Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, Communism and Revolutions
Sunday, 17 July 2016 00:00 By C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout | Interview
(Image: Jared Rodriguez / Truthout)
As global capitalism, with neoliberalism being a necessary accompaniment,
has covered now the entire globe, it is extremely useful to revisit some of
the great radical traditions of the 19th and 20th centuries -- namely,
anarchism and communism. What do they stand for? What are their main
differences? Did Soviet Communism represent an authentic form of socialism
or was it a "reformed workers' stage" -- or, even worse, a tyrannical form
of stage capitalism? In this exclusive interview for Truthout, Noam Chomsky
shares his views on anarchism, communism, and revolutions in hopes that the
new generation of radical activists does not ignore history and continue to
grapple with questions about strategies for social change.
C.J. Polychroniou: Noam, from the late 19th century to the mid or even late
20th century, anarchism and communism represented live and vital movements
throughout the Western world, but also in Latin America and certain parts of
Asia and Africa. However, the political and ideological landscape seems to
have shifted radically by the early to late 1980s to the point that, while
resistance to capitalism remains ever present, it is largely localized and
devoid of a vision about strategies for the founding of a new socioeconomic
order. Why did anarchism and communism flourish at the time they did, and
what are the key factors for their transformation from major ideologies to
marginalized belief systems?
Noam Chomsky: If we look more closely, I think we find that there are live
and vital movements of radical democracy, often with elements of anarchist
and communist ideas and participation, during periods of upheaval and
turbulence, when -- to paraphrase Gramsci -- the old is tottering and the
new is unborn but is offering tantalizing prospects. Thus, in late 19th
century America, when industrial capitalism was driving independent farmers
and artisans to become an industrial proletariat, evoking plenty of bitter
resistance, a powerful and militant labor movement arose dedicated to the
principle that "those who work in the mills should own them" alongside a
mass radical farmers movement that sought to free farmers from the clutches
of banks and merchants. The dramatic era of decolonization also gave rise to
radical movements of many kinds, and there are many other cases, including
the 1960s. The neoliberal period since the '80s has been one of regression
and marginalization for much of the world's population, but [Karl] Marx's
old mole is never far from the surface and appears in unexpected places. The
spread of worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives in the US, while not
literally anarchist or communist, carries seeds of far-reaching radical
transformation, and it is not alone.
Anarchism and communism share close affinities, but have also been mortal
enemies since the time of Marx and [Russian anarchist Mikhail] Bakunin. Are
their differences purely strategic about the transition from capitalism to
socialism or do they also reflect different perspectives about human nature
and economic and social relations?
My feeling is that the picture is more nuanced. Thus left anti-Bolshevik
Marxism often was quite close to anarcho-syndicalism. Prominent left
Marxists, like Karl Korsch, were quite sympathetic to the Spanish anarchist
revolution. Daniel Guerin's book Anarchism verges on left Marxism. During
his left period in mid-1917, Lenin's writings, notably State and Revolution,
had a kind of anarchist tinge. There surely were conflicts over tactics and
much more fundamental matters. Engels's critique of anarchism is a famous
illustration. Marx had very little to say about post-capitalist society, but
the basic thrust of his thinking about long-term goals seems quite
compatible with major strains of anarchist thinking and practice.
Certain anarchist traditions, influenced by Bakunin, advocate violence as a
means of bringing about social change while others, influenced by [Russian
anarchist Peter] Kropotkin, seem to regard violence not only politically
ineffective in securing a just social order but morally indefensible. The
communist tradition has also been divided over the use of violence even in
situations where the conditions seem to have been ripe for revolutions. Can
social revolutions take place without violence?
I don't see how there can be a general answer. Struggles to overcome class
power and privilege are sure to be resisted, sometimes by force. Perhaps a
point will come where violence in defense against forceful efforts to
maintain power is warranted. Surely it is a last resort.
In your writings, you have maintained the view that the Soviet Union was
never a socialist state. Do you accept the view that it was a "deformed
workers state" or do you believe that it was a form of state capitalism?
The terms of political discourse are not models of precision. By the time
the Soviets and factory councils were eliminated -- quite early on -- there
was hardly a trace of a "workers state." [Factory councils were forms of
political and economic organization in which the place of work is controlled
collectively by the workers.] The system had wage labor and other features
of capitalism, so I suppose one could call it a kind of tyrannical state
capitalism in some respects.
In certain communist circles, a distinction has been drawn between Leninism
and Stalinism, while the more orthodox communists have argued that the
Soviet Union begun a gradual abandonment of socialism with the rise of
Nikita Khrushchev to power. Can you comment on these two points of
contention, with special emphasis in the alleged differences between
Leninism and Stalinism?
I would place the abandonment of socialism much earlier, under Lenin and
Trotsky, at least if socialism is understood to mean at a minimum control by
working people over production. The seeds of Stalinism were present in the
early Bolshevik years, partly attributable to the exigencies of the civil
war and foreign invasion, partly to Leninist ideology. Under Stalin it
became a monstrosity.
Faced with the challenges and threats (both internal and external) that it
did face following the takeover of power, did the Bolsheviks have any other
option than centralizing power, creating an army, and defending the October
Revolution by any means necessary?
It is more appropriate, I think, to ask whether the Bolsheviks had any other
option for defending their power. By adopting the means they chose, they
destroyed the achievements of the popular revolution. Were there
alternatives? I think so, but the question takes us into difficult and
contested territory. It's possible, for example, that instead of ignoring
Marx's ideas in his later years about the revolutionary potential of the
Russian peasantry, they might have pursued them and offered support for
peasant organizing and activism instead of marginalizing it (or worse). And
they could have energized rather than undermined the Soviets and factory
councils. But all that raises many questions, both of fact and of
speculation about possibilities -- for example, about creating a disciplined
and effective Red Army, choice of guerrilla vs conventional military
tactics, political vs military warfare, and much else.
Would you accept the view that the labor concentration camps and the other
horrible crimes that took place under Stalin's reign are unlikely to have
taken place if either Lenin or Trotsky were in power instead?
I strongly doubt that Lenin or Trotsky would have carried out crimes
anything like these.
And how do you see the Maoist revolution? Was China at any point a socialist
state?
The "Maoist revolution" was a complex affair. There was a strong popular
element in early Chinese Marxism, discussed in illuminating work by Maurice
Meisner. William Hinton's remarkable study Fanshen captures vividly a moment
of profound revolutionary change, not just in social practices, but in the
mentality and consciousness of the peasants, with party cadres often
submitting to popular control, according to his account. Later the
totalitarian system was responsible for horrendous crimes, notably the
"Great Leap Forward" with its huge death toll, in the tens of millions.
Despite these crimes, as economists Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze demonstrate,
from independence until 1979, when the Deng reforms began, Chinese programs
of rural health and development saved the lives of 100 million people in
comparison to India in the same years. What any of this has to do with
socialism depends on how one interprets that battered term.
Cuba under Castro?
In assessing developments in Cuba since it achieved independence under
Castro in January 1959, one cannot overlook the fact that from almost the
first moment Cuba was subjected to vicious attack by the global superpower.
By late 1959, planes based in Florida were bombing Cuba. By March, a secret
decision was made to overthrow the government. The incoming Kennedy
administration carried out the Bay of Pigs invasion. Its failure led to near
hysteria in Washington, and Kennedy launched a war to bring "the terrors of
the earth" to Cuba, in the words of his close associate, historian Arthur
Schlesinger, in his semi-official biography of Robert Kennedy, who was
placed in charge of the operation as his highest priority. It was no small
affair, and was one of the factors that led to the missile crisis, which
Schlesinger rightly described as the most dangerous moment in history. After
the crisis, the terrorist war resumed. Meanwhile, a crushing embargo was
imposed, which took a huge toll on Cuba. It continues to this day, opposed
by virtually the entire world.
When Russian aid ended, Clinton made the embargo harsher, and a few years
later, [the] Helms-Burton [Act] made it harsher still. The effects have of
course been very severe. They are reviewed in a comprehensive study by Salim
Lamrani. Particularly onerous has been the impact on the health system,
deprived of essential medical supplies. Despite the attack, Cuba has
developed a remarkable health system, and has an unmatched record of medical
internationalism -- as well as playing a crucial role in the liberation of
Black Africa and ending the apartheid regime [in South Africa]. There have
also been severe human rights violations, though nothing like what has been
standard in the US-dominated countries of the region or the US-backed
national security states of South America. And, of course, the worst human
rights violations in Cuba in recent years have been in Guantanamo, which the
US took from Cuba at gunpoint in the early 20th century and refuses to
return. Overall, a mixed story, and not easy to evaluate given the complex
circumstances.
Overall, do you regard the collapse of so-called "actually existing
socialism" a positive outcome, and, if so, why? In what ways has this
development been beneficial to the socialist vision?
When the Soviet Union collapsed I wrote an article describing the events as
a small victory for socialism, not only because of the fall of one of the
most anti-socialist states in the world, where working people had fewer
rights than in the West, but also because it freed the term "socialism" from
the burden of being associated in the propaganda systems of East and West
with Soviet tyranny -- for the East, in order to benefit from the aura of
authentic socialism, for the West, in order to demonize the concept.
My argument on what came to be known as "actually existing socialism" has
been that the Soviet State attempted since its origins to harness the
energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service
of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to
seize state power.
Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from
exploitation. As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, "This
goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing
class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie," but can only be "realized by
the workers themselves being master over production." Mastery over
production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to
achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary
struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes
and the "revolutionary intellectuals" guided by the common principles of
Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances.
But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the
means of production into the property of freely associated producers and
thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from
exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm
of human freedom.
The Leninist intelligentsia had a different agenda. They fit Marx's
description of the "conspirators" who "pre-empt the developing revolutionary
process" and distort it to their ends of domination. "Hence their deepest
disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their
class interests," which include[d] the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy of
which Bakunin warned, and the creation of mechanisms of democratic control
over production and social life. For the Leninist, the masses must be
strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social
order in which discipline "will become superfluous" as the freely associated
producers "work for their own accord" (Marx). Libertarian socialism,
furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over
production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in
every aspect of social and personal life -- an unending struggle, since
progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and
understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional
practice and consciousness.
The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was
evident from the very start. In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory
committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many
flaws, but with a rich potential. Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power,
immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of
these instruments, establishing the rule of the [Communist] Party, in
practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky
had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists
warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood. Not only
the masses, but even the Party must be subject to "vigilant control from
above," so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary
intellectual to state priest. Before seizing state power, the Bolshevik
leadership adopted much of the rhetoric of people who were engaged in the
revolutionary struggle from below, but their true commitments were quite
different. This was evident before and became crystal clear as they assumed
state power in October 1917.
A historian sympathetic to the Bolsheviks, E.H. Carr, writes that "the
spontaneous inclination of the workers to organize factory committees and to
intervene in the management of the factories was inevitably encouraged by a
revolution which led the workers to believe that the productive machinery of
the country belonged to them and could be operated by them at their own
discretion and to their own advantage" (my emphasis). For the workers, as
one anarchist delegate said, "The Factory committees were cells of the
future. They, not the state, should now administer."
But the state priests knew better, and moved at once to destroy the factory
committees and to reduce the Soviets to organs of their rule. On November 3,
Lenin announced in a "Draft Decree on Workers' Control" that delegates
elected to exercise such control were to be "answerable to the state for the
maintenance of the strictest order and discipline and for the protection of
property." As the year ended, Lenin noted that "we passed from workers'
control to the creation of the Supreme Council of National Economy," which
was to "replace, absorb and supersede the machinery of workers' control"
(Carr). "The very idea of socialism is embodied in the concept of workers'
control," one Menshevik trade unionist lamented. The Bolshevik leadership
expressed the same lament in action, by demolishing the very idea of
socialism.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
C.J. POLYCHRONIOU
C.J. Polychroniou is a political economist/political scientist who has
taught and worked in universities and research centers in Europe and the
United States. His main research interests are in European economic
integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States and
the deconstruction of neoliberalism's politico-economic project. He is a
regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout's Public
Intellectual Project. He has published several books and his articles have
appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news
websites. Many of his publications have been translated into several foreign
languages, including Croatian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish
and Turkish.
RELATED STORIES
Noam Chomsky Discusses the Hypocrisies of Capitalism in the Financial
Capital of the World
By Alexandra Rosenmann, AlterNet | Video Interview
"Nothing for Other People": Class War in the United States
By Noam Chomsky, Metropolitan Books | Book Excerpt
Noam Chomsky on Globalization, Inequality and Political Alienation
By James Resnick, E-International Relations | Interview
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, Communism and Revolutions
Sunday, 17 July 2016 00:00 By C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout | Interview
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
. (Image: Jared Rodriguez / Truthout)
. As global capitalism, with neoliberalism being a necessary
accompaniment, has covered now the entire globe, it is extremely useful to
revisit some of the great radical traditions of the 19th and 20th centuries
-- namely, anarchism and communism. What do they stand for? What are their
main differences? Did Soviet Communism represent an authentic form of
socialism or was it a "reformed workers' stage" -- or, even worse, a
tyrannical form of stage capitalism? In this exclusive interview for
Truthout, Noam Chomsky shares his views on anarchism, communism, and
revolutions in hopes that the new generation of radical activists does not
ignore history and continue to grapple with questions about strategies for
social change.
C.J. Polychroniou: Noam, from the late 19th century to the mid or even late
20th century, anarchism and communism represented live and vital movements
throughout the Western world, but also in Latin America and certain parts of
Asia and Africa. However, the political and ideological landscape seems to
have shifted radically by the early to late 1980s to the point that, while
resistance to capitalism remains ever present, it is largely localized and
devoid of a vision about strategies for the founding of a new socioeconomic
order. Why did anarchism and communism flourish at the time they did, and
what are the key factors for their transformation from major ideologies to
marginalized belief systems?
Noam Chomsky: If we look more closely, I think we find that there are live
and vital movements of radical democracy, often with elements of anarchist
and communist ideas and participation, during periods of upheaval and
turbulence, when -- to paraphrase Gramsci -- the old is tottering and the
new is unborn but is offering tantalizing prospects. Thus, in late 19th
century America, when industrial capitalism was driving independent farmers
and artisans to become an industrial proletariat, evoking plenty of bitter
resistance, a powerful and militant labor movement arose dedicated to the
principle that "those who work in the mills should own them" alongside a
mass radical farmers movement that sought to free farmers from the clutches
of banks and merchants. The dramatic era of decolonization also gave rise to
radical movements of many kinds, and there are many other cases, including
the 1960s. The neoliberal period since the '80s has been one of regression
and marginalization for much of the world's population, but [Karl] Marx's
old mole is never far from the surface and appears in unexpected places. The
spread of worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives in the US, while not
literally anarchist or communist, carries seeds of far-reaching radical
transformation, and it is not alone.
Anarchism and communism share close affinities, but have also been mortal
enemies since the time of Marx and [Russian anarchist Mikhail] Bakunin. Are
their differences purely strategic about the transition from capitalism to
socialism or do they also reflect different perspectives about human nature
and economic and social relations?
My feeling is that the picture is more nuanced. Thus left anti-Bolshevik
Marxism often was quite close to anarcho-syndicalism. Prominent left
Marxists, like Karl Korsch, were quite sympathetic to the Spanish anarchist
revolution. Daniel Guerin's book Anarchism verges on left Marxism. During
his left period in mid-1917, Lenin's writings, notably State and Revolution,
had a kind of anarchist tinge. There surely were conflicts over tactics and
much more fundamental matters. Engels's critique of anarchism is a famous
illustration. Marx had very little to say about post-capitalist society, but
the basic thrust of his thinking about long-term goals seems quite
compatible with major strains of anarchist thinking and practice.
Certain anarchist traditions, influenced by Bakunin, advocate violence as a
means of bringing about social change while others, influenced by [Russian
anarchist Peter] Kropotkin, seem to regard violence not only politically
ineffective in securing a just social order but morally indefensible. The
communist tradition has also been divided over the use of violence even in
situations where the conditions seem to have been ripe for revolutions. Can
social revolutions take place without violence?
I don't see how there can be a general answer. Struggles to overcome class
power and privilege are sure to be resisted, sometimes by force. Perhaps a
point will come where violence in defense against forceful efforts to
maintain power is warranted. Surely it is a last resort.
In your writings, you have maintained the view that the Soviet Union was
never a socialist state. Do you accept the view that it was a "deformed
workers state" or do you believe that it was a form of state capitalism?
The terms of political discourse are not models of precision. By the time
the Soviets and factory councils were eliminated -- quite early on -- there
was hardly a trace of a "workers state." [Factory councils were forms of
political and economic organization in which the place of work is controlled
collectively by the workers.] The system had wage labor and other features
of capitalism, so I suppose one could call it a kind of tyrannical state
capitalism in some respects.
In certain communist circles, a distinction has been drawn between Leninism
and Stalinism, while the more orthodox communists have argued that the
Soviet Union begun a gradual abandonment of socialism with the rise of
Nikita Khrushchev to power. Can you comment on these two points of
contention, with special emphasis in the alleged differences between
Leninism and Stalinism?
I would place the abandonment of socialism much earlier, under Lenin and
Trotsky, at least if socialism is understood to mean at a minimum control by
working people over production. The seeds of Stalinism were present in the
early Bolshevik years, partly attributable to the exigencies of the civil
war and foreign invasion, partly to Leninist ideology. Under Stalin it
became a monstrosity.
Faced with the challenges and threats (both internal and external) that it
did face following the takeover of power, did the Bolsheviks have any other
option than centralizing power, creating an army, and defending the October
Revolution by any means necessary?
It is more appropriate, I think, to ask whether the Bolsheviks had any other
option for defending their power. By adopting the means they chose, they
destroyed the achievements of the popular revolution. Were there
alternatives? I think so, but the question takes us into difficult and
contested territory. It's possible, for example, that instead of ignoring
Marx's ideas in his later years about the revolutionary potential of the
Russian peasantry, they might have pursued them and offered support for
peasant organizing and activism instead of marginalizing it (or worse). And
they could have energized rather than undermined the Soviets and factory
councils. But all that raises many questions, both of fact and of
speculation about possibilities -- for example, about creating a disciplined
and effective Red Army, choice of guerrilla vs conventional military
tactics, political vs military warfare, and much else.
Would you accept the view that the labor concentration camps and the other
horrible crimes that took place under Stalin's reign are unlikely to have
taken place if either Lenin or Trotsky were in power instead?
I strongly doubt that Lenin or Trotsky would have carried out crimes
anything like these.
And how do you see the Maoist revolution? Was China at any point a socialist
state?
The "Maoist revolution" was a complex affair. There was a strong popular
element in early Chinese Marxism, discussed in illuminating work by Maurice
Meisner. William Hinton's remarkable study Fanshen captures vividly a moment
of profound revolutionary change, not just in social practices, but in the
mentality and consciousness of the peasants, with party cadres often
submitting to popular control, according to his account. Later the
totalitarian system was responsible for horrendous crimes, notably the
"Great Leap Forward" with its huge death toll, in the tens of millions.
Despite these crimes, as economists Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze demonstrate,
from independence until 1979, when the Deng reforms began, Chinese programs
of rural health and development saved the lives of 100 million people in
comparison to India in the same years. What any of this has to do with
socialism depends on how one interprets that battered term.
Cuba under Castro?
In assessing developments in Cuba since it achieved independence under
Castro in January 1959, one cannot overlook the fact that from almost the
first moment Cuba was subjected to vicious attack by the global superpower.
By late 1959, planes based in Florida were bombing Cuba. By March, a secret
decision was made to overthrow the government. The incoming Kennedy
administration carried out the Bay of Pigs invasion. Its failure led to near
hysteria in Washington, and Kennedy launched a war to bring "the terrors of
the earth" to Cuba, in the words of his close associate, historian Arthur
Schlesinger, in his semi-official biography of Robert Kennedy, who was
placed in charge of the operation as his highest priority. It was no small
affair, and was one of the factors that led to the missile crisis, which
Schlesinger rightly described as the most dangerous moment in history. After
the crisis, the terrorist war resumed. Meanwhile, a crushing embargo was
imposed, which took a huge toll on Cuba. It continues to this day, opposed
by virtually the entire world.
When Russian aid ended, Clinton made the embargo harsher, and a few years
later, [the] Helms-Burton [Act] made it harsher still. The effects have of
course been very severe. They are reviewed in a comprehensive study by Salim
Lamrani. Particularly onerous has been the impact on the health system,
deprived of essential medical supplies. Despite the attack, Cuba has
developed a remarkable health system, and has an unmatched record of medical
internationalism -- as well as playing a crucial role in the liberation of
Black Africa and ending the apartheid regime [in South Africa]. There have
also been severe human rights violations, though nothing like what has been
standard in the US-dominated countries of the region or the US-backed
national security states of South America. And, of course, the worst human
rights violations in Cuba in recent years have been in Guantanamo, which the
US took from Cuba at gunpoint in the early 20th century and refuses to
return. Overall, a mixed story, and not easy to evaluate given the complex
circumstances.
Overall, do you regard the collapse of so-called "actually existing
socialism" a positive outcome, and, if so, why? In what ways has this
development been beneficial to the socialist vision?
When the Soviet Union collapsed I wrote an article describing the events as
a small victory for socialism, not only because of the fall of one of the
most anti-socialist states in the world, where working people had fewer
rights than in the West, but also because it freed the term "socialism" from
the burden of being associated in the propaganda systems of East and West
with Soviet tyranny -- for the East, in order to benefit from the aura of
authentic socialism, for the West, in order to demonize the concept.
My argument on what came to be known as "actually existing socialism" has
been that the Soviet State attempted since its origins to harness the
energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service
of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to
seize state power.
Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from
exploitation. As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, "This
goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing
class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie," but can only be "realized by
the workers themselves being master over production." Mastery over
production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to
achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary
struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes
and the "revolutionary intellectuals" guided by the common principles of
Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances.
But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the
means of production into the property of freely associated producers and
thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from
exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm
of human freedom.
The Leninist intelligentsia had a different agenda. They fit Marx's
description of the "conspirators" who "pre-empt the developing revolutionary
process" and distort it to their ends of domination. "Hence their deepest
disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their
class interests," which include[d] the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy of
which Bakunin warned, and the creation of mechanisms of democratic control
over production and social life. For the Leninist, the masses must be
strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social
order in which discipline "will become superfluous" as the freely associated
producers "work for their own accord" (Marx). Libertarian socialism,
furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over
production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in
every aspect of social and personal life -- an unending struggle, since
progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and
understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional
practice and consciousness.
The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was
evident from the very start. In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory
committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many
flaws, but with a rich potential. Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power,
immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of
these instruments, establishing the rule of the [Communist] Party, in
practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky
had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists
warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood. Not only
the masses, but even the Party must be subject to "vigilant control from
above," so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary
intellectual to state priest. Before seizing state power, the Bolshevik
leadership adopted much of the rhetoric of people who were engaged in the
revolutionary struggle from below, but their true commitments were quite
different. This was evident before and became crystal clear as they assumed
state power in October 1917.
A historian sympathetic to the Bolsheviks, E.H. Carr, writes that "the
spontaneous inclination of the workers to organize factory committees and to
intervene in the management of the factories was inevitably encouraged by a
revolution which led the workers to believe that the productive machinery of
the country belonged to them and could be operated by them at their own
discretion and to their own advantage" (my emphasis). For the workers, as
one anarchist delegate said, "The Factory committees were cells of the
future. They, not the state, should now administer."
But the state priests knew better, and moved at once to destroy the factory
committees and to reduce the Soviets to organs of their rule. On November 3,
Lenin announced in a "Draft Decree on Workers' Control" that delegates
elected to exercise such control were to be "answerable to the state for the
maintenance of the strictest order and discipline and for the protection of
property." As the year ended, Lenin noted that "we passed from workers'
control to the creation of the Supreme Council of National Economy," which
was to "replace, absorb and supersede the machinery of workers' control"
(Carr). "The very idea of socialism is embodied in the concept of workers'
control," one Menshevik trade unionist lamented. The Bolshevik leadership
expressed the same lament in action, by demolishing the very idea of
socialism.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
C.J. Polychroniou
C.J. Polychroniou is a political economist/political scientist who has
taught and worked in universities and research centers in Europe and the
United States. His main research interests are in European economic
integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States and
the deconstruction of neoliberalism's politico-economic project. He is a
regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout's Public
Intellectual Project. He has published several books and his articles have
appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news
websites. Many of his publications have been translated into several foreign
languages, including Croatian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish
and Turkish.
Related Stories
Noam Chomsky Discusses the Hypocrisies of Capitalism in the Financial
Capital of the World
By Alexandra Rosenmann, AlterNet | Video Interview"Nothing for Other
People": Class War in the United States
By Noam Chomsky, Metropolitan Books | Book ExcerptNoam Chomsky on
Globalization, Inequality and Political Alienation
By James Resnick, E-International Relations | Interview
Show Comments
