Hello.
A few thoughts regarding the article by Cliff Connolly, “Create a Mass Party!” found here:
Firstly, I want to say that I agree with the general thrust of this piece. I particularly appreciated the moments in which Connolly suggests, “we should also strive to be well-versed in skills like listening, openly sharing feelings, assuming good faith in arguments, making sincere apologies, and offering support to comrades struggling with personal issues”. I can only draw on experiences I have had within a Trotskyist organization. It was a small sect, all things considered, but the branch that I was a part of was a healthy mixture of low-income retail workers and local council workers and there was a very comradely environment in which members would arrange informal group dinners and other activities and helped each other out with workplace and housing issues. Honestly, the healthy environment within that branch was some of the most positive political experiences that I have had despite the unfortunately stagnant politics of the party. All revolutionaries should be looking to ensure that the organizations that they belong to have a comradely internal culture, with this I fully agree.
I noted an error of historical fact that I thought I would highlight as, similarly to how the author of the article noted in regards to the CounterPower’s article, an error in understanding the positions of revolutionaries of the past could lead to a misunderstanding of why certain tactics and positions were adopted and that could misinform our current politics.
The article asserts: “In the case of something like workers’ councils, we cannot have any illusions that they provide anything beyond a means of representation for political tendencies within the movement. This is precisely why the Bolsheviks competed so vigorously with the reformist Mensheviks and populist Social Revolutionaries for elected majorities in the soviets. In fact, the Bolsheviks only adopted their famous slogan “All Power to the Soviets” after they had secured elected majorities in them.” It is untrue that the Bolsheviks never utilized the slogan “All Power to the Soviets” prior to their gaining majorities within them. Connolly references a Rabinowitch work “The Bolsheviks Come to Power” but doesn’t give a specific page number, however to quote a different work from the same author, “Prelude to Revolution” from p42:
“This transformation in the composition of the Petrograd party organization is reflected distinctly in the minutes of the Petersburg Committee for the April period and in the protocols of the First Bolshevik Petrograd City Conference, where Lenin won his initial victories over the right. Meeting in mid-April (April 14-22), the First Petrograd City Conference adopted by a decisive 37 to 3 vote Lenin’s resolution condemning the Provisional Government and calling for the eventual transfer of all power to the Soviets.”
During the April period it could not be suggested that the Bolsheviks had a majority in the Soviets, rather the opposite, yet still they essentially called on a transfer of power to the Soviets, the organs of power within which their political rivals held court. Famously, the Bolsheviks wanted to march in June under banners including “All Power to the Soviets” but the Menshevik- and SR-controlled Soviet banned their demonstration. Why is this? It is certainly not because the Bolsheviks and Lenin thought that they shouldn’t be competing with reformists and populists, as noted, but rather because Lenin believed that “our task is one of patient explanation”.
Lenin recognized the soviets as the theatre within which the working class was organizing, meeting, developing politically, and wanted the working class to shed any loyalty to the Provisional Government. He was confident that the Bolsheviks would be able to battle within the soviets to break the working class from the reformists once there was no longer the veil of the Provisional Government to distract from these discussions. After the disruptions of the July days and the party was made semi-illegal once more he abandoned the slogan, as the Soviet leadership had turned on the Bolsheviks, and asserted that the “slogan of transferring power to the soviets would now sound quixotic or mocking. Objectively this slogan would mean leading the people astray, feeding them the illusion that the Soviets could still obtain power merely by deciding to get it, as if there still were parties in the soviets that had not sullied themselves by abetting the executioners, as if what has been done could be undone”, only to take the slogan up once more following the Kornilov affair and the growing success of the Bolsheviks within the soviets, as depicted in “The Bolsheviks Come to Power”.
This shifting perspective indicates a few things. Firstly, the Bolsheviks weren’t afraid to support organs of power in which their political rivals were leaders if it was believed that these organs could be used in the offense against the capitalist state and to defend the interests of the working class. Obviously, they would actively compete within these organs for positions of influence. Secondly, it is necessary to have a comprehensive and honest understanding of the relative strength of your organization in order to better understand the correct tactics in engaging with your political rivals. Finally, there is no need to show an inch of support for your political rivals any more than is necessary.
Comradely regards,
GMM
