# The Chief Task of Our Times

THE CHIEF TASK OF OUR TIMES
and
The Political Forces & Currents Facing the Russian Revolution
By VLADIMIR OULIANOFF (LENIN) Chairman of the People's Commissaries of the Russian Soviet Republic.
PRICE THREEPENCE
Published by THE WORKERS' SOCIALIST FEDERATION 400, OLD FORD ROAD, E 3.
page
THE CHIEF TASK OF OUR TIMES
By Lenin, Chairman of the Executive of the Russian Republic
You are wretched and you are prosperous, You are mighty and you are powerless, O Mother Russia.
The human race is at present passing through great and difficult changes which have (one can say it without the least exaggeration) a world-liberating significance. The world is passing to the war of the oppressed against the oppressors. In this new war the oppressed are struggling for liberation from the yoke of Capitalism; from the abyss of suffering, torment, hunger, and brutalisation; they desire to pass onward to the bright future of a communist society, to universal well-being and a secure peace. It is not surprising that at the most critical periods of such a drastic evolution, when the old order is cracking and bursting, and out of it, in indescribable travail, the new order is being born, some lose their heads, some give way to despair, and some seek salvation, from a, perchance, too bitter reality, in beautiful and alluring phrases.
It has fallen to the people of Russia to perceive very clearly, and to live with acute suffering through this harshest of historical transitions leading from Imperialism to the Social Revolution. In a few days we demolished one of the oldest, most powerful, most barbarous, and most cruel of monarchies. in a few months we went through the phases of coalition with the bourgeoisie and disillusionment in the bourgeois ideal, though it has taken other countries many years to reach this point. In a few weeks we deposed the bourgeoisie, and conquered its open resistance in civil war. Bolshevism swept the vast country in a triumphant procession from end to end. We raised to freedom and independence the lowest sections of the masses and those most oppressed by Czarism and the bourgeoisie. We have introduced and consolidated the Republic of Soviets, a new form of government, immeasurably loftier and more democratic than the best of the bourgeois Parliamentary Republics. We have established the dictatorship of the proletariat, supported by the poorest peasantry, and we have inaugurated a broadly conceived system of Socialist reform. We have awakened faith in our powers, and have kindled the flame of enthusiasm in millions and millions of workers of all lands. Everywhere we have raised the cry of the International Proletarian Revolution. We have thrown out a challenge to the imperialistic robbers of all lands.
BREST-LITOVSK.
And in a few days we, who had laid down cur arms, were thrown to the ground by the imperialistic robbers who attacked us. They forced, us to sign a harsh and ignoble peace, a tribute which we had to pay for having dared, if only for a short time, to escape from the iron fetters of an imperialistic war. These robbers are crushing and stifling and tearing Russia asunder, with a ferocity only equal to their dread of a proletarian revolution in their own country. We were forced to sign a "Tilsit" peace, but do not let us delude ourselves. One must have the courage to look the bitter and unvarnished truth in the face. One must fathom to its greatest depth the abyss of defeat, dismemberment, subjection, and humiliation into which we have been ​hurled. The clearer our realisation of this, the firmer will be our will to free ourselves, our endeavour to rise again from servitude to independence, and our unconquerable determination to secure that, in spite of everything, Russia shall be no more wretched and powerless, but truly mighty and prosperous.
It is possible for her to become so, for we still retain enough in territory, in natural wealth, in reserves of man power, and in the magnificent impetus given to national creativeness by the Revolution, to make Russia truly great and to provide everyone with sufficient, if not lavish, means of existence.
Russia will accomplish all that we desire for her, if she will but shake off all despondency and all empty phrases; if with set teeth she will gather all her strength, will strain every nerve and muscle, and will understand that the only path to salvation is the international Socialistic Revolution upon which we have entered. To go forward on this path, undiscouraged by defeat; to lay gradually the sound foundation of a Socialist Society; to work unceasingly for the creation of discipline and self-discipline, for the strengthening everywhere of organisation, order, and businesslike methods; the harmonious co-operation of the national forces; general co-ordination and control of production and distribution; such is the path to military and Socialist power.
It is unworthy of present-day Socialists, in time of heavy defeat, either to make a fuss, or to give way to despair. It is not true, that (from the point of view of a "gentleman") there is no way out for us, save the choice between an inglorious death in the shape of the harshest of all peace treaties; and a glorious death in a hopeless fight. It is not true that we have betrayed our ideals, or our friends, in signing the "Tilsit" peace. We have betrayed nothing and no one; we have not condoned, but have exposed every lie. We have not refused to help, as far as it was in our power to help, any comrade in misfortune.
The General who retires with the remnants of a beaten and panic-stricken army, and who defends this retirement in the case of extreme necessity by a harsh and humiliating peace, does not betray those sections of the army which he is unable to help and which are cut off by the enemy. Such a general fulfils his duty in selecting the only way of saving what can still be saved; refusing to embark on adventures; not glossing over the bitter truth before the people; but ceding ground in order to gain time; taking advantage of even the smallest respite in order to gather up strength and opportunity to recuperate for the army which was suffering from disintegration and demoralisation.
We have signed a "Tilsit" peace. When Napoleon in 1807 forced the "Tilsit" peace on Prussia, the conqueror had beaten all the forces of the Germans, had occupied the capital and all the large towns, had introduced his police, had forced the conquered to supply auxiliary troops for the prosecution of more wars of conquest for the conqueror, had dismembered Germany by making an alliance with one German power against other German powers. Nevertheless, the German people withstood even such a peace, and were able to rise again, and to acquire the right to freedom and independence.
To all those who desire to think, and know how to think, the example of the "Tilsit" peace (which was only one of the many harsh and humiliating peace treaties forced upon Germany) shows clearly how childish is the idea that, under all circumstances, a humiliating peace leads to irretrievable ruin, and a war to glory and salvation.
The history of wars teaches us that a peace not infrequently provides breathing time and allows of the gathering up of strength. The "Tilsit" peace was Germany's greatest humiliation, and, at the same time, the turning-point towards the greatest of national revivals. In those days the historical circumstances did not offer any other outlet for this revival than the formation of a bourgeois power. Then, but little more than a hundred years ago, history was made by a handful of nobles and a group of bourgeois intelligents; the masses of workmen and peasants were as yet hardly awake. In those days, therefore, history could only crawl along with exasperating slowness.
In our day Capitalism has raised the general standard of culture, but that of the masses only partially. The war has aroused the masses, it has ​awakened them by unheard-of perils and sufferings. The war has pushed history forward, and history is hurrying along with the speed of a locomotive. History is now made by the independent millions, and tens of millions, of people. Capitalism has now arrived at the level of Socialism.
And, therefore, if Russia is at present moving, as undoubtedly she is, from the "Tilsit" peace to the national revival, the outlet for this revival does not appear as an outlet to a bourgeois form of government, but to an International Socialist Revolution. We have been on the defensive since October 25th, 1917. We are defending our Motherland; but the national war, towards which we are moving, is a war for the Socialist Motherland, and we are a division of the universal army of Socialism.
"Hatred of the Germans," "Beat the Germans," such were and are the watchwords of the ordinary bourgeois patriotism, But we say: "Hatred of imperialistic robbers, hatred of Capitalism, death to Capitalism"; and at the same time: "Learn from the Germans, remain true to our fraternal union with the German workers." They are late in coming to our help; but we shall not wait for them in vain: they will come. Yes, learn from the Germans. History is taking a zig-zag route; it has come to pass that at present it is the German who personifies both brutal imperialism and the foundation of discipline, organisation, harmonious co-operation, based on the latest development of machinery, and the strictest co-ordination and control.
Organisation is just what we here lack, and just what we must acquire. It is precisely that which our great Revolution needs, and the possession of which would lead us from a victorious beginning, through a series of hard experiences, to a victorious end. Organisation is the thing which the Russian Republic of Soviets requires, in order to cease being wretched and weak, in order definitely to become powerful and prosperous.
(Reprinted from the "Isvestia," March 14th, 1918.)
THE POLITICAL CURRENTS AND ECONOMIC FORCES WITH WHICH THE REVOLUTION MUST CONTEND
A Speech delivered by Lenin to the Plenary Sitting of the Central Executive Committee of the Soviets.
Comrades,—The subject of the present report I have already expounded in the article on the immediate tasks of the Soviet Power which appeared in the Press on Sunday. I therefore assume that the majority of those present are familiar with it. Consequently I reed not repeat myself. The theme of the article on the immediate tasks of the Soviet Power is but an amplification of the resolution already adopted by the All-Russian Congress of Soviets in Moscow on March 16th. This resolution did not limit itself to the then paramount question of Peace, but also emphasised the chief task of the present moment; the task of organisation, self-discipline, and the struggle with disorganisation.
It seems to me that lately our political currents have flown in that direction; and I therefore think that in a polemical form it will be easiest to emphasise clearly what I endeavoured to outline in my article on immediate tasks.
Comrades, in order to estimate correctly, let us endeavour to survey all the political currents as a whole, for only thus can we guard against mistakes when forming our conclusions on each separate case. We can, of course, find any number of precedents in support of no matter what situation, but only by examining all the currents in their entity and their interdependence shall we be able to make an attempt to explain the connection between the future of the political currents in the country and the future of class interests, which are always an outcome of all serious and vast political movements.
As I survey the important political movements in Russia, I observe that they are clearly and indisputably divided into three large groups. In the first we have the whole bourgeoisie, having closely amalgamated, as one man, for a determined—nay, unreasoning—opposition to the Soviet Power. The word "opposition," as applied in this instance, can, of course, only be used in inverted commas, for we have here a frenzied struggle, which at once attracted to the side of the bourgeoisie all those lower middle-class Parties which were in agreement with Kerenski through the whole period of the revolution. The Mensheviki, the Novozhiznentzie (Party of "The New Life"), and the social revolutionaries of the Right have surpassed even the bourgeoisie in the virulence of their attacks upon us. But the fierceness of the attacks and the loudness of the bark are often in converse proportion to the strength of the political party from which they emerge. The whole bourgeoisie, with all its satellites and servants of the type of Tchernoff and Tseretelli, have united in their mad attacks on the Soviet Power. They are all hankering after the pleasant prospect of concluding, like their friends and fellow politicians in the Ukraine have, a peace which would enable them, with the help of German bayonets and the patriotic bourgeoisie, to destroy the influence of the Bolsheviki. This fact is too well known. A fine illustration of such friends we have in Ichkhenkeli in the Caucasus.
This is only natural. It is clear that the proletariat could not expect anything else, once they had assumed power and had begun to put into force the dictatorship of the workers against the oppressors and exploiters. In ​this case we have but one plan—a single and united front. When we are offered the chimera of a single democratic front, I always ask myself—at least, when I have the pleasure of reading or even casually glancing through such papers as "Naart Viek," "Diels Naroda," etc.—"What else do you want for a single democratic front? You have here the completest unity." And we cannot but rejoice at it, considering that this unity of front, from Miliukoff to Martoff, would deserve to receive on the 1st of May a testimonial for its splendid Bolshevik propaganda.
Comrdes, let us examine now another and an opposite camp; we shall find there none but our own Party: the Party of Communist Bolsheviki. Owing to the trend of events, it has come to pass that during the greater part of the post-October period our allies, the social revolutionaries of the Left, have at present ceased to take an active part in the Government. Their recent Congress has brought to the surface more clearly than ever the waverings and indecisions of the party.
If, taking the period before the split of the Socialist Revolutionaries into a Right and Left wing, you were to analyse month by month, beginning with February, 1917, with whom this party was siding—the proletariat or the bourgeoisie—you would come to the sad conclusion that the Socialist Revolutionary Party was subject to the fluctuations in temperature of a fever patient.
Assuredly, hardly any other Party in the history of the revolution has vacillated to such an extent.
When we study these three fundamental currents, we see quite clearly that this is not an accidental grouping, but that it fully bears out what already in 1915 we Bolsheviki pointed out from abroad, when we received the first news that the revolutionary movement in Russia was growing—that the revolution was inevitable,and when we had to explain the attitude of our Party in the event of it coming to power whilst the war was still going on. We said then: "It is possible for the revolution to be completely victorious if, at the decisive moment, the leading elements in the lower middle class should side with the proletariat." This has actually happened. Such was and is the trend of the Russian Revolution. In these waverings of the lower middle class there is no reason for pessimism or despair. But it is inevitable that in the country which has been the first to rise against the imperialist war; in the country which, mainly owing to its backwardness, has been placed by events for a short period ahead of the other more advanced countries, the Revolution must in the near future live through most trying and painful times. It would be preposterous to expect that in such times it would have no waverers in its ranks. To expect it would only prove that neither the class struggle nor the nature of parties and political groups had been taken into account.
When we consider all the political currents in Russia from the point of view of the immediate tasks of organisation, discipline, finance, and control, we perceive a very definite grouping; and we see that the group which constitutes the single democratic front, from Miliukoff to Martoff, does not make the least attempt to appreciate the opportunity to accomplish this task. There exists in this group a malicious desire, the more malicious the more complimentary to us, to find even some vestige of a possibility of overthrowing the Soviet Power.
Unfortunately, it is just those representatives of the Social Revolutionaries of the Left who had shown the greatest energy, initiative, and devotion to the revolution who were the first to waver on this question of the immediate tasks of the present moment; the tasks of proletarian discipline, finance, organisation, and control; those tasks which became essential to Socialists as soon as the workers and peasants had assumed power, and had repulsed the military attacks of the Kerenskis, Krassnoffs, Korniloffs, Gueguetcoris, and Alexieffs. Now, when we have reached the very core of the Revolution, the question is: Will proletarian discipline and organisation gain the upper hand, or will the power be seized by lower middle-class capitalists, who are particularly strong in Russia?
Our lower middle-class opponents will, wage their chief battle against us on the field of home politics and economic reconstruction; their weapon is sabotage in connection with everything which the proletariat ordains and ​endeavours to bring about for the establishment of an organised Socialist Commonwealth, On this field the element of bourgeois capitalism and boundless selfishness reveals itself as the determined enemy of the proletariat. And in the attitude which the lower bourgeois took up towards all the events of the revolution we see their complete disagreement with us; it is only natural that, precisely in this camp, we find the chief opposition to the accomplishment of the immediate tasks of the moment; here we have the opposition of people who agree with us on the question of principle, who support us on questions which are more vital than those which they criticise—it is an opposition combined with support.
When we see such a political phenomena as the agreement of the "Znamia Truda" with certain phases of Bolshevism and with some formulas of the Mensheviki—whose policy was a coalition with Kerenski—then we must look for something that will throw light on the real meaning of these attacks. It behoves us to take account of the attacks, because by arguing with these opponents we shall be able to put the true value on the principal tasks of the Soviet Power. The argument is interesting, because it exemplifies the Marxist theory.
In saying that it is interesting to argue with these opponents I do not, of course, mean that arguing is interesting for its own sake, but that the subject of the dispute concerns the most essential, fundamental questions of the present time. It is not a mere accident that the disputes are conducted on these lines. On these lines runs at present the fundamental task, the task of the revolutionary proletarian struggle, which is dictated by the real conditions of Russia, and which must be fully carried out in face of innumerable and divergent bourgeois currents. It is quite clear that the proletariat, in spite of all the surrounding difficulties, must realise that on this point it cannot make any concessions, considering that the Socialist Revolution, which began by depriving the bourgeoisie of its power, and continued by breaking the latter's resistance, makes it a matter of vital importance that all questions of proletarian discipline, the organisation of the workers, businesslike methods, and the knowledge of great industrial interests, should be considered. These questions the proletariat must solve in a practical way; otherwise it will suffer defeat. In the sphere of these tasks we find the chief present difficulty of the Socialist Revolution. That is why it is so interesting, so important, in the historical and political use of the word, to argue with the representatives of the group of Communists of the Left, although in examining their position, their theory, we see absolutely nothing—I reiterate, and am going to prove it—but mere bourgeois waverings. Our comrades of the group of Communists of the Left, no matter by what name they go, are striking at their own doctrines, I assume that this is known to the majority of those present, because since March, even in Bolshevist circles, their doctrines have been discussed ; even those who have not studied their political propaganda literature could not help knowing of the doctrines from the debates at the All-Russian Congress of Soviets.
In their doctrines, as in those of the Social Revolutionaries of the Left, we see precisely what we see in the camp of the Right: the camp of the bourgeoisie, from Miliukoff down to Martoff, who find the present "misfortunes" of Russia extremely hard to bear, from the point of view of the loss of her autocratic power, of her transformation from a nation and Power of oppressors into a country of oppressed. When it becomes necessary to decide the question (not only on paper but by action) whether the hard path which leads to Socialism and the initial hardships of the Socialist Revolution are worth even the heaviest defeats as far as the country's sovereignty and national independence are concerned, our disagreement is strongest. It is clear to us that, while the imperialists are waging a mad struggle for the partition of the world, it is impossible for many nations which were formerly dominant to escape heavy defeat. Conscious Socialists must and will accept such trials, no matter how heavy they may weigh upon humanity. On this point the Social Revolutionaries of the Left, as well as the Communists of the Left, have shown the greatest indecision.
They pay the greatest attention to the question of the peace. They endeavour to prove that this peace was the manifestation of the psychology of ​worn-out and demoralised masses. They continually remind us that at the voting on the question of peace 18 votes were against and 28 for the conclusion of peace. But should not one, in recalling the voting six weeks ago, examine the figures a little more closely? If we were to give any political significance to this voting, then should not we take cognisance of the voting of the All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets? Before stating that the healthy South was against, and the exhausted, demoralised, industrially weakened North was for peace, should not one recall the voting of the majority of sections of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, at which less than a tenth of the votes were against peace? If we are to quote figures, and give them a political significance, we must take political ballots as a whole, and then we shall see that the parties which had learned certain watchwords, and had made a fetich of them, voted on the side of the lower middle. classes, and that the labouring and exploited masses, the workers, soldiers, and peasants, did not reject peace. As to the demoralised elements, it is precisely the demoralised "intelligentsia" who were against peace, but the masses of toilers were all on out side on that question. Certainly the peace we have concluded is extremely unstable, and there is no doubt whatever that the respite which has been given us can be interrupted any day from the West, as well as from the East. Our international position is so critical that we must strain every nerve in order to remain in power as long as possible, so as to give time for the development of the Western Revolution, which is growing much more slowly than we expected and wished, but nevertheless is growing; undoubtedly it is imbibing and gathering more and more inflammable material.
If we were the first to come to the front as a separate division of the world's proletariat, it is not because this division is better organised. No, it is inferior, weaker, less organised than others; but it would be absurd and pedantic to argue, as many do: "Yes, if the start were made by the most organised division, followed first by the less organised, and then by the third best-organised, then we would all willingly become the advocates of the Socialist Revolution, But since things have happened not according to rule, and the vanguard was not supported by the other divisions, the Revolution is doomed to failure." We reply: No, our task is to reform the whole organisation; and further, in view of our isolation, to maintain the Revolution, to preserve in it some form of Socialism, no matter how weak and limited, while the Revolution is maturing in the other countries, while the other divisions are getting ready. To expect from history that it will put in motion the Socialist divisions of the different countries in a strict graduation and according to plan is either to show complete ignorance of the revolution or to refuse to support the Socialist Revolution for no other reason than one's own stupidity. At this moment, when we occupy a firm position in Russia, and have not strength for the fight against international imperialism, we have only one task and one policy: it can be termed the policy of tacking, waiting, and retreating, I know very well,that these words cannot claim popularity, that they lend themselves to a double interpretation and to the linking together with the word "coalition." Thus they can lead to no end of piquant deductions, and to all sorts of recriminations and raillery. But if our opponents—the bourgeois of the Right, our recent friends, the Social Revolutionaries of the Left, and our friends of yesterday, to-day and to-morrow, the Communists of the Left—were to use all their batteries of wit against us, and to give us any number of proofs of the virtue of their indecisions (which they cannot deny), these would have no effect upon us whatever, for events have proved us right. We have had a respite, because the imperialist war slaughter is still going on, and in the Far East the rivalry is growing. These facts alone can explain the continued existence of the Soviet Republic.
We shall neither be protected by any scrap of paper, by any peace treaty, nor because we do not desire to fight with Japan. If Japan should find it necessary, she will rob us, in spite of all treaties and obligations. We shall be protected, not by a scrap of paper, not by "the state of peace," but by the continuation in the West of the struggle between the two giants of imperialism and by our own steadfastness. We have not forgotten the fundamental Marxist teaching, which has been fully confirmed by the Russian Revolu​tion; one must calculate one's strength in tens of millions; smaller numbers do not count in politics, and are rejected as a negligible quantity.
The International Revolution, viewed in this light, makes the situation perfectly clear; a backward country can revolt quicker, because its opponent is rotten to the core, its middle class is not organised; but, in order to continue the revolution, a backward country will require immediately more circumspection, prudence, and endurance. In Western Europe it will be quite different; there it is much more difficult to begin, but it will be much easier to go on. This cannot be otherwise, because there the proletariat is better organised and more closely united.
In the meantime, we stand alone, and in calculating our strength we must realise that as long as the European Revolution, which would solve all our difficulties, has not broken out, our only chance of existence is the continuation of the struggle between the international giants of imperialism. In concluding peace we took full account of this chance. The peace can be broken to-morrow, but while it continues we must in our external policy continue the tactics adopted in March, and expressed in the words: "To tack, to retreat, and to wait." When we hear from the lips of the Communists of the Left the words, "Active external policy"; when the expression, "The defence of the Socialist Fatherland," appears in inverted commas, as intended to be ironical, then I say to myself: These people have not in the least understood the position of the Western proletariat. They are reverting to the point of view of the vacillating lower bourgeoisie, which sees in the Revolution the guarantee of a particular order.
International interdependence says quite clearly: Only a madman can imagine that the task of dethroning international imperialism can be fulfilled by Russians alone. While in the West the Revolution is maturing, and is making appreciable progress, the task before us is as follows: We, who in spite of our weakness are in the forefront, must do all in our power to retain the occupied positions, All other considerations must be subordinated to the one endeavour; to make full use of the chance which enables us to exist, in order to be able at the moment when the international imperialism unites against us to ward off the blow for a few weeks. If we act thus we shall tread the path approved by every class-conscious worker in the European countries, who-knows that France and England have been learning for centuries what we began to learn only since 1905. Every class-conscious European worker knows that the revolution grows but slowly amongst the free institutions of a united bourgeoisie, and that we shall only be able to fight against such forces when we are able to do so in conjunction with the revolutionary proletariat of Germany, France, and England. Till then, sad and contrary to revolutionary traditions as it may be, our only possible tactics are to wait, to tack, and to retreat. When people say that we have no foreign international policy, I say: "All other policy tends, consciously or unconsciously, towards making Russia the weapon of an alliance with imperialists of the type of Ichkhenkeli and Semenoff." We say that it is best to live through and to suffer great national humiliations and hardships, in order to maintain our post as a Socialist division, forced by the trend of events to await in solitude until the Socialist Revolution in other countries comes to its help. And the revolution in other countries is coming to our help, slowly but surely. The war now taking its course in the West is revolutionising the masses; the time of revolt is approaching. I have dwelt on foreign policy longer than I intended, because it seems to me that it is just in this domain that the two principal lines of conduct are most clearly shown—on the one hand, the proletarian policy, which considers the Socialist Revolution the best and loftiest objective, and takes account of the revolutionary movement in the Western countries; and on the other, the bourgeois policy, which has for its highest ideal, imperial power and national independence.
On internal questions we are met with identical arguments from the Communists of the Left and‘ the bourgeoisie. For instance, the chief argument of the Communists of the Left against us is that in our policy there are signs of a tendency towards the Bolshevism of the Right, which, they say, will lead to State Capitalism. It is this evolution towards State Capitalism—this evil, this enemy, which we are anxious to fight against. When I read ​this kind of stuff in the Press of the Communists of the Left, I cannot help wondering what has made these people forsake reality for formulas. Reality says that State Capitalism would be a step forward for us; if we were able to bring about in Russia in a short time State Capitalism it would be a victory for us. How could they be so blind as not to see that our enemy is the small capitalist, the small owner? How could they see the chief enemy in State Capitalism? In the transition period from Capitalism to Socialism our chief enemy is the small bourgeoisie, with its economic customs, habits, and position. The small owner, more than anyone else, is afraid of State Capitalism, for his one idea is to grab for himself as much as possible, to ruin, to exterminate, the big owners and exploiters. That is why the small owner readily supports us so far. On this point he is more revolutionary than the workers, because he is more vindictive. Therefore he willingly co-operates in the fight against the upper classes—not as a Socialist, in order to build up after the defeat of the big owner a Socialist Commonwealth, on the basis of firm proletarian discipline, organisation, and control; but in order to reap the fruits of the victory in his own interest, and regardless of the common interests of the toilers as a whole.
What is State Capitalism in the hands of the Soviet Power? To bring about State Capitalism at the present time means to establish that control and order formerly achieved by the propertied classes. We have in Germany an example of State Capitalism, and we know that she proved our superior. If you would only give a little thought to what the security of such State Socialism would mean in Russia, a Soviet Russia, you would recognise that only madmen whose heads are full of formulas and doctrines can deny that State Socialism is our salvation. If we possessed it in Russia the transition to complete Socialism would be easy, because State Socialism is centralisation, control, socialisation—in fact, everything that we lack. The greatest menace to us is the opportunism of the small bourgeoisie, which, owing to the history and the economics of Russia, is the best organised class, and which prevents us from taking this step, on which depends the success of Socialism.
I wish to remind you that I wrote about State Socialism a few days before the upheaval, when a Revolutionary-Democratic Government of Kerenski, Tchernoff, Tseretelli, Kiskin, and others of that ilk was contemplated: a Government which rested, and could only rest, on a bourgeois basis. I said then that State Capitalism is a step towards State Socialism; I wrote that on October 20th, 1917, and again in April, 1918, after the proletariat had assumed power in October. Many factories and workshops are confiscated, financial concerns and banks are nationalised, the resistance of the militant bourgeoisie and of those indulging in sabotage is broken. And now, after all this, to frighten us with capitalism! This is such a ludicrous and preposterous absurdity and invention that one cannot help wondering how it was possible to conceive it! They have left out of consideration a mere trifle, namely, that in Russia we have a numerous small bourgeoisie which is in favour of the extermination of the upper bourgeoisie in all countries, but is not.in favour of socialisation and control at home; and in this consists the great danger for the Revolution. The small bourgeoisie permeates the social atmosphere with mean "possessive" tendencies and aims, which can be summed up in the phrase: "Well, I have taken from the wealthy, and the others are no concern of mine." It is precisely this attitude which constitutes the great danger. The domination of the small bourgeoisie by the other class:s and by State Capitalism should be welcomed by every class-conscious worker, because State Capitalism under Kerenski's democratic régime would mean a step towards Socialism, and under the Soviet Government almost complete socialism.
My statement that in order to properly understand one's task one should learn Socialism from the promoters of Trusts aroused the indignation of the Communists of the Left. Yes, we do not want to teach the Trusts; on the contrary, we want to learn from them. But the economists of the Left want to teach the Trusts. What is it you want to teach them? Perhaps it is Socialism. Do you mean to say that you are going to inculcate Socialism into merchants and business men? Well, if you feel inclined to undertake that job, do so, by all means; but we are not going to join you in this impossible ​task. We have nothing to impart to these engineers [this word is used in Russian in a more restricted sense than in English; a Russian engineer is a man with a higher education, equivalent to a four or five years University course], business men, and merchants. If we had a bourgeois revolution they could not teach us anything: unless it might be how and where to grab; that is all we could have learned from them.
The landowners and bourgeoisie must be overthrown. History will fully justify all the acts of the Bolsheviki—their entire struggle, the coercion and expropriation of the landowners and capitalists, and the repression of their opposition. This was only the first step towards a stupendous historic task. In this task we shall learn from the Trusts, because our knowledge is limited.
We know all about Socialism, but we do not know how to organise on a large scale, how to manage distribution, and so on. The old Bolshevik leaders have not taught us these things, and this is not to the credit of our Party. We have yet to go through this course, and we say: Even if a man is a scoundrel of the deepest dye, if he is a merchant, experienced in organising production and distribution on a large scale, we must learn from him; if we do not learn from these people, we shall never achieve Socialism, and the revolution will not get beyond its present stage. Socialism can only be reached by the development of State Capitalism, the careful organisation of finance, control, and discipline amongst the workers. Without this there is no Socialism.
It is not our business to undertake the ridiculous task of teaching the promoters of Trusts; they have nothing to learn, They must be expropriated. This can be done, and we have shown that the task does not present any great difficulties. To every deputation of workers which has come to me complaining that a factory was stopping work, I have said:
"If you desire the confiscation of your factory, the decree forms are ready, and I can sign a decree at once. But tell me: Can you take over the management of the concern? Have you calculated what you can produce? Do you know the relations of your works with Russian and foreign markets?"
Then it has appeared that they are inexperienced in these matters; that there is nothing about them in the Bolshevik literature, nor in the Menshevik either.
The workers who base their activities on the principles of State Socialism are the most successful. It is so in the tanning, textile, and sugar industries, where the workers, knowing their industry, and wishing to preserve and to develop it, recognise with proletarian common sense that they are unable, at present, to cope with such a task, and therefore allot one-third of the places to the capitalists, in order to learn from them. When I read in the Press of the Communists of the Left the ironical words, "Who knows who will make use of the other," I cannot help wondering at their shortsightedness. If, after assuming power in October, and after a victorious campaign against the whole bourgeoisie from October to April, we can have any doubts as to who will make use of the other—the workers, or the promoters of Trusts, or vice versa—then let us strike our tents at once and let us retire, making room for the Miliukoffs and the Martoffs! But there is no doubt in this matter. The class-conscious workers would not believe you if you expressed such a ridiculous fear until the dictatorship is in the hands of such opponents.
Naturally, the difficulties of organisation are enormous, but I do not see the least reason for despair and desponding in the fact that the Russian Revolution, having first solved the easier task—the overthrow of the land-owners and the bourgeoisie—is now faced with the more difficult socialist task of organising national finance and control; a task which is the initial stage of Socialism, and is inevitable, as is fully understood by the majority of class-conscious workers.
Yes, the majority of the better-organised workers, educated in the school of trade unionism, are wholly on our side. Long before the Soviet assumed power, these trade unionists had worked out a system of management and discipline. These people have shown that they understand the conditions of labour in factories, and they have grasped the essence of Socialism better than those who were full of revolutionary talk, but who in reality were stooping, consciously or unconsciously, to the low level of the small bour​geoisie, whose attitude was: "We are ready to strike a blow at the rich, but we do not believe in control and discipline for ourselves." The small capitalists find this superfluous; they do not want it; and yet self-discipline and organisation are the only guarantees for the stability of our Revolution.
Comrades, I will not go into any more details, but will say briefly: It is time to remonstrate when some people have worked themselves up to a state in which they consider the introduction of discipline into the ranks of the workers as a step backwards. I confess that I see in this attitude such a sign of reaction, such a menace to the Revolution, that I should consider the Revolution as lost if it were not for the knowledge that those who reason thus belong to a small and uninfluential group, and that no assembly of class-conscious workers would endorse. such opinions.
The Communists of the Left write as follows: "The introduction of labour discipline, except in connection with the re-establishment of capitalism, cannot increase the productivity of labour; on the contrary, it will lessen labour's self-reliance and organising activities; it threatens to enslave labour, and to arouse the dissatisfaction of the most backward classes."
This is false. If it were true, then our Revolution, with its socialist ideals and tasks, would be on the eve of collapse. But this is not true. The "intelligentsia" of the small bourgeoisie, which has lost its status, does not understand that to secure labour discipline constitutes Socialism's greatest difficulty. Long. ago, in the distant past, Socialists were writing on this question, making it the subject of the most careful analysis, for they understood that this would be the beginning of the real difficulties of the Socialist Revolution.
There have already been revolutions which discarded the bourgeoisie mercilessly, and quite as energetically as we have done, but we have gone further in creating a Soviet Government. Thus we have shown that we are stepping from economic independence to labour self-discipline—that our power must be the power of labour. The dictatorship of the proletariat does not consist in the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the landowners merely—this has been done in all revolutions—our dictatorship of the proletariat has for its object the establishment of order, discipline, the productivity of labour, sound finance, and control of the proletarian Soviet Power, which is more stable, more firm than that which preceded it. It is essential to make all the class-conscious workers and peasants concentrate all their energies on this. Yes, by the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the landowners we have only cleared the way; we have not erected the structure of Socialism. On the soil which has been cleared from one bourgeois generation, new bourgeois generations always rise (and history proves this), for as long as the soil is capable of producing, it produces bourgeois in plenty. The small owners, who say of victory over the capitalists, "They have grabbed, and now our turn has come," will each one in turn become a source of a new generation of bourgeois. When we are told that the introduction of labour discipline, in connection with the re-establishment of controlled capitalism, is a menace to the Revolution, I say: "These people have not grasped the socialist character of our Revolution; they are using arguments identical with those of the small bourgeoisie, which fears discipline, organisation, and financial control as the devil fears salvation. The bourgeois professional people possess knowledge which we lack. A class-conscious worker is not afraid of such guidance, as he is aware that the Soviet Government is his Government, which will protect him, and he recognises that in accepting the guidance of the capitalists he is learning how to organise successfully.
Under the Czar we organised ourselves in hundreds; under Kerenski in hundreds of thousands. But this was only a trifling effort, and in politics does not count. This was preliminary work, so to speak, a preparatory class. Until the workers have learned how to organise on a large scale, they are not Socialists, not builders of a socialist structure of society, and will not acquire the necessary knowledge for the establishment of a new world order. The path of organisation is a long one, and the tasks of socialist constructive work require strenuous and continuous effort, with a corresponding knowledge, which we do not sufficiently possess. It is hardly to be expected that the even more developed following generation will accomplish a complete transition into Socialism. Call to mind what has been written by former ​Socialists of the future Socialist Revolution. They recognise how difficult it would be to achieve Socialism without learning from the promoters of Trusts, who have organised production on a large scale and have much experience. Our business is, not to instruct them in Socialism, but to expropriate them, to break down their sabotage—and these two tasks we have fulfilled. We must force them to submit to the control of the workers. If our critics among the Communists of the Left have accused us of adopting tactics which lead us backwards instead of to Communism, I say that their accusations are ludicrous; they are forgetting that we are backward in organisation and financial control because it was very difficffiult to break down the resistance of the capitalists and to obtain the services of the bourgeois technical and other experts. We stand in need of their knowledge, their experience, and their labour; without them it is impossible to maintain the culture created by the former social conditions, which must serve as the material basis of Socialism. The Communists of the Left have not realised this, solely because they do not understand the realities of life, but evolve their theories and watchwords by contrasting State Capitalism with ideal Socialism. We must say to the workers: Yes, this may be a step backwards, but we must endeavour to find the way, and the only way is to organise to the last man, to organise and control production and consumption, and to ensure that, out of the hundreds of millions of money sent out by the Mint, not even a single 100-rouble note should be misappropriated, and that every note should be accounted for. This cannot be accomplished by any revolutionary act or the extermination of the bourgeoisie. It can only be accomplished by the organisation of workers' and peasants' labour, by management and control. These we do not yet possess; that 1s why we have had to pay you higher wages than the capitalists; that is why we must learn all these things. The only road to Socialism is to teach the workers how to manage colossal undertakings, and how to organise production and distribution on a large scale.
Comrades, I know very well how easy it is to jeer at a man occupying a social position when he speaks of management, control, discipline, and self-discipline. It is easy to say to him: "When your Party was not in office it was promising the land of milk and honey to the workers, but as soon as these people assumed power a great change came over them; you are beginning to talk of management, discipline, self-discipline, control." I know very well what splendid material this is for journalists of the type of Miliukoff and Martoff, who use it in order to develop their own theories, which nevertheless do not arouse much sympathy among class-conscious workers.
[Comrade Lenin here read several quotations from his book, "The State and the Revolution," which deals with the ideas which the Soviet Government is endeavouring how to put into practice. In connection with the review of this book by Comrade Bukharin, Lenin said:]
In the journal called "The Communist of the Left," I found a sympathetic review by a no less distinguished journalist than Bukharin, but all that was valuable in it lost its value for me when I had read the whole review. I realised that Bukharin missed what was essential, because he wrote his review in April, but quoted from material which was already stale in April, and appeared to be out of date—I mean the quotation, "One must destroy the old State." That we have done—that was yesterday's task—and we must now go forward; we must look to the future, and must create a Communist State. He wrote on what is already incorporated in the Soviet Organisation, but remained silent on the question of management, control, and discipline. How identical are the trend of thought and the psychology of such people with those of the small bourgeoisie is exemplified in their watchword: "Down with the rich, but no control." That which divides from the class-conscious proletariat even the most revolutionary elements of the small bourgeoisie is the watchword of the proletariat: "Let us organise and discipline ourselves." In this the class-conscious proletariat and the Revolution differ from the small bourgeoisie. We have shown our strength in the suppression of the landowners and the bourgeoisie, and now we must show it in connection with self-discipline and organisation. This is clear to us from experience a thousand years old, and we must make it clear to the ​people. Yes, organisation and discipline are the only strength of our Soviet Power, of the labour dictatorship, and of our proletarian authority; but the small bourgeoisie are shielding thmselves from this truth by revolutionary phraseology. Yes, the small bosses and proprietors are ready to help us proletarians to overthrow the landowners and capitalists, but after that our reads part. They do not like organisation and discipline; they are their enemiss. That is why we must carry on a relentless struggle with these bosses and proprietors, for in the sphere of organisation lies the beginning of our Socialist building. In answering those who insist that they are Socialists, and will grant the workers what they want and as much as they want, I say that Communism does not pre-suppose the existing productivity of labour. Our output, as a matter of fact, is too small. A heritage left to us by capitalism, especially in a backward country, is the habit of considering all State and exchequer property as material for misuse and corruption. The psychology of the masses of the small bourgeoisie is making itself felt at every step, and in this sphere the struggle is a very difficult one. Only an organised proletariat can cope with all this. That is why I wrote: "Until the higher phase of Communism is reached, Socialism requires the strictest control on the part of society and of the State." This I wrote before the October revolution, and I insist on it now.
The time has arrived when, having suppressed the bourgeoisie and broken its sabotage, we can begin this work. Before this was done the heroes of the day and of the revolution were the Red Guards, who were fulfilling their great historic task. They were taking up arms without the consent of the propertied classes; they were doing this great historic work in order to overthrow the exploiters, and to turn their rifles into instruments to protect the workers, in order to regulate labour protection and consumption. As yet we lack organisation, which is the basis of Socialism, and the pivot on which it revolves. Those who find such work monotonous and uninteresting are generally found among the idle classes of the small bourgeois. I say it again—it was impossible to take up this work until the Korniloffs, Alexieffs, and Kerenskis were disposed of. At present the armed resistance of the bourgeoisie has been suppressed. Our task is to allot work under our control to all those who have indulged in sabotage, to create administrative institutions for the strict supervision and control of all works. The country is going under for lack of the most elementary conditions of a normal existence after the war. The enemies who are attacking us are a real menace only in so far as we have failed to establish order and control. When one hears hundreds of thousands of just complaints about famine, and one knows that the cereals are there but cannot be shifted for lack of transport, and at the same time one hears jeers and protests on the part of the communists of the Left against, for instance, such measures as the railway decrees, one feels inclined to ask them: "Why do you not present your own draft of a decree? You are not irresponsible critics like the small bourgeois, the paltry merchants, who indulge in sabotage, and only criticise in order to pour out the vials of their wrath. I say it again, you are the guides of the Soviet organisations. Then why not produce your own decree?" But they cannot and never will produce it, because our railway decree is quite in order, and the dictatorship which it establishes meets with the approval of all the responsible railway workers. It, is only opposed by those paltry administrators who grab and accept bribes. It is only the waverers between Soviet Power and its enemies who cannot make up their minds about the decree, which is approved bv the proletariat who learned discipline from the big business concerns, and know that Socialism is impossible until production is organised on a large scale, and until a still stricter discipline is introduced. This proletariat backs us up in our railway policy; it will fight the small bourgeois element, and will demonstrate that the Russian Revolution will learn how to overcome its own lack of organisation, as it has overcome all the other obstacles. From the point of view of our immediate tasks, our foremost Mav Day watchword should be: "We have conquered capitalism, we shall also conquer our own unpreparedness." Only then Socialism will have achieved a complete victory.
(Translated from the Official Version in the "Isvestia," May 30th, 1918.)
page
OTHER W.S.F. PUBLICATIONS.
1d.The Birthrate, by E. Sylvia Pankhurst
2d.Mother's Pensions
1d.Appeal to Women, by A Retired Major
½d.The Execution of an East London Boy
1d.Nicholas I., by Leo Tolstoy
each 6d.Red Russia, by John Reed. Books I. and II.
4d.Questions and Answers about Russia, by Albert Rhys Williams
2d.The Red Funeral in Vladivostok, by A. Rhys Williams
2d.Hands Off Russia by Israel Zangwill
6d.Independent Working Class Education, by Eden and Cedar Paul
1d.The Schooling of the Future, by E. Sylvia Pankhurst
2d.Self-Education of the Workers, by A. Lunacharski
6d.Housing and the Workers' Revolution, by E. Sylvia Pankhurst
3d.Rebel Ireland, by E. Sylvia Pankhurst, P. Lynch, and May O'Callaghan
½d.How to Solve the Housing Question
THE
Workers' Dreadnought
An Organ of International Socialism with a Bolshevik Policy. Edited by E. SYLVIA PANKHURST.
Workshop Notes by W. F. WATSON. Revolutionary News a Speciality.
Weekly, 2d. Annual Subscription, by post, 10s. 10d. From 152, Fleet Street, E.C.
THE WORKERS' SOCIALIST FEDERATION
For Revolutionary International Socialism, the ending of Capitalism and Parliaments, and the substitution of a World Federation of Workers' Industrial Republics.
Membership open to all men and women. Subscription 4d. per month, 4s. per annum.
Write to the Secretary, 400, Old Ford Road, London, E.3.
THE PEOPLE’S RUSSIAN INFORMATION BUREAU.
For particulars apply 152, Fleet Street, E.C.4. A weekly bulletin, and up-to-date news and literature.
The Utopia Press (T.U. and 48 hours), 44, Worship Street, London, E.C. 2.
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.