April 2011 - Centre for Civil Society - University of KwaZulu-Natal

the masses are once more on the move, after the tremendous
mobilisations in 2009. In The rest of Africa as well we have seen big
movements, especially in Nigeria. Even in Europe we see that the workers
are starting to move. Led by France and Greece one country after another
has been shaken and more movements are on the way. A socialist
revolution in South Africa would immediately win the sympathy of these
movements and show the way forward for millions of workers and poor
who are fed up with the workings of capitalism. A revolution in South
Africa would not be an isolated incident, but would immediately connect
with the workers of the rest of the world.
Balance of power in 1917
The Bolsheviks came to power in what today's reformists would consider
the most unfavourable conditions ever. Russia in 1917 was a very backward
country where the majority of the country was living in distant and
isolated areas in the most backward conditions. Reading and writing was a
luxury for the few and religious prejudices ruled the mindset of the
majority of people. More than 90% of the population were peasants and
industry was only located in a few small centres. The working class,
although very concentrated, had a very low degree of organization.
Furthermore, the Bolshevik party was in a very bad shape. At the end of
1916 the Bolsheviks had been practically dissolved under the hammer
blows of repression and war. Lenin, who was living in Switzerland, was in
contact with no more than a handful of people inside the country. In an
era of no emails or internet the best leaders of the party were completely
isolated from the masses.
Even after the February revolution in 1917 the Bolsheviks did not have
more than 5% support within the soviets. Not once, however, did Lenin
mention any “unfavourable balance of forces”. The only thing that Lenin
did criticize was the political line that Kamenev and Stalin had put forward
in the party paper Pravda that argued for a line of loyal opposition towards
the provisional (bourgeois) government.
Lenin’s line, that also became the line of the Bolsheviks upon his return,
was that of no trust in the bourgeois democratic government or state and
all power to the organs of mass struggle – the soviets. Lenin’s tactic was
that of patiently explaining to the masses in Russia that the question of
war, poverty and land could not be solved in a bourgeois society, but only
through another, socialist, revolution. In this manner the Bolsheviks
succeeded in connecting the daily struggles of the masses with the
perspective for socialism. They never tried to sow illusions in the bourgeois
state or claim that poverty and misery could be solved under a capitalist
regime.
On the contrary, they insisted on explaining patiently that only by taking
power into their own hands, through the soviets, expropriating the
bourgeoisie, nationalising the banks and large insurance companies and
building society on a socialist basis could the workers and peasants escape
the endless horrors of capitalism.
By being firm in their policies they managed to win over the majority of
the masses who were quickly becoming disillusioned with the policies of
the provisional government led by the “Social-Revolutionary” Kerensky.
Did anyone raise opposition to the Bolsheviks taking power? Indeed! Russia
was put under heavy economic pressure and was attacked by more than 21
armies who had the support of all the major powers. On the other side the
Red Army was hopelessly backward with old weapons in bad shape and no