It is a paradox of history that the
Bolsheviks depend on the money donated by the bourgeoisie to support them. Under autocratic politics, black gold is more rampant than democratic politics, and the inner-Party struggle also stinks of copper. The revolutionary party is not a saint, and the bargaining with the “red lawyers” is the best footnote.
spiritual leader Lenin
of course, caitkin could not “repay the money” at this time, because she was arrested and imprisoned for organizing anti war activities in April this year. Lenin did not contact her for some time after he was released from prison. Finally, it is still unknown whether Cai tejin returned the “safekeeping money”. Lenin did not mention the money in his subsequent letters and other materials. By 1917, Lenin would have written another letter to Tsai Tekin, and there would be less vicious words. Some people speculate that Lenin probably achieved his wish in some way. Otherwise, according to Lenin’s personality, if the money was still in tsatkin’s hands, he would not have a good face.
of course, there may be another reason: some people think that Lenin has received “astronomical sums of money” from the German government at this time, which is nothing to say. Lenin used the money of the enemy government to engage in the work of “defeating his own government”, which was greatly exaggerated by his political enemies at that time. In 1921, Bernstein also mentioned that the German Ministry of Finance kept “a large number of receipts issued by Lenin and his comrades in arms to the German Empire” (felkinski: “making money for the revolution”, historical issues, No. 9, 1998). After the upheaval in East Germany, such materials were constantly disclosed. For example, in December 2007, the German weekly Der Spiegel published an article entitled “the revolutionist of his Majesty the czar”, According to the investigation of German archives by German scholars, the secret financial support of the German government to the Bolsheviks had reached at least 26 million marks by the end of 1917, equivalent to 75 million euros today. This is another big topic.
however, the author still believes that even if Lenin was not short of money later, it would be difficult to resolve his old account with CAI tejin without a step down. Although Lenin had many records of making peace and working with his enemies in the past, Lenin rarely forgot the gratitude and resentment in personnel rather than in speech. The once great “gold Lord” said so many things against him in the “October Revolution”, but Lenin was able to tolerate it. He was quite vindictive of Plekhanov, his mentor at that time, Lenin, which is a pair of examples. Cai tejin competed with him on the “problem of money” for five years from 1910 to 1915. He left so many cruel words in his letters, which was also rare in Lenin’s experience. Therefore, this matter should have an acceptable result. The author speculates that Lenin should have asked for the money back during the period of CAI tejin’s arrest in 1915. Because according to Lenin, the “old lady” was the most “stubborn” in the German Party at that time. Her arrest may have contributed to the settlement of the problem.
the “old lady” of Clara Zetkin is also a rare figure with “good historical popularity”. In the past, the official propaganda of the Soviet Union portrayed her as Lenin’s “old comrade in arms”. It is known that she proposed to convene the first international women’s Congress (1907), and determined March 8 as international women’s day under her proposal. Her husband was Russian revolutionary oship Zetkin. As the left wing of the German Social Democratic Party and the founder of the German Communist Party, she supported the October Revolution. In her later years, she often lived in the Soviet Union and finally died in Moscow. Her ashes were placed under the wall of the Kremlin. It is difficult for people to understand their real relationship if it were not for the fierce discord preserved in the second edition of the complete works of Lenin and the diary of zeitkin. On the other hand, the Western encyclopedia said that as “the last big figure of the pre war socialist party left in the third world”, she had always maintained the right of independence and criticism to Lenin and later, “in order not to lose her charismatic figure, the Russian leader made some concessions to her”. In Germany, it is known that before the Nazis came to power, she stood up as the oldest congressman in Germany at that time and died soon in the Soviet Union. She did not witness the tragic fate of many of her Russian comrades in arms in the near future. Today, both the German Social Democratic Party and the left-wing party respect her, especially the left-wing party mainly from former East Germany. In their background publicity materials, they not only never mention the leaders of East Germany in advance, but also don’t mention the old German Communists such as Tillman before World War II. They only publicize three pioneers: Rousseau, a French thinker, Heine Miller, a former East German postmodern playwright who was named, criticized and banned by onak, is the old lady zeitkin.
and the reason why Tsai Tekin was highly respected in the German Social Democratic Party and the second international in those years was that she was not good at seizing power, was not keen on inner-Party struggle, and was fair to all kinds of contradictions, so she was accepted by all parties; Second, she is not a “good man” because of this. As long as she thinks it necessary to participate, she will adhere to the principle and refuse to eat soft and hard. She and Rosa Luxemburg are both female revolutionaries who have deep ties with Germany and Russia and have a great influence on the left-wing relations between the two countries – although Luxemburg is a Russian polish, she revolutionized in Germany, and zeitkin married a Russian revolutionist as a German. Moreover, their personalities are similar. They both belong to idealists who are very left-wing and radical, but have a good character and a scholar. Such people are hard to survive in cruel times (when both left and right are in power). Luxembourg is an example. Cai tejin was very lucky to live to nearly 80. Because of their leftist ideas, they later broke away from the mainstream of the Social Democratic Party and became one of the founders of the German Communist Party, which was very popular in the Soviet Union. But because of this character, they all seriously offended Lenin. So much so that Lenin abhorred and called them “Rosa = caitkin” in his letters many times. Luxembourg has always adhered to the inner-party democratic tradition of the European Socialist Party and resented Lenin’s gang style. Although she was not a member of the arbitration committee of Kautsky, Merlin and zeitkin, she did not seem to have spoken directly about the money, but according to LeninAccording to the statement in the letter, “Rosa = chuatkin” has the same position on this matter. At that time, Tsai Lenin’s ruling on the international relations of the party and other parties was submitted to the second international coordination agency of the Party (together with the international coordination agency of various countries) to challenge the international relations of the party’s standing in Luxembourg, Moreover, the root cause of all this, namely “the unification of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party”, should also be included in the agenda. However, in Lenin’s view, this “foolish action against us” is worse than tsatkin’s proposition, because the international bureau is attended by members of the Menshevik, and it is more difficult for Lenin to go there for public discussion than to privately say tsatkin.
why did the “left” have a hard time with Lenin?
in fact, according to the files on this matter, Lenin was very isolated at that time. Kautsky, zeitkin, Luxembourg, needless to say, what about haaz? “Haaz can’t be expected to do anything good. He obviously wants to obstruct the return of the money”; Tishka is even worse. “The whole incident is tishka’s conspiracy”, and even Zetkin is “under the clutches of tishka”. Lenin’s only hope was that beibel could speak for him – but beibel didn’t say it until he died. It must be pointed out that none of the above-mentioned people is the “right” in the German Party (referring to Bernstein, Albert, sherdman, etc. according to Lenin). Among them, Kautsky and haaz are “middle”, while zeitkin, Luxembourg and tishka are all standard left, And they were the founders of the later German Communist Party – but it was these leftists – first of all, naturally, zeitkin, and then “Rosa = zeitkin” and tishka, who “manipulated” zeitkin, who bore the brunt of the struggle against Lenin during this period. Kautsky was “shaken” according to Lenin.
is Lenin’s struggle with the “left” in particular an ideological political line struggle? Or for something else?
it should be said that this struggle does not have any ideological basis. The author once pointed out that the European leftists in the 19th century usually had radical political and economic ideas, but the “organizational principles” or party building advocates tended to democracy (rather than “democratic centralism”), advocated free debate and factional coexistence, and hated Lenin’s inner-party centralization and “iron discipline”. This clue is clear from Luxembourg and zeitkin to the “recall faction” in the Russian Party and later the “workers’ opposition” and even the Trotsky left-wing opposition. In the eyes of these “western style” leftists and the extreme leftists, the “loyalty group” of the Gang type is a “Asiatic” backward tradition. Therefore, no matter how they appreciate Lenin’s “left” in other aspects, they are more inclined to the inner-party democracy of Menshevik style (that is, the inner-party democracy generally practiced by the working parties in Europe). Lenin tried to make a new start, follow the traditional Russian public opinion party and establish a centralized party with him as the eldest parent. It is not difficult to understand that these “western style” leftists instinctively dislike this set and therefore do not agree with Lenin’s attempt to monopolize “party property”.
but things are much simpler for Lenin: “now the party is penniless, everything depends on it.” Making money was his top priority at that time. From Volume 46 of Lenin’s complete works, which contains letters from 1910 to 1914, his letters about making money accounted for about 14 of the total number of letters in this period, which can indeed be said to be the top priority handled by Lenin.
“everything depends on money”
indeed, although the Bolshevik (Russian “majority”) led by Lenin is known as the “majority”, it was usually a minority in the history of the Russian Social Democratic Party before 1917, except on individual occasions, whether in Party members, Central Committee members The parliamentary (Duma) votes and the Duma Party group are not as powerful as the other faction they call the Mensheviks (Russian “minority”). In terms of theoretical strength, Lenin has considerable skills, but he has no advantage over other factions with “Godfather” celebrities such as Plekhanov. Before 1917, the vast majority of the main Bolshevik activists were in exile abroad for a long time and were basically an “overseas Chinese party”. The influence of domestic trade unions is far less than that of Mensheviks, and the influence in rural areas is far less than that of the social revolutionary party. As the “expatriate party”, it has not received as much favor and sympathy from the international socialist and workers’ movement as the Menshevik who is actually regarded as the orthodox Russian workers’ movement.
but for one thing, Bolsheviks are much better at raising money. In particular, compared with those intellectuals who follow the rules and can only write articles in the Mensheviks and grass-roots activists who deal with the poor all day, the Bolsheviks led by Lenin pay more attention to fund-raising activities. On the one hand, they attack all sides by all means, eat all black and white, and refuse all comers. On the other hand, they are good at grasping the big head and concentrate on seizing the most important financial resources. At the turn of the 19th-20th century, the two largest separatist capitalists in Russia donated to the socialist opposition, namely, Morozov’s donation and Schmitt’s donation, mainly fell into the hands of the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks developed like that later, which has something to do with this.
but Bolsheviks also had a serious financial crisis, especially in the stolepin era. Previously, in the climax of the revolution in 1905-1907, on the one hand, it was relatively easy for the society to raise funds, on the other hand, there was such a huge donation as Morozov, and the revolutionaries formed the atmosphere of extravagance for a time. In particular, those “professional revolutionaries” who are in exile abroad do not have the skills to make a living abroad, but in the free flower world, they no longer hide like underground work at home, so they have leisure and leisure. They can use revolutionary funds to deeply understand the “decadent essence of capitalism”. Like Lenin at that time, “there was plenty of money. He opened an account with credit Lyon. Sometimes he was in a bad mood. In the evening, he went to a concert or went to nice for vacation, went on tour, went to hotels and hired cars. He also rented a house of 1000 francs (per month) in Paris.” No wonder even he said he was “spoiled”It’s broken.
but the situation changed greatly after the low point of the storepin era. In Lenin’s words, “intellectuals and small citizens abandoned the party: intellectuals withdrew in large numbers, leaving the proletariat alone, so they could not raise donations”. The proletarian party depends on the money donated by the bourgeoisie. The proletariat cannot afford it. The party’s organ newspaper depends on the legacy of the rich Morozov, and the funds for the party’s Congress depend on the support of the entrepreneur political party (Progressive Party). This is really the paradox of history. Without the support of these rich people, the party is in trouble: “the funds are empty, and there is no money for business travel and the whole organization. There are some people available, but without money, we can’t do anything now.”
work can not be done, but the money for food and drink can not be less. But after a while, it is hard for them to “turn extravagance into Thrift”. As Lenin said, “in the past two years, we have lost the habit of doing underground work and have been spoiled by public and semi public work (press: refers to social activities with large consumption). The party’s financial situation is even worse.” So the importance of making money is more prominent. At that time, Lenin’s greatest concern was not how many workers joined the party, but “have you looked for rich people everywhere in order to raise money?” “Available people” are surplus and money is scarce. No wonder money has become the focus of the party’s work, “everything depends on it”.
and the inner-Party struggle in this period also brought more and more copper smell. The revolutionaries of all factions accused each other of unfairly taking money and swallowed up their own share. When other factions accused the Bolsheviks of embezzling the donations of capitalists, Lenin accused them of embezzling donations from foreign brotherhood parties: “With regard to Trotsky, I would like to explain that he took the money of the German party for his own faction, for his own faction! While fighting factional activities, the conspirator was taking the worst factional means adopted by the worst Menshevik factionalists in Stuttgart: Plekhanov and his associates took German money, did not give it to the party, and They gave their own faction, which was criticized by Beibei Er, who forced them to give the money to the party “. So I think Lenin should later feel that he is reasonable: you can take the money of the German workers’ party, why can’t I take the money of German Emperor William?
election politics needs money, and politics without election needs money
now many people denounce democratic politics, often saying that democratic elections need money, so they will be polluted by “black gold” and become “golden power” politics. Indeed, the election and publicity costs money, which certainly does not mean that whoever has more money will win, but lack of money will indeed create obstacles. In order to prevent this disadvantage, democratic countries have produced many rules in practice. For example, the United States adopts the idea of transparency of political donations and public supervision of the use of donations, while Germany provides funds to competing political parties by the state to reduce its dependence on self-raising, and so on. But these measures are undoubtedly not perfect. How to completely avoid money pollution in democratic politics is still a problem that needs to be explored.
but fundamentally speaking, the influence of money on politics does not lie in democracy or not, and it can even be said that this influence is greater in undemocratic politics. In fact, of course, the election needs money, and the “revolution” doesn’t need money? When the “revolution” is successful and the power is in hand, it is natural to use power to rob money. However, before the “revolution” is not successful and the conditions for “power to rob money” are not met, using “money to buy power” is a major problem. Therefore, the problem of “financial rights” is definitely not only in democratic politics, but also in non democratic politics. Even in the inner-party politics of the most idealistic revolutionary period, “money can make the devil push the mill” and “don’t come in without money for reasons” can be found everywhere. In Chinese history, the opposition political expatriates fought for donations by all means, and the “gold Lord” manipulated the revolutionary organizations are numerous. The Russian revolutionary party in exile also fought a big fight for the heritage of separatist capitalists, and even did not hesitate to engage in assassination and seduction. Because Gorky is a “gold Lord”, all factions flatter him in every way. He can express “untimely thoughts” without hesitation, and other people’s far less unusual remarks will lead to disaster. For money, Lenin fought openly and secretly with the Mensheviks and the recall faction. In fact, his “philosophical debate” with pogdanov was to a large extent for money. His relationship with Kautsky, zeitkin, Merlin, Luxembourg and others also depended on money to a large extent: giving money was a comrade in arms, or even a “mentor”. If he didn’t give it, he would turn his face. As the famous Russian historian fershkinski said: after reading these materials, it is easy to doubt that the debate under the name of “how to maintain the purity of Marxism” at that time was actually “fighting for the possession of the party’s funds”; “The struggle for cash can easily turn into irreconcilable political differences.”. This is true of the most “idealistic” revolutionary politics, not to mention other non democratic politics. The reason why “money politics” or “black gold politics” is often associated with democratic politics in the impression of ordinary people is that, on the one hand, non democratic politics can often solve problems with violence and coercion, and there is no need to “solve contradictions among the people with RMB”. On the other hand, democratic politics is highly open, and the inside story of “black gold” is easy to be exposed, Autocratic politics can only cover the “black box” more strictly. In addition to using more violent means to solve the disadvantages of “black gold”, autocratic politics has no ability. If we want to expose, restrict and eliminate black gold with civilized and fair legal means, it is still possible under democratic politics.
however, people often have the impression that “black gold pollution” is more prominent in democratic politics. Why? In fact, the reason is very simple: it is because there is only one defect in democratic politics, so it is conspicuous. Under autocratic politics, there are many more serious disasters than this. So “black gold” is less conspicuous. Just as the inequality between the rich and the poor in a democratic society is often less serious than that in an authoritarian society, but because there is only one “capitalism”Inequality, of course, is eye-catching. In addition to the inequality between the rich and the poor in the “autocratic society”, there are countless more appalling bad things such as political persecution, word prison, cruel struggle, Holocaust and famine. Of course, people don’t pay much attention to the so-called black gold problem.
however, we can see from the “Schmitt legacy case” and the conflict between Lenin and zeitkin that the limitation of human nature is equally obvious in “inner-party politics”. The revolutionary party is not a saint. Lenin’s bargaining with “red lawyers” is no more noble than dealing with “bourgeois lawyers”. “Self interest of economic man” is also full of their calculations. In this case, if there is no mechanism of power check and balance and public supervision, the proliferation of “black gold” will never be more convergent than that of democratic politics. In this sense, the collapse of the Soviet system at the end of the 20th century was actually evident in the process of people’s efforts to establish this system at the beginning of the century.