Lenin and Anarchism -- Split from the CC

[chimx]

My love the revolution in Russia shows why exactly we should be in different tendencies and not merge,
while anarchists and narodniks threw bombs at the czar the marxists did patient propaganda circle work and it paid off

You don't know your history. Lenin had numerous anarchists appointed to the petrograd military committee (was that the name? something like that), not to mention he sent an anarchist to dismiss the constituent assembly. Anarchists became so aligned with Bolshevism that they briefly identified as "anarcho-Bolsheviks". It wasn't until the suppression of worker soviets that anarchists turned their backs to the Bolsheviks.

[OI OI OI]

You don't know your history. Lenin had numerous anarchists appointed to the petrograd military committee (was that the name? something like that), not to mention he sent an anarchist to dismiss the constituent assembly. Anarchists became so aligned with Bolshevism that they briefly identified as "anarcho-Bolsheviks". It wasn't until the suppression of worker soviets that anarchists turned their backs to the Bolsheviks.

I am talking about a period before the revolution....

You dissapoint me :)

[Led Zeppelin]

I missed this post:


You don't know your history. Lenin had numerous anarchists appointed to the petrograd military committee (was that the name? something like that)

You made this up.

There were initially only 4 anarchists out of about 66 members, and they were soon voted out, that's not "numerous". And they weren't "appointed by Lenin", they were elected. Lenin did not have the power to "appoint" anyone in the Military Revolutionary Committee.


not to mention he sent an anarchist to dismiss the constituent assembly.

You also made this up.

The Constituent Assembly wasn't "dismissed" by anyone, the building was just locked down so that the members couldn't get in, while the Bolshevik government issued a decree dissolving the Assembly.

[Devrim]

You also made this up.

The Constituent Assembly wasn't "dismissed" by anyone, the building was just locked down so that the members couldn't get in, while the Bolshevik government issued a decree dissolving the Assembly.


A motion by the Bolsheviks that would have recognized the Bolshevik government and made the assembly powerless was voted down. Victor Chernov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Chernov), the leader of the Socialist Revolutionaries, was elected Chairman with 244 votes against the Bolshevik-backed leader of Left Socialist Revolutionaries Maria Spiridonova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Spiridonova)'s 153 votes. The Bolsheviks and their Left Socialist Revolutionary allies then convened a special meeting of the Soviet government, Sovnarkom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovnarkom), and decided to dissolve the Assembly. After Deputy People's Commissar for Naval Affairs Fyodor Raskolnikov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyodor_Raskolnikov) read a prepared statement, the two factions walked out. Lenin left the building with the following instructions:
There is no need to disperse the Constituent Assembly: just let them go on chattering as long as they like and then break up, and tomorrow we won't let a single one of them come in.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly#cite_note-raskolnikov-15) Around 4 a.m., the head of the guards detachment, A. G. Zheleznyakov, approached Chernov and said:
The guard are tired. I propose that you close the meeting and let everybody go home.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly#cite_note-raskolnikov-15) Chernov quickly read the highlights of the SR-drafted "Law on the Land", which proclaimed a radical land reform,[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly#cite_note-landreform-16) a law making Russia a democratic federal republic (thus ratifying the Provisional Government's decision adopted in September 1917) and an appeal to the Entente (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Entente) Allies for a democratic peace. The Assembly voted for the proposals, scheduled the next meeting for 5 p.m. on January 6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6) and dispersed at 4:40 a.m. The next day the deputies found the building locked down and the Constituent Assembly declared dissolved by the Bolshevik government, a Decree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Decrees) was ratified by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTsIK)) late on January 6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6).
They did arrive the next day to find the building looked, but they were dismissed by Zheleznyakov, an anarchist sailor from Krondstadt.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

They did arrive the next day to find the building looked, but they were dismissed by Zheleznyakov, an anarchist sailor from Krondstadt.

Devrim

It doesn't say that anywhere in the quote you posted, and that quote basically confirmed what I said about the decree and the building being locked.

Also, it says that Zheleznyakov was a Bolshevik on Wiki:


Zheleznyakov (Железняков) named after Anatoly Zheleznyakov (1895-1919) a Bolshevik
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapayev_class_cruiser)

Even if he was an anarchist though, I don't see how relevant it is to Chimx's point which was Lenin specifically sent him to do that job and that it had a relation to him being an anarchist, because somehow he wished for an alliance between anarchists and Bolsheviks, or he just liked anarchists or something.

[Devrim]

It doesn't say that anywhere in the quote you posted, and that quote basically confirmed what I said about the decree and the building being locked.

Also, it says that Zheleznyakov was a Bolshevik on Wiki:


Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapayev_class_cruiser)

Even if he was an anarchist though, I don't see how relevant it is to Chimx's point which was Lenin specifically sent him to do that job and that it had a relation to him being an anarchist, because somehow he wished for an alliance between anarchists and Bolsheviks, or he just liked anarchists or something.

My point is that it was an anarchist who dispersed the constituent assembly, and to accuse Chimx of 'making it up' is a bit out of line.

I am not claiming that Lenin sent this man to do it, but the facts are that Lenin wanted it done, certain people were appointed to 'guard' the assembly and they did disperse it.

On this issue I would go deeper to check my facts about his political allegiance than Wiki. Personally, I only use it for things that are widely known. I think that Berkman is a good source here.

The point is though about your whole debating method. You shout "You also made this up." Obviously he didn't. There is some basis of fact in what he says. Maybe he was mistake on some of the exact details, but he didn't 'make it up'.

The fact is that an anarchist 'closed' the constituent assembly. It is quite possible that he was told to do this. Wiki agrees (but I will go back to original sources if you want):


Lenin left the building with the following instructions:
There is no need to disperse the Constituent Assembly: just let them go on chattering as long as they like and then break up, and tomorrow we won't let a single one of them come in.

To me this suggests but doesn't prove that Chimax is right.

It does suggest that he didn't 'make it up' as there is a basis in fact.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

My point is that it was an anarchist who dispersed the constituent assembly, and to accuse Chimx of 'making it up' is a bit out of line.

You have not proven that he was an anarchist, in fact the source which you provided, wiki, says that he was a Bolshevik.

So perhaps before you can go on to say that it had some "basis in fact" you would actually bother to present some evidence?


I am not claiming that Lenin sent this man to do it, but the facts are that Lenin wanted it done, certain people were appointed to 'guard' the assembly and they did disperse it.

Which basically nullifies the point Chimx was trying to make, being that Lenin specifically pointed out an anarchist and sent him to close down the Assembly.

I'm not sure why you care so much about the Assembly issue, do you think that I am somehow embarrassed by the fact that the Bolsheviks closed down the Constitutent Assembly and that I said Chimx made up that part?

I am perfectly fine with accepting that the Constitutent Assembly was closed down by the Bolsheviks, I support it even, I think they did a great job doing it as well.

I was referring specifically to the "Lenin pointed out an anarchist to close down the Assembly, so therefore he must have cared about/liked/wanted an alliance with anarchists!" nonsense, which was, as I said and proved and you also acknowledged, made up.


The point is though about your whole debating method. You shout "You also made this up." Obviously he didn't. There is some basis of fact in what he says. Maybe he was mistake on some of the exact details, but he didn't 'make it up'.

No there isn't a basis in fact that Lenin specifically chose an anarchist to do it because he liked anarchists, or wanted an alliance with them, or whatever nonsense reason you want to attach to a person saying to others "hey, the Assembly is closed!" while that was also decreed by the government and the building was locked down.

What the hell are you even arguing about here Devrim? This so petty and irrelevant that I don't even know what the point of this discussion is anymore.

Are you saying that Lenin specifically chose an anarchist to go and tell the the people at the Assembly that the building is closed? Are you saying that Lenin even made that decision?

And all of this you are basing on what? On nothing, you have provided no evidence at all, and yet you go on and complain about "my debating method".

Please, give me a break here.


The fact is that an anarchist 'closed' the constituent assembly.

You call something which you haven't proven to be a fact? Well it must be good to be you, just declare things facts without any evidence.

Prove that he was an anarchist.

Prove that Lenin specifically chose him to tell them that the Assembly was closed down because he was anarchist.

Prove that Lenin chose the person to go and tell them that, at all.

Prove that Lenin did so because he wanted an anarchist specifically, for whatever reason.

No, can't prove that? Oh I'm sorry, you're not allowed to call it a fact then, and you're not allowed to say that what Chimx claimed had any "basis in fact" either.

Jesus christ... the pettiness I have to wade through here sometimes.


It is quite possible that he was told to do this.

Yeah, it's also quite possible that I'm God....oh look, I just said something was "quite possible" based on nothing but my subjective perception of something, without any evidence.


Wiki agrees (but I will go back to original sources if you want):

To me this suggests but doesn't prove that Chimax is right.

It does suggest that he didn't 'make it up' as there is a basis in fact.

What the hell are you even talking about? That quote says nothing about Lenin specifically choosing a person to do it, or specifically choosing an anarchist to do it, or even that the person who did it was an anarchist!

And then to say that Chimx's claim had any basis in fact?

Sorry Devrim but this is probably the most childish and pointless argument that you ever been involved in on Revleft. Congrats.

Someone should split this to a new thread by the way.

[Devrim]

Wow! What can one say to that?
Devrim

[Lamanov]

You call something which you haven't proven to be a fact? Well it must be good to be you, just declare things facts without any evidence.

It is a fact. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Zheleznyakov spoke to Voline about this event, and Voline documents it in his book. Also, a French bolshevik Victor Serge describes this event here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1930/year-one/ch04.htm). Paul Aavrich confirms these claims.

[ComradeOm]

So now we have established that Zheleznyakov was an anarchist. At last the workers' movement can move forward once again. I'll inform my comrades that the revolution begins tomorrow!

Excuse my sarcasm but I am continually amazed at the level of pettiness often displayed on this forum and particularly the CC. Frankly you should all be ashamed of yourselves

And in a bid to actually contribute something to the thread, Figes states that Zheleznyakov was indeed the anarchist sailor who formally closed the CA. He did so in his role as leader of the Red Guard detachment that was instructed by Lenin to close the Assembly after the Bolsheviks and Left SRs walked out. This in turn was sparked by the refusal of the Assembly to pass the Declaration of Rights of the Working People. Is everyone now happy?

[Os Cangaceiros]

So now we have established that Zheleznyakov was an anarchist. At last the workers' movement can move forward once again. I'll inform my comrades that the revolution begins tomorrow!

Excuse my sarcasm but I am continually amazed at the level of pettiness often displayed on this forum and particularly the CC. Frankly you should all be ashamed of yourselves

^This.

[Led Zeppelin]

It is a fact. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Zheleznyakov spoke to Voline about this event, and Voline documents it in his book. Also, a French bolshevik Victor Serge describes this event here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1930/year-one/ch04.htm). Paul Aavrich confirms these claims.

Don't be obtuse, that was only one "fact" which doesn't have anything to do with the other claims made. If you want to prove them, go right ahead and cite your sources:

Prove that he was an anarchist. - I'll concede this.

Prove that Lenin specifically chose him to tell them that the Assembly was closed down because he was anarchist.

Prove that Lenin chose the person to go and tell them that, at all.

Prove that Lenin did so because he wanted an anarchist specifically, for whatever reason.

Can you prove the other three, and thereby prove Chimx's claim of Lenin specifically choosing an anarchist to do it because he liked anarchists, or perhaps wanted an alliance with anarchists, or because he preferred an anarchist for whatever reason?

If so, then yes, his claim had a basis in fact. If not, then it didn't have a basis in fact.

This isn't rocket-science here.


Is everyone now happy?

You basically posted a whiney rant and a repeat of facts that were already established, I'm not sure why anyone should be happy about that, to be honest.

Perhaps you could add something to the thread by proving that Lenin specifically chose that anarchist to "formally close down the Assembly" for whatever reason, or that Lenin chose that person to do it at all, you would have added something of worth, and there would be reason to be happy about it, but right now...no, not really.

[Leo]

To return to the initial question though, it is quite well known that the Bolsheviks and the anarchists had good relations initially. Here's what Lenin says on it in his letter to Sylvia Pankhurst:

"Very many anarchist workers are now becoming sincere supporters of Soviet power, and that being so, it proves them to be our best comrades and friends, the best of revolutionaries, who have been enemies of Marxism only through misunderstanding, or, more correctly, not through misunderstanding but because the official socialism prevailing in the epoch of the Second International (1889-1914) betrayed Marxism, lapsed into opportunism, perverted Marx’s revolutionary teachings in general and his teachings on the lessons of the Paris Commune of 1871 in particular."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/aug/28.htm#bk02

[Led Zeppelin]

To return to the initial question though, it is quite well known that the Bolsheviks and the anarchists had good relations initially. Here's what Lenin says on it in his letter to Sylvia Pankhurst:

"Very many anarchist workers are now becoming sincere supporters of Soviet power, and that being so, it proves them to be our best comrades and friends, the best of revolutionaries, who have been enemies of Marxism only through misunderstanding, or, more correctly, not through misunderstanding but because the official socialism prevailing in the epoch of the Second International (1889-1914) betrayed Marxism, lapsed into opportunism, perverted Marx’s revolutionary teachings in general and his teachings on the lessons of the Paris Commune of 1871 in particular."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/aug/28.htm#bk02

Eh, what? Lenin is talking about anarchists who are...stopping to be anarchists by "sincerely supporting Soviet Power", and then talks about them "having been enemies of Marxism" in the past, but now "becoming", and having the potential to become, "the best of revolutionaries".

Hell, he even says that those elements only became anarchists - whom he refers to as "enemies of Marxism" - due to a "misunderstanding, or, more correctly, not through misunderstanding but because the official socialism prevailing in the epoch of the Second International (1889-1914) betrayed Marxism, lapsed into opportunism, perverted Marx’s revolutionary teachings in general and his teachings on the lessons of the Paris Commune of 1871 in particular."

That was never in dispute. When an anarchist stops being an anarchist because they believed Marxism was bad due to the perversions of it, I think that's great too...

How did you get "the Bolsheviks and anarchists had good relations" out of that? :confused:

It is not "quite well known that anarchists and Bolsheviks had good relations initially", Lenin and other Marxists were consistently opposed to anarchism at all times. If it is so well know then it would be easy for you to prove this, yet throughout this thread no one has provided a single shred of evidence for that claim.

To prove that Lenin was talking about the need of attracting anarchists towards Marxism - while of course opposing anarchism itself - is pretty easy (as if reading the quote you posted isn't enough), from the Theses On The Fundamental Tasks of the Second Congress written in 1920:


In this connection, the Congress draws the attention of all comrades, particularly in the Latin and Anglo-Saxon countries, to the fact that, since the war, a profound ideological division has been taking place among anarchists all over the world regarding the attitude to be adopted towards the dictatorship of the proletariat and Soviet government. Moreover, a proper understanding of these principles is particularly to be seen among proletarian elements that have often been impelled towards anarchism by a perfectly legitimate hatred of the opportunism and reformism of the parties of the Second International. That understanding is growing the more widespread among them, the more familiar they become with the experience of Russia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Germany

The Congress therefore considers it the duty of all Communists to do everything to help all proletarian mass elements to abandon anarchism and come over to the side of the Third International. The Congress points out that the measure in which genuinely Communist parties succeed in winning mass proletarian elements rather than intellectual, and petty-bourgeois elements away from anarchism, is a criterion of the success of those Parties.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/04.htm)

I mean come on, what are you trying to prove here, that Lenin somehow liked anarchism or something? That Marxism and anarchism aren't irreconcilable?

Well, jeez:


It is especially clear to us now how correct is the Marxian proposition that Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism are bourgeois tendencies, irreconcilable with Socialism, with a proletarian dictatorship and with Communism.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/soviets.htm)

It seems strange for Lenin to say this after he had specifically "appointed anarchists" to do various jobs during the revolution because he "liked them so much".

By the way, I think that serious anarchists like TAT would agree with the fact that Lenin never "liked anarchism".

[ComradeOm]

Perhaps you could add something to the thread by proving that Lenin specifically chose that anarchist to "formally close down the Assembly" for whatever reason, or that Lenin chose that person to do it at all, you would have added something of worth, and there would be reason to be happy about it, but right now...no, not really.Gnahh now you're dragging me down with you. Fair enough...

In my previous post I was one of two posters to bring actual real (non-Wikipedia) references to the discussion. You on the other hand seem to feel that you are above documentary evidence. But here's the passage I was referring to in full:


A recess was called while the Bolsheviks and Left SRs discussed what to do. The latter, wavering as usual, wanted to delay the dissolution but Lenin was adamant: 'the situation is now clear and we can get rid of them'. It was resolved to dissolve the Assembly, although to deference to the Left SRs, who briefly returned to the session, Lenin instructed the Red Guards not to use violence: when the deputies left the place was to be locked up and no allowed to convene there on the following day. At 2 am, having satisfied himself that everything was under control, Lenin returned to the Smolny and went to bed
This passage is referenced by numerous sources: "Sorokin, Leaves, 125; Sokolov, 'Zashchita', 67; Roobol, Tsereteli, 180-1; Bonch-Bruevich, Na boevykh, 250"

In short Lenin gave the order to close the Assembly to the Red Guards. The leader of this Red Guard detachment was "an anarchist sailor named Zheleznyakov" (Figes again). At 2:30, when the Left SRs walked out again, Zheleznyakov gave the order to bring proceedings to and end

Now you're not going to be happy with this because anyone who has persisted with this level of pedantism and pettiness will not be satisfied with anything less than a signed confession by Lenin himself complete with photographic evidence of Zheleznyakov confronting Chernov on the stage. Now unless you want to bring your own contrary sources to the table (tip: Wikipedia does not count) I suggest that you save yourself further embarrassment and drop the issue


-----

As for the actual attitude of the Bolsheviks towards the anarchists, I'd refer anyone interested in this to Hobsbawm's appropriately titled essay, "Bolshevikism and the Anarchists". Again the most relevant passage is as below:


The fundamental attitude of Bolsheviks towards anarchists was that they were misguided revolutionaries, as opposed to social-democrats that were pillars of the bourgeoisie*. As Zinoviev put it in 1920, in discussion with the Italians who were considerably less disposed towards their own anarchists: "In times of revolution Malatesta is better than d'Aragona. They do stupid things, but they're revolutionaries. We fought side by side with the syndicalists and the anarchists against Kerensky and the Mensheviks. We mobilised thousands of workers this way. In times of revolution one needs revolutionaries. We have to approach them and form a bloc with them in revolutionary periods"

This comparatively lenient attitude of the Bolsheviks was probably determined by two factors: the relative insignificance of anarchists in Russia, and the visible readiness of anarchists and syndicalists after the October revolution to turn to Moscow, at all events until it was clear that the terms for union were unacceptable were unacceptable
Ref for Zinoviev: 'P. Spriano, Storia del Partito Communista Italiano, vol 1, p.77'

* Speaking personally, coming from RevLeft I was surprised to see this exact sentiment in State & Revolution. Although Kautsky was obviously the main target, Lenin's attitude towards anarchists in that work could be summed up as "misguided revolutionaries". I found this to be surprisingly positive

Hobsbawm goes on to say that anarchism was really not an issue for the Bolsheviks and in practice they functioned as "disorganised left wing of Bolshevikism". He also notes that after October anarchism in Russia generally split into three broad factions - those who joined the Bolsheviks, those who remained "benevolently neutral", and the various insignificant splinter groups that rejected Soviet power

Really anarchism and its relation with Bolshevikism/Marxism is something of a hot topic at the moment but in 1917 simply wasn't a major issue and one that the Bolsheviks could treat with relative indifference. Perhaps the most relevant quote is from Lenin: "I have seen and spoken to few anarchists in my life" (Protokoll, Hamburg, 1921)

[Sentinel]

Eh, what? Lenin is talking about anarchists who are...stopping to be anarchists by "sincerely supporting Soviet Power", and then talks about them "having been enemies of Marxism" in the past, but now "becoming", and having the potential to become, "the best of revolutionaries".

I don't see how that quote implies that they quit being anarchists? The fact that Lenin still calls them anarchists, and describes them as 'friends' of the bolsheviks (rather than simply bolsheviks) certainly makes it look like they still were anarchists, who simply decided to work for their goals within the bolshevik cadres.

In the light of this, becoming 'supporters of soviet power' sounds more like allies of it, against the counterrevolutionaries. And that Lenin, who realised that the Bolsheviks needed all help they could get, praised them as 'great revolutionaries' etc..

[Leo]

Lenin is talking about anarchists who are...stopping to be anarchists

He is not saying this in anywhere in the quote, you are giving it a meaning that isn't there. He is not saying that they are stopping being anarchists at all.


stopping to be anarchists by "sincerely supporting Soviet Power"

Again, this is not what he says in any way. Nor is he saying that one can't be an anarchist while supporting soviet power.


and then talks about them "having been enemies of Marxism" in the past, but now "becoming", and having the potential to become, "the best of revolutionaries".

Hell, he even says that those elements only became anarchists - whom he refers to as "enemies of Marxism" - due to a "misunderstanding, or, more correctly, not through misunderstanding but because the official socialism prevailing in the epoch of the Second International (1889-1914) betrayed Marxism, lapsed into opportunism, perverted Marx’s revolutionary teachings in general and his teachings on the lessons of the Paris Commune of 1871 in particular."

I don't want to seem hostile but you are ridiculously distorting what it says here. He says anarchists have became "enemies of Marxists only through misunderstanding, or, more correctly, not through misunderstanding but because the official socialism prevailing in the epoch of the Second International (1889-1914) betrayed Marxism, lapsed into opportunism". He's almost saying that they were correct in "being enemies of Marxism" in relation to their opposition to the Second International's opportunism.


When an anarchist stops being an anarchist because they believed Marxism

Again there is no mention of them stopping being anarchists, he's quite clearly saying that they still are anarchists when he begins what he say like "anarchist workers ..."


How did you get "the Bolsheviks and anarchists had good relations" out of that? :confused:

It is well known, lots of anarchists initially supported the Bolsheviks. They were called "soviet anarchists" or "anarcho-bolsheviks" by other anarchists who did not support the revolution. It is something that is quite well known, you can check it out from this source: http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=5pqSkSgKacAC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=%22anarcho+bolshevik%22&source=web&ots=AFIXTVRynA&sig=ZmtmyUKs6Zw9EZoDmkuwnmbkX_4&hl=tr&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA197,M1


It is not "quite well known that anarchists and Bolsheviks had good relations initially", Lenin and other Marxists were consistently opposed to anarchism at all times.

Yes, that is so, nevertheless they did have good relations with them initially. Lenin even had good relations with and was said to respect Kropotkin.


I mean come on, what are you trying to prove here, that Lenin somehow liked anarchism or something?

Nope, I am merely stating that they initially had good relations.


That Marxism and anarchism aren't irreconcilable?

I never said anything as such.


By the way, I think that serious anarchists like TAT would agree with the fact that Lenin never "liked anarchism".

That's the same TAT who had a quote from Lenin in his sig some time ago, right?


It seems strange for Lenin to say this after he had specifically "appointed anarchists" to do various jobs during the revolution because he "liked them so much".

I wouldn't think Lenin would be acting based on his personal liking of anarchists, but again it is quite well known they were cooperating with some of the anarchists.

I would say that anarchism is not a monolithic tendency and it can be revolutionary as well as bourgeois depending on it's positions. Thus there is nothing strange with marxists cooperating with revolutionary anarchists. Nevertheless, that is not to say anarchism and marxism aren't irreconcilable; there is a clear difference of method.

[Sentinel]

LZ, why did you edit the thread title? It said 'Lenin and the anarchists', as what is being discussed is Lenins relations to the anarchists, rather than what he thought about anarchism (as I see it)?

I don't think anyone is saying that Lenin was sympathetic to anarchism as an ideology, what's being argued is rather that he made some tactical alliances during the revolutionary war, by allowing anarchists in the ranks.

[Led Zeppelin]

Wow there's a lot of crap in this thread to wade through, but fine, I'll put on my oxygen mask and do the job.


Gnahh now you're dragging me down with you. Fair enough...

First of all, let's address this little elitist attitude of yours.

Who do you think you are anyway? Do you think that I consider you some kind of important person who is taking his precious time to respond to this oh so important thread? Do you really think that I care about you or your opinion that much?

No, obviously I don't, and if you aren't delusional you should know this. So given this fact, why do you think that I would care when you try to belittle this issue? Surely you know that I don't care about you, so I would also not care about your opinion on this issue, for it is subjective, and it is already established...that I don't care about you.

When you do decide to reply back to this thread, I would appreciate it if you left your "OMGZ THIS IS SO LAME WHY ARE YOOZ DISCUSSING TIS!!11!!??!" crap at the door, and then enter.


In my previous post I was one of two posters to bring actual real (non-Wikipedia) references to the discussion.

You name-dropped a guy to prove that Zheleznyakov was an anarchist, even though that wasn't the main issue to begin with, great "actual real evidence" you provided there! You really salvaged the thread!

Thank God that you're around! :rolleyes:


You on the other hand seem to feel that you are above documentary evidence. But here's the passage I was referring to in full:

This passage is referenced by numerous sources: "Sorokin, Leaves, 125; Sokolov, 'Zashchita', 67; Roobol, Tsereteli, 180-1; Bonch-Bruevich, Na boevykh, 250"

In short Lenin gave the order to close the Assembly to the Red Guards. The leader of this Red Guard detachment was "an anarchist sailor named Zheleznyakov" (Figes again). At 2:30, when the Left SRs walked out again, Zheleznyakov gave the order to bring proceedings to and end

So Lenin ordered to close the Assembly "to the Red Guards", and the leader of that detachment happened to be an anarchist.

This naturally, logically, inevitably, means that Lenin hand-picked an anarchist to do the job! I can totally see the logic in that, really, I can.

And why did he do this? Well, obviously it's because he liked anarchists! Duh! Anyone can see that!

It's not like he had spent his entire political career opposing anarchism or something, right? It's not like he had referred to anarchism as a "bourgeois tendency" or considered them "enemies of Marxism", nah, that all didn't happen.

And this is the world ComradeOm lives in. Hey, what colour is the sky there?


As for the actual attitude of the Bolsheviks towards the anarchists

We're talking about Lenin specifically here, see the title of the thread. And for "the actual attitude of Lenin" towards anarchists, I'm not going to go by what Hobsbawm said, I'm going to go by - and here comes the big shocker -what Lenin himself said. :ohmy:

Strange method of inquiry to find out what a person's attitude is to something isn't it? Actually read what he wrote on it himself. So unorthodox of me.

Of course in ComradeOm's world you have to read what other people said their attitudes were, because that's just how it is.

Now please climb that Ivory Tower by getting on the back of that high horse, and then get off that too. It's safer for you on the ground.


I don't see how that quote implies that they quit being anarchists?

If you don't understand or know anything about Lenin, I can see how you could not see how that quote implies that.

This is why I provided other quotes by him, which have been ignored by both you and Leo.

In 1918, before that quote, Lenin said:


It is especially clear to us now how correct is the Marxian proposition that Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism are bourgeois tendencies, irreconcilable with Socialism, with a proletarian dictatorship and with Communism.

Isn't that obvious?

Ok, in 1920, after that quote, Lenin said:


The Congress therefore considers it the duty of all Communists to do everything to help all proletarian mass elements to abandon anarchism and come over to the side of the Third International. The Congress points out that the measure in which genuinely Communist parties succeed in winning mass proletarian elements rather than intellectual, and petty-bourgeois elements away from anarchism, is a criterion of the success of those Parties.

Isn't that obvious too?

Ok so what do we have here. Lenin is of the opinion that anarchism is irreconcilable with socialism, and yet he is also of the opinion that anarchists can "become" the best revolutionaries, given the proletarian elements within that movement, and that communists should work to attract them "away from anarchism".

If Lenin had considered anarchists to be "the best revolutionaries" and not "enemies of Marxism", then why the hell would he have instructed communists to work for moving the proletarian elements away from anarchism?

Do you get it now?


He is not saying this in anywhere in the quote, you are giving it a meaning that isn't there. He is not saying that they are stopping being anarchists at all.

[...]

Again, this is not what he says in any way. Nor is he saying that one can't be an anarchist while supporting soviet power.

[...]

I don't want to seem hostile but you are ridiculously distorting what it says here. He says anarchists have became "enemies of Marxists only through misunderstanding, or, more correctly, not through misunderstanding but because the official socialism prevailing in the epoch of the Second International (1889-1914) betrayed Marxism, lapsed into opportunism". He's almost saying that they were correct in "being enemies of Marxism" in relation to their opposition to the Second International's opportunism.

[...]

Again there is no mention of them stopping being anarchists, he's quite clearly saying that they still are anarchists when he begins what he say like "anarchist workers ..."

I quoted this all together because it can basically be summed up as: No he didn't say that.

If you want to consider Lenin referring to them as "enemies of Marxism" as them being correct (?), then that says more about you and your bias towards that quote than I could ever prove.

I can still prove it though.

Leo quoted that piece from the letter but he actually indulged in a bit of misinformation, he didn't add the sentence which came right after the quote, which was: "I have written in detail about this in my book The State and Revolution and will therefore not dwell further on the problem."

Here is the quote in full:


Very many anarchist workers are now becoming sincere supporters of Soviet power, and that being so, it proves them to be our best comrades and friends, the best of revolutionaries, who have been enemies of Marxism only through misunderstanding, or, more correctly, not through misunderstanding but because the official socialism prevailing in the epoch of the Second International (1889-1914) betrayed Marxism, lapsed into opportunism, perverted Marx’s revolutionary teachings in general and his teachings on the lessons of the Paris Commune of 1871 in particular. I have written in detail about this in my book The State and Revolution and will therefore not dwell further on the problem.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/aug/28.htm#bk02)

So what did Lenin "write in detail in his book The State And Revolution about this issue", so that "he would not further dwell on the problem" in that letter?

Well let's see here:


But Engels did not at all mean democratic centralism in the bureaucratic sense in which the term is used by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologists, the anarchists among the latter.

[...]

The anarchist idea of abolition of the state is muddled and non-revolutionary--that is how Engels put it. It is precisely the revolution in its rise and development, with its specific tasks in relation to violence, authority, power, the state, that the anarchists refuse to see.

[...]

The distinction between Marxists and the anarchists is this: (1) The former, while aiming at the complete abolition of the state, recognize that this aim can only be achieved after classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution, as the result of the establishment of socialism, which leads to the withering away of the state. The latter want to abolish he state completely overnight, not understanding the conditions under which the state can be abolished. (2) The former recognize that after the proletariat has won political power it must completely destroy the old state machine and replace it by a new one consisting of an organization of the armed workers, after the type of the Commune. The latter, while insisting on the destruction of the state machine, have a very vague idea of what the proletariat will put in its place and how it will use its revolutionary power. The anarchists even deny that the revolutionary proletariat should use the state power, they reject its revolutionary dictatorship. (3) The former demand that the proletariat be trained for revolution by utilizing the present state. The anarchists reject this.

[...]

The anarchists had tried to claim the Paris Commune as their “own”, so to say, as a collaboration of their doctrine; and they completely misunderstood its lessons and Marx's analysis of these lessons. Anarchism has given nothing even approximating true answers to the concrete political questions: Must the old state machine be smashed? And what should be put in its place?
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm)

Oh, wow, it seems as though...Lenin was opposed to anarchism as I said all along, and that in the quote in the letter he meant exactly what I said he meant.

Nothing more needs be said on this.

Leo, in the future please don't try to look at things from a biased perspective.

However, just to inject some more historical context to this issue, and to prove even more conclusively (at this point this is like proving that gravity exists) how ridiculous it is to believe that Lenin "liked anarchism", let's find some more quotes, and I'll add the dates too:


That is where anarchist ideas become interwoven (as is constantly the case among the West-European Bernsteinians also) with the purest opportunism.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch12.htm)

Such are the two “extreme” positions on this question in the ranks of the Western socialists. “Like the sun in a drop of water”, there are reflected in them the two diseases which still cause harm to the activity of the socialist proletariat in the West—opportunist tendencies on the one hand and anarchist phrase-mongering on the other.

[...]

The anarchist mode of thought is displayed in full measure here. Blind faith in the miracle-working power of all direct action[1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/jul/23c.htm#fwV15P195F01) ; the wrenching of this “direct action” out of its general social and political context, without the slightest analysis of the latter: in short the “arbitrarily mechanical interpretation of social phenomena” (as Karl Liebknecht put it) is obvious.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/jul/23c.htm)

There would be nothing to fear from a slight syndicalist or semi-anarchist deviation; the Party would have swiftly and decisively become aware of it, and would have set about correcting it.

[...]

There is evidence here of the activity of petty-bourgeois anarchist elements with their slogans of unrestricted trade and invariable hostility to the dictatorship of the proletariat. This mood has had a wide influence on the proletariat. It has had an effect on factories in Moscow and a number of provincial centres. This petty-bourgeois counter-revolution is undoubtedly more dangerous than Denikin, Yudenich and Kolchak put together

HAHAHHA this debate is over.

I just found a quote which ends all this nonsense.

Leo and Sentinel pay attention:


We saw the petty-bourgeois, anarchist elements in the Russian revolution, and we have been fighting them for decades. We have seen them in action since February 1917, during the great revolution, and their parties’ attempts to prove that their programme differed little from that of the Bolsheviks, but that only their methods in carrying it through were different. We know this not only from the experience of the October Revolution, but also of the outlying regions and various areas within the former Russian Empire where the Soviet power was temporarily replaced by other regimes.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/10thcong/ch01.htm)

Lenin basically says verbatim what I said. :lol::lol::lol:

[Sentinel]

See my second post, I don't at all doubt that Lenin was hostile towards anarchism ideologically. What I'm not sure about, is whether he wouldn't be willing use the aid of anarchists when he was in need.

To later stab them in the back, naturally, as anarcism and leninism indeed aren't reconcilable, like you say..

[Led Zeppelin]

See my second post, I don't at all doubt that Lenin was hostile towards anarchism.

What I'm not sure about, is whether he wouldn't be willing use the aid of anarchists when he was in need, to later stab them in the back naturally.

Of course he was willing to use them, they were used, but the point is that Lenin did not consciously pick and choose them to be used because they were anarchists, they were used because they "supported Soviet power", it had nothing to do with anarchism or with him "liking anarchists or anarchism", yet Chimx and Leo are claiming that it did, which is a-historical nonsense.

When they stopped supporting Soviet power, they stopped being used, or how you called it "were stabbed in the back".

[Lamanov]

Don't be obtuse, that was only one "fact" which doesn't have anything to do with the other claims made. If you want to prove them, go right ahead and cite your sources.

Calm the fuck down. I didn't even discuss other issues, and for the sake of others, I'm not going to indulge this stupid discussion, but I'll simply state that Anarchist role in the Russian revolution is thoroughly documented in several books, including that of Avrich (Russian Anarchists, and articles Anarchists in the Russian Revolution and Anarchists in the Civil War in Russia), Voline (Unknown Revolution) and Maximoff (Guillotine at Work, Syndicalists in the Russian Revolution). There are other works, but these fairly sorround needed facts.

[Leo]

If you want to consider Lenin referring to them as "enemies of Marxism" as them being correct

Come on, he's saying they were against marxism because they thought marxism was what the Second International was, that is opportunist. He's saying their opposition to marxism was due to a "misunderstanding". He's saying that anarchist workers their "best comrades and friends".

The meaning of what he says is quite clear.


This is why I provided other quotes by him, which have been ignored by both you and Leo.

There was nothing to respond on. Yes, Lenin obviously opposed anarchism as an ideology and yes he obviously wanted anarchists to join them. This still doesn't disprove the fact that initially Lenin had good relations with the anarchists.


There would be nothing to fear from a slight syndicalist or semi-anarchist deviation; the Party would have swiftly and decisively become aware of it, and would have set about correcting it.

[...]

There is evidence here of the activity of petty-bourgeois anarchist elements with their slogans of unrestricted trade and invariable hostility to the dictatorship of the proletariat. This mood has had a wide influence on the proletariat. It has had an effect on factories in Moscow and a number of provincial centres. This petty-bourgeois counter-revolution is undoubtedly more dangerous than Denikin, Yudenich and Kolchak put together


We saw the petty-bourgeois, anarchist elements in the Russian revolution, and we have been fighting them for decades. We have seen them in action since February 1917, during the great revolution, and their parties’ attempts to prove that their programme differed little from that of the Bolsheviks, but that only their methods in carrying it through were different. We know this not only from the experience of the October Revolution, but also of the outlying regions and various areas within the former Russian Empire where the Soviet power was temporarily replaced by other regimes.

He's referring to the anarchists who opposed the revolution here, not the ones who supported it.


Oh, wow, it seems as though...Lenin was opposed to anarchism as I said all along, and that in the quote in the letter he meant exactly what I said he meant.

Sorry, what he said on anarchists in State and Revolution doesn't add something that's not there to that statement, he did not say that they were ceasing to be anarchists.


Leo, in the future please don't try to look at things from a biased perspective.

I am simply pointing out historical facts.


how ridiculous it is to believe that Lenin "liked anarchism"

It is not a matter of personally liking them or not. Lenin as well as the rest of the Bolsheviks did have a good relation with the anarchists in the first years of the revolution though. After all for them it was quite a sensible thing to do, to have good relations with anarchists who did support the revolution.

[Led Zeppelin]

Come on, he's saying they were against marxism because they thought marxism was what the Second International was, that is opportunist. He's saying their opposition to marxism was due to a "misunderstanding". He's saying that anarchist workers their "best comrades and friends".

The meaning of what he says is quite clear.

Yes it is quite clear, if you don't look at it from a bias and understand the historical context of Lenin's position towards anarchism.


There was nothing to respond on. Yes, Lenin obviously opposed anarchism as an ideology and yes he obviously wanted anarchists to join them. This still doesn't disprove the fact that initially Lenin had good relations with the anarchists.

It does disprove "the fact" (which is nothing but a silly claim) that Lenin had good relations with anarchists not because they supported Soviet Power, but because they were anarchists. In other words, there's a difference between Lenin using anarchism, and Lenin liking anarchism.

You seem to believe that Lenin liked anarchism, because as you said "he did not base his politics on personal relations", so it's not because he liked anarchists as people, he must've liked their politics.

you contradicted yourself, Leo:


Yes, Lenin obviously opposed anarchism as an ideology and yes he obviously wanted anarchists to join them. This still doesn't disprove the fact that initially Lenin had good relations with the anarchists.

It is conceded that Lenin opposed anarchism as an ideology, and that he wanted anarchists to join them, i.e., to "move away from anarchism", to become Marxists.

However, you go on to say that this does not disprove that Lenin had good relations with the anarchists.

But you said this before:


I wouldn't think Lenin would be acting based on his personal liking of anarchists

So which is? Did Lenin act "based on his personal liking of anarchists", or did Lenin act "based on his liking of anarchism"?

Given the quotes presented, given Lenin himself saying this literally, it would be nothing but lying on your part to say that it was either of the two. He acted based on his desire to have as much support for the revolution as possible, it had nothing to do with anarchism.


He's referring to the anarchists who opposed the revolution here, not the ones who supported it.

Yes, because the ones who supported it were "moving away from anarchism", and the communists had to get them to "move away from anarchism", because they were "mistakenly enemies of Marxism", i.e., anarchists.

The ones that did not move away from it, yet presented their platform like it was the same of the Bolsheviks, the ones that Lenin specifically refers to, they were "enemies all along", they were "petty-bourgeois anarchists", as opposed to the proletarian elements within the movement which he wanted to attract to Bolshevism.

What is there so hard to understand about this? Or, it would be better to ask, why is there a need to falsify history about this?


Sorry, what he said on anarchists in State and Revolution doesn't add something that's not there to that statement, he did not say that they were ceasing to be anarchists.

It doesn't add something to that statement by Lenin, even though Lenin said that it did.

Yeah, that makes sense.


I am simply pointing out historical facts.

No, as has been proven you are "simply" trying to falsify history by arguing an absurd position (that Lenin "liked anarchism").

And you are doing it very simply indeed.


It is not a matter of personally liking them or not. Lenin as well as the rest of the Bolsheviks did have a good relation with the anarchists in the first years of the revolution though. After all for them it was quite a sensible thing to do, to have good relations with anarchists who did support the revolution.

No one said that the Bolsheviks told the supporters of the revolution, whatever their ideology was, that they did not want their support because of their ideology. No one said that Lenin had this position either.

Obviously the Bolsheviks used anarchist support, just as they used the support of the Social-Revolutionaries. So what? That doesn't have anything to do with him liking anarchism as an ideology, especially not when he continued to attack that ideology throughout that period.

The facts have been provided, you can bury your head in the sand if you want, but history is not going to be changed by what you believe to be true, it is already established by what happened, by what was written, and by what was recorded. I have provided the evidence, I have provided direct quotes by Lenin on the issue repeating what I said word for word, and you have provided nothing but a flimsy quote out of which you left the last sentence, taken it out of the historic context of the person who wrote it, and propped it up as the proof that...Lenin liked anarchism.