the crisis in russia(俄国危机)-第15节
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
against strikes of protest。 The Trades Unions took a point of view nearer
that of the Bolsheviks； and the strikes in Moscow took place in spite of the
Soviets。 After the Kornilov affair； when the Mensheviks were still
struggling for coalition with the bourgeois parties； the Trades Unions quite
definitely took the Bolshevik standpoint。 At the so…called Democratic
Conference； intended as a sort of life belt for the sinking Provisional
Government； only eight of the Trades Union delegates voted for a
continuance of the coalition； whereas seventy three voted against。
This consciously revolutionary character throughout their much
shorter existence has distinguished Russian from； for example； English
Trades Unions。 It has set their course for them。
45
… Page 46…
THE CRISIS IN RUSSIA
In October； 1917； they got the revolution for which they had been
asking since March。 Since then； one Congress after another has
illustrated the natural and inevitable development of Trades Unions inside
a revolutionary State which； like most if not all revolutionary States； is
attacked simultaneously by hostile armies from without and by economic
paralysis from within。 The excited and lighthearted Trades Unionists of
three years ago； who believed that the mere decreeing of 〃workers'
control〃 would bring all difficulties automatically to an end； are now
unrecognizable。 We have seen illusion after illusion scraped from them
by the pumice…stone of experience； while the appalling state of the
industries which they now largely control； and the ruin of the country in
which they attained that control； have forced them to alter their immediate
aims to meet immediate dangers； and have accelerated the process of
adaptation made inevitable by their victory。
The process of adaptation has had the natural result of producing new
internal cleavages。 Change after change in their programme and theory
of the Russian Trades Unionists has been due to the pressure of life itself；
to the urgency of struggling against the worsening of conditions already
almost unbearable。 It is perfectly natural that those Unions which hold
back from adaptation and resent the changes are precisely those which；
like that of the printers； are not intimately concerned in any productive
process； are consequently outside the central struggle； and； while feeling
the discomforts of change； do not feel its need。
The opposition inside the productive Trades Unions is of two kinds。
There is the opposition； which is of merely psychological interest； of old
Trades Union leaders who have always thought of themselves as in
opposition to the Government； and feel themselves like watches without
mainsprings in their new role of Government supporters。 These are men in
whom a natural intellectual stiffness makes difficult the complete change
of front which was the logical result of the revolution for which they had
been working。 But beside that there is a much more interesting opposition
based on political considerations。 The Menshevik standpoint is one of
disbelief in the permanence of the revolution； or rather in the permanence
46
… Page 47…
THE CRISIS IN RUSSIA
of the victory of the town workers。 They point to the divergence in
interests between the town and country populations； and are convinced
that sooner or later the peasants will alter the government to suit
themselves； when； once more； it will be a government against which the
town workers will have to defend their interests。 The Mensheviks object
to the identification of the Trades Unions with the Government apparatus
on the ground that when this change； which they expect comes about； the
Trade Union movement will be so far emasculated as to be incapable of
defending the town workers against the peasants who will then be the
ruling class。 Thus they attack the present Trades Union leaders for being
directly influenced by the Government in fixing the rate of wages； on the
ground that this establishes a precedent from which； when the change
comes； it will be difficult to break away。 The Communists answer them
by insisting that it is to everybody's interest to pull Russia through the
crisis； and that if the Trades Unions were for such academic reasons to
insist on their complete independence instead of in every possible way
collaborating with the Government； they would be not only increasing the
difficulties of the revolution in its economic crisis； but actually hastening
that change which the Mensheviks； though they regard it as inevitable；
cannot be supposed to desire。 This Menshevik opposition is strongest in
the Ukraine。 Its strength may be judged from the figures of the Congress
in Moscow this spring when； of 1；300 delegates； over 1；000 were
Communists or sympathizers with them； 63 were Mensheviks and 200
were non…party； the bulk of whom； I fancy； on this point would agree with
the Mensheviks。
But apart from opposition to the 〃stratification〃 of the Trades
Unions； there is a cleavage cutting across the Communist Party itself and
uniting in opinion； though not in voting； the Mensheviks and a section of
their Communist opponents。 This cleavage is over the question of
〃workers' control。〃 Most of those who； before the revolution； looked
forward to the 〃workers' control〃； thought of it as meaning that the actual
workers in a given factory would themselves control that factory； just as a
board of directors controls a factory under the ordinary capitalist system。
The Communists； I think； even today admit the ultimate desirability of this；
47
… Page 48…
THE CRISIS IN RUSSIA
but insist that the important question is not who shall give the orders； but
in whose interest the orders shall be given。 I have nowhere found this
matter
properly thrashed out； though feeling upon it is extremely strong。
Everybody whom I asked about it began at once to address me as if I were
a public meeting； so that I found it extremely difficult to get from either
side a statement not free from electioneering bias。 I think； however； that
it may be fairly said that all but a few lunatics have abandoned the ideas of
1917； which resulted in the workmen in a factory deposing any technical
expert or manager whose orders were in the least irksome to them。 These
ideas and the miseries and unfairness they caused； the stoppages of work；
the managers sewn up in sacks； ducked in ponds and trundled in
wheelbarrows； have taken their places as curiosities of history。 The
change in these ideas has been gradual。 The first step was the
recognition that the State as a whole was interested in the efficiency of
each factory； and； therefore； that the workmen of each factory had no right
to arrange things with no thought except for themselves。 The Committee
idea was still strong； and the difficulty was got over by assuring that the
technical staff should be represented on the Committee； and that the
casting vote between workers and technical experts or managers should
belong to the central economic organ of the State。 The next stage was
when the management of a workshop was given a so called 〃collegiate〃
character； the workmen appointing representatives to share the
responsibility of the 〃bourgeois specialist。〃 The bitter controversy now
going on concerns the seemingly inevitable transition to a later stage in
which； for all practical purposes； the bourgeois specialist
