Western Clarion, November 16 1920
At the time of the 1917 Revolution in Russia we approved of the Bolshevik leaders. During the many vicissitudes of fortune that have taken place since, we have seen no reason to alter this position. We understood, as we still understand, that Bolshevism is not Socialism. Our knowledge of Russian conditions, though perhaps meager, was sufficient to acquaint us with the fact that this country was not yet ready for Socialism. Economic and social development had not reached the stage where social ownership of the means of production was possible. A resourceful Socialist minority had been at work for some years. Among the industrial proletariat an extensive educational policy had been carried out. The weakness of the revisionist and reformist elements of Germany, France and England was fully understood long before the Revolution.
A weak ruling class, lacking the means of repression found in highly organized capitalist centres; a peasantry uneducated and consequently devoid of that respect for master class teaching inseparable from well developed industrial communities; a state of war in existence, which spelled starvation, bloodshed, and discontent for the masses; all these circumstances made possible the successful attempt of the Bolsheviki to capture political power. This they did.
Just what procedure our self-educated Simon-pure intellectuals would have followed in such a contingency we are not aware. In all likelihood they would have chosen to remain in wage slavery until they were absolutely certain that a majority were in favor of change. Once they were able to quote a passage from each of the Socialist classics to prove that the time was right, perhaps they would give the proposition their earnest consideration.
To the scientific socialist, the works of Marx and Engels are valued on account of the knowledge they impart. But there is considerable difference between being Marxian students and Marxian worshippers. The one implies a critical study and the other a blind faith. In a general sense the tactics of the Socialist movement are contained in the works of Marx and Engels. But the methods of attack are not absolute or rigid. Even if we take the term “dictatorship of the proletariat”—it was not spoken by Marx till he had seen the effects of the Paris Commune. It matters not, for the sake of illustration whether we accept the term in the Kautskian or Leninian sense. The point that Marx did not employ it in his earlier writing, and found occasion to do so only after a new situation had arrived.
So with us today. We must mold our tactics in accordance with the conditions at hand. This is what the Bolsheviki did. They took control the opportune moment. Whether or not their action will lead to Socialism, by the safest and shortest route, only time will tell. That the methods pursued in Russia are not adaptable everywhere else we know full well. In fact, perhaps in that one country alone could such tactics suffice. Too many enthusiasts rush to the conclusion that “What’s good in Russia is good enough here.” They fail to understand the situation. In this connection it might be correct to state that while the Revolution was a good thing for Russian workers, as many impartial persons and delegations have testified, it has had a detrimental effect, in many ways, upon the working class movement in other countries.
Many of our students develop into master strategists and tacticians. They not only understand every move the Bolsheviki made, and the reasons for making them, but persist in laying plans of action, and carving the political framework of the political structure that must be built. In short, they have Bolsheviki on the brain.
Related posts:
