Replies to Questions, 31 July (13 August) 1917

Translated from: ru/1917/1917-08-13_otvety_na_voprosy_31_iyulya_13.txt

On the first point: "What forms of fighting organization does the speaker propose instead of the Soviets of Workers' Deputies?" -- I shall reply that the formulation of the question is incorrect. I did not speak against the Soviets as a form of organization of the working class, but the slogan is determined not by the form of organization of a revolutionary institution, but by the content which constitutes the flesh and blood of a given institution. If the Soviets included Cadets, we would never have put forward the slogan of transferring power to them.

Now we put forward the slogan of the transfer of power to the proletariat and the poorest peasantry. Consequently, the question is not one of form, but of which class power is transferred to -- the question is one of the composition of the Soviets.

The Soviet is the most expedient form of organization of the working class's struggle for power, but the Soviets are not the only type of revolutionary organization. This form is a purely Russian one; abroad, we have seen the municipalities during the Great French Revolution in this role, the Central Committee during the Commune, and even here the idea of a Revolutionary Committee was floated. Perhaps the workers' section will prove to be the form best adapted for the struggle for power.

But one must clearly understand that the question of form will not be the decisive one.

The truly decisive question is whether the working class has matured for dictatorship; everything else will follow, will be created by the creative work of the revolution.

On the second and third points -- how our attitude toward the existing Soviets will take shape in practice -- the answer is perfectly clear. Insofar as the question concerns the transfer of all power to the Central Executive Committee, this slogan has become obsolete. Only this is at issue. The question of overthrowing the Soviets is an invented one. Nobody raised it here. If we propose to drop the slogan "All Power to the Soviets," it does not at all follow: "Down with the Soviets!" And we, who drop this slogan, at the same time do not even leave the Central Executive Committee, despite its entirely pitiful role of late.

Local Soviets may yet play a role, since they will find it necessary to defend themselves against the encroachments of the Provisional Government, and in this struggle we shall support them. Thus, I repeat: the withdrawal of the slogan of the transfer of power to the Soviets does not mean "Down with the Soviets." "Our attitude toward those Soviets in which we are in the majority" is one of the fullest sympathy. Long live and grow strong such Soviets! But power is no longer in the Soviets. Previously, the Provisional Government would issue a decree and the Executive Committee a counter-decree, and only the latter acquired the force of law. Recall the history of Order No. 1. But now the Provisional Government pays no heed to the Central Executive Committee. The Soviet's participation in the investigative commission on the events of 3-5 [16-18] July was not annulled by the Soviet, but was prevented by Kerensky's order. The question now is not the winning of a majority in the Soviets, which in itself is very important, but the sweeping away of the counter-revolution.

On the fourth point -- a more concrete definition of the concept of "poorest peasantry" and an indication of the form of its organization -- I shall reply that the term "poorest peasantry" is not a new one. It was introduced into Marxist literature by Comrade Lenin as early as 1905, and since then it has been used in almost every issue of Pravda and has found its place in the resolutions of the April Conference.

The poorest strata of the peasantry are those which diverge from the peasant upper strata. The Soviet of Peasants' Deputies, "representing" 80 million peasants (counting women as well), is an organization of the peasant upper strata. The peasant lower strata are waging a fierce struggle against the "Soviet" policy. While the head of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, Chernov, as well as Avksentyev and others, urge the peasants not to take the land immediately but to wait for a general solution of the land question by the Constituent Assembly, the peasants in response are seizing the land, plowing it, taking the stock, and so on. We have such reports from Penza, Voronezh, Vitebsk, Kazan, and a number of other provinces.

This alone clearly shows the stratification of the village into lower and upper strata, shows that the peasantry as a single entity no longer exists. The upper strata follow predominantly the Socialist-Revolutionaries; the lower strata cannot live without land and stand in opposition to the Provisional Government. These are the small-holders, the one-horse, the horseless, and the like. They are joined by the strata almost completely deprived of land, the semi-proletarian.

It would be unwise not to seek a certain agreement with these strata of the peasantry during a revolutionary period, but at the same time it is necessary to organize the poorest strata of the peasantry separately, to rally them around the proletarians.

What form the organization of these strata will take is difficult to predict. At present, the peasant lower strata are organizing either into self-constituted Soviets or are trying to seize existing ones. Thus, in Petersburg about a month and a half ago, a Soviet of the poorest peasants (from representatives of 80 soldiers' units and from the factories) organized itself; it is waging a desperate struggle against the policy of the Soviet of Peasants' Deputies.

In general, the Soviets are the most expedient form, but we must speak not in the language of institutions but point to the class content; we must strive to ensure that the masses, too, distinguish form from content.

Generally speaking, the question of forms is not the fundamental one. There will be a revolutionary upsurge -- and the organizational forms will be created. Let the question of forms not obscure the fundamental question: into the hands of which class must power pass?

Henceforth, a bloc with the defensists is inconceivable for us. The defensist parties have tied their fate to the bourgeoisie, and the idea of a bloc from the Socialist-Revolutionaries to the Bolsheviks has collapsed. The struggle against the Soviet leadership in alliance with the poorest strata of the peasantry and the sweeping away of the counter-revolution -- this is the immediate task.

(Applause.)