"We are still suffering in this respect from muzhik naivete and muzhik helplessness, like that peasant, who, after robbing the master's library, ran home, fearing that someone would take it away from him, because the idea that there could be a correct distribution, that the public chest is not something hateful, but the common property of the workers and the toiling population—that consciousness was still lacking in him. The undeveloped peasant mass is not to blame for this, and from the point of view of the development of the revolution this is quite legitimate—it is an inevitable phase, and when the peasant took the library home and kept it there in secret, he could not act otherwise, because he did not understand that the libraries of Russia could be joined together, that there would be enough books to gratify the thirst of the literate and teach the illiterate. Now we must combat the survivals of disorganization, chaos and ridiculous departmental disputes ... not set up parallel organizations, but create a single planned organization. In this small job is reflected the basic task of our revolution. If it fails to solve this task, if it will not emerge upon the path of creating a really planned united organization in place of Russian muddle-headed chaos and absurdity, that revolution will then remain a bourgeois revolution, for the basic characteristic of a proletarian revolution heading for communism consists precisely in this." (Works, Vol. 29, pp. 308, 309-10.)
Ilyich here revealed the roots of anarchism, which denies all planned collective effort, all forms of state organization, on the principle of "I do as I please."
Ilyich and I often talked about anarchism. I remember our first conversation on that subject at Shushenskoye. On joining Ilyich in Siberian exile, I examined with interest his album containing photographs of political convicts. Between two photographs of Chernyshevsky, I saw one of Zola. I asked him why he kept a photograph of Zola in his album. He began telling me about Dreyfus, whom Zola had defended, then we began comparing notes about Zola's books, and I told him what a deep impression his novel Germinal had made upon me—I had first read it when I was deep in study of the first volume of Marx's Capital. Germinal describes the French labour movement and contains, among others, the figure of a Russian Anarchist t Suvarine, who strokes a pet rabbit while at the same time repeating that everything should be "smashed and destroyed" (tout rompre, tout detruire). Ilyich had spoken warmly about the differences between an organized socialist labour movement and anarchism. I dimly recollect another talk with Ilyich on the same subject of the Anarchists on the eve of his departure to attend the Tammerfors Conference in 1905. I have recently reread Ilyich's article "Socialism and Anarchism," relating to that period, in which he gives an excellent characterization of anarchism: "The philosophy of the Anarchists is bourgeois philosophy turned inside out. Their individualistic theories and their individualistic ideals are the very antithesis of socialism. Their views express, not the future of bourgeois society, which is irresistibly heading towards the socialization of labour, but the present and even the past of that society, the domination of blind chance over the scattered, isolated small producer. Their tactics, which amount to the negation of the political struggle, disunite the proletarians and in fact convert them into passive participants of one or another set of bourgeois politics; because it is impossible for the workers really to detach themselves from politics." (Works, Vol. 10, p. 55.)
This was what Ilyich and I had talked about in 1905.
In May 1919 the First All-Russian Congress on Extra-School Education was held. It was greeted by Ilyich. The congress was attended by eight hundred delegates, among whom there were many non-Party people. The general atmosphere was one of enthusiasm—many of the delegates were preparing to go to the front—but we, Bolsheviks, who had organized the congress, saw that on many questions the delegates lacked a clear understanding of Soviet democracy, of that which distinguished our Soviet democracy from bourgeois democracy, and we asked Ilyich to make another speech at the congress. He consented and delivered a long speech on May 19 on the subject of "The Deception of the People by the Slogans of Freedom and Equality." He spoke about how the people were deceived by these slogans in the capitalist states, said that the Soviet power—the dictatorship of the proletariat—would now lead the masses to socialism, and spoke about the difficulties that still confronted the Soviet Government.
"This new organization of the state is being born with the greatest difficulty because to overcome disorganizing, petty-bourgeois lack of discipline is the most difficult thing, is a million times more difficult than overcoming the landlord violator or the capitalist violator, but it is a million times more fruitful for the creation of a new organization free from exploitation. When proletarian organization solves this task, then socialism has won finally. The whole of the activity of both extra-school and school education must be devoted to this." (Works, Vol. 29, pp. 345-46.)
But if a struggle was needed against anarchist moods in the business of building up the Soviet power, all the more necessary was it in the Red Army. Anarchist moods there took the form of sheer insubordination. The experience of the civil war in the Ukraine best illustrates these difficulties in organizing the Red Army. Ilyich spoke about this on July 4, 1919, when he addressed a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the Moscow Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies, the Moscow Council of Trade Unions and delegates of Moscow's factory committees.
Ilyich spoke about the difficulties of the first year of civil war, when we were obliged to form our detachments hastily one after another.
"The extremely low level of proletarian political consciousness in the Ukraine," Ilyich said, "combined with weakness and poor organization, Petlura disorganization, and the pressure of German imperialism, provided fruitful soil for enmity and guerrilla methods. In every detachment the peasants snatched up arms, elected their ataman or headman in order to set up a local authority. They ignored the central authorities completely, and every headman imagined himself to be a local ataman who could settle all Ukrainian questions himself regardless of what was being undertaken in the centre." (Ibid., pp. 424-25.)
Ilyich went on to say that this lack of organization, these guerrilla methods and chaos, were having a disastrous effect on the Ukraine. It was an experience that would leave its mark upon the country.
"This lesson of disorganization and chaos has been realized in the Ukraine," Ilyich said. "I will be a turning point for the whole Ukrainian revolution, and will affect the whole development of the Ukraine. It is a turning point which we, too, have passed, a change from guerrilla methods and the throwing about of revolutionary phrases—we can do anything!—to a realization of the necessity of long, hard, dogged organizational work. It was the path we entered upon many months after October and achieved considerable success in. W'e look to the future absolutely confident that we shall overcome all difficulties." (Ibid., p. 426.)
Ilyich's hopes were fulfilled. Our Red Army became a model of socialist organization.
