# Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder/Chapter 10

CHAPTER X
SOME CONCLUSIONS
The Russian bourgeois revolution of 1905 stands out in one respect as a unique turning-point in the world's history. In one of the most backward capitalist countries, a strike movement developed which was unprecedented for its extent and strength. During the first month of 1905, the number of strikers was ten times the average yearly number for the previous ten years (1895-1904) and, from January to October, 1905, strikes grew continuously and in tremendous dimensions. Backward Russia, under the influence of a great many quite peculiar historical conditions, was the first to show to the world, not only the wave-like growth of the activity of the oppressed masses during the revolution—a feature common to all great revolutions—but also the importance of the proletariat, infinitely greater than its numerical position in the population. It showed the world the blending of the economic and political strikes, the latter transforming itself into armed insurrection; it showed the birth of a new form of mass action and mass organization of the classes oppressed by capitalism—i.e., the Soviets.
The February and October revolutions of 1917 brought the Soviets to complete development on a national scale, and subsequently to their victory in the proletarian Socialist revolution. And, less than two years after, the international character of the Soviets revealed itself in the spread of this form of organization over the world-wide struggle of the working class. It became apparent that the historical mission of the Soviets was to be the grave-digger, the heir and the successor of the bourgeois parliamentarism, and bourgeois democracy generally.
Furthermore, the history of the working-class movement ​now shows that in all countries it must experience (and has already begun to experience) a struggle before it grows and strengthens towards the victory of Communism. The struggle is, first and foremost, with the opportunism and social-chauvinism of the "Menshevik" element in its particular country; secondly, the struggle is, in some sort, with "Left" Communism. The first stage of this struggle has developed itself in all countries, without, it seems, a single exception, as the fight between the Second (now practically killed) and Third Internationals. The second stage of the struggle can be observed in Germany, in England, in Italy and in America (at least a certain part of the Industrial Workers of the World and the anarcho-syndicalist elements in America defend the errors of "Left" Communism side by side with an almost general, almost unconditional acceptance of the Soviet system). This phase of the struggle can also be observed in France, where the hostile attitude of a part of the former Syndicalists towards the political party and parliamentary action exists side by side with the recognition of the Soviets. This similarity makes the struggle against "Left" Communism not only international but also world-wide in its scope.
But, while it everywhere goes through substantially the same training school for victory over the bourgeoisie, the Labor movement of each country effects this development after its own manner. The big advanced capitalist countries progress along the road much more rapidly than did the Bolsheviks, who were granted by history a period of fifteen years to prepare for victory as an organized political force. The Third International, within the short space of one year, has already scored a decisive victory, has defeated the yellow, social-chauvinist Second International. Only a few months ago the latter was incomparably stronger than the Third; it appeared stable and potent; it enjoyed support from all sides, direct material assistance (Ministerial posts, passports, the Press) as well as the moral support of the bourgeoisie all over the world. To-day it is dying.
The main thing now is that the Communists of each country should, in full consciousness, study both the fundamental problems of the struggle with opportunism and "Left" ​doctrinairism, and the specific peculiarities which this struggle inevitably assumes in each separate country, according to the idiosyncrasies of its politics, economics, culture, national compositions (e.g., Ireland), its colonies, religious divisions, etc. Everywhere is felt an ever-widening and increasing dissatisfaction with the Second International, a dissatisfaction due to its opportunism and its incapacity to create a real leading center, able to direct the international tactics of the revolutionary proletariat in the struggle for the world Soviet Republic. One must clearly realize that such a leading center can, under no circumstances, be built after a single model, by a mechanical adjustment and equalization of the tactical rules of the struggle. The national and State differences, now existing between peoples and countries, will continue to exist for a very long time, even after the realization of the proletarian dictatorship on a world scale. Unity of international tactics in the Communist Labor movement everywhere demands, not the elimination of variety, not the abolition of the national peculiarities (this at the present moment is a foolish dream), but such an application of the fundamental principles of Communism—Soviet power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat—as will admit of the right modification of these principles, in their adaptation and application to national and national-State differences. The principal problem of the historical moment in which all advanced (and not only the advanced) countries now find themselves lies here; that specific national peculiarities must be studied, ascertained, and grasped before concrete attempts are made in any country to solve the aspects of the single international problem, to overcome opportunism and Left doctrinairism within the working-class movement, to overthrow the bourgeoisie, and to institute a Soviet Republic and proletarian dictatorship
The main thing—although far from everything—has already been achieved in winning over the vanguard of the working class, in winning it over to the side of Soviet power against parliamentarism, to the side of proletarian dictatorship against bourgeois democracy. Now all efforts, all attention, must be concentrated on the next step, which seems, and from a certain standpoint really is, less fundamental, but which is, in ​fact, much nearer to a practical solution of the proletarian revolution. That step is to discover the forms of approach or transition to the proletarian revolution.
The proletarian vanguard has been won over to our ideas. That is the main thing. Without this, not even the first step to victory can be taken, but victory is still distant. With the vanguard alone, victory is impossible. It would be not only foolish, but criminal, to throw the vanguard into the final struggle so long as the whole class, the general mass, has not taken up a position either of direct support of the vanguard or at least of benevolent neutrality toward it, so long as all probability of its supporting the enemy is not past. And, in order that really the whole class, the general mass, of toilers oppressed by capitalism may come to such a position, propaganda and agitation alone are not sufficient. For this, the masses must have their own political experience. Such is the fundamental law of all great revolutions, now confirmed with striking force and vividness, not only in Russia, but also in Germany. It has been necessary, not only for the backward, often illiterate, masses of Russia, but for the highly cultured, entirely literate masses of Germany as well, to realize, through their own suffering, the impotence and characterlessness, the helplessness and servility before the bourgeoisie, the dastardliness of the government of the knights of the Second International, the inevitability of a choice between the dictatorship of the extreme reactionaries (Komilov in Russia, Kapp and Co. in Germany), and the complete dictatorship of the proletariat—in order to turn them resolutely towards Communism.
The problem of the day for a class-conscious vanguard in the international labor movement (i.e., for the Communist Parties and those groups with Communist tendencies) is to be able to bring the general mass—still, in the majority of cases, slumbering, apathetic, hidebound and ignorant—to their new position; it is to be able to lead, not only their own party, but also the masses, during the transitional period. Some feel that the first problem—that of gaining the conscious vanguard of the working-class to the side of Soviet power and proletarian dictatorship—is impossible to solve without a complete ideological and political victory over opportunism and ​social-chauvinism. If this is so, the second problem—that of bringing the masses over to their new position, which alone can assure the victory of the vanguard in the revolution—cannot be solved without liquidation of Left doctrinairism, without completely overcoming and getting rid of its mistakes.
So long as the question was, and still is, one of gaining the vanguard of the proletariat for Communism, just so long and so far will propaganda take the first place; even sectarian circles, with all the imperfections of sectarianism, here give useful and truthful results. But when the question is one of the practical activities of the masses, of the disposition—if it be permissable to use this expression—of armies numbering millions and of the distribution of all the class forces of a given society, for the last and decisive fight, here propaganda alone, the mere repetition of the truths of "pure" Communism, will avail nothing. Here one must count by millions and tens of millions, not by thousands, as, after all, the propaganda does, the member of a small group that never yet led the masses. Here one must ask oneself, not only whether the vanguard of the revolutionary class has been convinced, but also whether the historically active forces of all classes of a given society have been properly distributed, so that the final battle may not be premature. One must make sure, first, that all the class forces hostile to us have fallen into complete enough confusion, are sufficiently at loggerheads with each other, have sufficiently weakened themselves in a struggle beyond their capacities, to give us a chance of victory; secondly, one must ensure that all the vacillating, wavering, unstable, intermediate elements—the petit bourgeoisie and the petit-bourgeois democracy, in contradistinction to the bourgeoisie—have sufficiently exposed themselves in the eyes of the people, and have disgraced themselves through their material bankruptcy; thirdly, one must have the feeling of the masses in favor of supporting the most determined, unselfishly resolute, revolutionary action against the bourgeoisie.
Then, indeed, revolution is ripe; then, indeed, if we have correctly gauged all the conditions briefly outlined above, and if we have chosen the moment rightly, our victory is assured.
The differences between the Churchills and Lloyd Georges ​(these political types exist in all countries, allowing for trifling national variations) and between the Hendersons and Lloyd Georges are quite unimportant and shallow from the viewpoint of pure—i.e., of abstract Communism, that is, of Communism which has not yet ripened into practical mass political activity. But from the viewpoint of the practical activity of the masses, these differences are exceedingly important. The Communist who wishes to be not only a class-conscious convinced propagandist, but a practical leader of the masses in the revolution, must carefully estimate these differences, and determine the moment of the complete maturity of the conflicts which inevitably weaken and debilitate all these "friends"; herein lies his whole work, his whole problem. It is necessary to coordinate the strictest devotion to the ideas of Communism with the ability to accept all necessary practical compromises, manœuvring, temporizings, zig-zags, retreats and the like. This co-ordination is essential in order to hasten the rise and fall, the realization and the withering away, of the political power of the Hendersons (the heroes of the Second International, to mention no names, the representatives of the petit bourgeois democracy who call themselves Socialists); it is essential in order to facilitate their inevitable practical bankruptcy, which enlightens the masses precisely after our ideas, precisely in the direction of Communism. One must precipitate the inevitable quarrel and conflicts between the Hendersons, Lloyd Georges and Churchills (Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, Cadets and Monarchists; Scheidemanns, bourgeoisie, and Kapps, etc.) and choose correctly the moment of the maximum disintegration between all these "buttresses of sacred private property," in order to defeat them all in one decisive offensive of the proletariat, and conquer political power.
History in general, the history of revolutions in particular, has always been richer, more varied and variform, more vital and "cunning" than is conceived of by the best parties, by the most conscious vanguards of the most advanced classes. This is natural, for the best vanguards express the consciousness, will, passions and fancies of but tens of thousands, whereas the revolution is effected at the moment of the exceptional uplift and exertion of all the human faculties—consciousness, ​will, passion, phantasy—of tens of millions, spurred on by the bitterest class war. From this there follow two very important practical conclusions; first, the revolutionary class, for the realization of its object, must be able to master all forms or aspects of social activity, without the slightest exception (completing, after the conquest of political power, sometimes with great risk and tremendous danger, what had been left undone before this conquest); secondly, that the revolutionary classes must be ready for the most rapid and unexpected substitution of one form for another.
Everyone will agree that the behavior of that army which does not prepare to master all types of weapons, all means and methods of warfare which the enemy may possess, is unwise and even criminal; but this applies even more to politics than to armies. In politics it is still less possible to foresee which means of struggle, under the varying future circumstances, will prove applicable and useful to us. If we do not possess all the means of struggle, we may suffer a heavy—at times even a decisive—defeat, if the changes in the situation of other classes which are beyond our control should make the order the day that form of activity in which we are especially weak. Possessing all the means of struggle, we surely conquer, once we represent the interests of the truly foremost, truly revolutionary class, even though circumstances may not permit us to use all the weapons most dangerous to our enemy, weapons which the more quickly deal him deadly blows.
Inexperienced revolutionaries often think that legal means of struggle are opportunist, for the bourgeoisie often (especially in "peaceful" non-revolutionary times) use such legal means to deceive and fool the workers. On the other hand they think that illegal means in the struggle are revolutionary. This is not true. What is true is that the opportunists and traitors of the working class are those parties and leaders who are unable, or who do not want ("Don't say 'I can't,' say 'I won't'") to apply illegal means to the struggle. Take, for example, such conditions as prevailed during the imperialist war of 1914-1918, when the bourgeoisie of the freest democratic countries deceived the workers with an outrageous insolence ​and cruelty, prohibiting the truth as to the marauding character of the war to be spoken.
But those who cannot co-ordinate illegal forms of the struggle with legal ones are very poor revolutionaries. It is not at all difficult to be a good revolutionary once the revolution has already broken out—when all and everyone joins the revolution from mere enthusiasm, because it is the fashion, sometimes even from considerations of personal gain. It costs the proletariat labor, great labor and I may say excruciating pains, to rid itself after the victory of these pseudo-revolutionists. But it is far more difficult, and yet more valuable, to know how to be a revolutionary, even when conditions are yet lacking for direct, general, truly mass, and truly revolutionary action; to be able to defend the interests of the revolution by propaganda, agitation and organization, in non-revolutionary institutions and often times in downright reactionary surroundings, amongst masses that are incapable of immediately understanding the necessity for revolutionary methods. To be able to find, to sense, to determine the concrete plan of still incomplete revolutionary methods and measures, leading the masses to the real, decisive, final, great revolutionary struggle—this is the chief problem of modern Communism in Western Europe and America.
Take, for example, Britain. We cannot know, and no one is capable of predicting truly, how soon a real proletarian revolution will break out there, and what, more than any other, will be the cause which will awaken and inflame the now slumbering masses to revolution. It is therefore incumbent upon us to carry on our preparatory work so as to be "shod on all four feet," as the late Plekhanoff was wont to say, when he was yet a Marxist and a revolutionist. Possibly it will be a parliamentary crisis which will "break the ice"; possibly it will be a crisis resulting from the hopelessly confused colonial and imperialist antagonisms, which become more and more painful and acute from day to day; possibly from some quite unseen third cause. We are not speaking of which struggle will decide the fate of the proletarian revolution in England—this question does not rouse any doubts in the minds of Communists, this question for all of us is decided and decided finally—we ​are speaking of what will induce the now slumbering proletarian masses to move towards and directly approach the revolution. Let us not forget how in the French bourgeois revolution, in a situation which, from the international and domestic aspect, was a hundred times less revolutionary than at present, such an unexpected and petty cause as one among thousands of dishonest tricks of the reactionary military caste (the Dreyfus case) was enough to bring the people face to face with civil war.
The Communists in Britain must continuously, assiduously and determinedly utilize both the parliamentary elections and every opening offered by the Irish, colonial and world-imperialist policy of the British Government, and all other aspects, domains and spheres of public life, working everywhere in the new Communist spirit, the spirit not of the Second, but of the Third International. Neither time nor space permits me to describe here the manner of the Russian Bolshevik participation in the parliamentary elections and struggle; but I can assure the Communists abroad that it was not at all like the usual West European parliamentary campaign. From this the conclusion is often drawn "Oh, well, our parliamentarism is different from yours in Russia." This is the wrong conclusion. Communists, adherents to the Third International, exist in all countries precisely for the purpose of adapting, along the whole line, in every domain of life, the old Socialist, Trade Unionist, Syndicalist and parliamentarian activities to the new Communist idea. We, too, had plenty of opportunism, pure bourgeois traffickings, rascally capitalist dealings in our elections. The Communists of Western Europe and America must learn to create a new parliamentarism, entirely distinct from the usual opportunist, office-seeking form. This new parliamentarism must be used by the Communist Party to set forth its program; it must be used by the real proletariat, who, in co-operation with the unorganized and very much ignored poor, should go from house to house of the workers, from hut to hut of the agricultural proletariat and isolated peasantry, carrying and distributing leaflets. (Fortunately, in Europe there are fewer isolated peasants than in Russia, and fewer still in England) The ​Communist should penetrate into the humblest taverns, should find his way into the unions, societies, and chance gatherings of the common people and talk with them, not learnedly, nor too much after the parliamentary fashion. He should not for a moment think of a "place" in parliament; his only object should be everywhere to awaken the minds of the people, to attract the masses, to trip the bourgeoisie up on their own words, utilizing the apparatus created by them, the election contests arranged by them, the appeals to the whole people issued by them, to preach Bolshevism to the masses. Under the rule of the bourgeoisie this is possible only during an election campaign—not counting, of course, the occasion of great strikes, when a similar apparatus of general agitation may be utilized, as we utilized it, still more intensely. It is exceedingly difficult to do this in Western Europe and America, but it can and must be done, for without labor the problems of Communism can in no way be solved. It is necessary to work for the solution of all practical problems which are becoming more and more varied, more and more involved with all branches of public life, as the Communists tend to conquer one field after another from the bourgeoisie.
Likewise in Britain it is necessary to put the work of propaganda, of agitation and organization in the army, and among the nationalities oppressed and deprived of equal rights in "their" Empire (e.g., Ireland, Egypt, etc.), on a new basis. This work must be carried on not on Socialist but on Communist lines, not in the reformist but in the revolutionary manner. For all these spheres of public life are especially filled with inflammable material and create many causes for conflicts, crises, enhancements of the class struggle. This is especially true in the epoch of imperialism generally, and particularly now when war has exhausted the peoples and has opened their eyes to the truth—namely, that tens of millions have been killed and maimed solely to decide whether English or German plunderers should rob more countries. We do not know, and we cannot know, which of the inflammable sparks which now fly in all countries, fanned by the economic and political world crisis, will be the one to start the conflagration (in the sense of a particular awakening of the masses); we ​are, therefore, bound to utilize our new Communist principles in the cultivation of all and every field of endeavor, no matter how old, rotten and seemingly hopeless. Otherwise we shall not be equal to the occasion, shall not be comprehensive, shall not be prepared to master all the types of weapons in the struggle, shall not be ready for victory over the bourgeoisie—which is responsible for the creation of all the aspects of public life, but which has now disrupted them, and disrupted them in a purely bourgeois manner. Not without careful preparation shall we be ready for the impending Communist reorganization of society after our victory.
After the proletarian revolution in Russia and the victories (so unexpected for the bourgeoisie and all philistines) on an international scale of this revolution, the whole world has become different. The bourgeoisie, too, has changed. The bourgeoisie is scared and enraged by "Bolshevism," and has been driven almost to the point of madness. On the one hand it hastens the development of events, and on the other it concentrates its attention on the forcible suppression of Bolshevism, thus weakening its position in a great many other fields. The Communists of all advanced countries must reckon with both these circumstances in their tactics.
When the Russian Cadets (Constitutional Democrats) and Kerensky raised a hue-and-cry against the Bolsheviks (especially after April, 1917, and particularly in June-July, 1917), they rather "overdid it." Millions of copies of bourgeois papers, which were raising all sorts of howls against the Bolsheviks, helped to draw the masses into a study of Bolshevism; and, apart from the newspapers, the whole public, precisely because of the zeal of the bourgeoisie, was taken up with discussions about Bolshevism. At present, the millionaires of all countries are behaving, on an international scale, in such a manner as to deserve our heartiest thanks. They are hunting Bolshevism with the same zeal as did Kerensky and Co.; they are "overdoing it," and helping us quite as much as did Kerensky. When the French bourgeoisie makes Bolshevism the central point of the election campaign, scolding as Bolsheviks the comparatively moderate and vacillating Socialists; when the American bourgeoisie, having completely lost its head, ​seizes thousands and thousands of people upon suspicion of Bolshevism, and creates an atmosphere of panic, spreading alarms of Bolshevik plots broadcast; when the English bourgeoisie (the "sedatest" in the world), in spite of all its wisdom and experience, commits acts of incredible stupidity, forms the richest "Counter-Bolshevik" societies, creates a special literature on the subject, and hires for the struggle against it a large number of scientists, priests and agitators—we must then bow and thank these worthy capitalists. They work for us. They help us to get the masses interested in the question of the nature and significance of Bolshevism. And they cannot act otherwise; for to "pass over" Bolshevism in silence, to stifle it—in this they have already failed.
But at the same time the bourgeoisie sees in Bolshevism only one side—insurrection, violence, terror; it endeavors therefore to prepare itself especially for resistance and opposition in that direction alone. It is possible that in single cases, in individual countries, and for more or less short periods, it will succeed. We must reckon with such a possibility, and there is absolutely nothing dreadful to us in the fact that the bourgeoisie might have temporary success in this. Communism "springs up" from positively all sides of social life. Its sprouts are everywhere; the "contagion," to use the favorite and pleasant metaphor of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois police, has very thoroughly penetrated the organism and totally impregnated it. If one of the outlets were to be stopped up with special care, the "contagion" would find another, sometimes a most unexpected, outlet. Life will assert itself. Leave the bourgeoisie to rage, let it work itself into a frenzy, commit stupidities, take vengeance in advance on the Bolsheviks, and endeavor to exterminate (in India, Hungary, Germany, etc.) more hundreds, thousands, and hundreds of thousands of the Bolsheviks of yesterday and tomorrow. Acting thus, the bourgeoisie acts as did all classes condemned to death by history. Communists know that the future at any rate is theirs; therefore, we can, and must, unite the intensest passion in the great revolutionary struggle with the coolest and soberest appreciation of the mad ravings of the bourgeoisie. The Russian revolution was defeated heavily in 1905; the Russian ​Bolsheviks were beaten in July, 1917; over 15,000 German Communists were killed by means of the clever provocation and the artful maneuvers of Scheidemann and Noske, working with the bourgeoisie and monarchist generals; White Terror is raging in Finland and Hungary. But in all cases and in all countries Communism grows and is hardened; its roots are so deep that persecution neither weakens nor debilitates, but rather strengthens it. Only one thing more is needed to lead us surely and firmly to victory, namely, the consciousness everywhere that all Communists, in all countries, must display a maximum flexibility in their tactics. The only thing wanting to Communism, which is splendidly advancing, especially in the advanced countries, is this consciousness and the skill of applying it in practice.
That which has happened to Kautsky, Otto Bauer and others, highly erudite Marxists, devoted to Socialism, and leaders of the Second International, could and ought to serve as a useful lesson. They fully appreciated the necessity of pliable tactics, they learned and taught to others the Marxist dialectics—and much of what they have done in that respect will remain for ever a valuable acquisition to Socialist literature. But in the application of these dialectics they made a great mistake; they showed themselves in practice to be so undialectic, and so incapable of reckoning with the rapid changes of forms and the rapid filling of old forms with new contents, that their fate is not much more enviable than that of Hyndman, Guesde and Plekhanoff. The main reason for their bankruptcy was that their eyes were "fastened" upon one fixed form of the growth of the working-class movement and of Socialism. They forgot all about its one-sidedness, and were afraid to perceive the sharp break which, by virtue of objective conditions, became unavoidable; so they continue to repeat the simple, at first glance self-evident truth, once learned by rote; "Three are more than two." But politics resembles algebra more than arithmetic, and it is more like higher than lower mathematics. In reality all the old forms of the Socialist movement have been filled with new contents; there appears before the figures, consequently, a new sign, a "minus"; and our wiseacres stubbornly continue to persuade themselves and others that "minus three" is more than "minus two!"
​Communists must endeavor not to repeat the same mistake; or, to speak more precisely, the same mistake—committed the other way round by the Left Communists—must be corrected sooner and more quickly in order to get rid of it with less pain to the organism. Not only Right but Left doctrinairism is a mistake. Of course the mistake of the latter in Communism is at the present moment a thousand times less dangerous and less significant than the mistake of Right doctrinairism. (i.e., social-chauvinism and Kautskianism); but, after all, this is due to the fact that Left Communism is quite a young current, just coming into being. For this reason the disease under certain conditions can be easily cured, and it is necessary to begin its treatment with the utmost energy.
The old forms have burst; for the contents (anti-proletarian and reactionary) obtained an inordinate development. We now have, from the standpoint of the development of international Communism, strong, powerful contents at work for Soviet power and the proletarian dictatorship, and these can and must manifest themselves in any form, new as old; the new spirit can and must regenerate, conquer and subjugate all forms, not only the new but the old, not for the purpose of reconciling the new with the old forms, but to enable us to forge all forms, new and old, into a weapon for the final decisive and unswerving victory of Communism.
The Communists must strain every effort to direct the movement of the working class, and the development of society generally, along the straightest and quickest way to the universal victory of Soviet power and the proletarian dictatorship. This truth is incontestable. But it is enough to take one little step farther—a step it would seem in the same direction—and truth is transformed into error! It is enough to say, as do the German and British "Left" Communists, that we acknowledge only one straight road, that we do not admit maneuvers, co-operation, compromises—and this will already be a mistake, which is capable of bringing, and, in fact, has brought and is bringing, the most serious harm to Communism. Right doctrinairism has foundered on the recognition of only the old forms, and has become totally bankrupt, not having perceived the new contents. Left doctrinairism unconditionally ​repudiates certain old forms, failing to see that the new content is breaking its way through all and every form, that it is our duty as Communists to master them all, to learn how to supplement, with the maximum rapidity, one form by another, and to adapt our tactics to all such changes, caused not by our class nor by our endeavors.
World revolution has been given a powerful impetus by the horrors, atrocities and villainies of the world imperialist war, and by the hopelessness of the position created by it. This revolution is spreading more widely and deeply with such supreme rapidity, with such splendid richness of varying forms, with such an instructive, practical refutation of all doctrinairism, that there is every hope of a speedy and thorough recovery of the international Communist movement from the infantile disorder of "Left" Communism.
April 27, 1920.
Layout 2