# Victor Serge



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 6, 2005)

He's not really an anrchist is he...?




			
				Serge said:
			
		

> The anarchist `party' was rendered incapable of any practical initiative through its divisions, its Utopian spirit, its contempt for reality, its thunderous phrasemongering and its lack of organization and discipline. Whatever it enjoyed in the way of real capacities and energies were wasted in small and chaotic struggles. It was, for all that, a distinctive and armed party which, as we have seen, tried to organize itself along with its own General Staff. But it was an amorphous party without definite contours or directing organs - that is to say, without a brain or nervous system - a strange sort of party which was at the mercy of the most contradictory aims and was unable to exert any control over itself. It was an irresponsible party in which individual intelligences dominated by cliques, by alien pressures of a highly suspect kind and by group instincts, dissipated themselves to no effect. It was an unworkable party for a time of social war: for any war in modern conditions demands of its combatant units the centralization of information, thinking and will. It demands levers which are smoothly obedient to the decisions of leadership, and a clear view of facts and possibilities, which can come only through a clear-cut theory.





Not quite getting my head round this guy, anyone have any strong opinions?

Do trotskyists claim him as one of their own?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2005)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSserge.htm


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 6, 2005)

*the first half of that i had read elsewhere*

but i hadn't read the second bit with quotes, thank you Pickmans.

what do you think of this statement:

Memoirs of a Revolutionary (1945) 

''I met the Menshevik leaders, and certain anarchists. Both sets denounced Bolshevik intolerance, the stubborn refusal to revolutionary dissenters of any right to exist, and the excesses of the Terror. The Mensheviks seemed to me to be admirably intelligent, honest and devoted to Socialism, but completely overtaken by events. They stood for a sound principle, that of working-class democracy, but in a situation fraught with such mortal danger that the stage of siege did not permit any functioning of democratic institutions. ''


----------



## JoePolitix (Nov 6, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> He's not really an anrchist is he...?
> 
> Not quite getting my head round this guy, anyone have any strong opinions?
> 
> Do trotskyists claim him as one of their own?



This useful article shoud answer some of your questions:

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext9/Ernie.html


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 6, 2005)

Read his "Memoirs of a Revolutionary" whether you agree or disagree with him, it is a good read with poetic, literary qualities.

It is also a moving document of brutal honesty, about a revolution disintergrating and transforming into it's opposite.

Good article by Peter Sedgwick on Serge - "The Unhappy Elitist"
http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/serge.html


----------



## Squatticus (Nov 6, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> Do trotskyists claim him as one of their own?



Yes, and he's often used as evidence that the 'best' anarchists will become trots  in the light of real experience of a revolution. 

(I wonder how long this thread will take to get on to Kronstadt?   For what its worth, my view is that the episode should be viewed as regrettable by the (self-proclaimed) heirs of both sides involved)


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> but i hadn't read the second bit with quotes, thank you Pickmans.
> 
> what do you think of this statement:
> 
> ...


seems fair enough - i always thought the mensheviks were a bunch of losers.

but whilst he has a point that sometimes things move so fast it is hard to get things sorted democractically, that's no reason not to try to do so.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2005)

Well, the anarchism that he was associated with early in his and later abandoned was of the individualist type, firmly against class politics, despising workers and syndicalism or any form oif collective struggle - and it was very clearly a minority current within anarchism. He then moved onto ultra-bolshevism, going fuether than even the orthodox leninsts in his defence of and support for centralisation and the adoption of authoritarian and hierachical methods. 

I don't think that the two positions are as far apart as they seem on first glance - there's certain common themes that run through both, distrust of the masses and their capabilities in practics, despite reams of words emphasising the opposisite, being most obvious.

Of course Serge also later rejected Trotskyism as being based on the same faulty basis as the above two.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 6, 2005)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> This useful article shoud answer some of your questions:
> 
> http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext9/Ernie.html


Ah; neither anarchism nor bolshevism, but individualist opportunism?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 6, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Well, the anarchism that he was associated with early in his and later abandoned was of the individualist type, firmly against class politics, despising workers and syndicalism or any form oif collective struggle - and it was very clearly a minority current within anarchism. He then moved onto ultra-bolshevism, going fuether than even the orthodox leninsts in his defence of and support for centralisation and the adoption of authoritarian and hierachical methods.
> 
> I don't think that the two positions are as far apart as they seem on first glance - there's certain common themes that run through both, distrust of the masses and their capabilities in practics, despite reams of words emphasising the opposisite, being most obvious.
> 
> Of course Serge also later rejected Trotskyism as being based on the same faulty basis as the above two.


so his objections to stalin were circumstantial rather than deep seated or ideological?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 6, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> seems fair enough - i always thought the mensheviks were a bunch of losers.


'bunch of lsers' lol 

I see them exactly as he puts it. 

The failure of the mensheviks and the the success of the bolshevikshas given character to the organisations of the left to present day; no group is too small when your militant; no split issue is not worth splitting over; the revolution is around the corner and can be engineered.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> so his objections to stalin were circumstantial rather than deep seated or ideological?


 No, his objections to Stalin were based on his (Stalin's) role  in helping to crush the revolution. They were deeply ideological, and they grew in part out of his own recognition of the mistakes he had made and then later defended when he was an ulta-bolshevik, and which he recognised as running through later trotskyism as well  ass bolshevism (without being the entirety of either though).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> 'bunch of lsers' lol
> 
> I see them exactly as he puts it.
> 
> The failure of the mensheviks and the the success of the bolshevikshas given character to the organisations of the left to present day; no group is too small when your militant; no split issue is not worth splitting over; the revolution is around the corner and can be engineered.



The thing is though, the splits Lenin engineered in the RSDLP were needed and were correct in those cicrumstances. The probalem is that the groups that have follwed have often mechanically applied those tatcics to each and every situation. Saying that, false unity is no good either.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 6, 2005)

yes that was what i was trying to say; that in a way, its a shame lenin was right.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 6, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> No, his objections to Stalin were based on his (Stalin's) role  in helping to crush the revolution. They were deeply ideological, and they grew in part out of his own recognition of the mistakes he had made and then later defended when he was an ulta-bolshevik, and which he recognised as running through later trotskyism as well  ass bolshevism (without being the entirety of either though).



I was told once, although I've never read them, that he had a furious exchange of letters with Trosky over Krondstat when they were both in exile, with Trosky defending it, and Serge saying it was a mistake.


----------



## 888 (Nov 6, 2005)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> This useful article shoud answer some of your questions:
> 
> http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext9/Ernie.html



No, it's just a slur on anarchism (though certainly some of the individualist type deserves to be attacked) by some social democrat wanker.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> I was told once, although I've never read them, that he had a furious exchange of letters with Trosky over Krondstat when they were both in exile, with Trosky defending it, and Serge saying it was a mistake.


Yes, it was the laast in a long line of escalating disagreements that culminated in Trotsky accusing Serge of being either GPU or a western state agent - a very serious accusation that couldeasily have ended with Serge's death. It's all in The Serge-Trotsky Papers, edited by Dave Cotteril.

As for the awful Haberkern article linked to above, there's a pretty good reply by Ian Birchall of all people here. Haberkern is a schatmmanite though, not a social democrat and is *usually* an interesting writer (And Ian Birchall's normally shit).


----------



## rebel warrior (Nov 6, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Yes, it was the laast in a long line of escalating disagreements that culminated in Trotsky accusing Serge of being either GPU or a western state agent - a very serious accusation that couldeasily have ended with Serge's death. It's all in The Serge-Trotsky Papers, edited by Dave Cotteril..



What has to be remembered though is the role of GPU agents among Trotsky's staff at the time who may well have fed him false information about Serge at the time...

Of course, it was GPU agents among Trotsky's staff that eventually did lead to Trotsky's death.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2005)

But Trotsky _was wrong_, dangerously and carelessly so - and it's clear from the correspondence that his slur was motivated by anger at Serge's political disagreements with him and very little else.


----------



## rebel warrior (Nov 7, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> But Trotsky _was wrong_, dangerously and carelessly so - and it's clear from the correspondence that his slur was motivated by anger at Serge's political disagreements with him and very little else.



He was still being fed very dodgy shit by others about Serge though at the time...

Also, Trotsky was _not wrong _ in general in 1938 to defend himself over Kronstadt against liberals...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2005)

A liberal that Trotsky was desperate to make a central part of the building of the 4th International. And yes, and the people feeding him shit were the bloody GPU agents. What does that say about Trotsky? He was the one took in and manipulated like a teenage cadre.

I'm interested in what reasons you have for calling Serge a liberal though.


----------



## rebel warrior (Nov 7, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> A liberal that Trotsky was desperate to make a central part of the building of the 4th International. And yes, and the people feeding him shit were the bloody GPU agents. What does that say about Trotsky? He was the one took in and manipulated like a teenage cadre.
> 
> I'm interested in what reasons you have for calling Serge a liberal though.



I didn't call Serge a liberal.  I was just noting  that  Serge was not alone in bringing up Kronstadt in 1938 - a lot of liberals did as well, in order to justify condemning Marxism because of Stalin's Purges.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2005)

What on earth are you on about? Most people not actively involved in oppositional politics (either in the USSR, wstern Europe or the US) had no idea in 1938 of what was going on, if anything the western liberal intellectuals were flocking to the popular front and covering up the purges or justifying them on without any real knowledge of what was taking place. No one was doing what you're saying. Un'ess of course you'd like to list some of those 'liberals' bringing Kronsdadt up in 1938? You're floating dangerously here RW. Be careful.


----------



## rebel warrior (Nov 7, 2005)

You are right about most 'left' liberals. However Trotsky describes 'counter-revolutionary "liberals"' [not Serge] as joining in the attacks on him here: 

http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/trotsky/works/1938/1938-kronstadt.htm


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2005)

I asked you snowball, not Trotsky. (That's enough for me tonight anyway).


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 7, 2005)

see here- the Victor Serge book review
http://af-north.org/organise_60.htm


----------



## JoePolitix (Nov 7, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Yes, it was the laast in a long line of escalating disagreements that culminated in Trotsky accusing Serge of being either GPU or a western state agent - a very serious accusation that couldeasily have ended with Serge's death. It's all in The Serge-Trotsky Papers, edited by Dave Cotteril.
> 
> As for the awful Haberkern article linked to above, there's a pretty good reply by Ian Birchall of all people here. Haberkern is a schatmmanite though, not a social democrat and is *usually* an interesting writer (And Ian Birchall's normally shit).



I think Birchall misses the point in his reply to Haberkern’s article. 

The purpose of Haberkern’s piece, written in 1990, was to challenge what was a commonly held view at the time: that Serge’s later opposition to the excesses of Bolshevism stemmed from his pre-Bolshevik “libertarian” politics. 

It should be noted that at the time the article was written Serge’s anarchist writings were only published in French and not widely available and as such this article played a valuable role in de-bunking the myth in the English speaking world. The fact that What Next had re-printed Haberkern’s article 8 years later appears to have been missed by Birchall.

Fundamentally Haberkern’s polemic is an attack on Serge’s ideology, principally his pre-Bolshevik politics and his politics during the years of siege Bolshevism. Whilst it may seem harsh, the point of the piece seems to have been to “bend the stick” against what was at the time a prevailing orthodoxy. And Haberkern does stress that the point of his polemic against Serge should not be seen as an attempt to “take anything away from the enormous courage and integrity he displayed in his subsequent career as an oppositionist.”

And he also notes:

“Serge’s description of the Communist Party in the period of War Communism is brilliantly done. In his account of the siege of Petrograd, his account of Year One of the Revolution and his Memoirs of a Revolutionary, he not only describes the process of decay but, as a necessary part of that, what the Communist Party had really been like at the height of the civil war. This portrait not only condemns by contrast the Stalinism that followed but also shames the bourgeois detractors of the revolution.”

I do agree with Birchall on two things however. Firstly that Haberkern’s absolute division of pre and post 1917 Bolshevism is superficial and ahistorical and secondly that the Shahtmanites generally suck, although they do produce interesting pieces (Draper rates as one of the greatest Marx scholars imho).

However Birchall’s piece here is full of the sort of moralism that he accuses Haberkern of.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2005)

Haberkern’s article seemed to me to attempting to do two other directly related things. Firstly point out where Serges embrace of Bolshevism was wrong - that it was based on lack of knowledge and experience, and was primarily derived from the war communism of the years 1918-21 rather than the claimed earlier more 'democratic' years. 

And secondly, to make the point that this was a direct result of Serge's anarchism (and by extension _all anarchism_)-  and that consequently Serge (and all other anarchists) never manged to grasp what was happening and why the revolution degenerated.

Now, i do have a measure of sympathy for the first point - Serge undoubtdly was fascinated by 'men of action' and did tend to drop his critical intelligence when around them - actually it wouild probably be more accurate to say that he _used_ that critical intelligence to justify their actions. 

But he was the son of Social Revolutionaries expelled from Russia, he grew up surrounded by Russian exiles and his whole life was spent amongst political radicals. I really don't think it's possible that he had no idea who the bolsheviks were, what they stood for or what they promoted pre-1917. That's just too handy a claim for Haberkern's argument. 

The second though is really just nonsense. Haberkern tries to pass off the uninfluential and tiny individualist French anarchist movement off as anarchism full stop. He correctly characterises that current as full of contempt for the w/c, for 'prolos' and for collective action, but he then, rather disgracefully, extends those same feelings from this tiny minority onto anarchism as a whole, and beats the wider movement with their crimes and mistakes. 

I think what Haberkern does manage to do - rather inadvertently - in his stressing the continuities in Serge's political thought, is highlight the similiarites between individualist anarchism and jacobinism/authoritarian Communism. The distrust/dislike of the w/c and it's capabilities, the role of the strong leader/vanguard to keep the revolution on track (brain and memory of the class) etc.

The exchange continued later on here and here 

There is still no English edition of Serges early individualist writings as far as i know.


----------



## Random (Nov 7, 2005)

If Serge moved straight from anarcho-individualism to ultra-bolshevism, why did he go and join the CNT after his release from jail in 1917?  In his retelling of those times, in his autobio, he describes an anarcho-individualist in Barcelona who wouldn't take part in the CNT's uprising of 1917 as an example of 'the individualist poison'.

I'd say that Serge's social libertarian outlook was in development from an early stage, causing, for example, rifts between himself and the individualists who were to become labelled 'the bonnot gang', who had edited 'Anarchy' before he did.

Edit:  I'm going on serge's own writings here, so maybe he was trying to exculpate himself.  However, his Year One also is more critical of the development and degeneration of bolshevik power than one would expect from an 'ultra-bolshevik'.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 7, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> Edit:  I'm going on serge's own writings here, so maybe he was trying to exculpate himself.  However, his Year One also is more critical of the development and degeneration of bolshevik power than one would expect from an 'ultra-bolshevik'.


 yes but he wrote that in 1930, long after his ultr-bolshevik phase...?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 7, 2005)

Yes, he did take part in CNT activities in Barcelona. He was part of a group of French anarchists who began to "Bolshevise" and he then took the decision to go to Russia and to join the Bolsheviks.
as regards his involvement with Bonnot gang, yes he was trying to exculpate himself as articles praising "men of action" appeared in l'anarchie under one of his pen names whilst the Bonnot gang events were being reported on in the press.
His erstwhile companion and co-editor Rirette Maitrejean moved completely away from the individualist milieu after these events, but remained an anarchist unttil her death. Just reading her writings on the days of l'anarchie in French, a small book I've just bought.She comes over as a far more honourable character than Serge.


----------



## Random (Nov 7, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> yes but he wrote that in 1930, long after his ultr-bolshevik phase...?



No, 'Year One' was written while he was still in the CPSU.

Charlie -- I've often thought that Rirette, and Serge's other lovers, get very little mention in his memoirs.  Is your book in English?  Where did you get it?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2005)

It was written in the years 1929-30 following his 1928 expulsion and published in 1930.


----------



## Random (Nov 7, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> It was written in the years 1929-30 following his 1928 expulsion and published in 1930.



Arse.  I was sure he'd written it up before that.  The main source he uses in it is PRAVDA, and the SWP love it, so I imagined it was while he was still a bolshevik...  

What do you reckon about his CNT involvement, Butchers?  Was he just summit hopping?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 7, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> No, 'Year One' was written while he was still in the CPSU.
> 
> Charlie -- I've often thought that Rirette, and Serge's other lovers, get very little mention in his memoirs.  Is your book in English?  Where did you get it?


Read my message Random . It's in French. It's called Souvenirs d'anarchie and I bought it last week at Publico, the Federation Anarchiste bookshop in Paris.My presence in Paris at the start of the riots there is purely coincidental by the way!
I often thought that about Serge, that there was very little of the "personal" in his memoirs. This had something to do with the "hard" revolutionary outlook that characterised Russian activists of the period, I believe.
Rirette loved Serge deeply, and even though they had separated for many years she broke down in tears on hearing of his death.
As regards the "Bolshevising " group, this was an anarchist study group set up by interned revolutionaries in France who were rounded up. Serge had been interned on his return from Spain, just as he was preparing to go to Russia.


----------



## Random (Nov 7, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> It's in French. It's called Souvenirs d'anarchie and I bought it last week at Publico, the Federation Anarchiste bookshop in Paris.



It's your comradely duty to do a translation for the rest of us, then




			
				charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> I often thought that about Serge, that there was very little of the "personal" in his memoirs. This had something to do with the "hard" revolutionary outlook that characterised Russian activists of the period, I believe.



I think it's also a common reaction to the sheer trauma of the times.  He writes of 'massacres in number to make one dizzy', and most of his freinds and comrades ended up dead, often in horrible circumstances.  He also left most of the women in his life behind, in one way or another.  There are, however, very warm pen-portraits of a number of his friends and acquaintances in his memoirs, which shows a keen a wareness of the personal, at least with regards to other people.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 7, 2005)

If you speak French it's worth reading Jean Malaquais's book Planete sans visa , a novel about Serge and co as they took refuge in the south of France whilst preparing to flee to Latin America. The thinly disguised characters include the Victor Serge figure, cynical, bitter and bad-tempered. Malaquais fell out with him over his attitudes in real life. It's a great book and should really be translated into English too! Malaquais maintained revolutionary positions all his life (unlike Serge, I would argue.)


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 7, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> It's your comradely duty to do a translation for the rest of us, then
> 
> 
> I think it's also a common reaction to the sheer trauma of the times.  He writes of 'massacres in number to make one dizzy', and most of his freinds and comrades ended up dead, often in horrible circumstances.  He also left most of the women in his life behind, in one way or another.  There are, however, very warm pen-portraits of a number of his friends and acquaintances in his memoirs, which shows a keen a wareness of the personal, at least with regards to other people.


If you go through Serge's Memoirs you realise how many of the people he personally knew were shot down by the police, guillotined, killed by Fascists, the Cheka, died of starvation etc. A whole generation of revolutionaries was wiped out and he was one of the few survivors. Perhaps that explains his outlook in his final days.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 7, 2005)

do you speak french?

if so translate it


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 7, 2005)

Well, obviously if I'm reading it I speak French.
sorry, really haven't got the time at the moment to translate it.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 7, 2005)

> Obviously


well... maybe... maybe somebody who was french read it _to_ you


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 7, 2005)

Yeah, right... Brigitte Bardot or Jeanne Moreau, maybe.


----------



## 888 (Nov 7, 2005)

Charlie mowbray, what would you say were the best untranslated French anarchist books worth reading?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 8, 2005)

To start with Jean Maitron's 2 volume history of the French anarchist movement, Balkanski's history of the Bulgarian anarchist movement. More later.


----------



## mk12 (Nov 8, 2005)

This is an introduction to "Memoirs of a Revolutionary" by Peter Sedgwick:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/sedgwick/1963/xx/memoirs.htm


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 8, 2005)

Yes, before David Widgery, there was Sedgwick, IS/SWP's pet "libertarian". Mind you he was a lot more entertaining and human than most of the SWP muppets around these days.


----------



## Random (Nov 8, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Yes, before David Widgery, there was Sedgwick, IS/SWP's pet "libertarian".



And after Widgery it'll be MattKidd?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 8, 2005)

Widgery died  some years ago


----------



## mk12 (Nov 8, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Widgery died  some years ago



1992 I think.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 8, 2005)

He was my GP for a while


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 10, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> It was written in the years 1929-30 following his 1928 expulsion and published in 1930.


ah ha haa haaaa! 

I win.

thats got to be the first time thats happended


----------



## Random (Nov 10, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> thats got to be the first time thats happended



And the last


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 15, 2005)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> 1992 I think.


so its you now then?

(meant to say that a week ago, forgot)


----------



## mk12 (Nov 15, 2005)

What's me?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 15, 2005)

trot pet lib


----------



## mk12 (Nov 15, 2005)

Lol. I don't know about that.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 16, 2005)

No insult intended, but I doubt that you are of the same calibre as Sedgwick or Widgery


----------



## mk12 (Nov 16, 2005)

Exactly.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 16, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> No insult intended, but I doubt that you are of the same calibre as Sedgwick or Widgery


for starters you don't have a hilarious name.


----------



## mk12 (Nov 16, 2005)

Some of my old "friends" used to think it was hilarious...Billy the Kid, baby goat...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Haberkern’s article seemed to me to attempting to do two other directly related things. Firstly point out where Serges embrace of Bolshevism was wrong - that it was based on lack of knowledge and experience, and was primarily derived from the war communism of the years 1918-21 rather than the claimed earlier more 'democratic' years.
> 
> And secondly, to make the point that this was a direct result of Serge's anarchism (and by extension _all anarchism_)-  and that consequently Serge (and all other anarchists) never manged to grasp what was happening and why the revolution degenerated.
> 
> ...



There is now. Anarchists Never Surrender: Essays, Polemics, and Correspondence on Anarchism, 1908–1938

( i do have a epub but not sharing Pm press stuff i'm afraid)


----------



## UK subversive (Dec 27, 2015)

or perhaps Serge realised that Anarchism couldn't really offer anything in the new circumstances developing in Russia, ie had no chance of success? 

I think that Anarchism is the UK now increasingly seems very empty especially as things are now getting bad.  ie there are no real solutions to anything, no real political line, program, nothing. just cliches and slogans.


----------



## kenny g (Dec 28, 2015)

.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Jan 5, 2016)

Care to expand? Oh, i see, you like Mao and Khomeini. Forget it, you're a muppet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2016)

UK subversive said:


> or perhaps Serge realised that Anarchism couldn't really offer anything in the new circumstances developing in Russia, ie had no chance of success?
> 
> I think that Anarchism is the UK now increasingly seems very empty especially as things are now getting bad.  ie there are no real solutions to anything, no real political line, program, nothing. just cliches and slogans.





charlie mowbray said:


> Care to expand? or are you another of the SWP muppets who turn up here occasionally?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2019)

Serge's notebooks covering 1936-47 were discovered in Mexico in 2011. They were recently published in English. There is an interesting  thoughtful overview of them here:

A Hard Case: Victor Serge’s Notebooks: 1936-1947

_Teeming with vivid characters, full of richly observed locations, detailed memories and the author’s continual grappling with political events, Notebooks is the equal of Serge’s novels, although structurally, at nearly six hundred pages with another fifty providing brief identifications, it might be considered as two novellas (one set in Paris during the Spanish Civil War and the Moscow Trials, the other on the boat steaming towards America), a novel (Serge in Mexico) and an epilogue (Serge in the cold dawn of the Cold War).

Notebooks’s earliest entries, dating from late 1936 through the summer of 1940, sketch an oblique political thriller that might be the outline for a Patrick Modiano novel—populated by weary double agents and full of unsolvable dead-end mysteries and inexplicable back-alley intrigue under a gray Paris sky. Serge describes a series of clandestine meetings. One is with the then-eminent André Gide, newly returned from and now secretly critical of the Soviet Union. “Try not to be followed,” his contact advises him. Gide favorably impresses Serge, who writes that as they parted that “his voice took on a something of the accent of a lower-class, slack-jawed Montmartre gangster, revealing the man who knows the dirty corners of Paris and the underside of life.”

Others are that underside. As hyper-alert as a hunted animal, Serge is suspicious of Walter Krivitsky, the recently defected head of Soviet intelligence in Western Europe, eventually to be assassinated in Washington D.C.: “when he put his hand in his pocket to take out a cigarette I watched him closely.” Others are pitiful. Serge finds Trotsky’s former translator Maurice Parijanine holed up in a shabby hotel in an outlying district where the wallpaper is “the color of poverty.”_


----------



## Nigel (Jan 9, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Haberkern’s article seemed to me to attempting to do two other directly related things. Firstly point out where Serges embrace of Bolshevism was wrong - that it was based on lack of knowledge and experience, and was primarily derived from the war communism of the years 1918-21 rather than the claimed earlier more 'democratic' years.
> 
> And secondly, to make the point that this was a direct result of Serge's anarchism (and by extension _all anarchism_)-  and that consequently Serge (and all other anarchists) never manged to grasp what was happening and why the revolution degenerated.
> 
> ...


Wasn't there some in book about Bonnot Gang?
Gave away what books I had on Serge a while ago; there was one that I bought at Freedom after Arson attack that had something in it.

BONNOT GANG !
(Not The Book I Had)


			https://libcom.org/files/Richard%20Parry%20-%20The%20Bonnot%20Gang.pdf


----------



## Lurdan (Jan 9, 2020)

S


Nigel said:


> Wasn't there some in book about Bonnot Gang?
> Gave away what books I had on Serge a while ago; there was one that I bought at Freedom after Arson attack that had something in it.
> 
> BONNOT GANG !
> ...



Since the (15 year old ) post you're quoting, an interesting collection of his anarchist writings has been published by PM

Anarchists Never Surrender: Essays, Polemics, and Correspondence on Anarchism, 1908–1938

There's currently a $1.99 ebook sale on at PM's website until the end of the month  (apply the coupon code 'READ' at checkout). 
Alternatively it can be found at libgen for a full five finger discount.


----------

