Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 04:00:12 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Harald Beyer-Arnesen <haraldba-AT-online.no>
Subject: Re: AUT: doomed to repeat the past?


Steve writes:

        Since this can of worms has been opened, though, I'm
        very interested in the ways that anarcho-syndicalists
        and council commuists of more recent times have
        attempted to move beyond what they and others see as
        past limitations. For example, the productivism which
        characterised so much of earlier anarcho-syndicalist
        and council communist ideology isn't nearly so evident
        today, so far as I can see.

Steve, as far as I can see this is pretty much a misconception,
at least as far as anarcho-syndicalism goes, even if somewhat
truer for French revolutionary syndicalism, which differed from
the former in many respects. Not that such currents did not exist
within the CNT. They did. But this new interpretation is
just as false, that is onesided, as its tired, old mirror image
of the the backwardlooking, millerian, peasant CNT. CNT was a
diverse, broad working class movement containing different
tendencies. 

It is even a misconception as regards the old social
democratic unions. Further down you mention unwaged
workers. In 1933 a third of the workers organised in
the social democratic union in Norway were unwaged, in
1927 a forth of the membership had been, and as late as
1939 almost a fourth was. This mostly did not include
housewifes, for sure, but still. You had particular
workers organisations for almost every sphere of life.
Within the framework of the CNT, this was taken many
steps further. (The social democratic unions changed
much of course after the Labour Party, Arbeiderpartiet
came to power. The same tendency could be discerned
within the CNT). 

What is true, is that in the middle of the thirties what
could be called a productivist tendency grew stronger, to
a great extent championed by people like Abad de
Santillan who had been among its fiercests critiques, along
with the old "treintistas". But to a great extent this was
also a much needed countercurrency to that of the "wildest
dreamers". But then it is always the question of having two
thoughts in the mind at the same time.
 
Steve, I don't at all accept the framework of the question,
as if "productivism" in Spain in the thirties could have
the exact same meaning as in Australia, United States or
Norway in the year 2000. It was on one hand a question of
production to fulfill basic needs in what was one of Europes
poorest countries (after 1936, added to this was of course
the need to feed, cloth and equip those at the front, and
taking the revolution to its logical end, would not have
changed this, in particular if not extended to France, Morroco
and beyond). On the other hand it was question of a more
rational organisation of production, new techonlogy, and
also at times more ecological sounder forms of production
according to some accounts I have seen, to produce more
non-work. There are other aspects that often followed what
was in itself a sensible approach, there are far greater
reasons to question.

I would have liked to some time get the time to read more
of the wealth of material in Spanish on the CNT in general
as well as the particular period here in question. But I
have read enough, and talked to enough Spanish anarchists
with an extremly detailed knowledge of this period, that I
find reason to question if it is really posssible to get
an in-depth understandings of this time by relying pri-
marily on what has been written or translated into English.

Still, the CNT probably had been the least "productivist"
of any union on the planet at that time. In some ways CNT
was as much what could somewhat misleadingly be called a
"lifestyle" movement, but one solidly based in workig class
communitites and the class struggle. It never was, or never
could have been a pure organisation, where never mistakes
were made, and where all agreed with everyone else. One
problem with so many of the critiques of the CNT, and ever
more the myths that have been spun around the FAI, is that
each pick a particular tendency within it, and represent it
as the whole. One thing is certain, there is a lot to both 
critisize and to admire in the history of the CNT, as sure
of any specific critque from outside could be refound in
the internal history of the organisation. 

[One of the most crucial things that need to be discussed
is however CNTs relation (and my reference all the time here
to CNT of old) to working class of Spain as a whole, and
also to the traditional pettty bourgeoisie. Very likely
much of its final failure lies burried here.]   

The problems following the uprising of July 1936, which
only had to grew worse after May 1937, was not of productivism
but of a half-measured revolution (even if going further
than any previous one) increasing bureaucratisation, loss
of power, atomisation, disillusion, an "the heroes growing
tired," naturally following  - in accordance with basic
anarcho-syndicalist theory - from the initial government-
collaboration.

Productivism was not the question. Social relations were.

                       * * *

Then to Peter:

        I didn't read Leutha Blissett's comments in this
        light. Rather, I read what they said as an attempt
        to address the 'Leninist bad' 'Anarcho-Syndicalist
        good' dichotomy by presenting an example which
        suggests a more complex reading.

Well I stick to "Leninist bad," as for the other half,
anarcho-dyndicalism, anarchism or whatever is not some
kind of magic cure where all you have to do is wear
the label, and then everything turns out fine. It does
not even gurantee a protecttion from repeating many of
the mistakes of Leninism. To put it in other terms: in
in the final end, and in a particular senese, the only
counter-revolutionary class is the working class.

        Later movements - e.g. that which grew out of
        workers' confrontation with Keynesianism - went
        further than the Spanish revolutionaries of the
        1930s did, in that the question of doing away
        with the factory (seeing the factory not as a
        neutral 'technical' organisation, but rather
        central to an alienated society) rather than
        taking over the factory got raised.

First, do you really believe that doing away with the
factory would have been such a good idea in 1936? As
for the confrontation with Keynesianism - and I think
your historical picture is onesided, I seem to remebember
quite a few struggles against the closing down of
factories - it is a bit easier to disregard cars, tele-
visons and latter computers, when one have such things,
then when one don't, or never have heard of such things
or even known such basics as decent housing, enough to
eat every day, and so on. Altogether doing away with the
factories in Spain in 1936 seems more like a recipee for
slavery than anything else. Neither do I think such an
idea would have gotten much support within the working
class of Spain then. But to the degree such ideas were
raised, it was precisely within the framework of the CNT.

I've got nothing particular against factories as such.
What I want to do away with as far as at all possible
is "The Workplace" but not work as such, depending on
how you define. I want work to be (re)filled with life
and life with creativity. This entails a complete re-
arrangent of the landscape of production and the (self)
organisation of life, including time, creation of
technology and tools adequate to our spesific human
needs and desires, and so on. But one thing is certain
in this world, we will have to start out with what we
got, and no pretty slogans can undo that. Even destruction
of what we do not want will require, yes, precisely
work. We will not want I hope, nuclear arms. But what
to do with those already there. Just tucking them
away in somebodies back yard, is not such a great
idea. 

        Organised fragmentation of work is an everyday
        reality for many workers today - I'm acutely
        aware of how little of a 'product' I directly
        produce.

If you are aware of this, you are surely also aware
of how easily "old-fashined" poverty could return,
even in the relative most affluent zones of the world, and
create the perfect conditions for a counter-revolution
if we do not manage the great collective task of
coordination. The de-construction of the present
*material* realities surely will need more than a
day or two.

        The point? Programs arise as the working class
        articulates its needs to itself - i.e. as the
        working class arises as a real entity rather than
        an analytical catagory. Syndicalism, French or
        Spanish style was one such articulation. Social
        Democracy, German style, was another. Syndicalism,
        Wobbly style, was yet another. Each one gave us
        a program, which expressed one process of the
        working class composing itself.

        When - as a result of various processes, both
        within and outside the working class - the working
        class 'reconstructs its composition at a great
        level of power', a program will arise out of that
        process of class composition which will be like,
        and also unlike, the programs of the past.

        It is this process of class composition to which
        I focus my energies - not towards any particular
        program.

First one could ask, how do you influence the class
compostion. Is this just the analytical task of the
observer, or something more?

Secondly, this programme suddenly revealing itself
to the working class in the right moment is a historical
phantasy. The CNT of the thirties was for instance also
an articulation of more than 50 years of agitation, oral
and written. In a country where many workers and peasants
could not read, the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists and
anarchists at times produced more papers and journals
than the bourgeoise press together. They created schools,
cultural spaces, you name it. Spanish anarchists often
say, it takes three generations to make a revolution.
I think they got a point.

But if all you are saying is that you and I cannot just
sit down is some room and draw up a blueprint for
a revolution and then expect it unfold after our schema,
then we agree. But if a thousand workers, and then more
and more, started to do just that, and what is more
communicated their thoughts, so they could be discussed
by even more? 

One of the reason for the failure of Russian revolution
was precisely that such a process had not had the time
to mature, and so what happened? Well, there is always
someone out there who do think they do have the blueprint
and don't mind imposing it on all. It is the same old
story, if we cannot figure out how to manage our own lifes,
then some will manage us, and if we do not develope our
own thoughts, someone will do the thinking for us.


Well these comments lack much. But none the less.

Harald


    


 
  in solidarity,
  Harald Beyer-Arnesen
  haraldba-AT-online.no



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---