An open question to all SWP members on u75

[Ray]

I'll come backt ot the rest when I have time

Good point! I would be very reluctant to have it. However maybe you’re right, in the circumstances of Russia it’s very hard. Do you just abandon the revolution, or implement short-term set backs and try and get the revolution to spread to save it degenerating? I take you are saying abandon it? However I think this would no be an issue in a future revolution with a mass working class.

You see, this is the problem. You've been insisting that shooting deserters is wrong, that you'd be against it. But all I have to do is say "The revolution depends on it!" and you change your mind. Suddenly its not such a problem any more. You mightn't like it, no, but if some guy tells you its necessary, you'll do it.

You don't seem to have any boundaries here. Sure, there are lots of things that you don't like, but none that you absolutely won't do. And this is how revolutions turn into dictatorships. Sure, everyone starts out meaning well. There'll be free elections to soviets, everyone will have their say, the factories will be run by the workers and the army by the soldiers. But then someone in charge starts arguing how inefficient all this is. How can you let the workers run a factory, when that factory's production could be the difference between winning and losing a revolution? How can you let other parties have any sort of power, when their wrong ideas could lead to the revolution being lost? How could you let people desert from the army, when their desertion could be the difference between victory or defeat for the revolution?

And so consequentialism takes over. We _must_ shoot deserters and oppositionists, because that is the only way to safeguard the revolution. We must ban parties and factions, because dissent is distracting, and distractions would be fatal. We must agree a non-agression pact with fascists, because the revolution must be protected until it can spread.

The problem is that all these people telling you what _must_ be done are just making it all up as they go along. They can't tell the future, any more than you can. They can tell you that closing down a printing press will guarantee the safety of the revolution, but they can't see the future. But you don't need to see the future to know that closing a printing press is an attack on democracy _right now_. So you weigh the promise of a glorious future against the damage you are doing to socialism _right now_ and you, you choose to close your eyes and dream about how great the glorious future will be.

You really need to read Darkness at Noon.

 

[JoeBlack]

agricultural revolution?

Nah that probably killed loads of people as it ment there was a strong purpose claiming ownership of land.

 

[gurrier]

What a game of anarcho tag-team head-butting of walls were having here!

Anyway, I'll leave Ray to his tackling of this particular wall and just comment on a couple of asides from the non-walls in the audience.

On revolutionary executions. A successful revolution would ideally be prosecuted without a single execution. Russia is actually a good example of a revolution that happened with virtually no violence whatsoever. The former ruling class were destroyed, not by terror, but by the expropriation of the means of production and the freeing of their workforce from their economic dependance on the bosses. Between 1917 and mid 1918 there were several attempts at counter-revolutionary uprisings all over Russia. They were snuffed out almost instantly without any need for a centralised state or terror tactics, based on the fact that the former capitalists and feudal lords found it impossible to get anybody to fight for them beyond a small band of loyalists.

As their factories, fields and wealth had been taken over by the workers, they had no means of buying off workers to fight for them. It was not until late 1918 with the Bolshevik terror against the peasantry, particularly in the Don region, especially with the requisitioning of crops, that the old ruling class could find anybody who was willing to fight for them.

Unfortunately, the lesson of Russia was learned by the Spanish ruling class and so they started the counter-revolution before the revolution had managed to take over much of the means of production. However, it is still the case that the best means of attacking this counter-revolution was to drive home the revolution as quickly as possible. In the areas of Spain where the revolutionary forces were capable of doing this, the servants of the ruling class put up only a few weeks of resistance. For example, in rural Aragon, there was no need for any terror against the ruling class as they simply didn't exist within a couple of weeks of July 1936. One of my favourite tales from spain is told by a factory worker in one of the town of Aragon (retold in the BBC documentary on Spain). On the day after the failed uprising, the workers sent a delegation to the boss of the factory. They ordered him to show up at work the next day at 9am and informed him that from now on he would be taking orders from the factory committee. Even 50 years later, the worker in question reckoned that seeing the look on his boss's face had been the highlight of his whole life - I can sympathise with that!

In my opinion, killing people would only be useful or necessary if they were actively engaged in organising armed attacks on the workers after the revolution - that is in self-defence. I would far, far prefer to put the fuckers to work from day 1. Can you imagine the pleasure of rocking up to the tory party hq and telling them that their new job was to be the national sewer cleaning crack squad? Much more effective than shooting the bastards.

Secondly, on Nigel's question about the regulation of things. Anarchists would, in general I assume, see the need for wide-scale co-ordination and centralised agreement of certain functions. However, one of the things that generally marks us out from Leninists is the way we would see this happening.

For a start, as Idris2002 said, all of the large federal bodies would operate on a strictly limited mandate - defined by their members. So, for example, there would be no problem with an international transport co-ordination federation which would decide among other things on the sides of the road the people drive on and the gauges of railway tracks. However, this body would have no right to make any other decisions - such as how the workers in the sector organised themselves or anything else.

Secondly, and crucially, all of the members of the federation would have the freedom to disassociate themselves from the federation in theory and in practice. So, for example, if a certain area decided that it wanted to drive on the other side of the road, they would be free to leave the transport federation and establish or join another one that operated on a differenet basis. That is to say that federations should operate in a voluntary and non-coercive way.

 

[Pickman's model]

Nah that probably killed loads of people as it ment there was a strong purpose claiming ownership of land.

we've been through this...

 

[cockneyrebel]

They and me are wrong. And you say my arguments are bad!

As for the “tactics” I have used, as with butchers you are being paranoid. I haven’t even brought up “juntas” here. It was pointed out to me that it means something different in Spanish. Fair enough. The same goes for totalitarian (and I honestly don’t remember butchers bringing this up before, he says five or six times. I don’t believe that….)

But what I’ve said is that whatever the literal meanings of the word it is beyond doubt that the FOD called for a central command in the military and a shutting down of anti-working class parties and that they agreed with executions. Their statements are clear and I’ve quoted them. What is the interesting bit is what Ray is saying about federations and how they would. This is what really interests me and so far I haven’t seen the answers.

As for your patronising, we’re the “real revolutionaries” and about “cheerleaders” I can assure you that I would much rather spend more time with my mates, partner and family than doing the political and trade union work I do. I’m certainly not doing it “for fun”……

PS If you think butchers and Charlie are polite, well you’ve been looking at different threads to me!

The rest I will have to come back on another time....any other trotskyist wanna take over in the mean time

Ray I have got boundries. I just think it’s very hard to say here and now what we definitely would and wouldn’t do in a revolution. Personally I don’t like the idea of executions. Will it happen in a revolution? I couldn’t say definitely no.

An even more extreme example. I find the idea of torture repulsive. If a capitalist secret agent had information we badly needed and torture was the only way to get it, could we definitely say we wouldn’t do it if lives depended on it?

I’m got a lot of moral principles, I just don’t think it’s black and white. That doesn’t mean I’d accept absolutely anything…..

 

[butchersapron]

"PS If you think butchers and Charlie are polite, well you?ve been looking at different threads to me!"

I think you'll find i was originally as polite with you as Ray, Joe, Gurrier and others have been with you on this thread - but after a good year of the sort of evasions and refusals to engage with either the evidence or the arguments presented to you (that you've also again done on this thread) i simply gave up with you. As i said earlier, i think it's pointless with you - but there are always others reading threads like this and it's important that people like those mentioned above do respond in the way they have done for that reason. I just don't want to do it anymore. (And that's not an opening to go over the last 3 years again - just an explanation of where i am as regards debating with you).

 

[Pickman's model]

An even more extreme example. I find the idea of torture repulsive. If a capitalist secret agent had information we badly needed and torture was the only way to get it, could we definitely say we wouldn’t do it if lives depended on it?

there's more than one way to skin a cat. depends what you mean by torture. shouldn't be too difficult to get the information and leave the individual reasonably unharmed.

 

[cockneyrebel]

In my opinion, killing people would only be useful or necessary if they were actively engaged in organising armed attacks on the workers after the revolution - that is in self-defence. I would far, far prefer to put the fuckers to work from day 1. Can you imagine the pleasure of rocking up to the tory party hq and telling them that their new job was to be the national sewer cleaning crack squad? Much more effective than shooting the bastards.

Agreed. But I think what you said about the revolution in Russian being without much violence is a myth. In some parts of the country there was a lot from what I’ve read.

Secondly, and crucially, all of the members of the federation would have the freedom to disassociate themselves from the federation in theory and in practice. So, for example, if a certain area decided that it wanted to drive on the other side of the road, they would be free to leave the transport federation and establish or join another one that operated on a differenet basis. That is to say that federations should operate in a voluntary and non-coercive way.

This seems fair enough in a classless society. But in a revolution when decisions need to be instant and collective. Could federations still just do as they please whatever the consequences? This is where the problem lies for me….

That will really have to be my last post…..

PS If you were just like that to me butchers, I’d say fair enough. But I’ve seen you be very insulting to several people on here. Don’t tell me it’s all there fault…..

And to say you evade this or that is all very easy, but others on here, particularly about the questions on federations have avoided questions again and again, including yourself…..

PPS I agree Pickmans. But I am appalled by all torture. That doesn’t mean I can say it definitely won’t be used…..

 

[danno_at_work]

I’m got a lot of moral principles, I just don’t think it’s black and white. That doesn’t mean I’d accept absolutely anything…..

morality is a bourgouis concept. the dominant ideas in any society are the ideas of the ruling class. this goes for morals as well.

 

[Ray]

Ray I have got boundries.

No, you don't.

I just think it’s very hard to say here and now what we definitely would and wouldn’t do in a revolution. Personally I don’t like the idea of executions. Will it happen in a revolution? I couldn’t say definitely no.

An even more extreme example. I find the idea of torture repulsive. If a capitalist secret agent had information we badly needed and torture was the only way to get it, could we definitely say we wouldn’t do it if lives depended on it?

I’m got a lot of moral principles, I just don’t think it’s black and white. That doesn’t mean I’d accept absolutely anything…..

You've just said you'll torture people, don't really object to executions, and would go along with shooting deserters if someone told you it was necessary. But I suppose you draw the line at personally strangling every human being on the planet.

Unless like, someone told you it was for the good of the revolution.


You know, I'm not really supposed to be telling anybody about this, but I'm actually a time-traveller from the 25th millenium. Our advanced science has proven that, due to a combination of unlikely events your 21st century minds cannot comprehend, the social revolution is possible. All you have to do is
1)Leave Workers Power
2) Never mention Lenin and Trotsky again
3) Send all your money to me.

Remember comrade, the revolution depends on your actions!

 

[Pickman's model]

cockneyrebel,

it's a pity that the old ways of putting people to the question have been allowed to fall into disrepute.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Nothing like taking things to the extreme.

I never said I don’t really object to executions, I said they may well happen in a revolution. Do you deny this?

I said I’m appalled by torture but if someone said to me we have the chance to save thousands of lives by getting information out of a secret agent through torture, it’s not an easy one IMO. What do you think?

As for shooting deserters, I think things would have to be very very bad, maybe too bad, I’m not sure. The situation in Russia was “We need to buy some time to spread the revolution so it has a chance to succeed. If we stop now the Whites will win and the oppression will definitely happen, we have a chance to stop the degeneration if we can buy some time and spread the revolution.” I think the revolution could of spread and that could have stopped the degeneration. I can see both sides here, it’s not just black and white…..

What do others on here think at drawing the line at torture or executions? Would you say definitely no under ANY circumstances?

 

[JoeBlack]

And for Joe to say that the Bolsheviks pushed the peasants into the White Armies. Do you really think that there weren’t big layers of reactionary peasants?

As this was a new point I slipped in a reply to someone else I'll expand on it.

This is all connected with the real historical progress of the revolution which is a bigger story then what happened in petrograd on one day in October.

You understand I presume that pre-1917 peasants in Russia were extremly exploited by a landlord class and that while technically serfdom had ended its legacy lived on?

Now after Feb. 1917 in most areas of Russia and the Ukraine peasants took advantage of the general break down in 'law and order' (ie the absence of effective forces of state repression) to take matters into their own hands. Lands were seized all over the places (peaking in July) and many landlords were looted, burnt out and even killed. Landlordism came to an effective end in most areas.

On their own the whites had no appeal to the peasants. After all even to a 'reactionary peasant' the return of the landlord class meant a return to paying rent, perhaps punishment for what had happened in the summer of 1917 and at least the collection of back rent. This added up to a rather huge mountain of 'objective interests'. Even on the subjective level most peasants were supporters of the SR's and by late 1917 of the left-SR's, this shows up strongly in all the pre-October soviet returns.

The Bolsheviks of course had no support among the peasantry which was a bit of a problem for a party focused on one party rule. And when the Bolshevik suppression of the left SR's started they were suppressing the one party that had mass peasant support and was pro-october.

The Bolsheviks were also fixated on controlling all aspects of the economy from the centre. Which meant gaining control of agricultural production at a moment when you neither had support among the peasants or goods to exchange with them or the willingness to allow workers (who were mostly 1st or 2nd generation peasants) directly sort out food supplies with their homes villages.

This resulted in two things.
1. The seizure of grain from the peasants which if you think about it would have looked a lot like a new landlord coming for the rent.
2. The attempt to build support for the Bolsheviks by instigating a civil war at the level of the village. This was done by inventing various categoiries of peasants and then trying to make the poorer ones bolshevik supporters by setting them on the richer ones.

There were two major outcomes of this policy
1. Famine in which a couple of million died as a direct consequence of the requisations and resistance to them. BTW when the famine was in full swing in 1919 Lenin was importing Rolls Royces from London to ferry himself and other bolsheviks around.
2. Lots of very angry peasants of the opinion that the bolsheviks were as bad if not worse than the old landlords. This led not only to sizeable peasant insurrections but also provide the white armies of Denkin and Wrangel with the bulk of their rank and file soldiers.

 

[cockneyrebel]

The Bolsheviks of course had no support among the peasantry

Really? I think even most anarchists would accept large layers of the peasantry supported the Bolsheviks. And what is the source saying the majority of peasants (around 80 million that would be) supported the left SRs?

BTW when the famine was in full swing in 1919 Lenin was importing Rolls Royces from London to ferry himself and other bolsheviks around.

Have you got a source for this? If true it’s obviously disgusting….but would have to see the source first….

I think there were a lot of peasants with reactionary ideas in 1917, don’t you think this? And as the source shows above the peasants wouldn’t give grain to Moscow even when it was near starvation in early 1918. How would anarchists react to this? What if there were sections of peasants they hadn’t won over and they desperately needed the grain? What’s the solution?

 

[Ray]

Nothing like taking things to the extreme.

Its very simple really. I pointed out that one of the bad things the Bolsheviks did was shoot deserters from the Red Army. (and this was policy, not a couple of isolated incidents)
You said you objected to that.
I asked if you really objected.
You said something like "what more can I say? I really object"
I asked what if it was necessary for the defense of the revolution.
And you said, "Oh, in that case..."

You complain about me taking things to the extreme, but you can stop me any time. All you have to do is say "No. Even if I was told it was necessary for the defence of the revolution, I wouldn't do X"

So far, we've discovered that X is not 'shooting deserters', it isn't 'torturing people', and it isn't 'summary executions'.

I never said I don’t really object to executions, I said they may well happen in a revolution. Do you deny this?

Well do you really object to executions, yes or no?

(I would, BTW. Shooting someone in self-defence, or in battle is one thing, but I'd object to executions)

I said I’m appalled by torture but if someone said to me we have the chance to save thousands of lives by getting information out of a secret agent through torture, it’s not an easy one IMO. What do you think?

I think you're far too easily swayed. _One_ person says this to you, and you shrug your shoulders and start attaching wires to genitalia.

As for shooting deserters, I think things would have to be very very bad, maybe too bad, I’m not sure. The situation in Russia was “We need to buy some time to spread the revolution so it has a chance to succeed. If we stop now the Whites will win and the oppression will definitely happen, we have a chance to stop the degeneration if we can buy some time and spread the revolution.” I think the revolution could of spread and that could have stopped the degeneration. I can see both sides here, it’s not just black and white…..

What do others on here think at drawing the line at torture or executions? Would you say definitely no under ANY circumstances?

I'm still waiting for you to come up with the thing you'd refuse to do, even if you were toild it was necessary for the defence of the revolution. Can you not think of anything? You don't have any friends or family you'd refuse to kill, even if your seniors told you it was necessary? No kids that you wouldn't be prepared to sacrifice? How about the rule guaranteeing factions the right to form? Surely things could never be so bad that you'd let that slide?

(What I don't understand is how you could go along with all of that, and yet still refuse to send me all your money. Its necessary for the defense of the revolution, comrade! Does that mean nothing to you?)

 

[Groucho]

Lenin's Rolls Royce

Have you got a source for this? If true it’s obviously disgusting….but would have to see the source first….

According to a number of sources Lenin did in fact import a specially modified Rolls Royce designed to cope with the Russian winters. The chasis was based on the Rolls Royce Silver ghost. Rolls Royce at the time were extensively used by the British military and were considered the most reliable vehicle of the day. There is little in Lenin's life and personal tastes to suggest that this was Lenin wanting to be emperor and more likely to do with the climate and reliability of alternative available sources.


If you google Lenin's Rolls Royce you will see that a manufacturer of toy cars produces one. I was unable to locate anything more reliable, but I have no reason to doubt the fact. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the actual Rolls was put on display after the 1989 revolutions.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I don’t know what I would have voted for in regards to shooting deserters. My guy instincts would be to vote against it, but what I’m saying is I can see both sides of the argument. By pushing me on it you made me think more. That’s a big difference from saying I’d accept anything just because someone said it was for the revolution…..

Fair enough you’d object to executions. What if a unit had caught some high ranking fascists who had carried out atrocities. The unit was needed there and then for the front line and there were no prisons near by. Would you release them or shoot them?

I think you're far too easily swayed. _One_ person says this to you, and you shrug your shoulders and start attaching wires to genitalia.

Once again you’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say this at all. I said if you could get information out of someone through torture that could save 1000s of lives, would you do it. Yes or no?

I'm still waiting for you to come up with the thing you'd refuse to do, even if you were toild it was necessary for the defence of the revolution. Can you not think of anything? You don't have any friends or family you'd refuse to kill, even if your seniors told you it was necessary? No kids that you wouldn't be prepared to sacrifice? How about the rule guaranteeing factions the right to form? Surely things could never be so bad that you'd let that slide?

Trotsky’s their morals and ours is good on this. Have you read it out of interest?

Of course there are things. If someone said we need to terrorise the opposition through rape (as has often been used in war), I’d say definitely no. If someone said wipe out every village we come across no questions asked etc etc etc

But what I am saying is that with some things that seem brutal it’s not black and white. Would I wanna kill someone full stop, no. Might you need to do it? Yes.

And no I would never wanna see internal factions stopped…..

And what's your answer to the grain question I asked? And about federations? Or this all one way?

 

[cockneyrebel]

According to a number of sources Lenin did in fact import a specially modified Rolls Royce designed to cope with the Russian winters. The chasis was based on the Rolls Royce Silver ghost. Rolls Royce at the time were extensively used by the British military and were considered the most reliable vehicle of the day. There is little in Lenin's life and personal tastes to suggest that this was Lenin wanting to be emperor and more likely to do with the climate and reliability of alternative available sources.

This might (and I say might) put a different slant on it. I’d still wanna see proper sources either way though……

 

[JoeBlack]

According to a number of sources Lenin did in fact import a specially modified Rolls Royce designed to cope with the Russian winters.

I first read about these in a general history of the revolution but googling is fun for this sort of thing. According to CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/05/04/rolls.facts/ Lenin owned no less then 9 of these beasts. At that rate he could have made MTV cribs

 

[Idris2002]

IOnce again you’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say this at all. I said if you could get information out of someone through torture that could save 1000s of lives, would you do it. Yes or no?

Isn't this the same argument the yanks are using right now, at this very moment, to justify what they're doing to the poor bastards in Guantanamo?

 

[levien]

1st generalisations from Russia are difficult because of the vastly different balance of class forces (mass of peasants) and the reality of the combined and uneven development of Russia into the global capitalist system. The situation in developed western countries like Britian is a million miles away.

2nd. on executions. What about spontanious revolutionary justice? After the Cuban revolution Che had to step in to stop people executing particularly hated functionaries of the old regime. Would people "morally condem" this? Personally I think it would have to be curbed by some sort of red guards but some people "focal points" of the reaction perhaps would have to be shot. The tsar in Russia for instance or the white army generals. Because in doing so it would hinder the building of the sort of reaction that failed revolutions have suffered (Hitler, Pinochet etc)

Ps Gonna read the thread properly now have dipped my oar in.

 

[Idris2002]

I first read about these in a general history of the revolution but googling is fun for this sort of thing. According to CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/05/04/rolls.facts/ Lenin owned no less then 9 of these beasts. At that rate he could have made MTV cribs

Apparently though, there is a document he wrote complaining to the central committee that 9 cars was too many.

Not that that excuses, etc., etc.

 

[cockneyrebel]

CNN a reliable source?! And as said the reasons given above for why they might have been bought are very different from a taste in luxury. That is a very crucial point….

Isn't this the same argument the yanks are using right now, at this very moment, to justify what they're doing to the poor bastards in Guantanamo?

Indeed. But “the yanks” also say they have to kill people to make the world better. Does that mean all revolutionaries who kill are in the wrong?

Any answers to my questions?

 

[Idris2002]

No, it means the revolutionaries had better not think that they have carte blanche to kill whoever they please, just because they're wearing big hats with 'revolutionary' written on it.

I'd be just about able to swallow the scenario gurrier outlined above - suppose, for the sake of argument, you had to kill in self-defence when there was an immediate threat to your life, then you might have the right to do that.

But that doesn't give you the right to turn into a political Tony Martin.

Bolshies: 'Get orf moi land'.

Peasants: 'No, I think you'll find that's our land, ta very much.'

Oh, and revolutions where no-one died: Poland 1981 - 1989?

 

[butchersapron]

Pretty sure people died in Poland - esp in 81 -strikers were certainly fired on.

 

[Flavour]

Are you saying nobody died in Jaruzelski's coup in December 1981?

 

[cockneyrebel]

But what about the scenarios I outlined. What is your answer to them?

 

[JoeBlack]

CNN a reliable source?!

This is why I'm not going to the effort to source stuff for you, it doesn't look like you'll accept anything except 'Workers Power' and I don't have an archive of that on my desk. And given what you write below even if I turned up at your door with all 9 of them you'd have an excuse so why would I bother?

And as said the reasons given above for why they might have been bought are very different from a taste in luxury.

I actually brought this up as something of a cheap shot which neatly illustrates how little the lenin fan club actually know about their hero. It's always funny to watch the confusion that emerges and the spontaneous excuses offered.

Personally I'd find it a little hard to excuse importing one of these beasts for the first comrade at a time when starvation was rampant and industry was fucked because of raw material shortages (caused in part by lunatic bolshevik policy). But I've no doubt if I could show that Lenin had 9 gold platted rolls so he could have a different one to ferry him to the opera each night and two to spare you'd still manage to trot out some excuse as to why this was necessary for the revolution. Back in '56 you'd have been one of those chanting 'discipline' 'discipline' I suspect.

 

[gurrier]

Sigh, there is something addictive about banging one's head off this wall and I've got sucked in again.

if you could get information out of someone through torture that could save 1000s of lives

The whole point that Ray is making and you seem to be doing your best to ignore, is that you never know in advance that the torture will save 1000's of lives, or that the banning of factions, or the terror against the peasants, or the imposition of one man rule, or the re-creation of a top-down army, or any of these things is necessary to save the revolution. What you do invariably have is the people who will gain power as a result of any of these 'reforms' saying it is so. And what happens in practice, which is obvious to the 99.9% of non-leninist humanity, is that these things become routine, the logic becomes self-reinforcing and the revolution turns itself into a dictatorship. If you want to create a social order which does not depend on these things you have to adopt a principled opposition to them and refuse to adopt them ever.

Really? I think even most anarchists would accept large layers of the peasantry supported the Bolsheviks. And what is the source saying the majority of peasants (around 80 million that would be) supported the left SRs?

Well most anarchists actually know something about the Russian revolution, so of course they wouldn't accept that. A reasonably good source of this information is the elections of November 1917. Despite the fact that these were organised largely by the bolsheviks (with all that implies), they only received 25% of the vote, largely urban, the SR's received 62%, which was overwhelmingly rural.

With regards to your question about what anarchists would propose doing to deal with the situation of food shortages, we can start by saying "first do no harm". The Bolshevik war against the peasantry, called "war communism" was described thus by Lenin "The essence of War Communism was that we actually took from the peasants all his surpluses and sometimes not only the surpluses but part of the grain the peasant needed for food". Now this resulted not only in a huge influx of recruits for the whites, but independent peasant uprisings all over the place and most importantly it created what amounted to a strike by the peasantry who simply stopped cultivating their fields and in particular all non-subsistence crops. Of course, you will choose to simply refuse to believe this rather than bother to look for any of the copious sources that support it.

 

[Ray]

I don’t know what I would have voted for in regards to shooting deserters. My guy instincts would be to vote against it, but what I’m saying is I can see both sides of the argument. By pushing me on it you made me think more. That’s a big difference from saying I’d accept anything just because someone said it was for the revolution…..

You went from 'shooting deserters is bad' to 'shooting deserters might not be bad' in about ten seconds. How long would 'socialism in one country' take?

Fair enough you’d object to executions. What if a unit had caught some high ranking fascists who had carried out atrocities. The unit was needed there and then for the front line and there were no prisons near by. Would you release them or shoot them?

Tie them up and leave one person to guard them. Give that person orders to shoot anyone who tries to escape. Give those orders right in front of the fascists. If you don't have any rope, blow out a few knee-caps.

Once again you’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say this at all. I said if you could get information out of someone through torture that could save 1000s of lives, would you do it. Yes or no?

Actually, what I've said, and what you've repeated in each of these examples is 'what if someone told you it was necessary to do X'. I phrased it like that very deliberately. Each time, you've said, 'I don't like X, but if someone told me it was necessary...'. You have a serious follower complex.

This comes back to the problem with consequentialism I mentioned earlier. Its very easy to say "Do this and that will happen". But most of the time, in situations like this, there is no easy connection. Its just a guess. You think action A will lead to X, while action B will lead to Y. But you have no way of knowing.

Which is a long-winded way of saying no. I wouldn't. I wouldn't trade assurances about future events for that blood on my hands in the present.

Trotsky’s their morals and ours is good on this. Have you read it out of interest?

Yeah, like I'm going to take lessons on morality from Trotsky...

Of course there are things. If someone said we need to terrorise the opposition through rape (as has often been used in war), I’d say definitely no. If someone said wipe out every village we come across no questions asked etc etc etc

Oh my god, we've reached a limit! But seriously now, are you sure? Consider this - terrorising the opposition through rape and wiping out villages are undoubtedly bad things. But they are bad things that could shorten the war. The longer the war goes on, the more working class people - that's our side, remember, will die. The longer the war goes on, the more workers democracy will suffer back home, the more the shortages will mount, the longer discontent will rise. Frankly, we're on a knife-edge here. We might just be able to survive a short war, survive long enough to kick-start revolutions in the countries around us. Its not certain, but we've a chance. A long war will wipe us out, I'm absolutely certain.
So which is it comrade, that village or the revolution?

But what I am saying is that with some things that seem brutal it’s not black and white. Would I wanna kill someone full stop, no. Might you need to do it? Yes.

Will you decide yourself if you need to do it, or will you follow the orders of your superiors?

And no I would never wanna see internal factions stopped…..

Thank heaven for that.

And what's your answer to the grain question I asked? And about federations? Or this all one way?

First of all, you didn't ask me a grain question, you asked Joe. Secondly, I started asking you questions about Leninism, and I've said from the start that Leninism stands or falls on its own, not on the successes or failures of anarchism. Was this your federations question - "Do you think that all federations should be bound by the decisions of the groups of delegates whether they agree or not i.e. the federations will not be autonomous and you agree with a the centralisation of power, even if for the short term?"

I think the simplest way of answering it is to say that I think the decisions made by the delegates should be binding, but there must be limits on how they are enforced. If a particular factory would rather make frdges than guns the delegate council can decide that no, they have to make guns. But they can't appoint a manager, order troops in, or ship everyone off to the gulag to enforce their will. This is basically the same answer I gave earlier (and others have given too). The delegates have the power to make decisions, but only within certain limits.