Lenin: A Revolutionary Life (11 page)

the same lines. Its leaders were the ones who created the ‘magnificent

organization’. [SW 1 208]

For all these reasons we would have to conclude that Lenin was not yet stepping over the boundaries already set by Social Democracy. His thoughts on how to operate under tsarist conditions were no more than common sense. The problems began to arise when the culture of centralization and secrecy inculcated by autocratic conditions became a habit which could not be shaken off even when the conditions no longer prevailed.

Before leaving this most important of Lenin’s formative writings there are two other points we need to take note of. Although the issue of consciousness was raised, the full implications were yet to work themselves out. In particular, there was very little on exactly what ‘Marxist’, ‘proletarian’ or ‘revolutionary’ consciousness consisted of. What was permitted, what was not? What were the precise features of ‘advanced’ consciousness among Party members? These, at various times, became contentious issues and we will have to return to them. Consciousness is one of the most potent of Leninist concepts and has often been underestimated as a foundation of much of his thinking. Throughout his life propaganda and persuasion were the instruments which would ‘raise’ the consciousness of sceptics and bring them into agreement with Lenin. In the end, the revolution would stand or fall according to the degree to which this could be successfully achieved. He had no mechanism to deal with the possibility that the result of raising workers’ consciousness could have any other outcome.

Finally, we have noted that the differences over which the polemic was conducted were infinitely small compared to the common ground between both sides and that the actual written formulations were only part of the battle. Like any politician, Lenin had become entangled in a party discourse. The Economists were identified as opponents; the sniping had been going on for years; whatever they said had to be combated not always because of what it meant but because of perceived implications or subtext. Such arguments crop up with increasing frequency in the next phase of Lenin’s life but none is more crucial than the upcoming debates which led to the fateful split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Here too, paper formulations do not seem enough to warrant the polemical energies they apparently unleashed. Once again, subtexts, discourse, supposed implications and even personal antagonisms are more important than written texts. With this in mind let us turn to the next step in the emergence of Lenin and Leninism.

THE SPLIT IN THE PARTY

The formal story of the split at the Party Congress is simple enough and has often been told. The Party was in a general state of flux, uncertain of its theory, its immediate political programme, its organization and its membership. The founding conference in Minsk in 1898 had been an ephemeral affair bequeathing a programme and a name, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, but little else. It was decided that the time had come to organize the Party more comprehensively. Its rivals, the populists, had formed the Socialist Revolutionary Party in 1901 and the liberals were moving towards what eventually became the Constitutional Democratic (Kadet) Party. Things were on the move in Russian politics and it was time for the social democrats to join in. The Second Party Congress, called to assemble in Brussels, was, in effect, intended to be the founding congress of a properly constituted Social Democratic Party. The Congress convened secretly in a former warehouse in Brussels on 30 July 1903. It was discovered by the police on 6 August and it was decided to decamp en masse to London. After crossing the Channel from Ostend, still arguing, the delegates reformed in a Congregationalist church in Southgate Road, north London, which was run by a committed socialist. It continued until 23 August.

All the factions we have been discussing –
Iskra
,
Zarya
and the Economists – were present. One other significant group was the Jewish Workers’ Party, the Bund, which was strong in western Russia for the obvious reason that that was the area in which most Jews lived. There were 43 voting delegates with 51 votes altogether and 14 consultative delegates allowed to speak but not vote.
Iskra/Zarya
had 27 delegates with 33 votes, obviously a comfortable majority. There were seven Economists, five Bund delegates and four undecided. After preliminary discussion about a Party programme the Congress, now in London, moved on to the Party constitution. It was over the very first paragraph, defining a Party member, that the first major clash occurred on 15 August. After initially agreeing, the
Iskra
group then split. Martov wanted a broad definition of Party membership, namely that someone ‘who regularly supports one of its organizations’ should be deemed a member. Lenin wanted a narrower formula. A member should engage ‘in personal work in one of the party organizations’. Martov was prepared to accept supporters, Lenin wanted only activists. Lenin’s formulation lost by 28 votes to 23. Martov’s majority included the votes of the Bund and the Economists. The
Iskra
group split. 19 voted for Lenin, 14 for Martov. When, on 18 August, two Economists and the Bund left the congress the power balance shifted. As well as his majority of
Iskra
delegates Lenin had a majority of congress delegates, 24 to 20 supporting Martovites. It was from this ‘majority’ (
bol’shinstvo
in Russian) that the terms Bolshevik and Menshevik (
menshinstvo
– minority) were eventually to derive, though for the time being the simple terms majority and minority were used. In final elections to the Central Committee, the leading body of the Party between congresses, and to the editorial board of
Iskra
, Lenin’s candidates predominated, not least because Plekhanov still supported him. Martov was elected to the
Iskra
board but refused to serve as token oppositionist to a Lenin/Plekhanov majority. Having completed its work, the congress broke up. On 24 August many of the delegates visited Karl Marx’s grave in Highgate Cemetery and then dispersed.

The formal story, however, conceals more than it reveals. From our point of view, the crucial and controversial question is not so much what happened at the congress, rather it is how did Lenin achieve his objectives? On the one hand, his opponents accused him of a ruthless, almost Machiavellian, pursuit of success. To his defenders it was a great moment, the emergence of a single-minded, determined Lenin armed with correct tactics he would not see compromised establishing the basis of a movement that was eventually to sweep him into power and control half the planet.

It cannot be doubted that Lenin’s behaviour was at times boorish in the extreme. His intensity led him into almost frenzied interventions. Indeed, he later admitted as much in a letter to Potresov of 13 September. He wrote that he had ‘often behaved and acted in a state of frightful irritation, frenziedly’ and was even prepared to admit to ‘this
fault of mine
’. [CW 34 164] He was not, however, prepared to accept that any of the congress decisions he had forced through were wrong. The congress had seen a new side of Lenin, the ruthless, stop-at-nothing side. He had not hesitated to split the movement though he does not appear to have foreseen the development coming. It also showed the side of his personality that was prepared to sacrifice anything if political necessity demanded it, in this case the relationship with his close friend Martov.

Lenin appeared to be riding high as the congress broke up. He had established himself as second in the Party pecking order to the venerable Plekhanov and, in practice, as the most active and, apparently de facto, leader. Plekhanov was almost a symbolic chairman, Lenin a hands-on chief executive. In fact, however, appearances were deceptive. Plekhanov was no extinct volcano and he was at pains to try to reverse the split that had taken place. After all the Party did not have resources to squander. In Plekhanov’s eyes the Martovites were first-rate Marxists and revolutionaries who must be brought back into the fold. Lenin, however, was determined that the decisions made should be upheld. His stubbornness appeared to have brought his own downfall. His refusal to compromise risked making him an outcast.

Almost all the main protagonists seemed to feel that the acrimonious falling-out at the congress was really just an incident which could be patched up. For a year or so afterwards an elaborate chess game of political relationships was conducted. In September and October 1903 Lenin and Plekhanov tried to reach agreement with Martov. However, in late October and November, when progress was being made, it was Lenin who dug his heels in. He complained to Plekhanov, resigned from the Party Council and urged Plekhanov: ‘do not give everything away to the Martovites.’ [CW 34 185] In his resignation letter he stated ‘I by no means refuse to support the new central Party institutions by my work to the best of my ability.’ [CW 7 91] On 4 November he complained to a friend that Plekhanov had ‘cruelly and shamefully let me down’ and that ‘the situation is desperate’. On 6 November it was Lenin who resigned from the editorial board of
Iskra
, a painful wrench after he had done so much for the newspaper. From that point on Plekhanov sided with the Mensheviks. Lenin for the time being led the Central Committee but the Mensheviks controlled the newspaper, the key to the Party. A bitter struggle between the factions continued. Without money, resources or influence he was forced to remake his career and, eventually, build, in Bolshevism, a personally loyal instrument which, he hoped, would never let him down.

The previous chapters have shown how, by 1904, Lenin had almost con
structed himself from the raw material of his younger self, Volodya. The next step was to forge a party in his own, self-made likeness.

FAMILY LIFE 1903–4: FROM LONDON TO GENEVA

The struggles of 1903
–
4 had, as we would expect, taken their toll on Lenin’s often delicate health. However, he had come through. Despite the energy-sapping background of the constant bickering in the Party the Ulyanovs continued to lead a full and, often, happy life in exile. Early in 1903, just a few weeks before they left London, Nadezhda Krupskaya continued to write about their diversions to Lenin’s mother: ‘You will probably think that we have no amusements here at all but we go somewhere almost every evening; we have been to the German theatre a number of times and to concerts, and we study the people and the local way of life. It is easier to observe here than anywhere else. Volodya is very keen on these observations and gets as enthusiastic about them as about everything he does.’ [CW 37 606]

At the time Krupskaya wrote this letter Lenin was away lecturing in Paris. He spent more and more of his time travelling in western Europe giving lectures to intellectual audiences and occasionally addressing workers’ meetings. His main activity, however, remained editorial work, at that time on
Iskra
. He and Martov wrote much of the contents, often under a variety of pseudonyms. Lenin also had major responsibilities for seeing successive issues through the press. The pattern of spending most of his time on journalism continued right up until the outbreak of the war in 1914. Indeed, at times, Lenin accurately described himself on official documents as a journalist. A succession of papers and journals, especially
Iskra
,
Vpered
,
Proletarii
and eventually
Pravda
, occupied the core of Lenin’s life in the exile years. He wrote an astonishing number of articles for his journals. The first issue of
Vpered
appeared in January 1905, the last, the eighteenth, in May. In all Lenin contributed forty articles to it. It was replaced by
Proletarii
(
Proletarians
)
.
From May to his return to Russia in November, he spent three days a week working on it. He contributed ninety articles to its twenty-six issues. In the short time between his return to Russia and the closure of Gorky’s paper,
Novaia zhizn’
(
New Life
), in December he had contributed twenty articles. His style, however, was less extraordinary. Typically there would be an acutely observed, often polemical, central point to his articles but there was no subtlety of argument or style. The point would be rammed home through invective, sarcasm, repetition and padding apparently aimed at filling the pages of the journals rather than adding to the argument. His journalism was more akin to the bludgeon than the rapier. It is hard to say what effect it had on his readers. His articles are often hard to read and were clearly aimed at an intellectual rather than mass audience. He had little gift for directly propagandizing his ideas to the masses. Nonetheless, journalism remained the focus of his life. For Lenin, being a professional revolutionary was more or less synonymous with being, like his mentor Karl Marx, a professional political analyst and commentator.

There were, none the less, still possibilities for extensive recreation. Returning to Geneva unwillingly in May 1903, Vladimir and Nadezhda took frequent trips to the mountains which they loved. In January 1904 they had ‘a wonderful outing to Salève. … Down below, in Geneva, it was all mist and gloom, but up on the mountain … there was glorious sunshine, snow, tobogganing – altogether a good Russian winter’s day.’ [CW 37 359] In summer they spent four weeks backpacking including a week in Lausanne and mountain walks near Montreux. Lenin signed a postcard to his mother ‘from the tramps’. [CW 37 363] Krupskaya wrote ‘The new impressions, the natural tiredness and the healthy sleep had a healthy effect on Vladimir Il’ich. His thoughts, his joie de vivre, his good humour returned.’ Politics still intruded, however. Krupskaya’s account of the idyll concludes: ‘We spent August near Lac de Brêt where Vladimir Il’ich and Bogdanov drafted the plan for the continuation of the struggle against the Mensheviks.’ [Weber 38] The Ulyanovs also continued their cultural pursuits while living in Geneva, Krupskaya noting that in late 1904 they attended a performance of
La Dame aux Camelias
the cast of which included Sarah Bernhardt. [Weber 40]

Lenin’s life continued to be balanced between writing, intriguing and relaxing. Among the forces which sustained him, especially in demanding times like those of 1903
–
5, was the support of his natural family and of his supporters and friends who made a kind of second family. The latter differed from the former in that those who made it up were constantly changing according to the alliances of the day. At one point, Lenin had been particularly close to Martov, the only comrade with whom he communicated at this time using the familiar form ‘
ty
’ rather than the formal ‘
vy
’ but he did not hesitate to break with him in 1903 when it appeared to be necessary. Similarly, Bogdanov, his companion in mountain walks and discussions, was eventually expelled from the little community. Lenin never allowed sentiment to stand in the way of his political principles. He might have been a better, more empathic leader had he done so, but firmness of will was the fashion of that, and many other, times.

However, the one unshifting support mechanism was that of his family, including Krupskaya who occupied a curious role of lover, wife, secretary and, at times, almost an extra sister. It was often Krupskaya who kept Lenin’s mother and brother and sisters informed of their doings. Indeed, the collective radical commitment of all the Ulyanov siblings is remarkable. Far from being an isolated renegade, as he is sometimes portrayed, Lenin remained the darling of his mother, whose affection Lenin constantly and fulsomely returned, and the favourite of his sisters and brother who all, to a greater or lesser degree, shared his political commitment. The Ulyanovs were an extraordinary revolutionary family. It was not simply that Alexander’s execution marked them out. Many other families of convicted political prisoners distanced themselves from or even disowned their radical family member but Lenin’s brother and sisters actively embraced the struggle against tsarism in varying ways. The depth of their commitment, and of Lenin’s bond with them, was made manifest in late 1903 and early 1904 when Lenin and Krupskaya learned that his brother Dmitrii and sisters Anna and Maria had all been arrested in Kiev. Krupskaya wrote to her mother-in-law that the news ‘came as a great shock to us – and it is so sad’. In any case, she wrote, ‘We are not living too well in Geneva; Mother is often poorly. We feel unsettled somehow and the work goes badly.’ [CW 37 607] Only Lenin’s mother remained outside political activity but she still remained the much-loved head of the family whom Anna, in particular, took care of and who was well looked after by all her children. They brought her on holiday to France and elsewhere and she kept in touch with all of them. Without doubt, the Ulyanovs were a close-knit and extraordinary family.

THE INTENSIFICATION OF THE PARTY STRUGGLE

Without such support the years of bitter struggle would have been even harder for Lenin. The Second Congress did not forestall further discussion. Far from it. The dispute became generalized. Alliances came and went. Issues rose and disappeared. Tempers were pushed to the limit and beyond. To the outsider, real differences still seemed minimal compared to the immense acres of common ground between the contending parties. Principles continued to be bound up in personality clashes and no overall, universally respected, mediating force emerged. Instead, the debate went on and on.

How can we best understand the arguments in the years from 1903 to 1905 and beyond? Simply following the ins and outs would be confusing not to mention tedious. From our point of view, the main contours are the most important. The fundamental point underlying the debate was that Lenin, and his supporters, were more determined than ever to defend a truly revolutionary policy and were mainly afraid that any loosening of revolutionary commitment would eventually lead to the abandonment of revolutionary principles and the adoption of a never-ending reformism. To prevent this Lenin opposed what he saw as the slightest compromise over basic principles. Indeed, his position hardened between 1902 and 1904 so that what had been consensual in 1902 – his attack on the Economists – had become more specifically ‘Bolshevik’ in that the notion of the vanguard, elite party was becoming increasingly divisive. As time went by Lenin was carving out a more and more radical and solitary path.

Why? It is far from easy to answer this question. Indeed, in many ways, it is the central question about Lenin. How did he come to believe so strongly in himself? Why did he take such a strong, revolutionary line? Why was his position hardening at this point?

Lenin, more than most of his opponents, believed in the imminent collapse of capitalism, providing the revolutionaries played their part. To his opponents, this was utopian. Capitalism around 1900 seemed secure. Globalization, in the form of the New Imperialism, was rampant. Africa had been swallowed up by competing colonizers. In 1900 London controlled the main financial and political tentacles which reached around the globe. Economies were expanding. Thanks to resistance movements – trades unions above all and political pressure groups

– living standards and civil and political rights were expanding. Far from polarizing society into rich and poor a broad, prosperous lower middle class was forming. Workers were carving out decent lives for themselves, especially if they had skills. Of course there remained many social problems including a vast underclass of, often, migrant unskilled labour and extreme exploitation in the colonies, but there could be no doubt that capitalism, far from being in crisis, appeared to be expanding without any sign of limits. It was an expansion in which broad sectors of the European population were participating. It was exactly such phenomena which had led Bernstein to his revisionist position in the first place. In practice, Bernsteinian conceptions were seeping into the social-democratic movement. Lenin was determined to resist them. Over the next phase of his intellectual development he had to give his answer to the question of why, in his view, capitalism, none the less, appeared to be unstable. However, this was not in the forefront of his mind at this time.

Many observers have attributed Lenin’s revolutionary intransigence to the execution of his brother which, they claim, had made him implacable and vengeful. However, as we have seen, Lenin had not been the isolated fanatic that such authors suggest. Before 1903 he had, by and large, maintained friendly and warm relations with the rest of the movement and been a psychologically balanced individual with no obvious traumas. While the execution of his brother certainly had considerable significance, to help understand the growing rift other points need to be weighed up. First, as Lenin matured his convictions also became more sharply defined. He had, as it were, gone from a learning stage, in which they developed, to a teaching stage in which they should be spread and implemented, not to mention defended, with full force. It is also apparent that opposition to his proposals brought out the worst in Lenin. It made him ill. It made him, as he recognized himself, overly insistent and even, in his own word, ‘frenzied’ as we have seen. [CW 34 164] He became excessively abusive and caused ruptures in his personal relationships with opponents. Such was the depth of his commitment to his ideas and his frustration with opposition that he became less and less courteous towards his opponents. Sometimes, if his interests demanded that there should be no break, for instance with Gorky whose financial support was essential, he could sometimes bite his tongue and tone down the vitriol. However, these were exceptions to the rule. He had become a determined conviction politician.

On the face of it, Lenin’s opponents appeared to be correct. Capitalism was an ever-expanding and increasingly stable juggernaut that seemed unlikely to be brought down in the near future. However, events were, to some extent, favouring him in that, in Russia, revolution was just around the corner and Lenin was to throw himself into it with increasing enthusiasm and optimism. The events of 1905 were to lead him to urge the workers of Moscow into a hopeless conflict with the authorities. Ironically, the inevitable failure of the uprising was to cause Lenin himself to tone down his revolutionary expectations. With these considerations in mind, let us look more closely at Lenin’s work in the exciting period of revolution and the longer, more energy-and morale-sapping years of post-revolutionary defeat and endless Party squabbling.

ONE STEP FORWARD OR TWO STEPS BACK?

The hardening of Lenin’s position after the Second Congress first became apparent, as far as his published writings are concerned, in his
Letter to a Comrade on Our Organizational Tasks
, written in mid-September 1903. Lenin’s key phrase was that a ‘disciplined party of struggle’ was needed. His pamphlet circulated widely in Russia in a sort of
samizdat
(self-published) form and was then published as a pamphlet in both Russia and Geneva in January 1904. However, his main declaration of new principles came in the more extensive
One Step Forward: Two Steps Back – The Crisis in Our Party
which appeared in March 1904. It is actually longer than the much better known
What is to be Done?
and could be said to contain many of the propositions which are harder to find in the earlier pamphlet.

One Step Forward: Two Steps Back
is an unusual piece of work. It is a detailed commentary, from Lenin’s perspective, on the minutes of the Second Congress. It goes, issue by issue, through the debates and resolutions of the Congress. It maintains a high level of vitriolic energy towards Lenin’s increasing band of opponents. The excruciating detail, the childishly sustained heavy sarcasm and the difficulty of reviving the context in which it was produced make it a very difficult and unprepossessing item to read today. Lenin’s words that it will only be the occasional reader who will have ‘the patience to read’ the whole or some of his opponents’ writings could apply to readers of Lenin’s pamphlet also. [SW 1 298] Its importance lies in the fact that it appears to tighten up the looser concepts of
What is to be Done?