Chapotraphouse

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. Hence, our task is clear: to remove every one of the autocracy’s brutal oppressors by the only means that has been left [!] us by the autocracy–death."

Here Lenin discovers more problems in the fundamental logic of adventurists. The argument is that small groups or individuals are better suited to take down the autocracy since it has soldiers to defend it from crowds and secret police to defend it from revolutionary orgs. So they're picking targets out of convenience rather than actual importance to the autocracy. Meaning it's a weaker strategy if you're attacking power. This is in contrast to communism which goes after the entire autocracy and systematically smashes it into pieces. It also wrongly identifies the individual parts of autocracy as the autocracy itself.

You can use Luigi as an example once again. Going after one CEO of one company (which has several other CEOs) because that happened to be the guy who takes morning walks with no security. Not because Brian Thompson was uniquely powerful or important to the healthcare industry.

No matter how many reams of paper the Socialist-Revolutionaries may fill with assurances that they are not relegating work among the masses into the background or disorganising it by their advocacy of terrorism—their spate of words cannot disprove the fact that the actual psychology of the modern terrorist is faithfully conveyed in the leaflet we have quoted. The theory of the transference of strength finds its natural complement in the theory of elusiveness, a theory which turns upside down, not only all past experience, but all common sense as well. That the only “hope” of the revolution is the “crowd”; that only a revolutionary organisation which leads this crowd (in deed and not in word) can fight against the police—all this is ABC. It is shameful to have to prove this. And only people who have forgotten everything and learned absolutely nothing could have decided “the other way about,” arriving at the fabulous, howling stupidity that the autocracy can be “saved” from the crowd by soldiers, and from the revolutionary organisations by the police, but that there is no salvation from individuals who hunt down ministers!!

Lenin here further dismantles the adventurists. Their actions and way of communicating their ideas reveal their true thoughts of revolution. The idea of power transference through terrorism is elusive and disregards all past experience and common sense. They fundamentally do not understand the role of people in revolution or how it works. That's why they think crowds and organizations can't harm the autocracy but disorganized individuals can.

This fabulous argument, which we are convinced is destined to become notorious, is by no means simply a curiosity. No, it is instructive because, through a sweeping reduction to an absurdity, it reveals the principal mistake of the terrorists, which they share with the “economists” (perhaps one might already say, with the former representatives of deceased “economism”?). This mistake, as we have already pointed out on numerous occasions, consists in the failure to understand the basic defect of our movement. Because of the extremely rapid growth of the movement, the leaders lagged behind the masses, the revolutionary organisations did not come up to the level of the revolutionary activity of the proletariat, were incapable of marching on in front and leading the masses. That a discrepancy of this sort exists cannot be doubted by any conscientious person who has even the slightest acquaintance with the movement. And if that is so, it is evident that the present-day terrorists are really “economists” turned inside out, going to the equally foolish but opposite extreme. At a time when the revolutionaries are short of the forces and means to lead the masses, who are already rising, an appeal to resort to such terrorist acts as the organisation of attempts on the lives of ministers by individuals and groups that are not known to one another means, not only thereby breaking off work among the masses, but also introducing downright disorganisation into that work.

The adventurists criticize communists for something they don't understand. Lenin and the communists understand the problem which he describes as the movement growing so quickly that leaders couldn't keep up with the expansion, and therefore lead the proletariat properly. Adventurists act as opportunists during such a time of strain on the movement, and lead it off course by encouraging unvetted rando groups to carry out assassinations. This screws up the work of communists.

It goes on but the point is not vague or elusive. I'm not pointing at some ill defined idea that adenturism doesn't work and giving unclear instruction. I'm saying that in times like this, when you're feeling angry and humiliated, when the reactionary forces seem to be winning, when you feel lost in the face of witnessing atrocity, return to theory. Steady yourself. Bolster your commitment and focus. If you find people who are lost, scared, angry, lead them to the same rigor and understanding. Do not disregard the principles of communism or theoretical rigor out of hopelessness. Do not suddenly become more lax and let in all sorts of reactionary ideas.