Proletarians of all countries, unite!
There is one goal, the conquest of power!
V. I. Lenin
|Collected Works, Vol. 25|
The Red Flag
Too often has it happened that, when history has taken a sharp turn, even progressive parties have for some time been unable to adapt themselves to the new situation and have repeated slogans which had formerly been correct hut had now lost all meaning — lost it as „suddenly“ as the sharp turn in history was „sudden“.
Something of the sort seems likely to recur in connection with the slogan calling for the transfer of all State power to the councils. That slogan was correct during a period of our revolution — say, from February 27th to July 4th — that has now passed irrevocably. It has patently ceased to be correct now. Unless this is understood, it is impossible to understand anything of the urgent questions of the day. Every particular slogan must be deduced from the totality of specific features of a definite political situation. And the political situation in Russia now, after July 4th, differs radically from the situation between February 27th and July 4th.
During that period of the revolution now past, the so-called „dual power“ existed in the country, which both materially and formally expressed the indefinite and transitional condition of state power. Let us not forget that the issue of power is the fundamental issue of every revolution.
At that time State power was unstable. It was shared, by voluntary agreement, between the Provisional Government and the councils. The councils were delegations from the mass of free — that is, not subject to external coercion — and armed workers and soldiers. What really mattered was that arms were in the hands of the people and that there was no coercion of the people from without. That is what opened up and ensured a peaceful path for the progress of the revolution. The slogan „All Power Must Be Transferred to the Councils!“ was a slogan for the next step, the immediately feasible step, on that peaceful path of development. It was a slogan for the peaceful development of the revolution, which was possible and, of course, most desirable between February 27th and July 4th but which is now absolutely impossible.
Apparently, not all the supporters of the slogan „All Power Must Be Transferred to the Councils!“ have given adequate thought to the fact that it was a slogan for peaceful progress of the revolution — peaceful not only in the sense that nobody, no class, no force of any importance, would then (between February 27th and July 4th) have been able to resist and prevent the transfer of power to the councils. That is not all. Peaceful development would then have been possible, even in the sense that the struggle of classes and parties within the councils could have assumed a most peaceful and painless form, provided full State power had passed to the councils in good time.
The latter aspect of the matter has similarly not yet received adequate attention. In their class composition, the councils were organs of the movement of the workers and peasants, a ready-made form of their dictatorship. Had they possessed full State power, the main shortcoming of the small-bourgeois groups, their chief sin, that of trusting the capitalists, really would have been overcome, would have been criticised by the experience of their own measures. The change of classes and parties in power could have proceeded peacefully within the councils, provided the latter wielded exclusive and undivided power. The contact between all the council parties and the people could have remained stable and unimpaired. One must not forget for a single moment that only such a close contact between the council parties and the people, freely growing in extent and depth, could have helped peacefully to get rid of the illusion of small-bourgeois compromise with the bourgeoisie. The transfer of power to the councils would not, and could not, in itself have changed the correlation of classes; it would in no way have changed the small-bourgeois nature of the peasants. But it would have taken a big and timely step towards separating the peasants from the bourgeoisie, towards bringing them closer to, and then uniting them with, the workers.
This is what might have happened had power passed to the councils at the proper time. That would have been the easiest and the most advantageous course for the people. This course would have been the least painful, and it was therefore necessary to fight for it most energetically. Now, however, this struggle, the struggle for the timely transfer of power to the councils, has ended. A peaceful course of development has be come impossible. A non-peaceful and most painful course has begun.
The turning-point of July 4th was precisely a drastic change in the objective situation. The unstable condition of state power has come to an end. At the decisive point, power has passed into the hands of the counter-revolution. The development of the parties on the basis of the collaboration of the small-bourgeois Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik Parties and the counter-revolutionary cadets has brought about a situation in which both these small-bourgeois parties have virtually become participants in and abettors of counter revolutionary butchery. As the struggle between parties developed, the unreasoning trust which the small bourgeoisie put in the capitalists led to their deliberate support of the counter-revolutionaries. The development of party relations has completed its cycle. On February 27th, all classes found themselves united against the monarchy. After July 4th, the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, working hand in glove with the monarchists and the Black Hundreds, secured the support of the small-bourgeois socialist-revolutionaries and mensheviks, partly by intimidating them, and handed over real State power to the Cavaignacs, the military gang, who are shooting insubordinate soldiers at the front and smashing the bolsheviks in Petrograd.
The slogan calling for the transfer of State power to the councils would now sound quixotic or mocking. Objectively it would be deceiving the people; it would be fostering in them the delusion that even now it is enough for the councils to want to take power, or to pass such a decision, for power to be theirs, that there are still parties in the councils which have not been tainted by abetting the butchers, that it is possible to undo what has been done.
It would be a profound error to think that the revolutionary proletariat is capable of „refusing“ to support the socialist-revolutionaries and mensheviks against the counter-revolution by way of „revenge“, so to speak, for the support they gave in smashing the bolsheviks, in shooting down soldiers at the front and in disarming the workers. First, this would be applying philistine conceptions of morality to the proletariat (since, for the good of the cause, the proletariat will always support not only the vacillating small bourgeoisie but even the big bourgeoisie); secondly — and that is the important thing — it would be a philistine attempt to obscure the political substance of the situation by „moralising“.
And the political substance is that power can no longer be taken peacefully. It can be obtained only by winning a decisive struggle against those actually in power at the moment, namely, the military gang, the Cavaignacs, who are relying for support on the reactionary troops brought to Petrograd and on the cadets and monarchists.
The substance of the situation is that these new holders of state power can be defeated only by the revolutionary masses, who, to be brought into motion, must not only be led by the proletariat, but must also turn their backs on the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik Parties, which have betrayed the cause of the revolution.
Those who introduce philistine morals into politics reason as follows: let us assume that the socialist-revolutionaries and mensheviks did commit an „error“ in supporting the Cavaignacs, who are disarming the proletariat and the revolutionary regiments; still, they must be given a chance to „rectify“ their „error“; the rectification of the „error“ „should not be made difficult“ for them; the swing of the petty bourgeoisie towards the workers should be facilitated. Such reasoning would be childishly naive or simply stupid, if not a new deception of the workers. For the swing of the small-bourgeois masses towards the workers would mean, and could only mean, that these masses had turned their backs upon the socialist-revolutionaries and mensheviks. The Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik Parties could now rectify their „error“ only by denouncing Tsereteli, Chernov, Dan and Rakitnikov as the butchers‘ aides. We are wholly and unconditionally in favour of their „error“ being „rectified“ in this way….
We said that the fundamental issue of revolution is the issue of power. We must add that it is revolutions that show us at every step how the question of where actual power lies is obscured, and reveal the divergence between formal and real power. That is one of the chief characteristics of every revolutionary period. It was not clear in March and April 1917 whether real power was in the hands of the government or the council.
Now, however, it is particularly important for class-conscious workers to soberly face the fundamental issue of revolution, namely, who holds State power at the moment? Consider its material manifestations, do not mistake words for deeds, and you will have no difficulty in finding the answer.
Friedrich Engels once wrote the State is primarily contingents of armed people with material adjuncts, such as prisons.1 Now it is the military cadets and the reactionary Cossacks, who have been specially brought to Petrograd, those who are keeping Kamenev and the others in prison, who closed down Truth, who disarmed the workers and a certain section of the soldiers, who are shooting down an equally certain section of the soldiers, who are shooting down an equally certain section of troops in the army. These butchers are the real power. The Tseretelis and Chernovs are ministers without power, puppet Ministers, leaders of parties that support the butchery. That is a fact. And the fact is no less true because Tsereteli and Chernov themselves probably „do not approve“ of the butchery, or because their papers timidly dissociate themselves from it. Such changes of political garb change nothing in substance.
The newspaper of 150,000 Petrograd voters has been closed down. The military cadets on July 6th killed the worker Voinov for carrying the Leaf of „Truth“out of the printers‘. Isn‘t that butchery? Isn‘t that the handiwork of Cavaignacs? But neither the government nor the councils are to „blame“ for this, they may tell us.
So much the worse for the government and the councils, we reply; for that means that they are mere figureheads, puppets, and that real power is not in their hands.
Primarily, and above all, the people must know the truth — they must know who actually wields state power. The people must be told the whole truth, namely, that power is in the hands of a military clique of Cavaignacs (Kerensky, certain generals, officers, and so on), who are supported by the bourgeois class headed by the Cadet Party, and by all the monarchists, acting through the Black Hundred papers, New Age, Live Word, and so on, and so forth.
That power must be overthrown. Unless this is done, all talk of fighting the counter-revolution is so much phrase-mongering, „self-deception and deception of the people“.
That power now has the support both of the Tseretelis and Chernovs in the Cabinet and of their parties. We must explain to the people the butcher‘s role they are playing and the fact that such a „finale“ for these parties was inevitable after their „errors“ of April 21st, May 5th, June 9th and July 4th and after their approval of the policy of an offensive, a policy which went 9/10 of the way to predetermining the victory of the Cavaignacs in July.
All agitational work among the people must be reorganised to ensure that it takes account of the specific experience of the present revolution, and particularly of the July days, that is, that it clearly points to the real enemy of the people, the military clique, the cadets and the Black Hundreds, and that it definitely unmasks the small-bourgeois parties, the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik Parties, which played and are playing the part of butcher‘s aides.
All agitational work among the people must be reorganised so as to make clear that it is absolutely hopeless to expect the peasants to obtain land as long as the power of the military clique has not been overthrown, and as long as the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik Parties have not been exposed and deprived of the people‘s trust. That would be a very long and arduous process under the „normal“ conditions of capitalist development, but both the war and economic disruption will tremendously accelerate it. These are “accelerators” that may make a month or even a week equal to a year.
Two objections may perhaps be advanced against what has been said above: first, that to speak now of a decisive struggle is to encourage sporadic action, which would only benefit the counter-revolutionaries; second, that their overthrow would still mean transferring power to the councils.
In answer to the first objection, we say: the workers of Russia are already class-conscious enough not to yield to provocation at a moment which is obviously unfavourable to them. It is indisputable that for them to take action and offer resistance at the moment would mean aiding the counter-revolutionaries. It is also indisputable that a decisive struggle will be possible only in the event of a new revolutionary upsurge in the very depths of the masses. But it is not enough to speak in general terms of a revolutionary upsurge, of the rising tide of revolution, of aid by the West-European workers, and so forth; we must draw a definite conclusion from our past, from the lessons we have been given. And that will lead us to the slogan of a decisive struggle against the counter-revolutionaries, who have seized power.
The second objection also amounts to a substitution of arguments of too general a character for concrete realities. No one, no force, can overthrow the bourgeois counter revolutionaries except the revolutionary proletariat. Now, after the experience of July 1917, it is the revolutionary proletariat that must independently take over State power. Without that the victory of the revolution is impossible. The only solution is for power to be in the hands of the proletariat, and for the latter to be supported by the poor peasants or semi-proletarians. And we have already indicated the factors that can enormously accelerate this solution.
Councils may appear in this new revolution, and indeed are bound to, but not the present councils, not organs collaborating with the bourgeoisie, but organs of revolutionary struggle against the bourgeoisie. It is true that even then we shall be in favour of building the whole state on the model of the councils. It is not a question of councils in general, but of combating the present counter-revolution and the treachery of the present councils.
The substitution of the abstract for the concrete is one of the greatest and most dangerous sins in a revolution. The present councils have failed, have suffered complete defeat, because they are dominated by the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik Parties. At the moment these councils are like sheep brought to the slaughterhouse and bleating pitifully under the knife. The councils at present are powerless and helpless against the triumphant and triumphing counter-revolution. The slogan calling for the transfer of power to the councils might be construed as a „simple“ appeal for the transfer of power to the present councils, and to say that, to appeal. for it, would now mean deceiving the people. Nothing is more dangerous than deceit.
The cycle of development of the class and party struggle in Russia from February 27th to July 4th is complete. Anew cycle is beginning, one that involves not the old classes, not the old parties, not the old councils, but classes, parties and councils rejuvenated in the fire of struggle, tempered, schooled and refashioned by the process of the struggle. We must look forward, not backward. We must operate not with the old, but with the new, post-July, class and party categories. We must, at the beginning of the new cycle, proceed from the triumphant bourgeois counter-revolution,which triumphed because the socialist-revolutionaries and mensheviks compromised with it, and which can be defeated only by the revolutionary proletariat. Of course, in this new cycle there will be many and various stages, both before the complete victory of the counter-revolution and the complete defeat (without a struggle) of the socialist-revolutionaries and mensheviks, and before a new upsurge of a new revolution. But it will only be possible to speak of this later, as each of these stages is reached.
1See Friedrich Engels: „Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State“, 1884.