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."[1]
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
- ↑ 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),
