.jpg)
"The proletarian revolution and the renegade
Kautsky" (the usual English title) is a work by V.I. Lenin, originally
published in late 1918.
The renegade pounced and trounced by Lenin was the leading German Social Democrat Karl Kautsky, once assumed to be a fairly orthodox Marxist. During World War I, he left the pro-war Social Democratic Party and helped to found the more radical USPD. However, he strongly objected to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, wrote several books against it, and eventually re-joined the Social Democrats. This got Lenin reeling, so in 1918 the Soviet Russian premier penned his famous pamphlet in which he accused Kautsky of having finally abandoned Marxism in favour of bourgeois liberalism. Of course, Kautsky had it coming - this was not the first time the Bolshevik leader had attacked him in writing. For instance, Lenin believed that Kautsky's opposition to the war was too soft.
As most other polemical works by N. Lenin, "The proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky" is filled with all the usual invectives and insults. The worst is probably the accusation that Kautsky is more idiotic than Eduard Bernstein (the arch-renegade from Marxism). On the more theoretical side, Lenin has little problem proving that his German opponent have indeed strayed from revolutionary Marxism and hence become a "renegade".
The main problem with Lenin's book is, of course, that he's lying through his teeth when describing the "proletarian democracy" in Soviet Russia, the "broad popular support" enjoyed by the Bolsheviks, etc. With a straight face, Lenin points out that 97% of the delegates at the sixth All-Russian Congress of Soviets in November 1918 were Bolsheviks. Well, of course, since most non-Bolshevik parties had been banned from the soviets by that time!
The book must have been written in a haste (the Soviet premier had other things to do, I imagine) and ends rather abruptly, since the author believed that the revolutionary risings in Germany were more than enough to disprove the Menshevik-liberal chatter of his opponent. For some reason, the work was nevertheless published and translated into many foreign languages, and remains one of Lenin's more well-known works, at least among Communists.
Not recommended.
"With a straight face, Lenin points out that 97% of the delegates at the sixth All-Russian Congress of Soviets in November 1918 were Bolsheviks. Well, of course, since most non-Bolshevik parties had been banned from the soviets by that time!"
ReplyDeleteWell, I think you must go into a more concrete analysis why they were forbidden. The only main non-bolshevik party that supported the revolution were the left-SR:s. they were part of the first Soviet government They left that government I March 1918 because they condemned the Brest Litovsk treaty, They were still legal, and hade many delegates in the soviets.
Why where they forbidden, then? They organized an assassination of the German ambassador count Mirbach in July 1918. They thought that this would lead to an overthrow oft he Bolshevik government and the restarting of the war with Germany. They wanted a "revolutionary war" with Germany.
They started an armed uprising in Moscow following the assassination. It had initial success, but was soon defeated.
In that situation the party was forbidden.
It is hard to imagine any government that would not suppress a party that are organizing assassinations of foreign diplomats (Mirbach was not the only one, at least one other German diplomat was assassinated by the left-SR:s) and organizing military uprisings inte the capital city.
In fact, as long as the left-SR:s only verbally criticised the Brest-Litovks treaty they were allowed to do that, inte the soviets and in their press.
And, in fact, what is usually called the civil war was in many ways started even before what today is seen as the "official" starting of it. If you check the news report you see that there were never any period without military attacks against the revolution. Already in early 1918 Czech militias were fighting the Soviet government in Siberia. They were supported by the Entente which used them as a tool to overthrow the Soviet government in order to get Russia back to the military alliance against Germany. This was not the only example.
The short answer is that I don´t think a centralized planned economy of the kind advocated by the Bolsheviks is compatible with multi-party democracy, neither parliamentary nor "soviet". Also, the Bolshevik model of revolution and socialist construction is explicitly about one party taking power (except maybe in "State and revolution", but that work is atypical of Lenin´s entire work). Thus, what happened in Russia was probably inevitable, regardless of who fired the first shot, etc.
ReplyDeleteMy preferred option is a mixed economy with some form of democracy. But then, I´m "to the right" of you. ;-)