To take refuge behind the cloak of "objectivity" often signifies cowardice, for nobody is capable of free judgment without any subjective views, and least of all when personalities are concerned. For that reason I freely admit that I am a revolutionary syndicalist. But when I, like those sharing my views, do not approve of all the methods and the tactics of the bolsheviks, it would be tactless in the highest degree for the bolsheviks to brand us as counter-revolutionists, as they are so inclined to do, in order to discredit the revolutionary syndicalists and' anarchists before the revolutionary workers. Before the outbreak of the revolution, and before the war, it would not have occurred to any Russian bolshevik to label a revolutionary syndicalist and an anarchist as a counter-re volutipnist, only because he rejected the state, the dictatorship of the proletariat and centralism as well as capitalism. On the contrary, at that time, the anarchist and syndicalist would have had far more right to give the bolsheviks that surname. But, of course, he did not call the bolsheviks by any such name. But now the matter has changed. The bolsheviks are the ruling party. Their theories, their methods and their tactics are now no longer platonic ; they have become a cold reality which often is quite perceptible to the Russian people. The theories and methods which formerly were more or less useful material for discussion in the papers, are to-day in Russia regulations, decrees and laws for the Russian people. When we to-day enter into polemics against these theories and tactics, we are also compelled to take a stand on the decrees. But when we do this the bolsheviks brand us, if our criticism happens to be disapproving, as counter-revolutionaries. We can, of course, just as little abstain from this criticism now as before. But the difference is that we to-day have a concrete basis while we formerly worked with only an hypothesis. One thing is necessary to note, however: the difference between decrees and laws and regulations which spring from the theories, and those which can be traced to conditions in Russia. A criticism of the latter would be a criticism of the revolution itself, seeing that the bolshevik party is a revolutionary party. But such a criticism we cannot yet enter into, particularly as revolutionaries. A criticism of the former we hold to-day to be just as necessary as formerly the discussion between the different socialist groups. But, besides, we must investigate the effects upon the people of both kinds of decrees and laws, those that spring from theories, and those that are traceable to the conditions. As little as we believe in decrees and laws, still we must admit that they produce a reaction among the people. The popular reaction to these decrees is partly friendly, partly hostile, according to their nature and the wishes of the people. For there are decrees that release the revolutionary powers of the people and stimulate them, and there are decrees that dam them up a annihilate revolutionary initiative.
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
Such an investigation is very difficult, however. The classification of the decrees and the laws into such as originate in the theories and such as are traceable to the conditions is, namely, in practice not possible in the case of all of them. A number of decrees are the result of a mixture of both elements. If the effects are altogether or partially stimulating to the revolution or are hostile to liberty, and the people reacts accordingly, then one could easily get in the peculiar position of wanting to approve of 60 per cent of them and condemn 40 per cent. But a social revolution is no problem in arithmetic ; it is a question of whether one accepts of the revolution (and then also the unbeautiful things) or one does not accept of it at all.