| LECTURE#17 |
|
Why Lenin? The arrival of Lenin to Petrograd. The struggle for power between The Provisional Government & The Soviets. The political figures inside two dual power governmental bodies. A. Kerensky. L. Kornilov’s failure in August 1917. October 25th 1917 – the new regime and new upcoming epoch. First Decrees of Bolshevik Government.
ALEXANDER KERENSKY Alexander Kerensky was born in Simbirsk, Russia, on 22nd April, 1881. The son of a headmaster, Kerensky studied law at the University of St. Petersburg. In 1905 Kerensky joined the Socialist Revolutionary Party (SR) and became editor of the radical newspaper, Burevestik. He was soon arrested and sent into exile. He returned to St. Petersburg in 1906 and found work as a lawyer. Over the next few years he developed a reputation for defending radicals in court who had been accused of political offenses. Kerensky joined the Russian Labour Party and in 1912 was elected to the State Duma. A socialist, Kerensky developed a strong following amongst industrial workers. He also played an important role in the exposure of Roman Malinovsky, one of the leaders of the Bolsheviks, as an undercover agent of the Okhrana. In February, 1917, Kerensky announced he had rejoined the Socialist Revolutionary Party and called for the removal of Nicholas II. When Alexandra Fyodorovna heard the news she wrote to her husband and demanded that he be hung as a traitor. When the Tsar abdicated on 13th March, a Provisional Government, headed by Prince George Lvov, was formed. Kerensky was appointed as Minister of Justice in the new government and immediately introduced a series of reforms including the abolition of capital punishment. He also announced basic civil liberties such as freedom of the press, the abolition of ethnic and religious discrimination and made plans for the introduction of universal suffrage. In May, 1917, Kerensky became Minister of War and appointed General Alexei Brusilov as the Commander in Chief of the Russian Army. He toured the Eastern Front where he made a series of emotional speeches where he appealed to the troops to continue fighting. On 18th June, Kerensky announced a new war offensive. Encouraged by the Bolsheviks, who favoured peace negotiations, there were demonstrations against Kerensky in Petrograd. The July Offensive, led by General Alexei Brusilov, was an attack on the whole Galician sector. Initially the Russian Army made advances and on the first day of the offensive took 10,000 prisoners. However, low morale, poor supply lines and the rapid arrival of German reserves from the Western Front slowed the advance and on 16th July the offensive was brought to an end. The Provisional Government made no real attempt to seek an armistice with the Central Powers. Lvov''s unwillingness to withdraw Russia from the First World War made him unpopular with the people and on 8th July, 1917, he resigned and was replaced by Kerensky. Kerensky was still the most popular man in the government because of his political past. In the Duma he had been leader of the moderate socialists and had been seen as the champion of the working-class. However, Kerensky, like George Lvov, was unwilling to end the war. In fact, soon after taking office, he announced a new summer offensive. Soldiers on the Eastern Front were dismayed at the news and regiments began to refuse to move to the front line. There was a rapid increase in the number of men deserting and by the autumn of 1917 an estimated 2 million men had unofficially left the army. Some of these soldiers returned to their homes and used their weapons to seize land from the nobility. Manor houses were burnt down and in some cases wealthy landowners were murdered. Kerensky and the Provisional Government issued warnings but were powerless to stop the redistribution of land in the countryside. After the failure of the July Offensive on the Eastern Front, Kerensky replaced General Alexei Brusilov with General Lavr Kornilov, as Supreme Commander of the Russian Army. The two men soon clashed about military policy. Kornilov wanted Kerensky to restore the death-penalty for soldiers and to militarize the factories. On 7th September, Kornoilov demanded the resignation of the Cabinet and the surrender of all military and civil authority to the Commander in Chief. Kerensky responded by dismissing Kornilov from office and ordering him back to Petrograd. Kornilov now sent troops under the leadership of General Krymov to take control of Petrograd. Kerensky was now in danger and so he called on the Soviets and the Red Guards to protect Petrograd. The Bolsheviks, who controlled these organizations, agreed to this request, but in a speech made by their leader, Vladimir Lenin, he made clear they would be fighting against Kornilov rather than for Kerensky. Within a few days Bolsheviks had enlisted 25,000 armed recruits to defend Petrograd. While they dug trenches and fortified the city, delegations of soldiers were sent out to talk to the advancing troops. Meetings were held and Kornilov''s troops decided to refuse to attack Petrograd. General Krymov committed suicide and Kornilov was arrested and taken into custody. Kerensky now became the new Supreme Commander of the Russian Army. His continued support for the war effort made him unpopular in Russia and on 8th October, Kerensky attempted to recover his left-wing support by forming a new coalition that included more Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. However, with the Bolsheviks controlling the Soviets, and now able to call on 25,000 armed militia, Kerensky was unable to reassert his authority. On 7th November, Kerensky was informed that the Bolsheviks were about to seize power. He decided to leave Petrograd and try to get the support of the Russian Army on the Eastern Front. Later that day the Red Guards stormed the Winter Palace and members of the Kerensky''s cabinet were arrested. Kerensky assembled loyal troops from the Northern Front but his army was defeated by Bolshevik forces at Pulkova. He remained underground in Finland until escaping to London in May 1918. He later moved to France where he led the propaganda campaign against the communist regime in Russia. This included editing the Russian newspaper, Dni, that published in Paris and Berlin. In 1939 Kerensky urged the western democracies to intervene against both communism in the Soviet Union and fascism in Germany. On the outbreak of the Second World War Kerensky moved to the United States. He worked at the Hoover Institution in California and wrote his autobiography, The Kerensky Memoirs: Russia and History''s Turning Point (1967). Alexander Kerensky died of cancer in New York on 11th June, 1970, at the age of 89. Materials were taken from: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSkerensky.htm _______________________________________________________________________ V. I. Lenin Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers'' and Soldiers'' Deputies [1] October 25-26 (November 7-8), 1917 ♣Written: October 25 (November 7), 1917 First Published: 1917 Published in the newspaper “Rabochy i Soldat” No. 9, October 26 (November 8), 1917 Source: Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 26, 1972, pp. 243-263 Translated: Yuri Sdobnikov and George Hanna, Edited by George Hanna Transcription & HTML Markup: Charles Farrell and David Walters Online Version: Lenin Internet Archive November, 2000 1 To Workers Soldiers and Peasants The Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers'' and Soldiers'' Deputies has opened. The vast majority of the Soviets are represented at the Congress. A number of delegates from the Peasants'' Soviets are also present. The mandate of the compromising Central Executive Committee has terminated. [2] Backed by the will of the vast majority of the workers, soldiers and peasants, backed by the victorious uprising of the workers and the garrison which has taken place in Petrograd, the Congress takes power into its own hands. The Provisional Government has been overthrown. The majority of the members of the Provisional Government have already been arrested. The Soviet government will propose an immediate democratic peace to all the nations and an immediate armistice on all fronts. It will secure the transfer of the land of the landed proprietors, the crown and the monasteries to the peasant committees without compensation; it will protect the rights of the soldiers by introducing complete democracy in the army; it will establish workers'' control over production; it will ensure the convocation of the Constituent Assembly at the time appointed; it will see to it that bread is supplied to the cities and prime necessities to the villages; it will guarantee all the nations inhabiting Russia the genuine right to self-determination. The Congress decrees: all power in the localities shall pass to the Soviets of Workers'', Soldiers'' and Peasants'' Deputies, which must guarantee genuine revolutionary order. The Congress calls upon the soldiers in the trenches to be vigilant and firm. The Congress of Soviets is convinced that the revolutionary army will be able to defend the revolution against all attacks of imperialism until such time as the new government succeeds in concluding a democratic peace, which it will propose directly to all peoples. The new government will do everything to fully supply the revolutionary army by means of a determined policy of requisitions and taxation of the propertied classes, and also will improve the condition of soldiers'' families. The Kornilov men—Kerensky, Kaledin and others—are attempting to bring troops against Petrograd. Several detachments, whom Kerensky had moved by deceiving them, have come over to the side of the insurgent people. Soldiers, actively resist Kerensky the Kornilovite! Be on your guard! Railwaymen, hold up all troop trains dispatched by Kerensky against Petrograd! Soldiers, workers in factory and office, the fate of the revolution and the fate of the democratic peace is in your hands! Long live the revolution! The All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers'' and Soldiers'' Deputies The Delegates from the Peasants'' Soviets 2 Report On Peace, October 26 (November 8) The question of peace is a burning question, the painful question of the day. Much has been said and written on the subject, and all of you, no doubt, have discussed it quite a lot. Permit me, therefore, to proceed to read a declaration which the government you elect should publish. Decree on Peace The workers'' and peasants'' government, created by the Revolution of October 24-25 and basing itself on the Soviets of Workers'', Soldiers'' and Peasants'' Deputies, calls upon all the belligerent peoples and their governments to start immediate negotiations for a just, democratic peace. By a just or democratic peace, for which the overwhelming majority of the working class and other working people of all the belligerent countries, [3] exhausted, tormented and racked by the war, are craving—a peace that has been most definitely and insistently demanded by the Russian workers and peasants ever since the overthrow of the tsarist monarchy—by such a peace the government means an immediate peace without annexations (i.e., without the seizure of foreign lands, without the forcible incorporation of foreign nations) and without indemnities. The Government of Russia proposes that this kind of peace be immediately concluded by all the belligerent nations, and expresses its readiness to take all the resolute measures now, without the least delay, pending the final ratification of all the terms of such a peace by authoritative assemblies of the people''s representatives of all countries and all nations. In accordance with the sense of justice of democrats in general, and of the working classes in particular, the government conceives the annexation or seizure of foreign lands to mean every incorporation of a small or weak nation into a large or powerful state without the precisely, clearly and voluntarily expressed consent and wish of that nation, irrespective of the time when such forcible incorporation took place, irrespective also of the degree of development or backwardness of the nation forcibly annexed to the given state, or forcibly retained within its borders, and irrespective, finally, of whether this nation is in Europe or in distant, overseas countries. If any nation whatsoever is forcibly retained within the borders of a given state, if, in spite of its expressed desire—no matter whether expressed in the press, at public meetings, in the decisions of parties, or in protests and uprisings against national oppression—it is not accorded the right to decide the forms of its state existence by a free vote, taken after the complete evacuation of the troops of the incorporating or, generally, of the stronger nation and without the least pressure being brought to bear, such incorporation is annexation, i.e., seizure and violence. The government considers it the greatest of crimes against humanity to continue this war over the issue of how to divide among the strong and rich nations the weak nationalities they have conquered, and solemnly announces its determination immediately to sign terms of peace to stop this war on the terms indicated, which are equally just for all nationalities without exception. At the same time the government declares that it does not regard the above-mentioned peace terms as an ultimatum; in other words, it is prepared to consider any other peace terms, and insists only that they be advanced by any of the belligerent countries as speedily as possible, and that in the peace proposals there should be absolute clarity and the complete absence of all ambiguity and secrecy. The government abolishes secret diplomacy, and, for its part, announces its firm intention to conduct all negotiations quite openly in full view of the whole people. It will proceed immediately with the full publication of the secret treaties endorsed or concluded by the government of land-owners and capitalists from February to October 25, 1917. The government proclaims the unconditional and immediate annulment of everything contained in these secret treaties insofar as it is aimed, as is mostly the case, at securing advantages and privileges for the Russian landowners and capitalists and at the retention, or extension, of the annexations made by the Great Russians. Proposing to the governments and peoples of all countries immediately to begin open negotiations for peace, the government, for its part, expresses its readiness to conduct these negotiations in writing, by telegraph, and by negotiations between representatives of the various countries, or at a conference of such representatives. In order to facilitate such negotiations, the government is appointing its plenipotentiary representative to neutral countries. The government proposes an immediate armistice to the governments and peoples of all the belligerent countries, and, for its part, considers it desirable that this armistice should be concluded for a period of not less than three months, i.e., a period long enough to permit the completion of negotiations for peace with the participation of the representatives of all peoples or nations, without exception, involved in or compelled to take part in the war, and the summoning of authoritative assemblies of the representatives of the peoples of all countries for the final ratification of the peace terms. While addressing this proposal for peace to the governments and peoples of all the belligerent countries, the Provisional Workers'' and Peasants'' Government of Russia appeals in particular also to the class-conscious workers of the three most advanced nations of mankind and the largest states participating in the present war, namely, Great Britain, France and Germany. The workers of these countries have made the greatest contributions to the cause of progress and socialism; they have furnished the great examples of the Chartist movement in England, a number of revolutions of historic importance effected by the French proletariat, and, finally, the heroic struggle against the Anti-Socialist Law in Germany and the prolonged, persistent and disciplined work of creating mass proletarian organisations in Germany, a work which serves as a model to the workers of the whole world. All these examples of proletarian heroism and historical creative work are a pledge that the workers of the countries mentioned will understand the duty that now faces them of saving mankind from the horrors of war and its consequences, that these workers, by comprehensive, determined, and supremely vigorous action, will help us to conclude peace successfully, and at the same time emancipate the labouring and exploited masses of our population from all forms of slavery and all forms of exploitation. The workers'' and peasants'' government, created by the Revolution of October 24-25 and basing itself on the support of the Soviets of Workers'', Soldiers'' and Peasants'' Deputies, must start immediate negotiations for peace. Our appeal must be addressed both to the governments and to the peoples. We cannot ignore the governments, for that would delay the possibility of concluding peace, and the people''s government dare not do that, but we have no right not to appeal to the peoples at the same time. Everywhere there are differences between the governments and the peoples, and we must therefore help the peoples to intervene in questions of war and peace. We will, of course, insist upon the whole of our programme for a peace without annexations and indemnities. We shall not retreat from it; but we must not give our enemies an opportunity to say that their conditions are different from ours and that therefore it is useless to start negotiations with us. No, we must deprive them of that advantageous position and not present our terms in the form of an ultimatum. Therefore the point is included that we are willing to consider any peace terms and all proposals. We shall consider them, but that does not necessarily mean that we shall accept them. We shall submit them for consideration to the Constituent Assembly which will have the power to decide what concessions can and what cannot be made. We are combating the deception practised by governments which pay lip-service to peace and justice, but in fact wage annexationist and predatory wars. No government will say all it thinks. We, however, are opposed to secret diplomacy and will act openly in full view of the whole people. We do not close our eyes to difficulties and never have done. War cannot be ended by refusal, it cannot be ended by one side. We are proposing an armistice for three months, but shall not reject a shorter period, so that the exhausted army may breathe freely, even if only for a little while; moreover, in all the civilised countries national assemblies must be summoned for the discussion of the terms. In proposing an immediate armistice, we appeal to the class-conscious workers of the countries that have done so much for the development of the proletarian movement. We appeal to the workers of Britain, where there was the Chartist movement, to the workers of France, who have in repeated uprisings displayed the strength of their class consciousness, and to the workers of Germany, who waged the fight against the Anti-Socialist Law and have created powerful organisations. In the Manifesto of March 14,[4] we called for the over throw of the bankers, but, far from overthrowing our own bankers, we entered into an alliance with them. Now we have overthrown the government of the bankers. The governments and the bourgeoisie will make every effort to unite their forces and drown the workers'' and peasants'' revolution in blood. But the three years of war have been a good lesson to the masses—the Soviet movement in other countries and the mutiny in the German navy, which was crushed by the officer cadets of Wilhelm the hangman[5]. Finally, we must remember that we are not living in the depths of Africa, but in Europe, where news can spread quickly. The workers'' movement will triumph and will pave the way to peace and socialism. (Prolonged applause.) Izvestia No. 208, October 27, 1917, and PravdaNo. 171, November 10 (October 28), 1917 Report published according to the Pravdatext, decree according to the Izvestiatext 3 Concluding Speech Following The Discussion On The Report On Peace October 26 (November 8) I shall not touch on the general character of the declaration. The government which your Congress sets up may amend unessential points. I shall vigorously oppose lending our demand for peace the form of an ultimatum. An ultimatum may prove fatal to our whole cause. We cannot demand that, since some insignificant departure from our demands on the part of the imperialist governments would give them the opportunity of saying that it was impossible to enter into negotiations for peace because of our irreconcilability. We shall send out our appeal everywhere, it will be made known to everybody. It will be impossible to conceal the terms proposed by our workers'' and peasants'' government. It will be impossible to hush up our workers'' and peasants'' revolution, which has overthrown the government of bankers and landowners. The governments may not reply to an ultimatum; they will have to reply to the text as we formulate it. Let every one know what their governments have in mind. We do not want any secrets. We want a government to be always under the supervision of the public opinion of its country. What will the peasant of some remote province say if, owing to our insistence on ultimatums, he will not know what another government wants? He will say: Comrades, why did you rule out the possibility of any peace terms being proposed? I would have discussed them, I would have examined them, and would then have instructed my representatives in the Constituent Assembly how to act. I am prepared to fight by revolutionary methods for just terms if the governments do not agree, but there might be such terms for some countries that I would be prepared to recommend their governments to go on fighting by themselves. The full realisation of our ideas depends solely on the overthrow of the entire capitalist system. This is what the peasant might say to us, and he would accuse us of being excessively uncompromising over trifles, when for us the main thing is to expose all the vileness, all the baseness of the bourgeoisie and of its crowned and uncrowned hangmen at the head of the government. We should not and must not give the governments an opportunity of taking refuge behind our uncompromising attitude and of concealing from the peoples the reason why they are being sent to the shambles. This is a tiny drop, but we should not and must not reject this drop, which will wear away the stone of bourgeois conquest. An ultimatum would make the position of our opponents easier. But we shall make all the terms known to the people. We shall confront all the governments with our terms, and let them give an answer to their people. We shall submit all peace proposals to the Constituent Assembly for decision. There is still another point, comrades, to which you must pay the most careful attention. The secret treaties must be published. The clauses dealing with annexations and indemnities must be annulled. There are various clauses, comrades—the predatory governments, you know, not only made agreements between themselves on plunder, but among them they also included economic agreements and various other clauses on good-neighbourly relations. We shall not bind ourselves by treaties. We shall not allow ourselves to be entangled by treaties. We reject all clauses on plunder and violence, but we shall welcome all clauses containing provisions for good-neighbourly relations and all economic agreements; we cannot reject these. We propose an armistice for three months; we choose a lengthy period because the peoples are exhausted, the peoples long for a respite from this bloody shambles that has lasted over three years. We must realise that the peoples should be given an opportunity to discuss the peace terms and to express their will with parliament participating, and this takes time. We demand a lengthy armistice, so that the soldiers in the trenches may enjoy a respite from this nightmare of constant slaughter; but we shall not reject proposals for a shorter armistice; we shall examine them, and it is incumbent upon us to accept them, even if we are offered an armistice of a month or a month and a half. Nor must our proposal for an armistice have the form of an ultimatum, for we shall not give our enemies an opportunity of concealing the whole truth from the peoples, using our irreconcilability as a pretext. It must not be in the form of an ultimatum, for a government is criminal that does not desire an armistice. If we do not put our proposal for an armistice in the form of an ultimatum, we shall thereby show the peoples that the governments are criminal, and the peoples will not stand on ceremony with such criminals. The objection is raised that by not resorting to an ultimatum we are displaying weakness, but it is time to cast aside all bourgeois cant when speaking of the strength of the people. According to the bourgeois conception, there is strength when the people go blindly to the slaughter in obedience to the imperialist governments. The bourgeoisie admit a state to be strong only when it can, by the power of the government apparatus, hurl the people wherever the bourgeois rulers want them hurled. Our idea of strength is different. Our idea is that a state is strong when the people are politically conscious. It is strong when the people know everything, can form an opinion of everything and do everything consciously. We need not fear to tell the truth about fatigue, for what state today is not tired, what nation does not talk about it openly? Take Italy, where, owing to this tiredness, there was a prolonged revolutionary movement demanding the termination of the slaughter. Are there not mass demonstrations of workers in Germany that put forward a demand for the termination of the war? Was it not fatigue that provoked the mutiny in the German navy that was so ruthlessly suppressed by that hangman, Wilhelm, and his hirelings? If such things are possible in so disciplined a country as Germany, where they are beginning to talk about fatigue and about putting an end to the war, we need not fear to say the same openly, because it is the truth, equally true both of our country and of all the belligerent and even non-belligerent countries. PravdaNo. 171, November 10 (October 28), 1917 Published according to the Pravda text. 4 Report On Land October 26 (November 8) We maintain that the revolution has proved and demonstrated how important it is that the land question should be put clearly. The outbreak of the armed uprising, the second, October, Revolution, clearly proves that the land must be turned over to the peasants. The government that has been overthrown and the compromising parties of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries committed a crime when they kept postponing the settlement of the land question on various pretexts and thereby brought the country to economic chaos and a peasant revolt. Their talk about riots and anarchy in the countryside sounds false, cowardly, and deceitful. Where and when have riots and anarchy been provoked by wise measures? If the government had acted wisely, and if their measures had met the needs of the poor peasants, would there have been unrest among the peasant masses? But all the measures of the government, approved by the Avksentyev and Dan Soviets, went counter to the interests of the peasants and compelled them to revolt. Having provoked the revolt, the government raised a hue and cry about riots and anarchy, for which they themselves were responsible. They were going to crush it by blood and iron, but were themselves swept away by the armed uprising of the revolutionary soldiers, sailors and workers. The first duty of the government of the workers'' and peasants'' revolution must be to settle the land question, which can pacify and satisfy the vast masses of poor peasants. I shall read to you the clauses of a decree your Soviet Government must issue. In one of the clauses of this decree is embodied the Mandate to the Land Committees, compiled on the basis of 242 mandates from local Soviets of Peasants'' Deputies. Decree on Land (1) Landed proprietorship is abolished forthwith without any compensation. (2) The landed estates, as also all crown, monastery, and church lands, with all their livestock, implements, buildings and everything pertaining thereto, shall be placed at the disposal of the volost land committees and the uyezd Soviets of Peasants'' Deputies pending the convocation of the Constituent Assembly. (3) All damage to confiscated property, which henceforth belongs to the whole people, is proclaimed a grave crime to be punished by the revolutionary courts. The uyezd Soviets of Peasants'' Deputies shall take all necessary measures to assure the observance of the strictest order during the confiscation of the landed estates, to determine the size of estates, and the particular estates subject to confiscation, to draw up exact inventories of all property confiscated and to protect in the strictest revolutionary way all agricultural enterprises transferred to the people, with all buildings, implements, livestock, stocks of produce, etc. (4) The following peasant Mandate, compiled by the newspaper Izvestia Vserossiiskogo Soveta Krestyanskikh Deputatov from 242 local peasant mandates and published in No. 88 of that paper (Petrograd, No. 88, August 19, 1917), shall serve everywhere to guide the implementation of the great land reforms until a final decision on the latter is taken by the Constituent Assembly. Peasant Mandate on the Land "The land question in its full scope can be settled only by the popular Constituent Assembly. "The most equitable settlement of the land question is to be as follows: "(1) Private ownership of land shall be abolished forever; land shall not be sold purchased, leased, mortgaged, or otherwise alienated. "All land, whether state, crown, monastery, church, factory, entailed, private, public, peasant, etc., shall be confiscated without compensation and become the property of the whole people, and pass into the use of all those who cultivate it. "Persons who suffer by this property revolution shall be deemed to be entitled to public support only for the period necessary for adaptation to the new conditions of life. "(2) All mineral wealth—ore, oil, coal, salt, etc., and also all forests and waters of state importance, shall pass into the exclusive use of the state. All the small streams, lakes, woods, etc., shall pass into the use of the communes, to be administered by the local self-government bodies. "(3) Lands on which high-level scientific farming is practised—orchards, plantations, seed plots, nurseries, hothouses, etc.—shall not be divided up, but shall be converted into model farms, to be turned over for exclusive use to the state or to the communes, depending on he size and importance of such lands. "Household land in towns and villages, with orchards and vegetable gardens, shall be reserved for the use of their present owners, the size of the holdings, and the size of tax levied for the use thereof, to be determined by law. "(4) Stud farms, government and private pedigree stock and poultry farms, etc., shall be confiscated and become the property of the whole people, and pass into the exclusive use of the state or a commune depending on the size and importance of such farms. "The question of compensation shall be examined by the Constituent Assembly. "(5) All livestock and farm implements of the confiscated estates shall pass into the exclusive use of the state or a commune, depending on their size and importance, and no compensation shall be paid for this. "The farm implements of peasants with little land shall not be subject to confiscation. "(6) The right to use the land shall be accorded to all citizens of the Russian state (without distinction of sex) desiring to cultivate it by their own labour, with the help of their families, or in partnership but only as long as they are able to cultivate it. The employment of hired labour is not permitted. "In the event of the temporary physical disability of any member of a village commune for a period of up to two years, the village commune shall be obliged to assist him for this period by collectively cultivating his land until he is again able to work. "Peasants who, owing to old age or ill-health, are permanently disabled and unable to cultivate the land personally, shall lose their right to the use of it but, in turn, shall receive a pension from the state. "(7) Land tenure shall be on an equality basis, i.e. the land shall be distributed among the working people in conformity with a labour standard or a subsistence standard, [6] depending on local conditions. "There shall be absolutely no restriction on the forms of land tenure—household, farm, communal, or co-operative, as shall be decided in each individual village and settlement. "(8) All land, when alienated, shall become part of the national land fund. Its distribution among the peasants shall be in charge of the local and central self-government bodies, from democratically organised village and city communes, in which there are no distinctions of social rank, to central regional government bodies. "The land fund shall be subject to periodical redistribution depending on the growth of population and the increase in the productivity and the scientific level of farming. "When the boundaries of allotments are altered, the original nucleus of the allotment shall be left intact. "The land of the members who leave the commune shall revert to the land fund, preferential right to such land shall be given to the near relatives of the members who have left, or to persons designated by the latter. "The cost of fertilisers and improvements put into the land, to the extent that they have not been fully used up at the time the allotment is returned to the land fund shall be compensated. "Should the available land fund in a particular district prove inadequate for the needs of the local population, the surplus population shall he settled elsewhere. "The state shall take upon itself the organisation of resettlement and shall bear the cost thereof, as well as the cost of supplying implements, etc. "Resettlement shall be effected in the following order: landless peasants desiring to resettle, then members of the commune who are of vicious habits, deserters, and so on, and, finally, by lot or by agreement." The entire contents of this Mandate, as expressing the absolute will of the vast majority of the class-conscious peasants of all Russia, is proclaimed a provisional law, which, pending the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, shall be carried into effect as far as possible immediately, and as to certain of its provisions with due gradualness, as shall be determined by the uyezd Soviets of Peasants'' Deputies. (5) The land of ordinary peasants and ordinary Cossacks shall not be confiscated. Voices are being raised here that the decree itself and the Mandate were drawn up by the Socialist-Revolutionaries. What of it? Does it matter who drew them up? As a democratic government, we cannot ignore the decision of the masses of the people, even though we may disagree with it. In the fire of experience, applying the decree in practice, and carrying it out locally, the peasants will themselves realise where the truth lies. And even if the peasants continue to follow the Socialist-Revolutionaries, even if they give this party a majority in the Constituent Assembly, we shall still say—what of it? Experience is the best teacher and it will show who is right. Let the peasants solve this problem from one end and we shall solve it from the other. Experience will oblige us to draw together in the general stream of revolutionary creative work, in the elaboration of new state forms. We must be guided by experience; we must allow complete freedom to the creative faculties of the masses. The old government, which was overthrown by armed uprising, wanted to settle the land problem with the help of the old, unchanged tsarist bureaucracy. But instead of solving the problem, the bureaucracy only fought the peasants. The peasants have learned something during the eight months of our revolution; they want to settle all land problems themselves. We are therefore opposed to all amendments to this draft law. We want no details in it, for we are writing a decree, not a programme of action. Russia is vast, and local conditions vary. We trust that the peasants themselves will be able to solve the problem correctly, properly, better than we could do it. Whether they do it in our spirit or in the spirit of the Socialist-Revolutionary programme is not the point. The point is that the peasants should be firmly assured that there are no more landowners in the countryside, that they themselves must decide all questions, and that they themselves must arrange their own lives. (Loud applause.) IzvestiaNo. 209, October 28, 1917 and PravdaNo. 171, November 10 (October 28), 1917 Report published according to the Pravdatext, decree according to the Izvestiatext 5 Decision To Form The Workers'' And Peasants'' Government The All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers'', Soldiers'' and Peasants'' Deputies resolves: To establish a provisional workers'' and peasants'' government, to be known as the Council of People''s Commissars, to govern the country until the Constituent Assembly is convened. The management of individual branches of state activity is entrusted to commissions whose members shall ensure the fulfilment of the programme announced by the Congress, and shall work in close contact with mass organisations of men and women workers, sailors, soldiers, peasants and office employees. Governmental authority is vested in a collegium of the chairmen of those commissions, i.e., the Council of People''s Commissars. Control over the activities of the People''s Commissars with the right to replace them is vested in the All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers'', Peasants'' and Soldiers'' Deputies and its Central Executive Committee. At the present time the Council of People''s Commissars is constituted as follows: Chairman of the Council—Vladimir Ulyanov(Lenin); People''s Commissar of the Interior—A. I. Rykov; Agriculture—V. P. Milyutin; Labour—A. G. Shlyapnikov; Army and Navy Affairs—a committee consisting of: V. A. Ovseyenko (Antonov), N. V. Krylenko and P. Y. Dybenko; Commerce and Industry—V. P. Nogin; Education—A. V. Lunacharsky; Finance—I. I. Skwrtsov (Stepanov); Foreign Affairs—L. D. Bronstein (Trotsky); Justice—G. I. Oppokov (Lomov); Food—I. A. Teodorovich; Posts and Telegraph—N. P. Avilov (Glebov); Chairman for Nationalities Affairs—J. V. Jugashvili (Stalin). The office of People''s Commissar of Railways is temporarily vacant. Written on October 26 (November 8), 1917 Published in the newspaper Rabochy i Soldat No. 10, October 27 (November 9), 1917 Published according to the newspaper text Footnotes [1] [See Glossary Entry] [2] The reference is to the Central Executive Committee elected by the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets which was held in Petrograd from June 3 to 24 (June 16 to July 7), 1917. The Right Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, who favoured support of the bourgeois Provisional Government, had a majority in the First Executive Committee. [3] The reference is to the belligerents in the First World War: the Entente (France, Britain, Russia, Italy and the U.S.A., which joined them) and also Belgium, Serbia, Rumania, Japan and China; and the Quadruple Alliance (Germany, Austro-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria). [4] The reference is to a manifesto issued by the Petrograd Soviet of Workers'' and Soldiers'' Deputies to the Peoples of the World which was carried by the newspaper Izvestia No. 15, of March 15, 1917. [5] The reference is to the revolutionary action by German sailors in August 1917, who were led by a revolutionary sailors'' organisation numbering 4,000 members (late July 1917). It was led by sea men Max Reichpietsch and Albin Köbis of the Friedrich der Grosse. The organisation decided to fight for a democratic peace and prepare for an uprising. Manifestations broke out in the navy in early August. Sailors of the warship Prinzeregent Luitpold, which was at Wilhelmshaven, took absence without leave to fight for the release of their comrades who had earlier been arrested for staging a strike; on August 16, the firemen of the Westphalia refused to work; at the same time the crew of the cruiser Nürnberg, which was out at sea, staged an uprising. The sailors'' movement spread to the ships of several squadrons at Wilhelmshaven . These manifestations were put down with great savagery. Reichpietsch and Köbis were shot and other active participants were sentenced to long terms of hard labour.] [6] A labour standard is the amount of land that could be tilled by its owner without outside help. A subsistence standard is the minimum amount of land necessary to feed a family. Taken from: http://marxists.nigilist.ru/archive/lenin/works/sw/index.htm ______________________________________________________________________ *** Why was Russia potentially revolutionary? *** There was a huge social gulf between the peasants who were former serfs and the land owners. The peasants regarded anyone who did not work as a parasite. They had always regarded as all land belonging to them. To the peasants the land retained by the landowners at the time serfs were freed was stolen by them. Only force could prevent them taking the land. *** How far may the period 1881-1914 be regarded as "wasted years" in the solution of Russia''s internal problems? *** Wasted for who? Neither of the Tsars wanted to reform. They wanted modernization while keeping the autocracy intact. The modernization was primarily for military purposes. In many ways it undermined the autocracy. It created a middle class, it required taxes to pay for all those railways etc. which strained economy and hence fueled the discontent of those who didn''t benefit. Oh yes it created literacy amongst the peasants and so made them open to new, often revolutionary ideas. With hindsight this was suicidal but to talk of "wasted years" implies aims the Tsars did not have. There were more reforming minded ministers such as Witte and Stolypin but they were never really supported by the Tsar. Stolypin''s attack of the village commune (allowing villagers to create separate plots) had the Socialist Revolutionary party in a panic as their land policy was based on the commune but it was no magic solution (i.e. for Tsarism). Figes («A peoples Tragedy») tells the story of Sergei Semenov a peasant who took the chance of establishing a separate plot yet in 1917 he rejoined the commune to lead the peasants against the landlords. And Semenov was one the reform''s successes. Many separators found that they had chosen poverty without the support of the commune. Victor Chernov the leader of the SRs saw this too. He argued that the egalitarian spirit of the peasants was too strong to be undermined by the separators and in any case, while the SR policy was inspired by the commune the commune needed shaking up, being far from truly democratic.(This is in Radkey: «The Agrarian foes of Bolshevism»). Stolypin''s reforms was the most important attempt of Tsarism after 1881 to initiate social reform. I think it is typical in that the possible reforms would have had gainers and losers. Stolypin''s reforms were labeled "The wager on the strong". Implicit was that the weak would go under. The radical alternative (that Stolypin''s reforms were intended to avoid) was land reform that would have led to the landlords loss of their land. I really don''t think it is possible to talk of "for the whole country, generally". If we are talking about increase in the GNP then the question remains which parts of that divided society gain the extra GNP. The lack of central control was a "problem" for Tsarism. In some ways the autocracy was a dictatorship which sat upon thousands of village republics that were mere vassals. That was a "problem" for Tsarism in that it was really sitting on a volcano. For the SRs the autonomy of the commune was what made Russia potentially revolutionary and democratic. The crunch too is that the final outcome with Bolshevism followed by Stalinism was the nightmare scenario. With hindsight anything was better than that. Had Alexander the 2nd not had second thoughts about a constitution, had not halted the reforms (and hence avoided getting himself assassinated in 1881) then changes might have come in a more gradual and less drastic way than in October 1917. But had the socialists of 1917 had that kind of hindsight then they might well have satisfied the popular movement so avoiding the workers and peasants turning to Lenin. *** Why did the Tsar fall? *** The Tsar was of very average abilities who was in no way a natural autocrat. Unfortunately he considered it his duty to act the autocrat and tried to keep hold power which he was incapable of exercising effectively. This produced a highly inefficient form of government and these weakness were thrown into sharp relief by the first world war. By the end the Tsar had managed to ensure his isolation from virtually all sections of Russian society. *** What part did revolutionary movements play in the collapse of autocracy? *** February revolution happened as a result of bread shortages which led to worker protests which led to a mutiny in the garrison. The revolutionaries were taken by surprise (To quote Sergei Mstislavsky (an SR) "The Revolution found us, the party members, fast asleep, just like the foolish virgins in the Gospel." (quoted in Figes: «A Peoples Tragedy» p. 323) so it would be easy to argue - none at all, but... The revolutionary movement had provided continuity since before the 1905 revolution so both the workers and the soldiers of Petrograd 1917 had idea in their minds that there was an alternative to Tsarism even if they were not responding to leaflets given out on the day. This is especially important for the soldiers. It is very much easier to mutiny if the result is revolution and the end of the old order because if the result is merely concessions you are faced with a government that regards you as having committed a serious offense. Mutineers tend to get shot unless they can become "Heroes of the Revolution". Soldiers were also in the majority peasants who would have experienced Socialist Revolutionary propaganda in the previous years. After the mutiny the revolutionary parties set up the soviet and were able to involve the garrison as delegates. Without the soviet the liberals of the progressive bloc might have been able to secure a constitutional monarchy. The soviet provided a focus for republicanism that made it impossible. But note "focus". The soldiers, as mutineers, would have wanted a republic as a clean break in any case. Recommended reading must include Orlando Figes as mentioned bellow - not just for February but also for the description of peasant life and how little power the autocracy had over what went on in the villages. Arguably the peasants were such natural revolutionaries that revolution might have occurred without the revolutionary parties. *** Why did the Provisional Government fail to hold power? *** The PG tried to continue the war and to keep the peasants from taking the land while trying to avoid methods of dictatorship. In so doing they were trying to impose a policy that ran counter to the wishes of the mass of peasants and soldiers and workers. Half hearted attempts to impose this policy by force just further undermined their position. The workers were alienated because the PG failed to provide an adequate supply of bread to the cities. Further many workers were facing redundancy as a side effect of the war. Perhaps most militant were the soldiers who were bitter from seeing many comrades die as a result of their generals incompetence. They began to see no sense in giving their lives to fight for a government who could not even provide adequate supplies. The PG were facing a widespread popular movement and, as this included the soldiers, by October the PG could not even resort to force to keep power. *** Why did the non-Bolshevik socialists fail to take power from the provisional government in order to carry out a more popular policy that Russia''s people would have supported? *** The Mensheviks believed that Russia was too backward for socialism and followed Marx in believing that only an advance capitalist society could support socialism. Hence they believed that socialists should support the liberal CADETS in bringing about a capitalist revolution. Only after decades of capitalist development would it be permissible for socialists to take power. This very theoretical position was quite suicidal for the people in Russia were not prepared to wait. The peasant based Socialist Revolutionary Party in theory was much more open to immediate revolution. However it had a conservative right wing. Its leader Chernov belonged to the left and in later years cursed his weakness in not taking a more radical line. He however was bound by personal friendship to the Mensheviks and the right SRs and did not wish to split his party. Both these parties had a left wing that was advocating Soviet power and giving the people what they wanted. Because they did not split from their parties they had no public face. The left SRs only split from the Socialist Revolutionary Party at the time of the October revolution by which time the Bolshevik Party had become the focus of the popular revolution. *** Why did the Bolsheviks win power? *** Because the Bolshevik Party was only significant party to clearly oppose the Provisional Government and to unambiguously support the aims of the soldiers and workers and peasants. Had others, say Chernov, done this the Bolshevik party would not of been able to transform itself from an unpopular minority in the way it did. Hence the previous question is crucial. *** Why was the result a Bolshevik dictatorship? *** Essentially what the Bolsheviks wanted was as much opposed to the real desires of the people as had been the policies of the provisional government. For instance the Bolsheviks might well be prepared to give the peasants the land but their real aims was collectivized farming under state direction. When the Bolsheviks and the popular movement came into conflict, the Bolsheviks were utterly ruthless in imposing their will by force. Lenin is crucial. He pushed the Bolshevik Party into it''s uncompromising opposition to the provisional government and so ensured Bolshevik victory. It was he who ensured that the Bolshevik party would resort to dictatorship rather than bow to the will of the Russian people. *** Are there any books you recommend on the revolution? *** "A Peoples Tragedy" by Orlando Figes is and excellent and full account. Figes is an excellent story teller in which the people who lived through the revolution come to life, so the result is a ''good read''. He is also a perceptive writer who gives insight into the "why". It is quite thick too. Christopher Read''s "From Tsar to Soviets" doesn''t pretend to tell the story, concentrating instead on analysis. He focuses on the tension between the revolution of the grass roots and the revolution of the great political leaders in Petrograd. Materials are originally taken from: http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/russ/rfaq.html also recommend to check: http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/russ/rusrev.html |
