Class Violence and Revolutionary Terror
Submitted by jas4500 on Sat, 2011-10-15 20:41
First off, I understand fully the controversial nature of this subject within all groups of anticapitalist revolutionaries, but it is one that I have been ignoring. I've run in to a lot of things talking about Cheka terror and from some on the Communist Left support for terror. I have to agree with the ICC that violence should be minimal. I'd like to discuss this.
Forum:
ICT sections
User login
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Why don’t you ask the ICC
Why don't you ask the ICC this same question jas? .
I know where the ICC stands
I know where the ICC stands on this, but I want to see the ICT's position on this.
The ICT have never discussed
The ICT have never discussed the issue although in the early days of the Communist left in Britain it was discussed in the debates we had on the period of transition. I think these debates were also dealt with in the International Conferences (1977-80).
The ICC position, if I recall it correctly, is a set of well-meaning platitudes (no violence between proletarians and the State will be some separate body which will do all the nasty dirty things that the class struggle will entail in the fight against the ruling class and the capitalist mode of production and then the working class will abolish it - but a state means the real power so I don't see how this could happen). These don't seem very realistic to us (but in advance of a real revolution platitudes or hypotheses may be all we have). The class struggle will entail things that we perhaps don't want to contemplate at all. We all want a nice non-violent clean revolution but the history of the class struggle suggests that is not going to happen. I personally could not sanction the death penalty (institutionalised murder) against anyone. Every time we renege on that we go backwards. However the Bolsheviks started off by releasing reactionaries on the simple promise that they would not take up arms against the working class (a policy defended by both Trotsky and Lenin). Within a month (the same month that the Cheka was formed) they had formed White armies backed by the imperialist powers.
Our stated view (CWO c. 1977) is that if the working class does have to establish extraordinary bodies to tackle counter-revolutionary sabotage then these should be under the control of the class wide organs, not a party nor an executive. The class wide bodies (soviets if you like) will be semi-statist as long as the struggle to destroy the bourgeois state is ongoing. Soviets are the best thing we have so far discovered which can be semi-statist organs, i.e. they can carry out the work of the physical suppression of capitalism, and then morph into mere administrators of a new mode of production precisely because they are directly accountable and recallable by the working class as a whole. The real issue is the class consciousness of the proletariat as whole. The more there is active participation of the entire class the less any such bodies become necessary as the spaces for violence against the class will be more limited. We will know things are starting to go wrong when someone starts arguing that specialist bodies should account only to a committee or one person.
Interesting. I am going to
Interesting.
I am going to say minimal violence sounds fine, but could still mean a lot of violence.
Scaring the forces of reaction by killing some may well be a long term lifesaver.
I must admit I am sitting on a long, bitter, pile of accumulated resentment, a lot of hate that is not healthy, that goes back to my early years, some of which is to do with family problems, racism etc which I have since integrated into a coherent view via communism.
Part of me wants to say unleash hell on the ruling class, devastate them. Another part of me says somthing like Cleish says. I'm not an animal. They have sons and daughters, no individual is responsible for an entire social system.
However I wouldn't rule anything out. Worker violence against worker is not a threshold never to cross. The SCAB is not to be tolerated.
............
One of the points Cleish and I have debated is the role of violence in recent times. Looks like the Rome protest is the latest chapter. I wouldn't say it was all bad. It gets attention. People see something happening on TV etc. Would peaceful protests raise any level of interest?
Negatives are there. Some people will be afraid, the State will pose as guardian of order.
I personally would not engage in acts of violene and destruction, the stunts of the black clad mob, but I can see why such graphic 'propaganda by the deed' could wake the interest of a bigger mass whose methods of struggle could be far more effective on the industrial terrain that could really hurt the class enemy and escalate into a challenge for power that is more than merely symbolic window smashing.
Perhaps this expresses the perspective,
Non credo sia corretto tirare fuori sempre questo fantomatico “black bloc” ogni volta che in piazza scoppia qualche casino, si rompe la vetrina di qualche banca o si spacca l’insegna di un’agenzia interinale. Indipendentemente dal fatto che sia una pratica utile o controproducente, bisogna capire che la rabbia montante nella gioventù proletaria si esprime anche in questo modo, andando a colpire i simboli più evidenti del sistema capitalistico che si vuole distruggere. E gli infiltrati nei cortei ci saranno sempre, inutile farsi illusioni su questo. L’importante è saperlo e cercare le soluzioni per arginarli. Per esempio, uno straccio di servizio d’ordine.
“The ICC position, if I
This is a caricaturization of the ICC position however both on the question of violence and the question of the state however. On the question of violence the ICC basically has tried to extend and deepen the position defended by Rosa Luxemburg in What Does the Spartacus League Want: The proletarian revolution has no need of terror to achieve its goals, it hates and abhors the murder of human beings. It does not need these means of struggle because it fights institutions, not individuals, because it does not enter the arena with naive illusions, whose disappointment it would have to avenge.
The position itself isn't simply a well-meaning platitude, it draws a line between the violence the proletariat will have to use and terror, basically saying: The proletariat cannot resort to the organisation of pogroms, lynchings, schools of torture, Moscow Trials, as methods for realising socialism. It leaves these methods to capitalism, because they are part of capitalism, they are suitable to its ends and they have the generic name of terror.
The position on the state isn't like that also. The basic idea is that the state after the revolution is a necessary evil. This of course is a position developed from a syntesis of the opinions of Marx and Engels. As Engels says to his introduction to The Civil War in France in 1881 says: "In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another (...) and at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the victorious proletariat, just like the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at once as much as possible until such time as a generation reared in new, free social conditions is able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap heap." The state, again as Engels says, is a separate body formed by a fraction of the ruling class free from and above civil society - this is one of its defining characteristics - and this even if it is a semi-state, formed after the workers taking of power. So the state does not do all the nasty things while the workers keep their hands clean, however it is a separate organ of class repression, as Engels himself defines it, and a necessary evil which will be abolished as there are no classes left to repress. What the ICC positions adds to all this is that this necessary evil, this organ of class oppression which aims nothing but the preservation of the current conditions whatever they are, is a body which by its very nature is conservative, and as the experience of the Russian revolution has demonstrated, can very quickly turn into the nest of the counter-revolution. So the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the workers councils has to be ever vigilant over the semi-state also: "_We’ve looked at the tremendous gulf which separates the transitional state -- which as Engels said is no longer a state in the old sense -- from all others; but Engels still called it “a scourge” inherited by the proletariat; he warned the proletariat of the need to be on guard against this “scourge” (...) The state is neither the bearer nor the active agent of communism. Rather, it is a fetter against it. It reflects the present state of society and like any state it tends to maintain, to conserve the status quo. The proletariat, the subject of the social transformation, forces the state to act in the direction it wants to go. It can only do this by controlling it from within and dominating it from outside, by depriving it of as many of its functions as possible, thus actively ensuring the process of its withering away._" (en.internationalism.org)
From the 1 September 1918
From the 1 September 1918 edition of the Bolshevik newspaper, Krasnaya Gazeta: “We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as much as possible.”
Excerpt from an interview with Felix Dzerzhinsky published in Novaia Zhizn on 14 July 1918.
“We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution.Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal's own confession.”
...............
Excerpts from V.I. Lenin, “The Lessons of the Moscow Uprising” (1906)
“We should have taken to arms more resolutely, energetically and aggressively; we should have explained to the masses that it was impossible to confine things to a peaceful strike and that a fearless and relentless armed fight was necessary. And now we must at last openly and publicly admit that political strikes are inadequate; we must carry on the widest agitation among the masses in favour of an armed uprising and make no attempt to obscure this question by talk about "preliminary stages", or to befog it in any way. We would be deceiving both ourselves and the people if we concealed from the massesthe necessity of a desperate, bloody war of extermination, as the immediate task of the coming revolutionary action.... Contempt for death must become widespread among them and will ensure victory. The onslaught on the enemy must be pressed with the greatest vigour; attack, not defence, must be the slogan of the masses; the ruthless extermination of the enemy will be their task; the organisation of the struggle will become mobile and flexible; the wavering elements among the troops will be drawn into active participation.And in this momentous struggle, the party of the class-conscious proletariat must discharge its duty to the full.”
...................
Grigory Zinoviev declared in mid-September 1918: "To overcome of our enemies we must have our own socialist militarism. We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia's population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated."[9
The first official announcement of Red Terror, published in Izvestiya, "Appeal to the Working Class" on September 3, 1918 called for the workers to "crush the hydra of counterrevolution with massive terror! ... anyone who dares to spread the slightest rumor against the Soviet regime will be arrested immediately and sent to concentration camp".
..........
There's no easy way out. I doubt that we will get anything like ideal conditions, I do not think we can commit ourselves to any policy in this regard in advance. The ICC article seems to be saying that class violence is not terror. Well, I can accept that, but it appears somewhat academic. Apparently Lenin and peers did not define the two judging by the quotes I have just made, but it seems apparent that they were not concerned with detail here. Anything that moved in opposition was utterly destroyed.
Violence has to be in the hands of the proletariat not special bodies answerable to something other than the soviet. That said, the degree of violence is not limited by such a condition.
Not too sure what point
Not too sure what point you're making with those Bolshevik references. I assume they're not being referenced positively.
I’d like to make two
I'd like to make two points.
1) There is an important, although not so apparent, difference between the excerpt from “The Lessons of the Moscow Uprising” and the other references. Namely, the former is the only one that does not imply killing people out of combat.
2) All the other references are made to texts that were written after the bolshevik government had lost any kind of democratic legitimity (even with respect to the sole proletarian class), and it's no coincidence, since only a government of a tiny minority has to resort to terror in order to maintain itself in power. It means that a true dictatorship of the proletariat won't have any necessity of resorting to execution of prisoners, torture, summary killing, examplary executions, repression of not violent opposition and similar stuff. Nevertheless, I know that you (the ict) will hardly ever admit that the Bolsheviks had lost the support of the proletariat already by the first half of 1918, for that would undermine your defence of the subsequent formation of the third international with which you identify to a certain extent.
I think that I answer both
I think that I answer both when I say
I alo think that anything other than a Soviet dictatorship (i.e. Party dictatorship) is counter-revolutionary. But I am unsure as to the logic that
''a true dictatorship of the proletariat won’t have any necessity of resorting to execution of prisoners, torture, summary killing, examplary executions, repression of not violent opposition and similar stuff.''
I tend to think in terms of we will see what the situation dictates.
As for the latter aspect
''that would undermine your defence of the subsequent formation of the third international with which you identify to a certain extent.''
We are in favour of a revolutionary international, but the victory of counter-revolution transformed that third international into a capitalist instrument.
Well, I think I’d have to
Well, I think I'd have to add three things.
1) I'm not denying that the third international suffered additional anti-proletarion evolution since its creation nor that this transformed it into a mere tool of the russian capitalism. What I was saying is that already by march 1919 the bolshevik party was not an expression of any political power of the proletariat but an authoritarian ruling clique that imposed its will on a proletarian class, divested of all authority, that no longer supported it.
2) Of course, no one can tell for certain what course a future proletarian revolution could take and I was not making any prediction of that sort. What I pointed to and still am pointing to is the fact that the purges of the soviets and the manipulation of their election PRECEDED the beginning of the terror i.e. the widespread acts of arbitrary violence and barbarity which aimed to spreading fear (not earlier than July 1918). I think that there is some connection between the two things. I might be wrong, but it seems logical to me.
3) As well as we can't predict the exact course of a future proletarian revolution, we couldn't by no means prevent all irrational outburst of violence connected to such a revolution, since it would be perfectly natural and it is expectable. Nevertheless, the task of a revolutionary should consist in making efforts to influence to a certain degree the course of the future events. Consequently, since a dictatorship of an overwhelming proletarian majority over a tiny bourgeois minority does not entail resorting to terrorist activity (I'm not saying that it excludes it or that it can allways and in any circumstances prevent it), the task of a communist revolutionary should consist in calling for limiting the gratuitous violence as much as possible. From this point of view, the cited declarations of Rosa Luxemburg does have pretty much sense.
I’ve read again what I’d
I've read again what I'd written and I admit that perhaps the expression "won't have any necessity of.." is a bit exagerated, but this does not refute the main points I made.
I think I agree with you
I think I agree with you that the degeneration of the 1917 revolution meant that we cannot say that the actions of the Russian state, given that they did not flow from the principles of proletarian power, are to be emulated in the future revolution.
I am also very inclined towards a humane and 'merciful' path, but I think that the future will produce concrete problems we will deal with and we cannot bind ourselves in advance.
Leo Thanks for posting and
Leo Thanks for posting and hope all is well with you all. Obviously a couple of sentences on the ICC position is not going to satisfy you as a full account but you don't actually say anything different in your post from my "caricature". The quote you give in green or olive text above (which every time I click to copy takes me to the ICC site) deals with the Stalinist state terror machine and it is obvious that we are all opposed to that on this site. We are not talking about this kind of counter-revolutionary terror. The issue Jas asked about was about how do we deal with the question of violence and terror in the actual proletarian revolution itself. To say that in principle we must avoid violence is a platitude which we all share but we have to recognise that this is what it is. The problem is that even when we are an overwhelming majority the existing propertied classes are not going to quietly depart the historical scene. Take for example the Paris Commune which instituted a terror against the bourgeoisie in reprisal for the shooting of workers (in that epsiode 84 hostages were shot whilst 20,000 Communards perished). In very workers revolt the ruling class has instigated class violence first. And will probably do so every time. I'll post this and return later to the State question
Lets create a fiction. Post
Lets create a fiction.
Post revolution year one. Most of the world apart from the Americas quickly join a communist republic. Economic conditions are harsh, the new power is learning by trial and error.
However a strong fascistic ''Freedom and Honour'' movement with huge funding from the capitalist bloc strike terror on many levels.
Occasionally members of the organisation are caught and in return for information leading to capture of other members are deemed capable of rehabilitation and imprisoned with the prospect of reinsertion into society. Others, by declining to cooperate have chosen the death penalty.
Now, I am no mind reader, nor do I have a crystal ball, but instinct tells me the working class will take a very practical attitude to the death penalty. If it works, use it.
I do not think the death penalty is beyond contemplation.
"The man who repudiates terrorism in princliple, i.e., repudiates measures of suppression and intimidation towards determined and armed counterrevolution, must reject all idea of the political supremacy of the working class and its revolutionary dictatorship." Trotsky
I'm not sure on Marx, but this quote seems clear enough -
In his article, The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 136, 7 November 1848, Karl Marx wrote: “… there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means– revolutionary terrorism.”
Presumably the Italian comrades who defended Trotsky in the 1920's were well aware of his views on the subject,
in his book "Defence of Terrorism" (Terrorism and Communism, 1920) Trotsky emphasized that "...the historical tenacity of the bourgeoisie is colossal... We are forced to tear off this class and chop it away. The Red Terror is a weapon used against a class that, despite being doomed to destruction, does not want to perish."
Now I am curious as to when this repudiation of violence took place, and how come, if , as judging by the responses, Lenin was perfectly clear in his opinion on terror way before 1917, comrades who have stated that any possible contemplation of such measures must be rejected, would they also condemn the Bolsheviks and the proletariat who gathered behind them having every intention of applying terror.
According to Trotsky, Lenin emphasized the absolute necessity of terror and as early as 1904 Lenin was heard to declare "The dictatorship of the proletariat is an absolutely meaningless expression without Jacobin coercion"
Obviously there is something I need to consider herre, because I am out of synch with the ICT, so it seems, though I cannot say I have a definite view, I thought it prudent to retain all options.
Why the death penalty? The
Why the death penalty?
The question of the form of repression, or of its degree, of course, is not one of “principle.” It is a question of expediency. In a revolutionary period, the party which has been thrown from power, which does not reconcile itself with the stability of the ruling class, and which proves this by its desperate struggle against the latter, cannot be terrorized by the threat of imprisonment, as it does not believe in its duration. It is just this simple but decisive fact that explains the widespread recourse to shooting in a civil war.
TROTSKY TERRORISM AND COMMUNISM
Now to my understanding Trotsky of this period was a fine revolutionary, but I'll check my cwo pamphlet.
I am posting this on behalf
I am posting this on behalf of Shug who cannot access the site for some reason. If anybody else is having problems doing this (we notice a very high level of reading on this thread) we would welcome a mail to _cwo1975@btinternet.com_ and we will try to sort it.
Stevein writes: “But I am unsure as to the logic that ”a true dictatorship of the proletariat won’t have any necessity of resorting to execution of prisoners, torture, summary killing, examplary executions, repression of not violent opposition and similar stuff.” I tend to think in terms of we will see what the situation dictates.” The logic seems clear to me. The communist programme is liberatory, based on an understanding that we can create a better world, a world where all human life is valued. This doesn’t make us liberals or pacifists, we face a viciously violent ruling class – but we should sure as hell have a position on the reactionary nature of the sort of violence listed in that quote, rather than waiting to “see what the situation dictates”. You later write "we cannot bind ourselves in advance" - well I reckon we not only can, but bloody well should. I'm offended by what you wrote, and I'm a fellow traveller. You should consider how this comes across to a casual reader.
Shug
I’ve been trying to see
I've been trying to see historically what the Communist Left's position was on this issue. Other than Rosa Luxemburg no one else on the Communist Left seems to talk about this until the early 1920s, but it is more about bureaucratization and loss of power of the soviets, but these criticisms came from the Russian, German/Dutch Communist Left. The Italian Left didn't criticises it until 1926 during the Stalinist era. Also the Commisars, which were never really elected in Russia, except by top Bolshevik officials in the central committee, were never really criticized or talked about historically by the Communist Left. Class violence is necessary only when used against those who take up arms against the proletariat, it is also necessary for the liberation of the proletariet. If an elite police force is created it must be under direct soviet rule, the Cheka was created and controlled by the party.
I certainly accept, JAS,
I certainly accept, JAS, that ''bureaucratization and loss of power of the soviets'' cam under attack, but it seems to me that use of a harsh regime of tough justice, (and I doubt Lenin et al would have had any difficulty in refering to it as class vioence) was openly on the agenda from the outset and was not a Stalinist deviation or a product of a minority desperately clinging to power.
I agree with Soviet rule, but as that could be to all effects and purposes the vehicle for party rule, it does nt really resolve the question of death penalties, intimidation etc.
Let the dead bury the dead may apply here. I need more evidence before I agree in advance to not advocating terrorising and intimidating the class enemy.
I hate this system, hate what I have experienced, I don't regret marching behind the banner-
BEHOLD YOUR FUTURE EXECUTIONERS
through the most afluent part of London.
I’m offended by what you
I’m offended by what you wrote, and I’m a fellow traveller. You should consider how this comes across to a casual reader.
^^^^^^^^^^^
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth....
Many people in the world live under moral codes that are as harsh as we are debating.
I don't see the cause for outrage.
If some fascist attacked and killed any member of my family and I could find that person and kill them, perhaps I would. I really don't know.
NB Dear MI5 infiltrator I am
NB
Dear MI5 infiltrator
I am not advocating individual terrorism.
Leo Let’s try to see if we
Leo Let's try to see if we can understand each other on the semi-state question If the organ of domination after the revolution is not the workers' councils then what is it? To say that all the nasty conservative things in the revolution will be carried out by a specialist body is just shifting the problem. If you are saying that these bodies are outside the workers' councils then how come the workers councils will be in apostion to dispose of them once the world wide insurrection has succeeded? This was the question that Marc Chirik, the founder of the ICC, made us all (including future members of the ICC) ponder when he said in London in 1974 that the "proletarian state would not be the workers' councils". This is obviously a sincere attempt to find a mechanism to get round the contradiction of the need to suppress the bourgeoisie with the need open up a whole new world without oppression and exploitation (although he aroused more suspicion than anything else at the time). But it does not solve the problem and its vagueness only causes perplexity. Obviously future experience will be richer than what we can currently draw from past experience but on the basis of the only concrete evidence we have the counter-revolution inside Russia was aided by the failure of Russian Social Democracy to fully break with its own past. Thus when the Bolsheviks took over they formed a Cabinet just like the Provisional Government instead of letting the Congress of Soviets elect an executive responsible to it, this Cabinet by mid 1918 was a one party cabinet. Second lesson is that parties don't rule - the elected delegates of the wider working class do. This meant that when an organ like the Cheka was created it was nominally responsible to the Soviet but really only to Sovnarkom. Another error was the transformation of the militias into a Red Army - this really is a hostage to fortune since a centralised Army has the monopoly of force. The semi-state has to be the armed workers' councils and the workers councils have to oversee any bodies that have to deal with sabotage etc. Without such control the soviets will once again become mere window dressing and wither away whilst a new state takes their place.
And whilst dealing with the course of the counter-revolution can I also say to Unossu (whose thoughtful posts deserve a reply) that when he says "Nevertheless, I know that you (the ict) will hardly ever admit that the Bolsheviks had lost the support of the proletariat already by the first half of 1918, for that would undermine your defence of the subsequent formation of the third international with which you identify to a certain extent." You are wrong here. We don't know that at that point the Bolsheviks had lost the support of most of the working class but we have quoted authors who point out that the first rigged soviet elections in Petrograd took place in July 1918 (its in our consciousness pamphlet). We have also quoted Arthur Ransome in 1919 and 1920 where he found that the soviets still had life in them in 1919 but had become empty shells by 1920. The decline has to be seen as process and we only draw our current "wisdom" (as we like to think of it) by learning from their experience. In this sense Jas I think you are a bit hard on our predecessors who not only lacked the information which time reveals but only understood what was happening in bits as they begin to make sense of the whole counter-revolutionary process.
Re: “If some fascist
Re: "If some fascist attacked and killed any member of my family and I could find that person and kill them, perhaps I would. I really don’t know."
It seems to me that you (stevein7) confuse here two different issues - that of the action of individuals and that of the policies to be carried on by the revolutionary proletariat. If some one murdered a member of my family, perhaps I too would react in the same way, perhaps I'd suffer a serious psycological distress and subsequently kill myself or some innocent persons...But that is irrelevant. What we should ask ourselves is what the policy of a future revolutionary movement should be. Should it be a policy of blood revenge, of collective suicide, or arbitrary murders? I don't think so. Perhaps, we could reformulate the question in this way: If some fascist attacked and killed a member of the family of a revolutionary comerade-in-arms of mine and he or she could find that person and kill them out of combat, should I try to stop him/her? My answer is yes and my reasons are pragmatical. Namely, if we decided to tolerate individual revenge, it is very probable that it would become a relatively widespread phenomenon and eventually lead to indiscriminate and arbitrary killings, which certainly isn't a situation conducive to a more humane classless society.
Re: “And whilst dealing with
Re: "And whilst dealing with the course of the counter-revolution can I also say to Unossu (whose thoughtful posts deserve a reply) that when he says “Nevertheless, I know that you (the ict) will hardly ever admit that the Bolsheviks had lost the support of the proletariat already by the first half of 1918, for that would undermine your defence of the subsequent formation of the third international with which you identify to a certain extent.” You are wrong here. We don’t know that at that point the Bolsheviks had lost the support of most of the working class but we have quoted authors who point out that the first rigged soviet elections in Petrograd took place in July 1918 (its in our consciousness pamphlet). "
Well, I wasn't specificly referring to the rigged elections in Petrograd. I am not even completely sure that that information is true. What I was referring to is the ban of the other parties that had considerable proletarian support - the Mensheviks and the SRs, and it took place in June already. I understand that one could argue that those parties had supported the counterrevolution and resorted to violence etc., but the fact is that a huge section of the proletariat (and the peasantry) remained thereby deprived both of voice and vote. In my opinion, the right solution would have been the criminal prosecution of individual Mensheviks and SRs by popular tribunals controled from below. Anyway, since mid-1918 there's been no proletarian democracy (=proletarian dictatorship) of any sort in Russia.
Pehaps that is true, but it by no means assures us of the existence of a proletarian dictatorship (democracy), for its prerequisites - free proletarian press, free election of the workers' soviets, absence of unaccountable coercive bodies - were all patently absent. We can notice that in the early bourgeois parliaments and even in the cromwellian rump parliament - there was much life, but it doesn't make them proletarian dictatorship.
No doubt we can learn much from those events. Neither is there any doubt about the importance of the material conditions which determined a progressive inviability of a revolutionary popularly supported government. Nevertheless, the abandonment by the Sovnarcom of all actually democratic legitimation was a deliberate choice. The bolsheviks could have stepped off the government instead of purging the soviets, but they didn't. By abandoning proletarian democracy they ceased to be a revolutionary force, since a proletarian revolution cannot be accomplished but by the proletariat itself.
It seems to me that you
It seems to me that you (stevein7) confuse here two different issues — that of the action of individuals and that of the policies to be carried on by the revolutionary proletariat. If some one murdered a member of my family
Really you are correct, the example is not a good one to illustrate the problems of systematic class violence. I think I was trying to say that the working class in general is not necessarily outraged by harsh justice, but even so it is not a useful illustration of what we are debating so I accept your point.
However, the argument about what constitutes acceptable and inacceptable use of violence remains, and I do not think it is as clear cut as Shug is presenting.
Nevertheless, the abandonment
Nevertheless, the abandonment by the Sovnarcom of all actually democratic legitimation was a deliberate choice. The bolsheviks could have stepped off the government instead of purging the soviets, but they didn’t. By abandoning proletarian democracy they ceased to be a revolutionary force, since a proletarian revolution cannot be accomplished but by the proletariat itself.
I tend to that conclusion too.
What is, or should be, clear
What is, or should be, clear is that communists should have an understanding that violence (and I don’t mean clearly defensive violence) is a symptom of the shit of class rule, and we should have a position on it, as we do with the other symptoms of that rule. This isn’t idealism. Any future civil war will be bloody and messy, but communists should have a position that violence outside defence ( by which I mean revenge killings, torture and the rest of the horrors listed above) is both the practice and symptom of exploitative social relations and will impact on the revolution’s potential to succeed. I seem to remember the ICC writing in the past showing how often in history the class were reluctant to use unnecessary violence, in complete opposition to the ruling class. Strikes me this is something to be celebrated.
I second what Shug says, and
I second what Shug says, and it's not idealist that"the class were reluctant to use unnecessary violence" just because the ICC said it. In fact, reading recent posts on this forum Im beginning to think there's a lot to be said for the ICC and their persistent clarity. Stevein says above: "I also think that anything other than a Soviet dictatorship (i.e. Party dictatorship) is counter-revolutionary. But I am unsure as to the logic of that."
It's not the logic that's shaky here, but the statement itself which is completely wrong. Have we (you) learned nothing from the Bolshevik Party Dictatorship which not only led to so much violence (which you don't seem to mind) but which has provided us with such a vital lesson: that the party does not substitute itself for the class. And the class rules through the soviets:not through the party. And that there is a bureaucratic semi- state, which is not a Proletarian state but a system which takes it's orders from the soviets (councils) whilst in a continuous process of being got rid of as it outgrows its usefulness. There are three quite separate things after the successful revolution (1) the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (2) the Party and (3) the transitional ever-shrinking "state". Like the holy trinity (lol) these three are really one as they combine under proletarian rule, but have different functions in the process of bringing Communism into being. Violence will be minimal and only used against the bourgeoisie, and it's camp followers, when needed. The bourgeoisie, being by nature extremely violent, will doubtless be the cause of a lot more hate and butchery than will be strictly necessary. We must practice what we preach, however, and will not be capable of fostering communist society, if we take a lead from the bourgeois. So, we mustn't be afraid of non- violence when we can get it.
I made a mistake in the above
I made a mistake in the above post (this is one I am aware of, there may be more!). My holy trinity, whereby three become one in the proletarian dictatorship, should be as follows (1) workers councils (2) the party (3) the semi-state. These constitute the workers dictatorship.
Also, I shouldn't have said, or implied, that Stevein likes violence. Sorry about that. But he's still wrong in saying that the soviet dictatorship means i.e. the party dictatorship.
You quote me as if I was
You quote me as if I was unsure that the proletarian dictatorship would be a party dictatorship.
I wrote
''I also think that anything other than a Soviet dictatorship (i.e. Party dictatorship) is counter-revolutionary. But I am unsure as to the logic that”a true dictatorship of the proletariat won’t have any necessity of resorting to execution of prisoners, torture, summary killing, examplary executions, repression of not violent opposition and similar stuff.”
The class wide bodies exercise the proletarian dictatorship, your post is the ICCesque separation of DOP/SOVIETS/STATE (call it semi or transitional ) as separate entities.
The 'camp followers' of the bourgeoisie are presumably workers?
But he’s still wrong in
Read the Bordiga thread.
Let me spell it out.
The proletarian dictatorship is not a party dictatorship.
Shug wrote “I seem to
Shug wrote "I seem to remember the ICC writing in the past showing how often in history the class were reluctant to use unnecessary violence, in complete opposition to the ruling class. Strikes me this is something to be celebrated."
Agreed but we too have made the same point often enough. I gave the example of the Commune and the Bolsheviks release of generals locked up by the Provisional Government earlier. The debate though is about who (and how) we control the ones who wield the weapons in places where the ruling class don't obligingly submit to a majority of the working class.
I take it some of you have
I take it some of you have some regard for Karl Marx....
"[The working class] must act in such a manner that the revolutionary excitement does not collapse immediately after the victory. On the contrary, they must maintain it as long as possible. Far from opposing so-called excesses, such as sacrificing to popular revenge of hated individuals or public buildings to which hateful memories are attached, such deeds must not only be tolerated, but their direction must be taken in hand, for examples' sake."From Karl Marx, Address to the Communist League(1850). Cited in E. Burns (ed.), A Handbook of Marxism(1935), p. 66 or 135ff.
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels("Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849)
Submitted by stevein7
Submitted by stevein7 (editor) on Wed, 2011-10-19 16:27.
'' I take it some of you have some regard for Karl Marx….
“[The working class] must act in such a manner that the revolutionary excitement does not collapse immediately after the victory. On the contrary, they must maintain it as long as possible. Far from opposing so-called excesses, such as sacrificing to popular revenge of hated individuals or public buildings to which hateful memories are attached, such deeds must not only be tolerated, but their direction must be taken in hand, for examples’ sake.”From Karl Marx, Address to the Communist League(1850). Cited in E. Burns (ed.), A Handbook of Marxism(1935), p. 66 or 135ff.
“We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.”- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels(“Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849)''
I really don't like purely formal critique, but here I can't refrain therefrom. A true marxist shouldn't have any regard for Karl Marx but for his arguments. In these quotations there is no argument whatsoever, but only some exhortations. Therefore, they represent but arguments from authority. By the way, the arguments referring to the experience of the Paris commune (made by Cleishbotham, I think) are much more convincing.
I just put three signs ‘<’
I just put three signs '<' for quoting and the software transormed it in three successive and identical quotations. I'm sorry about that.
What is the lesson from the
What is the lesson from the slaughter of the Paris communards?
My purpose in quoting MARX was to show that Lenin's position was not a deviation caused by the need of a rejected minority to somehow cow a population into acquiesence but was rooted in the Marxism to which he was loyal.
However, none of this definitively proves the neeed to use exceptional violence, but in my mind, the question is not clear cut.
Unossu I tried (as an
Unossu
I tried (as an editor) to delete the repeated quotes but after three attempts it defeated me (the stuff in <<<>> just wont come up) so they will have to remain. Sorry.
Stevein7says: “Let me spell
Stevein7says: "Let me spell it out. The proletarian dictatorship is not a party dictatorship." I totally agree. The trouble is, he also says: " the soviet dictatorship means i.e. the party dictatorship." !!!@$#* Weird stuff this.
”I also think that anything
”I also think that anything other than a Soviet dictatorship (i.e. Party dictatorship) is counter-revolutionary.''
The i.e refers to 'anything other'.
I am not equating Soviet dictatorship with Party dictatorship .
Unossu, you appear to be
Unossu, you appear to be knowledgeable about the themes we are trying to deal with, perhaps you could tell us what your political perspective is, do you belong to a formal organisation? Are there any other points from our platform where you are not in agreement with us?
On the Paris Commune The
On the Paris Commune
The Commune had taken a "decree on hostages" on April 5, 1871, according to which any accomplice with Versailles would be made the "hostage of the Parisian people". Its article 5 also stated that the execution by Versailles of any war prisoner or partisan of the regular government of the Paris Commune would be followed on the spot by the execution of the triple number of retained hostages. But this decree was not applied. The Commune tried several times to exchange Mgr Darboy, archbishop of Paris, for Auguste Blanqui, but Thiersflatly refused and his personal secretary, Jules Barthélemy-Saint-Hilaire, declared: "The hostages! The hostages! too bad for them (tant pis pour eux!)".Finally, during the Bloody Week and the ensuing executions by Versaille troops, Théophile Ferré signed the execution order for 6 hostages (including Mgr Darboy), who were executed by firing squad on May 24 in the prison de la Roquette. This led Auguste Vermorel to ironically (and perhaps naively, since Thiershad refused any negotiation) declare: "What a great job! Now we've lost our only chance to stop the bloodshed." Ferré was himself executed in retaliation by Thiers' troops.[5][6
....Marx's stance that the Commune might have saved itself had it dealt more harshly with reactionaries, instituted conscription, and centralized decision making in the hands of a revolutionary direction, etc.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
^V.I. Lenin, "Lessons of the Commune", Marxists Internet Archive. Originally published: Zagranichnaya Gazeta, No. March 2, 23, 1908. Translated by Bernard Isaacs. Accessed August 7, 2006.
But two mistakes destroyed the fruits of the splendid victory. The proletariat stopped half-way: instead of setting about "expropriating the expropriators", it allowed itself to be led astray by dreams of establishing a higher justice in the country united by a common national task; such institutions as the banks, for example, were not taken over, and Proudhonist theories about a "just exchange", etc., still prevailed among the socialists. The second mistake was excessive magnanimity on the part of the proletariat: instead of destroying its enemies it sought to exert moral influence on them; it underestimated the significance of direct military operations in civil war, and instead of launching a resolute offensive against Versailles that would have crowned its victory in Paris, it tarried and gave the Versailles government time to gather the dark forces and prepare for the blood-soaked week of May.…Mindful of the lessons of the Commune, it [the Russian proletariat] knew that the proletariat should not ignore peaceful methods of struggle—they serve its ordinary, day-to-day interests, they are necessary in periods of preparation for revolution—but it must never forget that in certain conditions the class struggle assumes the form of armed conflict and civil war; there are times when the interests of the proletariat call for ruthless extermination of its enemies in open armed clashes.
Situationist
Situationist perspectives....
The Commune shows how those who defend the old world always benefit in one way or another from the complicity of revolutionaries — particularly of those revolutionaries who merely think about revolution, and who turn out to still think like the defenders. In this way the old world retains bases (ideology, language, customs, tastes) among its enemies, and uses them to reconquer the terrain it has lost. (Only the thought-in-acts natural to the revolutionary proletariat escapes it irrevocably: the Tax Bureau went up in flames.) The real “fifth column” is in the very minds of revolutionaries.
The story of the arsonists who during the final days of the Commune went to destroy Notre-Dame, only to find it defended by an armed battalion of Commune artists, is a richly provocative example of direct democracy. It gives an idea of the kind of problems that will need to be resolved in the perspective of the power of the councils. Were those artists right to defend a cathedral in the name of eternal aesthetic values — and in the final analysis, in the name of museum culture — while other people wanted to express themselves then and there by making this destruction symbolize their absolute defiance of a society that, in its moment of triumph, was about to consign their entire lives to silence and oblivion? The artist partisans of the Commune, acting as specialists, already found themselves in conflict with an extremist form of struggle against alienation. The Communards must be criticized for not having dared to answer the totalitarian terror of power with the use of the totality of their weapons. Everything indicates that the poets who at that moment actually expressed the Commune’s inherent poetry were simply wiped out. The Commune’s mass of unaccomplished acts enabled its tentative actions to be turned into “atrocities” and their memory to be censored. Saint-Just’s remark, “Those who make revolution half way only dig their own graves,” also explains his own silence.
Stirring pleas, in the name of freedom, for restraint and renunciation lay the foundations of future slavery........ The ambiguous concept of 'humanity' sometimes causes spontaneous revolutions to falter. All too often the desire to make man the heart of a revolutionary programme has been invaded by a paralysing humanism. How many times have revolutionaries spared the lives of their own future firing-squad, how many times have they accepted a truce which meant no more to their enemies than the opportunity of gathering reinforcements? The ideology of humanity is a fine weapon for counter-revolution, one which can justify the most sickening atrocities (the Belgian paras in Stanleyville). There can be no negotiation with the enemies of freedom, there's no quarter which can be extended to man's oppressors. The annihilation of counter-revolutionaries is the only 'humanitarian' act which can prevent the ultimate inhumanity of an integrally bureaucratised humanism.
Raoul Vaneigem
'' The very style of dialectical theory is a scandal and abomination to the prevailing standards of language and to the sensibilities molded by those standards, because while it makes concrete use of existing concepts it simultaneously recognises their fluidityand their inevitable destruction.'' _Guy Debord Society of the Spectacle 205
^^
So were Marx and Engels
So were Marx and Engels wrong?
“We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.”
I don't think so.
Can the ICT accomodate the perspective?
There doesn't seem to be a specific declaration either way.
I’m not a member of the
I’m not a member of the ICT so no idea what their collective take would be. But I reckon more important than pointing to some quote, is some understanding of Marx’s method. Means will impact on ends. Civil war, if and when it comes, will be violent. We know how brutal the ruling class can be. But it seems to me that communists should denounce terror on the part of sections of the working class as both anathema for an exploited class seeking to end exploitation, and, more pragmatically, counter-productive. Strikes me there’s some kind of dialectic between being a pole of political clarity, and being a pole of decency.
I can see that there are
I can see that there are lines that should not be crossed.
Now Jehovah killed the first born of the Egyptians according to the Old Testament, but I would say that was somewhat harsh.
However let us consider the very real situation of the Latin American families who decide to let their youngest offspring die so as to be able to feed the rest who represent a greater investment. I doubt they would have much compassion for the wealthy living in their city centre palaces.
Look at the Russian fascist gangs (just a random example). Why not kill them? Why waste resources on keeping such people alive? Sure, if there is no problem in feeding everyone, it seems harsh to kill them, but if that is not the case, well,why feed them when revolutionary workers are going hungry? Of course this is dependent on situation, bt can we say in advance what is going to happen?
Well, I don’t think the
Well, I don't think the working class should maintain any one able to work, whether they be fascist or not, not even during the transition period. All these people who appear in the video can be put to useful work while being surveiled. Of course, in case that not be possible (e.g. necessity of sudden retreat), perhaps they will have to be killed, but the question of feeding them will not be posed as such.
I know that the video must have a strong impact on the observer's feelings, but I wouldn't bet that none of those people will ever acquire a proletarian revolutionary consciousness, since being determines conscousness and not vice versa. I know it also on the basis of my personal experience since I used to have a strong nationalistic consciousness not long ago. Not of the kind that can be seen in the video, but I was however ready to kill in war other proletarians on the pretence of protecting my pretended national or ethnic interests. And it doesn't make the slightest sense to me anymore.
In many cases the question of
In many cases the question of class violence will be answered through the revolutionary struggle itself. I imagine that the people shown in Stevein7 video clip would be extremely unlikely to come over to the revolution and will in all likely hood be involved in counter revolutionary terror and would have to be dealt with by the victorious working class who in all likelyhood would put them in prison rather than execute them. Of course in prison they would be fed and looked after which is more than the capitalists would do if they were succesful. On Un osso point of workers being influenced by nationalist ideas this should come as no surprise considering the effort historically that the bourgeoisie has put into creating a nationalistic/patriotic identity. What should be remembered however is that there is a huge difference between fascist support given by young and not so young workers and those workers who believe in bourgeois propaganda regarding nationalism. To combat the poison of fascist ideas and organisation then we need not only an upsurge in working class struggle but also a growth of communist ideas within the working class. In the event of a succesful counter revolution then the murders, tortures would be horrific for the capitalists would have to atomise a whole generation of the working class. Within the revolutionary struggle itself there is no place for counter revolutionary terror and those who would be killed would be due to their taking up arms against the working class.
In many cases the question
In many cases the question of class violence will be answered through the revolutionary struggle itself.
^^^^^^^^^
I don't mind that.
I think we will only learn by doing, no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.
I don't have a pre-conceived idea on the dictatorial measures that will be required.
Everything I have read warns against hesitation and generosity to the enemy.
I think it wise not to commit in advance, but my inclination is firmness rather than risk appearing weak to an enemy that over and over has displayed its bestial character.