Spies and Commissars

the demands of their most powerful businessmen. ‘Finance capitalism’ was the dominant force in the world economy, a case powerfully made by the Austrian Marxist Rudolf Hilferding in his 1910 book Finance Capital. Bolsheviks had welcomed the book as scientific proof that capitalism had reached its highest possible stage of development. Economic crises and world wars would occur until such time as socialism took control. It did not matter to the communists in Russia that Hilferding did not share their ideas on violent revolution and dictatorship. They praised his economics while rejecting his politics.

They spat out contemporary European socialism in disgust. They honoured Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and continued to subscribe to the usefulness of earlier writings by Georgi Plekhanov and Karl Kautsky. But they believed that Plekhanov and Kautsky had turned traitors to Europe’s labour movement by their actions since 1914. Plekhanov had supported the Russian military effort and Kautsky had failed to call for Germany’s defeat. Unconditional opposition to the war was shared by the entire Bolshevik leadership.

Bolsheviks marked out their position by calling themselves communists and denouncing most other socialists as ‘social-traitors’ while claiming that they were the only true socialists. Which were they? Communists or socialists? Lenin tried to clear up the confusion in The State and Revolution, which he wrote in 1917 and published the following year. He had no time for any kind of socialism other than Marxism. He also insisted that Marxists for decades had misinterpreted Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and allowed their essential ideas to fall into abeyance. Genuine Marxism according to Lenin was founded on the need for violent revolution and a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ so that capitalism might be supplanted. The dictatorial structure would only be temporary. It would establish a socialist order enshrining the principle of ‘an equal amount of products for an equal amount of labour’. As support grew throughout society, the reliance on force would steadily decrease. A second stage would then begin that would be the ultimate stage in human history: communism. No compulsion at all would be required in communist society. There would be no army, no bureaucracy and no state. Social classes would disappear. Life would proceed on lines set by the people of the entire world with the common good in mind. Although Lenin was not someone who often displayed his poetic side, he looked forward keenly to a time when the universal principle would be ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’.

Lenin pinned his arguments to the coat-tails of Marx and Engels. If he could prove to his own satisfaction that his was the correct interpretation of Marxist doctrine, that was quite enough for him. Trotsky and Bukharin were uncomfortable about this. Bukharin felt it important to subject the recent technological and social changes in contemporary capitalism to close scrutiny. Witnessing the latest profusion of inventions, he insisted that well-being and stability would remain out of reach for most people until after a socialist revolution. Trotsky too disdained to hark back endlessly to the founders of Marxism. His forte was to highlight the unfettered profiteering and bottomless human misery brought about by the war.

Bolsheviks agreed that they were living in an era when the downtrodden of the earth would become its rulers. Ivan Zalkind, Trotsky’s deputy in the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, put it like this:

Our revolution is a revolution belonging completely to the workers. Go to Petrograd and see the district soviets, go and see the Red Guards and you’ll notice that it’s above all a workers’ revolution. The peasants and soldiers come only in second place. The bourgeoisie doesn’t exist in this second revolution. The intellectuals who played the primordial role in 1905 today are only supernumeraries. Lenin and Trotsky are merely the spokesmen of the workers. We are currently carrying out a great experiment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It’s no longer a revolution of the sans culottes [as in the French Revolution] but of the penniless.²

Bukharin, too, felt sure that the communists had the world at their feet:

People in [the] communist order don’t sit on one another’s neck. Here there are no rich or parvenus, there are no bosses and subordinates; here society is not divided into classes, one of which lords it over another. But once there are no classes, this means that there are no different sorts of people (poor and rich) with one sort sharpening its teeth against another — the oppressors against the oppressed or the oppressed against the oppressors.³

Lenin admitted that Russia’s factory workers were only a small part of society. Sensing that this infringed his theory of ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’, he sometimes brandished slogans such as putting power into the hands of ‘the workers and poorest peasants’. Bolshevik writers anyway made clear that the urban ‘proletariat’ did not consist only of the factory workforce. A booklet was issued about domestic servants, who were to be attracted into the revolutionary movement. So too were the unemployed. Communists announced that the days of the privileged few enjoying the ministrations of the poor were coming to an end.⁴

Trotsky thought that events had validated the revolutionary strategy he had advocated since 1905. In his booklet What Next? he declared:

Throwing off the manacles of capitalist power, the revolution would become permanent, i.e. uninterrupted; it would apply state power not so as to consolidate a regime of capitalist exploitation materially but on the contrary so as to surmount it. Its definitive success along these lines would depend on the successes of the proletarian revolution in Europe. On the other hand, the Russian revolution has been capable of delivering the more powerful thrust to the revolutionary movement in the West the more decisively and bravely it breaks the resistance of its own bourgeoisie. Such was and remains the only real prospect for the further development of the revolution.⁵

Was this utopian? Trotsky answered no. The true idiocy in his eyes had been the doctrines of rivals like the Mensheviks and Socialist- Revolutionaries who went into coalition with ‘capitalist ministers’. They lacked spirit and clear-sightedness; they were double-dealers. The Bolsheviks were not carrying out a ‘national’ or a ‘bourgeois’ revolution but had started an international socialist one. He declared: ‘And the twentieth century is “our fatherland in time”.’⁶ Trotsky gave out the slogan: ‘Permanent revolution against permanent carnage!’⁷

Communism would soon change everything, and communists assumed that Europe was where they stood their best chance of political advance. The continent was the cockpit of world war. Surely the deaths and material privations since 1914 had perfected the conditions for the Marxist case to attract popular support. ‘European revolution’ tripped easily off Bolshevik tongues.

Russian communist ideas about Europe in the party were not those of conventional geography. The school textbooks said it stretched from Portugal to the Urals. This was not what Bolsheviks had in mind when they talked of ‘going’ to Europe despite the fact that Russia had its own large European zone. Bolshevik leader I. I. Kutuzov was to write an account of his westward journey by train from Moscow in the early 1920s. The first stage took him to Latvia. He commented that people started calling him mister rather than comrade when he crossed the frontier. He noticed how clean Riga appeared after his experience of Russian cities. Latvia was impressive enough, but when at last he reached German territory at Eidkunen, Kutuzov’s eye was caught by the almost complete absence of dirt and litter. Even the countryside of Germany was remarkable to his eyes — and all this was before he got to Berlin, a city that surpassed his every expectation in its modernity. To Kutuzov it seemed self-evident: ‘This was the beginning of Europe.’⁸ And Europe in the Bolshevik imagination was one half of ‘the West’ whose other half lay across the Atlantic in North America.

Bolsheviks took it for granted that socialist revolution in Germany was the key to their survival and success in Russia. Former emigrants like Lenin, Trotsky and Bukharin admired the cultural and organizational achievements of the German labour movement. Marx and Engels, the originators of Marxism, had been German. The left wing of the German Social-Democratic Party had broken away to form the Spartakusbund and, as Lenin saw it, proved that the labour movement in Germany retained the potential to effect a seizure of power and a revolutionary transformation. German workers were the flower of the European socialist movement. They were the most educated, skilled labour force in the entire continent. Their discipline at work was legendary. Their commitment to self-improvement at home and at leisure was remarkable. Most of them voted for the socialdemocrats, and the party had 633,000 members in 1909. Bolsheviks were angry when the German Social-Democratic Party’s caucus in the Reichstag voted financial credits for the war effort in mid-1914; but Lenin and his friends put the blame for this