What are the characteristic features of the proletarian revolution in contrast to the bourgeois revolution?

The difference between the proletarian revolution and the bourgeois revolution could be reduced to five main points.

1) The bourgeois revolution usually begins in the presence of more or less ready-made forms of the capitalist structure, which grew and matured even before the open revolution in the depths of feudal society, while the proletarian revolution begins in the absence, or almost the absence, of ready-made forms of the socialist structure.

2) The main task of the bourgeois revolution comes down to seizing power and bringing it into line with the existing bourgeois economy, while the main task of the proletarian revolution comes down to, having seized power, building a new, socialist economy.

3) Bourgeois revolution ends usually a seizure of power, whereas for the proletarian revolution the seizure of power is only its the beginning, Moreover, power is used as a lever for restructuring the old economy and organizing a new one.

4) The bourgeois revolution is limited to replacing one exploiting group in power with another exploiting group, which is why it does not need to destroy the old state machine, while the proletarian revolution removes from power all and any exploiting groups and puts in power the leader of all workers and exploited, the proletarian class , which is why it cannot do without scrapping the old state machine and replacing it with a new one.

5) The bourgeois revolution cannot unite millions of working and exploited masses around the bourgeoisie for any long period precisely because they are working and exploited, while the proletarian revolution can and should link them with the proletariat in a long-term alliance precisely as working and exploited, if it wants to fulfill its main task of strengthening the power of the proletariat and building a new, socialist economy.

Here are some of Lenin's main provisions on this matter:

“One of the main differences,” says Lenin, “between the bourgeois and socialist revolution is that for the bourgeois revolution, growing out of feudalism, new economic organizations are gradually created in the bowels of the old system, which gradually change all aspects of feudal society. The bourgeois revolution had only one task - to sweep away, discard, and destroy all the fetters of the previous society. In fulfilling this task, every bourgeois revolution accomplishes everything that is required of it: it enhances the growth of capitalism.

The socialist revolution is in a completely different situation. The more backward a country is, which, due to the zigzags of history, had to start a socialist revolution, the more difficult it is for it to transition from old capitalist relations to socialist ones. Here, to the tasks of destruction, new tasks of unheard of difficulty are added - organizational ones” (see vol. XXII, p. 315).

“If the people’s creativity,” continues Lenin, “of the Russian revolution, which went through the great experience of 1905, had not created the Soviets back in February 1917, then in no case could they have taken power in October, since success depended only on the availability of ready-made organizational forms of a movement that has embraced millions. This ready-made form was the Soviets, and therefore in the political field those brilliant successes awaited us, that continuous triumphal march that we experienced, because a new form of political power was ready, and we only had to use a few decrees to transform the power of the Soviets from that embryonic state in which it was in the first months of the revolution, in a legally recognized form, established in the Russian state - in the Russian Soviet Republic” (see vol. XXII, p. 315).

“There still remained,” says Lenin, “two gigantic difficulties, the solution of which could in no way be the triumphant march that our revolution took in the first months” (see ibid., p. 315).

“Firstly, these were the tasks of internal organization facing any socialist revolution. The difference between a socialist revolution and a bourgeois revolution lies precisely in the fact that in the second case there are ready-made forms of capitalist relations, but the Soviet power - proletarian - does not receive these ready-made relations, unless we take the most developed forms of capitalism, which essentially covered the small tops of industry and very few agriculture was also affected. Organization of accounting, control over the largest enterprises, transformation of the entire state economic mechanism into a single large machine, into an economic organism working so that hundreds of millions of people are guided by one plan - this is the gigantic organizational task that has fallen on our shoulders. Under current working conditions, it in no way allowed for a solution with a bang, just as we managed to solve the problems of the civil war” (see ibid., p. 316).

“The second of the gigantic difficulties... is the international question. If we so easily dealt with Kerensky's gangs, if we so easily created power in our own country, if we without the slightest difficulty received a decree on the socialization of the land, workers' control - if we got it so easy, it was only because the conditions were fortunately established for a short moment protected us from international imperialism. International imperialism, with all the power of its capital, with its highly organized military equipment, which represents the real strength, the real fortress of international capital, could in no case, under any conditions, live next to the Soviet Republic, both in its objective position and in the economic interests of that capitalist the class that was embodied in him could not due to trade ties and international financial relations. Here conflict is inevitable. Here is the greatest difficulty of the Russian revolution, its greatest historical problem: the need to solve international problems, the need to bring about an international revolution” (see Vol. XXII, p. 317).

Such is the inner character and basic meaning of the proletarian revolution.

Is it possible to carry out such a radical restructuring of the old, bourgeois order without a violent revolution, without the dictatorship of the proletariat?

It is clear that it is impossible. To think that such a revolution can be carried out peacefully, within the framework of bourgeois democracy, adapted to the rule of the bourgeoisie, means either to go crazy and lose normal human concepts, or to rudely and openly renounce the proletarian revolution.

This position must be emphasized with all the more force and categoricalness since we are dealing with a proletarian revolution that has so far been victorious in one country, which is surrounded by hostile capitalist countries and whose bourgeoisie cannot but be supported by international capital.

This is why Lenin says that:

“The liberation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also the run of destruction that apparatus of state power that was created by the ruling class” (see Vol. XXI, p. 373).

“Let first, while maintaining private property, i.e., while maintaining power and the oppression of capital, the majority of the population speak out for the party of the proletariat - only then can and should it take power” - this is what the petty-bourgeois democrats, the actual servants of the bourgeoisie, say, calling themselves “socialists”” (see Vol. XXIV, p. 647).

“Let the revolutionary proletariat first overthrow the bourgeoisie, break the yoke of capital, smash the bourgeois state apparatus, then the victorious proletariat will be able to quickly win over the sympathy and support of the majority of the working non-proletarian masses, satisfying them at the expense of the exploiters” - we talk we” (see ibid.).

“In order to win the majority of the population to its side,” Lenin continues, “the proletariat must, firstly, overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize state power into its own hands; he must, secondly, introduce Soviet power, smashing the old state apparatus to smithereens, by which he immediately undermines the dominance, authority, and influence of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois compromisers among the non-proletarian working masses. Thirdly, he must finish off the influence of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois compromisers among majority non-proletarian working masses revolutionary fulfillment of their economic needs on account exploiters” (see ibid., p. 641).

These are the characteristic features of the proletarian revolution.

What, in this regard, are the main features of the dictatorship of the proletariat, if it is recognized that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the main content of the proletarian revolution?

Here is the most general definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat given by Lenin:

“The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the end of the class struggle, but its continuation in new forms. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the class struggle of the victorious proletariat, which has taken political power into its own hands, against the defeated, but not destroyed, not disappeared, not ceased to resist, against the bourgeoisie that has strengthened its resistance” (see Vol. XXIV, p. 311).

Objecting to the confusion of the dictatorship of the proletariat with “national”, “general election” power, with “non-class” power, Lenin says:

“The class that took political dominance into its hands took it, realizing that it was taking it one·. This is contained in the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This concept only makes sense when one class knows that it alone takes political power into its hands and does not deceive either itself or others by talking about “national, universally elected, sanctified by all the people” power” (see Vol. XXVI, p. 286).

This does not mean, however, that the power of one class, the proletarian class, which does not and cannot share it with other classes, does not need help in achieving its goals, in an alliance with the working and exploited masses of other classes. Vice versa. This power, the power of one class, can be established and carried through to the end only through a special form of alliance between the proletarian class and the toiling masses of the petty-bourgeois classes, primarily the toiling masses of the peasantry.

What is this special form of union, what does it consist of? Doesn’t this alliance with the working masses of other, non-proletarian classes generally contradict the idea of ​​the dictatorship of one class?

This special form of union consists in the fact that the leading force of this union is the proletariat. It consists, this special form of union, in the fact that the leader of the state, the leader in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat is one party, party of the proletariat, party of communists, which does not divide and does not may share leadership with other parties.

As you can see, the contradiction here is only visible, apparent.

“Dictatorship of the proletariat,” says Lenin, “ there is a special form of class union between the proletariat, the vanguard of the working people, and the numerous non-proletarian strata of the working people (petty bourgeoisie, small proprietors, peasantry, intelligentsia, etc.), or the majority of them, an alliance against capital, an alliance for the purpose of the complete overthrow of capital, the complete suppression of the resistance of the bourgeoisie and attempts at restoration on its part, an alliance for the purpose of the final creation and strengthening of socialism. This is a special kind of alliance that takes shape in a special situation, namely in a situation of frantic civil war, it is an alliance of firm supporters of socialism with its wavering allies, sometimes with “neutrals” (then from an agreement on struggle the alliance becomes an agreement on neutrality), union between economically, politically, socially, spiritually unequal classes”(see vol. XXIV, p. 311).

In one of his instructive reports, Kamenev, polemicizing with this kind of understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat, says:

"Dictatorship do not eat union of one class with another."

I think that Kamenev here means, first of all, one passage from my pamphlet “The October Revolution and the Tactics of Russian Communists,” where it says:

“The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a simple government elite, “skillfully” “selected” by the caring hand of an “experienced strategist” and “reasonably based” on certain sections of the population. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a class union of the proletariat and the working masses of the peasantry for the overthrow of capital, for the final victory of socialism, provided that the leading force of this union is the proletariat.”

I fully support this formulation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, because I think that it completely and completely coincides with the formulation of Lenin just given.

I argue that Kamenev’s statement that “dictatorship do not eat the union of one class with another,” given in such an unconditional form, has nothing in common with Lenin’s theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I assert that only people who do not understand the meaning of the idea of ​​a bond, the idea of ​​a union of the proletariat and the peasantry, the idea of hegemony proletariat in this union.

Only people who do not understand Lenin’s thesis that:

“Only an agreement with the peasantry can save the socialist revolution in Russia before revolution occurs in other countries” (see Vol. XXVI, p. 238).

Only people who do not understand Lenin’s position that:

“The highest principle of dictatorship- this is maintaining the alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry so that it can retain a leading role and state power” (see Gum, p. 460).

Noting one of the most important goals of dictatorship, the goal of suppressing the exploiters, Lenin says:

“The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing more than power that is unrestricted by anything, not constrained by any laws, absolutely not constrained by any rules, and directly based on violence” (see Vol. XXV, p. 441).

“Dictatorship means - take this into account once and for all, gentlemen, Cadets - unlimited power, based on force, and not on law. During a civil war, any victorious government can only be a dictatorship” (see Vol. XXV, p. 436).

But violence, of course, does not exhaust the dictatorship of the proletariat, although without violence there is no dictatorship.

“Dictatorship,” says Lenin, “not only means violence, although it is impossible without violence, it also means an organization of labor higher than the previous organization” (see Vol. XXIV, p. 305).

“The dictatorship of the proletariat... is not only violence against the exploiters, and not even mainly violence. The economic basis of this revolutionary violence, the guarantee of its vitality and success, is that the proletariat represents and implements a higher type of social organization of labor compared to capitalism. That's the point. This is the source of strength and the guarantee of the inevitable complete victory of communism” (see vol. XXIV, pp. 335-336).

“The main essence of it (i.e. dictatorship. I. Art.) is the organization and discipline of the vanguard of the working people, its vanguard, its only leader, the proletariat. Its goal is to create socialism, to destroy the division of society into classes, to make all members of society workers, to take away the basis for any exploitation of man by man. This goal cannot be achieved immediately; it requires a rather long transition period from capitalism to socialism - both because the reorganization of production is a difficult thing, and because time is needed for fundamental changes in all areas of life, and because the enormous power of the habit of petty -bourgeois and bourgeois rule can be overcome only in a long, stubborn struggle. That is why Marx speaks of a whole period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as a period of transition from capitalism to socialism” (see also, p. 314).

These are the characteristic features of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Hence the three main aspects of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

1) Using the power of the proletariat to suppress the exploiters, for the defense of the country, to strengthen ties with the proletarians of other countries, for the development and victory of the revolution in all countries.

2) Using the power of the proletariat for the final separation of the working and exploited masses from the bourgeoisie, for strengthening the alliance of the proletariat with these masses, for involving these masses in the work of socialist construction, for state leadership of these masses on the part of the proletariat.

3) Using the power of the proletariat to organize socialism, to abolish classes, to transition to a society without classes, to a socialist society.

Proletarian dictatorship is a combination of all these three sides. Neither of these sides can be put forward as only a characteristic feature of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and, conversely, the absence of at least one of these signs that the dictatorship of the proletariat ceases to be a dictatorship in the context of capitalist encirclement. Therefore, none of these three sides can be excluded without the danger of distorting the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Only all these three aspects taken together give us a complete and complete concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The dictatorship of the proletariat has its own periods, its own special forms, and various methods of work. During the civil war, the violent side of the dictatorship is especially striking. But it does not at all follow from this that no construction work occurs during the civil war. It is impossible to wage a civil war without construction work. During the period of construction of socialism, on the contrary, the peaceful, organizational, cultural work of the dictatorship, revolutionary legality, etc. are especially striking. But again, it does not at all follow from this that the violent side of the dictatorship has disappeared or can disappear during the period of construction. Organs of suppression, the army and other organizations, are needed now, at the time of construction, just as during the civil war. Without the presence of these bodies, any secure construction work of the dictatorship is impossible. It should not be forgotten that the revolution has so far been victorious in only one country. We should not forget that as long as there is a capitalist encirclement, there will be a danger of intervention with all the consequences that flow from this danger.

The Great Socialist Revolution in Russia in October 1917 marked the beginning of the world proletarian revolution. It was directed against the bourgeoisie of the city and countryside. Its main, main goal was to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie, establish the rule of the working class - the dictatorship of the proletariat, and transform the imperialist war into a civil war.

The working class, in alliance with the poor peasantry, under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party, overthrew the power of the bourgeoisie and established its dictatorship. He destroyed, broke the entire state apparatus of the old, bourgeois power, destroyed private capitalist property and deprived the bourgeoisie of the economic foundations of its dominance.

Factory enterprises, banks and railways became the property of the proletarian state. At first, only workers' control over production was introduced in factories and factories. But then industrial enterprises, primarily the largest ones, were nationalized and became the property of the proletarian state. All mines, oil sources, and forests also became state property.

One of the first decrees of the Soviet government was the decree on land. According to this decree, landlord ownership of land was abolished. The workers' state transferred the land for use to the working peasantry. In total, peasants received over 100 million. ha land (landowner, royal, church, monastery, etc.).

All loans concluded by the Tsar and the bourgeois government of Kerensky inside Russia and abroad were declared invalid. The working people of the Soviet country were freed from paying hundreds of millions of rubles annually to the capitalists just for interest on loans.

The proletarian revolution took place during the world imperialist war. In 1914, capitalists and landowners dragged Russia into a war with Germany and its allies in order to acquire new possessions at the expense of Turkey (Constantinople and the straits from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean) and Austria-Hungary.

Workers and peasants - poor and middle peasants - did not need the war. Against their will, they went to the front, under duress they fought for the interests of their class enemies - landowners and capitalists, bearing the brunt of a long and unprecedented massacre in terms of the number of victims.

The soldiers at the front and the working masses in the rear longed for peace, but they did not know how to end the war. The only way out of the war - a revolutionary way out - was shown to them by the Bolshevik Party.

From the very first days of the war, the party under the leadership of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, in extremely difficult conditions, launched a struggle for a revolutionary way out of the imperialist war, for turning it into a civil war.

How was the slogan of transforming the imperialist war into a civil war understood by Lenin and the party? Already in the September (1914) “theses on the war”, which guided the Bolsheviks both in Russia and abroad, Lenin put the following content into this slogan: “Comprehensive, extending to both the army and the theater of military operations, propaganda of the socialist revolution and the need direct arms not against their brothers, the wage slaves of other countries, but against the reactionary and bourgeois governments and parties of all countries" ( Lenin, Works, vol. XVIII, p. 46, ed. 3rd. (According to this edition, all quotations from Lenin’s works are given in the book.)). But it was easier to achieve this transformation of a predatory war into a civil war against one’s own bourgeoisie with the defeat of “one’s” government. The defeat of the tsarist government in the war weakened it and made the path to revolution easier. The Bolsheviks in Russia showed examples of defeatist activity both in the army and in the rear. They created illegal party organizations, issued leaflets, appeals, held strikes, demonstrations, organized fraternization of soldiers at the front, organized and supported all the revolutionary actions of the masses that weakened tsarism and brought the day of revolution closer.

And when, as a result of the tireless work of the Bolsheviks, the St. Petersburg proletariat, dragging along the garrison soldiers (peasants in soldiers' greatcoats), overthrew the autocracy in February 1917, Lenin assessed this as the first step, as the beginning of the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil one.

In the subsequent period - from February to October 1917 - the party led by Lenin continued to implement this slogan. Rallying the working masses, soldiers, and poor peasantry to fight the bourgeoisie, creating their own armed forces, organizing armed resistance to the Kornilov gangs (at the end of August 1917), preparing an armed uprising, the Bolsheviks gradually fully implemented Lenin’s great fighting slogan.

The armed uprising in the October days of 1917 was already a civil war of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie for the establishment of a proletarian dictatorship.

Lenin in Smolny. From a painting by artist Khvostenko.

“...The transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war,” said Vladimir Ilyich, “on November 7 (October 25), 1917, became a fact for one of the largest and most backward countries participating in the war. In this civil war, the overwhelming majority of the population was on our side, and as a result, victory was unusually easy for us.” (Lenin, vol. XXII, p. 314).

Having overthrown the rule of the bourgeoisie and established Soviet power, the working class is launching a struggle for peace, for the end of the imperialist war. One of the first October decrees of the Soviet government was the decree on peace. Addressed to all warring peoples and their governments, this decree proposed to begin immediate negotiations on a just peace, and before peace was concluded, to establish a truce. Following the peace decree, the Soviet government published secret treaties concluded between the imperialist governments of Russia and the Entente (the Entente is France and England, in alliance with which Russia participated in the imperialist war. The Entente is conventionally called the entire group of imperialist states - in addition to France and England, the United States states of America, Japan, Italy, etc. - who fought together against Germany and its allies - Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria, and after the October Revolution participated in the intervention against Soviet Russia).

The publication of secret agreements dealt a severe blow to both Russian capitalists and landowners, as well as foreign ones, and with them the social traitors - the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, who were also for the war to the bitter end and in every possible way supported the bourgeoisie in this.

Through the struggle for peace, the party and the Soviet government attracted huge masses of working people to their side. The counter-revolutionaries, represented by landowners, factory owners, bankers and white generals, tried in every possible way to disrupt the peaceful policy of the party and prevent the Soviet government from establishing a truce on the fronts. In the fight against Soviet power, trying in every possible way to destroy it, some counter-revolutionary organizations - the all-army committee at headquarters, various committees for the defense of the motherland and the revolution (read - counter-revolution), headed by seasoned opponents of the dictatorship of the proletariat - the Socialist Revolutionaries Chernov and Gotz, Stankevich and others, in the October for days they tried to deceive soldiers and workers by portraying themselves as supporters of peace and trying to take peace negotiations into their own hands only to disrupt them. But they failed.

The revolution in Russia in October 1917 was a proletarian, socialist revolution. In carrying out it, the working class, according to Vladimir Ilyich’s definition, decided – “in passing, in passing, as a ‘by-product’ of our main and real, proletarian-revolutionary, socialist work” – and issues of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, primarily land and national issues . The completion of the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution had an impact on the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, landowners, and kulaks in October and in the subsequent years of the civil war. Here is what Comrade Stalin wrote about this:

“One of the greatest achievements of the dictatorship of the proletariat is that it completed the bourgeois revolution and swept away the dirt of the Middle Ages. For the village this was of the most important and truly decisive importance. Without this, the combination of peasant wars with the proletarian revolution, as Marx spoke about in the second half of the last century, could not be carried out. Without this, the proletarian revolution itself could not be strengthened. In this case, you need to keep in mind the following important circumstance. Bringing to completion the bourgeois revolution is not a single act. In fact, it stretched over an entire period, capturing not only pieces of 1918... but also pieces of 1919 (Volga region - Ural) and 1919–1920. (Ukraine). I mean the offensive of Kolchak and Denikin, when the peasantry as a whole faced the danger of restoring landowner power and when it, exactly how whole, was forced to rally around the Soviet government in order to ensure the completion of the bourgeois revolution and retain the fruits of this revolution" ( Stalin, Questions of Leninism, p. 248, ed. 9th (according to this edition, all quotations from “Questions of Leninism” are given in the book).).

The October Revolution established complete equality of all peoples inhabiting Russia. The peoples previously oppressed by the tsarist government were given the opportunity to independently organize their lives until they separated from Russia and formed their own state. The Leninist national policy of the party, carried out under the direct leadership of Lenin’s closest comrade and best student, Comrade Stalin, who was at that time the People’s Commissar for Nationalities, played a huge role in ensuring the victory of the working class in the October days and during the civil war.

“Russian workers could not have defeated Kolchak, Denikin, Wrangel without such sympathy and trust in themselves from the oppressed masses of the outskirts of the former Russia. It should not be forgotten that the area of ​​​​operation of these rebellious generals was limited to the region of the outskirts, inhabited mainly by non-Russian nationalities, and the latter could not help but hate Kolchak, Denikin, Wrangel for their imperialist and Russification policies. The Entente, which intervened in the matter and supported these generals, could only rely on the Russification elements of the outskirts. By doing this, she only inflamed the hatred of the population of the outskirts towards the rebellious generals and deepened their sympathy for the Soviet regime.

This circumstance determined the internal weakness of the rear of Kolchak, Denikin, Wrangel, and therefore the weakness of their fronts, i.e., in the end, their defeat.” (Stalin, About the October Revolution, p. 40).

§ 2. The party’s struggle to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat against social compromisers and opportunists

The party led the working class and led it to storm capitalism in order to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, building a socialist society for the first time in the world.

The party proceeded from the indisputable Leninist position that the victory of socialism in one country is quite possible. The fact is that in the era of imperialism the uneven economic and political development of capitalist countries becomes especially acute. They develop “not evenly, not in an established order, not in such a way that one trust, one branch of industry or one country is always ahead, and other trusts or countries lag behind one after another, but spasmodically, with interruptions in the development of some countries and with leaps forward in the development of other countries" (Stalin, Questions of Leninism, p. 83). Not in all countries the working class and its party are equally strong, united and organized. And the bourgeoisie is stronger in some countries than in others. It was precisely this uneven, spasmodic development that made possible the victory of socialism in one country, moreover, in the one where the chain of imperialism turned out to be weakest.

Back in 1915, Lenin, exposing Trotsky, who denied the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country, proved the complete possibility of such a victory. “Uneven economic and political development; - Lenin wrote, - there is an unconditional law of capitalism. It follows from this that the victory of socialism is possible initially in a few or even in one individual capitalist country.” (Lenin, Vol. XVIII, p. 232).

Under the leadership of Vladimir Ilyich, the party led the Russian proletariat in its struggle for the socialist revolution, crushing all enemies and opponents of the party line both among the working class and in the ranks of the party itself.

The Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, these direct agents and accomplices of the bourgeoisie in the ranks of the working class and peasantry, betrayed the interests of the workers and working people long before the October Revolution. Against socialism - for capitalism, against the dictatorship of the proletariat - for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, against the world - for the imperialist war - such was the political line of the social traitors, which they contrasted with the line of our party. In the October days and especially after the October Revolution, they fought with weapons in their hands against the working class and peasantry on the side of the capitalists and landowners.

Within the Bolshevik Party there were also opponents to Lenin’s position on the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country. Trotsky and his supporters, who were accepted into the party shortly before October and remained in it all the time as a faction wavering between Bolshevism and Menshevism, opposed this position of Lenin. Trotsky argued back in 1906 that “without direct state support of the European proletariat, the working class of Russia will not be able to retain power.” Just before October, he criticized Lenin’s views, declaring that the victory of socialism in one country (we were talking about Russia) was impossible. With this reservation, he also went to the October Uprising. At the VI Party Congress (in August 1917), Comrade Stalin had to sharply speak out against individual supporters of Trotskyist views. At his proposal, an amendment to the resolution on the political situation introduced by Preobrazhensky (a future member of the Trotskyist opposition), who argued that Russia could move towards socialism only after the victory of the proletariat in the West, was rejected. In contrast to these views, the resolution emphasized that the next task of the Russian proletariat is to seize state power and socialist reconstruction of society. Thus, even before the October Revolution, the highest body of the party - the party congress - put forward the building of socialism in Russia as the most important task after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

S. M. Kirov (in 1919).

Just before October, Zinoviev and Kamenev, who also did not believe in the possibility of the victory of socialism in our country, spoke out against the party’s decision to organize an armed uprising. In the days when the party was completing preparations for the uprising, they began campaigning against the uprising on the pages of the Menshevik newspaper Novaya Zhizn, which was hostile to the Bolsheviks, thereby revealing the party’s plan to the enemies. Lenin attacked them as deserters and strikebreakers. Under the threat of immediate expulsion from the party, they were forced to literally drag their feet into an uprising.

A few days after the victory of the October Revolution, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Shlyapnikov, together with a number of other workers, future right-wing opportunists, again opposed Lenin’s line. Not believing in the strength of the working class and its party, they demanded the inclusion in the first Soviet government of representatives of all parties that participated in the Second Congress of Soviets in the October days of 1917. In reality, this would mean the surrender of power to the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries and the complete defeat of the proletarian revolution. That is why Lenin waged a merciless struggle against Zinoviev, Kamenev and other traitors to the cause of the working class, accomplices of the bourgeoisie. Only under the threat of immediate expulsion from the party were they forced to submit to the demands of the Central Committee of the party. As the subsequent activities of Zinoviev and Kamenev showed, especially after the death of Lenin, their behavior in the days of October was not accidental. In their struggle against the general line of the party, pursued by the Leninist Central Committee headed by Comrade Stalin, they descended into vile deception of the party and double-dealing, became direct accomplices of counter-revolutionary groups, traitors to the cause of communism, for which they were expelled from the party in October 1932.

Having deceived the party and the working class, the remnants of the defeated Zinoviev opposition, powerless and embittered towards the party, completely isolated from the working class, slid down the path of white bandit fascist means of struggle - to individual terror. From their hands, the secretary of the Central and Leningrad party committees, the beloved leader of the proletariat, Sergei Mironovich Kirov, fell on XII 1934. The dictatorship of the proletariat dealt harshly not only with the direct murderers and accomplices of the murder of Comrade Kirov, but also brought to justice the leaders of the Zinoviev opposition, who raised the vile murderers.

Crushing the resistance of the class enemy - the capitalists and landowners and their lackeys - social compromisers who betrayed the interests of the proletariat and the working peasantry, eradicating bourgeois agents in their own ranks, the party under the leadership of Lenin led the working class to overthrow the capitalist system.

§ 3. Victory of the armed uprising in the center and geographical demarcation between revolution and counter-revolution

The socialist revolution began on November 7 (October 25) in Petrograd (Leningrad), Moscow and other proletarian centers.

Approaching armed uprising as an art, the party began to organize and prepare the uprising in advance in order to carry it out most successfully.

Lenin directly led and supervised both the preparation for the uprising and its implementation. His closest assistants were members of the military revolutionary center specially created by the Central Committee of the party (October 29/16) - vol. Stalin, Sverdlov, Bubnov, Uritsky and Dzerzhinsky.

The center of the uprising was Petrograd. In a number of directives, Lenin personally developed a specific plan for the struggle in St. Petersburg and measures to ensure victory.

Revolutionary center. From a painting by artist V. Svarog.

One of the most important conditions for the success of the uprising was the prevention of counter-revolutionary armed forces from entering St. Petersburg, as well as Moscow. Based on this, local party organizations, especially in the most important railway junctions, had to carry out their practical tasks. The Party Central Committee sent out a group of responsible comrades with a special task to help local Party organizations ensure victory in the center.

Thanks exclusively to careful advance preparation, the party was able to create a strong encirclement around St. Petersburg, through which the counter-revolutionary forces could not break through. Not only from Kronstadt, but also from Finland, Revel, from the XII and V armies (closest to St. Petersburg), the counter-revolution was unable to move the armed forces loyal to it to prevent the uprising or immediately suppress it. On the contrary, by the time of the uprising the party had summoned large detachments of revolutionary Baltic sailors to Petrograd.

When the uprising unfolded in Moscow, the White Guards called in a significant number of forces from the Western Front, from the Don - “shock troops”, Cossacks, etc. But not a single one of the called units reached Moscow: workers, railway workers, revolutionary soldiers under the leadership The parties in every possible way disrupted the transfer of White Guard forces. On the contrary, the forces of the revolution passed unhindered to Moscow from Tula, and from St. Petersburg, and from Shuya and Ivanovo-Voznesensk (a detachment of two thousand under the command of M.V. Frunze), and other places.

This preparation ensured victory. In Petrograd, where the uprising was directly led by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, power was seized by the Soviets within 24 hours.

In Moscow, where some of the leaders of the uprising (Comrade Nogin and others) did not act decisively enough and where the counter-revolution had time to prepare better, the struggle dragged on longer. The working class finally won here only on November 15 (2).

Through intense revolutionary work among the soldiers of the old army throughout 1917, the Bolshevik Party ensured the transition of military units to the side of the working class at the fronts, in a number of cities and regions. Elections to the Constituent Assembly in November 1917 showed that by October the Bolsheviks had almost half of all the votes in the army in general and an overwhelming majority on the fronts closest to the capitals: on the northern front - 480 thousand votes out of 780 thousand, on the western front - 653 thousand out of 976 thousand. The Baltic Fleet was completely for the Bolsheviks.

In the Northern, Central Industrial and Western regions of Russia (Pskov, Tver, Minsk, Smolensk, Tula, etc.), where in the elections to the Constituent Assembly the Bolsheviks received more votes than any other party, where there were strong Bolshevik organizations, Soviet power won quickly and easily. But in the peasant regions (Siberia, the Volga region, Right Bank Ukraine), especially on the outskirts, in the south and southeast, where the proletariat was small in number and where national contradictions were strong, the establishment of Soviet power was somewhat delayed.

The capitalists and landowners clung tightly to their power and their property, to the right to unlimited exploitation of workers and peasants, to their former well-fed life. They furiously resisted the advance of the working class.

Literally four days after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, on November 11 (October 29), the bourgeoisie, with the active participation of the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, through the counter-revolutionary “Committee for the Salvation of the Motherland and the Revolution,” organized a cadet uprising in Petrograd. According to the plan of the White Guards, this uprising was supposed to be supported by an attack on Petrograd by the Cossack troops of General Krasnov, who, together with Kerensky, were moving from Pskov. But the cadets were defeated on the same day by the Red Guards and revolutionary soldiers and sailors. And the Krasnov units, detained by revolutionary troops near Petrograd, under the influence of Bolshevik agitation, completely refused to fight the Soviet regime and demanded to return home to the Don. General Krasnov, taken prisoner, solemnly pledged not to raise arms against the Soviet regime and was released by us, but having received freedom, he immediately “forgot” about his word of honor and, returning to the Don, began intensively preparing for further struggle with the Soviets. Simultaneously with the organization of the cadet uprising and Krasnov's campaign, the counter-revolutionaries collected and organized armed forces in the most reliable areas for themselves to fight against Soviet power, seeking to regain lost political and economic dominance and restore the old, imperialist Russia. First of all, the counter-revolutionaries rushed to the outskirts.

Entry of the Red Guard into the Kremlin. From a painting by the artist Lissner.

“Even at the beginning of the October Revolution,” says Comrade Stalin, “there was a certain geographical demarcation between revolution and counter-revolution. During the further development of the civil war, the areas of revolution and counter-revolution were finally determined. Inner Russia, with its industrial and cultural-political centers (Moscow and Petrograd), with a nationally homogeneous population, predominantly Russian, became the base of the revolution. The outskirts of Russia, mainly the southern and eastern outskirts, without important industrial and cultural-political centers, with a population highly diverse in national terms, consisting of privileged Cossack colonizers, on the one hand, and disenfranchised Tatars Bashkirs, Kyrgyz (in the east ), Ukrainians, Chechens, Ingush and other Muslim peoples, on the other hand, became the base of the counter-revolution.

It is not difficult to understand that there is nothing unnatural in such a geographical distribution of the fighting forces of Russia. In fact: who else should be the base of the Soviet government if not the Petrograd-Moscow proletariat? Who else could be the stronghold of the Denikin-Kolchak counter-revolution if not the primordial weapon of Russian imperialism, enjoying privileges and organized into a military class - the Cossacks, who have long exploited non-Russian peoples on the outskirts?

Isn’t it clear that there could be no other “geographical distribution”?” (Stalin, On the martial law in the south of Russia, Pravda No. 293, 1919).

Even before the start of the October Revolution, capitalists and landowners began to flock to the Don and Kuban. Especially large numbers of white officers who had fled from the army gathered here, viewing the Don as a hotbed, as the center of the entire Russian counter-revolution. Cossack regiments were also gathered here, most of them hostile to the Bolsheviks and Soviet power. The generals of the tsarist army Alekseev, Kornilov, Denikin began to form a white volunteer army here to fight the Soviet regime. The working population called this Dobrarmiya “grabarmiya” for its continuous robberies and robberies.

§ 4. “The triumphal march of Soviet power”

It is clear that the Soviet government could not allow the existence of this counter-revolutionary nest. The proletarians of Rostov-on-Don fought heroically with the bourgeoisie. For a short period of time (in November) they even managed to establish Soviet power. But the forces were unequal. The White Guards crushed the uprising and drowned it in blood. From Rostov they began sending detachments into the Donbass against the revolutionary miners. Then several united detachments of the Red Guard and revolutionary soldiers under the overall command of Comrade Antonov-Ovseenko were sent to the Don to fight the White Army from St. Petersburg, Moscow and other centers. Passing through the Donbass, these detachments received reinforcements from miners. Stratification began among the Don Cossacks themselves: poor Cossacks and peasants from other provinces who settled on the Don (nonresidents, as they were called), most of them also poor, were hostile to the kulak counter-revolutionary Cossacks who oppressed them. On January 23, 1918, at a congress in the village of Kamenskaya (representatives of several dozen Cossack units gathered here), the revolutionary Cossacks openly opposed Ataman-General Kaledin and elected their own revolutionary committee. They formed their own detachments and, together with the miners of Donbass, joined the Soviet troops.

During January - February 1918, after a series of battles, the Don was cleared of whites, Rostov (on the night of February 23-24) and Novocherkassk (February 26) became Soviet cities. Lenin demanded the capture of Rostov on February 23 in a special telegram, and his order was precisely carried out. The White Guards were forced to flee to the Kuban and the Salsk steppes (With exceptional strength, the brightly civil war on the Don in 1918 is shown in Sholokhova, Quiet Don, part 2.).

K. E. Voroshilov.

In Ukraine, after the short existence of Soviet power in a number of large cities, the Ukrainian Central Rada, the national bourgeois government, managed to seize power. The Ukrainian Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries who headed the Rada, fulfilling the tasks of their bourgeoisie, sought to transform Ukraine into a bourgeois state. The working masses of the industrial centers of Ukraine, as well as the poor peasantry, under the leadership of the Bolsheviks, fought to establish Soviet power. In the fight against the Bolsheviks, the Rada provided support to all counter-revolutionary forces. So she allowed White Guard officers from the southwestern and Romanian fronts to the Don. In all its policies, the Rada at first followed the lead of the Entente. Only after making sure that the latter could not provide her with real help and that the German-Austrian troops were close, the Rada went over to the side of Germany. First of all, she negotiated with the German command about sending German troops into Ukraine to jointly fight the Bolsheviks. To fight the counter-revolutionary Rada, revolutionary troops were sent to Kyiv, where it was located. In early January, the troops of the Ukrainian Soviet government formed in Kharkov began an attack on Kyiv. Troops from the center who came to the aid of Ukrainian workers and peasants attacked Kyiv from the north. In Kyiv itself, a workers' uprising unfolded, strangled with great difficulty by the Ukrainian counter-revolution. On February 9, 1918, Kyiv was captured by a joint attack by Soviet troops and workers. The Rada fled to Zhitomir under the protection of German bayonets. Soviet power was restored in Ukraine.

In Belarus, the counter-revolutionary Polish corps of General Dovbor-Musnitsky, formed even before the revolution, opposed Soviet power. This corps, acting at the behest of the Entente, supported local landowners who did not want to give land to the peasants, and conspired with the White Guard generals on the Don about a joint struggle against the proletarian state. General Dovbor-Musnitsky intended to cut the railway in the Zhlobin area, along which Ukrainian grain was transported to Petrograd and Belarus, and thereby weaken Soviet power. But through the combined actions of Latvian riflemen, sailors and local Red Guards, the corps near Zhlobin (February 7) and Rogachev (February 13) was defeated. By mid-February, the Poles were forced to clear the cities and junction stations they had captured.

On January 26, 1918, the revolution was victorious in Finland. In its southern part - from the Gulf of Bothnia to Lake Ladoga - the rule of the bourgeoisie was overthrown and workers' power was established. Unfortunately, this government was not yet a true dictatorship of the proletariat, which greatly affected the subsequent struggle of the working class.

In the Urals, the Orenburg and Ural Cossacks, mostly kulaks, led by Ataman Dutov, opposed the Soviet government, fearing that the October Revolution would deprive them of all privileges. The struggle unfolded mainly around Orenburg as the center of the region. On December 8, the city was captured by counter-revolutionary Cossacks. The proletarians of Yekaterinburg, Perm, Ufa, and Samara sent their troops to help the Orenburg residents. Reinforcements also came from Tashkent. On January 7, a decisive offensive began on Orenburg from Buzuluk. The red units were commanded by the old Bolshevik Comrade Kobozev, who received direct instructions and assistance from Comrade Stalin. By January 17, the red units were near Orenburg. In the evening of the same day, the workers of the city rebelled under the leadership of the underground party organization. The Dutovites found themselves between two fires and fled in panic to the Orenburg and Ural steppes.

In November–December, the working class suppressed the resistance of the bourgeoisie throughout Siberia and established its power there. On February 26, 1918, at the Second All-Siberian Congress of Soviets, the All-Siberian Central Executive Committee (“Centrosiberia”) was elected.

Finally, in Central Asia, on the territory of the present Uzbek SSR, the counter-revolutionary “autonomous government”, which had grouped its forces in Kokand, was liquidated on February 19 by the combined efforts of Tashkent and Samarkand Red Army detachments.

Thus, from November 1917 to February 1918, both the Russian bourgeois-landowner and nationalist counter-revolution were defeated almost everywhere. Soviet power won over a vast territory - from Minsk to Vladivostok, from Murmansk and Arkhangelsk to Odessa, Rostov and Tashkent.

“Since October,” said Lenin, “our revolution, which placed power in the hands of the revolutionary proletariat, established its dictatorship, ensured it the support of the vast majority of the proletariat and the poorest peasantry, since October our revolution has been a victorious, triumphant march. A civil war began in all parts of Russia in the form of resistance from the exploiters, landowners and bourgeoisie, supported by part of the imperialist bourgeoisie.

The civil war began, and in this civil war the forces of the opponents of Soviet power, the forces of the enemies of the working people and the exploited masses turned out to be insignificant; The civil war was a complete triumph of Soviet power, because its opponents, the exploiters, the landowners and the bourgeoisie, had no political or economic support, and their attack was defeated. The fight against them involved not so much military action as agitation; layer by layer, masses by masses, right up to the working Cossacks, fell away from those exploiters who tried to lead it away from Soviet power.” (Lenin, vol. XXII, p. 390).

The period from the beginning of the October Revolution to mid-February 1918, when the Austro-German intervention began, Lenin called the period of the “triumphant march of Soviet power.”

“In a few weeks,” he said, “having overthrown the bourgeoisie, we defeated its open resistance in the civil war. We marched through the victorious triumphal march of Bolshevism from end to end of the vast country.” (Lenin, vol. XXII, p. 375).

§ 5. The inevitability of the struggle of the proletarian dictatorship with domestic counter-revolution and world imperialism and the creation of the armed forces of the proletarian state

The bourgeois-landowner counter-revolution was dealt a crushing blow. However, it was only broken, but not yet completely finished. A significant number of counter-revolutionaries went underground, united in various organizations and unions, disguised themselves, some of them penetrated into Soviet bodies, into Soviet troops in order to undermine the dictatorship of the proletariat and its armed forces from within. The counter-revolution on the outskirts also continued to accumulate its forces. In particular, the entire Transcaucasus (with the exception of Baku) was under the rule of landowners and capitalists, who ruled with the hands of social traitors. And most importantly, there remained soil on which the bourgeois-landowner counter-revolution could rest; the kulaks remained - the worst enemy of the working class and the working peasantry, the worst enemy of socialism. Finally, the minions of the landowners and capitalists in the ranks of the workers and peasants - the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries - had not yet been completely defeated.

The counter-revolutionaries continued to resist and wage an armed struggle against the dictatorship of the proletariat. Nevertheless, the Russian counter-revolution still did not have enough of its own forces for a broad struggle against Soviet power. But with outside support, it could relatively easily launch an armed struggle. It received this support from international imperialism.

Even before October, when preparing for the socialist revolution, the party took into account that the establishment of a proletarian dictatorship would provoke brutal armed resistance to the domestic counter-revolution and that the imperialist states would inevitably come out with armed force against the proletarian state in order to defeat and suppress the proletarian revolution.

In all the speeches in which Vladimir Ilyich substantiated the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country, he simultaneously emphasized the inevitability of revolutionary wars of the victorious proletariat to defend against counter-revolutionary attacks of the world bourgeoisie. For example, in the article “Military Program of the Proletarian Revolution” (1916), he directly indicated that the victory of socialism in one country should “cause not only friction, but also a direct desire of the bourgeoisie of other countries to defeat the victorious proletariat of the socialist state.”

Therefore, the party has always paid exceptional attention to the creation of a proletarian armed organization: the Red Guard - during the struggle for power, the Red Army - for the defense of the proletarian state.

“The first commandment of any victorious revolution - Marx and Engels emphasized this many times - was: smash the old army, disband it, replace it with a new one.” (Lenin, vol. XXIII, pp. 378–379). The Bolsheviks steadily pursued this line of military policy of the party, which was extremely clearly formulated by Vladimir Ilyich, in the first period of the proletarian revolution.

The need to destroy and break up the old army as an armed stronghold of bourgeois power was as clear to the party as the need to destroy and break up the entire old state apparatus in general. The destruction of the bourgeois state machine is the most important task of every proletarian revolution. The breaking up of the old army was an inseparable part of the breaking up of the entire old state machine.

The tasks of destroying the old, bourgeois army and creating a new, proletarian army in its place were inextricably linked with one another. Long before the October Revolution, the party, through active revolutionary propaganda and agitation, destroyed the foundations of the old army and at the same time created an armed organization of the working class - the Red Guard. The party (through its military organizations) also created an armed stronghold for the proletarian revolution from the most revolutionary soldiers of the old army.

Just like the uprising of the proletariat in Moscow, Donbass, Siberia, the North Caucasus, like the armed struggle of peasants in the Baltic states, in the Central Black Earth region and other regions, like armed uprisings in the army and navy in 1905–1907. were, in the words of Comrade Voroshilov, a prelude to the civil war of 1917–1921, so the Red Guard detachments, workers and partisan squads of the era of the revolution of 1905 are the predecessors, the prototype of the Red Army.

In order to seize power and suppress the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, the working class initially needed only the Red Guard and those detachments of revolutionary soldiers who separated from the old army as its armed force. But for the defense of the Soviet country from the inevitable counter-revolutionary attack on it by the imperialist states and the white armies that had strengthened under their wing, the forces of scattered Red Guard detachments were no longer enough. Armed workers were, according to Lenin's definition, only the beginning of a new army. And under the leadership of the party, the victorious proletariat begins to create its own powerful army.

First of all, it was necessary to completely defeat and disband the old army. The party rejected the opinion of some military workers who believed that the old army, if not entirely, then partially could be revived and reorganized, and decided to completely demobilize the old army and begin building a new army to replace it.

§ 6. Organization of the Red Army

Red Guard detachment

On January 16/3, 1918, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee approved the “Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People” compiled by Lenin, in which “in the interests of ensuring full power for the working masses and eliminating any possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, the arming of the working people and the formation of a socialist red army of workers and peasants are decreed and complete disarmament of the propertied classes" (Lenin, vol. XXII, pp. 176–177). On the basis of this decree of the highest body of Soviet power, party organizations and local councils launched a large campaign and organizational work on the formation of a new, Red Army. Lenin's main principles in the creation of the Red Army and the small local experience in building a new army were summarized in the historical decree on the organization of the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army, which was personally edited and signed by Lenin on January 28/15, 1918. The decree was immediately sent throughout the country and immediately began to be implemented.

The decree established that at first the Red Army should be built on the principles of volunteerism. Volunteering was an inevitable stage in the construction of the Red Army. It was impossible to introduce compulsory military service until the demobilization of the old army had been completed, until the soldiers had gone home, where they personally took part in the division of the landowners' land, until they had seen with their own eyes what the proletarian revolution had given to the workers and peasants, and did not understand the need to defend the October gains from class enemies. Before such a change in the consciousness of at least part of the working peasantry, the Red Army could only be built on the basis of volunteerism. In addition, there was no appropriate military apparatus for carrying out mass conscription and mobilization. The enormous significance of the decree also lay in the fact that it introduced the construction of a new army into a certain direction and outlined the main paths for this construction. And most importantly, the decree emphasized the need to create a new, powerful, centralized and disciplined army of the proletarian state.

Following the publication of the decree on the organization of the Red Army, the All-Russian Collegium for the Formation of the Red Army was created. A particularly large role in the development of work on the construction of the Red Army was played by the organizational and propaganda department of this board, headed by L. M. Kaganovich, the current secretary of the Central Committee and MK of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, the closest ally of Comrade Stalin.

In the party there were opponents to the creation of a centralized army, the so-called “left” communists, who generally did not believe in the possibility of the victory of socialism in Russia, and therefore did not believe in the possibility of achieving such a huge task as the creation of a powerful Red Army. They proposed not to undertake such a task, but to limit ourselves to the creation of small partisan, quickly mobilized detachments. The party mercilessly fought against such views, consistently pursuing Lenin's line in creating a new army. In this work, the party proceeded from what the founders of Marxism-Leninism taught the working class, making extensive use of both the experience of the military work of the Bolsheviks in the revolution of 1905 and the experience of creating Red Guard detachments in 1917, as well as the practical military experience that the revolutionary workers endured and peasants - old soldiers - from the imperialist war.

The highest stage of the class struggle of the proletariat is revolution.

The enemies of communism portray the proletarian revolution as a coup carried out by a small group of communist “conspirators.” This is a malicious lie. Marxism-Leninism does not recognize the tactics of “palace coups,” putches, or the seizure of power by an armed minority. This logically follows from the Marxist understanding of social processes. After all, the causes of revolution are ultimately rooted in the material conditions of society, in the conflict between productive forces and production relations. This conflict finds its expression in the clash of large masses of people, classes, who rise to fight under the influence of objective reasons that do not depend on the will of individuals, groups and even parties. The Communist Party organizes the actions of the masses, leads the masses, but does not try to create a revolution “for them”, on its own.

The socialist revolution of the working class is distinguished from all previous social revolutions by a number of important features. The main one is that all previous revolutions led only to the replacement of one form of exploitation by another, while the socialist revolution puts an end to all exploitation and ultimately leads to the destruction of classes. It represents the most profound transformation known to history, a complete restructuring of social relations from bottom to top. The socialist revolution marks the end of the thousand-year history of the exploitative class society, the liberation of society from all types of oppression, the beginning of the era of true brotherhood and equality of people, the establishment of eternal peace on earth, and the complete social improvement of mankind. This is the enormous universal human content of the proletarian revolution. It represents the most important milestone in the development of humanity.

The nature of the socialist revolution determines the new role of the masses in the revolutionary upheaval. The masses of workers actively participated in previous revolutions directed against slave owners and feudal lords. But there they played the role of a simple shock force, clearing the way to power for a new exploiting class. After all, the result of the revolutionary revolution was only the replacement of one form of exploitation by another!

The revolution of the working class is a different matter. Here the workers, who make up a significant (in many countries the most significant) part of the working masses, play a role not only

striking force, but also a hegemon, inspirer and leader of the revolution. Moreover, the victory of the working class leads to the complete elimination of the exploitation of man by man, to the liberation of all working people from any oppression.

This means that the proletarian revolution is a revolution of the working masses themselves, they do it for themselves. It is not surprising that during the socialist revolution, working people discover enormous creative power, produce remarkable leaders and revolutionaries from their midst, and create new forms of power that are different from anything known in history. An example of this is the socialist revolutions in Russia, China, and in all countries of people's democracy.

The socialist revolution in any capitalist country covers a fairly long period of transition from capitalism to socialism. It begins with a political revolution, that is, with the conquest of state power by the working class. Only through the establishment of working class power can the transition from capitalism to socialism occur.

The historical purpose of the socialist revolution is to eliminate capitalist private ownership of the means of production and capitalist production relations between people, to replace them with public, socialist ownership of the means of production, socialist production relations. But this replacement is impossible as long as power belongs to the bourgeoisie. The bourgeois state represents the main obstacle to the transformation of the capitalist order. It faithfully serves the exploiters and protects their property. In order to take away the property of the ruling classes and transfer it to the whole of society, it is necessary to take away state power from the capitalists and put the working people in power. The state of the bourgeoisie must be replaced by the state of the working people.

The creation of such a state is also necessary because only with the help of state power can the working class solve the enormous creative tasks that the socialist revolution has set for it.

Previous revolutions faced mainly destructive tasks. This is clearly seen in the example of bourgeois revolutions. Their goal was mainly to sweep away feudal relations, thereby destroying the fetters imposed by the old society on the development of production, and clear the way for the further growth of capitalism. Thus, the bourgeois revolution basically fulfilled its task. Capitalist economic relations themselves arose and developed for a long time within the framework of the feudal system. This was possible because

bourgeois and feudal property are two types private property. Although there were contradictions between them, they could still get along for the time being.

The socialist revolution also fulfills the task of destroying outdated relations - capitalist, and often feudal, preserved in the form of more or less strong remnants. But to the tasks of destruction here are added creative socio-economic tasks of enormous scale and great complexity, “which constitute the main content of this revolution.

Socialist relations cannot be born within the framework of capitalism. They arise after the taking of power by the working class, when the workers' state nationalizes the capitalists' ownership of the means of production, factories, factories, mines, transport, banks, etc. and turns it into public, socialist property. It is clear that it is impossible to do this before power passes into the hands of the working class.

But the nationalization of capitalist property is only the beginning of the revolutionary changes that the working class is carrying out. In order to move to socialism, it is necessary to extend socialist economic relations to the entire economy, organize the economic life of the people in a new way, create an effective planned economy, rebuild social and political relations on a socialist basis, and solve complex problems in the field of culture and education. All this is a huge creative work, and the socialist state plays an extremely important role in its implementation. It represents the main instrument in the hands of the working people for building socialism, and then communism. Therefore, to assert, as the opportunists do, that socialism can be built while leaving political power in the hands of the bourgeoisie means deceiving people and sowing harmful illusions among them.

The political revolution of the working class can come in different forms. It can be carried out through an armed uprising, as was the case in Russia in October 1917. In particularly favorable conditions, a peaceful transfer of power to the people is possible, without an armed uprising and civil war. But no matter what form the political revolution of the proletariat takes, it always represents the highest stage of development of the class struggle. As a result of the revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat is established, that is, the power of the working people, led by the working class.

Having won power, the working class is faced with the question of what to do with the apparatus of the old state, with the police, the court, administrative bodies, etc.

In other countries, the new class, coming to power, adapted the old state apparatus to its needs and ruled with its help. This was possible, since revolutions led to the replacement of the rule of one exploiting class by the rule of another, also exploiting, class.

The working class cannot follow this path. The police, gendarmerie, army, court and other state bodies that have served the exploiting classes for centuries cannot simply go into the service of those they previously oppressed. The state apparatus is not an ordinary machine, indifferent to who controls it: you can change the driver, but the locomotive will, as before, pull the train. As for the bourgeois state machine, its very character is such that it cannot serve the working class. The composition of the bourgeois state apparatus and its structure are adapted to fulfill the main function of this state - to keep the working people subordinate to the bourgeoisie. That is why Marx said that all previous revolutions only improved the old state machine, but the task of the workers’ revolution is to smash it and replace it with their own proletarian state.

The creation of a new state apparatus is also important because it helps to attract the broad masses of the people to the side of the working class. The population constantly has to deal with authorities. And when the working people see that the state apparatus is staffed by people who came from the people, when they see that the state bodies are striving to satisfy the urgent needs of the working people, and not the rich, this, better than any agitation, explains to the masses that the new government is the power of the people themselves.

The way in which the old state apparatus will be destroyed depends on many circumstances, in particular on whether the revolution was violent or peaceful. However, under all conditions, the destruction of the old apparatus of state power and the creation of a new one remains the primary task of the proletarian revolution.

The main and decisive force of the socialist revolution can only be the working class. However, he does not do it alone. The interests of the working class coincide with the interests of all working people, that is, the vast majority of the population. Thanks to this, the opportunity is created for the alliance of the working class as the hegemon of the revolution with the broadest masses of working people.

The masses of allies of the working class usually come to support the slogan of socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat not immediately, but gradually. Historical experience shows that the proletarian revolution can grow out of the bourgeois-democratic revolution,

from the national liberation movement of oppressed peoples, from the liberation anti-fascist, anti-imperialist struggle.

The proletarian revolution makes enormous demands on the parties of the working class. Decisive and skillful leadership of the struggle of the masses, carried out by Marxist parties, is one of the main conditions for the victory of the proletarian revolution.

The era of socialist revolutions is a whole stage in the development of mankind. Sooner or later, socialist revolutions will cover all peoples and all countries. In different countries, proletarian revolutions take unique forms depending on specific historical conditions, national characteristics and traditions. But socialist revolutions in all countries are subject to general laws that are discovered by Marxist-Leninist theory.

Under this title I began to write a pamphlet* devoted to criticism of Kautsky’s pamphlet, “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” which had just been published in Vienna. But due to the fact that my work is dragging on, I decided to ask the editors of Pravda to give space to a short article on the same topic.

More than four years of exhausting and reactionary war had done its job. In Europe, the breath of the growing proletarian revolution is felt - in Austria, and in Italy, and in Germany, and in France, even in England (extremely characteristic, for example, in the July book of the arch-opportunist “Socialist Review” 44, edited by the semi-liberal Ramsay MacDonald, “Confessions capitalist").

And at such a moment, the leader of the Second International, Mr. Kautsky, publishes a book about the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, about the proletarian revolution, a book a hundred times more shameful, more outrageous, more renegade than Bernstein’s famous “Preconditions of Socialism.” Almost 20 years have passed since the publication of this renegade book, and now there is a repetition, aggravation of Kautsky’s renegade!

A negligible part of the book is devoted to the Russian Bolshevik revolution itself. Kautsky repeats the entire Menshevik wisdom, so that the Russian worker would only greet this with Homeric laughter.

*See this volume, pp. 235-338. Ed.

102 V. I. LENIN

Imagine, for example, that “Marxism” is a discussion peppered with quotes from the semi-liberal works of the semi-liberal Maslov about how rich peasants are trying to take over their land (new!), how they benefit from high prices for bread, etc. And next to this a dismissive, completely liberal, statement by our “Marxist”: “The poor peasant is recognized here” (i.e. by the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Republic) as “a constant and massive product of the socialist agrarian reform of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”” (p. 48 of K.’s brochure).

Isn't it good? Socialist, Marxist, tries us prove bourgeois character of the revolution and at the same time ridicules, completely in the spirit of Maslov, Potresov and cadets, organization of the poor in the village.

“The expropriations of rich peasants only introduce a new element of unrest and civil war into the production process, which urgently requires peace and security for its recovery” (p. 49).

Unbelievable but true. This was literally said by Kautsky, and not by Savinkov or Miliukov!

In Russia we have already seen so many times how defenders of the kulaks hide behind “Marxism” that Kautsky will not surprise us. Perhaps the European reader will have to dwell in more detail on this vile servanthood of the bourgeoisie and the liberal fear of civil war. It is enough for the Russian worker and peasant to point his finger at this renegade behavior of Kautsky - - and pass by.

Almost nine-tenths of Kautsky’s book is devoted to a general theoretical question of the first importance: the question of the relationship of the dictatorship of the proletariat to “democracy.” And this is where Kautsky’s complete break with Marxism is most clear.

Kautsky assures his readers - with a completely serious and extremely “scientific” look - that under the “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” Marx understood

PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AND THE RENEGADE KAUTSKY 103

chalk is not "form of government" excluding democracy, and state, namely: “a state of domination.” The dominance of the proletariat, as the majority of the population, is possible with the strictest observance of democracy, and, for example, the Paris Commune, which was precisely the dictatorship of the proletariat, was elected by universal suffrage. And what Marx did not mean when speaking about the dictatorship of the proletariat, the “form of government” (or form of government, Regierungsform), is “proven by the fact that he, Marx, considered it possible for England and America to transition (to communism) peacefully , that is, in a democratic way" (20-21 pp.).

Unbelievable but true! Kautsky argues precisely in this way and blasts the Bolsheviks for violating “democracy” in their constitution, in all their policies, preaching with all his might, on all occasions, “a democratic, not a dictatorial method.”

This is a complete transition to the side of those opportunists (like the German David, Kolb and other pillars of social chauvinism, or the English Fabians 45 and Independents 46, or the French and Italian reformists) who spoke more directly and honestly that they do not recognize Marx’s teachings about the dictatorship of the proletariat , because it supposedly contradicts democracy.

This is a complete return to the view of pre-Marxist German socialism, that we are striving for a “free people's state,” the view of the petty-bourgeois democrats who did not understand that all sorts of things the state is a machine for the suppression of one class by another class.

This is a complete renunciation of the revolution of the proletariat, in whose place is put the liberal theory of “winning the majority”, “using democracy”! Everything that Marx and Engels preached and proved for forty years, from 1852 to 1891, about the need for the proletariat to “break” the bourgeois state machine was completely forgotten, distorted, and thrown overboard by the renegade Kautsky.

To analyze Kautsky's theoretical errors in detail would mean repeating what I have said

104 V. I. LENIN

in "State and Revolution"*. There is no need for this here. Let me just briefly point out:

Kautsky renounced Marxism, forgetting that all sorts of things the state is a machine for the suppression of one class by another, and what is most democratic A bourgeois republic is a machine for the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie.

Not a “form of government”, but another type of state is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletarian state, a machine for suppression bourgeoisie by the proletariat. Suppression is necessary because the bourgeoisie will always fiercely resist its expropriation.

(The reference to the fact that Marx in the 70s admitted the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism in England and America 47 is the argument of a sophist, that is, simply put, a swindler who cheats with the help of quotes and references. Firstly, Marx even then considered this possibility an exception. Secondly, then there was no monopoly capitalism, i.e., imperialism. Thirdly, it was in England and America that there was no then - (now it is)- the military as the main apparatus of the bourgeois state machine.)

Where there is suppression, there cannot be freedom, equality, etc. That is why Engels said: “while the proletariat still needs the state, it needs it not in the interests of freedom, but in the interests of suppressing its opponents; and when it becomes possible to talk about freedom, then the state, as such, ceases to exist” 48.

Bourgeois democracy, the value of which for educating the proletariat and training it for struggle is indisputable, is always narrow, hypocritical, deceitful, false, always remains a democracy for the rich, a deception for the poor.

Proletarian democracy suppresses the exploiters, the bourgeoisie - and therefore is not hypocritical, doesn't promise gives them freedom and democracy - and gives the working people on-

* See Works, 5th ed., volume 33. Ed.

PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AND THE RENEGADE KAUTSKY 105

worthwhile democracy. Only Soviet Russia gave the proletariat, and the entire gigantic working majority of Russia, something unprecedented, impossible and unthinkable in any bourgeois democratic republic. freedom and democracy, taking away, for example, palaces and mansions from the bourgeoisie (without this freedom of assembly is hypocrisy), taking away printing houses and paper from the capitalists (without this freedom of the press for the working majority of the nation is a lie), replacing bourgeois parliamentarism with a democratic organization Soviets, 1000 times closer to the “people”, more “democratic” than the most democratic bourgeois parliament. And so on.

Kautsky threw overboard... the “class struggle” as applied to democracy! Kautsky became a formal renegade and lackey of the bourgeoisie.

In passing, one cannot fail to note several gems of renegadeism.

Kautsky is forced to admit that the Soviet organization has not only Russian significance, but global significance, that it belongs to “the most important phenomena of our time,” that it promises to acquire “decisive significance” in the coming great “battles between capital and labor.” But - repeating the wisdom of the Mensheviks, who successfully went over to the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat - Kautsky “concludes”: The Soviets are good as “organizations of struggle”, and not as “state organizations”.

Fabulous! Organize into Soviets, proletarians and poor peasants! But - God forbid! - don't you dare win! don't you dare win! As soon as you defeat the bourgeoisie, you will be kaput here, because you should not be “state” organizations in a proletarian state. You must, precisely after your victory, disband!!

Oh, the magnificent “Marxist” Kautsky! Oh, peerless “theorist” of renegadery!

106 V. I. LENIN

Pearl number two. Civil war is the “mortal enemy” of the “social revolution”, for it, as we have already heard, “needs tranquility” (for the rich?) “and security” (for the capitalists?).

Proletarians of Europe! Don't think about revolution until you find a bourgeoisie that would didn't hire against you for a civil war of Savinkov and Dan, Dutov and Krasnov, Czechoslovaks and kulaks!

Marx wrote in 1870: the main hope is that the war taught the French workers to use weapons 49 . The “Marxist” Kautsky expects from the 4-year war not the workers to use weapons against the bourgeoisie (God forbid! this is perhaps not entirely “democratic”), but... the conclusion of a good peace by good capitalists!

Pearl number three. Civil war has another unpleasant side: while in “democracy” there is “protection of the minority” (which, we note in parentheses, was so well experienced by the French defenders of Dreyfus or the Liebknechts, MacLeans, Debses in recent times), - civil war (listen !Listen!) “threatens the defeated with complete destruction.”

Well, isn’t this Kautsky a real revolutionary? He is with all his soul for a revolution... only one that does not involve a serious struggle that threatens destruction! He completely “overcame” the old mistakes of old Engels, who enthusiastically praised the educational effect of violent revolution 50. He, as a “serious” historian, completely renounced the errors of those who said that the civil war strengthens the exploited, teaches them to create a new society without exploiters.

Pearl number four. Was the dictatorship of the proletarians and bourgeois in the revolution of 1789 historically great and useful? Nothing like this. For Napoleon has come. “The dictatorship of the lower strata smooths the way to the dictatorship of the saber” (p. 26). - - - Our “serious” historian - like all the liberals into whose camp he moved - is firmly convinced that in countries that have not seen a “dictatorship of the lower strata” - for example, in Germany, dictatorships

PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AND THE RENEGADE KAUTSKY 107

there was no saber. Germany has never been distinguished from France by a rougher, more vile dictatorship of the saber - this is all a slander invented by Marx and Engels, who shamelessly lied when they said that there is still more love of freedom and pride of the oppressed in the “people” of France than in England or Germany , and that France owes this precisely to its revolutions.

But enough! It would be necessary to write a special pamphlet to sort through all the pearls of renegadeism from the vile renegade Kautsky.

One cannot help but dwell on Mr. Kautsky’s “internationalism.” Unintentionally, Kautsky shed a bright light on it, precisely by portraying in the most sympathetic terms the internationalism of the Mensheviks, who are also Zimmerwaldists,51 assures sweet Kautsky, who are the “brothers” of the Bolsheviks, don’t joke!

Here is this sweet image of the “Zimmerwaldism” of the Mensheviks:

“The Mensheviks wanted universal peace. They wanted all the belligerents to accept the slogan: no annexations and indemnities. Until this is achieved, the Russian army should, in their opinion, stand in combat readiness...” And the bad Bolsheviks “disorganized” the army and concluded the bad Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty... And Kautsky says more clearly than anyone that it was necessary to leave the constitution, not the Bolsheviks had to take power.

So, internationalism consists in the fact that it is necessary support "one's own" the imperialist government, as supported by the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries of Kerensky, cover up its secret treaties, deceiving the people with a sweet phrase: we “demand” from animals that they become kind, we “demand” from imperialist governments that they “accept the slogan without annexations and indemnities."

According to Kautsky, this is what internationalism consists of.

And in our opinion, this is complete renegadeism.

108 V. I. LENIN

Internationalism consists of a break with their social chauvinists (i.e. defencists) and with his imperialist government, in the revolutionary struggle against it, in overthrowing it, in the readiness to make the greatest national sacrifices (even the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty), if this is useful for development international workers' revolution.

We know very well that Kautsky and his company (like Strebel, Bernstein, etc.) were very “outraged” by the conclusion of the Brest Peace: they would like us to make a “gesture”... instantly transferring power in Russia into the hands of the bourgeoisie ! These stupid, but kind and sweet German philistines were not guided by the fact that the proletarian Soviet Republic, the first in the world to revolutionarily overthrow its imperialism, would hold out until the revolution in Europe, fanning the fire in other countries (philistines afraid fire in Europe, afraid civil war disturbing “peace and security”). No. They were guided to everyone countries held on bourgeois nationalism, which declares itself “internationalism” for its “moderation and accuracy.” Let the Russian republic remain bourgeois and... wait... Then everyone in the world would be kind, moderate, non-aggressive petty-bourgeois nationalists, and this would be exactly what internationalism would consist of!

This is what the Kautskyites think in Germany, the Longuetists in France, the Independents (I.L.R.) in England, Turati and his renegade “brothers” in Italy, and so on and so forth.

Now only complete fools can fail to see that we were not only right in overthrowing our bourgeoisie (and its lackeys, the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries), but were also right in concluding the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty After that, how an open call for general peace, supported by the publication and breaking of secret treaties, was rejected by the bourgeoisie of the Entente. Firstly, if we had not concluded the Brest-Litovsk peace, we would have immediately given power to the Russian bourgeoisie and thereby caused great harm

PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AND THE RENEGADE KAUTSKY 109

world socialist revolution. Secondly, the price national victims, we have kept this international revolutionary influence, which now Bulgaria is directly imitating us, Austria and Germany are seething, are weakened both imperialism, and we have grown stronger and started create a real proletarian army.

From the tactics of the renegade Kautsky it follows that the German workers must now defend their fatherland, together with the bourgeoisie, and fear most of all the German revolution, for the British could impose a new Brest on it. This is renegadeism. This is petty-bourgeois nationalism.

And we say: the conquest of Ukraine was the greatest national sacrifice, and it strengthened the proletarians and poor peasants of Ukraine and strengthened, as revolutionary fighters for the international workers' revolution. Ukraine suffered - the international revolution won, “corrupting” the German army, weakening German imperialism, bringing closer together German, Ukrainian and Russian worker revolutionaries.

It would, of course, be “more pleasant” if we could overthrow both Wilhelm and Wilson with a simple war. But this is nonsense. We cannot overthrow them by external war. And move them forward internal decomposition we can. We achieved this with the Soviet, proletarian, revolution in huge sizes.

The German workers would have achieved such success even more if they had gone to revolution, regardless with national sacrifices (this is what internationalism consists of), if they said (and business confirmed) that for them the interest of the international workers' revolution higher integrity, safety, tranquility of one or the other, and precisely his own, national state.

The greatest misfortune and danger of Europe is that it No revolutionary party. There are parties of traitors, like the Scheidemanns, Renaudels, Hendersons,

110 V. I. LENIN

Webbs and Co., or lackey souls like Kautsky. There is no revolutionary party.

Of course, a powerful revolutionary movement of the masses can correct this deficiency, but it remains a great misfortune and a great danger.

Therefore, it is necessary in every possible way to expose renegades like Kautsky, thereby supporting the revolutionary groups truly internationalist proletarians who exist in everyone countries. The proletariat will quickly turn away from traitors and renegades and follow these groups, raising their own leaders from them. No wonder the bourgeoisie of all countries howl about “world Bolshevism.”

World Bolshevism will defeat the world bourgeoisie.

Reprinted from the manuscript

, communists and most anarchists.

Notes

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Proletarian Revolution” is in other dictionaries:

Historical magazine, Moscow, 1921 41 (in 1921 28 organ of Istpart, in 1928 31 of the V.I. Lenin Institute, in 1933 41 IMEL), 132 issues ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

- “PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION”, historical magazine, Moscow, 1921 41 (in 1921 28 organ of Istpart, in 1928 31 of the V. I. Lenin Institute, in 1933 41 IMEL), 132 issues ... encyclopedic Dictionary

East. a magazine published in Moscow in 1921 41 (in 1921 28 the organ of Istnart of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, in 1928 31 Inta Lenin under the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, in 1933 41 Inta Marx Engels Lenin under the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks). 132 issues were published. Editors P. r. over the years there were M. S. Olminsky, ... ...

I Proletarian revolution see Socialist revolution. II Proletarian Revolution (“Proletarian Revolution”), historical journal; published in Moscow in 1921 41 [in 1921 28 organ of the Istpart of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, in 1928 31 of the Lenin Institute under ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

See Socialist Revolution... Soviet historical encyclopedia

Historical magazine, Moscow, 1921 41 (in 1921 28 organ of Istpart, in 1928 31 of the V.I. Lenin Institute, in 1933 41 IMEL), 132 issues. Articles and publications on the history of the labor movement and the Bolshevik party... encyclopedic Dictionary

This term has other meanings, see Proletarian Revolution. Proletarian Revolution Specialization: historical magazine Frequency: different Language: Russian Editorial address: Moscow Main re... Wikipedia

- (“The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky,”) the work of V.I. Lenin, which develops the Marxist doctrine of the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, exposes the opportunist views of one of the leaders of the 2nd... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

"The BOOK AND THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION"- “THE BOOK AND THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION”, monthly magazine of Marxist-Leninist criticism and bibliography; was published by the publishing house “Pravda” (Moscow) in 1932 1940 (instead of the magazine “Book and Revolution”, published there in 1929 1930). Placed... ... Literary encyclopedic dictionary

Books

• Proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky, V.I. Lenin. Reproduced in the original author's spelling of the 1935 edition (Moscow publishing house)…