|
|
The Bolsheviks and democracy
I THOUGHT Per Åke Westerlund’s article in the recent issue
of Socialism Today (Lenin: the original dictator? in issue no.80), was an
excellent rebuttal of the attacks made on Lenin over the last decades. A major
slander he did not mention, however, which continues to be the cornerstone of
attacks on socialism, is the events around the election and dissolution of the
constituent assembly elected on 30 December, 1917.
The votes in these elections were as follows: Bolsheviks
25%; the Socialist Revolutionaries (SR’s) 58%; the Mensheviks 4%; and the Cadets
(the main capitalist party), 13%. The overwhelming majority of academics writing
about the revolution point to these results as ‘proof’ that the Bolsheviks were
an undemocratic minority who seized and maintained power by force. They neglect
to mention that from the overthrow of the Tsar in February 1917 the leaders of
the SR and Cadet parties had promised elections, but in practice had used every
conceivable excuse not to go ahead – including the disastrous June offensive
against the German armies – and in the meantime used every opportunity to reduce
and attack the democratic rights gained by workers and soldiers in the
revolution. It took the October Revolution to ensure that elections actually
happened. It was a fantastic achievement, considering that about one quarter of
European Russia was occupied by German forces and the economy and infrastructure
were collapsing, to organise an election within two months of taking power.
Compare that to the US occupation authorities in Iraq who have effectively
stated that no elections can take place there until at least 2005!
In reality, the composition of the deputies in the newly
elected constituent assembly was a pale reflection of the revolutionary wave
sweeping the working class and peasantry. The SR’s had long since split on
irreconcilable lines, with the mass of poorer peasants supporting the Left SR’s
and the urban middle and upper class and the richer peasants supporting the
right wing. In practice it had become two separate parties, but this was not
reflected in the constituent assembly. The list of SR candidates had been drawn
up months earlier and was weighted overwhelmingly in favour of the right,
reflecting the split between the counter-revolutionary leadership and the
radicalised rank and file.
Lenin and the Bolsheviks are frequently accused of having
‘packed’ meetings of the soviets in order to gain a majority, in spite of all
the evidence to the contrary. In fact the soviets represented an accurate
reflection of the democratic will of the workers, with delegates under the right
of recall at all times and returning to work with their ‘electorate’ after
soviet meetings. It was this direct democracy which allowed the rapid move in
favour of the Bolsheviks and the radicalisation of the SR’s to adopt a position
very close to them. The soviet congress of 25 October 1917 elected an executive
committee of 101, with 62 Bolsheviks and the rest SR’s and Mensheviks. The
Declaration of Rights of Working People was adopted overwhelmingly by the
congress. The main points of this were: an immediate end to the war, and
nationalisation of land and industry, with the land to be distributed to the
poorer and landless peasants.
The latter was an integral part of the SR’s own programme.
Yet when the declaration was put to the vote at the first session of the
constituent assembly, the Right SR’s and the bosses party, the Cadets, voted it
down. A clear cut case of politicians not keeping their promises! Time after
time, not only in soviet meetings but in the rural ‘Zemstvo’s’, which were
supposed to be the local pre-parliaments and were frequently semi-appointed
bodies packed with members of the richer classes, votes were taken with
majorities demanding immediate peace and the transfer of land to the peasants.
By September 1917 over 70% of rural districts were affected by direct action by
the peasants to seize land and drive out the landlords. Under such circumstances
to have submitted to the will of the constituent assembly would have meant
handing over power to a counter-revolutionary minority representing the bosses
and landowners.
When Lenin was later accused by the Mensheviks and SR’s of
having no popular support, he replied ‘if you have the support of the people,
why do you need the Germans [armies] and the White Tsarist generals?’
Domenico Hill,
Bristol
|