#title A Few Words on a Confusing Notion
#author M. Isidine
#LISTtitle Few Words on a Confusing Notion
#date September 15, 1925
#source [[http://mariegoldsmith.uk/archives][Marie Goldsmith Project]]. Translated from Isidine, M. “Quelques mots sur une notion confuse [A few words     on a confusing notion].” *Plus Loin* [*Further*], September 15,     1925.
#lang en
#pubdate 2023-07-18T06:58:54
#authors Marie Goldsmith, Søren Hough, Christopher Coquard
#topics Vladimir Lenin, Leninism, state power, the state, dictatorship of the proletariat, Transition, Paris Commune
#notes Translated by Christopher Coquard.
Edited by Søren Hough & Christopher Coquard. <br>
*This article is part of a translated collection published in 2023 by
the Marie Goldsmith Project. These articles were translated by Alexandra
Agranovich (Russian) and Christopher Coquard (French) and then edited by
Christopher Coquard and Søren Hough with the goal of preserving
Goldsmith’s original meaning and stylistic emphases. Modern footnotes by
the translator or editors are prefaced “Ed:” while all other footnotes
are from Marie Goldsmith. This translation was originally published in
[[https://irp.cdn-website.com/3fa68967/files/uploaded/BlackFlag-vol3-no2.pdf][*Black
Flag Vol. 3 No. 2*]].*
#notoc 1


In the innumerable discussions that the Russian revolution has given
rise to in socialist and revolutionary circles, the idea of a
“transitional period” following victorious revolution constantly recurs;
it is perhaps the most abused idea for trying to either justify or deny
indefensible actions. It is generally believed that even the most
advanced countries are not ready for completely realized socialism (and,
*a fortiori*, of anarchist socialism). On this basis, some advocate
half-socialist, half-radical measures, or even a “workers’ government”
which, as far as socialism is concerned, will only realize the minimum
elements of the program; others aim at a dictatorship which will give
the revolutionaries absolute power which they will then use to serve the
interests of the working class, above all by terrorizing the
bourgeoisie. The Bolsheviks, in particular (and the anarchists who have
allowed themselves to be led by them), say to us: “Do you really believe
in the possibility of making anarchist communism reign from now on? The
masses are not prepared for it and socialism still has too many enemies;
as long as they remain, the State will remain necessary. You must resign
yourself to a transitional period of dictatorship.”

As long as we are willing to discuss the matter on this basis and to
make our opinion dependent on our assessment — optimistic or pessimistic
— of the degree to which the workers are prepared, it will be impossible
for us to give a clear solution to the question in accordance with our
principles. And this is understandable: the question must be posited in
a different way. Whether or not our ideal is attainable “right away” —
this can in no way influence our actions. We know that only the
historian, through consideration and once the results have been
acquired, will one day establish which advances our time was ripe to
realize; and as for our contemporaries, they are always mistaken in this
respect, each one in relation with their own personal opinions. We do
not believe in the existence of predetermined phases of evolution,
identical for all peoples. We know that the general stride of humanity
leads forward to a better use of the forces of nature and to a better
assurance of the liberation of not only the individual, but also of
social solidarity. On this path, there may be stops, even setbacks, but
never a definitive movement in the opposite direction. And the more that
the communion between different peoples solidifies, the more rapidly
those who are further along this path will inspire the laggards. And as
for the rest — the speed of the movement, its peaceful or violent
course, the conquests achieved at this or that moment — all this depends
on a number of factors that cannot be predicted. Among these factors,
one of the most powerful has always been and will always be the action
of individuals and their groups. The ideas that inspire the most
energetic action will have the greatest chance of triumphing; life will
follow the result of the forces applied. Consequently, the more we
employ our efforts in view of our ideal in all its intransigence, the
closer to it we will get.

In discussions where one speaks about a “period of transition,” we are
often confused and misunderstand each other, because it is a question of
two very different notions. On the one hand, every epoch is a
transitional period to a higher stage, because as certain aspirations
are accomplished, others arise. But there always exists certain dominant
problems, which preoccupy all people capable of thinking, and other
problems, such as those of the future, which are thought of only by an
advanced minority. Thus, the socialist problem: the abolition of
capitalist exploitation and the organization of an economic society
based on equality is in our time on the verge of immediate realization;
but to base this new society on freedom and to assure the genuine
development of its people remains the ideal of only a few: the
anarchists. At which moment will this ideal finally take its place as
our primary objective, and become essential for the majority? Only the
future will tell; however, it is certain that before it is realized as
we conceive it, we will go through a series of transitional stages.

But we must also consider other elements under the name of transitional
period: it is the moment which immediately follows a revolution, when
the old forms are not entirely deconstructed — the enemies, partisans of
the past, are still to be feared — and the new order of things is born
in the midst of the struggle and in the most dire of difficulties. And
then, if one considers uniquely only this moment, apart from the past
and especially the future, one arrives at the conclusion, like the
Bolsheviks, to justify all means, even the most dangerous ones,
generally borrowed from the old world, and which places the necessity of
a dictatorship at the forefront.[1] Or one can propose, as Kautsky and
the other social democrats do, a temporary regime where the socialists
will be in power, but will postpone the realization of their socialist
program to some indeterminate moment in the future.

Whether it is one or the other of these directions, our way of seeing
things is completely different: we refuse to be hypnotized by this idea
of transition. That successive progress and partial advancement must
precede the total realization of our ideal is quite possible and even
probable, but for these successive stages to be acceptable and desirable
to us, they must lead us toward this ideal and not toward something
diametrically opposed. The way toward a society free of all State
coercion and founded upon the free association of individuals can only
be achieved through social forms where free initiative increases and
authority decreases. But if, under the guise of a period of transition
toward a free community, we are offered a complete annihilation of all
freedom, we reply that this is not a transition, but a step backward. We
have not been raised in the tradition of the Hegelian dialectic, which
considers as a natural phenomenon the transformation of a thing into its
opposite; our thinking is penetrated rather by the principle of
evolution, which tells us that each stage of development is not only not
opposed to the previous one, but proceeds from it.[2] The anarchist
society will never result from a dictatorship; it will only be born from
the elements of freedom that have subsisted and flourished in spite of
all State-inspired constraints. For a social form to be considered a
step forward toward an ideal, it must contain more elements of this
ideal and never less; otherwise, it is a retreat and not progress.[3]

The Paris Commune, for example, did not set out to create an anarchist
society, but anarchists everywhere regarded it highly for its broad
federalism. Similarly, during the Russian revolution, anarchists warmly
welcomed the institution of the free soviets, as long as they emerged
from popular initiative, and not from the official organs, which today
offer only a caricature of them; they saw in them a form of political
organization preferable to classical parliamentarianism, which in their
minds increased the development of initiative and collective action
among the people.

A sympathetic attitude toward everything that brings us closer to our
ideal is a self-evident thing; the notion of a “transitional period” can
add nothing to it. It only serves to obscure the discussion and to give
a pretext to certain groups to “revise” our ideas, which means,
essentially, to abandon them in their very essence. In reality, the
revolutionary moment is the one which lends itself the least to
prudence, to the fear of utopia, of the “unattainable”; on the contrary,
it extends the limits of all hopes. Let us not therefore be intimidated
by these false historical narratives, to which the whole experience of
history gives a firm denial.

*** Bibliography

<biblio>

Kaba, Mariame. “Police ‘Reforms’ You Should Always Oppose.” Truthout,
December 7, 2014,
[[https://truthout.org/articles/police-reforms-you-should-always-oppose/][truthout.org/articles/police-reforms-you-should-always-oppose]].

Lenin, V. I. “The State and Revolution.” In *V. I. Lenin Collected
Works*, edited by XX, 385–497. Russia: Progress Publishers (1918).

</biblio>


[1] Ed: Articulating this point, Vladimir Lenin argued in *State and
    Revolution* (1918) that, “The proletariat needs state power, a
    centralized organization of force, an organization of violence, both
    to crush the resistance of the exploiters and to lead the enormous
    mass of the population — the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and
    semi-proletarians — in the work of organizing a socialist economy”
    (Lenin, “State and Revolution,” 409).

[2] Ed: As an evolutionary biologist, Goldsmith uses the term evolution
    advisedly. In this case, she uses it to reject the notion of
    dialectical analysis in favor of a forward-marching view of
    humanity’s progress.

[3] Ed: Goldsmith outlines one of the core principles of anarchist
    thought: the unity of means and ends. This describes the idea that
    the tools of liberation must be in harmony with the desired
    liberated future. For instance, one cannot use top-down
    authoritarianism to achieve self-determination. This concept is not
    unique to anarchism; more recently, prison industrial complex (PIC)
    abolitionists have articulated the perspective that abolition cannot
    be achieved by enacting reforms which reinforce the legitimacy,
    funding, and strength of the PIC (Kaba, “Police ‘Reforms’ You Should
    Always Oppose”).