Page:Lenin - What Is To Be Done - tr. Joe Fineberg (1929).pdf/33



have said that our movement, much wider and deeper than the movement of the seventies, must be inspired with the same devoted determination and energy that inspired the movement at that time. Indeed, no one, we think, has up till now doubted that the strength of the modern 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.

However, a most astonishing discovery has been made recently, which threatens to overthrow all the views that have hitherto prevailed on this question. This discovery was made by Rabocheye Dyelo, which, in its controversy with Iskra and Zarya, did not confine itself to making objections on separate points, but tried to ascribe "general disagreements" to a more profound cause—to the disagreement concerning the estimation of the relative importance of the spontaneous and consciously 'methodical' element." Rabocheye Dyelo's indictment reads: "Belittling the importance of the subjective, or spontaneous, element of development." To this we say: If the controversy with Iskra and Zarya resulted in absolutely nothing more than causing Rabocheye Dyelo to think over these general disagreements," that single result would give us considerable satisfaction, so important is this thesis, and so clearly does it illuminate the quintessence of the present-day theoretical and political differences that exist among Russian Social-Democrats.

That is why the question of the relation between consciousness and spontaneity is of such enormous general interest, and that is why the question must be dealt with in great detail.

In the previous chapter we pointed out how universally absorbed the educated youth of Russia were in the theories of Marxism in