THE PROLETARIAT IN POWER AND THE PEASANTRY
In case of a victorious revolution, political power passes into the
hands of the class that has played in it a dominant role, in other
words, it passes into the hands of the working class. Of course,
revolutionary representatives of non-proletarian social groups may not
be excluded from the government; sound politics demands that the
proletariat should call into the government influential leaders of the
lower middle class, the intelligentzia and the peasants. The problem is,
_Who will give substance to the politics of the government, who will
form in it a homogeneous majority?_ It is one thing when the government
contains a labor majority, which representatives of other democratic
groups of the people are allowed to join; it is another, when the
government has an outspoken bourgeois-democratic character where labor
representatives are allowed to participate in the capacity of more or
less honorable hostages.
The policies of the liberal capitalist bourgeoisie, notwithstanding all
their vacillations, retreats and treacheries, are of a definite
character. The policies of the proletariat are of a still more definite,
outspoken character. The policies of the intelligentzia, however, a
result of intermediate social position and political flexibility of this
group; the politics of the peasants, a result of the social
heterogeneity, intermediate position, and primitiveness of this class;
the politics of the lower middle class, a result of muddle-headedness,
intermediate position and complete want of political traditions,--can
never be clear, determined, and firm. It must necessarily be subject to
unexpected turns, to uncertainties and surprises.
To imagine a revolutionary democratic government without representatives
of labor is to see the absurdity of such a situation. A refusal of labor
to participate in a revolutionary government would make the very
existence of that government impossible, and would be tantamount to a
betrayal of the cause of the revolution. A participation of labor in a
revolutionary government, however, is admissible, both from the
viewpoint of objective probability and subjective desirability, _only
in the role of a leading dominant power_. Of course, you can call such a
government "dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry,"
"dictatorship of the proletariat, the peasantry, and the
intelligentzia," or "a revolutionary government of the workingmen and
the lower middle class." This question will still remain: Who has the
hegemony in the government and through it in the country? _When we speak
of a labor government we mean that the hegemony belongs to the working
class._
The proletariat will be able to hold this position under one condition:
if it broadens the basis of the revolution.
Many elements of the working masses, especially among the rural
population, will be drawn into the revolution and receive their
political organization only after the first victories of the revolution,
when the revolutionary vanguard, the city proletariat, shall have seized
governmental power. Under such conditions, the work of propaganda and
organization will be conducted through state agencies. Legislative work
itself will become a powerful means of revolutionizing the masses. The
burden thrust upon the shoulders of the working class by the
peculiarities of our social and historical development, the burden of
completing a bourgeois revolution by means of labor struggle, will thus
confront the proletariat with difficulties of enormous magnitude; on the
other hand, however, it will offer the working class, at least in the
first period, unusual opportunities. This will be seen in the relations
between the proletariat and the peasants.
In the revolutions of 1789-93, and 1848, governmental power passed from
absolutism into the hands of the moderate bourgeois elements which
emancipated the peasants before revolutionary democracy succeeded or
even attempted to get into power. The emancipated peasantry then lost
interest in the political ventures of the "city-gentlemen," i.e., in the
further course of the revolution; it formed the dead ballast of "order,"
the foundation of all social "stability," betraying the revolution,
supporting a Cesarian or ultra-absolutist reaction.
The Russian revolution is opposed to a bourgeois constitutional order
which would be able to solve the most primitive problems of democracy.
The Russian revolution will be against it for a long period to come.
Reformers of a bureaucratic brand, such as Witte and Stolypin, can do
nothing for the peasants, as their "enlightened" efforts are continually
nullified by their own struggle for existence. The fate of the most
elementary interests of the peasantry--the entire peasantry as a
class--is, therefore, closely connected with the fate of the revolution,
i.e., with the fate of the proletariat.
_Once in power, the proletariat will appear before the peasantry as its
liberator._
Proletarian rule will mean not only democratic equality, free
self-government, shifting the burden of taxation on the propertied
classes, dissolution of the army among the revolutionary people,
abolition of compulsory payments for the Church, but also recognition of
all revolutionary changes made by the peasants in agrarian relations
(seizures of land). These changes will be taken by the proletariat as a
starting point for further legislative measures in agriculture. Under
such conditions, the Russian peasantry will be interested in upholding
the proletarian rule ("labor democracy"), at least in the first, most
difficult period, not less so than were the French peasants interested
in upholding the military rule of Napoleon Bonaparte who by force
guaranteed to the new owners the integrity of their land shares.
But is it not possible that the peasants will remove the workingmen
from their positions and take their place? No, this can never happen.
This would be in contradiction to all historical experiences. History
has convincingly shown that the peasantry is incapable of an independent
political role.
The history of capitalism is the history of subordination of the village
by the city. Industrial development had made the continuation of feudal
relations in agriculture impossible. Yet the peasantry had not produced
a class which could live up to the revolutionary task of destroying
feudalism. It was the city which made rural population dependent on
capital, and which produced revolutionary forces to assume political
hegemony over the village, there to complete revolutionary changes in
civic and political relations. In the course of further development, the
village becomes completely enslaved by capital, and the villagers by
capitalistic political parties, which revive feudalism in parliamentary
politics, making the peasantry their political domain, the ground for
their preelection huntings. Modern peasantry is driven by the fiscal and
militaristic system of the state into the clutches of usurers' capital,
while state-clergy, state-schools and barrack depravity drive it into
the clutches of usurers' politics.
The Russian bourgeoisie yielded all revolutionary positions to the
Russian proletariat. It will have to yield also the revolutionary
hegemony over the peasants. Once the proletariat becomes master of the
situation, conditions will impel the peasants to uphold the policies of
a labor democracy. They may do it with no more political understanding
than they uphold a bourgeois regime. The difference is that while each
bourgeois party in possession of the peasants' vote uses its power to
rob the peasants, to betray their confidence and to leave their
expectations unfulfilled, in the worst case to give way to another
capitalist party, the working class, backed by the peasantry, will put
all forces into operation to raise the cultural level of the village and
to broaden the political understanding of the peasants.
Our attitude towards the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat and
the peasantry" is now quite clear. It is not a question whether we think
it "admissible" or not, whether we "wish" or we "do not wish" this form
of political cooeperation. In our opinion, it simply cannot be realized,
at least in its direct meaning. Such a cooeperation presupposes that
either the peasantry has identified itself with one of the existing
bourgeois parties, or it has formed a powerful party of its own. Neither
is possible, as we have tried to point out.