November Revolution And The Role Of The Communist Party
At the very outset it is important to recognize a historical fact. The Russian revolution would not have been possible without the advanced revolutionary role played by the Russian working class. At the same time, as we will see in the following pages of this article, the successful revolution would also have been impossible in the absence of the role of the Bolshevik party. Although not within the purview of this discussion, but to a large extent the failure of the then contemporary and emerging German revolution also demonstrates the importance and necessity of the role of a truly revolutionary communist party for a successful revolution. Hence, for us a cardinal point of investigation is - where exactly the Bolshevik party played a crucial role for the success of the Russian revolution and how close and interdependent was the interrelation between the Russian working class and the Bolshevik party. The history spans barely twenty years, yet this history is so very complex and varied that an analysis within the confines of this article is bound to be inadequate and partial. However, within this limitation we will try to present the major and significant aspects.
Few Initial Aspects
Before delving into the main aspect of this article it is important to understand some general points.
First, as an example, when RSDLP was being formed, the history of emergence of communist parties at the national level was merely of thirty years and that too, restricted primarily in the advanced capitalist nations. None of them had any experience of leading any successful revolution. Hence, the experience of RSDLP was the first experience. The leading role of the party is not simply a theoretically predetermined position. The role needs to be properly established, examined and developed at every step of the evolving class struggle. For the first time in the history of the international communist movement, RSDLP (B) had to develop this task through its implementation in objective class struggle.
Secondly, Marx and Engels envisaged the reality of socialist revolution in advanced capitalist countries, in the west European countries and North America of their time. Yet, the first socialist revolution happened in a country where capitalism was less developed and where feudal relations were extensively present in rural economy. In a nutshell, the working class was less developed both numerically as well as in terms of consciousness.
Thirdly, there is another aspect we should keep in mind during this analysis. In the pre-revolution era the political governance of Russia was under a monarchy which was immensely autocratic. Although the situation changed after the unsuccessful 1905 revolution, but this change was firstly, very temporary in nature, and secondly, the change was nothing substantial. In such a situation it was impossible for a communist party to carry on with open political propaganda and organizational work. The Party had to work secretly, majority of the leadership were in exile outside Russia for a substantial period and had to lead the party's strategy and tactics from abroad. On the other hand, those who tried valiantly to carry out communist activities inside the country had to face the bullets of the police and the military or were either jailed or exiled. It is extremely important to remember this specific reality while trying to understand the role of RSDLP (B).
Keeping the above-mentioned condition in view we shall now try to look at the role of the party in the Russian revolution by dividing the period in several stages.
First Stage - Birth Of The Party
Who Built The Party?
Most of us are aware about the "League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class", which was established in 1895 by uniting nearly 20 disparate and scattered Marxist study circles in the St. Petersburg industrial area, primarily through the initiative of Lenin. The League played a significant role in establishing the party in 1898. But did this involve only the initiatives of revolutionary intellectuals imbibed with socialist ideology? From the history of Russian revolution we get to know about two workers -Khalturin and V. P. Obnorsky, who twenty years ago, in 1878 built the "Northern Union of Russian workers," and whose program declared aims and mission similar to the west European social-democratic workers organisation. Although the union dissolved within a few years, before its dissolution it had nearly 200 worker members, which under the existing conditions of industrial development in Russia was not an insignificant number. Prior to this Obnorsky spent some time in Geneva while in exile, and got introduced to the ideas of the first international.1 The development of workers' struggle that followed and the role of the capitalist class therein, the terror of the Tsar - all these brought forward a plethora of socio-political questions in front of the struggling workers. This led to the spread of the Marxist study circles of the workers, where they met and united with the social-democratic, revolutionary intellectuals. The unity of the workers and the intellectuals did not merely involve participation of the intellectuals as teachers in the study circles. The intellectuals virtually entrenched themselves in the workers' ghettos and learnt from the real life struggles of the workers. Thus the relations were based on equality, on mutual give and take.2 According to the observation of an historian, the preliminary social-democratic consciousness of the workers "consisted of two important points: (1) the revolutionary transformation of the contemporary society has to be led by the workers and not the peasants; and (2) instead of individual heroic acts, mass organization...has to become the weapon for realizing this transformation."3 Another characteristic that could be noted about the social democratic workers is that they largely assumed an atheist position.
The significance in this case is, the idea of social democracy among the workers was not merely brought by the revolutionary intellectuals; "worker-intellectuals" emerged from within the metal workers who carried the idea of social democracy to the backward workers. From the autobiography of a Bolshevik worker called Kanatchikov, we get introduced to a patternmaker worker named Egorevich Savinov, who is a self-educated conscious worker and who carried the ideas of social-democracy and workers movements to the backward workers. In fact the initial development of social democratic thoughts in Kanatchikov was instigated by Savinov. Importantly, Savinov was no exception. We see an active presence of many such Kanatchikovs and Savinovs in the social-democratic movements of that period.4 We also note another aspect of the role played by the worker-intellectuals of that period. According to a comment made by a worker who participated in the Marxist study circles "the general workers many a times did not understand the language of many intellectuals. So to say, a group of middle level intellectual worker comrades presented the discussions of comrades hailing from petty-bourgeois families in a livelier manner in front of the general workers and this played a very important role during that time."5 More importantly, as enumerated by an historian, the socialist study circles were attended not only by the male workers, but also by skilled women workers from large industries.6 On the whole, we find that prior to 1905, worker members constituted 56-62% of the total members of all organizations in Russia who claimed themselves as social-democrats, although, in terms of numbers, this was insignificant (merely 0.2%) compared to the total worker population of Russia.7
Hence, we note an important aspect from the very early phase of the party history - the party was built not only by a few conscious revolutionary intellectuals, rather, social democratic workers and intellectuals simultaneously assembled in the party.
What Was The Basis Of Their Unity?
One feature is clear. Although the first congress session was held in 1898, in reality the true party unity and a party structure capable of containing this unity 6 in that sense a party was not yet formed. Under such a condition, in the post 1898 phase, the struggle for the development of a real political program became one of the most significant struggles keeping in mind the perspective of the struggle for socialism within the workers and the petty bourgeois social-democratic forces. On one side, the struggle for real revolutionary political program through Iskra, while on the other side a working organizational structure to combat and expose the character of the autocratic governance and structure, became the main tasks of the exiled leaders and particularly of Lenin. We should keep in mind the immense importance of the intense ideological struggle of this phase that enabled the party to truly and successfully assume a united political program in its second congress held in 1903.
The focus of the ideological struggle of this phase centred on the trends of "economism". "Economism," at that particular juncture presented itself as an opportunist-reformist ideology within the working class. In response to the ideological struggle launched by Iskra against this ideology, and by defeating the opinions of the "economists," the party was able to unite on the basis of a revolutionary program in the second party congress in 1903. The actual significance of the struggle against the economists is a struggle for establishing a real revolutionary political program against the opportunist-reformist opinion, while keeping in mind the perspective of attaining socialism.
Although the theory of "economism" was largely defeated within the social democrats before the second congress in 1903, opportunism-reformism ideology presented itself in a different form in the party congress. First, there was a debate regarding the inclusion of working class dictatorship and other questions in the party program; but, following the acceptance of the party program, more intense debate ensued regarding implementation of party rules and regulations. Two clear divisions came to the forefront. Although the opinion of the Leninists finally emerged victorious in the congress, the debate regarding this question was not fully resolved in the congress. Rather, two different opinions among two different sections existed within the united party. Since the Leninists were the majority, they became identified as the "Bolshevik" section, while Martov-Akselrods became known as the "Menshevik" section as they were the minority. The significance of the history of this period is, on one side a party is being built on the basis of a revolutionary program; on the other side, two different sections - a revolutionary section and a section with opportunist-reformist trend, continued to exist simultaneously as independent forces within the party. And during the entire revolutionary period the struggle between these two lines (in two different ways before and after 1912) presents itself in front of the objective class struggle.
The Heroic Role Of Those Who Assembled In The Party
The virtual impossibility of carrying out the task of disseminating Iskra within Russia at that juncture, may be discussed in this context in accordance with the historical records. The number of full-time revolutionary workers who carried out the task of spreading the organ newspaper in 1901 was barely a dozen, which increased to at the most 30 in 1903. This number continually varied due to regular arrests. According to one observer, during the period spanning from 1895 to 1902 any social-democratic group in Moscow could not sustain beyond 3 months on the average, due to police atrocities.8 We should keep in mind that based on this immensely heroic and valorous role of very few revolutionaries, the second congress of RSDLP could be organised in Brussels in the year 1903.
Second Phase - 1903-1907
Though representatives of 26 organisations formed a party on the basis of a united program and organisational regulations in the second congress of 1903, the mass base of the party was still extremely weak. Moreover, despite being part of the united party, the Bolshevik and Menshevik sections, in reality worked separately within the workers. Under this condition the ensuing revolution of 1905 brought in a plethora of changes in the party's life. Let us briefly look into these changes. However, at the very outset, it is important to elucidate that largely, the social-democrats were not in the leadership of the revolutionary process that started emerging from the month of January in 1905. Yet, history reveals that the party for the first time started assuming a mass character inasmuch as the revolution objectively unfurled and developed. One fact is enough to illustrate the extent of this change. Whereas at the end of 1903 the party membership was merely few thousands, at the beginning of 1907 this number escalated to 1.5 lakhs.9 While one of the reasons for this transformation was the actual outburst of the revolution in 1905, the other reason was the real role of the party in this revolution. Hence, let us attempt to discuss the different aspects of this role.
Providing A Revolutionary Direction To The Spontaneous Struggle Of The Working Class Through Formulation Of The Correct Revolutionary Line
It is necessary to mention two aspects in this regard. One, bringing forth the necessity of the leading role of the working class in the democratic revolution; and, two, consciously identify and present the spontaneously created Soviets as centres of real revolutionary power. Let us briefly discuss on this two aspects.
a. It has been mentioned before that the most important problem in front of the working class of Russia was the overthrow of the feudal remnants, removal of all the obstacles from the path of unrestricted and free development of capitalism; and herein the question was under whose leadership this unfinished task will be completed. This unfurled through the slogan of "Democratic Dictatorship of Proletariat and Peasantry (DDPP)" presented by Lenin. Actually the social-democrats felt that the fall of Tsarism was inevitable and will happen soon - under this condition the objective question regarding who would assume the leadership of the political power after the fall of Tsarism came to the forefront. The Mensheviks felt that after the fall of Tsarism, the democratic bourgeoisie should be given the opportunity to form the government - which the social democrats would critique from outside and through their struggles compel the bourgeoise to expand the limits of bourgeois democracy; in opposition to this the Bolsheviks under the leadership of Lenin said - the bourgeoisie cannot be allowed to capture political power; the revolutionary-democratic front of the working class and the peasants should form the government, and they will have to perform two primary tasks - one, forceful seizure of lands from the landlords and distribution among the peasants; and two, restrict the working period to eight hours a day. While, this alliance will not be in a position for immediate overthrow of capitalism, at the same time this alliance will not work with the aim of permanent establishment of capitalism; rather will assume a conducive role in support of the forthcoming struggles directed towards socialist revolution.
It is a fact that ultimately the revolution of 1905 was not able to meet with success at that time and was not able to overthrow the Tsarist regime. But the emergence of the idea of DDPP in the wake of this revolution, could not keep the bourgeois democratic revolution within the confines of the old idea of bourgeois democratic revolution; learning from the objective revolutionary experience, the Bolshevik section of the party at that time was able to clearly establish the revolutionary strategy of the proletariat in the democratic revolution in an underdeveloped country like Russia and how this strategy widens the path for opening the door of the socialist revolution. On one hand, this strategy brought forward the required real role of the Russian proletariat in this revolution, while at the same time it successfully and clearly established in front of the entire working class the actual proletarian position as opposed to the reformist line of the Menshevik in this revolution. In that particular time, this was a major leading role of the communist party (which at that time was reflected through the Bolsheviks). In fact, in the era of imperialism and particularly after the November revolution of 1917, the bourgeoise in general did not have the ability to lead a democratic revolution, therefore this strategy was objectively placed in history as the general strategy of democratic revolution in all underdeveloped countries, which later, through the hands of Stalin and particularly through Mao-Zedong, in the context of an underdeveloped country, became the task for completion of a new type of democratic revolution or the peoples' democratic revolution replacing the bourgeois democratic revolution or the old type of democratic revolution led by the bourgeois and was developed and accepted as a general strategy.
b. In the initial stages the soviets emerged as organisations for organising and conducting strikes. However, as they had to assume positions in opposition to all the repressive measures of the Tsarist regime, soon they objectively started to emerge as embryo of revolutionary power. The soviets started to forcefully implement eight hours working day limit in the factories, started to extend the limits of democratic rights enjoyed by the workers. During this period, when the Mensheviks presented the soviets as organs of local self-governance and mere means for protecting the economic interest of the workers, under such a situation, the Bolsheviks under the leadership of Lenin, instead of confining the soviets within the limits of organs of local self-governance, brought them forward as mass political organisations of the working class, as means for their uprisings and as embryos of new revolutionary system of rule of the working class. By presenting this revolutionary path in front of the spontaneously surfaced soviets during that time, the Bolshevik section of the party provided a revolutionary direction to the actual spontaneous economic and political movements of the working class and through that presented the real leading revolutionary direction in opposition to the reformist line of the Mensheviks.
Presenting this direction was in reality not an easy task. Right from the very beginning there was a contradiction between the Bolshevik and the Mensheviksections regarding the role of the working class in the bourgeois-democratic revolution of Russia, although the particular idea of DDPP was concretely present in front of Lenin through the actual outburst of the 1905 revolution. And the Bolshevik section of the party attempted to consciously present this direction in front of the struggle of the working class. On the other hand, if we look into the issue of the soviet, then we will realize that there was considerable vacillation and debate regarding - party or soviet in the tumultuous period of revolution. And Lenin had to wage extensive ideological struggle centred on these debates within the Bolshevik section. At the same time by opposing the Menshevik position regarding the soviets, he had to wage a fight to bring forward the actual revolutionary position in this regard within the party. And here we need to realize that, although, some amount of united opinion started developing within the party regarding the soviet during the latter half of that period as a consequence of the struggle waged by Lenin, and despite the initiation of the assumption of some role by the party in the formation of the soviets, in reality, we can see the actual successful outcome of Lenin's struggle waged during this time, during the revolutionary phase of 1917, through the role played by the Bolshevik party as the soviets started emerging afresh.
Not only providing a revolutionary direction, but assuming a role in the actual struggle
The revolutionary struggle of the 1905 period did not emerge under the direct initiative and leadership of the RSDLP, just as this is one part of the fact, it is also true that under every circumstance the party members were always at the fore front of the real struggle, presented new demands in front of the struggling workers, boldly faced the terror of the Tsar's army. The first example will be the movement under the leadership of Gapon. Here, we must note that both the sections of the party - the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks were logically against the organization of Gapon. But when the workers exploded into struggle under the leadership of Gapon, or gathered in the 9th January march, the party members actively participated in the movement to remove the workers from the leadership of Gapon. Names of workers associated with the party could be found in the list of injured and killed in the 9th January firing. Not only in the movement under the leadership of Gapon, or in the 9th January march, the Bolsheviks were right in the front of every movement of the workers in this entire revolutionary period. A historian writes: "Russian Social Democratic Labour Party immensely increased the scope and influence of their work in 1905. The local leaders not only provided leadership to the strikes and the protests, they were also able to supply activists who were able to assist soviet trade unions and factory workshops that emerged in different parts of the country." 10
Not Only The Party Was Teaching The Working Class, The Working Class Was Also Teaching The Party
Actually the role of RSDLP in this phase also reveals this important fact, which is practically forgotten and unrecognised in the present communist revolutionary movement. Some living examples can be found in Lenin's own writings. In 1906 Lenin wrote an article which was a critique of the December 1905 Moscow uprising. He describes: "The organisations failed to keep pace with the growth and range of the movement...... The proletariat sensed sooner than its leaders the change in the objective conditions of the struggle and the need for a transition from the strike to an uprising. As is always the case, practice marched ahead of theory....... In December, we, the leaders of the Social-Democratic proletariat, were like a commander-in-chief who has deployed his troops in such an absurd way that most of them took no active part in the battle." (Bold ours; italics in original)11
Another glaring example in this regard was the development of the position with respect to the soviets. From the historical documents one can find that during the initial stages many party members working inside Russia had a considerable vacillation in assuming a clear position regarding the soviets that emerged out of the spontaneous struggle of the workers. In reality, although the soviets emerged out of the necessity to lead the workers' strike based struggles, particularly in the case of the Saint Petersburg soviet (this is the second soviet which was created during the turbulent times of 1905) one can see that soon the soviet started providing active leadership in the political struggle against Tsarist autocracy. In such a situation the party was confronted with the question that such an elected non-party organisation of the workers actually presents itself as a non-party organisation against the party organisation. Particularly, this debate was predominant within the Bolshevik section, since on the other side the Menshevik section from the very beginning was partially aligned towards the soviets though they considered them as organs of local self-governance (even amongst them the demand for the soviets to accept the party's political program was raised). From this position, a leading Bolshevik comrade like B.M. Knuyants (Radin), posed the question - which to us is more important - the party of the soviet? Some thought the Bolsheviks should play a role so as to restrict the work of the soviets in providing leadership to the economic struggles of the workers only; or to launch a fight to compel the soviets to accept the party dominance; we could see that even leading comrades like Bogdanov proposed that the Bolshevik faction should place a proposal towards the soviets to accept the party leadership and the social-democratic program; if they refuse to accept then the Bolsheviks should dissociate from the soviets. But in reality the incidents unfurled in a different direction. Whatever were the wishes of the Bolshevik and Menshevik sections, in reality, first, notwithstanding the initiative of the party, during the second half of 1905, one after the other the soviets started emerging based on workers' spontaneous initiatives; secondly, none of the deputies of the soviets agreed to directly associate the soviets with any political party; and thirdly, in reality the soviets became the embryos of revolutionary power centres. On one side the pressure of this objectivity and simultaneously the internal struggle within the party launched by Lenin in this regard - learning from the cumulative experiences of these two, the party in this question, particularly the Bolshevik section learnt to look at the role of the party in the soviets from the correct perspective and thereby assume an appropriate role from this perspective.
Building An Organisational Structure In Coherence With The Evolving Real Situation
Till now we saw that from the very beginning the Bolshevik section of the party was aware about the leading role of the working class in the bourgeois democratic revolution in Russia; but the actual struggle of the working class brought in front the idea of DDPP; similarly, the emergence of the soviets in reality, brought forward their revolutionary role in front of the Bolshevik section of the party; and the significance of the party, particularly the Bolshevik section lies in the fact that they learnt and consciously provided revolutionary direction to those experiences of real struggle of the working class which came to the forefront. Now, we need to focus on another aspect, how the party was able to consciously change the organisational structure in reality and coherently with the changes of the real situation; without such flexibility it would have been impossible for it to assume the leadership role in the Russian revolution.
We know that one of the primary aspects of opposition in the second congress was concerning the implementation of organisational regulation. While the Mensheviks presented the idea of a rather loose organisation, the Bolsheviks fought with the idea of a more centralized party structure. The perspective of the situation on which the Bolsheviks based their struggle for this concrete structure, the revolution of 1905 brought a significant change to that situation. In reality, ignoring all governmental restrictions, the struggling masses took to the roads and confronted the state power; and the state was also not able to maintain its aggressive role. As a consequence, in November 1905, the Tsarist administration was forced to provide certain reliefs in issues related to the rights of organisation and struggle and freedom of press. Hence, in reality the emphasis on centralism within the party to combat the tremendous state terror shifted, and brought forward the necessity to widely expand the democratic limits inside the organization. Actually, much before October, Lenin himself, started to emphatically bring this issue in the forefront. In March, 1905 he said: Young fighters should be recruited more boldly, widely, and rapidly into the ranks of all and every kind of our organisations. Hundreds of new organisations should be set up for the purpose without a moment's delay. Yes, hundreds; this is no hyperbole, and let no one tell me that it is "too late" now to tackle such a broad organisational job. ?..If we fail to show bold initiative in setting up new organisations, we shall have to give up as groundless all pretensions to the role of vanguard. " (Italics in the original).12 Shortly before this, he directed in a letter to Bogdanov and Gusev, the two Bolshevik leaders who came from abroad to Russia: "This is a time of war. The youth-the students, and still more so the young workers-will decide the issue of the whole struggle. Get rid of all the old habits of immobility, of respect for rank, and so on?.. Enlarge the Committee threefold by accepting young people into it, set up half a dozen or a dozen subcommittees, "co-opt" any and every honest and energetic person. Allow every subcommittee to write and publish leaflets without any red tape (there is no harm if they do make a mistake; we on Vperyod will "gently" correct them)?.. Only you must be sure to organise, organise, and organise hundreds of circles, completely pushing into the back ground the customary, well-meant committee (hierarchic) stupidities?.. Either you create new, young, fresh, energetic battle organisations everywhere for revolutionary Social-Democratic work of all varieties among all strata, or you will go under, wearing the aureole of "committee" bureaucrats."13 During the same time in another letter Lenin wrote: "The new form of organisation, or rather the new form of the basic organisational nucleus of the workers' party, must be definitely much broader than were the old circles. Apart from this, the new nucleus will most likely have to be a less rigid, more "free", more "loose" (lose) organisation."14
Progressive Transformation Of The Party To An Organizations Of Conscious Workers
One of the most remarkable features of this period is the upliftment and inclusion of more and more workers in the organization, particularly in the organisational committees. In the period prior to 1905 revolution the membership of the party was centred mainly around petty bourgeois revolutionary intellectuals. Though there were worker members they were the absolute back benchers. We find from one source - the first congress of 1898 was held with only 9 delegate representatives, among them only one was a worker; in the 1903 second congress, out of 51 delegates there were probably 3-4 workers; in the third congress held in April 1905 in London, there was no worker representative (more significantly this conference was held only with the Bolshevik representatives as the Mensheviks did not participate in this congress); there was not a single worker member is the party's Petrograd committee; in the northern committee for every eight members there was only one worker member; in the committees of all the Caucasian cities except Tiflis, worker members were either zero or very few.15 However, at the end of 1905 we see that the Bolshevik membership has escalated to 8,400 out of which more than 60% are workers. After one year, in October 1906, the party had 33,000 Bolshevik members and 43,000 Menshevik members. In 1907 the party membership increased to 1.5 lakhs, out of which 46,000 were Bolsheviks and 38,000 were Mensheviks.16
During this period, along with the increase in the worker membership, the fight within the Bolsheviks to increase the worker members within the party committees came to the forefront. In the third party congress of April 1905 (the congress in which the Bolsheviks did not participate) questions were raised regarding the dominance of intellectuals in the party along with a voice to assist in bringing the worker members within the party committees. Some members strongly opposed this view and asked to maintain "substantial caution." Opposing them in this party congress, Lenin advocated in favour of having eight workers to every two intellectuals in the committees. His concrete opinion in this regards was: "To place workers on the committees is a political, not only a pedagogical, task. Workers have the class instinct, and, given some political experience, they pretty soon become staunch Social-Democrats." Criticizing the members who opposed the call to fill up the party with worker members, he wrote: "I could hardly keep my seat when it was said here that there are no workers fit to sit on the committees??Workers must be given places on the committees." (The bold in the quotation is ours)17 The consequence of this fight is evident from the footnote of another article written by Lenin in November 1905. He writes: "At the Third Congress of the Party I suggested that there be about eight workers to every two intellectuals in the Party committees. How obsolete that suggestion seems today! Now we must wish for the new Party organisations to have one social-democratic intellectual to several hundred social-democratic workers. (The bold in the quotation is ours).18
1907-1912 - The Party In The Phase Of Reaction
Initial Aspects
The defeat of the 1905 revolution unleashed an era of terrible reaction in the life of the Russian proletariat, which is generally known as the Stolypin reaction. Nearly all the legal relaxations earned during the tumultuous period of 1905 were forcefully taken away. Alongside, through many legal reforms in the agrarian and education sectors the path for the development of capitalism was further broadened. As a result unbearable darkness descended in the lives of the rural poor peasants. On the other hand, terror was unleashed on the workers. By 1908, wages reduced by 10-15%, working hours once again increased to 10-12 hours. Factories were locked-out by the owners at the slightest provocation and workers were "black-listed" and punished for participating in strikes; once a name was put up on such a list there was no chance of getting any job in any factory under the factory owners' association. In addition there was a tremendous terror by the police-military and the goons of Black Hundred. Under such a condition the struggle of the workers and peasants temporarily took a back seat. Along all these the party members and supporters were confronted with terrible terror. Mass-activity by the party became virtually impossible.
A particular feature of this period was the huge rate in which large number of revolutionary intellectuals left the party membership. Prior to 1905 most of the party members were from the revolutionary intellectual section; during the revolutionary phase of 1905 this condition changed substantially, the number of worker members in the party increased significantly. Many of these new worker members went to jail-exile-house arrest during the reaction phase of 1905. On the other side there was almost a mad rush for quitting the party by the members coming from the intellectual section. Due to this mass dissociation of the intellectual members with the party, the problems faced by the party was in a nutshell immediate and dangerous. A deep crisis descended in the life of the party.
The temporary disillusionment of the working class, the increased intensity of the Tsarist reaction, quitting of the party by the intellectual members, increase in the opportunist rightist tendency of the Menshevik section, ultra left tendency of a section of the Bolsheviks - on the whole, in its course of encountering all these factors the party became iron-strong, whose reflection is evident in the history of the next phase.
Resolutely Upholding The Banner Of Socialism By Initiating A Fight Against All Ideological Confusions
In this period the contradictions within the party came to the forefront with intense manifestations. The character of the contradictions were multidimensional. On one side the contradiction between the Bolshevik and the Menshevik sections, as a result of which the party split and the Bolshevik section dissociated with the party to form RSDLP(B); on the other side, the contradictions within the Bolshevik section which resulted in incidents like the expulsion of quite a few leading members from the Bolshevik section. Whatever be the apparent issues of the contradictions, in content the character of these contradictions concerned with upholding the revolutionary banner by the party in the era of massive reaction. Briefly, let us turn to the content of this history.
a. The fight within the Bolsheviks against ultra-left tendencies - although the revolutionary fire was starting to doze off "only through continuous armed struggle it is possible to combat the terror, because the imminent possibility of revolution was not yet over" till mid 1906 the general analysis of the Bolsheviks about the situation. That the revolutionary upheaval had receded back became clearer during June 1907 through the initiation of Stolypin reaction. In such a time the contradiction within the Bolsheviks manifested through the question of participation in the third duma. Though the debates came to the forefront centered on participation in election, the content of the debates had deeper roots. The first difference was regarding the objective analysis of the existing situation. During the end of 1906, Lenin, realizing the dynamics of the real situation reached the conclusion that the revolutionary upsurge of 1905 is over, we need to wait for the revival of revolutionary possibility. On the other hand the analysis of Bogdanov was: "Russia?is is advancing towards new revolutionary upswing." The opinion of Lenin regarding this analysis of Bogdanov was: these ultra-leftists "fails to characterize the present. They are 'characterizing' the future, the future towards we are 'advancing' in an attempt to hide their failure to understand the present." Second difference was regarding determination of the tasks in this concrete situation.
By 1909 the Otzovists and the Ultimatists appeared as definite trends within the party, which deviating from the ideas of the social democracy aligned more and more with an anarchist position. Alongside, it is also necessary to mention that in this period, in the name of developing Marxism, the Otzovists, who were influenced by the thoughts of the Austrian philosopher Ernst Mach, challenged the interpretation of dialectical and historical materialism in the alibi of developing the interpretation. Lenin waged an intense struggle against this philosophical thought. To him this was not merely a struggle confined within the philosophical world. He believed that this philosophical position also affected the world of practical politics. In such a situation it became necessary to dissociate this section with the Bolshevik section of the party. After two years of struggle the Otzovists were expelled from the Bolshevik section of the party. An important feature that appeared in front of us after scrutinizing the history of this period is, any contradiction or difference in opinion did not necessarily mean dissociation. The question of dissociation arose only when it became an obstacle in front of the workers' movement and the work of the social democrat. And in this case what is more significant is to note that these sections were expelled from the Bolshevik section, the Bolsheviks never demanded to expel them from the entire party. In this regard there is a very interesting discussion by Lenin regarding the difference between the basis of the unity developed through embodying different opinion within a party and basis of unity within a particular section operating with a defined line, which we cannot include here due to limitation of space.
b. The contradiction between Bolshevik and Menshevik Wing and the split of the party - split with Reformism - the most significant era in the history of RSDLP. The 1905 revolutionary situation unified the two major factions. As soon as the revolutionary period came to an end the old debates and contradictions surfaced and this time with an expanded character. The two main factions of the party arrived at two completely opposing decisions with regards to question of determination of tasks in the reactionary phase. Since the class struggle was at a very low level, the Mensheviks felt that the workers now could only be drawn towards economic demands and the political demands should be raised in such a fashion so that they may attract the liberal democratic section of the bourgeoisie. Yet another aspect was brought to the forefront from their end - what will be the charter of the party organization. The Mensheviks, particularly the Menshevik ideologue of this period - Akselrod, blamed the "secret-illegal-conspiratorial" character of the party for the huge decline in the party membership during this period. He demanded that due to this character the party has declined and it is not possible to resurrect the party. Now the need is for a party that will primarily continue to implement open mass-political activities, and if needed, even by temporarily relaxing the party program.
In opposition with the above, the position of the Bolsheviks under the leadership of Lenin was the following. Firstly, irrespective of the low level of class struggle due to the defeat, objectively a revolutionary situation existed, the reactionary phase unleashed by the Tsarist regime is about to give birth to more intensive and more extensive crisis both from the economic as well as political standpoints. Hence, the revolutionary slogans of 1905 (building a democratic republic, nationalization of large land-holdings and distribution among the peasants, restriction of working hours to eight hours a day, etc.) should be kept valid by the party with even more emphasis. Not merely the slogans, the illegal structure of the party should also be kept undisturbed while participating in open mass-programs wherever possible.
Describing the internal condition of the party as a result of the debates, Lenin writes in early 1909: "A year of disintegration, a year of ideological and political disunity, a year of Party driftage lies behind us. The membership of all our Party organisations has dropped.?Things reached a point when some elements within the Party, under the impact of the general break-up, began to ask whether it was necessary to preserve the old Social-Democratic Party, whether it was necessary to continue its work, whether it was necessary to go "underground" once more, and how this was to be done. And the extreme Right (the liquidationist trend, so called) answered this question in the sense that it was necessary to legalise ourselves at all costs, even at the price of an open renunciation of the Party programme, tactics and organisation. This was undoubtedly an ideological and political crisis as well as an organisational one." (Bold ours)19 Through the general conference of RSDLP at the end of 1908 this situation was apparently handled, but the crisis could not be resolved through this. In the plenum of the central committee of the party held in January 1910 another level of temporary unity was achieved. In this plenum all sorts of factions and groups within the party were represented. Many issues related to the organization were relaxed in the conference. But the in reality, unity could not be achieved through such measures. On the contrary, the disunity within continued to increase. Actually, progressively, the Mensheviks, who were the professors of liquidationist idea, aligned more and more towards the bourgeois as the reactionary phase progressed. Under such a condition, in reality, there existed no possibility of reverting back to a revolutionary direction through ideological struggle conducted within a single party. Consequently, in 1912, the Bolshevik section defected from the party and formed RSDLP(B) and through this the organizational dissociation of the revolutionary trend with the reformist-opportunist trend was established.
Two aspects should be noted here. One, with the advent of the liquidationist line, the struggle to uphold the revolutionary banner against the opportunist-reformist trend that was being carried out since 1898 under the leadership of the Bolsheviks, could not remain restricted within the confines of a trend, the extent to which the real meaning of this line transformed from a line of displacing the working class from their independent class position to a line of keeping the working class under bourgeois subjugation, to that extent the immediate necessity of forming an independent revolutionary party by dissociating with the former came to the forefront. Two, how to resolutely hold on to the revolutionary banner in a gravely critical phase; which could go as far as dissociation with the sections deviated from the revolutionary line (which holds true for both the Otzovist and the liquidationist sections) whenever necessary; this is one example which is present as a glorious precedent in front of the communists of the future generations and is equally valid in the present times.
In The Absence Of The Intellectual Revolutionaries The Reign Of The Party Was Handled By The Conscious Workers
As majority of the revolutionary intellectuals left the party in herds, the young inexperienced workers of the local branches gradually started to assume responsibility of the party. A large section of the workers who joined the party in the 1905 phase were victims of death-prison-exile. Although the defeat of the 1905 revolution created a disappointment within a large section of the workers, the number of workers who left the party was much less. Some interesting facts in this regards are as follows: among the representatives present in the party congress held in Prague in 1912, 64% were workers and their average age was 26.1 and all of them joined the party in the 1905 phase. The general secretary of the organization in the Kharkov area was an 18 year old Popov, the responsibility of the committee of the Kiev area was in the hands of a 21 year old women worker named Rozmirovich; Voitinsky was merely 22 years when he assumed the responsibility of the party committee of the Ekaterinoslav industrial area.20 According to historical accounts, commencing from the end of 1909, when the workers started shedding their disappointment and once again started assembling in the struggle grounds - these conscious workers, ignoring all forms of state terror, stood in the fore front.
While the practical pressure constituted one side of the reality, simultaneously in this regard the conscious role of the party is also noteworthy. We find in a discussion made by Lenin in the early 1909, where he says: "To strengthen the illegal Party organisation, to create Party cells in all spheres of work, to set up first of all "entirely Party committees consisting of workers, even if their number be small, in each industrial enterprise", to concentrate the functions of leadership in the hands of leaders of the Social-Democratic movement from among the workers themselves-such is the task today." (Bold ours).21 Here the interesting aspect is, Lenin is not merely asking to fill up the entire party committees with workers; he is identifying the task for concentrating the work in such a direction so that leaders of the party-committees can be developed from amongst the workers.
Alongside we must also keep in mind, that during this period the workers were being nurtured in the atmosphere of intense ideological struggle that was going on within the party in this time. It is true that the center of the debate was located within the leading members in exile in foreign countries and many a times the workers involved in practical work inside Russia could not understand the significance of the debate. Many a times this appeared to them as clash between leaderships. But the fact is whenever the question of assuming a specific position in the debates came to the fore front, the worker members did not hesitate to take a more correct political position.
On the whole, the most significant lesson of the 1907-1912 phase of the party's history is - amidst a general disillusionment in the terrible post-defeat phase, on the one hand the party strengthened its revolutionary position by drawing a line of demarcation with the reformism-opportunism as a consequence of the internal ideological struggle, on the other hand, advanced much more towards becoming a proletarian party in the real sense by more and more proletarianization of the party (Bolshevik).
1912-1916: Imperialism-War-Proletarian Internationalism and RSDLP (B)
If we have to express the main characteristic of this period of Russian history- then we see that this period is characterized by i) the rise of worker's movement, which emerged from the depression of previous period, ii) emergence of almost-revolutionary situation again, iii) instead of being moving forward toward revolution Russian proletariat got swayed away in the high tide of nationalism temporarily, though this situation got transformed within one or one-and-half years which culminates to the February Revolution of 1917. Our task here is to examine the role party during this period.
Analysis of Imperialist War, Implication of Role of Theory
We are all familiar with the theoretical analysis of Lenin on Imperialism. Hence we are not discussing it here. However, what we like to highlight the need of such analysis at that crucial juncture of history from the point of view of progression of proletariat and communist party. Proletariat was able to utilize this analysis to make their way forward; through this utilization this theory (on Imperialism) had become the weapon of practical application in true sense.
There is another aspect to it. At the beginning of First World War when the ruling parties of each country of Europe who were talking active part in the war were trying to convince working class of their respective country in the name of "Father Land", were wanting to exploit them even more, at this moment firstly, Russian proletariat and secondly, the question that international proletariat faced, is that of their position in this war. Especially when the majority of social-democratic parties of France, Germany and Britain gave call to join this war by taking the side of ruling class of their respective countries. In this context Lenin's analysis how the character of opportunism-reformism has changed in the age of Imperialism, had played pivotal role of upholding the flag of Communism and Internationalism not only to Russian proletariat but also for international proletariat.
Practical implication of Lenin theory on imperialism is that it was able to recast internationalism firmly in front of Russian proletariat who were got swayed by the tide of nationalism. At that time when the majority of social-democratic and socialist parties of the developed capitalists nations also got swayed by nationalism and telling German working-class to fight against French working class, only RSDLP(B) under leadership of Lenin upheld path of internationalism. Progressive section of Russian proletariat adopted this path of internationalism in their own way to march toward revolution.
Ability To Adopt Changed Revolutionary Strategy In Changed Situation
What was the concrete strategy Russian Social-democrats in the perspective of internationalism in this context of war? In September 1914 central committee of the party was taking decision that: " in present situation it is impossible to determine that whose defeat among two camps of warring nations will be less damaging for socialism from the standpoint of international proletariat.... to transform the present war in civil war would be the only appropriate slogan of proletariat, which emerges from the experience, and which is marked in Bestle Resolution (1912); condition of imperialists war among sufficiently developed nations is pointing toward this direction only."22 It is this strategy which had played a decisive role for the progressive section of Russian proletariat to return to revolutionary position quickly at the moment when it got swayed by tide of nationalism momentarily.
Leadership In The Struggle Against Opportunism-Reformism Not Only Nationally But In The International Arena
It has already been mentioned earlier that opportunist tendencies were taking its root within 2nd International since early 20th century itself under leadership of German socialist Party. This tendency got exposed as defining digression at the wake of war. At the moment when majority of 2nd International got swayed by the tide of hyper nationalism and asking working-class of their respective countries to support their ruling class, war that is being fought in the name of "Father Land". Almost in all countries in Europe, social-democrats representatives (except Karl Liebknecht in Germany, Bolsheviks in Russia, Social-democrats of Serbia and few others) in parliaments took side with the ruling class. We have seen that how through continuous struggle and dissociation against opportunism-reformism firstly, "Economism" (1894-1903), then against Mensheviks (1903-1908), after that against Abolitionists (1908-1914) and during the war against the "Hyper Nationalist" section of the social-democrats (1914-1915) shaped the path of socialism toward revolution in Russia, RSDLP(B) emerged as part of this struggle.23 As a consequence when minority revolutionary section of 2nd International (they were then known as "internationalist") wanted to unite separately regarding question of war against the betrayal of majority section, naturally responsibility to lead the struggle fell upon RSDLP(B). Zimmerworld conference was organized by these "internationalists" in Switzerland, September, 1915. 40 members of 11 countries participated in it. This conference however failed to draw the decisive demarcating line with opportunism-reformism. Though the conference signified this war as imperialist, and also joins the call to all proletariats of all countries to unite against this war; but they had failed to criticise the betrayals of the leadership of 2nd International publicly, and also not able to support the call of Russian Bolsheviks to transform this war into civil war. Interesting fact is that, though proposal of Russian Bolsheviks, they stood in support with whatever minimal unity had been forged against the opportunist-reformist line of leadership of 2nd International. We have seen that after the conference the booklet called "Socialism &War" written jointly by Lenin and Genevieve being translated in English, French, and German even in Norwegian language, and had become the weapon for the revolutionary social-democrats and it was secretly being published and circulated illegally in Berlin, Leipzig and Bremen. Liebknecht and his associated voluntarily took the initiative to print and circulate it.24 Through all these initiatives the struggle for demarcating the decisive line with opportunism-reformism crossed the national borders of Russia and travelled toward under the leadership of RSDLP(B). Though it is the case Zimmerworld Conference didn't immediately led to formation of 3rd International, but it is only partial truth. More important is that. The struggle under the leadership of RSDLP(B) during this period culminates in the formation of 3rd International in 1919. Therefore, it would be utterly non-Marxist and unscientific to view formation of 3rd International only under the influence of Russian Revolution and authority of Lenin, detached from this struggle.
Position Of Workers And Role Of The Party Regarding War
As already been said, at the beginning of war workers were swayed by the tide of nationalism. Trotsky has written somewhere: "at that time workers were afraid to call themselves Bolsheviks not only due to fear of being arrested but more so due to the fear of getting beaten up by regressive workers within the factories."25 In course of history we can see that this situation was changing from the end of 1915. There are two noticeable aspects of this change.
First one is the situation before the war. Since end of 1909 Russian working class had been started their struggle again by disavowing the depression, inaction of yesteryears. The incident of police firing at Lena Goldmine in 1912 strengthened the struggle against Tsarism. Worker's strikes started taking place one after another by raising economic and political demands. in July, 1914 St Petersburg has witness strike by the people and street fights, which is reminiscent of revolutionary situation of 1905.
Data is showing that in this phase of struggle in each industrial area struggling workers are moving (gathering) increasingly toward Bolshevik thought. Two pieces of information can be mentioned in this context. Firstly, election of Duma of 1912, 13 social-democrats were elected, among these 13 elected members 9 members were from urban industrial area, and among these 9 elected members 6 elected members were Bolsheviks. Secondly, in 1914 circulation of illegal magazine 'Pravda' of Bolshevik were 40,000 in average, whereas circulation of 'Lyuch', a magazine of Mensheviks were only 15,000.26
Second aspect is the experience of war. It is true that, war had devastated this situation as in the beginning workers got swayed by the tide of nationalism as mentioned earlier. But in reality experience of war has educated advanced workers in a different way. On the one hand war had helped to increase the wealth of feudal lords and bourgeoisie in huge proportion, on the other it brought tremendous exploit and darkness on life of the workers. Almost 1.5 billion youths were being evicted from their economic life and being thrown to the battle field, where millions of their comrades got killed in the war or they had died in epidemic. Production both in agriculture and industrial sector got almost halted due to severe shortage of industrial and agricultural workers. As a result the whole economy got stalled. Life of people and also ordinary soldiers were severely affected due to massive shortage of woollen cloth and food. On the other side, terror of Tsarism was crashing few existing dissenting voices. This unbearable situation gradually fuelled anti-Tsarist mentality among farmers, workers and masses. " Comrades, even if, Russia win in this war, there will be no change in our condition of life, they will oppress us even more." This was the type of slogan we see in banners of worker's marches from the end of 1915.27
Actually experience of phase prior to war and crisis faced during war made the advanced section of workers to realise the need for a concrete revolutionary demand. This environment enabled advanced section of workers to great extant to come out of nationalist limbo and ultimately to march forward toward a successful revolution.
But this situation does not tell us the whole answer; if we want the whole answer, then it is necessary to view the role of Bolshevik party from appropriate perspective. Because we have to face a truth. Since it is not an isolated fact that from the end of 1915 revolutionary condition was emerging gradually. Actually, in all the countries of Europe who were taking part in this war (especially in France and Germany, off course also in Britain) we can see that gradually worker's unrest and spontaneous movements were again started to bursting out in this phase. But unlike Russia in these countries revolutionary situations were not being culminated in successful revolution. Here it has become crucial for us to understand the difference between actual revolutionary Bolshevik party and other working class-parties of these countries. One of the important aspects of this distinction is emphatically raising the slogan internationalism of proletariat while opposing the imperialist war and also forcefully bringing the political line of transforming this imperialist war into civil war at the forefront. This is not only the question of adopting a political line, due to this act of adoption Bolsheviks had to face massive state repression- imprisonment, killings, and deportations. This was the 'normal' life situation of the Bolsheviks during the war, along with this 'normalcy' another malice was the nationalist fanaticism of the backward section of workers. Bolsheviks were working under such highly adverse condition they were fighting against this nationalist tendency among workers. They were trying hard to motivate workers toward the issues of sustenance, food and employment and democratic aspiration. They had accelerated the work of uniting workers against war in tandem with the acceleration of the soldier's and worker's unrest and in equal proportion to the change in real situations. This act of organizing against the war drew the workers toward the Bolsheviks. Worker-Bolshevik organization from worker's area of Vyborg near St. Petersburg became the first major frontier. Though it is a fact that till then Bolsheviks were unable to attract majority of workers, but they were working through forming secret committees in each factory and as a result of such initiative workers were getting attracted toward Bolsheviks. Other forces that were against this war were also got attracted toward principles of Bolsheviks and started joining Bolshevik party gradually. As a consequence, on the one hand the real experience of workers, and on the other, relentlessness of Bolsheviks of pursuing the task of making workers aware and also organizing them defying all kinds of repression pushed the proletariat one more step toward 1917. Main difference between social-democratic parties of European countries and Bolsheviks is that the former were unable to lead the workers of their respective countries toward revolution because unlike the Bolsheviks they have adopted opportunist-reformist line.
Internal Organizational Condition
A historian of this period has given a lively description of the internal organizational situation in st. Petersburg area. He said: "it was not possible for the central committee to control different regional organizations, and they also do not try to control them. During war Russian Bureau of central committee was virtually non-existent, and when it was formed at last, it was so weak that it had very limited capacity to provide effective leadership ... in this situation everyday dealings were totally depending upon the expertise of regional organizations. Ordinary party workers of lower ranks used to exchange opinions freely among themselves, they did not hesitate ti oppose the instructions of leadership. These dedicated and free minded members is source of strength who had organised themselves against this war, and who hated Tsarism strongly. Because of them Bolshevik party was able withstand critical phase of crisis and disarray ... they used to held meetings secretly , organize the secret networks, depute party workers and supporters, print leaflets in their own rooms, distribute those leaflets among workers, under continuously under the threat of arrest, court-marshals and deportations."28 We can also understand this situation in terms of change in membership. Before the war the Bolsheviks had 6,000 members near St. Petersburg area. Due to the thrust of war the membership within few months went down to 100 only in 1914. In the end of 1915 it went up to 1200; in the middle of 1916 it jumped further to 2000, and at the wake of February Revolution membership had increased up to 3000. Among the leadership consist of 15-member St. Petersburg committee only one member was above 40 years of age, only 5 members aged above 30 and rest 9 members were in their 20s. Therefore, it is evident that both the members and the leadership of St. Petersburg area were full of exuberance of youth. Majority of them were workers. These 15 members were being arrested 44 times in total and 11 times being deported. Hence, it is clear that in spite for their youth they were no way being called inexperienced.29
All these are is but one aspect; in this context let us mention briefly another history of the party in this phase. In this phase Lenin forcefully put forward the line of "Revolutionary Internationalism", not all deported leaders of central committee of Bolsheviks were entirely convinced with Lenin. There are many points of departures with Bukharin. One of the main points was the Lenin's position regarding the issue of self-determination of oppressed nationalities. This is not the occasion to discuss this issue in detail. However, one point needed to be mentioned here that is, the party had given permission to Bukharin to publish his different views regarding this issue outside party mouth piece; alongside Lenin also got the permission to criticise Bukharin's view and establish his own in those forums.
1917- Party in Two Revolutions
From the end of 1915 'revolutionary situation' as described by Lenin was emerging with new zeal, we have mentioned it above. We also have mentioned that one of the main reasons for this newly found revolutionary zeal is the rising anti-Tsar mentality among people. The main thing that was in the mind of people is, "if Tsar is so great, why is he not capable of saving Russia and its people?"
Another reason was generally an anti-Tsar mentality also gaining momentum within war-ridden army. This situation has special significance for the development of Russian Revolution. According to a historian: "unintentionally Tsarism was preparing people by providing them training in military and technical skills as it had to employ large number of farmers and workers in their army.... possible allies of workers, specially farmers were getting armed and also were organizing themselves in the military garrisons of each city specially in Moscow and Petrograd."30
Therefore, firstly, it has to be understood that during late 1916 and early 1917 at all strata of Russian society mentality of frustration, irritation regarding and extreme hatred toward old system had an overwhelming presence. This objective condition was spontaneously pushing them toward insurgency. A very apt description of this situation can be found in Trotsky's writing. He describes: " in each factory, guild, military company, military hospital, even in almost vacant villages atomic preparations were going on to march toward revolutionary consciousness. In each place workers became the commentators of happening incidents .... Many among these leaders were practically self-educated; they had nourished themselves from the fragments of revolutionary generalizations which have reached to them through various channels. .... Their sense of class were getting purified by a political standard, and ... Overall their thoughts were restlessly and obstinately heading toward only one goal".31 We want to examine what exactly is the role of the party to reach toward the verge successful November Revolution in this concrete situation.
Transformation of February Revolution to November Revolution and Bolshevik Party:
Petrograd Bolsheviks had planned to celebrate 1st May, 1917 as International Worker's Day. But before it 9th March International Women's Day came, which was observed as part of Worker's Day then. Petrograd Bolsheviks had no separate programme to celebrate it except organizing meetings and marches; they were saving their energy for general strike of 1st May. But anybody who got any idea about even a tiny part of history of Russian Revolution knows how the workers defying the plan of Bolsheviks empowered by the slogan "We are not ready to live this wretched, not anymore. We are human not animals" they spontaneously had organized strikes and indulged in street fights. They know how on the 4th day of general strike army men while defying the orders of their senior officers had joined the workers, and they had burnt the police stations, rescued political prisoners from jails and were able to bring down dictatorship, as a results soviets came to existence. In a word, February Revolution was accomplished.
What is the role of Bolsheviks then? To address this question we have to look at two situations, during revolution and after revolution.
1. In one sense we can definitely say that, February Revolution went along the way Bolsheviks had planned, but the real history is not exactly the same. Did Bolsheviks has any role in February Revolution then? We know that when February Revolution got burst out the majority of central leadership including Lenin were all in exile. Party was dispersed within the country. Activities of the party carried on through factory based cells in Petrograd; these cells are being co-ordinated by district committees, district committees in turn used to work under Petrograd committees. However, we have to remember that these committees were not working as well-organized, highly regimented cadre force. In this context, lower rank worker-Bolshevik comrades had maintained coordination with district and local level leadership in their own way, in this way they took part in the revolution freely. A historian had reflected upon this reality, he wrote: "revolutionary party which was actively immersed with people have played a significant role here ... During revolution they were the source of internal morale inspiration they were leaders, simultaneously they were along with the people participants of the change of fate that revolution brought forth. Only workers and intellectuals who were actively associated with workers have become leaders."32 This historian in another place said: " most of the time a section between higher level revolutionary leadership and ordinary party members have given active leadership, they have given a clear direction to popular discontent, they communicated the sentiments of ordinary members to higher leadership. During February Revolution this section only lead the people from the front".33 Therefore, one thing is clear, though it is a fact that February Revolution has not followed the plan of Bolshevik Party, simultaneously it is also true that when revolutionary people took to the streets Bolsheviks had shown no hesitation to be with them. On the contrary, defying adverse situations they gave tried their level best to provide necessary revolutionary leadership.
2. Rapid Change in Circumstances after February Revolution and the Role of Bolshevik Party: within first few days of February Revolution soviets were started to take shape. These soviets were the main stay of triumphant revolution which was consists of workers and representatives of army. Armed people had sent their representatives to these soviets as their spokespersons; they hoped that these soviets will fulfil their demand and specially would try to stop the war and establish peace instead. But the main obstacle during this period is, the leadership of these soviets mainly came from Mensheviks and the right-wing factions of socialist revolutionaries. Till then, workers more so soldiers and farmers had belief in this leadership to some extent. Leaders of working committees of these soviets became active in forming a military Bourgeoisie government. Through this process actually the power had been transferred in the hands of a bourgeoisie government. In this period Bolsheviks were minority in the soviets.
Although the leaders of working committees handed power to the bourgeoisie but on the ground people were active in the soviets which is consists of representatives from workers and soldiers. Due to February Revolution certain democratic rights being acquired. Revolutionary people by making good use of these rights started to participate in the political life within the soviets. In this situation we see that two centres of power were operating; such as, a. Temporary government which is in the hands of bourgeoisie, b. Soviets consists of deputies from workers and soldiers. Within this second configuration, socialist workers and their compatriots were getting organized.
Revolutionary people were thinking that the Temporary Government will eventually take the economic and social reforms and also will refrain from war. But in reality history took a different course. More Mensheviks and the right wing sections of revolutionary socialists were taking the side of bourgeoisie, worker's agitation also had increased proportionately. In July spontaneous agitation of brotherhood quickly transformed into armed upsurge. Bolsheviks were not in support of this rebellion, they realised that the situation is not ripe for such act. Because army and rural areas were still had belief to certain extent so they were not in a position to support rebellion in urban areas. In spite of their circumspection when the rebellion got burst out, Bolsheviks tried to give it a organised form. On the other hand, temporary government crushed this rebellion, shed a lot of blood. By this act of crushing the rebellion the temporary government (which is already crowded by Mensheviks and socialist-revolutionaries) shifted assuredly toward anti-revolutionary position. Democratic rights achieved through revolutions were gradually getting lost. i Bolsheviks also faced unprecedented terror. In month of August, representative of temporary govt Gen. Korlinov gave a call to destroy the soviets. On the other side, in rural areas attempts of farmers to snatch the property of landlords were being dealt with hard measures.
During this phase within soviets propaganda of Bolsheviks had become more acceptable to farmers and soldiers and majority of Bolsheviks within soviets had started to increase. Slogan given by Bolsheviks demanding, "peace, bread and land" was becoming more acceptable to farmers in rural areas. Mensheviks and socialist revolutionaries were also getting influenced by this slogan. As a consequence many ardent members of socialist-revolutionaries had joined Bolsheviks. Lower rank cadres of Mensheviks were also started to take stand with Bolsheviks. On the basis of this overall transformation programme of revolution was formulation by putting Petrograd soviet as an exemplar. Soldiers of barracks of Petrograds announced covertly that they will only abide by the orders of representatives of soviets. On 7th of November, according to prior planning workers of Petrograd soviets took controls of cities, soldiers and workers jumped onto Winter Palace, ministers of Temporary Government were arrested, wave of November Revolution swept main seats of power.
As a consequence, we can see that, during 9 months after the February Revolution in reality to the extent Mensheviks and social-revolutionaries presents themselves as an obstacle in front of revolutionary enterprise of working class, proportionately leadership role of Bolsheviks had become acceptable to revolutionary sections of working class, as Bolsheviks gave leadership to develop the independent revolutionary moves of working class.
In this context one more thing has to be mentioned. It is a fact that upsurge of 7th November was pre-planned and secretly pre-determined by Bolshevik Party. In that case, we have to remember, when in reality emergence of dual-authority, conflict within them and development of fulfilment of possibility socialist revolution has arrived in society in objective manner, in such circumstance what is the right moment to give a call for revolution is essentially a matter of conscious planning, where the role of leadership is paramount and Bolshevik party had able to implement this plan with utter secrecy. They were able to perform this task because they were intimately and firmly related to the original architect of revolution, that is, working class.
Concrete Analysis of Concrete Situation
During the Revolution of 1905 Lenin had brought forth the idea of DDPP to emphasize the role of working class and its unity of revolutionary farmers in context of democratic revolution. Through this act he challenged his earlier position that is, the leadership of bourgeoisie revolution will be in the hand of bourgeoisie. He had presented new war strategy of bourgeoisie revolution. Through the revolution of 1917 bourgeoisie came to power. Apparently this might seem that the position of Lenin and Bolsheviks has been proved wrong. But this is not right, evidence of which is that working class has organised the revolution. Due to certain circumstances bourgeoisie came to power. As a consequence, after February Revolution there was a great transformation that took place. In the convention held in the city of Petrograd on 14th April, 1917 Lenin said: "situation is unprecedented because here exists a dual-power. ...... .Soviet is application of dictatorship of proletariat and soldiers. Therefore, it is the dictatorship of workers and farmers. But this 'dictatorship' is in negotiation with bourgeoisie. .... . In this sense, bourgeoisie revolution has reached its completion in Russia, that bourgeoisie came to power. Here the 'old Bolsheviks' are arguing: "this is not a complete picture, because dictatorship of proletariat and farmers not yet established." But soviets comprised of workers and soldiers are this dictatorship." (Emphasis is ours).34 It is this reality which was demanding new war strategy from RSDLP(B), and which culminated in "April Thesis".
Role of the Party in Changing-Strategy in a Changing Situation
Here we will discuss in continuation with above discussion what kind of war strategy came into being in this transformed situation and what sort of role the party determined for itself. Certain important topics came into surface in Lenin's thesis called, "The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution" (LCW, Vol 24). Firstly he said, revolution has not been completed, only a phase of it, that is, Democratic Revolution has been accomplished. Proletariat has made this revolution possible; however, due to lack of adequate class-consciousness and organization he has handed over power to bourgeoisie. In the second phase of revolution which necessarily has to be socialist revolution, proletariat has to come out of this weakness and has to take charge of power in his own hand along with poorest section of farming community. But, due to this revolution a typical situation has been created- that is, on the one hand, in Russia the boundaries of democratic rights has increased and people got rid of terror; on the other hand, people have started to trust capitalists who are in reality the main enemy of peace and socialism. This is a strange situation; in this context party needs to play certain definite role; to play this role party has to become useful among the majority of working class.
Primary task here is not to support temporary government. Secondly, when in almost all soviets Bolsheviks are minority and where opportunist-reformists are the majority, who always take side with bourgeoisie and is trying to sway workers toward the side of bourgeoisie; in this situation it has to be shown to the people that soviet of worker-deputies is the only possible form of revolutionary government (Lenin himself in his writing has italicized the phrase, "Only possible"). On the one hand, one has to keep on exposing the strategic mistakes of opportunists-reformists made while trying to mould soviets to serve the purpose of bourgeoisie by analysing these mistakes patiently to the people (again the emphasis on the word analysis by Lenin). Simultaneously the necessity to transfer state-power to soviet has to be emphasized continually, so that people can rectify their mistakes through their own experience.
Apart from these many other issues Lenin discussed in his thesis, but to proceed in our discussion we will restrict ourselves above mentioned portion of the thesis. We have notice here, what are the things we can see within the war-strategy adopted by the party under the leadership of Lenin? 1. This strategy is determined by the characteristics of the concrete situation. 2. Duty that has been determined based on concrete situation was ultimately determined by the aim to achieve socialism. 3. Task of party is not to make the people swallow this duty, but to act in such a manner so that people through their own experience only will be able to point out and rectify their mistakes. This is the other side of role of the party at that particular moment.
Centralism and Democracy In The Life Of The Party
A historian has made a succinct comment on the decision making procedure of the party during this period, he said: "importance of difference of opinions among Bolsheviks can be gauged through the intensity and the amount of minority vote: during April Conference when voting took place regarding the main decision the result was- 71 votes for the motion, 39 votes again the motion, 8 members abstained from voting. More examples can be cited. In June when the debate concerning whether party will organize demonstration against temporary government arose, then the decision came through huge convention in three tires where three independent resolutions are being presented one after another and then voting took place. It was not being decided within central committee or Petersburg committee: ... same procedure followed in September on the question whether to boycott pre-parliament: in spite of central committee's decision to boycott pre-parliament, in a huge convention of Bolshevik members of pre-parliament final decision been taken through voting, where the decision of central committee being rejected in 77 versus 50 votes. Undoubtedly decision for upsurge been taken at central committee through majority voting. But participation always been increased in such meetings of central committee, and members of lower committees were also been made part of final decision making.
All these instances shows that within party members there was always a influential minority section, whose number fluctuated according to issues, but the question of removing them the working committee never have arisen. (....) presence all the tendencies were being ensured proportionately while electing different bodies under leadership of Bolsheviks. This had happened during the election of national convention of 1917. In this committee 9 members were elected where 5 were (Lenin, Genevieve, Stalin, Saverdalov and Smigla) elected from the majority tendency of the time, on the opposite, 4 were (Kamenev, Nogin, Mylotin, Fyodorov) elected from the middle path tendency. Lenin gave a public declaration emphasizing the "value" of presence of right-wing Kamenev in central committee for the party. ... . Few days before upsurge of October, party took the decision to form a small committee of 7 members, a politburo to discharge everyday affair and to lead and here... Kamenev and Genevieve who were against armed upsurge also included." 35
Many such instance can be mentioned, but here we don't have occasion here to mention all of them. Main point here is, that the reality is far away from the false propaganda against "Leninist Party" that it is bourocratic and dictatorial, where Lenin's words are the final dictum. We say this without any doubt that this is not the case.
Summarization of Experiences (1898- November 1917)
Here we have tried to summarize the whole discussion made above in points.
1. Firstly, under leadership of Lenin the party had stick to the goal of socialism which is not possible without drastic change in social organization, and which could only be achieved through independent and revolutionary role of working class. In this regard Bolsheviks had sharpened the dividing line between their positions from opportunist-reformists continuously. The urge for such act of sharpening was not driven by any immediate concern, but by dedication toward the goal of socialism. Vigilance toward this dedication actually made the party face adverse situations. This vigilance is the most significant aspect of role of conscious leadership of the party.
Another significant aspect of conscious role of leadership of the party along with being vigilant toward dedication toward goal of socialism is the concrete analysis of concrete situation, and ability to determine the revolutionary line of party based on such analysis, and also being able to connect this concrete situation with the real experience of working class is the hallmark of the leadership of the party. Due to such analysis revolutionary line played the role to advance revolutionary spirit amongst not only working class but also people in general.
2. By adopting such objective and correct revolutionary perspective the party has been able to direct spontaneous rebellion of working class toward revolution.
3. The party not only satisfied only in taking appropriate political line, it had tried its best to participate in real movements of working class. While discharging their role Bolsheviks were not hesitant to receive the wrath of Tsarist terror.
4. Task of the party not only to teach working class but also to learn from them. It's task is to learn from the unconscious motion of working class movements, and to summarize consciously these unconscious movements to give these movements a conscious direction. This task Bolsheviks have successfully achieved because party workers were always there in the actual fields of struggle with working class, and Bolsheviks themselves have developed through struggles.
5. Development of party is directly related with the development of the real struggles of working class. Quantitative and qualitative growth of the advanced sections of working class is proportionately related with the advancement of advancement of real struggle of working class. Due to such advancement in real struggle of working class party also gradually transformed to the party of working class. More the party was transformed in the party of working class more they gained the relevant experience and expertise to lead the working class struggle in reality. Through this dialectical process they had reached the position of true represent of working class.
6. In reality activities of party were not pre-determined by any pre-determined idea; on the contrary its activities always determined by socio-political conditions and necessity of class-struggle, more so change in different layers of class-struggle. Here the determining factor is not whether the party is regimented, but on whether the party is disciplined. In final analysis, structure of party was determined by the role it can play to help the working class movements toward its goal.
Source:
1. History of The Communist Party of The Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), 1939, International Publishers, pp 7.
2. "A Radical Worker in Tsarist Russia, The Autobiography of Semen Ivanovich Kanatchikov", Stanford University Press, 1986.
3. "Russian Bebels", by Reginald E Zelnik, pp 423; Referred in Source 5, Page 31.
4. Source 2.
5. "Lenin and The Bolshevik Party", Paul Le Blanc, Hay Market Books, 2015, pp 34.
6. Source 5, Page 31.
7. "Workers and Intelligentsia in Late Imperial Russia: Realities, Representations, Reflections", Ed by Reginald E Zelnik; University of California, 1999 pp 92.
8. "Leninsim Under Lenin", Marcel Liebmann, The Merlin Press, 1980 pp 26.
9. https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1975/lenin1/chap08.htm; Accessed on 20/12/2017
10. "The Bolshevik Party in Revolution A Study in Organisational Change 1917-1923", Robert Service, The Macmillan Press, 1979 pp 27
11. "Lessons Of The Moscow Uprising", LCW, Vol 11, pp 171-173
12. "New Tasks And New Forces", LCW, Vol 8, pp 219
13. "Letter To Bogdanov And Gusev", LCW, Vol 8, pp 146
14. "The Reorganisation Of The Party" LCW, Vol 10, pp 34
15. Source 8, Page 46.
16. Source 9.
17. "The Third Congress Of The R.S.D.L.P.", LCW, Vol 8, pp 408.
18. Source 14, Page 36.
19. "On The Road", LCW, Vol 15, pp 345
20. "Russian social democracy in the underground", Ralph Carter Elwood, 1974 pp 67
21. Source 19, Page 354.
22. "The War And Russian Social-democracy", LCW, Vol 21, pp 32-34
23. A brief description of the history of this struggle has been referred in "Socialism And War, Chapter IV" LCW, Vol 21, pp 331-338.
24. https://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/sambol/bolwar/bolwar01.htm. Accessed on 20/12/2017
25. "History of the Bolshevik Revolution", Leon Trotsky, Vol I, pp 51
26. Source 5, Page 172.
27. "On the eve of 1917", Alexander Shlyapnikov, pp 26; London: Allison & Busby, 1982
28. "The February Revolution", by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, pp 109-110; Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1981
29. Source 5, Page 208.
30. "The October Revolution", Roy Medvedev, Page 39; New York, Columbia University Press, 1979
31. Source 25, Page 153-154.
32. Source 28, Page 323.
33. "The Bolsheviks and the Formation of the Petrograd Soviet in the February Revolution", by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Page 88
34. "The Petrograd City Conference Of The R.S.D.L.P. (Bolsheviks)", LCW Vol 24, pp 147
35. Source 8, Page 152-153.
Comments:
No Comments for View