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

166V. I. LENINBebel, and even of Kautsky, is opportunism”. I answeredMr. Struve at the time: “When and where did I ever claimto have created any sort of special trend in internationalSocial-Democracy not identical with the trend of Bebeland Kautsky?” (Two Tactics, p. 50 of the Russian edition).*In the summer of 1907 in a pamphlet on the question ofboycott of the Third Duma, I had to point out that it wouldbe basically wrong to identify Bolshevism with boycottismor boyevism.Now, on the question of the trade unions, equally strongemphasis should be placed on the fact that Bolshevism appliesthe tactics of revolutionary Social-Democracy in allfields of struggle, in all spheres of activity. Whatdistinguishes Bolshevism from Menshevism is not that theformer “repudiates” work in the trade unions or the cooperativesocieties, etc., but that the former takes a differentline in the work of propaganda, agitation, and organisationof the working class. Today activity in the trade unionsundoubtedly assumes tremendous importance. In contrastto the neutralism of the Mensheviks we must conduct thisactivity on the lines of closer alignment of the unions withthe Party, of the development of socialist consciousness andan understanding of the revolutionary tasks of the proletariat.In Western Europe revolutionary syndicalism inmany countries was a direct and inevitable result of opportunism,reformism, and parliamentary cretinism. In ourcountry, too, the first steps of “Duma activity” increasedopportunism to a tremendous extent and reduced the Mensheviksto servility before the Cadets. Plekhanov, for example,in his everyday political work, virtually merged withthe Prokopovich and Kuskova gentry. In 1900, he denouncedthem for Bernsteinism, for contemplating only the “posterior”of the Russian proletariat (Vademecum for the editorialstaff of Rabocheye Dyelo, Geneva, 1900). In 1906-07,the first ballot papers threw Plekhanov into the arms ofthese gentlemen, who are now contemplating the “posterior”of Russian liberalism. Syndicalism cannot help developingon Russian soil as a reaction against this shameful conductof “distinguished” Social-Democrats.* See present edition, Vol. 9, p. 66.—Ed.