[Setzen wir doch unsere Zitirerei fort. Sie ist u.A. eine Art Ablage, und wird noch in woanders – wenn sich dafür Zeit und Kraft fänden – verwurstet. Solange aber sind das hier nur ein paar Auszüge aus einer der frühesten und eindrucksvollsten Bolschewismus-Kritiken, die jemals geschrieben wurden. Das hier nimmt einem oder einer die Beschäftigung mit dem Buch nicht ab, genauso wenig befreit es von der Auseinandersetzung mit Volins “Unbekannte Revolution”, mit Bettelheims “Die Klassenkämpfe in der UdSSR, Bd. 3-4”, mit Ciligas “Im land der verwirrenden Lüge”, mit Berkmanns, Makhnos, Serges und Arschinows Erinnerungen, mit Panekoeks, Weils und Rühles Kritiken und selbstverständlich auch nicht mit Lenin und Trotzky selbst und allen Märchen, welche sich Trotz-Kisten und andere Autoritären immer noch über die Revolution in Russland erzählen. – liberadio]
Excerpts from Emma Goldman’s, “My Desillusionment in Russia”, The C. W. Daniel Company, London 1925
(S. xii) By a strange coincidence a volume of letters written during the French Revolution, and compiled by the able German anarchist publicist, Gustav Landauer, came into my hands during the most critical period of my Russian experience. I was actually reading them while hearing the Bolshevik artillery begin the bombardment of the Kronstadt rebels. Those letters gave me a most vivid insight into the events of the French Revolution. As never before they brought home to me the realization that the Bolshevik regime in Russia was, on the whole, a significant replica of what had happened in France more than a century before.
(S. xv) The Russian Revolution is a miracle in more than one respect. Among other extraordinary paradoxes it presents the phenomenon of the Marxian Social Democrats, Lenin and Trotsky, adopting Anarchist revolutionary tactics, while the Anarchists Kropotkin, Tcherkessov, Tchaikovsky are denying these tactics and falling into Marxian reasoning, which they had all their lives repudiated as “German metaphysics”. The Bolsheviki of 1903, though revolutionists, adhered to the Marxian doctrine concerning the industrialization of Russia and the historic mission of the bourgeoisie as a necessary evolutionary process before the Russian masses could come into their own. The Bolsheviki of 1917 no longer believe in the predestined function of the bourgeoisie. They have been swept forward on the waves of the Revolution to the point of view held by the Anarchists since Bakunin; namely, that once the masses become conscious of their economic power, they make their own history and need not be bound by traditions and processes of a dead past which, like secret treaties, are made at a round table and are not dictated by the life itself.
(S. xxiv) My critic further charged me with believing that “had the Russians made the Revolution a la Bakunin instead of a la Marx” the result would have been different and more satisfactory. I plead guilty to the charge. In truth, I not only believe so; I am certain of it. The Russian Revolution – more correctly, Bolshevik methods – conclusively demonstrated how a revolution should not be made. The Russian experiment has proven the fatality of a political party usurping the functions of the revolutionary people, of an omnipotent State seeking to impose its will upon the country, of a dictatorship attempting to “organize” the new life. Continue reading “Emma Goldman: “A shrewd Asiatic, this Lenin…””
