On the Origins of Bolshevik Party
The Marxist movement in Russia started as a primordial soup of socialist clubs, groups and factions, without any clear, articulate ideology or regular structure. Being so highly heterogenous, it could not work out common political goals, let alone pursue the common course of actions. It was vague, fuzzy, and from the perspective of some - dysfunctional. All talk. Too much debate, not enough action.
Starting from the early 1900s, Vladimir Lenin tried to work out something functional out of this soup. Vague, fuzzy, unobliging movement could not take the organised action. To address this problem, he started coining a formal, distinctive faction of professional revolutionaries, binded by the party discipline, and capable of the organised action. That would be the Bolsheviks.
Compared to other Marxist factions, the Bolsheviks were more hierarchical, more disciplined, and - let’s be honest - less democratic, from the very, very beginnings. To the far greater extent than anyone else, they were guided by the personal will of the one singular leader. Which was Vladimir Lenin.
Many criticised them on this ground, considering them more of a totalitarian cult, a sect, than a socialist group. Many in the Marxist movement abhorred the Lenin’s reforms. Many rejected them totally, as dangerous sectarianism.
As a result, the Marxist movement was split, into the Bolsheviks (Leninist sect), the Mensheviks (who rejected Lenin’s leadership) and the various groups in the middle (Middle Ground). Contrary to the naming, it were the Mensheviks who used to have strong majority, while the Bolsheviks were relatively few.
Now the thing is. While the Mensheviks and others criticised Bolsheiks as a totalitarian cult, they did not technically function as one. They worked on the principles of democratic centralism. The faction is democratic, decisions are being taken collectively, voted for. After the vote, they become compulsory for everyone, and every member must follow them, with the strict obedience.
But how does that work in practice? There are tons of the Bolshevik cells, scattered around Russia and beyond. They often have poor or no communication with each other. Which means, they cannot vote on every single issue. So, the direct democracy is ruled out, being impossible to execute.
What it means in practice is that the Bolshevik faction will be run by a range of executive committees. What kinds of committees that would be? All kinds of. Financial committees, raising funds for the party. Newspaper boards, running its propaganda publications. And, above all, the Central Committee running the party, and taking all the key decisions regarding its policies.
From time to time, the Bolsheviks were supposed to meet on the party congresses. Various cells scattered around Russia and beyond would send their delegates, and the votes of these delegates would define the strategic policies of the party. They would define everything, including the membership in the Central Committee. Decisions of the congresses reveal the will of the party.
That is how democratic centralism works. The Party votes, results of the vote define the will of the party, and once it is defined, it becomes the law for everyone. And, between the congresses, it is decisions of the executive committees and, above all, decisions of the Central Committee that serve as the will of the party for the time being.
Which means. If you have majority in this executive committees, you can dictate your will to the Party, in between the congresses.
Now if you have majority on the congresses, too, you can dictate your will to the party always, permanently.
Now what you need to understand about Vladimir Lenin, is that
No. 1 job of Vladimir Lenin, as the party leader, was always having the majority
That was his main business, and the main concern. Always have majority within the executive committees that run the party everyday. And when the party delegated meet for the congress, you also must have the majority.
14. I want to stress that his leadership was informal. On paper, he was just one of the equal status party leaders, just one of the executive committee members. In reality, it was Vladimir Lenin, who was manipulating who sits in an executive committee and who is not, to always have majority, and dictate his personal will to everyone.
15. How would he do it? Through his informal influence. To control the executive committees, he would fill them with his personal vassals, trusted deputies (from the Bolshevik perspective) on henchmen (from the anti-Bolshevik perspective). However you call them, he put his lieutenants on the committees, and made sure they hold the majority, so that the committee always votes correctly.
16. So what I am saying is that within the Bolshevik party (formal structure), there was another, informal structure, based on the personal connection with, and personal vassalage with Vladimir Lenin. And it was this informal structure of vassalage that actually guided the party. It was the informal vassalage, that allowed Lenin to manipulate the party through his vassals, and direct it wherever he felt like.
17. And what I am saying is that maintaining this informal structure of vassalage was Vladimir Lenin’s No. 1 job, as the party leader. His primary concern as the party leader was always about maintaining his control over the party. To maintain control, he manipulated the formal party institutions through his informal network of vassalage. All of that can be framed as internal, “domestic” politics.
Which always stands as the number one priority of a political leader1.
18. But you can’t do much through the domestic politics only. Your organisation is pretty small. Like, you have functional, obedient and highly disciplined organisation that bows to your will. And that is great. But it is simply not big enough to do anything big, like seizing the power. For that to happen, you will need allies.
In other words, you will need to do “foreign policy”.
19. Lenin’s perspective on these allies had always been very outspoken and clear. On our way to our goals, we must make alliances with other progressive and revolutionary movements. These alliances will make us stronger, and allow us to reach the common goals, through the combined efforts.
What is more, these alliances will be temporary. All of these allies are no more than the fellow travellers, we will part with, one day.
He wrote this very explicitly in his 1897 article.
20. So what we have is the Bolshevik core, with the strict discipline, manipulated by the informal leader through the informal instruments. And there are the fellow travellers, to be used, and then discarded, as they are no longer needed
Now what you need to understand about Leon Trotsky, is that
Leon Trotsky was the most prominent and the most influential of the fellow travellers
Contrary to the popular misconception, he was not an old Bolshevik.
He was a temporary ally, to be used, and then discarded, who just happened to be extraordinarily helpful for the time being.
21. Trotsky was a young, talented activist who never really joined the Bolshevik core. He worked (and voted) with the Menshevik, then with the Middle Ground, until he established his own political faction, opposed to and highly critical of Lenin and Bolshevism. To Lenin, Trotsky was a leader of (smaller) opponent faction who attacked Lenin as a cultist, and a small dictator (for the reasons outlined above).
22. Trotsky did not join the Bolsheviks until July 1917. These were the dark days of the Bolshevik Party, the lowest of the low. Their armed rebellion in St Petersburg was suppressed, their followers massacred, the party leaders arrested or fled. That was the moment when Trotsky firmly threw his lot with the Bolsheviks, and joined their ranks.
23. There is no wonder he was immediately co-opted to the party leadership. Trotsky bought at the lowest, joining the Bolsheviks when very, very few wanted to. Still, it is important to understand he had not been the original member of the Bolshevik core. In other words, he had not been a member of the (informal) Lenin’s power network, his structure of vassalage.
Trusted lieutenants danced under the Lenin’s tune, and danced obediently. Trotsky was too proud, and too independent for that. He was not a Lenin’s lieutenant, but a leader of an independent group (= why independent? because he refused dancing under the Lenin’s tune), who fused his group with the Bolsheviks, making what turned out to be a temporary alliance with them.
24. Alliance with Trotsky turned out to be extraordinarily useful for Lenin and for the Bolsheviks. His energy, his courage, his talents proved to be instrumental both in the October coup 1917 which brought them to power, and in the Civil War, 1917-1921.
25. That, however, created a problem. Through 1917-1921, the Party grew manyfold, by the orders of magnitude. The old, original core was absolutely outnumbered by the new entrees. In other words, the Inner Party was now overshadowed by the Outer Party, composed of the newbies. These newbies knew nothing about the original workings, and original power balances of the party. There were very few personal vassals of Lenin among them.
26. If the old, Inner Party perceived Trotsky as a fellow traveller, a temporary ally, the new, Outer Party, saw Trotsky as the true leader, on pair with Lenin, or perhaps even above them. We can almost certainly say that by the end of the Civil War, Trotsky was considerably more popular than Lenin within the Outer (but not the Inner) Party.
27. With the last gunshots of the Civil War, the alliance between Lenin and Trotsky was broken
28. By this point, Lenin still held control over his informal vassalage network, controlling most of the executive committees running the party. Most of the bosses, especially old bosses were his personal lieutenants. But he did not really have this grasp over the Outer Party, where Trotsky had strong majority in most of the party cells.
29. The early 1920s are characterised by the power struggle between Vladimir Lenin (relying on the Inner Party) and Leon Trotsky, finding himself increasingly in isolation from other party bosses (the old Lenin’s network). Having the strongest positions in the Outer Party he was unwilling or unable to utilise it.
30. In contrast, Lenin mobilised all the power of the Inner Party, all the resources of his vassalage into the crusade against Trotsky. That was easy to do. They were the old gang, and naturally distrusted and misliked Trotsky as an upstart and an outsider.
31. Working on 30, and having largely succeeded in this task, Lenin got ill, and lost his grasp over the party politics. From this point on, they largely went on the autopilot.
32. With the Lenin’s illness, the disproportionate managerial control over the executive committees running the Bolshevik Party went to his closest, most trusted and most obedient deputy and lieutenant.
33. His name was Joseph Stalin
This structure of the party, and of its decision making, was a choice. In theory, you have made other choices. The Nazi Party, for example, with the will of the fuhrer as its only law. Basically, the fuhrer decides, all obey. But, the Bolsheviks did not make this choice. Their structure of governance was more complex, and more “hypocritical” one could say. There is no one clear, formal leader, everyone bows to. There is the collective leadership. We vote, and the vote decides. But the informal leader takes precautions, so that he always has majority.
I must note that Russia had revolutionary groups with more explicitly totalitarian structure. They did not really blew up.
Great piece. Didn't realize there was a rivalry. I know more about Stalin's rise then Lenins, and how he made temporary alliances with the old party right, then the left, in order to eliminate the Politburos old guard. While using the post of general secretary to make the outer and inner party his creation. Kind of like Lenin did with inner party earlier.
Some people blinded by hatred of communism are convinced that Lenin and Stalin didn't believe in Marx's ideas AT ALL. It was just a useful Faith to do what they really wanted; become totalitarian monarchs. They were constantly arguing about theory treating Marxs writings as scripture. Sure Lenin and bolsheviks became tyrannical.... went with NEP in the post civil war....because their religion didn't work in the real world. Terror had to replace the Good of the Proletariat as incentives to work hard or work at all. Then self interest in the NEP years.
Not defending communism but it has been and remains a seductive idea, religion really. Abolish Capitalism and heavenly utopia breaks out everywhere in a brotherhood of man.
In any case; the worst horrors mankind has inflicted like those of religions are always with the idea of a better world, we're killing nonbelievers for the good of us all!
So with modern communications, the pressures which led to these structures no longer apply. We should see different patterns. I mean, mobilizing informal power is always a universal constant, but direct democracy is entirely possible now, so you should see different patterns.