below is the text of said pamplet; it has been OCR-ed and has not been proof
read yet so computer may have made mistakes


THE CHIEF TASK
OF OUR TIMES

and

The Political Forces &
Currents Facing the
Russian Revolution

By
VLADIMIR OULIANOFF (LENIN)
Chairman of the People's Commissaries
of the Russian Soviet Republic.






PRICE THREEPENCE


Published by
THE WORKERS' SOCIALIST FEDERATION
400, OLD FORD ROAD, B 3.
THE CHIEF TASK OF OUR TIMES
By LENIN, Chairman of the Executive of the Russian Republic

You are wretched and you are prosperous,
You are mighty and you are powerless,
0 Mother Russia.

The human race is at present passing through great and difficult changes which
have (one can say it without the least exaggeration) a world-liberating
significance. The world is passing to the war of the oppressed against the
oppressors. In this new war the oppressed are struggling for liberation from the
yoke of Capitalism; from the abyss of suffering, torment, hunger, and
brutalisation; they desire to pass onward to the bright future of a communist
society, to universal well-being and a secure peace. It is not surprising that
at the most critical periods of such a drastic evolution, when the old ordcr is
cracking and bursting, and out of it, in indescribable travail, the new order is
being born, some lose their heads, some give way to despair, and some seek
salvation, from a, perchance, too bitter reality, in beautiful and alluring
phrases.

It has fallen to the people of Russia to perceive very clearly, and to live with
acute suffering through this harshest of historical transitions leading from
Imperialism to the Social Revolution. In a few days we demolished one of the
oldest, most powerful, most barbarous, and most cruel of monarchies. In a few
months we went through the phases of coalition with the bourgeoisie and
disillusionment in the bourgeois ideal, though it has taken other countries many
years to reach this point. In a few weeks we deposed the bourgeoisie, and
conquered its open resistance in civil war. Bolshevism swept the vast country in
a triumphant procession from end to end. We raised to freedom and independence
the lowest sections of the masses and those most oppressed by Czarism and the
bourgeoisie. We have introduced and consolidated the Republic of Soviets, a new
form of government, immeasurably loftier and more democratic than the best of
the bourgeois Parliamentary Republics. We have established the dictatorship of
the proletariat, supported by the poorest peasantry, and we have inaugurated a
broadly conceived system of Socialist reform. We have awakened faith in our
powers, and have kindled the flame of enthusiasm in millions and millions of
workers of all lands. Everywhere we have raised the cry of the International
Proletarian Revolution. We have thrown out a challenge to the imperialistic
robbers of all lands.

BREST-LITOVSK.
And in a few days we, who had laid down cur arms, were thrown to the ground by
the imperialistic robbers who attacked us. They forced, us to sign a harsh and
ignoble peace, a tribute which we had to pay for having dared, if only for a
short time, to escape from the iron fetters of an imperialistic war, These
robbers ate crushing and stifling and tearing Russia asunder, with a ferocity
only equal to their dread of a proletarian revolution in their own country. We
were forced to sign a "Tilsit"* peace, but do not let us delude ourselves. One
must have the courage to look the bitter and unvarnished truth in the face. One
must fathom to its greatest depth the abyss of defeat, dismemberment,
subjection, and humiliation into which we have been hurled. The clearer our
realisation of this, the firmer will be our will to free ourselves, our
endeavour to rise again from servitude to independence, and out unconquerable
determination to secure that, in spite of everything, Russia shall be no more
wretched and powerless, but truly mighty and prosperous.

It is possible for her to become so, for we still retain enough in territory, in
natural wealth, in reserves of man power, arid in the magnificent impetus given
to national creativeness by the Revolution, to make Russia truly great and to
provide everyone with sufficient, if not lavish, means of existence.

Russia will accomplish all that we desire for her, if she will but shake off all
despondency and all empty phrases; if with set teeth she will gather all her
strength, will strain every nerve and muscle, and will understand that the only
path to salvation is the international Socialistic Revolution upon which we have
entered. To go forward on this path, undiscouraged by defeat; to lay gradually
the sound foundation of a Socialist Society; to work unceasingly for the
creation of discipline and self-discipline, for the strengthening everywhere of
organisation, order, and businesslike methods; the harmonious co-operation of
the national forces; general co-ordination and control of production and
distribution; such is the path to military and Socialist power.

It is unworthy of present-day Socialists, in time of heavy defeat, either to
make a fuss, or to give way to despair. It is not true, that (from the point of
view of a "gentleman ") there is no way out for us, save the choice between an
inglorious death in the shape of the harshest of all peace treaties; and a
glorious death in a hopeless fight. It is not true that we have betrayed our
ideals, or our friends, in signing the "Tilsit" peace. We have betrayed nothing
and no one; we have not condoned, but have exposed every lie. We have not
refused to help, as far as it was in our power to help, any comrade in
misfortune.

The General who retires, with the remnants of a beaten and panic-stricken army,
and who defends this retirement in the case of extreme necessity by a harsh and
humiliating peace, does not betray those sections of the army which he is unable
to help and which are cut off by the enemy. Such a general fulfils his duty in
selecting the only way of saving what can still be saved; refusing to embark on
adventures; not glossing over the bitter truth before the people; but ceding
ground in order to gain time; taking advantage of even the smallest respite in
order to gather up strength and opportunity to recuperate for the army which was
suffering from disintegration and demoralization.

We have signed a "Tilsit" peace. When Napoleon in 1807 forced the "Tilsit" peace
on Prussia, the conqueror had beaten all the forces of the Germans, had occupied
the capital and all the large towns, had introduced his police, had forced the
conquered to supply auxiliary troops for the prosecution of more wars of
conquest for the conqueror, had dismembered Germany by making an alliance with
one German power against other German powers. Nevertheless, the German people
withstood even such a peace, and were able to rise again, and to acquire the
right to freedom and independence.

To all those who desire to think, and know how to think, the example of the
"Tilsit" peace (which was only one of the many harsh and humiliating peace
treaties forced upon Germany) shows clearly how childish is the idea that, under
all circumstances, a humiliating peace leads to irretrievable ruin, and a war to
glory and salvation.
The history of wars teaches us that a peace not infrequently provides breathing
time & and allows of the gathering up of strength. The "Tilsit" peace was
Germany's greatest humiliation, and, at the same time, the turning- point
towards the greatest of national revivals. In those days the historical
circumstances did not offer any other outlet for this revival than the formation
of a bourgeois power. Then, but little more than a hundred years ago, history
was made by a handful of nobles and a group of bourgeois intelligents; the
masses of workmen and peasants were as yet hardly awake. In those days,
therefore, history could only crawl along with exasperating slowness.

In our day Capitalism has raised the general standard of culture, but that of
the masses only partially. The war - has aroused the masses, it has awakened
them by unheard-of perils and sufferings. The war has pushed history forward,
and history is hurrying along with the speed of a locomotive. History is now
made by the independent millions, and tens of millions, of people. Capitalism
has now arrived at the level of Socialism.

And, therefore, if Russia is at present moving, as undoubtedly she is, from the
"Tilsit" peace to the national revival, the outlet for this revival does not
appear as an outlet to a bourgeois form of government, but to an International
Socialist Revolution. We have been on the defensive since October 25th 1917. We
are defending our Motherland; but the national war, towards which we are moving,
is a war for the Socialist Motherland, and we are a division of the universal
army of Socialism.

"Hatred of the Germans," "Beat the Germans," such were and are the watchwords of
the ordinary bourgeois patriotism. But we say: Hatred of imperialistic robbers,
hatred of Capitalism, death to Capitalism"; and at the same time : "Learn from
the Germans, remain true to our fraternal union with the German workers." They
are late in coming to our help; but we shall not wait for them in vain : they
will come. Yes, learn from the Gex mans. History is taking a zig-zag route; it
has come to pass that at present it is the German who personifies both brutal
imperialism and the foundation of discipline, organisation, harmonious
co-operation, based on the latest development of machinery, and the strictest
co-ordination and control.

Organisation is just what we here lack, and just what we must acquire. It is
precisely that which our great Revolution needs, and the possession of which
would lead us from a victorious beginning, through a series of hard experiences,
to a victorious end. Organisation is the thing which the Russian Republic of
Soviets requires, in order to cease being wretched and weak, in order definitely
to become powerful and prosperous.

*Tilsit, a town in Prussia, on the Memel (Niemen), 6o miles N.E. of Konisberg,
where Napoleon I. concluded treaties with Russia and Prussia in July, 1807. It
has iron foundries, glass, cloth, and machinery manufactures.


(Reprinted front the "lsvestia," March 14th 1918)
THE POLITICAL CURRENTS AND ECONOMIC FORCES WITH WHICH THE REVOLUTION MUST
CONTEND

A Speech delivered by Lenin to the Plenary Sitting of the Central Executive
Committee of the Soviets.

COMRADES,—The subject of the present report I have already expounded u-i the
article on the immediate tasks of the Soviet Power which appeared in the Press
on Sunday. I therefore assume that the majority of those present are familiar
with it. Consequently I reed not repeat myself. The theme of the article on the
immediate tasks of the Soviet Power is but an amplification of the resolution
already adopted by the All-Russian Congress of Soviets in Moscow on March z6th.
This resolution did not limit itself to the then paramount question of Peace,
but also emphasised the chief task of the present rnoment; the task of
organisation, self-discipline, and the struggle with disorganisation.

It seems to me that lately our political currents have flown in that direction;
and I therefore think that in a polemical form it will be easiest to emphasise
clearly what I endeavoured to outline in my article on immediate tasks.

Comrades, in order to estimate correctly, let us endeavour to survey all the
political currents as a whole, for only thus can we guard against mistakes when
forming our conclusions on each separate case. We can, of course, find any
number of precedents in support of no matter what situation, but only by
examining all the currents in their entity and their interdependence shall we be
able to make an attempt to explain the connection between the future of the
political currents in the country and the future of class interests, which are
always an outcome of all serious and vast political movements.

As I survey the important political movements in Russia. I observe that they are
clearly and indisputably divided into three large groups. In the first we have
the whole bourgeoisie having closely amalgamated, as one man, for a
determined—nay, unreasoning—opposition to the Soviet Power. The word
"opposition," as applied in this instance, can, of course, only be used in
inverted commas, for we have here a frenzied struggle, which at once attracted
to the side of the bourgeoisie all those lower middle-class Parties which were
in agreement with Kerenski through the whole period of the revolution. The
Mensheviki, the Novozhiznentzie (Party of "The New Life "), and the social
revolutionaries of the Right have surpassed even the bourgeoisie in the
virulence of their attacks upon us. But the fierceness of the attacks and the
loudness of the bark are often in converse proportion to the strength of the
political party from which they emerge. The whole bourgeoisie, with all its
satellites and servants of the type of Tchernoff and Tseretelli, have united in
their mad attacks on the Soviet Power. They are all hankering after the pleasant
prospect of concluding, like their friends and fellow politicians in the Ukraine
have, a peace which would enable them, with the help of German bayonets and the
patriotic bourgeoisie, to destroy the influence of the Bolsheviki. This fact is
too well known. A fine illustration of such friends we have in Ichkhenkeli in
the Caucasus.

This is only natural. It is clear that the proletariat could not expect anything
else, once they had assumed power and had begun to put into force the
dictatorship of the workers against the oppressors and exploiters. In this case
we have but one plan—a single and united front. When we are offered the chimera
of a single democratic front, I always ask myself—at least, when I have the
pleasure of reading or even casually glancing through such papers as "Naart
Viek," "Diels Naroda," etc.—" What else do you want for a single democratic
front? You have here the completest unity." And we cannot but rejoice at it,
considering that this unity of front, from Miliukoff to Martoff, would deserve
to receive on the 1st of May a testimonial for its splendid Bolshevik
propaganda.

Comrades, let us examine now another and an opposite camp; we shall find there
none but our own Party: the Party of Communist Bolsheviki. Owing to the trend of
events, it has come to pass that during the greater part of the post-October
period our allies, the social revolutionaries of the Left, have at present
ceased to take an active part in the Government. Their recent Congress has
brought to the surface more clearly than ever the waverings and indecisions of
the party.

If, taking the period before the split of the Socialist Revolutionaries into a
Right and Left wing, you were to analyse month by month, beginning with
February, 1917, with whom this party was siding—the proletariat or the
bourgeoisie—you would come to the sad conclusion that the Socialist
Revolutionary Party was subject to the fluctuations in temperature of a fever
patient.

Assuredly, hardly any other Party in the history of the revolution has
vacillated to such an extent.

When `we study these three fundamental currents, we see quite clearly that this
is not an accidental grouping, but that it fully bears out what already in 1915
we Bolsheviki pointed out from abroad, when we received the first news that the
revolutionary movement in Russia was growing—that the revolution was inevitable,
and when we had to explain the attitude of our Party in the event of it coming
to power whilst the war was still going on. We said then : "It is possible for
the revolution to be completely victorious if, at the decisive moment, the
leading elements in the lower middle class should side with the proletariat."
This has actually happened. Such was and is the trend of the Russian Revolution.
In these waverings of the lower middle class there is no reason for pessimism or
despair. But it is inevitable that in the country which has been the first to
rise against the imperialist war; in the country which, mainly owing to its
backwardness, has been placed by events for a short period ahead of the other
more advanced countries, the Revolution must in the near future live through
most trying and painful time. It would be preposterous to expect that in such
times it would have no waverers in its ranks. To expect it would only prove that
neither the class struggle nor the nature of parties and political groups had
been taken into account.

When we consider all the political currents in Russia from the point of view of
the immediate tasks of organisation, discipline, finance, and control, we
perceive a very definite grouping; and we see that the group which constitutes
the single democratic front, from Miliukoff to Martoff, does not make the least
attempt to appreciate the opportunity to accomplish this task. There exists in
this group a. malicious desire, the more malicious the more complimentary to us,
to find even some vestige of a possibility of overthrowing the Soviet Power.

Unfortunately, it is just those representatives of the Social Revolutionaries of
the Left who had shown the greatest energy, initiative, and devotion to the
revolution who were the first to waver on this question of the immediate tasks
of the present moment; the tasks of proletarian discipline, finance,
organisation, and control; those tasks which became essential to Socialists as
soon as the workers arid peasants had assumed power, and had repulsed the
military attacks of the Kerenskis, Krassnoffs, Korniloffs, Gueguetcoris, and
Alexieffs. Now, when we have reached the very core of the Revolution, the
question is: Will proletarian discipline and organisation gain the upper hand,
or will the power be seized by lower middle-class capitalists, who are
particularly strong in Russia?

Our lower middle-class opponents will, wage their chief battle against us on the
field of home politics and economic reconstruction; their weapon is sabotage in
connection with everything which the proletariat ordains and endeavours to bring
about for the establishment of an organised Socialist Commonwealth. On this
field the element of bourgeois capitalism and boundless selfishness reveals
itself as the determined enemy of the proletariat. And in the attitude which the
lower bourgeois took up towards all the events of the revolution we see their
complete disagreement with us; it is only natural that, precisely in this camp,
we find the chief opposition to the accomplishment of the immediate tasks of the
moment; here we have the opposition of people who agree with us on the question
of principle, who support us on questions which are more vital than those which
they criticise—it is an opposition combined with support.

When we see such a political phenomena as the agreement of the "Znamia Truda"
with certain phases of Bolshevism and with some formulas of the Mensheviki—whose
policy was a coalition with Kerenski—then we must look for something that will
throw light on the real meaning of these attacks. It behoves us to take account
of the attacks, because by' arguing with these ooponents we shall be able to put
the true value on the principal tasks of the Soviet Power. The argument is
interesting, because it exemplifies the Marxist theory.

In saying that it is interesting to argue with these opponents I do not, of
course, mean that arguing is interesting for its own sake, but that the subject
of the dispute concerns the most essential, fundamental questions of the present
time. It is not a mere accident that the disputes are conducted on these lines.
On these lines runs at present the fundamental task, the task of the
revolutionary proletarian struggle, which is dictated by the real conditions of
Russia, and which must be fully carried out in face of innumerable and divergent
bourgeois currents. It is quite clear that the proletariat, in spite of all the
surrounding difficulties, must realise that on this point it cannot make any
concessions, considering that the Socialist Revolution, which began by depriving
the bourgeoisie of its power, and continued by breaking the latter's resistance,
makes it a matter of vital importance that all questions of proletarian
discipline, the organisation of the workers, businesslike methods, and the
knowledge of great industrial interests, should be considered. These questions
the proletariat must solve in a practical way; otherwise it will suffer defeat.
In the sphere of these tasks we find the chief present difficulty of the
Socialist Revolution. That is why it is so interesting, so important, in the
historical and political use of the word, to argue with the representatives of
the group of Communists of the Left, although in examining their position, their
theory, we see absolutely nothing—I reiterates and ant going to prove it—but
mere bourgeois waverings. Our comrades of the group of Communists of the Left,
no matter by what name they go, are striking at their own doctrines. I assume
that this is known to the majority of those present, because since March, even
in Bolshevist circles, their doctrines have been discussed; even those who have
not studied their political propaganda literature could not help knowing of the
doctrines from the debates at the All-Russian Congress of Soviets.

In their doctrines, as in those of the Social Revolutionaries of the Left, we
see precisely what we see in the camp of the Right: the camp of the bourgeoisie,
from Miliukoff down to Martoff, who find the present "misfortunes" of Russia
extremely hard to bear, from the point of view of the loss of her autocratic
power, of her transformation f rpm a nation and Power of oppressors into a
country of oppressed. When it becomes necessary 1.0 decide the question (not
only on paper but by action) whether the hard path which leads to Socialism and
the initial hardships of the Socialist Revolution are worth even the heaviest
defeats as far as the country's sovereignty and national independence are
concerned, our disagreement is strongest. It is clear to us that, while the
imperialists are waging a mad struggle for the partition of the world, it is
impossible for many nations which were formerly dominant to escape heavy defeat.
Conscious Socialists must and will accept such trials, no matter how heavy they
may weigh upon humanity. On this point the Social Revolutionaries of the Left,
as well as the Communists of the Left, have shown the greatest indecision.

They pay the greatest attention to the question of the peace. They endeavour to
prove that this peace was the manifestation of the psychology of worn-out and
demoralised masses. They continually remind us that at the voting on the
question of peace 18 votes were against and 28 for the conclusion of peace. But
should not one, in recalling the voting six weeks ago, examine the figures a
little more closely? If we were to give any political significance to this
voting, then should not we take cognisance of the voting of the All-Ukrainian
Congress of Soviets? Before stating that the healthy South was against, and the
exhausted, demoralised, industrially weakened North was for peace, should not
one recall the voting of the majority of sections of the All-Russian Congress of
Soviets, at which less than a tenth of the votes were against peace? If we are
to quote figures, and give them a political significance, we must take political
ballots as a whole, and then we shall see that the parties which had learned
certain watchwords, and had made a fetish of them, voted on the side of the
lower middle classes, and that the labouring and exploited masses, the workers,
soldiers, and peasants, did not reject peace. As to the demoralised elements, it
is precisely the demoralised "intelligentsia" who were against peace, but the
masses of toilers were all on our side on that question. Certainly the peace we
have concluded `is extremely unstable, and there is no doubt whatever that the
respite which has been given us can be interrupted any day from the West, as
well as from the East. Our international position is so critical that we must
strain every nerve in order to remain in power as long as possible, so as to
give time for the development of the Western Revolution, which is growing much
more slowly than we expected and wished, but nevertheless is growing;
undoubtedly it is imbibing and gathering more and more inflammable material.

If we were the first to come to the front as a separate division of the world's
proletariat, it is not because this division is better organised. No, it is
inferior, weaker, less organised than others; but it would be absurd and
pedantic to argue, as many do: "Yes, if the start were made by the most
organised division, followed first by the less orgaaised, and then by the third
best-organised, then we would all willingly become the advocates of the
Socialist Revolution. But since things have happened not according to rule, and
the vanguard was not supported by the other divisions, the Revolution is doomed
to failure." We reply: No, our task is to reform the whole organisation; and
further, in view of our isolation, to maintain the Revolution, to preserve in it
some form of Socialism, no matter how weak and limited, while the Revolution is
maturing in the other countries, while the other divisions are getting ready. To
expect from history that it will put in motion the Socialist divisions of the
different countries in a strict graduation and according to plan is either to
show complete ignorance of the revolution or to refuse to support the Socialist
Revolution for no other reason than one's own stupidity. At this moment, when we
occupy a firm position in Russia, and have not strength for the fight against
international imperialism, we have only `one task and one policy: it can be
termed the policy of tacking, waiting, and retreating. I know very well, that
these words cannot claim popularity, that they lend themselves to a double
interpretation and to the linking together with the word "coalition." Thus they
can lead to no end of piquant deductions, and to all sorts of recriminations and
raillery. But if our opponents—the bourgeois of the Right, our recent friends,
the Social Revolutionaries of the Left, and our friends of yesterday, to-day and
tomorrow, the Communists of the Left—were to use all their batteries of wit
against us, and to give us any number of proofs of the virtue of their
indecisions (which they cannot deny), these would have no effect upon us
whatever, for events have proved us right. We have had a respite, because the
imperialist war slaughter is still going on, and in the Far East the rivalry is
growing. These facts alone can explain the continued existence of the Soviet
Republic.

We shall neither be protected by any scrap of paper, by any peace treaty, nor
because we do not desire to fight with Japan. If Japan should find it necessary,
she will rob us, in spite of all treaties and obligations. We shall be
protected, not by a scrap of paper, not by "the state of peace," but by the
continuation in the West of the struggle between the two giants of imperialism
and by our own steadfastness. We have not forgotten the fundamental Marxist
teaching, which has been fully confirmed by the Russian Revolution; one must
calculate one's strength in tens of millions; smaller numbers do not count in
politics, and are rejected as a negligible quantity.

The International Revolution, viewed in this light, makes the situation
perfectly clear; a backward country can revolt quicker, because its opponent is
rotten to the core, its middle class is not organised; but, in order to continue
the revolution, a backward country will require immediately more circumspection,
prudence, and endurance, In Western Europe it will be quite different; there it
is much more difficult to begin, but it will be much easier to go on. This
cannot be otherwise, because there the proletariat is better organised and more
closely united.

In the meantime, we stand alone, and in calculating our strength we must realise
that as long as the European Revolution, which would solve all our difficulties,
has not broken out, our only chance of existence is the continuation of the
struggle between the international giants of imperialism. In concluding peace we
took full account of this chance. The peace can be broken to-morrow, but while
it continues we must in our external policy continue the tactics adopted in
March, and expressed in the words: "To tack, to retreat, and to wait." When we
hear from the lips of the Communists of the Left the words, "Active external
policy"; when the expression, "The defence of the Socialist Fatherland," appears
in inverted commas, as intended to be ironical, then I say to myself: These
people have not in the least understood the position of the Western proletariat.
They are reverting to the point of view of the vacillating lower bourgeoisie,
which sees in the Revolution the guarantee of a particular order.

International interdependence says quite clearly: Only a madman can imagine that
the task of dethroning international imperialism can be fulfilled by Russians
alone. While in the West the Revolution is maturing, and is making appreciable
progress, the task before us is as follows: We, who in spite of our weakness are
in the forefront, must do all in our power to retain the occupied positions. All
other considerations must be subordinated to the one endeavour: to make full use
of the chance which enables us to exist, in order to be able at the moment when
the international imperialism unites against us to ward off the blow for a few
weeks. If we act thus we shall tread the path approved by every class-conscious
worker in the European countries, who knows that France and England have been
learning for centuries what we began to learn only since 1905. Every
class-conscious European worker knows that the revolution grows but slowly
amongst the free institutions of a united bourgeoisie, and that we shall only be
able to fight against such forces when we are able to do so in conjunction with
the revolutionary proletariat of Germany, France, and England. Till then, sad
and contrary to revolutionary traditions as it may be, our only possible tactics
are to wait, to tack, and to retreat. When people say that we have no foreign
international policy, I say: "All other policy tends, consciously or
unconsciously, towards making Russia the weapon of an alliance `with
imperialists of the type of Iclikhenkeli and Semenoff." We say that it is best
to live through and to suffer great national humiliations and hardships, in
order to maintain our post as a Socialist division, forced by the trend of
events to await in solitude until the Socialist Revolution in other countries
comes to its help. And the revolution in other countries is corning to our help,
slowly but surely. The war now taking its course in the West is revolutionising
the masses; the time of revolt is approaching. I have dwelt on foreign policy
longer than I intended, because it seems to me that it is just in this domain
that the two principal lines of conduct are most clearly shown—on the one hand,
the proletarian policy, which considers the Socialist Revolution the best and
loftiest objective, and takes account of the revolutionary movement in the
Western countries; and on the other, the bourgeois policy, which has for its
highest ideal, imperial power and national independence.
On internal questions we are met with identical arguments from the Communists of
the Left and' the bourgeoisie. For instance, the chief argument of the
Communists of the Left against us is that in our policy there are signs of a
tendency towards the Bolshevism of the Right, which, they say, will lead to
State Capitalism. It is this evolution towards State Capitalism—this evil, this
enemy, which we are anxious to fight against. When I read this kind of stuff in
the Press of the Communists of the Left, I cannot help wondering what has made
these people forsake reality for formulas. Reality says that State Capitalism
would be a step forward for us; if we were able to bring about in Russia in a
short time State Capitalism it would be a victory for us. How could they be so
blind as not to see that our enemy is the small capitalist, the small owner? How
could they see the chief enemy in State Capitalism? In the transition period
from Capitalism to Socialism our chief enemy is the small bourgeoisie, with its
economic customs, habits, and position. The small owner, more than anyone else,
is afraid of State Capitalism, for his one idea is to grab for himself as much
as possible, to ruin, to exterminate, the big owners and exploiters. That is why
the small owner readily supports us so far. On this point he is more
revolutionary than the workers, because he is more vindictive. Therefore he
willingly co-operates in the fight against the upper classes—not as a Socialist,
in order to build up after the defeat of the big owner a Socialist Commonwealth,
on the basis of firm proletarian discipline, organisation, and control; but in
order to reap the fruits of the victory in his own interest, and regardless of
the common interests of the toilers as a whole.

What is State Capitalism in the hands of the .Soviet Power? To bring about State
Capitalism at the present time means to establish that control and order
formerly achieved by the propertied classes. We have in Germany an example of
State Capitalism, and we know that she proved our superior. If you would only
give a little thought to what the security of such State Socialism would mean in
Russia, a Soviet Russia, you would recognise that only madmen whose heads are
full of formulas and doctrines can deny that State Socialism is our salvation.
If we possessed it in Russia the transition to complete Socialism would be easy,
because State Socialism is centralisation, control, socialisation—in fact,
everything that we lack. The greatest menace to us is the opportunism of the
small bourgeoisie, which, owing to the history and the economics of Russia, is
the best organised class, and which prevents us from taking this stop, on which
depends the success of Socialism.

I wish to remind you that I wrote about State Socialism a few days before the
upheaval, when a Revolutionary-Democratic Government of Kerenski, Tchernoff,
Tseretelli, Kiskin, and others of that ilk was contemplated : a Government which
rested, and could only rest, on a bourgeois basis. I said then that State
Capitalism is a step towards State Socialism; I wrote that on October 20th,
1917, and again in April, 1918, after the proletariat had assumed power in
October. Many factories and workshops are confiscated, financial concerns and
banks are nationalised, the resistance of the militant bourgeoisie and of those
indulging in sabotage is broken. And now, after all this, to frighten us with
capitalism! This is such a ludicrous and preposterous absurdity and invention
that one cannot help wondering how it was possible to conceive it! They have
left out of consideration a mere trifle, namely, that in Russia we have a
numerous small bourgeoisie which is in favour of the extermination of the upper
bourgeoisie in all countries, but is not in favour of socialisation and control
at home; and in this consists the great danger for the Revolution. The small
boutgecisie permeates the social atmosphere with mean possessive" tendencies and
aims, which can be summed up in the phrase: "Well, I have taken from the
wealthy, and the others are no concern of mine." It is precisely this attitude
which constitutes the great danger. The domination of the small bourgeoisie by
the other classes and by State Capitalism should be welcomed by every class
conscious worker, because State Capitalism under Kerenski's democratic régime
would mean a step towards Socialism, and under the Soviet Government almost
complete socialism.

My statement that in order to properly understand one's task one should learn
Socialism from the promoters of Trusts aroused the indignation of the Communists
of the Left. Yes, we do not want to teach the Trusts; on the contrary, we want
to learn from them. But the economists of the Left want to teach the Trusts.
What is it you want to teach them? Perhaps it is Socialism. Do you mean to say
that you are going to inculcate Socialism into merchants and business men? Well,
if you feel inclined to undertake that job, do so, by all means; but we are not
going to join you in this impossible task. We have nothing to impart to these
engineers [this word is used in Russian in a more restricted sense than in
English; a Russian engineer is a man with a higher education, equivalent to a
four or five years University course], business men, and merchants. If we had a
bourgeois revolution they could not teach us anything unless it might be how and
where to grab; that is all we could have learned from them.

The landowners and bourgeoisie must be overthrown. History will fully justify
all the acts of the Bolsheviki—their entire struggle, the coercion and
expropriation of the landowners and capitalists, and the repression of their
opposition. This was only the first step towards a stupendous historic task. In
this task we shall learn from the Trusts, because our knowledge is limited.

We know all about Socialism, but we do not know how to organise on a large
scale, how to manage distribution, and so on. The old Bolshevik leaders have not
taught us these things, and this is not to the credit of our Party. We have yet
to go through this course, and we say: Even if a man is a scoundrel of the
deepest dye, if he is a merchant, experienced in organising production and
distribution on a large scale, we must learn from him; if we do not learn from
these people, we shall never achieve Socialism, and the revolution will not get
beyond its present stage. Socialism can only be reached by the development of
State Capitalism, the careful organisation of finance, control, and discipline
amongst the workers. Without this there is no Socialism.

It is not our business to undertake the ridiculous task of teaching the
promoters of Trusts; they have nothing to learn. They must be expropriated. This
can be done, and we have shown that the task does not present any great
difficulties. To every deputation of workers which has come to me complaining
that a factory was stopping work, I have said:
"If you desire the confiscation of your factory, the decree forms are ready, and
I can sign a decree at once. But tell me: Can you take over the management of
the concern? Have you calculated what you can produce? Do you know the relations
of your works with Russian and foreign markets?"

Then it has appeared that they are inexperienced in these matters; that there is
nothing about them in the Bolshevik literature, nor in the Menshevik either.

The workers who base their activities on the principles of State Socialism are
the most successful. It is so in the tanning, textile, and sugar industries,
where the workers, knowing their industry, and wishing to preserve and to
develop it, recognise with proletarian common sense that they are unable, at
present, to cope with such a task, and therefore allot one-third of the places
to the capitalists, in order to learn from them. When I read in the Press of the
Communists of the Left the ironical words, "Who knows who will make use of the
other," I cannot help wondering at their shortsightedness. If, after assuming
power in October, and after a victorious campaign against the whole bourgeoisie
from October to April, we can have any doubts as to who will make use of the
other—the workers, or the promoters of Trusts, or vice versa—then let us strike
our tents at once and let us retire, making room for the Miliukoffs and the
Martoffs! But there is no doubt in this matter. The class conscious workers
would not believe you if you expressed such a ridiculous fear until the
dictatorship is in the hands of such opponents.

Naturally, the difficulties of organisation are enormous, but I do not see the
least reason for despair and desponding in the fact that the Russian Revolution,
having first solved the easier task—the overthrow of the landowners and the
bourgeoisie—is' now faced with the more difficult socialist task of organising
national finance and control; a task which is the initial stage of Socialism,
and is inevitable, as is fully understood by the majority of class-conscious
workers.

Yes, the majority of the better-organised workers, educated in the school of
trade unionism, are wholly on our side. Long before the Soviet assumed power,
these trade unionists had worked out a system of management and discipline.
These people have shown that they understand the conditions of labour in
factories, and they have grasped the essence of Socialism better than those who
were full of revolutionary talk, but who in reality were stooping, consciously
or unconsciously, to the low level of the small bourgeoisie, whose attitude was
: "We are ready to strike a blow at the rich, but we do not believe in control
and discipline for ourselves." The small capitalists find this superfluous; they
do not want it; and yet self-discipline and organisation are the only guarantees
for the stability of our Revolution.

Comrades, I will not go into any more details, but will say briefly: It is time
to remonstrate when some people have worked themselves up to a state in which
they consider the introduction of discipline into the ranks of the workers as a
step backwards. I confess that I see in this attitude such a sign of reaction,
such a menace to the Revolution, that I should consider the Revolution as lost
if it were not for the knowledge that those who reason thus belong to a small
and uninfluential group, and that no assembly of class- conscious workers would
endorse such opinions.

The Communists of the Left write as follows: The introduction of labour
discipline, except in connection with the re-establishment of capitalism, cannot
increase the productivity of labour; on the contrary, it will lessen labour's
self-reliance and organising activities; it threatens to enslave labour, and to
arouse the dissatisfaction of the most backward classes."

This is false. If it were true, then our Revolution, with its socialist ideals
and tasks, would be on the eve of collapse. But this is not true. The
"intelligentsia" of the small bourgeoisie, which has lost its status, does not
understand that to secure labour discipline constitutes Socialism's greatest
difficulty. Long ago, in the distant past, Socialists were writing on this
question, making it the subject of the most careful analysis, for they
understood that this would be the beginning of the real difficulties of the
Socialist Revolution.

There have already been revolutions which discarded the bourgeoisie mercilessly,
and quite as energetically as we have done, but we have gone further in creating
a Soviet Government. Thus we have shown that we are stepping from economic
independence to labour self-discipline-—that our power must be the power of
labour. The dictatorship of the proletariat does not consist in the overthrow of
the bourgeoisie and the landowners merely— this has been done in all
revolutions—our dictatorship of the proletariat has for its object the
establishment of order, discipline, the productivity of labour, sound finance,
and control of the proletarian Soviet Power, which is more stable, more firm
than that which preceded it. It is essential to make all the class-conscious
workers and peasants concentrate all their energies on this. Yes, by the
overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the landowners we have only cleared the way; we
have not erected the structure of Socialism. On the soil which has been cleared
from one bourgeois generation, new bourgeois generations always rise (and
history proves this), for as long as the soil is capable of producing, it
produces bourgeois in plenty. The small owners, who say of victory over the
capitalists, "They have grabbed, and now our turn has come," will each one in
turn become a source of a new generation of bourgeois. When we are told that the
introduction of labour discipline, in connection with the re-establishment of
controlled capitalism, is a menace to the Revolution, I say : "These people have
not grasped the socialist character of our Revolution; they are using arguments
identical with those of the small bourgeoisie, which fears discipline,
organisation, and financial control as the devil fears salvation. The bourgeois
professional people possess knowledge which we lack. A class-conscious worker is
not afraid of such guidance, as he is aware that the Soviet Government is his
Government, which will protect him, and he recognises that in accepting the
guidance of the capitalists he is 1earning how to organise successfully.

Under the Czar we organised ourselves in hundreds; under Kerenski in hundreds of
thousands. But this vas only a trifling effort, and in politics does not count.
This was preliminary work, so to speak, a preparatory class. Until the workers
have learned how to organise on a large scale, they are not Socialists, not
builders of a socialist structure of society, and will not acquire the necessary
knowledge for the establishment of a new world order. The path of organisation
is a long one, and the tasks of socialist constructive work require strenuous
and continuous effort, with a corresponding knowledge, which we do not
sufficiently possess. It is hardly to be expected that the even more developed
following generation will accomplish a complete transition into Socialism. Call
to mind what has been written by former Socialists of the future Socialist
Revolution. They recognise how difficult it would be to achieve Socialism
without learning from the promoters of Trusts, who have organised production on
a large scale and have much experience. Our business is, not to instruct them in
Socialism, but to expropriate them, to break down their sabotage—and these two
tasks we have fulfilled. We must force them to submit to the control of the
workers. If our critics among the Communists of the Left have accused us of
adopting tactics which lead us backwards instead of to Communism, I say that
their accusations are ludicrous; they are forgetting that we are backward in
organisation and financial control because it was very difficult to break down
the resistance of the capitalists and to obtain the services of the bourgeois
technical and other experts. We stand in need of their knowledge, their
experience; and their labour; without them it is impossible to maintain the
culture created by the former social conditions, which must serve as the
material basis of Socialism. The Communists of the Left have not realised this,
solely because they do not understand the realities of life, but evolve their
theories and watchwords by contrasting State Capitalism with ideal Socialism. We
must say to the workers: Yes, this may be a step backwards, but we must
endeavour to find the way, and the only way is to organise to the last man, to
organist' and control production and consumption, and to ensure that, out of the
hundreds of millions of money sent out by the Mint, not even a single 100-rouble
note should be misappropriated, and that every note should be accounted for.
This cannot be accomplished by any revolutionary act or the extermination of the
bourgeoisie. It can only be accomplished by the organisation of workers' and
peasants' labour, by management and control, These we do not yet possess; that
is why we have had to pay you higher wages than the capitalists; that is why we
must learn all these things. The only road to Socialism is to teach the workers
how to manage colossal undertakings, and how to organise production and
distribution on a large scale.

Comrades, I know very well how easy it is to jeer at a man occupying a social
position when he speaks of management, control, discipline, and self-
discipline, it is easy to say to him: "When your Party was not in office it was
promising the land of milk and honey to the workers, but as soon as these people
assumed power a great change came over them; you are beginning to talk of
management, discipline, self-discipline, control." I know very well what
splendid material this is for journalists of the type of Miliukoff and Martoff,
who use it in order to develop their own theories, which nevertheless do not
arouse much sympathy among class-conscious workers.

[Comrade Lenin here read several quotations from his book, `The State and the
Revolution," which deals with the ideas which the Soviet Government is
endeavouring now to put into practice. In connection with the review of this
book by Comrade Bukharin, Lenin said :]
In the journal called "The Communist of the Left," I found a sympathetic review
by a no less distinguished journalist than Bukharin, but all that was valuable
in it lost its value for me when I had read the whole review. I realised that
Bukharin missed what was essential, because he wrote his review in April, but
quoted from material which was already stale in April, and appeared to be out of
date—I mean the quotation, "One must destroy the old State." That we have
done—that was yesterday's task—and we must now go forward; we must look to the
future, and must create a Communist State. He wrote on what is already
incorporated in the Soviet Organisation, but remained silent on the question of
management, control, and discipline. How identical are the trend of thought and
the psychology of such people with those of the small bourgeoisie is exemplified
in their watchword:! "Down with the rich, but no control." That which divides
from the class-conscious proletariat even the most revolutionary elements of the
small bourgeoisie is the watchword of the proletariat "Let us organise and
discipline ourselves." In this the class-conscious proletariat and the
Revolution differ from the small bourgeoisie. We have shown our strength in the
suppression of the landowners and the bourgeoisie, and now we must show it in
connection with self-discipline and organisation. This is clear to us from
experience a thousand years old, and we must make it clear to the people. Yes,
organisation and discipline are the only strength of our Soviet Power, of the
labour dictatorship, and of our proletarian authority; but the small bourgeoisie
are shielding thmselves from this truth by revolutionary phraseology. Yes, the
small bosses and proprietors are ready to help us proletarians to overthrow the
landowners and capitalists, but after that our roads part. They do not like
organisation and discipline; they are their enemies. That is why we must carry
on a relentless struggle with these bosses and proprietors, for in the sphere of
organisation lies the beginning of our Socialist building. In answering those
who insist that they are Socialists, and will grant the workers what they want
and as much as they want, I say that Communism does not pre-suppose the existing
productivity of labour. Our output, as a matter of fact, is too small. A
heritage left to as by capitalism, especially in a backward country, is the
habit of considering all State and exchequer property as material for misuse and
corruption. The psychology of the masses of the small bourgeoisie is making
itself felt at every step, and in this sphere the struggle is a very difficult
one. Only an organised proletariat can cope with all this. That is why I wrote:
"Until the higher phase of Communism is reached, Socialism requires the
strictest control on the part of society and of the State." This I wrote before
the October revolution, and I insist on it now.

The time has arrived when, having suppressed the bourgeoisie and broken its
sabotage, we can begin this work. Before this was done the heroes of the clay
and of the revolution were the Red Guards, who were fulfilling their great
historic task. They were taking up arms without the consent of the propertied
classes; they were doing this great historic work in order to overthrow the
exploiters, and to turn their rifles into instruments to protect the workers, in
order to regulate labour protection and consumption. As yet we lack
organisation, which is the basis of Socialism, and the pivot on which it
revolves. Those who ffnd such work monotonous .ad uninteresting are generally
found among the idle classes of the small bourgeois. I say it again—it was
impossible to take up this work until the Korniloffs, Alexieffs, and Kerenskis
were disposed of. At present the armed resistance of the bourgeoisie has been
suppressed. Our task is to allot work under our control to all those who have
indulged in sabotage, to create administrative institutions for the strict
supervision and control of all works. The country is going under for lack of the
most elementary conditions of a normal existence after the war. The enemies who
are attacking us are a real menace only io s far as we have failed to establish
order and control. When one hears hundreds of thousands of just complaints about
famine, and one knows that the cereals are there but cannot be shifted for lack
of transport, and at the same time one hears jeers and protests on the part of
the communists of the Left against, for instance, such measures as the railway
decrees, one feels inclined to ask them: "Why do you not present your own draft
of a decree? You are not irresponsible critics like the small bourgeois, the
paltry merchants, who indulge in sabotage, and only criticise in order to pour
out the vials of their wrath. I say it again, you are the guides of the Soviet
ozganisations. Then why not produce your own decree?" But they cannot and never
will produce it, because our railway decree is quite in order, and the
dictatorship which it establishes meets with the approval of all the responsible
railway workers. It is only opposed by those paltry administrators who grab and
accept bribes. It is only the waverers between Soviet Power and its enemies who
cannot make up their minds about the decree, which is approved by the
proletariat who learned discipline from the big business concerns, and know that
Socialism is impossible until production is organised on a large scale, and
until a still stricter discipline is introduced. This proletariat backs us up
in our railway policy; it will fight the small bourgeois element, and will
demonstrate that the Russian Revolution will learn how to overcome its own lack
of organisation, as it has overcome all the other obstacles. From the point of
view of our immediate tasks, our foremost May flay watchword should be: "We have
conquered capitalism, we shall also conquer our own unpreparedness." Only then
Socialism will have achieved a complete victory.


(Translated from the Official Version in the "Isvestia," May 30th, 1918.)

OTHER W.S.F. PUBLICATIONS.
THE BIRTHRATE, by E. Sylvia Pankhurst …...………….………….................. 1d.
MOTHERS' PENSIONS ……………………………………………..................... 2d.
APPEAL TO WOMEN, by A Retired Major …………………………………..... 1d.
THE EXECUTION OF AN EAST LONDON BOY …………………………………. ˝d.
NICHOLAS I., by Leo Tolstoy …………………………………………………. 1d.
RED RUSSIA, by John Reed. Books I. and II. …………………………….each 6d.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT RUSSIA, by Albert Rhys Williams ……... 4d.
THE RED FUNERAL IN VLADIVOSTOK, by A. Rhys Williams ………………. 2d.
HANDS OFF RUSSIA, by Israel Zangwill ……………………………............... 2d.
INDEPENDENT WORKING CLASS EDUCATION, by Eden and Cedar Paul ….… 6d.
THE SCHOOLING OF THE FUTURE by E, Sylvia Pankhurst …………............... 1d.
SELF-EDUCATION OF THE WORKERS, by A. Lunacharski ……………….…... 2d.
HOUSING AND THE WORKERS' REVOLUTION, by E. Sylvia Pankhurst …….... 6d.
REBEL IRELAND, by E. Sylvia Pankhurst, P. Lynch, and May
O'Ca11aghan ………………………………………………………….............
3d.
HOW TO SOLVE THE HOUSING QUESTION …………………………............... ˝d.
THE
Workers' Dreadnought
An Organ of International Socialism
with a Bolshevik Policy
Edited by E. SYLVIA PANKHURST.
_________________

Workshop Notes by W. F. WATSON.
Revolutionary News a Speciality.
_________________

Weekly, 2d. Annual Subscription, by post, 10s. 10d.
From 152, Fleet Street, E.C.4.
THE WORKERS' SOCIALIST FEDERATION
For Revolutionary International Socialism, the ending of
Capitalism and Parliaments, and the substitution of a World
Federation of Workers' Industrial Republics.
________________
Membership open to all men and women. Subscription 4d.
per month, 4s. per annum.
Write to the Secretary, 400, Old Ford Road, London, E.3.
______________________________
THE PEOPLE'S RUSSIAN INFORMATION BUREAU.
For particulars apply 152, Fleet Street, E.C.4.
A weekly bulletin, and up-to-date news and literature.
THE UTOPIA PRESS (T.U. and 48 hours), 44, Worship Street, London, E.C. 2.


--- In spopen@yahoogroups.com, dave balmer <balmer_dave@...> wrote:
>
> I have it as a PDF file scanned document
>  
> published by the WSF 400 old ford road price 'three pence' thats inflation I
paid ÂŁ7.00 for it.
>  
> The kohln quote is there on page 11 as stated.
>  
> Only had a quick chance to skim thro it as yet, it looks quite interesting, I
think going off memory there is some extra material in there that I don't think
I have seen before.
>
> --- On Mon, 12/7/10, balmer_dave <balmer_dave@...> wrote:
>
>
>