Where to Begin?

#PUBLICATION NOTE

This edition of Where to Begin? has been prepared and revised for digital publication by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism under the Central Committee of the Communist Party in Switzerland on the basis of the edition published in the Collected Works of Lenin, Fourth English Edition, Volume 5, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964.

#INTRODUCTION NOTE

This is an article written by Comrade Lenin in May 1901. It was first published in Iskra, No. 4 (May 1901).

The article was reissued by local Social-Democratic organizations as a separate pamphlet. The Siberian Social-Democratic League printed 5'000 copies of the pamphlet and distributed it throughout Siberia. The pamphlet was also distributed in Samara, Tambov, Niznij Novgorod, and other Russian cities.

#Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!

#WHERE TO BEGIN?

#Nikolaj Lenin

#May 1901

#★

In recent years the question of «What is to be done?» has confronted Russian Social-Democrats with particular insistence. It is not a question of what path we must choose (as was the case in the late 1880s and early '90s), but of what practical steps we must take upon the known path and how they shall be taken. It is a question of a system and plan of practical work. And it must be admitted that we have not yet solved this question of the character and the methods of struggle, fundamental for a political party of practical activity, that it still gives rise to serious differences of opinion which reveal a deplorable ideological instability and vacillation. On the one hand, the «Economist» trend, far from being dead, is endeavouring to clip and narrow the work of political organization and agitation. On the other, unprincipled eclecticism is again rearing its head, aping every new «trend», and is incapable of distinguishing immediate demands from the main tasks and permanent needs of the movement as a whole. This trend, as we know, has ensconced itself in the Rabocee Delo¹ [Workers' Cause]. This journal's latest statement of «programme», a bombastic article under the bombastic title A Historic Turn (Supplement to the Workers' Cause,² No. 6), bears out with special emphasis the characterization we have given. Only yesterday, there was a flirtation with «Economism«, a fury over the resolute condemnation of the Rabocaja Mysl³ [Workers' Thought], and Plehanov's presentation of the question of the struggle against autocracy was being toned down. But today, Liebknecht's words are being quoted: «If the circumstances change within 24 hours, then tactics must be changed within 24 hours.» There is talk of a «strong fighting organization» for direct attack, for storming the autocracy; of «broad revolutionary political agitation among the masses» (how energetic we are now — both revolutionary and political!); of «ceaseless calls for street protest»; of «street demonstrations of a pronounced [sic!] political character»; and so on, and so forth.

We might perhaps declare ourselves happy at the Workers' Cause's quick grasp of the programme⁴ we put forward in the first issue of the Iskra⁵ [Spark] calling for the formation of a strong, well organized political party, whose aim is not only to win isolated concessions, but to storm the fortress of the autocracy itself; but the lack of any set point of view in these individuals can only dampen our happiness.

The Workers' Cause, of course, mentions Liebknecht's name in vain. The tactics of agitation in relation to some special question, or the tactics with regard to some detail of party organization may be changed in 24 hours; but only people devoid of all principle are capable of changing, in 24 hours, or, for that matter, in 24 months, their view on the necessity — in general, constantly, and absolutely — of an organization of struggle and of political agitation among the masses. It is ridiculous to plead different circumstances and a change of periods: the construction of a fighting organization and the conduct of political agitation are essential under any «drab, peaceful» circumstances, in any period, no matter how marked by a «declining revolutionary spirit»; moreover, it is precisely in such periods and under such circumstances that work of this kind is particularly necessary, since it is too late to form the organization in times of explosion and outbursts; the Party must be in a state of readiness to launch activity at a moment's notice. «Change the tactics within 24 hours»! But, in order to change tactics, it is first necessary to have tactics; without a strong organization skilled in waging political struggle under all circumstances and at all times, there can be no question of that systematic plan of action, illumined by firm principles and steadfastly carried out, which alone is worthy of the name of tactics. Let us, indeed, consider the matter; we are now being told that the «historic moment» has presented our Party with a «completely new» question — the question of terror. Yesterday, the «completely new» question was political organization and agitation; today, it is terror. Is it not strange to hear people who have so grossly forgotten their principles holding forth on a radical change in tactics?

Fortunately, the Workers' Cause is in error. The question of terror is not a new question at all; it will suffice to recall briefly the established views of Russian Social-Democracy on the subject.

In principle, we have never rejected, and cannot reject, terror. Terror is one of the forms of military action that may be perfectly suitable and even essential at a definite juncture in the battle, given a definite state of the troops and the existence of definite conditions. But the important point is that terror, at the present time, is by no means suggested as an operation for the army in the field, an operation closely connected with and integrated into the entire system of struggle, but as an independent form of occasional attack unrelated to any army. Without a central body and with the weakness of local revolutionary organizations, this, in fact, is all that terror can be. We, therefore, declare emphatically that, under the present conditions, such a means of struggle is inopportune and unsuitable; that it diverts the most active fighters from their real task, the task which is most important from the standpoint of the interests of the movement as a whole; and that it disorganizes the forces, not of the government, but of the revolution. We need but recall the recent events. With our own eyes we saw that the masses of workers and «common people» of the towns pressed forward in struggle, while the revolutionaries lacked a staff of leaders and organizers. Under such conditions, is there not the danger that, as the most energetic revolutionaries go over to terror, the fighting contingents, in whom alone it is possible to place serious reliance, will be weakened? Is there not the danger of rupturing the contact between the revolutionary organizations and the disunited masses of the discontented, the protesting, and the disposed to struggle, who are weak precisely because they are disunited? Yet it is this contact that is the sole guarantee of our success. Far be it from us to deny the significance of heroic individual blows, but it is our duty to sound a vigorous warning against becoming infatuated with terror, against taking it to be the chief and fundamental means of struggle, as so many people strongly incline to do at present. Terror can never be a regular military operation; at best, it can only serve as one of the methods employed in a decisive assault. But can we issue the call for such a decisive assault at the present moment? The Workers' Cause apparently thinks we can. At any rate, it exclaims: «Form assault columns!» But this, again, is more zeal than reason. The main body of our military forces consists of volunteers and insurgents. We possess only a few small units of regular troops, and these are not even mobilized; they are not connected with one another, nor have they been trained to form columns of any sort, let alone assault columns. In view of all this, it must be clear to anyone who is capable of appreciating the general conditions of our struggle and who is mindful of them at every «turn» in the historical course of events that, at the present moment, our slogan cannot be «to the assault», but has to be: «Lay siege to the enemy fortress.» In other words, the immediate task of our Party is not to summon all available forces for the attack right now, but to call for the formation of a revolutionary organization capable of uniting all forces and guiding the movement in actual practice and not in name alone, that is, an organization ready at any time to support every protest and every outbreak and use it to build up and consolidate the fighting forces suitable for the decisive struggle.

The lesson of the February and March events⁶ has been so impressive that no disagreement in principle with this conclusion is now likely to be encountered. What we need at the present moment, however, is not a solution of the problem in principle, but a practical solution. We should not only be clear on the nature of the organization that is needed and its precise purpose, but we must elaborate a definite plan for an organization, so that its formation may be undertaken from all aspects. In view of the pressing importance of the question, we, on our part, take the liberty of submitting to the comrades a skeleton plan to be developed in greater detail in a pamphlet now in preparation for print.⁷

In our opinion, the starting point of our activities, the first step toward creating the desired organization, or, let us say, the main thread which, if followed, would enable us steadily to develop, deepen, and extend that organization, should be the founding of an national political newspaper. A newspaper is what we most of all need; without it, we cannot conduct that systematic, all-round propaganda and agitation, consistent in principle, which is the chief and permanent task of Social-Democracy in general and, in particular, the pressing task of the moment, when interest in politics and in questions of Socialism has been awakened among the broadest strata of the population. Never has the need been felt so acutely as today for reinforcing dispersed agitation in the form of individual action, local leaflets, pamphlets, and so on, by means of generalized and systematic agitation that can only be conducted with the aid of the periodical press. It may be said without exaggeration that the frequency and regularity with which a newspaper is printed (and distributed) can serve as a precise criterion of how well this cardinal and most essential sector of our militant activities is built up. Furthermore, our newspaper must be national. If we fail, and as long as we fail, to combine our efforts to influence the people and the government by means of the printed word, it will be utopian to think of combining other means, more complex, more difficult, but also more decisive, for exerting influence. Our movement suffers in the first place, ideologically, as well as in practical and organizational respects, from its state of fragmentation, from the almost complete immersion of the overwhelming majority of Social-Democrats in local work, which narrows their outlook, the scope of their activities, and their skill in the maintenance of secrecy and their preparedness. It is precisely in this state of fragmentation that one must look for the deepest roots of the instability and the waverings noted above. The first step toward eliminating this shortcoming, toward transforming diverse local movements into a single, national movement, must be the founding of a national newspaper. Lastly, what we need is definitely a political newspaper. Without a political organ, a political movement deserving that name is inconceivable in the Europe of today. Without such a newspaper we cannot possibly fulfil our task — that of concentrating all the elements of political discontent and protest, of vitalizing thereby the revolutionary movement of the proletariat. We have taken the first step, we have awakened in the working class a passion for «economic», factory exposures; we must now take the next step, that of awakening in every section of the population that is at all politically conscious a passion for political exposure. We must not be discouraged by the fact that the voice of political exposure is today so feeble, timid, and infrequent. This is not because of a wholesale submission to police despotism, but because those who are able and ready to make exposures have no tribune from which to speak, no eager and encouraging audience, they do not see anywhere among the people that force to which it would be worth while directing their complaint against the «omnipotent» Russian government. But today, all this is rapidly changing. There is such a force — it is the revolutionary proletariat, which has demonstrated its readiness, not only to listen to and support the summons to political struggle, but boldly to engage in battle. We are now in a position to provide a tribune for the nationwide exposure of the tsarist government, and it is our duty to do this. That tribune must be a Social-Democratic newspaper. The Russian working class, as distinct from the other classes and strata of Russian society, displays a constant interest in political knowledge and manifests a constant and extensive demand (not only in periods of intensive unrest) for underground literature. When such a mass demand is evident, when the training of experienced revolutionary leaders has already begun, and when the concentration of the working class makes it virtual master in the working-class districts of the big cities and in the factory settlements and communities, it is quite feasible for the proletariat to found a political newspaper. Through the proletariat, the newspaper will reach the urban small bourgeoisie, the rural handicraftspeople, and the peasants, thereby becoming a real people's political newspaper.

The role of a newspaper, however, is not limited solely to the dissemination of ideas, to political education, and to the enlistment of political allies. A newspaper is not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, it is also a collective organizer. In this last respect, it may be likened to the scaffolding around a building under construction, which marks the contours of the structure and facilitates communication between the construction workers, enabling them to distribute the work and to view the common results achieved by their organized labour. With the aid of the newspaper, and through it, a permanent organization will naturally take shape that will engage, not only in local activities, but in regular general work, and will train its members to follow political events carefully, appraise their significance and their effect on the various strata of the population, and develop effective means for the revolutionary political party to influence those events. The mere technical task of regularly supplying the newspaper with copy and of promoting regular distribution will necessitate a network of local agents of the united political party, who will maintain constant contact with one another, know the general state of affairs, get accustomed to performing regularly their detailed functions in the national work, and test their strength in the organization of various revolutionary actions. This network of agents⁸ will form the skeleton of precisely the kind of organization we need — one that is sufficiently large to embrace the whole country; sufficiently broad and many-sided to effect a strict and detailed division of labour; sufficiently well tempered to be able to conduct steadily its own work under any circumstances, at all «sudden turns», and in face of all contingencies; sufficiently flexible to be able, on the one hand, to avoid an open battle against an overwhelming enemy, when the enemy has concentrated all their forces at one spot, and yet, on the other, to take advantage of their unwieldiness and to attack them when and where they least expect it. Today we are faced with the relatively easy task of supporting student demonstrations in the streets of big cities; tomorrow we may, perhaps, have the more difficult task of supporting, for example, the unemployed movement in some particular area, and the day after to be at our posts in order to play a revolutionary part in a peasant uprising. Today, we must take advantage of the tense political situation arising out of the government's campaign against the Zemstvo; tomorrow, we may have to support popular indignation against some tsarist bashi-bazouk on the rampage and help, by means of boycott, indictment demonstrations, and so on, to make things so hot for them as to force them into open retreat. Such a degree of combat-readiness can be developed only through the constant activity of regular troops. If we join forces to produce a common newspaper, this work will train and bring into the foreground, not only the most skilful propagandists, but the most capable organizers, the most talented political party leaders capable, at the right moment, of releasing the slogan for the decisive struggle and of taking the lead in that struggle.

In conclusion, a few words to avoid possible misunderstanding. We have spoken continuously of systematic, planned preparation, yet it is by no means our intention to imply that the autocracy can be overthrown only by a regular siege or by organized assault. Such a view would be absurd and dogmatic. On the contrary, it is quite possible, and historically much more probable, that the autocracy will collapse under the impact of one of the spontaneous outbursts or unforeseen political complications which constantly threaten it from all sides. But no political party that wishes to avoid adventurous gambles can base its activities on the anticipation of such outbursts and complications. We must go our own way, and we must steadfastly carry on our regular work, and the less our reliance on the unexpected, the less the chance of our being caught unawares by any «historic turns».