Page:Left-Wing Communism.djvu/20

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.

18

difficulties, achieve in 1917–1920 the strictest centralization and iron discipline, it was due simply to a series of historical peculiarities of Russia.

On the one hand, Bolshevism came into being in 1903 on the very firm foundation of Marxian theory. And the soundness revolutionary theory, and of no other, was proved not only by the experience of all countries during the entire 19th century, but particularly by the experience of the ramblings, vaccillations, mistakes and disappointments of revolutionary in Russia. For half a century–approximately between forties and nineties of the preceding century–advanced intellects in Russia, under the yoke of the wildest and most reactionary Czarism, sought eagerly for a correct revolutionary theory, following each and every "last word" in Europe and America with astounding diligence and thoroughness. Russia has attained Marxism, the only revolutionary theory by dint of fifty years' travail and sacrifice, through the greatest revolutionary heroism, the most incredible energy and devotion in seeking, educating, practical experience, disappointment, checking and comparison with European experience. Thanks to the emigration forced by the Czar, revolutionary Russia, in the second half of the 19th century, came into possession of rich international connections, and of a grasp of the superlative forms and theories of the revolutionary movement such as no other country had.

On the other hand, having come into existence on this granite thoretical foundation, Bolshevism went through fifteen years (1903–1917) of practical history which, in fertility of experience, had no equal anywhere else in the world. In no other country, during, those fifteen years, was there anything approximating to such wide revolutionary experience, such a variety and rapidity of shifting forms in the movement—legal and illegal, peaceful and stormy, open and underground, embracing small circles and large masses, parliamentary and terrorist. In no other country, during so short a period of time, has there been concentrated such a multiplicity of forms, shades and methods of struggle, embracing all classes of modern society. To this it must be added that the struggle matur-