4월 테제
| ||
|
러시아 혁명 기획편 ▼ |
국문
| 4월 테제 | ||
| 1 | ||
요약본
| 4월 테제 | ||
| 요약본 | ||
1. 부르주아 임시정부는 전쟁을 계속할 것이다. 우리는 ‘혁명적 패배주의’ 입장에서 물러나지 않을 것이다. 자본주의와 제국주의는 서로 분리할 수 없는 것이기 때문에 전쟁을 끝내려면 자본주의를 제거해야 한다. 계급 의식적인 프롤레타리아트는 다음 세 가지 조건 위에서 혁명적 패배주의를 정당화할 혁명 전쟁에 동의할 것이다. a) 프롤레타리아트 그리고 프롤레타리아트와 동맹한 빈농의 권력 장악, b) 합병된 영토의 원상 복귀, c) 모든 자본주의적 이해와의 완전한 단절. 2. 러시아 혁명은 첫 번째 국면을 지나 두 번째로 넘어가고 있는데 이제 프롤레타리아와 빈농이 정치권력을 장악해야 한다. 3. 임시정부에 대한 어떤 협력도 해서는 안 된다. 부르주아 정부에게 제국주의 정부이기를 멈추라고 요구하는 것은 그들이 할 수 없는 일에 대한 요구이므로 사실상 그들에 대한 환상을 불러일으킬 뿐이다. [1] 4. 노동자대표소비에트만이 유일한 혁명정부임을 대중이 인식하게 하자. 5. 노동자대표소비에트에서 의회주의 공화국으로 되돌아 가는 것은 역사적 퇴보이다. 경찰, 관료기구, 군대는 폐지해야 한다. 6. 농업강령에서 강조점은 농업 노동자대표소비에트에 둔다. 모든 토지를 국유화하며 농업 노동자대표소비에트를 농민대표소비에트와 별도로 조직한다. 7. 국내의 모든 은행을 하나의 국립은행으로 통합하고 그것을 소비에트의 통제 하에 둔다. 8. 생산을 사회화하고 생산물의 분배를 즉시 소비에트의 통제 하에 둔다. 9. 당은 즉시 회의를 소집해 강령을 바꾸고 당의 명칭도 공산당으로 바꿔야 한다. 강령에서 수정해야 할 부분은 특히 제국주의와 전쟁, 국가에 대한 태도와 코뮌 국가의 건설, 시대에 뒤떨어진 최소 강령이다. 10. 사회배외주의(Social Chauvinism)[2]와 중도주의에 반대하는 혁명적 인터내셔널의 창조를 주도해야 한다.[3] | ||
| 1 | ||
영문
| 4월 테제 | ||
| 요약본 | ||
[Introduction] I did not arrive in Petrograd until the night of April 3, and therefore at the meeting on April 4, I could, of course, deliver the report on the tasks of the revolutionary proletariat only on my own behalf, and with reservations as to insufficient preparation. The only thing I could do to make things easier for myself—and for honest opponents—was to prepare the theses in writing. I read them out, and gave the text to Comrade Tsereteli. I read them twice very slowly: first at a meeting of Bolsheviks and then at a meeting of both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. I publish these personal theses of mine with only the briefest explanatory notes, which were developed in far greater detail in the report. THESES 1) In our attitude towards the war, which under the new [provisional] government of Lvov and Co. unquestionably remains on Russia’s part a predatory imperialist war owing to the capitalist nature of that government, not the slightest concession to “revolutionary defencism” is permissible. The class-conscious proletariat can give its consent to a revolutionary war, which would really justify revolutionary defencism, only on condition: (a) that the power pass to the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants aligned with the proletariat; (b) that all annexations be renounced in deed and not in word; (c) that a complete break be effected in actual fact with all capitalist interests. In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the mass believers in revolutionary defencism who accept the war only as a necessity, and not as a means of conquest, in view of the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them, to explain the inseparable connection existing between capital and the imperialist war, and to prove that without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace, a peace not imposed by violence. The most widespread campaign for this view must be organised in the army at the front. Fraternisation. 2) The specific feature of the present situation in Russia is that the country is passing from the first stage of the revolution—which, owing to the insufficient class-consciousness and organisation of the proletariat, placed power in the hands of the bourgeoisie—to its second stage, which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants. This transition is characterised, on the one hand, by a maximum of legally recognised rights (Russia is now the freest of all the belligerent countries in the world); on the other, by the absence of violence towards the masses, and, finally, by their unreasoning trust in the government of capitalists, those worst enemies of peace and socialism. This peculiar situation demands of us an ability to adapt ourselves to the special conditions of Party work among unprecedentedly large masses of proletarians who have just awakened to political life. 3) No support for the Provisional Government; the utter falsity of all its promises should be made clear, particularly of those relating to the renunciation of annexations. Exposure in place of the impermissible, illusion-breeding “demand” that this government, a government of capitalists, should cease to be an imperialist government. 4) Recognition of the fact that in most of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies our Party is in a minority, so far a small minority, as against a bloc of all the petty-bourgeois opportunist elements, from the Popular Socialists and the Socialist-Revolutionaries down to the Organising Committee (Chkheidze, Tsereteli, etc.), Steklov, etc., etc., who have yielded to the influence of the bourgeoisie and spread that influence among the proletariat. The masses must be made to see that the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary government, and that therefore our task is, as long as this government yields to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses. As long as we are in the minority we carry on the work of criticising and exposing errors and at the same time we preach the necessity of transferring the entire state power to the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, so that the people may overcome their mistakes by experience. 5) Not a parliamentary republic—to return to a parliamentary republic from the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies would be a retrograde step—but a republic of Soviets of Workers’, Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies throughout the country, from top to bottom. Abolition of the police, the army and the bureaucracy.[1] The salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable at any time, not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker. 6) The weight of emphasis in the agrarian programme to be shifted to the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies. Confiscation of all landed estates. Nationalisation of all lands in the country, the land to be disposed of by the local Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. The organisation of separate Soviets of Deputies of Poor Peasants. The setting up of a model farm on each of the large estates (ranging in size from 100 to 300 dessiatines, according to local and other conditions, and to the decisions of the local bodies) under the control of the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies and for the public account. 7) The immediate union of all banks in the country into a single national bank, and the institution of control over it by the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies. 8) It is not our immediate task to “introduce” socialism, but only to bring social production and the distribution of products at once under the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies. 9) Party tasks: (a) Immediate convocation of a Party congress; (b) Alteration of the Party Programme, mainly: (1) On the question of imperialism and the imperialist war, (2) On our attitude towards the state and our demand for a “commune state”[2]; (3) Amendment of our out-of-date minimum programme; (c) Change of the Party’s name.[3] 10. A new International. We must take the initiative in creating a revolutionary International, an International against the social-chauvinists and against the “Centre”.[4] In order that the reader may understand why I had especially to emphasise as a rare exception the “case” of honest opponents, I invite him to compare the above theses with the following objection by Mr. Goldenberg: Lenin, he said, “has planted the banner of civil war in the midst of revolutionary democracy” (quoted in No. 5 of Mr. Plekhanov’s Yedinstvo). Isn’t it a gem? I write, announce and elaborately explain: “In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the mass believers in revolutionary defencism ... in view of the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them....” Yet the bourgeois gentlemen who call themselves Social-Democrats, who do not belong either to the broad sections or to the mass believers in defencism, with serene brow present my views thus: “The banner[!] of civil war” (of which there is not a word in the theses and not a word in my speech!) has been planted(!) “in the midst [!!] of revolutionary democracy...”. What does this mean? In what way does this differ from riot-inciting agitation, from Russkaya Volya? I write, announce and elaborately explain: “The Soviets of Workers’ Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary government, and therefore our task is to present a patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses.” Yet opponents of a certain brand present my views as a call to “civil war in the midst of revolutionary democracy”! I attacked the Provisional Government for not having appointed an early date or any date at all, for the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, and for confining itself to promises. I argued that without the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies the convocation of the Constituent Assembly is not guaranteed and its success is impossible. And the view is attributed to me that I am opposed to the speedy convocation of the Constituent Assembly! I would call this “raving”, had not decades of political struggle taught me to regard honesty in opponents as a rare exception. Mr. Plekhanov in his paper called my speech “raving”. Very good, Mr. Plekhanov! But look how awkward, uncouth and slow-witted you are in your polemics. If I delivered a raving speech for two hours, how is it that an audience of hundreds tolerated this “raving”? Further, why does your paper devote a whole column to an account of the “raving”? Inconsistent, highly inconsistent! It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain, to recall what Marx and Engels said in 1871, 1872 and 1875 about the experience of the Paris Commune and about the kind of state the proletariat needs. [See: The Civil War in France and Critique of the Gotha Programme] Ex-Marxist Mr. Plekhanov evidently does not care to recall Marxism. I quoted the words of Rosa Luxemburg, who on August 4, 1914, called German Social-Democracy a “stinking corpse”. And the Plekhanovs, Goldenbergs and Co. feel “offended”. On whose behalf? On behalf of the German chauvinists, because they were called chauvinists! They have got themselves in a mess, these poor Russian social-chauvinists—socialists in word and chauvinists in deed. Notes [1] i.e. the standing army to be replaced by the arming of the whole people.—Lenin [2] i.e., a state of which the Paris Commune was the prototype.—Lenin [3] Instead of “Social-Democracy”, whose official leaders throughout the world have betrayed socialism and deserted to the bourgeoisie (the “defencists” and the vacillating “Kautskyites”), we must call ourselves the Communist Party.—Lenin [4] The “Centre” in the international Social-Democratic movement is the trend which vacillates between the chauvinists (=“defencists”) and internationalists, i.e., Kautsky and Co. in Germany, Longuet and Co. in France, Chkheidze and Co. in Russia, Turati and Co. in Italy, MacDonald and Co. in Britain, etc.—Lenin | ||
| 1 | ||
