Today's Topics:
1. [Chile] Santiago: Invitation to the 7th Meeting of the Book
and Anarchist Propaganda - Santiago, October 13 and 14, 2018 By
ANA (ca, pt) (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. France, Alternative Libertaire AL #285 - Big Brother: A real
public-private partnership (fr, it, pt)[machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. Solidarity Message from IWW to CNT (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. anarchist communist ACG: Jackdaw issue 3 OUT NOW!
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. France, Alternative Libertaire AL - antifascism, Trial of
the murderers of Clement Meric: Mining fascist lies (fr, it,
pt)[machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
6. US, black rose fed: LOVE AND RAGE: IN DEFENSE OF ANARCHISM
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
We have come a long way from the first black flags that reappeared at the end of the
dictatorship, amidst barricades and the subsequent accommodation of a citizen society that
was dragged by false promises of democratic joy, while the repressive apparatuses
annihilated the resistance, remaining faithful to the trajectory bloody state; we take as
tools part of this boldness, more handmade, and we mix it with the counterculture punk and
we bet by the rebellious attitude, do it yourself and we expanded in a series of
experiences and soon the bullets arrived at us, they killed to Claudia and although she
were not an anarchist, does it matter? ---- Because the point is that we begin our new
sense of rebellion, of the revolutionary. We got rid of the sadness and we got back
together and continued to expand and the squatters opened up, and the actions multiplied,
of all kinds, in fanzines, in the press, in demonstrations and in solidarity, for the
freedom of the political preconditions that democracy confines ). Then a whole generation
was set on fire with the marches against APEC in the year 2004 and the appearance of the
black block in the protests. We came out of punk and countercultural style and we had a
few years of fiery years, what could be called years of bombing and fire, and although
several of the comrades were presse by the state, we did not slow down, but the state club
closed on another brother , we saw how Jonhy was killed by torture, and the following year
Maury died in an attack, and the following year the power closed the cages on 14 of our
brothers and we fought for the elders, to recover them, pelxs presxs in the street, and
they left after a year of demonstrations, of strikes of hunger, of sleeplessness and
orders. But the power understood that it could not use the same resources that it had used
up to now, advised itself with the Italian police, the FBI and so many others, and
technified its repression by investing millions in armored cars, drones and cameras. a
quarter of what they say they pay), and they modified their laws, but the snap of the year
of 2011 to all took us by surprise, and we gave everything thrown in the fight, taking
Santiago day and night, another generation would be marked by this year, too it was this
year that "the first fair of the anarchist book was thought and made",
We are betting on a constellation of ideas and practices that have a wide history of
struggle and resistance, antagonistic to any system of domination and faithful to its
anti-authoritarian principles of autonomy, horizontality and self-management. In this
sense the means have to be according to the ends, one can not seek freedom through the
exercise of authority, of deception and manipulation, the long road against power is built
in action contrary to any type of institution, acronyms or leaders with the truth ahead.
We do not see anarchy as the arrival of the earthly paradise or a concrete realization,
nor do we believe it to be an absolute truth or a dogma, or do we not even believe that it
is the only method to end domination, but it is a political, ethical and practical body
from which we can nourish ourselves, is the tension and constant confrontation against all
forms of authority, also our own. We see the individual at the center of the anarchic
idea, it is not about the collective nor overlaps with it.
We would be superb if we said that we were not wrong, for many were the edges of our
chaotic becoming, where the same pride, egos, dogmas, machismo, fervent defense of narrow
points sculpted our ideas to the face, after chewing with sarcasm the letters of the
libertarian and the anti-authoritarian. So we gather, because without thought, learning,
analysis, creativity, feedback and reciprocity we will sail like a sailboat on a huge
ocean of clay without wind. This is part of the necessary permanent questioning both
individually and collectively that allows us to strengthen and qualify. This instance
builds with all of us who embrace the ideas of freedom and try to build a distinct world
by destroying the current.
This invitation to the 7th Meeting of the Book and Anarchist Propaganda is dedicated to
all those who have not been named and will never be, and to our enemy, who will never see
us on our knees.
20 years after the assassination of Claudia López, we continue to organize and propagate
ideas of rebellion and freedom.
>> Registration open: encuentro.anarquista@riseup.net
Coordinating Group 7th Meeting of the Book and the Anarchist Propaganda of Stgo.
More
Translation> Sol de Abril
Related Content:
https://noticiasanarquistas.noblogs.org/post/2017/10/31/chile-breve-relato-do-6o-encontro-do-livro-e-da-propaganda-anarquista-de-santiago/
anarchist-ana news agency
------------------------------
Message: 2
The terrifying surveillance capabilities of contemporary states would be nil without the
commercial sector. Social networks, smartphones, bank cards, geolocation ... They
constitute the infrastructure of the state surveillance. To foil it, you have to start by
distancing yourself, as much as you can, from this universe. ---- We live in a society of
surveillance: let's say it clearly, once and for all. It is a major transformation of
modern capitalism, the result of scientific advances, technological choices and democratic
setbacks, resulting in the emergence of an assembly between states and Internet giants.
The danger that surveillance poses to the populations (and even more so to the protesters)
does not come from the state, nor from Google-Alphabet or other Facebook, but from the
symbiosis of these two types of actors.
Scientifically, surveillance is based on discoveries in mathematics and theoretical
computer science (algorithmic, logic), in graph theory in particular, or in signal
processing, statistics or big data (big data in English). Advances in these areas make it
possible to process ever more numerous, complex and complex data.
These discoveries can be applied to technology in many different ways, but in Silicon
Valley, human progress is obviously far from being a priority ; Enrichment motivates
development choices, while progressive applications are shelved.
This is how the Internet is invaded by increasingly targeted advertising. This also
explains the huge investments to renovate the graphic charter of the latest versions of
Windows or iPhone, while cryptography researchers, able to help the public to protect
their privacy, are struggling to obtain funding.
In parallel with this race for the benefit of the companies, the States agitate the
scarecrow of the terrorism to justify an arsenal of security laws always more threatening,
that is called Patriot Act in the United States or " law of military programming " in
France [1]. The democratic safeguards against the misuse of intelligence, often engraved
in the law at the end of the Second World War, fall one by one, but we must not be
deceived: these security laws only make legal practices already secret services, hitherto
illegal but made public by whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.
Apple buys a virtue cheaply
It is at the intersection of these two dynamics - profit logic and commercial surveillance
on one side, state control of the populations of the other - that the capitalist and
authoritarian surveillance society is built, with the technical means of some and the will
politics of others. The collaboration is proven (we remember the Snowden revelations) and,
even worse, sometimes proactive: some companies do not just obey the legal injunctions,
but anticipate the expectations of States and provide their data without being
constrained, using very often a double speech.
Think of Apple who, at the end of 2017, publicly opposed the FBI's injunction to give him
the encryption keys of some iPhone, and was thus able to pass at little expense for a
passionate defender of the right to life privately ... after having been involved in PRISM
to the neck, this formidable American mass surveillance program that joined Apple in
October 2012, giving the FBI and the NSA free access to all the data that the company
could possess on its users.
Such a change in capitalism could not have been implemented by one of these two actors.
Although the bosses of Google-Alphabet or Facebook have publicly positioned themselves for
the end of anonymity on the Internet, they do not have the political capacity to impose
this type of change. Conversely, without smartphones in our pockets to geolocate or listen
to our conversations, without credit cards to track our movements and purchases, without
websites funded by the ad to track our navigation and without social networks to determine
our consumer profiles, mass surveillance capabilities would be very limited.
A little imaginative exercise: could the Resistance, during the Second World War, have
been able to stand for more than a few months in a daily newspaper invaded by cameras and
ciphons, and where each interaction with a digital device leaves a potentially
compromising trace ?
To get away from the grip of the Gafam
If this perspective is worrying, it is nevertheless possible to act collectively to
protect ourselves. Even if zero risk does not exist, we will significantly reduce the
threat to us, our loved ones and the comrades with whom we come in contact, as much as
possible from the grip of Gafam and other commercial capture devices. data: do not create
a Facebook account, use free software, opt for free and self-managed access providers, but
also favor cash payments, or even prevent the installation of the Linky meter, etc.
But the approach can not, and must not be, individual: to a political problem, a political
solution must be opposed. This is why the Libertarian Alternative, at its last congress,
is resolutely committed to free software and alternatives to Gafam and has created a
dedicated working group within it.
The librarian working group of AL
BEIJING MOVES FROM FICTION TO REALITY
Fans of the television series Black Mirror are accustomed to projections in a
technological future slipping sweetly to a wobbly, sometimes brutal totalitarianism. The
episode " Nosedive ", for example, depicts a deployment of state power in the depths of
citizens' lives through the enlistment of social networks and the commercial surveillance
industry. .
This is not fictional: it is exactly what the Chinese government intends to implement with
its Social Credit System (SCS) project by 2020. In the beginning, the Alibaba group (the
Amazonian equivalent of Amazon) developed for the Baihe dating site a scoring system
consisting of calculating, for each individual, a score of financial health and social
integration in order to numerically objectify who is a " good party " ... and who is not.
The idea of the Chinese state is to widen this system to the whole society, thus to
attribute to each inhabitant and inhabitant an overall score calculated according to its
diplomas, its attendance to pay the tax, offenses committed, his habits of consumption,
his political positions, the score of his associates, etc.
This score will affect access to certain schools, certain positions in the administration,
credit, even public transport and other public services. To capture all the data generated
by the online business sector, the Chinese Communist Party bureaucracy will have only to
reach out.
The other articles of the file:
Editorial: Security without the security
Judicial Reform: Towards court robotization ?
Europe: The fortress is also a prison
United States: Chained to Slave History
History: Police sometimes, justice nowhere
Rojava: Security and local justice
Chiapas / Zapatistas: Repairing rather than Closing
Practices: Dealing with gender-based violence in a militant environment
Treat the sexual abuser through feminist education
And the " dangerous fools " ? And the " psychopaths " ?
[1] Jérôme Hourdeaux, " " The Republic is listening ": survey on mass surveillance ", on
Mediapart, October 8, 2015.
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Big-Brother-Un-vrai-partenariat-public-prive
------------------------------
Message: 3
Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) has issued a solidarity message for the imprisonment
of members of the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT). ---- As the IWW operating in
Ireland, we want to expand our international solidarity with the CNT members, who have
been sentenced by the Spanish judiciary in 2012 for misdemeanor charges such as "order
degradation" and "aggression". ---- Jorge and Pablo, who are sentenced in prison, are two
members of the anarcho-syndicalist CNT in Logroño, Spain. The general strike on November
14, 2012, the police attacked the activists and union members and was targeting especially
the CNTs. Jorge and Pablo were declared a criminal as an excuse for an attack by the
police. ---- Approximately six years later, the judge sentenced both comrades to a total
of five years in prison. The whole hearing was just a fake expression of the police and a
story made up.
It's very uncomfortable for these two union workers to get a prison sentence. As Irish
IWW, we invite everybody to international solidarity for our comrades who are facing
imprisonment in Spain for participating in industrial action
# NoCaso14n # PabloYJorgeAbsolución # STOPmordazas
Today, at 18:30 local time in Spain, walks took place in the cities of Logroño and
Valladolid for CNTs captured by the state.
"We oppose your oppression, our solidarity!"
https://www.facebook.com/sindicatoCNT/videos/2097954853798417/
The actions will continue for 2 weeks in various cities.
https://seninmedyan.org/2018/09/08/iwwden-cntye-dayanisma-mesaji/
------------------------------
Message: 4
Jackdaw number 3 is hot off the press. Jackdaw is the ACG's free bulletin. This issues
contains the following articles: ---- Save our NHS? ---- Workplace Notes ---- Universal
Credit? Universal household debt ---- The Poverty of Student Unions ---- Practical
Internationalism ---- UCU "Resisting the Market" conference ---- It's available in a a
number of shops, social centres and gets handed out on demos and street distributions.
Alternatively, you can view a pdf here: Jackdaw Issue 3
https://www.anarchistcommunism.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Jackdaw-Issue-3-RGB.pdf
Issues 1 and 2, can be viewed on our publications page
https://www.anarchistcommunism.org/publications/
https://www.anarchistcommunism.org/2018/09/07/jackdaw-issue-3-out-now/
------------------------------
Message: 5
It's been a week since the trial at Assises des assassins de Clément Méric started.
Clement Meric was our comrade. Antifascist and unionist activist at Solidaires Études, he
died at the age of 18, killed by fascists, killed by the extreme right. These facts, which
go back more than 5 years, are judged at this moment in Paris. Esteban Morillo, Samuel
Dufour and Alexandre Eyraud are on the dock. Here is our account of these few trying days
for family and loved ones and politically important to demonstrate the dangers of the
extreme right. ---- The trial opened with the first statements of the accused, who do
their utmost to pose as nice lambs, maybe a little silly, but certainly not neo-Nazis
ultra-violent, carrying an ideology racist, sexist, homophobic and liberticidal. They grew
their hair, Morillo had his Nazi tattoos covered a few months before the trial (by a
tattooist ... neo-Nazi) and they explain that they did not know the meaning of their
tattoos (" Work, family, homeland Or " Blood and Honor "). Morillo hastens to tell
that they have broken their links with the extreme right, that all this is behind them.
What they want today: a woman, children, a dog, a house in the countryside. But who will
believe them? The three were activists of Third Way, an ultra-nationalist group led by
Serge Ayoub. The cult of violence was a habit of this group, insults and provocation their
daily life. Their strategy to be taken for former young people a bit bitter and a little
lost can only fail. Third way is part of the history of the French far-right. This trial
is an opportunity to demonstrate what should be obvious to all: fascism is hatred,
violence and death.
In Montreuil, our comrade Clément Méric replaced General Faidherbe.
The video of a video surveillance camera shown during this week is clear: it is the
skinheads based on the antifascist youth. Violence, they searched for it. The death of
Clement Meric, they provoked it. This comes once and for all prove that the media
operation skins clearance, which started a few days after the death of Clement Meric, was
pure invention. RTL and France 2, which aired at the time this false information, would be
well indicated to adequately cover this trial and make amends.
It is Friday that the people who accompanied Clément Méric this day of 2013 developed
their version of the facts. They highlighted the political nature of this trial. Yes, it
is the extreme right that killed Clement Meric. It is not a coincidence. Esteban Morillo
was in contact before and after the facts with Serge Ayoub. As stated by the Committee for
Clement: " Clement Meric was a victim of a group of young men maintained in the cult of
violence by a leader carrying a fascist political program, which underlines the motto of
the JNR[Jeunesses nationalistes révolutionnaires , militia Ayoub, Ed], borrowed from the
party of Mussolini: " Believe, fight, obey ". The extreme right and anti-fascism are not
equivalent. To draw an equivalence is to play the game of the deduction of the extreme
right. It is pretending that the struggles for equality and freedom are worthy of those of
racists, sexists, homophobes, destructive fascists.
Thus, the Committee for Clement indicates its objective for this trial: " We hope that it
will thus underline the fundamental difference of the political postures: to refuse to
close our eyes, to denounce resolutely ideologies contrary to the principles of equality,
of freedom, and of Fraternity is not an act of violence, it is an act of salutary
resistance. "
This goal, the activists of Libertarian Alternative can only share it fully.
Facebook page of the Committee for Clement https://www.facebook.com/comitepourclement/
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Proces-des-assassins-de-Clement-Meric-Minables-mensonges-fascistes
------------------------------
Message: 6
Twenty years after its demise in 1998 the Love & Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation
continues to be an important organizational reference for anarchism today. The group's
origins began in 1989 as a project based around creating a monthly newspaper, Love & Rage,
later evolving into a more formal network until becoming a formal membership based
federation of local groups in 1993. As the organization consolidated localized anarchist
groups, involving hundreds of members over its lifespan, it built a vibrant culture of
internal debate and created a pole within anarchism committed to active work within larger
social movements. The range of organizing work members engaged in ranged from abortion
clinic defense, Latin American solidarity, cop watch, anti-war mobilizations and more.
Notably the group was "the only revolutionary organization of national scope founded in
this period whose creators didn't come out of the upsurge of the 1960s and 70s."
Importantly members of the organization went on to participate in the North Eastern
Federation of Anarchist Communists, Bring the Ruckus (of which the late Joel Olson was an
important figure), and later in Black Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation.
"In Defense of Anarchism: A Reply to Chris Day" by Ron Tabor is an important but
previously unknown piece in the history of Love & Rage and the debates surrounding its
demise. Tabor had been a leading figure in the Revolutionary Socialist League, a
Trotskyist group that became critical of Leninism and disbanded immediately prior to the
founding of Love & Rage which he participated in. The essay is a response to the
better-known polemic "The Historical Failure of Anarchism" by Chris Day, which criticized
anarchism as a political tradition and laid the groundwork for Day and his supporters to
leave anarchism altogether. Tabor's response had not previously circulated outside of the
organization until it was scanned by a former member in 2017. This is the first time it
has appeared publicly in print form.
The piece is long and detailed but carries its share of important insights. Tabor argues
that Day and others are right to critique the failures of anarchism, but that Marxist
authoritarian revolutions provide no solutions either, instead they offer a track record
of failure themselves. "Yes, anarchism has been a failure," he writes, "but let's be clear
about something: Marxism has also been a failure, and an abysmal one at that."
Authoritarian Marxism, Tabor argues, whether under Stalin's influence in revolutionary
Spain or Mao in China, has not created workers' liberation. Even Lenin's leadership in
Russia, which contributed to the October Revolution, developed "only to strangle[the
revolution]ruthlessly in the year or so afterward and to build in its place one of the
most monstrous and violent state-dominated societies the world has ever seen."
But Tabor is not without hope; he argues that revolutionaries must continually strive for
liberation, and in the words of Marx, contribute to the task of the working class
liberating themselves. He writes, "to raise people's political consciousness, including
their understanding of the nature of Marxism and all authoritarian ideologies and social
structures, is one of the chief tasks of anarchists and anti-authoritarians." Even in the
face of failure, Tabor tells us, transforming consciousness is part and parcel of
authentic, liberatory revolutionary struggle.
PDF Version: Coming Soon!
Note: This piece has been extensively edited for clarity and length. The full version can
be found here.
Introduction by Bill Bachmann
Although 22 years old, Ron Tabor's reply to Chris Day's Historical Failure of Anarchism is
as relevant today as it was then. The fact that the Kasama Project, a neo-Maoist group
which went defunct in 2016, continued to circulate Day's essay and left publisher
Kersplebedeb reprinted it in 2010 speaks to the issue. At the time Tabor's reply was
written, Day and company had been moving from anarchism to a sort of warmed-over Maoism
within Love & Rage. Day addressed some very real questions in anarchism, but did so not
from an anarchist point of view, but from one rooted in Marxism. His celebration of the
Chinese Revolution, standing armies and the Stalinist two-stage revolution theory
introduced a strongly authoritarian current into the anti-authoritarian Love & Rage
Revolutionary Anarchist Federation.
Needless to say, Day's piece played a large role in splintering Love & Rage into two
polarized factions: a mushy Maoist (really, social democratic state capitalist) faction,
many of whose members eventually joined Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO/OSCL);
and an anarchist one, whose members remain in anti-authoritarian organizations to this day.
In the essay below, Tabor exposes Day's misrepresentations of both the Chinese and Spanish
Revolutions. He offers a critique of the two-stage theory and Marxist ‘objective
conditions.' He holds to the point of view that revolutionaries should push uprisings in
the most anti-authoritarian directions internationally rather than settle for something
‘second best' (really, not better at all). Most important, he emphasizes that people,
including revolutionaries, define themselves by their actions, not by whatever banner they
may be waving.
Bill Bachmann was a member of Love & Rage and prior to that a member of the Revolutionary
Socialist League together with Ron Tabor. He currently lives in New York City and is a
member of Black Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation.
In Defense of Anarchism: A Reply to Chris Day
By Ron Tabor
July 28, 1996
At the risk of seeming uncomradely, let me state my conclusions here at the beginning.
When I began my series on Marxism several years ago, I expected to see a revival of
Marxism on the left with which anarchists/anti-authoritarians would have to contend. What
I didn't expect and what we are now seeing is the revival of Marxism within the anarchist
movement and within Love and Rage in particular. To my even greater surprise, what we are
getting - that is, what Chris is advocating - is not even the left-wing "libertarian
Marxism" that the Revolutionary Socialist League, of which I was a member, advocates, but
a form of warmed-over Maoism. Finally, this Maoism is not even of the radical variety that
dresses itself in anarchistic garb, but one that is really a variant of Social Democracy,
that is, a form of reformist, statist socialism (actually state capitalism).
What's happening, it seems to me, is that for the first time Chris has looked at some of
the concrete problems anti-authoritarian revolutions have faced and will face, and then,
despairing of finding anti-authoritarian solutions, has embraced elitist, authoritarian
proposals as the "next best thing." To be sure, Chris raises these issues as questions to
be considered. Yet his discussion is largely an apology, and a distorted, shallow one at
that, of the methods of the Chinese Communist Party. The methods of this Stalinist
organization were authoritarian in the extreme and led not to any kind of
anti-authoritarian revolution, but to a thoroughly bourgeois/capitalist one, and at the
expense of the lives of millions of people, to boot.
Marxism and Anarchism
Before we proceed further, let me say here that I agree, somewhat, with three of the
points that Chris makes. First, I agree that anarchism has failed in the sense that there
has been no worldwide anti-authoritarian revolution, or even a successful
anti-authoritarian revolution in one country. Second, I agree that the anarchist movement
has not been very impressive in developing its theory, and that its efforts to explain its
defeats have not been fully convincing. Third, I agree that it is not possible to carry
out an anti-authoritarian revolution in one country alone. But I draw entirely different
conclusions from all this than Chris does.
Yes, anarchism has been a failure in the sense that Chris means, but let's be clear about
something: Marxism has also been a failure, and an abysmal one at that. There is today no
international classless, stateless society that Marxism advocates and predicts, nor is
there socialism (or even a dictatorship of the proletariat), even in one country. In my
opinion, Marxists did lead a proletarian revolution in Russia in 1917, only to strangle it
ruthlessly in the year or so afterward and to build in its place one of the most monstrous
and violent state-dominated societies the world has ever seen. Is this any less of a
failure than that of anarchism? If anything, it is more so: anarchism doesn't have the
blood of many tens of millions of people on its hands.
Marxism has been "successful" only if one fails to see, or willfully obscures, the fact
that Marxism did not carry out anything like the socialist transformations they predicted,
but bourgeois, that is, pro-capitalist ones which, whatever their achievements, resulted
in the torture and murder of millions of people.
This is something that Chris's document slides over. Chris pays lip service to the
bourgeois nature of the Chinese Revolution, but he never discusses what this really means.
Of course, we can support bourgeois revolutions, just as we may support various bourgeois
reforms under capitalism, but we should not dress up bourgeois revolutions in
anti-authoritarian clothes. Nor should we transform ourselves into bourgeois
revolutionaries just because bourgeois revolutions have been successful and
anti-authoritarian ones have not.
It is also true that the anarchist movement has not been particularly strong in the
development of its theory, including an analysis of its failures and weaknesses. But has
Marxism been as successful in this realm as Chris implies? In my opinion, Marxism's
theoretical "success" is on a par with its practical accomplishments. Marxist theory is
very impressive in its sheer bulk. But what about its substance?
Failures of Marxist Theory and Practice
Marxist theory has contributed an impressive analysis of capitalism, capitalist ideology
and various facets of human history. This material is often insightful, but not as
original or as telling as it appears. Moreover, its implications are thoroughly
authoritarian and represent the opposite of Marxism's proletarian and liberationist claims.
Marxism's attempts to understand itself, both as an ideology and in terms of its practical
results, has been sadly deficient. Marxism has shown itself to be totally incapable of
grasping what it has actually accomplished and what it really is. Marxist analysis of
Communist revolutions and the societies they have created range from bald-faced
apologetics to self-serving excuses, rarely getting close to a serious explanation. The
best Marxism has been able to do are the state-capitalist analyses of the Communist
system, such as those of Tony Cliff in Great Britain and Raya Dunayeskaya and C.L.R. James
in the US. And neither of these, nor any of the other less insightful analysis, has even
tried to address the responsibility of Marxism itself for this very system. Indeed, one of
their chief aims is to SAVE Marxism from being judged by and rejected because of the
gruesome regimes it has created. For a worldview that claims to be self-conscious, in
contrast to the "false consciousness" that afflicts everyone else, this is not very
impressive.
I agree that the various explanations that anarchists have offered for the defeats of
anarchists movements and revolutions have been deficient: it isn't enough to say that they
were defeated/betrayed by their enemies. Yet, however limited these explanations are, they
are true as far as they go. But Chris's discussion doesn't even give these analyses the
credence they deserve. These revolutionary movements, such as those in the Ukraine and
Spain, faced not only the combined animosity of all the old ruling classes of the world,
but also the systematic sabotage of the Communists and the Soviet Union. These were indeed
overwhelming odds, and even if the workers, peasants and anarchist militants in each arena
had been smart enough to adopt Chris's suggestions, they probably still would have been
defeated.
Beginning in 1918, no methods were too vile, too dishonest or ruthless, in the Communists'
campaign to slander, isolate and destroy every left-wing organization, tendency, and
individual that dared even to criticize them, let alone actually oppose them. They had
millions of dollars at their disposal which they used to finance newspapers, magazines and
books, in fact, an enormous worldwide propaganda apparatus. They had an army of agents,
not just diplomats and spies but world-famous intellectuals, who repeated every lie, no
matter how absurd, and every slander, no matter how outrageous, about those labeled
"anti-Soviet." All left-wing critics and opponents of the Soviet Union and the particular
policies it advocated at any given moment were denounced and, where this was feasible,
killed, as counter-revolutionaries, fascists and agents of Hitler.
The results, over several decades, was a dramatic alteration of the entire left, the
effects of which are still with us. Most important for our purposes, virtually all of the
political trends to the left of the Communists - anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists,
left-wing socialist, Trotskyists - were either destroyed or politically marginalized.
The Example of Spain
The Soviet role in Spain is particularly instructive here, and those who are not familiar
with it should not leave it to Chris's shabby presentation to satisfy their curiosity. A
knowledge of these events is not only relevant to the immediate point we are discussing,
but crucial to understanding virtually all the issues Chris raises. (For those are
familiar with these developments, please forgive the digression. For those who are not,
please forgive the sketchy nature of the discussion.)
In February, 1936, a coalition of liberal and left-wing parties and organizations known as
the Popular Front won the elections held under the newly-formed Spanish Republic. Claiming
the need to resist the imminent "Sovietization" of Spain, a group of fascist generals
under the leadership of Francisco Franco revolted in July and, from various parts of the
country, began to march on Madrid to crush the republic. In response, workers and peasants
throughout Spain rose up to resist them. They not only organized militias that put up a
determined and largely effective resistance. They also seized factories, workshops, the
means of transportation and communication in the cities, the land in the countryside, and
ran out the capitalists and landlords, their allies and agents. Not least, they set up
collectives and councils to manage what they had confiscated.
While the fascist forces were being financed and armed by Hitler and Mussolini, the
Republican government was internationally isolated. The US was officially neutral, while
England and France pursued a policy of appeasement, that is, giving Hitler whatever he
wanted in the hopes that he would leave their countries (and their colonial empires)
alone. The only country that offered to aid the Spanish Republic was the Soviet Union, but
at a price. In exchange for military and other assistance Stalin insisted that the social
revolution in Spain be rolled back and that the revolutionary struggle there be
transformed into a traditional-style war between two bourgeois armies.
Stalin in Spain
There were two interrelated reasons behind Stalin's policy. First, consistent with his
theory of "Socialism in One Country," (that is, the defense of state capitalism in
Russia), he wanted to convince Britain, France and the US to form an anti-Fascist alliance
with the Soviet Union and was worried that the Revolutionary events in Spain would scare
them off. Second, following from his theory of the two-stage revolution, he had decided
that the objective conditions in Spain were not ripe for a socialist revolution, but only
a bourgeois one.
But in Spain, most of the bourgeoisie had fled and/or had sided with Franco and most of
the state apparatus had collapsed. As a result, Stalin's policy meant bringing back the
institutions, including the police and standing army, of the old regime, seizing the land
and factories from the peasants and workers, smashing the revolutionary organizations they
had built and imprisoning and murdering thousands of leaders and militants of those
left-wing organizations that opposed his policies.
Robbed of the revolutionary conquests, forced to submit to the oppressive conditions of
the old system, and shorn of many of their leaders, the workers and peasants became
demoralized. In part as a result, the Republican forces, deprived of the mass
participation in revolutionary enthusiasm of the workers and peasants and forced to wage a
traditional military campaign, were defeated.
Chris's discussion of the Spanish Revolution is superficial and mechanical, and
conveniently forgets to mention that it entailed the murder of the most militant and
politically conscious workers and peasants. Chris discusses the militias only in terms of
their traditional military efficiency, and entirely omits the role of the consciousness
and morale of the Spanish workers and peasants. (As we will see, this is also a major
problem with his discussion of the Chinese Revolution.) Undoubtedly, the militias left a
lot to be desired militarily (and probably could have profited from an increase in
discipline and the coordination of their forces). But the liquidation of these outfits and
the replacement by a traditional army, based on a traditional military hierarchy and
discipline, was inseparable from the liquidation of the revolutionary conquests and the
resulting political demoralization of the workers and peasants.
And all this, including the execution of their political enemies, was inseparable from the
Stalinists' view that the Spanish Revolution was, and had to be, a bourgeois one.
Believing in the inevitability of the bourgeois revolution in Spain, the Stalinists did
everything in their power to make sure that this, and only this, kind of revolution occurred.
One of the main reasons the Stalinist were able to do what they did in Spain and elsewhere
was the fact that millions of people, both in Spain and around the world, believed that
the Soviet Union was socialist, a workers' state, some other kind of progressive
alternative to capitalism, or, at the very least, the only force capable of waging a
consistent fight against fascism. In other words, millions believed that if the Russians
did or said something, it must be right.
The Need for Popular Consciousness
In light of this, the traditional anarchist explanation for the defeat of the revolution
in Spain has a great deal of truth to it, although I don't think the most significant
conclusions have been drawn from it. What I believe the defeat of the revolution in Spain
and of anti-authoritarian movements elsewhere and the long list of Marxist "victories"
we've seen throughout the century reveal is that humanity as a whole has not yet been
ready to carry out the transformation that the anarchist vision entails. But this is not
primarily a question of so-called "objective conditions," but of "subjective" ones, the
political consciousness and understanding of the majority of oppressed people. Not only
have they accepted the lies about capitalism and lacked faith in their ability to take
over and manage society, millions of those who did wish to change society believed in
Communism and were willing to follow Marxists. We human beings may well have been
insufficiently prepared for an anti-authoritarian revolution in other ways, but this one
was sufficient.
To raise people's political consciousness, including their understanding of the nature of
Marxism and all authoritarian ideologies and social structures, is one of the chief tasks
of anarchists and anti-authoritarians in general. But we won't be able to do this if we
become attracted to and begin to promote authoritarian ideologies because they've been
more successful or have more impressive theory. It seems to me that it is of the very
nature of anti-authoritarianism to be on the losing side of popular struggles for
liberation until humanity achieves the transformation we envision. This is something we
should be proud of, not something we should sell for the chance to emulate authoritarian
revolutionaries.
I realize that my claim that humanity has not been ready for an anti-authoritarian social
transformation because of our illusions in Marxism and other authoritarian ideologies has
not always been popular in the anarchist movement (nor, of course, in the Marxist one).
Anarchists often argue, or seem to argue, that humanity has always been ready for
anarchism but has been thwarted by the actions of Marxists and other authoritarians. This
downplays human beings' responsibility for our own conditions. If the state is bad, where
does it come from? If capitalism and other class societies are brutal and oppressive, why
do they arise and why do we put up with them? Why do so many people believe Marxism's
claim to be liberatory, despite all the evidence to the contrary? This is one area in
which anarchist theory, it seems to me, needs to be developed.
Of Necessity and Authoritarianism
But instead of furthering this theoretical development, Chris has gone over to an
authoritarian standpoint, but without being explicit about it. He puts forward several
propositions which, as he puts it, "challenge some basic anarchist prejudices." One is
that "in a world characterized by gross disparities in the level of economic development
as a consequence of imperialism, it has simply not been possible to overthrow capitalism
in most (if not all) of the imperialized[read: colonized]countries. Revolutions in those
countries have been of necessity capitalist (and usually state capitalist) revolutions
that have swept away certain horribly oppressive pre-capitalist features and renegotiated
the terms of capitalist exploitation."
The crucial words here are "of necessity." What Chris is actually arguing without drawing
out the conclusions is: (1) that the economic and social conditions in the imperialized
countries have guaranteed that revolutions in these countries have been, and could only
have been, bourgeois revolutions, (2) that efforts on the part of anarchists and others to
carry out more radical transformations have been mistakes, (3) that, since the same
objective conditions apply, attempts to carry out anti-authoritarian revolutions in
imperialized countries in the future will inevitably fail and should not be attempted, and
(4) that revolutionaries in these countries (and perhaps in the "advanced" industrialized
countries), should aim at carrying out state-capitalist revolutions.
There is a lot to be said about this complex of issues, so let me limit myself to several
points.
Chris uses the term "objective conditions" to justify his position. This term, as utilized
in the Marxist mileu, refers to the economic and social conditions of a given country
which determine that country's supposed ripeness to carry out a given kind of revolution.
Prior to 1917, it was used by most Marxists to insist, as Chris now does, that the
imperialized countries were not ripe for socialist revolutions, but first had to
experience bourgeois ones.
The problem with this concept of the "objective conditions" is that it is very abstract
and obscures the actual realities of the countries to which it refers. Economic and social
conditions in all countries are very uneven. No country is uniformly advanced: nor is any
country totally backward. This is this especially the case since the development of
imperialism, which has brought about a tremendous intermingling of economic, social,
political and ideological forms. As a result, most imperialized countries have been
characterized, and are still characterized by complex combinations of conditions, ranging
from extremely archaic to extraordinarily modern. It is therefore very difficult to
determine which country is or isn't ripe for a particular kind of revolution.
Russia and "Objective Conditions"
For example, at the turn of the century Russia was considered by most revolutionaries, and
certainly by Marxists, to be a "backward" country (indeed, most Marxists looked to Marxism
as a means to modernize the country, which is what happened). Yet, as Leon Trotsky and
others observed, this characterization was simplistic and obscured the concrete nature of
Russian reality. While it was true that the vast majority of the people in what was then
the Russian Empire were peasants who lived under barbaric conditions and that the country
was ruled by an absolute monarch, etc., the country also contains some of the world's
largest and most technologically advanced factories, in part as a result of imperialism.
Because of such industry, the country also contained a small but highly concentrated
working class which had a tremendous amount of power at its disposal if only it chose to
use it.
As a result of all this, it is incorrect simply to say that Russia lacked the objective
conditions for a socialist revolution. This is especially so when one considers not merely
the objective conditions but also the subjective conditions, that is, the consciousness of
the popular classes. Throughout the centuries, the Russian peasants, "normally" quiescent,
profoundly conservative and under the domination of religious and ancient superstitions,
periodically rose up in vast, powerful upheavals. Although generally led by someone who
claims to be the true Tsar, as opposed to the "pretender" who occupied the throne, these
uprisings threatened, for a time, the social structure, indeed the very existence, of the
entire country. Moreover, the working class, only recently come into existence, was
extremely receptive to revolutionary ideas, not only Marxism, but anarchism and
anarchist-like programs as well.
When we consider these subjective conditions (which are objective from the point of view
of revolutionaries, that is, they are something we face as objective reality, not
something we have control over), we can see that it is profoundly misleading simply to
judge of any given country that the objective conditions are not right for socialist
revolution. This is especially so when we consider another facet of the question.
It's always easy, after the fact, to say that something happened of necessity, that is,
that it was inevitable that things happened as they did. This is especially true of social
and historical developments. Once some particular social event has occurred, it's
relatively easy to come up with a theory that appears to explain it. But to develop a
theory that can predict social developments is something else again. This is a major
weakness of bourgeois sociology and its radical manifestation, Marxism.
Objective Conditions and Predetermined Futures
The same consideration applies to revolutions, especially so when we are considering
revolutionary defeats. Once a revolution has been smashed, it sounds convincing to say
that this was inevitable. The person who says this, particularly if he blames the defeat
on "objective conditions," comes across as scientific. The revolution was defeated and
science, which at this level is deterministic, comes up with explanations to explain why
this happened. By the same token, those who argue that the defeat was not inevitable
appear to have their heads in the clouds. In short, reality is hard to argue against.
As a result, when Chris and others contend that a given revolution, say in China, could
only have been a bourgeois one, this seems to make sense. But this claim then becomes a
justification for what actually happened and an apology for the policy pursued by those
who led the (bourgeois) revolution: since they won, they must have been right.
Simultaneously, the contention becomes the condemnation of those who tried to carry out a
more radical revolution and an argument against trying to lead similarly radical
transformations in the future.
The problem for revolutionaries is that prior to a revolutionary outbreak neither we nor
anyone else can know what will happen. But what we believe may happen will determine how
we act, and how we act may determine what actually occurs, that is, what kind of
revolution takes place. Thus, if at the beginning of a revolution, we assume that the
objective conditions for an anti-authoritarian revolution are not ripe and that such a
revolution will of necessity be defeated, we will tend to act in a way that will further
that result. This is in fact what happened in Spain and China.
In Spain, as we saw, Stalin assumed that the country was not ready for a socialist
revolution but only a bourgeois one. He therefore ordered his agents and followers to
dismantle the socialist aspects of the revolution, that is, to limit the revolution to the
so-called bourgeois stage. But since revolutions can't be so neatly divided in two stages
or any other way, the Stalinist efforts to limit the revolution led to the destruction of
the entire revolution, including the bourgeois one.
China and the Two-Stage Revolution
Something very similar happened in China. In the 1920s, as part of his struggle against
his opponents in the Russian Communist Party, Stalin adopted the slogan "Socialism in One
Country." As we discussed, this meant foregoing attempts to encourage socialist
revolutions in other countries in order to appease the imperialist powers into leaving
Russia (and its state capitalist system) alone. This slogan was integrally connected to
Stalin's theory of the two stage revolution.
Having decided that the rejected conditions in China did not exist for a socialist
revolution, Stalin urged the Chinese Communist Party to maintain an alliance with the
leader of the bourgeois nationalists, Chiang Kai-shek, at all costs, in order to carry out
the revolution in China. This meant subordinating the struggle of the Chinese workers to
the interests of the Chinese capitalists, whom Chiang represented. Despite these orders,
the workers mounted a wave of increasingly militant, widespread and coordinated strikes.
In 1926, Chiang carried out a coup in the southern city of Canton and began his "Northern
Expedition" to root out the reactionary warlords who controlled much of southern China. As
Chiang approached the port city of Shanghai in early 1927, the workers there rose up to
liberate the city. They mounted two general strikes, took over the city and set up a
provisional government in March, 1927.
Chiang halted outside the city and began negotiations with local landlords and capitalists
and representatives of the imperialists to seize control of the city. Consistent with his
strategy of not scaring off Chiang and the Chinese bourgeoisie, Stalin directed the
Chinese Communists to order the Communist-controlled unions to offer no resistance to
Chiang and to have the workers bury their arms. Trusting their leaders, the workers did
so. When Chiang entered the city, his troops slaughtered over 20,000 workers. Among other
things, this led to the elimination of the most revolutionary workers, destroyed the
Communist Party in Shanghai and ultimately led to the peasant-based strategy championed by
Mao.
The crucial point to understand here is that if revolutionaries decide before the fact
that the objective conditions in a given country mean that the revolution is there "of
necessity" will be a bourgeois one, they will act to oppose those struggles that go beyond
the bourgeois revolution. In more graphic terms, they will become the executioner's of the
most revolutionary workers and peasants and will in all likelihood destroy the revolution
altogether.
Failures of Mao
After the defeat and slaughter of the Chinese workers in Shanghai, a section of the
Chinese Communist Party and eventually the party as a whole gave up entirely on organizing
the working class and instead focused on the peasantry. But the result was not a
spontaneous peasant uprising of the sort that powered of the French, Russian and Spanish
Revolutions. The peasants in China did not spontaneously rise up, slaughter the landlords,
seize the land and work it under their own direction. The Chinese Communist certainly
organized peasant armies, but it would be more accurate to describe these as armies of
peasants. The peasants were organized into formations that were firmly controlled by the
Communists from the top down through officers and party functionaries.
Moreover, throughout most of the struggle, these armies did not attack the landlords and
let the peasants seize and manage the land as they saw fit. Quite the contrary, consistent
with the theory of the two-stage revolution, the Chinese Communist strategy centered on
maintaining united front of all patriotic Chinese, including Chiang Kai-shek, the
capitalists and landlords, in a purely nationalist struggle against the Japanese, who
invaded Manchuria in 1931 and attempted to conquer the rest of China several years later.
In the areas they controlled, the Communists nearly limited the extent to which the
landlords exploited the peasants by lowering rents and interest rates. All spontaneous
peasant movements were either absorbed into the Communist armies or ruthlessly suppressed
as "bandits."
Even after the Japanese were defeated and the Communists turned their full attention
against Chiang, the Communist pursued a purely bourgeois program and maintained firm,
bureaucratic control over the peasants. Consistent with this, when their armies surround
the city, the Communists did not urge the workers to rise up, throw out the capitalists
and take over the factories. Instead, the workers were urged to remain at work under the
firm control of the capitalists, who continued to exploit them as before and were assured
by the Communists that their ownership and control of the factories would not be
infringed. In fact, Mao advocated lowering wage rates and lengthening working hours in
order to increase production.
It was not until the 1950s, that is, after the Communists had defeated Chiang and
consolidated their power, that they moved to introduce land reform and expropriate the
capitalists. Even then, these processes were well controlled by the Communist Party; at no
point were the workers encouraged to form autonomous factory committees or given control
over the factories; nor were the peasants given full and autonomous control over the land.
Meanwhile, the capitalists were compensated for their property and often hired as managers
at generous salaries to run their former plants, while their children were guaranteed
entry into Chinese colleges and universities.
Authoritarian Revolution: Great Leap Forward
The authoritarian nature of the Chinese Revolution is revealed by developments that
occurred after the Communist victory in 1949. In the early 1950s, the Communists
encouraged the formation of cooperatives in the countryside, to which the peasants
responded eagerly. But consistent with their conviction that centralization is
economically more efficient and socially progressive than small-scale production, the
Communists in the late 1950s forced the peasants to enter vast "communes." Like forced
collectivization in Russia, this meant taking the land away from the peasants and putting
it into the hands of party and state bureaucrats.
The purpose of forming these "communes" was to free up large numbers of peasants to work
in new, poorly conceived and hastily constructed rural industrial projects, including
small, backyard steel furnaces. One result of this "Great Leap Forward" was several years
of poor harvests, a massive famine in which an estimated 40 million people died (!) and
years of economic contraction. China did not recover from this debacle, which was only
possible because of the rigidly hierarchic nature of Communist rule, until nearly 10 years
later.
But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. For the last several years, China has been
undergoing the transition from a form of state capitalism in which bureaucrats attempted,
not very effectively, to plan production and manage industry to one in which privately
owned and managed industry is increasingly dominant. If this plan is successful, China may
emerge as one of the world's most powerful capitalist and imperialist powers in the 21st
century.
In effect, the Chinese Communists eliminated the traditional capitalist class, believing
that they (the Communist Party) could carry out the industrial transformation of the
country more efficiently than the capitalists. As it turned out, in China (as well as
Russia, North Korea, Eastern Europe and Cuba), state-run industry was inefficient and
corrupt. As the economy stagnated and fell behind other, traditional capitalist
countries, the only solution was to attempt to recreate an indigenous traditional
capitalist class. In Russia, the attempts to do this led to the rapid demise of the
Communist regime. In China, the Communist government has managed to hold onto power. But
if the economic transformation is to continue, the regime will most likely evolve into an
autocratic, but non-Communist Chinese state.
This development demonstrates the bourgeois, authoritarian nature of the Chinese
revolution. The current economic transformation can only take place as smoothly as it has
because the country is and always has been controlled by a bureaucratic elite, rather than
the Chinese people.
Authoritarian and Cultural Revolution
In the 1960s and 70s, it was fashionable in Maoist circles to contend that Mao tried to
forestall and then reverse the "bureaucratization" of the revolution. The Cultural
Revolution, it was said, was his last effort in this campaign. But Mao never stood for or
encouraged the independent mobilization and organization, let alone the self-rule, of the
workers and peasants. From the beginning, out of power or in power, Mao believed in tight,
centralized, hierarchic control of the economy and the country as a whole.
But the Chinese state capitalist ruling class, like other nationalist elites, has often
been divided over which measures would best promote the economic development of the
country. Some elements, such as those around Chou En-lai, sought to encourage economic
growth by borrowing Western technology and leaving workers, peasants and managers alone to
pursue their appointed tasks and daily lives in relative peace.
Mao and the faction he represented believes that this process would be too slow and would
result in China falling victim to its enemies, particularly the United States, Japan and
the Soviet Union. To avoid this, he sought to "hothouse" economic growth through periodic
bureaucratic mobilizations of the population. One such campaign, the Great Leap Forward
led, as we saw, to mass starvation and an actual decline in economic growth. In its
aftermath, Mao was discredited within the elite and politically marginalized. The Cultural
Revolution was his attempt to organize idealistic, that is, fanatically pro-Communist,
students to fight his opponents within the bureaucracy and regain the autocratic power he
once had.
At no point did Mao encourage workers and peasants to organize independently and rise up
against the state capitalist ruling class as a whole. If anything, the student Red Guards
attacked (physically as well as ideologically) workers and peasants as
counterrevolutionaries. As in his earlier efforts, millions of ordinary people, not just
bureaucrats, suffered imprisonment, internal exile, cruel beatings and death.
A Bourgeois Revolution
What took place, in fact, was a well-ordered bourgeois revolution in which the peasants
were used by the Communists as a massive club to carry out their bourgeois-nationalist
program. Rather than the peasant armies being the instrument for the establishment of the
workers' and peasants' self-rule, they represented the embryo of a new state apparatus
through which the Communists, substituting themselves for the traditional bourgeoisie,
established their own rule over the workers and peasants.
Chris justifies the Maoist strategy in part by claiming that the workers were not ready to
take over and run industry. This is classic Maoist apologetics, conveniently omitting any
mention of the fact that the Chinese workers were politically ready to take over industry,
and had in fact done so, as far back as 1927, until they were ordered to give it back by
their Communist leaders and had been slaughtered for their obedience. If the Chinese
workers were not technically ready to direct production, neither are workers today, in the
imperialist countries as well as the imperialized countries, ready to do so. Do the
members of Love and Rage need to be reminded that this is the chief argument raised by
supporters of capitalism against all radical programs and especially against
anti-authoritarianism?
Anti-authoritarians can certainly defend the Chinese Revolution as representing a victory
for the Chinese people, insofar as it unified China, eliminated reactionary social classes
and archaic social practices and improved the country's bargaining power vis-a-vis
imperialism. But one can only pretend that this Revolution was in any way
anti-authoritarian by grossly insulting the truth.
Equally important, while we can and should support nationalist/bourgeois revolutions
against imperialism, this does not mean that we should identify with the new bourgeois
elites and defend their politics of intensifying the exploitation of the workers and
peasants, as Chris does. On the contrary, our job is to defend the workers' and peasants'
efforts to resist capitalist exploitation and to prepare the ground for an
anti-authoritarian revolution.
Marxist Methods
But Chris would have us see the Chinese Revolution as some kind of model for
anti-authoritarian revolutionaries. To make this absurdity seem plausible, Chris exhibits
the same "convenient amnesia" when discussing China as he does when discussing Spain. In
the case of Spain, Chris fails to mention the Stalinists' assassinations of their
political opponents, which was the logical consequence of their belief that the revolution
in Spain was "of necessity" of bourgeois one. In the case of China, Chris ends his
discussion in the early 1950s, before the Communist regime starts killing millions of
people in the interests of capitalist industrialization, likewise the logical consequence
of their belief that the revolution in their country was, and had to be, bourgeois.
In his document, Chris is careful to claim that he is simply criticizing anarchists and
anarchism, implying that the perspective he is now promoting can be accommodated under the
anti-authoritarian banner. But, as I have argued, Chris's new perspective and the Chinese
Revolution that impresses him so much are/were authoritarian in the extreme.
Rather than being a model for anti-authoritarians, the Chinese Revolution reveals the
logic of Marxists' attitudes toward methods. Unlike anarchists, Marxists are generally
not restrained by particular scruples about the methods they employ. This is especially
the case when they have the power of the state at their disposal. Whatever they may
claim, they have always acted as if all means, no matter how brutal, dishonest and
disgusting, are justified in their struggle against capitalism. These methods become ipso
facto progressive because, they believe, they represent the proletariat, socialism and the
liberation of all humanity.
Brutal Marxism
But what Marxists don't see is that such methods undermine their own goals. It is not, as
they see it, a question of abstract morality, but of long-term effectiveness. In the
short- and perhaps even the medium-run, brutal, dishonest methods may win some gains, but
they will ultimately destroy the revolution, even a Marxist one. After the October
Revolution, the Bolsheviks centralized all political and economic power in their hands,
built a revolutionary army and police apparatus and smashed their political opponents in
order to maintain their rule. In the short- and medium-run, this worked, but they never
built socialism and now they don't even have state capitalism anymore.
The Chinese Stalinists believed it was easier to carry out a bourgeois revolution than a
socialist one, more effective to organize a hierarchical army of peasant soldiers than to
encourage independent struggles and organizations of workers and peasants. They succeeded
in seizing state power, but only to see the revolution serve as an incubator for a new,
traditional capitalist class.
Chris's attitude toward revolutionary strategy and tactics suffers from the same problem.
In the short run, the methods he's advocating may seem more realistic, more successful,
than the seemingly abstract, ineffective and overly moralistic methods of anarchists. But
the measures Chris is urging us to consider - state capitalist revolutions in imperialized
countries, revolutionary armies, etc. - will not lead to our goal, but to new
authoritarian societies, not to mention the millions of deaths that these regimes have a
tendency to cause.
Chris appears to be arguing nearly that Love and Rage should drop the term anarchist from
its name and consider certain perspectives that run counter to traditional anarchism,
while remaining committed to anti-authoritarianism. But what Chris is really proposing is
the first step in the political redefinition of Love and Rage. If he gets his way, we will
start out by dropping the term anarchism and allowing authoritarian perspectives to be
described as anti-authoritarian and promoted within the organization. We will then accept
such perspectives as the perhaps distasteful but necessary application of
anti-authoritarian politics to concrete reality. Finally, having started down the slippery
slope, we will wind up adopting increasingly authoritarian politics and dropping the term
anti-authoritarianism as abstract and moralistic.
You Are What You Do
Chris's insistence that the objective conditions for anti-authoritarian revolutions did
not exist in China, Spain and other imperialized countries and that the revolutions in
these countries were "of necessity" bourgeois thus raises two interrelated questions. The
first is: What policy does Chris think revolutionaries should have followed in these
countries? Virtually the entire thrust of his argument points to the conclusion that Chris
believes revolutionaries should have supported the Stalinist policy.
The second question raised by Chris's insistence that the Revolutions in Spain, China and
other imperialized countries were of necessity bourgeois is: what should revolutionaries
in the imperialized the countries do today? Since these countries are still imperialized,
they still do not have, according to Chris's definition, the objective conditions to carry
out anti-authoritarian revolutions. It follows that revolutionaries in those countries,
including our comrades in Mexico, should not fight for an anti-authoritarian revolution,
but instead should aim at a bourgeois, probably state capitalist, revolution.
But in politics, particularly revolutionary politics, you are what you do. If you claim to
be an anti-authoritarian but decide, for whatever reason (perhaps because the objective
conditions are not right), to try to carry out a bourgeois revolution, you are no longer
an anti-authoritarian: you are a bourgeois, that is, an authoritarian, revolutionist. By
the same token, if Love and Rage were to adopt Chris's perspective, Love and Rage would no
longer be an anti-authoritarian organization, but would join the ranks of the
authoritarians. Although Chris does not explicitly discuss the question of revolution in
the imperialist countries, the logic of his argument, as well as his new-found infatuation
with authoritarian institutions such as standing armies, suggest that he is, or will soon
be, advocating authoritarian revolutions for these countries too.
For Permanent Revolution
The revolutionary, anti-authoritarian solution to the questions Chris is raising is not to
go over to state capitalist Maoism but to defend an international anti-authoritarian
revolutionary perspective. In fact, no country in the world today, taken by itself, has
the full economic, social and political prerequisites to carry out and maintain for an
indefinite period of time an anti-authoritarian revolution. But this does not mean that we
settle for carrying out state capitalist revolutions. An anti-authoritarian strategy can
be found in the general perspective that I first encountered under the term "The Permanent
Revolution," put forward by Leon Trotsky. Shorn of its Marxist trappings, this perspective
can serve as a general framework for a worldwide anti-authoritarian revolution.
Basing himself on the uneven nature of the objective conditions, what he called combined
and uneven development, Trotsky argued that the social revolution in an imperialized
country could not be divided into discrete stages. Instead, what might begin as a
bourgeois revolution, addressing such issues as the elimination of the landed aristocracy
and the division of the land, the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a
democratic republic, would soon go beyond these tasks and take on more radical questions.
For example, workers, going into motion over the struggle for higher wages and shortening
the work day, might launch a general strike, occupy factories and take over whole cities.
It is therefore the job of revolutionaries in any one country to encourage the revolution
to go as far as possible, even if that country lacks the complete prerequisites for an
anti authoritarian revolution. Meanwhile, it is also the task of revolutionaries to
encourage revolutions in other countries, so that the revolution becomes an international
one. The revolution is thus permanent in two senses: (1) Within one country, the
revolution does not limit itself to any one stage, but seeks to proceed as far as
possible; (2) the revolution does not limit itself to one country, but aims to be
international.
It is of the very nature of an anti-authoritarian revolution to be a worldwide phenomenon.
We are, in fact, speaking of a transformation of the human species. It either happens
relatively rapidly or it won't happen at all. If the people in any one country, even an
economically "advanced" one, carry out an anti-authoritarian revolution and it remains
isolated, it will be defeated. There remains nothing that anti-authoritarians can do
about this but to pick up and start over. Adopting authoritarian measures, such as a
standing army based on traditional centralization, hierarchy and discipline, will not save
the revolution but will destroy it from within.
Hope for the Future
This perspective is not as far-fetched as it may seem. It should be clear that human
society as it is currently organized is rapidly undermining the conditions for its own
existence; among other things, it is destroying the planet on which we live. Human beings
will increasingly be confronted with the need to make a radical transformation in the way
we treat each other and the Earth as a whole. These two questions are thoroughly
interconnected: we must stop viewing other human beings and the Earth as a whole as tools
to increase our own individual and/or group power. Do we carry out this transformation or
do we all get destroyed?
I have hopes that human beings will make the right decision. I believe we have the
intelligence and moral potential to carry out a global anti-authoritarian revolution, one
that establishes a truly cooperative, stateless and classless society, a society in which
people truly care for each other and the planet and work cooperatively to meet the needs
of the greater whole of which we are a part. If we can't carry out such transformation,
the human race will face extinction, and will deserve it.
Chris seems to have decided that he'd rather lead any revolution, even if it is an
authoritarian one, then be part of an anti-authoritarian revolution that is defeated. I
would like to be part of an anti-authoritarian revolution that wins, and I'm willing to
risk being defeated if this is the price to pay.
Chris has the right to argue for whatever perspective for Love and Rage he chooses. But
let's be clear about what we are talking about. We are not merely discussing whether to
drop the term anarchism from our name and consider certain perspectives that anarchists
have refused to entertain in the past. We are discussing the very nature and direction of
the Federation. Will we continue to advocate and seek to carry out an anti-authoritarian
revolution, or will we abandon our anti-authoritarian principles and program and turn
ourselves into bourgeois revolutionaries in the interests of a short-sighted conception of
revolutionary efficiency?
http://blackrosefed.org/in-defense-of-anarchism-chris-day-response/
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten