💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarcho-review-romancing-the-revolution.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:33:48. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Review: Romancing the revolution Author: Anarcho Date: September 20, 2017 Language: en Topics: book review, Russian Revolution, Britain, Bolshevism Source: Retrieved on 24th April 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/?p=1021
This is a very interesting and useful work. It takes you back to when
Lenin and Trotsky were unknown and how this change as the British left
tried to understand developments in the Russian Revolution. Inspired by
C.B. Macpherson’s claim that the USSR while not a democratic system of
government could be viewed as representing a “Non-Liberal Democracy” as
it aimed to eliminate classes, Ian Bullock’s book utilises an impressive
amount of primary sources to show “the myth of soviet democracy in the
early appeal of the Russian Revolution”. (5) As such, it is should be of
interest for libertarian socialists as well as scholars particularly as
it is full of interesting facts: for example, the Scottish section of
the Independent Labour Party (ILP) voted to join the Communist
international and for prohibition at its January 1920 conference.
(194–5)
The remit of the book is wide in-so-far as it covers socialists who were
initially supportive of the revolution but not explicitly libertarian –
although he does include those influenced by syndicalism, such as guild
socialists, the shop steward movement and the de Leonist Socialist
Labour Party (SLP). Perhaps unsurprisingly, it concentrates on the main
parties and mentions the more diffuse syndicalist tendencies less. There
is little mention of anarchists other than in passing, perhaps
unsurprisingly given the size of the movement in Britain at the time but
he does note that it “is perhaps not surprising that … the anarchist
supporters of soviet democracy … seem to have been most resilient” (365)
and that in the early 1920s the (by then) council communist Workers’
Dreadnought started to reprint anarchist reports and critiques of the
Bolsheviks. However, there is much in Romancing the Revolution which
libertarian socialists will gain from.
After a survey of the British left at the time – including the ILP, the
SLP, the British Socialist Party (BSP), the unfortunately named National
Socialist Party (formed by BSP members who, like its leader Henry
Hyndman, supported the Allies), the syndicalist and Shop Steward
movements as well as the Guild Socialists and the Workers’ Socialist
Federation (WSF) – Bullock turns to the matter at hand, with a chapter
on the June 1917 Leeds “Soviet” Congress in which these tendencies
expressed their support for the Russian Revolution which had ended the
Tsarist autocracy along with opposition to the war and which ended with
the call to form soviets in the UK.
He then charts the evolution of these parties and tendencies and how
they reacted to developments in Russia such as the October Revolution,
the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the civil war and the
changing nature and rhetoric of the new regime. The book recounts how
the original meaning of the word soviet – Russian for “council”,
specifically one elected by workers and peasants – was lost and used
solely in relation to the USSR, how the soviets were “the only clear
example during the twentieth century – as an alternative to Macpherson’s
liberal democracy – a distinctly different functioning form of
democratic government.” (4) He sketches the process by which the promise
of a wider democracy became replaced by party dictatorship – in his
words, “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat: From Class to Party” (312)
– for many on the left.
Of course, many of the earliest critics of the Bolshevik regime
counterpoised bourgeois democracy to the soviet system yet this is not
the only possible critique. Thankfully, Bullock includes those who
criticised Bolshevism from the left as well. It is this aspect of the
book which makes it of particular note to libertarians today. Indeed,
the problems facing the British-left then faced subsequent generations,
including ours, faced with revolutions and the regimes that spring forth
from them – how to be supportive of a revolution but also critical,
particularly of any State structures involved.
Part of the problem was the lack of reliable information from Russia,
not to mention the deliberate lies spread by the capitalist media. There
was also an understandable desire “to give the Bolsheviks the benefit of
the doubt wherever possible”. (149) The Bolshevik’s opposition to the
war helped them gain an audience in Britain but it also meant that myths
were readily accepted, particularly if they chimed with the hopes of the
audience. So, for example, it was reported that while British workers
were “demanding the democratic control of industry” the Russian workers
“have it”, according to a 1918 article in the ILP’s newspaper the Labour
Leader. (149–50) As we have known for sometime, the Bolshevik regime was
then in the process of crushing any embryonic developments towards this
in favour of one-man management and centralised planning.
As with any revolution, many on the left wanted to believe the best. As
Bullock notes, many were dismissing negative accounts due to bourgeois
hostility and trying to reconcile what originally attracted them to the
Revolution and the regime that it produced. Yet enough was available –
not least from eye-witness accounts as well as interviews with, articles
from and speeches by leading Bolsheviks themselves. Bullock indicates
this steady flow of warning signs, such as Zinoviev proclaiming that the
dictatorship of the proletariat was the same as the dictatorship of the
Communist Party at the second congress of the Communist International in
1920, (313) Lenin’s defence of “dictatorial” one-man management (185,
204) as well as his comment that it was “natural that revolutionary
workers execute Mensheviks.” (205) Some managed to accept Lenin’s
advocacy of dictatorship because they believed it reflected working
class support but Bullock, rightly, quotes Bertrand Russell (186) from
his book The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism on the fallacy of this:
“Friends of Russia here [in Britain] think of the dictatorship of the
proletariat as merely a new form of representative government, in which
only working men and women have votes, and the constituencies are partly
occupational, not geographical. They think that ‘proletariat’ means
‘proletariat,’ but ‘dictatorship’ does not quite mean ‘dictatorship.’
This is the opposite of the truth. When a Russian Communist speaks of a
dictatorship, he means the word literally, but when he speaks of the
proletariat, he means the word in a Pickwickian sense. He means the
‘class-conscious’ part of the proletariat, i.e. the Communist Party.”
The issue is that many on the revolutionary left somehow managed to
convince themselves of this nonsense – presumably by invoking that
magical word “dialectics” at some stage. This can be seen even from
those who later broke with Moscow to remain advocates of soviet
democracy. Thus, for example, the WSF’s Workers’ Dreadnought in July
1920 reported and justified Bolshevik suppression of soviets – peasant
ones, where the poor peasants apparently voted for their rich neighbours
in the “Left Wing Social Revolutionary Party” (113) and published an
article by a member of the Aberdeen Communist Group which proclaimed
that any Soviet system “must come under the dictatorship of the
Communist Party.” (181) While the WSF had just created the Communist
Party (British Section of the Third International) and later the same
year helped form the Moscow-approved Communist Party of Great Britain
(CPGB), it did finally realise the error of its ways by early 1921.
They were not alone. The book ends recounting how the ILP and the SLP
refused to merge into the CPGB, leaving the BSP as the core of its
membership – joined by various Guildsmen, syndicalists and others –
while the anti-Parliamentarian communists like the WSF’s Sylvia
Pankhurst found freedom of discussion in the CPCG to be much less than
originally promised. The anti-Parliamentarian communists soon left and
found the German and Dutch council communists who had likewise became
disillusioned with Bolshevism, even promoting the original Fourth
International, but the Workers’ Dreadnought had ceased publication by
1924.
As well as showing the slow evolution of many from defending the
revolution because it had produced a widening of (functional delegate)
democracy to defending the Bolsheviks and their dictatorship, the book
also charts the decline of the diversity of the pre-war left with
organisation after organisation disappearing (such as the WSF, the Guild
Socialists) or becoming completely marginal (SLP). Yet this diversity is
of note, given the wide range of views in the pre-war left. Libertarian
ideas on industrial or functional democracy had obviously spread quite
widely in the British left – not least with the Guild Socialists. Even
Ramsay MacDonald raised the possibility of replacing the House of Lords
with an industrial Parliament.
The first chapter also notes the differences in perspective so the left.
On the one hand, there was the technocratic Fabians who, in 1906, noted
that “Democracy is a word with a double meaning. To the bulk of Trade
Unionists and labourers it means an intense jealousy and mistrust of all
authority, and a resolute reduction of both representatives and
officials to the position of mere delegates and agents of the majority.”
(22) Others on the left, not least the syndicalists, argued that “real
power would be put into the hands of the citizens – or member, in the
case of the unions – rather than an elected representative.” (23)
Needless to say, the Fabians opposed such “primitive democracy”.
Interestingly, these debates resurfaced during the debates on the
Russian Revolution. Bullock, as an example, quotes the chair of the
Russian Communist Party, Kamenev, on how his party rejected mandated
delegates and every delegate “must vote according his own conscience,
and not according to the views he and others had formed before the
debates.” This, as a British socialist noted at the time, ran counter to
the whole idea of the soviet system. (197) Sadly, Bullock fails to note
that Lenin in What is to the Done? followed the Fabians in opposing
“primitive democracy” so perhaps the Social Democratic Federation, which
became the BSP, may not have been on “the far side of this” gulf between
the two perspectives (22) for in spite of all the pro-referendum and
recall comments Bullock lists in the pre-war left, they were in the
context a centralised, Statist structure. This would make such reforms
far less democratic than they appear on paper – as seen in practice with
the Soviet State before the creation of the party dictatorship in
mid-1918.
As such, developments in Russia should not be viewed in isolation. The
Bolsheviks, as Social-Democrats, shared a similar ideological background
with much of the British left covered in this book. This means that the
BSP forming the core of the CPGB comes as no great surprise. It also
helps answer the question of how so many self-proclaimed socialists
managed to tolerate the twists-and-turns of Stalinism, for many had
already done so when Lenin and Trotsky ruled the roost.
Bullock’s research is impressive and it makes fascinating reading to see
how the British left tried to make sense of Bolshevism at the time.
Obviously, hindsight is always twenty-twenty but by the early twenties
enough was known to see that the Bolshevik regime was a state-capitalist
party-dictatorship. That so many on the left embraced this would suggest
that pre-war positions on democracy and socialism were not as robust as
would be imagined – as anarchists had long warned, what they thought of
as socialism was in fact simply state-capitalism. Bullock, sadly,
concentrates mostly on the political rhetoric of the pre-war left rather
than their economic vision (the Guild Socialists being, unsurprisingly,
an exception). The book fails to address this critique but it can be
argued it falls outside the its remit. This should not, however, detract
from an excellent contribution to our understanding of the period.
Romancing the revolution: the myth of Soviet democracy and the British
Left
Ian Bullock
AU Press
2011