1

ALMANACH VIA EVRASIA, 2014, 3

Asya Atanasova,

Assist. Prof. Dr. in Russian History,

Shumen University

PAVEL AXELROD ON BOLSHEVISM

Unfortunately, our society has not reached the time when ideologies like Bolshevism will forever become part of the past. Though people know them and are familiar with the horror they bring with them, today there are still people, parties and countries that proudly call themselves their followers. If we take a look at Ukraine, we shall see a bloody, fratricidal war and young people greeting each other with highly raised hands, holding Molotov cocktail and naming Stepan Bandera their idol. These young people are not only fearless when referring to themselves as fascists but they take pleasure in watching humans die. The so-called separatists are unscrupulous when destroying the enemy. The war in Ukraine today bears the modern name a hybrid war but the result is thousands of victims, mostly women and children. Human mind finds it difficult to assume such a thing, especially when it is happening some kilometres away and here in Europe. It is also hard to accept the way this very Europe that considers itself liberal and democratic, reacts to what’s going on there. Yet, what happens in Ukraine is not Europe’s fault and it is not its job to teach two democratic states how to interact. It is even more difficult to turn on the TV and see a person being decapitated. A bunch of people who want to establish “An Islamic State” that has no boundaries at the present but pretends to have many, and kills everyone daring to 2 contradict their policy. They are supported by the oil they sell to countries, which are in fact their enemies. The end justifies the means. Fascists, Bolsheviks, a hybrid war – the names and actions do not matter for the victims and their families. All of the above said raises many questions: why Bolshevism and Fascism are still alive today; who are the fascists – those who murder or those who support the murderers and do nothing to stop them; do we need to worry about the fact that some people consider killing an ordinary thing when not agreeing with people having different religion, nationality and ideology? Thousands of volumes have been written on Bolshevism, we know what results from the coup of 1917 instigated by the Bolsheviks in Russia i.e. the death of millions of people. Even at that time there were a lot of people who knew the real face of Lenin’s followers. Those people regarded the October Revolution not as the Great Revolution but as a curse. Their warnings and appeals for stopping the Bolsheviks are left unheard and misunderstood just as the messages of the Vekhi collection remain in the history after the revolution of 1905-1907. A constant fight against Bolshevism and its activities is required and this is also aplicable to Fascism. Probably the most important questions are what attracted and still attracts people to these doctrines, why they are still present even after we are acquainted with their methods and results. The saddest conclusion made could be that the masses of people have always been attracted by the power players, by empty promises, by the possibility to stamp and humiliate the different people. Even if that is the case, all other people should not acquiesce. Those who are familiar with the Bolsheviks and their way of thinking are the Mensheviks. Both political trends had been together in their fight against the Tsarism even before the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party was established. But they split at their Second Congress in London in 1903. The Mensheviks do not approve of the way the other party members choose, of their 3 methods and mainly of their readiness to trample on everything in order to climb to power. One of their most famous and respected leaders is Pavel Axelrod1. In contrast to the Bolsheviks who identify with Lenin, the Mensheviks go through various stages in their development and follow not just one or two leaders. The very faction splits into multiple trends. In P. Axelrod’s opinion the strength of Menshevism results from the pluralism of its various groups, combined with their joint actions. But we should not forget that in 1917 the lack of unity is one of their drawbacks in their fight against the Bolsheviks. Despite this, the pursuit of democracy stays a characteristic of the Mensheviks and it is something that their opponents completely lack. P. Axelrod is one of the few Menshevik leaders who never change their views on series of important questions, especially in regard to the need to fight the Bolshevik ideas for changing RSDLP. He becomes the ideologist of the faction; everyone turns to him for advice, he is incredibly knowledgeable and well- known among the Western social democrats. Yuliy Osipovich Cederbaum (Martov) writes in his letter to Axelrod that everyone quotes him and they learn from him and that when it comes to the party and the working class – “things go the Axelrod way“2. Boris Nikolaevski adds that Axelrod’s works are „the first foundations for shaping the ideas of Menshevism“3. The two splendid articles that lay that foundation are: „The unification of the Russian social democracy and its tasks“and „To the issue of the source and the meaning of our organizational discrepancies“4. The articles discuss a series of important issues

1 For more details on P. Axelrod, see: Nenarokov, А. Последняя эмиграция Павла Аксельрода. М., 2001; Савельев, П. П. Б. Аксельрод: человек и политик. - Новая и новейшая история., 1998, 2, 3; Аксельрод, А. Пережитое и передуманное. Berlin, 1923, vol.1, 2. 2 Letters of P. B. Axelrod and Yu. О. Martov. Berlin, 1924, p. 146. 3 Iskra, 30 March 1905. 4 Iskra, № 55, 15 December 1903. 4 like the role of the intelligentsia in creating RSDLP and its consequences; the characteristics of the Russian reality and the way they influence the face of the political parties; the great discrepancies between the Western and Russian workers; the missions of the social democrats and many others. These articles together with everything else said and written by “the patriarch” of the Mensheviks have a huge importance for the building of the faction. But if we want to look into his fight against the Bolsheviks and his advice on how to lead that fight, we need to pay close attention to his letter of September, 1920 to Martov. The letter itself has an interesting history. Parts of it are published for the first time in 1921 in “Socialisticheskii newspaper” published in Berlin. Although there is great interest to the words of P. Axelrod, just a very small part of the letter is published and some crucial parts are skipped. The Menshevik works on the letter for a long time, he writes several rough copies and gradually starts “to get lost” in them. He himself confesses that he experiences “logical and architectural difficulties” and so he makes the decision to give all versions of the letter to Vladimir Voitinski5. The latter has the difficult task of assembling all sheets pf paper and giving Martov what he considers to be the most appropriate. In 2008, Albert Nenarokov - one of the Russian historians who had contributed the most to getting to know Menshevism, published a book that contained the full text of P. Axelrod’s letter. The book also presents the version, made by V. Voitinski and its French translation, the publication in Socialisticheskii newspaper, as well as the Russian translation of the French brochure. The book is published with the help of the Russian United Democratic Party “Yabloko” and the epilogue is written by Grigory Yavlinsky: „During the whole time in Russia Bolshevism is and remains a force… a reaction no matter what forms it takes to cover itself“… He perpetuates “the most undeveloped Asian forms of the movement” in contradiction to the European ones… Now, as

5 Nenarokov, А. История одного письма. М., 2008, p. 19. 5 it was back then, there are a few people of those who understand where all this leads to. The denial of Bolshevism in its various forms is necessary today not less than it was in the first decades of the last century“. The first one to read the letter, of course after P. Axelrod gives his permission, is Irakli Tsereteli. He is one of the prominent leaders of the Mensheviks who define their policy at a time, quite important for them. His name is related to the period of their upsurge, between February and October, 1917 and to the time of their political downfall after the month of October when they lose the battle against the Bolsheviks. The choice to allow the letter to be read by Irakli Tsereteli for the first time is not accidental as he and the author opposed Martov’s position on the Bolsheviks. The problem how to proceed with the fight against the Bolsheviks after they come into power, becomes a major one for the Mensheviks. While P. Axelrod, Ir. Tsereteli and Alexander Potresov are ready to get to the end, Martov turns into the “rightful” leader of the Soviet opposition. According to him, an armed rebellion shall lead to the outbreak of a civil war. He hopes that people will quickly become disappointed with the Bolsheviks and will see their true character. Despite the rebukes he receives from those who see “a Bolshevik deviation” in his position, he never really stops his fierce criticism of their government which eventually ends with him being expelled from Russia. Ir. Tsereteli is delighted by what P. Axelrod has written and this becomes obvious in the letter he writes to him. In that letter the Georgian does not save his praises „… I read it several times with great pleasure. This is the best of all that had come to in connection with the Bolsheviks; the analysis of the policy that the Socialists must mandatory follow in relation to the Bolsheviks, the analysis of the labour conditions in Russia and the only way out of this situation, mentioned in the letter are written with such strength and depth …“6. Ir. Tsereteli is not pleased with Martov’s policy that discredits the Mensheviks in the eyes of

6 Letter of Ir. Tsereteli, P. Axelrod. В: - Меньшевики в 1919-1920 гг. М., 2000, 718. 6 the Western socialists. He is aware that Martov continues his fight against the Bolsheviks in personal plan but in political plan his opposition is “dual, not brave and therefore futile“7. Even the small part of that letter that is published, stirs great interest not only in Russia but also in Western Europe. The author criticises both the frail opposition to the Bolsheviks in his country and the position of the international social democracy. P. Axelrod does not keep anything to himself about the dual policy of the West in regard to the Bolshevik regime. On one hand they condemn it but on the other hand they overlook the atrocities in Russia and do nothing to stop them. Martov is accused of supporting this position. „The evaluation that you give of the Bolshevik coup and the Bolshevik’s dictatorship fully coincide with the one of O. Bauer.8 The only difference is that for him it serves as a theoretical basis for sanctioning the Bolshevik regime in Russia in favour of the West and to its rejection in the West“9. P. Axelrod blames western social democrats for their “utter indifference toward the Bolshevik violence to the social proletariat and their parties in Russia”. He considers their refusal to form “international commissions of representatives of political and professional organisations” an inadmissible one10. The author continues to criticize the followers of Bolshevism mainly about their desire to indoctrinate the European socialists with the legend about “the great proletarian and communist mission of Bolshevism”. That very mission is

7 There again, p. 718. 8 Otto Bauer is one of the leaders of the Austrian social democrats and the Second International. He is the author of „Bolshewismus oder Sozialdemokratie?” that raises many questions among the Russian social democrats. 9 Manuscript of letters of P. B Axelrod, Yu. O. Martov. В: - Nenarokov, А. История одного письма. М., 2008, p. 49. 10 Such commission is elected in February, 1919 during the Conference in Bern of the Second International for “investigating the social and political situation in Russia”. Though the Soviet authorities allow the commission to visit USSR, they never actually do that. 7 supported by comparing the October Revolution to the Great French Revolution and by identifying the Bolsheviks with the Jacobins. But the character of the French revolution has nothing in common with the Bolshevik dictatorship and the coup and praising and viewing the latter as the great ascension of the Commune is a real blasphemy against socialism and the very idea of proletariat dictatorship11. Undoubtedly, there is a similarity between the Jacobins regime and the Bolshevik one but such similarity also exist between the subtle parody and the original …12. The Asian regime of the Bolsheviks and their “revolution” have nothing in common with the French one. Axelrod reminds that back in 1903 he warned about “the incipient Jacobin traditions inside the Russian social democracy” but in the context of Marx’s words about the events that happen twice in history – the first time as tragedy and the second time as a farce. The Bolsheviks “violently remove from power the entire social democracy”. “The Bolshevik jacobism is a tragic parody of the psychological foundation of herostratism and “superhuman” amorality“13. The author of the letter is certain that the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, aim at assuming the power from the moment they came into existence. After „the coup d’état executed and the use of Bonaparte-Nechaev techniques“, Lenin assumes an unlimited dictatorship over the Russian social democrats. The faction he leads perfectly learns all existing demagogic methods that enable it to start a life and death war with a definite goal – usurping power. All this is done under the flag of Marxism14. „But does the victorious Arakcheyevism triumphing in its orgy in a communist frame become less wild, less barbarian and less inhumanly

11 Manuscript of letters of P. B Axelrod, Yu. O. Martov. В: - Nenarokov, А. История одного письма. М., 2008, p. 50. 12 Ibid., p. 50. 13 Ibid., pp. 50-51. 14 Тов. П. Б. Аксельрод о большевизме и борьбе с ним. В: - Социалистический Вестник, № 6, 20 апреля 1921; № 7, 4 мая 1921. 8 cruel to the working people than the less primitive Arakcheyevism, alien to all contrivances and modern ideologies?“15. The serious discord between P. Axelrod and Martov results from the question how to proceed the fight against the Bolsheviks and what methods to be used. The greater part of the Mensheviks require an armed rebellion; Martov is against that while Axelrod suggest another way of action. First, he insists that most of the Mensheviks have no illusions that the Soviet regime can be democratized. Yet not only the CC of the Mensheviks rejects the tactic of an armed rebellion against the Soviet authority, but also he does. More with irony, he writes to Martov: „if the Bolsheviks, and only they, really perform the historic tasks of the revolution like the Jacobins in France, then our fight against them is in fact a counter-revolutionary one…our revolutionary debt is to become part of them and if able to form an opposition, we should do it carefully to a certain extent and, of course, with goodwill“16. Although P. Axelrod considers armed resistance an expedient one, he is willing, more than Martov is, to undergo extreme actions against the Bolsheviks. In the manuscript that V. Voitinski prepares, we can read: “If an armed struggle is considered a civil war “inside one class” then the responsibility for it should be assumed by the unlimited autocracy of the Bolsheviks who crash all efforts using iron and blood in order to eliminate their arakcheyev-feudal regime and not by the armed rebellion against Tsarism… The lawfulness and the need that result from this feudal regime are motivated by revolutionary socialist or communist reasons that increase more and more the need of a life and death war against it, mainly because of the vital interest, shown by the international socialism, international proletariat and even by the world civilization but not exhibited by the Russian people“.17

15 Ibid.. 16 Ibid.. 17 Version, prepared by V. S. Voitinski. - Nenarokov, А. История одного письма. М., 2008, p. 87. 9

The Menshevik justifies his arguments for his negative attitude to starting a rebellion with the “expedience and interests of the democratic mass and the socialist opposition” but not with Martov’s position. “We have every ethical and political right to fight the Bolsheviks even by using military means and it is a premise that needs no evidence and as it ensues from the fact that “the Soviet power” is less capable of voluntarily quitting its despotic regime than the Tsarist one, so it is doomed to forced elimination even more than the latter one”18. P. Axelrod has compared the Bolshevik and Tsarist authority in Russia more than once. In his letter he is writing that though many people seems to be loyal to autocracy and serve as its support, those people take the Bolshevik side, too. The enemies of the old regime are divided into two: the socialist and the bourgeois camp. During the period of Tsarism, the Bourgeoisie did not stay behind the Socialist parties, yet it was progressive and in a broad sense revolutionary. Therefore, it was possible for it to be supported by the socialist democracy. But the anti-Bolshevik bourgeois opposition at that was a reactionary one and aimed at using their overthrow as a way to force a counter- revolutionary dictatorship and to fully suppress the entire democracy. In order to avoid this prospect, “an independent and broad people’s movement” that shall decisively start liquidation of the Bolshevik dictatorship should be established. But that very dictatorship put the masses and the Socialist Opposition in conditions that are a lot more serious than the Tsarist one had created. This is where the question of how to come out of this dead-lock stems from?19 The fear and terror, created by the Bolsheviks, put an end to any actions against them. P. Axelrod is aware that this is the main reason for the weak opposition of the Social democrats in Russia. That is why he suggests the idea of the international socialist intervention against the terror that the Bolshevik apply in order to repress every peaceful proletarian or democratic opposition and

18 Ibid., p. 88. 19 Ibid., pp. 88-89. 10 could also work in favour of the democratic achievements of the French Revolution of 1917. But in order to realise such intervention, the author reminds that “the illusion of the proletarian-communist character of the Bolshevik dictatorship” must be overcome. That could be done with the help and by forming a “large international commission” that shall study the Soviet regime in detail and shall show the West its face, as well as the spirit of the broad masses in Russia. “The Patriarch” of Menshevism really sees the escape from the Bolsheviks in the Socialist International: “Without the active help of the International, our Socialist opposition…cannot carry out a broad and successful campaign against the Bolshevik regime”. He thinks it is very important for “the idealization of Bolshevism” to be stopped and based on this image, created by some western social democrats (led by O. Bauer) and some Russian social democrats (Martov), the pseudo socialists have good reasons to pretend for an exclusive rule and for a dictatorial hegemony in the international revolutionary movement. All this leads to complete disorganization, to an ideological chaos and degradation of the moral-political development of the socialist masses that could be beneficial for the Bolsheviks20. P. Axelrod cannot agree with O. Bauer that the West is not able to accept Bolshevism in a state with a highly developed civilization but in economically underdeveloped Russia it is considered a lawful and justified Asian foundation for its government system, i.e. a system that suffocates the Russian revolution, provokes demoralization, complete destruction of the proletariat vanguard, full collapse of the vast country and its cultural treasures. This dual position strengthens the positions of the Bolsheviks in Russia and hinders their fragile opposition in the country. Despite the long-time friendship between P. Axelrod and Martov, the period after the Bolsheviks came into power is very difficult for both of them. They

20 Ibid., p. 91. 11 keep their good relations but the difference in their opinion about the Soviet government are obvious and that cannot be kept hidden from the Mensheviks. In the end of 1917 Martov heads the CC of RSDLP and becomes the leading figure of the faction in Russia. Eventually, he takes the place of P. Axelrod as an emigrant representative of CC due to Axelrod’s worsened health, but in fact the real reason is the different stand he holds. In his letter to Martov, P. Axelrod pays great attention to the International. In April, 1920, during one of its meetings, the Central Committee decides to cancel all relations with the II International. P. Axelrod considers this a mistake and thinks it could be restored. The issue with the position of the social democratic parties of the peoples in the former Russian empire and their desire and right of national self- determination remains extremely important. It concerns the Polish, the Lithuanian, the Georgian and other parties that seek the support of the International. According to Martov all those parties ignore the consolidation of the unity of the international labour movement in favour of their independence. P. Axelrod reminds that most of those parties left the International after the conference in Bern21. He criticizes the parties that left the International and that is also another situation when he shows that he doesn’t share Martov’s opinion. Such “traitor” politics shall not restore the unity of the International but shall even prevent it. P. Axelrod admires the position of the Georgian social democrats who are constantly threatened by the imperialism of Moscow and the Entente. To him Georgia is “a proletariat oasis” that protects the interests of the world social democracy, therefore Georgia’s motives are international, not national ones. According to him, the Communist International established in Moscow is “an international church of anarcho-blanquist Bolsheviks”. Axelrod mentions 21 points that the parties that want to become part of the Communist

21The conference in Bern is held in February, 1919. The socialist and social democratic parties, represented there, take the position of centrism and pacifism. In 1921, the French, English and German parties leave the Bern International and established another one on their own – the so-called Vienna International. The Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionary Party. In 1923, both International unite in the Labour and Socialist International. 12

International should carry out. He calls those points “draconic and absolutely unacceptable for people who do not want to submit themselves to the entire revolutionary proletariat under the commands of the Soviet dictators”22. In this line of thoughts about the International, the Menshevik focuses again on the main issue for him – why the greater part of the Western social democracy (“centrists”, “reconstructors”, “independent ones”) overlooks “the ancient Asian regime” imposed by the Bolsheviks; why they hide the horrors that the Soviet authority puts the Russian people under. The author of the letter is certain that this rule is not “dictatorship of the proletariat but dictatorship over the proletariat”. Of course, the last pages of the letter, have no place in Socialisticheskii newspaper. P. Axelrod is writing to Martov in a quite difficult time for the Mensheviks when they are politically “dead”. As they lost the battle with the Bolsheviks, their days in Russia were numbered. Most of them are expelled or killed, just a few of them betray their view and adopt Bolshevism. People as P. Axelrod, Martov and other Menshevik leaders do not stop writing and warning about the great danger that lurks behind the social democratic mask of Bolshevism. Martov’s answer does not come late as he publishes it in the following issue of Socialisticheskii newspaper. In his writing he once again stresses his disapproval of the idea about an armed rebellion against the Soviet rule but his motives are different from those of Axelrod and the Central Committee. Pointing out one of Axelrod’s crucial mistakes, Martov continues: “now and before he misjudges the actual influence that the Bolsheviks have on the broad proletarian masses…“23. His other weak point is his certainty that the Bolsheviks utilize any means with one purpose alone, namely usurping power. Here lies Axelrod’s wrong idea

22 Version prepared by V. S. Voitinski. В: - Nenarokov, А. История одного письма. М., 2008, 100-101. 23 Yu. О. Martov about the letter of P. B. Axelrod. В: - Социалистический Вестник, №8, 20 апреля 1921. 13 about October, 1917. To Martov at that time “the Bolsheviks express the complete rightful outrage of the broad masses” and they are the only ones, prepared to save Russia from the politics of Kerenski-Tsereteli. This politics does not protect the interests of the Russian revolution but the military interests of the Entente. However, Martov approves the idea of taking energetic actions against “the methods of the Jacobin dictatorship, adopted by the Bolsheviks and applied in Russia”. What Martov wrote in his answer did not matter politically and was kept away from the actual events happening in Russia after October, 1917. He still believed in the self-democratization of the Soviet rule while P. Axelrod thought it was impossible and time showed the latter was right. Both Martov and P. Axelrod die away from their country; they never stop their struggle against the Bolsheviks and always warn about the evil, hiding behind this party. A. Nenarokov defines P. Axelrod’s letter as his political testament. What he said, survived the Soviet rule and unfortunately it is still present today. There are no Bolsheviks nowadays, yet Bolshevism is alive. Today it is a lot more dangerous, more up-to-date, more concealed and more unpredictable. If Bolshevism in the past screened itself under Marxism, today it hides behind democracy that provides it with immunity. But that does not mean that Bolshevism democratized itself, just the other way round. We should not put up with the notion that it is a normal form of government for the economically underdeveloped countries. No matter how difficult the fight against Bolshevism in all its forms becomes, it must not stop and it is a fact that is not subject to discussion.

ALMANACH VIA EVRASIA, 2014, 3 14

THE EURASIAN GEOPOLITICAL VECTOR

IN THE POST-COLD WAR GLOBALIZATION

www.viaevrasia.com

ISSN (online) 1314-6645