In the immediate aftermath of the Kornilov putsch, Lenin argues that it was now only the working class taking power through the soviets that could save country, and the revolution, from a successful Kornilovian counter-revolution. Either the dictatorship of the proletarian or the dictatorship of the most violently reactionary forces on the planet was at hand.

‘One of the Fundamental Questions of Revolution’ (1917) by N. Lenin from International Press Correspondence. Vol. 7 No. 53. September 15, 1917.

Published in “Rabotschi Puty”, 27th September, 1917. Without doubt the main question of every revolution is the question of state power. The decisive thing is, which class has the power in its hands. And when the newspaper of the greatest government party in Russia, the “Dyelo Naroda” complained recently (No. 147) that the question of the Constituent Assembly and the question of bread supplies were being forgotten in the dispute for power, then the only reply to be given the Social Revolutionaries is: You accuse yourselves. For it is the indecision and irresolution of your party which are more to blame than anything else for the “antics of the ministers”, for the eternal postponement of the Constituent Assembly, and for the frustration by the capitalists of the measures projected and accepted for the bread monopoly and the safeguarding of the bread supplies of the country.

The question of power can be neither evaded nor postponed, for it is the one fundamental question determining everything in the development of the revolution, both in home and foreign politics. It is an indubitable fact that our revolution wasted half a year “fruitlessly” through irresolution in the question of power, and that this irresolution was due to the policy of the S.R.’s and the Mensheviki. And at bottom the policy of these parties was determined by the class position of the petty bourgeoisie, by its economic inconstancy in the struggle between capital and labour.

The whole question now is: Has petty bourgeois democracy learnt anything from the pregnant events of this half year, or has it not. If not, then the revolution is in danger, and only the victorious rising of the proletariat can save it.

If it has learnt something, then the next step is the formation of a firmly established power. For nothing short of such a power can be steadfast in a period of people’s revolution, that is only such a power can arouse the masses of workers and peasants to life. It must be a power based consciously and unconditionally on the majority of the population.

Up to now state power in Russia has remained in actual fact with the bourgeoisie, and this is only obliged to make Occasional partial concessions (which are withdrawn again next day), to give promises (which are not kept), to seek every kind of cloak for its rule (in order to persuade the people of the existence of an “honourable coalition”) and so forth. In words: a democratic and revolutionary people’s government; in deeds: a government hostile to the people, anti-democratic, counter-revolutionary, and bourgeois. The contradiction here existing is the source of the complete indecision and vacillation in the exercise of power, and of all the “ministerial antics”, promoted by the S.R.s and the Mensheviki with such regrettable (for the people) zeal.

Either let the Soviets be dispersed, and die a disgraceful death, or let all power be given to the Soviets–this was my demand before the All-Russian Soviet Congress at the beginning of July 1917; and the history of July and August confirms convincingly the rightness of my words. The only Soviet power which can stand firmly is one consciously sup ported by the majority of the people, and this fact cannot be altered by any lies on the part of the lackeys of the bourgeoisie, Potressov, Plechanov, etc., who call it an “extension of the basis” when they place power in the hands of an insignificant minority of the people, the bourgeoisie, the exploiters.

Only a Soviet power can be steadfast. It alone cannot be overthrown by the most tempestuous moments of a tempestuous revolution, and it alone can secure a permanent and broad development of the revolution, a peaceful struggle of the parties within the Soviets. Until there is such a power, we shall inevitably have indecision, irresolution, waverings, unending “power crises”, the senseless comedy of ministerial antics, and explosions from Right and Left.

But the slogan: “Power to the Soviets” is very often, if not mostly, quite falsely understood in the sense of a “ministry of the parties of the Soviet majority”. We must discuss somewhat in detail this fundamentally wrong idea.

“A ministry of the parties of the Soviet majority”–that means a change in the persons forming the ministry, but the retention of the sacredness of the whole apparatus of governmental power, a thoroughly bureaucratic and entirely undemocratic apparatus, incapable of real reforms, even those contained in the programme of the S.R.s and the Mensheviki.

“Power to the Soviets”–that means a radical alteration of the whole old state apparatus, this bureaucratic apparatus, hindering all advances towards democracy. It means the removal of this apparatus and its substitution by a new, a people’s apparatus, that is by the organised and armed majority of the people, the workers, soldiers, and peasants, and securing the people’s majority not only in the choice of delegates, but in the government of the state, the realisation of reforms and in reorganisation, initiative, and independence.

In order to make this difference clearer and more graphic, let us call to mind an admission recently made by the newspaper of the government party, the party of the S.R.s, the “Dyelo Naroda”. Even in the ministries–wrote this newspaper–left to the socialist ministers (this was written at the time of the famous coalition with the Cadets, when the Mensheviki and S.R.s were ministers), even in these ministries the whole administrative apparatus remained as before, and hampered all work.

This is easily comprehensible. The whole history of the bourgeois parliamentary countries, and to a great extent also of the bourgeois constitutional countries, shows that a change of ministers means very little, since the actual work of administration lies in the hands of the gigantic army of officials. This army is completely saturated with the spirit of anti-democracy; it is bound by thousands of ties to the landowners and the bourgeoisie, and dependent from these in every respect. This army is surrounded by an atmosphere of bourgeois relations; it breathes this atmosphere, it is petrified, dried up, rigid, totally incapable of tearing itself away from this atmosphere; it is unable to think, feel, or act differently from its old rut. This army is bound up with the titles, with the well known privileges of the “civil servant”, its upper strata is enslaved to financial capital by banks and shares, and represents in a certain sense in itself the agents safeguarding the interests and influence of financial capital.

It is a great illusion to suppose that this state apparatus will aid in such reorganisations as, the expropriation without compensation of the landowners, the bread monopoly, etc. A self-delusion and a deception of the people. This is an apparatus which can only serve the republican bourgeoisie, by creating a republic in the form of a “monarchy without monarchs”, like the third republic in France; but it is entirely incapable of carrying out reforms curtailing, not to speak of abolishing, the rights of capital, the sacred “rights of private property”. Hence it comes about that all possible “coalition ministries with the participation of the socialists, that these socialists, despite the sincere efforts of many of them, have never been anything but a mere ornament or screen for the bourgeois government, a lightning conductor diverting the wrath of the people from the government, a tool of this government for the deception of the masses. This was the case with Louis Blanc in 1848, it has been the case with dozens of socialists in England and France since then, Chernov and Zeretelli found themselves in the same position in 1917. It has always been so, and always will be, so long as the bourgeois order exists and is kept intact by the old bourgeois state apparatus.

The Soviets of the workers’, soldiers’, and peasants’ deputies are of enormous value as representing an immeasurably higher and incomparably more democratic type of state apparatus. The S.R.s and the Mensheviki have tried every possible and impossible means to convert the Soviets (especially the Petrograd and the All Russian Soviet, that is, the Central Executive Committee) into mere debating societies, affording a semblance of “control” by the expression of powerless resolutions and wishes, dropped politely into the waste paper basket by the government. It only needed the “fresh breeze” of the Kornilov rebellion, however, with its promise of good storm, and the musty atmosphere of the Soviets vanished, and the initiative of the revolutionary masses appeared as something great, mighty, indomitable.

May all the faint hearted may learn from this historical example. They should be ashamed to say: “We have no apparatus which could replace the old one, with its inclination to defend the bourgeoisie.” We have this apparatus in the Soviets. Do not fear the initiative and independence of the masses, trust the revolutionary organisations of the masses and you will see in every sphere of state life such a force, a greatness, and indomitableness of the workers and peasants, as was displayed in their combination and advance against Kornilov.

The lack of faith in the masses, the fear of their advance, the fear of their independence, the trembling before their revolutionary energy, instead of general support for the masses–these are the greatest sins of the leaders of the S.R.s and the Mensheviki. Here lie the deepest roots of their indecision, their shilly-shallying, their unending and fruitless attempts to pour new wine into the old bottles of the bureaucratic state apparatus.

Let us take the history of the democratisation of the army in the Russian revolution in 1917, the history of the ministry of Tchernov, the history of “the rule” of Paltschinsky, the history of Peschechonov’s resignation–and everywhere you will find striking confirmation of this. The lack of perfect faith in the organisations elected by the soldiers, the failure to carry out unreservedly the principle of electing the officers by the soldiers’ votes, resulted in an army led by Kornilovs, Kaledins, counter-revolutionary officers. This is a fact, and unless we deliberately close our eyes we are bound to see that after the Kornilov rebellion the Kerensky government will leave everything as it was, will actually establish a Kornilov order. The appointment of Alexeyev, the “peace” with Klembovsky, Gagarin, Bagration, and other followers of Kornilov, the mild treatment of Kornilov and Kaledin themselves—all this shows clearly enough that Kerensky is actually establishing a Kornilov order.

There is no middle course. Experience has shown us that there is no middle course. Either all power to the Soviets and complete democratisation of the army, or a Korniloviad.

And the Chernov ministry? Have we not always seen that any really serious step towards actually satisfying the requirements of the peasantry, any sign of faith in the peasants, their mass organisations or actions, arouses the greatest enthusiasm among the peasantry? But Chernov found it necessary to “negotiate” and “bargain” for four months with the Cadets and bureaucrats, until these, after endless delays and disappointments, forced him to resign without having accomplished anything. During these four months, and thanks to these four months, the landowners and capitalists won the game. Landed estate was left untouched, the Constituent Assembly was postponed, and even reprisals against the land committees were commenced.

There is no middle course. Experience has shown us that there is no middle course. Either all power to the Soviets in the metropolis and in the provinces, and all land to the peasants at once, before the Constituent Assembly meets, or the landowners and capitalists hinder everything, restore the power of the landowners, drive the peasants to despair, and drive the matter to a furious peasant insurrection.

We saw the same thing when the capitalists (with the help of Paltschinsky) thwarted any serious attempt at the control of production, and the dealers utilised Peschechonov to sabotage the grain monopoly and the commencement of a regulation of the democratic distribution of bread and other products.

We are not concerned in Russia at the present time with finding “new forms” or projecting comprehensive “plans”. Nothing of the sort. That is how the capitalists, with Potressov, Plechanov, etc., who raise such outcries against “the introduction of socialism”, against the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, regard the matter, and in so doing are deliberately dishonest. In reality the situation in Russia is such that the unheard of burdens and miseries of the war, the threatening shadow of economic ruin and starvation, point out in themselves the only path to be taken. They demand, and not only demand, but already insist imperatively on the following immediate reforms and changes: grain monopoly, control of production and distribution, restriction on the issue of paper money, proper exchange of grain for industrial goods, etc.

Such measures as these are universally recognised as necessary, and in many places steps are being taken for their execution. Steps are being taken, but everywhere obstacles are thrown in the way by the landowners and capitalists, by the resistance of the Kerensky government. (a government thoroughly bourgeois-Bonapartist at heart), and by the old bourgeois state apparatus, acting under the direct and indirect pressure of Russian and “allied” financial capital.

Not long ago I. Prileschayev lamented in “Dyelo Naroda” (No. 147) over the resignation of Peschechonov, over the collapse of fixed prices, over the breakdown of the grain monopoly:

“Courage and determination are qualities lacking in all our governments no matter of what composition…Revolutionary democracy should not wait; it must seize the initiative itself, and intervene systematically in the economic chaos…We need more than ever a fixed course and a determined power.”

What is true is true. Golden words. But the writer of them forgot that the question of a steady course, of courage and determination, is not a personal question, but a question of the class possessing this courage and determination. The proletariat is the only such class. Courageous and determined power, a steady course this is nothing else but the dictatorship of the proletariat and the poor peasantry. I. Prileschayev unconsciously desires this dictatorship.

What would such a dictatorship mean in actual fact? It would mean the breaking down of the resistance of Kornilov and his adherents, the complete realisation of the democratisation of the army. Within two days of its establishment 99 per cent of the army would be enthusiastic followers of the dictatorship. It would give the land to the peasants, and give the peasants’ committees full powers in the provinces. Can any reasonable person suppose that the peasantry would not support such a dictatorship? What Peschechonov only promised (“the resistance of the capitalists is broken”–Peschechonov’s own words in his famous speech at the Soviet Congress), would be realised by this dictatorship, converted into deeds, and the democratic organisations already springing into being food supplies, for control, etc., would not be destroyed, but on the contrary aided, developed, and all hindrances to their work removed.

Only the dictatorship of the proletariat and the poor peasantry is capable of breaking down the resistance of the capitalists, of showing true courage and determination, and of securing the enthusiastic, unconditional, really heroic support of the masses, the army, and the peasantry.

All power to the Soviets–this alone can ensure a gradual, peaceful, and steady development, carried forward on the level of the will and consciousness of the masses of the people, on the level of their own experience. All power to the Soviets–this means the complete transference of the administration of the country and of the control of economics to the workers and peasants, to whom no one will dare offer resistance, and who will very soon learn from their own experience how best to divide the land, the products, and the bread.

International Press Correspondence, widely known as”Inprecorr” was published by the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) regularly in German and English, occasionally in many other languages, beginning in 1921 and lasting in English until 1938. Inprecorr’s role was to supply translated articles to the English-speaking press of the International from the Comintern’s different sections, as well as news and statements from the ECCI. Many ‘Daily Worker’ and ‘Communist’ articles originated in Inprecorr, and it also published articles by American comrades for use in other countries. It was published at least weekly, and often thrice weekly.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/inprecor/1927/v07n53-sep-15-1927-inprecor-op.pdf