Ninety years ago, the working
class of
This began a process of revolution and
counter-revolution over the next nine months which in October 1917 resulted in
the first democratic working-class, socialist revolution in history.
The February revolution stands between the
first Russian revolution of 1905-1907 and the third and conclusive revolution
of October 1917. The representatives of big business today and their hirelings
in the universities, the superficial professors of 'history', either ignore
this great event or seek to prove that February was the 'real' Russian
revolution which 'went off the rails' and ended in the 'putsch' of October
1917.
Of course,
One of the most vital lessons of the
February revolution and its aftermath is that had the leaders of the most
conscious workers' party at that stage, the Bolsheviks (the majority), pursued
the policies of the workers' leaders today, no Russian revolution would have
taken place. In 1917,
The honour of beginning the revolution
fell to the working-class women of
On 23 February, the women textile workers,
without prior agreement from any party, went on strike in several factories,
which led to mass demonstrations in the city. This opened the floodgates of
revolution, which unfolded over the next five days.
One of the unmistakable features of a
revolution is the direct intervention of the mass of the working class and the
poor - usually discontented but forced into submission by capitalism in
'normal' periods - in determining their own fate. This has been seen in all
revolutions, for instance in
In the testing of wills between the
working class and tsarism on the streets of
The First World War, with five million
Russian victims killed or injured, undoubtedly played a decisive role in
speeding up enormously the subsequent phases of the revolution until October
1917. Later revolutions, such as
But they themselves were not conscious of
their own power. Many times in history, the working masses have overthrown a
regime but have not enjoyed the fruits of their victory because they have not
recognised their role. Therefore, in
The February revolution was, in effect,
the beginning of the socialist revolution in
Initially, the
Stalin wrote and said: "The
Provisional Government must be supported because..." This is very similar
to the position of Bertinotti and other leaders of Rifondazione Comunista (RC) in
Italy in relation to the first 'Olive Tree' coalition which existed between
1996-1998, which they initially 'supported' from the outside.
The consequence was that the RC leaders
were covered with the odium arising from the attacks on the working class made
by this coalition, which pursued neo-liberal policies and paved the way for the
Berlusconi government.
In opposition to such an approach, Lenin
telegraphed from Switzerland to the Bolshevik leaders in Petrograd: "Our
tactic; absolute lack of confidence; no support to the new government; suspect Kerensky especially; arming of the working class the sole
guarantee; immediate elections to the Petrograd Duma;
no rapprochement with other parties." Then he pointedly declared:
"The least support for the Provisional Government is a betrayal."
What would he have said of his alleged
'heirs' in the RC and elsewhere today who now support capitalist coalitions
'from the inside', serving as ministers and embracing the neo-liberal programme
as, unfortunately, the RC in Italy has done in propping up the Prodi government? Bertinotti has
shamefully taken the position of president of the Chamber of Deputies,
equivalent to the Speaker of the House of Commons in
Why could he not refuse? When Lenin
arrived at the
Romano Prodi,
the Italian prime minister, himself declared from the outset his intention to
carry through drastic attacks on the living standards of the Italian workers,
all in the cause of 'reforming' the Italian state and renovating Italian
capitalism.
Yet Bertinotti
in April 2006, just after the elections, stated: "We will support a
government with Romano Prodi as prime minister and
our party will take part in it. A very important step has been made; we
defeated Berlusconi. Now we intend to rule
Events in
This was directly contrary to the position
adopted by Lenin and Trotsky in 1917. Lenin's policy led, nine months later, to
the October revolution and the 'ten days that shook the world', the
reverberations of October amongst the working class internationally.
Bertinotti's policy - of acceding to Prodi's
attacks on the working class - has already led to the disenchantment of broad
sections of the workers and young people. It is certain to lead to disaster,
the return of Berlusconi or something worse, unless checked by a revolt of the
RC members, combined with mass action by the Italian working class.
Unlike the workers' leaders today who are
seduced and corrupted by the lure of easy popularity and ministerial careers,
Lenin was not afraid of being in a minority. The Bolsheviks had 1% or 2% share
of the vote in the soviets in February, and only 4% by the time he arrived in
April. Yet at one stage prior to the First World War, the Bolsheviks had had
the support of four-fifths of the organised working class.
But a revolution like February is usually
made by a courageous and conscious minority with the broad support of the mass
of workers. Once it is triumphant this broad mass enters the political arena
and, as in February 1917, following the example of the 1905-07 revolution they
created their own independent class organisation in the form of soviets -
workers, soldiers and peasants' councils.
In fact, a 'double sovereignty' was
created in
The struggle between these forces
constitutes the essence of the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary
processes between February and October 1917. Lenin and the Bolsheviks under his
leadership strove to maintain loyalty to the revolutionary programme,
irreconcilable hostility to the capitalists and a decisive rupture with those
who were not prepared to struggle to the end against capitalism and
landlordism.
But this earned the Bolsheviks the undying
hatred of the capitalists and all those parties who wanted to remain within the
framework of the system. The entire press, including the papers of the
Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries, carried on a vicious campaign
against the Bolsheviks, just as the British media and press did against the
miners in 1984-85, or against the Liverpool Militants in their heroic struggle
of 1983-87.
Thousands of tons of newsprint were filled
with reports that the Bolsheviks were linked to the tsarist police, that they
received carloads of gold from
However, the Bolsheviks, under the
direction of Lenin, ignored the 'parliamentary babblers' and directed all their
attention to the mass of the working class and, in particular, to the most
oppressed tens of millions who were moving to the left in disillusionment with
the 'official' coalition soviet parties.
It was this, the constant stressing of the
independent approach of the working class and its organisations; clear
delineation of the revolutionary party and masses from the reformist and
semi-reformist opportunist parties, which led to the growth of the Bolsheviks.
The contrast between Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and the leaders and ex-leaders
of the workers' organisations today could not be clearer.
Of course, this was in a period of
revolution, which is not the case in most countries of the world today.
However, the preparation for such a situation is carried out in the period
before such sharp and abrupt changes actually take place. This is the role of a
far-sighted Marxist leadership and organisation.
Throughout the world today, the working
class is being led into a trap by the philosophy of coalitionism
or the 'lesser evil'. This is merely a variation of the ideas seen in February
1917. It means that the workers must always play second fiddle to capitalist
parties. They must tail-end the alternative bosses' party in the
The February revolution is also important
in relation to the momentous events that are unfolding in
Hugo Chávez has
praised Trotsky, claims to stand on Trotsky's ideas of the 'permanent
revolution' - which in Russia led directly from the February overturn to the
victory in October 1917 - and has proposed the nationalisation or partial
nationalisation of the energy and other industries.
We and the left
internationally support these steps of the Venezuelan government and people. However, Chávez says
that his government will proceed by what can only be perceived as 'instalments'
towards a break with capitalism at some unspecified future date. George
Galloway, commenting on this, mistakenly claimed in an article in the guardian
that this represents a greater advance - is more 'red' - then even the Allende government in
However, in
The Russian workers succeeded not by
'piecemeal' policies between February and October. In fact, the gains of the
February revolution were systematically undermined because the government
coalition refused to break with landlordism and capitalism. It took the
experience of the next nine months, together with the agitation and work of the
Bolsheviks, to convince the Russian workers of the need for an abrupt overturn
- a social revolution - which then took place in October 1917.
Although Chávez
has the support of the mass of the people today, Venezuelan landlordism and
capitalism has not been broken. In fact, the private sector, fuelled by the sixfold increase in oil prices since Chávez
came to power, is doing very well. However, rampant inflation could in time
alienate the middle class, as well as sections of the poor, and undermine the
enthusiasm of even the poor masses for the revolution, driving them into the
arms of reaction.
Ultimately, the only way to defeat the
threat of counter-revolution is to follow the policy of Lenin after February -
intransigent opposition to capitalism and landlordism and decisive measures to
break the power of big business.
The great events of February 1917 are not
dead history. We pay tribute to the courageous working class of