The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 2, 1926, Page 10

Socialism and Anarchism Foreword by ROBERT MINOR. ‘This article by Lenin was publsihed in Novaya Zhizn (New Life), on the 25th of November, 1905, during the revolutionary pheaval in Russia of twenty years ago. Yet there is nothing “old’—nothing outworn—about this work of the master of the revolutionary science and action, The history of Russian anarchism after 1905 and es- pecially during its brief flowering in the years 1917 to 1921, which virtually ended with the historical satire of the flight of the “anarchist general,” Makhno, from the red revolutionary army of the Russian workers in- to the protecting arms of the king of Roumania; with the death of Kropotkin—again a “prince’—with his words of blessing for the “democracy” of capitalist im- perialism unrepudiated—touched 6ff with the last comic caper of Alexander Berkman and. Emma Goldman pub- licly “fleeing”. Russia to. establish themselves in the comfortable “profession of anti-Bolshevik propagandists in Western Europe—all of this history of tragedy and comedy seems to fall with an amazing exaetness into the implied prognosis of Lenin made twenty years ago _ when a group of representatives of this petty-bourgeois “philosophy” attempted to have themselves admitted into the Pétersburg Soviet. Revolutionary workers the world over are absorbing Ned ,e® ®@ HE executive committee of the Soviet of Work- ers’ Deputies decided yesterday, Nov. 23, (1905) to reject the demand of the anarchists for the admission of their representatives into the executive committee and the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies. The cause of this decision the execu- tive committee itself laid out in the following form: ‘“(1) In all international practice, the congresses and socialist conferences do not have in their composition representatives of the an- archists, as persons who do not acknowledge the political struggle as a means for attaining their ideals. (2) Representation may be from a party. but the anarchists are not a party.” We consider the decision of the executive com- mittee in the highest degree a correct step, having enormous significance both in principle and of a practical-political nature. To be sure,.if one were to regard the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies as a parliament of workers or as an organ of self- government of the proletariat, then the refusal to admit the anarchists would be incorrect. How- ever negligible (fortunately) the influence of the anarchists in the midst of our workers, still there is undoubtedly a certain number of workers on their side. Whether the anarchists constitute a party, or an organization, or a group, or a voluntary union of partisans,—this question is a formal one not having serious significance in principle. Lastly, if the anarchists while renouncing the political | struggle, themselves beg to be admitted into an institution conducting this struggle, then such crying inconsistency certainly shows once too often all of the unsteadiness of the world concept’ and tactics of the anarchists. But to exclude from a “parliament” or an “organ of self-government” on account of unsteadiness is of course not per- missible. The decision of the executive ¢ommittee ap- pears to us fully correct and not in the least contradictory to the tasks of this institution, to its character or to its composition. The Soviet of Workers’ Deputies is not a workers’ parliament and not an organ of proletarian self-government, not in general an organ of self-government, but a fighting organization for the attainment of definite aims. : Into this fighting organization, on the basis of a temporary, undefined fighting agreement, come the representatives of the Russian social-democratic labor party (the party of proletarian socialism), the representatives of the party of “socialist-revo- Jutionaries” (representatives of petty-bourgeois ‘socialism or the extreme left of the revolutionary bourgeois democracy), and,» finally, many worker “non/partisans.” These last, however, are not non-partisans in general, but are non- partisan revolutionaries, for their sympathy lies wholly on the side of the revolution, for the vietory of which they fight with limitless enthus- iasm, energy and selfdenial. For this reason it will be entirely natural to include also the rep- resentatives of the revolutionary peasantry ip the executive committee. ~ In the essence of the matter, the Soviet of Workers’ Depnties\is an undefined, broad, fight ing union of sccialists and revolutionary demo- erats, in which case of course “non-partisan revo- ‘nrism”. covers an entire series of transi- the lesson of the historical role of treason played by the social-democratic opportunists.' There has been lit- tle time and little attention ‘for the other lesson of the ‘reasonable role, of a parallel essential character, of the “anarchist” opportunists, confusionists and reac- tionists. This is a lesson of much less mass signi- ficance; yet it is worth learning. “Anarchist” opportun- ists and “socialist” opportunists today, side by side, form.the first line of allies of'the Gompers bureaucracy in some of the big city trade unions in the United States. For the workers to understand the historical role of “anarchism”,is of some importance both for this as well as for more general reasons. The fact that some honest workers are still subject to the danger of being deluded by the Gompersite anarchist intellectuals, such as Yanofsky in the New York needle trades, is sufficient reason in itself. The slogan of the bourgeois revolutions were: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity?” This was an ex- pression, in idealistie terms, of the need of the bour- scoisie of that time for freedom of trade, for liberty of the industrial capitalist to exploit labor as he sees fit, and for the equality of their dollars with the dollars of a decadent landed aristocracy. Anarchism as a philosophy has its roots in the same Period of bour- seois revolutions of a century and a half ago; the anarchist has no other slogan than the. same “Liberty, i oe tional stages between them. The ‘necessity in such a union for the conducting of political strikes and other, more active, forms of struggle for the vital democratic demands that are recog- nized and approved by the gigantic majority of the pepulation, is obvious. : sé The anarchists in such a union would be, not a plus, but a minus; they will only bring*in dis- organization; and by this- they will weaken the foree of common attack; they still “may argue” about essentiality and importance of political transformations. The exclusion of the anarchists from the fighting union conducting, so to Say, our democratic revolution, is entirely necessary from the point of view and in the interests of this revolution. In a fighting union’ there is place only for those who fi it, for the.aim of this union. . And.if, for campie fede aie. or the “party of constitutional order” were to gather even as many as a few hundred workers each in their Petersburg organizations,—the executive committee of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies would hardly have opened ‘its doors to the rep- resentatives of such organizations. In explanation of its decision the executive committee refers to the practice of international socialist congresses. We warmly welcome this declaration, this acknowledgement of the ideo- logical guidance of the international social-de- mocracy on the part of the organ of the Peters- burg Soviet of Workers’ Deputies. The Russian revolution already has attained international sig- nificance. The opponents of the revolution in Russia already are entering into conspiracies with Wilhelm II, with every, dark reactionary, with every oppressor, every swashbuckler and ex- ploiter in Europe, against free Russia. Let us, too, not forget that the complete victory of our revolution demands the union of the revolution- ary proletariat of Russia with the socialist work- ers of all countries. Not for nothing have the international 80> Equality, Fraternity!” and his claim for support proletarians is upon the ground that the bourge dees not make its “Liberty, Equality and Prater absolute, and that the gxeat mass movement of” iy proletariat, the Communist tovement, scorns thi. mercantile metaphysics. “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ the slogan of a day gone by, and of a revolution tha has played its part and gone—this slogan means ab solutely nothing to \the revolutionary proletariat ex cept reaction. The proletarian revolution has found it: own slogan whichvexpresses the heart and soul. of it: own cause: “All Power to the Workers!” In reading the following article by Lenin, one shouk remember that tlie term “social-democracy” as use at the time in Russia comprised the. revolutionary Marxian workers’ movement which ultimately: createc the Russian Communist Party, and with this leader ship .performed the great -feat, of the overthrow, of the capitalist state and the conquest. of one-sixth. of the earth's surface for the international working class Of course Lenin, in speaking twenty years ago inthe . terms of that time, of “social-democracy,” was Rofide- - fending the treacherous left wing of capitalist -poli i parties which today goes by the name of “io democracy,” and whose greatest destroyer Lenin, The article is translated by myself from the Russi iN. & cialist congresses adopted decisions for the non admission of anarchists. Between socialism an anarchism lies a complete abyss, which the prov: cator-agents of the secret police or the journal istic flunkies of reactionary governments vainl attempt to represent as non-e&istent. The world concept of the anarchists is the world-concept the bourgeoisie turned wrong side out. Their in dividualistic theories, their individualistic ideal are found in direct opposition ‘to soc Their views express, not the future of the-bour geois system, proceeding with irresistible fo toward the collectivization of labor, but ent and even the past of that system, the re of blind chance over. the isolated, solitary, small producer.’ Their act reducing itself/to th rejection of the olit al str le, proletarians and erasers tea! n reality int passive participants of one or another kind 6f bourgeois politics, because actual estrangement from polities is, for the workers, impossible and unrealizable. In the present Russian revolution the consolidation of the forces of the prole its organization, of the political schooling education of the working class, forces i or- ward with particular urgency. The more liscen- tiously the black-hundred government acts, thefaf more zealously its agents-provocaters work to in- flame the ugly passions.of the ignorant mass, th >, more desperately the defenders of the disintegrat- tht ing autocracy throw themselves into atte to discredit the revolution by means of ro pogroms, murders in the dark themselves by means of debauching the riff-raff,- all the more important is this task of tion which falls first of all upon the party of socialist proletariat. And we will uti fore, all means of ideological struggle in that the influence of the anarchists upon the sian. workers shall remain as negligible ag it been up to the present time. gic: of of Somree: Henri If you subscribe immediately appearing fe \ Sensational Announcement! | ..The famous French writer # % ‘ . { A WONDERFUL NOVEL BY HENRI BARBUSSE. you will miss none of this marvelous story r the first time in English, ae Barbusse > a 5a whose tremendous art has shaken the entire literary world - Kl writes for the New Magazine Section of the Daily Worker NEXT WEEK §siirdey, January 9 o Fae iF