¿À´Ã, ·±´ø´ëÇб³ µ¿¹æ´ëÇÐ (SOAS)¿¡¼ Çѱ¹ÇÐÀ» ¿¬±¸ÇϽô Owen Miller µ¿Áö (Àü°ø: Á¶¼±Èı⠻ó¾÷»ç. ºí·Î±×: http://kotaji.blogsome.com/)·ÎºÎÅÍ ·¯½Ã¾Æ Çõ¸í»ç °ü·ÃÀÇ Á¦ ±Û¿¡ °ü°èµÇ´Â ¹Ý·Ð¹®À» ¹Þ¾Ò½À´Ï´Ù. »ó´çÈ÷ Èï¹Ì·Î¿î ¹®Á¦ Á¦±â¸¦ ÇÏ´Â ¹Ý·Ð¹®À̱⿡ ¿©±â¿¡¼ ¿µ¹® ¿ø¹®´ë·Î ½Æ°í, ±× ´ÙÀ½¿¡ Çѱ۷Π±× ¿äÁ¡À» Á¤¸®ÇÏ¿© ±× ¿äÁ¡º°·Î Á¦ ÀǰßÀ» ´Ù½Ã ÇÑ ¹ø Á¤¸®ÇØ ¹àÈú±î ÇÕ´Ï´Ù:
¹Ý·Ð¹®:
"Fundamentally, i agree wholeheartedly with you that learning lessons from a historical experience such as the Russian Revolution is the most important thing, and this does mean understanding the mistakes and rejecting certain decisions and strategies of the time. I think I also basically agree with you in principle on many of the points you make about the problems of the early years of the revolution, and having recently finished reading Victor Serge's Memoirs of a Revolutionary I'm sympathetic to the sorts of criticisms that he was making in 1920-21 about the lack of freedom of thought and expression, the needless suppression of the Bolsheviks' leftwing political opponents, the lack of workers' control and the arbitrary power of the Cheka. At the same time, I feel that you might be 'bending the stick' a bit too much in an attempt to warn South Korean Trotskyists about the dangers of unthinkingly and uncritically aligning themselves with the ideological legacy of a particular person. I also tend to think that any kind of 'ism' named after a particular person is probably not a good thing and can narrow and constrict people's thinking, but I can recognise that at certain times it may be a useful and necessary device to clearly demarcate some political groupings from others (ie Trotskyism defined itself very much in opposition to Stalinism and the use of Trotsky's name did not just indicate an adherence to his theories or leadership, but also to the possibility of a completely different kind of socialism and of a completely different legacy of 1917). Of course, there are still a number of small sectarian groups who have a blind and highly doctrinaire allegiance to 'Trotskyism' (particularly in the US it seems) and they sometimes seem to be more Stalinist than the Stalinists. But I think a lot of people and groups who would be broadly associated with Trotskyism today - such as the IS tendency and perhaps LCR in France - are critical of many aspects of Trotsky's thought, although of course there are varying degrees of criticism among such people. There is, for example, perhaps a tendency to think that Trotsky was good during the revolution, good in his 20s-30s opposition to Stalinism but then lost it near the end of his life when he couldn't abandon his 'degenerated workers' state analysis. In any case, in criticising the actions of Lenin and Trotsky in the early years of the revolution I think your argument, although it might be well-founded and point out some actual mistakes that the Bolshevik leadership made, becomes a bit one-sided, tending to ignore the circumstances in which these decisions were made. Serge, for example, while in great despair and opposing the particular way in which the leadership went about dealing with the Kronstadt uprising, ultimately supported its suppression because at that moment it seemed a life and death matter for the entire revolution. Decisions that are 'wrong' in the abstract can be 'right' in concrete circumstances. This is particularly the case with your treatment of the question of violence, which you tend to see in a very abstract way. As long as the capitalist state exists then it seems to me that the question of the use of violence (by 'our side') is a tactical one and not really a moral one for any revolutionary movement. Of course, Trotsky may have been wrong in many of his tactical calculations, as he seems to have been in the quotation you give from 1940, but this does not mean that people who want to transform the world can take up a pacifist position at all times and just hope that the capitalist monopoly of violence will go away of its own accord. I am not a supporter of most of the aims or the ideology of the various Iraqi resistance forces, but I do recognise their right to resist with force the US occupation. And, in fact, I think it is a good thing that they are doing so because, as I'm sure you would agree, however reactionary some of these forces may be, the defeat of the US is an absolute prerequisite for the further development of any progressive forces in Iraq. I'm also not sure that you can accuse Trotsky of falling victim to the ideology of militarised modernity, I really believe that for him these matters were considerations of tactics and not principle.To some extent, your piece on the situation surrounding the workers' opposition and Shliapnikov's proposals also suffers from a certain abstraction and lack of context. In 1921 the Russian working class was utterly decimated by the civil war and as I understand it there were no active Soviets to take democratic workers' power back from the increasingly bureaucratised Bolshevik party just as there were no healthy and active unions to take control of production in the factories and negate the need for Trotsky's 'militarised labour'. Wouldn't these proposals have just meant the swapping of one kind of bureaucratisation for another? At the same time, Serge does make one or two interesting points on this which I'd like to look at further some time. In particular, he argues that he always thought the Soviet planning system should have been organised horizontally and not vertically (somewhat like Michael Albert's proposals in his book Parecon). But again, whether such planning was actually even a remote possibility in the conditions of the early 1920s is another matter (and I really don't know the answer to this).While I think it is a good question to ask whether the social background of the Bolshevik leaders had anything to do with their differences with the workers' opposition, I'm not sure it is so easy to prove that there is a direct link between this background and the various positions they took on issues. I'm sure many worker-Bolsheviks worked their way up through the party and became good Stalinists. And we know what the fate of most of the Bolshevik intellectuals was in the purges of the 1930s. In more general terms I think there is a certain structural inevitability about the leadership of radical left and revolutionary parties being dominated by intellectuals and people with a middle class background. As I'm sure you know, Gramsci actually attempted to theorise this issue when he proposed the concept of the 'organic intellectual' who is not a worker but is embedded (so to speak) in the workers' movement and plays a crucial role in understanding the world from the proletarian point of view. I also think that the social composition of the leading layers of such revolutionary organisations is probably related to the state of the class struggle. Thus, times of heightened class struggle may throw up a whole new layer of worker-leaders and worker-intellectuals, while times of defeat are much more likely to favour and produce leftwing student leaders or good propagandist intellectuals who can maintain socialist traditions in times when they have little traction in the working class or broader society. It seems that the highly repressive conditions in Tsarist Russia had not favoured the development of a party with a strong cadre of worker-leaders, but a more secretive and often underground party lead by intellectuals who spent much of their lives living in foreign exile. In addition, the period immediately prior to the revolutions of 1917 had been one of downturn and defeat during the war, when none of the Bolshevik leaders expected there to be such an upsurge. Again, I can't help returning to Serge - at one point in his Memoirs he actually talks about how he believes the mentality of many of the Bolsheviks was formed by Tsarist society. He writes on p134:
"Lenin's 'proletarian Jacobinism' with its detachment and discipline both in thought and action is eventually grafted upon the pre-existing temperament of activists moulded by the old regime, that is by the struggle against despotism; I am quite convinced that a sort of natural selection of authoritarian temperaments is the result."A few more observations of a somewhat less specific nature: a lot of the topics that you discuss in your posts were debated in the panel session on the early years of the Russian Revolution at last December's Historical Materialism Conference (http://mercury.soas.ac.uk/hm). It seems in particular that Simon Pirani and Alexei Gusev are going to be publishing the documents of the early Bolshevik opposition groups with commentaries. I wish had a transcript or recording of the whole debate on Russia because it was really fascinating - I will try to find out whether such a recording exists. On your observation (self-criticism?) that it is easy to fall into a certain sort of teleology when you can see in hindsight the disastrous results of a certain chain of events and decisions, I think that Serge had perhaps the best formulation on this, which he used to rebut rightwing critiques of the 'Lenin led to Stalin' variety:"It is often said that 'the germ of all Stalinism was in Bolshevism at its beginning'. Well, I have no objection. Only, Bolshevism also contained many other germs, a mass of other germs, and those who lived through the enthusiasm of the first years of the first victorious socialist revolution ought not to forget it. To judge the living man by the death germs which the autopsy reveals in the corpse – and which he may have carried in him since his birth – is that very sensible?"(This quotation is on the front page of Serge's section in the Marxists Internet Archive - http://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/index.htm)"
¿äÁ¡ Á¤¸® ¹× ÀÌ ¹Ý·Ð¹® °ü·ÃÀÇ Á¦ Àǰß:
1. °ú¿¬ ƯÁ¤ Àι°, ¿¹ÄÁ´ë Æ®·ÎÃ÷ŰÀÇ À̸§¿¡ "ÁÖÀÇ"¸¦ ºÙ¿© ±¹Á¦ÁÖÀÇÀû »çȸÁÖÀÇ ¿îµ¿À» "Æ®·ÎÃ÷ŰÁÖÀÇ"·Î ¸í¸íÇÒ Çʿ伺ÀÌ Àִ°¡ ¶ó´Â ¹®Á¦°¡ Á¦±âµË´Ï´Ù. Owen µ¿ÁöÀÇ ÀÔÀå¿¡¼´Â, ºñ·Ï ƯÁ¤ Àι°¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Áö³ªÄ£ ÃÊÁ¡ ¸ÂÃ߱Ⱑ »ç°íÀÇ ÆøÀ» Á¼Èú À§ÇèÀº ÀÖ±ä ÇÏÁö¸¸, ÀÏ´Ü ½ºÅ»¸°ÁÖÀÇ µî "»çÀ̺ñ »çȸÁÖÀÇ" ´ã·Ð°úÀÇ "±¸º° Áþ±â" À§Çؼ¶óµµ ±×·¸°Ô ÇÒ ¼ö ¹Û¿¡ ¾ø´Ù´Â ¸»¾¸ÀÎ µíÇÕ´Ï´Ù. Owenµ¿Áöµµ Æ®·ÎÃ÷ŰÀÇ ¸ðµç »ç»ó ³»Áö ÇൿÀ» ¹«Á¶°Ç ¿ËÈ£ÇϽô °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï°í ¾îµð±îÁö³ª "¼±º°ÀûÀÎ ¼ö¿ë"ÀÇ ÀÔÀåÀÌ´Ï±î »ç½Ç Àú¿Í ±×·¸°Ô Å« Â÷ÀÌ´Â ¾ø´Ù°í º¾´Ï´Ù. ±×·±µ¥, ¿¹ÄÁ´ë 1920³â´ë ÈÄ¹Ý -1930³â´ë ÃʹÝÀÇ ·¯½Ã¾Æ¿¡¼ÀÇ ¹Ý½ºÅ»¸°ÁÖÀÇÀû ÅõÀïÀÇ ¿ª»ç¸¦ º¸¸é, ±× ÅõÀï¿¡¼ °¡Àå ±ÞÁøÀûÀÎ ÀÔÀåÀ» ÃëÇÑ SapronovÀÇ ±×·ì °°Àº ¼±ÁøÀû ³ëµ¿ÀÚµé »çÀÌ¿¡¼´Â À¢¸¸Çϸé "Æ®·ÎÃ÷Ű½ºÆ®"¸¦ ÀÚĪÇÏ·Á ÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´ø °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ¿îµ¿ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀÌ Æ¯Á¤ Àι°ÀÇ »ç»óÀÇ ¿Ë¸³ÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ¹ÎÁÖÀû »çȸÁÖÀÇ´Ù ¶ó´Â »ç°íµµ °³ÀÔµÆÁö¸¸, ¹«¾ùº¸´Ùµµ 1918-1921³â Æ®·ÎÃ÷ŰÀÇ leadershipÀÇ ½ºÅ¸ÀÏ, ±×¸®°í ±×ÀÇ "³ëµ¿ ±º»çÈ"¿Í °°Àº ÇÁ·ÎÁ§Æ®µé¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹Ý°¨ÀÌ ±×¶§±îÁö ¼ö¸¹Àº ¼±ÁøÀû ³ëµ¿ÀÚµé »çÀÌ¿¡¼ °¡½ÃÁö ¾Ê¾ÒÁö¿ä. ¹°·Ð ½ºÅ»¸°¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹Ý°¨¿¡ ºñÇØ¼´Â º° °Ô ¾Æ´Ï¾úÁö¸¸ ¸»¾¸ÀÔ´Ï´Ù... ¾î·µç Æ®·ÎÃ÷ŰÀÇ ÀÌ·ÐÀÇ Ãß»óÀû Â÷¿øÀÌ ºÐ¸íÈ÷ ³ëµ¿ÀÚ ¹ÎÁÖÁÖÀÇ ±ÙÁ¢ÇÑ °ÍÀÌ »ç½ÇÀ̱⿡ "Æ®·ÎÃ÷ŰÁÖÀÇ"¸¦ ÇÊ»çÀûÀ¸·Î ¹Ý´ëÇÒ ÀÏ ¾øÁö¸¸, 1917³â Á÷ÈÄÀÇ "»óȲ°ú ½Çõ"ÀÌ ±× »ç»óÀ» »ó´çºÎºÐ Æ÷±âÄÉ ³»Áö À¯º¸ÄÉ Çß´Ù´Â °Íµµ »ç½ÇÀ̰í ÀÌ °úÁ¤¿¡ ÀÖ¾î¼ÀÇ Æ®·ÎÃ÷ŰÀÇ Ã¥ÀÓµµ ¿ÏÀüÈ÷ ¾ø´Ù°í¸¸ º¼ ¼ö ¾øÁö¿ä.
2. ·¹´Ñ°ú Æ®·ÎÃ÷ŰÀÇ ±¸Ã¼ÀûÀÎ Çൿ - ¿¹ÄÁ´ë Å©·Ð½´Å¸µå ¹Ý¶õÀÇ À¯Ç÷ Áø¾Ð µî - À» Ãß»óÀûÀÎ "¿øÄ¢"ÀÇ Â÷¿ø¿¡¼ ¾Æ´Ï°í ±¸Ã¼ÀûÀÎ "»óȲÀû ³í¸®"·Î ºÁ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù´Â °ÍÀº Owenµ¿ÁöÀÇ ÀÔÀåÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ¹°·Ð 3³âÀÇ ³»¶õ ÀÌÈÄ, ¿ÏÀüÈ÷ ÆóÇã°¡ ´Ù µÈ ³ª¶ó¿¡¼ ·¹´Ñ°ú Æ®·ÎÃ÷۰¡ »ó´ç¼ö°¡ ³ó¹Î ("¼ÒºÎ¸£ÁÖ¾Æ") Ãâ½ÅÀÎ ¼öº´ÀÇ ¹Ý¶õÀ» °ÅÀÇ ¹Ý»çÀÛ¿ë ½ÄÀ¸·Î "¹Ýµ¿"À¸·Î °£ÁÖÇÑ °ÍÀÌ¾ß ÀÌÇØ°¡ °¡Áö¿ä. Àú¸¸ ÇØµµ ¾Æ¸¶ ±× ¶§ÀÇ ·¹´ÑÀÇ ÀÚ¸®¿¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù¸é ³»¶õÀÇ Àç¹ßÀÌ µÎ·Á¿ö¼¶óµµ ¹«·ÂÀû "½Å¼Ó ÇØ°á" ÂÊÀ¸·Î ±â¿ï¾úÀ»Áöµµ ¸ð¸£Áö¿ä. ±× ¶§ÀÇ "»óȲÀû ³í¸®"¸¦ ´ç¿¬È÷ ÀÌÇØÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÁö¸¸, ¹®Á¦´Â À̰ÍÀÌ ÀÌ¹Ì ±º´ë¿Í üī (ºñ¹Ð °æÂû)À» ÇÙÀ¸·Î »ï´Â "½Å»ý ±¹°¡"ÀÇ ³í¸®¶ó´Â Á¡¿¡ À¯ÀÇÇØÁֽñ⠹ٶø´Ï´Ù. <±¹°¡¿Í Çõ¸í>À̶ó´Â Ã¥¿¡¼ Çõ¸íÀ» ¾ÕµÐ ·¹´ÑÀÌ "±¹°¡ÀÇ ¼Ò¸êÀ» ÁöÇâÇϰڴÙ"°í °ø¾ðÇßÁö¸¸ 1921³âÃʹÝÀÇ ¼Ò·Ã ±¹°¡´Â "¼Ò¸ê"µÇ±â´ÂÄ¿³ç Å©·Ð½´Å¸µå¸¦ °ø°ÝÇϱ⸦ °ÅºÎÇÏ´Â ÀϺΠÁ¹º´µéÀ» Áï°¢ ÃÑ»ìÇÒ Á¤µµ·Î "°ø°í"ÇØÁø °ÍÀÌÁö¿ä. ±×¸®°í Å©·Ð½´Å¸µåÀÇ ¹Ý¶õ¿¡ ¸ÂÃß¾î¼ µ¿¸Í ÆÄ¾÷À» ¼±¾ðÇÑ ³ëµ¿ÀÚµéÀ» ź¾ÐÇϰí, ±× ÁöµµÀÚµéÀ» ÃÑ»ìÇϰųª °¨¿Á¿¡ Áý¾î³ÖÀ» Á¤µµ·Î ÀÌ¹Ì ´õÀÌ»ó "³ëµ¿ÀÚ ¹ÎÁÖÁÖÀÇ"¸¦ µ¹º¼ Çʿ並 ´À³¢Áö ¾ÊÀº ±¹°¡À̱⵵ Çß¾î¿ä. ¿Ö óÀ½¿¡ "³ëµ¿ÀÚ ¹ÎÁÖÁÖÀÇ"¸¦ ÁöÇâÇß´Ù´Â ¼Òºñ¿¹Æ® °øÈ±¹ÀÌ 1921³â¿¡ À̸£·¯ ÀÌ·¸°Ô µÆÀ»±î¿ä? Owenµ¿Áö²²¼ ³»¶õÀÇ "»óȲ" µîÀ» ÁÖµÈ ¿øÀÎÀ¸·Î Á¦½ÃÇÏ½Ã°í °Å±â¿¡´Ù°¡ ±ÇÀ§ÁÖÀÇ Á¤±ÇÀÎ Á¦Á¤ ·¯½Ã¾Æ¿ÍÀÇ ÁöÇÏ ÅõÀï¿¡¼ ´Ü·ÃµÈ º¼¼Îºñ۵éÀÇ "±ÇÀ§ÁÖÀÇÀû" ¼º°Ýµµ ¾ð±ÞÇϽôµ¥, Àú °°À¸¸é ¼ÖÁ÷È÷ ÀüÀÚº¸´Ù ÈÄÀÚ¿¡ ¹«°Ô¸¦ Á¶±Ý ´õ ½Æ°í ½Í¾î¿ä. ¿Ö ±×·±°¡ ±Ã±ÝÇϽøé Çѹø Çѱ¹ ¿îµ¿±ÇÀÇ "Áöµµ ¹®È"¸¦ µ¹¾ÆºÁÁֽñ⸦. ÇÑÃÑ·ÃÀÇ "ÀÇÀå´Ô" °°Àº ÈñÈÈµÈ °æ¿ì ¸»°íµµ, ´ëü·Î "ÀÛÀº µ¶ÀçÀÚ"µéÀ» ´ë·® »ý»êÇÏ´Â ¹®Èȯ°æÀÌÁö¿ä.
3. Owenµ¿Áö²²¼ "Æø·Â"ÀÇ ¹®Á¦¸¦ "¿øÄ¢"À̶ó±âº¸´Ù´Â "Àü·« Àü¼ú"ÀÇ ¹®Á¦·Î ºÁ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù°í ÁÖÀåÇϽʴϴÙ. ºñÆø·ÂÀ» ¿øÄ¢À¸·Î »ï´À³Ä ¸¶´À³Ä°¡ ¾îµð±îÁö³ª °³ÀÎÀûÀÎ À±¸®ÀÇ ¹®Á¦À̱⿡ Àϰ³ °è±ÞÀÇ Á¤Ä¡ Á÷¿¡ Àý´ëÀûÀÎ ºñÆø·ÂÀ» °¿äÇÒ ¼ö´Â - Àû¾îµµ Áö±ÝÀ¸·Î¼´Â - ¾ø°ÚÁö¸¸ ¹æ¾îÀûÀÎ Æø·Â (Áï, ºÒ°¡ÇÇÇÑ ÇÊ¿ä¾ÇÀ¸·Î¼ÀÇ Æø·Â)°ú ±¹°¡Àû ¼º°ÝÀÇ Á¦µµÈµÈ °ø°ÝÀû Æø·ÂÀ» ¾ö°ÝÈ÷ ±¸ºÐÇØÁֽñ⠹ٶø´Ï´Ù. º¶û¿¡ ¸ô¸° ³ëµ¿ÀÚµéÀÌ ÆÄ¾÷ÀÇ ÇöÀåÀ» Áöų ¶§¿¡ ¼âÆÄÀÌÇÁ¸¦ µå´Â °ÍÀº ¾îµð±îÁö´Â ´õ ÀÌ»ó ¹°·¯¼³ ¿©Áö ¾ø´Â »ç¶÷µéÀÇ "¹æ¾îÀû Æø·Â"À̰í, À̸¦ °³ÀÎÀûÀ¸·Î ¾î¶»°Ô º¸µç°£¿¡ ¾î¶² Ãß»óȸµÈ "¿øÄ¢"À» °®°í ºñÆÇÇϱⰡ ¿©·¯¿ö¿ä. ±×·±µ¥ "ÀÇÀå´Ô" Ä¡ÇÏÀÇ "Á¹º´"µéÀÌ ÀþÀº ³ëµ¿ÀÚ¸¦ ¸¶±¸ ºÙÀâ¾Æ "ÇÁ¶ôÄ¡"·Î ¸ô¾Æ ¹«ÂüÈ÷ ±¸Å¸ÇØ Ä¡»çÄÉ ÇÑ ¸¸ ÇØµµ, ÀÌ¹Ì ¼º°ÝÀÌ ´Ù¸¥ Æø·ÂÀÌÁö¿ä. ±×¸®°í 1921³â Ãʹݿ¡ ¼Òºñ¿¹Æ® Á¤ºÎ°¡ ÈÇй«±â±îÁö µ¿¿øÇذ¡¸é¼ ´ãº¸ºê (Tambov) Áö¿ªÀÇ ¹Ý¶õ ³ó¹ÎµéÀ» ´ë·®À¸·Î Á×ÀÎ °ÍÀº, ±âÃÊ ¹ÎÁß°ú ¼Òºñ¿¹Æ® ±¹°¡ »çÀÌ¿¡ ¹úÀÌÁø ¾öû³ "°¸"À» º¸¿©Áֱ⵵ ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ¿©±â¿¡¼ Á¦°¡ Æø·ÂÀ» "Ãß»óÀûÀ¸·Î" ºñÆÇÇÑ °ÍÀ̶ó±âº¸´Ù´Â ÀÌ¹Ì Á¦µµÈµÈ, ±¹°¡Àû ¼º°ÝÀÇ ¼Òºñ¿¹Æ® Á¤ºÎÀÇ ¹Ý¹ÎÁßÀû Æø·ÂÀ» ¹®Á¦ »ï¾ÒÀ» »ÓÀÔ´Ï´Ù.
4. Owenµ¿Áö²²¼´Â, ³ëµ¿ÀÚ Ãâ½ÅÀÇ º¼¼Îºñ۵鵵 ³ªÁß¿¡ ½ºÅ»¸°ÀÇ Ãæ°ßÀÌ µÇ´Â °æ¿ì°¡ ¸¹Àº ¹Ý¸é º¼¼ÎºñŰ Áö½ÄÀεéÀÌ ½ºÅ»¸°ÀÇ ¼÷û¿¡ ¸¹ÀÌ Á×Àº °ÍÀ» ÁöÀûÇϽðí, °íÇз ÁöµµÀÚµéÀÇ Çì°Ô¸ð´Ï¸¦ 1905Çõ¸íÀÇ ½ÇÆÐ ÀÌÈÄÀÇ ¿îµ¿ÀÇ Ä§ÃDZ⠻óȲÀ¸·Î ¼³¸íÇϽʴϴÙ. Áï ħü±â¿¡ ÇöÀå Ȱµ¿°¡µéÀÌ ÃâÇöÇÏ±â ¾î·Æ°í À̳äÀû µ¿±â°¡ °ÇÑ Áö½ÄÀεéÀÌ ¿îµ¿À» À̲ø°Ô µÅ ÀÖ´Ü À̾߱âÁö¿ä. ±×¸®°í ³ª¾Æ°¡¼´Â Owen¾¾°¡ °íÇз ÁöµµÀÚµéÀÌ ±×¶÷½Ã°¡ À̾߱âÇÑ "À¯±âÀû Áö½ÄÀÎ"ÀÌ µÉ ¼ö ¾ø´Â °¡¸¦ ¹¯´õ¶ø´Ï´Ù. ¹°·Ð ·¹´ÑÀÇ "ÀüÀ§´ç ÀÌ·Ð"À» ÀÌ»óÀûÀ¸·Î º¸ÀÚ¸é "ÀüÀ§ ºÐÀÚ"µéÀÌ ¹Ù·Î "À¯±âÀû Áö½ÄÀÎ"ÀÇ ¿øÇüÀÎ ¼ÀÀÌÁö¿ä. ±×·±µ¥ ±×°ÍÀÌ ÀÌ·ÐÀÌÁö¸¸ ½ÇÁ¦·Î´Â °íÇзÂÀÚ Ãâ½ÅÀÇ ÁöµµÀÚµéÀÌ ÇöÀåÀ» ¸ô¶óµµ ÇÑÂü ¸ð¸¦ ¶§°¡ ¾Æ½±°Ôµµ ¸¹¾Ò¾î¿ä. ¿¹ÄÁ´ë Nestor Makhno¶ó´Â À¯¸íÇÑ ¿ìÅ©¶óÀ̳ª ¾Æ³ªÅ°½ºÆ® ÁöµµÀÚÀÇ ·¹´Ñ°ú ¸é´ã¿¡ ´ëÇÑ È¸°í·ÏÀ» ÀоîºÁÁֽñ⸦. ·¹´Ñ°ú ½ºº£¸£µé·ÎÇÁ (Sverdlov)°°Àº º¼¼ÎºñŰ ÁöµµÀÚµéÀÌ "¿ìÅ©¶óÀ̳ª" ´ë½Å¿¡ °è¼Ó "·¯½Ã¾Æ ³²ºÎ"¶ó°í ÁöĪÇß°í, "³ó¹Î »çÀÌ¿¡ ¾Æ³ªÅ°Áò »ç»óÀ» À̽ĽÃŲ °ÍÀÌ ¹Ù·Î µµ½É Ãâ½ÅÀÇ À̷а¡ ¾Æ´Ï³Ä"°í ¸¶Å©³ë¸¦ Ãß±ÃÇϱ⵵ Çß¾ú¾î¿ä. ±× ¾ç¹ÝµéÀº, ¸¶Å©³ë¶ó´Â ³ó¹Î Ãâ½Å Áö½ÄÀÎÀÇ ½É¸®µµ, ¿ìÅ©¶óÀ̳ª ³ó¹ÎÀÇ ½ÉÁ¤µµ ¸ô¶óµµ ÇÑÂü ¸ô¶úÁö¿ä. ±Û½ê, ¿äÁò »çȸ¿¡¼ Áö½ÄÀε鵵 °ÅÀÇ ³ëµ¿ÀÚȵÆÀ¸´Ï ´ÙÇàÀÔ´Ï´Ù!
Owenµ¿ÁöÀÇ ¹Ý·Ð¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀǰßÀÌ ÀÌ·Î½á ºÒÃæºÐÇÑ ºÎºÐÀÌ ÀÖÀ¸´Ï ¾ÕÀ¸·Î ´õ »ó·ÐÇϵµ·Ï Çϰھî¿ä. ¾Æ¿ï·¯, ÀÌ ¹®Á¦¿¡ ´ëÇØ ÀÚ¼¼È÷ ¿¬±¸ÇϽŠºÐµé²²¼ ÀǰßÀÌ ÀÖÀ¸½Ã´Ù¸é Á¦ ¿ìÆí ÁÖ¼Ò (vladimir.tikhonov@ikos.uio.no)·Î º¸³»Áֽñ⠹ٶø´Ï´Ù. °°ÀÌ ½Æµµ·Ï ÇÏÁö¿ä.