[Marxism] Anarchism versus Bolshevism

["Graham M." <gkmilner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear M.,
             I am writing about our discussion of the Russian Revolution;
Leninism versus libertarianism, etc.   I think that we probably agree with
respect to our basic premiss; about the importance of working-class autonomy
and control over the process of transition to socialism.   Leninists and
Trotskyists have always maintained that they stand for the interests of the
workers, but I wouldn't deny that the Bolsheviks by the early 1920s had come
to identify themselves with the interests of the working class - even
Deutscher concedes that the Bolshevik political monopoly and the gutting of
the soviets had, by that time, tended to produce the political preconditions
for the rise of a totalitarian regime.   And Trotsky was no saint in this
respect, either.   Although in the 1930s, Trotsky was to advocate a
'workers' democracy' of a soviet type to replace the Stalinist regime, it is
undeniable that in the early 1920s he was a strong supporter of the
one-party state.

I'm sorry if it seemed as though I was 'putting you in a box', or labelling
you, by identifying your position as 'council communist'.   I believe that
we anarchists and libertarians in the early 1970s in Perth had a variety of
positions and were influenced by different ideas - I remember myself in 1972
coming under the influence of a variety of ideas, including those in Murray
Bookchin's 'Post-Scarcity Anarchism' and in Charles Reich's 'The Greening of
America', as well as of the positions held by more traditional, 'class'
anarchism, such as council communism and anarcho-syndicalism (I think that
the Brisbane group you mention was the 'Self-Management Group', similar to
'Solidarity' in Britain and 'Socialisme ou Barbarie' in France).

I'm partial to the more 'libertarian' reading of Lenin.   I believe that I
might have mentioned to you in a message a while back that I recently read
Paul le Blanc's 'Lenin and the Revolutionary Party', which presents a view
of Lenin that separates him from the Stalinist tradition, as well as
defending him from the hostile criticism of Western conservatives and
liberals.   I'm not sure that I understand you aright when you talk about
China and Cambodia in this context.   I would not saddle Lenin or Leninism
with responsibility for the crimes of Maoism or for Pol Pot's genocide.   I
researched and wrote my History Honours dissertation back in 1985 on Lenin's
'The State and Revolution', and regard that text as a great Marxist work,
full of important lessons for revolutionary socialists, and revealing the
side of Lenin that was concerned with popular, working-class representation
and sovereignty, and with the withering away of the state.   But I know that
libertarians are cynical about Lenin's intentions and motives in writing
that pamphlet, and considering what happened in Russia after it was
published, that's understandable.   Nevertheless, I believe that E.H. Carr
makes a valid point in his note appended to part two of Vol. 1 of 'The
Bolshevik Revolution', where he argues that Lenin's views on the state, as
expressed in 'The State and Revolution' did not necessarily change all that
much after the October Revolution.

We could continue this exchange about Russia indefinitely, no doubt, but I'm
sure that there are many other subjects of interest (like Basil Rathbone's
portrayal of  Sherlock Holmes, for example!).   But I will attempt to defend
the early actions of the Bolsheviks, because I don't agree that the Russian
workers (and the workers of the oppressed nationalities within the Tsarist
Empire) did not gain at all from the October Revolution.   Take the status
of women, including working women, for example.   As Trotsky writes in 'The
Revolution Betrayed', that the revolution did everything it could to honour
its promises to the oppressed half of humanity - it gave women legal and
civil equality, legalised abortion, and above all (of special concern to
working women) attempted to provide the social infrastructure to achieve
women's emancipation (communal kitchens, dining halls and laundries,
child-care centres, etc.).   A great many of these gains were rolled back
under the Thermidorian, Stalinist reaction, so that abortion was outlawed,
and a focus on conservative sexual morality and the nuclear family was
reintroduced.   You probably know Wilhelm Reich's book 'The Sexual
Revolution', or Kate Millett's 'Sexual Politics'.   Both of these books
stress the gains made in the area of women's rights and sexual freedom in
the first period of Soviet rule.   Laws against homosexuality were done away
with as early as the first months of 1918.   Imagine measures like these in
the context of that era elsewhere in the world, where in the USA for
instance women still did not even have the vote.   The Bolshevik policy on
the rights of oppressed nations was also highly advanced - not only were
nations given equal rights, but the Soviet government attempted to foster,
and in some cases revive, the languages of the oppressed peoples.   Of
course the central problem facing the Bolsheviks was the absence of the
material wherewithal to construct a socialist economy and society: Lenin
always maintained that the success of the socialist experiment in Russia
would depend on the extension of the revolution to the advanced, Western
countries.   This was also an axiom of the Left Opposition, and the
isolation of the socialist revolution in a backward, underdeveloped
environment can be seen as the principal factor behind the consolidation of
the Stalinist bureaucracy.

Best regards to you and your family,

Graham

(Graham Milner)


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu