Many to the left of liberals, that is, socialists, communists, and anarchists of various stripes, were opposed to the Soviet Union since its founding. Another example is Bertrand Russell. This is from the preface to his The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, first printed in November 1920:
"The Russian Revolution is one of the great heroic events of the world's history. It is natural to compare it to the French Revolution, but it is in fact something of even more importance. It does more to change daily life and the structure of society: it also does more to change men's beliefs. The difference is exemplified by the difference between Marx and Rousseau: the latter sentimental and soft, appealing to emotion, obliterating sharp outlines; the former systematic like Hegel, full of hard intellectual content, appealing to historic necessity and the technical development of industry, suggesting a view of human beings as puppets in the grip of omnipotent material forces. Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam; and the result is something radically new, which can only be understood by a patient and passionate effort of imagination.
Before entering upon any detail, I wish to state, as clearly and unambiguously as I can, my own attitude towards this new thing.
By far the most important aspect of the Russian Revolution is as an attempt to realize Communism. I believe that Communism is necessary to the world, and I believe that the heroism of Russia has fired men's hopes in a way which was essential to the realization of Communism in the future. Regarded as a splendid attempt, without which ultimate success would have been very improbable, Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind.
But the method by which Moscow aims at establishing Communism is a pioneer method, rough and dangerous, too heroic to count the cost of the opposition it arouses. I do not believe that by this method a stable or desirable form of Communism can be established. Three issues seem to me possible from the present situation. The first is the ultimate defeat of Bolshevism by the forces of capitalism. The second is the victory of the Bolshevists accompanied by a complete loss of their ideals and a régime of Napoleonic imperialism. The third is a prolonged world-war, in which civilization will go under, and all its manifestations (including Communism) will be forgotten.
It is because I do not believe that the methods of the Third International can lead to the desired goal that I have thought it worth while to point out what seem to me undesirable features in the present state of Russia. I think there are lessons to be learnt which must be learnt if the world is ever to achieve what is desired by those in the West who have sympathy with the original aims of the Bolsheviks. I do not think these lessons can be learnt except by facing frankly and fully whatever elements of failure there are in Russia. I think these elements of failure are less attributable to faults of detail than to an impatient philosophy, which aims at creating a new world without sufficient preparation in the opinions and feelings of ordinary men and women.
But although I do not believe that Communism can be realized immediately by the spread of Bolshevism, I do believe that, if Bolshevism falls, it will have contributed a legend and a heroic attempt without which ultimate success might never have come. A fundamental economic reconstruction, bringing with it very far-reaching changes in ways of thinking and feeling, in philosophy and art and private relations, seems absolutely necessary if industrialism is to become the servant of man instead of his master. In all this, I am at one with the Bolsheviks; politically, I criticize them only when their methods seem to involve a departure from their own ideals." -- Bertrand Russell
I have not got very far into this short book itself. Some of the above sounds to me a bit like Richard Wolff. The Soviet Union was an experiment, conducted at great human cost. We should learn from its successes and failures. We can and will do better.
Posts
3 comments:
"Many to the left of liberals, that is, socialists, communists, and anarchists of various stripes, were opposed to the Soviet Union since its founding."
Well, not quite the case. Many of these supported the November 1917 revolution on the assumption that it meant "all power to the soviets", in the sense of workers' councils running things (plus workers' control and peasants seizing and working the land). When it became obvious that it was, in reality, "all power to the Bolsheviks" and they were imposing state-capitalism rather than socialism, then they started to oppose it.
This was the case with the Russian anarchists, the Mensheviks were somewhat different -- they opposed the October Revolution but eventually came to take the position of "official opposition" and recognised the regime, urging the Bolsheviks to apply the constitution and opposed the party dictatorship in favour of soviet democracy.
Foreign anarchists, like Emma Goldman, supported the regime until they saw it in practice (she was deported there in 1920) and only then opposed the Bolshevik dictatorship (and it was that since the Soviet Congress of mid-1918 and acknowledged as such by the Bolsheviks from 1919 onwards). Those not able to visit came to oppose it based on reliable testimony given by those, like Emma Goldman, who did.
Those Marxists who became known as council communists got there a little later, prompted by Comintern interference with German affairs and confirmed by reliable reports.
Needless to say, none of these groups supported the Whites -- the Mensheviks expelling anyone who joined attempts to overthrown the regime by force, for example.
Goldman's "My Disillusionment in Russia" (not her title) is a good account of the Bolshevik regime and its failings. Russell's is worth reading (he considered himself a Guild Socialist at the time).
Iain
An Anarchist FAQ
Personally, even if the most pessimistic accounts of USSR-as-busted-state-capitalist are correct, with the benefit of hindsight we can still identify that flawed system as an objective step up from anything else on the world stage at that point.
I guess the October revolution was immediately inspiring for many at the time. It certainly can see it as a step up for a backwards capitalism.
Post a Comment