Anish Ankur
This year, Vladimir Lenin’s 150th birth anniversary is being observed all over the world. During the coronavirus crisis, we came across reports of how Lenin had made gigantic preparation to confront the most disastrous pandemic of his time, the Spanish Flu. We were reminded of how Lenin built a robust public health system in Russia immediately after the October Revolution, in order to combat the pandemic. And after a hundred years, when Covid-19 struck the entire world, it is socialist countries and progressive state governments like Kerala’s, inspired by Lenin, that have proved that they are better equipped to meet the challenges of this pandemic.
In 2017, New Delhi-based LeftWord Books published a fascinating collection of Lenin’s important articles written in 1917, between the two revolutions, February’s and October’s. The book, Revolution! Lenin in 1917’ is edited by Prakash Karat, the ex-General Secretary of the CPI(M) and the current Editor of People’s Democracy.
In his introduction, Karat outlines the importance of Lenin’s 1917 writings and says, “Lenin’s entire corpus of writings in the eight months between two revolutions offers a concrete lesson on the theory and practice of revolution. There are hundreds of pages published that record the theses, tracts, resolutions, articles, letters and speeches from Lenin. Some of the articles and speeches are written with a cool analytical mind, and some are written in feverish haste. Together they provide a unique view of how revolution unfolded.”
In fact, Lenin was living outside the country when the February Revolution broke out in Russia. When he heard that this revolution ended the Tsar’s direct rule and a new provisional government had come up replacing three hundred years’ long and one of the most oppressive monarchies in history, he wrote five famous letters, popularly known as “Letters from Afar”.
In his first letter, Lenin remembers the impact of the first revolutionary attempt of 1905 on the country thus, “The first revolution (1905) deeply ploughed the soil, uprooted age old prejudices, awakened millions of workers and tens of millions of peasants to political life and political struggle”.
Lenin further said that the February Revolution of 1917 is the continuation of the 1905 Revolution, “Without the Revolution of 1905-07 and the counter-revolution of 1907-14, there could not have been that clear self-determination of all classes of the Russian people and of the nations inhabiting Russia, that determination of the relation of these classes to each other and to the tsarist monarchy which manifested itself during the eight days of the February-March Revolution of 1917. This eight day revolution was “performed”. If we may use a metaphorical expression, as though after a dozen major and minor rehearsals, the “actors” knew each other, their parts, their places and their setting in every detail, through and through, down to every more or less important shade of political trend and mode of action.”
In the third letter, Lenin takes up the question ‘concerning the proletarian militia’ and discusses the importance of the state in revolutionary transformation. However, during the time, there was a lot of confusion regarding the nature of state. Anarchists had a very different view of state, therefore, Lenin underlines the difference between his views and that of the anarchists thus, “We need a revolutionary government, we need (for a transitional period) a state. This is what distinguishes us from the anarchists. The difference between the revolutionary Marxists and the anarchists is not only the former stand for centralised, large scale communist production while the latter stand for disconnected small production. The difference between us precisely on the question of government, of the state, is that we are for, and the anarchists against utilising revolutionary forms of the state in a revolutionary way for the struggle against socialism.”
The “Letters from Afar” made Lenin’s intentions about the Bolshevik Party’s functioning clear from the beginning — that it should not support the provisional government that replaced the Tsarist monarchy. Lenin always warned people about the bourgeoisie and against harbouring any illusion about ruling class representatives like Milyokov, Guchkov and others. He then further elaborated this point in his world-renowned document, April Theses, in which he laid bare the direction the Bolshevik Party had to take.
In an article titled The Tasks of the Proletarian Revolution, Lenin opines, “The bourgeoisie deceives the people by working on their noble pride in the revolution and by pretending that the social and political character of the war, as far as Russia is concerned, underwent a change because of this stage of the revolution, because of the substitution of the near- republic of Guchkov and Milyukov for the Tsarist monarchy. And the people believed it – for a time- largely owing to age-old prejudices, which made them look upon the other peoples of Russia, i.e the non Great Russians, as something in the nature of property and private estate of the Great Russians. This vile demoralisation of the Great Russian people by the Tsarist which taught them to regard the other peoples as inferior, something belonging ‘by right’ to Great Russia, could not disappear instantly.”
The writings contained in Lenin in 1917 provide a deep and clear insight into how Lenin’s mind was working towards the final goal of capture of power. He was in the process of removing every ideological obstacle from the eyes of his comrades, step by step.
The Bolsheviks were facing the criticism that they were talking about how to end the war without having enough strength to do it. Lenin dealt with this question in a lecture delivered on May 14, 1917, in which he says in very categorical terms:
“We were told ‘ you are giving no answer. You talk about revolution when the strikes are off, when deputies are doing hard labour and when you haven’t a single newspaper’ And we were accused of evading an answer. We heard those accusations for a number of years. We answered: you can be indignant about it, but so long as the tsar has not been overthrown we can do nothing against the war. And our prediction was justified. It is not fully justified yet, but it has already begun to receive justification. The revolution is beginning to change the war on Russia’s part. The capitalists are still continuing the war and we say: Until there is a worker’s revolution in several countries the war cannot be stopped, because the people who want the war are still in power.”
In this lecture, we can see that Lenin very clearly states, from a historical perspective, that only those revolutions succeed which have the backing of broad masses of people: “We don’t want a ‘seizure’ of power, because the entire experience of past revolutions teaches us that the only stable power is the one that has the backing of the majority of the population”.
Initially, Lenin would ask the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs) to go ahead and take power. He repeatedly exhorted them to grab power. Lenin also said that at this particular time it can be done peacefully due to the mass support of the working people, but they (Menshiveks and SRs), instead of doing it, started dilly-dallying and ultimately, reactionary forces struck the leadership of General Kornilov. At this time, Lenin observed, “All hopes for a peaceful development of the Russian revolution have vanished for good”. Therefore, the objective situation of Russia now has only two options, “either complete victory for military dictatorship, or victory for worker’s armed uprising.”
At such a critical juncture, a lot of his comrades started hesitating on the pretext that the objective situation has not ripened for revolution and the mood of the masses are not yet prepared for that and that people are still under the influence of bourgeoisie. In such decisive moments, Lenin’s words were very insightful, “When people allow themselves to be frightened by the bourgeoisie, all objects and phenomena naturally appear yellow to them. First, they substitute an impressionist, intellectually criterion for the Marxist criterion of the movement; they substitute subjective impressions of mood for a political analysis of the development of class struggle and of the course of events in the entire country against the entire international background. They “conveniently” forget, of course, that a firm party line, its unyielding resolve, is also a mood creating factor, particularly at the sharpest revolutionary moments.”
On October 17, eight days before the revolution, in his long article titled Letter to the Comrades, Lenin addresses all the misgivings related to the timing and tactics of the revolution. Some comrades raised questions about the Constituent Assembly: “We are becoming stronger day by day. We can enter the Constituent Assembly as a strong opposition. Why should we stake everything?” Lenin’s response to this crucial question was satirical: “Wait for a miracle, for the tempestuous and catastrophic course of events from April to August 29 to be succeeded (due to the prolongation of the war and the spread of famine) by a peaceful, quiet, smooth. Legal convocation of the Constituent Assembly and by a fulfilment of its most lawful decisions. Here you have the ‘Marxist’ tactics! Wait, ye hungry! Kerensky has promised to convene the Constituent Assembly.”
Lenin tried to make his comrades understand that unless they stepped in, imperialist forces would strike down: “Let the clouds of the imperialist conspiracy of the capitalists of all countries who are ready to strangle the Russian revolution gather- we shall wait patiently until we are strangled by the rubble! Instead of attacking the conspirators and breaking their ranks by a victory of the soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, let us wait for the Constituent Assembly, where all the international plots will be vanquished by voting, provided Kerensky and Rodzyanko conscientiously convene the Constituent Assembly. Have we any right to doubt the honesty of Kerensky and Rodzyanko?”
Lenin was also very certain that the revolution in Russia will be a trigger point and that there will be revolution in several countries: “We have always said that the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country creates gigantic changes in the international situation in the economic life of the country, in the condition of the army and in its mood – shall we now ‘forget’ all this, and allow ourselves to be frightened by the ‘difficulties’ of the revolution.”
Written only a day before the historic 25 October, in his Letter to Central Committee Members, Lenin says, “History will not forgive revolutionaries for procrastinating when they could be victorious today (and they certainly will be victorious today), while they risk losing much tomorrow, in fact, they risk losing everything.”
Lenin warned his comrades that at that critical moment, decisive things were not to be decided by vote, but by force: “It would be a disaster, or a sheer formality, to await the wavering vote of October 25. The people have a right and are in duty bound to decide such questions not by vote, but by force.” He also warned that a delay at such a time will be fatal: “The government is tottering. It must be given the death blow at all costs. To delay action is fatal”.
This collection by LeftWord provides us with valuable material on how a volatile political situation can be turned into a revolutionary possibility, if there is a clear cut theoretical understanding and a grip on fast-changing political situations. Lenin had these, and hence succeeded in bringing about a revolution that changed the course of not only Russia’s history, but of the entire world. The book will certainly be an inspiration to those who want to make fundamental changes in their society and polity. A must read and a beacon of hope in today’s turbulent times.
Anish Ankur is a cultural activist cum freelance journalist, based in Patna, Bihar.
Revolution! Lenin in 1917 is a collection of Lenin’s writings that represent the culmination of theoretical and practical work which marks out Lenin as a revolutionary strategist, audacious planner of the socialist revolution and one who could set out the contours of a new State and society after the revolution. It is edited by Prakash Karat and published by LeftWord in 2017. Its on sale on the publisher’s website.
Follow us for regular updates:
Telegram
t.me/studentstrugglein
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/studentstrugglemonthly
WhatsApp
https://chat.whatsapp.com/BvEXdIEy1sqIP0YujRhbDR