Part 6. A dual victory.
Comrades,
we last saw that Lenin was fighting the battle on two fronts. On the one
hand placing the the emphasis on *practical* political struggle for the
establishment of an independent political party of the revolutionary
proletariat. On the other he was conducting the ideological struggle, for
the defence of Marxist theory in general, the materialist conception of
history, from the attacks of the bourgeoisie. This latter had,
predominantly, taken the form of the Narodnik's 'On the market question',
which refuted the development of capitalism in Russia, that was predicted
and declared to be evolving out of feudal Russia by the Marxists. An
evolutionary, dialectical economic process that would inevitably lead to the
revolutionary political overthrow of the feudal state by the new emerging
bourgeois ruling class, who were appropriating the new emerging means of
production and forming the new foces and relations of production within the
old society, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Lenin's defence of the
Marxist position culminated in the issue of his work 'The Development Of
Capitalism in Russia' in 1899. The case was proven in this dialectical
exposition, and signalled the victory for the Marxist materialist conception
of social development in the most practical way. It, at the same time, was a
demonstration of Lenin's mastery of dialectics and the scientific method of
analysis.
A little earlier, he had successfully led the practical struggle to a
satifactory conclusion through placing the emphasis, on political work for
the establishment of an independent political party of the revolutionary
proletariat. This was achieved in 1898 with the unification of six
revolutionary organisations, four, representing the League For the
Emancipation Of The Working Class, Moscow, St Petersburg, Ekaterinoslav, and
Kiev; the Rabochaya Gazeta group and the Bund. The first Congress of the new
party, The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, was held in Minsk in
Mar.1898. This too was a significant victory, not only, in that, it followed
a priority directive of scientific-socialism for the establishment of a
party, but the programme of the party was being based on the revolutionary
policies arising from the Manifesto, for the proletariat to lead the coming
bourgeois-democratic revolution for the acheivements of its own further
interests.
These two victories, together, were a magnificent achievement, produced in
such a short time principally by Lenin's guidance and expertise, commencing
in 1893-4.
It is at this time also (1899), that the bourgeois elements in Russia, were
to sieze on that that theoretical contradiction *within*
scientific-socialism. Seeing that the external bourgeois attacks against
Marxist theory in general were failing, or had failed, that the dialectical
materialist concept of social development was being validated. It was now
necessary in order to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie; it would, from
their point of view, now, be better that the proletariat be induced to
follow the evolutionary path to socialism, to follow in the wake of the
bourgeoisie, to lead them away from political struggle and objectives
towards socialism.
How better to do this than to use Marxism against scientific-socialism,
against revolutionary socialism. It was now vital for bourgeois interests to
steer the proletariat into "economic" forms of struggle, to play down the
political activities and replace them with economic forms of struggle and
follow the evolutionary path to socialism through the capitalist epoch of
society with its bourgeois class dictatorship. The whole course of the
*ideological* struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie was to be
conducted within the proletarian revolutionary movement itself movement. The
essence underlying this coming struggle, was of course related to the
question of whether the proletariat would continue their revolution upon the
successful overthrow of the feudal state, using it as a "prelude" to a
proletarian revolution, (in accord with the programme of the new party of
the proletariat) or were the revolutionary proletariat to follow the
'proven' path of social development that Marxism has demonstrated and
observed from the development of society in general.
This bourgeois program of counter-revolution, burst upon the revolutionary
scene in the form of an opposing "tendency" as a "departure" from
revolutionary, scientific-socialism, from Russian Social-Democracy; as the
'Credo'. This departure, was an exposition of "new views" produced by
certain "young" Social-Democrats. Immediately, in response, at a meeting of
Social-Democrats it was resolved to publish and expose this new
counter-revolutionary "tendency" by issuing the 'Protest By Russian
Social-Democrats' (Sept. 1898) Vol.4 Lenin C/W. The Credo should be read to
fully appreciate the trend and its direct threat to revolutionary socialism.
An example of the "new views" expressed in the Credo is as follows:
"The change will not only be towards a more energetic prosecution of the
economic struggle and consolidation of the economic organisations, but also,
and most importantly towards a change in the paty's attitude to other
opposition parties. Intolerant Marxism, primitive Marxism, (whose conception
of the class division of society is too schematic) will give way to
democratic Marxism, and the social position of the party within modern
society must undergo a sharp change."
The 'Protest' issued by the revolutionary Social-Democrats, invited all
Social-Democrats to discuss the Credo and express their opinions; that all
differences may be removed and to accelerate the organising and
strengthening of the party. This was the beginning of the open struggle
between evolutionary socialism and revolutionary socialism, it was to appear
in several forms in due course. This first, appeared as 'economism'
struggling for bourgeois leadership of the working class, to subvert its
revolutionary aims for uninterrupted revolution, for revolution in
permanence, following the conclusion of the bourgeois democratic revolution.
The revolutionary programme was made very clear in the 'protest':
"The proletariat must strive to form independent political workers' parties,
the main aim of which must be the capture of political power by the
proletariat for the purpose of organising socialist society,..."
Still in 1899, Lenin in 'A Letter To The Editorial Group'(Vol.4 Lenin C/W.)
of Robochaya Gazeta, the the official organ of the party; revealed that the
contradiction and the struggle of opposites was running through the whole
movement. Lenin saw the unification of the forces of reaction, where the
'economists' Robochaya Mysyl, were uniting with Bernstein, who still
attacked Marxism in general (and was being refuted by Kautsky). Disagreeing
with the editorial group, who considered that there was "no particular need
for a polemic against Bernsteinism and its Russian echoers", Lenin said:
"Bernsteins public announcement that the majority of the Russian
Social-Democrats agree with him; the split between the "young" Russian
Social-Democrats abroad and the Emancipation of labour Group which is the
founder, the representative, and the most faithful custodian of the "old
current"; the vain efforts of Robochaya Mysl to say some new word, to revolt
against the "extensive" political tasks, to raise petty matters and
amatuerish to the heights of apotheosis, to wax vulgarly ironical over
"revolutionary theories"; lastly complete disorder in the legal Marxist
literature and the frantic efforts on the part of the majority of its
representatives to sieze upon Bernsteinism, the "criticism" a la mode-all
this in my opinion, serves to show clearly that the re-establishment of the
"old current" and its energetic defence is a matter of real urgency. ... I
think it is necessary to launch a direct polemic against Robochaya Mysl, .."
Lenin C/W vol.4. p.208. 'Letter To the Editorial Group'.
The revolutionary Social-Democrats had immediately recognised the enemy
within and rose to counter them.
At this point we can see that the contradiction introduced into the
Communist Manifesto as a revolutionary, *theoretical*, proposition for
"revolution in permanence", had now become a material force and brought into
being its opposite, a material opposition based on the evolutionary
development of society, the evolutionary advance to socialism. The Russian
bourgeoisie needed the revolutionary proletariat to secure the state for
itself, for its dictatorship and was prepared to use the tenets of Marxism
for this purpose. Both were contradictory aspects fighting for the
ideological leadership of the proletariat in Russia, as the bourgeois
revolution approached.
My next post will continue to follow the course of the struggle, in which,
as we know, the victor will either steer the Russian proletariat, through
bourgeois revolution and on into uninterrupted revolution, to proletarian
revolution, or, into the bourgeois revolution and on into the further
evolution of capitalism, to the further development of its mode and
relations of production under the bourgeois dictatorship. The struggle for
leadership of the proletariat was a vital one for both the proletariat and
the bourgeoisie in Russia.
Fraternally Alan.
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
