I wish to draw your attention, Comrade Lenin, and that of the reader, to the fact that this letter was written at the time of the triumphant march of the Russians to Warsaw. I likewise request you, and the reader, to excuse the frequent repetitions. They were unavoidable, owing to the fact that the tactics of the 'Lefts' are still unknown to the workers of most countries. Introduction
I have read your brochure on the Radicalism in the Communist movement. It has taught me a great deal, as all your writings have done. For this I feel grateful to you: and doubtless many other comrades feel as I do. Many a trace, and many a germ of this infant disease, to which without a doubt, I also am a victim, has been chased away by your brochures or will yet be eradicated by it. Your observations about the confusion that revolution has caused in many brains, is quite right too. I know that. The revolution came so suddenly, and in a way so utterly different from what we expected. Your words will be an incentive to me, once again, and to an even greater extent than before, to base my judgement in all matters of tactics, also in the revolution, exclusively on reality, on the actual class-relations, as they manifest themselves politically and economically. After having read your brochure I thought all this is right. But after having considered for a long time whether I would cease to uphold this 'Left Wing', and to write articles for the KAPD and the opposition party in England, I had to decline.
This seems contradictory. It is due, though, to the fact that the starting-point in the brochure is not right. To my idea you are mistaken in your judgement regarding the analogy of the West- European revolution with the Russian one, regarding the conditions of the West-European revolution, that is to say the class-relations- and this leads you to mistake the cause, from which this Left Wing the opposition, originates. Therefore the brochure SEEMS to be right, as long as your starting-point is assumed. If, however (as it should be), your starting point is rejected, the entire brochure is wrong. As all your mistaken, and partly mistaken, judgements converge in your condemnation of the Left movement, especially in Germany and England, and as I firmly intend to defend those of the Left Wing, although, as the leaders know: I do not agree with them on all Points, I imagine I had best answer your brochure by a defence of the Left Wing. This will enable me not only to point out its origin (the cause from which it springs), and to prove its right, and merits, in the present stager and here, in Western Europe, but also, which is of equal importance, to combat the mistaken conceptions that are prevalent in Russia with regard to the West-European Revolution.
Both these points are of importance: as it is on the conception of the West-European revolution that the West-European as well as the Russian tactics depend. I should have liked to do this at the Moscow Congress, which, however, i was not able to attend.
In the first place I must refute two of your arguments, that may mislead the judgement of comrades or readers. You scoff and sneer at the ridiculous and childish nonsense of the struggle in Germany, at the dictatorship of the leaders or of the masses, at from above or below, etc.. We quite agree with you, that these should be no questions at all. But we do not agree with your scoffing. For that is the pity of it: in Western- Europe they still are questions. In Western Europe we still have, in many countries, leaders of the type of the Second International; here we are still seeking the right leaders those that do not try to dominate the masses, that do not betray them; and as long as we do not find these leaders, we want to do all things from below, and through the dictatorship of the masses themselves. If I have a mountain-guide, and he should lead me into the abyss, I prefer to do without him. As soon as we have found the right guides, we will stop this searching. Then mass and leader will be really one. This, and nothing else, is what the German and English Left Wing, what we ourselves, mean by these words.
And the same holds good for your second remark, that the leader should form one united whole with class and mass. We quite agree with you. But the question is to find and rear leaders that are really one with the masses. This can only be accomplished by the masses, the political parties and the Trade Unions, by means of the most severe struggle, also inwardly. And the same holds good for iron discipline, and strong centralization. We want them all right, but not until we have the right leaders. This severest of all struggles: which is now being fought most strenuously in Germany and England, the two countries where Communism is nearest to its realization, can only be harmed by your scoffing. Your attitude panders to the opportunist elements in the Third International. By this scoffing, you abet the opportunist elements in the Third International.
For it is one of the means by which elements in the Spartacus League and in the BSP, and also in the Communist Parties in many other countries, imposes upon the workers, when they say that the entire question of masses and leader is absurd, is nonsense and childishness. Through this phrase they avoid, and wish to avoid, all criticism of themselves, the leaders. It is by means of this phrase of an iron discipline and centralization, that they crush the opposition. And this opportunism is abetted by you. You should not do this, Comrade. We are only in the introductory stage yet, here in Western Europe. And in that stage it is better to encourage the fighters than the rulers. I only touch on this quite perfunctorily here. In the course of this writing l will deal with this matter more at length. There is a deeper reason yet why I cannot agree with your brochure. It is the following :-
On reading your pamphlets, brochures and books, nearly all of which writings filled us with admiration and appreciation, we Marxists of Western Europe invariably came to a point where we suddenly grew wary, and on the look-out for a more detailed explanation; and if we failed to find this explanation, we accepted the statement but grudgingly, with all due reservations. This was your statement regarding the workers and the poor peasants. It occurs often, very often. And you always mention both these categories as revolutionary factors all the world over. And nowhere, at least as far as I have read, is there a clear and outspoken recognition of the immense difference which prevails in the matter between Russia (and a few other countries in Eastern Europe) and Western Europe (that is to say Germany, France, England, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries, and perhaps even Italy). And yet, in my opinion, the fundamental difference between your conception of the tactics concerning Trade unionism and Parliamentarian, and that of the so-called Left Wing in Western Europe, lies mainly in this point. Of course you know this difference as well as I do, only you failed to draw from it the conclusions for the tactics in Western Europe, at least as far as I am able to judge from your works. These conclusions you have not taken into consideration: and consequently your judgement on these West-European tactics is false (1).
And this is all the more dangerous because this phrase of yours is parroted automatically in all the Communist Parties of Western Europe, even by Marxists. To judge from all Communist papers, magazines and brochures, and from all public assemblies, one might even surmise that a revolt of the poor peasants in Western Europe might break out at any moment .Nowhere is the great difference with Russia pointed out, and thus the judgements also of the proletariat, is led astray. Because In Russia you were able to triumph with the help of a large class of poor peasants, you represent things in such a way, as if we in Western Europe are also going to have that help. Because your in Russia, have triumphed exclusively through this help, you wish to make us believe that here also we will triumph through this help. You do this by means of your silence with regard to this question, as it stands in Western Europe, and your entire tactics are based on this representation.
Russia had an industrial proletariat of some seven or eight millions. The number of poor peasants, however, amounted to about 25 millions. (1 beg you to excuse the inevitable numerical errors; I have to quote from memory, as this letter should be despatched with all speed). When Kerensky failed to give these poor peasants the soil, you knew that before long they would come to you, the minute they should become aware of the fact. This is not so in Western Europe, and will not become so either; in the countries of Western Europe, which I have named, conditions of that sort do not exist.
The poor peasant here lives under conditions quite different from those of Russia. Though often terrible: they are not as appalling as they were there. As farmers or owners: the poor peasants possess a piece of land. The excellent means of transport enables them often to sell their goods. At the very worst they can mostly provide their own food. During the last ten years things have improved somewhat for them. Now, during and since the war, they can obtain high prices. They are indispensable, the import of foodstuffs being very limited. Regularly therefore, they will be able to get high prices. They are supported by Capitalism. Capitalism will maintain them, as long as it can maintain itself. In your country, the position of the poor peasants was far more terrible. With you, therefore, the poor peasants had a political, revolutionary programme, and were organised in a political, revolutionary party: with the social-revolutionaries. With us this is nowhere the case. Moreover, in Russia there was an enormous amount of landed property to be divided, large estates crown lands, government land, and the estates held by the monasteries. But the Communists of Western Europe, what can they offer to the poor peasants, to win them to their side?
The Communists in Germany therefore, except in relatively insignificant regions, do not even have the means to win over the poor peasants. For the medium and small industries will surely not be expropriated. And it is practically the same in the case of the four or five million poor peasants in France, and also for Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, and two of the Scandinavian countries (3). Everywhere small and medium sized industry prevails. And even in Italy there is no absolute certainty; not to mention England, which counts only some one or two hundred thousand peasants. Neither will they be attracted by the promise that under Communism they will be exempt from rent- paying and mortgage-rent. For with Communism they see the approach of civil war, the loss of markets, and general destruction. Unless, therefore: there should come a crisis far more terrible than the present one in Germany, a crisis, indeed, far exceeding the horrors of any other crises that ever were before? the poor peasants in Western Europe will side with Capitalism, as long as it has any life left (4).
The workers in Western Europe stand all alone. Only a very slight portion of the lower middle class will help them. And these are economically insignificant. The workers will have to make the revolution all by themselves. Here is the great difference as compared to Russia. Possibly you will say, Comrade Lenin, that this was the case in Russia. There also the proletariat has made the revolution all by itself. It is only after the revolution that the poor peasants joined. You are right: and yet the difference is immense. You knew with absolute certainty that the peasants would come to you, and that they would come quickly. You knew that Kerensky would not, and could not give them the land. You knew that they would not help Kerensky long. You had a magic charm, 'The Land to the Peasantry', by means of which you would win them in the course of a few months to the side of the proletariat. We, on the other hand, are certain that for some time to come the poor peasantry all over Western Europe, will side with Capitalism.
You will possibly say that, although in Germany there is no great mass of poor peasants whose assistance can be relied or the millions of proletarians that side as yet with the bourgeoisie are sure to come round. That therefore, the place of the poor peasants in Russia will here be taken by the proletarians, so that there is help all the same. This representation is also fundamentally wrong: and the immense difference remains. The Russian peasants joined the proletariat AFTER Capitalism has been defeated but when the German workers that are now as yet on the side of Capitalism join the ranks of the Communists, the struggle against Capitalism will begin in real earnest.
The revolution in Russia was terrible for the proletariat in the long years of its development- and it is terrible now, after the victory. But at the actual time of revolution it was easy, and this was due to the peasants.
With us it is quite the contrary. In its development the revolution was easy, and it will be easy afterwards; but its actual coming will be terrible - more terrible, perhaps, than any other revolution ever was, for Capitalism, which in your country was weak and only slightly rooted as it were to feudalism, the middle ages and even barbarism, here in our country is strong and widely organised and deeply rooted, and the lower middle classes as well as the peasants, who always side with the strongest, with the exception of a shallow and economically unimportant layer, will stand with Capitalism until the very end. The revolution in Russia was victorious with the help of the poor peasants. This should always be borne in mind here in Western Europe and all the world over. But the workers in Western Europe stand alone: this should never be forgotten in Russia.
This is the absolute truth: and on this truth our tactics must be based. All tactics that are not ' based on this are false, and lead the proletariat to terrible defeat.
Practice also has proved that these assertions are true, for the poor peasants in Western Europe have not only no programme and failed to claim the land, but they do not even stir now that Communism is approaching. As I have observed before, this statement is not to be taken absolutely literally. There are regions in Western Europe where, as we have mentioned before, landed property on a large scale is predominant, and where the peasants are therefore in favour of Communism. There are yet other regions where the local conditions are such that the poor peasants may be won for Communism. But these regions are comparatively small. Neither do I wish to imply that quite at the close of the revolution, when all things are coming down, there will be no poor peasants coming to our side. They undoubtedly will. That is why we must carry on an unceasing propaganda amongst them. Our tactics: however, must be adopted for the beginning and for the course of the revolution. What I mean is the general trend, the general tendency of conditions. And it is on these alone that our tactics must be based (5).
From this there follows in the first place - and it should be clearly, emphatically and plainly stated - that in Western Europe the real revolution, that is to say the overthrow of Capitalism, and the erection and permanent institution of Communism, for the time being is possible only in those countries where the proletariat BY ITSELF is strong enough against all the other classes - in Germany, England, and Italy, where the help of the poor peasants is not possible. In the other countries the revolution can only be prepared as yet by means of Propaganda, organization and fighting. The revolution itself can only follow when the economic conditions will be thus much shaken through the revolution in the big States (Russia, Germany, and England), that the bourgeois class will have grown sufficiently weak. For you will agree with me that we cannot base our tactics on events that may come, but that may also never happen (help from the Russian armies, risings in India, terrible crises, etc., etc).
That you should have failed to recognise this truth concerning the importance of the poor peasants: Comrade, is your first great mistake, and likewise that of the Executive in Moscow and of the International Congress. What does it mean with regard to tactics, this fact that the proletariat of Western Europe stands all alone: that it has no prospect of any help whatsoever from any other class? It means, in the first place, that the demands made on the masses are far greater here than in Russia - that, therefore, the proletarian mass is of far greater importance in the revolution. And in the second place that the importance of the leaders is proportionately smaller. For the Russian masses, the proletarians, knew for certain, and already saw during the war, and in part before their very eyes, that the peasants would soon be on their side. The German proletarians, to take them first, know that they will be opposed by German Capitalism in its entirety, with all its classes.
It is true that already before the war the German proletarians numbered from nineteen to twenty million actual workers, of a population of seventy million, but they stood alone against all the other classes (6). They are opposed by a Capitalism that is immeasurably stronger than that of Russia - and they are UNARMED. The Russians were armed.
From every German proletarian therefore, from every individual, the revolution demands a far greater courage and spirit of sacrifice than was necessary in Russia.
This is the outcome of the economic class relations in Germany, and not of some theory or idea risen from the brain of revolutionary romantics or intellectuals! unless the entire class or at least the great majority stand up for the revolution personally, with almost superhuman force, in opposition to all the other classes, the revolution will fail; for you will agree with me again that on determining our tactics we should reckon with our own forces, not with those from outside - on Russian help, for instance.
The proletariat almost unarmed, alone, without help, against a closely united Capitalism, means for Germany that every proletarian must be a conscious fighter, every proletarian a hero; and it is the same for all Western Europe.
For the majority of the proletariat to turn into conscious, steadfast fighters, into real Communistic they must be greater, immeasurably greater, here than in Russia, in an absolute as well as a relative sense. And once more: this is the outcome, not of the representations, the dreams of some intellectual, or poet, but of the purest realities. And as the importance of the class grows, the importance of the leaders becomes relatively less. This does not mean that we must not have the very best of leaders. The best are not good enough; we are trying hard to find them. It only means that the importance of the leaders, as compared to that of the masses, is decreasing.
For you, who had to win a country of 160 million, with the help of seven or eight million, the importance of the leaders was certainly immense.To triumph over so many, with so few, is in the first place a matter of tactics. To do as you did: Comrade, to win such a huge land, with such small forces: but with assistance from outside, all depends in the first place on the tactics of the leader. When you, Comrade Lenin, started the struggle with a small gathering of proletarians, it was in the first place your tactics that in the crucial moments waged the battles and won the poor peasants.
But what about Germany? There the cleverest of tactics, the greatest clarity, even the genius of leaders, cannot attain much. There you have an inexorable class enmity, one against all the others. There the proletarian class must tip the scales for itself - through its power, its numbers. Its power, however, is based above all on its quality, the enemy being so mighty and so endlessly better organised and armed than the proletariat.
You opposed the Russian possessing classes, as David opposed Goliath. David was little but he r had a deadly weapon. The German, the English, the West-European proletariat oppose Capitalism as one giant does another. Between them all depends on strength - strength of body, and above all of mind.
Have you not observers Comrade Lenin, that in Germany there are no great leaders? They are all quite ordinary men. This points to the fact that this revolution must in the first Place be the work of the masses, not of the leaders.
To my idea this is something more wonderful and grand than has ever been, and it is an indication of what Communism will be. And as it is in Germany, it is in all Western Europe, for everywhere the proletariat stands alone.
The revolution of the masses: of the workers - of the masses of workers alone, for the first time in the world.
And not because thus it is good, or beautiful, or conceived in someone's brain, but because the economic and class relations will it (7). In other words, and to read the matter as clearly as possible: the relation between the West- European and the Russian revolution can be demonstrated by means of the following comparison:
Supposing that in an Asiatic country like China or British India, where only one half a per cent of the inhabitants are industrial proletarians, and 80 per cent small peasantry a revolution should break out, and should be successfully carried through by those small peasants under the lead of the politically and socially more trained proletarians that were united in local trade unions and cooperatives. If these Chinese or Indian workers proclaimed to them:
*We have won through our local trade unions and cooperatives, and now you must do the same with regard to your revolutions, what would the Russian workers have replied? They would have said:
'Dear friends, this is impossible. Our country is far more developed than yours. With us not half, but three per cent of the population are industrial proletarians. Our Capitalism is more powerful than yours, therefore we need better and more powerful organizations than you did.'
From this difference between Russia and Western Europe there follows likewise:-
1. That when you, or the Executive in Moscow or the opportunist Communists of Western Europe: of the the Spartacus League, or of the English Communist Party say: 'It is nonsense to fight about the question of leader or masses' that you in that case are wrong as regards us, not only because we are yet trying to find those leaders, but also because for you this question has quite another meaning.
2. That when you say to us: Leader and mass must be one inseparable whole', you are wrong, not only because we are striving for that unity, but also because that question has another meaning for you than for us.
3. That when you say: 'ln the Communist Party there should reign iron discipline, and absolute military centralisation' this is wrong, not only because we are seeking iron discipline and strong centralization, but also because this question has a different meaning for us and for you.
4. That when you say: 'We acted in such and such u way in Russia (after the Korniloff offensive for instance, or some other episode), or entered Parliament during this or that period, or we remained in the trade unions, and therefore the German proletariat must do the same', all this means absolutely nothing, and need not or cannot be applicable in any way. For the West-European class relations in the struggle, in the revolution, are quite different from those of Russia. 5. That when you wish to force upon us tactics that were good in Russia - tactics, for instance, that were based, consciously or unconsciously, on the conviction that here the poor peasants will soon join the proletariat - in other words, that the proletariat does not stand alone - that your tactics, which you prescribe, and which are followed here, will lead the West-European proletariat into ruin, and the most terrible defeat.
6. That when you, or the Executive in Moscow, or the opportunist elements in Western Europe, like the Central Board of the Spartacus League or the BSP, try to compel us to follow opportunist tactics (opportunism always seeks the support of outside elements, that forsake the proletariat), you are wrong.
The general bases on which the tactics in Western Europe must be founded are these: the recognition that the proletariat stands alone, that it is to expect no help, that the importance of the mass is greater, and that of the leaders relatively smaller.
This was not seen by Radek when he was in Germany, nor by the Executive in Moscow, nor by you, as is evident from your words. And it is on these bases that the tactics of the Kommunistische-Arbeiter Partei in Germany, the Communist Party of Sylvia Pankhurst (8) and the majority of the Amsterdam Commissions as appointed by Moscow, are founded. It is on these grounds that they strive, above all to raise the masses as a whole, and the r individuals to a higher level, to educate them one by one to be revolutionary fighters, by making them realise (not through theory only, but: especially by practiced, that all depends on them.. that they are to expect nothing from foreign help, very little from leaders, and all from themselves.
Theoretically therefore, and apart from private utterances, minor questions and excellences, which like those of Wolfheim and Laufenberg: are inevitable in the first phases of a movement, the view taken by these parties and comrades is quite right, and your opposition absolutely wrong (9). On going from the East to the West of Europe, we traverse at a given moment an economic boundary. It runs from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, somewhere from Danzig to Venice. This line divides two worlds. West of this line there is a practically absolute domination of industrial, commercial and financial capitals united in the most highly developed banking capital. Even agricultural capital is subject to: or has been compelled to unite with, this capital. This capital is organised to the utmost degree, and converges in the most firmly established State Governments of the world.
East of the line there is neither this gigantic development of industrial, commercial, transports and banking capital, nor its almost absolute! domination, nor, consequently, the firmly; established modern State. It would be marvellous, indeed, if the tactics of the revolutionary proletariat west of this boundary-line were the same as in the east.
1. In State and Revolution, for instance, you write (page 67): 'The greatest majority of the peasantry in every capitalist country that has any peasantry at all. is oppressed by the government, and is thirsting for the latter's overthrow: for a 'cheap' government. The proletariat is called upon to carry this into execution ... '. The trouble is, however, that the peasantry does not thirst for Communism.
2. the Agrarian Theses of Moscow acknowledges this.
3. l have no statistical data for Sweden and Spain.
4. In the brochure, The World Revolution, I have emphatically pointed out this difference between Russia and Western Europe. The development of the German Revolution has proved that my judgement was even too optimistic. In Italy it is possible that the poor peasants will side with the proletariat.
5. You, Comrade, will surely not try and win in an argument by taking the assertions of your opponent in too absolute a sense, as small minds do. My above remark, therefore, is meant for the latter.
6. Of course I had to take the pre-war figures, and have made the increase in proletarians after the last census (of 1909) proportionate to that before.
7. I do not touch here on the fact that through this other relation of numbers (20 million to 70 million in Germany!) the importance of the mass and the leaders and the relation between massa party and leaders, also in the course and at the close of the revolution here, will differ from those of Russia. 8. So far, at least.
9. lt has struck me that in this controversy you almost invariably make use of private, and not public voices of the opposition.
Back To Class Against Class