◆ SpookStack

than you have done up to now; and you must bring not only in the form of arguments, pamphlets and hich sometimes — excuse our frankness! —~ are rather Precisely in the form of live exposures of what our ent and our governing classes are doing at this very in all spheres of life. Just devote more zeal to but this duty, and talk less about “raising the activ- "masses of the workers"! We are far more active think, and we are quite able to Support, by open, “ting, demands that do not promise any “palpable -hatever? And it is not for you to “raise” our ‘Cause activity is precisely the thing you yourselves ‘vy less in worship to spontaneity, and think more ing your own activity, gentlemen! HAT IS THERE IN COMMON BETWEEN ECONOMISM AND TERRORISM? “t footnote we quoted the opinion of an Economist 10n-Sdchal-Democratic terrorist who happencd to cement with him. Speaking generally, however, ‘ an accidental, but a neccessary, inherent connec- ‘n the two, about whick we shall have to speak but which must be dealt with here in connection westion of training the Masses in revolutionary ie Economists and the Present-day terrorists have ! £O0t, namely, the worship of spontaneity, which ‘th in the Preceding chapter as a general phenom- “hich we shall now examine in relation to its political activity and the political struggle. Ae “uf assertion may appear paradoxical, so great is the difference between those who stress the “drab everyday struggle” and those who call for the most self-sacrificing struggle of individuals, But this is no paradox, The Econ- omists and terrorists merely bow to different poles of spon- tancity: the Economists bow to the spontaneity of the “‘pure’** working-class movement, while the terrorists bow to the i i Rate-indignation of intellectualswho lack _the-ability_or opportunity to link up the revolutionary struggle with the y warking-class_ movement, to_form an in- ceral whole. It is difficult indeed for those who have lost their belief, or who have never believed that this is possible, to find some outlet for their indignation and revolutionary energy other than terror. Thus, both kinds of worship of spontaneicy we have mentioned are nothing more nor Iess than @ beginning in carrying out the notorious Credo pro- gram: Let the workers wage their “economic struggle against the employers and the government” (we apologize to the author of the Credo for expressing his views in Martynov's words! We think we have a right to do so because the Credo, too, says that in the economic struggle the workers “come up against the Political regime”), and let the intcl- lectuals conduct the political struggle by their own efforts ~ with che aid of tecror, of course! This is an absolutely logical and inevitable conclusion which must be insisted upon ~ even though those who are beginning to carry out this Progtam do not themselves realize that it is inevitable. Polit- ical activity has its logic quite apart from the consciousness of those who, with the best intentions, call either for terror or for lending the economic struggle itself a political character. he road to hell is paved with good intentions, and, in this case, good intentions cannot save one from being spontane- ously drawn “along the line of feast resistance +" along the 3