MIA > Archive > Kollontai > Workers Opposition
Whether it be bureaucracy, or self-activity of the masses? This is the second point of the controversy between the leaders of our party and the Workers’ Opposition. The question of bureaucracy was raised and only superficially discussed at the 8th Soviet Congress. Herein, just as in the question on the part to be played by the trade unions and their problems the discussion was shifted to a wrong channel. The controversy on this question is more fundamental than it might seem. The essence of it is this: what system of administration in a workers’ republic during the period of creation of the economic basis for communism secures more freedom for the class creative powers – whether a bureaucratic state system or a system of wide practical self-activity of the working masses? The question relates to the system of administration, and the controversy arises between two diametrically opposed principles – bureaucracy or self-activity. And yet they try to squeeze it into the scope of the problem that concerns itself only with the methods of “animating the soviet institutions.” Here we observe the same substitution of the subjects discussed, as the one that occurred in the debates on the trade unions. it is necessary to state definitely and clearly that half-measures, changes in relations between central bodies, local economic organizations, and other such petty non-essential innovations as replacing responsible officials or injecting party members into the soviet institutions, where these communists are subjected to all the bad influences of the prevailing bureaucratic system, and disintegrate among the elements of the former bourgeois class, will not bring “democratization” or life into the soviet institutions.
This is not the thing, however. Every child in Soviet Russia knows that the vital problem is to draw the wide toiling masses of workers, peasants, and others into the reconstruction of economy in the proletarian state, and change the conditions of life accordingly, in other words the task is clear: To wake up initiative and self-activity in the masses, but what is being done in order to encourage and develop that initiative? Nothing at all. Quite the contrary. It is true that at every meeting we call upon the working men and women “to create a new life, build up, and assist the soviet authorities,” but no sooner do the masses or individual groups of workers take our admonition seriously and attempt . to carry it out into life than some of the bureaucratic institutions, feeling that they are being ignored, are in haste to cut short the efforts of too zealous initiators.
Every comrade can easily recall scores of instances when workers themselves attempted to organize dining rooms, day nurseries for children, transportation of wood, etc., and when each time a lively immediate interest in the undertaking died from the red tape, interminable negotiations with various institutions that brought no definite results, or refusals, new requests, etc. Wherever there was an opportunity under impetus of the masses themselves the masses by their own efforts to equip a dining room, to story a supply of wood or to organize a nursery refusal always followed, refusal from the central institutions with explanations that there was no equipment for the dining room, lack of horses for transporting the wood, and absence of an adequate building for the nursery. And how much bitterness is generated among working men and women when they see and know that if they had been given the right, and an opportunity to act, they themselves Would put the project through. How painful it is to receive a refusal of necessary materials when they had already been found and procured by the workers themselves. Therefore, the initiative is slackening and the desire to act is dying out. It that is the case “let officials themselves take care of us.” As a result there is generated a most harmful division: we are the toiling people, and they are the soviet officials, on whom everything depends. This is the whole trouble.
Meanwhile, what are our party leaders doing? Do they attempt to find the cause of the evil, and to admit openly that the very system itself, which was carried out into the life through the soviets, paralyzes and deadens the masses, though it was meant to encourage their initiative? No, our party leaders do nothing of the kind. Just the opposite – instead of finding means to encourage the mass initiative which shall perfectly fit into our flexible soviet institutions under certain conditions, our party leaders all of a sudden appear in the role of defenders and knights of bureaucracy. How many comrades, while following Trotzky’s example, repeat that “we suffer not because of adopting the bad sides of bureaucracy but just because we have failed so far to learn the good (On one common plan, by Trotzky.)
Bureaucracy, as it is, is a direct negation of mass selfactivity, and, therefore, whoever accepts the principle of attracting the masses to an active participation in directing the affairs as a basis for the new system in the labor republic cannot look for good or bad sides in bureaucracy, but must openly and resolutely reject this useless system. Bureaucracy is not a product of our misery, as Comrade Zinovieff tries to convince, neither is it a reflex of “the blind subordination” to superiors generated by militarism, as others assert. This phenomenon has a deeper cause. It is a byproduct of the same cause that explains our policy of doubledealing toward the trade unions: the growing influence in the soviet institutions of those elements which are hostile in spirit not only to communism, but to the elementary aspirations of the working masses as well. Bureaucracy is a scourge that pervades the very marrow of our party as well as of the soviet institutions, and this fact is emphasized not only by the Workers’ Opposition but is also recognized by many thoughtful comrades not belonging to this group.
The restrictions on initiative are put not only in regard to the activity of non-partisan masses (this would be only a logical and reasonable condition in the suppressed atmosphere of the civil war), the initiative of party members themselves is also restricted. Every independent attempt, every new thought that had not passed through the censorship of our centre is considered as “heresy,” as a violation of the party discipline, as an attempt to infringe on the prerogatives of the centre, which must “foresee” everything, and “decree” anything and everything. If anything is not decreed one must wait, for the time will come when the centre at its leisure will decree, and then within sharply restricted limits one may express his “initiative.” What would happen if some of the members of the Russian Communist party – those, for instance, who are very, fond of birds – decided to form a society for preservation of birds. The idea seems very useful, and does not in any way undermine the “state projects,” but it only seems this way. All of a sudden there would appear some bureaucratic institution, and claim its right to the management of that particular undertaking; that institution would immediately “incorporate” the society into the soviet machine, deadening, thereby, the direct initiative; and instead of it there would appear a heap of paper decrees and regulations which would give enough work for other hundreds of officials and more complicate the work of mails and transport.
The harm in bureaucracy lies not only in the red tape, as some comrades would want us to believe when they narrow the whole controversy to the “animation of soviet institutions,” but also in the solution of all problems not by means of an open exchange of opinions or by immediate efforts of all concerned, but by means of formal decisions handed down from the central institutions, and arrived at either by one person or by an extremely restricted collective, wherein the interested people quite often are absent entirely. Some third person decides your fate, this is the whole essence of bureaucracy.
In the face of the growing suffering in the working class brought about by the confusion of the present transitory period, bureaucracy finds itself particularly weak and impotent. The miracle of enthusiasm in stimulating the productive forces, and alleviating the labor conditions can be performed only by the animated initiative of the interested workers themselves, not restricted and repressed at every step by a hierarchy of “permissions and decrees.”
All Marxians, bolsheviki in particular, have been strong and powerful in that they never stressed the policy of immediate success of the movement (this line, by the way, has always been followed by the opportuniste-compromisers), but always attempted to put the workers in such conditions which would give them the opportunity to temper their revolutionary will, and develop the creative abilities. The workers’ initiative is indispensable for us, and yet we do not give it a chance to develop.
Fear of criticism and freedom of thought by combining together with bureaucracy quite often produce ridiculous forms.
There can be no self-activity without freedom of thought and opinion, for self-activity manifests itself not only in initiative, action, and work, but in independent thought as well. We are afraid of mass-activity. We are afraid to give freedom to the class activity, we are afraid of criticism, we have ceased to rely on the massas, hence, we have bureaucracy with us. That is why the Workers’ Opposition considers that bureaucracy is our enemy, our scourge, and the greatest danger for the future existence of the Communist party itself.
In order to do away with the bureaucracy that is finding its shelter in the soviet institutions, we must first of all get rid of all bureaucracy in the party itself. That is where we face the immediate struggle against this system. As soon as the party – not in theory but in practice – recognizes self-activity of the masses as the basis of our state, the soviet institutions will again automatically become those living institutions which are destined to carry out the communist project, and will cease to be the institutions of red tape, laboratories for dead-born decrees, into which they had very rapidly degenerated.
What shall we do, then, in order to destroy bureaucracy in the party and introduce in it the workers’ democracy? First of all it is necessary to understand that our leaders are wrong when they say: “Just now we agree to let the reins loose somewhat,” for there is no immediate danger on the military front, but as soon as we shall feel again the danger, we will go back to “the military system” in the party. They are not right because we must remember that heroism saved Petrograd, more than once defended Lugansk, other centres, and whole regions. Was it the Red army alone that put up the defense? No, there was besides the heroic self-activity and initiative of the masses themselves. Every comrade will recall that during the moments of supreme danger the party always appealed to the self-activity of the masses, for it saw in them the anchor of salvation. It is quite true that at times of threatening danger the party and class discipline must be more strict, there must be more self-sacrifice, exactitude in performing duties, etc., but between these manifestations of the class spirit and “the blind subordination” that is being developed lately by the party there is a great difference.
The Workers’ Opposition together with a group of responsible workers in Moscow in the name of party regeneration and elimination of bureaucracy from the soviet institutions demands complete realization of all democratic principles, not only for the present period of respite, but also for times of internal and external tension. This is the first and basic condition of the party regeneration, of its return to the principles of the program, from which in practice it is more and more deviating under the pressure of elements that are foreign to it.
The second condition, fulfillment of which with all determination is insisted upon by the Workers’ Opposition, is the expulsion from the party of all non-proletarian elements. The stronger becomes the soviet authority the greater is the number of middle class, and sometimes even openly hostile elements, joining the party. The elimination of these elements must be complete and thorough, and those in charge of it must take into account the fact that all the most revolutionary elements from the non-workers had joined the party during the first period of the October revolution. The party must become a workers’ party for only then will it be able to repeal with force all the influences that are being brought to bear upon it by the petty-bourgeois elements, peasants, or by the faithful servants of capital – the specialists.
The Workers’ Opposition proposes to register all members who are non-workers and who had joined the party since 1919, and reserve for them the right to appeal within three months from the decisions arrived at, in order that they might j’oin the party again.
At the same time it is necessary to establish “ a working status” for all non-working elements which will try to get back into the party, by providing that every applicant to membership in the party must have worked a certain period of time at manual labor under general working conditions before he becomes eligible for enrollment into the party.
The third decisive step toward democratization of the party is the elimination of all non-workers’ elements from all the administrative positions; in other words, the central, provincial, and county committees of the party must be composed so that workers closely connected with the working masses would have the preponderant majority therein.
In close connection with this point of the Oppositions’ demands stands the other of converting all our party centres, beginning from the Central Executive Committee and including the provincial county committees, from institutions taking care of routine, every day work, into institutions of control over the soviet policy.
We have already remarked that the crisis in our party is a direct outcome of the three distinct cross-current tendencies that correspond to the three different social groups, viz.: the working class, the peasantry together with the middle class, and the elements of former bourgeoisie, that is, specialists, technicians, and men of affairs.
The problems of state wide importance compel both the local and central soviet institutions, including even the Council of People’s Commissars and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, to lend ear to and conform with these three distinct tendencies of the groups that compose the population of Soviet Russia; as a result the class line of the general policy is blurred, and the necessary stability is lost. Considerations of the state interests begin to outweigh the interests of workers.
In order that the Central Committee and party committees may stand firmly on the side of our class policy, and call all our soviet institutions to order each time that a decision in the soviet policy becomes obvious (as it happened, for instance, in the question dealing with the trade unions) it is necessary to disassociate the prerogratives of such responsible officials who at one and the same time fill up responsible posts both in the soviet institutions and in the Communist party centres. We must remember that Soviet Russia so far has not been a socially homogeneous unit, but, on the contrary, represented a heterogeneous social conglomeration, and, therefore, the state authority is compelled to reconcile all these, at times, even hostile interests by choosing the middle ground.
In order that the Central Committee of our party could become the supreme directing centre of our class policy, the organ of class thought and control over the practical policy of the soviets, and the spiritual personification of our basic program it is necessary, particularly in the Central Committee, to restrict to a minimum the multiple office holding by those who, while being members of the Central Committee, occupy high posts in the soviet government. For this purpose the Opposition proposes formation of party centres, which would really serve as organs of ideal control over the soviet institutions, and would direct their actions along clear-cut class policies. Moreover, in order to increase party activity it is necessary to carry out everywhere the following measure: at least one-third of the actual party members in the centres must be permanently forbidden to act as party members and soviet officials at the same time.
The forth basic demand of the Workers’ Opposition is this: the party must reverse its policy to the elective principle.
Appointments must be permissible only as exceptions, but lately they began to prevail as a rule. Appointments are very characteristic of bureaucracy, and yet at present they are a general, legalized and well recognized daily occurrence. The procedure of appointments produces a very unhealthy atmosphere in the party, and disrupts the relationship of equality among the members by rewarding friends and punishing enemies as well as by other no less harmful practices in our party and soviet life. Appointments lessen the sense of duty and responsibility to the masses in the ranks of appointees, for they are not responsible to the masses. This condition makes the line of division between the leaders and the rank and file members still sharper.
Every appointee, as a matter of fact, is beyond any control, for the leaders are not able to watch closely his activity while the masses cannot call him to account, and discharge him if necessary. As a rule every appointee is surrounded by an atmosphere of officialdom, servility and blind subordination, which infects all subordinates, and discredits the party. The practice of appointments rejects completely the principle of collective work; it breeds irresponsibility. Appointments by the leaders must be done away with, and replaced by the elective principle all along the party line. Candidates shall be eligible to occupy responsible administrative positions only when they have been elected by conferences and congresses.
Finally, in order to eliminate bureaucracy and make the party more healthy it is necessary to revert to that state of things where all the cardinal questions of party activity and soviet policy are submitted to the consideration of the rank and file and only after that are supervised by the leaders. This was the state of things when the party was forced to carry on its work in secret – even as late as the time of signing the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
At present the state of things is altogether different. In spite of the widely circulated promises made by the All-Russian party conference held in September, no less important question than that of concessions was decided for the masses quite unexpectedly. And only due to the sharp controversy that arose within the party centres themselves was the question dealing with the trade unions brought out into the open to be thrashed out in debates.
Wide publicity, freedom of opinion and discussion, right to criticize within the party and among the members of the trade unions – such is the decisive step that can put an end to the prevailing system of bureaucracy. Freedom of criticism, right of different factions to freely present their views at party meetings, freedom of discussion – are no longer the demands of the Workers’ Opposition alone. Under the growing pressure from the masses a whole series of measures that were demanded by
the rank and file long before the All-Russian conference was held, are recognized and promulgated officially at present. If one only reads the proposals of the Moscow Committee in regard to the party structure he becomes proud of the great influence that is being exerted on the party centres. If it were not for the Opposition the Moscow Committee would never have taken such a sharp “turn to the left.” However, we must not overestimate this “leftism,” for it is only a declaration of principles to the congress. It may happen, as it has happened many a time with the decisions of our party leaders during these years, that this radical declaration will be forgotten for, as a rule they are accepted by our party centres only just as the mass impetus is felt, and as soon as life again swings into normal channels the decisions are forgotten.
Did not this happen to the decision of the 8th Congress, whereby it resolved to free the party of all elements who joined it for some selfish motives, and to use discretion in accepting non-working elements? What has become of the decision taken by the party conference in 1920, when it was decided to replace the practice of appointments by recommendations? The inequality in the party still exists in spite of the repeated resolutions passed on this subject. As far as the persecutions inflicted on those comrades who dare to disagree with the decrees from the above are concerned they are still being continued. There are many such instances. If these decisions are not enforced then it is necessary to eliminate the basic cause that interferes with their enforcement, that is, to remove from the party those who are afraid of publicity, strict accountability before the rank and file, and freedom of criticism.
Non-working members of the party, and those workers who fell under their influence, are afraid of all this. It is not enough to clean the party of all non-proletarian elements by registration, to increase the control in time of enrollment, etc., for it is also necessary to create opportunities for the workers to join the party; it is necessary to simplify the admission of workers to the party, to create a more friendly atmosphere in the party . itself, so that the workers might feel themselves at home, that in the responsible party officials they see not superiors but more experienced comrades, who are ready to share with them their knowledge, experience and skill, and consider seriously, workers’ needs and interests. How many comrades, particularly young workers, are driven away from the party just because we manifest our impatience with them by our assumed superiority and strictness, instead of teaching them, bringing them up in the spirit of communism.
Besides the spirit of bureaucracy an atmosphere of officialdom finds a fertile ground in our party. If there is any comradeship in our party it exists only among the rank and file members.
The task of the party congress is to take into account this unpleasant reality, and ponder over the question: why the Workers’ Opposition insists on introducing equality, on eliminating all privileges in the party, and placing under a more strict responsibility to the masses, those administrative officials who are elected by them.
Thus, in its struggle for establishing democracy in the party, and the elimination of all bureaucracy, the Workers’ Opposition advances three cardinal principles:
This last demand is particularly important and essential for the reason that our party must not only build communism, but prepare and educate the masses for a prolonged period of struggle against world capitalism, which may take on unexpected and new forms. It would be too childish to imagine that having repelled the invasion of the white guard and imperialism on the military fronts, we are free from the danger of a new attack from the world capital which is striving to seize Soviet Russia by roundabout ways; to penetrate into our life, and use the Soviet republic for its own ends. This is the potent danger that we must stand guard against, and herein lies the problem for our party – how to meet the enemy well prepared, how to rally all the proletarian forces around the clear-cut class problems – (the other groups of the population will always gravitate to capitalism). To carry on preparations for this new page of our revolutionary history is the duty of our leaders.
The most correct solution of the question will be possible only when we succeed in uniting the party all along the line, not only together with the soviet institutions, but with the trade unions as well. In the latter case the filling up of offices in both – in the party and in the trade unions – does not only tend to deviate the party policy from the clear-cut class line, but, on the contrary, renders the party more immune to the influences of world capitalism during this coming epoch; influences that are exerted through concessions and trade agreements. To make the Central Committee one of workers is to create such a central committee wherein representatives of the lower layers connected with the masses would not stop to play the role of “parading generals” or a merchant’s wedding party and become closely bound with the wide non-partisan working masses in the trade unions, being enabled thereby to formulate the slogans of the time, to express workers’ needs, their aspirations, and direct the policy of the party along the class line.
Such is the line of the Workers’ Opposition. Such is its historic task. And whatever derisive remarks the leaders of our party may employ in order to drive away the Opposition, it is the only vital active force with which it is compelled to contend, and to which it will have to pay attention.
Last updated on 1 February 2023