What Is to Be Done?—Burning Questions of Our Movement

Lenin’s theoretical considerations on the urgent questions of the proletarian revolutionary movement, What Is to Be Done? was written between the end of 1901 and early in 1902.

An announcement of its inauguration was printed in Iskra, issue No. 18, March 10, 1902. What Is to Be Done? was published according to the 1902 edition and a revised edition was included in the 1907 edition. The Chinese translation is included in Vol. 6 of the second edition of Complete Works of Lenin.

At the beginning of the 20th century, while the social contradictions in Russia were becoming increasingly acute, the revolutionary will of the masses against the Tsarist dictatorship was strong, and workers’ economic and political strikes were closely intertwined. The political forces in Russian society at this time were very complex. The liberal bourgeoisie elements, the petty-bourgeois democrats, and the proletarian revolutionaries fought fiercely to gain the leadership of the revolutionary movement, formulating and implementing their own programs and strategies. In the first half of 1901, the exile organizations of the Russian Social-Democratic Party in the foreign countries, such as the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, Jewish Workers’ Union (Bund), the organization “Social-Democrats”, the foreign sections of the newspaper Iskra and the magazine Zarya, held consultations.

At the meeting of the delegates of the organizations held in preparation for the congress to achieve unity, they adopted a resolution agreeing to unite the Russian Social-Democracy theoretically and the unification of the Social-Democratic Labor Party’s national and foreign organizations on the basis of the revolutionary principles of the newspaper Iskra. They also denounced economism, Bernsteinism, Millerism, and other forms of opportunism. However, the “Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad” and its journal Rabocheye Dyelo (Workers’ Cause) intensified the propaganda of opportunism after this meeting. With this new situation, differences between the Iskraists and the Rabocheye Dyelo group came to the fore.

The latter geoup opposed Marxist revolutionary theory and the participation of workers in political struggles and advocated only economic struggle, also known as the “economists”, whose ideas seriously affected the establishment of the proletarian party. The urgent task facing the revolutionary wing of the Russian proletariat was to thoroughly smash the obstacle of economism from the ideological point of view, to put an end to the ideological confusion and disorganization of the various organizations of the Social-Democratic Labor Party, and to establish a new type of proletarian party as soon as possible. So that party could lead the struggle of the masses for political freedom and the victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution and prepare the conditions for the future socialist revolution. In response, Lenin wrote the book What Is to Be Done? (Burning Questions Of Our Movement). 1902-03, What Is to Be Done? was widely circulated among the Social-Democratic Labor Party organizations throughout Russia. Many people were influenced by it and became advocates of the Iskra. The book played a particularly significant role in the establishment of a revolutionary Marxist party of the Russian working class, in the victory of the Iskraists in the committees and organizations of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party, and later at the Second Congress of the Party in 1903.

What Is to Be Done? includes a preface, 5 chapters, 22 sections, and a conclusion. In this book, Lenin argues comprehensively for the idea of building a new type of working-class party that would ideologically crush economism once and for all, educates and trains strong Marxist revolutionaries.

The preface explains the need for and the main content of the pamphlet What Is to Be Done?. The necessity of writing the book and the main content of the writing. Lenin points out that economism is essential for solving the problem of “Where to begin?”. Different approaches were taken to the three questions raised: the character and main content of the political agitation of the Social-Democratic Party; our organizational tasks; and the plan for building, simultaneously and from various sides, a militant, all-Russia organization. The fundamental antagonism between the two factions of the Russian Social-Democratic Party gave rise to different views on these three questions. Lenin thought it necessary to fight those stubborn, ambiguous factions on the question of “freedom of criticism”, the role of the Social-Democratic Party in the spontaneous mass movement. Further, Lenin made the distinction between trade unionist and social-democratic politics, the distinction between the economists and the “Iskraist” revolutionaries, and stressed the establishment of the needed organizational structure. ambiguous factions in a determined struggle.

In the first chapter of the book, Lenin exposed the essence and danger of the opportunists’ so-called “freedom of criticism” slogan and clarified the importance of Marxist revolutionary theory. In response to Bernstein’s claim that “Social-Democracy must transform from a party of social revolution into a democratic party of social reforms”. Lenin pointed out that the essence of “freedom of criticism” was the freedom of the opportunists in the Social-Democratic Party, the freedom to turn the Social-Democratic Party into a democratic party of improvement, the freedom to instill bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into the socialist movement. Lenin exposed Russian economism as a variant of international opportunism, pointing out that the economists promoted spontaneity in the workers’ movement, gave importance to the economic struggle and gave a reformist interpretation of the political struggle, devalued the role of socialist consciousness and the leading role of the party in the workers’ movement, disarmed the working class in the struggle against the dictatorship and the bourgeoisie, and made the economists the transmitters of bourgeois ideological influence. Lenin emphasized the significance of the Marxist party as the leading force of the workers’ movement, expounded Engels’ idea that the three struggles of the Social-Democratic movement, namely the political struggle, the economic struggle, and the theoretical struggle, were inseparable. Also, he particularly emphasized the great significance of theoretical work. The struggle for the victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia should be led by a workers’ party, which should go ahead of the spontaneous workers’ movement, show it the way, and answer all the theoretical, political, and organizational problems encountered by the proletariat. The power of the party lies in the fact that it is theoretically armed. Lenin wanted the leaders of the workers’ movement to constantly improve their knowledge of various theoretical issues; without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement, and only a party guided by leading theory can realize the role of leading fighters.

In the second chapter of the book, Lenin analyzed the problem of the interrelationship between spontaneity and self-consciousness of the workers’ movement. Lenin pointed out that the strength of the current movement lies in the consciousness of the masses, while its weakness lies in the lack of self-consciousness and initiative of the revolutionaries as leaders. The Rabocheye Dyelo refuted this view in a polemic with Iskra and Zarya, instead attributing the difference of opinion to the different estimates of spontaneous and consciously planned factors and pointing out the significance of belittling objective or spontaneous factors in the development process. Lenin shared this view, arguing that this difference of opinion illustrated the full essence of the current theoretical and political differences of opinion among Russian social democrats and that the question of the relationship between self-consciousness and spontaneity aroused concern.

Lenin criticized the economic school’s worship of spontaneity and put forward the famous “Instillation Theory” in view of the opportunism that “socialist consciousness can spontaneously emerge from the workers’ movement itself and spontaneously spread among the working class, and against the instillation of the working class in the socialist consciousness”. Point out that socialist doctrines do not arise spontaneously, but out of theories of philosophy, history, and economics created by learned intellectuals. The spontaneous working-class movement is by itself able to create (and inevitably does create) only trade-unionism. The socialist consciousness of the workers could only be instilled from outside. And to instill socialist consciousness into the workers’ movement, it must engage in an irreconcilable struggle with the bourgeois ideological system. Until the workers’ movement is united with socialist consciousness, it is powerless to resist the attack of bourgeois ideology. The bourgeoisie, as the ruling class, sought to mentally enslave the workers by suppressing their consciousness through schools, churches, newspapers, literature and art, and other channels of ideological influence. The urgent task of the Russian Marxist parties at the beginning of the 20th century lay in guiding the workers’ movement along the path of political struggle against the Tsarist system and capitalism, and in arming the workers’ movement with scientific socialist ideas.

In the third chapter of the book, Lenin expounds on the question of the interrelationship between the economic and political forms of the proletarian class struggle. Lenin exposed the essence of the economists’ statement that “political agitation must follow economic agitation” and that “lending the economic struggle itself a political character”, which reduced social-democratic politics to trade unionist politics and fought for economic improvement. The economic struggle is a collective struggle of workers against the factory owners to obtain favorable conditions for the sale of labor and to improve the labor and living conditions of workers. Thus, to “lending the economic struggle itself a political character”, is to strive for “legislative and administrative measures” to realize the demands of these occupations and to improve labor conditions within this occupation, concealing the traditional intention of reducing the politics of social democracy to the politics of trade unionism and fighting for economic improvement.

Lenin pointed out that the Social-Democratic Party led the struggle of the working class not only for favorable conditions for the selling of labor but also for the elimination of the social system in which man exploits man. Social-Democracy represents the working class, not in its relation to a given group of employers alone, but in its relation to all classes of modern society and to the state as an organized political force. Hence, it follows that not only must Social-Democrats not confine themselves exclusively to the economic struggle, but that they must not allow the organization of economic exposures to become the predominant part of their activities. In particular the fundamental economic interests of the proletariat can be satisfied only by a political revolution that will replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

So, the Social-Democratic Party should actively educate the working class politically, develop the political consciousness of the working class, raise the political consciousness and revolutionary motivation of the masses through a comprehensive political exposure of the dictatorship, and subordinate the partial struggle for improvement to the overall revolutionary struggle for freedom and for socialism. It was the duty of the Social-Democratic Party to carry out a comprehensive political exposure of the authoritarian system and to fulfill the task of developing the political consciousness of the workers; to agitate using concrete manifestations of oppression and to bring to the surface the expression of their philosophy.

Lenin elaborated on the ideas about the leadership of the proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the revolutionary alliance of workers and peasants, stating that the working class should lead the democratic movement in general as advanced fighters for political freedom, but also not conceal its socialist convictions. The party of the working class should combine the democratic struggle of the entire Russian people against the dictatorship with the socialist struggle of the proletariat against capitalism, carry out revolutionary propaganda and agitation among all sectors of the population, and expose the dictatorship politically and the whole socio-political system of Tsarist Russia. The task of the Social-Democratic Party was to deepen, broaden and strengthen political exposure and political agitation. Only a party that will organize really nationwide exposures can become the vanguard of the revolutionary forces.

In the fourth chapter of the book, Lenin argues for the need to establish a unified and centralized Marxist party. Lenin thoroughly criticized the opportunist views of the economists who were obsessed with the “handicraft” methods in organizing their work and opposed the establishment of an organization of revolutionaries. Lenin pointed out that the “handicraft” methods, which were inherent in the whole movement, were connected with “economism”, one of the factions of the Russian Social-Democratic Party. Firstly, these “handicraft” methods lacked practical training and were not good at organizational work; secondly, the whole revolutionary work of the “handicraft” methods is on a narrow scale and a good organization of revolutionaries cannot be formed on the basis of this narrow work. Finally, the “handicraft” methods of spontaneity, the attempt to justify the narrowness of the “handicraft” methods, the attempt to show that the “handicraft” methods are linked to “economism” and that only by getting rid of the general “economist” point of view can we get rid of the narrowness of the organizational work. Both opportunists and “revolutionaries” succumbed to the prevailing “handicraft” methods, not understanding that the first and most urgent practical task of the Social-Democratic Party was to build an organization of revolutionaries that would give strength, stability, and succession to the political struggle. The groups of outstanding activists are capable of the most practical and real political tasks, and they can be supported and responded to by the revolutionary class. The spontaneous struggle of the proletariat will not become its genuine “class struggle” until this struggle is led by a strong organization of revolutionaries. The organization of revolutionaries is not the same as the organization of workers; the former should include, first and foremost of people who make revolutionary activity their profession (meaning revolutionary Social-Democrats). Whereas the organization of workers must perforce not be very extensive and must be as secret as possible.

Lenin argued that the urgent task in Russia was to create a centralized all-Russian organization, an organization of professional revolutionaries led by the real political leaders of the whole people. The necessity of this lay in the fact that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organization of leaders maintaining continuity. At the broader the popular mass drawn spontaneously into the struggle, which forms the basis of the movement and participates in it, the more urgent the need for such an organization, and the more solid this organization must be and that such an organization must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activity. That in an autocratic state, the more we confine the membership of such an organization to people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity and who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police, the more difficult will it be to unearth the organization. the greater will be the number of people from the working class and from the other social classes who will be able to join the movement and perform active work in it.

Lenin also stressed that party building should begin with the creation of an all-Russian political newspaper, shifting the focus slightly to all-Russian work, strengthening both the solidity of ties and the stability of local work.

In the fifth chapter of the book, Lenin discusses the party-building program. First of all, Lenin pointed out that a strong political organization could be cultivated only by using the all-Russian press. The explanation is that the committees and other organizations are engaged in real work and are not playing at “democracy”. The committees read the article “Where To Begin”, saw that it represented an attempt “to elaborate a definite plan for an organization, so that its formation may be undertaken from all aspects”. Secondly, Lenin pointed out that the plan for building the party was in keeping with the requirements of the times and that the creation of an all-Russian political newspaper would enable the revolutionary organization to grow and expand. Finally, the Social-Democratic Party advocated a program of organization around the all-Russian newspaper, through the common work for the common newspaper. Only such organization will ensure the flexibility required of a militant Social-Democratic organization, viz., the ability to adapt itself immediately to the most diverse and rapidly changing conditions of struggle. Lenin also spelled out the basic elements of the Social-Democratic Party’s organizational activity. These included the analysis of all aspects of practical life, political agitation that reached out to the masses and was carried out uniformly throughout Russia, and the necessity of having a regularly published all-Russian newspaper.

Lenin pointed out that the “plan for an all-Russia political newspaper” was not a product of detachment from practical work, but is the most practical plan for immediate and all-round preparation of the uprising, with, at the same time, no loss of sight for a moment of the pressing day-to-day work.

Lenin also raised such questions as the organization of the party and the composition of its leaders. The party should be composed of a small number of leaders (mainly professional revolutionaries) and a wide network of local organizations. The inner core of the party should be composed of cultivated, talented, experienced, and tested professional revolutionaries. A fighting revolutionary party needs strong and credible leadership. Persistent struggle in modern society is impossible without a collective of talented, tested, specially trained, and educated leaders who work well with each other.

In the concluding section of the book, Lenin answers the question “What is to be done?”: to put an end to ideological differences and organizational confusion and to build a strong and united Marxist party of the working class.

What Is to Be Done? systematically criticized the opportunist views of the economists and their ideological roots, expounded the ideological principles and plans for the establishment of a Marxist party, emphasized the significance of the theoretical struggle, raised the role of revolutionary theory in guiding the workers’ movement and the workers’ party to a new level. Also made an in-depth exposition of the conditions that party organizations and party leaders should have, thus laying the ideological and organizational foundations of a new type of proletarian party.