How Should Socialists Organise?

[Socialist Party Head Office]

Further reply by letter from Laurens Otter:

Quote:

Mr Clayton is on the one hand citing the Aug. 1918 SPGB case; (Soc Standard, Aug 1918), arguing that Russia was not ready for socialism; (though, arguably the party's case was more nuanced, than that might suggest, Sammy Cash used to recollect that the Party's General Secretary sent Lenin a telegram of congratulation in December 1917.)That is an argument, which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would condemn Marx for supporting the Commune, since Russia in 1917, was economically more advanced than France in 1871, moreover if he wishes to pursue that line of argument as far as he suggests then he needs to go back to Peter Struve – the original Russian Marxist – who on the basis of that argument launched the Constitutional Democrats, (Cadets) saying Russia is not ready for socialism, the democratic-bourgeois revolution is all important, the bourgeois don't appear to want such a revolution so we must raise their slogans on their behalf.The "Octobrists" (the majority right wing party in the Duma) were a breakaway from the Cadets, so it is quite interesting that all parties in the Duma, except for a short time when the Bakunian Maximalists were briefly represented, regarded themselves as Marxist.The trouble with that line of argument (taken in its purity) is that it provides no basis for Marxist-socialist opposition to the war; (if only capitalist policies were/should have been on the table, then only possible Marxist criterion for judging the war was whether it was economically in the interests of the emerging Russian capitalist class), &, if the SPGB had relied solely on it, any discussion of the relative merits of Russian political groups on the basis of where they stood in the war would have been ultra vires.

 

[stevead1966]

Socialist Standard August 1920:Ever since the Bolshevik minority seized the control of affairs in Russia we have beentold that their "success" had completely changed Socialist policy. These"Communists" declare that the policy of Marx and Engels is out of date. Lenin andTrotsky are worshipped as the pathfinders of a shorter and easier road to Communism.Unfortunately for these "Bolsheviks," no evidence has yet been supplied to showwherein the policy of Marx and Engels is no longer useful, and until that evidencecomes the Socialist Party of Great Britain will continue to advocate the same Marxianpolicy as before. We will continue to expose and oppose the present system and all itsdefenders and apologists. We shall insist upon the necessity of the working classunderstanding Socialism and organising with a political party to obtain it.When we are told that Socialism has been obtained in Russia without the long, hardand tedious work of educating the mass of workers in Socialism we not only deny itbut refer our critics to Lenin's own confessions. His statements prove that even thougha vigorous and small minority may be able to seize power for a time, they can onlyhold it by modifying their plans to suit the ignorant majority. The minority in powerin an economically backward country are forced to adapt their program to theundeveloped conditions and make continual concessions to the capitalist world aroundthem. Offers to pay war debts to the Allies, to establish a Constituent Assembly, tocompensate capitalists for losses, to cease propaganda in other countries, and to grantexploitation rights throughout Russia to the Western capitalists all show how far alongthe capitalist road they have had to travel and how badly they need the economic helpof other countries. It shows above all that their loud and defiant challenge to thecapitalist world has been silenced by their own internal and external weaknesses as wehave so often predicted in these pages.The folly of adopting Bolshevik methods here is admitted by Lenin in his pamphletThe Chief Tasks of Our Times (p. 10). "A backward country can revolt quicker,because its opponent is rotten to the core, its middle class is not organised; but inorder to continue the revolution a backward country will require immediately morecircumspection, prudence, and endurance. In Western Europe it will be quitedifferent; 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 moreclosely united."Those who say "Russia can fight the world", are answered by Lenin:"Only a madman can imagine that the task of dethroning International Imperialismcan be fulfilled by Russia alone."Lenin admits that "France and England have been learning for centuries what we haveonly learnt since 1905. Every class-conscious worker knows that the revolution growsbut slowly amongst the free institutions of a united bourgeoisie, and that we shall onlybe able to fight against such forces when we are able to do so in conjunction with therevolutionary proletariat of Germany, France, and England. Till then, sad and contraryto revolutionary traditions as it may be, our only possible policy is to wait, to tack,and to retreat."We have often stated that because of a large anti-Socialist peasantry and vastuntrained population, Russia was a long way from Socialism. Lenin has now to admitthis by saying: "Reality says that State Capitalism would be a step forward for us; ifwe were able to bring about State Capitalism in a short time it would be a victory forus. How could they be so blind as not to see that our enemy is the small capitalist, thesmall owner? How could they see the chief enemy in State Capitalism? In thetransition period from Capitalism to Socialism our chief enemy is the smallbourgeoisie, with its economic customs, habits and position" (p. 11).This reply of Lenin to the Communists of the Left (Bucharin and others) contains thefurther statement that, "To bring about State Capitalism at the present time means toestablish the control and order formerly achieved by the propertied classes. We havein Germany an example of State Capitalism, and we know she proved our superior. Ifyou would only give a little thought to what the security of such State Socialismwould mean in Russia, a Soviet Russia, you would recognise that only madmenwhose heads are full of formulas and doctrines can deny that State Socialism is oursalvation. If we possessed it in Russia the transition to complete Socialism would beeasy, because State Socialism is centralisation control, socialisation—in fact,everything that we lack. The greatest menace to us is the small bourgeoisie, which,owing to the history and economics of Russia, is the best organised class, and whichprevents us from taking the step, on which depends the success of Socialism."Here we have plain admissions of the unripeness of the great mass of Russian peoplefor Socialism and the small scale of Russian production.If we are to copy Bolshevist policy in other countries we should have to demand StateCapitalism, which is not a step to Socialism in advanced capitalist countries. The factremains, as Lenin is driven to confess, that we do not have to learn from Russia, butRussia has to learn from lands where large scale production is dominant."My statement that in order to properly understand one's task one should learnsocialism from the promoters of Trusts aroused the indignation of the Communists ofthe Left. Yes, we do not want to teach the Trusts; on the contrary, we want to learnfrom them." (p. 12) Thus Lenin speaks to his critics. Owing to the untrained characterof the workers and their failure to grasp the necessity of discipline and order in largescale production, Lenin has to employ "capitalist" experts to run the factories. He tellsus: "We know all about Socialism, but we do not know how to organise on a largescale, how to manage distribution, and so on. The old Bolshevik leaders have nottaught us these things, sand this is not to the credit of our party. We have yet to gothrough this course and we say: Even if a man is a scoundrel of the deepest dye, if heis 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 achieveSocialism, and the revolution will never get beyond the present stage. Socialism canonly be reached by the development of State Capitalism the careful organisation offinance, control and discipline among the workers. Without this there is noSocialism." (p. 12.)That Socialism can only be reached through State Capitalism is untrue. Socialismdepends upon large-scale production, whether organised by Trusts or Governments.State capitalism may be the method used in Russia, but only because the BolshevikGovernment find their theories of doing without capitalist development unworkable—hence they are forced to retreat along the capitalist road.Lenin goes on: "The workers who base their activities on the principles of StateSocialism 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 withsuch a task, and therefore allot one third of the places to the capitalists in order tolearn from them."This concession is another example of the conflict between Bolshevik theory andpractice, for the very argument of Lenin against Kautsky and others was that in Russiathey could go right ahead without needing the capitalist development such as it existsin other countries.The whole speech of Lenin is directed against the growing body of workers in Russiawho took Lenin at his word. These people fondly imagined that after throwing overKerensky they could usher in freedom and ignore the capitalist world around them.They thought that factory discipline, Socialist education, and intelligent skilledsupervision were simply pedantic ideas.A further quotation from Lenin will make this clear: "Naturally the difficulties oforganisation are enormous, but I do not see the least reason for despair anddespondency in the fact that the Russian Revolution, having first solved the easiertask—the overthrow of the landowners and the bourgeoisie, is now faced with themore difficult Socialist task of organising national finance and control, a task which isthe initial stage of Socialism, and is inevitable, as is fully understood by the majorityof class-conscious workers."He also says: "It is time to remonstrate when some people have worked themselves upto a state in which they consider the introduction of discipline into the ranks of theworkers as a step backwards." And he points out that "by the overthrow of thebourgeoisie and landowners we have cleared the way, we have not erected thestructure of Socialism."How far they have cleared the capitalists out of the way is uncertain, as they are along way from self-reliance. The long road ahead is admitted by Lenin in these words:"Until the workers have learned to organise on a large scale they are not Socialists,nor builders of a Socialist structure of society, and will not acquire the necessaryknowledge for the establishment of the new world order. The path of organisation is along one, and the tasks of Socialist constructive work require strenuous andcontinuous effort, with a corresponding knowledge which we do not sufficientlypossess. It is hardly to be expected that the even more developed following generationwill accomplish a complete transition into Socialism." (p. 13.)The denunciation of democracy by the Bolshevik leaders is quite understandable if werealise that only the minority in Russia are Communists. Lenin therefore deniescontrol of affairs to the majority, but he cannot escape from the compromise involvedin ruling with a minority. Not only is control of Russian affairs out of the hands of theSoviets as a whole, but not even all the members of the Communist Party are allowedto vote. Zinoviev, a leading Commissar, in his report to the First Congress of theThird International said:"Our Central Committee has decided to deprive certain categories of party membersof the right to vote at the Congress of the party. Certainly it is unheard of to limit theright voting within the party, but the entire party has approved this measure, which isto assure the homogenous unity of the Communists So that in fact, we have 500,000members who manage the entire State machine from top to bottom." (The Socialist,29.4.20. Italics not ours.)So half a million members of the Communist Party (counting even those who arerefused a vote within the party) control a society of 180 million members. It is quiteplain why other parties' papers were suppressed: obviously they could influence thegreat majority outside the Communist Party. The maintenance of power was assuredby the Bolshevik minority through its control of political power and the armed forces. 

[ALB]

Socialist Party Head Office wrote:

Further reply by letter from Laurens Otter:Mr Clayton is on the one hand citing the Aug. 1918 SPGB case; (Soc Standard, Aug 1918), arguing that Russia was not ready for socialism; (though, arguably the party's case was more nuanced, than that might suggest, Sammy Cash used to recollect that the Party's General Secretary sent Lenin a telegram of congratulation in December 1917.)

This Lenin Telegramme will be another figment of Laurens's fertile imagination. I wouldn't have thought either that Sammy Cash (a well-known Party member in the 1930s and 1940s who eventually left) said this. What the Party did do was publish an article in the January 1918 Socialist Standard congratulating the Bolsheviks for having stopped the slaughter on the Eastern front:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1918/no-161-january-1918/russian-situationThis is repeated in the famous August 1918 article (unfortunately, not yet available on line):

Quote:

As is admitted by the various sections of the capitalist Press, the Soviet representatives at the Brest-Litovsk Conference stood firm on their original proposals to the last moment. That they had to accept hard terms in the end is no way any discredit to them, but it was a result of conditions quite beyond their control. If they had done no more than this, if they had been compelled to give up office on their return, the fact that they had negotiated a stoppage of the slaughter and maiming of millions of the working class would have been a monument to their honour, and constituted an undeniable claim to the highest approbation of the workers the world over.

The article ends, hoping that the Bolsheviks and the Russian workers are not going to be punished for this:

Quote:

With the mass of the Russian people still lacking the knowledge necessary for the establishment of socialism, with both groups of belligerents sending armed forces into the country, with the possible combination of those groups for the purpose of restoring capitalist rule, even if not a monarchy, in Russia, matters look gloomy for the people there. If the capitalist class in the belligerent countries succeed in this plan, the Soviet Government and its supporters may expect as little mercy as—nay, less than—the Khirgiz Tartars received. It may be another Paris Commune on an immensely larger scale.Every worker who understands his class position will hope that some way will be found out of the threatened evil. Should that hope be unrealised, should further victims be fated to fall to the greed and hatred of the capitalist class, it will remain on record that when members of the working class took control of affairs in Russia, they conducted themselves with vastly greater humanity, managed social and economic matters with greater ability and success and with largely reduced pain and suffering, than any section of the cunning, cowardly, ignorant capitalist class were able to do, with all the numerous advantages they possessed.

Our criticism was of the claim made by some Bolsheviks and their supporters in Britain that what had occurred in Russia was a "socialist revolution" and that socialism was being established there, or could be in the existing economic and political conditions. So any hypothetical telegramme to Lenin would have said "Congratulations on stopping the slaughter on the Eastern front" (not "Congratulations on having carried out a socialist revolution").Later, when more information about what the Bolshevik government was actually doing emerged we took up a more critical position towards them, while still crediting them with having tried to stop the slaughter on the Eastern front (as we still do).In checking Laurens's claim by looking up the EC Minutes of the time I came across some interesting things which I might write up separately.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

This is repeated in the famous August 1918 article (unfortunately, not yet available on line):

 …  and now online athttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1918/no-168-august-1918/revolution-russia-where-it-failsThis article is also included in the pamphlet, 'Russia SInce 1917' – a collection of articles published in 1948http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/russia-1917

[stevead1966]

To  Laurens;From Socialist Standard August 1918:The Bolshevik RevolutionIn the Western area and the Southern Oil Belt industrial towns of the usual capitalist type, have developed in late years, and contain a number of genuine proletarians or wage slaves. Is this huge mass of people, numbering about 160,000,000 and spread over eight and a half millions of square miles, ready for Socialism? Are the hunters of the North, the struggling peasant proprietors of the South, the agricultural wage slaves of the Central Provinces, and the industrial wage slaves of the towns convinced of the necessity, and equipped with the knowledge requisite, for the establishment of the social ownership of the means of life? Unless a mental revolution such as the world has never seen before has taken place, or an economic change has occurred immensely more rapidly than history has recorded, the answer is “No!”What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists. M. Litvinoff practically admits this when he says:“In seizing the reigns of power the Bolsheviks were obviously playing a game with high stake. Petrograd had shown itself entirely on their side. To what extent would the masses of the proletariat and the peasant army in the rest of the country support them?” First the Soviet Government promised peace. They (the Soviet Government) appear to have done all that was possible in the circumstances to carry their peace proposals. The Soviet representatives at the Brest-Litovsk Conference stood firm on their original proposals to the last moment. That they had to accept hard terms in the end is no way any discredit to them, but it was a result of conditions quite beyond their control. If they had done no more than this, if they had been compelled to give up office on their return, the fact that they had negotiated a stoppage of the slaughter and maiming of millions of the working class would have been a monument to their honour, and constituted an undeniable claim to the highest approbation of the workers the world over. There is no ground whatever for supposing that they are ready or willing to accept social ownership of the land, along with the other means of production. Are the Bolsheviks prepared to try to establish something other than this? If so does it not at once flatly contradict M. Litvinoff’s claim that they are establishing Socialism? With the mass of the Russian people still lacking the knowledge necessary for the establishment of socialism, with both groups of belligerents sending armed forces into the country, with the possible combination of those groups for the purpose of restoring capitalist rule, even if not a monarchy, in Russia, matters look gloomy for the people there. 

[ALB]

The EC Minutes for the period December 1917 to June 1918 shed some interesting light on the background to the August 1918 article.The first mention of the "Bolshevik Revolution" is in the Minutes for 11 December 1917 when Tottenham branch send in a resolution:

Quote:

Re: Bolshevik Revolution: That the EC be asked if they have any evidence on the nature of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. If not, this Branch requests that they take steps to obtain this and to make an Official Statement as to the Socialist Party's position regarding the Bolshevik movement.

To which the EC replied:

Quote:

That Tottenham Branch be informed that the EC have no evidence on the so-called Bolshevik Revolution that would warrant an official pronouncement from the EC at the present juncture. If however members of the Tottenham Branch are in possession of such evidence we should be pleased to have same forwarded to HO.

The Minutes of the 18 January meeting recorded Tottenham's reply:

Quote:

Re: Bolshevik Party. Tottenham Branch stating that information re the Bolshevik Party in Russia can be obtained from their accredited representative, M. Litvinoff, at present resident in London.Fitzgerald & Fryer moved: -"That the Tottenham Branch be informed that the EC have no reason to believe that Litvinoff is allowed to obtain any more information with reference to the Bolshevik movement than any non-governmental person in this country, nor has the EC any means of verifying what information he might give. The EC  see no reason to assume that any good would accrue from an interview with Litvinoff." Cd. 10-0.

Tottenham branch persisted in asking the EC to approach Litvinoff, supported by Walthamstow branch, and the EC considered the matter again on 22 January:

Quote:

Re; Litvinoff and Russia: (…) Substantive Resolution now reads: "That no action be taken in view of the difficulty of verifying any information that might be got from Litvinoff".Webb & Dryer moved as amendment: "That a series of questions to be hereafter decided upon be sent to Litvinoff". After much discussion Webb & Dyer moved: "That the vote be taken". Lost 5-5. After further discussion. Amend: Lost 4-7. Resol: Cd 6-3.

Further exchanges took place between the EC and Tottenham and Hackney branches on the matter. The 18 June Minutes record:

Quote:

Re: Bolshevik :Tottenham  Branch encl following resolution:- "The EC be informed that a booklet on Russian Revolution by Maxim Litvinoff and a pamphlet by Leon Trotsky called 'War and Revolution' are now available & the Tottenham  Branch thinks that the EC might obtain information as to the nature of the Bolshevik Movement in Russia from a perusal of the above mentioned publications."Dryer & C. Morrison moved: – "That Tottenham be informed that the 2 works mentioned in their letter of 17/6/18 will probably be reviewed in the next issue of the SS." Cd 5-0.

Hence the article that appeared in August 1918.The EC were evidently concerned that, due to the censorship then in force, it would be difficult to obtain reliable information about what had happened in Russia, not even from the Bolshevik representative in London.Maxim Litvinov became a top Russian diplomat and was Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1930 till 1939. In 1951 he was assassinated on Stalin's orders.

[Author]

Posts