By the time the revolution began, the socialists already had their own party organizations, which had been preparing this explosion for several years and immediately became involved in leading the revolutionary process.

During the revolution, the Social Democrats managed to overcome the split of their party into the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions, which was largely facilitated by the revolutionary euphoria that captured the Mensheviks in 1905, as well as the desire of the proletarian masses for the unity of their own ranks and the ranks of their party. True, the unity achieved at the IV Congress of the RSDLP in the spring of 1906 was not complete and organic, since there were too serious differences in the positions of the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, in their strategy and tactics, resulting from different visions of the situation in Russia and different understandings of the immediate and more distant tasks of the party.Nevertheless, the unification of the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, despite the differences between them that persisted and even intensified in 1906-1907, allowed them to more actively influence the course of socio-political life in the country, in particular, the elections of deputies of the State Duma and leadership of trade unions.

The growth of the influence of the RSDLP on the masses was also positively affected by the fact that in 1906 Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian Social Democrats and members of the Jewish Bund joined the RSDLP. As a result, towards the end of the revolution, when the next, V Congress of the RSDLP took place (spring

1907), the Marxist party had at least 150-170 thousand members, including approximately 58 thousand Bolsheviks and 45 thousand Mensheviks. The largest social democratic organizations were St. Petersburg and Moscow (they had about 16.5 thousand members in the spring of 1907). In total, during the revolution, social democratic organizations operated in 79 provincial and 312 district cities and 160 in rural areas26.

The social composition of the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks was approximately the same: workers, intellectuals, students, office workers and very few peasants. Both factions included representatives of a variety of nationalities living in Russia. The unique data of the mandate committee of the V Congress of the RSDLP on its delegates is interesting, although it must be borne in mind that the composition of the party forum was by no means a mirror image of the composition of the entire party as a whole. Among the Bolshevik delegates, almost 80% were Russians, and 11% were Jews. Workers made up 36%, intellectuals - 27%, office workers - 11%, etc. 20% had higher education, 32% had secondary education, and 37% had primary education. And here is what the corresponding data on the Menshevik delegates looks like. Their national composition was much more varied: Russians - 34%, Georgians - 29%, Jews - 23%, etc. Machine workers made up 32%, and the same number were intellectuals. 13% had higher education, 47% had secondary education, and 36% had primary education. The average age of a Menshevik delegate was 28 years. It is interesting to note that the Mensheviks had even more professional revolutionaries who were engaged only in party work (22%) than the Bolsheviks (17%):7.

The main differences between the members of the two factions of the RSDLP should be sought, however, not in their nationality, social origin and profession, but in the sphere of psychology and mentality. The Bolsheviks were firmer, more consistent in their actions, bolder, more disciplined, but at the same time more straightforward, more impatient, more self-confident, more fanatical. The Mensheviks were distinguished by great caution and prudence, a tendency to hesitate and compromise, combined with increased ambition and nervousness, and rejection of any authoritarianism. The Bolsheviks attached greater importance to violence and conspiracy, and were often guided by the principle “the end justifies the means.” The Mensheviks reacted more sharply to immorality, violations of democracy, and any manifestations of one-sidedness and primitivism in thinking.

The Bolsheviks synthesized Marxism with Russian radicalism and rebellion, while the Mensheviks tried to combine the teachings of Marx with some liberal values. Lenin's followers never tired of swearing in the name of Marx, but were ready to sacrifice Marxist dogmas in order to achieve their goals, the main of which was the speedy rise to power. Mensheviks

were more committed to the letter of Marxism, although they could not help but understand that it was impossible to fully apply it to the specific conditions of Russia. The almost religious attitude of the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks to the legacy of Marx and Engels did not prevent them from promoting only those of its provisions that corresponded to their own political preferences, as if not noticing the fact that their opponents could also find arguments in their favor in the works of the “classics”.

As a result, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks had two different concepts of the Russian revolution and, accordingly, two strategic and tactical lines, which they adhered to in their practical revolutionary activities. Both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks considered the revolution of 1905-1907. bourgeois-democratic and the main role in it was assigned to the proletariat. But then fundamental differences began to arise in the assessment of the driving forces, boundaries and prospects for the development of the revolutionary process. For the Bolsheviks, this was a worker-peasant revolution at its core, and the proletariat was assigned the role of the instigator and the main physical force of the movement, and the RSDLP was the ideologist and organizer of all anti-government protests. The main method of struggle was declared to be revolutionary violence, and the result of the victory of the popular uprising was to be the establishment of a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry and the participation of social democracy in all bodies of the new government from top to bottom. The Bolsheviks were also attracted to the idea of ​​continuous revolution, which in Lenin took the form of a theory of the development of a bourgeois-democratic resolution into a socialist one as part of the world proletarian revolution.

The Mensheviks believed that the strength of the revolution that had begun lay in its nationwide scope, in the participation in it of not only democratic but also liberal opposition forces, which should ideally even lead the fight against the autocracy. At the same time, unlike the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks did not believe in the possibility of a strong union of the proletariat and the peasantry and were convinced that if the revolution were to win, power would have to pass to the bourgeoisie. They assigned Social Democracy the role of extreme left opposition in the future bourgeois republic, categorically denying the possibility of the RSDLP participating in the new government. After the failure of the December uprisings of 1905, the Mensheviks pinned all their hopes on legal methods of political struggle, and above all on the State Duma. Having paid some tribute to the passion for the idea of ​​permanent revolution in the interpretation of Parvs-Trotsky, the Mensheviks then decisively abandoned any attempts to deepen the revolution in the direction of socialism. If the Bolsheviks sought to implement the tactics of the “left bloc”, i.e.

joint actions of all democratic forces (without the bourgeoisie), the Mensheviks advocated the unity of all the “living forces” of the nation (including the liberal bourgeoisie), although in practice such calls looked like a clear utopia.

The activities of the Social Democrats during the revolution were intense and multifaceted: they greatly strengthened their agitation and propaganda work in a democratic environment, led the strike movement, worked in the armed forces, and entered the parliamentary arena. Without the RSDLP it is impossible to imagine the armed uprisings that took place in Russia in 1905-1906, the work of the first Soviets of Workers' Deputies and trade unions. The political school passed by the RSDLP during the First Russian Revolution largely prepared the workers' party for the events of 1917.

The recognized leader of the Bolsheviks was V.I. Lenin. Working next to him during the years of the revolution was a talented engineer of European level and scope, L.B. Krasin, a doctor by training, an original philosopher and science fiction writer A.A. Bogdanov, prominent party publicists A.V. Lunacharsky and V.V. Borovsky. In the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP there were also major practitioners of the revolutionary cause - S.A. Ter-Petrosyan (Kamo), S.Y. Gusev, brothers I.S. and E.S. Kadomtsevs, Z.Ya. Litvin-Sedoy, M.V. Frunze and others. In the Social Democratic faction of the Second State Duma, the Bolshevik G.A. stood out. Aleksinsky, who later broke with Lenin. The leaders of the Mensheviks, along with veterans of the Social Democratic movement G.V. Plekhanov (who took a centrist position on a number of issues) and P.B. Axelrod, during the years of the revolution there was the soul and conscience of the Yu.O. faction. Martov, talented publicists A.N. Potresov, A.S. Martynov, F.I. Dan, practical organizers V.N. Krokhmal, P.N. Kolokolnikov, V.N. Rozanov and others. N.N. actively worked in the State Duma. Zhordania and I.G. Tsereteli. Outside the faction was L.D. Trotsky, who gained fame as one of the authors of the theory of “permanent” revolution and the de facto leader of the St. Petersburg Council of Workers’ Deputies in 1905. But the main strength of the Social Democrats was the presence of a strong middle party level (the revolutionary “officer corps”), which ensured prompt implementation of all party directives.

The immediate task of the RSDLP in the revolution of 1905-1907. were the overthrow of the autocratic system, the establishment of a democratic republic and the provision of freedom of speech, press, assembly, unions, etc. to all citizens. While not yet directly encroaching on the foundations of the bourgeois system, the Social Democrats sought to make Russian capitalism more civilized by eliminating all remnants of the serfdom era and streamlining with the help of state capitalism.

military intervention in the relationship between labor and capital. A large place in the Social Democratic minimum program was occupied by a whole block of demands on the labor issue (introduction of an 8-hour working day, state insurance for workers, etc.). The RSDLP was ready to support the struggle of the peasants for the transfer to them of all state, appanage, church and privately owned lands without any ransom. At the same time, the Bolsheviks advocated the nationalization of all land, while the Mensheviks proposed a combined system that combined the nationalization of part of the land and the municipalization of former landlord estates, i.e. transferring them to the disposal of local governments (hence the very name “municipalization”) for subsequent rental to peasants. There were also Social Democrats who were supporters of the division of land into peasant ownership. The Mensheviks’ point of view won at the IV Congress of the RSDLP in 1906, where a new edition of the party’s agrarian program was adopted, although their plan was poorly understood by the peasants and did not enjoy their support, and the Bolsheviks accepted it only as a matter of party discipline.

In the field of interethnic relations, the RSDLP advocated granting all nations inhabiting Russia the right to self-determination, i.e. independent decision of their fate, either while remaining within the framework of a single multinational state, or leaving it and forming their own national state (the latter option was considered an extreme measure, which should be resorted to only in exceptional cases). All nations were guaranteed the right to use their native language and develop their national culture.

In general, despite the defeat of the revolution, the RSDLP established itself in 1905-1907. as one of the most influential political forces in Russia at that time, without which the revolution would probably have taken on slightly different contours, and the gains of the people would have looked much more modest.

The main rival (and at the same time ally) of the RSDLP in the revolutionary process since the beginning of the 20th century. there was a party of socialist revolutionaries. In the eyes of the tsarist government, it was the most dangerous and aggressive revolutionary organization, from which one could always expect terrorist acts, subversive agitation in the army and navy, and the organization of “robber” peasant nests in the rural outback. It is no coincidence that the Socialist Revolutionaries suffered the heaviest losses during the revolution: 15 thousand members of the AKP were imprisoned and sent into exile, about 300 Socialist Revolutionaries were executed28.

During the years of the revolution, the number of the Socialist Revolutionary Party grew several dozen times and exceeded 60 thousand people, second only to the number of Social Democrats in the revolutionary camp. Socialist Revolutionary organizations existed in 48 provinces and 254 districts (mainly in European Russia), and the number of rural organizations and groups of the AKP exceeded 2 thousand. The Socialist Revolutionaries recruited their supporters among the radical intelligentsia, students, students, workers, peasants, and townspeople, attracting them the romance of revolutionary feat, asceticism in the name of the people's good and social justice. Processing of the data available to historians on the social composition of 21 provincial Social Revolutionary organizations showed that they included more than 40% workers, 45% peasants and soldiers, more than 10% intellectuals, students and pupils29. At the same time, the party intelligentsia absolutely predominated in the Central Committee of the AKP.

The greatest authority in Socialist Revolutionary circles was enjoyed by the main ideologist and theoretician of the party, the son of a former serf who later became a nobleman, V.M. Chernov is a talented publicist and an excellent speaker, who, however, did not have organizational skills or personal charisma. Capable organizers were former Narodnaya Volya member M.A. Nathanson, M.R. Gots, G.A. Gershuni, old populist E.K. Breshko-Breshkovskaya, one of the leaders of the terrorists B.V. Savinkov (also known for his literary talent). The evil genius of the party was the provocateur Yevno Azef, exposed after the First Russian Revolution.

In their revolutionary temperament, the Socialist Revolutionaries were close to the anarchists and Bolsheviks. These were people of action, strong will, selfless actions, although many of them were characterized by a certain adventurism and a tendency to “outburst.” The Social Revolutionaries viewed terror as a means of disorganizing government forces, “exciting” society and attracting radical youth to the ranks of the party. The party created a small, but completely unique central combat organization in terms of personnel selection30. In addition, terrorist acts were also committed by local Socialist Revolutionary groups. During the revolution, the Socialist Revolutionary militants were responsible for the murders of leaders. book Sergei Romanov, Samara Governor I.L. Blok, commander of the Black Sea Fleet Admiral G.P. Chukhnin and others. Total in 1905-1907. Socialist-Revolutionaries and Socialist-Revolutionary Maximalists committed more than 250 terrorist acts31. At the same time, the Social Revolutionaries looked at terror as an extreme, forced and morally oppressive measure for many of them, completely stopping it during the work of the First State Duma, so as not to interfere with the well-known detente of political tension in the country that was then emerging, and completely dissolving their Combat Organization in November 1906

The main directions of the revolutionary work of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Social Democrats coincided. The AKP really competed with the RSDLP in the field of military-combat work and was clearly ahead of the Social Democrats in terms of the scale of work in the countryside, making a serious bid to become the main peasant party in Russia. If the Social Democrats had great difficulty fitting into non-party democratic organizations, without hiding their desire to take them into their hands and impose their program, the Socialist-Revolutionaries successfully worked in the All-Russian Peasant Union, the All-Russian Railway Union, the Postal and Telegraph Union, the Union of Teachers and others like that. organizations. They also mastered the Duma arena of political struggle. An unpleasant surprise for the RSDLP was the success of the Socialist Revolutionaries in the elections to the Second Duma for the workers' curia. True, they managed to prevail over the Social Democrats only at the first stage of the elections (elections of representatives), and even then not everywhere, but the very fact of such a victory indicated that the workers were not satisfied with the constant struggle between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, and the recent immigrants from the village were clearly impressed by the Socialist Revolutionary program for the socialization of the land, which appealed to the communal-egalitarian sentiments of the bulk of the peasantry.

The Socialist Revolutionaries took part in the work of the first Soviets of Workers' Deputies and in the activities of trade unions. There were 92 Socialist-Revolutionaries in the capital's Council of Workers' Deputies, and 21 in Moscow. The Socialist-Revolutionaries also enjoyed influence in Ekaterinoslav, Nikolaev, Odessa, Saratov, Sevastopol, Kharkov, Novorossiysk and some other Soviets. As for the Taganrog Council, its chairman was the Socialist Revolutionary B.N. Olovyagin32.

The Socialist Revolutionary model of democratic transformations in Russia was formalized in the AKP program, which, after lengthy discussions, was finally adopted by the First Party Congress at the turn of 1905-1906. The social and political program of the Socialist Revolutionaries was in many ways close to the program of the Social Democrats. But they also had a significant difference: the Socialist-Revolutionaries thought much more about the individual human personality, its rights and guarantees for the development of the abilities inherent in it, while the Social Democrats operated more with such generalized concepts as class and the masses. If the Social Democrats were typical “statists”, viewing state power as a powerful lever for political, social and cultural transformations, the Socialist Revolutionaries paid much more attention to the development of public self-government within the framework of a rural community, a labor industrial collective, a professional or national group. Solving the agrarian question, they advocated declaring all land public property, abolishing its purchase and sale, and equalizing division between everyone who wanted to cultivate it with their own labor (“socialization

land"). The Socialist Revolutionaries saw the future democratic Russia as a free federal community of all equal nations living in it, while the Social Democrats remained supporters of a unitary state with individual elements of autonomy. All nations, at least theoretically, recognized the right to self-determination, but the right to secede and create their own state was not mentioned in the AKP program, as in the RSDLP program.

Having abandoned the idea of ​​​​non-capitalist development of Russia, which was carried away by the populists of the 19th century, the Socialist Revolutionaries nevertheless looked for ways to reduce the costs of introducing their peasant country to Western civilization, advocating the preservation of the peasant community, the development of cooperation, and then for a smooth and painless transition to collective management Agriculture. It is characteristic that if the Social Democrats, following the Marxist doctrine, did not imagine Russia’s transition to socialism without the dictatorship of the proletariat, arguing only about the extent of restrictions on democracy in the transition period, then in the AKP program there was a “temporary revolutionary dictatorship” of the working class (by which the Socialist Revolutionaries meant the workers , the working peasantry and the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia) was provided for only “if necessary,” which meant recognition of the possibility of not only a revolutionary, but also an evolutionary path of transition from the regime of democracy to socialism33.

It is characteristic that neo-populism, like social democracy, did not escape at the beginning of the 20th century. ideological and organizational split. In 1906, a small party of popular socialists (Enes) took shape, becoming the heir to the legal populism of the late 19th century. and denied revolutionary methods of democratization of Russia and its subsequent transition to socialism. In the same year, the Union of Socialist-Revolutionary Maximalists was formed, numbering no more than 2-2.5 thousand members34. It was an ultra-radical revolutionary organization that sought to give the democratic revolution taking place in Russia a directly socialist character through the socialization of not only the land, but also industrial enterprises. The passion for terrorist acts and expropriation made the Socialist-Revolutionary Maximalists similar to the anarchists.

In this work, we did not examine in detail the activities of anarchist organizations, in which in 1905-1907. there were no more than 5 thousand members35. This is not surprising, given that the Russian mentality was based on exaggerated ideas about the determining role of the state in the life of society and that Russian democracy had already experienced a period of enthusiasm for anarchist ideals at the populist stage of the liberation movement, which ended in deep disappointment.

nia. Anarchists of the early 20th century. were significantly inferior in number to their Western comrades and recruited supporters mainly from young marginalized people in the lower strata of the population, although the ideologists of the movement were, on the contrary, real intellectuals (Prince P.A. Kropotkin, who led the anarcho-communism movement; poets S.M. Gorodetsky and V. .I. Ivanov, who preached anarcho-individualism, and others). Anarchist groups operated in St. Petersburg, Bialystok, Odessa, Warsaw, Lodz, Yekaterinoslav and some other places. They “became famous” mainly for terrorist acts and expropriations (Nestor Makhno also began his activities with them in 1906). But anarchists took part together with other revolutionary parties and organizations and in revolutionary self-defense units against the “Black Hundreds”, in battles with government troops during armed uprisings in December 1905. There were cases when members of the RSDLP, disillusioned with the insufficiently active actions of their parties, went over to the anarchists and the AKP, as well as the maximalist Socialist-Revolutionaries. However, despite the fact that in 1906-1907. There was a tendency to intensify the activities of anarchist organizations and, in particular, anarcho-syndicalists who relied on the development of the trade union movement; they still did not have a serious influence on the political life of the country during the revolution. Moreover, the anarchists were never able to create a unified organization on an all-Russian scale, breaking up into a number of separate movements (“Beznachaltsy”, “Black Banners”, “Bezmotivniki”, “Grain Volunteers”).

To summarize, we can say that, despite the above-mentioned costs of the party building process during the First Russian Revolution, it became an important indicator of further progress. Russia along the path of its modernization and creation of the foundations of civil society. At the same time, the party-political system in the form in which it developed in our country in 1905-1907 was characterized by unjustified cumbersomeness, looseness, and multiple duplication of the same or extremely close party trends. A significant imbalance was also revealed between the destructive and constructive potentials of the program and political practice of the center and left parties: they were very strong in criticizing the authorities, while their positive platform was clearly inadequate to the low level of development of Russian capitalism, the general and political culture of the bulk of the population, and the amount of cash personnel capable of effectively reforming the country. An equally obvious gap existed between the largely demagogic rhetoric of party leaders and the presence of serious scientific justification for their plans and slogans, which were often openly populist in nature. In addition, in an obvious passive political

It should be noted that, until 1917, not one of the parties that arose in Russia at that time passed the test of power and acquired experience in constructive state activities. All this indicated that the history of Russian political parties in 1905-1907. in fact, it was just beginning and could not help but be continued.

Stages of party formation. - Socialist parties. - Liberal-bourgeois parties. - Landowner-monarchist parties. - Social class foundations, - Program. - Tactics

At a certain stage of social development, the need to create organizations that unite the most active representatives of various classes or social groups, capable of defending the interests of a given part of the population, is put on the agenda. By the beginning of the 20th century. humanity already had such experience in building political parties. In Russia, this process began later, since the autocracy inhibited any political activity.

The formation of parties is not a one-time act, but a process that goes through certain stages. Stage 1 is the formation of certain ideological and political sentiments that encourage like-minded people to unite in circles. At the 2nd stage, directions of socio-political thought crystallize, the carriers of which are grouped around certain public publications. And only then, at the 3rd stage, the organizational and political formation of the party collective itself takes place on the basis of the developed organizational, ideological and political principles for joint organizational work - propaganda and agitation for its program and tactics.

The eve of the first Russian revolution was the historical moment when political parties in Russia went through the 1st or 2nd stages of their formation. Moreover, if the ruling classes of landowners and the big bourgeoisie had not yet felt the impending danger to their interests and therefore did not yet feel the need for political unification into parties and unions, then the democratic layers of society saw in the organized opposition a real alternative to the existing political power.

During the revolution, the class struggle in Russia acquired a pronounced party character. The process of party formation has entered its 3rd stage.

Depending on the social class basis, program and tactical guidelines, all political parties formed before and during the years of the revolution can be divided into 4 large groups:

1) proletarian (Bolsheviks); 2) revolutionary-democratic (social-democratic and left-wing trends); 3) bourgeois (with two varieties distinguished: liberal and conservative); 4) landowner-monarchist.

In turn, each of these four groups of parties was part of one or another of the three political camps: government, liberal-bourgeois, revolutionary-democratic. It must be borne in mind that the development of the revolution, the deepening of class contradictions, although did not violate the foundations of the distinction political forces, at the same time often led to a change in the position of parties and groups standing on the border of divisions.

Long before the revolution, socialist parties began to organize. Thus, in 1892 the Polish Socialist Party was formed, in 1893 - the Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, in 1898 - the Lithuanian and Latvian Social Democratic Parties.

IN AND. Lenin and his comrades in the early 90s began preparations for the creation of a proletarian party. The beginning of such a party was the Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class, organized by them in 1895. The activities of the Union were aimed at combining the theory of socialism with the mass workers' movement. Locally, Social Democratic organizations began to be created from circles and groups under different names.

The task of creating a party became especially urgent in connection with the outbreak that began in the 80s. differentiation in the Russian social democratic movement and the emerging division into 2 main directions: revolutionary and reformist. Reform tendencies in the social democratic movement received their most complete expression in the ideology and tactics of “economism”. “Economists” defended the professional interests of workers and the satisfaction of their everyday needs and the creation of a party similar to a confederation of local cultural and educational circles.

In March 1898, in Minsk, representatives of four “Unions of Struggle”, the Bund and the “Workers’ Newspaper” group (9 delegates in total) gathered at the First Congress of the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labor Party). The congress became a step towards the creation of a revolutionary proletarian party, although the period of fragmentation of handicrafts and circles continued,

The ideological, theoretical and organizational work of V.I. Lenin and his associates made it possible to convene the Second Congress of the RSDLP (July - August 1903). The most important documents adopted by the congress were the Program and the Party Charter. The Program set two fundamental tasks of the party - the overthrow of the autocracy in Russia and the establishment of a democratic republic, the struggle for the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But in the democratic camp, instead of a single RSDLP, there were practically two parties - the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The final separation of these parties occurred in 1912.

At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. In the revolutionary democratic movement, two main directions emerged: social democratic and left-wing populist, which corresponded to two groups of political parties. The Bolsheviks, as representatives of revolutionary social democracy, led the democratic camp. The Mensheviks represented the reformist trend of Social Democracy. The social democratic trend was replete with various kinds of national formations related to the Mensheviks. Among them: “General Jewish Workers' Union in Lithuania, Poland and Russia” - Bund (1897), Revolutionary Ukrainian Party - RUP (1900), Social Democratic Party (1887), Lithuanian Social Democratic Party ( 1896), Estonian Social Democratic Labor Union (1905).

The main force of the left-narodnik trend was the Socialist Revolutionary Party (SRs). The Socialist Revolutionaries, who officially declared themselves in January 1902, were formed from disparate populist organizations on the platform of democratic “peasant socialism.” Claiming the title of “peasant”, the Socialist Revolutionary Party was predominantly intellectual in its composition.

There were many people from families of capitalists and nobles. Representatives of peasants and workers also joined the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Ideological and political disagreements in the party, which emerged already at its First Congress (December 1905 - January 1906), led in the summer of 1906 to the split of the Socialist Revolutionaries into three movements: a) left - “maximalists”, b) center - Socialist Revolutionaries old type, c) right - “people's socialists” (Enes).

The “maximalists” proposed recognizing the upcoming revolution not as bourgeois, but as socialist. They demanded the immediate “socialization” of not only the land, but also all factories and factories. The Enes sought to adapt their “socialism” to the interests of the wealthy part of the peasantry. They refused to support the Socialist Revolutionary idea of ​​socialization of the land, they renounced not only socialism, but also the demand for a democratic republic. They were happy with a constitutional monarchy.

The bulk of the entire composition of the Socialist Revolutionary Party grouped around the Center on the basis of the program adopted at the First Congress. Their program stated that in Russia two forces oppose each other: on the one hand, the nobility, bourgeoisie and rural kulaks, and on the other, the proletariat, the working peasantry and the intelligentsia. They saw one of the tasks of the revolution in the socialization of land, that is, in its transfer from private property to the public domain and its distribution by bodies of people's self-government on the basis of the equalizing labor principle. The Social Revolutionaries set as their immediate goal the task of agitating for the convening of a Constituent Assembly to eliminate the autocratic regime and establish free popular rule. Showing a penchant for revolutionary adventurism, the Socialist Revolutionaries recognized the tactics of individual terror as the main method of political struggle. The leaders of the party were V.M. Chernov, P.A. Argunov, A.P. Gotz et al.

In terms of tactical methods of struggle, the anarchists approached the Socialist Revolutionaries.

Among a number of national parties of the left-wing populist trend, the largest was the Dashnaktsutyun party - the Armenian Revolutionary Union (1890). This direction was also supported by the Revolutionary Party of Socialist Federalists of Georgia (1904), the Belarusian Revolutionary Party, soon renamed the Belarusian Socialist Community (1902), and the Latvian Social Democratic Union (1901). Since, when developing their programs, the national left-narodnik parties took the documents of the Socialist Revolutionary Party as a standard, their program guidelines had much in common.

Along with these parties, which were supporters of various branches of socialist thought, national parties began to emerge on the outskirts of the country, putting forward general democratic demands on the national question - Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Armenian, Georgian, Jewish.

In August 1905, the 1st congress of “Ittifak-el-Muslimin” (“Union of Muslims”) took place, in which Bashkir liberals also participated. The resolution of the congress pointed out the need for the unity of all Muslims and put forward a demand for equalization of Muslims with Russians “in political, religious and property rights.” The adoption of the party charter and the official announcement of the creation of the party took place in January 1906. “Ittifaq-el-Muslimin” dissolved itself after the June Third coup of 1907.

The completion of the creation of the parties of the liberal bourgeoisie coincided with the rise of the first revolution in Russia. Back in 1899, a large group of zemstvo liberals united in the semi-legal “Conversation” circle. In 1903, the “Union of Zemstvo Constitutionalists” was created from the most radical Zemstvo citizens. At the same time, in 1902, the first issue of the magazine “Liberation” was published. In 1904, the “Union of Liberation” was created from representatives of the bourgeois intelligentsia and liberal Zemstvo citizens, which completed the consolidation of forces and approached the formation of the party of constitutional democrats (October 1905). In 1906, the previously adopted official name was added: the party of “people's freedom”. In general, the cadet program was designed for the development of Russia along the capitalist path of the Western model. The initial demand for a constitutional monarchy was replaced in 1917 by the demand for a democratic parliamentary republic. The Cadets emphasized that they, as a supra-class party, occupied a special position; the Cadets Party advocated the cultural self-determination of nations, the equality of citizens, regardless of class. The basis of the party was the liberal intelligentsia, primarily representatives of its upper strata. The party also included highly paid categories of employees, representatives of the urban petty bourgeoisie. The first chairman of the constitutional democratic party of people's freedom was the large landowner Prince P. D. Dolgorukov. In 1907, the scientist-historian P. N. Milyukov became chairman of the party. In those operating in 1905-1907. approximately three hundred cadet organizations had from 60 to 100 thousand party members.

In addition to the Cadets, the liberal-bourgeois camp included more than a dozen all-Russian and national-bourgeois parties. The most significant of them were the party of democratic reforms, the democratic union of constitutionalists, the party of peaceful renewal, etc. All of them were in opposition to the tsarist government, and their programs differed from the cadet program by the demand for national equality and the right of political and cultural self-determination within the framework of autonomy.

In the revolution of 1905-1907. the government was supported by landowner-monarchists, reactionary bourgeois parties and many small political organizations that, to one degree or another, aligned themselves with these parties. Unlike the bourgeois and revolutionary democratic parties, these organizations, as a rule, were only Russian. This is explained by the fact that Russian landowners were at the head of the state.

The largest monarchist parties formed after October 17, 1905 were the “Union of the Russian People” (100 thousand people), “Russian People’s Union named after Michael the Archangel” (20 thousand), “Russian Monarchist Party” (more than 2 thousand). Human). The “Union of the Russian People” in its first program document stated that the activities of this party were based on the ideas of Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality. Members of the union could consist of “only natural Russian people of both sexes, of all classes and wealth.” The newspaper “Russian Banner” became the main organ of the party, and State Councilor A.I. Dubrovin became the chairman of the main council.

In the program of the main party of the bourgeoisie - the Union of October 17 (Octobrists) - the state structure of Russia was seen as a constitutional monarchy, but not with the Constituent Assembly, but with the State Duma. For non-Russian peoples, except for the Finns, even the right of cultural autonomy was not recognized. The social basis of the party consisted of the large financial and commercial-industrial bourgeoisie, large landowners running their businesses along the capitalist path, and a small part of the top intelligentsia. At first, the Chairman of the Party Central Committee was a large landowner D.N. Shipov, and from October 1906, Moscow merchant A.I. Guchkov.

During the years of the revolution, 18 different party organizations were associated with the “Union of October 17”, including the Trade and Industrial Union, the Progressive Economic Party, the Baltic Constitutional Party, etc. Many national bourgeois parties acted like the Octobrists, seeing in tsarism their protector from the people’s anger.

Thus, at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. The currents of the liberation movement in Russia are being formalized into political parties, which began to act as spokesmen for the interests of certain social groups and classes in acute political battles. The greatest catalyst for the formation of new political parties was the first Russian revolution. In a short period, more political parties arose in Russia than in any other country in the world. By the end of the civil war of 1917-1920, the number of Russian parties was about 100.

Liberal bourgeois parties.

The emergence of political parties in Russia.

Results of the revolution.

1. The first representative government body with legislative powers was created;

2. Democratic powers were granted;

3. Legal political parties were formed;

4. Redemption payments from peasants were cancelled;

5. The working day was reduced to 9-10 hours;

6. The national policy of tsarism softened.

1. Cadets. Constitutional democrats, leader - Miliukov. They considered the only way to transform the state to be reforms that should be carried out as a result of pressure on the government through the state. Duma, press and political propaganda.

Goals: establishment of a parliamentary republic with strict separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers. Introduction of universal suffrage. Respect for political rights and freedoms, abolition of censorship and freedom of the press, abolition of class privileges. Introduction of universal free education. Recognition of the right of workers to strike and the establishment of an 8-hour working day. The right of nations to cultural self-determination.

2. Octobrists. The leader is Guchkov. Represented the interests of the large commercial, industrial and financial bourgeoisie.

Goals: personal integrity, in the national question - for a united and indivisible Russia. The question of an 8-hour working day was not raised.

1. Social Revolutionaries. United Party of Social Revolutionaries. The largest socialist party. Leader – Chernov. Unlike the liberal parties, they understood that achieving democracy by the people can only be achieved through revolutionary means.

Goals: preparing the people for the socialist revolution in the interests of the working people. The overthrow of the autocracy, the proclamation of a democratic republic on the national question for the right of nations for self-determination and a federal structure. The main place in the program was occupied by the agrarian question. They proposed eliminating private ownership of land and transferring it for use to peasants on the basis of consumer norms. Individual terror was recognized as a tactical means of struggle.

2. RSDLP. Russian Social Democratic Party. Founded in 1898. At the first congress, the program of this party was adopted. The program consisted of 2 parts: a minimum program and a maximum program.

Minimum program: bourgeois-democratic revolution, overthrow of the autocracy. The establishment of a democratic republic, the introduction of universal suffrage, broad local self-government, the right of nations to self-determination, the return of redemption payments to peasants, the introduction of an 8-hour working day. Cancellation of overtime and fines.

Maximum program: proletarian socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

At the second congress, the RSDLP split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

3. Mensheviks - Markov, soft Marxists. We focused on the experience of Western European democrats. They believed that the party should be open to all segments of the population and to discussions.

For strict party discipline, for the subordination of the minority to the majority, for isolation and concentration.

4. Conservative wing (Black Hundred national-monarchical organizations), union of the Russian people. The political ideal is Orthodox Rus' led by a monarchy. The state religion is Orthodoxy. On the national issue, we stand for one and do not divide Russia. The Russian nationality was proclaimed superior. The ideology had a pronounced anti-Semitic orientation.

Stolypin came up with the idea of ​​agrarian reform, the goal of which was to strengthen the peasant economy by turning the peasant into a full owner. According to the plan, the strongest and most robust peasant farms could be freed from the tutelage of the community and could bypass the poor and drunk. In 1906, the law on the inviolability of the community was repealed and peasants were given the right to leave it. At the same time, allotment land was preserved. Excess per capita norms could be purchased at the price of 1861 or free of charge if redistribution was not carried out within 24 years. The peasants had the right to demand the provision of land in one place, some of the state. The land was provided to the peasant bank for further sale to peasants on preferential terms. As part of the agrarian reform, peasants were resettled to the outskirts, Siberia, the Urals, Central Asia and Kazakhstan in order to relieve social tensions; land was provided to the settlers free of charge; benefits, benefits and gratuitous loans were also provided. Stolypin believed that by becoming the full owner of the land, the peasant would work with greater diligence, and therefore the efficiency of peasant labor would increase.

Results: new lands were developed for agricultural production, private ownership of land spread, which led to the development of agrarian capitalism.

Development of the internal political process –

Lenin V.I. Complete Works Volume 12

THE SOCIALIST PARTY AND NON-PARTY REVOLUTIONARY

The revolutionary movement in Russia, quickly reaching new and new layers of the population, is creating a number of non-party organizations. The need for unification breaks through with greater force the longer it is suppressed and persecuted. Organizations, in one form or another, often unformed, arise constantly, and their character is extremely original. There are no sharp boundaries here, like those of European organizations. Trade unions take on a political character. Political struggle merges with economic struggle, for example, in the form of a strike, creating fused forms of temporary or more or less permanent organizations.

What is the significance of this phenomenon? What should be the attitude of social democracy towards him?

Strict partisanship is a companion and result of a highly developed class struggle. Conversely, in the interests of an open and broad class struggle, the development of strict partisanship is necessary. Therefore, the party of the conscious proletariat, Social Democracy, quite legitimately always fights against non-partyism and works steadily to create a fundamentally consistent, tightly united socialist workers’ party. This work is successful among the masses as the development of capitalism splits the entire people deeper and deeper into classes, exacerbating the contradictions between them.

It is quite clear that the real revolution in Russia has generated and is generating so many non-party people

134 V. I. LENIN

organizations. This revolution is democratic, that is, bourgeois in its socio-economic content. This revolution overthrows the autocratic-serf system, liberating the bourgeois system from under it, thus fulfilling the demands of all classes of bourgeois society, being in this sense a revolution of the whole people. This does not mean, of course, that our revolution was not a class revolution; of course not. But it is directed against classes and castes that have become obsolete and becoming obsolete from the point of view of bourgeois society, alien to this society, hindering its development. And since the entire economic life of the country has already become bourgeois in all its main features, since the gigantic majority of the population already lives in fact in bourgeois conditions of existence, the anti-revolutionary elements are naturally small in number to the point of minusculeness, they are truly a “handful” in comparison with the “people”. The class character of the bourgeois revolution is therefore inevitably manifested in the “national”, non-class, at first glance, nature of the struggle of all classes of bourgeois society against autocracy and serfdom.

The era of the bourgeois revolution is distinguished in Russia, as in other countries, by the comparative underdevelopment of class contradictions in capitalist society. True, in Russia capitalism is now much more developed than in Germany in 1848, not to mention France in 1789, but there is no doubt that purely capitalist contradictions are still to a very, very strong extent obscured in our country by the contradictions of “culture” and Asianism, Europeanism and Tatarism, capitalism and serfdom, that is, demands are brought to the fore, the fulfillment of which will develop capitalism, cleanse it of the slags of feudalism, improve the conditions of life and struggle for both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

In fact, if you look closely at those demands, orders, doléances*, which are in countless numbers

*- complaints. Ed.

SOCIALISTIC PARTY AND NON-PARTY REVOLUTIONARY 135

are now compiled in Russia at every factory, in every office, in every regiment, in every police team, in every diocese, in every educational institution, etc., etc., then we can easily see that the vast majority of them are purely “cultural” , so to speak, requirements. I want to say that these are not specifically class demands, but elementary legal demands, demands that do not destroy capitalism, but, on the contrary, introduce it into the framework of Europeanism, liberating capitalism from barbarism, savagery, bribery and other “Russian” remnants of serfdom. In essence, proletarian demands are limited in most cases to such transformations that are completely feasible within the framework of capitalism. The Russian proletariat demands now and immediately not that which undermines capitalism, but that which purifies it and accelerates, strengthens its development.

Of course, the special position of the proletariat in capitalist society leads to the fact that the workers’ desire for socialism, their alliance with the socialist party, breaks out with spontaneous force at the very early stages of the movement. But the actual socialist demands are still ahead, and next in line are the democratic demands of the workers in politics, the economic demands within the framework of capitalism in the economy. Even the proletariat makes a revolution, so to speak, within the limits of a minimum program, and not a maximum program. There is nothing to say about the peasantry, this gigantic mass of the population, overwhelming in its numbers. His “maximum program”, his ultimate goals do not go beyond the boundaries of capitalism, which would unfold even more widely and more magnificently with the transfer of the entire earth to the entire peasantry and to the entire people. The peasant revolution is now a bourgeois revolution, no matter how these words “offend” the sentimental ears of the sentimental knights of our petty-bourgeois socialism.

The delineated nature of the ongoing revolution gives rise to non-party organizations quite naturally.

136 V. I. LENIN

The imprint of external non-partisanship, the appearance of non-partisanship is inevitably acquired by the entire movement as a whole - but only an appearance, of course. The need for “human,” cultural life, for unification, for the defense of one’s dignity, one’s human and civil rights embraces everyone, unites all classes, gigantically overtakes any partisanship, shakes up people who are still far, far from being able to rise to partisanship. The urgency of the immediate, elementary-necessary rights and reforms pushes aside, so to speak, thoughts and considerations about anything further. Passion for the ongoing struggle, a necessary and legitimate passion, without which the success of the struggle is impossible, makes one idealize these immediate, elementary goals, paints them in a rosy light, sometimes even dresses them in a fantastic costume; simple democracy, ordinary bourgeois democracy, is taken for socialism and is included “in the department” of socialism. Everything and everyone seems to be “non-partisan”; everything and everyone seems to be intertwined in one “liberation” (in fact: liberating the entire bourgeois society) movement; everything and everyone takes on a light, subtle touch of “socialism,” especially thanks to the leading role of the socialist proletariat in the democratic struggle.

The idea of ​​non-partyism cannot but win certain temporary victories under such conditions. Non-partyism cannot help but become a fashionable slogan, because fashion is helplessly trailing behind life, and the most “ordinary” phenomenon of the political surface seems to be a non-party organization, non-party democracy, non-party strikeism, non-party revolutionism.

The question now is how must How do supporters and representatives of different classes relate to this fact of non-partisanship and this idea of ​​non-partisanship? - must not in a subjective sense, but in an objective sense, that is, not in the sense of how one should approach this, but in the sense of what attitude to this fact inevitably develops depending on the interests and points of view of various classes.

SOCIALISTIC PARTY AND NON-PARTY REVOLUTIONARY 137

As we have already shown, non-partyism is a product - or, if you like, an expression - of the bourgeois character of our revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot help but gravitate towards non-partyism, because the absence of parties among those fighting for the freedom of bourgeois society means the absence of a new struggle against this very bourgeois society. Whoever leads a “non-party” struggle for freedom either does not recognize the bourgeois character of freedom, or sanctifies this bourgeois system, or postpones the fight against it, “improving” it to the Greek calendar 73. And vice versa, whoever consciously or unconsciously stands on the side of the bourgeois order cannot help but feel attracted to the idea of ​​​​non-partyism.

In a society based on the division of classes, the struggle between hostile classes inevitably becomes, at a certain stage of its development, a political struggle. The most integral, complete and formalized expression of the political struggle of classes is the struggle of parties. Non-partisanship is indifference to the struggle of parties. But this indifference does not equate to neutrality, abstinence from the struggle, because in the class struggle there can be no neutrals; It is impossible to “refrain” in a capitalist society from participating in the exchange of products or labor. And exchange inevitably gives rise to economic struggle, and after it political struggle. Indifference to the struggle is by no means, therefore, in fact, a withdrawal from the struggle, abstinence from it, or neutrality. Indifference is the silent support of the one who is strong, the one who dominates. Those who were indifferent to the autocracy in Russia before its fall during the October Revolution silently supported the autocracy. Anyone in modern Europe who is indifferent to the rule of the bourgeoisie tacitly supports the bourgeoisie. Anyone who is indifferent to the idea of ​​the bourgeois character of the struggle for freedom tacitly supports the rule of the bourgeoisie in this struggle, the rule of the bourgeoisie in

138 V. I. LENIN

emerging free Russia. Political indifference is political satiety. A well-fed person is “indifferent”, “indifferent” to a piece of bread; a hungry person will always be “partisan” on the issue of a piece of bread. “Indifference and indifference” to a piece of bread does not mean that a person does not need bread, but that a person is always provided with bread, that he never needs bread, that he is firmly attached to the “party” of the well-fed. Non-partyism in bourgeois society is only a hypocritical, disguised, passive expression of belonging to the party of the well-fed, to the party of the ruling, to the party of the exploiters.

Non-partyism is a bourgeois idea. Party membership is a socialist idea. This provision, in general, applies to the entire bourgeois society. Of course, one must be able to apply this general truth to individual specific issues and particular cases. But to forget this truth at a time when the entire bourgeois society as a whole is rebelling against serfdom and autocracy means, in fact, completely abandoning the socialist criticism of bourgeois society.

The Russian Revolution, despite the fact that it is still at the beginning of its development, already provides a lot of material to confirm the general considerations outlined. Strict partisanship has always been and is defended only by social democracy, the party of the conscious proletariat. Our liberals, representatives of the views of the bourgeoisie, cannot stand socialist partisanship and do not want to hear about the class struggle: remember at least the recent speeches of Mr. Rodichev, who repeated for the hundredth time what was said and repeated by both the foreign “Liberation” and countless vassal bodies Russian liberalism. Finally, the ideology of the intermediate class, the petty bourgeoisie, found vivid expression in the views of Russian “radicals” of various shades, ranging from “Our Life”, r.-d. (“radical democrats”) 74 and ending with “socialist revolutionaries.” These latter captured their mixture of socialism and democracy most clearly in the agrarian question and precisely in the slogan “socialization”

SOCIALISTIC PARTY AND NON-PARTY REVOLUTIONARY 139

(land without socialization of capital). It is also known that, while tolerant of bourgeois radicalism, they are intolerant of the idea of ​​social-democratic partisanship.

Our topic does not include an analysis of how exactly the interests of various classes are reflected in the program and tactics of Russian liberals and radicals of all types. We have only touched upon this interesting question here in passing and must now move on to practical political conclusions about the attitude of our party towards non-party organizations.

Is it acceptable for socialists to participate in non-party organizations? If so, under what conditions is it permissible? What tactics should be followed in such organizations?

The first question cannot be answered with an unconditional, fundamental: no. It would be wrong to say that in no case and under no conditions is the participation of socialists in non-party (that is, more or less consciously or unconsciously bourgeois) organizations permissible. In the era of the democratic revolution, refusal to participate in non-party organizations would in certain cases be equivalent to refusal to participate in the democratic revolution. But there is no doubt that socialists must limit these “known cases” within a narrow framework, that they can allow such participation only under strictly defined, restrictive conditions. For, if non-party organizations are generated, as we have already said, by the comparative underdevelopment of the class struggle, then, on the other hand, strict partisanship is one of the conditions that makes the class struggle conscious, clear, definite, and principled.

Protecting the ideological and political independence of the party of the proletariat is a constant, unchanging and unconditional duty of socialists. Whoever fails to fulfill this duty is in practice ceases to be a socialist, no matter how sincere his “socialist” (in words socialist) convictions may be. Participation in non-party organizations for a socialist is permissible only as an exception. And the very purposes of this

140 V. I. LENIN

participation and its nature, conditions, etc. must be entirely subordinated to the main task: the preparation and organization of the socialist proletariat for the conscious leadership of the socialist revolution.

Circumstances may force us to participate in non-party organizations, especially in an era of democratic revolution and, in particular, a democratic revolution in which the proletariat plays a prominent role. Such participation may be necessary, for example, in the interests of preaching socialism to a vaguely democratic audience or in the interests of the joint struggle of socialists and revolutionary democrats against counter-revolution. In the first case, such participation will be a means of carrying out one's views; in the second - a military agreement in order to achieve certain revolutionary goals. In both cases, participation can only be temporary. In both cases, it is permissible only with complete protection of the independence of the workers' party and with mandatory control and leadership of the entire party as a whole over members and groups of the party "delegated" to non-party unions or councils.

When the activities of our party were secret, the exercise of such control and leadership presented gigantic, sometimes almost insurmountable difficulties. Now, when the activities of the party are becoming more and more open, this control and this leadership can and must be exercised in the broadest possible way and certainly not only before the “tops”, but also before the “lower classes” of the party, before all organized workers who are members of the party. Reports on the speeches of Social Democrats in non-party unions or councils, abstracts on the conditions and tasks of such speeches, resolutions of party organizations of all types regarding such speeches must certainly become part of the practice of the workers' party. Only similar real participation of the party as a whole, participation in direction All such speeches can actually contrast truly socialist work with general democratic work.

SOCIALISTIC PARTY AND NON-PARTY REVOLUTIONARY 141

What tactics should we pursue in non-party unions? Firstly, take advantage of every opportunity to establish independent connections and promote our entire socialist program. Secondly, to determine the immediate political tasks of the moment from the point of view of the most complete and decisive implementation of the democratic revolution, to give political slogans in the democratic revolution, to put forward a “program” of those transformations that should be carried out by a fighting revolutionary democracy in contrast to a bargaining liberal democracy.

Only with such a formulation of the matter can the participation of members of our party in non-party revolutionary organizations created today by workers, tomorrow by peasants, the day after tomorrow by soldiers, etc. be permissible and fruitful. Only with such a formulation of the matter will we be able to fulfill the dual task of the workers' party in the bourgeois revolution : to complete the democratic revolution, to expand and strengthen the cadres of the socialist proletariat, which needs freedom for the merciless struggle to overthrow the rule of capital.

Published according to the text of the newspaper “New Life”

At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, mass parties, first of all socialist orientation. Among them are the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Socialist Party in France, the Italian Socialist Party, etc. The social base of these parties was primarily workers; subsequently it began to expand at the expense of other layers - the intelligentsia, office workers, farmers.

A characteristic feature of socialist parties was their ideological orientation: party members were united by a common class worldview, religion or nationalism. The new socialist movements were revolutionary, they considered the socialist alternative to capitalism as quite real. This was due in particular to the fact that the programs of many social democratic parties were based on the ideas of Marxism, which proclaimed the inevitability of the death of capitalist society. At the beginning of the 20th century. these parties became a political force competing with the leading bourgeois parties.

Already from the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. the teachings of K. Marx began to be revised both “from the left” and “from the right.” As a result, at the beginning of the 20th century. In the social democratic movement, two opposing directions emerged, which diverged on key issues for Marxism: class struggle, revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat.

Bolshevism

The “left” direction at this time was associated with V.I. Lenin, who became the head of the Bolshevik wing of Russian Social Democracy. The revision and addition of Marxist teaching made by V.I. Lenin and his associates was so radical that it is customary to talk about the creation of a new ideological and political movement - Bolshevism.Material from the site

Ideas of E. Bernstein

The revision “from the right” provided for the rejection of revolutionary forms of transition to a more perfect social structure of society and the development of a reformist path of transformation. The fundamentals of reformist doctrine were set forth E. Bernstein(1850-1932), leader and ideologist of the Social Democratic Party of Germany.

E. Bernstein rejected the scientific justification of socialism, seeing in it an ethical ideal, and also questioned the doctrine of the inevitability of the collapse of capitalism, the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He put forward a program for reforming capitalism; he believed that due to the constant improvement of the living conditions of workers, the negative features of the capitalist system would be smoothed out. His aphorism is well known, illustrating the goals of reformism: “The ultimate goal is nothing, movement is everything.”