The reference is to the mutiny on the armoured cruiser Potemkin. That the first tactics are the only correct tactics of revolutionary Social-Democracy, while the second are in fact purely Osvobozhdeniye tactics? It insists categorically on the need for complete class independence for the party of the proletariat. Such praise (which the Osvobozhdeniye uttered not by mere chance and not for the first time) actually proves the affinity between liberal realism and those tendencies of Social-Democratic "realism" (read: opportunism) that run through every resolution of the new-Iskraists as a result of the mistaken character of their whole tactical line. Mr. Struve is particularly displeased with me personally[28]. The deeper the indignation of the people grows, the less reliable become the troops, and the more the bureaucracy wavers. obviously presupposes the participation not only of Social-Democrats and not only of the proletariat. The long reign of political reaction in Europe, which has lasted almost uninterruptedly since the days of the Paris Commune, has too greatly accustomed us to the idea that action can proceed only "from below," has too greatly inured us to seeing only defensive struggles. And here the wiseacre of the new Iskra intervenes in the controversy and yells: don't dare "substitute" the term dictatorship for that of revolution! 05: How Should "The Revolution Be Pushed Forward"? By this declaration we once and for all dissociate ourselves both from the anarchists, who answer this question in the negative on principle, and from the khvostists among the Social-Democrats (like Martynov and the new Iskra-ists) who have tried to frighten us with the prospect of a situation wherein it might prove necessary for us to participate in such a government. (Author's note to the 1907 edition.-Ed.) The development of capitalism, more widespread and rapid in conditions of liberty, will inevitably soon put an end to singleness of will; the earlier counter-revolution and reaction are crushed. "Social-Democracy and the Provisional Revolutionary Government", 1905. soch., 5th ed., vol. Or perhaps I am mistaken? This is the principal and unvarying leitmotif of all the important resolutions of the Conference; whereas in the Congress resolutions you just as unvaryingly read: while confirming the old (and without stopping to chew it over and over, for the very reason that it is old and has already been settled and recorded in literature, in resolutions and by experience), we put forward a new task, draw attention to it, issue a new slogan, and demand that the genuinely revolutionary Social-Democrats immediately set to work to put it into effect. These are the questions that confront political leaders. The workers are not looking forward to striking bargains, are not asking for sops; they are striving to crush the reactionary forces without mercy, i.e., to set up the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. At such a time the working class feels an instinctive urge for open revolutionary action, and we must learn to set the aims of this action correctly, and then make these aims as widely known and understood as possible. 07: The Tactics of Eliminating the Conservatives From the Government. Denkschrift über den Aufstand in Spanien im Sommmer 1873, in which he criticises the Bakuninist resolution Lenin is referring to (see Der Volksstaat, Nos. But what is called a "provisional revolutionary government" is something altogether different from what you are referring to: that is the name given to the government of a revolutionary epoch, which directly replaces the overthrown government and rests on the insurrection of the people, and not on some kind of representative institutions coming from the people. The fact that the Russian Thiers are talking about their belonging to the party of revolution shows that the slogan revolution has become inadequate, meaningless and defines no tasks: for the revolution has become a fact, and the most diverse elements are flocking to its side. As a matter of fact, it is precisely this question that lies at the root of the difference in principle which has already become clearly marked between the Social-Democratic tactics of the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party and the tactics initiated by the Conference of the new Iskra supporters. 315-20, and XVI, pp. On the pretext of rendering their work more profound, on the pretext of rousing the initiative of the workers and pursuing a purely class policy, the Economists were actually delivering the working class into the hands of the liberal-bourgeois politicians, i.e., were leading the Party along a path which objectively meant exactly that. Either 1) the result will be a "decisive victory of the revolution over tsarism," or 2) the forces will be inadequate for a decisive victory and the matter will end in a deal between tsarism and the most "inconsistent" and most "self-seeking" elements of the bourgeoisie. Until then they were merely running an "organ of democracy" unconnected by any organisational ties with an independent workers' party. To proceed: which classes, in Marx's opinion, could and should have achieved this task (actually to exercise to the full the principle of the sovereignty of the people and to beat off the attacks of the counterrevolution)?