The initiative in the social revolution proved, by the force of
events, to be imposed, not upon the old proletariat of Western Europe,
with its mighty economic and political organization, with its
ponderous traditions of parliamentarism and trade unionism, but upon
the young working-class of a backward country. History, as always,
moved along the line of least resistance. The revolutionary epoch
burst upon us through the least barricaded door. Those extraordinary,
truly superhuman, difficulties which were thus flung upon the Russian
proletariat have prepared, hastened, and to a considerable extent
assisted the revolutionary work of the West European proletariat which
still lies before us.
Instead of examining the Russian Revolution in the light of the
revolutionary epoch that has arrived throughout the world, Kautsky
discusses the theme of whether or no the Russian proletariat has taken
power into its hands too soon.
"For Socialism," he explains, "there is necessary a high development
of the people, a high morale amongst the masses, strongly-developed
social instincts, sentiments of solidarity, etc. Such a form of
morale," Kautsky further informs us, "was very highly developed
amongst the proletariat of the Paris Commune. It is absent amongst the
masses which at the present time set the tone amongst the Bolshevik
proletariat." (Page 177.)
For Kautsky's purpose, it is not sufficient to fling mud at the
Bolsheviks as a political party before the eyes of his readers.
Knowing that Bolshevism has become amalgamated with the Russian
proletariat, Kautsky makes an attempt to fling mud at the Russian
proletariat as a whole, representing it as an ignorant, greedy mass,
without any ideals, which is guided only by the instincts and impulses
of the moment.
Throughout his booklet Kautsky returns many times to the question of
the intellectual and moral level of the Russian workers, and every
time only to deepen his characterization of them as ignorant, stupid
and barbarous. To bring about the most striking contrasts, Kautsky
adduces the example of how a workshop committee in one of the war
industries during the Commune decided upon compulsory night duty in
the works for _one_ worker so that it might be possible to
distribute repaired arms by night. "As under present circumstances it
is absolutely necessary to be extremely economical with the resources
of the Commune," the regulation read, "the night duty will be rendered
without payment...." "Truly," Kautsky concludes, "these working men
did not regard the period of their dictatorship as an opportune moment
for the satisfaction of their personal interests." (Page 90.) Quite
otherwise is the case with the Russian working class. That class has
no intelligence, no stability, no ideals, no steadfastness, no
readiness for self-sacrifice, and so on. "It is just as little capable
of choosing suitable plenipotentiary leaders for itself," Kautsky
jeers, "as Munchausen was able to drag himself from the swamp by means
of his own hair." This comparison of the Russian proletariat with the
impostor Munchausen dragging himself from the swamp is a striking
example of the brazen tone in which Kautsky speaks of the Russian
working class.
He brings extracts from various speeches and articles of ours in which
undesirable phenomena amongst the working class are shown up, and
attempts to represent matters in such a way as if the life of the
Russian proletariat between 1917-20--_i.e._, in the greatest of
revolutionary epochs--is fully described by passivity, ignorance, and
egotism.
Kautsky, forsooth, does not know, has never heard, cannot guess, may
not imagine, that during the civil war the Russian proletariat had
more than one occasion of freely giving its labour, and even of
establishing "unpaid" guard duties--not of _one_ worker for the
space of _one_ night, but of tens of thousands of workers for the
space of a long series of disturbed nights. In the days and weeks of
Yudenich's advance on Petrograd, one telephonogram of the Soviet was
sufficient to ensure that many thousands of workers should spring to
their posts in all the factories, in all the wards of the city. And
this not in the first days of the Petrograd Commune, but after a two
years' struggle in cold and hunger.
Two or three times a year our party mobilizes a high proportion of its
numbers for the front. Scattered over a distance of 8,000 versts, they
die and teach others to die. And when, in hungry and cold Moscow,
which has given the flower of its workers to the front, a Party Week
is proclaimed, there pour into our ranks from the proletarian masses,
in the space of seven days, 15,000 persons. And at what moment? At the
moment when the danger of the destruction of the Soviet Government had
reached its most acute point. At the moment when Orel had been taken,
and Denikin was approaching Tula and Moscow, when Yudenich was
threatening Petrograd. At that most painful moment, the Moscow
proletariat, in the course of a week, gave to the ranks of our party
15,000 men, who only waited a new mobilization for the front. And it
can be said with certainty that never yet, with the exception of the
week of the November rising in 1917, was the Moscow proletariat so
single-minded in its revolutionary enthusiasm, and in its readiness
for devoted struggle, as in those most difficult days of peril and
self-sacrifice.
When our party proclaimed the watchword of Subbotniks and Voskresniks
(Communist Saturdays and Sundays), the revolutionary idealism of the
proletariat found for itself a striking expression in the shape of
voluntary labor. At first tens and hundreds, later thousands, and now
tens and hundreds of thousands of workers every week give up several
hours of their labor without reward, for the sake of the economic
reconstruction of the country. And this is done by half-starved
people, in torn boots, in dirty linen--because the country has neither
boots nor soap. Such, in reality, is that Bolshevik proletariat to
whom Kautsky recommends a course of self-sacrifice. The facts of the
situation, and their relative importance, will appear still more
vividly before us if we recall that all the egoist, bourgeois,
coarsely selfish elements of the proletariat--all those who avoid
service at the front and in the Subbotniks, who engage in speculation
and in weeks of starvation incite the workers to strikes--all of them
vote at the Soviet elections for the Mensheviks; that is, for the
Russian Kautskies.
Kautsky quotes our words to the effect that, even before the November
Revolution, we clearly realized the defects in education of the
Russian proletariat, but, recognizing the inevitability of the
transference of power to the working class, we considered ourselves
justified in hoping that during the struggle itself, during its
experience, and with the ever-increasing support of the proletariat of
other countries, we should deal adequately with our difficulties, and
be able to guarantee the transition of Russia to the Socialist order.
In this connection, Kautsky asks: "Would Trotsky undertake to get on a
locomotive and set it going, in the conviction that he would during
the journey have time to learn and to arrange everything? One must
preliminarily have acquired the qualities necessary to drive a
locomotive before deciding to set it going. Similarly the proletariat
ought beforehand to have acquired those necessary qualities which make
it capable of administering industry, once it had to take it over."
(Page 173.)
This instructive comparison would have done honor to any village
clergyman. None the less, it is stupid. With infinitely more
foundation one could say: "Will Kautsky dare to mount a horse before
he has learned to sit firmly in the saddle, and to guide the animal in
all its steps?" We have foundations for believing that Kautsky would
not make up his mind to such a dangerous purely Bolshevik experiment.
On the other hand, we fear that, through not risking to mount the
horse, Kautsky would have considerable difficulty in learning the
secrets of riding on horse-back. For the fundamental Bolshevik
prejudice is precisely this: that one learns to ride on horse-back
only when sitting on the horse.
Concerning the driving of the locomotive, this principle is at first
sight not so evident; but none the less it is there. No one yet has
learned to drive a locomotive sitting in his study. One has to get up
on to the engine, to take one's stand in the tender, to take into
one's hands the regulator, and to turn it. True, the engine allows
training manoeuvres only under the guidance of an old driver. The
horse allows of instructions in the riding school only under the
guidance of experienced trainers. But in the sphere of State
administration such artificial conditions cannot be created. The
bourgeoisie does not build for the proletariat academies of State
administration, and does not place at its disposal, for preliminary
practice, the helm of the State. And besides, the workers and peasants
learn even to ride on horse-back not in the riding school, and without
the assistance of trainers.
To this we must add another consideration, perhaps the most important.
No one gives the proletariat the opportunity of choosing whether it
will or will not mount the horse, whether it will take power
immediately or postpone the moment. Under certain conditions the
working class is bound to take power, under the threat of political
self-annihilation for a whole historical period.
Once having taken power, it is impossible to accept one set of
consequences at will and refuse to accept others. If the capitalist
bourgeoisie consciously and malignantly transforms the disorganization
of production into a method of political struggle, with the object of
restoring power to itself, the proletariat is _obliged_ to resort
to Socialization, independently of whether this is beneficial or
otherwise at the _given moment_.
And, once having taken over production, the proletariat is obliged,
under the pressure of iron necessity, to learn by its own experience a
most difficult art--that of organizing Socialist economy. Having
mounted the saddle, the rider is obliged to guide the horse--on the
peril of breaking his neck.
* * * * *
To give his high-souled supporters, male and female, a complete
picture of the moral level of the Russian proletariat, Kautsky
adduces, on page 172 of his book, the following mandate, issued,
it is alleged, by the Murzilovka Soviet: "The Soviet hereby
empowers Comrade Gregory Sareiev, in accordance with his choice and
instructions, to requisition and lead to the barracks, for the use of
the Artillery Division stationed in Murzilovka, Briansk County, sixty
women and girls from the bourgeois and speculating class, September
16, 1918." (_What are the Bolshevists doing?_ Published by Dr. Nath.
Wintch-Malejeff. Lausanne, 1919. Page 10.)
Without having the least doubt of the forged character of this
document and the lying nature of the whole communication, I gave
instructions, however, that careful inquiry should be made, in order
to discover what facts and episodes lay at the root of this invention.
A carefully carried out investigation showed the following:--
(1) In the Briansk County there is absolutely no village by the name
of Murzilovka. There is no such village in the neighboring counties
either. The most similar in name is the village of Muraviovka, Briansk
County; but no artillery division has ever been stationed there, and
altogether nothing ever took place which might be in any way connected
with the above "document."
(2) The investigation was also carried on along the line of the
artillery units. Absolutely nowhere were we able to discover even an
indirect allusion to a fact similar to that adduced by Kautsky from
the words of his inspirer.
(3) Finally the investigation dealt with the question of whether there
had been any rumors of this kind on the spot. Here, too, absolutely
nothing was discovered; and no wonder. The very contents of the
forgery are in too brutal a contrast with the morals and public
opinion of the foremost workers and peasants who direct the work of
the Soviets, even in the most backward regions.
In this way, the document must be described as a pitiful forgery,
which might be circulated only by the most malignant sycophants in the
most yellow of the gutter press.
While the investigation described above was going on, Comrade
Zinovieff showed me a number of a Swedish paper (_Svenska Dagbladet_)
of November 9, 1919, in which was printed the facsimile of a mandate
running as follows:--
"_Mandate._ The bearer of this, Comrade Karaseiev, has the right
of socializing in the town of Ekaterinodar (obliterated) girls aged
from 16 to 36 at his pleasure.--GLAVKOM IVASHCHEFF."
This document is even more stupid and impudent than that quoted by
Kautsky. The town of Ekaterinodar--the centre of the Kuban--was, as is
well known, for only a very short time in the hands of the Soviet
Government. Apparently the author of the forgery, not very well up in
his revolutionary chronology, rubbed out the date on this document,
lest by some chance it should appear that "Glavkom Ivashcheff"
socialized the Ekaterinodar women during the reign of Denikin's
militarism there. That the document might lead into error the
thick-witted Swedish bourgeois is not at all amazing. But for the
Russian reader it is only too clear that the document is not merely a
forgery, but drawn up by a _foreigner, dictionary in hand_. It is
extremely curious that the names of both the socializers of women,
"Gregory Sareiev" and "Karaseiev" sound absolutely non-Russia. The
ending "eiev" in Russian names is found rarely, and only in definite
combinations. But the accuser of the Bolsheviks himself, the author of
the English pamphlet on whom Kautsky bases his evidence, has a name
that does actually end in "eiev." It seems obvious that this
Anglo-Bulgarian police agent, sitting in Lausanne, creates socializers
of women, in the fullest sense of the word, after his own likeness and
image.
Kautsky, at any rate, has original inspirers and assistants!