty lies with which the 
author has so plentifully spiced his pamphlet. 
It must be admitted, however, that the author did 
say one thing that was true. He tells us that ³when any 
organisation begins to engage in tittle-tattle‹its days 
are numbered² (p. 15). This is the downright truth, of 
course. The only question is: Who is engaging in tittletattle‹
the Social-Democrat and its queer knight, or 
the Union Committee? We leave that to the reader to 
decide. 
One more question and we have finished. The author 
says with an air of great importance: ³The Union Committee 
reproaches us for repeating Plekhanov¹s ideas. 
We regard it as a virtue to repeat the ideas of Plekhanov, 
Kautsky and other equally well-known Marxists²(p. 15). 
So you regard it as a virtue to repeat the ideas of Plekhanov 
and Kautsky? Splendid, gentlemen! Well, then, 
listen: 
Kautsky says that ³socialist consciousness is something 
introduced into the proletarian class struggle from 
without and not something that arose out of it spontaneously² 
(see passage quoted from Kautsky in What Is To Be 
Done?, p. 27). The same Kautsky says that ³the task of 
Social-Democracy is to imbue the proletariat with the 
consciousness of its position and the consciousness of 
* And yet the author has the audacity to accuse us, in No. 5 
of the Social-Democrat, of having distorted the facts concerning the 
Third Congress!

J. V. S T A L I N 174 
its task² (ibid.). We hope that you, Mr. Menshevik, will 
repeat these words of Kautsky¹s and dispel our doubts. 
Let us pass to Plekhanov. Plekhanov says: ³. . . Nor 
do I understand why it is thought that Lenin¹s draft,* 
if adopted, would close the doors of our Party to numerous 
workers. Workers who wish to join the Party will 
not be afraid to join an organisation. They are not afraid 
of discipline. But many intellectuals, thoroughly imbued 
with bourgeois individualism, will be afraid to join. 
Now that is exactly the good side about it. These bourgeois 
individualists are, usually, also representatives 
of opportunism of every sort. We must keep them at a 
distance. Lenin¹s draft may serve as a barrier against 
their invasion of the Party, and for that reason alone 
all opponents of opportunism should vote for it² (see 
Minutes, p. 246). 
We hope that you, Mr. ³Critic,² will throw off your 
mask and with proletarian straightforwardness repeat 
these words of Plekhanov¹s. 
If you fail to do this, it will show that your statements 
in the press are thoughtless and irresponsible. 
Proletariatis Brdzola 
(The Proletarian Struggle), No. 11, 
August 15, 1905 
Unsigned 
Translated from the Georgian 
* Plekhanov is discussing Lenin¹s and Martov¹s formulations 
of §1 of the Rules of the Party.

REACTION IS GROWING 
Dark clouds are gathering over us. The decrepit 
autocracy is raising its head and arming itself with ³fire 
and sword.² Reaction is on the march! Let no one talk 
to us about the tsar¹s ³reforms,² the object of which is 
to strengthen the despicable autocracy: the ³reforms² 
are a screen for the bullets and whips to which the brutal 
tsarist government is so generously treating us. 
There was a time when the government refrained 
from shedding blood within the country. At that time 
it was waging war against the ³external enemy,² and 
it needed ³internal tranquillity.² That is why it showed 
a certain amount of ³leniency² towards the ³internal 
enemy² and turned a ³blind eye² on the movement 
that was flaring up 
Now times are different. Frightened by the spectre 
of revolution, the tsarist government hastened to conclude 
peace with the ³external enemy,² with Japan, in 
order to muster its forces and ³thoroughly² settle accounts 
with the ³internal enemy.² And so reaction set 
in. The government had already revealed its ³plans² 
before that, in Moskovskiye Vedomosti.49 It . . . ³was 
obliged to wage two parallel wars . . .² wrote that reactionary 
newspaper‹³an external war and an internal

J. V. S T A L I N 176 
war. If it waged neither of them with sufficient energy . . . 
it may be explained partly by the fact that one war 
hindered the other. . . . If the war in the Far East now 
terminates . . .² the government ³. . . will, at last, have 
its hands free victoriously to terminate the internal 
war too . . . without any negotiations to crush² . . . 
³the internal enemies.². . . ³With the termination of 
the war, Russia (read: the government) will concentrate 
all her attention on her internal life and, mainly, on 
quelling sedition² (see Moskovskiye Vedomosti, August 18). 
Such were the ³plans² of the tsarist government in 
concluding peace with Japan. 
Then, when peace was concluded, it announced these 
³plans² once again through the mouth of its minister: 
³We shall drown the extremist parties in Russia in 
blood,² said the minister. Through its viceroys and 
governor-generals it is already putting the above-mentioned 
³plans² into execution: it is not for nothing that 
it has transformed Russia into a military camp, it is 
not for nothing that it has inundated the centres of the 
movement with Cossacks and troops and has turned 
machine guns against the proletariat one would think 
that the government is setting out to conquer boundless 
Russia a second time! 
As you see, the government is proclaiming war on the 
revolution and is directing its first blows against its advanced 
detachment‹the proletariat. That is how its 
threats against the ³extremist parties² are to be interpreted. 
It will not, of course, ³neglect² the peasantry and 
will generously treat it to whips and bullets if it proves 
to be ³unwise enough² to demand a human existence; 
but meanwhile the government is trying to deceive it:

REACTION IS GROWING 177 
it is promising it land and inviting it into the Duma, 
painting pictures of ³all sorts of liberties² in the future. 
As regards the ³gentry,² the government will, of 
course, treat it ³more delicately,² and will try to enter 
into an alliance with it: that is exactly what the State 
Duma exists for. Needless to say, Messieurs the liberal 
bourgeoisie will not reject an ³agreement.² As far back 
as August 5 they stated through the mouth of their leader 
that they were enthusiastic over the tsar ¹s reforms: 
³. . . All efforts must be exerted to prevent Russia . . . 
from following the revolutionary path pursued by France² 
(see Russkiye Vedomosti50 of August 5, article by Vinogradov). 
Needless to say, the sly liberals would rather 
betray the revolution than Nicholas II. This was sufficiently 
proved by their last congress. . . . 
In short, the tsarist government is exerting all efforts 
to crush the people¹s revolution. 
Bullets for the proletariat, false promises for the 
peasantry and ³rights² for the big bourgeoisie‹such are 
the weapons with which the reaction is arming. 
Either the defeat of the revolution or death‹such is 
the autocracy¹s slogan today. 
On the other hand, the forces of the revolution are 
on the alert too, and are continuing their great work. 
The crisis which has been intensified by the war together 
with the political strikes which are breaking out with 
growing frequency, have stirred up the proletariat of the 
whole of Russia and have brought it face to face with the 
tsarist autocracy. Martial law, far from intimidating 
the proletariat, has, on the contrary, merely poured 
oil on the flames, and has still further worsened the 
situation. No one who hears the countless cries of

J. V. S T A L I N 178 
proletarians: ³Down with the tsarist government, down 
with the tsarist Duma!², no one who has felt the pulse 
of the working class, can doubt that the revolutionary 
spirit of the proletariat, the leader of the revolution, 
will rise higher and higher. As regards the peasantry‹ 
the war mobilisation which wrecked their homes by 
depriving their families of their best bread-winners, 
roused them against the present regime. If we also bear 
in mind that to this has been added the famine which has 
afflicted twenty-six gubernias, it will not be difficult 
to guess what path the long-suffering peasantry must 
take. And lastly, the troops, too, are beginning to murmur 
and this murmur is daily becoming more menacing 
for the autocracy. The Cossacks‹the prop of the autocracy‹
are beginning to evoke the hatred of the troops: 
recently the troops in Novaya Alexandria wiped out 
three hundred Cossacks.* The number of facts like these 
is steadily growing. . . . 
In short, life is preparing another revolutionary 
wave, which is gradually rising and sweeping against 
the reaction. The recent events in Moscow and St. Petersburg 
are harbingers of this wave. 
What should be our attitude towards all these events? 
What should we Social-Democrats do? 
To listen to the Menshevik Martov, we ought to elect 
this very day a Constituent Assembly to uproot the foundations 
of the tsarist autocracy forever. In his opinion, 
illegal elections ought to be held simultaneously with the 
legal elections to the Duma. Electoral committees should 
be set up to call upon ³the people to elect their repre- 
See Proletary,51 No. 17.

REACTION IS GROWING 179 
sentatives by means of universal suffrage. At a certain 
moment these representatives should gather in a certain 
town and proclaim themselves a Constituent Assembly. 
. . .² This is how ³the liquidation of the autocracy 
should take place.²* In other words, we can conduct 
a general election all over Russia in spite of the 
fact that the autocracy still lives! ³Illegal² representatives 
of the people can proclaim themselves a Constituent 
Assembly and establish a democratic republic in spite 
of the fact that the autocracy is running riot! It appears 
that neither arms, nor an uprising, nor a provisional 
government is needed‹the democratic republic will 
come of its own accord; all that is needed is that the 
³illegal² representatives should call themselves a Constituent 
Assembly! Good Martov has forgotten only 
one thing, that one fine day his fairyland ³Constituent 
Assembly² will find itself in the Fortress of Peter and 
Paul! Martov in Geneva fails to understand that the practical 
workers in Russia have no time to play at bourgeois 
spillikins. 
No, we want to do something else. 
Dark reaction is mustering sinister forces and is 
doing its utmost to unite them‹our task is to unite the 
Social-Democratic forces and to weld them more closely. 
Dark reaction is convening the Duma; it wants to 
gain new allies and to enlarge the army of the counterrevolution‹
our task is to proclaim an active boycott of 
the Duma, to expose its counter-revolutionary face to 
the whole world and to multiply the ranks of the supporters 
of the revolution. 
* See Proletary, No. 15 where Martov¹s ³plan² is published.

J. V. S T A L I N 180 
Dark reaction has launched a deadly attack against 
the revolution; it wants to cause confusion in our ranks 
and to dig the grave of the people¹s revolution‹our 
task is to close our ranks, to launch a country-wide 
simultaneous attack against the tsarist autocracy and 
wipe out the memory of it forever. 
Not Martov¹s house of cards, but a general uprising‹ 
that is what we need. 
The salvation of the people lies in the victorious 
uprising of the people themselves. 
Either the victory of the revolution or death‹such 
should be our revolutionary slogan today. 
Proletariatis Brdzola 
(The Proletarian Struggle), No. 12, 
October 15, 1905 
Unsigned 
Translated from the Georgian

THE BOURGEOISIE IS LAYING A TRAP 
In the middle of September a congress of ³persons 
active in rural and urban affairs² was held. At this congress 
a new ³party²52 was formed, headed by a Central 
Committee and with local bodies in different towns. The 
congress adopted a ³programme,² defined its ³tactics,² 
and drew up a special appeal which this newly-hatched 
³party² is to issue to the people. In short, the ³persons 
active in rural and urban affairs² formed their own 
³party.² 
Who are these ³persons²? What are they called? 
The bourgeois liberals. 
Who are the bourgeois liberals? 
The class-conscious representatives of the wealthy 
bourgeoisie. 
The wealthy bourgeoisie are our uncompromising 
enemies, their wealth is based upon our poverty, their 
joy is based upon our sorrow. Clearly, their classconscious 
representatives will be our sworn enemies 
who will consciously try to smash us. 
Thus, a ³party² of the enemies of the people has been 
formed, and it intends to issue an appeal to the people. 
What do these gentlemen want? What do they advocate 
in their appeal?

J. V. S T A L I N 182 
They are not Socialists, they detest the socialist 
movement. That means that they are out to strengthen 
the bourgeois system and are waging a life-and-death 
struggle against the proletariat. That is why they enjoy 
great sympathy in bourgeois circles. 
Nor are they Democrats, they detest the democratic 
republic. That means that they are out to strengthen the 
tsar¹s throne and are also fighting zealously against the 
long-suffering peasantry. That is why Nicholas II ³graciously² 
permitted them to hold meetings and to convene 
a ³party² congress. 
All they want is slightly to curtail the powers of 
the tsar, and then only on the condition that these powers 
are transferred to the bourgeoisie. As regards tsarism 
itself, it must, in their opinion, certainly remain as a 
reliable bulwark of the wealthy bourgeoisie, which will 
use it against the proletariat. That is why they say in 
their ³draft constitution² that ³the throne of the Romanovs 
must remain inviolable,² i.e., they want a curtailed 
constitution with a limited monarchy. 
Messieurs the bourgeois liberals ³have no objection² 
to the people being granted the franchise, provided, 
however, that the chamber of the people¹s representatives 
is dominated by a chamber representing the rich, which 
will certainly exert all efforts to modify and annul the 
decisions of the chamber of the people¹s representatives. 
That is why they say in their programme: ³We need two 
chambers.² 
Messieurs the bourgeois liberals will be ³very glad² if 
freedom of speech, of the press and of association is granted, 
provided, however, that freedom to strike is restricted. 
That is why they talk such a lot about the ³rights of

THE BOURGEOISIE IS LAYING A TRAP 183 
man and the citizen² but say nothing intelligible about 
freedom to strike, except for hypocritical prattle about 
nebulous ³economic reforms.² 
Nor do these queer gentlemen withhold their charity 
from the peasantry‹they ³have no objection² to the 
land of the landlords being transferred to the peasants, 
provided, however, the peasants buy this land from the 
landlords and do not ³receive it gratis.² You see how 
benevolent these sorry ³personages² are! 
If they live to see all these wishes carried out, the 
result will be that the powers of the tsar will pass into 
the hands of the bourgeoisie, and the tsarist autocracy 
will gradually be transformed into the autocracy of the 
bourgeoisie. That is what the ³persons active in rural 
and urban affairs² are driving at. That is why they 
are haunted by the people¹s revolution even in their 
sleep and talk so much about ³pacifying Russia.² 
It is not surprising, after this, that these luckless 
³personages² placed such great hopes on the so-called 
State Duma. As we know, the tsarist Duma is the negation 
of the people¹s revolution, and this is very much 
to the advantage of our liberal bourgeoisie. As we know, 
the tsarist Duma provides ³some slight² field of activity 
for the wealthy bourgeoisie, and this is exactly what 
our bourgeois liberals need so much. That is why they 
base their entire ³programme² and the conduct of all their 
activities on the assumption that the Duma will exist‹ 
the bankruptcy of the Duma would inevitably lead 
to the collapse of all their ³plans.² That is why they 
are so frightened by the boycott of the Duma; that is 
why they advise us to go into the Duma. ³It will be a 
great mistake if we do not go into the tsarist Duma,²

J. V. S T A L I N 184 
they say through the mouth of their leader Yakushkin, 
It will indeed be ³a great mistake,² but for whom, the 
people, or the people¹s enemies?‹ that is the question. 
What is the function of the tsarist Duma? What do 
the ³persons active in rural and urban affairs² have to 
say about this? 
³. . . The first and main task of the Duma is to reform 
the Duma itself,² they say in their appeal.. 
³The voters must make the electors pledge themselves to 
elect candidates who, primarily, will want to reform the 
Duma,² they say in the same appeal. 
What is to be the nature of this ³reform²? That the 
Duma should have ³the decisive voice in framing laws . . . 
and in the discussion of state revenue and expenditure 
. . . and the right to control the activities of the 
ministers.² In other words, the electors must primarily 
demand an extension of the powers of the Duma. So 
that is what the ³reform² of the Duma turns out to be! 
Who will get into the Duma? Mainly the big bourgeoisie. 
Clearly, the extension of the powers of the Duma will 
mean strengthening the big bourgeoisie politically. And 
so, the ³persons active in rural and urban affairs² advise 
the people to elect bourgeois liberals to the Duma and 
to instruct them primarily to help to strengthen the big 
bourgeoisie! First of all, and most of all, it appears, 
we must take care to strengthen our enemies, and with 
our own hands‹that is what Messieurs the liberal bourgeoisie 
are advising us to do today. Very ³friendly² 
advice, we must say! But what about the rights of the 
people? Who is to take care of that? Oh, Messieurs the 
liberal bourgeoisie will not forget the people, we can 
be quite sure about that! They assure us that when they

THE BOURGEOISIE IS LAYING A TRAP 185 
get into the Duma, and when they entrench themselves 
in it, they will demand rights for the people too. And 
with the aid of hypocritical utterances of this kind the 
³persons active in rural and urban affairs² hope to 
achieve their aim. . . . So that is why they are advising 
us primarily to extend the powers of the Duma. . . . 
Bebel said: Whatever the enemy advises us to do is 
harmful for us. The enemy advises us to go into the 
Duma‹clearly, going into the Duma will be harmful 
for us. The enemy advises that the powers of the Duma 
should be extended‹clearly, the extension of the powers 
of the Duma will be harmful for us. What we must do 
is to undermine confidence in the Duma and discredit 
it in the eyes of the people. What we need is not the 
extension of the powers of the Duma, but the extension 
of the rights of the people. And if the enemy talks sweetly 
to us and promises us indefinite ³rights,² it shows that 
he is laying a trap for us and wants us, with our own 
hands, to build a fortress for him. We can expect nothing 
better from the bourgeois liberals. 
But what will you say about certain ³Social-Democrats² 
who are preaching to us the tactics of the bourgeois 
liberals? What will you say about the Caucasian ³minority² 
which repeats, word for word, the insidious advice 
of our enemies? This, for example, is what the Caucasian 
³minority² says: ³We deem it necessary to go into the 
State Duma² (see The Second Conference, p. 7). This 
is exactly what Messieurs the bourgeois liberals ³deem 
necessary.² 
The same ³minority² advises us: ³If the Bulygin 
Commission . . . grants the right to elect deputies only 
to the propertied classes, we must intervene in these

J. V. S T A L I N 186 
elections and, by revolutionary means, compel the electors 
to elect progressive candidates and, in the Zemsky Sobor, 
demand a Constituent Assembly. Lastly, by every possible 
means . . . compel the Zemsky Sobor either to 
convoke a Constituent Assembly or proclaim itself such² 
(see the Social-Democrat, No. 1). In other words, even 
if the propertied classes alone enjoy the franchise, even 
if only representatives of the propertied classes gather 
in the Duma‹we must still demand that this assembly 
of representatives of the propertied classes be granted the 
powers of a Constituent Assembly! Even if the rights of 
the people are curtailed, we must still try to extend 
the powers of the Duma as much as possible! Needless 
to say, if the franchise is granted only to the propertied 
classes, the election of ³progressive candidates² will 
remain an empty phrase. 
As you saw above, the bourgeois liberals preach the 
same thing. 
One of two things: either the bourgeois liberals 
have become Menshevised, or the Caucasian ³minority² 
have become liberalised. 
Be that as it may, there can be no doubt that the 
newly-hatched ³party² of the bourgeois liberals is skilfully 
setting a trap. . . . 
What we must do now is‹smash this trap, expose 
it for all to see, and wage a ruthless struggle against the 
liberal enemies of the people. 
Proletariatis Brdzola 
(The Proletarian Struggle), No. 12 
October 15, 1905 
Unsigned 
Translated from the Georgian

CITIZENS! 
The mighty giant‹the proletariat of all Russia‹is 
stirring again. . . . Russia is in the throes of a broad, 
country-wide strike movement. All over the boundless 
expanse of Russia life has come to a standstill as if by 
the wave of a magic wand. In St. Petersburg alone and 
on its railways, over a million workers have gone on 
strike. Moscow‹the old, tranquil, sluggish capital, 
faithful to the Romanovs‹is completely enveloped in 
a revolutionary conflagration. Kharkov, Kiev, Yekaterinoslav 
and other cultural and industrial centres, the 
whole of central and south Russia, the whole of Poland 
and, lastly, the whole of the Caucasus, have come to a 
standstill and are threateningly looking the autocracy 
straight-in the face. 
What is going to happen? The whole of Russia is 
waiting with bated breath for an answer to this question. 
The proletariat is hurling a challenge at the accursed 
two-headed monster. Will this challenge be followed by 
a real clash, will the strike develop into an open, armed 
uprising, or will it, like previous strikes, end ³peacefully² 
and ³subside²? 
Citizens! Whatever the answer to this question may 
be, in whichever way the present strike ends, one thing 
must be clear and beyond doubt to all: we are on the

J. V. S T A L I N 
FROM MARX 
TO MAO 

 
NOT FOR 
COMMERCIAL 
DISTRIBUTION 
188 
eve of an all-Russian, nation-wide uprising‹and I he 
hour of this uprising is near. The general political strike 
now raging‹of dimensions unprecedented and unexampled 
not only in the history of Russia but in the 
history of the whole world‹may, perhaps, end today 
without developing into a nation-wide uprising, but tomorrow 
it will shake the country again with even greater 
force and develop into that mighty armed uprising which 
must settle the age-long contest between the Russian 
people and the tsarist autocracy and smash the head 
of this despicable monster. 
A nation-wide armed uprising‹that is the fateful 
climax to which all the events that have recently taken 
place in the political and social life of our country are 
leading with historical inevitability! A nation-wide 
armed uprising‹such is the great task that today confronts 
the proletariat of Russia and is imperatively 
demanding execution! 
Citizens! It is in the interests of all of you, except 
the handful of financial and landed aristocrats, to join 
in the rallying cry of the proletariat and to strive jointly 
with i t to bring about this all-saving, nation-wide 
uprising. 
The criminal tsarist autocracy has brought our country 
to the brink of doom. The ruination of a hundred million 
Russian peasants, the downtrodden and distressed 
condition of the working class, the excessive national 
debt and burdensome taxes, the lack of rights of the 
entire population, the endless tyranny and violence that 
reign in all spheres of life, and lastly, the utter insecurity 
of the lives and property of the citizens‹such is the 
frightful picture that Russia presents today. This cannot

CITIZENS! 189 
go on much longer! The autocracy, which has caused all 
these grim horrors, must be destroyed! And it will be 
destroyed! The autocracy realises this, and the more it 
realises it the more grim these horrors become, the more 
frightful becomes the hellish dance which it is whipping 
up around itself. In addition to the hundreds and thousands 
of peaceful citizens‹workers whom it has killed 
in the streets of towns, in addition to the tens of thousands 
of workers and intellectuals, the best sons of the 
people, whom it has sent to languish in prison and in exile, 
in addition to the incessant murders and violence perpetrated 
by the tsar¹s bashi-bazouks in the countryside, 
among the peasantry all over Russia‹and finally, the 
autocracy has invented new horrors. It has begun to 
sow enmity and hatred among the people themselves 
and to incite different strata of the population and whole 
nationalities against each other. It has armed and unleashed 
Russian hooligans against the Russian workers 
and intellectuals, the unenlightened and starving masses 
of Russians and Moldavians in Bessarabia against the 
Jews, and lastly, the ignorant and fanatical Tatar 
masses against the Armenians. With the assistance of 
Tatars it has demolished one of the revolutionary centres 
of Russia and the most revolutionary centre of the Caucasus‹
Baku‹and has frightened the whole of the Armenian 
province away from the revolution. It has converted 
the entire Caucasus with its numerous tribes into a military 
camp where the population anticipates attack at 
any moment not only by the autocracy, but also by 
neighbouring tribes, the unfortunate victims of the autocracy. 
This cannot go on any longer! And only revolution 
can put a stop to it!

J. V. S T A L I N 190 
It would be strange and ridiculous to expect the 
autocracy, which created all these hellish horrors, to 
be willing, or able, to stop them. No reform, no patching 
of the autocracy‹such as a State Duma, Zemstvos, 
and so forth, to which the liberal party wishes to limit 
itself‹can put a stop to these horrors. On the contrary, 
every attempt in this direction, and every resistance to 
the revolutionary impulses of the proletariat, will only 
serve to intensify these horrors. 
Citizens! The proletariat, the most revolutionary 
class in our society, the class which has up to now borne 
the brunt of the struggle against the autocracy, and which 
will remain to the end its most determined and unrelenting 
enemy, is preparing for open, armed action. And it 
calls upon you, all classes of society, for assistance and 
support. Arm yourselves and help it to arm, and prepare 
for the decisive battle. 
Citizens! The hour of the uprising is near! We must 
meet it fully armed! Only if we do that, only by means of 
a general, country-wide and simultaneous armed uprising 
will we be able to vanquish our despicable foe‹the accursed 
tsarist autocracy‹and on its ruins erect the free 
democratic republic that we need. 
Down With the Autocracy! 
Long Live the General Armed Uprising! 
Long Live the Democratic Republic! 
Long Live the Fighting Proletariat of Russia! 
Reproduced from the manifesto 
printed in October 1905 in the 
printing plant of the Tiflis 
Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. 
Signed: Tiflis Committee

TO ALL THE WORKERS 
The thunder of revolution is roaring! The revolutionary 
people of Russia have risen and have surrounded 
the tsarist government in order to storm it! Red flags 
are flying, barricades are being erected, the people are 
taking to arms and are storming government offices. 
Again the call of the brave is heard; life, which had subsided, 
is seething again. The ship of the revolution has 
hoisted sail and is speeding towards freedom. That ship 
is being steered by the Russian proletariat. 
What do the proletarians of Russia want? Whither 
are they steering? 
Let us overthrow the tsarist Duma and set up a popular 
Constituent Assembly‹this is what the proletarians 
of Russia are saying today. The proletariat will not demand 
petty concessions from the government, it will 
not call for the repeal of ³martial law² and ³floggings² 
in some towns and villages. The proletariat will not 
stoop to such trifles. Whoever demands concessions from 
the government does not believe that the government 
will perish‹but the proletariat confidently believes 
that it will. Whoever expects ³favours² from the government 
has no confidence in the might of the revolution 
‹but the proletariat is inspired with this confidence.

J. V. S T A L I N 192 
No! The proletariat will not dissipate its energy in making 
senseless demands. It presents only one demand to 
the tsarist autocracy: Down with it! Death to it! And 
so, over the vast expanse of Russia the revolutionary 
cry of the workers rings out more and more boldly: 
Down with the State Duma! Long live a popular Constituent 
Assembly! This is the goal towards which the 
proletariat of Russia is striving today. 
The tsar will not grant a popular Constituent Assembly, 
the tsar will not abolish his own autocracy‹that 
he will not do! The curtailed ³constitution² which he 
is ³granting² is a temporary concession, the tsar¹s hypocritical 
promise and nothing more! It goes without saying 
that we shall take advantage of this concession, we 
shall not refuse to wrest from the crow a nut with 
which to smash its head. But the fact remains that the 
people can place no trust in the tsar¹s promises‹they 
must trust only themselves; they must rely only on 
their own strength: the liberation of the people must 
be brought about by the people themselves. Only on 
the bones of the oppressors can the people¹s freedom 
be erected, only with the blood of the oppressors can 
the soil be fertilised for the sovereignty of the people! 
Only when the armed people come out headed by the 
proletariat and raise the banner of a general uprising 
can the tsarist government, which rests on bayonets, 
be overthrown. Not empty phrases, not senseless ³selfarming,² 
but real arming and an armed uprising‹ 
that is what the proletarians of the whole of Russia 
are steering towards today. 
A victorious uprising will lead to the defeat of 
the government. But vanquished governments have

TO ALL THE WORKERS 193 
often risen to their feet again. It may rise to its feet 
again in our country. On the morrow of the uprising, 
the dark forces which lay low during the uprising will 
creep out of their lairs and try to put the government 
on its feet again. That is how vanquished governments 
rise from the dead. The people must curb these dark 
forces without fail, they must make them bite the dust. 
But to do this the victorious people must, on the very 
morrow of the uprising, arm to a man, young and old, 
form themselves into a revolutionary army, and be ever 
ready to protect their hard-won rights by force of arms. 
Only when the victorious people have formed themselves 
into a revolutionary army will they be able finally 
to crush the dark forces which go into hiding. Only 
a revolutionary army can lend force to the actions of 
a provisional government, only a provisional government 
can convoke a popular Constituent Assembly which 
must establish a democratic republic. A revolutionary 
army and a revolutionary provisional government‹this 
is the goal towards which the proletarians of Russia 
are striving today. 
Such is the path that the Russian revolution has taken. 
This path leads to the sovereignty of the people, and the 
proletariat calls upon all the friends of the people to 
march along this path. 
The tsarist autocracy is barring the road of the people¹s 
revolution, it wants with the aid of the manifesto 
it issued yesterday to check this great movement‹clearly, 
the waves of the revolution will engulf the tsarist 
autocracy and sweep it away. . . . 
Contempt and hatred for all those who fail to take 
the path of the proletariat‹they are despicably

J. V. S T A L I N 194 
betraying the revolution! Shame upon those who, having 
taken this path in fact, say something else in words‹ 
they cravenly fear the truth! 
We do not fear the truth, we do not fear revolution! 
Let the thunder roar still louder, let the storm rage more 
fiercely! The hour of victory is near! 
Let us then enthusiastically proclaim the slogans 
of the proletariat of Russia: 
Down With the State Duma! 
Long Live the Armed Uprising! 
Long Live the Revolutionary Army! 
Long Live the Provisional Revolutionary Government! 
Long Live the Popular Constituent Assembly! 
Long Live the Democratic Republic! 
Long Live the Proletariat! 
Reproduced from the manifesto printed 
on October 19, 1905 at the underground 
(Avlabar) printing plant of the Caucasian 
Union of the R.S.D.L.P. 
Signed: Tiflis Committee 
Translated from the Georgian

TIFLIS, NOVEMBER 20, 1905 
The Great Russian Revolution has started! We have 
already passed through the first stormy act of this revolution, 
an act whose formal close was the Manifesto of 
October 17. The autocratic tsar ³by the grace of 
God² bowed his ³crowned head² to the revolutionary 
people and promised them ³the unshakable foundations 
of civil liberty.² . . . 
But this was only the first act. It was only the beginning 
of the end. We are on the threshold of great events 
that will be worthy of the Great Russian Revolution. 
These events are advancing upon us with the inexorable 
rigour of history, with iron necessity. The tsar and 
the people, the autocracy of the tsar and the sovereignty 
of the people‹are two antagonistic, diametrically opposed 
principles. The defeat of one and the victory of the 
other can come about only as the result of a decisive 
clash between the two, as the result of a desperate, lifeand-
death struggle. This struggle has not yet taken 
place. It still lies ahead. And the mighty Titan of the 
Russian revolution‹the all-Russian proletariat‹is preparing 
for it with might and main. 
The liberal bourgeoisie is trying to avert this fateful 
clash. It is of the opinion that the time has come to put

J. V. S T A L I N 196 
a stop to ³anarchy² and to start peaceful, ³constructive² 
work, the work of ³state building.² It is right, This 
bourgeoisie is satisfied with what the proletariat has 
already torn from tsarism by its first revolutionary action. 
It can now confidently conclude an alliance‹on 
advantageous terms‹with the tsarist government and 
by combined efforts attack the common enemy, attack its 
³gravedigger²‹the revolutionary proletariat. Bourgeois 
freedom, freedom to exploit, is already ensured, and the 
bourgeoisie is quite satisfied. Never having been revolutionary, 
the Russian bourgeoisie is already openly 
going over to the side of reaction. A good riddance! We 
shall not grieve very much over this. The fate of the 
revolution was never in the hands of liberalism. The 
course and the outcome of the Russian revolution will 
be determined entirely by the conduct of the revolutionary 
proletariat and the revolutionary peasantry. 
Led by Social-Democracy, the revolutionary urban 
proletariat and the revolutionary peasantry which is 
following it, will, in spite of all the machinations of the 
liberals, staunchly continue their struggle until they 
achieve the complete overthrow of the autocracy and 
erect a free democratic republic on its ruins. 
Such is the immediate political task of the socialist 
proletariat, such is its aim in the present revolution; 
and, backed by the peasantry, it will achieve its aim 
at all costs. 
It has also clearly and definitely mapped the road 
which must lead it to a democratic republic. 
1) The decisive, desperate clash to which we referred 
above, 2) a revolutionary army organised in the 
course of this ³clash,² 3) the democratic dictatorship

TIFLIS, NOVEMBER 20, 1905 197 
of the proletariat and peasantry in the shape of a provisional 
revolutionary government, which will spring up 
as a result of the victorious ³clash,² 4) a Constituent 
Assembly convened by that government on the basis of 
universal, direct, equal and secret suffrage‹such are the 
stages through which the Great Russian Revolution must 
pass before it arrives at the desired goal 
No threats on the part of the government, no highsounding 
tsarist manifestoes, no provisional governments 
of the type of the Witte government which the autocracy 
set up to save itself, no State Duma convened by the 
tsarist government, even if on the basis of universal, 
etc., suffrage‹can turn the proletariat from the only 
true revolutionary path which must lead it to the democratic 
republic. 
Will the proletariat have strength enough to reach 
the end of this path, will it have strength enough to 
emerge with honour from the gigantic, bloody struggle 
which awaits it on this path? 
Yes, it will! 
That is what the proletariat itself thinks, and it is 
boldly and resolutely preparing for battle. 
Kavkazsky Rabochy Listok 
(Caucasian Workers¹ Newssheet),53 No. 1, 
November 20, 1905 
Unsigned

TWO CLASHES 
(Concerning January 9) 
You probably remember January 9 of last year. . . . 
That was the day on which the St. Petersburg proletariat 
came face to face with the tsarist government and, without 
wishing to do so, clashed with it. Yes, without wishing 
to do so, for the proletariat went peacefully to the tsar 
for ³bread and justice,² but was met as an enemy, with 
a hail of bullets. It had placed its hopes in portraits 
of the tsar and in church banners, but both portraits 
and banners were torn into shreds and thrown into its 
face, thus providing glaring proof that arms must be 
countered only by arms. And it took to arms wherever 
they were available‹it took to arms in order to meet 
the enemy as an enemy and to wreak vengeance on him. 
But, leaving thousands of victims on the battle-field and 
sustaining heavy losses, the proletariat retreated, with 
anger burning in its breast. . . . 
This is what January 9 of last year reminds us of. 
Today, when the proletariat of Russia is commemorating 
January 9, it is not out of place to ask: Why did 
the St. Petersburg proletariat retreat after the clash last 
year, and in what way does that clash differ from the 
general clash that took place in December?

TWO CLASHES 199 
First of all it retreated because then it lacked that 
minimum of revolutionary consciousness that is absolutely 
essential if an uprising is to be victorious. Can 
the proletariat that goes with prayer and hope to a bloody 
tsar who has based his entire existence on the oppression 
of the people, can the proletariat which trustfully goes 
to its sworn enemy to beg ³a crumb of charity²‹can 
such people really gain the upper hand in street 
fighting? . . . 
True, later on, after a little time had passed, rifle 
volleys opened the eyes of the deceived proletariat and 
revealed the vile features of the autocracy; true, after 
that the proletariat began to exclaim angrily: ³The tsar 
gave it to us‹we¹ll now give it to him!² But what is 
the use of that when you are unarmed? What can you do 
with bare hands in street fighting, even if you are enlightened? 
For does not an enemy bullet pierce an enlightened 
head as easily as an unenlightened one? 
Yes, lack of arms‹that was the second reason for the 
retreat of the St. Petersburg proletariat. 
But what could St. Petersburg have done alone even 
if it had possessed arms? When blood was flowing in 
St. Petersburg and barricades were being erected, nobody 
raised a finger in other towns‹that is why the government 
was able to bring in troops from other places and 
flood the streets with blood. It was only afterwards, 
when the St. Petersburg proletariat had buried its fallen 
comrades and had returned to its everyday occupations 
‹only then was the cry of workers on strike heard in 
different towns: ³Greetings to the St. Petersburg heroes!² 
But of what use were these belated greetings to anybody? 
That is why the government did not take these

J. V. S T A L I N 200 
sporadic and unorganised actions seriously; the proletariat 
was split up in separate groups, so the government 
was able to scatter it without much effort. 
Hence, the third reason for the retreat of the 
St. Petersburg proletariat was the absence of an organised 
general uprising, the unorganised action of the 
proletariat. 
But who was there to organise a general uprising? 
The people as a whole could not undertake this 
task, and the vanguard of the proletariat‹the proletarian 
party‹was itself unorganised, for it was torn by 
internal disagreements. The internal war, the split in 
the party, weakened it more and more every day. It is 
not surprising that the young party, split into two parts, 
was unable to undertake the task of organising a general 
uprising. 
Hence, the fourth reason for the proletariat¹s retreat 
was the absence of a single and united party. 
And lastly, if the peasantry and the troops failed 
to join the uprising and infuse fresh strength into 
it, it was because they could not see any exceptional 
strength in the feeble and short-lived uprising, and, 
as is common knowledge, nobody joins the feeble. 
That is why the heroic proletariat of St. Petersburg 
retreated in January last year. 
Time passed. Roused by the crisis and lack of rights, 
the proletariat prepared for another clash. Those who 
thought that the losses sustained on January 9 would 
crush the fighting spirit of the proletariat were mistaken‹
on the contrary, it prepared for the ³last² clash

TWO CLASHES 201 
with greater ardour and devotion, it fought the troops 
and Cossacks with greater courage and determination, 
The revolt of the sailors in the Black Sea and Baltic 
Sea, the revolt of the workers in Odessa, Lodz and other 
towns, and the continuous clashes between the peasants 
and the police clearly revealed how unquenchable was 
the revolutionary fire burning in the breasts of the people. 
The proletariat has recently been acquiring with 
amazing rapidity the revolutionary consciousness it 
lacked on January 9. It is said that ten years of propaganda 
could not have brought about such an increase 
in the proletariat¹s class consciousness as these days of 
uprising have done. That is so, nor could it be otherwise, 
for the process of class conflicts is a great school 
in which the revolutionary consciousness of the people 
grows hour by hour. 
A general armed uprising, which at first was preached 
only by a small group of the proletariat, an armed 
uprising, about which some comrades were even doubtful, 
gradually won the sympathy of the proletariat‹ 
and it feverishly organised Red detachments, procured 
arms, etc. The October general strike clearly demonstrated 
the feasibility of simultaneous action by the proletariat. 
This, in its turn, proved the feasibility of an organised 
uprising‹and the proletariat resolutely took this 
path. 
All that was needed was a united party, a single 
and indivisible Social-Democratic Party to direct the 
organisation of the general uprising, to co-ordinate 
the preparations for the revolution that were going on 
separately in different towns, and to take the initiative 
in the assault. That was all the more necessary because

J. V. S T A L I N 202 
life itself was preparing the ground or a new upsurge‹ 
day by day, the crisis in the towns, starvation in the 
countryside, and other factors of a similar nature 
were making another revolutionary upheaval inevitable. 
The trouble was that such a party was then only 
in the process of formation; enfeebled by the split, the 
party was only just recovering and beginning to unite 
its ranks. 
It was precisely at that moment that the proletariat 
of Russia entered into the second clash, the glorious 
December clash. 
Let us now discuss this clash. 
In discussing the January clash we said that i t 
lacked revolutionary consciousness; as regards the December 
clash we must say that this consciousness existed. 
Eleven months of revolutionary storm had sufficiently 
opened the eyes of the militant proletariat of Russia, 
and the slogans: Down with the autocracy! Long live the 
democratic republic! became the slogans of the day, 
the slogans of the masses. This time you saw no church 
banners, no icons, no portraits of the tsar‹instead, red 
flags fluttered and portraits of Marx and Engels were 
carried. This time you heard no singing of psalms or of 
³God Save the Tsar²‹instead, the strains of the Marseillaise 
and the Varshavyanka deafened the tyrants. 
Thus, in respect to revolutionary consciousness, the 
December clash differed radically from the January clash. 
In the January clash there was a lack of arms, the 
people went into battle unarmed. The December clash 
marked a step forward, all the fighters now rushed for 
arms, with revolvers, rifles, bombs and in some places 
even machine guns in their hands. Procure arms by

TWO CLASHES 203 
force of arms‹this became the slogan of the day. Everybody 
sought arms, everybody felt the need for arms, 
the only sad thing about it was that very few arms were 
procurable, and only an inconsiderable number of proletarians 
could come out armed. 
The January uprising was utterly sporadic and 
unorganised; in it everybody acted haphazard. In this 
respect, too, the December uprising marked a step 
forward. The St. Petersburg and Moscow Soviets of 
Workers¹ Deputies, and the ³majority² and ³minority² 
centres ³took measures² as far as possible to make the 
revolutionary action simultaneous. They called upon the 
proletariat of Russia to launch a simultaneous offensive. 
Nothing of the kind was done during the January uprising. 
But that call had not been preceded by prolonged 
and persevering Party activity in preparation for 
the uprising, and so the call remained a call, and the 
action turned out to be sporadic and unorganised. There 
existed only the desire for a simultaneous and organised 
uprising. 
The January uprising was ³led² mainly by the 
Gapons. In this respect the December uprising had 
the advantage in that the Social-Democrats were at the 
head of it. The sad thing, however, was that the latter 
were split into separate groups, that they did not constitute 
a single united party, and, therefore, could not coordinate 
their activities. Once again the uprising found 
the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party unprepared 
and divided. . . . 
The January clash had no plan, it was not guided 
by any definite policy, the question whether to take the 
offensive or defensive did not confront it. The December

J. V. S T A L I N 204 
clash merely had the advantage that it clearly raised 
this question, but it did so only in the course of the 
struggle, not at the very beginning. As regards the 
answer to this question, the December uprising revealed 
the same weakness as the January one. Had the 
Moscow revolutionaries adhered to the policy of offensive 
from the very beginning, had they at the very beginning 
attacked, say, the Nikolayevsky Railway Station 
and captured it, the uprising would, of course, have lasted 
longer and would have taken a more desirable turn. 
Or had the Lettish revolutionaries, for example, resolutely 
pursued a policy of offensive and had not wavered, 
then they undoubtedly would first of all have captured 
batteries of artillery, thereby depriving the authorities 
of all support; for the authorities had at first allowed 
the revolutionaries to capture towns, but later they 
passed to the offensive and with the aid of artillery 
recaptured the places they had lost.54 The same must 
be said about other towns. Marx was right when he said: 
In an uprising only audacity conquers, and only those 
who adhere to the policy of offensive can be audacious 
to the end. 
This was the cause of the proletariat¹s retreat in the 
middle of December. 
If the overwhelming mass of the peasantry and 
troops failed to join in the December clash, if that clash 
even roused dissatisfaction among certain ³democratic² 
circles‹it was because it lacked that strength and durability 
which are so necessary for the uprising to 
spread and be victorious. 
From what has been said it is clear what we, the 
Russian Social-Democrats, must do today.

TWO CLASHES 205 
Firstly, our task is to complete what we have begun‹ 
to form a single and indivisible party. The all-Russian 
conferences of the ³majority² and the ³minority² have 
already drawn up the organisational principles of unification. 
Lenin¹s formula defining membership of the 
Party, and democratic centralism, have been accepted. 
The respective centres that direct ideological and practical 
activities have already merged, and the merging of 
the local organisations is already almost completed. 
All that is needed is a Unity Congress that will officially 
endorse the unification that has actually taken place 
and thereby give us a single and indivisible Russian 
Social-Democratic Labour Party. Our task is to facilitate 
the execution of this task, which is so precious to us, 
and to make careful preparations for the Unity Congress, 
which, as is known, should open in the very near future. 
Secondly, our task is to help the Party to organise 
the armed uprising, actively to intervene in this 
sacred cause and to work tirelessly for it. Our task is 
to multiply the Red detachments, to train and weld 
them together; our task is to procure arms by force of 
arms, to reconnoitre the disposition of government institutions, 
calculate the enemy¹s forces, study his strong 
and weak sides, and draw up a plan for the uprising 
accordingly. Our task is to conduct systematic agitation 
in favour of an uprising in the army and in the villages, 
especially in those villages that are situated close 
to towns, to arm the reliable elements in them, etc., 
etc. . . . 
Thirdly, our task is to cast away all hesitation, to 
condemn all indefiniteness, and resolutely to pursue a 
policy of offensive. . . .

J. V. S T A L I N 206 
In short, a united party, an uprising organised by 
the Party, and a policy of offensive‹this is what we 
need today to achieve the victory of the uprising. 
And the more famine in the countryside and the 
industrial crisis in the towns become intensified and 
grow, the more acute and imperative does this task 
become. 
Some people, it appears, are beset with doubts about 
the correctness of this elementary truth, and they ask 
in a spirit of despair: What can the Party, even if it is 
united, do if it fails to rally the proletariat around itself? 
The proletariat, they say, is routed, it has lost hope and 
is not in the mood to take the initiative; we must, they 
say, now expect salvation to come from the countryside; 
the initiative must come from there, etc. One cannot 
help saying that the comrades who argue in this way are 
profoundly mistaken. The proletariat is by no means 
routed, for the rout of the proletariat means its death; 
on the contrary, it is as much alive as it was before and 
is gaining strength every day. It has merely retreated in 
order, after mustering its forces, to enter the final clash 
with the tsarist government. 
When, on December 15, the Soviet of Workers¹ Deputies 
of Moscow‹the very Moscow which in fact led 
the December uprising‹publicly announced: We are 
temporarily suspending the struggle in order to make 
serious preparations to raise the banner of an uprising 
again‹it expressed the cherished thoughts of the entire 
Russian proletariat. 
And if some comrades nevertheless deny facts, if 
they no longer place their hopes in the proletariat and 
now clutch at the rural bourgeoisie‹the question is:

TWO CLASHES 207 
With whom are we dealing, with Socialist-Revolutionaries 
or Social-Democrats? For no Social-Democrat will 
doubt the truth that the actual (and not only ideological) 
leader of the rural population is the urban proletariat. 
At one time we were assured that the autocracy was 
crushed after October 17, but we did not believe it, because 
the rout of the autocracy means its death; but far 
from being dead, it mustered fresh forces for another attack. 
We said that the autocracy had only retreated. 
It turned out that we were right. . . . 
No, comrades! The proletariat of Russia i s not 
defeated, it has only retreated and is now preparing for 
fresh glorious battles. The proletariat of Russia will 
not lower its blood-stained banner; it will yield the leadership 
of the uprising to no one; it will be the only 
worthy leader of the Russian revolution. 
January 7, 1906 
Reproduced from the pamphlet 
published by the Caucasian 
Union Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. 
Translated from the Georgian

THE STATE DUMA AND THE TACTICS 
OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY55 
You have no doubt heard of the emancipation of the 
peasants. That was the time when the government received 
a double blow: one from outside‹defeat in the Crimea, 
and one inside‹the peasant movement. That is why 
the government, harassed on two sides, was compelled to 
yield and talk about emancipating the peasants: ³We 
must emancipate the peasants ourselves from above, 
otherwise the people will rise in revolt and secure their 
emancipation themselves from below.² We know what 
that ³emancipation from above² was. . . . The fact 
that the people at that time allowed themselves to be 
deceived, that the government¹s hypocritical plans succeeded, 
that it strengthened its position by means of these 
reforms and thereby postponed the victory of the people, 
shows, among other things, that the people were still 
unenlightened and could easily be deceived. 
The same thing is being repeated in the life of Russia 
today. As is well known, today, too, the government 
is receiving a double blow: from outside‹defeat in Manchuria, 
and inside‹the people¹s revolution. And the 
government, harassed on two sides, has been compelled 
to yield again and, as it did then, it is again

STATE DUMA AND TACTICS OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY 209 
talking about ³reforms from above²: ³We must give 
the people a State Duma from above, otherwise the people 
will rise in revolt and convoke a Constituent Assembly 
themselves from below.² Thus, by convening the Duma, 
they want to subdue the people¹s revolution in the 
same way as, once upon a time, they subdued the great 
peasant movement by ³emancipating the peasants.² 
Hence, our task is‹to frustrate with all determination 
the plans of the reaction, to sweep away the State 
Duma, and thereby clear the road for the people¹s revolution. 
But what will the Duma be? What will be its composition? 
The Duma will be a mongrel parliament. Nominally, 
it will enjoy powers to decide; but actually, it 
will have only advisory powers, because the Upper Chamber, 
and a government armed to the teeth, will stand 
over it in the capacity of censors. The Manifesto definitely 
states that no decision of the Duma can be put into 
force unless it is approved by the Upper Chamber and 
the tsar. 
The Duma will not be a people¹s parliament, it will 
be a parliament of the enemies of the people, because 
voting in the election of the Duma will be neither universal, 
equal, direct nor secret. The paltry electoral rights 
that are granted to the workers exist only on paper. Of 
the 98 electors who are to elect the Duma deputies for 
the Tiflis Gubernia, only two can be workers; the other 
96 electors must belong to other classes‹that is what the 
Manifesto says. Of the 32 electors who are to elect the 
Duma deputies for the Batum and Sukhum areas, only 
one can be a representative of the workers; the other

J. V. S T A L I N 210 
31 electors must come from other classes‹that is what 
the Manifesto says. The same thing applies to the other 
gubernias. Needless to say, only representatives of the 
other classes will be elected to the Duma. Not one deputy 
from the workers, not one vote for the workers‹this is the 
basis upon which the Duma is being built. If to all this 
we add martial law, if we bear in mind the suppression 
of freedom of speech, press, assembly and association, 
then it will be self-evident what kind of people will 
gather in the tsar¹s Duma. . . . 
Needless to say, this makes it more than ever necessary 
resolutely to strive to sweep away this Duma and 
to raise the banner of revolution. 
How can we sweep away the Duma‹by participating 
in the elections or by boycotting them?‹that is the 
question now. 
Some say: We must certainly participate in the elections 
in order to entangle the reaction in its own snare 
and, thereby, utterly wreck the State Duma. 
Others say in answer to this: By participating in 
the elections you will involuntarily help the reaction 
to set up the Duma and you will fall right into the trap 
laid by the reaction. And that means: first, you will 
create a tsarist Duma in conjunction with the reaction, 
and then life will compel you to try to wreck the Duma 
which you yourselves have created. This line is incompatible 
with the principles of our policy. One of two 
things: either keep out of the elections and proceed to 
wreck the Duma, or abandon the idea of wrecking the 
Duma and proceed with the elections so that you shall 
not have to destroy what you yourselves have created. 
Clearly, the only correct path is active boycott, by

STATE DUMA AND TACTICS OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY 211 
means of which we shall isolate the reaction from the 
people, organise the wrecking of the Duma, and thereby 
cut the ground completely from under the feet of this 
mongrel parliament. 
That is how the advocates of a boycott argue. 
Which of the two sides is right? 
To pursue genuinely Social-Democratic tactics two 
conditions are necessary: first, that those tactics should 
not run counter to the course of social life; and second, 
that they should raise the revolutionary spirit of the 
masses higher and higher. 
The tactics of participating in the elections run counter 
to the course of social life, for life is sapping the 
foundations of the Duma, whereas participation in the 
elections will strengthen those foundations; consequently, 
participation runs counter to life. 
The boycott tactics, however, spring automatically 
from the course of the revolution, for, jointly with the 
revolution, they discredit and sap the foundations of the 
police Duma from the very outset. 
The tactics of participating in the elections weaken 
the revolutionary spirit of the people, for the advocates 
of participation call upon the people to take part in 
police-controlled elections and not to resort to revolutionary 
action; they see salvation in ballot papers and 
not in action by the people. But the police-controlled 
elections will give the people a false idea of what the 
State Duma is; they will rouse false hopes and the people 
will involuntarily think: evidently the Duma is not so 
bad, otherwise the Social-Democrats would not advise 
us to take part in electing it; perhaps fortune will smile 
on us and the Duma will benefit us.

J. V. S T A L I N 212 
The boycott tactics, however, do not sow any false 
hopes about the Duma, but openly and unambiguously 
say that salvation lies only in the victorious action of 
the people, that the emancipation of the people can be 
achieved only by the people themselves; and as the Duma 
is an obstacle to this, we must set to work at once to remove 
it. In this case, the people rely only upon themselves 
and from the very outset take a hostile stand 
against the Duma as the citadel of reaction; and that will 
raise the revolutionary spirit of the people higher and 
higher and thereby prepare the ground for general victorious 
action. 
Revolutionary tactics must be clear, distinct and 
definite; the boycott tactics possess these qualities. 
It is said: verbal agitation alone is not enough; 
the masses must be convinced by facts that the Duma is 
useless and this will help to wreck it. For this purpose 
participation in the elections and not active boycott is 
needed. 
In answer to this we say the following. It goes without 
saying that agitation with facts is far more important 
than verbal explanation. The very reason for our going to 
people¹s election meetings is to demonstrate to the people, 
in conflict with other parties, in collisions with them, the 
perfidy of the reaction and the bourgeoisie, and in this 
way ³agitate² the electors ³with facts.² If this does not 
satisfy the comrades, if to all this they add participation 
in the election, then we must say that, taken by themselves, 
elections‹the dropping or not dropping of a ballot 
paper into a ballot box‹do not add one iota either to 
³factual² or to ³verbal² agitation. But the harm caused 
by this is great, because, by this ³agitation with facts,²

STATE DUMA AND TACTICS OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY 213 
the advocates of participation involuntarily sanction 
the setting up of the Duma, and thereby strengthen 
the ground beneath it. How do those comrades intend 
to compensate for the great harm thus done? By 
dropping ballot papers into the ballot box? This is not 
even worth discussing. 
On the other hand, there must also be a limit to ³agitation 
with facts.² When Gapon marched at the head of 
the St. Petersburg workers with crosses and icons he also 
said: the people believe in the benevolence of the tsar, 
they are not yet convinced that the government is criminal, 
and we must, therefore, lead them to the tsar¹s palace. 
Gapon was mistaken, of course. His tactics were harmful 
tactics, as January 9 proved. That shows that we must 
give Gapon tactics the widest possible berth. The boycott 
tactics, however, are the only tactics that utterly 
refute Gapon¹s sophistry. 
It is said: the boycott will separate the masses from 
their vanguard, because, with the boycott, only the vanguard 
will follow you; the masses, however, will remain 
with the reactionaries and liberals, who will pull them 
over to their side. 
To that we reply that where this takes place the 
masses evidently sympathise with the other parties 
and will not anyhow elect Social-Democrats as their 
delegates, however much we may participate in the 
elections. Elections by themselves cannot possibly revolutionise 
the masses! As regards agitation in connection 
with the elections, it is being conducted by both 
sides, with the difference, however, that the advocates of 
the boycott are conducting more uncompromising and determined 
agitation against the Duma than the advocates

J. V. S T A L I N 214 
of participation in the elections, because sharp criticism 
of the Duma may induce the masses to abstain from 
voting, and this does not enter into the plans of the advocates 
of participation in the elections. If this agitation 
proves effective, the people will rally around the Social- 
Democrats; and when the Social-Democrats call for a 
boycott of the Duma, then the people will at once follow 
them and the reactionaries will be left only with their 
infamous hooligans. If, however, the agitation ³has no 
effect,² then the elections will result in nothing but 
harm, because by employing the tactics of going into the 
Duma we would endorse the activities of the reactionaries. 
As you see, the boycott is the best means of rallying 
the people around Social-Democracy, in those places, 
of course, where it is possible to rally them; but where 
it is not, the elections can result in nothing but harm. 
Moreover, the tactics of going into the Duma dim 
the revolutionary consciousness of the people. The point 
is that all the reactionary and liberal parties are participating 
in the elections. What difference is there between 
them and the revolutionaries? To this question the participation 
tactics fail to give the masses a straight answer. 
The masses might easily confuse the non-revolutionary 
Cadets with the revolutionary Social-Democrats. The 
boycott tactics, however, draw a sharp line between 
revolutionaries and the non-revolutionaries who want to 
save the foundations of the old regime with the aid of 
the Duma. And the drawing of this line is extremely 
important for the revolutionary enlightenment of the 
people. 
And lastly, we are told that with the aid of the 
elections we shall create Soviets of Workers¹ Deputies,

STATE DUMA AND TACTICS OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY 215 
and thereby unite the revolutionary masses organisationally. 
To this we answer that under present conditions, 
when even the most inoffensive meetings are suppressed, 
it will be absolutely impossible for Soviets of Workers¹ 
Deputies to function, and, consequently, to set this task 
is a piece of self-deception. 
Thus, the participation tactics involuntarily serve 
to strengthen the tsarist Duma, weaken the revolutionary 
spirit of the masses, dim the revolutionary consciousness 
of the people, are unable to create any revolutionary organisations, 
run counter to the development of social life, 
and therefore should be rejected by Social-Democracy. 
Boycott tactics‹this is the direction in which the 
development of the revolution is now going. This is the 
direction in which Social-Democracy, too, should go. 
Gantiadi (The Dawn), No. 3, 
March 8, 1906 
Signed: J. Besoshvili 
Translated from the Georgian

THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 
I 
The old order is breaking up, the countryside is in 
upheaval. The peasantry, who only yesterday were 
crushed and downtrodden, are today rising to their 
feet and straightening their backs. The peasant movement, 
which only yesterday was helpless, is today sweeping 
like a turbulent flood against the old order: get out 
of the way‹or I¹ll sweep you away! ³The peasants want 
the landlords¹ land,² ³The peasants want to abolish the 
remnants of serfdom²‹such are the voices now heard 
in the rebellious villages and hamlets of Russia. 
Those who count on silencing the peasants by means 
of bullets are mistaken: life has shown us that this 
only serves still further to inflame and intensify the 
revolutionary peasant movement. 
And those who try to pacify the peasants with empty 
promises and ³peasants¹ banks² are also mistaken: the 
peasants want land, they dream of this land, and, of 
course, they will not be satisfied until they have seized 
the landlords¹ land. Of what use are empty promises and 
³peasants¹ banks² to them? 
The peasants want to seize the landlords¹ land. In 
this way they seek to abolish the remnants of serfdom‹

THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 217 
and those who are not betraying the peasants must strive 
to settle the agrarian question precisely on this basis. 
But how are the peasants to gain possession of the 
landlords¹ land? 
It is said that the only way is‹³purchase on easy 
terms.² The government and the landlords have plenty 
of spare land, these gentlemen tell us; if the peasants purchase 
this land, everything will settle itself, and in this 
way the wolves will be sated and the sheep remain whole. 
But they do not ask what the peasants are to buy the 
land with after they have been stripped not only of their 
money but also of their very skins. They do not stop to 
think that in buying the land the peasants will have 
only bad land foisted upon them, while the landlords will 
keep the good land for themselves, as they succeeded in 
doing during the ³emancipation of the serfs²! Besides, 
why should the peasants buy the land which has been 
theirs for ages? Have not both the government¹s and the 
landlords¹ lands been watered by the sweat of the peasants? 
Did not these lands belong to the peasants? Were 
not the peasants deprived of this heritage of their fathers 
and grandfathers? What justice is there in the demand 
that the peasants should buy the very land that was 
taken from them? And is the question of the peasant 
movement a question of buying and selling? Is not the 
aim of the peasant movement to emancipate the peasants? 
Who will free the peasants from the yoke of serfdom 
if not the peasants themselves? And yet, these gentlemen 
assure us that the landlords will emancipate the 
peasants, if only they are given a little hard cash. And, 
believe it or not, this ³emancipation,² it seems, is to 
be carried out under the direction of the tsarist

J. V. S T A L I N 218 
bureaucracy, the selfsame bureaucracy which more than 
once has met the starving peasants with cannons and 
machine guns! . . . 
No! Buying out the land will not save the peasant. 
Whoever advises them to accept ³purchase on easy terms² 
is a traitor, because he is trying to catch the peasants 
in the real-estate agent¹s net and does not want the 
emancipation of the peasants to be brought about by 
the peasants themselves. 
Since the peasants want to seize the landlords¹ land, 
since they must abolish the survivals of serfdom in this 
way, since ³purchase on easy terms² will not save them, 
since the emancipation of the peasants must be brought 
about by the peasants themselves, then there cannot 
be the slightest doubt that the only way is to take the 
land from the landlords, that is, to confiscate these 
lands. 
That is the way out. 
The question is‹how far should this confiscation 
go? Has it any limit, should the peasants take only part 
of the land, or all of it? 
Some say that to take all the land would be going 
too far, that it is sufficient to take part of the land to 
satisfy the peasants. Let us assume that it is so, but 
what is to be done if the peasants demand more? We cannot 
stand in their way and say: Halt! Don¹t go any 
further! That would be reactionary! And have not 
events in Russia shown that the peasants are actually 
demanding the confiscation of all the landlords¹ land? 
Besides, what does ³taking a part² mean? What part 
should be taken from the landlords, one half or one 
third? Who is to settle this question‹the landlords alone,

THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 219 
or the landlords in conjunction with the peasants? As 
you see, this still leaves plenty of scope for the realestate 
agent, there is still scope for bargaining between 
the landlords and the peasants; and this is fundamentally 
opposed to the task of emancipating the peasants. The 
peasants must, once and for all, get accustomed to the 
idea that it is necessary not to bargain with the landlords, 
but to fight them. We must not mend the yoke of 
serfdom, but smash it, so as to abolish the remnants 
of serfdom forever. To ³take only part² means patching 
up the survivals of serfdom, which is incompatible with 
the task of emancipating the peasants. 
Clearly, the only way is to take all the land from 
the landlords. That alone will enable the peasant movement 
to achieve its aim, that alone can stimulate the 
energy of the people, that alone can sweep away the 
fossilised remnants of serfdom. 
Thus: the present movement in the countryside is 
a democratic peasant movement. The aim of this movement 
is to abolish the remnants of serfdom. To abolish 
these remnants it is necessary to confiscate all landlord 
and government lands. 
Certain gentlemen ask us accusingly: Why did not 
Social-Democracy demand the confiscation of all the 
land before? Why, until recently, did it speak only about 
confiscating the ³otrezki²*? 
Because, gentlemen, in 1903, when the Party talked 
about the ³otrezki,² the Russian peasantry had not 
yet been drawn into the movement. It was the Party¹s 
* Literally ³cuts.² The plots of land the landlords took from the 
peasants when serfdom was abolished in Russia in 1861.‹Tr.

J. V. S T A L I N 220 
duty to carry into the countryside a slogan that would 
fire the peasants¹ hearts and rouse them against the remnants 
of serfdom. Confiscate the ³otrezki² was precisely 
such a slogan, because the ³otrezki² vividly reminded 
the Russian peasants of the injustice of the remnants 
of serfdom. 
But times have changed. The peasant movement has 
grown. It is no longer necessary to call it into being‹ 
it is already in full swing. The question today is not how 
to get the peasants moving, but what the peasants who 
are already moving should demand. Clearly, here definite 
demands are what is needed, and so the Party tells the 
peasants that they ought to demand the confiscation of 
all landlord and government lands. 
This shows that everything has its time and place, 
and this applies to the ³otrezki² as well as to the confiscation 
of all the land. 
II 
We have seen that the present movement in the countryside 
is a movement for the emancipation of the peasants, 
we have also seen that to emancipate the peasants 
it is necessary to abolish the remnants of serfdom, and to 
abolish these remnants it is necessary to confiscate all 
landlord and government land, so as to clear the road for 
the new way of life, for the free development of capitalism. 
Let us assume that all this has been done. How 
should this land be subsequently distributed? Into 
whose ownership should it be transferred? 
Some say that the confiscated land should be granted 
to each village as common property; that the private

THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 221 
ownership of land must be abolished forthwith, that each 
village should become complete owner of the land and 
then itself divide the land among the peasants in equal 
³allotments,² and in this way socialism will be introduced 
in the countryside forthwith‹instead of wagelabour 
there will be equal land tenure. 
This is called ³socialisation of the land,² the Socialist- 
Revolutionaries tell us. 
Is this solution acceptable for us? Let us examine 
it. Let us first deal with the point that in introducing 
socialism, the Socialist-Revolutionaries want to begin 
with the countryside. Is this possible? Everybody knows 
that the town is more developed than the countryside, 
that the town is the leader of the countryside, and, consequently, 
every activity for socialism must begin in the 
town. The Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, want to 
convert the countryside into the leader of the town and to 
compel the countryside to begin introducing socialism, 
which of course is impossible owing to the backwardness 
of the countryside. Hence, it is obvious that the ³socialism² 
of the Socialist-Revolutionaries will be stillborn 
socialism. 
Let us now pass to the point that they want to introduce 
socialism in the countryside forthwith. Introducing 
socialism means abolishing commodity production, 
abolishing the money system, razing capitalism to its 
foundations and socialising all the means of production. 
The Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, want to leave 
all this intact and to socialise only the land, which is 
absolutely impossible. If commodity production remains 
intact, the land, too, will become a commodity and will 
come on to the market any day, and the ³socialism² of

J. V. S T A L I N 222 
the Socialist-Revolutionaries will be blown sky-high. 
Clearly, they want to introduce socialism within the 
framework of capitalism, which, of course, is inconceivable. 
That is exactly why it is said that the ³socialism² 
of the Socialist-Revolutionaries is bourgeois 
socialism. 
As regards equal land tenure, it must be said that 
this is merely an empty phrase. Equal land tenure needs 
equality of property, but among the peasantry inequality 
of property prevails, and this the present democratic 
revolution cannot abolish. Is it conceivable that the 
owner of eight pair of oxen will make the same use of 
the land as one who owns no oxen at all? And yet the 
Socialist-Revolutionaries believe that ³equal land tenure² 
will lead to the abolition of wage-labour, and that it 
will stop the development of capital, which, of course, 
is absurd. Evidently, the Socialist-Revolutionaries want 
to combat the further development of capitalism and 
turn back the wheel of history‹in this they seek salvation. 
Science, however, tells us that the victory of socialism 
depends upon the development of capitalism, and 
whoever combats this development is combating socialism. 
That is why the Socialist-Revolutionaries are also 
called Socialist-Reactionaries. 
We shall not dwell on the fact that the peasants want 
to fight to abolish feudal property not in opposition to 
bourgeois property, but on the basis of bourgeois property‹
they want to divide the confiscated land among themselves 
as private property and will not be satisfied with 
³socialisation of the land.² 
Hence you see that ³socialisation of the land² is 
unacceptable.

THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 223 
Others say that the confiscated land should be transferred 
to a democratic state, and that the peasants should 
be only the tenants of this state. 
This is called ³nationalisation of the land.² 
Is the nationalisation of the land acceptable? If 
we bear in mind that the future state, however democratic 
it may be, will nevertheless be a bourgeois state, that 
the transfer of the land to such a state will enhance the 
political strength of the bourgeoisie, which would 
be greatly to the disadvantage of the rural and urban 
proletariat; if we also bear in mind that the peasants 
themselves will be opposed to ³nationalisation of the 
land² and will not be satisfied with being merely tenants‹
it will be self-evident that ³nationalisation of 
the land² is not in the interest of the present-day movement. 
Consequently, ³nationalisation of the land² is also 
unacceptable. 
Still others say that the land should be transferred 
to local government bodies, and that the peasants should 
be the tenants of these bodies. 
This is called ³municipalisation of the land.² 
Is the municipalisation of the land acceptable? What 
does ³municipalisation of the land² mean? It means, firstly, 
that the peasants will not receive as their property the 
land which they confiscate from the landlords and the 
government in the course of the struggle. How will the 
peasants look upon this? The peasants want to receive 
land as their property; the peasants want to divide the 
confiscated land among themselves; they dream of this 
land as their property, and when they are told that this 
land is to be transferred not to them but to the local

J. V. S T A L I N 224 
government bodies, they will certainly disagree with 
the advocates of ³municipalisation.² We must not forget 
this.
Moreover, what will happen if in their revolutionary 
ardour the peasants take possession of all the confiscated 
land and leave nothing for the local government bodies? 
We cannot stand in their way and say: Halt! This land 
must be transferred to the local government bodies and 
not to you, it will be quite enough for you to be tenants! 
Secondly, if we accept the ³municipalisation² slogan 
we must at once raise it among the people and at once 
explain to the peasants that the land for which they are 
fighting, which they want to seize, is not to become 
their property, but the property of local government 
bodies. Of course, if the Party enjoys great influence 
among the peasants they may agree with it, but, needless 
to say, the peasants will no longer fight with their previous 
ardour, and this will be extremely harmful for 
the present revolution. If, however, the Party does not 
enjoy great influence among the peasants, the latter will 
desert the Party and turn their backs upon it, and this 
will cause a conflict between the peasants and the Party 
and greatly weaken the forces of the revolution. 
We shall be told: often the wishes of the peasantry 
run counter to the course of development; we cannot 
ignore the course of history and always follow the wishes 
of the peasants‹the Party should have its own principles. 
That is gospel truth! The Party must be guided 
by its principles. But the party which rejected all the 
above-mentioned strivings of the peasantry would betray 
its principles. If the peasants¹ desire to seize the landlords¹ 
lands and to divide them among themselves does

THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 225 
not run counter to the course of history; if, on the contrary, 
these strivings spring entirely from the present 
democratic revolution, if a real struggle against feudal 
property can be waged only on the basis of bourgeois 
property, and if the strivings of the peasants express 
precisely this trend‹then it is self-evident that the 
Party cannot reject these demands of the peasants, for 
refusal to back these demands would mean refusing to 
develop the revolution. On the other hand, if the Party 
has principles, if it does not wish to become a brake 
upon the revolution, it must help the peasants to achieve 
what they are striving for. And what they are striving 
for totally contradicts the ³municipalisation of the 
land²! 
As you see, ³municipalisation of the land² is also 
unacceptable. 
III 
We have seen that neither ³socialisation,² nor ³nationalisation,² 
nor ³municipalisation² can properly meet 
the interests of the present revolution. 
How should the confiscated land be distributed? 
Into whose ownership should it be transferred? 
Clearly, the land which the peasants confiscate should 
be transferred to the peasants to enable them to divide 
this land among themselves. This is how the question 
raised above should be settled. The division of the land 
will call forth the mobilisation of property. The poor 
will sell their land and take the path of proletarianisation; 
the wealthy will acquire additional land and 
proceed to improve their methods of cultivation; the

J. V. S T A L I N 226 
rural population will split up into classes; an acute 
class struggle will flare up, and in this way the foundation 
for the further development of capitalism will be 
laid. 
As you see, the division of the land follows logically 
from present-day economic development. 
On the other hand, the slogan ³The land to the peasants, 
only to the peasants and to nobody else² will encourage 
the peasantry, infuse new strength into them, and help 
the incipient revolutionary movement in the countryside 
to achieve its aim. 
As you see, the course of the present revolution also 
points to the necessity of dividing the land. 
Our opponents say to us accusingly that in that way 
we shall regenerate the petty bourgeoisie, and that this 
radically contradicts the doctrines of Marx. This is what 
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya56 writes: 
³By helping the peasantry to expropriate the landlords 
you are unconsciously helping to install pettybourgeois 
farming on the ruins of the already more 
or less developed forms of capitalist farming. Is this 
not a Œstep backwards¹ from the point of view of 
orthodox Marxism?² (See Revolutsionnaya Rossiya, 
No. 75.) 
I must say that Messieurs the ³Critics² have mixed 
up the facts. They have forgotten that landlord farming 
is not capitalist farming, that it is a survival of feudal 
farming, and, consequently, the expropriation of the 
landlords will destroy the remnants of feudal farming 
and not capitalist farming. They have also forgotten 
that from the point of view of Marxism, capitalist farming 
has never followed directly after feudal farming,

THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 227 
nor can it do so‹between them stands petty-bourgeois 
farming, which supersedes feudal farming and subsequently 
develops into capitalist farming. Karl Marx said 
in Volume III of Capital that historically feudal farming 
was followed by petty-bourgeois farming and that largescale 
capitalist farming developed only after that‹ 
there was no direct leap from one to the other, nor 
could there be. And yet these strange ³critics² tell us 
that to take away the landlords¹ lands and to divide them 
up means retrogression from the point of view of Marxism! 
Soon they will say to us accusingly that ³the 
abolition of serfdom² was also retrogression from the 
point of view of Marxism, because at that time too some 
of the land was ³taken away² from the landlords 
and transferred to small owners‹the peasants! What 
funny people they are! They do not understand that 
Marxism looks at everything from the historical point 
of view, that from the point of view of Marxism, 
petty-bourgeois farming is progressive compared with 
feudal farming, that, the destruction of feudal farming 
and the introduction of petty-bourgeois farming are 
essential conditions for the development of capitalism, 
which will subsequently eliminate petty-bourgeois 
farming. . . . 
But let us leave these ³critics² in peace. 
The point is that the transfer of the land to the peasants 
and the division of these lands will sap the foundations 
of the survivals of serfdom, prepare the ground 
for the development of capitalist farming, give a great 
impetus to the revolutionary upsurge, and precisely for 
these reasons those measures are acceptable to the 
Social-Democratic Party.

J. V. S T A L I N 228 
Thus, to abolish the remnants of serfdom it is necessary 
to confiscate all the land of the landlords, and 
then the peasants must take this land as their property 
and divide it up among themselves in conformity with 
their interests. 
That is the basis on which the Party¹s agrarian programme 
must be built. 
We shall be told: All this applies to the peasants, 
but what do you intend to do with the rural proletarians? 
To this we reply that for the peasants we need a democratic 
agrarian programme, but for the rural and urban proletarians 
we have a socialist programme, which expresses 
their class interests. Their current interests are provided 
for in the sixteen points of our minimum programme 
dealing with the improvement of conditions of labour 
(see the Party¹s programme that was adopted at the Second 
Congress). Meanwhile, the Party¹s direct socialist 
activities consist in conducting socialist propaganda 
among the rural proletarians, in uniting them in their 
own socialist organisations, and merging them with the 
urban proletarians in a separate political party. The 
Party is in constant touch with this section of the 
peasantry and says to them: In so far as you are bringing 
about a democratic revolution you must maintain contact 
with the militant peasants and fight the landlords, 
but in so far as you are marching towards socialism, 
then resolutely unite with the urban proletarians and 
fight relentlessly against every bourgeois, be he peasant 
or landlord. Together with the peasants for a democratic 
republic! Together with the workers for socialism!‹
that is what the Party says to the rural proletarians.

THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 229 
The proletarian movement and its socialist programme 
fan the flames of the class struggle in order to abolish 
the whole class system forever; for their part the peasant 
movement and its democratic agrarian programme fan the 
flames of the struggle between the social estates in the 
countryside in order to eradicate the whole social estate 
system. 
P.S. In concluding this article we cannot refrain 
from commenting on a letter we have received from a 
reader who writes us the following: ³After all, your first 
article failed to satisfy me. Was not the Party opposed 
to the confiscation of all the land? If it was, why did it 
not say so?² 
No, dear reader, the Party was never opposed to such 
confiscation. Already at the Second Congress, at the 
very congress which adopted the point on the ³otrezki²‹ 
at that congress (in 1903) the Party, through the mouth 
of Plekhanov and Lenin, said that we would back 
the peasants if they demanded the confiscation of all the 
land* Two years later (1905) the two groups in the 
Party, the ³Bolsheviks² at the Third Congress, and the 
³Mensheviks² at the First Conference, unanimously 
stated that they would whole-heartedly back the peasants 
on the question of confiscating all the land.** Then the 
newspapers of both Party trends, Iskra and Proletary, as 
well as Novaya Zhizn57 and Nachalo,58 repeatedly called 
upon the peasantry to confiscate all the land. . . . As 
* See Minutes of the Second Congress. 
** See Minutes of the Third Congress and ³The First Conference.²

J. V. S T A L I N 230 
you see, from the very outset the Party has stood for the 
confiscation of all the land and, consequently, you have 
no grounds for thinking that the Party has dragged at 
the tail of the peasant movement. The peasant movement 
had not really started yet, the peasants were not yet 
demanding even the ³otrezki,² but already at its Second 
Congress the Party was speaking about confiscating all 
the land. 
If, nevertheless, you ask us why we did not, in 1903, 
introduce the demand for the confiscation of all the land in 
our programme, we shall answer by putting another question: 
Why did not the Socialist-Revolutionaries, in 1900, 
introduce in their programme the demand for a democratic 
republic? Were they opposed to this demand?* Why 
did they at that time talk only about nationalisation, 
and why are they now dinning socialisation into our 
ears? Today we say nothing in our minimum programme 
about a seven-hour day, but does that mean that we are 
opposed to this? What is the point then? Only that in 
1903, when the movement had not yet taken root, the 
demand for the confiscation of all the land would merely 
have remained on paper, the still feeble movement would 
not have been able to cope with this demand, and that 
is why the demand for the ³otrezki² was more suitable 
for that period. But subsequently, when the movement 
grew and put forward practical questions, the Party 
had to show that the movement could not, and must 
not, stop at the ³otrezki²; that the confiscation of all 
the land was necessary. 
* See Our Tasks, published by the League of Socialist-Revolutionaries, 
1900.

THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 231 
Such are the facts. 
And finally, a few words about Tsnobis Purtseli59 
(see No. 3033). This newspaper printed a lot of nonsense 
about ³fashions² and ³principles,² and asserted that at 
one time the Party elevated ³otrezki² to a principle. 
From what has been said above the reader can see that 
this is a lie, that the Party publicly recognised the confiscation 
of all the land in principle from the very outset. 
The fact that Tsnobis Purtseli cannot distinguish 
between principles and practical questions need not 
worry us‹it will grow up and learn to distinguish between 
them.* 
Elva (The Lightning), Nos. 5, 9 and 10, 
March 17, 22 and 23, 1906 
Signed: J. Besoshvili 
Translated from the Georgian 
* Tsnobis Purtseli ³heard² somewhere that the ³Russian Social- 
Democrats . . . have adopted a new agrarian programme by 
virtue of which . . . they support the municipalisation of the land.² 
I must say that the Russian Social-Democrats have adopted no 
such programme. The adoption of a programme is the function of a 
congress, but no congress has been held yet. Clearly, Tsnobis Purtseli 
has been misled by somebody or something. Tsnobis Purtseli 
would do well if it stopped stuffing its readers with rumours.

CONCERNING THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 
You probably remember the last article on ³municipalisation² 
(see Elva,60 No. 12). We have no wish to 
discuss all the questions the author touches upon‹that 
is neither interesting nor necessary. We wish to touch 
upon only two main questions: Does municipalisation 
contradict the abolition of the remnants of serfdom? 
And is the division of the land reactionary? This 
is exactly how our comrade presents the question. Evidently, 
he imagines that municipalisation, division of 
the land and similar questions are questions of principle; 
the Party, however, puts the agrarian question 
on an altogether different basis. 
The point is that Social-Democracy regards neither 
nationalisation, nor municipalisation, nor the division 
of the land as questions of principle, and raises no objection 
on principle to any of them. Read Marx¹s Manifesto, 
Kautsky¹s The Agrarian Question, Minutes of the Second 
Congress, and The Agrarian Question in Russia, also by 
Kautsky, and you will see that this is precisely the case. 
The Party regards all these questions from the practical 
point of view, and puts the agrarian question on a prac

THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 233 
tical basis: what most fully carries out our principle‹ 
municipalisation, nationalisation or division of the 
land? 
This is the basis on which the Party puts the question. 
It goes without saying that the principle of the agrarian 
programme‹the abolition of the remnants of serfdom 
and the free development of the class struggle‹remains 
unchanged; only the means of carrying out this principle 
have changed. 
That is how the author should have presented the question, 
namely: Which is the better means of securing the abolition 
of the remnants of serfdom and the development of 
the class struggle‹municipalisation, or the division of 
the land? He, however, quite unexpectedly steps into the 
sphere of principles, palms off practical questions as questions 
of principle, and asks us: Does so-called municipalisation 
³contradict the abolition of the remnants of serfdom 
and the development of capitalism²? Neither nationalisation 
nor the division of the land contradicts the abolition 
of the remnants of serfdom and the development 
of capitalism; but that does not mean that there is no 
difference between them, that the advocate of municipalisation 
should at the same time advocate nationalisation 
and the division of the land! Clearly, there is 
some practical difference between them. That is the whole 
point, and that is why the Party puts the question on a 
practical basis. The author, however, as we noted above, 
carried the question to an entirely different plane, confused 
the principle with the means of carrying out this 
principle, and thus, involuntarily, evaded the question 
that is raised by the Party.

J. V. S T A L I N 234 
The author further assures us that the division of 
the land is reactionary, i.e., he hurls at us the same 
reproach that we have heard more than once from the 
Socialist-Revolutionaries. When those metaphysicians, 
the Socialist-Revolutionaries, tell us that the division 
of the land is reactionary from the standpoint of Marxism, 
this reproach does not surprise us in the least, for we 
know perfectly well that they do not look at the question 
from the standpoint of dialectics; they refuse to 
understand that everything has its time and place, that 
something which may be reactionary tomorrow may 
be revolutionary today. But when dialectical-materialists 
hurl that reproach at us we cannot help asking: 
What, then, is the difference between dialecticians and 
metaphysicians? It goes without saying that the 
division of the land would be reactionary if it were 
directed against the development of capitalism; but if it 
is directed against the remnants of serfdom, it is selfevident 
that the division of the land is a revolutionary 
measure which Social-Democracy must support. What 
is the division of the land directed against today: 
against capitalism or against the remnants of serfdom? 
There can be no doubt that it is directed against the 
remnants of serfdom. Hence, the question settles 
itself. 
True, after capitalism has sufficiently established 
itself in the countryside, division of the land will 
become a reactionary measure, for it will then be directed 
against the development of capitalism. Then, Social- 
Democracy will not support it. At the present time Social- 
Democracy strongly champions the demand for a democratic 
republic as a revolutionary measure, but later on,

FROM MARX 
TO MAO 

 
NOT FOR 
COMMERCIAL 
DISTRIBUTION 
235 
when the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes a 
practical question, the democratic republic will already 
be reactionary, and Social-Democracy will strive to 
destroy it. The same thing must be said about the division 
of the land. Division of the land, and petty-bourgeois 
farming generally, is revolutionary when a struggle is 
being waged against the remnants of serfdom; but the 
same division of the land is reactionary when it is directed 
against the development of capitalism. Such is the dialectical 
view of social development. Karl Marx regards 
petty-bourgeois farming in the same dialectical way 
when in Volume III of Capital he calls it progressive 
compared with feudal economy. 
In addition to all this, K. Kautsky says the following 
about the division of the land: 
³The division of the land reserve, i.e., the large 
estates, which the Russian peasants are demanding and 
are already beginning to carry out in practice . . . is 
not only inevitable and necessary, but also highly beneficial. 
And Social-Democracy has every ground for supporting 
this process² (see The Agrarian Question in Russia, 
p. 11). 
Of enormous importance for the settlement of a 
question is the correct method of presenting it. Every 
question must be presented dialectically, i.e., we must 
never forget that everything changes, that everything 
has its time and place, and, consequently, we must also 
present questions in conformity with concrete circumstances. 
That is the first condition for the settlement 
of the agrarian question. Secondly, we must also not 
forget that today Russian Social-Democrats put the 
agrarian question on a practical basis, and whoever 
THE AGRARIAN QUESTION

J. V. S T A L I N 236 
wishes to settle that question must stand on that basis. 
That is the second condition for the settlement of the 
agrarian question. Our comrade, however, took neither 
of these conditions into consideration. 
Well then, the comrade will answer, let us assume 
that the division of the land is revolutionary. Clearly, 
we shall strive to support this revolutionary movement; 
but that does not mean that we ought to introduce the 
demands of this movement into our programme‹those 
demands are totally out of place in the programme, etc. 
Evidently the author is confusing the minimum programme 
with the maximum programme. He knows that the socialist 
programme (i.e., the maximum programme) should 
contain only proletarian demands; but he forgets that the 
democratic programme (i.e., the minimum programme), 
and the agrarian programme in particular, is not a socialist 
programme, and, consequently, it will certainly contain 
bourgeois-democratic demands, which we support. Political 
freedom is a bourgeois demand; but despite that it occupies 
an honourable place in our minimum programme. 
But why go so far? Take Clause 2 of the agrarian 
programme and read: the Party demands ³. . . the abolition 
of all laws which restrict the peasant in the disposal 
of his land²‹read all that and answer: what is socialistic 
about this clause? Nothing, you will say, because 
it demands freedom for bourgeois property, and not 
its abolition. Nevertheless, this clause is in our minimum 
programme. What is the point then? Only that the 
maximum programme and the minimum programme are 
two different concepts, which must not be confused. True, 
the Anarchists will be displeased with that; but we 
cannot help it. We are not Anarchists! . . .

THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 237 
As regards the peasants¹ striving for the division 
of the land, we have already said that its importance is 
measured by the trend of economic development; and 
as this striving of the peasants ³springs directly² from 
this trend, our Party must support, and not counteract it. 
Elva (The Lightning), No. 14, 
March 29, 1906 
Signed: J. Besoshvili 
Translated from the Georgian

CONCERNING THE REVISION 
OF THE AGRARIAN PROGRAMME 
(Speech delivered at the Seventh Sitting 
of the Fourth Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.61 
April 13 (26), 1906) 
First of all I will speak about the mode of argument 
adopted by certain comrades. Comrade Plekhanov talked 
a lot about Comrade Lenin¹s ³anarchistic propensities,² 
about the fatal consequences of ³Leninism,² and so on, 
and so forth; but he said very little about the agrarian 
question. And yet he is down as one of the speakers 
on the agrarian question. I am of the opinion that this 
mode of argument, which creates an atmosphere of 
irritation, in addition to being out of harmony with the 
character of our congress, which is called a Unity Congress, 
tells us absolutely nothing about the presentation 
of the agrarian question. We could talk about Comrade 
Plekhanov¹s Cadet propensities, but we would not, 
thereby, carry the settlement of the agrarian question 
a single step forward. 
Further, John,62 from certain data of the life of 
Guria, the Lettish region, etc., draws an inference in 
favour of municipalisation for the whole of Russia. I 
must say that, speaking generally, that is not the way 
to draw up a programme. In drawing up a programme we 
must take as the starting point not the specific features 
of certain parts of certain border regions, but the features 
common to the majority of localities in Russia. A pro

CONCERNING THE REVISION OF THE AGRARIAN PROGRAMME 239 
gramme without a dominating line is not a programme, 
but a mechanical combination of different propositions. 
That is exactly how it stands with John¹s draft. Moreover, 
John is quoting incorrect data. In his opinion the very 
process of development of the peasant movement speaks 
in favour of his draft because in Guria, for example, in 
the very process of this movement, a regional local 
government body was formed which took control of the 
forests, etc. But first of all, Guria is not a region, but 
one of the uyezds in the Kutais Gubernia; secondly, 
there has never been in Guria a revolutionary local 
government body covering the whole of Guria; there have 
been only small local government bodies, which are not 
the same thing as a regional local government body; 
thirdly, control is one thing‹ownership is quite another. 
Speaking generally, lots of legends are afloat concerning 
Guria, and the Russian comrades are quite mistaken 
in taking them for the truth. . . . 
As regards the essence of the subject, I must say that 
the following proposition should serve as the starting 
point for our programme: since we are concluding a temporary 
revolutionary alliance with the militant peasantry, 
and therefore, since we cannot ignore the demands of 
this peasantry‹we must support these demands if, on 
the whole, they do not run counter to the trend of economic 
development and the course of the revolution. 
The peasants are demanding division; division does not 
run counter to the phenomena I have mentioned; hence, 
we must support complete confiscation and division. 
From this point of view both nationalisation and 
municipalisation are equally unacceptable. By advancing 
the slogan of municipalisation, or of nationalisation, we

J. V. S T A L I N 240 
gain nothing and make the alliance between the revolutionary 
peasantry and the proletariat impossible. Those 
who say that division is reactionary confuse two stages 
of development: the capitalist and the pre-capitalist 
stages. Undoubtedly, in the capitalist stage, division 
is reactionary; but under pre-capitalist conditions (under 
the conditions prevailing in the Russian countryside, 
for example), division, on the whole, is revolutionary. 
Of course, forests, waters, etc., cannot be divided, but 
these can be nationalised, and that does not run counter 
to the revolutionary demands put forward by the peasants. 
Furthermore, the slogan: Revolutionary Committees‹
which John proposes instead of Revolutionary 
Peasant Committees‹fundamentally contradicts the 
spirit of the agrarian revolution. The object of the agrarian 
revolution is primarily and mainly to emancipate 
the peasants; consequently, the slogan, Peasant Committees, 
is the only slogan that corresponds to the spirit 
of the agrarian revolution. If the emancipation of the 
proletariat must be the act of the proletariat itself, then 
the emancipation of the peasants must be the act of the 
peasants themselves. 
Minutes of the Unity Congress 
of the Russian Social-Democratic 
Labour Party held in Stockholm 
in 1906 
Moscow 1907, pp. 59-60

ON THE PRESENT SITUATION 
(Speech delivered at the Fifteenth Sitting 
of the Fourth Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. 
April 17 (30), 1906) 
It is no secret to anyone that two paths are now 
discernible in the development of the social and political 
life of Russia: the path of pseudo-reform and the path 
of revolution. It is clear also that the big factory owners 
and the landlords, headed by the tsarist government, 
are taking the first path, while the revolutionary peasantry 
and the petty bourgeoisie, headed by the proletariat, 
are taking the second. The crisis that is developing 
in the towns and the famine in the countryside are making 
another upheaval inevitable‹consequently, here vacillation 
is impermissible. Either the revolution is on the 
upgrade‹and in that case we must carry the revolution 
through to the end‹or it is on the downgrade, in which 
case we cannot and should not set ourselves such a task. 
Rudenko is wrong in thinking that this method of presenting 
the question is not dialectical. Rudenko is looking for 
a middle course; he wants to say that the revolution is 
and is not on the upgrade, and that it should and should not 
be carried to the end, because, in his opinion, dialectics 
makes it incumbent to present the question in this way! 
That is not our conception of Marxian dialectics. . . . 
And so we are on the eve of another upheaval; the 
revolution is on the upgrade and we must carry it to the

J. V. S T A L I N 242 
end. On this we are all agreed. But under what circumstances 
can we, and should we, do this? Under the hegemony 
of the proletariat, or under the hegemony of bourgeois 
democracy? This is where our main disagreement 
begins. 
Comrade Martynov has said already in his Two 
Dictatorships that the hegemony of the proletariat in 
the present bourgeois revolution is a harmful utopia. 
The same idea ran through the speech he delivered yesterday. 
The Comrades who applauded him evidently agree 
with him. If that is the case, if in the opinion of the 
Menshevik comrades what we need is not the hegemony 
of the proletariat, but the hegemony of the democratic 
bourgeoisie, then it is self-evident that we should take 
no direct active part either in the organisation of an 
armed uprising, or in the seizure of power. Such is the 
³scheme² of the Mensheviks. 
On the other hand, if the class interests of the proletariat 
lead to its hegemony, if the proletariat must be 
at the head of the present revolution and not drag at its 
tail, it goes without saying that the proletariat cannot 
refrain either from taking an active part in the organisation 
of an armed uprising or from seizing power. Such 
is the ³scheme² of the Bolsheviks. 
Either the hegemony of the proletariat, or the hegemony 
of the democratic bourgeoisie‹that is how the 
question stands in the Party, that is where we differ. 
Minutes of the Unity Congress 
of the Russian Social-Democratic 
Labour Party held in Stockholm 
in 1906 
Moscow 1907, p. 187

MARX AND ENGELS ON INSURRECTION 
The Menshevik N. H.63 knows that audacity wins 
the day and . . . has the audacity to accuse the Bolsheviks 
once again of being Blanquists (see Simartleh,64 
No. 7). 
There is nothing surprising in this, of course. Bernstein 
and Vollmar, the German opportunists, have for 
a long time been saying that Kautsky and Bebel are 
Blanquists. Jaurès and Millerand, the French opportunists, 
have been for a long time accusing Guesde and 
Lafargue of being Blanquists and Jacobins. Nevertheless, 
everyone knows that Bernstein, Millerand, Jaurès and 
the others, are opportunists, that they are betraying 
Marxism, whereas Kautsky, Bebel, Guesde, Lafargue 
and the others are revolutionary Marxists. What is there 
surprising in the fact that the Russian opportunists, 
and their follower N. H., copy the European opportunists 
and call us Blanquists? It shows only that the Bolsheviks, 
like Kautsky and Guesde, are revolutionary 
Marxists.65 
We could here conclude our talk with N. H., but he 
makes the question ³more profound² and tries to prove 
his point. Very well, let us not offend him and hear 
what he has to say.

J. V. S T A L I N 244 
N. H. disagrees with the following opinion expressed 
by the Bolsheviks: 
³Let us suppose that* the people in the towns are 
imbued with hatred for the government**; they can 
always rise up for the struggle if the opportunity offers. 
That means that quantitatively we are ready. But this 
is not enough. If an uprising is to be successful, it is 
necessary to draw up in advance a plan of the struggle, 
to draw up in advance the tactics of the battle; it is necessary 
to have organised detachments, and so forth² 
(see Akhali Tskhovreba, No. 6) 
N. H. disagrees with this. Why? Because, he says, 
it is Blanquism! And so, N. H. wants neither ³tactics 
of the battle,² nor ³organised detachments,² nor organised 
action‹all that, it appears, is unimportant and 
unnecessary. The Bolsheviks say that by itself ³hatred 
for the government is not enough,² consciousness by 
itself ³is not enough²; it is necessary to have, in addition, 
³detachments and tactics of the battle.² N. H. rejects 
all that and calls it Blanquism. 
Let us note this and proceed. 
N. H. dislikes the following idea expressed by Lenin: 
We must collect the experience of the uprisings 
in Moscow, the Donets Basin, Rostov-on-Don and other 
places, disseminate this experience, perseveringly and 
painstakingly prepare new fighting forces and train and 
steel them in a series of militant guerilla actions. The 
* Here N. H. substituted the word ³when² for the words 
³let us suppose that,² which slightly alters the meaning. 
** Here N. H. omitted the words ³for the government² (see 
Akhali Tskhovreba,66 No. 6).

MARX AND ENGELS ON INSURRECTION 245 
new upheaval may not yet break out in the spring, but 
it is approaching; in all probability it is not very far 
off . We must meet i t armed, organised in military 
fashion, and be capable of taking determined offensive 
action² (see Partiiniye Izvestia).67 
N. H. disagrees with this idea of Lenin¹s. Why? 
Because, he says, it is Blanquism! 
And so, in N. H.¹s opinion, we must not ³collect the 
experience of the December uprising² and must not 
³disseminate it.² True, an upheaval is approaching, 
but in N. H.¹s opinion we must not ³meet it armed,² we 
must not prepare ³for determined offensive action.² Why? 
Probably because we are more likely to be victorious 
if we are unarmed and unprepared! The Bolsheviks say 
that we can expect an upheaval and, therefore, our duty 
is to prepare for it both in respect to consciousness and 
in respect to arms. N. H. knows that an upheaval is to 
be expected, but he refuses to recognise anything more 
than verbal agitation and therefore doubts whether it 
is necessary to arm, and thinks it superfluous. The Bolsheviks 
say that consciousness and organisation must 
be introduced into the sporadic insurrection which has 
broken out spontaneously. But N. H. refuses to recognise 
this‹it is Blanquism, he says. The Bolsheviks say that 
at a definite moment ³determined offensive action² must 
be taken. But N. H. dislikes both determination and 
offensive action‹all this is Blanquism, he says. 
Let us note the foregoing and see what attitude Marx 
and Engels took towards armed insurrection. 
Here is what Marx wrote in the fifties: 
³. . . The insurrectionary career once entered upon, 
act with the greatest determination, and on the offensive.

J. V. S T A L I N 246 
The defensive is the death of every armed rising. . . . 
Surprise your antagonists while their forces are scattering, 
prepare new successes, however small, but daily 
keep up the moral ascendant which the first successful 
rising has given to you; rally thus those vacillating 
elements to your side which always follow the strongest 
impulse and which always look out for the safer side; 
force your enemies to a retreat before they can collect 
their strength against you; in the words of Danton, the 
greatest master of revolutionary policy yet known: de 
l¹audace, de l¹audace, encore de l¹audace!² (See Karl 
Marx, Historical Sketches, p. 95.)68 
This is what Karl Marx, the greatest of Marxists, 
says. 
As you see, in Marx¹s opinion, whoever wants 
insurrection to triumph must take the path of the 
offensive. But we know that whoever takes the path 
of the offensive must have arms, military knowledge 
and trained detachments. Without these an offensive 
is impossible. Bold offensive action, in Marx¹s 
opinion, i s the flesh and blood of every uprising. 
N. H., however, ridicules everything: bold offensive 
action, the policy of offensive, organised detachments 
and the dissemination of military knowledge. All that is 
Blanquism, he says! It appears, then, that N. H. is 
a Marxist, but Marx is a Blanquist! Poor Marx! If 
only he could rise from his grave and hear N. H.¹s 
prattle. 
And what does Engels say about insurrection? In 
a passage in one of his pamphlets he refers to the Spanish 
uprising, and answering the Anarchists, he goes 
on to say:

MARX AND ENGELS ON INSURRECTION 247 
³Nevertheless, the uprising, even if begun in a brainless 
way, would have had a good chance to succeed, if 
it had only been conducted with some intelligence, say 
in the manner of Spanish military revolts, in which the 
garrison of one town rises, marches on to the next, sweeps 
along with it that town¹s garrison that had been influenced 
beforehand and, growing into an avalanche, 
presses on to the capital, until a fortunate engagement 
or the coming over to their side of the troops sent against 
them decides the victory. This method was particularly 
practicable on that occasion. The insurgents had long 
before been organised everywhere into volunteer battalions 
(do you hear, comrade, Engels talks about battalions!) 
whose discipline, while wretched, was surely not more 
wretched than that of the remnants of the old, and in the 
main disintegrated, Spanish army. The only dependable 
government troops were the gendarmes (guardias civiles), 
and these were scattered all over the country. It 
was primarily a question of preventing a concentration 
of the gendarme detachments, and this could be 
brought about only by assuming the offensive and the 
hazard of open battle . . . (attention, comrades, attention!). 
For any one who sought victory, there was no 
other means. . . .² Engels then goes on to take to task 
the Bakuninists, who proclaimed as their principle 
that which could have been avoided: ³the splitting up 
and isolation of the revolutionary forces, which permitted 
the same government troops to quell one uprising 
after another² (see Engels¹s The Bakuninists at 
Work).69 
This is what the celebrated Marxist, Frederick Engels, 
says. . . .

J. V. S T A L I N 248 
Organised battalions, the policy of offensive, organsing 
insurrection, uniting the separate insurrection‹ 
that, in Engels¹s opinion, is needed to ensure the victory 
of an insurrection. 
It appears then that N. H. is a Marxist, but Engels 
is a Blanquist! Poor Engels! 
As you see, N. H. is not familiar with the views of 
Marx and Engels on insurrection. 
That would not be so bad. We declare that the tactics 
advocated by N. H. belittle and actually deny the 
importance of arming, of Red detachments, and of military 
knowledge. His are the tactics of unarmed insurrection. 
His tactics push us towards the ³December 
defeat.² Why did we have no arms, no detachments, 
no military knowledge and so forth in December? Because 
the tactics advocated by comrades like N. H. were widely 
accepted in the Party. . . . 
But both Marxism and real life reject such unarmed 
tactics. 
That is what the facts say. 
Akhali Tskhovreba 
(New Life), No. 19, 
July 13, 1906 
Signed: Koba 
Translated from the Georgian

INTERNATIONAL COUNTER-REVOLUTION 
In many ways, present-day Russia reminds us of 
France in the period of the great revolution. This similarity 
finds expression, among other things, in that in 
our country, as in France, counter-revolution is spreading 
and, overflowing its own frontiers, is entering into 
an alliance with counter-revolution in other countries‹ 
i t is gradually assuming an international character. 
In France, the old government concluded an alliance 
with the Austrian Emperor and the King of Prussia, 
called their troops to its aid, and launched an offensive 
against the people¹s revolution. In Russia, the old government 
is concluding an alliance with the German and 
Austrian emperors‹it wants to call their troops to its 
aid and to drown the people¹s revolution in blood. 
Only a month ago definite rumours were afloat to 
the effect that ³Russia² and ³Germany² were conducting 
secret negotiations (see Severnaya Zemlya,70 No. 3). 
Later these rumours spread more persistently. And 
now things have reached such a pitch that the Black- 
Hundred newspaper Rossiya71 openly states that the 
blame for ³Russia¹s² (i.e., the counter-revolution¹s) 
present difficulties rests upon the revolutionary elements. 
³The Imperial German government,² says that newspaper, 
³is fully aware of this situation and has therefore 
undertaken a series of appropriate measures which

J. V. S T A L I N 250 
will certainly lead to the desired results.² It transpires 
that these measures amount to preparations by ³Austria² 
and ³Germany² to send troops to assist ³Russia² in the 
event of the Russian revolution proving successful. 
They have already reached agreement on that point, 
and have decided that ³under certain conditions active 
intervention in the internal affairs of Russia with the 
object of suppressing, or curbing, the revolutionary movement 
may be desirable and beneficial. . . .² 
So says Rossiya. 
As you see, international counter-revolution has long 
been making extensive preparations. It is well known 
that for a long time past it has been rendering counterrevolutionary 
Russia financial assistance in the struggle 
against the revolution. But it has not confined itself to 
this. Now, it appears, it has decided to come to the aid of 
counter-revolutionary Russia also with troops. 
After that, even a child can easily understand the 
real significance of the dissolution of the Duma, as well 
as the significance of Stolypin¹s ³new² orders72 and 
Trepov¹s ³old² pogroms.73 . . . It must be assumed that 
now the false hopes entertained by various liberals 
and other naive people will be dispelled, and that they 
will at last become convinced that we have no ³constitution,² 
that we have civil war, and that the struggle 
must be waged on military lines. . . . 
But present-day Russia resembles France of that time 
also in another respect. At that time, international 
counter-revolution caused an expansion of the revolution; 
the revolution overflowed the borders of France and 
swept through Europe in a mighty flood. The ³crowned 
heads² of Europe united in a common alliance, but

INTERNATIONAL COUNTER-REVOLUTION 251 
the peoples of Europe also extended their hands to 
one another. We see the same thing in Russia today. 
³The old mole is grubbing well.² . . . By uniting with 
the European counter-revolution the Russian counterrevolution 
is steadily expanding the revolution, uniting 
the proletarians of all countries, and laying the 
foundations for the international revolution. The Russian 
proletariat is marching at the head of the democratic 
revolution and is extending a fraternal hand to, is 
uniting with, the European proletariat, which will 
begin the socialist revolution. As is well known, after 
the January 9 action, mass meetings were held all over 
Europe. The December action evoked demonstrations 
in Germany and France. There can be no doubt that the 
impending action of the Russian revolution will still 
more vigorously rouse the European proletariat for the 
struggle. International counter-revolution wi l l only 
strengthen and deepen, intensify and firmly establish, 
international revolution. The slogan ³Workers of all 
countries, unite!² will find its true expression. 
So go on, gentlemen, keep it up! The Russian revolution, 
which is expanding, will be followed by the 
European revolution‹and then . . . and then the last 
hour will strike not only for the survivals of serfdom, 
but also for your beloved capitalism. 
Yes, you are ³grubbing well,² Messieurs counterrevolutionaries. 
Akhali Tskhovreba 
(New Life), No. 20, 
July 14, 1906 
Signed: Koba 
Translated from the Georgian

THE PRESENT SITUATION AND THE UNITY 
CONGRESS OF THE WORKERS¹ PARTY74 
I 
What we have been waiting for so impatiently has 
come to pass‹the Unity Congress has ended peacefully, 
the Party has avoided a split, the amalgamation of the 
groups has been officially sealed, and the foundation of 
the political might of the Party has thereby been laid. 
We must now take account of, and study more closely, 
the complexion of the congress and soberly weigh 
up its good and bad sides. 
What has the congress done? 
What should the congress have done? 
The first question is answered by the resolutions of 
the congress. To be able to answer the second question 
one must know the situation in which the congress was 
opened, and the tasks with which the present situation 
confronted it. 
Let us start with the second question. 
It is now clear that the people¹s revolution has not 
perished, that in spite of the ³December defeat² it is 
growing and swiftly rising to its peak. We say that this 
is as it should be: the driving forces of the revolution 
s t i l l live and operate, the industrial crisis which

PRESENT SITUATION AND UNITY CONGRESS OF WORKERS¹ PARTY 253 
has broken out is becoming increasingly acute, and 
famine, which i s utterly ruining the countryside, 
is growing worse every day‹and this means that the 
hour is near when the revolutionary anger of the people 
will burst out in a menacing flood. The facts tell us 
that a new action is maturing in the social life of Russia‹
more determined and mighty than the December 
action. We are on the eve of an uprising. 
On the other hand, the counter-revolution, which the 
people detest, is mustering its forces and is gradually 
gaining strength. It has already succeeded in organising 
a camarilla, it is rallying all the dark forces under its 
banner, it is taking the lead of the Black-Hundred ³movement²; 
it is preparing to launch another attack upon 
the people¹s revolution; it is rallying around itself the 
bloodthirsty landlords and factory owners‹consequently, 
it is preparing to crush the people¹s revolution. 
And the more events develop, the more sharply is 
the country becoming divided into two hostile camps‹ 
the camp of the revolution and the camp of counter-revolution‹
the more threateningly do the two leaders of the 
two camps‹the proletariat and the tsarist government‹ 
confront each other, and the clearer does it become that all 
the bridges between them have been burnt. One of two 
things: either the victory of the revolution and the sovereignty 
of the people, or the victory of the counter-revolution 
and the tsarist autocracy. Whoever tries to sit between 
two stools betrays the revolution. Those who are not 
for us are against us! That is exactly what has happened to 
the miserable Duma and its miserable Cadets: they have 
become stuck between these two stools. The Duma wants to 
reconcile the revolution with the counter-revolution, it

J. V. S T A L I N 254 
wants the lion and the lamb to lie down together‹and in 
that way to suppress the revolution ³at one stroke.² That 
is why the Duma is engaged to this day only in collecting 
water with a sieve, that is why it has failed to rally any 
people around itself. Having no ground to stand on, it is 
dangling in the air. 
The chief arena of the struggle is still the street. 
That is what the facts say. The facts say that it is in 
the present-day struggle, in street fighting, and not in 
that talking-shop the Duma, that the forces of the counter-
revolution are daily becoming more feeble and disunited, 
whereas the forces of the revolution are growing 
and mobilising; that the revolutionary forces are being 
welded and organised under the leadership of the advanced 
workers and not of the bourgeoisie. And this 
means that the victory of the present revolution, and 
its consummation, is quite possible. But it is possible 
only if it continues to be led by the advanced workers, 
if the class-conscious proletariat worthily fulfils the 
task of leading the revolution. 
Hence, the tasks with which the present situation 
confronted the congress, and what the congress should 
have done, are clear. 
Engels said that the workers¹ party ³is the conscious 
exponent of an unconscious process,² i.e., that 
the party must consciously take the path along which 
life itself is proceeding unconsciously; that it must consciously 
express the ideas which unconsciously spring 
from tempestuous life. 
The facts say that tsarism has failed to crush the 
people¹s revolution, that, on the contrary, it is growing 
day by day, rising higher, and marching towards

PRESENT SITUATION AND UNITY CONGRESS OF WORKERS¹ PARTY 255 
another action. Consequently, i t is the Party¹s task 
consciously to prepare for this action and to carry the 
people¹s revolution through to the end. 
Clearly, the congress should have pointed to this 
task and should have made it incumbent upon the members 
of the Party honestly to carry it out. 
The facts say that conciliation between the revolution 
and counter-revolution is impossible; that having 
taken the path of conciliation from the very outset the 
Duma can do nothing; that such a Duma can never become 
the political centre of the country, cannot rally 
the people around itself, and will be compelled to become 
an appendage of the reaction. Consequently, it is the 
Party¹s task to dispel the false hopes that have been 
reposed in the Duma, to combat political illusions among 
the people and to proclaim to the whole world that the 
chief arena of the revolution is the street and not the 
Duma; that the victory of the people must be achieved 
mainly in the street, by street fighting and not by the 
Duma, not by talking in the Duma. 
Clearly, the Unity Congress should also have pointed 
to this task in its resolutions, in order thereby clearly to 
define the trend of the Party¹s activities. 
The facts say that it is possible to achieve the victory 
of the revolution, to carry it to the end and to establish 
the sovereignty of the people, only if the class-conscious 
workers come out at the head of the revolution, if the 
revolution is led by Social-Democracy and not by the 
bourgeoisie. Hence it is the Party¹s task to dig the grave 
of the hegemony of the bourgeoisie, to rally the revolutionary 
elements of town and country around itself, 
I to be at the head of their revolutionary struggle, to

J. V. S T A L I N 256 
lead their actions from now on, and thereby strengthen 
the ground for the hegemony of the proletariat. 
Clearly, the Unity Congress should have drawn special 
attention to this third and main task in order 
thereby to indicate to the Party its enormous importance. 
That is what the present situation demanded of 
the Unity Congress, and that is what the congress should 
have done. 
Did the congress carry out these tasks? 
II 
To obtain an answer to the foregoing question it is 
necessary to study the complexion of the congress. 
The congress dealt with numerous questions at its 
sittings; but the main question, around which all the 
other questions revolved, was the question of the present 
situation. The present situation in the democratic revolution 
and the class tasks of the proletariat‹that is the 
question in which all our disagreements on tactics became 
entangled as in a knot. 
In the towns the crisis is growing more acute, said 
the Bolsheviks; in the countryside the famine is growing 
more intense; the government is rotting to its foundation, 
the anger of the people is rising day by day. 
Consequently, far from subsiding, the revolution is growing 
day by day, and is preparing for another offensive. 
Hence, the task is to help on the growing revolution, to 
carry it to the end and crown it with the sovereignty of 
the people (see the resolution proposed by the Bolsheviks: 
³The Present Situation . . .²). 
The Mensheviks said almost the same thing.

PRESENT SITUATION AND UNITY CONGRESS OF WORKERS¹ PARTY 257 
But how is the present revolution to be carried to 
the end; what conditions are needed for this? 
In the opinion of the Bolsheviks, the present revolution 
can be carried to the end and crowned with the sovereignty 
of the people only if the class-conscious workers are 
at the head of this revolution, only if the leadership of 
the revolution is concentrated in the hands of the socialist 
proletariat and not of the bourgeois democrats. The 
Bolsheviks said: ³Only the proletariat is capable of 
carrying the democratic revolution to the end, provided 
however, that it . . . carries with it the masses of the 
peasantry and introduces political consciousness into 
their spontaneous struggle. . . .² If the proletariat fails 
to do this, it will be compelled to abandon the role of 
³leader of the people¹s revolution² and will find itself 
³at the tail of the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie,² 
which will never strive to carry the revolution to the 
end (see resolution ³The Class Tasks of the Proletariat 
. . .²). Of course, our revolution is a bourgeois revolution, 
and in this respect it resembles the Great French 
Revolution, the fruits of which were reaped by the bourgeoisie. 
But it is also clear that there is a great difference 
between these two revolutions. At the time of the French 
revolution, large-scale machine production, such as we 
have in our country today, did not exist, and class antagonisms 
were not so sharp and distinct as they are in 
our country today; hence, the proletariat there was 
weak, whereas here it is stronger and more united. We 
must also take into account the fact that there the proletariat 
did not have its own party, whereas here it has its 
own party, with its own programme and tactics. It is not 
surprising that the French revolution was headed by the

J. V. S T A L I N 258 
bourgeois democrats and that the workers dragged at 
the tail of these gentlemen; that ³the workers did the 
fighting, while the bourgeoisie achieved power.² On the 
other hand, it can be readily understood that the proletariat 
of Russia is not content with dragging at the 
tail of the liberals, that it comes out as the leader of 
the revolution and is rallying all the ³oppressed and 
dispossessed² to its banner. This is where our revolution 
has the advantage over the Great French Revolution, 
and this is why we think that our revolution can be carried 
to the end and be crowned with the sovereignty of the 
people. All that is needed is that we should consciously 
further the hegemony of the proletariat, rally the militant 
people around it, and thereby make it possible 
for the present revolution to be carried to the end. But 
the revolution must be carried to the end in order that 
the fruits of this revolution shall not be reaped by the 
bourgeoisie alone, and in order that the working class, 
in addition to achieving political freedom, shall achieve 
the eight-hour day, and better conditions of labour, 
and shall fully carry out its minimum programme, thereby 
hewing a path to socialism. Hence, whoever champions 
the interests of the proletariat, whoever does not 
want the proletariat to become a hanger-on of the 
bourgeoisie, pulling the chestnuts out of the fire for 
it, whoever is fighting to convert the proletariat into 
an independent force and wants i t to ut i l i s e the 
present revolution for its own purpose‹must openly 
condemn the hegemony of the bourgeois democrats, 
must strengthen the ground for the hegemony of the 
socialist proletariat in the present revolution. 
That is how the Bolsheviks argued.

PRESENT SITUATION AND UNITY CONGRESS OF WORKERS¹ PARTY 259 
The Mensheviks said something entirely different. 
Of course, the revolution is growing, they said, and it 
must be carried to the end, but the hegemony of the socialist 
proletariat is not at all needed for that‹let the 
bourgeois democrats act as the leaders of the revolution 
Why? What is the point? the Bolsheviks asked. Because 
the present revolution is a bourgeois revolution, and 
therefore, the bourgeoisie should act as its leader‹ 
answered the Mensheviks. What is the function of the 
proletariat, then? It must follow in the wake of the 
bourgeois democrats, ³prod them on,² and thereby ³push 
the bourgeois revolution forward.² This was said by 
Martynov, the leader of the Mensheviks, whom they put 
up as their ³reporter.² The same idea was expressed, although 
not so distinctly, in the Mensheviks¹ resolution on 
³The Present Situation.² But already in his Two Dictatorships 
Martynov had said that ³the hegemony of the 
proletariat is a dangerous utopia,² a fantasy; that the 
bourgeois revolution ³must be led by the extreme democratic 
opposition² and not by the socialist proletariat; 
that the militant proletariat ³must march behind 
bourgeois democracy² and prod it along the path to 
freedom (see Martynov¹s well-known pamphlet Two 
Dictatorships). He expressed this idea again at the Unity 
Congress. In his opinion, the Great French Revolution 
was the original, whereas our revolution is a faint copy 
of this original; and, as the revolution in France was 
first headed by the National Assembly and later by 
the National Convention in which the bourgeoisie predominated, 
so, in our country, the leader of the revolution 
which rallies the people around itself should be first 
the State Duma, and later some other representative

J. V. S T A L I N 260 
body which will be more revolutionary than the 
Duma. Both in the Duma and in this future representative 
body the bourgeois democrats are to predominate‹ 
hence, we need the hegemony of bourgeois democracy 
and not of the socialist proletariat. All we need to do is 
to follow the bourgeoisie step by step and prod it further 
forward towards genuine freedom. It is characteristic 
that the Mensheviks greeted Martynov¹s speech with 
loud applause. It is also characteristic that in none of 
their resolutions do they refer to the necessity of the 
hegemony of the proletariat‹the term ³hegemony of the 
proletariat² has been completely expunged from their 
resolutions, as well as from the resolutions of the congress 
(see the resolutions of the congress). 
Such was the stand the Mensheviks took at the congress. 
As you see, here we have two mutually exclusive 
standpoints, and this is the source of all the other disagreements. 
If the class-conscious proletariat is the leader of the 
present revolution and the bourgeois Cadets predominate 
in the present Duma, it is self-evident that the 
present Duma cannot become the ³political centre of the 
country,² i t cannot unite the revolutionary people 
around itself and become the leader of the growing revolution, 
no matter what efforts it exerts. Further, if 
the class-conscious proletariat is the leader of the revolution 
and the revolution cannot be led from the Duma‹ 
it is self-evident that the street and not the floor of 
the Duma must, at the present time, become the chief 
arena of our activities. Further, if the class-conscious 
proletariat is the leader of the revolution and the street

PRESENT SITUATION AND UNITY CONGRESS OF WORKERS¹ PARTY 261 
is the chief arena of the struggle‹it is self-evident that 
our task is to take an active part in organising the 
struggle in the street, to give concentrated attention to the 
task of arming, to augment the Red detachments and 
disseminate military knowledge among the advanced 
elements. Lastly, if the advanced proletariat is the leader 
of the revolution, and if it must take an active part 
in organising the uprising‹then it is self-evident that 
we cannot wash our hands of and remain aloof from 
the provisional revolutionary government; that we must 
conquer political power in conjunction with the peasantry 
and take part in the provisional government*: 
the leader of the revolutionary street must also be the 
leader in the revolution¹s government. 
Such was the stand taken by the Bolsheviks. 
If, on the other hand, as the Mensheviks think, the 
bourgeois democrats will lead the revolution, and the 
Cadets in the Duma ³approximate to this type of democrat,² 
then it is self-evident that the present Duma can 
become the ³political centre of the country,² the present 
Duma can unite the revolutionary people around 
itself, become their leader and serve as the chief arena of 
the struggle. Further, if the Duma can become the chief 
arena of the struggle, there is no need to give concentrated 
attention to the task of arming and organising Red 
detachments; it is not our business to devote special 
attention to organising the struggle in the street, and 
still less is it our business to conquer political power in 
conjunction with the peasantry and to take part in the 
* We are not dealing here with the principle underlying this 
question.

J. V. S T A L I N 262 
provisional government‹let the bourgeois democrats 
worry about that for they will be the leaders of the revolution. 
Of course, it would not be bad to have arms and 
Red detachments, in fact they are actually necessary, 
but they are not so important as the Bolsheviks imagine. 
Such was the stand taken by the Mensheviks. 
The congress took the second path, i.e., it rejected 
the hegemony of the socialist proletariat and endorsed 
the stand taken by the Mensheviks. 
The congress thereby clearly proved that it failed to 
understand the urgent requirements of the present situation. 
This was the fundamental mistake the congress made, 
and from it necessarily followed all the other mistakes. 
III 
After the congress rejected the idea of the hegemony 
of the proletariat it became clear how it would settle 
the other questions: ³the attitude to be taken towards 
the State Duma,² ³armed insurrection,² etc. 
Let us pass to these questions. 
Let us begin with the question of the State Duma. 
We shall not discuss the question as to which tactics 
were more correct‹the boycott or participation in the 
elections. We shall note only the following: today, 
the Duma does nothing but talk; it lies stranded between 
the revolution and counter-revolution. This shows that 
the advocates of participation in the elections were mistaken 
when they called upon the people to go to the polls 
and thereby roused false hopes among them. But let us 
leave this aside. The point is that at the time the congress 
was in session the elections were already over (except

PRESENT SITUATION AND UNITY CONGRESS OF WORKERS¹ PARTY 263 
in the Caucasus and in Siberia); we already had the 
returns and, consequently, the only point of discussion 
was the Duma itself, which was to meet within a few 
days. Clearly, the congress could not turn to the past; 
it had to devote its attention mainly to the question 
as to what the Duma was, and what our attitude 
towards it should be. 
And so, what is the present Duma, and what should 
be our attitude towards it? 
It was already known from the Manifesto of October 17 
that the Duma would not have particularly great powers: 
it is an assembly of deputies who ³have the right² 
to deliberate, but ³have no right² to overstep the existing 
³fundamental laws.² The Duma is supervised by 
the State Council, which ³has the right² to veto any 
of its decisions. And on guard, armed to the teeth, 
stands the tsarist government, which ³has the right² 
to disperse the Duma if it does not rest content with 
its deliberative role. 
As regards the Duma¹s complexion, we knew before 
the congress what its composition would be; we knew 
that it would consist largely of Cadets. We do not wish 
to say that the Cadets by themselves would have constituted 
the majority in the Duma‹we only say that 
out of approximately five hundred members of the Duma, 
one third would be Cadets while another third would 
consist of the intermediary groups and the Rights (the 
³Party of Democratic Reform,²75 the moderate elements 
among the non-party deputies, the Octobrists,76 etc.) 
who, when it came to clashes with the extreme Lefts 
(the workers¹ group and the group of revolutionary peasants) 
would unite around the Cadets and vote with

J. V. S T A L I N 264 
them; consequently, the Cadets would be the masters of 
the situation in the Duma. 
What are the Cadets? Can they be called revolutionaries? 
Of course, not! What, then, are the Cadets? 
The Cadets are a party of compromisers: they want to 
restrict the powers of the tsar, but not because they are 
in favour of the victory of the people, as they claim‹the 
Cadets want to replace the autocracy of the tsar by the 
autocracy of the bourgeoisie, not the sovereignty of the 
people (see their programme)‹but in order that the 
people should moderate its revolutionary spirit, withdraw 
its revolutionary demands and come to some arrangement 
with the tsar; the Cadets want a compromise between the 
tsar and the people. 
As you see, the majority of the Duma was bound to 
consist of compromisers and not of revolutionaries. This 
was already self-evident in the early part of April. 
Thus, on the one hand, the Duma was a boycotted 
and impotent body with insignificant rights; on the 
other hand, it was a body in which the majority was 
non-revolutionary and in favour of a compromise. The 
weak usually take the path of compromise in any case; 
if in addition their strivings are non-revolutionary, they 
are all the more likely to slip into the path of compromise. 
That is exactly what was bound to happen with the 
State Duma. It could not entirely take the side of the 
tsar because it wished to limit the tsar¹s powers; but it 
could not go over to the side of the people because the 
people were making revolutionary demands. Hence, it 
had to take a stand between the tsar and the people 
and endeavour to reconcile the two, that is, to busy itself 
collecting water with a sieve. On the one hand, it had

PRESENT SITUATION AND UNITY CONGRESS OF WORKERS¹ PARTY 265 
to try to persuade the people to abandon their ³excessive 
demands² and somehow reach an understanding with 
the tsar; but on the other hand, i t had to act as a 
go-between, and go to the tsar to plead that he should 
make some slight concession to the people and thereby 
put a stop to the ³revolutionary unrest.² 
That is the kind of Duma the Unity Congress of the 
Party had to deal with. 
What should have been the Party¹s attitude towards 
such a Duma? Needless to say, the Party could not undertake 
to support such a Duma, because to support the 
Duma means supporting a compromising policy; but 
a compromising policy fundamentally contradicts the 
task of intensifying the revolution, and the workers¹ 
party must not accept the role of pacifier of the revolution. 
Of course, the Party had to utilise the Duma itself 
as well as the conflicts between the Duma and the government, 
but that does not mean that it must support the 
non-revolutionary tactics of the Duma. On the contrary, 
to expose the two-faced character of the Duma, ruthlessly 
to criticise it, to drag its treacherous tactics into the 
light of day‹such should be the Party¹s attitude towards 
the State Duma. 
And if that is the case, it is clear that the Cadet Duma 
does not express the will of the people, that it cannot 
fulfil the role of representative of the people, that it 
cannot become the political centre of the country and 
unite the people around itself. 
Under these circumstances, it was the Party¹s duty 
to dispel the false hopes that had been reposed in the 
Duma and to declare publicly that the Duma does not 
express the will of the people and, therefore, cannot

J. V. S T A L I N 266 
become a weapon of the revolution; that the chief arena 
of the struggle today is the street and not the Duma. 
At the same time it was clear that the peasant ³Group 
of Toil²77 in the Duma, small in numbers compared with 
the Cadets, could not follow the compromising tactics of 
the Cadets to the end and would very soon have to 
begin to fight them as the betrayers of the people and 
take the path of revolution. It was the Party¹s duty to 
support the ³Group of Toil² in its struggle against the 
Cadets, to develop its revolutionary tendencies to the full, 
to contrast its revolutionary tactics to the non-revolutionary 
tactics of the Cadets, and thereby to expose still 
more clearly the treacherous tendencies of the Cadets. 
How did the congress act? What did the congress 
say in its resolution on the State Duma? 
The resolution of the congress says that the Duma 
is an institution that has sprung ³from the depths of the 
nation.² That is to say, notwithstanding its defects, the 
Duma, nevertheless, expresses the will of the people. 
Clearly, the congress failed to give a correct appraisal 
of the Cadet Duma; the congress forgot that the majority 
in the Duma consists of compromisers; that compromisers 
who reject the revolution cannot express the will of the 
people and, consequently, we have no right to say that 
the Duma has sprung ³from the depths of the nation.² 
What did the Bolsheviks say on this question at the 
congress? 
They said that ³the State Duma, which it is already 
evident has now become Cadet (predominantly) in composition, 
cannot under any circumstances fulfil the role of 
a genuine representative of the people.² That is to say, 
the present Duma has not sprung from the depths of

PRESENT SITUATION AND UNITY CONGRESS OF WORKERS¹ PARTY 267 
the people, it is against the people and, therefore, does 
not express the will of the people (see the resolution 
of the Bolsheviks). 
On this question the congress rejected the stand 
taken by the Bolsheviks. 
The resolution of the congress says that ³the Duma,² 
notwithstanding its ³pseudo-constitutional² character, 
nevertheless, ³will become a weapon of the revolution² 
. . . its conflicts with the government may grow to such 
dimensions ³as will make it possible to use them as 
the starting point for broad mass movements directed 
towards the overthrow of the present political system.² 
This is as much as to say that the Duma may become a 
political centre, rally the revolutionary people around 
itself and raise the standard of revolution. 
Do you hear, workers? The compromising Cadet 
Duma, it appears, may become the centre of the revolution 
and find itself at its head‹a dog, it appears, can 
give birth to a lamb! There is no need for you to worry‹ 
henceforth the hegemony of the proletariat and the 
rallying of the people around the proletariat are no 
longer necessary: the non-revolutionary Duma will of 
its own accord rally the revolutionary people around 
itself and everything will be in order! Do you see how 
simple it is to make a revolution? Do you see how the 
present revolution is to be carried to the end? 
Obviously, the congress failed to realise that the 
two-faced Duma, with its two-faced Cadets, must inevitably 
get stuck between two stools, will try to make 
peace between the tsar and the people and then, like all 
two-faced people, will be obliged to swing over towards 
the side which promises most!

J. V. S T A L I N 268 
What did the Bolsheviks say on this point at the 
congress? 
They said that ³the conditions are not yet at hand 
for our Party to take the parliamentary path,² i.e., we 
cannot yet enter into tranquil parliamentary life; the chief 
arena of the struggle is still the street, and not the Duma 
(see the resolution of the Bolsheviks). 
On this point, too, the congress rejected the resolution 
of the Bolsheviks. 
The resolution of the congress says nothing definite 
about the fact that in the Duma there are representatives 
of the revolutionary peasantry (the ³Group of Toil²) 
who remain a minority, and who will be obliged to reject 
the compromising tactics of the Cadets and take 
the path of the revolution; and it says nothing about 
it being necessary to encourage them and support them 
in their struggle against the Cadets or to help them 
to set their feet still more firmly on the revolutionary 
path. 
Obviously, the congress failed to understand that 
the proletariat and the peasantry are the two principal 
forces in the present revolution; that at the present time 
the proletariat, as the leader of the revolution, must support 
the revolutionary peasants in the street as well 
as in the Duma, provided they wage a struggle against 
the enemies of the revolution. 
What did the Bolsheviks say on this point at the 
congress? 
They said that Social-Democracy must ruthlessly 
expose ³the inconsistency and vacillation of the Cadets, 
while watching with special attention the elements of 
peasant revolutionary democracy, uniting them, con

PRESENT SITUATION AND UNITY CONGRESS OF WORKERS¹ PARTY 269 
trasting them to the Cadets and supporting those of 
their actions which conform to the interests of the proletariat² 
(see resolution). 
The congress also failed to accept this proposal of 
the Bolsheviks. Probably, that was because i t too 
vividly expressed the leading role of the proletariat in 
the present struggle; for the congress, as we have seen 
above, regarded the hegemony of the proletariat with 
distrust‹the peasantry, it said in effect, must rally 
around the Duma, and not around the proletariat! 
That is why the bourgeois newspaper Nasha Zhizn78 
praises the resolution of the congress; that is why the 
Cadets of Nasha Zhizn began to shout in one voice: At 
last the Social-Democrats have come to their senses and 
have abandoned Blanquism (see Nasha Zhizn, No. 432). 
Obviously, it is not for nothing that the enemies 
of the people‹the Cadets‹are praising the resolution 
of the congress. And it was not for nothing that Bebel 
said: What pleases our enemies is harmful to us! 
IV 
Let us pass to the question of an armed uprising. 
It is no longer a secret to anybody today that action 
by the people is inevitable. Since the crisis and famine 
are growing in town and country, since unrest among the 
proletariat and the peasantry is increasing day by day, 
since the tsarist government is decaying, and since, therefore, 
the revolution is on the upgrade‹it is self-evident 
that life is preparing another action by the people, wider 
and more powerful than the October and December 
actions. It is quite useless to discuss today whether this

J. V. S T A L I N 270 
new action is desirable or undesirable, good or bad: it is 
not a matter of what we desire; the fact is that action 
by the people is maturing of its own accord, and that 
it is inevitable. 
But there is action and action. Needless to say, the 
January general strike in St. Petersburg (1905) was an 
action by the people. So also was the October general 
political strike an action by the people, as also was the 
³December clash² in Moscow, and the clash in Latvia. 
It is clear that there were also differences between these 
actions. Whereas in January (1905), the chief role was 
played by the strike, in December the strike served only 
as a beginning and then grew into an armed uprising, 
which assumed the principal role. The actions in January, 
October and December showed that however ³peacefully² 
you may start a general strike, however ³delicately² 
you may behave in presenting your demands, 
and even if you come on to the battle-field unarmed, it 
must all end in a clash (recall January 9 in St. Petersburg, 
when the people marched with crosses and portraits 
of the tsar); the government will, nevertheless, 
resort to guns and rifles; the people will, nevertheless, 
take to arms, and thus, the general strike will, nevertheless, 
grow into an armed uprising. What does that prove? 
Only that the impending action of the people will not be 
simply a demonstration, but must necessarily assume an 
armed character; thus, the decisive role will be played 
by armed insurrection. It is useless discussing whether 
bloodshed is desirable or undesirable, good or bad: we 
repeat‹it is not a matter of what we desire; the fact 
is that armed insurrection will undoubtedly take place, 
and it will be impossible to avert it.

PRESENT SITUATION AND UNITY CONGRESS OF WORKERS¹ PARTY 271 
Our task today is to achieve the sovereignty of the people. 
We want the reins of government to be transferred to 
the hands of the proletariat and the peasantry. Can this 
object be achieved by means of a general strike? The 
facts say that it cannot (recall what we said above). 
Or perhaps the Duma with its grandiloquent Cadets 
will help us, perhaps the sovereignty of the people will be 
established with its aid? The facts tell us that this, too, is 
impossible; for the Cadet Duma wants the autocracy of 
the big bourgeoisie and not the sovereignty of the people 
(recall what we said above). 
Clearly, the only sure path is an armed uprising 
of the proletariat and the peasantry. Only by means of 
an armed uprising can the rule of the tsar be overthrown 
and the rule of the people be established, if, of course, 
this uprising ends in victory. That being the case, since 
the victory of the people is impossible today without 
the victory of the uprising, and since, on the other 
hand, life itself is preparing the ground for armed action 
by the people and, since this action is inevitable‹it is 
self-evident that the task of Social-Democracy is consciously 
to prepare for this action, consciously to prepare 
the ground for its victory. One of two things: either we 
must reject the sovereignty of the people (a democratic republic) 
and rest content with a constitutional monarchy‹ 
and in that case we shall be right in saying that it is 
not our business to organise an armed uprising; or we 
must continue to have as our present aim the sovereignty 
of the people (a democratic republic) and emphatically 
reject a constitutional monarchy‹and in that case we 
shall be wrong in saying that it is not our business 
consciously to organise the spontaneously growing action.

J. V. S T A L I N 272 
But how should we prepare for an armed uprising? 
How can we facilitate its victory? 
The December action showed that, in addition to 
all our other sins, we Social-Democrats are guilty of 
another great sin against the proletariat. This sin is 
that we failed to take the trouble, or took too little 
trouble, to arm the workers and to organise Red detachments. 
Recall December. Who does not remember the 
excited people who rose to the struggle in Tiflis, in the 
west Caucasus, in the south of Russia, in Siberia, in 
Moscow, in St. Petersburg and in Baku? Why did the 
autocracy succeed in dispersing these infuriated people 
so easily? Was it because the people were not yet convinced 
that the tsarist government was no good? Of 
course not! Why was it, then? 
First of all because the people had no arms, or too 
few of them. However great your consciousness may be, 
you cannot stand up against bullets with bare hands! 
Yes, they were quite right when they cursed us and 
said: You take our money, but where are the arms? 
Secondly, because we had no trained Red detachments 
capable of leading the rest, of procuring arms 
by force of arms and of arming the people. The people 
are heroes in street fighting, but if they are not led by 
their armed brothers and are not set an example, they 
can turn into a mob. 
Thirdly, because the uprising was sporadic and 
unorganised. While Moscow was fighting at the barricades, 
St. Petersburg was silent. Tiflis and Kutais were 
preparing for an assault when Moscow was already 
³subdued.² Siberia took to arms when the South and the 
Letts were already ³vanquished.² That shows that

PRESENT SITUATION AND UNITY CONGRESS OF WORKERS¹ PARTY 273 
the fighting proletariat entered the uprising split up 
into groups, as a consequence of which the government 
was able to inflict ³defeat² upon it with comparative 
ease. 
Fourthly, because our uprising adhered to the policy 
of the defensive and not of the offensive. The 
government itself provoked the December uprising. 
The government attacked us; it had a plan, whereas we 
met the government¹s attack unprepared; we had no 
thought-out plan, we were obliged to adhere to the policy 
of self-defence and thus dragged at the tail of events. Had 
the people of Moscow, from the very outset, chosen the 
policy of attack, they would have immediately captured 
the Nikolayevsky Railway Station, the government 
would have been unable to transport troops from St. 
Petersburg to Moscow, and thus, the Moscow uprising 
would have lasted longer. That would have exerted 
corresponding influence upon other towns. The same 
must be said about the Letts; had they taken the path 
of attack at the very outset, they would first of all have 
captured artillery and would thus have sapped the forces 
of the government. 
It was not for nothing that Marx said: 
³. . . The insurrectionary career once entered upon, 
act with the greatest determination, and on the offensive. 
The defensive is the death of every armed rising. . . . 
Surprise your antagonists while their forces are scattering, 
prepare new successes, however small, but daily; 
keep up the moral ascendant which the first successful 
rising has given to you; rally thus those vacillating 
elements to your side which always follow the strongest 
impulse and which always look out for the safer side;

J. V. S T A L I N 274 
force your enemies to a retreat before they can collect 
their strength against you; in the words of Danton, the 
greatest master of revolutionary policy yet known: de 
l¹audace, de l¹audace, encore de l¹audace!² (See K. Marx, 
Historical Sketches, p. 95.) 
It was precisely this ³audacity² and the policy of an 
offensive that the December uprising lacked. 
We shall be told: these are not the only reasons for 
the December ³defeat²; you have forgotten that in December 
the peasantry failed to unite with the proletariat, 
and that, too, was one of the main reasons for the 
December retreat. This is the downright truth, and we 
do not intend to forget it. But why did the peasantry 
fail to unite with the proletariat? What was the reason? 
We shall be told: lack of political consciousness. Granting 
that, how should we make the peasants politically 
conscious? By distributing pamphlets? This is not 
enough, of course! Then how? By fighting, by drawing 
them into the struggle, and by leading them during the 
struggle. Today it is the mission of the town to lead the 
countryside, it is the mission of the workers to lead the 
peasants; and if an uprising is not organised in the 
towns, the peasantry will never march with the advanced 
proletariat in this action. 
Such are the facts. 
Hence, the attitude the congress should have adopted 
towards the armed uprising and the slogans it should 
have issued to the Party comrades are self-evident. 
The Party was weak in the matter of arming, and 
arming was a neglected matter in the Party‹consequently, 
the congress should have said to the Party: 
arm, give concentrated attention to the matter of

PRESENT SITUATION AND UNITY CONGRESS OF WORKERS¹ PARTY 275 
arming, so as to meet the impending action at least to 
some extent prepared. 
Further. The Party was weak in the matter of organising 
armed detachments; it did not pay due attention 
to the task of augmenting the number of Red detachments. 
Consequently, the congress should have said to 
the Party: form Red detachments, disseminate military 
knowledge among the people, give concentrated attention 
to the task of organising Red detachments, so as to be 
able later on to procure arms by force of arms and extend 
the uprising. 
Further. The December uprising found the proletariat 
disunited; nobody thought seriously of organising 
the uprising‹consequently, i t was the duty of the 
congress to issue a slogan to the Party urging it 
energetically to proceed to unite the militant elements, 
to bring them into action according to a single plan, 
and actively to organise the armed uprising. 
Further. The proletariat, adhered to a defensive 
policy in the armed uprising; it never took the path of 
the offensive; that is what prevented the victory of the 
uprising. Consequently, it was the duty of the congress 
to point out to the Party comrades that the moment of 
victory of the uprising was approaching and that it was 
necessary to pass to the policy of offensive. 
How did the congress act, and what slogans did it 
issue to the Party? 
The congress said that ³. . . the Party¹s main task 
at the present moment is to develop the revolution by 
expanding and intensifying agitation activities among 
broad sections of the proletariat, the peasantry, the 
urban petty bourgeoisie and among the armed forces,

J. V. S T A L I N 276 
and by drawing them into the active struggle against 
the government through the constant intervention of 
Social-Democracy, and of the proletariat which it leads, 
in all manifestations of political life in the country. . . .² 
The Party ³cannot undertake the obligation of arming 
the people, which can only rouse false hopes, and must 
restrict its tasks to facilitating the self-arming of the 
population and the organisation and arming of fighting 
squads. . . .² ³It is the Party¹s duty to counteract all 
attempts to draw the proletariat into an armed collision 
under unfavourable circumstances . . .² etc., etc. (see 
resolution of the congress). 
It appears, then, that today, at the present moment, 
when we are on the threshold of another action by the 
people, the main thing for achieving the victory of the 
uprising is agitation, while the arming and organising 
of Red detachments is something unimportant, something 
which we must not get enthusiastic about, 
and in relation to which we must ³restrict² our activities 
to ³facilitating.² As regards the necessity of 
organising the uprising, of not carrying it out with scattered 
forces, and the necessity of adopting an offensive 
policy (recall the words of Marx)‹the congress 
said not a word. Clearly, it did not regard these questions 
as important. 
The facts say: Arm and do everything to strengthen 
the Red detachments. The congress, however, answers: 
Do not get too enthusiastic about arming and organising 
Red detachments, ³restrict² your activities in this matter, 
because the most important thing is agitation. 
One would think that until now we have been busy 
arming, that we have armed a vast number of comrades

PRESENT SITUATION AND UNITY CONGRESS OF WORKERS¹ PARTY 277 
and have organised a large number of detachments, 
but have neglected agitation‹and so the congress 
admonishes us: Enough of arming, you have paid quite 
enough attention to that; the main thing is agitation! 
It goes without saying that agitation is always and 
everywhere one of the Party¹s main weapons; but will 
agitation decide the question of victory in the forthcoming 
uprising? Had the congress said this four years 
ago, when the question of an uprising was not yet on 
the order of the day, it would have been understandable; 
but today, when we are on the threshold of an armed 
uprising, when the question of an uprising is on the 
order of the day, when it may start independently and 
in spite of us‹what can ³mainly² agitation do? What 
can be achieved by means of this ³agitation²? 
Or consider this. Let us assume that we have expanded 
our agitation; let us assume that the people have 
risen. What then? How can they fight without arms? 
Has not enough blood of unarmed people been shed? 
And besides, of what use are arms to the people if they 
are unable to wield them, if they have not a sufficient 
number of Red detachments? We shall be told: But we 
do not reject arming and Red detachments. Very well, 
but if you fail to devote due attention to the task of 
arming, if you neglect it‹it shows that actually you do 
reject it. 
We shall not go into the point that the congress did 
not even hint at the necessity of organising the uprising 
and of adhering to an offensive policy. It could not 
have been otherwise, because the resolution of the congress 
lags four or five years behind life, and because, to 
the congress, an uprising was still a theoretical question.

J. V. S T A L I N 278 
What did the Bolsheviks say on this question at 
the congress? 
They said that ³. . . in the Party¹s propaganda and 
agitation activities concentrated attention must be given to 
studying the practical experience of the December uprising, 
to criticising it from the military point of view, 
and to drawing direct lessons from it for the future,² 
that ³still more energetic activity must be developed in 
augmenting the number of fighting squads, in improving 
their organisation and supplying them with weapons 
of all kinds and, in conformity with the lessons 
of experience, not only should Party fighting squads 
be organised, but also squads of sympathisers with 
the Party, and even of non-Party people . . .² that 
³in view of the growing peasant movement, which may 
flare up into a whole uprising in the very near future, 
it is desirable to exert efforts to unite the activities of the 
workers and peasants for the purpose of organising, as far as 
possible, joint and simultaneous military operations . . .² 
that, consequently, ³. . . in view of the growth and 
intensification of another political crisis, the prospect 
is opening for the transition from defensive to offensive 
forms of armed struggle . . .² that it is necessary, jointly 
with the soldiers, to launch ³. . . most determined offensive 
operations against the government . . .² etc. (see the 
resolution of the Bolsheviks). 
That is what the Bolsheviks said. 
But the congress rejected the stand taken by the Bolsheviks. 
After this, it is not difficult to understand why the 
resolutions of the congress were welcomed with such 
enthusiasm by the liberal-Cadets (see Nasha Zhizn,

PRESENT SITUATION AND UNITY CONGRESS OF WORKERS¹ PARTY 279 
No. 432): they realised that these resolutions lag several 
years behind the present revolution, that these resolutions 
totally fail to express the class tasks of the proletariat, 
that these resolutions, if applied, would make the 
proletariat an appendage of the liberals rather than an 
independent force‹they realised all this, and that is 
why they were so loud in their praise of them. 
It is the duty of the Party comrades to adopt a critical 
attitude towards the resolutions of the congress and, 
at the proper time, introduce the necessary amendments. 
It is precisely this duty that we had in mind when 
we sat down to write this pamphlet. 
True, we have here touched upon only two resolutions: 
³On the Attitude To Be Taken Towards the State 
Duma,² and ³On Armed Insurrection,² but these two resolutions 
are, undoubtedly, the main resolutions, which 
most distinctly express the congress¹s position on tactics. 
Thus, we have arrived at the main conclusion, viz., 
that the question that confronts the Party is: should the 
class-conscious proletariat be the leader in the present revolution, 
or should it drag at the tail of the bourgeois democrats? 
We have seen that the settlement of this question 
one way or another will determine the settlement of 
all the other questions. 
All the more carefully, therefore, should the comrades 
weigh the essence of these two positions. 
Reprinted from the pamphlet 
issued by Proletariat Publishers 
in 1906 
Signed: Comrade K. 
Translated from the Georgian

THE CLASS STRUGGLE 
³The unity of the bourgeoisie can be 
shaken only by the unity of the proletariat.² 
Karl Marx 
Present-day society is extremely complex! It is a 
motley patchwork of classes and groups‹the big, middle 
and petty bourgeoisie; the big, middle and petty 
feudal landlords; journeymen, unskilled labourers and 
skilled factory workers; the higher, middle and lower 
clergy; the higher, middle and minor bureaucracy; a 
heterogeneous intelligentsia, and other groups of a 
similar kind. Such is the motley picture our society 
presents! 
But it is also obvious that the further society develops 
the more clearly two main trends stand out in this 
complexity, and the more sharply this complex society 
divides up into two opposite camps‹the capitalist 
camp and the proletarian camp. The January economic 
strikes (1905) clearly showed that Russia is indeed divided 
into two camps. The November strikes in St. Petersburg 
(1905) and the June-July strikes all over Russia 
(1906), brought the leaders of the two camps into 
collision and thereby fully exposed the present-day class 
antagonisms. Since then the capitalist camp has been 
wide awake. In that camp feverish and ceaseless preparation 
is going on; local associations of capitalists are being

THE CLASS STRUGGLE 281 
formed, the local associations combine to form regional 
associations and the regional associations combine in all- 
Russian associations; funds and newspapers are being 
started, and all-Russian congresses and conferences of 
capitalists are being convened. . . . 
Thus, the capitalists are organising in a separate 
class with the object of curbing the proletariat. 
On the other hand, the proletarian camp is wide awake 
too. Here, too, feverish preparations for the impending 
struggle are being made. In spite of persecution by the 
reaction, here, too, local trade unions are being formed, 
the local unions combine to form regional unions, 
trade union funds are being started, the trade union 
press is growing, and all-Russian congresses and conferences 
of workers¹ unions are being held. . . . 
It is evident that the proletarians are also organising 
in a separate class with the object of curbing exploitation. 
There was a time when ³peace and quiet² reigned in 
society. At that time there was no sign of these classes 
and their class organisations. A struggle went on at that 
time too, of course, but that struggle bore a local and not 
a general class character; the capitalists had no associations 
of their own, and each capitalist was obliged to deal 
with ³his² workers by himself. Nor did the workers have 
any unions and, consequently, the workers in each factory 
were obliged to rely only on their own strength. True, 
local Social-Democratic organisations led the workers¹ 
economic struggle, but everybody will agree that this 
leadership was weak and casual; the Social-Democratic 
organisations could scarcely cope with their own Party 
affairs.

J. V. S T A L I N 282 
The January economic strikes, however, marked a 
turning point. The capitalists got busy and began to 
organise local associations. The capitalist associations in 
St. Petersburg, Moscow, Warsaw, Riga and other towns 
were brought into being by the January strikes. As regards 
the capitalists in the oil, manganese, coal and sugar industries, 
they converted their old, ³peaceful² associations into 
³fighting² associations, and began to fortify their positions. 
But the capitalists were not content with this. They 
decided to form an all-Russian association, and so, in 
March 1905, on the initiative of Morozov, they gathered at 
a general congress in Moscow. That was the first all-Russian 
congress of capitalists. Here they concluded an agreement, 
by which they pledged themselves not to make 
any concessions to the workers without previous arrangement 
among themselves and, in ³extreme² cases‹ 
to declare a lockout.* That was the starting point of a 
fierce struggle between the capitalists and the proletarians. 
It marked the opening of a series of big lockouts 
in Russia. To conduct a big struggle a strong association 
is needed, and so the capitalists decided to meet once again 
to form a still more closely-knit association. Thus, three 
months after the first congress (in July 1905), the second 
all-Russian congress of capitalists was convened in 
Moscow. Here they reaffirmed the resolutions of the first 
congress, reaffirmed the necessity of lockouts, and elected 
a committee to draft the rules and to arrange for the 
convocation of another congress. Meanwhile, the resolu- 
* Lockout‹a strike of employers, during which the employers 
deliberately shut down their factories in order to break 
the resistance of the workers and to frustrate their demands.

THE CLASS STRUGGLE 283 
tions of the congresses were put into effect. Facts have 
shown that the capitalists are carrying out these resolutions 
to the letter. If you recall the lockouts the capitalists 
declared in Riga, Warsaw, Odessa, Moscow, and 
other large cities; if you recall the November days 
in St. Petersburg, when 72 capitalists threatened 200,000 
St. Petersburg workers with a cruel lockout, then you 
will easily understand what a mighty force the all-Russian 
association of capitalists represents, and how punctiliously 
they are carrying out the decisions of their association. 
Then, after the second congress, the capitalists 
arranged another congress (in January 1906), and finally, 
in April this year, the all-Russian inaugural congress 
of the capitalists took place, at which uniform rules were 
adopted and a Central Bureau was elected. As the 
newspapers report, these rules have already been sanctioned 
by the government. 
Thus, there can be no doubt that the Russian big 
bourgeoisie has already organised in a separate class, 
that it has its own local, regional and central organisations, 
and can rouse the capitalists of the whole of Russia 
in conformity with a single plan. 
To reduce wages, lengthen the working day, weaken 
the proletariat and smash its organisations‹such are 
the objects of the general association of capitalists. 
Meanwhile, the workers¹ trade union movement has 
been growing and developing. Here, too, the influence of 
the January economic strikes (1905) made itself felt. The 
movement assumed a mass character; its needs grew wider 
and, in the course of time, it became evident that the 
Social-Democratic organisations could not conduct both 
Party and trade union affairs. Something in the nature

J. V. S T A L I N 284 
of a division of labour between the Party and the trade 
unions was needed. Party affairs had to be directed 
by the Party organisations, and trade union affairs by trade 
unions. And so the organisation of trade unions began. 
Trade unions were formed all over the country‹in 
Moscow, St. Petersburg, Warsaw, Odessa, Riga, Kharkov 
and Tiflis. True, the reactionaries placed obstacles in 
the way, but in spite of that the needs of the movement 
gained the upper hand and the unions grew in number. 
Soon the appearance of local unions was followed by the 
appearance of regional unions and, finally, things reached 
the stage when, in September last year, an all-Russian 
conference of trade unions was convened. That was the 
first conference of workers¹ unions. The upshot of that 
conference was, among other things, that it drew together 
the unions in the different towns and finally elected 
a Central Bureau to prepare for the convocation of 
a general congress of trade unions. The October days 
arrived‹and the trade unions became twice as strong 
as they were before. Local and, finally, regional unions 
grew day by day. True, the ³December defeat² appreciably 
checked the rate of formation of trade unions, 
but later the trade union movement recovered and things 
went so well that in February of this year the second 
conference of trade unions was called, and it was more 
widely and fully representative than the first conference. 
The conference recognised the necessity of forming local, 
regional and all-Russian centres, elected an ³organising 
commission² to make arrangements for the forthcoming 
all-Russian congress, and passed appropriate resolutions 
on current questions affecting the trade union 
movement.

THE CLASS STRUGGLE 285 
Thus, there can be no doubt that, notwithstanding 
the reaction that is raging, the proletariat is also organising 
in a separate class, is steadily strengthening its 
local, regional and central trade union organisations, 
and is also steadily striving to unite its innumerable 
fellow-workers against the capitalists. 
To secure higher wages, a shorter working day, better 
conditions of labour, to curb exploitation and to 
thwart the capitalist associations‹such are the objects 
of the workers¹ trade unions. 
Thus, present-day society is splitting up into two 
big camps; each camp is organising in a separate class; 
the class struggle that has flared up between them is 
expanding and growing more intense every day, and all 
other groups are gathering around these two camps. 
Marx said that every class struggle is a political 
struggle. This means that, if the proletarians and capitalists 
are waging an economic struggle against each 
other today, they will be compelled to wage a political 
struggle tomorrow and thus protect their respective 
class interests in a struggle that bears two forms. The 
capitalists have their particular business interests. And 
it is to protect these interests that their economic organisations 
exist. But in addition to their particular business 
interests, they also have common class interests, 
namely, to strengthen capitalism. And it is to protect 
these common interests that they must wage a political 
struggle and need a political party. The Russian capitalists 
solved this problem very easily: they realised 
that the only party which ³straightforwardly and 
fearlessly² championed their interests was the Octobrist 
Party, and they therefore resolved to rally around

J. V. S T A L I N 286 
that party and to accept its ideological leadership. Since 
then the capitalists have been waging their political 
struggle under the ideological leadership of this party; 
with its aid they exert influence on the present government 
(which suppresses the workers¹ unions but hastens 
to sanction the formation of capitalist associations), they 
secure the election of its candidates to the Duma, etc., etc. 
Thus, economic struggle with the aid of associations, 
and general political struggle under the ideological 
leadership of the Octobrist Party‹that is the form the 
class struggle waged by the big bourgeoisie is assuming 
today. 
On the other hand, similar phenomena are also observed 
in the proletarian class movement today. To protect 
the trade interests of the proletarians trade unions 
are being formed, and these fight for higher wages, a 
shorter working day, etc. But in addition to trade interests, 
the proletarians have also common class interests, 
namely, the socialist revolution and the establishment 
of socialism. It is impossible, however, to achieve the 
socialist revolution until the proletariat conquers political 
power as a united and indivisible class. That is 
why the proletariat must wage the political struggle, 
and why it needs a political party that will act as the 
ideological leader of its political movement. Most of 
the workers¹ unions are, of course, non-party and neutral; 
but this merely means that they are independent of the 
party only in financial and organisational matters, i.e., 
they have their own separate funds, their own leading 
bodies, call their own congresses and, officially, are not 
bound by the decisions of political parties. As regards 
the ideological dependence of the trade unions upon any

THE CLASS STRUGGLE 287 
given political party, such dependence must undoubtedly 
exist and cannot help existing, because, apart from everything 
else, members of different parties belong to the 
unions and inevitably carry their political convictions 
into them. Clearly, if the proletariat cannot dispense 
with the political struggle, it cannot dispense with the 
ideological leadership of some political party. More than 
that. It must itself seek a party which will worthily lead 
its unions to the ³promised land,² to socialism. But 
here the proletariat must be on the alert and act with 
circumspection. It must carefully examine the ideological 
stock-in-trade of the political parties and freely 
accept the ideological leadership of the party that will 
courageously and consistently champion its class interests, 
hold aloft the Red Flag of the proletariat, and 
boldly lead it to political power, to the socialist revolution. 
Until now this role has been carried out by the Russian 
Social-Democratic Labour Party and, consequently, 
it is the task of the trade unions to accept its ideological 
leadership. 
It is common knowledge that they actually do so. 
Thus, economic clashes with the aid of trade unions, 
political attacks under the ideological leadership of 
Social-Democracy‹that is the form the class struggle 
of the proletariat has assumed today. 
There can be no doubt that the class struggle will 
flare up with increasing vigour. The task of the proletariat 
is to introduce the system and the spirit of organisation 
into its struggle. To accomplish this, it is necessary 
to strengthen the unions and to unite them, and in 
this the all-Russian congress of trade unions can render

J. V. S T A L I N 288 
a great service. Not a ³non-party workers¹ congress,² 
but a congress of workers¹ trade unions is what we need 
today in order that the proletariat shall be organised 
in a united and indivisible class. At the same time, the 
proletariat must exert every effort to strengthen and 
fortify the party which will act as the ideological and 
political leader of its class struggle. 
Akhali Droyeba 
(New Times),79 No. 1, 
November 14, 1906 
Signed: Ko. . . . 
Translated from the Georgian

³FACTORY LEGISLATION² 
AND THE PROLETARIAN STRUGGLE 
(Concerning the Two Laws of November 15) 
There was a time when our labour movement was in 
its initial stages. At that time the proletariat was split 
up into separate groups and did not think of waging 
a common struggle. Railway workers, miners, factory 
workers, artisans, shop assistants, and clerks‹such 
were the groups into which the Russian proletariat was 
divided. Moreover, the workers in each group, in their 
turn, were split up according to the towns, big or small, 
they lived and worked in, with no link, either party 
or trade union, between them. Thus, there was no sign 
of the proletariat as a united and indivisible class. Consequently, 
there was no sign of the proletarian struggle, 
as a general class offensive. That is why the tsarist government 
was able calmly to pursue its ³traditional² 
policy. That is why, when the ³Workers¹ Insurance 
Bill² was introduced in the State Council in 1893, 
Pobedonostsev, the inspirer of the reaction, jeered at the 
sponsors and said with aplomb: ³Gentlemen, you have 
taken all this trouble for nothing; I assure you that 
there is no labour problem in our country. . . .² 
But time passed, the economic crisis drew near, 
strikes became more frequent, and the disunited proletariat 
gradually organised itself in a united class. The

J. V. S T A L I N 
FROM MARX 
TO MAO 

 
NOT FOR 
COMMERCIAL 
DISTRIBUTION 
290 
strikes of 1903 already showed that ³there is a labour 
problem in our country,² and that it had existed for a 
long time. The strikes in January and February 1905 
proclaimed to the world for the first time that the proletariat, 
as a united class, was growing and becoming 
mature in Russia. Then, the general strikes in October- 
December 1905, and the ³ordinary² strikes in June and 
July 1906, actually drew together the proletarians in 
the different towns, actually welded together the shop 
assistants, clerks, artisans and industrial workers in a 
united class, and thereby loudly proclaimed to the world 
that the forces of the once disunited proletariat had 
now taken the path of union and were organising 
themselves in a united class. The effect of the general 
political strike as a method of waging the common proletarian 
struggle against the present system also made 
itself felt. . . . Now it was no longer possible to deny the 
existence of the ³labour problem,² now the tsarist government 
was already obliged to reckon with the movement. 
And so, the reactionaries gathered in their offices 
and began to set up different commissions and to draft 
³factory laws²: the Shidlovsky Commission,80 the Kokovtsev 
Commission,81 the Associations Act82 (see the ³Manifesto² 
of October 17), the Witte-Durnovo circulars,83 
various projects and plans, and lastly the two laws of 
November 15 applying to artisans and commercial employees. 
So long as the movement was weak, so long as it 
lacked a mass character, the reaction employed only one 
method against the proletariat‹imprisonment, Siberia, 
the whip and the gallows. Always and everywhere the 
reaction pursues one object: to split the proletariat into

³FACTORY LEGISLATION² AND PROLETARIAN STRUGGLE 291 
small groups, to smash its vanguard, to intimidate and 
win over to its side the neutral masses, and thus create 
confusion in the proletarian camp. We have seen that 
it achieved this object famously with the aid of whips and 
prisons. 
But things took an entirely different turn when the 
movement assumed a mass character. Now the reaction 
had no longer to deal only with ³ringleaders²‹it was 
faced by countless masses in all their revolutionary 
grandeur. And it had to reckon precisely with these 
masses. But it is impossible to hang the masses; you cannot 
banish them to Siberia, there are not enough prisons to 
hold them. As for lashing them with whips, that is not 
always to the advantage of the reaction now that the 
ground under its feet has long been shaken. Clearly, 
in addition to the old methods, a new, ³more cultured² 
method had to be employed, which, in the opinion of 
the reaction, might aggravate the disagreements in the 
camp of the proletariat, rouse false hopes among the 
backward section of the workers, induce them to abandon 
the struggle and rally around the government. 
³Factory legislation² is precisely this new method. 
Thus, while still adhering to the old methods, the tsarist 
government wants, at the same time, to utilise ³factory 
legislation² and, consequently, to solve the ³burning 
labour problem² by means of both the whip and the 
law. By means of promises of a shorter working day, the 
protection of child and female labour, improvement 
in sanitary conditions, workers¹ insurance, abolition of 
fines, and other benefits of a similar kind, it seeks to 
win the confidence of the backward section of the workers 
and thereby dig the grave of proletarian class unity.

J. V. S T A L I N 292 
The tsarist government knows very well that it was never 
so necessary for it to engage in such ³activity² as it 
is now, at this moment when the October general strike 
has united the proletarians in the different industries 
and has struck at the roots of reaction, when a future 
general strike may grow into an armed struggle and 
overthrow the old system, and when, consequently, the 
reaction must, for its very life, provoke confusion in the 
labour camp, win the confidence of the backward workers, 
and win them over to its side. 
In this connection it is extremely interesting to note 
that, with its laws of November 15, the reaction graciously 
turned its gaze only upon shop assistants and 
artisans, whereas it sends the best sons of the industrial 
proletariat to prison and to the gallows. But this is not 
surprising when you come to think of it. Firstly, shop 
assistants, artisans and employees in commercial establishments 
are not concentrated in big factories and mills 
as the industrial workers are; they are scattered among 
small enterprises, they are relatively less class conscious 
and, consequently, can be more easily deceived than the 
others. Secondly, shop assistants, office clerks and artisans 
constitute a large section of the proletariat of presentday 
Russia and, consequently, their desertion of the 
militant proletarians would appreciably weaken the 
forces of the proletariat both in the present elections and 
in the forthcoming action. Lastly, it is common knowledge 
that the urban petty bourgeoisie is of great importance 
in the present revolution; that Social-Democracy 
must revolutionise it under the hegemony of the proletariat; 
and that nobody can win over the petty bourgeoisie 
so well as the artisans, shop assistants and office clerks

³FACTORY LEGISLATION² AND PROLETARIAN STRUGGLE 293 
who stand closer to it than the rest of the proletarians. 
Clearly, if the shop assistants and artisans desert the 
proletariat the petty bourgeoisie will turn away from 
it too, and the proletariat will be doomed to isolation 
in the towns, which is exactly what the tsarist government 
wants. In the light of these facts, the reason why 
the reaction concocted the laws of November 15, which 
affect only artisans, shop assistants and office clerks, 
becomes self-evident. The industrial proletariat will not 
trust the government whatever it may do, so ³factory 
legislation² would be wasted on it. Maybe only bullets 
can bring the proletariat to its senses. What laws cannot 
do, bullets must do! . . . 
That is what the tsarist government thinks. 
And that is the opinion not only of our government, 
but also of every other anti-proletarian government‹ 
irrespective of whether it is feudal-autocratic, bourgeoismonarchist 
or bourgeois-republican. The fight against 
the proletariat is waged by means of bullets and laws 
everywhere, and that will go on until the socialist revolution 
breaks out, until socialism is established. Recall 
the years 1824 and 1825 in constitutional England, 
when the law granting freedom to strike was being drafted, 
while at the same time the prisons were crammed with 
workers on strike. Recall republican France in the forties 
of last century, when there was talk about ³factory 
legislation,² while at the same time the streets of Paris 
ran with workers¹ blood. Recall all these and numerous 
other cases of the same kind and you will see that 
it is precisely as we have said. 
That, however, does not mean that the proletariat 
cannot utilise such laws. True, in passing ³factory laws²

J. V. S T A L I N 294 
the reaction has its own plans in view‹it wants to curb 
the proletariat: but step by step life is frustrating the 
reaction¹s plans, and under such circumstances clauses 
beneficial to the proletariat always creep into the laws. 
This happens because no ³factory law² comes into being 
without a reason, without a struggle; the government 
does not pass a single ³factory law² until the workers 
come out to fight, until the government is compelled 
to satisfy the workers¹ demands. History shows that 
every ³factory law² is preceded by a partial or general 
strike. The law of June 1882 (concerning the employment 
of children, the length of the working day for them, 
and the institution of factory inspection), was preceded 
by strikes in Narva, Perm, St. Petersburg and Zhirardov 
in that same year. The laws of June-October 1886 (on 
fines, pay-books, etc.) were the direct result of the strikes 
in the central area in 1885-86. The law of June 1897 
(shortening the working day) was preceded by the strikes 
in St. Petersburg in 1895-96. The laws of 1903 (concerning 
³employers¹ liability² and ³shop stewards²) were the 
direct result of the ³strikes in the south² in the same year 
Lastly, the laws of November 15, 1906 (on a shorter working 
day and Sunday rest for shop assistants, office clerks 
and artisans), are the direct result of the strikes that 
took place all over Russia in June and July this year. 
As you see, every ³factory law² was preceded by a 
movement of the masses who in one way or another 
achieved the satisfaction of their demands, if not in 
full, then at least in part. It is self-evident, therefore, 
that however bad a ³factory law² may be, it, nevertheless, 
contains several clauses which the proletariat 
can utilise for the purpose of intensifying its struggle

³FACTORY LEGISLATION² AND PROLETARIAN STRUGGLE 295 
Needless to say, it must grasp such clauses and use them 
as instruments with which still further to strengthen its 
organisations and to stir up more fiercely the proletarian 
struggle, the struggle for the socialist revolution. Bebel 
was right when he said: ³The devil¹s head must be cut 
off with his own sword². . . . 
In this respect, both laws of November 15 are 
extremely interesting. Of course, they contain numerous 
bad clauses, but they also contain clauses which the 
reaction introduced unconsciously, but which the proletariat 
must utilise consciously. 
Thus, for example, although both laws are called 
laws ³for the protection of labour,² they contain atrocious 
clauses which completely nullify all ³protection 
of labour,² and which, here and there, even the employers 
will shrink from utilising. Both laws establish a twelvehour 
day in commercial establishments and artisans¹ 
workshops, in spite of the fact that in many places the 
twelve-hour day has already been abolished and a ten- or 
an eight-hour day has been introduced. Both laws 
permit two hours overtime per day (making a fourteenhour 
day) over a period of forty days in commercial 
establishments, and sixty days in workshops, in spite 
of the fact that nearly everywhere all overtime has been 
abolished. At the same time, the employers are granted 
the right, ³by agreement with the workers,² i.e., by 
coercing the workers, to increase overtime and lengthen 
the working day to seventeen hours, etc., etc. 
The proletariat will not, of course, surrender to the 
employers a single shred of the rights they have already 
won, and the fables in the above-mentioned laws will 
remain the ridiculous fables they really are.

J. V. S T A L I N 296 
On the other hand, the laws contain clauses which 
the proletariat can make good use of to strengthen its 
position. Both laws say that where the working day is 
not less than eight hours, the workers must be given a two 
hours¹ break for dinner. It is well known that at present 
artisans, shop assistants and office clerks do not everywhere 
enjoy a two hours¹ break. Both laws also say that 
persons under seventeen have the right, in addition to these 
two hours, to absent themselves from the shop or workshop 
for another three hours a day to attend school, which of 
course will be a great relief for our young comrades. . . . 
There can be no doubt that the proletariat will make 
fitting use of such clauses in the laws of November 15, 
will duly intensify its proletarian struggle, and show the 
world once again that the devil¹s head must be cut off 
with his own sword. 
Akhali Droveba 
(New Times), No. 4, 
December 4, 1906 
Signed: Ko. . . . 
Translated from the Georgian

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM?84 
The hub of modern social life is the class struggle. 
In the course of this struggle each class is guided by 
its own ideology. The bourgeoisie has its own ideology‹ 
so-called liberalism. The proletariat also has its own 
ideology‹this, as is well known, is socialism. 
Liberalism must not be regarded as something whole 
and indivisible: it is subdivided into different trends, 
corresponding to the different strata of the bourgeoisie. 
Nor is socialism whole and indivisible: in it there 
are also different trends. 
We shall not here examine liberalism‹that task 
had better be left for another time. We want to acquaint 
the reader only with socialism and its trends. We think 
that he will find this more interesting. 
Socialism is divided into three main trends: reformism, 
anarchism and Marxism. 
Reformism (Bernstein and others), which regards 
socialism as a remote goal and nothing more, reformism, 
which actually repudiates the socialist revolution and 
aims at establishing socialism by peaceful means, reformism, 
which advocates not class struggle but class 
collaboration‹this reformism is decaying day by day, 
is day by day losing all semblance of socialism and,

J. V. S T A L I N 298 
in our opinion, it is totally unnecessary to examine it 
in these articles when defining socialism. 
It is altogether different with Marxism and anarchism: 
both are at the present time recognised as socialist 
trends, they are waging a fierce struggle against 
each other, both are trying to present themselves to the 
proletariat as genuinely socialist doctrines, and, of course, 
a study and comparison of the two will be far more interesting 
for the reader. 
We are not the kind of people who, when the word 
³anarchism² is mentioned, turn away contemptuously 
and say with a supercilious wave of the hand: ³Why waste 
time on that, it¹s not worth talking about!² We think 
that such cheap ³criticism² is undignified and useless. 
Nor are we the kind of people who console themselves 
with the thought that the Anarchists ³have no 
masses behind them and, therefore, are not so dangerous.² 
It is not who has a larger or smaller ³mass² following 
today, but the essence of the doctrine that matters. 
If the ³doctrine² of the Anarchists expresses the truth, 
then it goes without saying that it will certainly hew a 
path for itself and will rally the masses around itself. 
If, however, it is unsound and built up on a false foundation, 
it will not last long and will remain suspended 
in mid-air. But the unsoundness of anarchism must be 
proved. 
Some people believe that Marxism and anarchism 
are based on the same principles and that the disagreements 
between them concern only tactics, so that, in 
the opinion of these people, it is quite impossible to 
draw a contrast between these two trends. 
This is a great mistake.

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 299 
We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of 
Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle 
must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is 
necessary to examine the ³doctrine² of the Anarchists 
from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from 
all aspects. 
The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built 
up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact 
that both come into the arena of the struggle under the 
flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the 
individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, 
is the principal condition for the emancipation of the 
masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of 
anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible 
until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan 
is: ³Everything for the individual.² The cornerstone 
of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, 
according to its tenets, is the principal condition for 
the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according 
to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual 
is impossible until the masses are emancipated. 
Accordingly, its slogan is: ³Everything for the masses.² 
Clearly, we have here two principles, one negating 
the other, and not merely disagreements on tactics. 
The object of our articles is to place these two opposite 
principles side by side, to compare Marxism with 
anarchism, and thereby throw light on their respective 
virtues and defects. At this point we think it necessary 
to acquaint the reader with the plan of these articles. 
We shall begin with a description of Marxism, deal, 
in passing, with the Anarchists¹ views on Marxism, 
and then proceed to criticise anarchism itself. Namely:

J. V. S T A L I N 300 
we shall expound the dialectical method, the Anarchists¹ 
views on this method, and our criticism; the materialist 
theory, the Anarchists¹ views and our criticism (here, 
too, we shall discuss the socialist revolution, the socialist 
dictatorship, the minimum programme, and tactics generally); 
the philosophy of the Anarchists and our criticism; 
the socialism of the Anarchists and our criticism; 
anarchist tactics and organisation‹and, in conclusion, 
we shall give our deductions. 
We shall try to prove that, as advocates of small 
community socialism, the Anarchists are not genuine 
Socialists. 
We shall also try to prove that, in so far as they 
repudiate the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Anarchists 
are also not genuine revolutionaries. . . . 
And so, let us proceed with our subject. 
I 
THE DIALECTICAL METHOD 
Everything in the world is in motion. . . . 
Life changes, productive forces grow, old 
relations collapse. 
Karl Marx 
Marxism is not only the theory of socialism, it is 
an integral world outlook, a philosophical system, from 
which Marx¹s proletarian socialism logically follows. 
This philosophical system is called dialectical materialism. 
Hence, to expound Marxism means to expound also 
dialectical materialism. 
Why is this system called dialectical materialism?

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 301 
Because its method is dialectical, and its theory is 
materialistic. 
What is the dialectical method? 
It is said that social life is in continual motion and 
development. And that is true: life must not be regarded 
as something immutable and static; it never remains at 
one level, it is in eternal motion, in an eternal process 
of destruction and creation. Therefore, life always contains 
the new and the old, the growing and the dying, 
the revolutionary and the counter-revolutionary. 
The dialectical method tells us that we must regard 
life as it actually is. We have seen that life is in continual 
motion; consequently, we must regard life in its motion 
and ask: Where is life going? We have seen that life 
presents a picture of constant destruction and creation; 
consequently, we must examine life in its process of 
destruction and creation and ask: What is being destroyed 
and what is being created in life? 
That which in life is born and grows day by day 
is invincible, its progress cannot be checked. That is to 
say, if, for example, in life the proletariat as a class is 
born and grows day by day, no matter how weak and small 
in numbers it may be today, in the long run it must 
triumph. Why? Because it is growing, gaining strength 
and marching forward. On the other hand, that which 
in life is growing old and advancing to its grave must 
inevitably suffer defeat, even if today it represents a 
titanic force. That is to say, if, for example, the bourgeoisie 
is gradually losing ground and is slipping farther 
and farther back every day, then, no matter how strong 
and numerous it may be today, it must, in the long run, 
suffer defeat. Why? Because as a class it is decaying,

J. V. S T A L I N 302 
growing feeble, growing old, and becoming a burden 
to life. 
Hence arose the well-known dialectical proposition: 
all that which really exists, i.e., all that which grows 
day by day is rational, and all that which decays day 
by day is irrational and, consequently, cannot avoid 
defeat. 
For example. In the eighties of the last century a 
great controversy flared up among the Russian revolutionary 
intelligentsia. The Narodniks asserted that the 
main force that could undertake the task of ³emancipating 
Russia² was the petty bourgeoisie, rural and urban. 
Why?‹the Marxists asked them. Because, answered the 
Narodniks, the rural and urban petty bourgeoisie now 
constitute the majority and, moreover, they are poor, 
they live in poverty. 
To this the Marxists replied: It is true that the rural 
and urban petty bourgeoisie now constitute the majority 
and are really poor, but is that the point? The petty 
bourgeoisie has long constituted the majority, but up 
to now it has displayed no initiative in the struggle for 
³freedom² without the assistance of the proletariat. 
Why? Because the petty bourgeoisie as a class is not 
growing; on the contrary, it is disintegrating day by day 
and breaking up into bourgeois and proletarians. On the 
other hand, nor is poverty of decisive importance here, of 
course: ³tramps² are poorer than the petty bourgeoisie, 
but nobody will say that they can undertake the task of 
³emancipating Russia.² 
As you see, the point is not which class today constitutes 
the majority, or which class is poorer, but which 
class is gaining strength and which is decaying.

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 303 
And as the proletariat is the only class which is 
steadily growing and gaining strength, which is pushing 
social life forward and rallying all the revolutionary elements 
around itself, our duty is to regard it as the main 
force in the present-day movement, join its ranks and 
make its progressive strivings our strivings. 
That is how the Marxists answered. 
Obviously the Marxists looked at life dialectically, 
whereas the Narodniks argued metaphysically‹they 
pictured social life as having become static at a particular 
stage. 
That is how the dialectical method looks upon the 
development of life. 
But there is movement and movement. There was 
movement in social life during the ³December days,² 
when the proletariat, straightening its back, stormed 
arms depots and launched an attack upon reaction. But 
the movement of preceding years, when the proletariat, 
under the conditions of ³peaceful² development, limited 
itself to individual strikes and the formation of small 
trade unions, must also be called social movement. 
Clearly, movement assumes different forms. 
And so the dialectical method says that movement has 
two forms: the evolutionary and the revolutionary form. 
Movement is evolutionary when the progressive elements 
spontaneously continue their daily activities and 
introduce minor, quantitative changes into the old order. 
Movement is revolutionary when the same elements 
combine, become imbued with a single idea and sweep 
down upon the enemy camp with the object of uprooting 
the old order and of introducing qualitative changes in 
life, of establishing a new order.

J. V. S T A L I N 304 
Evolution prepares for revolution and creates the 
ground for it; revolution consummates the process of 
evolution and facilitates its further activity. 
Similar processes take place in nature. The history 
of science shows that the dialectical method is a truly 
scientific method: from astronomy to sociology, in every 
field we find confirmation of the idea that nothing is 
eternal in the universe, everything changes, everything 
develops. Consequently, everything in nature must be 
regarded from the point of view of movement, development. 
And this means that the spirit of dialectics permeates 
the whole of present-day science. 
As regards the forms of movement, as regards the 
fact that according to dialectics, minor, quantitative 
changes sooner or later lead to major, qualitative changes‹ 
this law applies with equal force to the history of nature 
Mendeleyev¹s ³periodic system of elements² clearly 
shows how very important in the history of nature is 
the emergence of qualitative changes out of quantitative 
changes. The same thing is shown in biology by the 
theory of neo-Lamarckism, to which neo-Darwinism is 
yielding place. 
We shall say nothing about other facts, on which 
F. Engels has thrown sufficiently full light in his Anti- 
Dühring. 
Such is the content of the dialectical method. 
* 
* 
* 
How do the Anarchists look upon the dialectical 
method? 
Everybody knows that Hegel was the father of the 
dialectical method. Marx purged and improved this

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 305 
method. The Anarchists are aware of this, of course. 
They know that Hegel was a conservative, and so, taking 
advantage of this, they vehemently revile Hegel as a 
supporter of ³restoration,² they try with the utmost 
zeal to ³prove² that ³Hegel is a philosopher of restoration 
. . . that he eulogizes bureaucratic constitutionalism 
in its absolute form, that the general idea of 
his philosophy of history is subordinate to and serves 
the philosophical trend of the period of restoration,² 
and so on and so forth (see Nobati,85 No. 6. Article by 
V. Cherkezishvili.) 
The well-known Anarchist Kropotkin tries to ³prove² 
the same thing in his works (see, for example, his Science 
and Anarchism, in Russian). 
Our Kropotkinites, from Cherkezishvili right down 
to Sh. G., all with one voice echo Kropotkin (see Nobati). 
True, nobody contests what they say on this point; 
on the contrary, everybody agrees that Hegel was not 
a revolutionary. Marx and Engels themselves proved 
before anybody else did, in their Critique of Critical 
Criticism, that Hegel¹s views on history fundamentally 
contradict the idea of the sovereignty of the people. But 
in spite of this, the Anarchists go on trying to ³prove,² 
and deem it necessary to go on day in and day out trying 
to ³prove,² that Hegel was a supporter of ³restoration.² 
Why do they do this? Probably, in order by all this to 
discredit Hegel and make their readers feel that the 
³reactionary² Hegel¹s method also cannot be other than 
³repugnant² and unscientific. 
The Anarchists think that they can refute the dialectical 
method in this way.

J. V. S T A L I N 306
We affirm that in this way they can prove nothing 
but their own ignorance. Pascal and Leibnitz were not 
revolutionaries, but the mathematical method they 
discovered is recognised today as a scientific method. 
Mayer and Helmholtz were not revolutionaries, but their 
discoveries in the field of physics became the basis of 
science. Nor were Lamarck and Darwin revolutionaries, 
but their evolutionary method put biological science 
on its feet. . . . Why, then, should the fact not be admitted 
that, in spite of his conservatism, Hegel succeeded in 
working out a scientific method which is called the 
dialectical method? 
No, in this way the Anarchists will prove nothing 
but their own ignorance. 
To proceed. In the opinion of the Anarchists, ³dialectics 
is metaphysics,² and as they ³want to free science 
from metaphysics, philosophy from theology,² they 
repudiate the dialectical method (see Nobati, Nos. 3 
and 9. Sh. G. See also Kropotkin¹s Science and Anarchism). 
Oh, those Anarchists! As the saying goes: ³Blame 
others for your own sins.² Dialectics matured in the 
struggle against metaphysics and gained fame in this 
struggle; but according to the Anarchists, dialectics is 
metaphysics! 
Dialectics tells us that nothing in the world is eternal, 
everything in the world is transient and mutable; nature 
changes, society changes, habits and customs change, 
conceptions of justice change, truth itself changes‹that 
is why dialectics regards everything critically; that is 
why it denies the existence of a once-and-for-all established 
truth. Consequently, it also repudiates abstract 
³dogmatic propositions, which, once discovered, had

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 307 
merely to be learned by heart² (see F. Engels, Ludwig 
Feuerbach).86 
Metaphysics, however, tells us something altogether 
different. From its standpoint the world is something 
eternal and immutable (see F. Engels, Anti-Dühring), 
it has been once and for all determined by someone or 
something‹that is why the metaphysicians always have 
³eternal justice² or ³immutable truth² on their lips. 
Proudhon, the ³father² of the Anarchists, said 
that there existed in the world an immutable justice determined 
once and for all, which must be made the basis 
of future society. That is why Proudhon has been called 
a metaphysician. Marx fought Proudhon with the aid 
of the dialectical method and proved that since everything 
in the world changes, ³justice² must also change, 
and that, consequently, ³immutable justice² is metaphysical 
nonsense (see K. Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy). 
The Georgian disciples of the metaphysician 
Proudhon, however, keep reiterating that ³Marx¹s dialectics 
is metaphysics²! 
Metaphysics recognises various nebulous dogmas, 
such as, for example, the ³unknowable,² the ³thing-initself,² 
and, in the long run, passes into empty theology. 
In contrast to Proudhon and Spencer, Engels combated 
these dogmas with the aid of the dialectical method 
(see Ludwig Feuerbach); but the Anarchists‹the disciples 
of Proudhon and Spencer‹tell us that Proudhon 
and Spencer were scientists, whereas Marx and Engels 
were metaphysicians! 
One of two things: either the Anarchists are deceiving 
themselves, or else they do not know what they are 
talking about.

J. V. S T A L I N 308 
At all events, it is beyond doubt that the Anarchists 
confuse Hegel¹s metaphysical system with his dialectical 
method. 
Needless to say, Hegel¹s philosophical system, which 
rests on the immutable idea, is from beginning to end 
metaphysical. But it is also clear that Hegel¹s dialectical 
method, which repudiates all immutable ideas, is from 
beginning to end scientific and revolutionary. 
That is why Karl Marx, who subjected Hegel¹s metaphysical 
system to devastating criticism, at the same 
time praised his dialectical method, which, as Marx 
said, ³lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence 
critical and revolutionary² (see Capital, Vol. I. Preface). 
That is why Engels sees a big difference between 
Hegel¹s method and his system. ³Whoever placed the 
chief emphasis on the Hegelian system could be fairly 
conservative in both spheres; whoever regarded the 
dialectical method as the main thing could belong to the 
most extreme opposition, both in politics and religion² 
(see Ludwig Feuerbach). 
The Anarchists fail to see this difference and thoughtlessly 
maintain that ³dialectics is metaphysics.² 
To proceed. The Anarchists say that the dialectical 
method is ³subtle word-weaving,² ³the method of 
sophistry,² ³logical somersaults² (see Nobati, No. 8. Sh. G.), 
³with the aid of which both truth and falsehood are 
proved with equal facility² (see Nobati, No. 4. Article 
by V. Cherkezishvili). 
Thus, in the opinion of the Anarchists, the dialectical 
method proves both truth and falsehood. 
At first sight it would seem that the accusation advanced 
by the Anarchists has some foundation. Listen,

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 309 
for example, to what Engels says about the follower 
of the metaphysical method: 
³. . . His communication is: ŒYea, yea; nay, nay, 
for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.¹ For 
him a thing either exists, or it does not exist; it is equally 
impossible for a thing to be itself and at the same 
time something else. Positive and negative absolutely 
exclude one another . . .² (see Anti-Dühring. Introduction). 
How is that?‹the Anarchists cry heatedly. Is it 
possible for a thing to be good and bad at the same time?! 
That is ³sophistry,² ³juggling with words,² it shows 
that ³you want to prove truth and falsehood with equal 
facility²! . . . 
Let us, however, go into the substance of the matter. 
Today we are demanding a democratic republic. 
Can we say that a democratic republic is good in all 
respects, or bad in all respects? No we cannot! Why? 
Because a democratic republic is good only in one respect: 
when it destroys the feudal system; but it is bad in another 
respect: when it strengthens the bourgeois system. 
Hence we say: in so far as the democratic republic destroys 
the feudal system it is good‹and we fight for it; but in 
so far as it strengthens the bourgeois system it is bad‹ 
and we fight against it. 
So the same democratic republic can be ³good² and 
³bad² at the same time‹it is ³yes² and ³no.² 
The same thing may be said about the eight-hour 
day, which is good and bad at the same time: ³good² 
in so far as it strengthens the proletariat, and ³bad² in 
so far as it strengthens the wage system. 
It was facts of this kind that Engels had in mind

J. V. S T A L I N 310 
when he characterised the dialectical method in the 
words we quoted above. 
The Anarchists, however, fail to understand this, and 
an absolutely clear idea seems to them to be nebulous 
³sophistry.² 
The Anarchists are, of course, at liberty to note or 
ignore these facts, they may even ignore the sand on the 
sandy seashore‹they have every right to do that. But 
why drag in the dialectical method, which, unlike anarchism, 
does not look at life with its eyes shut, which has 
its finger on the pulse of life and openly says: since life 
changes and is in motion, every phenomenon of life has 
two trends: a positive and a negative; the first we must 
defend, the second we must reject. 
To proceed further. In the opinion of our Anarchists, 
³dialectical development is catastrophic development, 
by means of which, first the past is utterly destroyed, 
and then the future is established quite separately. . . . 
Cuvier¹s cataclysms were due to unknown causes, but 
Marx and Engels¹s catastrophes are engendered by 
dialectics² (see Nobati, No. 8. Sh. G.). 
In another place the same author writes: ³Marxism 
rests on Darwinism and treats i t uncritically² 
(see Nobati, No. 6). 
Now listen! 
Cuvier rejects Darwin¹s theory of evolution, he recognises 
only cataclysms, and cataclysms are unexpected 
upheavals ³due to unknown causes.² The Anarchists 
say that the Marxists adhere to Cuvier¹s view and therefore 
repudiate Darwinism. 
Darwin rejects Cuvier¹s cataclysms, he recognises 
gradual evolution. But the same Anarchists say that

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 311 
³Marxism rests on Darwinism and treats it uncritically,² 
i.e., the Marxists repudiate Cuvier¹s cataclysms. 
In short, the Anarchists accuse the Marxists of adhering 
to Cuvier¹s view and at the same time reproach 
them for adhering to Darwin¹s and not to Cuvier¹s view. 
This is anarchy if you like! As the saying goes: 
the Sergeant¹s widow flogged herself! Clearly, Sh. G. 
of No. 8 of Nobati forgot what Sh. G. of No. 6 said. 
Which is right: No. 8 or No. 6? 
Let us turn to the facts. Marx says: 
³At a certain stage of their development, the material 
productive forces of society come in conflict with the 
existing relations of production, or‹what is but a legal 
expression for the same thing‹with the property relations. 
. . . Then begins an epoch of social revolution.² 
But ³no social order ever perishes before all the productive 
forces for which there is room in it have developed 
. . .² (see K. Marx, A Contribution to the Critique 
of Political Economy. Preface).87 
If this thesis of Marx is applied to modern social 
life, we shall find that between the present-day productive 
forces, which are social in character, and the form of 
appropriation of the product, which is private in character, 
there is a fundamental conflict which must culminate 
in the socialist revolution (see F. Engels, Anti- 
Dühring, Part III, Chapter II). 
As you see, in the opinion of Marx and Engels, revolution 
is engendered not by Cuvier¹s ³unknown causes,² 
but by very definite and vital social causes called ³the 
development of the productive forces.² 
As you see, in the opinion of Marx and Engels, revolution 
comes only when the productive forces have

J. V. S T A L I N 312 
sufficiently matured, and not unexpectedly, as Cuvier 
thought. 
Clearly, there is nothing in common between Cuvier¹s 
cataclysms and Marx¹s dialectical method. 
On the other hand, Darwinism repudiates not only 
Cuvier¹s cataclysms, but also dialectically understood 
development, which includes revolution; whereas, from 
the standpoint of the dialectical method, evolution and 
revolution, quantitative and qualitative changes, are 
two essential forms of the same motion. 
Obviously, it is also wrong to assert that ³Marxism 
. . . treats Darwinism uncritically.² 
It turns out therefore, that Nobati is wrong in both 
cases, in No. 6 as well as in No. 8. 
Lastly, the Anarchists tell us reproachfully that 
³dialectics . . . provides no possibility of getting, or 
jumping, out of oneself, or of jumping over oneself² (see 
Nobati, No. 8. Sh. G.). 
Now that is the downright truth, Messieurs Anarchists! 
Here you are absolutely right, my dear sirs: the 
dialectical method does not, indeed, provide such a 
possibility. But why not? Because ³jumping out of 
oneself, or jumping over oneself² is an exercise for wild 
goats, while the dialectical method was created for 
human beings. 
That is the secret! . . . 
Such, in general, are the Anarchists¹ views on the 
dialectical method. 
Clearly, the Anarchists fail to understand the dialectical 
method of Marx and Engels; they have conjured up 
their own dialectics, and it is against this dialectics 
that they are fighting so ruthlessly.

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 313 
All we can do is to laugh as we gaze at this spectacle, 
for one cannot help laughing when one sees a man fighting 
his own imagination, smashing his own inventions, 
while at the same time heatedly asserting that he is 
smashing his opponent. 
II 
THE MATERIALIST THEORY 
³It is not the consciousness of men 
that determines their being, but, on 
the contrary, their social being that 
determines their consciousness.² 
Karl Marx 
We already know what the dialectical method is. 
What is the materialist theory? 
Everything in the world changes, everything in 
life develops, but how do these changes take place and 
in what form does this development proceed? 
We know, for example, that the earth was once an 
incandescent, fiery mass; then it gradually cooled, plants 
and animals appeared, the development of the animal 
kingdom was followed by the appearance of a certain 
species of ape, and all this was followed by the appearance 
of man. 
This, broadly speaking, is the way nature developed. 
We also know that social life did not remain static 
either. There was a time when men lived on a primitive-
communist basis; at that time they gained their 
livelihood by primitive hunting; they roamed through 
the forests and procured their food in that way. There 
came a time when primitive communism was superseded

J. V. S T A L I N 314 
by the matriarchate‹at that time men satisfied their 
needs mainly by means of primitive agriculture. Later 
the matriarchate was superseded by the patriarchate, 
under which men gained their livelihood mainly by cattlebreeding. 
The patriarchate was later superseded by the 
slave-owning system‹at that time men gained their 
livelihood by means of relatively more developed agriculture. 
The slave-owning system was followed by feudalism, 
and then, after all this, came the bourgeois system. 
That, broadly speaking, is the way social life developed. 
Yes, all this is well known. . . . But how did this 
development take place; did consciousness call forth 
the development of ³nature² and of ³society,² or, on the 
contrary, did the development of ³nature² and ³society² 
call forth the development of consciousness? 
This is how the materialist theory presents the question. 
Some people say that ³nature² and ³social life² were 
preceded by the universal idea, which subsequently 
served as the basis of their development, so that the 
development of the phenomena of ³nature² and of 
³social life² is, so to speak, the external form, merely the 
expression of the development of the universal idea. 
Such, for example, was the doctrine of the idealists, 
who in the course of time split up into several trends. 
Others say that from the very beginning there have 
existed in the world two mutually negating forces‹ 
idea and matter, consciousness and being, and that 
correspondingly, phenomena also fall into two categories‹
the ideal and the material, which negate each 
other, and contend against each other, so that the devel

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 315 
opment of nature and society is a constant struggle 
between ideal and material phenomena. 
Such, for example, was the doctrine of the dualists, 
who in the course of time, like the idealists, split up into 
several trends. 
The materialist theory utterly repudiates both dualism 
and idealism. 
Of course, both ideal and material phenomena exist 
in the world, but this does not mean that they negate each 
other. On the contrary, the ideal and the material sides 
are two different forms of one and the same nature or 
society, the one cannot be conceived without the other, 
they exist together, develop together, and, consequently, 
we have no grounds whatever for thinking that they 
negate each other. 
Thus, so-called dualism proves to be unsound. 
A single and indivisible nature expressed in two 
different forms‹material and ideal; a single and indivisible 
social life expressed in two different forms‹material 
and ideal‹that is how we should regard the development 
of nature and of social life. 
Such is the monism of the materialist theory. 
At the same time, the materialist theory also repudiates 
idealism. 
It is wrong to think that in its development the ideal 
side, and consciousness in general, precedes the development 
of the material side. So-called external ³non-living² 
nature existed before there were any living beings. 
The first living matter possessed no consciousness, it 
possessed only irritability and the first rudiments of sensation. 
Later, animals gradually developed the power of 
sensation, which slowly passed into consciousness, in

J. V. S T A L I N 316 
conformity with the development of the structure of their 
organisms and nervous systems. If the ape had always 
walked on all fours, if it had never stood upright, its 
descendant‹man‹would not have been able freely to 
use his lungs and vocal chords and, therefore, would 
not have been able to speak; and that would have fundamentally 
retarded the development of his consciousness. 
If, furthermore, the ape had not risen up on its hind 
legs, its descendant‹man‹would have been compelled 
always to walk on all fours, to look downwards and 
obtain his impressions only from there; he would have 
been unable to look up and around himself and, consequently, 
his brain would have obtained no more impressions 
than the brain of a quadruped. All this would 
have fundamentally retarded the development of human 
consciousness. 
It follows, therefore, that the development of consciousness 
needs a particular structure of the organism 
and development of its nervous system. 
It follows, therefore, that the development of the 
ideal side, the development of consciousness, is preceded 
by the development of the material side, the development 
of the external conditions: first the external 
conditions change, first the material side changes, and 
then consciousness, the ideal side, changes accordingly. 
Thus, the history of the development of nature 
utterly refutes so-called idealism. 
The same thing must be said about the history of 
the development of human society. 
History shows that if at different times men were 
imbued with different ideas and desires, the reason for 
this is that at different times men fought nature in dif

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 317 
ferent ways to satisfy their needs and, accordingly, their 
economic relations assumed different forms. There was 
a time when men fought nature collectively, on the 
basis of primitive communism; at that time their property 
was communist property and, therefore, at that 
time they drew scarcely any distinction between ³mine² 
and ³thine,² their consciousness was communistic. There 
came a time when the distinction between ³mine² and 
³thine² penetrated the process of production; at that 
time property, too, assumed a private, individualist 
character and, therefore, the consciousness of men became 
imbued with the sense of private property. Then 
came the time, the present time, when production is again 
assuming a social character and, consequently, property, 
too, will soon assume a social character‹and this is precisely 
why the consciousness of men is gradually becoming 
imbued with socialism. 
Here is a simple illustration. Let us take a shoemaker 
who owned a tiny workshop, but who, unable to withstand 
the competition of the big manufacturers, closed 
his workshop and took a job, say, at Adelkhanov¹s shoe 
factory in Tiflis. He went to work at Adelkhanov¹s 
factory not with the view to becoming a permanent 
wage-worker, but with the object of saving up some 
money, of accumulating a little capital to enable him to 
reopen his workshop. As you see, the position of this 
shoemaker is already proletarian, but his consciousness 
is still non-proletarian, it is thoroughly petty-bourgeois. 
In other words, this shoemaker has already lost his pettybourgeois 
position, it has gone, but his petty-bourgeois 
consciousness has not yet gone, it has lagged behind his 
actual position.

J. V. S T A L I N 318 
Clearly, here too, in social life, first the external conditions 
change, first the conditions of men change and 
then their consciousness changes accordingly. 
But let us return to our shoemaker. As we already 
know, he intends to save up some money and then reopen 
his workshop. This proletarianised shoemaker goes on 
working, but finds that it is a very difficult matter to save 
money, because what he earns barely suffices to maintain 
an existence. Moreover, he realises that the opening 
of a private workshop is after all not so alluring: the 
rent he will have to pay for the premises, the caprices 
of customers, shortage of money, the competition of 
the big manufacturers and similar worries‹such are 
the many troubles that torment the private workshop 
owner. On the other hand, the proletarian is relatively 
freer from such cares; he is not troubled by customers, 
or by having to pay rent for premises. He goes to the 
factory every morning, ³calmly² goes home in the 
evening, and as calmly pockets his ³pay² on Saturdays. 
Here, for the first time, the wings of our shoemaker¹s 
petty-bourgeois dreams are clipped; here for 
the first time proletarian strivings awaken in his 
soul. 
Time passes and our shoemaker sees that he has 
not enough money to satisfy his most essential needs, 
that what he needs very badly is a rise in wages. At the 
same time, he hears his fellow-workers talking about 
unions and strikes. Here our shoemaker realises that in 
order to improve his conditions he must fight the masters 
and not open a workshop of his own. He joins the union, 
enters the strike movement, and soon becomes imbued 
with socialist ideas. . . .

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 319 
Thus, in the long run, the change in the shoemaker¹s 
material conditions was followed by a change in his 
consciousness: first his material conditions changed, 
and then, after a time, his consciousness changed accordingly. 
The same must be said about classes and about 
society as a whole. 
In social life, too, first the external conditions 
change, first the material conditions change, and then the 
ideas of men, their habits, customs and their world 
outlook change accordingly. 
That is why Marx says: 
³It is not the consciousness of men that determines 
their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that 
determines their consciousness.² 
If we can call the material side, the external conditions, 
being, and other phenomena of the same kind, 
the content, then we can call the ideal side, consciousness 
and other phenomena of the same kind, the form. Hence 
arose the well-known materialist proposition: in the process 
of development content precedes form, form lags behind 
content. 
And as, in Marx¹s opinion, economic development 
is the ³material foundation² of social life, its content, 
while legal-political and religious-philosophical development 
is the ³ideological form² of this content, its 
³superstructure,² Marx draws the conclusion that: ³With 
the change of the economic foundation the entire immense 
superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed.² 
This, of course, does not mean that in Marx¹s opinion 
content is possible without form, as Sh. G. imagines 
(see Noboati, No. 1. ³A Critique of Monism²). Content

J. V. S T A L I N 320 
is impossible without form, but the point is that since 
a given form lags behind its content, it never fully corresponds 
to this content; and so the new content is 
³obliged² to clothe itself for a time in the old form, and 
this causes a conflict between them. At the present time, 
for example, the form of appropriation of the product, 
which is private in character, does not correspond to the 
social content of production, and this is the basis of the 
present-day social ³conflict.² 
On the other hand, the idea that consciousness is 
a form of being does not mean that by its nature consciousness, 
too, is matter. That was the opinion held only 
by the vulgar materialists (for example, Büchner and 
Moleschott), whose theories fundamentally contradict 
Marx¹s materialism, and whom Engels rightly ridiculed 
in his Ludwig Feuerbach. According to Marx¹s materialism, 
consciousness and being, idea and matter, are 
two different forms of the same phenomenon, which, 
broadly speaking, is called nature, or society. Consequently, 
they do not negate each other*; nor are they 
one and the same phenomenon. The only point is that, 
in the development of nature and society, consciousness, 
i.e., what takes place in our heads, is preceded by a corresponding 
material change, i.e., what takes place outside 
of us; any given material change is, sooner or later, 
inevitably followed by a corresponding ideal change. 
Very well, we shall be told, perhaps this is true as 
* This does not contradict the idea that there is a conflict 
between form and content. The point is that the conflict is not 
between content and form in general, but between the old form 
and the new content, which is seeking a new form and is striving 
towards it.

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 321 
applied to the history of nature and society. But how 
do different conceptions and ideas arise in our heads 
at the present time? Do so-called external conditions 
really exist, or is i t only our conceptions of these 
external conditions that exist? And if external conditions 
exist, to what degree are they perceptible and 
cognizable? 
On this point the materialist theory says that our 
conceptions, our ³self,² exist only in so far as external 
conditions exist that give rise to impressions in our 
³self.² Whoever unthinkingly says that nothing exists 
but our conceptions, is compelled to deny the existence 
of all external conditions and, consequently, must deny 
the existence of all other people and admit the existence 
only of his own ³self,² which is absurd, and utterly 
contradicts the principles of science. 
Obviously, external conditions do actually exist; 
these conditions existed before us, and will exist after 
us; and the more often and the more strongly they affect 
our consciousness, the more easily perceptible and cognizable 
do they become. 
As regards the question as to how different conceptions 
and ideas arise in our heads at the present time, 
we must observe that here we have a repetition in brief 
of what takes place in the history of nature and society. 
In this case, too, the object outside of us preceded our 
conception of it; in this case, too, our conception, the 
form, lags behind the object‹behind its content. When 
I look at a tree and see it‹that only shows that this 
tree existed even before the conception of a tree arose in 
my head, that it was this tree that aroused the corresponding 
conception in my head. . . .

J. V. S T A L I N 322 
Such, in brief, is the content of Marx¹s materialist 
theory. 
The importance of the materialist theory for the 
practical activities of mankind can be readily understood. 
If the economic conditions change first and the consciousness 
of men undergoes a corresponding change later, 
it is clear that we must seek the grounds for a given ideal 
not in the minds of men, not in their imaginations, but 
in the development of their economic conditions. Only 
that ideal is good and acceptable which is based on a 
study of economic conditions. All those ideals which 
ignore economic conditions and are not based upon their 
development are useless and unacceptable. 
Such is the first practical conclusion to be drawn 
from the materialist theory. 
If the consciousness of men, their habits and customs, 
are determined by external conditions, if the unsuitability 
of legal and political forms rests on an economic content, 
it is clear that we must help to bring about a radical 
change in economic relations in order, with this change, 
to bring about a radical change in the habits and customs 
of the people, and in their political system. 
Here is what Karl Marx says on that score: 
³No great acumen is required to perceive the necessary 
interconnection of materialism with . . . socialism. 
If man constructs all his knowledge, perceptions, 
etc., from the world of sense . . . then it follows that 
it is a question of so arranging the empirical world 
that he experiences the truly human in it, that he becomes 
accustomed to experiencing himself as a human 
being. . . . If man is unfree in the materialist sense‹that

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 323 
is, is free not by reason of the negative force of being 
able to avoid this or that, but by reason of the positive 
power to assert his true individuality, then one should 
not punish individuals for crimes, but rather destroy 
the anti-social breeding places of crime. . . . If man is 
moulded circumstances, then the circumstances 
must be moulded humanly² (see Ludwig Feuerbach, 
Appendix: ³Karl Marx on the History of French Materialism 
of the XVIII Century²).88 
Such is the second practical conclusion to be drawn 
from the materialist theory. 
* 
* 
* 
What is the anarchist view of the materialist theory 
of Marx and Engels? 
While the dialectical method originated with Hegel, 
the materialist theory is a further development of the 
materialism of Feuerbach. The Anarchists know this 
very well, and they try to take advantage of the defects 
of Hegel and Feuerbach to discredit the dialectical 
materialism of Marx and Engels. We have already 
shown with reference to Hegel and the dialectical method 
that these tricks of the Anarchists prove nothing but 
their own ignorance. The same must be said with reference 
to their attacks on Feuerbach and the materialist 
theory. 
For example. The Anarchists t e l l us with great 
aplomb that ³Feuerbach was a pantheist . . .² that he 
³deified man . . .² (see Nobati, No. 7. D. Delendi), 
that ³in Feuerbach¹s opinion man is what he eats . . .² 
alleging that from this Marx drew the following conclusion: 
³Consequently, the main and primary thing

J. V. S T A L I N 324 
is economic conditions . . .² (see Nobati, No. 6, 
Sh. G.). 
True, nobody has any doubts about Feuerbach¹s 
pantheism, his deification of man, and other errors 
of his of the same kind. On the contrary, Marx and 
Engels were the first to reveal Feuerbach¹s errors. 
Nevertheless, the Anarchists deem it necessary once 
again to ³expose² the already exposed errors. Why? 
Probably because, in reviling Feuerbach, they want 
indirectly to discredit the materialist theory of Marx 
and Engels. Of course, if we examine the subject impartially 
we shall certainly find that in addition to erroneous 
ideas, Feuerbach gave utterance to correct ideas, as has 
been the case with many scholars in history. Nevertheless, 
the Anarchists go on ³exposing.² . . . 
We say again that by tricks of this kind they prove 
nothing but their own ignorance. 
It is interesting to note (as we shall see later on) 
that the Anarchists took it into their heads to criticise 
the materialist theory from hearsay, without any 
acquaintance with i t . As a consequence, they often 
contradict and refute each other, which, of course, 
makes our ³critics² look ridiculous. If, for example, 
we listen to what Mr. Cherkezishvili has to say, i t 
would appear that Marx and Engels detested monistic 
materialism, that their materialism was vulgar and not 
monistic materialism: 
³The great science of the naturalists, with its system 
of evolution, transformism and monistic materialism, 
which Engels so heartily detested . . . avoided dialectics,² 
etc. (see Nobati, No. 4. V. Cherkezishvili). 
It follows, therefore, that natural-scientific mate

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 325 
rialism, which Cherkezishvili approves of and which 
Engels ³detested,² was monistic materialism and, therefore, 
deserves approval, whereas the materialism of Marx 
and Engels is not monistic and, of course, does not 
deserve recognition. 
Another Anarchist, however, says that the materialism 
of Marx and Engels is monistic and therefore should 
be rejected. 
³Marx¹s conception of history is a throwback to 
Hegel. The monistic materialism of absolute objectivism 
in general, and Marx¹s economic monism in particular, 
are impossible in nature and fallacious in theory. . . . 
Monistic materialism is poorly disguised dualism and 
a compromise between metaphysics and science . . . ² 
(see Nobati, No. 6. Sh. G.). 
It would follow, therefore, that monistic materialism 
is unacceptable, that Marx and Engels do not detest it, 
but, on the contrary, are themselves monistic materialists‹
and therefore, monistic materialism must be rejected. 
They are all at sixes and sevens. Try and make out 
which of them is right, the former or the latter! They 
have not yet agreed among themselves about the merits 
and demerits of Marx¹s materialism, they have not yet 
understood whether it is monistic or not, and have not 
yet made up their minds themselves as to which is the 
more acceptable, vulgar or monistic materialism‹but 
they already deafen us with their boastful claims to have 
shattered Marxism! 
Well, well, if Messieurs the Anarchists continue 
to shatter each other¹s views as zealously as they are 
doing now, we need say no more, the future belongs 
to the Anarchists. . . .

J. V. S T A L I N 326 
No less ridiculous is the fact that certain ³celeblated² 
Anarchists, notwithstanding their ³celebrity,² have 
not yet made themselves familiar with the different 
trends in science. It appears that they are ignorant of 
the fact that there are various kinds of materialism in 
science which differ a great deal from each other: there 
is, for example, vulgar materialism, which denies the 
importance of the ideal side and the effect it has upon 
the material side; but there is also so-called monistic 
materialism‹the materialist theory of Marx‹which 
scientifically examines the interrelation between the 
ideal and the material sides. But the Anarchists confuse 
these different kinds of materialism, fail to see even the 
obvious differences between them, and at the same time 
affirm with great aplomb that they are regenerating 
science! 
P. Kropotkin, for example, smugly asserts in his 
³philosophical² works that anarcho-communism rests 
on ³contemporary materialist philosophy,² but he does 
not utter a single word to explain on which ³materialist 
philosophy² anarcho-communism rests: on vulgar, 
monistic, or some other. Evidently he is ignorant of the 
fact that there are fundamental contradictions between 
the different trends of materialism, and he fails to understand 
that to confuse these trends means not ³regenerating 
science,² but displaying one¹s own downright ignorance 
(see Kropotkin, Science and Anarchism, and also 
Anarchy and Its Philosophy). 
The same thing must be said about Kropotkin¹s 
Georgian disciples. Listen to this: 
³In the opinion of Engels, and also of Kautsky, 
Marx rendered mankind a great service in that he. . .²

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 327 
among other things, discovered the ³materialist conception. 
Is this true? We do not think so, for we know . . . 
that all the historians, scientists and philosophers who 
adhere to the view that the social mechanism is set in 
motion by geographic, climatic and telluric, cosmic, 
anthropological and biological conditions‹are all materialists² 
(see Nobati, No. 2). 
It follows, therefore, that there is no difference whatever 
between the ³materialism² of Aristotle and Holbach, 
or between the ³materialism² of Marx and Moleschott! 
This is criticism if you like! And people whose knowledge 
is on such a level have taken it into their heads 
to renovate science! Indeed, it is an apt saying: ³It¹s 
a bad lookout when a cobbler begins to bake pies! . . .² 
To proceed. Our ³celebrated² Anarchists heard somewhere 
that Marx¹s materialism was a ³belly theory,² and 
so they rebuke us, Marxists, saying: 
³In the opinion of Feuerbach, man is what he eats. 
This formula had a magic effect on Marx and Engels,² 
and, as a consequence, Marx drew the conclusion that 
³the main and primary thing is economic conditions, 
relations of production. . . .² And then the Anarchists 
proceed to instruct us in a philosophical tone: ³It would 
be a mistake to say that the sole means of achieving 
this object of social life) is eating and economic 
production. . . . If ideology were determined mainly, 
monistically, by eating and economic conditions‹then 
some gluttons would be geniuses² (see Nobati, No. 6. 
Sh. G.). 
You see how easy it is to refute the materialism of 
Marx and Engels! It is sufficient to hear some gossip 
in the street from some schoolgirl about Marx and

J. V. S T A L I N 328 
Engels, it is sufficient to repeat that street gossip with 
philosophical aplomb in the columns of a paper like 
Nobati, to leap into fame as a ³critic² of Marxism! 
But tell me, gentlemen: Where, when, on which planet, 
and which Marx did you hear say that ³eating determines 
ideology²? Why did you not cite a single sentence, a 
single word from the works of Marx to back your assertion? 
True, Marx said that the economic conditions of men 
determine their consciousness, their ideology, but who 
told you that eating and economic conditions are the 
same thing? Don¹t you really know that physiological 
phenomena, such as eating, for example, differ fundamentally 
from sociological phenomena, such as the economic 
conditions of men, for example? One can forgive a 
schoolgirl, say, for confusing these two different phenomena; 
but how is it that you, the ³vanquishers of Social- 
Democracy,² ³regenerators of science,² so carelessly repeat 
the mistake of a schoolgirl? 
How, indeed, can eating determine social ideology? 
Ponder over what you yourselves have said: eating, the 
form of eating, does not change; in ancient times people 
ate, masticated and digested their food in the same way as 
they do now, but ideology changes all the time. Ancient, 
feudal, bourgeois and proletarian‹such are the forms 
of ideology. Is it conceivable that that which does not 
change can determine that which is constantly changing? 
To proceed further. In the opinion of the Anarchists, 
Marx¹s materialism ³is parallelism. . . .² Or again: ³monistic 
materialism is poorly disguised dualism and a 
compromise between metaphysics and science. . . .² 
³Marx drops into dualism because he depicts relations of 
production as material, and human striving and will as

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 329 
an illusion and a utopia, which, even though it exists, 
is of no importance² (see Nobati, No. 6. Sh. G.). 
Firstly, Marx¹s monistic materialism has nothing 
in common with silly parallelism. From the standpoint 
of this materialism, the material side, content, necessarily 
precedes the ideal side, form. Parallelism, however, 
repudiates this view and emphatically affirms that neither 
the material nor the ideal comes first, that both develop 
together, side by side. 
Secondly, even if Marx had in fact ³depicted relations 
of production as material, and human striving and will 
as an illusion and a utopia having no importance,² does 
that mean that Marx was a dualist? The dualist, as 
is well known, ascribes equal importance to the ideal 
and material sides as two opposite principles. But if, 
as you say, Marx attaches higher importance to the 
material side and no importance to the ideal side because 
it is a ³utopia,² how do you make out that Marx was 
a dualist, Messieurs ³Critics²? 
Thirdly, what connection can there be between materialist 
monism and dualism, when even a child knows 
that monism springs from one principle‹nature, or being, 
which has a material and an ideal form, whereas 
dualism springs from two principles‹the material and 
the ideal, which, according to dualism, negate each other? 
Fourthly, when did Marx depict ³human striving 
and will as a utopia and an illusion²? True, Marx explained 
³human striving and will² by economic development, 
and when the strivings of certain armchair philosophers 
failed to harmonise with economic conditions 
he called them utopian. But does this mean that Marx 
believed that human striving in general is utopian? Does

J. V. S T A L I N 330 
this, too, really need explanation? Have you really not 
read Marx¹s statement that: ³mankind always sets itself 
only such tasks as it can solve² (see Preface to A Contribution 
to the Critique of Political Economy), i.e., that, 
generally speaking, mankind does not pursue utopian 
aims? Clearly, either our ³critic² does not know what 
he is talking about, or he is deliberately distorting the 
facts. 
Fifthly, who told you that in the opinion of Marx and 
Engels ³human striving and will are of no importance²? 
Why do you not point to the place where they say that? 
Does not Marx speak of the importance of ³striving 
and will² in his Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 
in his Class Struggles in France, in his Civil War in 
France, and in other pamphlets of the same kind? Why 
then did Marx try to develop the proletarians¹ ³will 
and striving² in the socialist spirit, why did he conduct 
propaganda among them if he attached no importance 
to ³striving and will²? Or, what did Engels talk about 
in his well-known articles of 1891-94 if not the ³importance 
of will and striving²? True, in Marx¹s opinion 
human ³will and striving² acquire their content from 
economic conditions, but does that mean that they themselves 
exert no influence on the development of economic 
relations? Is it really so difficult for the Anarchists to 
understand such a simple idea? 
Here is another ³accusation² Messieurs the Anarchists 
make: ³form is inconceivable without content . . .² therefore, 
one cannot say that ³form comes after content 
(lags behind content. K.) . . . they Œco-exist.¹. . . Otherwise, 
monism would be an absurdity² (see Nobati, No. 1. 
Sh. G.).

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 331 
Our ³scholar² is somewhat confused again. It is 
quite true that content is inconceivable without form. 
But it is also true that the existing form never fully corresponds 
to the existing content: the former lags behind 
the latter, to a certain extent the new content is always 
clothed in the old form and, as a consequence, there 
is always a conflict between the old form and the new 
content. It is precisely on this ground that revolutions 
occur, and this, among other things, expresses the revolutionary 
spirit of Marx¹s materialism. The ³celebrated² 
Anarchists, however, have failed to understand this, 
and for this they themselves and not the materialist 
theory are to blame, of course. 
Such are the views of the Anarchists on the materialist 
theory of Marx and Engels, that is, if they can be 
called views at all. 
III 
PROLETARIAN SOCIALISM 
We are now familiar with Marx¹s theoretical doctrine; 
we are familiar with his method and also with his 
theory. 
What practical conclusions must we draw from this 
doctrine? 
What connection is there between dialectical materialism 
and proletarian socialism? 
The dialectical method affirms that only that class 
which is growing day by day, which always marches 
forward and fights unceasingly for a better future, can be 
progressive to the end, only that class can smash the yoke 
of slavery. We see that the only class which is steadily

J. V. S T A L I N 332 
growing, which always marches forward and is fighting for 
the future is the urban and rural proletariat. Therefore, 
we must serve the proletariat and place our hopes on it. 
Such is the first practical conclusion to be drawn 
from Marx¹s theoretical doctrine. 
But there is service and service. Bernstein also ³serves² 
the proletariat when he urges it to forget about socialism. 
Kropotkin also ³serves² the proletariat when he offers 
it community ³socialism,² which is scattered and has 
no broad industrial base. And Karl Marx serves the proletariat 
when he calls it to proletarian socialism, which 
will rest on the broad basis of modern large-scale industry. 
What must we do in order that our activities may 
benefit the proletariat? How should we serve the proletariat? 
The materialist theory affirms that a given ideal 
may be of direct service to the proletariat only if it does 
not run counter to the economic development of the 
country, if it fully answers to the requirements of that 
development. The economic development of the capitalist 
system shows that present-day production is assuming 
a social character, that the social character of 
production is a fundamental negation of existing capitalist 
property; consequently, our main task is to help to 
abolish capitalist property and to establish socialist 
property. And that means that the doctrine of Bernstein, 
who urges that socialism should be forgotten, fundamentally 
contradicts the requirements of economic development‹
it is harmful to the proletariat. 
Further, the economic development of the capitalist 
system shows that present-day production is expanding 
day by day; i t is not confined within the limits of

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 333 
individual towns and provinces, but constantly overflows 
these limits and embraces the territory of the whole 
state‹consequently, we must welcome the expansion of 
production and regard as the basis of future socialism not 
separate towns and communities, but the entire and indivisible 
territory of the whole state which, in future, will, 
of course, expand more and more. And this means that the 
doctrine advocated by Kropotkin, which confines future 
socialism within the limits of separate towns and communities, 
is contrary to the interests of a powerful expansion 
of production‹it is harmful to the proletariat. 
Fight for a broad socialist life as the principal goal‹ 
this is how we should serve the proletariat. 
Such is the second practical conclusion to be drawn 
from Marx¹s theoretical doctrine. 
Clearly, proletarian socialism is the logical deduction 
from dialectical materialism. 
What is proletarian socialism? 
The present system is a capitalist system. This means 
that the world is divided up into two opposing camps, 
the camp of a small handful of capitalists and the camp 
of the majority‹the proletarians. The proletarians work 
day and night, nevertheless they remain poor. The capitalists 
do not work, nevertheless they are rich. This 
takes place not because the proletarians are unintelligent 
and the capitalists are geniuses, but because the capitalists 
appropriate the fruits of the labour of the proletarians, 
because the capitalists exploit the proletarians. 
Why are the fruits of the labour of the proletarians 
appropriated by the capitalists and not by the proletarians? 
Why do the capitalists exploit the proletarians 
and not vice versa?

J. V. S T A L I N 334 
Because the capitalist system is based on commodity 
production: here everything assumes the form of a commodity, 
everywhere the principle of buying and selling 
prevails. Here you can buy not only articles of consumption, 
not only food products, but also the labour power 
of men, their blood and their consciences. The capitalists 
know all this and purchase the labour power of the 
proletarians, they hire them. This means that the capitalists 
become the owners of the labour power they buy. 
The proletarians, however, lose their right to the labour 
power which they have sold. That is to say, what is produced 
by that labour power no longer belongs to the 
proletarians, it belongs only to the capitalists and goes 
into their pockets. The labour power which you have 
sold may produce in the course of a day goods to the value 
of 100 rubles, but that is not your business, those goods 
do not belong to you, it is the business only of the capitalists, 
and the goods belong to them‹all that you are 
due to receive is your daily wage which, perhaps, may be 
sufficient to satisfy your essential needs if, of course, you 
live frugally. Briefly: the capitalists buy the labour power 
of the proletarians, they hire the proletarians, and 
this is precisely why the capitalists appropriate the fruits 
of the labour of the proletarians, this is precisely why 
the capitalists exploit the proletarians and not vice versa. 
But why is it precisely the capitalists who buy the 
labour power of the proletarians? Why do the capitalists 
hire the proletarians and not vice versa? 
Because the principal basis of the capitalist system 
is the private ownership of the instruments and means 
of production. Because the factories, mills, the land and 
minerals, the forests, the railways, machines and other

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 335 
means of production have become the private property 
of a small handful of capitalists. Because the proletarians 
lack all this. That is why the capitalists hire proletarians 
to keep the factories and mills going‹if they did not 
do that their instruments and means of production would 
yield no profit. That is why the proletarians sell their 
labour power to the capitalists‹if they did not, they 
would die of starvation. 
All this throws light on the general character of 
capitalist production. Firstly, it is self-evident that 
capitalist production cannot be united and organised: 
it is all split up among the private enterprises of individual 
capitalists. Secondly, it is also clear that the 
immediate purpose of this scattered production is not to 
satisfy the needs of the people, but to produce goods for 
sale in order to increase the profits of the capitalists. 
But as every capitalist strives to increase his profits, 
each one tries to produce the largest possible quantity 
of goods and, as a result, the market is soon glutted, 
prices fall and‹a general crisis sets in. 
Thus, crises, unemployment, suspension of production, 
anarchy of production, and the like, are the direct 
results of present-day unorganised capitalist production. 
If this unorganised social system still remains standing, 
if it still firmly withstands the attacks of the proletariat, 
it is primarily because it is protected by the 
capitalist state, by the capitalist government. 
Such is the basis of present-day capitalist society. 
* 
* 
* 
There can be no doubt that future society will be 
built on an entirely different basis.

J. V. S T A L I N 336 
Future society will be socialist society. This means 
primarily, that there will be no classes in that society; 
there will be neither capitalists nor proletarians and, consequently, 
there will be no exploitation. In that society 
there will be only workers engaged in collective labour. 
Future society will be socialist society. This means 
also that, with the abolition of exploitation commodity 
production and buying and selling will also be abolished 
and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and 
sellers of labour power, for employers and employed‹ 
there will be only free workers. 
Future society will be socialist society. This means, 
lastly, that in that society the abolition of wage-labour 
will be accompanied by the complete abolition of the 
private ownership of the instruments and means of production; 
there will be neither poor proletarians nor rich 
capitalists‹there will be only workers who collectively 
own all the land and minerals, all the forests, all the 
factories and mills, all the railways, etc. 
As you see, the main purpose of production in the 
future will be to satisfy the needs of society and not 
to produce goods for sale in order to increase the profits 
of the capitalists. Where there will be no room for commodity 
production, struggle for profits, etc. 
It is also clear that future production will be socialistically 
organised, highly developed production, which 
will take into account the needs of society and will 
produce as much as society needs. Here there will be 
no room whether for scattered production, competition, 
crises, or unemployment. 
Where there are no classes, where there are neither 
rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 337 
need either for political power, which oppresses the poor 
and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society 
there will be no need for the existence of political 
power. 
That is why Karl Marx said as far back as 1846: 
³The working class in the course of its development 
Will substitute for the old bourgeois society an association 
which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and 
there will be no more political power properly so-called . . .² 
(see The Poverty of Philosophy).89 
That is why Engels said in 1884: 
³The state, then, has not existed from all eternity. 
There have been societies that did without it, that had 
no conception of the state and state power. At a certain 
stage of economic development, which was necessarily 
bound up with the cleavage of society into classes, the 
state became a necessity. . . . We are now rapidly approaching 
a stage in the development of production at 
which the existence of these classes not only will have 
ceased to be a necessity, but will become a positive 
hindrance to production. They will fall as inevitably 
as they arose at an earlier stage. Along with them the 
state will inevitably fall. The society that will organise 
production on the basis of a free and equal association 
of the producers will put the whole machinery of state 
where it will then belong: into the Museum of Antiquities, 
by the side of the spinning wheel and the bronze 
axe² (see The Origin of the Family, Private Property 
and the State).90 
At the same time, it is self-evident that for the purpose 
of administering public affairs there will have to 
be in socialist society, in addition to local offices which

J. V. S T A L I N 338 
will collect all sorts of information, a central statistical 
bureau, which will collect information about the needs 
of the whole of society, and then distribute the various 
kinds of work among the working people accordingly. 
It will also be necessary to hold conferences, and particularly 
congresses, the decisions of which will certainly 
be binding upon the comrades in the minority until the 
next congress is held. 
Lastly, it is obvious that free and comradely labour 
should result in an equally comradely, and complete, 
satisfaction of all needs in the future socialist society. 
This means that if future society demands from each of 
its members as much labour as he can perform, it, in 
its turn, must provide each member with all the products 
he needs. From each according to his ability, 
to each according to his needs!‹such is the basis upon 
which the future collectivist system must be created. 
It goes without saying that in the first stage of socialism, 
when elements who have not yet grown accustomed 
to work are being drawn into the new way of life, when 
the productive forces also will not yet have been sufficiently 
developed and there will still be ³dirty² and 
³clean² work to do, the application of the principle: 
³to each according to his needs,² will undoubtedly 
be greatly hindered and, as a consequence, society 
will be obliged temporarily to take some other path, a 
middle path. But it is also clear that when future society 
runs into its groove, when the survivals of capitalism 
will have been eradicated, the only principle that will 
conform to socialist society will be the one pointed 
out above. 
That is why Marx said in 1875:

FROM MARX 
TO MAO 

 
NOT FOR 
COMMERCIAL 
DISTRIBUTION 
339 
³In a higher phase of communist (i.e., socialist) 
society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual 
to the division of labour, and therewith also the 
antithesis between mental and physical labour, has 
vanished; after labour has become not only a means of 
livelihood but life¹s prime want; after the productive 
forces have also increased with the all-round development 
of the individual . . . only then can the narrow 
horizon of bourgeois law be crossed in its entirety and 
society inscribe on its banners: ŒFrom each according 
to his ability, to each according to his needs¹² (see 
Critique of the Gotha Programme).91 
Such, in general, is the picture of future socialist 
society according to the theory of Marx. 
This is all very well. But is the achievement of 
socialism conceivable? Can we assume that man will rid 
himself of his ³savage habits²? 
Or again: if everybody receives according to his 
needs, can we assume that the level of the productive 
forces of socialist society will be adequate for this? 
Socialist society presupposes an adequate development 
of productive forces and socialist consciousness 
among men, their socialist enlightenment. At the present 
time the development of productive forces is hindered 
by the existence of capitalist property, but if we bear 
in mind that this capitalist property will not exist in 
future society, it is self-evident that the productive forces 
will increase tenfold. Nor must it be forgotten that in 
future society the hundreds of thousands of present-day 
parasites, and also the unemployed, will set to work 
and augment the ranks of the working people; and 
this will greatly stimulate the development of the 
ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM

J. V. S T A L I N 340 
productive forces. As regards men¹s ³savage² sentiments 
and opinions, these are not as eternal as some people imagine; 
there was a time, under primitive communism, when 
man did not recognise private property; there came a 
time, the time of individualistic production, when private 
property dominated the hearts and minds of men; a new 
time is coming, the time of socialist production‹will 
it be surprising if the hearts and minds of men become 
imbued with socialist strivings? Does not being determine 
the ³sentiments² and opinions of men? 
But what proof is there that the establishment of 
the socialist system is inevitable? Must the development 
of modern capitalism inevitably be followed by socialism? 
Or, in other words: How do we know that Marx¹s 
proletarian socialism is not merely a sentimental dream, 
a fantasy? Where is the scientific proof that it is not? 
History shows that the form of property is directly 
determined by the form of production and, as a consequence, 
a change in the form of production is sooner 
or later inevitably followed by a change in the form of 
property. There was a time when property bore a communistic 
character, when the forests and fields in which 
primitive men roamed belonged to all and not to individuals. 
Why did communist property exist at that time? 
Because production was communistic, labour was performed 
in common, collectively‹all worked together and 
could not dispense with each other. A different period set 
in, the period of petty-bourgeois production, when property 
assumed an individualistic (private) character, when 
everything that man needed (with the exception, of 
course, of air, sunlight, etc.) was regarded as private property. 
Why did this change take place? Because produc

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 341 
tion became individualistic; each one began to work for 
himself, stuck in his own little corner. Finally there came 
a time, the time of large-scale capitalist production, when 
hundreds and thousands of workers gather under one 
roof, in one factory, and engage in collective labour. 
Here you do not see the old method of working individually, 
each pulling his own way‹here every worker 
is closely associated in his work with his comrades in 
his own shop, and all of them are associated with the 
other shops. It is sufficient for one shop to stop work 
for the workers in the entire plant to become idle. As 
you see, the process of production, labour, has already 
assumed a social character, has acquired a socialist hue. 
And this takes place not only in individual factories, 
but in entire branches of industry, and between branches 
of industry; it is sufficient for the railwaymen to go on 
strike for production to be put in difficulties, i t is 
sufficient for the production of oil and coal to come to a 
standstill for whole factories and mills to close down 
after a time. Clearly, here the process of production has 
assumed a social, collective character. As, however, the 
private character of appropriation does not correspond to 
the social character of production, as present-day collective 
labour must inevitably lead to collective property, 
it is self-evident that the socialist system will follow 
capitalism as inevitably as day follows night. 
That is how history proves the inevitability of Marx¹s 
proletarian socialism. 
* 
* 
* 
History teaches us that the class or social group 
which plays the principal role in social production and

J. V. S T A L I N 342 
performs the main functions in production must, in the 
course of time, inevitably take control of that production. 
There was a time, under the matriarchate, when women 
were regarded as the masters of production. Why was 
this? Because under the kind of production then prevailing, 
primitive agriculture, women played the principal 
role in production, they performed the main functions, 
while the men roamed the forests in quest of game. 
Then came the time, under the patriarchate, when the 
predominant position in production passed to men. Why 
did this change take place? Because under the kind of 
production prevailing at that time, stock-raising, in 
which the principal instruments of production were the 
spear, the lasso and the bow and arrow, the principal 
role was played by men. . . . There came the time of 
large-scale capitalist production, in which the proletarians 
begin to play the principal role in production, 
when all the principal functions in production pass to 
them, when without them production cannot go on for 
a single day (let us recall general strikes), and when 
the capitalists, far from being needed for production, 
are even a hindrance to it. What does this signify? It 
signifies either that all social life must collapse entirely, 
or that the proletariat, sooner or later, but inevitably, 
must take control of modern production, must 
become its sole owner, its socialistic owner. 
Modern industrial crises, which sound the death 
knell of capitalist property and bluntly put the question: 
capitalism or socialism, make this conclusion 
absolutely obvious; they vividly reveal the parasitism of 
the capitalists and the inevitability of the victory of 
socialism.

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 343 
That is how history further proves the inevitability 
of Marx¹s proletarian socialism. 
Proletarian socialism is based not on sentiment, 
not on abstract ³justice,² not on love for the proletariat, 
but on the scientific grounds referred to above. 
That is why proletarian socialism is also called 
³scientific socialism.² 
Engels said as far back as 1877: 
³If for the imminent overthrow of the present mode 
of distribution of the products of labour . . . we had 
no better guarantee than the consciousness that this 
mode of distribution is unjust, and that justice must 
eventually triumph, we should be in a pretty bad way, 
and we might have a long time to wait. . . .² The most 
important thing in this is that ³the productive forces 
created by the modern capitalist mode of production 
and the system of distribution of goods established 
by it have come into crying contradiction with that 
mode of production itself, and in fact to such a degree 
that, if the whole of modern society is not to perish, a 
revolution of the mode of production and distribution 
must take place, a revolution which will put an 
end to all class divisions. On this tangible, material 
fact . . . and not on the conceptions of justice and 
injustice held by any armchair philosopher, is modern 
socialism¹s confidence of victory founded² (see Anti- 
Dühring).92 
That does not mean, of course, that since capitalism 
is decaying the socialist system can be established any 
time we like. Only Anarchists and other petty-bourgeois 
ideologists think that. The socialist ideal is not the 
ideal of all classes. It is the ideal only of the proletariat;

J. V. S T A L I N 344 
not all classes are directly interested in its fulfilment 
the proletariat alone is so interested. This means that 
as long as the proletariat constitutes a small section 
of society the establishment of the socialist system is 
impossible. The decay of the old form of production, 
the further concentration of capitalist production, and the 
proletarianisation of the majority in society‹such are 
the conditions needed for the achievement of socialism. 
But this is still not enough. The majority in society 
may already be proletarianised, but socialism may still 
not be achievable. This is because, in addition to all 
this, the achievement of socialism calls for class consciousness, 
the unity of the proletariat and the ability 
of the proletariat to manage its own affairs. In order 
that all this may be acquired, what is called political 
freedom is needed, i.e., freedom of speech, press, strikes 
and association, in short, freedom to wage the class 
struggle. But political freedom is not equally ensured 
everywhere. Therefore, the conditions under which it is 
obliged to wage the struggle: under a feudal autocracy 
(Russia), a constitutional monarchy (Germany), a bigbourgeois 
republic (France), or under a democratic republic 
(which Russian Social-Democracy is demanding), 
are not a matter of indifference to the proletariat. Political 
freedom is best and most fully ensured in a democratic 
republic, that is, of course, in so far as it can be 
ensured under capitalism at all. Therefore, all advocates 
of proletarian socialism necessarily strive for the establishment 
of a democratic republic as the best ³bridge² 
to socialism. 
That is why, under present conditions, the Marxist 
programme is divided into two parts: the maximum pro

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 345 
gramme, the goal of which is socialism, and the minimum 
programme, the object of which is to lay the road to socialism 
through a democratic republic. 
* 
* 
* 
What must the proletariat do, what path must it 
take in order consciously to carry out its programme, 
to overthrow capitalism and build socialism? 
The answer is clear: the proletariat cannot achieve 
socialism by making peace with the bourgeoisie‹it must 
unfailingly take the path of struggle, and this struggle 
must be a class struggle, a struggle of the entire proletariat 
against the entire bourgeoisie. Either the bourgeoisie 
and its capitalism, or the proletariat and its socialism! 
That must be the basis of the proletariat¹s actions, of its 
class struggle. 
But the proletarian class struggle assumes numerous 
forms. A strike, for example‹whether partial or general 
makes no difference‹is class struggle. Boycott and sabotage 
are undoubtedly class struggle. Meetings, demonstrations, 
activity in public representative bodies, etc.‹whether 
national parliaments or local government bodies makes 
no difference‹are also class struggle. All these are different 
forms of the same class struggle. We shall not here 
examine which form of struggle is more important for the 
proletariat in its class struggle, we shall merely observe 
that, in its proper time and place, each is undoubtedly 
needed by the proletariat as essential means for developing 
its class consciousness and organisation; and the proletariat 
needs class consciousness and organisation as much as 
it needs air. It must also be observed, however, that for 
the proletariat, all these forms of struggle are merely

J. V. S T A L I N 346 
preparatory means, that not one of them, taken separately, 
constitutes the decisive means by which the proletariat can 
smash capitalism. Capitalism cannot be smashed by the 
general strike alone: the general strike can only create 
some of the conditions that are necessary for the smashing 
of capitalism. It is inconceivable that the proletariat 
should be able to overthrow capitalism merely by its 
activity in parliament: parliamentarism can only prepare 
some of the conditions that are necessary for overthrowing 
capitalism. 
What, then, is the decisive means by which the proletariat 
will overthrow the capitalist system? 
The socialist revolution is this means. 
Strikes, boycott, parliamentarism, meetings and demonstrations 
are all good forms of struggle as means for 
preparing and organising the proletariat. But not one 
of these means is capable of abolishing existing inequality. 
All these means must be concentrated in one principal 
and decisive means; the proletariat must rise and 
launch a determined attack upon the bourgeoisie in order 
to destroy capitalism to its foundations. This principal 
and decisive means is the socialist revolution. 
The socialist revolution must not be conceived as 
a sudden and short blow, it is a prolonged struggle 
waged by the proletarian masses, who inflict defeat upon 
the bourgeoisie and capture its positions. And as the 
victory of the proletariat will at the same time mean 
domination over the vanquished bourgeoisie, as, in a 
collision of classes, the defeat of one class signifies the 
domination of the other, the first stage of the socialist 
revolution will be the political domination of the proletariat 
over the bourgeoisie.

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 347 
The socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, capture 
of power by the proletariat‹this is what the socialist 
revolution must start with. 
This means that until the bourgeoisie is completely 
vanquished, until its wealth has been confiscated, the 
proletariat must without fail possess a military force, it 
must without fail have its ³proletarian guard,² with 
the aid of which it will repel the counter-revolutionary 
attacks of the dying bourgeoisie, exactly as the Paris 
proletariat did during the Commune. 
The socialist dictatorship of the proletariat is needed 
to enable the proletariat to expropriate the bourgeoisie, 
to enable it to confiscate the land, forests, factories and 
mills, machines, railways, etc., from the entire bourgeoisie. 
The expropriation of the bourgeoisie‹this is what 
the socialist revolution must lead to. 
This, then, is the principal and decisive means by 
which the proletariat will overthrow the present capitalist 
system. 
That is why Karl Marx said as far back as 1847: 
³. . . The first step in the revolution by the working 
class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling 
class. . . . The proletariat will use its political supremacy 
to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, 
to centralise al l instruments of production in the 
hands . . . of the proletariat organised as the ruling 
class . . .² (see the Communist Manifesto). 
That is how the proletariat must proceed if it wants 
to bring about socialism. 
From this general principle emerge all the other 
views on tactics. Strikes, boycott, demonstrations, and

J. V. S T A L I N 348 
parliamentarism are important only in so far as they 
help to organise the proletariat and to strengthen and 
enlarge its organisations for accomplishing the socialist 
revolution. 
* 
* 
* 
Thus, to bring about socialism, the socialist revolution 
is needed, and the socialist revolution must begin 
with the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the proletariat 
must capture political power as a means with 
which to expropriate the bourgeoisie. 
But to achieve all this the proletariat must be organised, 
the proletarian ranks must be closely-knit and 
united, strong proletarian organisations must be formed, 
and these must steadily grow. 
What forms must the proletarian organisations assume? 
The most widespread, mass organisations are trade 
unions and workers¹ co-operatives (mainly producers¹ and 
consumers¹ co-operatives). The object of the trade unions 
is to fight (mainly) against industrial capital to improve 
the conditions of the workers within the limits of the 
present capitalist system. The object of the co-operatives 
is to fight (mainly) against merchant capital 
to secure an increase of consumption among the workers 
by reducing the prices of articles of prime necessity, 
also within the limits of the capitalist system, of course. 
The proletariat undoubtedly needs both trade unions 
and co-operatives as means of organising the proletarian 
masses. Hence, from the point of view of the proletarian 
socialism of Marx and Engels, the proletariat must 
utilise both these forms of organisation and reinforce and

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 349 
strengthen them, as far as this is possible under present 
political conditions, of course. 
But trade unions and co-operatives alone cannot 
satisfy the organisational needs of the militant proletariat. 
This is because the organisations mentioned 
cannot go beyond the limits of capitalism, for their object 
is to improve the conditions of the workers under the 
capitalist system. The workers, however, want to free 
themselves entirely from capitalist slavery, they want 
to smash these limits, and not merely operate within 
the limits of capitalism. Hence, in addition, an organisation 
is needed that will rally around itself the class-conscious 
elements of the workers of all trades, that will 
transform the proletariat into a conscious class and make 
it its chief aim to smash the capitalist system, to prepare 
for the socialist revolution. 
Such an organisation is the Social-Democratic Party 
of the proletariat. 
This Party must be a class party, and it must be 
quite independent of other parties‹and this is because 
it is the party of the proletarian class, the emancipation 
of which can be brought about only by this class 
itself. 
This Party must be a revolutionary party‹and this 
because the workers can be emancipated only by revolutionary 
means, by means of the socialist revolution. 
This Party must be an international party, the doors 
of the Party must be open to all class-conscious 
proletarians‹and this because the emancipation of 
the workers is not a national but a social question, 
equally important for the Georgian proletarians, for the

J. V. S T A L I N 350 
Russian proletarians, and for the proletarians of other 
nations. 
Hence, it is clear, that the more closely the proletarians 
of the different nations are united, the more 
thoroughly the national barriers which have been raised 
between them are demolished, the stronger will the Party 
of the proletariat be, and the more will the organisation 
of the proletariat in one indivisible class be facilitated. 
Hence, it is necessary, as far as possible, to introduce 
the principle of centralism in the proletarian organisations 
as against the looseness of federation‹irrespective 
of whether these organisations are party, trade 
union or co-operative. 
It is also clear that all these organisations must be 
built on a democratic basis, in so far as this is not hindered 
by political or other conditions, of course. 
What should be the relations between the Party on the 
one hand and the co-operatives and trade unions on 
the other? Should the latter be party or non-party? 
The answer to this question depends upon where and under 
what conditions the proletariat has to fight. At all 
events, there can be no doubt that the friendlier the trade 
unions and co-operatives are towards the socialist party 
of the proletariat, the more fully will both develop. 
And this is because both these economic organisations, if 
they are not closely connected with a strong socialist 
party, often become petty, allow narrow craft interests 
to obscure general class interests and thereby cause great 
harm to the proletariat. It is therefore necessary, in all 
cases, to ensure that the trade unions and co-operatives 
are under the ideological and political influence of 
the Party. Only if this is done will the organisations

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 351 
mentioned be transformed into a socialist school that 
will organise the proletariat‹at present split up into 
separate groups‹into a conscious class. 
Such, in general, are the characteristic features of 
the proletarian socialism of Marx and Engels. 
How do the Anarchists look upon proletarian socialism? 
First of all we must know that proletarian socialism 
is not simply a philosophical doctrine. It is the doctrine 
of the proletarian masses, their banner; it is honoured 
and ³revered² by the proletarians all over the world. 
Consequently, Marx and Engels are not simply the 
founders of a philosophical ³school²‹they are the living 
leaders of the living proletarian movement, which 
is growing and gaining strength every day. Whoever 
fights against this doctrine, whoever wants to ³overthrow² 
it, must keep all this well in mind so as to avoid 
having his head cracked for nothing in an unequal 
struggle. Messieurs the Anarchists are well aware of this. 
That is why, in fighting Marx and Engels, they resort 
to a most unusual and, in its way, a new weapon. 
What is this new weapon? A new investigation of 
capitalist production? A refutation of Marx¹s Capital? 
Of course not! Or perhaps, having armed themselves 
with ³new facts² and the ³inductive² method, they 
³scientifically² refute the ³Bible² of Social-Democracy‹ 
the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels? Again no! 
Then what is this extraordinary weapon? 
It is the accusation that Marx and Engels indulged 
in ³plagiarism²! Would you believe it? It appears that

J. V. S T A L I N 352 
Marx and Engels wrote nothing original, that scientific 
socialism is a pure fiction, because the Communist Manifesto 
of Marx and Engels was, from beginning to end, 
³stolen² from the Manifesto of Victor Considérant. This 
is quite ludicrous, of course, but V. Cherkezishvili, 
the ³incomparable leader² of the Anarchists, relates this 
amusing story with such aplomb, and a certain Pierre 
Ramus, Cherkezishvili¹s foolish ³apostle,² and our homegrown 
Anarchists repeat this ³discovery² with such 
fervour, that it is worth while dealing at least briefly 
with this ³story.² 
Listen to Cherkezishvili: 
³The entire theoretical part of the Communist Manifesto, 
namely, the first and second chapters . . . are 
taken from V. Considérant. Consequently, the Manifesto 
of Marx and Engels‹that Bible of legal revolutionary 
democracy‹is nothing but a clumsy paraphrasing of 
V. Considérant¹s Manifesto. Marx and Engels not only 
appropriated the contents of Considérant¹s Manifesto but 
even . . . borrowed some of its chapter headings² (see 
the symposium of articles by Cherkezishvili, Ramus and 
Labriola, published in German under the title of 
The Origin of the ³Communist Manifesto,² p. 10). 
This story is repeated by another Anarchist, P. Ramus: 
³It can be emphatically asserted that their (Marx- 
Engels¹s) major work (the Communist Manifesto) is simply 
theft (a plagiary), shameless theft; they did not, however, 
copy it word for word as ordinary thieves do, but stole 
only the ideas and theories . . .² (ibid., p. 4). 
This is repeated by our Anarchists in Nobati, Musha,93 
Khma,94 and other papers.

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 353 
Thus i t appears that scientific socialism and its 
theoretical principles were ³stolen² from Considérant¹s 
Manifesto. 
Are there any grounds for this assertion? 
What was V. Considérant? 
What was Karl Marx? 
V. Considérant, who died in 1893, was a disciple of 
the utopian Fourier and remained an incorrigible utopian, 
who placed his hopes for the ³salvation of France² 
on the conciliation of classes. 
Karl Marx, who died in 1883, was a materialist, 
an enemy of the utopians. He regarded the development 
of the productive forces and the struggle between 
classes as the guarantee of the liberation of mankind. 
Is there anything in common between them? 
The theoretical basis of scientific socialism is the materialist 
theory of Marx and Engels. From the standpoint 
of this theory the development of social life is 
wholly determined by the development of the productive 
forces. If the feudal-landlord system was superseded by 
the bourgeois system, the ³blame² for this rests upon 
the development of the productive forces, which made 
the rise of the bourgeois system inevitable. Or again: 
if the present bourgeois system will inevitably be superseded 
by the socialist system, it is because this is 
called for by the development of the modern productive 
forces. Hence the historical necessity of the destruction 
of capitalism and the establishment of socialism. Hence 
the Marxist proposition that we must seek our ideals in 
the history, of the development of the productive forces 
and not in the minds of men.

J. V. S T A L I N 354 
Such is the theoretical basis of the C o m m u n i s t 
Manifesto of Marx and Engels (see the Communist Manifesto, 
Chapters I and II). 
Does V. Considérant¹s D e m o c r a t i c Manifesto 
say anything of the kind? Did Considérant accept the 
materialist point of view? 
We assert that neither Cherkezishvili, nor Ramus, nor 
our Nobatists quote a single statement, or a single word 
from Considérant¹s Democratic Manifesto which would 
confirm that Considérant was a materialist and based the 
evolution of social life upon the development of the 
productive forces. On the contrary, we know very well 
that Considérant is known in the history of socialism 
as an idealist utopian (see Paul Louis, The History of 
Socialism in France). 
What, then, induces these queer ³critics² to indulge 
in this idle chatter? Why do they undertake to criticise 
Marx and Engels when they are even unable to distinguish 
idealism from materialism? Is it only to amuse 
people? . . . 
The tactical basis of scientific socialism is the doctrine 
of uncompromising class struggle, for this is the 
best weapon the proletariat possesses. The proletarian 
class struggle is the weapon by means of which the 
proletariat will capture political power and then 
expropriate the bourgeoisie in order to establish socialism. 
Such is the tactical basis of scientific socialism as 
expounded in the Manifesto of Marx and Engels. 
Is anything like this said in Considérant¹s Democratic 
Manifesto? Did Considérant regard the class struggle 
as the best weapon the proletariat possesses?

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 355 
As is evident from the articles of Cherkezishvili 
and Ramus (see the above-mentioned symposium), there 
is not a word about this in Considérant¹s Manifesto‹it 
merely notes the class struggle as a deplorable fact. As 
regards the class struggle as a means of smashing capitalism, 
Considérant spoke of it in his Manifesto as follows: 
³Capital, labour and talent‹such are the three basic 
elements of production, the three sources of wealth, the 
three wheels of the industrial mechanism. . . . The three 
classes which represent them have Œcommon interests¹; 
their function is to make the machines work for the capitalists 
and for the people. . . . Before them . . . is the 
great goal of organising the association of classes within 
the unity of the nation . . .² (see K. Kautsky¹s pamphlet 
The Communist Manifesto‹A Plagiary, p. 14, where this 
passage from Considérant¹s Manifesto is quoted). 
All classes, unite!‹this is the slogan that V. Considérant 
proclaimed in his Democratic Manifesto. 
What is there in common between these tactics of 
class conciliation and the tactics of uncompromising class 
struggle advocated by Marx and Engels, whose resolute 
call was: Proletarians of all countries, unite against all 
anti-proletarian classes? 
There is nothing in common between them, of course! 
Why, then, do Messieurs Cherkezishvili and their 
foolish followers talk this rubbish? Do they think we 
are dead? Do they think we shall not drag them into 
the light of day?! 
And lastly, there is one other interesting point. 
V. Considérant lived right up to 1893. He published his 
Democratic Manifesto in 1843. At the end of 1847 Marx 
and Engels wrote their Communist Manifesto. After that

J. V. S T A L I N 356 
the Manifesto of Marx and Engels was published over 
and over again in all European languages. Everybody 
knows that the Manifesto of Marx and Engels was an 
epoch-making document. Nevertheless, nowhere did Considérant 
or his friends ever state during the lifetime of 
Marx and Engels that the latter had stolen ³socialism² 
from Considérant¹s Manifesto. Is this not strange, 
reader? 
What, then, impels the ³inductive² upstarts‹I 
beg your pardon, ³scholars²‹to talk this rubbish? In 
whose name are they speaking? Are they more familiar 
with Considérant¹s Manifesto than was Considérant himself? 
Or perhaps they think that V. Considérant and his 
supporters had not read the Communist Manifesto? 
But enough. . . . Enough because the Anarchists 
themselves do not take seriously the Quixotic crusade 
launched by Ramus and Cherkezishvili: the inglorious 
end of this ridiculous crusade is too obvious to make it 
worthy of much attention. . . . 
Let us proceed to the actual criticism. 
* 
* 
* 
The Anarchists suffer from a certain ailment: they 
are very fond of ³criticising² the parties of their opponents, 
but they do not take the trouble to make themselves 
in the least familiar with these parties. We 
have seen the Anarchists behave precisely in this way 
when ³criticising² the dialectical method and the materialist 
theory of the Social-Democrats (see Chapters 
I and II). They behave in the same way when they 
deal with the theory of scientific socialism of the 
Social-Democrats.

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 357 
Let us, for example, take the following fact. Who does 
not know that fundamental disagreements exist between 
the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Social-Democrats? 
Who does not know that the former repudiate Marxism, 
the materialist theory of Marxism, its dialectical method, 
its programme and the class struggle‹whereas the Social- 
Democrats take their stand entirely on Marxism? These 
fundamental disagreements must be self-evident to anybody 
who has heard anything, if only with half an ear, 
about the controversy between Revolutsionnaya Rossiya 
(the organ of the Socialist-Revolutionaries) and Iskra 
(the organ of the Social-Democrats). But what will you 
say about those ³critics² who fail to see this difference 
between the two and shout that both the Socialist 
Revolutionaries and the Social-Democrats are Marxists? 
Thus, for example, the Anarchists assert that both 
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya and Iskra are Marxist organs 
(see the Anarchists¹ symposium Bread and Freedom, 
p. 202). 
That shows how ³familiar² the Anarchists are with 
the principles of Social-Democracy! 
After this, the soundness of their ³scientific criticism² 
will be self-evident. . . . 
Let us examine this ³criticism.² 
The Anarchists¹ principal ³accusation² is that they 
do not regard the Social-Democrats as genuine Socialists‹
you are not Socialists, you are enemies of socialism, 
they keep on repeating. 
This is what Kropotkin writes on this score: 
³. . . We arrive at conclusions different from those 
arrived at by the majority of the Economists . . . of the 
Social-Democratic school. . . . We . . . arrive at free

J. V. S T A L I N 358 
communism, whereas the majority of Socialists (meaning 
Social-Democrats too‹The Author) arrive at state capitalism 
and collectivism (see Kropotkin, Modern Science 
and Anarchism, pp. 74-75). 
What is this ³state capitalism² and ³collectivism² of 
the Social-Democrats? 
This is what Kropotkin writes about it: 
³The German Socialists say that all accumulated 
wealth must be concentrated in the hands of the state, 
which will place it at the disposal of workers¹ associations, 
organise production and exchange, and control the life 
and work of society² (see Kropotkin, The Speeches of a 
Rebel, p. 64). 
And further: 
³In their schemes . . . the collectivists commit . . . 
a double mistake. They want to abolish the capitalist 
system, but they preserve the two institutions which constitute 
the foundations of this system: representative 
government and wage-labour² (see The Conquest of Bread, 
p. 148). . . . ³Collectivism, as is well known . . . preserves 
. . . wage-labour. Only . . . representative government 
. . . takes the place of the employer. . . .² The representatives 
of this government ³retain the right to utilise 
in the interests of all the surplus value obtained 
from production. Moreover, in this system a distinction 
is made . . . between the labour of the common labourer 
and that of the trained man: the labour of the unskilled 
worker, in the opinion of the collectivists, is 
simple labour, whereas the skilled craftsman, engineer, 
scientist and so forth perform what Marx calls complex 
labour and have the right to higher wages² (ibid., p. 52). 
Thus, the workers will receive their necessary products

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 359 
not according to their needs, but ³in proportion to the 
services they render society² (ibid., p. 157). 
The Georgian Anarchists say the same thing only 
with greater aplomb. Particularly outstanding among 
them for the recklessness of his statements is Mr. Bâton. 
He writes: 
³What is the collectivism of the Social-Democrats? 
Collectivism, or more correctly, state capitalism, is 
based on the following principle: each must work as 
much as he likes, or as much as the state determines, 
and receives in reward the value of his labour in the 
shape of goods. . . .² Consequently, here ³there is needed 
a legislative assembly . . . there is needed (also) an 
executive power, i.e., ministers, all sorts of administrators, 
gendarmes and spies and, perhaps, also troops, 
if there are too many discontented² (see Nobati, No. 5, 
pp. 68-69). 
Such is the first ³accusation² of Messieurs the 
Anarchists against Social-Democracy. 
* 
* 
* 
Thus, from the arguments of the Anarchists it follows 
that: 
1. In the opinion of the Social-Democrats, socialist 
society is impossible without a government which, in the 
capacity of principal master, will hire workers and will 
certainly have ³ministers . . . gendarmes and spies.² 
2. In socialist society, in the opinion of the Social-Democrats, 
the distinction between ³dirty² and ³clean² work 
will be retained, the principle ³to each according to his 
needs² will be rejected, and another principle will prevail, 
viz., ³to each according to his services,²

J. V. S T A L I N 360 
Those are the two points on which the Anarchists¹ 
³accusation² against Social-Democracy is based. 
Has this ³accusation² advanced by Messieurs the 
Anarchists any foundation? 
We assert that everything the Anarchists say on this 
subject is either the result of stupidity, or it is despicable 
slander. 
Here are the facts. 
As far back as 1846 Karl Marx said: ³The working 
class in the course of its development will substitute for 
the old bourgeois society an association which will exclude 
classes and their antagonism, and there will be no 
more political power properly so-called . . .² (see Poverty 
of Philosophy). 
A year later Marx and Engels expressed the same idea 
in the Communist Manifesto (Communist Manifesto, Chapter 
II). 
In 1877 Engels wrote: ³The first act in which the 
state really comes forward as the representative of society 
as a whole‹the taking possession of the means of production 
in the name of society‹is at the same time its 
last independent act as a state. The interference of the 
state power in social relations becomes superfluous in 
one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. . . . 
The state is not Œabolished,¹ it withers away² (Anti- 
Dühring). 
In 1884 the same Engels wrote: ³The state, then, 
has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies 
that did without it, that had no conception of the 
state. . . . At a certain stage of economic development, 
which was necessarily bound up with the cleavage of 
society into classes, the state became a necessity. . . .

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 361 
We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development 
of production at which the existence of these classes 
not only will have ceased to be a necessity, but will become 
a positive hindrance to production. They will fall 
as inevitably as they arose at an earlier stage. Along with 
them the state will inevitably fall. The society that will 
organise production on the basis of a free and equal 
association of the producers will put the whole machinery 
of state where it will then belong: into the Museum of 
Antiquities, by the side of the spinning wheel and the 
bronze axe² (see Origin of the Family, Private Property and 
the State). 
Engels said the same thing again in 1891 (see his 
Introduction to The Civil War in France). 
As you see, in the opinion of the Social-Democrats, 
socialist society is a society in which there will be no 
room for the so-called state, political power, with its 
ministers, governors, gendarmes, police and soldiers. The 
last stage in the existence of the state will be the period 
of the socialist revolution, when the proletariat will capture 
political power and set up its own government (dictatorship) 
for the final abolition of the bourgeoisie. But 
when the bourgeoisie is abolished, when classes are abolished, 
when socialism becomes firmly established, there 
will be no need for any political power‹and the so-called 
state will retire into the sphere of history. 
As you see, the above-mentioned ³accusation² of the 
Anarchists is mere tittle-tattle devoid of all foundation. 
As regards the second point in the ³accusation,² Karl 
Marx says the following about it: 
³In a higher phase of communist (i.e., socialist) society, 
after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the

J. V. S T A L I N 362 
division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between 
mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour 
has become . . . life¹s prime want; after the productive 
forces have also increased with the all-round development 
of the individual . . . only then can the narrow horizon 
of bourgeois law be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe 
on its banners: ŒFrom each according to his ability, to 
each according to his needs¹² (Critique of the Gotha 
Programme). 
As you see, in Marx¹s opinion, the higher phase of 
communist (i.e., socialist) society will be a system under 
which the division of work into ³dirty² and ³clean,² and 
the contradiction between mental and physical labour 
will be completely abolished, labour will be equal, and in 
society the genuine communist principle will prevail: 
from each according to his ability, to each according to 
his needs. Here there is no room for wage-labour. 
Clearly this ³accusation² is also devoid of all foundation. 
One of two things: either Messieurs the Anarchists 
have never seen the above-mentioned works of Marx and 
Engels and indulge in ³criticism² on the basis of hearsay, 
or they are familiar with the above-mentioned works of 
Marx and Engels and are deliberately lying. 
Such is the fate of the first ³accusation.² 
* 
* 
* 
The second ³accusation² of the Anarchists is that they 
deny that Social-Democracy is revolutionary. You are not 
revolutionaries, you repudiate violent revolution, you 
want to establish socialism only by means of ballot 
papers‹Messieurs the Anarchists tell us. 
Listen to this:

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 363 
³. . . Social-Democrats . . . are fond of declaiming on 
the theme of Œrevolution,¹ Œrevolutionary struggle,¹ Œfighting 
with arms in hand.¹ . . . But if you, in the simplicity 
of your heart, ask them for arms, they will solemnly hand 
you a ballot paper to vote in elections. . . .² They affirm 
that ³the only expedient tactics befitting revolutionaries 
are peaceful and legal parliamentarism, with the oath 
of allegiance to capitalism, to established power and to 
the entire existing bourgeois system² (see symposium 
Bread and Freedom, pp. 21, 22-23). 
The Georgian Anarchists say the same thing, with 
even greater aplomb, of course. Take, for example, Bâton, 
who writes: 
³The whole of Social-Democracy . . . openly asserts 
that fighting with the aid of rifles and weapons is a bourgeois 
method of revolution, and that only by means of 
ballot papers, only by means of general elections, can 
parties capture power, and then, by means of a parliamentary 
majority and legislation, reorganise society² 
(see The Capture of Political Power, pp. 3-4). 
That is what Messieurs the Anarchists say about the 
Marxists. 
Has this ³accusation² any foundation? 
We affirm that here, too, the Anarchists betray their 
ignorance and their passion for slander. 
Here are the facts. 
As far back as the end of 1847, Karl Marx and 
Frederick Engels wrote: 
³The Communists disdain to conceal their views and 
aims. They openly declare that their ends can be obtained 
only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. 
Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic

J. V. S T A L I N 364 
Revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but 
their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of 
all countries, unite! ² (See the Manifesto of the Communist 
Party. In some of the legal editions several words have 
been omitted in the translation.) 
In 1850, in anticipation of another outbreak in Germany, 
Karl Marx wrote to the German comrades of that 
time as follows: 
³Arms and ammunition must not be surrendered on 
any pretext . . . the workers must . . . organise themselves 
independently as a proletarian guard with commanders . . . 
and with a general staff. . . .² And this ³you must keep 
in view during and after the impending insurrection² (see 
The Cologne Trial. Marx¹s Address to the Communists).95 
In 1851-52 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote: 
³. . . The insurrectionary career once entered upon, act 
with the greatest determination, and on the offensive. The 
defensive is the death of every armed rising. . . . Surprise 
your antagonists while their forces are scattering, prepare 
new successes, however small, but daily . . . force your 
enemies to a retreat before they can collect their strength 
against you; in the words of Danton, the greatest master of 
revolutionary policy yet known: de l¹audace, de l¹audace, 
encore de l¹audace!² (Revolution and Counter-revolution 
in Germany.) 
We think that something more than ³ballot papers² 
is meant here. 
Lastly, recall the history of the Paris Commune, recall 
how peacefully the Commune acted, when it was content 
with the victory in Paris and refrained from attacking 
Versailles, that hotbed of counter-revolution. What do you 
think Marx said at that time? Did he call upon the Pari

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 365 
sians to go to the ballot box? Did he express approval of 
the complacency of the Paris workers (the whole of Paris 
was in the hands of the workers), did he approve of the good 
nature they displayed towards the vanquished Versaillese? 
Listen to what Marx said: 
³What elasticity, what historical initiative, what a 
capacity for sacrifice in these Parisians! After six months 
of hunger . . . they rise, beneath Prussian bayonets. . . . 
History has no like example of like greatness! If they are 
defeated only their Œgood nature¹ will be to blame. They 
should have marched at once on Versailles, after first Vinoy 
and then the reactionary section of the Paris National 
Guard had themselves retreated. They missed their opportunity 
because of conscientious scruples. They did not want 
to start a civil war, as if that mischievous abortion Thiers 
had not already started the civil war with his attempt to 
disarm Paris!² (Letters to Kugelmann.)96 
That is how Karl Marx and Frederick Engels thought 
and acted. 
That is how the Social-Democrats think and act. 
But the Anarchists go on repeating: Marx and Engels 
and their followers are interested only in ballot papers‹ 
they repudiate violent revolutionary action! 
As you see, this ³accusation² is also slander, which 
exposes the Anarchists¹ ignorance about the essence of 
Marxism. 
Such is the fate of the second ³accusation.² 
* 
* 
* 
The third ³accusation² of the Anarchists consists in 
denying that Social-Democracy is a popular movement, 
describing the Social-Democrats as bureaucrats, and

J. V. S T A L I N 366 
affirming that the Social-Democratic plan for the dictatorship 
of the proletariat spells death to the revolution, and 
since the Social-Democrats stand for such a dictatorship 
they actually want to establish not the dictatorship of 
the proletariat, but their own dictatorship over the 
proletariat. 
Listen to Mr. Kropotkin: 
³We Anarchists have pronounced final sentence upon 
dictatorship. . . . We know that every dictatorship, no 
matter how honest its intentions, will lead to the death of 
the revolution. We know . . . that the idea of dictatorship 
is nothing more or less than the pernicious product of governmental 
fetishism which . . . has always striven to perpetuate 
slavery² (see Kropotkin, The Speeches of a Rebel, 
p. 131). The Social-Democrats not only recognise revolutionary 
dictatorship, they also ³advocate dictatorship over 
the proletariat. . . . The workers are of interest to them 
only in so far as they are a disciplined army under their 
control. . . . Social-Democracy strives through the medium 
of the proletariat to capture the state machine² (see 
Bread and Freedom, pp. 62, 63). 
The Georgian Anarchists say the same thing: 
³The dictatorship of the proletariat in the direct sense 
of the term is utterly impossible, because the advocates 
of dictatorship are state men, and their dictatorship will 
be not the free activities of the entire proletariat, but the 
establishment at the head of society of the same representative 
government that exists today² (see Bâton, The Capture 
of Political Power, p. 45). The Social-Democrats stand 
for dictatorship not in order to facilitate the emancipation 
of the proletariat, but in order . . . ³by their own rule to 
establish a new slavery² (see Nobati, No. 1, p. 5. Bâton).

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 367 
Such is the third ³accusation² of Messieurs the 
Anarchists. 
It requires no great effort to expose this, one of the 
regular slanders uttered by the Anarchists with the object 
of deceiving their readers. 
We shall not analyse here the deeply mistaken view 
of Kropotkin, according to whom every dictatorship spells 
death to revolution. We shall discuss this later when we 
discuss the Anarchists¹ tactics. At present we shall touch 
upon only the ³accusation² itself. 
As far back as the end of 1847 Karl Marl and Frederick 
Engels said that to establish socialism the proletariat must 
achieve political dictatorship in order, with the aid of 
this dictatorship, to repel the counter-revolutionary attacks 
of the bourgeoisie and to take from it the means 
of production; that this dictatorship must be not the dictatorship 
of a few individuals, but the dictatorship of the 
entire proletariat as a class: 
³The proletariat will use its political supremacy to 
wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise 
all instruments of production in the hands . . . 
of the proletariat organised as the ruling class . . .² (see 
the Communist Manifesto). 
That is to say, the dictatorship of the proletariat will 
be a dictatorship of the entire proletariat as a class over 
the bourgeoisie and not the domination of a few individuals 
over the proletariat. 
Later they repeated this same idea in nearly all their 
other works, such as, for example, The Eighteenth 
Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, The Class Struggles in 
France, The Civil War in France, Revolution and Counterrevolution 
in Germany, Anti-Dühring, and other works.

J. V. S T A L I N 368 
But this is not all; To ascertain how Marx and Engels 
conceived of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to ascertain 
to what extent they regarded this dictatorship as 
possible, for all this it is very interesting to know their 
attitude towards the Paris Commune. The point is that 
the dictatorship of the proletariat is denounced not only by 
the Anarchists but also by the urban petty bourgeoisie, including 
all kinds of butchers and tavern-keepers‹by all 
those whom Marx and Engels called philistines. This is 
what Engels said about the dictatorship of the proletariat, 
addressing such philistines: 
³Of late, the German philistine has once more been 
filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship 
of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want 
to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the 
Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat² 
(see The Civil War in France, Introduction by 
Engels).97 
As you see, Engels conceived of the dictatorship of 
the proletariat in the shape of the Paris Commune. 
Clearly, everybody who wants to know what the dictatorship 
of the proletariat is as conceived of by Marxists 
must study the Paris Commune. Let us then turn to the 
Paris Commune. If it turns out that the Paris Commune 
was indeed the dictatorship of a few individuals over the 
proletariat, then‹down with Marxism, down with the 
dictatorship of the proletariat! But i f we find that 
the Paris Commune was indeed the dictatorship of the 
proletariat over the bourgeoisie, then . . . we shall laugh 
heartily at the anarchist slanderers who in their struggle 
against the Marxists have no alternative but to invent 
slander.

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 369 
The history of the Paris Commune can be divided into 
two periods: the first period, when affairs in Paris were 
controlled by the well-known ³Central Committee,² and 
the second period, when, after the authority of the ³Central 
Committee² had expired, control of affairs was transferred 
to the recently elected Commune. What was this 
³Central Committee,² what was its composition? Before 
us lies Arthur Arnould¹s Popular History of the Paris 
Commune which, according to Arnould, briefly answers 
this question. The struggle had only just commenced when 
about 300,000 Paris workers, organised in companies and 
battalions, elected delegates from their ranks. In this 
way the ³Central Committee² was formed. 
³All these citizens (members of the ³Central Committee²) 
elected during partial elections by their companies 
or battalions,² says Arnould, ³were known only to the 
small groups whose delegates they were. Who were these 
people, what kind of people were they, and what did they 
want to do?² This was ³an anonymous government consisting 
almost exclusively of common workers and minor 
office employees, the names of three fourths of whom were 
unknown outside their streets or offices. . . . Tradition 
was upset. Something unexpected had happened in the 
world. There was not a single member of the ruling classes 
among them. A revolution had broken out which was not 
represented by a single lawyer, deputy, journalist or general. 
Instead, there was a miner from Creusot, a bookbinder, 
a cook, and so forth² (see A Popular History of the Paris 
Commune, p. 107). 
Arthur Arnould goes on to say: 
³The members of the ŒCentral Committee¹ said: ŒWe 
are obscure bodies, humble tools of the attacked

J. V. S T A L I N 370 
people. . . . Instruments of the people¹s will, we are here to 
be its echo, to achieve its triumph. The people want a Commune, 
and we shall remain in order to proceed to the election 
of the Commune.¹ Neither more nor less. These dictators 
do not put themselves above nor stand aloof from the 
masses. One feels that they are living with the masses, 
in the masses, by means of the masses, that they consult 
with them every second, that they listen and convey all 
they hear, striving only, in a concise form . . . to convey 
the opinion of three hundred thousand men² (ibid., p. 109). 
That is how the Paris Commune behaved in the first 
period of its existence. 
Such was the Paris Commune. 
Such is the dictatorship of the proletariat. 
Let us now pass to the second period of the Commune, 
when the Commune functioned in place of the ³Central 
Committee.² Speaking of these two periods, which lasted 
two months, Arnould exclaims with enthusiasm that this 
was a real dictatorship of the people. Listen: 
³The magnificent spectacle which this people presented 
during those two months imbues us with strength and 
hope . . . to look into the face of the future. During those 
two months there was a real dictatorship in Paris, a most 
complete and uncontested dictatorship not of one man, but 
of the entire people‹the sole master of the situation. . . . 
This dictatorship lasted uninterruptedly for over two 
months, from March 18 to May 22 (1871). . . .² In itself 
³. . . the Commune was only a moral power and possessed 
no other material strength than the universal 
sympathy . . . of the citizens, the people were the rulers, 
the only rulers, they themselves set up their police and 
magistracy . . .² (ibid., pp. 242, 244).

ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM 371 
That is how the Paris Commune is described by Arthur 
Arnould, a member of the Commune and an active participant 
in its hand-to-hand fighting. 
The Paris Commune is described in the same way by 
another of its members and equally active participant 
Lissagaray (see his History of the Paris Commune). 
The people as the ³only rulers,² ³not the dictatorship 
of one man, but of the whole people²‹this is what the 
Paris Commune was. 
³Look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship 
of the proletariat²‹exclaimed Engels for the information 
of philistines. 
So this is the dictatorship of the proletariat as conceived 
of by Marx and Engels. 
As you see, Messieurs the Anarchists know as much 
about the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Paris Commune, 
and Marxism, which they so often ³criticise,² 
as you and I, dear reader, know about the Chinese language. 
Clearly, there are two kinds of dictatorship. There is 
the dictatorship of the minority, the dictatorship of a 
small group, the dictatorship of the Trepovs and Ignatyevs, 
which is directed against the people. This kind of 
dictatorship is usually headed by a camarilla which 
adopts secret decisions and tightens the noose around the 
neck of the majority of the people. 
Marxists are the enemies of such a dictatorship, and 
they fight such a dictatorship far more stubbornly and 
self-sacrificingly than do our noisy Anarchists. 
There is another kind of dictatorship, the dictatorship 
of the proletarian majority, the dictatorship of the masses, 
which is directed against the bourgeoisie, against the

J. V. S T A L I N 372 
minority. At the head of this dictatorship stand the 
masses; here there is no room either for a camarilla or for 
secret decisions, here everything is done openly, in the 
streets, at meetings‹because it is the dictatorship of the 
street, of the masses, a dictatorship directed against all 
oppressors. 
Marxists support this kind of dictatorship ³with both 
hands²‹and that is because such a dictatorship is the 
magnificent beginning of the great socialist revolution. 
Messieurs the Anarchists confused these two mutually 
negating dictatorships and thereby put themselves in a 
ridiculous position: they are fighting not Marxism but the 
figments of their own imagination, they are fighting not 
Marx and Engels but windmills, as Don Quixote of blessed 
memory did in his day. . . . 
Such is the fate of the third ³accusation.² 
(TO BE CONTINUED)* 
Akhali Droyeba (New Times), 
Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, 
December 11, 18,-25, 1906 
and January 1, 1907 
Chveni Tskhovreba (Our Life), 
Nos. 3, 5, 8 and 9, 
February 21, 23, 27 and 28, 1907 
Dro (Time) Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 26, 
April 4, 5, 6 and 10, 1907 
Signed: Ko. . . . 
Translated from the Georgian 
* The continuation did not appear in the press because, in the 
middle of 1907, Comrade Stalin was transferred by the Central 
Committee of the Party to Baku for Party work, and several 
months later he was arrested there. His notes on the last chapters 
of his work Anarchism or Socialism? were lost when the police 
searched his lodgings.‹Ed.

A P P E N D I X 
ANARCHISM OR SOCIALISM? 
DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM 
I 
We are not the kind of people who, when the word ³anarchism² 
is mentioned, turn away contemptuously and say with a supercilious 
wave of the hand: ³Why waste time on that, it¹s not worth 
talking about!² We think that such cheap ³criticism² is undignified 
and useless. 
Nor are we the kind of people who console themselves with 
the thought that the Anarchists ³have no masses behind them 
and, therefore, are not so dangerous.² It is not who has a larger 
or smaller ³mass² following today, but the essence of the doctrine 
that matters. If the ³doctrine² of the Anarchists expresses the 
truth, then it goes without saying that it will certainly hew a path 
for itself and will rally the masses around itself. If, however, it 
is unsound and built up on a false foundation, it will not last 
long and will remain suspended in mid-air. But the unsoundness 
of anarchism must be proved. 
We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. 
Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged 
against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the 
³doctrine² of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it 
up thoroughly from all aspects. 
But in addition to criticising anarchism we must explain 
our own position and in that way expound in general outline the 
doctrine of Marx and Engels. This is all the more necessary for 
the reason that some Anarchists are spreading false conceptions 
about Marxism and are causing confusion in the minds of readers. 
And so, let us proceed with our subject.

APPENDIX 374 
Everything in the world is in motion. . . . 
Life changes, productive forces grow, old 
relations collapse. . . . Eternal motion and 
eternal destruction and creation‹such is 
the essence of life. 
Karl Marx 
(See The Poverty of Philosophy) 
Marxism is not only the theory of socialism, it is an integral 
world outlook, a philosophical system, from which Marx¹s proletarian 
socialism logically follows. This philosophical system is 
called dialectical materialism. Clearly, to expound Marxism means 
to expound also dialectical materialism. 
Why is this system called dialectical materialism? 
Because its method is dialectical, and its theory is materialistic. 
What is the dialectical method? 
What is the materialist theory? 
It is said that life consists in constant growth and development. 
And that is true: social life is not something immutable and 
static, it never remains at one level, it is in eternal motion, in an 
eternal process of destruction and creation. It was with good reason 
that Marx said that eternal motion and eternal destruction 
and creation are the essence of life. Therefore, life always contains 
the new and the old, the growing and the dying, revolution and 
reaction‹in it something is always dying, and at the same time 
something is always being born. . . . 
The dialectical method tells us that we must regard life as it 
actually is. Life is in continual motion, and therefore life must 
be viewed in its motion, in its destruction and creation. Where 
is life going, what is dying and what is being born in life, what 
is being destroyed and what is being created?‹these are the questions 
that should interest us first of all. 
Such is the first conclusion of the dialectical method. 
That which in life is born and grows day by day is invincible, 
its progress cannot be checked, its victory is inevitable. That 
is to say, if, for example, in life the proletariat is born and grows

APPENDIX 375 
day by day, no matter how weak and small in numbers it may 
be today, in the long run it must triumph On the other hand, 
that which in life is dying and moving towards its grave must 
inevitably suffer defeat, i.e., if, for example, the bourgeoisie 
is losing ground and is slipping farther and farther back every 
day, then, no matter how strong and numerous it may be today, it 
must, in the long run, suffer defeat and go to its grave. Hence 
arose the well-known dialectical proposition: all that which really 
exists, i.e., all that which grows day by day is rational. 
Such is the second conclusion of the dialectical method. 
In the eighties of the nineteenth century a famous controversy 
flared up among the Russian revolutionary intelligentsia The 
Narodniks asserted that the main force that could undertake the 
task of ³emancipating Russia² was the poor peasantry. Why?‹the 
Marxists asked them. Because, answered the Narodniks, the peasantry 
is the most numerous and at the same time the poorest 
section of Russian society. To this the Marxists replied: It is true 
that today the peasantry constitutes the majority and that i t 
is very poor, but is that the point? The peasantry has long constituted 
the majority, but up to now it has displayed no initiative 
in the struggle for ³freedom² without the assistance of the proletariat. 
Why? Because the peasantry as a class is disintegrating 
day by day, it is breaking up into the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, 
whereas the proletariat as a class is day by day growing and 
gaining strength. Nor is poverty of decisive importance here: 
tramps are poorer than the peasants, but nobody will say that they 
can undertake the task of ³emancipating Russia.² The only thing 
that matters is: Who is growing and who is becoming aged in life? 
As the proletariat is the only class which is steadily growing and 
gaining strength, our duty is to take our place by its side and recognise 
it as the main force in the Russian revolution‹that is how 
the Marxists answered. As you see, the Marxists looked at the question 
from the dialectical standpoint, whereas the Narodniks 
argued metaphysically, because they regarded the phenomena of 
life as ³immutable, static, given once and for all² (see F. Engels, 
Philosophy, Political Economy, Socialism). 
That is how the dialectical method looks upon the movement 
of life.

APPENDIX 376 
But there is movement and movement. There was social movement 
in the ³December days² when the proletariat, straightening 
its back, stormed arms depots and launched an attack upon 
reaction. But the movement of preceding years, when the proletariat, 
under the conditions of ³peaceful² development, limited 
itself to individual strikes and the formation of small trade 
unions, must also be called social movement. Clearly, movement 
assumes different forms. And so the dialectical method says that 
movement has two forms: the evolutionary and the revolutionary 
form. Movement is evolutionary when the progressive elements 
spontaneously continue their daily activities and introduce minor, 
quantitative changes in the old order. Movement is revolutionary 
when the same elements combine, become imbued with a single 
idea and sweep down upon the enemy camp with the object of uprooting 
the old order and its qualitative features and to establish a 
new order. Evolution prepares for revolution and creates the 
ground for it; revolution consummates the process of evolution 
and facilitates its further activity. 
Similar processes take place in nature. The history of science 
shows that the dialectical method is a truly scientific method: 
from astronomy to sociology, in every field we find confirmation 
of the idea that nothing is eternal in the universe, everything 
changes, everything develops. Consequently, everything in nature 
must be regarded from the point of view of movement, development. 
And this means that the spirit of dialectics permeates the 
whole of present-day science. 
As regards the forms of movement, as regards the fact that 
according to dialectics, minor, quantitative changes sooner or later 
lead to major, qualitative changes‹this law applies with equal 
force to the history of nature. Mendeleyev¹s ³periodic system of 
elements² clearly shows how very important in the history of 
nature is the emergence of qualitative changes out of quantitative 
changes. The same thing is shown in biology by the theory 
of neo-Lamarckism, to which neo-Darwinism is yielding place. 
We shall say nothing about other facts, on which F. Engels 
has thrown sufficiently full light in his Anti-Dühring. 
* 
* 
*

APPENDIX 377 
Thus, we are now familiar with the dialectical method. We 
know that according to that method the universe is in eternal 
motion, in an eternal process of destruction and creation, 
and that, consequently, all phenomena in nature and in society 
must be viewed in motion, in process of destruction and creation 
and not as something static and immobile. We also know 
that this motion has two forms: evolutionary and revolutionary. 
. . . 
How do our Anarchists look upon the dialectical method? 
Everybody knows that Hegel was the father of the dialectical 
method. Marx merely purged and improved this method. 
The Anarchists are aware of this; they also know that Hegel was a 
conservative, and so, taking advantage of the ³opportunity,² 
they vehemently revile Hegel, throw mud at him as a ³reactionary,² 
as a supporter of restoration, and zealously try to ³prove² 
that ³Hegel . . . is a philosopher of restoration . . . that he eulogizes 
bureaucratic constitutionalism in its absolute form, that 
the general idea of his philosophy of history is subordinate to and 
serves the philosophical trend of the period of restoration,² and 
so on and so forth (see Nobati, No. 6. Article by V. Cherkezishvili). 
True, nobody contests what they say on this point; on the contrary, 
everybody agrees that Hegel was not a revolutionary, that 
he was an advocate of monarchy, nevertheless, the Anarchists go 
on trying to ³prove² and deem it necessary to go on endlessly 
trying to ³prove² that Hegel was a supporter of ³restoration.² 
Why do they do this? Probably, in order by all this to discredit 
Hegel, to make their readers feel that the method of the ³reactionary² 
Hegel is also ³repugnant² and unscientific. If that is so, 
if Messieurs the Anarchists think they can refute the dialectical 
method in this way, then I must say that in this way they can prove 
nothing but their own simplicity. Pascal and Leibnitz were not 
revolutionaries, but the mathematical method they discovered 
is recognised today as a scientific method; Mayer and Helmholtz 
were not revolutionaries, but their discoveries in the field of physics 
became the basis of science; nor were Lamarck and Darwin 
revolutionaries, but their evolutionary method put biological 
science on its feet. . . . Yes, in this way Messieurs the Anarchists 
will prove nothing but their own simplicity.

APPENDIX 378 
To proceed. In the opinion of the Anarchists ³dialectics is 
metaphysics² (see Nobati, No. 9. Sh. G.), and as they ³want 
to free science from metaphysics, philosophy from theology² 
(see Nobati, No. 3. Sh. G. ) , they repudiate the dialectical 
method. 
Oh, those Anarchists! As the saying goes: ³Blame others for 
your own sins.² Dialectics matured in the struggle against metaphysics 
and gained fame in this struggle; but according to the 
Anarchists, ³dialectics is metaphysics²! Proudhon, the ³father² 
of the Anarchists, believed that there existed in the world an 
³immutable justice² established once and for all (see Eltzbacher¹s 
Anarchism, pp. 64-68, foreign edition) and for this Proudhon 
has been called a metaphysician. Marx fought Proudhon with 
the aid of the dialectical method and proved that since everything 
in the world changes, ³justice² must also change, and that, consequently, 
³immutable justice² i s metaphysical fantasy (see 
Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy). Yet the Georgian disciples of 
the metaphysician Proudhon come out and try to ³prove² that 
³dialectics is metaphysics,² that metaphysics recognises the ³unknowable² 
and the ³thing-in-itself,² and in the long run passes into 
empty theology. In contrast to Proudhon and Spencer, Engels 
combated metaphysics as well as theology with the aid of the dialectical 
method (see Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and Anti-Dühring). 
He proved how ridiculously vapid they were. Our Anarchists, however, 
try to ³prove² that Proudhon and Spencer were scientists, 
whereas Marx and Engels were metaphysicians. One of two things: 
either Messieurs the Anarchists are deceiving themselves, or they 
fail to understand what is metaphysics. At all events, the dialectical 
method is entirely free from blame. 
What other accusations do Messieurs the Anarchists hurl 
against the dialectical method? They say that the dialectical method 
is ³subtle word-weaving,² ³the method of sophistry,² ³logical 
and mental somersaults² (see Nobati, No. 8. Sh. G.) ³with the aid 
of which both truth and falsehood are proved with equal facility² 
(see Nobati, No. 4. V. Cherkezishvili). 
At first sight it would seem that the accusation advanced by 
the Anarchists is correct. Listen to what Engels says about the 
follower of the metaphysical method: ³. . . His communication is:

APPENDIX 379 
ŒYea, yea; nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh 
of evil.¹ For him a thing either exists, or it does not exist; it is 
equally impossible for a thing to be itself and at the same time 
something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another 
. . .² (see Anti-Dühring, Introduction). How is that?‹the 
Anarchist cries heatedly. Is it possible for a thing to be good and 
bad at the same time?! That is ³sophistry,² ³juggling with words,² 
it shows that ³you want to prove truth and falsehood with equal 
facility! . . .² 
Let us, however, go into the substance of the matter. Today 
we are demanding a democratic republic. The democratic republic, 
however, strengthens bourgeois property. Can we say that a democratic 
republic is good always and everywhere? No, we cannot! Why? 
Because a democratic republic is good only ³today,² when we are 
destroying feudal property, but ³tomorrow,² when we shall proceed 
to destroy bourgeois property and establish socialist property, 
the democratic republic will no longer be good; on the contrary, 
it will become a fetter, which we shall smash and cast aside. But 
as life is in continual motion, as it is impossible to separate the 
past from the present, and as we are simultaneously fighting the 
feudal rulers and the bourgeoisie, we say: in so far as the democratic 
republic destroys feudal property it is good and we advocate 
it, but in so far as it strengthens bourgeois property it is bad, and 
therefore we criticise it. It follows, therefore, that the democratic 
republic is simultaneously both ³good² and ³bad,² and thus the 
answer to the question raised may be both ³yes² and ³no.² It was 
facts of this kind that Engels had in mind when he proved the correctness 
of the dialectical method in the words quoted above. 
The Anarchists, however, failed to understand this and to them 
it seemed to be ³sophistry²! The Anarchists are, of course, at liberty 
to note or ignore these facts, they may even ignore the sand 
on the sandy seashore‹they have every right to do that. But why 
drag in the dialectical method, which, unlike the Anarchists, 
does not look at life with its eyes shut, which has its finger on the 
pulse of life and openly says: since life changes, since life is 
in motion, every phenomenon of life has two trends: a positive 
and a negative; the first we must defend and the second we must 
reject? What astonishing people those Anarchists are: they are

APPENDIX 380 
constantly talking about ³justice,² but they treat the dialectical 
method with gross injustice! 
To proceed further. In the opinion of our Anarchists, ³dialectical 
development is catastrophic development, by means of 
which, first the past is utterly destroyed, and then the future is 
established quite separately. . . . Cuvier¹s cataclysms were due 
to unknown causes, but Marx and Engels¹s catastrophes are engendered 
by dialectics² (see Nobati, No. 8. Sh. G.). In another 
place the same author says that ³Marxism rests on Darwinism 
and treats it uncritically² (see Nobati, No. 6). 
Ponder well over that, reader! 
Cuvier rejects Darwin¹s theory of evolution, he recognises 
only cataclysms, and cataclysms are unexpected upheavals ³due 
to unknown causes.² The Anarchists say that the Marxists adhere 
to Cuvier¹s view and therefore repudiate Darwinism. 
Darwin rejects Cuvier¹s cataclysms, he recognises gradual 
evolution. But the same Anarchists say that ³Marxism rests on 
Darwinism and treats it uncritically,² therefore, the Marxists do 
not advocate Cuvier¹s cataclysms. 
This is anarchy if you like! As the saying goes: the Sergeant¹s 
widow flogged herself! Clearly, Sh. G. of No. 8 of Nobati forgot 
what Sh. G. of No. 6 said. Which is right: No. 6 or No. 8? Or are 
they both lying? 
Let us turn to the facts. Marx says: ³At a certain stage of 
their development, the material productive forces of society come 
in conflict with the existing relations of production, or‹what is 
but a legal expression for the same thing‹with the property relations. 
. . . Then begins an epoch of social revolution.² But 
³no social order ever perishes before all the productive forces 
for which there is room in it have developed . . .² (see K. Marx, 
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Preface). If 
this idea of Marx is applied to modern social life, we shall find 
that between the present-day productive forces which are social 
in character, and the method of appropriating the product, which 
is private in character, there is a fundamental conflict which 
must culminate in the socialist revolution (see F. Engels, Anti- 
Dühring, Chapter II, Part III). As you see, in the opinion of Marx 
and Engels, ³revolution² (³catastrophe²) is engendered not by

APPENDIX 381 
Cuvier¹s ³unknown causes,² but by very definite and vital social 
causes called ³the development of the productive forces.² As you 
see, in the opinion of Marx and Engels, revolution comes only 
when the productive forces have sufficiently matured, and not 
unexpectedly, as Cuvier imagined. Clearly, there is nothing in 
common between Cuvier ¹s cataclysms and the dialectical 
method. On the other hand, Darwinism repudiates not only 
Cuvier¹s cataclysms, but also dialectically conceived revolution, 
whereas according to the dialectical method evolution and revolution, 
quantitative and qualitative changes, are two essential 
forms of the same motion. Clearly, it is also wrong to say that 
³Marxism . . . treats Darwinism uncritically.² It follows therefore 
that Nobati is lying in both cases, in No. 6 as well as in 
No. 8. 
And so these lying ³critics² buttonhole us and go on repeating: 
Whether you like it or not our lies are better than your truth! 
Probably they believe that everything i s pardonable in an 
Anarchist. 
There is another thing for which Messieurs the Anarchists 
cannot forgive the dialectical method: ³Dialectics . . . provides 
no possibility of getting, or jumping, out of oneself, or of jumping 
over oneself² (see Nobati, No. 8. Sh. G.). Now that is the downright 
truth, Messieurs Anarchists! Here you are absolutely right, my 
dear sirs: the dialectical method does not provide such a possibility. 
But why not? Because ³jumping out of oneself, or jumping 
over oneself,² i s an exercise for wild goats, while the 
dialectical method was created for human beings. That is the 
secret! . . . 
Such, in general, are our Anarchists¹ views on the dialectical 
method. 
Clearly, the Anarchists fail to understand the dialectical 
method of Marx and Engels; they have conjured up their own 
dialectics, and it is against this dialectics that they are fighting 
so ruthlessly. 
All we can do is to laugh as we gaze at this spectacle, for one 
cannot help laughing when one sees a man fighting his own imagination, 
smashing his own inventions, while at the same time 
heatedly asserting that he is smashing his opponent.

APPENDIX 382 
II 
³ It is not the consciousness of men that 
determines their being, but, on the contrary, 
their social being that determines their 
consciousness.² 
Karl Marx 
What is the materialist theory? 
Everything in the world changes, everything in the world is 
in motion, but how do these changes take place and in what form 
does this motion proceed?‹that is the question. We know, for 
example, that the earth was once an incandescent, fiery mass, then 
it gradually cooled, then the animal kingdom appeared and developed, 
then appeared a species of ape from which man subsequently 
originated. But how did this development take place? Some say 
that nature and its development were preceded by the universal 
idea, which subsequently served as the basis of this development, 
so that the development of the phenomena of nature, it would appear, 
is merely the form of the development of the idea. These people 
were called idealists, who later split up and followed different 
trends. Others say that from the very beginning there have existed 
in the world two opposite forces‹idea and matter, and that correspondingly, 
phenomena are also divided into two categories, the 
ideal and the material, which are in constant conflict. Thus the 
development of the phenomena of nature, it would appear, represents 
a constant struggle between ideal and material phenomena. 
Those people are called dualists, and they, like the idealists, are 
split up into different schools. 
Marx¹s materialist theory utterly repudiates both dualism 
and idealism. Of course, both ideal and material phenomena 
exist in the world, but this does not mean that they negate each 
other. On the contrary, the ideal and the material are two different 
forms of the same phenomenon; they exist together and develop 
together; there is a close connection between them. That being so, 
we have no grounds for thinking that they negate each other. Thus, 
so-called dualism crumbles to its foundations. A single and indiv

APPENDIX 383 
isible nature expressed in two different forms‹material and ideal‹ 
that is how we should regard the development of nature. A single 
and indivisible life expressed in two different forms‹ideal and 
material‹that i s how we should regard the development of 
life.
Such is the monism of Marx¹s materialist theory. 
At the same time, Marx also repudiates idealism. It is wrong 
to think that the development of the idea, and of the spiritual 
side in general, precedes nature and the material side in general. 
So-called external, inorganic nature existed before there were 
any living beings. The first living matter‹protoplasm‹possessed 
no consciousness (idea), it possessed only irritability and 
the first rudiments of sensation. Later, animals gradually developed 
the power of sensation, which slowly passed into consciousness, 
in conformity with the development of their nervous systems. 
If the ape had never stood upright, if it had always walked 
on all fours, its descendant‹man‹would not have been able 
freely to use his lungs and vocal chords and, therefore, would 
not have been able to speak; and that would have greatly retarded 
the development of his consciousness. If, furthermore, the ape had 
not risen up on its hind legs, its descendant‹man‹would have 
been compelled always to look downwards and obtain his impressions 
only from there; he would have been unable to look up and 
around himself and, consequently, his brain would have obtained 
no more material (impressions) than that of the ape; and that 
would have greatly retarded the development of his consciousness. 
It follows that the development of the spiritual side is conditioned 
by the structure of the organism and the development of its nervous 
system. It follows that the development of the spiritual side, 
the development of ideas, is preceded by the development of the 
material side, the development of being. Clearly, first the external 
conditions change, first matter changes, and then consciousness 
and other spiritual phenomena change accordingly‹the development 
of the ideal side lags behind the development of material 
conditions. If we call the material side, the external conditions, 
being, etc., the content, then we must call the ideal side, 
consciousness and other phenomena of the same kind, the 
form. Hence arose the well-known materialist proposition: in the

APPENDIX 384 
process of development content precedes form, form lags behind 
content. 
The same must be said about social life. Here, too, material 
development precedes ideal development, here, too, form lags behind 
its content. Capitalism existed and a fierce class struggle 
raged long before scientific socialism was even thought of; the 
process of production already bore a social character long before 
the socialist idea arose. 
That is why Marx says: ³It is not the consciousness of men 
that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social 
being that determines their consciousness² (see K. Marx, A Contribution 
to the Critique of Political Economy). In Marx¹s opinion, 
economic development is the material foundation of social life, 
its content, while legal-political and religious-philosophical development 
is the ³ideological form² of this content, its ³superstructure.² 
Marx, therefore, says: ³With the change of the economic 
foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less 
rapidly transformed² (ibid.). 
In social life too, first the external, material conditions change 
and then the thoughts of men, their world outlook, change. The 
development of content precedes the rise and development of form. 
This, of course, does not mean that in Marx¹s opinion content is 
possible without form, as Sh. G. imagines (see Nobati, No. 1. ³A 
Critique of Monism²). Content is impossible without form, but 
the point is that since a given form lags behind its content, it 
never fully corresponds to this content; and so the new content is 
often ³obliged² to clothe itself for a time in the old form, and this 
causes a conflict between them. At the present time, for example, the 
private character of the appropriation of the product does not correspond 
to the social content of production, and this is the basis of the 
present-day social ³conflict.² On the other hand, the conception that 
the idea is a form of being does not mean that, by its nature, consciousness 
is the same as matter. That was the opinion held only by 
the vulgar materialists (for example, Büchner and Moleschott), 
whose theories fundamentally contradict Marx¹s materialism, and 
whom Engels rightly ridiculed in his Ludwig Feuerbach. According 
to Marx¹s materialism, consciousness and being, mind and matter, 
are two different forms of the same phenomenon, which, broadly

APPENDIX 385 
speaking, is called nature. Consequently, they do not negate each 
other,* but nor are they one and the same phenomenon. The only 
point is that, in the development of nature and society, consciousness, 
i.e., what takes place in our heads, is preceded by a corresponding 
material change, i.e., what takes place outside of us. 
Any given material change is, sooner or later, inevitably followed 
by a corresponding ideal change. That is why we say that an ideal 
change is the form of a corresponding material change. 
Such, in general, is the monism of the dialectical materialism 
of Marx and Engels. 
We shall be told by some: All this may well be true as applied 
to the history of nature and society. But how do different conceptions 
and ideas about given objects arise in our heads at the present 
time? Do so-called external conditions really exist, or is 
it only our conceptions of these external conditions that exist? 
And if external conditions exist, to what degree are they perceptible 
and cognizable? 
On this point we say that our conceptions, our ³self,² exist only 
in so far as external conditions exist that give rise to impressions 
in our ³self.² Whoever unthinkingly says that nothing exists 
but our conceptions, is compelled to deny the existence of all 
external conditions and, consequently, must deny the existence 
of all other people except his own ³self,² which fundamentally 
contradicts the main principles of science and vital activity. Yes, 
external conditions do actually exist; these conditions existed 
before us, and will exist after us; and the more often and the more 
strongly they affect our consciousness, the more easily perceptible 
and cognizable do they become. As regards the question as to how 
different conceptions and ideas about given objects arise in our 
heads at the present time, we must observe that here we have a 
repetition in brief of what takes place in the history of nature and 
society. In this case, too, the object outside of us precedes our 
conception of it; in this case, too, our conception, the form, lags 
* This does not contradict the idea that there is a conflict between form 
and content. The point is that the conflict is not between content and form in 
general, but between the old form and the new content, which is seeking 
a new form and is striving towards it.

APPENDIX 386 
behind the object, its content, and so forth. When I look at a 
tree and see it‹that only shows that this tree existed even before 
the conception of a tree arose in my head; that it was this 
tree that aroused the corresponding conception in my head. 
The importance of the monistic materialism of Marx and 
Engels for the practical activities of mankind can be readily understood. 
If our world outlook, if our habits and customs are determined 
by external conditions, if the unsuitability of legal and political 
forms rests on an economic content, it is clear that we must 
help to bring about a radical change in economic relations in order, 
with this change, to bring about a radical change in the habits and 
customs of the people, and in the political system of the country. 
Here is what Karl Marx says on that score: 
³No great acumen is required to perceive the necessary interconnection 
of materialism with . . . socialism. If man constructs 
all his knowledge, perceptions, etc., from the world of 
sense . . . then it follows that it is a question of so arranging the 
empirical world that he experiences the truly human in it, that 
he becomes accustomed to experiencing himself as a human 
being. . . . If man is unfree in the materialist sense‹that is, is 
free not by reason of the negative force of being able to avoid this 
or that, but by reason of the positive power to assert his true individuality, 
then one should not punish individuals for crimes, 
but rather destroy the anti-social breeding places of crime. . . . 
If man is moulded by circumstances, then the circumstances must 
be moulded humanly² (see Ludwig Feuerbach, Appendix: ³Karl 
Marx on the History of French Materialism of the XVIII 
Century²). 
Such is the connection between materialism and the practical 
activities of men. 
* 
* 
* 
What is the anarchist view of the monistic materialism of 
Marx and Engels? 
While Marx¹s dialectics originated with Hegel, his materialism 
is a development of Feuerbach¹s materialism. The Anarchists 
know this very well, and they try to take advantage of the 
defects of Hegel and Feuerbach to discredit the dialectical

APPENDIX 387 
materialism of Marx and Engels. We have already shown with 
reference to Hegel that these tricks of the Anarchists prove nothing 
but their own polemical impotence. The same must be said 
with reference to Feuerbach. For example, they strongly emphasise 
that ³Feuerbach was a pantheist . . . ² that he ³deified 
man . . .² (see Nobati, No. 7. D. Delendi), that ³in Feuerbach¹s 
opinion man is what he eats . . .² alleging that from this Marx 
drew the following conclusion: ³Consequently, the main and primary 
thing is economic conditions,² etc. (see Nobati, No. 6. Sh. G.). 
True, nobody has any doubts about Feuerbach¹s pantheism, 
his deification of man, and other errors of his of the same kind. 
On the contrary, Marx and Engels were the first to reveal Feuerbach¹s 
errors; nevertheless, the Anarchists deem i t necessary 
once again to ³expose² the already exposed errors of Feuerbach. 
Why? Probably because, in reviling Feuerbach, they want 
at least in some way to discredit the materialism which Marx borrowed 
from Feuerbach and then scientifically developed. Could 
not Feuerbach have had correct as well as erroneous ideas? We 
say that by tricks of this kind the Anarchists will not shake monistic 
materialism in the least; all they will do is to prove their 
own impotence. 
The Anarchists disagree among themselves about Marx¹s 
materialism. If, for example, we listen to what Mr. Cherkezishvili 
has to say, it would appear that Marx and Engels detested monistic 
materialism; in his opinion their materialism is vulgar and not 
monistic materialism: ³The great science of the naturalists, with 
its system of evolution, transformism and monistic materialism 
which Engels so heartily detested . . . avoided dialectics,² etc. 
(see Nobati, No. 4. V. Cherkezishvili). It follows, therefore, that the 
natural-scientific materialism, which Cherkezishvili likes and which 
Engels detested, was monistic materialism. Another Anarchist, however, 
tells us that the materialism of Marx and Engels is monistic 
and should therefore be rejected. ³Marx¹s conception of history is a 
throwback to Hegel. The monistic materialism of absolute objectivism 
in general, and Marx¹s economic monism in particular, 
are impossible in nature and fallacious in theory. . . . Monistic 
materialism i s poorly disguised dualism and a compromise 
between metaphysics and science . . .² (see Nobati, No. 6. Sh. G.).

APPENDIX 388 
It would follow that monistic materialism is unacceptable because 
Marx and Engels, far from detesting it, were actually monistic 
materialists themselves, and therefore monistic materialism must 
be rejected. 
This is anarchy if you like! They have not yet grasped the 
substance of Marx¹s materialism, they have not yet understood 
whether i t is monistic materialism or not, they have not yet 
agreed among themselves about its merits and demerits, but they 
already deafen us with their boastful claims: We criticise and 
raze Marx¹s materialism to the ground! This by itself shows what 
grounds their ³criticism² can have. 
To proceed further. It appears that certain Anarchists are even 
ignorant of the fact that in science there are various forms of materialism, 
which differ a great deal from one another: there is, for 
example, vulgar materialism (in natural science and history), 
which denies the importance of the ideal side and the effect it 
has upon the material side; but there is also so-called monistic 
materialism, which scientifically examines the interrelation between 
the ideal and the material sides. Some Anarchists confuse 
all this and at the same time affirm with great aplomb: Whether 
you like it or not, we subject the materialism of Marx and Engels 
to devastating criticism! Listen to this: ³In the opinion of Engels, 
and also of Kautsky, Marx rendered mankind a great service in 
that he . . .² among other things, discovered the ³materialist 
conception.² ³Is this true? We do not think so, for we know . . . 
that all the historians, scientists and philosophers who adhere 
to the view that the social mechanism is set in motion by geographic, 
climatic and telluric, cosmic, anthropological and biological 
conditions‹are all materialists² (see Nobati, No. 2. Sh. G.). How 
can you talk to such people? It appears, then, that there is no difference 
between the ³materialism² of Aristotle and of Montesquieu, 
or between the ³materialism² of Marx and of Saint-Simon. A fine 
example, indeed, of understanding your opponent and subjecting 
him to devastating criticism! 
Some Anarchists heard somewhere that Marx¹s materialism 
was a ³belly theory² and set about popularising this ³idea,² 
probably because paper is cheap in the editorial office of Nobati 
and this process does not cost much. Listen to this: ³In the opin

APPENDIX 389 
ion of Feuerbach man is what he eats. This formula had a magic 
effect on Marx and Engels,² and so, in the opinion of the Anarchists, 
Marx drew from this the conclusion that ³consequently 
the main and primary thing is economic conditions, relations of 
production. . . .² And then the Anarchists proceed to instruct 
us in a philosophical tone: ³It would be a mistake to say that the 
sole means of achieving this object (of social life) is eating and 
economic production. . . . If ideology were determined mainly 
monistically, by eating and economic existence‹then some gluttons 
would be geniuses² (see Nobati, No. 6. Sh. G.). You see how 
easy it is to criticise Marx¹s materialism! It is sufficient to hear 
some gossip in the street from some schoolgirl about Marx and 
Engels, it is sufficient to repeat that street gossip with philosophical 
aplomb in the columns of a paper like Nobati, to leap into fame as a 
³critic.² But tell me one thing, gentlemen: Where, when, in what 
country, and which Marx did you hear say that ³eating determines 
ideology²? Why did you not cite a single sentence, a single word 
from the works of Marx to back your accusation? Is economic existence 
and eating the same thing? One can forgive a schoolgirl, say, for 
confusing these entirely different concepts, but how is it that you, 
the ³vanquishers of Social-Democracy,² ³regenerators of science,² 
so carelessly repeat the mistake of a schoolgirl? How, indeed, can 
eating determine social ideology? Ponder over what you yourselves 
have said; eating, the form of eating, does not change; in 
ancient times people ate, masticated and digested their food in the 
same way as they do now, but the forms of ideology constantly 
change and develop. Ancient, feudal, bourgeois and proletarian‹ 
such are the forms of ideology. Is it conceivable that that which 
generally speaking, does not change can determine that which 
is constantly changing? Marx does, indeed, say that economic 
existence determines ideology, and this is easy to understand, 
but i s eating and economic existence the same thing? Why 
do you think i t proper to attribute your own foolishness to 
Marx? 
To proceed further. In the opinion of our Anarchists, Marx¹s 
materialism ³is parallelism. . . .² Or again: ³monistic materialism 
is poorly disguised dualism and a compromise between metaphysics 
and science. . . .² ³Marx drops into dualism because he

APPENDIX 390 
depicts relations of production as material, and human striving and 
will as an illusion and a utopia, which, even though it exists, is 
of no importance² (see Nobati, No. 6. Sh. G.). Firstly, Marx¹s monistic 
materialism has nothing in common with silly parallelism. 
From the standpoint of materialism, the material side, content, 
necessarily precedes the ideal side, form. Parallelism repudiates 
this view and emphatically affirms that neither the material nor 
the ideal comes first, that both move together, parallel with each 
other. Secondly, what is there in common between Marx¹s monism 
and dualism when we know perfectly well (and you, Messieurs 
Anarchists, should also know this if you read Marxist literature!) 
that the former springs from one principle‹nature, which has a 
material and an ideal form, whereas the latter springs from two 
principles‹the material and the ideal which, according to dualism, 
mutually negate each other. Thirdly, who said that ³human striving 
and will are not important²? Why don¹t you point to the 
place where Marx says that? Does not Marx speak of the importance 
of ³striving and will² in his Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 
in his Class Struggles in France, in his Civil War in France, 
and in other pamphlets? Why, then, did Marx try to develop the 
proletarians¹ ³will and striving² in the socialist spirit, why did he 
conduct propaganda among them if he attached no importance to 
³striving and will²? Or, what did Engels talk about in his wellknown 
articles of 1891-94 if not the ³importance of striving and 
will²? Human striving and will acquire their content from economic 
existence, but that does not mean that they exert no influence 
on the development of economic relations. Is it really so difficult 
for our Anarchists to digest this simple idea? It is rightly said 
that a passion for criticism is one thing, but criticism itself is 
another. 
Here is another accusation Messieurs the Anarchists make: 
³form is inconceivable without content . . .² therefore, one cannot 
say that ³form lags behind content . . . they Œco-exist.¹. . . 
Otherwise, monism would be an absurdity² (see Nobati, No. 1. 
Sh. G.). Messieurs the Anarchists are somewhat confused. Content 
is inconceivable without form, but the existing form never fully 
corresponds to the existing content; to a certain extent the new 
content is always clothed in the old form, as a consequence, there

APPENDIX 391 
is always a conflict between the old form and the new content. It 
is precisely on this ground that revolutions occur, and this, among 
other things, expresses the revolutionary spirit of Marx¹s materialism 
The Anarchists, however, have failed to understand this 
and obstinately repeat that there is no content without form. . . . 
Such are the Anarchists¹ views on materialism. We shall say 
no more. It is sufficiently clear as it is that the Anarchists have 
invented their own Marx, have ascribed to him a ³materialism² of 
their own invention, and are now fighting this ³materialism.² 
But not a single bullet of theirs hits the true Marx and the true 
materialism. . . . 
What connection is there between dialectical materialism 
and proletarian socialism? 
Akhali Tskhovreba 
(New Life), Nos. 2, 4, 
7 and 16, June 21, 24 
and 28 and July 9, 1906 
Signed: Koba 
Translated from the Georgian

N O T E S 
1 Brdzola (The Struggle)‹the first illegal Georgian newspaper 
issued by the Leninist-Iskra group of the Ti f l i s Social- 
Democratic organisation. It was founded on the initiative of 
J. V. Stalin. The newspaper was launched as a result of the 
struggle that had been waged since 1898 by the revolutionary 
minority in the first Georgian Social-Democratic organisation 
known as the Messameh Dassy (J. V. Stalin, V. Z. Ketskhoveli 
and A. G. Tsulukidze) against the opportunist majority (Jordania 
and others) on the question of instituting an underground 
revolutionary Marxist press. Brdzola was printed in Baku at an 
underground printing plant that had been organised by V. Z. 
Ketskhoveli, J. V. Stalin¹s closest colleague, on the instructions 
of the revolutionary wing of the Tiflis Social-Democratic organisation. 
He was also responsible for the practical work of issuing 
the newspaper. The leading articles in Brdzola on questions 
concerning the programme and tactics of the revolutionary Marxist 
party were written by J. V. Stalin. Four numbers of Brdzola 
were issued: No. 1, in September 1901; No. 2-3, in November- 
December 1901; and No. 4, in December 1902. The best Marxist 
newspaper in Russia next to Iskra, Brdzola urged that there 
was an inseverable connection between the revolutionary 
struggle that was being waged by the Transcaucasian proletariat 
and the revolutionary struggle waged by the working 
class all over Russia. Propagating the theoretical principles 
of revolutionary Marxism, Brdzola, like Lenin¹s Iskra, urged 
that the Social-Democratic organisations must proceed to 
take up mass political agitation and the political struggle

NOTES 393 
against the autocracy, and advocated the Leninist idea of the 
hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic revolution. 
In its fight against the ³Economists,² Brdzola urged 
the necessity of creating a united revolutionary party of the 
working class and exposed the liberal bourgeoisie, nationalists 
and opportunists of all shades. Commenting on the appearance 
of No. 1 of Brdzola, Lenin¹s Iskra stated that it was an event 
of extreme 1 
2 Rabochaya Mysl (Workers¹ Thought)‹a newspaper which openly 
advocated the opportunist views of the ³Economists.² 
Published from October 1897 to December 1902. Sixteen issues 
appeared. p. 15 
3 The Law of June 2, 1897, fixed the working day for workers in 
industrial enterprises and railway workshops at 111/2 hours, and 
also reduced the number of holidays 15 
4 This refers to the ³Provisional Regulations Governing Military 
Service for Students at Higher Educational Establishments² 
introduced by the government on July 29, 1899. On 
the basis of these regulations, students who took part in collective 
demonstrations against the police regime that had been 
introduced in higher educational establishments were expelled 
and conscripted as privates in the tsarist army for a period 
ranging from one 23 
5 Shkartvelo (Georgia)‹a newspaper published by a group 
of Georgian nationalists abroad which became the core of 
the bourgeois-nationalist party of the Social-Federalists. The 
newspaper was published in Paris in the Georgian and French 
languages, and ran from 1903 to 1905. 
The party of the Georgian Federalists (formed in Geneva 
in April 1904) consisted of the Sakartvelo group, as well as 
of Anarchists, Socialist-Revolutionaries and National-Democrats. 
The principal demand of the Federalists was national 
autonomy for Georgia within the Russian landlord-bourgeois

NOTES 394 
state. During the period of reaction they became avowed 
enemies of 33 
6 The Armenian Social-Democratic Labour Organisation was 
formed by Armenian National-Federalist elements soon after 
the Second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour 
Party. V. I. Lenin noted the close connection between this 
organisation and the Bund. In a letter to the members of the 
Central Committee of the Party dated September 7 (New Style), 
1905, he wrote: ³This is a creature of the Bund, nothing more, 
invented especially for the purpose of fostering Caucasian 
Bundism. . . . The Caucasian comrades are all opposed to 
this gang of pen-pushing disruptors² (see Lenin, Works, 
4th Russ. ed., Vol. 34, p. 290). p. 36 
7 The Bund‹the General Jewish Workers¹ Union of Lithuania, 
Poland and Russia, a Jewish petty-bourgeois opportunist 
organisation, was formed in October 1897 at a congress in Vilno. 
It carried on its activities chiefly among the Jewish artisans. 
I t joined the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party at 
the latter¹s First Congress in 1898, ³as an autonomous organisation 
independent only in matters specifically concerning 
the Jewish proletariat.² The Bund was a centre of nationalism 
and separatism in the Russian working-class movement. Its 
bourgeois-nationalist stand was sharply criticised by Lenin¹s 
Iskra. The Caucasian Iskra-ists whole-heartedly supported 
V. I. Lenin in his struggle against the Bund. p. 39 
8 This refers to the Party Committees which at the First Congress 
of the Social-Democratic Labour Organisations in the Caucasus 
held in Tiflis in March 1903 united to form the Caucasian 
Union of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Represented 
at the congress were the organisations of Tiflis, 
Baku, Batum, Kutais, Guria, and other districts. The congress 
approved the political line pursued by Lenin¹s Iskra, adopted 
the programme drafted by Iskra and Zarya for guidance, and 
drew up and endorsed the Rules for the Union. The First Congress 
of the Caucasian Union laid the foundation for the international 
structure of the Social-Democratic Organisations in

FROM MARX 
TO MAO 

 
NOT FOR 
COMMERCIAL 
DISTRIBUTION 
NOTES 395 
the Caucasus. The congress set up a directing Party body 
known as the Caucasian Union Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. 
to which J. V. Stalin was elected in his absence, as at that 
time he was confined in the Batum prison. After his flight 
from exile and return to Tiflis in the beginning of 1904, 
J. V. Stalin became the head of the Caucasian Union Committee 
of the R.S.D.L.P. p. 39 
9 J. V. Stalin¹s two letters from Kutais were found among the 
correspondence of V. I. Lenin and N. K. Krupskaya with the 
Bolshevik organisations in Russia. He wrote these letters 
while he was in Kutais in September-October 1904, and they 
were addressed to his comrade in revolutionary activity in 
Transcaucasia, M. Davitashvili, who at that time lived in 
Leipzig, Germany, and was a member of the Leipzig group 
of Bolsheviks. In his reminiscences, D. Suliashvili, another 
member of the Leipzig group of Bolsheviks, wrote the following 
about one of these letters: ³Soon after, Mikhail Davitashvili 
received a letter from Joseph Stalin who was in Siberia. In 
the letter he spoke enthusiastically and admiringly of Lenin 
and the revolutionary Bolshevik theses Lenin advanced; he 
wished Lenin success and good health and called him a Œmountain 
eagle.¹ We forwarded the letter to Lenin. Soon we received 
an answer from him to be forwarded to Stalin. In his letter 
he called Stalin a Œfiery Colchian¹² (see D. Suliashvili, 
Reminiscences About Stalin. Magazine Mnatobi, No. 9, 1935, 
p. 163, in Georgian). The Georgian originals of J. V. Stalin¹s 
letters have not been found. p. 56 
10 This refers to the new, Menshevik Iskra (The Spark). After the 
Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., the Mensheviks, with the 
assistance of Plekhanov, seized Iskra and utilised it in their 
struggle against V. I. Lenin and the Bolsheviks. In its columns 
they began openly to advocate their opportunist views. The 
Menshevik Iskra ceased publication in October 1905. p. 55 
11 In the autumn of 1904, after the Mensheviks had seized Iskra, 
V. D. Bonch-Bruyevich, on V. I. Lenin¹s instructions, organised

NOTES 396 
a publishing house with the object of publishing ³Party literature, 
particularly literature in defence of the principles of 
the majority at the Second Party Congress.² The Party Council 
and the Central Committee, which at that time were controlled 
by the Mensheviks, did all in their power to hinder the publication 
and distribution of Bolshevik literature. In this connection 
a conference of Caucasian Bolshevik Committees held 
in November 1904 adopted a resolution ³On the Literature 
of the Majority² which said: ³The conference calls upon the 
Central Committee to supply the Party Committees with the 
literature issued by the Bonch-Bruyevich and Lenin group 
together with other Party literature explaining the disagreements 
in the Party.² At the end of December 1904 these publishing 
activities passed to the newspaper Vperyod (Forward), 
organised by V. I. Lenin. p. 55 
12 The Declaration of the 22 was the appeal ³To the Party,² 
written by V. I. Lenin. I t was adopted at the conference 
of Bolsheviks held under Lenin¹s guidance in Switzerland 
in August 1904. The pamphlet To the Party which is 
mentioned in J. V. Stalin¹s letter contained, in addition to 
the appeal ³To the Party,² the resolutions of the Riga and 
Moscow committees, and also of the Geneva group of Bolsheviks, 
associating themselves with the decisions of the conference 
of the twenty-two Bolsheviks. The appeal ³To the Party² 
became the Bolsheviks¹ programme of struggle for the convocation 
of the Third Congress. Most of the committees of the 
R.S.D.L.P. expressed solidarity with the decisions of the Bolshevik 
conference. In September 1904 the Caucasian Union 
Committee, and the Tiflis and Imeretia-Mingrelia Committees, 
associated themselves with the Declaration of the 22 and 
launched a campaign for the immediate convocation of the 
Third Congress .p. 55 
13 V. I. Lenin¹s article ³One Step Forward, Two Steps Back² 
was written in September 1904 in answer to an article by Rosa 
Luxemburg entitled ³The Organisational Problems of Russian 
Social-Democracy,² published in Iskra, No. 69, and in

NOTES 397 
Neue Zeit, Nos. 42, 43, and also in reply to a letter by 
K. Kautsky published in Iskra, No. 66. Lenin intended to 
have his article published in Neue Zeit, but the editors of 
that magazine sympathised with the Mensheviks and refused 
to publish 55 
14 The Minutes of the Second Ordinary Congress of the League 
of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democrats Abroad, published 
by the League 55 
15 V. I . Lenin¹s book One Step Forward ,Two Steps Back was written 
in February-May 1904 and appeared on May 6 (19) in that year 
(see Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 7, pp. 185-392). p. 55 
16 This refers to V. I. Lenin¹s book What Is To Be Done? (see 
Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 5, pp. 319-494). p. 56 
17 In conformity with the Rules adopted at the Second Congress 
of the R.S.D.L.P., the Party Council was the supreme body 
of the Party. It consisted of five members: two appointed by 
the Central Committee, two by the Central Organ, and the 
fifth elected by the congress. The main function of the Council 
was to co-ordinate and unite the activities of the Central 
Committee and the Central Organ. Soon after the Second Congress 
of the R.S.D.L.P. the Mensheviks obtained control of 
the Party Council and converted i t into an instrument of 
their factional struggle. The Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. 
abolished the multiple centre system in the Party and set 
up a single Party centre in the shape of the Central Committee, 
which was divided into two sections‹one functioning 
abroad, and the other in Russia. In conformity with the Rules 
adopted at the Third Congress, the editor of the Central Organ 
was appointed by the Central Committee from among its 
members. p. 61 
18 V. I. Lenin¹s pamphlet A Letter to a Comrade on Our Organisational 
Tasks, with a Preface and Postscript by the author, was

NOTES 398 
published in Geneva, in 1904, by the Central Committee of the 
R.S.D.L.P. (see Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 6, pp. 205-24). p. 61 
19 Kostrov‹pseudonym of N. Jordania. He also signed himself 
An. p. 62 
20 Kvali (The Furrow)‹a weekly newspaper published in the 
Georgian language, an organ of the liberal-nationalist trend. 
In the period of 1893-97 it placed its columns at the disposal 
of the young writers of the Messameh Dassy. At the end 
of 1897 the newspaper passed into the hands of the majority 
in Messameh Dassy (N . Jordania and others) and became 
a mouthpiece of ³legal Marxism.² After the Bolshevik and 
Menshevik groups arose within the R.S.D.L.P. Kvali became 
the organ of the Georgian Mensheviks. The newspaper was 
suppressed by the government in 1904. p. 62 
21 Proletariatis Brdzola (The Proletarian Struggle)‹an illegal 
Georgian newspaper, the organ of the Caucasian Union of the 
R.S.D.L.P., published from April-May 1903 to October 1905, 
and suppressed after the issue of the twelfth number. J. V. Stalin 
became its chief editor on his return from exile in 1904. The 
editorial board included also A. G. Tsulukidze, S. G. Shaumyan, 
and others. The leading articles were written by 
J . V. Stalin. Proletariatis Brdzola was the successor to Brdzola. 
The First Congress of the Caucasian Union of the R.S.D.L.P. 
decided to combine Brdzola with Proletariat, the Armenian 
Social-Democratic newspaper, and issue a joint organ in three 
languages: Georgian (Proletariatis Brdzola), Armenian (Proletariati 
Kriv) and Russian (Borba Proletariata). The contents 
of the newspapers were the same in all three languages. The 
numbering of the respective newspapers was continued from 
their preceding issues. Proletariatis Brdzola was the third 
largest illegal Bolshevik newspaper (after Vperyod and 
Proletary) and consistently advocated the ideological, organisational 
and tactical principles of the Marxist party. The editorial 
board of Proletariatis Brdzola maintained close contact 
with V. I. Lenin and with the Bolshevik centre abroad. When the

NOTES 399 
announcement of the publication of Vperyod appeared in December 
1904, the Caucasian Union Committee formed a group 
of writers to support that newspaper. In answer to an invitation 
of the Union Committee to contribute to Proletariatis 
Brdzola, V. I. Lenin, in a letter dated December 20 (New 
Style), 1904, wrote: ³Dear Comrades. I have received your 
letter about The Proletarian Struggle. I shall try to write myself 
and pass on your request to the comrades on the editorial 
board² (see Lenin, Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 34, p. 240). 
Proletariatis Brdzola regularly reprinted in its columns articles 
and information from Lenin¹s Iskra, and later from Vperyod 
and Proletary. The newspaper published articles by V. I. Lenin. 
Proletary often published favourable reviews and comments 
on Proletariatis Brdzola and also reprinted articles and correspondence 
from it. No. 12 of Proletary noted the issue of 
No. 1 of Borba Proletariata in Russian. The comment concluded 
as follows: ³We shall have to deal with the contents of this 
interesting newspaper again. We heartily welcome the expansion 
of the publishing activities of the Caucasian Union and 
wish i t further success in reviving the Party spirit in the 
Caucasus.² p. 62 
22 This refers to J. V. Stalin¹s article ³The Social-Democratic 
View of the National Question² (present volume, p. 31). 
p. 62 
23 This ukase of Tsar Nicholas II, dated December 12, 1904, 
was published in the newspapers together with a special government 
communique on December 14, 1904. While promising 
certain minor ³reforms,² the ukase proclaimed the 
inviolability of the autocratic power and breathed threats 
not only against the revolutionary workers and peasants, but 
also against the liberals who had dared to submit timid 
constitutional demands to the government. As V. I. Lenin 
expressed it, Nicholas II¹s ukase was ³a slap in the face for 
the liberals.² p. 77 
24 This ³draft constitution² was drawn up by a group of members 
of the liberal League of Emancipation in October

NOTES 400 
1904 and was issued in pamphlet form under the title: The 
Fundamental State Law of the Russian Empire. Draft of a Russian 
Constitution, Moscow 78 
25 J. V. Stalin¹s pamphlet Briefly About the Disagreements in 
the Party was written at the end of April 1905 in reply to articles 
by N. Jordania: ³Majority or Minority?² in the Social- 
Democrat, ³What Is a Party?² in Mogzauri, and others. News 
of the appearance of this pamphlet soon reached the Bolshevik 
centre abroad. On July 18, 1905, N. K. Krupskaya wrote to 
the Caucasian Union Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. requesting 
that copies of the pamphlet be sent to the centre. The pamphlet 
was widely circulated among the Bolshevik organisations in 
Transcaucasia. From it the advanced workers learned of the 
disagreements within the Party and of the stand taken by the 
Bolsheviks headed by V. I. Lenin. The pamphlet was printed 
at the underground printing press of the Caucasian Union 
of the R.S.D.L.P. in Avlabar in May 1905, in the Georgian 
language, and in June it was printed in the Russian and Armenian 
languages, each in 90 
26 Iskra (The Spark)‹the first all-Russian illegal Marxist newspaper, 
founded by V. I. Lenin in 1900. The first issue of Lenin¹s 
Iskra appeared on December 11 (24), 1900, in Leipzig, after 
which it was published in Munich, London (from April 1902), 
and, beginning with the spring of 1903, in Geneva. Groups 
and committees of the R.S.D.L.P. supporting the Lenin-Iskra 
line were organised in a number of towns of Russia, including 
St. Petersburg and Moscow. In Transcaucasia the ideas propagated 
by Iskra were upheld by the illegal newspaper Brdzola, 
the organ of Georgian revolutionary Social-Democracy. (On 
the role and significance of Iskra see the History of the 
C.P.S.U.(B.), Short Course, Moscow 1952, pp. 55-68.) p. 91 
27 Social-Democrat‹the illegal newspaper published in the Georgian 
language in Tiflis by the Caucasian Mensheviks from 
April to November 1905. It was edited by N. Jordania. The 
first number appeared as ³the organ of the Tiflis Committee

NOTES 401 
of the R.S.D.L.P.,² but in the subsequent issues i t called 
itself ³the organ of the Caucasian Social-Democratic Labour 
Organisations.² p. 93 
28 Rabocheye Delo (The Workers¹ Cause)‹a magazine published in 
Geneva at irregular intervals from 1899 to 1902, by the Union 
of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad (³Economists²). p. 93 
29 See V. I. Lenin, Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 4, p. 343. p . 94 
30 Starover‹the pseudonym of A. N. Potresov. p. 95 
31 See Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, 
Moscow 1951, p. 44. p. 100 
32 Die Neue Zeit (New Times)‹a magazine issued by the German 
Social-Democrats, published in Stuttgart from 1883 
to 1923. 101 
33 Mogzauri (The Traveller)‹a magazine dealing with history, 
archeology, geography and ethnography, published in Tiflis 
from 1901 to November 1905. In January 1905 it became the 
weekly literary and political publication of the Georgian 
Social-Democrats, edited by F. Makharadze. I t published 
articles by Bolshevik authors and also articles by Mensheviks. 
101 
34 The Hainfeld programme was adopted at the inaugural congress 
of the Austrian Social-Democratic Party held in Hainfeld 
in 1888. In its statement of principles the programme contained 
a number of points that correctly explained the course of social 
development and the tasks of the proletariat and of the proletarian 
party. Later, at the Vienna Congress held in 1901, 
the Hainfeld programme was dropped and another, based on 
revisionist views, was adopted 115 
35 See Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, 
Moscow 1951, p. 250. p. 119

NOTES 402 
36 Zarya (The Dawn)‹a Russian Social-Democratic theoretical 
journal founded by V. I. Lenin and published in Stuttgart. 
It was a contemporary of Iskra and had the same editors. 
It existed from April 1901 to August 1902. p. 123 
37 See V. I. Lenin, Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 7, p. 177. p . 127 
38 Dnevnik Sotsial-Demokrata (The Social-Democrat¹s Diary)‹a 
magazine published in Geneva a t irregular intervals by 
G. V. Plekhanov from March 1905 to April 1912. Sixteen issues 
appeared. One more issue appeared in 1916. p. 127 
39 Gnchak Committee‹a committee of the Armenian petty-bourgeois 
party called Gnchak which was formed in Geneva in 
1887 on the initiative of Armenian students. In Transcaucasia 
the party assumed the title of Armenian Social-Democratic 
Party and conducted a splitting policy in the labour 
movement. After the revolution of 1905-07 the party degenerated 
into a reactionary . 136 
40 See Resolutions and Decisions of C.P.S.U.(B.) Congresses, 
Conferences and Central Committee Plenums, Part I, 6th Russ. 
ed., 1940, p. 45. p. 138 
41 Only the first part of J. V. Stalin¹s article ³The Provisional 
Revolutionary Government and Social-Democracy² was published 
in No. 11 of Proletariatis Brdzola. Judging from 
the manuscript notes of the plan for Nos. 12, 13 and 
14 of Proletariatis Brdzola, drawn up by J. V. Stalin 
and preserved in the archives, i t was intended to publish 
the second part of this article in No. 13 of that newspaper. 
Owing to the fact that Proletariatis Brdzola ceased publication 
with No. 12, the second part of the article was not published. 
Only the manuscript of the Russian translation of 
this part of the article was preserved in the files of the gendarmerie. 
The Georgian text of the manuscript has not been 
found. 140 
42 The Amsterdam Congress of the Second International was 
held in August 1904. p. 144

NOTES 403 
43 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, ³Address of the Central 
Committee to the Communist League² (see Karl Marx 
and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow 1951, 
p. 102). p. 145 
44 This refers to V. I. Lenin¹s work ³On a Provisional Revolutionary 
Government² in which he quotes from F. Engels¹s 
article ³The Bakuninists at Work² (see V. I. Lenin, Works, 
4th Russ. ed., Vol. 8, pp. 443, 444 and 446). p. 149 
45 This refers to a bill to set up a State Duma with only advisory 
powers and to regulations governing the elections to 
the Duma drawn up by a commission under the chairmanship 
of the Minister of the Interior, Bulygin. The bill and the regulations 
were published together with the tsar¹s manifesto on 
August 6 (19), 1905. The Bolsheviks proclaimed an active 
boycott of the Bulygin Duma. That Duma was swept away by 
the force of the revolution before it could 159 
46 J. V. Stalin¹s article ³A Reply to Social-Democrat,² published 
in No. 11 of Proletariatis Brdzola, met with a lively response 
in the Bolshevik centre abroad. Briefly summing up the gist 
of the article, V. I. Lenin wrote in Proletary: ³We note in 
the article ŒA Reply to Social-Democrat¹ an excellent presentation 
of the celebrated question of the Œintroduction of 
consciousness from without.¹ The author divides this question 
into four independent parts: 
³1) The philosophical question of the relation between 
consciousness and being. Being determines consciousness. 
Corresponding to the existence of two classes, two forms of 
consciousness are worked out, the bourgeois and the socialist. 
Socialist consciousness corresponds to the position of the 
proletariat. 
³2) ŒWho can, and who does, work out this socialist 
consciousness (scientific socialism)?¹ 
³ŒModern socialist consciousness can arise only on the 
basis of profound scientific knowledge¹ (Kautsky), i.e., Œit 
is worked out by a few Social-Democratic intellectuals who 
possess the necessary means and leisure.¹

NOTES 404 
³3) How does this consciousness permeate the minds 
of the proletariat? ŒIt is here that Social-Democracy (and not 
only Social-Democratic intellectuals) comes in and introduces 
socialist consciousness into the working-class movement.¹ 
³4) What does Social-Democracy meet with among the 
proletariat when it goes among them to preach socialism? 
An instinctive striving towards socialism. ŒTogether with the 
proletariat there arises of natural necessity a socialist tendency 
among the proletarians themselves as well as among those 
who adopt the proletarian standpoint. This explains the rise 
of socialist strivings.¹ (Kautsky.) 
³From this the Mensheviks draw the following ridiculous 
conclusion: ŒHence it is obvious that socialism is not introduced 
among the proletariat from without, but, on the contrary, 
emanates from the proletariat and enters the heads of 
those who adopt the views of the proletariat¹!² (See V. I. Lenin, 
Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 9, p. 357.) p. 162 
47 ³A Reply to the Union Committee² was published as a 
supplement to No. 3 of the Social-Democrat of June 1, 1905. 
It was written by N. Jordania, the leader of the Georgian 
Mensheviks, whose views had been subjected to scathing criticism 
by J. V. Stalin in his pamphlet Briefly About the Disagreements 
in the Party and in 162 
48 See V. I. Lenin, Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 6, p. 219. p. 171 
49 Moskovskiye Vedomosti (Moscow Gazette)‹a newspaper, began 
publication in 1756 and expressed the interests of the most 
reactionary circles of the feudal nobility and clergy. In 
1905 i t became the organ of the Black Hundreds. I t was 
closed down after the October Revolution 175 
50 Russkiye Vedomosti (Russian Gazette)‹a newspaper founded 
in Moscow in 1863 by the liberal professors at the Moscow 
University and by leading Zemstvo people. I t expressed

NOTES 405 
the interests of the liberal landlords and bourgeoisie. In 1905 
became the or gan of the Right-wing 177 
51 Proletary (The Proletarian)‹an illegal Bolshevik weekly newspaper, 
the Central Organ of the Russian Social-Democratic 
Labour Party, founded by the decision of the Third Congress 
of the Party. It was published in Geneva from May 14 (27) to 
November 12 (25), 1905. In all, twenty-six numbers were published. 
V. I. Lenin was chief editor. Proletary continued the 
policy of the old, Leninist Iskra, and was the successor to 
the Bolshevik newspaper Vperyod. It ceased publication on 
V. I. Lenin¹s return to St. Petersburg. p. 178 
52 The Constitutional-Democratic Party (Cadet Party)‹the principal 
party of the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie. Was formed 
in October 1905. Under the cloak of a spurious democratism 
and calling themselves the party of ³Popular Freedom,² the 
Cadets tried to win the peasantry to their side. They strove 
to preserve tsarism in the form of a constitutional monarchy. 
Subsequently, the Cadets became the party of the imperialist 
bourgeoisie. After the victory of the October Socialist Revolution 
the Cadets organised counter-revolutionary conspiracies 
and revolts against the 181 
53 Kavkazsky Rabochy Listok (Caucasian Workers¹ Newssheet)‹ 
the first legal daily Bolshevik newspaper in the Caucasus, 
published in Tiflis in Russian from November 20 to December 
14, 1905. It was directed by J. V. Stalin and S. G. Shaumyan. 
At the Fourth Conference of the Caucasian Union of the 
R.S.D.L.P it was recognised as the official organ of the Caucasian 
Union. In all, seventeen numbers were published. The 
last two numbers appeared under the title of Yelizavetpolsky 
Vestnik (Yelizavetpol Herald). p. 197 
54 In December 1905, the Latvian towns of Tukums, Talsen, 
Rujen, Friedrichstadt, and others, were captured by armed 
detachments of insurgent workers, agricultural labourers and

NOTES 406 
peasants, and guerilla warfare began against the tsarist troops. 
In January 1906 the uprising in Latvia was crushed by 
punitive expeditions under the command of generals Orlov, 
Sologub, and others. p. 204 
55 J. V. Stalin¹s article ³The State Duma and the Tactics of 
Social-Democracy² was published on March 8, 1906, in the 
newspaper Gantiadi (The Dawn), the daily organ of the united 
Tiflis Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. , which came out from 
March 5 to 10, 1906. The article was an official expression of 
the Bolsheviks¹ stand on the question of the tactics to be adopted 
towards the Duma. The preceding number of Gantiadi 
had contained an article entitled ³The State Duma Elections 
and Our Tactics,² signed H., which expressed the Menshevik 
stand on this question. J. V. Stalin¹s article was accompanied 
by the following editorial comment: ³In yesterday¹s issue 
we published an article expressing the views of one section 
of our comrades on the question of whether to go into the State 
Duma or not. Today, as we promised, we are publishing another 
article expressing the principles adhered to on this question 
by another section of our comrades. As the readers will see, 
there is a fundamental difference between these two articles: 
the author of the first article is in favour of taking part in 
the Duma elections; the author of the second article is opposed 
to this. Neither of the two authors is expressing merely his 
own point of view. Both express the line of tactics of the two 
trends that exist in the Party. This is the case not only here, 
but all over Russia.² p. 208 
56 Revolutsionnaya Rossiya (Revolutionary Russia)‹the organ 
of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, published from the end of 
1900 to 1905. At first i t was published by the League of 
Socialist-Revolutionaries, but in January 1902 it became the 
central or gan of the Socialist-Revolutionary .p. 226 
57 Novaya Zhizn (New Life)‹the first legal Bolshevik newspaper, 
published in St. Petersburg from October 27 to December 3, 
1905. When V. I. Lenin arrived from abroad, Novaya Zhizn

NOTES 407 
began to appear under his personal direction. An active part 
in the publication of the newspaper was taken by Maxim 
Gorky. On the appearance of No. 27 of Novaya Zhizn the paper 
was suppressed by the authorities. No. 28, the last number to 
be published, came . 229 
58 Nachalo (The Beginning)‹a legal daily newspaper published 
in St. Petersburg by the Mensheviks from November 13 to 
December 2, 229 
59 Tsnobis Purtseli (News Bulletin)‹a daily Georgian newspaper 
published in Tiflis from 1896 to 1906. At the end of 
1900 it became the mouthpiece of the Georgian nationalists, 
and in 1904 became the organ of the Georgian Social-Federalists.
p. 231 
60 Elva (The Lightning)‹a daily Georgian newspaper, organ 
of the united Tiflis Committee of the R.S.D.L.P., began publication 
after the suppression of Gantiadi. The first number was 
issued on March 12 and the last on April 15, 1906. On behalf 
of the Bolsheviks the leading articles were written by 
J. V. Stalin. In all, twenty-seven numbers were issued. p. 232 
61 The Fourth (³Unity²) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. was held 
in Stockholm from April 10 to 25 (April 23 to May 8, New 
Style), 1906. Representatives were also present from the national 
Social-Democratic parties of Poland and Lithuania, 
Latvia and from the Bund. Many of the Bolshevik organisations 
were broken up by the government after the armed uprising in 
December 1905 and were therefore unable to send delegates. 
The Mensheviks had a majority at this congress, although a 
small one. The predominance of the Mensheviks at the congress 
determined the character of its decisions on a number of questions. 
J. V. Stalin attended the congress as a delegate from 
the Tiflis organisation of the Bolsheviks under the pseudonym 
of Ivanovich. He took part in the debates on the draft agrarian 
programme, on the current situation, and on the State Duma. 
In addition, he made several statements of fact, in which he

408 
exposed the opportunist tactics of the Transcaucasian Mensheviks 
on the question of the State Duma, on the agreement 
with the Bund, 238 
62 John‹the pseudonym of P. P. Maslov. p. 238 
63 N. H.‹Noah Homeriki, a Menshevik. p. 243 
64 Simartleh (Truth)‹a daily political and literary newspaper published 
by the Geor gian Mensheviks in Tiflis in 1906.p. 243 
65 K. Kautsky and J. Guesde at that time had not yet gone over 
to the camp of the opportunists. The Russian revolution of 
1905-07, which greatly influenced the international revolutionary 
movement and the working class of Germany in particular, 
caused K. Kautsky to take the stand of revolutionary 
Social-Democracy on a number 243 
66 Akhali Tskhovreba (New Life)‹a daily Bolshevik newspaper 
published in Tiflis from June 20 to July 14, 1906, under the 
direction of J. V. Stalin. M. Davitashvili, G. Telia, G. Kikodze 
and others were permanent members of the staff. In all, twenty 
numbers were 244 
67 This passage is quoted from an article by V. I. Lenin entitled 
³The Present Situation in Russia and the Tactics of the Workers¹ 
Party² (see Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 10, pp. 98-99), published 
in Partiiniye Izvestia (Party News), the organ of the 
united Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. Partiiniye 
Izvestia was published illegally in St. Petersburg just 
prior to the Fourth (³Unity²) Congress of the Party. Two 
numbers were issued: No. 1 on February 7 and No. 2 on 
March 20, 245 
68 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Revolution and Counter-revolution 
in Germany (see Karl Marx, Selected Works, Vol. II, 
Moscow 1936, p. 135). p. 246

409 
69 See Frederick Engels, Die Bakunisten an der Arbeit, Moskau 
1941, S. 16-17. p. 247 
70 Severnaya Zemlya (Northern Land)‹a legal Bolshevik daily 
newspaper published in St. Petersburg from June 23 to 28, 
1906. p. 249 
71 Rossiya (Russia)‹a daily newspaper expressing the views 
of the police and the Black Hundreds, published from November 
1905 to April 1914. Organ of the Ministry of the 
Interior. p. 249 
72 In June and July 1906, P. A. Stolypin, the Minister of the 
Interior, issued an order to the local authorities demanding 
the ruthless suppression by armed force of the revolutionary 
movement of the workers and peasants and the revolutionary 
organisations. p. 250 
73 D. Trepov‹the Governor-General of St. Petersburg, who 
directed the suppression of the 250 
74 J. V. Stalin¹s work The Present Situation and the Unity Congress 
of the Workers¹ Party was published in the Georgian 
language in Tiflis in 1906 by Proletariat Publishers. An appendix 
to the pamphlet contained the three draft resolutions 
submitted by the Bolsheviks to the Fourth (³Unity²) Congress: 
1) ³The Present Situation in the Democratic Revolution² 
(see V. I. Lenin, Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 10, pp. 130-31), 
2) ³The Class Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Situation 
in the Democratic Revolution² (see Resolutions and Decisions 
of C.P.S.U.(B.) Congresses, Conferences and Central Committee 
Plenums, Part I, 6th Russ. ed., 1940, p. 65), 3) ³Armed Insurrection² 
(see V. I. Lenin, Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 10, pp. 131-33), 
and also the draft resolution on the State Duma submitted 
to the congress on behalf of the Bolsheviks by V. I. Lenin (see 
V. I. Lenin, Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 10, pp. 266-67). The 
appendix also contained the resolution adopted by the congress 
on armed insurrection, and also the draft resolution of

NOTES 410 
the Mensheviks on ³The Present Situation in the Revolution 
and the Tasks of the Proletariat.² p. 252 
75 The Party of Democratic Reform‹a party of the liberalmonarchist 
bourgeoisie, was formed during the election of 
the First State 263 
76 The Octobrists, or Union of October Seventeenth‹the counter-
revolutionary party of the big commercial and industrial 
bourgeoisie and big landowners, was formed in November 
1905. I t fully supported the Stolypin regime, the home 
and foreign policy of tsarism. p. 263 
77 Trudoviks, or Group of Toil‹a group of petty-bourgeois 
democrats formed in April 1906, consisting of the peasant 
deputies in the First State Duma. They demanded the abolition 
of all caste and national restrictions, the democratisation 
of the rural and municipal local government bodies, universal 
suffrage for the election of the State Duma and, above all, 
the solution of 266 
78 Nasha Zhizn (Our Life)‹a liberal-bourgeois newspaper published 
in St. Petersburg with interruptions from November 
1904 to 269 
79 Akhali Droyeba (New Times)‹a trade union weekly 
newspaper published legally in the Georgian language in 
Tiflis from November 14, 1906, to January 8, 1907, under 
the directorship of J. V. Stalin, M. Tskhakaya, and M. 
Davitashvili. Was suppressed by order of the Governor of 
Tiflis.p. 288 
80 The commission headed by Senator Shidlovsky was set up 
by the tsar¹s ukase of January 29, 1905, ostensibly ³for the 
purpose of urgently investigating the causes of discontent 
among the workers of the city of St. Petersburg and its suburbs.² 
It was intended to include in the commission delegates elected 
by the workers. The Bolsheviks regarded this as an attempt 
on the part of the tsarist government to divert the workers

NOTES 411 
from the revolutionary struggle and therefore proposed that advantage 
be taken of the election of delegates to this commission 
to present political demands to the government. After the 
government rejected these demands the worker-electors 
refused to elect their representatives to the commission and 
called upon the workers of St. Petersburg to come out on strike. 
Mass political strikes broke out the very next day. On February 
20, 1905, the tsarist government was obliged to dissolve the 
Shidlovsky Commission. 290 
81 The function of the commission headed by V. N. Kokovtsev, 
the Minister of Finance, set up in February 1905, was, like 
that of the Shidlovsky Commission, to investigate the labour 
problem, but without the participation of workers¹ representatives. 
The commission remained in existence until the summer 
of 290 
82 The Associations Act of March 4, 1906, granted right of legal 
existence to societies and unions, provided they registered 
their rules with the government. Notwithstanding the numerous 
restrictions imposed upon the activities of various associations 
and the fact that they were held criminally liable for infringements 
of the law, the workers made extensive use of the 
rights granted them in order to form proletarian industrial 
organisations. In the period of 1905-07 mass trade unions were 
formed in Russia for the first time, and these waged an economic 
and political struggle under the leadership of revolutionary 
Social-Democracy .p. 290 
83 After the promulgation of the tsar¹s Manifesto of October 17, 
1905, S. J. Witte, the President of the Council of Ministers, 
and P. N. Durnovo, the Minister of the Interior, notwithstanding 
the official proclamation of ³freedom,² issued a series of 
circulars and telegrams to provincial governors and city 
governors, calling upon them to disperse meetings and assemblies 
by armed force, to suppress newspapers, to take stringent 
measures against trade unions, and summarily exile all persons 
suspected of conducting revolutionary activities, 290

NOTES 412 
84 At the end of 1905 and the beginning of 1906, a group of 
Anarchists in Georgia, headed by the well-known Anarchist and 
follower of Kropotkin, V. Cherkezishvili and his supporters 
Mikhako Tsereteli (Bâton), Shalva Gogelia (Sh. G.) and others 
conducted a fierce campaign against the Social-Democrats. 
This group published in Tiflis the newspapers Nobati, Musha 
and others. The Anarchists had no support among the proletariat, 
but they achieved some success among the declassed 
and petty-bourgeois elements. J. V. Stalin wrote a series of 
articles against the Anarchists under the general t i t l e of 
Anarchism or Socialism? The first four instalments appeared 
in Akhali Tskhovreba in June and July 1906. The rest were not 
published as the newspaper was suppressed by the authorities. 
In December 1906 and on January 1, 1907, the articles that 
were published in Akhali Tskhovreba were reprinted in Akhali 
Droyeba, in a slightly revised form, with the following editorial 
comment: ³Recently, the Office Employees¹ Union wrote 
to us suggesting that we should publish articles on anarchism, 
socialism, and cognate questions (see Akhali Droyeba, No. 3). 
The same wish was expressed by several other comrades. 
We gladly meet these wishes and publish these articles. 
Regarding them, we think it necessary to mention that 
some have already appeared in the Georgian press (but for 
reasons over which the author had no control, they were not 
completed). Nevertheless we considered it necessary to reprint 
all the articles in full and requested the author to rewrite them 
in a more popular style, and this he gladly did.² This explains 
the two versions of the first four instalments of Anarchism or 
Socialism? They were continued in the newspapers Chveni 
Tskhovreba in February 1907, and in Dro in April 1907. The 
first version of the articles Anarchism or Socialism? as published 
in Akhali Tskhovreba is given as an appendix to the present 
volume. 
Chveni Tskhovreba (Our Life)‹a daily Bolshevik newspaper 
published legally in Ti f l i s under the direction of 
J. V. Stalin, began publication on February 18, 1907. In all, 
thirteen numbers were issued. It was suppressed on March 6, 
1907, for its ³extremist trend.²

NOTES 413 
Dro (Time)‹a daily Bolshevik newspaper published in 
Tiflis after the suppression of Chveni Tskhovreba, ran from 
March 11 to April 15, 1907, under the direction of J. V. Stalin. 
M. Tskhakaya and M. Davitashvili were members of the editorial 
board. In all, thirty-one numbers were issued. p. 297 
85 Nobati (The Call)‹a weekly newspaper published by the Georgian 
Anarchists in Tiflis in 305 
86 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Vol. II, 
Moscow 1951, 307 
87 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, 
Moscow 1951, 311 
88 See Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Die heilige Familie, ³Kritische 
Schlacht gegen den französischen Materialismus.² 
(Marx-Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Erste Abteilung, Band 3, 
S. 307-08.) p. 323 
89 See Karl Marx, Misère de la Philosophie. (Marx-Engels, Gesamtausgabe, 
Erste Abteilung, Band 6, S. 227.) p. 337 
90 See Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Vol. II, 
Moscow 1951, p. 292. p. 337 
91 See Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Vol. II, 
Moscow 1951, p. 23. p. 339 
92 See Frederick Engels, Herr Eugen Dühring¹s Revolution in 
Science (Anti-Dühring), Moscow 1947, pp. 233-35. p. 343 
93 Musha (The Worker)‹a daily newspaper published by the 
Georgian Anarchists in Tiflis in 1906.352

NOTES 414 
94 Khma (The Voice)‹a daily newspaper published by the Georgian 
Anarchists in Tiflis in 352 
95 Karl Marx, The Cologne Trial of the Communists, published 
by Molot Publishers, St. Petersburg, 1906, p. 113 (IX. Appendix. 
Address of the Central Committee to the Communist 
League, March, 1850). (See Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 
Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow 1951, pp. 104-05.) p. 364 
96 See Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Vol. II, 
Moscow 1951, p. 420. p. 365 
97 The author quotes this passage from Karl Marx¹s pamphlet 
The Civil War in France, with a preface by F. Engels, Russian 
translation from the German edited by N. Lenin, 1905 (see 
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, 
Moscow 1951, p. 440). p. 368

BIOGRAPHICAL CHRONICLE 
(1 8 7 9 - 1 9 0 6) 
1 8 7 9 
December 9 Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili (Stalin) 
was born in Gori, Georgia. 
1 8 8 8 
September J. V. Stalin enters the elementary clerical 
school in Gori. 
1 8 9 4 
June J . V. Stalin graduates from the Gori school 
with highest marks. 
September 2 J. V. Stalin enters first grade of the Tiflis 
Theological Seminary. 
1 8 9 5 
J. V. Stalin establishes contact with the

BIOGRAPHICAL CHRONICLE 416 
1 8 9 6 - 1 8 9 8 
In the Theological Seminary in Tiflis 
J. V. Stalin conducts Marxist circles of students, 
studies Capital, the Manifesto of the 
Communist Party, and other works of K. Marx 
and F. Engels, and becomes acquainted with 
the early works of V. I. Lenin. 
1 8 9 8 
January J. V. Stalin begins to conduct a workers¹ 
Marxist circle in the Central Railway Work 
shops in Tiflis. 
August J. V. Stalin joins the Georgian Social- 
Democratic organisation Messameh Dassy. 
J. V. Stalin, V. Z. Ketskhoveli and A. G. Tsulukidze 
form the core of the revolutionary 
Marxist minority in the Messameh Dassy. 
J. V. Stalin draws up a programme of studies 
for Marxist workers¹ circles. 
J. V. Stalin, V. Z. Ketskhoveli and A. G. Tsulukidze 
raise the question of founding an illegal 
revolutionary Marxist press. This gives 
rise to the first sharp disagreements between 
the revolutionary minority and the opportunist 
majority in the Messameh Dassy. 
1 8 9 9 
May 29 J. V. Stalin is expelled from the Tiflis Theological 
Seminary for propagating Marxism.

BIOGRAPHICAL CHRONICLE 417 
December 28 J. V. Stalin starts work at the Tiflis Physical 
Observatory. 
1 9 0 0 
April 23 J. V. Stalin addresses a workers¹ May Day meeting 
in the region of Salt Lake, on the outskirts 
of Tiflis. 
Summer J. V. Stalin establishes contact with V. K. Kurnatovsky, 
a well-known supporter of Lenin¹s 
Iskra, who had arrived in Tiflis for Party 
work. 
August J. V. Stalin leads a mass strike at the Central 
Railway Workshops in Tiflis. 
1 8 9 8 - 1 9 0 0 
Under the leadership of J. V. Stalin, V. Z. 
Ketskhoveli and A. G. Tsulukidze, a central 
leading group is formed within the Tiflis 
organisation of the R.S.D.L.P. , which passes 
from propaganda in study circles to mass 
political agitation. The group organises the 
printing of manifestoes and their distribution 
among the workers, forms underground Social- 
Democratic circles, and leads the strikes and 
political struggle of the Tiflis proletariat. 
1 9 0 1 
March 21 J. V. Stalin¹s lodgings at the Tiflis Physical 
Observatory are searched by the police.

BIOGRAPHICAL CHRONICLE 418 
March 28 J. V. Stalin leaves the Tiflis Physical Observatory 
and goes underground. 
April 22 J. V. Stalin leads the workers¹ May Day demonstration 
in the Soldatsky Market Place, in 
the centre of Tiflis. 
September No. 1 of the illegal newspaper Brdzola, the 
organ of the revolutionary wing of the Georgian 
Marxists published on the initiative of 
J. V. Stalin, appears in Baku. The article 
³From the Editors,² outlining the programme 
of the newspaper which appeared in that issue, 
was written by J. V. Stalin. 
November 11 J. V. Stalin is elected a member of the first 
Tiflis Committee of the R.S.D.L.P., which followed 
the Leninist-Iskra trend. 
End of November The Tiflis Committee sends J. V. Stalin to 
Batum to form a Social-Democratic organisation 
there. 
December No. 2 -3 o f Brdzola appears, containing 
J. V. Stalin¹s article ³The Russian Social- 
Democratic Party and Its Immediate Tasks.² 
J . V. Stalin establishes contact with the advanced 
workers in Batum and organises Social- 
Democratic circles at the Rothschild, Mantashev, 
Sideridis, and other plants. 
December 31 J. V. Stalin organises in the guise of a New 
Year¹s party a secret conference of representatives 
of Social-Democratic study circles. The 
conference elects a leading group, headed by 
J. V. Stalin, which acted virtually as the 
Batum Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. of the 
Leninist-Iskra trend.

BIOGRAPHICAL CHRONICLE 419 
1 9 0 2 
January J. V. Stalin organises in Batum an underground 
printing plant, writes leaflets and 
organises the printing and distribution of 
manifestoes. 
January 31 - J . V. Stalin organises a strike a t the Man- 
February 17 tashev plant which ends in the victory of 
the workers. 
February 27 - J. V. Stalin directs the activities of the strike 
beginning of committee during a strike at the Rothschild 
March plant. 
March 8 J. V. Stalin leads a demonstration of strikers 
who demand the release of 32 of their arrested 
fellow-strikers. 
March 9 J . V. Stalin organises and leads a political 
demonstration of over 6,000 workers employed 
in the various plants in Batum who 
demand the release of 300 worker-demonstrators 
arrested by the police on March 8. 
Outside the prison where the arrested workers 
were confined, the demonstration was shot at 
by troops and 15 workers were killed and 54 
were injured. About 500 demonstrators were 
arrested. That same night J. V. Stalin wrote 
a manifesto on the shooting down of the 
demonstrators. 
March 12 J . V. Stalin leads a workers¹ demonstration 
which he had organised in connection with 
the funeral of the victims of the shooting on 
March 9 
April 5 J . V. Stalin i s arrested a t a meeting of the 
leading Party group in Batum.

BIOGRAPHICAL CHRONICLE 420 
April 6 J. V. Stalin is detained in the Batum jail. 
April 1902 - While in the Batum jail, J. V. Stalin establishes 
April 19, 1903 and maintains contact with the Batum Social- 
Democratic organisation, directs its activities, 
writes leaflets, and conducts political work 
among the prisoners. 
1 9 0 3 
March The Caucasian Union of the R.S.D.L.P. is 
formed at the First Congress of Caucasian Social- 
Democratic Labour Organisations. J. V. Stalin, 
then confined in the Batum jail, is in his absence 
elected a member of the Caucasian Union Committee 
that was set up at the congress. 
April 19 J . V. Stalin i s transferred from the Batum 
j a i l to the Kutais j a i l , where he establishes 
contact with the other political prisoners and 
conducts among them propaganda on behalf of 
the Leninist-Iskra ideas. 
Autumn J . V. Stalin i s retransferred to the Batum 
j a i l , whence he i s deported under escort to 
Eastern Siberia. 
November 27 J. V. Stalin arrives at the village of Novaya 
Uda, Balagansk Uyezd, Irkutsk Gubernia, 
his place of exile. 
December While in Siberia, J. V. Stalin receives a letter 
from V. I. Lenin. 
1 9 0 4 
January 5 J. V. Stalin escapes from his place of exile.

BIOGRAPHICAL CHRONICLE 421 
February J . V. Stalin arrives in Tiflis and directs the 
work of the Caucasian Union Committee of 
the R.S.D.L.P. 
J. V. Stalin drafts the programmatic document 
entitled Credo dealing with the disagreements 
within the Party and with the organisational 
tasks of the Party. 
June J . V. Stalin arrives in Baku where, on the 
instructions of the Caucasian Union Committ 
e e , he dissolves the Menshevik committee 
and forms a new, Bolshevik committee. 
Summer J. V. Stalin makes a tour of the most important 
di s t r i c t s of Transcaucasia and debates 
with Mensheviks, Federalists, Anarchists and 
others. 
In Kutais, J . V. Stalin forms a Bolshevik 
Imeretia-Mingrelia Committee. 
September 1 Proletar iat i s Brdzola, No. 7, publishes 
J. V. Stalin¹s article ³The Social-Democratic 
View of the National Question.² 
September - In connection with the disagreements within 
October the Party, J. V. Stalin, while in Kutais, 
writes letters to the Georgian Bolsheviks abroad, 
expounding Lenin¹s views on the combination 
of socialism with the working-class movement. 
November J. V. Stalin arrives in Baku and leads the 
campaign for the convocation of the Third 
Congress of the Party. 
December 13-31 J. V. Stalin leads the general strike of the 
Baku workers.

FROM MARX 
TO MAO 

 
NOT FOR 
COMMERCIAL 
DISTRIBUTION 
BIOGRAPHICAL CHRONICLE 422 
1 9 0 5 
January 1 Proletariatis Brdzola, No. 8, publishes 
J . V. Stalin¹s article ³The Proletarian Class 
and the Proletarian Party.² 
January 8 The manifesto is issued entitled ³Workers 
of the Caucasus, It Is Time to Take Revenge!² 
written by J. V. Stalin in connection with the 
defeat tsarism had sustained in the Far East. 
Beginning of On the initiative of J. V. Stalin, the Caucasian 
February Union Committee dissolves the Menshevik 
Ti f l i s Committee, which had announced i t s 
withdrawal from the Caucasian Union of the 
R.S.D.L.P., and forms a new, Bolshevik Tiflis 
Committee. 
February 13 In connection with the Tatar-Armenian massacre 
in Baku which had been provoked by 
the police, J. V. Stalin writes the leaflet entitled 
³Long Live International Fraternity!² 
February 15 In connection with the successful demonstration 
of many thousands of people held in Tiflis 
to protest against an attempt by the police to 
provoke massacres among the different nationa 
l i t i e s in that city too, J . V. Stalin writes 
the leaflet entitled ³To Citizens. Long Live 
the Red Flag!² 
April J. V. Stalin speaks at a big meeting in Batum 
in a debate with the Menshevik leaders N. Ramishvili, 
R. Arsenidze, and others. 
May J. V. Stalin¹s pamphlet Briefly About the 
Disagreements in the Party is published.

BIOGRAPHICAL CHRONICLE 423 
June 12 J. V. Stalin delivers a speech at the funeral of 
A. G. Tsulukidze in which he outlines a programme 
of struggle to be waged by the workers 
and peasants against the autocracy, and subjects 
the tactics of the Mensheviks to devastating 
criticism. 
July 15 Proletariatis Brdzola, No. 10, publishes 
J. V. Stalin¹s article ³Armed Insurrection and 
Our Tactics.² 
July 18 In a letter to the Caucasian Union Committee, 
N. K. Krupskaya asks for copies of 
J. V. Stalin¹s pamphlet Briefly About the 
Disagreements in the Party and also for the 
regular delivery of Borba Proletariata. 
July J. V. Stalin speaks before an audience of 2,000 
in Chiaturi in debate with the Anarchists, 
Federalists and Socialist-Revolutionaries. 
August 15 Proletar iat i s Brdzola, No. 11 , publishes 
J. V. Stalin¹s articles ³The Provisional Revolutionary 
Government and Social-Democracy² 
and ³A Reply to Social-Democrat.² 
October 15 Proletar iat i s Brdzola, No. 12, publishes 
J. V. Stalin¹s articles ³Reaction Is Growing² 
and ³The Bourgeoisie Is Laying a Trap.² 
October 18 J. V. Stalin addresses a workers¹ meeting in 
the Nadzaladevi district of Tiflis on the tsar¹s 
Manifesto of October 17. 
October In connection with the October all-Russian 
political strike, J. V. Stalin writes the leaflets 
³Citizens!² and ³To All the Workers!²

BIOGRAPHICAL CHRONICLE 424 
November 20 No. 1 of Kavkazsky Rabochy Listok appears 
with a leading article by J. V. Stalin entitled 
³Tiflis, November 20, 1905.² 
End of November J . V. Stalin directs the proceedings of the 
Fourth Bolshevik Conference of the Caucasian 
Union of the R.S.D.L.P. 
December 12-17 J. V. Stalin takes part in the proceedings of 
the First All-Russian Conference of Bolsheviks 
in Tammerfors as a delegate of the Caucasian 
Union of the R.S.D.L.P. At this conference 
he became personally acquainted with 
V. I. Lenin. 
1 9 0 6 
Beginning of J . V. Stalin¹s pamphlet Two Clashes is pub- 
January lished. 
March 8 J . V. Stalin¹s ar t i c l e ³The State Duma and 
the Tactics of Social-Democracy² appears in 
Gantiadi, No. 3. 
March 17-29 J. V. Stalin¹s articles ³The Agrarian Question² 
and ³Concerning the Agrarian Question,² appear 
in Nos. 5, 9, 10 and 14 of the newspaper 
Elva. 
End of March J . V. Stalin i s elected a delegate from the 
Ti f l i s organisation to the Fourth (³Unity²) 
Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. 
April 10-25 J. V. Stalin takes part in the proceedings of the 
Fourth (³Unity²) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. 
in Stockholm a t which, in opposition to

BIOGRAPHICAL CHRONICLE 425 
the Mensheviks, he substantiates and defends 
the Bolshevik tactics in the revolution. 
June 20 No. 1 o f Akhali Tskhovreba, directed by 
J. V. Stalin, appears. 
June 21-July 9 J . V. Stalin¹s series of ar t i c l e s Anarchism 
or Socialism? appear in Nos. 2, 4, 7 and 16 
of the Bolshevik newspaper Akhali Tskhovreba. 
June-November J. V. Stalin directs the work of organising the 
f i r s t trade unions in Ti f l i s (printers, shop 
assistants, and others). 
July 13 J . V. Stalin¹s ar t i c l e ³Marx and Engels on 
Insurrection² appears in Akhali Tskhovreba, 
No. 19. 
July 14 J. V. Stalin¹s article ³International Counterrevolution² 
appears in Akhali Tskhovreba, 
No. 20. 
July-August J. V. Stalin¹s pamphlet The Present Situation 
and the Unity Congress of the Workers¹ Party 
is published. 
September J. V. Stalin takes part in the proceedings of 
the Regional Congress of Caucasian Organisations 
of the R.S.D.L.P. 
November 14 No. 1 o f Akhali Droyeba, directed by 
J . V. St a l i n , appears, containing his article 
³The Class Struggle.²

BIOGRAPHICAL CHRONICLE 426 
December 4 Akhali Droyeba, No. 4, publishes J. V. Stalin¹s 
article ³ŒFactory Legislation¹ and the Proletarian 
Struggle.² 
December 11 Akh al i Droyeba, No. 5, resumes publication 
of J. V. Stalin¹s series of articles Anarchism 
or Socialism? 
December 18,1906 - Publication of J. V. Stalin¹s series of articles 
April 10, 1907 Anarchism or Socialism? is continued in 
the Bolshevik newspapers Akhali Droyeba, 
Chveni Tskhovreba and Dro.

Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics