What Is to Be Done? (Iskra)

What Is to Be Done? (Iskra)
Title	What Is to Be Done? (Iskra)

What Is to Be Done? (Iskra) is an 1899 Russian-language political pamphlet associated with the newspaper Iskra that contributed to debates among Russian Social Democratic Labour Party factions in the late Russian Empire period. The text articulated positions on organization, agitation, and strategy that intersected with controversies involving figures and groups across the Second International, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and revolutionary circles active in St. Petersburg, Geneva, and London.

Background and Context

The pamphlet emerged amid the aftermath of the Revolution of 1905 precursors and during the proliferation of émigré publishing in Geneva, Zurich, and Paris. Activists from Plekhanov, Zasulich, and networks tied to Pottiomkin debated with representatives of Lenin, Trotsky, and others about party structure and tactics. The industrializing regions around Saint Petersburg, Moscow, and the Donbas mining areas provided the social base for competing programs articulated within venues like Iskra and conferences such as the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party.

Authorship and Publication History

Authorship and attribution were central controversies involving personalities such as Vladimir Lenin, Georgi Plekhanov, Julius Martov, and editors of Iskra published abroad to evade Okhrana censorship. The pamphlet's circulation relied on clandestine printing in cities like Lodz, Kraków, and Hamburg and distribution networks through agents linked to Emancipation of Labour Group, RSDLP sympathizers, and trade union contacts in Leipzig and Brussels. Legal prosecutions in Saint Petersburg and surveillance by the Okhrana affected editions and led to debates in periodicals such as Zarya (magazine), Rabochaya Gazeta, and Pravda.

Key Themes and Arguments

The pamphlet advanced arguments about centralized organization, professional revolutionary cadres, and the role of propaganda versus agitation, engaging intellectuals like Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg, and Eduard Bernstein in comparative debates. It advocated a model of disciplined party apparatus inspired by practices observed in German Social Democratic Party, Social Democratic Party of Austria, and revolutionary tactics discussed in Paris Commune studies and histories of 1848 Revolutions. The text critiqued spontaneity associated with peasant uprisings such as those during the Decembrist Revolt and proposed structures resembling cells and committees used in Irish Republican Brotherhood and Polish Socialist Party organizing.

Reception and Influence

Responses spanned a spectrum from endorsement by activists in Baku, Kiev, and Tiflis to hostility from intellectuals in Berlin and Vienna. The pamphlet influenced strategic decisions at congresses including the Second Congress of the RSDLP and informed editorial lines in Iskra and later in organs like Pravda and Zvezda (magazine). International figures such as Vera Zasulich, Alexandra Kollontai, and Nadezhda Krupskaya engaged its theses, and debates reached forums in Geneva and London where émigré communities from Poland, Finland, and Lithuania participated.

Criticism and Controversy

Critics from the Mensheviks and sympathizers of Rosa Luxemburg argued the pamphlet underestimated mass democratic processes and overemphasized clandestine professionalism, prompting polemics in Neue Zeit and Die Neue Zeit. Others accused proponents of authoritarian tendencies reminiscent of debates between Napoleon III era centralization and federative models advocated by the Zionist movement and Socialist Revolutionary Party. Legal authorities in Saint Petersburg and Moscow used the pamphlet as evidence in trials alongside other texts like What Is to Be Done? (Lenin)-era discussions, generating sustained controversy over legality and revolutionary legitimacy.

Legacy and Historical Significance

The pamphlet's legacy persisted in organizational doctrines adopted by factions that later participated in the October Revolution and influenced cadres in Red Army recruitment, educational programs at institutions akin to Moscow State University and party schools, and historiography produced in Soviet Union and émigré circles. Its debates contributed to comparative studies involving Frankfurt School critiques, discussions in British Labour Party circles, and analyses by historians of World War I and interwar revolutionary movements. The document remains a touchstone in scholarship concerning revolutionary strategy, party-building, and the transnational networks linking activists across Europe and the Russian Empire.

Category:Russian revolutionary literature Category:Socialist pamphlets Category:Political history of the Russian Empire