ON THE DANGER OF SACRIFICING PRINCIPLE FOR PRAGMATISM ~ George Askaroff ~ When faced with substantial external pressure and uncertainty, principles of liberty are often sacrificed in the name of ‘pragmatism’. But doing so can come at a heavy cost. This is where the tale of my great-grandfather comes in, a Russian anarchist named German Karlovich Askarov, who ended up ‘pragmatically’ supporting the Bolsheviks. Although the Russian Revolution stands in stark contrast to the populist and anti-democratic movements today, some parallels are clear. Tsarist Russia was rife with economic hardship, ineffectual government, widespread discontent and mistrust of the elite, growing radicalisation and the onset of transformative technologies that threatened working class employment. From this blossomed utopian aspirations. Leading up to the Russian Revolution, anarchists envisioned a society where power was distributed among autonomous communities, with decisions made through direct democracy or consensus rather than imposed from above. They also championed the rights of workers and peasants, advocating for the collectivisation of land and the means of production. Their utopia was a stateless, classless society based on principles of equality, solidarity, and self-determination. Anarchists initially hailed the October Revolution. Yet the Bolshevik ascendency soon drove Russia to a bloody civil war, forcing a challenge onto the anarchists: ally with the Bolsheviks against the re-establishment of the old order, or fight against the Soviet regime. My great-grandfather’s choice to align with the Bolsheviks led to him co-founding the “Anarchist-Universalists”, a group sympathetic to the Bolshevik cause, endured despite the Bolshevik regime’s increasing authoritarianism. Askarov’s pleas outdate the formation of the Anarcho-Universalists; in 1919, he made an ineffectual bid for unity by founding the Moscow Union of Anarcho-Syndicalists-Communists, which unsurprisingly collapsed as a result of disagreement later that year. The Universalists were founded with the intention of organising a credible anarcho-syndicalist force within the Soviets. They loathed what they saw as the discord and ineptitude of the Russian anarchists, desiring a united revolutionary body. The Universalists envisioned a world economy without masters; To create this “single anarchist-universal”, the movement sought to establish the universalisation of territory, peace, economy, and politics through a state-socialist revolution. Indeed, the principles of the dictatorship of the proletariat, industrial centralisation, revolutionary aggregation, and the denunciation of traditional federalism are all quite clearly evident in the Universalist theory. In this, they seem to have been taken in by Lenin’s apparent turn towards anarchism. His 1917 April Theses call for socialist revolution through the immediate abolition of Provisional Government, army, police, and bureaucracy – all in common cause of the anarchists. In the same year, Lenin wrote State and Revolution where he theorised a temporary socialist state that would restructure society only until it becomes inessential and “withers away”. This state apparatus boasted an ultra-democratic soviet system that ameliorated the ills of the representative liberal model, and assured a “fuller democracy.” Through promising a transient, democratic, and participatory state, Lenin’s harmonised with the Universalists and swathes of the larger anarchist community. The principles of Lenin’s socialist state, however, were entirely insincere. The Bolsheviks thought only they possessed socialist consciousness and fully represented the proletariat; anyone who was opposed to them was consequently deemed an enemy. In response to economic trouble, local challenges to central authority, a breakdown in industrial labour discipline, and rising counter-revolutionary pressure, Lenin’s party dismantled soviet democracy and proletarian participation. Unable to control the newly formed constituent assembly, Lenin ferociously disbanded it after its first meeting Bolshevik supporters say they had no choice—but the defence of the revolution patently includes the defence of its principles. Social conditions, counter-revolutionary pressure, and disunity do not rationalise authoritarianism. The organisation of a free, prosperous, and non-hierarchical future could never have been the work of oppressive and ruthless social architects. The failure of the Russian anarchists who joined Lenin was rooted in their inability to discern between the people’s revolution and the warped Bolshevik revolution. The Bolshevik hijack operation deserved denunciation from the anarchists, not support. But the Universalists’ desire for a politically organised anarchist force put pragmatism over principle. Instead of nurturing and solidifying an anarchist organisation, the Universalists and other supporters let their revolutionary fervour whitewash the Bolsheviks’ inconsistency of principles and practice. Had the revolution’s plurality and participatory nature been recognised and safeguarded, rather than extinguished, the monstrous society Bolshevism came to create would have been avoided. As it was, in November 1921 the police raided the Universalist Club in Moscow, shut down its newspaper and arrested Askarov on charges of banditry and underground activities. He disappeared around 1929, and his fate remains unknown. This cautionary tale underscores the perilous consequences of sacrificing principles for short-term pragmatic ends. Upholding values in the face of adversity is important. History shows us that compromises on our basic anarchist principles always lead to the erosion of freedom and often to the consolidation of authoritarian power. In today’s turbulent political landscape, it is imperative that we remain steadfast in our commitment to our principles, even in the face of our uncertain and daunting future. The post A cautionary tale from my Russian anarchist great-grandfather appeared first on Freedom News.

I WAS TRAPPED IN LENINISM AND READ SWATHES OF LENIN’S RHETORIC – NOW I KNOW THE ANARCHISTS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG ~ Killian Flynn ~ Amongst the shadow puppets of English radicalism, lie inert various guises of Leninism: self-perpetuating central committees run tiny irrelevant organisations and use them as a vector to punt their books to young people more familiar with Super Mario than Mikhail Bakunin. This type of Leninist party has mundane job “building cadre”, selling a newspaper in the streets and helping sell the trite utterances of a nonentity, usually a history or philosophy professor of low ability, trapped young radicals. Protecting Russia and building pro-Russia parties was the strategy. Young bright people who want major change get tied up in such organisations and are lost, disillusioned and join the rat race. I was trapped in Leninism and have read swathes of Lenin’s rhetoric. I understand how modern Leninists cherry pick rational statements from a torrent of crap. Leninist groups may have a growth phase but the structure produces regular splits leading to a myriad of small Leninist groups all with their central committees of wise men (and a few women). The best-case scenario is when a Leninist group acts as an old boys club. A meeting is followed by a few pints. Worst case scenario: Police recruit central committee members as informers. It has been argued that Lenin delivered. The people wanted revolution. Lenin and his Bolshevik mates won it with and for them. Gold star for Lenin. But let’s take a closer look. Lenin in power wrote Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. I bought and read it recently. It is pure excrement. The book of a chancer and opportunist who seizes power in a power vacuum and then insists that Russia is a model for the world. Arrant nonsense. Lenin is the big Daddy and the communists and radicals in the West are children. Lenin is truth and decisive. The Western radicals, according to big Vlad, don’t know the ABC of Marxism. Here’s the A: the Communist Manifesto penned by Marx states “communists SHALL NOT form a party separate from the workers” Here’s B: A lack of understanding of the power of the British monarchy and empire stymied Lenin’s world view. Marx had to avoid criticism of the Surrey toffs so that he could get on with writing Capital. The Czar was an amateur compared to the English royals who survive to this day with vast estates and willing vassals. Here is C (or K): Peter Kropotkin. Despite the book title Lenin makes no critique of anarchism and anti-statism. Kropotkin rightly realised a revolution in urban areas had to link with the peasants to avoid famine. People centred revolution! However, in the USSR, Lenin copied the Prussian state structure of pyramidal power which outwardly appears democratic but in reality, a few at the top dominate. In the early days old Vlad probably couldn’t believe the extent of his power. But once he had, his iron will was determined to keep power for himself. It’s also essential to mention that feminism and women’s freedom were not central to the Bolsheviks who were thoroughly workerist. Alexandra Kollontai, the only woman on the first Central Committee to convene after the revolution, repeatedly advocated female liberation but was told “wait till after the revolution”. Women made important gains but their freedoms were ephemeral and Stalin quickly returned to czarist style appeals for Russian women to make babies for the greater good of Russia. Moreover, Lenin and Stalin were prudes. The old maxims of the orthodox church carried over to the USSR. Lenin would have disapproved of the youth rebellion of the 1960s involving free love and fun. Lenin would have said “It’s a distraction from your duty to work for the party!” In France Lutte Ouvriere made party members not have children so as to dedicate their time to party building. The revolutions of Russia and China have proved Karl Marx wrong. The state in these countries never withered away, but only became totalitarian. The state became an end in itself. History would have been better off if Bolshevik Russia had fallen like Bolshevik Bavaria and Hungary (perhaps after the execution of the Czar and family might have been best). Lenin was ultimately wrong and the anarchists were right. Time for a new chapter. The post The Death of Leninism appeared first on Freedom News.