Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 18:56:35 -0800 (PST) From: Jamal Hannah <jah-AT-iww.org> Subject: Marxism and the Anarchist Movement (fwd) (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 18:29:11 -0800 (PST) From: Jamal Hannah <jah-AT-iww.org> To: marxism-AT-lists.panix.com Subject: Marxism and the Anarchist Movement Louis Proyect, and others, I would like to clear up some of the misconceptions of the anarchist movement expressed by you on this list. I used to be interested in marxism but was converted over to anarchism by Noam Chomsky and the folks on the anarchy-list through discussion and a desire to overcome the contradictions inherent in the history of marxist movements worldwide. I was especialy troubled by the fact that Marxist-Leninism has been associated with repressive regimes. The fact that no clear explanations for why Marxist leaders like Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin were such terrible leaders led me to conclude that there was something fundamental about Marxism which led to a system of authoritarian power, a deep contradiction for a system that is supposed to be liberatory and an improvement over the capitalism which such systems were intended to replace. I realize that for a country calling itself socialist, which nationalizes the means of production, there is the problem of being under attack from all sides, overtly and covertly, and thus the government must be repressive in order to preserve national security. However, this is not really a valid way of proving to workers worldwide that a Marxist system is an improvement over a capitalist one. Installing "state-capitalism", in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state, takes power and enthusiasm for the revolution away from workers and peasents in any country this happends in. What is needed is a heavy dose of libertarian and grass-roots democratic measures that keep power in the hands of workers councils, collectives, co-ops, and unions. I also believe that you cannot have "socialism in one country"... you must have a revolution in the United States before revolutions in other countries can successfully survive without being repressive. The best one can hope for in other countries is the setting of an example that _revolution is possible and desireable_ ... yet I think it's simply impossible to have a full-scale socialist economy before the major powers in the world (USA, Russia, and China) also have the same. So, I think if there is a revolution in a country like France (as almost happened in 1968), or Chile (as almost happened in 1970-73), the socialist government must step back, grant broad organizational freedoms to workers organizations, but not try to enforce revolution through statist means. Anyway, as to anarchism... I can tell you that anarchism is a broad movement that has been growing constantly over the years since the USSR collapsed. There are two major anarchist branches which work together or oppose each other depending on the situation. One movement is oriented towards workers organization and it is made up of anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists, and platformist anarchists. In the US, the syndicalists are represented by organizations like the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, which isnt actualy anarcho-syndicalist but calls itself Industrial Unionist or Revolutionary Unionist, but it has many anarchist and Socialist Party members, and even a few Communist Party members), and also the Workers Solidarity Alliance (WSA), which is part of the International Workers Association (IWA, or "AIT" in Spanish). The anarcho-communists in the US are represented by a few small groups, which are trying to start organizations. There are many anarcho-communists in the Anarcho Punk Federation, for example, even though it isnt specificaly an anarcho-communist organization. There are no formal platformist anarchist organizations in the USA yet. The other tendency of anarchism in the USA is the "lifestylist" tendency, which is a bit more pragmatic and practical than the more ideological "workerist" tendency. (Well, it's actualy hard to say which side is more practical and pragmatic.) These anarchists set up real-world projects like squatted abandoned buildings (and they attempt to defend them from police takeover), as well as info-shops, bookstores, and collectives. The lifestylists also focus heavily on left-wing issues, like gay rights, environmental issues, and the rejection of the "pro-work" ideology. The lifestylist tendency is also often more interested in confronting police at demonstrations than the workerist tendency, which they sometimes accuse of being "pacifists". Actualy, the workerist tendency would probabaly also be willing to engage in street battles if they had greater numbers in their organizations and felt confident they could do so without being utterly destroyed. Basicaly they are more cautious. While these two sides are sometimes in bitter arguments, they actualy compliment each other. The workerist tendency appeals to more ideological people who want to be systematic and have no problems with organizations, meetings, planned strikes, and so on. The lifestylist tendency is more interested in doing things that are exciting and spontanious, and has an appeal to young people or folks who are not as heavily commited to the ins-and-outs of organization. The anarchist movement is actualy getting quite big, and will likely be larger than the marxist movement in the USA sooner or later, if it isn't already. The question is, will anarchists as a whole be willing to create formal organizations with a paid membership where members agree to a basic platform of ideals, or, will they prefer to engage in actions as autonomous individuals driven solely by their own drives and desires, without having to discuss what to do with an entire group-membership? Anarchists are often hostile to marxists because they have had bad experiances in the past: the Spanish Civil War, in which the Communist Party attacked and persecuted anarchists who had formed militia units to fight Franco, as well as the Kronstadt incident in Russia in 1921, where Lenin and Trotsky ordered the attack on dissident members of the Communist Party & anarchists who wanted to carry out revolution on their own terms. This also happened in the Ukraine and in Russia in general. It is no surprise that anarchists see Communist parties as groups that will backstab them if they ever succeed in revolution. Communist parties could deal with this problem if they wanted to, by having open dialogues with anarchists, and incorporating a libertarian set of principles in their platforms. Sort of a "Bill of Rights" to protect people's human rights from the arbitrary power of Communist central committees. Anarchists online often find themselves fighting a small number of "anarcho-capitalists" and Libertarian Party zealots who wish to make the words "anarchist" and "libertarian" mean "capitalist freedom". It is sad that anarchists today have to fight to defend the meaning of the very labels they take... however, anarcho-capitalism is a very small movement of a few isolated individuals because the majority of capitalists understand that the state is needed to defend private wealth. The fights with anarchist and libertarian capitalists happen pretty much exclusivly online.... on chat-systems like IRC, the USENET newsgroups, and anarchist mailing-lists which capitalists try to take over. For extensive information about anarchism, see my web page at: http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/ For a list of anarchist and syndicalist mailing-lists, see this web page: http://www.tigerden.com/~berios/lists.html Note that there are two major anarchist mailing-lists, the "Anarchy-List", which has a more lifestylist bent, and the "Organise" mailing list (over 320 members from all over the world), which has a Statement of Principles that a person who wishes to join must agree to (basicaly being anti-capitalist, and being against using voting as a tactic to solve political problems)... but the Organise list has a sister list called "Solidarity" which anyone can join to discuss anarchism. To subscribe to that list, send an email message to majordomo-AT-flag.blackened.net with "subscribe solidarity" in the message body. Note that anarchists who are more prominently dedicated to class-struggle also use a qualifying and more descriptive term to refer to themselves: "libertarian socialist". This basicaly means that as anarchists, they are dedicated to the creation of a version of socialism that is not based on the state controlling the means of production, but rather the workers themselves controlling the means of production. You can read about libertarian socialism at: http://www.tigerden.com/~berios/libsoc.html There are even some "libertarian marxists". You can read about libertarian marxism at: http://www.tigerden.com/~berios/libmarx.html Note that many anarchists see marxism as a useful critique of the capitalist system, but they do not like Marx's conclusions about how to have a revolution: a dedicated cadre of party members who are the "vangaurd" of the revolution. Rather, anarchists see _The Idea_ as being the leader, not any specific _people_ being leaders. The closest thing to leaders in the anarchist movement are famous writers like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Murray Bookchin, John Zerzan; or people who edit newspapers; or people who are elected or appointed as delegates to do specific tasks in the name of an organization or group. However, the difference between these "leaders" and the leaders of marxist groups is that these people are more easily anyone who wishes to take these positions by simply working hard to be a good writer or organizer. In an anarchist movement, anyone can be important if they work hard to do things right. This, in essence, is more democratic than marxist practice. The way anarchists who are un-organized basicaly get things done is by "direct action", which simply means taking the initiuative and doing some action that is intended to have a desired result, as opposed to waiting for someone else to do it. The question of how anarchists would defend a successful revolution is a complex one. The odds are, anarchists would have to take measures, during the counter-revolutionary phase, in which matters such as security and resources are more easily protected. However, anarchists would quickly revert back to being as libertarian as possible after the danger has passed. Marxists, on the other hand, tend to keep military generals in power forever. The reality of a revolution would probably consist of 1) a left-wing government that does basic custodial tasks, and 2) anarchist workers organizations which would be completely in control of issues such as production of needed goods, the media, and the defense of individual liberties of all workers. The government would be offered an ultimatum: stay out of the workers hair and take care of only basic things, or we will kick you out of power. This is what should have happened in Spain in the 1930's. Unfortunatly the government, working with the Communist Party, was able to take power away from the more libertarian anarchist and socialist groups like the CNT, FAI, and POUM... and the revolutionaries lost their enthusiasm to fight, and the workers were defeated. (See the movie "Land and Freedom" for an illustration fo this point. It's available in any video store.) This does not mean that anarchists are "minarchists", but they realize that a significant number of working people would probabaly still end up voting for a left-wing government after the revolution. The anarchists would basicaly expect the government to stay out of their affairs: "The government that governs least governs best." It is untrue that anarchism is a small and disorganized movement. More and more, there are "black blocs" in demonstrations where the anarchists show their strength and solidarity. Unless there is increased government repression after the Seattle November 30 events, the anarchist movement in the USA will likely grow and grow, and hopefully resolves it's problems and contradictions through increased debate within the movement. Marxists could learn a lot by reading anarchist writings and opinions. It is possible that anarchists could learn from marxists too, but dont be surprised if anarchists simply are too weary of marxism to bother reading their materials because of the way anarchists have been treated by marxists in the past, and also the more bizarre marxist groups like the Maoists (RCP, MIM, and PLP), and the Trotskyists (ISO, SWP, Spartacist League, the Workers League and the Workers World Party). These groups believe in an elite vangaurd and "democratic centralism" which are both ideas totaly incompatible with anarchism. More democratic or liberal organizations, like the Socialist Party, Solidarity, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Democratic Socialists of America, Socialist Labor Party, the CoC or the Communist Party USA *might* be worked with, but it really comes down to a case-by-case basis of individuals working with anarchists from these groups. Note: I mention the Communist Party in the more "liberal" group of marxist/socialist organizations because the CPUSA is currently a lot like a Democratic Party that supports Cuba and China, strange as that may seem. I suspect that in a revolutionary time, the CPUSA's real nature would come out). Final note: the issue of violence at demonstrations is an issue that anarchists are debating now, and will continue to debate. It's true that the violence at the WTO conference caused anarchism to be mentioned more in the media... but this may have dire consequences for anarchists in the future. We'll have to wait and see what happeneds, and keep on organizing. For general info about anarchism, see the Anarchist Frequently Asked Questions file at: http://flag.blackened.net/sai/faq/ - Jamal Hannah jah-AT-iww.org
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005