Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 26 - From Marx to Mao

30V. I. LENINing in it; (4) the forces in the movement; (5) its tenacity.We think that if all the parties which are now “unnecessarilythrowing about” the words “civil war” were to approach thequestion in this way, and make a real attempt to study thegerms of the civil war, the class consciousness of the entireRussian revolution would gain a very great deal.Let us begin with the spontaneous nature of the movement.For the July 3-4 movement we have the testimony of suchwitnesses as the Menshevik Rabochaya Gazeta 16 and theSocialist-Revolutionary Dyelo Naroda 17 which have recognisedthe spontaneous origin of the movement. This testimonyI quoted in an article published in ProletarskoyeDyelo, 18 and issued as a separate leaflet entitled An Answer.*For obvious reasons, however, the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries,who are defending themselves andthe part they played in persecuting the Bolsheviks, officiallycontinue to deny the spontaneous nature of the outburst ofJuly 3-4.Let us put the controversial matter aside for the present.Let us take what is undisputed. No one denies the spontaneousnature of the April 20-21 movement. The BolshevikParty joined this spontaneous movement under theslogan “All Power to the Soviets”; independently of theBolsheviks it was joined by the late Linde, who led 30,000armed soldiers into the street ready to arrest the government.(The action of these troops, let us say in parenthesis, hasnot been investigated and studied. If it is examined closely,and April 20 is given its place in the historic sequenceof events, i.e., if it is seen as a link in the chain whichextends from February 28 to August 29, it becomes clearthat the fault and the error of the Bolsheviks was theinsufficient revolutionism of their tactics, and by no meansthe excessive revolutionism the philistines, accuse us of.)The spontaneous nature of the movement leading to theproletariat beginning civil war is thus beyond doubt. Onthe other hand, there is not even a trace of anything resemblingspontaneity in the Kornilov revolt; it was merely aconspiracy of generals who hoped by fraud and by the forceof military command to carry part of the army with them.* See present edition, Vol. 25.—Ed.