BOLSHEVISM AND ITS PEDIGREE

By KLAUS MEHNERT

This article i8 an attempt to analyze Bolshevism at the 7l!07ll£nt of its1Mst decisive struggle. The anal1Jsis 'is not influenced by the fact thatGer'many and the USSR haP1Jen to be at war. It is rather a result ofa studll of Bolshevism extending over fifteen 1/ea.r8. D1!ring this periodthe author's evaluation of Bolshevi8m, 'regardles8 of whatever the re­lat-io·t1.1; between Germany and the SO'Viet Union were at a1VlJ g·iven time,gra.dually developed toward increased skepticism of the Bol.~hevist

·e:r.pe-rinwnt.

The mdhor was born of 'German parentl1 in Moscow and grew upb·ilingwd. Up to 1986 he spent, over a pe'nod of three deca<ks, a totalof eleven yectrs in pre- and post'1"IlVolutionar11 Russia. travelling exten­sively in European and Asiatic R1I.88ia, including the Sov'iet Arctic andCentral Asia. For a m£71'W6'r of years he edited in Berlin the acade'/1llicmonthly "Osteuropa" (Eastern Eu.1·ope) , dealing primarily with the pro­blems of the USSR. He has written $everal books on Rwtwia, includingone that was p'ublished in eight languages. and is a 8incere !r'iend of theRussian people and an admi1'e'/' of thei1' nationctl geni1l.8.

THE VANTAGE POINT OF 191;1

Bolshevism came into power as aresult of the defeat of the Russian ar­"IDies in 1914-1917. WilI another de­feat of the Russian armies in 1941cause its downfall?

Should the answer be yes, tremen­,dous problems will arise, much greaterthan those which are caused by the fallof the other countries during the pre­-sent war. What form of state orsociety would take the place of Bol­shevism in Russia? Who would beihe owner of the vast industries de­veloped during the last twelv:e yea,rs bythe Soviet state '! What would be thelot of some hundred million peasantswho since 1929 have been forced to1ive and work in large, mechanized'collectives, under conditions radicallydifferent from those in their old di­minutive farms '? What would happento the Orthodox Church, to Islam, tothe hundred and fifty national minori­ties withm the Soviet borders, what~o Central Asia and Siberia, to Russia's

foreign relations, what to severalhundI1ed thol1sands of Russian refugeessoattered throughout the world?

It is too early to discuss these ques­tions, although this magazine will beamong the first to do that when thetime arrives. But irrespective of theoutcome of the struggle raging overthe largest battlefield in history, onething is certain: the character and thefeatures of Bolshevism will be pro­foundly changed by the present crisis,the greatest which it had ever to face.

At this historic moment, at a turn­ing-point in European and particularlyin Russian history, we look back overthe road which Bolshevism has trav­eled. From the vantage point of the,summer of 1941, with the life anddeath struggle of Bolshevism againstits greatest foe going on before oureyes, We can see this road more clearlythan at any other previous time. Count­less booksl and articles have beenwritten about Bolshevi.....m. But theirgreat majority has been devoted too

BOLSHEVISM AND ITS PEDIGREE 11

exclusively to naive praise or emotionalcondemnation. In this article we arenot concerned with moral evaluations.We take for granted the knowledgethat Bolshevism has destroyed intwenty·four years millions of lives,and an immeasurable amount of hu­man happiness, and also that it hasbuilt immense new industries and madevast experiments in the field of socialrelations.

THE TWIN ROOTS OFBOLSHEVISMIn trying to understand and analyze

the path of Bolshevism, and to discernin it more than meaningless zig-zagsor the mystical workings of the law ofdialectics, one cardinal fact will bestressed in these lines, a fact rarely re­cognized by the tens of thousands ofadmirers or enemies who have travel.led through Russia during the pasttwo decades-the fact that Bolshevismis the child of two totally differentparents and that its history is an un­ending struggle between their op­posing influences.

On its mother's side Bolshevism be­longs to the well-known family "Eman­cipation," It has among its ancestorsRousseau, the men of the French Re­volution, Karl Marx. Trotzky, and JohnDewey. The terms and slogans mostfrequently heard in its mother's familywere Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite. De·mocracy, Liberalism, Human Rights,and particularly Emancipation, Eman­-cipation of the Woman. Emancipationof the Child, Emancipation of theLaborer-Emancipation of Everybody.

Through its father Bolshevism is amember of the old family of "TheState." Here its ancestors are suchmen as Ivan the Terrible, Machiavelli,Peter the Great, Tsar Nicolas the First,and Stalin. In the coat of arms of thisfamily one will find the words: Au­thority, Power, Discipline, Force, Plan,and above all, The Interest of theState. Hence among its ancestors two~iametrically opposed ideas and manynations and races are repl'lesented. A

study of the genealogical tree revealsthat the paternal family is predomi­nantly Russian, the maternal one pre­dominantly Western. If we add to thisthe fact that the chjld was consideredan e.'Ctreme, not to say abnormal caseby both parents, we can easily realizehow many contradictions and compli­cations there must be in the path ofits life.

THE DOUBLE HERITAGEAt first the two divergent heritages

were less perceptible. It is true thateven before the revolution of 1917.while the Bolsheviks were still working"underground" as a smaII band ofmutually acquainted conspirators, therewas frequent friction within theirranks. But Lenin's authority wassupreme, and Lenin managed with somesuccess to combine the two forces inrus person and in his policies. Perhapshe even believed that the Soviet(---eouncil) structure represented asatisfactory compromise between initia­tive from the free man below andauthority of the state from above, andof course he could not foresee whatStalin was some day going to do withthe Soviet system. For a while theslogan "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"bridged the gap, for originally it meanta combination of freedom and force:the free proletariat was, through itsdictatorship, to force the rest of thepopulation into submission. But bynow this slogan has completely lost itsoriginal meaning; today the whole ofRussia is one huge proletariat livingunder a dictatorship.

Any number of examples could serveto show that on the whole the historyof Bolshevism is the history of thestruggle between its two heritage.."l. Letme suggest education and wages, as twowhich seem to me particularly signi­ficant.

THE "WITHERING AWAY" OF THESCHOOLDuring the first years after the re­

volution the Soviet Union, ideologically

18 THE XXtb CENTURY

speaking, passed through its liberal era.The strict, conservative Tsarist school­system was turned upside down and themost modern, liberal ideas in educ3honwere introduced, largely from America.Emancipation of the child, free develop­ment of the child's genius without adultinterference, these were the aims. Exa­minations, school-books, and students'uniforms, customary under the Tsaristregime, were immediately abolished asbeing strait j.ackets for the childs mindand body. Education was offered freeof charge, the schools were opened tothe children of the masses. (Forstudents in higher institutions the gov­ernment even paid for room and board.)The teachers had practically no author­tity, for-leaders of Soviet educationmaintained-their clumsy and unpro­letarian hands could only harm the har­monious growth of the child.

Extravagant hopes were placed in thechildren. They formed their own coun­cils, directing the affairs of the school,deciding how the school-hours shouldbe spent or whether the teacher shouldbe purged. School.classes were dissol­ved. The very word "class," because ofits evil connotation with class in theeconomic and political sense, was re­placed by the word "group" (gruppa)and the former class-method by the so­called laboratory-method. Science,Mathematics, Russian, History, theseand all other topics were thrown out,as being too narrow, too artificial, tooutterly divorced from real life. Simul­taneously the pedagogical leaders jubi­lantly announced the imminent "wither­ing away" of the school (and of thefamily, for that matter). Neitherteachers nor parents were to hamperthe glorious growth of the Soviet child.

EFFICIENCY VS.SELF-EXPRESSION

The first break carne in 1921. Leninproclaimed the "New Economic Policy."A number of the revolutionary princi­ples of the first few years were aban­doned in favor of a more realisticattitude. The l'loobering influence of the

NEP made itS€lf immediately felt in allother fields, including the school. Itwas found that the children, althoughha.ving a riotously good time, werelearning very little that would makethem useful members of the Sovietstate and intelligent workers or en­gineers in its factories. There wasmore talk now of the duties of the in­dividual than of his privileges, and oneheard more often that Russia demandedefficient mechanics and typists thanthat she was in need of harmoniouslydeveloped young men and women.

"The Interest of the State" set forthits demands. The liberals had to yield.Unwilling to sacrifice the positions ofthe first revolutionary years, the educa­tional leaders tried to meet the newconditions by closely linking school andFactory. Thus they hoped to preservethe essentials of their liberal school­system while at the same time provid­ing the State with the desired workers.But they were never quite happy aboutit. They felt humiliated that they hadbeen forced to subject their beautifuleducational theories to such a banalmatter as the demands of the State, andthey were only waiting for the oppor­tunity to devote themselves againwholly to the withering away of the.school and to the free development ofthe child.

SOLDIERS OF CULTURETheir chance came during the early

years of the first Five Year Plan whichcame into being in 1928. Educationagain acquired an entirely Utopiancharacter. Many schools actually with­ered a way, for hundreds of thousandsof "soldiers of culture," mostly stu­dents, neglecting their school work en­tirely, were roaming the country, par­ticipating in "culture campaigns,"teaching peasants how to read andwrite, and feeling like heroes of a newage. To be the principal of a schoolone had to be above all a loyal Commu­nist and preferably a factory worker.

This heyday-so far the last-of theliberal Bolsheviks came to a close in

BOLSHEVISM AND ITS PEDIGREE 19

1931. When the excitement first causedby the Five Year Plan had died downand people began to take stock, theyfound a most distressing situation: anunbelievable amount of energy and en­thusiasm had been spent, but what hadbeen gained? To be sure, more peasantsthan ever before could read and writeand the "soldiers of culture" were filledwith extraordinary and valuable ex­periences, but where were the millionsof qualified laborers, mechan ics, fore­men, engineers, scientists, physicians,accountants, managers, and hundredsof other professions which the rapidlygrowing Soviet economy needed in dailyincreasing numbers '/ Somewhere some­thing was decidedly wrong,

"WE NEED MORE CADRES!"

A new term began to assume evergreater importance: cad,'es. ThisFrench word was originally llsed forthe professional core or skeleton or­ganization in an army and was extend­ed, in the terminology of the Bolsheviks,to the professional and trained core inany .section of the economic or culturallife of the state. We need more cadres!So said the speakers, the newspapers,the radios, so said the people when talk.ing amon~ themselves. The pre-warcadres had been largely destroyed orforced to emigrate. Meanwhile a hugeSoviet industry was growing in all partsof the Union. Where were the cadresto turn its wheels? By 1931 the lackof cadres had become the central prob­lem of the USSR.

. Indeed, asked the people, why do wenot have sufficient cadres fourteen yearsafter the victory of the revolution?Why are the graduates of the Sovietschool incapable of fulfilling the tasksset before them? The answer, givenwith increasing vehemence, was: be­cause our school is alI wrong, beca.useit has lived in a Utopian world of beau·tiful liberal dreams instead of in aworld of harsh realities. A flood ofdecrees and laws began to appear. (Thefirst was the party decree of September5, 1931; a very important one was also

that of August 25, 1932.) They sharplycriticized the existin~ school conditions,bitterly denounced the theory of thewithering away of the school, demandEdmore work, less play. and the quickestpossible turning out of reliable cadres.

THE FOURTH TURN

Within two years the educationalsystem of the Soviet Union was againcompletely changed. It is not mzantironically but as a statement of factwhen we say that the Soviet school oftoday is much more similar to the schoolof the Tsars than to that of the firstrevolutionary years.

Today there are again examinations(and the scholarships paid are differ.entiated in accordance with thegrades). The authority of teachers andprincipals is fully restored. The pupils'councils which used to decide on ateacher's suitability merely exist as arelic of the past. The laboratory-meth­od has been abolished, classes havebeen restored. the word "class" is backin use instead of "group." Specificsubjects are taught again, even suchsubjects as Ancient History. The text­book has returned to favor. In thevery characteristic party decree ofFebruary 12, 1933, which flayed the"wrong line" of abandoning text-books,forty-five million copies of varioustext·books were ordered almost over­night, and most of the printing pressesof Russia had to stop whatever elsethey were doing in order to get thetext-books out by autumn.

THE CROCODILE CRACKS A JOKE

Soon the ideas of the Soviet peda.gogues of yesterday b2came today'sobject of ridicule, I remember a car­toon in the leading humorous Sovietmaggzine The C"ocodile which pokedfun at the pre-text-book conditions. InMoscow there are two rings of avenuesaround the city center. On the innerring runs the streetcar-line"A" and onthe outer the streetcar-line "B." Thecartoon showed a teacher with a group

20 THE XXth CENTURY

of children standing in the street andpointing at a streetcar. "This, chil­dren," the teaeher said, "is the letterA, and now I will take you to the outerring and there we will see what theletter B looks like."

"FOR COMMUNIST EDUCATION"TAKES A POLL

In the Soviet Union where the pressis completely regimented it can changeits tenor overnight. With the sameardor with which it had formerly ex­tolled progressive education it nowpraised the opposite. For a long time,for instance, the absence of examina­tions in Soviet schools had been asource of pride and self-acclaim. Nowthe re-introduction of examinations waspraised as a measure of wisdom andrevolutionary significance. Childrenas well as parents came under the in­fluence of this new interpretation andapparently accepted it without qualms.A Soviet newspaper, Za KO?n?nunisti­tcheskolle Prosvestchenye ("For Com­munist Education"), took polls withgratifying results. Among other in­spiring things it solemnly discovered"that 8.7 percent .of tbe parents wouldwhip their children if they did not passtheir exams."

Even the uniforms, it was decided,were to be re-introduced, and lately­this is more serious than all the otherchanges-free secondary and higbereducation were abolished. Now theuse of these schools is again confinedto those who can pay for them.

So we see that education under theSoviets has had four complete about­faces, two under the influence of"Emancipation" and two under that of"The State"-pet all four in the nameof the very same Bolshevism. But lestone might think that this is a peculia­rity of Soviet education only, let us giveanother example to show that Sovietlife in general went from one extremeof its heritage to the other, the turn­ing-points again being the years 1917,1921, 1928, 1931. Let us take, for in­stance. wages.

EQUALITY.

In the first period after the revolu­tion there was among the millions ofRussians a degree of equality in wagesand standard of living which is unpar­alleled in modern history. Money hadpr.actically no value, what counted wasthe pallok, the ration which was givenaccording to the size of the family andnot according to work performed. Onthe whole. Russia consisted only of twokinds of people, those who were dead,and those who ba,rely made a livingwith their payok. Within each groupthere was equality. Equality, to besure, on a very low level, but equalitynevertheless.

CAPITALIST EXPLOITATION

The New Economic Policy intro­duced a rather timid differentiation ofwages. The Bolsheviks found them­selves in a dilemma. On one hand theState demanded greater production, onthe other hand there was the Marxisttradition which made every device forspeeding up work, such as piece-work,smack of capitalist exploitation. Whatcould be done? It was a period whenthe State was on top: its demands hadto be fulfilled. Gradually piece-rateswere introduced in addition to wageson a time basis. A new wage-scalecame into use which provided differentwages for different jobs. The ratiobetween the lowest and highest wageswas at first one to five, then one toeight, finally one to ten. In additionpremiums were offered as a specialinducement. But as wages and stand­ards of living were slowly growingapart, the protests of those who consi­dered this to be treason and a betrayalof the idea of equality, became louder.Particularly the Trade Unions demand­ed the return to time-wages with onlysmall differences between the highestand lowest groups. And so again thedirection was changed.

"WHY SHOULD WE WORK?"One does not have to study psycho­

logy to know what will be the result if

BOLSHEVISM AND ITS PEDIGREE 21

an entire nation is paid more or lessthe same wages for any length of time.Obviously what happens is that nobodyworks. Those who are lazy by naturesay, "Why should we 1Oork? We wouldnot get more anyway." And the in­dustrious ones will say, "Why shouldwe work? The others don't and yetthey get the same."

This attitude may have been all rightas long as you looked at it from thepoint of view of the individual's liberty.But as soon as the requirements of theState were stressed, its demands formore coal and iron, for more tanks andguns, the picture changed completely.It was during the first Five Year Planthat this change took place. Increas­ingly the emphasis shifted from theindividual to the State. And the Stateabove everything else wanted moreproduction. Evidently there was onlyone way to make people work harder:to pay them more for more work, topay them less or not at all for less or'DO work.

"THE SIX CONDITIONS OFCOMRADE STALIN"

On June 23, 1931, Stalin made aspeech which I consider to be one ofthe most important documents of Bol­shevist history. It soon became knownas "The Six Conditions of ComradeStalin." It was copied in millions ofpamphlets and quoted in billions ofnewspapers. In essence this speechsaid, "Down with equalitarianism I(Not even the word equality was left,it had deteriorated in equalitarianism,uravnilovlca.) Up with inequality, upwith determined differentiation ofwages! Only if we stimulate the in­dividual worker by paying him higherwages for more work can we expectgreater production."

Since this memorable speech thingshave developed very much in the direc­tion demanded by Stalin. The wagedifferences have increased from yearto year until today you can find peoplein Russia who earn a hundred rubles

a month and tothers who make a thou­sand, five thousllnd, ten thousand, andeven more a month. If you work moreyou get paid more, for the State needsmore of everything. The State needsmore automobiles, more oil, more planes.The State needs .... the State needs ..the State .... the State .... The em­phasis has indeed completely shifted.

THE UBIQUITOUS FACE OF THEBUREAUCRAT

In the present period, which is thefourth lap in the course of BolshevisITI'tthe State has won out completely overthe individual. Nowhere in the worlddoes the individual have less to saythan in the present Soviet Union, wherehe stands as a helpless dwarf beforethat horrifying giant, the State, whoholds in his hands the powers both ofthe employer and of the government.People who have not lived in the USSRdo not realize what it mea·ns if stateand employer are the same. In mostother countries a man can, if he feelsunfairly treated by his employer, go toa new employer or he can appeal to theState. But in the Soviet Union, wher­ever he goes, to factory A or to factoryB, to the employer or to the State, hewill find the same face: the face of thebureaucrat who represents THESTATE.

Some observers abroad sincerely be­lieved that the new Soviet constitutionwith its many guarantees of humanrights would change things. Thesepeople have been bitterly disillusioned.Under the new constitution more indi­viduals than at any time before havebeen "liquidated" without due trial orany other regard for their humanrights.

WORLD REVOLUTION

We have traced the two parental in­fluences of Bolshevism and theirmutual struggle because they help tosolve many otherwise unintelligiblecontradictions and because they bringinto focus nearly a quarter of a cen-

THE XXth CENTURY

tury of Bolshevism which to manyseems hopelessly confused.

But our task does not end here. Forthere is one more trend in Bolshevismwhich must be mentioned, a trendwhich it inherited from both its par­ents and which has remained the sameno matter what influence happened tobe the stronger at any given period.This is the desire for world domination.

THE RUSSIAN EAGLEAmong its paternal ancestors all the

great Russian rulers were in the firstplace "Collectors of the Russian Earth,"as they were named by their chroni­clers. The word "Russian" might asweB be left out in this title, for theearth collected was mainly non-Russianwhen the collecting started. It includesalmost five million square miles ofSiberia, over one million square milesof Central Asia, not to mention thevast regions inhabited by Caucasian,Turkish, Finnish, and numerous othernon-Russian and non-Slavic tribes con­quered in the courSe of Russian his­tory. To Peter the Great not even thePacific was a barrier. It was he whoinaugurated Russia's march into Alaskaand California, and his successorsdreamt of flying the Russian Eagleover India, the Persian Gulf, and theAegean Sea.

Any history book with a map onthe growth of Russia from the smaHprincipality of Moscow to its greatestsize in the latter half of the nineteenthcentury will bear out my contentionthat conquest without regard for na­tural or national limits was the proudtradition of the Russian 'raars. Oneshould not overlook the fact that theRussians were peculiarly well equippedfor this expansion over Europe, Asia,and even parts of America. More thana thousand years of life on the bordersof Europe and Asia, of wars withAsiatic tribes and of marriages withtheir daughters, have made Russia aEurasian nation which speaks thelanguage of the West as well as thatof the East.

THE COMMUNIST STAR

Even stronger and certainly moreoutspoken is the desire for worlddomination on the maternal side. Nei­ther the men of the French Revolutionnor th,~ followers of Marx thought interms of nations. They all believedthat their star should shine for all menand that their program should be ac­cepted by the world as a whole. Readthe revolutionary French proclamationsor the Communist Manifesto, or thebooks of the Comintern, and you willfind it stated there with candor andvehemence.

It is this combination of national~nd international urges toward worlddomination which has caused worldrevolution to remain the one unchang­ed part of the Bolshevist plan. Wage­scales, school programs, and manyother things were radically alteredsevernl times during the history ofBolshevism. But no one has everobserved a change in the final aim:World Revolution. There have, ofcourse, been differences of opinion asto the methods, but never as to theaim itself. the aim of a Soviet World,controlled from the "Capital of theWorld Proletariat," Moscow.

THE STRANGE WAYS OF FOREIGNPOLICY

Because of its close connection withthe fixed aim of a world revolution, theforeign policy of the USSR has not fol­lowed the swings of the pendulumwhich have been described here andwhich can be found in all other spheresof Soviet life.

Take the last ten years of Soviethistory for example. During the years1931-1941 the inner-political develop­ment of the Soviet Union has remainedessentj'ally the same, yet the foreignpolicy has passed through many phases.First the Kremlin was on good termswith Germany, denouncing the injus­tices of Versailles and Geneva. Thenit became a bitter enemy of Germany,defending the European status quo

BOLSHEVISM AND ITS PEDIGREE 23

and joining the League of Nations.Next it made its peace with Germanyin order to use Germany's involvementin the present war for large gains ofterritory in Eastern Europe, and foughtits war against Finland. And nowagain it stands on the side of Britainand America. Yet during this entiredecade the USSR has remained thesame dictatorship, as far removed fromthe ideals of her present allies as any­thing could ever be.

GERMANY AND THE USSR ATWAR

No one who has followed the poli­tical events of the last few years willdoubt that everything was done by theopponents of Germany to bring theSoviet Union into their cam,p. In thisthey were successful. By the earlysummer of 1941 the German leaderswere convinced that it had become onlya question of time as to when Stalinwould actively join the war againstGermany. When on June 22 the Ger­man armies crossed the Soviet bordertheir leaders did not underestimate theRed Army-better than anyone else inthe world were they aware of itsstrength and weakness-but they weredetermined to strike the first blow ina struggle that had become unavoidable.

There was much rejoicing in theranks of Germany's enemies when theBolshevist armies took the field againstGermany. Did they expect the Redtroops to defeat the German legions?Hardly. Did they wish them at all tobe victorious? I have not been in Eng­la·nd since the war began, but I cannotimagine that even the fury and hatred

of modern war could cause the Britishto desire a Bolshevist victory overGermany, which would put the wholeof Europe at the mercy of Stalin.

The American attitude has been verypoignantly expressed in a recent issueof Time which speaks of "the emotionalconfu ion of most U.S. citizens wholooked upon a war in which theywished both sides would lose-but nottoo soon. It was a troubling experiencefor those who rejoiced when Nazissmacked into Russia, out of hatred ofCommunism-but who worried to seehow hard they smacked; and for thosewho could see the logic of U.S. aid toRussia, since Russia was the weakerof two well·hated dictatorships-butgagged at the thought of a Russianvictory."

This is a frank statement whichcharacterizes a strange political situa­tion. Since the joint Churchill.Roose­velt message to Stalin, England and theUnited States are practically allies ofthe USSR. Yet all the sane elements--­certainly in America and probably inGreat Britain--do not want the Bolshe­viks to win, as they realize the terrificconsequences of such a victory not onlyfor continental Europe but also forthemselves. They are hoping for arepetition of the events in the GreatWar, when Germany and Russia. woreeach other out and in the end bothcollapsed. But they are hoping withlittle confidence. They know that Ger­many has learned from the bitter ex­perience of the last war and they fearthat, as Time puts it, they might behelped out of their emotional con­fusion by a German victory overthe USSR.