WHAT IS BOLSHEVISM?

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 152, 16 March 1918, Page 8

WHAT IS BOLSHEVISM?

AN INTERESTING-CATECHISM

AIMS CONTRASTED WITH OTHER PARTIES

(By Nicolai Lenin.) '

Nicolai Lenin, the leader of the 80lBheviki, who is Premier of Russia, has contributed' the following article on political parties in Russia to the current issue of "Class Struggle." The article is designated as an aid to an understanding of tho proposed platform drawn 1 up by Lenin for discussion at Bolshevik meetings; The reader should remember throughout that it is a partisan presentation' of the case :— The following is an attempt to formulate, lirst, tlio mors important, and second, tho less important, of the questions and answers characteristic of the present situation in Russia, and of the attitude the-various parties take ..to ■the preseut state of affairs. (1.) What are tho chief \ groupings of political parties in-Russia? (a) (more to the right than the Cadets.) .Parties and groups moio right than ,the Constitutional Democrats." ■ "' : "''"•'' ' (b) (Cadets.) - Constitutional Democratic Party'(Cadets, the National Liberty Party), and the groups closely . attached to them. - .- (c) (Social Democrats and Social Revolutionists.) The S.D.'s and S.R.'s and the groups, closely attached to them. ... (d) (Bolsheviks.) The party which ought. properly to bo called the Communistic Party, and which is at present termed "The Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party," united with the Central Committee; or, in popular language,. the ! 'Bolsheviks." ... (2.) What classes do these -parties 'represent? What class, standpoints do they, express? r . (a) The feudal landholders and the more backward sections of the bourgoisie. . , • • (b) The mass of the bourgeoisie, that is, the capitalists, and. those landholders who have the industrial, bourgeois ideology. (c) Small entrepreneurs, small and middle-olass proprietors,, small and more or less well-to-do peasants, petite bourgeoisie, as well as those workers who have submitted to a bourgeois point of view. (d) Olass-conscious workers, day labourers, and the. poorer classy of tho peasantry < who are classed with tihera (semi-proletariat).

Relation to jsocialism,

'i (3.) What is their relation to Social--IK(a and f>). Unconditionally hostile, since it threatens, the profits, of capitalists'and'landholders. . (c) For Socialism, but it is too early as yet to think of it or to take any practical steps for its realisation. <d) For' Socialism. The Councilsi ot Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Delegates must' at once take every practical arid feasible step for its realisation. .(See questions 20 and 22.) (4.) "What form of government do they want now? (a) Constitutional monarchy, - absolute authority of the official class, and -the police, "■ (b) A bourgeois, parliamentary republic, i.e., a perpetuation of the rule of . the' . capitalists, . with the retention of the official (chinovnik) class 'and the polled* ! (c) A bourgeois parliamentary republic with reforms for the workers , and peasants. (d) A republic of the Councils of /Workers', Soldiers', and. Peasants Delegates. Abolition of the standing army and the police: substituting for them an armed people; officials to be not only elected, but also subject to ' recall: their pay not to exceed that of a good worker. \ (o.) What is their attitude on the. restoration of the Romanoff monarchy? (a.) 'In favour, but it must be with caution and secrecy, for they are ' afraid of the people. : {b) When the-Guchkoffs seemed to be in' power the Cadets were in favourof putting on the throne a brother or eon of Nicholas, but when the people loomed up the Cadets became antimonarchical. ' (c and d) Unconditionally opposed to any kind of monarchic restoration. Anarchy and Order. > (6.) What do they think of seizures of power? What tlo they term "order," arid what "anarchy?" ( a y If a Ts.ir or a brave general seizes control, his authority comes from God; that is order. Anything else is anarchy. (b) If the capitalists hold power, even by force, that is order; to assume power against the capitalist will would be anarchy. (c) If the Councils of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Delegates alone are in power, anarchy threatens. For tße present let the capitalists retain control, while the Councils have an "Advisory. Commission." (d) Sole authority must be in the hands of the Councils of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Delegates. The entire, propaganda, agitation, and . organisation of millions upon millions of people must at once be directed toward tins end. Anarchy is a complete' negation of all Government authority, but the Councils of W., S., and P. Delegates are also a Government authority. (7.) Shall we support the Provisional Government? .

(a-and b) Unquestionably, since it is the only means at this moment _ of guarding the interests of the capitalists.

(c) Yes, hut with the condition that it should carrv out its agreement with % Council* of W., S., and P. Delegates, and should consult with the "Advisory Commission."

(d) No; let the capitalists support ft. We must prepare the whole neoplc for the complete and sole authority of the Councils of W., S., and P. Delegates. '

(8.) Arc we for a single authority or for a dual monarchy? j (a and b) For sole power in the hands of tho capitalists and landholders.

(o 1 ) For dual authority. The Councils of W., 8., anil P. delegates to pxercise "control" oyer the Provisional Government. But it would be pernicious to consider the possibility that this control raitcnt prove illusory. (d) For sole power in the bunds of the Councils of AV., S., and P. Delepates froih top to bottom over the whole oountry. The Constituent Assembly. (9) Shall a Constituent Assembly be called? . . ... (a) Not necessary, for it might injure the landholders. Suppose the peasants at the Constituent Assembly should decide to take aivay the land of the landholders?

(b) Yes, but without stipulation of time. Furthermore, the learned professors should be consulted, first, because Bebel has already pointed out that jurists are the. most reactionary people in tho world; and_, second, because tho experience of all revolutions shows that the cause of the people is lost when it is entrusted to the hands of professors. (c) Yes, and as soon as possible. As' to the time, we nave already discussed it in the meetings' of the "Advisory Commission" 200 times; 'and shall definitely 'dispose of 'it in our 201 st discussion' to-morrow.

(d) Yes, and as soon as possible. Yet to be successful and to be really convoked one condition is necessary: increase the number and strengthen the power of the Councils of W., S., and

P. Delegates; organise and arm the masses. Only thus can the Assembly be assured.

(10) Does the State need a police of the conventional type and a standing Army ? (a and b) Absolutely, for this is the only permanent guarantee of the rule of capital, and in case of necessity, as is taught by the experiences of all countries, the return from republic to inonairchy is thus greatly facilitated. (o) On the one hand, it may not be necessary. On the other hand, is not so radical a change premature Moreover, we can discuss it in the Advisory Commission. (d) Absolutely unnecessary. Immediately and unconditionally universal armins; of the people shall be introduced so that they and the militia and the Army shall be an integral whole. Capitalists must pay the workers for their days 01 service in the militia. Is Officialdom Necessary? (11) Does tho State need an officialdom (chinovniks) of tba conventional tj'pe ? (a and b) Unquestionably. Nmetenths of them aro the sous and brothers of the landholders and capitalists. They should continue to constitute a privileged, in fact, an irremovable, body of persons. / ' (c) Hardly tho proper time to put a question which has already bcpn put practically by the . Paris Commune. (d) It does not. All officials must not only be elected by the people, but also bo subject to recall by them; rlso each and every delegate. Their pay shall not exceed that of a good worker. They are gradually to bo replaced by the national militia and its various divi-

sions. (12) Must officers be elected by the soldiers? ' '. ~,,-,,,,. (a and b) No. it would be bad for the landholders and capitalists. If the" soldiers cannot bo otherwise contented, we'must promise them this reform and afterwards tako it way from them.

(d) Not only elected, but every step of every officer and general must be subject to control' by special soldiers committees. , (13) Are arbitrary removals of their superiors bv the soldiers desirable? (a and bj They are very bad. Guchkoff already forbade them, even threatening tho use of force. We must support Guchkoff. (c) Yes, but it- remains to be decided whether they must be removed before or after consulting the advisory commission.

'(d) They are In every resnect indispensable. The soldiers will obey only the powers of their own choice: thev can resriect no others. _ (14) In favour of this war or against. Hp ; (a and b) TJnqueftionnWr m favour, fnr it brinrts in nnheard of profits to the cnoitalists and nromisos to nerpotunte their rule, thanks tn dissension ■among the workers, wVin are egged on against each otlier. The workers must b'o deceived bv nnllinp: tlm war a. war fnr national dpfenre, ""'th the special obicct of dethroning Wilhelm. Opnossd to. War. (o) In general,, we are opposed to imperialistic wars, but we are willing to permit ourselves to be fooled, and to call this a war of "revolutionary defence," and to support an imperialists ivav waged by the Imperialistic Government of Milyukoff and Co. (d) Absolutely opposed to all imperialistic wars, to all bourgeois Governments which wage them, among Ipem our own Provisional Government; absolutely _ opposed to "revolutionary defence" in Russia. (15.) Are we in favour of or against the predatory international treaties •concluded between the Tsar and England, France, otc. ? the strangling of Persia, the division of China, Turkey, Austria, etc.). _ •

nirJtey, Austria, Bit,;, (a. lincl b) Absolutely in favour. At the same time we must not think of publishing these treaties, for AngloTrenoh Imperialistic capital does not desir? it, nor do their Governments, nor can Russian capital afford to initiate the public into all its dirty practices, . (c) Against, hut we hope that the Advisory Commission, aided by a simultaneous "campaign" among the masses, may "influence" the capitalistic Government. (d) Against. Our whole task <is simply this: to enlighten the masses as to the utter hopelessness of expecting anything of this kind from capitalistic ffovernments, and tlie necessity of giving all power to the proletariat and tlie poorest peasants. . (16.) For annexations or against? " (a and h) If the annexations are to 'bo accomplished by Geimnn capitalists and their robber .chieftain, Wilhelm, we are opposed to them. If by the English, we are not opposed, for they aro "our" Allies. If by our capitalists, who forcibly retain within the boundaries of Russia the races oppressed by the Tsar, then we are in favour, for W9 do not use the term annexation in this connection. | (c) Against but we nope it may be possible to obtain from capU talist Governments a "promise" to renounce annexations. (d) Against annexations. Any promise of a capitalist Government to r°nounce annexations is ft hugb fraud. To show it up is vorv simple: just demand that each nation Jie freed from the yoke of its own capitalists. Again3t Liberty Loan. (17.) In favour of the "Liberty Loan" br opposed to it? (a and b) Entirely in favour, for it, facilitates the waging of an imperialist war, that is, a war to determine which group of capitalists shall rale the world. . .. (c) Iu favour, for our illogical attitude on "revolutionary defence" forces us into this obvious defection from the cause of internationalism. (d) Against, for the war remains imperialistic, being waged by capitalists in alliance with .capitalists, in tho interest of capitalists. (18.) Shall we leave to capitalist Governments tho task of expressing the desire of the nations for peace, or shall wo not? (a and, b) Wo shall, for the experience of the social-patriots of the French Remiblic shows best how the people may be deceived by such a process; say anything you please, but in reality retain all conquests we have made from tho Germans (their colonies) and take away from the Germans all conquests made by those robbers. • ' ' (c) We shall, since we have not yet >relinquished all the unfounded hopes which the petite bourgeoisie attaches' to the capitalists, (d) No, for the class-conscious worker cherishes no hopes whatever from tho canitalist class, and it is our function to enlighten the masses as to the baselessness of sucb hopes. (,9.) Must all monarchies be abolished? ' , (a and b) No, certainly not the Jwiglish, Italian, and Allied monarchies, only tho German, Austrian, Turkish, and Bulgarian, for victory over 'them will increase our profits tenfold. (c) A certain "order" must be followed and a beginning made, with Wilhelm; the Allied monarchies may wait. _ (d) Revolutions do not proceed in a fixed order. Only actual revolutionaries may bo trusted, and in all countries without exception all monarchs must be dethroned. Shall Peasants Seize Land? (20.) Shall the peasants at once take all the land of the landholders?

(a and b) By no means. We must wait for the Constituent Assembly. Shingareff already pointed out that when the capitalists take away the power from the Tsar that a great and glorious revolution, but when the peasants take away the land

from the landholders that is arbitrary tyranny, a commission of adjustment must be appointed, with equal representation of landholders and peasants, and tlia chairman must be or the oiKcial (chinovnik) class, that is, from among tlioso same capitalists and landholders.

• (e) It would be better for the peasants to wait for the Constituent Assembly. id) All the land must he taken at once. Order must be strictly maintained by. the Councils of Peasants' Delegates. The production of bread and meat must bo increased, the soldiers better fed. Destruction of cattle and of tools, etc., is not permissible.

(21) Shall we limit ourselves to the Councils of Peasants' Delegates only for tho management of lands and for all village questions in general? (a and b) Tho landholders and capitalists are entirely opposed to the sole authority of the Councils of Peasants' Delegates in agrarian matters. But if these Councils are unavoidable, we must adapt ourselves to them, for the rich peasant is a capitalist, after all. (c) We might for the present accept the councils, for "in principle" we do not deny the necessity of a separate organisation of the agrarian, wageworkers.

(d) It will be impossible to limit ourselves only to general Councils of Peasants' Delegates, for the wealthy peasants are of the same capitalist class that is always inclined to injure or deceive the farmhands, day-labour-ers, and the poorer peasants'. We must at once form special organisations of these latter classes of the village populations both within tho Councils of Peasants' Delegates and in the form of special Councils of Delegates of the Farmers' Workers.

(22) Shall the people take into their hands the largest and most powerful monopolistic organisations of capitalism, the .banks, manufacturing syndicates', etc 1 ? (a and b) Not by an means, since that might injure the landholders and capitalists. people Should Rule Banks. (c) Generally speaking, we are in favour of handing over such organisations to the entire people, but to think of or prepare for tliis condition noiv is very untimely. ' .(d) N r e must at once prepare tbe Councils of Workers' Delegates, the Councils of Delegates of Banking Employees, and other? for the taking of all such steps as are feasible and completely realisable toward the union of all banks into one single national bank, and then toward a control of the Councils of Workers' Delegates over the banks and syndicates, and then toward their nationalisation, that is, tbeir passing over into the possession of the whole people. (23.) What form of Socialist International, establishing and realising a brotherly union of all the workers in all countries, is now desirable for the nations?

(a and b) Generally speaking, any kind of Socialist International is harmful and dangerous to capitalists and landholders, but if the German Plekhanov, whose name is Scheidemann, will come to an agreement with the Russian Scheidemann, _ whose name is Pleklianov, and if_ they can find in each other any vestige remaining of their Socialist' concienc.es, then we, the capitalists, must hail with delight suchi an ■ International, of such Socialists, as stand by the side of their own Governments.

1 (c) A Socialist international is, needed that will include nil elements: the Scheidemanns, the PlekhanovSj. and tin* "centrists," who are those who vacilate between the 'Social-Patriotism i'utl Internationalism. The bigger the jnix-np the greater their "unity"; long .live. our. great Socialistic unity 1 International socialism. (d) The nations need only that International which consists of the really revolutionary workers, who are capable of putting an end to the awful and criminal slaughter of nations, capable of delivering humanity from the yoke of capitalism. Only such people (groups, parties, etc.) as the German Socialist iiarl Liebknecht, now in a German gaol, only, people who will tirelessly struggle with their own Government and tiieir own bourgeoisie, and their own Social-Patriots, and their own "centrists," can and must immediately establish that International which is necessary to the nations. (24.)' Must the fraternisation between soldiors of the warring countries, at the front, be encouraged P (a and b) No; it is bad for the. interests of the landholders and capitalists, sinca it may accelerate tho liberation of humanity from their yoke, fc) Yes, it would be good. But, we are not fully convinced that, such an encouragement of fraternisation should be at once -undertaken in all warring countries.

(d) Yes; it is good and indispensable.