Trotsky's response to the anarchists excuse for their failure in Spain.
"They said "Exceptional" circumstances forced them into impossible choices."
and he said
"We have already heard from some anarchist theoreticians that at the time of such "exceptional" circumstances as war and revolution, it is necessary to renounce the principles of one's own program. Such revolutionists bear a close resemblance to raincoats that leak when it rains, i.e., in "exceptional" circumstances, but during dry weather they remain waterproof with complete success."
In all fairness, the circumstances in Russia forced the Bolsheviks into some impossible choices as well. The NEP comes to mind as an example for a renunciation of the principles of their program.
Aren't we talking about a group that is willing to get into power and have to make those impossible choices, and a group whose impossible choice was to actually take power, instead they abdicate power to the existing government, as far as I know, I may be wrong.
Well, evidently, we are. The specificity of the "impossible choices" weren't articulated in the quote.
Still, though, for another example--I would think that party dictatorship was not within the principles of the Bolsheviks, but rather a necessity after the decimation of their working class base. It is not as fundamental a break from principle as would be an anarchist decision to take state power, but I would venture that it is still a break from principle.
At least, I would like to believe that it was an impossible choice that could be made only when the circumstances were taken into consideration; the working class was destroyed, industry had plummeted, civil war and famine razed the country, and the alternative to Bolshevik dictatorship wasn't communist utopia, it was ruling class reestablishment in the form of some fascist military dictatorship.
If party dictatorship without class dictatorship fell within their principles, maybe we ought to reevaluate our sympathetic view of the Bolsheviks.
Also you can't really compare the situations. The NEP wasn't an ideological retreat from communism. It was an economic retreat from a stage of development. They didn't decide to allow heavily taxed heavily regulated small scale private ownership and trade to exist because they decided communism didn't quite work out. However the question of whether or not to take power in Spain was the result of an ideology that doesn't always line up with reality. That was the impossible choice they made...to break with fundamental aspects of their entire worldview.
Specifically, they broke with the fundamental aspects of anarchism that supposedly made them morally superior to the Bolsheviks, and to "authoritatian socialism" as a whole. In doing so, they did exactly what anarchists and other libertarian-minded radicals have always lambasted the Bolsheviks for doing.
(The comment has been removed)
"They said "Exceptional" circumstances forced them into impossible choices."
and he said
"We have already heard from some anarchist theoreticians that at the time of such "exceptional" circumstances as war and revolution, it is necessary to renounce the principles of one's own program. Such revolutionists bear a close resemblance to raincoats that leak when it rains, i.e., in "exceptional" circumstances, but during dry weather they remain waterproof with complete success."
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Still, though, for another example--I would think that party dictatorship was not within the principles of the Bolsheviks, but rather a necessity after the decimation of their working class base. It is not as fundamental a break from principle as would be an anarchist decision to take state power, but I would venture that it is still a break from principle.
At least, I would like to believe that it was an impossible choice that could be made only when the circumstances were taken into consideration; the working class was destroyed, industry had plummeted, civil war and famine razed the country, and the alternative to Bolshevik dictatorship wasn't communist utopia, it was ruling class reestablishment in the form of some fascist military dictatorship.
If party dictatorship without class dictatorship fell within their principles, maybe we ought to reevaluate our sympathetic view of the Bolsheviks.
Reply
Also you can't really compare the situations. The NEP wasn't an ideological retreat from communism. It was an economic retreat from a stage of development. They didn't decide to allow heavily taxed heavily regulated small scale private ownership and trade to exist because they decided communism didn't quite work out.
However the question of whether or not to take power in Spain was the result of an ideology that doesn't always line up with reality. That was the impossible choice they made...to break with fundamental aspects of their entire worldview.
Reply
In doing so, they did exactly what anarchists and other libertarian-minded radicals have always lambasted the Bolsheviks for doing.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment