Trotsky on terrorism

"Against Individual Terrorism" is a pamphlet published by the U.S. Socialist Workers' Party (SWP). It contains a number of articles penned by Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky on the subject of terrorism. The term "terrorism" can mean a lot of different things, and Trotsky's discussion is limited in scope to assassinations and similar violent actions carried out by small groups against hated regimes. He specifically criticizes anarchists and Russian "populists" (Narodnaya Volya, the early SRs). Of course, Trotsky's criticism of terrorist tactics against repressive, authoritarian regimes can also be applied more broadly to terrorism against democratic governments with broad popular support, the indiscriminate killing of civilians in peacetime, and so on.

As a Marxist, Trotsky's objections to terrorism have little to do with "morality" per se. Trotsky's opposition to terrorism flows from his Marxist view of history, where the broad masses in general and the industrial working class in particular are agents of social change, and where the goal is a complete socialist transformation of society. Thus, only the working class can organize real labour unions, go on strike and prepare the mass strike, which will finally bring down the system. Anyone can grab a gun or learn to use dynamite. Terrorism is therefore not a specifically working class form of struggle. Since the masses are the only medium for social change, terrorism is regressive since it replaces the politically conscious mass with the heroic individual or the secretive small group. When the small band of revolutionaries is destroyed by the state apparatus, the masses inevitably become demoralized and passive. Trotsky also argues that terrorism is a historically outmoded form of struggle. Here, he is tacitly appealing to the Marxist schema of history, where capitalism is fated to be replaced by socialism, making individual terrorism at best a road to nowhere. Tyrannicide, celebrated even by "bourgeois" poets, may be romantic but has no place in the new dispensation. His analysis of Russian populist and anarchist terrorism is interesting in this regard.

Trotsky also has more tactical or technical arguments against the use of individual terror. He views terrorism as politically inexpedient, since an assassinated government official is quickly replaced with another just like him. Any temporary confusion in the ranks of the establishment is usually overcome, as the military or police cracks down on the terrorists and cripple the revolutionary movement. Trotsky doesn't believe that terrorism and the mass struggle can be combined. The creation of an underground terrorist organization crave so much planning, energy and resources, that revolutionaries joining it won't be able to function as mass organizers. A dual form of organization doesn't work either, since the legal organization and even the Central Committee will be subordinate to the terrorist organization in practice - otherwise, what's the point of creating one in the first place?

Three of the five articles included in "Against Individual Terrorism" were written before Trotsky became a Bolshevik, at a time when he had a more "Luxemburgist" view of the revolution. This presumably explains the emphasis placed on strikes and the "mass strike". As a Bolshevik, Trotsky regarded a vanguard party as indispensable to the success of the revolution. However, Lenin also saw mass support as essential for overthrowing the old (i.e. mass support for the party), making Trotsky's arguments in the two latter articles virtually identical to the previous ones.

In my opinion, "Against Individual Terrorism" doesn't close the case. The SWP editors regard the following groups as "terrorist organizations" (their term): the Tupamaros, the ERP in Argentina, the ETA-V, the Provisional IRA, Black September, Weathermen and the bizarre "Symbionese Liberation Army". Some of them were supported by the SWP's opponents within the Fourth International. However, the various group mentioned are strikingly different. For instance, both the IRA and the ETA had or developed legal political arms, Sinn Fein and Herri Batasuna, respectively. Sinn Fein was one of the strongest "Catholic" parties in Northern Ireland! It's also unclear why the SWP attack Black September but not Fatah or the PFLP. Indeed, the SWP supported Arafat and the PLO. If they supported the PLO, what's the difference between the PLO and the IRA?

I think it's clear from Trotsky's article that the main Marxist argument against terrorism must be the political one, the argument that terrorists can't transform society in a way specifically congenial to Marxism. This seems to be the tacit supposition of the SWP. An argument from pure expediency is ultimately unworkable. Frankly, I don't think Trotsky has managed to prove his purely technical-military point, that terrorism is always futile or that terrorism and "mass struggle" can't be connected. Obviously, if terrorism is *defined* as "armed actions with no support", then terrorism will always fail, but that's a tautology. The proposition that terrorism and "mass struggle" can't be combined is more interesting. It seems to be incorrect. In Trotsky's own time, there was a right-wing terrorist organization in Macedonia, the IMRO, which had some success due to support from Bulgaria. On the left-wing end of the political spectrum, the IRA may not have defeated Britain, but they eventually forced them into a stalemate, laying the basis for peace negotiations and co-government between Nationalists and Loyalists. If you think this is a desirable goal, then "terrorism" really does work. If you want Cuba-style socialism (SWP's preferred option), I suppose you could say that terrorism doesn't work, after all...

Ultimately, the question is one of different political agendas.

1.