The next two years of the party’s history (1903–5) were filled with vicious intrigues that are of small interest except for the light they cast on the personalities involved. Lenin was determined to subordinate the party to his will; failing that, he was prepared to create, under the party’s cover, a parallel organization under his personal control. By the end of 1904, he had, in effect, his own party with its own rump “Central Committee” called “Bureau of the Committees of the Party Majority.” For this action, he was expelled from the legitimate Central Committee.61 The technique of subverting legitimate institutions in which he was in a minority, by forming unauthorized, parallel, identically named organizations packed with his adherents, Lenin would apply in 1917–18 to other centers of power, notably the soviets.
By the time the 1905 Revolution broke out, the Bolshevik organization was in place:
a disciplined order of professional committee men, grouped around a band of conspirators who were all linked by personal allegiance to their chieftain, Lenin, and ready to follow him in any adventure, as long as his leadership appeared sufficiently radical and extreme.
62
Lenin’s opponents accused him of Jacobinism: Trotsky noted that, like the Jacobins, the Leninists feared mass “spontaneity.”63 Unperturbed by such accusations, Lenin proudly claimed the title of Jacobin for himself.64 Akselrod thought Leninism was not even Jacobinism but “a very simple copy or caricature of the bureaucratic-autocratic system of our Minister of the Interior.”65
Neither the Bolsheviks nor the Mensheviks exerted much influence on the course of the 1905 Revolution, at any rate, until its concluding phase. The violence of 1905 caught the Social-Democrats by surprise and most of that year they had to confine themselves to issuing proclamations and fomenting the unrest which raged beyond their control. It was only in October 1905, with the formation of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, that the Mensheviks could assume a more active role in a revolution until then dominated by liberal personalities and liberal programs.
Lenin was not directly involved in these events, for unlike Trotsky and Parvus, he preferred to observe them from the safety of Switzerland; he judged it prudent to return to Russia only in early November, following the proclamation of political amnesty. He thought that January 1905 marked the onset of a general revolution in Russia. While the initial impetus came from the liberal “bourgeoisie,” this class was certain to capitulate somewhere along the way and strike a deal with tsarism. It was imperative, therefore, for the Social-Democrats to take charge and lead the workers to full victory.
Although Lenin always had a predilection for what Martov called “anarcho-blanquism,”66 he had to have a theoretical justification for his program of action. This he found in a seminal essay by Parvus, written in January 1905 under the immediate impact of Bloody Sunday. Parvus’s theory of “uninterrupted” (or “permanent”) revolution provided a happy compromise between the orthodox Russian Social-Democratic doctrine of a two-phase revolution in which a distinct phase of “bourgeois” rule preceded socialism, and the anarchist theory of “direct assault,” which Lenin preferred temperamentally but was unable to reconcile with Marxism. Parvus allowed for a “bourgeois” phase, but insisted on no interval separating it from the socialist phase, which would get underway concurrently.* Under this scheme, once the anti-autocratic revolution broke out, the “proletariat” (meaning the Social-Democratic Party) would immediately proceed to take power. The justification for this theory was that Russia lacked a radicalized lower middle class which in Western Europe had supported and encouraged the bourgeoisie. In its exposed position, the Russian bourgeoisie would never allow the revolution to come to fruition but would stop it “halfway.” The socialists had to prepare and organize the masses for the civil war that would follow the fall of tsarism. One of the prerequisites of success was for the party to keep an identity distinct from its allies: “fight together, but march apart.” Parvus’s conception had great influence on Russian Social-Democrats, notably Lenin and Trotsky: “For the first time in the history of the Russian movement, the thesis was advanced that the proletariat should at once grasp for political power and … form a provisional government.”67
Lenin initially rejected Parvus’s theory, as he was in the habit of doing whenever anyone challenged, with a new idea or tactic, his primacy in the movement. But he soon came around. In September 1905 he echoed Parvus:
… immediately after the democratic revolution we will begin to proceed, to the extent that our strength allows it … to the socialist revolution. We favor an uninterrupted [
nepreryvnaia
] revolution. We will not stop halfway.
†
The socialist revolution, in Lenin’s view, could take only one form: armed insurrection. To learn the strategy and tactics of urban guerrilla warfare, he assiduously studied its history: among his authorities were the memoirs of Gustave Cluseret, the military commander of the Paris Commune. What he learned, he passed on to his followers in Russia. In October 1905, he advised them to form “Detachments of the Revolutionary Army,” whose members should equip themselves with a
gun, revolver, bomb, knife, brass knuckles, stick, rag soaked in kerosene to start fires, rope or rope ladder, shovel to build barricades, slab of guncotton, barbed wire, nails (against cavalry), and so forth.… Even without weapons the detachments can play a serious role by (1) leading the crowd; (2) attacking an ordinary Cossack who has gotten separated from his unit (as has happened in Moscow) and disarming him; (3) rescuing those who have been arrested or wounded, if the police force is very weak; (4) mounting to the rooftops and upper stories of houses, etc., and throwing stones at the troops, pouring boiling water on them, etc.… The killing of spies, policemen, gendarmes, the blowing up of police stations …
68
One aspect of the armed struggle was terrorism. Although the Bolsheviks nominally adhered to the Social-Democratic platform, which rejected terrorism, in practice they engaged in terrorist acts both on their own and in collaboration with the SRs, including the Maximalists. These operations were, as a rule, organized in secret, but on occasion they openly exhorted their followers to terrorism. Thus, in August 1906, citing the example of the Polish Socialist Party, which had gunned down policemen in Warsaw, they urged attacks on “spies, active supporters of the Black Hundreds, police, army and navy officers, and the like.”*
Lenin viewed with skepticism the emergence of the soviets, because they were conceived as “non-partisan” workers’ organizations and, as such, outside the control of the political parties: given his belief in the accommodationist drift of the working class, the soviets did not strike him and his followers as dependable.69 At the time of its formation, some Petrograd Bolsheviks urged the workers to boycott the Soviet on the grounds that granting a workers’ organization primacy over the Social-Democratic Party would mean “subordinating consciousness to spontaneity”70—in other words, elevating the workers above the intelligentsia. Lenin himself was more flexible, although he could never quite make up his mind about the soviets’ function and utility. In the end, after 1906, he decided that they could be of use but only as helpmates of the “revolutionary army.” They were essential to the revolution (“insurrection”) but had no utility in and of themselves.71 He also rejected the soviets as organs of self-rule—their function was to serve as “instruments” of an insurrection carried out by disciplined armed detachments.
With the outbreak of the 1905 Revolution, Lenin decided that the time had come to distance himself from the main body of the party and openly form his own organization. In April 1905, he convened in London an unauthorized “Third Congress” of the Social-Democratic Party; all the delegates (thirty-eight in number) were members of his faction. According to Krupskaia:
At the Third Congress, there were no workers—at any rate, there was not one remotely noticeable worker. But there were at the congress many “committee men.” Whoever ignores this structure of the Third
Congress will not understand much in its minutes.
72
In such a friendly gathering, Lenin had no difficulty gaining approval of all his resolutions, which the legitimate Social-Democratic Labor Party—as evidenced by its actions the following year in Stockholm—would have rejected. The “Third Congress” marked the beginning of the formal split in the SD Party, which would be consummated in 1912.
Having returned to Russia in early November 1905, Lenin encouraged the Moscow uprising of the next month, but as soon as the shooting began he made himself scarce. The day after the barricades had gone up in Moscow (December 10, 1905), he and Krupskaia sought refuge in Finland. They returned only on December 17, after the uprising had been crushed.
In April 1906, the two branches of Russian Social-Democracy made a halfhearted attempt at reunification at a congress held in Stockholm. Here Lenin tried and failed to gain a majority on the Central Committee. He also suffered defeat on a number of practical issues: the congress condemned the creation of armed detachments and the idea of an armed insurrection, and rejected his agrarian program. Undaunted, Lenin formed, in secret from the Mensheviks, an illegal and clandestine “Central Committee” (a successor to the “Bureau”) under his personal direction. Apparently composed at first of three members, it expanded in 1907 to fifteen.73
During and immediately after the revolutionary year of 1905, the ranks of Social-Democracy increased manifold, with tens of thousands of new adherents signing up, a high proportion of them intellectuals. By this time, the two factions acquired a distinct complexion.74 The Bolsheviks in 1905 are estimated to have had 8,400 followers, roughly the same number as the Mensheviks and the Bundists. The Stockholm congress of the SD Party, held in April 1906, is said to have represented 31,000 members, 18,000 of them Mensheviks and 13,000 Bolsheviks. In 1907, the party had grown to 84,300 members—approximately equal to the membership of the Constitutional-Democratic Party—of whom 46,100 were Bolsheviks and 38,200 Mensheviks; affiliated were 25,700 Polish Social-Democrats, 25,500 Bundists, and 13,000 Latvian SDs. This marked the crest of the wave: in 1908 desertions began and in 1910 by Trotsky’s estimate, the membership of the Russian Social-Democratic Party dwindled to 10,000 or fewer.75
The Menshevik and Bolshevik factions had different social and ethnic compositions. Both attracted a disproportionate number of dvoriane, or gentry—20 percent compared to a 1.7 percent share of dvoriane in the population at large (the Bolsheviks rather more, with 22 percent; the Mensheviks fewer, with 19 percent). The Bolsheviks had in their ranks a considerably higher proportion of peasants: 38 percent of their membership came from this group, compared with 26 percent in Menshevik ranks.76 These were not farming peasants, who followed the Socialists-Revolutionaries, but uprooted, déclassé peasants who had moved to the city in search of work. This socially transitional element was to supply numerous cadres to the Bolshevik Party and exert much influence on its mentality. The Mensheviks attracted more lower-class urban inhabitants (meshchane), skilled workers (e.g., printers and railroad employees), as well as intellectuals and professional people.
As concerns the ethnic composition of the two factions, the Bolsheviks were predominantly Great Russian, whereas the Mensheviks attracted mostly non-Russians, especially Georgians and Jews. At the SD Second Congress, Lenin’s support came principally from delegates sent by the central—that is, Great Russian—provinces. At the Fifth Congress (1907), nearly four-fifths (78.3 percent) of the Bolsheviks were Great Russian, compared with one-third (34 percent) of the Mensheviks. Approximately 10 percent of the Bolsheviks were Jewish; their proportion in Menshevik ranks was twice as high.*77
The Bolshevik Party, in its formative years, may thus be characterized as follows: (1) heavily rural in composition, its rank and file having been drawn “to a considerable extent from men born in and still having connections with the countryside,” and (2) “overwhelmingly Great Russian” and based on regions inhabited by Great Russians.78 Its social and cultural roots, in other words, were among groups and in areas with the oldest traditions of serfdom.
But the two factions also shared certain features, of which the most important was their tenuous relationship with industrial labor, the social group that they claimed to represent. Since the emergence of Social-Democracy in Russia in the 1880s, the workers treated the socialist intelligentsia with ambivalence. The unskilled and semi-skilled workers shunned them altogether, because they viewed intellectuals as gentlemen (“white hands”) who used them to settle private scores with the Tsar. They remained immune to the influence of the Social-Democratic Party. The better-educated, more skilled and politically conscious workers often regarded the Social-Democrats as friends and supporters, without being prepared to be led by them: as a rule, they preferred trade unionism to party politics.79 As a consequence, the number of workers in Social-Democratic organizations remained minuscule. Martov estimates that in the first half of 1905, when the Revolution was already well underway, the Mensheviks had in Petrograd some 1,200 to 1,500 active worker supporters and the Bolsheviks “several hundred”—and this in the Empire’s most industrialized city with over 200,000 industrial workers.80 At the end of 1905, the two factions had between them in St. Petersburg a total of 3,000 members.81 In effect, therefore, both the Menshevik and Bolshevik factions were organizations of intellectuals. Martov’s observations on this subject, published in 1914, anticipate the situation which would emerge after the February Revolution:
In such cities as Petersburg, where in the course of 1905 it had become actually possible to engage in active work on a broad arena, … in the party organization there remained only worker “professionals,” who carried out central organizational functions, and labor youths, who enrolled in party circles for the purpose of self-development. The politically more mature worker element remained formally outside the organization or was only counted as belonging to it, which had the most deleterious effect on the relations of the organization and its centers with the masses. At the same time, the mass influx of the intelligentsia into the party, given the greater suitability of its organizational forms to the intelligentsia’s conditions of life (more leisure and the possibility of devoting much time to “conspiracy,” residence in the central quarters of the city, more favorable to eluding surveillance), resulted in all the higher cells of the [Social-Democratic] organization … being filled by the intelligentsia, which, in turn, led to their psychological isolation from the mass movement. Hence, the unending conflicts and friction between the “centers” and the “periphery” and the mounting antagonism between workers and the intelligentsia …
82
In fact, even though the Mensheviks liked to identify themselves with the labor movement, both factions preferred to run the movement without worker interference: the Bolsheviks on principle, the Mensheviks in response to the facts of life.83 Martov correctly noted this phenomenon, but did not draw from it the obvious conclusion that in Russia a democratic socialist movement, run not only for the workers but also by them, was not feasible.
Given these similarities, one might have expected the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks to join forces. But this did not happen: notwithstanding spells of amity, the two drifted apart, fighting each other with all the passion of sectarians of the same faith. Lenin missed no opportunity to distance himself from the Mensheviks, castigating them as traitors to the cause of socialism and the interests of the working class.
This bitter animosity was due less to ideological than to personal reasons. By 1906, in the wake of the Revolution’s collapse, the Mensheviks agreed to adopt Lenin’s program calling for a centralized, disciplined, and conspirational party. Even their tactical views were not dissimilar. Both factions, for example, supported the abortive Moscow uprising of December 1905. In 1906, they were at one in condemning as a breach of party discipline the notion of a Workers’ Congress, advocated by Akselrod.84 Given the minute, often scholastic differences separating the two factions, the principal obstacle to reunification
was Lenin’s overweening lust for power, which made it impossible to work with him in any capacity other than as a subordinate.
During the interval between 1905 and 1914, Lenin developed a revolutionary program that differed from that adopted by the other Social-Democrats in respect to two important issues: the peasantry and the ethnic minorities. The differences derived from the fact that whereas the Mensheviks thought in terms of solutions, Lenin’s concern was exclusively with tactics: he wished to identify and exploit sources of discontent for the purpose of promoting revolution. As we have noted, he had concluded even before 1905 that in view of the numerical insignificance in Russia of industrial workers, the Social-Democrats had to attract and lead into battle every group opposed to the autocracy, except for the “bourgeoisie,” which he considered “counterrevolutionary”: after the battle had been won, there would be time for settling accounts with these temporary allies.
The traditional view of the Social-Democrats concerning the peasantry, following that of Marx and Engels, held that with the possible exception of the landless proletariat, it was a reactionary (“petty bourgeois”) class.85 However, observing the behavior of Russian peasants during the agrarian disturbances of 1902 and even more in 1905 and noting the contribution which their assaults on landlord property had made to the capitulation of tsarism, Lenin concluded that the muzhik was a natural, if transitory, ally of the industrial worker. To attract him, the party had to go beyond its official agrarian program, which promised the peasants only supplementing the so-called otrezki, land which the 1861 Emancipation Edict had given them an option of taking free of charge but which constituted only a portion of what they needed. He learned much about the mentality of the Russian peasant from lengthy conversations with Gapon after his flight to Europe following Bloody Sunday: according to Krupskaia, Gapon was familiar with the needs of the peasantry and Lenin was so taken with him that he tried to convert him to socialism.86
The Russian Revolution Page 57
