The historical moment

I'll admit, I really suck at this element - I'm not as familiar with Russian/Soviet history as I should be. As such, the events that Lenin's talking about here are perhaps not as graspable for me. However, what I can gather is the SR published some leaflet and Lenin is posting against it. The grand tradition of posting, through Marx, Luther, and all the way back to Augustine and even the Greeks. Preserving in your argument the dogshit arguments of your opponents. So let's thank Lenin for giving us the slop. In 200 years, CTH will be remembered for preserving Weird Rod for the masses.

Anyway, the SR movement, according to Lenin, argues the following:

• Socialism should split and evolve? Schisim is cool, actually

These are, first, the split between the revolutionary Social-Democrats and the opportunists, who are raising their heads under the banner of the “criticism of Marxism.”

• Terrorism (what we now call adventurism) is actually growing in sympathy and we should embrace it

Secondly, Balmashov’s assassination of Sipyagin and the new swing towards terrorism in the sentiments of some revolutionaries.

• The peasants are revolting and so we have to somehow address it!?

Thirdly and mainly, the latest movement among the peasantry, which has compelled such that are accustomed to sit between two stools and have no programme whatever to come out post factum with some semblance of a programme.

So Lenin quickly discards point 1:

There is no need, of course, to engage in a serious analysis of this theory of deviation from socialism (in the event of disputes proper).

Based. We love a poster foliks.

So, what of Terrorism (Adventurism):

In their defence of terrorism, which the experience of the Russian revolutionary movement has so clearly proved to be ineffective, the Socialist-Revolutionaries are talking themselves blue in the face in asseverating that they recognise terrorism only in conjunction with work among the masses, and that therefore the arguments used by the Russian Social-Democrats to refute the efficacy of this method of struggle (and which have indeed been refuted for a long time to come) do not apply to them.

So, again, here's the historical context that I'm less familiar with. But again, the coalition always fractures and Lenin's clearly throwing his hat in the ring to try and keep his part of the coalition together. This will take a strong argument against the adventurists.

If anyone wants to give us more cool context, I'd love it. Because really, this is where I just am fairly adrift.

On to the stuff that I have a better sense for

Adventurism - why is it bad?

The first thing that strikes the eye is the words: “we advocate terrorism, not in place of work among the masses, but precisely for and simultaneously with that work.”

So, the SR seems to suggest the general line - that OBVIOUSLY adventurism isn't a replacement for mass movement, you gotta do that too.

However, Lenin has none of it. He really is a poster here - I'm going to just quote this banger for us:

But just read the whole leaflet and you will see that the protestation in bold type takes the name of the masses in vain. The day “when the working people will emerge from the shadows” and “the mighty popular wave will shatter the iron gates to smithereens”—“alas!” (literally, “alas!”) “is still a long way off, and it is frightful to think of the future toll of victims!” Do not these words “alas, still a long way off” reflect an utter failure to under stand the mass movement and a lack of faith in it? Is not this argument meant as a deliberate sneer at the fact that the working people are already beginning to rise? And, finally, even if this trite argument were just as well-founded as it is actually stuff and nonsense, what would emerge from it in particularly bold relief would be the inefficacy of terrorism, for without the working people all bombs are power less, patently powerless.

Taking the name of the masses in vain is such a burn. Also it's something we should all strive to avoid (i.e. don't speak for the masses). What I gather is that Lenin's arguing there that the chauvinistic attitude towards the proletariat is a real issue with the SR - basically their position is the working class will never rise up so we should do adventurism since organizing won't actually ever happen in our lifetime ("alas, still a long way off"). This undermines and also delegitimizes the mass movement. Lenin closes with a key argument: without the working people all bombs are powerless. Real power comes from the movement.

But this is just the beginning. The real thing is yet to come. “Whom are we to strike down?” asks the party of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and replies: the ministers, and not the tsar, for “the tsar will not allow matters to go to extremes” (!! How did they find that out??), and besides “it is also easier” (this is literally what they say!): “No minister can ensconce himself in a palace as in a fortress.” And this argument concludes with the following piece of reasoning, which deserves to be immortalised as a model of the “theory” of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. “Against the crowd the autocracy has its soldiers; against the revolutionary organisations its secret and uniformed police; but what will save it...” (what kind of “it” is this? The autocracy? The author has unwittingly identified the autocracy with a target in the person of a minister whom it is easier to strike down!) "... from individuals or small groups that are ceaselessly, and even in ignorance of one another [!!], preparing for attack, and are attacking? No force will be of avail against elusiveness.

There's a half-baked argument for opsec here, but I think Lenin makes it clear how futile individual adventurist actions are - the fact they are not willing to go after the Tsar/head of state also speaks to their half-baked ideas here.

Closing out his critique of the idea:

The Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, conclude: “Shoot, elusive individual, for the knot of people, alas, is still a long way off, and besides there are soldiers against the knot.” This really defies all reason, gentlemen!

So by my reading, part of Lenin's critique is adventurism is a very shitty cope. The SR's believe history won't happen in their lifetime, so you may as well just go ham and kill people.

The theoretical aspect of the argument

OK, so why (on a less strategic, more theoretical level) is Adventurism bad? I Think this really gets to it: it's counter to the socialist/communistic spirit.

Nor does the leaflet eschew the theory of excitative terrorism. “Each time a hero engages in single combat, this arouses in us all a spirit of struggle and courage,” we are told. But we know from the past and see in the present that only new forms of the mass movement or the awakening of new sections of the masses to independent struggle really rouses a spirit of struggle and courage in all. Single combat however, inasmuch as it remains single combat waged by the Balmashovs, has the immediate effect of simply creating a short-lived sensation, while indirectly it even leads to apathy and passive waiting for the next bout. We are further assured that “every flash of terrorism lights up the mind,” which, unfortunately, we have not noticed to be the case with the terrorism-preaching party of the Socialist-Revolutionaries.

So is Adventurism basically a kind of great man theory? "Single combat" versus a real movement can be contained. I think this is really the key - perhaps also why activities like throwing soup on a painting are not actually effective. They may create "short-lived sensation" but the damage in apathy and waiting for the next spectacle is key.

I wonder how much the "medieval" is on Lenin's mind here as well - like, duels and such were spectacles for the masses in the period, so is it that adventurism substitutes spectacle for revolutionary fervor? I'm not 100% on this, but it's something to consider as well.

We are presented with the theory of big work and petty work. “Let not those who have greater strength, greater opportunities and resolution rest content with petty [!] work; let them find and devote themselves to a big cause—the propaganda of terrorism among the masses [!l, the preparation of the intricate... [the theory of elusiveness is already forgotten!]... terrorist ventures." How amazingly clever this is in all truth: to sacrifice the Life of a revolutionary for the sake of wreaking vengeance on the scoundrel Sipyagin, who is then replaced by the scoundrel Plehve—that is big work.

Yeah, this clarifies that a real issue here is the "great man theory of history" - SR's and adventurists are trying to give people who aren't content to do the work of organizing (petty work) and instead do some majestic deed (adventurism). Lenin of course suggests the system can cope with this as well (a new CEO will be chosen).

This very point is explained in No. 8 of Revolutsionnaya Rossiya, which declares that “it is easy to write and speak” of armed demonstrations “as a matter of the vague and distant future,” “but up till now all this talk has been merely of a theoretical nature.” How well we know this Language of people who are free of the constraint of firm socialist convictions, of the burdensome experience of each and every kind of popular movement! They confuse immediately tangible and sensational results with practicalness. To them the demand to adhere steadfastly to the class standpoint and to maintain the mass nature of the movement is “vague” “theorising.”

I think really Lenin is just trying to flip the script - the most important thing here is the mass movement, everything else is secondary. Adventurists would have it otherwise - let's do adventurism first, and then ???? maybe the movement will catch up? It's a kind of accelerationism by force it seems.

Demonstrations begin— and blood thirsty words, talk about the beginning of the end, flow from the lips of such people. The demonstrations halt— their hands drop helplessly, and before they have had time to wear out a pair of boots they are already shouting: “The people, alas, are still a long way off....” Some new outrage is perpetrated by the tsar’s henchmen—and they demand to be shown a “definite” measure that would serve as an exhaustive reply to that particular outrage, a measure that would bring about an immediate “transference of strength,” and they proudly promise this transference! These people do not understand that this very promise to “transfer” strength constitutes political adventurism, and that their adventurism stems from their lack of principle.

This feels very important, and I'm still working through it. So, is it that adventurists are not willing to actually stay in the movement (they're followers that espouse a vanguardism?)? Is it that they are selling out the mass demonstrations/movement too quickly? I'm really interested in this one - can someone help me though, I'm missing something I feel in the last bit (what is the "promise to "transfer" strength?).

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.

Real dank shit here. What do we think it means to "quide" 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.

Fucking love to see dialectical materialism. Dominant/residual/emergent - Raymond Williams's terms - matter in understanding the historical unfolding of life. And of course, we can actively struggle and deploy dominant/residual/emergent forms of action. Is there something in recent events that distinguishes it from the residual adventurism of the 20th century? How do we change our approach from Lenin's?

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.

I think this is such an important distinction. We can't say "no violence" but rather that it must be directed, intended, and wielded. So how do we do this in this case?

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.

This feels like it's important to recognize. The adventurism we've seen IS A SYMPTOM OF REAL THINGS. We want to build solidarity so that we can help the people fucked by the system actually wield their power, rather than simply see a champion. I think that's the real important thing - rather than having 100 flowers of CEO assassins bloom, we instead want people to come together to topple the whole system.

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 the end of section 1 and I think the most relevant portion. Please discuss - How do we avoid this double bind that Lenin notes. We don't want to let the "revolutionary ardour" we see now go to waste - what is to be done?___