p In developing and propagating historical materialism all eminent Marxsits, like Antonio Labriola, August Bebel, Rosa Luxemburg or Georgi Plekhanov, sought to show, as concretely as possible, how the law “social being determines social consciousness” operates. They all paid a great deal of attention to social psychology which seemed hardly discernible at first glance but played a major role in this mechanism. Indeed, social consciousness consists not only of ideology (theory, world outlook and systems of concepts) but psychology as well. Underestimation of psychology leads to vulgarisation of the teaching on basis and superstructure. It is impossible to present a concrete picture of philosophical, religious and aesthetic trends and systems without studying their psychological background. Such attempts led certain historians of culture to simplified 12 analogies, like associating the style of the St. Basil Cathedral in Moscow with the motley abundance of wares sold in Red Square. In contrast to a vulgarised concept that superstructure was a mirror- like reflection of its basis, Marxist invariably held that socio-economic relations determine, by and large, not ideology, but deep-going, unsystematic processes in social consciousness.

p Georgi Plekhanov expounded the theory whereby changes in human psychology, caused by socio-economic development, constitute an intermediate link between economic development and the history of culture in a broad sense. Proponents of such a concept held that ideas and culture were the quintessence of social psychology. In his “Essays on the History of Materialism” G. Plekhanov divides the entire social structure of society into five interdependent elements: “A given level of development of productive forces; relationships between people determined by this level of development; a form of society expressing these relationships; a definite state of mood and morals corresponding to this form of society; religion; philosophy, literature, arts corresponding to people’s capacities, tastes and inclinations brought about by this state.”   [12•1  G. Plekhanov insisted that without an element called here “the state of mood and morals”, otherwise known as “prevailing sentiments and ideas”, or, in a broader sense, as social psychology, it is impossible to make any appreciable progress in studying the history of literature, arts, philosophy, etc. 13 He wrote: “To comprehend the history of scientific thought or the history of arts in a given country it is not enough to know its economy. From economy one should he able to go over to social psychology, without, a thorough study and understanding of which it is impossible to give a materialistic explanation of the history of ideologies.”   [13•1  Eventually, he formulated that same thought in a more concise form: “All ideologies have one common root—the psychology of a given epoch.”   [13•2 

p Plekhanov, like other Marxists, was correct in declaring that an ideology does not directly stem from economic changes but is a reflection of social psychology, being its ideological quintessence. Conversely, ideology has a profound impact on social psychology. In other words, there is an interaction between the two. Looking upon ideology as the mere quintessence of social psychology is to lose sight of continuity, of relative inner logic, in the evolution of ideology from one stage to another. Apparently, it would he more correct to consider that both sides of social consciousness—psychology and ideology— have their own specific, laws and structures. But it is socio-psychological phenomena, developing on a given socio-economic basis that set ideas in motion or hold them hack.

p Lenin repeatedly emphasised that feelings, sentiments, instincts, in short, the psychological make-up of different classes and groups, result 14 from their economic conditions and basic economic interests. This is the primary and most important source of socio-psychological phenomena. It. is impossible to conduct propaganda among the working masses without putting forth economic demands. “The masses are drawn into the movement, participate vigorously in it, value it highly and display heroism, self-sacrifice, perseverance and devotion to the great cause only if it makes for improving the economic condition of those who work,”   [14•1  Lenin wrote. To delete ’economic demands from programme would mean “abandoning the economic interests which impel the masses of downtrodden, cowed, ignorant people to wage a great and unprecedentedly selfless struggle.”  [14•2  Revolution breaks out not because scores or hundreds: of bourgeois politicians grumble or express their liberal indignation but because scores of millions of “little people” consider their lot unbearable. It is there, in the midst of the masses that a democratic revolution ripens quietly. The economic situation predetermines both temporary political passivity and somnolence, and also an urge for revolution and socialism of different toiling classes. For instance, the petty-bourgeois mass, owing to its economic situation is prepared for astonishing credulity and lack of consciousness... it is still in the state of semi-slumber. And conversely, among the proletarian mass Social Democracy is meeting with an “instinctive urge towards socialism”.   [14•3 

p Lenin was not afraid of using such expressions as “class instinct”, “instinct of the revolutionary class”, “class feeling”, etc. He spoke of “ instinct” in a socio-psychological, and not in a biological, sense. On different occasions Lenin used many different expressions to denote this lowest and most subjective stratum of social mobility or immobility. He analysed a working man’s deep hatred for oppressors and arrived at a major theoretical conclusion: “In a representative of the oppressed and exploited masses, this hatred is truly the ‘beginning of all wisdom’, the basis of any socialist and communist movement and of its success.”   [15•1  A half-blind feeling turns into half-blind action. “The unorganised street crowds, quite spontaneously and hesitatingly, set up the first barricades.”  [15•2  The wavering political position of the bourgeois parties “...is irritating the masses, .. .is pushing them towards insurrection.”   [15•3 

p Or conversely, an unconscious mood, a habitual sentiment holds up the development of a progressive social action. In his article “The Importance of Gold” Lenin wrote: “We shall not surrender to ‘sentimental socialism’, or to the old Russian, semi-aristocratic, semi-muzhik and patriarchal mood, with their supreme contempt for trade.”   [15•4 

p It is namely unconscious, instinctive and unaccountable sentiments and actions stemming directly from vital requirements and interests that 16 constitute the characteristic feature of social psychology in its proper sense.

p Lenin’s analysis of the world outlook of the Russian revolutionary democrats provides a vivid example of how social psychology is reflected in social ideology. He said that Russian progressive thought of the 19th century was a reflection not of “~‘intellectualist’ sentiments”, but namely the sentiments of peasant serfs against serfdom. It was a reflection of the protest and struggle of the broadest masses of the population “against the survivals of feudalism throughout the whole system of Russian life”.   [16•1 

p In Lenin’s works the question of psychology and ideology is often posed as the question of spontaneity and consciousness. There is a close interrelation between them. Spontaneity and consciousness also interact in revolutionary movement. Consciousness developed from spontaneity and surmounted it. Lenin emphasised (heir contradictory nature. In speaking of the difference between the spreading of political consciousness and the growth of mass indignation he noted that political consciousness should be fostered by Social Democracy whereas mass indignation was spontaneous.

p Lenin repeatedly pointed to such simultaneous and interacting impact of thinking and unaccountable psychological changes on the class struggle of the proletariat and the destinies of the revolutionary movement. In 1905 he wrote the following about three transitions in the working- class Social-Democratic movement: “Each of these transitions was prepared, on the one hand, 17 by socialist thought working mainly in one direction, and on the oilier, by the profound changes that had taken place in the conditions of life and in the whole mentality of the working class, as well as by the fact that increasingly wider strata of the working class were roused to more conscious and active struggle.”   [17•1 

p Such concern for thinking and psychological make-up, for ideas and sentiments, attests to Lenin’s comprehensive analysis of the social consciousness of the classes and masses.

p In the process of direct revolutionary activity Lenin accentuates the conflict and unity of opposites in the sphere of social consciousness: social psychology and ideology are opposites in a way, but cannot exist without each other. As a mat tier of fact, totally unconscious behaviour of people, on the one hand, and scientific consciousness, on the other, are exact opposites in this sense. This is how Lenin uses the word “ unconscious” in his work “What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are and How They Fight Against Social-Democrats”: “It never has been the case, nor is it so now, that the members of society conceive the sum-total of the social relations in which they live as something definite, integral, pervaded by some principle; on the contrary, the mass of people adapt themselves to these relations unconsciously, and have so little conception of them as specific historical social relations that, for instance, an explanation of live exchange relations under which people have lived for centuries was found only in very recent times.”  [17•2  But, between 18 man’s unconscious adaptation to social life, which is a far cry from logical thinking and cognition, and theoretical scientific explanation of social life, there exists a large area in which these two mutually antagonistic elements, in various combinations with each other, constitute social psychology and ideology. Social psychology is closer to the pole of “unconscious adaptation”, but there is a certain degree of involvement of consciousness here. Consequently, the opposition of social psychology to ideology is not absolute but rather relative, with many transitional stages. Sometimes these two notions even stand very close to each other in Lenin’s works. For instance: “This psychology and ideology, much as it may be vague, is unusually deep-rooted in every worker and peasant.”   [18•1 

p By the term “spontaneity” Lenin meant those aspects of social psychology which tend to gravitate towards unconsciousness though never coincide with it. Mainly two groups of phenomena belong to this category: 1) the wretchedness of people, their submissiveness to misery and lack of rights, a habit for being oppressed; 2) protest, indignation, rebelliousness but directed only against a source of hardships and not supported by social theory, hence being of negative character.

p Lenin had a very negative attitude to the first group of phenomena. He urged all revolutionary Marxists to surmount such a formidable handicap in the psychology of all working masses and strata. Servility, according to him, was the 19 antithesis to any revolutionary perspective, to any revolutionary action.

p In 1901, Lenin wrote: “Just as the peasant has grown accustomed to his wretched poverty, to living his life without pondering over the causes of his wretchedness, or the possibility of removing it, so the plain Russian subject has become accustomed to the omnipotence of the government, to living on without a thought as to whether the government can retain its arbitrary power any longer and whether, side by side with it, there are not forces undermining the outmoded political system.”  [19•1  Of course, by such “undermining forces” Lenin meant, above all, the development of the working class. But in the working class, too, Lenin discerned the remnants of this psychology of wretchedness and servility.

p Lenin paid a great deal of attention to the second group of phenomena.

p Doctrinaire attitude to spontaneity was utterly alien to him. He wrote: “It is beyond all doubt that the spontaneity of the movement is proof that it is deeply rooted in the masses, that its roots are firm and that it is inevitable.”   [19•2  The “~‘spontaneous element’, in essence, represents nothing more nor less than consciousness in an embryonic form. Even the primitive revolts expressed the awakening of consciousness to a certain extent. The workers were losing their age-long faith in the permanence of the system which oppressed them and began. . . I shall not say to understand, but to sense the 20 necessity for collective resistance, definitely abandoning their slavish submission to the authorities. But this was, nevertheless, more in the nature of outbursts of desperation and vengeance than of struggle.”   [20•1 

p Revolutionary Marxists value this form of spontaneity not because it is capable of bringing about theoretical consciousness, but because it creates favourable conditions for its propaganda and assimilation. The political sentiments and spontaneous movement of the working class were, according to Lenin, the chief source sustaining revolutionary Social Democracy. They helped to speedily spread the ideas of Marxism in Russia. Revolutionary ideologists are “capable of coping with political tasks in the genuine and most practical sense of the term, for the reason and to the extent that their impassioned propaganda meets with response among the spontaneously awakening masses, and their sparkling energy is answered and supported by the energy of the revolutionary class.”  [20•2  Such was Lenin’s reply to the question of educated revolutionaries “What is to be done?” Once it is equipped with Marxist revolutionary theory the youth can gain strength and bring this theory to the spontaneously awakening masses. “The revolutionary democrat, while submitting a report to his ’higher-ups’, or even before submitting it, reveals and exposes every evil and every shortcoming before the people to arouse their activity.”  [20•3  Marxism enables the revolutionary to 21 explain to the workers the genuine causes of (heir hardships and “opens up for him the widest perspectives, and (if one may so express it) places at his disposal the mighty force of many millions of workers ’spontaneously’ rising for the struggle.”   [21•1 

p Somnolence and awakening are a one-way movement. Scientific theory, its conversion into comprehensively elaborated socio-political ideology and propaganda constitute a contrary movement. Lenin emphasised that it was insufficient to bring to the consciousness of Russian workers only the basic propositions of political economy elucidating the nature of capitalist exploitation, or the basic propositions of scientific, communism. This is not enough to ensure the coupling of scientific theory with their feelings of protest and wrath. The point is that the Russian worker lives in a peasant country; by and large, he himself is yesterday’s peasant or has contact with them. Besides, he lives in conditions characterised by prevailing semi-serfdom institutions and the autocratic-bureaucratic apparatus of power. He must be made conscious of scientific theory which should be well- elaborated and comprehensible enough to be able to explain to him not only his narrow class interests, but the entire society surrounding him. It should make him realise that without smashing these mainstays of reaction the working class cannot succeed in its struggle against the bourgeoisie since it cannot win without the support of the village poor, that without such a broad understanding of social structure and the wide 22 front of the labouring masses the working class “will never cease to be downtrodden and cowed, capable only of sullen desperation and not of intelligent and persistent protest and struggle.”   [22•1  Indeed, the workers need not only a scientific understanding of industry and industrial labour. The Russian Marxists “are plucking from our countryside the imaginary flowers” with which the Narodniks adorn it in order that “the proletariat may understand what sort of chains everywhere fetter the working people... and be able to rise against them, to throw them off and reach out for the real flower—socialism.  [22•2 

p “In order to become a Social-Democrat,” Lenin wrote in his “What, Is to Be Done?”, “the worker must have a clear picture in his mind of the economic nature and the social and political features of the landlord and the priest, the high state official and the peasant, the student and the vagabond; be must know their strong and weak points; he must grasp the meaning of all the catchwords and sophisms by which each class and each stratum camouflages its selfish strivings and its real ‘inner workings;...”  [22•3 

p In short, the contrary movement should come to be elaboration and propaganda of such a theory which would truly accord will) a spontaneously awakening desire to act and fight, would guide this activity and encompass the sphere of feelings through consciousness. Lenin quotes Engels’ words that without a sense of theory among the German workers, “scientific socialism would 23 never have entered their flesh and blood as much as is the case.”   [23•1  Such is the truly tremendous scope of this contrary movement: according with spontaneously awakening discontent of the masses, theory is capable not only of mastering their consciousness but also of entering their flesh and blood. This is expressed in the maxim— theory becomes a material force once it is understood by the masses.

p In 1912. Lenin wrote: “We say that the workers and peasants who are most downtrodden by the barracks have began to rise in revolt. Hence the plain and obvious conclusion: we must explain to them how and for what purpose they should prepare for a successful uprising.”   [23•2 

p This was how Lenin taught Russian revolutionaries to combine scientific socialism with the mass working-class movement.

p But it is not only the working class that is involved in this activity. “There is a mass of people, because the working class and increasingly varied social strata, year after year, produce from their ranks an increasing number of discontented people who desire to protest, who are ready to render all the assistance they can in the struggle against absolutism, the intolerableness of which, though not; yet recognised by all, is more and more acutely sensed by increasing masses of the people.”   [23•3  Here, too, Lenin points to an immense range from unconscious sentiments to scientific consciousness. From his analysis of the psychology of spontaneous 24 discontent he arrives at the conclusion of the need for carrying out agitation and propaganda not only among the proletariat but the other classes of society. He writes: “Is there a basis for activity among all classes of the population? Whoever doubts this lags in his consciousness behind the spontaneous awakening of the masses. The working-class movement has aroused and is continuing to arouse discontent in some, hopes of support for the opposition in others, and in still others the realisation that the autocracy is unbearable and must inevitably fall. . . .This is quite apart from the fact that the millions of the labouring peasantry, handicraftsmen, petty artisans, etc., would always listen eagerly to the speech of any Social-Democrat who is at all qualified. Indeed, is there a single social class in which there are no individuals, groups, or circles that are discontented with the lack of rights -and with tyranny and, therefore, accessible to the propaganda of Social- Democrats...?”   [24•1 

p Lenin’s interpretation of fraternisation at the front in 1917 supports his concept concerning spontaneity and consciousness. “The fraternising soldiers are actuated not by a clear-cut political idea but by the instinct of oppressed people, who are tired, exhausted and begin to lose confidence in capitalist promises. ...This is a true class instinct. Without this instinct the cause of the revolution would be hopeless. ...This instinct must be transformed into political awareness.”   [24•2  Spontaneous fraternisation means only smashing 25 of the hateful barrack discipline, the discipline of blind subjugation of soldiers to officers, generals and capitalists. But this already means “the revolutionary initiative of the masses.”   [25•1  Fraternisation was spontaneous, but the path was opened up to “transition from fraternisation on one front to fraternisation on every front, from spontaneous fraternisation. .. to conscious fraternisation.”   [25•2 

p Lenin’s ardent and profound interest in the psychology of protest leads to the conclusion that the latter is most eager to absorb any kind of consciousness—bourgeois ideology or the true science of proletarian socialism. Such psychology of protest, such spontaneity iii itself is far from predetermining the choice of scientific consciousness in preference to a non- scientific ideology. On the contrary, the spontaneous working-class movement is hound, according to Lenin, to lead to the domination of bourgeois ideology. Though socialist theory is clearer and closer to workers, bourgeois ideology is far older in origin and more fully developed, and has at its disposal immeasurably more means of dissemination. That’s why “...all worship of the spontaneity of the working-class movement, all belittling of the role of ‘the conscious element’, of the role of Social-Democracy, means, quite independently of whether he who belittles that role desires it or not, a strengthening of the influence of bourgeois ideology upon the workers.”   [25•3 

p Such are the dialectics of Lenin’s thought concerning the social psychology of spontaneous discontent and protest. He saw in this spontaneity a basis for socialist consciousness and, at the same time attacked it, rejected worship of it since subservience to spontaneity could serve as a basis for bourgeois ideology. In this way, spontaneity can be both a major support and a major obstacle in the way of revolution. “It is often said that the working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism. This is perfectly true in the sense that socialist theory reveals the causes of the misery of the working class more profoundly and more correctly than any other theory, and for that reason the workers are able to assimilate it so easily, provided, however, this theory does not itself yield to spontaneity, provided it subordinates spontaneity to itself. ...The working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism; nevertheless, most widespread... bourgeois ideology spontaneously imposes itself upon the working class to a still greater degree.”   [26•1 

These ideas of Lenin help us to understand the contradictions and interconnections of social psychology and ideology, spontaneity and consciousness, unconsciousness and science. As can be seen, as far back as 1901, Lenin sought to comprehend the entire unconscious and spontaneous socio-psychological phenomena, which nevertheless are subjected to one or another ideology, in order to provide an answer to the question “What is to be done?” The same holds true with regard to his later activities.