90 years ... and one day since the October Revolution, Keele Socialist Students organised an evening with Dave Griffiths of the Socialist Party and Pat Deutz of the Socialist Party of Great Britain to debate the events and legacy of the Russian Revolution.
Dave heralded the revolution as one of the greatest events in human history. It signalled the first attempt to wrest control of the blind social forces that had hitherto operated as if behind the backs of the human race, and as a species we stand a head higher for the experience. Dave then gave a short account of the revolutionary process in 1917. With the outbreak of the February revolution, the Russian masses entered the stage of history. The condensation of contradictions arising from peasant and workers' grievances, the continued Great Power oppression of nationalities, and the devastation and dislocation of the war saw the masses dispense with the autocratic senility of Tsarism. But the second act in the revolutionary drama, October, was not pre-ordained. History is not a script. The process culminated in the transfer of power to the soviets as a result of political struggle and the experience of the masses - the Bolshevik programme was the only one that met their aspirations. It must also be remembered that 90 years on, the Bolsheviks were quite aware Russia was far from ripe for socialism, but the revolution could be the harbinger of a Europe-wide socialist revolution - which it very nearly was. It's also worth remembering that the initial phase of the revolution saw universal suffrage, the parcelling out of lands to the peasantry, and a cultural flowering never seen before or since in Russian history. As we know, this revolutionary democracy was snuffed out by civil war exigencies, general backwardness, and bureaucratisation; but we can never pretend the alternative to revolution was a parliamentary democracy with Kerensky at its head. The brutality of the counterrevolution gave an insight into the alternative, an alternative of massacres, pogroms, and dictatorship.
Pat laid out her what the SPGB stood for, which is socialism and nothing else. The only route to socialism is for the overwhelming mass of the working class to understand what it is and be prepared to start organising society around their interests. So, returning to the Socialist Standard of August 1918, that issue pointed out 80% of Russian society was composed of the peasantry and by contrast, the working class was tiny. So setting aside the question of consciousness for the moment, was Russia ready for socialism? As Marx and Engels believed socialism could only be built on the foundations of the most advanced capitalism, Russia could not become a socialist society. True, the masses did enter the stage of history between February and October, but they were not and could not be pursuing socialist aims. This suited Lenin and the Bolsheviks fine because they held workers were capable only of trade union consciousness and therefore needed a revolutionary elite to lead them to the promised land. Unfortunately, this promised land could only be state capitalism. Other parties were banned by the summer of 1918 and the institutions of radical democracy were displaced as the imperatives of state capitalist development assumed priority. Such state-led authoritarianism laid the groundwork for Stalin and with it, the identification of his regime with genuine socialism. Herein lies the tragedy of the whole experience.
The floor opened to comments and questions. A number came up concerning the relationship between Leninism and Stalinism, the role of unions in the revolution, why Stalinist regimes tended to be extremely brutal, what concrete advice - if any - did the SPGB offer the Bolsheviks, and what does the Russian revolution mean for us now fighting for a socialist society in 21st century Britain?
Responding directly to the SPGB position, S, from India, said she'd heard many times how Russia "wasn't ready" for revolution. But then, who is ready for revolution? If capital has to be mature, are the USA and UK any more ready for socialism? She then when on to ask if backward countries are the weak links in the world chain of imperialism - if they are to break, who are we to decide whether a country is "not ready"? M, of KSS, defended the SPGB's position, noting socialism has to be international. Also, because wage labour had existed in the USSR (implying the expropriation of surplus value by the bureaucracy, acting as 'collective capitalist') meant capitalism was alive and well there under Stalinism. A of Stoke SP argued that the Bolsheviks managed to condense the anger and experience of the Russian working class, and showed his exasperation how Pat could dismiss them as "not conscious" after going through 10 months of revolutionary upheaval and struggle. If they weren't conscious, how did the one avowedly revolutionary socialist party succeed in winning the mass to its banner?
After the debate, Pat responded first by pointing to Russia's backwardness and reiterating her point that socialism requires material abundance. She also picked up on M's point on wage labour. As surplus value was being realised throughout the Soviet Union's life, the overturns of 1989-91 were not a restoration of capitalism. Furthermore, under Stalinism the bureaucracy had effective ownership and control, despite what the constitution and the statutes said. Top bureaucrats could access special shops for the elite and could pile up several salaries akin to the common bourgeois practice of possessing several part-time directorships at once. In sum, nationalisation of the means of production cannot mean socialism. Turning to the question of revolution in Britain, she evoked the SPGB's strategy of winning a parliamentary majority for socialism to mark the passing of power from the bosses to the workers, and inaugurate the beginnings of the new society.
Dave's reply looked at the nature of the revolution. He argued revolution is as much a part of social evolution as piecemeal change. But whether a revolution assumes a peaceful or violent character depends on the balance of class forces and the extent of working class organisation. The latter is really crucial - where the balance has been fairly favourable but the class isn't sufficiently organised and united, such as Germany, China, Spain, France, Iran; at best the class is defeated, at worst the revolutionary process is drowned in blood. Responding to Pat and echoing S, Dave argued the SPGB were guilty of trying to fit the revolution into a pre-conceived schema. When it didn't fit, they withdrew support. He also disputed the continuity between Lenin and Stalin - the red terror was an outcome of civil war necessity, whereas Stalin's crimes were committed in the pursuit and consolidation of power. Finally, turning to the fate of the revolution, because it ended in Stalinism and eventual capitalist restoration, need the Russian workers have bothered? The SPGB answered no. What this amounts to in practice is revolutionary abstention from struggles that don't meet its strict criteria. To finish off, Dave called on all present to study the revolution themselves and recommended Trotsky's three-volume history as an excellent place to begin. As Churchill's condemnation put it, "never has evil been so dazzlingly presented", stands it in good stead.
From the chair, I then rounded off the meeting with a revolutionary call ... to attend the postgrad bar, where comrades continued the discussion deep into the night.
"need the Russian workers have bothered? The SPGB answered no. What this amounts to in practice is revolutionary abstention from struggles that don't meet its strict criteria..."
ReplyDeleteWe could also ask:need the Cubans or Venezuelans have bothered? Some say-- not with a Castro or a Chavez at the helm . What this amounts to in practice is revolutionary abstention from struggles that don't meet their strict criteria...
I think it was a Chinese communist (may have Mao himself) who asked about the french revolution said: "Its too soon to tell."
ReplyDeleteCould the same be true for the Russian Revolution too?
Nope , not political abstentia because the SPGB position is support for the acquisition of democratic political rights by the working class as a pre-condition for socialism and therefore support for the February Revolution ( just as we expressed support for the Russian workers in 1905 ) , but not the Bolshevik coup d'etat of October which denied the working class its power , replacing it by Party Power.
ReplyDeleteThere is an interesting take on the Russian Revolution by a Trotskyist Harry Ratner - premature and diseased from infancy - not too different from the SPGB analysis .
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Ratner/Prematur.html
There were alternatives to the Bolshevik Takeover which "...infected the working-class movement internationally, and proved an obstacle on the road to socialism."
@AJohnstone, The Russian Revolution can only be regarded as premature in hindsight. The one point you don't engage with, and neither did Pat on the night, was the belief among the Bolsheviks that the October revolution would herald the beginning of a generalised *European* revolution. This hope unfortunately wasn't borne out.
ReplyDeleteOn your other point, you say there were other alternatives in Russia - but what were they? With the establishment of dual power in February, you had the situation of the bourgeois provisional government backed up by ostensibly socialist organisations in the Soviets who, like yourselves, believed a move over to workers power was premature. After the return of Lenin from exile, the one party who followed your advice of fighting for "the acquisition of democratic political rights by the working class" were the Bolsheviks!
Now, in conditions of dual power, how would you go about this fight? You would place democratic demands on the bourgeois state, such as the convening of a constituent assembly, while recognising the organisation of soviets were a far higher, more democratic mode of government which actually empowered those who participated in them. As the bourgeois government proved incapable of instituting democratic demands, and covertly encouraged counterrevolutionary forces, it would fall to socialists to stand with soviet power and encourage it to assume greater powers.
Now, this might not have unfolded according to the preconditions set down by the SPGB, but history does have a habit of being rather messy. Standing for democratic rights of the Russian working class in 1917 meant defending and extending soviet power. Once power was taken by the soviets and the Bolshevik-Left SR coalition installed, they had a duty to preserve soviet power from the forces of counterrevolution, which is exactly what happened. It is a tragedy the tumult of counterrevolution and civil war destroyed this power, but under siege the spread of soviet power was never given the chance to peacefully unfold.
It remains to the SPGB's eternal shame that you failed to support, even critically, the concrete struggle for democratic rights in Russia in 1917, just as your party stands condemned today for collectively divorcing the fight for a socialist society from the actual processes of class struggle.
you say there were other alternatives in Russia - but what were they?
ReplyDeleteyou didn't read the link did you ?
Ratner assserts that
"Firstly, that Lenin’s April Theses that set the Bolshevik party on the road to the October insurrection had been rejected by the party. Let us recall that up till Lenin’s arrival in Petrograd, the Bolshevik leadership was pursuing a policy of critical support for the Provisional government. They felt this was consistent with the view that since the Russian bourgeoisie was incapable of bringing about a bourgeois revolution, this task would have to be carried out by the proletariat supported by the peasantry, but that the revolution could not go immediately beyond the stage of establishing a bourgeois republic. In February, the Petrograd proletariat had carried out this "bourgeois revolution" with the support of the peasant soldiers. Now that the bourgeois republic was in place, the next stage was not the immediate struggle for working-class power, but a relatively prolonged period of bourgeois democracy. Lenin now abandoned this view which he had himself defended under the slogan of "the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry", and argued for no support for the Provisional Government, and for agitation for power to the Soviets. He swung the Bolshevik party to this policy. But it was not inevitable that he should have done. The Bolshevik party might have continued its policy of critical support for and pressure on the February regime.
Secondly, even after his steering the party on its new course, Lenin had to fight again in October to commit the party to insurrection against the opposition of Zinoviev, Kamenev, etc. It is not inconceivable that Zinoviev and Kamenev might have carried the day. Then there would have been no October.
Thirdly, even after October there was, as I have pointed out, a very real possibility of a coalition Bolshevik-Menshevik-SR government, based either on the Soviets or a combination of the Constituent Assembly and the Soviets as organs of local power and administration. This possibility foundered against the mutual intransigence of the Bolshevik hardliners on one side and the Menshevik and SR right-wing on the other. But in both camps there were conciliatory wings, the Menshevik Internationalists and some Left SRs and the Bolshevik "moderates" – Kamenev, Rykov, Nogin, etc."
You say
"You would place democratic demands on the bourgeois state, such as the convening of a constituent assembly, while recognising the organisation of soviets were a far higher, more democratic mode of government which actually empowered those who participated in them."
Yet
Four days after seizing power, the Bolshevik Council of People's Commissars (CPC or Sovnarkom) "unilaterally arrogated to itself legislative power simply by promulgating a decree to this effect. This was, effectively, a Bolshevik coup d'etat that made clear the government's (and party's) pre-eminence over the soviets and their executive organ. Increasingly, the Bolsheviks relied upon the appointment from above of commissars with plenipotentiary powers, and they split up and reconstituted fractious Soviets and intimidated political opponents." [Neil Harding, Leninism, p. 253]
you say "It remains to the SPGB's eternal shame that you failed to support, even critically, the concrete struggle for democratic rights in Russia in 1917"
We said "...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.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/archive/revolution%281918%29.pdf
you say :- "The Russian Revolution can only be regarded as premature in hindsight."
then say " you had the situation of the bourgeois provisional government backed up by ostensibly socialist organisations in the Soviets who, like yourselves, believed a move over to workers power was premature."
No hindsight from them then .
Martov ridiculed the Bolsheviks for their belief that revolutions were ready to break out everywhere, for their belief that workers and peasants, by embracing Soviets could establish Socialism. He held the Marxian view that no political form can enable Socialism to be won, unless the material conditions are ripe for such a change, unless capitalism has reached a high degree of development.
And a view that Lenin himself accepted . It is a matter of the proof of the pudding is in the eating . Which analysis has proved the more accurate by the subsequent events that unfurled after the the Russian Revolution .
Your parting final shot should be redirected to the Bolshevik-Trotskyists who insist that only the intellegensia of the vanguard party are capable of socialist consciousness , mere workers can only achieve trade union consciousness .
As for being divorced from class politics as a party of less than 400 , we do not have the arrogance to offer ourselves as leaders , nor do we have the dishonesty of practicing entryism and infiltration of workers movements .
.