Section Two: Marxist and Anarchist Tactics¶
Core Argument¶
Here, Trotsky delivers a polemical dissection of individual terrorism, contrasting it fundamentally with the mass-based tactics of Marxism. The core argument is that terrorism is not merely a mistaken tactic but a profoundly reactionary one that substitutes the mechanical action of a few individuals for the social struggle of a class, thereby disarming the proletariat ideologically and politically.
Trotsky begins by dismissing the bourgeois conflation of all class struggle with “terrorism,” noting that the capitalist state itself is an apparatus of terror. He then narrows the definition to its strict sense: machine-breaking, assassination, bombings. Against these, he argues that Marxism is irreconcilably opposed. The key claim is that a strike or an election derives its social significance from the productive role and organised weight of the proletariat as a class. Only workers can conduct a strike; its effects—strengthening class consciousness, building unions—are inherently social. In contrast, terrorism is a “purely mechanical reaction” requiring no mass organisation. The recipe for explosives is accessible to anyone, anywhere, from China to France, making it socially identical and “absolutely harmless as far as the social system goes.” The murder of a minister merely replaces one functionary with another; the capitalist mechanism remains intact.
The most damaging consequence, Trotsky insists, is ideological. Terrorism belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness. If a pistol suffices, why build a party? Why hold meetings or elections? The anarchist “propaganda of the deed” artificially inflates hopes, but when the smoke clears and the successor appears, the result is “disillusionment and apathy.” The state is always richer in means of mechanical repression than any terrorist group. Trotsky draws on the Russian experience—the classic land of terrorism—tracing its origin from individual acts of revenge (Vera Zasulich’s attempt on General Trepov) to a system in 1879-81, born from the revolutionary intelligentsia’s lack of mass support.
The polemic is directed squarely against the anarchists, who seek to “artificially force” social development and substitute “chemical preparations for the insufficient revolutionary strength of the proletariat.” Trotsky also savages the “eunuchs and pharisees of morality”—bourgeois moralists who sanctify human life while cheering on wars and state violence. He does not reject the feeling of revenge; on the contrary, Social Democracy must deepen and direct it. But the account to be settled with capitalism is too great to be presented to any single minister. The task is to channel that burning desire into a collective, revolutionary struggle against the system itself.