Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin

Introduction

I am back with another biography covering another Bolsheviks, this time I am covering Nikolai Bukharin, he is an incredibly important figure in the history of the Bolsheviks and really communism as a whole. Lenin would say of him "Bukharin is not only a most valuable and major theorist of the Party; he is also rightly considered the favourite of the whole Party", this despite many of their historic disagreements. Bukharin would be one of the main figures in party leadership in 1917 and remain a major figure until 1929, retaining some influence until 1938 when he was ordered to be executed that was authorized personally by Stalin. Despite all this I do think he tends to be a lesser known figure within the Bolshevik party.

Birth and Early Life

Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin was born October 9th 1888, both of his parents were primary school teachers in Moscow. His father was a graduate of the Moscow University and was a school teacher until 1893 when he became a tax collector, four years later he would lose this post and would be unemployed for a few years following leaving the family rather poor. Both of Bukharin’s parents being educated and members of the intelligentsia mean Bukharin was raised very well educated for the time. He would finish primary school as one of the best students, and would enroll in one of the best gymnasiums in Moscow. He would do exceedingly well there without exceeding much of any effort into classes. [S.F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938, Vintage Books (Vintage Books, 1975). 6-10]

From a young age he was quite an adventurous and curious kid, he took a very strong interest various creatures from tarantulas to birds, he even built a small sorta zoo.[(missing reference) 37-43] This interest never went away especially with birds, which is honestly why I like Bukharin, this may come as a bit of a surprise but I like birds I think they are interesting, and Bukharin liked birds too.

If you want to know a bit more about Bukharin’s early life his memiors he produced while in prison

Becoming a revolutionary

Bukharin now 16 in the higher grades of the gymnasium, it was the year 1905 in Russia and he was swept up in the growing radicalism. He would be drawn to the center of much of the revolutionary activity in Moscow the State University, in lecture halls students, workers and revolutionaries would listen and make speeches, it was here Bukharin would be drawn to Bolshevism as well as a lot of fellow revolutionaries from Moscow, this would have a profound impact on the Bolshevik party, this brought in many now young but future leaders in the party including Bukharin. There would be a group of Muscovites of which Bukharin would be the most famous member of formed a group of Friends around Bukharin many would be his allies in various party struggles. [S.F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938, Vintage Books (Vintage Books, 1975). 9-10] This also shows an earlier example of one of Bukharin’s major qualities he was known to be friendly and good humor, as well apparently known to be quite attractive to women [S.F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938, Vintage Books (Vintage Books, 1975). 13]

He was also likely pulled to the Bolsheviks in part due to their domination in Moscow it was one of the few locations within the Russian Empire at the time where the Bolsheviks held majorities over the local party committees. Important to know that at this time the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were both part of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, so a lot of party committees around the country were either controlled by either group, or sometimes groups of people who were more in the middle, this would remain the case until the 1910s when they more properly separated. Also a note on the term Social Democrats, in this context the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks would both be considered Social Democrats within Russia at this time, it would be some time before social democracy would pick up its modern definition, anyway back to Bukharin.

A Bolshevik

After the year of 1905 had passed the meetings at the University stopped, and so did the demonstrations and barricades. Bukharin in1 1906 would join the Bolsheviks, his job within the party was to act as a propagandist, he would along with Grigori Sokolnikov who would in the future be the Commissar for Finance and a member of the Bolshevik central committee in 1917. Sokolnikov and Bukharin would unify the Moscow youth groups and would hold a national Congress of social democratic student groups in 1907. The congress of student organizations would approve of the programme and tactics of the Bolsheviks, this congress of student organizations would soon be destroyed due to police harassment. Not all of his work at this time was student, he would participate in industrial organizing and lead a strike of workers at a wallpaper factory. Bukharin would also in 1907 be enrolled in economics at Moscow University, though with all of his party work he hardly if ever was in class. This did not mean he had no interest in economics it in fact would become Bukharin’s primary interest later on. During this time he was part of organizing Marxist schools, student demonstrations, including "raids" where a number of Bolsheviks would go to lecture or presentation from a liberal professor to attack and critique them. He would quickly rise through the ranks and by 1908 was part of the Moscow part central organization and it would be ratified in 1909, this would make Bukharin a high ranking Bolshevik in the largest city. Though this would mean he quickly caught the attention of the Tsarist secret police the Okhrana and he would be arrested in May of 1909, though released soon after then arrested again and released again under security pending trial. During this time separate factions or groupings were forming within the Bolsheviks, i talked about this briefly in my video on Lunacharsky, but a group around Bogdanov was forming that was opposed to Bolshevik participation in the Duma, where Lenin was for it. As well as Bogdanov started supporting other philosophies and tried to merge then with Marixsm. Lenin was deeply opposed to both positions, Lenin supported Bolshevik participation in the Duma, and Lenin wrote Materialism and Empiriocriticism. Bukharin while he agreed with Lenin and did not agree with Bogdanov politically he admired Bodanov and his works.

During this underground work became very difficult, Bukharin moved to doing more legal work during this time, he did eventually go into hiding in 1910 though due to secret informants in the party all of the Moscow leaders were rounded up. Bukharin’s hiding spot was not known to many people, he began to suspect Roman Malinovskii a fellow high ranking Bolshevik in Moscow, this would become more of an issue later but we will talk about this later. When arrested Bukharin was imprisoned in Moscow for 6 months he was then exiled to Onega in June, Bukharin feared he would soon be moved to a penal colony and he disappeared from Onega August 30and left Russia. Fleeing the country was a pretty normal thing for many of the revolutionaries in Russia at this time. [S.F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938, Vintage Books (Vintage Books, 1975). 10-15]

Outside Russia

Bukharin would go to Hanover Germany, skipping meeting with Lenin something that was typical of Bolsheviks when exiled. Bukharin would eventually go to meet Lenin in September of 1912 he would meet Lenin for his first time. Their long conversation became focused around Roman Malinovskii a person Bukharin suspected of being a police agent, during this time Malinovskii had become a leading Bolshevik he was on the central committee and head of the Bolsheviks in the Duma. Bukharin was not alone in suspecting of being a police agent many other Bolsheviks and Mensheviks suspected him of being a police agent, but Lenin would not hear any of it and it became a major source of friction between them, Lenin in an argument with Bukharin would accuse him of being a gossip in 1916 due to proposing the idea. Though in 1917 with the opening of the police records it was revealed to be true Malinovskii was an agent for the Okhrana. [S.F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938, Vintage Books (Vintage Books, 1975). 13,18] Lenin would actually be put on a trial of sorts by the Extraordinary Investigatory Commission of the provisional government and he would be questioned about why he refused to believe he could be a police agent. He expressed that the evidence was scant and unconvincing, and that Lenin was impressed by his trade union work. [(missing reference)

Bukharin would be invited to contribute to party papers and Lenin was quite happy with his work despite the friction over Malinovskii. Bukharin’s reason for moving to Vienna was to begin a project to criticize the work of bourgeois economists and a defense of Orthodox Marxism. This work "The Economic Theory of the Leisure Class" published in 1914 would be Bukharin’s first book, the works criticisms of some bourgeois economics took a lot from the Marxist Rudolf Hilferding, and this was not the last work that would take influence from Hilferding, both Lenin and Bukharin’s writings on Imperialism would be highly influenced by Hilferding.

This was not the only thing Bukharin worked on during this time, in January of 1913 Bukharin would aid a Georgian Bolshevik sent to Vienna, Stalin at this time needed assistance not in the theory, but in translations as Stalin did not know German. [S.F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938, Vintage Books (Vintage Books, 1975). 21] After this Stalin would return to Russia and be arrested I only mention this due to the fact Stalin’s location was betrayed by Roman Malinovsky. [R.C. Tucker, Stalin as Revolutionary, 1879-1929: A Study in History and Personality, ACLS Humanities E-Book (Norton, 1974). 155-157] Also just to finish this point really want to reinforce that Bukharin only aided in the form of translation and possibly some other minor work. Stalin was the author of the work, Robert C. Tucker in his book Stalin as Revolutionary explains the reasons why theories as to other authors or the idea of anyone else writing it with Stalin is wrong.

Anyway back to Bukharin, with the start of World War 1 Bukharin would be deported and end up in Switzerland, while there he with a few other Bolsheviks they decided to publish a new newspaper, Lenin would became aware of this in January of 1915 and would become quite angry with them, accusing them of starting an opposition newspaper. Bukharin explained that their paper was not an opposition but a supplement, but Lenin would not hear it.

As well in February and March there was a party conference held in Bern, here Bukharin would find himself in disagreement with Lenin again on 4 points with regard to the party and the war.

Point 1, he opposed the appeals to the petty bourgeoisie this included peasants and opposed the idea of them as a revolutionary force or an ally.

Point 2, He wanted more emphases on socialist demands.

Point 3, While they agreed with Lenin on turning the imperialist war into a civil war, they wanted more appeals to the general anti-war movement and they did not think Russia’s defeat would be a lesser evil but felt all belligerents should be condemned.

Point 4, Lenin’s call for a new international they felt it should include all anti-war social democrats, and left wing mensheviks built around Leon Trotsky.

There would be other aspects where Bukharin would argue on the same side as Lenin, and a commission meant to work out the differences made up of Lenin, Zinoviev and Bukharin, after some arguments the final resolution was passed unanimously. [S.F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938, Vintage Books (Vintage Books, 1975). 22-24]

So while there were disagreement Bukharin still found himself very much in broad agreement with Lenin, the arguments and disagreements I think are in part because as I am sure we have all experienced it is sometimes the most frustrating to argue with someone rather close to your own opinions, but not quite. I think Lenin very much agreed with Bukharin on most things and that made some of these smaller disagreements all the more frustrating to him.

In 1915 Bukharin would also produce his work on Imperialism that would have a large impact on Lenin, though his version would have some differences from Lenin. To talk about them in depth is really out of scope of this video, Lenin read Bukharin’s work and wrote an introduction for it, so what differences they are minor. If you want to get a feeling for the differences you really should read both.

Bukharin was also preparing a work on the Marxist theory of the state, this would result in an argument with Lenin, but this occurred a bit later so we will come back to it.

Arguments on Self-Determination

Lenin over the course of the 1910s put more and pure of a focus on colonialism and problems of self-determination, not the say it was not already a debate within the party, the fight against the Jewish Bund by Lenin and Martov already contained some arguments on this matter, and the party congress of 1903 included provisions on self-determination, and local self rule. Lenin had asked Stalin to prepare a response against the Austrian Marxists. Where Lenin wrote The Right of Nations to Self-Determination to argue against primarily Rosa Luxemburg, who’s positions on the national question were quite popular amongst Bolsheviks. [(missing reference)

I think it is worth mentioning too that some within the Bolsheviks who were sympathetic to Luxemburgs positions actually went way further then her in opposing it, especially when it came to in practice, Piatakov was a Russian Chauvinist as shown by his time in charge of Ukraine. Rosa still supported some local governance and rights of language and culture. Karl Radek and others supported Luxemburg’s position, and Bukharin came to as well. It was also not that Rosa and some of the advocates of her position felt that what occurred to small nations didn’t matter but felt language rights local self-government and equality before the law were sufficient combined with Socialism. She also felt the call for self determination was a "paraphrase of the old slogan of bourgeois nationalism", that the opposition to national oppression does not come from any special right of nations, but of the duty to oppose the class regime and every form of social inequity and social domination. This was the position that Bukharin would support, along with a few other allies of his. Lenin would be outraged and would demand the journal Radek published his opposing view be abolished. Lenin would ban their ability to communicate with Bolshevik sections in Russia.

The Bolsheviks and the World War by Olga Gankin starting on page 219 has the thesis in English, Now the actual Theses is nearly 3 pages long, and given this video is not about Bukharin-Piatakov groups position on it. I am not going to read it in full, but hit on the main points

"It is therefore impossible to struggle against the enslavement of nations otherwise than by struggling against imperialism, ergo-by strug- gling against imperialism, ergo-by struggling against finance capital, ergo against capitalism in general. Any deviation from that road, any advancement of "partial" tasks, of the "liberation of nations" within the realm of capitalist civilization, means the diverting of proletarian forces from the actual solution of the problem, and their fusion with the forces of the corresponding national bourgeois groups.

The slogan of "self-determination of nations" is first of all Utopian (it cannot be realized within the limits of capitalism) and harmful as a slogan which disseminates illusions. In this respect it does not differ at all from the slogans of the courts of arbitration, of disarmament, etc., which presuppose the possibility of so-called "peaceful capitalism.

...

To struggle against the chauvinism of the working masses of a Great Power by means of the recognition of the right of nations for self-determination, is equivalent to struggling against this chauvinism by means of the recognition of the right of the oppressed "fatherland" to defend itself"

Bukharin in other articles also put forth that breaking up the working masses by this right to defend the fatherland would weaken the revolution, which is not dissimilar of the position Rosa would put forth in "The Russian Revolution" when she was critical of the Bolsheviks on the national question.

"It is obvious that the phrases concerning self-determination and the entire nationalist movement, which at present constitute the greatest danger for international socialism, have experienced an extraordinary strengthening from the Russian Revolution and the Brest negotiations. We shall yet have to go into this platform thoroughly. The tragic fate of these phrases in the Russian Revolution, on the thorns of which the Bolsheviks were themselves, destined to be caught and bloodily scratched, must serve the international proletariat as a warning and lesson."

It is something I found interesting and I am getting a bit ahead of myself, but after the Revolution some Bolsheviks basically turned around on this Slogan. Stalin is a great example of this,

In 1918 Stalin declared the slogan of self-determination was outmoded, and by 1920

"the demand for the secession of the border regions from Russia .. must be rejected not only because it runs counter to the very formulation of the question of establishing a union between the centre and the border regions, but primarily because it runs fundamentally counter to the interests of the mass of people in both the centre and border regions"

So while Stalin who was previously for it basically turned against it, in practice Bukharin ended up in some cases actually being quite defensive of oppressed groups. During the Georgian affair the Russian Bolsheviks ended up in conflict against the Georgian Bolsheviks, a dying Lenin upset by the affair asked Trotsky to defend them at the 12congress, while Trotsky initially turned him down he actually ended up attempting to defend them during the preparations for the congress, in this only Bukharin supported Trotsky. When it came to the congress Bukharin was the only one to make a major defense of the Georgian Bolsheviks. He also declared that the national question was of prime importance to the soviet state and that all questions at their root tied back into the national question, and there must be special concessions made to oppressed nations. This is after 1917 of course but I found it interesting.

Anyway as well during 1917 at the Seventh Party conference Piatakov tried to change the programme and get the slogan of self-determination declared to be counter revolutionary, Lenin would work out a compromise position with Bukharin against Piatakov. [J. Smith, The Bolsheviks and the National Question, 1917–23, Studies in Russia and East Europe (Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1999). 20]

Anyway I have got ahead of my self talking about things that happened much later, let get back to where we were.

1916

These differences would grow over 1916 between a lot of younger Bolsheviks who sided with Rosa, Bukharin and Radek’s writings, Lenin declared their ideas "have nothing in common wither with Marxism or revolutionary social democracy" [S.F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938, Vintage Books (Vintage Books, 1975). 37]

Now this seems rather harsh, but I think this touches on what i mentioned earlier and I am going to quote directly from Cohen’s biography of Bukharin because I’m kind of having a hard time rephrasing it and I think it puts it well

"The leader’s attitude confirms the impression that the "closer men were to Lenin, the more bitterly he quailed with them" For even during the worst period in their relationship, furtive evidence of their underlying mutual affection now and then appeared. Bukharin occasionally tired to appeal to that feeling. He begged Lenin not "to publish against me the kind of article that makes it impossible for me to answer cordially ... I did not want and do not want ... a split" Lenin was not totally unperceptive. In April 1916, Bukharin was arrested in Stockholm for his participation in an anti-war socialist congress. Learning of his trouble, Lenin dispatched an urgent appeal for help; and later in April, after Bukharin had been deported to Oslo, Lenin wrote to another Bolshevik in Norway asking him to convey best regards to Bukharin: "I hope from my heart that he will very soon take a rest and be well. How are his finances?" The message was terse, but, under the circumstances, warm, even fatherly. The benignity was short lived. By July, Lenin was explaining to Zinoviev that "I am not so ill-disposed towards Bukharin, I cannot write"

Debate on the Marxist Theory of the State

In early 1916 Lenin requested from Bukharin an article on economics, however he produced "Towards a Theory of the Imperialist State" sending it to Lenin to be published.

This portion of the script got so long I ended up turning it into its own video I will summarize here, but you should go watch my video Bukharin Vs Lenin on the Marxist Theory of the state.

Lenin initially considered publishing it as a discussion article, but found it too incorrect on the question of the state. Now without fully going into the history of this, Kautsky and many prominent other "Marxists" of this era had completely dropped any idea of the smashing of the bourgeois state and the construction of a new workers state or a dictatorship of the proletariat, this was a product of them capitulating and becoming reformists, and so with that they had to uphold the idea of just taking power in the bourgeois state. Bukharin was going against the most common Marxist understanding the state and revolution at the time.

Lenin felt that Bukharin had taken Engels out of context, and specifically his idea that Anarchists and Marxists do no differ on the state as being very incorrect. Lenin even went as far to accuse him of semi-anarchism, and said he fully downplayed the need for a state post revolution. [S.F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938, Vintage Books (Vintage Books, 1975). 39-40] However Bukharin did not ignore this, "the proletariat destroys the state organization of the bourgeoisie, takes over its material framework, and creates its own temporary organization of state power"

This debate would be carried out in letters, which at least according to what I can find have never been published So we can’t really take a look at those unfortunately. [S.F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938, Vintage Books (Vintage Books, 1975). 398] This debate would act as a sort of catalyst for Lenin to take a deeper look at the state in the works of Marx and Engels.

During this debate Bukharin mood was impacted and he fell into lower spirits, Bukharin made the choices to take a steamer to America, this was at the recommendation of a friend and fellow Bolshevik Alexander Shlyapnikov. Shlypanikov told him he should go write for a newspaper Alexandra Kollontai edited for in New York [B.C. Allen, Alexander Shlyapnikov, 1885-1937: Life of an Old Bolshevik, Historical Materialism Series (Haymarket Books, 2016). 72] When Lenin heard about this became deeply worried that he had driven Bukharin away, he inquired someone to find out with what mood is Bukharin leaving and will he continue to write to Lenin and others, and still fill requests for other documents. Lenin would then receive Bukharins farewell letter. I am going to quite in full the closing plea that Cohen includes from Bukharin’s letter.

"I ask one thing of you: if you must polemicize, ect., preserve such a tone that it will not lead to a split. It would be very painful for me, painful beyond endurance, if joint work, even in the future, should become impossible. I have the greatest respect for you; I look upon you as my revolutionary teacher and love you."

Lenin would respond saying while the charges were valid, he gave Bukharin praise and said "We all value you highly." Bukarhin would respond "Be well, think kindly of me .… I embrace you all,"

In December of 1916 Lenin wold say he was working towards producing an article of his own on it. To do this Lenin started gathering all the works of Marx and Engels he could and rereading it all. Lenin wrote and prepared a notebook from January and February, these notes would form the basis of what would become The State and Revolution. Lenin after examining the question concluded that Kautsky was far more wrong then Bukharin, but he still felt that Bukharin was wrong about a few things. Then in May Krupskaya told Bukharin that Lenin no longer had any differences with him on the question of the state. According to Cohen it is possible in a letter or through someone else Bukharin might have been made aware of Lenin’s shift in opinion earlier.

In July Lenin had to go into hiding and told Kamenev if the provisional government was able to kill him that Kamanev was to publish the notes. Lenin managed to evade capture and turned his notes into The State and Revolution while hiding in Finland. It was originally planned to be published in 1917, but the revolution put a hold and it was not to be published until January 1918.

Bukharin in America

But back to Bukharin in America.

Bukharin in November of 1916 arrived in New York, in January of 1917 he become editor of a Russian language newspaper. He also advocated and organized American socialists around the line of the Zimmerwald left, for information on the Zimmerwald left see my Rosa Luxemburg video. Also in January Leon Trotsky also in the US would join the editorial staff. [S.F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938, Vintage Books (Vintage Books, 1975). 43-44]

A story that I think shows more of Bukharins personal character comes from when Trotsky and his wife met Bukharin in New York, this is from Kenneth D. Ackerman’s Trotsky in New York.

“Bukharin greeted us with a bear-hug,” she wrote. Added Trotsky, he “welcomed us with the childish exuberance characteristic of him." Bukharin had found something in New York City that he felt Trotsky, as Europe’s foremost socialist writer, would surely appreciate. It wasn’t the theater or the skyscrapers; not the subway, the cinema, or the fancy stores. Instead, "We had hardly got off the board when he told us enthusiastically about a public library which stayed open late at night and which he proposed to show us at once," Natalya recalled. "At about nine o’clock in the evening we had to make the long journey to admire his great discovery."

...

At Fifth Avenue, Bukharin led them around the corner until they stood in front of a great white marble building, an architectural marvel opened just a few years earlier, in 1911. Two white marble lions guarded the front entrance from either side. Overhead, etched in stone, was the name New York Public Library.

Bukharin knew Trotsky would adore this site.

...

Bukharin took them inside and led them up marble stairways to the building’s top floor, then through a small foyer to the library’s main reading room. This too was magnificent, a vast open space almost three hundred feet long and seventy-seven feet wide, larger than the entire ship Montserrat on which they had just crossed the ocean, which ceiling paintings and sculptures and flooded with light. and books! The library’s seventy-five miles of shelves held more than a million of them, plus newspapers and magazines from around the world! For anyone! For Free! To just come and read! Till almost midnight! Even on a Sunday night!" [K.D. Ackerman, Trotsky in New York, 1917: A Radical on the Eve of Revolution (Counterpoint, 2016). 38-39]

I find this story like of cute, of the first thing Bukharin wanted to show someone was the public library.

Trotsky and Bukharin were to debate the direction the American Socialist Party should take, with Bukharin arguing for a split, where Trotsky argued for staying and kicking out the reactionary elements. While they debated this they maintained a warm friendship and politically collaborated on other issues. [S.F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938, Vintage Books (Vintage Books, 1975). 43-44]

In March Bukharin and the rest of the exiled Russians in New York would be made aware of the February Revolution and the abdication of the Tsar, Bukharin like many would immediately try to return to Russia. He set sail in April, he was detained first in Japan for a week, then by the local Menshevik government and he only managed to reach Moscow by may.

Bukharin’s reaction to 1917

Now I want to cover Bukharin’s analysis of the Russian Revolution in 1917 so we can contrast it with both Lenin’s and the positions of the Bolsheviks in Russia.

This is from The Russian Revolution and Its Significance, this was published in June, but the positions are reflected in Bukharins earlier work.

"Everything points to a compromise between the ruling classes. The revolution was not yet strong enough to overthrow the capitalist system; it has only effected a shifting of the elements within the bourgeoisie as a whole, has placed the more progressive wing at the helm, by pushing aside the reactionary nobility.

But the revolution is steadily growing. Even now, while these lines are being written, there exist in Petrograd two governments, one, that of the Imperialist bourgeoisie, which was jubilantly greeted by the bourgeois classes of the other allied nations; the other, the governmental machine of the proletariat, the workingmen’s and soldiers’ council.

The struggle between the working class and the Imperialists is inevitable. Even the reforms that have been proclaimed by the provisional government were concessions made out of fear of the threats of the proletariat. But the liberal government will not be in a position to fulfill the programme that has been forced upon it.

...

But the conquest of political power by the proletariat will, under the existing circumstances, no longer mean a bourgeois revolution, in which the proletariat plays the role of the broom of history. The proletariat must henceforth lay a dictatorial hand upon production, and that is the beginning of the end of the capitalist system.

A lasting victory of the Russian proletariat is, however, inconceivable without the support of the west European proletariat.

...

To-day the bourgeoisie stands at its grave. It has become the citadel of reaction. And the proletariat has come to destroy its social order.

The call to arms to this great upheaval is the Russian Revolution. Well may the ruling classes tremble before a communist revolution. The proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains; it has a world to gain. "

Now from Lenin, The Dual Power.

" The highly remarkable feature of our revolution is that it has brought about a dual power. This fact must be grasped first and foremost: unless it is understood, we cannot advance. We must know how to supplement and amend old “formulas”, for example, those of Bolshevism, for while they have been found to be correct on the whole, their concrete realisation has turned out to be different. Nobody previously thought, or could have thought, of a dual power.

What is this dual power? Alongside the Provisional Government, the government of bourgeoisie, another government has arisen, so far weak and incipient, but undoubtedly a government that actually exists and is growing—the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies.

...

Should the Provisional Government be overthrown immediately?

My answer is: (1) it should be overthrown, for it is an oligarchic, bourgeois, and not a people’s government, and is unable to provide peace, bread, or full freedom;"

and from The April Theses

"The specific feature of the present situation in Russia is that the country is passing from the first stage of the revolution—which, owing to the insufficient class-consciousness and organisation of the proletariat, placed power in the hands of the bourgeoisie—to its second stage, which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants. "

So both Bukharin and Lenin recognized that the soviets were the proletarian government and that it must defeat the provisional government.

In March of 1917 Pravada was edited by Molotov and the Bureau of the Central Committee remained under control of Alexander Shliapnikov, they advocated for no trust in the provisional government and for a socialist revolution. [(missing reference)

Shliapnikov held this position because he was the highest ranking member in Petrograd, but not for long Kamanev and Stalin would return and they seized control of Pravada, Kamanev put forth more moderate proposals in the name of the Bolsheviks and Shliapnikov not wanting to show any disunity in the party decided not to fight him. [B.C. Allen, Alexander Shlyapnikov, 1885-1937: Life of an Old Bolshevik, Historical Materialism Series (Haymarket Books, 2016). 80]

The moderate wing of the party now headed by Kamanev and Stalin refused to print Lenin’s letters from afar except for one and deleted sections condemning the provisional government, as well Stalin proposed reunification with the Mensheviks. Stalin as well as others felt there would be decades between the bourgeois revolution and the proletarian revolution revolution.[R.C. Tucker, Stalin as Revolutionary, 1879-1929: A Study in History and Personality, ACLS Humanities E-Book (Norton, 1974). 167-168]

On April 6Kamenev supported by Stalin attacked the April Theses, and on the 8Kamenev in Pravda declared that the April Theses was just Lenin’s personal opinion. However by late April at the Seventh All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP some of Lenin’s proposals were accepted, though the right wing of the party managed to get a lot of the members on the Central Committee. [A. Rabinowitch, Prelude to Revolution: The Petrograd Bolsheviks and the July 1917 Uprising, A Midland Book (Indiana University Press, 1991). 44-46]

However many other Bolsheviks would oppose socialist revolution for months and some even up until the October Revolution.

It should be noted that Lars Lih rejects this description of events in his work The Ironic Triumph of Old Bolshevism, and I read it and really found it unconvincing, but it might be something you want to give a read if you want to hear an alternative theory on this, but I really do think Lars Lih is wrong.

I also find Bukharin’s position of

"The liberal government will not be in a position to fulfill the programme that has been forced upon it. ... But the conquest of political power by the proletariat will, under the existing circumstances, no longer mean a bourgeois revolution, in which the proletariat plays the role of the broom of history."

To really be quite similar to Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution, the idea that the bourgeois government can’t carry out its tasks and programme, so the revolution will go over into a proletarian revolution.

Bukharin back in Moscow

This was the background of which Bukharin was returning, while outside of Russia him and Lenin had many disagreements, many of them gone due to Lenin coming over to Bukharin’s position such as the state or they lost their importance with the revolution. Lenin was primarily concerned with getting the party against the provisional government and supporting socialist revolution. Lenin of course was not alone in this struggle, many new workers who had joined the party were very radical and wanted the Soviets to take power.

In 1915 Bukharin had called on Lenin to work with anti-war social democrats built around Trotsky, and in a way in 1917 Lenin would support this.[S.F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938, Vintage Books (Vintage Books, 1975). 47], in May Lenin would offer Trotsky and his followers to join the Bolsheviks and offered them leadership roles and editorial positions on Pravda.[I. Deutscher, The Prophet Armed: Trotsky, 1879-1921 (Verso, 2003). 257] While he would not end up formally joining until the Bolshevik Sixth Congress when the time came it fell to Bukharin to welcome Trotsky and his followers to the party. As well with this occurring during the July days, Bukharin alongside Stalin delivered most of the congresses main speeches, and Bukharin would join the Bolshevik Central Committee. [S.F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938, Vintage Books (Vintage Books, 1975). 47-49]

Bukharin also was one of the primary figures in the struggle to radicalize the Bolsheviks for insurrection in Moscow, most histories of the revolution tend to focus fully on Petrograd, Moscow is mostly ignored. I have wanted to do a video on the events of Moscow during the October Revolution, but where there is tons of information on Petrograd there is rather little on Moscow. This also means detailed information on what Bukharin was up to during this time is not easy for me to get a hold of.

Bukharin with many of his friends would take control of the party newspapers there and with Bukharin on the editorial board they became a strong voice for revolution, this combined with the efforts of many other Bolsheviks won the local party members to revolution. On November 6th the Moscow Soviet would begin organizing Red Guards while facing opposition from the Mensheviks and SRs. The revolution in Moscow unlike in Petrograd was not bloodless, the city Duma had prepared a Committee of Public Safety to counter the revolution. There was over a week of bloody street fighting, and on November 10the Junkers alongside the Committee of Pubic Safety seized the cities railways stations telephone stations and surrounded the Kremlin the commander of the Kremlin surrendered it on the promise his men would be would be spared, when Berzin the commander let them the junkers killed him. In the coming morning the workers of the Kremlin arsenal were ordered to line up in the courtyard. I am quoting from a first hand account Victor Serge includes in his Year One of the Russian Revolution.

"The men still cannot believe that they are going to be shot like this, without trial, without sense they have taken no part in the fighting. A command bellow out: ‘In line now! Eyes Front!’ The men stand rigid, fingers along the seams of their trousers. At a signal, the din of the three machine-guns blends with cried of terror, sobs and death rattles. All those who are not mown down by the first shots dash towards the only exist, a little door behind them which had been left open. The machine-guns carry on firing; in a few minutes the doorway is blocked by a heap of men, lying there screaming and bleeding into which the bullets still rain ... The walls of the surrounding buildings are spattered with blood and bits of flesh"

This was not the only mass execution carried out in Moscow during the fighting, the forces against the revolution carried out others. Eventually though the Military Revolutionary Committee and the Moscow Soviet would be victorious after 9 days, the committee of public safety surrendered on the condition they bet let free, and the Military Revolutionary Committee would honor this and they were permitted to go free.[V. Serge and P. Sedgwick, Year One of the Russian Revolution (Haymarket Books, 2015). 80-85]

and a direct quote again from Cohen’s biography of Bukharin

"The bloody fighting in Moscow, where five hundred Bolsheviks alone died (compared to a total of only six people in Petrograd), may already have alerted Bukharin to the impending "costs of revolution." Stukov later recalled their mood when he and Bukharin arrived in Petrograd to report on their victory: "When i started to speak about the number of victims something welled up in my throat and I stopped. I see Nikolai Ivanovich throwing himself on the chest of a bearded worker, and they start to sob. People start to cry." The real revolution had begun."[S.F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938, Vintage Books (Vintage Books, 1975). 59]

Part 1 Conclusion

and with that we have covered Bukharin’s life prior to revolution, he would go onto to a ton of things in the 1920s, which I fully plan to cover however in a separate video in order to keep this was from being excessively long, the good news is I have it like 80 percent written already and it shouldn’t be that long between this video and the next one, I also might do a separate video on just Bukharin and Trotsky in New York given the impact they had on the American left.

I hope you liked it, please subscribe for more content, let me know if you like this attempt at doing a bit more visually with this video as well as audio. Please do share it as the Youtube algorithm does not for me.

1. Cohen, S.F. Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938. Vintage Books. Vintage Books, 1975.

   @book{cohen1973bukharin,
     title = {Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938},
     author = {Cohen, S.F.},
     isbn = {0394712617},
     series = {Vintage books},
     year = {1975},
     publisher = {Vintage Books}
   }
   

2. Tucker, R.C. Stalin as Revolutionary, 1879-1929: A Study in History and Personality. ACLS Humanities E-Book. Norton, 1974.

   @book{tucker1974stalin,
     title = {Stalin as Revolutionary, 1879-1929: A Study in History and Personality},
     author = {Tucker, R.C.},
     isbn = {9780393007381},
     lccn = {73006541},
     series = {ACLS Humanities E-Book},
     year = {1974},
     publisher = {Norton}
   }
   

3. Smith, J. The Bolsheviks and the National Question, 1917–23. Studies in Russia and East Europe. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1999.

   @book{smith1999bolsheviks,
     title = {The Bolsheviks and the National Question, 1917--23},
     author = {Smith, J.},
     isbn = {9781349406104},
     series = {Studies in Russia and East Europe},
     year = {1999},
     publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan UK}
   }
   

4. Allen, B.C. Alexander Shlyapnikov, 1885-1937: Life of an Old Bolshevik. Historical Materialism Series. Haymarket Books, 2016.

   @book{allen2016alexander,
     title = {Alexander Shlyapnikov, 1885-1937: Life of an Old Bolshevik},
     author = {Allen, B.C.},
     isbn = {9781608465583},
     series = {Historical Materialism Series},
     year = {2016},
     publisher = {Haymarket Books}
   }
   

5. Ackerman, K.D. Trotsky in New York, 1917: A Radical on the Eve of Revolution. Counterpoint, 2016.

   @book{ackerman2016trotsky,
     title = {Trotsky in New York, 1917: A Radical on the Eve of Revolution},
     author = {Ackerman, K.D.},
     isbn = {9781619028739},
     year = {2016},
     publisher = {Counterpoint}
   }
   

6. Rabinowitch, A. Prelude to Revolution: The Petrograd Bolsheviks and the July 1917 Uprising. A Midland Book. Indiana University Press, 1991.

   @book{rabinowitch1991prelude,
     title = {Prelude to Revolution: The Petrograd Bolsheviks and the July 1917 Uprising},
     author = {Rabinowitch, A.},
     isbn = {9780253206619},
     lccn = {91008422},
     series = {A Midland book},
     year = {1991},
     publisher = {Indiana University Press}
   }
   

7. Deutscher, I. The Prophet Armed: Trotsky, 1879-1921. Verso, 2003.

   @book{deutscher2003prophetarmed,
     title = {The Prophet Armed: Trotsky, 1879-1921},
     author = {Deutscher, I.},
     isbn = {9781859844410},
     lccn = {20558057},
     year = {2003},
     publisher = {Verso}
   }
   

8. Serge, V., and P. Sedgwick. Year One of the Russian Revolution. Haymarket Books, 2015.

   @book{sergeyearone,
     title = {Year One of the Russian Revolution},
     author = {Serge, V. and Sedgwick, P.},
     isbn = {9781608462674},
     year = {2015},
     publisher = {Haymarket Books}
   }