Lenin, here, also provides an insightful description of one reactionary institution that the revolutionaries had paid little attention to, and that was the state bureaucracy. His comments are instructive, in light of the later role of the soviet bureaucracy. This bureaucracy essentially ruled the state, Lenin says, and made up of middle-class intellectuals, it was thoroughly bourgeois in nature, “but absolutism and the enormous political privileges of the landed nobility have lent them particularly pernicious qualities.” (Note *, p 291) As a result, they acted like weather cocks, combining the interests of the bourgeoisie and landed aristocracy.
“They are Judushkas who use their feudal sympathies and connections to fool the workers and peasants, and employ the pretext of “protecting the economically weak” and acting as their “guardian” against the kulak and usurer to carry through measures which reduce the working people to the status of a “base rabble,” handing them over to the feudal landlords and making them all the more defenceless against the bourgeoisie. The bureaucracy are most dangerous hypocrites, who have imbibed the experience of the West-European champion reactionaries, and skilfully conceal their Arakcheyev designs behind the fig-leaves of phrases about loving the people.” (ibid)
Lenin discusses the unity drive launched by the Narodnoye Pravo group, to form an alliance to fight for political liberty against absolutism. But, this appeal had no foundation, because it ignored all the other questions, which defined the various organisations. Something similar can be seen in the way various petty-bourgeois groups have made similar appeals for the creation of organisations such as the Anti-Nazi League, Stop The War Coalition, and so on. These organisations are sometimes referred to as Popular Fronts, which is an inaccurate description, because a Popular Front actually exercises political power through government. These organisations are more properly defined as cross-class alliances, and as such they fall apart on contact with reality, when the question of political programme has to be addressed, or else to prevent that, the socialists have to subordinate their principles, so as to avoid the discussion of programme.
“But what is characteristic is that this “amalgamation” trend represents one of the last stages in the process of transformation of militant, revolutionary Narodism into politically radical democracy, a process which I have tried to outline above.” (p 292)
The Marxists would welcome the development of a non-socialist, bourgeois-democratic party, Lenin says, but such a party would only be possible “when a durable programme of democratic demands has been drawn up that will put an end to the prejudices of the old Russian exceptionalism.” (p 292) This would, of course, facilitate the clarification of political lines, reflecting the division of society into two great class camps, because, whilst the bourgeoisie would form itself into such a democratic party, the workers would be organised under the banner of Marxism.
“The Social-Democrats, who consider essential the independent organisation of the workers into a separate workers’ party, could not, of course, “amalgamate” with such a party, but the workers would most strongly support any struggle waged by the democrats against reactionary institutions.” (p 293)
No comments:
Post a Comment