Title: On the Issue of “Revision”
Date: 1925–1926
Source: [[http://mariegoldsmith.uk/archives][Marie Goldsmith Project]]
Notes: Translated by Alexandra Agranovich.
Authors: M Korn
Published: 2023-07-18 07:41:50Z

Edited by Søren Hough.

the Marie Goldsmith Project. These articles were translated by Alexandra

Agranovich (Russian) and Christopher Coquard (French) and then edited by

Christopher Coquard and Søren Hough with the goal of preserving

Goldsmith’s original meaning and stylistic emphases. Modern footnotes by

the translator or editors are prefaced “Ed:” while all other footnotes

are from Marie Goldsmith. This translation was originally published in

[[https://irp.cdn-website.com/3fa68967/files/uploaded/BlackFlag-vol3-no2.pdf][Black

Flag Vol. 3 No. 2]].*

On the Issue of “Revision”[1]

November 1925

>

<br>

Lately, we are seeing a revision of our views — a “reassessment of

values” — across the board. This is a completely natural, even

inevitable, pursuit: our worldview is not a rigid dogma; it must develop

and transform as life goes on, and we have to be responsive to its

lessons. Besides, the Russian revolution is such an important historical

event offering us so much experience that it would be entirely

impossible not to derive anything from it and content ourselves instead

with a simple repetition of what was said ten years ago.

So, the first question that arises: does the experience of the Russian

revolution confirm or refute our main ideas? We are anarchists not (or

not only) because we find the anarchist ideal attractive, but because we

believe that it is along this path that humanity will be most successful

in moving toward free and equal communal life; for us, anarchist society

is not something that only exists as an abstract thought, but rather a

real social order, a real goal of social activity. That is why the facts

of reality are extremely important for us.

Had the experience of the Russian revolution shown that state-building,

centralization, and dictatorship were successful in putting economic

equality into practice, ensured free cultural development to everybody,

and allowed everyone to develop their spiritual faculties, we would not

have hesitated to admit to our mistake and to extend our hand to statist

socialists in order to work together. Similarly, had anarchist

activities developed in the course of the Russian revolution to an

extent sufficient to offer some experience of positive construction by

anarchist methods, those of free agreement and bottom-up organization,

and had that experience shown the inadequacy of these methods, we would

have admitted to that and started searching for other methods and

programs.

And what about now? We haven’t seen either of those outcomes. The

anarchists have had no chance to launch their program, while the statist

building methods have gone bankrupt so obviously that nobody can deny

it. “War communism” or, as Lenin put it more precisely, “state

capitalism,” has had to make every possible concession to the

bourgeoisie, since it refused to accept the methods of free

socialism.[2]

Under these circumstances, the main principles of our worldview not only

prove to be far from inconsistent in the face of these events, but draw

new strength from them. In the course of our revaluation, or revision,

these principles stay out of question, along with everything that is

inseparably connected with them, arises from them, and cannot be

detached from them. The “revision” may only have a single objective:

make *new* conclusions from the events and consecrate *new* phenomena

based on these main principles, find answers to *new* questions, and

develop, based on the experience, practical *programs* that could not be

outlined before. We are closer to real achievements now than we were

before, and this imposes on us certain obligations.

However, in our circle, a peculiar attitude has developed. Some comrades

dwell on the idea that a revolution is a complicated, difficult, long

business requiring sacrifice, associated with war, famine and various

disasters. They saw it in the past, foresee it in the future, and make a

rather unexpected conclusion: that our programmatic views are

inconsistent! As if those views were to blame for everything Russia has

suffered! Seemingly, the more complicated the task we face, the stronger

we have to adhere to the paths we believe to be right, the more we have

to the more we have to grip tighter our arms. Yet some comrades, in view

of expected difficulties, begin a “revision” of anarchism that deprives

it of any strength to fight these future dangers and brings to nought

its historical role.

It’s either one thing or the other: either a person believes that

anarchism is on the right path with regard to community building and is

more able to fight against our opponents than any other system, or they

believe that anarchism is inappropriate for this — but then, what right

do they have to call themselves anarchists?

In these discussions, two questions come to the fore above all: that of

the classes and that of the transitional period.

What is the anarchist attitude towards class struggle? In this general

form, the question gives rise to a lot of misunderstandings, especially

due to the reign of Marxist terminology.

On one hand, class struggle is a fact; on the other hand, it is the

object of theoretical reflections. As a fact, it is only denied by those

who do not see or are not willing to see the opposition of the interests

of labor and capital — of the bourgeois and the workers who still see

their masters as their benefactors. No socialist would refuse to

acknowledge the fact of class struggle and to consider the struggle

necessary. Nor, consequently, is there such an anarchist.

However, if we proceed from this basic notion common to all socialists,

it will turn out that not all socialists have the same views of *how*

the classes group and *which of them* must logically fight each other.

In Russia, the early socialism by Chernyshevsky and the Narodniks fought

mainly for the interests of the working peasants against their

exploiters — the landowners, the rich peasants, and the State.[3] Later,

Russian Social Democrats set their exclusive goal as struggle of the

newly formed urban proletariat against the bourgeoisie, shoving the

peasants aside and declaring them the petty-bourgeois element —

contrary, by the way, to Marx himself who was closer to the Narodniks[4]

in this regard. In other countries, some socialists tended to appeal not

only to the proletariat but to small owners, as well — peasants,

independent craftsmen, etc.; others rejected all except the wage

workers. Some considered the working intelligentsia to be a part of the

proletariat, others were implacable in designating them as part of the

bourgeoisie, etc. In a word, the question of what classes, beside the

proletariat, socialism can deal with remains as open as it was before.

One does not have to search for far-off examples: it is enough to look

at the daily wavering the Bolsheviks show with regard to whom they

should draw on.

What is the anarchists’ stance in these disputes? In this regard, there

has always been a radical difference between the anarchists and the

Marxists. To determine what social classes and categories they fight

for, the anarchists bring to the forefront the question of who is

oppressed and exploited in the given society. For them, liberation of

the working class as a class is *the* *primary condition of liberation

of all of humanity*. For the Marxists, the class they cast their lot

with is determined by a purely economic criterion: the class whose share

in distribution of the public product is salary, i.e., the proletariat.

As for the Marxists supporting this class’s interests, they do so

because they are convinced that it is time for the proletariat to

replace the bourgeoisie. Marx, however, expresses the idea that the

victory of the proletariat marks elimination of all classes, but

practical Marxists tend to sideline this consideration, and thus reduce

liberation of all of humanity to the replacement of one class with

another.

Those of our comrades who are going to blur our *universal humanist*

points of view over as if to the benefit of the *revolution* are deeply

mistaken. If there were a contradiction between the interests of the

revolution is not necessary or is harmful — and we would not be

revolutionaries. Similarly, if there were a contradiction between the

interests of the proletariat and those of *the human person* (like the

one that exists between the interests of the individual and the

interests of the capitalist class), we would not protect the working

class. But the point is that, in every historical epoch, the oppressed

part of society aspiring for liberation was at the same time the

proponent of *universal humanist* ideals since it was forging a path to

a better future and increasing the amount of freedom in humanity. That

is why, if anybody ever represents a method of struggle harmful to the

individual as a method of serving the interest of the proletariat, we

will be able to say without any hesitation that that is a mistake, and

the tactic suggested will be in the first place harmful to the

proletariat itself. This is what happened to the “dictatorship of the

proletariat.” A group of people acting on behalf of the working class

legitimizes economic inequality, creates a politically privileged social

stratum, suppresses public initiative, eliminates the liberty of

thought, etc. The working class is thus deprived of any initiative, any

possibility of using the fruits of their revolution for their social and

spiritual development, and of building their lives on their own.

And what is the class question on “the next day” after the revolution?

On the face of it, why even speak of this: if the classes have not yet

been eliminated, then the revolution has not achieved its goal and “the

next day” has not yet come. If it has come, then all of the concerns of

this variety consist of preventing social categories from swapping

places: that is, yesterday’s paupers becoming people of wealth and vice

versa. *Such* a result is easy to obtain but is worth nothing. It may

satisfy the feeling of vengeance for a minute, but it has no social

importance. On the contrary, it is necessary to take every effort

possible to ensure that the victorious day of the revolution puts an end

to all privileged categories. In the basic matter of material needs,

there is a means to do so: *our communism*. Some comrades today have a

somewhat dismissive attitude towards our principle of “to each according

to their needs” as if it implies untold riches. No, no matter how poor

society is, it has always an opportunity to distribute fairly what

little it has, and “fairly” means *according to need*. Any other measure

of distribution will give rise to acute conflicts and enmity, and will

further complicate the already difficult situation by undermining social

solidarity *necessary* in difficult moments. New wine shouldn’t be

poured into old skins, and new life must be based on a new principle.

Only then will strength and enthusiasm arise that will be able to

overcome the obstacles; mechanical violence will yield nothing.

Next to economic privileges stand political privileges. The anarchists,

by their very nature, are “politicians,” as they place the question of

the State at the same level with that of economic reorganization. And

the question of the State is not about class: the State is associated

with one or another class so far as it protects that class’s interests;

but it may protect the interests and privileges of category rather than

of a class (such as the interests of the nobility in an estates system

and those of the clergy in a theocratic one), of a nation, even of a

single ruling party. And struggle against the State as an institution

particular class. Similarly, the sum total of moral principles included

in anarchism does not fit into the class framework. Anarchism is a class

doctrine since class struggle is present in all forms of socialism, but

anarchism adds many other things, just as valuable, to it.

In this political sphere, at a revolutionary moment, the anarchists

mainly have to fight the formation of the *non-class* State power, the

power of a social democratic (no matter Bolshevik or Menshevik) *party*

looking forward to reigning over society where everybody is the State’s

hired servant and all are equal in their dependence on the State. The

anarchists rebel against this dictatorship not in the name of class

interests, but in the name of trampled human rights. Yet, their goal is

certainly not limited to opposition against that State power: their task

is defending and implementing a transfer of all functions of the State

into the hands of voluntary public organizations. The State will only be

eliminated when it is stripped of all its socially useful functions. It

will vanish as unnecessary, since nobody will defend it if it is left

only with its policing function.

The fist step along this path is syndicalism, i.e., transferring all

industrial enterprises, transport, etc. into the hands of trade unions

and factory committees. Then, the organization of distribution follows;

it is carried out by cooperatives or other appropriate associations; the

housing problem is resolved by committees elected by all the residents

of a city, etc. In a word, a number of organizations must be created,

each having its highly specialized powers and none exceeding the scope

of its powers. The anarchists will have to work on the creation of such

organizations in every sphere of life, and later, to work in these

organizations, as far as their individual skills and capabilities

permit. Sure, that is non-partisan work, but one should bear in mind

that the success of that work, the ability of the new free institutions

to rise to the occasion, will decide the fate of the revolution itself.

And a few more words on the issue of power. Some Russian comrades

display a viewpoint, a completely new one in our movement, which

consists in a calm, moreover, conciliatory, attitude towards constraint

of freedom: freedom of thought, opinion, associations. In the name of

struggle against the counter-revolution, they start admitting that “we,”

too, should use the force of power to defeat the enemy. And it is not

the case of an armed enemy one must defend from, it’s an enemy fighting

in the sphere of ideas: by means of speech, publications, party

activities. The main truth of anarchism — that force may only be used

against an oppressive force, that thought and peaceful activity may not

be subject to any constraint — is discarded for the sake of

“practicability,” as if Russian experience has not shown a thousand

times what brilliant results these notorious practicability-based

methods bring! It’s not worth elaborating on this, or we shall be

reiterating fundamental truths that every anarchist can find in any

booklet taken from our literature.

The second question taking an important place in our “revision” is that

of the so-called “transitional” period. Much is associated with this

issue, even more than the notion itself implies. We will now look into

it.

# Bibliography

<biblio>

Lenin, V. I. “Session of the All-Russia C.E.C.” Translated by Clemens

Dutt. Marxists Internet Archive, April 29, 1918. Last modified March

2002.

[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm][marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm]].

Pipes, Richard. “Narodnichestvo: A Semantic Inquiry.” Slavic Review 23,

no. 3 (1964): 441–58.

[[https://doi.org/10.2307/2492683][DOI:~~10.2307/2492683]].

</biblio>

On the Issue of Revision — Transitional Period (Ending)[5]

January 1926

There is a lot of talk now about the impossibility of implementing the

anarchist system soon after the revolution, about the necessity of a

long transitional period, etc., and they insist that should we

acknowledge this point everything will run like clockwork; and should we

not — catastrophe will follow. What, in fact, is there to be afraid of?

One can say for sure that the anarchist ideal in its entirety will not

be implemented anywhere on the next day after the *first* *attempt* at a

social revolution, that certain experience and a certain period of

revolutionary social development will be required for that. The

anarchists have never denied this; they have always had in mind a

transitional period when speaking of the necessity to leave some

transformations to life itself and not to resort — once the soil has

already been cleared of the old oppression — to forcible imposition of

new practices.

Let’s take, for instance, the question of small peasant property. The

anarchists will never agree that a peasant who works the land by

themselves, *by* *their own labor*, be stripped of this land, and the

land be forcibly transferred to collective ownership; they will expect

that communalization of the land will take place as a result of the

comprehensive development of the spirit of free association and owing to

the example offered by prosperous agricultural communities. There will

certainly be a lot of vestiges of the past in the new society, in

economic relations, in organizational forms, and in the phenomena of

spiritual life. Thus, for example, trade unions and public associations

(cooperatives, labor exchanges and the like) took over the management of

production and product distribution; but some of them stand for

application of the communist principle “to each according to their

needs,” while others do not dare to part with the old form of labor

remuneration and product payment. Of course, the anarchists will fight

these vestiges of the past, but not by means of force. They will use

ideology, mainly, the force of *examples*: their main task will be

showing that an activity based on *their* principles will not stand to

lose and, moreover, will be more successful. That is why in the

circumstances of that new life where *free organizational experiments

are possible* the kind of work we now call “cultural” fuses and

conflates with revolutionary work, and every cultural conquest achieved

by anarchist methods will directly serve the implementation of the

anarchist social system.

The same applies to the other spheres: in organization of the school,

where the anarchists must proclaim the complete freedom to teach and of

institute any kind of school; in the sphere of religion where any

violence would be extremely contrary to the anarchist spirit; and where

the only choice is to leave everything to the natural influence of the

environment and to the achievements of intellectual development.

However, accepting the relics of the past as a neces​​sary evil and

fighting them ideologically is one thing; elevating these relics to the

status of an inevitable developmental stage and regarding this stage as

the immediate objective of our activity — while temporarily setting

aside “impracticable” slogans — is quite another. In doing so, we forget

one more point: the best way to make our slogans truly impracticable is

to stop proclaiming them.

The existence of vestiges of the past is a necessary evil, but *it is

not the thing* one must adapt to when developing programs, because any

such adaptation will make this evil stronger and more viable. No

prediction to the effect of *at what moment* and *which part* *of* our

ideal will come true will change anything in this state of affairs. At

impracticable at any given moment. Some allow for a longer period before

the anarchist system is implemented in full, others predict a shorter

time. Regardless, if some are more optimistic and believe the

implementation is possible immediately after the revolution, why fight

this? Where is the danger? In excessive faith? That has never seemed to

harm any cause. That faith moves mountains is not merely a phrase, same

as the notion that at a critical moment (war, revolution) the victory is

often a result of something that an impassive mind sees as impossible.

It seems we are afraid of enthusiasts, but aren’t they the ones who

drive progress — not only in society, but in science, in art —

everywhere?

There is a lot of talk of the Bolsheviks’ pragmatism, skills,

organization, etc.; they may well have all these faculties, but it is

not owing to them that they left the social mark on the Russian

revolution only a few of the other active parties aspired to leave in

1917. Soon after the October Revolution, Lenin happened to say that he

did not expect practical implementation of lawmaking, that it was enough

for him to throw slogans at the masses in that manner. And he was

absolutely right: the decrees could not have any practical value (life

is not built like that), but the principles proclaimed stuck in the mind

and paved a way for the future. There are two techniques in social

activities: setting a broad goal in anticipation that the broader it is,

the greater part of what is expected will come true, and setting goals

pre-acknowledged as attainable, to secure the achievement. The

anarchists have initially chosen the first way and discarded all the

minimum programs. The second way was that of social democratic parties.

Now it has been suggested that we set a goal of “more practicable”

requirements of a transitional period; we recollect early disputes about

minimum programs. But if back then, in peacetime, we did not consider

those programs desirable or appropriate, why should we renounce our

birthright now, after the revolution? The transitional period was

underway yesterday, still is today; what it will become tomorrow depends

on what people of conviction, people who believe in their cause, make of

it.

These are the main points of the revision taking place among our ranks.

They do not add anything new to anarchism, do not develop or improve it

in light of new facts, but, on the contrary, take a lot away. In short,

anarchism is deprived of its *soul*. Indeed, by denying the principle

“to each according to their needs,” one knocks its economic foundation,

its communism, out of it, reduces it *exclusively* to class struggle,

strips it of its philosophical worldview limiting it to purely economic

struggle, and blurs its anti-statist nature; by suggesting that we fight

for a transitional period, one takes away maximalism and introduces a

minimum program. And then — shall I mention the shame everyone of us

must feel at the thought that sometimes we may justify political

repression of our ideological opponents, even if they are downright

counter-revolutionaries? And all that is done for the sake of

practicability, feasibility, for the good of the revolution! What does

such “anarchism” amount to? A word void of any meaning — or, rather, a

word with quite a foreign meaning.

Sure, everyone has the right to acknowledge their mistakes, to change

their opinion; but, on finding one’s earlier ideas inconsistent, it

would be better and more logical not to smuggle into one’s earlier

worldview something that doesn’t fit with it at all. Some new movement

may emerge among our Russian comrades, but judging by what is shaping

up, that movement will not be anarchism. And, without any doubt, it will

be accompanied by the old, sound, and consistent anarchism that will, as

before, attract minds and spirit.

[1] Ed: Korn, M. “К Вопросу о ‘Пересмотре’ [On the Issue of Revision].”

>

[2] Ed: Lenin proclaimed the need for state capitalism as a “step toward

>

>

[3] Ed: Nikolay Chernyshevsky (1828 – 1889) was one of the founding

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[4] With regard to Marx’s attitude to this controversial issue, see the

>

>

>

[5] Ed: Korn, M. “К Вопросу о Пересмотре — Переходный Период (Окончание)

>

>

Home