From: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba-AT-online.no>
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Russia without the Bolsheviks???
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 20:34:53 +0100



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kurasje Archive" <kurasje-AT-iname.com>
To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: 8. november 2002 17.49
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Russia without the Bolsheviks???


While it is easy to explain why the Russian revolution
failed, and it is easy to point to backwardness, there
is no doubt at all that subjective reasons were a critical
part of its failure. And I am not here only referring to
the Bolshevics. It is also very easy to point to how these
weaknesses were rooted in historical and material
conditions. But it is not self-evident that they could not
have beeen overcome.

It is further not selv-evident that a radical different
development in Russia could not have made a real
difference Germany and some other European
countries. When Jens writes that  a potential revolution
in Germany and elswhere was lost "not because of
the Bolshevics in Russia, but because of the Social-
democrats in Europe.," he entirely overlooks the
possibility that reformist social-democracy actually
might have been strengthened by the developments
in Russia, and that a different course in Russia might
have triggered a whole other consciousness, mood
and self-confidence within large parts of the
European working class, rather than the largely
false dictonomy between Boshevic-Comintern style
"communism" and social democracy

Ther is a difference between saying that it is not
strange that things developed as they did, and to say
that this was the only way it possibly could have
evolved.

"Communism cannot be made by pure will and 'right'
policies  -  The material conditions for another world
must first be fully matured within the old world." Jens
writes.

I would say that "pure will and 'right' policies" always
will remain among the preconditions for passing from
one way of organizing a society to a radical different
one. There is no reason to believe that the "material
conditions" ever will be "fully matured"  *within
capitalism*. That is precisely why revolutions are not
easy to achieve, as the first task will always be to as
far as possible create the "fully matured conditions".
They are not not simply made by themselves, even
if I am as aware as you are that there are some
conditions  that will make a sucsseful revolution far
more likely than others, and others that will make it
just about impossible.

        So the question of Russia in 1917-18 then also
becomes, would it have been possible to create the
conditions that could have made the revolution go
forwards, rather than turn in to an endless counter-
revolutionary regress before it had hardly begun?
        To answer that question halfway properly you
would also have to enter into areas that marxist (including
the anti-leninist tradtion) rarely, if ever address,
nor most anarchists for that.  Though it might be
implicitly included in the term "backwardness," of
which it is much truth in of course. But again the question
if things could be overcome.

Harald






     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---