"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.
.jpg)
