The Daily Worker Newspaper, March 13, 1926, Page 10

= This article was written by Comrade Lenin in July, 1905, and published in the “Proletarian,” July 4. “Iskra” was in the hands of the Menshe- viks, one of whose foremost mouthpieces was Mar- tinov (who, some yeas ago, recognized his mis- takes and entered the Communist Party.) It is curious to note that the Mensheviks were against participation in the revolutionary government. to- gether with the petty bourgeois revolutionists, and Lenin was in favor of it. The irony of history showed in 1917 that the Mensheviks participated in the fake revolutionary government and..Lenin showed in practice what he had meant by his slogans. : 5 HE. position of “Iskra” on the question of the admissibility of the social-democrats taking part in. the provisional government is one of the utmost confusion. In favorable circumstances there will be possible, even in the opinion of the disciples of Martinov, such a swing of the revolu- tion, as will serve as an immediate preface to the grand social revolution, but the party itself, its will, its work, its plans, seems to be unprepared. “Have faith in god, but don’t make mistakes yourself,” says the proverb which aims to make religious fatalism less harmful. “Have faith ip circumstances, in the processes of history,” we say, “but don’t make mistakes yourself!” Otherwise you will become an economic fatalist, but not a social-democratic revolutionist. In the resolution of the Menshe- vik conference, I read: “Only in one event should the social-democrats on their own initiative di- rect their efforts toward seizing power and keep- ing it in their hands as long as possible—namely, in the event that the revolution spreads to the foremost countries df Western Europe, in which conditions have already reached a degree of ripe- ness for the realization of socialism.” | First of all; ‘you unwillingly ask yourself : Is it possible to “direet your efforts” toward some- thing without your own initiative? And second, suppose we turn this phrase about as follows: “Only in one event_will the revolution in Russia spread to the foremost countries of Western Eu- rope, even if the social-democratic labor party of Russia succeeds in seizing power and keeping it in its hands for a long time.” If you are making suppositions, why not that? The maximum of energy is never harmful. But, by the way, no- body has spoken of the seizure of power by the party. There has been only the question of par- ticipating, if possible a leading part in the revo- lution,—at such a moment as the power will be in its hands (if such a moment comes) and when there will be attempts to wrest it away. In connection with the question of the passi- bility and the permissibility of such a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, it is interesting to make some historical inquiry into the Paris Commune, which was a revolutionary power and made the revolution not only from below but even from above. — Was the Paris Commune the dictatorship of the proletariat? Engels’ introduction to the third edition of Marx’, “The Civil War in France,” ends with these words: “In recent times the Philistines again began to display horror at the words, ‘the proletarian dictatorship.’ Would you know, worthy gentlemen, what. this dictatorship is? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the proletarian dictatorship.” But there are dictatorships and dictatorships! Perhaps this was the real, pure, proletarian dic- tatorship in the sense of the pure social-demo- cratic make-up of its membership and the char- acter of its practieal tasks? Not at all. The conscious proletariat (and at that only more or less conscious), that is, the members of the Inter- national, were in the minority; the majority in the government was composed of representatives of petty-bourgeois democrats. One of the latest investigators (Gustay Eck) says it quite unequiy- ocally. In the central committee of the national guard, for instance, there were 35 members and in all two socialists (that is, members of the In- ternational), but they (Varlin and Avouin) had great weight among their colleagues in power. About that committee Lissagary writes; “Were the members of it well-known agitators? Social- of the Democratic Dictatorship. By Lenin . Pas | deve ic “shi ad i ind only the participation. | ists?——Not at all,-all unknown names: petty-|dictatorship, had in m y P pation, | |... y | Savi bourgeois, store-keepers, clerks.” But in spite of that Varlin and Avouin entered such a commit: tee. Later there also’ entered. the committee Pindy, Ogtyn, and Jourde. The “New is ork Workers fazette,” the organ of the International, wrote in anfarticle of July 18, 1874, as follows: “The Commune was not the creation of the Inter- national; they are not at all identical, but the members of the International accepted the pro- gram of the Commune, at the same time broad- ening it out far beyond its original frame-work, they were its most fervent and faithful defenders, for they understood its significance for the work- ing class.” The “General Council,” at whose head stood Marx, as is known, approved these tactics of the Paris Section of the International; in its mani- festo it ig stated: “Wherever, in whatever shape, and under whatever conditions the class struggle obtains any consistency, it is but natural that members of our association should stand in the foreground.” But our predecessors, the mem- bers of the International, did not wish to fuse themselves with the Commune, and all the time they defended their own special purely proletar- ian party organization. Eck writes: “The fed- eral council of the International was able to maintain its delegates in the revolutionary gov- ernment.” An excellent proof of the individual- ity of the proletarian organization of those days in the participation of its representatives is the following invitation: “Next Saturday, May.-20, one o’clock sharp, there will be an extra session of the federal council of the International Work- ingmen’s Association. The members of the Com- mune belonging to the International are invited to be present. They will be expected to give a report on what position they have taken in the Commune, and wit is the source,and the.real | haturevof- the’ differences“ whith lave arisén“in it. A membership card is necessary for participa- tion in the session.” And a still more interest- ing document,—the decision of the extra session: “The International Workingmen’s Association in its extra session, May 20, passed the following resolution: “After hearing the report of the co- members, at the same time members of the Commune, recognized their stand as one alto- gether loyal and decided to request them also in the future to defend with all their means the in- terests of the working class, and also endeavor to preserve the unity of the Commune in order to fight the more strongly against the Versaillese. And moreover, the meeting recommends to them that they endeavor to obtain complete publicity of the sessions of the Commune and an annull- ment of the Paragraph 8 in its Manifesto, as in- compatible with the right of the people to con- trol the actions of the executive power, in this case the committee for the public safety.” Six members of the Commune took part in the meeting. Three sent excuses. March 19, Lissag- aray counts in the Commune twenty-five repre- sentatives of the working class, but not all of them belong to the International; the majority was then also of the petty-bourgeois. . { This is not the place to tell the history of the Commune and the role of the members of the International in it. the executive committee were sitting Duval; on the fiNance committee Varlin, Jourde, and Bes- lay; in the military committee Duval and Pindy; in the commission on public safety Assi and Chaleine, in the committee on labor Malon, Frankel, Theisz, Dupont, and Avrial. April 16, at the new elections, there entered still more members "of the International, (among them the son-in-law of Marx, Longuet), but there were in the Commune also open enemies of it, for in- stance, Vesinier. At the end of the Commune its finances were under the supervision of two highly talented members of the International, Jourde and Varlin. Exchange and labor were supervised by Frankel,—post, telegraph and mint and direct taxes were also administered by the socialists. But still the majority of the most im- portant ministeries, as Eck remarks, were in the hands of the petty-bourgeoisie, : Also, it is altogether unquestionable that Eng- els, when he called the Commune a proletarian We mention only that in’ and even the ideological leadership, of the pro-| letariat in the revolutionary government of Paris. But perhaps the immediate aim of the Com.| mune was complete socialist upheaval? With us, supposedly, there can be no sueh illusion. But in fact, in the famous manifesto of the general council on the Commune, which was un- doubtedly written by Marx, is said: “The Com-) mune was therefore to serve as a lever for up- rooting the economic foundations “upon which rests the existence of classes, and therefore of class rule.” But the manifesto continues: “The working class did not expect miracles from the Commune. They have no ready-made utopias to introduce par decret du peuple.. They know that in order to work out their own emancipation, and along with it that higher form to which pres:| ent society is irresistibly tending, by its own eco- nomic agencies, they will have to pass thru long struggles, thru a series of historic processes, transforming circumstances and men. They have no ideals to realize, but to set free the elements of the new society with which old collapsing bourgeois society itself is pregnant.” All measures, the entire social legislation of the Commune, had a practical and not utopian character. The Commune realized what we call “the minimum program of socialism.” In order to sum up just what the Commune aceomplished, we will quote from Engels’ introduction: “On March 26 the Paris Commune was elected, and proclaimed on March 28. ‘The central com- mittee of the national guard, which had hitherto carried on the government, abdicated its fune- tions into the hands of the Commune. On March 30 the Commune abolished ‘the conscription and the standing army, atd:all military forces Uxtepit the national guard, to which all citizens capable | of bearing arms were to belong. It remitted all rents from October, 1870, to April, 1871, such rent as had already been paid to be applied to future quarters; and returned gratis all pledges of necessitious persons in the public pawning establishment (Mont-de-Piete). The same day the foreigners elected onto the Commune were con- firmed in their functions, since it was declared “the flag of the Commune is that of the Universal Republic.” On April 1 it was decided that the highest salary of a functionary of the Commune, whether a member or otherwise, was not to ex- ceed 6,000 francs (240 pounds) a year. On the following day was declared the separation of chureh and state, and the abolition of all state payments for religious purposes, as also the transformation of all ecclesiastical wealth into national property. As a consequence of this, on April 8 all religious symbols, dogmas, prayers— in short, “all things appertaining to the sphere of the individual conscience,” were ordered to be banished from the schools, an order which was carried out as quickly as possible. On April 6 the guillotine was fetched out by the 187th bat- talion of the national guard, and publicly burnt, amid loud’ popular applause. On April 12 the Commune ordered the column on the Place Ven- dome, which had been constructed by Napoleon I after the war of 1809 out of captured cannon, to be overthrown as a monument of national van- ity and international jealousy. This was accom- plished on May 16. On April 16 the Commune made an order for a statistical account of all factories and workshops which were not at work, and for the elaboration of plans for their utiliza- tion by and for account of the workmen hitherto engaged in them, who were to be formed into co- operative societies for the purpose, and, further, for the amalgamation of these societies into one great co-operative organization, On May 20 they abolished the night work of bakers, as also the register-office for procuring employment, which, since the seccnd empire, had been the monopoly of certain scoundrels appointed by the police, ex- ploiters of the worst kind. The matter was hence- forward placed in the hands of the mayoralties of the twenty arrondissements of Paris. On April 20 it decreed the abolition of pawnshops as being incompatible with the right of workmen to their tools and to credit. May 5 it ordered the i} priy Wom dete the} an | N sely In ( ¢ the! neve a fig witl Mar bara the Orgs t in t cha i to ¢ dre bra mui stal you ney T blot der the exe the y geo out and ma ney ent des the its ce pet pre ere fut Ob ‘ be of the mi na pri : qu. US, res wi go cir th %0 de ry! thi