The historic Sixth Congress of the Bolshevik Party met in Petrograd on July 26 and sat until August 3, 1917.
J. M. Sverdlov, reporting to the Sixth Congress, stated that the number of organisations of the Party had increased since the April Conference from 78 to 162. The Party membership had trebled in three months—from 80,000 to 240,000. There were 41,000 Party members in Petrograd, 50,000 in the Moscow district, 25,000 in the Urals, 16,000 in the Donbas, 10,000 in the Kiev district, 9,000 in the Caucasus, 12,000 in Finland, 14,000 in the Baltic provinces, 13,000 in the Volga district, 7,000 in the Odessa district, 10,000 in Siberia, 4,000 in the Minsk district, 1,500 in the Northern district and, finally, 26,000 in the Party organisations in the army and navy.(1)
The Bolshevik press had also grown considerably during this period. The Party had forty-one newspapers with a daily circulation of 320,000 copies. Twenty-seven of the newspapers were published in Russian, the remainder in Georgian, Armenian, Latvian, Tatar, Polish and other languages.
After the July events, eight of these newspapers were prohibited, including the central organ of the Party, Pravda. But by the time the Congress opened five of them had reappeared under new names.
The influence of the Bolshevik Party among the masses had grown immensely. This was clearly borne out by facts mentioned in the reports made at the Congress by the delegates from the various localities. V. N. Podbelsky, a delegate from Moscow, said:
“The tremendous influence of our organisation, comrades, was reflected in the fact that all the mass actions took place under our slogans. . . . The demonstration of June 18, officially organised by the Soviet, was held under our slogans. At the assembly places appointed by the Soviets miserable groups of twenty or thirty people gathered—the masses followed our banners. Wherever we arranged meetings huge crowds assembled, while the other spots remained deserted and came to life only when our banners approached and when our people spoke.”(2)
Acting in accordance with the resolution of the April Conference of the Bolshevik Party, the Moscow organisation was able to rally vast numbers of working people. The Moscow Bolsheviks won control of a number of trade unions, from which the workers expelled the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. The compromisers continued to dominate in the Moscow Soviet, but the influence of the Bolsheviks among the masses had become so strong that the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries were frequently obliged to vote in support of Bolshevik resolutions. At a joint meeting of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies and the Soviet of Soldiers’ Deputies in Moscow on July 25, the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries did not dare to refrain from supporting the Bolshevik protest against the introduction of the death penalty. At a conference of Moscow factory committees held July 23-28, a number of Mensheviks, under the pressure of the masses, voted for the Bolshevik proposal to introduce workers’ control over production. The terror instituted by the government after the July events did not halt the growing influence of the Moscow Bolsheviks. The persecution of the Party increased, it became more difficult to arrange indoor and outdoor meetings, but no diminution of Party membership was to be observed. The Moscow Bolsheviks continued stalwartly and confidently to carry on their work among the masses, in which they were guided by the instructions of Lenin and the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party. The Moscow delegate at the Bolshevik Congress explicitly stated:
“In conclusion, I consider it extremely important to note the complete unanimity that prevails in ideological work between Moscow and Petrograd, as was expressed both at the time of the crisis of April 20-21 and on the question of taking action during the July days.
“This unanimity, which was achieved even without preliminary agreement, convinces us, comrades, of the essential correctness of our position and inspires us with even greater confidence and enthusiasm in our work.”(3)
The delegate from the Donbas spoke of the rapid growth of the Bolshevik organisation there. Bolshevik resolutions were adopted at all workers’ meetings. The Bolshevik influence predominated among the workers. In many of the factories the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks were joining the Bolshevik nuclei.
The influence of the Bolshevik Party was growing in the Volga district. In the elections to the City Duma in Tsaritsyn, the Bolsheviks obtained 39 seats out of 102. In Saratov the Bolshevik Party took third place at the elections. The Bolsheviks in the Volga district were carrying on fruitful work among the oppressed nationalities. In Kazan the programme of the Bolshevik Party had been translated and published in the Tatar language.
In Grozny the Bolshevik Party had had a membership of 800 on the eve of the April Conference; by the time of the Sixth Congress the membership had increased to about 2,000. The work of the Bolsheviks in Grozny had to be conducted under extremely difficult circumstances. An Anti-Bolshevik Society had been formed in the city. The Bolsheviks were branded as German spies; they were provoked into action and then beaten up. The Bolsheviks were accused of inciting the Chechens against the Russians. On July 9 a decision was taken in a Cossack village near Grozny to evict all Bolsheviks within three days. One teacher was evicted from the village solely on the grounds that she was the wife of a Bolshevik.
But the workers supported the Bolshevik organisation. They were not even deterred by the repressive measures instituted after the July events.
“The July events,” the Grozny delegate said, “so to speak crystallised our Party: convinced workers, who will never disavow our Party, came to join its ranks.”(4)
In Transcaucasia, the Bolsheviks worked under very difficult conditions. They succeeded in gaining the support of the soldiers—there were 80,000 troops stationed in Tiflis alone. But the Regional Executive Committee of the Soviets, which was under the sway of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, began to withdraw the Bolshevik regiments from the city and to replace them by others. The new regiments were first quartered for a while in the country districts, where slanderous agitation against the Bolsheviks was carried on among the soldiers. When the new regiments became Bolshevised in their turn, they too were withdrawn from the cities. Bolshevik newspapers were confiscated. On one occasion the Executive Committee of the Tiflis Soviet held up 40,000 copies of Pravda. Threats to prohibit the Bolshevik newspaper, Kavkazsky Rabochy (Caucasian Worker), were made at every meeting of the Soviet.
“Our work there,” the delegate from Transcaucasia related, “is the work of martyrs. But even after this we continued our activities. Our paper became a soldiers’ paper: we received sackloads of letters and thousands of telegrams of sympathy from the front.”(5)
In the interval between the April Conference and the Sixth Congress the Bolshevik Party had gained tremendous experience in mass work. The rapidly changing political situation and the tense and feverish practical activity had inspired a number of new forms of mass work. In regiments and factories were formed what was known as zemlyachestva—societies of soldiers or workers coming from one district, and sometimes from one village. Political talks were arranged in these societies, and soldiers leaving on furlough were supplied with political literature. In Kronstadt the Bolshevik organisation sent groups of agitators from these zemlyachestva to the villages and the provincial cities.
Apart from the zemlyachestva, work was carried on in clubs. One of these clubs was formed in Petrograd by the military organisation of the Bolshevik Central Committee. It was a club for soldiers called “Pravda” (“Truth”), where lectures were delivered and the programme of the Bolshevik Party discussed.
Work among the soldiers in the garrisons and at the front assumed wide dimensions. The Bolshevik military organisation in Moscow had a membership of over 2,000. The Moscow Bolsheviks sent literature and agitators to the front. Reporting at the Sixth Congress on behalf of the Moscow military organisation, Yaroslavsky stated that in one month alone over 170 delegates had arrived from the front in quest of Bolshevik literature. And this in spite of the fact that soldiers were persecuted for reading Bolshevik papers.
At the front, particularly the part of it nearest to Petrograd, in the Twelfth Army for example, the Bolshevik Party organisations rapidly recovered from the suppression of the July demonstrations. The very day after the generals had closed down Okopnaya Pravda a new paper, Okopny Nabat (Trench Alarm), appeared. On July 20 the Bolsheviks already managed to summon a conference of delegates from twenty-three regiments—Russian, Siberian and Lettish. This conference sent a protest to Petrograd against the repressive measures of the Provisional Government and demanded the liberation of all arrested Bolsheviks.
There were over 2,000 Bolsheviks in the Lettish Regiments, but, as a matter of fact, the Lettish Bolsheviks had the support of all the 48,000 men of these regiments. A Lettish delegate at the Sixth congress said:
“The General Staff now regrets that it permitted the formation of the national regiments, but it is already too late to disband the eight Lettish regiments. The Lettish riflemen declared that they would not allow it. The Siberian regiments announced that if the Lettish regiments were disbanded they too would have to be reckoned with; and vice versa. There is complete unanimity between the Lettish and the Siberian regiments, and if the General Staff does not succeed in provoking us to premature action, I hope we shall be able to turn the Twelfth Army into a ‘Red Army.’”(6)
The Party carried on its work with great persistence and intensity within the Soviets—those mass political organisations—boldly exposing the treacherous policy of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. The Bolshevik wave flooded the lower storeys of the Soviets, and bade fair to reach the upper storeys. The leaders of the Soviets in many cases no longer reflected the state of mind of their electors. Endeavouring to resist the pressure from below, the leaders of the petty-bourgeois bloc resorted to the old and tried method of postponing and delaying the new elections to the Soviets by every means in their power. But the Party skilfully frustrated this manœuvre too, and created its strongholds in the district Soviets. Thus, at the time of the Sixth Party Congress, six of the ten district Soviets in Moscow were under the complete sway of the Bolsheviks. Forced out of the Soviets by the pressure of the masses, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks entrenched themselves in the urban and rural local government bodies, from which they endeavoured to combat the influence of the Bolsheviks.
On the municipal bodies too—the City Dumas, in which the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries were entrenching themselves in order to combat the Soviets—Lenin’s followers were winning important positions.
The Party fought no less persistently for the control of other organisations. The trade unions were becoming Bolshevised. The factory committees in the industrial centres entirely supported the Bolsheviks.
The Party carried on extensive work among the youth. At the time of the Sixth Party Congress the Youth League in Petrograd had a membership of about 50,000 and carried on an active fight in support of the Bolshevik slogans. The influence of the Party was just as strong among the youth in other large industrial centres.
The reports from the various localities made at the Party Congress showed that while the Party had not yet gained an overwhelming majority in the mass organisations of the proletariat and peasantry all over the country, it had nevertheless secured a very firm foothold at the decisive points. The membership of the Party had trebled since the April Conference, it had gained tremendous experience in the revolutionary struggle, and its influence among the masses had grown.
The Congress was obliged to meet semi-legally. Government spies, hired and voluntary, prowled about the city trying to discover where the delegates were meeting. On July 29 the Provisional Government issued an ordinance empowering the Minister of War and the Minster of the Interior to prohibit any meeting or congress at their discretion. This ordinance was obviously aimed at the Bolsheviks.
The Congress, which was attended by 157 delegates with the right to vote and 112 delegates with a voice but no vote, opened on the Vyborg side in Petrograd, and then, from motives of secrecy, transferred to the Narva Gate at the other end of Petrograd.
“The meetings were held in such secrecy,” one of the delegates relates, “that many of the comrades adopted false names, because we expected more raids and arrests every day.”(7)
So real was the threat of arrest that it was thought expedient to interrupt the business long before the end of the Congress in order to elect the Central Committee before it was too late.
Under such circumstances haste was essential. Only the most urgent questions could be dealt with. Thus, the Congress considered it impossible to undertake the actual revision of the Party Programme. The drafting of the new programme was entrusted to the newly-elected Central Committee.
The Congress endorsed the following agenda:
1. Report of the Organisation Bureau [which convened the Congress—Ed.].
2. Report of the Central Committee.
3. Reports from the localities.
4. The current situation:
(a) The war and the international situation.
(b) The political and economic situation.
5. Revision of the programme.
6. Organisation.
7. The elections to the Constituent Assembly.
8. The International.
9. Party unity.
10. The trade union movement.
11. Elections.
12. Miscellaneous.
One of the first questions discussed at the Congress was whether Lenin should appear for trial. The discussion was opened by Sergo Orjonikidze. He was categorically opposed to Lenin’s appearing in court.
“What is important for them,” Orjonikidze said, “is to rob the ranks of the revolutionary party of as many leaders as possible. Under no circumstances must we surrender Comrade Lenin.”(8)
Orjonikidze was supported by Dzerzhinsky, who said:
“We must say clearly and definitely that those comrades were right who advised Lenin . . . not to allow himself to be arrested. We must give a clear answer to the campaign of the bourgeois press, which wants to disorganise the ranks of the workers.”(9)
Only a few of the Congress delegates spoke in favour of Lenin’s appearing for trial. Volodarsky and Lashevich said that Lenin’s trial could be transformed into a trial of the government, from which the Party would benefit.
The Congress of the Bolshevik Party declared against Lenin’s appearing for trial, thus endorsing the position which Stalin had taken up after the July demonstration was smashed.
The principal items on the agenda of the Congress were two reports by Stalin: the political report of the Central Committee and the report on the political situation. In the first of the reports, in which he presented a profound Leninist analysis of the July events and of the tactics of the Party at the time, Stalin raised questions on the answer to which the course and issue of the proletarian revolution in Russia would depend.
“Before passing to the report on the political activities of the Central Committee during the past two and a half months,” Stalin said, “I deem it necessary to mention a fundamental fact which determined the activities of the Central Committee. I am referring to the development of our revolution, which has raised the question of intervening in the sphere of economic relations in the form of control over production, of handing over the land to the peasants, of transferring power from the bourgeoisie to the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. All this determines the profound character of our revolution. It has begun to assume the character of a Socialist, a workers’ revolution.”(10)
No great objections were raised to the political Line of the Central Committee. The few remarks that were made chiefly pointed out that the contacts between the Central Committee and the provinces were inadequate. But Preobrazhensky endeavoured to utilise these remarks to prove that the July defeat was due to the fact that the Petrograd proletariat was isolated from the provinces.
With five abstaining and none voting against, the Congress approved the activities of the Central Committee and endorsed its report.
Stalin’s second report was devoted to the tactics of the Party in the new stage.
The political situation in the country had drastically changed since the July days. From the position of unstable equilibrium in which it had been since the February Revolution, the government power had swung sharply to the Right: the dual power of the Provisional Government and the Soviets had given place to the sole power of the bourgeoisie. The liberties recently enjoyed had been replaced by “emergency laws” against the Bolsheviks. The government was making every effort to disarm the revolution. It was disbanding the revolutionary regiments and driving the Red Guard underground.
All possibility of a peaceful development of the revolution had vanished. The revolution could be advanced only by wresting the power from the hands of the bourgeoisie.
But there was only one class that could forcibly seize power; this was the proletariat, together with the poor peasants. The Soviets, still controlled by the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, had passed over to the camp of the bourgeoisie, and at this stage of the revolution could act only as accomplices of the counter-revolutionaries. After all that had occurred in connection with the July events, the slogan “All Power to the Soviets!” which had been advanced in April, could now no longer be justified. However, the withdrawal of this slogan by no means implied renunciation of the fight for the power of the Soviets. Lenin had made it quite clear that it was not a question of the Soviets in general, the Soviets as organs of the revolutionary struggle, but only of the present Soviets, the compromising Soviets at the present stage of development of the revolution.
And it was this view of Lenin’s that Stalin expounded and advocated at the Congress in his extremely vivid and precise report on the political situation. Describing the progress of the revolution, Stalin said:
“Meanwhile the war is continuing, economic disruption is spreading, the revolution is continuing and assuming an increasingly Socialist character. The revolution is invading the sphere of production—the question of control is being raised. The revolution is invading the sphere of agriculture—the question is being raised not only of confiscating the land, but also of confiscating livestock and implements. . . .
“Some comrades have said that since capitalism is poorly developed in our country, it would be utopian to raise the question of a Socialist revolution. They would have been right had there been no war, had there been no economic disruption, had the foundations of the national economy not been shaken. But this question of intervening in the economic sphere is arising in all countries as an essential question. This question arose in Germany, and was settled without the direct and active participation of the masses. The case is different here in Russia. Here the disruption has assumed more ominous proportions. On the other hand, nowhere has there been such freedom in time of war as in our country. Then there is the very high degree of organisation of the workers: for instance, 66 per cent of the metal workers in Petrograd are organised. Lastly, nowhere has the proletariat had such broad organisations as the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. All this has precluded the possibility of the working-class masses not intervening in economic life. This is the real basis for raising the question of a Socialist revolution here in Russia.”(11)
Stalin concluded his report with the following words:
“. . . Until July 3 a peaceful victory, a peaceful transfer of power to the Soviets was possible. If the Congress of Soviets had decided to take over the power, the Cadets, I think, would not have dared to take open action against the Soviets, because such action would have been doomed to failure. But now that counter-revolution has become organised and consolidated, to say that the Soviets can take over power by peaceful means is nonsense. The peaceful period of the revolution has ended, a non-peaceful period has begun, a period of clashes and explosions.”(12)
Stalin’s report and the resolution he submitted evoked long discussion. The discussion showed that the differences over the character of the Russian revolution which had existed in the Party at the time of the April Conference were not yet entirely eliminated. Some of the delegates advocated retaining the old slogan, “All Power to the Soviets!” and opposed Lenin’s basic thesis that the Russian revolution was a Socialist revolution.
Arguing against Stalin, Nogin asked:
“What is the difference between Comrade Stalin’s resolution and the resolutions of the April Conference? At that time we found that we were still facing a transition to the Socialist revolution. Is it possible, comrades, that our country has in two months made such a leap that it is already prepared for Socialism?”(13)
N. S. Angarsky, a Moscow delegate, said:
“But I do not agree with Comrade Stalin that we must stride across the bourgeois revolution to the Socialist revolution. Stalin says that the conditions in our country are fortunate, that in Russia as many as 70 per cent of the workers are organised, and so on. But this is far too little for a Socialist revolution. We have no reserves. The reserve is the peasantry, which at present is revolutionary, and which will remain so only until it receives land. The leap proposed by Comrade Stalin is not Marxist tactics, but tactics of despair, which so far are unwarranted.”(14)
Nogin’s arguments were seconded by Yurenev and Volodarsky.
“If our Party adopts Stalin’s resolution,” Yurenev said, “we shall move rapidly towards the isolation of the proletariat from the peasantry and the broad masses of the population. What is proposed here is essentially a dictatorship of the proletariat.”(15)
A similar criticism was advanced by Zalezhsky, who considered untrue Stalin’s assertion that on July 5 the power had passed into the hands of the counter-revolutionaries. Yet Zalezhsky himself, from motives of secrecy and from fear of arrest, appeared at the Congress under the alias “Vladimir.”
The events of the rising revolution had taught nothing to those who opposed Lenin’s policy.
“A rupture between the bourgeoisie and the peasantry is inevitable and it will raise point-blank the question of who will hold power,”(16)
said Nogin, reiterating his old idea that the bourgeois revolution was not yet over, and obstinately refusing to realise that the peasantry had already split and that the upper layer of the peasantry had already joined the camp of the bourgeoisie.
At the April Conference Nogin had failed to understand that economic disruption in the midst of a war had made the transition to Socialism an urgent necessity, and that this transition could be effected only by the proletariat together with the poor peasants. At the Sixth Congress Nogin again failed to understand that it was a question not of a “leap,” not of the productive forces having matured in the space of a month or two but of a new disposition of class forces, which confronted the revolution with the necessity of the most revolutionary class seizing power.
In answer to the objection that he was going counter to the resolution of the April Conference of the Bolshevik Party, Stalin said at the Congress:
“And now a few words to Comrades Angarsky and Nogin on the subject of Socialism. We said at the April Conference that even then the moment had come to begin to take steps towards Socialism.”(17)
Stalin then read the following passage from the resolution of the April Conference on the current situation:
“The proletariat of Russia, operating in one of the most backward countries of Europe, in the midst of a small-peasant population, cannot set itself the aim of bringing about the Socialist transformation immediately.
“But it would be a great mistake, and in practice even complete desertion to the bourgeoisie, to deduce from this that the working class must support the bourgeoisie, or that we must confine our activities within limits acceptable to the petty-bourgeoisie, or that we must renounce the leading role of the proletariat in the work of explaining to the people the urgency of a series of steps towards Socialism which are now practically ripe.”(18)
Pointing out that the resolution of the Sixth Party Congress was continuing the line laid down by the Bolshevik April Conference, Stalin continued:
“The comrades are three months behind the times. What then has happened in these three months? The petty-bourgeoisie has divided up into strata, the lower strata are deserting the upper strata, the proletariat is organising, and economic disruption is spreading, rendering still more urgent the introduction of workers’ control (for instance, in Petrograd, the Donetz Region, etc.). All this speaks in favour of the positions already adopted in April. But the comrades would drag us back.”(19)
A sharp rebuff to those who were not in agreement with Stalin’s resolution was administered at the Congress by Molotov. He said:
“. . . It is beyond doubt that the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie has triumphed and is abolishing all liberties, and therefore, since the crisis of July 3-5, there is no possibility of a peaceful transfer of power to the Soviets. On this point there is no difference of opinion between the comrades.
“The turning point lies in the termination of the peaceful character of the revolution.
“Power can be secured only by force. . . .
“The proletariat and the poor peasantry alone desire to take power, can take power, and will take power in the interests of the majority, whose representatives they are.”(20)
Bukharin also criticised Stalin’s report. Visualising the future development of the revolution as two successive stages, he said:
“The first phase is with the participation of the peasantry anxious to obtain land; the second phase is after the satiated peasantry has fallen away, the phase of the proletarian revolution, when the Russian proletariat will be supported only by the proletarian elements and the proletariat of Western Europe.”(21)
As we see, the view expressed by Bukharin approached very closely to that advocated by Kamenev at the April Conference: either the proletariat act in conjunction with the peasantry, in which case it would not be a Socialist revolution; or the proletariat act alone, and only then would it be a Socialist revolution.
In his reply to questions, in his reply to the discussion, and in his objections to amendments made to the resolution, Stalin again made a profound analysis of the given stage of the revolution. He said:
“We are now advancing the demand for the transfer of power to the proletariat and the poor peasantry. Consequently, it is a question not of form, but of the class to which power is being transferred, it is a question of the composition of the Soviets. . . . It must be clearly realised that it is not the question of form that is decisive. The really decisive question is whether the working class is mature enough for dictatorship; everything else will come of itself, will be brought about by the creative force of the revolution.”(22)
Stalin further pointed out that withdrawing the slogan “All Power to the Soviets!” by no means implied advancing the slogan “Down with the Soviets!” The Bolsheviks would not even resign from the Central Executive Committee of the Soviets, however wretched might be the part it was playing.
The Bolsheviks would remain in the Soviets and continue to expose the tactics of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks.
“The chief task,” Stalin declared when winding up the debate, “is to propogate the idea that it is necessary to overthrow the existing power. We are not yet quite prepared for this idea. But we must prepare for it.
“The workers, peasants and soldiers must be got to realise that unless the present power is overthrown they will secure neither freedom nor land.
“And so, it is a question not of organising the power, but of overthrowing the power; and when we take the power into our own hands we shall be able to organise it.”(23)
Stalin sternly criticises Bukharin’s views.
“What is the prospect held out by Bukharin?” he asked. “His analysis is fundamentally wrong. In his opinion in the first stage we are approaching a peasant revolution. But it is bound to meet, it is bound to coincide with a workers’ revolution. It cannot be that the working class, which constitutes the vanguard of the revolution, will not at the same time fight for its own demands. I therefore consider that Bukharin’s scheme has not been properly thought out. The second stage, according to Bukharin, is a proletarian revolution supported by Western Europe, without the peasants, who will have received land and will be satisfied. But against whom would this revolution be directed? Bukharin furnished no reply to this question in his toy scheme.”(24)
Bukharin classed the whole peasantry under one category, forgetting that the bourgeois imperialists had formed a bloc—as Stalin put it—only with the wealthy muzhiks. The poor peasants went along with the proletariat and under its leadership.
Just as stern a rebuff was given to Preobrazhensky with his Trotskyite view that a victory for Socialism in one country alone was impossible. The resolution on the political situation proposed by Stalin stated:
“The aim of those revolutionary classes (i.e., the proletariat and the poor peasantry—Ed.) will then be to bend every effort to take the state power into their own hands and to direct it, in alliance with the revolutionary proletariat of the advanced countries, towards peace and towards the Socialist reconstruction of society.”(25)
This formulation was opposed by Preobrazhensky, who submitted the following amendment:
“I propose a different formulation of the end of the resolution: ‘to direct it towards peace and, in the event of a proletarian revolution in the West, towards Socialism’. . . .”(26)
Criticising the view of Preobrazhensky, who supported Trotsky’s theory that a victory for Socialism in one country alone was impossible, Stalin said:
“I am against such a conclusion to the resolution. The possibility is not excluded that Russia will be the very country that will pave the way to Socialism. No country has hitherto enjoyed such freedom as there was in Russia, no country has tried to adopt workers’ control of production. Moreover, the base of our revolution is broader than in Western Europe, where the proletariat stands utterly alone face to face with the bourgeoisie. Here the workers are supported by the poorer strata of the peasantry. . . . We must abandon the antiquated idea that only Europe can show us the way. There is dogmatic Marxism and creative Marxism. I stand by the latter.”(27)
The resolution adopted in connection with Stalin’s report reviewed the past stage and indicated how the revolution could be promoted to a higher stage. The resolution stated:
“1. The development of the class struggle and the inter-relation of parties in the midst of an imperialist war, in conjunction with the crisis at the front and the growing independence of Russia on Allied capital, has led to the dictatorship of the counter-revolutionary, imperialist bourgeoisie, which relies on a clique of higher military commanders and is concealed by a revolutionary screen set up by the leaders of petty-bourgeois Socialism. . . .
“4. With these parties dominating, the Soviets inevitably sank lower and lower, ceased to be organs of revolt or organs of state power, and their decisions inevitably took the form of impotent resolutions and pious wishes. Meanwhile, the bourgeoisie, using the ‘Socialist’ Ministers as a cat’s-paw, delayed the elections to the Constituent Assembly, hindered the transfer of the land to the peasants, sabotaged all efforts to combat economic disruption and—with the approval of the majorities in the Soviets—prepared for an offensive at the front, i.e., the resumption of the imperialist war, and in all these ways organised the forces of counter-revolution. . . .
“6. In view of this course of events, the power of state at the present time has virtually passed into the hands of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie supported by the military clique. It is this imperialist dictatorship that has been carrying out all the above-mentioned measures for destroying political freedom, committing violence against the masses and ruthlessly persecuting the internationally-minded proletariat, while the central institution of the Soviets—the Central Executive Committee—is utterly impotent and inactive.
“The Soviets are suffering painful agony, undergoing disintegration because they did not promptly take the whole power of state into their own hands,”
“7. The slogan propagated by our Party demanding the transfer of power to the Soviets, which was advanced during the first rise of the revolution, was a slogan making for a peaceful development of the revolution, for a painless transfer of power from the bourgeoisie to the workers and peasants, and for gradually getting the petty-bourgeoisie to abandon its illusions.
“Peaceful development and the painless transfer of power to the Soviets have now become impossible, because the power in fact has already passed into the hands of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. The only correct slogan at the present time is the demand for the complete liquidation of the dictatorship of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. The revolutionary proletariat, provided it is supported by the poor peasantry, is alone capable of performing this task, the task of the new upsurge.”(28)
The new slogan did not call for immediate action against the government. On the contrary, the whole resolution was a warning that the proletariat must not succumb to the provocation of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. The resolution primarily stressed the necessity for organising and preparing all revolutionary forces for the moment when the general crisis in the country would create favourable conditions for an uprising and revolution.
The resolution was adopted with only four abstentions, none voting against.
The political situation was the central point of discussion at the Congress. The other questions on the agenda were decided in accordance with the policy laid down by the Congress on the subject of the proletarian revolution.
The resolution on the war stated that the imperialist slaughter was spreading. A new imperialist giant—America—had entered the war. America and the Allies had compelled China to join the imperialist war. The struggle between the imperialist powers was being waged virtually in all parts of the world. Another reason why the war dragged on was that the struggle of the world bourgeoisie against the growing revolution was facilitated by the military dictatorship and the disunited state of the international proletariat.
The Russian revolution was highly dangerous for the imperialists of all countries. The revolutionary masses of Russia were displaying increasing hostility to the predatory war and were threatening to draw the proletariat of all countries into the struggle. This was why the imperialists of the world had launched a campaign, against the Russian revolution, in which they had the support of the compromisers of all countries. By approving the Russian offensive at the front, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks in Russia had deserted to the imperialists. The campaign for peace which the Petrograd Soviet had attempted to conduct by bringing “pressure” to bear on the imperialist governments and reaching agreement with the foreign defencists had patently collapsed. This collapse confirmed the view of the Bolsheviks that only a revolutionary struggle of the masses against imperialism in all countries, only an international proletarian revolution could bring a democratic peace to the exhausted nations.
In its concluding part, the resolution on the war adopted by the Sixth Congress of the Bolshevik Party stated:
“9. The liquidation of imperialist domination will confront the working class of the country which first establishes the dictatorship of the proletarians and semi-proletarians with the task of supporting the fighting proletariat of other countries by every possible means (including armed force). In particular, this task will confront Russia if, as is very likely, the new and inevitable rise in the tide of the Russian revolution puts the workers and poor peasants in power before the revolution takes place in the capitalist countries of the West.
“10. The only possible way, therefore, in which the international proletariat can secure a really democratic termination of the war is for it to conquer power, and in the case of Russia, for the workers and poor peasants to conquer power. Only these classes will be capable of breaking with the capitalists of all countries and of really assisting the growth of the international proletarian revolution, which will put an end not only to the war, but also to capitalist slavery.”(29)
Having adopted the course of destroying the dictatorship of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie the Sixth Congress of the Bolshevik Party drew up a detailed economic programme for ending the crisis and restoring and organising economic life in the interests of the workers and the poor peasants. The resolution on the economic situation adopted by the Sixth Congress declared that, owing to the self-seeking administration of the capitalists and landlords, shielded by the defencists, the country was on the verge of economic collapse and ruin. The Congress mapped out in detail the measures that were essential for the salvation of the country—in the sphere of industry, agriculture, finance, municipal enterprise, etc. Workers’ control over production, the confiscation of the landed estates, the nationalisation of the land and the nationalisation of the banks and the large-scale industries—all these definite and simple demands of the Bolsheviks were understood by the masses. But these measures could not be put into effect without putting a stop to the war without transforming the predatory war, the war of conquest, into a just war, a civil war. The resolution of the Sixth Congress stated:
“The only way out of the critical situation is to liquidate the war and to organise production not for the sake of war, but for the sake of restoring everything it has destroyed, not in the interest of a handful of financial oligarchs, but in the interest of the workers and the poor peasants.
“Such a regulation of production in Russia can be carried out only by an organisation that is under the control of the proletarians and semi-proletarians, which implies the passing of the power of the state into their hands.”(30)
The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks were constantly citing the French bourgeois revolution of 1789 and saying that the French toilers had displayed supreme heroism and marvellous courage in the struggle against their nobility and its British, Prussian and Russian allies. Why could not the Russian toilers fight the war with equal fervour, enthusiasm and passion in defence of the revolution?
The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks said nothing about the conditions which made these miracles in France possible. The French people had destroyed their tsarist government. Led by their revolutionaries—the Jacobin Party—the toilers of France had completely shattered the edifice of feudalism. The French peasants had taken the land from the landlords. The French revolutionaries had settled accounts with the old régime and were resolutely leading the people against their enemies. All this made the war of the French a just war, a defensive war. The fact that the revolution had been carried out with determination had created the material conditions for the heroic, self-sacrificing and enthusiastic war of the oppressed classes of France against reactionary Europe.
The transformation of the predatory war into a civil war and the carrying into effect of the measures outlined in the economic platform of the Bolsheviks would markedly increase the fighting capacity of the country. Only by ruthlessly destroying the old régime, only by reviving the country and regenerating it on the basis of the Bolshevik platform, was it possible to create the material conditions for miracles even greater than those wrought in the French Revolution. Only a people emancipated from the slavery of capitalism and led by the Bolshevik Party could develop real revolutionary initiative.
The Congress devoted great attention to the work of the Bolsheviks in the trade unions. The Congress stressed the fact that revolutionary practice had completely refuted the opportunist theory that the trade unions should remain “neutral.” In practice it was impossible for the trade unions to remain neutral. The war had split the whole labour movement, including the trade unions, into two camps. Those trade unions that supported the war and advocated the defence of the bourgeois fatherland in the predatory war were in fact siding with their imperialists. Only those trade unions that pursued a definite class line hostile to the bourgeoisie had been able to perform their duty of protecting the interests of the workers. The Congress called upon all members of the Bolshevik Party to join the trade unions and to work actively within them for their transformation into militant class organisations which, in close conjunction with the political party of the proletariat, would organise economic and political resistance to counter-revolution.
The resolution of the Congress stated:
“For the purpose of combating the economic disintegration of the country, which is being aggravated by the growth of counter-revolution, and with the object of bringing the revolution to a victorious conclusion, the trade unions should strive for state intervention in the organisation of the production and distribution of products, at the same time bearing in mind that only with a new rise in the tide of revolution, and only under the dictatorship of the proletariat, supported by the poor strata of the peasantry, can these measures be carried into effect in the interests of the wide masses of the people.
“In view of the foregoing, the Congress declares that these important tasks can be accomplished by the trade unions of Russia only provided they remain militant class organisations and conduct their struggle in close organic collaboration with the political class party of the proletariat; provided that in the elections to the Constituent Assembly they energetically strive for the victory of the Socialist Party, which is unswervingly defending the class interests of the proletariat and advocating the earliest possible termination of the war by means of a mass revolutionary struggle against the ruling classes of all countries; provided that, with the object of ending the war as early as possible and creating an International, they immediately enter into contact with all trade unions which in the various countries are waging war on war, and together with them draw up a common plan of struggle against the international slaughter and on behalf of Socialism; provided they conform their day-to-day struggle for the improvement of economic conditions to the present era of gigantic social conflicts; and provided, finally, that they stress in all their utterances that the problems with which history has confronted the Russian proletariat can be solved only on an international scale.
“International revolutionary Socialism versus international imperialism!”(31)
The Congress also dealt with the question of the youth, as a reserve of the Bolshevik Party. The resolution on the Youth League stated:
“At the present time, when the struggle of the working class is passing into the phase of a direct struggle for Socialism, the Congress considers it one of the urgent tasks of the moment to secure the assistance of the class-conscious Socialist organisations of the young workers, and charges the Party organisations to devote the maximum possible attention to this work.”(32)
The Congress once again emphasised that in elections to City Dumas, co-operative bodies and Soviets joint action could be allowed only with those who had completely broken with the defencists and were striving for the power of the Soviets.
The Congress admitted into the Party the group known as the Inter-Regionalists, which was headed by Trotsky. This group consisted of Mensheviks and some former Bolsheviks who had split away from the Party and had formed an organisation of their own in St. Petersburg in 1913. During the war the Inter-Regionalists opposed a split with the defencists, fought the Bolshevik slogan of converting the imperialist war into a civil war, rejected the policy which aimed at the defeat of the tsarist government in the imperialist war and denied the possibility of Socialism being victorious in Russia. Among the members of the Inter-Regionalist organisation in 1917 were L. Trotsky, A. Lunacharsky, K. Yurenev, A. Joffe, M. Uritsky, and V. Volodarsky. Under the influence of the development of the revolution, the Inter-Regionalists came to recognise the correctness of the Bolshevik position, broke with the defencists and at the Sixth Congress of the Bolshevik Party announced that they accepted the programme of the Bolsheviks. Trotsky was among the Inter-Regionalists admitted to the Party.
It should be noted that at the Sixth Congress the Inter-Regionalists demanded that Lenin should appear for trial before the court of the counter-revolutionary government. The Inter-Regionalists supported the opportunist line at the Congress and spoke against Stalin’s resolution.
The Congress elected a Central Committee of twenty-one members and ten alternate members. The new Central Committee consisted of Artyom (Sergeyev), Berzin, Bubnov, Bukharin, Dzerzhinsky, Kamenev, Kollontai, Krestinsky, Lenin, Milyutin, Muranov, Nogin, Rykov, Shaumyan, Smilga, Sokolnikov, Stalin, Sverdlov, Trotsky, Uritsky and Zinoviev.
The Sixth Party Congress revealed how powerful a force the Bolshevik Party had become. Neither the slanders of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks nor the government terror had halted the growth of the membership and influence of the Party. Virtually driven underground, the Bolsheviks displayed an astonishing ability to combine legal with illegal methods of struggle—an ability which had been developed in the long years of struggle against tsarism and the bourgeoisie. The Party gave a brilliant lesson in how the masses could be wrested from the influence of the compromisers. The Bolsheviks carried on active work in the regiments, the factories, the co-operative organisations and the trade unions, everywhere rallying the masses around Lenin’s slogans.
The Sixth Congress was an extremely important event in the history of the Party. It was held on the eve of a new rise in the tide of revolution. The April Conference of the Bolsheviks had focused the attention of the Party on the transformation of the bourgeois revolution into a Socialist revolution; the Sixth Congress focused the attention of the Party on armed insurrection. All the resolutions and decisions of the Congress were subordinated to one aim, namely, to ensure the victory of the revolution in the new stage.
Lenin did not attend the Congress. He was being hounded by the Provisional Government and was obliged to remain in hiding. But Lenin kept in contact with the leaders of the Congress and gave them all necessary advice. Lenin’s spirit, his ideas, his firm leadership and his direct and clear-cut recommendation inspired the work of the Congress and the speeches and utterances of Stalin. Stalin carried on Lenin’s cause, rallying the Party for the urgent and decisive task—the overthrow of the bourgeois government and the seizure of power by the proletariat and the poor peasants.
[1] The Sixth Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (Bolsheviks), August 1917, Moscow, 1934, pp. 36-37.
[2] Ibid., p. 55.
[3] Ibid., p. 57.
[4] Ibid., p. 91.
[5] Ibid., p. 92.
[6] Ibid., pp. 84-85.
[7] N. Yaroslavsky, On the Eve of October, The Sixth Congress of the C.P.S.U., Moscow, 1932, pp. 36-37.
[8] The Sixth Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (Bolsheviks), August 1917, Moscow, 1934, p. 32.
[9] Ibid., p. 32.
[10] Ibid., pp. 14-15.
[11] Ibid., p. 108.
[12] Ibid., p. 111.
[13] Ibid., p. 124.
[14] Ibid., pp. 111-12.
[15] Ibid., p. 114.
[16] Ibid., p. 124.
[17] Ibid., p. 139.
[18] Ibid., p. 139.
[19] Ibid., pp. 130-40.
[20] Ibid., pp. 132-33.
[21] Ibid., p. 134.
[22] Ibid., p. 118.
[23] Ibid., p. 139.
[24] Ibid., pp. 138-39.
[25] Ibid., p. 228.
[26] Ibid., p. 233.
[27] Ibid., pp. 233-34.
[28] Ibid., pp. 238-40.
[29] Ibid., p. 238.
[30] Ibid., p. 242.
[31] Ibid., pp. 246-47.
[32] Ibid., p. 251.
Previous: The Proletariat Loses Faith in the Compromisers
Next: Preparations for a Military Dictatorship