Lessons of the Revolution
There are several lessons to be learned from the Russian Revolution. The most important is that the anarchist critique of state socialism is correct – implementing state socialism results in a bureaucratic ruling class over the workers (and peasants), not a classless society. The Russian Revolution and many other state socialist revolutions prove this.
Anarchists predicted the history of the state socialist (Marxist) movement in the 19th and early 20th century. Proudhon warned that implementing authoritarian socialist ideas would be "apparently based on the dictatorship of the masses, but in which the masses have only the power to insure universal servitude … [and] the systemic destruction of all individual … thought believed to be subversive [and] … an inquisitorial police force."1 Stirner made similar criticisms. Probably the best-known anarchist critic of state socialism was Mikhail Bakunin, Marx's nemesis in the First International. He predicted that Authoritarian Socialist movements (such as Marxism) would take two possible routes. One was the path of becoming enmeshed in electoralism, which would result in them becoming reformist and helping to perpetuate the system instead of leading the revolution. The more power they would win through elections the more conservative they would become. This prediction was correct, with the Social Democrats being the first major example of a revolutionary movement using electoralism and, as a result, becoming reformist. The second was that they would not come to power through the ballot but instead come to power through revolution. This would result in the rule of the "Red Bureaucracy" which would exploit the proletariat just as the old ruling class had. He criticized Marx:
"What does it mean, "the proletariat raised to a governing class?" Will the entire proletariat head the government? The Germans number about 40 million. Will all 40 million be members of the government? The entire nation will rule, but no one will be ruled. Then there will be no government, there will be no state; but if there is a state, there will also be those who are ruled, there will be slaves. … They claim that only a dictatorship … can create popular freedom. We reply that no dictatorship can have any objective than to perpetuate itself, and that it can engender and nurture only slavery in the people who endure it. Liberty can be created only by liberty, by an insurrection of all the people and the voluntary organization of the workers from below upward. … According to Marx's theory … the people not only must not destroy [the state], they must fortify it and strengthen it, and in this form place it at the complete disposal of their benefactors, guardians, and teachers - the leaders of the communist party … They will concentrate the reins of government in a strong hand … and will divide the people into two armies, one industrial and one agrarian, under the direct command of state engineers, who will form a new privileged scientific and political class."2
History has proven him correct, on both counts. The revolution must not only abolish capitalism but most also abolish the state. If it does not the state will establish itself as a new ruling class over the proletariat. Any attempt to create a "workers' state" or "dictatorship of the proletariat" inevitably results in the "tyranny of the Red Bureaucracy."
Some tangential predictions have been shown to be correct as well. In 1919 Errico Malatesta claimed that Lenin and Trotsky
"are preparing the governmental structures which those who will come after them will utilize to exploit the Revolution and do it to death. They will be the first victims of their methods and I am afraid that the Revolution will go under with them. History repeats itself; mutatis mutandis, it was Robespierre's dictatorship that brought Robespierre to the guillotine and pave the way for Napoleon."3
This too happened; we call it Stalinism. Nearly twenty years before the Russian Revolution Kropotkin claimed that "Should an authoritarian Socialist society ever succeed in establishing itself, it could not last; general discontent would force it to break up, or to reorganize itself on principles of liberty."4 The fall of the USSR showed this to be correct as well.
Marxists, of course, do not admit that the failure of the revolution was the result of creating a "workers' state" but have instead invented all sorts of ad hoc hypotheses to explain its failure. They would have us believe that the remarkable accuracy of the anarchist critique of Marxism is nothing more than a coincidence.
Some vulgar "Marxists" claim that the revolution went wrong because Lenin and the Bolsheviks didn't really implement what Marx wanted. They misinterpreted Marx and weren't "true Marxists." This theory conflicts with historical materialism, one of the cornerstones of Marxism. Any attempt to explain what went wrong in Russia solely as a result of the ideas held in the head of certain "Great Men" (Lenin, Trotsky, etc.), as a sole result of their alleged ideological differences with Marx, is historical idealism, not materialism. If this idealist theory were true it would disprove Marxism because it would disprove historical materialism. Those "Marxists" who put forth this theory don't really understand Marxism at all, or are disingenuous. Any materialist account of the revolution (Marxist or otherwise) should focus on the social structures created, how they evolved and the conditions they were in. In the case of Marxism this should focus on class struggle.
One ad hoc explanation invented by Marxists is the theory that the isolation of the "soviet" state, the fact that the world revolution failed, caused the revolution to degenerate and fail. This theory can't really explain the authoritarian actions taken by the "soviet" state in the early years of the revolution, such as the disbanding of Soviets after the Bolsheviks lost elections in spring 1918 and the suppression of left-wing opponents of the Bolsheviks. World revolution was still on the table and many countries were experiencing major unrest that could have resulted in imitations of the October revolution, yet Bolshevik Russia had already developed a new ruling class and begun suppressing workers and the opposition. There were eventually a number of other authoritarian socialist revolutions around the world ending Russia's isolation; at one point they ruled a third of the world. Yet all of these subsequent revolutions (which were not isolated) developed bureaucratic ruling classes and Russia's bureaucracy continued to rule even when no longer isolated. Some of these regimes were less oppressive than Bolshevik Russia, others were more oppressive (such as Pol Pot's genocidal reign) but all were run by bureaucratic elites even though they weren't isolated.
Some say that had Germany (or another country) imitated the October Revolution things could have gone differently by ending Russia's isolation, but this would have just established a second state-capitalist regime. In Hungary they managed to imitate October, establishing the Hungarian Soviet Republic. This Republic was only around for a few months before imperialist armies crushed it, yet even in that short time it managed to develop a party dictatorship, Red Terror and bureaucratic elite. The same would have happened in Germany had it imitated October.
Another ad hoc hypothesis is the theory that the revolution failed because Russia was economically "backwards" – it was not very developed or industrialized. This theory basically amounts to the claim that the Mensheviks were right – socialism was impossible in Russia at the time. This theory can't really explain the early repression engaged in by the Bolsheviks (dispersing soviets, etc.) – there's no reason why the lack of industrialization should automatically result in these repressive acts. A Bolshevik style-revolution in an industrialized society would result in even greater disruption of the economy, as Lenin admitted. According to pre-1917 orthodox Marxism the Russian Revolution should have been impossible; the fact that it happened at all disproves it. There is no reason why the creation of a classless society absolutely requires industrialization. There have been many examples of agrarian socialist societies – the Iroquois, the !Kung and others. During the Russian Revolution anarchists were able to build a stateless and classless society in the Ukraine despite there being even less industrialization, further showing that the building of a classless society does not require industrialization.
Most peasant societies, including pre-Stalinist Russia, are organized into communes. Villages are run by village assemblies and many things are communally owned. Usually the feudal landlord expropriates the peasants by extracting rent, crops and other forms of unpaid labor. Although often patriarchal and ageist (except in times of rebellion), these communes come much closer to libertarian socialism than the representative democracy that prevails in most contemporary industrial societies. In most industrial capitalist societies there is nothing like these village assemblies and there is very little communalism. Almost everything is private property or state property. The domination of the bosses and the state is often much more rigid than the domination of the landlord. These peasant communes can serve as the embryo of the revolution, both serving as a springboard to organize rebellion and as the beginning of the organization of society without classes. In Russia these communes were repartitional, but there have been examples of peasant revolutionaries organizing more collective systems. In both the Ukrainian Revolution and (especially) the Spanish Revolution peasants organized collectives in which land was farmed in common and the produce shared on the basis of need.
Furthermore, the capitalist plays a much more intricate role in production than the landlord. The landlord doesn't really participate in production - he just extracts rent, unpaid labor, etc. The capitalist, however, often does participate in production (if only to enhance the exploitation of his workers) by managing the business(es). And if the capitalist doesn't manage his business, he hires a member of the techno-managerial class to do so. Although both are parasites and unnecessary, it is much easier for peasants to see the landlord as a parasite than it is for the worker because the peasants are already running production - whereas the capitalist or manager directs production in industrial capitalism. It's possible to run production without bosses--Russia's factories provide one example of how to do it--but it is less obvious than farming without landlords. In addition, workers are much more interconnected with one another under capitalism and this often makes revolution more difficult. If the post office workers go on strike that can adversely affect other workers, disrupting solidarity and making coordinated rebellion more difficult. If a peasant village rebels, that doesn't usually bother other peasants the way a post-office strike can bother other workers. A successful worker revolution will require much greater coordination and planning because of this increased interconnectedness, whereas a successful peasant rebellion would not need as much coordination. A whole bunch of uncoordinated local village uprisings are often sufficient to topple a regime, whereas workers usually have to coordinate across the entire country due to their increased interconnectedness. This is one reason why there tends to be greater unrest in peasant societies than industrial ones. Peasant societies will also have an easier time after the revolution, since a less complex economy is easier to manage and coordinate. It is not a coincidence that the rural revolution was more radical than the industrial one during the Spanish revolution.
Probably the strongest of these ad hoc hypotheses is the 'bourgeois revolution' theory. In Marxist theory a 'bourgeois revolution' is a revolution that results in the bourgeoisie seizing control of the state and implementing full-blown capitalism. Examples include the English, French, German and (arguably) American revolutions. Some Marxists claim that that the Russian Revolution was really a bourgeois revolution that used socialist ideology to legitimize the new state-capitalist order, but wasn't actually socialist. The theory of a bourgeois revolution is false in all cases because it is premised upon the Marxist view of states being instruments of whichever class is dominant. Although the interests of the economic elite and the state usually coincide, the state is not simply the tool of the dominant class. In addition, in Russia's case the bourgeoisie were literally destroyed. They had their wealth nationalized and were impoverished. Many were killed or put in forced labor camps. The individuals who seized power in the October Revolution were not members of the capitalist class; most came from the intelligentsia. It is true that the result of the Russian Revolution was eventually state monopoly capitalism but this does not mean that the revolution was a 'bourgeois revolution.' The triumph of state-capitalism was the outcome of the implementation of the Marxist program, not of the Russian bourgeoisie seizing state power.
A non-Marxist explanation of the failure of the Russian Revolution is the cultural determinist theory. This states that Russia became totalitarian after the revolution because Russia had an authoritarian culture. Russia was extremely authoritarian prior to the revolution and so had to become extremely authoritarian after the revolution. The problem with cultural determinism is that there have been numerous cases of cultures undergoing major transformations, sometimes in a very short period of time. Many countries have successfully transferred from absolute monarchies or brutal dictatorships to very different, often less repressive, systems – England, France, the Philippines and numerous others. During the holocaust the Jews were passive and launched relatively few rebellions considering they were being exterminated. Many psychologists wrote about the Jews' passive mentality. Yet only a few years after this Zionist Jews managed to build a highly militaristic state in Israel – quite a big change compared to their lack of actions just a few years earlier. The early phase of the Russian Revolution saw radically libertarian forms of organization spring up even though Russia had no real experience with democracy of any type. They were destroyed not by "Russian culture" (most Russians supported them) but by the Bolshevik counter-revolution. Cultural determinism amounts to arguing that major change is impossible, a non-democratic society is doomed to remain a non-democratic society. History shows that major change is possible and has happened repeatedly, even in relatively short periods of time.
Some right-wing capitalists claim that the descent of the Russian Revolution into totalitarianism was the result of their attack on private property. Supposedly, private property and civil liberties go hand in hand – destroy one and you destroy the other. Like the anarchist explanation, this theory has the virtue of having been created before the Russian Revolution – that revolution is seen as confirmation of its predictions. The problem with this theory is that there have also been a number of societies which did not conform to its predictions, which greatly reduced (or completely abolished) private property and did not turn into a totalitarian nightmare like Russia. The Iroquois and !Kung didn't practice private property, yet did not develop brutal totalitarian states. Swedish Social Democrats made significant restrictions on private property yet did not suffer a large drop in civil liberties. The Sandinistas in Nicaragua made major inroads on private property, far more than Russia under the NEP, yet had less repression compared to Bolshevik Russia (though they certainly were not devoid of abuses). Chile under Pinochet was a very brutal dictatorship that murdered thousands yet it had a high degree of private property and a very free market oriented capitalist economy. Under the NEP the Bolsheviks introduced a limited degree of private property, much greater than under War Communism, yet government repression increased in this period. The human race has been around tens of thousands of years; capitalism has been around for only a couple of centuries. It is absurd to argue that capitalism is "human nature" or that any alternative must always be a Bolshevik-style dungeon because most of human history was neither capitalist nor Bolshevik.
The second most important lesson to be learned from the revolution is from the libertarian forms of organization created during the early period of the revolution – soviets, factory committees, village assemblies, etc. These show the broad outlines of an alternative to capitalist society (including Bolshevism): the beginnings of an anarchist society. They show that an anarchist society is possible and can work. For a time these anarchic institutions basically ran most of Russia; the factory committees were capable of running the factories and peasant communes were able to run the village. In the Ukraine they went all the way and were able to build a stateless and classless society. These were defeated and destroyed not because they "didn't work" or anything like that but because of the Bolshevik counter-revolution, which was a logical outcome of the creation of a "workers' state." Trying to put the Soviets in state form killed them.
The defeat of this revolution, and the Bolshevik's ability to outmaneuver the anarchists, also contains some organizational lessons for contemporary revolutionaries. One of the reasons the Bolsheviks were able to outmaneuver and defeat the anarchists was because the anarchists were very disorganized. The Russian Revolution shows the importance of anarchists organizing and spreading our ideas both before and during the revolution. In the Ukraine the anarchists were more organized, although they probably could have done better, which is part of the reason anarchist there were more successful. Because it was a predominantly rural movement in Ukraine it encountered problems in the cities, showing the need for both urban and rural organization. It also shows the treacherous nature of the Bolsheviks. It was a mistake for the anarchists to become as close allies with the Bolsheviks as they did (especially Makhno's final alliance with the Bolsheviks against Wrangel). The Bolsheviks literally shot them in the back.
All Leninist revolutions have historically resulted in repressive one-party dictatorships. This is a logical outcome of the way in which they come to power. A highly centralized vanguard party comes to power through a violent social revolution in which they encourage rebellion on the part of the oppressed classes and promise them a socialist society that will solve their problems and make their lives much better. This results in a highly combative peasantry and working class, which require the use of high levels of repression to keep them under control. The vanguard seizes power, making itself the new ruling class. It must use high levels of repression to keep itself in power because it comes to power on the back of a wave of class-conscious worker and peasant uprisings. It takes the form of a one-party state because that is the form it uses to seize power - the vanguard party. This necessitates further repression because it is more difficult for a party-state to convincingly present itself as a democratic state. After they've been in power a while, and have defeated the workers & peasants, the vanguard can decrease the level of repression (and sometimes do) because they no longer face a major threat from rebellious workers & peasants. The means you use will determine the ends you get. Using a centralized vanguard party to wage revolution will result in a society similar to it - a centralized party-state.
There have been over 30 "workers' states" implemented (including several that did not model themselves on Stalinist Russia); all of them have resulted in exactly what anarchists predicted. Are we really supposed to believe that each and every one of these was just a coincidence? Not repeated over thirty times. Even the few (non-Leninist) examples of "workers' states" which did not rely on state terror resulted in the rule of the red bureaucracy. The Marxist movement has followed exactly the path anarchists predicted: becoming either reformist or implementing the rule of a bureaucratic elite. This has happened over and over again, every time proving anarchist predictions correct. Predictions based on Marxist theory have proven incorrect, but predictions based on anarchist theory have proven correct. Marxists can invent all the ad hoc hypotheses in the world but that doesn't change this. As Marx himself said, what people do is as important as what they say. We need to look not only at the Marxists' manifesto, but also their record. Leninists have implemented one-party dictatorships every time they have come to power. Every "workers' state" has always been ruled by the red bureaucracy. It does not matter what rhetoric is used to justify it, these are the inevitable outcomes of Leninism and "workers' states." Albert Einstein is said to have defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." History shows what "workers states" leads to. If we try to do it again we will get the same bad results. It would be insanity to expect anything else.
Notes:
1 quoted on Guerin, Anarchism p. 22
2 Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy p. 177-182
3 Guerin, No Gods p. 39
4 Kropotkin, Conquest of Bread p. 143
