The Proletarian Revolution in Russia/Part 1/Chapter 3
III
PARTY DIVISIONS.
The following is an attempt to formulate, first, the more important, and second, the less important, of the questions and answers characteristic of the present situation (early in April) in Russia, and of the attitude the various parties take to the present state of affairs.
Questions
1.—What are the chief groupings of political parties in Russia?
A (more to the right than the Cadets). Parties and groups more right than the Constitutional Democrats.
B (Cadets). Constitutional Democratic Party (Cadets, the National Liberty party) and the groups closely attached to them.
C (Social Democrats and Social Revolutionists). The S. D.'s, S. R.'s and the groups closely attached to them.
D (Bolsheviki). The party which ought properly to be called the Communist Party, and which is at present termed "The Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party, united with the Central Committee;" or, in popular language, the "Bolsheviki."
2.—What class do these parties represent? What class standpoints do they express?
A. The feudal landholders and the more backward sections of the bourgeoisie.
B. The mass of the bourgeoisie:, that is, the capitalists, and those landholders who have the industrial, bourgeois ideology.
C. Small entrepreneurs, small and middle-class proprietors, small and more or less well-to-do peasants, petite bourgeoisie, as well as those workers who have submitted to a bourgeois point of view.
D. Class conscious workers, day laborers and the poorest classes of peasantry, who are classed with the proletariat (semi-proletariat.)
3.—What is their relation to Socialism?
A and B. Unconditionally hostile, since it threatens the profits of capitalists and landholders.
C. For Socialism, but it is too early yet to think of it or to take any practical steps for its realization.
D. For Socialism. The Council of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Delegates must at once take every practical and feasible step for its realization. (For the nature of these steps, see Questions 20 and 22.)
4.—What form of government do they want now?
A. Constitutional Monarchy, absolute authority of the official class and the police.
B. A bourgeois parliamentary republic, i. e., a perpetuation of the rule of the capitalists, with the retention of the official (chinovnik) class and the police.
C. A bourgeois parliamentary republic, with reforms for the workers and peasants.
D. A republic of the Councils of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Delegates. Abolition of the standing army and the police; substituting for them an armed people; officials to be not only elected, but also subject to recall; their pay not to exceed that of a good worker.
5.—What is their attitude on the restoration of the Romanoff Monarchy?
A. In favor, but it must be done with caution and secrecy, for they are afraid of the people.
B. When the Guchkovs seemed to be in power the Cadets were in favor of putting on the throne a brother or son of Nicholas, but when the people loomed up the Cadets became anti-monarchical.
C and D. Unconditionally opposed to any kind of monarchic restoration.
6.—What do they think of seizures of power? What do they term "Order," and what "Anarchy"?
A. If a Czar or a brave general seizes control, his authority comes from God; that is order. Anything else is Anarchy,
B. If the capitalists hold power, even by force, that is order; to assume power against the capitalist will would be Anarchy.
C. If the Council of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Delegates alone are in power, Anarchy threatens. For the present let the capitalists retain control, while the Councils have an "Advisory Commission."
D. Sole authority must be in the hands of the Councils of Workers, Soldiers and Peasants. The entire propaganda, agitation and organization of millions upon millions of people must at once be directed toward this end. (Anarchy is a complete negation of government authority, but the Councils of W. S. and P. Delegates are also a government authority.)
7.—Shall we support the Provisional Government?
A and B. Unquestionably, since it is the only means at this moment of guarding the interests of the capitalists.
C. Yes, but with the condition that it should carry out its agreement with the Councils of Workers, Soldiers and Peasants and should consult with the "Advisory Commission."
D. No; let the capitalists support the Provisional Government. We must prepare the whole people for the complete and sole authority of the Councils of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Delegates.
8.—Are we for a single authority or for dual authority?
A and B. For sole power in the hands of the capitalists and landholders.
C. For dual authority. The Councils of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Delegates to exercise "control" over the Provisional Government. But it would be pernicious to consider the possibility that this control might prove illusory.
D. For sole power in the hands of the Councils of Workers, Soldiers and Peasants, from top to bottom over the whole country.
9.—Shall a Constituent Assembly be called?
A. Not necessary, for it might injure the landholders. Suppose the peasants at the Constituent Assembly should decide to take away the land of the landholders?
B. Yes, but without stipulation of time. Furthermore, the learned professors should be consulted; first, because Bebel has already pointed out that jurists are the most reactionary people in the world; and second, because the experience of all revolutions shows that the cause of the people is lost when it is entrusted to the hands of professors.
C. Yes, and as soon as possible. As to the time, we have already discussed it in the meetings of the "Advisory Commission"[1] 200 times and shall definitely dispose of it in our 201st discussion to-morrow.
D. Yes, and as soon as possible. Yet, to be successful and to be really convoked, one condition is necessary: increase the number and strengthen the power of the Councils; organize and arm the masses. Only thus can the Assembly be assured.
10.—Does the state need a police of the conventional type and a standing army?
A and B. Absolutely, for this is the only permanent guarantee of the rule of capital, and in case of necessity, as is taught by the experience of all countries, the return from republic to monarchy is thus greatly faciliated.
C. On the one hand, they may not be necessary. On the other hand, is not so radical a change premature? Moreover, we can discuss it in the Advisory Commission.
D. Absolutely unnecessary. Immediately and unconditionally universal arming of the people shall be introduced so that they and the militia and the army shall be an integral whole. Capitalists must pay the workers for their days of service in the militia.
11.—Does the state need an officialdom (chinovniks) of the conventional type?
A and B. Unquestionably. Nine-tenths of them are the sons and brothers of the landholders and capitalists. They should continue to form a privileged, in fact an irremovable body of persons.
C. Hardly the proper time to put a question which has already been put practically by the Paris Commune.[2]
D. It does not. AH officials must not only be elected by the people, but also subject to recall by them; also each and every delegate. Their pay shall not exceed that of a good worker. They are gradually to be replaced by the national militia and its various divisions.
12.—Must officers be elected by the soldiers?
A and B. No, it would be bad for the landholders and the capitalists. If the soldiers cannot otherwise be contented, we must promise them this reform and afterwards take it away from them.
C. Yes.
D. Not only elected, but every step of every officer and general must be subject to control by special soldiers' committees.
13.—Are arbitrary removals of their superiors by the soldiers desirable?
A and B. They are very bad. Guchkov has already forbidden them, even threatening the use of force. We must support Guchkov.
C. Yes, but it remains to be decided wheather they must be removed before or after consulting the Advisory Commission.
D. They are in every respect indispensable. The soldiers will obey only the powers of their own choice; they can respect no others.
14.—In favor of this war or against it?
A and B. Unquestionably in favor, for it brings in unheard of profits to the capitalists and promises to perpetuate their rule, thanks to dissension among the workers, who are egged on against each other. The workers must be deceived by calling the war a war for national defence, with the special object of dethroning Wilhelm.
C In general, we are opposed to imperialistic wars, but we are willing to permit ourselves to be fooled, and to call this a war of "revolutionary defense," and to support an imperialistic war waged by the imperialistic government of Guchkov, Milyukov & Co.
D. Absolutely opposed to all imperialistic wars, to all bourgeois governments which wage them, among them our own Provisional Government; absolutely opposed to "revolutionary defense" in Russia.
15.—Are we in favor of or against the predatory international treaties concluded between the Czar and England, France, etc.? (For the strangling of Persia, the division of China, Turkey, Austria, etc.)
A and B. Absolutely in favor. At the same time we must not think of publishing these treaties, for Anglo-French imperialist capital does not desire it, nor do the governments, nor can Russian capital afford to initiate the people into all its dirty practices.
C. Against, but we hope that the Advisory Commision, aided by a simultaneous ^'campaign" among the masses, may "influence" the capitalist government.
D. Against. Our whole task is simply this: to enlighten the masses as to the utter hopelessness of expecting anything of this kind from capitalist governments, and the necessity of giving all power to the proletariat and the poorest peasants.
16.—For annexations or against?
A and B. If the annexations are to be accomplished by the German capitalists and their robber chieftain, Wilhelm, we are opposed to them. If by the English, we are not opposed, for they are "our" allies. If by our capitalists, who forcibly retain within the boundaries of Russia the races oppressed by the Czar, then we are in favor, for we do not use the term annexation in this connection.
C. Against annexations, but we hope it may be possible to obtain from capitalist governments a "promise" to renounce annexations.
D. Against annexations. Any promise of a capitalist government to renounce annexations is a huge fraud. To show it up is very simple: just demand that each nation be freed from the yoke of its own capitalists.
17.—In favor of the "Liberty Loan" or opposed to it?
A and B. Entirely in favor, for it facilitates the waging of an imperialistic war, that is, a war to determine which group of capitalists shall rule the world.
C. In favor, for our illogical attitude on "revolutionary defense" forces us into this obvious defection from the cause of internationalism.
D. Against, for the war remains imperialistic, being waged by capitalists in alliance with capitalists, in the interest of capitalists.
18.—Shall we leave to capitalist governments the task of expressing the desire of the nations for peace, or shall we not?
A and B. We shall, for the experience of the social-patriots of the French Republic shows best how people may be deceived by such a process: say anything you please, but in reality retain all conquests we have made from the Germans (their colonies) and take away from the Germans all conquests made by those robbers.
C. We shall, since we have not yet relinquished all the unfounded hopes which the petite bourgeoisie attaches to the capitalists.
D. No, for the class conscious worker cherishes no hopes whatever from the capitalist class, and it is our (unction to enlighten the masses as to the baselessness of such hopes.
19.—Must all monarchies be abolished?
A and B. No, certainly not the English, Italian and Allied monarchies, only the German, Austrian, Turkish and Bulgarian, for victory over them will increase our profits tenfold.
C. A certain "order" must be followed and a beginning made with Wilhelm; the Allied monarchies may wait.
D. Revolutions do not proceed in a fixed order. Only actual revolutionaries may be trusted, and in all countries without exception all monarchs must be dethroned.
20.—Shall the peasants at once take all the land of the landholders?
A and B. By no means. We must wait for the Constituent Assembly. Shingarev has already pointed out that when the capitalists take away the power from the Czar, that is a great and glorious revolution, but when the peasants take away the land from the landholders, that is arbitrary tyranny. A Commission of Adjustment must be appointed, with equal representation of landholders and peasants, and the chairman must be of the official (chinovnik) class, that is, from among those same capitalists and landholders.
C. It would be better for the peasants to wait for the Constituent Assembly.
D. All the land must be taken at once. Order must be strictly maintained by the Councils of Peasants' Delegates. The production of bread and meat must be increased, the soldiers better fed. Destruction of cattle and of tools, etc., is not permissible.
21.—Shall we limit ourselves to the Councils of Peasants' Delegates only for the management of lands and for all village questions in general?
A and B. The landholders and capitalists are entirely opposed to the sole authority of the Councils of Peasants' Delegates in agrarian matters. But if these Councils are unavoidable, we must adapt ourselves to them, for the rich peasant is a capitalist, after all.
C. We might for the present accept the Councils, for "in principle" we do not deny the necessity of a separate organization of the agrarian wage workers.
D. It will be impossible! to limit ourselves only to general Councils of Peasants' Delegates, for the wealthy peasants are of the same capitalist class that is always inclined to injure or deceive the farm-hands, day laborers and the poorer peasants. We must at once form special organizations of these latter classes of the village population both within the Councils of Peasants' Delegates and in the form of special Councils of Delegates of the Farmers' Workers.
22.—Shall the people take into their hands the largest and most powerful monopolistic organizations of Capitalism, the banks, manufacturing syndicates, etc.?
A and B. Not by any means, since that might injure the landholders and capitalists.
C. Generally speaking, we are in favor of handing over such organizations to the entire people, tut to think of or prepare for this condition now is very untimely.
D. We must at once prepare the Councils of Workers' Delegates, the Councils of Delegates of Banking Employes and others for the taking of all such steps as are feasible and completely realizable toward the union of all banks into one single national bank and then towards a control of the Councils of Workers' Delegates over the banks and syndicates, and then toward their nationalization, that is, their passing over into the possession of the whole people.
23.—What form of Socialist International, establishing and realizing a brotherly union of all the workers in all countries, is now desirable for the nations?
A and B. Generally speaking, any kind of Socialist International is harmful and dangerous to capitalists and landholders, but if the German Plekhanov, whose name is Scheidemann, will come to an agreement with the Russian Scheidemann, whose name is Plekhanov,[3] and if they can find in each other any vestige remaining of their Socialist conscience, then we, the capitalists, must hail with delight such an International, of such Socialists, as stand by the side of their own governments.
C. A Socialist International is needed that will include all elements: the Scheidemanns, the Plekhanovs and the "centrists," who are those who vacillate between social-patriotism and internationalism. The bigger the mixup, the greater the "unity": long live our great Socialist unity!
D. The nations need only that International which consists of the really revolutionary workers, who are capable of putting an end to the awful and criminal slaughter of nations, capable of delivering humanity from the yoke of Capitalism. Only such people (groups, parties, etc.) as the German Socialist Karl Liebknecht, now in a German jail, only people who will tirelessly struggle with their own government and their own bourgeoisie, and their own social-patriots, and their own "centrists," can and must immediately establish that International which is necessary to the nations.
24.—Must the fraternization between soldiers of the warring countries, at the front, be encouraged?
A and B. No; it is bad for the interests of the landholders and capitalists, since it may accelerate the liberation of humanity from their yoke.
C. Yes, it would be good. But we are not fully convinced that such an encouragement of fraternization should be at once undertaken in all warring countries.
D. Yes; it is good and indispensible. It is absolutely necessary in all countries at war to encourage all attempts at fraternization between the soldiers of both warring groups.
25.—What should be the color of the flag indicating both the nature and character of the various political parties?
A. Black, for this is the real Black Hundred.
B. Yellow, for that is the international banner of those workers who serve capital through choice and not by compulsion.
C. Pink, for their whole policy is the policy of rosewater.
D. Red, for that is the emblem of the international proletarian revolution.
- ↑ The "Advisory Commission" consisted of representatives of the Petrograd Council, among them Chernov and Tseretelli, who later became members of the Provisional Government cabinet. The "Commission" tried to advise and control the government, with very slight success.—L. C. F.
- ↑ The Paris Commune armed the people and abolished completely the old class of officials, as it abolished the division of functions in the legislative and administrative departments of government The Commune united the functions of legislature and administration within one body, as the Soviets have been doing in Russia since the revolution of November 7, which established the supremacy of the Soviets.—L. C. F.
- ↑ George Plekhanov was Lenin's chief antagonist in the Russian Socialist movement, and formerly the leader of the Mensheviki faction. When war was declared in August, 19I4, Plekhanov favored its prosecution and a Russian victory, as this victory would immensely develop Capitalism in Russia, which Plekhanov considered indispensable for democratic and Socialist development The pro-war attitude of Plekhanov, together with that of Leo Deutsch and others, completely discredited him among Russian Socialists, and he was not any factor in the Revolution even during the period when the Mensheviki dominated the Council of Workers and Soldiers.—L. C. F.