http://www.diigo.com/user/Ekdavis/340 Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:07:57 -0000 Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:07:57 -0000 http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm <p></p><p><strong>Highlights and Sticky Notes:</strong><p><div class="content">“We think that it is not and should not be the task of Social-Democracy to counteract the rise of terroristic sentiments” (<em>Rabocheye Dyelo</em>, No. 10, p. 23), and with the Conference resolution: “The Conference regards systematic and aggressive terror as being inopportune” (<em>Two Conferences</em>, p. 18). How beautifully clear and coherent this is! Not to counteract, but to declare inopportune, and to declare it in such a way that unsystematic and defensive terror does not come within the scope of the “resolution”.</div></p><p><div class="content">“politics always obediently follows economics”</div></p><p><div class="content">The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. </div></p><p><div class="content">The strikes of the nineties revealed far greater flashes of consciousness; definite demands were advanced, the strike was carefully timed, known cases and instances in other places were discussed, etc. The revolts were simply the resistance of the oppressed, whereas the systematic strikes represented the class struggle in embryo, but only in embryo. Taken by themselves, these strikes were simply trade union struggles, not yet Social Democratic struggles. They marked the awakening antagonisms between workers and employers; but the workers, were not, and could not be, conscious of the irreconcilable antagonism of their interests to the whole of the modern political and social system, i.e., theirs was not yet Social-Democratic consciousness. In this sense, the strikes of the nineties, despite the enormous progress they represented as compared with the "revolts’, remained a purely spontaneous movement.</div></p><p><div class="content">we think, has until now doubted that the strength of the present-day movement lies in the awakening of the masses (principally, the industrial proletariat) and that its weakness lies in the lack of consciousness and initiative among the revolutionary leaders.</div></p><p><p><strong>Tags:</strong> <a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/ekdavis/10%2F30' rel='tag'>10/30</a> <a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/ekdavis/340' rel='tag'>340</a> <a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/ekdavis/hst' rel='tag'>hst</a> </p><p><strong>Posted by:</strong> <a href='http://www.diigo.com/user/ekdavis'>ekdavis</a></p> Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:07:57 -0000 60