peaccenicked
22nd June 2002, 23:55
''Looking back today, it seems that the idea of making peace, while allowing the German proletariat time to make revolution, was a wild gamble. In fact, however, it was a gamble either way. I think it is true that socialism is inevitable - a proposition that makes academic audiences jump up and down and declare that I am an idiot. But if you look at history and you understand the decline of capitalism, the decline of value, you can see that in, say, 300 years hence only the shell of capitalism will actually be left. It will have to be overthrown by the working class, but they will need only to push very gently to topple its structure. Hence, socialism is inevitable in the sense that the working class must take power.
Where October was concerned, however, to take power was a gamble, but not to take power was also a gamble. If the Bolsheviks had not done so, it is possible that the German revolution would have been made easier: partly because the bourgeoisie were not forewarned, partly because the left would not have been tied up with Russia, partly because the Russians dominated the left after they took power. Russia was undoubtedly a backward country and while socialism could not be built in one country and is a world system or nothing, nonetheless, the more backward the country, the easier to take power, but the more difficult to hold on or to build anything from that point. Of course, there is the additional point that socialists are necessarily isolated from the majority in a backward country and it is easier for the bourgeoisie to mount an international invasion against them. The question then is whether the taking of power in a backward country did not make the process more difficult.
But the real gamble was on whether October would assist the German revolution, and that issue cannot be resolved because Stalin prevented a successful German revolution taking place. The first time he did it through sheer stupidity by instructing Tukhachevsky to march directly on Warsaw, where there would be an uprising, according to him. Lenin, who by that time was desperate, endorsed the strategy. The aim was to get to the borders of Germany in order to assist the events over there. Trotsky was opposed to it. There was no uprising and Tukhachevsky’s troops were exhausted on arriving near Warsaw and easily defeated. The second time occurred because Stalin refused to assist Brandler in March 1923.
So there was no world revolution. Given all the revolutions, general strikes and actions on the part of the working class in 1919 in particular, one can argue that this failure was only a result of historical accident. After all, the situation may be ripe, the working class ready - ie, all objective and subjective conditions in place, with a superiority of forces - and yet the bourgeoisie may win. As in any war, what happens depends on the strategy and tactics of the time, and the working class may make the wrong choices.
Were Lenin and Trotsky correct to take power then? Undoubtedly, in my view, but it was a much bigger gamble than they expected, in every way. Would anyone go for a revolution knowing that seven million would die as a result in civil war, and millions more later?
There is a view that the revolution itself was premature. We ought to wait until the forces of production are adequately developed for socialism before we can take power. Claudin, Pierre Rousset and others since have argued this case. This appears to me to be nonsense. Firstly, if we are to wait then we should wait another 300 years or so, when technology has so far advanced that there is de facto socialism, the underlying rate of profit is zero and prices are purely arbitrary. In other words, we would wait until capitalism is a mere shell. In the meantime, mankind must continue to suffer, although it has the means to introduce a human society.
Secondly, the means of production will always be developed much faster in a humane direction by socialism. That means that a revolution could have taken place even in 1848, provided it was a world revolution. All that is needed is that ability to develop the means of production, not its actual development.
To sum up: the October revolution lives in all its glory in the nature of the epoch: an epoch of stalemate, in which neither side has been able to win. The epoch itself opened up with the October revolution in a temporary form and was then made permanent by the betrayal of the social democrats and later by the Stalinist counterrevolution.''
Originally from the Weekly Worker
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/397/ticktin.html
Where October was concerned, however, to take power was a gamble, but not to take power was also a gamble. If the Bolsheviks had not done so, it is possible that the German revolution would have been made easier: partly because the bourgeoisie were not forewarned, partly because the left would not have been tied up with Russia, partly because the Russians dominated the left after they took power. Russia was undoubtedly a backward country and while socialism could not be built in one country and is a world system or nothing, nonetheless, the more backward the country, the easier to take power, but the more difficult to hold on or to build anything from that point. Of course, there is the additional point that socialists are necessarily isolated from the majority in a backward country and it is easier for the bourgeoisie to mount an international invasion against them. The question then is whether the taking of power in a backward country did not make the process more difficult.
But the real gamble was on whether October would assist the German revolution, and that issue cannot be resolved because Stalin prevented a successful German revolution taking place. The first time he did it through sheer stupidity by instructing Tukhachevsky to march directly on Warsaw, where there would be an uprising, according to him. Lenin, who by that time was desperate, endorsed the strategy. The aim was to get to the borders of Germany in order to assist the events over there. Trotsky was opposed to it. There was no uprising and Tukhachevsky’s troops were exhausted on arriving near Warsaw and easily defeated. The second time occurred because Stalin refused to assist Brandler in March 1923.
So there was no world revolution. Given all the revolutions, general strikes and actions on the part of the working class in 1919 in particular, one can argue that this failure was only a result of historical accident. After all, the situation may be ripe, the working class ready - ie, all objective and subjective conditions in place, with a superiority of forces - and yet the bourgeoisie may win. As in any war, what happens depends on the strategy and tactics of the time, and the working class may make the wrong choices.
Were Lenin and Trotsky correct to take power then? Undoubtedly, in my view, but it was a much bigger gamble than they expected, in every way. Would anyone go for a revolution knowing that seven million would die as a result in civil war, and millions more later?
There is a view that the revolution itself was premature. We ought to wait until the forces of production are adequately developed for socialism before we can take power. Claudin, Pierre Rousset and others since have argued this case. This appears to me to be nonsense. Firstly, if we are to wait then we should wait another 300 years or so, when technology has so far advanced that there is de facto socialism, the underlying rate of profit is zero and prices are purely arbitrary. In other words, we would wait until capitalism is a mere shell. In the meantime, mankind must continue to suffer, although it has the means to introduce a human society.
Secondly, the means of production will always be developed much faster in a humane direction by socialism. That means that a revolution could have taken place even in 1848, provided it was a world revolution. All that is needed is that ability to develop the means of production, not its actual development.
To sum up: the October revolution lives in all its glory in the nature of the epoch: an epoch of stalemate, in which neither side has been able to win. The epoch itself opened up with the October revolution in a temporary form and was then made permanent by the betrayal of the social democrats and later by the Stalinist counterrevolution.''
Originally from the Weekly Worker
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/397/ticktin.html