SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT (3)
ON THE
CENTENARY OF NOVEMBER REVOLUTION
[November 2017 was the 100th year of the great Russian revolution more popularly known as the November Revolution. The working class of Russia in a tumultuous struggle that shook the world, captured power from the ruling capitalist class to take a big leap in the struggle for establishment of a society free from exploitation?a socialist society. It brought before the international working class movement the first experience of working class power and initiative in a state and a country run by them and their conscious representatives along with many important lessons. Today after the first campaign of the international socialist movement that culminated in the Russian and Chinese revolutions have been defeated that phase of defeat is still continuing and that glorious history has become blurred. The working class is dispersed and fragmented in all countries, there is no real communist party of the working class. But the aggravating exploitation of working class, working masses, the stagnation and degeneration of society is very much a harsh reality of society still and that has placed the challenge before the present day communist revolutionaries to resurrect the communist movement from this phase of defeat. In such a situation, although much late since last November, we have planned to publish a series of articles prepared by a team of activists on the important lessons of the Russian Revolution with the aim of being a part of that effort, in whatever small way possible, to play a role in the revival and resurrection of the communist movement. In the previous issues, we have treated two aspects, "Independent Role of Working Class in Russian Revolution" & November Revolution and the Role of the Communist Party'. In the Current Issue, we are dealing a very significant subject: "The significance of Nov Rev in the perspective of the Defeat of the 1st phase journey of International Socialist Movement" Some more aspects will be published in the coming issues ?Ed Board, For A Proletarian Party.]
The Defeat of the International Socialist Movement and the Present Significance of the November Revolution
Commemoration of the centenary of Russian November Revolution means commemorating an exceptional, almost unparalleled event in the history of mankind. The November Revolution not only brought about a huge transformation of Russia, it also shook the entire world and changed the course of the history to a new one. But however bitter that may be, it is true that the Russian Revolution has been defeated. The proletarian power of Russia was defeated way back. What remained in Russia after the fifties of the last century was actually a capitalist system behind the signboard of a socialist system. At the end of eighties that signboard too collapsed under the impact of the tumultuous storm. It is not unknown to us that thereafter the capitalist economy, which had been there in the name of socialism, developed into a full-fledged capitalist system with all its ugly trappings of corruption, inequalities, discriminations, unemployment, poverty and the dark underbelly of crime world. The struggle for socialism has not only been defeated in Russia, one time socialist China too has deviated from its path and is now singing paeans in praise of capitalism. In short, the proletarian power has been defeated in both Russia and China, where the proletariat had once seized the power through revolution and had initiated the journey towards socialism.
One may ask - is the defeat of the first campaign of International Socialist movement limited to just the defeat of proletarian power in these two countries? We know it isn't. If it were so, it would not have been referred to as the defeat of the first campaign of the international socialist movement. The struggle for the emancipation of the working class has been routed and the working class is in a disarrayed condition throughout the world. At present there does not exist a real communist party in any country throughout the world. Each and every old party which carries the stamp of a communist party is, for all practical purposes, a reformist party. They speak of communism but are slavish worshippers of capitalism. In a nutshell, in the centenary of Russian November Revolution, we are standing at such a juncture when the struggle for emancipation of international proletariat, or in other words, the international socialist movement is passing through an unprecedented phase of defeat.
Due to this reason, it is entirely natural to ask ? is there any significance of commemorating the centenary of Russian Revolution after such defeat of that revolution? Is it only to revitalise ourselves, to dispel our frustrations by commemorating a glorious phase of international proletarian movement? It is beyond doubt that such an exercise, if that be tried, will be futile. Actually, we, as a part of the vanguard of the working class, are engaged in struggle of rising up from the present disarrayed condition, in other words in the struggle of the revival of the communist movement. To advance this movement towards the right direction, we have to learn from the glorious past of the international proletarian struggles- learn from both their successes and failures. We have to reminisce about the November Revolution with this aim of gathering our provisions for moving forward.
Quoting Engels, after the revolution of 1905, Lenin observed, "Engels once said that defeated armies learn their lessons well. These splendid words apply in far greater measure to revolutionary armies, whose replacements come from the progressive classes."(1) The onus to prove this now rests upon us. We have to take lessons from both the success and defeat of the Russian Revolution. Is this a task to be shouldered only during the centenary of Russian Revolution? Not at all. For us, remembering Russian revolution to gather lessons from it is not formal ceremony that has to be performed with ostentatious celebrations and rituals meetings. As part of the defeated army, we are conducting our daily tasks towards this aim day in and day out, or else, what is the point of our existence? The work that we are so diligently involved in on a daily basis has to be embraced with a greater tenacity, determination and conviction on the occasion of the centenary of Russian Revolution- therein lies the significance of the commemoration of the centenary of the Russian Revolution.
Of course, it is impossible to assimilate this lesson comprehensively by individual effort or even by the effort of a single organisation. In reality, this task could be carried out effectively by an organised army of international Proletariat. Such an army is absent not only internationally, but is non-existent even at the national level in any country. Despite so, we have to make an effort towards this in our capacity, no matter how small it is- as the saying goes- 'little drops of water make a mighty ocean'.
In the past one year, the centenary of the November Revolution has been celebrated by many. Perhaps, these were a little muted and lacklustre due to the defeat and scattered condition of the International Socialist Movement, but there were quite a number such celebrations. Among these celebrations, a big part was organised by the reformist-revisionists. Even such sections of the bourgeoisie celebrated the centenary of the November Revolution, who are themselves staunchly anti-socialist. Once, while elucidating Marx's theory, Lenin stated, "During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaign of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, to hollow their name to a certain extent for the "consolation' of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarising it." (2) (Italics our). The accolades and glorifications heaped on the November Revolution by the reformist or the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois compels us to remember, recall those words of Lenin. We need to delve within and sincerely try to comprehend the last section of Lenin's aforesaid quote which we have tried to highlight. Haven't the bourgeois and their lackeys- the reformists and revisionists, by their act of commemorating November Revolution, been doing the same thing? They hailed the revolution as great and noble and erected alters for their offerings of flowers and garlands, organised seminars and delivered grandiose speech and at the same time, tried rob its revolutionary substance. What else could they have done? Those that have betrayed the lessons of the November Revolution day in day out, those that have vulgarised and destroyed the fundamental revolutionary soul of the revolution, how can they uphold its revolutionary essence?
What then is the revolutionary essence of the November Revolution? The November Revolution is a very important chapter of the International Proletarian movement, where, for the first time, the Proletariat seized power in a country by overthrowing the bourgeois and thus began its journey towards socialism. For this reason the November Revolution cannot be compared with any other revolution in the history of mankind. In all other previous revolutions, it was just the case of a exploiting class appropriating power from a previous exploiting class. The nature of exploitation changed, but the new society still had its basis in exploitation. The November Revolution broke this continuity of exploitation. November Revolution was the first of its kind in human history where the exploited classes appropriated power from exploiter classes and captured power. Under the leadership of working class, thousands of years of class-divided society embarked upon a historic journey towards a classless society free from exploitation. This revolution proved beyond doubt that those were subjugated, forcibly kept in the lowest rung of the society until now, such oppressed and exploited masses could rise above and take control of the production system of the country and even rule it. The November Revolution proved that only the working class was such a revolutionary class, which together with all the exploited classes has in it the power of uproot the capitalist as well as other oppressor classes and progress towards a classless society.
The November Revolution was exclusively a creation of the working class. The history of self-sacrifice, courage, heroism, creativity and organisational power of the working class is inscribed in bold letters in each chapter of the revolution. The November Revolution revealed to the working class as well as the oppressed and exploited masses of the world that emancipation from oppression cannot be realised by securing some extra privileges and rights in this system, it is only possible through the establishment of the dictatorship of proletariat. Those who are making the working class forget its revolutionary role, those who are teaching the proletariat and toiling masses to remain confined within the bourgeois parliamentary system, by having some petty privileges, those who do not want to make the people believe that the only path of emancipation of exploiting people is the journey towards socialism through the revolutionary transformation of society, they in reality deceiving the proletariat and the toiling masses, they are duping them, and making them forget the revolutionary essence of the November Revolution.
For the communist revolutionaries, the November revolution is not just a glorious incident of the past. We want to procure provisions to move ahead in our path from the history of the November Revolution, even from the history of its defeat. The world socialist movement or the struggle of the International working class towards establishment of a classless communist society, free from all exploitation was not vanquished by overt attacks of external enemies; it was defeated by the war launched by the enemies from within. The bourgeois, in the form of reformists-revisionists defeated the revolutionary working class by waging a battle from within. Unfortunately, the proletariat then could not recognise these internal enemies, and as a result could not muster an effective resistance against such attacks. Although internationally, some resistance was put up by revolutionaries, it became clear later that it was neither comprehensive nor complete. Moreover, the revolutionary camp had also degenerated since then. Hence, the task of completing the rupture from the reformism-revisionism has also remained incomplete. The task of liberating Marxism-Leninism from the distortions of reformists-revisionists and restoring the revolutionary substance of communist ideology has also remained incomplete, without which the revival of the socialist movement is impossible. We are reminiscing about the great revolution in its centenary not to exhibit a lost glory of the past to the people for indulging in some smug self satisfaction. To us, the significance of the commemoration is to try to restore the revolutionary soul of the November Revolution for the revival of the communist movement which had been surreptitiously suppressed, vulgarised and left to rot by the reformists and revisionists, so that we may find our direction in moving forward. It is in this aspect that commemoration of the Great November Revolution by communist revolutionaries differs from the rest.
There are many who try to make us believe that since the proletarian power has been defeated in Russia and China, the communist movement has died completely. They fail to analyse these revolutions as continuation of the struggles of the international proletariat. The November Revolution is a step in the continuity of the journey of human civilisation from capitalism towards socialism, of course a very significant step forward, but just one step only. In any capitalist society, this journey towards socialism originates from the contradictions in the society itself. The anarchy in capitalist economy on one hand and the contradictions between labour and capital on the other has given rise to this motion. In order to liberate itself from exploitation, the proletariat is obliged to abolish private property, and essentially, capitalism. " ....The proletariat can and must emancipate itself. But it cannot emancipate itself without abolishing the conditions of its own life....it is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is the question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically compelled to do."(3) (Bold ours).
The struggle for emancipation of international working class, for establishment of socialism by complete abolition of capitalism, is progressing through many ups and downs, victories and defeats. The history of this struggle is only one hundred and fifty years old, yet the proletariat has already gains many significant victories in this phase. The proletariat confronted the bourgeois class as a class for the first time in June 1848. Within a few decades, they seized state power for the first time in Paris in 1871. The first proletariat state in the world- the Paris Commune, which was the first material realisation of proletarian dictatorship, was formed. The commune, however, did not last long, being defeated within seventy two days. The Commune was defeated, but the tremors it created were felt throughout Europe. Working class parties were formed in many countries of the continent. But the next revolution did not take place in any advanced country- rather. It happened in Russia, a comparatively backward country of the then capitalist Europe and where even the bourgeois democratic revolution had not yet transpired then. After the first Imperialist World War, the weakest link in the imperialist chain was severed- revolution occurred in Russia in November 1917. It was for the first time that the working class impropriated power in any country in the aim of transitioning towards socialism in the true sense. Henceforth, the emancipator movements of the proletariat no more remained confined within Europe. The November Revolution created ripples in the entire world- the socialist movement which till then was bound within Europe and America's advance nations, now spread like wild-fire throughout the globe, including even the erstwhile backward colonial and semi-colonial countries. After the Second World War, the proletariat and peasant masses of semi-colonial and semi-feudal China carried out the People's Democratic Revolution aimed at socialism. It is fact that at a later stage, the emancipator struggles of working class suffered defeat internationally. It is also true that this defeat is so expensive, it scattered and demoralised the proletariat to such an extent that it has become immensely difficult for it to rise and stand again. But the working class is compelled to rise up from this defeat. The reason for so is embedded in the inherent contradictions between capital and labour. These contradictions have increased manifold and spread intensively throughout the world. Capitalism has objectively created a more conductive ground for the development of working class movements. Capitalism has spread throughout the world and so has the proletariat made its presence felt more extensively than before. The working class movement that will develop henceforth will truly be international in character. Prior to the First World War, the world proletarian movement was primarily limited to the European continent. After the Russian Revolution, it spread throughout the world considerably. Following this, it will arise again in more expansive and new form. We shall repeat Marx's previous quote, ".... the proletariat can and must emancipate itself.....it is not question of what this or that proletarian or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is the question of what proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being; it will historically be compelled to do". Those rejoicing now in the thought that the emancipatory struggles of the working class have been vanquished, let them be assured that the inherent class contradictions in society itself will awaken the working class again one day; the working class will emerge again through its role in struggles and movements. This will happen in accordance with the laws of social development, be it now or a few days later. Though the proletariat appropriated power through the November Revolution, it ultimately failed to retain it. But can this defeat diminish the mammoth significance of November Revolution? The bourgeois first gain power through 1789 French Revolution in France. The first republic is born. Was that Republic permanent? It wasn't. Autocracy regains power and even retained it for a long time afterwards. Subsequently, republic was established and autocracy re-established multiple times. Has the significance of the French revolution waned in history because of this? It hasn't. The declaration of the human civil rights, during the French revolution is acknowledged as the Charter of Democracy till date. Even at a later period, the bourgeois radicals have repeatedly looked upon the French Revolution for their inspiration and direction. Similarly, the significance of the November Revolution can never diminish. The working class will look back upon the November Revolution again and again in their struggles for emancipation from oppression.
But there is a crucial difference between the two here. The French Revolution was the last bourgeois revolution where the revolutionary role of the bourgeois against feudalism reached its zenith. This was the final bourgeois revolution where the bourgeois class had aspired to uproot feudalism and autocracy from its roots and eradicate it forever. This revolution was the most glorious incident in the legacy of bourgeois revolutions. Henceforth, the bourgeois, having learnt their lessons from history, began compromising with feudalism. Not that they did not revolt against feudalism after this, but their revolutionary role gradually diminished. Instead of completely uprooting feudalism from its roots, they started compromising with it and retained the old production relations, the old social relations, traditions and social establishments.
On the other hand, the working class, in its struggles, will garner lessons from history and organise and embark upon a bigger and a more extensive revolution in future. As they have nothing to lose other than their chains. It has to re-emerge by gathering lessons from the incompleteness and deficiencies of their past endeavours. It will probably not be out of context here to recall how Marx differentiated between bourgeois and proletarian revolution after the failure of the first class-war of the proletariat in 1848-".... proletarian revolutions .... constantly criticised themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin a new, they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weakness and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to through down their opponents only so the other may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossallness from their own goals- until a situation is created which makes all to turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Here is the rose, here dance! (4)
Before dwelling on the question of defeat of Russian Revolution, it is necessary to say a few words on the lessons that we need to learn from its success. There were various objective causes for the success of the revolution. Lenin had mentioned that the working class were able to successfully carry out the revolution because the Russian bourgeois were weak and after the First World War, were in a chaotic condition. These weak bourgeois (also since they were new to power, they had yet to consolidate their power) were not in a position to handle their confused and chaotic state. Another major objective reason behind the success of revolution was the conflict between the imperialist forces. During the First World War, one faction of the imperialists under the leadership of German imperialism and another faction organised under the Anglo-French imperialists were locked in an internecine war with each other, hence they were hugely encumbered in combining their forces to effectively interfere and defeat the proletarian power in Russia.
But the question arises that despite a terrible crisis having generated in all European countries, why did the revolution materialise in Russia? Was it only due to objective reasons? It cannot be so, because the possibility of a revolution had also developed in the advanced capitalist countries, especially in Germany. It will not be wrong to assume that Germany was then standing on the threshold of revolution. In spite of this, revolution did not eventuate in any European country, not even in Germany. It happened only in Russia. Why? One of the answers to this question lies hidden in the long history of a stubborn, consistent fight against reformism-revisionism in the struggles of the Russian proletariat. We are aware of the fact that the Russian Proletariat under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party, could successfully hasten the downfall of, first Tsarism and then the bourgeois rule by utilising the unprecedented crisis generated in the lives of the working class and toiling masses because of the past history of their long, persistent fight against reformism-revisionism and because of the presence of the Party that stood firmly upon the organised power of the proletarian vanguard. They were the only one amongst the then Social Democratic parties of Europe who could steadfastly stand by the slogan "transform the imperialist war into a civil war". The onset of the war initially created a wave of social chauvinism even amongst the workers and toiling masses, due to which the advanced section of the proletariat and their leader, the Bolshevik Party were alienated from the masses to a certain extent. But this did not browbeat them into deviating from their path any time. As a result, when war deepened into a crisis, and as a consequence, the resentment and protests of the masses against the war aggravated and intensified, the vanguard of the Russian proletariat, under the leadership of Bolshevik Party could direct this unrest towards a revolutionary struggle. They exerted an influence over the working class, they could prepare a significant section of the proletariat through a prolong, tenacious struggle. On the other hand, the other countries of Europe, especially Germany were already long under the domineering influence of reformism and revisionism. There was of course, an objective reason behind this. Imperialist capitalism was able to bribe and buy an upper crust of the working class (labour aristocracy) with slice of their 'super profits', and who in turn formed the very foundations of reformism-revisionism amongst the working class. For this reason, the Social Democratic parties of these countries were swept away by the waves of social chauvinism. Instead of transforming the imperialist war into a civil war, the parties of the Second International raised the slogan of 'In defence of the Fatherland' during the war. This action, instead of disenthralling the workers from the influence of social chauvinism propelled them more and more into its clutches. The more the devastations of the war wrought havoc in the lives of the people, the more the anger and resentment amongst them exacerbated. Revolts cropped up in the navy in Germany, just like in Russia. But there was no party that could exploit that could exploit these unrests and direct them towards appropriation of power, no such strong legacy of struggle against reformism-revisionism existed among the workers which the Russian Bolshevik could attain through a prolonged struggle. Despite a revolutionary section severing themselves from the reformists and revisionists during the crises, this alienation was not strong and influential enough. The most important thing is the reformists and revisionists parties' exerted a commanding influence over the working class. These reformist-revisionist parties, on one hand, abetted the ruling class in crushing this revolutionary attempt of the working class by ruthless terror, murdering leaders like Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht. On the other hand, they channelled the working class movement towards bourgeois parliamentary democracy. The differences that sharply outlined the formation of the Third International from breaking away from the Second International were the question of bourgeois parliamentarism versus dictatorship of proletariat. Thus, it can be said without hesitation that if the Russian Bolsheviks did not wage a long, consistent fight against reformism-revisionism, then they would largely remain unsuccessful to organising a determined and committed army and an equally worthy party leading them from amongst the working class for a revolutionary transformation of society aimed at socialism and the November Revolution would not ultimately materialise. The spontaneous and courageous movements of the working class would miserably fail to achieve its logical conclusion.
Thus, hundred years on, if we truly wish to learn from the November Revolution, then we have to realise that without waging a persistent struggle against reformism-revisionism and against all forms and expressions of it, it is practically impossible to organise a revolutionary struggle towards the aim of socialism. The significance of this fight against reformism-revisionism today, far from diminishing, has increased manifold. The general fight against reformism-revisionism is very important. But in the light of the all pervading delusionary fascination for parliamentary democracy amongst the masses, especially with respect to a country like ours, the importance of a stubborn, consistence fight against parliamentary cretinism, against parliamentarism has become imperative. We have seen that the Third International was formed against bourgeois parliamentarism immediately after the November Revolution with the slogan 'Dictatorship of Proletariat' at the forefront. As a result, the reformist-revisionist parties were excluded from the Third International. But at a later stage, particularly during the period after the Second World War, parlimentarism became a dominant influence once more. After the victory of revisionism in Russia, all the revisionist parties were organised under their leadership internationally. At that time, revolutionary section of the communist movement offered a fight against revisionism under the leadership of Communist Party of China. That struggle was significant too. But the tradition that developed then was under the influence of petty-bourgeois ultra left deviation from the onset. As a result, they did not and could not wage a struggle with a correct class angle. Owing to this, and particularly due to the increase in influence of parliamentary democracy among the masses because the defeat, reformism and revisionism is repeatedly affecting the revolutionary communist movements of today. That parliamentarism is over whelming them considerably is noticeably evident. For this very reason, this lesson of November Revolution is of paramount importance today- revolutionary struggle cannot advance without a true and proper fight against all forms and expressions of reformism, especially perliamentarism. To liberate the working class form the influence of reformism-revisionism is an absolute necessity for the advancement of revolution, for the socialist movement. Does the indulgence in ritualistic commemoration of November Revolution by shutting out this truth carry any meaning?
Another important reason for the success of Russian Revolution was the role of the proletariat which they attained through a long history of struggle. In that was the history of the revolution of 1905 where the proletariat played an important, independent role. Though the revolution failed, it acted as a dress-rehearsal for the next revolution. After the revolution of 1917, Lenin observed "without the 'dress rehearsal' of 1905, the victory of the October Revolution in 1917 would have been impossible" (5).The 1905 revolution was the first democratic revolution where the necessity of proletarian revolution came to light. In reality, the proletariat through their revolutionary struggles (the struggles which for the most part progressed through the spontaneity of the working class), proved that they possessed the power to lead this revolution. In fact, the Soviets that later emerged as the centres of power of the workers were formed through the revolutionary struggles of the working class during the phase of revolution of 1905. They were living and burning examples of the creativity and organisational power of the working class. The reformist Mensheviks failed to see the revolutionary power of the proletariat due to their class point of view. They believed that only the bourgeois could lead the democratic revolution. Even during the February revolution of 1917, the role of the proletariat, their spontaneous revolutionary endeavours were primary. They uprooted the Tsar, not under the leadership of any party, but by the strength of their own independent role and also established 'dual power' with the formation of Soviets. Again, who were the driving force of the revolution when, at a later stage, the majority of the Soviets, due to the leadership of the petty-bourgeois and upper crust of the peasantry, began to relinquish powers to the provisional government? Even then, it was the working class who were the principal driving force in advancing the revolution. We have observed in the history of the revolution- how the vanguard of the proletariat confronted and resisted the conspiracies of the bourgeois Provisional Government again and again. Following the July revolts of the workers, the Provisional Government tried its utmost to break the Soviets and disarm the working class. Workers and the rural proletariat and semi-proletariat, by virtue of their own experiences on one hand, and of course through the continuous propaganda of the Bolsheviks on the other, realised that the bourgeois were going against their demands for land, peace and bread, the same demands for which they, the workers and rural proletariat and semi proletartiat, carried out the February revolution and uprooted Tsarism. Hence, to save the revolution, the Provisional Government had to go and power must be restored in the hands of Soviets. It is true that the Bolsheviks organised the November Revolution, but they did so on the basis of these revolutionary demands of the working class. History is witness to the fact that had it not been for the revolutionary role of the proletariat, it would have been impossible later on to save the revolution from the combined assaults of the oppressive classes within the country and the attacks of the imperialist countries from without. The magnitude of self sacrifice, revolutionary initiative, organisational power (and of course, struggles, even with respect to organising production at this stage) manifested by the proletariat then, is an epic-like history that will constantly remind the proletariat of its colossal inherent power.
The role of the proletariat during and after the revolution was not achieved in a day; the proletariat achieved it through a long history of their past struggles. In the history of these struggles, the proletarian movements sometimes proceeded and sometimes retreated. They proceeded by assimilating the valuable lessons learnt from the experiences of both their successes and defeats and gradually the proletarian vanguard was born. That is why, even when the struggles retreated, an advance section of the proletariat stood resolutely, holding aloft the flag of socialism firmly in their hands. Take for instance the reactionary Stolypin period. When, after the failure of the 1905 revolution, the petty-bourgeois left the party and retracted from the Socialist Movement in hordes due to their class weakness, even then, a vanguard of the proletariat, though small in number, came forward and took the reins of the Party in their hands, holding high the flag of socialism.
One of the primary reasons for the defeat of the socialist movement was the relegation of the proletariat from its role in leadership. The petty-bourgeois were elevated to a dominant position in most of the parties. There were some objective reasons behind this too. Due to the preponderance of labour aristocracy in the advanced capitalist countries, and the predominance and the role of the petty-bourgeois forces in the backward countries (with respect to formation of parties and providing leadership too), the dependency of the workers on them had increased. But, as a result, the working class had digressed from its position. It has been forgotten that the socialist movements, in reality is a working class movement, that it is the struggle of the working class for its own emancipation which can be carried out by the working class itself. The contradiction between labour and capital objectively pushes the working class to a struggle towards socialism. To make the advanced section of the working class class-conscious, that is, to make them conscious of the historical role of the proletariat and to organise their advanced army in a class-party, is the role of the communists. It is pointless to talk about the reformist-revisionist parties who have placed the working class at par with other oppressed classes and tethered them to this parliamentary system. But, has not the question of the leadership of the proletariat reduced to a mere lip-service even by those who consider themselves as revolutionary communists? The leadership of the working class is implied only as ideological leadership, as if; leadership of the communists is synonymous with proletarian leadership! This also implies that the particular role of the proletariat as leaders of the socialist movement is redundant. Even those who acknowledge the leading role of the working class, strongly believe that the working class cannot dispose of this role on their own. They opine that without the leadership of the petty-bourgeois intellectuals the working class cannot proceed on the path of socialism. So, in a way, it is reckoned that the working class must follow the Communists coming from petty-bourgeois intelligentsia. The Russian Revolution teaches us that the proletariat is capable of executing an important task aimed at socialism with its independent role. It is this lesson that we have to comprehend anew.
Secondly, there are many who on reflecting upon the proletariat's role following the defeat, presume that it is impossible for present-day workers to assume the role and responsibilities undertaken by the Russian proletariat during the revolution. They fail to comprehend that the Russian Proletariat achieved that state through a long period of struggle which cannot be expected from the present proletariat, the more so, after the rot they have been made to go through by the reformists. The proletariat is historically compelled to assume an advanced role for the progress towards socialism because the conflict between labour and capital is inevitable in capitalist system and it is these inherent contradictions that compel the proletariat to shoulder such a role. The working class assumes such a role and becomes able to do so through the development of the class struggle. For this reason, it is possible for present-day working class to undertake such a role, and they will definite do so, but that can happen through the development of struggles. At present, only an advanced section of the proletariat is capable of assuming such a role through their consciousness. It is the task of the communists to transform this advanced section of the workers to a class-conscious army who will shoulder the role of leadership, will take an advance role in the working class movements in future.
Some people try to refute the leadership role of the working class in a round-about way. They hypothesise that though the working class assumed the role of leadership in the history of socialist movement, it is impossible for them to do so now. Why? They refuse to accept the role of leadership of proletariat on the basis of the reasoning that the working class has been reduced to minority in today's society. Firstly, is this a fact at all? The answer is simply no. It is true that in some advanced imperialist countries like America, the number of workers have declined somewhat. The reason being the imperialist capitalists relocated the factories from developed countries to China, India along with other comparatively underdeveloped countries for greater profits during the period of globalisation. But, if overall data from throughout the world is compiled, it will be seen that globally the number of workers, far from declining, has increased manifold. Compared to before, the workers have spreaded throughout the world. There is another significant aspect to this. By virtue of expanding significantly throughout the globe, the workers have attained a far greater determining role in production than even before. We are unable to see the implications of it because the working class is disorgainsed at present. When the working class movement will be able to arise anew from its present pell-mell, unorganised state, then they will naturally be able to influence a larger section of society than before and thus, will be capable of developing a movement for the creation of a new society. Secondly, another important question is that is the leadership role of a class in society determined by its sheer numbers? Were the bourgeois a majority in society when they were trying to lead the lower, backward oppressed masses to overthrow monarchy from power and establish democracy through bourgeois revolutions, such as French revolution in 1789? We all know that the bourgeois were a significantly minor section in society then. Despite being so, they led the then majority populace of peasant and other toiling sections in the movements against feudalism with their advanced consciousness. This implies that leadership does not depend upon sheer numbers; it depends upon whether one is representative of an advanced production relation. The November Revolution is itself a proof of this. During the November Revolution too, workers were a minority section of Russian society. Industrial areas like Moscow, Petrograd, etc were handful throughout Russia. The workers in these areas too were in miniscule proportion with respect to the overall Russian population. But it was the working class who led the revolution, who assumed an advanced role. This is because they were then representative of an advanced mode of production. Despite being less numerically than the other oppressed masses, they were advanced in their consciousness and hence, were able to lead them.
Another significant reason behind the success of the November Revolution was the role of the then Communist Party, the Bolshevik Party. It will not be wrong to state that the revolutionary role of working class would not have attained its logical conclusion had it not been for the leadership of a party like the Bolshevik Party. Initially, as the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP, then later, as a separate party, they organised the working class by making them conscious of the aim of socialism. We shall observe that in many turns in the history of Russian Revolution where, despite all the spontaneity and revolutionary possibilities, the struggles of the working class, had not been it guided by the Bolshevik Party under the leadership of Lenin, would have astrayed. Enriched with Marxist theory, the Communist Party, by carrying out an objective analysis of Russian society and by standing upon the strong foundations of the development of class-struggles, exercised concrete application of Marxism to Russian Revolution, thereby also developing Marxism in the process. By applying Marxism, the Bolshevik Party determined the tactics of class struggle with respect to the concrete situation of Russia, applied them in reality and by doing so endeavoured to direct the class-struggles towards socialism. Again, they constantly learned from the concrete experiences of class struggles and developed the theories in the process. Not only did the class struggle develop through. This mutual process of educating and being educated, the theories of class struggles also developed throughout and enriched Marxism. That they could undertake this correct role was because they could exercise correct application of Marxism. Another aspect which is more significant, is that the Bolshevik Party, from the very beginning was formed by the active participation of the advance section of the working class and with time the party amalgamated more and more with the proletariat, thus developing a party of working class in the truest sense. The Russian Revolution validated the fact that for the success of revolution, a party of the advanced section of the working class is indispensible, a party that is not only enriched with the theories of socialism, but also nurtured and nourished by the active role of the advanced section of the working class. Without this party, the struggles of the working class will fail to reach its logical conclusion. Those who are, with lessons learnt from the treachery of the reformist-revisionist parties, better still, all the wrong lessons learnt, deny the necessity of a party today, are actually proposing to leave the working class vulnerable and directionless in front of the organised onslaught of the ruling classes. It is true that within the communist parties, especially within the revisionist parties by the name of communist parties, we can observe the presence of bureaucracy and other devaitions. The communist parties need to be free of such deviations. But the act of rejecting party's necessity altogether citing such aforesaid examples is akin to slaying the patient instead of the disease!
Why have the struggles for the transition to socialism been defeated in Russia? The correct and definite reasons for the defeat are still unknown to us. But we do know some fundamental things that might shed light in resolving some questions. Firstly, the proletariats gaining power in Russia through socialist revolution does not automatically imply that socialism was established in Russia. By socialism, Marx-Engels-Lenin meant a society that is based upon the social ownership of the means of production. And because the social ownership over the means of production has been achieved, it is primarily a communist society. But still it has not reached its potential of a fully developed communist society, it can be regarded as the first or primary stage of communist society. As it is basically a communist society, classes do not exist here, hence a state is no longer required to suppress class conflicts. As the capitalist system of production becomes extinct, the categories of capitalist mode of production like currency, market, etc too cannot persist. The question is whether it is plausible for a capitalist country (in a country like Russia, the capitalist relations too had not yet fully developed, feudalism existed extensively right up to the revolution) to conceive such a state of society immediately after the appropriation of power by the proletariat? Undoubtedly, it is not possible. For the transformation of a capitalist society to a socialist society to materialise, a long period of transition from a capitalist to a socialist society is required. During this period of transition, society is not based upon a particular mode of production. Alongside the existing capitalist relations of production, socialist production relations too begin to take shape in society. This transition occurs under the dictatorship of the proletariat established through the socialist revolution. Naturally, class contradictions also continue. Like in any other struggle, there are victories and defeats in this struggle too. Consequently, this transition society can attain socialism or can revert back to capitalism. Secondly, socialism is a world order. It is not possible to establish socialism in isolation in one country. Thirdly, and more importantly, this struggle is a lot more difficult than the natural progression from feudalism to capitalism. This is because progressing from feudalism to capitalism means moving from one society based on oppression to another oppression based society. It is not necessary to thoroughly overhaul the old society. On the other hand, progression from a capitalist society to a socialist society entails the abolition of class exploitation, involves a revolutionary reconstitution of the age old existing society, that too on a global scale. If multiple revolutions had to occur simply to pass from feudalism to capitalism where capitalism lost and regained power several times and where even to this day, capitalism has to compromise and share power with feudalism in many countries, the how can be it be expected that it is possible to uproot the age old class divided society and achieve a classless society in a single attempt? Can the defeat of only one struggle be sufficient to prove that socialism is not plausible? Is the reasoning logical by any standards?
There are some other facts that need to be kept in mind regarding Russian Revolution. Especially we have to keep in mind the fact that the Russian proletariat had to shoulder the extremely difficult task of transitioning to socialism while confronting considerably greater adverse situations. This was the first time in the movements of the international proletariat that the working class acceded to power in any country. The international proletariat did not have any prior experiences about the path to be taken after acquiring power to achieve socialism. But their task undoubtedly remained the toughest of all. Russia was not an advanced capitalist country where pre-existing conditions for transition to socialism had already matured. That is, where the extent of development of productive forces has led to the massive socialisation of production and means of production, and where there has been a lot of development in large-scale industries, standing upon which the progress towards socialism can be comparatively easier. For this reason, Lenin reiterated repeatedly during the revolution that it was objectively easier to appropriate power in Russia, but immensely difficult to retain and consummate it. Comparatively, it was difficult for the revolution to happen in Germany, but all the more easier to retain it. In the words of Lenin "It was easier for us to start the revolution, but extremely difficult to continue it and consummate it. It is terribly difficult to make a revolution in such a highly developed country as Germany, but all the easier will it be to triumphantly consummate the socialist revolution once it flares up and spreads in the advanced capitalist countries of Europe." (6) Comparing these two revolutions, Lenin further stated that,
"And history.......has taken such a peculiar course that it has given birth in 1918 to two unconnected halves of socialism existing side by side like two future chickens in the single shell of international imperialism. In 1918 Germany and Russia have become the most striking embodiment of material realisation of the economic, the productive and the socio-economic conditions of socialism, on the one hand, and the political conditions on the other.
"A successful proletarian revolution in Germany would immediately and very easily smash any shell of imperialism (which unfortunately is made of the best steel, and hence cannot be broken by the efforts of any.....chicken) and would bring about the victory of world socialism for certain, without any difficulty, or with slight difficulty, if, of course, by 'difficulty' we mean difficult on a world historical scale, and not in the parochial, philistine sense." (7)
But ultimately, proletarian revolution did not materialise either in Germany or in any of the developed capitalist countries of Europe. In Lenin's word, the proletarian revolution did not happen in any such country where the economic conditions for socialism had matured, the proletarian revolution remains confined within a backward country like Russia. Moreover, the little industrial development that was there in Russia, which was necessary for advancement towards socialism, was destroyed to a great extent by the civil wars that ensued in the later years. A huge section of the working class - the subjective force of socialism, also perished during the period of civil war. The Russian proletariat had to undertake the task of the transition to socialism in these adversities, where, not only they, even the world proletariat lacked any prior experience. They went forward, stumbling and staggering in complete darkness. Sometimes they moved forward and sometimes they had to retreat. They committed mistakes, but still kept moving, pushing forward all along. They never abdicated their tasks and aims despite such adversities, so much so, that by retaining power for a long period, they were successful in almost completely transforming a severely backward country. They exhibited before the world some mighty examples of the immense potentialities that the working class was capable of once they acquired power. That they committed mistakes while carrying forth with this task, that they ultimately suffered defeat is now evident. But they have displayed an inimitable treasure trove of the success and defeats, right and wrongs of their struggles in front of the world proletariat, which unquestionably will widen the path and make easier the moving forward of the International proletariat in future.
The precise reasons for the ultimate failure of the socialist campaign in Russia, for the defeat of the Russian Revolution is still unknown even to the international communist movement for which more quests and analysis in necessary. We can say a few words regarding this as loud thinking only.
From the very beginning, Lenin himself was acutely conscious and repeatedly made the Party and advanced section conscious of the fact that in a backward country like Russia where the economic-material conditions of socialism had not yet developed substantially, it was immensely difficult for the proletariat to retain power and advance towards socialism immediately after the revolution. Lenin was of the impression that it would be feasible for the Russian proletariat to retain power and progress towards the world revolution if revolution happened in the highly developed capitalist countries. The Russian proletariat must retain power as the advanced bastion of revolution until revolution took place in the developed capitalist countries like Germany, keeping the future world revolution in perspective. The world revolution carried so much significance for Lenin that he even talked of undertaking a role for the advancement for the world revolution in lieu of the Russian Revolution. Unfortunately, revolution did not happen in the developed capitalist countries and even the possibilities of a revolution beat a retreat for them. Naturally, it became necessary at that time to think about consolidating the Proletarian power in Russia. There was no other alternative. But, in retrospect, does not this question arise whether in order to consolidate Russia's power, it was forgotten that without the revolution in the highly developed countries by the international working class movements, the socialist campaign of Russia could not advance in ultimate terms? There is no doubt that the erstwhile leadership of the Soviet Union was compelled to take measures for consolidating the power of Soviet Russia owing to the failure of revolutions in the developed countries and hence, was constrained to lay stress on the development of productive forces in the Soviet Union. Also it cannot be denied that the magnitude of the rapid development of a backward country like Russia into an advance industrial country by the development of productive forces was unprecedented. Question arises whether the erstwhile Soviet Union leadership construed this rapid development as socialism, hence, failed to notice how the capitalist relations of production still persisted which in turn may have led to the erroneous conclusion that capitalism was uprooted completely and the classes had been abolished? More significantly, consolidating Russia's power is so emphatically stressed upon, that saving socialism, saving the socialist movement become synonymous with saving Russia's power for the international communist movement. Saving Russia became the primary determinant while deciding upon the tactics of the communist parties of different countries. There is no doubt that this stands was inconsistent with Lenin's previous position on the same. As a consequence, the defeat of the proletarian power in Russia and China at a later period was construed as the defeat of the international working class movement too. We also have to question whether this deliberation is correct because during the course of the struggles of the international proletariat, there may be a fall of one or the bastions of movement, but that does not necessarily translate into the defeat of the entire army of the international working class movement. Though it was necessary to consolidate proletarian power in Russia for objective reasons, we should also analyse whether, while attaching excessive importance to retaining power in Russia, there were errors in comprehending the internal conflicts of Russia and also whether a mistakes was committed in controlling the international working class movement in the interest of Russia.
The second important point is the question of proletarian control. Undeniably, the power of proletariat suffered defeat at some stage of the movement in Russia. The working class lost control over the Party and the state, due to which when the lackeys of capitalism seized control of the Party and the state from within, and the proletariat could not resist it. It cannot be refuted that despite many shortcomings, the proletariat acquired power through the November Revolution. Being a working class from a backward nation, the Russian proletariat was objectively backward culturally. Add to this, the massive losses incurred by the proletariat during the civil wars. As a result, they had to depend not only upon the intellectuals within the party, but also upon the bourgeois intellectuals to look after the affairs of the state and production due to which they had to retreat in many instances. Lenin was completely aware that this was stepping back or retreating and correspondingly tried to make other conscious repeatedly. But probably because of the one-sided emphasis given on the development of the productive forces to consolidate the power of Soviet Russia, it become incumbent upon them to depend more and more on the intellectuals at a later stage. Owing to this dependency, the proletariat retracted more and more from the position of leadership. This distance from leadership became so insurmountable at one time that even when the leadership began to continually deviate from socialism, the working class could not resist it at all.
Do the communists of different countries like ours need to take any lessons from this? We will notice that just like in ours, in other countries too, from the very beginning, the leadership of the party was dominated by leaders coming from the petty bourgeois intelligentsia due to the weakness of the working class. The workers were totally dependent upon them. The more this leadership took recourse to reformism-revisionism, the more they corrupted the consciousness of the advanced workers and the gap between the advance section of workers and leadership intensified. Consequently, when this leadership betrayed the working class, the proletariat vanguard could not discern the betrayal with their consciousness, so was unable to resist it too. But when they were bereft of their class-organisations, they realised that leaders from outside had betrayed them. When the working class will rise again by taking lessons from these experiences, they will then strive to retain their control over their organisation.
It is beyond doubt that the world socialist movement is passing through an unprecedented period of defeat and the working class is yet to overcome the phase. But history has not ceased. It cannot stand still. The objective pre-conditions for socialism is increased manifold globally due to the development of capitalism. Production and the means of production have become more socialised. Socialisation of production has reached such a height that raw materials are being sourced from one continent, parts being produced with those raw materials in another, which are then assembled in another country and then sold and used in yet another. The ownership of this colossal socialised production is being increasingly centralised in the hands of a few multinational corporations. This conflict is creating series of crises. Repeatedly the crises are breaking out in all fields, economic, social and political, which the capitalism is not being able to solve. More and more wealth is being accumulated in the hands of a very small section. The extent of plunder and ravages of the environment by capitalism's greed for profits has nearly pushed the planet on the brink of extinction. From all aspects, the necessity of socialism is being felt more and more than ever before. On the other hand, its (socialism's) subjective force - the working class has also increased numerically than before and has expanded globally, though that force is still scattered and yet to rise up by recovering from the effects of the defeat. But the signs of a beginning are becoming pronounced. They have started organising themselves anew by getting rid of the old parties and leadership. Deriving lessons unconsciously from the old defeat, they have started turning around in this manner. The more these struggles will develop, the more the working class will stand up asserting its class identity. The role and tasks of the communists is to aid in this process of turning around keeping faith in the independent power of the working class. This is the truth that we have to grasp and realise on the Centenary of November Revolution.
Sources
1. "Revolution Teaches", Lenin Collected Works. Volume 9, Page, 147
2. "The State and Revolution", Lenin Collected Works, English edition, Volume 25, Page 390.
3. "The holy Family", Marx Engels Collected Works, English edition, Progress Publishers, Volume 4, Page 37. (Bold letters ours).
4. "The Eighteen Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte", Marx Engels Collected Works, English edition, Progress Publishers, Volume 11, Page 106-107.
5. " 'Left Wing' Communism - An Infantile Disorder", Lenin Collected Works, Volume 31, Page 27.
6. "Report Delivered AT a Moscow Gubernia Conference of Factory Committees, July 23, 1918", Lenin Collected Works, volume 27, Page 547.
7. " 'Left-Wing' Childishness and The Petty Bourgeois Mentality," Lenin Collected Works, Volume 27, Page 340.
Comments:
No Comments for View