Medición periódica

'We no longer have a Tsar. A river of blood divides the Tsar frolll people.'38 Lenin showed, moreover, a certain indulgence, perhaps even

where this Gapon was concerned, which contrasted with the

and enmity that were the only feelings he evoked in the Leninists capital. One of Lenin's correspondents reproached him, in a dated January 1905, with being 'too lenient with Gapon'.39 Two later the priest went to Switzerland, to try and bring together in a way the groups

of Russian socialist emigres. Whereas received him icily, Lenin showed great interest and much w"""" In the presence of someone who had witnessed the revolution,

played a part in it, the doctrinal prejudices even of a man who deeply convinced of the importance of theory could not w '11 13. his desire for revolutionary action. Lenin urged Gapon, in order help him acquire 'clarity of revolutionary outlook', to read the

of Plekhanov. But he had little success in this direction. As wrote of Gapon, 'The priest mentality blinded him.'41

Here are some passages from the official History of thel ,m'nml Party of the Soviet Union published in Moscow in 1960: 'The viks ... called on the workers ... to go out into the streets ... in dem

stration against the autocracy.'42 'The [London] Congress ... out the tactical line of the party, recognizing the organization of armed rising as the chief and most urgent task of the party and working class.'43 'In the summer and autumn of 1905 prc:pa1:ati01 proceeded apace for a general political strike. The tremendous zational and agitational work carried on by the Bolsheviks !d.• u... the progress of the revolution.'44 • •

This is, briefly indicated, the picture that official histonans m

U.S.S.R. give of the attitude of the Bolsheviks during the . of 1905. It expresses and keeps alive a twofold legend: on the hand, a flawless party, homogeneous and closely united, and, .on other, this party firm and constant in pursuit of a policy of urgmg masses towards ever bolder and more revolutionary action.

part of the legend corresponds to the truth. The Bolsheviks did constitute a monolithic block, and their policy was often nesi lagging behind the vigorous radicalism of the masses, and never ing them as a 'guide to action', the essential function ascribed to Lenin's doctrine. In January 1905 the Bolsheviks, to an even degree than their Menshevik adversaries, proved unable to and direct the course of events and the movement of the masses·

the months that followed they continued to display hesitation

internal disagreement (which was inevitable) in the face of the ing size of the revolutionary upsurge. When, in August 1906, said that 'the proletariat sensed sooner than its leaders the ""w objective conditions of the struggle and the need for a transition

93

to an uprising,'4" his critical reference to 'leaders' applied to the Bolshevik leaders. Later, writing of the events of was to observe that 'the slogans of the revolutionaries ...

¥1UJ ruPd behind the march of events'.46 The allusion was aimed

10gc:U1"' put forward by his own followers. To realize this it is recall the language used at the Bolshevik congress in

, by Bogdanov, the chief leader of the organization inside

,A_c:ldr•eSsJ·ing delegates some of whom revealed a radical spirit considered excessive, Bogdanov stressed 'the importance of for saving and concentrating the revolutionary forces,' and the Party to persist in this line, 'unabashed by "unreason-

us:ati4:>ns that they are slowing down the development of the onar) mood of the masses" ',47 ,·reJ>rO!lChl;:s of this order actually brought against the Bolshe

.,,.-1-on ;? And did their attitude during that year justify such

They were undoubtedly often to be found in the forefront and sometimes urged the masses to put forward fresh

and display renewed boldness. There were, however, a

{)f occasions when Lenin's party showed itself timid and pusH Evidence of this is given by the attitude that it frequently

· in relation to the great strikes that accompanied the develop

'·uu; revolutionary crisis. Without being actually hostile, the attitude was not unconditionally favourable to this form In this matter as in so many others, the Bolsheviks did not

:ithcr their distrust of the 'spontaneity' of the masses or their regarding purely 'trade union' demands. Even political

1'1W1ere sometimes welcomed by them with mixed feelings, since

ared that these strikes might result in frittering away the pro strength and hindering the organizing of the armed insurrec- raot)eaJrs that caution in this regard was especially marked in the

_ of the Party, and that desire for action was the livelier, the organs consulted were to the masses. Thus, when in

· 1905 the committee of the Moscow organization had to take

on whether the time was ripe for a general strike, it rejected by 7 votes to 2. But when this question was discussed at a COnference that brought together between 800 and 1,000

Bolsheviks, the decision in favour of the strike was un-

- Valuable study of the revolution of 1905, S. M. Schwarz accounts by Bolsheviks from which it emerges that

Places the Bolsheviks found themselves drawn into the strikes an active part in them despite themselves, as it were'.48

areas-Tver, for example-the Bolsheviks showed grave _ and 'some of the committee were against strike action'.49 that the chief claim to glory possessed by the Bolsheviks of 94 LENINISM UNDER JN 1905 95

1905 was that they launched the rising in Moscow, the most and spectacular event of that troubled year. In this case as in so others, however, their leaders were brought to

take the owing to pressure from the proletariat which had become

Thus, when the committee of the Moscow organization met to sider the situation, it listened to a series of statements that made the impatient mood of the masses. One delegate asserted that workers will act themselves unless the committee calls them Another

reported that 'our workers are forging daggers and · ""'qj we can't hold them back'. A third said that 'our workers are

into battle, but have no arms'. Not long before, the head of the

militia in the Moscow region had been against a rising. Faced with the unanimity of this evidence, and convinced that it was Impossil to keep the masses of Moscow waiting any longer, he yielded, and Bolsheviks decided to launch the uprising. Soon afterward the sheviks decided to join in.50

At the Bolshevik congress of April 1905 the problem of

insurrection was the subject of a long discussion, in which the gates were fa:from showing a uniform degree of fighting spirit.

delegate from Saratov warned the congress against the motion the proletarian masses

were 'already armed with ideas' and needed to have guns put into their hands. Other delegates

this view, stating that the Party was not in a position to organize insurrection. This tendency was a far from negligible one, and majority had to take it into account. A resolution was passed, rP.rt nnl saying that to organize an armed rising was one of the Party's tasks but in the listing of these tasks, those related to propaganda

form an idea of the resistance that he encountered among his followers when he tried to convince them of the necessity and

of a resort to arms.For the founder of Bolshevism, in any case, orP'an ing the insurrection constituted the Party's most important task. had always figured in his code of political activity. In 1902 he declared that the mission of the Central Committee was the 'preoa tion of demonstrations and

an uprising on an all-Russian sca11

The revolution made the fulfilment of this function a matter of u

In December 1904, when political agitation was mounting in country, but as yet nobody suspected how imminent the exp'A""'

was, Lenin already foresaw that 'one of the outbreaks which are ring now here, now there, with such growing frequency, will

into a tremendous popular movement. At that moment the olet;al will rise and take its stand at the head of the insurrection ... '63 the morrow of 'Bloody Sunday' he observed, with barely

:;tio•n: 'The uprising has begun. Force against force. Street . is raging, barricades are being thrown up, rifles are cracking,

. roaring. Rivers of blood are flowing, the civil war for free

·blazing up.'5 Lenin strove, all through the year 1905, to con Bolsheviks that they must assume their responsibilitit::s:

a period of civil war the ideal party of the proletariat is a party,'55 every Party member must actively prepare for battle. recurs again and again like a leitmotiv in the innumerable

articles, resolutions and reports that he wrote at this time. now in the sphere of activity that he liked best. He was no

,,.rP.tv the theoretician of organization, the craftsman and

worker occupied with shaping the tool for revolution. At for the first time, he was in the fullest sense of the word a fighter, straining to come to grips with the enemy, at impatient to undertake the trial of strength with the old

·ardour and impatience of Lenin's were far from being shared o.:;p,,rtv as a whole. Quite apart from the Mensheviks, who were

>his influence, many Bolsheviks revealed a hesitant attitude strove indefatigably, from his distant place of exile (he did back to Petersburg until the beginning of

November), to At the Bolshevik congress in London he declared: 'we

estimated the significance and the inevitability of the uprising,'56

anteto put on the agenda no longer just the principle of this but also the working out of the practical tasks on the fulfil

of·which must depend its actual launching. The appeal that he

&sed on the first of May to the working people of Russia is l!arlly eloquent: 'To arms, workers and peasants! Hold secret

· form fighting squads, get whatever weapons you can ...

·year's First of May be for us the celebration of the people's Being in favour, however, of an organized uprising, he added: prepare for it and await the signal for the decisive attack on

· ' And it was to the leading organs and cadres of the faction that he then turned, for the signal to be given. To

'""'"' Lenin's style, the response he met with does not seem to me up to his expectations. '20th, 1905:

· then, with all doubts and vacillations. Let it be realised and all, now and without delay, how absurd and discredi

. are all pretexttoday for evading this urgent task of the · preparation of the armed uprising.58

::.-. 16th, 1905:

>tri:ties me-I give you my word-it horrifies me to find that been talk about bombs for over six months, yet not one

96 LENINISM UNDER