Summary of 'The Russian Revolution' by Rosa Luxemburg
彭玄之
Fundamental Significance of the Russian Revolution
Rosa begins by affirming the Russian Revolution to be one of the most historically significant of the era and one that redeems international socialism from its failures handling WW1. The Revolution exposes the lie at the heart of the German Left´s justification for WW1 as necessary in order to combat Tsarism and liberate the Russian people. It proves that was always a task for the Russian people themselves and all the war did was postpone their liberation by instilling the Russian masses with nationalist fervor and killing millions of workers and peasants, leaving the revolution weaker in resources that it would otherwise be. It also shows the error in the SPD mainstream line exemplified by Kautsky that the Russian left must not rush their struggle and limit themselves to create a bourgeoisie liberal democracy.
Rosa further states that with such an important event leftists cannot idolize the revolution to the point of thinking every action it takes is godsend. Self-criticism is the most vital weapon the left has in order to solve problems. So there must be a careful analysis of the revolution, study its context, what it got right, where it stumble and where it outright failed. This should be done as a constructive criticism that understands that this revolution is happening under the most adverse circumstances but in order to move forward it cannot be blinded to its shortcomings but instead find ways to overcome them.
There is a certain patron social revolutions go through: there usually is a coalition of multiple parties representing different classes, having reformist and moderate demands with the radical party representing the workers gaining increasing legitimacy and finally becoming the major force. In the case of Russia, the February revolution was led by the liberal bourgeoisie and other reactionary elements that never the less realized fighting the Tsar was the only way to maintain popular legitimacy so they became radical by circumstance; but the workers that pushed for this change weren´t rebelling for democracy but for an improvement on their material conditions that could only be accomplished by undermining or outright destroying the privileges of the young capitalist class, the one represented by the February government. This contradiction resulted in the ruling class plotting a counterrevolution that was successfully stopped by the Bolsheviks, further legitimizing them in the eyes of the people.
The Bolsheviks made a great strategic decision when they placed radical policies at the forefront of their program, unlike the moderate SPD which focused on abstract democratic rights so as to not alienate large segments of the population. They also proved that a revolution needs to be agile, it needs to rapidly react to the changes in the condition and adapt to it, if it stands still the revolutionary moment will pass. They were also not blinded by the pursuit of parliamentary power and electoralism, understanding that they needed to focus their objective on building the grassroots and creating alternative institutions of power, knowing the majorities would come only after that.
The Bolshevik Land Policy
A successful revolutionary government must quickly take over the large and middle land holdings and distribute them among the peasants in order to win them over and ensure their loyalty to the revolution, since a counter revolution would mean them losing their new property; small landowners have to be persuaded to integrate into the socialist economy without coercion. The Bolsheviks however did this in a rushed and disorganized manner that amounted to Lenin giving permission to the people to take over land without much regulation or oversight. This caused that in the process of redistributing land a new class of relatively well-off land owners emerged. Another important item has to be the integration between rural and industrial economic production in order to facilitate a planned economy.
The Bolshevik´s policy has led to an anarchic and disorganized land distribution with small landowners left to their own limited devices to produce. Whereas before there was a small clique of landowners controlling the land now there is a large number of them who will be alienated by any attempt to socialize the rural parts of the country.
The Bolsheviks won power in part with a simple slogan: peace, land and bread. They won because no other party could promise that, in part because of corruption, but in part because there were real logistical difficulties in achieving that in a short amount of time. Peace was one of them, although Russia´s entry in the war really was a self-inflicted wound, the fact of the matter is that Russia is currently being attacked by Germany and cannot opt out of the war without agreeing to humiliating and unpopular concessions. This lead to the treaty of Brest-Litovsk; It was difficult, it drew harsh criticisms, but it ultimately achieved peace. Which is to say the slogan was truthful but it lead to obstacles of their own. We see a similar dynamic with the question of land. Lenin would probably agree with Rosa´s alternative but he has to make do with the policy proposal that carried him to power. Under those circumstances using the state to stop ordinary desperate people from taking over the land would lose too much support so Lenin chooses the least unfavorable outcome in order to hopefully solve the long term problem in the future.
In essence Lenin´s land reform found a country in which nearly all of the land was owned by the elite and now gave that land to a larger class of now opulent farmers with no allegiance to the state that will be harder combat since they are greater in number. After Lenin and Rosa´s deaths Stalin would indeed deal with them in the dekulakization campaign.
The Nationalities Question
Another slogan of the Bolsheviks was the rights of nations to self-determination. But since Russia is itself a prison of nationalities it cannot survive as a functional state if enough ethnic groups and territories secede, it will instead become a balkanized rump state.
Rosa critiques Lenin´s call for self-determination on many grounds. First it divides the proletariat, leaving it at the mercy of thir respective ruling classes. Second it endangers Russia´s national security by placing potential enemy states, or enemy aligned states in the doorsteps of their country (It has been noted before there is a strange overlap here with Vladimir Putin´s justification for the war in Ukraine). By indulging and even nurturing these nationalist sentiments, Lenin has created a new political force that will undoubtedly turn against socialism and progress itself.
The benefits of this policy however shouldn´t be ignored. Allowing these countries to leave can act as a pressure valve against dissidence, real or potential, without firing a shot. Finally their concert with the rights of historically marginalized communities can set the Bolsheviks apart from their notoriously chauvinistic opposition, maybe turning these minorities into a bulwark against counter-revolution.
The Constituent Assembly
Trotsky justifies the dissolution of the national assembly on the grounds that the situation has radically changed since the people voted. The Bolsheviks took power just eighteen days before the election took place, before that they spend a long time being outlawed and persecuted, and they being a serious political force wasn´t registered in the mind of many people throughout the country.
Rosa counters that even if the situation changes, elected officials must react and adapt to the times, otherwise they will lose support and therefore relevance. So the better solution would have been to mobilize and agitate the people in order to exert pressure into the assembly and obtain the desired concessions.
The Question of Suffrage
Lenin and Trotsky´s conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat involves the disenfranchisement of the upper classes by solely granting the right to vote for those who work, as they consider it. The problem with this is that Russia is in the midst of a great crisis that caused scarcity and misery, it is not a country in conditions to grant full employment meaning a lot of those left out of the political process are regular people that cannot work because there isn´t any work to be found.
The Bolsheviks have opted for a political system that exclude large parts of the population that don´t form their electoral base as a response to the confrontational attitude some members of the middle classes have adopted in response to their rule.
Democracy and democratic norms are viewed by Rosa not only as just but also as a necessity for a functional state since they keep the people in power informed about what is the mood of the masses, what do they want and what can be done improve the party´s standing with them.
The Problem of Dictatorship
A socialist state needs at least some elements of the bourgeoisie on their side at first, because the workers themselves don´t have the education and skills to handle the entire economy. Among other things, this means the government needs to listen to what the upper classes have to say even if they are not adherents to Bolshevik ideology because they possess very important human capital.
Again we see that democracy is not some righteous endeavour but a tool to contribute in the trial and error process that will lead to a better people´s state. Trotsky and Lenin seem to believe since the people took down the government all that needs to happen now is them applying the right ideology but Marxism is not a recipe that can be used dogmatically. It is a frame to study a situation that needs to be nourished by practice and adapt to the material conditions. This cannot happen in a party of yes-men concerned not only with their political future but with their status as citizens.
The Struggle Against Corruption
The lumpenproletariat is a major obstacle for a revolution. The lumpenproletariat is an integral part of the bourgeoisie that becomes more visible in times of great social strife when the bourgeoisie power structure crumbles and they succumb to illegal activities that breed corruption and sabotage. These obstacles can be overcome by promoting an idealist devotion towards the common good and by having a free and open society with institutions that keep the government and its officers in check.
Democracy and Dictatorship
Rosa claims there is a false dichotomy between democracy and dictatorship. Kautsky and his ilk worship liberal bourgeoisie and focus solely in respecting parliamentary rules and the political process, rather than see it as a means to an end. Rosa seems to define dictatorship as the rapid use of executive power disregarding certain constitutional norms in the service of improving the material conditions of the people, as such is not surprising that to her democracy and dictatorship are two totally reconcilable terms.
It is once again empathized that democracy is not a utopian luxury that will only be achieved once the imperialist enemies abroad and the counterrevolutionary enemies at home are vanquished but a tool to improve and solidify the beleaguered socialist state. Rosa assures that Lenin must know this and its authoritarian measures are the product of the extremely adverse situation the Soviet Union emerged from, unlike the unforced errors of the German social democracy; It would therefore be a mistake to take everything they are doing as an example and to uncritically export its model without regard for the historical context and material condition of the country that is being used into.