No upcoming events.
Agenda for the Global South After COVID-19 03:34 Jun 28 0 comments
Another Sanders Betrayal 23:08 Apr 15 0 comments
Contradictions of Post-Soviet Ukraine and the New Left 04:54 Mar 11 0 comments
An inevitable division: the politics and consequences of the Labour split 18:03 Feb 27 0 comments
La ofensiva contra el chavismo fracasó. No pudieron y no pasaron 04:16 Feb 27 0 commentsmore >>
Recent articles by Wayne Price
Anarchists Support Self-Determination for Ukraine 0 comments
Thoughts on Revolution 6 comments
Malatesta για τoν Πόλε ... 0 commentsRecent Articles about International The Left
An Anarchist Guide to The Communist Manifesto of Marx & Engels Mar 19 22
Broken world, broken people – we need a path to a better future Feb 01 21
Victor Serge and the Russian Revolution
international | the left | opinion / analysis Tuesday October 23, 2007 10:26 by Wayne Price - NEFAC (personal communication) drwdprice at aol dot com
What Can Anarchists Learn From His Revolutionary Life?
Victor Serge is admired for his writings and his life, including his participation in the Russian Revolution and its aftermath. He went from anarchism to Bolshevism to Trotskyism and then broke from Trotsky. Trotskyists often cite him against anarchism. 90 years after the Russian Revolution, it is worth asking, what, if anything, can anarchists learn from him?
In her posthumous book, Susan Sontag (2007) has an essay, “Unextinguished: The Case of Victor Serge.” She is one of many who have admired Serge’s work and life, such as George Orwell. Peter Sedgewick (of the British Socialist Workers Party) called Serge “one of the most outstanding socialist authors who has ever lived” (1997; p. 183). Evolving from anarchism to Bolshevism to Trotskyism, Serge has been called an “anarcho-Bolshevik” (Weissman, 1997) and a “libertarian Leninist” (Spencer, 1997)--with some reason. He has also been called “the Bolsheviks’ pet anarchist” (Sreenan, 1998)--also with reason. Author of some 30 books, he was not a great theoretician, but he was an important historian, novelist, and poet, and always a revolutionary activist.
Criticisms of the BolsheviksUnlike the Trotskyists, Serge severely criticized some of Lenin’s policies. He declared that as early as the first year of Bolshevik power, they made a terrible mistake in permitting the political police (the Cheka) the power to arrest, try, and execute people--through secret hearings instead of public tribunals. He wrote that the revolution died a “self-inflicted death in 1918 with the establishment of the Cheka” (quoted in Weissman, 2001; p. 7). This set the stage for uncontrolled arrests, torture, and mass murder by the Cheka, as well as frame-ups (first of the Mensheviks in order to outlaw them, and later of internal party oppositions). As he saw it, this began the degeneration of the regime.
He also criticized the formation of a one-party state instead of legalization of those socialist parties which would obey the soviet system. He advocated formation of a post-civil war coalition government. Similarly, he criticized the Left Opposition for not making legalization of soviet parties a demand in its program. (Under Serge’s influence, Trotsky added it to his program, much later, in the middle thirties). He condemned the outlawry and arrests of anarchists and the betrayal and destruction of Makhno’s anarchist-led forces in Ukraine.
In 1921, sailors rebelled at the Kronstadt naval base. As a Leninist, Serge did not deny the right of the Communists to suppress the rebellion. Yet he denounced the way the Leninsts handled the rebellion, believing that they might have prevented the armed conflict. He pointed out that the Communists refused to negotiate with the sailors. The authorities rejected the offer of mediation by the U.S. anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. They lied about the rebels in the Communist press. After the naval bae was conquered, the captured sailors were shot in batches, in a terrible massacre of prisoners. “Out of inhumanity, a needless crime had just been committed against the proletariat and the peasants” (Serge, in Lenin & Trotsky, 1979; p. 137). Serge considered resigning from the party.
During the civil war (which was also a war against multiple foreign invasions), the Communists had developed a highly centralized, state-run, economy, called War Communism. At the end of the war, they turned to a revival of private markets (the New Economic Policy or N.E.P.). Serge believed that these were not the only alternatives. Instead, a regime committed to worker’s management, he felt, could have achieved recovery by encouraging worker-run cooperatives to take over branches of the economy, creating a “communism of associations.” Even for use in markets, the idea of worker-run cooperatives never seems to have occurred to the Communists.
His Authoritarian Defense of LeninismYet Serge defended the Bolshevik dictatorship. During the early years, he praised the system and kept his misgivings from foreign anarchists whom he tried to win for Leninism. Nor did he join the early oppositions within the Party: the Left Communists, the Workers’ Opposition, or the Democratic Centralists. Despite what he saw as its “errors,” he felt that there was no alternative to the leadership.
Through four years of civil war, he said, tens of thousands of militant workers had died or, at best, risen into positions of power, no longer being workers. Serge argued that there was nothing left among the overworked, starving, masses outside the party which could have been appealed to. “In 1920-21, all that was energetic, militant, ever-so-little socialistic in the labor population...had already been drained by the Communist Party....In 1921, everyone who aspires to socialism is inside the party; what remains outside isn’t worth much for the social transformation” (Serge, in Lenin & Trotsky, 1979; pp. 138-9). Given the chance, argued Serge, the starving, war-weary, workers and peasants would have voted against the Communists, for moderate or right wing socialist parties (maybe anarchists). These, he believed, would have capitulated to the capitalists, landlords, and foreign imperialists.
In other words, Serge admitted that the party was ruling without the support of the working class and certainly without that of the vast peasant majority. By what right did it rule (besides wanting to)? Apparently because it knew what was right, having the “science” of Marxism. There is nothing of democracy in this. The popular soviet/council democracy of the 1917 revolution was good for getting into power but not to be relied on afterwards. Apparently it was not to be thought of that the party, having lost the confidence of the workers and peasants, should let itself be voted out of office.
He wrote, “If the Bolshevik dictatorship fell, it was only a short step to chaos, and through chaos to a peasant uprising, the massacre of the Communists, the return of the émigrés, and, in the end, through the sheer force of events, another dictatorship, this time anti-proletarian” (quoted in Weissman, 2001; p. 46). In fact, the “Bolshevik dictatorship” did fall (at least in the limited sense of ending the rule of individuals who subjectively believed in working class socialism). There developed a counterrevolutionary, cynical, “anti-proletarian dictatorship” (the Stalinist, state-capitalist, bureaucracy). This dictatorship did “massacre the Communists” through the Great Purges, wiping out tens of thousands of Communists and other socialists who had any memory of the workers’ revolution (even Communists who had been Stalin’s supporters). It also murdered many millions of workers and peasants. This did not develop through the bad result of democratic soviet elections but exactly through the supposed “proletarian dictatorship” of the Communists--that is, through the methods which Serge excused.
It is not clear that the reactionary effects which Serge feared from free soviet elections would have necessarily happened. He himself suggested an alternative, namely a coalition government of the Communists with those left parties which had been on their side in the civil war, such as the Left Mensheviks and Left Social Revolutionaries, with support by the anarchists. But in the long run, as Lenin and Trotsky had said from the beginning, no workers’ rule could last without an international revolution. So Serge’s predictions might have eventually come true. But at least...at least...the counterrevolutionary, anti-proletarian, dictatorship would not have been able to cover itself with the banner of revolutionary communism and to drag that banner in the mud!
Lenin and Trotsky were not Stalin. In coalition with peasant populists and anarchists,they made the October Russian Revolution as the culmination of a vast, democratic, popular upheaval. They certainly had not intended to create a totalitarian state (unlike Hitler, who knew exactly what he was doing). At the end of his life, Lenin was appalled by the bureaucratic nature of the state. He tried to ally with Trotsky to depose Stalin. Trotsky fought for years for a workers’ revolution to overthrow the Stalinist bureaucracy. He was murdered by a agent of Stalin. Yet they shared some basic assumptions with Stalin about what socialism was, namely a centralized, statified, economy, in which workers’ democracy was secondary at best. They never understood how they had contributed to the creation of a state capitalist monstrosity. Although Trotsky declared that the Soviet Union had a state form similar to that of Nazi Germany, to the end of his life he regarded it as a “workers’ state,” because industry was nationalized.
Serge Moves RightAfter being in Western Europe for a year, Serge broke withTrotsky (Weissman, 2001). There were several issues. Serge correctly rejected Trotsky’s belief that Stalin’s regime was a “degenerated workers’ state,” to be defended from capitalist states. (Serge developed an unclear position which approximated a “bureaucratic collectivist,” neither-capitalist-nor-socialist, theory.) He rejected Trotsky’s attempt to pull together a new international by the sheer force of Trotsky’s will. Serge wanted the Trotskyists to work together with the anarchists in the Spanish revolution. Tthere was also a personal conflict in which Trotsky wrote vicious and almost hysterical attacks on Serge on the basis of misinformation. “A scathing article by Trotsky...was totally unjustified and unjust” (Desolre, 1997; p 197).
But there was another side. Serge advocated working inside the Popular Fronts of France and Spain and he gave full political support to the Spanish POUM (Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification). It had joined the capitalist government in the Spanish region of Catalonia. On these topics Serge was wrong and Trotsky correct. (Also wrong were the Spanish anarchist leaders who joined the Popular Front governments in Catalonia and Spain.) By coalitions with bourgeois parties, workers’ parties tie their own hands, becoming unable to go beyond the capitalist program of their ally. It meant giving up the socialist revolution. Meanwhile the capitalist party is given political protection on its left. This is unlike an alliance of socialist or workers’ parties only, the United Front, without a bourgeois partner. (The Spanish anarchist Friends of Durruti Group denounced the anarchist leaders for joining the capitalist governments.)
When the Cold War began, Serge struggled to come to grips with new realities. His writings focused on the evils of Stalinism and said little about Western imperialism. For example, he did not support the national independence struggles of Vietnam or even India, out of fear of the spread of Stalinism. Dwight Macdonald criticized Serge for writing for the right-social democratic journal, The New Leader, while Serge criticized Macdonald for supporting the Greek anti-British guerrillas, since they had a Communist leadership. At the very end of his life, he wrote a letter to André Malraux, then a minister in the French government, saying that if Serge were in France, he would urge his fellow socialists to support the Gaullist government. (At best this was a dishonest attempt to butter up Malraux in hopes of getting permission to return to France.) The Trotskyist Alan Wald summarizes Serge’s writings in this period, “Although formally a supporter of Lenin and a defender of the legacy of the October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, Serge’s practical politics in the 1940s wobbled between left- and right-wing social democracy” (1992; p. 47).
During the Cold War, most radicals were disoriented by the lack of working class rebellions in Europe and North America. Almost all leftists turned either toward the Soviet Union (as did the orthodox Trotskyists) or toward the Western democracies--that is, U.S. imperialism. That was the path of the New York anti-Stalinist intellectuals, some of whom became moderate social democrats and a few eventually became rabid neoconservatives (Wald, 1987). Very few radicals continued to reject both sides (what was sometimes called a “Third Camp” position).
Serge continued to declare his revolutionary socialism and his identification with the Russian Revolution. He never abandoned this. Would he have succumbed to pro-capitalism in the end? Susan Sontag (2001) speculates that if Serge had lived for another decade or so, he would “probably” have realized (as she came to believe) that the revolution was not so much betrayed but was “a catastrophe for the Russian people from the beginning” (p. 63) and that all revolutions are bad. Wald (1992) asks, “Would Serge have become one of these apostates? There is no certain answer” (p. 51). He notes that some of the radicals who turned right during the beginning of the Cold War, turned left again in the sixties, such as Serge’s friend Dwight Macdonald. The truth is, we cannot know how his thinking would have developed. We can only judge his life as a whole.
The Life of Victor SergeWhat are we to make of such a person as Victor Serge? He was contradictory and often wrong. His criticisms of the anarchists (their failure to take seriously the issue of power) was correct, but his joining the Communists was a cure worse than the disease. From the beginning he recognized many of the evils of Leninism in practice, but he never rejected Leninism. He defended the Russian Revolution but did not see that it had been betrayed by Lenin and Trotsky, before Stalin. The Trotskyists seek to use him to refute anarchism, but this is not very effective.
Serge tried to live up to the libertarian ideals which he had learned as an anarchist, to the best he was able. He never sold out for wealth or political power. He wrote a magnificent autobiography and set of novels, which bring alive what it meant to participate in revolutionary and counterrevolutionary times. Living and dying in poverty, he was no saint or hero, nor was he a pro-capitalist traitor (“apostate”). Politically I do not find him a model, since I prefer people who went from Trotskyism to anarchism, such as Daniel Guerin--but as a person, I admire him very much.
ReferencesDesolre, Guy (1997). On Leon Trotsky and the Fourth International (1936-1941). In S. Weissman (Ed.). The ideas of Victor Serge. Glasgow, UK: Critique Books. Pp. 161--182.
Lenin, V.I., & Trotsky, Leon (1979). Kronstadt (B. Mutnick, Ed.). NY: Monad Press.
Sedgewick, Peter (1997). On Socialism. In S. Weissman. Pp. 183--196.
Sontag, Susan (2007). Unextinguished: The Case of Victor Serge. In P. Dilonardo & A. Jump (Eds.) At the same time. NY: Garrar Straus Giroux. Pp. 57--88.
Spencer, Phil (1997). On the Leninist Tradition. In S. Weissman (Ed.). Pp. 135--159.
Sreenan, Dermot (1998). The Bolsheviks’ Pet Anarchist; The Life, Times, and Confessions of Victor Serge. Red and Black Revolution. No. 4.
Wald, Alan M. (1992). Victor Serge and the New York Anti-Stalinist Left, 1937--47. In The responsibility of intellectuals. NJ: Humanities Press. Pp. 39--55. Also in S. Weissman (Ed.) (1997). Pp. 99--117.
Wald, Alan M. (1987). The New York intellectuals; The rise and decline of the anti-Stalinist left from the 1930s to the 1980s. Chapel Hill/London: University of North Carolina Press.
Weissman, Susan (2001). Victor Serge; The course is set on hope. London/NY: Verso.
Weissman, Susan (Ed.) (1997). The ideas of Victor Serge. Glasgow, UK: Critique Books.
Written for www.Anarkismo.net
Joint Statement of European Anarchist Organizations
International anarchist call for solidarity: Earthquake in Turkey, Syria and Kurdistan
Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy
19 de Julio: Cuando el pueblo se levanta, escribe la historia
International anarchist solidarity against Turkish state repression
Declaración Anarquista Internacional por el Primero de Mayo, 2022
Le vieux monde opprime les femmes et les minorités de genre. Leur force le détruira !
Against Militarism and War: For self-organised struggle and social revolution
Declaração anarquista internacional sobre a pandemia da Covid-19
La révolution du Rojava a défendu le monde, maintenant le monde doit défendre la révolution du Rojava!
Anarchist Theory and History in Global Perspective
Capitalism, Anti-Capitalism and Popular Organisation [Booklet]
Reflexiones sobre la situación de Afganistán
South Africa: Historic rupture or warring brothers again?
Declaración Anarquista Internacional: A 85 Años De La Revolución Española. Sus Enseñanzas Y Su Legado.
Death or Renewal: Is the Climate Crisis the Final Crisis?
Gleichheit und Freiheit stehen nicht zur Debatte!
Contre la guerre au Kurdistan irakien, contre la traîtrise du PDK
Meurtre de Clément Méric : l’enjeu politique du procès en appel
Comunicado sobre el Paro Nacional y las Jornadas de Protesta en Colombia
View Comments Titles Only
Comments (5 of 5)Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5
Good article, although I think it downplays the extent of Serge's support for the Bolshevik line up until the 1930s. If there were any doubts on his part, he kept them to himself. In public, he argued as a standard Leninist.
In 1919, he wrote that the party "is in a sense the nervous system of the class. Simultaneously the consciousness and the active, physical organisation of the dispersed forces of the proletariat, which are often ignorant of themselves and often remain latent or express themselves contradictorily." And the masses, what is their role? Well, the party is "supported by the entire working population," although, strangely enough, "it maintains its unique situation in dictatorial fashion." He admits "the energies which have just triumphed . . . exist outside" the party and that "they constitute its strength only because it represents them knowingly." Thus the workers are "[b]ehind" the communists, "sympathising instinctively with the party and carrying out the menial tasks required by the revolution." [Revolution in Danger, p. 67, p. 66 and p. 6]
It should also be noted that Serge himself contributed to the Bolshevik lie machine about Kronstadt. For example, in March 1922 he happily repeated the Soviet regime's falsifications about the rebels. [The Serge-Trotsky Papers, pp. 18-9] This changed in the 1930s, of course.
also, it should be stressed that Serge had been an individualist anarchist in France -- they tended to be elitist and look down on the general public. This elitism served him when in Leninist circles and belief in the vanguard.
Victor Serge is not exactly a paragon, although it's possible to see a thread running through his life of trying to bring about the revolution in a way that doesn't trample on people (specifically, the working class oit's supposed to bring to power).
Serge is a valuable case to study because his ideological pilgrimage encapsulates that of many other people on the left during his years as an activist and author. He started as an anarchist, but the events of WWI and the Russian Revolution convinced him that in the 20th century, for better or worse, the state was THE locus of political change and development. Nothing outside the state was truly relevant, and anyone who tried to organize outside the state or without reference to it was doomed to irrelevance. This is going a bit further than what Wayne says above about Serge's stubborn loyalty to the 1917 Revolution. And I think it applies to a lot of Serge's near-contemporaries who were anarchists or who were early-on influenced by anarchist ideas, from Gramsci to Elizabeth Gurley Flynn to Rosa Luxemburg.
Serge's failure, in other words, wasn't that he didn't critique the Bolsheviks, but that he gave up on any fundamental critique of the state. This left him painted into a corner. Maybe if he'd lived into the '90s and witnessed the end of communism and the birth of the global justice movement, he would have seen where he went wrong.
Even more than witnessing the beginning of the 'global justice movement' is witnessing the _failure_ in the 20th century of state-based movements to fundamentally change things.
I've been reading Immanuel Wallerstein lately. He writes that most radical movements in the 20th century were based on a two step program: 1) Take state power, 2) Change things. And he writes that quite many succeeded in #1, but pretty much none succeeded in #2.
And people noticed, and were disillusioned with the left, as well as with this sort of program in general, and in some cases with political action in general. (In other cases, well, Wallerstein explains the rise of Islamic politics with this same basis).
Now Wallerstein says that none succeeded at #2, because they were enmeshed in the global capitalist system, this provided structural and material reasons they really could not actually make radical or revolutionary change once they had achieved state power. The perspective of those in this forum would be to say that they failed because once you've taken state power, you've already lost, and state power in and of itself is incapable of making radical or revolutionary change. While these sound like completely different topics that have nothing in common, I'm wondering if they are different perspectives on the same thing after all.
So then the question is: What is different now? Materially, ideologically, historically... is this a new situation? What will happen, and what is our part?
"Wallerstein says that none succeeded... because they were enmeshed in the global capitalist system... The perspective of those in this forum would be to say that they failed because once you've taken state power, you've already lost, and state power in and of itself is incapable of making radical or revolutionary change..."
Well, Nil, can you point to a time before the 20th century and the globilization of capital, when "radical movements took state power" and accomplished "fundamental change"? (This is not a rhetorical question; though i disagree, i think a reasonable person could make this argument.) If so, then perhaps this Wallerstien has a point. But--and i hold this view--if not, then the analysis that the state is incapable of liberating the oppressed under any circumstances, would seem to hold.
Certainly capitalism is entering, or has entered, a new era, called globilization for shorthand. Revolutionaries should not let affection for old formulae distract them from this fact. But i am convinced the new epoch is only the rule of capital writ large. In particular, it is an offensive on the part of the capitalists to reverse the gains won by the labor movement (and the various resulting state accommodations, such as the New Deal). It is made possible by the (temporary?) dominance of a single world power, the (temporary) complacency of a working class weaned from direct action and either nursed on the very government programs now being dismantled (in the first world), or at least dismaying of change (due to experiences with "Communist" revolutions and national liberation struggles that only ensconce a new elite). This offensive, of course, is also made possible in large part by advances in information technology.
In assessing Serge's life, we have the benefit of hindsight. I would need be more convinced of the accuracy of my own analysis of the current situation, before belittling mistakes made in his day! (Although, as the article states and other comments illustrate, in retrospect he was clearly mistaken on many important points.)
I must diaagree with Nil and my friend Eric. (1) Like it or not, the state is at the center of capitalist politics and power. It is the instrument by which the capitalist class holds class society together, coordinates itself, and supresses and co-opts the oppressed and exploited. To ignore it or try to do an end-run around it is a great mistake --a mistake made by those who think that alternate institutions, such as coops, or alternate life styles can change society. This is anarchist reformism. Serge was right to reject such politics. They do not work.
(2) But this does not mean that the working class and its allies should create a new state. The oppressed need to take power, but not to take STATE power. We need to replace the state--a bureaucratic-military machine standing above society--with a horizontalized federation of workplace and community assemblies and councils. This is not a state, but it is power. That is, the workers need to dismantle the institutions of capitalism and rebuild a new and better society, against the resistance of the capitalists and others. This is an exercise in power.
All this is discussed in my essay, Confronting the Question of Power, which is somewhere on Anarkismo.