From The Marxist Archives-In Honor Of The Anniversary Of The John Brown-Led Raid On Harpers Ferry-
STRIKE THE BLOW-THE LEGEND OF CAPTAIN JOHN BROWN
Reclaiming John Brown for the Left
BOOK REVIEW
JOHN BROWN, ABOLITIONIST, DAVID S. REYNOLDS, ALFRED A. KNOPF, NEW YORK, 2005
From fairly early in my youth I knew the name John Brown and was swept up by the romance surrounding his exploits at Harpers Ferry. For example, I knew that the great anthem of the Civil War -The Battle Hymn of the Republic- had a prior existence as a tribute to John Brown and that Union soldiers marched to that song as they headed south. I was then, however, neither familiar with the import of his exploits for the black liberation struggle nor knew much about the specifics of the politics of the various tendencies in the struggle against slavery. I certainly knew nothing then of Brown’s (and his sons) prior military exploits in the Kansas ‘proxy’ wars against the expansion of slavery. Later study filled in some of those gaps and has only strengthened my strong bond with his memory. Know this, as I reach the age at which John Brown was executed,I still retain my youthful admiration for him. In the context of the turmoil of the times he was the most courageous and audacious revolutionary in the struggle for the abolition of slavery in America. Almost 150 years after his death this writer is proud to stand in the tradition of John Brown.
That said, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I can recommend Mr. Reynolds’s book detailing the life, times and exploits of John Brown, warts and all. Published in 2005, this is an important source (including helpful end notes) for updating various controversies surrounding the John Brown saga. While I may disagree with some of Mr. Reynolds’s conclusions concerning the impact of John Brown’s exploits on later black liberation struggles and to a lesser extent his position on Brown’s impact on his contemporaries, particularly the Transcendentalists, nevertheless on the key point of the central place of John Brown in American revolutionary history there is no dispute. Furthermore, Mr. Reynolds has taken pains to provide substantial detail about the ups and downs of John Brown’s posthumous reputation.
Most importantly, he defends the memory of John Brown against all-comers-that is partisan history on behalf of the ‘losers’ of history at its best. He has reclaimed John Brown to his proper position as an icon for the left against the erroneous and outrageous efforts of modern day religious and secular terrorists to lay any claim to his memory or his work. Below I make a few comments on some of controversies surrounding John Brown developed in Mr. Reynolds’s study.
If one understands the ongoing nature, from his early youth, of John Brown’s commitment to the active struggle against slavery, the scourge of the American Republic in the first half of the 19th century, one can only conclude that he was indeed a man on a mission. As Mr. Reynolds’s points out Brown took every opportunity to fight against slavery including early service as an agent of the Underground Railroad spiriting escaped slaves northward, participation as an extreme radical in all the key anti-slavery propaganda battles of the time as well as challenging other anti-slavery elements to be more militant and in the 1850’s, arms in hand, fighting in the ‘proxy’ wars in Kansas and, of course, the culmination of his life- the raid on Harpers Ferry. Those exploits alone render absurd a very convenient myth by those who supported slavery or turned a blind eye to it and their latter-day apologists for his so-called ‘madness’. This is a political man and to these eyes a very worthy one.
For those who like their political heroes ‘pure’, frankly, it is better to look elsewhere than the life of John Brown. His personal and family life as a failed rural capitalist would hardly lead one to think that this man was to become a key historical figure in any struggle, much less the great struggle against slavery. Some of his actions in Kansas (concerning the murder of some pro-slavery elements under his direction) also cloud his image. However, when the deal went down in the late 1850’s and it was apparent for all to see that there was no other way to end slavery than a fight to the death-John Brown rose to the occasion. And did not cry about it. And did not expect others to cry about it. Call him a ‘monomaniac’ if you like but even a slight acquaintance with great historical figures shows they all have this ‘disease’- that is why they make the history books. No, the ‘madness’ argument will not do.
Whether or not John Brown knew that his military strategy for the Harper’s Ferry raid would, in the short term, be defeated is a matter of dispute. Reams of paper have been spent proving the military foolhardiness of his scheme at Harper’s Ferry. Brown’s plan, however, was essentially a combination of slave revolt modeled after the maroon experiences in Haiti, Nat Turner’s earlier Virginia slave rebellion and rural guerrilla warfare of the ‘third world’ type that we have become more familiar with since that time. 150 years later this strategy does not look so foolhardy in an America of the 1850’s that had no real standing army, fairly weak lines of communications, virtually uninhabited mountains to flee to and the North at their backs.
The execution of the plan is another matter. Brown seemingly made about every mistake in the book in that regard. However, this is missing the essential political point that militant action not continuing parliamentary maneuvering advocated by other abolitionists had become necessary. A few more fighting abolitionists, including Frederick Douglass, and better propaganda work among freedman with connections to the plantations would not have hurt the chances for success at Harpers Ferry.
What is not in dispute is that Brown considered himself a true Calvinist avenging angel in the struggle against slavery and more importantly acted on that belief. In short, he was committed to bring justice to the black masses. This is why his exploits and memory stay alive after over 150 years. It is possible that if Brown did not have this, by 19th century standards as well as our own, old-fashioned Calvinist determination that he would not have been capable of militant action. Certainly other anti-slavery elements never came close to his militancy, including the key Transcendentalist movement led by Emerson and Thoreau and the Concord ‘crowd’ who supported him and kept his memory alive in hard times.
In their eyes he had the heroic manner of the Old Testament prophet. Now this animating spirit is not one that animates modern revolutionaries and so it is hard to understand the depths of his religious convictions on his actions but they were understood, if not fully appreciated, by others in those days. It is better today to look at Brown more politically through his hero (and mine, as well) Oliver Cromwell-a combination of Calvinist avenger and militant warrior. Yes, I can get behind that picture of him.
By all accounts Brown and his small integrated band of brothers fought bravely and coolly against great odds. Ten of Brown's men were killed including two of his sons. Five were captured, tried and executed, including Brown. These results are almost inevitable when one takes up a revolutionary struggle against the old order and one is not victorious. One need only think of, for example, the fate of the defenders of the Paris Commune in 1871. One can fault Brown on this or that tactical maneuver. Nevertheless he and the others bore themselves bravely in defeat. As we are all too painfully familiar there are defeats of the oppressed that lead nowhere. One thinks of the defeat of the German Revolution in the 1920’s. There other defeats that galvanize others into action. This is how Brown’s actions should be measured by history.
Militarily defeated at Harpers Ferry, Brown's political mission to destroy slavery by force of arms nevertheless continued to galvanize important elements in the North at the expense of the pacifistic non-resistant Garrisonian political program for struggle against slavery. Many writers on Brown who reduce his actions to that of a ‘madman’ still cannot believe that his road proved more appropriate to end slavery than either non-resistance or gradualism. That alone makes short shrift of such theories. Historians and others have also misinterpreted later events such as the Bolshevik strategy which led to Russian Revolution in October 1917. More recently, we saw this same incomprehension concerning the victory of the Vietnamese against overwhelming American military superiority. Needless to say, all these events continue to be revised by some historians to take the sting out of there proper political implications.
From a modern prospective Brown’s strategy for black liberation, even if the abolitionist goal he aspired to was immediately successful, reached the outer limits within the confines of capitalism. Brown’s actions were meant to make black people free. Beyond that goal he had no program except the Chatham Charter which seems to have replicated the American constitution but with racial and gender equality as a cornerstone. Unfortunately the Civil War did not provide fundamental economic and political freedom. That is still our fight. Moreover, the Civil War, the defeat of Radical Reconstruction, the reign of ‘Jim Crow’ and the subsequent waves of black migration to the cities changed the character of black oppression in the U.S. from Brown’s time. Black people are now a part of "free labor," and the key to their liberation is in the integrated fight of labor against the current one-sided class war and establishing a government of workers and their allies. Nevertheless, we can stand proudly in the revolutionary tradition of John Brown (and of his friend Frederick Douglass). We need to complete the unfinished democratic tasks of the Civil War, not by emulating Brown’s exemplary actions but to moving the multi-racial American working class to power. Finish the Civil War.
**************
Revolution and Counterrevolution in Russia
STRIKE THE BLOW-THE LEGEND OF CAPTAIN JOHN BROWN
Reclaiming John Brown for the Left
BOOK REVIEW
JOHN BROWN, ABOLITIONIST, DAVID S. REYNOLDS, ALFRED A. KNOPF, NEW YORK, 2005
From fairly early in my youth I knew the name John Brown and was swept up by the romance surrounding his exploits at Harpers Ferry. For example, I knew that the great anthem of the Civil War -The Battle Hymn of the Republic- had a prior existence as a tribute to John Brown and that Union soldiers marched to that song as they headed south. I was then, however, neither familiar with the import of his exploits for the black liberation struggle nor knew much about the specifics of the politics of the various tendencies in the struggle against slavery. I certainly knew nothing then of Brown’s (and his sons) prior military exploits in the Kansas ‘proxy’ wars against the expansion of slavery. Later study filled in some of those gaps and has only strengthened my strong bond with his memory. Know this, as I reach the age at which John Brown was executed,I still retain my youthful admiration for him. In the context of the turmoil of the times he was the most courageous and audacious revolutionary in the struggle for the abolition of slavery in America. Almost 150 years after his death this writer is proud to stand in the tradition of John Brown.
That said, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I can recommend Mr. Reynolds’s book detailing the life, times and exploits of John Brown, warts and all. Published in 2005, this is an important source (including helpful end notes) for updating various controversies surrounding the John Brown saga. While I may disagree with some of Mr. Reynolds’s conclusions concerning the impact of John Brown’s exploits on later black liberation struggles and to a lesser extent his position on Brown’s impact on his contemporaries, particularly the Transcendentalists, nevertheless on the key point of the central place of John Brown in American revolutionary history there is no dispute. Furthermore, Mr. Reynolds has taken pains to provide substantial detail about the ups and downs of John Brown’s posthumous reputation.
Most importantly, he defends the memory of John Brown against all-comers-that is partisan history on behalf of the ‘losers’ of history at its best. He has reclaimed John Brown to his proper position as an icon for the left against the erroneous and outrageous efforts of modern day religious and secular terrorists to lay any claim to his memory or his work. Below I make a few comments on some of controversies surrounding John Brown developed in Mr. Reynolds’s study.
If one understands the ongoing nature, from his early youth, of John Brown’s commitment to the active struggle against slavery, the scourge of the American Republic in the first half of the 19th century, one can only conclude that he was indeed a man on a mission. As Mr. Reynolds’s points out Brown took every opportunity to fight against slavery including early service as an agent of the Underground Railroad spiriting escaped slaves northward, participation as an extreme radical in all the key anti-slavery propaganda battles of the time as well as challenging other anti-slavery elements to be more militant and in the 1850’s, arms in hand, fighting in the ‘proxy’ wars in Kansas and, of course, the culmination of his life- the raid on Harpers Ferry. Those exploits alone render absurd a very convenient myth by those who supported slavery or turned a blind eye to it and their latter-day apologists for his so-called ‘madness’. This is a political man and to these eyes a very worthy one.
For those who like their political heroes ‘pure’, frankly, it is better to look elsewhere than the life of John Brown. His personal and family life as a failed rural capitalist would hardly lead one to think that this man was to become a key historical figure in any struggle, much less the great struggle against slavery. Some of his actions in Kansas (concerning the murder of some pro-slavery elements under his direction) also cloud his image. However, when the deal went down in the late 1850’s and it was apparent for all to see that there was no other way to end slavery than a fight to the death-John Brown rose to the occasion. And did not cry about it. And did not expect others to cry about it. Call him a ‘monomaniac’ if you like but even a slight acquaintance with great historical figures shows they all have this ‘disease’- that is why they make the history books. No, the ‘madness’ argument will not do.
Whether or not John Brown knew that his military strategy for the Harper’s Ferry raid would, in the short term, be defeated is a matter of dispute. Reams of paper have been spent proving the military foolhardiness of his scheme at Harper’s Ferry. Brown’s plan, however, was essentially a combination of slave revolt modeled after the maroon experiences in Haiti, Nat Turner’s earlier Virginia slave rebellion and rural guerrilla warfare of the ‘third world’ type that we have become more familiar with since that time. 150 years later this strategy does not look so foolhardy in an America of the 1850’s that had no real standing army, fairly weak lines of communications, virtually uninhabited mountains to flee to and the North at their backs.
The execution of the plan is another matter. Brown seemingly made about every mistake in the book in that regard. However, this is missing the essential political point that militant action not continuing parliamentary maneuvering advocated by other abolitionists had become necessary. A few more fighting abolitionists, including Frederick Douglass, and better propaganda work among freedman with connections to the plantations would not have hurt the chances for success at Harpers Ferry.
What is not in dispute is that Brown considered himself a true Calvinist avenging angel in the struggle against slavery and more importantly acted on that belief. In short, he was committed to bring justice to the black masses. This is why his exploits and memory stay alive after over 150 years. It is possible that if Brown did not have this, by 19th century standards as well as our own, old-fashioned Calvinist determination that he would not have been capable of militant action. Certainly other anti-slavery elements never came close to his militancy, including the key Transcendentalist movement led by Emerson and Thoreau and the Concord ‘crowd’ who supported him and kept his memory alive in hard times.
In their eyes he had the heroic manner of the Old Testament prophet. Now this animating spirit is not one that animates modern revolutionaries and so it is hard to understand the depths of his religious convictions on his actions but they were understood, if not fully appreciated, by others in those days. It is better today to look at Brown more politically through his hero (and mine, as well) Oliver Cromwell-a combination of Calvinist avenger and militant warrior. Yes, I can get behind that picture of him.
By all accounts Brown and his small integrated band of brothers fought bravely and coolly against great odds. Ten of Brown's men were killed including two of his sons. Five were captured, tried and executed, including Brown. These results are almost inevitable when one takes up a revolutionary struggle against the old order and one is not victorious. One need only think of, for example, the fate of the defenders of the Paris Commune in 1871. One can fault Brown on this or that tactical maneuver. Nevertheless he and the others bore themselves bravely in defeat. As we are all too painfully familiar there are defeats of the oppressed that lead nowhere. One thinks of the defeat of the German Revolution in the 1920’s. There other defeats that galvanize others into action. This is how Brown’s actions should be measured by history.
Militarily defeated at Harpers Ferry, Brown's political mission to destroy slavery by force of arms nevertheless continued to galvanize important elements in the North at the expense of the pacifistic non-resistant Garrisonian political program for struggle against slavery. Many writers on Brown who reduce his actions to that of a ‘madman’ still cannot believe that his road proved more appropriate to end slavery than either non-resistance or gradualism. That alone makes short shrift of such theories. Historians and others have also misinterpreted later events such as the Bolshevik strategy which led to Russian Revolution in October 1917. More recently, we saw this same incomprehension concerning the victory of the Vietnamese against overwhelming American military superiority. Needless to say, all these events continue to be revised by some historians to take the sting out of there proper political implications.
From a modern prospective Brown’s strategy for black liberation, even if the abolitionist goal he aspired to was immediately successful, reached the outer limits within the confines of capitalism. Brown’s actions were meant to make black people free. Beyond that goal he had no program except the Chatham Charter which seems to have replicated the American constitution but with racial and gender equality as a cornerstone. Unfortunately the Civil War did not provide fundamental economic and political freedom. That is still our fight. Moreover, the Civil War, the defeat of Radical Reconstruction, the reign of ‘Jim Crow’ and the subsequent waves of black migration to the cities changed the character of black oppression in the U.S. from Brown’s time. Black people are now a part of "free labor," and the key to their liberation is in the integrated fight of labor against the current one-sided class war and establishing a government of workers and their allies. Nevertheless, we can stand proudly in the revolutionary tradition of John Brown (and of his friend Frederick Douglass). We need to complete the unfinished democratic tasks of the Civil War, not by emulating Brown’s exemplary actions but to moving the multi-racial American working class to power. Finish the Civil War.
**************
|
Workers Vanguard No. 990
|
11 November 2011
|
From the Archives of Marxism
Revolution and Counterrevolution in Russia
The 20th Anniversary of the Bolshevik Uprising and the Degeneration
of the Soviet Power
By Max Shachtman
New International, January 1938
To mark the 94th anniversary of the October Revolution in Russia,
we reprint an excerpt from a 1938 article published in the American Trotskyist
journal New International (January 1938). On 7 November 1917 (25 October
1917 by the Julian calendar in use in Russia at the time), the working class,
led by the Bolshevik Party of V.I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky, seized power in
Russia, thus far the greatest historical victory for the proletariat.
Overthrowing capitalist rule, the new workers state, based on workers’ and
peasants’ soviets (councils), handed the landed estates to the peasantry and
declared an immediate end to the country’s involvement in the interimperialist
slaughter of World War I. The October Revolution acted as a beacon for all the
world’s exploited and oppressed, who saw in Soviet Russia the promise of their
own liberation.
Dedicated to the construction of an international socialist
society, the Bolsheviks saw theirs as the first in a chain of workers
revolutions that would have to extend to the main imperialist centers. However,
the Soviet workers state remained isolated due mainly to the failure of newly
fledged Communist parties to consummate proletarian revolutions elsewhere
despite opportunities to do so, crucially in Germany in 1923. In Russia, which
was emerging from deep backwardness inherited from tsarism and the devastating
effects of imperialist war and civil war, a bureaucratic caste centered on J.V.
Stalin usurped political power from the proletariat beginning in 1923-24. This
was the political counterrevolution referred to in the headline of the
article.
Of the sections of Max Shachtman’s article that we are not
including below, the bulk deal with the degeneration and bureaucratization of
the Bolshevik Party, the trade unions and the soviets under Stalin’s rule. Leon
Trotsky’s 1936 work The Revolution Betrayed elaborated a Marxist analysis
of the degeneration of the Soviet Union. The Stalinist bureaucracy threw
overboard the Bolsheviks’ revolutionary internationalism, adopting the
anti-Marxist program of “socialism in one country” with its inevitable corollary
of “peaceful coexistence” with imperialism. The counterrevolutionary content of
this program was graphically demonstrated in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s,
when, as Shachtman noted, the Stalinists’ efforts were “directed towards
crushing the proletarian revolution in Spain, preserving Spanish bourgeois
democracy as an instrument in the hands of Anglo-French imperialism.”
A central purpose of Shachtman’s article was to argue against those
in the workers movement who claimed that there was nothing left to defend in the
Soviet Union because of the crimes of Stalinism. But only a year and a half
later, Shachtman himself abandoned unconditional military defense of the Soviet
Union against the capitalist class enemy as the pressure of impending world war
intensified. This was precipitated by Shachtman’s capitulation to
petty-bourgeois public opinion following the signing of the 1939 pact between
the USSR and Nazi Germany. In 1940, Shachtman along with other leading cadre,
notably James Burnham and Martin Abern, split from the Socialist Workers Party,
the U.S. Trotskyist party. Eight years later, he definitively turned his back on
Trotsky’s Fourth International.
In continuity with the program outlined in Shachtman’s article, the
International Communist League fought to the end in defense of the gains of
October. We opposed the forces of capitalist counterrevolution from Poland to
East Germany and in the Soviet Union itself and fought for proletarian political
revolution against the parasitic Stalinist regimes. Today we uphold this program
in regard to the remaining countries where capitalist rule was overturned: the
deformed workers states of China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Laos. Our
Trotskyist defensism is integral to the struggle to reforge the Fourth
International as the world party of socialist revolution. For new October
Revolutions!
What remains of the Russian revolution? Why should we defend the
Soviet Union in case of war?
A number of realities still remain. The conflict between German
fascism (and fundamentally, also, of the capitalist world as a whole), and the
Soviet Union, still remains no less a reality than, let us say, the conflict
between fascism and social-democracy or the trade unions, regardless of how
corrupt may be the leadership of the latter, regardless of how it may compromise
and capitulate, regardless of how much it may seek to place itself under the
protection of one capitalist force (as did the Austrian social democracy)
against another. The conflict can be resolved only by the capitalist world being
overturned by the working class, or by the Soviet Union, its present bureaucracy
included, being crushed and reduced to the status of a colonial or semi-colonial
country, divided among the world’s imperialist bandits.
Another great reality is the economic foundation established by the
October revolution. Despite bureaucratic mismanagement and parasitism, we have
the prodigious economic advances made by Soviet industry, the great expansion of
the productive forces in Russia (without which human progress is generally
inconceivable) in a period of stagnation and retrogression in the capitalist
world, the principle and practise of economic planning. All these were possible
only on the basis of the abolition of socially-operated private property, of the
nationalization of the means of production and exchange, their centralization in
the hands of the state which is the main prerequisite of an evolution towards
the classless society of universal abundance, leisure and unprecedented cultural
advancement.
Outraged by the brutality of the reactionary usurpers, by their
blood purges, by their political expropriation of the toilers, by their
totalitarian régime, more than one class conscious worker and revolutionary
militant has concluded that nothing is left of the Russian revolution, that
there are no more grounds for defending the Soviet Union in a war than for
defending any capitalist state. The professional confusionists of the various
ultra-leftist grouplets prey upon these honest reactions to Stalinism and try to
goad the workers into a reactionary position. Some of these philosophers of
ignorance and superficiality prescribe a position of neutrality in a war between
the Soviet Union and Germany; others, less timid, call for the strategy of
defeatism in the Soviet Union. At bottom, the ultra-leftist position on the
Soviet Union, which denies it any claim whatsoever to being a workers’ state,
reflects the vacillations of the petty bourgeoisie, their inability to make a
firm choice between the camps of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, of
revolution and imperialism.
Class rule is based upon property relations. Bourgeois class rule,
the bourgeois state, is based upon private ownership, appropriation and
accumulation. The political superstructure of the bourgeois class state may
vary: democratic republic, monarchy, fascist dictatorship. When the bourgeois
can no longer rule directly politically, and the working class is still too weak
to take power, a Bonapartist military dictatorship may arise which seeks to
raise itself “above the classes,” to “mediate” between them. But it continues to
rule over a bourgeois state (even though, as in Germany, it has
politically expropriated the bourgeoisie and its parties), because it has left
bourgeois property relations more or less intact.
The October revolution abolished bourgeois property relations in
the decisive spheres of economic life. By centralizing the means of production
in the hands of the state, it created new property relations. The
counter-revolutionary bureaucracy, although it has destroyed the political rule
of the proletariat, has not yet been able to restore capitalist
property relations by abolishing those established by the revolution. This great
reality determines, for Marxists, the character of the Soviet Union as a
workers’ state, bureaucratically degenerated, it is true, usurped and therefore
crucially imperilled by the Bonapartists, but still fundamentally a workers’
state. This great remaining conquest of the revolution determines, in turn, our
defense of the Soviet Union from imperialist attack and from its
Bonapartist sappers at home.
Because it is not a simple question, Lenin pointed out at the 9th
Congress of the party in 1920, we must be careful not to sink into the morass of
confusion.
“Wherein consists the rule of the class? Wherein consisted the
rule of the bourgeoisie over the feudal lords? In the constitution it was
written: ‘in freedom and equality.’—That is a lie. So long as there are toilers,
the property owners are capable and, as such, even compelled, to speculate. We
say that there is no equality there, and that the sated are not the equals of
the hungry, the speculator is not the equal of the toiler. Wherein does the rule
of the class express itself? The rule of the proletariat expresses itself in the
abolition of landed and capitalist property. Even the fundamental content of all
former constitutions—the republican included—boiled down to property. Our
constitution has acquired the right to historical existence, we did not merely
write down on paper that we are abolishing property, but the victorious
proletariat did abolish property and abolished it completely.—Therein consists
the rule of the class—primarily in the question of property. When the question
of property was decided in practise, the rule of the class was thereby assured;
thereupon the constitution wrote down on paper what life had decided: ‘There is
no capitalist and landed property,’ and it added: ‘The working class has more
rights than the peasantry, but the exploiters have no rights at all.’
“Therewith was written down the manner in which we realized the
rule of our class, in which we bound together the toilers of all strata, all the
little groups. The petty bourgeois proprietors were split-up. Among them those
who have a larger property are the foes of those who have less, and the
proletariat openly declares war against them when it abolishes property....
“The rule of the class is determined only by the relationship to
property. That is precisely what determines the constitution. And our
constitution correctly set down our attitude to property and our attitude to the
question of what class must stand at the head. He who, in the question of how
the rule of the class is expressed, falls into the questions of democratic
centralism, as we often observe, brings so much confusion into the matter that
he makes impossible any successful work on this ground.”
—(Russische Korrespondenz, Nr. 10, July 1920, p. 8) [see
Lenin, “Ninth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.),” March 1920, Collected Works,
Vol. 30]
Liberal apologists have distorted Lenin’s concepts into an argument
for the compatibility of the bureaucratic dictatorship, and even a personal
dictatorship, with a consistent development towards the new social order. “So
long as industry remains nationalized and the productive forces expand,” runs
their apology, “what does it really matter if Stalin maintains a bureaucratic
despotism, which we civilized liberals would not tolerate but which is good
enough for backward Russians?” It is of course quite true that Lenin saw no
absolute incompatibility between proletarian democracy and “individual
dictatorship” in industry under given conditions. A year before his quoted
speech at the 9th Congress, he observed:
“That the dictatorship of single persons in the history of the
revolutionary movements was very often the spokesman, the carrier and the
executant of the dictatorship of the revolutionary classes, is evidenced by the
incontestable experience of history.... If we are not anarchists, we must
acknowledge the necessity of the state, i.e., of coercion, for the
transition from capitalism to socialism. The form of coercion is determined by
the degree of development of the given revolutionary class, furthermore, by such
special circumstances as, e.g., the heritage of a long, reactionary war,
furthermore, by the forms of the resistance of the bourgeoisie or of the petty
bourgeoisie. Therefore there is not the slightest contradiction in principle
between Soviet (i.e., socialist) democracy and the application of the
dictatorial rule of individual persons.”
—(Sämtliche Werke, Bd. XXII, pp. 524f., Ger. ed.)
[see Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government,” April 1918,
Collected Works, Vol. 27]
But in order to make clear his real thoughts, he hastened to add
the following indispensable supplementary statement, without which everything is
one-sided and therefore false:
“The more resolutely we now come out in favor of a ruthlessly
strong power, for the dictatorship of individual persons in definite labor
processes during certain periods of purely executive
functions, the more manifold must be the forms and methods of control
from below in order to paralyze every trace of a possibility of distorting the
Soviet power, in order to tear out, incessantly and tirelessly, the weeds of
bureaucratism.”
—(Ibid., p. 532)
It is precisely those manifold forms and methods of
democratic control from below which the bureaucracy has destroyed
in its development towards despotic rule. In destroying proletarian democracy
and the political rule of the working class, the bureaucracy has lifted itself
beyond the reach of the masses out of which it emerged. Having abandoned its
original class base, it must find a new one, for it cannot last long as a thin
bureaucratic stratum hanging, so to speak, in mid-air. The social layers with
which it has linked itself are the well-to-do farmers, the factory directors and
trust heads, the Stakhanovite aristocracy, the officialdom of the party, the
Soviet apparatus, the Red Army and the G.P.U. But none of these, nor all of them
taken together, represents a class, with a distinctive function in
the productive life of the country, or with specific property forms upon which
to build a firm class and firm class rule. Their whole tendency is
to develop into a new property-owning class, that is, into a capitalist class
based on private property. Blocking the road to the realization of this yearning
stands the still powerful reality of the nationalization of the means of
production and exchange, centralized planning, and the protection of
nationalized industry which is afforded by the monopoly of foreign trade.
The bureaucracy, closely interlinked with these restorationist
strata of Soviet society and embodying their social aspirations, is now driven
by inexorable forces to take its next big step backward. Hitherto, the reaction
has been confined essentially to the destruction of the whole political
superstructure of the workers’ democracy established by the revolution, and to
the physical annihilation of all those who were the living connection between
today and the revolutionary yesterday. From now on, the anti-Soviet bureaucracy
will, and in a certain sense, must seek its self-preservation by an assault upon
the economic foundations of the workers’ state: nationalized property, planning,
the monopoly of foreign trade.
In our opinion, it cannot and will not succeed in establishing the
rule of an independent, new Russian capitalist class, even if we arbitrarily
exclude the possibility, by no means exhausted, of the crushing of
the counter-revolutionary bureaucracy by a resurgent proletariat. The new strata
of society gathered around the ruling Soviet clique may prevail
over the Russian proletariat in the period to come. But we do not believe that
they are strong or solidly rooted enough to develop into a national
neo-bourgeoisie capable of resisting, on a capitalist basis, the infinitely
stronger bourgeoisie of the foreign imperialist countries.
In other words, the Stalinist bureaucracy and its satellites are
doomed regardless of the outcome. They cannot develop into an independent ruling
capitalist class in Russia. Either they are defeated by the proletariat which
carries through a political revolution for the purpose of restoring workers’
democracy and of safeguarding the economic basis of the workers’ state which
still exists. Or they are defeated by powerful foreign imperialism, which would
wipe out that old economic basis, reduce the Union to a semi-colonial country,
and convert the restorationist strata not into a ruling capitalist class for
Russia but merely into a compradore agency of world imperialism, occupying a
position not dissimilar from that of the Chinese national bourgeoisie.
The class conscious workers will place all their hopes and bend all
their efforts towards the realization of the former outcome of the struggle. The
building of the revolutionary party to lead the Russian masses in the battle to
save the Russian revolution is dependent upon the success of the revolutionary
movement in the capitalist world. The depression and reaction in the ranks of
the Russian proletariat was created by the defeats of the working class in the
rest of the world, by the feeling of the Russians that they had no powerful
allies in the capitalist world. The growth and victories of the Fourth
International will galvanize the latent revolutionary strength of the Russian
masses and set it into irresistible motion. Everything depends on the speed with
which we accomplish our indicated task.
* * *
The crisis of the Russian revolution has emboldened all the critics
of Bolshevism, that is, of revolutionary Marxism—all of them, old and new. But
all their hoary argumentation leaves the Marxist unrepentant for his solidarity
with those principles and ideas which made the Russian revolution possible. For
in abandoning these ideas, he would have to adopt others, and what others are
there? Should he adopt those of the Mensheviks? It is true: had they triumphed,
the proletarian revolution in Russia would not have degenerated into its
Stalinist caricature for the simple reason that there would have been no
proletarian revolution. Should he adopt those of the Western European confrères
of the Mensheviks, the parties of the Second International? It is true: they did
not let the proletarian revolution in Germany and Austria and Italy degenerate,
and that by the simple device of crushing it in the egg and thus facilitating
the consolidation of their famous bourgeois democracy which brought the working
class directly under the knife of Hitler and [Austrian chancellor] Schuschnigg
and Mussolini. Should he adopt those of the anarchist politicians who have
become so clamorous of late, especially about the Kronstadt rebellion? But the
lamentable collapse of anarchist politics in Spain, the servile collaboration
with the bourgeoisie, the heaping of capitulation upon capitulation and the
yielding of one position after another without a struggle, are not calculated to
attract us away from Marxism.
It is not in place here to dwell on the flawlessness of Bolshevism
and all its policies in the great period of the revolution. Its defects may be
freely granted. But the oppressed and exploited of the world have not yet been
offered a scientific guide to action in their struggle for freedom which can
even remotely claim to serve as a substitute for the party and principles of
Lenin. In the face of enormous obstacles—not the least of which were created,
with arms in hand, by the present-day bourgeois and reformist critics—Lenin and
the Bolsheviks carried through the first conscious proletarian revolution. They
laid the economic foundation for the new society without class rule, without
iniquity or exploitation or oppression. They—and nobody else—gave us a picture
of the truly breath-taking prospects for human advancement and human dignity
which are open to us as soon as capitalism is sent to the rubbish-heap.
Rash indeed would he be who forecast the immediate future of the
Russian revolution. But whatever it may be, its historical achievements are
already imperishable. The first steam engine may not have been much faster than
the old-fashioned stage-coach, if it was able to move at all. But the country’s
network of rails is today skimmed by speedy, advanced, stream-line locomotives,
while the stage-coach can be found only in museums. The creation of the
steam-engine was a monumental contribution to human progress. The creation of
the first Soviet republic was an even greater contribution. History will give
little place to the period of Stalinist counter-revolution, for it will treat it
as a passing historical episode. But the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 and its
enduring achievements will never be wiped out of the consciousness of man, for
it sounded the knell of all class rule, marked the beginning of the end of man’s
pre-history, the inauguration of a new era for a new man. In this sense, Lenin
and his party of revolutionary Bolsheviks could say with Ovid: Jamque opus
exegi: quod nec Jovis ira, nec ignes, Nec poterit ferrum, nec edax abolere
vetustas.
“I have now completed a work which neither the wrath of Jove, nor
fire, nor the sword, nor the corroding tooth of time, shall be able to
destroy.”
