Mobilizing the masses

Dan Little reflects in Mobilizing the masses on the book called Mobilizing the Masses: Building Revolution in Henan by Odoric Wou.

Little reflects on the supposed differences between the Russian and Chinese Revolutions:

Here I want to focus on Wou's title itself: Mobilizing the Masses. Both parts of the title are important: the idea that the Chinese revolution was a mass-based revolution, and the idea that the Chinese Communist Party succeeded because it pursued successful strategies of mobilization. The Russian Revolution, by contrast, was not mass-based; Lenin's revolutionary group was able to seize power without mass support, and the Bolsheviks did not develop effective strategies of mass mobilization. So the Chinese Revolution is different. We have historical examples of revolutions that did not involve the masses in contemporary society; and perhaps we could imagine a mass-based revolution that succeed without the deliberate strategies of mobilization that emanated from a revolutionary party.

Emphasis in original

My Emphasis

I find the comment highlighted in red above incredulous. I have been reading Ten Days That Shook the World by John Reed and History of the Russian Revolution by Leon Trotsky.

If Little's thesis is correct, then the counter-revolution of 11 November 1917 should have succeeded. The reactionary forces controlled several army barracks, centres of communication, ministries, supply depots, etc. Surely, there were more than enough resources to put down by the coup by the Bolsheviks. And yet, the Bolsheviks were able to mobilise the population and garrisons of St Petersburg to defend the October Revolution.

Trotsky notes in Chapter 25: Could the Bolsheviks Have Seized the Power in July? that the masses were not ready to hold onto power after taking it, if they had done so in July 1917:

But nevertheless the leadership of the party was completely right in not taking the road of armed insurrection. It is not enough to seize the power—you have to hold it. (p.406)

Thus the state of the popular consciousness—a decisive factor in revolutionary policy—made impossible the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in July. (p.409)

The value of a close-knit vanguard was first fully manifested in the July Days, when the party—at great cost—defended the proletariat from defeat, and safeguarded its own future revolution. (p.417)

Trotsky had come to see Lenin's strategy of aligning with the workers and peasants while raising their class consciousness as correct. This was the successful basis of the October Revolution and survival through the Russian Civil War.

Little concludes the Chinese Communist Party pursued a stategy based on class and nationalism, and:

These details are of interest chiefly because they illuminate the nuts and bolts of radical social change in a large country. It is plainly not enough to observe that a large group of people have interests that are in conflict with the policies and social relations of their country or region. In addition, several things are needed: a sustained and locally implemented strategy of mobilization and a revolutionary organization that acts intelligently and opportunistically as the balance of forces shifts at various times.

With regards to class and nationalism, Reed records an exchange between a student and a soldier:

We sallied out into the town. Just at the door of the station stood two soldiers with rifles and bayonets fixed. They were surrounded by about a hundred business men, Government officials and students, who attacked them with passionate argument and epithet. The soldiers were uncomfortable and hurt, like children unjustly scolded.

A tall young man with a supercilious expression, dressed in the uniform of a student, was leading the attack. “You realise, I presume,” he said insolently, “that by taking up arms against your brothers you are making yourselves the tools of murderers and traitors?”

“Now brother,” answered the soldier earnestly, “you don't understand. There are two classes, don't you see, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. We—”

“Oh, I know that silly talk!” broke in the student rudely. “A bunch of ignorant peasants like you hear somebody bawling a few catch-words. You don't understand what they mean. You just echo them like a lot of parrots.” The crowd laughed. “I'm a Marxian student. And I tell you that this isn't Socialism you are fighting for. It's just plain pro-German anarchy!”

“Oh, yes, I know,” answered the soldier, with sweat dripping from his brow. “You are an educated man, that is easy to see, and I am only a simple man. But it seems to me—”

“I suppose,” interrupted the other contemptuously, “that you believe Lenin is a real friend of the proletariat?”

“Yes, I do,” answered the soldier, suffering.

“Well, my friend, do you know that Lenin was sent through Germany in a closed car? Do you know that Lenin took money from the Germans?”

“Well, I don't know much about that,” answered the soldier stubbornly, “but it seems to me that what he says is what I want to hear, and all the simple men like me. Now there are two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat—”

“You are a fool! Why, my friend, I spent two years in Schlüsselburg for revolutionary activity, when you were still shooting down revolutionists and singing 'God Save the Tsar!' My name is Vasili Georgevitch Panyin. Didn't you ever hear of me?”

“I'm sorry to say I never did,” answered the soldier with humility. “But then, I am not an educated man. You are probably a great hero.”

“I am,” said the student with conviction. “And I am opposed to the Bolsheviki, who are destroying our Russia, our free Revolution. Now how do you account for that?”

The soldier scratched his head. “I can't account for it at all,” he said, grimacing with the pain of his intellectual processes. “To me it seems perfectly simple-but then, I'm not well educated. It seems like there are only two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie—”

“There you go again with your silly formula!” cried the student.

“—only two classes,” went on the soldier, doggedly. “And whoever isn't on one side is on the other…”

Reed, John (2011-03-17). Ten Days That Shook the World (Kindle Locations 2499-2519). Kindle Edition.

A simple soldier explaining why he is on the side of the Bolshevik Revolution despite all of the lies told about Lenin being a German agent. The soldier has sided with the Poletariat in the class war.

Little misses out on the vital need for a disciplined and democratic revolutionary party in the Leninist model to sustain and lead a Communist revolution to a successful conclusion. This was the critical thesis from Lenin's theses of April 1917.

Read more!