Exactly 99 years ago, under the signature of Lenin who had returned from emigration, an article was published known as the "April Theses". For this article he was criticized and even ridiculed by his closest associates. It almost caused a split between Ilyich and other Bolsheviks, including Stalin. But how did it happen that Lenin actually foresaw the future and turned the whole revolution in the end?
Lenin's article "On the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution", better known as "April Theses", was published in the newspaper "Pravda" and literally "blew up" revolutionary Petrograd. The rival socialist parties and the Petrosovet took up arms against the leader of the Bolsheviks, the "Theses" were called "the ravings of a madman", and Lenin himself was accused of undisguised anarchism. Even in Pravda, the main publication of the RSDLP (b), the article was published not as an editorial comment, not as an approved party document or a guide to action, but as a personal point of view with a personal signature. Today it is hard to believe, but even the Bolsheviks did not support the programmatic provisions of their leader. Even Pravda, headed by the ardent revolutionaries Muranov, Stalin and Kamenev.
However, by October 1917, few could repeat with a clear conscience the characteristics of the text thrown to Lenin just six months ago.
The split of the Bolsheviks
In previous publications of the cycle "Questions of Revolution", timed to coincide with the pre-jubilee year, we have repeatedly noted how difficult and ambiguous the situation after February the socialist parties (primarily the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries) had driven themselves into, dogmatically following the provisions of Marxism and interpreting the revolution as a bourgeois revolution. … As a result, the reins of government were de jure transferred to the bourgeois Provisional Government, but it had no real levers of power - the same socialist Petrograd Soviet was operating behind it, relying on the revolutionary masses of workers and soldiers. By March, a certain status quo had been established in the country's political life, today it is called “dual power”.
The events taking place could not but affect the Bolshevik Party, which with February completely switched to a legal position, received the laurels of fighters for people's freedom due to it in full and unexpectedly found itself in the mainstream of the political process. In general, this is a serious test for any party: there is always a real danger of getting carried away by the political process, forgetting about party goals, immediately taking advantage of the fruits of the revolution, standing, if not at the helm, then next to the helm of government. In the case of the RSDLP (b), the situation was aggravated by the actual lack of leadership. Lenin was abroad, the main party leading cadres were in exile, the Russian Bureau of the RSDLP (b) was defeated, local organizations lost contact with the center and with each other.
Formally, by 1916, the Russian Bureau was nevertheless restored by Alexander Shlyapnikov - one of the best turners of St. not a politician. It was Shlyapnikov who had to determine the attitude of the party to the accomplished February revolution. It was formulated in the Manifesto of the RSDLP (b) "To all citizens of Russia": "The workers of factories and plants, as well as the insurgent troops, must immediately elect their representatives to the Provisional Revolutionary Government, which must be created under the protection of the insurgent revolutionary people and army." Then Shlyapnikov confidently followed this course - in the first seven issues of the newspaper Pravda, recreated after the revolution, the bourgeois Provisional Government that had left the Duma was condemned, the idea was expressed that it was the Soviets that should create a democratic republic.
It should be understood that the Bolsheviks who found themselves in the revolutionary maelstrom with their weak leadership were surrounded by much more authoritative and respectable representatives of other socialist parties, who were making history before our very eyes. As a result, already in March, the Petrograd Committee of the RSDLP (b) refused to support the resolution of the Russian Bureau condemning the Provisional Government and adopted its own document, which expressed support for the existing order of things. This is how dual power arose within the RSDLP (b) itself.
Additional confusion was brought about by the "old" Bolsheviks who returned from exile, members of the Central Committee of the party Stalin, Kamenev and Muranov. Under their leadership, a quiet ideological revolution took place in the editorial policy of Pravda, the newspaper began to publish materials in which one could easily see the hand of friendship extended to the socialist parties of the Petrograd Soviet. In parallel, the position previously taken in relation to the bourgeois Provisional Government was revised, it was only said about the need for control over it by the socialists. If Shlyapnikov became the antagonist of the Petrograd Soviet, then the "old" Bolsheviks were clearly going for reconciliation and was in a hurry to take their places in the new political system.
Lenin disappoints everyone
In April 1917, Lenin returned to Petrograd from emigration. A solemn welcome was prepared for the Bolshevik leader at the Finland Station. In the imperial waiting room he was greeted by the leaders of the Petrograd Soviet. Menshevik Chkheidze made a welcoming speech: “Comrade Lenin, on behalf of the Petersburg Soviet of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies and the entire revolution, we welcome you to Russia. We believe that the main task of revolutionary democracy is now to protect our revolution from all encroachments on it, both from within and from without. We believe that for this purpose it is necessary not to disunite, but to unite the ranks of all democracy. We hope that you and us will pursue these goals."
The delegates greeted the ally, clearly hoping that all previous disagreements had been removed by the very fact of the accomplished bourgeois revolution. The tone of Pravda of the last few days gave every reason for this. Lenin, turning his back on the delegation, addressed the crowd gathered in the square with an answer through the window: “Dear comrades, soldiers, sailors and workers! I am happy to greet in your person the victorious Russian revolution, to greet you as the vanguard of the world proletarian army … The plundering imperialist war is the beginning of a civil war throughout Europe … The hour is not far off when the peoples will turn their weapons against their exploiters-capitalists … The dawn of the world socialist revolution has already begun … Everything is boiling in Germany … Not today - tomorrow, every day the collapse of the entire European imperialism may break out. The Russian revolution, accomplished by you, laid the foundation for it and opened a new era. Long live the world socialist revolution!"
Keywords: Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, history of Russia, history of the USSR, memorable dates, February revolution, issues of revolution
Lenin's speech made a shocking impression on the representatives of the Petrograd Soviet. There was not a word in it about the vital, as they saw them, problems, the question of power was not touched upon, there were no hints of a possible unification of socialist forces. Lenin spoke of a socialist revolution, the premises of which, in his opinion, were ripening in Europe, while the majority of the Soviet thought in terms of the bourgeois revolution and its place in it. “The entire 'context' of our revolution was telling Lenin about Foma, and he, right from the window of his sealed carriage, without asking anyone, listening to no one, blurted out about Yerema,” the delegate of the Executive Committee of the Soviet, the Menshevik Sukhanov, described his impressions.
In the evening of the same day, at the Bolshevik headquarters in the Kshesinskaya mansion, Lenin first spoke to the party members with the April Theses. Trotsky recalled: “Lenin's theses were published on his own, and only on his behalf. The party headquarters greeted them with hostility that was softened only by bewilderment. Nobody - not an organization, not a group, not an individual - added their signature to them."
The Theses were received even more sharply at a joint meeting of the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks - delegates to the All-Russian Conference of Soviets of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies. The meeting was conceived almost as a unification congress; Lenin's speech violated all seemingly ready-to-implement plans. Those gathered in the hall of the Tauride Palace were in shock. A member of the Executive Committee of the Soviet, the Menshevik Bogdanov shouted in anger: “This is nonsense, this is the nonsense of a madman! It's a shame to applaud this rubbish, you dishonor yourself! Marxists!"
The Menshevik Tsereteli, a member of the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet, volunteered to object to Lenin, accusing the Bolshevik leader of a new attempt to split the RSDLP. The speaker was supported by a large majority of the assembly, including many Bolsheviks. In subsequent speeches, much was said about the fact that Lenin's theses were overt anarchism. In turn, the Bolshevik Steklov, who took the floor, said: “Lenin's speech consists of some abstract constructions proving that the Russian revolution passed him by. After Lenin gets acquainted with the state of affairs in Russia, he himself will abandon all his constructions."
Sukhanov recalled: “Real, factional Bolsheviks also did not hesitate, at least in private behind-the-scenes conversations, to talk about Lenin's“abstractness”. And one expressed himself even in the sense that Lenin's speech did not generate or deepen, but, on the contrary, destroyed the differences among the Social Democrats, because there can be no disagreements between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks regarding the Leninist position."
Unheard of revolution
What did Lenin say so blatantly? The coming to power of the bourgeoisie, in his words, became possible due to "insufficient consciousness and organization of the proletariat." But this shortcoming can be corrected: "The peculiarity of the current moment in Russia consists in the transition from the first stage of the revolution, which gave power to the bourgeoisie, to its second stage, which should place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest strata of the peasantry."
According to Lenin, it is impossible to provide "any support to the Provisional Government", since it is inconceivable "that this government, the government of the capitalists, should cease to be imperialist." According to Lenin, it was necessary to "explain to the masses" that the Soviet of Workers' Deputies "is the only possible form of a revolutionary government." "Not a parliamentary republic," he said, "a return to it from SRD would be a step back, but a republic of Soviets of Workers', Agricultural Laborers' and Peasants' Deputies throughout the country, from top to bottom."
The leader of the Bolsheviks, it turned out, contrary to Marxism, denied the bourgeois character of the revolution, rejected the gradual change of formations, ignored everything that had been done by the revolutionary socialists of the Petrograd Soviet by that time, refused to trust the Provisional Government, did not recognize that the next logical stage in the historical development of Russia should be a parliamentary republic modeled on the parliamentary republics of bourgeois European states. He called for the Soviets to power!
The revolutionary socialists themselves at that time perceived the Soviets, on the one hand, as sectoral self-organization (Soviets of factories, branches - for example, railway transport, more broadly - Soviets of workers, Soviets of peasants) - and Lenin, it turns out, took the position of anarcho-syndicalism. On the other hand, as a manifestation of ochlocracy, in this case, too, Lenin took the position of pure anarchism. In any case, in the opinion of the majority of the Petrosovet, these theses really had nothing to do with Marxism and were outright nonsense.
Another question is that the entire political situation that has developed in Russia after the February Revolution can be called frankly delusional. The system of power that the Petrosovet tried to build ideally corresponded to Marxist dogma, but obviously contradicted the nature of what was happening. The bourgeoisie did not lead the revolutionary masses, and it was not particularly eager for power either. And among the workers, soldiers, the overwhelming majority of the peasantry, socialist ideas dominated. Finally, the Soviets, as an alternative to the tsarist system of self-organization and management, originated and became stronger during the 1905 Revolution. And massively revived in Russia after February.
By the fall of 1917, 1,429 Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, 33 Soviets of Soldiers' Deputies, 455 Soviets of Peasants' Deputies were operating in the country. There were provincial, uyezd, volost Soviets of Peasant Deputies, at the front, the functions of Soviets were performed by regimental, divisional, corps, army, frontline and other Soldiers' committees. It was a real system that emerged from below, with its own self-formed structure and hierarchy. It was possible to ignore it only if one got entangled in one's own ideological constructions.
With his April Theses, Lenin did not so much move away from Marxism as he poked his socialist colleagues at this painful point. However, the Petrosoviet never found ways to resolve the problem up to the October Revolution, when the power of the Soviets was proclaimed by the II All-Russian Congress of Soviets.
