11.09.2002

Any means necessary

Is a peaceful proletarian revolution impossible? David Moran still insists that it is

Well, what is there to say, comrades? How to counter such a crushing refutation, a piece of near-Swiftian wit, of near-Marxian erudition ('Peacefully if we can' Weekly Worker September 5)? I can only try, I suppose. Let us first clear up some formal points. I did not, and do not, damn "anybody who so much as expresses the desire for a 'bloodless revolution' as having the 'rank illusions of Kautskyism and treacherous social democracy'". Here is what I actually wrote: "Allowing, even, for the most favourable circumstances ... the resistance of the bourgeoisie ... will be such as to make any possibility of ... 'bloodless revolution' ... the rank illusions of Kautskyism and treacherous social democracy in general." It is, thus, the belief in the actual material possibility of a bloodless revolution, not the desire for it to be so, that is Kautskyan. As comrade Manson correctly points out, "The notion that communists ... would actually prefer a non-violent revolution is hardly a new one." Indeed, we are agreed, a peaceable transition to "a new social structure would undoubtedly offer highly important advantages from the standpoint of the interests of culture, and therefore those of socialism" (L Trotsky Terrorism and communism London 1975, p5). "But," as Trotsky rightly adds, "in politics nothing is more dangerous than to mistake what we wish for, for what is [actually] possible" (ibid). It is this that is to be combated. The passage which so exercises comrade Manson ("There is no possibility of ... a [peaceful] revolution. The [proletarian revolution], more than any other, inscribes upon its banners the dictum: 'Battle or death; bloody struggle or extinction'."), the passage which most perfectly exemplifies my wild-eyed fanaticism, is a paraphrase of Marx's famous conclusion to The poverty of philosophy: "... on the eve of each general reconstruction of society the last word of social science will ever be: 'Combat or death; bloody struggle or extinction. It is thus the question is irresistibly put'" (K Marx The poverty of philosophy New York 1995, pp190-191). Perhaps Marx too was inspired by "the desire ... to portray [himself] as the upholder of revolutionary purity", perhaps he too spoke with "all the certainty - and all the folly - of a religious zealot"? Perhaps. Indeed, there would be nothing inherently wrong in holding to such an opinion. I, however, do not. Rather, I hold that Marx's words were informed by the terrible and bloody histories of the English civil war, the American and French revolutions, and the 1830 Paris uprising. To which cruel litany we may now add 1848, the American civil war (to which we shall return later), the Paris Commune, Russia, Hungary, Germany, Austria, Finland, China, Spain, and so on. It is the sober, and sobering, recapitulation of this history that has led me, with Trotsky, to conclude that there is no "other way of carrying mankind forward than that of setting up always the revolutionary violence of the progressive class against the conservative violence of the outworn classes" (L Trotsky Terrorism and communism London 1975, p3). Comrade Manson intimates that my last piece was an "outburst" provoked by the adoption of the new 'What we fight for' column. Not so. When the PCC published its draft, and asked for comments, amendments and suggestions, I emailed centre with suggestions - some merely formal, others more substantial. The final draft was published. Then, as now, I was critical of the new column and I expressed this privately to comrades, in emails, in letters, in conversation, and so on. At this point, I regarded the "peacefully if we can" clause as an unfortunate, and quite pointless, ambiguity. Pointless, but not dangerous: in the parlance of my last piece, it was merely "a rotten seed". At any rate, I did not yet consider it a matter so serious as to make public criticism necessary. Only when this seed bore fruit - the letter from Debashis Dey (Weekly Worker July 25) - was I moved to write. My response, in fact, is not knee-jerk, is not an "outburst". It is a considered response. I waited for my doubts to be confirmed before I spoke out publicly. On this issue, I might say that, on the whole, I regard the new WWFF column as a vast improvement on the previous version: what was unnecessary or outdated has been removed; much that was missing has now been included. Much reference is made to Marx in comrade Manson's piece. We may speculate that this is an attempt to appear orthodox in his denial of the necessity of revolutionary violence. The comrade states that "Karl Marx himself considered that the working class in Britain, having elected a Chartist majority, would be able to take power with little resistance, owing to the lack of any standing army or centralised 'body of armed men' in the 19th century." In my last piece, I wrote that comrade Manson could "be accused, at least, of a cheap, sleight-of-hand method of debate". I'm afraid, comrades, that I must state this charge again. Marx, it is true, concluded that "in Europe at least, England is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful and legal means" (F Engels, preface to English edition, K Marx Capital Vol 1, London 1990, p113). However, he "certainly never forgot to add that he hardly expected the English ruling classes to submit, without a 'pro-slavery rebellion', to this peaceful and legal revolution" (ibid). Perhaps, however, by this "pro-slavery rebellion" Marx meant a small-scale affair, the "little resistance" comrade Manson says Marx expected? And, thus, my charge against him is baseless, a calumny? Unfortunately for comrade Manson, "pro-slavery rebellion", as I'm certain he is aware, was the term Marx and Engels usually used to refer to the American civil war. That is, a conflict that lasted just under four years and claimed more than 600,000 lives. I cannot speak for other comrades, but I fail to see how this amounts to "little resistance". It seems to me, rather, that "Karl Marx himself considered" that "the armed forces of capitalism will inevitably have to be taken on in a full-scale civil war" (I am not, of course, suggesting that Marx expected an actual repetition of the American civil war, but he obviously thought the analogy apt). Lenin, as the comrade correctly states, from March to July 1917, regarded the peaceful development of Russian Revolution as a definite possibility. Was Lenin correct? Let us say frankly: he was not. The Russian Revolution, as with all previous social revolutions, proceeded along the well-worn, and we may say unfortunate, path of armed uprising, violence and civil war. Comrades, I hope, will forgive my recourse to historical narrative. From May to July the seizure of power was not on the order of the day. The Bolsheviks were in the minority and the SR-Menshevik soviets were at every turn serving to prop up the provisional government. Nevertheless, the soviets (despite the executive committee) were defying Lvov, Guchkov and later Kerensky. No order of the provisional government was carried out unless it was sanctioned by the soviets. But to abrogate a few orders is not to abrogate the provisional government, with Russian capitalism itself, and invest all power in the workers' soviets (that is, to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat). So long as the soviets kept themselves within the bounds of the bourgeois order, they did not in essence contradict the interests of imperialism and the bourgeoisie would not actively seek their dissolution (indeed, why would it?). Moving further to the left, electing a greater and greater number of Bolshevik deputies, the soviets more and more began to oppose the essentials of imperialist policy (most importantly, the continuation of the war). That is, they began to pose clearly the question, 'Who is to rule? The workers? Or the capitalists?' Bourgeois opposition to the soviets - which was, of course, always latent - began to assume a definite form. The suppression of the Bolsheviks in July was the first concrete manifestation of this trend. Flushed with the success of suppressing the militant wing, the bourgeoisie began to strive after the complete dissolution of the soviets (and, in fact, the Kerensky cabinet as well). Thus the Kornilov revolt (carried out with the full complicity of the Cadets). Even after the debacle of September - where the state of forces available to the Russian bourgeoisie were shown up for the meagre handful they were - the bourgeoisie did not, and indeed could not, reconcile itself to the peaceful victory of the workers. In October Kerensky closed down the offices of Soldat and Rabochi Put and, proving unable to dissolve the Soviet Congress, fled to gather troops to lead against Petrograd. In the meantime, of course, the insurrection had conquered, seized the capital, and handed all power to the soviets, almost without a shot being fired. On October 29 (old-style), the Cossacks of Krasnov, Kerensky, and Savinkov occupied Tsarskoye Selo and Gatchina (not 20 miles from Petrograd). The same day, the Petrograd junkers staged their uprising. More than 100 Red Guards and soldiers were killed (see J Reed Ten days that shook the world London 1937, p183). All the while, Moscow still had not fallen to the workers, and the insurrection there had become a protracted and bloody series of battles. The Moscow Committee for Public Safety did not surrender until November 2 - after it had claimed the lives of more than 500 red workers. The struggle in Kazan was likewise drawn out. Where is comrade Manson's "peaceful, bloodless, revolution"? In the month of October alone, there were at least 1,000 dead workers (certainly there were no less). Comrade Manson insists that to state, "never again could circumstances arise where the bourgeoisie will be unable to forcibly resist the taking of power by the proletariat" is to indulge in little more than "unscientific dogma". I would go further: it would be a positive hallucination. Or, perhaps, comrade Manson can show us all the quintessential bloodless revolution he has in mind? It is not, surely, the Russian? We are, of course, not Nietzscheans - or Stoics for that matter: history does not repeat itself exactly, but this is hardly the point. You are right, comrade: it is a question of degree. The degree to which the institutions of bourgeois state power have ceased to function. Certainly, we can expect to see a great breakdown, but their dissolution prior to the seizure of power by the workers? February dissolved the Russian state (or, at least, its "bodies of armed men"). We do not have this luxury. We are not theologians either, bowing and scraping before sacred texts; the words of Lenin are not holy, inviolable. We can recognise what is living and what is dead, what the march of events has trampled underfoot and, fortunately, so could Lenin. Further, comrade Manson asks why it is "impossible for [the bourgeoisie] ... to be faced with a power that is so overwhelming that they will not be able to resist effectively at all?" Leaving aside the slippery clause of 'effective' resistance (comrade Manson is far too willing to trade clarity - though this may be uncomfortable - for catch-all ambiguity: What does 'effective resistance' actually mean?), I will say that, obviously, I do not, and cannot, know the future with 100% certainty. The most that I - as a Marxist - can do is to base myself on sound historical analysis. Never before has such a situation arisen and I do not expect it to in the future. In writing that "the proletarian dictatorship is the ... destruction of bourgeois democracy as a whole", I betray, apparently, "a misunderstanding of the nature of so-called 'bourgeois democracy'". First, let us be clear: present-day democracy is bourgeois democracy (I don't know what is "so-called" about this statement - it is part of the Marxist ABC). What is the nature of this democracy? Bourgeois democracy is a sham. It is a false and hypocritical set of merely formal rights that, by the very nature of capitalist private property, the workers have no possibility of actually enjoying. It is "a paradise for the rich and a snare and deception for the exploited" (VI Lenin, 'Proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky', in On soviet socialist democracy Moscow 1977, p62). The formal right to the free press, the formal right of free assembly, the formal right to strike. Are we able to realise them? No, because "... in practice the capitalists ... own nine-tenths of the best meeting halls, and nine-tenths of the stocks of newsprint, printing presses, etc. The ... workers ... are, in practice, debarred from democracy by the 'sacred right of property' ... The present 'freedom of assembly and the press' ... is false ... it is freedom for the rich to keep as their 'property' the ... best buildings, printing presses and the stocks of newsprint" (VI Lenin, 'Democracy and dictatorship' ibid pp106-107). It is this that constitutes the chimerical edifice of bourgeois democracy. Comrade Manson says that we must extend, deepen and give substance to bourgeois democracy. But it is impossible to "give substance" to bourgeois democracy. In giving it substance - that is, by making its formal rights realisable for the majority - it is destroyed, transcended - and becomes real, proletarian democracy. It will be among the most immediate tasks of the workers' dictatorship to expropriate the meeting halls, printing presses, etc and place them, for the first time, at the disposal of the majority; thereby giving "substance" to bourgeois democracy. In this manner it is replaced by proletarian democracy. It is clear from all this that if I "misunderstand" the nature of bourgeois democracy, I share this unfortunate defect in my Marxism with Lenin, who also, it would seem, indulged in "the anarchist method". My assertion that the workers' dictatorship would deny the bourgeoisie even formal democratic rights, was, of course, predicated on resistance to the socialist revolution. It too is entirely in the spirit of the Leninist tradition: "... should you exploiters offer resistance to our proletarian revolution, we shall turn you into pariahs and mercilessly suppress you; we shall do more than that: we shall not give you any bread, for in our proletarian republic the exploiters will have no rights ..." (quoted in D Shub Lenin Harmondsworth1971, p443). Further, as comrade Manson correctly states, the bourgeoisie has not conceded democratic rights - even the sham, purely formal rights of bourgeois democracy - willingly. Rather, they have had to be fought for and won by the working class. All true, of course. But, does comrade Manson not see the mess he has landed himself in? The struggle even for these was a bloody one (none of us, surely, have forgotten Peterloo?) and yet he speculates that a class not willing to concede even the right to free assembly without exacting a blood price, could, maybe, possibly (the comrade himself adds so many qualifications), stand aside and passively accept its expropriation! This is absolutely ludicrous. It is also clear that comrade Manson views the repressive tasks of the workers' state far too narrowly. Even if we grant that it will be unnecessary to forcibly suppress counterrevolution, it will remain a necessity to clamp down, and mercilessly, on all incidents of insubordination against the workers' republic. Revolution directly implies the breakdown of the old authority, the smashing of the bourgeois state, its 'bodies of armed men'. All the scum elements engendered by capitalist society - pimps, thieves, gangsters of all kinds - cannot but raise their heads at such a time. In its first months the workers' state will inevitably be shaky - a class raising itself from nothing to the heights of state power is bound to take its first steps tentatively. At such a time the workers must stamp their authority with revolutionary boldness: "There is not a single great revolution in history that has not realised [that they must use an iron hand against such elements] ... and did not show salutary firmness by shooting thieves on the spot" (VI Lenin, 'The immediate tasks of the soviet government' in On soviet socialist democracy Moscow1977, p48). We are told, also, that I fail "to recognise that there is a connection between the kind of future we achieve and the way we fight for it". Can it be that we have reached the heart of the matter? Is my crime, perhaps, that I separate means and ends? I do not, of course, say that everything is permissible. We cannot arrive at communist society by deceiving the working class, or sugar-coating the truth, for example. Merely that whatever leads to the victory of the workers, to socialism, to communism, is justified and necessary. In conclusion, I stand with that other "zealot", Lenin: "... only mealy-mouthed petty bourgeois and philistines can dream - deceiving thereby both themselves and the workers - of overthrowing capitalist oppression without a long and difficult process of suppressing the resistance of the exploiters" (VI Lenin, 'Democracy and dictatorship' ibid p108).