Page:Trade Unions in Soviet Russia - I.L.P. (1920).djvu/64

 are capable of changing the entire organisation of labour in short time—theoretically it is sheer nonsense, whilst in practice it does the greatest possible harm, preventing the workers from clearly understanding the distinction between the new and the old problems. This new problem is in the first place one of organisation, and in organisation we are weak, far weaker than any other country. Organising ability develops under conditions of big machine industry. There is no other material historical basis.

The interests of the workers and the peasants do not coincide. We are faced with a difficult period. We are also confronted with a moral problem—to prove to the peasantry that there is no alternative—they are either definitely with the workers, assisting the proletariat, or they return to their old condition. There is no middle course; no middle course exists except for the Mensheviks, but their method is in decay, falling to pieces wherever it is used, falling to pieces in Germany. This the peasant masses will not understand from theory and by observing the 2nd and 3rd Internationals. The peasant masses and tens of millions of people can understand it in the practice of every day life. A matter of principle which the peasantry could understand was victory over Kolchak and Denikin. They easily drew a comparison between the power of Denikin and Kolchak and the power used by proletarian dictatorship—although the latter phrase was used to frighten the peasantry and is still being used to that end. The Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries are still trying to frighten the peasantry with proletarian dictatorship. But in fact the peasantry is not and was not able to deal with matters theoretically. The peasant masses witness the facts of their own condition and of our struggle against speculation. It must be recognised that both the white guards as well as the Mensheviks have learned a lesson in propaganda from our Army Political Departments. The peasantry have seen banners upon which was written not proletarian dictatorship but "All power to the Constituent Assembly" and "All power to the government of the people" and so forth, but what they actually learned was that the Soviet Government was best. At the present moment we are confronted with the second problem of proletarian dictatorship moral persuasion; there are no means of forcible persuasion of the peasantry, there can be no question of such means. The solution of the question here is taking place through rupture in the ranks of the peasantry. In the struggle following the overthrow of the capitalists, in the two years' civil war, the workers formed a single body welded into a unity; the very opposite is observed amidst the peasantry; they are undergoing gradual internal disintegration. The peasants cannot possibly forget the landlords and the capitalists they remember but too well what they, the peasants, were at that time. On the other hand, the present peasantry is such that the interests of the various classes of the peasantry diverge widely, with the result that the peasantry is not united. (It is a fact that the state of the food question is not equally satisfactory for every peasant. There is no truth in the talk of freedom and equality). The truth is that the peasants are half workers, half owners.