Part 4 (1/2)
CHAPTER IV
THE REVOLUTION AND THE PROLETARIAT
A revolution is an open contest of social forces in their struggle for political power.
The state is not an end in itself. It is only a working machine in the hands of the social force in power. As every machine, the state has its motor, transmission, and its operator. Its motive power is the cla.s.s interest; its motor are propaganda, the press, influences of school and church, political parties, open air meetings, pet.i.tions, insurrections; its transmission is made up of legislative bodies actuated by the interest of a caste, a dynasty, a guild or a cla.s.s appearing under the guise of Divine or national will (absolutism or parliamentarism); its operator is the administration, with its police, judiciary, jails, and the army.
The state is not an end in itself. It is, however, the greatest means for organizing, disorganizing and reorganizing social relations.
According to who is directing the machinery of the State, it can be an instrument of profoundest transformations, or a means of organized stagnation.
Each political party worthy of its name strives to get hold of political power and thus to make the state serve the interests of the cla.s.s represented by the party. Social-Democracy, as the party of the proletariat, naturally strives at political supremacy of the working cla.s.s.
The proletariat grows and gains strength with the growth of capitalism.
From this viewpoint, the development of capitalism is the development of the proletariat for dictators.h.i.+p. The day and the hour, however, when political power should pa.s.s into the hands of the working cla.s.s, is determined not directly by the degree of capitalistic development of economic forces, but by the relations of cla.s.s struggle, by the international situation, by a number of subjective elements, such as tradition, initiative, readiness to fight....
It is, therefore, not excluded that in a backward country with a lesser degree of capitalistic development, the proletariat should sooner reach political supremacy than in a highly developed capitalist state. Thus, in middle-cla.s.s Paris, the proletariat consciously took into its hands the administration of public affairs in 1871. True it is, that the reign of the proletariat lasted only for two months, it is remarkable, however, that in far more advanced capitalist centers of England and the United States, the proletariat never was in power even for the duration of one day. To imagine that there is an automatic dependence between a dictators.h.i.+p of the proletariat and the technical and productive resources of a country, is to understand economic determinism in a very primitive way. Such a conception would have nothing to do with Marxism.
It is our opinion that the Russian revolution creates conditions whereby political power can (and, in case of a victorious revolution, _must_) pa.s.s into the hands of the proletariat before the politicians of the liberal bourgeoisie would have occasion to give their political genius full swing.
Summing up the results of the revolution and counter-revolution in 1848 and 1849, Marx wrote in his correspondences to the New York _Tribune_: ”The working cla.s.s in Germany is, in its social and political development, as far behind that of England and France as the German bourgeoisie is behind the bourgeoisie of those countries. Like master, like man. The evolution of the conditions of existence for a numerous, strong, concentrated, and intelligent proletariat goes hand in hand with the development of the conditions of existence for a numerous, wealthy, concentrated and powerful middle cla.s.s. The working cla.s.s movement itself never is independent, never is of an exclusively proletarian character until all the different factions of the middle cla.s.s, and particularly its most progressive faction, the large manufacturers, have conquered political power, and remodeled the State according to their wants. It is then that the inevitable conflict between employer and the employed becomes imminent, and cannot be adjourned any longer.”[1] This quotation must be familiar to the reader, as it has lately been very much abused by scholastic Marxists. It has been used as an iron-clad argument against the idea of a labor government in Russia. If the Russian capitalistic bourgeoisie is not strong enough to take governmental power into its hands, how is it possible to think of an industrial democracy, i.e., a political supremacy of the proletariat, was the question.
[1] Karl Marx, _Germany in 1848_. (English edition, pp. 22-23.)
Let us give this objection closer consideration.
Marxism is primarily a method of a.n.a.lysis,--not the a.n.a.lysis of texts, but the a.n.a.lysis of social relations. Applied to Russia, is it true that the weakness of capitalistic liberalism means the weakness of the working cla.s.s? Is it true, not in the abstract, but in relation to Russia, that an independent proletarian movement is impossible before the bourgeoisie a.s.sume political power? It is enough to formulate these questions in order to understand what hopeless logical formalism there is hidden behind the attempt to turn Marx's historically relative remark into a super-historic maxim.
Our industrial development, though marked in times of prosperity by leaps and bounds of an ”American” character, is in reality miserably small in comparison with the industry of the United States. Five million persons, forming 16.6 per cent. of the population engaged in economic pursuits, are employed in the industries of Russia; six millions and 22.2 per cent. are the corresponding figures for the United States. To have a clear idea as to the real dimensions of industry in both countries, we must remember that the population of Russia is twice as large as the population of the United States, and that the output of American industries in 1900 amounted to 25 billions of rubles whereas the output of Russian industries for the same year hardly reached 2.5 billions.
There is no doubt that the number of the proletariat, the degree of its concentration, its cultural level, and its political importance depend upon the degree of industrial development in each country.
This dependence, however, is not a direct one. Between the productive forces of a country on one side and the political strength of its social cla.s.ses on the other, there is at any given moment a current and cross current of various socio-political factors of a national and international character which modify and sometimes completely reverse the political expression of economic relations. The industry of the United States is far more advanced than the industry of Russia, while the political role of the Russian workingmen, their influence on the political life of their country, the possibilities of their influence on world politics in the near future, are incomparably greater than those of the American proletariat.
In his recent work on the American workingman, Kautsky arrives at the conclusion that there is no immediate and direct dependence between the political strength of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat of a country on one hand and its industrial development on the other. ”Here are two countries,” he writes, ”diametrically opposed to each other: in one of them, one of the elements of modern industry is developed out of proportion, i.e., out of keeping with the stage of capitalistic development; in the other, another; in America it is the cla.s.s of capitalists; in Russia, the cla.s.s of labor. In America there is more ground than elsewhere to speak of the dictators.h.i.+p of capital, while nowhere has labor gained as much influence as in Russia, and this influence is bound to grow, as Russia has only recently entered the period of modern cla.s.s struggle.” Kautsky then proceeds to state that Germany can, to a certain degree, study her future from the present conditions in Russia, then he continues: ”It is strange to think that it is the Russian proletariat which shows us our future as far as, not the organization of capital, but the protest of the working cla.s.s is concerned. Russia is the most backward of all the great states of the capitalist world. This may seem to be in contradiction with the economic interpretation of history which considers economic strength the basis of political development. This is, however, not true. It contradicts only that kind of economic interpretation of history which is being painted by our opponents and critics who see in it not a _method of a.n.a.lysis_, but a _ready pattern_.”[2] These lines ought to be recommended to those of our native Marxians who subst.i.tute for an independent a.n.a.lysis of social relations a deduction from texts selected for all emergencies of life. No one can compromise Marxism as shamefully as these bureaucrats of Marxism do.
[2] K. Kautsky, _The American and the Russian Workingman_.
In Kautsky's estimation, Russia is characterized, economically, by a comparatively low level of capitalistic development; politically, by a weakness of the capitalistic bourgeoisie and by a great strength of the working cla.s.s. This results in the fact, that ”the struggle for the interests of Russia as a whole has become the task of _the only powerful cla.s.s in Russia_, industrial labor. This is the reason why labor has gained such a tremendous political importance. This is the reason why the struggle of Russia against the polyp of absolutism which is strangling the country, turned out to be a single combat of absolutism against industrial labor, a combat where the peasantry can lend considerable a.s.sistance without, however, being able to play a leading role.[3]
[3] D. Mendeleyer, _Russian Realities_, 1906, p. 10.
Are we not warranted in our conclusion that the ”man” will sooner gain political supremacy in Russia than his ”master”?
There are two sorts of political optimism. One overestimates the advantages and the strength of the revolution and strives towards ends unattainable under given conditions. The other consciously limits the task of the revolution, drawing a line which the very logic of the situation will compel him to overstep.
You can draw limits to all the problems of the revolution by a.s.serting that this is a bourgeois revolution in its objective aims and inevitable results, and you can close your eyes to the fact that the main figure in this revolution is the working cla.s.s which is being moved towards political supremacy by the very course of events.
You can rea.s.sure yourself by saying that in the course of a bourgeois revolution the political supremacy of the working cla.s.s can be only a pa.s.sing episode, and you can forget that, once in power, the working cla.s.s will offer desperate resistance, refusing to yield unless compelled to do so by armed force.