By: Anarcho

Anarcho
Thu, 20 Oct 2011 20:28:33 +0000

In reply to Anonymous. learning from the past, not repeating it

But... I would agree with you if revolutionary socialists groups today regularly sought to justify the actions and conclusions elucidated in Terrorism and Communism. But they don't. In fact, Alex Callinicos of the SWP called it an awful book.

And they turn round and rationalise and justify the Bolshevik dictatorship. In short, we can expect them to repeat the same decisions because they share the same ideology. If the likes of the SWP did not do this then there would be little point in discussing the Bolsheviks -- but they continue to suggest that the Bolsheviks were defeated only by "exceptional circumstances"

Wouldn't it be just as unfair to dismiss anarchism on the part of terrorist and insurrectionist tendencies? Of course it wouldn't.

And the SWP do, of course, do that -- while systematically lying about the likes of Bakunin and Kropotkin. Suffice to say, the SWP place themselves squarely in the Bolshevik tradition and simply refuse to question it.

Same thing for socialist organisations who take analysis or some sort of political practice from some controversial figures.

Except, of course, they rationalise the activities of the Bolsheviks, refuse to link practice to politics.

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm quite certain that some anarchists have also justified the use of terror and revolutionary violence. So, that puts some anarchists in the same category as the Bolsheviks.

Revolutionary violence is hardly the same as party dictatorship and a clear policy of state terrorism.

Or groups like the Red Army Faction and the Red Brigades, who came into being despite the fact that plenty of well known and influentual Marxists argued against individual terrorism. So that's one part where they didn't stick to their own supposedly Marxist theories.

Anarchists, though, do not tend to point to these groups when discussing Marxism. Marxists generally point to "propaganda by deed" and forget that Kropotkin favoured revolutionary unionism, for example.

Also, I always raise this question in debates on the Russian question. Thomas Jefferson ... Did he contributed to ideas about freedom and justice? Absolutely. Does that absolve him for his crimes? of course not, but that doesn't mean we can't learn something from him.

And what can we learn from the Bolsheviks? Other than what NOT to do? Is it the need for the vanguard party? No thanks. The identification of workers power with party power? No thanks? The book Left-wing communism? Again, no. His notions on imperialism? Confused and incorrect. How to have a successful revolution? Well, no -- that was NOT a successful revolution (unless one-party rule and state-capitalism counts as success!).

But Trotsky, well, he was a totalitarian from beginning to end, and there are absolutely zero redeeming features about anything he ever did or said.

Now that IS unfair -- his early critique of Lenin is of interest.

Let alone a much better figure like Victor Serge.

Serge? An elitist individual anarchist who became an elitist Bolshevik? Yes, his positions of the mid-late 1930s are of interest but they are weak compared to those who he attacked in the 1920s for drawing more radical conclusions. For more details, see Red Emma and the Reds.

If we are to condemn these people entirely to the historical trash can and never look at them again, then we must do the same for Jefferson.

Personally, I don't really quote Jefferson very much. Thinkers came later who transcended the ideas he advocated. In terms of the Bolsheviks, thinkers were around at the time who pointed to their errors -- thinkers like Bakunin predicted the weaknesses of key aspects of Marxist ideas. Why move backwards in terms of theory?