|
The Monumental Forerunner
of World Socialist Revolution
Sixty-Year Anniversary of the Russian Revolution [1977]
Written by Hiroyoshi Hayashi ('Spark' Sep-Dec, 1977)
(Translated by Roy West)
Contents
- The Bearers of the Chinese Revolution
- Lenin's Theory of the Russian Revolution --- Hegemony of the working class
in the democratic revolution
- Abstract "World Revolution": Trotsky's Theory of Permanent Revolution
- Theories Tested in the 1917 Revolution
- Brest-Litovsk Treaty and the Debate on Labor Unions
- Wartime "Communism" to NEP-the "inevitability" of capitalism
in Russia
- The Secret of the Stalin System
- What Was The Russian Revolution --- Its Meaning and "Limits"
1. The Russian Revolution's "Contradictions" as a Proletarian
Revolution
This year [1977] marks the sixtieth anniversary of the Russian Revolution.
In this essay we will consider its significance for the history of humanity.
The Russian Revolution represents the greatest revolution in the history
of mankind; an epoch-making event in the course of human development. At
the same time, however, it was a revolution which contained many contradictions.
Humanity has not yet necessarily been able to fully solve this "riddle".
Precisely because we are attracted to the greatness of the Russian Revolution,
fully recognize its historical significance, and draw an infinite number
of lessons from it, we have nothing in common with those (not only Stalinists,
but often Trotskyists) who uncritically glorify or dogmatically absolutize
it.
This past year the Japanese Communist Party (Stalinists) made a 180-degree
turn from their previous dogmatic absolutist position, and have now set
about the task of creating a thoroughly relativistic theory of the Russian
Revolution. This is simply the reverse error of their previous dogmatism
that doesn't reveal the real significance and lessons of the Russian Revolution.
What, then, were the contradictions of the Russian Revolution? In general,
it can be said that every occurrence involves contradiction, and for this
very reason develops and unfolds. However, the contradiction of the Russian
Revolution is not contradiction in this general sense, but the contradiction
of the Russian Revolution as a proletarian revolution (or as a revolution
led by the most revolutionary and conscious Marxist Party historically
speaking). This contradiction is reflected in the theories of the Bolsheviks
and Mensheviks, as well as in Trotsky's theories, and is at the basis of
the debates between these tendencies.
The Russian Revolution is often referred to as a proletarian socialist
revolution. In general, we have no objection to this conclusion. In the
Russian Revolution, the proletarian party took power, overthrew feudal
rule and the power of capital, nationalized all the means of production,
and declared the principles of socialism. Here it appears that there is,
and can be no "contradiction".
Actually, however, saying that the Russian Revolution was a proletarian
socialist revolution is a mere abstraction. After the revolution, Lenin
often admonished Trotsky and others by insisting on this. "Comrade
Trotsky speaks of a "workers' state". May I say that this is
an abstraction…The whole point is that it is not quite a workers' state…ours
is not actually a workers' state but a workers' and peasants' state."
Moreover, when Lenin returned to Russian, after the outbreak of the February
revolution, he emphasized that in Russia the "leap" to socialism
could not be directly made, and that only a few steps towards socialism,
not the introduction of socialism, was possible. He called the type of
government which could be established a revolutionary democratic government.
Furthermore, it was Lenin himself who introduced NEP (one type of capitalism).
This clearly demonstrates that even though the Russian Revolution was able
to be a proletarian revolution, it was unable to be a socialist revolution.
This represents one of the contradictions.
Marx repeatedly emphasized that the victory of socialism was unattainable
without the relatively high growth of productive power; i.e., the development
of industrial production. In the preface to his "Criticism of Political
Economy" he wrote the following.
"In the social production of their lives men enter into relations
that are specific, necessary and independent of their will, relations of
production which correspond to a specific stage of development of their
material productive forces…A social formation never comes to an end before
all the forces of production which it can accommodate are developed, and
new, higher relations of production never come into place before the material
conditions of their existence have gestated in the womb of the old society…but
at the same time productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois
society create the material conditions for the resolution of this antagonism.
With that social formation the pre-history of human society draws to a
close." (Marx selected writings, Oxford University, pp. 160-1)
Furthermore, in "The Poverty of Philosophy" we can find the following
passage.
"Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In
acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and
in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their
living, they change all their social relations. The handmill gives you
society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial
capitalist." (International Publishers, pp. 80-81)
In "The Principles of Communism", written at the same time as
the "Communist Manifesto", Engels poses the question why "private
property could not have been abolished earlier", and responds that
the high level of productive power conforming to socialism, and incompatible
with private property, had yet to be generated.
Clearly they sought the conditions for socialism in the development of
a high degree of productive power. This productive power was only attainable
as the result of capitalistic development. Therefore, they recognized and
highly regarded the historical and progressive significance of capitalistic
production.
If socialism is only possible as a result of the development of industry
and a high level of productive power, in addition to the growth of the
working class resulting from capitalistic development, then it is not difficult
to point out the significant difficulty the Russian Revolution had as a
proletarian revolution. From the late nineteenth to the early twentieth
century, Russia was suffering from a social contradiction, but this was
not the contradiction born from the development of capitalism, what Marx
called the contradiction between "modern production and the bourgeois
form of production" ("Class Struggles in France").
Rather, this was the contradiction between the old, backward feudal system,
and a rapidly developing capitalism; the contradiction arising from the
combination of the old and new systems; not a proletarian socialist revolution,
but rather the contradiction stemming from the need to construct bourgeois
rule by sweeping away feudalistic relations and ensuring the development
of capitalism.
The working class represented only one tenth of the population, while the
vast majority were peasants oppressed by the feudalistic landlords and
the Czarist system. The workers were concentrated in relatively large-scale
industries and were class-conscious. These are the governing social relations
that cannot be overlooked.
The contradiction of the Russian revolution as a proletarian revolution-it
is in this sense that we speak of the contradiction of the Russian revolution-stems
from the fact that in a country lacking the objective conditions for socialism,
a proletarian party grabbed power and advanced, and had no choice but to
advance, towards the goal of socialism. In the next section we will consider
the significance of the Russian revolution and its contradictions through
a discussion of the debate among Russian revolutionaries. This is one clue
to understand contemporary Soviet society.
2. Lenin's Theory of the Russian Revolution
--- Hegemony of the working class in the democratic revolution
There was heated debate among Russian revolutionaries on the nature and
content of the approaching revolution.
Initially, there was a debate between the Marxists and the Narodniks (populists).
Whereas the Marxists considered the Russian revolution to be a bourgeois
revolution, the Narodniks viewed it as a socialist revolution on the basis
of the idea that socialism could be built through the division of land
from an agricultural revolution.
Subsequently, a heated debate arose within the ranks of the Marxists, i.e.
within the Social-Democratic Party. This was the conflict between the Bolsheviks
and the Mensheviks. On the basis of the shared assumption that the coming
Russian Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, the debate covered a wide
range of problems including which class would gain hegemony (leadership),
the character of the new government after the victory of the revolution,
whether or not the Social-Democratic Party should participate in the government,
and the difference in class struggle between a democratic and a socialist
revolution.
The Mensheviks argued that the coming revolution was a bourgeois revolution
and the liberal bourgeoisie would (or should) assume hegemony. Therefore,
the Social Democratic Party (i.e. the working class) should not play the
leading role in the revolution, but rather an auxiliary role, and not alarm
or paralyze the bourgeoisie with their own revolutionary character. Furthermore,
since the revolution was a bourgeois one, even if the revolution were to
be victorious, the Social Democratic Party should not participate in the
government, but remain the "party of extreme revolutionary opposition".
The overall theory of the Mensheviks boils down to an alliance with the
liberal bourgeoisie.
In opposition to the Mensheviks subservience to the liberals, Lenin insisted
on the hegemony of the working class in the "democratic revolution".
Lenin was primarily concerned with how the working class could positively
and subjectively participate in the coming democratic revolution.
"Marxism teaches the proletarian not to keep aloof from the bourgeois
revolution, not to refuse to take part in it, not to allow the leadership
of the revolution to be assumed by the bourgeoisie but, on the contrary,
to take a most energetic part in it, to fight resolutely for consistent
proletarian democracy, to fight to carry the revolution to its completion.
We cannot jump out of the bourgeois-democratic boundaries of the Russian
revolution, but we can enormously extend those boundaries." ("Two
Tactics" p. 41 International Publishers)
The fact that the coming revolution was a bourgeois one did not limit the
assumption of hegemony to the bourgeoisie. Already in the revolution of
1848, the bourgeoisie in the European countries, frightened by the appearance
of the working class, compromised with feudal power instead of seriously
fighting against it, and revealed their own treacherous nature. Similarly
in Russia, the bourgeoisie, due to its weakness, colluded with Czarism
instead of leading the bourgeois revolution, and hoped that this would
lead in a bourgeois direction.
Thus, the Mensheviks' idea of a democratic revolution led by the bourgeoisie
was an unrealistic fantasy. The option is thus either the impossibility
of a democratic revolution or its possibility only under the hegemony of
the working class.
The Mensheviks criticized Lenin's strategy as "a bourgeois revolution
without the bourgeoisie." However, did Lenin really propose a "bourgeois
revolution without the bourgeoisie?"
On the contrary, Lenin certainly did not ignore bourgeois elements. Lenin
emphasized that the true victory of the democratic revolution was only
possible from the moment that the peasants, who along with the workers
formed the vast majority of the population, rose up. Lenin strongly criticized
the Mensheviks for flattering the liberal bourgeoisie, while not valuing
the revolutionary peasant movement. Furthermore, the peasants themselves
are also a kind of bourgeoisie, i.e. "radical bourgeoisie". If
the central content is a peasant revolution, doesn't this represent a bourgeois
revolution?
Therefore, the revolutionary government could only be a "democratic
dictatorship of the workers and peasants", not the socialist dictatorship
of the working class. This revolutionary government should carry out policies
to firmly wipe out all feudalistic power and relations, and prepare the
way for a constitutional system.
Lenin's standpoint could be said to contain a contradiction, but this is
the contradiction of the Russian revolution itself.
The standpoint of advancing the class struggles of the workers to the end
in a bourgeois revolution is not contradictory in itself. Indeed, advancing
the workers' class struggle to the end is nothing but the struggle for
socialism itself.
If the working class assumes hegemony in the bourgeois revolution, does
it still remain simply a bourgeois revolution? To explain this dilemma,
Stalin, after the revolution, came up with the dogma of Lenin's "two
stage revolution theory". According to this theory, the revolution
begins first with the "democratic" revolution, and then rapidly
"transforms" into a socialist revolution. Stalin called this
Lenin's theory of revolutionary strategy, but this is merely a "metaphysics
of revolution" which bears no relation to Leninism. Stalin's metaphysical
theory of revolution has now become the possession of Communist Parties
throughout the world.
Lenin called on the workers to participate actively in the democratic revolution,
but this position was based on the evaluation of the politico-economic
development of Russia and the character of the Russian Revolution at the
time, not on the basis of the metaphysics of revolution. Lenin clearly
stated that if the period of democratic revolution comes to an end in Russia,
the goal of the workers would already become the development of the class
struggle for socialism, instead of being the "advance guard for democracy".
However, from within the Social Democratic Party, an important dissident
voice arose against the Mensheviks and Bolshevik-Lenin faction, who viewed
the coming Russian revolution as a bourgeois revolution. This was Trotsky's
theory of "permanent revolution" which we will examine next.
3. Abstract "World Revolution": Trotsky's Theory of Permanent
Revolution
Trotsky argued that both the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were incorrect in
calling the coming Russian Revolution a "democratic" revolution.
He argued the proletariat would probably gain power, and that once they
had assumed power they would be compelled to advance towards a socialist
revolution without being able to stop halfway. However, within the reality
of Russia, this would lead to resistance from the wide stratum of peasantry.
Thus, to maintain proletarian power, it would be necessary for the revolution
to spread to Europe (i.e. world revolution). -Trotsky called this train
of thought the theory of "permanent revolution".
By saying that there was no hope for the Russian workers government apart
from world revolution, Trotsky also recognizes that the conditions for
socialism do not exist within Russia (Trotsky goes so far as to say that
it is impossible to build socialism in any single country regardless of
the level of capitalist development, but we do not have space here to touch
on this dogma). Nevertheless, through the glorification of an abstract
"world revolution", he called for the establishment of proletarian
power in Russia.
Trotsky "completed" Lenin's standpoint of maintaining the independence
of the class struggle of the workers within the "democratic revolution"
by reasoning that since the class struggle must be advanced to the end,
the coming revolution must therefore be a socialist one.
Marx, Engels as well as Lenin recognized that for late developing countries
to attain the victory of socialism, it is necessary to receive aid from
the advanced proletariat states. However, even in this case they set the
following conditions.
"The true liberation of the proletariat in Germany and France, the
complete elimination of all class differences, as well as the complete
concentration of the means of production, would require, the cooperation
of England, and at least the doubling of production means existing currently
in Germany and France." (Engels "Perspectives and Conditions
on the War of the Holy Alliance", passage and title translated from
Japanese.)
There is no reason for us to interpret Engels literally here when he says,
"the means of production must be doubled". This is likely the
idea that the efforts of England alone are insufficient, and that Germany
and France also need to increase their own productive power and develop
industrial production. This is different from Trotsky's conception of "permanent
revolution" which argues Russia must rely on Europe since the conditions
for socialism do not exist within the country.
Lenin criticized the resolution of the Mensheviks presented in the organ
of the new Iskra-ists, which was written in the spirit of Trotsky. The
Menshevik resolution was the following.
"Only in one event should Social-Democracy, on its own initiative,
direct its efforts towards seizing power and retaining it as long as possible,
namely, in the event of the revolution spreading to the advanced countries
of Western Europe where conditions for the achievement of socialism have
already reached a certain [?] state of maturity. In that event, the restricted
historical scope of the Russian revolution can be considerably extended
and the possibility of striking the path of socialist reforms will arise."
Lenin criticized this view:
"The basic idea expressed here is the same as that repeatedly formulated
by Vperyod, when it stated that we must not be afraid of a complete victory
for Social-Democracy in a democratic revolution, i.e., the revolutionary-democratic
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, for such a victory will
enable us to rouse Europe, and socialist proletariat of Europe will then
throw off the yoke of the bourgeoisie and in its turn help us to carry
out a socialist revolution…The resolution (of the Mensheviks) fails to
grasp this connection between our (not in the new Iskra sense) and the
revolution in Europe, and therefore refers, not to the tasks of the proletariat,
not to the prospects of its victory, but to one of the possibilities in
general; ‘in the event of the revolution spreading." (Two Tactics
p. 69)
The Mensheviks resolution was intended to demonstrate that the Social-Democratic
Party should not assume power. They only allowed the assumption of power
in the case where revolution would spread to Western Europe, and the workers
in those countries would aid the Russian Revolution, thereby creating the
possibility for socialistic reforms in Russia. Trotsky's theory is the
reversal of this: since there will probably be assistance from Europe,
proletarian socialist revolution in Russia is possible.
Lenin opposed the abstraction of a "proletarian socialist government"
holding out for foreign aid. "Surely the possibility of retaining
power in Russia must be determined by the composition of the social forces
in Russia itself, by the circumstances of the democratic revolution which
is now taking place in our country." (Ibid p. 70)
At the basis of Lenin's argument, as before, was the fundamental recognition
of the "absurd, semi-anarchist ideas (of the Socialist-Revolutionary
Party and Trotsky) that (…) the conquest of power for a socialist revolution
can be immediately achieved." "The present degree of economic
development of Russia (an objective condition) and the degree of class
consciousness and organisation of the broad masses of the proletariat (a
subjective condition indissolubly connected with the objective condition)
make the immediate, complete emancipation of the working class impossible.
Only the most ignorant people can ignore the bourgeois character of the
present democratic revolution." (Ibid. p.19)
Unlike Trotsky, Lenin could not support the dogma which started from the
idea that proletarian revolution would be possible if revolution spread
to Europe and the European proletariat were to provide assistance, (i.e.
to absolutize one possible situation among all others). This would represent
leaping over the class relations determined by the stage of social development
in Russia by means of a concept.
But didn't Trotsky say that the proletariat would have to assume power?
Didn't he start from this acute insight-gained from the practical experience
of 1905?
Lenin, however, was opposed to the abstraction of "proletariat power"
isolated from socio-economic conditions. Moreover, he thought that when
the working class gained power through cooperation with the considerably
more numerous peasants, this could not simply be called a proletarian government
aiming for the construction of socialism.
Generally, Trotskyists regretfully say that Trotsky was defeated by Stalin
in the inner-Party struggles in Russia because his theory appeared to be
incorrect following the collapse of revolution in Germany and elsewhere.
However, this actually represented the bankruptcy of Trotsky's theory of
unconditionally depending on, and pinning all the hopes of the Russian
class and political struggle on the revolution in Europe. The fact that
the Russian Revolution did not lead to the victory of revolution in Europe
must be viewed historically without mixing in one's hopes (or seeing it
simply from the "betrayal-perspective of history). For this task,
we take the following quotation from Marx as a clue.
"While, therefore, the crises first produce revolutions on the Continent,
the foundation for these is, nevertheless, always laid in England. Violent
outbreaks must naturally occur rather in the extremities of the bourgeois
body rather than in its hear, since the possibility of adjustment is greater
than there. On the other hand, the degree to which Continental revolutions
react on England is at the same time the barometer which indicates how
far these revolutions really call in question the bourgeois conditions
of life, or how far they only hit their political formations." ("Review",
Collected Works Vol. 10, pp. 509-10.)
The Russian experiment was not immediately accepted in Europe. One reason
was that Europe had a greater "possibility for adjustment", and
more powerful opportunism. Anototr reason was that the lessons of Russia,
which did not have the experience of democratic parliamentary governments
or a legal workers movement, could not immediately gain the acceptance
of the European working class. This is the problem of the content of the
Russian Revolution as a "proletarian revolution". The workers
of Europe felt more than a little dissatisfaction with a revolution which
shifted from war communism to NEP, and allowed the rule of Stalinism=bureaucratization.
This reaffirms the bankruptcy of Trotsky's strategy and his theory of permanent
revolution.
The "level of the effect" on Europe of the Russian Revolution
was insufficiently strong to bring about a revolution there.
4. Theories Tested in the 1917 Revolution
The 1917 Russian Revolution tested and verified in practice all of the
theories of revolution, and measured their "effectiveness". Nearly
everything that can be called a theory cannot escape from this sort of
fate.
In the turmoil from February to October, needless to say the bourgeois
liberals (Cadets), as well as the petty bourgeois socialists (Mensheviks
and Socialist-Revolutionaries- the equivalent of the Socialist and Communist
Parties in Japan) revealed their bankruptcy. After the February Revolution,
the Cadet Party, which had assumed power with the aid of the petty bourgeois
socialists, turned their back on land reform, continued the imperialist
war, and abandoned the masses. The Socialist-Revolutionary Kerensky government,
which subsequently appeared, was also unable to meet any of the expectations
of the working people, and in July suppressed the workers struggles, conspired
with General Kornilov for the creation of a Bonapartist regime, but this
only hastened Kornilov's insurrection. The government collapsed with the
October 7th workers insurrection, and Kerensky went into exile abroad.
The Mensheviks' policy reached its conclusion in the coalition government
they formed with the liberal bourgeoisie. Aiding the bourgeoisie (Cadet
Party) to gain power was the inevitable culmination of their many years
of opportunistic tactics. Up to that point, they had said that the bourgeoisie
would take power and the Social-Democratic Party would not go farther than
being the "party of extreme revolutionary opposition", but when
the bourgeois government was realized, they hurriedly entered the government,
assumed Ministry positions and their opportunism deepened to the point
of Millerand-ism (entering the cabinet). The Russian Revolution thus dramatically
revealed that the basis of the Menshevik program (read: Japan Socialist
and Communist Parties) was trust in and cooperation with the bourgeoisie.
The Socialist-Revolutionary Party, which had claimed to based on "laborers"
[workers and peasants] in general, rather than simply the proletariat,
and had even glorified terrorism, also collaborated with the bourgeoisie
together with the Mensheviks, thereby exposing that their emphasis on "socialist"
revolution was nothing but a dead letter.
Only the Bolsheviks were able to consistently maintain the class position
of the working class and oppose the bourgeoisie as well as feudal power.
Still, before Lenin returned to Russia at the beginning of April, there
was some fluctuation within the ranks. "Old Bolsheviks" such
as Stalin and Molotov advocated "unity" instead of severing ties
with the bourgeois-allied Mensheviks. Moreover, they forced on the workers
the strategy of "applying pressure" to the coalition government
born after the February revolution for the creation of "democratic"
and "peaceful" policies. In Switzerland, Lenin was alarmed by
this and seized with a sense of crisis telegraphed the following message:
"Our tactics: no trust in and no support of the new government; Kerensky
is especially suspect; arming of the proletariat is the only guarantee…no
rapprochement with other parties." (Collected Works Vol. 23, p. 292.)
Later Trotsky argued that the vacillation of the "old Bolsheviks"
was the fault of Lenin's "theory of a democratic revolution",
and that they could not understand Lenin's abandonment of his old theory.
In other words, this is the idea that due to his adherence to the theory
of "democratic revolution", the bourgeois revolution stopped
at the level of the February revolution, and Stalin was unable to propose
the task of advancing towards proletarian revolution, and inevitably inclined
towards a coalition with the bourgeoisie and Mensheviks.
However, if Stalin's vacillation is explained from Leninism, how do the
Trotskyists explain the fact that Lenin himself had a different policy
from Stalin's collaborationism? Their answer is the self-congratulatory
idea that Lenin had revised his previous standpoint at that stage to come
closer to the position of Trotsky.
Of course, we don't intend to insist obstinately that Lenin never altered
his own thinking. However, fundamentally speaking Lenin's way of thinking
did not change. For example, this is clear from his "Farewell Letter
to Swiss Workers" published just before he left Switzerland, in which
he emphasized that: ""Russia is a peasant country, one of the
most backward of European countries. Socialism cannot triumph there directly
and immediately." (Collected Works Vol. 23, p. 371.) Moreover, at
the Seventh (April) National Congress and in his "April Theses"
he wrote, "It is not our immediate task to ‘introduce' socialism,
but only to bring social production and the distribution of products at
once under the control of the Soviets of Workers' Deputies." (Collected
Works Vol. 24, p. 24.) And he maintained the "old" slogan of
a revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants. Lenin
pointed out [in "Letter on Tactics"] the errors of the "old
Bolsheviks" who argued that the bourgeois revolution is not completed
because there is no "dictatorship of the workers and peasants"
and couldn't understand that the "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship
of the proletariat and the peasantry has already been realized, but in
a highly original manner, and with a number of extremely important modifications."
(Collected Works Vol. 24, p. 45.)
Moreover, clearly thinking of Trotsky, Lenin wrote: "But are we not
in danger of falling into subjectivism, of wanting to arrive at the socialist
revolution-which is not yet completed and has not yet exhausted the peasant
movement? I might be incurring this danger if I said: ‘No, Tsar, but a
worker's government.' But I did not say that, I said something else. I
said that there can be no government (barring a bourgeois government) in
Russia other than that of the Soviet of Workers', Agricultural Labourers,
Soldiers' , and Peasants' Deputies." (Ibid. p. 48.)
It is clearly more accurate to say that Stalin's vacillation was due less
to the theory of "democratic revolution" than, as Lenin points
out, the absence of revolutionary proletarian standpoint based on the living,
concrete conditions of reality. From 1903, the Bolsheviks consistently
carried out a thoroughgoing factional struggle with the Mensheviks (i.e.
bourgeois liberal faction). Bearing this in mind, it is impossible to blame
Stalin's collaborationism on Leninism. Rather, there is the question why
Trotsky, who formed one wing of the Mensheviks, severed his ties with the
Mensheviks. Isn't this also a type of vacillation (vacillation to the left
is still vacillation)?
At any rate, at this stage as well, Lenin regarded the fundamental task
of the Russian Revolution to be a democratic one. This represented a stark
difference from Trotsky's view that the bourgeois tasks are subordinate
tasks to be explained by proletarian socialists revolution. By focusing
on the difference in their views in the Brest-Litovsk treaty and the trade
union debates, we can further consider the question "What was the
Russian Revolution?".
5. Brest-Litovsk Treaty and the Debate on Labor Unions
The debate on the Brest-Litovsk Treaty immediately after the war, and the
debate on trade unions which raged in the transition period from war communism
to NEP, were a presentiment of the conditions of the Russian revolution
and the socio-economic system of the near future.
There is not space here to consider in detail the controversy concerning
the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. Essentially it involved the question of whether
Soviet Russia should wage a "revolutionary war" against German
imperialism, or retreat and "stall for time"; i.e., to compromise
or fight. Lenin called for immediate peace, while on the other hand, "left-wing"
Bolsheviks and the left Socialist-Revolutionaries called for a "revolutionary
war". Trotsky, while emotionally agreeing with the latter, postponed
peace by advocated the position of "no war and no peace"
Trotsky thought that by drawing out the negotiations and exposing German
imperialism during the negotiations, Russia could escape the "humiliation"
of submitting and compromising with German imperialism. On the other hand,
Lenin thought that revolution might break out in Europe, but argued that
one could not declare that this would happen from 1922-23, and that the
victory of the revolution should not be wagered on a hopeful outlook, and
insisted that the treaty should be accepted. It was clear that just a couple
months after the Revolution, Russia was unable to fight head on with a
German imperialism armed to the teeth. This was not simply a fight with
imperialist interventionists, but a "formal" struggle with an
imperialist state. For the Russian Revolution to survive, it was necessary
to reach a separate peace with Germany. Trotsky recognized this, but expected
revolution would soon break out in Europe, and was led by the emotional
impulse of wanting to avoid submission to the imperialists, and thus continued
to oppose immediate peace. The outcome of this position was that a less
advantageous peace was forced on the Russian revolutionary state.
The Brest-Litovsk peace brought to light the weakness of the Russian revolutionary
state. This brought to light the international power relations wherein
the Soviet state had to submit to imperialist pressure and make a major
compromise in order to survive. This was an inauspicious sign for the future
of the young Soviet state.
On the other hand, the trade union debate from 1920-21, brought to the
fore the most fundamental question of the future political and economic
system in the post-revolutionary Soviet Union. It is certainly no accident
that this debate took place during the process of the shift from war communism
to the New Economic Policy (NEP).
Already around the spring of 1920, Trotsky proposed the "military
organization of labor" in connection with economic reconstruction.
Trotsky's theory was the following-Socialism is a system of compulsory
labor, and since compulsory labor is impossible without force, this necessitates
the military organization of labor.
"Without the foundation of the military organization of labor formed
through government compulsion, replacing the capitalist economy with a
socialists economy is purely utopian." (Translated from Japanese edition
of Trotsky's Collected Works Vol. 12, p. 185)
"Concerning the workers, it is fundamentally mistaken for the unions
serve in place of militarization. The unions should not replace the functions
of militarization, but rather realize this, and be its organizational expression."
(Translated from Japanese edition of Collected Works Vol. 13 p. 169)
Trotsky was able to test out his theory from summer until autumn 1920 in
the war with Poland. Trotsky's system of orders and compulsion achieved
great results during the emergency period of the crisis of "foreign
threats". He was able to "flog" the transportation workers
union, and transportation was secured.
However, without realizing that this was only a temporary method, he raised
it to the level of a general principle of socialism, and called for all
of the labor unions to be "reformed" with this type of militaristic
method. Trotsky robbed the labor unions of their autonomy, and demanded
that they be turned into one part of the state mechanism. As a result,
the famous trade union debate took place concerning the position, role
and significance of trade unions under the socialists state.
Lenin opposed Trotsky and called for resistance to the militarized bureaucratic
form of labor, and defended trade union democracy. He also opposed Trotsky's
abstraction of calling the Russian state a "proletarian state",
and said that the Soviet state is a "workers and peasants state"
not a workers state. Moreover, he emphasized that under a bureaucratically
deformed state, the unions should be given the right to protect workers'
interests and standpoints against the state.
On the other hand, Lenin opposed the views of the so-called "workers
opposition league" who said that the unions and factory committees
should manage the entire economy, calling this position syndicalism. But
Lenin added that if the party and state were heading towards extinction
after revolution, then the views of the leftwing oppositionists would be
justified and there would be no basis to criticize them as syndicalism.
The fact that these views were rejected reveals the ultimate limits of
the Russian revolution, which it attempted to but could not overcome. It
might be said that Trotsky's theory was an ironical expression of dissension
against this reality.
In this debate, Lenin (although he had written "State and Revolution"
just the preceding year) could not indicate that the prospect for the extinction
of the state. Lenin emphasized a theory of the "agreement" between
the state and working class. The prospect of the withering away of the
state was only insisted on by the so-called "workers' opposition"
led by Shlyapnikov and Kollontai. However, Russian reality made this utopian,
just the talk of syndicalism Under the terrible conditions of Russia at
the time, only Lenin's view was realistic-although when compared to the
later Stalinists system, it was Trotsky's system of "compulsion and
orders" that was truly realistic and inevitable.
Just as in the 1930's when he applied Trotsky's "united front tactics"
and made use of his opportunism, in domestic construction as well, Stalin
literally implemented Trotsky's theory of "compulsory labor"
and constructed a sort of dictatorial state in Russia.
6. Wartime "Communism" to NEP-the "inevitability" of
capitalism in Russia
In the last Congress of the Comintern that he would attend (November 1922),
Lenin explained to comrades throughout the world the necessity for the
shift from wartime "communism" to NEP (the recognition of the
peasants' free commerce, and the switch from forced requisition to an tax
on provisions).
After the civil war was overcome in 1921, the Bolshevik government faced
a domestic political crisis, that is, the peasants (as well as workers)
were dissatisfied and there was a succession of peasant revolts. This reached
a peak with the Kronstadt. Lenin explained the cause of this in the following
way.
"The reason for it was that in our economic offensive we had run too
far ahead, that we had not provided ourselves with adequate resources,
that the masses sensed what we ourselves were not then able to formulate
consciously but what we admitted soon after, a few weeks later, namely,
that the direct transition to purely socialist forms, to purely socialist
distribution, was beyond our available strength, and that if we were unable
to effect a retreat so as to confine ourselves to easier tasks, we would
face disaster. The crisis began, I think, in February 1921. In the spring
of that year we decided unanimously-I did not observe any considerable
disagreement among us on this question-to adopt the New Economic Policy.
("Five Years of the Russian Revolution And The Prospects of the World
Revolution" Collected Works Vol. 33 pp. 421-422)
NEP was introduced in order to cooperate with the peasants and compromise.
However, this was not merely a "policy", but also practically
revealed that in Russia one type of capitalism (state capitalism) could
not be avoided. Without NEP, there is no question that the Bolshevik government
would have "perished" under the peasant revolts.
When Lenin proposed NEP in the spring of 1921, he could already recall
the emphasis on the progressiveness of state capitalism in Russia in the
debate with left-wing communism in April 1918. In the report from 1918
"Immediate Tasks Facing the Soviet Government" or in "Left-wing
Communism: An Infantile Disorder", Lenin emphasized the foolishness
of calling state capitalism reactionary when compared to abstract socialism
and state capitalism, and said that it should be clear that in Russia where
the great majority of people are small peasant producers, that state capitalism
is progressive and the first step in the direction of socialism and a necessary
thing.
Still, during the civil war-the period when "militaristic methods
were used in the economy" in which free commerce was "forbidden",
and food provisions were forcibly requisitioned from the peasants-Lenin's
idea was completely forgotten. However, with the end of the civil war,
it again came to light, and indeed had to. This was because it was the
only realistic and inevitable path in Russia.
But doesn't the shift from wartime "communism" to a type of capitalism
represent a terrible decline and breakdown for the proletarian state? Isn't
it strange or contradictory for the Communist Party to recognize the "freedom
of commerce"? Such expressions of unease and doubt could be heard
among the Bolsheviks and workers-especially among the ranks of the leftwing.
Faced with these misgivings, Lenin emphasized that wartime "communism"
cannot be considered as real communism, and that the forced requisition
of the peasants' products has nothing to do with communism. Rather, this
was a temporary measure taken in the midst of the severe conditions of
civil war. He stressed that in Russia unavoidable capitalism could not
be generated naturally, and had to take the path of state capitalism, which
would be a more progressive system than wartime "communism" and
only this path could make possible the shift to socialism. Furthermore,
communism and the recognition of free commerce were in contradiction, but
the question was one of "degree".
NEP was not simply the recognition of the freedom of peasants to sell their
products, but also signified the transition to large-scale business planning
for industrial production. At the time of NEP, the Bolshevik government
tacitly assumed that by giving some socialistic tinges to simple commodity
exchange (i.e. the exchange of products without the mediation of money)
and through the exchange of industrial and agricultural products, in the
near future it would be possible to revive the heavy industry which would
make socialism possible. But commodity exchange inevitably (as Marx's Das
Kapital shows!) takes the form of sales and purchases, and generates commerce.
Already in the autumn of 1921, Lenin gave the following overview at the
Moscow conference.
"We must admit that we have not retreated far enough, that we must
make a further retreat, a further retreat from state capitalism to the
creation of state-regulated buying and selling, to the money system. Nothing
came of commodity exchange; the private market proved too strong for us;
and instead of the exchange of commodities we got ordinary buying and selling,
trade." "Now we find ourselves in the position of having to retreat
even a little further, not only to state capitalism, but to the state regulation
of trade and the money system. Only in this way, a longer way than we expected,
can we restore economic life. Unless we re-establish a regular system of
economic relations, restore small-peasant farming, and restore and further
expand large-scale industry by our own efforts, we shall fail to extricate
ourselves from the crisis." (Seventh Moscow Gubernia Conference of
the Russian Communist Party"Collected Works Vol. 33 pp. 96-7)
Under NEP, even national businesses could purchase raw materials from other
state or private industries without State approval, and sell products in
the same way. This was based, not on a "system of consultation"
(of "specialist" business leaders, labor unions or the Party),
but rather managed by the "independent" responsibility system
of the business leaders.
NEP was the "New Economic Policy" of the Bolshevik government,
but more than simply a policy, it also revealed the inevitability of capitalism
in Russia regardless of its form. This new economy was progressive when
compared to the petty bourgeois economy. Still it was not socialism, but
in fact its opposite, and capitalism no matter how it was organized. Above
all, NEP eloquently speaks of the inability, economically, for the Russian
Revolution to overcome the bourgeois limits-which the Russian Marxists
had already firmly emphasized at the end of 19th century against the Narodniks.
7. The Secret of the Stalin System
In the previous section we explained that in Russia, even after the revolution,
a type of capitalism was necessary, and that this was NEP (New Economic
Policy). However, before even lasting ten years, a shift was made from
NEP to the Stalinist system of forced industrialization and collectivized
agriculture.
Stalin called this "the victory of socialism", but in fact this
was essentially the revival of wartime "communism". This was
achieved not through the militaristic methods to manage victory in the
civil war, but in order to achieve rapid industrialization and economic
construction.
Why was the shift from NEP to the Stalinist System necessary? What exactly
did this signify? In the course of the 1920's, it became clear that the
policy of NEP could not ensure the satisfactory development of Russian
industry. The peasants who had become rich under NEP grew increasingly
reluctant to supply grain to the proletarian state. On the other hand,
industry was also unable to provide adequate supplies of industrial goods
to the peasants. The famous "scissor phenomenon" appeared in
which the price of industrial goods rose while the price of agricultural
goods dropped. Due to insufficient supply from the peasants, the government
had to cancel exports of grain to foreign countries, and consequently had
to terminate its foreign orders for machinery and raw materials. In the
cities there was a shortage of food, and the price of bread rose, among
other problems. There was thus a rise again in the tensions between city
and country.
From the mid-Twenties, a fierce debate waged within the Bolshevik party
concerning what policies should be taken towards the conditions of NEP
(what to do about NEP-men and rich farmers), as well as the future direction
of economic policy (the form and tempo of industrialization).
On the one hand were those who advocated a policy to develop heavy industry
and accumulate "capital" for this purpose, while on the other
hand were those who wanted to broaden the compromise with the peasants
and deal with pressing problems. The former was more or less the position
of those allied with Trotsky and later represented by the political program
of the "Left Opposition", while latter was represented by Bukharin
and Stalin.
Preobrazhensky, who had the support of Trotsky, argued that currently Russia
was in a "period of primitive socialist accumulation", and developed
a theory that surplus value should be exploited from the peasants in order
to accumulate capital for industrialization. This theory appears to have
been the "forerunner" to Stalin's policy in the 1930's.
In fact, Stalin followed Trotsky and "stole" the program of the
Trotskyists, abandoned his former expressions of camaraderie towards the
peasants, and rapidly headed towards a policy of agriculture collectivization
and heavy industry, thereby creating a "planned economy", i.e.,
a heavily centralized government. As in the former period of wartime "communism",
an economic system appeared wherein the "natural economy" was
dominant while currency faded into the background. It appeared as if the
society Lenin referred to as being governed by "commodity exchange"
without sales and businesses had appeared..
Clearly, it was a tremendous task for post-revolutionary Russia to build
heavy industry through its own power. Already in 1922, Lenin said: "The
economic history of capitalist countries shows that heavy industry in backward
countries can only be developed with the aid of long-term loans of hundreds
of millions of dollars or gold rubles. We did not get such loans, and so
far have received nothing." ("Fourth Congress of Communist International",
Collected Works Vol. 33, p. 425.)
The necessity of the Stalinist system arose from the need to completely
incorporate the peasants into the system of state capitalism, and develop
heavy industry and the national economic development at a high tempo through
the exploitation of the peasants who made up the bulk of the population,
while forcing of compulsory labor on the workers. Stalin called his own
system "socialism" because NEP had been overcome, and expected
that exchange of products which was only taking place in the sector of
the "production means" of state industries, would eventually
spread to the entire national economy, and cover all production and distribution.
He declared that the fact that the products of national industry had prices
and business calculations were employed was "all merely formality".
However, in the 1960's, the "liberalization" of the economy revealed
that the "exchange of products" and business calculations, which
Stalin had viewed as an outward appearance, were in fact something more
essential. It could appear that Russia under the Stalinists system had
overcome NEP and state capitalism because this was hidden by an excessive
system of compulsion and orders, and because the most fundamental thing
for the production commodity and capital was suppressed. For example, state
industries ignored calculations and sold products at the lowest price because
the free market was forbidden and the state centralized and controlled
the entire economy, and because of assistance from the state. In this was
the Stalinists system was able to build heavy industry in Russia through
the sacrifices of the working people. This was the historical task of this
system.
"Liberalization" revealed the hidden nature of the Stalinists
system. This was not socialism which had overcome Lenin's state capitalism,
but the one-sided implementation of militaristic methods of state capitalism
to force economic construction. In this sense, the Stalinist system is
one historical form of state capitalism.
In this "liberalization", just as in 1921 when the bureaucracy
and centralization of wartime "communism" was negated, the compulsory
system and bureaucratic inefficiency of the Stalinist system were rejected,
and "profit" was granted citizenship, so to speak, and the role
of "profit" was introduced as a means to measure economic efficiency.
Companies gained greater autonomy, and their character as businesses was
strengthened. This revealed that the Stalinist system was also a bourgeois
system (even though this was severely repressed within the system of a
strong state).
Lenin called state capitalism the eve of socialism, and said that Russia
could only move to socialism by means of state capitalism. Despite any
number of errors within Lenin's view, this basic idea itself is correct.
It is still not clear what shape the shift from state capitalism to socialism
will take, but the necessity of such a shift is certain.
8. What Was The Russian Revolution --- Its Meaning and "Limits"
We have now come to the stage where we must give an overall summary of
the Russian revolution.
It is clear that the Russian working class overthrew, not only the feudal
government, but also the power of capital and attained power. -However,
this was not the full extent of the matter. That is, this did not represent
the ascension to power of the workers as the dominant force with a segment
of the petty bourgeoisie trailing behind. Rather, power was literally shared
(and indeed had to be) with the petty bourgeoisie (peasants). Herein lies
the glory and tragedy of the Russian working class. The Russian Revolution
propelled the workers into power, but blocked the path for the workers
to realize socialism. While giving priority to the interests of the peasants
and themselves, they were unable to construct socialism.
The fact that the political and economic content of a revolution can be
divided to a certain degree can often be seen throughout history, particularly
in the Jacobin rule in the French Revolution. Because the rule of the Jacobins
overreached its own epoch, it was bound to collapse. On the other hand,
while the rule of the Bolsheviks did not collapse, it did fundamentally
change. What is the difference between the Jacobin and Bolshevik rule?
They are the same in terms of being, in a certain sense, governments ahead
of their time. The Jacobins acted as a historical lever to fundamentally
wipe out feudal power, and thereby open the path for the development of
capitalism. This was completely impossible under rule of a moderate bourgeois
party. The rule of the Bolsheviks also performed a similar function, while
at the same time introducing some socialistic politicians and stamping
the revolution with proletarian marks. Furthermore, by compromising with
the peasants, the Bolsheviks were able to incorporate capitalism within
their system, and thus avoid the fate of collapse and destruction. However,
in the course of wartime "communism" and NEP, the Bolshevik government
was forced to transform in a bureaucratic and petty bourgeois fashion.
There is the question of what might have happened had a world revolution
broken out at the end of the 1910's or in the 1920's. It is often said
that both Lenin and Trotsky (especially the latter) expected a world revolution,
and that Brest-Litovsk and NEP were only measures to "buy time".
It is said that if a revolution were to have occurred in Germany, then
the fate of Russia (and the entire world) would have changed, and the "use"
of capitalism (NEP) would have probably ended as "use" only.
However, this sort of prediction is meaningless. In reality, the state
capitalism of the Soviet Union has significance as one historical society,
and is "fixed" as this sort of thing. Moreover, even if proletarian
revolution were to occur now in Europe, North America or Japan, this does
not mean that the Soviet bureaucrats would automatically move towards socialism.
By calling his system "socialism", Stalin concealed from the
eyes of the workers throughout the world the essence of the post-revolutionary
state, and the true content of the Russian Revolution. In the inner-party
debates with Trotsky in the Twenties, Stalin tried to characterize the
Russian Revolution against Trotsky's theory of "permanent revolution".
In his essay on Lenin ("Foundation of Leninism"), Stalin sophistically
argued that in "Two Tactics", Lenin "depicted the bourgeois-democratic
revolution and the socialist revolution as two links in the same chain,
a single and integral picture of the sweep of the Russian revolution."
(Stalin Collected Works Vol. 6 p. 30.) However, by merely expediently combining
Lenin's view to the outcome of the Russian Revolution he only ends up distorting
Leninism because his argument is based on a different idea than Lenin's
view around 1905 [the time he wrote "Two Tactics"] that the approaching
revolution in Russia would be a democratic revolution. When Lenin spoke
of socialist revolution, it is perfectly clear that he was referring to
the prospect after the democratic revolution had been completed (and this
was not the short period from February to October, but a longer period
of years or decades). If Lenin had thought that bourgeois democratic revolution
and socialist revolution were "two links in the same chain",
then the content of "Two Tactics" would have been entirely different.
By distorting Lenin's thought, Stalin forced upon the workers of the world
his dogma that "the idea of the bourgeois revolution passing into
the proletarian revolution" was "one of the cornerstones of the
Leninist theory of revolution." (Ibid. p. 31.) This theory of the
"extension" of the revolution is now the "common property"
of all the Communist Parties in the world.
Stalin's explanation of Lenin is carried out from a completely Trotskyist
perspective. This amounts to the equation of Trotsky's theory of permanent
revolution with Lenin's theory since it borrows the idea from Trotsky that
a bourgeois revolution, according to the logic of political struggle, must
turn into a proletarian revolution. Tailing after Trotsky's theory-completely
natural for the totally unoriginal Stalin-Stalin attacks Trotsky for "ignoring
the role of the peasants", not his theory of the continuation of the
revolution, and thereby avows his own "pro"- Trotskyist position.
The view of Trotsky=Stalin, which ignores the economic content of the Russian
Revolution, and draws the conclusion, from the political process only,
that the theory of "extended" revolution was proven correct because
the February revolution was bourgeois while the October revolution was
a socialist revolution, is completely one-sided and dogmatic. This approach
cannot not scientifically elucidate the true meaning and significance of
the Russian Revolution, or its limitations.
The Russian Revolution was a monumental revolution, and without question
the great forerunner of modern socialist revolution; as long as the class
struggles of workers aiming for socialism continue, its significance will
only grow larger. Still, while recognizing the significance of this revolution,
we must also look squarely at its limitations (which appeared with NEP
and as the Stalinists system). The idea of Russian Marxists that the coming
revolution was a bourgeois one to open the path for capitalist development,
was not a simple mistaken theory-as Trotskyists often claim-but rather
a profound observation on the basis of the materialist conception of history.
The task of the working class in Japan, is to decisively wipe out Stalinism
which has spread confusion and opportunism to the working class of the
world for decades through the distortion of the experience of the Russian
Revolution; to inherit the ideal and desire for socialism that the Russian
working class tried, but could not accomplish, and realize it in Japan
and throughout the entire world.
|
