dizzle 's Bookmarks tagged 340 →  View Popular

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.

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.

The theory of socialism, however,
grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories
elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied
classes, by intellectuals.

“politics always obediently
follows economics”

“We
think that it is not and should not be the task of
Social-Democracy to counteract the rise of terroristic
sentiments” (Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, p. 23), and with
the Conference resolution: “The Conference regards systematic
and aggressive terror as being inopportune” (Two
Conferences, 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”.