the radical tradition - richard gombin

8/10/2019 The Radical Tradition - Richard Gombin

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-radical-tradition-richard-gombin 1/378

The Radical Tradition

A Study in Modern Revolutionary Thought

Richard Gombin

Introduction: the alternative

I

All human societies generate an order of one kind or

another, but at the same time produce the negation of this

order. Opposition to the established order is an historical

phenomenon in to ays. !irstly, both in form and content it is

the e"pression of a given era# secondly, it can never be

anything but the e"pression of its era. $onse%uently, claims to

universality or to timelessness merely display a false

consciousness that presents the %uest for historically limited

poer in the guise of radicality.

1



&egation of the social system occurs on many levels, from

simple unformulated activity, hich breaks don immediate

reality, to fully elaborated revolutionary theory, via a range of

intermediate stages. The shift from pure action to pure thought

is barely perceptible, and it is impossible to determine precisely

the point at hich consciousness of action leads to the

formulation of coherent theory.

The kind of radical opposition that challenges the very

foundations of poer structures probably e"isted even in

primitive societies. 'ico, in his Scienza Nuova ()*+-, claims to

perceive it in his interpretation of ancient myths. very type of

society has had to contend ith challenges of this kind, and the

old mole has taken a great many shapes and forms in the

course of history/ heresy, millenarianism, peasant risings,

0uddite riots and machine1smashing. The common factor of all

these past revolts 1 apart from their corrosive effect on the

established order 1 as their inability to see themselves as

revolutionary phenomena. They ere not sufficiently conscious

of their historical character. Most fre%uently their development

2



as determined by some hoped1for bliss in the hereafter rather

than concrete changes in the here1and1no. The radicality of

the revolutionary movement as already there, but modestly

concealed behind a veil of mysticism or religion.

The manifestations gradually gave ay to a clearer

formulation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and the

overthro of the e"isting social order became the principal

ob2ective. As a result, politics emerged as a speciali3ed field,

concentrating and e"pressing men4s desire for change.

The !rench Revolution and its ideologists mark the first

steps toards unity beteen political thought and political

action, but even so, radical theory remained rapped in a

cocoon of outard appearances. &egation of society may have

been less mediati3ed than in the past, but it as still heavily

disguised, and political discourse merely replaced theological

discourse (hether deist or pantheist-. $ertainly men ere no

e%ual before the la as ell as before their creator, but the

idealistic phraseology of the 5eclaration of the Rights of Man

3



simply concealed the fact that ine%uality still e"isted, in a

rearranged form. 6ehind the enunciation of universal ideals

(liberty, e%uality, fraternity, rights of the individual- lurked the

protection of utterly material and contingent interests. The

capitalist bourgeoisie hich hoisted itself to poer in the early

nineteenth century announced a complete programme of

liberation, e"pressed in terms of ideals. 7hat in fact it then

ent on to establish as an unlimited freedom to e"ploit the

infant industrial proletariat.

&ineteenth1century socialist systems, and especially

Mar"ism, ere already using historical rather than

eschatological language. 8n their demonstrations of the

inevitable development of the industrial era, of class society

and its miseries, Saint1Simonism, !ourierism and Mar"ism

e"plored and analysed the potential forces of their age and its

forthcoming contradictions.

0ike most of his generation, Mar" as infatuated ith

science, and made tremendous efforts to furnish his theory ith

4



all the attributes of a scientific system. 8n this he as closer to

Auguste $omte or to 9erbert Spencer than he ould have

cared to admit. !or Mar" as really the product of positivism,

and he as inclined to scientism the moment he tried to hedge

his thought about ith guarantees of infallibility. 8n that sense

Mar"ism is a perfect e"ample of scientist ideology,

foreshadoing modern technocracy 1 it shares ith Saint1

Simonism the honour of being studied by !rench

polytechnicians, nglish 0abour economists and Sedish trade

unionists alike.

&ot content ith claiming to be a scientific theory,

hoever, Mar"ism seeks to establish itself as the scientific

theory of social evolution This ideological imperialism re2ects

any conceivable criti%ue in advance, demoting revolutionary

voluntarism to the role of mere ad2unct. The celebrated 4final

shove re%uired to give birth to the ne society is relegated to a

secondary role as compared ith the evolution of the ob2ective

conditions categorically laid don and delimited by Mar"ism.

According to Mar", the march of history and the e"propriation of

5



the capitalists 4is accomplished by the action of the immanent

las of capitalist production4. The latter 4begets, ith the

ine"orability of a la of &ature, its on negation4. ()- The

ineluctability of the historical process means that e can

deduce forthcoming events from a set of las (of hich Mar"

as the discoverer-# better, it makes prophecy and forecasting

possible, thus providing us ith the one and only reading of

social reality. 8t as only natural, therefore, that Mar"ism should

end up by ac%uiring a corps of official interpreters of dogma,

somehat reminiscent of religion ith its prophets, its scholars

and its infallible theologians.

7hich is not to say that Mar"ism, insofar as it is an

analysis of social reality, is devoid of scientific logic. Mar"4s

approach as scientific in that he studied the society of his time

empirically (hich as a novelty hen one thinks of Auguste

$omte4s metaphysics, then considered to be the last ord in

bourgeois social science-, and especially from an economic

standpoint. 8t as not scientific here he attributed universal or

timeless value to his propositions. ngels, ith Mar"4s approval,

6



to relate to the hole of social reality, and he began to

concentrate on analysing this reality from an economic

viepoint. Secondly, he came to see social transformations as

merely the result of the evolution of the material forces

underlying the economic structures, rather than of the

autonomous action of orkers in conflict ith their social

environment.

Mar" clearly shoed the mystifying character of classical

political economy, reducing it to its historical dimensions and

relating it to the emerging age of (competitive- industrial

capitalism. 9e then ent on to e"plain the functioning of the

economic system in terms of economic sociology, inferring from

it a pro2ection into the future that is partly true and partly false.

9e as not mistaken in perceiving a trend toards socialism

(large economic units, the attachment of decision1making

centres to a central institution, monopolistic markets-. 6ut he

presents this as ineluctable and positive, arguing that it ill

bring about the liberation of all those ho are e"ploited and the

elimination of classes. 6ut Mar" here reverts to ideology, for his

8



analysis fails to mention the real beneficiaries of this evolution,

namely the bureaucratic class, hich is the product of industrial

society, and hich is bound to seek to dominate this society.

Above all, he confuses the ne ruling class ith the proletariat.

!or the latter remains oppressed, even if in ne ays.

8n the event, the proletariat is simply the au"iliary of this

ne class in the passage from competitive capitalism to State

socialism (or capitalism-/ from the proletariat, it dras its

delegates, its theoreticians and secretaries, hile in turn it

enriches the ruling class ith its on higher bureaucrati3ed

strata, hich are already cut off from proletarian reality. Above

all, the proletariat places its might and its revolutionary potential

at the disposal of the bureaucratic class. 9istory is filled ith

e"amples of this kind of camouflage (notably in !rance,

beteen )*<+ and )*<;-, but its true e"tent became clear in

):;:, in =aris, hen the democratic bourgeoisie allied ith the

e"tra1mural proletariat (+- in !ebruary, only to march against it

in >une alongside the reactionary bourgeoisie.

9



!rom the ):?s onards, Mar"ist ideology tended to

distort social reality, narroing it don in line ith the ambitions

of the rising intellectual bourgeoisie. Thus, Mar"ist criti%ue, as

e pointed out earlier, is reduced to a criti%ue of economic

reality. And this is no accident, for all ideologies bear the stamp

of the rationality best suited to the interests of the (in this case,

future- dominant class. 9ere, of course, the rationality in

%uestion is that of profit and production. Mar" accused

competitive capitalism not only of reducing the proletariat to a

state of misery but of failing to e"ploit to the full the potential of

the e"isting factors of production. Social revolution for Mar",

as to be a process of rationali3ation aimed at eliminating all

obstacles to the untrammelled development of production (@-

by freeing the factors of production from their institutional strait1

2acket (private onership of the means of production,

competitive markets-. This productivist vie of the economy is

most congenial to the bureaucratic class (managers, politicians,

e"ecutives, officers, leaders of orkers4 and socialist

organi3ations-, hich has everything to gain from the improved

10



organi3ation of industry and age1labour. One ay or another,

this bureaucratic class ends up as both boss and beneficiary.

6y dressing itself up as an ideology of human

emancipation, Mar"ism managed to get itself accepted as the

theory of reality# at first by the sheer force of its arguments and

the critical vigour of its concepts# subse%uently, more through

physical violence and propaganda, hen Mar"ism became the

official ideology of the Soviet State and of the $ommunist

8nternational. Seen in the light of a century and a half of

capitalist evolution, Mar"ism dearly emerges as the ideology of

a class aspiring to political leadership. (;-

II

!or the past hundred years the industrial proletariat has

been struggling to obtain integration into bourgeois civili3ation.

Today this has been achieved# the proletariat is no longer

hanging around the gates of mercantile society, having

gradually been absorbed from ithin. 8n other ords, having

11



made possible the accumulation of capital necessary for

industriali3ation (he as after all the principal actor in the

process-, the orker has finally got his share of the cake.

Mar"ism (and syndicalism- served as the theoretical instrument

in this process of integration, enabling the proletariat to devise

its strategy for the con%uest of the bourgeois stronghold.

7hether in the guise of social1democracy, 6olshevism,

Maoism, !idelism, etc., Mar"ism served as a theoretical tool

insofar as the integration of the proletariat into industrial

civili3ation did not conflict ith its on pro2ect, hich is aimed at

the establishment of State capitalism. 8n fact, this pro2ect can

only be achieved if all individuals are completely integrated in

such a ay that no one is left outside the compass of the

imperatives of the system.

8n short, the orkers have no effectively entered the

system en masse in the industriali3ed countries. The most

obvious conse%uence of this is that the proletarian is no longer

12



merely a producer, but a consumer as ell, and that to be the

latter is no perhaps his most important function. (-

As long as the proletariat as held at bay outside the city,

its chief ambition as less to destroy than to con%uer that city

in order to penetrate it and en2oy its fruits. Mar"ist10eninist

discourse as highly appropriate to the task/ 4strategy4, 4tactics4,

4temporary alliances4, 4con%uest of poer4, 4dictatorship of the

proletariat4 1 the language is that of a state of siege. The

Mar"ist4s aversion to the anarchist 1 ith the latter4s preference

for bombs over the impedimenta of the siege1train 1 is

symptomatic of his desire to have nothing hatever to do ith

hat 6akunin called the 4destructive passion4. On the contrary,

the Mar"ist is deeply committed to preserving as much as

possible# like an an"ious heir, his first concern is to ensure the

integrity of his future inheritance, in the hope of taking over a

smoothly running productive machine.

13



III

The advent of mercantile civili3ation generates a class of

proletarians that constitutes both the base and the substratum

of this civili3ation as ell as its most natural product. The

gathering momentum of industriali3ation thros fresh strata,

hole classes even (peasants, artisans and small

shopkeepers- into the ranks of the proletariat. These classes

are urbani3ed, piled holesale into factories, cut off from their

on culture (in the most neutral sense of the term- and reduced

to mere survival (that is, to the reproduction of future

proletarians and to the minimal maintenance of their on

capacity for ork, as Ricardo and Mar" noted-. To this purely

physical process must be added spiritual impoverishment and

constraint/ the bourgeoisie imposes its on scale of values, its

rites and its pre2udices upon the mass of producers. 8ndeed, the

bourgeoisie maintains its hold upon the proletariat far more by

its spiritual poer than by force of arms.

14



6ut, even though it participated in bourgeois ideology and

populated the suburbs around the tons, the proletariat long

remained outside bourgeois civili3ation. 8t as e"cluded on a

variety of levels, the most visible clearly being the politico1

2uridical level. !or the proletariat had no political being# and

hen it finally obtained the right to vote and to stand for

election, it gave its votes to outsiders/ to radical republicans in

!rance, to the 5emocrats in the nited States and the 0iberals

in ngland. The proletariat only ac%uired a leadership of its on

shortly before the !irst 7orld 7ar, hich certainly as an

advance on the previous situation, even if it meant that the

orkers simply came under another form of control. 6ut the

orker as also deprived of social being, in that his long

orking days, his living conditions, his family duties and his

very poverty prevented him from en2oying genuine social

e"change. 9is e"clusion is most spectacular and most crucial,

hoever, in the field of culture/ the proletarian is a complete

stranger to the orld of the bourgeois, since he does not en2oy

the conditions of fulfilment afforded by the bourgeois orld.

15



8n terms of bourgeois values, the proletarian is a non1

being/ money after all is principal among these values, and the

orker, by definition, is e"cluded from the sphere of profit.

ducation comes once the thirst for gain has been satisfied, but

the manual orker ill seldom get any further than

apprenticeship. !inally, the highest sphere of these values

contains all those notions e may call 4idealistic4 (patriotism,

self1sacrifice in the name of a cause, self1cultivation, invention,

discovery, etc.- hich are e"tremely important for the

established system and hich the proletarian, for as long as he

remains a member of his class, can neither share in nor make

his on.

At the end of this brief balance sheet the proletarian, in the

conte"t of classical bourgeois civili3ation, appears as a one1

dimensional being (in a more literal sense than Marcuse

employs-/ he is a producer, and in terms of the predominant

conditions of sociality, he is nothing but a producer. As long as

he remains e"clusively a producer and is deprived of the fruits

16



of his labour, the proletarian can neither reali3e his on

potential nor even ac%uire another dimension.

!or that he must gain access to bourgeois civili3ation. And

that is the real significance of the economic and political

struggle hich developed along ith the process of

industriali3ation. !rom the setting up of strike funds to the

creation of poerful union organi3ations, from the timid

beginnings of a orkers4 (or labour or social1democrat- party to

electoral victories carrying the 4party of the proletariat4 to poer,

all efforts have been directed toards gaining admission to the

bourgeois stronghold.

Over the past century or so the proletariat has adopted

ruling1class modes of organi3ation, thought and struggle in

order to further its integration into the e"isting structure. The

evolution of the capitalist system itself proved a great help in

the process. The gradual transformation from a competitive

market economy to a monopoly capitalist economy

characteri3ed by large units in hich the State plays an

17



increasingly active role, means that State planning is no a key

component in the mechanism of production, e"change and

distribution. As a result, the role of the State is no an

integrating one.

8n a parallel development, the entire production machine,

in its constant %uest for ne outlets, is progressively turning to

the consumer goods sector. The demand for durable and semi1

durable goods and for instant consumption is increasing along

ith the rise in orkers4 living standards. 8n countries hose

economic infra1structures are broadly established, here

demand for producer goods has already reached a certain

saturation point and here the colonial market appears

increasingly unpredictable, the consumer goods sector has

come as a veritable godsend for investors, and is no being

4coloni3ed4 in its turn. The so1called consumer societies are

precisely those in hich the production machine is increasingly

adapted to turning out consumer goods, the demand for hich

moreover is artificially stimulated, manipulated, encouraged

and even created out of thin air by authoritarian methods.

18



The recent solvency, and even more the future spending

poer, of the proletariat has made it a vital sector in any

modern economy. 8t is e"pected to soak up a groing output of

goods and services, and therefore it is eagerly solicited,

flattered, taken into consideration. 8n addition to its role as

producer it has ac%uired a further dimension 1 that of consumer.

9enceforth nothing is ithheld from it and it may (must, rather-

consume everything that is consumable, and notably culture

hich, in an adapted and simplified form, the mass media no

dole out in massive helpings.

8n short, to kinds of factor have been at ork in the

integration of the proletariat into commodity civili3ation/ its on

orldly struggles on the one hand, and the evolution of the

economic system on the other. This process is virtually

complete in most developed countries (at least for native

orkers# immigrant labour, on the contrary, is obliged to fight

the battle for integration all over again-. &o that he en2oys

theoretically unlimited access to commodities, the orker is in a

position to re2ect and negate them.

19



IV

The task of the current radical theory is to e"press

precisely this negation. 8t represents a break ith all sectorial

revolts and half1hearted doctrines. 8t is born from first1hand

e"perience of social conflicts, but a number of its elements can

be traced back to the tradition of anti1authoritarian socialism.

This tradition as entirely stamped out by Stalinism, although

even in the nineteenth century it as tending to be

overshadoed by Mar"ism4s monopoly of oppositional thought.

Mar"ism e"tracted from the other contemporary socialist

systems those analyses hich served its on ends. On

completing this ideological grafting operation, Mar" pronounced

the death of the donor as if the graft had utterly drained the

donor of substance.

&evertheless, the alternative to authoritarian ideology is

as old as this ideology itself. 8t emerged as an antidote to all

half1ay formulae and, from the outset, identified itself ith the

cause of the utopia of liberation. The great socialist movement

20



born in the first half of the nineteenth century in !rance

impregnated neighbouring and even distant countries ith its

rationality. Radical thought took root before State socialism and

the various authoritarian conceptions of social organi3ation

came to be identified ith the theory of the proletariat. 8t

emerged at different periods in most uropean countries and in

the nited States, and remained a vital force up to the end of

the last century, hen it as smothered by Mar"ist1inspired

social democracy. All the same, each revolt, each emancipation

movement provides it ith an occasion to remind us once more

of its e"istence. 8t played a part in the great autonomous mass

movements in Russia ()<?1*-, Germany ()<):1)<-, ngland

()<):1+B-, 8taly ()<+?-, Spain ()<@B1*-, 9ungary ()<)<, )<B-

and !rance ()<@B, )<B:-. Today it seems highly unlikely that

radical thought ill ever vanish entirely from vie. 8t is solidly

established in the so1called affluent societies and is no

beginning to pose a challenge in the consciousness of the

masses to all those ideologies based on command and

21



obedience. (B- 8n short, it presents an alternative, playing out its

role before history.

1. The Soviet State: Myths and Realities (1917-21)

The Russian Revolution of )<)* struck a heavy blo at

radicality. The advent of a 4socialist4 regime throughout the

length and breadth of the Russian mpire more or less

overhelmed every other form of revolutionary thought or

action.

The prestige of the 6olsheviks as so great that it

completely overshadoed all notions of radicality. !or they

succeeded in imposing their ne revolutionary creed and in

obtaining the allegiance of millions of orkers throughout the

orld.

6y ay of historical simplification e may say that

6olshevik dogma maintained its absolute ascendancy for about

half a century. 8n terms of ideas, this corresponds to hat is

22



knon as Mar"ism10eninism, i.e. Mar"ism as re1interpreted and

brought up to date by 0enin and his folloers. politically

speaking or, more e"actly, in terms of Realpolitik, this dogma

as incarnated in the actions and decisions of the leaders of

the Soviet nion. 8t is of little importance that, in the first phases

of the Revolution, they made use of the speciali3ed apparatus

of the $ommunist 8nternational (or $omintern- or that, in the

aftermath of the Second 7orld 7ar, their enormous prestige

enabled them to do ithout this institution. 7hat is important is

that they ere perceived as spokesmen for orld revolutionary

consciousness.

This blind confidence as inevitably troubled by a number

of rude shocks/ the trials of the old 6olsheviks, Chrushchev4s

revelations at the Tentieth $ongress of the $ommunist =arty

of the Soviet nion ($=S- folloing the so1called de1

Stalini3ation. Det the edifice remained intact right up to the

middle of the )<B?s. At that moment a ne generation of

revolutionaries began to attract attention in 7estern urope

and &orth America (and, to a lesser e"tent, in 0atin America-/ a

23



generation hich gave birth to the anti1authoritarian left in

Germany, to generali3ed confrontation in !rance (ith its

recurrent outbreaks since May )<B:-, the various hippy, yippy,

freaks and Students for a 5emocratic Society movements in

the nited States, not to mention specific groups (omen,

racial or cultural minorities, homose"uals, etc.-. !or the last ten

years or so, this generation has been stirring up convulsions

throughout modern society that have seriously shaken hat is

conveniently knon as 7estern civili3ation, its political

systems, its social and even its mental structures. 8t is seeking

other frames of reference for its radicality than orthodo"

communism, hich it looks on as being 2ust as bogged don in

e"ploitation and in2ustice as 7estern1style capitalism.

The elaboration of a ne radical theory inevitably involves

the criti%ue of the semi1secular myth the Soviet State has come

to represent. 7hile, until no, this criti%ue as confined to the

moral sphere (Russian communists ere reproached ith

Stalin, the concentration camps, anti1semitism, stifling

dictatorship- or else to economic %uestions (critics are still

24



aiting for the economic miracle, elfare is greater and more

generali3ed in the nited States-, from the )<B?s on it has

turned its attention to the social foundations of the Soviet

regime. The results of this global criti%ue ere spectacular/ in

the space of ten years ()<B1)<*; roughly- communist parties

ceased to attract those ho aspire to revolution. $onversely, a

ne bourgeoisie (composed of skilled orkers, hite1collar

orkers and middle1rank e"ecutives, teachers, 2ournalists and

riters, scientific research1orkers...-, attracted by

communism4s technocratic promises, have slipped %uite

comfortably into the mould.

On the other hand those ho are attracted by the

revolutionary phenomenon no longer suffer the pangs of false

consciousness as did their fathers, typified by the hesitations of

a Sartre or the uncertain meanderings of 4fello travellers4.

Today4s radicals, even if not alays sure around hich political

sect they should gather, are uninhibited and unambiguous in

their 2udgment of historical communism. 8n this respect, the

generation of the )<B?s and *?s has made a clean break ith

25



the past# spontaneously, it has rediscovered a radical tradition

hich, hoever much it may have been masked by the image

of the 4official4 revolution, has never ceased to e"ist. Our

concern here is to retrace this tradition of criticism of

6olshevism, of the Russian Revolution and of the Soviet State/

its development ill enable us to grasp more fully the

e"pression of a radicality that is not alays aare of its on

antecedents.

8n reality, the origins of this radicality are tofold/ anarcho1

populism and dissident Mar"ism. 6efore discussing them in

detail it is orth making use of the recent historical research on

the sub2ect to take a look at the three myths hich enabled the

Soviet upper class to identify its rule ith radicality/ the soviets,

the self1management and the consensus of the orking

masses.

26



The three yths and their history

The soviets

The soviets, or councils, occupy a central place in the

saga of communism. They represent the necessary link

beteen the 6olsheviks and the masses, the legitimi3ation of

their poer. The history of the Russian Revolution as told in

Soviet te"tbooks takes place in to phases/ the rising of the

masses against tsarist oppression, then against Cerensky4s

bourgeois democracy, engendered a process of radicali3ation

of hich the 6olsheviks ere both inspirers and spokesmen,

preparing the ground for the second phase of the revolution,

October )<)*.

8n other ords, the communists perceive an historical and

theoretical continuity beteen the autonomous origins of the

councils and the 0eninist theory of the State, a vie hich is

held even by the anti1Stalinist Mar"ist10eninists. ()-

This misrepresentation of the true course of events as

essential in order to paper over the divergences beteen the

27



masses and 6olshevik policy insofar as the 6olsheviks claimed,

and still do claim, to incarnate the dictatorship of the proletariat.

8t as vital to create harmony beteen =arty and masses. 6ut

this version of the history of the Russian Revolution contains a

double mystification. On the one hand, there as not one type

of soviet, but to %uite distinct types. The first made its

appearance in Russia in )<?, and e find traces of it up to

May )<?*. These ere councils that had arisen spontaneously

out of the >anuary1!ebruary )<? strike. 7e may say that

these soviets largely e"pressed the self1action of the Russian

proletariat. Then there ere the Russian soviets of )<)*,

folloed by their central uropean counterparts. 8n Russia, at

least, their emergence as supervised, provoked even, by all

those bustling around the revolution in one capacity or another/

politicians, trade unionists, 2ournalists, adventurers and

demagogues.

The emergence of councils at the beginning of )<?

cannot be isolated from the overall history of the Russian

orkers4 movement. 7hile it is true that their organi3ation as

28



utterly independent of 6olshevik ideology or the =arty (and of

any other party for that matter- (+-, their roots go back to the

institution of orkers4 delegates elected at the time of the first

great strikes at the end of the nineteenth century. =arado"ically,

the institutionali3ation of these delegates very fre%uently

corresponded ith the ishes of, and even resulted from, the

initiatives of employers and police. A police report of )<?) even

envisaged the setting up of permanent delegate committees

mandated to negotiate ith the employer and factory inspector.

6y this means, it as thought, it ould be possible to channel

orkers4 discontent hich, if e"pressed anarchically, as liable

to break out in uprisings and revolts. The parado" is only

apparent, for it is alays easier to nobble a fe delegates than

to deal ith a mass of angry orkers.

On the other hand, orkers in a firm ere obviously not

very enthusiastic about those delegates ho en2oyed the

approval of the boss and the police chief. As a result they

preferred to place their trust in clandestine resistance fund

29



officers (these date from around ):*E:? in Russia-, and

delegates elected spontaneously on the occasion of a strike.

8t should be pointed out here that until )<? delegates,

hether official or clandestine, and both permanent and ad hoc

committees limited themselves to material demands. 8t as

after the 5ays of !ebruary )<)* that slogans became political

and, at =etrograd, took on an anti1tsarist colouring. To restore

calm, the authorities set up the Shidlovski $ommission to look

into the causes of the discontent. 7orkers ere invited to take

part in the $ommission4s ork, and a special electoral college

as established on their behalf. Thus, the idea of central

representation for the orkers took shape as a result of a

government initiative. (@- Although the Shidlovski $ommission

failed, the idea continued to develop and orkers4 councils

soon emerged, bringing together elected delegates in the

factories. (;-

According to a variety of matching accounts, the )<?

soviets arose absolutely spontaneously and ere independent

30



of any e"ternal 4initiatives4. The popularity of these soviets

among the masses derived largely from the absence of political

agitators and party representatives in their midst. They

e"pressed the orkers4 political and economic demands in a

situation here trade unions ere non1e"istent and here the

parties had little real influence over the masses. 8n rural areas,

the peasant delegate soviets fre%uently turned out to be neither

more nor less than the old village assemblies (skhod -. (-

These features of orkers4 councils persist throughout the

period of revolutionary agitation hich lasted from )<? to

)<?*. The situation as %uite different in )<)*. Although the

!ebruary strikes ere completely spontaneous (both the =utilov

strikes on the ):th and the general strike on the +th-, the

councils did not arise directly out of them as they had done

telve years earlier. This time they resulted from the combined

efforts of politicians and orkers4 leaders.

Alongside this, and at the same moment, i.e. beteen +@

and +* !ebruary )<)*, the politicians of the 5uma $ommittee

31



and the members of the 7orkers4 Group sitting on the $entral

$ommittee for the 7ar 8ndustries (an employers4 and State

organi3ation-, attempted to organi3e elections in =etrograd for

a $entral Soviet. The impetus for this came from the latter

group, hich installed itself in the Tauride =alace on +*

!ebruary and set up a provisional e"ecutive committee of the

council of orkers4 delegates, to hich committee several

socialist leaders and members of parliament attached

themselves. 8t as this committee hich called upon orkers

and soldiers to elect their representatives. This e"plains hy,

hen the first =rovisional Soviet met that very evening, it still

contained no factory delegatesF (B-

As e have seen, the )<)* soviets ere neither an

entirely spontaneous nor a completely original institution. 8t

ould be a mistake to think, hoever, that they ere imposed

from above/ the idea of a central orkers4 council as in the air,

and as idely favoured by orkers and soldiers. 7hat had

changed as the ay the parties no assessed this institution.

Seeing in them a springboard to poer, they ooed the

32



councils from all sides, hich e"plains hy the intellectuals

ac%uired decisive influence in the =etrograd Soviet and hy

this Soviet so rapidly lost contact ith the masses. (*-

!olloing the October Revolution, all the different tendencies of

socialism ere favourable to the councils, and this retroactively.

6ut in reality the rapprochement beteen the 6olsheviks

(limiting ourselves to them alone- and the soviets as a

laborious process, involving tactical moves that ere fully re1

e"amined and constantly amended.

To begin ith, in the spring of )<?, the 0eninists re2ected

the soviets out of hand. 6eteen spring and autumn, this

hostility changed to mistrust, a mistrust that characteri3ed

6olshevik dealings ith all independent proletarian

organi3ations. The =arty as even incapable of devising a

doctrine capable of gaining unanimous support# (:- at best they

paid lip1service to the councils, at orst they heaped abuse on

them. (<- 0enin himself as unable to form a coherent

2udgment/ hen the =etrograd Soviet ac%uired a measure of

political leadership, the Russian Social 5emocratic 7orkers4

33



=arty demanded that the Soviet adopt its programme, arguing

that the latter as incapable of implementing a politically

proletarian line. ven though it emanated from the capital4s

proletariat, it as being called upon to become a 4technical

apparatus4 of the =arty, and the =arty even ent so far as to

oppose the formation of the Saratov Soviet in &ovember )<?.

()?-

0enin did, hoever, fully grasp the importance of the

soviets from the point of vie of revolutionary poer. 5espite

misgivings, he learned the lessons of )<? and imposed on his

=arty the task of introducing its authority into the =etrograd

Soviet. As early as &ovember )<? he began laying the

foundations for his )<)* strategy# as he himself pointed out, the

orkers4 delegates ere essential to a victorious insurrection.

6ut he had no illusions concerning their permanence, for the

victorious revolution ould necessarily give rise to other bodies,

and the councils could even come to be seen as redundant.

34



The old doubts reappeared in )<)*, ith 0enin still absent

from the scene# Molotov4s programme, dran up on +:

!ebruary, did not even mention the soviets. On his arrival in

=etrograd, 0enin astonished everyone ith his slogan/ 4All

poer to the soviets4. 6ut, from the outset, he had identified the

revolution ith the sei3ing of poer by his =arty. The slogan he

as no propagating ith such vehemence as of a purely

tactical nature. As if additional proof ere needed, see the

6olsheviks4 sudden volte1face after the events of @1 >uly )<)*,

organi3ed under their auspices and designed to force the

=etrograd Soviet4s hand into sei3ing poer. 7hen the latter

refused, the 6olsheviks resumed their old hostility to the

institution of the soviets, calling them 4puppets, devoid of real

poer4. ())-

Thereupon, the 6olsheviks changed their line to 4=oer to

the poor orkers and peasants in order to carry out the =arty

programme4. &evertheless, it as also proposed to in the

councils round from the inside. 7hen the capital4s council

regained popularity after repulsing Cornilov4s attacks, the

35



6olsheviks returned to their old slogan of 4All poer to the

soviets4, at the end of September. This time, it as for good,

especially no that 0enin4s partisans had on a ma2ority inside

the councils.

=oer as sei3ed in the name of the latter/ the =arty gave

poer to the soviets and thus established its superiority over

them. They no served merely to confer legal form on the

=arty4s poer.

As early as 5ecember )<)*, Ma"im Gorky as able to

rite in the nespaper Novaia Žizn (no. )<, * 5ecember

)<)*- that the revolution as not attributable to the soviets, and

that the ne republic as not one of councils, but of peoples4

commissars. 7hat follos is history/ the councils ere

institutionali3ed by the >uly )<): constitution, hich voided

them of all content. This as a superfluous precaution insofar

as the 6olsheviks already had complete control over them. ()+-

8f the councils ere still an independent e"pression of the

Russian proletariat in the course of )<)*, they only ere so

36



partially and ephemerally. $ontrary to hat happened in )<?,

they became the scene of factional and partisan in1fighting/

they ere fought over partly for their historical prestige and

partly for their real leading revolutionary role. The 6olsheviks

played their hand masterfully in this struggle. They ere

une%ualled as tacticians, but it ould be presumptuous and a

perversion of the simple historical truth to try to set them up as

the defenders of the soviets if one sees in the latter the

e"pression of the struggling masses.

Workers' control and self-management

The history of orkers4 control in Russia is contained

ithin the period from spring )<)* to spring )<):. The

component parts of this year4s e"ploits ere to become the

basis of a universal myth and to serve as an e"ample to future

revolutionaries.

!rom the viepoint of radicality, the history of orkers4

control is especially important, for the assumption of

37



responsibility for production by the producers themselves is the

hard core of its programme and its aspirations. Det, in fact, the

sub2ect is obscured by a tofold ambiguity, semantic on the

one hand, political on the other. Terminologically, the ord

4control4 in 4orkers4 control4 gives rise to confusion hen it is

not clearly distinguished from the ord 4self1management4 (or

4orkers4 management4-. 8n this ay, the nglish workers'

control and the Russian rabochii kontrol' can signify both the

assumption of responsibility for management by the orkers

and the control of this management, even if its reality does not

lie in their hands. !or greater clarity, e ought to employ the

terms self-management or workers' management (rabochii

upravlenia in Russian-.

8f this ambiguity as not cleared up, at least in Russia, this

is because it did itself derive from the political ambiguity

surrounding the very essence of poer in socialist society.

There can be no doubt that the ma2ority of 6olsheviks

ere doctrinally opposed to orkers4 management, a typically

38



federalist and anti1>acobin institution. Mar"ist orthodo"y in this

domain called for State production linked to a decision1making

centre situated at the top of the pyramid. The 6olsheviks made

no bones about their advocacy of this conception right up to the

eve of the !ebruary )<)* revolution, after hich they became

less open about it. The Mensheviks, on the other hand, never

abandoned this orthodo"y and systematically defended the

unions (as economic bodies subservient to the political

leadership of the =arty- as against the representative

institutions of the independent poer of the orkers such as

they appeared in Russia. ()@-

8f, as does the author, one starts from the vie that the

prime ob2ective of the 6olsheviks as the con%uest of poer at

the summit and that, in order to attain this, they ere prepared

to adopt tactics (or even a strategy- at variance ith their

ideological principles, then their attitude toards orkers4

management seems fairly clear.

39



>ust as 0enin very early on (as early as &ovember )<?-

sa in the soviets an institution charged ith enormous

revolutionary potential, so orkers4 management and the

institutions hich e"pressed it ere perceived as a orthy

means of furthering the end.

One should not forget that doctrinal lapses ere not

uncommon ithin the 6olshevik =arty/ the most flagrant

e"ample of this as their agrarian programme, hich 0enin

lifted, lock, stock and barrel, from the social revolutionaries.

The slogan, 4The land to the peasants4, as in blatant

contradiction ith the =arty4s programme and Mar"ist doctrine,

hich called for the nationali3ation of all land. The reason hy

it as so easy to ignore principles as, of course, that in a

country hose population as four1fifths peasant, it ould have

been impossible to carry out a revolution ithout their support.

And so the 6olsheviks turned to the peasants, thereby

legitimi3ing the 4petit1bourgeois4 programme of the despised

populists.

40



The Machiavellianism of this compromise as 2ustified, in

the eyes of the 6olsheviks, by the observation that the peasant

class as not revolutionary in essence, but bourgeois. One

could thus make use of it as a temporary ally, turning against it

hen it had served its purpose. The orking class, on the other

hand, as represented as the motive force of history/ it ould

have been rather more difficult to compromise over that. Surely

any deceit as liable to look like a betrayal of revolutionary

goals

And yet, in )<)*, the Russian orking class as

undeniably imbued ith the idea that 2ustice re%uired that the

bosses be driven out of their factories and that the orking

class take their place. 7hat coherent Mar"ist, hat effective

revolutionary ould haggle over that kind of demand

7hich is hy the 6olsheviks ent along ith this line, all

the more so in that the left social revolutionaries and various

brands of anarchist ere vigorously propagating it. 6ut, so as

not to appear to have betrayed the orking class once poer

41



had been con%uered, the 6olsheviks took refuge in ambiguity.

This took several forms/ they came out in favour of orkers4

control ithout specifying its e"act content# they alloed the

various currents in the party free (and contradictory- e"pression

on the sub2ect. 6y folloing this fle"ible tactic one may hope to

discover a thread of coherence H defined in terms of the social

nature of 6olshevik poer.

The ay one accounts for the attitude of the 6olsheviks

toard orkers management and factory committees depends

upon hether one looks at the period preceding the + October

insurrection or the subse%uent period.

The factory committees (fabzavkomii - ();- emerged in the

ake of the >anuary1!ebruary )<)* strikes. They mushroomed

throughout Russia, taking on the role of orkers4 representation

inside the factory. Their numerical and political importance gre

to the point here the =rovisional Government as obliged to

regulate their e"istence and their functions. ()- The decree

dated +@ April )<)* limited their role to that of the present1day

42



house committee, backed by a trade union chapel/ their legal

competence covered such %uestions as the length of orking

day, ages, disputes and cultural and social problems.

8t goes ithout saying that this limitation as a dead letter/

in the revolutionary upheaval of the period, the establishment of

the fabzavkomii filled a gap and e"pressed the aspirations of

the orkers to self1management. This e"plains hy the

committees became controlling elements in cases here the

employer remained, but took over the management function in

those instances here the old management had disappeared.

()B-

The role of the committees e"panded throughout )<)* as

the soviets increasingly lost contact ith the mass of orkers

and stuck to political programmes proclaimed in advance.

The 6olsheviks ere naturally interested in these

revolutionary bodies and con%uered them from ithin more

easily and earlier than in the case of the councils, inasmuch as

the fab3avkomii ere still free of any massive partisan

43



intrusion. 6ut they implanted themselves in the regional

(subse%uently national- coordinating bodies, hich themselves

had little influence over the local and factory committees. Thus,

at the first conference of the =etrograd factory committees (@?

May1 >une )<)*-, the 6olsheviks already possessed a

ma2ority, and the radicality of their slogans competed ith those

of the revolutionary left. They cunningly called for 4orkers4

control4 in opposition to the Mensheviks and the social

revolutionaries, ithout ever stating very clearly hat they

meant by it.

The first all1Russian conference of factory committees ()*1

++ October )<)*- confirmed 6olshevik ascendancy still further.

5espite a change of tone among certain 0eninist delegates

hoping to push the trade unions to the fore, 0enin, on the eve of

the con%uest of poer, heightened the revolutionary role of the

committees, 4these insurrectional bodies4. ()*-

7hile the conference concluded that orkers4 control as

essential, it did so cautiously and ith reference to its on

44



poer, stigmati3ing moreover the 4control of orkers over the

factories in hich they ork4. ():-

8t ill be observed that the 6olsheviks4 slogans prior to the

October insurrection contained the same ambiguity as did

State and evolution, ritten by 0enin in August )<)*. On the

one hand, they have an anarcho1syndicalist colouring, going as

far as calling for the destruction of the State in one case and,

on the other, entrusting the management of the economy to the

masses themselves, organi3ed in factory committees. 6ut in

neither case as the commitment total# the sincerity of faith

does not e"actly burst through. These radical statements ere

peppered ith conditional clauses and safeguards hich

voided them of all meaning. The tactical need to 4keep one4s

ear to the groundsell of the masses4, in 0enin4s on ords,

did not fully convince militants confident in their on political

education, feeling they had nothing further to learn, not even

from that most outstanding school H revolutionary agitation.

45



The second period, beginning on + October )<)*, as

inaugurated still under the influence of this ambiguity, but this

as to dissipate gradually. The e"ercise of poer as to make

everything clear enough.

The management of production by the orkers as one of

the goals of the struggle, proclaimed by the Military

Revolutionary $ommittee on + October )<)*. That same day,

the second congress of the soviets (in hich the 6olsheviks

held the ma2ority- solemnly approved the decision to establish

genuine orkers control hile specifying, hoever, that this

meant controlling the capitalists and not confiscating their

factories. ()<-

Shortly afterards, the draft decree on orkers4 control,

dran up by 0enin, as published. 'isibly moved by a desire to

conciliate the masses, 0enin introduced orkers4 control into all

enterprises employing more than five orkers. 7hile legali3ing

a de facto situation he provided for the annulment of decisions

taken by the fabzavkomy , the 4congresses and the trade unions4

46



and made the orkers4 delegates anserable to the State for

the maintenance of order and discipline ithin the enterprise.

(+?-

This plan, hich already marked a step backards by

comparison ith the e"isting situation in certain factories, as

still further atered don before being published in its final

form on ); &ovember )<)*. 8n its definitive version, the decree

laid don that factory committees should be subordinate to a

local committee on hich ould sit representatives of the trade

unions# the local committees themselves ould depend upon a

hierarchy croned by an All1Russian 7orkers4 $ontrol $ouncil.

Moreover, as =ankratova notes, this did not imply orkers4

management such as the anarchists had called for, but the

supervision and control of production and prices.

So, in mid1&ovember, e find ourselves on the one hand

ith a decree hich, hile legally introducing orkers4 control,

limits it and clips its ings, and on the other hand ith a

situation here numerous factories are already effectively

47



being managed by the orkers themselves or their

representatives. Since the insurrection, orkers4 management

has even taken a real leap forard, hich can be accounted for

as much by the flight of a good many employers as by the

ambiguous attitude of the ne authorities.

The battle for orkers4 management as therefore not yet

entirely lost, especially since there as a poerful movement in

favour of imposing it, ith spokesmen even among the

6olsheviks. Given the e"istence of this tendency, e are faced

ith to possible interpretations of the decree of ); &ovember.

(+)- The first concludes in favour of orkers4 poer at the base#

this as e"pressed by the =etrograd $entral $ouncil of !actory

$ommittees. The other distinguishes beteen the function of

control on the one hand, and of management and leadership on

the other. The latter function is reserved for the oner or the

director of the enterprise. This as the interpretation given by

the All1Russian 7orkers4 $ontrol $ouncil in hich, as e have

seen, the trade unions had already carved out a place for

themselves out of all proportion to their real importance.

48



The last ord came, parado"ically, from the first all1

Russian trade union congress (*1); >anuary )<):-. 8t should

be pointed out here that, even in the 6olsheviks4 vie, orkers4

management as becoming a practice and an ideology rooted

in the orking masses of the large tons and that, rightly or

rongly, the latter e"pected a great deal from it. (++-

!urthermore, spokesmen for the official doctrine of the party,

the one approved by 0enin, asked the factory committees to

torpedo themselves and to become an integral part of the union

structure, entirely in the hands of the 6olsheviks. 5espite

resistance by the anarcho1syndicalists, the congress voted

overhelmingly for the transformation of factory committees

into rank1and1file trade union organi3ations.

0o3ovsky, the future boss of the Russian trade unions,

gives the ideological 2ustification for this. 6oth at the congress

in >anuary )<): and in a pamphlet (aboch ii kon trol' - he set

out the reasons for his hostility to orker4s management. 8t

ould introduce 4anarchy into the production process4 and

ould bring about a return to outmoded phases of capitalist

49



production. Along ith 0enin, he called for the 4nationali3ation4

of the orkers4 movement and the regulation of the economy

from the top, the centre in fact. To this end he re%uested the

reintroduction of hierarchy into factories, suggesting that the

trade unions could serve as guarantors for this.

There as nothing ne in this position at the beginning of

)<):, e"cept that the 6olsheviks no proclaimed it officially. 8t

as in line ith the statist, >acobin interpretation of Mar"ist

theory of the social democrats# it accorded perfectly ith their

on aspirations for a strong, centrali3ed poer e"clusively in

their hands. Also, it had never really been completely masked

by the hasty slogans 1 alien to their system 1 that the 6olsheviks

had seen fit to adopt periodically for tactical reasons. Thus,

0enin had never made much of a secret of the fact that he sa

orkers4 control as a 4prelude to nationali3ations4 or that an

accountable administration should e"ist alongside the factory

committees. (+@- !urthermore, certain 6olsheviks had already

called for the absorption of the factory committees into the

trade unions even before the October insurrection. (+;-

50



The trade unions being brandished against the factory

committees ere only of recent origin in Russia. 6y contrast,

the fabzavkomy ere heirs to an ancient tradition of delegation,

of 4elders4 (starosty -, in short, of legal or clandestine orkers4

representation, hereas trade union organi3ations had been

stimulated into life by the parties and ere, as a result,

battlefields in the struggle for influence beteen Mensheviks

and 6olsheviks. At the moment of the con%uest of poer, the

latter found themselves masters of the trade unions, still poorly

represented in the factories. The conflict beteen unions and

factory committees is therefore beteen a largely bureaucratic

structure, ithout any real base, and the direct organs of

political and economic struggle of the industrial proletariat.

This une%ual match ended to the detriment of orkers4

management. After the trade union congress in >anuary )<):,

and after putting up a feeble resistance, the $entral $ouncil of

!actory $ommittees as absorbed by the 4economic

committees4 of the &orth (March )<):-. 7ith this last bastion of

orkers4 management laid lo, all there remained to do as to

51



nationalize industry hile handling over the management of the

nationali3ed firms to their old oners (decree dated +: >une

)<):-. 7orkers4 control as thereby definitively subordinated to

the soviet (regional or national- of the national economy

(sovnarhoz -. 8t as no up to orkers4 control to decide upon

output, production norms and labour discipline. As for

management, there as a return to individual decision1making,

though ith the assistance of a management committee, to1

thirds of hich consisted of members designated by the

supreme regional council of the national economy, hile the

other third as elected by factory orkers ho ere also

enrolled union members. (+-

Subse%uently, the avatars of the Russian orkers4

movement fell into the clutches of internecine strife beteen

rival bureaucracies/ folloing an attempt to militari3e labour

(Trotsky ardently defended this measure-, a bitter struggle

arose beteen the leaders of the trade union apparatus and

their =arty counterparts. This is hat the 7orkers4 Opposition

episode, finally defeated at the Tenth $ongress of the $=S

52



(6olsheviks- by the central political machine, as all about. (+B-

One should not be misled by titles/ the 7orkers4 Opposition

as merely the name of a 6olshevik fraction that happened to

ield poer in the union apparatus and not of some free

opposition emanating from the proletariat. 8f the latter as still

in e"istence it as manifesting itself at the same moment, but

in a very different manner 1 in revolts in the country side and in

the Cronstadt rising, hich the 7orkers4 Opposition delegates

hastened to crush on the ice1floes of the Gulf of !inland.

!pposition of the masses to "olshevik power

The third cardinal myth upon hich Mar"ist10eninists have

constructed their revolutionary hagiography is that concerning

the supposedly unanimous support hich the rural and urban

proletariat accorded its ne masters.

All coercive, un2ust or harsh measures ere reputedly

taken by the commissars by virtue of some fictitious consensus

of opinion uniting the orkers of the tons ith the poor

53



peasants. very e"pulsion, every internecine struggle for

poer, and every upset at the summit took place in the name of

a proletariat hich each protagonist claimed to represent. 8n

any case, traitors ere alays to be found outside the orking

class, hich as supposed to be massively behind its leaders.

This unanimity as merely a facade. And yet 6olshevik

historians have rather tended to neglect the %uestion of

collective opposition to communist poer. All that remain

available are scraps of proofs, hints and eye1itness accounts.

At all events, it is not our task here to rite the history of this

opposition/ that ould amount to reriting the history of the

Revolution, and there can be no doubt hatever that e are

no heading toards a complete revision of the

historiographical a"ioms e have been living on for the past

half1century. Suffice it to mention to phenomena hich

occurred in the period )<)*1+) and hich bear itness to the

distrust, sometimes going as far as open hostility, on the part of

rural and urban orkers toards the 6olshevik authorities. The

to cases in point ere the 4Makhnovshchina4 on the one hand,

54



and the Cronstadt sailors rising on the other. The first lasted

throughout this period, hile the second marked the close of it.

8n many ays March )<+) as a turning point, after hich only

those ho ere both credulous and disciplined could continue

to accept the 6olshevik vision and version of Russian reality.

The Makhnovshchina as the dual history, military and

political, of the revolution in the kraine. Militarily, under the

command of the anarchist, &estor Makhno, the insurgent army

fought for three years against the pro1German krainian

bourgeoisie, then against =etliura4s nationalist bourgeoisie and,

finally, against the 7hite Generals 5enikin and 7rangel, all the

hile skirmishing ith the Red Army.

!rom a strictly military viepoint, there can be no doubt

that the krainian insurgents saved Greater Russia from a

possibly fatal 7hite invasion. The #akhnovisty ere a shield

against all invaders heading for the north and the north1est, at

a time hen the Red Army as engaged in other battles 1

55



against =oland or, previously, against the 7hite Russians

arriving from the north, the east and the est.

6ut the military aspect of the Makhnovshchina, hoever

important it may have been in saving the kraine, is only of

secondary significance so far as e are concerned. !or the

Makhnovshchina as also the symbol, if not the best1organi3ed

manifestation, of political resistance to the penetration of

6olshevik authority into the southern kraine. 8t also provides

evidence of the positive aspects of mass organi3ation in the

kraine in )<)*1+). The e"tension of 6olshevik sovereignty

into this region could only result from the defeat of the insurgent

army on the one hand, and from the destruction of the

institutions of direct democracy set up by the peasants on the

other.

7hen the October insurrection broke out in =etrograd it

aroused little reaction in kraine, here a revolutionary tidal

ave had been seeping through the country since the days of

!ebruary. 6ecause the Treaty of 6rest10itovsk (March )<):-

56



ceded the kraine to the influence of the $entral =oers, this

region remained free from 6olshevik penetration up till the end

of the ar, in &ovember )<):. !or another fe months the

6olsheviks lacked sufficient forces to stand in the ay of the

development of the krainian revolution. 8t as only in the

summer of )<)< that Mosco set about sub2ecting the kraine

to its system of government.

!or to years, and despite the incessant to1ings and fro1

ings of various armies, despite pillage, ar and re%uisitioning,

the peasants under the katerinoslav government (sporadically

imitated by other regions- ere to emancipate themselves from

the economic yoke of the great landoners and the kulaks (rich

peasants-, setting up soviet1style representative bodies

constituted on a non1partisan basis.

Makhno as both the symbol of this movement for local

independence and its soul. !rom the moment he returned from

prison (at the end of March )<)*- he tirelessly set about

forming peasant soviets and unions hich ere administered

57



locally, permitting no outside interference from the central

authorities (Cerensky4s =rovisional Government, the $entral

krainian Rada, communist =eople4s $ommissars, not to

mention the Austro19ungarian or German occupiers-. The

political role of Makhno and his folloers consisted of

encouraging the very lively libertarian tendencies of the

krainian peoples and of permitting them to e"press

themselves through democratic institutions.

The success of this e"periment, despite the hostile

conditions, and especially around Gyulai1=olye, Makhno4s

native village, gives an idea of the degree to hich the

6olshevik graft as not taking.

On the strength of their slogans 1 the factory to the

orkers, the land to the poor peasants 1 the communists

nevertheless arrived ith a favourable reputation. 6ut as soon

as they ere in a position to penetrate into liberated kraine,

i.e. from autumn )<): and throughout )<)<, the 6olsheviks

opposed the land distributions hich the peasants, assembled

58



in soviets or in local unions, had already carried out in

accordance ith the 0eninist slogan. 9enceforth, the

communists sought to gather the peasants into State farms by

nationali3ing livestock and beet production.

This policy, carried out in an authoritarian manner, as not

at all to the liking of peasants ho had divided up the land

among themselves on a friendly basis and had formed rural

communes on their on initiative. 8n the face of this massive,

Greater Russian >acobin offensive people ere naturally

tempted to think there had been a change of government/ the

6olsheviks (in October )<)*- had distributed the land, the

communists (a year and a half later- anted to take it backF

(+:-

6y the summer of )<)<, this state of affairs as becoming

intolerable to a government seeking to e"tend its organi3ation

and its conception of the revolution to the entire territory. The

military agreements ith the Makhnovist army ere broken

and, in >une )<)<, Trotsky banned the holding of the fourth

59



congress of orkers4, peasants4 and insurgents4 delegates

hich as to have met at Gyulai1=olye.

The insurgent army4s riposte as to launch a counter1

offensive. 7ith black flags at their head and e%uipped ith a

cultural and propaganda section led by =eter Arshinov, the

insurgents drove =arty and $heka officials from every ton and

village through hich they passed.

A ne push by the 7hite counter1revolutionaries (5enikin

and Mamontov- in the course of the summer of )<)< forced the

6olsheviks, hose army as collapsing in the face of the

enemy, to make amends to Makhno and to grant him officially

an autonomy hich he had never in fact yielded. The ne"t fe

months ere to see the floering of a genuine free republic in

southern kraine, ith peasants and orkers applying the

decisions voted on by their delegates. 8t as at this time that

the insurgent army reached its peak (at the end of )<)<-, ith

some :?,??? men and ith heavy e%uipment.

60



Then, early in )<+?, the 5enikin threat as repulsed and

the Red Army turned on its ersthile allies. The struggle

beteen Trotsky4s soldiers and the libertarian peasants as to

last eight months before a fresh agreement as signed, this

time in order to halt General 7rangel, ho as advancing from

the 6lack Sea. !olloing the 2oint victory over the 7hite

General in &ovember )<+?, the 6olsheviks immediately

resumed their hostility to the krainian partisans, treacherously

e"ecuting most of the Makhnovist officers, and pursuing

Makhno and the remnants of his army across the krainian

plain right through to midsummer )<+). 8n August, Makhno

crossed the border into Rumania ith a handful of men. 9e

subse%uently reached =aris, here he died in poverty in )<@.

&o doubt e can also e"plain the krainian peasants4

resistance to communist implantation by the history of this

people ho never entirely gave up resisting those they looked

on as invaders/ the Greater Russians. 6ut in the final analysis it

as the authoritarian, >acobin and bureaucratic methods of the

=eople4s $ommissars that repelled these peasants hungry for

61



freedom. Makhno4s rather rudimentary libertarian message

penetrated rural areas all the more forcefully in that it coincided

ith a secular desire for land and for self1administration. 0enin4s

professional revolutionaries had sensed this enough to dra up

an e"tremely liberal nationalities programme and to promise

land to the poor peasants/ on this point, at least, the latter ere

not going to allo themselves to be caught out. They

demonstrated their hostility to hat they called the

4commissarocracy4, thus giving the lie to the myth of the

unanimous masses standing four1s%uare behind the 6olshevik

government.

The Makhnovshchina as but one e"ample of massive

and obstinate opposition to the penetration of communist

poer. $ertainly it as one of the best1knon and most

determined. 6ut, ith the establishment of 47ar $ommunism4,

one observes a spate of revolts put don ith the utmost

ferocity/ peasants ere hipped (as in the days of serfdom-,

and armed detachments carried out mass e"ecutions and

e"torted grain by force.

62



These uprisings ere not alays inspired by the 7hite

Guards, as communist propaganda liked to claim. They ere

not even invariably provoked by re%uisitioning. The opposition

as also political in nature/ thus, the congress of peasants,

called in March )<+? by the 6olsheviks themselves, protested

against hat they called the government of the peasants by the

orkers. 8n early )<+?, according to a $heka report, the revolt

covered tenty1to provinces. 6y !ebruary )<+), the $heka

as announcing )): centres of rebellion.

The most savage but also the most typical revolt occurred

in the province of Tambov and lasted for a hole year (summer

)<+? to summer )<+)-. (+<- The peasants, organi3ed into a

4peasant orkers union4 (STC-, rose against the 6olshevik

yoke, the absence of freedom of speech and of the press. The

STC programme called for the 4sociali3ation4 of land and sought

to distinguish itself from both 7hite Guards and 6olsheviks

alike. $ontrary to government statements, the movement did

not arise at the instigation of the social revolutionaries, the

latter in fact being opposed to armed revolt at that particular

63



moment. The central committee of the social revolutionaries

even forbade its members to take part in it, and those ho did

participate (such as the popular leader, A. S. Antonov- did so in

a personal capacity.

Throughout the Tambov rising, and before the 6olsheviks

intervened massively (!ebruary )<+)-, the province as self1

administered by locally elected committees. The 6olshevik

=arty organi3ation, bereft of mass support, fell apart of its on

accord. 6ut the =arty, its organi3ation and its $heka as back

in !ebruary )<+), riding in the regular army4s trucks, having

been released by the victories in the $rimea (against 7rangel-

and in =oland. 6itter resistance as kept up till >uly )<+).

The situation as little different in the tons, e"cept that it

as harder to organi3e resistance, especially durable

resistance. 7ith strikes forbidden, along ith anti1=arty

gatherings and propaganda, all that has come don to us by

ay of evidence of popular opposition to the ne masters are

the vaguest hints and rumours. All the more so because the

64



7ar $ommunism period, hile forcing the Revolution to close

its ranks in the face of the counter1revolution and the e"ternal

enemy, provided the political leadership ith an opportunity of

stifling all manifestations of orkers discontent.

8n the event it as not to be 7ar $ommunism that ould

be only a parenthesis in the history of Russian communism but

the &= (the &e conomic =olicy, introduced by the Tenth

=arty $ongress, in March )<+)-, hich marks a temporary

break ith 6olshevism4s bureaucratic, centrali3ing rationality,

politically incarnated in the inter of )<)*. Stalin kne hat he

as up to hen he dusted off Trotsky4s plan for the

collectivi3ation of land/ he thus not only perpetuated the latter4s

4genius4 but also the 0eninist tradition hich consists of

presenting socialism as the acceleration of history in terms of

production and productivity. (@?-

The professional revolutionaries ho had come to poer

in October )<)* ere concerned to develop Russia4s capitalist

65



potential to the utmost, to carry the country farther and faster

along the road than the feeble bourgeoisie.

All concrete measures taken once the Revolution had got

over its brief period of anarcho1syndicalist demagogy (from the

ithering aay of the State in State and evolution to the

slogans of orkers control and land to the peasants- made

necessary by the con%uest of poer in the first place and

afterards by its retention, these brutally and obstinately

incarnate the original pro2ect. The same may be said of the

centrali3ation of political and economic poer, of the return to

individual leadership in the army and in industry, and of the

introduction of piece1ork and Taylorism (as brought up to date

by the State economists-.

These measures represent the general line, the average

line, of the 6olshevik pro2ect. A variety of tendencies inclined or

corrected it in the direction of greater liberalism or severity. The

man ho drove things to their e"treme limits, ho as not

afraid (ith an outspokenness for hich his colleagues had

66



neither the courage nor the calibre- to say out loud hat many

ere secretly thinking# the man ho, ith his curious mi"ture of

fanaticism and a taste for ork ell done, incarnated all that the

orker of the day hated most 1 that man as 0ev 5avidovich

Trotsky.

This statement ill come as a surprise only to those ho

are unaare of the history of the early years of the Soviet

Republic or ho have preferred to ignore it. 9istorical veracity

forces us to recogni3e that, for as long as he held effective

poer (roughly till )<+@-, 0ev 5avidovich rather represents the

right ing of the =arty, although the scale of reference is

somehat arbitrary. (@)-

At any rate, in )<)<, on the strength of his e"perience as

the architect and leader of the Red Army, he attempted to instill

a number of principles shared by military men of the period into

the Russian economy. Only, contrary to any consistent military

doctrine, Trotsky founded his assertions on Mar"ist ideology.

9e slated his principles ith disarming frankness/ at the height

67



of his glory and poer he had no hesitation about hammering a

fe Mar"ist 4truths4 into an audience made up of union and

party delegates.

The road to socialism, he declared, runs through the

highest possible degree of statism. 0ike a lamp hich bums

brightest 2ust before dying out, the State before disappearing,

takes on 4the most ruthless form of government imaginable4,

one hich embraces the lives of all its citi3ens.4 (@+-

!or, in Trotsky4s vie, population groth as measured in

terms of the productivity of man# it ould have been

unthinkable to construct socialism on the basis of a fall in

production. !urthermore, socialist society signified for him 4the

organi3ation of orkers along ne lines, their adaptation to

these and their re1education ith a vie to a constant increase

in productivity4. (@@-

6ut this type of organi3ation presupposed forced labour#

Trotsky tried to sugar the pill by assuring the orker he as

labouring for the State and no longer for some individual. 9e

68



brushed aside the 4Menshevik4 argument that this represented a

return to the serfdom of the past by stating that 4under certain

conditions, slavery represented progress and led to a rise in

production4. (@;- And he as convinced that coercive labour in

a socialist society ould be more productive than the so1called

free labour in the bourgeois societies.

8n this respect, there can be no ambiguity/ for Trotsky,

socialism meant 4authoritarian leadership ... centrali3ed

distribution of the labour force ... the orkers4 State Iconsidering

itselfJ entitled to send any orker herever his ork may be

needed4. (@-

&o government coercion, no socialism. 6ut hat form as

this coercion to take There, the 4prophet armed4, as the late

8saac 5eutscher called him, made no bones about going to the

heart of the matter/ the militari3ation of labour. !or, apart from

the army, no other social organi3ation has felt itself entitled to

sub2ect citi3ens %uite so utterly, to dominate them so totally as

does the proletarian government. (@B- 9ere then as the

69



model, lying ready for use/ the army. This implies that hole

regiments ould be posted to this or that sector of the

economy, that production ould henceforth be characteri3ed by

the introduction of military1style brigades, discipline and

obedience.

Once one has accepted the idea of the militari3ation of

labour 1 not everyone did so at the time 1 it becomes possible to

look upon the entire population as a pool of manpoer to be

counted, mobili3ed and utili3ed. &ot only does this ensure the

necessary supply of labour but it also serves to eliminate the

legendary 4la3iness4 so typical of the Russian people. !or the

task of social organi3ation consists precisely of confining

la3iness ithin a definite frameork, of disciplining and goading

man by means and methods hich he himself has contrived.

(@*-

Militari3ation, hich is an 4inevitable method of organi3ing

and disciplining manpoer44 8n the period of transition from

capitalism to socialism, implies free use of the ar department4s

70



machinery for mobili3ing the ork force, especially in rural

areas, here the process ill be carried out under the

supervision of 4advanced orkers4. (@:-

To complete the picture, Trotsky proposed to promote the

public image of the technical foreman# to introduce (or rather to

reintroduce- piece1ork and any other system designed to

boost output. Taylor4s system hich, in capitalist society,

contributed to the increasing e"ploitation of orkers, did not

suffer this disadvantage under socialism. The necessary

counterpart of any form of rivalry beteen orkers as to be

individual management, of hich 0ev 5avidovich as a

determined advocate# he as not in the least impressed ith

the notion of collegiate management favoured by the trade

unions. (@<-

To this it should be added that non1ork as forbidden in

the Trotskyist system. 5eserters from the ork front ere to be

4assembled in disciplinary battalions or else relegated to the

concentration camps4. (;?-

71



8f Trotsky4s proposals for the militari3ation of labour ere

not adopted by the &inth $ongress of the $=S (+< March1

April )<+?- it as because the left opposition as still too

strong. 6ut on the other hand, individual management, the

return of bourgeois 4e"perts4 (spetzy - to their former posts, and

the relegation of the unions to a purely educational role (Trotsky

had anted to turn them into direct instruments of the State in

order to increase production- ere all accepted by the same

congress. Trotsky4s ideas ere nonetheless partially

implemented in the Tsektran organi3ation (the body responsible

for the running of the railays-, of hich he as the first

director, and hich he ran along strictly military lines. One need

hardly add that orkers4 management as dealt its death blo,

as as the popularity of the Red Army $hief. (;)-

The inter of )<+?1+) sa the last act in this une%ual

struggle beteen =arty authority and orkers4 autonomy.

Trotsky4s notions of industrial management, of political

democracy and of daily harassment finally bore fruit in the

tons as ell. 9e became the symbol of 6olshevik

72



authoritarianism, as it as he ho gave the most fanatical

e"pression to these ideas. The conduct of the orkers in the

large tons bore itness to the fact that the proletariat did not

at all see eye to eye ith his definition of socialism. &ot by

chance as the bloodiest uprising in Soviet history suppressed

by the self1same Trotsky.

The Cronstadt revolt as no isolated event. 8t as one of

a series of strikes and street demonstrations hich broke out

during the inter of )<+?1+).

8n !ebruary )<+), these strikes began to spread, notably

to =etrograd, and the sailors4 initiative should be seen as an

echo of the orkers4 strike in the capital, 2ust a fe kilometres

aay from the island of Cronstadt. (;+- 6ut hile the =etrograd

strikers ere hunted don by the kursanty (officer1cadets-, the

sailors dug themselves in on their island or else took refuge on

their arships and ere thus ell1armed to defend themselves.

On +: !ebruary )<+), a resolution as passed on the

battleship $etropavlovsk folloing the return of emissaries ho

73



had itnessed the organi3ed repression of the orkers in the

capital# this resolution called for ne elections to the soviets

ith freedom for electoral propaganda, freedom of speech and

freedom of the press. The resolution also called for the release

of political prisoners, for the right to cultivate a patch of land or

to practise a craft. 6ut above all it as the political demands

(fresh elections to the soviets ith anarchist and left1socialist

participation- that turned the central authorities against

Cronstadt.

The 6olshevik authorities have constantly tried to present

the Cronstadt sailors4 uprising as an affair financed and

instigated by 7hite Russian emigrKs/ this version has recently

been brought up against available documents emanating from

both emigrK and Cronstadt sources. 8t no seems to be ell

established that the uprising as in no ay linked ith an

insurrection planned by the 7hite Russians but that it

represented the most violent phase of a ave of discontent

seeping through the countryside and the large tons at that

time. (;@-

74



8f one ere to illustrate this episode ith a single

sentence, one might say that the Cronstadt sailors rose in order

to defend the slogan 4All poer to the soviets4, for hich they

had fought since !ebruary )<)* and, in some cases, since

!ebruary )<?. The erosion of this line had affected them in

particular/ in March )<): the 6altic !leet4s $entral $ommittee

(%entrobalt -, an elective body, had been replaced, by decree,

ith a council of handpicked commissars. Their on soviet as

entirely in the hands of 6olshevik officials. The Cronstadt sailors

demanded the restoration of the free and popular character of

the soviets.

5espite the anarchist or populist colouring of the demands

published in the Cronstadt &zvestia (hich continued to appear

throughout the duration of the 4Cronstadt commune4-, the

ideology e"pressed therein ould seem to be derived directly

from the revolutionary traditions of )<? and )<)*. Thus, for

e"ample, the sailors came out firmly for orkers management

in the factories, for local autonomy, for decentrali3ation# in other

ords, as Avrich notes, they resumed the demands of

75



traditional Russian libertarian populism.(;;- 8t is no accident,

then, that Trotsky should have been the prime target of the

mutineers4 propaganda/ he represented precisely, to the point

of caricature, all the old authoritarian institutions the sailors had

hoped to abolish once and for all 1 the strong State, centralism,

discipline, dictatorship.

The 4Cronstadt commune4 lasted eighteen days (if one

takes as its point of departure +: !ebruary, the day the

=etropavlovsk resolution as passed-. 8t as droned in blood.

Trotsky took charge of operations, promising the insurgents that

he ould 4shoot them don like rabbits4.

7e kno the aspirations and the everyday life of the

Cronstadt sailors from the fourteen editions of &zvestia (@1)B

March )<+)-. One4s chief impression is of their intense hatred

for the 6olshevik =arty and for its ramifications in the factories

and in offices. &o. (* March- ran a banner headline calling for

4All poer to the soviets and not to the parties4. This indeed as

the hard core of the political demands being put forard by the

76



masses in the inter of )<+). 8n a last gesture of despair,

Cronstadt repudiated a communism that amounted to no more

than 4bureaucracy plus the firing s%uad4. (;-

7ith the repression of the Cronstadt rising, a silence fell

across Russia that as to be broken only by Stalin4s forced

collectivi3ation at the end of the )<+?s. The principle of

authoritarian, statist socialism had prevailed through sheer

force. And yet it as to be years before the avatars of the

struggle beteen the masses and the =arty ould be

mentioned in public/ 0eninist, and subse%uently Stalinist

mystification triumphed ith the aid of the $omintern, all the

more easily in that it as aimed at an audience that needed no

convincing. &evertheless, there had been no shortage of

arnings ell in advance# they had made short shrift of the

myth of a socialism firmly rooted in the masses. Above all, this

as the ork of the anarchists ho, before any of the others,

had perceived the potential dangers of 6olshevism as

implemented in October )<)*.

77



6ut the anarchist criti%ue, facing its on ideological

assumptions, chiefly attacked the statist, authoritarian or even

terrorist nature of soviet poer. The task of elucidating the

nature of this poer by means of socio1economic analysis of

the ne regime as to fall upon the dissident Mar"ists.

!olshevis and its "detractors"

6olshevism had a good many enemies right from the

outset. 6y )<? more or less the entire 7est had, officially , set

its face against orthodo" communism by adopting its cold1ar

stance.

The first concern of hat is generally termed the left as

to distinguish itself from the enemies of the Russian Revolution.

6ut at its e"tremity even the left developed a criti%ue of the

Russian Revolution and Soviet State that oed nothing either

to partisans of the cold ar or to soft1hearted liberals.

This criti%ue did not derive from some a priori ideology, as

in the case of 4gut4 anti1communists, but from the more or less

78



lengthy practice of (or cohabitation ith- communism.

$hronologically speaking, the anarchists ere the first to

denounce the image 6olshevism sought to present to the orld.

They ere folloed, in the )<+?s, by the dissident Mar"ist1

0eninists, ho set themselves up in hat they called

constructive opposition (reconstruction of a 4pure4 party or of a

ne 8nternational- but ho in reality completed the destruction

of Mar"ist10eninist communism.

The anarchists

Anarchist testimony is particularly valuable to us since it

does not set out to denigrate one system in favour of another#

admittedly, a handful of anarchists did subse%uently turn into

devotees of the 4American ay of life4, but that concerns

individuals, not a system of thought.

The anarchists had already been active in the

revolutionary struggle before )<)*# many had distinguished

themselves in the field of anti1tsarist propaganda, hile others

79



preferred political terrorism. Telve years, fertile in events,

discussions and lessons, had intervened beteen the )<?

revolution 1 Russian anarchism4s baptism of fire 1 and that of

)<)*. Telve years in the course of hich anarchists had

orked to define their place on the revolutionary scene, to

stake out anarchist thought and its field of action in relation to

social democracy and to 6olshevism in particular.

There can be no denying that the mistrust as mutual.

0enin and his friends ere too deeply imbued ith international

social democracy4s visceral hatred of anarchism, and had been

since the end of the nineteenth century. 8n )<?*, for e"ample,

the Second 8nternational had voted for the e"clusion of all the

folloers of 6akunin and Cropotkin. 9oever, the dispute as

already an ancient one, for it goes right back to the !irst

8nternational. (;B-

6ut things ere different in Russia. 6oth social democracy

and anarchism, as movements, had gron out of the populism

of the ):*?s and :?s. &either, in their revolutionary

80



propaganda and agitation, could ignore the fact that populism

had left a deep mark on all potential rebels.

True, right from the first 48skrist4 period ()<??1)<?@-, 0enin

had tried to foist on Russia a brand of Mar"ism that as totally

void of all populism. 6olsheviks and Mensheviks alike planned

to develop a kind of German1style social democracy of

Cautskyist inspiration, ith S=5 organi3ation and rituals serving

as models.

Thus, on the eve of !ebruary )<)* e find a 6olshevik

=arty thoroughly cleansed of all 4impurities4 arising from the

specifically Russian situation. 6ut beteen !ebruary and

October )<)* a social revolution occupied the forefront of the

stage, ith the parties attempting to manipulate events in the

immense drama being enacted. 0enin4s role by no as to

connect up his party to the current passing through the masses.

!or this he as obliged not to defend but to disparage social1

democratic orthodo"y. !or the masses ere advancing some

very ancient demands hose roots are lost in the history of the

81



enslavement of the free peasants first by the boyars and then

by the poer1hungry tsars 1 the very same demands that

nineteenth1century populism had reformulated and resuscitated

and for hich it had supplied a theoretical frameork. These

demands ere for land and liberty, for autonomous craft and

agricultural collectives, for bread and 2ustice for all.

There as not a peasant or a orker, in that springtime of

)<)*, to be found calling on the 6olsheviks to sei3e poer or

for 0enin and his colleagues to come and sit in the seats of the

ministers of Tsar &icholas 88. This much 0enin kne or

understood (unlike Stalin, Molotov, Linoviev and Camenev, ho

took as their sole guide the most recent programme of the

RS57=-, and it as perhaps this single feature that made him

the master strategist on the contemporary Russian political

scene.

0enin had grasped that, in order to achieve poer, it ould

be necessary to rely on the masses, to adopt their aspirations

and to amplify them. 7ith this in mind he rote the highly

82



libertarian State and evolution, and argued for the adoption of

orkers4 management and all poer to the soviets. As a result,

beteen March and October )<)* anarchists and Mar"ists

ere able to tread the same road, united in struggle for the

same ob2ectives/ land to the peasants, the factories to the

orkers and poer, at all levels, to the proletariat.

9aving fought side by side ith them, the anarchists ere

the privileged and apparently impartial itnesses of 6olshevik

deeds and actions. 7hen things began to go rong for them,

around )<)*1):, and as they began to be eliminated by the

ne masters of the police and the army, they made their

disillusionment knon to the orld at large. nlike the

Mensheviks and the left social revolutionaries they had no ties

ith the Mar"ist10eninists# their ideological system turned out to

be more e"treme in the end, and less prone to compromise.

9ence the utter detachment of the anarchists4 criti%ue of

6olshevik reality. They undoubtedly occupied the e"treme

position on the ideological scale, and this lends particular value

83



to their denunciation of the Soviet State. 8t might have spared

those ho cared to listen (and they ere e"tremely rare in the

camp of the revolution- many illusions leading to the realm of

false consciousness. Their arnings ent unheeded at the

time, it is true. 6ut they do constitute the link that leads to the

ne radicality.

6eteen )<)* and )<+@ the anarchists, first the Russians

and then foreigners, increasingly spread the nes of hat as

really happening in Soviet Russia by means of meetings and

hastily produced pamphlets. They constantly hammered home

one simple truth (one hich still seems to escape more than

one hard1bitten advocate of coup d'tat techni%ues-, namely

that it as the masses, and the masses alone, that had set the

social revolution in motion, and that they had done so before

October )<)*. They had sei3ed the land, the mines, the means

of production# meanhile, the 6olshevik =arty, throing its

programme over1board, had adopted radical slogans ith the

sole aim of gaining control over the masses. (;*-

84



Most anarchists ere at first taken in by this tactical

Machiavellianism. ven if they ere not alays allies they did

not fail to make knon their support of the 6olsheviks,

particularly at the beginning, and this is true of both Russian

and foreign anarchists alike. The most e"treme e"ample of this

is the 8talian anarchists ho, in their great ma2ority, continued

enthusiastically to support the ne regime practically right up to

the 5ecember )<+) $ongressF More precisely e should speak

of solidarity ith a revolution under attack from all %uarters/ the

self1same solidarity that as to reak such havoc in the ranks

of Mar"ists torn beteen their loyalty to the revolutionary cause

and Stalin4s crimes. 7e have to ait until October )<+?, the

end of the Russo1=olish ar, before (umanit) Nuova (a

libertarian organ- began to speak of the need to reaffirm the

4libertarian e"igencies4 of the revolution in Russia. (;:-

And yet, even if they ere not e"actly plentiful outside

Russia, early arnings had not been lacking. There as the

article by Robert Minor, returned from Russia, ho set out his

vies in 46olshevism and the Revolution4, published in the New

85



*ork World , his article being reprinted by the 8talian anarchist

2ournal, +olont), in >une )<)<. Minor described ho the left

opposition had been stifled and the soviets4 rule denatured. The

same +olont) replied that this as a pack of lies spread by the

bourgeoisie. Then there as rrico Malatesta4s letter, printed in

+olont) in >uly )<)<, reminding his readers that Robespierre4s

dictatorship had prepared the ground for &apoleon. (;<-

The situation as more or less the same in the other

ma2or countries/ !rance, ngland, the nited States. 8n the last

country, for e"ample, mma Goldman valiantly defended the

6olsheviks against all criticism. As early as !ebruary )<)* she

rote a pamphlet, The Truth about the "olsheviki , and in the

course of )<): she claimed that she as deeply shocked by

the revelations of 6reshkovskaya, the 4little grandmother of the

revolution4, hom she suspected of being mentally deranged.

(?-

!rom )<+) on, more and more stories began to arrive to

corroborate the earlier rumours. At the Second 8nternational

86



Anarchist $ongress (5ecember )<+)-, held in 6erlin, the

Russian anarchists 1 released from their Muscovite prisons

thanks to the intervention of foreign delegates to the !irst

$ongress of the Red 8nternational of Trade nions (=rofintern- 1

arrived to deliver eye1itness accounts. One should add here

that )<+) as also the year of Cronstadt and that even the

most credulous anarchists ceased all collaboration ith the

authorities, at last reali3ing that the celebrated idealism of the

6olsheviks as 2ust a myth. ()-

9enceforth, the libertarians told all, about their on

behaviour, about the ne regime, about the everyday life of

4liberated4 proletarians. Most of them had borne ith the

6olsheviks because the latter ere prepared to subordinate

their theory (Mar"ist- to anarchist1inspired practice/ by calling

for the distribution of land, the disappearance of the bourgeois

State, by describing political poer as temporary. ven the

social revolutionaries admitted that 6olshevik practice, on the

eve of the Revolution, had been anarchist. 0enin4s

4radicali3ation4 (his ,pril Theses folloed by State and

87



evolution- dissipated lingering doubts and permitted the

formation of a common opposition to the =rovisional

Government. (+-

According to the historian of Russian anarchism, =aul

Avrich, the anarchists began to sho signs of restiveness as

from September )<)*, fearing the 6olsheviks might destroy the

soviets. 8n reality, the situation as rather more comple", for

the anarchist family as divided into several branches, from the

individualists to the ardent advocates of a strong, structured

organi3ation. The fact that several libertarian anarchists took an

active part in the October insurrection (four anarchists sat on

the Military1Revolutionary $ommittee- and their subse%uent

collaboration ith the ne regime (notably in the defence of the

Revolution against the 7hite counter1revolutionaries- is

evidence of a more complicated situation/ one still finds 4official4

anarchists even after the period of repression of the anarchists

()<):1+)-.

88



The situation changed radically after October )<)* insofar

as a ne State as being constructed, founded upon an

authoritarian system. Anarchists visiting revolutionary Russia

noted merely that the tradition of authority from above had not

disappeared. (@-

The soviets, in hich so much hope had been placed, had

turned out to be 4puppets, void of all substance4. And, for any

consistent anarchist, a council system and the dictatorship of

the proletariat (in the 6olshevik sense of the term- are to

utterly contradictory ideas. (;- The German anarcho1

syndicalist Augustin Souchy, in his impressively thorough

account, states that the soviets, no virtually elected on a

partisan basis, had become forms of poer and that it as the

Treaty of 6rest10itovsk (March )<):- that had put an end to

anarchist hopes. 8t as then that the 6olshevik =arty became

the sole party and introduced its system of terror, its

confiscations of grain from the peasants, the death penalty and

the all1poerful political police.

89



7hile it is true that the anarchists had already lost their

illusions before this, it as only in the spring and summer of

)<): that they fell victim to systematic repression/

imprisonment, closing don of 2ournals, banning of anarchist

meetings, shootings. They ere conse%uently in a position to

talk from personal e"perience about the e"tent of the terror

deployed by the ne ielders of poer.

!rom allies, the anarchists became official enemies of the

regime in spring )<):, and they ere forced to adopt a more

critical stance toards the authorities. Their opposition

consisted mainly in publici3ing, inside Russia and abroad, the

facts about the ne revolutionary regime.

5uring this period ()<)*1):- the Russian libertarians ere

a far from negligible force. Although their organi3ations

numbered only )+,??? or so active members, they reached

thousands more sympathi3ers ho ere constantly being

appealed to and even mobili3ed by a highly active press hose

circulation ran into thousands. Nualitatively speaking 1

90



according to an account that can hardly be suspected of being

sympathetic 1 they represented 4the ... most active party, the

most combative, and probably the most popular of the

opposition groups IandJ seem to be gaining ground in the

tons4. (- Their popularity and the frankness of their

criticisms of the ne regime ere to prove fatal to them.

The Russian anarcho1syndicalists ere particularly

vigorous in their denunciation of the state of the factory

committees in hich, as early as August )<)*, they had seen

the ellspring of a ne social order. 6ut ind of these

assessments only spread abroad some time later. A !rench

anarchist, on his return from a perilous 2ourney rote/ 4The role

of the factory committees elected by the orkers, so important

in the early phase of the revolution, is no reduced to the

folloing functions/ relations beteen factory orkers and the

trade union, restaurant supplies, payee Ithe legal food rationJ

supplies, ood for heating, soap and ork overalls. Though

this statement refers to a locomotive1parts factory it takes on a

more general character, as itnessed by the accounts of other

91



libertarians, all of hom speak of the 4taming4 of the

fabzovkomy , of the dispossession of their poer by the State.

7hatever the terms employed, all are agreed that the orkers

did not control industry. (*-

The years )<+? and )<+) sa a succession of accounts.

After dealing ith those great pillars of the Russian Revolution,

the soviets and orkers management, the truth began to

emerge about every aspect. 5etailed descriptions appeared of

the bureaucracy, the hierarchy of poer leading to e"treme

centrali3ation, police activities (particularly, and already, those

of the $heka, the political police-, the arbitrary tyranny of the

most minor official invested ith a little bit of poer. All this as

spread and publici3ed ithin a circle of libertarians and

syndicalists, and never left that circle. Det the ra information

e"isted/ 4democratic1centralist4 procedures ere even described

in the course of congresses# those very procedures that ere

subse%uently to delight generations of communist militants.

7arnings ere circulated against the 4Red 8nternationals4 hich

no longer, in )<+?, served any useful purpose other than to

92



shore up 6olshevik poer by hailing decisions taken by the

Russian leaders. (:-

The eyes of the so1called revolutionary left in urope and

&orth America ere riveted on Soviet poer, and ere

fascinated by it. =assionate attention as paid to the most

insignificant communi%ue issued by the $ouncil of =eople4s

$ommissars# factional struggles and personal rivalries beteen

the principal figures on the Russian political scene ere eagerly

commented on.

6ut this poer, in the process of strengthening its position

and securing status in the international political arena, as

sloly but surely sapping the achievements of the social

revolution. The nationali3ation of the trade unions, folloing the

stifling of the factory committees, by no seemed a perfectly

normal occurrence. The anarchists ere alone, or virtually so,

in pointing out its enormous importance in terms of the vital

interests of the Revolution. They similarly dre attention to the

93



plight of the peasant, hose real status as gradually

deteriorating back toards the shackles of the old regime. (<-

!inally, it soon emerged from these accounts that not only

could 6olshevik poer not be identified ith the Revolution, but

that it had become the chief adversary of the Revolution# and

the anarchists did not hesitate to dra this conclusion.

The anarchists tended to be a little thin on socio1economic

analysis of the ne regime in Russia. 8n this first phase, the

chief left1ing victims of the 6olsheviks laid bare and described

a reality that as (deliberately or otherise- completely

unknon. True, certain anarchists did go so far as to speak of a

State capitalism operating to the benefit of the ne managerial

and bureaucratic class. (B?- 6ut figures, statistics and

sociological analyses of society lie beyond the 4genius4 of

anarchism/ 6akunin may have prophesied brilliantly about the

future evolution of the 4scholarly classes4 (of hich Mar" as

the brilliant ideologist-. 9is analyses nonetheless stop at the

level of generalities (most of hich have turned out to be

94



accurate-. The great sociologist as Mar", and his successors

have taken over this function from him inasmuch as anyone

ith a taste for social analysis cannot help but be attracted to

the author of %apital .

The dissident #arists

8t fell to those Mar"ists ho had broken ith orthodo"y to

sub2ect the 6olshevik regime to merciless %uantitative and

%ualitative analysis in order to back up an argument hich,

ithout the anarchists, ould never have become lodged in

militant consciousness.

The dissident Mar"ists made their appearance at the

same time as the foundation of the Soviet State# more

particularly, the dispute concerned the assessment of the orld

revolutionary movement. 7ith the foundation of the Third

8nternational ()<)<-, orthodo"y rapidly came to be defined in

terms of membership of this organi3ation (hich implied

acceptance of its line-.

95



The council communists broke ith the $omintern in

)<+?. Other dissidents ere to follo/ the 6ordigists (folloers

of the 8talian leader, Amadeo 6ordiga-# oppositionists ithin the

official communist parties# e"1communists ho had broken ith

the movement once and for all, etc. Most numerous, as ell as

most visible on the outskirts of orthodo"y (despite incessant

internal doctrinal battles-, and presenting the most

thoroughgoing theoretical criti%ue of the Soviet State, ere the

Trotskyists.

Trotskyism is bound through and through to its on origins

and to the birth of the movement. This resulted from the

e"clusion of Trotsky from effective poer, hich his partisans

are agreed in dating from )<+@. !ar from interpreting this

e"clusion as the outcome of a struggle for supreme poer

beteen Stalin and his folloers on the one hand, and Trotsky

and his supporters on the other, Trotskyist tradition sees this

episode as a betrayal of the Russian Revolution and of the

0eninist line. Trotsky himself shoed the ay, fulminating, in

the course of his many successive e"iles, against hat he

96



termed a 6onapartist coup. The parallel ith the !rench

Revolution as intended to mean that Stalinism as a counter1

revolutionary phenomenon and that he, Trotsky, incarnated the

revolutionary purity of Mar"ism10eninism. 9ence the need to

construct a ne 8nternational, the !ourth, hich as to

symboli3e the true orthodo"y.

8t as around )<@B that Trotsky delivered his %uasi1

definitive analysis of the Soviet State and of its nature. 7hile

having degenerated from its socialist character, the Russian

State had nonetheless not become a capitalist State, for it still

preserved the principal con%uests of the Revolution/

nationali3ation and planning. Once property as no longer in

private hands but in those of the State, the State remained a

orkers4 State. 6ut in vie of the Soviet nion4s economic

backardness and of its isolation in a hostile, capitalist orld, it

had become a degenerate orkers4 State. (B)-

This, Trotsky4s central thesis, revived an old debate on the

sub2ect of the nature of the Soviet State/ the conflict as

97



already embittered during the lifetime of the leader of the

!ourth 8nternational (he as assassinated in )<;?-. !or, by

re2ecting the 4Old Man4s4 interpretation one as automatically

e"cluded from the Trotskyist movement, hich e"plains hy the

debate took place on the fringe of the movement.

7hat as at stake as the attitude to be taken toards

the Soviet nion in the event of ar, hich from )<@B on,

appeared likely enough. !or Trotskyist militants, this attitude

could only be derived from close analysis of the Soviet State. 8f

it as found that its social base as not (or as no longer-

proletarian, then it ould be difficult to call for the defence of

the 4orkers4 State4.

So the discussion took on fresh life ith the approach of

the Second 7orld 7ar, fanned by the latest information arriving

from the SSR/ the great sho trials, the concentration camps,

Stakhanovism, bureaucratic corruption. A book hich attracted

the attention of 0eninists hostile to Stalin as ritten by Dvon, a

!renchman ho for many years orked in the SSR, first as a

98



orker and then as a manager. Dvon re2ects the vie that there

is merely a bureaucratic stratum, as Trotsky4s folloers claim.

There is, he reports, a dominant class and an e"ploited class/

State property merely benefits the fe. The social function of

this ne class corresponds to the present degree of

development of technology, science and consciousness. (B+-

5ocuments such as Dvon4s gave militants much to think

about/ many of them left Trotskyism proper hile continuing to

be active around its fringe and developing ne theses. This is

particularly noticeable in !rance beteen )<@B and )<@<, and

in the nited States from )<@< on. 7ithin this microcosm that

as the Trotskyist universe (ith its more or less avoed

satellites- militants began to talk of a ne class4, of a 4neo1

bourgeoisie4 draing the SSR toards an evolved capitalism

in line ith the modern development demands of a great

imperialist nation. This ne class arose from the fact that the

bureaucracy as in possession of the means of production,

ielded the poer of decision1making and determined the

distribution of surplus value. (B@-

99



The battle raged around the concept of the degenerate

orkers State up until )<@<, although the analysis as

developed no further. 8n )<@<, 6runo Ri33i launched a violent

attack on the Trotskyist line/ the ne State, he argued, is not a

orkers4 State because it contains a bureaucratic class (civil

servants, technicians, soldiers and e"perts of one kind and

another- amounting to fifteen million people and monopoli3ing

forty per cent of production. Ri33i considered this to be an

utterly ne type of socio1economic regime, bureaucratic

collectivism, implying a ne form of social organi3ation

resulting from a considerable development of productive forces.

Ri33i4s analysis as certainly attractive and, for the period, it

ent a good deal further in its grasp of Soviet reality than any

other undertaking of this type. (B;-

6ut e ould have to aait the GermanESoviet pact,

Trotsky4s death, the victory of the SSR and its imperialist aims

in $entral urope and the start of the cold ar before the

%uestion of the 4degenerate orkers4 State4 could be dealt ith

once and for all. 8t as e"1Trotskyists ho in )<;< founded the

100



group Socialisme ou "arbarie and the 2ournal of the same

name, and ho resumed the analysis of Soviet society in class

terms and developed it most fully.

Socialisme ou "arbarie4s argument, hich purports to be

Mar"ist, relies entirely upon an e"amination of the relations of

production, their content and their form. The form is 2uridically

defined by the abolition of the private onership of the means

of production and the nationali3ation of land, industry and trade.

8t as this 4social4 form that led defenders of the SSR and its

regime to call it 4socialist4. 6ut if e e"amine the content of the

relations of production, the reality is %uite another thing. 9ere

e are dealing ith a bureaucratic class (economic, political

and cultural managers, e"perts, military officers, all kinds of

administrators- representing fifteen per cent of the population

and disposing of over fifty per cent of consumable income, not

to mention un%uantifiable privileges. This class is not a

bourgeoisie in the classic sense of the term, since its members

are not oners in their on right. And it is only ithin this

meaning that there can be no return to private capitalism as the

101



Trotskyists claim. Det it possesses all the characteristics of a

class/ it disposes of the means of production on a collective

basis, it determines investment, saving and the distribution of

income. =lanning, in the case of the SSR, is the channel

hereby the interests of this class are unambiguously

e"pressed.

On top of this e find, facing the bureaucratic class, a

proletariat, as in any capitalism, possessing the same

characteristics. 8t is e"ploited, it represents the great ma2ority of

the nation (eighty1five per cent- and is reduced to the role of

simple operative.

The demarcation line beteen the to classes passes

through the dispossession, the alienation of the (urban and

rural- proletariat from the product of its labour 1 no longer as

under classical capitalism, here it as merely the surplus

value that as e"torted from the proletariat, but through the

absence of any poer of decision over its on ork. More

precisely, the frontier runs beteen those ho decide and

102



those ho eecute 1 2ust as in monopoly capitalist countries, as

the theoreticians of Socialisme ou "arbarie ould put it. Only,

in the latter, evolution has not yet come to a halt, the socio1

economic regime being halfay beteen the private capitalism

of the pre1)<); era and the bureaucratic capitalism of the

SSR.

Thus, Soviet socialism emerges as a kind of 4condensed

capitalism4, a capitalism hose production has been speeded

up by a bureaucratic class employing totalitarian methods. The

regime in the SSR foreshados the evolution of monopoly

capitalism in the 7est# it is the hori3on for hich e are

heading. nder bureaucratic capitalism in its final stage a large

number of problems still hampering the productive capacity

(investment, income distribution, the pace of ork- of private or

semi1private monopolies are solved %uite naturally. The

technocratic class directly establishes production norms as ell

as consumption and investment ob2ectives. 8t is not fettered by

any kind of competitive market, hoever minimal, nor by

arbitrary and unpredictable decisions taken at the level of the

103



individual enterprise. verything is decided by the Ministry of

=lanning/ the only remaining problem is to carry out the plan,

but that is more a matter for the police (hether trade union,

political or secret- rather than for the natural las of economics.

One final and not inconsiderable advantage lies in the fact that

ideological opposition to the regime is %uite simply e"punged/

the press is planned, 2ust like the rest of the economy,

intellectuals become 4mental orkers4 sub2ect to labour

discipline, hile political opposition is banned. The field is thus

left clear for the decisions of the leader (political, trade union,

economic or military-, ith no risk of the decision1making

process being disturbed or even modified by such

unpredictable phenomena as strikes, changes in parliamentary

ma2orities, e"posure of scandals or even critical articles. A good

many 7estern technocrats consciously envisage this

eventuality and some even fervently hope for it, though they are

not yet prepared to accept it on purely ideological grounds. (B-

6y placing the socio1economic regime of the SSR at the

end of modern capitalism4s road, Socialisme ou "arbarie4s

104



theory breaks entirely ith the Trotskyist line, making the latter

obsolete. Trotsky himself alays hesitated to speak of a class

and only in fact sa this situation in terms of a bureaucratic

layer. 9e therefore concluded that the SSR stood halfay

beteen capitalism and socialism. 8n his vie a return to

capitalism ould only be possible in the conte"t of a social

counter1revolution (bringing about a revival of private property-.

$onversely, he held that the passage to socialism from the

e"isting transition regime ould be possible as the result of a

purely political revolution/ it as enough, according to him, to

restore political poer, hich had been appropriated by a cli%ue

of bureaucrats, to the proletariat and to its =arty, of hich he,

Trotsky, sa himself as the legitimate heir. (BB-

6ut the Trotskyist transition regime rested (and still does

for those ho continue to hanker after it- on a fiction/ namely

that the SSR has left capitalism behind it once and for all. 6y

demonstrating that socialism as merely concentrated

capitalism, Socialisme ou "arbarie had, by ay of subtle

dialectical reasoning, arrived at the same conclusions as a

105



6akunin or a Macha2ski. Radicalism came out of this

strengthened insofar as a revolutionary ideology as finally

demythologi3ed. The criti%ue of the Soviet regime became an

integral part of the criti%ue of modem capitalism as a hole.

8n order to progress further, hoever, it is not enough for

radicality to rip off the mask of an authoritarian political ideology

under cover of a liberating rhetoric. 8t has yet to confront the

philosophy of social liberation, hich seeks to formulate the

revolutionary e%uation no longer in terms of the transformation

of the orld but of changing everyday life.

2. The radical tradition in Russia

Radical thought is inseparable from the history of Russian

socialism for many reasons. 8t as in Russia that the first

socialist revolution broke out, one that sa the e"pression of a

vigorous current of radical revolt. And yet this same revolution

gave birth to a government hich, hile proclaiming its

106



emancipatory mission, stifled every formulation of radicality

beneath its pretensions to hegemony.

7e tend to vie the march toards revolution in Russia in

terms of the irresistible rise of Mar"ist social democracy. 8n fact,

the organi3ed Mar"ist movement only made its appearance in

tsarist Russia in the last decade of the nineteenth century. A

rich radical tradition had e"isted prior to this. 6ut Soviet

historiography, or even the curiosity of the general public, has

preferred to recall only certain aspects of this tradition/ those

hich tend to fi" Mar"ism in Russian soil and hich accord the

political philosophy of the Soviet State an honourable

revolutionary past.

&ineteenth1century Russia as not lacking in currents of

thought or revolutionary groups hose >acobin inspiration

ould seem to link up, ithout any apparent break, ith 0enin4s

6olshevism. 6ut a far more poerful tradition, one hose roots

spread idely throughout the social soil of the mpire, had truly

flourished for half a century before being overhelmed and

107



deformed by the rise of ideologies based on poer. An

inventory of this tradition yields a rich harvest of elements of

hich the present revolutionary movement appears to be the

direct heir.

This is not to say that historians have ignored the

e"istence of Russian populism and pre1populism# several have

produced admirable accounts. 7hat interests us here,

conse%uently, is not so much the turning up of ne facts or

theories as their reinterpretation in the light of the development

of radicality, as e look back from the late )<*?s.

Seen thus, the Russian revolutionary tradition emerges as

something fundamentally different from Mar"ist10eninist

ideology# in this sense, e may speak of an alternative before

its time. 6ut, and this is the other side of the coin of its

constructive thought, Russian socialism very early, from the

):?s on, developed a criti%ue of Mar"ist and >acobin

ideologies, the perspicacity and foresight of hich has lost

nothing of its relevance to this day. This criti%ue is all the more

108



thoroughgoing in that the theoretical ritings of the Russian

revolutionaries clearly illustrate the relationship beteen poer

ideology and the intellectual class demonstrated by 6akunin.

!or e see that the evolution of the social composition of the

Russian revolutionary movement is accompanied by a gradual

transformation of the form and content of its ideology. The

intelligentsia, starting out as no more than a marginal group,

imperceptibly ac%uired the aspect and dimensions of the core

of a poer1hungry class# its socialism as conse%uently to take

on an increasingly authoritarian and statist colouring. The

evolution culminated in the emergence of social democracy and

0eninism 1 class and ideology ere no in perfect harmony.

As e have pointed out, the criti%ue of State socialism

as elaborated in advance. The conse%uences ere pro2ected

on the basis of e"isting signs. The birth of organi3ed Mar"ism in

its social1democratic form as almost e"actly contemporary

ith its radical contradiction, leaning heavily on anti1

authoritarian tradition, though already itness to the concrete

ambitions of the historic leaders. 7ith Macha2ski e are still at

109



the crossroads here Mar"ism, anarchism and revolutionary

syndicalism meet. The most perceptive criti%ue of the cruder

aspects of 0eninism as a poer ideology came from ithin the

organi3ation.

The #ro$th o% Russian socialis in the nineteenth century

7hat strikes one today about Russian socialism in the first

half of the nineteenth century is its modern, even relevant,

aspect. And yet, it did not gro out of any nlightenment

philosophy or national movement in the arts and literature 1

either of hich might have served as a cultural background. 8t

arose out of a combination of ideas directly imported from

7estern urope and a tradition of very bitter social conflicts

reaching back to the beginning of the eighteenth century.

At the start of the last century Russia as still a country

ith an agrarian economy (despite a certain industrial

concentration in the rals- in hich peasants made up some

ninety per cent of the population. The nobility and the clergy

110



had a monopoly of access to culture, but the $hurch as

entirely controlled by the Tsar ever since =eter the Great4s

reforms, hile the nobility as a class as bound to the Tsar and

his bureaucracy by common interests. 0eisured, unproductive

and decadent, the nobility as concerned solely to preserve its

privileges and to e"ploit its serfs.

At least that as the case ith most of the nobility# under

$atherine 88 the aristocracy had ac%uired a veneer of !rench

and German culture, and it as considered good breeding to

speak !rench hile having no knoledge of Russian. 6ut the

seeds of opposition contained ithin !rench literature of that

age ere slo in floering. Radishchev4s .ourney from Saint

$etersburg to #oscow , the first far1reaching criticism of the

e"isting order, only appeared in )*<?. ()- 6ut the shock that

really stirred aristocratic circles as the !rance1Russian ar,

and the army4s homecoming in ):). The e"ample learned

from the countries traversed lent direction to the desire for

change, giving rise to a reform movement among the officer

corps and the landed upper aristocracy. The first secret society

111



as formed in ):)B, and 5ecember ):+ sa the outbreak of

the nobles rebellion, led by =estel and Rileyev. The

5ecembrists ere still reformists in the full sense of the term,

filled ith the ideas of the eighteenth1century !rench

nlightenment and rationalism.

A truly Russian socialism began to emerge in the ):@?s

and ;?s. 7ith a fe e"ceptions, the first generation of

revolutionaries as dran from the ranks of the middle and

upper nobility, and had been nurtured on German philosophy

and contemporary !rench socialist thought. Above all, 9egel4s

philosophy left an indelible mark on these intellectuals no

aakening to revolt. 6efore even the left 9egelians in the 7est,

Russian socialists gave 9egel4s system a progressive

interpretation, and they ere among the first to apply his

dialectic and his phenomenology to politics. (+-

An entire generation (6elinsky, 9er3en, Ogarev, 6akunin,

Granovsky, etc.- derived the frameork of its thinking from

9egel and !euerbach, but it nonetheless looked to the !rench

112



socialists for its criti%ue of society and its historical analysis.

ven in the Doung 9egelians4 interpretation, 9egelian thought

as susceptible to purely idealist use 1 to the sublimation of

discontent in mere idealism. 9er3en4s and Ogarev4s criti%ue

became social and revolutionary ith the assimilation of Saint1

Simonism. (@- At the end of the ):@?s and the beginning of the

folloing decade it as the turn of !ourierism to be propagated

among this intelligentsia in revolt. (;- 9er3en played a central

role in the populari3ation of socialism in Russia# steeped in both

7estern thought and Russian tradition, he formulated the

purest e"pression of anti1authoritarian socialism to date.

9er3en4s great virtue as that he e"tracted from the

utopian socialists (as they ere later to be labelled- those

elements hich still seem to us to have been most valid.

$onversely, he re2ected all that as religious, mystical or

retrograde in Saint1Simon, !ourier or =roudhon. 7hat attracted

him to Saint1Simon as the !renchman4s sense of history, of

the succession of forms of society and State. 9e borroed

Saint1Simon4s idea that the struggle beteen the haves and the

113



have1nots, or e"ploiters and e"ploited, to use the latter4s

vocabulary, ould surely take the place of the historical

struggles of the past. (- Similarly, Saint1Simon dre 9er3en4s

attention to the situation of the 4poorest and most numerous

class4 and its likely fate as a result of the development of

industrial civili3ation. !inally, an idea that constantly crops up in

9er3en4s ritings and hose origins are to be sought in the

orks of Saint1Simon is that of palingenesis or social

regeneration. 9e rid this term, hoever, of the mystical aura

conferred on it by its author, and especially by disciples such as

nfantin, ho attempted to build a ne religion on the

foundations of his master4s doctrine. !or 9er3en, it as a

%uestion of the total reneal of society after centuries of

oppression and in2ustice. This 4rebirth4 ould only be obtained

through the revolt of those concerned, hose task it as to root

out servitude and eliminate it entirely. 8n short, he as calling

upon them to reinvent freedom.

9is deep familiarity ith all the systems of thought of his

time led 9er3en, like most of his contemporaries, to re2ect the

114



communism of his age, from $abet right through to Mar". 6y

communism he meant any egalitarian doctrine that sub2ected

man to a priori organi3ation imposed on him by authoritarian

means, hether $abet4s 8caria, or 0ouis 6lanc4s or Carl Mar"4s

State. As opposed to these, socialism as taken to designate

doctrines of association, far more attractive to the Russians.

Thus, for e"ample, 9er3en recogni3ed the validity of 0ouis

6lanc4s social classification in terms of bourgeois and

proletarian, but re2ected his cramped schema for the

organi3ation of labour. (B-

Similarly, if !ourierism aroused a great deal of interest in

Russia, this as because it stood at the opposite e"treme to

the mechanistic communism of $abet or 6abeuf. !ourier

en2oyed a great vogue during the ):;?s as a result of a series

of lectures given by =rofessor =oroshin at the niversity of

Saint =etersburg, and thanks especially to =etrashevsky, ho

devoted himself to spreading !ourier4s doctrines both through

the columns of the 45ictionary of !oreign 7ords mployed in

the Russian 0anguage4 (vol. + as published in ):;B- and in

115



meetings held at his home beteen ):; and ):;<. !ourierism

gained a great many adherents in Russia 1 in the provinces as

ell as in Saint =etersburg and Mosco 1 thanks to the

=etrashevsky circle. There as even an (unhappy- attempt at

founding a phalanstery in ):;*.* &either 9er3en nor

=etrashevsky accepted !ourierist religiosity or its cosmogony.

6ut 9er3en did agree ith the =halansterian4s criticism of

bourgeois society, of the immorality of the e"ploitation to hich

it gives rise# in short, 9er3en agreed ith his outright moral

condemnation of nascent capitalism as it as to be observed in

=aris, 0yon or Marseille. Above all, he shared ith !ourier a

vision of human happiness. 9er3en derived his contempt for all

formulae that reduce man to the dimension of producer, citi3en

or sub2ect from !ourier4s associative doctrines. 9e sa in

!ourier a constant respect for the individual as a concrete being

ith desires and passions. And hence the need to provide for

the satisfaction and fulfillment of his aspirations, so that he ill

not be crushed by 4ob2ective la4 and the institutions imposed

from above and in hich he is %uartered. This led him to adopt

116



the feminist teachings of the period, both Saint1Simon4s

4rehabilitation of the flesh4 and !ourier4s attack on monogamy#

on reading George Sand he immediately approved her call for

independence for omen. (:-

One last !rench socialist as to influence 9er3en and,

through him, the entire Russian socialist movement 1 =ierre1

>oseph =roudhon. 9ere again, he discriminated beteen hat

as stifling and retrograde in the ritings of the illustrious

!renchman and his poer of negation. 9e only became familiar

ith =roudhon4s doctrine after he had emigrated, in ):;* 1 in

other ords, at a moment hen his on socialism as almost

fully developed. 9e nevertheless borroed =roudhon4s criti%ue

of the authoritarian State, along ith the fundamental notion

that the order of society is not e"ternal to individuals# that it is

not to be found in some institutional frameork, but ithin

individuals themselves, and that it is shaped by everyday life.

(<- !rom =roudhon, also, he took the conception of socialism

as the negation of the past and of the e"isting state of things,

from economic contradictions to the e"istence of the State

117



itself. 9e is very severe, on the other hand, ith =roudhon4s

ritings on the patriarchal family, on the submission of omen

to men and on peasant smallholdings. After years of friendly

correspondence 9er3en broke ith =roudhon hen the latter,

having dran steadily closer to the mpire, condemned the

struggle of the =olish democrats for national independence.

Through 9er3en, Ogarev and their generation of

revolutionaries, an entire system of 7estern socialism

penetrated Russia, purified of its authoritarian lapses, its

fantasies and its mysticism. The folloing generation, hich

prepared the ay for the movement of the ):B?s, as itself

imbued ith this socialism. !irst among these as

Tchernishevsky ho, draing his inspiration from Saint1Simon,

Oen and !ourier, undertook a more sophisticated and more

technical criti%ue of industrial capitalism. The influence of non1

Mar"ist socialist thought as thus profound in Russia. And it left

traces even after the emergence of social democracy, for it lies

at the origins of all criticisms of authoritarian systems. 6ut

borroings from 7estern thought represent only part of the

118



Russian radical tradition# for Russia4s on history of social

conflict and the intellectual %uality and the sense of freedom of

the men ho made it, count for a great deal.

At bottom, these imports from 7estern culture served

merely as a frameork of thought for Russian socialism. The

fabric of revolutionary aspiration is embedded in the history of

modern Russia, and in the social conditions of the first half of

the nineteenth century.

!rom the si"teenth and seventeenth centuries onard,

this history is characteri3ed by increasing political

centrali3ation, together ith the sub2ugation of foreign peoples.

8n the eighteenth century, the con%uest of the surrounding

territories to the east and the south1east as virtually

completed, and the Tatars, the Tshouvashes, the Mordves and

the 6ashkirs ere definitively anne"ed to the mpire. 6ut this

process did not go unresisted/ Slav peasants re2ecting

servitude and foreign peoples clinging desperately to their

independence rose in revolt, massacring nobles and officials,

119



and briefly held up the inevitable process of sub2ugation. These

bloody risings mark Russia4s social history over a period of to

centuries, and they still continued to erupt in the mid1nineteenth

century# a semblance of social peace as only established ith

the abolition of serfdom in ):B).

The plainest result of these revolts as the perpetuation of

insubordination and distrust of all forms of e"ternal authority

and of bureaucracy in any form. On top of this, the foreign

peoples managed to preserve a certain degree of

independence even hen their revolts ere most bloodily

suppressed. Thus, the various $ossack tribes guarding the

eastern and southern borders (particularly against the Turks-

received in return a form of local autonomy giving them the

illusion that they had not submitted to the central government.

()?-

The risings of Stenka Ra3in and 6olotnikov in the

seventeenth century, and of =ugachev in the eighteenth, ere

merely the most massive and spectacular of an unbroken

120



series of local risings. The =ugachev saga amounted to a

veritable social ar, in hich sub2ect peoples and Slav

peasants allied in an attempt to overthro the Tsarina

($atherine 88-. ())- 6ut the immediate aim of these numberless

revolts as to uproot and abolish the social poer of the

nobles, the great landoners.

Russia had not e"perienced the gradual rise of a

bourgeoisie accompanied by changes in the social structure

(disappearance of the vast estates in favour of peasant

smallholdings and medium1si3ed estates- or in the political

structure (evolution toards a constitutional regime-, ith the

result that opposition to the autocracy could not be channelled

into institutional outlets. The choice as/ submission or revolt.

Any challenge to the e"isting order, therefore, immediately took

a radical turn, aiming to destroy the very foundations of

authority.

The second tradition on hich Russian socialism as

nurtured and hich to some e"tent constitutes its hardcore is

121



that of the autonomous peasant village 1 the mir . 8n the

obshchina (community- each peasant as allocated a parcel of

land commensurate ith his capacity to cultivate it and ith the

si3e of his family. There as a periodic redistribution, and

property as oned collectively, not individually. !inally, the mir

peasant had the impression that he as his on master, or at

least that he could appoint his on masters, and especially the

starost , the elder ho filled the role of mayor of the village.

ven so, one should not be taken in by the legend (oligarchies

very soon established themselves ithin the mir and came to

dominate the administration of the community-, but still, notions

of self1government and collective onership of property ere

very deeply ingrained in the Russian peasant mentality. And

this perhaps e"plains hy both the political authority of the

central government and the social and economic authority of

the baryn (landlord- appeared to him as illegitimate and a threat

to his independence. 8n e"treme cases the Russian peasant

even preferred to flee in search of virgin land, out of the reach

of officials and soldiers.

122



8t as this historical reality, this secular spirit of

insubordination that intellectuals ere trying to rationali3e in the

):@?s and ;?s. Although their socialism as e"pressed in

terms borroed from 7estern thought, it as nonetheless

profoundly indigenous# better, it benefited from the observations

and analyses of the !rench and German philosophers and of

nglish reformers such as Robert Oen, hile re2ecting all

pretence, and anything that contradicted its initial pro2ect.

The man ho best e"pressed the principles of a radicality

capable of e"isting in its on right by making use of the terms

of 7estern discourse as undoubtedly Ale"ander 8vanovich

9er3en ():)+1*?-. 9er3en as neither a builder of systems nor

a constructor of schemas# he produced no doctrine that as

entirely ne to the Russian thought of his day. There is no such

thing as 49er3enism4 in the ay there is a 4Mar"ism4, or a

4!ourierism4. 9er3en4s genius lay in his ability to e"press the

latent ideas of his time# to gather the scattered reflections one

could hear in many a Saint =etersburg or Mosco salon, into

logical propositions. 9e as a positive sounding board for

123



socialist ideas in &icolas 84s Russia. A remarkable prose stylist,

he even ent so far as to forge the political concepts of

socialism in his on language, transposing them from the

!rench and the German. ()+- !ar more than 6akunin (hose

ideas only began to penetrate into Russia in the ):*?s- he

influenced several succeeding generations of revolutionaries,

from the ):@?s and ;?s onard, through his articles in the

4Annals of the !atherland4, and his 40etters from !rance and

8taly4. Above all, it as through the !ree Russian =ress,

founded in 0ondon in ):@, that he as to e"ercise an

immense influence over the Russian intelligentsia, first through

the columns of $olamaia /vada, and then, from ):* on,

through 0olokol , hich he edited ith his friend &icolas Ogarev.

9er3en4s direct influence spread over a %uarter of a century,

and it remained perceptible in populist thought until the )<)*

Revolution.

!or 9er3en, the principal task of socialism as to

construct a orld in hich human dignity and freedom ould be

preserved to the greatest possible degree. 9e insisted on the

124



dignity of the individual above all else because it as singularly

trampled on in tsarist Russia/ there ere neither las nor

customs to protect the individual from the arbitrary e"ercise of

authority. The serf as entirely sub2ect to the hims of his

master, the noble to those of the tsar and his bureaucracy. 8n a

land here the slightest criticism of the autocracy could earn its

author ten years in prison or more, this demand for dignity

occupied a central place in all social thought. ()@-

These concerns led 9er3en to re2ect all authority imposed

from above or from outside the individual, and to place his faith

in 4natural groupings4. &o a priori institution, conceived in

advance and in the abstract before being pro2ected on to

society, could lead to liberation. On the contrary, man found the

conditions for fulfilment in the mir , or the artel (a kind of artisan

community-, in other ords in voluntarily accepted

associations, for it as only in an association of this kind that

he could hope to be master of his on fate.

125



8n his concern for man as a concrete being, ith real

needs and aspirations, 9er3en highlighted those aspects of

7estern social thought that took account of the multi1faceted

nature of freedom# beginning ith feminism, hich he did not

distinguish from socialism as such. The revolution as to go

ay beyond schemas providing for ne institutions# for 9er3en

its goal as the transformation of the very structures of

e"istence. ();- The most important of these ere to take place

ithin man4s psyche/ the humane and rational orld he longed

for could not be e"pected to spring forth, fully formed, from the

theoretician4s imagination. And 9er3en, moreover, as

sufficiently clear1headed to reali3e that this kind of socialism

as unlikely to emerge in the foreseeable future. 9oever

idealistic his doctrine, it cannot be accused of utopianism, and it

does not claim to be capable of immediate application. 8t is

presented as a possibility , not as a scientific theory. ()- 9is

pessimism toards the end of his life demonstrates the realism

that characteri3ed his thought/ One cannot free men in their

e"ternal lives if they are not free ithin themselves. ()B- 9e

126



concluded that the nineteenth century ould not see the birth of

men possessing sufficient internal freedom to be able to spread

this freedom throughout the social system. 9is contemporaries

ere living under despotic, or at best authoritarian regimes, and

they ere too deeply scarred by servitude to be capable of

rebuilding anything other than systems that ould oppress the

individual. The ne society can only be built by a ne man,

brought up in freedom. ()*-

9er3en4s doctrine of the State reveals the same realism.

9e early declared himself in favour of the suppression of

central State poer and of the institution of federalism and local

autonomy. ():- 6ut his negation of the State lacks the absolute

and ideological force of 6akunin4s vies. 9e had no illusions as

to the immediate historical possibilities of abolishing the State

in practice. ()<- 6ut this in no ay detracts from his criti%ue of

centrali3ation, of 4e"ternal4 authority and political poer. 9e

remained convinced that federalism alone could guarantee

men4s freedom# but, he added, it as for men themselves to

127



implement it in practice. 8n all this he as not pro2ecting

abstract schemas into the future/

... A republic that does not lead to socialism seems to

us an absurdity# a socialism that tries to dispense ith

political freedom and e%uality before the la ill rapidly

degenerate into authoritarian communism....

Republicanism means freedom of conscience, local

autonomy, federalism, the inviolability of the individual.

(+?-

7hat has dated least in 9er3en4s thought is precisely the

radicality of his goals, made the more credible by his lack of

illusion concerning the revolutionary possibilities of his age.

$ertainly, massive industriali3ation had not yet begun in his

country and there as as yet no urban proletariat, ith the

result that it is tempting to label his socialism idealistic, tainted

ith pre1industrial romanticism (hich is hat . 9. $arr and to

some e"tent M. Malia do-. 6ut it as precisely his position as a

Russian aristocrat travelling throughout urope that gave him

128



an advantage over the !rench or German socialists. !or, not

having gron up and lived ith capitalism, he never accepted

its rationale# hile Mar" (but also 0ouis 6lanc- studied the

economy of his age in detail, forecasting its future evolution,

thus orking ithin the system and adopting its limits as his

on, 9er3en himself remained outside industrial capitalism all

his life. And that despite the fact that he spent fifteen years in

0ondon....

Though a itness of industrial capitalism, he refused to

have anything to do ith it. 7hich is not to say that he did not

understand it or that its logic escaped him. On the contrary, e

have already noted his mastery of the economic criti%ue of

!ourier, Saint1 Simon and 0ouis 6lanc. verything aroused his

curiosity# he as a voracious reader, and talked incessantly

ith his great friend Ogarev, ho himself took a deep interest in

political economy. 6ut it as because he understood 7estern

capitalism that he re2ected it, refusing to believe that it could

evolve toards liberty. 6ourgeois civili3ation disgusted him/ for

him it as incarnated in the character of the eighteenth1century

129



!igaro, but a !igaro turned legislator. 9is conception of

freedom as opposed both to the bourgeois orld and to

bourgeois revolutions. A fe months4 stay in =aris and Rome (in

):;*1:- sufficed to convince him that bourgeois revolution

could only transform society into a bourgeois society.

$onse%uently, he stigmati3ed all ideologies arising out of it,

perceiving the oppressive potential contained in them.

8n 9er3en4s vie, hat characteri3ed bourgeois1inspired

ideologies of change as their scientific pretensions. 9er3en

himself as ell1versed in the physical sciences of his age,

having studied them at Mosco niversity, and having pursued

them throughout his life. 9is on doctrine as based on a

materialism that nonetheless left some room for

conceptuali3ation. (+)- 6ut he ent on to e"plore its limits/ for

him, science as incapable of predicting the future. And he

looked upon all teleological theories, even scientific ones, as

being of a metaphysical order/ narro determinism mutilates

life, and is scandalously indifferent to means and

conse%uences. 9e also re2ected positivism, utilitarianism and

130



pure materialism. The bourgeois revolutions of the nineteenth

century seemed to him to have changed little/ they conformed

to contemporary revolutionary schemas, but they proposed

neither to abolish the authority of the State nor to provide the

individual ith the means to run his on life. !rom ):;:

onards he as clearly convinced that the destruction of

capitalist institutions as not enough 1 a mentality thousands of

years old ould have to disappear from our social structures,

from the family, private life and relations beteen individuals.

(++-

As a result, e are called upon to place our trust in the

creative poers of the masses, in their sense of freedom and in

their imaginative potential. 7e should re2ect 4closed4 systems

hich, even hen they claim to be socialist, perpetuate the

religious and authoritarian principles of the old orld. All forms

of evolutionism are oppressive, since they sub2ect the individual

to 4ob2ective la4. !or 9er3en, the orld is governed rather by

the possible than by the inevitable, and the future depends

upon the active ill of men. 8n short, the revolution must go

131



beyond ideology. $ommunism, seen as a closed and

completed system, as liable to end up as nothing more than

4Russian autocracy stood on its head4. (+@- And he ent on to

rite, concerning all the narro determinisms of his age/

&o, the paths of history are by no means fi"ed

immutably. On the contrary, they change according to

circumstances, the understanding and the energy of

men. 8f the human personality is created by the

environment and by events, the latter in turn are the

product of human personalities, and they bear their

stamp/ there is reciprocal action beteen the to. (+;-

This open1ended socialism, in search of total revolution,

as also shared by many of his contemporaries, starting ith

6elinsky and 6akunin. 8t as to be transmitted to the folloing

generations and incorporated in populism# later it as to

survive in anarchism. 6ut even in 9er3en4s lifetime it as

atered don, transformed and shaped according to the tastes

of the day. This as due to the emergence of a ne generation

132



of militants after ):B? hose socialist thought more closely

reflected the social composition of the ne revolutionary

movement. Russian socialism evolved alongside social

structures hich ere themselves in a period of transformation,

and in this respect the early ):B?s mark an important turning

point.

The fundamental principle of radical thought in the ):@?s

and ;?s 1 of hich 9er3en as the most talented e"ponent 1

and its irreducible core, lies in the notion that only criticism and

destruction of the e"isting orld are revolutionary. All

constructive principles laid don in advance are liable, as one

might say today, to be recuperated by the system.

This is also the most important aspect of the heritage

handed on to the folloing generation, a generation that gave

life to and lived through the populism hose foundations had

been laid by 9er3en, Ogarev and 6akunin. Only, this populism

as irremediably and progressively evolving toards

>acobinism and 4organi3ing4 systems. All the principles laid

133



don earlier and all arnings ere being sept aside by the

rise of a ne class, one hich sei3ed on socialist thought

merely in order to turn it into an ideology in the image of its

ambitions. 8t should be added, hatever may have been said to

the contrary, that hen Mar"ism took permanent root in Russia,

in the ):<?s, its appearance should not be seen as an

intrusion. The entire evolution of Russian thought during the

tenty years prior to this had prepared the ground for a system

capable of taking over here >acobinism had left off# a system

that as superior in the eyes of the intelligentsia in that it no

stood completely shorn of the populist elements that had

eighed don home1gron socialism.

8n order to understand the nature of this evolution it ill be

necessary to e"amine the transformation of social structures in

Russia right through the nineteenth century. 7hat is most

striking in this evolution is the emergence of a class of

intellectuals, the intelligentsia, hich e"pressed the

revolutionary pro2ect right up to its fulfilment in )<)*.

134



$ertainly, the intelligentsia as a class as not peculiar to

Russia# its e"istence can be observed in all countries that have

undergone capitalist development. 6ut hile in the 7est, in

!rance or in ngland for e"ample, it remained barely

distinguishable from the capitalist bourgeoisie hose privileges

it en2oyed, and from hich it often originated, in Russia it

%uickly became a class of its on, for a native bourgeoisie in

the economic sense only really arose at the beginning of the

tentieth century. The latter had no institutional e"istence in the

first place, as it had no status in a society still characteri3ed by

a feudal structure# (+- above all, it had no economic e"istence,

since the land, and hence the capital capable of being invested,

as in the hands of the nobility. 6ut the latter as utterly

unproductive/ it lived a life of leisure, or else as in the service

of the tsarist bureaucracy, but in any case it saved little. 8t as

still less interested in the prospect of investing in industry or

trade. The rals had had to be industriali3ed on the orders of

the tsar, ho forced a number of rich merchants and

135



ironmasters to set up orkshops and factories at an indicated

spot and to bring in the necessary machines and orkers.

So there as no middle class in Russia ith the classical

entrepreneurial mentality found in 7estern economies. 6ut the

seeds of a middle class did e"ist, somehere beteen the

illiterate peasantry and the backard nobility, hose survival

and ell1being depended upon the transformation of the

economy. 9oever, the intelligentsia in Russia had no capital,

ith the result that it lacked a mercantile mentality 1 it as

unfamiliar ith the notions of investment, productivity, unit

costs, profits. 8ts level of education and its professional

occupations (government or provincial bureaucracy, tertiary

sector-, on the other hand, meant that it ac%uired a

technocratic, managerial outlook long before this developed in

7estern urope.

The Russian revolutionary movement as largely

identified ith the mass of the intelligentsia, though its e"act

composition varied beteen ):@? and ):<?. 6eteen ):+

136



and ):B? e are dealing ith a category made up of nobles

and aristocrats even. The universities in any case ere

practically closed to commoners before Ale"ander 884s reign,

and the radical intelligentsia of the ):@?s and ;?s as dran

from the high landed aristocracy (there ere a fe e"ceptions,

notably the commoners 6elinsky and &ade3hdin-. This feature

also provides us ith the key to the socialism of the first half of

the nineteenth century, namely its essentially aristocratic

flavour. That is, some of its fundamental characteristics ere

borroed from the feudal mentality. 8t as profoundly radical,

and entirely disinterested . Seeking neither fortune nor

privileges, a 9er3en could demand nothing short of the totality.

Since he did not seek poer, hich he despised, he as the

natural enemy of all poer. 8dentifying ith the immense mass

of pariahs, these young aristocrats ere hoping that the mass

ould accede to their level of consciousness at one bound. 6ut

above all, their position had made them acutely sensitive to the

dangers lurking ithin all systems of 4plebeian4 origin, and ith

137



a marvelously prophetic sense they unearthed the hidden

ambitions of such systems.

9oever intransigent, this essentially aristocratic socialism

as so above all in the content of its demands. And it can only

be described as utopian insofar as it failed to perceive, or at

least did so insufficiently, the impossibility of its immediate

reali3ation. 9er3en, moreover, had no illusions on this point. On

the contrary, his intransigence as perfectly 2ustified, as

subse%uent history as to sho, and the present generation of

revolutionaries, one that has lived through the affluence of the

highly industriali3ed countries, may very ell end up making the

Russian pre1Mar"ist pro2ect its on. (+B-

On the other hand, this first generation of revolutionaries

as anything but dogmatic here means ere concerned.

=lacing their hopes in the autonomous activity of the peasantry

(i.e. the immense ma2ority of the oppressed of that period-, they

had no intention of deliberately stirring up its spontaneity. They

perceived the minimal conditions of its true liberation, but they

138



could hardly be said to have dran up a timetable or an

itinerary.

The generation of populists of the ):B?s and *?s

remained faithful to this programme here its goals ere

concerned, and its ideals ere still the artel , federalism, the

obshchina, the peasant revolution. 7hile thoroughly steeped in

9er3en4s libertarian demands, the ne generation as far more

impatient for results. Tchernishevsky4s articles in the

4$ontemporary4 ere read avidly, hile his 47hat is to be

5one4 ():B@- became the gospel for this generation.

Tchernishevsky straddled the to periods/ he still admired

!ourier and Saint1Simon hile carefully studying political

economy and applauding 0ouis 6lanc4s proposals for the

organi3ation of labour. 9e also thought that Russia could, and

should, bypass a phase of bourgeois development, but at the

same time he proposed State intervention to aid the

establishment of peasants4 and orkers4 cooperatives.

Similarly, he as more confident than 9er3en in the liberating

potential of science. (+*-

139



Already the first 4Lemlia i 'olia4 (land and liberty-, a

clandestine organi3ation founded by =migres in 0ondon, but

heavily influenced by Tchernishevsky, had raised the %uestion

of the need for intellectuals to guide the peasant movement (its

programme dates from ):B)-. And the 4Doung Russia4 group, in

its manifesto of the same name ():B+-, moved rather closer to

>acobinism, and sought to transpose the methods of 6arbes on

to Russian soil. The content of the pro2ected revolution is still

social, but it is taking on a distinctly political form, in the

tradition of Robespierre and revolutionary dictatorship. (+:-

&ihilism, hich in fact as more of an intellectual fashion

than a political movement, continued to flourish, accentuating

these >acobin and elitist characteristics after ):B@ and the

collapse of the hopes raised by attempts at reform. The nihilists

ere ferociously positivist, searing by the e"act sciences

alone hile despising everyone not versed in them. !or them,

salvation ould come neither from the people nor from reforms,

but only from the educated strata of the population 1 of hich

they considered themselves to be the finest products. (+<-

140



The ):B?s also sa the first, shortlived, revolutionary

groups organi3ed into secret societies and favouring terrorism.

&echaev as a typical representative of these revolutionaries,

admirers of the peasantry and its natural organi3ations hile

into"icated ith positivism and their on historical role.

&echaev as as influenced by 6akunin as he as by the

6abeuf conspiracy# he dreamed of organi3ing the 4mental

proletariat4 and of imposing upon it a revolutionary committee

hose poer ould not ither aay after the revolution. (@?-

6ut it as Tkachev ho as to be the spokesman as ell

as theoretician of Russian >acobinism. 9e made no bones

about his belief in economic materialism, and he believed in the

superiority of an egalitarian State, hich ould serve as the

true architect of the social revolution. The advent of this State

called for the constitution of a political force, as the masses

ere incapable of casting off their yoke unaided. 8t fell to the

intellectual elite, therefore, to build up this force in the shape of

a political party. (@)-

141



$learly, Tkachev had nothing to learn from 0enin or

Trotsky/ at least he set forth his pro2ect ith perfect clarity,

ithout concealing his vie that it as for the intelligentsia, and

more particularly its most advanced elements, to bring about

the revolution in place of the masses.

&evertheless, Tkachev4s ob2ectives and his class analysis

sho that he as still under the influence of populism/ his

egalitarian State as conceived as reproducing the autonomy

of the obshchina. The struggle he envisaged as directed

against the nobility, hile the beneficiaries ere to be the

peasants rather than the orkers.

All these voluntarist and narroly political conceptions of

the struggle germinated beteen ):B? and ):*?. They resulted

in the 4Go to the =eople4 movement and, subse%uently,

terrorism. (@+- ):B@ sa the first pilgrimages to the

countryside. 9itherto, the revolutionary movement, hich had

consisted mostly of students, had been entirely cut off from the

people. 6ut especially beteen ):B< and ):*@ it as to

142



discover the realities of Russian peasant life hen hundreds, or

thousands even, of intellectuals flocked to the villages.

Occasionally they settled don to live among the peasants, but

most of them returned to their cities disappointed. The peasant

as ignorant, and could not even read the pamphlets the

intellectuals brought ith them# hat is more, they discovered

the peasant as deeply attached to the tsar and that his only

%uarrel as ith the nobles. !inally, of course, it as

impossible to attempt the slightest action because of the

absolutist police regime# these migrations ere invariably

succeeded by massive arrests.

Revolutionary circles could not fail to dra their on

conclusions. 6efore one could hope to educate the masses and

convert them to socialism it as necessary to create the

appropriate political conditions. 8t as imperative that the

struggle be directed against the State. The doctrine of the

second 4Lemlia i 'olia4 floed from this disappointment and the

ensuing conclusion/ for adherents it as no longer a %uestion

of aiting for the peasants to carry out their social revolution

143



but to precede it. And hile the content of the movement4s

demands remained populist, this content as already beginning

to be overshadoed by the %uestion of means/ centrali3ed

organi3ation, stirring up of revolts, planned terrorism. !rom

):**1: onards propaganda as supplanted by agitation and

bomb outrages, shootings and so forth. 8n ):*: 'era Lasulich

shot at Trepov, hile )::) sa the assassination of Ale"ander

88.

One should not get the impression that this evolution took

place ithout resistance and argument ithin the revolutionary

movement. On the contrary, there as no lack of critics, from

9er3en ho accused the young activists of 46abouvism4 and

6akunin ho arned of the positivist dangers stalking the ne

generation, to =eter 0avrov, ho held that the masses did not

ish for a ne government to replace the old one and that the

revolution should come through the rising of 4natural4 groupings.

8nside Russia itself there ere divergences beteen those ho

sa revolution as a spontaneous phenomenon 1 as a sort of

generali3ed revolt 1 and those ho anted to sei3e poer

144



through conspiracy and to use the State machine in order to

bring about social change. (@@-

One ay and another, the 4lack of peasant response4

hastened the ine"orable march toards organi3ation and

4political ork4. The desire for efficiency as clearly visible

among those members of 4&arodnaia 'olia4 ho favoured

terrorism and believed in the need for a people4s party. Already,

they ere prepared to countenance the emergence of a State

from the revolution. 8ndeed, the Russian intellectuals4 thirst for

efficiency gre unabated throughout the nineteenth century#

hile the early generations had concentrated their attention on

problems of distribution, %uestions of production and

organi3ation came to preoccupy their successors in the ):*?s

and :?s. (@;- The intelligentsia as coming to feel responsible

for the future of the Russian economy and for social evolution

in general. 8ts desire to 4revolutioni3e4 as coloured by the

desire to do so ith some precise end in vie.

145



The emergence of a Russian1style >acobinism is the more

significant in that it coincides ith the constitution of an urban

proletariat. There ere ),):<,??? orkers in ):*<, and the first

ave of strikes occurred in the ):*?s (in Saint =etersburg, in

the te"tile industry-. (@- The populists agitated among the

orkers, profiting from this to 4contact4 the countryside, ith

hich the latter had remained in close touch. They also

managed to convert a number of orkers to populism, thus

forming a orker Klite hich, little by little, as to become

integrated into the intelligentsia.

6ut, significantly, the first orkers4 organi3ations also

began to appear at about this time (the Southern nion of

Russian 7orkers, the &orthern nion of Russian 7orkers, etc.-

hich, hile accepting the intellectuals4 ideology (notably

6akuninism-, mistrusted the latter and ere sometimes even

openly hostile. Some of them loudly e"pressed the ish that

the organi3ation of the proletarian masses be left to those

primarily concerned. (@B- This hostility found concrete

e"pression notably in the refusal to distribute populist

146



pamphlets among the peasants. 6ut, despite this resistance,

intellectuals ere beginning to organi3e the orkers/ A"elrod,

Shchedrin and =lekhanov ere already active in this field.

There ere lively disputes beteen those ho remained faithful

to populist goals and ho ere hoping to be able to avoid a

capitalist phase in Russia, and those 1 future social democrats,

legal Mar"ists and left1ing liberals 1 ho thought socialism

ould result from the evolution of capitalism. The former looked

to the countryside, the latter to the tons. 9oever, both ere

attached to the political forms of revolution and ere convinced

of the need to guide the masses and to institute the socialist

State before constructing socialism itself.

This evolution as virtually completed by the early )::?s,

and a certain form of populism had been defeated. 8t as no

only a matter of time before the intelligentsia organi3ed itself

along the most efficient lines, those closest1linked to the

rationale of the rising capitalism. A Mar"ist group as formed in

):<@ in Saint =etersburg hich as to direct the orkers4

circles in the city, and the first congress of the social democrats

147



as held in ):<:. So it as Russian Mar"ism, finally, hich

provided the intelligentsia ith its most appropriate ideological

e"pression.

The gradual replacement of an open, non1authoritarian

socialism by an ideology calling for organi3ation and for the

sei3ure of poer on behalf of the people as no mere accident.

8t corresponded to the ne composition of the revolutionary

movement, hich itself as the result of the slo

transformation of Russian social structures. 7hile in the ):@?s

and ;?s the intelligentsia as identified ith a section of the

aristocracy (and thus can in no ay be said to have been a

class-, in the folloing decades it increasingly dre its recruits

from the ranks of the raznochintsy (dclass intellectuals-.

These originated in the clergy, the impoverished lo1ranking

nobility, the mieshchanstvo (a statutory category of

tonspeople/ artisans, small shopkeepers-# they had broken

ith their class of origin, and therefore had no status in the

eyes of the la. These dclass intellectuals ere doubly

alienated from the system/ they ere not officially recogni3ed

148



as a social category and hence they did not constitute an

organic part of Russian society. !urthermore, they ere acutely

aare that their talents and energies ere under1employed.

They considered themselves utterly superior to all other classes

(hich is a feature of nihilism- but could find no ay of

asserting their superiority. The resentment they felt as so

poerful that it constituted one of the driving forces of the entire

revolutionary movement, but it also made them candidates for

leadership of a system hich as evolving toards industrial

capitalism, in hose frameork their professional and

intellectual capacities could be profitably employed.

This, then, as the very opposite of the disinterested ,

generous socialism propounded by the pioneers of Russian

radical thought/ generally unconsciously, their socialism as

gradually transformed into a doctrine founded on their eventual

accession to poer. This process as only completed around

the end of the century, ith the industriali3ation of Russia and

the constitution of a true intellectual middle class, accelerated

by the reforms of the ):B?s/ abolition of serfdom, creation of a

149



provincial administration, reform of the 2udicial system. 6y ):<*

the category of professional intelligentsia constituted a genuine

social class representing some ??,??? persons. Of course,

only the loer levels of this class opted for revolution, the 4high

intelligentsia4 remaining desperately conservative or else

turning, at the beginning of the tentieth century, toards

liberalism. (@*-

The composition of the revolutionary movement evolved

as follos/ consisting almost entirely of aristocrats in ):@?1;?, it

still contained a good many nobles (though from the loer

ranks, the provincial, the impoverished and the modest gentry-

in ):B?1*?, and it as almost entirely made up of commoners

dran from the loer strata of the intelligentsia in ):<?1)<??.

(@:-

The radical pro2ect4s lapse into poer ideology, resulting

from the evolution of Russia4s social structures in the

nineteenth century, did not occur ithout resistance. 6ut the

radical alternative as no obliged to take refuge in the

150



ritings of sects or in the prophecies of isolated militants/ but it

continued to e"ist for all that, and its voice as only stifled ith

the conclusion of the civil ar in the Soviet nion.

Mar&is and 'o$er: an early critiue

6efore undergoing a long eclipse, Russian socialism, both

populist and anarchist, had developed an early criti%ue of statist

systems of thought, and especially Mar"ism. As e have seen,

9er3en as already speaking of 6abouvism ith respect to the

slogans of the ne generation of revolutionaries in the ):B?s.

And in truth Russian socialism in the ):B?s and *?s as still

divided beteen to traditions hich did not yet appear to be

contradictory, but hich ere subse%uently to lead to utterly

incompatible theories of revolution.

One of these traditions has its roots in German idealism, in

9egel4s phenomenology and utopian !rench socialism, leading

to a socialism that as aristocratic in essence and hich later

151



gave birth to populism or, more precisely, to one of its

components.

The other tradition arises directly out of eighteenth1century

!rench rationalism and the Great Revolution. 7hile !ourier,

and 9er3en in his ake, profoundly mistrusted this Revolution,

hich had done no more than proclaim formal freedoms, the

>acobin and authoritarian socialists, on the other hand, took it

as the guiding star in their theoretical heaven. 8t as the most

consistent actors of the )*:< Revolution, those ho ished to

pursue the process through to its logical conclusion 1 the

Robespierres and the 6abeufs 1 ho most profoundly marked

the theoreticians of State socialism/ 0ouis 6lanc, 7eitling,

6arbils, 6lan%ui and, above all, Mar" and ngels.

>acobin socialism established itself very early and very

rapidly in Russia (from ):B?1-. Tkachev populari3ed it and

adapted it to Russian taste, that is, by amalgamating it ith the

native populism. All subse%uent populism as to share in this

ambiguity (for e"ample, 4&arodnaia 'olia4 hich nevertheless,

152



in )::, called for a revolutionary party eternal to the mass of

orkers and peasants-, hich as only cleared up ith the

organi3ation of a Mar"ist movement in the ):<?s.

6ut hile Mar"ism only entered Russia as an organi3ed

movement in the last decade of the nineteenth century, it as

knon to certain thinkers ell before this. Tkachev, for

e"ample, made historical materialism his on, hile &echaev,

after his break ith 6akunin, turned to authoritarian

communism, draing inspiration from the %ommunist

#anifesto. (@<- Above all, a great many Russian e"iles abroad,

beginning ith those famous students in Sit3erland, had

become thoroughly familiar ith a system of thought hich

inspired one of the factions of the !irst 8nternational. At the

same time, these students ere involved in all the discussions

ith the populists then going on, as ell as publishing 2ournals

and founding revolutionary groups.

8n other ords, the criti%ue of Mar"ism as knon in

Russia ell before any party as founded. 6akuninism had

153



begun to spread in Russia from the ):*?s onards, hether

directly or through his disciples. 6akunin as not the first to

critici3e Mar", but his criticisms ere the most vigorous, and

they are of interest to us more particularly because they form

the basis of a type of thought perpetuated through anarchism,

and because they are remarkably close to those hich

radicality e"presses today. That is to say that one hundred

years later, 6akunin4s criti%ue seems to us to possess a

remarkably prophetic %uality.

The 6akuninist criti%ue centres around to main

problems/ the latent tendencies among the category of

intellectuals, and the scientific pretensions of a social theory.

The collusion of these to factors seemed to him to constitute

the essence of State socialism. $ertainly, 6akunin4s thesis is

not free of all confusion, and he does not distinguish clearly

beteen the negation of the State in general and that of the

Mar"ist State. Most important, he does not illustrate his

arguments by means of an analysis of the economic structures

of industrial capitalism and of their links ith the evolution of

154



social structures. 9is demonstration is a little abstract from this

standpoint, and is reduced to a series of statements of a

philosophical order. &evertheless, these statements anticipate

the future and, moreover, they ere to have a profound

influence on subse%uent anarchism, and especially on Russian

anarchism.

As for intellectuals, or 4savants4 as 6akunin called them,

they are imbued ith a sense of their superiority as a result of

their education. !rom this supposed superiority they conclude

that their on future dominance as a class is not only

necessary but inevitable. 8t is this class hich 4in the name of its

officially recogni3ed erudition and its self1proclaimed intellectual

superiority, believes itself destined to rule over the masses4.

(;?- 8t is this class hich is going to appropriate the State for

itself as pro2ected in Mar"ist theory and thus dominate the

masses. The class, then, represents a ne aristocracy# and of

all aristocracies, this is the most hateful and the most arrogant 1

it is the last refuge of the spirit of domination. (;)-

155



The Mar"ist State ill signal the reign of the scientific

intelligentsia. 8t ill be based on a ne hierarchy of real and

fictitious savants, and society ill be divided into a minority

hich dominates in the name of science, and the immense,

uneducated ma2ority. 8n this case, 6akunin arns, 46eare of

the ignorant masses4. (;+-

!or, and this is the second aspect of this criti%ue, e are

not dealing ith 2ust any tyranny/ the one in %uestion is going to

claim that its 2ustification lies in science. 6ut science as such

cannot predict the future, no more than it can legitimi3e a social

regime. !or 6akunin it is the action of men, their constant

desire for liberation, and not intellectual schemas, hich makes

history. 6ut intellectuals have sei3ed upon scientific certitudes

as though they ere a ne religion/ their positivism is merely at

the service of their political ambitions. The 4doctrinaire

revolutionaries4 see the revolution as opening up vast career

prospects for their talents. (;@- 6elieving they understand the

true interests of the people better than the people themselves,

156



they assume that their scientific knoledge places them above

the people. (;;-

5espite its prophetic foresight, 6akunin4s analysis as

never more than rudimentary# he clearly sa that the

intelligentsia is the 4%uintessence and the scientific e"pression

of the bourgeois spirit and bourgeois interests4 but does not

pursue his reasoning any further than that. &otably, he failed to

establish the class character of the intelligentsia (he spoke

alternatively of caste, class, etc.- and, more especially, he failed

to determine its function in the process of capitalist production.

6ut he had initiated an analysis hich as to be taken up by

his disciples/ in Russia it served to clarify the role and

ambitions of social democracy. !rom this point of vie, 6akunin

as undeniably a precursor and he transmitted to the Russian

anarchists at the beginning of the tentieth century a specific

analysis of Mar"ism, an analysis dealing ith the pre1

dominance of intellectuals in the revolutionary movement and

their political ambitions, along ith a deep mistrust of scientific

theories of social evolution. (;-

157



8t must be said in 6akunin4s defence that he did not have

occasion to observe the rise of poerful political parties under

the influence of Mar"ism. True, he had a foretaste of

centrali3ing tendencies in the intrigues and manoeuvrings

ithin the General $ouncil of the 8nternational 7orking Men4s

Association (though he himself as not entirely innocent of all

predilection for organi3ation and authoritarianismF-.

!urthermore, German socialism, even its ideologically atered1

don form, as to bear out more than one of his forecasts.

Russian social democracy eventually took a rather different

turn/ all the centrali3ing and authoritarian potential of Mar"ism

as reali3ed to the utmost. 8t as against this that 6akuninist1

inspired criticism hit out ith all its might. !rom the point of vie

that concerns us here, namely the permanence of certain

themes, this criti%ue found a ferocious advocate in Macha2ski.

The man ho so successfully polished up and publici3ed

6akunin4s intuition as parado"ically neither a 6akuninist, nor

even an anarchist. >an 7acla Macha2ski as born at =inc3o

(in the Russian part of =oland- in ):B*, and he died in total

158



obscurity in Mosco in )<+B. 9is petit1bourgeois origins, a petit

bourgeoisie constantly threatened ith proletariani3ation and

prepared to stop at nothing to avoid it, provided him ith an

insider4s knoledge of the poor intelligentsia. At the cost of

immense effort and privation he managed to complete his

secondary education and to get into a university. 9is fate might

have been very different/ he might easily have been obliged to

seek ork as a manual labourer in order to feed his mother and

his brothers. So he had knon both misery and the pride of

those ho escape it.

At university, Macha2ski became an intellectual and thre

himself into politics. !olloing a nationalist phase, he

proclaimed himself a social democrat. 9is Mar"ist education

ould appear to have been solid, and he shoed a marked

preference for political economy, even if his ritings in this field

are not e"actly da33lingly clear. &aturally enough prison and

deportation to Siberia ():<+1)<?@- earned him his ings as a

fully fledged revolutionary 1 as as almost inevitable given the

vigilance of the tsarist police. After hich he lived underground

159



before emigrating in )<)), finally returning to Russia in April

)<)*. Macha2ski rote his principal ork in Siberia, and the rest

of his life as devoted to e"panding and correcting this ork.

(;B-

The central theme recurring throughout his ritings is that

socialism is the ideology of a ne class seeking poer, the

intelligentsia. Socialism presents itself in the form of a doctrine

of liberation and e"propriation. And it certainly did seek to

e"propriate the capitalists, but ith the intention of taking their

place in the seat of poer.

The class of 4mental orkers4 includes all those ho live

by their technical or scientific knoledge. 8t is a category

opposed to manual orkers. 7hite1collar orkers, members of

the professions as ell as professional revolutionaries, all

belong to this category. The intelligentsia emerged as a class

alongside the development of industrial society/ it is linked to

the process of industriali3ation in modern capitalist economies.

6ut intellectuals are distinguished from entrepreneurs, bankers

160



and shopkeepers (ho, naturally, do not ork ith their hands-

in that they have no capital available to them in the form of

stockholdings, machinery or cash. They do, on the other hand,

possess another perhaps 2ust as valuable form of capital/ their

intellectual capital . This is their education, their years of study,

paid for by the labour of the orkers. (;*-

8n Macha2ski4s vie, the intelligentsia did not seek to

destroy capitalism, but merely to take the place of the

bourgeoisie. The latter as no so decadent that it as no

longer able to feed its on slaves, nor even to defend its

position as the dominant class. The ne class of technicians,

administrators and savants ould institute a rational economy

free from economic crises and unemployment. This class as

familiar ith the mysteries of modern economics and industrial

management. 8t folloed from this that the entire history of the

nineteenth1century socialist movement as seen as that of a

class in %uest of poer. !urthermore, Macha2ski as convinced

that the capitalist bourgeoisie as diminishing in numbers, and

thus flatly contradicted Mar"4s thesis concerning the increasing

161



proletariani3ation of the middle and petit bourgeoisie. 9e

believed, on the contrary, that the latter as constantly

increasing in number, developing hand in hand ith the rise of

the industrial economy.

8n order to achieve its ambition 1 the sei3ure of poer 1 the

ne dominant class needed allies. As the enemy of the

capitalist class, and seeking to grab hold of its State, it may

have given the impression that it stood on the side of the

proletariat. 8t may have appeared to be a revolutionary force,

but this as only an appearance# it needed the orkers in its

struggle against its enemies. 6ut in dispossessing the

entrepreneur, the intelligentsia had no intention of throing the

engineer, the technician or the accountant out of the factory

along ith the boss. On the contrary, they ere to remain at

their posts and to maintain their age differentials, hile the

orkers ould go on being e"ploited as before. This difference

in income as not determined by any %ualitative difference in

the ork accomplished, but by the class situation of the mental

orkers.

162



6y fighting side1by1side ith the intelligentsia for a political

revolution the orkers ere %uite simply preparing the ground

for a ne set of masters for themselves. nder cover of the

struggle for national liberation (as in =oland-, the parliamentary

game or the demand for political freedoms, the intelligentsia

as seeking to strengthen and e"tend the range of its

privileges as ell as to improve its economic situation. The

struggle for political democracy provided the manual orker

ith nothing in return.

Mar", on the contrary, stated that the proletariat should

constitute itself as a political class, electing representatives and

entering the State institutions, for time as on its side.

conomic evolution ould e"acerbate the ob2ective

contradictions of the capitalist system, leaving the road to the

dictatorship of the proletariat ide open. 6ut Macha2ski claimed

that these Mar"ian predictions had turned out false. 8t as not

true to say that the emancipation of the proletariat

automatically lay at the end of the historical process. 7hat as

true, on the other hand, as that the ne class could only

163



attain poer hen the economic conditions ere ripe/ hich

accounts for Mar"4s emphasis on the 4maturing process4 of

economic conditions. The enunciation of 4las4 of social

evolution as not the social science of modern society, but its

ideology. 8ts so1called scientific character served merely to

mystify the orkers by preaching patience to them and advising

them to engage in long1term political struggle alongside the

intellectuals. Once the latter had sei3ed poer, they ould use

Mar"ism as a drug to induce the orkers to accept their ne

masters. 8n other ords, Mar"ism as seen here as a religion/

the heavenly empire as replaced by the end of e"ploitation 1

in some distant future# meanhile, its role is to 2ustify present

oppression. (;:-

The unbridled e"ploitation practised under the socialist

regime ould be e"plained and 2ustified by 4ob2ective las4, by

the material necessities of the transition to full communism. The

orker may be cast in the role of humanity4s liberator, but in the

meantime he is obliged to submit to the las of historical

164



necessity, hich, in the final analysis, turn out to be no more

than the las of spoliation.

Macha2ski takes as his canvas the social history of the

nineteenth century. 9e sees here the rise of a class possessing

the attributes of all poer1seeking classes/ ideology,

leadership, strategy. 5oes this mean that the emergence of the

intellectual class obliterates the class struggle or nullifies the

revolutionary pra"is of the proletariat &ot at all. At certain

points in time these classes have even united in a common

struggle against capitalism. 6ut the events of ):;: mark a

decisive split beteen manual orkers and intellectuals. The

latter changed sides and turned against the orkers, thereby

shoing their true colours, and their real interests. The

intellectuals had glimpsed the spectre of revolution in ):;: and

ere frightened, for they had everything to lose. Thenceforth,

socialism ceased to preach revolution, calling instead for

reforms and political democracy. 8t shrank from forcing open a

door it might never be able to close. !rom revolution and the

classless society, its ob2ectives ere scaled don to political

165



democracy, the collective onership of industry and a

hierarchical system. 8n other ords, even if in the long term it

continued to hope for economic and social transformations, it

limited its short1term aims to the sei3ure of poer. 7hich is hy

it has alays tried to channel orkers4 revolts toards political

demands that are of no benefit hatsoever to the orkers

themselves.

Thus, says Macha2ski, an attempt as made to divert the

great orkers4 strike in 0od3 in )<?+. (;<- The strikers ere

masters of the ton for several days hile the socialists

proclaimed patriotic slogans, as if the orkers had a fatherland

of their on or ere interested in the adoption of a political

constitution. On the contrary, it as the intelligentsia hich

ould have benefited directly from all these transformations/

the national frameork and public liberties suited it don to the

ground, not to mention the fact that economies can be run more

efficiently under a democratic regime.

166



The orkers are dran into a struggle hich has nothing

to do ith them. Some of them 1 the better1paid, hoping to rise

in society 1 2oin the ranks of the social democrats, having

already become members of the intelligentsia and ishing to

defend their on interests. The rest, the mass, ould only

benefit from a social and economic revolution, hich can only

be achieved by direct action at the base 1 by means of

economic strikes. This is precisely hat happened in )<?,

hen these strikes broke out in direct contradiction to the

ishes of the bourgeoisie and those of the socialists, ho ere

calling for political revolution. 6ut the orkers have nothing to

gain from sapping autocracy for an elected government. (?-

Theirs is an economic struggle against the bourgeoisie.

On e"amination, the constructive aspects of Macha2ski4s

thought emerge as rather naive. 9e placed all his confidence in

strictly economic demands# the only thing that counted in his

vie as the improvement of the orker4s material conditions.

9e believed that, ith groing income, the orker ould

inevitably pay for a more complete education for his children

167



ho, thus supplied ith an 4intellectual capital4, ould

themselves become hite1collar orkers. 9aving presented

Mar"ism as a caricature of nineteenth1century scientific

positivism, Macha2ski himself fell victim to the belief in the

poer of education and schooling to cure all the ills of society.

9e does not deny the importance of the revolutionary

organi3ation in achievement of these goals, far from it. 9e

dreamed of a universal workers' conspiracy , ()- hich ould

stir up increasingly bitter strikes, ultimately culminating in a

general strike. This ould place the orkers in a position to

e"ert pressure on governments and employers to obtain

e%uality of income ith the intellectuals. (+-

7e can see the e"tent to hich Macha2ski adopted and

developed 6akunin4s criti%ue of Mar"ism and the revolutionary

intelligentsia 1 ithout ever actually %uoting his predecessor. 9e

must at least have read 6akunin, if only during his time at

7arsa niversity, for 6akunin4s ritings ere idely read by

students in the )::?s. =eople have even tried to present

168



Macha2ski as an anarchist or a revolutionary syndicalist# in fact,

though, he as an isolated figure on the political scene of his

time. Although he shared many of the ideas of contemporary

revolutionary syndicalism, he totally disagreed ith it over the

central notion of the union, instead of the party, as the organ of

the orkers4 interests. (@- Similarly, and despite the fact that

his thinking had several points in common ith anarchism, he

did not believe that the anarchists ere prepared to ork for

the economic demands of the proletariat/ they too ere fighting

for 4liberty4, and thought of a general strike as nothing more

than a peaceful demonstration. !inally, Macha2ski re2ected the

position of the libertarians concerning the State for, in his

opinion, it as useless to attack political poer directly, since it

as only a reflection of the economic structures of society. 9e

thought, furthermore, that even an anarchist revolution ould

place the intelligentsia in poer. (;-

9e as an isolated figure ith fe disciples, and those

ho did follo him for a hile ended up by leaving him for

anarchism and, after the October Revolution, sided ith the

169



6olsheviks. At least Macha2ski, on his return to Russia, had the

bitter satisfaction of seeing his predictions come true,

remarking that even after the disappearance of the capitalist

bourgeoisie the orkers did not have a government of their

on, despite the fact that they ere no free to elect their

representatives. =oer had devolved upon the intellectuals,

and these ere concerned ith defending their on interests.

(-

6ut even his unfaithful disciples propagated his ideas, and

these, it seems, en2oyed a certain vogue for a hile.

&ovomirski, for e"ample, took up Macha2ski4s criti%ue of the

revolutionary intelligentsia, holding that the monopoly of

knoledge as the greatest enemy of human freedom, and

that the intellectual class possessing this monopoly had

emerged at the same time as the State and property. (B-

$uriously, Macha2ski even found a number of adepts ithin the

ranks of the 6olshevik party, and the left opposition included at

least to groups, after )<)*, defending positions close to his

on / the 47orkers4 Truth4 and the 47orkers Group4.

170



Macha2ski as influenced by 6akunin, as ere, even more

noticeably, the Russian anarchists, although he as not,

properly speaking, an anarchist himself. Anarchism developed

in the tsarist empire as a response to the generali3ation of an

essentially urban industrial economy. The first groups consisted

of orkers and students, both these categories being directly

affected by the recurrent cycles of crises and unemployment.

Solidly organi3ed groups ere to be found as early as )<?@,

but it as in )<?1* that these circles, originating in the estern

and south1estern provinces of the empire, began to spread

throughout all industrial centres and tons of any importance. A

relative decline folloed this brief floering, due to a ave of

repression in the ake of strikes and uprisings. Many

anarchists chose to emigrate, and they continued their

activities, centred around the publication of 2ournals and

propaganda pamphlets (&e Dork, =aris and Geneva ere the

principal centres of e"iled Russian anarchism-. Russian

libertarians returned en masse ith the !ebruary and October

171



Revolutions, throing themselves body and soul into the

immense revolutionary tidal ave seeping over the country.

One cannot really claim that Russian anarchism is the

direct heir to a single tradition such as populism or 6akuninism,

for e"ample. 8ts origins are comple" and manifold but, and this

is orth noting, the movement arose spontaneously in orking1

class circles in response to a capitalism that as advancing by

giant strides, trailing ith it its cohort of misery, in2ustice and

e"ploitation. nlike the Mar"ists or the populists, then, the

anarchists ere not a group of intellectuals looking for recruits

for the revolution but small circles of orkers resolved to take

action. Thus, the libertarian movement as practical before it

became theoretical. ntirely concerned ith problems of action

(strikes, raids, terrorism-, it clashed violently ith social

democracy, accusing the latter of tempori3ing and of

intellectualism. (*-

There as no %uestion, at this stage at least, of discussing

the class nature of Russian Mar"ists# certainly anarchist

172



revolutionaries suspected the latter of harbouring political

ambitions, but they made no advance on 6akunin4s analyses.

Their criticisms ere aimed more at tactical %uestions/

parliamentarianism (participation in the 5uma-, non1violent

means of struggle (propaganda, organi3ation- in preference to

revolutionary violence. (:-

=arado"ically, the spokesmen for the radical analysis of

the Mar"ist movement ere to be found ithin the social1

democratic movement itself. This developed sloly at

leadership level from the )::?s onards. The forerunners,

A"elrod, =lekhanov and Lasulich, ere former populists ho

had broken ith a certain revolutionary past. Simultaneously,

they discovered the ritings of Mar" and ngels and the

orkers4 movement hich as beginning to organi3e in the

course of the ):*?s. These early theoreticians of Russian

social democracy ere also propagandists and leaders/ they

ere to be seen on the occasion of strikes, playing the role of

adviser (not alays heeded- and 4guide4 to the orkers in the

big cities. 9aving lost their faith in the revolutionary potential of

173



the peasant masses, they convinced themselves, ith the aid

of Mar"ism, that the industrial proletariat as the historic

instrument of the revolution.

Mar"ism in the Russia of the ):<?s as divided into to

fundamental tendencies/ that hich, on the one hand, dre a

clear distinction beteen the economic struggle of the

proletariat and the political struggle of the revolutionary

intelligentsia and, on the other hand, the tendency hich

sought an interpenetration of the to tasks. The economists (as

their opponents called them- considered themselves no less

Mar"ist than the social democrats, and their analyses coincided

in a number of points. To begin ith, they both shared a

conception of history in hich industrial capitalism figures as an

irresistible trend hich, sooner or later, ould seep aside all

traces of feudalism. 6oth also agreed in assigning the

proletariat the central role in the capitalist phase/ as producers

they are the true architects of industriali3ation, but as

employees they are fated to be the victims of bourgeois

e"ploitation. And certainly both 0enin (the sorn enemy of

174



economism 1 see the biting sarcasm of his What is to be

1one2- and Martinov had no doubt that the inevitable

development of capitalism necessitated a certain number of

social evils, the fruits of an 4ob2ective4 and ineluctable process.

(<-

The economists, hoever, believed that the class struggle

par e"cellence lay in the spontaneous economic struggles of

the proletariat. !or them, the political activities of the radical

intelligentsia should merge ith the political activities of the

liberal opposition/ the social revolution could not result from a

political struggle against the autocracy. The social democrats,

ith 0enin foremost, favoured on the contrary giving priority to

the political struggle insofar as economic demands irremediably

degenerated into trade unionism, i.e. a form of syndicalism

perfectly compatible ith the bourgeois order.

!rom )<?? onards, the hardline social democrats led a

ruthless struggle in the columns of &skra against the

economists, hose theories ere identified ith 6ernsteinian

175



opportunism. Alongside this, the editorial board of the first lskra

(0enin, =lekhanov, A"elrod, Lasulich, =otressov, Martov-

developed a conception of the party that as diametrically

opposite to that of the economists/ a hierarchi3ed party

composed of professional revolutionaries orking underground,

ith a centrali3ed organi3ation, and hose aim ould be to

lead the orkers4 struggles. That is, in 0enin4s conception the

proletariat should not only be confined to trade union1type

demands, but it should thro its entire eight behind the

political struggle against tsarist rule. This vie is e"pressed

ith greatest vigour in the articles 0enin rote for &skra ()<??1

@-, in his pamphlet What is to be 1one2 ()<?+-, and in his

speeches to the Social 5emocrats4 $ongress in )<?@.

8t as at this point in the discussion that a number of

voices ere raised ithin the social1democratic movement and

even among the small group of Kmigres centred around 8skra.

These voices ere perfectly %ualified to critici3e 0enin4s faction

since they belonged to activists ith first1hand e"perience of

the ay in hich these conceptions ere incarnated in the

176



everyday practice of social1democratic organi3ation. This

criti%ue as rather more pertinent, and less abstract than that

put forard by the abochaia #ysl economists. (B?-

7hat is interesting from the point of vie of radical theory

is that this criti%ue poses the crucial problem of the nature of

Russian socialism 1 a struggle for poer for a single class or a

struggle for the liberation of the proletariat 1 and in so doing

places itself at the e"treme limits of Mar"ism. 8t nevertheless

remains ithin the bounds of the social1democratic movement,

refusing from the outset to step beyond the limits. &either

A"elrod nor Trotsky nor Rosa 0u"emburg had any %uarrel ith

the conception of the party or ith that of the vanguard

essential to the class struggle. This is hy 1 as e shall see for

Rosa 0u"emburg 1 this dual position (critical and conformist-

as to lead to a number of ambiguities and even

contradictions. And this as not the last time a lucid and pitiless

analysis of the party ould lead16 Trotsky to contradict himself#

a %uarter of a century later he himself as to fall into the same

trap.

177



The $ongress of the Russian Social 5emocratic 7orkers4

=arty held in )<?@ (formally the second- gave rise to a

ree"amination of the aims and characteristics of Russian

socialism. Antagonisms ere e"acerbated by the factional in1

fighting hich dominated the entire congress, in the course of

hich 0enin managed to maintain control of the party4s organs

by a margin of a fe votes. This bra3en struggle for poer

ithin the party, before it even e"isted formally, aroused the

indignation of a number of delegates not yet reconciled to the

cold Machiavellianism of the committee men. 0ater, hen the

6olsheviks and Mensheviks had constituted to entirely distinct

factions 1 if not to say parties 1 theoretical compliments began

to be e"changed through the medium of codified invective

(4opportunism4, 4factionalism4, 4rightism4, 4revolutionarism4,

46lan%uism4, etc.- rather than ith the support of any

fundamental analysis. At this point there as no further

disagreement concerning ob2ectives, namely the sei3ure of

poer on behalf of the party. The divergences concerned

historical tactics, the Mensheviks placing their trust in the

178



spontaneous organi3ations of the proletariat, infiltrating them if

necessary, hile the 6olsheviks recogni3ed no organi3ations

other than those subordinated to their on apparatus. The

former ere somehat sceptical about their chances of ever

coming to poer (hich earned them a reputation for 4half1

heartedness4 among the orkers-# the latter, on the contrary,

pushed their voluntarism to the point of adopting the

programme of their sorn enemies (the revolutionary

socialists-, provided the masses accorded them their much1

needed support in the march toards the con%uest of the State.

9oever, in )<?@1; the camps ere not yet clearly and

definitively delimited, and the reaction to the 0eninist

conception of the party arose spontaneously. True, German

social democracy, at the time the most poerful, as hardly a

model of 4democratism4, but at least it 4had4 the masses, and its

centralism as concealed behind the e"istence of hundreds

and even thousands of officials hich gave the party the illusion

of a constant e"change beteen the base and the summit.

0enin4s theses (and already his practiceF-, by contrast, shocked

179



people ith their dogmatism/ here as a party made up of a

fe thousand intellectuals and a handful of orkers, most of

hom ere no longer involved in the productive process,

pretending not merely to the leadership of the masses but also

to the monopoly of theoretical reflection. 8t as a strictly

hierarchi3ed and centrali3ed party, demanding rigid discipline

from its members, and presenting itself as the proletariat4s

guide, presuming in advance to approve or condemn this same

proletariat4s struggles. 8t ould have raised a laugh if a certain

number of people had not perceived tendencies in it hich, on

the contrary, called for the utmost gravity.

Their criti%ue as the more clearcut in that they sa

before them the concentrate, the essence of social democracy

or, more precisely, a social democracy hich only e"isted in

essence. 8n attacking it, these heretics ere really hitting out at

all forms of State socialism, even if this as not clear to them,

hether later or at the time.

180



8n conditions prevailing in tsarist Russia, hat could be the

meaning of a political struggle asked A"elrod. Above all this

struggle as democratic1bourgeois in character, that is to say it

aimed at replacing the feudal monarchy ith the reign of the

capitalist bourgeoisie. The Russian Social 5emocratic 7orkers4

=arty as engaged in precisely this struggle, and 0enin4s

conceptions merely accentuated the 4left1 ing bourgeois4

character of the =arty. (B)- !or, far from draing inspiration

from the masses and going to them to learn about proletarian

reality at first hand, 0enin4s folloers set themselves up as their

leaders. 6ut in its social composition, hoever, the RS75=

as undeniably a bourgeois party, and if the orkers supported

it and folloed its line it as because of the lack of a 7estern1

style liberal bourgeois party on the Russian political scene. !or

the time being, then, the party as an organi3ation run by the

revolutionary intelligentsia, and 0enin4s ultra1centralism as

likely to perpetuate this state of affairs. There as a great

danger, A"elrod pointed out, that the e"isting party organi3ation

and its policies ould lead to the emergence of a bourgeois

181



revolution and that alone. 9e then ondered hether the

ideological rapping (the =arty4s revolutionary programme- did

not conceal an ob2ective content hose fundamental principles

remained ithin the frameork of radical democracy.

A"elrod further suspected that hat he termed 0enin4s

organi3ational utopia (centralism, bureaucracy, the

conspiratorial nature of the organi3ation- incarnated a

bourgeois ideology. 0eading the masses directly, under the

tutelage of the =arty, into the struggle against the autocracy, he

rote, could only result in the sei3ure of poer by the radical

bourgeoisie. 9e inevitably dre a parallel ith the !rench

Revolution of )*:<, hen the >acobins, draing support from

the clubs and the socits populaires, faithfully carried out the

policies of the bourgeoisie. (B+- 8n short, behind the elite of

professional revolutionaries dran from the intelligentsia,

A"elrod dimly perceived a 4general staff4 ready to use the

proletarian masses in order to carry out its on revolution, a

revolution that ould hoist it to poer. 6ut the mysti%ue of the

=arty, of a social1democratic movement hose role is to

182



educate the proletariat, as too poerful for him to be able to

follo his line of reasoning through to its logical conclusion. 9e

himself scarcely believed his on arning hen he rote that

history might very ell play the same trick on the Russian

socialists as it played on the !rench revolutionary bourgeoisie,

by dressing up the bourgeois content of the movement in the

ideological clothes of radical democracy.

7hen Trotsky e"amined the conse%uences of the decisive

congress held in August )<?@ he as no less apprehensive. 9e

declared flatly that the orkers4 movement must eventually

transform itself into a 4process of proletarian self1determination.4

(B@- 8f this did not happen, he added, Russian social

democracy ould be seen to have been a historical mistake.

6ut, hat as actually going on in A5 )<?; The party of the

revolutionary intelligentsia as in the process of substituting

itself for the proletariat, elaborating its on private theory of

revolution, and as attempting to bend the reality of class

struggle to this theory. 6ut, Trotsky rote, history simply does

not permit this kind of substitution# the proletarian theory of

183



political development cannot replace a politically developed

proletariat. Revolutionary consciousness cannot come to the

masses from the outside. 8t can only come from the ob2ective

conditions of their e"istence. 0enin4s party resembled the

classical capitalist factory, here a minority gives the orders

and the great ma2ority is merely invited to 2ump to it.

Trotsky ent on to situate 0enin in the >acobin tradition

hich, he said, represents 4the ma"imum degree of radicalism a

bourgeois society is capable of producing4. (B;- 8t as this

underlying >acobinism hich led the 6olshevik leader to believe

that the preparation of the proletariat for dictatorship as purely

a %uestion of organi3ation# in point of fact, though, his

organi3ational ideas lead to a dictatorship over the proletariat.

!or >acobinism, like 6lan%uism, is a bourgeois ideology aiming

at nothing more nor less than the construction of a poer

apparatus.

Already in )<?@, Trotsky published a pamphlet comparing

0enin ith Robespierre and laying bare 0enin4s struggle for

184



poer ithin the party. (B- 9e ent further still in 4Our =olitical

Tasks4 and accused 0enin4s friends of using Mar"ism as an

ideological veil to hide their bourgeois1revolutionary >acobin-

role, ith hich these said friends had become perfectly

reconciled. The democratic intelligentsia had adopted Mar"ism

because it provided them ith a theoretical base for their

struggle for political emancipation. (BB- This gave rise to the

illusion that it as the social democrats4 task to liberate the

Russian people, as a certain (0eninist- committee in Odessa

proclaimed. 7hich led Trotsky to comment/

the Odessa $ommittee has evidently re2ected the little

notion that the liberation of the people can only come

from the people itself as a vestige of 4suivisme4. 0ong

live the Odessa $ommittee, the people4s 4liberator4,

hich has already liberated the orkers of Odessa from

the task of having to liberate themselvesF Only one

onders in hat ay the Odessa $ommittee4s slogan

I0ong live social democracy, the Russian people4s

liberatorJ is better than the promises of the old 4people4s

185



heroes4, and hat reason e have to believe that the

4fighting organi3ation4 ill really obtain freedom for the

people. (B*-

8n Rosa 0u"emburg4s case, hoever, this as no longer a

%uestion of tactical criticism, soon to be corrected or retracted.

One cannot deny her a certain logic, and a great deal of

perseverance, in the defence of her theses. Throughout her

career as a social1democrat activist she maintained her hostility

toards a certain conception 1 hich today e might term

bureaucratic 1 of the party and of revolutionary organi3ation in

general. 6ut if Rosa 0u"emburg4s %ualities lay in her obstinacy,

and in her fidelity toards a theory of spontaneity that as

ultimately to become identified ith her, her criti%ue never

attained the radicality of a Trotsky. This as because Rosa

0u"emburg4s entire life as devoted to the social1democratic

movement# outside of this universe neither her activities nor her

militant thought ere conceivable. Trotsky, on the other hand,

as e"tremely independent1minded. 8t as no mere accident

that he avoided all factions until )<)*, and even then he only

186



2oined the one he thought most effective. This independence

gave him the freedom to vent his violent reactions on every and

any concept, hoever orthodo". 6ut there as another side of

the coin# once his anger as past, once his prophetic

thunderbolts had been hurled, he as capable 1 hen en2oying

ministerial poer 1 of keeping silent hen he should have

spoken up. Rosa 0u"emburg, ith her limitations and her %uest

for orthodo"y and a spiritual family, could be tempted by

nothing outside hat she believed to be the truth.

Rosa 0u"emburg4s principal theoretical concern, from The

#ass Strike3 the $olitical $arty and the Trade 4nion to her final

4Speech4 on the programme of the young German $ommunist

=arty then in formation, as to reconcile organi3ation, the

necessity of a vanguard ith the autonomous proletarian

dynamic. =erhaps the reason hy some people have been

attracted to 40u"emburgism4 is that it attempted to reconcile to

irreconcilables, resulting in a 4lame synthesis 8n truth, it is not

easy to sho that the impulses of the masses and their

revolutionary practice are both spontaneous and dependent

187



upon a social democracy 4hich alone is capable of unleashing

this energy and shapes it as a decisive factor in political life4.

(B<- &evertheless, the fundamental role hich Rosa

0u"emburg assigned to their autonomous activity led her to

condemn severely parties such as the RS57= hich ignored

this aspect. And if she failed to perceive Mar"ism4s role as a

mystifying ideology ith regard to the ambitions of the

intelligentsia, she did believe that the latter4s organi3ational

conceptions ere incompatible ith the ultimate aims of

socialism. !or her, the e"istence of an all1poerful central

committee ruling over the masses could only amount to the

pro2ection, in practice, of pure and unalloyed 6lan%uism. This

seemed to her to stem from 0enin4s on definition of the social

democrat/ 4a >acobin indissolubly linked to the organization of

the proletariat henceforth conscious of its class interests4. (*?-

Thus, the kind of discipline practised by 0enin as

typically that of the bourgeois State/ the central committee

controlled the orkers, hereas the reverse ould have been

the case in the Mar"ist conception of the revolutionary struggle.

188



(*)- Too much centrali3ation as liable to place e"cessive

poer in the hands of the intellectual leaders of the social1

democrat movement, enabling them to further their ambitions.

Rosa 0u"emburg thought that only the autonomous action of

revolutionaries could foil the designs of an ambitious

intelligentsia, only too likely, on the morro of the revolution, to

ac%uire rapidly a bourgeois class content. 8n other ords the

dictatorship, as 0enin first conceived and later practised it, as

more akin to the >acobin dictatorship advocated by the

6lan%uists than to that of the proletariat in its struggle against

the bourgeoisie. 8n these conditions, asked Rosa 0u"emburg,

ill the masses not simply have served as a rung on the ladder

to poer for a handful of intellectuals !or a dictatorship on the

lines of >acobin hegemony (*+-

The criticisms advanced by Rosa 0u"emburg, ho as

thoroughly familiar ith the uropean social1democratic

movement, beginning ith the RS57=, (*@- raise a

fundamental %uestion concerning the social character of

(future- 6olshevik poer. 8n )<): she urged that the

189



proletariat4s duty as to set up a class dictatorship, hich she

opposed to that of a party or of a tiny minority governing in the

name of the class. 6ut, like Trotsky later, she reasoned in terms

of mistakes, errors, of abuses and even ambitions of certain

misguided intellectuals. 9er analysis stopped there. 0ike most

Mar"ists of her generation, she could hardly conceive of

socialist revolution ithout the party4s education, inspiration and

leadership. She ould have liked to change the relationships

ithin the party, to establish a (mythical- fluidity beteen the

leaders and the masses. 8t seemed to her %uite evident that any

spontaneous uprising by the proletariat could only be

elementary and that it ould have to ally itself ith a group of

theoreticians, tacticians and propagandists capable of

channelling this revolutionary activity toards social revolution.

8n these conditions it is difficult to see ho she could have

touched on the %uestion of the social character of the 4leaders4/

if these had their on revolutionary ob2ectives corresponding to

their class e"istence, then their interests ould never coincide

ith those of the proletariat and they ould never be in a

190



position to lead the latter toards its goal. And yet, the 4alliance4

beteen intellectuals and orkers seemed indispensable, the

fusion of revolutionary consciousness and revolutionary energy

being as much a dogma for 0u"emburg as for her

contemporaries. One can see the vicious circle in hich she

as trapped in spite of herself. !rom the moment she refused

to recogni3e that the proletariat has a complete e"istence for

itself , and hence is fully autonomous, she could not deepen her

analysis to the point of penetrating beyond appearances/ an

intelligentsia capable of being deceived by bureaucratic leaders

but hich, in any case, is irreplaceable as the vital catalyst in

the transformation of social relations.

Any criti%ue that does not reassess the problem of social

democracy in its entirety is trapped, right from the outset, ithin

the same vicious circle. 9oever far this criti%ue as

developed, hether by A"elrod, Trotsky or 0u"emburg, it never

aimed at anything beyond, at best, the substitution of one set of

leaders for another or, failing that, the improvement of the

e"isting leadership.

191



$riticism from within developed as far as it possibly could,

and ith an astonishing degree of lucidity, right from the time of

the first congress ()<?@- and the discussions then taking place

concerning the 0eninist line. All the vices of bureaucratism,

appointments from above, manipulation of congress delegates,

ere roundly condemned# and the arrogance, intolerance and

stifling discipline of 0eninism ere shon up indignantly. As

as to happen later, from )<+? onards, the only solution that

the best and most disinterested among the social democrats

could come up ith involved no more than a change of 4political

line4, increased democracy4 or more real 4contact4 ith the

masses. A clear understanding of the situation as a hole 1 of

the narrow interdependence that e"isted beteen the interests

of the intelligentsia, their social and economic role in a

capitalism made up of large units and bureaucratic methods,

hierarchy, intolerance and contempt for the masses 1 as

denied even the most perceptive of the social democrats.

7e have seen that the pre1populist period of Russian

socialism as rich in arnings and prophecies. 7e have also

192



observed that radicality, hile almost entirely cut off from the

realities of political struggle, as nonetheless preserved in a

number of tiny circles, or even in the ritings of isolated

individuals.

=opulism, in the strict sense of the term 1 the movement

that began ith the 4Go to the =eople4 campaigns 1 introduced a

period of activism, but it led to an impoverishment of radical

thought. The rise of the intellectual class parallel to the

development of industrial capitalism in Russia highlighted the

problem of organi3ation. This as resolved the moment

=lekhanov, A"elrod and others ent to 4help4 the orkers

conduct their strikes. The practical problem as dealt ith

before the theoretical one/ it as only afterards that people

began to codify and conceptuali3e their habit of placing

themselves at the head of the proletariat.

7hen former populists began spreading Mar"ism in

Russia and later, in e"ile, teaching Mar"ism to apprentice

revolutionaries, all they ere doing by this time as to drape

193



the intelligentsia in those famous ideological vestments

mentioned by Mar", hose function as not merely to mystify

the proletariat but also to conceal their true situation from them.

A struggle for the hearts and minds of the intelligentsia itself

then ensued. Torn beteen liberalism, constitutionalism and the

various forms of Mar"ism (legal, economist, social1democrat- or

even reluctant to abandon populism, the different fractions of

the intelligentsia made their choices according to their precise

position ithin the middle classes, their temperament and

historical optimism or fatalism. This as hat the in1fighting

that took place ithin this class in the course of the ):<?s as

about/ all ere agreed, hoever, that the principal ob2ective

as the emancipation of the orking class. Alongside the

4struggle for the liberation of the orking class4 group (0eninist-

e find the 4orkers4 self1liberation group (economist- hile

47orkers4 Thought4 as akin to 47orkers4 &esletters4. The

problem as hether the political struggle should be carried on

parallel to orkers4 demands or in alliance ith the proletariat#

as one to be satisfied ith a parliamentary regime (the

194



liberals4 position- or should one start preparing the battle for

socialism straightaay (the social democrat4s position-

The historical vision of all concerned imperatively

assumed the development and the floering of capitalism ith

all its conse%uences (and here they began to shift aay from

populism, hich preferred to skip the urban industrial phase-.

(*;- The first point on hich the social democrats began to drift

aay from the economists, the legal Mar"ists, etc., concerned

the need to dra the proletariat into the political struggle

against the tsarist autocracy or, to use their opponents4

paraphrase, against the tsarist police. 6ut, if draing the

proletariat into a task that, historically, fell to the bourgeoisie

constituted an initial rallying cry around the social1democratic

standard, the manner in hich this 4alliance4 as to be

concluded inevitably provoked fresh divergences, this time

inside the movement.

!olloing a period of realignment inside the intelligentsia,

a battle for partisan loyalty broke out, in hich the orking

195



class as intimately involved. This stage as inaugurated

around )<?@, and it itnessed the splitting of the social

democrats into 6olsheviks and Mensheviks. 6ut no1one

dreamed for a moment of calling upon the orkers to umpire

the %uarrel hich, both in name and in the final analysis,

concerned their on liberationF The combat as fought out ith

the intelligentsia4s on esoteric eapon 1 theoretical argument.

And this is only right hen one considers that hat as at

stake as the bourgeois revolution and hence, in the first place,

the destiny of the intelligentsia as a class.

Macha2ski shoed this very clearly hen he predicted that

socialism ould usher in the reign of the ne bourgeoisie 1 the

mental orkers. 9is criti%ue, hen set alongside those of

A"elrod, Trotsky and 0u"emburg, illustrates this remarkable

phenomenon, namely that even before the )<?1* revolution,

organi3ed Mar"ism as being brought face to face ith its

ultimate ob2ectives. On the one hand, Macha2ski inkled out the

class dimension of the Mar"ist intelligentsia# on the other hand,

the internal criti%ue of the social1democratic movement, having

196



shredly perceived the autonomous nature of all proletarian

liberation, ent utterly astray regarding the historical

significance of the social1democratic movement.

8t as only after the 6olshevik Revolution that the radical

criti%ue once more became free to develop beyond this stage.

This as because hile, prior to this, all 2udgments and

analyses ere founded solely on the dream of poer, poer

as achieved in )<)* and thenceforth became a reality.

=redictions that had earlier been couched in terms of

underlying tendencies could no at last give ay to the

e"amination of an historical incarnation/ the Soviet State.

. *ouncil counis

The theory of orkers4 councils originated in the ne

forms of industrial conflict hich burgeoned during and

immediately after the !irst 7orld 7ar. Among these ne forms

e can (already- mention ildcat strikes, factory occupations

and the formation of committees of shop1floor delegates.

197



The hole %uestion of the council phenomenon is

shrouded in myths and mistaken interpretations, hich induce

caution. !or e"ample, hile e generally tend to associate the

soviet ith the Russian Revolution, the original concept of the

council 1 based on a radical criti%ue of the classical theory of

party and unions 1 as not formulated in Russia (either in )<?

or in )<)*-. Again, for a long time the councils ere presented

as an institution springing forth spontaneously from the

revolutionary mass movement, incarnating the autonomy of the

masses relative to the proletariat4s on organi3ations. This is

only completely true in the case of the )<?1* Russian

Revolution, and one should bear in mind that the unions ere

still only in their infancy at the time, hile the 6olsheviks ere

unrepresented in the factories. 8n )<)*, on the other hand, ()-

the councils ere of a very different nature, more closely

resembling the type then prevalent in $entral urope. 9ere,

reality as a far cry from legend. !or councils of all kinds ere

formed on the initiative of one or another of the nuances of the

socialist movement, or ere at least controlled by them. (+-

198



One cannot, therefore, claim that the councils reflected an

entirely autonomous reality or practice. 8n any case, this ould

have been inconceivable at a time 1 to use a 0eninist

e"pression 1 hen even social1democratic consciousness as

far from affecting all orking1class milieu".

6ut as ith all genuinely revolutionary epochs, the period

)<);1+) brought ith it both topian transformations of reality as

ell as a pro2ection of more profound demands for

emancipation hich ere to remain ithin the realm of utopia.

(@- 8n the orld of concrete phenomena one has only to think of

the immense upheaval hich occurred in manners, in the most

deeply rooted beliefs, in habits and customs unchanged all

through the nineteenth century. One should also bear in mind

the development of ne practices, such as active State

intervention in social and economic life, the groing

involvement of omen of all classes in the orld of ork, their

political as ell as familial self1assertion# the end of the gold

standard and of price stability, the assertion of national rights,

the collapse of feudal systems (in astern and $entral urope-.

199



These are 2ust some of the factors signaling a total break ith

the past.

Social relations had inevitably undergone a profound

transformation. A hole generation had been mobili3ed,

hether in the army, in munitions factories, agriculture or

hospitals. prooted once and for all, it as to prove far less

submissive, much more turbulent than its predecessors. Above

all, it as thrust into a orld of an"iety and economic

uncertainty in hich it as far more prone to contestation. &or

ould the spirit of contestation, of revolt even, spare the

orkers4 organi3ations themselves, for their attitude and

behaviour in the course of this period as gravely to sap the

capital of trust they had built up among militants in the pre1ar

era.

=arado"ically, the unions and orkers4 parties actually

gre in numbers and discipline immediately after the ar, at a

time hen their authority as becoming more readily

%uestioned. The haste ith hich orkers4 and socialist leaders

200



had rallied to their national flags, the collaboration beteen

unions and civil and military authorities to break ildcat strikes

during the ar, provided orking1class consciousness ith a

heavy dose of scepticism. So, through their ne forms of

action, orkers in fact gave vent to a hole range of utopian

aspirations made possible by secular sub2ection. Thus, at one

and the same time, authoritarian1type apparatuses and

ideologies gained in folloers hile losing in credibility. The first

leaf of this diptych held say for half a century, ith the

ascendency of the orkers4 leadership becoming topia# but

today e are itnessing the emergence of a %uest for

autonomy hich as already to be found in embryo in the

years )<)*1+).

The institutions hich arose in this period, and hich

constitute a positive innovation by comparison ith hat had by

no become a veritable orking1class custom, partake of this

antinomic duality. !or the most part, the orkers4 council as

under the control of syndicalist or socialist militants. 6ut as a

pro5ect (and the spontaneous and unpredictable conditions of

201



its appearance bear itness to this-, the orkers4 council is a

concrete utopia, overriding and denying the circumstances of

its institutionali3ation. 8t contains, in the form of (not

immediately reali3able- virtualities, the demand for autonomy

currently thrusting itself into the forefront of attention.

The originality of the council movement lay in its

perception of the drift of future evolution. Although its

theoretical ork as founded on indications only, it as

certainly not based on illusion. True, it as difficult to avoid

triumphalism entirely in the conditions of revolutionary ferment

of those years. Some even ent so far as to identify any

orkers4 council ith some form of opposition to the established

orkers4 leaderships, thus stumbling into a dogmatism hich

has marked the ma2or part of council ideology. $onse%uently, it

is orth taking a look at the real conte"t ithin hich these

strikes and councils, mutinies and revolts gre up before going

on to deal ith the theory of councils and the circumstances of

its birth in detail.

202



The +irst ,orld ,ar and the eer#ence o% ne$ %ors o%

$orers" stru##le

The situation in most of the belligerent countries as pre1

revolutionary, if not revolutionary. 6ut setting aside Russia, e

find three types of situation. 8n Germany and Austria, councils

covered the entire territory and assumed at least partial poer#

in 6avaria and 9ungary they ielded formal political and social

poer at the summit/ hile in ngland and 8taly, even if the

councils had no political poer, they nonetheless developed

into a far from negligible council movement.

7orkers4 councils made their appearance in Austria in

&ovember )<):, at the same time as in Germany. They rapidly

spread to cover much of the country# but very nearly all of these

organi3ations ere formed on the initiative of the socialist party,

and socialist militants ere ell represented on the councils4

highest bodies 11 the e"ecutive committees. !urthermore, and

here lies the main difference ith Germany, the Austrian

councils ere never once in a position to sei3e poer. The

203



revolution, if revolution there as, occurred ithin the

frameork of State and parliamentarianism. I;J

8n Germany, on the other hand, the councils ere

constitutional in character. The first occasion as on )?

&ovember )<):, hen the Greater 6erlin 7orkers4 and

Soldiers4 $ouncil confirmed the composition of the ne

government, hich as folloed by the transfer of e"ecutive

poer to the government on +@ &ovember. IJ Similarly, a

month later the =an1German $ongress of $ouncils handed

over its poers to a future $onstituent Assembly, for hich it

then voted.

6ut reality as more comple" than these 2uridical forms

suggest. The situation arose out of the balance of political

poer and of the very nature of the orkers4 councils in

Germany. The latter made their appearance in the ake of the

strike movement and the army mutinies hich hit the country as

from )<)*. These strikes ere aimed at employers ho refused

to increase ages despite rising prices# and at the government,

204



hich as doing nothing to halt the ar, but they ere also

directed against social democracy and the unions. As far back

as August )<); the S=5 (the German Social 5emocratic =arty-

had adopted a policy of collaboration ith the imperial

government# it as not long before the party came to be seen

as both a hostage and a guarantee for the government. True,

the leaders favoured a 4ar to the finish4. As for the unions, they

had undertaken to avoid all industrial conflicts for the duration

of the ar. And it as not an uncommon sight to see the

6eneral-kommission (their supreme body- making common

cause ith employers and the military authorities in order to

smash a ork stoppage. As a result, the ave of strikes

affecting Germany from April )<)* onards took on a distinctly

anti1union colouring# ildcat strikes broke out ith groing

fre%uency right up until the armistice, only to spread ith even

greater vigour from that moment on. IBJ

These 4illegal4 actions sept the old union structures clean

out of the factories. 8n their place orkers proceeded to elect

delegates ho ould be anserable to the rank and file, and

205



ho ere hostile to the e"isting hierarchy. The delegates met in

orks committees ("etriebsr7te-, prefiguring the orkers4

councils proper, elected on the same basis but for the purposes

of political representation. I*J 7hile one can point to the

e"istence of councils as early as spring )<)*, it as only in the

autumn of )<): that they began to spread so idely that, in the

eyes of public opinion, they came to incarnate the mass

revolutionary movement. I:J 8t as the naval mutinies hich

sparked off a movement that had been simmering for at least a

year# civilians ere %uick on the uptake and, starting ith the

ma2or ports (Ciel, 9amburg, 6remen-, each ton, each region

began electing orkers4 and soldiers4 H or orkers4 and

peasants4 H councils.

8n the beginning there can be no doubt that these councils

arose spontaneously, but the situation soon settled don, and

by 5ecember )<):11>anuary )<)< it as already possible to

take stock of things and to distinguish three categories of

council, depending upon the si3e of the locality.

206



8n most small and medium1si3ed tons the initiative as

taken by the local S=5 organi3ation (generally in collaboration

or in agreement ith the local branch of the unions-, either by

arranging for the election of a council on a sho of hands at a

mass rally, or by designating the candidates itself. 8n rural areas

councils ere often formed ithout socialist participation, and

bourgeois or agrarian delegates ere not infre%uent. I<J

8n the big tons, notably the industrial ones, the S=5

allied ith the S=5 (independent social democratic party,

offspring of ar1time pacifism- in order to control a council or to

form it. 7here the parties did not have the initiative, they

arranged to have themselves coopted on to e"ecutive

committees in sufficient numbers, even hen the councils ere

elected by factory delegates 11 the purest form of orkers4

democracy. 8n some large tons, hoever, it as the 4left1ing

radicals4, the revolutionary ing of social democracy, ho

ielded the predominating influence. 6ut, in general, the S=5

as in control of the council organi3ations. I)?J

207



!rom the point of vie of the country as a hole, to

councils assumed particular importance/ the Greater 6erlin

$ouncil and the =an1German $ouncil, constituted on the basis

of nationide elections. 6oth ere led by social1democrat

ma2orities. Thus, of the ;:< delegates to the $ongress of

7orkers4 and Soldiers4 $ouncils ()B1+? 5ecember )<):-, +<+

belonged to the S=5, eighty1four to the S=5, hile only ten

ere Spartakists.

One may conclude, from this rapid survey, that the spread

of councils did not in itself e"press any pro2ect going beyond

the establishment of a democratic republic ithin the frameork

of the capitalist regime. I))J 7hile it is true that, from mid1

&ovember on, councils began replacing regional and local

authorities all over Germany, the administration nevertheless

stayed at its posts and the social poer of the landoners and

industrialists remained intact. 8t as ithin the frameork of this

poer system that the change in political regime took place# a

change sanctioned by the councils, moreover, since their

national e"ecutive handed over the 2ob of draing up a

208



constitution for the German Republic to a parliamentary

assembly.

The fact that the councils ere almost entirely dominated

by the S=5 as due to the e"isting balance of poer beteen

the various parties and revolutionary groups. 6ut if the councils

had no reality outside the parties and unions hose

representatives populated their e"ecutive committees, this as

due less to the e"istence of the orkers4 organi3ations than to

the inevitable limitations upon any attempt to transcend social1

democratic consciousness at the time. Radicality as as yet

able to e"press itself only in terms of the pro5ect of factory

committees and orkers4 councils.

One is inclined to onder hether this as e%ually true of

those countries here the councils ielded both political and

social poer, as as the case for a brief period in 6avaria and

in 9ungary.

The 6avarian monarchy fell on * &ovember, and Curt

isner proclaimed the republic, hich he intended should be

209



organi3ed along democratic lines. !ive months later he as

replaced by a first republic of soviets presided over by rnst

Toller, ho in turn gave ay to a second republic of soviets ith

the communist ugene 0evine at its head. The role of the

councils in this merry1go1round of regimes as reduced to that

of sounding board for the avatars of this inter1party struggle.

!or, here again, real poer as in the hands of the S=5 and

the S=5, soon to be 2oined by the recently formed communist

party. Thus, both isner4s provisional government and 0evine4s

council of people4s commissars resulted from a coalition of

parties hich held together thanks to the lynchpin role played

by the independent socialists. 5espite the presence of

anarchists, the councils themselves reflected these partisan

cleavages. I)+J

The situation as different in 9ungary insofar as the

socio1economic regime itself as shaken. &ationali3ation and

land redistribution measures ere planned, even if they did not

lead to genuine sociali3ation during the )@@ days of the

9ungarian Soviet Republic (++ March H + August )<)<-.

210



The significance of the councils in 9ungary should be

analysed in the light of the e"ternal situation on the one hand,

and of the political forces at ork on the other. 8t differs before

and after the establishment of the Soviet regime.

The emergence of councils during the ar I)@J

corresponds to the groing radicali3ation in the belligerent

countries. !rom &ovember )<)* onards, violent strikes and

sabotage occurred in the principal factories, and a general

strike in >une )<): brought the economy to a standstill. These

ere very bitter strikes, hose political character as more

pronounced than in other countries. $ontinued pressure from

the orkers led to increasing radicali3ation. 8n >anuary )<)<

several factories ere confiscated from their oners and run by

the local orkers4 councils. I);J 5espite the e"istence of an

aggressive minority hich directly attacked the unions, the

latter had long been solidly established and constituted a vital

cog in orking1class life. Together ith the socialist party they

controlled the 7orkers4 Soviet of 6udapest, the only one to play

an important political role. Thus it backed $ount Carolyi4s

211



government, in hich the socialists ere represented. 8t

approved all the measures presented by the social1democrat

leaders, notably the alliance ith the communist group, hich

as demanding the establishment of a council regime.

8n this respect, the establishment of such a regime in

9ungary looks rather like an operation artificially grafted by the

propagandists grouped around 6ela Cun, ho had received

some political training during their captivity in Russia. !aced

ith the threat of invasion by the ntente poers, the socialists

formed a government together ith the communist leaders,

hauling the latter from the gaols into hich they had alloed

them to be thron shortly before.

The supreme authority in the ne republic as

represented by the 6udapest $ouncil. !olloing the April )<)<

elections, its e"ecutive committee contained fifty1si" socialists

and tenty1four communists out of eighty members. I)J So the

ne regime rested, right from the outset, upon a compromise

212



beteen the communists and socialists, the latter deciding in all

disputed cases. I)BJ

=arado"ically, the reason hy the socialists accepted hat

might otherise look like a very poor bargain, even though they

ere both stronger and better established than the

communists, as that they ere being attacked from the left for

their lack of a foreign policy capable of satisfying the

nationalism of the ma2ority of citi3ens. The 6olshevik pro2ect of

creating a soviet regime as in Russia as shelved# 6ela Cun,

the $ommissar for !oreign Affairs, attempted to e"tricate

9ungary from her tricky position vis1a1vis the ntente poers

and the territorial claims of her neighbours. 9aving failed to

untie this Gordian knot, Cun and his group ere obliged to step

don, having also shon themselves incapable of imposing a

4sub2ective4 solution in a country here the 4ob2ective4 situation

(the importance of rural areas, solid union implantation and a

very moderate socialist party- as unfavourable to them.

213



On the local scene, the old administration continued to

e"ercise its authority right through this period# nationally

speaking, the councils had no e"istence outside the parties,

hose instruments they ere.

7hile in 9ungary, despite its 4soviet4 regime, there as no

council ideology distinct from 6ela Cun4s bolshevik schema,

ngland e"perienced a genuine movement in favour of free and

autonomous orkers4 e"pression. This movement, knon as

the 4shop steards4 movement4, combined to different

phenomena.

On the one hand, before the ar, the Socialist 0abour

=arty and the Guild Socialists had been spreading propaganda

in favour of orkers4 control. This as still only a timid plan to

give orkers some say in the running of their factory, and

although both pro2ects stipulated that the orkers ould be

represented by their unions, the latter ere resolutely opposed

to any such scheme (as as the ma2ority socialist party, the

0abour =arty-. I)*J 6ut the idea as so ell received by the

214



metalorkers and miners that the Trades nion $ongress

ended by adopting, in )<):, the principle of 2oint control in

those industries hose nationali3ation it as demanding.

On the other hand, the artime period as also a time of

great agitation, particularly among munitions orkers and

miners. Most union leaders backed the &ational Government

and its ar1time policies right up to the hiltF I):J Since, on top of

this, the unions had undertaken to abstain from all strike1

backed age claims, the orkers felt obliged to turn to their

shop steards (originally little more than union recruiting

agents, having no poer to negotiate- in order to make

themselves heard.

5iscontent came to a head in )<) folloing to initiatives

by unions that had subscribed to an 4industrial truce4 and had

turned a blind eye to the practice of 4dilution4 (employing semi1

or un%ualified orkers to do %ualified ork- in munitions

factories. The $lydeside metalorkers4 strike (early )<)-

confirmed the shop steards in their ne and 4illegal4 role# no

215



that they ere organi3ed into orkers4 committees they

constituted the e"pression of rank1and1file opposition to all

authority, hether employers4 or unions4.

The $lydeside strike as folloed by disputes in other

sectors of the economy. An uninterrupted succession of ork

stoppages and violent confrontations took place beteen the

outbreak of the great May )<)* strike (hich had broken out in

the munitions industry- and the miners4 strike of )<+?# the shop

steards played a leading role in all these disputes. I)<J ach

factory, each region set up its on orkers4 committee,

delegates being elected on a non1union basis. 8n most cases,

these movements originating in the rank1and1file clashed ith

the e"isting organi3ations. I+?J

This phenomenon became very idespread in the first

three or four years of its e"istence. =articularly vigorous among

the metal1orkers, the movement e"panded after )<):.

Regional committee leaders began to set up a national

structure as early as &ovember )<)B, and by August )<)* a

216



conference as attended by tenty1three committees. A

national council as elected, but the committees preserved a

good deal of autonomy.

As for the themes most fre%uently discussed by the shop

steards4 movement, e should distinguish beteen those

hich are consubstantial so to speak, ith the movement itself,

demanding direct rank1and1file representation, the control of

industry by the orkers themselves and even the negation of

the capitalist State, and those hich ere soon to be

propagated by the national leadership. The latter ere more

politically marked in character and ere to populari3e slogans

originating from the Russian 6olsheviks. As time ent on, the

distance separating the initial impetus and the movement4s

national council idened. 7hile the rank1and1file movement

declined folloing the end of the ar, most of the delegates and

committees being absorbed into the unions, the leaders, ho

no constituted a distinct group, agitated in favour of 2oining the

communist party. 7e have come a long ay from the

ideological premises of )<)B1)< (orker4s control, setting up of

217



factory organi3ations, negation of the State-. The slogans had

no become/ con%uest of the State, construction of State

socialism, construction of a communist party. This evolution

as complete by )<+), hen the &ational $onference of the

Shop Steards4 Movement declared that the proletariat alone

as incapable of managing production ithout the socialist

State# the unions ere rehabilitated, and political action in the

narro sense of the term came to the fore. I+)J

As can be seen, the shop steards4 and rank1and1file

movement only represented something really radical and

innovative in its first years, before it came to incarnate a precise

political pro2ect. 8ts limitations arose out of the circumstances

hich gave birth to it/ the comple" problem of dilution, hich

as resolved hen the unions returned to their restrictive,

corporatist attitudes folloing the end of hostilities. At all

events, the limits to the radical consciousness of the movement

ere those of a highly stratified orking class. 8t ould be

another half1century before the re1emergence of ildcat strikes

218



and rebellious shop steards e"pressing the demands for

autonomy of a levelled and homogeneous class.

8n 8taly, the rising revolutionary ave gave birth to some

original thinking on the role of councils in the orkers4 struggle.

The post1ar period especially as marked by disputes

beteen orkers and bosses. Strikes intensified toards the

middle of )<)< (metalorkers in the north, agricultural

labourers, typesetters, te"tile orkers, sailors-. I++J The

economic crisis, unemployment, the problems of

demobili3ation, all orked to create an e"plosive situation/

anything seemed possible, especially given that the ma2ority of

the Socialist =arty (=S8- as 4ma"imalist4, i.e. revolutionary,

refusing to participate in any bourgeois government. The first

factory occupations occurred in March )<)<, at 6ergamo,

here a factory committee took control of production. I+@J 6y

the end of )<)< a netork of councils in the =iedmontese metal

industry involved )?,??? orkers. A general strike broke out in

Turin in April )<+? concerning legal time (introduced during the

ar, and hich the employers ere an"ious to suppress-. 8n

219



fact, the strike rapidly turned political, the employers proving

e"ceptionally intransigent and refusing to recogni3e a non1

union orkers4 delegation. The movement also met ith the

resistance of the metalorkers4 federation, the !8OM, hich

as hostile to the factory committees. 7ith the =S8 refusing to

call for an e"tension of the strike to 8taly as a hole, the dispute

ended in a compromise that as far from satisfactory for the

Turin metalorkers.

The September )<+? strike, on the other hand, broke out

in Milan and affected the hole of 8taly. 'irtually everyhere it

as accompanied by factory occupations and even orkers4

control. 6ut this time the strike had been called by the !8OM as

a tactical eapon aimed at breaking the employers4 lock1out# it

as certainly not a spontaneous and autonomous movement.

I+;J This strike too ended in capitulation/ the promised

legislation on 4orkers4 control4 never sa the light of day.

&evertheless, the phenomenon of rank1and1file

organi3ation had been stronger and more idespread in 8taly

220



than anyhere else. True, the climate reigning in the country

as e"plosive, the particularly precocious development of

fascism being a good indication of the closeness of social

revolution. 8t as in the climate of revolutionary fever reigning in

Turin early in )<)< that some young 4intransigent4 socialists,

active on the e"treme left of the =S8, founded a revie called

!rdine Nuovo. The editorial committee included the future

leaders of the 8talian $ommunist =arty/ Togliatti, Tasca,

Terracini, Gramsci. 8t is to the last of these that e oe an

overall vie of the problem of the orkers4 councils. Gramsci

dras his inspiration from the modes of orkers4 representation

hich arose during the ar, hen it became %uite common for

orkers4 delegates to be elected for the purpose of maintaining

discipline on the shop floor. This practice continued after the

ar, but as not officially recogni3ed until !ebruary )<)<, hen

4internal commissions4 ere set up in order to supervise the fair

application of the agreement hich had 2ust been signed by the

!8OM and the employers regarding the =iedmontese metal1

orkers. I+J

221



Antonio Gramsci perceived the possibility of turning these

commissions into orkers4 councils, i.e. into organi3ations

elected by the entire rank1and1file (even non1unioni3ed- and

hose competence ould not be limited solely to %uestions of

ages, orking hours and conditions. I+BJ 9e dealt ith the

problem of proletarian institutions since )<):, draing lessons

from the Russian Revolution, the nglish shop steards4

movement as ell as from the ideas of the American socialist,

5aniel 5e 0eon. 6ut his concern for the reneal of forms of

class struggle is founded upon a preliminary criti%ue of the

unions hich, he rote, had developed into an unieldy

apparatus living by las of its on, alien to the orker and

e"ternal to the masses. The unions typified a period in hich

capital as dominant, they had become charged ith a function

inherent in a regime based on private property since they sold

the labour force under commercial conditions in a competitive

market. They ere incapable of serving as an instrument in the

radical reneal of society. I+*J

222



Gramsci thought that the party too as unsuited to the

ne forms of proletarian struggle/ e"isting in the political arena,

it played the same role as the unions in the economic sphere,

namely that of a competitive institution oing its e"istence to

the bourgeois State. =arties and unions ere no more than the

agents (agenti - of the proletariat, to serve as instruments of

impulsion ( propulsione- of the revolutionary process. I+:J

The modern form of struggle, Gramsci continued, as

incarnated in the orkers4 councils. Their superiority over other

structures stemmed from the fact that they assembled orkers

at their place of ork, and in their capacity as producers, and

not, as as the case ith the unions, in their role as age1

earners. The councils stood for the negation of industrial

legality/ their 4revolutionary spontaneity4 implied they ere

ready to declare class ar at any moment. I+<J

6ut the councils ere not merely instruments of struggle.

8n the ne society they ere to take the place of the capitalists

and assume all the functions of management and

223



administration. !urthermore, their task ould also be to

improve the conditions of production as ell as to increase

output. I@?J

Although close to the thinking of the German councillists

on certain points, Gramsci4s conception as not ithout a

certain ambiguity. nlike the Germans, Gramsci did not break

completely ith classical socialism, hich held that party and

unions ere invested ith the revolutionary task. Thus,

folloing the failures of the strikes in April and September )<+?,

he declared, disappointed, that it as the party4s task (a

regenerated and re1organi3ed party, it is true- to give the signal

for the revolution, and not that for a strikers4 rally. One should

not e"aggerate his criticisms of the party/ the target for his fury

as the historical =S8, but he never %uestioned the superiority

of separate political action. I@)J 9e constantly assigned the

socialists the task of con%uering the ma2ority inside the

councils, and this ma2ority as to play an active role in the

revolution. I@+J !inally, far from denying the role of the unions,

224



he recogni3ed that they played a useful function of education

and preparation for the class struggle. I@@J

5id Gramsci4s 4spontaneist4 period, in hich he even ent

so far as to talk of the proletariat4s 4self1liberation4, result from

his ideali3ation of the Russian soviets (about hich he as ill1

informed-. I@;J 5id it come from some ephemeral libertarian

influence, since militant anarchists had been active in the Turin

movement I@J At all events, from )<+) Gramsci fell in step

ith the Third 8nternational4s doctrine concerning councils. 6y

April of that year he as riting/ The party is the highest form

of organi3ation# the unions and shop1floor councils are

intermediary forms of organi3ation. I@BJ 9enceforth, he

proclaimed, the task of directing the spontaneity of the

masses ought no longer to fall upon the councils but upon the

party, a poerfully organi3ed and centrali3ed, 6olshevik1type

party. I@*J Gramsci subse%uently became leader of the young

8talian $ommunist =arty (=$8- and held high office in the

$omintern# his council period as to be relegated to the bottom

draer of official communist history. 8n any case, his thinking on

225



this sub2ect as too marked ith ambiguity, the audacity of his

criti%ue of the party as too illusory for him to be able to tread

some marginal path, outside the orthodo" communism ith

hich he as to finish by identifying completely.

5espite similar situations of revolutionary ferment in a

number of belligerent countries, it as only in Germany that a

definite break ith the past as made, and that e find the

development of a theory of councils opposed to party

communism.

+ro le%t-$in# radicalis to le%t-$in# counis

$ouncil communism as not born along ith councils

themselves, although the appearance of the latter did

precipitate its formulation. As a political theory it constitutes the

culmination of a long tradition of radical opposition ithin the

German social1democratic movement and the unions. The

conflict ith reformist tendencies is as old as socialist orkers4

organi3ations themselves. 8f e stick to the period folloing the

226



4las on socialists4, I@:J e can see that a vigorous left1ing

opposition began making itself heard ithin the ranks of the

socialist party as early as ):<?. 8ts spokesmen, knon as the

4Doung =eople4 (1ie .unge-, protested against the bureaucratic

and dictatorial atmosphere almost reigning in the party. The cult

of the leader (89hrerprinzip-, they claimed, enabled an all1

poerful leadership, paid by the party, to stifle any sign of

revolutionary spirit and to continue to play the parliamentary

game for all it as orth. Revolution had no become a slogan

regularly repeated inside the Reichstag. 6ut then, this purely

parliamentary game as ell1suited to the essentially reformist

tastes of the leadership. The 4Doung =eople4 ere e"cluded

from the party at the rfurt $ongress ():<)- and ent on to

found independent socialist groups. Such ell1knon publicists,

anarchist militants and anarcho1syndicalists as Gustav

0andauer and !rit3 Cater ere to emerge from the ranks of

these independent socialists.

A similar battle as then raging ithin the trade union

organi3ation. An anti1authoritarian and revolutionary fraction

227



had, since the $ongress of 9alberstadt ():<+-, been critici3ing

bitterly the narro centralism and the purely reformist tactics of

the leadership. The leadership4s opponents demanded

autonomy for local organi3ations (hence their nickname/ 4the

localists4-, access to strike funds and greater initiative in the

launching of industrial action for the rank1and1file sections. 8n

):<* they managed to set up an independent fraction here,

under the influence of !rench revolutionary syndicalism after

)<?*, libertarian ideas came to predominate.

The other oppositional current began to develop in the

early years of this century. Although it as Mar"ist, its reading

of Mar" and ngels as far more radical than that of social

democratic orthodo"y. :eft-Wing radicalism, hile violently

opposed to anarchism, had a number of points in common ith

it, notably its mistrust of party apparatus and its faith in the

autonomous practices of the masses. !olloing the elimination

of libertarian elements from the socialist and union

organi3ations it as this current hich took up the standard, in

anticipation of post1ar council communism.

228



There ere three main currents of thought ithin the

German social democratic party at the turn of the century. The

revisionist right, ithout alays acknoledging its debt to

dard 6ernstein, called for a policy akin to that of the left1ing

bourgeois parties, similar to the !rench radical party or the

nglish 0iberals. Then there as the 4Mar"ist $entre4, in control

of the party, and hose authori3ed theoretician as Carl

Cautsky. nder cover of strict doctrinal orthodo"y (contrary to

the revisionists, he believed in the inevitability of revolution-,

Cautsky lent his authority to a markedly prudent tactic that as

scarcely any different from the one 6ernstein as calling for. A

third family of thought emerged during the Russian Revolution

of )<?1*. The left1ing radicals (:inksradikalen-, as they ere

called, gathered around Rosa 0u"emburg, hose book The

#ass Strike3 the $olitical $arty and the Trade 4nion first

appeared in )<?B. I@<J

5raing inspiration from her e"perience of the Russian

Revolution, Rosa 0u"emburg put forard in this book a number

of ideas hich had already been in circulation for some years,

229



notably among the 5utch Tribunists. I;?J She shos that, in

uropean Russia, revolutionary actions 11 strikes, revolts, street

demonstrations 11 appeared spontaneously , unprovoked by any

party. Russian social democracy as insufficiently established

among the proletariat, ith the result that the orkers

themselves created the revolutionary organi3ations the

situation demanded/ strike committees factory committees,

orkers4 councils. The radicality of their actions as unfettered

by the e"istence of a heavily structured party or of a poerful,

but soporific union. 8n Germany, the spontaneity of the orkers

as stifled by bureaucrati3ation of the apparatus, by

organi3ation fetishism, the cult of the leader. 9undreds of

permanent party and union officials ent on applying their on

policy, cut off from the rank1and1file, reluctant to undertake any

bold initiatives for fear of 2eopardi3ing their magnificent

organi3ational edifice, hich no longer served any useful

purpose. =reservation of the means (the organi3ation- no

came to take priority over the ob2ective (the revolution-. I;)J

230



8n her dispute ith Cautsky, 0u"emburg held that

organi3ation as not a static phenomenon but a process/

orkers provide themselves ith the organi3ational forms most

appropriate to their struggle. The artificial separation of

economic and political action is absent from these

organi3ations. The party4s parliamentarian policies, and the

strictly age1demand1oriented policies of the unions, are to be

submerged beneath the development of spontaneous actions

such as mass strikes. Tactically speaking this %uarrel took on a

more concrete character in the years )<?:1)?, hen the party

leadership ruled out a general strike as a means of fighting for

the suppression of the plural electoral college in =russia.

6ut although Rosa 0u"emburg developed a theory of

mass spontaneity hich permitted her to stigmati3e the party4s

immobilism and its congenital reformism, she failed to dra all

the organi3ational and theoretical conclusions hich floed

from this theory. To the end of her life she remained a militant

profoundly attached to the party of the masses, to the

hierarchy, to the congresses and their motions 11 in short, to

231



everything hich had made up the essence of pre1)<); social1

democracy. I;+J

The 5utch, and Anton =annekoek in particular, did dra

all the conclusions, and notably the organi3ational ones, from

their radical criti%ue of Cautskyite socialism. Their discussion of

the general strike took place rather earlier, in )<?@, and their

attacks on the reformism of the S5A=9 (Social 5emocratic

7orkers4 =arty of 9olland- led them to break aay and found a

ne party (the S5=, Social 5emocratic =arty- in )<?<. This

party never attracted more than a fe hundred activists and it

stayed outside the Second 8nternational (hich didn4t ant it

anyay-, but this break did illustrate the e"tent of the

divergences beteen Gorter, =annekoek and Roland19olst on

the one hand, and Troelstra, ho as a faithful folloer of

Cautsky, on the other. I;@J

The Tribunists4 ma2or criticism of Troelstra and his 5utch

folloers concerned their entirely mechanistic conception of

Mar"ism. 7hile it is true that the proletariat4s importance

232



derives from its place and its function in the productive process,

said =annekoek, one should not imagine that the outbreak of

revolution is inevitable. Similarly, organi3ation is important for

the simple reason that it renders the masses strong,

disciplined, fusing the ill of each and everyone into a single

ill. True, parliamentarianism is a poerful means of increasing

the cohesion of the orking class. And alongside this,

syndicalism is necessary in order to arouse orkers to fight and

induce them to accept class discipline. 6ut, =annekoek points

out, socialism ill not come about merely because all men

finally admit its superiority over capitalism and its aberrations.

I;;J The orking class must, in addition, be conscious of the

necessity of the struggle and of socialism. =annekoek thought

this sub2ective factor as e"tremely important, hile Cautsky

ignored it. $lass consciousness, the former held, is ac%uired

through engagement in mass action, led by the orkers

themselves. =arliamentarianism on the other hand, hich as

the leadership4s essential activity, is not the class struggle.

$ertainly in the past it made it possible to unify the proletariat,

233



but it could never lead to socialism. As for the unions, they are

an institution by no perfectly integrated into the capitalist

system, since their function is to sell the labour force.

This criti%ue led =annekoek to relativi3e the role of the

party and the unions, ithout, hoever, going so far as to

e"amine them from the viepoint of historically situated and

dated organi3ational forms. 8n his %uarrel ith Cautsky beteen

)<)) and )<)@, on the other hand, he denies the possibility of

transforming the e"isting State into a socialist State by means

of an electoral ma2ority, and he declares that the bourgeois

State ill have to be destroyed utterly (vernichtet -, its poer

annihilated (aufg;lost -. I;J

6ut this revolution cannot be accomplished peacefully# it

ill not be brought about by the present leaders4 prudent

policies. 8t ill re%uire all the might and the ill of the proletariat

in action. =arliamentarianism and union demands are no longer

enough. &e forms of capitalism (monopolies, cartels, the

internationali3ation of production and markets- have given rise

234



to ne forms of struggle/ mass actions. The passive attitude of

the 4mar"ist centre4 stems from its fear that, by 4ill1considered4

initiatives, the masses ill destroy their patiently constructed

organi3ations. The chiefs, ith Cautsky at their head, sa their

role as that of brake, a check on 4ildcat4 initiatives. !or

=annekoek, this as a singularly restricted conception of

organi3ation, lingering over its e"ternal forms, its visible

structures. And this at a time hen the emergence of an

economy based on large units had aroused in the proletariat a

feeling of common belonging (/usammengeh<rigkeit -/ it is this

spiritual factor hich leads men to organi3e, to develop

structures. One may thro over e"ternal forms, the sub2ective

element is indestructible. I;BJ

On the eve of the ar, the 5utch Mar"ists had thus gone a

long ay toards an organi3ational and theoretical break ith

the Second 8nternational. They had demonstrated the limited

character of parliamentary struggle (ithout, hoever, entirely

re2ecting it as yet-, the capitalist essence of unions (hose

usefulness they nevertheless continued to underline-, and had

235



made the destruction of political poer the number1one task of

the revolutionary movement. !inally (together ith the

6ulgarians and the Russians it is true-, they had shon it as

possible to break ith the social1democratic movement. 6ut

above all, they dre lasting lessons as to the relativity of the

forms the class struggle as capable of assuming, from the

mass movements of recent years ():<@, )<?@, )<?1*, )<?@,

)<)?-. 8t as %uite natural, then, that they should adopt the ne

organi3ational structures hich ere to emerge during and

immediately after the !irst 7orld 7ar.

The ar precipitated the latent tendencies in left1ing

radicalism. 7hat had started out as a simple criti%ue of

orthodo" socialism as to develop into both a social movement

and a revolutionary theory in its on right.

To kinds of factor orked in favour of this. On the one

hand, the ar had brought to a head German social

democracy4s desire (but the same phenomenon had occurred

at the same moment in the other belligerent countries- for

236



integration into bourgeois society and even (after &ovember

)<):- to perpetuate it. This as, in fact, the underlying

significance of the 4Sacred nion4 ("urgfriede, or 4civil peace4-

herein the S=5, by its votes in favour of ar credits, its

abstention from any meaningful opposition, implicitly approved

the German government4s ar policy. =arallel to this, the

unions, by deliberately avoiding involvement in industrial

disputes, and by even going so far as to cooperate ith the

military authorities in preventing or breaking strikes hich

began to simmer spontaneously in factories throughout the

Reich from )<)B on, had set themselves up as enemies of the

orkers. 8t very soon became clear that it ould only be

possible to carry on the struggle in spite of, and against the

union leaderships. A hole section of the German proletariat

thus fell vulnerable to the ideas of the left opposition. I;*J 8n

less than three years, this had been transformed from a handful

of intellectuals into an imposing mass movement. 6y >une )<)*

the left opposition accounted for more than half the

membership of the union organi3ation, and the spring )<)*

237



breakaay shoed 2ust ho far the party itself had been

affected.

Theory too leaped forard, emboldened by the e"ample of

the Russian Revolution and the appearance of councils inside

the Reich itself. The constitution of autonomous bodies, both in

the factories and in provinces and tons, as due to the

causes mentioned above. The moment the orkers4 leaders

began fulfilling the repressive functions of the employers and

the police, each movement, each strike became a revolt.

specially since the slightest action inside a factory almost

automatically resulted in the sacking of union officials,

cessation of the payment of union dues and the improvisation

of temporary structures. Thus, even if to begin ith a strike as

purely concerned ith, say, a age claim, it nevertheless

developed rapidly into an action in hich political and economic

%uestions fused to undermine the social status =uo.

0eft1ing radical theory fed voraciously off these e"amples

of mass spontaneity. The organi3ation of councils as the

238



e"pression of autonomous struggle became the fundamental

concept of the ne radicality.

Right from the beginning of the ar, left1ing militants had

sought to distinguish themselves from patriotic social

democracy. Toards the end of )<); Rosa 0u"emburg, !ran3

Mehring, Otto RPhle and Carl 0iebknecht established a small

oppositional circle, the 48nterna3ionale4 group, later to be knon

as the 4Spartakus Group4. 0iebknecht broke ith party discipline

in 5ecember )<); by voting against military credits, and he

as folloed by RPhle in the spring of )<). Their resolute

opposition to the ar united all left1ing radicals, ith their

hatred of all leaderships (&nstanzen-, parliamentary leaders,

paid officials, party propagandists. 6ut divergences soon

appeared ithin the ranks of the e"treme left. The origins of this

split can be traced back to the preceding period and to the

attitude adopted toards social democracy.

A right ing, for hom the Spartakist leaders acted as

spokesmen, I;:J had no ish to break ith the party, fearing

239



that by so doing they ould 4cut themselves off from the

masses4. nderlying this argument as their reluctance to

break ith the old organi3ational forms and ith the old Second

8nternational habits, ob2ect of so much oblo%uy in the past.

This ing linked up ith the centrist fraction of the party,

the 4So3ialdemokratische Arbeitsgemeinschaft4, in April )<)* in

order to found the independent social1democratic party

(S=5-, hich took a very moderate line, and hose

organi3ation scarcely differed from that of the S=5.

The other ing as more e"tremist, and folloed their

ideological premises right through to their conclusion. The

e"treme left1ing radicals ere made up of local groups,

independent of each other, although some of them had already

been bastions of the opposition before the outbreak of ar. This

as the case, for e"ample, of the 6erlin group, gathered

around the revie :ichtstrahlen (edited by >ulian 6orchardt-#

the 6remen group, around the "remer-"9rger-/eitung and,

subse%uently, the ,rbeiterpolitik (ith Carl Radek, =aul

240



!rQhlich, >ohann Cnief-, hich as heavily influenced by

=annekoek4s thinking# the 9amburg group, hich edited 0ampf ,

under the direction of 9einrich 0aufenberg and !rit3 7olfheim.

Other e"treme left1ing groups ere active in 5resden,

!rankfurt and 6runsick. nlike the Spartakists, ho had not

entirely broken ith social democracy, the e"tremists ere

hoping to individuali3e themselves, organi3ationally speaking.

8n their vie, the task of the future for the proletariat as to

construct its on organi3ation and conduct its on policy. I;<J

Although they managed to cut all their bridges (and

especially the financial ones- ith the party, the e"tremists only

came together in a distinct structure in l<+?. 6ut as early as

autumn )<) they had labelled themselves 48nternationals4,

after the 6remen and 9amburg delegates had approved

0enin4s proposal to construct the Third 8nternational at the

Limmerald $onference (September )<)-, hile the

Spartakists had preferred to maintain their links ith the

Second 8nternational.

241



Thus, on the eve of the Russian Revolution, the

8nternationals I?J ere very clearly moving aay from the

Spartakists on to points. !or one thing they ere demanding

an organi3ation built along different lines from the old forms

found in their entirety in the S=5. They anted an

organi3ation arising out of the struggle itself and action1

orientated ( ,ktionsf7hig -. I)J Secondly, in order to mark their

complete estrangement from pre1ar organi3ed socialism, they

planned to construct a ne 8nternational. 8t as these ideas

that =annekoek advocated in the organ of the Limmerald 0eft,

hich he edited ith his compatriot, 9enrietta Roland19olst.

I+J

7ith the October Revolution in Russia, the &ovember

)<): revolution in Germany and the groth of factory

committees and orkers4 councils, the 8nternationals had at last

found a concrete form for the organi3ation of their struggle.

Soviet Russia illustrated their on notion of dictatorship of the

proletariat, ith poer emanating from the base and rising

toards the ton and rural councils. I@J As a result of their

242



enthusiasm for the Russian Revolution they altered their label,

and in &ovember the 8S5 (8nternational Socialists of Germany-

became the 8C5 (8nternational $ommunists of Germany-,

publishing a paper called 1er 0ommunist , propagating the

slogan/ 4All poer to the soviets4.

=arado"ically, the Russian Revolution brought the

8nternationals and the Spartakists together again# in vie of the

e"tent of revolutionary turbulence they decided to merge and

found the German $ommunist =arty (C=5-. I;J

The constitutive congress took place in 6erlin, @?11@)

5ecember )<):, in the midst of great e"altation. 6ut this as

not enough to ipe out divergences, and the antagonistic

currents ere to crystalli3e around three %uestions. 7hat form

of organi3ation should dominate in the ne party

(centrali3ation, or decentrali3ation ith autonomy for the local

sections- Should the ne party vote for the $onstituent

Assembly (and thus participate in the parliamentary

institutions- !inally, hat should be the party4s attitude toards

243



the unions (entry into the e"isting unions in order to stimulate

opposition from ithin, or construction of ne, even original

organi3ations-.

The delegates divided into to blocs more or less along

the lines separating the left and right ings of the old left1ing

radicals. A right1ing minority (Rosa 0u"emburg, Carl

0iebknecht, Carl Radek, =aul 0evi- favoured electoral

participation, entry into the e"isting unions and a centrali3ed,

hierarchi3ed organi3ation. Although (through the intermediary of

Radek- this group had the blessing of the 6olsheviks, it as

nevertheless very attached to the spirit of social democracy,

hich it intended to perpetuate in the ne party. The ma2ority,

on the other hand, emerged as the heirs to the boldest themes

of left1ing radicalism. 8t contained most of the e"tremist

groups (the 6remen, 9amburg, 5resden, etc., 8nternationals-

and the left ing of the Spartakists hich, for the first time,

came out into the open to e"press its disagreement ith the

respected leaders. IJ

244



The confusion beteen Spartakists (starting ith its

leaders- and the revolutionary ing of the left1ing radicals as

deliberately encouraged by communist historiography in

subse%uent years. 8n reality, hoever, the Spartakists ere

alays rather more cautious than the 8nternationals, especially

here tactics ere concerned. 8t as clear right from the

inaugural congress that the former intended to construct a

mass party capable of playing a role in the institutional political

life of the future 7eimar Republic, hile the latter, the

8nternationals, ere more interested in crystalli3ing their thirst

for revolutionary action in some completely ne form of

organi3ation.

This unhappy mnage ) deu as to last until the

e"pulsion of the group (the ma2ority group at thatF- coming to be

knon as the left1ing communists (:inkskommunisten- at the

9eidelberg $ongress (October )<)<-.

8n April )<+? the e"pelled group founded the CA=5

(German 7orkers4 $ommunist =arty-. Right from the start this

245



ne formation boasted @:,??? members, or rather more than

half the C=5, hich as left drained of life until its merger ith

the ma2ority of the S=5 (in 5ecember )<+?-, the latter

bringing ith it a dory of some @??,??? militants. The party

ithin hich the left1ing communists no found themselves

as supposed to incarnate the principles conceived and

propagated since )<). 8ts programme (inspired by

=annekoek- utterly re2ected parliamentarianism and the unions.

8t sought to remain a party of confirmed communists orking to

develop the revolutionary consciousness of the masses and the

struggle on the shop floor through organi3ations ithin the

enterprise ("etriebsorganisationen-. The ne party as not

organi3ed along federal lines, as some might have hoped, but

along the lines of 4proletarian centralism4, the decisions of the

highest bodies being binding. IBJ 8ts refusal to ork ith the

reformist unions led the CA=5 to assume the programmatic

leadership and long1term direction of the ne factory

organi3ations as ell.

246



These organi3ations emerged during the ar and their

numbers increased rapidly after &ovember )<):. They began

to unite in the summer of )<)<, notably in the mines and in the

metalorking industries. 6ut it as in !ebruary )<+? (before

the creation of the CA=5- that factory committees

("etriebsorganisationen- came together to form the General

7orkers4 nion of Germany (AA5-. This organi3ation as

articulated around the enterprise, the basic cell being formed by

the factory or orkshop# these ere then organi3ed at local,

provincial (Wirtschaftsbezirk - and Reich levels. 8ts aim as to

generate revolutionary agitation ithin the factories ith a vie

to the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of a

council republic. 8n )<+? the AA5 had about )??,???

members, but the folloing year membership declined

irremediably.

The decline of council organi3ations (principally the AA5,

but also the anarcho1syndicalist union, the !A- floed from

the centrifugal tendencies, apparent right from their birth, as

ell as from the political and social situation in the country.

247



!actory organi3ations mushroomed during )<)<, to the

detriment of the unions, hich fell back considerably, especially

in the heavy industries of the Ruhr and central Germany. At first

factory committees ere formed spontaneously, ithout any

precise ideological attachments. 8t as only toards the end of

)<)< that ideological divergencies began to surface. !irstly

because the communist party, under =aul 0evi4s leadership,

as arning its militants of the dangers of 4anarchist4

tendencies, inviting them to vote for the legal factory councils

and not to take part in e"tra1union organi3ations. Secondly

because, from 5ecember )<)< onards, the anarcho1

syndicalists, ho had until then shared the vies of the left1

ing communists, no adopted Rudolf Rocker4s anarchist1

inspired programme, denying the necessity of a dictatorship of

the proletariat and of the use of violence. The ne programme

returned to the traditional (revolutionary- syndicalist vie,

namely that the trade union, the instrument of economic

struggle, as destined to become the fundamental

organi3ational unit in the society of the future.

248



As opposed to the leaders of the C=5 and the !A5

(German !ree 7orkers4 nion-, the council theoreticians ere

thinking in terms of structures suited to both political and

economic struggle, constituted at the place of ork and not at

the level of the locality (as in the case of the unions- or the old

trade unions (the organi3ational base of the !A5-.

The emergence of a theory of councils coincides ith that

of factory organi3ations, though it is impossible to say hich

came first. At most e may presume that the e"ample of the

877 (the American revolutionary organi3ation based on

industrial unions- as not ithout influence on the thinking of

the 9amburg propagandists. I*J 8n other ords, hen the

AA5 as formed, only some of the factory committees

actually 2oined it# on top of that, to tendencies began pulling

the organi3ation in opposing directions right from the first

months of its e"istence. The 6runsick tendency, close to the

left ing of the S=5, folloed the 877 e"ample, advocating

the industry1ide union as the basic form of organi3ation. 8t left

the AA5 shortly afterards and slid into obscurity. The other

249



tendency, left1ing, as more deeply pre2udicial to the

cohesion of the nion. This as the so1called 4unitanst4

(>inheitsorganisationstendenz - tendency hich re2ected the

CA=54s control over the nion and demanded instead a unitary

organi3ation that ould be both politically and economically

oriented, bypassing political parties. This tendency as

especially strong in 5resden, the fief of its chief theoretician

and spokesman, Otto RPhle, ho very early (in 5ecember

)<+?- made his section independent of the CA=5. 8n October

)<+) his organi3ation, the ast Sa"ony section, led a number

of other local groups out of the CA=5 and founded the AA51

(German General 7orkers4 0eague nitary Organi3ation-.

Aside from these centrifugal tendencies, the mass council

organi3ations, the 0eagues, ere further handicapped by the

overall situation in the country/ inflation, groing

unemployment, fiercer repression, especially since the failure of

the March )<+) 4action4 in the course of hich an embryonic

insurrection as harshly stamped out by the army and the

police. After )<+) the AA5 began to lose its mass character,

250



evolving into a marginal group. 8t shifted aay from the CA=5

in )<+* and in )<@), it formed the CA ($ommunist 7orkers4

nion- together ith the remnants of the AA51. As its name

suggests, the CA had no pretentions to being a mass orkers4

movement but consisted of a group of propagandists fighting

to make the councils the instrument of class ill. I:J

The CA=5 suffered a similarly rapid decline after )<+),

torn by personal and ideological %uarrels. The principal

disagreements concerned the binding nature of the decisions of

the highest bodies, relations ith the AA5 and the %uestion of

membership of the Third 8nternational. 0ocal groups ere

becoming less and less autonomous, hile centralism as

gradually gaining the upper hand over federalist principles, and

the AA5 rapidly became a union appendi" to a party

congratulating itself on having brought together the 4avant1

garde elements4. One final %uestion of practical importance

e"acerbated the party4s already considerable difficulties/ should

militants take part in purely economic struggles (:ohnkampf -

The 6erlin leadership, dominated by Carl SchrQder (backed up

251



on doctrinal terrain by the 5utchman 9erman Gorter-, as

e"hibiting some singularly dictatorial and dogmatic tendencies.

8n March )<++ SchrQder as outvoted and e"pelled from the

party. So he formed his on 4ssen Tendency4 (>ssener

ichtung -, ith its on paper, its on congress and its 4on4

AA5. $onse%uently from )<++ onards to CA=5s coe"isted

alongside each other, but their numbers ere derisory, ith

)+,??? militants in the 6erlin tendency at the end of )<++, and

only B?? in the ssen ing. I<J

To begin ith, most of the ssen tendency4s activities

ere taken up ith the establishment of a !ourth 8nternational.

This attempt in itself ould only be of passing interest had it not

folloed immediately upon the heels of the CA=54s imbroglio

ith the Third 8nternational, hich had caused something of a

stir ithin the 8nternational and hich marked the emergence of

a communist theory of councils as opposed to the $omintern4s

party communism.

252



*ouncil counis and 'arty counis

7e have seen that left1ing communism as it emerged in

)<): follos in the footsteps of the left1ing radicalism of the

preceding period. The 6olsheviks belonged to this radical

opposition in the Second 8nternational. They even (like the

5utch in )<?<- ent as far as breaking organi3ationally ith

Russian social democracy in )<?@. Throughout the ar, and

more especially after the October Revolution, the 6olshevik

leaders remained very close to the German e"treme left,

especially the 6remen Group. 6oth 6olsheviks and German

8nternationals4 found themselves in the Limmeraldian 0eft

(though not the Spartakists, ho ere opposed to the

construction of a ne international- entrusting =annekoek and

Roland19olst ith editing its official organ, +orbote. IB?J

The Russian Revolution as enthusiastically elcomed by

all radical socialists, and especially by the 8nternationals, ho

sa in it the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat

through the councils. IB)J Their enthusiasm as all the greater

253



in that 0enin4s recent pamphlet, State and evolution

(published in Russia in l<):-, e"plicitly adopted the ideas

=annekoek had e"pressed in his dispute ith Cautsky over the

destruction of the bourgeois State and of political poer as

such. The future left1ing communists sa in it a charter for

their on revolutionary aspirations# 0enin had formulated the

classic themes of the :inksradikalen/ destruction of the State,

re2ection of elections (and hence of parliamentarianism-, the

advent of a free and e%ual association of producers. IB+J True,

closer reading of the pamphlet reveals some rather different

propositions. !or 0enin stated also that there ould still be a

(transitory- State in the post1revolutionary period, e"ercising an

etremely rigorous control and, like all States, repressive. IB@J

5ivergences only became public in the course of )<)<,

hen the left1ing communists (no in the C=5- reali3ed that

Mosco, and shortly afterards the Third 8ntemational, ere

backing the right ing of the party, in other ords those

elements hich favoured the orst deviations of social

democracy/ the cult of organi3ation for organi3ation4s sake,

254



parliamentarianism, unionism, leader1orship. !olloing the

assassination of its historic leaders (0u"emburg, 0iebknecht,

>ogiches-, the 4rightist4 0evi took over the party leadership (at

the end of April )<)<- and imposed a policy of 4entryism4 into

the unions, of electoral participation, by ay of a stream of

decisions ithout appeal and congresses meeting under

irregular conditions. IB;J Opponents ere %ualified pell1mell as

anarchists and anarcho1syndicalists and, at the 9eidelberg

congress in October )<)<, 0evi announced that all those ho

disagreed ith his vies should leave the party, and he actually

gained a ma2ority in favour of e"pelling . . . the ma2orityF And

that at a time hen the unions had been utterly discredited,

hen orkers4 leagues ere springing up all over the country,

hen more and more orkers ere boycotting elections in

favour of direct action.

8n autumn )<)< the left1ing communists came round to

the vie that 0evi as becoming increasingly tempted by

social1democratic opportunism and that they, the e"pelled

group, ere the true representatives of revolutionary

255



communism. They conse%uently formed their on, ne

communist party, hose place they thought as in the Third

8ntemational. Their desire to 2oin the ne organi3ation hich

Mosco had 2ust created resulted from something of a

misunderstanding. They ere convinced 0enin ould recogni3e

them as communists as soon as he had a moment to talk it out

ith them and let himself be persuaded of the C=54s

opportunism.

nfortunately for them, the C=54s opportunism only

e"isted because it corresponded to the policy of the ne

international, hence to Mosco4s policy. Right from the C=54s

inaugural congress Radek had come out holeheartedly in

favour of the right ing, and it as through his auspices that

0evi took over the party leadership. 0enin himself, in a letter to

the left1ing communists dated September )<)<, had arned

against non1participation in elections, and against the

boycotting of unions and legal factory committees, and had

described their attitude as 4an infantile disorder4. IBJ 9e as

even more incisive in his famous pamphlet on 4left1ing

256



communism4 ritten in spring )<+? and handed to delegates at

the Second $ongress of the $ommunist 8nternational,

abandoning his earlier e%uivocal stance and e"plicitly

condemning the 45utch leftists4. 9e advocated a disciplined,

centrali3ed party, taking very little notice of the federalist line

favoured by the ma2ority of German communists. 7ithin the

unions, he distinguished beteen leaders and masses, only the

former being corrupt# from this he concluded that entry into the

unions as necessary in order to in over the masses and

dislodge the leadership. Similarly, he insisted upon the absolute

necessity of participation in bourgeois parliaments insofar as

the masses ere still attached to them, and in all other

bourgeois institutions capable of being entered. The

parliamentary game must be e"ploited in all its forms/ electoral

alliances, compromises, collaboration. This policy being

2ustified, in 0enin4s vie, by the overriding need to raise the

consciousness of the masses at all costs, and to prepare the

ay for the soviets. The revolution needs a mass party and, in

257



7estem countries, %uantity must take precedence over %uality.

IBBJ

5espite the ideological gap e"isting beteen Mosco and

the left1ing communists from the outset, the latter aited to

hole years before giving up hope and leaving the Third

8nternational. The CA=5 sent three successive delegations to

Mosco, to in the course of the summer of )<+?, and one in

the autumn. Otto RPhle, ho travelled there in May, came back

disenchanted, talking about the centrali3ed system and the

dictatorship of the party. IB*J 9e broke ith the CA=5 on his

return, taking ith him the ast Sa"ony region. The =arty

leadership as unconvinced by his report and three of the

leaders, among them Gorter and SchrQder, ent to Mosco to

see for themselves in &ovember )<+?.

Meanhile, the Second $ongress of the $ommunist

8nternational had 2ust condemned 4left1ing communism4 by

refusing to accept the CA=5. The party4s line on parliament and

the unions as 2udged 4inade%uate4. 8ts programme as

258



described as capitulating to IrevolutionaryJ syndicalist opinion.

IB:J !urthermore, points < and )) (relating to ork inside the

unions and in parliament- of the tenty1one conditions of

admission approved at the same congress clearly contradicted

the CA=5 programme.

Gorter, ho as determined to organi3e a revolutionary

opposition inside the $ommunist 8nternational, nevertheless

managed to obtain temporary admission as a 4sympathi3ing

party4, ith consultative status. IB<J 6ut Gorter4s plans came to

nothing, and after the Third $ommunist 8nternational $ongress

(summer )<+)- the CA=5 as ordered to merge ith the C=5.

8t as the end of an illusion, and henceforth Gorter and the

ssen tendency devoted themselves to setting up a !ourth

8nternational. This, the CA8 (the $ommunist 7orkers4

8nternational-, as founded in )<++ and only e"isted on paper,

attracting a fe hundred militants, mostly German and 5utch.

I*?J

259



5espite these organi3ational avatars, from the middle of

)<+? onards, council theory as no longer merely the most

e"treme e"pression of left1ing radicalism, but had emerged as

being diametrically opposed to 6olshevik ideology as shared by

those communist parties hich had subscribed to the

conditions imposed by the $omintern. !rom this moment on e

can begin to speak of a council communism, carrying on the

radical tradition of Mar"ism and opposed to party communism,

heir to the opportunism of the Second 8ntemational.

$onse%uently, council theory originally posed as a virulent

criti%ue of the very party hich as to be knon later on as the

4orthodo"4 or 4official4 communist party, and hich eventually

became the 4Mar"ist10eninist4 party. 8n place of unions and

parties, council communism proposes natural, i.e. historical,

groupings of the masses/ the councils. !inally, it replaced the

Russian Revolution in the conte"t of the historical evolution of

capitalism by looking upon it as a bourgeois revolution.

260



=arliamentananism, party and unions, the councillists

claimed, are forms of struggle adapted to another, pre1

revolutionary, age. 5uring this historical phase, hich ended

more or less ith the !irst 7orld 7ar, the proletariat as not

very numerous and as utterly atomi3ed. 8t needed an

organi3ation to defend its immediate interests, leaders to

represent it in the institutions of the bourgeois State. 8n that

period the unions undeniably played a positive role, e"tracting

from the capitalists concessions indispensable to the

improvement of orkers4 ell1being. Similarly the socialist

parties unified the class, hich thus found itself individuali3ed

and represented en bloc . I*)J 6ut, rapidly, as the orkers gre

in numbers, these organi3ations e"ternal to the orking class

began generating their on bureaucracy, hich made itself

increasingly independent of the masses and tended to defend

its on interests. As a result, the organi3ations started to

identify ith the capitalist system and hence to obstruct the

revolutionary struggle. I*+J

261



7hile the proletariat as naturally reformist in the pre1!irst

7orld 7ar period, in the folloing phase it aspired to

revolution. 8t as no longer concerned ith obtaining

concessions from employers or the State, but ith the

suppression of both. Given this ob2ective, hich is inherent in

the proletariat, the old organi3ations and the old tactics (those

of the old social1democratic movement- had become a brake

upon the development of ne forms of action hich are

essentially mass actions. I*@J

&o doubt, the left1ing radicals had demonstrated the

short1comings of parliamentarianism at any price before the

ar, pointing to the ay it as practised by the socialist chiefs.

6ut they did admit that it had a certain utility in the education of

the masses and as a propaganda instrument. The 8nternational

Socialists (8S5- themselves continued to e"press this vie right

up to the eve of the Russian Revolution. I*;J As for the 5utch

Mar"ists, they had very early on refused to assimilate the

notion of parliamentary struggle to that of revolutionary

struggle. I*J 6ut no1one could possibly harbour the illusion

262



after social democracy had behaved as capitalism4s saviour in

&ovember )<): and after. Otto RPhle even ent so far as to

consider that a party as incapable, by definition, of being

anything other than a bourgeois institution# the term

4revolutionary party4 seemed to him to be a nonsense. I*BJ

The unions fulfilled the same function of compromise in

the economic domain as the parties on the political scene. They

are merely an institution functioning ithin the frameork of

bourgeois society and, as the ar had so strikingly shon, they

act as a poerful shield for it. So it ould be utterly absurd to

think of turning the unions into revolutionary instruments. As

4organs of capital4, the unions aspired to nothing more than

recognition by the ruling apparatus. I**J The very development

of trade unionism necessarily leads it into conflict ith the

orking class, and the revolutionary struggle begins the

moment orkers decide to organi3e themselves outside union

structures. The union leaders cling to their positions and to their

ne social status (for their union role has turned these former

263



orkers into petit bourgeois-, summoning up all their strength in

order to oppose the revolution and communism. I*:J

The Third 8nternational leadership had imposed the

conception of a mass communist party on communists in the

7est. As a result of this they everyhere encouraged the

unification of revolutionary minorities ith the left ing of social

democracy . Thus, the C=5 as transformed overnight from a

group of a fe thousand members into a poerful party ith

more than @??,??? members. The council communists attacked

this tactic hich, in their vie, could only bring about a situation

here the leaders dominated. !or the great ma2ority of these

necomers ere far from having attained a communist

consciousness, and this could only mean that they ould hand

over responsibility to their leaders. nder these conditions, the

revolution could lead only to a party, but not to a class

dictatorship. 7hen a class is not yet ready for revolution, no1

one can carry it through in its place. And hen a minority sei3es

poer and holds on to it in the name of the proletariat, it is

merely folloing a neo16lan%uist line, not communism. 8t is

264



important to deliver the orkers not only from their physical and

material sub2ection to the bourgeoisie, but also from their

spiritual enslavement. 6ut this immense and difficult task

cannot be undertaken by some resolute avant1garde. I*<J The

proletarian revolution ill be the ork of the masses as a

hole, and if they allo a party to take poer in their place then

all that ill have been achieved is a bourgeois revolution. !or

the revolt against capital is also a revolt against all the old

organi3ational forms. I:?J

This brings us to the heart of council theory. The councils

ere not simply ne forms of organi3ation arisen to replace the

old. They ere also the e"pression of the class locked in

struggle. I:)J 8n this ne phase of the struggle the proletariat

as seeking to destroy the State and age labour. 8t had come

to reali3e that a revolution does not consist of a change of

ma2ority in parliament or in the fact of a political party coming to

poer. &e forms of production, large economic units, the

internationali3ation of markets and the development of

monopolies had brought about a transformation of the orker4s

265



mentality. 9e no anted to be master of his on fate and, first

and foremost, of the basis of all societies/ the means of

production. 6ut, although the orking class already possessed

the necessary material strength (numbers, but also its

productive function- to overthro its masters, it as still too

impregnated ith bourgeois ideology to have a clear

conscience about it. I:+J 8n conse%uence, the proletarian

revolution as to take an entire epoch, resulting from a slo

process of ripening among the masses, from an ever1groing

consciousness of the tasks aaiting it.

Obviously, in this ne phase of the struggle the proletariat

cannot hope to rely on its old organi3ations no allied ith

capitalism. They ere suited to a form of struggle in hich

leaders held say over passive masses# in hich revolution

as conceived as an operation that had been foreseen and

planned for in advance 11 by the leadership. The proletarian

revolution, conversely, as to be the fruit of a spontaneous

struggle aged by the class as a hole. &e, more appropriate

forms of organi3ation ould spring forth. 6ut there as no need

266



to invent them, for they already possessed a concrete historical

e"istence/ the orkers4 councils. I:@J

Admittedly, the emergence of these councils as not

folloed by the advent of a communist society. The backard

economic conditions of Russia in )<)* had prevented the

orking class from coming to poer. 8t could have happened in

Germany in &ovember )<):, if the orkers had not been halted

in their tracks by the conceptions hich social democracy had

been inculcating in them for years. These historical e"amples at

least proved that the time for mass action had arrived, that

communism ould be established by the councils. I:;J

The fact that the councils only had a very limited historical

e"istence (in Russia they rapidly became State organs, the

docile instruments of party domination- leads one to onder

hether the council communists restricted their role to the pre1

revolutionary period or not. The ansers to this %uestion are

not really very uniform. Most theoreticians, hoever, attribute a

double function to them, seeing in them both a revolutionary

267



organi3ation and the basis of future communist society. That is,

they are supposed to act both as a unit for struggle and

destruction in the revolutionary period. and as ielders of

economic (above all, the management of production- and

political (dictatorship of the proletariat- poers in the

subse%uent phase. I:J 6ut hile all are agreed on this, some

go on to assign the proletariat the task of forming councils right

aay, hile others see councils merely as the organs of a

future council State. I:BJ

As long as e stick to the criti%ue of party communism

and to the role of councils in the revolutionary process and in

communism4s transitional phase, most members of the council

movement are more or less in agreement. 5ifferences arise

hen one tries to anser the age1old %uestion of the present

organi3ation of revolutionaries. The advent of a netork of

councils ould signal a very advanced stage of class

consciousness/ by assuming responsibility for the abolition of

profit1based society themselves, the orkers ould thereby

demonstrate that they had ac%uired a genuinely communist

268



mentality. ntil then, those ith a clear aareness of the tasks,

the communists, constituted a minority. Should they organi3e

themselves, should they intervene in the orkers4 struggles to

sho them the ay ahead Then, if they ere to come together

in a 2oint organi3ation, hat sort of structure should this have

All these %uestions gave rise to heated debate in

councillist circles and continue to divide them to this day.

Schematically, e can say that the great ma2ority of council

communists are opposed to the idea of any e"ternal group

directing the struggle inside factories. Similarly, in principle, the

council movement is hostile to the party communists4 vies on

centralism, discipline and hierarchy. That said, in fact one finds

nuances covering all colours of the spectrum bounded by to

poles, the one tending toards organi3ation, the other toards

spontaneity.

At the time hen council communism as incarnated in a

genuine movement, roughly during the )<+?s, there as a

great temptation to construct a councillist party . This tendency

269



as represented by the CA=5 leaders, and especially their

theoretician, 9erman Gorter. Gorter ():B; H )<+*- as one of

the great 5utch poets of the impressionist school. 9e began to

play an active role in the S5A= (5utch Social 5emocratic

=arty- from ):<B, opposing the revisionist tendency. After )<?*

he 2oined the oppositional group hich as to found the tiny

Socialist =arty (S5=- in )<?< (ith =annekoek, 'an Ravesteyn

and 7ynkoop-. 8n )<): he took part in the foundation of the

5utch communist party, before travelling to Germany, here he

2oined the left ing of the C=5. !rom )<+? on he became the

theoretiaan of both the German CA= (ssen tendency- and its

5utch counterpart, hich he managed to bring together to form

a $ommunist 7orkers4 8nternational (CA8- in )<++. I:*J

8n Gorter4s vie the proletariat needed to kinds of

organi3ation/ those based on the place of ork, the factory, and

those bringing 4enlightened4 militants together. The former

ould constitute orkers4 leagues hile the others ould form

the party. The orkers4 league is a mass organi3ation

concerned ith everyday struggle in the factory. 6ut the

270



draback of the league is its tendency to reformism, confining

itself to age claims. Or, conversely, as a result of an

erroneous evaluation of the situation, it is liable to utopianism.

The party, on the other hand, is there to steady the helm/ it is

capable of pointing the ay ahead since it is composed of that

fraction (hoever minimal- of the orking class hich

possesses the knoledge and a clear consciousness of the

revolutionary ob2ectives. The 7estern proletariat needed these

4pure4 parties, reminders of the one formed by the 6olsheviks in

)<?+1@. 6ut the party must not seek to gain poer for its on

ends, for the revolutionary dictatorship is to be that of the entire

class. 8n any case, Gorter prophesied, the proletariat of the

industriali3ed countries of 7estern urope and &orth America

is far too numerous for a dictatorship of the party to be

possible. The party of pure communists prefigures the political

councils, hile the unions anticipate the advent of economic

councils. I::J

Gorter4s organi3ational conceptions ere not all that

different from 0enin4s on# a party1union duality, ith the former

271



taking precedence over the latter had after all been set forth in

What is to be 1one2 as early as )<?+.

&or did Otto RPhle ():*; H )<;@- entirely abandon this

line, e"cept insofar as he advocated a 4unitary4 organi3ation.

RPhle had been a teacher ith a deep interest in pedagogic

and psychological problems as ell as a social1democrat

deputy in the Reichstag hen the ar broke out. 9e folloed

0iebknecht in voting against the ar credits in March l<).

Right from the foundation of the C=5 he found himself in the

left1ing opposition, hich he subse%uently folloed into the

CA=5, taking ith him his on organi3ation in ast Sa"ony (he

had been elected =resident of the 5resden orkers4 council in

&ovember )<):-. On his return, disappointed, from a trip to

Soviet Russia he separated his regional group from the CA=5

and, in )<+), reali3ed his pro2ect of creating a unitary

organi3ation ith the foundation of the AA1. I:<J This

incarnated RPhle4s underlying belief that the organi3ation of the

revolutionary vanguard (hich he considered indispensable-

should not take the form of a political party. 8t as in the

272



enterprise that the primary battlefield in the struggle against the

poer of capital as to be found, and it as on this basis that

conscious revolutionaries ould seek to unite. The 6O

(orkers4 organi3ations- federated and gradually formed the

nitary 7orkers4 0eague (AA1-. This 0eague took on the

characteristics of revolutionary struggle 11 economic and

political 11 and concerned itself ith both. 8t as governed by

the federalist principle/ no centralism, no leadership 4from

outside4, no interference by intellectuals not belonging to the

plant. 5elegates could be revoked at any time, hile the

leaders ere no more than spokesmen for the rank and file, its

e"ecutive organs. The task of unitary organi3ation consisted of

developing class consciousness and a feeling of solidarity

among orkers. &either a party nor a union, the AA1 as the

revolutionary organi3ation of the proletariat. 8t dissolved itself

ith the appearance of the councils hich, in some ays, it had

prefigured. I<?J

The intermediate conception, halfay beteen the

4organi3ationalists4 and the 4spontaneists4, as developed by

273



=annekoek, arising logically from his vies on the nature of the

revolutionary struggle, hich he tied directly to class

consciousness. Anton =annekoek ():*@ H )<B?- as an

astronomer of orld1renon and an historian of science#

throughout his life he pursued a dual career as militant and

scientist. 9e as active in the socialist movement for over half

a century. 9e 2oined the 5utch S5A= in )<)+ and, in the

folloing year, began developing his theory of mass

spontaneity . 9e as invited to 6erlin in )<? in order to teach

at the party school, and henceforth he became active in both

organi3ations. 9e became involved in the 6remen left1ing

radical circles from )<?B onards, contributing a large number

of articles to the party 2ournals. 9e as e"pelled from Germany

in )<); on account of his 5utch nationality, but he carried on

his activities in Sit3erland and 9olland ithin the

Limmeraldian left hile keeping up his contacts ith the

German international socialists. 9e ithdre from active

militant ork after )<+) to devote himself to astronomy, hich

he taught at the niversity of Amsterdam from )<+ onards.

274



9e nevertheless contributed to the theoretical ork of the 5utch

council communists, the G8$ (8nternational $ommunists

Group-, and published numerous articles in various council1

communist revies in the )<@?s and ;?s.

=annekoek insisted ith greater force than his

companions upon the spiritual aspect of the class struggle.

$ertainly, he remained a convinced Mar"ist and materialist. 6ut

in his vie material factors (relations of production- had no

immediate influence upon the revolutionary process. The

timelag beteen the emergence of ne material structures or

ne modes of production and the moment the orker4s

consciousness becomes aare of them and adapts to them

may be very long. Meanhile, the orker4s consciousness

remains the prisoner of the beliefs, pre2udices and false values

of the surrounding culture. The poer of the bourgeoisie is

spiritual before all else/ the bourgeoisie controls religion,

education, propaganda activities and, more generally, the entire

range of cultural production, to hich the orker is more or less

sub2ected. There is thus a gap beteen the material situation

275



>ust as the orkers4 councils constitute the units of practical

action in the class struggle, these discussion groups represent

its spiritual force. I<+J

The precise outlines of these groups, hich =annekoek

sometimes called parties, remain vague. They are ithout

status, nor do they have membership cards or regular

subscriptions. Most important, it is not their 2ob to direct

conflicts. 8t does not really matter to him hat they are called so

long as they are different from hat e normally kno as

parties. These groups bring together all those ho share the

same underlying conceptions in order to discuss and to

discover the tasks to be accomplished. Their activities are

purely intellectual, and their importance stems from the fact that

victory ill ultimately depend upon the spiritual force of the

proletariat as ell. I<@J

Alongside =annekoek4s rather moderate positions (his

ideas concerning the party consisted of nuances-, some council

277



communists4 vies ere rather more blunt, re2ecting all forms of

4e"ternal4 organi3ation, no matter hat its profile might be.

5uring the period )<)*1+@ one encounters conceptions

hich more closely resemble certain anarchist tendencies than

the prevailing Mar"ism. As early as )<)*, >ulian 6orchardt, for

e"ample, stated that all parties ere alike and proclaimed the

right to autonomy in the face of all authority, even that derived

from the revolutionary party. 6orchardt even re2ected the form

of the party itself, retaining only its 4e"ecutive organs4

( ,usf9hrende !rgane-. I<;J A little later a fraction developed

inside the 4unitarist4 branch of the council communists (AA1-

demanding the dissolution of all general organi3ational

structures (i.e. ones bringing together rank1and1file groups-.

I<J 6ut these to tendencies stood at the outer edges of

council theory. On the other hand, a certain number of

councillists put forard ideas in the )<@?s derived by strict

interpretation from the very heart of this theory. !or these

people, it as impossible to distinguish beteen the class

struggle and the acts of the orkers# the orkers4 movement

278



coincided ith the movement of the orkers. 8t is governed by

its on las tending toard the appropriation of the means of

production. &ot only does it create its on organs of material

struggle (factory or action committees- but also its on organs

of intellectual knoledge/ orking groups. These groups are no

longer gatherings of individuals e"ternal to the class but

constitute an instrument forged by the class itself and ithin its

on ranks. This ill lead to the autonomous organi3ation of the

masses into councils, and the autonomous organi3aton of

revolutionary workers into orking groups. I<BJ 8n other ords,

all intervention from outside is eliminated# all efforts in the

direction of the final ob2ective must come from ithin the class

and any e"ception to this can only be inspired by the 4e"1

orkers4 movement.

7e have seen ho council theory broke aay from left1

ing radicalism, establishing its on individuality against the

conceptions Mosco as propagating through the Third

8nternational. 7ith the passing years, the %uestion of the

Russian Revolution, its nature and characteristics, as to take

279



an increasingly important place in the discussions of these

4orking groups4. The councillists developed not one but to

successive conceptions of the Russian Revolution, the content

of these conceptions being inseparable from their theory as a

hole.

To begin ith, from )<)< on, radical theoreticians

accepted that Russia had undergone a true revolution,

abolishing the old regime and carrying the proletariat to poer.

6ut the specific conditions predominating in this backard

country meant that the revolution could not be e"pected to

assume the same forms as those it ould surely take on in the

industriali3ed countries of estern urope and &orth America.

!or these countries possessed large, educated proleletariats,

ith long histories behind them# they could not rely upon other

social categories for the completion of their historical task. 8n

Germany, for e"ample, the mass of peasants as composed of

tenant farmers and smallholders hose sole ambition as to

enlarge and protect their property/ they ere the natural allies

of the industrial bourgeoisie. The proletariat could only count on

280



its on forces, material and spiritual. The day it arose, it ould

take upon itself the destruction of the old structures and, above

all, it ould e"ercise its on dictatorship 11 class dictatorship. 8n

Russia, on the other hand, si" million orkers had been backed

by a vast mass of peasants also aspiring to the e"propriation of

the capitalists. Once it had achieved poer, hoever, this

numerically eak orking class (in a country of ):? million

inhabitants-, devoid of any tradition of freedom or class

consciousness, as obliged to yield poer to a party made up

of conscious and devoted communists hose policy could not

ignore the social base of its regime/ the peasantry. 7hich

e"plains hy the dictatorship hich as in fact e"ercised as

not one of a class but that of a party, a bureaucracy, or more

likely that of a fe leaders only. I<*J

8n spite of this analysis, or perhaps because of it, the

council communists identified themselves ith the Russian

Revolution and did not %uestion the rightness of 6olshevik

theory and practice. 6olshevik tactics ere considered perfectly

appropriate to the situation of an economically backard

281



country# all they asked of the $=S as that it desist from

calling for the mechanical application of similar tactics to

7estern urope, here the situation as utterly different. I<:J

Opinions began to evolve from about )<+)1+, hen the

Russian Revolution started to emerge as a bourgeois

revolution. This change coincided ith 0enin4s introduction of

the &= and his encouragement of private property, especially

in the countyside. RPhle as one of the first to demythologi3e

the 4communist4 character of the Russian Revolution. On his

return from Russia he stated that the councils merely masked

the dictatorship of the party, and that he found no trace of

genuine communism# conversely, he ent on, there as a

flourishing ne soviet bourgeoisieF I<<J Shortly afterards all

the councillists came round to the vie that hat had occurred

in Russia had been a democratic1bourgeois or peasant1

bourgeois revolution/ so far ere internal policy (the restoration

of private property- and e"ternal policy (commercial and

diplomatic relations ith the capitalist poers- both supposed

to bear itness to a process in hich poer as gradually

282



passing into the hands of a minority and hich as leading

straight toards 4State capitalism4. The tasks facing the Russian

revolutionaries ere those of a defaulting bourgeoisie/ the

Revolution had been made by a handful of representatives of

the petit bourgeoisie 11 the 6olsheviks 11 ho had then gone on

to set themselves up as an obstacle to the orld proletarian

revolution As usual, it as RPhle ho stated this idea most

incisively/ for him, the more or less proletarian character of the

Russian Revolution did nothing to alter its bourgeois essence in

a country here the first task as to progress from feudalism to

the industrial capitalism of the modern era. Right from the

outset, he claimed, the regime had shon itself to be

bourgeois/ one had only to look to the 6rest10itovsk Treaty, the

acceptance of the principle of the right to self1determination of

peoples, the persistence of private property among the

peasantry or the policy of nationali3ation, hich had nothing

hatever to do ith socialization. I)??J

The essence of this analysis as to remain the same,

even after the forced collectivi3ation of )<+:1@?, although

283



refinements ere added later. =annekoek later e"plained that

the occupation of poer by the party as due to a 4shortage of

cadres4 and that the State had substituted itself for the class.

!or him, State capitalism as e%ually a form of State socialism

since the State, in Russia, as the sole master. 7ith the

bureaucracy carrying out tasks hich, in 7estern urope,

ould have been those of the bourgeoisie, it as clearly the 2ob

of the bureaucrats to impose industriali3ation and the

collectivi3ation of land. This is hy, despite its bourgeois

character, or rather because of it, the Russian Revolution

represented an enormous step forard, the masses having

advanced from a stage of unevolving barbarianism to a

situation in hich they might aspire to dignity. 6ut the price of

this progress as a heavy one/ an oppressive dictatorship, and

an even more crushing slavery than that eighing upon the

orking class in 7estern capitalist societies. I)?)J

The Second 7orld 7ar led to no notable changes in the

council theory# a certain number of theses ere accentuated,

hile others ere played don. The main target of struggles

284



as no the State1unions coalition, as a result of hich ne

forms of conflict ere to be envisaged, such as ildcat strikes

and factory occupations. These ne methods (not entirely ne,

since the councillists had already observed their appearance

before the ar- seemed to them characteristic of the

independence of thought and the autonomy of hich the

proletariat as no capable. The central problem in the post1

ar revolutionary process emerges as the e"tension of strikes.

Since each ildcat strike brought the legality of the system

itself and property rights into %uestion, the repressive function

of the union no acted as a spark liable to set the hole of

society alight. The councillists therefore placed all their hopes

in the poers of orkers4 solidarity and in the contagiousness

of action hich, by degrees, ould lead the orkers to sei3e

the instruments of production. !or nationali3ation alone ill not

do aay ith e"ploitation/ a ne bureaucracy ill inevitably

arise, as in the SSR, to take the place of the old e"ploiting

class. The radical solution is the one hich leads the orkers to

control the means of production for themselves. I)?+J

285



A fe tiny groups propagating council theory or else

theories close to it survived in the folloing years in 9olland,

Australia, 6ritain and !rance. Since the end of the )<B?s,

hoever, the ideas and traditions of council communism have

suddenly en2oyed a fresh vogue. 8t has become one of the stars

in the theoretical firmament of the &e 0eft. I)?@J This is hy it

is necessary to situate, or at least to try to do so, the theses of

the council movement in relation to the aspirations of the ne

radicality.

There can be no doubt hatsoever that the council

theorists remain ithin the path traced by Mar"ism/ their aim is

to supply the one true, undeformed interpretation of Mar"ian

thought. !urthermore, their Mar"ism is very narroly

determinist, and in spite of the importance =annekoek accords

to the spiritual factor and to consciousness, council

communism4s interpretation of historical materialism remains

rather restrictive. The relations of production are seen as

modifying, ith or ithout timelag, social life and its evolution.

As Gorter stated, men may make their on history, but only

286



ithin rather narro limits. 9istorical evolution is contained

ithin the transformation of the modes of production.

This determinism, rather distant from the spirit of the ne

radicality, all too often gives rise to a certain dogmatism.

$ouncillists believe firmly in the crisis of capitalism inevitably

resulting in the emergence of revolutionary consciousness.

ven if they are a good deal less dogmatic than a Cautsky or a

0enin, the council communists are nevertheless marked by a

strict economism. I)?;J

The other element e%ually foreign to contemporary

revolutionary thought concerns the central place assigned to

the enterprise in the process of liberation. =annekoek tells us

that production is the very essence of society and that

enterprises are its constitutive cells. I)?J This statement flos

from his very imperative historical materialism and his

e"cessive valori3ation of economic factors. This valori3ation

accounts for the councillists4 conception of ork/ for them, ork

as considered desirable, indispensable, the source of all

287



spiritual and social life. 8n other ords, their conception of ork

differed barely from the %uasi1religious image presented by

Mar" and ngels. The orker1controlled society advocated by

the councillists turns out to be an immense factory# neither the

unpleasantness nor the tedium of ork ill have disappeared.

!ar from liberating man from productive ork, this vision binds

him to it permanently and irremediably.

Otto RPhle even ent as far as to hold that the orker is

only really a proletarian hen inside his factory. Outside, he is a

petit bourgeois, philistine in his life1style, dominated by the

ideology of the dominant class. Only in his place of ork does

he become a revolutionary. I)?BJ One ends up ondering 2ust

ho the orker manages to sustain this split personality# can a

single individual really have tin mentalities, or to faces, like

>anus This %uestion leads us to a more fundamental criti%ue

e"pressing the hard core of radical theory, namely the very

partial character of council communism. !or the concepts of

council communism only really grasp one facet of human

alienation, ignoring the other aspects, including the everyday

288



life of the individual hich lies at the heart of the radical

criti%ue. 8t is not certain that the proletarian is better armed in

the professional struggle than he is in the fight against cultural,

family and se"ual repression.

ven here the role (ambiguous, to say the least- of

4conscious minorities4 11 orking groups or ne1style parties 11

is concerned, council communism borros rather too many

elements from classical Mar"ism for it not to be a little suspect

in the eyes of the ne radicals. The councillists ere of

bourgeois origin for the most part, intellectuals ho ere ell1

established in careers in the surrounding society. There is

something parado"ical about their enthusiasm for the

messianic role of the orkers 11 the others, to employ the

e"istentialist4s vocabulary 11 hen one considers that the

autonomy or the self1movement of the proletariat lies at the

centre of their preoccupations.

!or all this, the councillists did contribute an historical

contradiction of 0eninist ideology. 8n those dark years hen the

289



Third 8nternational stood out as the incarnation of revolutionary

hopes, the councillists demystified this claim hile starting from

the same theoretical premises as the official communists.

!inally, by referring first and foremost to the historical

e"perience of the councils they gave content and illustration to

one of the fundamental demands of radicality, namely that the

struggle for liberation from all constraints should be

autonomous. And if they ere not alone in placing all their

hopes and faith in the e"perience of the councils, they

nonetheless situated it ithin the historical evolution of

radicality.

. The critiue o% Mar&ian rei%ication (1)

p till no, e have considered radical thought as a

criti%ue of the substance of Mar"ism/ of the content of Mar"4s

ideas and, after )<)*, of their reali3ation. 7e have not yet

looked at the criti%ue of the form taken by Cari Mar"4s doctrine,

namely the criti%ue of its scientific character.

290



The problem immediately arises/ hat do e mean by

4doctrine4 hen dealing ith a thinker ho, as e kno, has left

his stamp upon such a ide variety of spheres, from

philosophy, political science, economics and sociology (seen as

the science of the las of the evolution of society- to utopia.

!or hile the various shades of Mar"ism, from orthodo"y

to left1ing e"tremism, disagree as to the relative importance of

the different components of the total system, and hile a good

many vie Mar"ian economic thought as the predominant, and

even uni%ue element, others claim to have discovered a richer,

more complete 4Mar", the philosopher4. The entire criti%ue

developed by the Mar"ist 4philosophers4 (0ukacs, Corsch, the

!rankfurt School, the philosophical tendency of the )<?s and

)<B?s- is devoted to demonstrating the importance of

philosophy in the orks of Mar", and the interaction beteen

his 9egelian 1 or neo19egelian 1 ideas and his political,

economic and sociological thought. 8t attempts to rehabilitate

this sphere by presenting Mar"ism as a totality , claiming that

social1democratic and, later, communist orthodo"y had

291



fastened e"clusively upon its economic doctrine. 9oever, the

4philosophers4 at no time challenged this doctrine itself# all they

ere concerned to do as to dispute the preponderance

accorded to economics by the theoreticians and practitioners of

Mar"ism, and the absurdities arrived at by reducing the latter to

a form of economism.

8n this sense, e may say that they managed to shake the

Mar"ist edifice by concentrating the interest of the in%uisitive

Mar"ist upon the coherence of the parts as related to the hole

and hence upon an analysis of the form of Mar"ism. 6ut they

never actually tackled the %uestion of the conception of Mar"ian

economic theory, only its results.

=arado"ically (though the parado" is only apparent-, this

challenge originated in the avant1garde of the arts# in tentieth1

century capitalist urope this has fre%uently constituted the

avant1garde tout court . The destruction of figurative art in the

period preceding the !irst 7orld 7ar, and the populari3ation of

abstract art in the post1ar period gave rise to reflection on the

292



sub2ect of art, its techni%ues and its meaning# this reflection

centred around the 6auhaus, in 7eimar Germany. After )<@@,

the spiritual heritage of the 6auhaus took refuge in

Scandinavia, here there as still sufficient freedom for

independent thought. Thus the 5ane, '. 6. =eterson, published

Symboler i abstrakt 0unst in )<@@, sparking off a ave of

emulation that took root in the Movement for an 8maginist

6auhaus, of hich the 5anish painter and philosopher, Asger

>orn, no appears to have been the strongest personality. 8n

)<B?, Asger >orn published a %riti=ue de la politi=ue

conomi=ue (4$riti%ue of conomic =olicy4-, in hich he

revieed the theoretical foundations of the economic policy of

Mar"ist socialism. 9is criti%ue of socialist economic policy led

him to formulate a criti%ue of the Mar"ian criti%ue of (so1called

classical- political economy, and hence of %apital . (+- This

concerns the theoretical foundations of %apital , and chiefly =art

8, entitled/ 4$ommodities and Money4.

The original feature of >orn4s approach as that he did not

consider the content of the criti%ue of the capitalist economy.

293



8nstead, he chose to refute the form in hich this criti%ue as

couched, i.e. its scientific character in the light of the concept of

science as refined and developed in the tentieth century.

eification and the #arian criti=ue of commodities

The ord reification comes from the 0atin res (thing, in the

sense of ob2ect-, and as a concept, as developed by the

Mar"ist 4philosophers4 in the )<+?s, and by Georg 0ukacs in

particular (he used the German ords +erdinglichung and

+ersachlichung -, thereby designating hat Mar" had meant

hen he used the e"pressions alienation and the fetishism of

commodities and hat 9egel had conceived of as the

manifestation of alienation in the historical process. (@-

Reification, for 0ukacs, is that phenomenon hich transforms

beings and thought into things.

>orn gives a more precise definition of reification hich, for

him, is the devalori3ation of a concept into the status of an

ob2ect. This is a conse%uence of the economic policy of Mar"ist

294



socialism, hich reduces the entire reality of the social process

to its economic state, and hich reduces man himself to the

status of an economic factor. >orn then turns to the Mar"ian

criti%ue of capitalist economics in his search for the theoretical

foundations of this economic policy.

Mar" vieed capitalist production as a vast accumulation

of commodities, and his criti%ue of the capitalist mode of

production presupposes an analysis of commodities, hich he

undertakes in chapter ) of %apital , the cornerstone of his entire

criti%ue. Right from the first paragraph, (;- hoever, Mar"

confuses to absolutely different notions/ that of value and that

of ob2ect, by identifying the one ith the other. The ob2ect of

utility, for Mar", becomes 4use1value4, and the ob2ect of

e"change (or commodity - 4e"change1value4. 6y arbitrarily

identifying an ob2ect ith its value, the ob2ect thereby

metamorphoses into value. (-

6y confusing to distinct notions, Mar" ideali3ed the

ob2ect hile at the same time supplying the first e"ample of

295



reification of language by reducing an ideal notion, a concept,

to the designation of a purely material reality. On top of this, in

developing his reasoning, he arrived at an absurdity, since e

cannot use a value, hereas e can and do use ob2ects (hence

the e"pression 4useful ob2ect4-, and e do e"change goods for

other goods. 8t is this e"change that determines price, hich is

the economic inde" of the value of a commodity.

Mar" confuses these terms because he lacks a coherent

philosophical conception of the orld and hence of the

economic phenomenon seen as a manifestation of this

coherence. The absence of a philosophical system (in the

9egelian sense as set forth in the preface to The

$henomenology of #ind - leads him to employ the German

ord 7ert in its to senses, abstract meaning value, and

concrete meaning goods, product, commodity.

296



,sger .orn 's theory of form and the criti=ue of commodities

8n theoretical terms, the identification of value ith

commodity amounts to identifying value in itself ith the form of

value. The passage from the one to the other constitutes, as

>orn puts it, the process or substance. !or %apital to have had

a scientific value, it ould have had to have been a criti%ue of

the form of value, that is, of commodities, and not of abstract

value in itself.

The criti%ue of form called for a theory of form, and Mar"

had developed no such theory. (B- >orn proposes one that

apprehends form as form of matter. 9e shos that matter (in

the sense of ra materials- takes the form of its content, but

that as soon as it is transformed, substance and form cease to

coincide. 7hen a tree is changed into a table, the material

ood becomes content and the table1form becomes form.

Thus, in the ob2ect of utility, matter appears as its substance/

4!orms only become substance in the process transforming

them into other forms.4

297



>orn generali3es from this observation to the entire

economic process, and deduces a commodity cycle that is

considerably more developed than the Mar"ian one.

8n Mar", this cycle takes the form of an e"change implying

the folloing type of changes / commodity to money to

commodity or $ 1 M 1 $. 8n this process, a commodity is

e"changed for money hich in turn is e"changed for a

commodity. $learly though, hile this model may suffice to

illustrate commercial e"change (on the market level-, it is

inade%uate as an e"planation of the total process taking place

ithin the social economy, since it takes into account neither

the stage prior to the commodity phase, nor hat happens to it

after the e"change. The complete cycle, according to >orn,

occurs as follos/

& H H $ H M H $ H H &

here means useful ob2ects and & the natural form of the

ob2ects (in the sense of ra materials-.

298



Thus, upstream e have the transformation of nature into

ob2ects of utility and that of ob2ects of utility into ob2ects of

e"change# donstream, e have the commodity ac%uired in

e"change for money reverting to its use1function, i.e. utili3ed,

and then, in the form of refuse, reintegrated into the natural

cycle. The process necessary for creating capital thus begins

before the commodity, and ends after the e"change. (*-

According to >orn, only this complete cycle can provide us ith

a scientific vie of the process of production and consumption

in the capitalist economy.

6y taking as his starting point the materialist concept of

form and the resulting scheme, >orn analyses the

transformation of the ob2ect of utility into a commodity. Three

conditions are necessary for this to occur/

(a- that the usefulness of the ob2ect must be as universal as

possible so as to be desired by a ma"imum number of

consumers (hence, historically speaking, the transition from

craft to industry-,

299



(b- that ob2ects be interchangeable (leading to mass

production-,

(c- that consumption rise to ever higher levels (for hich

purpose, advertising is used-.

The transition from use to e"change 1 upon hich

%uestion Mar"ist economists remain rather discreet 1 is of the

greatest importance, in >orn4s vie, to our understanding of the

capitalist production cycle. This is because, for an ob2ect of

utility to become an ob2ect of e"change, it must first be shorn of

all immediate utility/ its transformation into a commodity implies

thus its devalori3ation. 8n actual use, the usefulness of the

ob2ect lies in its %uality as an ob2ect / it is therefore valori3ed as

an ob2ect of utility through its utili3ation. $onversely, hoever,

the slightest utili3ation devalori3es it as an ob2ect of mercantile

e"change. The transition is the one that occurs from =uality to

=uantity . The commodity therefore appears as a sociali3ed

ob2ect of utility, as a %uality becomes %uantity.

300



According to this vie, money is apprehended, from the

point of vie of economics, as a totally sociali3ed commodity#

for it to serve as the yardstick of value for other commodities it

first had to lose all value in1itself (and hence any possibility of

being useful-. 8t is not only a mass1produced commodity, it has

no value outside the series of banknotes to hich it belongs. (:-

The transition from ob2ect of utility to commodity, as

presented by >orn, also accounts for the phenomenon of the

primitive accumulation of capital or the formation of social

saving. nder the ancien rgime, it as disaffection for ob2ects

of utility that enabled the merchant to hoard or store his goods.

Storage is an early form of saving, and the accumulation of

savings (i.e. non1consumption- made possible the formation of

social capital and the vast increase in ealth. 6y denying the

necessity of saving, Mar" conceived of the economy as a

closed system of production and consumption/ yet, ithout

accumulation of ealth, ithout economizing , there can be no

science of economy. Any economic policy applying the Mar"ian

reasoning results in an a1economic conception of the economy

301



seen as a process of reproduction. 8t ould be a 4biological

economy4, in hich all production is fully consumed. (<-

%oncrete utopia? the realization of art

>orn vies Mar" first and foremost as a defender of the

poor, pleading in his day the cause of the proletarian, ho had

no other property than his on person. 9is arguments are

convincing to hoever is already convinced, but he as

incapable of developing them into a vigorous case because of

his confusion of science ith techni%ue. 0acking a precise

concept of science, he sa no other ay of coming to the

rescue of the proletariat than through the abolition of surplus

value. $arried out to the letter, his system effectively results in

the suppression of saving. ()?-

Mar" correctly noted that capitalist accumulation

presupposed saving, and that the suppression of saving implied

the same for surplus value. >orn, on the other hand, states that

302



surplus value has alays e"isted, the e"cess of production over

reproduction constituting the ealth of all societies.

8t is through surplus value that e create ealth/ society4s

members may en2oy it as consumers. The sociali3ation of

consumption stems from the logic of the capitalist process

itself, since the latter socializes ob2ects of utility, i.e. makes

them available for the consumption of each and everyone in the

form of commodities.

$onse%uently, the aim of economic socialism (the

suppression of surplus value- theoretically leads to a

contraction of consumption, and to a groing 4privati3ation4 of it.

6ut at the same time, the political conception of the State (on

the one hand, the State is vieed as an 4apparatus4 to be made

use of in order to apply a specific economic policy, hile on the

other hand it is denied and its suppression demanded- ())-

derives from the same absurdity# the partisan concept of the

State vies it as a substance and not as a form 1 4the perfect

form4, notes >orn, as did 9egel 1 of higher organi3ation of

303



society. 8n this respect, the State is the locus here the

conflicts and e"cesses of partisan politics cancel each other

out.

Mar"ist socialism thereby managed to achieve the

contrary to hat Mar"4s economic pro2ect set out to achieve

(the accession of the poorest class to onership of the means

of production-/ it reduced the number of oners to one single

oner, the State. conomic e%uality as achieved through the

impoverishment of all.

>orn countered the pure concept of political revolution ith

one of his on/ the artistic revolution. The former results in the

devalori3ation of man (here %uality turns into %uantity- and to

generali3ed reification. 9e, on the other hand, foresees the

replacement of authoritarian socialism by its contrary/ a value1

liberating society. According to this dialectic, a orld of creation

ill follo upon the orld of economy. 8n this ne orld, >orn

concludes, the changing of the conditions of e"istence ill be

the orks of the producers themselves, become creators.

304



/otes and re%erences

Introduction

) Carl Mar", %apital , 6ook ), pt : (Mosco, !oreign 0anguages

=ublishing 9ouse, )<;-, p. *B@.

+ The bulk of the proletariat engaged came from the !aubourg

St. Antoine, then outside =aris proper.

@ This phrase is typical/ 47e consider the tendency of modem

industry to associate children and young people of both

se"es in the great movement of social production as a

progress and a legitimate tendency, although the manner in

hich this tendency is manifested under the yoke of capital

is an abomination. 8n a rational society, any child over the

age of nine should be a productive orker.4 C. Mar",

solutions du premier congr@s de l',A&ATA, ():BB-, in >.

!reymond (ed.-, :a premi@re internationale (Geneva, )<B+-,

305



vol. ), p. @), and C. Mar", !. ngels, Werke (6erlin, )<*-,

vol. )B, p. )<@.

; 7hich is not to say that Mar"ism had no liberating %uality to it

by comparison ith that other poer ideology, liberalism.

9istorically. hoever, it served to effect a revolution for

poer, and not for its destruction. Once it became operative,

moreover, Mar"ism no longer e"isted in its pure state/ it had

become Cautskyism, Austro1Mar"ism, Guesdism,

0eninism.... After )<)* e may speak of Mar"ism10eninism

as the most fully developed form of the bureaucratic class4s

ideology.

7hich is not to say he had not consumed before this. 6ut he

had absorbed no more than a minimum of the Gross

&ational =roduct, 2ust enough for his physical reproduction#

his global demand as therefore too negligible to encourage

any noteorthy investment.

B Thus, reversing 0enin4s formula (in What is to be 1one2-, e

may say that the consciousness of the proletariat is

306



revolutionary the moment it ceases to come from the

e"terior.

1. The Soviet State: yths and realities (1917-21)

) See =ierre 6roue, a Trotskyist academic, ho vigorously

defends this viepoint/ preface to O. Aneiler, :es soviets

en ussie (=aris, )<*+-. See my revie of this book in

>sprit , (May )<*@-.

+ As attested by O. Aneiler, 1ie 7tebewegung in ussland

BCDEF-CDGCH (0eiden, )<:-, p. +;.

@ ibid., p. ;.

; According to Aneiler, the first ones appeared in May )<? at

8vanovo1'o3nesensk. The anarchist 'olin claims it as at

the end of >anuary at St =etersburg but gives no proof of

this. See 'olin ('. 9. ichenbaum-. :a rvolution inconnue

(=aris, )<;*# repr. )<B<-, partly translated into nglish in +

vols, Nineteen-Seventeen (0ondon, )<;- and The

307



4nknown evolution (0ondon, )<# 5etroit and $hicago,

)<*;-.

8n his memoirs the krainian anarchist, &estor Makhno,

provides a lively description of the ay the skhod

assemblies transformed themselves into soviets by simply

changing their names in )<)*# the situation must have been

rather similar in l<?, at least in rural areas. See :a

rvolution russe en 4kraine (=aris, )<*?-, pt ).

B Aneiler, op. cit., p. )+:.

* ibid., pp. )@?, )@@.

: 9onest 0eninists do not even deny this any longer. See the

historian M. 0iebman4s :e :eninisme sous :enine (=aris,

)<*@-, p. ), hich notes that on +* !ebruary )<)* the

6olsheviks had still not overcome their misgivings of )<?.

< Aneiler, op. cit., pp. <E.

)? ibid., p. <:.

)) ibid., p. +)@.

308



)+ Though not over the =an1Russian Soviet of peasant

delegates hose congress, hich met in &ovember )<):,

re2ected 0enin as =resident of the $ouncil of =eople4s

$ommissars.

)@ $f. the opinion of the Menshevik, Skobelev, Minister of

0abour in the =rovisional Government, for hom the

management and control of industry as to be a State

function, the orking class4s role being limited to one of

assistance and support in relation to the public authorities.

$ited by M. 6rinton, The "olsheviks and Workers' %ontrol

()<*?-, pp. ;1# this pamphlet, conceived chronologically, is

e"tremely useful in unravelling the skein of decrees and

resolutions conceming orkers4 control.

);. 8abravkomy I 8abrichno-zavodnye komitety .

) Aneiler, op. cit., pp. )1:.

)B A Soviet historian shares this vie hile e"pressing, ith a

certain ob2ectivity in her presentation of the facts, the vie

of her =arty/ A. !ankratova, 8abzavkomii ossii v borbie

309



rasocialisticheskuiu fabriku (Mosco, )<+@-. 0ong e"cerpts

are available in !rench in ,utogestion, ; (5ecember )<B*-.

)* 6rinton, op. cit., p. ).

): =ankratova in ,utogestion, p. ;<.

)< =. Avrich, 4The 6olshevik Revolution and 7orkers4 $ontrol in

Russian 8ndustry4, Slavic eview , ""ii, ) (March )<B@-.

+? 6rinton, op. cit., p. )B.

+) Avrich, op. cit.# for further details see Avrich4s thesis, The

ussian evolution and the 8actory %ommittees (Ann

Arbor, Mich., niversity Microfilms, )<*@-.

++ =ankratova, op. cit., speaks, deprecatingly, of 4autonomous

production communes4, and 6rinton, op. cit., == +<, @?,

reproduces accounts hich corroborate this, given by trade

union congress delegates.

+@ 8deas he had already e"pressed in April and >une )<)*F

$ited by 6rinton, op/ cit., pp. @, .

310



+; $f. e.g. the first all1Russian conference of factory

committees ()*1++ October )<)*-, here a resolution on

these lines as approved as the result of a 6olshevik1

Menshevik alliance.

+ My italics. See !ankratova, op. cit.,at end.

+B $f. A. Collontai, :'!pposition ouvri@re (=aris, repr. )<*;-.

5espite Collontai4s lyrical style, it is orth recalling that in

)<+? the trade unionists already constituted a solid

bureaucracy ithin the State. nderneath the libertarian

rhetoric of this pamphlet lies a struggle for poer insofar as

the trade union leader1ship controlled the process of

enrolment of communists in the union apparatus. This

could eventually give them a ma2ority in the =arty. That is

hy the unions ere made sub2ect to =arty 4centralism4, to

hich moreover even the =arty4s e"treme left ing as

attached. The demise of union autonomy signalled the end

of union bureaucracy4s independence of the politicians and

not that of the masses (hich had already been lost three

311



years previously-. 8n the final analysis, all the left

oppositionists finished by returning to the 0eninist fold. See

R. '. 5aniels, The %onscience of the evolution

($ambridge, Mass., )<B?-, pp. )+)1.

+* The sources for all documentation are still/ Makhno4s

memoirs, @ vols ()<+<, )<@B, )<@*-, of hich only vol. ),

has been translated from Russian (:a rvolution russe en

4kraine, =aris, repr. )<*?-. These memoirs unfortunately

only take us up to )<):. 7e also have =. Arshinov4s

detailed account, 8stori2a makhnovskogo dvi3eni2a (6erlin,

)<+@-, translated into nglish under the title (istory of the

#akhnovist #ovement BCDCD-CDGCH (5etroit and $hicago,

)<*;-. !rom the communist side e have M. Cubanin,

#ahnovsJina (0eningrad, n.d.-. The other orks are mainly

dran from the above documents. The folloing may be

consulted/ 5. !ootman, %ivil War in ussia (0ondon, )<B)-,

hich sets the krainian episode in the conte"t of the civil

ar (ch. B, 4Makhno4-. 'olin, op. cit., uses Arshinov4s

account hile adding his personal reminiscences.

312



@ ibid., p. +).

@B ibid., pp. +)@1);.

@* ibid., pp. +?@, +?.

@: ibid., p. ++<.

@< $ited by 6rinton, op. cit.. p. B).

;? $ited ibid., p. B).

;) ibid., p. B*.

;+ A good many accounts of the =etrograd strike are available.

$f. Ale"ander 6erkman, 1ie 0ronstadt ebe&lion (6erlin,

)<+@-, pp. # 'ictor Serge, #emoirs of a evolutionary

(0ondon, )<B*-# and 8da Mett, :a %ommune de 0ronstadt

(=aris, )<;<-, pp. +*1@?.

;@ See =. Avlich, 0ronstadt CDGC (=rinceton, )<*?-, still the

most complete ork on the sub2ect, given currently

available documentation.

;; ibid.. p. )<?.

314



; &o. * (: March )<+)-. The slogan 4All poer to the soviets

and not to the parties4 recurs fre%uently in several editions

of &zvestia.

;B !or the conflict beteen authoritarians and anti1

authoritarians in the !irst 8nternational see !. 6rupbacher,

#ar und "akunin (Munich, )<++# repr. 6erlin, )<B<-.

;* The ussian evolution and the %ommunist $arty (6erlin,

)<++-. This is a pamphlet ritten in >une )<+) by four ell1

knon Russian anarchists and sent to Rudolf Rocker in

Germany, ho made a first translation hich 8 have not

been able to find. This one is due to A. 6erkman, ho had

2ust arrived in 6erlin at the time.

;: =. $. Masini, 4Gli anarchici italiani ela rivolu3ione russa4,

ivista storica del socialismo ()<B+-.

;< ibid. Malatesta developed this idea and ent on to speak of

a 4ne governing class4 in his preface tot. !abbri, 1ittatura

e rivoluzione (Rome, )<+)-.

315



? $f. . Goldman, #y 1isillusionment in ussia (&e Dork,

)<+@-, preface.

) A. 6erkman, The ,nti-%lima (6erlin, )<+-. 6erkman and

mma Goldman spent the years )<+? and)<+) in Russia,

to hich they had been deported by the American

authorities. Their pro16olshevik fervour dindled rapidly,

but it took to painful years before they dared break ith

the 6olshevik government that had elcomed them as

distinguished guests.

+ ibid. The social1revolutionary account comes from 5.

Gavronski, :e bilan du bolchvisme russe (=aris, )<+?#

ritten >anuary )<)<-, p. ;+. $f. also =. Avrich, The

ussian ,narchists (=rinceton, )<B*-, ch. .

@ A. Souchy, Wie lebt der ,rbeiter und der "auer in ussland

und in der 4kraine (6erlin, n.d.-, preface. Souchy belonged

to the leadership of the German anarcho1syndicalist

federation (!A5- and visited Rus sia beteen April and

316



October )<+?. 9is account is sober and ob2ective# the

preface dates from 5ecember )<+?.

; . Goldman, The %rushing of the ussian evolution

(0ondon, n.d.-, p. )). See also the pamphlet by Rudolf

Rocker, the German theoretician of anarcho1syndicalism,

1er "ankrott des russischen Staatskommunismus (n.p.,

)<+)-, pp. )??1).

>. Sadoul, Notes sur la rvolution bolchvi=ue (=aris, )<)<-,

pp. +:E*. The figures cited are those given by Avrich, The

ussian ,narchists, p. )*@, n.*.

B Mauricius, ,u pays des soviets (=aris, n.d. I)<+)J-, pp. )@1

;. The Russian anarcho1syndicalist position is set forth in

G. =. Maksimov, Syndicalists in the ussian evolution

(0ondon. n.d.-.

* Goldman, #y 1isillusionment in ussia# G. 0eval, 4$hoses

de Russie4, :e :ibertaire ())1): &ovember )<+)-# and

Souchy, op. cit., preface. Gaston 0eval had gone to Russia

in order to take part in the congress of the Red 8nternational

317



of Trade nions in )<+), held in Mosco. 9e played a role

in obtaining the release of imprisoned Russian anarchists,

the latter then being deported directly abroad.

: Apart from the anarchists cited above, see the account by

the Spanish delegate to the second congress of the Third

8nternational >uly August )<+?-/ A. =estana, &nforme de mi

estancia en la 4SS (Madrid, repr. )<B:-.

< Souchy, op. cit., describes ith great precision the process

hereby the unions became nationali3ed organs of

production (verstaatlicht - and ho the administrative

delegates in the villages behaved like ancien rKgime

landoners.

B? The terms 4State capitalism4 and ne class4 recur fre%uently

in anarchist ritings. $f. e.g./ The ussian evolution and

the %ommunist $arty , op. cit., p. +;# 'olin, :e fascisme

rouge (6russels, n.d.-, and "olKevickaia diktaturn v svece

anarisma (=aris, )<+:-, pp. +B, +*# Rocker, op. cit., p. :,

speaks of 4commissarocracy4# Souchy, op. cit., pp. BB, :<#

318



0uigi !abbri and nico Malatesta speak of a 4ne class4

(from )<)< on, cf. Masini, op. cit.-# and Arthur IMillerJ

0ehning uses the term 4bureaucratic State4 ( ,narchismus

und #arismus in der russischen evolution, !r. trans.

=aris, )<*), a te"t hich first appeared in 1ie

&ntenationale-. !or a summary, see Avrich, The ussian

,narchists, pp. )<);, and his 4On the &e $lass/ a

0ibertarian $riti%ue4, :ibertarian ,nalysis (&e Dork-, vol. ),

no. 8(inter )<*?-. The >ncyclopdie anarchiste (ed. S.

!aure, )<+;- defined "olshevism as a State capitalism

founded on the enforced sub2ugation and e"ploitation of the

masses. $f. also :a revue anarchiste (=aris-, hich speaks

in terms of a 4dominating caste4 and mentions the

Makhnovshchina (no. ;, April )<++# no. )*, May1>une )<+@#

no. +), &ovember )<+@-.

B) These theses ere developed by Trotsky in The evolution

"etrayed (&e Dork, )<;-, notably in the chapter 47hat is

the SSR4. 8n addition e may cite his last utterance on

this sub2ect (4folloing the Second 7orld 7ar either there

319



ill be a orld revolution or the SSR ill relapse to the

stage of capitalism4- in 1efense of #arism (&e Dork,

)<@<-.

B+ M. Dvon, %e =u'est devenu la rvolution russe (n.p., n.d.

I)<@BJ-, pp. :B. See in particular the @rd causerie, 4l4tat et

les classes4.

B@ See, e.g., in !rance, the organ of the nion communiste (a

tiny dissident Trotskyist group-/ :'lnternationale, no. +) (+@

May )<@B-,40a nouvelle constitution sovieti%ue4.

B; The tribulations of the American Trotskyists (Schachtman,

6urnham- also led them into conflict ith Trotsky over the

%uestion of the orkers4 state# but apart from Raya

5unayevskaya4s #arism and 8reedom, hich as only

published in )<:, the level of discussion as less

theoretical than in !rance and, above all, led to a total

break ith the revolutionary movement. Thus 6urnham4s

managerial class had nothing to do ith any class reality

but more ith a stratum. !ar from superseding Trotsky4s

320



analysis he actually returns to it, though in a conservative

perspective (see The #anagerial evolution, &e Dork,

)<;)-. Ri33i4s book as published in =aris at his on

e"pense ith a print order of ?? copies/ 6. Ri33i :a

bureaucratisation du monde (n.d. I)<@<J-.

B !or further details about Socialisme ou 6arbarie, see

4Socialisme ou 6arbarie4, Socialisme ou "arbarie (=aris-,

no. ) (March )<;<-# =. $haulieu, 40es rapports de

production en Russie4, ibid., no. + (May1>une )<;<-# =.

$haulieu, 404e"ploitation des paysans sous le capitalisme

bureaucrati%ue4, ibid., no.; (October1&ovember )<;<-. See

also by $astoriadis ( $haulieu-, 4Sur la degenerescence

de la revolution russe4, and 4$onception et programme de

Socialisme ou 6arbarie4, in :a socit bureaurcrati=ue

(=aris, )<*@-, vol. +, pp. @*@1<+ and @<+1;)B. 8n nglish

see =. $ardan, 8rom "olshevism to the "ureaucracy

(0ondon, n.d.-, and #odern %apitalism and evolution

(n.p., n.d.-. See also his Socialism or "arbarism. These

three (Solidarity- pamphlets resume and adapt rather than

321



translate $haulieu4s central points. !or greater detail about

the ideology of Socialisme ou 6arbarie, see R. Gombin,

The !rigins of #odern :eftism (=enguin 6ooks, )<*-, ch.

).

BB On Trotskyism4s attitude toards the SSR, see $. 0efort,

40es contradictions de Trotsky et le probleme

revolutionnaire4. :es temps modernes, @< >anuary )<;<-.

2. The radical tradition in Russia

) !or the evolution of social thought in Russia before ):? e

have A. 9er3en4s ell1informed and highly lucid account,

1u dveloppemnt des idees en ussie (0ondon, ):@,

published in !rench-. See also =. =ascal4s rather more

philosophically committed :es grands courants de &n

pense russe contemporaire (0ausanne, )<*)-.

+ Thus 6akunin, in an article in 1eutsche .ahrb9cher ():;+-,

under the pseudonym >ules lysard.

322



@ M. Malia, ,leander (erzen and the "irth of ussian

Socialism ($ambridge, Mass., )<B)-, p. <<.

; G. Sourine, :e fouririsme en ussie (=aris, )<@B-, passim.

R. 0abry, ,leandre &vanoviJ (erzen (=aris, )<+:-, ch. ).

B ibid.

* Sourine, op cit., pp. :1<.

: $f. 8saiah 6erlin4s introduction to A. 9er3en, #y $ast and

Thoughts, ; vols (0ondon, )<B:-.

< R. 0abry, (erzen et $roudhon (=aris, )<+:-, p @<

)? 8t is orth adding that a distinct social differentiation gre up

among the $ossacks under the shelter of this autonomy/

the masters on the one hand# farmers, fishermen and

soldiers on the other.

)) $f. =. =ascal, :e rvolte de $ougatchev (=aris, )<*)-.

)+ 6ecause he enunciated the ideas of his age rather than

enclose them ithin a grand design, 9er3en left no single

ork containing the %uintessence of his thought. 9is

323



socialism emerges gradually in his ritings. 8n !rench, :e

monde russe et la rvolution (#emoires d',A (erzen-

(=aris, ):B?1+-# :ettres de 8rance et d'ltalie (Geneva,

):*)-. 8n nglish, #y $ast and Thoughts, op. cit.# 8rom the

!ther Shore (0ondon, ):B-, are among those to be

consulted. The most complete Russian edition after M. C.

0emke4s, $olnoe sobrane socineni5 i pisem, ++ vols

(=etrograd, )<)1+-, is no the Sobranie socieni5 v tridcati

tomah, @; vols (Mosco, )<;1BB-.

)@ 9er3en himself as to e"perience the full rigour of this

arbitrariness, sub2ected to imprisonment, deportation and

e"ile. $f. . 9. $arr, The omantic >iles (0ondon, )<;<#

8st edn )<@@-. $arr rather tends to e"aggerate the

romanticism in 9er3en4s thought and certainly overdoes his

4lordly4 suffering.

); . 0ampert, Studies in ebellion (0ondon, )<*-, p +@:.

) Malia, op. cit., p. ;)?.

324



)B 9er3en, 8rom the !ther Shore, p. +;?.

)* 6erlin4s introduction to #y $ast and Thoughts.

): 8n the &Le :ettre de 8rance et d'ltalie ():;<-.

)< 8rom the !ther Shore.

+? The "ell (Geneva-, no. +, repr. 8n 0emke, op. cit., vol. +?, pp.

)@)1.

+) 0ampert, op. cit., pp. )<Bff.

++ Malia, op dt., p. )@+.

+@ $ited by 0ampert, op. cit., p. +@@.

+; 40etters to an Old $omrade4, cited by R. 0abry, ,leander

&vanoviJ (erzen, op. cit., p. @<.

+ 8t could ac%uire status by registration ith the guild of

merchants, hose upper strata really did constitute an

industrial and merchant bourgeoisie# but in ):; this

category included no more than ),:?? persons. This class

only began to take on some numerical importance ith the

325



industrial revolution at the end of the century. See R. =ortal,

:es slaves (=aris, )<B-, p. ):B.

+B There is no parado" in the fact that the most radical

theorists today have resuscitated the aristocratic mentality

in its most ludic and most disinterested form. See R.

'aneigem, Treat de savoir vivre ) &'usage des 5eunes

gnrations, =aris )<B*, p. :).

+* !. 'enturi, oots of evolution? a (istory of the $opulist and

Socialist #ovements in Nineteenth %entury ussia (&e

Dork, )<BB-, p. )@:ff. The first edition as published in

)<+ under the title, && populismo russo. The American

edition is slightly more complete.

+: ibid., p. +<*.

+< $f. A. $o%uart, 1mitri $isarev BCME-CMOMH et &'idologie du

nihilisme russe (=aris, )<;B-.

@? Narodnaia rasprava, no. +, cited by 'enturi, op. cit., p. @:@1

;.

326



@) 'enturi, op. cit., ch. )B.

@+ 6y an ironic tist of fate, it as Ogarev ho had given the

signal for the 4Go to the =eople4 movement in an article

published in 0olokol (the 6ell-, in ):B). 6oth he and

9er3en believed that the peasantry as the repository of

revolutionary dynamism, and that inspiration should be

dran from that class.

@@ 'enturi, op. cit., ch. +).

@; A. Gerschenkron,4The =roblem of conomic 5evelopment in

Russian 8ntellectual 9istory of the &ineteenth $entury4, in

. 8. Simmons (ed.-, %ontinuity and %hange in ussian and

Soviet Thought ($ambridge, Mass., )<-.

@ =ortal, op. dt., p. +:+.

@B 'enturi, op. dt., p. @<

@* G. !ischer, ussian :iberalism ($ambridge, Mass., )<:-,

pp. ;<, B). 8t is interesting to note that there ere

numerous contacts beteen liberals and Mar"ists to begin

327



ith. They originated from the same class and they shared

a common ob2ective (poer-, but they differed over the

%uestion of means/ the 0iberals ere to opt for reformism,

applying a strategy hich devolved upon the social

democrats in Germany.

@: Of the ;+ revolutionary agitators arrested in ):**1: and

considered as 4criminal4, );* ere nobles, <? ere

clergymen, : sons of officers, ; came from the

mieshchanstvo, )) ere soldiers and B of peasant origin.

See 'enturi, op. dt., p. <.

@< ibid., p. @:E;.

;? M. 6akunin, transl. from >tatisme et anarchie (0eiden, )<B*#

)st edn ):*@-, p. +@;.

;) Article in :'>galite (+* luly ):B<-, and repr. in M. 6akounine,

!euvres (=aris, ):<E)<))-, vol. , p )+<. See also Article

: of the =rogramme of the Slav Section of Lurich, repr. as

appendi" to >tatisme et anarchie.

;+ !euvres, vol. ;, p. ;*E*.

328



;@ >tatisme et anarchie, p. @)<.

;; Narodnoe delo (September ):B:-, cited by 'enturi, op. cit.,

p. ;@+.

; =. Avrich, The ussian ,narchists (!rinceton, &.>., )*-,

pp. )<, <+.

;B The Russified form of his name is Makhaev# his doctrine is

designated by the term makhaevshchina, along ith the

movement it inspired. The first to sections of this ork

ere ritten in Siberia in ):<: and ):<<, the third being

ritten in Geneva. The ork as a hole as printed in

Geneva under the title 4mstvenny5 raboJi5 (The Mental

7orker- in )<?;1B and signed ith the pseudonym A.

'olski2. The first to sections ere also published in St

=etersburg in )<?B. A ne edition as published in the

SA (&e Dork16altimore- in )<B: by 8nter10anguage

0iterary Associates. The first section, the most interesting,

is entitled 4The volution of Social 5emocracy4# the second,

4Scientific Socialism4# the third (8- 4Socialism and the

329



7orkers4 Movement in Russia4 and (88- 4Socialist Science as

a &e Religion4. Macha2ski also published pamphlets and

to revies. Most of his papers are deposited in the

8nternational 8nstitute for Social 9istory in Amsterdam. 9is

thought has been populari3ed in the 7est by Ma" &omad/

cf. ,spects of evolt (&e Dork, )<B)-, esp. ch. .

;* 8n an unpublished manuscript entitled The 6ankruptcy of

Socialism in the &ineteenth $entury4, Macha2ski points out

that he is speaking of the professional intelligentsia, paid on

a salaried basis, as opposed to those living off rents or

profits.

;: 8n his preface to 4The Mental 7orker4 Macha2ski even dras

a parallel beteen $hrist and Mar", stating that both of

them e"pressed the people4s yearning for liberation (p. ;@

of the )<B: American edn-.

;< "ilans burPuazy5ne5 revolucy5 rosy5skie5 (Geneva, )<?</ Ma"

&omad !oundation at 88S9, Amsterdam-.

330



? "urPuazna5a revoluci5a i raboJoe delo (n.p., )<?/ Ma"

&omad !oundation at 88S9, Amsterdam-.

) 4Raboci2 Lagovor4.

+ Ma" &omad attributes dictatorial ambitions to Macha2ski

ithin the proposed conspiracy ( ,spects of evolt , end of

ch. -. There is nothing, hoever, to corroborate &omad4s

suspicions, hich he only made public after thirty years4

silenceF Against this vie see M. S. Shat3, ,nti-

intellectualism in the ussian &ntelligentsia (mimeo., &e

Dork, )<B@/ $ertificate of Russian 8nstitute, $olombia

niversity-, p. *.

@ $f. A. d4Agostino, 48ntelligentsia Socialism and the 7orkers4

Revolution/ the 'ies of >. 7. Macha2ski4, &nternational

eview of Social (istory , vol. ), "iv ()<B<-, pp. *;1.

; "uriuaPna5a revoluci5a i raboJoe delo, op. cit., and M. S.

Shat3, 4The Makhaevists and the Russian Revolutionary

Movement4, &nternational eview of Social (istory , vol. +,

"v ()<*?-.

331



aboJa5a revoluci5a, no. ) (single issue- (Mosco, >une1>uly

)<):-. Macha2ski rote every page of this 2ournal himself in

May )<):.

B &ovomirski, Uto takoe anarhizm (n.p. IGenevaJ, )<?*-, ch.

i". Among Macha2skist ritings (those more or less faithful

to his ideas- e should mention/ . 8. 0o3inski2, Qto Pe

takoe3 nakonec3 intelligenci5a2 (7hat, in the !inal Analysis,

is the 8ntelligentsia- (St =etersburg, )<?*-# and C.

Orgeiani (G. Gogeli2a-, !b intelligencii (4On the

8ntelligentsia4- (0ondon, )<)+-.

* Avrich, op. dt., p. )<.

: 8t as the )<)* Revolution and the resulting persecution

hich led the anarchists to develop their analysis of

6olshevism or, rather, of the Soviet State, as e have seen

in ch. ).

< >.9.0. Ceep, The ise of Social 1emocracy in ussia

(O"ford, )<B@-, p. @<. There as very little differentiation

beteen 4economists4 and social democrats before the

332



beginning of the tentieth century. The publication of %redo

by =rokopovitch and Cuskova as to put an end to this

state of affairs. 8t is orth noting that it as the 4legal

Mar"ist4, Struve, ho dre up the party programme for the

!irst $ongress of the RS57= ():<:-.

B? 7ho did not hesitate to predict that 4though today they

I0eninistsJ might man the barricades, tomorro they might

ell occupy the 2udges seats4. $ited by Ceep, op. cit., p. B).

B) =. A"elrod, 4Obedinienie rossi2sko2 sodaldemokrati2 i e2a

3adaVi4 (4The nification of Russian Social 5emocracy and

its Tasks- in &skra, nos , * () 5ecember )<?@, )

>anuary )<?;-.

B+ ibid., A"elrod refers to the passage in the CMth "rumaire of

:ouis "onaparte in hich Mar" rites/ 4lts gladiators (the

spokesmen of bourgeoisie- found the ideals and the forms,

the means of self1deception, they needed, that they might

hide from themselves the bourgeois limitations of the

333



struggle in hich they ere engaged....4 (0ondon, )<+B. p

+-.

B@ 0. Trotsky, Nos tRches politi=ues (=aris, )<*)-, p. +?.

Significantly, Trotsky never authori3ed the reprinting of this

pamphlet in his lifetime. Although it as first published in

Geneva in )<?; (in Russian-, a revealing pointer to the

ideological development of the e"treme left lies in the fact

that the !rench translation as only published in the ake

of the events of May )<B:.

B) ibid., p. ):<.

B 0. Trotsky, apport de la dlgation sibrienne (=aris,

)<*?-, passim.

BB Nos tRches politi=ues, p. @.

B* ibid., p. );;, n. *. Those ho have folloed Trotsky4s career

as a member of the $ouncil of =eople4s $ommissars ill

surely savour this te"t, ritten in )<?;. 8t as not the last

time Trotsky elaborated a criti%ue hose bitter irony ould

be later illustrated by history.

334



B: 5. GuKrin, osa :uemburg et la spontanit

rvolutionnaire (=aris. )<*)-, pp. ;+1;.

B< $ited by Guerin, ibid.

*? '. 0enin, 4n pas or avant3 deu pas en arrire (Mosco-, p.

+)?/ 8n this passage, the author replies to the criticisms of

A"elrod contained in the 8skra article mentioned. 8talics are

those of the original te"t.

*) Article by R. 0u"emburg in Neue /eit ()<?;-. An nglish

translation is available under the title 40eninism or Mar"ism4

in R. 0u"emburg, The ussian evolution (Ann Arbor,

Mich., )<B)-.

*+ ibid., and R. 0u"emburg, :a rvolution russe, in !euvres,

vol. + (=aris, )<B<-, p. : (the latter te"t as ritten in

September1October )<):-.

*@ She as active in the =olish (S5C=i0- and the German

parties, but she also maintained close links ith the

Russian party 1 of hich the =olish party as an integral

part from )<?B to )<)+.

335



*; G. !ischer in ussian :iberalism, op. cit., rightly insists on

hat the liberals and the social democrats had in common/

both held an evolutionary vie of history completely lacking

in the liberal bourgeoisie in the 7est (cf. ch. @, 4Third

!orce4-.

. *ouncil *ounis

) As e have seen in ch. ).

+ Generally, e find three tendencies/ the moderate, chauvinist

branch# the reformist, pacifist branch, less inclined to seek

integration into bourgeois democracy# the revolutionary left

ing, the ma2ority of hich ended by siding ith the Third

8nternational.

@ 9ere 8 am employing Gustav 0andauer4s distinction (in 1ie

evolution, !rankfurt, )<?*- beteen topia, hich is

e"perienced and e"pressed reality, and utopia, incorporating

both topia 1 that hich e"ists 1 and that hich is not

336



e"pressed, but to hich e aspire. The moment utopia

becomes a fact it becomes topia.

; !. 0. $arsten, evolution in %entral >urope BCDCM-CDCDH

(0ondon, )<*+-, p. )+ff.

!or a chronological and institutional description see A.

Schar3, 1ie Weimarer epublik ($orstan3, )<:-, p. +:1<.

B =. 6rouK, volution en ,llemagne (=aris, )<*)-, ch. B.

* =. von Oert3en, "etriebsr7te in Novemberrevolution

(5usseldorf, )<B@-, p.*)ff.

: 6rouK, op. cit., and . Colb, 1ie ,rbeiterr7te in der deutschen

&nnenpolitik (5usseldorf, )<B+-, p. B?.

< Colb, op. cit., pp. ::1<?.

)? ibid., pp. <), <+.

)) This is the vie of most historians of the period, starting ith

O. C. !lechtheim, even though the latter is favourable to the

revolutionary movement. $f. his 1ie 0A$A1A in der Weimarer

epublik (!rankfurt, )<B<-, ch. +.

337



)+ See R. Grunberger, ed ising in "avaria (0ondon, )<*@-,

for a chronology and account of these events. 5ocuments

of the period are to be found in G. Schmol3e (ed.-,

evolution und 7terepublik in #9nchen CDCM-CDCD in

,ugenzeugenberichten (5usseldorf, )<B<-.

)@ The first council dates back to 5ecember )<)*# cf. R. 0.

TokKs, "la 0un and the (ungarian Soviet epublic (&e

Dork, )<B*-, p. @:. The vast literature on this sub2ect is

dealt ith in !. 'Qlgyes, The (ungarian Soviet epublic

(Stanford, )<*?-.

); TokKs, op. cit., p. )+?.

) ibid., p. )B).

)B Of the @@ =eople4s $ommissars, )* ere socialists, );

communists and to belonged to no party (ibid., p. )@*-.

)* 8t is noteorthy that the Guilds, hich ere active after

)<)?, did not call for the onership of industry, nor ere

they prepared to leave the management of industry in the

hands of the orkers alone. !inally, their theoreticians ere

338



careful to point out that there as no %uestion of breaking

ith the unions and that they sought merely to transform

the doctrines of trade1unionism, notably insofar as 2oint

control as concerned. See G. 5. 9. $ole, 6uild Socialism

(0ondon, )<+?- p. +;.

): G. 5. 9. $ole and R. =ostgate, The %ommon $eople

(0ondon, )<B:-, p. ):.

)< ibid., p. ;B1*.

+? $f. 6. =ribicevic, The Shop Stewards' #ovement and

Workers' %ontrol3 CDCE-CDGG (O"ford, )<<-, p. <<ff.

+) ibid., p. );;.

++ A. Tasca, Naissance du fascisme (=aris, )<B*-, p. ;.

+@ ibid., p. ;.

+; ibid., p. )?@1;.

+ 9. =routeau, :es occupations d'usines en 8rance et en &talie

BCDGE-CDOH (=aris, )<B*-, p. ;?.

339



+B >. M. $ammett, ,ntonio 6ramsci and the !rigins of &talian

%ommunism (Stanford, )<B*-, p. *;.

+* 4Sindicati e consigli4, !rdine Nuovo ()) October )<)<-, in A.

Gramsci, :'!rdine Nuovo CDCD-CDGE (n.p., )<-, pp. @;1<

(henceforth referred to as !pere-.

+: 48l partito e la revolu3ione4, !rdine Nuovo (+* 5ecember

)<)<-, in !pere, pp. B*1*).

+< 4Sindicalismo e consigli4 !rdine Nuovo (: &ovember )<)<-,

and second article, 4Sindicati e consigli4 (+ >une )<+?-, in

!pere, pp.;;1:,)@)1.

@? 45emocra3ia operaia4, !rdine Nuovo (+) >uly )<)<-, ritten

in collaboration ith =almiro Togliatti, in !pere, pp. )?1)@.

See also >. M. =iotte, :a pense politi=ue de 6ramsci

(=aris, )<*?-, p. +B?.

@) $ammett, op. cit., p. ::.

340



@+ $f. 48l problema del pottere4, !rdine Nuovo (+< &ovember

)<)<-, and 4=artito di governo e classe di governo4 (B March

)<+?- in !pere, pp. B1B?, <)1B.

@@ 4Sindicati e consigli4, op. cit. (+? >une )<+?-.

@; Along similar lines, see =iotte, op. cit., p. +B@.

@ ven though he openly held libertarian doctrines to be

4pernicious4 ($ammett, op. cit., p. )+-. $oncerning his

relations ith the anarchists, cf. =. $. Masini, ,ntonio

6ramsci e l'!rdine NuovoA +isti da un libertario (n.p., )<B-.

@B $ited by =iotte, op. cit., p. +*).

@* ibid., p. @*@.

@: Sozialistengesetze ():*:1<?-, hich outlaed socialist

organi3ations during this period. On the development of

German social democracy see $. . Schorske4s classic

ork, 6erman Social 1emocracy BCDEF-CDCH $ambridge,

Mass )<-.

341



@< R. 0u"emburg, The #ass Strike3 the $olitical $arty and the

Trade 4nion (5etroit, n. d. I)<)<J-.

;? !rom the name of the 2ournal opposing the leadership of the

5utch party, published from )<?* onards/ 1ie TribuneA

;) At the time she rote, the problem of bureaucrati3ation as

being discussed idely. lt as in )<?B (hile still a member

of the S=5- that Robert Michels dre attention to this

phenomenon, before devoting a more detailed sociological

study to it in )<)).

;+ >. =. &ettl4s book bears abundant itness to this/ osa

:uemburg (0ondon, )<BB-.

;@ 9. M. 6ock, 4Lur Geschichte und Theorie der hollWndischen

mar"istischen Schule4, in A. =annekoek and 9. Gorter,

!rganisation und Taktik der proletarischen evolution

(!rankfurt, )<B<-, p. )+, speaks of ?? members# !. Cool

(ed.-, in his introduction to 1ie :inke gegen die

$arteiherrschaft (Olten, )<*?-, p. :<, puts the figure at *??.

342



;; A. =annekoek, 1ie taktischen 1ifferenzen in der

,rbeiterbewegung (9amburg, )<?<-.

; A. =annekoek, 4Massenaktion und Revolution4, 1ie Neue

/eit , vol. ) ()<)+-, p. ;@, and 45ie roberung der

9errschaft4, :eipziger +olkszeitung , no. +)? ()<)+-.

;B A. =annekoek, 4Mar"istische Theorie und revolutionWre

Taktik4, 1ie Neue /eit , vol. ) ()<)+-, pp. +*+1:), @B1*@. On

the history of 4left1ing radicalism4, cf. 9. M. 6ock,

Syndikalismus und :inkskommunismus von CDCM-CDG

(Meisenheim am Glan, )<B<-.

;* The more so in that e"treme1left 2ournals circulated ith

ama3ing ease, even at the front. $f. >. Miller, 4Lur

Geschichte der linken So3ial1demokraten in 6remen ()<?B1

)<):-4, in /eitschrift f9r 6eschichtswissenschaft

(Sonderheft, )<:-, pp. +?+1)*.

;: 8n reality, a good many Spartakists did not share the vies

of their leaders but, in the circumstances, only the latter

managed to make their vies heard. 0iebknecht4s vies,

343



moreover, ere more innovative than those of 0u"emburg,

as is shon by his prison ritings in the years )<)*1):/

Carl 0iebknecht, $olitische ,ufzeichnungen aus seinem

Nachlass (6erlin, )<+)-. See also 6ock, op. cit., pp. B, BB.

;< ,rbeiterpolitik (6remen-, no. ) (+; >anuary )<)B-, and no. *

()* !ebruary )<)*-, see the editorials.

? To begin ith, the 8S5 label, strictly speaking, referred only

to the 9amburg and 6remen groups. 6ut ithin a short

space of time all the e"tremist roups came to be knon by

this name.

) ,rbeiterpolitik (6remen-, no. ) (); April )<)*-, and no. )?

(+B August )<)B-.

+ 4Lur infPhrung4, +orbote () >anuary )<)B-, unsigned.

@ A. =annekoek, 46olscheismus und 5emokratie4,

,rbeiterpolitik (6remen-, no. (); 5ecember )<):-.

; Radek played a vital role in this une"pected rapprochement.

9aving been active in the 9amburg organi3ation, he 2oined

344



0enin in )<)* and argued in favour of reunification. 8t

should be added that the 6olshevik leaders ere highly

popular among the 8nternationals, the latter reprinting

articles by 0enin, Linoviev and, of course, Radek in their

press, even though the latter had not e"actly left fond

memories behind him among his former comrades in either

the German or =olish parties.

More e"actly, the divergencies ere masked by a facade of

ideological unity. Thus, even at the constitutive conference

of the S=5 (in April )<)*-, the Spartakist representative

!rit3 Ruck, had e"pressed vies very close to those of the

8nternationals. 9. M. 6ock, Syndikalismus und

:inkskommunismus, op. cit., p. B+.

B $rogramm der kommunistischen ,rbeiter-$artei

1eutschlands, place of publication not indicated, undated

I)<+?J.

* 8t as the left1ing communists of 9amburg and 6remen

ho dre up the statutes of the AA5 in August )<)<. $f.

345



6ock, op. cit., pp. )@? +. See also !. 7olffheim,

"etriebsorganisationen oder 6ewerkschaften (9amburg,

)<)<# the te"t dates from August-.

: #assenaktion, pamphlet put out by the CA (6erlin, )<@@-.

!or a long time already, the AA51 had been torn

beteen those anting to maintain a solid organi3ation,

ith decisions taken at the top and binding on the rank1

and1file (the 7tekommunisten-, and those calling for the

abolition of all constricting organi3ational structures. As for

propaganda, chiefly directed against the political parties, it

called for the e"tension of the councils4 atchord. $f. 1ie

,llgemeine ,rbeiter-4nion B>inheitsorganisationHA Was sie

ist und was sie willU (!rankfurt am Main, )<+*-.

< 9. M. 6ock, op. cit., p. +?<. 8n )<+@, council communist

groups and sects as a hole numbered feer than +?,???

persons (!. Cool, op. cit., p. );-.

B? Rosa 0u"emburg had e"pressed reservations concerning

three points/ the principle of nationalities, the non1

346



collectivi3ation of land, the dictatorship of the party. These

reservations came on top of her reluctance to break ith

social democracy, at least up to 5ecember )<):. $f. her

The ussian evolution (0ondon, )<<# ritten in )<):-.

B) A.=annekoek, 46olscheismus und 5emokratie4, op. cit. See

also his article, 45er Anfang4, ,rbeiterpolitik , no. ;: (@?

&ovember )<):-.

B+ '. 0enin, State and evolution (Mosco, )<*?-.

B@ ibid. (italics in the original te"t-.

B; O. $. !lechtheim, :e parti communiste allemand sous la

publi=ue de Weimar (=aris, )<*+-, pp. :ff. According to

6rouK, =aul 0evi4s effective authority over the party dates

back to March )<)</ op. cit., p. +<.

B 0etter in 0ommunistische ,rbeiter-/eitung (9amburg-, no.

)<) ()<)<-.

BB '. 0enin, ':eft-Wing' %ommunism3 an &nfantile 1isorder

(=eking-.

347



B* 46ericht Pber Moskau4, 1ie ,ktion, no. @<X;? ()<+?-.

B: 8n #anifestes3 th@ses et rsolutions des =uatre premiers

congr@s mondiau e l'&nternationale communiste (=aris,

)<@;# facsimile repr. =aris, )<*?-, pp. *, ;<. (>ohngray

&ote/ nglish Translations in Theses Resolutions and

Manifestos of the !irst !our $ongresses of the Third

8nternational (0ondon, )<:?-J

B< 6ock, op. cit., p. +*.

*? Trotsky had no hesitation in critici3ing in advance (at the

Third $ongress of the $ommunist 8nternational- this !ourth

8ntemational 4in no danger of ever becoming very

numerous4. 9e evidently thought otherise hen he set up

his on !ourth 8nternational a fe years later.

*) 9. Gorter, !ffener "rief an den 6enossen :enin3 eine

,ntwort auf :enins "rosch9re? 1er adikakalismus3 eine

0inderkrankheit des 0ommunismus (6erlin, n.d. I)<+)J-.

348



*+ !. 7olffheim, "etriebsorganisationen oder 6ewerkschaften

(9amburg, )<)<-, and A. =annekoek, Weltrevolution und

kommunistische Taktik ('ienna, )<+?-.

*@ 45er =arlamentarismus in der proletarischen Revolution4,

$roletarier (6erlin-, no. + (&ovember )<+?-.

*; 4Lur !rage der inheitschule4, ,rbeiterpolitik (6remen-, no. *

()* !ebruary )<)*-. $f. also 6ock, 4Lur Geschichte und

Theorie der hollWndschen mar"istischen Schule4, op. cit., p.

)*.

* They ere undoubtedly influenced by the founder of 5utch

social democracy, ho subse%uently became a libertarian

socialist, !erdinand 5omela &ieenhuis. !rom the ):<?s

on, &ieenhuis opposed parliamentarianism in favour of

class struggle, and issued arnings to the Mar"ist parties,

hom he suspected of veering toards State socialism and

dictatorship. See his Socialisme en danger , @rd edn (=aris,

):<*-, pp. ;:, *+, +)B.

349



*B O. RPhle, +on der b9rgalichen zur proletarischen evolution

(6erlin, )<*?-, p. @+ (the te"t dates from )<+;-. I2ohngray

note / Online translation !rom the 6ourgeois to the

=roletarian Revolution 1 Otto RPhle ()<+;- J

** ibid., pp. @:1;@, and A. =annekoek, Workers' %ouncils

(Melbourne, )<?/ nglish version of 1e arbeidersraaden,

published in Amsterdam, )<;B, under the pseudonym of =.

Aarts3-, p. B. See also his 4!ive Theses on the $lass

Struggle4, Southern ,dvocate for Workers' %ouncils

(Melbourne, May )<;*-.

*: >. 9. IA. =annekoekJ, 4Trade nionism4, &nternational

%ouncil %orrespondence ($hicago-, no. + >anuary )<@B-.

*< 9. Gorter, 4=artei, Classe und Masse4, $roletarier , no ;

(!ebruary1March )<+)-, and A. =annekoek, 45er neue

6lan%uismus4, 1er 0ommunist (6remen-, no. +* ()<+?-.

:? IA. =annekoekJ, 4=artei und Arbeiterklasse4,

7tekorrespondenz (published by the G8$, the 5utch

8nternational $ommunist Group-, no. ) (March )<@B-, and

350



>. 9arper IA. =annekoekJ, 4General Remarks on the

Nuestion of Organi3ation4, :iving #arism ($hicago-, no.

(&ovember )<@:-.

:) 4ArbeiterrWte und kommunistische 7irtschaftsgestaltung4,

7tekorrespondenz3 no (October )<@;-.

:+ A. =annekoek, Workers' %ouncils, op. cit., section )/ 4The

Task4.

:@ >. 9. IA. =annekoekJ, 4The 7orkers4 $ouncils4, &nternational

%ouncil %orrespondence, no. ()<@B-.

:; C. 9orner IA. =annekoekJ, Sozialdemokratie und

0ommunismus (9amburg, )<)<-.

: C. SchrQder, +om Werden der neuen 6esellschaft (6erlin,

n.d. I)<+?J-# O. Ruhle, +on der b9rgerlichen zur

proletarischen evolution, op. cit.# >. 9arper IA.

=annekoekJ, 4General Remarks on the Nuestion of

Organi3ation4, op. cit. See also the first programme of the

CA=5 ()<+?-.

351



:B 8n general, it as the fervent CA=ists ho sa, in the

e"isting factory organi3ations, the core of the councils. !or

a 4$ouncil State4, cf. the second programme of the CA=5

(repr. in 6ock, op. cit- and =annekoek, ho compares them

to parliament (Workers' %ouncils, p. ;*-.

:* A detailed bio1bibliography of Gorter ill be found in S.

6ricianer, op. cit., and in Cool (ed.-, 1ie :inke gegen die

$arteiherrschaft , op. cit.

:: 9. Gorter, 4=artei, Classe und Masse4, op. cit., and 1ie

0lassenkampf-!rganisation des $roletariats (6erlin, )<+)-.

See also his !ffener "riefan den 6enossen :enin . . ., (op.

cit. in footnote *)-

:< 7hich he as to leave in order to return to the S=5 in )<+B.

$oncerning his life and ork, cf. Cool4s introduction to Cool,

op. cit., and !tto 9hle Schriften (9amburg, )<*)-.

<? O. Ruhle, 1ie evolution ist keine $arteisacheU (6erlin,

)<+?-, and +on der b9rgerlichen zur proletarischen

evolution, op. cit.

352



<) A. =annekoek/ 49istorical Materialism4, article published in

5utch in Nieuwe Ti5d , )<)< (!rench translation in %ahiers

du communisme de conseils, no. ), )<B:-, and 4Mar"ismus

und 8dealismus4, $roletarier , no. ; (!ebruary1March )<+)-.

A good biography of =annekoek is to be found in 1ie linke

gegen die $arteiherrschaft . 6ock gives a list of his books,

articles and pamphlets in !rganisation und Taktik der

proletarischen evolution, op. cit.

<+ 4=rin3ip und Taktik4, $roletarier , no. : (August )<+*-# 4=artei

und Arbeiterklasse4, 7tekorrespondenz , no. ) (March

)<@B-.

<@ Workers' %ouncils, op. cit., p. )?), and 4The =arty and the

7orking $lass4, &nternational %ouncil %orrespondence, nos.

< and )? (September )<@B-. $f. also =annekoek4s letter to

=ierre $haulieu, in hich he further detailed his conception

of the party1group, reprinted in %ahiers du communisme de

conseils, no. : (May )<*)-.

353



<; See his evolutionshoffnungen (6erlin, )<)*-, and 6ock, op.

cit., pp. *@ff. The 6remen 8S5 broke ith him, accusing him

of having 4li%uidated4 the party1form.

< ibid., p. ++?.

<B 9. $anne Mei2er, 45as 7erden einer neuen

Arbeiterbeegung4, 7tekorrespondenz , nos :1< (April

)<@-, partial nglish translation in &nternational %ouncil

%orrespondence no. )) (August )<@-. See also 1ie :inke

gegen die $arteiherrschaft , op. cit., p. B)@, n. +B).

<* 4Ystlicher und estlicher Communismus4, $roletarier , no.

(October )<+?-# Gorter, !ffener "rief an den 6enossen

:enin . . ., passim# and Gorter, 4=artei, Classe und Masse4

()<+)-, op. cit.

<: 40ehren der Mar31Aktion4, $roletarier , no. (April1May )<+)-#

IA. =annekoekJ, 4So2etrussland und der esteuropWische

Communismus4, op. cit. (>une )<+)-. $f. also =annekoek4s

letter to rich Muhsam (at the end of )<+?-, in hich he

354



declared his holehearted solidarity ith the 6olsheviks

(cited by 6ricianer, op. cit., pp. +)1)*-.

<< 46ericht Pber Moskau4, 1ie ,ktion, nos @<1;? (September

)<+?-.

)?? 45ie russische Staatspolitik und ihre Conse%uen3en fur die

Communistische 8nternationale4, $roletarier no. B (>une

)<++-# 4Thesen Pber Moskau4, 7tekorrespondenz , no. @

(August )<@;-# +on b9rgerlichen zur proletarischen

evolution, op. cit., ch. +, 45as russische =roblem4.

)?) Workers' %ouncils, section ii, ch. , 4The Russian

Revolution4.

)?+ $f. The New World , pamphlet published by the 4Groups of

$ouncil $ommunists 9olland4 (Amsterdam )<;*-, and A.

=annekoek, Workers' %ouncils, final section, 4The =eace4,

as ell as his article 4The !ailure of the 7orking $lass4,

$olitics, vol. @ no. : (September )<;B-, cited by 6ricianer,

op. cit., pp. +:@ff.

355



)?@ Symptomatic is the chapter on the orkers4 councils

(ritten by an e"1CA=ist, =aul Mattick- published in an

anthology claiming to be representative of the &e 0eft/ =.

0ong (ed.-, The New :eft (6oston, )<B<-. On the councillist

tradition in !rance since the Second 7orld 7ar, cf. my :es

origines du gauchisme (=aris, )<*)-, ch. ; (nglish

translation/ The !rigins of #odern :eftism, =enguin 6ooks,

)<*-.

)?; The thesis of the 4fatal crisis of capitalism4 as current in

councillist circles in the )<@?s. This theme as taken up

again in the )<;?s, and =annekoek still speaks of a gradual

orsening of capitalism4s positions in his Workers'

%ouncils, pp. ++ *. See also Mattick4s essay on orkers4

councils (op. cit. 8n note. )?@-.

)? 4The 7orkers4 $ouncils4, &nternational %ouncil

%orrespondence, op. cit.

)?B Ruhle, +on b9rgerlichen zur proletarischen evolution, op.

cit., p. ).

356



. The critiue o% Mar&ian rei%ication

) 8n line ith recent usage, 8 shall use the ad2ective Mar"ian to

indicate hat refers to Mar" himself# Mar"ist ill therefore

refer to his doctrine as a hole, as interpreted by his

disciples.

+ After the Second 7orld 7ar, >orn played a part in the

8nternational of "perimental Artists, hich published the

revie $obra ($openhagen16russels1Amsterdam- 9e

helped found the 8nternationale Situationniste in )<*,

leaving it in )<B). 9is %riti=ue de la politi=ue economi=ue

as published in the 4Rapports presentKs a l48nternationale

Situationniste4 series in )<B?.

@ G. 0ukacs, 6eschichte und 0lnssenbewusstsein ()<+@-.

; The paragraph is entitled 4The to factors of a commodity/

use1value and e"change value or value proper4.

47hen, at the beginning of this chapter, e said, 8n common

parlance, that a commodity is both a use1value and an

e"change value, e ere, accurately speaking, rong. A

357



commodity is a use1value or ob2ect of utility, and a value.4

%apital , ch. ), section @, A, ;/ 4The elementary form of value

considered as a hole4 (translated by S. Moore and .

Aveling, edited by !. ngels, 0ondon, )::<-.

B >orn points out that, from the point of vie of its theoretical

foundations, %apital is inseparable from the so1called

philosophical orks of Mar"4s youth. =hilosophically

speaking, the origins of this identification lie in the ill1

conceived relationship beteen sub2ect and ob2ect. 8n his

CM #anuscripts (hich Mar" himself described as a

Znecessary settling of accounts beteen criticism and its

origins 1 i.e. 9egelian dialectics4- Mar" develops a Cantian

conception of the noumenon and the phenomenon, and fails

to see the movement, the dialectic that makes alienation

(>ntfremdung or >nt7usserung - the process hereby the

self ob2ectivi3es. As a result Mar"4s conception of the in1itself

and of the for1itself is a static one# they are seen as an

opposition, ithin thought itself, beteen abstract thought

and sensible reality (45er Gegensat3 des abstrakten

358



5enkens und ... der sinnlichen 7irklichkeit ... innerhalb des

Gedankens selbst4-. Mar" adds that all oppositions are

merely the e"oteric form of this fundamental opposition

(Vkonomisch-philosophische #anuskripte, @rd MS, p. "vii-.

Most 4Mar"ologists4 have no abandoned the 9egelian

descendance thesis. The !euerbachian origins of Mar"ian

thought are attested to by 4bourgeois science4 (cf. 5.

Mc0ellan, The *oung (egelians and 0arl #ar , 0ondon,

)<B+, pp. )?) ff- and by 4communist science4/ (Z!or us, the

%uestion from where did #ar arise2 is therefore of the

highest importance/ he arose from neo19egelianism, hich

as a returning1back from 9egel to Cant and !ichte, and

then from pure !euerbachism....4 (0. Althusser,

4Avertissement4 to 6ook 8 of %apital , =aris, )<B<-.

* Mar" (%apital , pt ), ch. )- reduces the capital formation

process to the e"change of commodities, hereas it implies

first the manufacture of the ob2ect of utility and its non1

utili3ation straightaay.

359



: To banknotes of the same face1value are indistinguishable

apart from their serial numbers.

< 47hen vieed, therefore, as a connected hole, and as

floing on ith incessant reneal, every social process of

production is, at the same time, a process of reproduction.4

(Nuoted by >orn from %apital , pt ), ch. [email protected] And also, 4The

conditions of production are also those of reproduction4

(ibid., Moore1Aveling translation-.

)? 7e are dealing ith private saving here/ economically, the

socialist revolution (or communist revolution 1 according to

>orn the to are distinguishable not in terms of their goals

but in terms of the 4means of acceding to poer4- is

embodied in the abolition of private saving. Right from the

outset, saving ill be social, i.e. forced.

)) 0enin successively held each of these to vies. 8n State

and evolution (=etrograd, )<):- he begins by calling for

the destruction of the State, and refers to Mar" in doing so.

6ut Mar"4s 4anarchism4 concerns the higher phase/

360



communism. >orn seems unaare of the fact that, for the

transition period, Mar" calls for a dictatorial State/ on this

point, there is no difference beteen the young Mar" and

the mature Mar". $f. his letter to 7eydemeyer, March

):+, in hich he states that the class struggle necessarily

leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat (letter cited by

0enin in the +nd edn of his pamphlet in support of his thesis

concerning the proletarian State-. Some +? years later, in

his #arginal Notes on the $rogramme of the 6erman

Workers' $arty ():*- he once more re1stated that, in a

period of political transition, the State 4could not be anything

other than the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat' .

361



!i0lio#ra'hy

Where translations into >nglish are cited3 references are

usually to most recent editions or impressions or to those most

likely to be accessibleA , number of works in this bibliography

were issued without information about the date andor place of

publicationA

A&780R, O., The Soviets? The ussian Workers'3

$easants'3 and Soldiers' %ouncils BCDEF-CDGH (tr. from

German-, &e Dork, )<*.

ARS98&O', =., (istory of the #akhnovist #ovement BCDCM-

CDGCH (tr. from Russian-, 5etroitX$hicago, )<*;.

A'R8$9, =., 0ronstadt CDGC, =rinceton, )<*?.

A'R8$9, =., The ussian ,narchists, =rinceton, )<B*.

A'R8$9, =., The ussian evolution and the 8actory

%ommittees, Ann Arbor (niversity Microfilms-, )<*@.

362



6AC&8&, M., Selected Writings, 0ondon, )<*@.

6AC&8&, M., Statism and ,narchy , &e Dork, )<*;.

6ACO&8& (6akunin-, M., !euvres, =aris, ):<?1)<)).

6RCMA&, A., The ',nti-%lima' , 6erlin, )<+.

6RCMA&, A., 1ie 0ronstadt ebellion, 6erlin, )<+@.

6RCMA&, A., (ed.-, The ussian evolution and the

%ommunist $arty , 6erlin, )<++.

6O$C, 9. M., Syndikalismus und :inkskommunismus von

CDCM-CDG, Meisenheim am Glan, )<B<.

6OR$9AR5, >. evolutionshoffnungen (brochure-, 6erlin,

)<)*.

6R8$8A&R, S., $annekoek et les conseils ouvriers, =aris,

)<B<.

6R8&TO&, M., The "olsheviks and Workers' %ontrol , l<*?.

6RO[, =., volution en ,llemagne BCDC-CDGH, =aris, )<*)

363



6R=6A$9R, !., #ar und "akunin, Munich, )<++# 6erlin,

)<B<.

6R&9AM, >., The #anagerial evolution, =enguin 6ooks,

)<B+.

$AMMTT, >. M., ,ntonio 6ramsci and the !rigins of &talian

%ommunism, Stanford, )<B*.

$AR5A&, =., 8rom "olshevism to the "ureaucracy , 0ondon.

$AR5A&, =., #odem %apitalism and evolutionA

$AR5A&, =., Socialism or "arbarismA

$ARR, . 9., The omantic >iles, =enguin 6ooks, )<;<.

$ARST&, !. 0., evolution in %entral >urope BCDCM-CDCDH,

0ondon, )<*+.

$ASTOR8A58S, $. I=ierre $haulieuJ, :a socite

bureaucrati=ue, =aris, )<*@.

$9AT0T, !., (egel , =aris, )<B:.

364



$8SLCO7SC8, A. 'O&, $rolgomenes ri &'historiographie,

=aris, )<*@.

$O0, G. 5. 9., and =OSTGAT, R., The %ommon $eople,

0ondon, )<B:.

$O0, G. 5. 9., 6uild Socialism, 0ondon, )<+?

$ONART, A., 1mitri $isare3 BCME-CMOMH et &' idologie du

nihilisme russe, =aris, )<;B.

5A&80S, R. '., The %onscience of the evolution,

$ambridge, Mass., )<B?.

5&AD'SCADA, R., #arism and 8reedom, 0ondon, )<*).

&G0S, !., :udwig 8euerbach and the !utcome of %lassical

6erman $hilosophy , &e Dork, )<;).

&G0S, !., SocialismA 4topian and Scientific , 0ondon, )<*+.

ST8'A0S, R., :'avant-garde culturelle parisienne depuis CDF ,

=aris, n.d. I)<B+J.

!A66R8, 0., 1iftatura e rivoluzione, )<+).

365



!AR, S. (ed.-, >ncyclopedie anarchiste, =aris, )<+; (The

,narchist >ncyclopedia (tr.-, vol. ), &e Dork, )<*;-.

!8S$9R, G., ussian :iberalism, $ambridge, Mass., )<:.

!0$9T98M, O. C., 1ie 0A$A1A in der weimarer epublik ,

!rankfurt, )<B<.

!OOTMA&, 5., %ivil War in ussia, 0ondon, )<B)

!RDMO&5, >. (ed.-, :a premi@re internationale (+ vols-,

Geneva, )<B+.

GA'RO&SCD, 5., :e bilan du bolchvisme russe, =aris, )<+?.

GO05MA&, ., The %rushing of the ussian evolution,

0ondon.

GO05MA&, ., #y 1isillusionment in ussia, &e Dork, )<+@

(many later editions-.

GO05MA&&, 0., echerches dialecti=ues, =aris, )<<

GOM68&, R., The !rigins of #odem :eftism (tr. from !rench-,

=enguin 6ooks, )<*.

366



GORTR, 9., 1ie 0lassenkampf-!rganisation des $roletariats,

6erlin, )<+) (repr. in =annekoek, A. and Gorter, 9.,

!rganisation und Taktik der proletarischen evolution,

!rankfurt, )<BB-.

GORTR, 9., !ffener "rief an den 6enossen :enin3 eine

,ntwort auf :enins "roschiire? 1er adikalismus3 eine

0inderkrankheit des 0ommunismus, 6erlin, n.d. I)<+)J.

GORTR, 9., ponse ) :enine, =aris, )<@?.

GRAMS$8, A., :'!rdine nuovo, )<.

GR&6RGR, R., ed ising in "avaria, 6ristol, )<*@.

GR8&, 5., osa :uemburg et la spontanit

rvolutionnaire, =aris, )<*).

9G0, G. 7. !., (egel's Science of :ogic , 0ondon, )<B<.

9G0, G. 7. !., :ectures on the (istory of $hilosophy (@

vols-, 0ondon, )<B.

9G0, G. 7. !., eason in (istory (partial tr.-, &e Dork,

)<B@.

367



9RL&, A., 1u dveloppement des ides en ussie, 0ondon,

):@ (repr. in !rench, &e Dork, )<*;-.

9RL&, A., 8rom the !ther Shore, 0ondon, ):B.

9RL&, A., :ettres de 8rance et d'ltalie, Geneva, ):*) (repr.

8n !rench, &e Dork, )<*;-.

9RL&, A., :e monde russe et la rvolution, =aris, ):BE+

(repr. in !rench, &e Dork, )<*;-.

9RL&, A., #y $ast and Thoughts (; vols-, 0ondon, )<B:.

9OR&R, C. IA. =annekoekJ, Sozialdemokratie und

0ommunismus, 9amburg, n.d. I)<)<J.

&nternationale Sittationniste ()<:1B<-, Amsterdam, )<*?.

>AD, M., The 1ialectical imagination, 0ondon, )<*@.

>OR&, A., %riti=ue de la politi=ue conomi=ue, =aris, n.d.

()<B?-.

CA!MA&&, 7. (ed.-, >istentialism from 1ostoevsky to

Sartre, &e Dork, )<B.

368



C=, >. 0. 9., The ise of Social 1emocracy in ussia,

O"ford, )<B@.

CO06, ., 1ie ,rbeiterr7te in der deutschen &nnenpolitik CDCM-

CDCD, 5iisseldorf, )<B+.

CO00O&TA8, A., Workers' !pposition, )<)<1+?.

COO0, !. (ed.-, 1ie :inke gegen die $arteiherrschaft , Often,

)<*?.

C6A&8&, M., #ahnovsJina, 0eningrad.

0ARRD, R., ,leandre &vanovic (erzen, =aris, )<+:.

0ARRD, R., (erzen et $roudhon, =aris, )<+:.

0AM=RT, ., Studies in ebellion, 0ondon, )<*.

09&8&G IMPllerJ, A., ,narchisme et marisme dans la

rvolution russe, =aris, )<*).

0MC, M. C. (ed.-, $olnoe sobrane soJineni5 i pisem (++ vols-,

=etrograd, )<)1+.

369



0&8&, '. 8., The 1evelopment of %apitalism in ussia,

0ondon, )<*.

0&8&, '. 8., :eft-wing %ommunism? ,n &nfantile 1isorder

()<+?-, &e Dork, )<B.

0&8&, '. 8., !ne Step 8orward3 Two Steps "ack ()<?;-,

0ondon ,)<B<.

0&8&, '. 8., State and evolution ()<):-, 0ondon, )<*+.

08$9T98M, G., :ukacs, 0ondon, )<*?.

086&$9T, C., $olitische ,ufzieichnungen aus seinem

Nachlass, 6erlin, )<+).

086MA&, M., :eninism under :enin (tr. from !rench-, 0ondon,

)<*.

0O&G, =. (ed.-, The New :eft , 6oston, Mass., )<B<.

0OL8&SC8>, . 8., Qto Pe takoe3 nakonec3 intelligenci5a2, St

=etersburg, )<?*.

0CA$S, G., (istory and %lass %onsciousness? Studies in

#arist 1ialectics (tr. from German-, 0ondon, )<*.

370



0\M6RG, R., The #ass Strike3 the $olitical $arty and the

Trade 4nion, 5etroit.

0\M6RG, R., The ussian evolution, Ann Arbor, )<B).

0\M6RG, R., Selected $olitical Writings, 0ondon, )<*+.

M$000A&, 5., The *oung (egelians and 0arl #ar , 0ondon,

)<B<.

MA$9A>SC8, 7., "urPuazna5a revoluci5a i raboJoe delo BCDEFHX

"ilans burPuazy5ne5 rewolucyi rosy5skie5 (Geneva, )<?<-#

:a faillite du socialisme au L&L@me si@cle (manuscript-/ all

in the Ma" &omad !oundation, 8nternational institute for

Social 9istory, Amsterdam.

MAC9&O, &., :a revolution russe en 4kraine, =aris, )<*?.

MA08A, M., ,leander (erzen and the "irth of ussian

Socialism , $ambridge, Mass., )<B).

#anifestes3 th@ses et rsolutions des =uatre premiers congr@s

mondiau de &'lntenationale communiste, =aris, )<B:.

371



MAR\, C., %apital , many editions.

MAR\, C., The %ivil War in 8rance, &e Dork.

MAR\, C., %riti=ue of (egel's '$hilosophy of ight' , $ambridge,

)<*?.

MAR\, C., %riti=ue of $olitical >conomy , 0ondon, )<*).

MAR\, C., >conomic and $hilosophic #anuscripts of CM,

0ondon, )<*?.

MAR\, C., The >ighteenth "rumaire of :ouis "onaparte, &e

Dork, )<B@.

MAR\, C., The 6rundrisse? The 8oundations of the %riti=ue of

$olitical >conomy , =enguin 6ooks, )<*@.

MAR\, C., :a =uestion 5uive, =aris, )<B:.

MAR\, C. and &G0S, !., %riti=ue des programmes

socialistes, =aris, )<;:.

MAR\, C., and &G0S, !., 6erman &deology , &e Dork,

)<*?.

372



MAR\, C. and &G0S, !., %ollected Works, 0ondon, from

)<*, in progress.

MAS8&8, =. $., ,ntonio 6ramsci e l'!rdine nuovoA +isti do un

libertario, )<B.

#assenaktion, 6erlin, )<@@.

MAR8$8S, ,u pays des soviets, =aris, n.d. I)<+)J.

MA\8MO!!, G. =., Syndicalists in the ussian evolution3

0ondon.

M9R8&G, !., 0arl #ar3 The Story of (is :ife (tr. !rom

German-, 0ondon, )<@B.

MSLAROS, 8., :ukacs' %oncept of 1ialectic , 0ondon, )<*+.

MTT, 8., 0ronstadt %ommune, )<B*.

&OMA5, M., ,spects of evolt , &e Dork, )<B).

&O'OM8RSC8>, Qto takoe anarhizm, n.p. (Geneva-, )<?*.

ORTL&, =. 'O&, "etriebsr7te in der Novemberrevolution,

5iisseldorf, )<B+.

373



ORG8A&8, C. IG. Gogeli2aJ, !b intelligencii , 0ondon, )<)+.

=A&CRATO'A, A., 8abzavkomy ossi5 v borbie za

socialistichesku5u fabriku, Mosco, )<+@/

=A&&COC, A., 1ie taktische 1ifferenzen in der ,rbeiter-

bewegung , 9amburg, )<?<.

=A&&COC, A., Weltrevolution und kommunistiche Taktik ,

'ienna, )<+?.

=A&&COC, A., Workers' %ouncils, Melbourne, )<?.

=A&&COC, A. and GORTR, 9., !rganisation und Taktik

der proletarischen evolution, !rankfurt, )<B<.

=AS$A0, =., :es grands courants de la pense russe

contemporaine, 0ausanne, )<*).

=AS$A0, =., :a rvolte de $ougatcheu, =aris, )<*).

=AD&, R. (ed.-, The 4nknown 0arl #ar , 0ondon, )<*+.

=STA&A, A., &nforme de mi estancia en la 4SS, Madrid,

)<B:.

374



=8OTT, >. M., :a pense politi=ue de 6ramsci , =aris, )<*?.

=ORTA0, R., Slavs (tr. from !rench-, &e Dork, )<*?.

=R868$'8$, 6., The Shop Stewards' #ovement and Workers'

%ontrol , O"ford, )<<.

$rogramm der kommunistichen ,rbeiter-$artei 1eutschlnnds,

n.d. I)<+?J.

=ROTA, 9., :es occupations d'usines en 8rance et en

&talie BCDGE-CDOH, =aris, )<@*, )<B*.

RI8LL8J, 6., :a bureaucratisation du monde, n.d. I)<@<J.

RO$CR, R., 1er "ankrott des russischen

Staatskommunismus, )<+).

RO$CR, R., :es soviets trahis par les bolchvi=ues, =aris,

)<*@.

R]90, O., 8rom the "ourgeois to the $roletarian evolution

(tr. from German-, )<*;.

R]90, O., 1ie evolution ist keine $arteisacheU , 6erlin, )<+?.

375



SA5O0, >., Notes sur la rvolution bolchvi=ue, =aris, )<)<,

)<*).

S$9MO0L, G., (ed.-, evolution und 7terepublik in

#9nchen CDCM-CDCD in ,ugenzeugenberichten, 5Psseldorf,

)<B<.

S$9ORSC, $. ., 6erman Social 1emocracy BCDEF-CDCH,

$ambridge, Mass., )<.

S$9RY5R, C., +om werden der neuen 6esellschaft , 6erlin,

n.d. I)<+?J.

S$97ARL, A., 1ie weimarer epublik , Constan3, )<:.

SRG, '., #emoirs of a evolutionary (tr. from !rench-,

0ondon, )<B*.

S9ATL, M. S., ,nti-intellectualism in the ussian &ntelligentsia,

$ertificate of Russian 8nstitute, $ity niversity of &eDork,

)<B@ (mimeo.-.

S8MMO&S, . >. (ed.-, %ontinuity and %hange in ussian and

Soviet Thought , $ambridge, Mass., )<.

376



SO$9D, A., Wie lebt der ,rbeiter und der "auer in ussland

und in der 4kraine, 6erlin, n.d. I)<+?J.

SO'R8&, G., :e fouririsme en ussie, =aris, )<@B.

ST8R&R, M., >go and (is !wn (tr. from German-, 0ondon,

)<*).

START 9G9S, 9., %onsciousness and Society , 0ondon,

)<<.

TAS$A, A., The ise of &talian 8ascism3 CDCM-CDGG (tr. !rom

8talian-, &e Dork.

TAD0OR, $., (egel , $ambridge, )<*.

TOCS, R. 0., "ela 0un and the (ungarian Soviet epublic ,

&e Dork, )<B*.

TROTSCD, 0., &n 1efence of #arism, 0ondon, )<BB.

TROTSCD, 0., Nos tRches politi=ues, =aris, )<*).

TROTSCD, 0., apport de la dlgation sibrienne, =aris,

)<*?.

377



TROTSCD, 0., The evolution "etrayed , 0ondon, )<*@.

TROTSCD, 0., Terrorism and %ommunism, 0ondon, )<*.

'A56, M., :'idologie, =aris, )<*@.

'A&8GM, R., Trait de savoir-vivre ) &'usage des 5eunes

gnrations, =aris, )<B*.

'&TR8, !., oots !f evolutionA , (istory of the $opulist

and Socialist #ovements in Nineteenth %entury ussia,

&e Dork, )<BB.

'Y0GDS, !., The (ungarian Soviet epublic , Stanford, )<*?.

'O08&, :e fascisme rouge, 6russels, n.d. I)<@)J.

'O08&, Nineteen-Seventeen, 0ondon, )<;.

'O08&. The 4nknown evolution, 0ondon, )<# 5etroit

$hicago, )<*;.

'O0SC8>, A. (Macha2ski-, 4mstvenny5 raboJi5 , Geneva, )<?;1B

&e Dork, )<B:.

the radical tradition - richard gombin

Documents