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

AGAINST BOYCOTT25its emergence. Any given institution can be derived onlyfrom the already existing, i.e., the old, regime. Consequently,the boycott is a means of struggle aimed directlyat overthrowing the old regime, or, at the worst, i.e., whenthe assault is not strong enough for overthrow, at weakeningit to such an extent that it would be unable to set upthat institution, unable to make it operate.* Consequently,to be successful the boycott requires a direct struggleagainst the old regime, an uprising against it and mass disobedienceto it in a large number of cases (such mass disobedienceis one of the conditions for preparing an uprising).Boycott is a refusal to recognise the old regime,a refusal, of course, not in words, but in deeds, i.e., it issomething that finds expression not only in cries or theslogans of organisations, but in a definite movement of themass of the people, who systematically defy the laws of theold regime, systematically set up new institutions, which,though unlawful, actually exist, and so on and so forth.The connection between boycott and the broad revolutionaryupswing is thus obvious: boycott is the most decisivemeans of struggle, which rejects not the form of organisationof the given institution, but its very existence. Boycottis a declaration of open war against the old regime, a directattack upon it. Unless there is a broad revolutionary upswing,unless there is mass unrest which overflows, as itwere, the bounds of the old legality, there can be no questionof the boycott succeeding.Passing to the question of the nature and symptoms ofthe upswing of the autumn of 1905 we shall easily see thatwhat was happening at the time was an incessant massoffensive of the revolution, which systematically attackedand held the enemy in check. Repression expanded themovement instead of reducing it. In the wake of January 9came a gigantic strike wave, the barricades in Lodz, the* Reference everywhere in the text is to active boycott, that is,not just a refusal to take part in the institutions of the old regime,but an attack upon this regime. Readers who are not familiar withSocial-Democratic literature of the period of the Bulygin Duma boycottshould be reminded that the Social-Democrats spoke openly atthe time about active boycott, sharply contrasting it to passive boycott,and even linking it with an armed uprising.