In What Is to Be Done?, Lenin describes tailism as to drag behind the most progressive elements of the working-class movement, choosing instead to reflect the most reactionary views of the working-class movement in their politics.
Further, there follow things that are positively droll. “Just as human beings will reproduce in the old-fashioned way despite all the discoveries of natural science, so the birth of a new social order will come about, in the future too, mainly as a result of elemental outbursts, despite all the discoveries of social science and the increase in the number of conscious fighters” (p. 19). Just as our grandfathers in their old-fashioned wisdom used to say, Anyone can bring children into the world, so today the “modern socialists” (a la Nartsis Tuporylov)[37] say in their wisdom, Anyone can participate in the spontaneous birth of a new social order. We too hold that anyone can. All that is required for participation of that kind is to yield to Economism when Economism reigns and to terrorism when terrorism arises. Thus, in the spring of this year, when it was so important to utter a note of warning against infatuation with terrorism, Rabocheye Dyelo stood in amazement, confronted by a problem that was “new” to it. And now, six months after, when the problem has become less topical, it presents us at one and the same time with the declaration: “We think that it is not and should not be the task of Social-Democracy to counteract the rise of terroristic sentiments” (Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, p. 23), and with the Conference resolution: “The Conference regards systematic and aggressive terror as being inopportune” (Two Conferences, p. 18). How beautifully clear and coherent this is! Not to counteract, but to declare inopportune, and to declare it in such a way that unsystematic and defensive terror does not come within the scope of the “resolution”. It must be admitted that such a resolution is extremely safe and is fully insured against error, just as a man who talks, but says nothing, insures himself against error. All that is needed to frame such a resolution is an ability to keep at the tail end of the movement. When Iskra ridiculed Rabocheye Dyelo for declaring the question of terror to be new,[25] the latter angrily accused Iskra of “having the incredible effrontery to impose upon the Party organisation solutions of tactical questions proposed by a group of emigrant writers more than fifteen years ago” (p. 24). Effrontery. indeed, and what an overestimation of the conscious element — first to resolve questions theoretically beforehand, and then to try to convince the organisation, the Party, and the masses of the correctness of this solution![26] How much better it would be to repeat the elements and, without “imposing” anything upon anybody, swing with every “turn” — whether in the direction of Economism or in the direction of terrorism. Rabocheye Dyelo even generalises this great precept of worldly wisdom and accuses Iskra and Zarya of “setting up their programme against the movement, like a spirit hovering over the formless chaos” (p. 29). But what else is the function of Social-Democracy if not to be a “spirit” that not only hovers over the spontaneous movement, but also raises this movement to the level of “its programme”? Surely, it is not its function to drag at the tail of the movement. At best, this would be of no service to the movement; at worst, it would be exceedingly harmful. Rabocheye Dyelo, however, not only follows this “tactics-as-process”, but elevates it to a principle, so that it would be more correct to describe its tendency not as opportunism, but as tail-ism (from the word tail). And it must be admitted that those who are determined always to follow behind the movement and be its tail are absolutely and forever guaranteed against “belittling the spontaneous element of development”.
I won’t claim to have extracted the full value of that wisdom Lenin (may his name be praised) dropped there. But thank you for sharing and getting a lazy duck like me to read even a small amount of theory.
If I understood: he is explaining that pandering to reactionary working class for the sake of them being proletariat is bad and harmful? A nazi plumber is a nazi first and shouldn’t be listened to?
Is there special meaning to the way he uses terrorism or this a fancy way to reject propaganda of the deed?
Thank you for the effort post. You’re always posting fire in the Ukraine threads, so thanks for that as well.
So in wider context, Lenin's talking about what he's seen in the Russian socialist movement at the time (it's prior to the outbreak of ww1 and the schism between the class traitors and the communists).
On the first question: The pandering to the reactionary portions of the working class (tailing) tends to be a mix of economism and divisionist tactics, that is to say they are using the fact that class struggle is the primary contradiction and all else is adjacent contradictions to it as an excuse to outright dismiss and/or deride said adjacent contradictions in order to focus exclusively on class issues. On how it is economism Lenin says the following,
“The Economists [limit] the tasks of the working class to an economic struggle for higher wages and better working conditions, etc., asserting that the political struggle [is] the business of the liberal bourgeoisie.”
In the article from the CP Ireland it mentions that To give a clear example of the limits of the politics of economism, we can recall how women’s participation in the labour market was initially opposed within the trade union movement, on the grounds that it was a means used by capitalists for lowering wages for workers more generally. Other historical examples are how during the time of Z Foster when trade unions that were majority white working class men would go on strike the bourgeoise would hire black strikebreakers to replace them, as black americans at the time were commonly former slaves or children of former slaves whom lived in abject poverty due to the fact that many freed slaves were simply emancipated with no education, training, or wealth and had to struggle to accumulate wealth to increase their living standards, and instead of extending a hand of solidarity to the black strikebreakers and offering to fight for them to join them as coworkers in the union if they stopped strikebreaking and joined them in the strike they instead would attack the strikebreakers and denounce their bosses attempt to replace them with a cheaper and inferior workforce. A Communist would see such events as opportunities to further strengthen the union movement by further expanding the power of the union through the inclusion of all races and agitate among the union workers to educate them on the material benefits of such actions as they're able to. A tailist would see such events as attacks on the working class by the bourgeoise and their lackeys and agitate among the union workers to reinforce union solidarity by undermining proletarian solidarity. A modern example could be the fight against any attempt to paying "illegal" workers minimum wage and extending labor rights and protections to them, or how a workplace union would self-sabotage because of the belief of some workers that their skills are superior to other workers therefore instead of fighting for a collective increase of benefits instead fight to undermine the collective for their own material benefit, or the portrayal of starbucks workers as not being workers as a form of dividing the working class along arbitrary lines against itself.
On the nazi bit, lets say that nazi plumber's in a plumber's union. That plumber's just one voting member. They may try to exert influence within the union on other members with their dogshit ideas, but their dogshit ideas loose against the direct material interests and financial benefits that the union wins. A strong and militant union that consistently fights for it's members will leave these kinds of dipshits in the dust. They'll either settle down because their material needs are met and can hopefully be integrated into the wider pro-worker culture they're a part of or simply shut the fuck up because they know they're in the overwhelming minority.
On the question of terrorism, simply put, Lenin and the communists rejects political terrorism and the "propaganda of the deed" as listed in the article titled "Revolutionary Adventurism". Let me the section that directly answers your question. Do read the whole thing as it's an interesting reading from someone who's brother was executed as a proponent of the propaganda of the deed. Also you can really see some of the character of Lenin come out in how he quote's the Left SR's writings and then immediately in brackets dunks on them. I personally interpret every time a [!] comes up as him going :jesse-wtf:
The Social-Democrats will always warn against adventurism and ruthlessly expose illusions which inevitably end in complete disappointment. We must bear in mind that a revolutionary party is worthy of its name only when it quides [sic.] in deed the movement of a revolutionary class. We must bear in mind that any popular movement assumes an infinite variety of forms, is constantly developing new forms and discarding the old, and effecting modifications or new combinations of old and new forms. It is our duty to participate actively in this process of working out means and methods of struggle. When the students’ movement became sharper, we began to call on the workers to come to the aid of the students (Iskra, No. 2[See present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 414-19.—Ed.]) without taking it upon our selves to forecast the forms of the demonstrations, without promising that they would result in an immediate transference of strength, in lighting up the mind, or a special elusiveness. When the demonstrations became consolidated, we began to call for their organisation and for the arming of the masses, and put forward the task of preparing a popular uprising. Without in the least denying violence and terrorism in principle, we demanded work for the preparation of such forms of violence as were calculated to bring about the direct participation of the masses and which guaranteed that participation. We do not close our eyes to the difficulties of this task, but will work at it steadfastly and persistently, undeterred by the objections that this is a matter of the “vague and distant future.” Yes, gentlemen, we stand for future and not only past forms of the movement. We give preference to long and arduous work on what promises a future rather than to an “easy” repetition of what has been condemned by the past. We shall always expose people who in word war against hackneyed dogmas and in practice hold exclusively to such moth-eaten and harmful commonplaces as the theory of the transference of strength, the difference between big work and petty work and, of course, the theory of single combat. “Just as in the days of yore the peoples’ battles were fought out by their leaders in single combat, so now the terrorists will win Russia’s freedom in single combat with the autocracy,” the April 3 leaflet concludes. The mere reprinting of such sentences provides their refutation.
Anyone who really carries on his revolutionary work in conjunction with the class struggle of the proletariat very well knows, sees and feels what vast numbers of immediate and direct demands of the proletariat (and of the sections of the people capable of supporting the latter) remain unsatisfied. He knows that in very many places, throughout vast areas, the working people are literally straining to go into action, and that their ardour runs to waste because of the scarcity of literature and leadership, the lack of forces and means in the revolutionary organisations. And we find ourselves—we see that we find our selves—in the same old vicious circle that has so long hemmed in the Russian revolution like an omen of evil. On the one hand, the revolutionary ardour of the insufficiently enlightened and unorganised crowd runs to waste. On the other hand, shots fired by the “elusive individuals” who are losing faith in the possibility of marching in formation and working hand in hand with the masses also end in smoke.
But things can still be put to rights, comrades! Loss of faith in a real cause is the rare exception rather than the rule. The urge to commit terrorist acts is a passing mood. Then let the Social-Democrats close their ranks, and we shall fuse the militant organisation of revolutionaries and the mass heroism of the Russian proletariat into a single whole!
That’s an awesome response. Thanks for putting so much effort into explaining. Felt like having a based professor of the sort chuds are terrified by. We need a :standing-ovation: emoji or something.
What is tailism? Like a dog chasing it’s tail?
In What Is to Be Done?, Lenin describes tailism as to drag behind the most progressive elements of the working-class movement, choosing instead to reflect the most reactionary views of the working-class movement in their politics.
Lenin's What is to be Done? Chapter 2, section 3
I should really not have tried to read and understand this while I have covid.
(I think I get it, though, at least!)
Sucks, mate. I hope you get well soon. Don't forget to drink some warm water or tea.
Here's an article that might help explain a bit on it. It's from the Communist Party of Ireland and it's on Tailism and Economism and directly touches on what Lenin talks about
Thanks! I'll try reading that when my head feels a little less like it's full of soup :P
I won’t claim to have extracted the full value of that wisdom Lenin (may his name be praised) dropped there. But thank you for sharing and getting a lazy duck like me to read even a small amount of theory.
If I understood: he is explaining that pandering to reactionary working class for the sake of them being proletariat is bad and harmful? A nazi plumber is a nazi first and shouldn’t be listened to?
Is there special meaning to the way he uses terrorism or this a fancy way to reject propaganda of the deed?
Thank you for the effort post. You’re always posting fire in the Ukraine threads, so thanks for that as well.
Here's an article that might help explain a bit on it. It's from the Communist Party of Ireland and it's on Tailism and Economism and directly touches on what Lenin talks about
So in wider context, Lenin's talking about what he's seen in the Russian socialist movement at the time (it's prior to the outbreak of ww1 and the schism between the class traitors and the communists).
On the first question: The pandering to the reactionary portions of the working class (tailing) tends to be a mix of economism and divisionist tactics, that is to say they are using the fact that class struggle is the primary contradiction and all else is adjacent contradictions to it as an excuse to outright dismiss and/or deride said adjacent contradictions in order to focus exclusively on class issues. On how it is economism Lenin says the following,
In the article from the CP Ireland it mentions that To give a clear example of the limits of the politics of economism, we can recall how women’s participation in the labour market was initially opposed within the trade union movement, on the grounds that it was a means used by capitalists for lowering wages for workers more generally. Other historical examples are how during the time of Z Foster when trade unions that were majority white working class men would go on strike the bourgeoise would hire black strikebreakers to replace them, as black americans at the time were commonly former slaves or children of former slaves whom lived in abject poverty due to the fact that many freed slaves were simply emancipated with no education, training, or wealth and had to struggle to accumulate wealth to increase their living standards, and instead of extending a hand of solidarity to the black strikebreakers and offering to fight for them to join them as coworkers in the union if they stopped strikebreaking and joined them in the strike they instead would attack the strikebreakers and denounce their bosses attempt to replace them with a cheaper and inferior workforce. A Communist would see such events as opportunities to further strengthen the union movement by further expanding the power of the union through the inclusion of all races and agitate among the union workers to educate them on the material benefits of such actions as they're able to. A tailist would see such events as attacks on the working class by the bourgeoise and their lackeys and agitate among the union workers to reinforce union solidarity by undermining proletarian solidarity. A modern example could be the fight against any attempt to paying "illegal" workers minimum wage and extending labor rights and protections to them, or how a workplace union would self-sabotage because of the belief of some workers that their skills are superior to other workers therefore instead of fighting for a collective increase of benefits instead fight to undermine the collective for their own material benefit, or the portrayal of starbucks workers as not being workers as a form of dividing the working class along arbitrary lines against itself.
On the nazi bit, lets say that nazi plumber's in a plumber's union. That plumber's just one voting member. They may try to exert influence within the union on other members with their dogshit ideas, but their dogshit ideas loose against the direct material interests and financial benefits that the union wins. A strong and militant union that consistently fights for it's members will leave these kinds of dipshits in the dust. They'll either settle down because their material needs are met and can hopefully be integrated into the wider pro-worker culture they're a part of or simply shut the fuck up because they know they're in the overwhelming minority.
On the question of terrorism, simply put, Lenin and the communists rejects political terrorism and the "propaganda of the deed" as listed in the article titled "Revolutionary Adventurism". Let me the section that directly answers your question. Do read the whole thing as it's an interesting reading from someone who's brother was executed as a proponent of the propaganda of the deed. Also you can really see some of the character of Lenin come out in how he quote's the Left SR's writings and then immediately in brackets dunks on them. I personally interpret every time a [!] comes up as him going :jesse-wtf:
That’s an awesome response. Thanks for putting so much effort into explaining. Felt like having a based professor of the sort chuds are terrified by. We need a :standing-ovation: emoji or something.