Preface¶
Core Argument¶
In this preface to What Is To Be Done?, Lenin establishes the pamphlet’s genesis as a direct response to the factional crisis within Russian Social-Democracy. He explains that the work was originally conceived as a detailed development of three questions raised in his Iskra article ‘Where to Begin?’ (May 1901): the character of political agitation, organisational tasks, and the plan for building a militant all-Russia organisation. However, the pamphlet’s scope was forced to expand dramatically due to two developments. First, the attempt in June 1901 to unite all Social-Democratic organisations abroad failed—a failure Lenin argues was inevitable after Rabocheye Dyelo’s tenth issue marked a renewed swing toward Economism. Second, the Economists’ persistent inability to grasp Iskra’s position revealed that the differences were not over details but stemmed from a fundamental antithesis between two irreconcilable trends in the movement. Lenin therefore found it necessary to begin ab ovo, systematically clarifying basic points of difference through numerous concrete examples.
The preface thus announces a polemical work that will not confine itself to positive exposition but will engage in determined struggle against Economism—a diffuse, ill-defined trend Lenin characterises as tenacious and capable of reasserting itself in diverse forms. He notes that the three original questions remain the pamphlet’s main theme, but he now precedes them with two more general questions: why ‘freedom of criticism’ has become a war-cry, and why agreement cannot be reached even on the fundamental question of the Social-Democrats’ role in relation to the spontaneous mass movement. The exposition of political agitation develops into a distinction between trade-unionist politics and Social-Democratic politics; the organisational discussion becomes a contrast between amateurish methods and the indispensable organisation of revolutionaries. Lenin defends his plan for an all-Russia political newspaper, insisting that objections against it are untenable and that no real alternative has been offered for building the needed organisation simultaneously from all sides.
The preface concludes with Lenin’s justification for the polemic with Rabocheye Dyelo, which may appear excessively detailed. He argues that this publication acquired a ‘historical’ significance by expressing not consistent Economism but the confusion and vacillation characteristic of an entire period in Russian Social-Democracy. Until this period is completely ended, no progress is possible. Dated February 1902, the preface thus frames the pamphlet as both a theoretical clarification and a political intervention aimed at decisively breaking with the Economist trend.