WeeklyWorker

28.07.2010

Learning Russian

Continuing our series marking the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of Great Britain, Mark Fischer looks at how the second Russian Revolution was assessed by 'The Call'

Cynics in today’s movement will sometimes lecture us on the futile nature of CPGB’s campaign to unite the existing left into a single, democratic Marxist party. ‘Even if it were possible,’ they say, ‘so what?’ Taken together, the various revolutionary sects are so small, it is argued, that their unity - even on the basis of principled politics - would be practically irrelevant to the workers’ movement, let alone wider society. The lessons of the formation of the CPGB in 1920 belie that sterile, lifeless view of politics.

The founding of our party was an historic event with particular significance for the dire circumstances the ostensibly Marxist organisations find themselves in today. Prior to the party’s founding congress, the left in Britain was fragmented in mutually hostile groups. These groups were small, sectarian and amateurish - any notion that one or another of them could have led the working class to state power simply was not serious politics. Sound familiar ...?

The key to breaking this impasse was, of course, the October Revolution of 1917. As Albert Inkpin, general secretary of the British Socialist Party (the organisation that was to provide the bulk of the membership of the new CPGB) wrote early in 1920, “Socialists in this country watching Russia’s triumphant struggle against world capitalism have an idea which is ever uppermost in their minds. That idea is the desire for a strong, united Communist Party” (The Call February 12 1920).

All the main left groups - not only the BSP, publishers of The Call from which we extract below, but the Socialist Labour Party, the Workers’ Socialist Federation and the South Wales Socialist Society - came together in unity discussions. The process was keenly observed by Lenin himself, who actually intervened to facilitate the process and to give his opinions on issues of controversy that still separated the different trends.

Comrade Inkpin identified those ongoing political differences: “So far as fundamentals and the general basis of unity - revolutionary mass action, soviets or similar organisations, working class dictatorship as the weapon for expropriating capital - are concerned, there was complete unanimity. The differences were on the relations of the Communist Party to the trade unions and the Labour Party” (ibid).

The trade unions and the Labour Party - hardly trivial issues in a country like Britain. Indeed, the founding conference was split almost 50-50 on the question of Labour, with the vote for the new party to seek affiliation only being won by 100 to 85 of the delegates present. Yet unity was won and maintained. As the ‘official communist’ history of the CPGB notes, “the Marxist groups, for nearly 70 years divided, turned in on themselves, each with its own personal and group loyalties, were now united in a single party ...”[1]

So this was an event of huge significance in the history of the workers’ movement in Britain. Yet, when the dust had settled after the founding conference, we see an organisation no bigger than the active members of today’s left groups put together - some 2,000 comrades or so.

The importance of the new organisation, then, was not so much the numerical weight of the forces that it initially brought together - this was tiny. It mattered because it produced a whole which was much more than the sum of its parts. The CPGB was not formed on the basis of some diplomatic compromise, but on the basis of accepting the lead and wanting to take on board the lessons of Russian communism - Bolshevism, as concretised by the Communist International. Communism in Britain thereby went from being essentially a backward, fragmentary and peripheral element of the Second International to a qualitatively higher plane.

As illustrated by the comments of Albert Inkpin above and the passages from The Call below, there is no doubt that the momentous events of 1917 and the prestige of Soviet Russia’s leaders - Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev et al - were instrumental in that achievement of a single, united Communist Party. Today, there is no equivalent driving force. Yet the imperative of revolutionary unity remains and the example of the Bolsheviks and the formation of the CPGB in this country is part of the orthodoxy of all the left sects - in formal terms at least.

Ninety years ago they proved it could be done. Groups with their own disparate traditions were pulled together on the basis of unity in action and the acceptance of majority decisions. To reiterate the essential point - the result was much, much greater than the sum of the parts. Certainly the reality of the CPGB transcended all the weaknesses, all the failings, all the eccentricities of its individual leaders.

Lenin consistently emphasised that the first duty of Marxists, as the leading political section of the class itself, was to organise themselves. Any other approach is frivolous, produces rank amateurism and is thus deeply irresponsible for those that call themselves communists. The enthusiasm and excitement that shines through the reports of The Call as the revolution in Russia advanced - despite the understandable confusions and fuzziness about details - is all the more inspiring because of the practical conclusions that the comrades were to go on to draw. That is, unity in a principled Marxist party that looked to emulate the best of the Bolsheviks on home soil - in that sense, the advanced sections of the movement in this country ‘learned Russian’.

If the contemporary left’s affiliation to the heritage of 1917 is anything more than purely formal and hypocritical, it should draw exactly the same lesson.

The second Russian Revolution

The Call No84, November 15 1917

The expected has happened: Kerensky and the provisional council[2] have been overthrown, and the soviet has taken control in Petrograd. Would that the soviet had never surrendered its power at the beginning of the revolution, Russia would have been in a far stronger position than she is now. As it is, this second revolution may still have been brought about in time.

The reactionaries are hoping for civil war. How affairs will shape in the event of an armed conflict, we cannot at the time of writing predict. We know that Maximalist opinion has rapidly spread throughout Russia.[3] The workmen, peasants and soldiers have remained faithful to the revolution. Even if the reactionaries are able to muster a force to oppose the new government, there are, nevertheless, strong hopes that the revolution will be saved.

It is not difficult to trace the events that led up to, and made necessary, the deposing of Kerensky and the provisional government. From the first moment that he began to compromise with the middle class parties he has steadily drifted towards the right. He became an easy tool in the hands of the reactionaries. He sanctioned a disastrous offensive. He sought the suppression of the army committees that protected the army from its reactionary generals.

It is established now that he was closely implicated in the Kornilov rising.[4] Its object at first was to suppress the soviet and establish a triple dictatorship, including himself. That he was not the leader of the Kornilov rising instead of its apparent suppressor was simply the result of a misunderstanding.

Since then his opposition to the soviet took another form. The recent coalition government and provisional council was designed to remove all powers from the soviet. This it would have done but for the action of the Maximalists.

It was becoming noticeable, too, that the government was reverting to the imperialist policy of tsardom. Kerensky, from leader of the revolution, became leader of the counterrevolution.

Russia in travail

The Call No85, November 22 1917

The conflicting reports and rumours that emanated from Russia during the last week made it impossible to arrive at any conclusion as to what is happening there. No doubt the character of the news reflected the turmoil and distractions that existed as a result of the clash of rival forces.

A clearer view of what transpired could be obtained towards the end of the week, and the dispatch of the Daily News correspondent in Petrograd gives rise to the hope that a satisfactory solution will be arrived at. It is clear, at any rate, that the forces of Kerensky, after a temporary success, have been defeated. This in itself does not ensure an immediate return to tranquillity.

The more hopeful news is the action of the Railway Workers’ Union. It has issued a circular-telegram stating that civil war was imposed by a body of men who were unable to maintain authority; hence the union decided only to support a socialist government of all shades, including the Bolsheviks. The railway union has, of course, the power to command respect for its wishes, and if it so desired it could paralyse the movements of both sides. It did, in fact, declare a strike for Sunday last.

On the same evening a conference took place between the union and the socialist parties. A programme was drawn up, including the formation of a socialist government, an early peace and the transfer of land to agrarian communities. No agreement could be reached on the inclusion of the Bolsheviks in the proposed government. The defeat of Kerensky has strengthened the position of the Bolsheviks, who insisted on participation in the government. It was proposed to organise a council of the people, consisting of representatives of the soviets, the peasants, all the socialist parties, the Petrograd and Moscow city councils, and railway and postal trade unions, for purposes of forming the new government ...

The proposals of the railway union provide the most hopeful means of dealing with the situation. Control in the hands of a socialist government would serve the best interests of Russia and the Russian people. If this be accomplished, the Bolshevik revolution will have been justified.

Russia’s second revolution

The Call No86, editorial, November 29 1917

In the midst of a war which represents the highest triumph of international capitalist imperialism, and in a country which, to all appearances, is further from socialism than any other in the world, socialists - genuine, and not make-believe socialists - have seized the reins of power.

That alone would have sufficed to strike dismay into the hearts of the ruling classes throughout the ‘civilised’ world. But in the present circumstances their dismay is doubly profound, for the Leninist ‘usurpers’ have come to carry out the watchword of the Russian Revolution in earnest. They have come to realise a peace without annexations and indemnities, with the right of nationalities to determine their own fate. To proclaim the land public property and to hand it over to the tillers without any compensation to its former owners, to seize the illicit ‘earnings’ of the wage-profiteers. To establish an all-round eight-hours day, and to publish all the secret diplomatic correspondence and treaties, which have hitherto been regarded by the capitalist world as sacrosanct and inviolable - and all that immediately, without further delay, reservation or compromise. What wonder that the Allies refuse to recognise the authority of the ‘usurpers’ and that the enemy stands perplexed?

The situation is unique - as is the war itself which has brought it about. For the first time we have the dictatorship of the proletariat established under our eyes, and that in a country whose immense extent and population, as well as potential strength, make it a factor in international life of first-class importance.

How long will it last? What fruit will it bear? It is early to tell as yet. What we know is that the Bolshevik success has been carried out with the sympathy and support of the town workers and the common soldiers in the army. It was an act of despair on the part of these masses at seeing the piecemeal surrender of the revolution and its behests to the imperialist bourgeoisie by the opportunist leaders. On the Bolsheviks’ own part it was prompted by a courageous loyalty to the principles of international socialism, as laid down, for the time of war, by the Stuttgart and Basel congresses. And the success of their actions was and is due to the support and sympathy of the masses.

On the one hand, the utter exhaustion of the nation at large deprives the bourgeoisie of the strength and courage to translate its hatred of the Bolsheviks and their fear of their rule into action. This latter circumstance is a factor which may prove lasting and may help to make the Bolshevik rule more permanent than seems at present reasonable. If they find the means and the energy to put through the main items of their programme, they will have achieved a tremendous revolution.

Their position is difficult beyond words. Morally isolated in the world and silently boycotted at home, their only support is, or ought to be, the international working class. Will it support them? Will it realise that it is their own cause which is being fought out over there by men who have staked their lives on it? Peace and bread, the suppression of the war-profiteer and the greedy landlord: this is what Lenin and his friends are trying to obtain for their own countrymen and for the distressed world at large.

Are we going to help them?

Notes

  1. J Klugmann History of the Communist Party of Great Britain Vol 1, London 1968, p69.
  2. The provisional government was the short-lived administrative body which sought to govern Russia immediately following the abdication of tsar Nicholas II in March 1917. It lasted approximately eight months and was overthrown by the Bolshevik-led October revolution. It is sometimes styled the ‘Kerensky government’ after its leading figure, the Socialist Revolutionary Party leader Alexander Kerensky. This provisional government - under pressure from the allies - continued Russia’s involvement in World War I, thus alienating the war-weary people and building support for the Bolsheviks. In his history of the revolution, Trotsky commented of the high-handed and semi-hysterical Kerensky that “the dialectic of the compromise regime and its malicious irony lie in the fact that the masses had to lift Kerensky to the very highest height before they could topple him over”.
  3. Maximalist = Bolshevik.
  4. After the failure of the July offensive on the eastern front, Kerensky had appointed Kornilov as the supreme commander of the Russian army. Tensions soon grew between the two men and on September 7 1917, Kornilov demanded the resignation of the cabinet and the surrender of all military and civil authority to the commander in chief. Kerensky instantly dismissed Kornilov and ordered him back to Petrograd. Kornilov responded by sending troops under the leadership of general Krymov to seize Petrograd. In desperation, Kerensky turned to the Bolshevik-controlled soviets and the red guards. The Bolsheviks responded, but emphasised that they fought for red Petrograd against Kornilov, not for Kerensky. There was no bloc, in other words - military or otherwise. Kornilov later commanded the counterrevolutionary white armies in the civil war.