Reply to S. Pokrovsky

I think that your letter of May 2 of this year provides neither occasion nor grounds for a reply in detail, point by point, so to speak.

As a matter of fact, it offers nothing particularly new as compared with Yan-sky’s letter.

If, nevertheless, I am replying to your letter it is because it contains certain elements of a direct revival of Kamenev’s ideas of the period of April-May 1917. It is only in order to expose these elements of a revival of Kamenev’s ideas that I consider it necessary to reply briefly to your letter.

1) You say in your letter that “in fact, in the period from February to October we had the slogan of alliance with the whole of the peasantry,” that “in the period from February to October the Party upheld and defended its old slogan in relation to the peasantry—alliance with the whole peasantry.”

It follows, firstly, that in the period of preparation for October (April-October 1917) the Bolsheviks did not set themselves the task of drawing a demarcation line between the poor peasants and the well-to-do peasants, but treated the peasantry as an integral whole.

It follows, secondly, that in the period of preparation for October the Bolsheviks did not replace the old slogan, “Dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry,” by a new slogan, “Dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry,” but maintained the old position laid down in Lenin’s pamphlet Two Tactics in 1905. It follows, thirdly, that the Bolshevik policy of combating the vacillations and compromising policy of the Soviets in the period of preparation for October (March-October 1917), the vacillations of the middle peasantry in the Soviets and at the front, the vacillations between revolution and counter-revolution, the vacillations and compromising policy which assumed a particularly acute character in the July days, when the Soviets, headed by the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik compromisers, joined hands with the counter-revolutionary generals in the attempt to isolate the Bolsheviks—it appears that the Bolshevik fight against these vacillations and the compromising policy of certain strata of the peasantry was pointless and absolutely unnecessary. It follows, finally, that Kamenev was right when, in April May 1917, he defended the old slogan of dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, while Lenin, who regarded this slogan as already out-of-date and who proclaimed the new slogan of dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry, was wrong. One need only raise these issues to realise the utter absurdity of your letter as a whole.

But since you are very fond of isolated quotations from Lenin’s works, let us turn to quotations. It does not require much effort to prove that what

Lenin regarded as new in the agrarian relations in Russia after the February Revolution, from the point of view of the further development of the revolution, was not a community of interests of the proletariat and the peasantry as a whole, but the cleavage between the poor peasantry and the well-to-do peasantry, of whom the former, i.e., the poor peasantry, gravitated towards the proletariat, whereas the latter, i.e., the well-to-do peasantry, followed the Provisional Government. Here is what Lenin said on this score in April 1917, in his polemic against Kamenev and Kamenev’s ideas:

“It would be impermissible for the proletarian party now* to place hopes in a community of interests with the peasantry” (see Lenin’s speech at the April Conference, 1917, Vol. XX, p. 245).

Further:

“Already we can discern in the decisions of a number of peasant congresses the idea of postponing the solution of the agrarian question until the Constituent Assembly; this represents a victory for the well-to-do peasantry,* which inclines towards the Cadets” (see Lenin’s speech at the Petrograd City Conference, April 1917, Vol. XX, p. 176).

Further:

“It is possible that the peasantry may seize all the land and the entire power. Far from forgetting this possibility, far from limiting my outlook to the present day alone, I definitely and clearly formulate the agrarian programme, taking into account the new phenomenon, i.e., the deeper cleavage* between the agricultural labourers and poor peasants on the one hand, and the prosperous peasants on the other” (see Lenin’s article written in April, “Letters on Tactics,” Vol. XX, p. 103). That is what Lenin regarded as new and important in the new situation in the countryside after the February Revolution.

That was Lenin’s starting point in shaping the Party’s policy in the period after February 1917. That thesis was Lenin’s starting point when, at the Petrograd City Conference in April 1917, he said: “It was only here, on the spot, that we learned that the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies had surrendered its power to the Provisional Government. The Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies represents the realisation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and soldiers; among the latter, the majority are peasants. This is the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. But this ‘dictatorship’ has entered into an agreement with the bourgeoisie. And it is here that a revision of the ‘old’ Bolshevism is needed”* (see Vol. XX, p. 176).

That thesis also was Lenin’s starting point when, in April 1917, he wrote:

“Whoever speaks now only of a ‘revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’ is behind the times, has consequently in fact gone over to the side of the petty bourgeoisie against the proletarian class struggle. He deserves to be consigned to the archive of ‘Bolshevik’ pre-revolutionary antiques (which might be called the archive of ‘Old Bolsheviks’)” (see Vol. XX, p. 101).

It was on this basis that there arose the slogan of dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry in place of the old slogan of dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.

You may say, as indeed you do in your letter, that this is a Trotskyite skipping over of the still uncompleted peasant revolution; but that would be just as convincing as the similar objection which Kamenev raised against Lenin in April 1917.

Lenin took this objection fully into account when he said:

“Trotskyism says: ‘No tsar, but a workers’ government.’ That is incorrect. The petty bourgeoisie exists, and it cannot be left out of account. But it consists of two sections. The poorer* section follows the working class” (see Vol. XX, p. 182). Kamenev’s error, and now yours, consists in the inability to discern and emphasise the difference between the two sections of the petty bourgeoisie, in this case the peasantry; in the inability to single out the poor section of the peasantry from the mass of the peasantry as a whole, and on that basis to shape the Party’s policy in the situation of the transition from the first stage of the revolution in 1917 to its second stage, in the inability to deduce from this the new slogan, the Party’s second strategic slogan, concerning the dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry.

Let us trace in consecutive order in Lenin’s works the practical history of the slogan “Dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry” from April to October 1917.

* My italics.—J. St.

April 1917:

“The specific feature of the present situation in Russia consists in the transition from the first* stage of the revolution—which, owing to the insufficient class consciousness and organisation of the proletariat, placed the power in the hands of the bourgeoisie—to the second stage, which must place the power in the hands of the proletariat and the “poor strata of the peasantry*” (see Lenin’s April Theses, Vol. XX, p. 88). July 1917:

“Only the revolutionary workers, if they are supported by the poor peasants,* are capable of smashing the resistance of the capitalists and leading the people to win the land without compensation, to complete freedom, to victory over famine, to victory over war, and to a just and lasting peace” (see Vol. XXI, p. 77). August 1917:

“Only the proletariat, leading the poor peasantry* (the semiproletarians, as our programme says), can end the war by a democratic peace, heal the wounds it has caused, and begin to take steps towards socialism, which have become absolutely essential and urgent—such is the definition of our class policy now” (see Vol. XXI, p. 111).

September 1917:

“Only a dictatorship of the proletarians and the poor peasants* is capable of smashing the resistance of the capitalists, of displaying really supreme courage and determination in the exercise of power, and of securing the enthusiastic, selfless and truly heroic support of the masses both in the army and among the peasantry” (see Vol. XXI, p. 147).

September-October 1917, the pamphlet Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?, in which Lenin, in controversy with Novaya Zhizn,63 says:

* My italics.—J. St.

“Either* all power to the bourgeoisie—which you have long ceased to advocate, and which the bourgeoisie itself dare not even hint at, for it knows that already on April 20-21 the people overthrew that power with one heave of the shoulder, and would overthrow it now with thrice that determination and ruthlessness. Or* power to the petty bourgeoisie, i.e., a coalition (alliance, agreement) between it and the bourgeoisie, for the petty bourgeoisie does not wish to and cannot take power alone and independently, as has been proved by the experience of all revolutions, and as is proved by economic science, which explains that in a capitalist country it is possible to stand for capital and it is possible to stand for labour, but it is impossible to stand in between. In Russia this coalition has for six months tried scores of ways but failed. Or,* finally, all power to the proletarians and the poor peasants* against the bourgeoisie in order to break its resistance. This has not yet been tried, and you, gentlemen of Novaya Zhizn, are dissuading the people from this, trying to frighten them with your own fear of the bourgeoisie. No fourth way can be invented” (see Vol. XXI, p. 275).

Such are the facts.

You “successfully” evade all these facts and events in the history of the preparation for October; you “successfully” erase from the history of Bolshevism the struggle waged by the Bolsheviks in the period of preparation for October against the vacillations and the compromising policy of the “prosperous peasants” who were in the Soviets at that time; you “successfully” bury Lenin’s slogan of dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry, and at the same time imagine that this is not to do violence to history, to Leninism.

From these quotations, which could be multiplied, you must see that the Bolsheviks took as their starting point after February 1917 not the peasantry as a whole, but the poor section of the peasantry; that they marched towards October not under the old slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, but under the new slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry.

From this it is evident that the Bolsheviks put this slogan into effect in a fight against the vacillations and compromising policy of the Soviets, against the vacillations and compromising policy of a certain section of the peasantry inside the Soviets, against the vacillations and compromising policy of certain parties representing petty-bourgeois democracy and known as Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. From this it is evident that without the new slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry we would have been unable to assemble a sufficiently powerful political army, one capable of overcoming the compromising policy of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks, of neutralising the vacillations of a certain section of the peasantry, of overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie, and of thus making it possible to carry the bourgeois revolution to completion. From this it is evident that “we marched towards October and achieved victory in October together with the poor peasantry against the resistance of the kulaks (also peasants) and with the middle peasantry vacillating” (see my reply to Yan-sky*). Thus, it follows that in April 1917, as also during the whole period of preparation for October, it was

* See this volume, pp. 218-19.—Ed.

Lenin who was right, and not Kamenev; and you, by now reviving Kamenev’s ideas, seem to be getting into not very good company.

2) As against all that has been said above you quote Lenin’s words to the effect that in October 1917 we took power with the support of the peasantry as a whole. That we took power with a certain amount of support from the peasantry as a whole is quite true. But you forgot to add a “detail,” namely, that the peasantry as a whole supported us in October, and after October, only in so far as we carried the bourgeois revolution to completion. That is a very important “detail,” which in the present instance settles the issue. To “forget” such an important “detail” and thus slur over a most important issue is impermissible for a Bolshevik.

From your letter it is evident that you counterpose what Lenin said about the support of the peasantry as a whole to the Party’s slogan of “Dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry,” which was also advanced by Lenin. But in order to counterpose these words of Lenin to the previous quotations from the works of Lenin, in order to have grounds for refuting the previous quotations from Lenin on the slogan of dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry by the words you quote from Lenin about the peasantry as a whole, two things, at least, must be proved.

Firstly. It must be proved that the completion of the bourgeois revolution was the main thing in the October Revolution. Lenin considered that the completion of the bourgeois revolution was a “by-product” of the October Revolution, which fulfilled this task “in passing.” You must first of all refute this thesis of Lenin’s and prove that the main thing in the October Revolution was not the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the transfer of power to the proletariat, but the completion of the bourgeois revolution. Try to prove that, and if you do I shall be ready to admit that from April to October 1917 the Party’s slogan was not the dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry, but the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. From your letter it is evident that you do not think it possible to undertake this more than risky task; you try, however, to prove “in passing” that on one of the most important questions of the October Revolution, the question of peace, we were supported by all the peasantry as a whole. That, of course, is untrue. It is quite untrue. On the question of peace you have slipped into the viewpoint of the philistine. As a matter of fact the question of peace was for us at that time a question of power, for only with the transfer of power to the proletariat could we count on extricating ourselves from the imperialist war.

You must have forgotten Lenin’s words, that “the only way to stop the war is by the transfer of power to another class,” and that “‘Down with the war’ does not mean flinging away your bayonets. It means the transfer of power to another class” (see Lenin’s speech at the Petrograd City Conference, April 1917, Vol. XX, pp. 181 and 178).

Thus, one thing or the other: either you must prove that the main thing in the October Revolution was the completion of the bourgeois revolution, or you cannot prove it; in the latter case the obvious conclusion is that the peasantry as a whole could support us in
October only in so far as we carried the bourgeois revolution to completion, doing away with the monarchy, and with the property and regime of the landlords. Secondly. You must prove that the Bolsheviks could have secured the support of the peasantry as a whole in October and after October, in so far as they carried the bourgeois revolution to completion, without systematically putting into effect the slogan of dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry during the whole period of preparation for October; without a systematic struggle, arising from this slogan, against the compromising policy of the petty-bourgeois parties; without a systematic exposure, arising from the same slogan, of the vacillations of certain strata of the peasantry and of their representatives in the Soviets.

Try to prove that. In point of fact, why did we succeed in securing the support of the peasantry as a whole in October and after October? Because we had the possibility of carrying the bourgeois revolution to completion. Why did we have that possibility? Because we succeeded in overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie and replacing it by the power of the proletariat, which alone is able to carry the bourgeois revolution to completion. Why did we succeed in overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie and establishing the power of the proletariat? Because we prepared for October under the slogan of dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry; because, proceeding from this slogan, we waged a systematic struggle against the compromising policy of the petty-bourgeois parties; because, proceeding from this slogan, we waged a systematic struggle against the vacillations of the middle peasantry in the Soviets; because only with such a slogan could we overcome the vacillations of the middle peasant, defeat the compromising policy of the petty-bourgeois parties, and rally a political army capable of waging the struggle for the transfer of power to the proletariat.

It scarcely needs proof that without these preliminary conditions, which determined the fate of the October Revolution, we could not have won the support of the peasantry as a whole for the task of completing the bourgeois revolution, either in October or after October.

That is how the combination of peasant wars with the proletarian revolution should be understood. That is why to counterpose the support of the peasantry as a whole in October and after October as regards completing the bourgeois revolution to the fact that the preparation for the October Revolution under the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry means to understand nothing of Leninism.

Your principal error is that you have failed to understand either the fact of the interweaving during the October Revolution of socialist tasks with the tasks of completing the bourgeois revolution, or the mechanics of fulfilling the various demands of the October Revolution arising from the Party’s second strategic slogan, the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry.

Reading your letter one might think that it was not we who took the peasantry into the service of the proletarian revolution, but, on the contrary, that it was “the peasantry as a whole,” including the kulaks, who took the Bolsheviks into their service. Things would go badly with the Bolsheviks if they so easily “entered” the service of non-proletarian classes. Kamenev’s ideas of the period of April 1917—that is what is fettering you.

3) You assert that Stalin does not see any difference between the situation in 1905 and the situation in February 1917. That, of course, is not to be taken seriously. I never said that, and could not have said it. In my letter I said merely that the Party’s slogan on the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, issued in 1905, received confirmation in the February Revolution of 1917. That, of course, is true. That is exactly how Lenin described the situation in his article “Peasants and Workers” in August 1917:

“Only the proletariat and the peasantry can overthrow the monarchy—such was the fundamental definition of our class policy for that time (i.e., 1905—J. St.). And that definition was a correct one. February and March have confirmed this once again”* (see Vol. XXI, p. 111).

You simply want to find fault.

4) You try, further, to convict Stalin of contradicting himself, by counterposing his thesis on the compromising policy of the middle peasant before October to a quotation from Stalin’s pamphlet Problems of Leninism, which speaks of the possibility of building socialism jointly with the middle peasantry after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been consolidated.

* My italics.—J. St.

It does not require much effort to prove that such an identification of two different phenomena is utterly unscientific. The middle peasant before October, when the bourgeoisie was in power, and the middle peasant after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been consolidated, when the bourgeoisie has already been overthrown and expropriated, when the co-operative movement has developed and the principal means of production are concentrated in the hands of the proletariat, are two different things. To identify these two kinds of middle peasant and to put them on a par means to examine phenomena out of connection with their historical setting and to lose all sense of perspective. It is something like the Zinoviev manner of mixing up all dates and periods when quoting.

If that is what is called “revolutionary dialectics,” it must be admitted that Pokrovsky has broken all records for “dialectical” quibbling.

5) I shall not touch on the remaining questions, for I think they have been exhaustively dealt with in the correspondence with Yan-sky.

May 20, 1927

First published in the book:

J. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, 4th edition, 1928

---

Notes:

*My italics.—J. St.

* My italics.—J. St.

* My italics.—J. St.