01.07.1999

Winning the peasantry

Phil Sharpe argues that the Bolsheviks were wrong to dissolve the Constituent Assembly

The Constituent Assembly was always an important part of the Russian Marxist programme for the bourgeois democratic republic. The Constituent Assembly was potentially considered to represent the popular will of the workers and peasants. One of its main aims would be to supervise land reform and ensure that the peasants would finally overcome the domination of feudalism.

In 1917 the workers, soldiers and sailors established soviets. Lenin recognised their revolutionary nature, and called for all power to the soviets. However, he did not drop the call for the Constituent Assembly and concentrate exclusively upon that revolutionary proletarian demand. Lenin recognised that the soviets expressed the revolutionary class content of the proletariat, and he acknowledged that the Constituent Assembly represented the bourgeois democratic content of the peasantry. The Constituent Assembly could have an important role in realising the peasants’ aspirations for land.

The bourgeois provisional government was reluctant to hold elections to a Constituent Assembly and the Bolsheviks became known as the party that took the Constituent Assembly seriously, and wanted the elections to be called. Indeed Lenin remarked that if the Socialist Revolutionary Party got a majority, this would not necessarily lead to a rupture between the soviets and Constituent Assembly, because the peasants would have to learn by their own experience about the counterrevolutionary nature of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (VI Lenin CW Vol 26, Moscow 1977, p261). Hence Lenin’s conception of socialist transition was based upon the consolidation of the proletariat and peasant alliance, and he put an emphasis upon the need for dialogue, consensus and a peaceful realisation of socialism. Lenin knew that if the Bolsheviks acted to dissolve the Constituent Assembly this could undermine the alliance and facilitate the conditions for civil war.

After the October revolution the Bolsheviks held elections for the Constituent Assembly, and a majority of the seats went to the right wing of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Lenin called upon the peasants to recall their deputies because they did not represent the will of the people after the October revolution. This call does not seem to have been successful, but this failure was offset by the left wing of the Socialist Revolutionary Party joining the Bolsheviks in a coalition government. This led the Bolsheviks to raise the possibility of new elections to the Constituent Assembly in order to express this new political development.

But new elections were never called, even though Lenin’s ‘Theses on the Constituent Assembly’ demands new elections if the soviets and Constituent Assembly are to exist in harmony rather than discord (ibid pp379-383). The call was not raised in a consistent manner. Instead Lenin increasingly supported the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly because it represented a counterrevolutionary alternative to the rule of soviet power. Its rightwing composition meant the Constituent Assembly did not recognise the legitimacy and necessity of soviet power, and was instead acting in a counterrevolutionary manner. The only basis upon which the Constituent Assembly could continue to exist was if it recognised the political hegemony of the soviets, but, given the reactionary nature of the Constituent Assembly, this was unlikely to happen (ibid pp423-425). The possibility of conflict between the soviets and Constituent Assembly became ever more likely.

Lenin theoretically justified his confrontational stance by replacing his original conception of socialist transition with a new one. The peaceful development of socialism was now replaced with the perspective that socialism is realised through the intensification of class struggle. The old ruling class intensifies its opposition to socialism the nearer the possibility of socialism becomes apparent, so the soviets, as the expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat, have to apply coercion against the old ruling class in order to ensure the successful transition to socialism (ibid pp400-403).

Thus the proletariat learns through struggle and practice how to develop socialism: theory is secondary in the context of realising socialism through civil war. Hence socialism is now the outcome of antagonism rather than proletarian hegemony in the alliance of the proletariat and peasantry. The role of plurality, dialogue and consensus becomes the expression of the passive emphasis upon theory and the idealist illusions of the intelligentsia. In contrast the destructive content of civil war is the basis to defeat counterrevolution. What Lenin does not question in relation to justifying this new conception of socialist transition are the problems it creates for upholding the proletarian and peasant alliance. Coercion becomes applied to the peasantry in the period of civil war and only when the New Economic Policy is introduced does the conception of consensus start to re-emerge as the basis for proletarian and peasant relations.

The draft decree of the soviets abolishing the Constituent Assembly said this was necessary because of its counterrevolutionary and rightwing nature (ibid pp434-436). There was a constant power struggle. Hence the need to ensure the domination of the soviets led to the abolition of the Constituent Assembly. But there was no mention of why new elections could not have taken place in order to ensure a more representative Constituent Assembly that acknowledged the unity between the Left Socialist Revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks.

Lenin’s speech to the central executive committee of the soviets made it clearer why the Constituent Assembly had been dissolved (ibid pp437-441). This action was a matter of class principles: the soviets cannot coexist with a counterrevolutionary bourgeois organisation. The development of the dictatorship of the proletariat on the basis of the creativity of the soviets showed how outdated the Constituent Assembly had become. It was a correct demand for the Kerensky period, but now had no more relevance, and to allow the Constituent Assembly to exist could lead to an ending of soviet power. Hence the Constituent Assembly is dissolved even if this leads to civil war.

Lenin is now emphatic that reform of the Constituent Assembly, and even the demand that it recognise the power of the soviets, is not sufficient to keep the Constituent Assembly going. For just as the soviets expressed the revolutionary class content of the proletariat, so the Constituent Assembly represents the counterrevolutionary power of the bourgeoisie. Just as the class antagonism between the proletariat and bourgeoisie is irreconcilable, so the differences between the Constituent Assembly and the soviets are also irreconcilable. The soviets have no other choice than to dissolve the Constituent Assembly.

Lenin’s approach has changed a lot since he promised the peasants that he would accept their electoral support for the Socialist Revolutionary Party. His argument that it was not possible for the soviets and Constituent Assembly to coexist is not absolutely untrue, and it was necessary to show the workers and peasants that the Constituent Assembly was counterrevolutionary. But this was not done, because the Constituent Assembly was dissolved after a few days of its existence.

Lenin maintains that the Right Socialist Revolutionary majority in the Constituent Assembly was counterrevolutionary, but it was still important to establish a dialogue with the Right SRs, because they had the majority support of the peasants. To close down the Constituent Assembly after a few days was to undermine the alliance of the workers and peasants. The peasants wanted the SR assembly deputies to act on their behalf, and this meant they probably believed that the closing down of the Constituent Assembly was a measure taken against them. The best way to really undermine the counterrevolutionary majority in the Constituent Assembly would be to let it exist, and this would enable the workers and peasants to learn by their own experience that the SRs are counterrevolutionary, and the possibility would be created for the Bolsheviks to win an electoral majority.

Lenin claimed that the Constituent Assembly was a bourgeois political agency that was attempting to undermine the soviets. But it was not as powerful as Lenin claims. It was not a rival to the soviets, and was instead a propaganda body for the bourgeoisie, which meant there was not a political imperative to dissolve the Constituent Assembly. Rather it was necessary that the peasantry understood how reactionary it was. But because the assembly was dissolved so early the peasantry still had illusions it, and this premature action undermined the workers’ and peasant alliance. Hence the dictatorship of the proletariat became conceived in the harsh terms of war communism.

Despite the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly Lenin believed that the peasants were increasingly on the side of the Bolsheviks and Left SRs, and the bourgeoisie were aligned with the Right SRs. Socialism cannot be imposed by force on the peasantry, but the peasantry also know that the dictatorship of the proletariat has no other choice than suppression of the exploiters through civil war. Socialism cannot be achieved through the Constituent Assembly - this is a bourgeois democratic myth (ibid p460). The establishment of a Red Army and the help of international revolution will make the Soviet Republic invincible. In contrast, if the soviets were to put measures, such as nationalising the banks, to the Constituent Assembly, this would amount to getting the permission of the bourgeoisie for the actions of the soviets, and this represented the rejection of socialism (ibid pp455-472).

Lenin argues that the bourgeois democracy of the Constituent Assembly upholds the exploitation of the workers by the bourgeoisie, and now the soviets are in power the bourgeois democratic revolution has been transcended. The Constituent Assembly was a demand that was relevant during the struggle to establish bourgeois democracy, but now the soviets express the political representation of the workers and peasants (ibid pp473-477).

It is true that the Constituent Assembly represents bourgeois democracy and the soviets express proletarian democracy. This different class content would seem to suggest that the soviets were acting on behalf of the masses when they dissolved the Constituent Assembly. However, the problem with this action was that it may have had the support of the workers, but the peasants were not convinced. To argue that the peasants were on the side of the soviets, and that they supported the use of force in the interests of socialism, was possibly wishful thinking by Lenin.

In actuality the response of the peasants to the dissolving of the Constituent Assembly was very complex. They did not like the suppression of the Right SRs, but were prepared to continue to give support to the soviets, which had carried out land reform. In the last analysis the peasants gave support to the Bolsheviks in the civil war because the forces of reaction threatened to reverse the process of land reform. To argue that the soviets were the exclusive form of political democracy for the dictatorship of the proletariat while the Constituent Assembly was for the antagonistic system of bourgeois democracy is formally true, but what was absent from this analysis was that the peasantry represented the mass class basis of bourgeois democracy. Hence to dissolve the Constituent Assembly because it was the expression of a system that was hostile to the dictatorship of the proletariat was still an action that disenfranchised the peasantry, and made them a potential force for counterrevolution.

Lenin argues that increasingly the mass of the peasants and workers supported the soviets and were in conflict with the Constituent Assembly. This class polarisation is expressed by the Left SRs coming over to the side of socialism, whilst the rich peasants and Right SRs are for all power to the Constituent Assembly. The interests of the revolution are dominant, and so if the Constituent Assembly goes against the soviets then it will be suppressed.

Lenin is even more explicit about the incompatibility of the soviets and Constituent Assembly in his speech to the railworkers’ congress (ibid pp497-500). Lenin contends that neither a referendum nor new elections could overcome the problems. The Constituent Assembly tries to unite the workers and peasants with the bourgeoisie, but the soviets express the real class interests of the workers. Hence on the basis of antagonistic class interests the Constituent Assembly cannot be reformed by new elections, for even if these were held it would retain its reactionary bourgeois character. The only possible thing to do is to dissolve the Constituent Assembly, thereby developing the power of the soviets, and prepare for civil war against the bourgeoisie - no longer able to use the Constituent Assembly for the purposes of counterrevolution.

But even if we accept that Lenin is correct and the Constituent Assembly is nothing more than the expression of counterrevolution, the changing of the balance of class forces in favour of proletarian dictatorship and against the potential for bourgeois restoration is not helped by dissolution. On the contrary to allow the Constituent Assembly to exist is to unfavourably contrast this parliamentary body with the soviets: the actions of the soviets on behalf of the workers and peasants will show in concrete reality that the Constituent Assembly is for the exploiters. This will discredit and isolate the Constituent Assembly, and allow the Bolsheviks to be elected as a majority. This will create the basis for the convergence between the soviets and the Constituent Assembly.

In The Proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky Lenin summarises the Constituent Assembly experience. Lenin argues that while the soviets are the basis of the transition to socialism, the Constituent Assembly has a petty bourgeois and bourgeois class content. In contrast Kautsky tries to deny the class content of the Constituent Assembly. He is against the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly because he is against class struggle in opposition to the bourgeoisie. But Lenin insists it is the soviets which show more accurately the move to the left by the workers and peasants, and they have rejected the petty bourgeois leadership of the Mensheviks and Right SRs (ibid pp264-272).

Lenin now explicitly accepts that the peasantry (the petty bourgeoisie) have voted for the SRs, but the importance of this is rejected because what counts is the elections to the soviets. In absolute terms Lenin rejects the necessity of the Constituent Assembly, and instead is only for soviet democracy within the dictatorship of the proletariat.