Page:Lenin - What Is To Be Done - tr. Joe Fineberg (1929).pdf/12

 reasons. One was that Economism proved to he more virile than we supposed (we employ the term Economism in the broad sense as it was explained in Iskra No. 12, December, 1901, in an article entitled "A Conversation with Defenders of Econornism," which represented a synopsis, as it were, of the present pamphlet). It became unquestionably clear that the differences regarding the solution of the three problems :mentioned were to be explained to a much greater degree by the fundamental antagonism between the two tendencies in Russian Social-Democracy than by differences over practical questions. The second reason was that the astonishment displayed by the Economists concerning the views we expressed in Iskra revealed quite clearly that we often speak in different tongues, and therefore cannot come to any understanding without going over the whole range of questions ab ovo; that it was necessary to attempt in the simplest possible style, illustrated by numerous and concrete examples, systematically "to clear up" all the fundamental points of difference with all the Economists. I resolved to make this attempt to "clear up" these points, fully realising that it would greatly increase the size of the pamphlet and delay its publication, but I saw no other way of fulfilling the promise I made in the article "Where to Begin." In apologising for the belated publication of the pamphlet I also have to apologise for its numerous literary shortcomings. I had to work under great pressure, and frequently had to interrupt the writing of it for other work.

The three questions mentioned before still represent the main theme of this pamphlet, but I had to start out with the examination of two other, more general questions, viz., Why does an "innocent" and "natural" slogan like "freedom of criticism" represent a fighting watchword for us at the present time? And why can we not agree on even so important a question as the rôle of Social-Democracy in relation to the spontaneous mass movement? Furthermore, the exposition of our views on the character and the content of political agitation developed into an explanation of the difference between trade-union politics and Social-Democratic politics, and the exposition of our views on organisational tasks developed into an explanation of the difference between primitive methods, which satisfy the Economists, and an organisation of revolutionists, which in our