V. I.

Lenin

The Election Campaign and the

Election Platform
Published: Sotsial-Demokrat, No. 24, October 18 (31),

1911. Published according to the Sotsial-Demokrat text.

Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress
Publishers, [1974], Moscow, Volume 17, pages 278-286.
Translated: Dora Cox
Transcription\Markup: R. Cymbala
Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (2004). You may
freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as
make derivative and commercial works. Please credit Marxists
Internet Archive as your source.
Other Formats: Text README

Pemilihan DUMA ke empat akan segera dilaksanakan tahun

depan. Partai Demokratik Sosialis
The elections to the Fourth Duma are due to be held next year.
The Social-Democratic Party must launch its election campaign
at once. In view of these forthcoming elections a livening-up
of all parties is already noticeable. The first phase of the period
of counter-revolution has obviously come to an end. Last years
demonstrations, the student movement, the famine in the
countryside, and, last but not least, the strike wave, are all
unmistakable symptoms showing that a turn has set in, that we
are at the beginning of a new phase of the counter-revolution.
Intensified propaganda, agitation, and organisation are on the
order of the day, and the forthcoming elections provide a
natural, inevitable, topical pretext for such work. [It should be

noted in parentheses that those who, like the

small Vperyod group among the Social-Democrats, are still
hesitant with regard to these elementary truths which have been
fully corroborated by reality, by experience, and by the Party,
those who maintain that otzovism is a legitimate shade of
opinion (Vperyod, No. 3, May 1911, p. 78), thereby forfeit
every claim to be regarded in any way as a serious tendency or
trend in the Social-Democratic movement.]
To begin witha few remarks about the organisation and
conduct of the election campaign. In order to launch it at once,
it is necessary for the illegal nuclei of the R.S.D.L.P. to start
work immediately on their own initiative throughout the
country, in all and sundry legal and semi-legal organisations, in
all the big factories, among all sections and groups of the
population. We must look sad reality straight in the face. In most
places there are no strictly defined Party organisations at all.
There is the working-class vanguard, which is devoted to
Social-Democracy. There are isolated individuals, and there are
small groups. Therefore the first task of all Social-Democrats is
to take the initiative in organising nuclei (a word excellently
expressing the idea that the objective conditions call for the
formation of small, very flexible groups, circles, and
organisations); it is the task of all Social-Democrats, even where
there are only two or three of them, to gain some foothold,
establish connections of one kind or another, and start work that
is systematic even if very modest.
In view of the present situation in our Party, there is nothing
more dangerous than the tactics of waiting for the time when
an influential centre will, have been formed in Russia. All
Social-Democrats know that the work of forming such a
centre is going on, that everything possible toward this end has
been done by those who are primarily responsible for this work;
but all Social-Democrats must also be aware of the incredible
difficulties created by the policethey must not lose heart at the

first, second or third failure!and all should know that when

such a centre has been formed, it will take it a long time to
establish reliable connections with all the local organisations,
and the centre will have to confine itself to general political
guidance for some considerable time. There must be no delay in
the organisation of local nuclei of the R.S.D.L.P., nuclei that
will act on their own initiative in a strictly Party spirit, function
illegally, start at once on the preparatory work for the elections,
and immediately take every possible step to develop propaganda
and agitation (illegal printing-presses, leaflets, legally published
organs, groups of legally functioning Social-Democrats,
transport facilities, etc., etc.)any delay would jeopardise the
whole work.
The principal question for Social-Democrats who value the
elections primarily as a means for the political enlightenment of
the people, is, of course, the ideological and political content of
all the propaganda and agitation to be carried on in Connection
with them. That is what is meant by an election platform. To
every party at all worthy of the name a platform is something
that has existed long before the elections; it is not something
specially devised for the elections, but an inevitable result of
the whole work of the party, of the way the work is organised,
and of its whole trend in the given historical period. And the
R.S.D.L.P., too, already has a platform; its platform already
exists and has been naturally and inevitably determined by the
Partys principles and by the tactics which the Party
has already adopted, has already applied, and is still applying,
during the entire period in the political life of the nation which
in a certain respect is always summed up by elections. The
platform of the R.S.D.L.P. is the sum total of the work which
revolutionary Marxism and the sections of the advanced
workers who remained faithful to it have accomplished in the
190811 period, the period of the orgy of counter revolution, the
period of the June Third, Stolypin regime.

The three main items that make up this total are: (1) the
programme of the Party; (2) its tactics; (3) its appraisal of the
dominant-ideological and political trends of the given period, or
the most widespread of them, or those which are most harmful
for democracy and socialism. Without a programme a party
cannot be an integral political organism capable of pursuing its
line whatever turn events may take. Without a tactical line based
on an appraisal of the current political situation and providing
explicit answers to the vexed problems of our times, we might
have a circle of theoreticians, but not a functioning political
entity. Without an appraisal of the active, current or
fashionable ideological and political trends, the programme
and tactics may degenerate into dead clauses which can by no
stretch of the imagination be put into effect or applied to the
thousands of detailed, particular, and highly specific questions
of practical activity with the necessary understanding of
essentials, with an understanding of what is what.
As for the ideological and political trends typical of the 490811 period and of particular importance for a proper
understanding of the tasks of Social-Democracy, the most
prominent among them are the Vekhi trend, which is the
ideology of the counter-revolutionary liberal bourgeoisie (an
ideology fully in line with the policy of the ConstitutionalDemocratic Party, no matter what its diplomats say),
and liquidationism, which is the expression of the same
decadent and bourgeois influences in a group which has contact
with the working-class movement. Away from democracy, as
far away as possible from the movement of the masses, as far
away as possible from the revolution, that is the theme of the
trends of political thought that hold sway in society. As far
away as possible from the illegal Party, from the tasks of the
hegemony of the proletariat in the struggle for liberation, from
the tasks of championing the revolution, that is the theme of
theVekhi trend among the Marxists, the trend that has built a
nest for itself in Nasha Zarya and Dyelo Zhizni. No matter what

is said by narrow-minded practical workers or by people who

wearily turn away from the difficult struggle for revolutionary
Marxism in our difficult epoch, there is not a single question of
practical activity, not a single question of the illegal or legal
work of the Social-Democratic Party in any sphere of its
activity, to which the propagandist or agitator could give a clear
and complete answer, unless he understood the full profundity
and significance of these trends of thought typical of the
Stolypin period.
Very often it may be useful, and sometimes even essential, to
give the election platform of Social-Democracy a finishing
touch by adding a brief general slogan, a watch word for the
elections, stating the most cardinal issues of current political
practice, and providing a most Convenient and most immediate
pretext, as well as subject matter, for comprehensive socialist
propaganda. In our epoch only the following three points can
make up this watchword, this general slogan: (1) a republic; (2)
confiscation of all landed estates, and (3) the eight-hour day.
The first point is the quintessence of the demand for political
liberty. In expressing our Partys stand on questions of this
nature, it would be wrong to confine ourselves to the term
political liberty or some other term such as democratisation,
etc., wrong because our propaganda and agitation must consider
the experience of the revolution. The dissolution of two Dumas,
the organisation of pogroms, support for the Black-Hundred
gangs and clemency for the heroes of the Black Hundreds,
Lyakhovs exploits in Persia,[1] the coup dtat of June 3, and a
number of further minor coups dtat which followed it
(Article 87, etc.)is a far from complete record of the deeds of
our monarchy as represented by Romanov, Purishkevich,
Stolypin and Co. Situations do arise and have arisen in history,
when it has been possible for a monarchy to adapt itself to
serious democratic reforms, such, for instance, as universal
suffrage. Monarchy in general is not uniform and immutable. It

is a very flexible institution, capable of adapting itself to the

various types of class rule. But it would be playing fast and
loose with the requirements of historical criticism and treachery
to the cause of democracy if one were to proceed from these
indisputable abstract considerations and draw conclusions from
them with regard to the actual Russian monarchy of the
twentieth century.
The situation in our country and the history of our state
power, particularly during the past decade, clearly show us that
none other than the tsarist monarchy is the centre of the gang of
Black-Hundred landowners (with Romanov at their head) who
have made Russia a bogey not only for Europe, but now even
for Asiathe gang which has developed tyranny, robbery,
venality of officials, systematic acts of violence against the
common herd, the persecution and torture of political
opponents, etc., to the inordinate dimensions we know today.
Since this is the real face, the real economic basis and political
physiognomy of our monarchy, to make the demand for, say,
universal suffrage the central issue in the struggle for political
liberty would not be so much opportunism as sheer nonsense.
Since it is a question of choosing a central issue to be made the
general slogan of the elections, the various democratic demands
must be arranged in some sort of likely perspective and
proportion. After all, one might only raise laughter among
educated persons and create confusion in the minds of the
uneducated if one were to demand of Purishkevich that he
behave decently toward women and that he should realise the
impropriety of using unprintable language, or if one were to
demand tolerance of Illiodor,[2] altruism and honesty of Gurko
and Reinbot, respect for law and order of Tolmachov and
Dumbadze, and democratic reforms of Nicholas Romanov!
Consider the question from, so to speak, the general historical
standpoint. It is obvious (to all, except Larin and a handful of
liquidators) that the bourgeois revolution in Russia has not been

consummated. Russia is heading for a revolutionary crisis. We

must prove that revolution is necessary and preach that it is
legitimate and beneficial. This being the case, we must
conduct our propaganda for political liberty so as to pose the
question in all its aspects, formulate the goal for a movement
that is bent on victory and not one that stops half-way (as was
the case in 1905); we must issue a slogan capable of arousing
enthusiasm among the masses who can no longer endure life as
it is in Russia, who suffer because they are ashamed of being
Russians, and are striving for a really free and really renewed
Russia. Consider the question from the standpoint of practical
propaganda. You cannot help making clear even to the most
benighted muzhik that the state must be governed by a Duma
which is more freely elected than the First Duma, by a Duma
elected by the whole people. But how are we to ensure that the
Duma cannot be dispersed? Only the destruction of the tsarist
monarchy can guarantee this.
It may be objected that to issue the slogan of a republic as the
watchword of the entire election campaign would mean
precluding the possibility of conducting it legally, and thereby
show that recognition of the importance and necessity of legal
work is not seriously intended. Such objections, however, would
be sophisms, worthy of the liquidators. We cannot legally
advocate a republic (except from the restrum of the Duma, from
which republican propaganda can and should be carried
on fully within the bounds of legality); but we can write and
speak in defence of democracy in such a way that we do not in
the least condone ideas about the compatibility of democracy
with the monarchy; in such a way as to refute and ridicule the
liberal and Narodnik monarchists; in such a way as to make sure
that the readers and the audiences form a clear idea of the
connection between the monarchy, precisely as a monarchy, and
the despotism and arbitrary rule reigning in Russia. Russians
have gone through a long school of slaverythey have learnt to
read between the lines and add what the speaker has left unsaid.

Do not say I cantsay I shantthat is the reply we must

give Social-Democrats who are working legally, should they
plead that it is impossible to make the demand for a republic a
central point in our propaganda and agitation.
It is hardly necessary to dwell at particular length on the
importance of the demand for the confiscation of all landed
estates. At a time when the Russian villages never cease
groaning under the burden of the Stolypin reform, when an
extremely fierce struggle is going on between the mass of the
population on the one hand and the new land owners and the
rural police on the other, and when, according to the testimony
of extremely conservative people hostile to the revolution,
bitterness such as has never before been seen is making itself
felt ever more stronglyat such a time the demand must be
made a central plank of the whole democratic election platform.
We shall only point out that this is the very demand that will
draw a clear line of demarcation between consistent proletarian
democracy and not only the landlord liberalism of the Cadets,
but also the intellectual-bureaucratic talk about standards
consumption standards, production standards, equalitarian
distribution, and similar nonsense, of which the Narodniks are
so fond, and at which every sensible peasant laughs. For us it is
not a question of how much land does the muzhik need; the
Russian people need to confiscate the entire land of the
landowners, so as to throw off the yoke of feudal oppression in
the entire economic and political life of the country. Unless this
measure is carried out, Russia will never be free, and the
Russian peasant will never eat anything like his fill, nor will he
ever be truly literate.
The third pointthe eight-hour daystands even less in need
of comment. The counter-revolutionary forces are frantically
robbing the workers of the gains of 1905; and all the more
intense, therefore, is the struggle of the workers for better

working and living conditions, chief among which is the

introduction of the eight-hour day.
To sum up, the substance and mainspring of the SocialDemocratic election platform can be expressed in three
words: for the revolution! Shortly before his death Lev Tolstoi
saidin a tone of regret typical of the worst aspects of Tolstoiismthat the Russian people had learned how to make a
revolution all too quickly. We regret only the fact that the
Russian people have not learned this science thoroughly enough,
for without it they may remain the slaves of the Purishkeviches
for many centuries to come. It is true, however, that the
Russian proletariat, in its striving to achieve the complete
transformation of society on socialist lines, has given the
Russian people in general, and the Russian peasants in
particular, indispensable, lessons in this science. Neither the
gallows erected by Stolypin, nor the efforts of Vekhi, can make
them forget these lessons. The lesson has been given, it is being
assimilated, it will be repeated.
The basis of our election platform is the programme of the
R.S.D.L.P., our old programme of revolutionary SocialDemocracy. Our programme gives a precise formulation of our
socialist aims, of the ultimate goal of socialism; and it is a
formulation, moreover, which is particularly emphatic in its
opposition to opportunism and reformism. At a time when in
many countries, including our own, reformism is raising its head
and when, on the other hand, there is a growing number of
indications that in the most advanced countries the period of socalled peaceful parliamentarianism is drawing to a close and a
period of revolutionary unrest among the masses is setting in
at such a time our old programme assumes even greater
significance (if that is possible). With regard to Russia the
programme of the R.S.D.L.P. sets the Party the immediate aim
of over throwing the autocratic tsar and establishing a
democratic republic. The special sections of our programme

dealing with the questions of government, finances, and labour

legislation, and with the agrarian question, provide exact and
definite material to guide the entire work of every propagandist
and agitator, in all its many aspects; they should enable him to
particularise on our election platform in speaking before any
audience, on any occasion, and on any subject.
The tactics of the R.S.D.L.P. during the period of 190811
have been determined by the resolutions adopted in
December 1908. Endorsed by the Plenary Meeting held in
January 1910, and tested by the experience of the whole
Stolypin period, these resolutions provide an exact appraisal
of the situation and of the tasks dictated by that situation. Just as
before, the old autocracy is still the main enemy; just as before,
a revolutionary crisis is inevitable, and Russia is again heading
for such a crisis. But the situation is not the same as before;
autocracy has taken a step in the transformation into a
bourgeois monarchy; it is trying to strengthen feudal landed
proprietorship by a new, bourgeois agrarian policy; it is trying to
arrange alliances between the feudal-minded landowners and
the bourgeoisie in the reactionary and servile Duma; it is
making use of widespread counter revolutionary (Vekhi)
sentiments among the liberal bourgeoisie. Capitalism has
advanced a few steps, class contradictions have sharpened, the
split between the democratic elements and the Vekhi type
liberalism of the Cadets has become more pronounced, and the
activity of the Social-Democrats has extended to new spheres
(the Duma and legal opportunities), which enables them to
broaden the scope of their propaganda and agitation despite the
counter-revolution and even though the illegal organisations
have been badly battered. The old revolutionary tasks and the
old, tested methods of revolutionary mass struggle, that is what
our Party champions in this period of disorganisation and
disintegration, when it is often necessary to start from the
beginning, when, in view of the changed circumstances, it is
necessary to resort not only to old methods, but also to conduct

the work of preparation and gather forces for the impending

period of new battles in a new way, and by new methods