{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38982/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38982","id":"gutenberg_38982","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38982","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Communism -- Russia","Kautsky, Karl, 1854-1938. Terrorismus und Kommunismus","Revolutions"],"text":"Produced by Odessa Paige Turner and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was\nproduced from scanned images of public domain material\nfrom the Google Print project.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWORKERS PARTY LIBRARY, Vol. I\n\n\nDICTATORSHIP vs. DEMOCRACY\n\n(_TERRORISM AND COMMUNISM_)\n\n\nA Reply to Karl Kautsky by\nLEON TROTSKY\n\n\nWith a Preface by\nH. N. BRAILSFORD\nand Foreword by Max Bedact\n\n[Illustration: WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA. WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE.]\n\n\nPublished 1922 by\nWORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA\n799 Broadway, Room 405\nNew York City\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nFOREWORD                                      V\n\nPREFACE                                      XI\n\nINTRODUCTION                                  5\n\nTHE BALANCE OF POWER                         12\n\nTHE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT          20\n\nDEMOCRACY                                    28\n\nTERRORISM                                    48\n\nTHE PARIS COMMUNE AND SOVIET RUSSIA          69\n\nMARX AND ... KAUTSKY                         91\n\nTHE WORKING CLASS AND ITS SOVIET POLICY      98\n\nPROBLEMS OF THE ORGANIZATION OF LABOR       128\n\nKARL KAUTSKY, HIS SCHOOL AND HIS BOOK       177\n\nIN PLACE OF AN EPILOGUE                     188\n\n\n\n\nForeword\n\nBy MAX BEDACT\n\n\nIn a land where \"democracy\" is so deeply entrenched as in our United\nStates of America it may seem futile to try to make friends for a\ndictatorship, by a close comparison of the principles of the\ntwo--Dictatorship versus Democracy. But then, confiding in the\ninviting gesture of the Goddess of Liberty many of our friends and\nfellow citizens have tested that sacred principle of democracy,\nfreedom of speech, a little too freely--and landed in the penitentiary\nfor it. Others again, relying on the not less sacred principle of\ndemocracy, freedom of assembly, have come in unpleasant contact with a\nsubstantial stick of hardwood, wielded by an unwieldily guardian of\nthe law, and awoke from the immediate effects of this collision in\nsome jail. Again others, leaning a little too heavily against the\ndemocratic principle of freedom of press broke down that pasteboard\npillar of democracy, and incidentally into prison.\n\nLooking at this side of the bright shining medal of our beloved\ndemocracy it seems that there is not the slightest bit of difference\nbetween the democracy of capitalist America and the dictatorship of\nSoviet Russia. But there is a great difference. The dictatorship in\nRussia is bold and upright class rule, which has as its ultimate\nobject the abolition of all class rule and all dictatorships. Our\ndemocracy, on the other hand, is a Pecksniffian Dictatorship, is\nhypocrisy incarnate, promising all liberty in phrases, but in reality\neven penalizing free thinking, consistently working only for one\nobject: to perpetuate the rule of the capitalist class, the capitalist\ndictatorship.\n\n\"Dictatorship versus Democracy\" is, therefore, enough of an open\nquestion even in our own country to deserve some consideration. To\ngive food for thought on this subject is the object of the publication\nof Trotsky's book.\n\nThis book is an answer to a book by Karl Kautsky, \"Terrorism and\nCommunism.\" It is polemical in character. Polemical writings are,\nas a rule, only thoroughly understood if one reads both sides of\nthe question. But even if we could not take for granted that the\nproletarian reader is fully familiar with the question at issue we\ncould not conscientiously advise a worker to get Kautsky's book. It is\nreally asking our readers to undertake the superhuman task of reading a\nbook which in the guise of a scientific treatise is foully hitting him\nbelow the belt, and then expect him to pay two dollars for it in the\nbargain.\n\nAnyhow, to read Kautsky's book is an ordeal for any revolutionist.\nKautsky, in his book, tries to prove that the humanitarian instincts\nof the masses must defeat any attempt to overpower and suppress the\nbourgeoisie by terrorist means. But to read his book must kill in the\nproletarian reader the last remnants of those instincts on which\nKautsky's hope for the safety of the bourgeoisie is based. There would\neven not be enough of those instincts left to save Kautsky from the\nutter contempt of the proletarian masses, a fate he so richly deserves.\n\nMr. Kautsky was once the foremost exponent of Marxism. Many of those\nfighting to-day in the front ranks of the proletarian army revered\nKautsky as their teacher. But even in his most glorious days as a\nMarxist his was the musty pedantry of the German professor, which was\nhardly ever penetrated by a live spark of revolutionary spirit. Still,\nthe Russian revolution of 1905 found a friend in him. That revolution\ndid not commit the unpardonable sin of being successful. But when the\ntornado of the first victorious proletarian revolution swept over\nRussia and destroyed in its fury some of the tormentors and exploiters\nof the working class--then Kautsky's \"humanitarianism\" killed the last\nremnant of revolutionary spirit and instinct in him and left only a\npitiful wreck of an apologist for capitalism, that was once Kautsky,\nthe Marxist.\n\nJuly, 1914. The echoes of the shots fired in Sarajewo threaten to set\nthe world in flames. Will it come, the seeming inevitable? No!--A\nthousand times no! Had not the forces of a future order, had not the\nInternational of Labor--the Second International--solemnly declared in\n1907 in Stuttgart, in 1911 in Copenhagen and in 1912 in Basel: \"We will\nfight war by all means at our disposal. Let the exploiters start a war.\nIt will begin as a war of capitalist governments against each other; it\nwill end--it must end--as a war of the working class of the world\nagainst world capitalism; it must end in the proletarian revolution.\"\nWe, the socialists of the world, comrades from England and Russia, from\nAmerica and Germany, from France and Austria; we comrades from all over\nthe world, had solemnly promised ourselves: \"War against war!\" We had\npromised ourselves and our cause to answer the call of capitalism for a\nworld war with a call on the proletariat for a world revolution.\n\nDays passed. July disappeared in the ocean of time. The first days of\nAugust brought the booming of the cannon to our ears, messengers of\nthe grim reality of war. And then the news of the collapse of the\nSecond International; reports of betrayal by the socialists; betrayal\nin London and Vienna; betrayal in Berlin and Brussels; betrayal in\nParis; betrayal everywhere. What would Kautsky say to this rank\nbetrayal, Kautsky, the foremost disciple of Marx, Kautsky, the\nforemost theoretician of the Second International? Will he at least\nspeak up? He did not speak up. Commenting on the betrayal he wrote in\n\"Die Neue Zeit\": \"Die Kritik der Waffen hat eingesetzt; jetzt hat die\nWaffe der Kritik zu schweigen.\"[1] With this one sentence Kautsky\nreplaced Marxism as the basis of his science with rank and undisguised\nhypocrisy. From then on although trying to retain the toga of a\nMarxist scholar on his shoulders, with thousands of \"if's\" and\n\"when's\" and \"but's\" he became the apologist for the betrayal of the\nGerman Social-Democracy, and the betrayal of the Second International.\n\n          [1] The arbitrament of arms is on; now the weapon of\n          criticism must rest.\n\nIt is true that his \"if's\" and \"when's\" and \"but's\" did not satisfy\nthe Executive Committee of the Social-Democratic Party. They hoped for\na victory of the imperial army and wanted to secure a full and\nunmitigated share of the glory of \"His Majesty's\" victory. That is why\nthey did not appreciate Kautsky's excellent service. So they helped\nthe renegade to a cheap martyrdom by removing him from the editorship\nof \"Die Neue Zeit.\" After 1918 it may have dawned upon Scheidemann and\nEbert how much better Kautsky served the capitalist cause by couching\nhis betrayal in words that did not lose him outright all the\nconfidence of the proletariat. And Kautsky himself is now exhausting\nevery effort to prove to Noske and Scheidemann how cruelly he was\nmistreated and how well he deserves to be taken back to their bosom.\n\nKautsky's book \"Terrorism and Communism\" is dictated by hatred of the\nRussian revolution. It is influenced by fear of a like revolution in\nGermany. It is written with tears for the counter-revolutionary\nbourgeoisie and its pseudo-\"socialist\" henchmen who have been\nsacrificed on the altar of revolution by the proletarian dictatorship\nin Russia. Kautsky prefers to sacrifice the revolution and the\nrevolutionists on the altar of \"humanitarianism.\" The author of\n\"Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History\" knows--must\nknow--that humanitarianism under capitalism is capitalist\nhumanitarianism. This humanitarianism mints gold out of the bones, the\nblood, the health and the suffering of the whole working class while\nit sheds tears about an individual case of cruelty to one human being.\nThis humanitarianism punishes murder with death and beats to death the\npacifist who protests against war as an act of mass murder. Under the\ncloak of \"humanitarian instincts\" Kautsky only hides the enemy of the\nproletarian revolution. The question at issue is not _terrorism_. It\nis the _dictatorship_; it is _revolution_ itself. If the Russian\nproletariat was justified in taking over power it was in duty bound to\nuse _all_ means necessary to keep it. If it is a crime for them to use\nterrorist means then it was a crime to take a power which they could\nmaintain only by terrorist means. And that is really Kautsky's point.\nThe crime of the Bolsheviki is that they took power. If Kautsky were a\nmere sentimentalist and yet a revolutionist he could shed tears over\nthe unwillingness of the bourgeoisie to give up power without a\nstruggle. But not being a revolutionist he condemns the proletariat\nfor having taken and maintained power by the only means possible, by\n_force_. Kautsky would much prefer to shed crocodile tears over\ntens of thousands of proletarian revolutionists slaughtered by a\nsuccessful counter-revolution. He scorns the Russian Communists\nbecause they robbed him of the opportunity to parade his petit\nbourgeois and consequently pro-capitalist \"humanitarian\" sentiments in\na pro-revolutionary cloak. But he must parade them at any cost. So he\nparades them without disguise as a mourner for the suppressed\nbourgeoisie in Russia.\n\nTrotsky's answer to Kautsky is not only one side of a controversy. It\nis one of the literary fruits of the revolution itself. It breathes\nthe breath of revolution. It conquers the gray scholastic theory of\nthe renegade with the irresistible weapon of the revolutionary\nexperience of the Russian proletariat. It refuses to shed tears over\nthe victims of Gallifet and shows what alone saved the Russian\nrevolution from the Russian Gallifets, the Kolchaks, Wrangels, etc.\n\nTrotsky's book is not only an answer to Karl Kautsky; it is an answer\nto the thousands of Kautskys in the socialist movement the world over\nwho want the proletariat to drown the memory of seas of proletarian\nblood shed by their treachery in an ocean of tears shed for the\nsuppressed bourgeoisie of Russia.\n\nTrotsky's book is one of the most effective weapons in the literary\narsenal of the revolutionary proletariat in its fight against the\nsocial traitors for leadership of the proletarian masses.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\nBy H. N. BRAILSFORD\n\n\nIt has been said of the Bolsheviks that they are more interesting than\nBolshevism. To those who hold to the economic interpretation of\nhistory that may seem a heresy. None the less, I believe that the\npersonality not merely of the leaders but also of their party goes far\nto explain the making and survival of the Russian Revolution. To us in\nthe West they seem a wholly foreign type. With Socialist leaders and\norganizations we and our fathers have been familiar for three-quarters\nof a century. There has been no lack of talent and even of genius\namong them. The movement has produced its great theorist in Marx, its\norator in Jaures, its powerful tacticians like Bebel, and it has\ninfluenced literature in Morris, Anatole France and Shaw. It bred,\nhowever, no considerable man of action, and it was left for the\nRussians to do what generations of Western Socialists had spent their\nlives in discussing. There was in this Russian achievement an almost\nbarbaric simplicity and directness. Here were man who really believed\nthe formulae of our theorists and the resolutions of our Congresses.\nWhat had become for us a sterilized and almost respectable orthodoxy\nrang to their ears as a trumpet call to action. The older generation\nhas found it difficult to pardon their sincerity. The rest of us want\nto understand the miracle.\n\nThe real audacity of the Bolsheviks lay in this, that they made a\nproletarian revolution precisely in that country which, of all\nportions of the civilized world, seemed the least prepared for it by\nits economic development. For an agrarian revolt, for the subdivision\nof the soil, even for the overthrow of the old governing class, Russia\nwas certainly ready. But any spontaneous revolution, with its\nfoundations laid in the masses of the peasantry, would have been\nindividualistic and not communistic. The daring of the Bolsheviks lay\nin their belief that the minute minority of the urban working class\ncould, by its concentration, its greater intelligence and its relative\ncapacity for organization, dominate the inert peasant mass, and give\nto their outbreak of land-hunger the character and form of a\nconstructive proletarian revolution. The bitter struggle among Russian\nparties which lasted from March, 1917, down to the defeat of Wrangel\nin November, 1920, was really an internecine competition among them\nfor the leadership of the peasants. Which of these several groups\ncould enlist their confidence, to the extent of inducing them not\nmerely to fight, but to accept the discipline, military and civilian,\nnecessary for victory? At the start the Bolsheviks had everything\nagainst them. They are nearly all townsmen. They talked in terms of a\nforeign and very German doctrine. Few of them, save Lenin, grasped the\nproblems of rural life at all. The landed class should at least have\nknown the peasant better. Their chief rivals were the Social\nRevolutionaries, a party which from its first beginnings had made a\ncult of the Russian peasant, studied him, idealized him and courted\nhim, which even seemed in 1917 to have won him. Many circumstances\nexplain the success of the Bolsheviks, who proved once again in\nhistory the capacity of the town, even when its population is\nrelatively minute, for swift and concentrated action. They also had\nthe luck to deal with opponents who committed the supreme mistake of\ninvoking foreign aid. But none of these advantages would have availed\nwithout an immense superiority of character. The Slav temperament,\ndreamy, emotional, undisciplined, showed itself at its worst in the\nincorrigible self-indulgence of the more aristocratic \"Whites,\" while\nthe \"intellectuals\" of the moderate Socialist and Liberal groups have\nbeen ruined for action by their exclusively literary and aesthetic\neducation. The Bolsheviks may be a less cultivated group, but, in\ntheir underground life of conspiracy, they had learned sobriety,\ndiscipline, obedience, and mutual confidence. Their rigid dogmatic\nMarxist faith gives to them the power of action which belongs only to\nthose who believe without criticism or question. Their ability to lead\ndepends much less than most Englishmen suppose, on their ruthlessness\nand their readiness to practise the arts of intimidation and\nsuppression. Their chief asset is their self-confidence. In every\nemergency they are always sure that they have the only workable plan.\nThey stand before the rest of Russia as one man. They never doubt or\ndespair, and even when they compromise, they do it with an air of\ntruculence. Their survival amid invasion, famine, blockade, and\neconomic collapse has been from first to last a triumph of the\nunflinching will and the fanatical faith. They have spurred a lazy and\ndemoralized people to notable feats of arms and to still more\nastonishing feats of endurance. To hypnotize a nation in this fashion\nis, perhaps, the most remarkable feat of the human will in modern\ntimes.\n\nThis book is, so far, by far the most typical expression of the\nBolshevik temperament which the revolution has produced.\nCharacteristically it is a polemic, and not a constructive essay. Its\nself-confidence, its dash, even its insolence, are a true expression\nof the movement. Its author bears a world-famous name. Everyone can\nvisualize the powerful head, the singularly handsome features, the\nathletic figure of the man. He makes in private talk an impression of\ndecision and definiteness. He is not rapid or expansive in speech, for\neverything that he says is calculated and clear cut. One has the sense\nthat one is in the presence of abounding yet disciplined vitality. The\nbackground is an office which by its military order and punctuality\nrebukes the habitual slovenliness of Russia. On the platform his\nmanner was much quieter than I expected. He spoke rather slowly, in a\npleasant tenor voice, walking to and fro across the stage and choosing\nhis words, obviously anxious to express his thoughts forcibly but also\nexactly. A flash of wit and a striking phrase came frequently, but the\nmanner was emphatically not that of a demagogue. The man, indeed, is a\nnatural aristocrat, and his tendency, which Lenin, the aristocrat by\nbirth, corrects, is towards military discipline and authoritative\nregimentation.\n\nThere is nothing surprising to-day in the note of authority which one\nhears in Trotsky's voice and detects in his writing, for he is the\nchief of a considerable army, which owes everything to his talent for\norganization. It was at Brest-Litovsk that he displayed the audacity\nwhich is genius. Up to that moment there was little in his career to\ndistinguish him from his comrades of the revolutionary under-world--a\nuniversity course cut short by prison, an apprenticeship to agitation\nin Russia, some years of exile spent in Vienna, Paris, and New York,\nthe distinction which he shares with Tchitcherin of \"sitting\" in a\nBritish prison, a ready wit, a gift of trenchant speech, but as yet\nneither the solid achievement nor the legend which gives confidence.\nYet this obscure agitator, handicapped in such a task by his Jewish\nbirth, faced the diplomatist and soldiers of the Central Empires,\nflushed as they were with victory and the insolence of their kind,\nforced them into public debate, staggered them by talking of first\nprinciples as though the defeat and impotence of Russia counted for\nnothing, and actually used the negotiations to shout across their\nheads his summons to their own subjects to revolt. He showed in this\nastonishing performance the grace and audacity of a \"matador.\" This\nunique bit of drama revealed the persistent belief of the Bolsheviks\nin the power of the defiant challenge, the magnetic effect of sheer\nwill. Since this episode his services to the revolution have been more\nsolid but not less brilliant. He had no military knowledge or\nexperience, yet he took in hand the almost desperate task of creating\nan army. He has often been compared to Carnot. But, save that both had\nlost officers, there was little in common between the French and the\nRussian armies in the early stages of the two revolutions. The French\narmy had not been demoralized by defeat, or wearied by long inaction,\nor sapped by destructive propaganda. Trotsky had to create his Red\nArmy from the foundations. He imposed firm discipline, and yet\ncontrived to preserve the elan of the revolutionary spirit. Hampered\nby the inconceivable difficulties that arose from ruined railways and\ndecayed industries, he none the less contrived to make a military\nmachine which overthrew the armies of Kolchak, Denikin and Wrangel,\nwith the flower of the old professional officers at their head. As a\nfeat of organization under inordinate difficulties, his work ranks as\nthe most remarkable performance of the revolution.\n\nIt is not the business of a preface to anticipate the argument of a\nbook, still less to obtrude personal opinions. Kautsky's labored\nessay, to which this book is the brilliant reply, has been translated\ninto English, and is widely known. The case against the possibility of\npolitical democracy in a capitalist society could hardly be better put\nthan in these pages, and the polemic against purely evolutionary\nmethods is formidable. The English reader of to-day is aware, however,\nthat the Russian revolution has not stood still since Trotsky wrote.\nWe have to realize that, even in the view of the Bolsheviks\nthemselves, the evolution towards Communism is in Russia only in its\nearly stages. The recent compromises imply, at the best, a very long\nperiod of transition, through controlled capitalist production, to\nSocialism. Experience has proved that catastrophic revolution and the\nseizure of political power do not in themselves avail to make a\nSocialist society. The economic development in that direction has\nactually been retarded, and Russia, under the stress of civil war, has\nretrograded into a primitive village system of production and\nexchange. To every reader's mind the question will be present whether\nthe peculiar temperament of the Bolsheviks has led them to\nover-estimate the importance of political power, to underestimate the\ninert resistance of the majority, and to risk too much for the\nillusion of dictating. To that question history has not yet given the\ndecisive answer. The daemonic will that made the revolution and\ndefended it by achieving the impossible, may yet vindicate itself\nagainst the dull trend of impersonal forces.\n\n\n\n\nDictatorship vs. Democracy\n\n\n\n\nIntroduction\n\n\nThe origin of this book was the learned brochure by Kautsky with the\nsame name. My work was begun at the most intense period of the\nstruggle with Denikin and Yudenich, and more than once was interrupted\nby events at the front. In the most difficult days, when the first\nchapters were being written, all the attention of Soviet Russia was\nconcentrated on purely military problems. We were obliged to defend\nfirst of all the very possibility of Socialist economic\nreconstruction. We could busy ourselves little with industry, further\nthan was necessary to maintain the front. We were obliged to expose\nKautsky's economic slanders mainly by analogy with his political\nslanders. The monstrous assertions of Kautsky--to the effect that the\nRussian workers were incapable of labor discipline and economic\nself-control--could, at the beginning of this work, nearly a year ago,\nbe combatted chiefly by pointing to the high state of discipline and\nheroism in battle of the Russian workers at the front created by the\ncivil war. That experience was more than enough to explode these\nbourgeois slanders. But now a few months have gone by, and we can turn\nto facts and conclusions drawn directly from the economic life of\nSoviet Russia.\n\nAs soon as the military pressure relaxed after the defeat of Kolchak\nand Yudenich and the infliction of decisive blows on Denikin, after\nthe conclusion of peace with Esthonia and the beginning of\nnegotiations with Lithuania and Poland, the whole country turned its\nmind to things economic. And this one fact, of a swift and\nconcentrated transference of attention and energy from one set of\nproblems to another--very different, but requiring not less\nsacrifice--is incontrovertible evidence of the mighty vigor of the\nSoviet order. In spite of political tortures, physical sufferings and\nhorrors, the laboring masses are infinitely distant from political\ndecomposition, from moral collapse, or from apathy. Thanks to a regime\nwhich, though it has inflicted great hardships upon them, has given\ntheir life a purpose and a high goal, they preserve an extraordinary\nmoral stubbornness and ability unexampled in history, and concentrate\ntheir attention and will on collective problems. To-day, in all\nbranches of industry, there is going on an energetic struggle for the\nestablishment of strict labor discipline, and for the increase of the\nproductivity of labor. The party organizations, the trade unions, the\nfactory and workshop administrative committees, rival one another in\nthis respect, with the undivided support of the public opinion of the\nworking class as a whole. Factory after factory willingly, by\nresolution at its general meeting, increases its working day.\nPetrograd and Moscow set the example, and the provinces emulate\nPetrograd. Communist Saturdays and Sundays--that is to say, voluntary\nand unpaid work in hours appointed for rest--spread ever wider and\nwider, drawing into their reach many, many hundreds of thousands of\nworking men and women. The industry and productivity of labor at the\nCommunist Saturdays and Sundays, according to the report of experts\nand the evidence of figures, is of a remarkably high standard.\n\nVoluntary mobilizations for labor problems in the party and in the\nYoung Communist League are carried out with just as much enthusiasm as\nhitherto for military tasks. Voluntarism supplements and gives life to\nuniversal labor service. The Committees for universal labor service\nrecently set up have spread all over the country. The attraction of\nthe population to work on a mass scale (clearing snow from the roads,\nrepairing railway lines, cutting timber, chopping and bringing up of\nwood to the towns, the simplest building operations, the cutting of\nslate and of peat) become more and more widespread and organized every\nday. The ever-increasing employment of military formations on the\nlabor front would be quite impossible in the absence of elevated\nenthusiasm for labor.\n\nTrue, we live in the midst of a very difficult period of economic\ndepression--exhausted, poverty-stricken, and hungry. But this is no\nargument against the Soviet regime. All periods of transition have\nbeen characterized by just such tragic features. Every class society\n(serf, feudal, capitalist), having exhausted its vitality, does not\nsimply leave the arena, but is violently swept off by an intense\nstruggle, which immediately brings to its participants even greater\nprivations and sufferings than those against which they rose.\n\nThe transition from feudal economy to bourgeois society--a step of\ngigantic importance from the point of view of progress--gave us a\nterrifying list of martyrs. However the masses of serfs suffered under\nfeudalism, however difficult it has been, and is, for the proletariat\nto live under capitalism, never have the sufferings of the workers\nreached such a pitch as at the epochs when the old feudal order was\nbeing violently shattered, and was yielding place to the new. The\nFrench Revolution of the eighteenth century, which attained its\ntitanic dimensions under the pressure of the masses exhausted with\nsuffering, itself deepened and rendered more acute their misfortunes\nfor a prolonged period and to an extraordinary extent. Can it be\notherwise?\n\nPalace revolutions, which end merely by personal reshufflings at the\ntop, can take place in a short space of time, having practically no\neffect on the economic life of the country. Quite another matter are\nrevolutions which drag into their whirlpool millions of workers.\nWhatever be the form of society, it rests on the foundation of labor.\nDragging the mass of the people away from labor, drawing them for a\nprolonged period into the struggle, thereby destroying their\nconnection with production, the revolution in all these ways strikes\ndeadly blows at economic life, and inevitably lowers the standard\nwhich it found at its birth. The more perfect the revolution, the\ngreater are the masses it draws in; and the longer it is prolonged,\nthe greater is the destruction it achieves in the apparatus of\nproduction, and the more terrible inroads does it make upon public\nresources. From this there follows merely the conclusion which did not\nrequire proof--that a civil war is harmful to economic life. But to\nlay this at the door of the Soviet economic system is like accusing a\nnew-born human being of the birth-pangs of the mother who brought him\ninto the world. The problem is to make a civil war a short one; and\nthis is attained only by resoluteness in action. But it is just\nagainst revolutionary resoluteness that Kautsky's whole book is\ndirected.\n\n                 *       *       *       *       *\n\nSince the time that the book under examination appeared, not only in\nRussia, but throughout the world--and first of all in Europe--the\ngreatest events have taken place, or processes of great importance\nhave developed, undermining the last buttresses of Kautskianism.\n\nIn Germany, the civil war has been adopting an ever fiercer character.\nThe external strength in organization of the old party and trade union\ndemocracy of the working class has not only not created conditions for\na more peaceful and \"humane\" transition to Socialism--as follows from\nthe present theory of Kautsky--but, on the contrary, has served as one\nof the principal reasons for the long-drawn-out character of the\nstruggle, and its constantly growing ferocity. The more German\nSocial-Democracy became a conservative, retarding force, the more\nenergy, lives, and blood have had to be spent by the German\nproletariat, devoted to it, in a series of systematic attacks on the\nfoundation of bourgeois society, in order, in the process of the\nstruggle itself, to create an actually revolutionary organization,\ncapable of guiding the proletariat to final victory. The conspiracy of\nthe German generals, their fleeting seizure of power, and the bloody\nevents which followed, have again shown what a worthless and wretched\nmasquerade is so-called democracy, during the collapse of imperialism\nand a civil war. This democracy that has outlived itself has not\ndecided one question, has not reconciled one contradiction, has not\nhealed one wound, has not warded off risings either of the Right or of\nthe Left; it is helpless, worthless, fraudulent, and serves only to\nconfuse the backward sections of the people, especially the lower\nmiddle-classes.\n\nThe hope expressed by Kautsky, in the conclusion of his book, that the\nWestern countries, the \"old democracies\" of France and England--crowned\nas they are with victory--will afford us a picture of a healthy,\nnormal, peaceful, truly Kautskian development of Socialism, is one\nof the most puerile illusions possible. The so-called Republican\ndemocracy of victorious France, at the present moment, is nothing but\nthe most reactionary, grasping government that has ever existed in the\nworld. Its internal policy is built upon fear, greed, and violence, in\njust as great a measure as its external policy. On the other hand, the\nFrench proletariat, misled more than any other class has ever been\nmisled, is more and more entering on the path of direct action. The\nrepressions which the government of the Republic has hurled upon\nthe General Confederation of Labor show that even syndicalist\nKautskianism--_i.e._, hypocritical compromise--has no legal place\nwithin the framework of bourgeois democracy. The revolutionizing of\nthe masses, the growing ferocity of the propertied classes, and the\ndisintegration of intermediate groups--three parallel processes which\ndetermine the character and herald the coming of a cruel civil\nwar--have been going on before our eyes in full blast during the last\nfew months in France.\n\nIn Great Britain, events, different in form, are moving along the\nself-same fundamental road. In that country, the ruling class of which\nis oppressing and plundering the whole world more than ever before,\nthe formulae of democracy have lost their meaning even as weapons of\nparliamentary swindling. The specialist best qualified in this sphere,\nLloyd George, appeals now not to democracy, but to a union of\nConservative and Liberal property holders against the working class.\nIn his arguments there remains not a trace of the vague democracy of\nthe \"Marxist\" Kautsky. Lloyd George stands on the ground of class\nrealities, and for this very reason speaks in the language of civil\nwar. The British working class, with that ponderous learning by\nexperience which is its distinguishing feature, is approaching that\nstage of its struggle before which the most heroic pages of Chartism\nwill fade, just as the Paris Commune will grow pale before the coming\nvictorious revolt of the French proletariat.\n\nPrecisely because historical events have, with stern energy, been\ndeveloping in these last months their revolutionary logic, the author\nof this present work asks himself: Does it still require to be\npublished? Is it still necessary to confute Kautsky theoretically? Is\nthere still theoretical necessity to justify revolutionary terrorism?\n\nUnfortunately, yes. Ideology, by its very essence, plays in the\nSocialist movement an enormous part. Even for practical England the\nperiod has arrived when the working class must exhibit an\never-increasing demand for a theoretical statement of its experiences\nand its problems. On the other hand, even the proletarian psychology\nincludes in itself a terrible inertia of conservatism--the more that,\nin the present case, there is a question of nothing less than the\ntraditional ideology of the parties of the Second International which\nfirst roused the proletariat, and recently were so powerful. After the\ncollapse of official social-patriotism (Scheidemann, Victor Adler,\nRenaudel, Vandervelde, Henderson, Plekhanov, etc.), international\nKautskianism (the staff of the German Independents, Friedrich Adler,\nLonguet, a considerable section of the Italians, the British\nIndependent Labor Party, the Martov group, etc.) has become the chief\npolitical factor on which the unstable equilibrium of capitalist\nsociety depends. It may be said that the will of the working masses of\nthe whole of the civilized world, directly influenced by the course of\nevents, is at the present moment incomparably more revolutionary than\ntheir consciousness, which is still dominated by the prejudices of\nparliamentarism and compromise. The struggle for the dictatorship of\nthe working class means, at the present moment, an embittered struggle\nwith Kautskianism within the working class. The lies and prejudices of\nthe policy of compromise, still poisoning the atmosphere even in\nparties tending towards the Third International, must be thrown aside.\nThis book must serve the ends of an irreconcilable struggle against\nthe cowardice, half-measures, and hypocrisy of Kautskianism in all\ncountries.\n\n                 *       *       *       *       *\n\nP.S.--To-day (May, 1920) the clouds have again gathered over Soviet\nRussia. Bourgeois Poland, by its attack on the Ukraine, has opened the\nnew offensive of world imperialism against the Soviet Republic. The\ngigantic perils again growing up before the revolution, and the great\nsacrifices again imposed on the laboring masses by the war, are once\nagain pushing Russian Kautskianism on to the path of open opposition\nto the Soviet Government--_i.e._, in reality, on to the path of\nassistance to the world murderers of Soviet Russia. It is the fate of\nKautskianism to try to help the proletarian revolution when it is in\nsatisfactory circumstances, and to raise all kinds of obstacles in its\nway when it is particularly in need of help. Kautsky has more than\nonce foretold our destruction, which must serve as the best proof of\nhis, Kautsky's, theoretical rectitude. In his fall, this \"successor of\nMarx\" has reached a stage at which his sole serious political\nprogramme consists in speculations on the collapse of the proletarian\ndictatorship.\n\nHe will be once again mistaken. The destruction of bourgeois Poland by\nthe Red Army, guided by Communist working men, will appear as a new\nmanifestation of the power of the proletarian dictatorship, and will\nthereby inflict a crushing blow on bourgeois scepticism (Kautskianism)\nin the working class movement. In spite of mad confusion of external\nforms, watchwords, and appearances, history has extremely simplified\nthe fundamental meaning of its own process, reducing it to a struggle\nof imperialism against Communism. Pilsudsky is fighting, not only for\nthe lands of the Polish magnates in the Ukraine and in White Russia,\nnot only for capitalist property and for the Catholic Church, but also\nfor parliamentary democracy and for evolutionary Socialism, for the\nSecond International, and for the right of Kautsky to remain a\ncritical hanger-on of the bourgeoisie. We are fighting for the\nCommunist International, and for the international proletarian\nrevolution. The stakes are great on either side. The struggle will be\nobstinate and painful. We hope for the victory, for we have every\nhistorical right to it.\n\nL. TROTSKY.\n\nMoscow, May 29, 1920.\n\n\n\n\nDictatorship vs. Democracy\n\n_A Reply to Karl Kautsky_\n\n_By_ LEON TROTSKY\n\n\n\n\n1\n\nTHE BALANCE OF POWER\n\n\nThe argument which is repeated again and again in criticisms of the\nSoviet system in Russia, and particularly in criticisms of\nrevolutionary attempts to set up a similar structure in other\ncountries, is the argument based on the balance of power. The Soviet\nregime in Russia is utopian--\"because it does not correspond to the\nbalance of power.\" Backward Russia cannot put objects before itself\nwhich would be appropriate to advanced Germany. And for the\nproletariat of Germany it would be madness to take political power\ninto its own hands, as this \"at the present moment\" would disturb the\nbalance of power. The League of Nations is imperfect, but still\ncorresponds to the balance of power. The struggle for the overthrow of\nimperialist supremacy is utopian--the balance of power only requires a\nrevision of the Versailles Treaty. When Longuet hobbled after Wilson\nthis took place, not because of the political decomposition of\nLonguet, but in honor of the law of the balance of power. The Austrian\npresident, Seitz, and the chancellor, Renner, must, in the opinion of\nFriedrich Adler, exercise their bourgeois impotence at the central\nposts of the bourgeois republic, for otherwise the balance of power\nwould be infringed. Two years before the world war, Karl Renner, then\nnot a chancellor, but a \"Marxist\" advocate of opportunism, explained\nto me that the regime of June 3--that is, the union of landlords and\ncapitalists crowned by the monarchy--must inevitably maintain itself\nin Russia during a whole historical period, as it answered to the\nbalance of power.\n\nWhat is this balance of power after all--that sacramental formula\nwhich is to define, direct, and explain the whole course of history,\nwholesale and retail? Why exactly is it that the formula of the\nbalance of power, in the mouth of Kautsky and his present school,\ninevitably appears as a justification of indecision, stagnation,\ncowardice and treachery?\n\nBy the balance of power they understand everything you please: the\nlevel of production attained, the degree of differentiation of\nclasses, the number of organized workers, the total funds at the\ndisposal of the trade unions, sometimes the results of the last\nparliamentary elections, frequently the degree of readiness for\ncompromise on the part of the ministry, or the degree of effrontery of\nthe financial oligarchy. Most frequently, it means that summary\npolitical impression which exists in the mind of a half-blind pedant,\nor a so-called realist politician, who, though he has absorbed the\nphraseology of Marxism, in reality is guided by the most shallow\nmanoeuvres, bourgeois prejudices, and parliamentary \"tactics.\" After\na whispered conversation with the director of the police department,\nan Austrian Social-Democratic politician in the good, and not so far\noff, old times always knew exactly whether the balance of power\npermitted a peaceful street demonstration in Vienna on May Day. In the\ncase of the Eberts, Scheidemanns and Davids, the balance of power was,\nnot so very long ago, calculated exactly by the number of fingers\nwhich were extended to them at their meeting in the Reichstag with\nBethmann-Hollweg, or with Ludendorff himself.\n\nAccording to Friedrich Adler, the establishment of a Soviet\ndictatorship in Austria would be a fatal infraction of the balance of\npower; the Entente would condemn Austria to starvation. In proof of\nthis, Friedrich Adler, at the July congress of Soviets, pointed to\nHungary, where at that time the Hungarian Renners had not yet, with\nthe help of the Hungarian Adlers, overthrown the dictatorship of the\nSoviets. At the first glance, it might really seem that Friedrich\nAdler was right in the case of Hungary. The proletarian dictatorship\nwas overthrown there soon afterwards, and its place was filled by the\nministry of the reactionary Friedrich. But it is quite justifiable to\nask: Did the latter correspond to the balance of power? At all events,\nFriedrich and his Huszar might not even temporarily have seized power\nhad it not been for the Roumanian army. Hence, it is clear that, when\ndiscussing the fate of the Soviet Government in Hungary, it is\nnecessary to take account of the \"balance of power,\" at all events in\ntwo countries--in Hungary itself, and in its neighbor, Roumania. But\nit is not difficult to grasp that we cannot stop at this. If the\ndictatorship of the Soviets had been set up in Austria before the\nmaturing of the Hungarian crisis, the overthrow of the Soviet regime\nin Budapest would have been an infinitely more difficult task.\nConsequently, we have to include Austria also, together with the\ntreacherous policy of Friedrich Adler, in that balance of power which\ndetermined the temporary fall of the Soviet Government in Hungary.\n\nFriedrich Adler himself, however, seeks the key to the balance of\npower, not in Russia and Hungary, but in the West, in the countries of\nClemenceau and Lloyd George. They have in their hands bread and\ncoal--and really bread and coal, especially in our time, are just as\nforemost factors in the mechanism of the balance of power as cannon in\nthe constitution of Lassalle. Brought down from the heights, Adler's\nidea consists, consequently, in this: that the Austrian proletariat\nmust not seize power until such time, as it is permitted to do so by\nClemenceau (or Millerand--_i.e._, a Clemenceau of the second\norder).\n\nHowever, even here it is permissible to ask: Does the policy of\nClemenceau himself really correspond to the balance of power? At the\nfirst glance it may appear that it corresponds well enough, and, if\nit cannot be proved, it is, at least, guaranteed by Clemenceau's\ngendarmes, who break up working-class meetings, and arrest and\nshoot Communists. But here we cannot but remember that the\nterrorist measures of the Soviet Government--that is, the same\nsearches, arrests, and executions, only directed against the\ncounter-revolutionaries--are considered by some people as a proof that\nthe Soviet Government does _not_ correspond to the balance of power.\nIn vain would we, however, begin to seek in our time, anywhere in the\nworld, a regime which, to preserve itself, did not have recourse to\nmeasures of stern mass repression. This means that hostile class\nforces, having broken through the framework of every kind of\nlaw--including that of \"democracy\"--are striving to find their new\nbalance by means of a merciless struggle.\n\nWhen the Soviet system was being instituted in Russia, not only the\ncapitalist politicians, but also the Socialist opportunists of all\ncountries proclaimed it an insolent challenge to the balance of\nforces. On this score, there was no quarrel between Kautsky, the\nAustrian Count Czernin, and the Bulgarian Premier, Radoslavov. Since\nthat time, the Austro-Hungarian and German monarchies have collapsed,\nand the most powerful militarism in the world has fallen into dust.\nThe Soviet regime has held out. The victorious countries of the\nEntente have mobilized and hurled against it all they could. The\nSoviet Government has stood firm. Had Kautsky, Friedrich Adler, and\nOtto Bauer been told that the system of the dictatorship of the\nproletariat would hold out in Russia--first against the attack of\nGerman militarism, and then in a ceaseless war with the militarism of\nthe Entente countries--the sages of the Second International would\nhave considered such a prophecy a laughable misunderstanding of the\n\"balance of power.\"\n\nThe balance of political power at any given moment is determined under\nthe influence of fundamental and secondary factors of differing\ndegrees of effectiveness, and only in its most fundamental quality is\nit determined by the stage of the development of production. The\nsocial structure of a people is extraordinarily behind the development\nof its productive forces. The lower middle-classes, and particularly\nthe peasantry, retain their existence long after their economic\nmethods have been made obsolete, and have been condemned, by the\ntechnical development of the productive powers of society. The\nconsciousness of the masses, in its turn, is extraordinarily behind\nthe development of their social relations, the consciousness of the\nold Socialist parties is a whole epoch behind the state of mind of the\nmasses, and the consciousness of the old parliamentary and trade union\nleaders, more reactionary than the consciousness of their party,\nrepresents a petrified mass which history has been unable hitherto\neither to digest or reject. In the parliamentary epoch, during the\nperiod of stability of social relations, the psychological\nfactor--without great error--was the foundation upon which all current\ncalculations were based. It was considered that parliamentary\nelections reflected the balance of power with sufficient exactness.\nThe imperialist war, which upset all bourgeois society, displayed the\ncomplete uselessness of the old criteria. The latter completely\nignored those profound historical factors which had gradually been\naccumulating in the preceding period, and have now, all at once,\nappeared on the surface, and have begun to determine the course of\nhistory.\n\nThe political worshippers of routine, incapable of surveying the\nhistorical process in its complexity, in its internal clashes and\ncontradictions, imagined to themselves that history was preparing the\nway for the Socialist order simultaneously and systematically on all\nsides, so that concentration of production and the development of a\nCommunist morality in the producer and the consumer mature\nsimultaneously with the electric plough and a parliamentary majority.\nHence the purely mechanical attitude towards parliamentarism, which,\nin the eyes of the majority of the statesmen of the Second\nInternational, indicated the degree to which society was prepared for\nSocialism as accurately as the manometer indicates the pressure of\nsteam. Yet there is nothing more senseless than this mechanized\nrepresentation of the development of social relations.\n\nIf, beginning with the productive bases of society, we ascend the\nstages of the superstructure--classes, the State, laws, parties, and\nso on--it may be established that the weight of each additional part\nof the superstructure is not simply to be added to, but in many cases\nto be multiplied by, the weight of all the preceding stages. As a\nresult, the political consciousness of groups which long imagined\nthemselves to be among the most advanced, displays itself, at a moment\nof change, as a colossal obstacle in the path of historical\ndevelopment. To-day it is quite beyond doubt that the parties of the\nSecond International, standing at the head of the proletariat, which\ndared not, could not, and would not take power into their hands at the\nmost critical moment of human history, and which led the proletariat\nalong the road of mutual destruction in the interests of imperialism,\nproved a _decisive factor_ of the counter-revolution.\n\nThe great forces of production--that shock factor in historical\ndevelopment--were choked in those obsolete institutions of the\nsuperstructure (private property and the national State) in which they\nfound themselves locked by all preceding development. Engendered by\ncapitalism, the forces of production were knocking at all the walls of\nthe bourgeois national State, demanding their emancipation by means of\nthe Socialist organization of economic life on a world scale. The\nstagnation of social groupings, the stagnation of political forces,\nwhich proved themselves incapable of destroying the old class\ngroupings, the stagnation, stupidity and treachery of the directing\nSocialist parties, which had assumed to themselves in reality the\ndefense of bourgeois society--all these factors led to an elemental\nrevolt of the forces of production, in the shape of the imperialist\nwar. Human technical skill, the most revolutionary factor in history,\narose with the might accumulated during scores of years against the\ndisgusting conservatism and criminal stupidity of the Scheidemanns,\nKautskies, Renaudels, Vanderveldes and Longuets, and, by means of its\nhowitzers, machine-guns, dreadnoughts and aeroplanes, it began a\nfurious pogrom of human culture.\n\nIn this way the cause of the misfortunes at present experienced by\nhumanity is precisely that the development of the technical command of\nmen over nature has _long ago_ grown ripe for the socialization\nof economic life. The proletariat has occupied a place in production\nwhich completely guarantees its dictatorship, while the most\nintelligent forces in history--the parties and their leaders--have\nbeen discovered to be still wholly under the yoke of the old\nprejudices, and only fostered a lack of faith among the masses in\ntheir own power. In quite recent years Kautsky used to understand\nthis. \"The proletariat at the present time has grown so strong,\" wrote\nKautsky in his pamphlet, _The Path to Power_, \"that it can calmly\nawait the coming war. There can be no more talk of a _premature\nrevolution_, now that the proletariat has drawn from the present\nstructure of the State such strength as could be drawn therefrom, and\nnow that its reconstruction has become a condition of the\nproletariat's further progress.\" From the moment that the development\nof productive forces, outgrowing the framework of the bourgeois\nnational State, drew mankind into an epoch of crises and convulsions,\nthe consciousness of the masses was shaken by dread shocks out of the\ncomparative equilibrium of the preceding epoch. The routine and\nstagnation of its mode of living, the hypnotic suggestion of peaceful\nlegality, had already ceased to dominate the proletariat. But it had\nnot yet stepped, consciously and courageously, on to the path of open\nrevolutionary struggle. It wavered, passing through the last moment of\nunstable equilibrium. At such a moment of psychological change, the\npart played by the summit--the State, on the one hand, and the\nrevolutionary Party on the other--acquires a colossal importance. A\ndetermined push from left or right is sufficient to move the\nproletariat, for a certain period, to one or the other side. We saw\nthis in 1914, when, under the united pressure of imperialist\ngovernments and Socialist patriotic parties, the working class was all\nat once thrown out of its equilibrium and hurled on to the path of\nimperialism. We have since seen how the experience of the war, the\ncontrasts between its results and its first objects, is shaking the\nmasses in a revolutionary sense, making them more and more capable of\nan open revolt against capitalism. In such conditions, the presence of\na revolutionary party, which renders to itself a clear account of the\nmotive forces of the present epoch, and understands the exceptional\nrole amongst them of a revolutionary class; which knows its\ninexhaustible, but unrevealed, powers; which believes in that class\nand believes in itself; which knows the power of revolutionary method\nin an epoch of instability of all social relations; which is ready to\nemploy that method and carry it through to the end--the presence of\nsuch a party represents a factor of incalculable historical\nimportance.\n\nAnd, on the other hand, the Socialist party, enjoying traditional\ninfluence, which does _not_ render itself an account of what is going\non around it, which does _not_ understand the revolutionary situation,\nand, therefore, finds no key to it, which does _not_ believe in either\nthe proletariat or itself--such a party in our time is the most\nmischievous stumbling block in history, and a source of confusion and\ninevitable chaos.\n\nSuch is now the role of Kautsky and his sympathizers. They teach the\nproletariat not to believe in itself, but to believe its reflection in\nthe crooked mirror of democracy which has been shattered by the\njack-boot of militarism into a thousand fragments. The decisive factor\nin the revolutionary policy of the working class must be, in their\nview, not the international situation, not the actual collapse of\ncapitalism, not that social collapse which is generated thereby, not\nthat concrete necessity of the supremacy of the working class for\nwhich the cry arises from the smoking ruins of capitalist\ncivilization--not all this must determine the policy of the\nrevolutionary party of the proletariat--but that counting of votes\nwhich is carried out by the capitalist tellers of parliamentarism.\nOnly a few years ago, we repeat, Kautsky seemed to understand the real\ninner meaning of the problem of revolution. \"Yes, the proletariat\nrepresents the sole revolutionary class of the nation,\" wrote Kautsky\nin his pamphlet, _The Path to Power_. It follows that every collapse\nof the capitalist order, whether it be of a moral, financial, or\nmilitary character, implies the bankruptcy of all the bourgeois\nparties responsible for it, and signifies that the sole way out of the\nblind alley is the establishment of the power of the _proletariat_.\nAnd to-day the party of prostration and cowardice, the party of\nKautsky, says to the working class: \"The question is not whether you\nto-day are the sole creative force in history; whether you are capable\nof throwing aside that ruling band of robbers into which the\npropertied classes have developed; the question is not whether anyone\nelse can accomplish this task on your behalf; the question is not\nwhether history allows you any postponement (for the present condition\nof bloody chaos threatens to bury you yourself, in the near future,\nunder the last ruins of capitalism). The problem is for the ruling\nimperialist bandits to succeed--yesterday or to-day--to deceive,\nviolate, and swindle public opinion, by collecting 51 per cent. of the\nvotes against your 49. Perish the world, but long live the\nparliamentary majority!\"\n\n\n\n\n2\n\nTHE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT\n\n\n\"Marx and Engels hammered out the idea of the dictatorship of the\nproletariat, which Engels stubbornly defended in 1891, shortly before\nhis death--the idea that the political autocracy of the proletariat is\nthe sole form in which it can realize its control of the state.\"\n\nThat is what Kautsky wrote about ten years ago. The sole form of power\nfor the proletariat he considered to be not a Socialist majority in a\ndemocratic parliament, but the political autocracy of the proletariat,\nits dictatorship. And it is quite clear that, if our problem is the\nabolition of private property in the means of production, the only\nroad to its solution lies through the concentration of State power in\nits entirety in the hands of the proletariat, and the setting up for\nthe transitional period of an exceptional regime--a regime in which\nthe ruling class is guided, not by general principles calculated for a\nprolonged period, but by considerations of revolutionary policy.\n\nThe dictatorship is necessary because it is a case, not of partial\nchanges, but of the very existence of the bourgeoisie. No agreement is\npossible on this ground. Only force can be the deciding factor. The\ndictatorship of the proletariat does not exclude, of course, either\nseparate agreements, or considerable concessions, especially in\nconnection with the lower middle-class and the peasantry. But the\nproletariat can only conclude these agreements after having gained\npossession of the apparatus of power, and having guaranteed to itself\nthe possibility of independently deciding on which points to yield and\non which to stand firm, in the interests of the general Socialist\ntask.\n\nKautsky now repudiates the dictatorship of the proletariat at the very\noutset, as the \"tyranny of the minority over the majority.\" That is,\nhe discerns in the revolutionary regime of the proletariat those very\nfeatures by which the honest Socialists of all countries invariably\ndescribe the dictatorship of the exploiters, albeit masked by the\nforms of democracy.\n\nAbandoning the idea of a revolutionary dictatorship, Kautsky\ntransforms the question of the conquest of power by the proletariat\ninto a question of the conquest of a majority of votes by the\nSocial-Democratic Party in one of the electoral campaigns of the\nfuture. Universal suffrage, according to the legal fiction of\nparliamentarism, expresses the will of the citizens of all classes in\nthe nation, and, consequently, gives a possibility of attracting a\nmajority to the side of Socialism. While the theoretical possibility\nhas not been realized, the Socialist minority must submit to the\nbourgeois majority. This fetishism of the parliamentary majority\nrepresents a brutal repudiation, not only of the dictatorship of the\nproletariat, but of Marxism and of the revolution altogether. If, in\nprinciple, we are to subordinate Socialist policy to the parliamentary\nmystery of majority and minority, it follows that, in countries where\nformal democracy prevails, there is no place at all for the\nrevolutionary struggle. If the majority elected on the basis of\nuniversal suffrage in Switzerland pass draconian legislation against\nstrikers, or if the executive elected by the will of a formal majority\nin Northern America shoots workers, have the Swiss and American\nworkers the \"right\" of protest by organizing a general strike?\nObviously, no. The political strike is a form of extra-parliamentary\npressure on the \"national will,\" as it has expressed itself through\nuniversal suffrage. True, Kautsky himself, apparently, is ashamed to\ngo as far as the logic of his new position demands. Bound by some sort\nof remnant of the past, he is obliged to acknowledge the possibility\nof correcting universal suffrage by action. Parliamentary elections,\nat all events in principle, never took the place, in the eyes of the\nSocial-Democrats, of the real class struggle, of its conflicts,\nrepulses, attacks, revolts; they were considered merely as a\ncontributory fact in this struggle, playing a greater part at one\nperiod, a smaller at another, and no part at all in the period of\ndictatorship.\n\nIn 1891, that is, not long before his death, Engels, as we just heard,\nobstinately defended the dictatorship of the proletariat as the only\npossible form of its control of the State. Kautsky himself more than\nonce repeated this definition. Hence, by the way, we can see what an\nunworthy forgery is Kautsky's present attempt to throw back the\ndictatorship of the proletariat at us as a purely Russian invention.\n\nWho aims at the end cannot reject the means. The struggle must be\ncarried on with such intensity as actually to guarantee the supremacy\nof the proletariat. If the Socialist revolution requires a\ndictatorship--\"the sole form in which the proletariat can achieve\ncontrol of the State\"--it follows that the dictatorship must be\nguaranteed at all cost.\n\nTo write a pamphlet about dictatorship one needs an ink-pot and a pile\nof paper, and possibly, in addition, a certain number of ideas in\none's head. But in order to establish and consolidate the\ndictatorship, one has to prevent the bourgeoisie from undermining the\nState power of the proletariat. Kautsky apparently thinks that this\ncan be achieved by tearful pamphlets. But his own experience ought to\nhave shown him that it is not sufficient to have lost all influence\nwith the proletariat, to acquire influence with the bourgeoisie.\n\nIt is only possible to safeguard the supremacy of the working class by\nforcing the bourgeoisie accustomed to rule, to realize that it is too\ndangerous an undertaking for it to revolt against the dictatorship of\nthe proletariat, to undermine it by conspiracies, sabotage,\ninsurrections, or the calling in of foreign troops. The bourgeoisie,\nhurled from power, must be forced to obey. In what way? The priests\nused to terrify the people with future penalties. We have no such\nresources at our disposal. But even the priests' hell never stood\nalone, but was always bracketed with the material fire of the Holy\nInquisition, and with the scorpions of the democratic State. Is it\npossible that Kautsky is leaning to the idea that the bourgeoisie can\nbe held down with the help of the categorical imperative, which in his\nlast writings plays the part of the Holy Ghost? We, on our part, can\nonly promise him our material assistance if he decides to equip a\nKantian-humanitarian mission to the realms of Denikin and Kolchak. At\nall events, there he would have the possibility of convincing himself\nthat the counter-revolutionaries are not naturally devoid of\ncharacter, and that, thanks to their six years' existence in the fire\nand smoke of war, their character has managed to become thoroughly\nhardened. Every White Guard has long ago acquired the simple truth\nthat it is easier to hang a Communist to the branch of a tree than to\nconvert him with a book of Kautsky's. These gentlemen have no\nsuperstitious fear, either of the principles of democracy or of the\nflames of hell--the more so because the priests of the church and of\nofficial learning act in collusion with them, and pour their combined\nthunders exclusively on the heads of the Bolsheviks. The Russian White\nGuards resemble the German and all other White Guards in this\nrespect--that they cannot be convinced or shamed, but only terrorized\nor crushed.\n\nThe man who repudiates terrorism in principle--_i.e._, repudiates\nmeasures of suppression and intimidation towards determined and armed\ncounter-revolution, must reject all idea of the political supremacy of\nthe working class and its revolutionary dictatorship. The man who\nrepudiates the dictatorship of the proletariat repudiates the\nSocialist revolution, and digs the grave of Socialism.\n\n                 *       *       *       *       *\n\nAt the present time, Kautsky has no theory of the social revolution.\nEvery time he tries to generalize his slanders against the revolution\nand the dictatorship of the proletariat, he produces merely a\nrechauffe of the prejudices of Jauresism and Bernsteinism.\n\n\"The revolution of 1789,\" writes Kautsky, \"itself put an end to the\nmost important causes which gave it its harsh and violent character,\nand prepared the way for milder forms of the future revolution.\" (Page\n140.)[2] Let us admit this, though to do so we have to forget the June\ndays of 1848 and the horrors of the suppression of the Commune. Let us\nadmit that the great revolution of the eighteenth century, which by\nmeasures of merciless terror destroyed the rule of absolutism, of\nfeudalism, and of clericalism, really prepared the way for more\npeaceful and milder solutions of social problems. But, even if we\nadmit this purely liberal standpoint, even here our accuser will prove\nto be completely in the wrong; for the Russian Revolution, which\nculminated in the dictatorship of the proletariat, began with just\nthat work which was done in France at the end of the eighteenth\ncentury. Our forefathers, in centuries gone by, did not take the\ntrouble to prepare the democratic way--by means of revolutionary\nterrorism--for milder manners in our revolution. The ethical mandarin,\nKautsky, ought to take these circumstances into account, and accuse\nour forefathers, not us.\n\n          [2] Translator's Note--For convenience sake, the references\n          throughout have been altered to fall in the English\n          translation of Kautsky's book. Mr. Kerridge's translation,\n          however, has not been adhered to.\n\nKautsky, however, seems to make a little concession in this direction.\n\"True,\" he says, \"no man of insight could doubt that a military\nmonarchy like the German, the Austrian, or the Russian could be\noverthrown only by violent methods. But in this connection there was\nalways less thought\" (amongst whom?), \"of the bloody use of arms, and\nmore of the working class weapon peculiar to the proletariat--the\nmass strike. And that a considerable portion of the proletariat,\nafter seizing power, would again--as at the end of the eighteenth\ncentury--give vent to its rage and revenge in bloodshed could not be\nexpected. This would have meant a complete negation of all progress.\"\n(Page 147.)\n\nAs we see, the war and a series of revolutions were required to enable\nus to get a proper view of what was going on in reality in the heads of\nsome of our most learned theoreticians. It turns out that Kautsky did\nnot think that a Romanoff or a Hohenzollern could be put away by means\nof conversations; but at the same time he seriously imagined that a\nmilitary monarchy could be overthrown by a general strike--_i.e._, by\na peaceful demonstration of folded arms. In spite of the Russian\nrevolution, and the world discussion of this question, Kautsky, it\nturns out, retains the anarcho-reformist view of the general strike.\nWe might point out to him that, in the pages of its own journal, the\n_Neue Zeit_, it was explained twelve years ago that the general strike\nis only a mobilization of the proletariat and its setting up against\nits enemy, the State; but that the strike in itself cannot produce\nthe solution of the problem, because it exhausts the forces of the\nproletariat sooner than those of its enemies, and this, sooner or\nlater, forces the workers to return to the factories. The general\nstrike acquires a decisive importance only as a preliminary to a\nconflict between the proletariat and the armed forces of the\nopposition--_i.e._, to the open revolutionary rising of the workers.\nOnly by breaking the will of the armies thrown against it can the\nrevolutionary class solve the problem of power--the root problem of\nevery revolution. The general strike produces the mobilization of both\nsides, and gives the first serious estimate of the powers of resistance\nof the counter-revolution. But only in the further stages of the\nstruggle, after the transition to the path of armed insurrection, can\nthat bloody price be fixed which the revolutionary class has to pay for\npower. But that it will have to pay with blood, that, in the struggle\nfor the conquest of power and for its consolidation, the proletariat\nwill have not only to be killed, but also to kill--of this no serious\nrevolutionary ever had any doubt. To announce that the existence of a\ndetermined life-and-death struggle between the proletariat and the\nbourgeoisie \"is a complete negation of all progress,\" means simply that\nthe heads of some of our most reverend theoreticians take the form of a\ncamera-obscura, in which objects are represented upside down.\n\nBut, even when applied to more advanced and cultured countries with\nestablished democratic traditions, there is absolutely no proof of\nthe justice of Kautsky's historical argument. As a matter of fact, the\nargument itself is not new. Once upon a time the Revisionists gave it a\ncharacter more based on principle. They strove to prove that the growth\nof proletarian organizations under democratic conditions guaranteed the\ngradual and imperceptible--reformist and evolutionary--transition to\nSocialist society--without general strikes and risings, without the\ndictatorship of the proletariat.\n\nKautsky, at that culminating period of his activity, showed that,\nin spite of the forms of democracy, the class contradictions of\ncapitalist society grew deeper, and that this process must inevitably\nlead to a revolution and the conquest of power by the proletariat.\n\nNo one, of course, attempted to reckon up beforehand the number of\nvictims that will be called for by the revolutionary insurrection of\nthe proletariat, and by the regime of its dictatorship. But it was\nclear to all that the number of victims will vary with the strength of\nresistance of the propertied classes. If Kautsky desires to say in his\nbook that a democratic upbringing has not weakened the class egoism of\nthe bourgeoisie, this can be admitted without further parley.\n\nIf he wishes to add that the imperialist war, which broke out and\ncontinued for four years, _in spite of_ democracy, brought about\na degradation of morals and accustomed men to violent methods and\naction, and completely stripped the bourgeoisie of the last vestige of\nawkwardness in ordering the destruction of masses of humanity--here\nalso he will be right.\n\nAll this is true on the face of it. But one has to struggle in real\nconditions. The contending forces are not proletarian and bourgeois\nmanikins produced in the retort of Wagner-Kautsky, but a real\nproletariat against a real bourgeoisie, as they have emerged from the\nlast imperialist slaughter.\n\nIn this fact of merciless civil war that is spreading over the whole\nworld, Kautsky sees only the result of a fatal lapse from the\n\"experienced tactics\" of the Second International.\n\n\"In reality, since the time,\" he writes, \"that Marxism has dominated\nthe Socialist movement, the latter, up to the world war, was, in spite\nof its great activities, preserved from great defeats. And the idea of\ninsuring victory by means of terrorist domination had completely\ndisappeared from its ranks.\n\n\"Much was contributed in this connection by the fact that, at the time\nwhen Marxism was the dominating Socialist teaching, democracy threw\nout firm roots in Western Europe, and began there to change from an\nend of the struggle to a trustworthy basis of political life.\" (Page\n145.)\n\nIn this \"formula of progress\" there is not one atom of Marxism. The\nreal process of the struggle of classes and their material conflicts\nhas been lost in Marxist propaganda, which, thanks to the conditions\nof democracy, guarantees, forsooth, a painless transition to a new and\n\"wiser\" order. This is the most vulgar liberalism, a belated piece of\nrationalism in the spirit of the eighteenth century--with the\ndifference that the ideas of Condorcet are replaced by a vulgarisation\nof the Communist Manifesto. All history resolves itself into an\nendless sheet of printed paper, and the centre of this \"humane\"\nprocess proves to be the well-worn writing table of Kautsky.\n\nWe are given as an example the working-class movement in the period of\nthe Second International, which, going forward under the banner of\nMarxism, never sustained great defeats whenever it deliberately\nchallenged them. But did not the whole working-class movement, the\nproletariat of the whole world, and with it the whole of human\nculture, sustain an incalculable defeat in August, 1914, when history\ncast up the accounts of all the forces and possibilities of the\nSocialist parties, amongst whom, we are told, the guiding role\nbelonged to Marxism, \"on the firm footing of democracy\"? _Those\nparties proved bankrupt._ Those features of their previous work\nwhich Kautsky now wishes to render permanent--self-adaptation,\nrepudiation of \"illegal\" activity, repudiation of the open fight,\nhopes placed in democracy as the road to a painless revolution--all\nthese fell into dust. In their fear of defeat, holding back the masses\nfrom open conflict, dissolving the general strike discussions, the\nparties of the Second International were preparing their own\nterrifying defeat; for they were not able to move one finger to avert\nthe greatest catastrophe in world history, the four years' imperialist\nslaughter, which foreshadowed the violent character of the civil war.\nTruly, one has to put a wadded night-cap not only over one's eyes, but\nover one's nose and ears, to be able to-day, after the inglorious\ncollapse of the Second International, after the disgraceful bankruptcy\nof its leading party--the German Social-Democracy--after the bloody\nlunacy of the world slaughter and the gigantic sweep of the civil war,\nto set up in contrast to us, the profundity, the loyalty, the\npeacefulness and the sobriety of the Second International, the\nheritage of which we are still liquidating.\n\n\n\n\n3\n\nDEMOCRACY\n\n\n\"EITHER DEMOCRACY, OR CIVIL WAR\"\n\nKautsky has a clear and solitary path to salvation: _democracy_. All\nthat is necessary is that every one should acknowledge it and bind\nhimself to support it. The Right Socialists must renounce the\nsanguinary slaughter with which they have been carrying out the will of\nthe bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie itself must abandon the idea of using\nits Noskes and Lieutenant Vogels to defend its privileges to the last\nbreath. Finally, the proletariat must once and for all reject the idea\nof overthrowing the bourgeoisie by means other than those laid down in\nthe Constitution. If the conditions enumerated are observed, the social\nrevolution will painlessly melt into democracy. In order to succeed it\nis sufficient, as we see, for our stormy history to draw a nightcap\nover its head, and take a pinch of wisdom out of Kautsky's snuffbox.\n\n\"There exist only two possibilities,\" says our sage, \"either democracy,\nor civil war.\" (Page 220.) Yet, in Germany, where the formal elements\nof \"democracy\" are present before our eyes, the civil war does not\ncease for a moment. \"Unquestionably,\" agrees Kautsky, \"under the\npresent National Assembly Germany cannot arrive at a healthy condition.\nBut that process of recovery will not be assisted, but hindered, if we\ntransform the struggle against the present Assembly into a struggle\nagainst the democratic franchise.\" (Page 230.) As if the question in\nGermany really did reduce itself to one of electoral forms and not to\none of the real possession of power!\n\nThe present National Assembly, as Kautsky admits, cannot \"bring the\ncountry to a healthy condition.\" Therefore let us begin the game again\nat the beginning. But will the partners agree? It is doubtful. If the\nrubber is not favorable to us, obviously it is so to them. The National\nAssembly which \"is incapable of bringing the country to a healthy\ncondition,\" is quite capable, through the mediocre dictatorship of\nNoske, of preparing the way for the dictatorship of Ludendorff. So it\nwas with the Constituent Assembly which prepared the way for Kolchak.\nThe historical mission of Kautsky consists precisely in having waited\nfor the revolution to write his (n + 1th) book, which should explain\nthe collapse of the revolution by all the previous course of history,\nfrom the ape to Noske, and from Noske to Ludendorff. The problem before\nthe revolutionary party is a difficult one: its problem is to foresee\nthe peril in good time, and to forestall it by _action_. And for this\nthere is no other way at present than to tear the power out of the\nhands of its real possessors, the agrarian and capitalist magnates, who\nare only temporarily hiding behind Messrs. Ebert and Noske. Thus, from\nthe present National Assembly, the path divides into two: either the\ndictatorship of the imperialist clique, or the dictatorship of the\nproletariat. On neither side does the path lead to \"democracy.\" Kautsky\ndoes not see this. He explains at great length that democracy is of\ngreat importance for its political development and its education in\norganization of the masses, and that through it the proletariat can\ncome to complete emancipation. One might imagine that, since the day on\nwhich the Erfurt Programme was written, nothing worthy of notice had\never happened in the world!\n\nYet meanwhile, for decades, the proletariat of France, Germany, and\nthe other most important countries has been struggling and developing,\nmaking the widest possible use of the institutions of democracy, and\nbuilding up on that basis powerful political organizations. This path\nof the education of the proletariat through democracy to Socialism\nproved, however, to be interrupted by an event of no inconsiderable\nimportance--the world imperialist war. The class state at the\nmoment when, thanks to its machinations, the war broke out succeeded\nin enlisting the assistance of the guiding organizations of\nSocial-Democracy to deceive the proletariat and draw it into the\nwhirlpool. So that, taken as they stand, the methods of democracy, in\nspite of the incontestable benefits which they afford at a certain\nperiod, displayed an extremely limited power of action; with the result\nthat two generations of the proletariat, educated under conditions of\ndemocracy, by no means guaranteed the necessary political preparation\nfor judging accurately an event like the world imperialist war. That\nexperience gives us no reasons for affirming that, if the war had\nbroken out ten or fifteen years later, the proletariat would have been\nmore prepared for it. The bourgeois democratic state not only creates\nmore favorable conditions for the political education of the workers,\nas compared with absolutism, but also sets a limit to that development\nin the shape of bourgeois legality, which skilfully accumulates and\nbuilds on the upper strata of the proletariat opportunist habits\nand law-abiding prejudices. The school of democracy proved quite\ninsufficient to rouse the German proletariat to revolution when the\ncatastrophe of the war was at hand. The barbarous school of the war,\nsocial-imperialist ambitions, colossal military victories, and\nunparalleled defeats were required. After these events, which made a\ncertain amount of difference in the universe, and even in the Erfurt\nProgramme, to come out with common-places as to meaning of democratic\nparliamentarism for the education of the proletariat signifies a fall\ninto political childhood. This is just the misfortune which has\novertaken Kautsky.\n\n\"Profound disbelief in the political struggle of the proletariat,\" he\nwrites, \"and in its participation in politics, was the characteristic\nof Proudhonism. To-day there arises a similar (!!) view, and it is\nrecommended to us as the new gospel of Socialist thought, as the result\nof an experience which Marx did not, and could not, know. In reality,\nit is only a variation of an idea which half a century ago Marx was\nfighting, and which he in the end defeated.\" (Page 79.)\n\nBolshevism proves to be warmed-up Proudhonism! From a purely theoretical\npoint of view, this is one of the most brazen remarks in the pamphlet.\n\nThe Proudhonists repudiated democracy for the same reason that they\nrepudiated the political struggle generally. They stood for the\neconomic organization of the workers without the interference of the\nState, without revolutionary outbreaks--for self-help of the workers on\nthe basis of production for profit. As far as they were driven by the\ncourse of events on to the path of the political struggle, they, as\nlower middle-class theoreticians, preferred democracy, not only to\nplutocracy, but to revolutionary dictatorship. What thoughts have they\nin common with us? While we repudiate democracy in the name of the\nconcentrated power of the proletariat, the Proudhonists, on the other\nhand, were prepared to make their peace with democracy, diluted by a\nfederal basis, in order to avoid the revolutionary monopoly of power by\nthe proletariat. With more foundation Kautsky might have compared us\nwith the opponents of the Proudhonists, the _Blanquists_, who\nunderstood the meaning of a revolutionary government, but did not\nsuperstitiously make the question of seizing it depend on the formal\nsigns of democracy. But in order to put the comparison of the\nCommunists with the Blanquists on a reasonable footing, it would have\nto be added that, in the Workers' and Soldiers' Councils, we had at our\ndisposal such an organization for revolution as the Blanquists could\nnot even dream of; in our party we had, and have, an invaluable\norganization of political leadership with a perfected programme of the\nsocial revolution. Finally, we had, and have, a powerful apparatus of\neconomic transformation in our trade unions, which stand as a whole\nunder the banner of Communism, and support the Soviet Government. Under\nsuch conditions, to talk of the renaissance of Proudhonist prejudices\nin the shape of Bolshevism can only take place when one has lost all\ntraces of theoretical honesty and historical understanding.\n\n\nTHE IMPERIALIST TRANSFORMATION OF DEMOCRACY\n\nIt is not for nothing that the word \"democracy\" has a double meaning\nin the political vocabulary. On the one hand, it means a state system\nfounded on universal suffrage and the other attributes of formal\n\"popular government.\" On the other hand, by the word \"democracy\" is\nunderstood the mass of the people itself, in so far as it leads a\npolitical existence. In the second sense, as in the first, the meaning\nof democracy rises above class distinctions. This peculiarity of\nterminology has its profound political significance. Democracy as a\npolitical system is the more perfect and unshakable the greater is the\npart played in the life of the country by the intermediate and less\ndifferentiated mass of the population--the lower middle-class of the\ntown and the country. Democracy achieved its highest expression in the\nnineteenth century in Switzerland and the United States of North\nAmerica. On the other side of the ocean the democratic organization of\npower in a federal republic was based on the agrarian democracy of the\nfarmers. In the small Helvetian Republic, the lower middle-classes of\nthe towns and the rich peasantry constituted the basis of the\nconservative democracy of the united cantons.\n\nBorn of the struggle of the Third Estate against the powers of\nfeudalism, the democratic State very soon becomes the weapon of defence\nagainst the class antagonisms generated within bourgeois society.\nBourgeois society succeeds in this the more, the wider beneath it is\nthe layer of the lower middle-class, the greater is the importance of\nthe latter in the economic life of the country, and the less advanced,\nconsequently, is the development of class antagonism. However, the\nintermediate classes become ever more and more helplessly behind\nhistorical development, and, thereby, become ever more and more\nincapable of speaking in the name of the nation. True, the lower\nmiddle-class doctrinaires (Bernstein and Company) used to demonstrate\nwith satisfaction that the disappearance of the middle-classes was not\ntaking place with that swiftness that was expected by the Marxian\nschool. And, in reality, one might agree that, numerically, the\nmiddle-class elements in the town, and especially in the country, still\nmaintain an extremely prominent position. But the chief meaning of\nevolution has shown itself in the decline in importance on the part of\nthe middle-classes from the point of view of production: the amount of\nvalues which this class brings to the general income of the nation has\nfallen incomparably more rapidly than the numerical strength of the\nmiddle-classes. Correspondingly, falls their social, political, and\ncultural importance. Historical development has been relying more and\nmore, not on these conservative elements inherited from the past, but\non the polar classes of society--_i.e._, the capitalist bourgeoisie and\nthe proletariat.\n\nThe more the middle-classes lost their social importance, the less they\nproved capable of playing the part of an authoritative arbitral judge\nin the historical conflict between capital and labor. Yet the very\nconsiderable numerical proportion of the town middle-classes, and still\nmore of the peasantry, continues to find direct expression in the\nelectoral statistics of parliamentarism. The formal equality of all\ncitizens as electors thereby only gives more open indication of the\nincapacity of democratic parliamentarism to settle the root questions\nof historical evolution. An \"equal\" vote for the proletariat, the\npeasant, and the manager of a trust formally placed the peasant in the\nposition of a mediator between the two antagonists; but, in reality,\nthe peasantry, socially and culturally backward and politically\nhelpless, has in all countries always provided support for the most\nreactionary, filibustering, and mercenary parties which, in the long\nrun, always supported capital against labor.\n\nAbsolutely contrary to all the prophecies of Bernstein, Sombart,\nTugan-Baranovsky, and others, the continued existence of the middle\nclasses has not softened, but has rendered to the last degree\nacute, the revolutionary crisis of bourgeois society. If the\nproletarianization of the lower middle-classes and the peasantry had\nbeen proceeding in a chemically purified form, the peaceful conquest\nof power by the proletariat through the democratic parliamentary\napparatus would have been much more probable than we can imagine at\npresent. Just the fact that was seized upon by the partisans of the\nlower middle-class--its longevity--has proved fatal even for the\nexternal forms of political democracy, now that capitalism has\nundermined its essential foundations. Occupying in parliamentary\npolitics a place which it has lost in production, the middle-class has\nfinally compromised parliamentarism, and has transformed it into an\ninstitution of confused chatter and legislative obstruction. From this\nfact alone, there grew up before the proletariat the problem of\nseizing the apparatus of state power as such, independently of the\nmiddle-class, and even against it--not against its interests, but\nagainst its stupidity and its policy, impossible to follow in its\nhelpless contortions.\n\n\"Imperialism,\" wrote Marx of the Empire of Napoleon III, \"is the most\nprostituted, and, at the same time, perfected form of the state which\nthe bourgeoisie, having attained its fullest development, transforms\ninto a weapon for the enslavement of labor by capital.\" This definition\nhas a wider significance than for the French Empire alone, and includes\nthe latest form of imperialism, born of the world conflict between the\nnational capitalisms of the great powers. In the economic sphere,\nimperialism pre-supposed the final collapse of the rule of the\nmiddle-class; in the political sphere, it signified the complete\ndestruction of democracy by means of an internal molecular\ntransformation, and a universal subordination of all democracy's\nresources to its own ends. Seizing upon all countries, independently of\ntheir previous political history, imperialism showed that all political\nprejudices were foreign to it, and that it was equally ready and\ncapable of making use, after their transformation and subjection, of\nthe monarchy of Nicholas Romanoff or Wilhelm Hohenzollern, of the\npresidential autocracy of the United States of North America, and of\nthe helplessness of a few hundred chocolate legislators in the French\nparliament. The last great slaughter--the bloody font in which the\nbourgeois world attempted to be re-baptised--presented to us a picture,\nunparalleled in history, of the mobilization of all state forms,\nsystems of government, political tendencies, religious, and schools of\nphilosophy, in the service of imperialism. Even many of those pedants\nwho slept through the preparatory period of imperialist development\nduring the last decades, and continued to maintain a traditional\nattitude towards ideas of democracy and universal suffrage, began to\nfeel during the war that their accustomed ideas had become fraught with\nsome new meaning. Absolutism, parliamentary monarchy, democracy--in the\npresence of imperialism (and, consequently, in the presence of the\nrevolution rising to take its place), all the state forms of bourgeois\nsupremacy, from Russian Tsarism to North American quasi-democratic\nfederalism, have been given equal rights, bound up in such combinations\nas to supplement one another in an indivisible whole. Imperialism\nsucceeded by means of all the resources it had at its disposal,\nincluding parliamentarism, irrespective of the electoral arithmetic of\nvoting, to subordinate for its own purposes at the critical moment the\nlower middle-classes of the towns and country and even the upper layers\nof the proletariat. The national idea, under the watchword of which the\nThird Estate rose to power, found in the imperialist war its rebirth in\nthe watchword of national defence. With unexpected clearness, national\nideology flamed up for the last time at the expense of class ideology.\nThe collapse of imperialist illusions, not only amongst the vanquished,\nbut--after a certain delay--amongst the victorious also, finally laid\nlow what was once national democracy, and, with it, its main weapon,\nthe democratic parliament. The flabbiness, rottenness, and helplessness\nof the middle-classes and their parties everywhere became evident with\nterrifying clearness. In all countries the question of the control of\nthe State assumed first-class importance as a question of an open\nmeasuring of forces between the capitalist clique, openly or secretly\nsupreme and disposing of hundreds of thousands of mobilized and\nhardened officers, devoid of all scruple, and the revolting,\nrevolutionary proletariat; while the intermediate classes were living\nin a state of terror, confusion, and prostration. Under such\nconditions, what pitiful nonsense are speeches about the peaceful\nconquest of power by the proletariat by means of democratic\nparliamentarism!\n\nThe scheme of the political situation on a world scale is quite clear.\nThe bourgeoisie, which has brought the nations, exhausted and bleeding\nto death, to the brink of destruction--particularly the victorious\nbourgeoisie--has displayed its complete inability to bring them out of\ntheir terrible situation, and, thereby, its incompatibility with the\nfuture development of humanity. All the intermediate political groups,\nincluding here first and foremost the social-patriotic parties, are\nrotting alive. The proletariat they have deceived is turning against\nthem more and more every day, and is becoming strengthened in its\nrevolutionary convictions as the only power that can save the peoples\nfrom savagery and destruction. However, history has not at all\nsecured, just at this moment, a formal parliamentary majority on the\nside of the party of the social revolution. In other words, history\nhas not transformed the nation into a debating society solemnly voting\nthe transition to the social revolution by a majority of votes. On the\ncontrary, the violent revolution has become a necessity precisely\nbecause the imminent requirements of history are helpless to find a\nroad through the apparatus of parliamentary democracy. The capitalist\nbourgeois calculates: \"while I have in my hands lands, factories,\nworkshops, banks; while I possess newspapers, universities, schools;\nwhile--and this most important of all--I retain control of the army:\nthe apparatus of democracy, however you reconstruct it, will remain\nobedient to my will. I subordinate to my interests spiritually the\nstupid, conservative, characterless lower middle-class, just as it\nis subjected to me materially. I oppress, and will oppress, its\nimagination by the gigantic scale of my buildings, my transactions, my\nplans, and my crimes. For moments when it is dissatisfied and murmurs,\nI have created scores of safety-valves and lightning-conductors. At\nthe right moment I will bring into existence opposition parties, which\nwill disappear to-morrow, but which to-day accomplish their mission by\naffording the possibility of the lower middle-class expressing their\nindignation without hurt therefrom for capitalism. I shall hold the\nmasses of the people, under cover of compulsory general education, on\nthe verge of complete ignorance, giving them no opportunity of rising\nabove the level which my experts in spiritual slavery consider safe. I\nwill corrupt, deceive, and terrorize the more privileged or the more\nbackward of the proletariat itself. By means of these measures, I\nshall not allow the vanguard of the working class to gain the ear of\nthe majority of the working class, while the necessary weapons of\nmastery and terrorism remain in my hands.\"\n\nTo this the revolutionary proletarian replies: \"Consequently, the\nfirst condition of salvation is to tear the weapons of domination out\nof the hands of the bourgeoisie. It is hopeless to think of a peaceful\narrival to power while the bourgeoisie retains in its hands all the\napparatus of power. Three times over hopeless is the idea of coming to\npower by the path which the bourgeoisie itself indicates and, at the\nsame time, barricades--the path of parliamentary democracy. There is\nonly one way: to seize power, taking away from the bourgeoisie the\nmaterial apparatus of government. Independently of the superficial\nbalance of forces in parliament, I shall take over for social\nadministration the chief forces and resources of production. I shall\nfree the mind of the lower middle-class from their capitalist\nhypnosis. I shall show them in practice what is the meaning of\nSocialist production. Then even the most backward, the most ignorant,\nor most terrorized sections of the nation will support me, and\nwillingly and intelligently will join in the work of social\nconstruction.\"\n\nWhen the Russian Soviet Government dissolved the Constituent Assembly,\nthat fact seemed to the leading Social-Democrats of Western Europe, if\nnot the beginning of the end of the world, at all events a rude and\narbitrary break with all the previous developments of Socialism. In\nreality, it was only the inevitable outcome of the new position\nresulting from imperialism and the war. If Russian Communism was the\nfirst to enter the path of casting up theoretical and practical\naccounts, this was due to the same historical reasons which forced the\nRussian proletariat to be the first to enter the path of the struggle\nfor power.\n\nAll that has happened since then in Europe bears witness to the fact\nthat we drew the right conclusion. To imagine that democracy can be\nrestored in its general purity means that one is living in a pitiful,\nreactionary utopia.\n\n\nTHE METAPHYSICS OF DEMOCRACY\n\nFeeling the historical ground shaking under his feet on the question\nof democracy, Kautsky crosses to the ground of metaphysics. Instead of\ninquiring into what is, he deliberates about what ought to be.\n\nThe principles of democracy--the sovereignty of the people, universal\nand equal suffrage, personal liberties--appear, as presented to him,\nin a halo of moral duty. They are turned from their historical meaning\nand presented as unalterable and sacred things-in-themselves. This\nmetaphysical fall from grace is not accidental. It is instructive that\nthe late Plekhanov, a merciless enemy of Kantism at the best period of\nhis activity, attempted at the end of his life, when the wave of\npatriotism had washed over him, to clutch at the straw of the\ncategorical imperative.\n\nThat real democracy with which the German people is now making\npractical acquaintance Kautsky confronts with a kind of ideal\ndemocracy, as he would confront a common phenomenon with the\nthing-in-itself. Kautsky indicates with certitude not one country in\nwhich democracy is really capable of guaranteeing a painless\ntransition to Socialism. But he does know, and firmly, that such\ndemocracy ought to exist. The present German National Assembly, that\norgan of helplessness, reactionary malice, and degraded solicitations,\nis confronted by Kautsky with a different, real, true National\nAssembly, which possesses all virtues--excepting the small virtue of\nreality.\n\nThe doctrine of formal democracy is not scientific Socialism, but the\ntheory of so-called natural law. The essence of the latter consists in\nthe recognition of eternal and unchanging standards of law, which\namong different peoples and at different periods find a different,\nmore or less limited and distorted expression. The natural law of the\nlatest history--_i.e._, as it emerged from the middle ages--included\nfirst of all a protest against class privileges, the abuse of despotic\nlegislation, and the other \"artificial\" products of feudal positive\nlaw. The theoreticians of the, as yet, weak Third Estate expressed its\nclass interests in a few ideal standards, which later on developed\ninto the teaching of democracy, acquiring at the same time an\nindividualist character. The individual is absolute; all persons have\nthe right of expressing their thoughts in speech and print; every man\nmust enjoy equal electoral rights. As a battle cry against feudalism,\nthe demand for democracy had a progressive character. As time went on,\nhowever, the metaphysics of natural law (the theory of formal\ndemocracy) began to show its reactionary side--the establishment of an\nideal standard to control the real demands of the laboring masses and\nthe revolutionary parties.\n\nIf we look back to the historical sequence of world concepts, the\ntheory of natural law will prove to be a paraphrase of Christian\nspiritualism freed from its crude mysticism. The Gospels proclaimed to\nthe slave that he had just the same soul as the slave-owner, and in\nthis way established the equality of all men before the heavenly\ntribunal. In reality, the slave remained a slave, and obedience became\nfor him a religious duty. In the teaching of Christianity, the slave\nfound an expression for his own ignorant protest against his degraded\ncondition. Side by side with the protest was also the consolation.\nChristianity told him:--\"You have an immortal soul, although you\nresemble a pack-horse.\" Here sounded the note of indignation. But the\nsame Christianity said:--\"Although you are like a pack-horse, yet your\nimmortal soul has in store for it an eternal reward.\" Here is the\nvoice of consolation. These two notes were found in historical\nChristianity in different proportions at different periods and amongst\ndifferent classes. But as a whole, Christianity, like all other\nreligions, became a method of deadening the consciousness of the\noppressed masses.\n\nNatural law, which developed into the theory of democracy, said to the\nworker: \"all men are equal before the law, independently of their\norigin, their property, and their position; every man has an equal\nright in determining the fate of the people.\" This ideal criterion\nrevolutionized the consciousness of the masses in so far as it was a\ncondemnation of absolutism, aristocratic privileges, and the property\nqualification. But the longer it went on, the more it sent the\nconsciousness to sleep, legalizing poverty, slavery and degradation:\nfor how could one revolt against slavery when every man has an equal\nright in determining the fate of the nation?\n\nRothschild, who has coined the blood and tears of the world into the\ngold napoleons of his income, has one vote at the parliamentary\nelections. The ignorant tiller of the soil who cannot sign his name,\nsleeps all his life without taking his clothes off, and wanders\nthrough society like an underground mole, plays his part, however, as\na trustee of the nation's sovereignty, and is equal to Rothschild in\nthe courts and at the elections. In the real conditions of life, in\nthe economic process, in social relations, in their way of life,\npeople became more and more unequal; dazzling luxury was accumulated\nat one pole, poverty and hopelessness at the other. But in the sphere\nof the legal edifice of the State, these glaring contradictions\ndisappeared, and there penetrated thither only unsubstantial legal\nshadows. The landlord, the laborer, the capitalist, the proletarian,\nthe minister, the bootblack--all are equal as \"citizens\" and as\n\"legislators.\" The mystic equality of Christianity has taken one step\ndown from the heavens in the shape of the \"natural,\" \"legal\" equality\nof democracy. But it has not yet reached earth, where lie the economic\nfoundations of society. For the ignorant day-laborer, who all his life\nremains a beast of burden in the service of the bourgeoisie, the ideal\nright to influence the fate of the nations by means of the\nparliamentary elections remained little more real than the palace\nwhich he was promised in the kingdom of heaven.\n\nIn the practical interests of the development of the working class,\nthe Socialist Party took its stand at a certain period on the path of\nparliamentarism. But this did not mean in the slightest that it\naccepted in principle the metaphysical theory of democracy, based on\nextra-historical, super-class rights. The proletarian doctrines\nexamined democracy as the instrument of bourgeois society entirely\nadapted to the problems and requirements of the ruling classes; but as\nbourgeois society lived by the labor of the proletariat and could not\ndeny it the legalization of a certain part of its class struggle\nwithout destroying itself, this gave the Socialist Party the\npossibility of utilizing, at a certain period, and within certain\nlimits, the mechanism of democracy, without taking an oath to do so as\nan unshakable principle.\n\nThe root problem of the party, at all periods of its struggle, was to\ncreate the conditions for real, economic, living equality for mankind\nas members of a united human commonwealth. It was just for this reason\nthat the theoreticians of the proletariat had to expose the\nmetaphysics of democracy as a philosophic mask for political\nmystification.\n\nThe democratic party at the period of its revolutionary enthusiasm,\nwhen exposing the enslaving and stupefying lie of church dogma,\npreached to the masses:--\"You are lulled to sleep by promises of\neternal bliss at the end of your life, while here you have no rights\nand you are bound with the chains of tyranny.\" The Socialist Party, a\nfew decades later, said to the same masses with no less right:--\"You\nare lulled to sleep with the fiction of civic equality and political\nrights, but you are deprived of the possibility of realizing those\nrights. Conditional and shadowy legal equality has been transformed\ninto the convicts' chain with which each of you is fastened to the\nchariot of capitalism.\"\n\nIn the name of its fundamental task, the Socialist Party mobilized the\nmasses on the parliamentary ground as well as on others; but nowhere\nand at no time did any party bind itself to bring the masses to\nSocialism only through the gates of democracy. In adapting ourselves\nto the parliamentary regime, we stopped at a theoretical exposure of\ndemocracy, because we were still too weak to overcome it in practice.\nBut the path of Socialist ideas which is visible through all\ndeviations, and even betrayals, foreshadows no other outcome but this:\nto throw democracy aside and replace it by the mechanism of the\nproletariat, at the moment when the latter is strong enough to carry\nout such a task.\n\nWe shall bring one piece of evidence, albeit a sufficiently striking\none. \"Parliamentarism,\" wrote Paul Lafargue in the Russian review,\n_Sozialdemokrat_, in 1888, \"is a system of government in which the\npeople acquires the illusion that it is controlling the forces of the\ncountry itself, when, in reality, the actual power is concentrated in\nthe hands of the bourgeoisie--and not even of the whole bourgeoisie,\nbut only of certain sections of that class. In the first period of its\nsupremacy the bourgeoisie does not understand, or, more correctly,\ndoes not feel, the necessity for making the people believe in the\nillusion of self-government. Hence it was that all the parliamentary\ncountries of Europe began with a limited franchise. Everywhere the\nright of influencing the policy of the country by means of the\nelection of deputies belonged at first only to more or less large\nproperty holders, and was only gradually extended to less substantial\ncitizens, until finally in some countries it became from a privilege\nthe universal right of all and sundry.\n\n\"In bourgeois society, the more considerable becomes the amount of\nsocial wealth, the smaller becomes the number of individuals by whom\nit is appropriated. The same takes place with power: in proportion as\nthe mass of citizens who possess political rights increases, and the\nnumber of elected rulers increases, the actual power is concentrated\nand becomes the monopoly of a smaller and smaller group of\nindividuals.\" Such is the secret of the majority.\n\nFor the Marxist, Lafargue, parliamentarism remains as long as the\nsupremacy of the bourgeoisie remains. \"On the day,\" writes Lafargue,\n\"when the proletariat of Europe and America seizes the State, it will\nhave to organize a revolutionary government, and govern society as a\ndictatorship, until the bourgeoisie has disappeared as a class.\"\n\nKautsky in his time knew this Marxist estimate of parliamentarism, and\nmore than once repeated it himself, although with no such Gallic\nsharpness and lucidity. The theoretical apostasy of Kautsky lies just\nin this point: having recognized the principle of democracy as\nabsolute and eternal, he has stepped back from materialist dialectics\nto natural law. That which was exposed by Marxism as the passing\nmechanism of the bourgeoisie, and was subjected only to temporary\nutilization with the object of preparing the proletarian revolution,\nhas been newly sanctified by Kautsky as the supreme principle standing\nabove classes, and unconditionally subordinating to itself the methods\nof the proletarian struggle. The counter-revolutionary degeneration of\nparliamentarism finds its most perfect expression in the deification\nof democracy by the decaying theoreticians of the Second\nInternational.\n\n\nTHE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY\n\nSpeaking generally, the attainment of a majority in a democratic\nparliament by the party of the proletariat is not an absolute\nimpossibility. But such a fact, even if it were realized, would not\nintroduce any new principle into the course of events. The\nintermediate elements of the intelligentsia, under the influence of\nthe parliamentary victory of the proletariat, might possibly display\nless resistance to the new regime. But the fundamental resistance of\nthe bourgeoisie would be decided by such facts as the attitude of the\narmy, the degree to which the workers were armed, the situation in the\nneighboring states: and the civil war would develop under the pressure\nof these most real circumstances, and not by the mobile arithmetic of\nparliamentarism.\n\nOur party has never refused to lead the way for proletarian\ndictatorship through the gates of democracy, having clearly summed up\nin its mind certain agitational and political advantages of such a\n\"legalized\" transition to the new regime. Hence, our attempt to call\nthe Constituent Assembly. The Russian peasant, only just awakened by\nthe revolution to political life, found himself face to face with half\na dozen parties, each of which apparently had made up its mind to\nconfuse his mind. The Constituent Assembly placed itself across the\npath of the revolutionary movement, and was swept aside.\n\nThe opportunist majority in the Constituent Assembly represented only\nthe political reflection of the mental confusion and indecision\nwhich reigned amidst the middle-classes in the town and country\nand amidst the more backward elements of the proletariat. If we\ntake the viewpoint of isolated historical possibilities, one\nmight say that it would have been more painless if the Constituent\nAssembly had worked for a year or two, had finally discredited the\nSocialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks by their connection\nwith the Cadets, and had thereby led to the formal majority of the\nBolsheviks, showing the masses that in reality only two forces\nexisted: the revolutionary proletariat, led by the Communists, and\nthe counter-revolutionary democracy, headed by the generals and the\nadmirals. But the point is that the pulse of the internal relations of\nthe revolution was beating not at all in time with the pulse of the\ndevelopment of its external relations. If our party had thrown all\nresponsibility on to the objective formula of \"the course of events\"\nthe development of military operations might have forestalled us.\nGerman imperialism might have seized Petrograd, the evacuation of\nwhich the Kerensky Government had already begun. The fall of Petrograd\nwould at that time have meant a death-blow to the proletariat, for all\nthe best forces of the revolution were concentrated there, in the\nBaltic Fleet and in the Red capital.\n\n                 *       *       *       *       *\n\nOur party may be accused, therefore, not of going against the course\nof historical development, but of having taken at a stride several\npolitical steps. It stepped over the heads of the Mensheviks and the\nSocialist-Revolutionaries, in order not to allow German imperialism to\nstep across the head of the Russian proletariat and conclude peace\nwith the Entente on the back of the revolution before it was able to\nspread its wings over the whole world.\n\nFrom the above it will not be difficult to deduce the answers to the\ntwo questions with which Kautsky pestered us. Firstly: Why did we\nsummon the Constituent Assembly when we had in view the dictatorship\nof the proletariat? Secondly: If the first Constituent Assembly which\nwe summoned proved backward and not in harmony with the interests of\nthe revolution, why did we reject the idea of a new Assembly? The\nthought at the back of Kautsky's mind is that we repudiated democracy,\nnot on the ground of principle, but only because it proved against us.\nIn order to seize this insinuation by its long ears, let us establish\nthe facts.\n\nThe watchword, \"All power to the Soviets,\" was put forward by our\nParty at the very beginning of the revolution--_i.e._, long before,\nnot merely the decree as to the dissolution of the Constituent\nAssembly, but the decree as to its convocation. True, we did not set\nup the Soviets in opposition to the future Constituent Assembly, the\nsummoning of which was constantly postponed by the Government of\nKerensky, and consequently became more and more problematical. But in\nany case, we did not consider the Constituent Assembly, after the\nmanner of the democrats, as the future master of the Russian land, who\nwould come and settle everything. We explained to the masses that the\nSoviets, the revolutionary organizations of the laboring masses\nthemselves, can and must become the true masters. If we did not\nformally repudiate the Constituent Assembly beforehand, it was only\nbecause it stood in contrast, not to the power of the Soviets, but to\nthe power of Kerensky himself, who, in his turn, was only a screen for\nthe bourgeoisie. At the same time we did decide beforehand that, if,\nin the Constituent Assembly, the majority proved in our favor, that\nbody must dissolve itself and hand over the power to the Soviets--as\nlater on the Petrograd Town Council did, elected as it was on the\nbasis of the most democratic electoral franchise. In my book on the\nOctober Revolution, I tried to explain the reasons which made the\nConstituent Assembly the out-of-date reflection of an epoch through\nwhich the revolution had already passed. As we saw the organization of\nrevolutionary power only in the Soviets, and at the moment of the\nsummoning of the Constituent Assembly the Soviets were already the de\nfacto power, the question was inevitably decided for us in the sense\nof the violent dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, since it would\nnot dissolve itself in favor of the Government of the Soviets.\n\n\"But why,\" asks Kautsky, \"did you not summon a new Constituent\nAssembly?\"\n\nBecause we saw no need for it. If the first Constituent Assembly could\nstill play a fleeting progressive part, conferring a sanction upon the\nSoviet regime in its first days, convincing for the middle-class\nelements, now, after two years of victorious proletarian dictatorship\nand the complete collapse of all democratic attempts in Siberia, on\nthe shores of the White Sea, in the Ukraine, and in the Caucasus, the\npower of the Soviets truly does not need the blessing of the faded\nauthority of the Constituent Assembly. \"Are we not right in that case\nto conclude,\" asks Kautsky in the tone of Lloyd George, \"that the\nSoviet Government rules by the will of the minority, since it avoids\ntesting its supremacy by universal suffrage?\" Here is a blow that\nmisses its mark.\n\nIf the parliamentary regime, even in the period of \"peaceful,\" stable\ndevelopment, was a rather crude method of discovering the opinion of\nthe country, and in the epoch of revolutionary storm completely lost\nits capacity to follow the course of the struggle and the development\nof revolutionary consciousness, the Soviet regime, which is more\nclosely, straightly, honestly bound up with the toiling majority of\nthe people, does achieve meaning, not in statically reflecting a\nmajority, but in dynamically creating it. Having taken its stand on\nthe path of revolutionary dictatorship, the working class of Russia\nhas thereby declared that it builds its policy in the period of\ntransition, not on the shadowy art of rivalry with chameleon-hued\nparties in the chase for peasant votes, but on the actual attraction\nof the peasant masses, side by side with the proletariat, into the\nwork of ruling the country in the real interests of the laboring\nmasses. Such democracy goes a little deeper down than parliamentarism.\n\nTo-day, when the main problem--the question of life and death--of the\nrevolution consists in the military repulse of the various attacks of\nthe White Guard bands, does Kautsky imagine that any form of\nparliamentary \"majority\" is capable of guaranteeing a more energetic,\ndevoted, and successful organization of revolutionary defence? The\nconditions of the struggle are so defined, in a revolutionary country\nthrottled by the criminal ring of the blockade, that all the\nmiddle-class groups are confronted only with the alternative of\nDenikin or the Soviet Government. What further proof is needed when\neven parties, which stand for compromise in principle, like the\nMensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries, have split along that\nvery line?\n\nWhen suggesting to us the election of a Constituent Assembly, does\nKautsky propose the stopping of the civil war for the purpose of the\nelections? By whose decision? If he intends for this purpose to bring\ninto motion the authority of the Second International, we hasten to\ninform him that that institution enjoys in Denikin's camp only a\nlittle more authority than it does in ours. But to the extent that the\ncivil war between the Workers' and Peasants' Army and the imperialist\nbands is still going on, the elections must of necessity be limited to\nSoviet territory. Does Kautsky desire to insist that we should allow\nthe parties which support Denikin to come out into the open? Empty and\ncontemptible chatter! There is not one government, at any time and\nunder any conditions, which would allow its enemies to mobilize\nhostile forces in the rear of its armies.\n\nA not unimportant place in the discussion of the question is occupied\nby the fact that the flower of the laboring population is at present\non active service. The foremost workers and the most class-conscious\npeasants, who take the first place at all elections, as in all\nimportant political activities, directing the public opinion of the\nworkers, are at present fighting and dying as commanders, commissars,\nor rank and file in the Red Army. If the most \"democratic\" governments\nin the bourgeois states, whose regime is founded on parliamentarism,\nconsider it impossible to carry on elections to parliament in\nwartime, it is all the more senseless to demand such elections during\nthe war of the Soviet Republic, the regime of which is not for one\nmoment founded on parliamentarism. It is quite sufficient that the\nrevolutionary government of Russia, in the most difficult months and\ntimes, never stood in the way of periodic re-elections of its _own_\nelective institutions--the local and central Soviets.\n\nFinally, as a last argument--the last and the least--we have to\npresent to the notice of Kautsky that even the Russian Kautskians, the\nMensheviks like Martov and Dan, do not consider it possible to put\nforward at the present moment a demand for a Constituent Assembly,\npostponing it to better times in the future. Will there be any need of\nit then? Of this one may be permitted to doubt. When the civil war is\nover, the dictatorship of the working class will disclose all its\ncreative energy, and will, in practice, show the most backward masses\nwhat it can give them. By means of a systematically applied universal\nlabor service, and a centralized organization of distribution, the\nwhole population of the country will be drawn into the general Soviet\nsystem of economic arrangement and self-government. The Soviets\nthemselves, at present the organs of government, will gradually melt\ninto purely economic organizations. Under such conditions it is\ndoubtful whether any one will think of erecting, over the real fabric\nof Socialist society, an archaic crown in the shape of the Constituent\nAssembly, which would only have to register the fact that everything\nnecessary has already been \"constituted\" before it and without it.[3]\n\n          [3] In order to charm us in favor of a Constituent Assembly\n          Kautsky brings forward an argument based on the rate of\n          exchange to the assistance of his argument, based on the\n          categorical imperative. \"Russia requires,\" he writes, \"the\n          help of foreign capital, but this help will not come to the\n          Soviet Republic if the latter does not summon a Constituent\n          Assembly, and does not give freedom of the Press; not\n          because the capitalists are democratic idealists--to Tsarism\n          they gave without any hesitation many milliards--but because\n          they have no business faith in a revolutionary government.\"\n          (Page 218.)\n\n          There are scraps of truth in this rubbish. The Stock\n          Exchange did really support the government of Kolchak when\n          it relied for support on the Constituent Assembly. From its\n          experience of Kolchak the Stock Exchange became confirmed in\n          its conviction that the mechanism of bourgeois democracy can\n          be utilized in capitalist interests, and then thrown aside\n          like a worn-out pair of puttees. It is quite possible that\n          the Stock Exchange would again give a parliamentary loan on\n          the guarantee of a Constituent Assembly, believing, on the\n          basis of its former experience, that such a body would prove\n          only an intermediate step to capitalist dictatorship. We do\n          not propose to buy the \"business faith\" of the Stock\n          Exchange at such a price, and decidedly prefer the \"faith\"\n          which is aroused in the realist Stock Exchange by the weapon\n          of the Red Army.\n\n\n\n\n4\n\nTERRORISM\n\n\nThe chief theme of Kautsky's book is terrorism. The view that\nterrorism is of the essence of revolution Kautsky proclaims to be a\nwidespread delusion. It is untrue that he who desires revolution must\nput up with terrorism. As far as he, Kautsky, is concerned, he is,\ngenerally speaking, for revolution, but decidedly against terrorism.\nFrom there, however, complications begin.\n\n\"The revolution brings us,\" Kautsky complains, \"a bloody terrorism\ncarried out by Socialist governments. The Bolsheviks in Russia first\nstepped on to this path, and were, consequently, sternly condemned by\nall Socialists who had not adopted the Bolshevik point of view,\nincluding the Socialists of the German Majority. But as soon as the\nlatter found themselves threatened in their supremacy, they had\nrecourse to the methods of the same terrorist regime which they\nattacked in the East.\" (Page 9.) It would seem that from this follows\nthe conclusion that terrorism is much more profoundly bound up with\nthe nature of revolution than certain sages think. But Kautsky makes\nan absolutely opposite conclusion. The gigantic development of White\nand Red terrorism in all the last revolutions--the Russian, the\nGerman, the Austrian, and the Hungarian--is evidence to him that these\nrevolutions turned aside from their true path and turned out to be not\nthe revolution they ought to have been according to the theoretical\nvisions of Kautsky. Without going into the question whether terrorism\n\"as such\" is \"immanent\" to the revolution \"as such,\" let us consider a\nfew of the revolutions as they pass before us in the living history of\nmankind.\n\nLet us first regard the religious Reformation, which proved the\nwatershed between the Middle Ages and modern history: the deeper were\nthe interests of the masses that it involved, the wider was its sweep,\nthe more fiercely did the civil war develop under the religious\nbanner, and the more merciless did the terror become on the other\nside.\n\nIn the seventeenth century England carried out two revolutions. The\nfirst, which brought forth great social upheavals and wars, brought\namongst other things the execution of King Charles I, while the second\nended happily with the accession of a new dynasty. The British\nbourgeoisie and its historians maintain quite different attitudes to\nthese two revolutions: the first is for them a rising of the mob--the\n\"Great Rebellion\"; the second has been handed down under the title of\nthe \"Glorious Revolution.\" The reason for this difference in estimates\nwas explained by the French historian, Augustin Thierry. In the first\nEnglish revolution, in the \"Great Rebellion,\" the active force was the\npeople; while in the second it was almost \"silent.\" Hence, it follows\nthat, in surroundings of class slavery, it is difficult to teach the\noppressed masses good manners. When provoked to fury they use clubs,\nstones, fire, and the rope. The court historians of the exploiters are\noffended at this. But the great event in modern \"bourgeois\" history\nis, none the less, not the \"Glorious Revolution,\" but the \"Great\nRebellion.\"\n\nThe greatest event in modern history after the Reformation and the\n\"Great Rebellion,\" and far surpassing its two predecessors in\nsignificance, was the great French Revolution of the eighteenth\ncentury. To this classical revolution there was a corresponding\nclassical terrorism. Kautsky is ready to forgive the terrorism of the\nJacobins, acknowledging that they had no other way of saving the\nrepublic. But by this justification after the event no one is either\nhelped or hindered. The Kautskies of the end of the eighteenth century\n(the leaders of the French Girondists) saw in the Jacobins the\npersonification of evil. Here is a comparison, sufficiently\ninstructive in its banality, between the Jacobins and the Girondists\nfrom the pen of one of the bourgeois French historians: \"Both one side\nand the other desired the republic.\" But the Girondists \"desired a\nfree, legal, and merciful republic. The Montagnards desired a despotic\nand terrorist republic. Both stood for the supreme power of the\npeople; but the Girondist justly understood all by the people, while\nthe Montagnards considered only the working class to be the people.\nThat was why only to such persons, in the opinion of the Montagnards,\ndid the supremacy belong.\" The antithesis between the noble champions\nof the Constituent Assembly and the bloodthirsty agents of the\nrevolutionary dictatorship is here outlined fairly clearly, although\nin the political terms of the epoch.\n\nThe iron dictatorship of the Jacobins was evoked by the monstrously\ndifficult position of revolutionary France. Here is what the bourgeois\nhistorian says of this period: \"Foreign troops had entered French\nterritory from four sides. In the north, the British and the\nAustrians, in Alsace, the Prussians, in Dauphine and up to Lyons, the\nPiedmontese, in Roussillon the Spaniards. And this at a time, when\ncivil war was raging at four different points: in Normandy, in the\nVendee, at Lyons, and at Toulon.\" (Page 176). To this we must add\ninternal enemies in the form of numerous secret supporters of the old\nregime, ready by all methods to assist the enemy.\n\nThe severity of the proletarian dictatorship in Russia, let us point\nout here, was conditioned by no less difficult circumstances. There\nwas one continuous front, on the north and south, in the east and\nwest. Besides the Russian White Guard armies of Kolchak, Denikin and\nothers, there are attacking Soviet Russia, simultaneously or in turn:\nGermans, Austrians, Czecho-Slovaks, Serbs, Poles, Ukrainians,\nRoumanians, French, British, Americans, Japanese, Finns, Esthonians,\nLithuanians.... In a country throttled by a blockade and strangled by\nhunger, there are conspiracies, risings, terrorist acts, and\ndestruction of roads and bridges.\n\n\"The government which had taken on itself the struggle with countless\nexternal and internal enemies had neither money, nor sufficient\ntroops, nor anything except boundless energy, enthusiastic support on\nthe part of the revolutionary elements of the country, and the\ngigantic courage to take all measures necessary for the safety of the\ncountry, however arbitrary and severe they were.\" In such words did\nonce upon a time Plekhanov describe the government of the--Jacobins.\n(_Sozial-demokrat_, a quarterly review of literature and politics.\nBook I, February, 1890, London. The article on \"The Centenary of the\nGreat Revolution,\" pages 6-7).\n\nLet us now turn to the revolution which took place in the second half\nof the nineteenth century, in the country of \"democracy\"--in the\nUnited States of North America. Although the question was not the\nabolition of property altogether, but only of the abolition of\nproperty in negroes, nevertheless, the institutions of democracy\nproved absolutely powerless to decide the argument in a peaceful way.\nThe southern states, defeated at the presidential elections in 1860,\ndecided by all possible means to regain the influence they had\nhitherto exerted in the question of slave-owning; and uttering, as was\nright, the proper sounding words about freedom and independence, rose\nin a slave-owners' insurrection. Hence inevitably followed all the\nlater consequences of civil war. At the very beginning of the\nstruggle, the military government in Baltimore imprisoned in Fort\nMacHenry a few citizens, sympathizers with the slave-holding South, in\nspite of Habeas Corpus. The question of the lawfulness or the\nunlawfulness of such action became the object of fierce disputes\nbetween so-called \"high authorities.\" The judge of the Supreme Court,\ndecided that the President had neither the right to arrest the\noperation of Habeas Corpus nor to give plenipotentiary powers to that\nend to the military authorities. \"Such, in all probability, is the\ncorrect Constitutional solution of the question,\" says one of the\nfirst historians of the American Civil War. \"But the state of affairs\nwas to such a degree critical, and the necessity of taking decisive\nmeasures against the population of Baltimore so great, that not only\nthe Government but the people of the United States also supported the\nmost energetic measures.\"[4]\n\n          [4] (The History of the American War, by Fletcher,\n          Lieut.-Colonel in the Scots Guards, St. Petersburg, 1867,\n          page 95.)\n\nSome goods that the rebellious South required were secretly supplied\nby the merchants of the North. Naturally, the Northerners had no other\ncourse but to introduce methods of repression. On August 6, 1861, the\nPresident confirmed a resolution of Congress as to \"the confiscation\nof property used for insurrectionary purposes.\" The people, in the\nshape of the most democratic elements, were in favor of extreme\nmeasures. The Republican Party had a decided majority in the North,\nand persons suspected of secessionism, _i.e._, of sympathizing with\nthe rebellious Southern states, were subjected to violence. In some\nnorthern towns, and even in the states of New England, famous for\ntheir order, the people frequently burst into the offices of\nnewspapers which supported the revolting slave-owners and smashed\ntheir printing presses. It occasionally happened that reactionary\npublishers were smeared with tar, decorated with feathers, and carried\nin such array through the public squares until they swore an oath of\nloyalty to the Union. The personality of a planter smeared in tar bore\nlittle resemblance to the \"end-in-itself;\" so that the categorical\nimperative of Kautsky suffered in the civil war of the states a\nconsiderable blow. But this is not all. \"The government, on its part,\"\nthe historian tells us, \"adopted repressive measures of various kinds\nagainst publications holding views opposed to its own: and in a short\ntime the hitherto free American press was reduced to a condition\n_scarcely superior to that prevailing in the autocratic European\nStates_.\" The same fate overtook the freedom of speech. \"In this way,\"\nLieut.-Colonel Fletcher continues, \"the American people at this time\ndenied itself the greater part of its freedom. It should be observed,\"\nhe moralizes, \"that _the majority of the people_ was to such an\nextent occupied with the war, and to such a degree imbued with the\nreadiness for any kind of sacrifice to attain its end, that it not\nonly did not regret its vanished liberties, but scarcely even noticed\ntheir disappearance.\"[5]\n\n          [5] Fletcher's History of the American War, pages 162-164.\n\nInfinitely more ruthlessly did the bloodthirsty slave-owners of the\nSouth employ their uncontrollable hordes. \"Wherever there was a\nmajority in favor of slavery,\" writes the Count of Paris, \"public\nopinion behaved despotically to the minority. All who expressed pity\nfor the national banner ... were forced to be silent. But soon this\nitself became insufficient; as in all revolutions, the indifferent\nwere forced to express their loyalty to the new order of things....\nThose who did not agree to this were given up as a sacrifice to the\nhatred and violence of the mass of the people.... In each centre of\ngrowing civilization (South-Western states) vigilance committees were\nformed, composed of all those who had been distinguished by their\nextreme views in the electoral struggle.... A tavern was the usual\nplace of their sessions, and a noisy orgy was mingled with a\ncontemptible parody of public forms of justice. A few madmen sitting\naround a desk on which gin and whisky flowed judged their present\nand absent fellow citizens. The accused, even before having been\nquestioned, could see the rope being prepared. He who did not appear\nat the court learned his sentence when falling under the bullets\nof the executioner concealed in the forest....\" This picture is\nextremely reminiscent of the scenes which day by day took place in\nthe camps of Denikin, Kolchak, Yudenich, and the other heroes of\nAnglo-Franco-American \"democracy.\"\n\nWe shall see later how the question of terrorism stood in regard to\nthe Paris Commune of 1871. In any case, the attempts of Kautsky to\ncontrast the Commune with us are false at their very root, and only\nbring the author to a juggling with words of the most petty character.\n\nThe institution of hostages apparently must be recognized as \"immanent\"\nin the terrorism of the civil war. Kautsky is against terrorism and\nagainst the institution of hostages, but in favor of the Paris\nCommune. (N.B.--The Commune existed fifty years ago.) Yet the Commune\ntook hostages. A difficulty arises. But what does the art of exegesis\nexist for?\n\nThe decree of the Commune concerning hostages and their execution in\nreply to the atrocities of the Versaillese arose, according to the\nprofound explanation of Kautsky, \"from a striving to preserve human\nlife, not to destroy it.\" A marvellous discovery! It only requires to\nbe developed. It could, and must, be explained that in the civil war\nwe destroyed White Guards in order that they should not destroy the\nworkers. Consequently, our problem is not the destruction of human\nlife, but its preservation. But as we have to struggle for the\npreservation of human life with arms in our hands, it leads to the\ndestruction of human life--a puzzle the dialectical secret of which\nwas explained by old Hegel, without reckoning other still more ancient\nsages.\n\nThe Commune could maintain itself and consolidate its position only by\na determined struggle with the Versaillese. The latter, on the other\nhand, had a large number of agents in Paris. Fighting with the agents\nof Thiers, the Commune could not abstain from destroying the\nVersaillese at the front and in the rear. If its rule had crossed the\nbounds of Paris, in the provinces it would have found--during the\nprocess of the civil war with the Army of the National Assembly--still\nmore determined foes in the midst of the peaceful population. The\nCommune when fighting the royalists could not allow freedom of speech\nto royalist agents in the rear.\n\nKautsky, in spite of all the happenings in the world to-day, completely\nfails to realize what war is in general, and the civil war in\nparticular. He does not understand that every, or nearly every,\nsympathizer with Thiers in Paris was not merely an \"opponent\" of the\nCommunards in ideas, but an agent and spy of Thiers, a ferocious enemy\nready to shoot one in the back. The enemy must be made harmless, and in\nwartime this means that he must be destroyed.\n\nThe problem of revolution, as of war, consists in breaking the will of\nthe foe, forcing him to capitulate and to accept the conditions of the\nconqueror. The will, of course, is a fact of the physical world, but\nin contradistinction to a meeting, a dispute, or a congress, the\nrevolution carries out its object by means of the employment of\nmaterial resources--though to a less degree than war. The bourgeoisie\nitself conquered power by means of revolts, and consolidated it by the\ncivil war. In the peaceful period, it retains power by means of a\nsystem of repression. As long as class society, founded on the most\ndeep-rooted antagonisms, continues to exist, repression remains a\nnecessary means of breaking the will of the opposing side.\n\nEven if, in one country or another, the dictatorship of the proletariat\ngrew up within the external framework of democracy, this would by\nno means avert the civil war. The question as to who is to rule\nthe country, _i.e._, of the life or death of the bourgeoisie, will\nbe decided on either side, not by references to the paragraphs of\nthe constitution, but by the employment of all forms of violence.\nHowever deeply Kautsky goes into the question of the food of the\nanthropopithecus (see page 122 et seq. of his book) and other immediate\nand remote conditions which determine the cause of human cruelty, he\nwill find in history no other way of breaking the class will of the\nenemy except the systematic and energetic use of violence.\n\nThe degree of ferocity of the struggle depends on a series of internal\nand international circumstances. The more ferocious and dangerous is\nthe resistance of the class enemy who have been overthrown, the more\ninevitably does the system of repression take the form of a system of\nterror.\n\nBut here Kautsky unexpectedly takes up a new position in his struggle\nwith Soviet terrorism. He simply waves aside all reference to the\nferocity of the counter-revolutionary opposition of the Russian\nbourgeoisie.\n\n\"Such ferocity,\" he says, \"could not be noticed in November, 1917, in\nPetrograd and Moscow, and still less more recently in Budapest.\" (Page\n149.) With such a happy formulation of the question, revolutionary\nterrorism merely proves to be a product of the blood-thirstiness of\nthe Bolsheviks, who simultaneously abandoned the traditions of the\nvegetarian anthropopithecus and the moral lessons of Kautsky.\n\nThe first conquest of power by the Soviets at the beginning of\nNovember, 1917 (new style), was actually accomplished with\ninsignificant sacrifices. The Russian bourgeoisie found itself to such\na degree estranged from the masses of the people, so internally\nhelpless, so compromised by the course and the result of the war, so\ndemoralized by the regime of Kerensky, that it scarcely dared show any\nresistance. In Petrograd the power of Kerensky was overthrown almost\nwithout a fight. In Moscow its resistance was dragged out, mainly owing\nto the indecisive character of our own actions. In the majority of the\nprovincial towns, power was transferred to the Soviet on the mere\nreceipt of a telegram from Petrograd or Moscow. If the matter had ended\nthere, there would have been no word of the Red Terror. But in\nNovember, 1917, there was already evidence of the beginning of the\nresistance of the propertied classes. True, there was required the\nintervention of the imperialist governments of the West in order to\ngive the Russian counter-revolution faith in itself, and to add\never-increasing power to its resistance. This can be shown from facts,\nboth important and insignificant, day by day during the whole epoch of\nthe Soviet revolution.\n\nKerensky's \"Staff\" felt no support forthcoming from the mass of the\nsoldiery, and was inclined to recognize the Soviet Government, which\nhad begun negotiations for an armistice with the Germans. But there\nfollowed the protest of the military missions of the Entente, followed\nby open threats. The Staff was frightened; incited by \"Allied\"\nofficers, it entered the path of opposition. This led to armed\nconflict and to the murder of the chief of the field staff, General\nDukhonin, by a group of revolutionary sailors.\n\nIn Petrograd, the official agents of the Entente, especially the\nFrench Military Mission, hand in hand with the S.R.s and the\nMensheviks, openly organized the opposition, mobilizing, arming,\ninciting against us the cadets, and the bourgeois youth generally,\nfrom the second day of the Soviet revolution. The rising of the\njunkers on November 10 brought about a hundred times more victims than\nthe revolution of November 7. The campaign of the adventurers Kerensky\nand Krasnov against Petrograd, organized at the same time by the\nEntente, naturally introduced into the struggle the first elements of\nsavagery. Nevertheless, General Krasnov was set free on his word of\nhonor. The Yaroslav rising (in the summer of 1918) which involved so\nmany victims, was organized by Savinkov on the instructions of the\nFrench Embassy, and with its resources. Archangel was captured\naccording to the plans of British naval agents, with the help of\nBritish warships and aeroplanes. The beginning of the empire of\nKolchak, the nominee of the American Stock Exchange, was brought about\nby the foreign Czecho-Slovak Corps maintained by the resources of the\nFrench Government. Kaledin and Krasnov (liberated by us), the first\nleaders of the counter-revolution on the Don, could enjoy partial\nsuccess only thanks to the open military and financial aid of Germany.\nIn the Ukraine the Soviet power was overthrown in the beginning of\n1918 by German militarism. The Volunteer Army of Denikin was created\nwith the financial and technical help of Great Britain and France.\nOnly in the hope of British intervention and of British military\nsupport was Yudenich's army created. The politicians, the diplomats,\nand the journalists of the Entente have for two years on end been\ndebating with complete frankness the question of whether the financing\nof the civil war in Russia is a sufficiently profitable enterprise. In\nsuch circumstances, one needs truly a brazen forehead to seek the\nreason for the sanguinary character of the civil war in Russia in the\nmalevolence of the Bolsheviks, and not in the international situation.\n\nThe Russian proletariat was the first to enter the path of the social\nrevolution, and the Russian bourgeoisie, politically helpless, was\nemboldened to struggle against its political and economic\nexpropriation only because it saw its elder sister in all countries\nstill in power, and still maintaining economic, political, and, to a\ncertain extent, military supremacy.\n\nIf our November revolution had taken place a few months, or even a few\nweeks, after the establishment of the rule of the proletariat in\nGermany, France, and England, there can be no doubt that our\nrevolution would have been the most \"peaceful,\" the most \"bloodless\"\nof all possible revolutions on this sinful earth. But this historical\nsequence--the most \"natural\" at the first glance, and, in any case,\nthe most beneficial for the Russian working class--found itself\ninfringed--not through our fault, but through the will of events.\nInstead of being the last, the Russian proletariat proved to be the\nfirst. It was just this circumstance, after the first period of\nconfusion, that imparted desperation to the character of the\nresistance of the classes which had ruled in Russia previously, and\nforced the Russian proletariat, in a moment of the greatest peril,\nforeign attacks, and internal plots and insurrections, to have\nrecourse to severe measures of State terror. No one will now say that\nthose measures proved futile. But, perhaps, we are expected to\nconsider them \"intolerable\"?\n\nThe working class, which seized power in battle, had as its object and\nits duty to establish that power unshakeably, to guarantee its own\nsupremacy beyond question, to destroy its enemies' hankering for a new\nrevolution, and thereby to make sure of carrying out Socialist\nreforms. Otherwise there would be no point in seizing power.\n\nThe revolution \"logically\" does not demand terrorism, just as\n\"logically\" it does not demand an armed insurrection. What a profound\ncommonplace! But the revolution does require of the revolutionary\nclass that it should attain its end by all methods at its\ndisposal--if necessary, by an armed rising: if required, by\nterrorism. A revolutionary class which has conquered power with arms\nin its hands is bound to, and will, suppress, rifle in hand, all\nattempts to tear the power out of its hands. Where it has against it\na hostile army, it will oppose to it its own army. Where it is\nconfronted with armed conspiracy, attempt at murder, or rising, it\nwill hurl at the heads of its enemies an unsparing penalty. Perhaps\nKautsky has invented other methods? Or does he reduce the whole\nquestion to the _degree_ of repression, and recommend in all\ncircumstances imprisonment instead of execution?\n\nThe question of the form of repression, or of its degree, of course,\nis not one of \"principle.\" It is a question of expediency. In a\nrevolutionary period, the party which has been thrown from power,\nwhich does not reconcile itself with the stability of the ruling\nclass, and which proves this by its desperate struggle against the\nlatter, cannot be terrorized by the threat of imprisonment, as it does\nnot believe in its duration. It is just this simple but decisive fact\nthat explains the widespread recourse to shooting in a civil war.\n\nOr, perhaps, Kautsky wishes to say that execution is not expedient,\nthat \"classes cannot be cowed.\" This is untrue. Terror is\nhelpless--and then only \"in the long run\"--if it is employed by\nreaction against a historically rising class. But terror can be very\nefficient against a reactionary class which does not want to leave the\nscene of operations. _Intimidation_ is a powerful weapon of policy,\nboth internationally and internally. War, like revolution, is founded\nupon intimidation. A victorious war, generally speaking, destroys\nonly an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the\nremainder and breaking their will. The revolution works in the same\nway: it kills individuals, and intimidates thousands. In this sense,\nthe Red Terror is not distinguishable from the armed insurrection,\nthe direct continuation of which it represents. The State terror\nof a revolutionary class can be condemned \"morally\" only by a man\nwho, as a principle, rejects (in words) every form of violence\nwhatsoever--consequently, every war and every rising. For this one has\nto be merely and simply a hypocritical Quaker.\n\n\"But, in that case, in what do your tactics differ from the tactics of\nTsarism?\" we are asked, by the high priests of Liberalism and\nKautskianism.\n\nYou do not understand this, holy men? We shall explain to you. The\nterror of Tsarism was directed against the proletariat. The\ngendarmerie of Tsarism throttled the workers who were fighting for the\nSocialist order. Our Extraordinary Commissions shoot landlords,\ncapitalists, and generals who are striving to restore the capitalist\norder. Do you grasp this ... distinction? Yes? For us Communists it is\nquite sufficient.\n\n\n\"FREEDOM OF THE PRESS\"\n\nOne point particularly worries Kautsky, the author of a great many\nbooks and articles--the freedom of the Press. Is it permissible to\nsuppress newspapers?\n\nDuring war all institutions and organs of the State and of public\nopinion become, directly or indirectly, weapons of warfare. This is\nparticularly true of the Press. No government carrying on a serious\nwar will allow publications to exist on its territory which, openly or\nindirectly, support the enemy. Still more so in a civil war. The\nnature of the latter is such that each of the struggling sides has in\nthe rear of its armies considerable circles of the population on the\nside of the enemy. In war, where both success and failure are repaid\nby death, hostile agents who penetrate into the rear are subject to\nexecution. This is inhumane, but no one ever considered war a school\nof humanity--still less civil war. Can it be seriously demanded that,\nduring a civil war with the White Guards of Denikin, the publications\nof parties supporting Denikin should come out unhindered in Moscow and\nPetrograd? To propose this in the name of the \"freedom\" of the Press\nis just the same as, in the name of open dealing, to demand the\npublication of military secrets. \"A besieged city,\" wrote a Communard,\nArthur Arnould of Paris, \"cannot permit within its midst that hopes\nfor its fall should openly be expressed, that the fighters defending\nit should be incited to treason, that the movements of its troops\nshould be communicated to the enemy. Such was the position of Paris\nunder the Commune.\" Such is the position of the Soviet Republic during\nthe two years of its existence.\n\nLet us, however, listen to what Kautsky has to say in this connection.\n\n\"The justification of this system (_i.e._, repressions in connection\nwith the Press) is reduced to the naive idea that an absolute truth\n(!) exists, and that only the Communists possess it (!). Similarly,\"\ncontinues Kautsky, \"it reduces itself to another point of view, that\nall writers are by nature liars (!) and that only Communists are\nfanatics for truth (!). In reality, liars and fanatics for what they\nconsider truth are to be found in all camps.\" And so on, and so on,\nand so on. (Page 176.)\n\nIn this way, in Kautsky's eyes, the revolution, in its most acute\nphase, when it is a question of the life and death of classes,\ncontinues as hitherto to be a literary discussion with the object of\nestablishing ... the truth. What profundity!... Our \"truth,\" of\ncourse, is not absolute. But as in its name we are, at the present\nmoment, shedding our blood, we have neither cause nor possibility to\ncarry on a literary discussion as to the relativity of truth with\nthose who \"criticize\" us with the help of all forms of arms.\nSimilarly, our problem is not to punish liars and to encourage just\nmen amongst journalists of all shades of opinion, but to throttle the\nclass lie of the bourgeoisie and to achieve the class truth of the\nproletariat, irrespective of the fact that in both camps there are\nfanatics and liars.\n\n\"The Soviet Government,\" Kautsky thunders, \"has destroyed the sole\nremedy that might militate against corruption: the freedom of the\nPress. Control by means of unlimited freedom of the Press alone could\nhave restrained those bandits and adventurers who will inevitably\ncling like leeches to every unlimited, uncontrolled power.\" (Page\n188.) And so on.\n\nThe Press as a trusty weapon of the struggle with corruption! This\nliberal recipe sounds particularly pitiful when one remembers the two\ncountries with the greatest \"freedom\" of the Press--North America and\nFrance--which, at the same time, are countries of the most highly\ndeveloped stage of capitalist corruption.\n\nFeeding on the old scandal of the political ante-rooms of the Russian\nrevolution, Kautsky imagines that without Cadet and Menshevik freedom\nthe Soviet apparatus is honey-combed with \"bandits\" and \"adventurers.\"\nSuch was the voice of the Mensheviks a year or eighteen months ago.\nNow even they will not dare to repeat this. With the help of Soviet\ncontrol and party selection, the Soviet Government, in the intense\natmosphere of the struggle, has dealt with the bandits and adventurers\nwho appeared on the surface at the moment of the revolution\nincomparably better than any government whatsoever, at any time\nwhatsoever.\n\nWe are fighting. We are fighting a life-and-death struggle. The Press\nis a weapon not of an abstract society, but of two irreconcilable,\narmed and contending sides. We are destroying the Press of the\ncounter-revolution, just as we destroyed its fortified positions, its\nstores, its communications, and its intelligence system. Are we\ndepriving ourselves of Cadet and Menshevik criticisms of the\ncorruption of the working class? In return we are victoriously\ndestroying the very foundations of capitalist corruption.\n\nBut Kautsky goes further to develop his theme. He complains that we\nsuppress the newspapers of the S.R.s and the Mensheviks, and\neven--such things have been known--arrest their leaders. Are we not\ndealing here with \"shades of opinion\" in the proletarian or the\nSocialist movement? The scholastic pedant does not see facts beyond\nhis accustomed words. The Mensheviks and S.R.s for him are simply\ntendencies in Socialism, whereas, in the course of the revolution,\nthey have been transformed into an organization which works in active\nco-operation with the counter-revolution and carries on against us\nan open war. The army of Kolchak was organized by Socialist\nRevolutionaries (how that name savours to-day of the charlatan!), and\nwas supported by Mensheviks. Both carried on--and carry on--against\nus, for a year and a half, a war on the Northern front. The Mensheviks\nwho rule the Caucasus, formerly the allies of Hohenzollern, and to-day\nthe allies of Lloyd George, arrested and shot Bolsheviks hand in hand\nwith German and British officers. The Mensheviks and S.R.s of the\nKuban Rada organized the army of Denikin. The Esthonian Mensheviks who\nparticipate in their government were directly concerned in the last\nadvance of Yudenich against Petrograd. Such are these \"tendencies\" in\nthe Socialist movement. Kautsky considers that one can be in a state\nof open and civil war with the Mensheviks and S.R.s, who, with the\nhelp of the troops they themselves have organized for Yudenich,\nKolchak and Denikin, are fighting for their \"shade of opinions\" in\nSocialism, and at the same time to allow those innocent \"shades of\nopinion\" freedom of the Press in our rear. If the dispute with the\nS.R.s and the Mensheviks could be settled by means of persuasion and\nvoting--that is, if there were not behind their backs the Russian and\nforeign imperialists--there would be no civil war.\n\nKautsky, of course, is ready to \"condemn\"--an extra drop of ink--the\nblockade, and the Entente support of Denikin, and the White Terror.\nBut in his high impartiality he cannot refuse the latter certain\nextenuating circumstances. The White Terror, you see, does not\ninfringe their own principles, while the Bolsheviks, making use of the\nRed Terror, betray the principle of \"the sacredness of human life\nwhich they themselves proclaimed.\" (Page 210.)\n\nWhat is the meaning of the principle of the sacredness of human life\nin practice, and in what does it differ from the commandment, \"Thou\nshalt not kill,\" Kautsky does not explain. When a murderer raises his\nknife over a child, may one kill the murderer to save the child? Will\nnot thereby the principle of the \"sacredness of human life\" be\ninfringed? May one kill the murderer to save oneself? Is an\ninsurrection of oppressed slaves against their masters permissible?\nIs it permissible to purchase one's freedom at the cost of the\nlife of one's jailers? If human life in general is sacred and\ninviolable, we must deny ourselves not only the use of terror, not\nonly war, but also revolution itself. Kautsky simply does not realize\nthe counter-revolutionary meaning of the \"principle\" which he attempts\nto force upon us. Elsewhere we shall see that Kautsky accuses us of\nconcluding the Brest-Litovsk peace: in his opinion we ought to have\ncontinued war. But what then becomes of the sacredness of human life?\nDoes life cease to be sacred when it is a question of people talking\nanother language, or does Kautsky consider that mass murders organized\non principles of strategy and tactics are not murders at all? Truly it\nis difficult to put forward in our age a principle more hypocritical\nand more stupid. As long as human labor-power, and, consequently, life\nitself, remain articles of sale and purchase, of exploitation and\nrobbery, the principle of the \"sacredness of human life\" remains a\nshameful lie, uttered with the object of keeping the oppressed slaves\nin their chains.\n\nWe used to fight against the death penalty introduced by Kerensky,\nbecause that penalty was inflicted by the courts-martial of the old\narmy on soldiers who refused to continue the imperialist war. We tore\nthis weapon out of the hands of the old courts-martial, destroyed the\ncourts-martial themselves, and demobilized the old army which had\nbrought them forth. Destroying in the Red Army, and generally\nthroughout the country, counter-revolutionary conspirators who strive\nby means of insurrections, murders, and disorganization, to restore\nthe old regime, we are acting in accordance with the iron laws of a\nwar in which we desire to guarantee our victory.\n\nIf it is a question of seeking formal contradictions, then obviously\nwe must do so on the side of the White Terror, which is the weapon of\nclasses which consider themselves \"Christian,\" patronize idealist\nphilosophy, and are firmly convinced that the individuality (their\nown) is an end-in-itself. As for us, we were never concerned with the\nKantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the \"sacredness\nof human life.\" We were revolutionaries in opposition, and have\nremained revolutionaries in power. To make the individual sacred we\nmust destroy the social order which crucifies him. And this problem\ncan only be solved by blood and iron.\n\nThere is another difference between the White Terror and the Red,\nwhich Kautsky to-day ignores, but which in the eyes of a Marxist is\nof decisive significance. The White Terror is the weapon of the\nhistorically reactionary class. When we exposed the futility of the\nrepressions of the bourgeois State against the proletariat, we never\ndenied that by arrests and executions the ruling class, under certain\nconditions, might temporarily retard the development of the social\nrevolution. But we were convinced that they would not be able to\nbring it to a halt. We relied on the fact that the proletariat is the\nhistorically rising class, and that bourgeois society could not\ndevelop without increasing the forces of the proletariat. The\nbourgeoisie to-day is a falling class. It not only no longer plays an\nessential part in production, but by its imperialist methods of\nappropriation is destroying the economic structure of the world and\nhuman culture generally. Nevertheless, the historical persistence of\nthe bourgeoisie is colossal. It holds to power, and does not wish to\nabandon it. Thereby it threatens to drag after it into the abyss the\nwhole of society. We are forced to tear it off, to chop it away. The\nRed Terror is a weapon utilized against a class, doomed to\ndestruction, which does not wish to perish. If the White Terror can\nonly retard the historical rise of the proletariat, the Red Terror\nhastens the destruction of the bourgeoisie. This hastening--a pure\nquestion of acceleration--is at certain periods of decisive\nimportance. Without the Red Terror, the Russian bourgeoisie, together\nwith the world bourgeoisie, would throttle us long before the coming\nof the revolution in Europe. One must be blind not to see this, or a\nswindler to deny it.\n\nThe man who recognizes the revolutionary historic importance of the\nvery fact of the existence of the Soviet system must also sanction the\nRed Terror. Kautsky, who, during the last two years, has covered\nmountains of paper with polemics against Communism and Terrorism, is\nobliged, at the end of his pamphlet, to recognize the facts, and\nunexpectedly to admit that the Russian Soviet Government is to-day the\nmost important factor in the world revolution. \"However one regards\nthe Bolshevik methods,\" he writes, \"the fact that a proletarian\ngovernment in a large country has not only reached power, but has\nretained it for two years up to the present time, amidst great\ndifficulties, extraordinarily increases the sense of power amongst the\nproletariat of all countries. For the actual revolution the Bolsheviks\nhave thereby accomplished a great work--_grosses geleistet_.\" (Page\n233.)\n\nThis announcement stuns us as a completely unexpected recognition of\nhistorical truth from a quarter whence we had long since ceased to\nawait it. The Bolsheviks have accomplished a great historical task by\nexisting for two years against the united capitalist world. But the\nBolsheviks held out not only by ideas, but by the sword. Kautsky's\nadmission is an involuntary sanctioning of the methods of the Red\nTerror, and at the same time the most effective condemnation of his\nown critical concoction.\n\n\nTHE INFLUENCE OF THE WAR\n\nKautsky sees one of the reasons for the extremely bloody character of\nthe revolution in the war and in its hardening influence on manners.\nQuite undeniable. That influence, with all the consequences that\nfollow from it, might have been foreseen earlier--approximately in the\nperiod when Kautsky was not certain whether one ought to vote for the\nwar credits or against them.\n\n\"Imperialism has violently torn society out of its condition of\nunstable equilibrium,\" he wrote five years ago in our German\nbook--_The War and the International_. \"It has blown up the sluices\nwith which Social-Democracy held back the current of the revolutionary\nenergy of the proletariat, and has directed that current into its own\nchannels. This monstrous historical experiment, which at one blow has\nbroken the back of the Socialist International, represents a deadly\ndanger for bourgeoisie society itself. The hammer has been taken from\nthe hand of the worker, and has been replaced by the sword. The\nworker, bound hand and foot by the mechanism of capitalist society,\nhas suddenly burst out of its midst, and is learning to put the aims\nof the community higher than his own domestic happiness and than life\nitself.\n\n\"With this weapon, which he himself has forged, in his hand, the\nworker is placed in a position in which the political destiny of the\nState depends directly on him. Those who in former times oppressed and\ndespised him now flatter and caress him. At the same time he is\nentering into intimate relations with those same guns which, according\nto Lassalle, constitute the most important integral part of the\nconstitution. He crosses the boundaries of states, participates in\nviolent requisitions, and under his blows towns pass from hand to\nhand. Changes take place such as the last generation did not dream of.\n\n\"If the most advanced workers were aware that force was the mother of\nlaw, their political thought still remained saturated with the spirit\nof opportunism and self-adaptation to bourgeois legality. To-day the\nworker has learned in practice to despise that legality, and violently\nto destroy it. The static moments in his psychology are giving place\nto the dynamic. Heavy guns are knocking into his head the idea that,\nin cases where it is impossible to avoid an obstacle, there remains\nthe possibility of destroying it. Nearly the whole adult male\npopulation is passing through this school of war, terrible in its\nsocial realism, which is bringing forth a new type of humanity.\n\n\"Over all the criteria of bourgeois society--its law, its morality,\nits religion--is now raised the fist of iron necessity. 'Necessity\nknows no law' was the declaration of the German Chancellor (August 4,\n1914). Monarchs come out into the market-place to accuse one another\nof lying in the language of fishwives; governments break promises they\nhave solemnly made, while the national church binds its Lord God like\na convict to the national cannon. Is it not obvious that these\ncircumstances must create important alterations in the psychology of\nthe working class, radically curing it of that hypnosis of legality\nwhich was created by the period of political stagnation? The\npropertied classes will soon, to their sorrow, have to be convinced of\nthis. The proletariat, after passing through the school of war, at the\nfirst serious obstacle within its own country will feel the necessity\nof speaking with the language of force. 'Necessity knows no law,' he\nwill throw in the face of those who attempt to stop him by laws of\nbourgeois legality. And the terrible economic necessity which will\narise during the course of this war, and particularly at its end, will\ndrive the masses to spurn very many laws.\" (Page 56-57.)\n\nAll this is undeniable. But to what is said above one must add that\nthe war has exercised no less influence on the psychology of the\nruling classes. As the masses become more insistent in their demands,\nso the bourgeoisie has become more unyielding.\n\nIn times of peace, the capitalists used to guarantee their interests\nby means of the \"peaceful\" robbery of hired labor. During the war they\nserved those same interests by means of the destruction of countless\nhuman lives. This has imparted to their consciousness as a master\nclass a new \"Napoleonic\" trait. The capitalists during the war became\naccustomed to send to their death millions of slaves--fellow-countrymen\nand colonials--for the sake of coal, railway, and other profits.\n\nDuring the war there emerged from the ranks of the bourgeoisie--large,\nmiddle, and small--hundreds of thousands of officers, professional\nfighters, men whose character has received the hardening of battle,\nand has become freed from all external restraints: qualified soldiers,\nready and able to defend the privileged position of the bourgeoisie\nwhich produced them with a ferocity which, in its way, borders on\nheroism.\n\nThe revolution would probably be more humane if the proletariat had\nthe possibility of \"buying off all this band,\" as Marx once put it.\nBut capitalism during the war has imposed upon the toilers too great a\nload of debt, and has too deeply undermined the foundations of\nproduction, for us to be able seriously to contemplate a ransom in\nreturn for which the bourgeoisie would silently make its peace with\nthe revolution. The masses have lost too much blood, have suffered too\nmuch, have become too savage, to accept a decision which economically\nwould be beyond their capacity.\n\nTo this there must be added other circumstances working in the same\ndirection. The bourgeoisie of the conquered countries has been\nembittered by defeat, the responsibility for which it is inclined to\nthrow on the rank and file--on the workers and peasants who proved\nincapable of carrying on \"the great national war\" to a victorious\nconclusion. From this point of view, one finds very instructive those\nexplanations, unparalleled for their effrontery, which Ludendorff gave\nto the Commission of the National Assembly. The bands of Ludendorff\nare burning with the desire to take revenge for their humiliation\nabroad on the blood of their own proletariat. As for the bourgeoisie\nof the victorious countries, it has become inflated with arrogance,\nand is more than ever ready to defend its social position with the\nhelp of the bestial methods which guaranteed its victory. We have seen\nthat the bourgeoisie is incapable of organizing the division of the\nbooty amongst its own ranks without war and destruction. Can it,\nwithout a fight, abandon its booty altogether? The experience of the\nlast five years leaves no doubt whatsoever on this score: if even\npreviously it was absolutely utopian to expect that the expropriation\nof the propertied classes--thanks to \"democracy\"--would take place\nimperceptibly and painlessly, without insurrections, armed conflicts,\nattempts at counter-revolution, and severe repression, the state of\naffairs we have inherited from the imperialist war predetermines,\ndoubly and trebly, the tense character of the civil war and the\ndictatorship of the proletariat.\n\n\n\n\n5\n\nTHE PARIS COMMUNE AND SOVIET RUSSIA\n\n_\"The short episode of the first revolution carried out by the\nproletariat for the proletariat ended in the triumph of its enemy.\nThis episode--from March 18 to May 28--lasted seventy-two days.\"--\"The\nParis Commune\" of March 18, 1871, P. L. Lavrov, Petrograd. 'Kolos'\nPublishing House, 1919, pp. 160._\n\n\nTHE IMMATURITY OF THE SOCIALIST PARTIES IN THE COMMUNE.\n\nThe Paris Commune of 1871 was the first, as yet weak, historic attempt\nof the working class to impose its supremacy. We cherished the memory\nof the Commune in spite of the extremely limited character of its\nexperience, the immaturity of its participants, the confusion of its\nprogramme, the lack of unity amongst its leaders, the indecision of\ntheir plans, the hopeless panic of its executive organs, and the\nterrifying defeat fatally precipitated by all these. We cherish in the\nCommune, in the words of Lavrov, \"the first, though still pale, dawn\nof the proletarian republic.\" Quite otherwise with Kautsky. Devoting a\nconsiderable part of his book to a crudely tendencious contrast\nbetween the Commune and the Soviet power, he sees the main advantages\nof the Commune in features that we find are its misfortune and its\nfault.\n\nKautsky laboriously proves that the Paris Commune of 1871 was not\n\"artificially\" prepared, but emerged unexpectedly, taking the\nrevolutionaries by surprise--in contrast to the November revolution,\nwhich was carefully prepared by our party. This is incontestable. Not\ndaring clearly to formulate his profoundly reactionary ideas, Kautsky\ndoes not say outright whether the Paris revolutionaries of 1871\ndeserve praise for not having foreseen the proletarian insurrection,\nand for not having foreseen the inevitable and consciously gone to\nmeet it. However, all Kautsky's picture was built up in such a way as\nto produce in the reader just this idea: the Communards were simply\novertaken by misfortune (the Bavarian philistine, Vollmar, once\nexpressed his regret that the Communards had not gone to bed instead\nof taking power into their hands), and, therefore, deserve pity. The\nBolsheviks consciously went to meet misfortune (the conquest of\npower), and, therefore, there is no forgiveness for them either in\nthis or the future world. Such a formulation of the question may seem\nincredible in its internal inconsistency. None the less, it follows\nquite inevitably from the position of the Kautskian \"Independents,\"\nwho draw their heads into their shoulders in order to see and foresee\nnothing; and, if they do move forward, it is only after having\nreceived a preliminary stout blow in the rear.\n\n\"To humiliate Paris,\" writes Kautsky, \"not to give it self-government,\nto deprive it of its position as capital, to disarm it in order\nafterwards to attempt with greater confidence a monarchist _coup\nd'etat_--such was the most important task of the National Assembly\nand the chief of the executive power it elected, Thiers. Out of this\nsituation arose the conflict which led to the Paris insurrection.\n\n\"It is clear how different from this was the character of the _coup\nd'etat_ carried out by the Bolsheviks, which drew its strength from\nthe yearning for peace; which had the peasantry behind it; which had\nin the National Assembly against it, not monarchists, but S.R.s and\nMenshevik Social-Democrats.\n\n\"The Bolsheviks came to power by means of a well-prepared _coup\nd'etat_; which at one blow handed over to them the whole machinery\nof the State--immediately utilized in the most energetic and merciless\nmanner for the purpose of suppressing their opponents, amongst them\ntheir proletarian opponents.\n\n\"No one, on the other hand, was more surprised by the insurrection of\nthe Commune than the revolutionaries themselves, and for a\nconsiderable number amongst them the conflict was in the highest\ndegree undesirable.\" (Page 56.)\n\nIn order more clearly to realize the actual sense of what Kautsky has\nwritten here of the Communards, let us bring forward the following\nevidence.\n\n\"On March 1, 1871,\" writes Lavrov, in his very instructive book on the\nCommune, \"six months after the fall of the Empire, and a few days\nbefore the explosion of the Commune, the guiding personalities in the\nParis International still had no definite political programme.\" (Pages\n64-65.)\n\n\"After March 18,\" writes the same author, \"Paris was in the hands of\nthe proletariat, but its leaders, overwhelmed by their unexpected\npower, did not take the most elementary measures.\" (Page 71.)\n\n\"'Your part is too big for you to play, and your sole aim is to get\nrid of responsibility,' said one member of the Central Committee of\nthe National Guard. In this was a great deal of truth,\" writes the\nCommunard and historian of the Commune, Lissagaray. \"But at the moment\nof action itself the absence of preliminary organization and\npreparation is very often a reason why parts are assigned to men which\nare too big for them to play.\" (Brussels, 1876; page 106.)\n\nFrom this one can already see (later on it will become still more\nobvious) that the absence of a direct struggle for power on the part\nof the Paris Socialists was explained by their theoretical\nshapelessness and political helplessness, and not at all by higher\nconsiderations of tactics.\n\nWe have no doubt that Kautsky's own loyalty to the traditions of the\nCommune will be expressed mainly in that extraordinary surprise with\nwhich he will greet the proletarian revolution in Germany as \"a\nconflict in the highest degree undesirable.\" We doubt, however,\nwhether this will be ascribed by posterity to his credit. In reality,\none must describe his historical analogy as a combination of\nconfusion, omission, and fraudulent suggestion.\n\nThe intentions which were entertained by Thiers towards Paris were\nentertained by Miliukov, who was openly supported by Tseretelli and\nChernov, towards Petrograd. All of them, from Kornilov to Potressov,\naffirmed day after day that Petrograd had alienated itself from the\ncountry, had nothing in common with it, was completely corrupted, and\nwas attempting to impose its will upon the community. To overthrow and\nhumiliate Petrograd was the first task of Miliukov and his assistants.\nAnd this took place at a period when Petrograd was the true centre of\nthe revolution, which had not yet been able to consolidate its\nposition in the rest of the country. The former president of the Duma,\nRodzianko, openly talked about handing over Petrograd to the Germans\nfor educative purposes, as Riga had been handed over. Rodzianko only\ncalled by its name what Miliukov was trying to carry out, and what\nKerensky assisted by his whole policy.\n\nMiliukov, like Thiers, wished to disarm the proletariat. More than\nthat, thanks to Kerensky, Chernov, and Tseretelli, the Petrograd\nproletariat was to a considerable extent disarmed in July, 1917. It\nwas partially re-armed during Kornilov's march on Petrograd in August.\nAnd this new arming was a serious element in the preparation of the\nNovember insurrection. In this way, it is just the points in which\nKautsky contrasts our November revolution to the March revolt of the\nParis workers that, to a very large extent, coincide.\n\nIn what, however, lies the difference between them? First of all, in\nthe fact that Thiers' criminal plans succeeded: Paris was throttled by\nhim, and tens of thousands of workers were destroyed. Miliukov, on the\nother hand, had a complete fiasco: Petrograd remained an impregnable\nfortress of the proletariat, and the leader of the bourgeoisie went to\nthe Ukraine to petition that the Kaiser's troops should occupy Russia.\nFor this difference we were to a considerable extent responsible--and\nwe are ready to bear the responsibility. There is a capital difference\nalso in the fact--that this told more than once in the further course\nof events--that, while the Communards began mainly with considerations\nof patriotism, we were invariably guided by the point of view of the\ninternational revolution. The defeat of the Commune led to the\npractical collapse of the First International. The victory of the\nSoviet power has led to the creation of the Third International.\n\nBut Marx--on the eve of the insurrection--advised the Communards not\nto revolt, but to create an organization! One might understand Kautsky\nif he adduced this evidence in order to show that Marx had\ninsufficiently gauged the acuteness of the situation in Paris. But\nKautsky attempts to exploit Marx's advice as a proof of his\ncondemnation of insurrection in general. Like all the mandarins of\nGerman Social-Democracy, Kautsky sees in organization first and\nforemost a method of hindering revolutionary action.\n\nBut limiting ourselves to the question of organization as such, we\nmust not forget that the November revolution was preceded by nine\nmonths of Kerensky's Government, during which our party, not without\nsuccess, devoted itself not only to agitation, but also to\norganization. The November revolution took place after we had achieved\na crushing majority in the Workers' and Soldiers' Councils of\nPetrograd, Moscow, and all the industrial centres in the country, and\nhad transformed the Soviets into powerful organizations directed by\nour party. The Communards did nothing of the kind. Finally, we had\nbehind us the heroic Commune of Paris, from the defeat of which we had\ndrawn the deduction that revolutionaries must foresee events and\nprepare for them. For this also we are to blame.\n\nKautsky requires his extensive comparison of the Commune and Soviet\nRussia only in order to slander and humiliate a living and victorious\ndictatorship of the proletariat in the interests of an attempted\ndictatorship, in the already fairly distant past.\n\nKautsky quotes with extreme satisfaction the statement of the Central\nCommittee of the National Guard on March 19 in connection with the\nmurder of the two generals by the soldiery. \"We say indignantly: the\nbloody filth with the help of which it is hoped to stain our honor is\na pitiful slander. We never organized murder, and never did the\nNational Guard take part in the execution of crime.\"\n\nNaturally, the Central Committee had no cause to assume responsibility\nfor murders with which it had no concern. But the sentimental,\npathetic tone of the statement very clearly characterises the\npolitical timorousness of these men in the face of bourgeois public\nopinion. Nor is this surprising. The representatives of the National\nGuard were men in most cases with a very modest revolutionary past.\n\"Not one well-known name,\" writes Lissagaray. \"They were petty\nbourgeois shop-keepers, strangers to all but limited circles, and, in\nmost cases, strangers hitherto to politics.\" (Page 70.)\n\n\"The modest and, to some extent, fearful sense of terrible historical\nresponsibility, and the desire to get rid of it as soon as possible,\"\nwrites Lavrov of them, \"is evident in all the proclamations of this\nCentral Committee, into the hands of which the destiny of Paris had\nfallen.\" (Page 77.)\n\nAfter bringing forward, to our confusion, the declamation concerning\nbloodshed, Kautsky later on follows Marx and Engels in criticizing the\nindecision of the Commune. \"If the Parisians (_i.e._, the Communards)\nhad persistently followed up the tracts of Thiers, they would,\nperhaps, have managed to seize the government. The troops falling back\nfrom Paris would not have shown the least resistance ... but they let\nThiers go without hindrance. They allowed him to lead away his troops\nand reorganize them at Versailles, to inspire a new spirit in, and\nstrengthen, them.\" (Page 49.)\n\nKautsky cannot understand that it was the same men, and for the very\nsame reasons, who published the statement of March 19 quoted above,\nwho allowed Thiers to leave Paris with impunity and gather his forces.\nIf the Communards had _conquered_ with the help of resources of a\npurely moral character, their statement would have acquired great\nweight. But this did not take place. In reality, their sentimental\nhumaneness was simply the obverse of their revolutionary passivity.\nThe men who, by the will of fate, had received power in Paris, could\nnot understand the necessity of immediately utilizing that power to\nthe end, of hurling themselves after Thiers, and, before he recovered\nhis grasp of the situation, of crushing him, of concentrating the\ntroops in their hands, of carrying out the necessary weeding-out of\nthe officer class, of seizing the provinces. Such men, of course, were\nnot inclined to severe measures with counter-revolutionary elements.\nThe one was closely bound up with the other. Thiers could not be\nfollowed up without arresting Thiers' agents in Paris and shooting\nconspirators and spies. When one considered the execution of\ncounter-revolutionary generals as an indelible \"crime,\" one could not\ndevelop energy in following up troops who were under the direction of\ncounter-revolutionary generals.\n\nIn the revolution in the highest degree of energy is the highest\ndegree of humanity. \"Just the men,\" Lavrov justly remarks, \"who hold\nhuman life and human blood dear must strive to organize the\npossibility for a swift and decisive victory, and then to act with the\ngreatest swiftness and energy, in order to crush the enemy. For only\nin this way can we achieve the minimum of inevitable sacrifice and the\nminimum of bloodshed.\" (Page 225.)\n\nThe statement of March 19 will, however, be considered with more\njustice if we examine it, not as an unconditional confession of faith,\nbut as the expression of transient moods the day after an unexpected\nand bloodless victory. Being an absolute stranger to the understanding\nof the dynamics of revolution, and the internal limitations of its\nswiftly-developing moods, Kautsky thinks in lifeless schemes, and\ndistorts the perspective of events by arbitrarily selected analogies.\nHe does not understand that soft-hearted indecision is generally\ncharacteristic of the masses in the first period of the revolution.\nThe workers pursue the offensive only under the pressure of iron\nnecessity, just as they have recourse to the Red Terror only under the\nthreat of destruction by the White Guards. That which Kautsky\nrepresents as the result of the peculiarly elevated moral feeling of\nthe Parisian proletariat in 1871 is, in reality, merely a\ncharacteristic of the first stage of the civil war. A similar\nphenomenon could have been witnessed in our case.\n\nIn Petrograd we conquered power in November, 1917, almost without\nbloodshed, and even without arrests. The ministers of Kerensky's\nGovernment were set free very soon after the revolution. More, the\nCossack General, Krasnov, who had advanced on Petrograd together with\nKerensky after the power had passed to the Soviet, and who had been\nmade prisoner by us at Gatchina, was set free on his word of honor the\nnext day. This was \"generosity\" quite in the spirit of the first\nmeasures of the Commune. But it was a mistake. Afterwards, General\nKrasnov, after fighting against us for about a year in the South, and\ndestroying many thousands of Communists, again advanced on Petrograd,\nthis time in the ranks of Yudenich's army. The proletarian revolution\nassumed a more severe character only after the rising of the junkers\nin Petrograd, and particularly after the rising of the Czecho-Slovaks\non the Volga organized by the Cadets, the S.R.s, and the Mensheviks,\nafter their mass executions of Communists, the attempt on Lenin's\nlife, the murder of Uritsky, etc., etc.\n\nThe same tendencies, only in an embryonic form, we see in the history\nof the Commune.\n\nDriven by the logic of the struggle, it took its stand in principle on\nthe path of intimidation. The creation of the Committee of Public\nSafety was dictated, in the case of many of its supporters, by the\nidea of the Red Terror. The Committee was appointed \"to cut off the\nheads of traitors\" (Journal Officiel No. 123), \"to avenge treachery\"\n(No. 124). Under the head of \"intimidatory\" decrees we must class the\norder to seize the property of Thiers and of his ministers, to destroy\nThiers' house, to destroy the Vendome column, and especially the\ndecree on hostages. For every captured Communard or sympathizer with\nthe Commune shot by the Versaillese, three hostages were to be shot.\nThe activity of the Prefecture of Paris controlled by Raoul Rigault\nhad a purely terroristic, though not always a useful, purpose.\n\nThe effect of all these measures of intimidation was paralyzed by the\nhelpless opportunism of the guiding elements in the Commune, by their\nstriving to reconcile the bourgeoisie with the _fait accompli_ by\nthe help of pitiful phrases, by their vacillations between the fiction\nof democracy and the reality of dictatorship. The late Lavrov\nexpresses the latter idea splendidly in his book on the Commune.\n\n\"The Paris of the rich bourgeois and the poor proletarians, as a\npolitical community of different classes, demanded, in the name of\nliberal principles, complete freedom of speech, of assembly, of\ncriticism of the government, etc. The Paris which had accomplished the\nrevolution in the interests of the proletariat, and had before it the\ntask of realizing this revolution in the shape of institutions, Paris,\nas the community of the emancipated working-class proletariat,\ndemanded revolutionary--_i.e._, dictatorial, measures against the\nenemies of the new order.\" (Pages 143-144.)\n\nIf the Paris Commune had not fallen, but had continued to exist in the\nmidst of a ceaseless struggle, there can be no doubt that it would\nhave been obliged to have recourse to more and more severe measures\nfor the suppression of the counter-revolution. True, Kautsky would not\nthen have had the possibility of contrasting the humane Communards\nwith the inhumane Bolsheviks. But in return, probably, Thiers, would\nnot have had the possibility of inflicting his monstrous bloodletting\nupon the proletariat of Paris. History, possibly, would not have been\nthe loser.\n\n\nTHE IRRESPONSIBLE CENTRAL COMMITTEE AND THE \"DEMOCRATIC\" COMMUNE\n\n\"On March 19,\" Kautsky informs us, \"in the Central Committee of the\nNational Guard, some demanded a march on Versailles, others an appeal\nto the electors, and a third party the adoption first of all of\nrevolutionary measures; as if every one of these steps,\" he proceeds\nvery learnedly to inform us, \"were not equally necessary, and as if\none excluded the other.\" (Page 72.) Further on, Kautsky, in connection\nwith these disputes in the Commune, presents us with various warmed-up\nplatitudes as to the mutual relations of reform and revolution. In\nreality, the following was the situation. If it were decided to march\non Versailles, and to do this without losing an hour it was necessary\nimmediately to reorganize the National Guard, to place at its head the\nbest fighting elements of the Paris proletariat, and thereby\ntemporarily to weaken Paris from the revolutionary point of view. But\nto organize elections in Paris, while at the same time sending out of\nits walls the flower of the working class, would have been senseless\nfrom the point of view of the revolutionary party. Theoretically, a\nmarch on Versailles and elections to the Commune, of course, did not\nexclude each other in the slightest degree, but in practice they did\nexclude each other: for the success of the elections, it was necessary\nto postpone the attack; for the attack to succeed, the elections must\nbe put off. Finally, leading the proletariat out to the field and\nthereby temporarily weakening Paris, it was essential to obtain some\nguarantee against the possibility of counter-revolutionary attempts in\nthe capital; for Thiers would not have hesitated at any measures to\nraise a white revolt in the rear of the Communards. It was essential\nto establish a more military--_i.e._, a more stringent regime in\nthe capital. \"They had to fight,\" writes Lavrov, \"against many\ninternal foes with whom Paris was full, who only yesterday had been\nrioting around the Exchange and the Vendome Square, who had their\nrepresentatives in the administration and in the National Guard, who\npossessed their press, and their meetings, who almost openly\nmaintained contact with the Versaillese, and who became more\ndetermined and more audacious at every piece of carelessness, at every\ncheck of the Commune.\" (Page 87.)\n\nIt was necessary, side by side with this, to carry out revolutionary\nmeasures of a financial and generally of an economic character: first\nand foremost, for the equipment of the revolutionary army. All these\nmost necessary measures of revolutionary dictatorship could with\ndifficulty be reconciled with an extensive electoral campaign. But\nKautsky has not the least idea of what a revolution is in practice. He\nthinks that theoretically to reconcile is the same as practically to\naccomplish.\n\nThe Central Committee appointed March 22 as the day of elections for\nthe Commune; but, not sure of itself, frightened at its own\nillegality, striving to act in unison with more \"legal\" institutions,\nentered into ridiculous and endless negotiations with a quite helpless\nassembly of mayors and deputies of Paris, showing its readiness to\ndivide power with them if only an agreement could be arrived at.\nMeanwhile precious time was slipping by.\n\nMarx, on whom Kautsky, through old habit, tries to rely, did not under\nany circumstances propose that, at one and the same time, the Commune\nshould be elected and the workers should be led out into the field for\nthe war. In his letter to Kugelmann, Marx wrote, on April 12, 1871,\nthat the Central Committee of the National Guard had too soon given up\nits power in favor of the Commune. Kautsky, in his own words, \"does\nnot understand\" this opinion of Marx. It is quite simple. Marx at any\nrate understood that the problem was not one of chasing legality, but\nof inflicting a fatal blow upon the enemy. \"If the Central Committee\nhad consisted of real revolutionaries,\" says Lavrov, and rightly, \"it\nought to have acted differently. It would have been quite unforgivable\nfor it to have given the enemy ten days' respite before the election\nand assembly of the Commune, while the leaders of the proletariat\nrefused to carry out their duty and did not recognize that they had\nthe right immediately to _lead_ the proletariat. As it was, the\nfeeble immaturity of the popular parties created a Committee which\nconsidered those ten days of inaction incumbent upon it.\" (Page 78.)\n\nThe yearning of the Central Committee to hand over power as soon as\npossible to a \"legal\" Government was dictated, not so much by the\nsuperstitions of former democracy, of which, by the way, there was no\nlack, as by fear of responsibility. Under the plea that it was a\ntemporary institution, the Central Committee avoided the taking of the\nmost necessary and absolutely pressing measures, in spite of the fact\nthat all the material apparatus of power was centred in its hands. But\nthe Commune itself did not take over political power in full from the\nCentral Committee, and the latter continued to interfere in all\nbusiness quite unceremoniously. This created a dual Government, which\nwas extremely dangerous, particularly under military conditions.\n\nOn May 3 the Central Committee sent deputies to the Commune demanding\nthat the Ministry for War should be placed under its control. Again\nthere arose, as Lissagaray writes, the question as to whether \"the\nCentral Committee should be dissolved, or arrested, or entrusted with\nthe administration of the Ministry for War.\"\n\nHere was a question, not of the principles of democracy, but of the\nabsence, in the case of both parties, of a clear programme of action,\nand of the readiness, both of the irresponsible revolutionary\norganizations in the shape of the Central Committee and of the\n\"democratic\" organization of the Commune, to shift the responsibility\non to the other's shoulders, while at the same time not entirely\nrenouncing power.\n\nThese were political relations which it might seem no one could call\nworthy of imitation.\n\n\"But the Central Committee,\" Kautsky consoles himself, \"never\nattempted to infringe the principle in virtue of which the supreme\npower must belong to the delegates elected by universal suffrage.\" In\nthis respect the \"Paris Commune was the direct antithesis of the\nSoviet Republic.\" (Page 74.) There was no unity of government, there\nwas no revolutionary decision, there existed a division of power, and,\nas a result, there came swift and terrible destruction. But to\ncounter-balance this--is it not comforting?--there was no infringement\nof the \"principle\" of democracy.\n\n\nTHE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNE AND THE REVOLUTIONARY DICTATORSHIP\n\nComrade Lenin has already pointed out to Kautsky that attempts to\ndepict the Commune as the expression of formal democracy constitute a\npiece of absolute theoretical swindling. The Commune, in its tradition\nand in the conception of its leading political party--the Blanquists--was\nthe expression of _the dictatorship of the revolutionary city over the\ncountry_. So it was in the great French Revolution; so it would have\nbeen in the revolution of 1871 if the Commune had not fallen in the\nfirst days. The fact that in Paris itself a Government was elected\non the basis of universal suffrage does not exclude a much more\nsignificant fact--namely, that of the military operations carried on\nby the Commune, one city, against peasant France, that is the whole\ncountry. To satisfy the great democrat, Kautsky, the revolutionaries\nof the Commune ought, as a preliminary, to have consulted, by means of\nuniversal suffrage, the whole population of France as to whether it\npermitted them to carry on a war with Thiers' bands.\n\nFinally, in Paris itself the elections took place after the\nbourgeoisie, or at least its most active elements, had fled, and after\nThiers' troops had been evacuated. The bourgeoisie that remained in\nParis, in spite of all its impudence, was still afraid of the\nrevolutionary battalions, and the elections took place under the\nauspices of that fear, which was the forerunner of what in the future\nwould have been inevitable--namely, of the Red Terror. But to console\noneself with the thought that the Central Committee of the National\nGuard, under the dictatorship of which--unfortunately a very feeble\nand formalist dictatorship--the elections to the Commune were held,\ndid not infringe the principle of universal suffrage, is truly to\nbrush with the shadow of a broom.\n\nAmusing himself by barren analogies, Kautsky benefits by the\ncircumstance that his reader is not acquainted with the facts. In\nPetrograd, in November, 1917, we also elected a Commune (Town Council)\non the basis of the most \"democratic\" voting, without limitations for\nthe bourgeoisie. These elections, being boycotted by the bourgeoisie\nparties, gave us a crushing majority. The \"democratically\" elected\nCouncil voluntarily submitted to the Petrograd Soviet--_i.e._, placed\nthe fact of the dictatorship of the proletariat higher than the\n\"principle\" of universal suffrage, and, after a short time, dissolved\nitself altogether by its own act, in favor of one of the sections of\nthe Petrograd Soviet. Thus the Petrograd Soviet--that true father of\nthe Soviet regime--has upon itself the seal of a formal \"democratic\"\nbenediction in no way less than the Paris Commune.[6]\n\n          [6] It is not without interest to observe that in the\n          Communal elections of 1871 in Paris there participated\n          230,000 electors. At the Town elections of November, 1917,\n          in Petrograd, in spite of the boycott of the election on the\n          part of all parties except ourselves and the Left Social\n          Revolutionaries, who had no influence in the capital, there\n          participated 390,000 electors. In Paris, in 1871, the\n          population numbered two millions. In Petrograd, in November,\n          1917, there were not more than two millions. It must be\n          noticed that our electoral system was infinitely more\n          democratic. The Central Committee of the National Guard\n          carried out the elections on the basis of the electoral law\n          of the empire.\n\n\"At the elections of March 26, eighty members were elected to the\nCommune. Of these, fifteen were members of the government party\n(Thiers), and six were bourgeois radicals who were in opposition to\nthe Government, but condemned the rising (of the Paris workers).\n\n\"The Soviet Republic,\" Kautsky teaches us, \"would never have allowed\nsuch counter-revolutionary elements to stand as candidates, let alone\nbe elected. The Commune, on the other hand, out of respect for\ndemocracy, did not place the least obstacle in the way of the election\nof its bourgeois opponents.\" (Page 74.)\n\nWe have already seen above that here Kautsky completely misses the\nmark. First of all, at a similar stage of development of the Russian\nRevolution, there did not take place democratic elections to the\nPetrograd Commune, in which the Soviet Government placed no obstacle\nin the way of the bourgeois parties; and if the Cadets, the S.R.s and\nthe Mensheviks, who had their press which was openly calling for the\noverthrow of the Soviet Government, boycotted the elections, it was\nonly because at that time they still hoped soon to make an end of us\nwith the help of armed force. Secondly, no democracy expressing all\nclasses was actually to be found in the Paris Commune. The bourgeois\ndeputies--Conservatives, Liberals, Gambettists--found no place in it.\n\n\"Nearly all these individuals,\" says Lavrov, \"either immediately or\nvery soon, left the Council of the Commune. They might have been\nrepresentatives of Paris as a free city under the rule of the\nbourgeoisie, but were quite out of place in the Council of the\nCommune, which, willy-nilly, consistently or inconsistently,\ncompletely or incompletely, did represent the revolution of the\nproletariat, and an attempt, feeble though it might be, of building up\nforms of society corresponding to that revolution.\" (Pages 111-112.)\nIf the Petrograd bourgeoisie had not boycotted the municipal\nelections, its representatives would have entered the Petrograd\nCouncil. They would have remained there up to the first Social\nRevolutionary and Cadet rising, after which--with the permission or\nwithout the permission of Kautsky--they would probably have been\narrested if they did not leave the Council in good time, as at a\ncertain moment did the bourgeois members of the Paris Commune. The\ncourse of events would have remained the same: only on their surface\nwould certain episodes have worked out differently.\n\nIn supporting the democracy of the Commune, and at the same time\naccusing it of an insufficiently decisive note in its attitude to\nVersailles, Kautsky does not understand that the Communal elections,\ncarried out with the ambiguous help of the \"lawful\" mayors and\ndeputies, reflected the hope of a peaceful agreement with Versailles.\nThis is the whole point. The leaders were anxious for a compromise,\nnot for a struggle. The masses had not yet outlived their illusions.\nUndeserved revolutionary reputations had not yet had time to be\nexposed. Everything taken together was called democracy.\n\n\"We must rise above our enemies by moral force....\" preached Vermorel.\n\"We must not infringe liberty and individual life....\" Striving to\navoid fratricidal war, Vermorel called upon the liberal bourgeoisie,\nwhom hitherto he had so mercilessly exposed, to set up \"a lawful\nGovernment, recognized and respected by the whole population of\nParis.\" The _Journal Officiel_, published under the editorship of\nthe Internationalist Longuet, wrote: \"The sad misunderstanding, which\nin the June days (1848) armed two classes of society against each\nother, cannot be renewed.... Class antagonism has ceased to exist....\"\n(March 30.) And, further: \"Now all conflicts will be appeased, because\nall are inspired with a feeling of solidarity, because never yet was\nthere so little social hatred and social antagonism.\" (April 3.)\n\nAt the session of the Commune of April 25, Jourde, and not without\nfoundation, congratulated himself on the fact that the Commune had\n\"never yet infringed the principle of private property.\" By this means\nthey hoped to win over bourgeois public opinion and find the path to\ncompromise.\n\n\"Such a doctrine,\" says Lavrov, and rightly, \"did not in the least\ndisarm the enemies of the proletariat, who understood excellently with\nwhat its success threatened them, and only sapped the proletarian\nenergy and, as it were, deliberately blinded it in the face of its\nirreconcilable enemies.\" (Page 137.) But this enfeebling doctrine was\ninextricably bound up with the fiction of democracy. The form of mock\nlegality it was that allowed them to think that the problem would be\nsolved without a struggle. \"As far as the mass of the population is\nconcerned,\" writes Arthur Arnould, a member of the Commune, \"it was to\na certain extent justified in the belief in the existence of, at the\nvery least, a hidden agreement with the Government.\" Unable to attract\nthe bourgeoisie, the compromisers, as always, deceived the\nproletariat.\n\nThe clearest evidence of all that, in the conditions of the inevitable\nand already beginning civil war, democratic parliamentarism expressed\nonly the compromising helplessness of the leading groups, was the\nsenseless procedure of the supplementary elections to the Commune of\nApril 6. At this moment, \"it was no longer a question of voting,\"\nwrites Arthur Arnould. \"The situation had become so tragic that there\nwas not either the time or the calmness necessary for the correct\nfunctioning of the elections.... All persons devoted to the Commune\nwere on the fortifications, in the forts, in the foremost\ndetachments.... The people attributed no importance whatever to these\nsupplementary elections. The elections were in reality merely\nparliamentarism. What was required was not to count voters, but to\nhave soldiers: not to discover whether we had lost or gained in the\nCommune of Paris, but to defend Paris from the Versaillese.\" From\nthese words Kautsky might have observed why in practice it is not so\nsimple to combine class war with interclass democracy.\n\n\"The Commune is not a Constituent Assembly,\" wrote in his book,\nMilliere, one of the best brains of the Commune. \"It is a military\nCouncil. It must have one aim, victory; one weapon, force; one law,\nthe law of social salvation.\"\n\n\"They could never understand,\" Lissagaray accuses the leaders, \"that\nthe Commune was a barricade, and not an administration.\"\n\nThey began to understand it in the end, when it was too late. Kautsky\nhas not understood it to this day. There is no reason to believe that\nhe will ever understand it.\n\n                 *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Commune was the living negation of formal democracy, for in its\ndevelopment it signified the dictatorship of working class Paris over\nthe peasant country. It is this fact that dominates all the rest.\nHowever much the political doctrinaires, in the midst of the Commune\nitself, clung to the appearances of democratic legality, every action\nof the Commune, though insufficient for victory, was sufficient to\nreveal its illegal nature.\n\nThe Commune--that is to say, the Paris City Council--repealed the\nnational law concerning conscription. It called its official organ\n_The Official Journal of the French Republic_. Though cautiously,\nit still laid hands on the State Bank. It proclaimed the separation of\nChurch and State, and abolished the Church Budgets. It entered into\nrelations with various embassies. And so on, and so on. It did all\nthis in virtue of the revolutionary dictatorship. But Clemenceau,\nyoung democrat as he was then, would not recognize that virtue.\n\nAt a conference with the Central Committee, Clemenceau said: \"The\nrising had an unlawful beginning.... Soon the Committee will become\nridiculous, and its decrees will be despised. Besides, Paris has not\nthe right to rise against France, and must unconditionally accept the\nauthority of the Assembly.\"\n\nThe problem of the Commune was to dissolve the National Assembly.\nUnfortunately it did not succeed in doing so. To-day Kautsky seeks to\ndiscover for its criminal intentions some mitigating circumstances.\n\nHe points out that the Communards had as their opponents in the\nNational Assembly the monarchists, while we in the Constituent\nAssembly had against us ... Socialists, in the persons of the S.R.s,\nand the Mensheviks. A complete mental eclipse! Kautsky talks about the\nMensheviks and the S.R.s, but forgets our sole serious foe--the\nCadets. It was they who represented our Russian Thiers party--_i.e._,\na bloc of property owners in the name of property: and Professor\nMiliukov did his utmost to imitate the \"little great man.\" Very soon\nindeed--long before the October Revolution--Miliukov began to seek his\nGallifet in the generals Kornilov, Alexeiev, then Kaledin, Krasnov, in\nturn. And after Kolchak had thrown aside all political parties, and\nhad dissolved the Constituent Assembly, the Cadet Party, the sole\nserious bourgeois party, in its essence monarchist through and\nthrough, not only did not refuse to support him, but on the contrary\ndevoted more sympathy to him than before.\n\nThe Mensheviks and the S.R.s played no independent role amongst\nus--just like Kautsky's party during the revolutionary events\nin Germany. They based their whole policy upon a coalition with\nthe Cadets, and thereby put the Cadets in a position to dictate\nquite irrespective of the balance of political forces. The\nSocialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik Parties were only an\nintermediary apparatus for the purpose of collecting, at meetings\nand elections, the political confidence of the masses awakened\nby the revolution, and for handing it over for disposal by the\ncounter-revolutionary imperialist party of the Cadets--independently\nof the issue of the elections.\n\nThe purely vassal-like dependence of the S.R.s and Menshevik _majority_\non the Cadet _minority_ itself represented a very thinly-veiled\ninsult to the idea of \"democracy.\" But this is not all.\n\nIn all districts of the country where the regime of \"democracy\" lived\ntoo long, it inevitably ended in an open _coup d'etat_ of the\ncounter-revolution. So it was in the Ukraine, where the democratic\nRada, having sold the Soviet Government to German imperialism, found\nitself overthrown by the monarchist Skoropadsky. So it was in the\nKuban, where the democratic Rada found itself under the heel of\nDenikin. So it was--and this was the most important experiment of our\n\"democracy\"--in Siberia, where the Constituent Assembly, with the\nformal supremacy of the S.R.s and the Mensheviks, in the absence of\nthe Bolsheviks, and the _de facto_ guidance of the Cadets, led in\nthe end to the dictatorship of the Tsarist Admiral Kolchak. So it was,\nfinally, in the north, where the Constituent Assembly government of\nthe Socialist-Revolutionary Chaikovsky became merely a tinsel\ndecoration for the rule of counter-revolutionary generals, Russian and\nBritish. So it was, or is, in all the small Border States--in Finland,\nEsthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Georgia, Armenia--where, under\nthe formal banner of \"democracy,\" there is being consolidated the\nsupremacy of the landlords, the capitalists, and the foreign\nmilitarists.\n\n\nTHE PARIS WORKER OF 1871 AND THE PETROGRAD PROLETARIAN OF 1917\n\nOne of the most coarse, unfounded, and politically disgraceful\ncomparisons which Kautsky makes between the Commune and Soviet Russia\nis touching the character of the Paris worker in 1871 and the Russian\nproletarian of 1917-19. The first Kautsky depicts as a revolutionary\nenthusiast capable of a high measure of self-sacrifice; the second, as\nan egoist and a coward, an irresponsible anarchist.\n\nThe Parisian worker has behind him too definite a past to need\nrevolutionary recommendations--or protection from the praises of the\npresent Kautsky. None the less, the Petrograd proletarian has not, and\ncannot have, any reason for avoiding a comparison with his heroic\nelder brother. The continuous three years' struggle of the Petrograd\nworkers--first for the conquest of power, and then for its maintenance\nand consolidation--represents an exceptional story of collective\nheroism and self-sacrifice, amidst unprecedented tortures in the shape\nof hunger, cold, and constant perils.\n\nKautsky, as we can discover in another connection, takes for contrast\nwith the flower of the Communards the most sinister elements of the\nRussian proletariat. In this respect also he is in no way different\nfrom the bourgeois sycophants, to whom dead Communards always appear\ninfinitely more attractive than the living.\n\nThe Petrograd proletariat seized power four and a half decades after\nthe Parisian. This period has told enormously in our favor. The\npetty bourgeois craft character of old and partly of new Paris is\nquite foreign to Petrograd, the centre of the most concentrated\nindustry in the world. The latter circumstances has extremely\nfacilitated our tasks of agitation and organization, as well as the\nsetting up of the Soviet system.\n\nOur proletariat did not have even a faint measure of the rich\nrevolutionary traditions of the French proletariat. But, instead,\nthere was still very fresh in the memory of the older generation of\nour workers, at the beginning of the present revolution, the great\nexperiment of 1905, its failure, and the duty of vengeance it had\nhanded down.\n\nThe Russian workers had not, like the French, passed through a long\nschool of democracy and parliamentarism, which at a certain epoch\nrepresented an important factor in the political education of the\nproletariat. But, on the other hand, the Russian working class had not\nhad seared into its soul the bitterness of dissolution and the poison\nof scepticism, which up to a certain, and--let us hope--not very\ndistant moment, still restrain the revolutionary will of the French\nproletariat.\n\nThe Paris Commune suffered a military defeat before economic problems\nhad arisen before it in their full magnitude. In spite of the splendid\nfighting qualities of the Paris workers, the military fate of the\nCommune was at once determined as hopeless. Indecision and\ncompromise-mongering above brought about collapse below.\n\nThe pay of the National Guard was issued on the basis of the existence\nof 162,000 rank and file and 6,500 officers; the number of those who\nactually went into battle, especially after the unsuccessful sortie of\nApril 3, varied between twenty and thirty thousand.\n\nThese facts do not in the least compromise the Paris workers, and do\nnot give us the right to consider them cowards and deserters--although,\nof course, there was no lack of desertion. For a fighting army there\nmust be, first of all, a centralized and accurate apparatus of\nadministration. Of this the Commune had not even a trace.\n\nThe War Department of the Commune, was, in the expression of one\nwriter, as it were a dark room, in which all collided. The office of\nthe Ministry was filled with officers and ordinary Guards, who\ndemanded military supplies and food, and complained that they were not\nrelieved. They were sent to the garrison....\n\n\"One battalion remained in the trenches for 20 and 30 days, while\nothers were constantly in reserve.... This carelessness soon killed\nany discipline. Courageous men soon determined to rely only on\nthemselves; others avoided service. In the same way did officers\nbehave. One would leave his post to go to the help of a neighbor who\nwas under fire; others went away to the city....\" (Lavrov, page 100.)\n\nSuch a regime could not remain unpunished; the Commune was drowned in\nblood. But in this connection Kautsky has a marvelous solution.\n\n\"The waging of war,\" he says, sagely shaking his head, \"is, after all,\nnot a strong side of the proletariat.\" (Page 76.)\n\nThis aphorism, worthy of Pangloss, is fully on a level with the other\ngreat remark of Kautsky, namely, that the International is not a\nsuitable weapon to use in wartime, being in its essence an \"instrument\nof peace.\"\n\nIn these two aphorisms, in reality, may be found the present Kautsky,\ncomplete, in his entirety--_i.e._, just a little over a round\nzero.\n\nThe waging of war, do you see, is on the whole, not a strong side of\nthe proletariat, the more that the International itself was not\ncreated for wartime. Kautsky's ship was built for lakes and quiet\nharbors, not at all for the open sea, and not for a period of storms.\nIf that ship has sprung a leak, and has begun to fill, and is now\ncomfortably going to the bottom, we must throw all the blame upon the\nstorm, the unnecessary mass of water, the extraordinary size of the\nwaves, and a series of other unforeseen circumstances for which\nKautsky did not build his marvelous instrument.\n\nThe international proletariat put before itself as its problem the\nconquest of power. Independently of whether civil war, \"generally,\"\nbelongs to the inevitable attributes of revolution, \"generally,\" this\nfact remains unquestioned--that the advance of the proletariat, at\nany rate in Russia, Germany, and parts of former Austro-Hungary, took\nthe form of an intense civil war not only on internal but also on\nexternal fronts. If the waging of war is not the strong side of the\nproletariat, while the workers' International is suited only for\npeaceful epochs, then we may as well erect a cross over the revolution\nand over Socialism; for the waging of war is a fairly _strong_ side\nof the capitalist State, which _without_ a war will not admit the\nworkers to supremacy. In that case there remains only to proclaim the\nso-called \"Socialist\" democracy to be merely the accompanying feature\nof capitalist society and bourgeois parliamentarism--_i.e._, openly to\nsanction what the Eberts, Schneidermanns, Renaudels, carry out in\npractice and what Kautsky still, it seems, protests against in words.\n\nThe waging of war was not a strong side of the Commune. Quite so; that\nwas why it was crushed. And how mercilessly crushed!\n\n\"We have to recall the proscriptions of Sulla, Antony, and Octavius,\"\nwrote in his time the very moderate liberal, Fiaux, \"to meet such\nmassacres in the history of civilized nations. The religious wars\nunder the last Valois, the night of St. Bartholomew, the Reign of\nTerror were, in comparison with it, child's play. In the last week of\nMay alone, in Paris, 17,000 corpses of the insurgent Federals were\npicked up ... the killing was still going on about June 15.\"\n\n\"The waging of war, after all, is not the strong side of the\nproletariat.\"\n\nIt is not true! The Russian workers have shown that they are capable\nof wielding the \"instrument of war\" as well. We see here a gigantic\nstep forward in comparison with the Commune. It is not a renunciation\nof the Commune--for the traditions of the Commune consist not at all\nin its helplessness--but the continuation of its work. The Commune was\nweak. To complete its work we have become strong. The Commune was\ncrushed. We are inflicting blow after blow upon the executioners of\nthe Commune. We are taking vengeance for the Commune, and we shall\navenge it.\n\n                 *       *       *       *       *\n\nOut of 167,000 National Guards who received pay, only twenty or thirty\nthousand went into battle. These figures serve as interesting material\nfor conclusions as to the role of formal democracy in a revolutionary\nepoch. The vote of the Paris Commune was decided, not at the\nelections, but in the battles with the troops of Thiers. One hundred\nand sixty-seven thousand National Guards represented the great mass of\nthe electorate. But in reality, in the battles, the fate of the\nCommune was decided by twenty or thirty thousand persons; the most\ndevoted fighting minority. This minority did not stand alone: it\nsimply expressed, in a more courageous and self-sacrificing manner,\nthe will of the majority. But none the less it was a minority. The\nothers who hid at the critical moment were not hostile to the Commune;\non the contrary, they actively or passively supported it, but they\nwere less politically conscious, less decisive. On the arena of\npolitical democracy, their lower level of political consciousness\nafforded the possibility of their being deceived by adventurers,\nswindlers, middle-class cheats, and honest dullards who really\ndeceived themselves. But, at the moment of open class war, they, to a\ngreater or lesser degree, followed the self-sacrificing minority. It\nwas this that found its expression in the organization of the National\nGuard. If the existence of the Commune had been prolonged, this\nrelationship between the advance guard and the mass of the proletariat\nwould have grown more and more firm.\n\nThe organization which would have been formed and consolidated in the\nprocess of the open struggle, as the organization of the laboring\nmasses, would have become the organization of their dictatorship--the\nCouncil of Deputies of the armed proletariat.\n\n\n\n\n6\n\nMARX AND ... KAUTSKY.\n\n\nKautsky loftily sweeps aside Marx's views on terror, expressed by him\nin the _Neue Rheinische Zeitung_--as at that time, do you see, Marx\nwas still very \"young,\" and consequently his views had not yet had\ntime to arrive at that condition of complete enfeeblement which is so\nclearly to be observed in the case of certain theoreticians in the\nseventh decade of their life. As a contrast to the green Marx of\n1848-49 (the author of the _Communist Manifesto_!) Kautsky quotes the\nmature Marx of the epoch of the Paris Commune--and the latter, under\nthe pen of Kautsky, loses his great lion's mane, and appears before us\nas an extremely respectable reasoner, bowing before the holy places\nof democracy, declaiming on the sacredness of human life, and filled\nwith all due reverence for the political charms of Schneidermann,\nVandervelde, and particularly of his own physical grandson, Jean\nLonguet. In a word, Marx, instructed by the experience of life, proves\nto be a well-behaved Kautskian.\n\nFrom the deathless _Civil War in France_, the pages of which have been\nfilled with a new and intense life in our own epoch, Kautsky has\nquoted only those lines in which the mighty theoretician of the social\nrevolution contrasted the generosity of the Communards with the\nbourgeois ferocity of the Versaillese. Kautsky has devastated these\nlines and made them commonplace. Marx, as the preacher of detached\nhumanity, as the apostle of general love of mankind! Just as if we\nwere talking about Buddha or Leo Tolstoy.... It is more than natural\nthat, against the international campaign which represented the\nCommunards as _souteneurs_ and the women of the Commune as\nprostitutes, against the vile slanders which attributed to the\nconquered fighters ferocious features drawn from the degenerate\nimagination of the victorious bourgeoisie, Marx should emphasize and\nunderline those features of tenderness and nobility which not\ninfrequently were merely the reverse side of indecision. Marx was\nMarx. He was neither an empty pedant, nor, all the more, the legal\ndefender of the revolution: he combined a scientific analysis of the\nCommune with its revolutionary apology. He not only explained and\ncriticised--he defended and struggled. But, emphasizing the mildness\nof the Commune which failed, Marx left no doubt possible concerning\nthe measures which the Commune ought to have taken in order not to\nfail.\n\nThe author of the _Civil War_ accuses the Central Committee--_i.e._,\nthe then Council of National Guards' Deputies, of having too soon\ngiven up its place to the elective Commune. Kautsky \"does not\nunderstand\" the reason for such a reproach. This conscientious\nnon-understanding is one of the symptoms of Kautsky's mental decline\nin connection with questions of the revolution generally. The first\nplace, according to Marx, ought to have been filled by a purely\nfighting organ, a centre of the insurrection and of military\noperations against Versailles, and not the organized self-government\nof the labor democracy. For the latter the turn would come later.\n\nMarx accuses the Commune of not having at once begun an attack against\nthe Versailles, and of having entered upon the defensive, which always\nappears \"more humane,\" and gives more possibilities of appealing to\nmoral law and the sacredness of human life, but in conditions of civil\nwar never leads to victory. Marx, on the other hand, first and\nforemost wanted a revolutionary victory. Nowhere, by one word, does he\nput forward the principle of democracy as something standing above the\nclass struggle. On the contrary, with the concentrated contempt of the\nrevolutionary and the Communist, Marx--not the young editor of the\n_Rhine Paper_, but the mature author of _Capital_: our genuine Marx\nwith the mighty leonine mane, not as yet fallen under the hands of the\nhairdressers of the Kautsky school--with what concentrated contempt he\nspeaks about the \"artificial atmosphere of parliamentarism\" in which\nphysical and spiritual dwarfs like Thiers seem giants! The _Civil\nWar_, after the barren and pedantic pamphlet of Kautsky, acts like\na storm that clears the air.\n\nIn spite of Kautsky's slanders, Marx had nothing in common with the\nview of democracy as the last, absolute, supreme product of history.\nThe development of bourgeois society itself, out of which contemporary\ndemocracy grew up, in no way represents that process of gradual\ndemocratization which figured before the war in the dreams of the\ngreatest Socialist illusionist of democracy--Jean Jaures--and now in\nthose of the most learned of pedants, Karl Kautsky. In the empire of\nNapoleon III, Marx sees \"the only possible form of government in the\nepoch in which the bourgeoisie has already lost the possibility of\ngoverning the people, while the working class has not yet acquired\nit.\" In this way, not democracy, but Bonapartism, appears in Marx's\neyes as the final form of bourgeois power. Learned men may say that\nMarx was mistaken, as the Bonapartist empire gave way for half a\ncentury to the \"Democratic Republic.\" But Marx was not mistaken. In\nessence he was right. The Third Republic has been the period of the\ncomplete decay of democracy. Bonapartism has found in the Stock\nExchange Republic of Poincare-Clemenceau, a more finished expression\nthan in the Second Empire. True, the Third Republic was not crowned by\nthe imperial diadem; but in return there loomed over it the shadow of\nthe Russian Tsar.\n\nIn his estimate of the Commune, Marx carefully avoids using the worn\ncurrency of democratic terminology. \"The Commune was,\" he writes, \"not\na parliament, but a working institution, and united in itself both\nexecutive and legislative power.\" In the first place, Marx puts\nforward, not the particular democratic form of the Commune, but its\nclass essence. The Commune, as is known, abolished the regular army\nand the police, and decreed the confiscation of Church property. It\ndid this in the right of the revolutionary dictatorship of Paris,\nwithout the permission of the general democracy of the State, which at\nthat moment formally had found a much more \"lawful\" expression in the\nNational Assembly of Thiers. But a revolution is not decided by votes.\n\"The National Assembly,\" says Marx, \"was nothing more nor less than\none of the episodes of that revolution, the true embodiment of which\nwas, nevertheless, armed Paris.\" How far this is from formal\ndemocracy!\n\n\"It only required that the Communal order of things,\" says Marx,\n\"should be set up in Paris and in the secondary centres, and the old\ncentral government would in the provinces also have yielded to the\n_self-government of the producers_.\" Marx, consequently, sees the\nproblem of revolutionary Paris, not in appealing from its victory to\nthe frail will of the Constituent Assembly, but in covering the whole\nof France with a centralized organization of Communes, built up not on\nthe external principles of democracy but on the genuine\nself-government of the producers.\n\nKautsky has cited as an argument against the Soviet Constitution the\nindirectness of elections, which contradicts the fixed laws of\nbourgeois democracy. Marx characterizes the proposed structure of\nlabor France in the following words:--\"The management of the general\naffairs of the village communes of every district was to devolve on\nthe Assembly of plenipotentiary delegates meeting in the chief town of\nthe district; while the district assemblies were in turn to send\ndelegates to the National Assembly sitting in Paris.\"\n\nMarx, as we can see, was not in the least degree disturbed by the many\ndegrees of indirect election, in so far as it was a question of the\nState organization of the proletariat itself. In the framework of\nbourgeois democracy, indirectness of election confuses the demarcation\nline of parties and classes; but in the \"self-government of the\nproducers\"--_i.e._, in the class proletarian State, indirectness\nof election is a question not of politics, but of the technical\nrequirements of self-government, and within certain limits may present\nthe same advantages as in the realm of trade union organization.\n\nThe Philistines of democracy are indignant at the inequality in\nrepresentation of the workers and peasants which, in the Soviet\nConstitution, reflects the difference in the revolutionary roles of\nthe town and the country. Marx writes: \"The Commune desired to bring\nthe rural producers under the intellectual leadership of the central\ntowns of their districts, and there to secure to them, in the workmen\nof the towns, the natural guardians of their interests.\" The question\nwas not one of making the peasant equal to the worker on paper, but of\nspiritually raising the peasant to the level of the worker. All\nquestions of the proletarian State Marx decides according to the\nrevolutionary dynamics of living forces, and not according to the play\nof shadows upon the market-place screen of parliamentarism.\n\nIn order to reach the last confines of mental collapse, Kautsky denies\nthe universal authority of the Workers' Councils on the ground that\nthere is no legal boundary between the proletariat and the\nbourgeoisie. In the indeterminate nature of the social divisions\nKautsky sees the source of the arbitrary authority of the Soviet\ndictatorship. Marx sees directly the contrary. \"The Commune was an\nextremely elastic form of the State, while all former forms of\ngovernment had suffered from narrowness. Its secret consists in this,\nthat in its very essence it was the government of the working class,\nthe result of the struggle between the class of producers and the\nclass of appropriators, the political form, long sought, under which\nthere could be accomplished the economic emancipation of labor.\" The\nsecret of the Commune consisted in the fact that by its very essence\nit was a government of the working class. This secret, explained by\nMarx, has remained, for Kautsky, even to this day, a mystery sealed\nwith seven seals.\n\nThe Pharisees of democracy speak with indignation of the repressive\nmeasures of the Soviet Government, of the closing of newspapers, of\narrests and shooting. Marx replies to \"the vile abuse of the lackeys\nof the Press\" and to the reproaches of the \"well-intentioned bourgeois\ndoctrinaries,\" in connection with the repressive measures of the\nCommune in the following words:--\"Not satisfied with their open waging\nof a most bloodthirsty war against Paris, the Versaillese strove\nsecretly to gain an entry by corruption and conspiracy. Could the\nCommune at such a time _without shamefully betraying its trust_,\nhave observed the customary forms of liberalism, just as if profound\npeace reigned around it? Had the government of the Commune been akin\nin spirit to that of Thiers, there would have been no more occasion to\nsuppress newspapers of the party of order in Paris than there was to\nsuppress newspapers of the Commune at Versailles.\" In this way, what\nKautsky demands in the name of the sacred foundations of democracy\nMarx brands as a shameful betrayal of trust.\n\nConcerning the destruction of which the Commune is accused, and of\nwhich now the Soviet Government is accused, Marx speaks as of \"an\ninevitable and comparatively insignificant episode in the titanic\nstruggle of the new-born order with the old in its collapse.\"\nDestruction and cruelty are inevitable in any war. Only sycophants\ncan consider them a crime \"in the war of the slaves against their\noppressors, _the only just war in history_.\" (Marx.) Yet our dread\naccuser Kautsky, in his whole book, does not breathe a word of the\nfact that we are in a condition of perpetual revolutionary\nself-defence, that we are waging an intensive war against the\noppressors of the world, the \"only just war in history.\"\n\nKautsky yet again tears his hair because the Soviet Government, during\nthe Civil War, has made use of the severe method of taking hostages.\nHe once again brings forward pointless and dishonest comparisons\nbetween the fierce Soviet Government and the humane Commune. Clear and\ndefinite in this connection sounds the opinion of Marx. \"When Thiers,\nfrom the very beginning of the conflict, had enforced the humane\npractice of shooting down captured Communards, the Commune, to protect\nthe lives of those prisoners, _had nothing left for it_ but to\nresort to the Prussian custom of taking hostages. The lives of the\nhostages had been forfeited over and over again by the continued\nshooting of the prisoners on the part of the Versaillese. _How could\ntheir lives be spared any longer_ after the blood-bath with which\nMacMahon's Pretorians celebrated their entry into Paris?\" How\notherwise we shall ask together with Marx, can one act in conditions\nof civil war, when the counter-revolution, occupying a considerable\nportion of the national territory, seizes wherever it can the unarmed\nworkers, their wives, their mothers, and shoots or hangs them: how\notherwise can one act than to seize as hostages the beloved or the\ntrusted of the bourgeoisie, thus placing the whole bourgeois class\nunder the Damocles' sword of mutual responsibility?\n\nIt would not be difficult to show, day by day through the history of\nthe civil war, that all the severe measures of the Soviet Government\nwere forced upon it as measures of revolutionary self-defense. We\nshall not here enter into details. But, to give though it be but a\npartial criterion for valuing the conditions of the struggle, let us\nremind the reader that, at the moment when the White Guards, in\ncompany with their Anglo-French allies, shoot every Communist without\nexception who falls into their hands, the Red Army spares all\nprisoners without exception, including even officers of high rank.\n\n\"Fully grasping its historical task, filled with the heroic decision\nto remain equal to that task,\" Marx wrote, \"the working class may\nreply with a smile of calm contempt to the vile abuse of the lackeys\nof the Press and to the learned patronage of well-intentioned\nbourgeois doctrinaires, who utter their ignorant stereotyped\ncommon-places, their characteristic nonsense, with the profound tone of\noracles of scientific immaculateness.\"\n\nIf the well-intentioned bourgeois doctrinaires sometimes appear in the\nguise of retired theoreticians of the Second International, this in no\nway deprives their characteristic nonsense of the right of remaining\nnonsense.\n\n\n\n\n7\n\nTHE WORKING CLASS AND ITS SOVIET POLICY\n\n\nTHE RUSSIAN PROLETARIAT\n\nThe initiative in the social revolution proved, by the force of\nevents, to be imposed, not upon the old proletariat of Western Europe,\nwith its mighty economic and political organization, with its\nponderous traditions of parliamentarism and trade unionism, but upon\nthe young working-class of a backward country. History, as always,\nmoved along the line of least resistance. The revolutionary epoch\nburst upon us through the least barricaded door. Those extraordinary,\ntruly superhuman, difficulties which were thus flung upon the Russian\nproletariat have prepared, hastened, and to a considerable extent\nassisted the revolutionary work of the West European proletariat which\nstill lies before us.\n\nInstead of examining the Russian Revolution in the light of the\nrevolutionary epoch that has arrived throughout the world, Kautsky\ndiscusses the theme of whether or no the Russian proletariat has taken\npower into its hands too soon.\n\n\"For Socialism,\" he explains, \"there is necessary a high development\nof the people, a high morale amongst the masses, strongly-developed\nsocial instincts, sentiments of solidarity, etc. Such a form of\nmorale,\" Kautsky further informs us, \"was very highly developed\namongst the proletariat of the Paris Commune. It is absent amongst the\nmasses which at the present time set the tone amongst the Bolshevik\nproletariat.\" (Page 177.)\n\nFor Kautsky's purpose, it is not sufficient to fling mud at the\nBolsheviks as a political party before the eyes of his readers.\nKnowing that Bolshevism has become amalgamated with the Russian\nproletariat, Kautsky makes an attempt to fling mud at the Russian\nproletariat as a whole, representing it as an ignorant, greedy mass,\nwithout any ideals, which is guided only by the instincts and impulses\nof the moment.\n\nThroughout his booklet Kautsky returns many times to the question of\nthe intellectual and moral level of the Russian workers, and every\ntime only to deepen his characterization of them as ignorant, stupid\nand barbarous. To bring about the most striking contrasts, Kautsky\nadduces the example of how a workshop committee in one of the war\nindustries during the Commune decided upon compulsory night duty in\nthe works for _one_ worker so that it might be possible to\ndistribute repaired arms by night. \"As under present circumstances it\nis absolutely necessary to be extremely economical with the resources\nof the Commune,\" the regulation read, \"the night duty will be rendered\nwithout payment....\" \"Truly,\" Kautsky concludes, \"these working men\ndid not regard the period of their dictatorship as an opportune moment\nfor the satisfaction of their personal interests.\" (Page 90.) Quite\notherwise is the case with the Russian working class. That class has\nno intelligence, no stability, no ideals, no steadfastness, no\nreadiness for self-sacrifice, and so on. \"It is just as little capable\nof choosing suitable plenipotentiary leaders for itself,\" Kautsky\njeers, \"as Munchausen was able to drag himself from the swamp by means\nof his own hair.\" This comparison of the Russian proletariat with the\nimpostor Munchausen dragging himself from the swamp is a striking\nexample of the brazen tone in which Kautsky speaks of the Russian\nworking class.\n\nHe brings extracts from various speeches and articles of ours in which\nundesirable phenomena amongst the working class are shown up, and\nattempts to represent matters in such a way as if the life of the\nRussian proletariat between 1917-20--_i.e._, in the greatest of\nrevolutionary epochs--is fully described by passivity, ignorance, and\negotism.\n\nKautsky, forsooth, does not know, has never heard, cannot guess, may\nnot imagine, that during the civil war the Russian proletariat had\nmore than one occasion of freely giving its labour, and even of\nestablishing \"unpaid\" guard duties--not of _one_ worker for the\nspace of _one_ night, but of tens of thousands of workers for the\nspace of a long series of disturbed nights. In the days and weeks of\nYudenich's advance on Petrograd, one telephonogram of the Soviet was\nsufficient to ensure that many thousands of workers should spring to\ntheir posts in all the factories, in all the wards of the city. And\nthis not in the first days of the Petrograd Commune, but after a two\nyears' struggle in cold and hunger.\n\nTwo or three times a year our party mobilizes a high proportion of its\nnumbers for the front. Scattered over a distance of 8,000 versts, they\ndie and teach others to die. And when, in hungry and cold Moscow,\nwhich has given the flower of its workers to the front, a Party Week\nis proclaimed, there pour into our ranks from the proletarian masses,\nin the space of seven days, 15,000 persons. And at what moment? At the\nmoment when the danger of the destruction of the Soviet Government had\nreached its most acute point. At the moment when Orel had been taken,\nand Denikin was approaching Tula and Moscow, when Yudenich was\nthreatening Petrograd. At that most painful moment, the Moscow\nproletariat, in the course of a week, gave to the ranks of our party\n15,000 men, who only waited a new mobilization for the front. And it\ncan be said with certainty that never yet, with the exception of the\nweek of the November rising in 1917, was the Moscow proletariat so\nsingle-minded in its revolutionary enthusiasm, and in its readiness\nfor devoted struggle, as in those most difficult days of peril and\nself-sacrifice.\n\nWhen our party proclaimed the watchword of Subbotniks and Voskresniks\n(Communist Saturdays and Sundays), the revolutionary idealism of the\nproletariat found for itself a striking expression in the shape of\nvoluntary labor. At first tens and hundreds, later thousands, and now\ntens and hundreds of thousands of workers every week give up several\nhours of their labor without reward, for the sake of the economic\nreconstruction of the country. And this is done by half-starved\npeople, in torn boots, in dirty linen--because the country has neither\nboots nor soap. Such, in reality, is that Bolshevik proletariat to\nwhom Kautsky recommends a course of self-sacrifice. The facts of the\nsituation, and their relative importance, will appear still more\nvividly before us if we recall that all the egoist, bourgeois,\ncoarsely selfish elements of the proletariat--all those who avoid\nservice at the front and in the Subbotniks, who engage in speculation\nand in weeks of starvation incite the workers to strikes--all of them\nvote at the Soviet elections for the Mensheviks; that is, for the\nRussian Kautskies.\n\nKautsky quotes our words to the effect that, even before the November\nRevolution, we clearly realized the defects in education of the\nRussian proletariat, but, recognizing the inevitability of the\ntransference of power to the working class, we considered ourselves\njustified in hoping that during the struggle itself, during its\nexperience, and with the ever-increasing support of the proletariat of\nother countries, we should deal adequately with our difficulties, and\nbe able to guarantee the transition of Russia to the Socialist order.\nIn this connection, Kautsky asks: \"Would Trotsky undertake to get on a\nlocomotive and set it going, in the conviction that he would during\nthe journey have time to learn and to arrange everything? One must\npreliminarily have acquired the qualities necessary to drive a\nlocomotive before deciding to set it going. Similarly the proletariat\nought beforehand to have acquired those necessary qualities which make\nit capable of administering industry, once it had to take it over.\"\n(Page 173.)\n\nThis instructive comparison would have done honor to any village\nclergyman. None the less, it is stupid. With infinitely more\nfoundation one could say: \"Will Kautsky dare to mount a horse before\nhe has learned to sit firmly in the saddle, and to guide the animal in\nall its steps?\" We have foundations for believing that Kautsky would\nnot make up his mind to such a dangerous purely Bolshevik experiment.\nOn the other hand, we fear that, through not risking to mount the\nhorse, Kautsky would have considerable difficulty in learning the\nsecrets of riding on horse-back. For the fundamental Bolshevik\nprejudice is precisely this: that one learns to ride on horse-back\nonly when sitting on the horse.\n\nConcerning the driving of the locomotive, this principle is at first\nsight not so evident; but none the less it is there. No one yet has\nlearned to drive a locomotive sitting in his study. One has to get up\non to the engine, to take one's stand in the tender, to take into\none's hands the regulator, and to turn it. True, the engine allows\ntraining manoeuvres only under the guidance of an old driver. The\nhorse allows of instructions in the riding school only under the\nguidance of experienced trainers. But in the sphere of State\nadministration such artificial conditions cannot be created. The\nbourgeoisie does not build for the proletariat academies of State\nadministration, and does not place at its disposal, for preliminary\npractice, the helm of the State. And besides, the workers and peasants\nlearn even to ride on horse-back not in the riding school, and without\nthe assistance of trainers.\n\nTo this we must add another consideration, perhaps the most important.\nNo one gives the proletariat the opportunity of choosing whether it\nwill or will not mount the horse, whether it will take power\nimmediately or postpone the moment. Under certain conditions the\nworking class is bound to take power, under the threat of political\nself-annihilation for a whole historical period.\n\nOnce having taken power, it is impossible to accept one set of\nconsequences at will and refuse to accept others. If the capitalist\nbourgeoisie consciously and malignantly transforms the disorganization\nof production into a method of political struggle, with the object of\nrestoring power to itself, the proletariat is _obliged_ to resort\nto Socialization, independently of whether this is beneficial or\notherwise at the _given moment_.\n\nAnd, once having taken over production, the proletariat is obliged,\nunder the pressure of iron necessity, to learn by its own experience a\nmost difficult art--that of organizing Socialist economy. Having\nmounted the saddle, the rider is obliged to guide the horse--on the\nperil of breaking his neck.\n\n                 *       *       *       *       *\n\nTo give his high-souled supporters, male and female, a complete\npicture of the moral level of the Russian proletariat, Kautsky\nadduces, on page 172 of his book, the following mandate, issued,\nit is alleged, by the Murzilovka Soviet: \"The Soviet hereby\nempowers Comrade Gregory Sareiev, in accordance with his choice and\ninstructions, to requisition and lead to the barracks, for the use of\nthe Artillery Division stationed in Murzilovka, Briansk County, sixty\nwomen and girls from the bourgeois and speculating class, September\n16, 1918.\" (_What are the Bolshevists doing?_ Published by Dr. Nath.\nWintch-Malejeff. Lausanne, 1919. Page 10.)\n\nWithout having the least doubt of the forged character of this\ndocument and the lying nature of the whole communication, I gave\ninstructions, however, that careful inquiry should be made, in order\nto discover what facts and episodes lay at the root of this invention.\nA carefully carried out investigation showed the following:--\n\n(1) In the Briansk County there is absolutely no village by the name\nof Murzilovka. There is no such village in the neighboring counties\neither. The most similar in name is the village of Muraviovka, Briansk\nCounty; but no artillery division has ever been stationed there, and\naltogether nothing ever took place which might be in any way connected\nwith the above \"document.\"\n\n(2) The investigation was also carried on along the line of the\nartillery units. Absolutely nowhere were we able to discover even an\nindirect allusion to a fact similar to that adduced by Kautsky from\nthe words of his inspirer.\n\n(3) Finally the investigation dealt with the question of whether there\nhad been any rumors of this kind on the spot. Here, too, absolutely\nnothing was discovered; and no wonder. The very contents of the\nforgery are in too brutal a contrast with the morals and public\nopinion of the foremost workers and peasants who direct the work of\nthe Soviets, even in the most backward regions.\n\nIn this way, the document must be described as a pitiful forgery,\nwhich might be circulated only by the most malignant sycophants in the\nmost yellow of the gutter press.\n\nWhile the investigation described above was going on, Comrade\nZinovieff showed me a number of a Swedish paper (_Svenska Dagbladet_)\nof November 9, 1919, in which was printed the facsimile of a mandate\nrunning as follows:--\n\n\"_Mandate._ The bearer of this, Comrade Karaseiev, has the right\nof socializing in the town of Ekaterinodar (obliterated) girls aged\nfrom 16 to 36 at his pleasure.--GLAVKOM IVASHCHEFF.\"\n\nThis document is even more stupid and impudent than that quoted by\nKautsky. The town of Ekaterinodar--the centre of the Kuban--was, as is\nwell known, for only a very short time in the hands of the Soviet\nGovernment. Apparently the author of the forgery, not very well up in\nhis revolutionary chronology, rubbed out the date on this document,\nlest by some chance it should appear that \"Glavkom Ivashcheff\"\nsocialized the Ekaterinodar women during the reign of Denikin's\nmilitarism there. That the document might lead into error the\nthick-witted Swedish bourgeois is not at all amazing. But for the\nRussian reader it is only too clear that the document is not merely a\nforgery, but drawn up by a _foreigner, dictionary in hand_. It is\nextremely curious that the names of both the socializers of women,\n\"Gregory Sareiev\" and \"Karaseiev\" sound absolutely non-Russia. The\nending \"eiev\" in Russian names is found rarely, and only in definite\ncombinations. But the accuser of the Bolsheviks himself, the author of\nthe English pamphlet on whom Kautsky bases his evidence, has a name\nthat does actually end in \"eiev.\" It seems obvious that this\nAnglo-Bulgarian police agent, sitting in Lausanne, creates socializers\nof women, in the fullest sense of the word, after his own likeness and\nimage.\n\nKautsky, at any rate, has original inspirers and assistants!\n\n\nSOVIETS, TRADE UNIONS, AND THE PARTY\n\nThe Soviets, as a form of the organization of the working class,\nrepresents for Kautsky, \"in relation to the party and professional\norganizations of more developed countries, not a higher form of\norganization, but first and foremost a substitute (Notbehelf), arising\nout of the absence of political organizations.\" (Page 68.)\n\nLet us grant that this is true in connection with Russia. But then,\nwhy have Soviets sprung up in Germany? Ought one not absolutely to\nrepudiate them in the Ebert Republic? We note, however, that\nHilferding, the nearest sympathizer of Kautsky, proposes to include\nthe Soviets in the Constitution. Kautsky is silent.\n\nThe estimate of Soviets as a \"primitive\" organization is true to the\nextent that the open revolutionary struggle is \"more primitive\" than\nparliamentarism. But the artificial complexity of the latter embraces\nonly the upper strata, insignificant in their size. On the other hand,\nrevolution is only possible where the masses have their vital\ninterests at stake. The November Revolution raised on to their feet\nsuch deep layers as the pre-revolutionary Social-Democracy could not\neven dream of. However wide were the organizations of the party and\nthe trade unions in Germany, the revolution immediately proved\nincomparably wider than they. The revolutionary masses found their\ndirect representation in the most simple and generally comprehensive\ndelegate organization--in the Soviet. One may admit that the Council\nof Deputies falls behind both the party and the trade union in the\nsense of the clearness of its programme, or the exactness of its\norganization. But it is far and away in front of the party and the\ntrade unions in the size of the masses drawn by it into the organized\nstruggle; and this superiority in quality gives the Soviet undeniable\nrevolutionary preponderance.\n\nThe Soviet embraces workers of all undertakings, of all professions,\nof all stages of cultural development, all stages of political\nconsciousness--and thereby objectively is forced to formulate the\ngeneral interests of the proletariat.\n\nThe _Communist Manifesto_ viewed the problem of the Communist just\nin this sense--namely, the formulating of the general historical\ninterests of the working class as a whole.\n\n\"The Communists are only distinguished from other proletarian\nparties,\" in the words of the _Manifesto_, \"by this: that in the\ndifferent national struggles of the proletariat they point out, and\nbring to the fore, the common interests of the proletariat,\nindependently of nationality; and again that, in the different stages\nof evolution through which the struggle between the proletariat and\nbourgeoisie passes, they constantly represent the interests of the\nmovement taken as a whole.\"\n\nIn the form of the all-embracing class organization of the Soviets,\nthe movement takes itself \"as a whole.\" Hence it is clear why the\nCommunists could and had to become the guiding party in the Soviets.\nBut hence also is seen all the narrowness of the estimate of Soviets\nas \"substitutes for the party\" (Kautsky), and all the stupidity of the\nattempt to include the Soviets, in the form of an auxiliary lever, in\nthe mechanism of bourgeois democracy. (Hilferding.)\n\nThe Soviets are the organization of the proletarian revolution, and\nhave purpose either as an organ of the struggle for power or as the\napparatus of power of the working class.\n\nUnable to grasp the revolutionary role of the Soviets, Kautsky sees\ntheir root defects in that which constitutes their greatest merit.\n\"The demarcation of the bourgeois from the worker,\" he writes, \"can\nnever be actually drawn. There will always be something arbitrary in\nsuch demarcation, which fact transforms the Soviet idea into a\nparticularly suitable foundation for dictatorial and arbitrary rule,\nbut renders it unfitted for the creation of a clear, systematically\nbuilt-up constitution.\" (Page 170.)\n\nClass dictatorship, according to Kautsky, cannot create for itself\ninstitutions answering to its nature, because there do not exist lines\nof demarcation between the classes. But in that case, what happens to\nthe class struggle altogether? Surely it was just, in the existence of\nnumerous transitional stages between the bourgeoisie and the\nproletariat, that the lower middle-class theoreticians always found\ntheir principal argument against the \"principle\" of the class\nstruggle? For Kautsky, however, doubts as to principle begin just at\nthe point where the proletariat, having overcome the shapelessness and\nunsteadiness of the intermediate class, having brought one part of\nthem over to its side and thrown the remainder into the camp of the\nbourgeoisie, has actually organized its dictatorship in the Soviet\nConstitution.\n\nThe very reason why the Soviets an absolutely irreplaceable apparatus\nin the proletarian State is that their framework is elastic and\nyielding, with the result that not only social but political changes\nin the relationship of classes and sections can immediately find their\nexpression in the Soviet apparatus. Beginning with the largest\nfactories and works, the Soviets then draw into their organization the\nworkers of private workshops and shop-assistants, proceed to enter the\nvillage, organize the peasants against the landowners, and finally the\nlower and middle-class sections of the peasantry against the richest.\n\nThe Labor State collects numerous staffs of employees, to a\nconsiderable extent from the ranks of the bourgeoisie and the\nbourgeois educated classes. To the extent that they become disciplined\nunder the Soviet regime, they find representation in the Soviet\nsystem. Expanding--and at certain moments contracting--in harmony with\nthe expansion and contraction of the social positions conquered by the\nproletariat, the Soviet system remains the State apparatus of the\nsocial revolution, in its internal dynamics, its ebbs and flows, its\nmistakes and successes. With the final triumph of the social\nrevolution, the Soviet system will expand and include the whole\npopulation, in order thereby to lose the characteristics of a form of\nState, and melt away into a mighty system of producing and consuming\nco-operation.\n\nIf the party and the trade unions were organizations of preparation\nfor the revolution, the Soviets are the weapon of the revolution\nitself. After its victory, the Soviets become the organs of power. The\nrole of the party and the unions, without decreasing is nevertheless\nessentially altered.\n\nIn the hands of the party is concentrated the general control. It does\nnot immediately administer, since its apparatus is not adapted for\nthis purpose. But it has the final word in all fundamental questions.\nFurther, our practice has led to the result that, in all moot\nquestions, generally--conflicts between departments and personal\nconflicts within departments--the last word belongs to the Central\nCommittee of the party. This affords extreme economy of time and\nenergy, and in the most difficult and complicated circumstances gives\na guarantee for the necessary unity of action. Such a regime is\npossible only in the presence of the unquestioned authority of the\nparty, and the faultlessness of its discipline. Happily for the\nrevolution, our party does possess in an equal measure both of these\nqualities. Whether in other countries which have not received from\ntheir past a strong revolutionary organization, with a great hardening\nin conflict, there will be created just as authoritative a Communist\nParty by the time of the proletarian revolution, it is difficult to\nforetell; but it is quite obvious that on this question, to a very\nlarge extent, depends the progress of the Socialist revolution in each\ncountry.\n\nThe exclusive role of the Communist Party under the conditions of a\nvictorious proletarian revolution is quite comprehensible. The\nquestion is of the dictatorship of a class. In the composition of that\nclass there enter various elements, heterogeneous moods, different\nlevels of development. Yet the dictatorship pre-supposes unity of\nwill, unity of direction, unity of action. By what other path then can\nit be attained? The revolutionary supremacy of the proletariat\npre-supposes within the proletariat itself the political supremacy of\na party, with a clear programme of action and a faultless internal\ndiscipline.\n\nThe policy of coalitions contradicts internally the regime of the\nrevolutionary dictatorship. We have in view, not coalitions with\nbourgeois parties, of which of course there can be no talk, but a\ncoalition of Communists with other \"Socialist\" organizations,\nrepresenting different stages of backwardness and prejudice of the\nlaboring masses.\n\nThe revolution swiftly reveals all that is unstable, wears out all\nthat is artificial; the contradictions glossed over in a coalition are\nswiftly revealed under the pressure of revolutionary events. We have\nhad an example of this in Hungary, where the dictatorship of the\nproletariat assumed the political form of the coalition of the\nCommunists with disguised Opportunists. The coalition soon broke up.\nThe Communist Party paid heavily for the revolutionary instability and\nthe political treachery of its companions. It is quite obvious that\nfor the Hungarian Communists it would have been more profitable to\nhave come to power later, after having afforded to the Left\nOpportunists the possibility of compromising themselves once and for\nall. It is quite another question as to how far this was possible. In\nany case, a coalition with the Opportunists, only temporarily hiding\nthe relative weakness of the Hungarian Communists, at the same time\nprevented them from growing stronger at the expense of the\nOpportunists; and brought them to disaster.\n\nThe same idea is sufficiently illustrated by the example of the\nRussian revolution. The coalition of the Bolsheviks with the Left\nSocialist Revolutionists, which lasted for several months, ended with\na bloody conflict. True, the reckoning for the coalition had to be\npaid, not so much by us Communists as by our disloyal companions.\nApparently, such a coalition, in which we were the stronger side and,\ntherefore, were not taking too many risks in the attempt, at one\ndefinite stage in history, to make use of the extreme Left-wing of the\nbourgeois democracy, tactically must be completely justified. But,\nnone the less, the Left S.R. episode quite clearly shows that the\nregime of compromises, agreements, mutual concessions--for that is the\nmeaning of the regime of coalition--cannot last long in an epoch in\nwhich situations alter with extreme rapidity, and in which supreme\nunity in point of view is necessary in order to render possible unity\nof action.\n\nWe have more than once been accused of having substituted for the\ndictatorship of the Soviets the dictatorship of our party. Yet it can\nbe said with complete justice that the dictatorship of the Soviets\nbecame possible only by means of the dictatorship of the party. It is\nthanks to the clarity of its theoretical vision and its strong\nrevolutionary organization that the party has afforded to the Soviets\nthe possibility of becoming transformed from shapeless parliaments of\nlabor into the apparatus of the supremacy of labor. In this\n\"substitution\" of the power of the party for the power of the working\nclass there is nothing accidental, and in reality there is no\nsubstitution at all. The Communists express the fundamental interests\nof the working class. It is quite natural that, in the period in which\nhistory brings up those interests, in all their magnitude, on to the\norder of the day, the Communists have become the recognized\nrepresentatives of the working class as a whole.\n\nBut where is your guarantee, certain wise men ask us, that it is just\nyour party that expresses the interests of historical development?\nDestroying or driving underground the other parties, you have thereby\nprevented their political competition with you, and consequently you\nhave deprived yourselves of the possibility of testing your line of\naction.\n\nThis idea is dictated by a purely liberal conception of the course of\nthe revolution. In a period in which all antagonisms assume an open\ncharacter, and the political struggle swiftly passes into a civil war,\nthe ruling party has sufficient material standard by which to test its\nline of action, without the possible circulation of Menshevik papers.\nNoske crushes the Communists, but they grow. We have suppressed the\nMensheviks and the S.R.s--and they have disappeared. This criterion is\nsufficient for us. At all events, our problem is not at every given\nmoment statistically to measure the grouping of tendencies; but to\nrender victory for our tendency secure. For that tendency is the\ntendency of the revolutionary dictatorship; and in the course of the\nlatter, in its internal friction, we must find a sufficient criterion\nfor self-examination.\n\nThe continuous \"independence\" of the trade union movement, in the\nperiod of the proletarian revolution, is just as much an impossibility\nas the policy of coalition. The trade unions become the most important\neconomic organs of the proletariat in power. Thereby they fall under\nthe leadership of the Communist Party. Not only questions of principle\nin the trade union movement, but serious conflicts of organization\nwithin it, are decided by the Central Committee of our party.\n\nThe Kautskians attack the Soviet Government as the dictatorship of a\n\"section\" of the working class. \"If only,\" they say, \"the dictatorship\nwas carried out by the _whole_ class!\" It is not easy to understand\nwhat actually they imagine when they say this. The dictatorship of the\nproletariat, in its very essence, signifies the immediate supremacy of\nthe revolutionary vanguard, which relies upon the heavy masses, and,\nwhere necessary, obliges the backward tail to dress by the head. This\nrefers also to the trade unions. After the conquest of power by the\nproletariat, they acquire a compulsory character. They must include\nall industrial workers. The party, on the other hand, as before,\nincludes in its ranks only the most class-conscious and devoted; and\nonly in a process of careful selection does it widen its ranks. Hence\nfollows the guiding role of the Communist minority in the trade\nunions, which answers to the supremacy of the Communist Party in the\nSoviets, and represents the political expression of the dictatorship\nof the proletariat.\n\nThe trade unions become the direct organizers of social production.\nThey express not only the interests of the industrial workers, but the\ninterests of industry itself. During the first period, the old\ncurrents in trade unionism more than once raised their head, urging\nthe unions to haggle with the Soviet State, lay down conditions for\nit, and demand from it guarantees. The further we go, however, the\nmore do the unions recognize that they are organs of production of the\nSoviet State, and assume responsibility for its fortunes--not opposing\nthemselves to it, but identifying themselves with it. The unions\nbecome the organizers of labor discipline. They demand from the\nworkers intensive labor under the most difficult conditions, to the\nextent that the Labor State is not yet able to alter those conditions.\n\nThe unions become the apparatus of revolutionary repression against\nundisciplined, anarchical, parasitic elements in the working class.\nFrom the old policy of trade unionism, which at a certain stage is\ninseparable from the industrial movement within the framework of\ncapitalist society, the unions pass along the whole line on to the new\npath of the policy of revolutionary Communism.\n\n\nTHE PEASANT POLICY\n\nThe Bolsheviks \"hoped,\" Kautsky thunders, \"to overcome the substantial\npeasants in the villages by granting political rights exclusively to\nthe poorest peasants. They then again granted representation to the\nsubstantial peasantry.\" (Page 216.)\n\nKautsky enumerates the external \"contradictions\" of our peasant\npolicy, not dreaming to inquire into its general direction, and into\nthe internal contradictions visible in the economic and political\nsituation of the country.\n\nIn the Russian peasantry as it entered the Soviet order there were\nthree elements: the poor, living to a considerable extent by the sale\nof their labor-power, and forced to buy additional food for their\nrequirements; the middle peasants, whose requirements were covered by\nthe products of their farms, and who were able to a limited extent to\nsell their surplus; and the upper layer--_i.e._, the rich peasants,\nthe vulture (kulak) class, which systematically bought labor-power and\nsold their agricultural produce on a large scale. It is quite\nunnecessary to point out that these groups are not distinguished by\ndefinite symptoms or by homogeneousness throughout the country.\n\nStill, on the whole, and generally speaking, the peasant poor\nrepresented the natural and undeniable allies of the town proletariat,\nwhilst the vulture class represented its just as undeniable and\nirreconcilable enemies. The most hesitation was principally to be\nobserved amongst the widest, the _middle_ section of the peasantry.\n\nHad not the country been so exhausted, and if the proletariat had had\nthe possibility of offering to the peasant masses the necessary\nquantity of commodities and cultural requirements, the adaptation of\nthe toiling majority of the peasantry to the new regime would have\ntaken place much less painfully. But the economic disorder of the\ncountry, which was not the result of our land or food policy, but was\ngenerated by the causes which preceded the appearance of that policy,\nrobbed the town for a prolonged period of any possibility of giving\nthe village the products of the textile and metal-working industries,\nimported goods, and so on. At the same time, industry could not\nentirely cease drawing from the village all, albeit the smallest\nquantity, of its food resources. The proletariat demanded of the\npeasantry the granting of food credits, economic subsidies in respect\nof values which it is only now about to create. The symbol of those\nfuture values was the credit symbol, now finally deprived of all\nvalue. But the peasant mass is not very capable of historical\ndetachment. Bound up with the Soviet Government by the abolition of\nlandlordism, and seeing in it a guarantee against the restoration of\nTsarism, the peasantry at the same time not infrequently opposes the\ncollection of corn, considering it a bad bargain so long as it does\nnot itself receive printed calico, nails, and kerosine.\n\nThe Soviet Government naturally strove to impose the chief weight of\nthe food tax upon the upper strata of the village. But, in the\nunformed social conditions of the village, the influential peasantry,\naccustomed to lead the middle peasants in its train, found scores of\nmethods of passing on the food tax from itself to the wide masses of\nthe peasantry, thereby placing them in a position of hostility and\nopposition to the Soviet power. It was necessary to awaken in the\nlower ranks of the peasantry suspicion and hostility towards the\nspeculating upper strata. This purpose was served by the Committees of\nPoverty. They were built up of the rank and file, of elements who in\nthe last epoch were oppressed, driven into a dark corner, deprived of\ntheir rights. Of course, in their midst there turned out to be a\ncertain number of semi-parasitic elements. This served as the chief\ntext for the demagogues amongst the populist \"Socialists,\" whose\nspeeches found a grateful echo in the hearts of the village vultures.\nBut the mere fact of the transference of power to the village poor had\nan immeasurable revolutionary significance. For the guidance of the\nvillage semi-proletarians, there were despatched from the towns\nparties from amongst the foremost workers, who accomplished invaluable\nwork in the villages. The Committees of Poverty became shock\nbattalions against the vulture class. Enjoying the support of the\nState, they thereby obliged the middle section of the peasantry to\nchoose, not only between the Soviet power and the power of the\nlandlords, but between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the\nsemi-proletarian elements of the village on the one hand, and the yoke\nof the rich speculators on the other. By a series of lessons, some of\nwhich were very severe, the middle peasantry was obliged to become\nconvinced that the Soviet regime, which had driven away the landlords\nand bailiffs, in its turn imposes new duties upon the peasantry, and\ndemands sacrifices from them. The political education of tens of\nmillions of the middle peasantry did not take place as easily and\nsmoothly as in the school-room, and it did not give immediate and\nunquestionable results. There were risings of the middle peasants,\nuniting with the speculators, and always in such cases falling under\nthe leadership of White Guard landlords; there were abuses committed\nby local agents of the Soviet Government, particularly by those of the\nCommittees of Poverty. But the fundamental political end was attained.\nThe powerful class of rich peasantry, if it was not finally\nannihilated, proved to be shaken to its foundations, with its\nself-reliance undermined. The middle peasantry, remaining politically\nshapeless, just as it is economically shapeless, began to learn to\nfind its representative in the foremost worker, as before it found it\nin the noisy village speculator. Once this fundamental result was\nachieved, the Committees of Poverty, as temporary institutions, as a\nsharp wedge driven into the village masses, had to yield their place\nto the Soviets, in which the village poor are represented side by side\nwith the middle peasantry.\n\nThe Committees of Poverty existed about six months, from June to\nDecember, 1918. In their institution, as in their abolition, Kautsky\nsees nothing but the \"waverings\" of Soviet policy. Yet at the same\ntime he himself has not even a suspicion of any practical lessons to\nbe drawn. And after all, how should he think of them? Experience such\nas we are acquiring in this respect knows no precedent; and questions\nand problems such as the Soviet Government is now solving in practice\nhave no solution in books. What Kautsky calls contradictions in policy\nare, in reality, the _active manoeuvring_ of the proletariat in the\nspongy, undivided, peasant mass. The sailing ship has to manoeuvre\nbefore the wind; yet no one will see contradictions in the\nmanoeuvres which finally bring the ship to harbor.\n\nIn questions as to agricultural communes and Soviet farms, there could\nalso be found not a few \"contradictions,\" in which, side by side with\nindividual mistakes, there are expressed various stages of the\nrevolution. What quantity of land shall the Soviet State leave for\nitself in the Ukraine, and what quantity shall it hand over to the\npeasants; what policy shall it lay down for the agricultural communes;\nin what form shall it give them support, so as not to make them the\nnursery for parasitism; in what form is control to be organized over\nthem--all these are absolutely new problems of Socialist economic\nconstruction, which have been settled beforehand neither theoretically\nnor practically, and in the settling of which the general principles\nof our programme have even yet to find their actual application and\ntheir testing in practice, by means of inevitable temporary deviations\nto right or left.\n\nBut even the very fact that the Russian proletariat has found support\nin the peasantry Kautsky turns against us. \"This has introduced into\nthe Soviet regime an economically reactionary element which was spared\n(!) the Paris Commune, as its dictatorship did not rely on peasant\nSoviets.\"\n\nAs if in reality we could accept the heritage of the feudal and\nbourgeois order with the possibility of excluding from it at will \"an\neconomically reactionary element\"! Nor is this all. Having poisoned\nthe Soviet regime by its \"reactionary element,\" the peasantry has\ndeprived us of its support. To-day it \"hates\" the Bolsheviks. All this\nKautsky knows very certainly from the radios of Clemenceau and the\nsquibs of the Mensheviks.\n\nIn reality, what is true is that wide masses of the peasantry are\nsuffering from the absence of the essential products of industry. But\nit is just as true that every other regime--and there were not a few\nof them, in various parts of Russia, during the last three\nyears--proved infinitely more oppressive for the shoulders of the\npeasantry. Neither monarchical nor democratic governments were able to\nincrease their stores of manufactured goods. Both of them found\nthemselves in need of the peasant's corn and the peasant's horses. To\ncarry out their policy, the bourgeois governments--including the\nKautskian-Menshevik variety--made use of a purely bureaucratic\napparatus, which reckons with the requirements of the peasant's farm\nto an infinitely less degree than the Soviet apparatus, which consists\nof workers and peasants. As a result, the middle peasant, in spite of\nhis waverings, his dissatisfaction, and even his risings, ultimately\nalways comes to the conclusion that, however difficult it is for him\nat present under the Bolsheviks, under every other regime it would be\ninfinitely more difficult for him. It is quite true that the Commune\nwas \"spared\" peasant support. But in return the Commune was not spared\nannihilation by the peasant armies of Thiers! Whereas our army,\nfour-fifths of whom are peasants, is fighting with enthusiasm and with\nsuccess for the Soviet Republic. And this one fact, controverting\nKautsky and those inspiring him, gives the best possible verdict on\nthe peasant policy of the Soviet Government.\n\n\nTHE SOVIET GOVERNMENT AND THE EXPERTS\n\n\"The Bolsheviks at first thought they could manage without the\nintelligentsia, without the experts,\" Kautsky narrates to us. (Page\n191.) But then, becoming convinced of the necessity of the\nintelligentsia, they abandoned their severe repressions, and attempted\nto attract them to work by all sorts of measures, incidentally by\ngiving them extremely high salaries. \"In this way,\" Kautsky says\nironically, \"the true path, the true method of attracting experts\nconsists in first of all giving them a thorough good hiding.\" ( Page\n192.) Quite so. With all due respect to all philistines, the\ndictatorship of the proletariat does just consist in \"giving a hiding\"\nto the classes that were previously supreme, before forcing them to\nrecognize the new order and to submit to it.\n\nThe professional intelligentsia, brought up with a prejudice about the\nomnipotence of the bourgeoisie, long would not, could not, and did not\nbelieve that the working class is really capable of governing the\ncountry; that it seized power not by accident; and that the\ndictatorship of the proletariat is an insurmountable fact.\nConsequently, the bourgeois intelligentsia treated its duties to the\nLabor State extremely lightly, even when it entered its service; and\nit considered that to receive money from Wilson, Clemenceau or Mirbach\nfor anti-Soviet agitation, or to hand over military secrets and\ntechnical resources to White Guards and foreign imperialists, is a\nquite natural and obvious course under the regime of the proletariat.\nIt became necessary to show it in practice, and to show it severely,\nthat the proletariat had not seized power in order to allow such jokes\nto be played off at its expense.\n\nIn the severe penalties adopted in the case of the intelligentsia, our\nbourgeois idealist sees the \"consequence of a policy which strove to\nattract the educated classes, not by means of persuasion, but by means\nof kicks from before and behind.\" (Page 193.) In this way, Kautsky\nseriously imagines that it is possible to attract the bourgeois\nintelligentsia to the work of Socialist construction by means of mere\npersuasion--and this in conditions when, in all other countries, there\nis still supreme the bourgeoisie which hesitates at no methods of\nterrifying, flattering, or buying over the Russian intelligentsia and\nmaking it a weapon for the transformation of Russia into a colony of\nslaves.\n\nInstead of analyzing the course of the struggle, Kautsky, when dealing\nwith the intelligentsia, gives once again merely academical recipes.\nIt is absolutely false that our party had the idea of managing without\nthe intelligentsia, not realizing to the full its importance for the\neconomic and cultural work that lay before us. On the contrary. When\nthe struggle for the conquest and consolidation of power was in full\nblast, and the majority of the intelligentsia was playing the part of\na shock battalion of the bourgeoisie, fighting against us openly or\nsabotaging our institutions, the Soviet power fought mercilessly with\nthe experts, precisely because it knew their enormous importance from\nthe point of view of organization so long as they do not attempt to\ncarry on an independent \"democratic\" policy and execute the orders of\none of the fundamental classes of society. Only after the opposition\nof the intelligentsia had been broken by a severe struggle did the\npossibility open before us of enlisting the assistance of the experts.\nWe immediately entered that path. It proved not as simple as it might\nhave seemed at first. The relations which existed under capitalist\nconditions between the working man and the director, the clerk and the\nmanager, the soldier and the officer, left behind a very deep class\ndistrust of the experts; and that distrust had become still more acute\nduring the first period of the civil war, when the intelligentsia did\nits utmost to break the labor revolution by hunger and cold. It was\nnot easy to outlive this frame of mind, and to pass from the first\nviolent antagonism to peaceful collaboration. The laboring masses had\ngradually to become accustomed to see in the engineer, the\nagricultural expert, the officer, not the oppressor of yesterday but\nthe useful worker of to-day--a necessary expert, entirely under the\norders of the Workers' and Peasants' Government.\n\nWe have already said that Kautsky is wrong when he attributes to the\nSoviet Government the desire to replace experts by proletarians. But\nthat such a desire was bound to spring up in wide circles of the\nproletariat cannot be denied. A young class which had proved to its\nown satisfaction that it was capable of overcoming the greatest\nobstacles in its path, which had torn to pieces the veil of mystery\nwhich had hitherto surrounded the power of the propertied classes,\nwhich had realized that all good things on the earth were not the\ndirect gift of heaven--that a revolutionary class was naturally\ninclined, in the person of the less mature of its elements, at first\nto over-estimate its capacity for solving each and every problem,\nwithout having recourse to the aid of experts educated by the\nbourgeoisie.\n\nIt was not merely yesterday that we began the struggle with such\ntendencies, in so far as they assumed a definite character. \"To-day,\nwhen the power of the Soviets has been set on a firm footing,\" we said\nat the Moscow City Conference on March 28, 1918, \"the struggle with\nsabotage must express itself in the form of transforming the saboteurs\nof yesterday into the servants, executive officials, technical guides,\nof the new regime, wherever it requires them. If we do not grapple\nwith this, if we do not attract all the forces necessary to us and\nenlist them in the Soviet service, our struggle of yesterday with\nsabotage would thereby be condemned as an absolutely vain and\nfruitless struggle.\n\n\"Just as in dead machines, so into those technical experts, engineers,\ndoctors, teachers, former officers, there is sunk a certain portion of\nour national capital, which we are obliged to exploit and utilize if\nwe want to solve the root problems standing before us.\n\n\"Democratization does not at all consist--as every Marxist learns in\nhis A B C--in abolishing the meaning of skilled forces, the meaning of\npersons possessing special knowledge, and in replacing them everywhere\nand anywhere by elective boards.\n\n\"Elective boards, consisting of the best representatives of the\nworking class, but not equipped with the necessary technical\nknowledge, cannot replace one expert who has passed through the\ntechnical school, and who knows how to carry out the given technical\nwork. That flood-tide of the collegiate principle which is at present\nto be observed in all spheres is the quite natural reaction of a\nyoung, revolutionary, only yesterday oppressed class, which is\nthrowing out the one-man principle of its rulers of yesterday--the\nlandlords and the generals--and everywhere is appointing its elected\nrepresentatives. This, I say, is quite a natural and, in its origin,\nquite a healthy revolutionary reaction; but it is not the last word in\nthe economic constructive work of the proletatarian proletarian class.\n\n\"The next step must consist in the self-limitation of the collegiate\nprinciple, in a healthy and necessary act of self-limitation by the\nworking class, which knows where the decisive word can be spoken by\nthe elected representatives of the workers themselves, and where it is\nnecessary to give way to a technical specialist, who is equipped with\ncertain knowledge, on whom a great measure of responsibility must be\nlaid, and who must be kept under careful political control. But it is\nnecessary to allow the expert freedom to act, freedom to create;\nbecause no expert, be he ever so little gifted or capable, can work in\nhis department when subordinate in his own technical work to a board\nof men who do not know that department. Political, collegiate and\nSoviet control everywhere and anywhere; but for the executive\nfunctions, we must appoint technical experts, put them in responsible\npositions, and impose responsibility upon them.\n\n\"Those who fear this are quite unconsciously adopting an attitude of\nprofound internal distrust towards the Soviet regime. Those who think\nthat the enlisting of the saboteurs of yesterday in the administration\nof technically expert posts threatens the very foundations of the\nSoviet regime, do not realize that it is not through the work of some\nengineer or of some general of yesterday that the Soviet regime may\nstumble--in the political, in the revolutionary, in the military\nsense, the Soviet regime is unconquerable. But it may stumble through\nits own incapacity to grapple with the problems of creative\norganization. The Soviet regime is bound to draw from the old\ninstitutions all that was vital and valuable in them, and harness it\non to the new work. If, comrades, we do not accomplish this, we shall\nnot deal successfully with our principal problems; for it would be\nabsolutely impossible for us to bring forth from our masses, in the\nshortest possible time, all the necessary experts, and throw aside all\nthat was accumulated in the past.\n\n\"As a matter of fact, it would be just the same as if we said that all\nthe machines which hitherto had served to exploit the workers were now\nto be thrown aside. It would be madness. The enlisting of scientific\nexperts is for us just as essential as the administration of the\nresources of production and transport, and all the wealth of the\ncountry generally. We must, and in addition we must immediately, bring\nunder our control all the technical experts we possess, and introduce\nin practice for them the principle of compulsory labor; at the same\ntime leaving them a wide margin of activity, and maintaining over them\ncareful political control.\"[7]\n\n          [7] Labor, Discipline, and Order will save the Socialist\n          Soviet Republic (Moscow, 1918). Kautsky knows this pamphlet,\n          as he quotes from it several times. This, however, does not\n          prevent him passing over the passage quoted above, which\n          makes clear the attitude of the Soviet Government to the\n          intelligentsia.\n\nThe question of experts was particularly acute, from the very\nbeginning, in the War Department. Here, under the pressure of iron\nnecessity, it was solved first.\n\nIn the sphere of administration of industry and transport, the\nnecessary forms of organization are very far from being attained, even\nto this day. We must seek the reason in the fact that during the first\ntwo years we were obliged to sacrifice the interests of industry and\ntransport to the requirements of military defence. The extremely\nchangeable course of the civil war, in its turn, threw obstacles in\nthe way of the establishment of regular relations with the experts.\nQualified technicians of industry and transport, doctors, teachers,\nprofessors, either went away with the retreating armies of Kolchak and\nDenikin, or were compulsorily evacuated by them.\n\nOnly now, when the civil war is approaching its conclusion, is the\nintelligentsia in its mass making its peace with the Soviet\nGovernment, or bowing before it. Economic problems have acquired\nfirst-class importance. One of the most important amongst them is the\nproblem of the scientific organization of production. Before the\nexperts there opens a boundless field of activity. They are being\naccorded the independence necessary for creative work. The general\ncontrol of industry on a national scale is concentrated in the hands\nof the Party of the proletariat.\n\n\nTHE INTERNAL POLICY OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT\n\n\"The Bolsheviks,\" Kautsky mediates, \"acquired the force necessary for\nthe seizure of political power through the fact that, amongst the\npolitical parties in Russia, they were the most energetic in their\ndemands for peace--peace at any price, a separate peace--without\ninteresting themselves as to the influence this would have on the\ngeneral international situation, as to whether this would assist the\nvictory and world domination of the German military monarchy, under\nthe protection of which they remained for a long time, just like\nIndian or Irish rebels or Italian anarchists.\" (Page 53.)\n\nOf the reasons for our victory, Kautsky knows only the one that we\nstood for peace. He does not explain the Soviet Government has\ncontinued to exist now that it has again mobilized a most important\nproportion of the soldiers of the imperial army, in order for two\nyears successfully to combat its political enemies.\n\nThe watchword of peace undoubtedly played an enormous part in our\nstruggle; but precisely because it was directed against the\n_imperialist_ war. The idea of peace was supported most strongly\nof all, not by the tired soldiers, but by the foremost workers, for\nwhom it had the import, not for a rest, but of a pitiless struggle\nagainst the exploiters. It was those same workers who, under the\nwatchword of peace, later laid down their lives on the Soviet fronts.\n\nThe affirmation that we demanded peace without reckoning on the effect\nit would have on the international situation is a belated echo of\nCadet and Menshevik slanders. The comparison of us with the\nGermanophile nationalists of India and Ireland seeks its justification\nin the fact that German imperialism did actually _attempt_ to\nmake use of us as it did the Indians and the Irish. But the\nchauvinists of France spared no efforts to make use of Liebknecht and\nLuxemburg--even of Kautsky and Bernstein--in their own interests. The\nwhole question is, did we allow ourselves to be utilized? Did we, by\nour conduct, give the European workers even the shadow of a ground to\nplace us in the same category as German imperialism? It is sufficient\nto remember the course of the Brest negotiations, their breakdown, and\nthe German advance of February, 1918, to reveal all the cynicism of\nKautsky's accusation. In reality, there was no peace for a single day\nbetween ourselves and German imperialism. On the Ukrainian and\nCaucasian fronts, we, in the measure of our then extremely feeble\nenergies, continued to wage war without openly calling it such. We\nwere too weak to organize war along the whole Russo-German front. We\nmaintained persistently the fiction of peace, utilizing the fact that\nthe chief German forces were drawn away to the west. If German\nimperialism did prove sufficiently powerful, in 1917-18, to impose\nupon us the Brest Peace, after all our efforts to tear that noose from\nour necks, one of the principal reasons was the disgraceful behavior\nof the German Social-Democratic Party, of which Kautsky remained an\nintegral and essential part. The Brest Peace was pre-determined on\nAugust 4, 1914. At that moment, Kautsky not only did not declare war\nagainst German militarism, as he later demanded from the Soviet\nGovernment, which was in 1918 still powerless from a military point of\nview; Kautsky actually proposed voting for the War Credits, \"under\ncertain conditions\"; and generally behaved in such a way that for\nmonths it was impossible to discover whether he stood for the War or\nagainst it. And this political coward, who at the decisive moment gave\nup the principal positions of Socialism, dares to accuse us of having\nfound ourselves obliged, at a certain moment, to retreat--not in\nprinciple, but materially. And why? Because we were betrayed by the\nGerman Social-Democracy, corrupted by Kautskianism--_i.e._, by\npolitical prostitution disguised by theories.\n\nWe did concern ourselves with the international situation! In reality,\nwe had a much more profound criterion by which to judge the\ninternational situation; and it did not deceive us. Already before the\nFebruary Revolution the Russian Army no longer existed as a fighting\nforce. Its final collapse was pre-determined. If the February\nRevolution had not taken place, Tsarism would have come to an\nagreement with the German monarchy. But the February Revolution which\nprevented that finally destroyed the army built on a monarchist basis,\nprecisely because it was a revolution. A month sooner or later the\narmy was bound to fall to pieces. The military policy of Kerensky was\nthe policy of an ostrich. He closed his eyes to the decomposition of\nthe army, talked sounding phrases, and uttered verbal threats against\nGerman imperialism.\n\nIn such conditions, we had only one way out: to take our stand on the\nplatform of peace, as the inevitable conclusion from the military\npowerlessness of the revolution, and to transform that watchword into\nthe weapon of revolutionary influence on all the peoples of Europe.\nThat is, instead of, together with Kerensky, peacefully awaiting the\nfinal military catastrophe--which might bury the revolution in its\nruins--we proposed to take possession of the watchword of peace and to\nlead after it the proletariat of Europe--and first and foremost the\nworkers of Austro-Germany. It was in the light of this view that we\ncarried on our peace negotiations with the Central Empires, and it was\nin the light of this that we drew up our Notes to the governments of\nthe Entente. We drew out the negotiations as long as we could, in\norder to give the European working masses the possibility of realizing\nthe meaning of the Soviet Government and its policy. The January\nstrike of 1918 in Germany and Austria showed that our efforts had not\nbeen in vain. That strike was the first serious premonition of the\nGerman Revolution. The German Imperialists understood then that it was\njust we who represented for them a deadly danger. This is very\nstrikingly shown in Ludendorff's book. True, they could not risk any\nlonger coming out against us in an open crusade. But wherever they\ncould fight against us secretly deceiving the German workers with the\nhelp of the German Social-Democracy, they did so; in the Ukraine, on\nthe Don, in the Caucasus. In Central Russia, in Moscow, Count Mirbach\nfrom the very first day of his arrival stood as the centre of\ncounter-revolutionary plots against the Soviet Government--just as\nComrade Yoffe in Berlin was in the closest possible touch with the\nrevolution. The Extreme Left group of the German revolutionary\nmovement, the party of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, all the\ntime went hand in hand with us. The German revolution at once took on\nthe form of Soviets, and the German proletariat, in spite of the Brest\nPeace, did not for a moment entertain any doubts as to whether we were\nwith Liebknecht or Ludendorff. In his evidence before the Reichstag\nCommission in November, 1919, Ludendorff explained how \"the High\nCommand demanded the creation of an institution with the object of\ndisclosing the connection of revolutionary tendencies in Germany with\nRussia. Yoffe arrived in Berlin, and in various towns there were set\nup Russian consulates. This had the most painful consequences in the\narmy and navy.\" Kautsky, however, has the audacity to write that \"if\nmatters did come to a German revolution, truly it is not the\nBolsheviks who are responsible for it.\" (Page 162.)\n\nEven if we had had the possibility in 1917-18, by means of\nrevolutionary abstention, of supporting the old Imperial Army instead\nof hastening its destruction, we should have merely been assisting the\nEntente, and would have covered up by our aid its brigands' peace with\nGermany, Austria, and all the countries of the world generally. With\nsuch a policy we should at the decisive moment have proved absolutely\ndisarmed in the face of the Entente--still more disarmed than Germany\nis to-day. Whereas, thanks to the November Revolution and the Brest\nPeace we are to-day the only country which opposes the Entente rifle\nin hand. By our international policy, we not only did not assist the\nHohenzollern to assume a position of world domination; on the\ncontrary, by our November Revolution we did more than anyone else to\nprepare his overthrow. At the same time, we gained a military\nbreathing-space, in the course of which we created a large and strong\narmy, the first army of the proletariat in history, with which to-day\nnot all the unleashed hounds of the Entente can cope.\n\nThe most critical moment in our international situation arose in the\nautumn of 1918, after the destruction of the German armies. In the\nplace of two mighty camps, more or less neutralizing each other, there\nstood before us the victorious Entente, at the summit of its world\npower, and there lay broken Germany, whose Junker blackguards would\nhave considered it a happiness and an honor to spring at the throat of\nthe Russian proletariat for a bone from the kitchen of Clemenceau. We\nproposed peace to the Entente, and were again ready--for we were\nobliged--to sign the most painful conditions. But Clemenceau, in whose\nimperialist rapacity there have remained in their full force all the\ncharacteristics of lower-middle-class thick-headedness, refused the\nJunkers their bone, and at the same time decided at all costs to\ndecorate the Invalides with the scalps of the leaders of the Soviet\nRepublic. By this policy Clemenceau did us not a small service. We\ndefended ourselves successfully, and held out.\n\nWhat, then, was the guiding principle of our external policy, once the\nfirst months of existence of the Soviet Government had made clear the\nconsiderable vitality as yet of the capitalist governments of Europe?\nJust that which Kautsky accepts to-day uncomprehendingly as an\naccidental result--_to hold out_!\n\nWe realized too clearly that the very fact of the existence of the\nSoviet Government is an event of the greatest revolutionary\nimportance; and this realization dictated to us our concessions and\nour temporary retirements--not in principle but in practical\nconclusions from a sober estimate of our own forces. We retreated like\nan army which gives up to the enemy a town, and even a fortress, in\norder, having retreated, to concentrate its forces not only for\ndefence but for an advance. We retreated like strikers amongst whom\nto-day energies and resources have been exhausted, but who, clenching\ntheir teeth, are preparing for a new struggle. If we were not filled\nwith an unconquerable belief in the world significance of the Soviet\ndictatorship, we should not have accepted the most painful sacrifices\nat Brest-Litovsk. If our faith had proved to be contradicted by the\nactual course of events, the Brest Peace would have gone down to\nhistory as the futile capitulation of a doomed regime. That is how the\nsituation was judged _then_, not only by the Kuehlmanns, but also\nby the Kautskies of all countries. But we proved right in our\nestimate, as of our weakness then, so of our strength in the future.\nThe existence of the Ebert Republic, with its universal suffrage, its\nparliamentary swindling, its \"freedom\" of the Press, and its murder of\nlabor leaders, is merely a necessary link in the historical chain of\nslavery and scoundrelism. The existence of the Soviet Government is a\nfact of immeasurable revolutionary significance. It was necessary to\nretain it, utilizing the conflict of the capitalist nations, the as\nyet unfinished imperialist war, the self-confident effrontery of the\nHohenzollern bands, the thick-wittedness of the world-bourgeoisie as\nfar as the fundamental questions of the revolution were concerned, the\nantagonism of America and Europe, the complication of relations within\nthe Entente. We had to lead our yet unfinished Soviet ship over the\nstormy waves, amid rocks and reefs, completing its building and\narmament en route.\n\nKautsky has the audacity to repeat the accusation that we did not, at\nthe beginning of 1918, hurl ourselves unarmed against our mighty foe.\nHad we done this we would have been crushed.[8] The first great\nattempt of the proletariat to seize power would have suffered defeat.\nThe revolutionary wing of the European proletariat would have been\ndealt the severest possible blow. The Entente would have made peace\nwith the Hohenzollern over the corpse of the Russian Revolution, and\nthe world capitalist reaction would have received a respite for a\nnumber of years. When Kautsky says that, concluding the Brest Peace,\nwe did not think of its influence on the fate of the German\nRevolution, he is uttering a disgraceful slander. We considered the\nquestion from all sides, and our _sole criterion_ was the interests of\nthe international revolution.\n\n          [8] The Vienna Arbeiterzeitung opposes, as is fitting, the\n          wise Russian Communists to the foolish Austrians. \"Did not\n          Trotsky,\" the paper writes, \"with a clear view and\n          understanding of possibilities, sign the Brest-Litovsk peace\n          of violence, notwithstanding that it served for the\n          consolidation of German imperialism? The Brest Peace was\n          just as harsh and shameful as is the Versailles Peace. But\n          does this mean that Trotsky had to be rash enough to\n          continue the war against Germany? Would not the fate of the\n          Russian Revolution long ago have been sealed? Trotsky bowed\n          before the unalterable necessity of signing the shameful\n          treaty in anticipation of the German revolution.\" The honor\n          of having foreseen all the consequences of the Brest Peace\n          belongs to Lenin. But this, of course, alters nothing in the\n          argument of the organ of the Viennese Kautskians.\n\nWe came to the conclusion that those interests demanded that the only\nSoviet Government in the world should be preserved. And we proved\nright. Whereas Kautsky awaited our fall, if not with impatience, at\nleast with certainty; and on this expected fall built up his whole\ninternational policy.\n\nThe minutes of the session of the Coalition Government of November 19,\n1918, published by the Bauer Ministry, run:--\"First, a continuation of\nthe discussion as to the relations of Germany and the Soviet Republic.\nHaase advises a policy of procrastination. Kautsky agrees with Haase:\n_decision must be postponed_. _The Soviet Government will not last\nlong. It will inevitably fall in the course of a few weeks_....\"\n\nIn this way, at the time when the situation of the Soviet Government\nwas really extremely difficult--for the destruction of German\nmilitarism had given the Entente, it seemed, the full possibility of\nfinishing with us \"in the course of a few weeks\"--at that moment\nKautsky not only does not hasten to our aid, and even does not merely\nwash his hands of the whole affair; he participates in active\ntreachery against revolutionary Russia. To aid Scheidemann in his role\nof _watch-dog_ of the bourgeoisie, instead of the \"programme\" role\nassigned to him of its \"_grave-digger_,\" Kautsky himself hastens\nto become the grave-digger of the Soviet Government. But the Soviet\nGovernment is alive. It will outlive all its grave-diggers.\n\n\n\n\n8\n\nPROBLEMS OF THE ORGANIZATION OF LABOR\n\n\nTHE SOVIET GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY\n\nIf, in the first period of the Soviet revolution, the principal\naccusation of the bourgeois world was directed against our savagery\nand blood-thirstiness, later, when that argument, from frequent use,\nhad become blunted, and had lost its force, we were made responsible\nchiefly for the economic disorganization of the country. In harmony\nwith his present mission, Kautsky methodically translates into the\nlanguage of pseudo-Marxism all the bourgeois charges against the\nSoviet Government of destroying the industrial life of Russia. The\nBolsheviks began socialization without a plan. They socialized what\nwas not ready for socialization. The Russian working class,\naltogether, is not yet prepared for the administration of industry;\nand so on, and so on.\n\nRepeating and combining these accusations, Kautsky, with dull\nobstinacy, hides the real cause for our economic disorganization: the\nimperialist slaughter, the civil war, and the blockade.\n\nSoviet Russia, from the first months of its existence, found itself\ndeprived of coal, oil, metal, and cotton. First the Austro-German and\nthen the Entente imperialisms, with the assistance of the Russian\nWhite Guards, tore away from Soviet Russia the Donetz coal and\nmetal-working region, the oil districts of the Caucasus, Turkestan\nwith its cotton, Ural with its richest deposits of metals, Siberia\nwith its bread and meat. The Donetz area had usually supplied our\nindustry with 94 per cent. of its coal and 74 per cent. of its crude\nore. The Ural supplied the remaining 20 per cent. of the ore and 4 per\ncent. of the coal. Both these regions, during the civil war, were cut\noff from us. We were deprived of half a milliard poods of coal\nimported from abroad. Simultaneously, we were left without oil: the\noilfields, one and all, passed into the hands of our enemies. One\nneeds to have a truly brazen forehead to speak, in face of these\nfacts, of the destructive influence of \"premature,\" \"barbarous,\" etc.,\nsocialization. An industry which is completely deprived of fuel and\nraw materials--whether that industry belongs to a capitalist trust or\nto the Labor State, whether its factories be socialized or not--its\nchimneys will not smoke in either case without coal or oil. Something\nmight be learned about this, say, in Austria; and for that matter\nin Germany itself. A weaving factory administered according to the\nbest Kautskian methods--if we admit that anything at all can be\nadministered by Kautskian methods, except one's own inkstand--will not\nproduce prints if it is not supplied with cotton. And we were\nsimultaneously deprived both of Turkestan and American cotton. In\naddition, as has been pointed out, we had no fuel.\n\nOf course, the blockade and the civil war came as the result of the\nproletarian revolution in Russia. But it does not at all follow from\nthis that the terrible devastation caused by the Anglo-American-French\nblockade and the robber campaigns of Kolchak and Denikin have to be\nput down to the discredit of the Soviet methods of economic\norganization.\n\nThe imperialist war that preceded the revolution, with its\nall-devouring material and technical demands, imposed a much greater\nstrain on our young industry than on the industry of more powerful\ncapitalist countries. Our transport suffered particularly severely.\nThe exploitation of the railways increased considerably; the wear and\ntear correspondingly; while repairs were reduced to a strict minimum.\nThe inevitable hour of Nemesis was brought nearer by the fuel crisis.\nOur almost simultaneous loss of the Donetz coal, foreign coal, and the\noil of the Caucasus, obliged us in the sphere of transport to have\nrecourse to wood. And, as the supplies of wood fuel were not in the\nleast calculated with a view to this, we had to stoke our boilers with\nrecently stored raw wood, which has an extremely destructive effect on\nthe mechanism of locomotives that are already worn out. We see, in\nconsequence, that the chief reasons for the collapse of transport\npreceded November, 1917. But even those reasons which are directly or\nindirectly bound up with the November Revolution fall under the\nheading of political consequences of the revolution; and in no\ncircumstances do they affect Socialist economic methods.\n\nThe influence of political disturbances in the economic sphere was not\nlimited only to questions of transport and fuel. If world industry,\nduring the last decade, was more and more becoming a single organism,\nthe more directly does this apply to national industry. On the other\nhand, the war and the revolution were mechanically breaking up and\ntearing asunder Russian industry in every direction. The industrial\nruin of Poland, the Baltic fringe, and later of Petrograd, began under\nTsarism and continued under Kerensky, embracing ever new and newer\nregions. Endless evacuations simultaneous with the destruction of\nindustry, of necessity meant the destruction of transport also. During\nthe civil war, with its changing fronts, evacuations assumed a more\nfeverish and consequently a still more destructive character. Each\nside temporarily or permanently evacuated this or that industrial\ncentre, and took all possible steps to ensure that the most important\nindustrial enterprises could not be utilized by the enemy: all\nvaluable machines were carried off, or at any rate their most delicate\nparts, together with the technical and best workers. The evacuation\nwas followed by a re-evacuation, which not infrequently completed the\ndestruction both of the property transferred and of the railways. Some\nmost important industrial areas--especially in the Ukraine and in the\nUrals--changed hands several times.\n\nTo this it must be added that, at the time when the destruction of\ntechnical equipment was being accomplished on an unprecedented scale,\nthe supply of machines from abroad, which hitherto played a decisive\npart in our industry, had completely ceased.\n\nBut not only did the dead elements of production--buildings, machines,\nrails, fuel, and raw material--suffer terrible losses under the\ncombined blows of the war and the revolution. Not less, if not more,\ndid the chief factor of industry, its living creative force--the\nproletariat--suffer. The proletariat was consolidating the November\nrevolution, building and defending the apparatus of Soviet power, and\ncarrying on a ceaseless struggle with the White Guards. The skilled\nworkers are, as a rule, at the same time the most advanced. The civil\nwar tore away many tens of thousands of the best workers for a long\ntime from productive labor, swallowing up many thousands of them for\never. The Socialist revolution placed the chief burden of its\nsacrifices upon the proletarian vanguard, and consequently on\nindustry.\n\nAll the attention of the Soviet State has been directed, for the two\nand a half years of its existence, to the problem of military defence.\nThe best forces and its principal resources were given to the front.\n\nIn any case, the class struggle inflicts blows upon industry. That\naccusation, long before Kautsky, was levelled at it by all the\nphilosophers of the social harmony. During simple economic strikes the\nworkers consume, and do not produce. Still more powerful, therefore,\nare the blows inflicted upon economic life by the class struggle in\nits severest form--in the form of armed conflicts. But it is quite\nclear that the civil war cannot be classified under the heading of\nSocialist economic methods.\n\nThe reasons enumerated above are more than sufficient to explain the\ndifficult economic situation of Soviet Russia. There is no fuel, there\nis no metal, there is no cotton, transport is destroyed, technical\nequipment is in disorder, living labor-power is scattered over the\nface of the country, and a high percentage of it has been lost to the\nfront--is there any need to seek supplementary reasons in the economic\nUtopianism of the Bolsheviks in order to explain the fall of our\nindustry? On the contrary, each of the reasons quoted alone is\nsufficient to evoke the question: how is it possible at all that,\nunder such conditions, factories and workshops should continue to\nfunction?\n\nAnd yet they do continue principally in the shape of war industry,\nwhich is at present living at the expense of the rest. The Soviet\nGovernment was obliged to re-create it, just like the army, out of\nfragments. War industry, set up again under these conditions of\nunprecedented difficulty, has fulfilled and is fulfilling its duty:\nthe Red Army is clothed, shod, equipped with its rifle, its machine\ngun, its cannon, its bullet, its shell, its aeroplane, and all else\nthat it requires.\n\nAs soon as the dawn of peace made its appearance--after the\ndestruction of Kolchak, Yudenich, and Denikin--we placed before\nourselves the problem of economic organization in the fullest possible\nway. And already, in the course of three or four months of intensive\nwork in this sphere, it has become clear beyond all possibility of\ndoubt that, thanks to its most intimate connection with the popular\nmasses, the elasticity of its apparatus, and its own revolutionary\ninitiative, the Soviet Government disposes of such resources and\nmethods for economic reconstruction as no other government ever had or\nhas to-day.\n\nTrue, before us there arose quite new questions and new difficulties\nin the sphere of the organization of labor. Socialist theory had no\nanswers to these questions, and could not have them. We had to find\nthe solution in practice, and test it in practice. Kautskianism is a\nwhole epoch behind the gigantic economic problems being solved at\npresent by the Soviet Government. In the form of Menshevism, it\nconstantly throws obstacles in our way, opposing the practical\nmeasures of our economic reconstruction by bourgeois prejudices and\nbureaucratic-intellectual scepticism.\n\nTo introduce the reader to the very essence of the questions of the\norganization of labor, as they stand at present before us, we quote\nbelow the report of the author of this book at the Third All-Russian\nCongress of Trade Unions. With the object of the fullest possible\nelucidation of the question, the text of the speech is supplemented by\nconsiderable extracts from the author's reports at the All-Russian\nCongress of Economic Councils and at the Ninth Congress of the\nCommunist Party.\n\n\nREPORT ON THE ORGANIZATION OF LABOR\n\nComrades, the internal civil war is coming to an end. On the western\nfront, the situation remains undecided. It is possible that the Polish\nbourgeoisie will hurl a challenge at its fate.... But even in this\ncase--we do not seek it--the war will not demand of us that\nall-devouring concentration of forces which the simultaneous struggle\non four fronts imposed upon us. The frightful pressure of the war is\nbecoming weaker. Economic requirements and problems are more and more\ncoming to the fore. History is bringing us, along the whole line, to\nour fundamental problem--the organization of labor on new social\nfoundations. The organization of labor is in its essence the\norganization of the new society: every historical form of society is\nin its foundation a form of organization of labor. While every\nprevious form of society was an organization of labor in the interests\nof a minority, which organized its State apparatus for the oppression\nof the overwhelming majority of the workers, we are making the first\nattempt in world history to organize labor in the interests of the\nlaboring majority itself. This, however, does not exclude the element\nof compulsion in all its forms, both the most gentle and the extremely\nsevere. The element of State compulsion not only does not disappear\nfrom the historical arena, but on the contrary will still play, for a\nconsiderable period, an extremely prominent part.\n\nAs a general rule, man strives to avoid labor. Love for work is not at\nall an inborn characteristic: it is created by economic pressure and\nsocial education. One may even say that man is a fairly lazy animal.\nIt is on this quality, in reality, that is founded to a considerable\nextent all human progress; because if man did not strive to expend his\nenergy economically, did not seek to receive the largest possible\nquantity of products in return for a small quantity of energy, there\nwould have been no technical development or social culture. It would\nappear, then, from this point of view that human laziness is a\nprogressive force, Old Antonio Labriola, the Italian Marxist, even\nused to picture the man of the future as a \"happy and lazy genius.\" We\nmust not, however, draw the conclusion from this that the party and\nthe trade unions must propagate this quality in their agitation as a\nmoral duty. No, no! We have sufficient of it as it is. The problem\nbefore the social organization is just to bring \"laziness\" within a\ndefinite framework, to discipline it, and to pull mankind together\nwith the help of methods and measures invented by mankind itself.\n\n\nCOMPULSORY LABOR SERVICE\n\nThe key to economic organization is labor-power, skilled, elementarily\ntrained, semi-trained, untrained, or unskilled. To work out methods\nfor its accurate registration, mobilization, distribution, productive\napplication, means practically to solve the problem of economic\nconstruction. This is a problem for a whole epoch--a gigantic problem.\nIts difficulty is intensified by the fact that we have to reconstruct\nlabor on Socialist foundations in conditions of hitherto unknown\npoverty and terrifying misery.\n\nThe more our machine equipment is worn out, the more disordered our\nrailways grow, the less hope there is for us of receiving machines to\nany significant extent from abroad in the near future, the greater is\nthe importance acquired by the question of living labor-power. At\nfirst sight it would seem that there is plenty of it. But how are we\nto get at it? How are we to apply it? How are we productively to\norganize it? Even with the cleaning of snow drifts from the railway\ntracks, we were brought face to face with very big difficulties. It\nwas absolutely impossible to meet those difficulties by means of\nbuying labor-power on the market, with the present insignificant\npurchasing power of money, and in the most complete absence of\nmanufactured products. Our fuel requirements cannot be satisfied, even\npartially, without a mass application, on a scale hitherto unknown, of\nlabor-power to work on wood, fuel, peat, and combustible slate. The\ncivil war has played havoc with our railways, our bridges, our\nbuildings, our stations. We require at once tens and hundreds of\nthousands of hands to restore order to all this. For production on a\nlarge scale in our timber, peat, and other enterprises, we require\nhousing for our workers, if they be only temporary huts. Hence, again,\nthe necessity of devoting a considerable amount of labor-power to\nbuilding work. Many workers are required to organize river navigation;\nand so on, and so forth....\n\nCapitalist industry utilizes auxiliary labor-power on a large scale,\nin the shape of peasants employed on industry for only part of the\nyear. The village, throttled by the grip of landlessness, always threw\na certain surplus of labor-power on to the market. The State obliged\nit to do this by its demand for taxes. The market offered the peasant\nmanufactured goods. To-day, we have none of this. The village has\nacquired more land; there is not sufficient agricultural machinery;\nworkers are required for the land; industry can at present give\npractically nothing to the village; and the market no longer has an\nattractive influence on labor-power.\n\nYet labor-power is required--required more than at any time before.\nNot only the worker, but the peasant also, must give to the Soviet\nState his energy, in order to ensure that laboring Russia, and with it\nthe laboring masses, should not be crushed. The only way to attract\nthe labor-power necessary for our economic problems is to introduce\n_compulsory labor service_.\n\nThe very principle of compulsory labor service is for the Communist\nquite unquestionable. \"He who works not, neither shall he eat.\" And as\nall must eat, all are obliged to work. Compulsory labor service is\nsketched in our Constitution and in our Labor Code. But hitherto it\nhas always remained a mere principle. Its application has always had\nan accidental, impartial, episodic character. Only now, when along the\nwhole line we have reached the question of the economic rebirth of\nthe country, have problems of compulsory labor service arisen before\nus in the most concrete way possible. The only solution of economic\ndifficulties that is correct from the point of view both of principle\nand of practice is to treat the population of the whole country as the\nreservoir of the necessary labor-power--an almost inexhaustible\nreservoir--and to introduce strict order into the work of its\nregistration, mobilization, and utilization.\n\nHow are we practically to begin the utilization of labor-power on the\nbasis of compulsory military service?\n\nHitherto only the War Department has had any experience in the sphere\nof the registration, mobilization, formation, and transference from\none place to another of large masses. These technical methods and\nprinciples were inherited by our War Department, to a considerable\nextent, from the past.\n\nIn the economic sphere there is no such heritage; since in that sphere\nthere existed the principle of private property, and labor-power\nentered each factory separately from the market. It is consequently\nnatural that we should be obliged, at any rate during the first\nperiod, to make use of the apparatus of the War Department on a large\nscale for labor mobilizations.\n\nWe have set up special organizations for the application of the\nprinciple of compulsory labor service in the centre and in the\ndistricts: in the provinces, the counties, and the rural districts, we\nhave already compulsory labor committees at work. They rely for the\nmost part on the central and local organs of the War Department. Our\neconomic centres--the Supreme Economic Council, the People's\nCommissariat for Agriculture, the People's Commissariat for Ways and\nCommunications, the People's Commissariat for Food--work out estimates\nof the labor-power they require. The Chief Committee for Compulsory\nLabor Service receives these estimates, co-ordinates them, brings them\ninto agreement with the local resources of labor-power, gives\ncorresponding directions to its local organs, and through them carries\nout labor mobilizations. Within the boundaries of regions, provinces,\nand counties, the local bodies carry out this work independently, with\nthe object of satisfying local economic requirements.\n\nAll this organization is at present only in the embryo stage. It is\nstill very imperfect. But the course we have adopted is unquestionably\nthe right one.\n\nIf the organization of the new society can be reduced fundamentally to\nthe reorganization of labor, the organization of labor signifies in\nits turn the correct introduction of general labor service. This\nproblem is in no way met by measures of a purely departmental and\nadministrative character. It touches the very foundations of economic\nlife and the social structure. It finds itself in conflict with the\nmost powerful psychological habits and prejudices. The introduction of\ncompulsory labor service pre-supposes, on the one hand, a colossal\nwork of education, and, on the other, the greatest possible care in\nthe practical method adopted.\n\nThe utilization of labor-power must be to the last degree economical.\nIn our labor mobilizations we have to reckon with the economic and\nsocial conditions of every region, and with the requirements of the\nprincipal occupation of the local population--_i.e._, of agriculture.\nWe have, if possible, to make use of the previous auxiliary\noccupations and part-time industries of the local population. We have\nto see that the transference of mobilized labor-power should take\nplace over the shortest possible distances--_i.e._, to the nearest\nsectors of the labor front. We must see that the number of workers\nmobilized correspond to the breadth of our economic problem. We must\nsee that the workers mobilized be supplied in good time with the\nnecessary implements of production, and with food. We must see that at\ntheir head be placed experienced and business-like instructors. We\nmust see that the workers mobilized become convinced on the spot that\ntheir labor-power is being made use of cautiously and economically and\nis not being expended haphazard. Wherever it is possible, direct\nmobilization must be replaced by the labor task--_i.e._, by the\nimposition on the rural district of an obligation to supply, for\nexample, in such a time such a number of cubic sazhens of wood, or to\nbring up by carting to such a station so many poods of cast-iron, etc.\nIn this sphere, it is essential to study experience as it accumulates\nwith particular care, to allow a great measure of elasticity to the\neconomic apparatus, to show more attention to local interests and\nsocial peculiarities of tradition. In a word, we have to complete,\nameliorate, perfect, the system, methods, and organs for the\nmobilization of labor-power. But at the same time it is necessary once\nfor all to make clear to ourselves that the principle itself of\ncompulsory labor service has just so radically and permanently\nreplaced the principle of free hiring as the socialization of the\nmeans of production has replaced capitalist property.\n\n\nTHE MILITARIZATION OF LABOR\n\nThe introduction of compulsory labor service is unthinkable without\nthe application, to a greater or less degree, of the methods of\nmilitarization of labor. This term at once brings us into the region\nof the greatest possible superstitions and outcries from the\nopposition.\n\nTo understand what militarization of labor in the Workers' State\nmeans, and what its methods are, one has to make clear to oneself in\nwhat way the army itself was militarized--for, as we all know, in its\nfirst days the army did not at all possess the necessary \"military\"\nqualities. During these two years we mobilized for the Red Army nearly\nas many soldiers as there are members in our trade unions. But the\nmembers of the trade unions are workers, while in the army the workers\nconstitute about 15 per cent., the remainder being a peasant mass.\nAnd, none the less, we can have no doubt that the true builder and\n\"militarizer\" of the Red Army has been the foremost worker, pushed\nforward by the party and the trade union organization. Whenever the\nsituation at the front was difficult, whenever the recently-mobilized\npeasant mass did not display sufficient stability, we turned on the\none hand to the Central Committee of the Communist Party, and on the\nother to the All-Russian Council of Trade Unions. From both these\nsources the foremost workers were sent to the front, and there built\nthe Red Army after their own likeness and image--educating, hardening,\nand militarizing the peasant mass.\n\nThis fact must be kept in mind to-day with all possible clearness\nbecause it throws the best possible light on the meaning of\nmilitarization in the workers' and peasants' State. The militarization\nof labor has more than once been put forward as a watchword and\nrealized in separate branches of economic life in the bourgeois\ncountries, both in the West and in Russia under Tsarism. But our\nmilitarization is distinguished from those experiments by its aims and\nmethods, just as much as the class-conscious proletariat organized for\nemancipation is distinguished from the class-conscious bourgeoisie\norganized for exploitation.\n\nFrom the confusion, semi-unconscious and semi-deliberate, of two\ndifferent historical forms of militarization--the proletarian or\nSocialist and the bourgeois--there spring the greater part of the\nprejudices, mistakes, protests, and outcries on this subject. It is on\nsuch a confusion of meanings that the whole position of the\nMensheviks, our Russian Kautskies, is founded, as it was expressed in\ntheir theoretical resolution moved at the present Congress of Trade\nUnions.\n\nThe Mensheviks attacked not only the militarization of labor, but\ngeneral labor service also. They reject these methods as \"compulsory.\"\nThey preach that general labor service means a low productivity of\nlabor, while militarization means senseless scattering of labor-power.\n\n\"Compulsory labor always is unproductive labor,\"--such is the exact\nphrase in the Menshevik resolution. This affirmation brings us right\nup to the very essence of the question. For, as we see, the question\nis not at all whether it is wise or unwise to proclaim this or that\nfactory militarized, or whether it is helpful or otherwise to give the\nmilitary revolutionary tribunal powers to punish corrupt workers who\nsteal materials and instruments, so precious to us, or who sabotage\ntheir work. No, the Mensheviks have gone much further into the\nquestion. Affirming that compulsory labor is _always_ unproductive,\nthey thereby attempt to cut the ground from under the feet of our\neconomic reconstruction in the present transitional epoch. For it is\nbeyond question that to step from bourgeois anarchy to Socialist\neconomy without a revolutionary dictatorship, and without compulsory\nforms of economic organization, is impossible.\n\nIn the first paragraph of the Menshevik resolution we are told that we\nare living in the period of transition from the capitalist method of\nproduction to the Socialist. What does this mean? And, first of all,\nwhence does this come? Since what time has this been admitted by our\nKautskians? They accused us--and this formed the foundation of our\ndifferences--of Socialist Utopianism; they declared--and this\nconstituted the essence of their political teaching--that there can be\nno talk about the transition to Socialism in our epoch, and that our\nrevolution is a bourgeois revolution, and that we Communists are only\ndestroying capitalist economy, and that we are not leading the country\nforward but are throwing it back. This was the root difference--the\nmost profound, the most irreconcilable--from which all the others\nfollowed. Now the Mensheviks tell us incidentally, in the introductory\nparagraph of their resolution, as something that does not require\nproof, that we are in the period of transition from capitalism to\nSocialism. And this quite unexpected admission, which, one might\nthink, is extremely like a complete capitulation, is made the more\nlightly and carelessly that, as the whole resolution shows, it imposes\nno revolutionary obligations on the Mensheviks. They remain entirely\ncaptive to the bourgeois ideology. After recognizing that we are on\nthe road to Socialism, the Mensheviks with all the greater ferocity\nattack those methods without which, in the harsh and difficult\nconditions of the present day, the transition to Socialism cannot be\naccomplished.\n\nCompulsory labor, we are told, is always unproductive. We ask what\ndoes compulsory labor mean here, that is, to what kind of labor is it\nopposed? Obviously, to free labor. What are we to understand, in that\ncase, by free labor? That phrase was formulated by the progressive\nphilosophers of the bourgeoisie, in the struggle against unfree,\n_i.e._, against the serf labor of peasants, and against the\nstandardized and regulated labor of the craft guilds. Free labor meant\nlabor which might be \"freely\" bought in the market; freedom was\nreduced to a legal fiction, on the basis of freely-hired slavery. We\nknow of no other form of free labor in history. Let the very few\nrepresentatives of the Mensheviks at this Congress explain to us what\nthey mean by free, non-compulsory labor, if not the market of\nlabor-power.\n\nHistory has known slave labor. History has known serf labor. History\nhas known the regulated labor of the mediaeval craft guilds. Throughout\nthe world there now prevails hired labor, which the yellow journalists\nof all countries oppose, as the highest possible form of liberty, to\nSoviet \"slavery.\" We, on the other hand, oppose capitalist slavery by\nsocially-regulated labor on the basis of an economic plan, obligatory\nfor the whole people and consequently compulsory for each worker in\nthe country. Without this we cannot even dream of a transition to\nSocialism. The element of material, physical, compulsion may be\ngreater or less; that depends on many conditions--on the degree of\nwealth or poverty of the country, on the heritage of the past, on the\ngeneral level of culture, on the condition of transport, on the\nadministrative apparatus, etc., etc. But obligation, and,\nconsequently, compulsion, are essential conditions in order to bind\ndown the bourgeois anarchy, to secure socialization of the means of\nproduction and labor, and to reconstruct economic life on the basis of\na single plan.\n\nFor the Liberal, freedom in the long run means the market. Can or\ncannot the capitalist buy labor-power at a moderate price--that is for\nhim the sole measure of the freedom of labor. That measure is false,\nnot only in relation to the future but also in connection with the\npast.\n\nIt would be absurd to imagine that, during the time of bondage-right,\nwork was carried entirely under the stick of physical compulsion, as\nif an overseer stood with a whip behind the back of every peasant.\nMediaeval forms of economic life grew up out of definite conditions of\nproduction, and created definite forms of social life, with which the\npeasant grew accustomed, and which he at certain periods considered\njust, or at any rate unalterable. Whenever he, under the influence of\na change in material conditions, displayed hostility, the State\ndescended upon him with its material force, thereby displaying the\ncompulsory character of the organization of labor.\n\nThe foundations of the militarization of labor are those forms of\nState compulsion without which the replacement of capitalist economy\nby the Socialist will for ever remain an empty sound. Why do we speak\nof _militarization_? Of course, this is only an analogy--but an\nanalogy very rich in content. No social organization except the army\nhas ever considered itself justified in subordinating citizens to\nitself in such a measure, and to control them by its will on all sides\nto such a degree, as the State of the proletarian dictatorship\nconsiders itself justified in doing, and does. Only the army--just\nbecause in its way it used to decide questions of the life or death of\nnations, States, and ruling classes--was endowed with powers of\ndemanding from each and all complete submission to its problems, aims,\nregulations, and orders. And it achieved this to the greater degree,\nthe more the problems of military organization coincided with the\nrequirements of social development.\n\nThe question of the life or death of Soviet Russia is at present being\nsettled on the labor front; our economic, and together with them our\nprofessional and productive organizations, have the right to demand\nfrom their members all that devotion, discipline, and executive\nthoroughness, which hitherto only the army required.\n\nOn the other hand, the relation of the capitalist to the worker, is\nnot at all founded merely on the \"free\" contract, but includes the\nvery powerful elements of State regulation and material compulsion.\n\nThe competition of capitalist with capitalist imparted a certain very\nlimited reality to the fiction of freedom of labor; but this\ncompetition, reduced to a minimum by trusts and syndicates, we have\nfinally eliminated by destroying private property in the means of\nproduction. The transition to Socialism, verbally acknowledged by the\nMensheviks, means the transition from anarchical distribution of\nlabor-power--by means of the game of buying and selling, the movement\nof market prices and wages--to systematic distribution of the workers\nby the economic organizations of the county, the province, and the\nwhole country. Such a form of planned distribution pre-supposes the\nsubordination of those distributed to the economic plan of the State.\nAnd this is the essence of _compulsory labor service_, which\ninevitably enters into the programme of the Socialist organization of\nlabor, as its fundamental element.\n\nIf organized economic life is unthinkable without compulsory labor\nservice, the latter is not to be realized without the abolition of\nfiction of the freedom of labor, and without the substitution for it\nof the obligatory principle, which is supplemented by real compulsion.\n\nThat free labor is more productive than compulsory labor is quite true\nwhen it refers to the period of transition from feudal society to\nbourgeois society. But one needs to be a Liberal or--at the present\nday--a Kautskian, to make that truth permanent, and to transfer its\napplication to the period of transition from the bourgeois to the\nSocialist order. If it were true that compulsory labor is unproductive\nalways and under every condition, as the Menshevik resolution says,\nall our constructive work would be doomed to failure. For we can have\nno way to Socialism except by the authoritative regulation of the\neconomic forces and resources of the country, and the centralized\ndistribution of labor-power in harmony with the general State plan.\nThe Labor State considers itself empowered to send every worker to the\nplace where his work is necessary. And not one serious Socialist will\nbegin to deny to the Labor State the right to lay its hand upon the\nworker who refuses to execute his labor duty. But the whole point is\nthat the Menshevik path of transition to \"Socialism\" is a milky way,\nwithout the bread monopoly, without the abolition of the market,\nwithout the revolutionary dictatorship, and without the militarization\nof labor.\n\nWithout general labor service, without the right to order and demand\nfulfilment of orders, the trade unions will be transformed into a mere\nform without a reality; for the young Socialist State requires trade\nunions, not for a struggle for better conditions of labor--that is the\ntask of the social and State organizations as a whole--but to organize\nthe working class for the ends of production, to educate, discipline,\ndistribute, group, retain certain categories and certain workers at\ntheir posts for fixed periods--in a word, hand in hand with the State\nto exercise their authority in order to lead the workers into the\nframework of a single economic plan. To defend, under such conditions,\nthe \"freedom\" of labor means to defend fruitless, helpless, absolutely\nunregulated searches for better conditions, unsystematic, chaotic\nchanges from factory to factory, in a hungry country, in conditions of\nterrible disorganization of the transport and food apparatus.... What\nexcept the complete collapse of the working-class and complete\neconomic anarchy could be the result of the stupid attempt to\nreconcile bourgeois freedom of labor with proletarian socialization of\nthe means of production?\n\nConsequently, comrades, militarization of labor, in the root sense\nindicated by me, is not the invention of individual politicians or an\ninvention of our War Department, but represents the inevitable method\nof organization and disciplining of labor-power during the period of\ntransition from capitalism to Socialism. And if the compulsory\ndistribution of labor-power, its brief or prolonged retention at\nparticular industries and factories, its regulation within the\nframework of the general State economic plan--if these forms of\ncompulsion lead always and everywhere, as the Menshevik resolution\nstates, to the lowering of productivity, then you can erect a monument\nover the grave of Socialism. For we cannot build Socialism on\ndecreased production. Every social organization is in its foundation\nan organization of labor, and if our new organization of labor leads\nto a lowering of its productivity, it thereby most fatally leads to\nthe destruction of the Socialist society we are building, whichever\nway we twist and turn, whatever measures of salvation we invent.\n\nThat is why I stated at the very beginning that the Menshevik argument\nagainst militarization leads us to the root question of general labor\nservice and its influence on the productivity of labor. It is true\nthat compulsory labor is always unproductive? We have to reply that\nthat is the most pitiful and worthless Liberal prejudice. The whole\nquestion is: who applies the principle of compulsion, over whom, and\nfor what purpose? What State, what class, in what conditions, by what\nmethods? Even the serf organization was in certain conditions a step\nforward, and led to the increase in the productivity of labor.\nProduction has grown extremely under capitalism, that is, in the epoch\nof the free buying and selling of labor-power on the market. But free\nlabor, together with the whole of capitalism, entered the stage of\nimperialism and blew itself up in the imperialist war. The whole\neconomic life of the world entered a period of bloody anarchy,\nmonstrous perturbations, the impoverishment, dying out, and\ndestruction of masses of the people. Can we, under such conditions,\ntalk about the productivity of free labor, when the fruits of that\nlabor are destroyed ten times more quickly than they are created? The\nimperialistic war, and that which followed it, displayed the\nimpossibility of society existing any longer on the foundation of free\nlabor. Or perhaps someone possesses the secret of how to separate free\nlabor from the delirium tremens of imperialism, that is, of turning\nback the clock of social development half a century or a century?\n\nIf it were to turn out that the planned, and consequently compulsory,\norganization of labor which is arising to replace imperialism led to\nthe lowering of economic life, it would mean the destruction of all\nour culture, and a retrograde movement of humanity back to barbarism\nand savagery.\n\nHappily, not only for Soviet Russia but for the whole of humanity, the\nphilosophy of the low productivity of compulsory labor--\"everywhere\nand under all conditions\"--is only a belated echo of ancient Liberal\nmelodies. The productivity of labor is the total productive meaning of\nthe most complex combination of social conditions, and is not in the\nleast measured or pre-determined by the legal form of labor.\n\nThe whole of human history is the history of the organization and\neducation of collective man for labor, with the object of attaining a\nhigher level of productivity. Man, as I have already permitted myself\nto point out, is lazy; that is, he instinctively strives to receive\nthe largest possible quantity of products for the least possible\nexpenditure of energy. Without such a striving, there would have been\nno economic development. The growth of civilization is measured by the\nproductivity of human labor, and each new form of social relations\nmust pass through a test on such lines.\n\n\"Free,\" that is, freely-hired labor, did not appear all at once upon\nthe world, with all the attributes of productivity. It acquired a high\nlevel of productivity only gradually, as a result of a prolonged\napplication of methods of labor organization and labor education. Into\nthat education there entered the most varying methods and practices,\nwhich in addition changed from one epoch to another. First of all the\nbourgeoisie drove the peasant from the village to the high road with\nits club, having preliminarily robbed him of his land, and when he\nwould not work in the factory it branded his forehead with red-hot\nirons, hung him, sent him to the gallows; and in the long run it\ntaught the tramp who had been shaken out of his village to stand at\nthe lathe in the factory. At this stage, as we see, \"free\" labor is\nlittle different as yet from convict labor, both in its material\nconditions and in its legal aspect.\n\nAt different times the bourgeoisie combined the red-hot irons of\nrepression in different proportions with methods of moral influence,\nand, first of all, the teaching of the priest. As early as the\nsixteenth century, it reformed the old religion of Catholicism, which\ndefended the feudal order, and adapted for itself a new religion in\nthe form of the Reformation, which combined the free soul with free\ntrade and free labor. It found for itself new priests, who became the\nspiritual shop-assistants, pious counter-jumpers of the bourgeoisie.\nThe school, the press, the market-place, and parliament were adapted\nby the bourgeoisie for the moral fashioning of the working-class.\nDifferent forms of wages--day-wages, piece wages, contract and\ncollective bargaining--all these are merely changing methods in the\nhands of the bourgeoisie for the labor mobilization of the\nproletariat. To this there are added all sorts of forms for\nencouraging labor and exciting ambition. Finally, the bourgeoisie\nlearned how to gain possession even of the trade unions--_i.e._,\nthe organizations of the working class itself; and it made use of them\non a large scale, particularly in Great Britain, to discipline the\nworkers. It domesticated the leaders, and with their help inoculated\nthe workers with the fiction of the necessity for peaceful organic\nlabor, for a faultless attitude to their duties, and for a strict\nexecution of the laws of the bourgeois State. The crown of all this\nwork is Taylorism, in which the elements of the scientific\norganization of the process of production are combined with the most\nconcentrated methods of the system of sweating.\n\nFrom all that has been said above, it is clear that the productivity\nof freely-hired labor is not something that appeared all at once,\nperfected, presented by history on a salver. No, it was the result of\na long and stubborn policy of repression, education, organization, and\nencouragement, applied by the bourgeoisie in its relations with the\nworking class. Step by step it learned to squeeze out of the workers\never more and more of the products of labor; and one of the most\npowerful weapons in its hand turned out to be the proclamation of free\nhiring as the sole free, normal, healthy, productive, and saving form\nof labor.\n\nA legal form of labor which would of its own virtue guarantee its\nproductivity has not been known in history, and cannot be known. The\nlegal superstructure of labor corresponds to the relations and current\nideas of the epoch. The productivity of labor is developed, on the\nbasis of the development of technical forces, by labor education, by\nthe gradual adaptation of the workers to the changed methods of\nproduction and the new form of social relations.\n\nThe creation of Socialist society means the organization of the\nworkers on new foundations, their adaptation to those foundations, and\ntheir labor re-education, with the one unchanging end of the increase\nin the productivity of labor. The working class, under the leadership\nof its vanguard, must itself re-educate itself on the foundations of\nSocialism. Whoever has not understood this is ignorant of the A B C of\nSocialist construction.\n\nWhat methods have we, then, for the re-education of the workers?\nInfinitely wider than the bourgeoisie has--and, in addition, honest,\ndirect, open methods, infected neither by hypocrisy nor by lies. The\nbourgeoisie had to have recourse to deception, representing its labor\nas free, when in reality it was not merely socially-imposed, but\nactually slave labor. For it was the labor of the majority in the\ninterests of the minority. We, on the other hand, organize labor in\nthe interests of the workers themselves, and therefore we can have no\nmotives for hiding or masking the socially compulsory character of our\nlabor organization. We need the fairy stories neither of the priests,\nnor of the Liberals, nor of the Kautskians. We say directly and openly\nto the masses that they can save, rebuild, and bring to a flourishing\ncondition a Socialist country only by means of hard work,\nunquestioning discipline and exactness in execution on the part of\nevery worker.\n\nThe chief of our resources is moral influence--propaganda not only in\nword but in deed. General labor service has an obligatory character;\nbut this does not mean at all that it represents violence done to the\nworking class. If compulsory labor came up against the opposition of\nthe majority of the workers it would turn out a broken reed, and with\nit the whole of the Soviet order. The militarization of labor, when\nthe workers are opposed to it, is the State slavery of Arakcheyev. The\nmilitarization of labor by the will of the workers themselves is the\nSocialist dictatorship. That compulsory labor service and the\nmilitarization of labor do not force the will of the workers, as\n\"free\" labor used to do, is best shown by the flourishing,\nunprecedented in the history of humanity, of labor voluntarism in the\nform of \"Subbotniks\" (Communist Saturdays). Such a phenomenon there\nnever was before, anywhere or at any time. By their own voluntary\nlabor, freely given--once a week and oftener--the workers clearly\ndemonstrate not only their readiness to bear the yoke of \"compulsory\"\nlabor but their eagerness to give the State besides that a certain\nquantity of additional labor. The \"Subbotniks\" are not only a splendid\ndemonstration of Communist solidarity, but also the best possible\nguarantee for the successful introduction of general labor service.\nSuch truly Communist tendencies must be shown up in their true light,\nextended, and developed with the help of propaganda.\n\nThe chief spiritual weapon of the bourgeoisie is religion; ours is the\nopen explanation to the masses of the exact position of things, the\nextension of scientific and technical knowledge, and the initiation of\nthe masses into the general economic plan of the State, on the basis\nof which there must be brought to bear all the labor-power at the\ndisposal of the Soviet regime.\n\nPolitical economy provided us with the principal substance of our\nagitation in the period we have just left: the capitalist social order\nwas a riddle, and we explained that riddle to the masses. To-day,\nsocial riddles are explained to the masses by the very mechanism of\nthe Soviet order, which draws the masses into all branches of\nadministration. Political economy will more and more pass into the\nrealms of history. There move forward into the foreground the sciences\nwhich study nature and the methods of subordinating it to man.\n\nThe trade unions must organize scientific and technical educational\nwork on the widest possible scale, so that every worker in his own\nbranch of industry should find the impulses for theoretical work of\nthe brain, while the latter should again return him to labor,\nperfecting it and making him more productive. The press as a whole\nmust fall into line with the economic problems of the country--not in\nthat sense alone in which this is being done at present--_i.e._,\nnot in the sense of a mere general agitation in favor of a revival of\nlabor--but in the sense of the discussion and the weighing of concrete\neconomic problems and plans, ways and means of their solution, and,\nmost important of all, the testing and criticism of results already\nachieved. The newspapers must from day to day follow the production of\nthe most important factories and other enterprises, registering their\nsuccesses and failures encouraging some and pillorying others....\n\nRussian capitalism, in consequence of its lateness, its lack of\nindependence, and its resulting parasitic features, has had much less\ntime than European capitalism technically to educate the laboring\nmasses, to train and discipline them for production. That problem is\nnow in its entirety imposed upon the industrial organizations of the\nproletariat. A good engineer, a good mechanic, and a good carpenter,\nmust have in the Soviet Republic the same publicity and fame as\nhitherto was enjoyed by prominent agitators, revolutionary fighters,\nand, in the most recent period, the most courageous and capable\ncommanders and commissaries. Greater and lesser leaders of technical\ndevelopment must occupy the central position in the public eye. Bad\nworkers must be made ashamed of doing their work badly.\n\nWe still retain, and for a long time will retain, the system of wages.\nThe further we go, the more will its importance become simply to\nguarantee to all members of society all the necessaries of life; and\nthereby it will cease to be a system of wages. But at present we are\nnot sufficiently rich for this. Our main problem is to raise the\nquantity of products turned out, and to this problem all the remainder\nmust be subordinated. In the present difficult period the system of\nwages is for us, first and foremost, not a method for guaranteeing the\npersonal existence of any separate worker, but a method of estimating\nwhat that individual worker brings by his labor to the Labor Republic.\n\nConsequently, wages, in the form both of money and of goods, must be\nbrought into the closest possible touch with the productivity of\nindividual labor. Under capitalism, the system of piece-work and of\ngrading, the application of the Taylor system, etc., have as their\nobject to increase the exploitation of the workers by the\nsqueezing-out of surplus value. Under Socialist production,\npiece-work, bonuses, etc., have as their problem to increase the\nvolume of social product, and consequently to raise the general\nwell-being. Those workers who do more for the general interest than\nothers receive the right to a greater quantity of the social product\nthan the lazy, the careless, and the disorganizers.\n\nFinally, when it rewards some, the Labor State cannot but punish\nothers--those who are clearly infringing labor solidarity, undermining\nthe common work, and seriously impairing the Socialist renaissance of\nthe country. Repression for the attainment of economic ends is a\nnecessary weapon of the Socialist dictatorship.\n\nAll the measures enumerated above--and together with them a number of\nothers--must assist the development of rivalry in the sphere of\nproduction. Without this we shall never rise above the average, which\nis a very unsatisfactory level. At the bottom of rivalry lies the\nvital instinct--the struggle for existence--which in the bourgeois\norder assumes the character of competition. Rivalry will not disappear\neven in the developed Socialist society; but with the growing\nguarantee of the necessary requirements of life rivalry will acquire\nan ever less selfish and purely idealist character. It will express\nitself in a striving to perform the greatest possible service for\none's village, county, town, or the whole of society, and to receive\nin return renown, gratitude, sympathy, or, finally, just internal\nsatisfaction from the consciousness of work well done. But in the\ndifficult period of transition, in conditions of the extreme shortage\nof material goods, and the as yet insufficiently developed state of\nsocial solidarity, rivalry must inevitably be to a greater or less\ndegree bound up with a striving to guarantee for oneself one's own\nrequirements.\n\nThis, comrades, is the sum of resources at the disposal of the Labor\nState in order to raise the productivity of labor. As we see, there is\nno ready-made solution here. We shall find it written in no book. For\nthere could not be such a book. We are now only beginning, together\nwith you, to write that book in the sweat and the blood of the\nworkers. We say: working men and women, you have crossed to the path\nof regulated labor. Only along that road will you build the Socialist\nsociety. Before you there lies a problem which no one will settle for\nyou: the problem of increasing production on new social foundations.\nUnless you solve that problem, you will perish. If you solve it, you\nwill raise humanity by a whole head.\n\n\nLABOR ARMIES\n\nThe question of the application of armies to labor purposes, which has\nacquired amongst us an enormous importance from the point of view of\nprinciple, was approached by us by the path of practice, not at all on\nthe foundations of theoretical consideration. On certain borders of\nSoviet Russia, circumstances had arisen which had left considerable\nmilitary forces free for an indefinite period. To transfer them to\nother active fronts, especially in the winter, was difficult in\nconsequence of the disorder of railway transport. Such, for example,\nproved the position of the Third Army, distributed over the provinces\nof the Ural and the Ural area. The leading workers of that army,\nunderstanding that as yet it could not be demobilized, themselves\nraised the question of its transference to labor work. They sent to\nthe centre a more or less worked-out draft decree for a labor army.\n\nThe problem was novel and difficult. Would the Red soldiers work?\nWould their work be sufficiently productive? Would it pay for itself?\nIn this connection there were doubts even in our own ranks. Needless\nto say, the Mensheviks struck up a chorus of opposition. The same\nAbramovich, at the Congress of Economic Councils called in January or\nthe beginning of February--that is to say, when the whole affair was\nstill in draft stage--foretold that we should suffer an inevitable\nfailure, for the whole undertaking was senseless, an Arakcheyev\nUtopia, etc., etc. We considered the matter otherwise. Of course the\ndifficulties were great, but they were not distinguishable in\nprinciple from many other difficulties of Soviet constructive work.\n\nLet us consider in fact what was the organism of the Third Army. Taken\nall in all, one rifle division and one cavalry division--a total of\nfifteen regiments--and, in addition, special units. The remaining\nmilitary formations had already been transformed to other armies and\nfronts. But the apparatus of military administration had remained\nuntouched as yet, and we considered it probable that in the spring we\nshould have to transfer it along the Volga to the Caucasus front,\nagainst Denikin, if by that time he were not finally broken. On the\nwhole, in the Third Army there remained about 120,000 Red soldiers in\nadministrative posts, institutions, military units, hospitals, etc. In\nthis general mass, mainly peasant in its composition, there were\nreckoned about 16,000 Communists and members of the organization of\nsympathizers--to a considerable extent workers of the Ural. In this\nway, in its composition and structure, the Third Army represented a\npeasant mass bound together into a military organization under the\nleadership of the foremost workers. In the army there worked a\nconsiderable number of military specialists, who carried out important\nmilitary functions while remaining under the general control of the\nCommunists. If we consider the Third Army from this general point of\nview, we shall see that it represents in miniature the whole of Soviet\nRussia. Whether we take the Red Army as a whole, or the organization\nof the Soviet regime in the county, province, or the whole Republic,\nincluding the economic organs, we shall find everywhere the same\nscheme of organization: millions of peasants drawn into new forms of\npolitical, economic, and social life by the organized workers, who\noccupy a controlling position in all spheres of Soviet construction.\nTo posts requiring special knowledge, we send experts of the bourgeois\nschool. They are given the necessary independence, but control over\ntheir work remains in the hands of the working class, in the person of\nits Communist Party. The introduction of general labor service is\nagain only conceivable for us as the mobilization of mainly peasant\nlabor-power under the guidance of the most advanced workers. In this\nway there were not, and could not, be any obstacles in principle in\nthe way of application of the army to labor. In other words, the\nopposition in principle to labor armies, on the part of those same\nMensheviks, was in reality opposition to \"compulsory\" labor generally,\nand consequently against general labor service and against Soviet\nmethods of economic reconstruction as a whole. This opposition did not\ntrouble us a great deal.\n\nNaturally, the military apparatus as such is not adapted directly to\nthe process of labor. But we had no illusions about that. Control had\nto remain in the hands of the appropriate economic organs; the army\nsupplied the necessary labor-power in the form of organized, compact\nunits, suitable in the mass for the execution of the simplest\nhomogeneous types of work: the freeing of roads from snow, the storage\nof fuel, building work, organization of cartage, etc., etc.\n\nTo-day we have already had considerable experience in the work of the\nlabor application of the army, and can give not merely a preliminary\nor hypothetical estimate. What are the conclusions to be drawn from\nthat experience? The Mensheviks have hastened to draw them. The same\nAbramovich, again, announced at the Miners' Congress that we had\nbecome bankrupt, that the labor armies represent parasitic formations,\nin which there are 100 officials for every ten workers. Is this true?\nNo. This is the irresponsible and malignant criticism of men who stand\non one side, do not know the facts, collect only fragments and\nrubbish, and are concerned in any way and every way either to declare\nour bankruptcy or to prophecy it. In reality, the labor armies have\nnot only not gone bankrupt, but, on the contrary, have had important\nsuccesses, have displayed their fidelity, are developing and are\nbecoming stronger and stronger. Just those prophets have gone bankrupt\nwho foretold that nothing would come of the whole plan, that nobody\nwould begin to work, and that the Red soldiers would not go to the\nlabor front but would simply scatter to their homes.\n\nThese criticisms were dictated by a philistine scepticism, lack of\nfaith in the masses, lack of faith in bold initiative, and\norganization. But did we not hear exactly the same criticism, at\nbottom, when we had recourse to extensive mobilizations for military\nproblems? Then too we were frightened, we were terrified by stories of\nmass desertion, which was absolutely inevitable, it was alleged, after\nthe imperialist war. Naturally, desertion there was, but considered by\nthe test of experience it proved not at all on such a mass scale as\nwas foretold; it did not destroy the army; the bond of morale and\norganization--Communist voluntarism and State compulsion\ncombined--allowed us to carry out mobilizations of millions to carry\nthrough numerous formations and redistributions, and to solve the most\ndifficult military problems. In the long run, the army was victorious.\nIn relation to labor problems, on the foundation of our military\nexperience, we awaited the same results; and we were not mistaken. The\nRed soldiers did not scatter when they were transformed from military\nto labor service, as the sceptics prophesied. Thanks to our\nsplendidly-organized agitation, the transference itself took place\namidst great enthusiasm. True, a certain portion of the soldiers tried\nto leave the army, but this always happens when a large military\nformation is transferred from one front to another, or is sent from\nthe rear to the front--in general when it is shaken up--and when\npotential desertion becomes active. But immediately the political\nsections, the press, the organs of struggle with desertion, etc.,\nentered into their rights; and to-day the percentage of deserters from\nour labor armies is in no way higher than in our armies on active\nservice.\n\nThe statement that the armies, in view of their internal structure,\ncan produce only a small percentage of workers, is true only to a\ncertain extent. As far as the Third Army is concerned, I have already\npointed out that it retained its complete apparatus of administration\nside by side with an extremely insignificant number of military units.\nWhile we--owing to military and not economic considerations--retained\nuntouched the staff of the army and its administrative apparatus, the\npercentage of workers produced by the army was actually extremely low.\nFrom the general number of 120,000 Red soldiers, 21% proved to be\nemployed in administrative and economic work; 16% were engaged in\ndaily detail work (guards, etc.) in connection with the large number\nof army institutions and stores; the number of sick, mainly typhus\ncases, together with the medico-sanitary personnel, was about 13%;\nabout 25% were not available for various reasons (detachment, leave,\nabsence without leave, etc.). In this way, the total personnel\navailable for work constitutes no more than 23%; this is the maximum\nof what can be drawn for labor from the given army. Actually, at\nfirst, there worked only about 14%, mainly drawn from the two\ndivisions, rifle and cavalry, which still remained with the army.\n\nBut as soon as it was clear that Denikin had been crushed, and that we\nshould not have to send the Third Army down the Volga in the spring to\nassist the forces on the Caucasus front, we immediately entered upon\nthe disbanding of the clumsy army apparatus and a more regular\nadaptation of the army institutions to problems of labor. Although\nthis work is not yet complete, it has already had time to give some\nvery significant results. At the present moment (March, 1920), the\nformer Third Army gives about 38% of its total composition as workers.\nAs for the military units of the Ural military area working side by\nside with it, they already provide 49% of their number as workers.\nThis result is not so bad, if we compare it with the amount of work\ndone in factories and workshops, amongst which in the case of many\nquite recently, in the case of some even to-day, absence from work for\nlegal and illegal reasons reached 50% and over.[9] To this one must\nadd that workers in factories and workshops are not infrequently\nassisted by the adult members of their family, while the Red soldiers\nhave no auxiliary force but themselves.\n\n          [9] Since that time this percentage has been considerably\n          lowered (June, 1920).\n\nIf we take the case of the 19-year-olds, who have been mobilized in\nthe Ural with the help of the military apparatus--principally for wood\nfuel work--we shall find that, out of their general number of over\n30,000, over 75% attend work. This is already a very great step\nforward. It shows that, using the military apparatus for mobilization\nand formation, we can introduce such alterations in the construction\nof purely labor units as guarantee an enormous increase in the\npercentage of those who participate directly in the material process\nof production.\n\nFinally, in connection with the productivity of military labor, we can\nalso now judge on the basis of experience. During the first days, the\nproductivity of labor in the principal departments of work, in spite\nof the great moral enthusiasm, was in reality very low, and might seem\ncompletely discouraging when one reads the first labor communiques.\nThus, for the preparation of a cubic sazhen of wood, at first, one had\nto reckon thirteen to fifteen labor days; whereas the standard--true,\nrarely attained at the present day--is reckoned at three days. One\nmust add, in addition, that artistes in this sphere are capable, under\nfavorable conditions, of producing one cubic sazhen per day per man.\nWhat happened in reality? The military units were quartered far from\nthe forest to be felled. In many cases it was necessary to march to\nand from work 6 to 8 versts, which swallowed up a considerable portion\nof the working day. There were not sufficient axes and saws on the\nspot. Many Red soldiers, born in the plains, did not know the forests,\nhad never felled trees, had never chopped or sawed them up. The\nprovincial and county Timber Committees were very far from knowing at\nfirst how to use the military units, how to direct them where they\nwere required, how to equip them as they should be equipped. It is not\nwonderful that all this had as its result an extremely low level of\nproductivity. But after the most crying defects in organization were\neliminated, results were achieved that were much more satisfactory.\nThus, according to the most recent data, in that same First Labor\nArmy, four and a half working days are now devoted to one sazhen of\nwood, which is not so far from the present standard. What is most\ncomforting, however, is the fact that the productivity of labor\nsystematically increases, in the measure of the improvement of its\nconditions.\n\nWhile as to what can be achieved in this respect, we have a brief but\nvery rich experience in the Moscow Engineer Regiment. The Chief Board\nof Military Engineers, which controlled this experiment, began with\nfixing the standard of production as three working days for a cubic\nsazhen of wood. This standard soon proved to be surpassed. In January\nthere were spent on a cubic sazhen of wood two and one-third working\ndays; in February, 2.1; in March, 1.5; which represents an exclusively\nhigh level of productivity. This result was achieved by moral\ninfluence, by the exact registration of the individual work of each\nman, by the awakening of labor pride, by the distribution of bonuses\nto the workers who produced more than the average result--or, to speak\nin the language of the trade unions, by a sliding scale adaptable to\nall individual changes in the productivity of labor. This experiment,\ncarried out almost under laboratory conditions, clearly indicates the\npath along which we have to go in future.\n\nAt present we have functioning a series of labor armies--the First,\nthe Petrograd, the Ukrainian, the Caucasian, the South Volga, the\nReserve. The latter, as is known, assisted considerably to raise the\ntraffic capacity of the Kazan-Ekaterinburg Railway; and, wherever the\nexperiment of the adaptation of military units for labor problems was\ncarried out with any intelligence at all, the results showed that this\nmethod is unquestionably live and correct.\n\nThe prejudice concerning the inevitably parasitic nature of military\norganization--under each and every condition--proves to be shattered.\nThe Soviet Army reproduces within itself the tendencies of the Soviet\nsocial order. We must not think in the petrifying terms of the last\nepoch: \"militarism,\" \"military organization,\" \"the unproductiveness of\ncompulsory labor.\" We must approach the phenomena of the new epoch\nwithout any prejudices, and with eyes wide open; and we must remember\nthat Saturday exists for man, and not vice versa; that all forms of\norganization, including the military, are only weapons in the hands of\nthe working class in power, which has both the right and the\npossibility of adapting, altering, refashioning, those weapons, until\nit has achieved the requisite result.\n\n\nTHE SINGLE ECONOMIC PLAN\n\nThe widest possible application of the principle of general labor\nservice, together with measures for the militarization of labor, can\nplay a decisive part only in case they are applied on the basis of a\nsingle economic plan covering the whole country and all branches of\nproductive activity. This plan must be drawn up for a number of years,\nfor the whole epoch that lies before us. It is naturally broken up\ninto separate periods or stages, corresponding to the inevitable\nstages in the economic rebirth of the country. We shall have to begin\nwith the most simple and at the same time most fundamental problems.\n\nWe have first of all to afford the working class the very possibility\nof living--though it be in the most difficult conditions--and thereby\nto preserve our industrial centres and save the towns. This is the\npoint of departure. If we do not wish to melt the town into\nagriculture, and transform the whole country into a peasant State, we\nmust support our transport, even at the minimum level, and secure\nbread for the towns, fuel and raw materials for industry, fodder for\nthe cattle. Without this we shall not make one step forward.\nConsequently, the first part of the plan comprises the improvement of\ntransport, or, in any case, the prevention of its further\ndeterioration and the preparation of the most necessary supplies of\nfood, raw materials, and fuel. The whole of the next period will be in\nits entirety filled with the concentration and straining of\nlabor-power to solve these root problems; and only in this way shall\nwe lay the foundations for all that is to come. It was such a problem,\nincidentally, that we put before our labor armies. Whether the first\nor the following periods will be measured by months or by years, it is\nfruitless at present to guess. This depends on many reasons, beginning\nwith the international situation and ending with the degree of\nsingle-mindedness and steadfastness of the working class.\n\nThe second period is the period of machine-building in the interests\nof transport and the storage of raw material and fuel. Here the core\nis in the locomotive.\n\nAt the present time the repairing of locomotives is carried on in too\nhaphazard a fashion, swallowing up energies and resources beyond all\nmeasure. We must reorganize the repairing of our rolling-stock, on the\nbasis of the mass production of spare parts. To-day, when the whole\nnetwork of the railways and the factories is in the hands of one\nmaster, the Labor State, we can and must fix single types of\nlocomotives and trucks for the whole country, standardize their\nconstituent parts, draw all the necessary factories into the work of\nthe mass production of spare parts, reduce repairing to the simple\nreplacing of worn-out parts by new, and thereby make it possible to\nbuild new locomotives on a mass scale out of spare parts.\n\nNow that the sources of fuel and raw material are again open to us, we\nmust concentrate our exclusive attention on the building of\nlocomotives.\n\nThe third period will be one of machine-building in the interests of\nthe production of articles of primary necessity.\n\nFinally, the fourth period, reposing on the conquests of the first\nthree, will allow us to begin the production of articles of personal\nor secondary significance on the widest possible scale.\n\nThis plan has great significance, not only as a general guide for the\npractical work of our economic organs, but also as a line along which\npropaganda amongst the laboring masses in connection with our economic\nproblems is to proceed. Our labor mobilization will not enter into\nreal life, will not take root, if we do not excite the living interest\nof all that is honest, class-conscious, and inspired in the working\nclass. We must explain to the masses the whole truth as to our\nsituation and as to our views for the future; we must tell them openly\nthat our economic plan, with the maximum of exertion on the part of\nthe workers, will neither to-morrow nor the day after give us a land\nflowing with milk and honey: for during the first period our chief\nwork will consist in preparing the conditions for the production of\nthe means of production. Only after we have secured, though on the\nsmallest possible scale, the possibility of rebuilding the means of\ntransport and production, shall we pass on to the production of\narticles for general consumption. In this way the fruit of their\nlabor, which is the direct object of the workers, in the shape of\narticles for personal consumption, will arrive only in the last, the\nfourth, stage of our economic plan; and only then shall we have a\nserious improvement in our life. The masses, who for a prolonged\nperiod will still bear all the weight of labor and of privation, must\nrealize to the full the inevitable internal logic of this economic\nplan if they are to prove capable of carrying it out.\n\nThe sequence of the four economic periods outlined above must not be\nunderstood too absolutely. We do not, of course, propose to bring\ncompletely to a standstill our textile industry: we could not do this\nfor military considerations alone. But in order that our attention and\nour forces should not be distracted under the pressure of requirements\nand needs crying to us from all quarters, it is essential to make use\nof the economic plan as the fundamental criterion, and separate the\nimportant and the fundamental from the auxiliary and secondary.\nNeedless to say, under no circumstances are we striving for a narrow\n\"national\" Communism: the raising of the blockade, and the European\nrevolution all the more, would introduce the most radical alterations\nin our economic plan, cutting down the stages of its development and\nbringing them together. But we do not know when these events will take\nplace; and we must act in such a way that we can hold out and become\nstronger under the most unfavorable circumstances--that is to say, in\nface of the slowest conceivable development of the European and the\nworld revolution. In case we are able actually to establish trading\nrelations with the capitalist countries, we shall again be guided by\nthe economic plan sketched above. We shall exchange part of our raw\nmaterial for locomotives or for necessary machines, but under no\ncircumstances for clothing, boots, or colonial products: our first\nitem is not articles of consumption, but the implements of transport\nand production.\n\nWe should be short-sighted sceptics, and the most typical bourgeois\ncurmudgeons, if we imagined that the rebirth of our economic life will\ntake the form of a gradual transition from the present economic\ncollapse to the conditions that preceded that collapse, _i.e._,\nthat we shall reascend the same steps by which we descended, and only\nafter a certain, quite prolonged, period will be able to raise our\nSocialist economy to the level at which it stood on the eve of the\nimperialist war. Such a conception would not only be not consoling,\nbut absolutely incorrect. Economic collapse, which destroyed and broke\nup in its path an incalculable quantity of values, also destroyed a\ngreat deal that was poor and rotten, that was absolutely senseless;\nand thereby it cleared the path for a new method of reconstruction,\ncorresponding to that technical equipment which world economy now\npossesses.\n\nIf Russian capitalism developed not from stage to stage, but leaping\nover a series of stages, and instituted American factories in the\nmidst of primitive steppes, the more is such a forced march possible\nfor Socialist economy. After we have conquered our terrible misery,\nhave accumulated small supplies of raw material and food, and have\nimproved our transport, we shall be able to leap over a whole series\nof intermediate stages, benefiting by the fact that we are not bound\nby the chains of private property, and that therefore we are able to\nsubordinate all undertakings and all the elements of economic life to\na single State plan.\n\nThus, for example, we shall undoubtedly be able to enter the period of\nelectrification, in all the chief branches of industry and in the\nsphere of personal consumption, without passing through \"the age of\nsteam.\" The programme of electrification is already drawn up in a\nseries of logically consequent stages, corresponding to the\nfundamental stages of the general economic plan.\n\nA new war may slow down the realization of our economic intentions;\nour energy and persistence can and must hasten the process of our\neconomic rebirth. But, whatever be the rate at which economic events\nunfold themselves in the future, it is clear that at the foundation of\nall our work--labor mobilization, militarization of labor, Subbotniks,\nand other forms of Communist labor voluntarism--there must lie the\n_single economic plan_. And the period that is upon us requires from\nus the complete concentration of all our energies on the first\nelementary problems: food, fuel, raw material, transport. _Not to\nallow our attention to be distracted, not to dissipate our forces, not\nto waste our energies._ Such is the sole road to salvation.\n\n\nCOLLEGIATE AND ONE-MAN MANAGEMENT\n\nThe Mensheviks attempt to dwell on yet another question which seems\nfavorable to their desire once again to ally themselves with the\nworking class. This is the question of the method of administration of\nindustrial enterprises--the question of the collegiate (board) or the\none-man principle. We are told that the transference of factories to\nsingle directors instead of to a board is a crime against the working\nclass and the Socialist revolution. It is remarkable that the most\nzealous defenders of the Socialist revolution against the principle of\none-man management are those same Mensheviks who quite recently still\nconsidered that the idea of a Socialist revolution was an insult to\nhistory and a crime against the working class.\n\nThe first who must plead guilty in the face of the Socialist\nrevolution is our Party Congress, which expressed itself in favor of\nthe principle of one-man management in the administration of industry,\nand above all in the lowest grades, in the factories and plants. It\nwould be the greatest possible mistake, however, to consider this\ndecision as a blow to the independence of the working class. The\nindependence of the workers is determined and measured not by whether\nthree workers or one are placed at the head of a factory, but by\nfactors and phenomena of a such more profound character--the\nconstruction of the economic organs with the active assistance of the\ntrade unions; the building up of all Soviet organs by means of the\nSoviet congresses, representing tens of millions of workers; the\nattraction into the work of administration, or control of\nadministration, of those who are administered. It is in such things\nthat the independence of the working class can be expressed. And if\nthe working class, on the foundation of its existence, comes through\nits congresses, Soviet party and trade union, to the conclusion that\nit is better to place one person at the head of a factory, and not a\nboard, it is making a decision dictated by the independence of the\nworking class. It may be correct or incorrect from the point of view\nof the technique of administration, but it is not imposed upon the\nproletariat, it is dictated by its own will and pleasure. It would\nconsequently be a most crying error to confuse the question as to the\nsupremacy of the proletariat with the question of boards of workers at\nthe head of factories. The dictatorship of the proletariat is\nexpressed in the abolition of private property in the means of\nproduction, in the supremacy over the whole Soviet mechanism of the\ncollective will of the workers, and not at all in the form in which\nindividual economic enterprises are administered.\n\nHere it is necessary to reply to another accusation directed against\nthe defenders of the one-man principle. Our opponents say: \"This is\nthe attempt of the Soviet militarists to transfer their experience in\nthe military sphere to the sphere of economics. Possibly in the army\nthe one-man principle is satisfactory, but it does not suit economical\nwork.\" Such a criticism is incorrect in every way. It is untrue that\nin the army we began with the one-man principle: even now we are far\nfrom having completely adopted it. It is also untrue that in defence\nof one-man forms of administration of our economic enterprises with\nthe attraction of experts, we took our stand only on the foundation of\nour military experience. In reality, in this question we took our\nstand, and continue to do so on purely Marxist views of the\nrevolutionary problems and creative duties of the proletariat when it\nhas taken power into its own hands. The necessity of making use of\ntechnical knowledge and methods accumulated in the past, the necessity\nof attracting experts and of making use of them on a wide scale, in\nsuch a way that our technique should go not backwards but\nforwards--all this was understood and recognized by us, not only from\nthe very beginning of the revolution, but even long before October. I\nconsider that if the civil war had not plundered our economic organs\nof all that was strongest, most independent, most endowed with\ninitiative, we should undoubtedly have entered the path of one-man\nmanagement in the sphere of economic administration much sooner, and\nmuch less painfully.\n\nSome comrades look on the apparatus of industrial administration first\nand foremost as on a school. This is, of course, absolutely erroneous.\nThe task of administration is to administer. If a man desires and is\nable to learn administration, let him go to school, to the special\ncourses of instruction: let him go as an assistant, watching and\nacquiring experience: but a man who is appointed to control a factory\nis not going to school, but to a responsible post of economic\nadministration. And, even if we look at this question in the limited,\nand therefore incorrect light of a \"school,\" I will say that when the\none-man principle prevails the school is ten times better: because\njust as you cannot replace one good worker by three immature workers,\nsimilarly, having placed a board of three immature workers in a\nresponsible post, you deprive them of the possibility of realizing\ntheir own defects. Each looks to the others when decisions are being\nmade, and blames the others when success is not forthcoming.\n\nThat this is not a question of principle for the opponents of the\none-man principle is shown best of all by their not demanding the\ncollegiate principle for the actual workshops, jobs, and pits. They\neven say with indignation that only a madman can demand that a board\nof three or five should manage a workshop. There must be one manager,\nand one only. Why? If collegiate administration is a \"school,\" why do\nwe not require an elementary school? Why should we not introduce\nboards into the workshops? And, if the collegiate principle is not a\nsacred gospel for the workshops, why is it compulsory for the\nfactories?\n\nAbramovich said here that, as we have few experts--thanks to the\nBolsheviks, he repeats after Kautsky--we shall replace them by boards\nof workers. That is nonsense. No board of persons who do not know the\ngiven business can replace one man who knows it. A board of lawyers\nwill not replace one switchman. A board of patients will not replace\nthe doctor. The very idea is incorrect. A board in itself does not\ngive knowledge to the ignorant. It can only hide the ignorance of the\nignorant. If a person is appointed to a responsible administrative\npost, he is under the watch, not only of others but of himself, and\nsees clearly what he knows and what he does not know. But there is\nnothing worse than a board of ignorant, badly-prepared workers\nappointed to a purely practical post, demanding expert knowledge. The\nmembers of the board are in a state of perpetual panic and mutual\ndissatisfaction, and by their helplessness introduce hesitation and\nchaos into all their work. The working class is very deeply interested\nin raising its capacity for administration, that is, in being\neducated; but this is attained in the sphere of industry by the\nperiodical report of the administrative body of a factory before the\nwhole factory, and the discussion of the economic plan for the year or\nfor the current month. All the workers who display serious interest in\nthe work of industrial organization are registered by the directors of\nthe undertaking, or by special commissions; are taken through\nappropriate courses closely bound up with the practical work of the\nfactory itself; and are then appointed, first to less responsible, and\nthen to more responsible posts. In such a way we shall embrace many\nthousands, and, in the future, tens of thousands. But the question of\n\"threes\" and \"fives\" interests, not the laboring masses, but the more\nbackward, weaker, less fitted for independent work, section of the\nSoviet labor bureaucracy. The foremost, intelligent, determined\nadministrator naturally strives to take the factory into his hands as\na whole, and to show both to himself and to others that he can carry\nout his work. While if that administrator is a weakling, who does not\nstand very steadily on his feet, he attempts to associate another with\nhimself, for in the company of another his own weakness will be\nunnoticed. In such a collegiate principle there is a very dangerous\nfoundation--the extinction of personal responsibility. If a worker is\ncapable but not experienced, he naturally requires a guide: under his\ncontrol he will learn, and to-morrow we shall appoint him the foreman\nof a little factory. That is the way by which he will go forward. In\nan accidental board, in which the strength and the weakness of each\nare not clear, the feeling of responsibility inevitably disappears.\n\nOur resolution speaks of a systematic _approach_ to the one-man\nprinciple--naturally, not by one stroke of the pen. Variants and\ncombinations are possible here. Where the worker can manage alone, let\nus put him in charge of the factory and give him an expert as an\nassistant. Where there is a good expert, let us put him in charge and\ngive him as assistants two or three of the workers. Finally, where a\n\"board\" has in practice shown its capacity for work, let us preserve\nit. This is the sole serious attitude to take up, and only in such a\nway shall we reach the correct organization of production.\n\nThere is another consideration of a social and educational character\nwhich seems to me most important. Our guiding layer of the working\nclass is too thin. That layer which knew underground work, which long\ncarried on the revolutionary struggle, which was abroad, which read\nmuch in prisons and in exile, which had political experience and a\nbroad outlook, is the most precious section of the working class. Then\nthere is a younger generation which has consciously been making the\nrevolution, beginning with 1917. This is a very valuable section of\nthe working class. Wherever we cast our eye--on Soviet construction,\non the trade unions, on the front of the civil war--everywhere we find\nthe principal part being played by this upper layer of the\nproletariat. The chief work of the Soviet Government during these two\nand a half years consisted in manoeuvring and throwing the foremost\nsection of the workers from one front to another. The deeper layers of\nthe working class, which emerged from the peasant mass, are\nrevolutionarily inclined, but are still too poor in initiative. The\ndisease of our Russian peasant is the herd instinct, the absence of\npersonality: in other words, the same quality that used to be extolled\nby our reactionary Populists, and that Leo Tolstoy extolled in the\ncharacter of Platon Karatayev: the peasant melting into his village\ncommunity, subjecting himself to the land. It is quite clear that\nSocialist economy is founded not on Platon Karatayev, but on the\nthinking worker endowed with initiative. That personal initiative it\nis necessary to develop in the worker. The personal basis under the\nbourgeoisie meant selfish individualism and competition. The personal\nbasis under the working class is in contradiction neither to\nsolidarity nor to brotherly co-operation. Socialist solidarity can\nrely neither on absence of personality nor on the herd instinct. And\nit is just absence of personality that is frequently hidden behind the\ncollegiate principle.\n\nIn the working class there are many forces, gifts, and talents. They\nmust be brought out and displayed in rivalry. The one-man principle in\nthe administrative and technical sphere assists this. That is why it\nis higher and more fruitful than the collegiate principle.\n\n\nCONCLUSION OF THE REPORT\n\nComrades, the arguments of the Menshevik orators, particularly of\nAbramovich, reflect first of all their complete detachment from life\nand its problems. An observer stands on the bank of a river which he\nhas to swim over, and deliberates on the qualities of the water and on\nthe strength of the current. He has to swim over: that is his task!\nBut our Kautskian stands first on one foot and then on the other. \"We\ndo not deny,\" he says, \"the necessity of swimming over, but at the\nsame time, as realists, we see the danger--and not only one, but\nseveral: the current is swift, there are submerged stones, people are\ntired, etc., etc. But when they tell you that we deny the very\nnecessity of swimming over, that is not true--no, not under any\ncircumstances. Twenty-three years ago we did not deny the necessity of\nswimming over....\"\n\nAnd on this is built all, from beginning to end. First, say the\nMensheviks, we do not deny, and never did deny, the necessity of\nself-defence: consequently we do not repudiate the army. Secondly, we\ndo not repudiate in principle general labor service. But, after all,\nwhere is there anyone in the world, with the exception of small\nreligious sects, who denies self-defence \"in principle\"! Nevertheless,\nthe matter does not move one step forward as a result of your abstract\nadmission. When it came to a real struggle, and to the creation of a\nreal army against the real enemies of the working class, what did you\ndo then? You opposed, you sabotaged--while not repudiating\nself-defence in principle. You said and wrote in your papers: \"Down\nwith the civil war!\" at the time when we were surrounded by White\nGuards, and the knife was at our throat. Now you, approving our\nvictorious self-defence after the event, transfer your critical gaze\nto new problems, and attempt to teach us. \"In general, we do not\nrepudiate the principle of general labor service,\" you say, \"but ...\nwithout legal compulsion.\" Yet in these very words there is a\nmonstrous internal contradiction! The idea of \"obligatory service\"\nitself includes the element of compulsion. A man is _obliged_, he\nis bound to do something. If he does not do it, obviously he will\nsuffer compulsion, a penalty. Here we approach the question of what\npenalty. Abramovich says: \"Economic pressure, yes; but not legal\ncompulsion.\" Comrade Holtzman, the representative of the Metal\nWorkers' Union, excellently demonstrated all the scholasticism of this\nidea. Even under the capitalism, that is to say under the regime of\n\"free\" labor, economic pressure is inseparable from legal compulsion.\nStill more so now.\n\nIn my report I attempted to explain that the adaptation of the workers\non new social foundations to new forms of labor, and the attainment of\na higher level of productivity of labor, are possible only by means of\nthe simultaneous application of various methods--economic interest,\nlegal compulsion, the influence of an internally co-ordinated economic\norganization, the power of repression, and, first and last, moral\ninfluence, agitation, propaganda, and the general raising of the\ncultural level.\n\nOnly by the combination of all these methods can we attain a high\nlevel of Socialist economy.\n\nIf even under capitalism economic interest is inevitably combined with\nlegal compulsion, behind which stands the material force of the State,\nin the Soviet State--that is, the State of transition to Socialism--we\ncan draw no water-tight compartment at all between economic and legal\ncompulsion. All our most important industries are in the hands of the\nState. When we say to the turner Ivanov, \"You are bound at once to\nwork at the Sormovo factory; if you refuse, you will not receive your\nration,\" what are we to call it? Economic pressure or legal\ncompulsion? He cannot go to another factory, for all factories are in\nthe hands of the State, which will not allow such a change.\nConsequently, economic pressure melts here into the pressure of State\ncompulsion. Abramovich apparently would like us, as regulators of the\ndistribution of labor-power, to make use only of such means as the\nraising of wages, bonuses, etc., in order to attract the necessary\nworkers to our most important factories. Apparently that comprises all\nhis thoughts on the subject. But if we put the question in this way,\nevery serious worker in the trade union movement will understand it is\npure utopia. We cannot hope for a free influx of labor-power from the\nmarket, for to achieve this the State would need to have in its hands\nsufficiently extensive \"reserves of manoeuvre,\" in the form of food,\nhousing, and transport, _i.e._, precisely those conditions which\nwe have yet only to create. Without systematically-organized\ntransference of labor-power on a mass scale, according to the demands\nof the economic organization, we shall achieve nothing. Here the\nmoment of compulsion arises before us in all its force of economic\nnecessity. I read you a telegram from Ekaterinburg dealing with the\nwork of the First Labor Army. It says that there have passed through\nthe Ural Committee for Labor Service over 4,000 workers. Whence have\nthey appeared? Mainly from the former Third Army. They were not\nallowed to go to their homes, but were sent where they were required.\nFrom the army they were handed over to the Committee for Labor\nService, which distributed them according to their categories and sent\nthem to the factories. This, from the Liberal point of view, is\n\"violence\" to the freedom of the individual. Yet an overwhelming\nmajority of the workers went willingly to the labor front, as hitherto\nto the military, realizing that the common interest demanded this.\nPart went against their will. These were compelled.\n\nNaturally, it is quite clear that the State must, by means of the\nbonus system, give the better workers better conditions of existence.\nBut this not only does not exclude, but on the contrary pre-supposes,\nthat the State and the trade unions--without which the Soviet State\nwill not build up industry--acquire new rights of some kind over the\nworker. The worker does not merely bargain with the Soviet State: no,\nhe is subordinated to the Soviet State, under its orders in every\ndirection--for it is _his_ State.\n\n\"If,\" Abramovich says, \"we were simply told that it is a question of\nindustrial discipline, there would be nothing to quarrel about; but\nwhy introduce militarization?\" Of course, to a considerable extent,\nthe question is one of the discipline of the trade unions; but of the\nnew discipline of new, _Productional_, trade unions. We live in a\nSoviet country, where the working class is in power--a fact which our\nKautskians do not understand. When the Menshevik Rubtzov said that\nthere remained only the fragment of the trade union movement in my\nreport, there was a certain amount of truth in it. Of the trade\nunions, as he understands them--that is to say, trade unions of the\nold craft type--there in reality has remained very little; but the\nindustrial productional organization of the working class, in the\nconditions of Soviet Russia, has the very greatest tasks before it.\nWhat tasks? Of course, not the tasks involved in a struggle with the\nState, in the name of the interests of labor; but tasks involved in\nthe construction, side by side with the State, of Socialist economy.\nSuch a form of union is in principle a new organization, which is\ndistinct, not only from the trade unions, but also from the\nrevolutionary industrial unions in bourgeois society, just as the\nsupremacy of the proletariat is distinct from the supremacy of the\nbourgeoisie. The productional union of the ruling working class no\nlonger has the problems, the methods, the discipline, of the union for\nstruggle of an oppressed class. All our workers are _obliged_ to\nenter the unions. The Mensheviks are against this. This is quite\ncomprehensible, because in reality they are against the\n_dictatorship of the proletariat_. It is to this, in the long\nrun, that the whole question is reduced. The Kautskians are against\nthe dictatorship of the proletariat, and are thereby against all its\nconsequences. Both economic and political compulsion are only forms of\nthe expression of the dictatorship of the working class in two closely\nconnected regions. True, Abramovich demonstrated to us most learnedly\nthat under Socialism there will be no compulsion, that the principle\nof compulsion contradicts Socialism, that under Socialism we shall be\nmoved by the feeling of duty, the habit of working, the attractiveness\nof labor, etc., etc. This is unquestionable. Only this unquestionable\ntruth must be a little extended. In point of fact, under Socialism\nthere will not exist the apparatus of compulsion itself, namely, the\nState: for it will have melted away entirely into a producing and\nconsuming commune. None the less, the road to Socialism lies through a\nperiod of the highest possible intensification of the principle of the\nState. And you and I are just passing through that period. Just as a\nlamp, before going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so the State,\nbefore disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the\nproletariat, _i.e._, the most ruthless form of State, which\nembraces the life of the citizens authoritatively in every direction.\nNow just that insignificant little fact--that historical step of the\nState dictatorship--Abramovich, and in his person the whole of\nMenshevism, did not notice; and consequently, he has fallen over it.\n\nNo organization except the army has ever controlled man with such\nsevere compulsion as does the State organization of the working class\nin the most difficult period of transition. It is just for this reason\nthat we speak of the militarization of labor. The fate of the\nMensheviks is to drag along at the tail of events, and to recognize\nthose parts of the revolutionary programme which have already had time\nto lose all practical significance. To-day the Mensheviks, albeit with\nreservations, do not deny the lawfulness of stern measures with the\nWhite Guards and with deserters from the Red Army: they have been\nforced to recognize this after their own lamentable experiments with\n\"democracy.\" They have to all appearances understood--very late in the\nday--that, when one is face to face with the counter-revolutionary\nbands, one cannot live by phrases about the great truth that under\nSocialism we shall need no Red Terror. But in the economic sphere, the\nMensheviks still attempt to refer us to our sons, and particularly to\nour grandsons. None the less, we have to rebuild our economic life\nto-day, without waiting, under circumstances of a very painful\nheritage from bourgeois society and a yet unfinished civil war.\n\nMenshevism, like all Kautskianism generally, is drowned in democratic\nanalogies and Socialist abstractions. Again and again it has been\nshown that for it there do not exist the problems of the transitional\nperiod, _i.e._, of the proletarian revolution. Hence the lifelessness\nof its criticism, its advice, its plans, and its recipes. The question\nis not what is going to happen in twenty or thirty years' time--at\nthat date, of course, things will be much better--but of how to-day to\nstruggle out of our ruins, how immediately to distribute labor-power,\nhow to-day to raise the productivity of labor, and how, in particular,\nto act in the case of those 4,000 skilled workers whom we combed out\nof the army in the Ural. To dismiss them to the four corners of the\nearth, saying \"seek for better conditions where you can find them,\ncomrades\"? No, we could not act in this way. We put them into military\nechelons, and distributed them amongst the factories and the works.\n\n\"Wherein, then, does your Socialism,\" Abramovich cries, \"differ from\nEgyptian slavery? It was just by similar methods that the Pharaohs\nbuilt the pyramids, forcing the masses to labor.\" Truly an inimitable\nanalogy for a \"Socialist\"! Once again the little insignificant fact\nhas been forgotten--the class nature of the government! Abramovich\nsees no difference between the Egyptian regime and our own. He has\nforgotten that in Egypt there were Pharaohs, there were slave-owners\nand slaves. It was not the Egyptian peasants who decided through their\nSoviets to build the pyramids; there existed a social order based upon\nhierarchial caste; and the workers were obliged to toil by a class\nthat was hostile to them. Our compulsion is applied by a workers' and\npeasants' government, in the name of the interests of the laboring\nmasses. That is what Abramovich has not observed. We learn in the\nschool of Socialism that all social evolution is founded on classes\nand their struggle, and all the course of human life is determined by\nthe fact of what class stands at the head of affairs, and in the name\nof what caste is applying its policy. That is what Abramovich has not\ngrasped. Perhaps he is well acquainted with the Old Testament, but\nSocialism is for him a book sealed with seven seals.\n\nGoing along the path of shallow Liberal analogies, which do not reckon\nwith the class nature of the State, Abramovich might (and in the past\nthe Mensheviks did more than once) identify the Red and the White\nArmies. Both here and there went on mobilizations, principally of the\npeasant masses. Both here and there the element of compulsion has its\nplace. Both here and there there were not a few officers who had\npassed through one and the same school of Tsarism. The same rifles,\nthe same cartridges in both camps. Where is the difference? There is a\ndifference, gentlemen, and it is defined by a fundamental test: who is\nin power? The working class or the landlord class, Pharaohs or\npeasants, White Guards or the Petrograd proletariat? There is a\ndifference, and evidence on the subject is furnished by the fate of\nYudenich, Kolchak, and Denikin. Our peasants were mobilized by the\nworkers; in Kolchak's camp, by the White Guard officer class. Our army\nhas pulled itself together, and has grown strong; the White Army has\nfallen asunder in dust. Yes, there is a difference between the Soviet\nregime and the regime of the Pharaohs. And it is not in vain that the\nPetrograd proletarians began their revolution by shooting the Pharaohs\non the steeples of Petrograd.[10]\n\n          [10] This was the name given to the imperial police, whom\n          the Minister for Home Affairs, Protopopoff, distributed at\n          the end of February, 1917, over the roofs of houses and in\n          the belfries.\n\nOne of the Menshevik orators attempted incidentally to represent me as\na defender of militarism in general. According to his information, it\nappears, do you see, that I am defending nothing more or less than\nGerman militarism. I proved, you must understand, that the German\nN.C.O. was a marvel of nature, and all that he does is above\ncriticism. What did I say in reality? Only that militarism, in which\nall the features of social evolution find their most finished, sharp,\nand clear expression, could be examined from two points of view. First\nfrom the political or Socialist--and here it depends entirely on the\nquestion of what class is in power; and secondly, from the point of\nview of organization, as a system of the strict distribution of\nduties, exact mutual relations, unquestioning responsibility, and\nharsh insistence on execution. The bourgeois army is the apparatus of\nsavage oppression and repression of the workers; the Socialist army is\na weapon for the liberation and defence of the workers. But the\nunquestioning subordination of the parts to the whole is a\ncharacteristic common to every army. A severe internal regime is\ninseparable from the military organization. In war every piece of\nslackness, every lack of thoroughness, and even a simple mistake, not\ninfrequently bring in their train the most heavy sacrifices. Hence the\nstriving of the military organization to bring clearness,\ndefiniteness, exactness of relations and responsibilities, to the\nhighest degree of development. \"Military\" qualities in this connection\nare valued in every sphere. It was in this sense that I said that\nevery class prefers to have in its service those of its members who,\nother things being equal, have passed through the military school. The\nGerman peasant, for example, who has passed out of the barracks in the\ncapacity of an N.C.O. was for the German monarchy, and remains for the\nEbert Republic, much dearer and more valuable than the same peasant\nwho has not passed through military training. The apparatus of the\nGerman railways was splendidly organized, thanks to a considerable\ndegree to the employment of N.C.O.'s and officers in administrative\nposts in the transport department. In this sense we also have\nsomething to learn from militarism. Comrade Tsiperovich, one of our\nforemost trade union leaders, admitted here that the trade union\nworker who has passed through military training--who has, for example,\noccupied the responsible post of regimental commissary for a\nyear--does not become worse from the point of view of trade union work\nas a result. He is returned to the union the same proletarian from\nhead to foot, for he was fighting for the proletariat; but he has\nreturned a veteran--hardened, more independent, more decisive--for he\nhas been in very responsible positions. He had occasions to control\nseveral thousands of Red soldiers of different degrees of\nclass-consciousness--most of them peasants. Together with them he has\nlived through victories and reverses, he has advanced and retreated.\nThere were cases of treachery on the part of the command personnel, of\npeasant risings, of panic--but he remained at his post, he held\ntogether the less class-conscious mass, directed it, inspired it with\nhis example, punished traitors and cowards. This experience is a great\nand valuable experience. And when a former regimental commissary\nreturns to his trade union, he becomes not a bad organizer.\n\nOn the question of the _collegiate principle_, the arguments of\nAbramovich are just as lifeless as on all other questions--the\narguments of a detached observer standing on the bank of a river.\n\nAbramovich explained to us that a good board is better than a bad\nmanager, that into a good board there must enter a good expert. All\nthis is splendid--only why do not the Mensheviks offer us several\nhundred boards? I think that the Supreme Economic Council will find\nsufficient use for them. But we--not observers, but workers--must\nbuild from the material at our disposal. We have specialists, we have\nexperts, of whom, shall we say, one-third are conscientious and\neducated, another third only half-conscientious and half-educated, and\nthe last third are no use at all. In the working class there are many\ntalented, devoted, and energetic people. Some--unfortunately few--have\nalready the necessary knowledge and experience. Some have character\nand capacity, but have not knowledge or experience. Others have\nneither one nor the other. Out of this material we have to create our\nfactory and other administrative bodies; and here we cannot be\nsatisfied with general phrases. First of all, we must select all the\nworkers who have already in experience shown that they can direct\nenterprises, and give such men the possibility of standing on their\nown feet. Such men themselves ask for one-man management, because the\nwork of controlling a factory is not a school for the backward. A\nworker who knows his business thoroughly desires to _control_. If\nhe has decided and ordered, his decision must be accomplished. He may\nbe replaced--that is another matter; but while he is the master--the\nSoviet, proletarian master--he controls the undertaking entirely and\ncompletely. If he has to be included in a board of weaker men, who\ninterfere in the administration, nothing will come of it. Such a\nworking-class administrator must be given an expert assistant, one or\ntwo according to the enterprise. If there is no suitable working-class\nadministrator, but there is a conscientious and trained expert, we\nshall put him at the head of an enterprise, and attach to him two or\nthree prominent workers in the capacity of assistants, in such a way\nthat every decision of the expert should be known to the assistants,\nbut that they should not have the right to reverse that decision. They\nwill, step by step, follow the specialist in his work, will learn\nsomething, and in six months or a year will thus be able to occupy\nindependent posts.\n\nAbramovich quoted from my own speech the example of the hairdresser\nwho has commanded a division and an army. True! But what, however,\nAbramovich does not know is that, if our Communist comrades have\nbegun to command regiments, divisions, and armies, it is because\npreviously they were commissaries attached to expert commanders.\nThe responsibility fell on the expert, who knew that, if he made a\nmistake, he would bear the full brunt, and would not be able to say\nthat he was only an \"adviser\" or a \"member of the board.\" To-day in\nour army the majority of the posts of command, particularly in the\nlower--_i.e._, politically the most important--grades, are filled\nby workers and foremost peasants. But with what did we begin? We put\nofficers in the posts of command, and attached to them workers as\ncommissaries; and they learned, and learned with success, and learned\nto beat the enemy.\n\nComrades, we stand face to face with a very difficult period, perhaps\nthe most difficult of all. To difficult periods in the life of peoples\nand classes there correspond harsh measures. The further we go the\neasier things will become, the freer every citizen will feel, the more\nimperceptible will become the compelling force of the proletarian\nState. Perhaps we shall then even allow the Mensheviks to have papers,\nif only the Mensheviks remain in existence until that time. But\nto-day we are living in the period of dictatorship, political and\neconomic. And the Mensheviks continue to undermine that dictatorship.\nWhen we are fighting on the civil front, preserving the revolution\nfrom its enemies, and the Menshevik paper writes: \"Down with the\ncivil war,\" we cannot permit this. A dictatorship is a dictatorship,\nand war is war. And now that we have crossed to the path of the\ngreatest concentration of forces on the field of the economic rebirth\nof the country, the Russian Kautskies, the Mensheviks, remain true to\ntheir counter-revolutionary calling. Their voice, as hitherto, sounds\nas the voice of doubt and decomposition, of disorganization and\nundermining, of distrust and collapse.\n\nIs it not monstrous and grotesque that, at this Congress, at which\n1,500 representatives of the Russian working class are present, where\nthe Mensheviks constitute less than 5%, and the Communists about 90%,\nAbramovich should say to us: \"Do not be attracted by methods which\nresult in a little band taking the place of the people.\" \"All through\nthe people,\" says the representative of the Mensheviks, \"no guardians\nof the laboring masses! All through the laboring masses, through their\nindependent activity!\" And, further, \"It is impossible to convince a\nclass by arguments.\" Yet look at this very hall: here is that class!\nThe working class is here before you, and with us; and it is just you,\nan insignificant band of Mensheviks, who are attempting to convince it\nby bourgeois arguments! It is you who wish to be the guardians of that\nclass. And yet it has its own high degree of independence, and that\nindependence, it has displayed, incidentally, in having overthrown you\nand gone forward along its own path!\n\n\n\n\n9\n\nKARL KAUTSKY, HIS SCHOOL AND HIS BOOK.\n\n\nThe Austro-Marxian school (Bauer, Renner, Hilferding, Max Adler,\nFriedrich Adler) in the past more than once was contrasted with the\nschool of Kautsky, as veiled opportunism might be contrasted with true\nMarxism. This has proved to be a pure historical misunderstanding,\nwhich deceived some for a long time, some for a lesser period, but\nwhich in the end was revealed with all possible clearness. Kautsky is\nthe founder and the most perfect representative of the Austrian\nforgery of Marxism. While the real teaching of Marx is the theoretical\nformula of action, of attack, of the development of revolutionary\nenergy, and of the carrying of the class blow to its logical\nconclusion, the Austrian school was transformed into an academy of\npassivity and evasiveness, because of a vulgar historical and\nconservative school, and reduced its work to explaining and\njustifying, not guiding and overthrowing. It lowered itself to the\nposition of a hand-maid to the current demands of parliamentarism and\nopportunism, replaced dialectic by swindling sophistries, and, in the\nend, in spite of its great play with ritual revolutionary phraseology,\nbecame transformed into the most secure buttress of the capitalist\nState, together with the altar and throne that rose above it. If the\nlatter was engulfed in the abyss, no blame for this can be laid upon\nthe Austro-Marxian school.\n\nWhat characterizes Austro-Marxism is repulsion and fear in the face of\nrevolutionary action. The Austro-Marxist is capable of displaying a\nperfect gulf of profundity in the explanation of yesterday, and\nconsiderable daring in prophesying concerning to-morrow--but for\nto-day he never has a great thought or capacity for great action.\nTo-day for him always disappears before the wave of little opportunist\nworries, which later are explained as the most inevitable link between\nthe past and the future.\n\nThe Austro-Marxist is inexhaustible when it is a question of\ndiscovering reasons to prevent initiative and render difficult\nrevolutionary action. Austro-Marxism is a learned and boastful theory\nof passivity and capitulation. Naturally, it is not by accident that\nit was just in Austria, in that Babylon torn by fruitless national\nantagonisms, in that State which represented the personified\nimpossibility to exist and develop, that there arose and was\nconsolidated the pseudo-Marxian philosophy of the impossibility of\nrevolutionary action.\n\nThe foremost Austrian Marxists represent, each in his own way, a\ncertain \"individuality.\" On various questions they more than once did\nnot see eye to eye. They even had political differences. But in\ngeneral they are fingers of the same hand.\n\n_Karl Renner_ is the most pompous, solid, and conceited representative\nof this type. The gift of literary imitation, or, more simply, of\nstylist forgery, is granted to him to an exceptional extent. His\nMay Day article represented a charming combination of the most\nrevolutionary words. And, as both words and their combinations live,\nwithin certain limits, with their own independent life, Renner's\narticles awakened in the hearts of many workers a revolutionary\nfire which their author apparently never knew. The tinsel of\nAustro-Viennese culture, the chase of the external, of title of rank,\nwas more characteristic of Renner than of his other colleagues. In\nessence he always remained merely an imperial and royal officer, who\ncommanded Marxist phraseology to perfection.\n\nThe transformation of the author of the jubilee article on Karl Marx,\nfamous for its revolutionary pathos, into a comic-opera-Chancellor,\nwho expresses his feelings of respect and thanks to the Scandinavian\nmonarchs, is in reality one of the most instructive paradoxes of\nhistory.\n\n_Otto Bauer_ is more learned and prosaic, more serious and more\nboring, than Renner. He cannot be denied the capacity to read books,\ncollect facts, and draw conclusions adapted to the tasks imposed upon\nhim by practical politics, which in turn are guided by others. Bauer\nhas no political will. His chief art is to reply to all acute\npractical questions by commonplaces. His political thought always\nlives a parallel life to his will--it is deprived of all courage. His\nwords are always merely the scientific compilation of the talented\nstudent of a University seminar. The most disgraceful actions of\nAustrian opportunism, the meanest servility before the power of the\npossessing classes on the part of the Austro-German Social-Democracy,\nfound in Bauer their grave elucidator, who sometimes expressed himself\nwith dignity against the form, but always agreed in the essence. If it\never occurred to Bauer to display anything like temperament and\npolitical energy, it was exclusively in the struggle against the\nrevolutionary wing--in the accumulation of arguments, facts,\nquotations, _against_ revolutionary action. His highest period\nwas that (after 1907) in which, being as yet too young to be a deputy,\nhe played the part of secretary of the Social-Democratic group,\nsupplied it with materials, figures, substitutes for ideas, instructed\nit, drew up memoranda, and appeared almost to be the inspirer of great\nactions, when in reality he was only supplying substitutes, and\nadulterated substitutes, for the parliamentary opportunists.\n\n_Max Adler_ represents a fairly ingenuous variety of the Austro-Marxian\ntype. He is a lyric poet, a philosopher, a mystic--a philosophical\nlyric poet of passivity, as Renner is its publicist and legal expert,\nas Hilferding is its economist, as Bauer is its sociologist. Max Adler\nis cramped in a world of three dimensions, although he had found a\nvery comfortable place for himself with the framework of Viennese\nbourgeois Socialism and the Hapsburg State. The combination of the\npetty business activity of an attorney and of political humiliation,\ntogether with barren philosophical efforts and the cheap tinsel\nflowers of idealism, have imbued that variety which Max Adler\nrepresented with a sickening and repulsive quality.\n\n_Rudolf Hilferding_, a Viennese like the rest, entered the German\nSocial-Democratic Party almost as a mutineer, but as a mutineer of the\nAustrian stamp, _i.e._, always ready to capitulate without a fight.\nHilferding took the external mobility and bustle of the Austrian\npolicy which brought him up for revolutionary initiative; and for a\nround dozen of months he demanded--true, in the most moderate terms--a\nmore intelligent policy on the part of the leaders of the German\nSocial-Democracy. But the Austro-Viennese bustle swiftly disappeared\nfrom his own nature. He soon became subjected to the mechanical\nrhythm of Berlin and the automatic spiritual life of the German\nSocial-Democracy. He devoted his intellectual energy to the purely\ntheoretical sphere, where he did not say a great deal, true--no\nAustro-Marxist has ever said a great deal in any sphere--but in which\nhe did, at any rate, write a serious book. With this book on his back,\nlike a porter with a heavy load, he entered the revolutionary epoch.\nBut the most scientific book cannot replace the absence of will, of\ninitiative, of revolutionary instinct and political decision, without\nwhich action is inconceivable. A doctor by training, Hilferding is\ninclined to sobriety, and, in spite of his theoretical education, he\nrepresents the most primitive type of empiricist in questions of\npolicy. The chief problem of to-day is for him not to leave the lines\nlaid down for him by yesterday, and to find for this conservative and\nbourgeois apathy a scientific, economic explanation.\n\n_Friedrich Adler_ is the most balanced representative of the\nAustro-Marxian type. He has inherited from his father the latter's\npolitical temperament. In the petty exhausting struggle with the\ndisorder of Austrian conditions, Friedrich Adler allowed his ironical\nscepticism finally to destroy the revolutionary foundations of his\nworld outlook. The temperament inherited from his father more than\nonce drove him into opposition to the school created by his father. At\ncertain moments Friedrich Adler might seem the very revolutionary\nnegation of the Austrian school. In reality, he was and remains its\nnecessary coping-stone. His explosive revolutionism foreshadowed acute\nattacks of despair amidst Austrian opportunism, which from time to\ntime became terrified at its own insignificance.\n\nFriedrich Adler is a sceptic from head to foot: he does not believe in\nthe masses, or in their capacity for action. At the time when Karl\nLiebknecht, in the hour of supreme triumph of German militarism, went\nout to the Potsdamerplatz to call the oppressed masses to the open\nstruggle, Friedrich Adler went into a bourgeois restaurant to\nassassinate there the Austrian Premier. By his solitary shot,\nFriedrich Adler vainly attempted to put an end to his own scepticism.\nAfter that hysterical strain, he fell into still more complete\nprostration.\n\nThe black-and-yellow crew of social-patriotism (Austerlitz, Leitner,\netc.) hurled at Adler the terrorist all the abuse of which the\ncowardly sentiments were capable.\n\nBut when the acute period was passed, and the prodigal son returned\nfrom his convict prison into his father's house with the halo of a\nmartyr, he proved to be doubly and trebly valuable in that form for\nthe Austrian Social-Democracy. The golden halo of the terrorist was\ntransformed by the experienced counterfeiters of the party into the\nsounding coin of the demagogue. Friedrich Adler became a trusted\nsurety for the Austerlitzes and Renners in face of the masses.\nHappily, the Austrian workers are coming less and less to distinguish\nthe sentimental lyrical prostration of Friedrich Adler from the\npompous shallowness of Renner, the erudite impotence of Max Adler, or\nthe analytical self-satisfaction of Otto Bauer.\n\nThe cowardice in thought of the theoreticians of the Austro-Marxian\nschool has completely and wholly been revealed when faced with the\ngreat problems of a revolutionary epoch. In his immortal attempt to\ninclude the Soviet system in the Ebert-Noske Constitution, Hilferding\ngave voice not only to his own spirit but to the spirit of the whole\nAustro-Marxian school, which, with the approach of the revolutionary\nepoch, made an attempt to become exactly as much more Left than\nKautsky as before the revolution it was more Right. From this point of\nview, Max Adler's view of the Soviet system is extremely instructive.\n\nThe Viennese eclectic philosopher admits the significance of the\nSoviets. His courage goes so far that he adopts them. He even\nproclaims them the apparatus of the Social Revolution. Max Adler, of\ncourse, is for a social revolution. But not for a stormy, barricaded,\nterrorist, bloody revolution, but for a sane, economically balanced,\nlegally canonized, and philosophically approved revolution.\n\nMax Adler is not even terrified by the fact that the Soviets infringe\nthe \"principle\" of the constitutional separation of powers (in the\nAustrian Social-Democracy there are many fools who see in such an\ninfringement a great defect of the Soviet System!). On the contrary,\nMax Adler, the trade union lawyer and legal adviser of the social\nrevolution, sees in the concentration of powers even an advantage,\nwhich allows the direct expression of the proletarian will. Max Adler\nis in favor of the direct expression of the proletarian will; but only\nnot by means of the direct seizure of power through the Soviets. He\nproposes a more solid method. In each town, borough, and ward, the\nWorkers' Councils must \"control\" the police and other officials,\nimposing upon them the \"proletarian will.\" What, however, will be the\n\"constitutional\" position of the Soviets in the republic of Zeiz,\nRenner and company? To this our philosopher replies: \"The Workers'\nCouncils in the long run will receive as much constitutional power as\nthey acquire by means of their own activity.\" (_Arbeiterzeitung_,\nNo. 179, July 1, 1919.)\n\nThe proletarian Soviets must gradually _grow up_ into the political\npower of the proletariat, just as previously, in the theories of\nreformism, all the proletarian organizations had to grow up into\nSocialism; which consummation, however, was a little hindered by the\nunforeseen misunderstandings, lasting four years, between the Central\nPowers and the Entente--and all that followed. It was found necessary\nto reject the economical programme of a gradual development into\nSocialism without a social revolution. But, as a reward, there opened\nthe perspective of the gradual development of the Soviets into the\nsocial revolution, without an armed rising and a seizure of power.\n\nIn order that the Soviets should not sink entirely under the burden of\nborough and ward problems, our daring legal adviser proposes the\npropaganda of social-democratic ideas! Political power remains as\nbefore in the hands of the bourgeoisie and its assistants. But in the\nwards and the boroughs the Soviets control the policemen and their\nassistants. And, to console the working class and at the same time to\ncentralize its thought and will, Max Adler on Sunday afternoons will\nread lectures on the constitutional position of the Soviets, as in the\npast he read lectures on the constitutional position of the trade\nunions.\n\n\"In this way,\" Max Adler promises, \"the constitutional regulation of\nthe position of the Workers Councils, and their power and importance,\nwould be guaranteed along the whole line of public and social life;\nand--without the dictatorship of the Soviets--the Soviet system would\nacquire as large an influence as it could possibly have even in a\nSoviet republic. At the same time we should not have to pay for that\ninfluence by political storms and economic destruction\" (idem). As we\nsee, in addition to all his other qualities, Max Adler remains still\nin agreement with the Austrian tradition: to make a revolution without\nquarrelling with his Excellency the Public Prosecutor.\n\n                 *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe founder of this school, and its highest authority, is Kautsky.\nCarefully protecting, particularly after the Dresden party congress\nand the first Russian Revolution, his reputation as the keeper of the\nshrine of Marxist orthodoxy, Kautsky from time to time would shake his\nhead in disapproval of the more compromising outbursts of his Austrian\nschool. And, following the example of the late Victor Adler, Bauer,\nRenner, Hilferding--altogether and each separately--considered Kautsky\ntoo pedantic, too inert, but a very reverend and a very useful father\nand teacher of the church of quietism.\n\nKautsky began to cause serious mistrust in his own school during the\nperiod of his revolutionary culmination, at the time of the first\nRussian Revolution, when he recognized as necessary the seizure of\npower by the Russian Social-Democracy, and attempted to inoculate the\nGerman working class with his theoretical conclusions from the\nexperience of the general strike in Russia. The collapse of the first\nRussian Revolution at once broke off Kautsky's evolution along the\npath of radicalism. The more plainly was the question of mass action\nin Germany itself put forward by the course of events, the more\nevasive became Kautsky's attitude. He marked time, retreated, lost his\nconfidence; and the pedantic and scholastic features of his thought\nmore and more became apparent. The imperialist war, which killed every\nform of vagueness and brought mankind face to face with the most\nfundamental questions, exposed all the political bankruptcy of\nKautsky. He immediately became confused beyond all hope of\nextrication, in the most simple question of voting the War Credits.\nAll his writings after that period represent variations of one and the\nsame theme: \"I and my muddle.\" The Russian Revolution finally slew\nKautsky. By all his previous development he was placed in a hostile\nattitude towards the November victory of the proletariat. This\nunavoidably threw him into the camp of the counter-revolution. He lost\nthe last traces of historical instinct. His further writings have\nbecome more and more like the yellow literature of the bourgeois\nmarket.\n\nKautsky's book, examined by us, bears in its external characteristics\nall the attributes of a so-called objective scientific study. To\nexamine the extent of the Red Terror, Kautsky acts with all the\ncircumstantial method peculiar to him. He begins with the study of the\nsocial conditions which prepared the great French Revolution, and also\nthe physiological and social conditions which assisted the development\nof cruelty and humanity throughout the history of the human race. In a\nbook devoted to Bolshevism, in which the whole question is examined in\n234 pages, Kautsky describes in detail on what our most remote human\nancestor fed, and hazards the guess that, while living mainly on\nvegetable products, he devoured also insects and possibly a few birds.\n(See page 122.) In a word, there was nothing to lead us to expect that\nfrom such an entirely respectable ancestor--one obviously inclined to\nvegetarianism--there should spring such descendants as the Bolsheviks.\nThat is the solid scientific basis on which Kautsky builds the\nquestion!...\n\nBut, as is not infrequent with productions of this nature, there is\nhidden behind the academic and scholastic cloak a malignant political\npamphlet. This book is one of the most lying and conscienceless of its\nkind. Is it not incredible, at first glance, that Kautsky should\ngather up the most contemptible stories about the Bolsheviks from the\nrich table of Havas, Reuter and Wolff, thereby displaying from under\nhis learned night-cap the ears of the sycophant? Yet these\ndisreputable details are only mosaic decorations on the fundamental\nbackground of solid, scientific lying about the Soviet Republic and\nits guiding party.\n\nKautsky depicts in the most sinister colors our savagery towards the\nbourgeoisie, which \"displayed no tendency to resist.\"\n\nKautsky attacks our ruthlessness in connection with the Socialist\nRevolutionaries and the Mensheviks, who represent \"shades\" of\nSocialism.\n\n\nKAUTSKY DEPICTS THE SOVIET ECONOMY AS THE CHAOS OF COLLAPSE\n\nKautsky represents the Soviet workers, and the Russian working class\nas a whole, as a conglomeration of egoists, loafers, and cowards.\n\nHe does not say one word about the conduct of the Russian bourgeoisie,\nunprecedented in history for the magnitude of its scoundrelism;\nabout its national treachery; about the surrender of Riga to the\nGermans, with \"educational\" aims; about the preparations for a\nsimilar surrender of Petrograd; about its appeals to foreign\narmies--Czecho-Slovakian, German, Roumanian, British, Japanese,\nFrench, Arab and Negro--against the Russian workers and peasants;\nabout its conspiracies and assassinations, paid for by Entente money;\nabout its utilization of the blockade, not only to starve our children\nto death, but systematically, tirelessly, persistently to spread over\nthe whole world an unheard-of web of lies and slander.\n\nHe does not say one word about the most disgraceful misrepresentations\nof and violence to our party on the part of the government of the\nS.R.s and Mensheviks before the November Revolution; about the\ncriminal persecution of several thousand responsible workers of the\nparty on the charge of espionage in favor of Hohenzollern Germany;\nabout the participation of the Mensheviks and S.R.s in all the plots\nof the bourgeoisie; about their collaboration with the imperial\ngenerals and admirals, Kolchak, Denikin and Yudenich; about the\nterrorist acts carried out by the S.R.s at the order of the Entente;\nabout the risings organized by the S.R.s with the money of the foreign\nmissions in our army, which was pouring out its blood in the struggle\nagainst the monarchical bands of imperialism.\n\nKautsky does not say one word about the fact that we not only repeated\nmore than once, but proved in reality our readiness to give peace to\nthe country, even at the cost of sacrifices and concessions, and that,\nin spite of this, we were obliged to carry on an intensive struggle on\nall fronts to defend the very existence of our country, and to prevent\nits transformation into a colony of Anglo-French imperialism.\n\nKautsky does not say one word about the fact that in this heroic\nstruggle, in which we are defending the future of world Socialism, the\nRussian proletariat is obliged to expend its principal energies, its\nbest and most valuable forces, taking them away from economic and\ncultural reconstruction.\n\nIn all his book, Kautsky does not even mention the fact that first of\nall German militarism, with the help of its Scheidemanns and the\napathy of its Kautskies, and then the militarism of the Entente\ncountries with the help of its Renaudels and the apathy of its\nLonguets, surrounded us with an iron blockade; seized all our ports;\ncut us off from the whole of the world; occupied, with the help of\nhired White bands, enormous territories, rich in raw materials; and\nseparated us for a long period from the Baku oil, the Donetz coal, the\nDon and Siberian corn, the Turkestan cotton.\n\nKautsky does not say one word about the fact that in these conditions,\nunprecedented for their difficulty, the Russian working class for\nnearly three years has been carrying on a heroic struggle against its\nenemies on a front of 8,000 versts; that the Russian working class\nlearned how to exchange its hammer for the sword, and created a mighty\narmy; that for this army it mobilized its exhausted industry and, in\nspite of the ruin of the country, which the executioners of the whole\nworld had condemned to blockade and civil war, for three years with\nits own forces and resources it has been clothing, feeding, arming,\ntransporting an army of millions--an army which has learned how to\nconquer.\n\nAbout all these conditions Kautsky is silent, in a book devoted to\nRussian Communism. And his silence is the fundamental, capital,\nprincipal lie--true, a passive lie, but more criminal and more\nrepulsive than the active lie of all the scoundrels of the\ninternational bourgeois Press taken together.\n\nSlandering the policy of the Communist Party, Kautsky says nowhere\nwhat he himself wants and what he proposes. The Bolsheviks were not\nalone in the arena of the Russian Revolution. We saw and see in\nit--now in power, now in opposition--S.R.s (not less than five groups\nand tendencies), Mensheviks (not less than three tendencies),\nPlekhanovists, Maximalists, Anarchists.... Absolutely all the \"shades\nof Socialism\" (to speak in Kautsky's language) tried their hand, and\nshowed what they would and what they could. There are so many of these\n\"shades\" that it is difficult now to pass the blade of a knife between\nthem. The very origin of these \"shades\" is not accidental: they\nrepresent, so to speak, different degrees in the adaptation of the\npre-revolutionary Socialist parties and groups to the conditions of\nthe greater revolutionary epoch. It would seem that Kautsky had a\nsufficiently complete political keyboard before him to be able to\nstrike the note which would give a true Marxian key to the Russian\nRevolution. But Kautsky is silent. He repudiates the Bolshevik melody\nthat is unpleasant to his ear, but does not seek another. The solution\nis simple: _the old musician refuses altogether to play on the\ninstrument of the revolution_.\n\n\n\n\n10\n\nIN PLACE OF AN EPILOGUE\n\n\nThis book appears at the moment of the Second Congress of the\nCommunist International. The revolutionary movement of the proletariat\nhas made, during the months that have passed since the First Congress,\na great step forward. The positions of the official, open\nsocial-patriots have everywhere been undermined. The ideas of\nCommunism acquire an ever wider extension. Official dogmatized\nKautskianism has been gradually compromised. Kautsky himself, within\nthat \"Independent\" Party which he created, represents to-day a not\nvery authoritative and a fairly ridiculous figure.\n\nNone the less, the intellectual struggle in the ranks of the\ninternational working class is only now blazing up as it should. If,\nas we just said, dogmatized Kautskianism is breathing its last days,\nand the leaders of the intermediate Socialist parties are hastening to\nrenounce it, still Kautskianism as a bourgeois attitude, as a\ntradition of passivity, as political cowardice, still plays an\nenormous part in the upper ranks of the working-class organizations of\nthe world, in no way excluding parties tending to the Third\nInternational, and even formally adhering to it.\n\nThe Independent Party in Germany, which has written on its banner the\nwatchword of the dictatorship of the proletariat, tolerates in its\nranks the Kautsky group, all the efforts of which are devoted\ntheoretically to compromise and misrepresent the dictatorship of the\nproletariat in the shape of its living expression--the Soviet regime.\nIn conditions of civil war, such a form of co-habitation is\nconceivable only and to such an extent as far and as long as the\ndictatorship of the proletariat represents for the leaders of the\n\"Independent\" Social-Democracy a noble aspiration, a vague protest\nagainst the open and disgraceful treachery of Noske, Ebert,\nScheidemann and others, and--last but not least--a weapon of electoral\nand parliamentary demagogy.\n\nThe vitality of vague Kautskianism is most clearly seen in the example\nof the French Longuetists. Jean Longuet himself has most sincerely\nconvinced himself, and has for long been attempting to convince\nothers, that he is marching in step with us, and that only\nClemenceau's censorship and the calumnies of our French friends\nLoriot, Monatte, Rosmer, and others hinder our comradship in arms. Yet\nis it sufficient to make oneself acquainted with any parliamentary\nspeech of Longuet's to realize that the gulf separating him from us at\nthe present moment is possibly still wider than at the first period of\nthe imperialist war? The revolutionary problems now arising before the\ninternational proletariat have become more serious, more immediate,\nmore gigantic, more direct, more definite, than five or six years ago;\nand the politically reactionary character of the Longuetists, the\nparliamentary representatives of eternal passivity, has become more\nimpressive than ever before, in spite of the fact that formally they\nhave returned to the fold of parliamentary opposition.\n\nThe Italian Party, which is within the Third International, is not at\nall free from Kautskianism. As far as the leaders are concerned, a\nvery considerable part of them bear their internationalist honors only\nas a duty and as an imposition from below. In 1914-1915, the Italian\nSocialist Party found it infinitely more easy than did the other\nEuropean parties to maintain an attitude of opposition to the war,\nboth because Italy entered the war nine months later than other\ncountries, and particularly because the international position of\nItaly created in it even a powerful bourgeois group (Giolittians in\nthe widest sense of the word) which remained to the very last moment\nhostile to Italian intervention in the war.\n\nThese conditions allowed the Italian Socialist Party, without the fear\nof a very profound internal crisis to refuse war credits to the\nGovernment, and generally to remain outside the interventionist block.\nBut by this very fact the process of internal cleansing of the party\nproved to be unquestionably delayed. Although an integral part of the\nThird International, the Italian Socialist Party to this very day can\nput up with Turati and his supporters in its ranks. This very powerful\ngroup--unfortunately we find it difficult to define to any extent of\naccuracy its numerical significance in the parliamentary group, in the\npress, in the party, and in the trade union organizations--represents\na less pedantic, not so demagogic, more declamatory and lyrical, but\nnone the less malignant opportunism--a form of romantic Kautskianism.\n\nA passive attitude to the Kautskian, Longuetist, Turatist groups is\nusually cloaked by the argument that the time for revolutionary\nactivity in the respective countries has not yet arrived. But such a\nformulation of the question is absolutely false. Nobody demands from\nSocialists striving for Communism that they should appoint a\nrevolutionary outbreak for a definite week or month in the near\nfuture. What the Third International demands of its supporters is a\nrecognition, not in words but in deeds, that civilized humanity has\nentered a revolutionary epoch; that all the capitalist countries are\nspeeding towards colossal disturbances and an open class war; and that\nthe task of the revolutionary representatives of the proletariat is to\nprepare for that inevitable and approaching war the necessary\nspiritual armory and buttress of organization. The internationalists\nwho consider it possible at the present time to collaborate with\nKautsky, Longuet and Turati, to appear side by side with them before\nthe working masses, by that very act renounce in practice the work of\npreparing in ideas and organization for the revolutionary rising of\nthe proletariat, independently of whether it comes a month or a year\nsooner or later. In order that the open rising of the proletarian\nmasses should not fritter itself away in belated searches for paths\nand leadership, we must see to it to-day that wide circles of the\nproletariat should even now learn to grasp all the immensity of the\ntasks before them, and of their irreconcilability with all variations\nof Kautskianism and opportunism.\n\nA truly revolutionary, _i.e._, a Communist wing, must set itself\nup in opposition, in face of the masses, to all the indecisive,\nhalf-hearted groups of doctrinaires, advocates, and panegyrists of\npassivity, strengthening its positions first of all spiritually and\nthen in the sphere of organization--open, half-open, and purely\nconspirative. The moment of formal split with the open and disguised\nKautskians, or the moment of their expulsion from the ranks of the\nworking-class party, is, of course, to be determined by considerations\nof usefulness from the point of view of circumstances; but all the\npolicy of real Communists must turn in that direction.\n\nThat is why it seems to me that this book is still not out of date--to\nmy great regret, if not as an author, at any rate as a Communist.\n\n_June 17, 1920._","title":"Dictatorship vs. Democracy (Terrorism and Communism): a reply to Karl Kantsky","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":70200}