Bookchin's the third revolution - volume 3
Feb 10 2007 22:49
Hmmm, has anyone read this? I've just started it after finding it for a throwaway price on amazon, but I've noticed that almost immediately, i.e. in the intro, he dismisses the anarchists (apart from the makhnovshchina) as hopelessly disorganised. And then goes on to say the Left SR's were the best bet. Now, I have several questions,
1. Who are the left SR's?
2. Did he go senile in his old age?
3. Was he right to dimiss the anarchists?
4. Has he disappeared up Lenin's arse?
I'm no doubt that as I progress further through the book these questions will be answered, but I just wondered what other people's thoughts were?
BGB
Apart from that it starts quite well, talking about old russian democratic cities, as is his wont.
Feb 11 2007 00:46
#2
Yeah unfortunatly I would agree with you about anarchism in aussie, I've talked to a few kiwi's who have been over there in the last few years and know a few anarch-types over there myself and from what I can gather the disorganisation in aussie makes new zealand anarchists look good (which it's not).
And some of the shit fights over there are legendary....
Feb 11 2007 02:20
#3
bodach: i've not read that book, but...
i gather that, around the time he got to writing that book, he'd gone into his "i'm not an Anarchist anymore" stage, which lasted, presumably, till he died. that said, it didnt mean he rejected everything Anarchists did, or were about - i gather he was just mostly a lot more selective. he was fine with the Spanish Anarchists, i think, and came to even consider them something different than the rest of the Anarchist movement, which he came to think largely poorly of...
i think, anyway 
as for what he said about the Russian Anarchist movement... it's kind of funny, but that's basically the argument of Makhno and Arshinov and the other original Platformists. they said that Anarchism had a hell of a lot to offer to the prole/peasants/etc, but they didnt organize themselves properly so they could really win the day. i think it would be a bit harsh to write them off altogether (i'm not talking about Bookchin's acceptance of the Makhnovists), as you said Bookchin did, but there are a fair number of Anarchists to this day who have similar feelings... that the revolution failed, in part, because the Russian Anarchists (not Ukrainian) werent organized strongly enough.
oh, the SRs... "SR" stood for "Social Revolutionary," i think... in the sense of the Social Revolutionary Party. i dont know too much about them, but they were at least a bit socialist and were noted as "populists" (bah, who isnt?). at one point, there was a split in the party, resulting in a left side and a right side... thusly the "Left SRs" and the "Right SRs."
Feb 11 2007 18:21
#4
Bookchin had good reasons to pick both the Ukrainian and Spanish anarchist efforts as unique and superior to other efforts since they were actually mass movements that carried out major revolutionary efforts.
The Left SRs in the Russian revolution, however, were not a very well organized or coherent political formation. For example, in Getzler's book about the Kronstadt soviet in 1917-21, he points out that the Left SRs tended to vacillate, moving back and forth between support for the Bolsheviks and support for the libertarian Left (maximalists and syndicalists in Kronstadt). The Left SRs were represented (along with maximalists) on the administrative council of the Makhnovist region, which was in charge of Makhno's army. so the Left SRs were in fact part of the Makhnovist movement.
When the Left SRs were in the government with the Bolsheviks, they were not very effective. And their attempted rising against the Bolsheviks was pathetic. They controlled a section of the Cheka which seized the Cheka headquarters in Moscow but then they did nothing, they waited for a "spontaneous" uprising which never happened. They had no plan.
t.
Feb 11 2007 19:44
#5
Cheers folks, I shall read on!
Feb 12 2007 11:35
#6
1. Who are the left SR's?
Left-socialist popularists, closer to anarchism than social democrats. Mostly peasant based, but with significant working class support. Probably would have the majority of the second 1918 Soviet Congress if the Bolsheviks had not gerrymandered it. This provoked their uprising and subsequent repression.
Their left-wing, the Maximalists were very close to anarchism (and were the main political force in Kronstadt in 1917 and 1921).
3. Was he right to dimiss the anarchists?
Remember, by then he had moved away from anarchism and was burning bridges. The Russian anarchists were somewhat disorganised, but some sections were not.
4. Has he disappeared up Lenin's arse?
Yes, as his criticisms of "What is to be done?" are non-existent. He clearly returned to a party/vanguard position.
Volume 3 is a useful summary of what happened, marred by his anti-anarchism. Volume 4 (on Spain) is terrible -- hard to believe it is by the same person who wrote "The Spanish Anarchists."
Atm the anarchist in Australia are totally disorganized so i see his point