12.07.2015 Views

Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 13 - From Marx to Mao

Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 13 - From Marx to Mao

Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 13 - From Marx to Mao

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

PREFACE TO THE COLLECTION TWELVE YEARS111“Good Demonstrations <strong>of</strong> Proletarians and Poor Arguments<strong>of</strong> Certain Intellectuals.”*The last pamphlet included in this collection, Two Tactics<strong>of</strong> Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,appeared in Geneva in the summer <strong>of</strong> 1905.** It is a systematicstatement <strong>of</strong> the fundamental tactical differenceswith the Mensheviks. These differences were fully formulatedin the resolutions <strong>of</strong> the Third (spring) R.S.D.L.P.(Bolshevik) Congress in London and the Menshevik Conferencein Geneva which established the basic divergence betweenthe Bolshevik and Menshevik appraisals <strong>of</strong> our bourgeoisrevolution as a whole from the standpoint <strong>of</strong> the proletariat’stasks. The Bolsheviks claimed for the proletariat therole <strong>of</strong> leader in the democratic revolution. The Mensheviksreduced its role <strong>to</strong> that <strong>of</strong> an “extreme opposition”. The Bolsheviksgave a positive definition <strong>of</strong> the class character andclass significance <strong>of</strong> the revolution, maintaining that avic<strong>to</strong>rious revolution implied a “revolutionary-democraticdicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and the peasantry”. TheMensheviks always interpreted the bourgeois revolutionso incorrectly as <strong>to</strong> result in their acceptance <strong>of</strong> a positionin which the role <strong>of</strong> the proletariat would be subordinate<strong>to</strong> and dependent on the bourgeoisie.How these differences <strong>of</strong> principle were reflected in practicalactivities is well known. The Bolsheviks boycottedthe Bulygin Duma; the Mensheviks vacillated. The Bolsheviksboycotted the Witte Duma; the Mensheviks vacillated,appealing <strong>to</strong> the people <strong>to</strong> vote, but not for the Duma.The Mensheviks supported a Cadet Ministry and Cadetpolicy in the First Duma, while the Bolsheviks, parallelwith propaganda in favour <strong>of</strong> an “executive committee <strong>of</strong>the Left”, 66 resolutely exposed constitutional illusionsand Cadet counter-revolutionism. Further, the Bolsheviksworked for a Left bloc in the Second Duma elections, whilethe Mensheviks called for a bloc with the Cadets, and soon and so forth.Now it seems that the “Cadet period” in the Russianrevolution (the expression is from the pamphlet The Vic-* See present edition, <strong>Vol</strong>. 8, pp. 29-34.—Ed.** See present edition, <strong>Vol</strong>. 9, pp. 15-140.—Ed.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!