By: Anonymous

Anonymous
Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:54:52 +0000

Perceptions and history
Of course, it would have been perfectly acceptable to use quotes from Terrorism and Communism, and even actions on the part of Trotsky, to point to conclusions about Marxist authoritarianism. And anyone who ignores that is not seeking to have a real debate or grapple with some very serious questions of the upmost importance. 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. Wouldn't it be just as unfair to dismiss anarchism on the part of terrorist and insurrectionist tendencies? Of course it wouldn't. That's not a slight against better anarchist tendencies- like anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-communism. Even if these better tendencies take analysis from insurrectionists, or even take something from their political practice, that does not immediately disqualify them as authoritarian groups, nor are they neccesarily tainted by their engagement with them. Same thing for socialist organisations who take analysis or some sort of political practice from some controversial figures. It does not mean when anarcho communists 'take power' they will run around smashing things and rounding up the bourgeoise to be shot, because they might have some insurrectionist influences guiding their actions. 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. 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. Also, I always raise this question in debates on the Russian question. Thomas Jefferson was a slaveowner all throughout his life, got pretty close to advocating racial genocide against the Native Americans, and played a role in the expansion of a colonial settler state. And presided over a 'democracy' where only men with property qualifications got the vote. 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. Most people don't think he was a rabid authoritarian because he pretty much advocated genocide, though that should stain his record far more than it does. 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. Let alone a much better figure like Victor Serge. 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.