|
To understand the
Russian Revolution in its relationship to World War I, we need to
start with the origins of WW I, not as it is taught--as a response to
German aggression--but as it actually was. The assassination of the
Austrian crown prince by a Serbian nationalist is insignificant and
the catalog of German military aggression an evasion. Attributing all
guilt to Germany is a ruse to cover up the class nature of WW I along
with the culpability of all the imperialist powers.
WW I was about
economic rivalry between the six largest capitalist powers; its
purpose-- for each to achieve world supremacy by subjugating small
nations as outlets for investment and a source for raw materials.
Marxism agrees with Clausewitz who said, “War is the continuation of
politics by other means”. WW I was the continuation of an economic
policy requiring annexation and the continuation of a policy
entailing the extermination of entire nationalities along with
unbelievable atrocities committed especially in Africa and Asia but
also in the Pacific and Mideast.
Between 1876 and
1914, the six largest imperialist powers grabbed 30 million square
miles of land between them, enslaving 520 million people. Mass
exterminations, and barbarisms of all kinds including the
introduction of rape and syphilis were the required methods. This
period of intense colonial plunder and competition for colonies
between the imperialists is what led to the era of imperialist wars
between them.
The period of
laissez-faire capitalism in the l9th century was one of capitalist
industrialization and expansion. Industrial development led to
overproduction and the emergence of surplus capital--transforming the
national economy into a system dominated by speculation and
investment capital—i.e., bankers, gamblers and swindlers. Investment
limited by national borders was now insufficient to maintain economic
growth and profit. The search for colonies and the clash of competing
imperialist economies emerged out of an attempt to overcome the
stagnation of the national economy by internationalizing investment,
i.e., by developing a world market, as an outlet for surplus capital
investment. The Marxist solution, of course, requires the overthrow
of capitalism and establishing the global economy on a socialist
basis, serving all humanity-- not just a minority of swindlers
and profiteers.
Militarism and
the arms race began with the dominance of monopoly capitalism as an
instrument of brute force to suppress colonial resistance and
maintain colonies as safe havens for investment, and to forcefully
resolve inter-imperialist conflicts. The existence today of thousands
of U.S. military bases all over the globe in an ironic way indicates
not just the strength of imperialism but its Achilles Heel—i.e., it
is a system maintained by coercion and brute force.
Jingoism is the
ideology of militarism. Using metaphysical thinking to explain war is
not unique to monopoly capitalism but its refinement is an essential
feature of that system. Absolutist states had less need to justify
their crimes—coercion sufficed. But when you need to induce millions
of young men (and now women) to willingly fight in wars of aggression
you need to resort to mystification.
The emergence of
national chauvinism and racist stupidities against colonial peoples
was, and remains an essential ideological weapon in the arsenal of
imperialism. The colossal importance that Marxist theoreticians
give to the colonial question and our unconditional solidarity with
their struggle against imperialism is rooted in the inextricable
connection between these rancid ideologies and imperialist
war.
The strongest,
best-organized opposition to imperialism was the socialist movement,
united in the Second International. In the several decades leading up
to WW I, the Second International was a pretty impressive political
force, numbering in the millions in Europe—they had hundreds of
deputies in various parliaments, held thousands of prominent
positions in the trade unions, mobilized enormous crowds in public
meetings and demonstrations, particularly against the threat of
war.
The key issues of
concern to the International were militarism and war, the colonial
question and immigrant workers. The expropriation of small nations,
long with capitalization in agriculture, and mass unemployment of
workers replaced by machines drove millions of people worldwide to
immigrate in this era—not just to the U.S. but to all advanced
capitalist countries. Studying the transcripts of the
International’s debates at their many conferences is thoroughly
disconcerting. While the International always took formal
positions against colonialism, militarism and war, their discussions
reveal a strong current of racism when discussing the colonial
question, and a strong current of economic nationalism when
discussing immigrant workers as competitive with native labor.
Faltering theoretically on these matters proved to be of the greatest
consequence. Lenin and others noted these problems and wrote
extensively about the regressive influences of economism,
opportunism, and social chauvinism within the International.
In August, 1914,
under the pretext of national defense and the influence of social
chauvinism, the Second International collapsed like a deck of cards:
the social democratic parliamentary delegates in Germany voted for
war credits and unqualified support of its own aggressor
government. Social Democrats throughout Europe followed suit,
voting war credits to their own governments. You have to keep in mind
that the imperialists were going to war against each other with or
without the approval of the social democracy. When fighting for its
life imperialism is willing, in a New York minute, to dispense with
the services of parliamentary debating societies—as the rise of
fascism in WW II makes perfectly clear. By voting for war
credits the social democracy misused its authority as the leadership
of the working class and put the entire strength of its apparatus and
influence at the disposal of the imperialists. The jingoism of
patriotism, i.e., “defense of the fatherland”, dragged the working
class into the vortex against the colonial revolution.
It’s not the
point of this talk to examine the reasons for the betrayal of the
Second International but it is of the greatest importance to study it
and there is no dearth of materials. In brief, the immense wealth
produced by laissez-faire capitalism and by colonialism made it
possible to provide concessions and material benefits to the upper
strata of the working class. This upper stratum, particularly the
trade union officers and parliamentary officials of social democracy,
were in a sense mortgaged to imperialism. For the imperialists this
was a form of social insurance. The English capitalist politician,
Lord Chamberlain, called it a “ransom”. Wealth, he argued, must
justify its possessors by reasonable amenities to the working class.
By which, of course, he did not mean all of the working class, but
only the privileged layer we refer to today as the “aristocracy of
labor”. A political rapprochement was forged between the labor
aristocrats of social democracy and the capitalist class at the
expense of the mass of workers, and certainly at the expense of the
colonial subjects.
The revolutionary
movement, faced with the most catastrophic war in human history up to
that time, was left with no international movement. This
malignant betrayal in the long run strengthened imperialism, allowing
them time to consolidate their economic, political and military positions
at the expense of the working class and colonies. The Marxist
movement wasn’t hesitant: it decisively declared the
international bankrupt and set its sights on building a new
revolutionary one. Only after the Russian Revolution, the Third International
was initiated in Moscow in March 1919.
WW I started in
August 1914. Not even two and a-half years later, in March 1917, the
Russian Revolution began led by Lenin. “Bread, Peace, Land!” these
were the slogans inspiring the Russian Revolution. The movement
was provoked by the complete breakdown of economic life, including
bread lines and widespread famine among workers and peasants.
It was impossible to produce the necessities of life like food
because war production took first priority. Everything was
sacrificed to the war and to war profiteering by the Russian
imperialists who were themselves mortgaged to foreign investment,
especially English and French. Keep in mind that although the
war was going badly at the front for the soldiers, for the Russian
imperialists war profits were monumental.
Going on with the
war was impossible after the Revolution. There was massive opposition
to it. Ten million soldiers were completely exhausted by it. There
was no food and with desertions by millions of peasants, along with
army insurrections, increasingly no army. Delegations of soldiers to
the Petrograd Soviet threatened that unless peace was signed,
soldiers would make peace by desertion. They wanted to get back home
and to the land the revolution had promised them.
The problem
facing the new soviet state was how to extricate itself from the
war. Remember Russia was part of an international clique of
imperialists so the Russian Revolution had not only German aggression
to face but also that of the former imperialist allies with
investment in Russian industry, along with what was left of the
czarist army, and facing opposition and sabotage by the capitalists
led by Kerensky.
Nevertheless in
March 1918, not even 6 months after the Bolsheviks took state power
from the Russian capitalists, the treaty of Brest Litovsk was signed
with Germany. There were sharp disputes in the soviets and
charges of Lenin being in league with the Germans but the Bolsheviks
felt it was the only way to save the weak Russian Revolution from
collapse. Trotsky, the chief Soviet negotiator, and others have
described the negotiations and what is remarkable about them is that
annexations and the self-determination of nations were the matters
under dispute with Germany. Despite the weakness of the Russian
Revolution, their revolutionary commitment to colonized peoples was
not for sale.
The Bolsheviks
knew the negotiations with Germany were just stalling for time and
were not taken by surprise when soon after signing the treaty Germany
again attacked Russia, annexing disputed territories, and was soon
joined by 14 imperialist armies and by White Russian troops.
Imperialism was now in league against the Russian Revolution.
Imagine that
after promising an end to the war, the Bolsheviks now had to forge a
new army against the imperialist and White Russian armies. I
have read idealized accounts—perhaps it’s better to say theoretical
accounts—of the formation of the Red Army but the civil war did not
afford ideal conditions, to say the least. In many ways the
formation of the Red Army was an improvisation. Eventually nearly 6
million soldiers—mostly peasants—were mobilized. Conscription
was involved but that didn’t keep the czarist army intact and it wouldn’t
keep the Red Army intact either.
The Bolsheviks
began by appealing to the elementary class interests of its soldiers:
its first decree was for peace and the second for immediate
distribution of land to peasants. Millions of peasants emptied the
trenches to take part in this redistribution. Thousands of Bolshevik
workers were sent to the front to educate and agitate and turn the
remnants of the czarist army into a revolutionary fighting force.
Russia was the biggest multi-ethnic state in Europe—a prison house of
nations—and it contained hundreds of thousands of immigrant and
colonized workers. Thousands of these joined the Red Army, including
50,000 Chinese workers. Thousands of Czarist army officers were put
in charge of military training or sent to the front to lead. Many
colluded with the enemy; most remained remarkably loyal. Corporal
punishment –a feature of the Czarist army--was banned, and Trotsky
personally appealed to thousands of deserting peasants who rejoined
the Red Army because it alone would defend their rights to the
land. Only a small number of women were engaged in combat
as far as we know. A Red Army air force was formed. They won
despite the most serious privations—defeating all belligerent nations
and the White Terror in 1921.
German
imperialism was defeated in 1919 but international imperialism won
the war. Forty million people died in WW I (half of these
civilians). The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 was simply the
imperialist victors dividing up the booty, depriving Germany of all
its colonies and taking them for themselves. As WW I ended, the
example of the Russian revolution unleashed a new wave of
anticolonial struggles across the Asian continent. Another element
fueling this upsurge was opposition to the continuation of colonial
plunder, legitimized by the treaty.
Because of the
betrayal and collusion of the Second International the German
revolution was defeated in 1918 and because of their continued
betrayals not a single issue raised by the war has been resolved up
to today. Imperialism was strengthened and the stage set for WW II
(72 million dead), Korea, Vietnam, and the list goes on and
on—colonialism is still with us. Because that’s what it’s all
about—resolving the crises of profiteering on the backs of
humanity.
Among reactionary
smart-asses it has become de rigueur after the collapse of the Soviet
Union to smugly dismiss the ideas of the Russian Revolution as an
exhibit in the museum of hopeless causes; among radicals it is very
in vogue to blame Lenin or Leninism (almost an epithet) for the
problems of the socialist movement.
But to my mind, along
with the first socialist revolution, Lenin and all the great
Marxist teachers of that era have left us a remarkable body of
literature-- one of the greatest bodies of literature the Marxist
movement has produced, analyzing imperialism, revolution,
colonialism, social chauvinism, racism, opportunism, economism,
immigration--and no socialist can possibly make sense of this world
without studying that literature. The other dominant
explanation is the metaphysical one employed by capitalism, i.e., the
planetary struggle between good and evil.
The war in Iraq
and globalization represent a different stage in the development of
imperialism. That means Lenin’s critiques, although fundamental, are
insufficient. Time and imperialism have marched on. The emergence of
fascism in WW II made that eminently clear. The imperialist class, in
its need to profiteer, is now taking deadly aim at the working class
in the economically advanced countries. That requires a fuller
elaboration of Lenin’s ideas, showing that the impasse of
imperialism--which it is trying to resolve at the expense of the
working class--is also its Achilles Heel, providing political
openings for the socialist movement. Social democracy has only
grown more rancid in 90 years; their debasement plays a monumental
role in the devastation of the labor movement in the U.S. and
elsewhere—it’s a matter of chickens coming home to roost for social
chauvinism and racism.
The confluence of
racism, war, and anti-communism (and now anti-terrorism, i.e.,
colonial resistance) is not accidental. Imperialism understands
its best interests. The fact that we’re still fighting these battles,
we owe to the renegades in the Second International; the fact that
antiracism and anti-imperialism are yoked with socialism we owe to
the victory of the Russian revolution.
|