Una FAQ Anarchica - Cosa accadde durante la Rivoluzione Russa?

Da Anarcopedia.

Questa appendice della FAQ non è una storia completa della Rivoluzione Russa. Una tale opera avrebbe una estensione troppo grande. Questa sezione si concentrerà invece su certe questioni chiave che sono determintanti per valutare se la rivoluzione ed il regime bolscevici erano genuinamente socialisti o no. E questo non è tutto. Alcuni Leninisti riconoscono che le politiche dei bolscevichi avevano poco a che vedere con il socialismo, ma questo doveva essere per una mancanza di alternative disponibili in quel periodo di tempo. Perciò questa sezione prenderà in considerazione le possibili alternative alle politiche bolsceviche per vedere se erano effettivamente inevitabili.

Così coloro che sono alla ricerca di un resoconto esteso della rivoluzione dovranno rivolgersi altrove. Qui ci concentriamo su quelle questioni che contano di più nel valutare il contenuto socialista della rivoluzione e del Bolscevismo. In altre parole, lo sviluppo delle attività e l'organizzazione della classe dei lavoratori, la resistenza dei lavoratori ai dirigenti (siano essi capitalisti o "rossi"), l'attività dei gruppi e dei partiti di opposizione e il destino delle organizzazioni della classe dei lavoratori come le corporazioni, i comitati delle industrie e i soviet. Inoltre, il ruolo del partito al potere e i suoi ideali devono essere indicati e valutati in qualche modo (vedi "In che modo l'ideologia bolscevica ha contribuito al fallimento della Rivoluzione?" per una discussione più approfondita del ruolo dell'ideologia bolscevica nella sconfitta della rivoluzione.

Questo significa anche che questa sezione riguarda due cose, "il Mito Bolscevico" definito da Alexander Berkman e "la Rivoluzione Sconosciuta" di Voline (questi sono i titoli dei loro rispettivi libri sulla rivoluzione). Dopo le sue esperienze nella Russia bolscevica, Berkman concluse che era "arrivata da tempo l'ora di rivelare la verità sui bolscevichi. I sepolcri imbiancati dovevano essere smascherati, dovevano essere esposti i piedi di argilla del feticcio che inchiodava il proletariato internazionale ad un fatale fuoco fatuo. Il mito bolscevico deve essere distrutto". Facendo cosi, egli cercava di aiutare il movimento rivoluzionario globale ad apprendere dall'esperienza della rivoluzione russa. Dato che "per milioni dei diseredati e dei nuovi schiavi era diventata una nuova religione, il faro della salvezza sociale" era "un imperativo smascherare la grande illusione, che potrebbe altrimenti catturare i lavoratori occidentali nel medesimo abisso dei loro fratelli in Russia". Il bolscevismo aveva "fallito, completamente e assolutamente", e cosi "incombeva sopra coloro che avevano osservato in prima persona il mito per esporne la sua vera natura . . . Il Bolscevismo appartiene al passato. Il futuro appartiene all'uomo e alla sua libertà" [Il Mito Bolscevico]

Eventi successivi hanno provato la correttezza di Berkman. Il socialismo si legò alla Russia Sovietica, e quando esso decadde nello Stalinismo, l'effetto fu di discreditare il socialismo, un cambiamento veramente radicale agli occhi di milioni. E pure abbastanza a ragione, dati gli orrori dello Stalinismo. Se più radicali avessero avuto la preveggenza di Berkman e degli altri anarchisti, questa associazione del socialismo e della rivoluzione con la tirannia sarebbe stata combattuta e una alternativa, libertaria forma di socialismo sarebbe sopravvenuta nella opposizione al capitalismo in nome di un socialismo genuino, radicato negli ideali della libertà, della eguaglianza e della solidarietà.

Comunque, nonostante gli orrori dello Stalinismo molte persone che ricercano un cambiamento radicale nella società sono attratti al Leninismo. Questo ha in parte a che fare col fatto che in molti paesi i partiti Leninisti hanno una presenza organizzata e che molte persone radicali entrano dapprima in contatto con questi. Ha a che fare in parte anche col fatto che molte forme di Leninismo denunciano lo Stalinismo per quello che è stato e sollevano la possibilità del Leninismo "genuino" del partito Bolscevico sotto Lenin e Trotsky. Questa corrente del leninismo viene solitamente detta "Trotskismo" ed ha generato molti altri filoni di pensiero. Per alcuni di questi partiti, le differenze tra il Trotskismo e lo Stalinismo sono poco marcate. Più ci si avvicina al Trotskismo ortodosso, più esso appare stalinista. Come Victor Serge aveva annotato sulla "Quarta Internazionale" di Trotsky nel 1930, "nei cuori dei perseguitati avevo incontrato le stesse attitudini dei loro persecutori [gli stalinisti] . . . il Trotskismo stava mostrando i sintomi di un aspetto esteriore in armonia con lo stesso Stalinismo contro il quale aveva preso posizione . . . qualunque persona nei circoli della 'Quarta Internazionale che era arrivata ad obiettare alle proposizioni [di Trotsky] era stata celermente espulsa e denunciata nello stesso linguaggio the la burocrazia aveva impiegato contro di noi nella Unione Sovietica." [Memorie di un Rivoluzionario] Come discutiamo nella sezione 3 della appendice in "Esistevano delle vere alternative tra le opposizioni al Bolscevismo?", forse questo non sorprende visto quanto, politicamente, l'"opposizione di Sinistra" di Trotsky aveva condiviso con lo Stalinismo.

Altri partiti trotskisti hanno evitato gli eccessi peggiori del Trotskismo ortodosso. I partiti associati con i Socialisti Internazionali, per esempio si ritraggono come difensori di quello che amano chiamare "socialismo dal basso" e della promessa democratica dei Bolscevichi come espressa durante il 1917 e nei primi mesi del regime Bolscevico. Mentre gli anarchici sono in qualche modo scettici che il Leninismo possa essere chiamato "socialismo dal basso" (vedi la sezione h.3.3), dobbiamo esprimerci sulla affermazione che il periodo tra il Febbraio 1917 e l'inizio della guerra civile russa alla fine del maggio 1918 mostra la vera natura del Bolscevismo. A tal fine dobbiamo discutere di quello che l'anarchico russo Voline ha chiamato "La Rivoluzione Sconosciuta."

Dunque, cosa è la "Rivoluzione Sconosciuta"? Voline, un partecipante attivo nella Rivoluzione Russa del 1917, ha utilizzato questa espressione per il titolo del suo resoconto classico della Rivoluzione Russa. La ha utilizzata per riferirsi alle azioni indipendenti e creative, ma raramente riconosciute, degli stessi rivoluzionari. Come Voline aveva argomentato, "non si conosce come studiare una rivoluzione" e la maggior parte degli storici "diffidano ed ignorano gli sviluppi che avvengono in silenzio nelle profondità della rivoluzione . . . al meglio, [gli storici] accordano loro poche parole di passaggio . . . [ciononostante] sono precisamente questi fatti nascosti ad essere importanti, e a mettere in luce gli eventi in considerazione e durante il periodo." Questa sezione della FAQ proverà a mostrare questa "rivoluzione sconosciuta", quei movimenti "che avevano combattuto il regime bolscevico nel nome della vera libertà e dei principi della Rivoluzione Sociale che quel regime aveva deriso e calpestato." La Rivoluzione Sconosciuta, pp. 19 e 437] Voline assegna alla ribellione di Kronstadt (vedi l'appendice su "Cosa è stata la Ribellione di Kronstadt") e il movimento Makhnovista (vedi l'appendice su "Perché il movimento Makhnovista mostra che esisteva una alternativa al Bolscevismo?" un posto di onore nel suo resoconto. Qui discutiamo gli altri movimenti e la risposta bolscevica rivolta ad essi. "What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?") and the Makhnovist movement (see the appendix on "Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?") pride of place in his account. Here we discuss other movements and the Bolshevik response to them.

Leninist accounts of the Russian Revolution, to a surprising extent, fall into the official form of history -- a concern more with political leaders than with the actions of the masses. Indeed, the popular aspects of the revolution are often distorted to accord with a predetermined social framework of Leninism. Thus the role of the masses is stressed during the period before the Bolshevik seizure of power. Here the typical Leninist would agree, to a large extend, with summarised history of 1917 we present in section 1. They would undoubtedly disagree with the downplaying of the role of the Bolshevik party (although as we discuss in section 2, that party was far from the ideal model of the vanguard party of Leninist theory and modern Leninist practice). However, the role of the masses in the revolution would be praised, as would the Bolsheviks for supporting it.

The real difference arises once the Bolsheviks seize power in November 1917 (October, according to the Old Style calendar then used). After that, the masses simply disappear and into the void steps the leadership of the Bolshevik party. For Leninism, the "unknown revolution" simply stops. The sad fact is that very little is known about the dynamics of the revolution at the grassroots, particularly after October. Incredible as it may sound, very few Leninists are that interested in the realities of "workers' power" under the Bolsheviks or the actual performance and fate of such working class institutions as soviets, factory committees and co-operatives. What is written is often little more than vague generalities that aim to justify authoritarian Bolshevik policies which either explicitly aimed to undermine such bodies or, at best, resulted in their marginalisation when implemented.

This section of the FAQ aims to make known the "unknown revolution" that continued under the Bolsheviks and, equally important, the Bolshevik response to it. As part of this process we need to address some of the key events of that period, such as the role of foreign intervention and the impact of the civil war. However, we do not go into these issues in depth here and instead cover them in depth in the appendix on "What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?". This is because most Leninists excuse Bolshevik authoritarianism on the impact of the civil war, regardless of the facts of the matter. As we discuss in the appendix on "How did Bolshevik ideology contribute to the failure of the Revolution?", the ideology of Bolshevism played its role as well -- something that modern day Leninists strenuously deny (again, regardless of the obvious). As we indicate in this section, the idea that Bolshevism came into conflict with the "unknown revolution" is simply not viable. Bolshevik ideology and practice made it inevitable that this conflict erupted, as it did before the start of the civil war (also see section 3 of the appendix on "What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?").

Ultimately, the reason why Leninist ideas still have influence on the socialist movement is due to the apparent success of the Russian Revolution. Many Leninist groups, mainly Trotskyists and derivatives of Trotskyism, point to "Red October" and the creation of the first ever workers state as concrete examples of the validity of their ideas. They point to Lenin's State and Revolution as proving the "democratic" (even "libertarian") nature of Leninism while, at the same time, supporting the party dictatorship he created and, moreover, rationalising the utter lack of working class freedom and power under it. We will try to indicate the falseness of such claims. As will become clear from this section, the following summation of an anonymous revolutionary is totally correct:

"Every notion about revolution inherited from Bolshevism is false."

In this, they were simply repeating the conclusions of anarchists. As Kropotkin stressed in 1920:

"It seems to me that this attempt to build a communist republic on the basis of a strongly centralised state, under the iron law of the dictatorship of one party, has ended in a terrible fiasco. Russia teaches us how not to impose communism." [Peter Kropotkin, quoted by Guerin, Anarchism, p. 106]

Ultimately, the experience of Bolshevism was a disaster. And as the Makhnovists in the Ukraine proved, Bolshevik ideology and practice was not the only option available (see the appendix on "Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?"). There were alternatives, but Bolshevik ideology simply excluded using them (we will discuss some possibilities in this various sub-sections below). In other words, Bolshevik ideology is simply not suitable for a real revolutionary movement and the problems it will face. In fact, its ideology and practice ensures that any such problems will be magnified and made worse, as the Russian revolution proves.

Sadly many socialists cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this. While recognising the evils of the Stalinist bureaucracy, these socialists deny that this degeneration of Bolshevism was inevitable and was caused by outside factors (namely the Russian Civil War or isolation). While not denying that these factors did have an effect in the outcome of the Russian Revolution, the seeds for bureaucracy existed from the first moment of the Bolshevik insurrection. These seeds where from three sources: Bolshevik politics, the nature of the state and the post-October economic arrangements favoured and implemented by the ruling party.

As we will indicate, these three factors caused the new "workers' state" to degenerate long before the out break of the Civil war in May of 1918. This means that the revolution was not defeated primarily because of isolation or the effects of the civil war. The Bolsheviks had already seriously undermined it from within long before the effects of isolation or civil war had a chance to take hold. The civil war which started in the summer of 1918 did take its toll in what revolutionary gains survived, not least because it allowed the Bolsheviks to portray themselves and their policies as the lessor of two evils. However, Lenin's regime was already defending (state) capitalism against genuine socialist tendencies before the outbreak of civil war. The suppression of Kronstadt in March 1921 was simply the logical end result of a process that had started in the spring of 1918, at the latest. As such, isolation and civil war are hardly good excuses -- particularly as anarchists had predicted they would affect every revolution decades previously and Leninists are meant to realise that civil war and revolution are inevitable. Also, it must be stressed that Bolshevik rule was opposed by the working class, who took collective action to resist it and the Bolsheviks justified their policies in ideological terms and not in terms of measures required by difficult circumstances (see the appendix on "What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?").

One last thing. We are sure, in chronicling the "excesses" of the Bolshevik regime, that some Leninists will say "they sound exactly like the right-wing." Presumably, if we said that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West we would also "sound like the right-wing." That the right-wing also points to certain facts of the revolution does not in any way discredit these facts. How these facts are used is what counts. The right uses the facts to discredit socialism and the revolution. Anarchists use them to argue for libertarian socialism and support the revolution while opposing the Bolshevik ideology and practice which distorted it. Similarly, unlike the right we take into account the factors which Leninists urge us to use to excuse Bolshevik authoritarianism (such as civil war, economic collapse and so on). We are simply not convinced by Leninist arguments.

Needless to say, few Leninists apply their logic to Stalinism. To attack Stalinism by describing the facts of the regime would make one sound like the "right-wing." Does that mean socialists should defend one of the most horrific dictatorships that ever existed? If so, how does that sound to non-socialists? Surely they would conclude that socialism is about Stalinism, dictatorship, terror and so on? If not, why not? If "sounding like the right" makes criticism of Lenin's regime anti-revolutionary, then why does this not apply to Stalinism? Simply because Lenin and Trotsky were not at the head of the dictatorship as they were in the early 1920s? Does the individuals who are in charge override the social relations of a society? Does dictatorship and one-man management become less so when Lenin rules? The apologists for Lenin and Trotsky point to the necessity created by the civil war and isolation within international capitalism for their authoritarian policies (while ignoring the fact they started before the civil war, continued after it and were justified at the time in terms of Bolshevik ideology). Stalin could make the same claim.

Other objections may be raised. It may be claimed that we quote "bourgeois" (or even worse, Menshevik) sources and so our account is flawed. In reply, we have to state that you cannot judge a regime based purely on what it says about itself. As such, critical accounts are required to paint a full picture of events. Moreover, it is a sad fact that few, if any, Leninist accounts of the Russian Revolution actually discuss the class and social dynamics (and struggles) of the period under Lenin and Trotsky. This means we have to utilise the sources which do, namely those historians who do not identify with the Bolshevik regime. And, of course, any analysis (or defence) of the Bolshevik regime will have to account for critical accounts, either by refuting them or by showing their limitations. As will become obvious in our discussion, the reason why latter day Bolsheviks talk about the class dynamics post-October in the most superficial way is that it would be hard, even impossible, to maintain that Lenin's regime was remotely socialist or based on working class power. Simply put, from early 1918 (at the latest) conflict between the Bolsheviks and the Russian working masses was a constant feature of the regime. It is only when that conflict reached massive proportions that Leninists do not (i.e. cannot) ignore it. In such cases, as the Kronstadt rebellion proves, history is distorted in order to defend the Bolshevik state (see the appendix on "What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?" for details).

The fact that Leninists try to discredit anarchists by saying that we sound like the right is sad. In effect, it blocks any real discussion of the Russian Revolution and Bolshevism (as intended, probably). This ensures that Leninism remains above critique and so no lessons can be learnt from the Russian experience. After all, if the Bolsheviks had no choice then what lessons are there to learn? None. And if we are to learn no lessons (bar, obviously, mimic the Bolsheviks) we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes -- mistakes that are partly explained by the objective circumstances at the time and partly by Bolshevik politics. But given that most of the circumstances the Bolsheviks faced, such as civil war and isolation, are likely to reappear in any future revolution, modern-day Leninists are simply ensuring that Karl Marx was right -- history repeats itself, first time as tragedy, second time as farce.

Such a position is, of course, wonderful for the pro-Leninist. It allows them to quote Lenin and Trotsky and use the Bolsheviks as the paradigm of revolution while washing their hands of the results of that revolution. By arguing that the Bolsheviks were "making a virtue of necessity," (to use the expression of Leninist Donny Gluckstein [The Tragedy of Bukharin, p. 41]), they are automatically absolved of proving their arguments about the "democratic" essence of Bolshevism in power. Which is useful as, logically, no such evidence could exist and, in fact, there is a whole host of evidence pointing the other way which can, by happy co-incidence, be ignored. Indeed, from this perspective there is no point even discussing the revolution at all, beyond praising the activities and ideology of the Bolsheviks while sadly noting that "fate" (to quote Leninist Tony Cliff) ensured that they could not fulfil their promises. Which, of course, almost Leninist accounts do boil down to. Thus, for the modern Leninist, the Bolsheviks cannot be judged on what they did nor what they said while doing it (or even after). They can only be praised for what they said and did before they seized power.

However, anarchists have a problem with this position. It smacks more of religion than theory. Karl Marx was right to argue that you cannot judge people by what they say, only by what they do. It is in this revolutionary spirit that this section of the FAQ analyses the Russian revolution and the Bolshevik role within it. We need to analyse what they did when they held power as well as the election manifesto. As we will indicate in this section, neither was particularly appealing.

Finally, we should note that Leninists today have various arguments to justify what the Bolsheviks did once in power. We discuss these in the appendix on "What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?". We also discuss in the appendix on "How did Bolshevik ideology contribute to the failure of the Revolution?" the ideological roots of the counter-revolutionary role of the Bolsheviks during the revolution. That the politics of the Bolsheviks played its role in the failure of the revolution can be seen from the example of the anarchist influenced Makhnovist movement which applied basic libertarian principles in the same difficult circumstances of the Russian Civil War (see "Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?" on this important movement). -->

http://ita.anarchopedia.org/stylesheets/images/gnu-fdl.png

Il testo di questa pagina fa parte di Una FAQ Anarchica, pubblicata con licenza GNU FDL 1.1