Upcoming Events

National | Miscellaneous

no events match your query!

New Events

National

no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

Anti-Empire

offsite link North Korea Increases Aid to Russia, Mos... Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:29 | Marko Marjanovi?

offsite link Trump Assembles a War Cabinet Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?

offsite link Slavgrinder Ramps Up Into Overdrive Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?

offsite link ?Existential? Culling to Continue on Com... Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:28 | Marko Marjanovi?

offsite link US to Deploy Military Contractors to Ukr... Sun Nov 10, 2024 02:37 | Field Empty

Anti-Empire >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz
Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb

offsite link The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker
Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog.? We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below).?

offsite link What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker
by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are

offsite link Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader
2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of

offsite link The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker
Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by

The Saker >>

Lockdown Skeptics

The Daily Sceptic

offsite link ?My Neighbour?s Heat Pump is So Noisy We Can?t Sleep and the Doctor Says it?s Making My Mum?s Disabi... Wed Feb 19, 2025 15:00 | Will Jones
"My neighbour's heat pump is so noisy we can't sleep and the doctor says it is making my mum's disability worse." Relaxed rules on installations are making residents' lives a misery.
The post “My Neighbour’s Heat Pump is So Noisy We Can’t Sleep and the Doctor Says it’s Making My Mum’s Disability Worse” appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link There is No Such Thing as Human Rights Law Wed Feb 19, 2025 13:00 | Dr David McGrogan
The asylum courts have gone, to use the technical term, nuts, says legal expert Dr David McGrogan. The real problem is human rights 'law' which, properly speaking, is not law at all, but raw judicial whim.
The post There is No Such Thing as Human Rights Law appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Trump Appears to Blame Ukraine for War: ?You Should Never Have Started It? Wed Feb 19, 2025 11:18 | Will Jones
Donald Trump?appears to have blamed Ukraine for?Russia's invasion of the country three years ago, telling Zelensky "You should never have started it" and dismissing his anger at being cut out of peace talks.
The post Trump Appears to Blame Ukraine for War: “You Should Never Have Started It” appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Starmer Hits Back at Top Judge Who Criticised Him for Publicly Opposing Immigration Rulings Wed Feb 19, 2025 09:00 | Will Jones
Keir Starmer has hit back at Britain's most senior judge, Baroness Carr, who criticised him for opposing a ruling by an immigration judge that allowed Gazan refugees to come to Britain under a scheme for Ukrainians.
The post Starmer Hits Back at Top Judge Who Criticised Him for Publicly Opposing Immigration Rulings appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Why are Brits Funding Foreign Students? Wed Feb 19, 2025 07:00 | Charlotte Gill
Why are Brits splurging millions each year funding foreign PhD students to do research in such non-critical areas as "the impact of race, class, gender and coloniality in child-centred learning", asks Charlotte Gill.
The post Why are Brits Funding Foreign Students? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Lockdown Skeptics >>

Voltaire Network
Voltaire, international edition

offsite link Westerners and the conflict in Ukraine, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Feb 18, 2025 06:56 | en

offsite link Voltaire, International Newsletter N?120 Fri Feb 14, 2025 13:14 | en

offsite link Did the IDF kill more Israelis on October 7, 2023, than the Palestinian resistan... Fri Feb 14, 2025 13:00 | en

offsite link JD Vance Tells Munich Security Conference "There's A New Sheriff In Town", by J.... Fri Feb 14, 2025 07:37 | en

offsite link Donald Trump and the conflict in Ukraine, by Thierry Meyssan Wed Feb 12, 2025 05:10 | en

Voltaire Network >>

Victor Serge - socialist hero

category national | miscellaneous | news report author Tuesday June 18, 2002 16:17author by Linda - Socialist Youth Report this post to the editors

An introduction to Victor Serge

Serge is best known for his writings. He left behind an enormous archive of published and unpublished books, articles, correspondence, polemics and essays concerning the momentous political events during his lifetime. His first hand accounts of the Russian Revolution and the failed 1923 German revolution are brilliant examples of the creative fusion of journalist and socialist activist.

He also displayed remarkable fiction writing abilities. His series of novels acutely captured the effects of revolution and counter-revolution on the lives of a multitude of characters, and for this are unique in world literature.

Like all other genuine revolutionaries Serge of course made mistakes. As his period in exile and isolation in the 1930s and 1940s illustrated, these errors were sometimes of a serious political character. Trotsky was forced to take up his pen against the often contradictory and confused ideas of his old friend.

However, it would be wrong to allow these mistakes to completely determine Serge’s legacy. On the contrary, his life’s work and activities are distinguished by great integrity and honesty. He always displayed genuine commitment to the cause of the working class. He was an incorruptible and highly cultured working class socialist fighter and artist. He stands as an inspiration to the new generation of socialist fighters.

The recent publication of Susan Weissman’s book, Victor Serge – The course is set on hope (Verso, 2001), is therefore a very welcome event. It should be read by all socialists and radical anti-capitalist youth, and by anybody who wants to comes to grips with one of the seminal events of twentieth century history – the October 1917 Russian Revolution and the Stalinist counter revolution.

Over the last ten years, there has been something of a resurgence of interest in Serge’s life, works and ideas. This has arisen for a number of reasons, including the centenary of his birth, which coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union. A ‘Victor Serge Memorial Library’ has been established in Moscow and his texts are now at last being published in the land of the October Revolution. Meanwhile, new editions of his books are appearing in the West.

Undoubtedly, the rise of the anti-capitalist and anti-globalisation movement has generated the search by radical youth for a non-Stalinist socialist alternative to capitalism. Sections of the Left and anti-capitalist movement correctly cite Victor Serge as an inspiring historic figure who bravely fought both capitalism and Stalinism. A careful reading of Serge, in conjunction with the rich works of Leon Trotsky - who Serge always considered a giant of the Marxist movement, along with Lenin - provide indispensable lessons to socialists and anti-globalisation protesters.

For more on Serge visit the socialist youth website where we have a review of his life and struggles

Related Link: http://www.socialistyouth.cjb.net
author by Phuq Heddpublication date Tue Jun 18, 2002 17:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

When I saw the title of your article I was immediately reminded of a very different perspective on Viktor Serge that I had read a year or two ago. There is a highly critical article about him here:
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/rbr4_serge.html
and another here:
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia/serge.html

Note: I am not a WSM member, but I agree with them on many issues. I think these articles raise some interesting points about Serge that the original article posted by Linda does not address:

1. Serge actively supported the Bolsheviks in their authoritarian suppression of dissent: this is especially true in the Kronstadt case where he laments the effects of the Leninist murders (whole-heartedly entered into by Trotsky among mnay others).

2. Serge is portrayed by Linda as somehow "independent", whereas in fact he was an integrated functionary of the Party.

3. Serge as portrayed as "anti-Stalinist" as though Stalnism were the only problem with the Russian Revolution, whereas many would see the problem as being Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism and all the other authoritarian interpretations of Marxism.

Related Link: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia/serge.html
author by aunty partypublication date Tue Jun 18, 2002 18:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

did u write that article yourself linda? or did u copy and paste it? because u might like to know that this is a newswire. the only news here is the bit at the end saying that u can get more info at the SP youth website.

if that's news i'm a tomato.

author by Shane Kenna - Socialist Youthpublication date Tue Jun 18, 2002 19:31author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Everytime lenin or bolshevikism is mentioned you have to mention Kronstadt.. For jaysus sake lads play a new record will ya.

Kronstadt was a tragedy. But when you raise this question I cant help but remember the fact the the anarchists fought along with the whites during the civil war in russia. Was it just me or were the whites supported by the Capitalist Imperial powers? Were the Whites not anti jew, they carried out the tsars policy of russifaction in many of the areas they held? ehhh did they not support the resteration of the TSAR?

Secondly, Kronstadt in my opinion happened at the end of a civil war. What were the bolsheviks to do? Let Capitalism be restored? Allow the SR's to take control of the country and bring lead to the restoration of capital?

This really pisses me off. A comrade of mine comes in here advertising a good piece of information about Serge, and simply because hes a bolshevik she immeadiately has Kronstadt thrown at her....Grow up lads, as I said play a different record....

Finally "aunty party" your patronising comment "did you u write that article yourself" is below the belt and downright ignorant. The purpose of indymedia is also to lay comment on the article and not be downright rude to the writer, that also simply isn't news.Also you claim "because u might like to know that this is a newswire," and that my comrade is not welcome to write this, well "Aunty party" YOU MIGHT LIKE TO KNOW that I have pased the following from Indy media's " What is the Indymedia Newswire?"

The Indymedia newswire encourages people to become the media by posting their articles, analysis, and photographs directly to the web site. (The above pasted by Linda being an article)

Yours
Shane Kenna
Socialist Youth Dublin

Related Link: http://www.socialistyouth.cjb.net
author by jimmy - rtspublication date Tue Jun 18, 2002 19:59author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The anarchists fought along with the whites? Oh come on, why not just tell us that the Bolsheviks had no problems with certain genuine anarchists but only fought bandits.

author by Oliver O'Driscollpublication date Tue Jun 18, 2002 20:10author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Victor Serge supported the revolution in Czarist Russia, that alone is sufficent reason for us to honour his memory. That event provided great hope for working people all over our world. Sadly Comrade Lenin died and the Stalinist regime came to power and committed obscene crimes in the name of Socialism. Re the Kronstadt uprising, Comrade Trotsky did indeed play a role in suppressing that counter-revolutionary putsch. Another reason to honour him memory. The Stalinists murdered him but they could never destroy his teachings.

author by anarchopublication date Tue Jun 18, 2002 20:58author email anarcho at geocities dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Everytime lenin or bolshevikism is mentioned you have to mention Kronstadt.. For jaysus sake lads play a new record will ya."

And I'm sure that that fascists say that "everytime Fascism is mentioned, you have to mention Hitler!" :)

But seriously, the reason why Kronstadt is mentioned is because it is important. It is the end point
of the Russian Revolution, the point when the Bolsheviks could not use external threats to justify
their party dictatorship (not that they did of course, by 1921 the idea of that the "dictatorship of
the proletariat" *was* "the dictatorship of the party" was a truism in Bolshevik ranks).

However, we must always remember that Kronstadt is a symbol of the Bolshevik betrayal of the
Russian Revolution, a betrayal that started *before* the start of the Civil War and continued
*after* it. We should not forget that Kronstadt is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of
anti-socialist and anti-working class actions committed by the Bolsheviks during the period
1918 to 1921.

"Kronstadt was a tragedy. But when you raise this question I cant help but remember the fact the the anarchists fought along with the whites during the civil war in russia. Was it just me or were the whites supported by the Capitalist Imperial powers? Were the Whites not anti jew, they carried out the tsars policy of russifaction in many of the areas they held? ehhh did they not support the resteration of the TSAR?"

What utter, utter lies. The anarchists fought repeatedly against the whites. They also had to fight
against the Bolsheviks as well, when the Bolsheviks attacked them (e.g. Makhno). That any "socialist"
could make such claims shows the low regard they have for the truth *and* internal education.

"Secondly, Kronstadt in my opinion happened at the end of a civil war. What were the bolsheviks to do? Let Capitalism be restored? Allow the SR's to take control of the country and bring lead to the restoration of capital?"

That argument, of course, was pretty much what the Stalinists argued when they crushed the
1956 revolution in Hungry. And I would stress that capital was already restored in Bolshevik
Russia. The workers' were wage slaves subject to one man management armed with "dictatorial"
power (as argued by Lenin in early 1918!). The state had replaced the capitalist, in other words.

The Civil War had finished in November 1920, when Wrangel was defeated. What conflicts were
still doing on were the result of Bolshevik policy (e.g. by betraying the Makhnovists after they
helped defeat Wrangel. Unsurprisingly, the Makhnovists fought back).

"What were the Bolsheviks to do?" Interesting question. The Kronstadt sailors were arguing for
soviet democracy. What were the Bolsheviks to do? Give up party dictatorship or not? Difficult
one. It is doubtful that workers would have voted for the Bolsheviks. faced with a similar rejection
in early 1918, the Bolsheviks disbanded soviets and crushed working class revolts in numerous
cities. Three years later, they did that same -- they handed onto power.

How come when politicians ignore democratic decisions under capitalism, socialists are up in
arms but when the Bolsheviks do it, they agree with it? Clearly they are of the Kissinger school
of democracy (i.e. when he opined that America could not sit back and let the Chileans vote for
the wrong people). As Trotsky made clear at the time:

"The Workers' Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans, making a fetish of democratic
principles! They place the workers' right to elect representatives above the Party, as if the
party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed
with the passing moods of the workers' democracy. It is necessary to create amongst us the
awareness of the revolutionary birthright of the party. which is obliged to maintain its dictatorship,
regardless of temporary wavering even in the working classes. This awareness is for us the
indispensable element. The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the
formal principle of a workers' democracy."

Sixteen years later, he was still talking about the "objective necessity" of "the dictatorship of
a proletarian party." Talk about consistency. And this mentality is the reason why Kronstadt
is important. As Trotsky put it, " The revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces *its own*
dictatorship surrenders the masses to the counter-revolution" (my emphasis). Ironically, our
"Socialist Youth" friend repeats Trotsky's arguments of 1937 (and 1921!) in favour of party
dictatorship! You cannot make this stuff up!

"This really pisses me off. A comrade of mine comes in here advertising a good piece of information about Serge, and simply because hes a bolshevik she immeadiately has Kronstadt thrown at her....Grow up lads, as I said play a different record...."

So, "a good piece of information on Serge" is simply to be consumed, not discussed? Surely not?
Given that Serge spent a good bit of the 1930s debating the issue of Kronstadt with Trotsky
publicly, I would say that our Marxist friend is showing how at odds he is with Serge at his
best.

"Finally "aunty party" your patronising comment "did you u write that article yourself" is below the belt and downright ignorant. The purpose of indymedia is also to lay comment on the article and not be downright rude to the writer, that also simply isn't news."

But above you complained when someone *did* lay comment on the article. Please make your
mind up. Or is it a case that we must "lay comment" only such comments which do not question
Bolshevism and some of Serge's more unfortunate decisions?

For in depth and lengthy discussion on Kronstadt visit:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH5.html

For the Makhnovists (and some discussion of the Bolshevik orthodoxy of "the dictatorship of
the party") visit:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH6.html

Ultimately, the reason why Kronstadt is important is that, as our "Socialist Youth" comrade
makes clear, given the chance, they will do the same again!

Related Link: http://www.anarchistfaq.org
author by anarchopublication date Tue Jun 18, 2002 21:07author email anarcho at geocities dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Victor Serge supported the revolution in Czarist Russia, that alone is sufficent reason for us to honour his memory."

Lots of people supported the revolution in Czarist
russia. Like the sailors at Kronstadt. And the
Makhnovists. Unlike Serge, they did not defend
party dictatorship.

"That event provided great hope for working people all over our world. Sadly Comrade Lenin died and the Stalinist regime came to power and committed obscene crimes in the name of Socialism."

Is this a piss take? Sounds like one! So Kronstadt
was not an "obscene crime"? Even Serge thought it
was, particularly the shooting of prisoners by
the Bolsheviks after it was crushed.

If only Lenin had lived a bit longer. Yes, his
dictatorship would have been so much nicer than
Stalin's! Its all Stalin's fault, you know. Everything
went pear-shaped in 1924. Before then, it was
fine. As if...

"Re the Kronstadt uprising, Comrade Trotsky did indeed play a role in suppressing that counter-revolutionary putsch. Another reason to honour him memory."

Another reason to expose him for the dictator
that he was. How many people here know that he
advocated party dictatorship all through the
1920s and 1930s?

"The Stalinists murdered him but they could never destroy his teachings."

Yes, his "teachings" on party dictatorship should
not be destroyed but read by every Trotskyist,
socialist, anarchist and whoever else is interested
in changing the world for the better!

for more on trotsky visit:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append31.html#app15

Related Link: http://www.anarchistfaq.org
author by Oliver O'Driscollpublication date Tue Jun 18, 2002 23:25author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The October revolution was a source of hope to oppressed peoples all over the world. That's a historical fact, not a piss take. The fact that Stalin came to power after Lenin's death led to a reign of terror and a deformed worker's state is also a (sad) fact.

Re Kronstadt, the counter revolutionary putsch was put down by the people's army, do you think that the reactionaries and white guards, aided by western imperialism should have been allowed to regain power. Comrade Trotsky's role in that struggle was a postive one.

author by Harry Pollitpublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 01:01author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This is what the Trots call counter-revolution:
(for which you must be "shot down like partridges" - Trotsky)

The Kronstadt Resolution:

RESOLUTION
OF THE GENERAL MEETING OF CREWS OF THE 1ST AND 2ND BATTLESHIP BRIGADES, OCCURING 1 MARCH, 1921
Having heard the report of the crew representatives, sent to the City of Petrograd by the General Meeting of ships' crews for clarification of the situation there, we resolve:

1. In view of the fact that the present Soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, to immediately hold new elections to the Soviets by secret ballot, with freedom of pre-election agitation for all workers and peasants.

2. Freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, anarchists and left socialist parties.

3. Freedom of assembly of both trade unions and peasant associations.

4. To convene not later than March 10th, 1921 a non-party Conference of workers, soldiers and sailors of the city of Petrograd, of Kronstadt, and of Petrograd province.

5. To free all political prisoners of socialist parties, and also all workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with worker and peasant movements.

6. To elect a Commission for the review of the cases of those held in prisons and concentration camps.

7. To abolish all POLITOTDELS, since no single party should be able to have such privileges for the propaganda of its ideas and receive from the state the means for these ends. In their place must be established locally elected cultural-educational commissions, for which the state must provide resources.

8. To immediately remove all anti-smuggling roadblock detachments.

9. To equalize the rations of all laborers, with the exception of those in work injurious to health.

10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various guards kept in factories and plants by the communists, and if such guards or detachments are needed, they can be chosen in military units from the companies, and in factories and plants by the discretion of the workers.

11. To give the peasants full control over their own land, to do as they wish, and also to keep cattle, which must be maintained and managed by their own strength, that is, without using hired labor.

12. We appeal to all military units, and also to the comrade cadets to lend their support to our resolution.

13. We demand that all resolutions be widely publicized in the press.

14. To appoint a travelling bureau for control.

15. To allow free handicraft manufacture by personal labor.

The resolution was passed by the Brigade Meeting unanimously with two abstentions.

PETRICHENKO, President of the Brigade Meeting
PEREPELKIN, Secretary

The resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority of the entire Kronstadt garrison.

VASILIEV, President

Together with Comrade Kalinin, Vasiliev votes against the resolution.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

author by Phuq Heddpublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 01:10author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Shane Kenna's response is little more than a call to ignore history and swallow Socialist Yoof's Party Line. Sorry, in the real world there's not much chance that a hagiography of a seriously confused and compromised figure like Victor Serge is going to be allowed to pass without comment. I pointed those that were interested to a couple of interesting perspectives on Serge that make him sound like a repulsive Leninist toady. If those perspectives are accurate (and they appear to be well researched, footnoted and argued) than Serge may be a "socialist hero", but he's not someone that is likely to appeal to "radical youth [searching] for a non-Stalinist socialist alternative to capitalism".

Serge, those articles point out, was happy to go along with the destruction of the Russian Revolution by the authoritarian elements that subverted the Soviets and murdered millions. Trying to pin all of this on Stalin (boo, hiss) and to ignore the trajectory of authoritarianism that Lenin and Trotsky pushed the party into is dishonest. I suspect that S.Kenna knows this and that's why his response is hysterically shouting for a lack of discussion on this topic.

S.Kenna's response to the central point is telling: "Everytime lenin or bolshevikism is mentioned you have to mention Kronstadt.. For jaysus sake lads play a new record will ya."!

Incredible! On a par with "Everytime the war is mentioned you have to go on and on about Hitler!. And what's more, while we're on the subject every time social inequality is mentioned you seize the opportunity to bash Capitalists!"

Thankfully S.Kenna's response admits that:
"Kronstadt was a tragedy. But [...]"!
Kronstadt wasn't just a tragedy. Kronstadt was the logical outcome of authoritarian socialism. Later Trotsky (one of the most bloodyminded of the advocates of suppressing the socialism of Kronstadt) got the same treatment when he differed with the majority of the authoritarians. As long as Socialist Youth/Socialist Alternative travel along this road they are following in the footsteps of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin.

Shane Kenna's response then states:
"...when you raise this question I cant help but remember the fact the the anarchists fought along with the whites during the civil war in russia. Was it just me or were the whites supported by the Capitalist Imperial powers? Were the Whites not anti jew, they carried out the tsars policy of russifaction in many of the areas they held? ehhh did they not support the resteration of the TSAR?"

Perhaps like Victor Serge himself Shane "[...] also displayed remarkable fiction writing abilities."!

Then Shane (not so cleverly) posits a false choice between murdering-dissenting-socialists on the one hand and counter-revolutionary-capitalism on the other:
"Secondly, Kronstadt in my opinion happened at the end of a civil war. What were the bolsheviks to do? Let Capitalism be restored? Allow the SR's to take control of the country and bring lead to the restoration of capital?"

Seeing as you don't get it Shane I'll point it out for you: the people murdered by your luminaries were not pro-Capitalists. In many ways they had a better chance of creating a decent socialist world than those that murdered them. It is not possible to produce a system worth living in by murdering dissenters.

Then S.Kenna really tells us what he thinks:
"This really pisses me off. A comrade of mine comes in here advertising a good piece of information about Serge, and simply because hes a bolshevik she immeadiately has Kronstadt thrown at her....Grow up lads, as I said play a different record...."

No, your comrade "came in here" claiming that Serge was some sort of inspiration to "radical youth" and portrayed him as some sort of independent whereas he was "Most significantly [...] asked to help in the founding of the Communist International (Comintern) in 1919 and worked in its secretariat."

If you are seriously calling for a biased, misinformed and misleading piece of work to pass without comment then your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries.


There is one thing that Shane and Linda are correct about though:

"A careful reading of Serge, in conjunction with the rich works of Leon Trotsky - who Serge always considered a giant of the Marxist movement, along with Lenin - provide indispensable lessons to socialists and anti-globalisation protesters."!

author by aunty partypublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 08:34author address author phone Report this post to the editors

ok shane - read what you wrote again -

"The Indymedia newswire encourages people to become the media by posting their articles, analysis, and photographs directly to the web site. (The above pasted by Linda being an article) "

-- posting THEIR articles!!!!!!

it's quite obvious that the only original bit here was the ref to the website, the rest of the article is just copied. you get it? no analysis, no photographs. just a copied article.

author by ?publication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 09:45author address author phone Report this post to the editors


“Join with us to beat the Jews”
Vershinin, member Kronstadt Revolutionary Committee

author by Tom - drifterpublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 10:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It is clear that Anarchy wishes to "censor" socialists from speaking here, I agree with shanes point. Whenever a socialist comes in here and mentions anything about the october revolution you jump on the bandwagon and proclaim KRONSTADT THIS....KRONSTADT THAT.

If Lenin bloody sneezed in 1917 and it was reported here you would still, i believe mention kronstadt, and quite frankly it is rather boring.

Anarchy needs to get of its high horse, and look at itself. Victor Serge is a hero to many as is your bakuin or whatever. So just leave it off and get a life...

author by Shane Kennapublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 10:16author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Shut-ups and put-downs: is that all that Socialist Youth has?"

When did I tell anyone to shut up? I told you to play a new record...Im sick of hearing Kronstadt.

Thirdly Socialist Youth is not how you describe it and i believe your pettyness is a disgrace.

"Seeing as you don't get it Shane I'll point it out for you: the people murdered by your luminaries were not pro-Capitalists. In many ways they had a better chance of creating a decent socialist world than those that murdered them. It is not possible to produce a system worth living in by murdering dissenters. "

Maybe you didnt attend your history class at school, but the Kronstadt sailors wanted the soviets to be dominated by the SR's and possibly the mensheviks. This would my friend of lead to a return to capitalism. The Kronstadt sailors who you seem to idolise were anti jew aswell.

"If you are seriously calling for a biased, misinformed and misleading piece of work to pass without comment then your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries."

"biased" "misinformed" I take it that the works which you have linked are the truth the absolute truth? OH WAIT A MINUTE THEY ARE ON AN ANARCHY WEBSITE! Oh my they must be true.....Theres no one better than an anarchist to give better true comment on a communist...As I said before grow up and play a different record....Kronstadt has been done over and over again.

In relation to my "this really pisses me off" comment, you are (NOT SO CLEVERLY )attempting to label me some what of an authtoraterian person, and my organisation too at that. This simply is wrong and indeed insulting. Never once did I argue with anyones opinion of Serge. I defened my comrade who pasted the article in. As any memeber of a similler organisation would do so, eg and anarchist whould defend another in such a debate.

Before this thing gets any worse and we all cause a major argument lets agree to differ on this article and leave it at that.

author by Shane Kennapublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 10:21author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Phuq Hedd" you claim:
"As long as Socialist Youth/Socialist Alternative travel along this road they are following in the footsteps of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin."

Lenin and Trotsky were completely different to stalin. To prove this i cite lenins struggle against the Bureaucracy in his last years (see his pamphlet better few but better) Trotsky formed the left opposittion to combat the stalinist regeme.

Finally Stalinism is not the direct follow on from Leninism....If it was why would he have murdered the old bolshevik vanguard of the revolution who by the way were drifting to Trotskys teachings?

author by Kommypublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 11:59author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"I defened my comrade who pasted the article in. As any memeber of a similler organisation would do so, eg and anarchist whould defend another in such a debate."

Shane, surely you should be defending people who's views you agree with, regardless of their party. I don't agree that an anarchist would defend another anarchist in a discussion with anyone just because they share a broadly similar perspective, known as anarchism. In fact if you look at the debate that goes on in most anarchist circles, you'll see that there is much that they openly disagree on. The whole point is that people should be free to express their views and defend their views but it should be based on personal conviction, not some party line.

"Before this thing gets any worse and we all cause a major argument lets agree to differ on this article and leave it at that."

There is a fine difference between a good discussion and a major arguement. As mentioned above, anarchists have their own arguements, some of which get quite heated but at the end of the day they generally pull together on those issues that they are in agreement with (which are many). Understanding comes through discussion.
Also, you completely negated your call to "leave it at that" with your subsequent comment.

author by Harry Pollitpublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 12:14author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Shane: “Maybe you didnt attend your history class at school, but the Kronstadt sailors wanted the soviets to be dominated by the SR's and possibly the mensheviks. This would my friend of lead to a return to capitalism. The Kronstadt sailors who you seem to idolise were anti jew aswell.”

The actual resolution:

“1. In view of the fact that the present Soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, to immediately hold new elections to the Soviets by secret ballot, with freedom of pre-election agitation for all workers and peasants.
2. Freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, anarchists and left socialist parties.”

(maybe you don’t read the posts)

As for the anti-jew business, were they also this when Trotsky was praising them to the hilt, or when events depicted in the film “We are from Kronstadt” was made?

I note no reference to Jews in the Resolution (and this at a time when other popular anti-Bolshevik forces had no subterfuge about their anti-Semitism e.g. some of the Green Armies, indeed even the Red Army carried out pogroms).

I note also the attempts to reduce this to the level of anarchists support Kronstadt, trots support Bolsheviks, who was good and who was bad (Mr. Glass Houses), rather than dealing with the actual issues.

The Kronstadt sailors were not anarchists, I wouldn’t agree with all of their resolution, but the point of it is that it shows the reality of the Russian Empire under Lenin and Trotsky.
Kronstadt was only one of many (the best known) instances of class struggle in the Russian Empire at this time.

Class Struggle between the new bourgeois of Bolshevism (or not so new in many cases) and the working classes.

While I’m here perhaps someone could name, give the general location of, and date their presence, the 21 (22?) Imperialist Armies, we hear so much about. Even just naming them would be a start.

Oh and most of the old Bolsheviks who were killed, were not killed until the late 30ies, they were in power during the worst crime of the Stalin era (collectivisation, de-kulakisation, the terror famines).

According to the same logic a capitalist state making war on another, then proves that the other is actually anti-capitalist.

Stalin was involved in anti-bureaucratic opposition to Trotsky also, when the later headed the Red Army.

author by anarchopublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 14:14author email anarcho at geocities dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Firsly,

>?Join with us to beat the Jews?
> Vershinin, member Kronstadt Revolutionary Committee

So a revolt of tens of thousands of people is written off by the comments
of one person? And the source of this quote? A member of the Bolshevik
party! Given that Vershinin had enlisted in 1916, can we therefore dismiss
the October Revolution in the same way? After all, Vershinin had been
there in March and November 1917. This *must* prove that both those
revolutions were "anti-jewish"!

Significantly, there is no anti-jewish comments in the Kronstadt resolution
nor in the Kronstadt official paper. That says it all as far as this issue goes.

secondly, Tom argues that "it is clear that Anarchy wishes to "censor" socialists
from speaking here"

How did I manage to express that wish? By talking about
what actually happened at Kronstadt? Amazing...

Tom:
"I agree with shanes point. Whenever a socialist comes in here and mentions anything about the october revolution you jump on the bandwagon and proclaim KRONSTADT THIS....KRONSTADT THAT."

So the actual events of the Russian Revolution are unimportant and any attempt to
discuss them is a form of censorship? What an interesting concept! Kinda says it all.
And I suppose its significant that Tom fails to discuss my comments about aspects of
Bolshevism outside of Kronstadt (such as the disbanding of soviets in 1918 and
Trotsky's continual support for party dictatorship into the 1930s).

"If Lenin bloody sneezed in 1917 and it was reported here you would still, i believe mention kronstadt, and quite frankly it is rather boring."

I doubt it. Now, given that the Bolsheviks disbanded democratically elected soviets
by force in early 1918 and did so again in 1921 at Kronstadt, I would say that discussing
Kronstadt is important and gives an insight into Leninism. As I stressed, Kronstadt is a
symbol (and important one) of what Leninism is like in practice. We should not concentrate
on it at the expense of the rest of the revolution.

"Anarchy needs to get of its high horse, and look at itself. Victor Serge is a hero to many as is your bakuin or whatever. So just leave it off and get a life..."

So heroes are *not* to be questioned, discussed? That is hero worship of the worse
kind. Serge would have rejected this in favour of a discussion of his strengths and
weaknesses. And one of his great mistakes was to side with the Bolsheviks against
Kronstadt.

Moving on, Shane argues:

"When did I tell anyone to shut up? I told you to play a new record...Im sick of hearing Kronstadt."

In other words, "shut up about Kronstadt"!!!! I can understand, it must be a wee bit annoying
to keep discussing your hero's feet of clay...

"Thirdly Socialist Youth is not how you describe it and i believe your pettyness is a disgrace."

And lying about anarchists fighting with the Whites is not a disgrace?

"Maybe you didnt attend your history class at school, but the Kronstadt sailors wanted the soviets to be dominated by the SR's and possibly the mensheviks."

Actually, they wanted free elections. If the soviets were "dominated" by the SRs and the Mensheviks
it was because the Bolsheviks would not have won any seats. As acknowledged by the Bolsheviks
at the time. Ultimately, Shane is arguing for party dictatorship -- the working class cannot be
left to vote for whom they like because they will not vote for the vanguard party...

"This would my friend of lead to a return to capitalism.

Capitalism already existed in Russia, *state* capitalism. The workers were
wage slaves to state appointed bosses. Their attempts to strike were repressed
(as per the Petrograd strike wave which the Kronstadt sailors rebelled in
solidarity with).

"The Kronstadt sailors who you seem to idolise were anti jew aswell."

So the comments by *one* person makes all the Kronstadt sailors anti-jew!!! Incredible. Guess
how many of the sailors in the two battleships which had lead the revolt had been there since
1917? Over 90%. Does that mean the Bolsheviks had the support of "anti-jew" sailors?
Vershinin had enlisted in 1916. Does that mean the Kronstadt sailors Trotsky idolised in
1917 (and right up to the revolt in 1921!) were "anti-jewish as well"?

Shane continues:

"'biased' 'misinformed' I take it that the works which you have linked are the truth the absolute truth? OH WAIT A MINUTE THEY ARE ON AN ANARCHY WEBSITE! Oh my they must be true.....Theres no one better than an anarchist to give better true comment on a communist...As I said before grow up and play a different record....Kronstadt has been done over and over again."

Feel free to consult the webpages I and others have pointed to. If you do you will discover
they are well documented, using all the standard sources on the Kronstadt rebellion. I think
its significant that Shane automatically dismisses the idea that anyone but a pro-Bolshevik
can give an objective account of the Bolshevism in action!

"In relation to my 'this really pisses me off' comment, you are (NOT SO CLEVERLY )attempting to label me some what of an authtoraterian person, and my organisation too at that. This simply is wrong and indeed insulting. Never once did I argue with anyones opinion of Serge. I defened my comrade who pasted the article in. As any memeber of a similler organisation would do so, eg and anarchist whould defend another in such a debate."

So, lets get this right. You justified the Bolsheviks actions at Kronstadt and that does not mean
that you are an authoritarian person? Really? What would you call someone who, faced with
an election result they disagreed with, simply says the election should not take place and
supports the crushing of those who want it?

"Before this thing gets any worse and we all cause a major argument lets agree to differ on this article and leave it at that."

And so all the quotes and facts from the seedier side of Bolshevism can be ignored,
placed in the Memory Hole along with other unpleasant things...

Shane then adds:

"Lenin and Trotsky were completely different to stalin. To prove this i cite lenins struggle against the Bureaucracy in his last years (see his pamphlet better few but better) Trotsky formed the left opposittion to combat the stalinist regeme."

Okay, lets talk of the Left Opposition. Did it oppose party dictatorship? Nope. Ironically, they
combated Stalin *because* they thought he was weakening the dictatorship of the party. I
quote from the 1927 Platform of the Opposition:

"the growing replacement of the party by its own apparatus is promoted by a 'theory' of Stalin's
which denies the Leninist principle, inviolable for every Bolshevik, that the dictatorship of the
proletariat is and can be realised only through the dictatorship of the party."

Is that the kind of opposition which inspires hope in the democratic nature of Trotskyism? I
doubt it...

Also, what about Lenin's and Trotsky's support for one-man management, party dictatorship
and so on? Is all that irrelevant? did these policies (and other like them) not have an impact
on the rise of Stalinism? No one is denying that Lenin and Trotsky disagree with Stalin (and
his regime, in the case of Trotsky). But the key issue is whether their alternative would have
been any better. And the answer must be "Not that much" given both Lenin and Trotsky's
wholehearted support for party dictatorship, one-man management and the repression of
all non-Bolshevik oppositions...

"Finally Stalinism is not the direct follow on from Leninism....If it was why would he have murdered the old bolshevik vanguard of the revolution who by the way were drifting to Trotskys teachings?"

Stalin had been a Bolshevik since at least 1905, as "old vanguard" as you could get. Why did
he murder them? To consolidate his power. Simple really. As noted, Trotsky's "teachings" did
not question party dictatorship...

I think that what comes out strong and clear from this discussion is that pro-Bolsheviks are
not really interested in debate. If you are interested in finding out the truth about Kronstadt,
I would suggest you follow up the references quoted in this webpage:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH5.html

That way you can discover whether anarchists are giving you an accurate account of
the revolt or not. It will also make a nice change from the unsupported (and unsupportable)
assertions of the likes of Shane.

Related Link: http://www.anarchistfaq.org
author by Mickpublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 15:29author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"think that what comes out strong and clear from this discussion is that pro-Bolsheviks are
not really interested in debate. "

Maybe the anarchists arent interested in debate
because thats how it seems

author by I beg to differpublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 16:16author address author phone Report this post to the editors

" the whites were a mixed bunch of ranging from SR's to anarchists and Tsarist Officers."
- Edward Fynes European History 1870-1966

author by Kommypublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 16:36author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Mick wrote:
"Maybe the anarchists arent interested in debate
because thats how it seems"

C'mon Mick, you can do better than that. Why do you say such a thing?
Back up your statements with evidence. I see plenty of debate here with evidence from some people and calls of "oh no, not Kronstadt again" with little or no evidence from other people.

author by Phuq Heddpublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 17:43author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Well, I started out with a critical comment on the article "laying a comment" on it as S.Kenna would put it. Then S.Kenna asks me to "change the record" which is somehow not the same thing as "shut up". Then he calls for us to "agree to differ on this article and leave it at that". Presumably this is also not the same as "shut up"?

As S.Kenna points out about himself " Never once did I argue with anyones opinion of Serge. I defened my comrade who pasted the article in." That's the problem S.Kenna. I wasn't _attacking_ Linda, I was calling into question the accuracy of the article that she had presented for my viewing pleasure. I doubted (and still doubt) that it was a "passionate, radical and accurate retelling of the truth". Your call for me to cease this questioning (which really is telling me and others to shut up) doesn't convince me that Linda is correct.

Your assertion that your attack upon my questions was "As any memeber of a similler organisation would do so, eg and anarchist whould defend another in such a debate." is simply not true. I have even asked "anarcho", whom I mostly agree with, to remove long articles that s/he posted to the newswire. (Note that I'm not doing this with regard to Linda's article because it was a sort-of-summary of a much longer piece to which she gave a link.) I disagree on many points with other people that would define themselves as anarchists.

However, none of the above bears any relation to the real issues which are:

1. Is Victor Serge someone who is believeable, someone who's testimony should be trusted? - In this regard the articles that I linked suggest that Serge called himself an anarchist but supported the most horrific actions of the Bolsheviks. The articles indicate that Serge is frequently used by Trotskyists to show that "realistic anarchists" accept the murder of "unrealistic anarchists" a.k.a bandits.

2. Given that Serge was so intertwined in the Party bureaucracy how independent is his testimony?

3. Is Stalin the only person to blame for the derailment of the Russian Revolution or did it start long before he seized power.

4. Do socialists that aver a belief in Trotsky have any suggestions for how to avoid the destruction of a future revolution through dictatorship?

Again, fellow comrades, brothers in arms, I ask these questions hoping for answers for "If you tremble with indignation at every injustice [even Kronstadt and Spain'36!] then you are a comrade of mine" [Che Guevara, quoted on Socialist Youth website].

author by Tompublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 18:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"De Trot's were a bunch o' diarrhoea"
Hude Falk-Hee 1933 attrib

author by Harry Pollitpublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 19:12author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"The russian civil war- written evidence that anarchy was white
by I beg to differ Wed, Jun 19 2002, 3:16pm

" the whites were a mixed bunch of ranging from SR's to anarchists and Tsarist Officers."
- Edward Fynes European History 1870-1966"

The Trotskyist's only answer is sheer invention.

Firstly the Kronstadt sailors were neither Whites nor anarchists.

Secondly "written evidence" would mean a primary not a secondary source (rather obviously).

Thirdly a search for "Edward Fynes" produces nothing fitting the description of historian.

Obviously this piece of muck spreading is an attempt to dodge the issue, even if this silly lie were true - it would make little difference as the only people claiming to stand lock, stock and barrel in the tradition of a politican organisation of early 20 Cth Russia are the Leninists.

Go on try harder.... the only counter-revolutionaries anarchists allied themselves with in this period were the Bolsheviks * .

While your producing some substance to back up your blantant lie, you might tell us who those 22 Imperialist armies were.

* Authoritarian "socialists" like the Right SR's were of course allied to the Whites.

Hello again Phuq Hedd!

author by Shane Kennapublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 19:22author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"was calling into question the accuracy of the article that she had presented for my viewing pleasure. I doubted (and still doubt) that it was a "passionate, radical and accurate retelling of the truth"

As do I doubt that your articles are a passionate retelling of the truth. It is clear that we both differ in our opinions. Thats democracy, you have your right to say so do I. I believe Trotsky to be a hero as goes Lenin, YOU dont thats fine. I dont fell that way about Baukunin, kropotkin or tolstoy, thats fine. You are welcome to your opinion about My heros as I am welcome to my opinion about your people. I am welcome to my belief in Communism and you to Anarchy.

So lets just leave at that will we...My fingers hurt from all this typing!

Finally when I said lets agree to disagree I said so with the intention of the above. E.G. That im welcome to my beliefs and your welcome to yours, so please can we stop this.

And at the risk of being portrayed as "anti anarchist" I am no i have respect for the AFI and the WSM. I firmly believe that they do outstanding work in the fields of anti racism and anti bin tax etc....

So please lets just agree to disagree and put the "handbags at dawn" down!

Related Link: http://www.socialistyouth.cjb.net
author by anarcho-syndicalistpublication date Wed Jun 19, 2002 23:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Why do we have to "agree to disagree"?What are the socialist afraid of?No,lets get all of this out in the open and debate the russian revolution or the spanish civilwar.It will be good for us as a movement!(and a mayor step forward for every debatescared socialist out there)

author by noticed somethingpublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 02:40author address author phone Report this post to the editors

only 3 people (anarchists) actually use this site.
do you do anything in the real world lads?

author by Phuq Heddpublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 03:05author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Shane,
this is getting ridiculous: I would have thought that you would be interested in explaining why Victor Serge is a credible figure and exactly why "radical anti-Stalinist youth" should all go out and read his biography now? Serge raises some interesting questions about the Russian Revolution and you are belittling Linda's article and your own website by refusing to deal with the substantive issues and instead resorting to accusations of attacks upon yourself and Linda.

Also, you are greatly mistaken if you believe that I consider Kropotkin, Bakunin or (gawd-help-us!) Tolstoy to be heroes. They are people that had ideas of varying degrees of truth and interest. Feel free to attack their ideas. I am very interested to hear someone else's perspective on why their ideas are (not)/useful.

Finally I would like to again extend my invitation to have the questions that I have raised in previous posts answered.

(ps. Hi Harry Pollit!)

author by Harry Pollitpublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:13author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Shane the case is that Leninism (the ideology of the Socialist Party/Socialist Youth) put into practise established a totalitarian state capitalist dictatorship in the Russian Empire.
If you cannot refute this what are you doing in a Leninist organisation?

This "agree to disagree" stuff is only like the Swimmers "why is everybody bickering" i.e. a way of avoiding debate.

Surely you would want to refute our arguements, if only to satisfy yourself that the SP path is a path to socialism (as ye think) not a path to the gulag. Kinda big question isn't it. Deserves serious consideration.

author by Bakuninpublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:30author address author phone Report this post to the editors

......................
/´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\....

author by Shane Kenna - Socialist Youthpublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:45author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Since you are so adament about discussing Communism and how us leninists are failures etc, lets take a trip down memory lane.

Following Bakunin's expulsion from the First internationale he setup his own....It failed. Anarchism took root only in Spain, in most cases anywhere else in degenerated into nihilism (BIG WORD ISNT IT HARRY POLLIT- MAYBE YOU SHOULD USE YOUR DICTIONARY.) Nihilism is violence for its own sake.

So please dont give me a lecture on the Gulags, they were stalinist in origin and in case you dont know as a Trotskyist I opposed them as did Trotsky.

Now quite frankly your replys are beginning to bore me...Its that simple...Everything is a repeat of what you keep saying above

author by Oliver O'Driscollpublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 13:49author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I thought the Anarchists were opposed to elctions. Is this a new policy or are you deviating from the WSM norm.

author by anarchopublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 13:59author email anarcho at geocities dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

well, I see that the points raised are still being ignored!

Mick writes:

"Maybe the anarchists arent interested in debate because thats how it seems"

This seems amazing, given that it is the anarchists who are proving most of
the debate here. Indeed, we are the only ones who are trying to discuss the
implications of Kronstadt and link it to wider issues. It is the likes of Shane
who wants to avoid debate, not anarchists.

Next we have "The russian civil war- written evidence that anarchy was white" by
"I beg to differ"

" the whites were a mixed bunch of ranging from SR's to anarchists and Tsarist Officers."
- Edward Fynes European History 1870-1966

And that is it? One guy's obviously extremely short summary of a complex historical
situation? Incredible. Fynes is clearly confusing everyone who opposed the Bolsheviks
with the "whites." Personally, I prefer this quote from the White General Denikin who
stated that the Makhnovists (i.e. anarchists) "the most antagonistic to the idea of the
White movement."

Or, perhaps, we can quote Victor Serge on black propaganda by the Bolsheviks. He
wrote about the "strenuous calumnies put out by the Communist Party" against
Makhno "which went so far as to accuse him of signing pacts with the Whites at the
very moment when he was engaged in a life-and-death struggle against them."
[_Memoirs of a Revolutionary_, p. 122]

Kinda says it all, does it not, that the latter day followers of Bolshevik repeat the
same lies?

Shane rejoins the discussion:

"As do I doubt that your articles are a passionate retelling of the truth."

As noted above in my previous posts, people can follow up the references used
on the anarchist webpages in our to check whether the accounts are truth or not.

"It is clear that we both differ in our opinions. Thats democracy, you have your right
to say so do I."

I'll quote Victor Serge here I think:

"Bolshevik thinking is grounded in the possession of the truth. The Party is the
repository of truth, and any form of thinking which differs from it is a dangerous or
reactionary error. Here lies its spiritual source of it intolerance. The absolute conviction
of its lofty mission assures it of a moral energy quite astonishing in its intensity -- and,
at the same time, a clerical mentality which is quick to becoming Inquisitorial."
[_Memoirs of a Revolutionary_, p. 134]

Given that he was discussing a period (1921) in which anarchists had been imprisoned
for having different opinions, I feel he had a point!

And given that I have proved a few quotes to suggest that Trotsky did not consider
democracy that important, what do we have to look forward to if "Socialist Youth"
ever gets into power?

"I believe Trotsky to be a hero as goes Lenin, YOU dont thats fine. I dont fell that way about
Baukunin, kropotkin or tolstoy, thats fine. You are welcome to your opinion about My heros
as I am welcome to my opinion about your people. I am welcome to my belief in Communism
and you to Anarchy."

Personally, I respect the contributions of famous anarchists. I do not hero worship them.
I recognise them as human beings and so capable of making mistakes. And I'm willing to
listen when people criticise them. I find it significant that Shane consistently ignores the
various quotes from Trotsky I presented which suggest he had feet of clay. But why let
a little thing like facts cloud the vision of the hero!

"Finally when I said lets agree to disagree I said so with the intention of the above. E.G.
That im welcome to my beliefs and your welcome to yours, so please can we stop this."

So, we cannot raise any subjects which make cause someone to question their believes?
That sounds quite religious, I have to admit.

"And at the risk of being portrayed as "anti anarchist" I am no i have respect for the AFI
and the WSM. I firmly believe that they do outstanding work in the fields of anti racism
and anti bin tax etc...."

Which is not the issue. The issue is whether we try and learn from history or simply
repeat all the same mistakes again.

Simply put, debate and discussion is healthy and the only way to push ideas forward.

Moving on "noticed something" states:

"only 3 people (anarchists) actually use this site.do you do anything in the real world lads?"

Ah, yes, now we come to the "slander opponents by suggesting they are not active enough"
fallacy! Really, why would anyone want to turn a discussion on important issues onto a
discussion of the activism of those taking part? Could it be because the person knows their
position is weak?

And what would be the kind of movement would we have if we take this advice? One
which did not have time to consider theory, study history, or even think. It would be
"active" but at the expense of thought and inquiry. I can see why that would be appealing
to those who subscribe to a political tradition with quite a few skeletons in their closet!

Shane now returns with his "Trip down memory lane" in an attempt to change the subject:

"Since you are so adament about discussing Communism and how us leninists are failures
etc, lets take a trip down memory lane."

Okay, in case you don't notice, Shane is changing the subject radically. This is his right, of
course, but at least first he could have answered the questions and points raised! By not
doing so, it suggests that his change of direction is simply an attempt to escape the very
questions Serge raised in his biography! What an insult to the poor man! Him a socialist
hero and all that as well...

"Following Bakunin's expulsion from the First internationale he setup his own....It failed."

It outlived him, unlike the rump of the First International which Marx shipped off
to America. Did it fail? Well, no, as it created the anarchist movements in France,
Mexico, Italy, Spain, etc. which are still with us today!

And what about the Socialist second international? That was a great success. Even
Trotsky had to admit that only the Bolsheviks were the only revolutionary party in
it!

And what about the Russian Revolution? When, that failed. By 1921 the Bolsheviks
were crushing anyone who raised the possibility of soviet democracy and were
residing over a state capitalist economy run by state appointed managers. How this
happened is surely is one of the most important questions we face. And yet Shane
does not want to discuss it and, as a Trotskyist, is urging us to try and repeat a
revolution which he does not want to examine closely!

"Anarchism took root only in Spain, in most cases anywhere else in degenerated into
nihilism . . . Nihilism is violence for its own sake."

Which, ironically, means forgetting the large anarchist movements in Italy, France,
Portugal, Argentina, Cuba, Mexico, Sweden, and elsewhere across the globe. I think
that the fact Lenin admitted that the anarchists and syndicalists were "quite revolutionary
and connected with the masses" is significant. Moreover, he stated that it was "the duty of all
Communists to do everything to help all proletarian mass elements to abandon anarchism
. . . the measure in which genuinely Communist parties succeed in winning mass proletarian
elements . . . away from anarchism, is a criterion of the success of those Parties."

For a movement which, according to Shane, "degenerated into nihilism" that is pretty
impressive! I wonder who gives a better picture of the truth, Lenin or Shane?

As for "nihilism," well I imagine that Shane means the period of "propaganda by the
deed" which occurred in the 1880s. This embraced a small minority of anarchists,
incidentally and anarchists quickly went back to Bakunin's ideas on working in the
unions and creating revolutionary unions. Significant, Kropotkin stressed this
approach as well, so suggesting that Shane's comments are simply misinformed.

"So please dont give me a lecture on the Gulags, they were stalinist in origin and in
case you dont know as a Trotskyist I opposed them as did Trotsky."

Actually, we were talking about the period before the rise of Stalin. In
this period there was substantial imprisonment of political opponents (all outside
the party). Anarchists went on hungry strike under Lenin, protesting their conditions
and asking for a trial! The prisons themselves were full of working class people.
Of the 17 000 camp detainees on whom statistical information was available on 1
November 1920, peasants and workers constituted the largest groups, at 39% and
34% respectively. Similarly, of the 40 913 prisoners held in December 1921 (of
whom 44% had been committed by the Cheka) nearly 84% were illiterate or
minimally educated, clearly, therefore, either peasants of workers. [George Leggett,
_The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police_, p. 178]

Then there is the question of party dictatorship, one-man management, political
police, suppression of strikes, and so on which occurred under Lenin and Trotsky.

Then there is the point that Trotsky did not oppose dictatorship by the party. As a
Trotskyist, I assume that you agree with Trotsky on this matter? Or was he wrong,
like the rest of the Bolshevik party? Significantly, the only Bolshevik member who
we know opposed party dictatorship (namely Miasnikov, a worker Bolshevik
far removed from the central committee) was expelled at the last party congress
Lenin attended. This occurred after Lenin had written him a letter explaining why
Miasnikov was wrong to advocate freedom of the press, association and so on for
the working class. Did this wholehearted support for party dictatorship have no
impact on the rise of Stalinism?

I find it significant that Shane has refused to comment on the fact that Trotsky
supported party dictatorship in the _Platform of the Opposition_. After all, this
was meant to be the "true" Bolshevik tradition fighting the evils of Stalinism.
That Shane cannot be bothered to even comment on the fact that this opposition
shared with Stalinism a support of party dictatorship says it all.

"Now quite frankly your replys are beginning to bore me...Its that simple...Everything is a
repeat of what you keep saying above"

Could that be because Shane consistently refuses to answer or discuss the issues raised?

And I find it amazing that someone can think it's a "bore" to discuss what, as a Trotskyist,
he must consider one of the most important events in human history.

But, then again, I'm not surprised. He has consistently avoided answering the points
raised by anarchists. In contrast, the anarchists here have consistently replied to the
claims made by others.

Related Link: http://www.anarchistfaq.org
author by Kommypublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 14:08author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Would the socialist party types answer the questions put to them in loads of comments above?
Shane, which edition of which dictionary describes nihilism as violence for its own sake? I had a quick peek meself and came up with the following:

ni·hil·ism Pronunciation Key (n-lzm, n-)
n.
Philosophy.
An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
Psychiatry. A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin nihil, nothing; see ne in Indo-European Roots + -ism.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nihil·ist n.
nihil·istic adj.
nihil·isti·cal·ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

nihilism

\Ni"hil*ism\, n. [L. nihil nothing: cf. F. nihilisme. See Annihilate.] 1. Nothingness; nihility.

2. The doctrine that nothing can be known; scepticism as to all knowledge and all reality.

3. (Politics) The theories and practices of the Nihilists.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

nihilism

n 1: a revolutionary doctrine that advocates destruction of the social system for its own sake 2: complete denial of all established authority and institutions
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

author by anarchopublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 14:08author email anarcho at geocities dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

from the original article:

"Trotsky was forced to take up his pen against the often contradictory and confused ideas of his old friend."

This is part of what Trotsky wrote in reply to Serge's
"confused" ideas:

"The very same masses are at different times inspired
by different moods and objectives. It is just for this
reason that a centralised organisation of the vanguard
is indispensable. Only a party, wielding the authority
it has won, is capable of overcoming the vacillation
of the masses themselves." [_The Moralists and Sycophants_]

In other words, Trotsky is stressing the importance
of party power *over* workers' democracy. As he
did in 1921, during and after Kronstadt. Whatever
happened to "instant recall" and "all power to the soviets"?

Related Link: http://www.anarchistfaq.org
author by anarchopublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 14:13author email anarcho at geocities dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

"I thought the Anarchists were opposed to elections. Is this a new policy or are you deviating from the WSM norm."

Anarchists are not opposed to all elections. They
are opposed to those elections which delegate
power, which are based on representative government.

We have no problems in electing and mandating a
delegate who acts as instructed and can be instantly
removed.

As is clear from anarchist theory and practice.


Related Link: http://www.anarchistfaq.org
author by Martan - Sinn Feinpublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 15:08author address author phone Report this post to the editors

>...but the Kronstadt sailors wanted the soviets to be dominated by the SR's and possibly
the mensheviks. This would my friend of lead to a return to capitalism...<

Wellll, that's democracy. In the election of 1917 the SRs won just over 50% of the vote,
the Bolsheviks under 25%. These figures are indisputable.

So who are the Social Revolucionaries exactly? I gather the had a common origin with the Social
Democrats (Bolsheviks & Mensheviks.) But that's it. Can anyone show me an impartial website concerning
them??

If the so-called Socialist party (or the SWP for that matter!!) ever had any appreciable support in this
country, they'd organise a coup, imprison half the population (the 'counter-revolutionaries'...) and
pretty much behave as Stalin.

Does Socialist youth believe in elections????

author by James Redmond - Socialist Alternativepublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 15:16author email antrophe at hotmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

'As long as Socialist Youth/Socialist Alternative travel along this road they are following in the footsteps of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin.'

I'd love to know why we're being dragged into this and being wrote off as a bunch of Cheka Apologists, being bracketed alongside Socialist Youth as sharing an identicle interpretation of issues like Kronstadt, the civil war and the collapse of the russian revolution is really a bit much to swallow.

Related Link: http://socialistalternative.cjb.net
author by Tom - nonepublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 15:46author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"the so-called Socialist party (or the SWP for that matter!!) ever had any appreciable support in this country, they'd organise a coup, imprison half the population (the 'counter-revolutionaries'...) and pretty much behave as Stalin."

Well when sinn fein get the money from their AMERICAN BIG BUSINESS backers and supporters such as sen. Peter King maybe they can organise a coup and KNEE CAP us all through their Millitary Wing. No wait maybe they can kill a few protestants to while their at it and line their feckin pockets too.

Sinn Fein and democracy thats a laugh. It should be refrained to SINN FEIN AND SECTERIANISM...SINN FEIN AND MURDER ETC....

author by Finghin - Socialist Youthpublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 16:49author address author phone Report this post to the editors


"If the so-called Socialist party (or the SWP for that matter!!) ever had any appreciable support in this
country, they'd organise a coup, imprison half the population (the 'counter-revolutionaries'...) and
pretty much behave as Stalin."

If you're being serious I think you are seriously mislead and simply do not know what you're talking about. Unlike SF and SWP the SP are opposed to terrorism, not because it is immoral or just wrong. We are not pacifists. We oppose terrorism because it plays down the need for mass action to change society and it plays into the hand of the ruling class. This has always been the position of the Socialist Party, in Ireland and internationally.
If any group in Ireland is to have a coup I think it would probably be SF judging on past performance and your attitude towards the need for mass action.

You say we'd behave like Stalin. What do you base this on? are you not aware that we are a trotskyist organisation and have always opposed Stalinism. Trotsky was probably the most outspoken critic of Stalinism. It was the followers of Trotsky and other likeminded people that were the most persecuted group in Stalin's Russia.

You asked 'Does Socialist youth believe in elections?'. We do not believe that change can come through parliamnet (unlike SF). We believe that it is through mass action by ordinary working people is the only way to radically change society. We do not however take an ultra left position with regards elections like some in the SWP and anarchists. we see elections and winning seats as a platform for our politics. At no time do we say to our supporters, 'Vote for us and everything will be better', our attitude is vote for us and it will give us more resources and a larger platform to work with working class people and fight for their rights.

I think some of the posts here are a bit childish, I would encourage everyone to be comradely and not too personal when replying to people.
BTW
Lets use the correct terminology Russia was not State Capitalist it was a degenerated Workers state. The concept of State Capitalism is vague at best and in my view a load of rubbish. I'd encourage people to read 'THe Revolution Betrayed' by Trotsky it deals with state capitalism in detail. There are also some articles on www.syucd.cjb.net

author by Harry Pollitpublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 17:14author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"You say we'd behave like Stalin. What do you base this on? are you not aware that we are a trotskyist organisation and have always opposed Stalinism. Trotsky was probably the most outspoken critic of Stalinism. It was the followers of Trotsky and other likeminded people that were the most persecuted group in Stalin's Russia."

Managing to blindly ignore the actions of the regime when Trotsky was one of the top dogs, as outlined above, extensivly.
Actions which included mass executions, prison camps, hostage taking, destruction of food supplies, and such like, all directed towards dissent on the left.

As for Trotsky's followers being "the most persecuted group in Stalin's Russia", aye right, it was all Trotskyists who died in the terror famines in the Ukrainne and Kazakstan!??!!
(events which took place when most of the "old guard" Bolsheviks were still in power).

Still waiting for a refutation of the above 30 odd posts!

P.S. Sinn Fein guy as the Social Revolutionaries did not spawn an international movement they have largley been forgoten. So I don't think you'll find a site, (except maybe in Russian), you're better off looking a writing about them in history books.

author by Phuq Heddpublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 17:33author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Hi James,
Sorry, I was the one that introduced your organisation's name into this and I did it out of ignorance. If you go to the Socialist Youth website you'll see a large frame to the left-hand side which is headed "-Socialist Alternative-". I assumed that this referred to some affiliation with Socialist Youth and in the absence of Position Papers on your actual website saw nothing that immediately contradicted this.

My apologies for jumping to conclusions: I don't actually know what Socialist Alternative's position is upon the necessity or otherwise of authoritarianism/party-dictatorship. What is it?

Cheers,
Phuq Hedd.

author by anarchopublication date Thu Jun 20, 2002 19:07author email anarcho at geocities dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Well, ignoring everything written before hand, a Trotskyist argues:

"You say we'd behave like Stalin. What do you base this on?"

Well, given that the suppression of soviet democracy, workers'control,
freedom of assembly, press and organisation for workers, and so on
all occurred under Lenin and Trotsky, I would say that we have firm
grounds to base such comments on!

Was it not under Lenin and Trotsky that the dissident old-guard Bolshevik
Miasnikov was first expelled from the party and then arrested? His crime?
Arguing for soviet democracy, freedom of speech and so on. And did the
Trotskyist Opposition not enter the same prisons which already held
anarchists, Mensheviks, SRs, and so on?

"are you not aware that we are a trotskyist organisation and have always
opposed Stalinism."

I'll requote the basis of this "Opposition" as it has been ignored:

"the growing replacement of the party by its own apparatus is promoted by a 'theory' of Stalin's
which denies the Leninist principle, inviolable for every Bolshevik, that the dictatorship of the
proletariat is and can be realised only through the dictatorship of the party."

Note the reason *why* they opposed Stalinism, because they thought it
weakened the "dictatorship of the party"! As such, they agreed with the
Stalinists on the key matter of party dictatorship. Some opposition!

"Trotsky was probably the most outspoken critic of Stalinism."

Yes, but only if we ignore all the rest! And those who consistently opposed Bolshevik
authoritarianism from the start, *not* when it started to affect them personally!

"It was the followers of Trotsky and other likeminded people that were the
most persecuted group in Stalin's Russia."

What utter rubbish. What about the millions of peasants who died? And what of
the workers subjected to the regime? And, of course, what about the political
prisoners the Trotskyists joined when the regime turned on them? In terms of
political groups, our comrade may be right -- but only because all the rest of
the political groups (anarchists, left-SRs and so on) were already in jail and
had been since Lenin and Trotsky!

"You asked 'Does Socialist youth believe in elections?'. We do not believe that
change can come through parliamnet (unlike SF)..."

So there would be no elections after the revolution? Given that the question of
Kronstadt revolves around the question of whether a "revolutionary" government
would allow workers free elections or not, I feel its significant that our comrade
does not address the question of elections post revolution. But, then again, as
I've shown, Trotsky always did argue for the "dictatorship of the party."

"I think some of the posts here are a bit childish, I would encourage everyone to
be comradely and not too personal when replying to people."

I wish that some Trotskyists *would* reply to the questions and points I and other
anarchists have raised. The sad fact is, that while anarchists have consistently
replied to every point raised against us, the Trotskyists have consistently
ignored ours.

"Lets use the correct terminology Russia was not State Capitalist it was a degenerated
Workers state."

In other words, use *our* definition of what Russia is...

"The concept of State Capitalism is vague at best and in my view a load of rubbish."

Actually, it makes much more sense that the concept of a "degenerated workers' state."
After all, the workers were still wage slaves, subject to one-man management in
production. Not much socialism there. But then again, that was introduced under
Lenin and to draw attention to that fact may suggest that Russia had always been
state capitalist...

However, I would agree that Tony Cliff's "theory" of state capitalism, which is sadly
the best know, is rubbish. But the other theories are much stronger.

"I'd encourage people to read 'THe Revolution Betrayed' by Trotsky it deals with
state capitalism in detail."

I would also recommend that work as it shows how stupid Trotsky's argument was.
For example, he argues that the means of production are owned by the state (and
so its basically "socialist") but (to quote Trotsky) "the State, so to speak, 'belongs'
to the bureaucracy"! So industry is own by the state, which is owned by the
bureaucracy... and so we do not have state capitalism! Incredible!

And what is striking is the total lack of analysis of the social relations of production
in all this. Its not surprising, really, as Russia had become state capitalist under
Lenin and Trotsky. If had Trotsky actually analysed in a socialist way, he could
not have helped but draw that conclusion, hence the nonsense in "The revolution
Betrayed"!

But, please, don't change the subject by turning this into a discussion of what Stalinism
was. Can we not concentrate on the important subject, namely what happened under
Lenin and Trotsky and how Kronstadt fits into it? We can all agree to be opposed to
Stalinism, the question is whether we can avoid doing the things which created it again!

Related Link: http://www.anarchistfaq.org
author by HS - Socialist partypublication date Fri Jun 21, 2002 01:59author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I only had time to read through about half of what is above, but I would like to make something clear. I am a member of the SP I believe we have a lot to learn from Lenin trotsky et all, from the russian spanish and all revolutions. I don't belive lenin trotsky or anyone else was a God, I don't believe any of them were infallible, also where trotsky had plenty of time to revise his views lenin didn't he died. How things would have turned out whether Lenin had lived we won't know, but I don't go for the individual thing much probably not much change, most likely the stalin faction would have killed him. But who knows its conjecture. How things would have worked out if the anarchists had led (if you'll forgive the word) we'll never know. Although if I remeber my history correctly in Spain the anarchists were part of the government in the Spanish republic alongside the communists, (anarchists can correct me on that one or inform) the point being they acted no different to the commies or poum or anyone else. In fact if they shared power they went along with it. (again I'm not sure on this)

But the point is I don't like being accused of being some sort of jackboot wearing leninist that wants to oppress everyone. This I am not I can tell you. The conditions of the revolution in russia (tsarism, starvation war etc) are completely different to what we have now, and hindsight is a wonderful thing. But again Lenin et all aren't gods and I or my comrades are not interested in setting up a SP dictatorship. Or executing anarchists. Which all the way through, and not for the first time you have been basically saying. This is simply a return to earth,

As for Kronanstat, I'm no expert but it seemed to be a military decision, I wasn't there though, and quite possibly it was wrong. But alot of nasty things are done in wars look at some of the carpet bombings against Germany in WW2. Still necessary.

author by hspublication date Fri Jun 21, 2002 02:10author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Sorry I have to come in on this one.


socialist party attitude to democracy
by Martan - Sinn Fein Thu, Jun 20 2002, 2:08pm

"Wellll, that's democracy. In the election of 1917 the SRs won just over 50% of the vote,
the Bolsheviks under 25%. These figures are indisputable."

Anyone for a referendum on constituntional position in NI? Or is democracy just what suits yourselves?

"If the so-called Socialist party (or the SWP for that matter!!) ever had any appreciable support in this
country, they'd organise a coup, imprison half the population (the 'counter-revolutionaries'...) and
pretty much behave as Stalin."

This is a bit rich coming from an organistaion that "executed" someone for trying to take a cencus. The socialist party has NEVER killed anyone let alone for their religion. Or ever considered setting up a coup or taking power undemocratically, unlike sinn fein.

"Does Socialist youth believe in elections????"
Yes we enter them. and we don't sattack rival parties either, (i'm talking about sdlp councillers)

In short do not lecture us about democracy.


author by hs - Socialist partypublication date Fri Jun 21, 2002 02:13author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Like all other genuine revolutionaries Serge of course made mistakes. As his period in exile and isolation in the 1930s and 1940s illustrated, these errors were sometimes of a serious political character. "

This came from the article, I don't think anyone noticed.

author by anarchopublication date Fri Jun 21, 2002 15:16author email anarcho at geocities dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

First we have "Socialist party and gulags etc" by HS - Socialist party

"I only had time to read through about half of what is above, but I would like
to make something clear. I am a member of the SP I believe we have a lot to
learn from Lenin trotsky et all, from the russian spanish and all revolutions."

Given that the anarchists here have been trying to raise exactly what lessons
they are, this seems rich!

"I don't belive lenin trotsky or anyone else was a God, I don't believe any of
them were infallible, also where trotsky had plenty of time to revise his views
lenin didn't he died."

And Trotsky was still arguing for party dictatorship in 1937!!!! He had plenty
of time and plenty of reason, but he did not. I think that is significant -- and
unsurprisingly, this has been ignored by the Trotskyists.

"How things would have turned out whether Lenin had lived we won't know,
but I don't go for the individual thing much probably not much change, most
likely the stalin faction would have killed him. But who knows its conjecture."

I would agree that blaming Stalinism on the personalities involved is wrong.
Its a question of politics, what certain parties argued for, how they reacted
(based on their politics) to certain objective conditions, how these reactions
affected the development of the revolution and so on. Hence the need to
look at the politics and policies of Bolshevism and how they handled the
problems facing the revolution.

"How things would have worked out if the anarchists had led (if you'll forgive
the word) we'll never know."

Actually, we can get some idea by looking at the Makhnovists. They did not
impose or advocate party dictatorship. Facing the same problems, they came
up with different (and better) solutions. see:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH5.html

"Although if I remeber my history correctly in Spain the anarchists were part
of the government in the Spanish republic alongside the communists, (anarchists
can correct me on that one or inform) the point being they acted no different to
the commies or poum or anyone else. In fact if they shared power they went
along with it. (again I'm not sure on this)"

The CNT members who joined the government did *not* act in the same way as
the Communists. The Communists systematically destroyed the POUM and
murdered both POUMists and anarchists. The CNT, for all its faults, cannot be
accused of that. And the reason why the CNT joined the government is significant.
They did not wish to undermine the fight against Franco and so co-operated with
other anti-fascist unions and parties. Unlike the Bolsheviks, they did not aim for
power for themselves.

While many anarchists (then and now!) argue that this was a big mistake, we do
not agree with Trotsky's advice on this matter:

"Because the leaders of the CNT renounced dictatorship *for themselves* they left
the place open for the Stalinist dictatorship." [our emphasis]

This was part of his explanation of why the "dictatorship of a revolutionary party"
was "an objective necessity"!

"But the point is I don't like being accused of being some sort of jackboot wearing
leninist that wants to oppress everyone. This I am not I can tell you. The conditions
of the revolution in russia (tsarism, starvation war etc) are completely different to
what we have now, and hindsight is a wonderful thing."

Given that Trotskyists consistently excuse what the Bolsheviks did, it would suggest
that when push comes to shove they will do the same again. And I should note that
as far as conditions go, Lenin stressed that both civil war and economic chaos were
inevitable features of any revolution. As such, any future revolution will face the
same kinds of conditions which plagued Russia.

"But again Lenin et all aren't gods and I or my comrades are not interested in setting
up a SP dictatorship. Or executing anarchists. Which all the way through, and not for
the first time you have been basically saying. This is simply a return to earth,"

Okay, first things first. As noted, Trotsky consistently argued for party dictatorship.
As the SP are Trotskyists, then please explain why Trotsky was wrong in this point
and why, therefore, you consider yourselves "Trotskyists"? Secondly, I'm sure that
if you asked Trotsky in 1916 whether he would shoot anarchists, I'm sure he would
have said no. Ultimately, we are being asked to ignore history and trust in the good
intentions of modern day followers of Trotsky.

"As for Kronanstat, I'm no expert but it seemed to be a military decision, I wasn't there
though, and quite possibly it was wrong. But alot of nasty things are done in wars look
at some of the carpet bombings against Germany in WW2. Still necessary."

Firstly, the civil war had finished. Secondly, it was not purely a military decision,
it was political. Kronstadt was calling for soviet democracy and was quickly labelled a
"White" rebellion. To hold onto power, the Bolsheviks had to crush Kronstadt, and
they did. Thirdly, I cannot help thinking that by justifying any means, you ensure
that the ends you seek are never reached. The "carpet bombings" were a war crime --
it matters little who did it. If we can only achieve socialism by applying the same
morality as the capitalists, then we will never reach it.

In "mistakes" by hs - Socialist party we find:

"'Like all other genuine revolutionaries Serge of course made mistakes. As his
period in exile and isolation in the 1930s and 1940s illustrated, these errors were
sometimes of a serious political character. '

"This came from the article, I don't think anyone noticed."

I quoted Trotsky from one of his articles in which he expounded on what he
considered one of Serge's mistakes. I'll quote from it again:

"The very same masses are at different times inspired by different moods and objectives. It is just for this reason that a centralised organisation of the vanguard is indispensable. Only a party, wielding the authority it has won, is capable of overcoming the vacillation of the masses themselves . . . if the dictatorship of the proletariat means anything at all, then it means that the vanguard of the proletariat is armed with the resources of the state in order to repel dangers, including those emanating from the backward layers of the proletariat itself." [_The Moralists and Sycophants_]

In other words, in the 1930s Trotsky thought that Serge was becoming too concerned
with working class democracy and not stressing the need for the "vanguard" to be
resolution in the face of all dangers, including those from the "backward layers of the
proletariat." The problem is, of course, is that *by definition* all layers of the proletariat
are "backward" compared to the "vanguard." As such, Trotsky is providing the rationale
for party dictatorship -- for which he argued for in 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1927, 1937
and now, again, in 1939 (at a minimum, that is just the years I have found him expressing
this opinion, they are probably more...).

Would some of the Trotskyists here please explain why Trotsky did this? And what it
means for Trotskyism?

And the "mistakes" and "errors" mentioned by the article, would these be the same ones
which Trotsky attacked Serge for, namely being less than resolute on the key ideas of
Bolshevism and arguing that Bolshevik failed because of its "excessive centralism,
mistrust of ideological struggle, lack of freedom-loving ('libertaire,' in reality anarchist)
spirit"? Or what Trotsky claims is his answer, namely "more confidence in the masses,
more freedom"? It is now, incidentally, that Trotsky goes into the rant I have just quoted.

So, easy question, was Trotsky in "error" or was Serge? If the former, well, the original
article is just plain wrong. If the latter (as the article suggests) where does that leave
Trotskyism?

Obviously, I will not hold my breathe waiting for a Trotskyist to reply to my questions!

Related Link: http://www.anarchistfaq.org
author by Spelling wiz - The spellerspublication date Fri Jun 21, 2002 17:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Anarcho, breath is not spelt "breathe." Perhaps you should open your junior cert english book and look for the right spelling. Because speaking and indeed writing a language is very important in todays era.

author by anarchopublication date Fri Jun 21, 2002 20:09author email anarcho at geocities dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

'Anarcho, breath is not spelt "breathe." Perhaps you should open your junior cert english book and look for the right spelling. Because speaking and indeed writing a language is very important in todays era.'

Now I know why the Trotskyists have not replied to
my comments, I made a few typos and spelling
mistakes!

Thank you for pointing out such a trivial thing as
spelling! I mean, you cannot expect a revolution
to succeed unless we all have dictionaries at the
ready!

:)

Related Link: http://www.anarchistfaq.org
author by The Spellerpublication date Fri Jun 21, 2002 20:47author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Yes a dictionary would allow the people to understand what you have to say. Rather than laugh at you.

Who said I was trotskyist, maybe Im an "anarcho" too....Then again maybe i have a life....Yes the possibilities are endless....

author by Phuq Heddpublication date Sat Jun 22, 2002 01:05author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Spelling Wiz wrote:
"Anarcho, breath is not spelt "breathe." Perhaps you should open your junior cert english book and look for the right spelling. Because speaking and indeed writing a language is very important in todays era."

Nice one Spelling Wiz! Seeing as you're going to focus on nitpicking pedantry ou might be interested in knowing that you should have written "in today's era."! By all means point out egregious errors that impede communication, but I think that anarcho's points have been very clearly made. S/he makes few errors and certainly there are none that confuse the reader.

author by spell wizpublication date Sat Jun 22, 2002 09:14author address author phone Report this post to the editors

His/Her points are far too long and boring for most. Most people dont even read them.

author by anarchopublication date Sat Jun 22, 2002 15:34author email anarcho at geocities dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

"His/Her points are far too long and boring for most."

Ever read _Capital_? :)

Or how abour Serge's "Memoirs of a Revolutionary"?
That is very long. Quite important, though...

Basic point, some issues need to be discussed in
depth. Sound-bites may work for politicians, but
that is not an example to copy!

"Most people dont even read them."

Wow, how did our poster know this? When was this
refendrum held? Maybe this is like the elections
for the "Constituent Assembly" under Lenin. In spite
of the Bolsheviks getting only 25% of the vote,
they rationalised it a bit and, suddenly, it was
decided that "most people" actually supported the
bolsheviks after all...

I'm sorry that political discussion on important
historical events can be lengthy and considered
boring. I'll try and tailor my comments to the
same superficial level the capitalist media
operates on...

How about this, "kronstadt good, Bolsheviks bad"
Does that make it easier to understand? :)

Related Link: http://www.anarchistfaq.org
author by hs - socialist partypublication date Sun Jun 23, 2002 05:02author address author phone Report this post to the editors

lads this is getting pathetic! Spelling!!!! what next, your talking shite, we are not wannabe dictators and thats all there is too it, you know it and I know it, your stuck in your own intellectual bollox, get a life!

please come back down to earth and stop talking shite. lets talk here and now not, we're all leninist dictators. today! goodbye.

author by Phuq Heddpublication date Sun Jun 23, 2002 20:11author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Writes that this is getting pathetic. I agree. So far "anarcho", "harry pollit", "kommy" and myself have asked for Socialist Youth to explain:

1 what lesson(s) we are supposed to learn from Victor Serge?

2 what do Trotskyists intend to do to prevent a repeat of the destruction of socialist revolution through party dictatorship?

3 does Trotsky bear no responsibility for creating the mechanism for Stalin's ascent to power?

So far the responses have been:
a. "anarcho's" spelling is no good
b. Trotskyists are not Leninist dictators
c. anarchists are White Russian anti-Semites
d. shut-up and stop commenting on articles
e. this ia all "intellectual" and not real world

I think those responses speak for themselves. It is very illuminating and probably confirms a lot of people's opinions about "Socialist Youth" and the "Socialist Party".

So, one more time, what are the answers to thsoe questions? Don't waste time attacking me personally, or anarchists in general. Just explain why it is that you believe that you should follow the beliefs of Trotsky and how this is going to help create a better world.

Thanks.

author by Despublication date Mon Jun 24, 2002 02:07author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The reason for some of the SR's ending up in prison was their collaboration with imperialist intelligence service's in an attempt to assasinate Comrade Lenin. What did they expect, a vote of thank's? Kronstadt and the events there, took place in the context of a civil war and imperialist intervention. Perhaps the reactionaries should have been arrested and put on trial but in war, these actions do take place.

author by hs - sppublication date Mon Jun 24, 2002 02:30author address author phone Report this post to the editors

here are some honest answers !!!!

1 I have never read victor s. so I will not defend him, sorry if thats no answer but I don't know the guy. Either way thats it.

2 To prevent a single party creating a dictatorship we are democratic, believe it or not but we are. We have no intention of setting up a one party state or derailing a revolution. All our leadership including JH are answerable to the branches.

4 You are putting forward a very un anarchistic argument here, if trotsky had never been born, or stalin for that matter the beauacracy would have come to power. Its about objective situations not individuals, but obvuiously trotsky failed. But then if trotsky had become a dictator instead of stalin (as he could have with the red army) what would have been the difference? (as he said himself), so its not about individuals such as trotsky or stalin and i'm suprised you put it that way. trotsky is not a god of the socialist party. you are putting forward very unanarchistic arguments so I presume you're trying to trip people up, because you seem to know what you are talking about.


"I think those responses speak for themselves. It is very illuminating and probably confirms a lot of people's opinions about "Socialist Youth" and the "Socialist Party". "


stop crying, i just asked for a debate on the sp here and now because i still haven't heard any critisim of us now and i would like this.

as for whoever said the k. sailors were anti jewish... ridiculas thing to say. kronanstat right or wrong happened for military reasons not because someone thought they were anti jewish, and that was a ridiculas argument and i won't defend it.

the point on intellectualism is again we talk forever about russia 100 years ago but absolutely no critisim about now and today. I have called for this many many times but its not coming. That is hiding behind history, no offence but i'm still waiting...

yours in respect and comradely
hs

author by hs - sppublication date Mon Jun 24, 2002 03:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

PS, on your last question, the reason i joined the sp is because in my eyes they were the most effective ( in fact I thought at the time the ONLY effective) organistaion on the left. They had led campaigns (even successful ones) and mass campaigns as well as getting someone elected. To me that was impressive so I joined. Until i joined sp I never came across any anarchists or any anarchist organisation. And 5 years later I think we are still the most effective party on the left and most likely the only one non political people will ever have heard of. No other party or group has impressed me then or since. But i have the upmost repects for the wsm I just think the fact of not going for elections is wrong, especially when they take part in referendums, which can often be less democratic, look at pakistan!!!! either way if we boycott elections we should be occupying workplaces and such, when thats not happening to boycott elections is sticking your head in the sand ( in my opinion)
well you asked and theres an honest answer
goodnight,

author by Phuq Heddpublication date Mon Jun 24, 2002 23:12author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It's a pity that you are not willing to talk about Victor Serge because that's what this thread is ostensibly about and it bears directly upon the present: it began with Socialist Youth publishing an article about Serge on their website which presents him as an alternative to Stalinism. That seems deeply misleading to me, especially given what this article has to say about Serge. It argues that Serge was someone who believed that only the Party could deliver Socialism and that any abuses that it chose to perpetrate upon the working class had to be accepted in order to achieve the desired end of Socialism:

" 'Despite its mistakes and abuses the Bolshevik Party is at present the supremely organised, intelligent and stable force which deserves our confidence. The Revolution has no other mainstay, and is no longer capable of any thorough going regeneration.'[29] It was with these words that Serge kissed the idea of freedom good-bye, and held up his arms in a shrug which said there was nothing better."

This /strong-mindedness/ in which socialists are willing to do evil to achieve good, justified by appeal to "the conditions of the time" and "wartime exigencies" is exactly where Leninists/Trotskyists/Stalinists/Maoists part company with Anarchists/Autonomist-Marxists. The last named group believes that the means very much determines the end. They believe that the "objective conditions" (which you rightly identify, hs) in the case of 1917 & 1936 were the ideology of Party Dictatorship which was espoused clearly by (among others) Trotsky, as detailed in the posts above by "Harry Pollit" and "anarcho".

So, we can see that mistakes were made in the past: that's the advantage of history. Now, do we learn from it and avoid the "objective condition" of authoritarian ideology or not?

W.r.t what's happening at the present, your thinking about the past will determine what you perceive. For instance you claim that the SP "led" the anti-BinTax campaign. Bit of a blow to all the non-SP activists and all the ordinary people that would rather puke than talk politics. I'd say that the SP helped in that campaign, but they didn't lead it.

You talk about getting an elected representative as though that were an achievement in itself. I am going to sound very negative for saying this, but I actually think that's a bad thing: elected representatives to a Representative Parliamentary Democracy encourage the illusion that people have some sort of control. It fosters passivity and dependence upon good people like Joe. What should be happening instead is fostering the independence and self-control that happens through self-organization like the anti-BinTax.

Other activities similar to this are the Old Head of Kinsale, Reclaim The Streets, Critical Mass. No one is "led" in these by anyone else. They shouldn't be.

I've not called you a jackbooted, Leninist thug, and don't wish to, but I am interested in whether or not you specifically reject those parts of Trotsky's writing in which he praises the idea of Party Dictatorship and whether or not you feel that he was wrong to play the leading role that he did in the Kronstadt massacre.

author by anarchopublication date Tue Jun 25, 2002 14:52author email anarcho at geocities dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Des writes:

"The reason for some of the SR's ending up in prison was their collaboration with imperialist intelligence service's in an attempt to assasinate Comrade Lenin. What did they expect, a vote of thank's?"

The SR's were a revolutionary socialist party. Ever wonder *why* some of their members
would seek to assassinate Lenin? Equally, were *all* members of the party involved in this
conspiracy? I doubt it. But the whole party was crushed -- along with other groups which
did not conspire with "imperialist intelligence" (regardless of the inventions of the Cheka,
inventions which Serge himself acknowledged in the case of the Mensheviks, for example).

"Kronstadt and the events there, took place in the context of a civil war and imperialist intervention. Perhaps the reactionaries should have been arrested and put on trial but in war, these actions do take place."

The civil war was finished. Imperialist intervention had ended a year before. However, as
a trotskyist you are meant to know that these would occur in *every* socialist revolution.
As Lenin argued. Now, if Leninism cannot handle the inevitable, then it should be avoided.

hs writes in "honest answers":

"1 I have never read victor s. so I will not defend him, sorry if thats no answer but I don't know the guy. Either way thats it."

Which is a bit of a shame. I would suggest reading some of his latter works as it does
give a critical insight into Bolshevism and its flaws (i.e. those writings which the
original article warned us contained "mistakes")

"2 To prevent a single party creating a dictatorship we are democratic, believe it or not but we are. We have no intention of setting up a one party state or derailing a revolution. All our leadership including JH are answerable to the branches."

But Trotsky argued for party dictatorship, by a single party, all through the 1920s and 1930s.
The SP are meant to be Trotskyists... I'm sure that if you asked Trotsky if he intended to create
a one-party dictatorship in 1910, he would have denied it. Did not stop him doing so -- nor
defending that action afterwards...

"4 You are putting forward a very un anarchistic argument here, if trotsky had never been born, or stalin for that matter the beauacracy would have come to power. Its about objective situations not individuals, but obvuiously trotsky failed."

The question is how political ideas and those in power react to objective situations. If you stand
for party power (which the Bolsheviks did) then the ideas of the party will shape the revolution.
And how it reacts to "objective situations." And given that these "objective situations" were pretty
much what anarchist predicted would occur in a revolution, we are left with the conclusion that
Bolshevism cannot handle the inevitable problems facing any revolution...

"But then if trotsky had become a dictator instead of stalin (as he could have with the red army) what would have been the difference? (as he said himself), so its not about individuals such as trotsky or stalin and i'm suprised you put it that way."

But Trotsky was already a dictator -- from 1918 to 1927. He was part of the upper elite of a
party dictatorship -- which he wholeheartedly supported! That is significant.

"trotsky is not a god of the socialist party. you are putting forward very unanarchistic arguments so I presume you're trying to trip people up, because you seem to know what you are talking about."

Not at all. Its a question of bringing to light the tradition Trotskyists place themselves. If
they are happy to name themselves after someone who practised and advocated party
dictatorship, well it makes the rest of us wonder about any claims in favour of democracy...

"stop crying, i just asked for a debate on the sp here and now because i still haven't heard any critisim of us now and i would like this."

Oh, so history is to placed into the memory hole? I would suggest that only people with
something to hide would argue that...

"the point on intellectualism is again we talk forever about russia 100 years ago but absolutely no critisim about now and today. I have called for this many many times but its not coming. That is hiding behind history, no offence but i'm still waiting..."

This is funny, given that this thread started with a posting about Victor Serge, a participant in
events of Russia 80 years ago! Now, why is discussing history good when it's the SP doing it
but not good when anarchists do it?

Now, are we "hiding begin history" in our attempts to discuss the events which inspired the
Trotskyist tradition? After all, the reason why many people are Trotskyists is because the
Russian revolution appeared to be successful. The SP want to repeat that success and apply
Trotskyist politics today. And yet we are told not to question and discuss those events?
Strange...

I wonder how we would react to a capitalist politician complaining that critics always talk
about what he did last time he was in power and that is stopping him getting back into
office!!!!

History is important. We need to learn from it, not ignore it. That is why the Russian
Revolution should be discussed. This does not mean ignoring current activism, but to
change the debate from analysing the Trotskyist tradition and the politics and actions
of Trotsky into one on, say, voting in elections is simply to ensure that (to quote a dead
German) history will repeat itself, this time as farce!

Related Link: http://www.anarchistfaq.org
author by hs - sppublication date Wed Jun 26, 2002 01:39author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"It's a pity that you are not willing to talk about Victor Serge because that's what this thread is ostensibly about and it bears directly upon the present: it began with Socialist Youth publishing an article about Serge on their website which presents him as an alternative to Stalinism."

I cannot debate a person I have not read (i am not unwilling), to do so would be extremely stupid. And I'm sure you would agree. The thread itself has moved much further than the original article, where I came in. This also goes for quotes, as you know quotes taken out of context are the easiest thing in the world to manipulate. I have seen people trying to prove bakuin was an anti semite using this tactic. (whether its true or not I don't know, but without studying a topic for myself I won't trust it) . I don't believe its dodging a debate, it is simply not making a fool of yourself.

In spain the anarchists seemed to be willing to kill also. They shot facist prisoners at times. I don't really buy this holier than thou thing. and in conditions of war i don't believe anyone is so good. especially coming out of ww1 a civil war for survival, not to mention the hunger etc, and the pure nastiness of civil war. hindsight is a wonderful thing toO.


"So, we can see that mistakes were made in the past: that's the advantage of history. Now, do we learn from it and avoid the "objective condition" of authoritarian ideology or not?"


Yes we can learn from it, but I do not believe we have an authoritarian ideology, you say that not us. We have a highly organised ideology but I do not believe for a minute we are authoritarian.

"W.r.t what's happening at the present, your thinking about the past will determine what you perceive. For instance you claim that the SP "led" the anti-BinTax campaign. Bit of a blow to all the non-SP activists and all the ordinary people that would rather puke than talk politics. I'd say that the SP helped in that campaign, but they didn't lead it."

We played a huge roll in the campaign, day in and out. And I didn't mean to take away from anyone else. But the fact is we did go out knocking on the doors and we did stick with it. And in all honesty there is no way people would have voted for joe otherwise. we took a leading part of the organisation and our ideas and positions such as mass non payment and going for the by election were debated and the majority went with it. The wsm have reports from these debates on their website, to say you led something does not mean you were the only ones or people followed blindly. just our ideas were followed and in that situation they worked.

"You talk about getting an elected representative as though that were an achievement in itself. I am going to sound very negative for saying this, but I actually think that's a bad thing: elected representatives to a Representative Parliamentary Democracy encourage the illusion that people have some sort of control. It fosters passivity and dependence upon good people like Joe. What should be happening instead is fostering the independence and self-control that happens through self-organization like the anti-BinTax."

The point about not going for elections is fine when we are occupying factories etc but in a situation where very little is happening socially it is crazy not to use the election tactic to try and get our ideas out. And it doesn't disarm people, do you think a single person didn't do an activity or strike because the SP got one TD elected? And they are waiting for this single td to save them. And if we got a bunch of tds elected I think it would act as an encouragement and not disarm people. We do not and have never claimed we would achieve socialism through parliment. Which is what most anarchists accuse of us saying (although you yourself haven't)
We have not stopped any of our other activities since getting joe and clare daly elected. Again it encourages us, gains us respect from many community activists, more people know we exist. And to be honest its a boost to our other activities. It does not take away from organising on the streets. Our campaigns and campaigns we work on such as the water tax are our election campaigns. If any critisism could be laid at us it would be we lost a month campaigning this year. But thats one month in sixty.

"Other activities similar to this are the Old Head of Kinsale, Reclaim The Streets, Critical Mass. No one is "led" in these by anyone else. They shouldn't be."

completely support them, but always had the feeling I wouldn't be welcome there.

"I've not called you a jackbooted, Leninist thug, and don't wish to, but I am interested in whether or not you specifically reject those parts of Trotsky's writing in which he praises the idea of Party Dictatorship and whether or not you feel that he was wrong to play the leading role that he did in the Kronstadt massacre."

no i do not support the idea of a party dictaorship. I do not think it is necessary today. a dictatorship of class in the old sense of the word, that is if the working class can come to power the ruling class will cease to be ruling class and should become workers (whether they like it or not) I support completely. I see no problem in having other parties or groups including anarchists and would like to see power residing as locally as possible in some sort of council or soviet system. You say that trotsky was a dictator, I simply do not agree, from what I have read I do not find evidence for this.

for kronstdat I don't know, I don't know the details or trotskys involvement. i will read up on it. Sorry for this answer again but I have a real aversion of talking shite about something I have only brief knowledge of arguing with someone who has obviously read a great deal on it. But I'm sure you will understand that I don't simply believe everything you say, after all you say you are an anarchist and opposed to us. So I prefer to study up these things myself.

I apprecite your answers and the fact you are debating rather than lecturing,
bye

TO ANARCHO


"But Trotsky argued for party dictatorship, by a single party, all through the 1920s and 1930s.
The SP are meant to be Trotskyists... I'm sure that if you asked Trotsky if he intended to create
a one-party dictatorship in 1910, he would have denied it. Did not stop him doing so -- nor
defending that action afterwards..."


Well we aren't I don't know what more I can say. we don't want or intend to try and set up a one party state.


"But then if trotsky had become a dictator instead of stalin (as he could have with the red army) what would have been the difference? (as he said himself), so its not about individuals such as trotsky or stalin and i'm suprised you put it that way."

"But Trotsky was already a dictator -- from 1918 to 1927. He was part of the upper elite of a
party dictatorship -- which he wholeheartedly supported! That is significant."

And what was the left opposition?

"stop crying, i just asked for a debate on the sp here and now because i still haven't heard any critisim of us now and i would like this."

Oh, so history is to placed into the memory hole? I would suggest that only people with
something to hide would argue that..."

I never said I would not argue history I simply added for a debate on the SP or cwi. Twice, i will ask again. PH has answered why can't you?


"This is funny, given that this thread started with a posting about Victor Serge, a participant in
events of Russia 80 years ago! Now, why is discussing history good when it's the SP doing it
but not good when anarchists do it?"

We've gone alot further than that. Your problem is you presume everyone who joins a political group or party has previously read everything lenin, trotsky, marrx bakuin et all have written first. It doesn't work that way, people join most groups and especially mass ones for work on the ground. If you refuse to talk to people on what they know but simply history which they have not read well, and refuse to debate on anything except what you know you have studied more and nothing else. This is intellectualism. Sorry but thats the truth. You are refusing to discuss anything else, others are when politely asked, and I have explained why I won't discuss serge. it is simply I haven't a clue about him.
This does not mean I will leave the socilist party, simply i will read him when I have time.

"Now, are we "hiding begin history" in our attempts to discuss the events which inspired the
Trotskyist tradition? After all, the reason why many people are Trotskyists is because the
Russian revolution appeared to be successful. The SP want to repeat that success and apply
Trotskyist politics today. And yet we are told not to question and discuss those events?
Strange..."

not necessarilly the only reason people join trotskyist parties. Question away i never said anything against that. Just don't expect to be believed simply because you said it. I'm a little untrusting for that.

"History is important. We need to learn from it, not ignore it. That is why the Russian
Revolution should be discussed. This does not mean ignoring current activism, but to
change the debate from analysing the Trotskyist tradition and the politics and actions
of Trotsky into one on, say, voting in elections is simply to ensure that (to quote a dead
German) history will repeat itself, this time as farce!"

please don't lecture me, i find you're tone extremely offensive. i have never once said history should not be discussed or the russian revolution, i find this last post extremly condesending. i'm not some 12 year old in a history class.


author by anarchopublication date Mon Jul 29, 2002 12:06author email anarcho at geocities dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

hs writes in "sp, dictatorships and elections"

"Well we aren't I don't know what more I can say. we don't want or intend to try and set up a one party state."

They why call yourself Trotskyists? Why follow people who set up a one party state and justified it? It seems strange, to say the least, to argue that you subscribe to an ideology and then reject the lessons that ideology claimed to learn from its experiences.

"'But Trotsky was already a dictator -- from 1918 to 1927. He was part of the upper elite of a
party dictatorship -- which he wholeheartedly supported! That is significant.'

"And what was the left opposition?"

The Left Opposition did not oppose party dictatorship. Quite the reverse. Let us look at its 1927 Platform.
It *attacks* Stalin for undermining the party dictatorship:

"the growing replacement of the party by its own apparatus is promoted by a 'theory' of Stalin's which denies the Leninist principle, inviolable for every Bolshevik, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is and can be realised only through the dictatorship of the party."

Now, what was the left opposition? A supporter of party dictatorship. Trotsky did not change from this position. He repeated this in the 1930s.

"I never said I would not argue history I simply added for a debate on the SP or cwi. Twice, i will ask again. PH has answered why can't you?"

I'm not in Ireland, so I'm hard pressed to comment. I've reviewed a book by the Socialist Party in Scotland who seems to take a similar position as the one in Ireland. It can be found at:

http://struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho.html

But, to be honest, this really does seem like changing the topic.

"We've gone alot further than that."

Mostly because the Trotskyists here seem to be intent on avoiding discussing the Russian Revolution!

"Your problem is you presume everyone who joins a political group or party has previously read everything lenin, trotsky, marrx bakuin et all have written first."

Not at all. I assume that anyone who joins a political group would take the effort to find out about the tradition they have just joined. I would also assume that the group would take the time to educate their members on some of its tradition as well. As the Serge article indicates, this is often done in a shoddy manner.

"It doesn't work that way, people join most groups and especially mass ones for work on the ground. If you refuse to talk to people on what they know but simply history which they have not read well, and refuse to debate on anything except what you know you have studied more and nothing else."

Funny, but the article which provoked this thread did not talk about what people are doing "on the the ground." Rather it was a historical article on Serge, which myself and other anarchists discussed. If it was an article on, say, a current struggle then we would have discussed the work people are doing on the ground. Quite simple really.
And surely the aim of the article was to spread to other people what they have studied? And so with the contributions.

"This is intellectualism. Sorry but thats the truth."

As opposed to anti-intellectualism? After all, that is what is being implied here. Don't discuss the past. Do not learn lessons from it. Concentrate on the present. Personally, I think such an approach will simply repeat the mistakes of the past.

"You are refusing to discuss anything else, others are when politely asked, and I have explained why I won't discuss serge. it is simply I haven't a clue about him."

I am not refusing to discuss anything else. I'm keeping to the topic of this thread, namely Serge and the lessons of the Russian Revolution. Sorry if this seems like "intellectualism" but personally I think its called sticking to the point.

"This does not mean I will leave the socilist party, simply i will read him when I have time."

Personally, I would say you have to evaluate a political party by what it does and the tradition it places itself. After all, if a party claims to be Trotskyist and inspired by the example of the Russian Revolution then that is important. If its members don't know much about its own tradition, I would say that we have a distinct danger of history repeating itself...

"not necessarilly the only reason people join trotskyist parties. Question away i never said anything against that. Just don't expect to be believed simply because you said it. I'm a little untrusting for that."

And I proved the webpages which provide the evidence for my claims. I think its significant that you have not followed them up. For example, what do you think of the quote from the 1927 Platform of the Opposition. Its pretty clear.

"please don't lecture me, i find you're tone extremely offensive. i have never once said history should not be discussed or the russian revolution, i find this last post extremly condesending. i'm not some 12 year old in a history class."

If you take it that way, I'm sorry. But my point remains. If you keep stating that we should discuss current activism rather than the topic being discussed, I can only assume you don't want to keep to the topic. That suggests not wanting to discuss history and in particular this topic. Sorry, but it does.

Ultimately, if a party posts an article on Victor Serge and the Russian Revolution and then its members refuse to discuss the topic, then it looks pretty bad on the party. Particularly when they keep trying to change the subject they themselves raised!

Related Link: http://www.anarchistfaq.org
Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2025 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy