The Daily Worker Newspaper, June 12, 1926, Page 10

LENIN (6) Results and Lessons of the Revolution. of 1905. THE governmental raiding expeditions were running wild all over the country. The head of the government, Premier Witte, had gotten a big loan from foreign capital, and could abandon his time-gaining tactics. But the movements of the people also becomes broader. ‘The workers feel strongly the neces- sity of unity and under this pressure the Bol- sheviks and Mensheviks decide to hold a com- mon convention. It was held in April, 1906, in Stockholm, and the factions prepared them- selves for it in conferences held in Finland. The Nationalization of the Land. The main question of the convention was the agrarian question. The report was made by Maslov, the Menshevik. His program was the expropriation of the landlords’ estates and the giving of the land to the Zemstvos (County -administrations). This “‘municipalization” was *’ recommended by Plechanov with the motive that it will be an effective method against the restoration: The nationalized land, he claimed, can be taken back by the counter-revolution, but not the municipalized land. The national- ization proposal of Lenin he compared with the nationalization realized in China years ago, and criticized it as “Utopian.” He said that Lenin had raised the slogan of the Socialist-Revolu- tionists. Lenin showed that the municipalization pro- posal is itself a Utopian program. First, the question of “guarantees against restoration.” The only guarantee is, he says, that the revolu- tion is carried out as thoroughly as possible. The main fault with the Menshevik program is that the peasants do not approve of it. It means a kind of bureaucratization of agricul- ture thru the state and county offices. And when Mensheviks consented to the national- ization of part of the land, they meant that it should be administered by the bureaucracy. , Quite another thing was nationalization which the Bolsheviks advocated. Their program,-was. that the peasants should take over the land and divide it up thru their own committees. That was the idea of the peasants themselves and they were ready to fight for it. It was also an economic necessity. The peasants’ lands and the parcels rented by them were so scat tered that modern agriculture was impos- sible. It was necessary to wipe out all of the boundaries and divide the land into whole farms. That was a progressive program, de- manded by the peasants and advocated by the Bolsheviks, Some advocates of nationalization claimed that it would be “Socialist,” which of course was a Utopian thought. But Lenin said that in spite of this Utopian ideology these peo-} ple backed the peasants’ own demands. Na- tionalization, altho not socialist, would be a severe blow to big ownership in general and thus weaken the power of the big land own- ers. But the immediate result would be that the Russian peasants would become free mod- ern farmers. ..The land program of Lenin was: (1) The lands of the church, the monastaries, the crown and the nobility shall be expropriated. (2) The peasant committees will destroy the remnants of the landlords’ privileges and ad- minister the land problems until a constituent assembly settles matters. (3) The special taxes upon peasants must be abolished. (4) Also the old laws preventing the free utilization of the land by the peasants. (5) Elected popu- lar: judges shall decide upon land rents and pass judgment upon the validity of land con- tracts. If the revolution is to be a complete success, then the land must be nationalized ac- cording to the demands of the peasants. ‘The agricultural workers will organize separately, We must not create the illusion that small- scale agriculture will abolish poverty not as long as there is commodity economy. Only the socialist revolution can abolish poverty. The Mensheviks had a slight majority in the congress. But they were compelled ‘to make concessions to the revolutionary stand- point. In a long letter to the Petersburg pro- letariat, Lenin explainéd what had been the proposals of the Bolsheviks and how the de- cisions adopted should be carried out. But the unity so achieved did not last long. Every new situation showed how deep the differences were. The Mensheviks went further and fur- ther in their support of the bourgeoisie, ia 4 Mensheviks Give Up Revolution. The Mensheviks very soon started to say that the revolution was over. Lenin, on the contrary, emphasized the necessity of prepara- tion for the next revolutionary struggle. But so much had the situation changed by the sum-; mer of 1906, that the Bolsheviks no longer ad- vocated boycotting the elections. They fought determinedly against the tendency within their own group which favored the boycott. . It is interesting to know that Martoy accused the Bolsheviks of opportunism. He claimed that they advocated permanent election. alliances. Lenin showed that this was unfounded. the first-stage elections, when the masses do their voting, the party must act wholly inde- pendently. But in the second stage; the Bol- sheviks approved of an electoral alliance with the Trudoviky (“Toilers’”—peasants), and this especially in order to counteract the half-ca- dets (“Popular Socialists”). Lenin explained that the workers’ party cannot make a per- manent alliance, because even the bourgeois- democrats are enemies. But it is permissible to ally with revolutionary democrats at the final stage of the elections in order tg split the bourgeois groups. But many Mensheviks, like Plechanoy, advocated first-stage alliances, even with the cadets (the Liberals). But the reaction gained a foothold. It was apparent that the revolutionary struggle was delayed. By an accident, Lenin escaped being arrested in his home, on the Finnish side of the border. He moved to Helsingfors, and then, in 1907, went abroad. The first question now was to analyze the significance of what had happened. The Mensheviks published their four-volume investigation, and came to the conclusion that the workers were to blame for the defeat. They had, unconsciously, followed the Bolshevik line; the Soviet had been too radical, and the eight-hour day demand had forced the bourgeoisie to the side of czarism. The Bolsheviks explained, as causes of defeat: (1) The international situation (the loan to czarism from abroad). (2)..The lack:of class- consciqusness, ameng:the peasants: as soldiers they had shot down the workers. They did not make a decisive fight against the landlords, the peasants had hot elected Soviets. _ (3) The bourgeoisie had betrayed the. workers, had ral- lied to the nobility. The Mensheviks had not understood the revolution. It had been, in spite of the defeat, a great revolution. And that was because of the Moscow rebellion and the Sov- iets. The revolution will rise again, Soviets will be elected, and they will be victorious. The Mensheviks regarded the revolution as lost. They considered that Russia would now go along the German path, that czarism would develop into a constitutional monarchy; that liberties would be gained gradually; that the landlords would become bourgeois agricultur- alists (like the German Junkers) ; the peasants would become farmers. Against this, Lenin explained that the basic causes of the revolu- tion would flare up again. The Party convention was held in London, 1907. The Bolsheviks had the majority, altho this was very uncertain. The main question was the relation to the bourgeoisie: should the proletariat be the rear guard of the bour- geoisie, or the leaders of the fight? Rosa Lux- emburg was present.as the representative of the Polish Socialist-Democracy. Moré prole- tarians from Russia attended than before, and Lenin had their support. In the central com- mittee elected by the convention there were Lenin and Zinoviev. The Mensheviks were represented by Martinoy and Varski (now Communists). The Poles-were represented by Tyshko (murdered in 1919 in a German pris- on). The Letts were represented by Rosin (later in America, died 1919,as a member of the Latvian Soviet government). There were splits among the Bolsheviks, Some compro- mised with the Mensheviks, others demanded a boycott of parliament (Otsovists, Ultima- tists). Lenin fought both deviations vigorous- ly and those who did not correct their devia- tions were expelled. In} cn cet LT ELA ENEN LI Short Stories The Years of Reaction. N his book “Leftism”, Lenin describes t period. Everywhere were splits and. demor ization. Czarism crushed tlie revolutionary ganizations. The Bolshevik nuclei could sor how maintain themselves, but even they suffer big losses. Traitors and provocateurs did mu damage. But the basis of czarism . decay also. The land-law of Stolypin made it. easi for the peasants. to,.leave .the;.village...co munity (mir). He wanted to create a.class “well-to-do peasants” in order to broaden t basis of czarism. But actually he destroyed tt basis. Among the Mensheviks, there was form the group of liquidators. For these the me utilization of legal possibilities was not eno, g. they wanted to liquidate the undergroun® ¢ ganization. And when Plechanov did not a e this view, he was called “the bard of the cella window.” <A part of the Bolsheviks (Ryko Sokolnikov, Losovsky) wanted to conciliate wi: the Mensheviks and were called “conciliato Bolsheviks.” Trotzky was also for conciliati with the liquidators. Ideological deviations occurred. Lunach sky and Bogdanov started to seek new paths philosophy, and arrived at idealism and we called “God-seekers.”. Maxim Gorki support their views, which were taught at the par school at Capri, Italy. But part of the studen moved to Paris to Lenin’s school. Lenin wro his book “Materialism and Empirico-Criticism showing that this new school was not the d trine of living experience, but reactionary, ol fashioned idealism in a new form. And as still-claimed that they were Marxians, thi titude was characterizéd as: “a -rebellion 01 The desertion’ ariohg the “émigrants’ Wwe so far that in’ Paris the Ménsheviks promised kingdom to him who éould finda fourth Bolsh vik; the three being Lenin, Zinoviey and Ka nev. It was not the first time that Lenin f, the derisive remark that he might be left alon To such a remark he answered: “What then There are moments when troops for one reaso or another, desert the battle-field. The chief wh cannot then maintain himself, who cannot d fend his banner, is a poor one.” Now again th end of Bolshevism was prophesied, but like Mar Lenin went his way. He worked hard and defen ed Marxism aguinst all attempis to falsify o dilute Marxism. The New Rising. yp 1908, there was held in Paris—where Lenin lived—a conference among the groups, but an agreement. was not reached. A mild censure of the liquidators was adopted, but the split continued. Lenin started to publish the “Proletar.” In Russia a Bolshevik organ