By E. Morton
Our latest study session for “What Is To Be Done?” zoomed in on the first part of Chapter Two. While it is a relatively short section without commentary, Lih laid out detailed interpretations and necessary context that allowed us to navigate the common pitfalls thatprevious students of the text have fallen into. Chapter Two in particular has been combed over extensively, and houses two “scandalous” passages that are often accused of confusing or directly contradicting Lenin’s position. A combination of circumstances have led to this: missing historical knowledge, inaccurate or incomplete translations, and perhaps an inclination among certain academics to read Lenin in bad faith; it’s also fair to say, though, that Lenin’s somewhat muddled argument contributed to this historical misreading.
For the sake of clarity, we will borrow Lih’s terminology and call these two passages the ‘from without’ passage, and the ‘spontaneity’ passage. Here they are below completely removed from all surrounding text. Feel free to scroll back up to these paragraphs from time to time and re-read them as you go along.
One: “We said that there could not have been a Social-Democratic awareness among the workers. It could have been brought in only from outside. The history of all countries bears witness that exclusively with its own forces the worker class is in a condition to work out only a tred-iunionist awareness, that is, a conviction of the need to unite in unions, to carry on a struggle with the owners, to strive for the promulgation by the government of this or that law that is necessary for the workers and so on. The doctrine of socialism grew out of those philosophical, historical, and economic theories that were worked out by the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intelligentsia. The founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, belonged themselves, according to their social origin, to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In exactly the same way, in Russia as well the theoretical doctrine of Social Democracy arose completely independently from the stikhiinyi growth of the worker movement, arose as a natural and inevitable development of thought among the revolutionary-socialist intelligentsia. At this same time – that is, the middle of the 1890s – this doctrine of scientific socialism had not only fully taken shape in the form of the programme of the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ group, but had also won to its side the majority of the revolutionary youth in Russia.”
Two: “There is much talk of spontaneity. But the spontaneous development of the working-class movement leads to its subordination to bourgeois ideology, to its development along the lines of the Credo programme; for the spontaneous working-class movement is trade-unionism, is Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei, and trade-unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie. Hence, our task, the task of Social Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the working-class movement from this spontaneous, trade-unionist striving to come under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social Democracy.”
Before we dig in, it was acknowledged by the group that any attempt to interpret these passages without any surrounding context is an exercise in futility. Anyone reading the above for the first time surely has little to no idea what Lenin is saying. The fact that these few sentences are isolated and expected to hold the entire weight of Lenin’s ideology is a glaring sign of bad faith from so many academics. The historic (often intentional) misinterpretation of Lenin is weaponized against him and his arguments, and it has lead all too often to accusations of hypocrisy, double-standards, elitism, insincerity, or whatever character flaw that convinces many people to avoid studying him.
What follows is our group’s good-faith attempt to understand the very important circumstances surrounding Chapter Two, instead of reading these two paragraphs in isolation.
The first thing to understand is that this section of WITBD (if not all of it) is a direct response to criticism that Lenin’s paper, Iskra, had received not long before. The criticisms were published by a newspaper called Rabochee delo; they claimed Iskra’s fundamental fault was their over-reliance on ideologues (we took this to mean political leaders and theorists such as Marx, i.e. ‘the intelligentsia’) instead of the working masses.
Lenin is arguing that his approach is not a fundamental fault, but the only scientifically sound way to bring about Social Democracy. In fact, Lenin is suggesting in this chapter that his critics are arguing in favor of a world without Social Democratic leadership at all; a strawman on Lenin’s part.
Next, a few terms are critical to explain in context, as well.
1. Tred-iunionist is, of course, trade unionism, but, importantly, it is trade unionism that rejects the need for a Social-Democratic party. Basically, when Lenin uses this word, he means specifically the ideology that nothing else besides trade unionism will work to get us free. Think of the big, national American unions that often capitulate to capitalist pressures. Lenin accuses Rabochee delo of believing this ideology. While he acknowledges that they are an effective and worthwhile strategy, Lenin believes trade unions should not be the sole focus of the proletariat. If they are, the working class will eventually be captured by the bourgeoisie again.
2. Stikhiinyi is generally translated into ‘spontaneity,’ but there is more character to the word than English can provide. The kind of spontaneity described is pushed forward by an elemental, unstoppable force. A good comparison of a modern day stikhiinyi movement is the George Floyd uprising in the summer of 2020. Rabochee delo used this term in a slightly different way, implying this powerful energy is the ‘material’ of the revolution instead of fleeting momentum. Lenin disagrees; he believes that this energy is just that— energy, and while it does not lack purpose, it can dlitute the message of the movement. Stikhiinyi elements must be given a proper direction or else it is can fizzle out or take the masses down a false path. Once again refer to the summer of 2020 and how anti-cop movement eventually dissipated into reformist efforts to defund instead of abolish.
3. Stikhiinost, while not mentioned in the ‘scandalous’ passages, is relevant as it is a fundamental part of Lenin’s argument, and the use of the word has caused a lot of confusion over the decades. This is also translated to ‘spontaneity,’ but this word is more characterized by a sense of disorganization or lacking discipline. This is the ideology and/or leadership that can directly harm a stikhiinyi movement, even if the intentions are good; based on our understanding, this is the kind of ‘spontaneity’ that Lenin wants to combat. Think of an organization arbitrarily calling for a “general strike” with little to no advance notice or attempts to work with established unions, and you have a decent idea of this phenomenon.
4. Scientific socialism is not the same thing as the ideal of socialism. Lenin is contrasting the ideal to the material actions taken toward that ideal. While many of us can conceptualize a socialist future, it is another thing entirely to figure out the step-by-step process to get there— and make it last. Generally in this text, he is referring to Marx, Engels, and the then-successful German Social Democracy movement occurring at the time.
5. The Credo programme was a somewhat mythical program often invoked by Social Democrats like Lenin as a stand-in for “politics that ultimately empower the bourgeoisie.” Essentially it suggested that the working class lead the “economic struggle” (aka do tred-iunionist struggle) while Marxists limit themselves to the realm of ideological debate against liberals. Lenin strongly opposed this programme along with many of his contemporaries; here it is being used as a polemic to accuse Rabochee delo of unwittingly embarking on this path.
6. Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei is a specific type of trade-unionism in Germany, here being used to emphasize Lenin’s argument with a contemporaneous reference.
Finally, Lih provides compelling evidence that Lenin— perhaps sloppily— edited in additional text after he began writing Chapter Two; while Lenin was in the midst of his drafting, he read a piece by another Marxist theorist, Karl Kautsky. Published in the later half of October 1901, the piece suggests that socialism requires a scientific (!) doctrine that “could only have been worked out by a highly learned individual who could devote full time to the task and who was, for this reason alone, not a worker” (Lih 637 – 638).
Put more simply, we understand this to mean that the material conditions of the working class tangibly prevent most members of this class to think about Social Democracy as deeply as it requires. Wealthier individuals have the luxury of more time on their hands to think these concepts through, and so, they tend to reach a socialist class analysis sooner. It has nothing to do with anyone’s capabilityand everything to do with their capacity.
This is openly acknowledged by both Lenin and Kautsky as a generalization; both agree that some members of the working class must contribute to the formation of this doctrine. And, as a member of our group put it: if there is an advanced revolutionary stuck in the factory, we should try our best to get that person out of the factory and into full time organizing. But in broad strokes, the doctrine must be conceptualized first and introduced to the masses second. The ultimate end goal is that the doctrine transforms the cultural understanding (Lih uses the word outlook) among more and more working people. Lenin in Chapter Two invokes Kautsky’s authority on this subject as a way to bolster his argument.
With all this in mind, we can now explain how our group understood this section of Chapter Two.
The main disagreement between Iskra and Rabochee delo is: after the “scientific doctrine” of socialism is introduced to the masses, will the masses heed this message? Rabochee delo says no, the masses will only accept it if it comes “from within” the working class. If someone from “outside” the working class— a wealthy academic who worked out the system from their ivory tower— presented socialism, the working class would receive it as suspect. The responsibility of Social Democrats, then, is to support the working class while waiting for them to reach sufficient class consciousness, which could take years or decades.
Lenin disagreed, and this is the driving force of his argument in Chapter Two. He believed strongly that if socialism was properly introduced to the working class, it would be accepted and fought for relatively quickly. He argued that any previous attempts to bring it to the masses were ultimately not disciplined enough, stikhiinost movements, or acted on incomplete analysis. Additionally, because Social Democrats are “waiting” (“tailing the masses,” as it is sometimes called), the emerging class consciousness of the workers would never reach actual, scientific socialism, and the desire for an ideal of socialism would never be able to turn into a stikhiinyi movement. This leaves the workers with repeated false starts that ultimately hurt the revolution; it discourages people, which in turn makes all workers vulnerable to bourgeoise/capitalist backlash.
With all of this in mind, it becomes clearer that the first ‘scandalous’ passage is solely written to argue against a ‘from within’ argument that Rabochee delo presented in its earlier criticism. It is not— as some scholars have suggested in the past— an idea springing wholly from Lenin’s mind, nor is it the entirety of what Lenin believes. Not even close. If it were, that would make the ‘from without’ passage genuinely scandalous, since Lenin had consistently stressed the importance of including the working class in Social Democracy. Bad-faith and/or confused readers lift this single paragraph as proof that Lenin actually believed the workers should be cut out of the equation and made to do as they are told, for their own benefit.
The actual point Lenin makes is much more consistent with his beliefs: workers at best can make it to a liberal/bourgeoise-lite movement, one that is aimed at winning concessions from the owning class. Lenin is saying very specifically that the striking workers of the 1890s, in Russia, could not be fairly expected to have social-Democratic awareness. He is also saying that this is not their fault, but the result of their lived conditions. Even today this can ring true. On their own, the workers will likely never try to do away with capitalism entirely. Without a revolutionary propulsion forward, the workers make a liberal-esque movement which is eventually subsumed by capitalism.
So in stark contrast to the accusations above, Lenin is arguing in favor of including the working class— by introducing them to scientific socialism. He even agrees that individual workers can and do contribute as ‘theoreticians,’ presumably different from the ‘intelligentsia.’ In fact, it is often these ‘advanced’ workers who bring socialism to the rest of the masses. Advanced, though, is not describing intelligence, but rather the degree of exploitation a person experiences. The logic goes that the more advanced the worker, the more intimately they can understand and grasp socialist doctrine— all the most advanced wrokers need from the Social Democrats is broader analysis that combines their lived experience with the economy, history, government, etc. Without that guidance, the workers can be more susceptible to bourgeoise tred-iunionist ideology disguising itself as radical politics.
The one thing worth considering today is whether you believe that scientific socialism can be arrived at ‘from within’ the masses or that we need leaders who can ground our lived experiences in theoretical analysis, regardless of their class or education status. A crucial element to remember: it’s not that the information is “too hard” for the working class, but rather that the working class has been put in a situation that forces us to see these concepts from a very personal, but narrow, point of view. It takes effort and time to step back and see the entirety of the system, instead of your specific place inside of it. This is a skill that simply requires a certain number of hours and focus to achieve; the working class has been given a tactical disadvantage, but it’s absolutely possible to overcome. Lenin’s argument— one many of us agreed with— is that there is currently no other option but to take advantage of the education that is afforded to the wealthy intelligentsia. It is simply strategically smart to rely on the privileged few who have the literal commodity of more time.
The second ‘scandalous’ passage becomes much more straightforward in context, as well. The obvious point of confusion is over the inexact nature of translation, and Lenin’s own liberal use of the words stikhiinyi and stikhiinost while explaining himself in this chapter. But considered closely, it becomes clear: the spontaneous working class movements are not planned out enough to ever result in effective, scientific socialism. Any wins or concessions, however impressive, are at risk of re-capture. By waiting for the masses to spark into movement, Social Democrats are depriving the workers from sooner understanding their conditions and are actively preventing us from finding a real solution. At least, according to Lenin, this is the case. All spontaneous efforts will end in the same disappointments without a direct intervention.
When placed onto its own island, with no consideration for translation, this passage implies that Lenin does not believe any spontaneous or unplanned action is worth doing. It’s easy to see how this can be spun into evidence of a dictatorial mindset, hypocrisy, or what have you. Our group found that the opposite was much closer to the truth. It’s incredible, actually, how far removed Lenin has to be from his text for any ‘hypocrisy’ to reveal itself! Lenin believes spontaneous actions are very effective ways to quickly bring the masses into a movement, but it requires careful thought and a concrete goal that is actually in the interests of the workers. Left to their own devices, the masses will not accomplish this; again this is not due to any special challenge or lacking intellect, but the natural barriers that any large, disparate group of people will discover whenever they try to form a consensus. There is simply too much to organize: it requires both knowledge of ‘within’ and sight from ‘without.’
Some may say the above last sentence contradicts what Lenin argues here— even good faith interpretations could picture Lenin wholly in favor of the ‘from without’ method to the point that he rejects any sort of internal working class struggles. Workers goingon strike for better pay without ever reading theory, for example, is not what Lenin is trying to push back on. What he is against is the tendency of the Social Democrats to be “hands off” and simply provide moral or material support to those striking workers. Instead, Lenin believes the strikers in this hypothetical would be extremely receptive to socialism, if only the Social Democrats would not be so worried about “interfering” and stopped convincing themselves they were “sparing” the working class from concepts they “aren’t ready for.”
The biggest flaw in Lenin’s arguments here is how his use of polemics portray his critics as unserious, instead of engaging in a thorough disagreement. Acording to Lenin, Rabochee deloand its writers believed that Social Democratic leaders were not needed at all, and socialism could, even should, be accomplished through the unplanned, highly volatile movements of workers. This, of course, is a straw man that Lenin is using to paint a bleak picture of the future. How seriously he believed this about his critics is hard to say and hardly matters; it is a straw man all the same. This, along with his genuine mischaracterization of Rabochee delo’s stance in critical passages, does unfortunately undermine the sound ideas he’s explaining. It does not, however, excuse the genuinely bad interpretations that certain academics have subjected us to.
The idea of an unstoppable, unweidly force is very powerful, and very intimidating when you are not prepared to harness it. Using the summer of 2020 as an example, the reading group agreed that it once felt as though a revolution was imminent, but then the movement diluted further and further, until the anti-police sentiment that propelled the uprising was fully de-fanged. We acknowledged the irony that the overall reluctance of left-wing orgs to come “from without” created a huge opening for liberal non-profit orgs and careerist “revolutionaries” to co-opt the movement.
In 2020, Philly Socialists tried to embed themselves in the movement and identify the needs of the masses. This is in line with our base-building model, and it wasn’t the first time that Philly Socialists integrated into a mass movement; in 2018 members successfully joined up with the wider (stikhiinyi ) movement of Abolish ICE and, because they were embedded in the broad movement, were able to start OccupyICE encampments. These sucessfully pressured the city against sharing data with ICE, and a huge part of this success was the fact that the org was embedded in the movement already.
Unfortunately, two years later, the George Floyd uprisings had so many powerful but disparate elements that it was difficult to harness, and eventually the momentum fizzled. This was a combination of a lack of a strong political line, unfocused energy, and borgeoise recapture. The capitalist backlash of ‘Back-to-Work’ ordinances severely deprived the masses of the free time they were afforded during COVID-19 lockdowns, leading to less time and energy to fight the system.
The power of the summer of 2020 is still felt today, and we still see it’s imprints everywhere. but because there was a lack of propulsiveness, the stikhiinost element took over, and the revolutionary element was largely squashed by the state.
Often people say that “we need to be ready for the revolution.” We agreed, but how do we get ready? Where do we organize? Who are the most advanced masses in 2026? Historically, socialists have gone to the laborers in the factories, but modern late-stage capitalism has significantly changed the landscape of these jobs. Since 2018, organizing in these massive facilities has been squashed, in tandem with the growing gig economy and moving so much labor to the Global South. Perhaps this is fruitful grounds for a struggle. Or perhaps we might have better luck these days by going to the homeless, disabled, underemployed / unemployed, and the retired.
In addition, what elements of everyday working life are the most radicalizing in our current moment? Since labor has been so changed, most of us agreed that a very compelling economic contradiction in 2026 is healthcare. Instead of hiding our politics and letting liberal reformists fight for universal healthcare, what would it look like to approach the masses with a very specific, socialist assesment of the issue? Furthermore, winning something like universal healthcare would give people more capacity and time (critical elements required to become a disciplined organizer), as well as greatly improve morale.
If the revolutuion can only happen in moments of upheaval, we have to prepare by practicing the work of being a revolutionary whenever there’s an opportunity. Lenin’s passages in this chapter digs into the necessity of this idea. He believed that the early socialists could not have been ready, because they didn’t have the experience of being underground revolutionaries at first. You become ready by bringing the message to the masses, agitating; you find the propulsion in the process.For us, this may require participating in moments that we perceive to be “too liberal” or not strong enough. For us, this may require failing several times until we succeed.
We can only truly organize peope who know us, trust us, and have already seen how we operate. “Going within” is more than showing up when things reach a critical point, no matter how involved you get. It means meeting people’s needs all the time, and creating a large network of working class people who feel prepared and motivated enough to take action whenever it’s necessary. Our main task is to make sure we can do our very best to fight the power. That way, whenever the next stikhiinyi movement happens, we won’t be tailing behind.
The Philadelphia Partisan 