From: JessEcoh-AT-cs.com
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:14:45 EDT
Subject: [postanarchism] reform/revolution


some things to consider re the question of whether or not anarchism "has" a 
revolutionary model, whether we "are" revolutionary-as-opposed-to-reformist, 
etc. . . .

Proudhon, _Oeuvres_ 10 (_Avertissement aux propriétaires_ -- translation 
mine):
186: "4. - that to reform property is to destroy it."
186: "'Currently,' says an anonymous writer, 'property is abusive, despotic, 
and jealous; recent proprietors go even further than the ancients in this 
respect.' He draws from this the consequence that property calls for reform, but 
not for destruction.  It is this which he repeats in twenty places throughout 
the brochure.
     "See how the instinct for conservation trumps the best spirits and gives 
them illusions.  Property is one of those things of which the existence, to 
express myself in the style of the school, is not real or substantial, but 
formal; in other words, property is not an entity, but a formality.  To reform a 
thing whose entire existence consists in form is to replace it with another, 
that is, to destroy it."
187-188: "We conclude from all the foregoing that property, as all that which 
pertains to social institutions, is by nature, so to speak, organic and 
embryonic; that in developing it loses its nature; that, just as the human fetus, 
by turns [188] worm, fish, lizard, finally man, the social order produces 
itself through a series of transformations, of which the first contains the 
rudiments of the others, even in differing from them essentially, and the last 
presupposes the preceding, even though it no longer resembles them."

note a few things here.

1.) proudhon's account of the "destruction" of the property system is very 
parallel to gustav landauer's account of the "destruction" of the state ("The 
state is not something that can be destroyed by a revolution, but is a 
condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of human behavior; we 
destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently").  also, 
in his emphasis on "transformation," reminiscent of elisée reclus's claim for 
a certain continuity between social "evolution" ("gradual and continuous 
development in morals and ideas") and "revolution" ("changes more or less sudden 
in their action, and entailing some sort of catastrophe"): "They are 
fundamentally one and the same thing, differing only according to the time of their 
appearance."

2.) there is a really interesting ontological twist to all of this (which, 
once again, belies the notion of "classical anarchism" as wedded to a dully 
static traditional metaphysics, etc.): the key to seeing "property" as 
destructible through "transformation" is the claim that "property is . . . a thing whose 
entire existence consists in form," and that therefore "in developing it loses 
its nature [elle se dénature]." the "existence" or "essence" of a thing (at 
least for some species of thing) is not taken to be something which is 
necessarily fixed and immobile, here.  proudhon's invocation of the "series" brings to 
mind a comment by the critical realist andrew sayer: "Critics of essentialism 
often assert that it invokes not merely essences, but unchanging, eternal 
ones . . . This helps to load the dice against essentialism, but there is no 
reason why all essences should be of this kind . . . The essential properties of 
members of animal species undergo physical ageing processes and over longer 
periods they can evolve new essences." similarly, perhaps, with social "forms." 
the transition from form A to form B may be a continuum, and it may be 
traversed at different rates, but A and B are distinct nonetheless -- non-identical.  
i am the evolutionary product of other species, located in an evolutionary 
continuum in which there are no breaks, no immediate changes -- but even smooth, 
continuous change is "real" change, a change in "nature," difference-that-ma
kes-a-difference (so that, for instance, i would be functionally unable to breed 
with a species ancestor some number of thousands of generations back).

3.) these considerations ought to necessitate some kind of third-term 
alternative to "reform" and "revolution" as options; proudhon's called-for 
"transformations" are defined in opposition both to a purely "destructive," jacobin 
model of change and in opposition to the "illusions" of "conservation." 

in this way, malatesta (see http://members.efn.org/~danr/mal_org.html), while 
admitting that since "It is not true to say . . . that revolutionaries are 
systematically opposed to improvements, to reforms . . . anarchism has always 
been, and can never be anything but, reformist," suggests the term "reformative" 
instead, "in order to avoid any possible confusion with those who are 
officially classified as 'reformists.'" the differences between a "reformative" 
radicalism and a liberal reformism would include, for malatesta, 

a.) the attitude with which reform is undertaken, "the way one thinks of 
being able to achieve [reforms]": long-term vision vs. status-quo-oriented 
meliorism (proudhon's "illusions").  reformists "believe in good faith that it is 
possible to eliminate the existing social evils by recognising and respecting, in 
practice if not in theory, the basic political and economic institutions 
which are the cause of as well as the prop that supports these evils"; anarchists, 
on the contrary, "will never recognise the institutions; we will take or win 
all possible reforms with the same spirit that one tears occupied territory 
from the enemy's grasp in order to go on advancing, and we will always remain 
enemies of every government, whether it be that of the monarchy today, or the 
republican or bolshevik governments of tomorrow."

b.) the scope of the reforms sought.  "Revolution means . . . the radical 
reform of institutions . . ." radical reforms, of course, are bigger than 
reformist reforms, more sweeping, more likely to produce other changes in the way 
things are and can be done.

c.) the speed of reform.  "We want to achieve this as quickly as possible . . 
."

d.) the immediate goals of reform.  the kind of reformists anarchists don't 
want to be confused with tend to propose "reforms . . . which not only bring 
doubtful immediate benefits, but also serve to consolidate the existing regime 
and to give the workers a vested interest in its continued existence"; they 
"seek by means of small and often ephemeral improvements to make the present 
system more bearable (and as a result help to consolidate it) . . ."

e.) the long-term goals of reform.  "We are revolutionaries and 
insurrectionists because we do not just want to improve existing institutions but to 
destroy them completely . . ." for anarchists, obviously, the long-term goal is 
something other than the maintenance of the status quo; reforms are "a preparation 
to the total overthrow of privilege, that is, for the revolution. A point is 
reached when the demands of the dominated class cannot be acceded to by the 
ruling class without compromising their power. Then the violent conflict 
inevitably occurs." reforms should place more strains on the system, not allow it to 
adapt.  they should also make more room for alternative systems -- e.g., via 
liberal restrictions on the ability of the state to intervene in popular 
self-activity (freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom from search and 
seizure, etc.)

f.) the range of means employed in achieving reforms.  for anarchists, these 
range from electoral intervention -- "we also agree there may be circumstances 
in which the Election results . . . can have good or bad consequences and 
that this vote might be determined by the anarchists' votes if the strength of 
the rival parties were equally balanced" -- to forms of direct action in which 
"the oppressed . . . demand and impose improvements by their action, and 
welcome them as partial victories over the class enemy, using them as a spur to 
greater achievements." 

all of these things are central to the strategy of anarcho-syndicalism, which 
sought to overcome the reformist/revolutionary, part/whole, present/future 
dilemma by creating a permanent form that would be immediately useful for 
securing tangible gains for the working class in the here and now, but also the 
training grounds and nexus for a free social order of the future.

a more recent version of "reformative" or "series" theory is articulated by 
green activist howie hawkins 
(http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/articles/dec96hawkins.htm), who speaks of the possibility of "a transitional program," 
i.e., "a program that provokes a crisis in the system and opens the door to 
revolutionary change." it would do so by framing "demands which cannot be 
implemented without radical shifts in power in society." the reforms demanded by such 
a program would be such that "as the power structure resists them, the 
movements behind them can be radicalized as people realize that . . . [they] cannot 
be implemented under the current system.  when the current system loses 
legitimacy because it cannot deliver, then the question of what kind of system to put 
in its place is on the table."

such demands, hawkins claims, are posed by the Common Platform, a document 
endorsed by the IPPN's (Independent Progressive Politics Network) National Slate 
of Independent Progressive Candidates in 1996:

 "The transforming logic of a transitional program can be
 illustrated by looking at the first demands in the Common
 Platform for the right to a job and a living wage.  If these
 were implemented, the resulting tight labor market would push
 wages up.  Corporations would pass higher labor costs on as
 higher prices.  Higher prices would reduce real wages.  So
 workers would demand still higher wages and be able to get them
 because the right to a living wage job would reduce employers'
 bargaining leverage.  An inflationary wage-price spiral would
 result.  So a system of price controls would be required.

      "Theoretically, these changes could be implemented under
 capitalism.  One can easily model, in theory, how the flow of
 money to wages, consumption, and private investment and
 accumulation could continue under a much more regulated
 capitalist market with full employment at living wages.  But
 practically, capitalists would fight these changes.  If they
 lost control of the government to a movement bent on these
 reforms, capitalists would retaliate by extra-electoral means.
 capital would strike.  It would stop investing domestically
 and move assets abroad.  It would seek to wreck the economy,
 blame the reformers, and either get the reformers to capitulate
 and implement a pro-corporate agenda or regain control of the
 government in the next election . . .

      "If a reform government did not capitulate to a capital strike,
 it would still face the 'permanent state' it inherited -- the
 un-elected bureaucracy and military forces created by the old
 regime and most likely still in allegiance to it.  the
 bureaucracy can obstruct the implementation of reforms and the
 military can violently suppress the reform movement . . ."

using this scenario as a thought-experiment, hawkins argues that

      "The historic problem progressive governments in capitalist
 'democracies' have faced is that they are elected into office
 but not into power.  the real power of the ruling class is in
 capital mobility and the permanent state is extra-electoral.
 thus the problem for the Left is how to build our own extra-
 electoral power to counter the extra-electoral sabotage of
 progressive reforms . . ."

   extra-electoral power, i think, is where it's at.  so we come back to 
proudhon and the wobblies, building the new society in the shell of the old.


       --jesse.



--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---