(en) Britain, Bristol Anarchist Federation - why socialists should care about anarchism and visa versa why anarchists should care about bolshevism

A really interesting read via ?Spread the Infestation? : why socialists should care about 
anarchism. 
http://spreadtheinfestation.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/why-anarchists-should-care-about-bolshevism/ 
---- There is also [below] for balance, a ?why anarchists should care about bolshevism? 
article on the same blog. Although as part of the class struggle anarchist current (which 
has always been the most prominent, especially outside of america), we would refute some 
of the points it makes. Anarchists do have a revolutionary strategy, and do believe some 
ideas are better than others. ---- The Anarchist Federation has a clear (but adaptable and 
evolving) revolutionary strategy, which we trace back to the revolutionary strategies of 
other anarchist communists, anarcho-syndicalists, council communists and situationists.

It doesn?t matter if you even know what all those words mean, the point is Anarchism 
evaluates the past, and tests ideas in the here now. Creating an evolving combination of 
ideas that fit in with our core beliefs (against hierarchy, for a free and equal society).

We are opposed to the leadership of individuals exerting power over others, of the 
hierarchies that can develop in formal vanguardist strategies leading to a disconnect 
between ?the revolutionaries? and ?everyone else?. We are not opposed to a leadership of 
ideas.

That said we may be taking it too personally, after all these points apply to some 
anarchists, just not all (or not many). The same is true of the other article, many of 
points won?t apply to many socialists, but they will apply to some. We have to remember to 
learn from each other even when we don?t agree especially when we don?t agree.

Anarchists should care about Bolshevism and Marxism and take the time to read about or 
discuss the ideas. We should also learn about Capitalism, about feualism, about 
primitivism. Whilst Anarchism should be a living breathing movement and not a labourious 
homework assignment, it is important that we learn from a whole range of human ideas, 
experience and understanding. Becoming stuck in an unchanging 
dogma,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma is the least anarchist thing we could do.

For more on AFeds revolutionary strategy check out the UK Anarchist Federation Positions 
section of our resources page http://bristolaf.wordpress.com/resources/

-------------------------------------------

why anarchists should care about bolshevism*

BOLSHEVISM IS A STRATEGY

Many anarchists immediately think of the worst atrocities, flaws, and repressions of the 
USSR when they hear the word ?bolshevism.? Yeah, okay, I don?t entirely blame them; for a 
long time that?s why I identified primarily as an anarchist. I?d go so far as to say that 
many anarchists are really just socialists who are afraid of being tarred by the same 
brush as Stalinism.

What many are unaware of is that when many marxists say ?bolshevism? or ?leninism,? what 
they are actually talking about is a long-term revolutionary strategy, something many 
anarchists lack.

So what is the bolshevik strategy?

To simply have an organization of radicals only, and to persistently spread propaganda 
regardless of whether the revolution seems immediate or impossible. The educational 
effort should be actually well-researched, not (always) cheap, sensational slogans. 
Obviously the education should be focused on our core thrust (systemic change, revolution, 
workers? power, class & wealth inequality) as well as things that might seem unrelated but 
are actually crucial to building an all-inclusive workers? movement (fighting racism, 
sexism, homophobia) as well as other random shit like political discussion of what?s going 
on in pop culture.
To ?get our hands dirty? in movements which appear ?reformist? or ?electoral? on the 
surface. One purpose is to train the organization in being a sort of nerve center that 
has a finger in every pie of the resistance and therefore becomes more capable of 
initiating, not reacting to, national events. Another purpose is to increase the 
intensity and imagination of the progressive demands in that movement, as well as 
encourage the tactic of mass demonstration, in order to create greater social tension 
between the populace and the system at every point possible. For this reason we also 
provide what logistical support we can, and what organizational advice anyone will care to 
listen to. The second purpose is that protest movements are a great place to discuss 
shades of opinion with other leftists (pulling liberals into radicalism) and to recruit 
(pulling isolated radicals into organizing). Firmness in principles, flexibility in tactics.
When society reaches enough of a rebellious critical mass, brought about by a combo of 
spontaneous capitalist immiseration and long-term leftist educational subversion, to try 
to orient the Left toward an involvement in the labor movement. Furthermore, if the labor 
movement gets to enough of a critical mass, with union struggles boiling over into 
outright workplace mutinies where workers take over and democratically run their jobs, the 
organization(s) created earlier should call for the creation of a federation of workers? 
councils, or of workplaces that have been seized by workers or contested by unions. 
(Before you think this is far-fetched, here are five instances of this actually happening 
from 1968 forward.) Democratic community/neighborhood councils could possibly be 
included; the Venezuelan movement has utilized a workplace-neighborhood alliance. This 
collection of delegates begins to act as a new, liberatory organizing center for society, 
standing as a counterweight to the old halls of power like Manhattan, Congress, the 
Pentagon or Langley. But such a dual-power situation cannot last long without one side 
taking the other out?
The organization(s) must act as a resolute voice within the workers? council federation, 
standing up for both (1) the continued existence and survival of the federation, against 
outside attacks or internal disintegration (2) the dispersal of the old governing powers 
(by popular riots or pre-dawn raids as you choose), with the tasks of economic 
coordination and policy-making now falling to the federation.
This organizational-strategic outline has some commonalities in anarchism with platformism 
and syndicalism, but frankly I don?t meet many anarchists who have things explicitly 
thought out this far. Which is a shame, because it?s necessary for revolutionary success. 
(Also note that, while the above strategy is a revolutionary strategy, it requires no 
illegal activity in present circumstances.)

DON?T HATE THE ENTIRE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

The above also outlines another example of why anarchists should care about bolshevism: 
the above sequence of events actually happened. Not only did the strategy actually 
succeed in overthrowing both the Tsar?s monarchy AND the capitalist provisional 
government, but the result actually was a federation of workers? self-management. (The 
word ?soviet? is Russian for ?council.?) While it?s true that the Communists eventually 
deteriorated into something horrible that no one should support (creating many theories on 
why!), the initial revolution created that very federation of workers? councils which I 
think any sensible anarchist should see as the fulfillment of their ideas, and of course 
many anarchists at the time actually did.

MARXISM IS A COOL PHILOSOPHY

There is a huge, rich library of Marxist philosophy and historiography, and it?s really 
your loss if you don?t take advantage of it because you?re an anarchist afraid that 
opening a marxist book will brainwash you into being a Stalinist head-stomper. Perhaps 
there is too much academic marxism, but for the purpose of reaching some serious internal 
clarity, nothing beats it.

Anarchists seem to have no standard theory of history or theory of social change, whereas 
the very definition of ?marxism? is precisely a specific theory of history and theory of 
social change (one which I happen to think is correct). Mostly, marxism holds that when 
it comes to the overwhelming majority of people, their political and cultural ideas are 
strongly influenced by the economic system they live under ? whether we?re talking about 
their rotten ideas, which come from a rotten life and wealthy control of media/education, 
or we?re talking about their good ideas, which tend to originate from breakdowns in the 
system like recessions or scandals. Furthermore, continuing this materialist historical 
analysis is also a materialist theory of social change. Major shifts in consciousness are 
triggered by major events emanating from the economic base (2008), but ultimately the 
demographic most capable of actually implementing social change is the demographic 
responsible for the material sustenance of society: working people. This does not only 
apply to the core, ?essential? workplaces like industry or transportation, but literally 
everything that produces profit for an owner, from raw materials to services and final 
sales. (Rule of thumb: if someone pays you to do it, it must create value somehow or a 
businessperson wouldn?t front the money for it.)

HOW DO YOU EVEN BREATHE WITHOUT ?OPPRESSING? SOMEONE OR SOMETHING

Finally, this brings me to a clarification of ?vanguardism.?

Anarchists often accuse bolsheviks of ?vanguardism.? Depending on the context, this 
branches into three different results: (1) the bolsheviks are being dicks and the 
anarchists are just using a confusing word (2) the anarchists embrace vanguardism in 
practice without realizing or admitting it (3) the anarchists engage in all sorts of 
self-defeating silliness to avoid ?being vanguardist.?

First, yeah there?s a long harsh history of Communists being assholes. The Russian 
Communist Party often used its self-appointed status as The Vanguard Party as a papal 
right to crush any dissident ideas. They then often exported this attitude to the 
Communist Parties of the world, which made creating unity within the Left very difficult 
internationally, with the Communists saying they had the sole right to represent the Left. 
This has a lot to do with why the Left failed to defeat the fascists in Spain and why 
the Greek Left is not governing Greece at the moment.

And it?s not just Communists/Stalinists. A lot of Trotskyists, often held up as the 
golden models of non-Stalinist, dissident marxism, also interpret their own group as the 
sole vanguard and place a horrific emphasis on stridently arguing with other groups rather 
than working together and building unity, or at least just keeping to themselves.

So what even is ?vanguardism??

It?s the idea that, among the working class, there are some workers who are more 
progressive and some workers who are more conservative. There are some workers who are 
radical and some workers who aren?t ? or if you believe in mixed consciousness, which I 
do, all workers are radical but only some of them have realized it and purified themselves 
of the old reactionary horseshit.

In old military language, when there was a column of marching soldiers, the front was the 
?vanguard? and the back was the ?rearguard.? It?s not an entirely helpful metaphor since 
all the soldiers marching in a column are on the same side, unlike in politics. But the 
idea is, the ?vanguard? is a sub-section of the working class who has realized its 
position as workers and the necessity of resistance. Some leftists hope to create a 
?vanguard party,? or an organization which formalizes and roughly incorporates the 
vanguard layer of the working class. In practice this will probably be split among 
several parties, and marxists have often implied that the one organization that they most 
agree with is ?the real vanguard? or ?more vanguard-ish? (though I don?t know that anyone 
but me has used the word ?vangaurdish?).

So, here comes a frequent anarchist critique: any evaluation of your own ideas as better 
than anyone else?s ideas is elitist. If you do it within the Left, it is vanguardism, it 
is authoritarian, and it is why the Russian Revolution derailed into Stalinism, which is 
basically identical to Leninism.

Besides disagreeing with that last part about how Stalinism happened, I have to ask ? how 
is it possible to even walk down the street without thinking that some ideas are better 
than others? Isn?t it a bad idea to step in front of a moving car?

On the political level, this idea is still ridiculous. I think every anarchist would 
agree that Republican ideas are certainly horrible. Yes, I am creating a HIERARCHY of 
ideas (not of people!). My HIERARCHY of ideas places demographic tolerance, perhaps of 
gays, or Muslims, as a better idea than racism or homophobia. I think most anarchists 
even agree that it?s not just conservatism that deserves a low place on the hierarchy of 
ideas, but even liberalism needs to be criticized. In fact, I?d go so far as to say that 
many anarchists themselves apply vanguardist ideas by promoting anarchist literature and 
sharply denouncing bolshevism.

Amazingly, some anarchists are actually self-aware of their circular mind games to the 
point of elevating them to a systematic theory called ?postmodernism,? basically the 
theory that the truth is unreachable so you might as well not try, and also that promoting 
any one idea is an oppressive act that creates totalitarian regimes. What?s more 
oppressive to you, allowing yourself to have an opinion, or holding to some theory that?s 
so restrictive that you?re not even allowed to form a thought without dismissing it as 
relativistic?

Give me ?We are the 99%? any fucking day over this horseshit. Now that?s high theory!

To be blunt I think a lot of anarchists use this childish game of ?no idea is better than 
any other? as a copout for the fact that they have no revolutionary strategy, and they are 
often intimidated by the marxists who do have one, but are afraid of joining the dark side 
because they think their choices boil down to anarchism vs. Stalinism.

This issue of vanguardism to me is one of the worst embodiments of purist silliness in 
anarchism, taking many different forms, which I think anarchism could do without, and for 
which I think bolshevism could serve as a structure-providing counterweight.

---------------------------------------

* Links at 
http://spreadtheinfestation.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/why-anarchists-should-care-about-bolshevism/