The Daily Worker Newspaper, October 11, 1924, Page 7

t By ROBERT MINOR. History of the Russian Communist Party, by Gregory Zinoviev, president of the Communist international, First English translation appearing In The Workers Monthty, into which new Magazine have been combined The Liberator, The Labor Herald and the Soviet Russia Pictorial. ny combined magazine) per year. 113 W. Washington Bivd., Chicago. OST of the, events of history— the big, transforming phenom- ena which swing the human world to new orbits—passed by without their real significance being known to masses of men of the time, even to those whose lives were most affected, and even to those most active in bringing about the change. The masses of men when tumbled about by the mighty phenomena of revolu- tion, are likely not to know or even suspect the real cause, tho it comes }, from within themselves, and are likely to attribute it to some un- known “superhuman” power, as tho the world were an ant-hill suddenly disturbed by some outer agency. The real significance, the essence, the cause of great upheavals are lost in a maze of misinterpretations based upon fetishes and feeble theories of a dead and gone past, or a dying pres- ent. Only in generations later are the real historical essences painstak- ingly dug up by men freed of the ideology of the dead order. Hardly more than the dreamy peas- ant girl, Joan of Arc, did the French Dauphin or his military or political leaders understand the meaning of the then revolutionary nationalism whose active agents they were in clearing away the feudal seperatism and making France a political unit. Covered with the molasses of ideal- ism were the bourgeois revolutions of England, America, and France; and their meaning hidden until later in- terpreted by the new materialist phi- losophers. But Now a Change. But in these modern times of pro- letarian revolution—led and governed by materialist philosophy—will the biggest events ever breaking upon the world be hidden again in the fog of past conceptions? Will the Russian revolution, which is only the first of a whole series in a world-revolution, —will it, can it be understood by any great numbers of those who live to- day? ea We have the bourgeois interpreta- tions of the Russian revolution—a crazy maze, an hysterical application of petty shop-keepers’ conceptions of 9 ” and “evil,” of big bankers’ conceptions of “normalcy,’ and ‘of Grand Dukes’ conceptions of “civiliza- tion.” A smothering avalanche of such “interpretations” of the present revolutionary epoch has, of course, fallen upon the masses from on high; it has submerged a great part of the masses. To the petty shop-keeper the Russian Revolution is due to “bad men” whose motives are the same as the motives of a petty shop-keeper himself when he gets drunk, or when _he falls into temptation to beat his “wife or to burn down his shop in order to collect the insurance. Then we have the “revolutionary” idealistic interpretations of those fond persons, usually now in middle . life, who ten or twenty years ago pic- ‘tured themselves as one day standing on the barricades fighting for “Lib erty, Equality and Fraternity” with- out realizing that this is but an ideal- istic version of the business slogan of free mercantile pursuits. Or the more timid section of the same school, who saw themselves voting - the “new day.” But the proletarian macbilidie ot this time differs from all that have preceded, in not a few respects. It is more than any other a conscious revolution—a revolution the leading participants of which understand the real significance of what they are do- ing, understand the place in history of their performance. In this instance, the need is not to cover up the es- sence of the revolution with the mo- lasses of idealistic terms—not to con- ceal its meaning from the masses. This time we have not a case of one class fighting the battles for the bene- fit of another class, and requiring to be deceived as to the outcome! The need is above all other things to clarify sharply the masses’ under- standing of the great phenomenon. Above all, to clarify the understand- ing of the vanguard, the workers who must lead the revolution as members of the revolutionary party. In this case, the clean, sharp sword which first clove the head of capital- ism, is the Russian ‘Communist Party. Unlike all revolutionary parties in the past revolutions, this party has no secrets to conceal from the masses whom it leads; and unlike all other revolutionary parties of the past its| very life depends. upon unmasking its motives to the masses. © Workers Party of America. s“the Workers Party of America a onimunist party? The Workers | Party has accepted all of the condi- tions laid down by the Communist International. It accepts and has ac- cepted any and all decisions without hesitation, undertaking with no less zeal than is shown by the ’ most grizzled veteran of revolution in the heart of Leningrad, to carry them out. But is the Workers Party a Bol- shevik party? This is no idle question. And it is forced to the front by the raising of the slogan by the Fifth Congress of the Communist International: “Bolshev- ize the Party! Make it a Party of Lenin!” Not the American party alone, but every Communist party in the world, has this question on the order of the day. At the Fifth Congress it was recognized that the present period of “democratic-pacifism”. (as witnessed by the “Labor” government in Eng- land, the “Socialist-radical” regime in France, the LaFollette “progressive” fake in America, and the resurrec- tion of illusions thru the Dawes’ plan in Germany) has brot about a general tendency to revive those social-demo- cratic illustions which if established are suicidal for the working class. Even Communist parties are not im- mune from the poison of so general a fever. The International has chos- en tfiis time as the best for raising the question of the Bolshevik charac- ter of each of its affiliated parties. Bolshevization must be undertaken immediately by all. And: “These be- ginnings of Bolshevisation must be steadily, systematically, indefatigably and cofisciously developed. “The con- sciousness of the Communist Party and the Communist International as the leaders of the revolution must be come part of the blood of every party organization and of every individual member, so that out of conscious- ness of a Communist fighting fratern- ity, may arise the iron faith which will fuse the party into a Bolshevik into a victorious World Party.” a resolution of the Fifth Co: the new consolidated monthly maga- zine of our Party, the Workers Monthly (the combination of The Liberator, The Labor Herald and the Soviet Russia Pictorial) begins to pub- lish in its November number the History of the Russian Communist Party, by Gregory Zinoviev. To bolshevize our party, we must know what Bolshevism is. In no man- ner can you know what Bolshevism is unless you know historically how Bolshevism came to’ existence as a political program. None can show how it came to be as well as those who made it. The president of our Communist International is the most fitted living member of that “Old Guard” of Bolshevism to tell ws of it. Zinoviev does so in so vivid a manner as to pass our expectations, Tho book opens with a modesty which we, philosophically starved American bolsheviks, will think rather uncalled for; for Zinoviev thinks he is giving but an inadequate “sketch” of the tremendous history Fire from the Red Volcano of the Russian Communist Party. Perhaps so, but it reads to us as a condensed but monumental classic. “What is a Party?”, Zinoviev’s simple discussion of “What is a Party?” will come as a revelation to many who have been using that word with a looseness that has carried them around in a circle. To learn what sort of an instrument ~—class instrument—e political party is, and to learn thereby the charac- ter of the mighty sword that was forged by Lenin and his assoicates, is to clear up many foggy questions now before the American comrades. Zino- viev gives the bourgeois definiton of a “party,” and he gives the proletar- ian revolutionary version of the same thing—and between reading the ,{two.the reader sees many formerly obscure phenomena falling into a clear and definite place. The author makes unmistakable the process of | the development of the Bolshevik wing of the Russian Soctial-Demo- cratic Labor Party into that which was eventually to be the instrument of leadership of the Russian revolu- tionary working class. Curiously enuf, Zinoviev, the Bol- shevik, the fighter against the older school of Russian “Narodniki” (popu- lists), and against the “Marxian” vul- garizers of Marxism, finds time and patience to give even these their share of credit. Many who had the habit, common in America, of idealiz- ing the old “Narodniki,” and who were somewhat bewildered by the sudden falling of their heroes, will find here a sympathetic appreciation of the work of the old, once-heroic school—an appreciation mingled with an explanation that blasts away the question of the ludicrously debased role of their present-day successors. The book is the history of an ideol ogical struggle in the midst of, and in connection with, the events which which it had to deal. We who in the young American Communist party have floundered and fought our way thru sO many ideological combats (already so humerous for a party so young), will find a peculiar satisfaction and benefit in this. The book is not merely a record of happenings—“on this date we did so-and-so, on that date such and such happened”’—no there is the political explanation of all that happened.- Not only the ob jective history, but also the subjec- tive history—the. study of the un- swerving devotion to the revolution- ary principles, as well as the doubts, waverings, convictions, back-slidings and recoveries. In the long and il luminating story of the disputes that arose in the Rbssian socialist move- ment, and later in the Bolshevik sec- tion of it, not only is every point of view clearly given, but how that point of view came about is also ex- plained in a way that makes the eader feels as tho some great noy- elist were probing the psychological depths of these men of history. t’s probably not fair to the au- thor, who is anything but a writer of mance—but this scientific handling of history is done so well, with such @ fine appreciation of human psy- chology, that the tensest tale of a Tolstoi could not be more intriguing to the reader. . Not even are the mishaps of the Russian Bolsheviks with the Tsar’s police lacking in this book—and after all, this, too, is of political im- portance. (We who, much to the mirth of some of our yellow socialist friends, were arrested at our 1922 convention, will find reassurance as well as interest in the similar events in the life of our older sister party of Russia.) The description of the manner in which the Bolsheviks early in their history took up the question of “Ter- ror,” and the answer they gave tothe question, is as good a8 a classic es- say on the subject. The Marxian revolutionists who were afterward to apply the Terror as a mass weapon against the enemy class, did not fall into the primitive childishness of the romantic -and ineffective individual- ists, Bat early they forged in theit party ideology the weapon of mass terror, administered by the hand of an or proletarian state, that was destined to break the resistance of a defeated bourgeoisie and to save @ proletafian revolution. “Hegemony of the Proletariat.” So, too, was early developed the key question of the “Hegemony of the Proletariat,”"—-the question on which the petty bourgeois socialist fractions were sure to break and show their real class in’ards, as soon as they struck it. Here, in the question as to which class would take the hege- mony, the dominance over the revolutionary period, of course the leader Lenin rose to the height of his greatness; here, the raising of this question aided Bolshevism to crystal lize itself. The many petty, bour- geoise currents of “socialism,” form- ing in fact one consistent streani, beat in vain against the rock of Lenin. “Legal Marxism”—another question, or another phase of the same question of petty bourgeois conception of proletarian revolution, came in turn into conflict with the revolutionary Marxism of Lenin. In a rather reminiscent style, Zino vievy describes the development of Peter Struve—the evolution of atrat- tor. This and other recitals con- nected with the names of famous his- torical figures, givés the book a cer- tain biographical color that is en- trancing. The early role of the Jew- ish comrades, in laying the corner- stone of the party, and the story of the “Bund” are there. Those of us who remember the period of dispute in the American so- cialist party about “direct action” wilt get a peculiar thrill out of the ac count of the discussion and disputes about the more accurately phrased Russian party questions of the “gen- eral strike,” “armed insurrection” and “arming of the workers.” Closely rekited to the question of the “Role of the Proletariat in the Revolution” and that of the “Hege- mony of the Proletariat” and “Legal Marxism” came the question of “Economism”—another phase under which the petty bourgeois ideology arose to battle. The leading of the revolution by the proletariat, the tak- ’|ing over of power by the proletariat, the dictatorship of the proletariat, be- ing barred from correct procedure of course the rest followed logically. This “Economism” was a movement, historically of a breed with menshev- ism, to confine the demands of the revolutionary proletarian movement to “economic” demands—demands for economic betterment—a movement which attempted to take upon itself the glory of getting closer to the masses, and which went so far as to raise the question of abstaining from the slogan “Down with the Autoc- racy,” to avoid frightening the work- ing masses. Against it the Leninites gave successfnl battle. “Professiong! Revolutionists.” Also the question of “professional revolutionists” played in its turn a significant part in the welding of the Bolshevik party. “Professional revo- lutionists”? It scunds like a scorn- ful epithet, and it was, at first. But it was a challenge accepted by the Leninists. With the fearlessness in facing facts which characterized him, Lenin showed that exactly that—the organization of “professional revolu- tionists” was required. Many Ameri- cans need to eead this. A singular appreciation of just what a political party program means to a revolutionary party is obtained here, and it is particularly timely at this time when the Communist Inter national is expending large energies upon the formulation of a program for all Communist parties—for the single world-party which we are. It's a far cry from the shallow conception of @ program as a hastily-thrown-to gether document of a day, to the sight of an enormous world organi- zation put into deliberate motion for the purpose of producing a single document! But you begin to under- (Continued on page 6) hi