Building Up Socialism/Chapter 5

by Nikolai Bukharin

Chapter V.

THE DEGENERATE BOLSHEVIKS

At first they shouted about the inevitable failure and doom of the Bolsheviks; later, to the extent that the Bolsheviks consolidated their power, more and more loudly was heard another note: the Bolsheviks are holding on, but they are not the same Bolsheviks; the Bolsheviks are strengthening their position, but they are degenerating under the influence of the seething peasant tide. Nor could it be otherwise: those who regard our revolution as a bourgeois revolution, naturally, prior to the consolidation of the Soviets, would howl about the inevitable failure of a proletarian revolution and after the consolidation they would inevitably talk about degeneration.

This note was extraordinarily well expressed by David Dalin, one of the prominent Mensheviks in general, and one of the theoreticians of moribund Menshevism in particular. In his book, "After Wars and Revolutions," he wrote:

 

"One must understand the sense of events, one must tear off the masquerade clothing, one must wash off the paint and judge not by words, but by deeds, not by intentions, but by results. One must understand the objective meaning of the revolution."^[1]

 

And this objective meaning of the revolution is as follows:

 

"The revolution which has been proceeding in Russia during the last five years [written in 1922, N.B.] from the very beginning, was, and has remained to the end a bourgeois revolution." (Ibid: p. 7).

 

The question arises why is such a summary given of a Communist revolution?

 

And the answer is:

 

"Because the interests of the peasantry determined the fate of the whole policy." (Ibid : p. 13)

 

In this connection the position taken up by Lieber, that diehard, Right Wing Menshevik, whom we have already quoted, is interesting. Generalising his ideas on the possibility of Socialism in Russia, Lieber in his pamphlet, wrote as follows:

 

"For us—Socialists who have not re-learned their Socialism—there is not the slightest doubt that Socialism first of all can be brought about in those countries which stand at the highest stage of economic development—Germany, England, America—in those countries in which, first of all, there are grounds for very important victories for the Socialist movement. [Just imagine, America is the country where "first of all" there are "grounds for very important victories for the Socialist movement"!—N.B.]. And yet for some time a theory of quite an opposite character has developed among us. This theory does not represent anything new to us old Russian Social-Democrats; this theory was developed by the Russian Narodniki in their fight against the early Marxists." (op. cit. p. 16.)

 

Consequently, Bolshevism is a Narodnist theory in the fight against which Russian Marxism developed. He could not resist this "modern" reproach of "Komnarodism"! But even this did not satisfy our "thinker"; a still more incriminating label had to be found for Bolshevism. Narodnism was not nearly severe enough for Lieber. Consequently he makes the presentation of the question more "profound" and writes: "This theory [the Bolshevik theory—N.B.], is a very old one, it has its roots in Slavophilism."^[2]

A. A. Bogdanov decided the question of the character of our revolution in a peculiar manner, but in the main in the same style. The Bolsheviks seized power by taking advantage of the weakness of the bourgeoisie, who became bankrupt after the war. The capture of power with the aid of soldiery cannot be regarded as the beginning of a Socialist revolution; the proletariat has not ripened for Socialism while the peasantry are in the majority. Consequently, the State which the Bolsheviks are establishing is not a proletarian State. It is the State of the technical-organising class, the intelligentsia, which has now assumed the character of a class, Even if the subjective intentions of the Bolsheviks did not include the establishment of such a State, the objective role they are playing is reducing itself to the construction of a peculiar State, at the head of which is a new class, which became finally consolidated in the flames of the revolution. Having undergone a process of bureaucratic degeneration, the men who have come from the proletariat are becoming a component part of the new class. The objective possibility of Socialism here, too, had its decisive effect, in spite of the subjective illusions of the agents of the revolutionary process themselves.

It deserves to be mentioned that Bazarov, who more than once came out as the literary twin of Bogdanov, could not agree to recognise the Socialist character of our revolution. According to him, our revolution is a Socialist revolution only in the declarations issued by the Bolsheviks. As a matter of fact, he argues, a deep chasm separates these declarations from reality; a chasm, to fill which the proletariat will have to spend more than one century.

This then is the general estimation of our revolution in the form in which it is presented by Russian opportunist Socialism and particularly by the Mensheviks. This estimation amounts to this, that capitalist relations in Russia have not matured; that the relation of forces is to a high degree unfavourable for the proletariat; that the character of the Russian revolution is determined by the peasantry; that in one way or another, through the medium of a Bolshevik Party or without it, through its initiative or against its will, by its remaining in power or by its degeneration or overthrow, a new capitalism will arise resting upon the peasanty—the majority of the population. Such is the Social-Democratic theory on the question of the character of our revolution, or, what amounts to the same thing, on the possibility of constructing Socialism in our country.

This exhausts the list of the critics of Bolshevism on this question outside the Bolshevik ranks. Now it is the turn of the critics comprising those groups and tendencies within our Party.

1. D. Dalin: "After Wars and Revolutions," published by Grani, Berlin, 1922, p. 10.
2. M. E. Lieber, op. cit. p. 17: The reader will see that Lieber distorts the Bolshevik presentation of the question by confusing the question of who "began" with that of the level of the type of revolution. The imperialist front in Russia was broken before that of other countries and the Russian proletariat seized power before that of other countries, which to a considerable degree was determined by the weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie. On the other hand to construct is much more difficult for us owing to the technical and economic backwardness of the country. All this has been explained over and over again, in Bolshevik literature. We will observe also that the "modern" reasoning about "national limitations" had its glorious predecessor in the reasoning of Ströbel, Lieber and Co. To charge the Bolsheviks with Slavophilism, sounds awfully strong. While Lieber includes the Bolsheviks among the Slovophiles, Tchernov charges us with plagiarising the ideas of the so-called "Maximalists." "The Russian Narodniki-Maximalists prophetically foretold in their phantasies nearly all the greatest of the Bolshevik experiments." (V. Tchernov: "Constructive Socialism," vol. Prague, 1.162),